|
CALDERWOOD,
a local surname, derived, as well as the river Calder, which flows into
the Clyde at Bothwell castle in Lanarkshire, from an ancient lordship and
manor of the name, comprising also the town and village of Great and
Little Calderwood. This estate was anciently possessed by the ancestors of
David Calderwood, the ecclesiastical historian, a notice of whose life
follows, but it went out of the family long before his birth, and the
Calderwoods were dispersed some into the south of Scotland, and many to
Ireland.
The proprietor
of Calderwood appears to have done homage in 1296, to Edward the First of
England.
From a
genealogical table and notices by Mr. David Laing, in the eighth volume of
the Wodrow Society’s edition of Calderwood’s work, it appears that a
family of the name of Calderwood existed in Dalkeith towards the middle of
the sixteenth century, that one of that family named James died in October
1567, leaving a son called Alexander Calderwood, and a nephew called
William Calderwood; that this William, as stated in sundry instruments
relative to a property in Dalkeith possessed by him and them, had two
sons, one of whom, the eldest, was also called William Calderwood, the
younger was David the historian; that Alexander Calderwood, son of James
and nephew to the historian, was bailie in Dalkeith, and commissioner to
the parliaments of 1648, 1649, and March 1661, and a justice of peace
1663; that he had nine sons, of whom the sixth was Sir William Calderwood,
born 1661, sheriff-depute of Edinburgh from 1696 to 1701, knighted 1706,
raised to the bench as Lord Polton 1711, and died at the age of 73 in
August 1733. An account of his descendants by James Denniston, Esq., is
contained in the appendix to the Coltness Collections of the Maitland
Club, 1842. It further appears that besides William, and David the
historian, William Calderwood the elder had a younger son, Archibald, a
commissioner of war in the parliament of March 1647, and that two nephews
of the historian, viz. David, an apothecary in Edinburgh, died 1657, and
James his brother, minister of Humbie, died 1679, were the sons of his
elder brother, William. Another near relative of the historian was Thomas
Calderwood, styled merchant, but a stationer and bookseller, &c., in, and
bailie and dean of guild of, Edinburgh from 1652 to 1673, a commissioner
of tiends 1672, died 1675, leaving two sons, William, minister of
Dalkeith, died 1680, and Archibald, minister of Holyroodhouse Abbey, died
1681. The Calderwoods of Polton are now merged in the family of
Calderwood-Durham of Largo.
A numerous
branch of the Calderwoods flourished at the same time in Musselburgh, but
they do not seem, says Mr. Laing, to have had any immediate connexion with
those of Dalkeith.
CALDERWOOD, DAVID,
an eminent divine of the Church of Scotland, and ecclesiastical historian,
was descended of an ancient family, which at one period possessed the
estate of Calderwood in Lanarkshire. His immediate relatives, as above
shown, belonged to Dalkeith and the neighbourhood. He himself was born in
that town in 1575, and received his education at the university of
Edinburgh, where he took the degree of A.M. in 1593. Being early designed
for the ministry, he applied with great diligence to the study of the
Scriptures in the original tongues, the works of the Fathers, and the best
writers on church history. About the year 1604, he was settled as minister
of Crailing, near Jedburgh, and early began to take a prominent part in
the ecclesiastical proceedings of the period. He was one of those
unyielding presbyterian ministers who strenuously opposed the designs of
James the Sixth for the introduction of episcopacy into Scotland. In 1608,
when Mr. James Law, bishop of Orkney, made a visitation of the
presbyteries of Merse and Teviotdale, Mr. Calderwood, together with George
Johnston, minister of Ancrum, declined his jurisdiction by a paper under
their hand, dated May 5th of that year. These two ministers had
been elected members of the General Assembly, but to exclude them from
this and other ecclesiastical courts, the episcopalian 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 the two refractory ministers in the severest manner. By
the intercession, however, of the earl of Lothian, with the chancellor and
the earl of Dunbar, they were ordered to be confined to their respective
parishes, a restriction which continued for several years.
IN February
1610, King James issued a commission under the great seal of Scotland, for
erecting a court similar to the court of high commission in England, in
each of the two archbishoprics of St. Andrews and Glasgow. “This
commission,” says Calderwood, “and execution thereof, as it exalted the
aspyring bishops farre above anie prelat that ever was in Scotland, so it
putt the king in possessioun of that which he had long tyme hunted for; to
witt, of the royall prerogative, and absolute power to use the bodeis and
goods of the subjects at pleasure, without forme of processe of the common
law.” [Calderwood’s Hist. vol. vii. p. 62.] In May 1617, the king
arrived in Edinburgh, and the Scots parliament assembled on the 17th
of June. During its sitting the ministers held several meetings in the
Little Kirk, one or more of the bishops being always present. Their chief
consultation was about augmentation of stipends and provisions to
ministers. On one of these occasions when four or five ministers were
deliberating on this subject, Calderwood entered, and 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 anie wayes to be a meeting
answerable to the Convocation house of England in time of their
parliaments.” He was assured that no alteration was to be apprehended,
prejudicial to the liberties of the kirk, and that the bishops had
faithfully so promised. Of their fidelity in keeping their promises, he
said, they had had sufficient proofs for the last sixteen years, and he
was proceeding to show what had been the encroachments of the bishops,
when he was interrupted by Dr. Whiteford and Dr. Hamilton, “clothed in
silks and satins,” who urged upon the meeting to attend to the subject
before them, of the plantation of kirks and the augmentation of stipends.
Finding that they were not disposed to listen to his suggestions, he left
the meeting with the indignant remark, “It is an absurd thing to sie men
sitting in silks ans satins, and crying povertie, povertie, in the meane
time when puritie is departing.”
The two
archbishops, being informed of what had taken place, repaired to the
meeting next day, and solemnly declared that no such innovations were
intended, “or els they sall be content to be ledd out to the Mercate
Crosse, and be execute on a scaffold,” and yet, the day following, an
article was passed among the Lords of the Articles to the effect that the
king, with the advice of the bishops and such a number of the ministry as
his majesty might deem expedient, might frame new laws for the church; in
consequence of which a considerable number of the ministers assembled in
the music-school, and resolved upon drawing up a remonstrance to be
presented to his majesty and to parliament. Two of the Edinburgh clergy,
Mr. Peter Ewart and Mr. William Struthers were appointed to prepare it,
and when it was finally revised and agreed to, Mr. Archibald Simson,
minister of Dalkeith, was directed to sign it as clerk of the meeting in
name of the rest, and the names of the others, fifty-five in number, were
subscribed in a separate paper, and delivered to him as his warrant. The
clerk register, to whom a copy of the remonstrance had been presented,
refused to read it in parliament, and Simson having been summoned before
the high commission, declined to produce the list of signatures, and was
committed a prisoner to the castle of Edinburgh. The list he had intrusted
to the master of the music-school, Patrick Henryson, who delivered it to
Calderwood. The latter was therefore cited to appear at St. Andrews on the
8th of July, there to exhibit the roll of names, and “to answer
for his mutinous and seditious assistance to the said assembly.” Ewart and
Simson were summoned at the same time, and they all made their appearance,
but the examination was deferred till the 12th, that the king
might be present, and take part in the proceedings. Ewart and Simson were
deprived, and the former ordered to be confined in Dundee and the latter
in Aberdeen. A long account of Calderwood’s examination is given in his
History, vol. vii. commencing at page 261. On this occasion James
endeavoured, using alternately threats and cajoleries, to prevail on him
to yield, and “to come in his will,” but he was neither to be overawed by
any earthly authority which he conceived to be unjustly exercised, nor
induced by any amount of wheedling, to relinquish the grounds which had
brought him in question before the high commission. From the pains taken
with him it would appear that both James and the bishops thought him a
more dangerous antagonist than either Ewart or Simson, whose cases had
been so easily disposed of, as if they had had some prophetic warnings of
the service which he as afterwards to do the church by his invaluable
History. Finding him inflexible, sentence of suspension from the ministry
till the following October was pronounced against him, on which he denied
their power to pass such a sentence, when the king, having whispered
something in the ear of the archbishop of St. Andrews, the latter said,
“His majesty sayeth, that if ye will not be content to be suspended
spiritually, ye shall be suspended corporally.” Calderwood, turning to the
king, undauntedly replied, “Sir, my body is in your majesty’s hands to do
with it as it pleaseth your majesty; but, as long as my body is free, I
will teach, notwithstanding of their sentence.” The king demanded if he
would abstain from teaching, for a certain time, if he should command him
by his regal authority, as from himself. In the confusion, being at the
time pestered with the importunities of the bishops and others beside him,
he answered, thinking his majesty had been still urging obedience to the
sentence of suspension, “I am not minded to obey.” The question being
repeated, and the same answer given, the king, in a rage, ordered him to
close confinement in the tolbooth of St. Andrews, till his farther
pleasure were known. On his way to prison, accompanied by about forty
ministers and gentlemen, in charge of Sir David Murray, Lord Scoon, some
one asked the latter, “Where away with that man, my lord?” “First to the
tolbooth, and then to the gallows,” he replied, probably anticipating that
Calderwood’s declared refusal to obey the king himself would have the
latter result. That same night, finding from the statements of those who
resorted to him in prison, that he had mistaken the king’s meaning, he
drew up a petition to his majesty, offering to obey his majesty’s own
commands, if set at liberty, in desisting to preach for a certain time,
but refusing to acknowledge the sentence of suspension pronounced by the
bishops. Enraged at the distinction, the bishops and their favourers not
only prevented the king from granting him his request, but gave out that
he had made a recantation of his principles. By an order of the lords of
secret council he was soon after removed to the jail of Edinburgh, and
after being there ten days, on giving security (his cautioner was James
Cranstoun, the son of Lord Cranstoun) to banish himself from the kingdom
before the ensuing Michaelmas, and not to return without the royal
license, he was released from prison.
Hearing that the
king was about to return to England, and that he was to be in Carlisle, he
accompanied Lord Cranstoun to that town, where that nobleman presented to
his majesty a petition in his favour. He offered himself as cautioner
that, if Calderwood were allowed to remain in his own parish, he should
not resort either to presbytery or any other meetings of ministers, either
public or private. The king inveighed against Calderwood, and at last
repelled Lord Cranstoun with his elbow. On bidding good night, his
lordship again ventured to speak in behalf of the petitioner. He entreated
his majesty to permit him to remain in Scotland till the last day of
April, that the winter season might be over before he undertook a voyage,
and his stipend taken up, for the crop of that year. His majesty, however,
was not to be moved. He declared that it was no matter if he begged his
bread, “he would ken himself better the next time,” and “as for the season
of the year, if he drowned in the seas, he might thank God that he had
escaped a worse death.” Notwithstanding this ungracious reply, his
lordship still pressed his suit; but the only answer he received was, “I
shall advise with my bishops.” The king was heard several times afterwards
to call Calderwood “a refractory fool,” and when congratulated by any of
the English ministers on his return, his common answer to them was, “I
hope you will not use me so irreverently as one Calderwood in Scotland
did.” Lord Cranstoun subsequently gave in a petition to the council for an
extension of the time of his departure from the realm, but it was referred
to the bishops, to whom also his lordship applied, and a conference was
held with Calderwood himself, who made some offers to the bishops, but
they were not accepted, and as he could not be prevailed upon to conform
to the new regulations in the church, the application, like all the rest,
was ineffectual. He continued, however, to remain in Scotland for some
time, lurking principally in and about Edinburgh, and during this time he
began the publication of his anonymous works in support of the
presbyterian cause.
In 1618, he
printed a Latin tract on the polity of the Church of Scotland, and in the
following year he produced a work, in English, the object of which was to
show the nullity of the famous Perth assembly of 25th August
1618, and the unlawfulness of the five articles passed at it, relative to
kneeling at the sacrament, the observance of festivals, confirmation,
private baptism, and private communion. Soon after the publication of this
last book, an attempt was made to apprehend him at Edinburgh in the house
of James Cathkin, a bookseller, but the officers found neither him nor any
copies of his work. Calderwood, was, in the meantime, 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, where, in 1623, he published his
celebrated controversial work, entitled ‘Altare Damascenum,’ in which he
rigorously examined the origin and authority of episcopacy. From Row’s
Ecclesiastical History it appears that he was known, while abroad, by the
quaint title of “Edwardus Didoclavius,” being an anagram on his name,
Latinized.
During his
absence from his native country, having suffered for a long time from
illness, his enemies supposed him to be dead, and one Patrick Scott, a
landed gentleman near Falkland in Fife, having wasted his estate, and
anxious to recommend himself at court, endeavoured to impose upon the
world, a recantation under his name, with the title, ‘Calderwood’s
Recantation; or, a tripartite discourse, directed so such of the ministry
and others in Scotland, that refuse conformitie to the ordinances of the
church; wherein the causes and bad effects of such separation, the legall
proceedings against the refractarie, and nullitie of their cause, are
softly launced, and they lovingly invited to the Univormitie of the
Church. Lond. 1622, 4to.’ Scott alleged to some of his friends that the
king had furnished him with the matter, and he set it down in form as he
received it. Soon after, Calderwood’s ‘Altare Damascenum’ appeared, and
finding that he was alive, Scott went over to Holland, and sought him in
various towns, and especially in Amsterdam, for the purpose of
assassinating him, but he found that Calderwood had already returned to
Scotland. [Calderwood’s History, vol. vii. page 583.]
In 1625, after
the death of King James, Calderwood returned to Edinburgh. For some years
he was engaged collecting all the memorials relating to the ecclesiastical
affairs of Scotland, from the beginning of the Reformation there to the
death of James the Sixth. The original MS. of his history is preserved in
the British Museum, having been presented to that national institution by
the author’s grand-nephew, Lord Polton; and abbreviated transcripts of
considerable portions of it are also to be found in the university library
of Glasgow, and in the Advocates’ Library. In 1648 the General Assembly
voted him a yearly pension of eight hundred pounds Scots to complete the
design. An abridgment of it, entitled ‘The True History of the Church of
Scotland,’ was printed in 1646, under the authority of the General
Assembly. In 1638 he was settled as minister of Pencaitland, near
Edinburgh. In 1643, he was appointed by the Assembly, with Henderson and
Dickson, one of the committee for drawing up the Directory of Public
Worship. It was he who introduced the practice in church courts, 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, “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.” [Baillie’s Letters, vol. ii.
page 340.]
Calderwood died
at Jedburgh on 29th October, 1650. In 1841, the Wodrow Society,
which was formed in Edinburgh in that year, brought out the first volume
of his History of the Kirk of Scotland from the original manuscript
preserved in the British Museum. Seven other volumes were published
subsequently. They were edited by the Rev Thomas Thomson.
His works are
numerous, and were almost all published without his name. A list of them
is given at the end of Dr. Irving’s life of Calderwood, and may be quoted
as follows:
De Regimine
Ecclesiae Scoticanae brevis Relatio. 1618, 8 vo. – To this tract an answer
was published by Archbishop Spotswood, under the title of ‘Refutatio
Libelli de Regimine Ecclesiae Scoticanae.’ Lond. 1620, 8vo. Calderwood
replied in the Vindiciae subjoined to his Altare Damascenum.
A Solution of
Doctor Resolutus 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 reverend Receiving of the holy Communion.’ Lond.
1619, 8vo.
Perth Assembly:
containing, 1. The Proceedings thereof. 2. The Proofe of the Nullitie
thereof. 3. Reasons presented thereto against the receiving the five new
Articles imposed. 4. The Oppositenesse of it to the Proceedings and Oath
of the whole state of the Land, an. 1581. 5. Proofes of the
Unlawfulnesse of the said five Articles, viz. 1. Kneeling in the Act of
Receiving the Lords Supper. 2. Holy Daies. 3. Bishopping. 4. Private
Baptisme. 5. Private Communion. 1619, 4to.
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. An answer to a book entitled ‘The Lawfulnes of Kneeling in the act of
Receiving the Sacrament of the Lordes Supper. Written by M. John
Michaelson, Preacher of Gods Word at Burnt-Yland.’ Sainct Andrewes, 1620,
8vo.
A Dialogue
betwixt Cosmophilus and Theophilus, anent the urging of new Ceremonies
upon the Kirke of Scotland. 1620, 8vo. Mr. Laing says that the author of
this dialogue was John Murray, minister of Leith and Dunfermline.
The Speech of
the Kirk of Scotland to her beloved Children. 1620, 8vo.
Quaeres
concerning the State of the Church of Scotland. 1621, 8vo. 1638, 8vo.
The Altar of
Damascus; or the Patern of the English Hierarchie and Church-Policie
obtruded upon the Church of Scotland. 1621, 8vo.
The Course of
Conformitie, as it hath proceeded, is concluded, should be refused. 1622,
4to. According to Mr. Laing, the author of this publication was William
Scot, minister of Cupar.
A Reply to Dr.
Mortons generall Defence of three nocent Cermonies; viz. the Surplice,
Crosse in Baptisme, and Kneeling at the receiving of the sacramental
Elements of Bread and Wine. 1622, 4to.
A Reply to Dr.
Morton’s particular Defence of three nocent Ceremonies; viz. the Surplice,
&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 Church of England; viz. the Surplice, Crosse after
Baptisme, and Kneeling at the Receiving of the blessed Sacrament.’ Lond.
1619, 4to.
Altare
Damascenum; seu Politia Ecclesiae Anglicanae obtrusa Ecclesiae Scoticanae,
a formalista quodam delineata, illustrata et examinata studio et opera
Edwardi Didoclavii. Genevensis, ut ait, Disciplinae Zelotas; et adjecta
Epistola Hieronymi Philadelphi de Regimine Ecclesiae Scoticanae; ejusque
Vindiciae contra Calumnias Johnnis Spotsuodi, Fani Andrea
Pseudoarchiepiscopi, per anonymum. 1623, 4to. Lugd. Bat. 1708, 4to. – The
application of the title may be learned from 2 Kings xvi. 10.
An Exhortation
of the particular Kirks of Christ in Scotland to their sister Kirk in
Edinburgh. 1624, 8vo.
An Epistle of a
Christian Brother, exhorting an other to keepe himself undefiled from the
present Corruptions brought in to the Ministration of the Lords Supper.
1624, 8vo.
A Dispute upon
Communicating at our confused Communions. 1624, 8vo.
The Pastor and
the Prelate; or Reformation and Conformitie shortly compared by the Word
of God, by Antiquity and the Proceedings of the ancient Kirk, &c. 1628,
4to.
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
Festivall Dayes, episcopall Confirmation or Bishopping, the Administration
of Baptisme and the Supper of the Lord in Privat Places. 1636, 4to.
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.
An Answere to
M.I. Forbes of Corse his Peaceable Warning. 1638, 4to. This is an answer
to a tract written by Dr. Forbes, professor of divinity in King’s College,
Aberdeen: ‘A peaceable Warning to the Subjects in Scotland; given in the
yeare of God 1638.’ Aberdene, 4to.
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.
To this list may
be added –
‘Parasynagma
Perthense,’ &c., printed along with Andreeae Melvini Musae, Anno M.DC.XX.,
4to. Also Calderwood’s edition of ‘The first and Second Books of
Discipline,’ printed anno 1621, 4to. And
the History of
the Kirk of Scotland. From Calderwood’s manuscripte volumes in the British
Museum, Printed for the Wodrow Society. 8vols. large 8vo. Edinburgh,
1841-1849.
Calderwood from the Dictionary of National Biography
The Life of
Henry Calderwood, LL.D., F.R.S.E.
By his son and the Rev. David Woodside, B.D. with a special chapter on
his Philosophical Worjs by A. Seth Pringle-Pattison, LL.D. (1900)
See also his book
The Parables of our Lord |
