127
lector for Fife, and this appointment was now seized
upon by his enemies at court, who surmised that he
had given the money thus raised to the Earl of Both-
well to enable him to raise forces. The supposition
is so absurd that it seems incredible that any one,
arguing merely on probabilities, should believe that
money intended for Geneva—the very stronghold of
his beloved presbytery—should be given to an outlaw
and a Catholic. Luckily Melville was not left to
prove his innocence even by the doctrine of proba-
bilities. He had in his hands a discharge for the
money granted by those to whom he had paid it
over, and it was besides matter of notoriety that he
had been the most active agent in the suppression of
Bothwell's rebellion. Still, however, his enemies
hinted darkly where they durst not make a manly
charge, and it was not till 1594, when sent as a com-
missioner to the king by the assembly on another
mission, that he had an opportunity of vindicating
himself. He then demanded that any one who could
make a charge against him should stand forward and
give him an opportunity of vindicating himself before
his sovereign. No one appeared. Melville was ad-
mitted to a long interview in the king's cabinet; and
"thus," says he, "I that came to Stirling the traitor,
returned to Edinburgh, a great courtier, yea, a cabinet
councillor."
At the opening of the General Assembly in 1590
James Melville preached. After the usual exordium,
he insisted on the necessity of maintaining the strictest
discipline—he recalled to the memory of his audience
the history of their country since the Reformation,
the original purity of the church, and admonished
them of its begun decline—the brethren were warned
of the practices of "the belly-god bishops of Eng-
land;" and the people were exhorted to a more zealous
support of the ecclesiastical establishment, and to a
more liberal communication of temporal things to their
ministers—lastly, he recommended a supplication to
the king, for a free and full assembly, to be held in
the royal presence, for the suppression of Papists
and sacrilegious persons. The activity of Melville,
and indeed of the ministers generally, against the
Catholics, must be considered as one of the least
defensible parts of their conduct. We are aware
that those who believe religion to be supported by
works of man's device will find strong palliations
for their actions in their peculiar circumstances; and
we do not mean to deny, that when the Popish lords
trafficked with foreign powers for the subversion of
the civil and religious institutions of the country,
the government did right in bringing them to account.
They then became clearly guilty of a civil offence, and
were justly amenable for it to the secular courts.
But when the Catholics were hunted down for the
mere profession of their religion—when their attach-
ment to their opinions was considered the mere effect
of obstinacy, and thus worthy to be visited with the
highest pains—the Protestants reduced themselves
to the same inconsistency with which they so justly
charged their adversaries. If it be urged in defence,
that their religion was in danger, we reply, that the
conduct of the Catholics previous to the Reforma-
tion was equally defensible on the very same grounds.
In both cases was the church of the parties in immi-
nent hazard; and if we defend the attempt of one
party to support theirs by the civil power, with what
justice can we condemn the other? A remarkable
passage occurs in the account which Friar Ogilvie (a
Jesuit, who was executed at Glasgow in 1615) has
left of his trial. His examinators accused the Kings
of France and Spain of exterminating the Protes-
tants. Ogilvie immediately replied: Neither has
Francis banished nor Philip burned Protestants on
account of religion, but on account of heresy, which
is not religion but rebellion?- Here, then, is the rock
upon which both parties split—that of considering it
a crime to hold certain religious opinions. Both
parties were in turn equally zealous hi propagating
their ideas—both were justifiable in doing so—and
both equally unjustifiable in their absurd attempts to
control the workings of the human mind. Truth,
which all parties seem convinced is on their side,
must and shall prevail, and the intolerant zeal of
man can only prove its own folly and its wickedness.
We return to the narrative.
When the king, in October, 1594, determined on
opposing the Popish lords in person, he was accom-
panied at his own request by the two Melvilles and
two other ministers. Following the Highland system
of warfare, these noblemen retired into their fastnesses ;
and the royal forces, after doing little more than
displaying themselves, were ready to disperse for
want of pay. In this emergency James Melville
was despatched to Edinburgh and the other princi-
pal towns, with letters from the king and the minis-
ters, urging a liberal contribution for their assistance.
His services on this occasion, and the spirit infused
by Andrew Melville into the royal councils, materi-
ally contributed to the success of the expedition.
We have mentioned, that at the interview at Stir-
ling, James Melville had regained the favour of the
king; but it is probable that that and subsequent
exhibitions of the royal confidence were merely in-
tended to gain him, in anticipation of the future
designs of the court relative to the church. In the
affair of David Black, Melville had used his influence
with the Earl of Mar to procure a favourable result;
and although the king did not express disapproba-
tion of his conduct—but, on the contrary, commanded
him to declare from the pulpit at St. Andrews the
amicable termination of their quarrel—he observed
that from that period his favour uniformly declined.
Finding after two years' trial that his conduct to-
wards James Melville had not induced him to com-
promise his principles, the king probably considered
all further attempts to gain him quite unnecessary,
In May, 1596, the covenant was renewed by the
synod of Fife, and in the following July by the pres-
bytery of St. Andrews; on both of which occasions
Melville was appointed'' the common mouth." After
the last meeting the barons and gentlemen resolved
that he and the laird of Reiras [Rires?] should be
sent to the king, to inform him of the report of an-
other Spanish invasion, and of the return of the
Popish lords; but Melville's interest at court was now
on the decline, and his mission met with little en-
couragement. Returning home, he applied himself
assiduously to the duties of his parish. He drew up
a Sum of the Doctrine of the Covenant renewed in the
Kirk of Scotland, in the form of question and answer.
Upon this the people were catechised during the
month of August; and on the first Sunday of Sep-
tember, the covenant was renewed and the sacrament
administered in the parish of Kilrenny.
During the next ten years the life of Melville was
spent in a course of opposition, as decided as it was
fruitless, to the designs of the court for the re-estab-
lishment of Episcopacy. While some of his most
intimate friends yielded, he remained firm. There
was but one point which he could be induced to give
up. He was urged by the king (1597) to preach at
the admission of Gladstanes, the future archbishop,
1 Relatio Incarcerationis et Martyrii P. Foannis Ogilbei,
&c., Duaci, 1615, p. 24. This is, of course, the Roman
Catholic account. Ogilvie's trial, and a reprint of the Protes-
tant account of it set forth at the time, will be found in Pilcairn's
Criminal Trials.