Note Y.Of the Catechism commonly called Archbishop Hamilton’s.—Very different and discordant accounts have been given of this book. My account is taken from the catechism itself, compared with the canon of the council which authorized its use. The title is as follows:—“The Catechisme, That is to say, ane cōmone and catholik instructioun of the christin people in materis of our catholic faith and religioun, quhilk na gud christin man or woman suld misknaw: set furth be ye maist reuerend father in God Johne Archbischop of sanct Androus Legatnait and primat of ye kirk of Scotland, in his prouincial counsale haldin at Edinburgh the xxvi. day of Januarie, the zeir of our Lord 1551, with the aduise and counsale of the bischoippis and other prelatis, with doctours of Theologie and Canon law of the said realme of Scotland present for the tyme.—S. Aug. libro 4 de trinitate. cap. 6.—Contra rationem nemo sobrius, contra scripturam nemo christianus, contra ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit.—Agane reasone na sober man, agane scripture na christin man, agane the kirk na peaceabil or quiet man will iudge, or hald opinioun.” On the back of title are two copies of Latin verses, “Ad. Pivm Lectorem.” The title, preface by the archbishop, and “table of materis,” are on thirteen leaves. The catechism begins on folio i, and ends on folio ccvi, after which there are three pages of errata, on the last of which is the following colophon.(‡ right pointing index finger)“Prentit at Sanct Androus, be the command and expēsis of the maist reuerend father in God, Johne Archbischop of sanct Androus, and primat of ye hail kirk of Scotland, the xxix day of August, the zeir of our Lord M.D. lii.”The archbishop’s epistle addressed to “Personis, Vicars, and Curattis,” prefixed to the catechism, informs us of its design and use. “First to your awin erudition.—Secundly, According to the decreit maid in our prouincial counsale, our will is that ye reid ye samyn catechisme diligently, distinctly, and plainly, ilk ane of yow to your awin parochianaris, for thair cōmon instructioun and spiritual edificatioun in the word of God, necessarie of thame to be knawin.” The canon of the council provides that it be read “omnibus dominicis et festivis,” which is thus explained in the close of the archbishop’s epistle: “Euerilk Sonday and principal halydaie, quhen yair cummis na precheour to thame to schaw thame the word of God, to haue yis catechisme usit and reid to yame in steid of preching, quhil [until] God of his gudnes prouide ane sufficient nowmer of catholyk and abil precheouris, quhilk sal be within few yeiris as we traist in God.”As it is entitled a catechism, was printed in the vulgar language, is said to be designed for the instruction of the people, and no prohibition of its use is mentioned in the book itself, we might be apt to conclude, that it was intended to be circulated among the people, and to be promiscuously read; and accordingly several writers have represented the matter in this light. But that this was very far from being the design of those who approved and set it forth, is placed beyond all doubt by the directions which the council gave respecting it, both to the archbishop and to the clergy. “Cujus quidem libri exemplaria omnia, ubi excussa fuerint, præsentari ipse reverendismo mandat et ordinat præsens concilium, ut ipse singulas tam suis ecclesiasticis, quam aliis singulis locorum ordinariis, quot cuique diocesi pro rectorum, vicariorum, ac curatorum numero et multitudine sufficere videntur, eis tribuat; reliqua vero apud ipsum reverendissimum remaneant, et firma custodia serventur, prout tempus et necessitas postulaverint, dispertienda.Caveant vero ipsi rectores, vicarii, et curati, ne sua exemplaria secularibus quibusque indiscrete communicent, nisi ex judicio, concilio, et discretione sui ordinarii; quibus ordinariis licebit nonnullis probis, gravibus, bonæ fidei, ac discretis viris laicis, ejusdem catechisme exemplaria communicare, et iis pottisimum, qui videbuntur potius suæ instructionis causa, quam curiositatis cujuscunque eadem expetere.” Wilkins,Concilia, iv. 72. Lord Hailes had therefore reason for saying (in opposition to Mackenzie’s tale of the archbishop allowing “the pedlars to take two pennies for their pains in hawking it abroad”) that the council “uses as many precautions to prevent it from coming into the hands of the laity, as if it had been a book replete with the most pestilent heresy.” Provincial Councils, p. 36. It would have been imprudent to insert the prohibition in the book itself, copies of which, notwithstanding all their precautions, would come into the hands of improper persons; but the canon of the council remained the rule for regulating the clergy in the use of it. Nor is there any thing in the catechism which is inconsistent with the canon, or which implies that it was to come into the hands of the people. It is all along supposed that they were to be instructed by hearing, not by reading it. This is particularly evident from the concluding address. “O christin pepil, we exhort yow with all diligence, heir, understand, and keip in your remembrance, the haly wordis of God, quhilk in this present catechisme ar trewly and catholykly exponit to your spiritual edification.” And again: “Gif ye persaif be frequent heiring heirof your self spiritually instruckit mair than ye haue bein in tymes bygane, geue the thankis thairof only to God.”If any of the hearers presumed to move any controversy respecting the passage read from the catechism, they were to be delivered over to the inquisitors, and no clergyman was allowed to answer their questions, or to enter into any dispute with them on the subject, unless he had a written license for this from his bishop. “Hoc tamen proviso, ut non liceat cuiquam auditorum super lectis, aut modo quo supra recitatis, controversiam ipsi rectori seu vicario seu curato movere.Et si aliquis id attentare præsumpserit deferatur inquisitoribus hæreticæ pravitatis; nec vicissim licebit ulli rectori, vicario, seu curato, nisi ad hoc ipsum (specialiter habita consideratione ipsius qualificationis) fuerit ab ordinario loci ei facultas concessa in scriptis, ullis controversias et quæstiones hujusmodi moventibus desuper respondere, aut disputationes ingredi, sed mox respondeatur, se hujusmodi disputationis resolutiones ad ipsos ordinarios remittere, et hoc sub pœna privationis ab hujusmodi officio seu beneficio.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 73.The catechism consists of an explication of the ten commandments, the apostles’ creed, the seven sacraments, the Lord’s prayer, and the Ave Maria. Lord Hailes has animadverted on Keith for saying that the author shows “his wisdom and moderation inhandsomely evitingto enter upon the controverted points;” and he has given extracts from it asserting the doctrine of transubstantiation, the propriety of withholding the cup from the laity, and of prayers to the saints. Prov. Councils, p. 35, 36. I may add, that the use of images in worship, purgatory, prayers for the dead, the removal of original sin by baptism, the sinlessness of concupiscence after baptism, the mystical signification of the ceremonies practised in that ordinance,—the exorcism, or blowing upon the child at the church door, and making the sign of the cross on its brow and breast, putting salt into its mouth, anointing its nostrils and ears with spittle, and its breast and back with oil, with the application of chrism to the forehead, the clothing of it with the cude or white linen cloth, and putting a lighted torch or candle into its hand; these, with other doctrines and ceremonies of the popish church, are all taught and vindicated. At the same time, while the opinions peculiar to popery are stated and defended, there is an evident design of turning away the attention of the people from these controversies, by reminding them of their duty to “belief as the haly catholic kirk beliefis;” and a great part of the book is occupied in declaring duties and general doctrines about which there was no dispute between papists and protestants. Considerable art is also used in introducing some of the most exceptionable articles of popery under the cover of unquestionable truths. Thus on the question, “Quhat things suld move us to belief the word of God?” The first reason which is given is, “Ye eternal and infallible veritie of God, fra quhome na lesing may procede, na mair than myrknes may cum fra the cleir schenand sonne.” But how gradually and artfully are the people led away from the scriptures in what follows! “The secund thing that suld moue us to belief the word of God, and to knaw quhilk is the worde of God, quhilk are the haly bukis quharin the word of God is contenit, and quhat is the trew sense of the same bukis, is ye consent and authoritie of our mother the haly kirk, fra the apostils tyme hitherto, and specially quhen it islawfully gadderit be the haly spirit in ane general counsel, quhairof sainct Augustine sais thus:—‘I wald nocht gif credence to the euangel, except that the universal kirk warnis me sa to do.’ And tharfor lair thir twa lessonis. The ane is, quhatsaeuir the haly spirit reuelis and schawis to us, other in the bukis of haly scripture,or in ye determinatiouns and definitiouns of general counsellis, lawfully gadderit for the corroboracion and maintenans of our faith, we suld beleif ye same to betrew word of God, and thairto gyf ferme credence as to the verite that is infallible. The second lesson, ye that ar simple and unleirnit men and wemen suld expressly belief al the artickils of your Crede, as for all uthir hie misteries and matteris of the scripture ye aucht to belief generally as the kirk of God beleiffis. And this faith is sufficient to yow, for the perfectioun of that faith quhilk ye ar bund to haif.” Fol. xiiii. b. xv. a. A specimen of the same kind occurs on the question, How is the true sense of the scripture to be discerned? where, after being gravely taught the usefulness of collating one place with another, and attending to the connexion of the passage, the people are told that this belongs to such as have the gift calledinterpretatio sermonum, and are then devoutly set down at the feet of the doctors of the church, and taught implicitly to receive the decisions of councils. “Quharfor, he that will nocht heir, resaif, and obey ye diffinitionis and determinationis of lauchful general counsellis concerning materis of our faith, he is nocht to be accountit a trew christin man, according to the wordis of our salviour,—‘Gif he will nocht heir the kirk, lat him be to the as ane infidele, unchristinit, and ane publican.’ Thus ye haif quha is ane herityk, and how he brekis the first command.” Fol. xviii. b. xix. b.As all who question the infallible decisions of the church are pronounced guilty of a breach of the first commandment, the Roman Catholics are, with no less ease, exculpated from a breach of the second, by the insertion of a convenient parenthesis. The reader will observe, that, according to a division of the law first countenanced by Augustine, and of which the popish church is extremely fond, the first and second commandments are thrown into one, and, to make up the number, the tenth is split into two; although the compilers of the catechism found it impracticable tokeep to this last division in their explication. The following is their enunciation of the first commandment: “I am ye Lord thi God, quhilk hais brocht ye fra the land of Egypt, fra the house of bondage. Thow sall haif no other goddis but me, thou sal nocht mak to thee (as gods) ony grauit ymage, nother ony similitude of ony thing that is in the heuin abone, or in ye erd beneth, nor of ony thing yat is in the watter under the erd. Thow sal nocht adorne yame, nor worschip yame (as goddis).” Fol. xii. a. It is fair, however, to hear the explication which the authors of the catechism give respecting images. “Ar ymages aganis the first command? Na, sa thai be weil usit. Quhat is the rycht use of ymagis? Imagis to be made na haly writ forbiddis (sais venerabil Bede) for the sycht of thame, specially of the crucifixe giffis greit compunction to thame quhilk behaldis it with faith in Christ, and to yame that are unletterat, it geffis a quik remembrance of ye passion of Christ. Salomon in tyme of his wisdome, nocht without the inspiration of God, made ymages in ye temple. Mosyes the excellent prophet and trew seruand of God, made and ereckit a brassin ymage of a serpent, (quhilk figurit the lyfting vp of our Salwiour Jesus Christ vpon the crosse,) and als, be the cōmand of God, causit mak the ymagis of twa angellis callit cherubinis, quhilk thing thir twa sa excellēt men in wisedome wald neuir haif done, gif the makin of ymagis war aganis ye cōmand of God. Bot utterly yis command forbiddis to mak ymagis to that effect, that thai suld be adornit and wirschippit as goddis, or with ony godlie honour, ye quhilk sentence is expremit by thir wordis: Non adorabis ea neq; coles. Thow sall nocht adore yame nor wirschip thame as goddis. Now we suld nocht gif goddis honour, or Christis honour to ony ymage, but to God allanerly, representit be ane ymage.” Fol. xxiii. b.In the explication of the fifth article of the Creed, is a particular account of the four places in hell;infernus damnatorum,puerorum,purgandorum, etpatrum. The following proof is given of our Saviour’s descent into hell, to deliver the saints who had been confined in the last mentioned place until the time of his death. “Also ye same deliuerāce was prophesit be the prophet Osee: Ero mors tua, o mors, ero morsus tuus o inferne.O dede(says our saluiour)I sal be thi dede—O hel I sal byte the. The man yat bytes ony thing, he takis part to him, and lattis part remaine behind. Sa our saluiour passand doune to hell, he fulfyllit this prophesie, takand part of saulis out fra hell with him, and leiffand part behind him. Quhom tuk he with him? bot thame that was haly and gud, quhilk was haldin thair as presonaris,” Fol. cviii.Upon the whole, this catechism has been written with great care, and the style is by no means bad. It is singular that it should have been so little noticed by the writers of that age, and that it does not appear who was its compiler. The provincial council describe it merely as “a certain book written in the vulgar and Scottish dialect,—librum quendam vulgari et Scotico idiomate conscriptum;” and having examined and approved of it, they commit to the archbishop, as primate, the care of seeing it printed. As it was printed at his expense, and as his name appears on the title‑page and colophon, it has been usually called Archbishop Hamilton’s Catechism. But there is not the least reason for thinking that the primate would have taken the trouble to compose a book consisting of 411 pages quarto, even although he had been in other respects qualified for the task. Bale, in his account of Scottish writers, mentions “Joannes Wouram, vel Wyrem,” whom he calls “a canon regular in St Andrews;” and he ascribes to him “a catechism in his vernacular language, scripsit in vulgari sermone catechismum fidei.” Scriptores M. Brytanniæ Post. Pars, p. 224. I have little doubt that John Winram, sub‑prior of the abbey of St Andrew, and afterwards superintendent of Fife, is the person to whom Bale refers. Could he be the author of the catechism under consideration? Though early regarded as favourable to the reformed opinions, Winram did not leave the popish church until a very late period; and his conduct, during the intermediate struggle, was extremely ambiguous, and often contradictory. The clergy frequently availed themselves of his talents, and of his reputation with the people, to diminish the odium of their obnoxious measures, or to recommend their partial and inefficient plans of reform. He was employed to preach at the trial of Wishart, and was present at the trials of Wallace and Mill. Fox, 1155, 1158, 1161, edit. 1596. He was a member of the provincial council which met in 1549,and is styled, in the register, “ecclesiæ metrop. primitialis, S. Andreæcanonicus regularis, supprior, theologiæ doctor.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 46. That council employed him to draw up the canon intended to settle the ridiculous dispute, which had been warmly agitated among the clergy, whether thePater Nostershould be said to the saints, or to God alone. Comp. Fox, 1161, with Wilkins, 57, 58.And in the council which sat in 1559, he was nominated one of the six persons to whose examination and admonition the archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow submitted their private conduct. Wilkins, p. 209.489Spotswood seems to have confounded this Catechism with a smaller treatise called by the peopleThe twa‑penny Faith. History, p. 92. This last was set forth by the council which met in 1559. Knox, Historie, p. 109, 110. The following extracts from the proceedings of that council may, perhaps, throw some light on the history of this publication. The Roman Catholic Remonstrants, in their representations to the council, required, “yat yar be an godlie and fruitfull declaration set forth in Inglis toung, to be first shewin to the pepill at all times, quhen the sacrament of the blissit body and blud of Jesus Christ is exhibit and destribut, and sicklyke, when baptism and marriage are solemnizit, in face of halie kirk; and yat it be declarit to yaim, yat assist at the sacraments, quhat is the effect yarof, and yat it be spirit at yam be ye prist ministrant, gif yai be reddy to resave the samen; with sick utheris interogatories, as ar necessar for instructing of the poynts of mens salvation, and requires to be answerit unto be all yai, that wald be participant, etc. and yir things to be don before ye using of ye ceremony of haly kirk, etc.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 207, 208. The following canon of the council seems to contain the answer to this petition. “Insuper ut populus Christianus sacramentorum ecclesiæ verum effectum, vim ac usum facilius ac commodius intelligere valeat, statuit hoc præsens conciliumquasdam catholicas exhortationes, easquesuccinctas declarationessacramentorum baptismi, sacrosanctæ eucharistiæ, extremæ unctionis, matrimonii, auctoritatehujus concilii edendas, et inferius inserendas, quas singuli parochi, vel alii presbyteri eorundem sacramentorum legitimi ministri, ipsa sacramenta ministraturi, singulis suam propriam et debitam exhortationem præmittant, et publice et distincte recitent, et legant singuli curati et vicarii, dum sacræ missæ sacrificium diebus dominicis et aliis majoribus festis sunt celebraturi, infra scriptam exhortationem; et ejusdem sacrificii declarationem publice in ecclesia similiter legant, quo populus christianus majori pietatis effectu rebus divinis assistat, et intersit,” &c. Wilkins, ut supra, p. 213. These Exhortations and Declarations were not inserted in the MS. from which Wilkins copied. I am inclined to think that they were published, and that they formed what was called, in derision, The two‑penny Faith. Comp. Buchanani Oper. i. 312.
Note Y.
Of the Catechism commonly called Archbishop Hamilton’s.—Very different and discordant accounts have been given of this book. My account is taken from the catechism itself, compared with the canon of the council which authorized its use. The title is as follows:—
“The Catechisme, That is to say, ane cōmone and catholik instructioun of the christin people in materis of our catholic faith and religioun, quhilk na gud christin man or woman suld misknaw: set furth be ye maist reuerend father in God Johne Archbischop of sanct Androus Legatnait and primat of ye kirk of Scotland, in his prouincial counsale haldin at Edinburgh the xxvi. day of Januarie, the zeir of our Lord 1551, with the aduise and counsale of the bischoippis and other prelatis, with doctours of Theologie and Canon law of the said realme of Scotland present for the tyme.—S. Aug. libro 4 de trinitate. cap. 6.—Contra rationem nemo sobrius, contra scripturam nemo christianus, contra ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit.—Agane reasone na sober man, agane scripture na christin man, agane the kirk na peaceabil or quiet man will iudge, or hald opinioun.” On the back of title are two copies of Latin verses, “Ad. Pivm Lectorem.” The title, preface by the archbishop, and “table of materis,” are on thirteen leaves. The catechism begins on folio i, and ends on folio ccvi, after which there are three pages of errata, on the last of which is the following colophon.(‡ right pointing index finger)“Prentit at Sanct Androus, be the command and expēsis of the maist reuerend father in God, Johne Archbischop of sanct Androus, and primat of ye hail kirk of Scotland, the xxix day of August, the zeir of our Lord M.D. lii.”
The archbishop’s epistle addressed to “Personis, Vicars, and Curattis,” prefixed to the catechism, informs us of its design and use. “First to your awin erudition.—Secundly, According to the decreit maid in our prouincial counsale, our will is that ye reid ye samyn catechisme diligently, distinctly, and plainly, ilk ane of yow to your awin parochianaris, for thair cōmon instructioun and spiritual edificatioun in the word of God, necessarie of thame to be knawin.” The canon of the council provides that it be read “omnibus dominicis et festivis,” which is thus explained in the close of the archbishop’s epistle: “Euerilk Sonday and principal halydaie, quhen yair cummis na precheour to thame to schaw thame the word of God, to haue yis catechisme usit and reid to yame in steid of preching, quhil [until] God of his gudnes prouide ane sufficient nowmer of catholyk and abil precheouris, quhilk sal be within few yeiris as we traist in God.”
As it is entitled a catechism, was printed in the vulgar language, is said to be designed for the instruction of the people, and no prohibition of its use is mentioned in the book itself, we might be apt to conclude, that it was intended to be circulated among the people, and to be promiscuously read; and accordingly several writers have represented the matter in this light. But that this was very far from being the design of those who approved and set it forth, is placed beyond all doubt by the directions which the council gave respecting it, both to the archbishop and to the clergy. “Cujus quidem libri exemplaria omnia, ubi excussa fuerint, præsentari ipse reverendismo mandat et ordinat præsens concilium, ut ipse singulas tam suis ecclesiasticis, quam aliis singulis locorum ordinariis, quot cuique diocesi pro rectorum, vicariorum, ac curatorum numero et multitudine sufficere videntur, eis tribuat; reliqua vero apud ipsum reverendissimum remaneant, et firma custodia serventur, prout tempus et necessitas postulaverint, dispertienda.Caveant vero ipsi rectores, vicarii, et curati, ne sua exemplaria secularibus quibusque indiscrete communicent, nisi ex judicio, concilio, et discretione sui ordinarii; quibus ordinariis licebit nonnullis probis, gravibus, bonæ fidei, ac discretis viris laicis, ejusdem catechisme exemplaria communicare, et iis pottisimum, qui videbuntur potius suæ instructionis causa, quam curiositatis cujuscunque eadem expetere.” Wilkins,Concilia, iv. 72. Lord Hailes had therefore reason for saying (in opposition to Mackenzie’s tale of the archbishop allowing “the pedlars to take two pennies for their pains in hawking it abroad”) that the council “uses as many precautions to prevent it from coming into the hands of the laity, as if it had been a book replete with the most pestilent heresy.” Provincial Councils, p. 36. It would have been imprudent to insert the prohibition in the book itself, copies of which, notwithstanding all their precautions, would come into the hands of improper persons; but the canon of the council remained the rule for regulating the clergy in the use of it. Nor is there any thing in the catechism which is inconsistent with the canon, or which implies that it was to come into the hands of the people. It is all along supposed that they were to be instructed by hearing, not by reading it. This is particularly evident from the concluding address. “O christin pepil, we exhort yow with all diligence, heir, understand, and keip in your remembrance, the haly wordis of God, quhilk in this present catechisme ar trewly and catholykly exponit to your spiritual edification.” And again: “Gif ye persaif be frequent heiring heirof your self spiritually instruckit mair than ye haue bein in tymes bygane, geue the thankis thairof only to God.”
If any of the hearers presumed to move any controversy respecting the passage read from the catechism, they were to be delivered over to the inquisitors, and no clergyman was allowed to answer their questions, or to enter into any dispute with them on the subject, unless he had a written license for this from his bishop. “Hoc tamen proviso, ut non liceat cuiquam auditorum super lectis, aut modo quo supra recitatis, controversiam ipsi rectori seu vicario seu curato movere.Et si aliquis id attentare præsumpserit deferatur inquisitoribus hæreticæ pravitatis; nec vicissim licebit ulli rectori, vicario, seu curato, nisi ad hoc ipsum (specialiter habita consideratione ipsius qualificationis) fuerit ab ordinario loci ei facultas concessa in scriptis, ullis controversias et quæstiones hujusmodi moventibus desuper respondere, aut disputationes ingredi, sed mox respondeatur, se hujusmodi disputationis resolutiones ad ipsos ordinarios remittere, et hoc sub pœna privationis ab hujusmodi officio seu beneficio.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 73.
The catechism consists of an explication of the ten commandments, the apostles’ creed, the seven sacraments, the Lord’s prayer, and the Ave Maria. Lord Hailes has animadverted on Keith for saying that the author shows “his wisdom and moderation inhandsomely evitingto enter upon the controverted points;” and he has given extracts from it asserting the doctrine of transubstantiation, the propriety of withholding the cup from the laity, and of prayers to the saints. Prov. Councils, p. 35, 36. I may add, that the use of images in worship, purgatory, prayers for the dead, the removal of original sin by baptism, the sinlessness of concupiscence after baptism, the mystical signification of the ceremonies practised in that ordinance,—the exorcism, or blowing upon the child at the church door, and making the sign of the cross on its brow and breast, putting salt into its mouth, anointing its nostrils and ears with spittle, and its breast and back with oil, with the application of chrism to the forehead, the clothing of it with the cude or white linen cloth, and putting a lighted torch or candle into its hand; these, with other doctrines and ceremonies of the popish church, are all taught and vindicated. At the same time, while the opinions peculiar to popery are stated and defended, there is an evident design of turning away the attention of the people from these controversies, by reminding them of their duty to “belief as the haly catholic kirk beliefis;” and a great part of the book is occupied in declaring duties and general doctrines about which there was no dispute between papists and protestants. Considerable art is also used in introducing some of the most exceptionable articles of popery under the cover of unquestionable truths. Thus on the question, “Quhat things suld move us to belief the word of God?” The first reason which is given is, “Ye eternal and infallible veritie of God, fra quhome na lesing may procede, na mair than myrknes may cum fra the cleir schenand sonne.” But how gradually and artfully are the people led away from the scriptures in what follows! “The secund thing that suld moue us to belief the word of God, and to knaw quhilk is the worde of God, quhilk are the haly bukis quharin the word of God is contenit, and quhat is the trew sense of the same bukis, is ye consent and authoritie of our mother the haly kirk, fra the apostils tyme hitherto, and specially quhen it islawfully gadderit be the haly spirit in ane general counsel, quhairof sainct Augustine sais thus:—‘I wald nocht gif credence to the euangel, except that the universal kirk warnis me sa to do.’ And tharfor lair thir twa lessonis. The ane is, quhatsaeuir the haly spirit reuelis and schawis to us, other in the bukis of haly scripture,or in ye determinatiouns and definitiouns of general counsellis, lawfully gadderit for the corroboracion and maintenans of our faith, we suld beleif ye same to betrew word of God, and thairto gyf ferme credence as to the verite that is infallible. The second lesson, ye that ar simple and unleirnit men and wemen suld expressly belief al the artickils of your Crede, as for all uthir hie misteries and matteris of the scripture ye aucht to belief generally as the kirk of God beleiffis. And this faith is sufficient to yow, for the perfectioun of that faith quhilk ye ar bund to haif.” Fol. xiiii. b. xv. a. A specimen of the same kind occurs on the question, How is the true sense of the scripture to be discerned? where, after being gravely taught the usefulness of collating one place with another, and attending to the connexion of the passage, the people are told that this belongs to such as have the gift calledinterpretatio sermonum, and are then devoutly set down at the feet of the doctors of the church, and taught implicitly to receive the decisions of councils. “Quharfor, he that will nocht heir, resaif, and obey ye diffinitionis and determinationis of lauchful general counsellis concerning materis of our faith, he is nocht to be accountit a trew christin man, according to the wordis of our salviour,—‘Gif he will nocht heir the kirk, lat him be to the as ane infidele, unchristinit, and ane publican.’ Thus ye haif quha is ane herityk, and how he brekis the first command.” Fol. xviii. b. xix. b.
As all who question the infallible decisions of the church are pronounced guilty of a breach of the first commandment, the Roman Catholics are, with no less ease, exculpated from a breach of the second, by the insertion of a convenient parenthesis. The reader will observe, that, according to a division of the law first countenanced by Augustine, and of which the popish church is extremely fond, the first and second commandments are thrown into one, and, to make up the number, the tenth is split into two; although the compilers of the catechism found it impracticable tokeep to this last division in their explication. The following is their enunciation of the first commandment: “I am ye Lord thi God, quhilk hais brocht ye fra the land of Egypt, fra the house of bondage. Thow sall haif no other goddis but me, thou sal nocht mak to thee (as gods) ony grauit ymage, nother ony similitude of ony thing that is in the heuin abone, or in ye erd beneth, nor of ony thing yat is in the watter under the erd. Thow sal nocht adorne yame, nor worschip yame (as goddis).” Fol. xii. a. It is fair, however, to hear the explication which the authors of the catechism give respecting images. “Ar ymages aganis the first command? Na, sa thai be weil usit. Quhat is the rycht use of ymagis? Imagis to be made na haly writ forbiddis (sais venerabil Bede) for the sycht of thame, specially of the crucifixe giffis greit compunction to thame quhilk behaldis it with faith in Christ, and to yame that are unletterat, it geffis a quik remembrance of ye passion of Christ. Salomon in tyme of his wisdome, nocht without the inspiration of God, made ymages in ye temple. Mosyes the excellent prophet and trew seruand of God, made and ereckit a brassin ymage of a serpent, (quhilk figurit the lyfting vp of our Salwiour Jesus Christ vpon the crosse,) and als, be the cōmand of God, causit mak the ymagis of twa angellis callit cherubinis, quhilk thing thir twa sa excellēt men in wisedome wald neuir haif done, gif the makin of ymagis war aganis ye cōmand of God. Bot utterly yis command forbiddis to mak ymagis to that effect, that thai suld be adornit and wirschippit as goddis, or with ony godlie honour, ye quhilk sentence is expremit by thir wordis: Non adorabis ea neq; coles. Thow sall nocht adore yame nor wirschip thame as goddis. Now we suld nocht gif goddis honour, or Christis honour to ony ymage, but to God allanerly, representit be ane ymage.” Fol. xxiii. b.
In the explication of the fifth article of the Creed, is a particular account of the four places in hell;infernus damnatorum,puerorum,purgandorum, etpatrum. The following proof is given of our Saviour’s descent into hell, to deliver the saints who had been confined in the last mentioned place until the time of his death. “Also ye same deliuerāce was prophesit be the prophet Osee: Ero mors tua, o mors, ero morsus tuus o inferne.O dede(says our saluiour)I sal be thi dede—O hel I sal byte the. The man yat bytes ony thing, he takis part to him, and lattis part remaine behind. Sa our saluiour passand doune to hell, he fulfyllit this prophesie, takand part of saulis out fra hell with him, and leiffand part behind him. Quhom tuk he with him? bot thame that was haly and gud, quhilk was haldin thair as presonaris,” Fol. cviii.
Upon the whole, this catechism has been written with great care, and the style is by no means bad. It is singular that it should have been so little noticed by the writers of that age, and that it does not appear who was its compiler. The provincial council describe it merely as “a certain book written in the vulgar and Scottish dialect,—librum quendam vulgari et Scotico idiomate conscriptum;” and having examined and approved of it, they commit to the archbishop, as primate, the care of seeing it printed. As it was printed at his expense, and as his name appears on the title‑page and colophon, it has been usually called Archbishop Hamilton’s Catechism. But there is not the least reason for thinking that the primate would have taken the trouble to compose a book consisting of 411 pages quarto, even although he had been in other respects qualified for the task. Bale, in his account of Scottish writers, mentions “Joannes Wouram, vel Wyrem,” whom he calls “a canon regular in St Andrews;” and he ascribes to him “a catechism in his vernacular language, scripsit in vulgari sermone catechismum fidei.” Scriptores M. Brytanniæ Post. Pars, p. 224. I have little doubt that John Winram, sub‑prior of the abbey of St Andrew, and afterwards superintendent of Fife, is the person to whom Bale refers. Could he be the author of the catechism under consideration? Though early regarded as favourable to the reformed opinions, Winram did not leave the popish church until a very late period; and his conduct, during the intermediate struggle, was extremely ambiguous, and often contradictory. The clergy frequently availed themselves of his talents, and of his reputation with the people, to diminish the odium of their obnoxious measures, or to recommend their partial and inefficient plans of reform. He was employed to preach at the trial of Wishart, and was present at the trials of Wallace and Mill. Fox, 1155, 1158, 1161, edit. 1596. He was a member of the provincial council which met in 1549,and is styled, in the register, “ecclesiæ metrop. primitialis, S. Andreæcanonicus regularis, supprior, theologiæ doctor.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 46. That council employed him to draw up the canon intended to settle the ridiculous dispute, which had been warmly agitated among the clergy, whether thePater Nostershould be said to the saints, or to God alone. Comp. Fox, 1161, with Wilkins, 57, 58.And in the council which sat in 1559, he was nominated one of the six persons to whose examination and admonition the archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow submitted their private conduct. Wilkins, p. 209.489
Spotswood seems to have confounded this Catechism with a smaller treatise called by the peopleThe twa‑penny Faith. History, p. 92. This last was set forth by the council which met in 1559. Knox, Historie, p. 109, 110. The following extracts from the proceedings of that council may, perhaps, throw some light on the history of this publication. The Roman Catholic Remonstrants, in their representations to the council, required, “yat yar be an godlie and fruitfull declaration set forth in Inglis toung, to be first shewin to the pepill at all times, quhen the sacrament of the blissit body and blud of Jesus Christ is exhibit and destribut, and sicklyke, when baptism and marriage are solemnizit, in face of halie kirk; and yat it be declarit to yaim, yat assist at the sacraments, quhat is the effect yarof, and yat it be spirit at yam be ye prist ministrant, gif yai be reddy to resave the samen; with sick utheris interogatories, as ar necessar for instructing of the poynts of mens salvation, and requires to be answerit unto be all yai, that wald be participant, etc. and yir things to be don before ye using of ye ceremony of haly kirk, etc.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 207, 208. The following canon of the council seems to contain the answer to this petition. “Insuper ut populus Christianus sacramentorum ecclesiæ verum effectum, vim ac usum facilius ac commodius intelligere valeat, statuit hoc præsens conciliumquasdam catholicas exhortationes, easquesuccinctas declarationessacramentorum baptismi, sacrosanctæ eucharistiæ, extremæ unctionis, matrimonii, auctoritatehujus concilii edendas, et inferius inserendas, quas singuli parochi, vel alii presbyteri eorundem sacramentorum legitimi ministri, ipsa sacramenta ministraturi, singulis suam propriam et debitam exhortationem præmittant, et publice et distincte recitent, et legant singuli curati et vicarii, dum sacræ missæ sacrificium diebus dominicis et aliis majoribus festis sunt celebraturi, infra scriptam exhortationem; et ejusdem sacrificii declarationem publice in ecclesia similiter legant, quo populus christianus majori pietatis effectu rebus divinis assistat, et intersit,” &c. Wilkins, ut supra, p. 213. These Exhortations and Declarations were not inserted in the MS. from which Wilkins copied. I am inclined to think that they were published, and that they formed what was called, in derision, The two‑penny Faith. Comp. Buchanani Oper. i. 312.
Note Z.Knox’s Letter of Instruction to the Protestants of Scotland during his absence.—In the first edition, I printed this letter in the Appendix as an unpublished paper. I have since discovered a printed copy; but as it is exceedingly rare, and as the letter itself is so valuable, I shall insert it in this place.“To his brethren in Scotland efter hie had bene quyet among thame. The comfort of the halie Gaist for salutatioun.“Not sa mekill to instruct you as to leave with you, dearlie belovit brethren, sum testimony of my love, I have thought gud to communicate with you, in theis few lynis, my weak consall, how I wald ye suld behave yourselves in the middis of this wickit generatioun, tuiching the exercis of Godis maist halie and sacred word, without the whilk, nether sall knawledge incres, godlines apeir, nor fervencie continew amang yow. For as the word of God is the begyning of lyfe spirituall, without whilk all flesche is deid in Godis presence, and the lanterne to our feit, without the bryghtnes whairof all the posteritie of Adame doith walk in darknes, and as it is the fundament of faith, without the whilk na man understandeth the gud will of God, sa is it also the onlie organe and instrument whilk God useth to strenthin the weak, to comfort the afflictit, to reduce to mercie be repentance sic as have sliddin, andfinallie to preserve and keip the verie lyfe of the saule in all assaltis and temptationis, and thairfoir yf that ye desyr your knawledge to be incressit, your faith to be confirmit, your consciencis to be quyetit and comfortit, or finallie your saule to be preservit in lyfe, lat your exercis be frequent in the law of your Lord God; despys not that precept whilk Moses, (who, be his awn experience had learnit what comfort lyeth within the word of God) gave to the isralitis in theis wordis: ‘Theis wordis whilk I command the this day salbe in thi hart, and thou sal exercis thi children in thame, thou sal talk of thame when thou art at home in thi hous, and as thou walkest be the way, and when thou lyis doun, and when thou rysis up, and thou sall bind thame for a signe upon thi hand, and thay salbe paperis of rememberance betwene thi eis, and thou sall wryt thame upon the postis of thi hous and upon thi gatis.’ And moses in another place commandis thame to ‘remember the law of the Lord God, to do it, that it may be weill unto thame, and with thair children in the land whilk the Lord sall gif thame;’ meanyng that, lyke as frequent memorie and repetitioun of Godis preceptis is the middis whairby the feir of God, whilk is the begynning of all wisdome and filicitie, is keipit recent in mynd, sa as negligence and oblivioun of Godis benefitis ressavit the first grie of defectioun fra God. Now yf the law, whilk be reasone of our weakness can wirk nathing but wraith and anger, was sa effectuall that, rememberit and rehersit of purpois to do, it brought to the pepill a corporall benedictioun, what sall we say that the glorious gospell of Chryst Jesus doith wirk, so that it be with reverence intreatit! St Paule calleth [it] the sueit odour of lyfe unto thois that suld resaif lyfe, borrowing his similitude fra odoriferous herbis or precious unguementis, whais nature is the mair thay be touchit or moveit to send furth thair odour mair pleasing and delectabill: even sic, deir brethren, is the blissit evangell of oure Lorde Jesus; for the mair that it be intreatit, the mair comfortable and mair plissant is it to sic as do heir, read, and exercis the sam. I am not ignorant that, as the isralitis lothit manna becaus that everie day thay saw and eat but ane thing, sa sum thair be now a dayis (wha will not be haldin of the worst sort) that efter anis reading sum parcellis of the scriptures do convert thame selves altogether toprophane autors and humane letteris, becaus that the varietie of matteris thairin conteaynit doith bring with it a daylie delectatioun, whair contrairwys within the simpill scriptures of God the perpetuall repititioun of a thing is fascheous and werisome. This temptatioun I confess may enter in Godis verie elect for a tyme, but impossibill is it that thairin thay continew to the end: for Godis electioun, besydis othir evident signis, hath this ever joynit with it that Godis elect ar callit from ignorance (I speik of thois that ar cumin to the yeiris of knawledge) to sum taist and feilling of Godis mercie, of whilk thay ar never satisfeit in this lyfe, but fray tyme to tyme thay hunger and thay thrist to eat the breid that descendit fra the heavin, and to drink the watter that springeth into lyfe everlasting, whilk thay can not do but be the meanis of faith, and faith luketh ever to the will of God revealit be his word, sa that faith hath baith her begynning and continewance be the word of God; and sa I say that impossibill it is that Godis chosin children can despys or reiect the word of their salvatioun be any lang continewance, nether yit loth of it to the end. Often it is that Godis elect ar haldin in sic bondage and thraldome that they can not have the breid of lyfe brokin unto thame, neither yit libertie to exercis thame selves in Godis halie word, but then doith not Godis deir children loth but maist gredilie do thay covet the fude of thair saulis; then do they accuse thair former negligence, then lament and bewaill thay the miserable afflictioun of thair brethren, and than cry and call thay in thair hartis (and opinlie whair thay dar) for frie passage to the gospell. This hungir and thrist doith argue and prufe the lyfe of thair saulis. But gif sic men as having libertie to reid and exercis thame selves in Godis halie scripture, and yet do begin to wearie because fra tyme to tyme thay reid but a [one] thing, I ask, why weirie thay not also everie day to drink wyne, to eat bread, everie day to behald the bryghtnes of the sone, and sa to use the rest of Godis creatures whilk everie day do keip thair awn substance, cours, and nature? Thay sall anser, I trust, because sic creatures have a strenth as oft as thay ar usit to expell hungir and quenche thrist, to restoir strenth, and to preserve the lyfe. O miserabill wreachis, wha dar attribut mair power and strenth to the corruptible creatures in nurisching and preserving the mortallkarcass, than to the eternall word of God in nurissment of the saule whilk is immortal! To reasone with thair abominable unthankfulnes at this present it is not my purpois. But to yow, deir brethrene, I wryt my knawledge, and do speik my conscience, that sa necessarie as meit and drink is to the preservation of lyfe corporall, and so necessarie as the heit and bryghtnes of the sone is to the quicknyng of the herbis and to expell darknes, sa necessarie is also to lyfe everlasting, and to the illuminatioun and lyght of the saule, the perpetuall meditation, exercis, and use of Godis halie word.“And thairfoir, deir brethrene, yf that you luke for a lyfe to cum, of necessitie it is that ye exercise yourselves in the buke of the Lord your God. Lat na day slip over without sum comfort ressavit fra the mouth of God. Opin your earis, and hie will speak evin pleasing thingis to your hart. Clois not your eis, but diligentlie let thame behald what portioun of substance is left to yow within your fatheris testament. Let your toungis learne to prais the gracious gudness of him wha of his meir mercie hath callit you fra darknes to lyght and fra deth to lyfe. Neither yit may ye do this sa quyetlie that ye will admit na witnessis; nay, brethren, ye are ordeynit of God to reule and governe your awn housis in his trew feir, and according to his halie word. Within your awn housis, I say, in sum cassis ye are bishopis and kingis, your wyffis, children, and familie ar your bishoprik and charge; of you it sal be requyrit how cairfullie and diligentlie ye have instructit thame in Godis trew knawledge, how that ye have studeit in thame to plant vertew and to repress vyce. And thairfoir, I say, ye must mak thame partakeris in reading, exhortation, and in making commoun prayeris, whilk I wald in everie hous wer usit anis a day at leist. But above all things, deir brethren, studie to practis in lyfe that whilk the Lord commandis, and then be ye assurit that ye sall never heir nor reid the same without frute: and this mekill for the exercises within your housis.“Considdering that St Paul callis the congregatioun the bodie of Chryst, wheirof everie ane of us is a member, teaching ws thairby that na member is of sufficience to susteane and feide the selfwithout the help and support of any uther, I think it necessarie that for the conferrence of scriptures, assemblies of brethren be had. The order thairin to be observit, is expressit be sanct paule, and thairfoir I neid not to use many wordis in that behalf: onlie willing that when ye convene, (whilk I wald wer anis a week,) that your begynning suld be fra confessing of your offences, and invocatioun of the spreit of the Lord Jesus to assist yow in all your godlie interprysis; and than lat sum place of scripture be planelie and distinctlie red, samekill as sal be thocht sufficient for a day or tyme, whilk endit, gif any brother have exhortation, interpretatioun, or dout, lat him not feir to speik and move the same, sa that he do it with moderatioun, either to edifie or be edifeit. And heirof I dout not but great profit sall schortlie ensew, for first be heiring, reiding, and conferring the scriptures in the assemblie, the haill bodie of the scriptures of God salbecum familiar, the judgement and spreitis of men salbe tryit, thair pacience and modestie salbe knawin, and finallie thair giftis and utterance sall appeir. Multiplicatioun of wordis, perplext interpretatioun, and wilfulnes in reasonyng is to be avoydit at all tymes and in all places, but chieflie in the congregatioun, whair nathing aucht to be respectit except the glorie of God, and comfort or edificatioun of our brethrene. Yf any thing occur within the text, or yit arys in reasonyng, whilk your judgementis can not resolve, or capacities aprehend, let the same be notit and put in wryt befoir ye depart the congregatioun, that when God sall offir unto yow any interpreter your doutis being notit and knawin, may have the mair expedit resolutioun, or els that when ye sall have occasion to wryt to sic as with whome ye wald communicat your judgementis, your letteris may signifie and declair your unfeaned desyre that ye haue of God and of his trew knawledge, and thay, I dout not, according to thair talentis, will indeuour and bestow thair faithfull labors, [to] satisfie your godlie petitionis. Of myself I will speak as I think, I will moir gladlie spend xv houris in communicatting my judgement with yow, in explainyng as God pleasis to oppin to me anyplace of scripture, than half ane hour in any other matter besyd.“Farther, in reading the scripture I wald ye suld joyne sumbukis of the ald and sum of the new Testament together, as genesis and ane of the evangelistis, exodus with another, and sa furth, euer ending sic bukis as ye begyn, (as the tyme will suffer,) for it sall greitly comfort yow to heir that harmony and weiltunit sang of the halie spreit speiking in oure fatheris frome the begyning. It sall confirme yow in theis dangerous and perrellous dayis, to behald the face of Christ Jesus his loving spous and kirk, from Abell to him self, and frome him self to this day, in all ageis to be ane. Be frequent in the prophetis and in the epistillis of St Paul, for the multitude of matteris maist comfortable thairin conteanit requyreth exercis and gud memorie. Lyke as your assemblis aucht to begyn with confessioun and invocatioun of Godis halie spreit, sa wald I that thay wer never finissit without thanksgiving and commoun prayeris for princes, rulers, and maiestratis, for the libertie and frie passage of Chrystis evangell, for the comfort and delyverance of our afflictit brethrene in all places now persecutit, but maist cruellie now within the realme of France and Ingland, and for sic uther thingis, as the spreit of the Lord Jesus sal teache unto yow to be profitable ether to your selues, or yit to your brethren whairsoeuer thay be. If this, or better, dear brethrene, I sall heir that ye exercise your selues, then will I prais God for your great obedience, as for thame that not onlie haue ressavit the word of grace with gladnes, but that also with cair and diligence do keip the same as a treasure and jewell maist precious. And becaus that I can not expect that ye will do the contrarie, at this present I will vse na threatenyngis, for my gud hoip is, that ye sall walk as the sonis of lyght in the middis of this wickit generatioun, that ye salbe as starris in the nyght ceassone, wha yit ar not changeit into darknes, that ye salbe as wheit amangis the kokill, and yit that ye sall not change your nature whilk ye haue ressavit be grace, through the fellowschip and participatioun whilk we haue with the Lord Jesus in his bodie and blud. And finallie, that ye salbe of the novmber of the prvdent virginis, daylie renewing your lampis with oyle, as thai that pacientlie abyd the glorious aparitioun and cuming of the Lord Jesus, whais omnipotent spreit rule and instruct, illuminat and comfort your hartis and myndis in all assaltis, now and euer. Amen. The grace of theLord Jesus rest with yow. Remember my weaknes in your daylie prayeris, the 7 of July 1557.“Your brother vnfeaned Johnne Knox.”MS. Letters, p. 352–359.
Note Z.
Knox’s Letter of Instruction to the Protestants of Scotland during his absence.—In the first edition, I printed this letter in the Appendix as an unpublished paper. I have since discovered a printed copy; but as it is exceedingly rare, and as the letter itself is so valuable, I shall insert it in this place.
“To his brethren in Scotland efter hie had bene quyet among thame. The comfort of the halie Gaist for salutatioun.
“Not sa mekill to instruct you as to leave with you, dearlie belovit brethren, sum testimony of my love, I have thought gud to communicate with you, in theis few lynis, my weak consall, how I wald ye suld behave yourselves in the middis of this wickit generatioun, tuiching the exercis of Godis maist halie and sacred word, without the whilk, nether sall knawledge incres, godlines apeir, nor fervencie continew amang yow. For as the word of God is the begyning of lyfe spirituall, without whilk all flesche is deid in Godis presence, and the lanterne to our feit, without the bryghtnes whairof all the posteritie of Adame doith walk in darknes, and as it is the fundament of faith, without the whilk na man understandeth the gud will of God, sa is it also the onlie organe and instrument whilk God useth to strenthin the weak, to comfort the afflictit, to reduce to mercie be repentance sic as have sliddin, andfinallie to preserve and keip the verie lyfe of the saule in all assaltis and temptationis, and thairfoir yf that ye desyr your knawledge to be incressit, your faith to be confirmit, your consciencis to be quyetit and comfortit, or finallie your saule to be preservit in lyfe, lat your exercis be frequent in the law of your Lord God; despys not that precept whilk Moses, (who, be his awn experience had learnit what comfort lyeth within the word of God) gave to the isralitis in theis wordis: ‘Theis wordis whilk I command the this day salbe in thi hart, and thou sal exercis thi children in thame, thou sal talk of thame when thou art at home in thi hous, and as thou walkest be the way, and when thou lyis doun, and when thou rysis up, and thou sall bind thame for a signe upon thi hand, and thay salbe paperis of rememberance betwene thi eis, and thou sall wryt thame upon the postis of thi hous and upon thi gatis.’ And moses in another place commandis thame to ‘remember the law of the Lord God, to do it, that it may be weill unto thame, and with thair children in the land whilk the Lord sall gif thame;’ meanyng that, lyke as frequent memorie and repetitioun of Godis preceptis is the middis whairby the feir of God, whilk is the begynning of all wisdome and filicitie, is keipit recent in mynd, sa as negligence and oblivioun of Godis benefitis ressavit the first grie of defectioun fra God. Now yf the law, whilk be reasone of our weakness can wirk nathing but wraith and anger, was sa effectuall that, rememberit and rehersit of purpois to do, it brought to the pepill a corporall benedictioun, what sall we say that the glorious gospell of Chryst Jesus doith wirk, so that it be with reverence intreatit! St Paule calleth [it] the sueit odour of lyfe unto thois that suld resaif lyfe, borrowing his similitude fra odoriferous herbis or precious unguementis, whais nature is the mair thay be touchit or moveit to send furth thair odour mair pleasing and delectabill: even sic, deir brethren, is the blissit evangell of oure Lorde Jesus; for the mair that it be intreatit, the mair comfortable and mair plissant is it to sic as do heir, read, and exercis the sam. I am not ignorant that, as the isralitis lothit manna becaus that everie day thay saw and eat but ane thing, sa sum thair be now a dayis (wha will not be haldin of the worst sort) that efter anis reading sum parcellis of the scriptures do convert thame selves altogether toprophane autors and humane letteris, becaus that the varietie of matteris thairin conteaynit doith bring with it a daylie delectatioun, whair contrairwys within the simpill scriptures of God the perpetuall repititioun of a thing is fascheous and werisome. This temptatioun I confess may enter in Godis verie elect for a tyme, but impossibill is it that thairin thay continew to the end: for Godis electioun, besydis othir evident signis, hath this ever joynit with it that Godis elect ar callit from ignorance (I speik of thois that ar cumin to the yeiris of knawledge) to sum taist and feilling of Godis mercie, of whilk thay ar never satisfeit in this lyfe, but fray tyme to tyme thay hunger and thay thrist to eat the breid that descendit fra the heavin, and to drink the watter that springeth into lyfe everlasting, whilk thay can not do but be the meanis of faith, and faith luketh ever to the will of God revealit be his word, sa that faith hath baith her begynning and continewance be the word of God; and sa I say that impossibill it is that Godis chosin children can despys or reiect the word of their salvatioun be any lang continewance, nether yit loth of it to the end. Often it is that Godis elect ar haldin in sic bondage and thraldome that they can not have the breid of lyfe brokin unto thame, neither yit libertie to exercis thame selves in Godis halie word, but then doith not Godis deir children loth but maist gredilie do thay covet the fude of thair saulis; then do they accuse thair former negligence, then lament and bewaill thay the miserable afflictioun of thair brethren, and than cry and call thay in thair hartis (and opinlie whair thay dar) for frie passage to the gospell. This hungir and thrist doith argue and prufe the lyfe of thair saulis. But gif sic men as having libertie to reid and exercis thame selves in Godis halie scripture, and yet do begin to wearie because fra tyme to tyme thay reid but a [one] thing, I ask, why weirie thay not also everie day to drink wyne, to eat bread, everie day to behald the bryghtnes of the sone, and sa to use the rest of Godis creatures whilk everie day do keip thair awn substance, cours, and nature? Thay sall anser, I trust, because sic creatures have a strenth as oft as thay ar usit to expell hungir and quenche thrist, to restoir strenth, and to preserve the lyfe. O miserabill wreachis, wha dar attribut mair power and strenth to the corruptible creatures in nurisching and preserving the mortallkarcass, than to the eternall word of God in nurissment of the saule whilk is immortal! To reasone with thair abominable unthankfulnes at this present it is not my purpois. But to yow, deir brethrene, I wryt my knawledge, and do speik my conscience, that sa necessarie as meit and drink is to the preservation of lyfe corporall, and so necessarie as the heit and bryghtnes of the sone is to the quicknyng of the herbis and to expell darknes, sa necessarie is also to lyfe everlasting, and to the illuminatioun and lyght of the saule, the perpetuall meditation, exercis, and use of Godis halie word.
“And thairfoir, deir brethrene, yf that you luke for a lyfe to cum, of necessitie it is that ye exercise yourselves in the buke of the Lord your God. Lat na day slip over without sum comfort ressavit fra the mouth of God. Opin your earis, and hie will speak evin pleasing thingis to your hart. Clois not your eis, but diligentlie let thame behald what portioun of substance is left to yow within your fatheris testament. Let your toungis learne to prais the gracious gudness of him wha of his meir mercie hath callit you fra darknes to lyght and fra deth to lyfe. Neither yit may ye do this sa quyetlie that ye will admit na witnessis; nay, brethren, ye are ordeynit of God to reule and governe your awn housis in his trew feir, and according to his halie word. Within your awn housis, I say, in sum cassis ye are bishopis and kingis, your wyffis, children, and familie ar your bishoprik and charge; of you it sal be requyrit how cairfullie and diligentlie ye have instructit thame in Godis trew knawledge, how that ye have studeit in thame to plant vertew and to repress vyce. And thairfoir, I say, ye must mak thame partakeris in reading, exhortation, and in making commoun prayeris, whilk I wald in everie hous wer usit anis a day at leist. But above all things, deir brethren, studie to practis in lyfe that whilk the Lord commandis, and then be ye assurit that ye sall never heir nor reid the same without frute: and this mekill for the exercises within your housis.
“Considdering that St Paul callis the congregatioun the bodie of Chryst, wheirof everie ane of us is a member, teaching ws thairby that na member is of sufficience to susteane and feide the selfwithout the help and support of any uther, I think it necessarie that for the conferrence of scriptures, assemblies of brethren be had. The order thairin to be observit, is expressit be sanct paule, and thairfoir I neid not to use many wordis in that behalf: onlie willing that when ye convene, (whilk I wald wer anis a week,) that your begynning suld be fra confessing of your offences, and invocatioun of the spreit of the Lord Jesus to assist yow in all your godlie interprysis; and than lat sum place of scripture be planelie and distinctlie red, samekill as sal be thocht sufficient for a day or tyme, whilk endit, gif any brother have exhortation, interpretatioun, or dout, lat him not feir to speik and move the same, sa that he do it with moderatioun, either to edifie or be edifeit. And heirof I dout not but great profit sall schortlie ensew, for first be heiring, reiding, and conferring the scriptures in the assemblie, the haill bodie of the scriptures of God salbecum familiar, the judgement and spreitis of men salbe tryit, thair pacience and modestie salbe knawin, and finallie thair giftis and utterance sall appeir. Multiplicatioun of wordis, perplext interpretatioun, and wilfulnes in reasonyng is to be avoydit at all tymes and in all places, but chieflie in the congregatioun, whair nathing aucht to be respectit except the glorie of God, and comfort or edificatioun of our brethrene. Yf any thing occur within the text, or yit arys in reasonyng, whilk your judgementis can not resolve, or capacities aprehend, let the same be notit and put in wryt befoir ye depart the congregatioun, that when God sall offir unto yow any interpreter your doutis being notit and knawin, may have the mair expedit resolutioun, or els that when ye sall have occasion to wryt to sic as with whome ye wald communicat your judgementis, your letteris may signifie and declair your unfeaned desyre that ye haue of God and of his trew knawledge, and thay, I dout not, according to thair talentis, will indeuour and bestow thair faithfull labors, [to] satisfie your godlie petitionis. Of myself I will speak as I think, I will moir gladlie spend xv houris in communicatting my judgement with yow, in explainyng as God pleasis to oppin to me anyplace of scripture, than half ane hour in any other matter besyd.
“Farther, in reading the scripture I wald ye suld joyne sumbukis of the ald and sum of the new Testament together, as genesis and ane of the evangelistis, exodus with another, and sa furth, euer ending sic bukis as ye begyn, (as the tyme will suffer,) for it sall greitly comfort yow to heir that harmony and weiltunit sang of the halie spreit speiking in oure fatheris frome the begyning. It sall confirme yow in theis dangerous and perrellous dayis, to behald the face of Christ Jesus his loving spous and kirk, from Abell to him self, and frome him self to this day, in all ageis to be ane. Be frequent in the prophetis and in the epistillis of St Paul, for the multitude of matteris maist comfortable thairin conteanit requyreth exercis and gud memorie. Lyke as your assemblis aucht to begyn with confessioun and invocatioun of Godis halie spreit, sa wald I that thay wer never finissit without thanksgiving and commoun prayeris for princes, rulers, and maiestratis, for the libertie and frie passage of Chrystis evangell, for the comfort and delyverance of our afflictit brethrene in all places now persecutit, but maist cruellie now within the realme of France and Ingland, and for sic uther thingis, as the spreit of the Lord Jesus sal teache unto yow to be profitable ether to your selues, or yit to your brethren whairsoeuer thay be. If this, or better, dear brethrene, I sall heir that ye exercise your selues, then will I prais God for your great obedience, as for thame that not onlie haue ressavit the word of grace with gladnes, but that also with cair and diligence do keip the same as a treasure and jewell maist precious. And becaus that I can not expect that ye will do the contrarie, at this present I will vse na threatenyngis, for my gud hoip is, that ye sall walk as the sonis of lyght in the middis of this wickit generatioun, that ye salbe as starris in the nyght ceassone, wha yit ar not changeit into darknes, that ye salbe as wheit amangis the kokill, and yit that ye sall not change your nature whilk ye haue ressavit be grace, through the fellowschip and participatioun whilk we haue with the Lord Jesus in his bodie and blud. And finallie, that ye salbe of the novmber of the prvdent virginis, daylie renewing your lampis with oyle, as thai that pacientlie abyd the glorious aparitioun and cuming of the Lord Jesus, whais omnipotent spreit rule and instruct, illuminat and comfort your hartis and myndis in all assaltis, now and euer. Amen. The grace of theLord Jesus rest with yow. Remember my weaknes in your daylie prayeris, the 7 of July 1557.
“Your brother vnfeaned Johnne Knox.”
MS. Letters, p. 352–359.
Note AA.William Whittingham, the successor of Knox at Geneva, was the son of William Whittingham, Esq. of Holmeside, in the county of Chester. He was born anno 1524, and educated at Oxford, where he was held in great reputation for his learning. On the accession of queen Mary, he went first to Frankfort, and afterwards to Geneva, where he married Catherine, the sister of John Calvin. He was one of the translators of the Geneva Bible, and composed several of the metrical psalms published at the same time, which have his initials prefixed to them. He fell under the displeasure of queen Elizabeth, on account of a commendatory preface which he wrote to Christopher Goodman’s book on Obedience to Superior Powers, in which, among other free sentiments, female government was condemned. But he enjoyed the protection of some of her principal courtiers. In 1560, he accompanied the earl of Bedford on an embassy to France, and, in 1562 and 1563, acted as chaplain to the earl of Warwick, during the defence of Havre de Grace. That brave nobleman was at a loss for words to express his high esteem of him. In a letter to Cecil, Nov. 20, 1562, Warwick writes: “I assure yow, we may all here thinck our selves happy in having soch a man amongest us as Mr Whyttingham is, not only for the greate vertues in him, but lykewise for the care he hath to serve our mistris besydes: wherfore, in my opynion, he doth well deserve grete thankes at her majesties handis.” And in a letter written by him, July 24, 1563, when he was in daily expectation of an assault by the French, he says to his brother, lord Robert Dudley, afterwards earl of Leicester; “My deare brother, for that I had, in my letter to the quene’s majesty, forgot my humblest thancks for the behalff of my deare frinde Mr Whittingam, for the great favour it hath pleased her to shew him for my sake: I besetch yow therefore do not forget to render them unto hermajesty. Farewell, my deare and loving brother, a thousand tymes, and the Lord send you well to do.” Forbes, State Papers, ii. 207, 418, 487.In 1563, Whittingham was made dean of Durham, which seems to have been the favour for which Warwick was so grateful to Elizabeth. I have already mentioned (p. 56) that an unsuccessful attempt was made to invalidate the ordination which he had received at Geneva. On that occasion, Dr Hutton, dean of York, told archbishop Sandys, that Whittingham “was ordained in a better manner than even the archbishop himself;” and the lord president said, he could not in conscience agree to “allow of the popish massing priests in our ministry, and to disallow of ministers made in a reformed church.” Whittingham never conformed fully to the English church, and died in 1579. Hutchinson’s History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, ii. 143–152, 378.
Note AA.
William Whittingham, the successor of Knox at Geneva, was the son of William Whittingham, Esq. of Holmeside, in the county of Chester. He was born anno 1524, and educated at Oxford, where he was held in great reputation for his learning. On the accession of queen Mary, he went first to Frankfort, and afterwards to Geneva, where he married Catherine, the sister of John Calvin. He was one of the translators of the Geneva Bible, and composed several of the metrical psalms published at the same time, which have his initials prefixed to them. He fell under the displeasure of queen Elizabeth, on account of a commendatory preface which he wrote to Christopher Goodman’s book on Obedience to Superior Powers, in which, among other free sentiments, female government was condemned. But he enjoyed the protection of some of her principal courtiers. In 1560, he accompanied the earl of Bedford on an embassy to France, and, in 1562 and 1563, acted as chaplain to the earl of Warwick, during the defence of Havre de Grace. That brave nobleman was at a loss for words to express his high esteem of him. In a letter to Cecil, Nov. 20, 1562, Warwick writes: “I assure yow, we may all here thinck our selves happy in having soch a man amongest us as Mr Whyttingham is, not only for the greate vertues in him, but lykewise for the care he hath to serve our mistris besydes: wherfore, in my opynion, he doth well deserve grete thankes at her majesties handis.” And in a letter written by him, July 24, 1563, when he was in daily expectation of an assault by the French, he says to his brother, lord Robert Dudley, afterwards earl of Leicester; “My deare brother, for that I had, in my letter to the quene’s majesty, forgot my humblest thancks for the behalff of my deare frinde Mr Whittingam, for the great favour it hath pleased her to shew him for my sake: I besetch yow therefore do not forget to render them unto hermajesty. Farewell, my deare and loving brother, a thousand tymes, and the Lord send you well to do.” Forbes, State Papers, ii. 207, 418, 487.
In 1563, Whittingham was made dean of Durham, which seems to have been the favour for which Warwick was so grateful to Elizabeth. I have already mentioned (p. 56) that an unsuccessful attempt was made to invalidate the ordination which he had received at Geneva. On that occasion, Dr Hutton, dean of York, told archbishop Sandys, that Whittingham “was ordained in a better manner than even the archbishop himself;” and the lord president said, he could not in conscience agree to “allow of the popish massing priests in our ministry, and to disallow of ministers made in a reformed church.” Whittingham never conformed fully to the English church, and died in 1579. Hutchinson’s History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, ii. 143–152, 378.
Note BB.Aylmer’s Sentiments respecting the English Constitution.—The view which Aylmer has given of the English constitution is very different from that which Mr Hume has laboured to establish, by dwelling upon some arbitrary measures of the house of Tudor. As his work is seldom consulted, I may be excused for inserting a few extracts from it on this subject. It will be seen that he carefully distinguishes between the principles of the constitution, and those proceedings which were at variance with them. “But if this be utterly taken from them [women] in this place, what maketh it against their government in a politike weale, where neither the woman nor the man ruleth (if there be no tyrants), but the laws. For, as Plato saith,Illi civitati paratum est exitium ubi magistratus legibus imperat, et non leges magistratui: That city is at the pit’s brinke, wherein the magistrate ruleth the lawes, and not the lawes the magistrate.” And a little afterwards: “Well; a woman may not reigne in Englande. Better in Englande, than any where, as it shall wel appere to him that, with out affection, will consider the kind of regimen. Whyle I confer ours with other (as it is in itselfe, and not mained by usurpacion), I can find none either so good orso indifferent. The regemente of Englande is not a mere monarchie, as some for lacke of consideracion thinke, nor a mere oligarchie nor democratie, but a rule mixed of all these, wherein ech one of these have or should have like authoritie. The image whereof, and not the image, but the thinge in dede, is to be sene in the parliament hous, wherein you shall find these 3 estats; the king or quene which representeth the monarche, the noblemen which be the aristocratie, and the burgesses and knights the democratcie.—If the parliament use their privileges, the king can ordain nothing without them: If he do, it is his fault in usurping it, and their fault in permitting it. Wherefore, in my judgment, those that in king Henry the VIII.’s daies would not grant him that his proclamations should have the force of a statute, were good fathers of the countrie, and worthy commendacion in defending their liberty. Wold God that that court of late daies had feared no more the farceness of a woman, than they did the displeasure of such a man. Then should they not have stouped, contrary to their othes and alledgeaunce to the crowne, against the privilege of that house, upon their marye bones to receive the devil’s blessenge brought unto them by Satan’s apostle, the cardinal. God forgeve him for the doing, and them for obeying! But to what purpose is all this? To declare that it is not in England so daungerous a matter to have a woman ruler, as men take it to be.—If, on thother part, the regement were such as all hanged upon the king’s or quene’s wil, and not upon the lawes written; if she might decre and make lawes alone, without her senate; if she judged offences according to her wisdom, and not by limitation of statutes and laws; if she might dispose alone of war and peace; if, to be short, she wer a mer monarch, and not a mixed ruler, you might peradventure make me to fear the matter the more, and the less to defend the cause.” Harborowe for Faithfull and Trew Subjects. H. 2 & 3.
Note BB.
Aylmer’s Sentiments respecting the English Constitution.—The view which Aylmer has given of the English constitution is very different from that which Mr Hume has laboured to establish, by dwelling upon some arbitrary measures of the house of Tudor. As his work is seldom consulted, I may be excused for inserting a few extracts from it on this subject. It will be seen that he carefully distinguishes between the principles of the constitution, and those proceedings which were at variance with them. “But if this be utterly taken from them [women] in this place, what maketh it against their government in a politike weale, where neither the woman nor the man ruleth (if there be no tyrants), but the laws. For, as Plato saith,Illi civitati paratum est exitium ubi magistratus legibus imperat, et non leges magistratui: That city is at the pit’s brinke, wherein the magistrate ruleth the lawes, and not the lawes the magistrate.” And a little afterwards: “Well; a woman may not reigne in Englande. Better in Englande, than any where, as it shall wel appere to him that, with out affection, will consider the kind of regimen. Whyle I confer ours with other (as it is in itselfe, and not mained by usurpacion), I can find none either so good orso indifferent. The regemente of Englande is not a mere monarchie, as some for lacke of consideracion thinke, nor a mere oligarchie nor democratie, but a rule mixed of all these, wherein ech one of these have or should have like authoritie. The image whereof, and not the image, but the thinge in dede, is to be sene in the parliament hous, wherein you shall find these 3 estats; the king or quene which representeth the monarche, the noblemen which be the aristocratie, and the burgesses and knights the democratcie.—If the parliament use their privileges, the king can ordain nothing without them: If he do, it is his fault in usurping it, and their fault in permitting it. Wherefore, in my judgment, those that in king Henry the VIII.’s daies would not grant him that his proclamations should have the force of a statute, were good fathers of the countrie, and worthy commendacion in defending their liberty. Wold God that that court of late daies had feared no more the farceness of a woman, than they did the displeasure of such a man. Then should they not have stouped, contrary to their othes and alledgeaunce to the crowne, against the privilege of that house, upon their marye bones to receive the devil’s blessenge brought unto them by Satan’s apostle, the cardinal. God forgeve him for the doing, and them for obeying! But to what purpose is all this? To declare that it is not in England so daungerous a matter to have a woman ruler, as men take it to be.—If, on thother part, the regement were such as all hanged upon the king’s or quene’s wil, and not upon the lawes written; if she might decre and make lawes alone, without her senate; if she judged offences according to her wisdom, and not by limitation of statutes and laws; if she might dispose alone of war and peace; if, to be short, she wer a mer monarch, and not a mixed ruler, you might peradventure make me to fear the matter the more, and the less to defend the cause.” Harborowe for Faithfull and Trew Subjects. H. 2 & 3.
Note CC.Female Supremacy.—“Our countryman, John Knox, has been much censured for want of civility and politeness to the fair sex; and particularly for sounding a first and second ‘blast of the trumpetagainst the monstrous regiment of women.’ He was indeed no milksop courtier, who can sacrifice the public weal to the punctilios of politeness, or consider the interests of nations as a point of gallantry. His reasons for the abolition of all female government, if they are not entirely convincing, may be allowed at least to be specious; and might well be indulged as a harmless speculative opinion in one who was disposed as he was to make no bad use of it in practice, and to give all dutiful respect to whomsoever the will of God and the commonwealth had assigned the sovereign power. But though the point may be conceded in regard to secular government, in ordering of which the constitutions and customs and mere pleasure of communities may be allowed to establish what is not morally evil; it will not follow that the essential order and positive law of the spiritual kingdom may also be sported with, and subverted.—Let the English, if they please, admit a weak, fickle, freakish, bigoted, gallantish or imperious woman, to sway the sceptre of political dominion over millions of men, and even over her own husband in the crowd, to whom at the altar she had previously vowed obedience, they shall meet with no opposition from the presbyterians; provided they do not also authorize her to lord it, or lady it, over their faith and consciences, as well as over their bodies, goods, and chattels.“By the laws of the Romish church, no female can be admitted to a participation of clerical power. Not so much as the ancient order of deaconesses now remains in her.Her casuists have examined and debated this thesis, Whether a woman may have the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon her; and have determined it in the negative.490But of the philosophical dignity they are not quite so jealous.Helen Lucrecia Piscopia Cornaca, of famous memory, once applied for her degree in divinity in an Italian university; but cardinal Barbarigo, bishop of Padua, was far from being disposed to grant it; so that this learned lady was obliged to content herself with a doctorate in philosophy, which, with universal applause, was actually conferred upon her, June 25, 1678.491But the English climate savours nothing of this Italianjealousy; nor are the divines in it so niggardly of their honours. We do not hear indeed that they have formally matriculated any ladies, in the universities, or obliged them, by canon, or act of parliament, to take out degrees, either in law, in philosophy, or divinity, to qualify them for ecclesiastical preferment, (even the highest pinnacle of it;) though their laws hold males utterly unqualified for holding any lucrative place in the church, or in ecclesiastic courts, without these: Nor can a man be admitted to the lowest curacy, or be fellow or student in a university, until he have learned and digested all the articles, homilies, canons, rubrics, modes, and figures of the church of England, as he cannot even be sergeant or exciseman, till he understand perfectly the superior devotion of kneeling above sitting. But it is very possible, though they do not bear the learned titles, the ladies may know as much of learning and divinity, as those who do. And though they may not receive ordination on Ember‑week for the inferior orders, yet it is enacted and provided, that one of their number may be raised at onceper saltum, not only above all the peers and peeresses, but over all the graduates, reverend dignitaries, and mitred heads in the kingdom. The solemn inaugurating unction once applied, thencedite Romani doctores, cedite graij. Henceforward, as the queen of Sheba came from the uttermost end of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and to have every enigma and hard question solved, so must every master, doctor, heads of universities, every diocesan and metropolitan, however wise, have recourse to their queen, by reference or appeal, with every difficult question, and every learned and deep controversy, and be responsible to her for their every decision. How flattering a constitution this to woman‑kind—if they be indeed so very fond of precedence and rule, as is commonly said! She must have an unreasonable and unbounded ambition indeed whom this will not content; though she should not be also further told in plain terms, that she is a goddess, and in her office superior to Christ; as some court‑clergymen have ventured to affirm of their visible head.”—A Historico‑Politico‑Ecclesiastical Dissertation on the Supremacy of Civil Powers in Matters of Religion, particularly the Ecclesiastical Supremacy annexed to the English Crown; by Archibald Bruce, Minister of the Gospel, p. 46–50. Edinburgh, 1802.
Note CC.
Female Supremacy.—“Our countryman, John Knox, has been much censured for want of civility and politeness to the fair sex; and particularly for sounding a first and second ‘blast of the trumpetagainst the monstrous regiment of women.’ He was indeed no milksop courtier, who can sacrifice the public weal to the punctilios of politeness, or consider the interests of nations as a point of gallantry. His reasons for the abolition of all female government, if they are not entirely convincing, may be allowed at least to be specious; and might well be indulged as a harmless speculative opinion in one who was disposed as he was to make no bad use of it in practice, and to give all dutiful respect to whomsoever the will of God and the commonwealth had assigned the sovereign power. But though the point may be conceded in regard to secular government, in ordering of which the constitutions and customs and mere pleasure of communities may be allowed to establish what is not morally evil; it will not follow that the essential order and positive law of the spiritual kingdom may also be sported with, and subverted.—Let the English, if they please, admit a weak, fickle, freakish, bigoted, gallantish or imperious woman, to sway the sceptre of political dominion over millions of men, and even over her own husband in the crowd, to whom at the altar she had previously vowed obedience, they shall meet with no opposition from the presbyterians; provided they do not also authorize her to lord it, or lady it, over their faith and consciences, as well as over their bodies, goods, and chattels.
“By the laws of the Romish church, no female can be admitted to a participation of clerical power. Not so much as the ancient order of deaconesses now remains in her.Her casuists have examined and debated this thesis, Whether a woman may have the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon her; and have determined it in the negative.490But of the philosophical dignity they are not quite so jealous.Helen Lucrecia Piscopia Cornaca, of famous memory, once applied for her degree in divinity in an Italian university; but cardinal Barbarigo, bishop of Padua, was far from being disposed to grant it; so that this learned lady was obliged to content herself with a doctorate in philosophy, which, with universal applause, was actually conferred upon her, June 25, 1678.491But the English climate savours nothing of this Italianjealousy; nor are the divines in it so niggardly of their honours. We do not hear indeed that they have formally matriculated any ladies, in the universities, or obliged them, by canon, or act of parliament, to take out degrees, either in law, in philosophy, or divinity, to qualify them for ecclesiastical preferment, (even the highest pinnacle of it;) though their laws hold males utterly unqualified for holding any lucrative place in the church, or in ecclesiastic courts, without these: Nor can a man be admitted to the lowest curacy, or be fellow or student in a university, until he have learned and digested all the articles, homilies, canons, rubrics, modes, and figures of the church of England, as he cannot even be sergeant or exciseman, till he understand perfectly the superior devotion of kneeling above sitting. But it is very possible, though they do not bear the learned titles, the ladies may know as much of learning and divinity, as those who do. And though they may not receive ordination on Ember‑week for the inferior orders, yet it is enacted and provided, that one of their number may be raised at onceper saltum, not only above all the peers and peeresses, but over all the graduates, reverend dignitaries, and mitred heads in the kingdom. The solemn inaugurating unction once applied, thencedite Romani doctores, cedite graij. Henceforward, as the queen of Sheba came from the uttermost end of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and to have every enigma and hard question solved, so must every master, doctor, heads of universities, every diocesan and metropolitan, however wise, have recourse to their queen, by reference or appeal, with every difficult question, and every learned and deep controversy, and be responsible to her for their every decision. How flattering a constitution this to woman‑kind—if they be indeed so very fond of precedence and rule, as is commonly said! She must have an unreasonable and unbounded ambition indeed whom this will not content; though she should not be also further told in plain terms, that she is a goddess, and in her office superior to Christ; as some court‑clergymen have ventured to affirm of their visible head.”—A Historico‑Politico‑Ecclesiastical Dissertation on the Supremacy of Civil Powers in Matters of Religion, particularly the Ecclesiastical Supremacy annexed to the English Crown; by Archibald Bruce, Minister of the Gospel, p. 46–50. Edinburgh, 1802.
Note DD.Of the Form of Prayer used in Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation.—It is natural to enquire here what is meant by the “buik of comon prayeris,” which the protestants, in 1557, agreed to use, or which was afterwards followed in their public worship. Was it the common prayer‑book of Edward VI., or was it a different one? This question was keenly canvassed, after the Revolution, by the Scottish episcopalians and presbyterians. Mr Sage, the most able champion of the episcopalians, insisted that it was the English liturgy, and endeavoured to prove that this was, during, “at least, seven years, in continued practice in Scotland,”i.e.from 1557 to 1564. Fundamental Charter of Presbytery Examined, p. 95–101, 349. 2d edit. Lond. 1697. Mr Anderson, minister of Dumbarton, who was the most acute advocate of presbytery, answered this part of the Fundamental Charter, and adduced a number of arguments to prove that it was the liturgy, not of Edward VI., but of the English church at Geneva, of which Knox was minister, which was used in Scotland from the time that protestant congregations were formed in this country. The Countreyman’s Letter to the Curat, p. 65–77, printed in 1711. I shall state a few facts, without entering into reasoning. Mr Anderson says, that he had in his possession a copy, in Latin, of the liturgy used in the English church at Frankfort, the preface of which bears date the 1st of September, 1554. He adds, that this had been translated from English into Latin; and that the prayers in it are exactly the same with those which are found in the Order of Geneva, afterwards adopted by the Scottish church; only there are some additional prayers in the latter accommodated to the circumstances of Scotland. Ibid. p. 64. This must have been the form of worship agreed on by the exiles immediately after their arrival at Frankfort. Troubles of Franckford, p. 7. Before the end of that year, the form of worship observed by the Genevan church was printed in English. Ibid. p. 27. In the beginning of the following year, the form afterwards used by the English church at Geneva was composed, which differed very little from that whichwas first used at Frankfort. Ibid. p. 37. This was printed in the beginning of 1556. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 401. It is not unlikely that Knox, in his visit to Scotland, in 1555, would carry with him copies of the two former liturgies, and that he would send copies of the latter, on his return to Geneva. After all, I think it extremely probable, that copies of the liturgy of Edward VI. were still more numerous in Scotland at that time, and that they were used by some of the protestants at the beginning of the Reformation. This appears from a letter of Cecil to Throkmorton, 9th July, 1559. “The protestants be at Edynborough. They offer no violence, but dissolve religiose howsees; directyng the lands thereof to the crowne, and to ministery in the chirch. The parish churchees they delyver of altars and imagees, and have receved the service of the church of England, accordyng to King Edward’s Booke.” Forbes’s State Papers, i. 155. Another thing which inclines me to think that the English liturgy was in the eye of those who made the agreement in Dec. 1557 is, that they mention the reading of “thelessonisof the New and Auld Testament,conformeto the ordour of the Buik of Commoun‑Prayeris.” Anderson gives a quotation from the preface to the Frankfort liturgy, in which the compilers vindicate themselves against the objection, that they had omitted the reading of the gospels and epistles, by saying that they read in order not only these, but all the books of scripture. And he insists that by the “lessonis of the New and Auld Testament,” our reformers meant no more than the reading of the scriptures in general. This reply does not appear to me satisfactory.But though the Scottish protestants, at that time, agreed to make use of the prayers and scripture‑lessons contained in the English liturgy, it cannot be inferred from this, that they approved of it without limitations, or that they meant to bind themselves to all its forms and ceremonies. The contrary is evident. It appoints lessons to be read from the apocrypha; but they expressly confined their reading to “the lessons of the New and Old Testament.” A great part of the English liturgy can be read by a priest only; but all that they proposed to use could be performed by “the most qualifeit in the parochin,” provided the curate refused, or was unqualified. I need scarcely add, that, if they had adopted thatliturgy without qualification, their invitation to Knox must have come with a very bad grace. It must have been to this purpose, (to use Mr Anderson’s words,) “Pray, good Mr Knox, come over and help us; and for your encouragement against you come, you shall find the English liturgy, against which you preached in Scotland, against which you declared before the counsel of England, for opposing which you were brought in danger of your neck at Francford; this English liturgy you shall find the authorized form of worship, and that by an ordinance of our making.” The Countreyman’s Letter, ut supra, p. 69.We can trace back the use of the Book of Common Order, (or, Order of Geneva,) by the church of Scotland, from the year 1564. The General Assembly, Dec. 26, 1564, ordained “that everie minister, exhorter, and reader sall have one of the Psalme Bookes latelie printed in Edinburgh, and use the order contained therein in prayers, marriage, and ministration of the sacraments.” Keith, 538. This refers to the edition of the Geneva Order and Psalms, which had been printed during that year by Lepreuik. “In the generall assemblie convened at Edinr. in Decr1562, for printing of the psalmes, the kirk lent Rob. Lickprivick, printer, tva hundreth pounds, to help to buy irons, ink, and papper, and to fie craftesmen for printing.” Reasons for continuing the use of the old metrical Version of the Psalms, p. 232, of a MS. (written in 1632) belonging to Robert Græme, Esq. advocate. But although this was the first edition of the book printed in this country, it had been previously printed both at Geneva and in England; and was used in the church of Scotland. For in the assembly which met in Dec. 1562, it was concluded, “that an uniforme Order sould be keeped in ministration of the sacraments, solemnization of marriages, and burial of the dead, according to the Booke of Geneva.” Keith, 519. Petrie, part ii. p. 233. Nor was it then introduced for the first time; for the Abbot of Crossraguel, in a book set forth by him in 1561, mentions it as the established form of prayers at the time he wrote. “I will call to remembrance,” says he, “the sayings of quhilkis ar written to the redar, inthair bukecallitthe forme of prayeris, as eftir followis, viz. ‘As for the wourdis of the Lordis supper, we rehers thaim nocht bicaus thai sulde change thesubstance of the breid and wine, or that the repetitione tharof, with the entent of the sacrificear, sulde make the sacraments (as the papists falslie belevis).” Ane Oratioune be Master Quintine Kennedy, p. 15, Edin. 1812. The passage quoted by Kennedy is in the book of Common Order. Dunlop, ii. 454. The First Book of Discipline, framed in 1560, expressly approves of the Order of Geneva, which it calls “ourBook of Common Order,” and mentions its being “used in some of our churches,” previous to that period. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 520, 548, 583. From these facts it is evident that, although the scripture lessons and the prayers in the English liturgy were at first used by some of the Scottish protestants, yet they never received that book as a whole; that the Order of Geneva was introduced among them before the establishment of the Reformation; and that it became the universal form of worship as soon as a sufficient number of copies of it could be procured. If any other evidence of this were necessary, I might produce the testimony of Sir Francis Knollys, the English ambassador. When queen Mary fled into England, in 1568, she feigned her willingness to give up with the mass, and to adopt the English Common Prayer Book, provided Elizabeth would assist her in regaining her crown. Lord Herries having made this proposal in her name, Sir Francis replied, “that, yf he meant thereby to condempne the form and order of common prayer now used in Skotland, agreeable with divers well reformed churches,—or that he meant to expel all the learned preachers of Skotland, yff they would not return back to receave and wayr cornered capes and typpets, with surpless and coopes, which they have left by order contynually since their first receavyng of the gospel into that realme; then he myght so fyght for the shadow and image of religion that he myght bring the body and truth in danger.” Anderson’s Collections, vol. iv., part i., p. 110, 111.As this subject has been introduced, I may make an observation or two respecting the form of prayers used in the church of Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation. What has been called Knox’s Liturgy, was the Book of Common Order, first used by the English church at Geneva. It contains forms of prayers for the different parts of public worship; and this is the only resemblancewhich it hears to the English liturgy. But there is this important difference between the two: in the English, the minister is restricted to the repetition of the very words of the prayers; in the Scottish, he is left at liberty to vary from them, and to substitute prayers of his own in their room. The following quotations will exemplify the mode of the latter. “When the congregation is assembled at the houre appointed, the minister useth one of these two confessions,or like in effect.”—“The minister after the sermon useth this prayer following,or such like.” Similar declarations are prefixed to the prayers to be used at the celebration of baptism and of the Lord’s supper. And at the end of the account of the public service of the Sabbath this intimation is subjoined; “It shall not be necessarie for the minister daylie to repeat all these things before mentioned, but, beginning with some manner of confession, to proceed to the sermon, which ended, he either useth the prayer for all estates before mentioned, or else prayeth as the Spirit of God shall move his heart, framing the same according to the time and matter which he hath entreated of.” Knox’s Liturgy, p. 74, 83, 86, 120. Edin. 1611. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 417, 421, 426, 443, 450. And at the end of the Form of Excommunication, it is signified, “This order may be enlarged or contracted as the wisdome of the discreet minister shall think expedient; for we rather shew the way to the ignorant, than prescribe order to the learned that cannot be amended.” Dunlop, ii. 746. The Scottish prayers, therefore, were intended as a help to the ignorant, not as a restraint upon those who could pray without a set form. The readers and exhorters commonly used them; but even they were encouraged to perform the service in a different manner. Knox’s Liturgy, p. 189. Dunlop, ii. 694.
Note DD.
Of the Form of Prayer used in Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation.—It is natural to enquire here what is meant by the “buik of comon prayeris,” which the protestants, in 1557, agreed to use, or which was afterwards followed in their public worship. Was it the common prayer‑book of Edward VI., or was it a different one? This question was keenly canvassed, after the Revolution, by the Scottish episcopalians and presbyterians. Mr Sage, the most able champion of the episcopalians, insisted that it was the English liturgy, and endeavoured to prove that this was, during, “at least, seven years, in continued practice in Scotland,”i.e.from 1557 to 1564. Fundamental Charter of Presbytery Examined, p. 95–101, 349. 2d edit. Lond. 1697. Mr Anderson, minister of Dumbarton, who was the most acute advocate of presbytery, answered this part of the Fundamental Charter, and adduced a number of arguments to prove that it was the liturgy, not of Edward VI., but of the English church at Geneva, of which Knox was minister, which was used in Scotland from the time that protestant congregations were formed in this country. The Countreyman’s Letter to the Curat, p. 65–77, printed in 1711. I shall state a few facts, without entering into reasoning. Mr Anderson says, that he had in his possession a copy, in Latin, of the liturgy used in the English church at Frankfort, the preface of which bears date the 1st of September, 1554. He adds, that this had been translated from English into Latin; and that the prayers in it are exactly the same with those which are found in the Order of Geneva, afterwards adopted by the Scottish church; only there are some additional prayers in the latter accommodated to the circumstances of Scotland. Ibid. p. 64. This must have been the form of worship agreed on by the exiles immediately after their arrival at Frankfort. Troubles of Franckford, p. 7. Before the end of that year, the form of worship observed by the Genevan church was printed in English. Ibid. p. 27. In the beginning of the following year, the form afterwards used by the English church at Geneva was composed, which differed very little from that whichwas first used at Frankfort. Ibid. p. 37. This was printed in the beginning of 1556. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 401. It is not unlikely that Knox, in his visit to Scotland, in 1555, would carry with him copies of the two former liturgies, and that he would send copies of the latter, on his return to Geneva. After all, I think it extremely probable, that copies of the liturgy of Edward VI. were still more numerous in Scotland at that time, and that they were used by some of the protestants at the beginning of the Reformation. This appears from a letter of Cecil to Throkmorton, 9th July, 1559. “The protestants be at Edynborough. They offer no violence, but dissolve religiose howsees; directyng the lands thereof to the crowne, and to ministery in the chirch. The parish churchees they delyver of altars and imagees, and have receved the service of the church of England, accordyng to King Edward’s Booke.” Forbes’s State Papers, i. 155. Another thing which inclines me to think that the English liturgy was in the eye of those who made the agreement in Dec. 1557 is, that they mention the reading of “thelessonisof the New and Auld Testament,conformeto the ordour of the Buik of Commoun‑Prayeris.” Anderson gives a quotation from the preface to the Frankfort liturgy, in which the compilers vindicate themselves against the objection, that they had omitted the reading of the gospels and epistles, by saying that they read in order not only these, but all the books of scripture. And he insists that by the “lessonis of the New and Auld Testament,” our reformers meant no more than the reading of the scriptures in general. This reply does not appear to me satisfactory.
But though the Scottish protestants, at that time, agreed to make use of the prayers and scripture‑lessons contained in the English liturgy, it cannot be inferred from this, that they approved of it without limitations, or that they meant to bind themselves to all its forms and ceremonies. The contrary is evident. It appoints lessons to be read from the apocrypha; but they expressly confined their reading to “the lessons of the New and Old Testament.” A great part of the English liturgy can be read by a priest only; but all that they proposed to use could be performed by “the most qualifeit in the parochin,” provided the curate refused, or was unqualified. I need scarcely add, that, if they had adopted thatliturgy without qualification, their invitation to Knox must have come with a very bad grace. It must have been to this purpose, (to use Mr Anderson’s words,) “Pray, good Mr Knox, come over and help us; and for your encouragement against you come, you shall find the English liturgy, against which you preached in Scotland, against which you declared before the counsel of England, for opposing which you were brought in danger of your neck at Francford; this English liturgy you shall find the authorized form of worship, and that by an ordinance of our making.” The Countreyman’s Letter, ut supra, p. 69.
We can trace back the use of the Book of Common Order, (or, Order of Geneva,) by the church of Scotland, from the year 1564. The General Assembly, Dec. 26, 1564, ordained “that everie minister, exhorter, and reader sall have one of the Psalme Bookes latelie printed in Edinburgh, and use the order contained therein in prayers, marriage, and ministration of the sacraments.” Keith, 538. This refers to the edition of the Geneva Order and Psalms, which had been printed during that year by Lepreuik. “In the generall assemblie convened at Edinr. in Decr1562, for printing of the psalmes, the kirk lent Rob. Lickprivick, printer, tva hundreth pounds, to help to buy irons, ink, and papper, and to fie craftesmen for printing.” Reasons for continuing the use of the old metrical Version of the Psalms, p. 232, of a MS. (written in 1632) belonging to Robert Græme, Esq. advocate. But although this was the first edition of the book printed in this country, it had been previously printed both at Geneva and in England; and was used in the church of Scotland. For in the assembly which met in Dec. 1562, it was concluded, “that an uniforme Order sould be keeped in ministration of the sacraments, solemnization of marriages, and burial of the dead, according to the Booke of Geneva.” Keith, 519. Petrie, part ii. p. 233. Nor was it then introduced for the first time; for the Abbot of Crossraguel, in a book set forth by him in 1561, mentions it as the established form of prayers at the time he wrote. “I will call to remembrance,” says he, “the sayings of quhilkis ar written to the redar, inthair bukecallitthe forme of prayeris, as eftir followis, viz. ‘As for the wourdis of the Lordis supper, we rehers thaim nocht bicaus thai sulde change thesubstance of the breid and wine, or that the repetitione tharof, with the entent of the sacrificear, sulde make the sacraments (as the papists falslie belevis).” Ane Oratioune be Master Quintine Kennedy, p. 15, Edin. 1812. The passage quoted by Kennedy is in the book of Common Order. Dunlop, ii. 454. The First Book of Discipline, framed in 1560, expressly approves of the Order of Geneva, which it calls “ourBook of Common Order,” and mentions its being “used in some of our churches,” previous to that period. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 520, 548, 583. From these facts it is evident that, although the scripture lessons and the prayers in the English liturgy were at first used by some of the Scottish protestants, yet they never received that book as a whole; that the Order of Geneva was introduced among them before the establishment of the Reformation; and that it became the universal form of worship as soon as a sufficient number of copies of it could be procured. If any other evidence of this were necessary, I might produce the testimony of Sir Francis Knollys, the English ambassador. When queen Mary fled into England, in 1568, she feigned her willingness to give up with the mass, and to adopt the English Common Prayer Book, provided Elizabeth would assist her in regaining her crown. Lord Herries having made this proposal in her name, Sir Francis replied, “that, yf he meant thereby to condempne the form and order of common prayer now used in Skotland, agreeable with divers well reformed churches,—or that he meant to expel all the learned preachers of Skotland, yff they would not return back to receave and wayr cornered capes and typpets, with surpless and coopes, which they have left by order contynually since their first receavyng of the gospel into that realme; then he myght so fyght for the shadow and image of religion that he myght bring the body and truth in danger.” Anderson’s Collections, vol. iv., part i., p. 110, 111.
As this subject has been introduced, I may make an observation or two respecting the form of prayers used in the church of Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation. What has been called Knox’s Liturgy, was the Book of Common Order, first used by the English church at Geneva. It contains forms of prayers for the different parts of public worship; and this is the only resemblancewhich it hears to the English liturgy. But there is this important difference between the two: in the English, the minister is restricted to the repetition of the very words of the prayers; in the Scottish, he is left at liberty to vary from them, and to substitute prayers of his own in their room. The following quotations will exemplify the mode of the latter. “When the congregation is assembled at the houre appointed, the minister useth one of these two confessions,or like in effect.”—“The minister after the sermon useth this prayer following,or such like.” Similar declarations are prefixed to the prayers to be used at the celebration of baptism and of the Lord’s supper. And at the end of the account of the public service of the Sabbath this intimation is subjoined; “It shall not be necessarie for the minister daylie to repeat all these things before mentioned, but, beginning with some manner of confession, to proceed to the sermon, which ended, he either useth the prayer for all estates before mentioned, or else prayeth as the Spirit of God shall move his heart, framing the same according to the time and matter which he hath entreated of.” Knox’s Liturgy, p. 74, 83, 86, 120. Edin. 1611. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 417, 421, 426, 443, 450. And at the end of the Form of Excommunication, it is signified, “This order may be enlarged or contracted as the wisdome of the discreet minister shall think expedient; for we rather shew the way to the ignorant, than prescribe order to the learned that cannot be amended.” Dunlop, ii. 746. The Scottish prayers, therefore, were intended as a help to the ignorant, not as a restraint upon those who could pray without a set form. The readers and exhorters commonly used them; but even they were encouraged to perform the service in a different manner. Knox’s Liturgy, p. 189. Dunlop, ii. 694.