Presb. of Thurso in Caithnes.
M. George Lesly minister at Bower.
M. Iohn Smairt.
Iohn Murray of Pennyland, Elder.
Presb. of Kirkwal in Orkney.
M. David Watson minister at the Kirk of the Yle of Wastrey.
M. Walter Stewart minister at the Kirk of Suthronaldsay.
Note.—Since the first Part of this publication appeared, the second centenary of the Assembly 1638 has been celebrated at Glasgow and Edinburgh, (on 20th December 1838,) as well as in other considerable towns of Scotland; and this commemoration has been conducted with a degree of eclat unexampled perhaps within the memory of man, in reference to any ecclesiastical concerns. We are not called on to make any remarks as to the appropriateness and sound discrimination displayed in all these demonstrations; but we gladly avail ourselves of the present opportunity of enriching these pages with an extract from a speech made by the Rev. Dr. Lee, of Edinburgh, at Glasgow, on the occasion alluded to. We place it here in juxtaposition with the authentic list of the members of Assembly of 1638, because it affords the best illustration we could give of the composition of that Assembly, and is a satisfactory refutation of certain ignorant or malignant representations on the subject; and we are proud thus to record our respect for that excellent and accomplished gentleman, whose store of information, with regard to the history and constitution of the Church of Scotland, exceeds, we believe, that of any other individual, both for fulness and exactness:—
“If your time had permitted, I might have endeavoured to shew in what manner and degree the Assembly 1638, and those which followed after, as well as some which had preceded it half a century, contributed to the establishment of the highest and finest University education. Among the other great objects in which that Assembly so happily and successfully engaged, none was nearer their hearts, or better accomplished. It was their aim to establish all the Universities, Colleges, and Schools in a state of high efficiency; and, with this view, they reclaimed for the Church the power of visitation formerly exercised, that the religious character and consistent practice of all Principals, Regents, and Professors might be satisfactorily ascertained, as well as their aptitude for their stations; and that whatever was deficient might be supplied, and whatever was disordered or corrupt might be rectified.
“For this difficult undertaking, the members of that Assembly were generally qualified in no ordinary degree. It has, indeed, been alleged that a large proportion of the elders consisted of illiterate men. I have seen it asserted in several books of late, even in some written by Presbyterians, that many of those in that Assembly, who judged of the gravest questions concerning theological learning and soundness in the faith, could neither read nor write. There is no authority for this insinuation, except the random assertion of Bishop Burnet—supposed sometimes to have been a contemporary, though he was not born for five years afterwards—the value of whose testimony on this matter may easily be estimated by any one who observes what he has confidently, though most ignorantly and erroneously, stated, with respect to Ruling Elders—that the mixture of that class with the Ministers in Church Courts was then quite a new thing; for, though such officers had formerly been allowed to interfere in parochial discipline, ‘yet they never came to their Assemblies till the year 1638.’ So far is this from being true, that, from the very first, Elders had convened in great numbers with the Ministers at the General Assemblies—there was even a preponderance of them in the earliest of all the Assemblies, in 1560—insomuch that, long before Burnet wrote, or even was born, several Bishops of Scotland, such as Adamson and Maxwell, had published complaints against decisions of the Assembly, on the ground that they had been carried by the votes of Lay Elders, as they called them. If the Elders were unable to read or write, so much the less credit is due to the system of education which had prevailed nearly forty years before 1638, under auspices not Presbyterian; and so much the greater credit should be given to the Presbyterians for the improvements by means of which, as Burnet frankly confesses, they brought the people generally to a most surprising measure of knowledge, particularly on theological points, and to a corresponding measure of practical piety.
“But I think it of some consequence to vindicate the claims of the Assembly 1638 to the character of a learned Assembly. Well, then, what is the fact? It is ascertained that in that Assembly there were 140 Ministers; 2 Professors, not being ministers; and 98 Ruling Elders from Presbyteries and Burghs. Of these Ruling Elders, 17 were Noblemen of high rank; 9 were Knights; 25 were landed Proprietors, or lesser Barons, of such station as entitled them to sit in Parliament; and 47 were Burgesses, generally holding the principal offices of authority in their respective towns—men who were capable of representing their communities in the Parliament. There was not a peasant, as has been insinuated, or even a farmer or yeoman, in the number. About the least considerable persons present were, Mr Alex. Hume, bailie of Lawder, and Mr Patrick Hume, burgess of North Berwick. Both of these, as well as many others of the members from the burghs, were masters of arts, having had a complete university education, and having obtained their degrees after regular examination. From what I know of the personal history of many of these men, and from documents which I have seen and now possess, I could undertake to prove that not one was illiterate. About twenty years ago, I acquired most of the original commissions of the members of the Assembly 1638. These documents are subscribed generally by the whole constituents of the Commissioners—namely, by Ministers, by Elders, by Magistrates, and Councillors. The signatures are, for the most part, in a superior style of penmanship; and it is not credible that such men would elect persons to represent them who were less educated than themselves. Moreover, the signatures of the Elders who sate in the Assembly might have been known by Bishop Burnet to be appended to the National Covenant—that great bond by which the people of this land engaged to maintain the true principles of the Reformation, as founded in the Word of God. Many of these documents, studded with innumerable subscriptions, are still extant.
“But how did this Assembly, and those which followed, fulfil their purposes with respect to the Universities? They not only appointed visitations, but they prevailed on the Government greatly to enlarge the provision for the maintenance of the Universities, so that they were enabled to increase the number of Professors, and to augment their incomes; thus making it practicable to admit the youth to the benefit of their instructions on the easiest terms. They did not despise or discourage the most elegant accomplishments. On the contrary, the Assembly of 1645, following out the views of preceding assemblies, deplored the great decay of poesy, and the ignorance of prosody, and ordained that, in the trial of Schoolmasters, for burghs or other considerable parishes, none should be admitted but such as after examination should be found skilful in the Latin tongue, not only for prose, but also for verse; and the same Assembly introduced other regulations for advancing the study, not only of Greek, but of all the branches of Philosophy. But the chief recommendation of the system, then prescribed and practised, was, that the nurture and admonition of academical youth was sanctified by the Word of God, and by prayer. The study of the Scriptures was a college exercise. The young were trained to habits of devotion. The catechisms, and other manuals of religious instruction, were translated into Latin, and carefully taught; and, by such provisions as these, the influence of piety was diffused over the paths of solid learning.”