|
ON the abolition of papal jurisdiction and ratification
of Protestant doctrine in 156o, commission was given by an order of the
Privy Council to prominent reformers, "to draw in a volume the policy and
discipline of the Kirk as well as they had 4 done the doctrine."
The task of framing the Book of Discipline was a most
difficult one, and potentially most important for the well-being of
Scotland. The Estates had been practically unanimous in settling the
Confession of Faith. This order by the Privy Council had immeasurably wider
scope than the settlement of a creed, covering as it did the internal policy
of the Church, its relation to the State, its attitude towards education,
and the inculcation of such procedure in domestic matters as should have for
its aim security that children would grow up useful citizens, and occupy
positions in society suited to their varying ability. All the Commissioners
were able men of large experience both at home and abroad, the greatest of
whom was John Knox. The duty was undertaken with great heartiness, and
discharged with such statesmanlike foresight and admirable breadth of view,
as should have earned for it the approval of all whose judgment was free
from the disturbing influence of church feeling on the one side, and
grasping selfishness on the other. The Book of Discipline unfortunately had
to pass through the ordeal of both. Those who clung to the ancient church
could not be expected to approve, while the nobles and gentry, the majority
of whom had adopted the new faith, and into whose hands a large portion of
church property had somehow passed, selfishly refused to hand back to the
ministers of the reformed church the property which unquestionably belonged
to the church whose place they had taken. The measure was accordingly
approved or disliked according as religious zeal or personal considerations
exercised the greater influence. That the conception and aim of its authors
were excellent, and that its fuller adoption would have been entirely
beneficial cannot be doubted. That it fell far short of being realised was a
national misfortune. That the nobility and gentry, having the power,
appropriated funds that were the inheritance of the poor, of education, and
the Kirk is intelligible, but merits the strongest condemnation. Their
objection to the encroachment on personal liberty proposed in the compulsory
clause dealing with the education of rich and poor alike is to some extent
excusable, but still much to be regretted, destroying as it did a scheme of
national education-a school in every parish, and a college or higher school
in every notable townthe grandest known to history.
Though the First Book of Discipline was never carried out,
its proposals deserve to be noticed.
The Commissioners in speaking of the "Erection of
Universities" probably meant not that they were to be created anew, but to
be established under new regulations, and rescued from the moribund
condition to which they had been reduced at the time of the Reformation. The
establishment of another in Edinburgh was not thought of. The medieval
notion of a university was departed from. Professors [Regents is the word
used in the Book of Discipline, and came ultimately to mean Professors. In
medieval times anyone who had graduated a Master might be a Regent.
Originally a Regent conducted a class through all subjects up to graduation.
This continued to be the practice in Aberdeen till the 19th century though
the name had given place to Professor. The two who were the last appointed
to chairs by the title of Regents were Clerk Maxwell in Marischal College
(1856), and Geddes in King's College (1855).] for separate subjects were to
be appointed and adequate salaries provided for them. These professors were
to be officers of the colleges, not of the university. Each Faculty was to
have a separate organisation, and the combination of the several Faculties
constituted the university. The title 'Chancellor,' which usually belonged
to the Bishops of the three dioceses, was abolished, and in its place came
that of 'Superintendent,' to whom as head of the institution certain duties
administrative and academic were assigned. The Rector was no longer to be a
regular teacher. His duties were regulation and supervision, visiting each
college once a month, settling disputes between members of the university,
and taking part in the trial of criminal actions against students. The
Superintendent, Rector, their assessors, and the Bedell are the only
university officers mentioned. Very few of the pre-Reformation Rectors of St
Andrews could have been regular teachers. They were mostly prominent
churchmen in different parts of the diocese, and must have been to a very
large extent nonresident.
St Andrews as having already three colleges was to be a
complete University, giving degrees in four Faculties, Philosophy, Medicine,
Law and Divinity. In one college Philosophy and Medicine, ;n
another Law, and in another Divinity, the curriculum in the first three
Faculties extending over five, and in Divinity over six years. Each college
was to have a Principal, whose duties were administration and supervision,
but not teaching. Twenty-four bursars were to be appointed on consideration
of character and scanty means of support. Glasgow and Aberdeen were to have
two colleges, one giving degrees in Philosophy, the other in Law and
Divinity. Regents were no longer to conduct a class through all subjects.
Professors were to be appointed for each subject, except for Medicine, all
branches of which were to be under the charge of one teacher. Neither Latin
nor any elementary subject was to be taught in the university, and the
lectures were all to be delivered in Latin.
The proposal of such a scheme as this may seem an
extravagant counsel of perfection, deserving to be relegated to the limbo of
other `devout imaginations,' seeing that, after the experience and efforts
of nearly three and a half centuries, we have not yet reached the goal which
was Knox's noble aim. But defence of its consistency and even `sweet
reasonableness' is not impossible. The university scheme did not stand
alone. It was the completion of a fully matured system of national education
by which it was to be preceded, and which, if it had been carried out, would
have been a perfection of symmetry totus, teres, atque rotundus. It was
intended that no student should enter the university who had not had two
years of primary instruction, three or four years of Latin, and four years
of Greek, Logic, and Rhetoric, and so be from sixteen to seventeen years of
age. It is also to be borne in mind that Knox meant such a course only for
those who showed `aptness for learning,' and recommended that those who
lacked this quality should betake themselves to some useful handicraft.
Given national co-operation, open-handed liberality, and the legitimate use
instead of the shameful perversion of funds available for education, Knox's
ideal might have been realised.
Nothing is more hopeless than
to estimate with approximate accuracy the purchasing power of money at the
time of the Reformation, but the calculation of what would have sufficed for
the maintenance of the three universities was between £2000 and £3000
sterling.
In 1563 the lamentable
condition of the universities and especially of St Andrews was brought
before the Queen and Lords of the Articles, with the result that a committee
was appointed by parliament to enquire and report [Acts of Parliament, ii,
544.]. George Buchanan was a prominent member of it. His proposal was less
ambitious than that of Knox. The most noteworthy change was that, as the
scheme for higher schools in every notable town had failed, in one of the
colleges languages alone should be taught. As his scheme was also still-born
more detailed notice of it is perhaps unnecessary. Had either scheme been
adopted the, basis of university education would have been broader.
University and school would each have done more effectively its own proper
work. In both schemes, however, we have evidence of the intellectual
awakening produced by the revival of learning.
To St Andrews, as to the
other universities, the Reformation did serious injury. Their constitution
and organisation were upset by ecclesiastical discord ; their income was
sadly reduced by the rapacity of the nobles who appropriated the lion's
share of the patrimony of the Church. From a greatly diminished income they
had to uphold the stipends of the parishes which belonged to them. This was
necessarily accompanied by a reduction of the salaries of the professors,
for which certain grants by successive administrations made small but
inadequate amends. The attendance of students was also injuriously affected.
A year or two before the Reformation the matriculation of students was small
" owing to tumults about religion." Mr Maitland Anderson, Librarian of St
Andrews, has given, with highly probable approximation to accuracy, the
average number of entrants or first matriculations in the 16th and 17th
centuries as 44 and 60 respectively.
The diminution in the number
of students immediately before and for some years after the Reformation does
not warrant the inference that the authorities were negligent or incapable.
It must be remembered that the student had not yet given up the habit of
going wherever the reputation of famous teachers led him, and that foreign
universities had not ceased to be attractive. To this as well as to
attenuated endowments and religious discord the reduced attendance was
probably due.
While the success of the
other two universities was seriously marred by the Reformation, St Andrews
was probably the greatest sufferer. The elements of discord and confusion
were there more abundant and violent. It was the oldest, and the seat of the
primacy. Monastic traditions were more deeply rooted there than in Glasgow
and Aberdeen. The defenders of the old faith were more powerful, and also
more violent and unscrupulous than elsewhere. Here alone were there three
colleges, two warmly attached to the old order of things, the other resolute
to overthrow it. In these circumstances the wonder is, not that academic
progress was temporarily checked, but that is was not wholly obliterated.
"Our haill College," says
James Melville, speaking of St Leonard's, "maisters and schollars, was sound
and zealous in the guid cause ; the other twa colleges nocht sa ; for in the
new college, howbeit Mr John Douglass, their Rector, was guid aneuch, the
three other maisters and sum of the Regents war evill-mynditl [James
Melville's Diary, p. 26; 1842.]."
The disorganisation resulting
from this state of matters was left practically unremedied for nearly twenty
years. The everlasting round of scholastic philosophy and the mode of
teaching remained unchanged. Something different from this might naturally
have been expected from St Leonard's, the principalship of which had been
held for four years by such an adventurous spirit as George Buchanan. That
he did not attempt to shake himself free from some of the trammels of
medievalism is probably due to the fact that, unrivalled as his scholarship
was, the character of his intellect demanded a wider and more inspiriting
sphere than the lecture room; that his leanings were firstly political, and
only secondarily academic.
The scheme for university
reform proposed in the First Book of Discipline was, as we have seen, not
carried out. The less ambitious one already referred to for which George
Buchanan was mainly responsible shared the same fate. In 1578 parliament
appointed a Commission to examine and report on the condition of all the
universities [Act of Parliament, iii, 98.]. This also had no result. In the
following year the General Assembly presented a petition to the King and
Council urging the necessity of reforming St Andrews. The Council appointed
Commissioners for this purpose with full powers to remove unqualified
persons, to change the form of study and the number of professors, to join
or divide the Faculties, to annex each Faculty to such college- as they
thought most proper for it, &c. The Commissioners found that in all the
colleges the original foundations had been departed from, that the
foundations disagreed in many things with the true religion, and were far
from "that perfection of teaching which this learned age craves," and they
agreed upon a new form of instruction to be observed in the university [Act,
vol. 111, 179, and M'Crie's Life of Melville, I, 241, ed. 1824. ]. This was
laid before parliament and ratified in 1579.
To enumerate in detail all
the changes proposed by this Commission would far exceed our limits. Some
are, however, specially worthy of mention [Acts of Scottish Parliaments,
vol. III, 178-182.]. Professorships of Mathematics and Law were to be
established in St Salvator's. The Principal was to act as Professor of
Medicine. Much the same arrangements were made for St Leonard's, but in it
Mathematics and Law were not to be taught. Aristotelian Logic and Physics
were no longer to have exclusive authority. Only the " most profitable and
needful parts " were to be dealt with, and lectures on Platonic philosophy
were to serve as a counterpoise to the Peripateticperhaps the earliest
evidence of a tendency towards supplanting medieval by modern notions. St
Mary's was to be entirely devoted to the study of theology with a staff of
five masters. The first was to teach the Oriental languages; the second to
teach the law of Moses and historical books of the Old Testament ; the third
to explain the prophetical books ; the fourth to teach the New Testament in
Greek and Syriac, and the fifth to teach the commonplaces, but the staff
fell far short of this, and was often represented by two professors who
undertook the whole of the instruction in theology. The first Professor of
Hebrew was appointed in 1668. Every fourth year a visitation was to be made
to see how far the changes were observed and effective.
It is impossible to question
the general excellence of the programme thus proposed, and equally
impossible to contend that it was more than very partially carried out. If
James Melville's Diary is to be trusted, his uncle Andrew had a large and
probably the principal share in drawing it up [Melville's Diary, pp. 58, 64;
1829.]. The thoroughness and comprehensive grasp of the reforms proposed not
only bear the stamp of his character, but are to a large extent a
reproduction of what he did successfully for Glasgow five years before. It
was perhaps too drastic and in some respects impracticable, except under the
action of men of Melville's own marvellous industry and untiring energy. The
proposals in it to which this objection may be taken are probably due to his
presupposing in others the courageous qualities he himself possessed. That
Buchanan lent his aid is very probable, but his somewhat laissez-faire
attitude towards academic reform during his occupancy of the principalship
of St Leonard's from 1566 to 1570 makes his initiative in the reforms of
1579 at least doubtful. It is certain that he was the most distinguished
scholar among the Commissioners, but scholarship rather than administration
and organisation was the most marked feature in his character.
When the changes involved in
the scheme were about to be made, it was on all sides agreed that Melville,
then Principal of Glasgow, was eminently qualified for the principalship of
St Mary's College. His character and experience marked him out as singularly
fitted to bring order out of confusion. After completing his course at St
Andrews he had sojourned in France and Switzerland, had seen a great part of
the struggle between the Catholics and Huguenots, had gained the friendship
of the reformer Beza, and, after breathing freely the atmosphere of the
Presbyterianism of Geneva, had returned to Scotland full of strong and
tempered enthusiasm. Though the reorganisation of St Mary's College was a
subject in which he was especially interested, he was most unwilling to
leave Glasgow University, which he had rescued from approximate extinction
and raised to a position of great prosperity. The university authorities
also strongly opposed his removal, but a letter from the King to the General
Assembly intimating his wish that Melville should accept the appointment
made compliance inevitable [M'Crie's Life of Melville, I, 160, ed. 1824]. He
was accordingly transferred to St Andrews in 1580, and was succeeded in
Glasgow by Smeaton.
In 1580 when Episcopacy had
its first innings under the Tulchan Bishops, and Archbishop Adamson was
Chancellor, Melville was installed [Tulchan was a calf's skin stuffed with
straw used to induce a cow to give her milk freely. The term was used to
describe the titular Bishops who in 1572 held office, but allowed most of
the revenues under their charge to be absorbed by the nobles as lay
patrons.]. His nephew James was admitted as Professor of Oriental tongues.
John Robertson was the only Regent not displaced under the new arrangements.
Melville's marked success in Glasgow fully justified his appointment. His
position, as might be expected, was a difficult one. He had to face the
opposition always offered to reformers of old institutions, the anger of the
removed professors and the claims of arrears of salaries said to be due. But
another and greater difficulty had to be overcome. By his lectures, showing
that parts of Aristotelian philosophy were inconsistent with both natural
and revealed religion, he aroused the wrath of the other colleges [Their
breadwinner, their honor, their estimation, all was goan, giff Aristotle
should be so owirharled in the hearing of their schollars." Melville's
Diary, p. 123, ed. 1842.]. Undeterred by clamour he in two years silenced
his opponents by his earnestness, erudition, eloquence, and strength of
character, and brought to his side many of his most bitter antagonists [M'Crie's
Life of Melville, I, 171, ed. 1824.]. In his dealing with them he induced
them to take up the careful study of Aristotle in the original, and by this
means made them both philosophers and theologians. " But this," said his
nephew, " was nocht done without mikle feghting and fasherie [Melville's
Diary, p. 124, ed. 1842]."
From a review of the
condition of Scotland during the latter half of the 16th and the whole of
the 17th century it is not too much to say that no other country underwent
an ordeal so prohibitive of university progress as that which fell to the
lot of Scotland. The University and the Church were connected by the closest
ties. Whatever affected the latter was immediately and keenly felt by the
former. Throughout that century and a half, at intervals of twenty years or
so, the alternate ebb and flow of stern and moderate Presbyterianism, of
spurious and genuine Episcopacy had to be faced. Each change necessitated
the appointment of a fresh Commission whose duty it was to adapt university
conditions to the wishes of the Church for the time in the ascendant. In
these circumstances confusion and destruction of discipline were inevitable,
steady progress impossible. The enactments of the various Commissions were
more or less disregarded. All the teachers might, and many did, do whatever
seemed right in their own eyes. It would seem from a memorial of the
visitation of 1588 that the condition of the university was far from
satisfactory even eight years after Melville's occupancy of the
principalship. The memorial opens with the statement "It is mast difficill
in this confused tyme...to effectuat ony gude commoun werk, althogh men wer
nevir sa weill willit ; and speciallie quhair ye ar not certanly instructit,
and hes na greit hope of thankes for your travell." This was the state of
matters so far as the teachers are concerned. But the end of the report
shows the Students to be in no better case. The Regents are advised to
"forbid thair (the students) querrelling...albeit it be not altogidder
prohibite that thay flyte (i.e. wrangle or scold), yit forbid
fechting or bearing of daggis (pistols) or swerdis."
How far this chaotic condition of
matters can be charged against Melville it is difficult to determine. He has
been accused of sacrificing to some extent his academic duties to the
teaching of republicanism, and of discussing whether the election or
succession of rulers was to be preferred, and of hinting doubts as to the
divine right of kings. It is certain that he did not find within the narrow
precincts of a university an arena wide enough for the exercise of his
overmastering energy. Affairs of Church and State had a great charm for him.
His keen interest in general as well as in ecclesiastical politics is well
known. He was of too ardent a spirit to disregard questions involving
important principles. The university was much to him but it was not all, and
there is a limit to the exertions of even the most indefatigable
administrator. It is therefore probable that the charge of laxity in the
management of the university was not entirely without foundation.
Of his fearlessness in the presence of
royalty his behaviour on at least one occasion leaves no doubt. [In
1596, when the King attended divine service in the Town Church of St
Andrews, the preacher [Melville] expressed some sentiments of which the King
disapproved. He interrupted the preacher and ordered him to desist.
Indignant at this interference, Melville rose and sharply rebuked the King,
and censured the Commissioners of the Church for sitting in silence.
Principal Shairp in Fraser's Magazine,
1882, p. 44.] Of his beneficent influence on
academic pursuits there can be but one opinion. Great and entirely wholesome
as that influence was, it would have been more widespread and permanent in
the years that followed, had it not been checked by the ecclesiastical and
political turmoils of the 17th century, in which no room could be
found for the steady pursuit of learning and literature. Burton claims for
Melville a type of character like that of Hildebrand or Thomas A Becket.
The scheme formulated in 1579
had evidently proved in some respects unworkable, for the ratification of
that scheme was repealed and the original foundations were restored by
parliament in St Andrews in 1621, and two years previously in Aberdeen.
Till the royal visitation in 1718 one fruitless
Commission followed another and practically nothing of importance was done.
In spite of these retarding influences St Andrews seems, under the vigorous
administration of Melville, to have maintained so much of its former
reputation as to be still attractive to students from the Continent, the
annual average of whom between 1588 and 1610 was seven or eight. Neither was
royal favour entirely withdrawn. A university or common library was founded
by King James in 1612. This was gradually enlarged by donations of books
from various quarters, and subsequently the separate libraries of the three
colleges were combined with it.
On January 15, 1691, seven
new Regents were admitted on the nomination of William and Mary-four in St
Salvator's College, and three in St Leonard's. This would seem to indicate
that a corresponding number had been evicted for refusing to take the oath
of allegiance.
Between the time of Melville
and the end of the 17th century there are no trustworthy sources of
information, and such as exist have little educational significance. And yet
within the century in which such men as Knox, Buchanan, Spottiswoode,
Henderson, Rutherford, Montrose, and others, fretted their little hour on
the St Andrews stage, in the battledore and shuttlecock vicissitudes of
Presbyterian and Episcopal supremacy, there must have been many incidents
worthy of being recorded, but of which comparatively few traces remain. It
is recorded that a Professor of Mathematics was appointed in 1668. In 1690 a
Commission was appointed and empowered to remove all officials who refused
to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary. Of the extent to which
this power was exercised there is no authentic record. |
