Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 14.djvu/447

Rh 

 LEIGHTON, (1611–1684), bishop of Dunblane, and afterwards archbishop of Glasgow, was the eldest son of Dr Alexander Leighton, the author of Zion's Plea against the Prelacie, whose terrible sufferings for having dared to question the divine right of Episcopacy, under the persecution of Laud, form one of the most disgraceful incidents of the reign of Charles I. Dr Leighton is said to have been of the old family of Ulishaven in Forfarshire, and his illustrious son was born in the year 1611. From his earliest childhood, according to Burnet, he was distinguished for his saintly temper and disposition, and in his sixteenth year (1627) he was sent to complete his education at the university of Edinburgh, where, after studying with distinguished success for four years, he took his degree of M.A. in 1631. After leaving college his father sent him to travel abroad, and he is understood to have spent several years in France, where he acquired a complete mastery of the French language. While there he passed a good deal of time with some relations at Douay who had become Roman Catholics, and with whom he would seem to have formed a strict friendship, as he kept up a correspondence with them for many years afterwards. Either at this time or on some subsequent visit to the Continent he had also a good deal of intercourse with some members of the Jansenist party. And no doubt what he then saw among these excellent persons of the piety which was possible even in a communion which he believed to be corrupt contributed not a little to the charity towards those who differed from him in religious opinions, which ever afterwards formed so remarkable a feature in his character. The exact period of his return to Scotland has not been ascertained; but in 1641 he was ordained Presbyterian minister of Newbattle in Midlothian, where he continued for about ten years. At the end of that period he resigned his charge, and went to reside in Edinburgh (1652). What the precise circumstances were which led him to take this step does not distinctly appear. But the account given is that the fiery zeal of his brother clergymen on certain political questions found little sympathy with him, and that this led to severe censures on their part, which were too much for his gentle nature to bear. Early in the following year (1653) he was appointed principal of the university of Edinburgh, and primarius professor of divinity. In this post he continued for seven or eight years, and, according to Burnet, “he was a great blessing in it; for he talked so to all the youth of any capacity or distinction that it had a great effect on many of them.” A considerable number of his Latin prelections and other addresses to the students were published after his death, and are singularly remarkable for the purity and elegance of their Latinity, and their subdued and meditative eloquence. The reader will be disappointed if he expects to find in them any subtle exposition of a metaphysical system of theology. In this respect they present a curious contrast to any thing that is known of the theology taught at that time in the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. They are rather to be regarded as valuable instructions in the art of living a holy life than as a body of scientific divinity. Throughout, however, they bear the marks of a deeply learned and accomplished mind, fully saturated with both classical and patristic reading, and like all his works they breathe the spirit of one who lived very much above the world. It would be interesting to ascertain how far he succeeded in instilling something of his own spirit into the minds of those who listened to his teaching. We certainly meet with very little indication of its having taken any deep root in the hearts of either the Presbyterian or the Episcopalian clergy of the twenty or thirty years which succeeded the period of his principalship. The only writer of the time who has spoken with true appreciation of his character is Bishop Burnet; both in his History of his Own Times and in his Pastoral Care he has referred to Leighton in language of unbounded affection and admiration. This, however, was founded upon knowledge of him obtained in the course of a friendship formed after he had demitted his office of principal, and not upon his university teaching. In 1661, when Charles II. had resolved to force Episcopacy once more upon Scotland, he fixed upon Leighton for one of his bishops. Looking at the matter, as we are apt to do, in the light of what followed in the history of Scotland during the next twenty-seven years, it seems almost unaccountable how such a man as Leighton could have submitted as he did to the degradation of being associated with coadjutors like Sharp and some of his companion bishops. The only explanations which can be given perhaps are that Leighton, living very much out of the world, and being somewhat deficient in what may be called the political sense, had no idea of the deadly hatred entertained toward Episcopacy by the great mass of the religious people of Scotland, and so of its utter unfitness to become the established church polity of the country, and that his soft and gentle nature rendered him too open to the persuasions which were used to induce him to enter a sphere for which he instinctively felt he was ill qualified. Every one will give him credit too for having no conception that the only object of the Government in establishing Episcopacy in Scotland was to make it subservient to despotism and persecution. The Episcopacy which he contemplated was that modified form which had been suggested by Archbishop Ussher, and to which Baxter and many of the best of the English Nonconformists would have readily given their adherence. It is significant on this head that he always refused to be addressed as “my lord,” and it is stated that when dining with his clergymen on one occasion he was so far from arrogating any right of superiority or precedence that he wished to seat himself at the foot of the table. If Leighton did not know before, he soon began to discover the sort of men with whom he was to be associated in the episcopate. He travelled with them in the same coach from London towards Scotland, but having become, as he told Burnet, very weary of their company (as he doubted not they were of his), and having found that they intended to make a kind of triumphal entrance into Edinburgh, he left them at Morpeth and retired to the earl of