vidential interference on behalf of the Church and the people.21

Nor can it be denied that there were plausible grounds for these apprehensions. The people had no friends except among the clergy, and the ablest of the clergy were either in prison or in exile.22 To deprive the Church entirely of her leaders, James, in 1606, summoned to London, Melville and seven of his colleagues, under pretence of needing their advice.23 Having got possession of their persons, he detained them in England. They were forbidden to return to Scotland; and Melville, who was most feared, was committed to custody. He was then imprisoned in the Tower, where he remained four years, and from which he was only liberated on condition of living abroad, and abandoning altogether his native country.25 The seven ministers who had accompanied him to London, were also imprisoned; but, being considered less dangerous than their leader, they, after a time, were allowed to return home. The nephew of Melville was, however, ordered not to travel more than two miles from Newcastle; and his six companions were confined in different parts of Scotland.26

Every thing now seemed ripe for the destruction of those ideas of equality, of which, in Scotland, the Church

21 See an eloquent and touching passage, in Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. vi. pp. 696, 697.

22"The godliest, wisest, learnedest, and most zealous men of the ministrie in Scotland, were either banished, warded, or detained in Ingland, of purpose that they might not be a lett to the grand designe in hand. Row's History of the Kirk, p. 238.

23 Scot's Apologetical Narration of the State of the Kirk, pp. 164, 165. Compare The Autobiography and Diary of James Melvill, pp. 642-645.

24Quhen we wer gone out of the Palice a lytle way towardis Kingstoune, Mr. Alexander Hay sendis back for us, and withall, in the Uttir Court, reidis to us a chairge from the King not to returne to Scotland, nor to com neire the King, Quein, nor Prince their Courtis, without a speciall calling for and licence." Melvill's Autobiography, p. 661.

25 M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. ii. pp. 246, 252, 260, 337-339, 403, 407-411, 414. This truly great and fearless man died in exile, in 1622. p. 458.

26 Melvill's Autobiography and Diary, p. 709. Scot's Apologetical Narration, p. 194. M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. ii. pp. 252, 253, 267, 268.

was the sole representative. In 1610, a General Assembly was held at Glasgow; and, as the members of it were nominated by the crown,27 whatever the government wished, was conceded. By their vote, episcopacy was established, and the authority of the bishops over the ministers was fully recognized.28 A little earlier, but in the same year, two courts of High Commission were erected, one at Saint Andrews, and one at Glasgow. To them, all ecclesiastical courts were subordinate. They were armed with such immense power, that they could cite any one they pleased before them, could examine him respecting his religious opinions, could have him excommunicated, and could fine or imprison him, just as they thought proper.29 Finally, and to complete the

27"Royal missives were sent to the presbyteries, nominating the individuals whom they should chuse as their representatives to it." M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. ii. pp. 387, 388. On the character of its members, compare Wodrow's History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, edit. Glasgow, 1838, vol. i. p. 256. Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland, pp. 320, 321. Crookshank's Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, 1812, vol. i. p. 28; and Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. vii. pp. 97, 98.

23 Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk, vol. iii. pp. 1096, 1097. The Assembly even forbad the democratic notion of equality to be advocated. See p. 1101. "Because it is vncivill that laws and constitutiouns, either Civill or Ecclesiasticall, being anes establischit and in force, by publick and opin consent, sould be controllit and callit in questioun by any person therfor, it is statute by vniforme consent of this haill Assemblie, that none of the Ministrie either in pulpitt in his preaching, or in the publick exercise, speake and reason against the acts of this present Assemblie, nor dissobey the same, vnder the paine of deprivatioun, being tryit and convict thereof; and speciallie, that the questioun of equalitie and inequalitie in the Kirk, be not treattit in pulpitt vnder the said paine."

29 Mr. Russell (History of the Church in Scotland, vol. ii. p. 88), misled, probably, by a passage in Spottiswoode's History of the Church, vol. iii. p. 210, says, "A Court of High Commission was instituted." But it is certain that there were two such courts; one for the diocese of Saint Andrews, and one for that of Glasgow. See the "commissioun givin under the great seale to the two archbishops," dated 15th of February 1610, in Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. vii. pp. 57-62. See also p. 210. They were not united till December 1615. See Scot's Apologetical Narration of the State of the Kirk, pp. 218, 239; and Crookshank's History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 28. By the royal commission, these despotic tribunals were authorized (Calderwood, vol. vii. p. 59) “to call before them at suche tymes and places as they sall thinke meete, anie person or persons dwelling and remaining within their provinces respective above writtin of St. Andrews or Glasgow, or within anie dioceis of the same, being offenders ather in life or religioun, whom they hold anie way to be scandalous, and that they take tryell of the same; and if they find them guiltie and impenitent,

humiliation of Scotland, the establishment of episcopacy was not considered complete, until an act was performed, which nothing but its being very ignominious, could have saved from being ridiculed as an idle and childish farce. The archbishop of Glasgow, the bishop of Brechin, and the bishop of Galloway, had to travel all the way to London, in order that they might be touched by some English bishops. Incredible as it may appear, it was actually supposed that there was no power in Scotland sufficiently spiritual to turn a Scotchman into a prelate. Therefore it was, that the archbishop of Glasgow and his companions, performed what was then an arduous journey to a strange and distant capital, for the sake of receiving some hidden virtue, which, on their return home, they might communicate to their brethren. To the grief and astonishment of their country, these unworthy priests, abandoning the traditions of their native land, and forgetting the proud spirit which animated their fathers, consented to abjure their own independence, to humble themselves before the English Church, and to submit to mummeries, which, in their hearts, they must have despised, but which were now inflicted upon them by their ancient and inveterate foes.30

refusing to acknowledge their offence, they sall give command to the preacher of that parish where they dwell, to proceed with sentence of excommunicatioun against them; which, if it be protracted, and their command by that minister be not presentlie obeyed, they sall conveene anie suche minister before them, and proceed in censuring of him for his disobedience, ather by suspensioun, deprivatioun, or wairding, according as in their discretioun they sall hold his obstinacie and refuse of their directioun to have deserved. And further, to fyne at their discretiouns, imprisoun, or warde anie suche persoun, who being convicted before them, they sall find upon tryell to have deserved anie suche punishment." Hereupon, Calderwood justly remarks, p. 62: "This commissioun and executioun thereof, as it exalted the aspyring bishops farre above any prelat that ever was in Scotland, so it putt the king in possessioun of that which he had long tyme hunted for; to witt, of the royall prerogative, and absolute power to use the bodeis and goods of the subjects at pleasure, without forme or processe of the commoun law, even then when the Lower Hous in England was compleaning in their parliament upon the injurie therof. So our bishops were fitt instruments to overthrow the liberteis both of the Kirk and countrie."

30 See Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland, p. 93, and Kirkton's History, p. 15. Kirkton indignantly says, that James "perswaded a few unworthy men to perjure themselves, and after their episcopall consecration

We may easily imagine what would be the future conduct of men, who, merely for their own aggrandizement, and to please their prince, could thus renounce the cherished independence of the Scotch Church. They who crouch to those who are above them, always trample on those who are below them. Directly they returned to Scotland, they communicated the consecration they had received in England to their fellow-bishops,31 who were of the like mould to themselves, in so far as all of them aided James in his attempt to subjugate the liberties of their native country. Being now properly ordained, their spiritual life was complete; it remained for them to secure the happiness of their temporal life. This they did, by gradually monopolizing all authority, and treating with unsparing severity those who opposed them. The full triumph of the bishops was reserved for the reign of Charles I., when a number of them obtained seats in the privy-council, where they behaved with such overbearing insolence, that even Clarendon, notwithstanding his notorious partiality for their order, censures their conduct.32 In the time, however, of James I., they carried nearly every thing before them.33 They deprived the

by the English bishops in England, to exercise that odious office in Scotland against their own oath and the consciences of their brethren." Compare the contemptuous notice, in Row's History of the Kirk, p. 283, on the "anoynting of oyle and other ceremonies," and on "the foolish guyses in it." Indeed, on this subject, every Scotch writer who cared for the liberty of his country, expressed himself either with contempt or indignation.

31 Calderwood, with ill-suppressed bitterness, says, "efter the same maner that they were consecrated themselfs, als neere as they could imitate." History of the Kirk, vol. vii. p. 152. Compare Wodrow's Collections, vol. i. part i. p. 293. "The Bishops ordeaned in England keeped as near the manner taken with themselves there as they could."

32 "Some of them, by want of temper, or want of breeding, did not behave themselves with that decency in their debates, towards the greatest men of the kingdom, as in discretion they ought to have done, and as the others reasonably expected from them." Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, edit. Oxford, 1843, p. 35. In 1633, "nine of them were privy councillors;" and " their pride was cried out upon as unsupportable." Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 38. Sir John Scot imputes to them "insolence, pride and avarice." Scot's Staggering State of the Scots Statesmen, Edinburgh, 1754, p. 41. See also Spalding's History of the Troubles, vol. i. pp. 46, 47, Edinburgh, 1828, 4to.

33 So early as 1613, a letter from James Inglish (preserved in Wodrow's Collections, vol. ii. part i. p. 110, Glasgow, 1845, 4to) complains that "the

towns of their privileges, and forced them to receive magistrates of their own choosing.34 They accumulated wealth, and made an ostentatious display of it; which was the more disgraceful, as the country was miserably poor, and their fellow-subjects were starving around them.35 The Lords of the Articles, without whose sanction no measure could be presented to parliament, had been hitherto elected by laymen; but the bishops now effected a change, by virtue of which the right of nomination devolved on themselves.36 Having thus gained possession of the legislature, they obtained the enactment of fresh penalties against their countrymen. Great num

libertys of the Lord's Kirk are greatly abridged by the pride of Bishops, and their power daily increases over her." Civil rights were equally set at nought by the bishops; and, among other enactments which they obtained, one was, "that no man should be permitted to practise or profess any physic, unless he had first satisfied the bishop of the diocese touching his religion." Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 236. This at once gave them the control of the whole medical profession.

...

"Not satisfied with ruling the church-courts, they claimed an extensive civil authority within their dioceses. The burghs were deprived of their privileges, and forced to receive such magistrates as their episcopal superiors, in concert with the court, were pleased to nominate." 66 Archbishop Gladstanes, in a letter to the King, June the 9th, 1611, says: 'It was your pleasure and direction, that I sould be possessed with the like privileges in the electione of the magistrats there (in St. Andrews), as my lord of Glasgow is endued with in that his city. Sir, whereas they are troublesome, I will be answerable to your Majesty and Counsell for them, after that I be possessed of my right.' Ms. in Bibl. Jurid. Edin. M. 6, 9. n°. 72." M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. ii. p. 422.

35 And their prodigality was equal to their rapacity. When Archbishop Gladstanes died, in 1615, it was ascertained that, “notwithstanding of the great rent of his bishoprick, he died in the debt of twentie thowsand pounds." Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. vii. p. 197. See also p. 303. Also the case of the Bishop of Galloway, who died in 1619, and of whom Calderwood says (History of the Kirk, vol. vii. p. 350), "It is thought, that if just calculation were made of the commoditie extorted by him through his diocie, by advice of his two covetous counsellours, Andro Couper, his brother, and Johne Gilmour, wrytter in Edinburgh, for his use and theirs, by racting of rents, getting of grassoumes, setting of tacks, of teithes, and other like meanes, wold surmount the soume of an hundreth thousand merks, or, in the opinion of others, almost the double; so that manie within that diocie, and the annexed prelacies, sall hardlie recover their estates in their time." Compare Stevenson's History of the Church, pp. 212,

392.

3 On this change, which was completed in 1621, see Laing's History of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 88; Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. vii. p. 490; and Baillie's Letters and Journals, vol. i. p. 486, edit. Laing, Edinburgh,

1841.

VOL. II.

T