WHEN THE KIRK WAS KING.

Otago Witness, Issue 2924, 30 March 1910, Page 80

WHEN THE KIRK WAS KING.

The Reformation in Scotland was essen< tialiy democratic. To use the words oi Knox the Church was overthrow!? by a "rascal multitude," and the Kirk, speaking through its several assemblies, became master of the spiritual heritage of thi peopte. Ecclesiastical art and all the accessories to emotion were swept away. 'Prayer and ceremony gave olace to un« limited preaching. A tyranny far surpassing ' the palmiest days of Rome was imposed upon the conscience of the in. dividual. The minister at times claimed inspiration, and the claim was occasionally allowed. Hence he " preached the Word mightily," and—backed by his assembly—claimed to review the details of private life, and attempted to regulate the in'.irnal and foreign policy of the State,

The Kirk as an institution sought to place itself above the law The Second Book • of Discipline contains the following pregnant assertion :—'' The ministers exercise not the civil jurisdiction, but teach the magistrate how it should be exercised according to the Word." The magistrate was bound to " submit himself lo the discipline of the Kirk, if he transgress in matters of conscience and religion." Now, " matter of conscience " is a phrase capable of many interpretations, and the minister, while pretending to restrict his activities to purely spiritual affairs, had no, difficulty in persuading himself, and more often than not, his congregation, that anything in the heavens above oi in the earth beneath, or in the place that is usually regarded as the antithesis of either, was a matter of conscience. Armed with the Word he rebuked in season or out of season, lectured the King, condemned his servants, had much to say of royal marriages, and, at stated times, imposed that of boycotting —ecclesiastical excommunication. James VI only overcame the opposition to the anointment of his Queen at her coronation by threatening to call in a bishoT). Rather than have a bishop the minister gave way, although they objected that the ceremony was either Jewish, oi Popish, if not both. Dr Brancroft in 1588 affirmed that the ministers " laboured to establish an ecclesiastical tyranny of an infinite jurisdiction—such as neithei the law of God nor man could tolerate." Brancroft, as an Englishman, $t perhaps not altogether impartial, but

his statement is sufficiently near the truth to pass muster. King James, however, had his own ideas of jurisdiction. In his opinion he "had sovereign judgment on all things" within the realm. The Kirk was of a contrary opinion. "There is," replied Robert Pont, " a judgment above yours, and that is God's, put in the hands of ministers, for we shaill judge the angels, saith the apostle." James, mindful of- the constitution of the Kirk, objected that such a principle gave undue power to every shoe : maker and tailor. Pont's answer was direct :—" Christ sayeth, ' Ye shall sit upon 12 thrones and judge,' which is referred to the apostles, and consequently io ministers." On another occasion Andrew Melville did not hesitate to catch James by. the sleeve and address him as " God's silly vassal." After this interesting introduction it was easy for Melville to remark that there were two kings in Scotland, Christ and James, ajid that the ministers as deputies of the former claimed the obedience due to the superior monarch. The King must attend to them and disregard his " devilish and most pernicious" lay advisers. The Kirk's fdeal was evidently that ministers, as successors to the privileges of the apostles, were to be supreme judges, not only in spiritual affairs, but in everything that could be brought under the elastic phrase, " matter of conscience." In Its mostdrastic form, the controversy of Church and State was raised, and the conflict that followed covered Scotland with bloodshed and persecution. £h'adually the ministers

abandoned their claim to inspired inter-. Terence, but for several generations cscetained their hold upon .the social life of the people. In no way was the control more firmly shown than in the regulation of the Sabbath.

In modern eyes the Scottish Sabbath seems an intolerable tyranny, but it was a tyranny exercised by ministers with the fall approval of the congregations. Prior to the Reformation, Sunday had been a day of holiday and feast; it was such no longer. Ail popular pleasures were forbidden, and one of the most rational of institutions became neither more nor less than a glorified penance. Its full rigors lasted well into the eighteenth century. As fai as can be judged, the earliest of the reformers had no intention of turning Sunday into a day of gloom. Knox did not even adopt the later usage of calling it the Sabbath, but hi 6 descendants rapidly changed the outlook. Nor were they content with the condemnation of practices brought immediately to their notice. On the contrary, it was the duty of the elders and others to report all transgressions, and, as Or Hay Flemming states, " soecial steps were taken to ferret out gross sins that ihey might be repressed." In the Register of the Kirk Session of St Andrew** two offences stand out in -xtreme prominence—lawless affection and the breaking of the Sabbath. The populace of Kaderny, having danced and piped on Sunday, were denied the rite* of baptism, holy communion and marriage until they nad made amends. Profane language, kissing in the streets, witchcraft, cards and dice" were some few of the details receiving censure from the Kirk, and although these were offences at all times, their sinfulness was greatly magnified if committed on a Sunday. Hiring of beasts was sternly forbidden. A refugee from Cullcden in 1746 tailed to persuade anyone to hire him a horse on Sunday. His bitterness was marked by the assertion that the Scots always said grace before taking a pinch °t S ". * ln wha *wer way possible every shred of joy was banished from the only day in which by almost universal custom men could seek rest from the hard toil of the week. The hostility of the Kirk towards the theatre is too well known to need repetition. But the violation of the Sabbath was not a matter to be overlooked. Men and women were expected to attend the Kirk and particular care was taken that thev should not fail in their obligations The magistrates in Edinburgh employed men to patrol the street* and arrest all those found walking i, them during sermon time. In most of the parishes spies were used to gain information concerning' the private lives and habits of the people leeping Toms were fairly numerous, and under various pretexts men and Svomen were taken before the sessions and duly admonished. It was regarded on Sunday as sinful to walk in the fields, to look out of windows, to stand in the streetsto engage m innocent pastime with children, to whistle, or even hum a tune One minister affirmed that the habit of shavinowas a violation of thf* Sabbath. Mrs Elizabeth Mure, in the Caldwell Papers, has left on record an interesting account of the manner of spending the Sabbath in a gentleman s house during the early vears of the eighteenth century. At 9", the family assembled for prayers. At 10 the whole household went to church. This lasted till 12.30. At 1 prayers were acain read, and the family returned to church at 2. This service ended at 4, when all concerned betook themselves to their private devotions. The children and servants', however, were examined by the chaplain This went on till 5. Dinner followed, and at 8 further prayers and singing took place. At 9 all retired to rest. The Sunday, as a whole, was divided between prayer and admonition, in which the fear of hell and the wickedness of the devil L oome l most largely. The Scottish Sabbath became a byword throughout all Europe.

In 1719, the Presbytery of Edinburgh became alarmed at the desecration of the Sabbath. "Some persons," they protested, "have arrived at that height of impiety a .s not to be ashamed of washing in waters and swimming in rivers upon the holy Sabbath." The lot of the children was extremely hard. Girls were taught very little beyond reading, and during the greater portion of Sunday were required to repeat the catechism and Psalms. . The category of sine was extremely extensive. It was sinful on Sunday to water the garden, to visit a friend, to sit at the door of your house, to feel tired at a long sermon, to think about the body, or to go from one town to another. In 1756, at Perth, "to stroll about the fields, or even to walk upon the inches, was looked upon as extremely sinful, and an intolerable violation of the Fourth Commandment." To have an afternoon sleep on Sunday was espeeially sinful, and merited the severe censure of the Kirk. Halyburton, a well-known Scottish preacher, addressing the. younger people of his congregation, said: "Have' not you been glad when the Lord's Day was over; or, at least, when the preaching was done, that ye might get your liberty? Has it not been a burden to you, to sit so long in the church? Well, this is a great sin." Again, it was sin for any town to hold a market on Monday or Saturday, since both days were near 'Sunday. These several sins may seem trivial, but the punishments were not so. According to one authority, they ranged from imprisonment, fining, whipping, branding with a hot iron, or doing penance before the whole congregation. As df the (regulations of the earthly Sabbath were not sufficient, ministers preached that heaven itself would be on©, eternal. Sabbath. No wonder that the prospect created stout-hearted men. The Kirk breathed into its adherents an austerity that has seldom been surpassed. At the same time', for many generations, Scotland was the home of bigotry and intolerance. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the Kirk rendered great service to the cause of political liberty, but it stamped a joylessness on the Scottish character

which in many ways has continued until the present time.—The Age.