CHAPTER VIII
THE KING'S NEW SCHEME FOR
ESTABLISHING PRELACY
| FOLLOWING up the success which he had obtained
through the riot" of 1596, the King now laid his plans for anew
attempt to establish prelacy in Scoiland. The time seemed most
opportune. Precisely at this moment says flume Brown,' " there
was not a single noble of ability and authority who took his
stand on the side of the Presbyterian party." Edinburgh, with
her ministers punished and her dignity terribly hurt, was ready
to accept almost anything that would restore her to favour.
His Majesty saw his chance to strike at Presbyterian domination.
With the help of his Secretary, Lindsay, he drew up a list of
fifty-five questions relating to the government and discipline
of the Church.2 Many of these dealt with matters in which he
knew the ministers to be themselves divided, and all of which
were very disturbing to them. His design was, doubtless, to
throw discredit upon the existing practices of the Church. He
inquired, among other things :~Whether it belongs to the King
by himself or to the ministers by themselves, or to both conjunctly,
to establish acts respecting the Government of the Church whether
it is lawful for the Church |
| 167 |
to call Assemblies without the consent of the magistrate and
whether Acts of Assembly are valid without the King's sanction
; whether for anything but notorious vices previously rebuked
in private, ministcrs may denounce men by name from the pulpit;
whether excommunication of Papists, who have never professed
the Reformed Faith, is lawful whether a minister may use further
application than Is necessary for his own flock, or whether
the whole world is the flock of every particular pastor. The
Reformers regarded such a questionnaire! with something like
dismay. Bad not the forms of their ecclesiastical polity been
fixed by act of Parliament, founded on the Word of God, and
in 1592 even praised by the King himself? Why should they be
called in question now? The ministers could not but feel, despite
his Majesty's protests to the contrary, that here was a deeply
laid scheme to. discredit the Presbyterian system and introduce
Episcopacy. Evidently this was the great purpose which now filled
the royal mind and this the Church was ready to resist. Many
private conferences were held to consider what ought to be done,
and the Synod of Fife, meeting at St. Andrews, after " tossing
of the King's questions for sundry days drew up replies which
disposed of all the royal claims and decided everything in favour
of the Kirk.~ It is unnecessary here to pursue these answers.
From them, however, as well as from the true Presbyterian spirit
shown in the southern presbyteries, James
|
| 168 |
|
learned that his scheme was likely to
meet with stern opposition.
Yet, he addressed himself to the situation with all his usual
acuteness and dexterity. He summoned an Assembly to meet concurrently
with a Convention ofEstates at Perth on February Q9th, 1597.
James saw that his only hope of success lay in outnumbering
the southern churchmen by thcir humbler brethren from the
north. The place was thus chosen to suit those north-country
ministers who could not afford to travel far. They were likely
to be useful to the King as they were known to be rather lukewarm
in their Presbyterianism. Indeed, at this stage" Presbyteryhad
acquired no hold on the country north of the Firth of Tay."
To make absolutely sure of their support Sir Patrick Murray
was sent north to interview as many of them as possible and
he was most successful in his mission. When the Assembly met,
it seemed to be in a most conciliatory mood. After some discussion,
and despite sorne opposition from James Melville, itwas decided
bya majority that the meeting should be held to be a lawful
General Assembly extraordinarily convened. The King's questions
were then considered and a submissive answer given to nearly
every one of them.2 His Majesty, however, was not fully satisfied
with the answers although they were to prove helpful to him
in the carrying out of his future plans against the constitution
of the Church. He had obtained a basis upon which his own
system of ecclesiastical government could be built, free from
all clerical intrusion. The principle
|
| 169 |
was now recognized that the King, either
by himself or commissioners, might propose to the General Assembly
any alteration in the external government of the Church and
that was all that James desired for the present. An Assembly
had thus for the first time yielded to that secret and corrupt
influence of the King, which was afterwards to render the General
Assembly of the Church a mere organ of the court to register
and issue royal edicts in Kirk affairs. His Majesty appointed
the next Assembly to meet at Dundee on May ioth, 1597.
The composition of the Dundee Assembly was as carefully regulated
as had been that of Perth. Yet, with all his efforts to secure
the return of members favourable to the court, James found it
no easy matter to have his plans adopted. The ministers resented
very strongly his encroachments on the laws and liberties both
of the Church and Kingdom. It was to this Assembly that John
Davidson, detained through sickness, sent an interesting letter
stating his views on the situation, with his usual freedom and
plainness,~ yet coming, as he said, ofa loving mmdc to Christ's
caus and weale o£his Kirk". Doubtless he had been alarmed at
what happened at Perth, as he does not seem to have been present.
It is clear that his object in writing was to advise the brethren
against further discussion of the King's questions. He began
by remarking that the unity and liberty of the Kirk in doctrine
were maintained by the free execution of discipline and whenever
freedom of that discipline is invaded, there is sure to arise
danger to liberty |
| 170 |
|
and unity in doctrine. Now discipline,
he maintamed, had been preserved by the avoidance of thorny
questions. When these did arise, the fathers had usually kept
them to the close of the Assembly, so that unnecessary heat
would not interfere with its business. Then, the kind of questions
considered were, for the most part, referred in orderly manner
from the inferior courts of the Church, and if they were of
weight they were remitted from one assembly to the next, so
that by due consideration contentions and rash conclusions
might be avoided. " Where questions gett over-great libertie,"
he said, " godlie edifeing is excluded . . they breed strife
as the apostle writteth." Let them leave off; he advised,
crc contentions had begun. The subject most needing consideration
in these days was not change in external things but rather
that which concerned a substantial part ofdoctrine, viz. the
rebuke of open and obstinate vice which had grown to such
a height, it would free itself of the law and yet put in bondage
the liberty of the truth. He urged that all passion for innovations-libido
novandi circa ecclesiam~hould be far from them, and as there
were many more needful things in the Church than the questions
proposed for discussion, they should resist these and stand
Cast in their Christian liberty and unity. The letter concluded
with this bold announcement so characteristic of the wn.ter~"
if anie act sail passe, as God forbid in contrare anie jote
of our Christian libertie, agreeable to God's Word and the
lawes of the realme, I, in my owne name and the rest of Christ's
faithfull messingers within this realme, will stand by God's
grace to the protestation made verballie
|
| 171 |
|
by me in his Majestic's presence, at
the last General Assemblic holdin at Edinburgh for it will
not be the new cords of thc Philistins that will keep Samsone
bound."
Davidson's attempt by this letter to have the Assembly resist
the royal proposals and withstand the encroachments on the
ecclesiastical province did not meet with any snccess. Nor
was that to be wondered at, since by so many he was regarded
simply as one of" the popes of Edinburgh" whose desires the
men of the north were eager to thwart. Moreover, the King
when he saw that he was not likely to gain his point openly,
resorted to that craft of which he was a master. He appeared
in person and gave an address in which he made a great pretence
of promoting the Church's interests and took great care not
to disclose prematurely the extent of his " reforms ". Well
he knew the aversion of the Church to anything in the nature
of a hierarchy. Proceeding with caution he referred sympathetically
to the many matters which, owing to brevity of time, received
inadequate or no consideration in an Assembly he stressed
the necessity, and his own anxiety, that there should be a
minister for every Kirk and a stipend for every minister.
In face of these and other needed reforms, let them consider
the advisability of appointing a Committee of their
|
| 172 |
|
ablest and wisest brethren to confer with
him on all matters for the Church's good. Nothing could have
been more plausible the bait was very attractive -the proposal
looked most innocent. Little wonder was it that Davidson S
warnings went unheeded. In an evil hour the thing was done.
Fourteen ministers were appointed, mostly devoted to the King's
policy, although there were among them one or two "true blue
" Presbyterians who gave to the commission an appearance of
impartiality which it did not possess.z These fourteen were
to advise him "in all affairs concerning the weal of the church
and entertainment of peace and obedience to his Majesty within
his realm '. It was a rash and dangerous step for the Church
to take. The new Commission was entirely different from those
appointed by former Assemblies to look after particular measures,
though even in them Row had found "the first evident and seen
wrack of Our Kirk ". Those Commissions had caused James much
annoyance on account of the jurisdiction they possessed-the
very thing he now desired for this new one. This Commission
became, in course of time, a permanent ecclesiastical council
having Episcopal powers, in which the King ruled all the affairs
of the Church in very much the same manner as in the Privy
Council he managed the affairs of the State. According to
Calderwood2 it was "the King's led horse, and usurped the
power of the General Assembly and government of the whole
Kirk,' and the same historian adds in bitterness of spirit
that it became" a wedge taken out ofthe Church
|
| 173 |
|
to rend her with her own forces~the very
needle which drew the episcopal thread".
When Parliament met in December, the cornmissloners of Assembly,
on the advice of the King, presented a petition praying that
the Church as the first estate' ofthe kingdom might be admitted
to have a voice in Parliament. His Majesty secured without
difficulty the passing of an act which declared that such
pastors and ministers as the crown provided to the place and
dignity of a bishop, abbot or other prelate, should have voice
in parliament as freely as any other ecclesiastical prelate
had in any former age ".' This was, it will be seen, a well-planned
attempt to bring in Episcopacy by a side wind and there were
not wanting men who saw through it and were ready to expose
it. In the Synod of Fife the question was raised as to whether
" it were expedient that ministers should have vote in Parliament
for and in name of the Kirk ". James Melville argued against
it most convincingly. Ministers, he maintamed, could not be
admitted to a place in Parliament without first being made
bishops, and to support any such proposal would mean building
up what they had been destroying all their days.~ The aged
Ferguson branded it as a court stratagem which, if suffered
to succeed, would prove as fatal to the Church as the famous
wooden horse had done to the Trojans. Let the words ", he
said, of the Dardan prophetess ring in your ears. Fquo
ne credite Tencri." Davidson followed with a few words
much in the same strain.
|
| 174 |
Unveiling the ultimate design of the King and his supporters~a
future bench of bishops with their primate at their head, he
cried, with witty and biting irony, "Busk, busk him, buske him
als bonilie as yee can, and bring him in als fairlie as yec
will, we see him weill eneugh, we see the homes of his mytre.'
The Commissioners, in spite of all protests, pursued their purpose
and an Assembly was held in March 1598, at Dundee again, to
consider the whole matter. The first two days passed in nothing
except ministers continually visiting the King and receiving
instrucdons as to their votes. At the roll call the King challenged
the name of Andrew Melville and declared that since he was no
longer Rector of St. Andrews University2 he had no right to
be present. Melville maintained that, being still a doctor in
the Church, "he had received a commission from it and would
not betray it ". " There arc none here," said the King, " that
seek to betray it." Davidson intervened by reminding his Majesty
that his office was simply to oversee the proceedings, not to
overbear them.
Sir," he said, " yec are to remember that yee sit not heere
as Imparator, but as a Christian ; ades vi intersis
non ut praesis." At these words the King started to his
feet, but, after a moment's reflection evidently seeing and
admitting the distinction, he resumed his seat in silence. Davidson
seeking to conciliate him a little said, " Sir, we are aifrayed
to speake except yec be equall and indifferent. Therefore we
crave that libertie which is due to this '
|
| 175 |
|
poor suppliants utterly despised and disregarded". Thus the
King's ostensible purpose was to vindicatc the Church from
poverty and contempt but in reality it was to convert them
into tools for the overthrow ol their own order.
There was, in the Assembly, a band of honest ministers who
knew James too well to be taken in by his fair speeches and
who would neither be bribed nor browbeaten by the Royal Dictator,
while others, who ought to have known better, had been won
over to his side by his kingcraft. A vigorous debate took
place. Some of the ablest ministers-Bruce, Aird, James Melville
and John Carmichael as well as Davidson denounced the project
in the strongest language as unscriptural unconstitutional
and dangerous. Thomas Buchanan, Robert Pont and George Gladestains
took the opposite view. In thc course of his argument, Gladestains
held that, since all the subjects were divided " in tres
ordines " for the sake of the common weal the Kirk must
necessarily be one estate. Davidson simply disposed of that
statement, saying, We hold not our living of Kings or States."
Gladestains having pleaded the power which the priests had
among the Romans, "in rogandis et ferendis legihus
", Davidson replied that in Rome the priests were consulted
but had no vote in making laws, "praesentibus sacerdotihus,
et divina exponentibus, sed non snffragiahabentihus".
"Where have ye that? asked the King. " In Titus Livius,"
said Davidson. "Oh I are you going then from the
|
| 177 |
Scriptures to Titus Livius," exclaimed his Majesty. Nay," replied
Mr. John, but for Roman terms which Mr. George alledged, I have
brought a simile out of the Roman practice, to express my mimic."'
Davidson, it is clear, with his fine knowledge of the classics
and his skill in debate, had the best of it, although as M'
Crie says, there were flatterers present who applauded the King's
wretched witticism "and they were encouraged to laugh at the
old man who pursued his argument with equal disregard to the
puerilitics ofjames and the rudeness of his minions ". At length
the rol was called and the vote taken, when it was found that
the royal proposal had been carried by a majority often, as
being expedient for the weal of the Church". According to Calderwood3
the North4 was solidly in favour of it, " the sincerer sort"
glorified God in opposing it, while a third lot were mistaikin
both in reasoning and voting.
To the credit of the ministers, be it said that it was largely
with the help of the elders that the King gained the day. The
victory was a very narrow one, indeed surprisingly so when it
is remembered that James had had recourse to all his usual arts
to produce success and men were won by threats and persuasions
beforehand ".-
There were several important points, however, that remained
to be settled-what the number of the Kirk's Parliamentary voters
was to be, how they were
|
| 178 |
|
to be elected and by what name they were to be called. Davidson
counselled the Assembly not to decide these weighty matters
suddenly,' but to consider the example of the Romans who in
rogandis ci ferendis Zegihus, gave tnnundinum spatium
to examine them, but no attention was paid to his words. Rollook,
whose advice was sought, said that lordship could not be denied
them that were to sit in Parliament nor allowance of rent
to maintain their dignity. " See ye not, brethrcin ", exclaimed
Mr. Davidson, " how bonilie yonder bishop beginneth to creepe
out I Novus paUiatus episcopus "~an old friend with a new
cloak,-" at which words ", says the historian, " the King
and a great number burst furth in laughter, so light accompt
made they of the mater' Caring nothing about such derision
Davidson proceeded to ask " have we not done muche to it,
that so long havc striven against this corruption, to bring
furth suche a birth now? " Rollock then sought to extenuate
the matter but the dissatisfied Davidson appealed to Robert
Pont to say what difference there was between the bishopric
now proposed and the kind condemned by former acts of Assembly.
" We shall shew that afterward," said Pont, "when we come
to that point." "It will never be shewed," replied Davidson,
"saving that this last hath suche a consent and approbatioun."
He was then desired by some to present a protestation which
he had in readiness, although it appears to have been a kind
of last resort. Having declined to vote, he now protested
in his own name and in the name of all who would adhere to
his protest, that they dissented £rom all the proceedings
in that and
|
| 179 |
the two former Assemblies, as not having
the privilege of free Assemblies, " which heere ", he said,
"I present in writt, that it may be insert in the bookes of
the Assemblie ".' The King raised an objection on the grounds
that Davidson had voted and reasoned on former occasions, to
which Mr. John replied, Never, Sir, but without prejudice of
my protestatioun made and to be made, which words I used sindrie
tymes before I spake." That was quite true, for at an earlier
session, James had tried to counter him on a technical point,
questioning his qualification to take part in the discussion.
Have ye a commissioun," the King had asked. "Yes" said Davidson,
from my Maister." " That is witche-like spoken," observed James,
are you a commissioner or messinger from Christ ? " ' Yes,"
Davidson boldly answered, and that ye sail finde, by the grace
of God." The King, we are told, "shrunke" at that reply. Davidson
went on to complain of the restrictions placed on the ministers'
freedom it was because of these restrictions that he protested
against the Assembly's proceedings. James was extremely annoyed
and declared that Davidson spake "anabaptisicall-like " and
was too friendly with Mr. Penry, the Puritan from England. Davidson,
however, denied that he was an Anabaptist and said that he did
not agree with Penry, as some of Ms friends could testify who
remembered the occasions on which the Puritan and he had engaged
in high dispute on the nature and extent of the liberty possessed
by the individual member in the Assemblies of the Church. The
significance of the King's reference to Penry is
|
| 180 |
his acquaintance with the outstanding features of the Puritan's
views on Church polity, and his belief that these had affected
the attitude of the ministers to his episcopalian proposals.
He had heard that Penry claimed free fellowship in Christ to
be superior to, and therefore free from, interference from all
secular organizations."' His Majesty called that Anabaptism,-the
common, loosely~used epithet for extreme reforming views. Davidson,
with a Presbyterian's respect for the law and for civic institutions,
would not have gone nearly so far.
When the Assembly of 1598 came to deal with some of the weightiest
matters, ma ny members, as Davidson had predicted, had departed.
He had the utmost difficulty in obtaining permission to speak,
the King being, as CaIderwood~ puts it " more than Moderator"
and doubtless the protestation was rankling in the royal mind.
Mr. John at length received a hearing. He compared the Kirk
to a sick wife and the ministers to physicians. The malady was
a great schism which could be cured only by the removal of its
cause. That cause he considered to be the wrongful dismissal
of the Assembly's Commissioners from Edinburgh by public proclamation
in November 1596. The King, interrupting him, said that he was
not speaking the truth, as it was the sermons in the pulpits
which had led to the discharge. To that Davidson was not permitted
to reply. At the request of the Moderator he handed in his protestation
which the King took up, read, showed to the Moderator and then
put in his pocket.
|
| 181 |
The protestation was In courteous if very frank terms. It deplored
the great corruption, confusion and disorder in the Assembly
and the great inconveniences to the Kirk which had come through
the discharge of the commissioners and through the Assemblies
at Perth and Dundee wherein that freedom due unto a free assembile
is utter lie denied unto us ". Davidson declared his adherence
to a former protestation of his, that he and such other brethren
in the ministry as agreed with him, would continue to use their
wonted freedom in the ministry according to the Word of God
and good lawes and pratick of this real me, notwithstanding
anie law or act made or to be made, in the contrare ". Finally,
as already indicated, he protested in his own name and on behalf
of brethren of similar mind, that they dissented from all the
proceedings in that and the two former Assemblies as not having
the privilege of free Assemblies permitted unto them.
The Assembly next proceeded to discuss the number and quality
of the voters in Parliament and were designed to go on to the
caveats and other matters, but the King and Commissioners finding
the brethren disposed to relent a little, resolved to delay
for a time. They contented themselves with agreeing that the
number of ministers to represent the Church should be fifty-one,
according to the ancient number of the bishops, abbots and priors
"in the time of the papistical Kirk ", the election to belong
partly to the King and partly to the Church. |
| 182 |
Meanwhile Davidson left the town, and in
the afternoon at the last session the King asked who would stand
to the protestation he had given in. We are told that "the brethren
thought good to keepe silence".' Thomas Buchanan, ever Mr. John's
wilful opponent, would have had him censured and condemned for
it ; the Assembly refused to register it.* Nevertheless it is
obvious that the hearts of many brethren were with him although
unfortunately they lacked his courage and so feared the King.
He had scarcely crossed the river from Dundee when three or
four score overtook him and subscribed his copy However on reaching
St. Andrews, they deemed it expedient to cut off the names and
burn them in the Ire.
Certain instructive articles for preventing abuses and corruptions
in the Kirk were drawn up to be presented to this Assembly.
Calderwood3 found them among Davidson's papers and in his handwriting,
but it is doubtful if he was the author of them. Wodrow' regards
them as "very like Mr. Davidson's style". Certainly they deal
with matters dear to his heart, such as liberty due to all commissioners
of Assembly " freelie to specke, propone and vote in the presence
of any the need for ministers " editing God's people by life
and doctrine " personal behaviour of ministers being such as
to offer a good example to their flocks. Possibly the most important
of the articles was the one on doctrine, in which the |
| 183 |
Assembly was petitioned to make an Act
against a curious kinde of preaching, yea, rather a certain
unprofitable and profane Kevo~ccvla without the right cutting
of the word, which of a long tyme has been unprofitablie used
by manic, and, by their example, beginneth now to be more excessivelie
used of more to the great hinderance of true edificatioun wherethrough
the people under a shadow of religioun arc interteaned in atheisme
without all true knowledge and feeling." Instead of this new
style, preaching should, as of old, stand ' rather in the evidence
of the Spirit ", that the faith ofthe flocks be not in the wisdom
of men but in the power of God".
Bishop Spottiswood declares that this Assembly closed with the
great content of all " From his history it is impossible to
learn that the King did anything which was not most laudable,
far less that he encountered any formidable opprnition. His
narrative, however, is not according to fact. From the registers
and from Calderwood's manuscripts~ it is clear that no Assembly
had ever been so divided not only on the question of the ministers'
vote in Parliament but on the act regarding the powers of the
Kirk's commissioners, the burying of grievances, and the procedure
with the Popish lords. The Bishop, always ready to vent his
spleen on the bold Reformer, adds that Mr. John Davidson only,
a man given to contention, finding that things went not to his
mind, especially in the planting of Edinburgh, to the ministry
of which he was always aspiring ", did protest that |
| 184 |
this was not a free Assembly. That is simply a tissue of falsehoods.
To begin with, Davidson was not a man of contention, unless
opposition to prelacy and the corruptions of the Church is to
be so regarded. Then, the "planting" of Edinburgh was no ground
of his protestation and indeed was a matter of very minor importance
in that Assembly, and one with which Davidson had already dealt
as seemed right to him.' He never aspired to the ministry of
Edinburgh, although, as we saw, he was for a time at St. Cues,
and when he found that his free manner in the pulpit offended
some, he expressed his willingness to leave, but was not allowed.
It is adding insult to injury for Spottiswood to say further
that he fled away as his custom was when he made any trouble
and "lurked a while, till his peace was made again +2 Whether
that was a reference to Davidson's flight into England in 1574
when prosecuted by Morton, we cannot say. If it was, Dr. M'Crie
in a footnote to his life of Melville makes an effective comment-"it
is very easy for a time-serving priest, who, by his tame compliances,
can always secure himself from falling into danger, to talk
thus of a man from whose rebuik he more than once shrunk, and
to accuse him of cowardice merely because he fled from the lawless
rage of a despot".- It is not true that Davidson either fled
or concealed himself at this time. He went home to his charge
and maintained his ground, as we shall see, when prosecuted
illegally by the Court
|
| 185 |
There is reason to believe that, after King James left the Dundee
Assembly of 1598, his wrath against Davidson for his protestation
declaring it unlawful, increased rather than diminished. One
Mr. George Nicolson in a letter to Lord Burghley from Edinburgh,
dated March 29th, wrote The King hath, since his return from
Dundee, thought more and more hard of Mr. John Davidson's protestation.'
The royal displeasure led to proceedings against Davidson in
his own Presbytery. James directed Mr. William Melville and
Mr. David Magill, two Lords of the Sessions, with commission
to the Presbytery of Haddington, to complain of Mr. Davidson's
misbehaviour" in the Assembly, as his protestation was termed.2
Davidson being absent was summoned to a special meeting and
he compeared at the risk of his life, for he was very ill. "
So far was he from lurking ", adds Wodrow. He expressed himself
to the Presbytery as very much surprised that he should thus
be dealt with for a protestation which was, in itself, quite
lawful and with which the King had found no fault in the Assembly.
He desired that his brethren would desist from such proceedings,
not that he had any fear for his cause but that he was concerned
for the King's weal. With great assurance and simplicity, he
said The Earl of Morton was observed never to thrive after he
persecuted me, and crc that matter was ended he would have given
ten thousand pounds he had not entered in it, "~ and it cannot
be denied that there was a deal of truth |
| 186 |
in his words. Following some discussion a deputation was appointed
to accompany Mr. John to Edinburgh, consult with the brethren
there, and with them wait upon the King. When they came into
the royal presence, his Majesty conversed with Mr. James Carmichael
and Mr. James Gibson but would not allow Mr, Davidson to speak.
Allowing himself to get into a great rage, he called Davidson
a starke fool, a heretick, an Anabaptist, a traitour to him,
to the commoun weale, to Christ and his Kirk". As nothing came
of that visit, the process was renewed at next Presbytery meeting,
but it was attested to that court that Mr. Davidson was stayit
be ane heavie fever ". A few days later " the presbyterie wt
consent of his Maties commissioner continewit all farder dealing
in this matter till ye said Mr. Johne at the pleaser of God
should be restored to his health".' Finally the commissioners
of the Assembly sent a pursuivant to the Presbytery for an extract
of the proceedings against Davidson but the Presbytery declined
to give it, as the matter had not been disposed of. Some of
the brethren were sent to confer with Mr. David Magill anent
it, but after some time the matter was allowed to drop.
The publication of his Basilicon Doron about this time,
afforded proof, if such had been needed, of the King's settled
purpose to introduce Episcopacy into the Scottish Church. Many
considerations, however, had to be faced up and disposed of
before the decision
|
| 187 |
reached at Dundee could be put into effect.
Certain conclusions had been come to by commissioners from the
Synods, meeting at Falkland, and the matter had been fully discussed
at a conference of ministers in holyroad House, under the King's
direction. Sanction was now sought from the Assembly which met
at Montrose in 1600. According to James Melville,' although
many good brethren offered a stout opposition, yet authority,
dissimulation and craft carried the matter away. It was agreed
with regard to the ministers who were to vote in Parliament
that each one should be chosen by the King from six recommended
by the Church, and that, on provision being made for churches,
colleges and schools the remainder of any Episcopal benefices
might be given by his Majesty to the ministers who had been
raised to parliamentary honours. Several restrictions were then
enacted to prevent them from abusing their powers, among which
were the following -They were to propose nothing in Parliament
in the name of the Church without her express warrant and direction
nor consent to the passing of any act prejudicial to her interests
under pain of deposition from their office ; at each Assembly
they were to give an account of the manner in which they had
executed their commission. Further they were to attend to their
pastoral work in their congregations they were to have no more
power in the church courts than other ministers ; they were
to remain subject to the censures of the ecclesiastical courts
and, in the event of their deposition from the ministry, their
seat in parliament and their benefice were ipso facto
to become
|
| 188 |
vacant. Every year their commission was
to be reconsidered and would be renewed only on receipt of a
satisfactory account of their stewardship. The name given them
was to be " commissioners and not "bishops ". " Thus ", says
Calderwood, " the Trojan horse-the Episcopacy-was brought in,
busked and covered with caveats, that the danger and deformity
might not be seen ; which was, notwithstanding, seen of many
and opposed unto. But force and falsehood prevailed."2 Row's
verdict is, "Thus the King obtained his grand purpose in getting
the ministers to be the third estate in Parliament, to vote
in place of bishops, abbots and priors, as in the tyme of Poperie
it was a prettie devise to put men in an unlawfull and corrupt
office, and then sett down a number of caveats (lyke Samson's
half-burnt coards) to binde him to honestie and to hold him
from corruption. "The net result of all the King's manoeuvring,
however, was singularly small. As Gardiner says, "the whole
of the labours and intrigues of the last three years had been
thrown away and James had done nothing more than he might have
done immediately upon the passing of the Act of Parliament in
1597 ".~ Vacant sees, however, were promptly filled. Three of
the commlssioners, in a convention of Synods were nominated
to Caithness, Ross and Aberdeen; and the new bishops sat and
voted in Parliament a month later.
The whole subject of the Church's Parliamentary Commissioners
was now allowed to slumber for a year
|
| 189 |
or two, although it was by no means forgotten. Mr. Michael
Cranston, preaching at the Synod of Lothian in i6oi, recalled
the troubles and labours of some prominent ministers in that
connection. He referred specially to John Davidson, their neighbour,
"whom God yet ever approved". Davidson himself took a prominent
part in the Synod. Causing to be read Chapter xiii. of Deuteronomy
and the acts of parliament against idolaters, Jesuits, and seminary
priests, he complained of the remissness of the Assembly's Commissioners,
and said that if they persisted in flattering the King and defacing
good brethren5 they ought to bear the blame of the schism which
was likely to happen. Directing himself to Mr. David Lindsay,
who had been placed in the chair at the Perth Assembly by the
influence of the Court, he said, " assure yourself, I love neither
your bishop-ping nor your mounting to be a counsellor. For all
this is come of your corrupt course, in making yourself moderator
at St. Johnstoun, or at least in accepting the moderatorship
against all good order." He desired the brethren to be plain
from their pulpits touching the present dangers of Popery and
Prelacy, and not "to wink any longer " Mr. David hung down his
head and answered Mr. John not a word.
The year 1601 was comparatively uneventful as far as ecclesiastical
affairs were concerned. Possibly the most important happening
was the Assembly at Burnt island, although it did little beyond
deploring that the country was running into "papistrie" or atheism.
It was, however, a momentous Assembly for John Davidson. He
does not seem to have been
|
| 190 |
present at Montrose in I 6oo and in his enforced absence from
Burnt island he sent to the Assembly a letter,' setting forth
his views and giving his brethren a warning ; which letter increased
the wrath of the King against him and later caused him much
suffering. As if he would awake his brethren fallen asleep,
he began with a strong cry-" How long sail we feare or favour
flesh and blood, and follow the counsell and commatid thereof?
Should our meetings be in the name of man? Are we not yitt to
take up ourselves and to acknowledge and leave our former errours
and feebleness in the work of the Lord ? " All this had reference
to the subject of free Assemblies, his defence of which had
been so objectionable to his Majesty. He now went on to deal
with the abuses of the time and he asked, " Is it tyme for us
now, when so manic of our worthie brethrein are thrust out of
their callings without all order of just proceeding against
them and Jesuits, atheists and papists are suffered, countenanced
and advanced to great rowifies in the realm, for the bringing
in of idolatrie and cap6vitie more Babylonicall, with a high
hand, and that in our cheafe citie-Is it tyme for us, I say,
of the Ministry, to be inveigled and blindfold with pretence
of preferment of some small number of our brothrein to have
a voice in parliament and have titles of prelacy? Sall we with
Samsone sleep still on Dalilah's knee, till she say' The Philistins
be upon thee, Samsone ' ?
If the letter had ended there, it would have been bad enough,
as James was already terribly incensed at Davidson for his opposition
to the ministers having |
| 191 |
a vote in parliament. Mr. John, however, went much further
and scorned the recent doings of the King. "But Bonnytoun1
is executed, an infamous theefe in the highest degree What
is that to the caus of religion whereof no question was moved?
Is there no papist nor favourer of papists in Scotland but
Bonnytoun? But the King and Kirk being sound in religion what
can the adversareis doe? Being sound, the danger were the
lesse, but there is nothing either in Church or King according
to our callings~" He urged the Assembly to join together as
one man to purge the land of idolatry, leaving over all other
matters to a later date. Without such zeal for the Lord and
his cause, no blessing could be expected from the hands of
God. In a postscript to the letter, he wished his brethren
to be wary of determining anything touching the planting of
Edinburgh in respect of any promises against Papists, and
to remember that Melius et optabilius est heUum pace impia,
ci a Deo distrahenie.
The King, having read the letter, held it to be treasonable,
but the Assembly allowed it. Spottiswood has sonic curious reflections
upon it which are somewhat difficult to understand. He says
that some laughed at it while others (whom he calls the wiser
sort") were offended by it and would have had the writer censured
there and then. These wise men were probably the commissioners
of Assembly or the bishops and such as were eager to become
|
| 192 |
prelates. He adds that the King interceded,
but Calderwood' affirms that the King called it treason and
willed them to leave the punishment to him. That is the more
probable story. The King could hardly be said to interceed when
he proceeded to imprison Davidson and used, as we shall see,
the utmost rigour that he could exercise against him.
One is surprised at the King's vehemence over that letter, for
Davidson had said and written things concerning the King quite
as strong, if not stronger, on former occasions. Perhaps he
was irritated at a subject being brought up again which he had
regarded as disposed of; or perhaps he desired to enforce the
silence of others who were known to be still opposed to it.
As Wodrow2 remarks this was a season when it was thought proper
to give an instance of what was to be expected by such who would
stand by our Reformation Rights. And Mr. Davidson was a very
fit person to begin with."
It is not within the limits of our subject to trace ~y farther
the struggle of the Kirk against the King's drive for prelacy.
Suffice it to say that, despite the vigorous opposition of men
like Andrew Melville, John Davidson and others, his Majesty
had triumphed, at least for the time being. The Assembly of
1602 agreed that ministers should be appointed to all the prelacies3
and so the State had defeated the Church and had been able also
to dictate its own terms of peace. James had secured an Episcopacy
which, however, was not satisfactory either to Episcopalians
or Presbyterians. The prelates had no part in the
|
| 193 |
government of the Church and the presbyteries
were still operative. Yet, as Davidson had foreseen, the King,
having succeeded in getting the Church to accept bishops, used
them to deprive it of its internal freedom. With his apophthegmatic,
"No bishop, no King", ever in his mind, James became specially
after the union of I 6o3~more and more unsympathetic to the
Scottish Church, and, under the baneful influence of some of
his English counsellors he tried to coerce the stalwart Presbyterians
into becoming Episcopalians. It was the resentment of the Scots
against such an exercise of royal prerogatives in ecclesiastical
affairs, that eventually defeated his efforts and indeed led
to the final overthrow of the Stewart Kings. It is worthy of
note that thus a prophecy off liaison was fulfilled for he had
said in the presence of the King at Edinburgh, " Sir, there
is an ordinary proverb, No Bishop, No King, but God hath enjoined
me to tell your Majesty that if that corrupt office be forced
upon us the days shall come when there shall neither be bishop
nor King in your Majesty's dominions."
|
| 194 |
|
Back 