knows. ume to come. Mr Wanliss atrocious way" by attacking "the national creed," and "attempting to vilify the national honour" of Scotland (pp. 2, 3). men I am, it seems, one of "the who are, and have ever been, ready to belittle their own country, and to degrade so far as they can her history and creed, if they thought that by so doing they could personally recommend themselves to the English public, or to the English governing class, who practically control the government of Britain. . . . And now we have Mr Andrew Lang," whose proceedings are denounced in a pleasing strain of eloquence. He has behaved "in a most ... Mr Wanliss might be expected to know me very intimately, if he knows my motives. But, as we are told, he "is not personally acquainted with Dr Andrew Lang." His theory of my motives is, therefore, a thing of his own chaste invention. It is not a correct theory! I never thought of paying court "the governing classes." One need not discuss such an hypothesis! MY REASONS FOR WRITING HISTORY. My motives for writing the History of Scotland, and for writing it as I have done, may be, perhaps, as well known to me as to Mr Wanliss. Several years ago Mr Blackwood asked me to write a short Scottish History in one volume. I at first supposed that a compilation might be made from earlier authors, the illustrious Patrick Fraser Tytler, Dr Hill Burton, Dr Hay Fleming, Dr Robert Chambers, Sir Walter Scott, and others. But I found that so much had come to light in the way of public records and increased knowledge of all kinds since the time of most of these authors, that the scheme was futile. I therefore began to read for myself in all accessible materials, to think for myself also, and, unpopular as my task clearly was, I persevered in writing, desiring only to discover, as far as I might, the actual course of events, the truth, la vérité vraie. COMPILATIONS OF OMISSIONS. Approaching modern times and the Reformation, I found that most of our popular histories of that age are what an Irish critic, by a bull, has called "compilations of omissions." They are remarkable for the points which they ignore, and the contemporary authorities which they neglect. Things distasteful to traditional Scottish sentiment are left out. Mr Wanliss (p. 25) supplies me with an example. I had observed (History of Scotland,' vol. iii. p. 44) that the Restoration (1661-62) "turned preachers out of their parishes, and imposed oaths intolerable," tinction. "In the one case, thus "following in the path of the Covenant" (1638-1650), "but popular narrators of these events are apt not to dwell on this circumstance." So I said. Mr Wanliss corroborates me here after quoting the passage just cited. "No!" he cries. No, they don't dwell on an essential fact! (p. 25). Thus popular narrators suppress the truth, which is that each party in the religious strife of 16381700 expelled, as far as they were able, their clerical opponents from their pulpits: first, on the rise of the Covenanters, when Conformists were expelled; next (to omit cases between hostile parties within the Kirk), during the Restoration; lastly, after the Revolution of 1688. Popular narrators, it is admitted, "are not apt to dwell on this circumstance." So far they suppress the truth. This is one of the omissions in their "compilations of omissions." Mr Wanliss takes a dis the people almost universally desired to have the preachers; in the other, the king and prelates wanted to force their preachers on the people." This was true as regards the Restoration, not true for the Revolution, when a very large number of parishes desired to retain Episcopalian ministers, and, in not a few cases, resisted their expulsion. At the Reformation Catholic parishes were deprived of the ministers, the priests, whom they "desired to have.” Both parties erred in this matter, and the fiercer Covenanters reduced to beggary some of their milder brethren; but my point was that "popular narrators" are apt not to dwell" on the intolerances of their own party, and this is admitted by Mr Wanliss. Now, history ought to be truthful. My purpose was, and is, to fill up the popular omissions when I am able to do so. I have no sympathy with the suppression of the truth. THE FUNDAMENTAL OMISSION. The great fundamental omission in popular histories is the omission of full statements of the claims of the Presbyterian clergy of 1560-1650 to powers which, if granted, would make civil society impossible, and overthrow the liberty of the State and of the individual. I refer to the claims, dating from Knox (1559), of the ministers to "sit in the seats of the Apostles," to hold the power of the keys, power to bind or loose on earth what shall be bound or loosed in heaven, and to be obeyed as men should obey God.1 (The people "should obey the commandments which they" (the ministers) "pronounce from God's mouth and Book even as they would obey God Himself.") If these claims were accepted, the ministers 1 Compare Mr Rait in "John Knox and Scotland": "Fortnightly Review,' July 1905. Pp. 105, 106. 2 Book of Discipline. Knox, ii. 193 (Laing's Knox). would direct the policy of the State, while in private life nobody is ignorant of their stools of penitence, though few remember that by their fiat of Excommunication they doomed their victims to civil "boycotting" or the equivalent of outlawry, as well as to eternal damnation. The Reformers destroyed most "monuments of idolatry," but they retained excommunication, and, without being priests, their preachers retained the highest and most insufferable claims of the Catholic priesthood. For some twelve years (1638-1651) the ministers or preachers were "the rulers of the Scots," "became possessed for a time of almost unlimited power (Mr Wanliss says, p. 43). In these years Scotland was rent by civil war, the Kirk was divided into two hostile camps, and Scotland, for the only time in history, was completely conquered and ruled by England. MY ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ROYAL POLICY. con The policy of James VI. was to reduce the powers and claims of the ministers. He did so, partly by force, partly by packed Assemblies, partly by a series of pettifogging tricks-thus introducing bishops. He did worse, he brought in the Articles of Perth, endeavouring to thrust on the Scottish conscience what, to that science, seemed sheer idolatry —kneeling at the Holy Communion. Something, I think, James was obliged to do, if the preachers were not, by virtue of their amazing claims, to rule the State. But what he ought to have done baffles my power of conjecture. To enforce, for example, the attitude of kneeling, was for the king to act as his own Pope, in the fashion of the Tudor monarchs. I call James's action "impolitic to the verge of insanity," and speak of "his final and fatal meddling with the consciences of his people."1 Again, "how 1 History, vol. ii. p. 518. land a conflict of two intoler- heard delivered, as the taste able forms of tyranny, Royal and skill of the minister and Presbyterial. This is the prompted, from Presbyterian text of my third volume. pulpits. But that is a matter of individual liking or misliking. Such is my notion of the struggle of 1559-1689. The Presbyterianism of Scotland, since 1689, ceased, after a few protests, to urge the old intolerable ecclesiastical claims, the ruinous legacy of the ancient Church. What I say of Presbyterianism in my book applies to the Presbyterianism which sought, among other purposes, to win and hold for the preachers an ecclesiastical despotism, a thing everywhere odious. The Presbyterians of to-day have, as a rule, I think, forgotten-and are allowed to forget the nature of these claims. My purpose was, and is, to keep them before the mind of the reader. I have not a word to say against modern Presbyterianism, though, personally, I prefer the beautiful liturgy of the Church of England, when well or properly read, and not gabbled through, to such prayers as I have "I have seen, and daily," writes that eminent Covenanter, the Laird of Brodie, in 1661, "much disorder in conceived prayers, and extravagancy, which does afflict I am guilty of "utter ignorance of contemporary history bearing on the period," as if any "contemporary history" could avoid "bearing on the period" (pp. 46, 47). I make "an atrocious attack on Presbyterianism." I am guilty of "silly and shameless censure of noble Scots who "preferred to be 'lousy and free rather than "cleanly and conquered."" Ballarat is unconquered, but I never heard that it was "lousy," and I scorn the antithesis (p. 53). I am guilty of a dirty libel" (p. 54). I "really attack Presbyterian Creeds of to-day." The "Creeds of to-day" appear to be in process of modification, "open to revision and amendment by the Presbyterian people" (p. 63). What the people know about the matter, and how they are to proceed, I cannot guess. I "seem to be devoid of the most ordinary instinct of gentlemanliness" (p. 61). I am "low," "vulgar," and "shameless" (p. 63). I am "unscrupulous in some respects" (p. 77). Low, vulgar, shameless, and ungentlemanly persons are often unscrupulous. We shall see how fair, noble, gentlemanly, and scrupulous is Mr Wanliss of Ballarat. "No language is too foul or too furious for my vitriolic pen (p. 80). I am guilty of speaking of a "pious murder pious murder"-alas, there were too many "pious murders" between the butchery of Beaton and the hanging of Aikenhead! I am guilty of saying that "the saints were divided among themselves ". -as if they were not! (p. 81). "I am indifferent to honesty and honour" (p. 82). My mind is like that of "a callow and shallow-minded curate" (p. 89). My sentences are "wild," and my style is "hysterical" (p. 99). "I never was so bethumped with words," and I hope that the words amuse the readers of Mr Wanliss. Elsewhere I have observed, with reference to Knox's labours for Queen Mary's conversion, that "vituperation is not argument." EXAMPLES OF MR WANLISS'S PROCESSES. The method of Mr Wanliss's pamphlet is to make extracts from my book, to omit, and sometimes without note of omission (as ". . ."), essential parts of the text; to leave off in his quotation, when, if he quoted further, the text would afford no grounds for his unfavourable comments; and, in more than one case, he makes charges against me which, if he has really read my book, he knows to be absolutely false. I must believe that he has not read my book, rather than that he "brings a railing accusation falsely," knowing it to be untrue. By these and similar methods he expects to "vindi |
