CHAPTER IV
ACTIVITIES FROM 1584 To SETTLEMENT
AT CANONGATE IN 1590
| THE only reason for the exile of Davidson
and his brethren in 1584 was that, with Gowrie's Fate and the
rough handling of Melville in mind, they felt them-selves to
be no longer safe at home,' and recent happenings had filled
them with fears and misgivings. A certain English Roman Catholic,
Allen 2 by name, had3 however, a different version of the story.
In a printed book he charged the whole Scottish ministry with
responsibility for what he called rebellion against his Majesty's
person, and he declared that those who had passed to England
had fled on account of their treason. It fell to Davidson to
pen a short vindication of the ministers3 from this grave charge,
and in forceful language he exposed the falsehoods of the Romanist.
To begin with he denied that there was anything in the nature
of rebellion " in an enterprise which aimed at the deliverance
of the church, the nation and the King himself from" godless
and pestilent Papists". Then he showed that Allen's statement
to the effect that Gowrie, before his death, had imputed its
inception to the ministers, was utterly without foundation.
On the contrary, on the very scaffold |
| 80 |
the Earl had freed them from all complicity in it. Besides,
the majority of the ministers, he said, were eighteen or twenty
miles away from Stirling when the enterprise took place and
some of them, like Melville, 2 had even left Scotland before
that. The cause of their flight, Davidson maintained, was entirely
due to the cruel persecution meted out to those who were "the
good instruments of advancing the gospel and the good cause
in the land."2
Davidson soon found even more important work to do than the
defence of his exiled brethren. The banished lords at Newcastle
were evidently desirous of religious instruction, so they sent
a message to James Melville, who was then at Berwick, inviting
him to come south to be their pastor. While waiting his arrival,
they applied to the exiled ministers for some one to impart
to them spiritual guidance. Davidson was chosen to minister
to them for the time being and he did so with a thoroughness
becoming the man. We are indebted to Wodrow3 for an account
of that brief but efficient ministry, not recorded in any of
the printed histories. Davidson entered at once into a beautiful
pastoral relation with that honourable company and little congregation",
and he preached
|
| 81 |
to them every Wednesday and Friday as well
as on the Lord's flay Afternoon, his sermons being of an hour's
duration. Family devotions, too, were observed with regularity
and care prayer and Psalms before dinner, prayer again and a
chapter read before supper. Then after meals some notes on the
Scriptures were given and a psalm was sung. Besides these daily
devotions there was also maintained a strict discipline ruling
elders were appointed who, with the minister, convened after
sermon on Wednesdays, when trial was made of evil doers. Many
of these were merely censured but some, on conviction, were
remitted to their masters as civil magistrates. Thus as near
as they could, they kept to the practice of their Mother Church
when Forced out of her."'
James Melville was not at all eager to assume the responsibility
of such a work as he was now called to, partly because he was
not yet in the regular ministry and was wanting in experience,
and partly because he was not quite convinced as to the righteousness
of the noblemen's cause or even of their sincerity. His scruples
over his own fitness, however, were completely removed by the
persuasions of his old master, who showed him that it was the
will of God as well as the desire both of the lords themselves
and the brethren who had gone farther south, that he should
remain in Newcastle and minister to the exiles till the time
came for their return home. So he consented to do so and quickly
drew up an order of discipline to be used in the Company of
those Godly and Noble Men of
|
| 82 |
Scotland ". Probably it was based upon
the directions of Davidson who, it is said, to encourage Mr.
Melville, set down his own order in writing with an exhortation
and faithful warning prefixed to it.!
Thus resigning the little flock to the younger man's care, Davidson
proceeded to London, where he was already no stranger. There
is reason to believe that in his earlier flight when persecuted
by Morton, he had come in contact with some of the Puritan leaders
in the south. From an unpublished letter of his-probably the
only letter in his handwriting extant-to John Field2 the famous
English preacher and opponent of Episcopacy, we gather that
he had several friends in London, and that he felt the necessity
of concord and unity between England and Scotland as helpful
to the cause of Christ.3
In the company of other exiled preachers Davidson visited the
two English Universities - Oxford and Cambridge-in 1584, conferring
with the godly and the learned. He returned to London in July,
where in the following October his friend Mr. James Lawson died.
Davidson was with him at the end and thereafter acted as one
of his executors.6 |
| 83 |
From the beginning of November till January
5th, 1585, Mr. John preached on all the Holy Days at St Olave
in Old Jewry.' His theme was the Book of Job and his discourses
made a very great impression, notes of them being discussed
at Court and among the Bishops. By reason of his passionate
oratory and vehemence, he was called he thunderer ". That ministry,
however, was brought to a sudden conclusion by the Bishop of
London who, appearing one day, interrupted the preacher and
would not even allow him to dismiss the people in decency. His
Lordship afterwards alleged to Balcanquhall that it was not
he but the Council who had discharged Davidson, whereupon the
congregation in their fondness for the preacher presented a
supplication to the Council without, however, obtaining any
satisfaction.3 It is characteristic of Davidson that, as a parting
message, he should have warned his hearers of a great visitation,
affliction and danger" approaching the Church of God in England,
telling them that.
Scotland was the place where the furnace was kindled by the
enemies and conspirators of the Council of Trent against the
whole Church and especially against England. " The last duty
we find him doing in London is preaching on Ezekiel xi, 14,
15, to the banished noblemen who kept a fast in their lodging
at Westminster just before their departure from England.4
|
| 84 |
November 1585 saw the recall of the Protestant
lords who, on their return, repaired to the King and were again
admitted to his Council. In the same month a letter was sent
by a number of leading ministers' then assembled at Stirling
to their loving brethren, Mr. James Carmichael, Mr. John Davidson,
Mr. James Mclvii and the rest of the Scottish sojourners in
England. It runs thus Breitheren, we salute you hairtilie in
the Lord. It has pleasit our God in his gudnes to offer occasion
of liberty to his Kirk at this present within this countrie,
while of the multitude of his mercy we houp he shall forder
advance, praying you with all diligence, as ye are zealouse
of the common cause, to repair hierfor toward this countrie
that be mutuall conference we may (as our God will give us the
grace) concurre and mutually put our hands to the work concerning
the glory of our God and the advancement of the Kingdom of his
Son Jesus Christ, whose Spirit rest with you and conduct you."2
In response to this appeal, Davidson and his fellow-exiles returned
to Scotland. He did not settle down to any particular charge,
however, doubtless preferring for a 6me to do the work of an
evangelist For two or three years there is little or nothing
known of him except that the Assembly of r586 appointed him
with several others to deal with the character and conduct of
certain bishops and commissioners should need arise in the interval
between Assemblies.3 Probably, as Wodrow suggests, a large portion
of the
|
| 85 |
silent period would be devoted to study,
Davidson being a great scholar. In 1588 he declined an invitation
to return to his old congregation at Liberton' and on June 3rd,
1589, he was chosen for St. Cues, where he was ordered to continue
" till he be provided as the Kirk and Council crave "a Evidently
there was a proposal made to have him settled at Dalkeith as
this minute in the Records of the Synod of Lothian and Tweedale
suggests "The transportation of Mr. Md. Symsoun from Dalkeith
till Cranstoun, and Mr. John Davidsoun's planting at Dalkeith
are remitted to the Presbytery of Edinburgh (September 17th,
1589). Nothing, however, came of that.
In 1590 the King returned from Denmark with his young bride.
Although largely indebted to the ministers and especially to
Robert Bruce for the peace and prosperity of the country during
his absence, he soon gave them offence by insisting that the
queen's coronation should be held on a Sunday. Some of them,
it is true, had no objection, arguing that it was quite lawful
on that day, since it was similar to a marriage-a mutual solemn
oath between the prince and his subjects with God's blessing
over all. Yet the Church generally insisted upon strict Sabbath
observance,3 so obnoxious to the King, and on this |
| 86 |
occasion the majority were prepared to
resist his Majesty and his Danish friends. Calderwood cells
us1 that these ministers were despitefully reviled by the Provost
and Magistrates of Edinburgh for the stand they took, and Davidson
came in for special opprobrium, as he seems to have been their
doughty champion and persistent leader.
Another objection was raised by some of the preachers to the
anointing with oil at the coronation, as being Jewish and superstitious.2
That, however, was easily overcome by James, who threatened
to send for the Bishops if the ministers declined to do it.
On all arrangements the King had his way, so on Sunday, May
17th, 1590, Anne of Denmark was crowned queen by Robert Bruce
in the Chapel of Holyroodhouse. Spottiswood wrongly attributes
to Davidson leadership of the opposition to the anointing ceremony
and, while doubtless he did not approve of it, it was rather
with the sanctity of the Lord's Day that he was concerned. The
Archbishop describes him most unfairly as an idle and turbulent
man who was without a charge in the ministry and was popular
only with foolish people who desired to make themselves out
more holy and zealous than others.3
Turbulent" he may have been, if a sometimes excessive zeal for
a good cause can be so termed idle " he certainly was not, as
his multifarious services to the Church are proof. That he had
been without a ministerial charge for some time was, as we saw,
entirely due to his own desire. He was deservedly popular, not
with such foolish people as seemingly
|
| 87 |
existed only in Spotflswood's imagination, but with the most
earnest and worthy of his brethren and indeed with almost the
whole Church, as is evident from the congregations who desired
his services and the amount of highly responsible work he was
asked to undertake. Indeed, at this very time we find him appointed,
with some of the most distinguished ministers of the Church-and
as we know, not for the first time--an assessor to the moderator,
" to advise him what things were needfull to be propouned and
treatted in the Assemblie.
At this time Davidson was translated to the Second Charge of
Canongate or Holyroodhouse3 and he seems also to have continued
to preach frequently in the Fast (or New) Kirk of Edinburgh
as he had done in years past. It was in this same year, 1590,
that he discharged a great service to the Church of Scotland
in the penning Of a short but most important tract, the cause
and sequel of which must now be related.
About this time the Church of Scotland was enjoying a measure
of internal peace and was also on amicable terms with the Church
of England. Most of the English prelates were ready to recognize
their northern neighbours as a Christian Church although they
regarded the Scottish system as defective in its ritual, in
the ordination of its ministers and in other points.4 The Scottish
ministers, strongly opposed as they were to anything in the
nature of Episcopacy, avoided as carefully as they could any
reflections on
|
| 88 |
English ecclesiastical polity. The dangers of Roman Catholicism,
realized by the Armada, brought England and Scotland as well
as King and Kirk closer together, so that at the beginning of
1589 the relations between the two countries were on the whole
friendly. Nevertheless the Scottish preachers were independent
enough to make common cause with the persecuted English Puritans
with whom they had strong affinities and for whom they felt
the utmost sympathy. That sympathy had been strengthened by
recent intercourse. When the Kirk was sore troubled Andrew Melville,
John Davidson and others,~ as we saw, had sought refuge in England
where they had become well acquainted with the Puritan leaders
while men like John Penry3 and his printer Waldegrave, fleeing
from their Episcopal persecutors, found harbourage in Scotland,
and John Udall, a true Presbyterian, on coming to Edinburgh,
was given the high honour of preaching before the King during
a session of the General Assembly.4
Not without obvious misgiving could the great Church in the
south view this growing intimacy between Scottish Reformers
and English Puritans, at one in their opposition to Episcopacy;
and besides the Scottish ministers were resentful at the English
bishops for carrying on objectionable intrigues with those in
Scotland favouring an episcopate,5 and so an
|
| 89 |
estrangement arose between the two churches and grew until suddenly
and unexpectedly it passed into open hostility. The amity between
England and Scotland was marred by a notable incident in February
1588-9. Dr. Richard Bancroft, Canon of Westminster afterwards
Archbishop of Canterbury, preached a notorious sermon at St.
Paul's Cross, London, at the opening of Parliament, just seven
months after the Armada.' Bancroft was probably the most useful
henchman of Archbishop Whitgift, that bitter opponent and persecutor
of the Puritans, and it has been said that he outdid his master
in his intolerance ofdissent.2 He was engaged in tracking down
the writers of the Marprelate Tracts in which the office of
Bishop was strongly denounced in the spirit of Andrew Melville,
and which had caused a great sensation in English Church life.
The English Puritans naturally looked to the Scottish Kirk for
sympathy ; Bancroft naturally regarded it differently. It has
been said that he "when placed in charge of the detective agency,
like a good general surveying the field of campaign, kept his
eye shrewdly upon Scotland as an exposed frontier. It was a
source of sinister influence ; in any case it set forth a dangerous
example of the democratic and anti-Episcopal principles of Geneva,
at work on a national scale."3
In this sermon on " trying the spirits '54~a defence of Bishops
and the Prayer Book~Bancroft made a |
| 90 |
|
violent attack first on the English Puritans whom he charged
with all sorts of evils.1 Then he turned his masterly invective
upon the Church of Scotland in which he found an example of
the very thing he desired to crush out in England. Re began
by railing at John Knox, whom he described as a man of contentious
humour and perverse behaviour". That was bad enough, but he
went farther and held up to ridicule the worship and discipline
of the Reformed Church in Scotland, and Presbyterianism, especially
in its anti-monarchical character. The ministers, in their
recent contentions with the court, were set in a most unfavourable
light. They were charged with having altered the laws of the
land in defiance of King and Estates, with having disclaimed
his Majesty's authority, with having established an ecclesiastical
tyranny producing faction, sedition, confusion and rebellion,
besides introducing Anabaptism. On this account, he said,
the King at one time had overthrown the presbyteries. Both
the accusations and the sources from which his information
was gathered, caused the greatest excitement and keenest resentment
among Scottish Churchmen. It is scarcely possible," says M'Crie
to conceive a more perfect specimen of the argument ad invidiam
than this oration exhibits. All the topics of declamation
calculated to excite prejudice arc;, carefully collected and
employed with no small art.
One of the authorities" cited by Bancroft
was Patrick Adamson, titular Archbishop of St. Andrews, whose
friendly entertainment by Anglicans in London
|
| 91 |
had been anything but pleasing to the Scottish ministers, and
round whom centred much of the bitterness of the controversy
between the upholders of Presbyterianism and the defenders of
Episcopacy. Bancroft made extensive use of a document called
The King's Declaration, ostensibly from the pen of James
VI, but really written and forged by Adamson.' His second source
of information he found in Robert Browne, the founder of English
Independency, of whose works, as we saw, Davidson had occasion
to judge some years earlier.2 The Reformers liked Brownism as
little as did the Puritans, and the embittered Browne, conscious
of that, became a very willing witness against the Scottish
Presbyterians. Bancroft eagerly used any information Browne
supplied to him and did not scruple to elaborate it he was convinced
that the English Puritans were fast imitating the Scottish Reformers,
and he spared neither. The Prelate, however, was not content
with these two witnesses. More useful still, though humbler
than either of them, was John Norton, an Edinburgh bookseller,
whom he employed to spy upon the ministers and report certain
information to him. The ministers on this occasion, however,
beating Bancroft at his own game, intercepted one of his letters
from Norton, who on examination confessed that he had been "sette
on worke by his uncle, old Norton, at the requiest of Doctor
Bancroft upon some'
|
| 92 |
comoditie in his trade ". Bancroft had forwarded a questionnaire
on the organization of the Presbyterian Church, to which answers
were being sent. The following samples of his questions serve
to show the drift and scope of his inquiries.1 Considering the
King's edict 1584, how came it to passe that the bishops were
so soone overthrowne again?" Whether have they in their consistories
anie sett jurisdictioun? Whether have they anie sett assemblies
termed Conferences ? Whether the King be exempted from their
censures ? And how manic presbyteries (Kirk Sessions) doe apperteane
to everie suche Conference ? Whether is Buchanan's treatise
Dc Jure Regni apud Scotos, approved there by the consistorians?
How have the ministers dealt with the King from tyme to tyrne
? ''
It was not to be expected that the Scottish ministers would
allow such a wanton attack as this upon their Church to pass
without effective reply. It is true that John Penry forestalled
them with his Brief Discoverie, but it was written naturally
from the English standpoint and did not deal exhaustively with
the subject.3 His work suggested rather than obviated a specific
answer to Bancroft by the Scottish Church itself The Edinburgh
Presbytery was specially convened on April 29th, 1589, to deal
with the matter and it was remitted to three of its most influential
members, including Davidson,4 to prepare a suitable reply. It
|
| 93 |
was also decided that the King, who was then in Aberdeenshire
quelling the Catholic Earls at the Brig 0' Dee, should " be
spoken heir anent at his returne On June I oth at a further
meeting of the Presbytery the reply was brought before the brethren,
approved, and ordered to be presented to the General Assembly.
For politic reasons, however, this answer' was never sent, nor
was a similar "prolixe but pithy letter" said to be "penned
by Mr. John Davidson at the desire of some brethren '~2 After
further earnest consideration of the whole matter, the ministers
felt that their purpose would be best served by a short publication
from Davidson's pen. Evidently the brethren were satisfied as
to Mr. John's ability and wisdom, to make fitting protest against
thee alumniator on their behalf and it is a proof of their confidence
that the matter was left with him. It was a piece of work after
his own heart ; be loved the Church of Scotland, believed implicitly
in the divine right of Presbyterianism, and was an uncompromising
opponent of the Episcopacy for which Bancroft stood. His retaliation,
brief but to the point, was published in Edinburgh by Waldegrave.
Its title runs D. Bancroft's Rashnes in rayling against the
Church of Scotland, noted in Answere to a Letter of a worthy
person of England, and some reasons rendred, why the answere
thereunto hath not hitherto come forth. By J.D. a brother of
the sayd Church of Scotland. It concludes "Farewell, from
Edin. the 18 of September 1590. Yours in the Lord, J.D."~ The
tract opens with an
|
| 94 |
expression of sympathy for the godlie brethren
of Englande wbo urge Reformation of that Churche and chiefly,
the remoouing of that heavie bondag~ of Antichristian government
by lottie tordes, wrongfully called Bishops (an hurtfull relicke
of Romish confusion) and restoring in the place thereof the
joynt administratiori oF Christian discipline by the Ministers
and Elders of the Churche, which is most clearly proovcd by
them and others, to be established by the Word of God." The
author then goes on to show how Bancroft, not content with denouncing
the views of the Puritans, set himself to have those innocent
people brought under the hatred of the magistrate and branded
as traitors and rebels, who sought the over-throw of the Queen's
authority in the Church, and even endangered her very life.
The learned Doctor, having no proof of these grave charges,
found an illustration of them in Scotland and in so doing slandered
the whole ministry and discipline of the Church there. This
policy, Davidson maintains, is inimical to the friendly relations
of the two countries and plays into the hands of foreign enemies.
Davidson next proceeds to examine the "credentials" of the agents
employed by Bancroft in his eagerness to justify his theme,
and from whose "frivelous reports " he managed to " builde uppe
an uglie heape of most slanderous accusations against our sayde
Church~" He deals first with Adamson, "Diotrephes, apostat of
St. Andrewes" and the anonymous work called The King's Declaration
which he had forged. This declaration, first published in Edinburgh
in 1585, had been reprinted in several editions in London, and
had found a place in
|
| 95 |
Holinshed's Chronicles of England,
published in '586-7.' Taking the Declaration at its face value
Bancroft had no difficulty in showing from the provisions of
the "Black Acts " that the King had restored bishops in r584.
"All this," he said, "you may find more at length set down by
the King himself in his Declaration.
It may heer be said," he continues (and this was, of course,
the sting), " that now the King is of another mind, and that
this Declaration was made when he had conceived some
displeasure against [the ministers]." "The King," Bancroft declared
boldly, he is not altered. Ictus piscator sapit. His
crowne and their soveraigntie will not agree together." Davidson
relates how James took an early opportunity of contradicting
Bancroft's insinuation that he dissembled in his recent concession
made in favour of Presbytery3 and how sending for the pamphlet
he wrote in the margin against these "impudent assertions ",the
words: "My speaking, writing and actions were and are ever one3
without dissembling or bearing up at any time, whatever I thought.
Ergo casts out the libel, no quid asperius [not true, to use
no rougher terms]. I.R." The use Bancroft made of so unworthy
an agent as Adamson is vigorously denounced in Davidson's pamphlet
while the writer at the same time makes an astute bid for the
King's favour. His Majesty he realizes, has now reached years
of discretion and may be counted upon to show a regard for the
scriptural authority of discipline which was not possible for
him in his earlier days. Kings, however, must not look
|
| 96 |
to men like Adamson to sacrifice their profits for the sake
of the honour of their thrones. Bancroft himself Davidson pillories
as " that poor Demas (if he be no worse), hunting appearandly
for promotion to some prelacie ". He ought to have known his
horrible accusations to have been incredible in a Church like
the Church of Scotland where so long the truth had been sincerely
preached and professed.
The second witness cited by Bancroft - Robert Browne - is just
as easily discredited by Davidson. Bancroft had not been too
confident about Browne himself and evidently used him for want
of someone better. " This man's opinion ", he declared, I knowe
will be greatly contemned because I thinke hee hath bin of an
other judgement &c~" Though he never would have rested his accusations
on Browne's evidence alone, yet he made free use of two of his
writings2 in which he found the bitter autobiographical material
suited to his purpose. Browne, smarting under his cold reception
by the Scottish ministers,~ was only too ready to say the worst
of Scottish Presbyterianism. He declared that if that system
were adopted in England, "then in stead of one Pope we should
have a thousand, and of some Lord byshops In name a thousand
Lordly Tyrants in deed which now do disdaine the name."4 He
went further and said that " he had knowne the King to be in
great danger and feare of his life by their Lordlie Discipline,
|
| 97 |
the nobles and people at great discord and much distracted,
and yet all men made slaves to the preachers and their fellowe
elders." Davidson simply pours scorn upon such a statement as
utterly false and shows that SQ far as the King's person is
concerned, the very opposite is the case, as could be vouched
for by English ambassadors and other worthy persons long resident
in Scotland. Besides, he points out, Bancroft is now at loggerheads
with Browne, who refuses to help him any more in his literary
polemics. Moreover, if there be any danger to the State, the
queen and her Council would be well advised to demand better
proof than what Bancroft calls the treasonable outlandish practises
" of the Reformers. Appealing, as was his wont, to the Scriptures,
Davidson goes on to say that in the letter written by those
who sought to hinder the rebuilding of Jerusalem, there was
a claim to authority from the authentik bookes of the Chronicles
" but Bancroft leans upon the evidence of known and confessed
infamous persons and upon a forged document. On such worthless
evidence he accuses of treason good brethren of England. " If
the envy of the sect of the Nazarites, urged by prophane Tertullus,"
asks Davidson, is not sufficient to beare downe Panic as a seditious
mover of the people *
why should the good brethren of England that seeke Reformatioun
be charged with a mind hereafter of sedition, by means of Discipline,
because the Church of Scotland, in respect of the same Discipline
exercised in it, is unjustlie condemned of sedition, by the
His Preists of our daies, two false witnesses being alleaged
for that purpose by their Tertullus at Paul's Crosse?
|
| 98 |
Davidson next deals with the Scottish Church's
reasons for delay in sending an answer to the Doctor's calumnies.
It was not for lack of competent men to deal with the matter,
although some English Doctors of Divinity evidently thought
so - and he must be a very learned man whose knowledge the Bishops
will recognize if once he sets himself in opposition to them.
In the first place, the reply was not made simply because it
was not considered necessary in Scotland where all the facts
were so well known. Besides it was feared that it might cause
dissension between the two countries, and the ministers were
satisfied, so long as the truth and their innocency were safe
without it. In the second place, the answer was deferred, because
it was confidently expected that redress would come from queen
Elizabeth herself; who long before had professed that the Scottish
ministers were among her most loving and loyal friends. Lastly,
and yet most important, those most intimately concerned with
the matter felt that they were restrained from proceeding by
some secret reason which they could explain only as the hand
of God.
Davidson concludes with a hope that someone having access to
her Majesty will acquaint her with the truth, so that the Bishops
may be led to discountenance for all time the rashness in rayling"
of Dr. Bancroft against the King, the people and the Church
of Scotland ; he also suggests that to avoid rancour, a friendly
discussion might be held based upon the Word of God.
Davidson's little brochure-two small octavo sheets-was addressed,
as we see from the title, to a correspondent in England and
was intended for
|
| 99 |
circulation south of the Tweed. Probably, as has been suggested,
it was a compromise between the views of those who had desired
full and detailed contradictions of Bancroft's charges, and
of those who held that the best policy was to ignore the whole
thing. From Davidson's unpublished letter to Elizabeth we know
the kind of gossip that passed from English Puritans to their
friends in the North. Scottish witnesses, it was said, were
twitted with their nationality in the English courts and London
stage-players had turned into mockery and laughter the staid
Presbyterian discipline and "most ridiculously flooted" that
and " the whole ministry".' Though Rashnes in Ray/mg was published
with some degree of secrecy, Bowes, the English ambassador,
soon learned of its existence, which he reported to Burghley
in London but it was some weeks later before he could secure
and dispatch a copy.2 The King, notwithstanding the unstinted
praise he received in it and. despite his anger at Bancroft,
yet earnestlie travailed to suppress it ". With all his care,
however, some copies escaped from the press and Waldegrave was
bound in sureties to print nothing hereafter without the King's
permlssion. His attitude seems strange, but one or two considerations
go far to explain it. At this time queen Elizabeth was urging
him to banish Penry, the Puritan guest of the ministers. Though
anxious to keep on friendly terms with Elizabeth on account
of past favours and hopes of |
| 100 |
those to come, he could not afford to alienate the Kirk in view
of his troubles with the Catholic earls. This is also partly
the explanation of his behaviour in the General Assembly of
1590, where he made many gracious promises and heaped upon the
Church the most extravagant praise' ; yet at that very time
he had signed the Act of Council banishing Penry. It is dated
August 6th, 1590, and Bowes forwarded a copy to Burghley on
the r4th. Again, if we allow our minds to go forward to the
Hampton Court Conference of 1604 we shall find another clue
to his Majesty's attitude, in his words to the Puritans "1£
you aim at a Scottish Presbytery, it agreeth as well with monarchy
as God with the devil. That had always been his view, and it
was now evident that he had no desire to see in England what
had been so irksome to him in Scotland. "James detested the
Kirk for both In theory and practice it conflicted with his
ideas of kingship. It claimed a divine right independent of
the King so that if James was ever to establish uniformity of
religion it was more likely to be English than Scotch."3
There is every reason to believe that Bowes would inform Burghley
of the strong feeling roused against Bancroft by Davidson's
pamphlet. He would also explain to him how his own position
as guardian of Elizabeth's interests, had been rendered most
difficult
|
| 101 |
by the prelate's gratuitous, indiscreet
and unwarranted attack on the Scottish Church. The situation
was a delicate one and no one wanted to push matters to extremes.
Besides there was enough truth about James's dissimulation to
make him anxious for compromise. To Burghley belongs the credit
of finding a way out. He placed the complaints of the King before
Bancroft and secured from him an assurance of regret, the humble
words and submission of which pleased his Majesty. Bancroft
was also to write an apology to Burghley which on being forwarded
to Bowes, would be shown only to the King and to Maitland, his
Chancellor.
There has recently come to light in the National Library of
Scotland a contemporary copy of Bancroft's secret letter.' It
is a long and exceedingly well-written document and one is not
surprised at its author attaining to the high office of Archbishop
of Canterbury. The early portion of it is in apologetic vein
except for this slighting reference to Davidson "for mine owne
parte I give small creditt to this Alphabeticall nameless person,
J.D." He seeks to justify himself by recent happenings in Scotland
and then proceeds to deny that he charged the King with dissimulation.
How would the ministers, he said, like their words metamorphosed"?
What about Mr. Knox and his sayings concerning the Prayer-book?
Look what the present ministers say about the Church of England
They call the favourers of our Church a generation of Bishopists."
The works of Knox and Buchanan, Bancroft regards as "nothinge
in effect but trumpetts of rebellion to arme
|
| 102 |
his subjects against his highness." His
second witness, Robert Browne, was justified, he maintains,
partly by recent Acts of Parliament and partly by recent news
from Scotland.
It is not surprising that the King was satisfied with the letter,
though he misliked the testimony grounded upon Browne".' Re
thought it welt that Bancroft should, in the place where he
preached the sermon or elsewhere, explain his words, to quit
him from that blemish". Once more Burghley intervened. His letter
to Chancellor Maitland has not been traced but Bowes reported
that the Chancellor thought that Burghley had showed his wisdom.
The King and Maitland were not fully satisfied but they were
ready to pass from a matter whose renewing they deemed likely
to bring greater contention than profit".
Thus the incident closed. Yet it was more than an incident,
for Bancroft had raised a controversial issue regarding church
government-illustrated by invidious comparisons much resented
by Davidson and his brethren-which was to influence the relations
between the two countries for many a day to come, and whose
repercussions were to be felt not only under James but also
under Charles I and even later. Hitherto the Church of England
had made no greater claim for itself than that set forth by
Richard Hooker, whose Ecclesiastical Polity was written for
the purpose of showing that Episcopal government could be defended
not only as an apostolical institution but on grounds of general
utility. An Episcopacy which could only be defended by the arguments
of expedience |
| 103 |
and antiquity, however, did not go far enough for Bancroft and
his followers. They must meet their opponents by maintaining
the divine obligation of Episcopacy, and it was this theory
which the prelate brought forward for the first time in British
History.' Henceforth there was a large section of the Church
maintaining an exaggerated conception of both monarch and bishop
which was to find mature expression in Laud."' This new position,
as Dr. Gwatkin points out was not very consistent with the Articles,
the Ordinal or practice of the Church of England, but when the
shock of novelty was overcome, it gained ground as a short and
easy way with the Puritans and it had far-reaching effects.3
While Davidson had not joined issue with Bancroft on this particular
theme, the uncompromising Presbyterian must have found the prelate's
contention stiffen his defence of his own Church, of whose
ius divinum he was never in any doubt.
It might have been thought that after Davidson's telling reply,
Bancroft would have exercised some caution, but subsequent events
show that he remained as domineering and vituperative as ever.
Having succeeded to the primacy, he carried through Convocation
a code of canons which declared the royal supremacy over the
Church and which were aimed at the Puritans. The result of the
demand for subscription meant the deprivation of three hundred
ministers who refused to comply.4 So far from abandoning his
scornful and hostile attitude he continued to publish
|
| 104 |
works which by their abusive nature added to his earlier offence.'
In one of these he complains of the Scottish ministers attempting
to cast some of their contentious and disloyal seeds into England
" and the only proof he can offer of his statement is Davidson's
pamphlet which was called forth by his own virulent invective
".
It has been said that, at a later period, the Archbishop became
milder and turned from the persecution of the Puritans to administrative
reform.3 That day surely had not yet dawned, when Andrew Melville,
on trial before the Privy Council in London, made most effective
reply to his insolent accusation of treason.
My lords," exclaimed he, Andrew Melville was never a traitor.
But, my lords, there was one Richard Bancroft (let him be sought
for) who, during the life of the late queen, wrote a treatise
against his Majesty's title to the Crown of England ; and here
(pulling the corpus delicti from his pocket) here is
the book which was answered by my brother John Davidson."4 Proceeding
to address the stunned and silenced Primate, Melville referred
to the book in which he had attacked Presbyterianism. " If you
are the author," he said, "of the book called English Scottizing
for Geneva Discipline, then I regard you as the capital enemy
of all the Reformed Churches in Europe, and as such
|
| 105 |
| I will profess myself an enemy to you and to your proceedings
to the effusion of the last drop of my blood."' The calumniator
of the Scottish Church had produced an indelible impression
of evil upon the mind of this, as of every, faithful Scottish
Presbyterian. |
| 106 |
|
Back 