By REV. JOHN COLQUHOUN, Glendale.
IV.—Scotland’s Opposition to Episcopacy.
SCOTLAND’S opposition to Episcopacy did not proceed, as has often been asserted, from the influence of Geneva. John Knox, its leading Reformer, manifested, long before he ever saw Geneva or Calvin, that he considered Presbyterianism the only form of Church government which was based on the Word of God. He saw Episcopacy at close quarters during his sojourn in England and, during that period, he refused a bishopric, at least once, if not on two occasions, and thereby gave offence to the Privy Council. In his first sermon, which was preached at St. Andrews, he taught that no man could be head of the Church, and that there were no true bishops, except those that preached personally without a substitute. (See McCrie’s Life of Knox.) When the time came for setting up the Church of Scotland we see that he acted on this principle, and continued to do so during his whole life, in spite of assertions to the contrary. On 13th February, 1572, he was present at the installation of Douglas as Archbishop of St. Andrews, and having preached as usual on the Sabbath, the Earl of Morton asked him to inaugurate Douglas, which he refused to do, pronouncing an anathema against both the donor and the receiver of the bishopric. This opposition to Episcopacy he continued with his “dying hand and dying breath” till he rested from his labours, after which the Lord raised up another stalwart against Episcopacy in the person of Andrew Melville.
At the Assembly of 1575, when it was proposed to proceed to the trial of the bishops, John Drury, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, rose and protested, that the examination of the conduct of the bishops should not prejudge what he and others of the brethren had to object against the lawfulness of their office. On this occasion Melville rose and addressed the Assembly in a speech of considerable length in which he supported Drury’s proposition and stated his own sentiments respecting Episcopacy. He said that he was satisfied “that prelacy had no foundation in the Scriptures, and that, viewed as a human expedient, its tendency was extremely doubtful, if not necessarily hurtful to the interests of religion. The words bishop and presbyter are interchangeably used in the New Testament; and the most popular arguments for the divine origin of Episcopacy are founded on ignorance of the language of Scripture.” He concluded his speech by stating that he was convinced “that the best and the only effectual way of redressing the grievances which at present afflicted the Church of Scotland, and of preventing their return, was to strike at the root of the evil, by abolishing prelacy, and restoring that parity of rank and authority which existed at the beginning among all the pastors of the Church.”
From now on, Melville, as the champion of Presbyterianism, figured in many a stormy scene with those in authority, including King James, when he assumed the government, and in all his contentions he proved clearly, like Knox, that he neither feared nor flattered any man. As a result of the definite attitude Melville took against Episcopacy, the Assembly step by step began to assert itself, until in 1580 it unanimously declared the office of a bishop, as then used and commonly understood, to be destitute of warrant from the Word of God, and the whole order of Bishops, with the exception of five, submitted to this declaration.
In 1581, Robert Montgomery, minister of Stirling, who had accepted the See of Glasgow, was promptly summoned to the bar of the Assembly. After various appearances before the Church Courts, and repeated interferences by civil authorities with these Courts, the Presbytery of Edinburgh, to which the matter was delegated, appointed John Davidson, Minister of Liberton, to excommunicate Montgomery, which sentence was formally carried out, and duly intimated from the pulpits of Edinburgh and Glasgow and the surrounding churches.
In 1584, the infamous Black Acts were passed by a Parliament which consisted of King James, eight bishops, thirteen abbots, twenty-five lords, and twenty-three representatives of burghs. By it Presbytery was overthrown and the liberties of the Church and nation laid at the feet of the King and his counsellors. Against these Acts some of the ministers made public protestation at the market cross of Edinburgh, and orders were given for their speedy arrest, but they saved themselves by flight. This state of matters continued until a meeting of the Assembly was convened by the King in 1586, at which a modified Episcopacy was set up and Presbyteries re-established. For a considerable time the King showed himself more favourable to the Church, and, during his absence in Denmark on the occasion of his marriage, he committed the oversight of the kingdom to one of the most eminent ministers of Scotland, Robert Bruce of Edinburgh, whom he afterwards treated in a very shabby manner for his unswerving fidelity to the Crown Rights of the Redeemer. After Archbishop Adamson’s death Parliament passed an Act in 1592 legally establishing Presbytery, and rescinding many of those Acts which were obnoxious to Scottish Presbyterians, and, though it had its defects, has been always considered as far as that can be said of parliamentary legislation, to be the charter of the Church of Scotland’s liberties, and as a great step forward in the work of the reformation. The rest of King James’s reign in Scotland and his whole reign in England, were marked by actions which showed his deep-rooted hatred to Presbyterianism, and his determination to have the Church in Scotland governed by Prelates.
After King James had gone the way of all the earth in 1625, he was succeeded by his son, Charles I. The principle of the Divine Right of Kings had been faithfully and successfully instilled into the son by the father, and the son, evidently like another king’s son of whom we read, became obsessed with the idea that his little finger was thicker than his father’s loins, and accordingly, instead of the whips with which his father chastised his subjects, he proceeded to chastise them with scorpions. His chief adviser on Scottish affairs was William Laud, who became Bishop of London and afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, a man who was, if possible, more ignorant of Scottish affairs and Scottish character than Charles himself. Both Charles and Laud endeavoured to ride rough-shod over the Presbyterianism of Scotland, with disastrous results to them both. The smouldering embers of opposition continued for a considerable time, only now and again giving unmistakably evidences of their presence, until, at last, they burst into a furious flame in 1637. The occasion was the introduction of Laud’s Service Book, which he had previously endeavoured to introduce into England, with the result that plain people said that Laud was bringing back Popery. To kill opposition the Court of High Commission was set up both in England and Scotland, but neither the Court of High Commission nor Laud’s preaching of Royal prerogatives and passive obedience on the part of the subject, was sufficient to quench vital religion in the Scottish Church.
The Service Book, which smelt too much of Popery, was not welcomed in Scotland. When an endeavour was made to introduce it in St. Giles’ Church, Edinburgh, there was an uproar. Lord Warriston described the scene thus: “At the beginning thereof there rose such a tumult, such an outcrying with the people murmuring, mourning, railing, stoolcasting, as the like was never seen in Scotland; the bishop both after the forenoon sermon was almost trampled under foot, and afternoon being coached with Roxburgh was almost stoned to death; the Dean was forced to cage himself in the steeple; Mr. James Fairley to leave off reading at all; Mr. Henry Rollock not to begin; and Mr. David Fletcher to stay till the people went out. This uproar was greater than the 17th December, and in all history will be remarked as the fair, plausible, and ‘peaceable welcome the Service Book received in Scotland.” Warriston’s Diary, page 365. This refers to the tumult which took place in St. Giles, but according to Stevenson’s History, Greyfriars Church was the scene of a similar uproar. All efforts were put forth to bring to task the originators of this tumult but they proved a failure, neither could any one be got to read the Service Book again, though much money was offered for doing so. Scotland had rejected the Service Book in the most public and emphatic manner, and the tumult in St. Giles showed the spirit of the nation. The Lord’s work, however, must be done in an orderly manner. and there were not wanting at this time servants who did the work.
It was agreed by a “conjunct motion from the nobility, gentry, burgesses, and ministers” to renew the Scottish National Covenant for religion, bringing it up-to-date, by including in it references to the corruptions of the times and the Acts of Parliament made against Popery and in favour of the true religion. This work was laid upon Archibald Johnston of Warriston and Alexander Henderson, and the signing of the Covenant was begun in Greyfriars Church on 28th February, 1638. That it was well received and largely signed in Scotland is a matter of history and need not be entered into here. The nation had reached a period in its history when men went forth in the strength of Gods’ grace, and the Lord acknowledged their labours, and gave countenance to their efforts to throw off the yoke of bondage under which they laboured. Before the year 1638 was ended this was accomplished. The history of the Glasgow Assembly of 1638, the first for twenty years, is well known and has often been told. At this Assembly Alexander Henderson was chosen Moderator, and Warriston was appointer Clerk. Hamilton, the King’s Commissioner, left the Assembly on the eighth day after it began its work, declaring that nothing done in that Assembly should be of any force to bind any subject, and discharging the Court from proceeding further on pain of treason.
Henderson’s reply revealed him to be both a man and a Christian. “It hath been,” he said, “the glory of the Reformed Churches, and we account it our glory after a special manner to give unto kings and Christian magistrates what belongs unto their places; next to piety towards God we are obliged unto loyalty and obedience to our king. There is nothing due unto kings and princes in matter ecclesiastical which I trust by this Assembly shall be denied unto our king. . . . All that are here know the reasons of the meeting of this Assembly, and albeit we have acknowledged the power of Christian kings for convening of Assemblies and their power in Assemblies, yet that may not derogate from Christ’s right; for He has given divine warrants to convolve Assemblies whether magistrates consent or not; therefore seeing we perceive men to be so zealous of their masters’ commands, have we not also good reason to be zealous toward our Lord and to maintain the liberties and privileges of His kingdom?”
At the Assembly Episcopacy was thrown out and the bishops were excommunicated. Apart altogether from the question of Church government, this was not before time when one considers that the Bishop of Galloway was found guilty of teaching Arminianism, condemned family worship, and was an open profaner of the Sabbath; the Archbishop of Glasgow was found guilty of Sabbath desecration, and being a frequent tippler in taverns; the Bishop of Brechin was found guilty of several acts of adultery, excessive drinking, using a crucifix in his closet, preaching Arminianism and Popish tenets, “and of being universally infamous for several other offences.” These offences and many others were proved against the other bishops. By this Assembly, which began on the 21st November and ended on the 20th December, the whole fabric of Episcopacy was cast down in Scotland and Presbyterianism set up in its place. At the close of it Mr. Henderson said, “We have now cast down the walls of Jericho; let him that rebuildeth them beware of the curse of Hiel the Bethelite”; words which might well be pondered, in our own day, by the Union-mongers in the Church of Scotland.
The triumph of Presbytery, however, was but short-lived. Charles I, blinded by zeal for Episcopacy and absolute monarchy, ended his life ignobly on the scaffold, and Cromwell took over the reins of government. During the latter’s rule the Church in Scotland had its internal dissentions under the unfavourable eye of Independency until the Restoration of Charles II when Episcopacy was restored and showed itself, during his reign and that of his brother, as the greatest persecutor of the Cause of Christ which ever appeared in this land until the glorious Revolution of 1688 when James II fled, and with the advent of William of Orange Presbyterianism was restored, and, by legislation, secured for the Scottish nation.