Note Note A — PERIOD IX. FROM OCTOBER 1570, WHEN HE WAS STRUCK WITH APOPLEXY, TO HIS DEATH, IN NOVEMBER 1572. (continued 2)

I shall, in this note, add some particulars respecting the early practice of the reformed church of Scotland, under the following heads:

Of Doctors.—The doctrine of the church of Scotland, and indeed of other reformed churches, on this head, has not been very uniform and decided. The first Book of Discipline does not mention doctors, but it seems to take for granted what has been stated respecting them in the Book of Common Order, where they are declared to be “a fourth kind of ministers left to the church of Christ,” although the English church at Geneva could not attain them. Knox’s Liturgy, p. 14. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 409, 410. In the second Book of Discipline, the office of doctor is expressly mentioned as “ane of the twa ordinar and perpetual functions that travel in the world,” and “different from the pastor, not only in name, but in diversity of gifts.” The doctor is to “assist the pastor in the government of the kirk, and concur with the elders his brethren in all assemblies,” but not “to minister the sacraments or celebrate marriage.” Dunlop, ii. 773, 774. The Book of Common Order and second Book of Discipline agree in comprehending, under the name and office of a doctor, “the order in schooles, colledges, and universities.” Ibid. The fact seems to be, that there never were any doctors in the church of Scotland, except the teachers of divinity in the universities. “Quamvis ecclesia nostra,” says Calderwood, “post primam reformationem, quatuor agnoscat ministrorum genera, pastorum, doctorum, presbyterorum, et diaconorum, tamen doctores alios nondum habuit quam scholarchas.” De Regimine Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ Brevis Relatio, p. 1, 2. Anno, 1618. Some writers have asserted, that it was as doctors that Buchanan and Andrew Melville sat, and sometimes presided, in the church courts. The episcopalians having objected, that the church of Scotland admitted persons to act as moderators in her assemblies who were in no ecclesiastical office, and having appealed to the instances of the two persons above mentioned, Mr Baillie gives this answer: “Mr Melvil was a doctor of divinity, and so long as episcopal persecution permitted, did sit with great renowne in the prime chair we had of that faculty: George Buchanan had sometimes, as I have heard, been a preacher at St Andrews: after his long travells he was employed by our church and state to be a teacher to king James and his family: of his faithfulnesse in this charge he left, I believe, to the world good and satisfactory tokens: the eminency of this person was so great, that no society of men need be ashamed to have been moderated by his wisdome.” Historical Vindication, p. 21, 22. The report which Mr Baillie had heard of Buchanan having been a preacher, probably originated from the divinity lectures which Calderwood informs us he read with great applause in the university of St Andrews. “Buchanan and Mr Melvill were doctors of divinity,” says Rutherford, in his Lex Rex, pref. p. 5. Lond. 1644.

Of Readers.—Those employed as readers appear to have often transgressed the bounds prescribed to them, and to have both solemnized marriage, and administered the sacraments. Different acts of Assembly were made to restrain these excesses. The General Assembly, in October 1576, prohibited all readers from ministering “the holie sacrament of the Lord, except such as hes the word of exhortation.” The Assembly which met in July 1579 inhibited them from celebrating marriage, unless they were found meet by “the commission, or synodal assembly.” At length, in April 1581, the order was suppressed. “Anent readers: Forsamekle as in assemblies preceding, the office thereof was concludit to be no ordinar office in the kirk of God, and the admission of them suspendit to the present assemblie, the kirk in ane voyce hes votit and concludit farder, that in na tymes coming any reider be admitted to the office of reider, be any having power within the kirk.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, in loc.

Of Superintendents.—The church of Scotland did not consider superintendents as ordinary or permanent office‑bearers in the church. They are not mentioned in the Book of Common Order. The first Book of Discipline explicitly declares, that their appointment was a matter of temporary expedience, for the plantation of the church, and on account of the paucity of ministers. Its words are, “Because we have appointed a larger stipend to them that shall be superintendents than to the rest of the ministers, we have thought good to signifie to your honours such reasons as moved us to make difference betwixt teachers at this time.” And again: “We consider that if the ministers whom God hath endowed with his singular graces amongst us should be appointed to several places, there to make their continual residence, that then the greatest part of the realme should be destitute of all doctrine; which should not onely be the occasion of great murmur, but also be dangerous to the salvation of many. And therefore we have thought it a thing most expedient at this time, that from the whole number of godly and learned men, now presently in this realm, be selected ten or twelve, (for in so many provinces we have divided the whole,) to whom charge and commandment should be given, to plant and erect kirkes, to set, order, and appoint ministers, as the former order prescribes, to the countries that shall be appointed to their care where none are now.” First and second Books of Discipline, p. 35, printed anno 1621. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 538, 539. Archbishop Spotswood has not acted faithfully, if his History has been printed, in this place, exactly according to his manuscript. He has omitted the passages above quoted, and has comprehended the whole of the two paragraphs from which they are extracted in a short sentence of his own, which is far from being a full expression of the meaning of the compilers. History, p. 158. Lond. 1677. This is the more inexcusable as he says, that for “the clearing of many questions which were afterwards agitated in the church,” he “thought meet word by word to insert the same [the First Book of Discipline] that the reader may see what were the grounds laid down at first for the government of the church.” Ibid. p. 152. He could not be ignorant that the grounds of the appointment of superintendents formed one of the principal questions agitated between him and his anti‑episcopal opponents. I have examined the copy of the First Book of Discipline, inserted in an old MS. copy of Knox’s Historie, and find that it exactly agrees with the quotations which I have made from the editions published in 1621, and by Dunlop. Dr Robertson has been misled by the archbishop. “On the first introduction of his system,” says he, “Knox did not deem it expedient to depart altogether from the ancient form. Instead of bishops, he proposed to establish ten or twelve superintendents in different parts of the kingdom.” As his authority for this statement, he refers solely to the mutilated account in Spotswood. Hist. of Scotland, ii. 42, 43. Lond. 1809. Mr Laing, from an examination of the original documents, has given a more accurate account, and pronounced the appointment of superintendents to have been a “temporary expedient.” History of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 17, 18. Lond. 1804.

The superintendents were elected and admitted in the same manner as other pastors. Knox, 263. They were equally subject to rebuke, suspension, and deposition, as the rest of the ministers of the church. In the examination of those whom they admitted to the ministry, they were bound to associate with them the ministers of the neighbouring parishes. They could not exercise any spiritual jurisdiction without the consent of the provincial synods, over which they had no negative voice. They were accountable to the General Assembly for the whole of their conduct. The laborious task imposed upon them is what few bishops have ever submitted to. “They must be preachers themselves;” they are charged to “remain in no place above twenty daies in their visitation, till they are passed through their whole bounds.” They “must thrice everie week preach at the least.” When they return to their principal town of residence, “they must likewise be exercised in preaching;” and having remained in it “three or foure monthes at most, they shall be compelled (unless by sicknesse they be retained) to re‑enter in visitation.” Dunlop, ii. 542. De Regimine Eccles. Scotican. Brevis Relatio, p. 5, 6. Epistolæ Philadelphi Vindiciæ contra calumnias Spotswodi: Altare Damascenum, p. 724‒727. Lugd. Batav. 1708. In the last mentioned tract (of which Calderwood was the author) the difference between the Scottish superintendents and Anglican bishops is drawn out under thirteen heads. Spotswood’s treatise is entitled, Refutatio Libelli de Regimine Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ. Lond. 1620.

The visitors or commissioners of provinces exercised the same power as the superintendents; the only difference between them was, that the former received their commission from one assembly to another. Altare Damascenum, p. 727. But these commissions appear sometimes to have been granted for a longer period; for one of Robert Pont’s titles was Commissioner of Murray. Perhaps, in this case, a commissioner differed from a superintendent, merely in not being obliged to have his stated residence within the bounds of the province committed to his inspection.

Of the weekly Exercise or Prophesying.—This was an exercise on the scriptures, intended for the improvement of ministers, the trial of the gifts of those who might afterwards be employed in the service of the church, and the general instruction of the people. It was to be held in every town “where schools and repaire of learned men are.” For conducting the exercise, there was an association of the ministers, and other learned men, in the town and vicinity, called “the company of interpreters.” They alternately expounded a passage of scripture; and others who were present were encouraged to deliver their sentiments. After the exercise was finished, the constituent members of the association retired, and delivered their judgment on the discourses which had been delivered. Books of Discipline, ut supra, p. 60‒62. Dunlop, ii. 587‒591. After the erection of regular presbyteries, this exercise formed an important part of their employment; and at every meeting, two of the members by turns were accustomed to expound the scriptures. De Regimine Eccl. Scot. Brevis Relatio, p. 3. Until lately traces of this ancient practice remained, and there is reason to regret that it has generally gone into desuetude among presbyterian bodies. Associations of the same kind were formed in England. From 1571 to 1576, they spread through that kingdom, and were patronized by the bishops of London, Winton, Bath and Wells, Litchfield, Gloucester, Lincoln, Chichester, Exon, St David’s, by Sandys, archbishop of York, and by Grindal, archbishop of Canterbury. Several of the courtiers, as Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir Francis Knollys, and Sir Thomas Smith, greatly approved of them; and, at a future period, they were recommended to king James by lord Bacon. But they were suppressed by an imperious mandate from Elizabeth. Some interesting particulars respecting their number, regulations, and suppression, may be seen in Strype’s Annals, ii. 90‒95, 219, 220, 318‒324, 486. Life of Grindal, p. 219‒227, 230, 299, 300. Life of Parker, 460‒462. They were formed on the model of the Scottish Exercises, and in their regulations, the very words of the First Book of Discipline are sometimes used. A species of ecclesiastical discipline was joined with them in some dioceses. I also observe a striking resemblance between the directions given by bishop Scambler for the celebration of the Lord’s supper, and the mode which was then used in Scotland, particularly as to the circumstances of two communions or ministrations on the same day, and the early hour of the service. Strype’s Annals, ii. 91, compared with Scott’s History of the Scottish Reformers, p. 192.

Keith has given a quotation from the MS. copy of Spotswood’s History, in which the archbishop signifies, that at the time of the compilation of the First Book of Discipline, several of the reformed ministers wished to retain the ancient polity, after removing the grosser corruptions and abuses, but that Knox overruled this motion. Keith, 492. But there is no trace, in the authentic documents of that period, of any diversity of opinion among the Scottish reformers on this head. The supposition is contradicted by Row, (see above, p. 4, 5,) and by their own language. Dunlop, iii. 518. Knox’s Historie, 282. It is probable that the archbishop’s story had its original at a later period, when the design of conforming the church of Scotland to the English model began to be entertained. I am not inclined to give much more credit to another tale of Spotswood, respecting a message which archbishop Hamilton is said to have sent to Knox by John Brand. History, 174. Keith, 495.