Andrew Melville | Page 9

which it would lead. It is
easier to blame the Church for what she did than to say what she ought
to have done. It would have been a more heroic, and probably a safer
course, to refuse the compromise and at once to bring on the struggle

with the Government which she had to face in the end. If Melville had
been on the ground at the time, there is little doubt that one man at least
would have had both the wisdom to recommend that course and the
courage to pursue it.
The Tulchan system had only been in operation for two years when he
came back from the Continent; but that was long enough to realise the
Church's fears and to make her restive. The ministers who accepted the
bishoprics became troublers of the Church, took advantage of their
titular superiority over their brethren to push for a position of greater
authority, and were more and more evidently the pliant tools of the
Court. The Church, moreover, gained nothing in the way of a better
provision for the ministry--the nobles seized the benefices and kept
them.
On encountering the growing dissatisfaction of the ministers with his
project, the Regent threatened the freedom of the Assembly, and put
forward a claim on behalf of the Crown to supreme authority within the
Church. There lay the crux of the situation, the great central issue in the
controversy that was being thrust upon the Scottish people, that was to
rend the nation for many a day, and that is not yet finally settled--Was
the Church to be free to shape her own course and do her work in her
own fashion, or was she to be subject to the civil government? Was the
Church to be essentially the Church of Christ in Scotland, or was she to
be the religious department, so to speak, of the Civil Service?
The first Assembly in which Melville sat met in Edinburgh in March
1575. Parliament had just appointed a committee to frame a more
satisfactory polity for the Church, and the Assembly nominated some
of its members as assessors to confer with it and report the proposals
that might be made. At the same time it appointed a committee of its
own, composed of its most competent and trusted men, to draft a
constitution for its approval. This committee was reappointed from year
to year; the result of its labours being the 'Second Book of Discipline,'
which was laid before the Assembly and adopted by it at its meeting in
the Magdalene Chapel, Edinburgh, in April 1578.
It was in the next Assembly, held in August of the same year, that the

first blow was struck at the Tulchan Episcopate. This was done by a
resolution brought forward by John Durie, one of the ministers of
Edinburgh; but there is little doubt that it originated with Melville, who,
although he had been home scarcely a year, had taken his place as the
leader of his brethren, and by his teaching and personal influence had
'wakened up their spreits' to oppose the designs of the Court against the
constitution of the Church. Durie's resolution raised the question of the
scripturalness and lawfulness of the office of a bishop. In supporting it
Melville made a powerful speech, in which he urged the abolition of
the bishoprics and the restoration of the original Presbyterian order of
the Church as the only satisfactory settlement of her affairs. The House
resolved there and then to appoint an advisory committee to consider
and report on the question, which committee reported against the office.
No further step was taken at this time, the bishops being left as they
were. At the next Assembly, however, held in April 1576, the
committee's finding was adopted, and so far applied that all bishops
who held their office 'at large' were required to allocate themselves to
particular congregations.
The Assembly's decision was practically unanimous; its members were
at one in wishing an end to the Tulchan scheme, and the people were of
the same mind as the ministers. Against the ministers and people stood
the Regent, the nobility, and all the clergy whose interests were
threatened. Morton would fain have arrested the Assembly's action, but
dared not; he could not afford at the time to drive the ministers into
opposition, a powerful party of the nobles being hostile to his regency,
and the combination would have shattered his government. His policy,
therefore, was to manage the ministers for the accomplishment of his
ends, and to attach as many of them as possible, and especially as many
of the leaders as possible, to the Court. From the moment when he first
met Melville he had the sagacity to perceive that this was the strongest
man he would