CALDERWOOD, David, an industrious historian of the church of Scotland, and a strenuous defender of its discipline, was born in the year 1575. He was educated in the university of Edinburgh, where he took the degree of A. Μ. in the year 159∣ig and having been early destined for the church, he devoted much attention to the requisite[7:5:793] studies, and acquired a large fund of theological learning. Soon alter the commencement of the ensuing century, he became minister of Crailing near Jedburghζ and he speedily began to take a very conspicuous part in the ecclesiastical proceedings of that period.

The king, who seems to have considered prelacy as a convenient instrument of arbitrary power, was extremely anxious to assimilate the church of Scotland to the church of England. Having succeeded in obtruding episcopacy, which was a very unwelcome guest, it was the next object of his solicitude to enlarge the authority and jurisdiction of the bishops; and regarding the end as highly desirable, he was not extremely scrupulous as to the means. His schemes were however opposed by many of the clergy, and were not relished by the great body of the people; nor was any individual more resolute or more consistent in his opposition than Calderwood, who spent the best years of his life in contending for purity of doctrine and simplicity of discipline. In the year 1608, when Law, bishop of Orkney, made his appearance in the capacity of visitor of the presbytery of Jedburgh, Calderwood, together with George Johnston, minister of Ancram, took a formal protest against his authority, and drew up a declinature, divided into various heads. Dr Abernethy, minister of Jedburgh, professed at first to support them in their opposition; but his zeal having very speedily abated, he was appointed perpetual moderator of the presbytery, and in due time became bishop of Caithness. Calderwood and Johnston had been elected members of the general assembly; but in order to exclude them from this and other ecclesiastical courts, the visitor ordered them to be “put to the horn” the very same night. The registration of the writ in the sheriff’s books was with great difficulty prevented; but in consequence of Bishop Law’s information, the king directed the privy council to punish them in an exemplary manner. By the intercession of the earl of Lothian with the chancellor and the earl of Dunbar, their punishment was restricted to confinement within the limits of their respective parishes.^[1. Calderwood’s Hist. of the Church of Scotland, p. 578, 599. ]

With the benefit of episcopacy the king imparted to his native country the benefit of a Court of High Commission; an illegal and despotic tribunal, which, though not vested with such terrific powers, bore some resemblance to the Spanish inquisition. The English court was erected in the reign of Elizabeth, and was intended to maintain the dignity and peace of the church, by reforming, ordering, and correcting the ecclesiastical state and persons, and all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities: but it is admitted by a writer who commonly touches despotism with a very gentle hand, that under the shelter of these general expressions, “means were found in that and the two succeeding reigns, to vest in the high commissioners extraordinary and almost despotic powers, of fining and imprisoning; which they exerted much beyond the degree of the offence itself, and frequently over offences by no means of spiritual cognizance.”^[2. Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. iii. p. 68.—" What is this,” says Calderwood, “but the Spanish inquisition? Set me up this throne, Satan shall set up papistry, or any other religion whatsoever, in short processe of time." ( Altar of Damascus, p. 39.) ] This court was erected by virtue of an act of parliament; but, in 1610, James, of his sovereign authority, issued under the great seal of Scotland a commission for erecting a similar court in each of the two archbishoprics of St Andrews and Glasgow. It is very justly observed by Calderwood, who did not entirely escape the fangs of this new instrument of persecution, that “this commission put the king in possession of that which he had long time hunted for; to wit, of absolute power to use the bodies and goods of his subjects at pleasure, without form or processe of the common law·”^[3. Calderwood’s Hist. p. 619. ]

James paid a visit to Scotland in the year 1617. During the sitting of the parliament, which assembled on the 17th of June, the clergy held several meetings in the Little Church, one or more of the bishops being always present. Calderwood, whose zeal was never dormant, repaired to the church in order to learn the nature of their deliberations; and on hearing Knox, bishop of the Isles, make some allusion to the English convocation, he protested that such a meeting should not be acknowledged as a general assembly, or any other meeting equivalent to it, “or any wayes answerable to the English convocation-house, where the clergie conveened in time of their parliaments.” It is by no means improbable that such an innovation was secretly contemplated. Their chief consultations related to the temporal emoluments of the clergy, and he attempted to direct their attention to matters of greater importance than the augmentation of stipends, evidently alluding to what he conceived to be the danger of the church from foreign ceremonies and observances. He was assured that no alteration was to be apprehended, and that the bishops had given such a promise. Of their fidelity in keeping their promises, said the inflexible presbyter, we have had sufficient proofs for the last sixteen years; and he was proceeding to enlarge on some kindred topics, when he was interrupted by Dr Whitford and Dr Hamilton, who reverted to the more interesting subject of stipends. Finding that they were not disposed to listen to his suggestions, he left the meeting with this expression of his indignation: “It is absurd to see men sitting in silks and sattins, and to cry povertie in the kirk, when puritie is departing.” The two archbishops, on being informed of what had taken place, attended the meeting next day,, and solemnly declared that no innovations were intended: but this declaration was so much at variance with unequivocal facts, that many of the clergy felt no small degree of alarm; and a considerable number of them having assembled in the music-school, resolved upon drawing up a remonstrance to his majesty. Two of the Edinburgh clergy, Hewat and Struthers, were appointed to prepare it; and when it was finally adjusted, Archibald Simson, minister of Dalkeith, was directed to sign it as clerk of the meeting; but the names of all those who attended were subscribed in a separate paper, which was delivered to him as a voucher to be used according to circumstances. He presented a copy to the clerk register, who refused to read it in parliament; and having been summoned before the High Commission, he declined to produce the signatures, and was committed as a prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh. This paper he had entrusted to the master of the music-school, Patrick Henryson, who delivered it to Calderwood. The minister of Crailing was therefore cited to appear at St Andrews on the eighth of July, and there to exhibit the roll of names, and “to answer for his mutinous and seditious assistance to the said assembly.” Hewat and Simson were summoned at the same time, and they all made their appearance; but their examination was deferred till the twelfth, in order that it might take place in his majesty’s presence. James conducted himself in his usual manner, but the stern and undaunted Calderwood was not to be overawed by any earthly authority which he conceived to be unjustly exercised. The king having at length whispered in the primate’s ear, "his majesty," he stated, “saith that if ye will not be content to be suspend[7:5:794]ed spiritually, ye shall be suspended corporally.” Undismayed by this declaration, he replied, “Sir, my bodie is in your majesty’s hands to do with it as it pleaseth your majesty; but as long as my bodie is free, I will teach, notwithstanding of their sentence.” Spotswood describes him as “carrying himself unreverently, and breaking forth into speeches not becoming a subject nor is it difficult to conceive that the archbishop of St Andrews and the minister of Crailing may have formed a very different estimate of the speeches which became a subject placed in such circumstances.

Hewat, adhering to the protestation, was deprived, and confined in the town of Dundee; but as he had obtained a grant of the temporalities of Crossragwell abbey, he was not left without a provision. Simson, who had aggravated the original offence by writing a letter in which he disparaged the English bishops, likewise received sentence of deprivation, and was for several months detained in prison; but on making his submission, he was at length reinstated. A similar sentence was pronounced on Calderwood, who was committed to prison at St Andrews, and was afterwards removed to Edinburgh. The privy council, which long exercised an undefined and despotic jurisdiction, ordained him to be banished from the kingdom for refusing to acknowledge the sentence of the High Commission; and the whole proceedings in this case exhibit a curious example of the arbitrary and iniquitous administration of that period. On giving security to banish himself from the kingdom before the ensuing Michaelmas, and not to return without the royal license, he was released from prison. He accompanied Lord Cranstoun to Carlisle, where that nobleman presented to the king a petition in his favour; but although the suit appears to have been very zealously urged, it was followed by no beneficial result. The king inveighed against Calderwood, and at last repelled the noble baron with his elbow. The application was however renewed after^[4. Spotswood’s Hist, of the Church of Scotland, p. ð34. ] an interval of two hours: his lordship entreated him to permit the petitioner to remain in Scotland till the last day of April, on account of the danger of a winter voyage, and in order to receive his stipend for the current year; but his majesty was graciously pleased to declare, that it was no matter if he begged his bread, and “as for the season of the year, if he drowned in the seas, he might thank God that he hath escaped a worse death a princely answer, and full of Christian comfort! The subsequent application of Lord Cranstoun to the privy council, and to the bishops, was attended with no better success; and if they had been more inclined to lenient measures, the unbending spirit of Calderwood, who would neither make an unqualified confession of his supposed errors of conduct, nor promise strict obedience to the new regulations in the church, left very little room to hope for the remission of his sentence.

He continued for a considerable time to linger in his native country; and during this interval he began the publication of his anonymous works in support of the presbyterian cause. In the year 1618 he printed a Latin tract on the polity of the church of Scotland. The general assembly, which met at^Perth on the 25th of August, gave a new impulse to his mind; and in 1619 he produced an English work, in which he undertook to demonstrate the nullity of the assembly itself, and the unlawfulness of its five articles, relating to kneeling at the communion, the observance of festivals, confirmation, private baptism, and private communion. They who hazarded the peace of the church and kingdom by such innovations as these, had not sufficiently reflected on all the consequences which ensued; nor are we disposed to blame the faithful presbyters for their very strenuous opposition to some of the articles of Perth. Kneeling at the communion, for example, may in itself be a very harmless ceremony: but this was not the position of the apostles when our Saviour instituted the sacred rite; and such a position was considered by many of our ancestors as too much connected with the adoration of the host, and the doctrine of transubstantiation. Some of the episcopalians still indulge in certain obsolete speculations as to the eucharist being a feast upon a sacrifice.^[5. See Bishop Jolly’s Christian Sacrifice in the Eucharist. Aberdeen, 1831, 12ιno. See likewise Dr Geddes’s Modest Apology for the Roman Catholics of Great Britain, p. 1G4. Lond. 1800, 8vo. ] A sacrifice requires a priest, a priest can only be ordained by a bishop; and without a bishop, a priest, and an altar of sacrifice, they suppose that no church can stand on a secure foundation. But the character and destiny of churches are not to be decided by earthly judges; and we leave them in the quiet possession of their mystical reveries, which nevertheless we cannot help suspecting of a very intimate connexion with the spirit of popery.

While Calderwood was still lurking in Scotland, an attempt was made to apprehend him at Edinburgh in the house of James Cathkin, a bookseller; but the officers neither found him nor any copies of his obnoxious publication relative to the Perth Assembly. Cathkin had visited London in the prosecution of his business; and being immediately taken into custody, he underwent two examinations, one of them in presence of his majesty, who was moved with violent indignation.^[6. Of his examination Cathkin has given a curious account, printed in the Bannatyne Miscellany, vol. i. p∙ 199. Edinb. 1827, 4to. ] His alleged offence was that of being concerned in printing or publishing the book, and receiving the author into his house. In reference to the people of Edinburgh, whom he had not found sufficiently submissive to the royal will, James uttered the following paternal wish: “The Devill ryve ther soules and bodies all in collops, and cast them in hell !” The worthy bookseller, who conducted himself with manly firmness, was released from prison after having been detained for eight days. Calderwood was in the mean time concealed at Cranstoun, in a secret apartment allotted to him by Lady Cranstoun, who rendered him many services. He afterwards removed from one place to another, till the 27th of August 1619, when he embarked at Newhaven, and sailed for Holland, “with his purse well filled by the wives of Edinburgh.”^[7. Calderwood’s Hist. p. 750. lie imputes this expression to the archbishop of St Andrews. ] Where he chiefly resided in that country, we are not informed; but Bishop Guthry states, “in the time of his exile he had seen the wild follies of the English Brownists in Arnheim and Amsterdam.”^[8. Memoirs of Henry Guthry, late Bishop of Dunkeld, p. 78. edit. Glasg. 1748, 12mo. ] His exile may have been attended with some advantages, by enabling him to extend his acquaintance with men of learning, and to collect books in his own department of study. His controversial ardour was still unabated: during his residence in Holland he published various works, and, among the rest, his Altar of Damascus. At one period, his enemies supposed him to be dead; and he has recorded a very extraordinary attempt to impose upon the world a recantation fabricated in his name.^[9. Calderwoods Recantation: or, a tripartite Discourse, directed to svch of the Ministerie, and others in Scotland, that refuse Con-formitie to the Ordinances of the Church; wherein the Causes and bad Effects of such Separation, the legal Proceedings against the refractarie, and Nullitie of their Cause, are softly launced, and they louingly inuited to the Vniformitie of the Chvrch. Bond. 1622, 4to. ] “Patrick [7:5:795]Scot, a landed gentleman beside Falkland, having wasted his patrimonie, had no other meane to recover his estate, but by some unlawful shift at court. He set forth a recantation under the name of a banished minister, Mr David Calderwood, who, because of his long sickness before, was supposed by many to have been dead. The king, as he alledged himself to some of his friends, furnished him the matter, and he set the matter down in forme. This course failing, he went over to Holland, and sought the said Mr David in sundrie townes, specially in Amsterdame, in the moncth of November. It appeareth his purpose was to dispatch the said Mr David. After lie had stayed at Amsterdame 20 dayes, and made diligent inquiric, he was informed that the said Mr David was returned home privatly to his own native countrey. How he cusened a distressed Englishman after his returning, I passe by. After the death of King James, he set out ä pamphlet full of lies, entituled Vox vera, but as true as Lucian’s Vera Historia. Notwithstanding of all his godless and unlawful shifts, he died soon after so poore that he had not wherwith to bear the charges of his burial; but it behoved the bishop of Ross, being then present where he departed, to bear the charges, for the good service he had done to the king and the bishops.”^[10. Calderwood’s Hist, of the Church of Scotland, p. 802. ]

From the date of this narrative, Calderwood appears to have returned to Scotland in the year 1624. He was still found to be the most redoubtable champion of presbytery; and after the abolition of episcopacy, he was appointed minister of Pencaitland, in the county of Haddington, but the date of this appointment has not been ascertained. The following statement proceeds from an episcopalian writer: “David Calderwood, a man of great reading and study, but very unhappy in his way of expressing himself, both which appeared in his Altare Damascenum. He was at first very factious, and banished the kingdom by King James, yet was afterwards much neglected by that violent party, who judged him too moderate, though, from his book, none would imagine him guilty of it.”^[11. Middleton’s Appendix to Spotswood’s Hist, of the Church of Scotland, p. 20. ] Baillie, in relating the proceedings of the general assembly in 1641, remarks, “it was regretted by the moderator that Mr David Catherwood, who deserved so well of our church, was so long neglected. He was recommended to the first commodious room. Likely he shall not be in haste provided. The man is sixty-six years old; his utterance is unpleasant; his carriage about the meetings of this assembly and before, has made him less considerable to divers of his former benefactors.”^[12. Baillie’s Letters and Journals, vol. i. p. 311. ] Though not a member, he had repeatedly spoken with too much pertinacity. Henderson the moderator treated him with great forbearance, but at length the commissioner commanded him to be silent. In 1643 the assembly appointed Henderson, Calderwood, and Dickson, to prepare a directory for public worship. During the remainder of his life, he continued to take an active part in the affairs of the church; and as firmness may be nearly allied to obstinacy, he appears to have maintained his own opinions with habitual keenness. It was he that introduced the practice, which is now confirmed by long usage, of dissenting from the decision of the assembly, and requiring the protest to be entered in the record. In 1649, an act having been introduced respecting the election of ministers, he proposed that the right of electing should be vested in the presbytery, leaving to the people the power of declaring their dissent, upon reasons of which it should be competent for the presbytery to judge; but this suggestion was not adopted; and, according to Baillie’s statement, “Calderwood entered a very sharp protestation against our act, which he required to be registered. This is the first protestation we heard of in our time; and had it come from any other, it had not escaped censure.”^[13. Baillie, vol. ii. p. 340. ]

He devoted many years to the preparation of a history of the church of Scotland. In 1648 the general assembly urged him to complete the design, and voted him a yearly pension of eight hundred pounds.^[14. Baillie, vol. ii. p. 307. ] He left behind him an historical work of great extent, and of great value, not indeed as a masterly composition, but as a storehouse of authentic materials for history. The laborious author has incorporated many original documents which are not otherwise preserved, and has recorded an immense multiplicity of facts, which illustrate the civil as well as the ecclesiastical annals of the period to which his work relates. An abridgment, which appears to have been prepared by himself,^[15. See Dr M‘Crie’s Appendix to the Memoirs of Veitch and Brysson, p. 495, 501. ] was published after his death; but it is much to be regretted that his great work still remains in manuscript. Proposals for printing it were issued many years ago, but the plan did not meet with adequate encouragement; and, unless a similar plan should be adopted by the Bannatyne Club, we despair of seeing it carried into execution. The author’s manuscript, which lately belonged to General Calderwood Durham, has been presented to the British Museum. A copy, transcribed under the inspection of Wodrow, is among the archives of the church; another belongs to the library of the university of Glasgow; and, as Dr M‘Crie has stated, “in the Advocates Library, besides a complete copy of that work, there is a folio volume of it, reaching to the end of the year 1572. It was written in 1634, and has a number of interlineations and marginal alterations, differing from the other copies, which, if not made by the author’s own hand, were most probably done under his eye.”^[16. M‘Crie’s Life of Know, vol. i. p. vi.—Some of his papers are preserved among Wodrow’s MSS. in the Advocates Library. Two original letters from John Paget to Calderwood occur in M. 6. 9. No. 107-8. ]

Calderwood died at Jedburgh on the 29th of October 1650,^[17. Bannatyne Miscellany, vol. i. p. 205. Baillie, in a passage already quoted, mentions that Calderwood was sixty-six years old in 1841. ] at the age of seventy-five. He appears to have been a man of unbending integrity, fearless in maintaining his opinions, and uniformly consistent in his professions; but as human virtues are never perfect, his decision of character had some tendency to deviate into that obstinacy of humour from which good men are not always exempted. With his honesty and piety he united no small portion of acuteness and learning. He was conversant with the fathers, schoolmen, and canonists, as well as the more recent theologians; and the shrewdness of his understanding enabled him to apply his learning with due effect.

His works are numerous; and as they were almost all published without the author’s name, it is not easy to form a complete and accurate catalogue. The place of printing is omitted in all the original editions, but several, if not most of them, appear to have been printed in Holland. The following is a list of publications which we believe may be safely ascribed to Calderwood.

1. De Regimine Ecclesias’ Scoticanae brevis Relatio. 1618, 8vo.—To this tract an answer was published by Archbishop Spotswood, under the title of “Refutatio Libelli[7:5:796] de Regimine Ecclesiae Scoticanae.. Lond. H cO, 8vo. Calderwood replied in the Vindiciae subjoined to his Altare Damascenum.

2. A Solvtion of Doctor Resolvtvs his Resolutions for Kneeling. 1619, 4to.—This is an answer to a book written by David Lindsay, D.D. who became bishop of Brechin, and afterwards of Edinburgh: “The Reasons of a Pastors Resolution, touching the reuerend Receiuing of the holy Commvnion.” Lond. 1619, 8vo.

3. Perth Assembly, &c. 1619, 4to.—This publication was followed by " A true Narration of all the Passages of the Proceedings in the Generall Assembly of the Church of Scotland, holden at Perth the 25 of August anno Dom. 1618: wherein is set downe the copy of his Maiesties Letters to the said Assembly; together with a iust Defence of the Articles therein concluded, against a seditious Pamphlet. By Dr Lyndesay, Bishop of Brechen.” Lond. 1621,4to.

4. A Defence of our Arguments against Kneeling in the act of Receiving the sacramentall Elements of Bread and Wine, impugned by Mr Michelsone. 1620, 8vo. 1638, 8vo.—This is an answer to a book entitled, “The Lawfvlnes of Kneeling in the act of Receiuing the Sacrament of the Lordes Supper. Written by Μ. ĭohn Michaelson, Preacher of Gods Word at Bvrnt-Yland.” Sainct Andrewes, 1620, 8vo. In his preface, Calderwood remarks of his antagonist, “he hath given so notable proofe of profound knowledge in divinitie, and subtilitie in handling this controversie in this worthie work of his, that the bishop of St Andros (a man as voyd of learning as of good manners) hath made him a doctor.” This is not a very decent manner of treating Spotswood, who was neither destitute of talents nor of learning.

5. A Dialogve betwixt Cosmophilus and Theophilus anent the urging of new Ceremonies upon the Kirke of Scotland. 1620, 8vo.

6. The Speach of the Kirk of Scotland to her beloved Children. 1620, 8vo.

7. Quaeres concerning the State of the Chvrch of Scotland. 1621, 8vo. 1638, 8vo.

8. The Altar of Damascus; or the Patcm of the English Hierarchie and Church-Policie obtruded upon the Church of Scotland. 1621, 8vo.

9. The Course of Conformitie, as it hath proceeded, is concluded, should be refused. 1622, 4to.

10. A Reply to Dr Mortons generall Defence of the three nocent Ceremonies, &c. 1622, 4to.

11. A Reply to Dr Mortons particular Defence of the three nocent Ceremonies, &c. 1623,4to.—Dr Morton, who was successively bishop of Chester, Lichfield, and Durham, had published “A Defence of the Innocencie of the three Ceremonies of the Chvrch of England; viz. the Surplice, Crosse after Baptisme, and Kneeling at the Receiuing of the blessed Sacrament.” Lond. 1619, 4to. This is the second impression.

12. Altare Damascenum; scu Politia Ecclesiae Anglican® obtrusa Ecclesiae Scoticanae, a formalista quodam delineata, illustrata et examinata studio et opera Edwardi Didoclavii. Cui locis suis inserta Confutatio Paraeneseos Tileni ad Scotos, Genevensis, ut ait, Disciplinae Zelotas: et adjecta Epistola Hieronymi Philadelphi de Regimine Ecclesiae Scoticanae; ejusque Vindiciae contra Calumnias Johannis Spotsuodi, Fani Andreae Pscudoarchiepiscopi, per anonymum. 1623, 4to. Lugd. Bat. 1708, 4to.—The application of the title may be learned from 2 Kings, xvi. 10. The work itself, which is an enlargement of his English Altar of Damascus, contains a most formidable attack on the polity of the church of England; and, as Mr Peirce remarks, “the patrons of episcopacy have never yet answer’d it, how much soever their cause requires it.”^[18. Peirce’s Vindication of the Dissenters, p. 176, second edit. Lond. 1718, 8vo. ] A late writer, by some unaccountable inadvertency, has stated that “this book is a refutation of Linwood’s Description of the Policy of the Church of England.” William Lyndewode, an eminent canonist who became bishop of St David’s, could certainly write no book about the protestant church of England, inasmuch as he died in 1446, nearly a century before the reformation. He is the compiler of a well-known work, entitled Provinciale, seu Constitutiones Angliae, to which Calderwood frequently refers, among many other juridical and theological authorities. One of the books which he undertakes to refute bears the title of “Paraenesis ad Scotos, Genevensis Disciplinae Zelotas, au tore Dan. Tileno Silesio.” Lond. 1620, 8vo. Another able refutation was written by Sir James Semple: “Scoti του ruxowoς Paraclesis contra Danielis Tileni Silesii Paraenesin ad Scotos, Genevensis Disciplinae Zelotas, conscriptam: cujus prima pars est, de Episcopali Ecclesiae Regimine.” Anno 1622, 4to.

13. An Exhortation of the particular Kirks of Christin Scotland to their sister Kirk in Edinburgh. 1624, 8vo.

14. An Epistle of a Christian Brother, exhorting an other to keepe himselfe vndefiled from the present Corruptions brought in to the Ministration of the Lords Supper. 1624, 8vo.

15. A Dispvte vpon Commvnicating at ovr confused Communions. 1624, 8vo.

16. The Pastor and the Prelate; or Reformation ana Conformitie shortly compared by the Word of God, by Antiquity and the Proceedings of the ancient Kirk, &c. 1628, 4to.

17. A Re-examination of the five Articles enacted at Perth anno 1618; to wit, concerning the Communicants Gesture in the act of Receaving, the Observation of Festival Dayes, episcopall Confirmation or Bishopping, the Administration of Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in privat Places. 1636, 4to.

18. The Re-examination of two of the Articles abridged; to wit, of the Communicants Gesture in the act of Receaving, Eating, and Drinking; and the Observation of Festivall Dayes. 1636, 8vo.

19. An Answerc to Μ. I. Forbes of Corse his Peaceable Warning. 1638, 4to.—This is an answer to a tract written by Dr Forbes, professor of divinity in Kings College, Aberdeen: “A peaceable Warning to the Subjects in Scotland; given in the yeare of God 1638.” Aberdene, 4to.

20. The true History of the Church of Scotland, from the beginning of the Reformation, unto the end of the Reigne of King James VI. &c. 1678, fol. (x .)