Keith has given a quotation from the MS. copy of Spotswood’s History, in which the archbishop signifies, that at the time of the compilation of the First Book of Discipline, several of the reformed ministers wished to retain the ancient polity, after removing the grosser corruptions and abuses, but that Knox overruled this motion. Keith, 492. But there is no trace, in the authentic documents of that period, of any diversity of opinion among the Scottish reformers on this head. The supposition is contradicted by Row, (see above, p. 4, 5,) and by their own language. Dunlop, iii. 518. Knox’s Historie, 282. It is probable that the archbishop’s story had its original at a later period, when the design of conforming the church of Scotland to the English model began to be entertained. I am not inclined to give much more credit to another tale of Spotswood, respecting a message which archbishop Hamilton is said to have sent to Knox by John Brand. History, 174. Keith, 495. Note B, Footnote 20. _Sentiments of the Reformed Ministers respecting Tithes, and the Property of the Church._――These are laid down in the First Book of {287} Discipline, chap. v. and viii. Dunlop, ii. 533‒538, 562‒568. Considerable light is also thrown upon them by the private writings of that period. The reformed ministers did not regard tithes as of divine right, nor think that it was sacrilegious in every case to apply to secular purposes those funds which had been originally set apart to a religious use. But they held that, by the Christian as well as the Jewish law, a competent subsistence was appointed to be made for the ministers of religion; that it is incumbent on a nation which has received the true religion to make public provision for the outward maintenance of its ordinances; that the appropriation of the tenth part of property for this purpose is at least recommended by primeval usage, by the sanction of divine wisdom in the Jewish constitution, and by the laws and practice of Christian empires and kingdoms; that property which had been set apart and given for religious ends could not justly, or without sacrilege, be alienated, as long as it was needed for these purposes; and that though many of the donors might have had the support of superstitious observances immediately in their eye, still it was with a view to religion that they made such gifts. In as far as it should appear that the ecclesiastical revenues were superabundant and unnecessary, they were willing that the surplus should be applied to the common service of the state. To illustrate their sentiments on this subject, and the manner in which they complained of the alienation of church‑property, I shall add a few extracts from some of their writings which are not commonly consulted.