THE CATHOLIC BARONS IN EXILE—THE KING REJECTS THE BARBAROUS MEASURE PROPOSED BY THE KIRK—ABOUT 1590, ACCORDING TO PROTESTANT TES TIMONY, THE CATHOLIC CLERGY WERE LABOURING ZEALOUSLY FOR THE COMFORT OF THEIR BRETHREN—THE CATHOLIC BARONS RESTORED— HORROR OF THE KIRK—A “DAY OF HUMILIATION” AGAINST THE CATHOLICS— THE ROYAL POLICY OPPOSED TO PERSECUTION—INTOLERABLE LICENSE OF THE KIRK—BLACK’S EXCESS OF FANATICISM—THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE KIRK COMMANDED TO LEAVE THE CAPITAL—THE MINISTERS RAISE A TUMULT—THE KING WITHDRAWS TO LINLITHGOW; RETURNS WITH AN ARMY, AND CAUSES THE LAW TO BE RESPECTED—ESTABLISHES EPISCOPALIANISM— A SAD BLOW TO THE REFRACTORY KIRK.

Now that the Catholic Barons were in exile, the ministers of the Kirk made the utmost efforts to compass their complete ruin. They tried all in their power to induce the King to forfeit their estates and reduce them to beggary. So barbarous a measure the Monarch wisely refused to adopt. He had already done enough, he conceived, for the Kirk, and he could not but consider it cruel and impolitic in the extreme, to extirpate the ancient Houses of Huntly, Erroll and Angus, and to punish, by utter ruin and extermination, parties who were already exiles for conscience sake. The Countesses of Huntly and Erroll were permitted to remain in Scotland; and arrangements were made by means of which the Earls themselves were saved from being wholly destitute. It was the policy of James to maintain a certain balance of power between the factions, keeping them all dependent on himself, leaning to the one or to the other, as the exigencies of the time required. To leave such great Barons as Huntly unmolested, in a position which rendered their restoration possible at any moment, was a powerful means of restraining the violence of their enemies.

About this time, 1590, according to the testimony of the Kirk, the Catholic clergy in Scotland were labouring zealously to confirm and comfort their brethren. The hope that the exiled Barons would soon return, gave them new courage, and they were confident that the King would not tolerate any violent measures against them on the part of the merciless Kirk, which was obliged to be satisfied with abusing them and uttering impotent blasphemies against religion. They were denounced as “excommunicated Papists,” “Jesuits,” “Anti-Christs,” etc,, whilst their chiefs, the Catholic Earls, were branded as rebels, traitors, etc., and the friends of these forfeited Earls, they complained, who remained at home were at large and enjoyed full liberty in the land.

Meanwhile the tide of Royal favour appeared to flow towards the Catholics. King James was disgusted with the narrow-mindedness and persecuting spirit of the ministers of the Kirk. The mean and niggard, way in which his “good sister,” Queen Elizabeth, had treated him helped to alienate him from her faction and incline him to show friendship to the Catholic party. These dispositions bore their fruit. Notwithstanding the opposition which he anticipated on the part of the Kirk, the King resolved on the restoration of the Catholic Barons. They were to submit, as in duty bound, to their Sovereign and offer no opposition to the Kirk. On this condition their cause was to be espoused by the Duke of Lennox. Soon afterwards, the Earl of Huntly came from the continent, and passing in disguise into Scotland, arrived safely among his friends, who, aware of the favour in which he was held at the Court, made the greatest efforts for his restoration. The Kirk was horror struck, and raised its cry of warning. But it was in vain, while giving utterance, in loud complaints, to their distress, they learned that the Earl of Erroll had been seen with Huntly at his castle of the Bog of Gight, and that the powerful Earl of Angus had come secretly into the city of Perth. Worse than all, the Countess of Huntly was at Court; and having great influence, made overtures on the part of her husband. He had never, it was alleged in his behalf, plotted against the reformed religion since he left Scotland, and was willing to stand his trial if any one should presume to accuse him. He had no objections to confer with the ministers on the subject of religion; but a reasonable time must be allowed him to make up his mind.

His proposals and requests were only fair and moderate. But the Kirk was implacable. An “excommunicated traitor,” as they called him, a man who had been guilty of “idolatry,” a capital crime, and who, notwithstanding a sentence of banishment, had dared to return without leave, had no claim to propose any terms. The Kirk was in danger. Those Earls would not show themselves openly in the country unless their presence were acceptable to the King. The party that opposed the truth and the liberty of the word of God was strong, bold and confident of success, both in England and Scotland. If some great and determined resistance were not at once made, the Kirk, with all its boasted purity and privileges, would become the prey of Anti-Christ. A day of humiliation, accordingly, was appointed. People and Ministers were called upon to weep and, pray between the porch and the altar, for a land “polluted by the enemies of God.” They also named sixteen commissioners who should sit at Edinburgh, represent the Church, as its council, and correspond with all parts of the country.

No wonder if the King was alarmed. This was, indeed, an imperium in imperio, which would have swept the government out of the hands of the civil power. At first, however, he thought it more politic to remonstrate; and this he did through some of the more moderate ministers. He would have them understand that their fears were groundless. The Barons had no intention of making war on him or them. They had thrown themselves on his mercy and he had taken them into favour. Why should not the clergy have the like consideration for repentance? The Barons desired to be reconciled. Why should the Church repel them, shut its doors in their faces, and doom them to despair?

King James was by nature inclined to clemency. The sentiments to which he gave utterance in opposition to the merciless Kirk, were no doubt sincerely entertained. This conduct was, at the same time, highly political. It would have been unwise, considering Queen Elizabeth’s great age, and the influence of the Catholics in England as well as in his own kingdom, to become a religious persecutor. It would have been an impediment to his accession to the English crown. The Kirk, too, disgusted him by its cruelty and the absurdity of the arguments urged by its ministers. The Catholic Earls, they maintained, could not be pardoned by the civil power. They were “idolators” and, must suffer death. They could only be absolved on their repentance, by the Kirk, from the sentence of spiritual death. Some. of the more moderate implored him to come to an agreement. This is impossible, he declared, so long; as the limits of the two jurisdictions are vague and undistinguishable. In their preachings, he told them, their license was intolerable. They censured Prince, estates and Council. They convoked General Assemblies without any authority. They passed laws under the allegation that they were purely ecclesiastical, whilst they interfered with his prerogative and restricted the decisions of his Council and Judges. Their Synods and Presbyteries, under the, name of scandal, fulminated the most bitter personal attacks, and drew under their censures every conceivable grievance. Agreement under such circumstance was out of the question, If made, it could not last for a moment.

During these discussions a minister called Black, not only denounced the threatened triumph, of “idolatry” in Scotland, but, at the same time uplifted his testimony against English Prelacy. Queen Elizabeth was an atheist, her religion empty show dictated by a set of pseudo bishops. The King of Scotland was guilty of treachery in allowing the return of Papist Earls. But what could be expected? Was not Satan the head of both Court and Council? Were not all kings devil’s bairns? Was not Satan in the Court, in the guiders of the Court, in the head of the Court? Such language, of course, could not be tolerated. King James claimed and surely was entitled to the right of judging and sentencing the offender. The Kirk and Black violently remonstrated, maintaining that the Church alone could judge such cases. The King stood firm. The man was tried and sentenced. His Majesty was unwilling to execute the sentence and made a new endeavour to gain the ministers. But in vain. It became necessary to forbid the commissioners to hold any more meetings, and they were commanded, by Royal proclamation, to leave the city within four and twenty hours, and repair to their flocks. They refused to obey; but ascended their pulpits and dealt mightily with the power of the word against the charge which commanded them to desert their duty. Later on, Black was found guilty of having falsely and treasonably slandered the King; the Queen, his Royal Consort; his neighbour Princess, the Queen of England; and the Lords of Council and Session. He was imprisoned to await the King’s pleasure. James, although he held the sword of justice over the criminal, was still anxious for a compromise. His leniency and friendly purposes were misinterpreted. They shewed, it was pretended, weakness and not a desire for peace. The commissioners of the Kirk would not in the least withdraw from their demands. No punishment, they declared, could be inflicted on a man who had not yet been tried. The Kirk proclaimed a fast, and once more commanded “to sound mightily.” The King’s patience was at an end. He commanded the commissioners instantly to leave the city, and ordered Black to enter into ward. He also published a lengthened declaration in which he justified his proceedings before his people. He concluded by saying that “he was resolved to enforce upon all his people, ministers of the Kirk as well as others, that obedience to the laws and reverence for the throne, without which no Christian kingdom could hold together. For this purpose certain bonds were in preparation, which the ministers should be required to subscribe under the penalty of a sequestration of their property,”

The ministers and their friends now caused a tumult in the capital which endangered the person of the Monarch and obliged him to withdraw to his palace of Linlithgow. He summoned around him the border warriors and the hardy men of the North. All these approaching the city, the magistrates, ministers, burgesses and inhabitants generally were struck with terror and made submission to their Sovereign. The ministers were, as usual, the worst to deal with. They started propositions that were wholly inconsistent with the existence of the civil power. But, in such controversies, they were no match for the learned and acute Prince. Some of them, on account of their extreme violence, in the pulpit and at popular conventions, were obliged to leave the country. The King finally prevailed, and placed the authority of the State in such a light as to command however much they abhorred it, the acceptance of the ministers. His next step was to establish the Episcopal form of Protestantism. This was a sad blow to the Kirk, and caused a diversion in favour of the Catholics. If the Kirk had been less exacting in its demands and less violent, it might have fared better.