The Book of Common Prayer
United States England Scotland Ireland Wales Canada World

    Scottish Liturgies of the Reign of James VI



As an Introduction to the Liturgies for Scotland, drawn up in the reign of James the Sixth, and now printed for. the first time, we purpose giving an account of the innovations and liturgical movements in the Scottish Church, from the beginning of the 17th century till the great outbreak in 1637.
After the Reformation, the Prayer Book of Edward the Sixth was used for a few years in public worship by the Church of Scotland, but was soon superseded by the Book of Common Order, or Knox's Liturgy. This was read on week days, and on Sundays by the “Readers,” and also partially by the clergy, for nearly a century.
    1601,] In 1601, along with other changes then contemplated, it was proposed to revise and amend the prayers in this book. In the General Assembly, which met at Burntisland on the 12th May of that year, King James being prevent, it was moved

“By sundry of the brethren, that there were sundry errors that merited to be corrected, in the vulgar translation of the Bible, and of the Psalms in metre; as also that there are sundry prayers in the Psalm Book which should be altered, in respect they are not convenient for the time. In the which heads the Assembly has concluded as follows :—
    “First, Anent the translation of the Bible: That everyone of. the brethren who has bet knowledge in the languages employ their travails in sundry parts of the vulgar translation in the Bible that needs to be mended, and to confer the same together at the Assembly.
    “Anent the translation of the Psalms in metre: It is ordained that the same be revised by Mr. Robert Pont, minister at St. Cuthbert's Kirk, and his travails to be revised at the next Assembly.
    “It is not thought good that the prayers already contained in the Psalm Book be altered or deleted; but if any brother would have any other prayers added, which are meet for the time, ordains the same first to be tried and allowed by the Assembly.”1
    Events, however, soon occurred which interfered with the free development of the Church.

1 Book of the Kirk, Ban. Club ed., part iii. p. 970.


    1603.] In March 1603 James succeeded to the throne of England. The Puritans of that kingdom expected him to redress their grievances, and many in Scotland hoped that he would reduce the English Church into closer conformity with the rest of the Reformed; 2 but the Hampton Court conference put an end to these expectations, and it became evident that his plan of uniformity was to suppress Puritanism in England, and to anglicise the Northern Church.
    1604.] The crowns being united, James was anxious for a civil union of the two kingdoms, and as early as 1604 took measures to effect it. Fearing opposition from the Scottish Church, then, as ever, the stronghold of patriotism and nationality, he put off the meeting of the General Assembly, which was to have been held at Aberdeen in July of that year, till the union should be concluded. As the Church had hitherto enjoyed the right of holding Assemblies annually, this was regarded as an encroachment on its liberties, and the Presbytery of St. Andrews directed its representatives to appear at Aberdeen on the day appointed, and take a public protest.



2 Row's .Hist., pp. 220-1; Cald. Hist. vi. p. 731.

1605.] Another meeting of Assembly was appointed to be held at Aberdeen in July 1605, but the King again put it off till an uncertain day. Nineteen Commissioners, however, attended, and, notwithstanding the royal prohibition, the Court was constituted, and Mr. John Forbes,3 minister at Alford, elected moderator. As their only object was to preserve the rights of the Church, they adjourned till September, without transacting any business, But the King confirmed their conduct and defence as rebellious; and Forbes, and five other members—John Welsh, Robert Dury, Andrew Duncan, Alexander Strachan, and John Sharp—after an imprisonment of fourteen months in Blackness, were banished to the Continent. Eight more who had been present at the Assembly were ordered to be “confined in barbarous parts” of Scotland.
    1606.] In July 1606, at a meeting of the Scottish Parliament, the King was declared supreme over all persons and causes; and the temporalities of the bishops were partly restored, notwithstanding a protest against Episcopacy, signed by forty-two of the clergy, which was given in. In September the two Melvilles, with six leading clergymen of their party, and several who supported the King's measures, went to London by his orders, to have a conference with him on the affairs of the Church. On their arrival, he obliged the Melvilles and their friends to listen to a course of sermons by dignitaries of the English Church, on the superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, the King's supremacy in ecclesiastical matters, the authority of Princes in convoking Synods, and on the want of any warrant in Scripture or antiquity for lay-elders.4This attempt at their conversion having failed, the King took other measures which were more effective. Andrew Melville,5 because of some verses which he composed on the English Church, was sent to the Tower, James Melville was detained at Newcastle, and the others were not allowed to return to Scotland for a time. In December, while these eight leading churchmen were in England, six in exile on the Continent, and eight banished to remote parts of Scot­land, James convoked an Assembly or Convention of the Church at Linlithgow.6 He intimated what commissioners were to be elected, and the Assembly thus constituted, agreed, in accordance with his instructions, to constant moderators of Presbyteries.
    1609.] In 1609, Parliament restored consistorial jurisdiction to the prelates, and passed an Act empowering the King to regulate their apparel, as well as that of the rest of the clergy.
    1610.] Accordingly, early in the following year, orders came from the court that the ordinary clergy were to wear black clothes, and in church black gowns; the Bishops and Doctors of Divinity (this degree being about to be revived) black cassocks to the knee, black gowns, and black craips about the neck. Gowns had been worn by the clergy from the time of the Reformation, though some preferred cloaks. It was the vestments of the dignitaries, however which the King had principally in view. In February a Court of High Commission, with arbitrary powers, was erected in each of the Archbishoprics of Glasgow and St. Andrews.



3 This eminent man was one of an illustrious clerical connection. He was a son of Forbes of Corse, and a defendant of Lord Forbes. Both he and his brother Patrick were deeply imbued with the principles of Andrew Melville, who was their relative. John became minister at Middleburgh and Delft, and died in exile. He wrote several learned works, and was greatly esteemed by the Reformed churches abroad. He had a son minister at Abercorn, who is much commended by Livingston, and another, who became Bishop of Caithness after the Restoration, His elder brother, Patrick, who had been educated under Melville, became Bishop of Aberdeen; “a gentleman,” says Bishop Burnet, “of quality and estate, but much more eminent by his learning and piety than his birth or fortune could make him.” Patrick's son, John, Professor of Divinity in Aberdeen, was one of the greatest and holiest divines that Scotland has ever produced. While his father was bishop he received Presbyterian ordination abroad, from his uncle and other presbyters, an incident which shows how the question of orders was then regarded, even by those who favoured Episcopacy as a form of presidency.

4 Spottiswoode's Hist. 497.

5 After several years' imprisonment he was permitted to go to France (1611), at the request of the Duke of Bouillon, who made him a Professor in the Protestant University of Sedan, where he died in 1622.

6 The six Assemblies held from 1606 to 1618 were declared unlawful by the Church in 1638 and 1639. At the Restoration the Covenanting Assemblies were themselves nullified so far as the civil law could do it; while at the Revolution in 1688 they were ignored, and the Church went back for its constitution to 1592.

    In June a General Assembly was held at Glasgow. The King had again named the Commissioners whom he wished sent by the Presbyteries, and money was provided for distribution amongst the members on other pretexts, but really, according to the general belief, to reward the supporters of the royal policy. At this meeting it was acknowledged that the right of calling Assemblies belonged to the Crown, and that if summoned otherwise they were illegal; the superiority of bishops was also recognised, and the powers of Presbyteries were, in a great measure, transferred to them. They were still, however, to be subject to the censure of the Assembly, and might be deprived by it, there being no idea of regarding the Episcopate as a different order. Of one hundred and forty members, only three objected to the decisions of this Assembly. By banishing and imprisoning those who took the lead in opposing his schemes, the King had in a great measure silenced opposition, And at that time, and for long after, the difference betwixt Presbytery and Episcopacy was not regarded as sufficient to justify division, but each party in turn submitted to a system which it did not prefer.7 After the Glasgow Assembly three of the bishops, Spottiswoode, Lamb, and Hamilton, were called up to London by the King, where, without permission from the Church, they received Episcopal consecration on the 21st of October. They upheld the validity of their orders as presbyters, and, were not re-ordained.8 This would have been to unchurch the whole Reformation. Besides, by the 55th Canon of 1604, the Church of England had directed all its clergy to pray for the Church of Scotland, then Presbyterian, as a branch of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church, and in England itself there were at that time many parish ministers from Scotland, France, and the Low Countries, who were in Presbyterian orders.9 Returning to Scotland, the three bishops consecrated their brethren, without, of course, any thought of re-ordaining them or the clergy generally.

    1612.] Parliament, in 1612, ratified the acts of the Glasgow Assembly, and in doing so conferred upon the bishops some additional powers.
    The government of the Church being thus changed, James turned his attention to its worship, which, as we have seen, the Assembly had already shown some desire to improve, in the days of greater freedom.

    1614.] In March 1614, a royal proclamation was issued, ordering all ministers to celebrate the communion on Easter following. The Church had given up the observance of holy days, but Easter had in some parishes kept its ground as one of the seasons of the communion.10 It was the easiest anniversary to begin with, and Calderwood says “the most part obeyed, but not all.”

    1615.] Next year proclamation was made, enjoining the celebration of the communion at Easter in all time coming, and soon after the project for the improvement of Knox's Liturgy was revived. Spottiswoode, Archbishop of Glasgow, was in London at the time of Archbishop Gladstanes' death, which took place on the 2d of May. He returned to Scotland on the 10th of June, and was appointed Gladstanes' successor in the See of St. Andrews in August. There is in his handwriting a paper, written in London at that time, and probably in consultation with the King, the contents of which are as follows:—

“Articles required for the service of the Church of Scotland. There is lacking in our Church a form of divine service; and while every minister is left to the framing of public prayer by himself, both the people are neglected and their prayers prove often impertinent.
    “A public Confession of Faith must be formed, agreeing, so near as can be, with the Confession of the English Church.
    “An order for election of archbishops, and bishops, in times hereafter, must be established by law; and, in the meanwhile, if his Majesty purpose the translation of any, by occasion of this vacancy of St. Andrews, the form used in the translating of bishops here, in England, should be kept.
    “A uniform order for electing of ministers, and their receiving. “The forms of marriage, baptism, and administration of the Holy Supper, must be in some points helped.
    “Confirmation is wanting in our Church, whereof the use for children is most profitable.
    “Canons and constitutions must be concluded and set forth, for keeping both the clergy and kirks in order.
    “These things must be advised, and agreed upon in a General Assembly of the clergy, which must be drawn to the form of the Convocation House here in England.”11










7 Thus, after 1638 sour of the five bishops who remained in Scotland acquiesced in the return to Presbytery, and officiated as parish ministers, viz.—Lindsay, formerly Bishop o£ Dunkeld, at St. Madoes; Graham of Orkney, at . . . ; Abernethy of Caithness, at Jedburgh; and Fairley of Argyle, at Lasswade. Sectarianism did not take its rise in Scotland. It was foreign to the ideas of the Reformed Church, and if Presbyterianism has since been characterized by a divisive spirit, it is owing to the leaven of independency which was introduced into it in the days of the Commonwealth. Even after the restoration of Episcopacy, in 1661, the great majority of the resolutioners retained their parishes, and throughout a large part of the country presbyteries met much as before.

8 The practice of raising laymen to the Episcopate by a single ordination was common in early times; but these cases were not the same as that of the Scotch bishops, who claimed to be in orders. In the line of bishops after 1661 the same thing was repeated. On account of the change that then took place in England, Sharp and Leighton were obliged, unwillingly, to submit to re-ordination; but they disapproved of it, and did not imitate it in the case of any whom they consecrated in Scotland. The second Scottish Episcopacy, like the first, thus rested on the recognition of the validity of Presbyterian orders.

9 This was the case in England till 1660. [See testimonies on this point in the Christian Observer for November 1851; also, Burnet's History of .His Own Times, vol. i. 314.] In Scotland, during the Second Episcopacy [1661 to 1688], a large proportion of the parochial clergy were in Presbyterian orders. This was the case also with the first clergy of the Scottish Episcopal Church who had been ordained more than twenty-seven years. They separated from the Establishment in 1688, chiefly on political grounds it is to be supposed, and officiated as Episcopal clergy­men, though ordained by presbyteries.

10 Select. Biog. i. 94; Wodrow Soc. Cowper, Bishop of Galloway, writing in 1618 of the religious observance of Christmas, says, I find no ecclesiastical law in all the books of our Assembly standing to the contrary.”— Works, p. 9. He knew, of course, that there had been action in the matter, but he held that it did not rest on any law.



11 Orig. Letters, relating to the Eccl. Aff. of Scot. vol. ii, p. 445.

    1616.] In June 1616, James sent instructions to the University of St. Andrews, by Dr. Young.12 Dean of Winchester, authorizing the conferring of degrees in divinity. The same rites and ceremonies were to be used at the inauguration as in the English Universities;13 hoods agreeable to the degree were to be worn, and none were to be hereafter made bishops except doctors of divinity. The revival of this academic honour had been suggested by Gladstanes in 1607, for the encouragement of learning. It had the sanction of the First Book of Discipline and the early General Assemblies; but though apparently acquiesced in by all parties, in 1616, same years afterwards it was complained of, no doubt chiefly because of the source from which it came, and the system of which it was regarded as a part. Calderwood speaks of it as a “ novelty brought in without advice or consent of the Kirk;"14 Row says, “ an hierarchiall doctor is the prelate's eldest son and heir;”15 and the text “Be not ye called doctors” was quoted against it16 — a text, one would suppose, equally fatal to the doctors of the Second Book of Discipline. Dr. Young also brought orders that the University was to observe Christmas, Easter, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday; and

“That the same prayers be daily said for the King, Queen, and their royal progeny, in all the colleges throughout the kingdom, which are used in the Church of England, together with the same confession in the beginning of prayer, and that the Psalms of David be read monthly.”17


12 A Scot, son of Sir Peter Young of Seeton, one of the King's preceptors.

13 “Hovaeum Brussium . . . Iibro, pileo, annulo, Theologici Doctoratus ornamentis (Junius) donavit, amplexuque fraterno in Societatem Theologicam recepit, et SS. Theologiæ Doctores, creavit.” — Sydserf's Life of Bishop William Forbes, prefixed to vol, ii. of his works. Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol.


14 Hist. vii. 222.

15 Hist. p. 261.

16 Irenicum of Dr. John Forbes of Corse, p. 458, vol. i, Amsterdam edition of his works.

17Orig. Let. vol: ii. p. 805-8.

    On the 13th of August the Assembly met at Aberdeen, having been convoked by the King, to take measures against “the increase of Popery,” and to “procure a uniformity of religion” amongst his subjects. The Earl of Montrose represented his Majesty, and the primate presided. The first day was, according to the custom of the Church, observed as a fast, when Patrick Forbes18 of Corse, minister of Keith, preached in the morning, Archbishop Spottiswoode, in the afternoon, and William Forbes19 in the evening. The 14th and 15th were occupied chiefly with Acts against the Roman Catholics.
    On the 16th the Commissioner presented the following “instructions,” among others, which the King had sent “to be proposed to the Assembly.”

18 See note 3

19 One of the ministers of Aberdeen, afterwards Bishop of Edinburgh, and author of Considerationes Modestæ, etc. He was a man of immense learning and of the highest character, but was thought to concede too much to the Roman Catholics. He was descended from Forbes of Corsindae.

    “That a special canon be made, that all archbishops and bishops in their visitation, either by themselves, or if they may not overtake the same, the ministers of the parish, make all young children of six years old be presented to them to give confession of their faith. . . . After which every two or three years they shall be examined, till they come to fourteen years of age. After sufficient growth of knowledge, they may be admitted to the Communion ....
    “That a true and simple confession of faith be set down. . . .
    “That a short and compendious catechism be made, which every kirk and family shall have for the instruction of their children and servants, whereof they shall give account before the communion, and everyone be examined conform thereto.
    “That all children and schools shall have and learn by heart the catechism intuited 'God and the King,' which already by Act of Council is ordained to be read and taught in all schools.
    “That a liturgy be made, and form of divine service, which shall be read in every church, in common prayer, and before preaching every Sabbath by the reader, where there is one; and where there is none, by the minister before he conceive his own prayer, that the common people may learn it, and by custom serve God rightly.
    “That the communion be celebrated sour times each year in the burgh towns and twice in landward; and one of the times to be at Easter yearly. . . .
    “That there be a uniformity of discipline; and to that effect the canons of the former Councils and Assemblies to be extracted ; and where the same are defective, to be supplied by former canons and ecclesiastical meetings; for setting down whereof the Commissioners following are ordained to convene with the Bishops, in Edinburgh, the first day of December next to come, viz.—the Laird of Corse, Mr. John Reid, Mr. George Hay, Doctor Philip, Mr. David Lindsay in Dundee, Mr. William Scott, Doctor Howie, Mr. John Mitchelson, Mr. Patrick Galloway, Mr. John Hall, Mr. Edward Hepburn, Dr. Abernethy, Mr. Robert Scott, Mr. William Birnie, Mr. William Erskine, or the moll part of them.
“That every minister shall minister the sacrament of baptism whensoever it shall be required, under the pain of deposition; the godfather promising to instruct the infant in the faith.”20

20 Orig. Let. ii, 481-3. Calderwood, Hist. vii. 229-30.

    The Assembly, having heard these instructions, heartily thanked his Majesty, and passed Acts in accordance with them. A draft of a new Confession of Faith had been commenced in 1612, and was now presented. It had been drawn up by Messrs. John Hall and John Adamson, and had been approved by the King and the archbishops.21 The Assembly sanctioned it as the doctrinal standard of the Church, and ordered it to be printed under the care of "the Bishop of Galloway, Dr. Howie, Mr. George Hay, the Laird of Corse, and Mr. William Struthers.”
    It was enjoined that children should be presented before the bishops, or the ministers of parishes, for examination, and to be commended to God in prayer; and it was resolved that a catechism should be prepared for use in families, and in examinations before the communion. The Assembly

    “Ordained Mr. Patrick Galloway, and Mr. John Hall, minister at Edinburgh, and Mr. John Adamson, minister at Liberton, to form the said catechism, and to have the same in readiness before the first day of October next to come, to the effect the same may be allowed, and printed with the King's Majesty’s license; the which catechism being so printed, it is statute and ordained, that no other hereafter be printed within this realm, nor used in families.” . . .

    As to the Prayer Book, it was

    “Ordained that a uniform order of Liturgy, or Divine Service, be set down to be read in all kirks, on the ordinary days of prayer, and every Sabbath day before the sermon, to the end the common people may be acquainted therewith, and by custom may learn to serve God rightly. And to this intent the Assembly has appointed the said Mr. Patrick Galloway, Mr. Peter Ewat, Mr. John Adamson, and Mr. William Erskine, minister at ... , to revise the Book of Common Prayers contained in the Psalm Book, and to set down a common form of ordinary service to be used in all time hereafter; which shall be used in all time of Common Prayers (in all kirks where there is exercise of Common Prayers) as likewise by the minister before the sermon where there is no reader.”22




21 Orig. Let. i. 293. Cal. vii. 226. The Confession is printed in Calderwood's History, vii. 233. It is extremely Calvinistic, to use that word in its popular sense, much more so than the Confession of 1560, though the latter perhaps comes quite as near to Calvin's Calvinism.





    Such was the revolution authorising the preparation of the “Liturgy” — a “term” which, as Mr. Burton says, “had not previously been in use to express a form of prayer in Scotland.”
    Acts were also passed as to the celebration of the communion and the administration of baptism, at the request of the parents or any faithful Christian at any time of day, without waiting for the hour of preaching. It was still understood, however, that baptism was only to be celebrated in church, not in private houses.
    It was resolved that a Book of Canons, or summary of the laws of the Church, should be drawn up, and the Archbishop of Glasgow,23 and Mr. William Struthers, minister at Edinburgh, had this task committed to them. A large commission was appointed, consisting of the Bishops and leading clergy, nearly as in the King's list given above, to meet at Edinburgh on the 1st of December following, and inter alia to receive and revise the draft of the Canons. It was also added that they should have

22 Cald. Hist. viii. 105-6, and Book of the Kirk, iii. 1128.


23 Mr. James Law became minister of Kirkliston in 1585, was made Bishop of Orkney in 1605, and having been Spottiswoode's “old companion at football, and compresbyter, was by his influence admitted his successor at Glasgow.” He died in 1632.

    “Power to receive the Books of Liturgy or Divine Service, allow and disallow thereof, as they shall think expedient, and the same being allowed, to cause publish the same in print, for the service within the Kirks of all the Kingdom.”24

    This addition is said to have been made by Spottiswoode, who is blamed in consequence. If he did so, it must have been to supply an unintentional omission.
    From the record of the Assembly, and the royal Commissioner’s letter to the King, it appears that these Acts were passed without opposition; and from the names of those to whom the drawing up of the Liturgy and catechism was entrusted,25 it may be inferred, that the desire for improvement in worship was at that time shared by all parties. Those selected were members of the Assembly, and had no doubt taken a special interest in the work committed to them. When the Acts of this Assembly were laid before the King, he expressed his general approval, but objected to the Act respecting Confirmation as “a mere hotchpotch,” 26 and ordered that in the new Canons it should be enjoined, that the Communion should be received kneeling, that both Sacraments, in cases of necessity, should be administered privately, that children should be confirmed by the Bishops, and that the Church should keep the days set apart to commemorate the Redeemer's Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, Ascension and the descent of the Holy Ghost. Spottiswoode represented to him the difficulty of inferring these articles among the Canons without the sanction of the Assembly,27 and the subject was not pressed at that tune. This order of the King, however, excited alarm, showing as it did that he wished to take the government of the Church completely into his own hands, and it probably delayed the preparation of the Canons, as the meeting in December to receive them (and the Liturgy) does not appear to have been held. Scott, minister of Cupar, who was one of the Commissioners appointed by the Assembly, says—

“The Book of the Canons we doubt was ever perfected by those to whom It was committed, or yet the revising of the Book of our Common Prayers, and setting down a common form of ordinary service, neither yet have we heard that those Commissioners ever met for the revising of their travells.”28

    There can be no doubt, however, that the Liturgical Committee commenced operations immediately after the Assembly of 1616, probably with the view of having a draft ready for the meeting in December. Among the Wodrow papers in the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh, there is the MS. of a Liturgy, entitled

    “A form of service to be used in all the Parish Churches of Scotland upon the Sabbath-day by the Readers, where there are any established, and where there are no Readers, by the Ministers themselves before they go to sermon.”

At the end, “Howat's Form of Prayer” is written by a different but contemporaneous hand. The title is almost in the words of the Aberdeen Act. That Act made no reference to new forms for the special services and “Howat’s form”, in strict accordance with this, makes provision only for Public Worship; the intention being that the forms for the Sacraments and Marriage in Knox's Book should remain unchanged. In the prayer for Prince Charles allusion is made to his “young and tender years,” while in that for the Prince Palatine, and the Princess Elizabeth, reference is made to their children. Charles was born in 1600, and the marriage of his sister to the Elector Palatine took place in 1613. There is another circumstance of much importance in fixing the date of this draft. In the following year, Hewat took an active part in resisting the King's further encroachments upon the liberty of the Church, and on the 12th of July was deprived, and banished from Edinburgh in consequence, It seems evident, therefore, that the 'Liturgical Committee, all the members of which, except Erskine, resided in or near Edinburgh, had made Hewat their convener, and that the draft bearing his name was completed by him in consultation with the others, in the end of 1616 or early in the following year, before there was any open rupture with the King.29

    1617.] At the beginning of this year, James announced his intention of visiting Scotland. He attributed it to a “saumon-like instinct” “to see the place of his breeding,” but his chief object was to impose the five articles (which he had ordered to be inserted among the Canons) upon the Church. Before his visit, he ordered the Chapel Royal at Holyrood to be refitted, and an organ, stalls for choristers and statues of the Apostles and Evangelists, to be placed in it. The “images” alarmed the populace, and several of the Bishops and Clergy wrote the King to dissuade him from carrying out this part of his plan. He was very angry, but yielded, not, he told them, for the case of their minds, or to confirm them in their errors, but because the statues could not be got ready in time.30 On the 13th of May, he re-entered Scotland, after nearly fourteen years' absence. On the 17th, the English Service was read in the Chapel Royal, “with singing of choristers, surplices, and playing on organs;” and on Whitsunday, June 8th, the Lord's Supper was administered after the English form, by an English clergyman, and was generally received kneeling. On the 17th of June, Parliament met. The King proposed that it should be enacted—

“That whatsoever conclusion was taken by His Majesty, with the advice of the Archbishops and Bishops, in matters of external polity, should have the power and strength of an ecclesiastical law.”

    As the Bishops objected that this took away the rights of Presbyters, he agreed to insert the additional clause—

“And a competent number of the Ministry.”

    Thus amended, his proposal was sanctioned by the Lords of the Articles. Such a law would have been fatal to the constitution of the General Assembly, and the alarm spread that it was intended to cover the introduction everywhere of the English ceremonies already begun at Holyrood. A Protest for the liberties of the Kirk was at once prepared, and signed by above fifty of the Clergy. The leaders in the movement were Hewat Abbot of Crossraguel; Simson of Dalkeith, brother of Patrick minister of Stirling, and Calderwood the historian, For the part they took, the two former were imprisoned and the latter banished. The King, however, withdrew the Act, not because of the objections made to it but on the ground that he had power to regulate the external affairs of the Church without it.31
    On the 10th of July he had a conference at St. Andrews with some of the Bishops and Clergy on the five Articles, when he addressed them thus:—

“I mean not to do anything against Reason; and on the other part, my demands being just and religious, you must not think that I will be refused or resisted. It is a power innated, and a special prerogative which we that are Christian Kings have, to order and dispose of external things in the Policy of the Church, as we by advice of our Bishops shall find most fitting; and for your approving or disapproving, deceive not yourselves, I will never regard it, unless you bring me a reason which I cannot answer.”32


24 Cald. viii. I II ; and Book of the Kirk, iii. 1132.


25 The Catechism was entrusted to Messrs, Galloway, Hall, and Adamson.
    Patrick Galloway, who had formerly been minister at Perth, had suffered for his opposition to the King, and was at one time so puritanic, Calderwood says, that he “would not eat a Christmas pie.” He was afterwards reconciled to the King, and became one of his chaplains, but he still opposed some of his measures. Wodrow says, he “took so many different turns in the various stages of his life . . . that it's hard to determine what class to put him down under.” [MS. Glas. Univ.] He had been Moderator of the Assembly in 1590 and 1602. He had himself drawn up a catechism, which was reprinted in London in 1588. There is a copy of the reprint in the Library of the University of Edinburgh. It is described as having been “written by Mr. Patrick Galloway, and by him used in the family of the Scottish noblemen then resident at Newcastle.” His son was raised to the peerage, with the title of Lord Dunkeld,
    John Hall was one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and had been Moderator of the Burntisland Assembly in 1601. He had acquiesced in some of the King's measures, but he refused to preach on the festival days, and resigned his charge through unwillingness to “offend either the King or the godly.” He was suspected, however, of stirring up the people to disobedience to the Articles of Perth, and in 1619 was banished from Edinburgh by the King.
    John Adamson was son of the Provost of Perth, and nephew of Patrick Adamson, Archbishop of St. Andrews. He was translated from North Berwick to Liberton in 1609, and was made Principal of the University of Edinburgh in 1623. He was in early life sufficiently hostile to James's measures to have gained the Confidence of the Melvilles and their friends. Indeed, he was related to some excellent men of that party, such as Mr. Patrick Stimson, minister of Stirling, whose mother was Violet Adamson, sister of the Archbishop, and an ancestress, it may be added, of George Gillespie. In 1631, he was complained of for preaching in the Presbytery of Edinburgh that the Church of Rome was a true Church. He was an active member of the Assembly at Glasgow in 1638, and “furious enough in their cause, albeit many thought it was not from persuasion, but in policy, to eschew their wrath.” [Guthry's Mem., p. 54.] He was the author of an excellent Latin Catechism used in the University of Edinburgh. His death took place in 1652, and Leighton succeeded him in the office of Principal.
    The Liturgical Committee consisted of Galloway, Adamson, Hewat, and Edkine.
    Peter Hewat, Hewet, Howat, Hewart, Ewat, Ewart, or Euartus, for in all these forms his name appears, was one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and in 1612 had a gift from James of the Abbacy of Crossraguel, which entitled him to a seat in Parliament, but we find him, notwithstanding, a sufferer on the popular side. He protested for the liberties of the Church in 1617, was deprived by the High Commission, and was confined first at Dundee, afterwards at Crossraguel. He died at Maybole in 1645.
    William Erskine, minister at Denino, was one of the representatives of the Presbytery of St. Andrews who protested at Aberdeen in 1604 against the King's interference with the meeting of Assembly. He signed the Protest against Episcopacy laid before Parliament in 1606, and in after years suffered for refusing to obey the articles of Perth. John Livingston mentions him in his list of ministers whom he knew, who were “eminent for grace and gifts, for faithfulness and success.” — Sel. Biog., Wod. Soc., i. 305, 312.

26 Spottiswoode's Hist. 518.

27 Spottiswoode's Hist. 529.

28Apol. Narration, p. 245; Wod. Soc.

29 There is no notice of this MS., so far as we are aware, in any printed work. We came upon an account of it while reading the life of Dr. Howie in Wodrow's unpublished MSS., in the Library of Glasgow University, and were fortunate enough to find it among his collections in the Advocates' Library. Wodrow at first supposed Dr. Howie to have been the writer, but afterwards corrects this. He says he took the MS. to be an original copy, and as Hewat had died in the west of Scotland not so long before Wodrow's day, it had probably been among his papers. We print it as an appendix. It may not say much for the Liturgical taste of the Church at that time, but it is very devout, and is specially interesting, as regards the order of service, and as furnishing specimens of the style of prayers then used as supplementary to the Book of Common Order.

30 Orig. Let., ii. 497.

31 Spottiswoode, Hist. 533.

32 Spottis. 534.

    The Clergy were greatly perplexed, but they earnestly besought the King to call an Assembly to sanction the Articles. To this he agreed, on the assurance of Patrick Galloway, which Spottiswoode declined to give, that the ministers would consent to them;33 and in the beginning of August he returned to England.
    The Assembly met at St. Andrews on the 25th of November, when a letter from the King was read, in which he told them to “conform to his desire, otherwise ... he would use his own authority.”34 The Bishops were anxious to satisfy him, but a great part of the Clergy wished the whole Articles deferred, that they “might have leisure” to read “the Fathers and Councils” on the subject.35 With great difficulty, they were persuaded to pass two Acts with reference to the Communion.
    The first permitted it to be administered to the sick, warning to be given to the minister




33 Ibid. 534. Although Galloway answered for the ministers at this time, he wrote to the King on the 5th November of this year, in strong terms against several of the Articles.— Orig. Let. ii. 511.

34 Book of the Kirk, part iii. 1140.

35 Orig. Let. ii, 520.

“At the least twenty hours before, and that there be six persons at least ... present with the sick person to receive; who must also provide a convenient place in his house, and all things necessary for the minister's reverent administration thereof, according to the order prescribed in the Church.”36

36 Book of the Kirk, part iii. 1141.

    It appears that after the Reformation the Communion had sometimes been given privately,37 and some were not unfavourable to it, who objected to several of the other Articles. The second Act directed the minister in all celebrations, to give the elements out of' his own hand to each communicant, saying with the giving of the Bread—


37 Lindsay's True Narrative, p. 32.

“Take, eat; this is the body of the Lord Jesus Christ, which was broken for you; do this in remembrance of Him; and that the minister exhort them to be thankful. And when he giveth the cup, Drink; this is the blood of Jesus Christ shed for you; do this in remembrance of Him, and that the minister exhort them to be thankful.”38

38 Book of the Kirk, part iii. 1141.

    It was also ordered that a table should be prepared that the minister might give the Communion the “more commodiously;” evidently a table of such a size that each of the Communicants seated around it should be within reach of the minister, The King, on hearing the result of the Assembly, was enraged. On the 6th of December he wrote the Prelates that—

“He had come to that age, that he would not be content to be fed with broth, as one of their coat was wont to speak;” and that, “since their Scottish Church had so far contemned his clemency, they should now find what it was to draw the anger of a King upon them.”39

39 Orig. Let. ii, 524.

    He also ordered them, on pain of his “highest displeasure,” to preach on the following Christmas, and he forbade the payment of stipend to “any of the rebellious Ministers refusers of the said Articles;” but the execution of this order was stayed on Spottiswoode's intercession,” till their behaviour should be tried in the particular Synods.“40 On the 11th of December he wrote again to Spottiswoode, directing that the two Acts passed by the Assembly should be suppressed, as they were "hedged and conceived in so ridiculous a manner.”
    As for the first, he could not guess what was meant by a convenient room—

40 Spot. Hist. 536.

“Seeing no room can be so convenient for a sick man (sworn to die) as his bed;” as for the second, “the minister’s ease and commodious sitting on his tail had been more looked to, than that kneeling which for reverence he directly required.”41

    1618.] In January of the following year, James issued a proclamation, ordering the people to abstain from work on certain holy days, that

41 Orig. Let. ii, 525; Spot. 535.

“They might the better attend the holy exercises which he, by advice of the Bishops, would appoint to be kept at those times by the Church.”42

    On the 25th of August, the celebrated Assembly of Perth met in that city. Lord Binning43 and others were present as the King's Commissioners, and Spottiswoode took the chair. Patrick Forbes of Corse, then Bishop of Aberdeen, preached from Ezra vii. 23; and Spottiswoode from 1 Cor. xi. 16. A letter was read from the King, in which he said that he had “once fully resolved never to have called any more Assemblies,” but that “he had suffered himself to be intreated by the Bishops for a new Convocation.” He again referred to the “innate power” which he had from God in Church matters, and declared he would “content himself with nothing but with a simple and direct acceptation of the Articles in the form by him sent unto them.”44 The Primate said that it was against his will that ever these novations were mentioned, but that his Majesty” would be more glad of the assent of the Assembly” to them “than of all the gold of India.”45 This assent was at last gained, the Archbishop “cutting short” the opposition, and “ordaining this proposition only to be voted, Whether the Assembly would obey his Majesty, in admitting the Articles proposed by his Majesty, or refuse them.“46 Calderwood says, that the members were told by the royal Commissioners and Bishops at the final sitting, that “out of the house they should not go, till his Majesty was satisfied of his desire.”47 Forty-one, or, according to Calderwood, forty-five, ministers voted negative. The Assembly also ratified “the Catechism allowed at Aberdeen, and printed since with privilege,”48 and it had the Liturgy under consideration. In the business of the Privy Conference on Wednesday the 26th, it is mentioned, that


42. Ibid. 542.


43 Thomas Hamilton of Priestfield, King's Advocate, was created Lord Binning in 1613; Earl of Melrose in 1619; and in 1627 he gave up that title, and “changed his style to Haddington, not choosing to have his title from a Kirk living.” — Scot's Stag. State, p. 69·


4 4 Book of the Kirk, iii. 1145-6.


45 Book of the Kirk, iii. 1147.


46 Orig. Let. ii. 576.


47 Hist. vii, 321.


48 Book of the Kirk, iii. 1167.


“The rest of that afternoon was spent in the devising of some overture for the restraining of Simony . . . ; as likewise the Commission for the planting of the Church of Edinburgh; and the forming of the Book of Common Prayers; and extracting of the Canons of the Church.”49
49 .Ibid. 1157.

    On the 21st of October 1618, the Acts of the Perth Assembly were ratified by the Privy Council, and among them one

“Giving Commission to certain persons therein mentioned, to revise the labours of those to whom Commission was given in the Assembly of Aberdeen for revising the Book of Common Prayers, and collecting the Canons of Church discipline, and as they find the same worthy to be allowed, to take order for approbation and publishing thereof.”

    In the imperfect accounts of this Assembly which remain the names of these Commissioners are not given.
    From this time there was no meeting of the Assembly for twenty years, and we have to look to other sources for information as to the progress of the Liturgy. Still the main points of its history can be traced, and even minor details conjectured with a high degree of probability.
    King James's measures in 1617, and the proceedings of the Perth Assembly changed the whole aspect of affairs, and split the Church into hostile parties. Many who favoured some of the five Articles objected wholly to the way in which they were forced on the Church. To one Article, that of kneeling at the Communion, the strongest objection was felt, and the change of posture had the effect of bringing the laity into action, and of placing a great part of the nation in direct opposition to the King. The people had been accustomed to kneel at the prayers in the Communion service,50 but kneeling in the act of receiving they regarded as favouring of idolatry. In addition, there was a general alarm that the King was about to introduce all the ceremonies of the Church of England; and his claim of having a right to govern the Church, now openly avowed, was as openly resisted.

50 Lindsay's True Narrative of Perth Assembly—  “We were accustomed and still are to kneel at the thanksgiving,” p. 47. See also his “Resolutions for kneeling,” pp. 34, 65.

    This state of feeling necessarily affected the movement for the revision of the Liturgy. It became characteristic of those who were hostile to the King's policy to defend the old form as it stood; and as the new version would have to make provision for carrying out the Acts of Perth, its progress was no doubt regarded with suspicion by many who had previously taken an interest in it. The Commission appointed by the Perth Assembly to revise the labours of the Liturgical Committee, would find that at least two of the number, Hewat and Erskine, could no longer act upon it, and thus the completion of the work must have devolved upon those who were prepared to submit to the royal policy. They made little use of the first draft, and they seem to have pursued their labours without communication with the opposite party; Scott of Cupar, as we have seen, though at the Assemblies of Aberdeen and Perth, not being aware of the Liturgy having been “perfected.”
    It bears internal marks of having been completed soon after Perth Assembly, and this is confirmed by other evidence.
    Charles the First, in his large declaration, says that the General Assembly held at Aberdeen in 1616

“Authorised some of the present Bishops, and divers others, to compile and frame a public form of Liturgy or Book of Common Prayer, which should first be presented to our Royal Father, and after his approbation, should be universally received throughout the kingdom. This book, in pursuance of that Act of Assembly, being by those who were deputed for that purpose framed, was, by the Lord Archbishop of St. Andrews that now liveth, sent up to our Royal Father, who not only carefully and punctually perused every particular passage of it himself, but had it also considerately advised with and revised by some of that kingdom here in England, in whose judgment he reposed singular trust and confidence; and after all his own and their observations, additions, expunctions, mutations, accommodations, he sent it back to those from whom he had received it, to be commended to that whole Church, being a Service Book in substance, frame, and composure, much about one with this very Service Book which we of late (1637) commended to them, and which undoubtedly then had been received in that Church if it had not pleased Almighty God that while these things were in doing, and before they could receive their much wished and desired period and consummation, to the invaluable loss, as of the whole Church of God, so particularly of that Church of Scotland, to translate our blessed Father from his temporal kingdoms to that which is eternal.”51

51 Pp. 16, 17. The Large Declaration was written by Balcanquhal, Dean of Durham.

    This statement was drawn up from information given in a paper which still exists among the Wodrow MSS., entitled “Instructions how the service came to be made, delivered to me by the King.” This indorsation is in the handwriting of Dr. Balcanquhal. After mentioning King James's desire for a Liturgy, it goes on thus—

“It was enacted that a Book of Common Prayer should be framed; and, by Act of Assembly, so many were trusted with it to draw it up, of whom I am sure Mr. Wm. Cowper, B. of Galloway, was one.
    ‘Then a Book of Common Prayer was formed, and delivered to my Lord Archbishop of St. Andrews, which, after he had revised it, was sent up to King James, who did take the pains to peruse and consider it, and gave order to the Dean of Winchester to do the like, the same was returned to my Lord of St. Andrews, with his Ma: directions what he would have to be changed, omitted, or added, to make it the more perfect,
    “Before it could be brought ad umbilicum, God called that blessed King to glory.”52

52 Wod , MSS., fol. vol. lxvi., No. 36. The paper is printed in the Appendix to Baillie's Letters, vol. i. p. 443.

    Fuller, the Church historian [1608~1661], says

“It was committed ... principally to the Archbishop of St. Andrews, and to William Cooper, Bishop of Galloway, to draw up the order thereof.”53

53 Vol. iii. 396. Ed. 1840.

    In the Life of Spottiswoode, prefixed to his history, after a reference to the Act of Assembly 1616 for the drawing up of the Liturgy, it is said that

“Some of the most learned and grave among the rest (William Cowper, Bishop of Galloway, being designed the chief), were deputed to that work.”


    This life was written by Duppa, Bishop of Winchester, a devoted adherent of Charles the First, and tutor to his son. He compiled it from materials furnished by “a reverend person“ of the Scottish nation,54 whom Wodrow supposed to have been either Maxwell or Sydserf,55 who took refuge in England in 1638. It has been sup­posed that these writers mistook the Bishop of Galloway for Patrick Galloway, one of the original committee; but they had access to the best sources of information, and the truth of their statement is quite borne out by resemblances between the new material in the Liturgy and Cowper's acknowledged works.56

    Though not one of the original committee, he was no doubt on the Commission appointed by the Assembly of 1618 to “revise their labours,” and both from his own qualifications for the work, and from some of the others declining to act after the adoption of the Five Articles, the completion of it seems to have devolved mainly upon him. Cowper died on the 15th of February 1619, and there was a meeting of bishops and clergy at his house on some affairs of the Church shortly before.57 In all likelihood the draft was completed about that time. There is a slight confirmation of this in a circumstance that occurred on the 13th April of that year. Hog, minister at Dysart, having been summoned before the High Commission for refuting to keep the Perth Articles, and for praying against bishops, said that his prayer was in conformity with Knox's Liturgy. Spottiswoode replied

“That in a short time that Book of Discipline would be dis­charged, and ministers tied to set forms.”58

    There is, however, clearer evidence on this point. Spottiswoode went up to Court after the spring Synods of this year, and remained there for part of the summer. While he was in London, a license, dated June 30th, 1619, was granted by the King to Gilbert Dick, a bookseller in Edinburgh, to print the new prayer book for the space of nineteen years.59 On the 10th of February 1618, Dick had received the royal license to print the two catechisms allowed by the Aberdeen Assembly, they having been by that time “formed and set down conform to the said Act."60 And now his license was extended, and he received sole authority to print” as well the said Book of Common Prayers as the two foresaid Catechisms.” The revised Liturgy was undoubtedly meant, as the license begins by quoting the Act of the Aberdeen Assembly “That a Book of Common Prayer ... should be formed and put in order by certain' Commissioners appointed for that effect.” We infer, therefore, that the draft of the Liturgy was completed early in 1619 (the new catechism for examination before the communion being incorporated with it) ; that Spottiswoode carried it with him to London for final revision; and that in June it was expected that it would soon be ready for printing.61
    The revision of the Liturgy in England by the King and the Scotsmen62 at his Court may not have been finished
during Spottiswoode's visit to London, and some time may have elapsed before it was returned to him as finally approved by the King.
    The excited state of Scotland, however, was the chief reason for the delay in printing the Liturgy and ordering its use in public worship, and a further obstacle was about to be interposed.



54 Pub. pref. Spot. Hist.

55 Life of Spottiswoode, Gor. Scot., vol. iv, 590.


56 William Cooper, Coupar, or Cowper, was born in Edinburgh 1565, and after spending some time in England, became minister at Bothkennar in 1587. He was translated to Perth in 1595. He signed the protestation against Episcopacy in 1606, and preached against it before Parliament. After taking a very leading part on that side, he “got more light,” and became Bishop of Galloway in 1612. This exposed him to much censure, which he felt deeply, and which is said to have hastened his end. Beltrees' poem beginning.” Ane Tailzeour ance ane Cooper did beget,” and ending “He was ane Tailzeour's son, and changed his coat,” was by no means so bitter as the effusions of some of his old clerical friends. It was a time when such changes were very common. He was a man of devoted piety, and was most laborious in the work of the ministry, He was a most excellent and popular preacher, and as a theologian and devotional writer he held the foremost place. His style surpassed that of his con­temporaries, and his published works are among the most valuable of that period. He has been justly spoken of as the Leighton of his time.

57 Life, prefixed to Works, p. 7.

58 Cal. vii. 369.

59 Reg. Sec. Sig. lxxxvii. 1617-19. sol. 227.

60 Reg. Sec. Sig. lxxxvii. 1617-19. sol. 67. Both licenses are printed in full in Lee's Mem. for Bib. Soc. App. 31-35.

61 The preparation at this time of “A Form and Manner of ordaining Ministers, and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops, used in the Church of Scotland,” shows that the complete Liturgical equipment of the Church was then designed. For these forms, which were printed by authority in 1620, see Miscel. Wod. Soc. i. 597-615.

62 Collier says it was “reviewed by some Scotch bishops” at the Court, but Dean Young of Winchester is mentioned above as the reviser, and with more probability.

    1621.] As the Articles of Perth were disregarded by many on the ground that they had not received legal sanction, James resolved to have them ratified at the meeting of Parliament which was to be held in July 1621. This was no easy matter, as many were prepared to vote against it. To carry the point, the Marquis of Hamilton, who was Royal Commissioner, declared to the assembled Estates, that “he would engage his honour, faith, and credit, upon that princely word which his Majesty passed him, that if they would receive these five articles at that time, his Highness would never burden them with any more cere­monies during his lifetime.”63 Spottiswoode says he assured them that “his Majesty should not in his day press any more change or alteration in matters of that kind without their own consents.”64 This qualification, however, is not mentioned by Melrose, who wrote to the King on the 26th of July as follows;—

63 Cal. vii. 496.

64 Hist. 542.


  “The Commissioner roughly inveighed against those who treasonably slandered your Majesty with intention to introduce all English ceremonies . . . assuring them, that if they would obey and confirm the Acts already made, your Majesty would never intend any future alteration.”65 

    The ratification was accordingly carried, there being 78 votes for, and 51 against it.

65 Dalrymple's Mem. and Let. in the reign of James, p. 126-7.


    The troubled state of the Church, and this promise given in the King's name, put a stop to the introduction of the Liturgy. Years afterwards the older Bishops informed King Charles that

"The presenting thereof (the Liturgy) was deferred, in regard the Articles of Perth then introduced proved so unwelcome to the people, that they thought it not fit nor safe at that time to venture upon any further innovations.”66

66 Guthry, Mem. p. 16.

King Charles and Lord Clarendon state that James retained his purpose of introducing it, and that this design was stopped only by his death.67 The promise of 1621 might have been explained as not applying to the Liturgy, seeing its preparation had been sanctioned by previous Assemblies; at the same time James knew that it was regarded as a pledge against any further change in his lifetime, and there is evidence that he was restrained by it. Bishop Hacket, in his Life of Archbishop Williams, relates that when Williams asked James to give Laud68 the See of St. David's, his Majesty said

“I keep Laud back ... because I find he hath a restless spirit, . . . When three years since I had obtained of the Assembly of Perth to consent to five articles of order and decency, in correspondence with this Church of England, I gave them promise . . . that I would try their obedience no farther anent ecclesiastic affairs. . . . Yet this man hath pressed me to invite them to a nearer conjunction with the Liturgy and Canons of this nation; but I sent him back again with the frivolous draught he had drawn. . . . For all this he feared not mine anger, but assaulted me again with another ill-fangled platform to make that stubborn Kirk stoop more to the English pattern. But I durst not play fall and loose with my word. He knows not the stomach of that people; but I ken the story of my grandmother, the Queen regent, that after she was inveigled to break her promise made to some mutineers at a Perth meeting, she never saw good day, but from thence, being much beloved before, was despised of all the people.”69

    This language could not have been used by the King at the time alleged, for Laud was presented to the see of St. David's on the 20th of June 1621; and no promise had been given by James, till that made by Hamilton in his name at the meeting of the Scottish Estates in the end of July thereafter. But probably Williams heard the substance of it from the King at a later period.
    The King's death took place on the 27th of March 1625, in the fifty-ninth year of his age. This event put a stop for the time to ecclesiastical innovation; the MS. of the Liturgy, which had been returned to Spottiswoode, remained in his hands, but no public notice of it was taken for above eight years, and it seems to have been almost forgotten by some of its early promoters.
    King Charles, for the first four years of his reign, was too much embarrassed with foreign affairs to interfere much with the Church of Scotland.

    1626.] In some respects he was more tolerant than his father. He permitted the clergy who had been ordained before 1618 to adhere to their old usages without practising Perth Articles. During these few years the two parties in the Church lived in comparative peace, and were gradually approaching each other; but a worse storm than ever was about to break.

    1628.] In 1628, Laud, having been made Bishop of London, became Charles's chief counsellor, and took the guidance of the ecclesiastical affairs of the Empire very much into his own hands.


67 King's Declaration, ut supra, also Preface to the Prayer Book of 1637. Clarendon says that James” exceedingly desired to introduce the English Liturgy, and that there had never been any thought in the time of King James ... but of the English Liturgy.” —Hist. pp. 63, 66. This shows that he was imperfectly acquainted with the subject; still James's wish for the English Liturgy may have made him lukewarm as to the Scottish draft.

68 Laud was born in 1573. He accompanied James in his visit to Scotland in 1617, and from that time took a keen interest in its church affairs. In 1621 he was made Bishop of St. David's. Charles promoted him to the See of Bath and Wells, and in 1628 to that of London. He accompanied Charles to Scotland in 1633, and was made Archbishop of Canterbury in that year. In 1641 he was thrown into the Tower, where he remained a prisoner. In January 1645 sentence was passed against him, and he was beheaded on Tower Hill.

69 Hacket's Memorial if Archbishop Williams, p. 64.

    1629.] In 1629, Charles revived the subject of the Liturgy.

“He reminded the Scotch Bishops of their duty, and ordered them to solicit the affair with the utmost application.”70

70 Collier, ii. 60.

His own account given in the declaration is as follows:—

“We, by the grace of God, succeeding to our royal father . . . resolved . . . to pursue that his pious and princely deign for settling a public Liturgy in that our Kingdom of Scotland, it having been sa happily achieved, facilitated, and almost perfected by him. To which purpose we caused the same Service Book transmitted by him to that Church to be remitted and sent back to us, that, after our perusal, and alterations if any should be sound, either necessary or convenient, it might likewise receive our royal authority and approbation: We having received that Book, and after many serious consultations had with divers of our Bishops and clergy of that Kingdom, then here present with us, and after our advices by our letters and instructions to the rest at home, and after many humble advertisernents and remonstrances made from them to us of the reasons of same alterations, which they did conceive would remove diverse difficulties, which otherwise they feared this Book would encounter with; we were contented that this Service Book should come out as now it is printed, being fully liked by them, and signed with their hands, and perused, approved, and published by our royal command and authority.”71

71 Declaration, pp. 17, 18.

In the paper of instructions from which Balcanquhal compiled this narrative it is said—

“King Charles, shortly after his entry to the reign, heir not only to his father's crown but piety, urged the same with a moil pious care and fatherly affection. This very book, in slatu quo King James left it, was sent to His Ma:, and presented to His Ma: by myself (whether the same was done by the Bishop of Ross then, now Archbishop of Glasgow, I dare not confidently aver, but I think he it was). His Majesty took great care of it, gave his royal judgment, and I returned home, and signified his Majesty pleasure to my Lord St. Andrews, and he to such of the clergy as he thought fit.
    “There was during this time much pains taken by his Ma: here and my L. St. Andrews, and same others there, to have it so framed as we needed not to be ashamed of it when it should be seen to the Christian world, [and] with that prudent moderation that it might be done in that [way] which might occasion the least offence to weak ones there.
“In God's mercy ... that it was framed so as the ... it, and put their hands to it which I shew to his Ma ; and thereafter His Ma. gave his royal approbation, writ to the council for authorising of it, and to the B B. to be careful, in all prudent and convenient speed, to put it in practice, and that it should go to press, that this might be the sooner and better done.
    “To facilitate the receiving of the Book of Common Prayer, a care was had besides to make it as perfect as could be, so likewise that howsoever it should come as near to this of England as could be, yet that it should be in something different, that our Church and Kingdom might not grumble as though we were a Church dependent from or subordinate to them.
    "His Ma: prudent piety was such, that, tenderly caring for the peace of this Church, same things were kept in our Liturgy, which as yet our Church could not be urged with, and same things which the weakness of the greater part would except against; that the turbulent here might get no advantage by our Book to dis­quiet the Church; and that ours might the more [smoothly] be received, his Ma: in a gracious moderat ... ned under his hand, dispensed with the B B. not ... upon any but such as were willing ... their flocks to do it.
    “And yet [his Majesty's] care and prudence was more, that when all was concluded, and the book ready for the press, to prepare men the better to receive it, he gave order to all Archbishops and B B., till our own should be printed and fully authorised, to cause read the English Service Book in their Cathedrals, to use it morning and evening in their own houses and colleges, as it had been used in his Ma: Chapel Royal in the year of God 1617. The B B. upon a remonstrance made to his Ma: that seeing their own was shortly to come forth desired that all should be continued till their own were printed and fully authorised ; to which his Ma: graciously accorded.”

    This paper, which we print in full, so far as it bears on the compilation of the Liturgy, appears to have been written for the information of Balcanquhal by Maxwell, who took refuge in England after the outbreak of 1637.72

Laud, in his History of his Troubles and Trial, gives some further information on the subject.

72 The editor of Baillie's Letters, who attributed it to the Earl of Stirling, is now satisfied that he could not have been the writer, and failing him, the personal references all point to Maxwell.

"Dr. John Maxwell,”73 he says, “the late Bishop of Ross, came to me from his Majesty .. , It was in the year 1629, in August or September. .. The cause of his coming was to speak with me about a Liturgy for Scotland. At his coming I was so extream ill that I saw him not. .. After this, when I was able to sit up, he came to me again, and told me that it was his Majesty's pleasure, that I should receive instructions from some Bishops of Scotland concerning a Liturgy for that Church; and that he was employed from my Lord the Archbishop of St. Andrews, and other prelates there, about it. I told him I was clear of opinion, that if his Majesty would have a Liturgy settled there, it were best to take the English Liturgy without any variation, that so the same Service Book might be established in all his Majesty's dominions. Which I did then, and do still think would have been a great happiness to this state, and a great honour and safety to religion. To this he replied, that he was of a contrary opinion, and that not he only, but the Bishops of that Kingdom thought their countrymen would be much better satisfied if a Liturgy were framed by their own clergy, than to have the English Liturgy put upon them; yet he added, that it might be according to the form of our English Service Book. I answered to this, that if this were the resolution of my brethren the Bishops of Scotland, I would not entertain so much as thoughts about it, till I might, by God's blessing have health and opportunity to wait upon his Majesty, and receive his further directions from himself.
    "When I was able to go abroad, I came to his Majesty and represented all that had passed. His Majesty avowed the sending of Dr. Maxwell to me, and the message sent by him. But then he inclined to my opinion, to have the English service without any alteration to be established there. And in this condition I held that business for two or three years at least.”74

73 Maxwell, son of Maxwell of Cavons in Nithsdale, was translated from Mortlach to Edinburgh in 1622: about 1628 he became the chief Scottish manager of Scottish Ecclesiastical affairs at Court; and in 1633 he was made Bishop of Ross, Guthry says he was a man of great parts, but of unbounded ambition. — Mem. p. 14· Burnet says, “he was the unhappy instrument of that which brought all the troubles on Scotland.”


74 Pp. 168-9, and iii. 427, Ang. Cat. Lib. ed.

    While Charles, whose declaration, as has been said, “is throughout virtually a pleading of counsel,”75 represents that the Scots, afraid of difficulties that the original draft would meet with, got it changed into the form printed in 1637, Laud here ignores the draft, though he was well acquainted with it. But, putting the different accounts together, it is apparent that two copies of the MS. as finished in James's time were taken up to London about 1629, one of them by Maxwell on this visit to the Court. This is confirmed by the prayer for the Royal Family in that now edited, which, in the recopying of the Liturgy for transmission south, had evidently been changed to suit the time. Charles's name is given instead of his father's, and there is a petition for the Queen, that God would “make her a happy mother of successful children.” Charles's eldest son was born May 29th, 1630, so that this petition was drawn up before that date. He had been married in 1625, but as all the evidence goes to show that he only revived the question of the Liturgy in 1629, the prayer was no doubt amended shortly before Maxwell went to London.
    Maxwell probably presented the draft as embodying substantially the views of the Scottish Church; and it is evident that Laud had the chief hand in dissuading the King from accepting it. It was altogether too bare to suit his views, and he recommended instead the English Liturgy without any change. The King acquiesced, and Laud, according to his own account, held “that business “ in this condition for same years, i.e. till the King's visit to Scotland in 1633. Heylin, who gives the same account of Maxwell's proceedings in London in 1629, says, “ On these terms it stood till this present year (1633), Laud standing hard for admitting the English Liturgy without alteration.”76 Maxwell returned to Scotland in November 1629, and “it was constantly reported” that “he brought down with him a letter from his Majesty “ to the Primate,


75 Burton's Hist. of Scotland, vi. 417.


76 Life of Laud, 236-7.



“To assemble such of the ministry as he pleased, at least the moderators of the Presbyteries at Edinburgh, July 27th, and to intimate that it was his Majesty's pleasure that the whole of the order of the English Kirk should be received here.”77

    No doubt he at least brought the intelligence that the draft of King James's time was not favourably received, and that the King, advised by Laud, wished the adoption of the English Liturgy. There is a letter bearing upon these rumours, of date January 28th, 1630, written by Struthers78 to the King's secretary,79 in which he remonstrates against any further innovations. He says there “Are surmises of further novations, of organs, liturgies, and such like;” that James had “made the Marquis of Hamilton promise in his Majesty's name to all the estates of this land, solemnly, in face of Parliament, that the Church should not be urged with any more novations;” that “the motion that is said to be made to his Majesty of these novations is made by and beside the knowledge and conscience of the Kirk of this land, who are highly displeased with that motion, and more, because it is alleged to have been in their name, who know nothing thereof but by report.”80
    In this he may allude to the proposal to bring in the English Liturgy under cover of the Act of Assembly 1616. Struthers had been present at that Assembly, and had greatly applauded its proceedings, yet in 1617 he preached violently against the ceremonies of the Church of England. He was quite likely to have written in this strain, upon hearing that it was proposed to set aside the Scottish draft, and to introduce instead the whole English service. The letter, however, shows that he had understood the promise of Hamilton to have put a slop to any liturgical change, and that he was now opposed even to the revision of Knox, as likely to produce fresh troubles, though he highly approved of it in James's reign. Representing as he did the views of many conformists, his letter may have had some influence with the King.

1633.] In 1633, Charles came to Edinburgh to be crowned; also, Clarendon says, to finish the important business of the Liturgy, for which end he was accompanied by Laud. The coronation took place on the 18th of June, Archbishop Spottiswoode officiating, and Parliament met on the following day. It was proposed to confirm all previous Acts respecting religion, and also to continue to the Sovereign the power of regulating the apparel of churchmen, which had been conferred upon King James. This last proposal met with much opposition, as it was feared that the King would introduce sacerdotal vestments, It was held to be carried by a majority, though this was questioned at the time, and remains doubtful.81 Some of the clergy wished that “all ratification of former Acts of Parliament should be suspended,” till there should be a meeting of Assembly “to compose the controversies of the Kirk,” and pointed out the danger of innovations being brought in under colour of the Acts of Aberdeen Assembly 1616.82
    During this visit, Laud, in conference with some of the bishops and others of the clergy, brought forward the subject of the Liturgy. The older bishops, according to Guthrie,83 explained how the introduction of it had been stopped in James's time, and said that

“They were not yet without some fear, that if it should be gone about, the consequence thereof might be very sad; but Bishop Maxwell, and with him Mr. Thomas Sydserf84 (who was then but a candidate), and Mr. Mitchell,85 and others, pressed hard that it might, assuring that there was no kind of danger in it; whereupon Bishop Laud (who spake as he would have it) moving the King to declare it to be his will that there should be a Liturgy in this Church, his Majesty commanded the bishops to go about the forming of it.”

    Crawford,86 referring to a MS. supplement of Spottiswoode's history, mentions the names of Dr. Lindsay and Dr. Wedderburn, as also among those who pressed for a Liturgy. It is evident that the older bishops were opposed at this time to any change upon Knox's book. The excited state of the country, the general policy of Laud, and probably the disfavour with which he received their draft sent up in 1629, caused them to take up this position, Overruled in this, from the younger men supporting the views of Laud and the King, their next step was to oppose with the utmost earnestness the adoption of the English Prayer Book. If there was to be a new Liturgy, they held that it should be a Scottish one, such as had been contemplated in the previous reign. Clarendon says they objected to the English Liturgy on two grounds. First, there were defects in it which they wished remedied, such as the use of the old translation of the Bible, and the reading of lessons from the Apocrypha. The second reason was sounded on the jealousy which had been long felt in Scotland, lest

“They should by degrees be reduced to be but as a province of England, and subject to their laws and government, which they would never submit to; nor would any man of honour, who loved the King best and respected England most, ever consent to bring that dishonour upon his country.”

    In consequence of this, they said the Liturgy of the Church of England would be detested, while one with some desirable alterations would be accepted. This was “passionately and vehemently urged by the bishops,” and it had an effect upon the King, who up till this time had supported Laud's views of introducing the English Liturgy without any change. It is usually supposed that during this visit it was finally resolved that a new Liturgy, with some few variations from the English, should be drafted in Scotland, and transmitted to the King for his approval, and that of some of the English bishops,

    Laud, however, refers to the final decision as having been arrived at by the King after his return from Scotland ;–

“At his Majesty’s return in the same year I was, by his special grace and favour, made Archbishop of Canterbury 19th September. The debate about the Scottish Liturgy was pursued afresh, and at last it was resolved by the King, that some Scottish Bishops should draw up a Liturgy as near that of England as might be.”87

    He also says—

“I wrote to the late Reverend Archbishop of St. Andrews, Sept. 30th, 1633, concerning the Liturgy, that whether that of England or another was resolved on, yet they should proceed circumspectly, because his Majesty had no intendment to do anything but that which was according to honor and justice.”88


77Historical Collections from 1589 to 1641. See Wod, Life of Spottiswoode, Gordon's Scotichronicon, iii. p. 503. Wodrow sometimes refers to this MS. as the Edinburgh Collections, the supposition being that it was written by a “nonconform burgess” there.

78Mr. William Struthers was translated from Glasgow to Edinburgh in 1614, and was made the first Dean of that diocese in 1633, shortly before his death. He was brother-in-law of David Dickson of Irvine. Principal Baillie mentions him and Mr. Cameron as “his very singular friends and excellent divines as our nation has bred,” and Struthers left part of his library to Baillie. He was one of the moll eloquent preachers of the time, and published several treatises and sermons, Calderwood says he was once so opposed to bishops that he could scarcely explain a chapter at meals without attacking them, that he threatened to flog his pupil, the Earl of Wigton, for calling one of them my lord, and that he swooned at the sight of the Bishop of Glasgow, and required a little whisky to bring him to his senses. —Hist. vii. 347. He continued to be strongly opposed to the English Liturgy, though submitting to the innovations already introduced.

1 Sir William Alexander, afterwards Earl of Stirling, the poet, statesman, and owner of Nova Scotia, of which he received a grant from the King in 1621. He is supposed to have been the principal author of the version of the Psalms which was published as the translation of King James, though the letters written by Alexander from King Charles to Spottiswoode, urging the adoption of the new version out of regard to the memory of his father, lead one to think that James had more to do with it than is commonly supposed, These Psalms were first printed separately, and afterwards with the Liturgy of 1637. There are three volumes of Sir W. Alexander's letters, as. Secretary of State, in MS., in the Register House and Signet Library, Edinburgh. It is to be hoped that the proposal to print them will be carried out. They Contain valuable information, which has not yet been made much use of.

80 Balfour, Annals, ii. 181 ; also Stev. Hist., p. 118.

81 In accordance with this Act, Charles, in October 1633, wrote Ballantine, Bishop of Dunblane, and Dean of the Chapel Royal, to preach “in his Whites,” and also that copes should be used at the Lord's Supper in the said chapel. A warrant was also sent down directing the bishops to wear always “a rochet and sleeves” in church, and at meetings of the Privy Council and Session. They were also to have “a chymer, that is a satin or taffeta gown without lining or sleeves, to be worn over their whites at the time of their consecration.” The inferior clergy were directed to preach in black gowns, but to wear surplices when reading the prayers, administering the sacraments, and burying the dead. See King's letters of October 6th and 18th, in Earl of Stirling's MSS. ; Stevenson's Hist. 144; Acts of Parl., v, 21.

82 Apologet. Nar., 336.

83 Memoirs, p. 16.

84 One of the ministers of Edinburgh from 1611. In 1617 he signed the protestation for the liberties of the Kirk. He was made Dean of Edinburgh, January 1634, Bishop of Brechin, July 1635, and in the same year was translated to the See of Galloway. After the Restoration he was made Bishop of Orkney.

85 Mitchell was one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and after the Restoration Bishop of Aberdeen. In 1620, when minister of Garvoch, he was threatened with summary deprivation for resistance to the Articles of Perth [Rec. Dio. Syn. St. And.], and so late as 1629 he refused to kneel at the Lord's Supper [Stev. Hist. p.115], but his views changed, and he was deposed by the Glasgow Assembly, 1638, for Arminianisrn and Popery. Row says, “Maxwell, Sydserf, and Mitchell, were never heard to utter any unsound heterodox doctrine ... till (Bishop) Forbes came to Edinburgh.” Hist. 372.

86 Lives of Chancellors, etc., p. 175. Wedderburn appears, however, to have been at this time still in England. The MS. supplement of Spottiswoode's History, from which Crawford largely quotes, could not be traced by Wodrow, and nothing is now known of it so far as we can learn.

87 Troubles and Tryal, p. 75.

88 Ibid. p. 169.

In October of this year the King sent down orders with regard to the University of St. Andrews, in which he enjoined that “the service there read shall be the English Liturgy unto such time as another be made and published by authority in that Church.”89 At the same time, in his instructions regarding the Chapel Royal, he directed the English Service to be read “till some course be taken for making one that may fit the custom and constitution of that Church.”

89 Earl of Stirling's Letters, MSS., Signet Library, pp. 836-8.


    In a letter to the Archbishops and Bishops, of the same date as other letters on Scottish Ecclesiastical affairs, October 1633, after urging them to go before their people “in the way of prayer,” he says—

“Our express will and pleasure, therefore, is that every of you, the Archbishops and Bishops, carry yourselves with the gravity and devotion that beseems your place and calling, and particularly that yon have in your several dwelling-houses prayers twice every day for your families, and be present yourselves . . . and we think it very requisite until such time as you will consider of and agree upon a fit and full Liturgy, and form of Divine Service for that Church, that everyone of you respectively do use in your several oratories the Liturgy of the Church of England, by use of which as yon shall perform due service to God, so (hall you also come to be better acquainted with the forms of that Church, which will in due time produce good effects for our service in both Kingdoms.”90

90 Ibid. pp. 836-8.

The facts seem to be that at this time the King wished the Scottish Church either to accept the English Liturgy or draw up a Service of its own, while Laud was still doing what he could to carry the English form, and the Scottish Bishops were putting the matter off and trying to gain time.

    1634.] It was on the 13th May of the following year that the King finally gave orders to the Scottish Bishops to decide as to the form of the Liturgy, and proceed with it, as appears from the following letter addressed to the whole Bishops by him:—

“Right Reverend—We, tendering the good and peace of that Church by having good and decent order and discipline observed therein, whereby religion and God's worship may increase, and considering that there is nothing more defective in that Church than the want of a Book of Common Prayer, and uniform service to be kept in all the Churches thereof, and the want of Canons for the uniformity of the same: We are hereby pleased to authorise you as the representative body of that Church, and do hereby will and require you, to condescend upon a form of Church Service to be used therein, and to set down Canons for the uniformity of the discipline thereof, to be kept as well in the Colleges, Universities, and their Own private families, as in the whole Churches throughout that Kingdom, wherein expecting your great care and diligence as you will tender the good of that Church and our service.91

Greenwich, 13th May 1634.

91 Earl of Stirling's MSS., p. 1005.


    In a MS. of that period, which gives “an account of papers intercepted betwixt Archbishop Laud and the Scotch Bishops,” reference is made to one “entitled Memoirs for my Lord B. of Ross, of matters to be proposed to his Majesty and my Lord Cant. his G.” This is said to be

“All written and subscribed by the Archbishop of St. Andrews, Aug. 8, 1634; of the same date, and subjoined with the first draft of the Book of Canons sent up to be corrected. . . In the first direction they give an account anent the Liturgy, the Canons, and the Psalms.”92

92 Baillie's Let. vol. i. p. 429, app. The MS. is in the possession of the editor, Dr. Laing.

    It thus appears that, in reply to the King's order, Maxwell was sent up to Court in August, that he carried with him the first draft of the Canons, the preparation of which had been begun in James's reign, and that he was authorised to give explanations as to the Liturgy.
    The King was satisfied with what had been done, as he wrote to Spottiswoode soon after as follows—

“Right Reverend—We are well pleased, and count it acceptable service that you are so careful, according to our command, to have a Book of Common Prayer and a Book of Canons established in the Church of that our native Kingdom. . . As we give you hearty thanks for this care, so we are hereby pleased to encourage you to the continuance and perfecting of both. And for the Book of Common Prayer, it is our express will and pleasure that you cause frame it with all convenient diligence, and that as near as can be to this of England, and till you have framed your own, that as before we commanded, you do twice a-day service in your own private family according to this of England; and that you cause the same to be done in your Cathedral Churches on all holydays and in all public Assemblies; and that in our name you command all our Bishops and Colleges within your Province to do the same, and if they disobey that you certify us, as you will be answerable for the same; in all which we expect your loyal obedience for advancement of God's glory, the good of our service and honour of that Church, as you may be confident of our princely care to advance all your pious and good designs.93

Hampton Court, Oct. 20th, 1634.”

93 Earl of Stirling's MSS. p. 1056. This letter is followed by another of the same date, and in nearly the same words, though rather sharper, to the Archbishop of Glasgow. The order to have family worship, etc., according to the English Prayer Book, was remonstrated against by the Scottish Bishops, and was not pressed.

Maxwell, on his return to Scotland about this time, carried back with him the draft of the Book of Canons with important alterations, made by Laud and Juxon,94 Bishop of London, who had this warrant from the King to make what changes they thought proper:—

“Canterbury. I would have you and the Bishop of London peruse the Canons which are sent from the Bishops of Scotland, and to your best skill see that they be well fitted for Church government, and as near as conveniently may be to the Canons of the Church of England. And to that end you, Or either of you, may alter what you shall find fitting; and this shall be your warrant.”95

    Laud states that the draft was “not sent,” but “brought” and” delivered” to him by the Bishop of Ross, that it was “written on one side only,” that it was corrected and added to by him and the Bishop of London, and “delivered . . . back” to the Bishop who brought it, for submission to the Church of Scotland.96
    In a warrant from the King to Laud, which will be given under the year 1636, reference is made to a Prayer Book for Scotland, “signed by him at Hampton Court, Septr. 28, 1634.” If this date be correct, it seems that, besides the instructions given in the letter, that the new Prayer Book was to be “as near as can be to that of England,” the changes that the King approved were at this time written into an English Prayer Book as a guide or rule to the Scottish Bishops. This is the only reference we know of to this book, and we must therefore speak of it with some uncertainty.


94 Juxon was made Bishop of London in 1633 on Laud's advancement to the See of Canterbury, and was made Lord Treasurer in March 1635. He owed his promotion to Laud, who was much attached to him. Of a mild disposition and moderate in his opinions, he was a general favourite. He was with Charles the First during his trial, and attended him on the scaffold. During the Commonwealth, he lived on his own estate, and was, it is said, a great hunter, keeping the best pack of hounds in England. At the Restorations he was made Archbishop of Canterbury.

95 Prynne's Hid. Works of Darkness, p. 152. The warrant has no date.

96 History of Troubles and Tryal, 98; and vol. iii. p. 318, Ang. Cat. Lib.

    1635.] Early in the following year a new copy of the Canons was written out by Spottiswoode, in accordance with the alterations made in London,97 and a draft of the Liturgy was prepared. These were approved at a meeting of some Bishops which was held in the beginning of April, and Maxwell was sent up to Court with them, and the following letter to Laud:—

“May it please your Grace — We have put our brother the Bishop of Ross to the pains of a wet [new] journey, for aiding the Liturgy and Canons of the Church, and as we have sound your Grace's favour, both to our Church in general, and ourselves in diverse particulars, for which we are your Grace's debtors, so we are to entreat the continuance thereof in this and our common affairs. We all wish a full conformity in the Churches, but your Grace knoweth that this must be the work of time. We have made, blessed be God, a further progress, than all have here expected in many years, by his Majesty’s favour, and your Grace's help; and hope still to go farther, if it shall please God to continue your Grace in health and life, for which we pray continually. And so, remitting all things to our Brother's relation, we take our leave.
    Your Grace's affectionate brothers and servants,

ST. ANDREWS. GLASGOW.    Jo.. B. of Moray.
AD. B. of Dunblane.         THO. BRECIllN.98

April 2, 1635.


97 Troubles and Tryal, iii. 320.—Ang. Cat. Lib.


98 Prynne's Hid. Works, p. 150. The word “wet” is in some versions “long;” but the copy in the State Paper Office has  “new,” which is no doubt correct.

    In the “papers intercepted betwixt Archbishop Laud and the Scotch Bishops,” there was one they had done all that was possible, In the 4 anent the Canons to get a warrant for the printing.”99
    From other references to contemporary events, it is evident that this was a paper of instructions, which Maxwell carried with him on his visit to London in April 1635.

99 Baillie's Let. vol. i. 429, app.

    The Book of Canons was then regarded as ready for printing, and the King having examined it, confirmed and authorised it at Greenwich, 23d May 1635.100
    The draft of the Liturgy Maxwell carried with him was such, that the Scottish Bishops make a sort of apology to Laud for its not being more like the English, and they instruct him to explain “that they had done all that was possible,” which perhaps means that they could come no nearer the book signed by the King in September.
    Laud, after stating that the Scots Bishops prevailed with his Majesty to have a Liturgy of their own, “notwithstanding all he could do or say to the contrary” adds—

“Then his Majesty commanded me to give the Bishops of Scot­land my best assistance in this way and work. I delayed as much as I could with my obedience, and when nothing would serve, but it must go on, I confess I was then very serious, and gave them the best help I could.”101


100 Warrant prefixed to the Book of Canons.


101 Troubles and Tryal, p. 169; iii. 428.—Ang. Cat. Lib.

    Heylin seems to represent that it was at this time, and in answer to the letter which Maxwell brought, that he took the matter in hand. Be had done so, perhaps, in September of the previous year, but at this time, he, and those who acted with him, made” corrections” on the draft that had been sent up, and “instructions “ were given as to its completion. Laud states that the “Bishop of London was joined with him in all the view and consideration which he had ... upon the Service Book,”102 by the King's command, so that he at least took part in these corrections and instructions, which appear, from the following royal letter to “the Scottish Clergy,” to have been then deemed final:—

102 Ibid. p. 99; iii. 319.


“We have seen and approved the Liturgy sent by you to us with the Book of Canons, the form and manner of making and consecrating of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, with these corrections and instructions which we have signed and sent unto you. Therefore being very desirous that they be all printed, and with all convenient diligence received and practised in the Church of that our ancient kingdom for God's service and the good and beauty of that Church, we command that all be forthwith printed, and by these presents give power unto all whom it doth or may concern for doing of the same, whom we do hereby fully authorise to that purpose; and our further will and command is, that immediately after they are printed you make them all to be used in the Church, for doing whereof these presents shall be your warrant. Likewise, seeing the Psalms in metre done by our dear Father of blessed memory are now approven by you, it is Our express will and pleasure, that you cause likewise print them, and make them to be generally received, and used, together with the said Liturgy, throughout the whole kingdom, and that in such volumes as you shall think most fit for the service of the Church; for the better and more speedy effecting of which, we have by our letters required our Privy Council to give unto you (if need be) that strength and authority you shall find necessary herein.”103

Greenwich, May 1635.

103 Earl of Stirling's MSS., p. 1166.


Patrick Forbes of Corse, Bishop of Aberdeen, had died on the 28th March, and during Maxwell's stay in London the King decided to give the vacant Bishopric to Bellenden,104 Bishop of Dunblane, and Dean of the Chapel Royal, and to appoint Dr. Wedderburn105 to his preferments. Laud had received authority from Charles, after his return from Scotland in 1633, to correspond with Bellenden on the regulation of worship in the Chapel Royal, and he had written him in the interval several letters showing dissatisfaction with him both as to doctrine and ritual.106 From the post he held, he was the person to take a leading part in connection with the new Liturgy, but “proceeding negligently in this affair,” says Collier, “Laud thought it necessary to provide another better disposed."107 Baillie also mentions that Bellenden was “removed from the Chapel Royal to Aberdeen, as one who did not favour well enough Canterbury's new ways.”108 This may account for his removal, but the appointment of Wedderburn seems to have been suggested by Spottiswoode. In the instructions which he gave Maxwell on this visit to London, he is to recommend” that Wedderburn be brought to the Chapel.”109
    Wedderburn, who had been Professor of Divinity in St. Andrews, had left for England in 1626, and, according to Baillie, “was fugitive from our Church discipline for his Arminian lectures to his scholars“ there. He says that he received promotion through Laud's influence, and that he was sent back by him to Scotland to “weave out the web which he began at St. Andrews.”110 Laud says he
was recommended unto me, as a man that had very good parts and learning in him. He lived long with Mr. Isaac Casaubon, who was not like to teach him any Popery. . .. I wished him very well for his worth sake, and did what I could for him to enable him to live. But sure if my ‘intentions were so deep as they are after said to be, he could be no fit instrument for me, he being a mere scholar, and a bookman.”111
Laud refers to him as having returned to Scotland, and also to the state of the Liturgy, in a letter addressed to Maxwell on the 19th of September of this year.


104 Adam Bellenden or Ballantyne had been formerly minister of Falkirk, and a vehement opponent of Episcopacy. He was appointed to the Bishopric of Dunblane in 1616. At his deposition by the Glasgow Assembly in 1638, “the moderator said, Mr. Patrick Simson said to me, he never liked Mr. William Coupar, and Mr. Adam Ballantyne, for they were too violent against Bishops without any light, or good reasons, and therefore he feared that they should never be constant, “

105 Wedderburn was born at Dundee, studied at Oxford, was Professor of Divinity in St. Andrews before 1626, Prebend. of Ely in that year, Rector of Compton, Rants, 1637, and of MildenhalJ, Suffolk, 1628.— (Lib. of Ang. Cath. Theol., Laud's Works, iii. p. 374.) He was Prebend. of Whitechurch in Diocese of Wells, 1631; was appointed to Dunblane in 1635, Can. February 11, 1636.

106 Printed in Dalrym. Col., and App. to Bail. Let. vol. i.

107Hist.. viii. 112.

108 Let. vol. i. pp. 161-2.

109 Ibid. 430.

110 Canterburian's Self- Conviction, p. 11, sup. p. 42.

111 Troubles and Tryal, 134; and iii. 375, Ang. Cat. Lib.

“My very good Lord — My Lord Stirling is not yet come, but I have acquainted his Majesty in what forwardness your Liturgy there is, and with what approbation it is like to come forth. And by the King's command I have sent for Young, the printer, the better to prepare him to make ready a black letter, and to bethink himself to send to his servants at Edinburgh, that so, against the Lord Stirling's coming, all things might be in the better readiness, which is all the service I can do till his Lordship come.
    “I am very glad your Canons are also in so good a readiness, and that the true meaning of that one Canon remains still under the curtain: I hope you will take care that it may be fully printed and passed with the rest: It will be of great use for the settling of the Church.
    “I thank you for your care of Dr. Wedderburn; he is very able to do service, and will certainly do it if you can keep up his heart. I was in good hope he had been consecrated, as well as my Lord of Brechin, but I perceive he is not; what the reason is [I know] not, but 'tis a thousand pities that these uncertainties abide with him. I pray commend my love to him, and tell him I would not have him stick at any thing, for the King will not leave him long at Dunblane, after he hath once settled the chapel right, which I see will settle apace if he keep his footing. . .. The next passage in your letter is only an expression of an apprehension which you [have for your over]throw, and that if they can bring you into disgrace with the King, [they will find easier passa]ge to damnify the Church. I pray trouble not yourself with these [conceits, but s]erve God and the King, and leave the rest to their protection. It may be such [a fear were] fitter for me, and perhaps I have juster cause of apprehension, would I give way to [such thoughts]. In the next passage you are more confident, hold you there, and let no man stagger [you in the ser]vice of God and the King. . . .         W. CANT.

"Croyden, Septr. 19th, 1635.

“ To the Right. Revd. Father in God, my very good Lord and Brother, the Lord Bishop of Ross at Edinburgh, these.”112

112 Wodrow MSS., and printed in App. to Baillie's Let. i. 436.

    The Liturgy, or portions of it, were thus nearly ready for the printers in September; Maxwell, not without misgivings, having amended it in accordance with the alterations and instructions approved by the King in May. The printing of it was commenced very soon after. “I know,” says Baillie, that “much of it was printed in Edinburgh before Yule was a year;”113 — i.e. before December 25, 1635. This is confirmed by a letter written to Max­well by Juxon, early in the following year, in which he says—

113 Let. i. 4.


“My very good Lord — Upon the receipt of your former letters I p[resently] repaired to my Lord Grace of Canterbury, and got a dispatch of what you desired to have explained in your Common Prayer Book; and I hope ere this, it hath sound the way to Edinburgh, that your press stand not still. . .. With your letter of the 6th of this month, I received your Book of Canons, which perchance at first will make more noise than all the cannons in Edinburgh Castle .... 114 GUL. LONDON.

“17 Feby, 1635 [1635-6].”

114 Wodrow MSS. Printed in Dal. Col., and more correctly in App. to Baillie's Let. i, 438.


Towards the end of the year Maxwell had written up for “explanations of some things which perhaps were Laud's additions or alterations”115 to the Liturgy. It had been proposed, no doubt, that the Liturgy and the Book of Canons should be published at the same time; but this reference to London was the beginning of a long delay, in the case of the former, while the publication of the latter was proceeded with at once.


115 Troubles and Tryal, 112.

    1636. ] The Book of Canons received the King's sanction in May 1635. The printing of them was delayed for a time for the sake of the Liturgy. On the 1st of December, Laud wrote to Spottiswoode, that the King was “very much displeased “ to hear that Bellenden, Bishop of Aberdeen, had allowed a fast to be kept in his diocese on a Sunday, at a time when his Majesty was

“Settling that Church against all things that were defective in it, and against the continuance of all unwarrantable customs unknown to and opposed by the ancient Church of Christ.”

He adds—

“His Majesty's Will and pleasure is, that if the Canons be not already printed, as I presume they are not, that yon make a Canon purposely against this unworthy custom, and see it printed with the rest, and that you write a short letter to the Bishop of Aberdeen, to let him see how far he hath overshot himself, which letter you may send with those of mine if you so please. . . .”116

116 Rushworth and Wad. Life of Spot. Gord. Scot. iii. 531.

    A Canon (No. 14) to this effect was added accordingly, and the book was printed by Edward Raban at Aberdeen in January 1636. A copy was sent to Juxon, and, among others, one to the Earl of Stirling, who acknowledges it thus, writing to the Bishop of Ross:—

“I thank you very heartily for your Book of the Canons, which I received yesternight. I was present in the morning when my Lord of Canterbury delivered the book to the King, which, as soon as his Majesty had read same part of it, he delivered unto me, and I was glad to hear him so well pleased therewith. I find same errors in the printer by mistaking or reversing of letters, and therefore have the more care in looking to that in printing of the Service Book, for Young, the printer, is the greatest knave that ever I dealt with; and therefore trust nothing to him or his servants but what of necessity yon must . . . 117

“Whitehall, 17th of Feby. 1636.”

117 Bail. Let. (from Wad. MSS.) i. 439. The Scottish Canons have been reprinted with Laud's Works in the Library of Ang. Cat. Theol., vol. v. part ii. P: 583.

    However acceptable the Canons may have been at Court, they caused much dissatisfaction in Scotland, from the alleged Romish character of some of them, from their tying the clergy to a Liturgy not yet fully formed, and from their being imposed by the King on his own authority.
    Wedderburn about this time began to take the leading part in Scotland in connection with the Liturgy, and this led to a change of plans—the destruction of the edition which was partially printed—a closer imitation of the English Liturgy, and, at the same time, to some departures from it, in an opposite direction, certainly, from what was wished in Scotland.
    Heylin says that he “followed instructions which he carried with him,” but he was himself learned in Liturgies, and was responsible for some of the later rectifications. The following letter to him from Laud sheds much light on the progress of affairs:—


“ ... By these last letters of yours, I find that you are consecrated; God give you joy. And whereas you desire a copy of our Book of Ordination, I have here sent you one. And I have acquainted his Majesty with the two great reasons that you give, why the Book which you had in King James's time is short and insufficient. As, first, that the order of Deacons is made but as a lay office, at least, as that book may be understood. And secondly, that in the admission to priesthood, the very essential words of conferring orders are left out. At which his Majesty was much troubled, as he had great cause, and concerning which he hath commanded me to write, that either you do admit of our Book of Ordination, or else that you amend your own in there two gross oversights, or anything else, if in more it be to be corrected, and then see the Book reprinted. I pray fail not to acquaint my Lord of St. Andrews and my Lord Ross with this express command of His Majesty.118
“I received likewise from you at the same time certain notes to be considered of, that all, or at least so many of them as his Majesty should approve, might be made use of in your Liturgy which is now printing. And though my business hath of late lain very heavy upon me, yet I presently acquainted his Majesty with what you had written. After this I and Bishop Wren119 (my Lord Treasurer being now otherwise busied), by his Majesty's appointment, sat down seriously and considered of them all, and then I tendered them again to the King without our animadversions upon them, and his Majesty had the patience to weigh and consider them all again. This done, so many of them as his Majesty approved, I have written into a service book of ours, and sent you the Book with his Majesty's hand to it, to warrant all your alterations made therein. So, in the printing of your Liturgy, you are to follow the book which my Lord Ross brought, and the additions which are made to the book I now send. But if you find the book of my Lord Rosses and this to differ in anything that is material, then you are to follow this later book I now send, as expressing some things more fully.
    “And now that your Lordship sees all of your animadversions, which the King approved written into this book, I shall not need to write largely to you, what the reasons were why all of yours were not admitted, for your judgment and modesty is such, that you will easily conceive some reason was apprehended for it. Yet, because it is necessary that you know somewhat more distinctly, I shall here give you a particular account of some things which are of most moment, and which otherwise perhaps might breed a doubtfulness in you.
    “And first, I thought you could not have doubted but that the magnificat, &c., was to be printed according to the Translation of King James, for that was named once for all. And that translation is to be followed in the Epistles and Gospels, as well as in the Psalms. Where I pray observe in the title-page of the Psalms in the Book I now send, an alteration which I think my Lord Ross's book had not. And if you have not printed those Psalms, with a colon in the middle of every verse, as it is with ours ordinarily in the English, it is impossible those Psalms should ever be well sung to the organ. And if this error be run into, it mull: be mended by a painful way, by a pen for all such books as the Chapel Royal useth, and then by one of them, the next impression of your Liturgy may be mended wholly.
    “Secondly, in the Creed of St. Athanasius, we can agree to no more emendations, no not according to our best Greek copies, than you shall find amended in this book.








118 The form of ordination printed in 1620 has no office for the diaconate, but there may have been a fuller edition a year or two later, of which no trace remains. What Laud calls the “essential words of conferring orders"— “Receive the Holy Ghost,” etc., were never used in the Eastern Church, and not till the thirteenth century in the Western, though employed by our Lord at the institution of the office of Presbyter, The English ordinal is itself supposed to have been essentially defective as an Episcopal service till 1661-2, when it was amended; but this was a century too late. The Scottish Book of Ordination was amended, in accordance with Wedderburn's suggestions, and printed in 1636, but no copy is known to exist.

119 Bishop of Norwich. Dr. John Cosin, also connected with Norwich, was believed by the Scots to “be one of the main pen­men” of “Laud's Liturgy.” -Canterburian's Self-Con., p. 102. See also Fuller's Church History, and his “Appeal of injured innocence,” a controversy with Heylin on this and other subjects. It is evident that Cosin had to do with the Service Book, and that it was very much through his influence, that in 1661-2 so many of its peculiarities were transferred to the English Prayer Book.

    “Thirdly, though the Bishops there were willed to consider of the holydays, yet it was never intended, but that the office appointed for every of them should be kept in the Liturgy, and the consideration was only to be of the observation of them. 120
    Fourthly, for the sentences at the offertory. We admit of all yours, but we think withal that diverse which are in our Book would be retained together with yours. As namely, the 2d, 4th, 6th, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15.
    “Fifthly, I would have every Prayer or other action throughout the whole Communion named in the Rubric before it, that it may be known to the people what it is, as I have begun to do in the Prayer of Consecration, and in the Memorial or Prayer of Oblation. Fac similiter.
    “Sixthly, We do fully approve the collect of consecration and oblation should precede, and the Lord's Prayer follow next, and be said before the Communion, in that order which you have ex­pressed; but for the Invitation, Confession, Absolution, Sentences, Preface, and Doxology, we think they stand best as they are now placed in our Liturgy, and as for the Prayer of humble access to the holy communion, that will stand very well next before the participation.
    “Seventhly, I have ordered a rubric in the margin of this book, according as you desire, to direct him that celebrates when to take the sacrament into his hand-namely, to take and break, and lay hands on the chalice, as he speaks the words. For certainly the practice of the Church of England therein is very right. And for the objection that we should not do it, till we express our warrant so to do, which you conceive is in the words, Do this, &c. I answer—1. That those words, Do this, &c., are rather our warrant for the participation, or communication, than the consecration; 2. That our repeating what Christ did is our warrant to do the same, being thereto commanded; 3. That the whole action is actus continuus, and therefore though in our saying (Do this) follows after, yet it doth, and mull: be intended to that which we did before, and comes last to seal and confirm our warrant for doing so. And so it is in the other sacrament of baptism, where we take the child first, and baptise it, and then afterwards we say, We receive this child, &c. Which in actu continuo must needs relate to the preceding act, for the child was actually received into the Church by the very act of baptism itself. And this is but our declaration of that reception.
    “And whereas you write, that much more might have been done if the times would have borne it; I make no doubt but there might have been a fuller addition. But, God be thanked, this will do very well, and I hope breed up a great deal of devout and religious piety in that Kingdom. Yet I pray for my farther satisfaction, at your best leisure, draw up all those particulars, which you think might make the Liturgy perfect, whether the times will bear them or not, and send them safe to me, and I will not fail to give you my judgment of them, and perhaps put some of them to further use, at least in my own particular.
    “One thing more, and then I have done. In his Majesty's authorising of the notes in this book, prefixed at the beginning of it, though he leave a liberty to my Lords the Archbishops of St. Andrews and Brethren the Bishops who are upon the place, upon apparent reasons to vary some things; yet you must know, and inform them, that his Majesty having viewed all these additions, hopes there will be no need if change of any thing, and will be best pleased with little or rather no alteration. So, wishing all prosperity to that Church, and a happy finishing to your Liturgy, and health to my brethren the Bishops, I leave you to the grace of God, and rest, your Lordship's very loving friend and brother,121


“Lambeth, April 20, 1636.”


120 “We heard then (Christmas 1635) that the Bishop of Edinburgh, chiefly, had obtained that we should be quit of the surplice, cross, Apocrypha, Saints' days, and some other trash of the English Liturgy; but since that time they say that Canterbury sent down to our Chancellor a long wreit of additions which, nill he will he, behoved to be put in."-Bail. Let. i. 4.


121 Prynne's Hid. Works, pp. 152-4.



    In the last paragraph of this letter reference is made to the King's warrant for the additions and alterations thus made. Prynne sound a copy of it in Laud's chambers in a duplicate of the corrected English Prayer Book sent down to Scotland at this time. It ran thus:—

“Charles R. I gave the Archbishop of Canterbury command to make the alterations expressed in this Book, and to fit a Liturgy for the Church of Scotland. And wheresoever they shall differ from another Book signed by us at Hampton Court, Septr, 28, 1634, our pleasure is, to have these followed rather than the former, unless the Archbishop of St. Andrews, and his brethren who are upon the place, shall see apparent reason to the contrary. At Whitehall, April 19th, 1636.”122

122 Ibid. p. 156.

    Prynne suspected this to be a forgery, “Charles R. being not the King's own hand;” but it is evident that it was a copy of the original, which went to Scotland. The words, as to the liberty granted to the bishops, which they were not expected to take advantage of, are quoted from it. There is no other reference, however, as we have said above, so far as we are aware, to the Book for Scotland, signed by the King in September 1634. If the date be correct, it seems, taken in connection with other facts, to show that Maxwell received a finished book to guide the Scottish compilers, who were directed by the King's letter of October 20, 1634, to follow “as near as can be this of England;” that they fell short of it in their draft of April 1635, and apologised accordingly; that the King and his advisers then gave way and consented to this, with some emendations; that afterwards in 1636 they took courage, cancelled an edition partially printed, and went back to and beyond the book of 1634.
    The date and the conjecture may both be wrong, but it is evident that the Scottish Prayer Book was virtually settled in April 1636 by Laud and Wren writing into an English Liturgy the few changes suggested in Scotland, which they were willing to admit, and such other alterations, mostly in an opposite direction, as seemed good to them.
    A Catechism, to go along with the Liturgy, had been prepared, authorised by James and the General Assembly of Perth, printed, and to some extent brought into use; but with one dash of the pen it was consigned to oblivion. “This Catechism (that of the English Prayer Book) must be retained in your Liturgy, and no other admitted in your several parishes.”123 Though almost forbidden to do so, the Scots modified Laud's and Wren's rubric as to the position of the presbyter in celebrating the communion.

123 Note in the Book of April 1636.


    In October they received the following further and final instructions from His Majesty: one of them imposing, for the first time, chapters from the Apocrypha.

“Charles R.
    “That you advert, that the proclamation for authorising the Service Book, it derogate nothing from our prerogative royal.
    “That in the Calendar you keep such Catholic Saints as are in the English, that you pester it not with too many, but such as you insert of the peculiar Saints of that our Kingdom, that they be of the moll approved, and hereto have regard to those of the blood royal, and such holy Bishops in every see moll renowned. But in no case omit St. George and Patrick. “That in your Book of Orders, in giving Orders to Presbyters, you keep the words of the English Book without change; Receive the Holy Ghost, etc.
    “That you insert amongst the lessons ordinarily to be read in the service out of the Book of Wisdom, the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 chapters, and out of the Book of Ecclesiasticus, the 1, 2, 5, 8, 35, and 49 chapters.
    “That every Bishop, within his own family, twice a-day cause the service to be done. And that all Archbishops and Bishops make all Universities and Colleges within their dioceses to use daily twice a-day the service.
    “That the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer signed by our hand, and the Proclamation authorising the same, be printed and inserted in the Book of Common Prayer.
    "Given at Newmarket, the 18th day of Octr, 1636, and of our reign the 11.”124

124 Prynne's Hid. Works, 156.

    On the same day, he wrote to the Scottish Privy Council, requiring them to command by open proclamation all his subjects to conform to the new Liturgy, as being the only form which he would allow in public worship; and on the 20th of December following, the Council passed an Act in accordance with the King's missive.


    1637.] Copies of the Liturgy were issued from the press in April 1637,125 the last being the fourth or fifth draft. There was that of the original Committee in 1617; that approved by King James a year or two later, and sent up to Charles in 1629; the book referred to as signed by the King, September 28, 1634; the draft taken to London by Maxwell, and approved with corrections, May 1635, partly printed towards the end of that year, but then destroyed; and lastly, that of Laud and Wren, written into an English Prayer Book, April 1636.
    The Book, as finally adopted, was mainly the work of Laud and English Divines of his school, while only a portion of the Scottish Bishops concurred in it, and that not without much pressure. Though Maxwell's account of its compilation is vague and wholly apologetic, he shows that it was for English reasons the English Prayer Book was so closely followed, some things being retained, which it was known would be objected to by the great majority of the Scots, rather than that any advantage should be given to the “turbulent” Puritans of England: Clarendon says that the whole business was managed secretly, and it appears, from a letter written by Laud in the following year, that a number of the Bishops had not even seen it.

125 See receipt of “price of the Liturgies which are given into the Chapel Royal,” Bail. Let. vol. i. 441. Baillie says, “It is now perceived by the leaves and sheets of that book which was given out athort the shops of Edinburgh to cover spice and tobacco, one edition at least was destroyed.— Let. i. 32. This was the portion printed before Christmas 1635. See above, p. lvi. Young had printed an edition in London in the end of 1636. Baillie, writing on the 29th of January 1637, before the Scottish edition was published, says, “My Lord Treasurer brought home a copy of our Scottish Service printed at London, which sundry has perused.” — Let. i, p. 4. He alludes to this edition again, p. 17. Hall, in his Reliquiæ Liturgicæ, vol. i. p. xxix., shows that there were two editions.

Writing to the Earl of Traquair, he says—

“Whereas you write that some Bishops speak plainly, that if their opinions had been craved, they would have advised the amending of something; truly for that, and in that way, I would with an my heart they had seen it. And why my Lord of St. Andrews, and they which were trusted by the King, did not discreetly acquaint every Bishop with it, considering that every Bishop mull: be used (sic) in their several dioceses, I know no reason; and sure I am there was no prohibition upon them. And since I hear from others that some exception is taken, because there is more in that Liturgy, in some few particulars, than is in the Liturgy in England, why did they not then admit the Liturgy of England without more ado? But by their refusal of that, and their dislike of this, 'tis more than manifest they would have neither, perhaps none at all, were they left to themselves.”126

126 Prynne's Hid. Works, p. 169.

    One or two Scottish suggestions were allowed, such as some sentences of Scripture, and the use of Presbyter for Priest; and a partial concession was made to their views as regards the Apocrypha. This was the foundation for the representations, that the Book differed from the English to suit Scottish prejudices, and for remarks upon it like that of Leslie, Bishop of Raphoe—

Hic liber ad pacem paratus, bella paravit,
Hine mala; non hic.126

126 In the loose leaf of a copy belonging to Mr. Leslie of Warthill.

    But nearly all the alterations were of a different character, and can scarcely fail to make the impression, that Laud and his school took advantage of the Scottish wish for a separate Liturgy, to prepare a version of the English Prayer Book, amended as far as possible in accordance with their own views.
    It was substantially a revision of the English Prayer Book, in a ritualistic direction; though this is less observed now than it was at the time, not a few of the emendations of Laud's Book having been incorporated with the English Liturgy, through Colin's influence at the revision in 1661-2.
    The reading of the new Liturgy in St. Giles's, Edinburgh, on the 23d of July, was the signal for a popular outbreak which ended in the great rebellion.
    The idea that this originated in opposition to read prayers is without foundation. Knox's Liturgy had been read in St. Giles's, and joined in devoutly on the morning of the outbreak. Up till that time the reading of prayers had been universal in the Church of Scotland as in other Reformed Churches, and the Presbyterians of Scotland and England, though zealous for the liberty of free prayer, had never objected to an imposed Liturgy as a part of public worship. As we have seen, the whole Church wished for an improvement on Knox's book, till opposition was roused by the events of 1617 and 1618. James's attempts to rule the Church were resisted, and some of his measures were objected to on their own merits. Patriotic feelings also entered into the dispute. The Scots looked to the Continent for ecclesiastical models rather than to England, and they feared that their nationality would be swamped by submission to English Church usages, These troubles made the Church less liturgically disposed towards the end of James's reign than it had been before, and though the great body of the popular party held by Knox, the extreme left began to adopt some Brownist tenets, a tendency which after events developed till Scottish Episcopalians in the matter of liturgical worship went below the earlier Presbyterian practice, and Presbyterians occupied the position of the Sectaries, omitting the use of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and Gloria Patri, though they had threatened with deposition the first who began these omissions.


    In the early years of Charles's reign, many had become reconciled to Perth Articles, who were afterwards leading men among the Covenanters. Though the Bishops were afraid to venture with further changes, had Charles in 1629 sanctioned the Liturgy drawn up in his father's reign, it would probably not have been much objected to. Lord Clarendon supposes that the adoption of even the English Liturgy in 1633 would not have raised much commotion. This is very doubtful, still the great objection to the Book of 1637 was its departure from the English Liturgy in an alleged Romish direction. The Scots objected to the way in which it was imposed; “the moll part” even” of those ministers that were Episcopal in their judgment, “thinking this” a very sad matter.”127 They objected also to its entire exclusion of free prayer, full the great grievance was its alleged Romish character— “the addition of sundry more Popish rites which the English wants.” Row tells us that these objections were at first made rather by the laity than the clergy, many of whom were neutral for a time, waiting to see how events would turn. There was no doubt a panic among the populace about the new “Mass-book,” still it was the question of doctrine as affected by the Canons and the Liturgy, and the fear of a design to undermine the Protestant religion, of which this was thought the first step, that led men like Baillie, Ramsay, and Rolloc, who had been selected for a bishopric, to swell the ranks of the Covenant. Their fears were somewhat exaggerated; still the rubric as to the Baptismal water, the direction to have the holy table at the uppermost part of the chancel, not in the English Book, the commendation of wafer bread, the retaining of the word corporal for a fair linen cloth, the attitude of the officiating minister, and other changes in the Communion Service, were certainly fitted to startle the most Protestant Church in Christendom.

127 Guthrie's Mem. p. 18.


    The common belief that it was the prayer of invocation in the Communion Service which gave most offence is a mistake. Such a prayer is primitive and Eastern, but not Roman; it is thought essential by the Church of Scot­land, and to this day the want of it in the English Prayer, Book is spoken of among us as a very serious defect. It is also to be remembered, that in the Book of 1637, “that they may be unto us the body and blood,” is the phrase used, where the present Scots Episcopal Office has “that they may become the body and blood.” The formula to be used at the delivery was complained of, from the omission of the words, which had been put into the English Prayer Book at the second review, for the purpose of guarding against the doctrine of transubstantiation, Laud states that this change was suggested by Wedderburn, as the addition in his opinion might be thought to favour a Zwinglian doctrine of the Sacrament. Still more offensive was the rubric as to the position of the officiating minister, The Scottish Bishops had ventured to modify the draft sent them by Laud thus:—


In the Book as published.

Then the Presbyter standing up shall say the Prayer of Consecration as followeth. But then, during the time of consecration, he shall stand at such a part of the holy table where he may with the more ease and decency use both his hands.

In Laud's and Wren's draft.

Then the Presbyter standing up shall say the Prayer of Consecration as followeth. But then, during the time of consecration, the Presbyter which consecrates shall stand in the midst before the altar, that he may with the more ease use both his hands, which he cannot so conveniently do standing at the north side of it.128

Though modified, the design of it was understood. Baillie says, the practice of Wren, who was in the habit at consecration of turning his “back to the people,” did “declare their intention."129 Up till this time in England generally, and always in Scotland, the minister had freedom to use both his hands, by following the primitive custom of standing behind the Communion table, which was placed betwixt him and the congregation.130 And the change, with others of a similar tendency, led the Scots to think that Popery was to be brought back again.
    There were, however, other elements of opposition to the Prayer Book besides the religious one.
    Some, who cared little for the religious question, em=­braced the opportunity of resisting arbitrary government in the interests of civil liberty.
    With the great mass of the people there was another element of opposition which was very powerful-the feeling of patriotism. The imposition of the Book” was thought no other than a subjection to England. ”This awakened an outburst of national feeling, such as had not been known since Bannockburn, and the covenant became a new form of fighting out the old national battle.
    There was still another motive which brought to the front many of the most powerful class in the kingdom, whom religion, patriotism, and liberty might have failed to move. King Charles, in 1633, had placed the stipends of the clergy on a satisfactory footing for the first time since the Reformation, an Act for which the Scottish clergy have reason to thank him till this day, but which was very unpopular with those landowners who had previously appropriated to their own use the teinds due the clergy. It was also known that Charles had other ecclesiastical designs in view, such as rebuilding the Cathedrals of St. Andrews and Iona, and worse still, that he intended to recover for the Church some of the lands which had been seized by the laity.     Hence avaricious fears were awakened, and this, with the jealousy of the high position occupied by the Bishops, was, in the King's own opinion, the chief cause of the insurrection. Historians have generally taken the same view, so far at least as the action of many of the great landowners was concerned; who, as has been said, “became Protestants to get the Church property, and became Covenanters to keep it.”
    The Liturgy now printed for the first time is the draft completed in the reign of James, sent up to London in 1629 (if not earlier), as will appear from the notes, and rejected by Charles and his advisers, It is printed from a MS. in the British Museum—probably one of the two copies which were carried to London and given to the King. It







128 Prynne, 160, and copy in Lambeth Library. Prynne sound a duplicate of the Prayer Book for Scotland in Laud's chambers, with the additions in his own handwriting, and has given a minute account of it. This book was long in the public Library at Norwich, but has disappeared. Copies of it were taken, of which there is one in the Library at Lambeth, and another at Armagh. A full account of the Lambeth copy is given in the British Magazine for April, May, and June, 1847, and that of Armagh is described in the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal for February 1840, by Mr. Irwin. Kirkton saw the original copy sent to Scotland, with the corrections written into an English Prayer Book by Laud, but nothing is now known of it.

129 Canterburian's Self Con., p. 109.

130 The change made in Laud's time of putting the Communion table against the chancel wall arose from the preference of “mediæval tradition” to “really ancient Christianity.” Bunsen.

“Consists of 84 pages of a small quarto size very neatly written. It was once bound, for the edges are sprinkled or stained. And in the binding of it the margin has been cut down so much that in several pages the upper line of writing has been partially, in some instances altogether, destroyed. . .. A great many inter­lineations and corrections are made in the manuscript, in a hand­writing quite different from that of the person who wrote the text of it.”131

Most of these corrections are in a Calvinistic direction, and were probably written by the Bishop who presented the second copy, which We think this to be.132 A few of the corrections show a different spirit, and were possibly made by Laud on reading it over. It is now bound up with a copy of the Liturgy of 1637.
    It is a cross betwixt the English Liturgy and that of Knox. The morning service for week-days is virtually a Presbyterian revision of the morning service in the English Liturgy, and harmonises with the Puritan exceptions and emendations suggested at the Hampton Court conference, and afterwards at Savoy. These portions of the English service were originally of Calvinistic origin. There are a few threads of connection between the MS. and the Prayer Book of 1637; and, singularly enough, through that channel a few of its suggestions sound their way into the English Prayer Book at the revision of 1661-2.
    In the special services no great change is made upon Knox's Liturgy, but, as was suggested in 1615, they are “in some points helped.”
    It is not of great value as a Liturgy, and one can understand Charles and his advisers, when they resolved to change the worship of the Church, wishing for something better; but their overdoing ended in undoing.
    We conclude with the remark, that the true history of this and the other drafts of the Scottish Liturgy is fitted in some respects to serve the purpose of an Irenicum; showing as they do, that those who at that time defended Presbytery were not opposed to Liturgies, while those who preferred Prelacy would have been content with very simple forms. Nor is it to be forgotten, that Laud wished the English Prayer Book unchanged to be introduced into Scotland; that the Book which bears his name, in one of its chief characteristics, corresponds with Scottish usages; and that a number of its alterations have since 1662 formed part of the English Liturgy.




131 Irwin, Brit. Mag. July 1845, p. 30. Wharton, in his preface to Laud's Troubles and Tryal, written in 1693-4, says, “This Latin translation of the Scotch Liturgy” (executed by Heylin), “ as also the English original copy of the first draught of it, are now in my hands; and shall one, or both of them, be hereafter (God willing) published in the collection of Memorialls.” The first English draught here referred to may have been that which Maxwell took to London in 1635. Fuller, in his Church History, speaking of the Scottish Liturgy, says, “In the reign of King Charles the project was resumed, but whether the same book or no, God knoweth.” Heylin animadverts upon this:
    "If so, if 'God only know whether it was the same or no,' how dares he tell us that it was not? And if it was the same (as it may be for aught he knoweth), with what conference can he charge the making of it upon Bishop Laud?” — App. of Injured Innocence, 591. Heylin is careful not to say that it was the same as that of James's reign.

132 The writer of the Instructions believes the second copy was given to the King by “the Bishop of Ross then, now Archbishop of Glasgow.” This was Patrick Lindsay, a prelate who discharged his duties “with mildness and moderation.” [Scott's Fasti]. He was not very favourable to the Liturgy of 1637. The spelling of the notes shows them to have been written by a Scotsman.


Web author: Charles Wohlers U. S. EnglandScotlandIrelandWalesCanadaWorld