By REV. JOHN COLQUHOUN, Glendale.
(Continued from Page 166.)
III.—The entrance of Episcopacy into the Scottish Church.
IN the previous article we have seen that Episcopacy had no place in the Church of the Reformation in Scotland, and that the reason why it was, in this respect, different from the Protestant Church in England was that the Scottish Reformers went to the Bible for guidance in rearing the ecclesiastical fabric in Scotland. The purpose of this article is to notice some matters bearing on the contact of Episcopacy with the Scottish Church, and by the Scottish Church we mean the Protestant Church set up in Scotland at the Reformation, as distinct from, and opposed to the Roman Catholic Church which some writers are fond of referring to as “the old Scottish Church.” It may well be said that Episcopacy came to Scotland unsought and undesired, and when it actually made its appearance on the Scottish side of the Border, it was looked upon, not only as a stranger, but as an enemy whose purpose was to overthrow the democratic government of the Scottish Church and deprive its people of their religious and civil liberties. It was assumed by those who framed the First Book of Discipline that the patrimony of the Roman Catholic Church, which was now dis-established in Scotland, should be used for the support of the Reformed clergy and for the maintenance of schools, in order to carry into effect Knox’s ideal that there should be a school in every parish in Scotland.
The charity “which thinketh no evil” left a great deal of that patrimony in the hands of the former possessors of it during their life-time, but, by the time these began to die off, other eyes than those of the legal heirs of these possessions began to look covetously upon them. Out of this came a device which, for ingenuity, is well worthy of the kingdom of Satan. In January, 1572, when the Earl of Mar was Regent, a Church Convention was held at Leith where Commissioners were appointed to meet with others appointed by the Regent to treat “anent all matters tending to the ordering and establishing of the policy of the Kirk.”
The result of this was that “in consideration of the present state” the names and titles of Archbishops and Bishops were not to be altered, but were to continue in time coming as they did before the reformation of religion. This gave an opportunity to the crafty and inscrupulous enemies of the Church among the nobility to appoint weak or ambitious men as bishops under a contract which gave them only a small portion of the revenues of church lands, while those who appointed them got the most of these revenues, as was said by one of that generation, “My lord getteth the benefice and the bishop serveth for a portion out of the benefice to make my lord’s title sure.”
The Scottish laity nicknamed them “tulehan bishops,” a tulehan being a calf’s skin stuffed with straw to cause the cow to give its milk. It was on the occasion of the appointment of one of these to the See of St. Andrews that Mr. Patrick Adamson, disappointed because he was not preferred himself, in his sermon, made three sorts of bishops: “My lord bishop,” he said, “was the bishop in time of Popery; my lord’s bishop is now when my lord gets the benefice, and the bishop serves for a portion with a title to make my lord’s right sure; the Lord’s bishop is every true minister of the Gospel.”
On this matter Dr. McCrie says, “The evils which this new and inauspicious settlement was calculated to produce were soon apparent to the most simple and unsuspecting. The Sees were generally filled, as might have been anticipated, by persons who were unqualified, some by youth and others by extreme age, some by want of talent and others by want of character. They incurred public odium by consenting to become the tools of the court, and by the simoniacal pactions which they were known or suspected to have made with those to whom they were indebted for their presentations.
“At every meeting of the General Assembly, complaints were made against them, or censures were inflicted on them, for neglect of duty, transgression of the laws in the admission of ministers, interference with superintendents in the exercise of discipline, simony, or the alienation of the property of the Church. Those who agreed to the proposal of the court at Leith, in the hopes that churches would be planted and stipends appointed, were mortifyingly disappointed. The patrons of benefices, not being bound by law, refused to comply with the regulations; and the Regent, instead of using his influence, as he had promised, to procure their compliance, encouraged them by his conduct to persevere in their refusal. Having, under a deceitful pretext, got the management of the thirds of benefices out of the hands of the collectors appointed by the church, he united a number of parishes under the care of one minister, assisted by readers to whom a trifling salary was allotted.
“The ministers complained loudly of these abuses, and consulted on the most proper means of checking them; upon which Morton accused them of seditious and treasonable speeches, withdrew his countenance from their assemblies, began to call in question their right to meet and transact business without his express allowance, and advanced a claim to the same supremacy over the Church in Scotland, which had been declared to belong to the inherent prerogative of the sovereign in England.” Life of Andrew Melville, p. 49-50.
The advent of the Tulchan Bishops was the thin end of the wedge which inaugurated in Scotland a struggle for religious and civil freedom which on the one side was characterised by fortitude, and suffering, perhaps unparalleled in the history of nations, and on the other hand by oppression, cruelty, and disregard for the most tender feelings of our nature and for the claims of a conscience, enlightened by the Word of God, which the history of no other land can produce anything to surpass it, while the fact that this was done in the name of religion, and for the promoting of the claims of a particular Church government only increases the shame of it.
King James VI. was born in 1566, six years after the Protestant religion was established in Scotland, and as he grew to manhood, he betrayed clearly that his aim was absolute monarchy. He realised very well that Episcopacy would suit his purpose far better than Presbyterianism, and thus we find that a great part of his life was spent in trying to put down Presbyterianism and rearing upon its ruins the fabric of Episcopacy. In neither did he succeed, for there were men in Scotland who went out to battle in the name and in the strength of their God, and in doing so we find the God in whom they trusted crowning their efforts with success, for in July, 1580, we find the General Assembly passing the following special Act condemning the office of a bishop:—
“Forasmuch as the office of a bishop as it is now used and commonly taken within this realm, has no sure warrant, authority, or ground out of the Scriptures, but was brought in by the folly and corruption of men’s invention to the great overthrow of the true Kirk of God, the whole Assembly in one voice, after liberty granted to all men to reason in the matter, none opposing themselves in defence of the said pretended office, finds and declares the said pretended office, used and termed as is above said, unlawful in itself, as having neither fundament, ground, nor warrant in the Word of God; and ordains that all such persons as enjoy, or hereafter shall enjoy the said office, to be charged simpliciter to demit, quit, and leave off the same, as an office whereunto they are not called of God. And suchlike, to desist and cease from preaching, ministration of the sacraments, or using any way the office of pastors, until they receive de novo admission from the General Assembly, under the pain of ex-communication, to be used against them; wherein if they be found disobedient or contravene this Act in any point, the sentence of ex-communication to be executed against them.” This Act provides a clear proof of the attitude of our Reformers to Episcopacy.
When King James VI. took the Government of the nation into his own hands he showed early that his intention was to undo the work of Reformation and to have the Church of Scotland under Episcopal government, but in his endeavours to bring this about his craft and duplicity were extraordinary.
While doing his utmost to bring in Episcopacy he would praise the Church of Scotland and its institutions, as, for instance, in the Assembly of August, 1590, after his return from Denmark, he praised God that he was born in such a time of the light of the Gospel, to such a place as to be king in such a Kirk, the most sincere Kirk in the world. “The Kirk of Geneva,” said he, “keeps Pasche and Yuille. What have they for them? They have no institution for them. As for our neighbour Kirk of England, their service is an ill-said Mass in English. They want nothing of the Mass but the liftings. I charge you, my good people, ministers, doctors, elders, nobles, gentlemen and barons, to stand by your purity, and to exhort the people to do the like; and I forsooth, as long as I possess my life and crown shall maintain the same against all deadly.”
This was the brave speech of one who afterwards banished the godly John Welsh of Ayr from his flock and his country for his opposition to Episcopal government, and refused permission for him to return to his native air unless he would submit to the bishops, although he was assured that this was the only means by which his life might be prolonged. The inconsistency between his speech and his conduct is further revealed by, for the same reason, shutting up Andrew Melville in the Tower of London, and ultimately banishing him to a foreign land, thus depriving Scotland of the services of one who has been justly described by Robert Boyd of Trochrig as “that venerable father of our Church, the ornament of his nation, and great light of this age, in all virtue, learning, vivacity of spirit, promptitude, zeal, holy freedom, and boldness and invincible courage in a good cause, with a holy course of life and resolution.” If King James had done no other evil but what we have in those two instances, it would be enough to cause his memory to bear the brand of infamy. Alas! like another king, he requited faithful rebuking by adding these evils above all the other evils which he committed.