Part 31

“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.[490] But 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.[491] But the English climate savours nothing of this Italian {436} jealousy; 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 once _per 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, then _cedite 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.

{437} Note DD, Footnote 330.

_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 which {438} was 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 “the _lessonis_ of the New and Auld Testament, _conforme_ to 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 that {439} liturgy 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 Dec{r} 1562, 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, in _thair buke_ callit _the forme of prayeris_, as eftir followis, viz. ‘As for the wourdis of the Lordis supper, we rehers thaim nocht bicaus thai sulde change the {440} substance 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 “_our_ Book 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 resemblance {441} which 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 EE, Footnote 342.

_Of the Petitions presented by the Protestants to the Queen Regent. _――The petition which Sir James Sandilands presented, in the name of his brethren, contained five requests. 1. That, as by the laws of the land, they had, after long debate, obtained liberty to read the scriptures in their native language, it should also be lawful {442} for them to use, publicly or privately, “comoun prayaris in our vulgar toung.” 2. That if, in the course of reading the scriptures in their assemblies, any difficulty occurred, it should be lawful for any “qualifeit persone in knawledge” to explain it, subject to the judgment of “the maist godlie and maist learnit within the realme.” 3. “That the holy sacrament of baptisme may be used in the vulgar toung,” accompanied with instruction to the parties and to the church. 4. “That the sacrament of the Lordis supper, or of his most blessed body and blude, may likewise be ministrate in the vulgar toung, and in both kindis.” And _lastly_, “that the wicket, slanderous, and detestabill lyif of Prelatis, and of the stait ecclesiastical, may be so reformed that the pepill by thame have not occasioun, as of mony dayis they have had, to contempe their ministrie and the preiching, whairof they sould be messengers;” and to remove suspicion of interested motives in making this request, they add, “we ar content that not only the reulles and preceptis of the New Testament, but also the wryttings of the ancient Fatheris, and the godly approved lawis of Justiniane, decyde the controversie that is betwix us and thame.” Knox, Historie, p. 120, 121. Spotswood (p. 119) omits the article respecting baptism, and introduces another: “that the election of ministers should be according to the manner used in the primitive church.” See also Buchanani Oper. i. 311.

This petition discovers great moderation on the part of the protestants. Historians differ as to the precise time at which it was presented. Spotswood (p. 108) places his account of it after the martyrdom of Mill. And the writer of the Historie of the Estate of Scotland from 1559 to 1566 (p. 1) says that it was presented in July 1558. On the contrary, Knox (p. 120, 122) places it before the death of Mill. It is highly probable that the protestants petitioned the queen regent both before and after that event, and that on both occasions they employed Sir James Sandilands as their representative. In this light I have represented the matter in the text. But I am inclined, upon the whole, to consider Knox’s statement as the most correct. He had the best opportunity of ascertaining the fact. This was the part of his history which was first written by him, soon after his arrival in Scotland, when the transaction {443} must have been fresh in the recollection of all his associates. There is no reference in the petition to the illegal execution of Mill, which would scarcely have been omitted, if it had previously taken place. The objection urged by Keith, from the clause in the petition which supposes that the queen was married, does not appear to have great weight. The parliament, in December 1557, had agreed to the solemnization of the marriage; their commissioners had sailed for France, in February, to be present at the ceremony, which was appointed to take place on the 24th of April. In these circumstances the protestants might, without any impropriety, request that they should be allowed liberty to use the common prayers in the vulgar tongue, to the end that they might “be induced, in fervent and oft prayers, to commend unto God――the queen our soverane, hir honorabill and gracious husband,” &c. Keith is wrong when he says that Knox has fixed the execution of Mill “to the 8th of April, which was above two weeks before the queen’s marriage.” History, p. 80, note. Knox says he was put to death “the twentie aucht day of Aprylle,” which was four days after the marriage. Historie, p. 122.

After the martyrdom of Mill, the protestants renewed their application to the regent, with a warm remonstrance against the cruelty of the clergy. Knox, Historie, p. 122. As the parliament held in November 1558 was approaching, they delivered another petition to her, desiring that it should be laid before the meeting of the estates. In this they requested, that the laws, by which the clergy justified their severe and cruel proceedings against them, should be abrogated, or suspended until the present controversies in religion were regularly determined; or, if this could not be granted, that the clergy should not act as judges, but be obliged to sustain the character of accusers before a temporal judge, and that the same mode of defence should be granted to persons accused of heresy as in other criminal processes. Being persuaded by the promises of the regent to desist from laying this petition before that meeting of parliament, they substituted a protestation; in which they declared that, having waived urging their petitions from regard to the state of public affairs, they should not be liable to any penalties for using that liberty to which they had a just title, and for which they had {444} frequently petitioned, and that, if any tumult was excited by religious differences, or by violent attempts to reform those abuses in religion which were become intolerable, this should not be imputed to them, who had always requested an orderly reformation of these abuses, but to the persons who had resisted every attempt of this kind. Ibid. p. 122‒125. Spotswood, 119, 120.

Note FF, Footnote 360.

_Dissimulation of the Queen Regent._――I am sensible that my account of the conduct of the queen regent to the protestants differs from that which has been given by Dr Robertson. He imputes her change of measures entirely to the overruling influence of her brothers, and seems to acquit her of insincerity in the countenance which she had shown, and the promises which she had repeatedly made, to the protestant leaders. In any remarks which I shall make upon this account, I wish to be understood as not detracting in the slightest degree from the merit of his able, accurate, and luminous statement of the plans conceived by the princes of Lorrain. Having mentioned the first symptoms of the regent’s alienation from the reformers, Dr Robertson says: “In order to account for this, our historians do little more than produce the trite observation concerning the influence of prosperity to alter the character and corrupt the heart,” I do not know the particular historians to whom he may refer, but those of the protestant persuasion whom I have consulted, impute her change of conduct, not to the above cause, but to the circumstance of her having accomplished the great objects which she had in view, upon which she no longer stood in need of the assistance of the reformers. Accordingly, they charge her with duplicity in her former proceedings with them. Knox, 96, 110, 122, 125. Buchanan, i. 312. Spotswood, 117, 119, 120. I think they had good reasons for this charge. At a very early period, she gave a striking proof of her disposition and talent for the deepest dissimulation. I refer to her behaviour in the intercourse which she had with Sir Ralph Sadler, in 1543, on which occasion she acted a part not less important than cardinal Beatoun himself, threw the ambassador into the greatest perplexity, and {445} completely duped the English monarch. Sadler, i. 84‒88, 100, 111‒113, 249‒253. The governor wanted not reason to say, “as she is both subtle and wily, so she hath a vengeable engine and wit to work her purpose.” It is impossible to read the account of her smooth conduct to the reformers, without perceiving the art with which she acted. There is also reason for thinking that she was privy to the execution of Walter Mill, and had encouraged the archbishop of St Andrews to take that step. Indeed, in his letter to the Earl of Argyle, written a few weeks before that event, the archbishop expressly says, that she murmured heavily against him because he did not use severe measures to check the progress of heresy; and Argyle, in his answer, does not call this in question. Knox, 103, 108.