{241} Towards the close of the sixteenth century, there arose another race of prelates, of very different principles from the English reformers, who began to maintain the divine right of diocesan episcopacy, with the intrinsic excellency of a ceremonious worship, and to adopt a new language respecting other reformed churches. Dr Bancroft, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, was the first writer among them who spoke disrespectfully of Knox,[313] after whom it became a fashionable practice among the hierarchical party. This was resented by the ministers of Scotland, who warmly vindicated the character of their Reformer,[314] at the expense of incurring the frowns and resentment of their sovereign. Though educated under the greatest scholar of the age, and one who was a decided friend to popular liberty, James, in spite of {242} the instructions of Buchanan, proved a pedant, and cowardice alone prevented him from becoming a tyrant. His early favourites flattered his vanity, fostered his love of arbitrary power, and inspired him with the strongest prejudice against the principles and conduct of those men who, during his early years, had been the instruments of preserving his life and supporting his authority. To secure his succession to the English crown, he entered into a private correspondence with Bancroft, and concerted with him the scheme of introducing episcopacy into the church of Scotland. The presbyterian ministers incurred his deep and lasting displeasure by their determined resistance to this design, and by the united and firm opposition which they made to the illegal and despotic measures of his government. He was particularly displeased at the testimony which they publicly bore to the characters of Knox, Buchanan, and the regent Murray, who “could not be defended,” he said, “but by traitors and seditious theologues.” Andrew Melville told him that they were the men who had set the crown on his head, and deserved better of him than to be so traduced. James complained that Knox had spoken disrespectfully of his mother; to which Patrick Galloway, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, replied, “If a king or a queen be a murderer, why should they not be called so?” Walter Balcanquhal, another minister of the city, having, in one of his sermons, rebuked those who disparaged the Reformer, the king sent for him, and in a passion protested that “either he should lose his crown, or Mr Walter {243} should recant his words.” Balcanquhal “prayed God to preserve his crown; but said, that if he had his right wits, the king should have his head, before he recanted any thing he spake.”[315]