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 betweenhim 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 betweenthe 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.
Sentiments of the Reformed Ministers respecting Tithes, and the Property of the Church.—These are laid down in the First Book ofDiscipline, chap. v. and viii. Dunlop, ii. 533–538, 562–568. Considerable light is also thrown upon them by the private writings of that period. The reformed ministers did not regard tithes as of divine right, nor think that it was sacrilegious in every case to apply to secular purposes those funds which had been originally set apart to a religious use. But they held that, by the Christian as well as the Jewish law, a competent subsistence was appointed to be made for the ministers of religion; that it is incumbent on a nation which has received the true religion to make public provision for the outward maintenance of its ordinances; that the appropriation of the tenth part of property for this purpose is at least recommended by primeval usage, by the sanction of divine wisdom in the Jewish constitution, and by the laws and practice of Christian empires and kingdoms; that property which had been set apart and given for religious ends could not justly, or without sacrilege, be alienated, as long as it was needed for these purposes; and that though many of the donors might have had the support of superstitious observances immediately in their eye, still it was with a view to religion that they made such gifts. In as far as it should appear that the ecclesiastical revenues were superabundant and unnecessary, they were willing that the surplus should be applied to the common service of the state. To illustrate their sentiments on this subject, and the manner in which they complained of the alienation of church‑property, I shall add a few extracts from some of their writings which are not commonly consulted.
My first extracts shall be from Ferguson’s sermon, to which our Reformer set his hand a little before his death. Having given an account of the law of Moses, the ordinance of the New Testament, and the practice of the primitive church, he adds, “Ye se, then, that the ministers of the primitive kirk (that levit befoir princes wer Christianes and nurishers of the kirk, as it was propheseit) wer na beggaris, suppois they wer no lordis that aboundit in superfluous welth, as the papis bischoppis did; bot had sufficient asweill for the necessitie of thair owin families, as for the help of uther Christianes that now and then, as occasiounes servit, repairit to thair housis.—Quhen the tyme come foirspokin bi David (Psal. lxviii. and cii.) that kingis and empereouris, and thair kingdomes,suld serve the Lord, and bring giftes unto him,” they, “following his example that only is wyse, ordainit be thair authoritie, that the tiendis sulde serve to the same use in the tyme of the gospell.”—“Our youth aucht also to be nurischit and maintenit at the schuillis, and thairoutof efterward micht spring preicheris, counsellouris, physiciounis, and all other kinds of learnit men that we have neid of. For the scheulis are the seid of the kirk and common welth, and our childrene are the hope of the posteritie, quhilk being neglectit, thair can nathing be luikit for bot that barbarous ignorance sall overflow all. For suppois God has wonderfullie, at this time, steirit up priecheris amang us, even quhen darkness and ignorance had the upperhand, he will not do sa heirefter, seeing we have the ordinarie meane to provide them, quhilk gif we contempne, in vane sall we loke for extraordinary proviscioun. Israel was miraculusslie fed in the wildernes with manna, bot how soon thay did eit of the corne of the land of Canaan, the manna ceissit, nouther had they it ony moir, bot levit efterward on the frute of the ground, ordinarilie labourit with thair handis. I speik to prudent men that may understand and judge quhat I say.” After deploring the decayed state of the churches and schools, and the poverty of the ministers, he adds, “I am compellit to speik this, thocht I be als plane as pleasant, and appear to yow as the greatest fule of the rest to stand up heir to utter that quhilk other men thinkis. Weill; let me be countit a fule for speiking the treuth. I regard not; nouther may I spair to speik it, thocht I suld be judgeit in our awin cause to be carryit away with a particular affectioun; following heirin the exampil of our prophet Malachie.”—“Ye marvel, I doubt not, quhy ye have not prevailit aganis yone throtcutteris and unnaturall murtherers within the towne and castell of Edinburgh, specially ye heving a maist just actioun, being ma in number, and mair vailyeant men, and nathing inferiour to thame in wisdome, circumspectioun, or ony gud qualiteis, outher of body or mynd. Bot ceis to marvel; for the caus quhy that ye have not prevailit aganis thame long or now, amang mony uther your sinnis quhairwith ye are defylt, is this, that the spuilyie of the pure is in your housis; ye invaid that quhilk our forbearis gave of gude zeill to Goddis honour, and the commoun welth of the kirk; ye spuilye to your awn private usis,without outher ryme or resoun, nouther will ye be controllit. This, this, I say, is the chief caus that nathing prosperis in your handis. I grant that our fatheris, of immoderate zeill, (besyde the teindis and necessarie rentis of the kirk,) gave thairunto superfluously, and mair nor aneuch. Quhat then is to be done? but that the preicheris of God’s word be reasonablie sustenit, seing thair is eneuch and over mekel to do it, the schullis and the pure be weill provydit, as thay aucht, and the tempellis honestly and reverently repairit, that the pepill, without injurie of wynd or wedder, may sit and heir Goddis word, and participat of his haly sacramentis. And gif thair restis ony thing unspendit quhen this is done (as na dout thair wil), in the name of God, let it be bestowit on the nixt necessarie affairis of the commoun welth, and not to any mannis private commoditie.” Ane Sermon preachit befoir the regent and nobilitie—be David Fergussone. B iv. v. C. Lepreuik, 1572.
The following extracts are taken from Sermons against Sacrilege by Robert Pont. “From the yeare of our Lorde 1560, unto this present time, the greatest study of all men of power of this land, hes bene, by all kinde of inventions, to spoyle the kirk of Christ of her patrimonie, by chopping and changing, diminishing of rentals, converting of victual in small sumes of money: setting of fewes within the availe, long tackes uppon tackes, with two or three liferentes, with many twentie yeares in an tack, annexationes, erectiones of kirk‑rents in temporall livings and heritage, pensiones, simple donationes, erecting of new patronages, union of teindes, making of new abattes, commendataries, priors, with other papistical titles, which ought to have no place in a reformed kirk and countrie; with an infinite of other corrupt and fraudfull waies, to the detriment and hurte of the kirke, the schooles, and the poore, without any stay or gaine‑calling.