The Project Gutenberg eBook of Life of John Knox, Fifth Edition, Vol. 1 of 2

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Life of John Knox, Fifth Edition, Vol. 1 of 2

Author: Thomas M'Crie

Release date: August 30, 2016 [eBook #52939]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Richard Hulse, Heather Clark and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This

file was produced from images generously made available

by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LIFE OF JOHN KNOX, FIFTH EDITION, VOL. 1 OF 2 ***

Transcriber’s Notes

The cover image was provided by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

Punctuation has been standardized.

This book was written in a period when many words had not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated with a Transcriber’s Note.

Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript number and have been accumulated in a table at the end of the text.

Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the text or to provide additional information for the modern reader. These notes are not identified in the text, but have been accumulated in a table at the end of the book.

Engraved by J. Cochran.

JOHN KNOX

FROM THE ORIGINAL PICTURE IN THE POSSESSION OF

LORD TORPHICHEN.

Published by W. Blackwood, Edinburgh, April 10, 1831.

LIFE

OF

JOHN KNOX:

CONTAINING

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE HISTORY OF

THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND.

WITH BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES OF THE PRINCIPAL REFORMERS, AND SKETCHES OF THE PROGRESS OF LITERATURE IN SCOTLAND DURING THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY;

AND

AN APPENDIX,

CONSISTING OF ORIGINAL PAPERS.

BY THOMAS M‘CRIE, D.D.

THE FIFTH EDITION.

VOL. I.

WILLIAM BLACKWOOD, EDINBURGH; AND

T. CADELL, STRAND, LONDON.

MDCCCXXXI.

EDINBURGH:

PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY,

PAUL’S WORK, CANONGATE.

PREFACE

TO THE

FIRST EDITION.

The Reformation from Popery marks an epoch unquestionably the most important in the History of modern Europe. The effects of the change which it produced, in religion, in manners, in politics, and in literature, continue to be felt at the present day. Nothing, surely, can be more interesting than an investigation of the history of that period, and of those men who were the instruments, under Providence, of accomplishing a revolution which has proved so beneficial to mankind.

Though many able writers have employed their talents in tracing the causes and consequences of the Reformation, and though the leading facts respecting its progress in Scotland have been repeatedly stated, it occurred to me that the subject was by no means exhausted. I was confirmed in this opinion by a more minute examination of the ecclesiastical history of this country, which I began, for my own satisfaction, several years ago. While I was pleased at finding that there existed such ample materials for illustrating the history of the Scottish Reformation, I could not but regret that no one had undertaken to digest and exhibit the information on this subject which lay hid in manuscripts, and in books which are now little known or consulted. Not presuming, however, that I had the ability or the leisure requisite for executing a task of such difficulty and extent, I formed the design of drawing up memorials of our national Reformer, in which his personal history might be combined with illustrations of the progress of that great undertaking, in the advancement of which he acted so conspicuous a part.

A work of this kind seemed to be wanting. The name of KNOX, indeed, often occurs in the general histories of the period, and some of our historians have drawn, with their usual ability, the leading traits of a character with which they could not fail to be struck; but it was foreign to their object to detail the events of his life, and it was not to be expected that they would bestow that minute and critical attention on his history which is necessary to form a complete and accurate idea of his character. Memoirs of his life have been prefixed to editions of some of his works, and inserted in biographical collections, and periodical publications; but in many instances their authors were destitute of proper information, and in others they were precluded, by the limits to which they were confined, from entering into those minute statements, which are so useful for illustrating individual character, and which render biography both pleasing and instructive. Nor can it escape observation, that a number of writers have been guilty of great injustice to the memory of our Reformer, and from prejudice, from ignorance, or from inattention, have exhibited a distorted caricature, instead of a genuine portrait.

I was encouraged to prosecute my design, in consequence of my possessing a manuscript volume of Knox’s Letters, which throw considerable light upon his character and history. The advantages which I have derived from this volume will appear in the course of the work, where it is quoted under the general title of MS. Letters.[1]

The other manuscripts which I have chiefly made use of are Calderwood’s large History of the Church of Scotland, Row’s History, and Wodrow’s Collections. Calderwood’s History, besides much valuable information respecting the early period of the Reformation, contains a collection of letters written by Knox between 1559 and 1572, which, together with those in my possession, extend over twenty years of the most active period of his life. I have carefully consulted this history as far as it relates to the period of which I write. The copy which I most frequently quote belongs to the Church of Scotland. In the Advocates’ Library, besides a complete copy of that work, there is a folio volume of it, reaching to the end of the year 1572. It was written in 1634, and has a number of interlineations and marginal alterations, differing from the other copies, which, if not made by the author’s own hand, were most probably done under his eye. I have sometimes quoted this copy. The reader will easily discern when this is the case, as the references to it are made merely by the year under which the transaction is recorded, the volume not being paged.

Row, in composing the early part of his Historie of the Kirk, had the assistance of Memoirs written by David Ferguson, his father‑in‑law, who was admitted minister of Dunfermline at the establishment of the Reformation. Copies of this History seem to have been taken before the author had put the finishing hand to it, which may account for the additional matter to be found in some of them. I have occasionally quoted the copy which belongs to the Divinity Library in Edinburgh, but more frequently a copy transcribed in 1726, which is more full than any other that I have had access to see.

The industrious Wodrow had amassed a valuable collection of manuscripts relating to the ecclesiastical history of Scotland, the greater part of which is now deposited in our public libraries. In the library of the University of Glasgow, there is a number of volumes in folio, containing collections which he had made for illustrating the lives of the Scottish reformers and divines of the sixteenth century. These have supplied me with some interesting facts; and are quoted under the name of Wodrow MSS. in Bibl. Coll. Glas.

For the transactions of the General Assembly, I have consulted the Register commonly called the Book of the Universal Kirk. There are several copies of this manuscript in the country; but that which is followed in this work, and which is the oldest that I have examined, belongs to the Advocates’ Library.

I have endeavoured to avail myself of the printed histories of the period, and of books published in the age of the Reformation, which often incidentally mention facts that are not recorded by historians. In the Advocates’ Library, which contains an invaluable treasure of information respecting Scottish affairs, I had an opportunity of examining the original editions of most of the Reformer’s works. The rarest of all his tracts is the narrative of his Disputation with the Abbot of Crossraguel, which scarcely any writer since Knox’s time seems to have seen. After I had given up all hopes of procuring a sight of this curious tract, I was accidentally informed that a copy of it was in the library of Alexander Boswell, Esq. of Auchinleck, who very politely communicated it to me.

In pointing out the sources which I have consulted, I wish not to be understood as intimating that the reader may expect in the following work, much information which is absolutely new. He who engages in researches of this kind, must lay his account with finding the result of his discoveries reduced within a small compass, and should be prepared to expect that many of his readers will pass over with a cursory eye, what he has procured with great, perhaps with unnecessary labour. The principal facts respecting the Reformation and the Reformer, are already known. I flatter myself, however, that I have been able to place some of these facts in a new and more just light, and to bring forward others which have not hitherto been generally known.

The reader will find the authorities, upon which I have proceeded in the statement of facts, carefully marked; but my object was rather to be select than numerous in my references. When I had occasion to introduce facts which have been often repeated in histories, and are already established and unquestionable, I did not reckon it necessary to be so particular in producing the authorities.

After so many writers of biography have incurred the charge either of uninteresting generality, or of tedious prolixity, it would betray great arrogance were I to presume that I had approached the due medium. I have particularly felt the difficulty, in writing the life of a public character, of observing the line which divides biography from general history. Desirous of giving unity to the narrative, and at the same time anxious to convey information respecting the ecclesiastical and literary history of the period, I have separated a number of facts and illustrations of this description, and placed them in notes at the end of the Life. I am not without apprehensions that I may have exceeded in the number or length of these notes, and that some readers may think, that, in attempting to relieve one part of the work, I have overloaded another.

No apology will, I trust, be deemed necessary for the freedom with which I have expressed my sentiments on the public questions which naturally occurred in the course of the narrative. Some of these are at variance with opinions which are popular in the present age; but it does not follow from this that they are false, or that they should have been suppressed. I have not become the indiscriminate panegyrist of the Reformer, nor have I concealed or thrown into shade his faults; but, on the other hand, the apprehension of incurring these charges has not deterred me from vindicating him wherever I considered his conduct to be justifiable, or from apologizing for him against uncandid and exaggerated censures. The attacks which have been made on his character from so many quarters, and the attempts to wound the Reformation through him, must be my excuse for having so often adopted the language of apology.

In the Appendix, I have inserted a number of Knox’s letters, and other papers relative to that period, none of which, as far as I know, have formerly been published. Several others, intended for insertion in the same place, have been kept back, as the work has swelled to a greater size than was expected. A very scarce Poem, written in commendation of the Reformer, and published in the year after his death, is reprinted in the Supplement.

The prefixed portrait of Knox is engraved from a painting in the possession of the Right Honourable Lord Torphichen, with the use of which his Lordship, in the most obliging manner, favoured the publishers. There is every reason to think that it is a genuine likeness, as it strikingly agrees with the print of our Reformer, which Beza, who was personally acquainted with him, published in his Icones. There is a small brass medal, which has on one side a bust of Knox, and on the other the following inscription:—JOANNES KNOXUS SCOTUS THEOLOGUS ECCLESIÆ EDIMBURGENSIS PASTOR. OBIIT EDIMBURGI AN. 1572. ÆT. 57. It appears to have been executed at a period much later than the Reformer’s death. There is an error of ten years as to his age; and as Beza has fallen into the same mistake, it is not improbable that the inscription was copied from his Icones, and that the medal was struck on the continent.

EDINBURGH,

November 14, 1811.

PREFACE

TO THE

SECOND EDITION.

In preparing this work for a second impression, I have endeavoured carefully to correct mistakes which had escaped me in the first, both as to matter and language. I have introduced accounts of the principal public transactions of the period, which a desire of being concise induced me formerly to exclude, but which serve to throw light on the exertions of the Reformer, and ought to be known by those who read his Life. And I have entered into a more full detail of several parts of his conduct than was practicable within the limits of a single volume. Such additional authorities, printed or manuscript, as I have had access to, since the publication of the former edition, have been diligently consulted; and I flatter myself that the alterations and additions which these have enabled me to make, will be considered as improvements.

I have added to the Supplement a number of original Latin Poems on the principal characters mentioned in the course of the work, which may not be unacceptable to the learned reader.

EDINBURGH,

March 1, 1813.

ADVERTISEMENT

TO THE

FIFTH EDITION.

Besides the additional matter introduced into the Fourth Edition, the present contains a variety of new facts and documents, the most interesting of which will be found in the Note concerning Scottish Martyrs, at the end of the first volume. The portrait of the Regent Murray, now prefixed to the second volume, is taken from the original in Holyrood Palace.

EDINBURGH,

February 14, 1831.

CONTENTS

OF

VOLUME FIRST.

PERIOD FIRST.

Birth and parentage of Knox—his education—state of literature in Scotland—introduction of Greek language—political and ecclesiastical opinions of John Major—their probable influence on Knox and Buchanan—Knox teaches scholastic philosophy at St Andrew’s—is admitted to clerical orders—change in his studies and sentiments—state of religion in Scotland—urgent necessity of a reformation—gratitude due to the reformers—introduction of reformed opinions into Scotland—Patrick Hamilton—martyrs—exiles for religion—reformation promoted by the circulation of the scriptures—by poetry—embraced by persons of rank—its critical state at the death of James V.

PERIOD SECOND.

Knox retires from St Andrew’s, and joins himself to the reformed—is degraded from the priesthood—reformation favoured by Regent Arran—Scottish Parliament authorize the use of the Scriptures in the vulgar language—the Regent abjures the reformed religion—Thomas Guillaume—George Wishart—Knox enters the family of Langniddrie as a tutor—Cardinal Beatoun assassinated—Knox persecuted by Archbishop Hamilton—averse to go to England—takes refuge in the Castle of St Andrew’s—his sentiments respecting the assassination of Beatoun—Sir David Lindsay of the Mount—Henry Balnaves of Halhill—John Rough—Knox’s call to the ministry—his reluctance to comply with it—reflections on this—his first sermon—his disputation before a convention of the clergy—the clergy begin to preach at St Andrew’s—success of Knox’s labours—castle taken, and Knox confined in the French galleys—his health injured—his fortitude of mind—writes a confession of faith—extract from his dedication to a treatise of Balnaves—his humane advice to his fellow‑prisoners—his liberation.

PERIOD THIRD.

Knox arrives in England—state of the Reformation in that kingdom—Knox sent by the privy council to preach at Berwick—his great exertions—character of Bishop Tonstal—Knox defends his doctrine before him—is removed to Newcastle—made chaplain to Edward VI.—consulted in the revisal of the liturgy and articles—makes proposals of marriage to Marjory Bowes—receives marks of approbation from the privy council—incurs the displeasure of Earl of Northumberland—is honourably acquitted by the privy council—bad state of his health—preaches in London—declines accepting a benefice—refuses a bishopric—his objections to the worship and government of the church of England—private sentiments of English reformers similar to his—plan of Edward VI. for improving the church of England—state of his court—boldness and honesty of the royal chaplains—Knox’s sermons at court—his distress at the death of Edward—he retires to the north of England on the accession of Mary—returns to the south—his prayer for the queen—marries Marjory Bowes—displeasure of some of her relations at this—Roman Catholic religion restored by parliament—Knox continues to preach—his letters are intercepted—he is forced to abscond—and retires to Dieppe in France.

PERIOD FOURTH.

Knox’s uneasy reflections on his flight—letters to his friends in England—his eloquent exhortation to religious constancy—he visits Switzerland—returns to Dieppe with the intention of venturing into England—visits Geneva—forms an intimate friendship with Calvin—returns to Dieppe—distressing tidings from England—writes his Admonition—apology for the severity of its language—devotes himself to study at Geneva—his means of subsistence—called to be minister to the English exiles at Frankfort—dissensions among them about the liturgy—moderation with which Knox acted in these—harmony restored—disorderly conduct of the sticklers for the liturgy—rebuked by Knox—he is accused of high treason—retires to Geneva—turns his thoughts to his native country—retrospect of ecclesiastical transactions in Scotland from the time he left it—triumph of the popish clergy—execution of Melville of Raith—martyrdom of Adam Wallace—provincial councils of the clergy—canons enacted by them for reforming abuses—catechism in the vulgar language—Queen Dowager made Regent—she privately favours the protestants—violence of English Queen drives preachers into Scotland—William Harlow—John Willock—Knox visits his wife at Berwick—preaches privately in Edinburgh—John Erskine of Dun—William Maitland of Lethington—Knox’s letter to Mrs Bowes—he prevails on the protestants to abstain from hearing mass—preaches at Dun—at Calder house—Sir James Sandilands—John Spotswood—Lord Lorn—Lord Erskine—The Prior of St Andrew’s—Knox dispenses the sacrament of the supper in Ayrshire—Earl of Glencairn—first religious covenant in Scotland—conversation at court about Knox—he is summoned before a convention of the clergy—appears—preaches publicly in Edinburgh—his letter to Mrs Bowes—his letter to the queen regent—he receives a call from the English congregation at Geneva—leaves Scotland—clergy condemn him as a heretic, and burn his effigy—summary of the doctrine which he had taught—estimate of the advantages which accrued to the Reformation from this visit—letter of instruction which he left behind him.

PERIOD FIFTH.

Knox arrives at Geneva—happiness which he enjoyed in that city—his passionate desire to preach the gospel in his native country—he receives an invitation from the protestant nobles in Scotland—leaves Geneva—receives letters at Dieppe dissuading him from prosecuting the journey—his animated letter to the nobility—persecution of the protestants in France—Knox preaches in Rochelle—and at Dieppe—reasons which induced him not to proceed to Scotland—he writes to the protestants of Scotland—warns them against the Anabaptists—writes to the nobility—his prudent advice respecting resistance to the government—he returns to Geneva—assists in an English translation of the Bible—publishes his letter to the queen regent—and his Appellation from the sentence of the clergy—and his First Blast of the Trumpet—reasons which led to this publication against female government—Aylmer’s answer to it—Knox receives a second invitation from the protestant nobility of Scotland—progress which the Reformation had made—formation of private congregations—resolutions of a general meeting—protestant preachers taken into the families of the nobility—correspondence between the Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Earl of Argyle—martyrdom of Walter Mill—important effects of this—protestants present a petition to the regent—her fair promises to them—death of Queen Mary of England and accession of Elizabeth—Knox leaves Geneva for Scotland—is refused a passage through England—grounds of this refusal—Knox’s reflections on it—reason for his wishing to visit England—he writes to Cecil from Dieppe—arrives in Scotland.

PERIOD SIXTH.

Critical situation in which Knox found matters at his arrival—dissimulation of the Queen Regent—differences between her and Archbishop Hamilton accommodated—a provincial council of the clergy—reconciliation of the two archbishops—remonstrance presented by some members of the popish church—canons of the council—treaty between the regent and clergy for suppressing the Reformation—proclamation by the queen against the protestants—the preachers summoned to stand trial—Knox’s letter to Mrs Locke—clergy alarmed at his arrival—he is outlawed—he repairs to Dundee—protestants of the north resolve to attend the trial of their preachers—send information of this to the Regent—her duplicity—Knox preaches at Perth—demolition of the monasteries in that town—unjustly imputed to Knox—Regent threatens the destruction of Perth—protestants resolve to defend themselves—a treaty—Knox’s interview with Argyle and Prior—treaty violated by the Regent—the name of the Congregation given to the protestant association—Lords of the Congregation invite Knox to preach at St Andrew’s—archbishop opposes this by arms—intrepidity of Knox—he preaches at St Andrew’s—magistrates and inhabitants agree to demolish the monasteries and images, and to set up the reformed worship—their example followed in other parts of the kingdom—apology for the destruction of the monasteries—Lords of the Congregation take possession of Edinburgh—Knox is chosen minister of that city—Willock supplies his place after the capital was given up to the Regent—archbishop Hamilton preaches—Knox undertakes a tour of preaching through the kingdom—his family arrive in Scotland—Christopher Goodman—settlement of protestant ministers in principal towns—French troops come to the assistance of the Regent—Knox persuades the Congregation to seek assistance from the court of England—apologizes to Elizabeth for his book against female government—undertakes a journey to Berwick—succeeds in the negotiation—reasons for his taking a part in political managements—embarrassments in which this involved him—prejudices of the English court against him—their confidence in his honesty—his activity and danger—Lords of Congregation consult on the deposition of the Regent—Knox advises her suspension—influence of the reformation on civil liberty—political principles of Knox—resistance to tyrants not forbidden in the New Testament—disasters of the Congregation—their courage revived by the eloquence of Knox—his exertions in Fife—treaty between Elizabeth and Congregation—expedition of the French troops against Glasgow—English army enter Scotland—death of the Queen Regent—intrigues of the French court—civil war concluded—exertions of protestant preachers during the war—increase of their number—conduct of popish clergy—their pretended miracle at Musselburgh—meeting of parliament—petition of Protestants—Protestant Confession of Faith ratified by parliament—retrospective view of the advancement of the Reformation.

NOTES.

THE

LIFE

OF

JOHN KNOX.

PERIOD I.

FROM THE YEAR 1505, IN WHICH HE WAS BORN, TO THE YEAR 1542, WHEN HE EMBRACED THE REFORMED RELIGION.

JOHN KNOX was born in the year one thousand five hundred and five. The place of his nativity has been disputed. That he was born at Gifford, a village in East Lothian, has long been the prevailing opinion; but some late writers, relying upon popular tradition, have fixed his birth‑place at Haddington, the principal town of the county. The house in which he is said to have been born is still shewn by the inhabitants, in one of the suburbs of the town, called the Gifford‑gate. This house, with some adjoining acres of land, continued to be possessed, until about fifty years ago, by a family of the name of Knox, who claimed affinity with the Reformer. I am inclined, however, to prefer the opinion of the oldest and most credible writers, that he was born in the village of Gifford.[2]

His father was descended from an ancient and respectable family, who possessed the lands of Knock, Ranferly, and Craigends, in the shire of Renfrew. The descendants of this family have been accustomed to enumerate among the honours of their house, that it gave birth to the Scottish Reformer, a bishop of Raphoe, and a bishop of the Isles.[3] At what particular period his paternal ancestors removed from their original seat, and settled in Lothian, I have not been able exactly to ascertain. His mother’s name was Sinclair.[4]

Obscurity of parentage can reflect no dishonour upon the man who has raised himself to distinction by his virtues and talents. But though our Reformer’s parents were neither great nor opulent, the assertion of some writers that they were in poor circumstances, is contradicted by facts.[5] They were able to give their son a liberal education, which, in that age, was far from being common. In his youth, he was put to the grammar‑school of Haddington; and, after he had acquired the principles of the Latin language, his father sent him, in the year 1521, to the university of Glasgow.[6]

The state of learning in Scotland at that period, and the progress which it made in the subsequent part of the century, have not been examined with the attention which they deserve, and which has been bestowed on contemporaneous objects of inferior importance. There were unquestionably learned Scotsmen in the early part of the sixteenth century; but most of them owed their chief acquirements to the advantage of a foreign education. Those improvements, which the revival of literature had introduced into the schools of Italy and France, were long in reaching the universities of Scotland, though originally formed upon their model; and, when they did arrive, they were regarded with a suspicious eye, and discountenanced by the clergy. The principal branches cultivated in our universities were the Aristotelian philosophy, scholastic theology, and canon law.[7]

Even in the darkest ages, Scotland was never altogether destitute of schools for teaching the Latin language.[8] It is probable that these were at first attached to monasteries; and it was long a common practice among the barons to board their children with the monks for their education.[9] When the regular clergy had degenerated, and learning was no longer confined to them, grammar‑schools were erected in the principal towns, and taught by persons who had qualified themselves for this task in the best manner that the circumstances of the country admitted. The schools of Aberdeen, Perth, Stirling, Dumbarton, Killearn, and Haddington, are particularly mentioned in writings about the beginning of the sixteenth century. The two first of these acquired the greatest celebrity, owing to the skill of the masters who presided over them. In the year 1520, John Vaus was rector of the school of Aberdeen, and is commended by Hector Boece, the learned principal of the university, for his knowledge of the Latin tongue, and his success in the education of youth.[10] At a period somewhat later, Andrew Simson acted as master of the school of Perth, where he taught Latin with applause. He had sometimes three hundred boys under his charge at once, including sons of the principal nobility and gentry; and from his school proceeded many of those who afterwards distinguished themselves both in church and state.[11]

These schools afforded the means of instruction in the Latin tongue, the knowledge of which, in some degree, was requisite for enabling the clergy to perform the religious service. But the Greek language, long after it had been enthusiastically studied on the continent, and after it had become a fixed branch of education in the neighbouring kingdom, continued to be almost unknown in Scotland. Individuals acquired the knowledge of it abroad; but the first attempts to teach it in this country were of a private nature, and exposed their authors to the suspicion of heresy. The town of Montrose is distinguished by being the first place, as far as I have been able to discover, in which Greek was taught in Scotland; and John Erskine of Dun is entitled to the honour of being regarded as the first of his countrymen who patronised the study of that elegant and useful language. As early as the year 1534, this enlightened and public‑spirited baron, on returning from his travels, brought with him a Frenchman skilled in the Greek tongue, whom he settled in Montrose; and, upon his removal, he liberally encouraged others to come from France and succeed to his place. From this private seminary many Greek scholars proceeded, and the knowledge of the language was gradually diffused over the kingdom.[12] After this statement, I need scarcely add, that the Oriental tongues were at that time utterly unknown in Scotland. I shall afterwards have occasion to notice the introduction of the study of Hebrew.

Knox acquired the Greek language before he arrived at middle age; but we find him acknowledging, as late as the year 1550, that he was ignorant of Hebrew,[13] a defect in his education which he exceedingly lamented, and which he afterwards got supplied during his exile on the continent.

John Mair, better known by his Latin name, Major, was professor of philosophy and theology at Glasgow, when Knox attended the university. The minds of young men, and their future train of thinking, often receive an important direction from the master under whom they are educated, especially if his reputation be high. Major was at that time deemed an oracle in the sciences which he taught; and as he was the preceptor of Knox, and of the celebrated scholar Buchanan,[14] it may be proper to advert to some of his opinions. He had received the greater part of his education in France, and acted for some time as a professor in the university of Paris, where he acquired a more liberal habit of thinking and expressing himself on certain subjects, than was yet to be met with in his native country, and in other parts of Europe. He had imbibed the sentiments concerning ecclesiastical polity, maintained by John Gerson and Peter D’Ailly, who so ably defended the decrees of the Council of Constance, and the liberties of the Gallican church, against the advocates for the uncontrollable authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. He taught that a General Council was superior to the pope, and might judge, rebuke, restrain, and even depose him from his dignity; denied the temporal supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and his right to inaugurate or dethrone princes; maintained that ecclesiastical censures, and even papal excommunications, had no force, if pronounced on irrelevant or invalid grounds; he held that tithes were not of divine right, but merely of human appointment; censured the avarice, ambition, and secular pomp of the court of Rome, and of the Episcopal order; was no warm friend of the regular clergy; and advised the reduction of monasteries and holidays.[15]

His opinions respecting civil governments were analogous to those which he held as to ecclesiastical polity. He taught that the authority of kings and princes was originally derived from the people; that the former are not superior to the latter, collectively considered; that if rulers become tyrannical, or employ their power for the destruction of their subjects, they may lawfully be controlled by them, and proving incorrigible, may be deposed by the community as the superior power; and that tyrants may be judicially proceeded against, even to capital punishments.[16]

The affinity between these sentiments, and the political principles afterwards avowed by Knox, and defended by the classic pen of Buchanan, is too striking to require illustration. Some of them, indeed, had been taught by at least one Scottish author, who flourished before the time of Major; but it is most probable that the oral instructions and writings of their master first suggested to them the sentiments which they so readily adopted, and which were afterwards confirmed by mature reflection, and more extensive reading; and that, consequently, the important changes which these contributed to accomplish, should be traced in a certain measure to this distinguished professor. Nor, in such circumstances, could his ecclesiastical opinions fail to have a proportionate share of influence on their habits of thinking with respect to religion and the church.

But though, in these respects, the opinions of Major were more free and rational than those generally entertained at that time, it must be confessed, that the portion of instruction which his scholars could derive from him was extremely small, if we allow his publications to be a fair specimen of his academical prelections. Many of the questions which he discusses are utterly useless and trifling; the rest are rendered disgusting by the most servile adherence to all the minutiæ of the scholastic mode of reasoning. The reader of his works must be content with painfully picking a grain of truth from the rubbish of many pages; nor will the drudgery be compensated by those discoveries of inventive genius and acute discrimination, for which the writings of Aquinas, and some others of that subtle school, may still deserve to be consulted. Major is entitled to praise, for exposing to his countrymen several of the more glaring errors and abuses of his time; but his mind was deeply tinctured with superstition, and he defended some of the absurdest tenets of popery by the most ridiculous and puerile arguments.[17] His talents were moderate; with the writings of the ancients, he appears to have been acquainted only through the medium of the collectors of the middle ages; nor does he ever hazard an opinion, or pursue a speculation, beyond the limits which had been marked out by some approved doctor of the church. Add to this, that his style is, to an uncommon degree, harsh and forbidding; “exile, aridum, conscissum, ac minutum.”

Knox and Buchanan soon became disgusted with such studies, and began to seek entertainment more gratifying to their ardent and inquisitive minds. Having set out in search of knowledge, they released themselves from the trammels, and overleaped the boundaries, prescribed to them by their timid conductor. Each following the native bent of his genius and inclination, they separated in the prosecution of their studies. Buchanan, indulging in a more excursive range, explored the extensive fields of literature, and wandered in the flowery mead of poesy; while Knox, passing through the avenues of secular learning, devoted himself to the study of divine truth, and the labours of the sacred ministry. Both, however, kept uniformly in view the advancement of true religion and liberty, with the love of which they were equally smitten; and as, during their lives, they suffered a long and painful exile, and were exposed to many dangers, for adherence to this kindred cause, so their memories have not been divided, in the profuse but honourable obloquy with which they have been aspersed by its enemies, and in the deserved and grateful recollections of its genuine friends.[18]

But we must not suppose, that Knox was able at once to divest himself of the prejudices of his education and of the times. Barren and repulsive as the scholastic studies appear to our minds, there was something in the intricate and subtle sophistry then in vogue, calculated to fascinate the youthful and ingenious mind. It had a shew of wisdom; it exercised, although it did not enrich, the understanding; it even gave play to the imagination, while it served to flatter the pride of the learned adept. Once involved in the mazy labyrinth, it was no easy task to break through it, and to escape into the open field of rational and free inquiry. Accordingly, Knox continued for some time captivated with these studies, and prosecuted them with great success. After he was created Master of Arts, he taught philosophy, most probably as a regent of one of the classes in the university.[19] His class became celebrated; and he was considered as equalling, if not excelling his master, in the subtleties of the dialectic art.[20] About the same time, although he had no interest but what was procured by his own merit, he was advanced to clerical orders, and was ordained a priest, before he reached the age fixed by the canons of the church.[21] This must have taken place previous to the year 1530, at which time he had arrived at his twenty‑fifth year, the canonical age for receiving ordination.

It was not long, however, till his studies received a new direction, which led to a complete revolution in his religious sentiments, and had an important influence on the whole of his future life. Not satisfied with the excerpts from ancient authors, which he found in the writings of the scholastic divines and canonists, he resolved to have recourse to the original works. In them he found a method of investigating and communicating truth, to which he had hitherto been a stranger, and the simplicity of which recommended itself to his mind, in spite of the prejudices of education, and the pride of superior attainments in his own favourite art. Among the fathers of the Christian Church, Jerom and Augustine attracted his particular attention. By the writings of the former, he was led to the Scriptures as the only pure fountain of Divine truth, and instructed in the utility of studying them in the original languages. In the works of the latter, he found religious sentiments very opposite to those taught in the Romish church, who, while she retained his name as a saint in her calendar, had banished his doctrine, as heretical, from her pulpits. From this time, he renounced the study of scholastic theology; and although not yet completely emancipated from superstition, his mind was fitted for improving the means which Providence had prepared, for leading him to a fuller and more comprehensive view of the system of evangelical religion. It was about the year 1535, when this favourable change commenced;[22] but, it does not appear that he professed himself a protestant before the year 1542.

As I am now to enter upon that period of Knox’s life at which he renounced the Roman Catholic communion, and commenced Reformer, it may not be improper to take a survey of the state of religion in Scotland at that time. Without an adequate knowledge of this, it is impossible to form a just estimate of the necessity and importance of that reformation, in the advancement of which he laboured with so great zeal; and nothing has contributed so much to give currency, among Protestants, to prejudices against his character, as ignorance, or a superficial consideration of the enormous and almost incredible abuses which then prevailed in the church. This must be my apology for a digression which might otherwise be deemed superfluous or disproportionate.

The corruptions by which the Christian religion was universally disfigured, before the Reformation, had grown to a greater height in Scotland, than in any other nation within the pale of the Western Church. Superstition and religious imposture, in their grossest forms, gained an easy admission among a rude and ignorant people. By means of these, the clergy attained to an exorbitant degree of opulence and power; which were accompanied, as they always have been, with the corruption of their order, and of the whole system of religion.

The full half of the wealth of the nation belonged to the clergy; and the greater part of this was in the hands of a few individuals, who had the command of the whole body. Avarice, ambition, and the love of secular pomp, reigned among the superior orders. Bishops and abbots rivalled the first nobility in magnificence, and preceded them in honours: they were Privy‑Councillors, and Lords of Session, as well as of Parliament, and had long engrossed the principal offices of state. A vacant bishopric or abbacy called forth powerful competitors, who contended for it as for a principality or petty kingdom; it was obtained by similar arts, and not unfrequently taken possession of by the same weapons.[23] Inferior benefices were openly put to sale, or bestowed on the illiterate and unworthy minions of courtiers; on dice‑players, strolling bards, and the bastards of bishops.[24] Pluralities were multiplied without bounds, and benefices, given in commendam, were kept vacant, during the life of the commendator, nay, sometimes during several lives;[25] so that extensive parishes were frequently deprived for a long course of years, of all religious service,—if a deprivation it could be called, at a time when the cure of souls was no longer regarded as attached to livings originally endowed for that purpose. The bishops never, on any occasion, condescended to preach; indeed, I scarcely recollect an instance of it, mentioned in history, from the erection of the regular Scottish Episcopacy, down to the era of the Reformation.[26] The practice had even gone into desuetude among all the secular clergy, and was wholly devolved on the mendicant monks, who employed it for the most mercenary purposes.[27]

The lives of the clergy, exempted from secular jurisdiction, and corrupted by wealth and idleness, were become a scandal to religion, and an outrage on decency. While they professed chastity, and prohibited, under the severest penalties, any of the ecclesiastical order from contracting lawful wedlock, the bishops set an example of the most shameless profligacy before the inferior clergy; avowedly kept their harlots; provided their natural sons with benefices; and gave their daughters in marriage to the sons of the nobility and principal gentry, many of whom were so mean as to contaminate the blood of their families by such base alliances, for the sake of the rich doweries which they brought.[28]

Through the blind devotion and munificence of princes and nobles, monasteries, those nurseries of superstition and idleness, had greatly multiplied in the nation; and though they had universally degenerated, and were notoriously become the haunts of lewdness and debauchery, it was deemed impious and sacrilegious to reduce their number, abridge their privileges, or alienate their funds.[29] The kingdom swarmed with ignorant, idle, luxurious monks, who, like locusts, devoured the fruits of the earth, and filled the air with pestilential infection; with friars, white, black, and grey; canons regular, and of St Anthony, Carmelites, Carthusians, Cordeliers, Dominicans, Franciscan Conventuals and Observantines, Jacobins, Premonstratensians, monks of Tyrone, and of Vallis Caulium, and Hospitallers, or Holy Knights of St John of Jerusalem; nuns of St Austin, St Clair, St Scholastica, and St Catherine of Sienna, with canonesses of various clans.[30]

The ignorance of the clergy respecting religion was as gross as the dissoluteness of their morals. Even bishops were not ashamed to confess that they were unacquainted with the canon of their faith, and had never read any part of the sacred scriptures, except what they met with in their missals.[31] Under such pastors the people perished for lack of knowledge. That book, which was able to make them wise unto salvation, and intended to be equally accessible to “Jew and Greek, Barbarian and Scythian, bond and free,” was locked up from them, and the use of it, in their own tongue, prohibited under the heaviest penalties. The religious service was mumbled over in a dead language, which many of the priests did not understand, and some of them could scarcely read; and the greatest care was taken to prevent even catechisms, composed and approved by the clergy, from coming into the hands of the laity.[32]

Scotland, from her local situation, had been less exposed to disturbance from the encroaching ambition, the vexatious exactions, and fulminating anathemas of the Vatican court, than the countries in the immediate vicinity of Rome. But, from the same cause, it was more easy for the domestic clergy to keep up on the minds of the people that excessive veneration for the Holy See, which could not be long felt by those who had the opportunity of witnessing its vices and worldly politics.[33] The burdens which attended a state of dependence upon a remote foreign jurisdiction were severely felt. Though the popes did not enjoy the power of presenting to the Scottish prelacies, they wanted not numerous pretexts for interfering with them. The most important causes of a civil nature, which the ecclesiastical courts had contrived to bring within their jurisdiction, were frequently carried to Rome. Large sums of money were annually exported out of the kingdom, for the confirmation of benefices, the conducting of appeals, and many other purposes; in exchange for which, were received leaden bulls, woollen palls, wooden images, old bones, and similar articles of precious consecrated mummery.[34]

Of the doctrine of Christianity almost nothing remained but the name. Instead of being directed to offer up their adorations to one God, the people were taught to divide them among an innumerable company of inferior divinities. A plurality of mediators shared the honour of procuring the divine favour with the “One Mediator between God and man;” and more petitions were presented to the Virgin Mary and other saints, than to “Him whom the Father heareth always.” The sacrifice of the mass was represented as procuring forgiveness of sins to the living and the dead, to the infinite disparagement of the sacrifice by which Jesus Christ expiated sin and procured everlasting redemption; and the consciences of men were withdrawn from faith in the merits of their Saviour, to a delusive reliance upon priestly absolutions, papal pardons, and voluntary penances. Instead of being instructed to demonstrate the sincerity of their faith and repentance, by forsaking their sins, and to testify their love to God and man, by practising the duties of morality, and observing the ordinances of worship authorized by scripture, they were taught, that, if they regularly said their aves and credos, confessed themselves to a priest, punctually paid their tithes and church‑offerings, purchased a mass, went in pilgrimage to the shrine of some celebrated saint, refrained from flesh on Fridays, or performed some other prescribed act of bodily mortification, their salvation was infallibly secured in due time: while those who were so rich and so pious as to build a chapel or an altar, and to endow it for the support of a priest, to perform masses, obits, and diriges, procured a relaxation of the pains of purgatory for themselves or their relations, in proportion to the extent of their liberality. It is difficult for us to conceive how empty, ridiculous, and wretched, those harangues were which the monks delivered for sermons. Legendary tales concerning the founder of some religious order, his wonderful sanctity, the miracles which he performed, his combats with the devil, his watchings, fastings, flagellations; the virtues of holy water, chrism, crossing, and exorcism; the horrors of purgatory, and the numbers released from it by the intercession of some powerful saint; these, with low jests, table‑talk, and fireside scandal, formed the favourite topics of the preachers, and were served up to the people instead of the pure, salutary, and sublime doctrines of the Bible.[35]

The beds of the dying were besieged, and their last moments disturbed, by avaricious priests, who laboured to extort bequests to themselves or to the church. Not satisfied with exacting tithes from the living, a demand was made upon the dead; no sooner had a poor husbandman breathed his last, than the rapacious vicar came and carried off his corpse‑present, which he repeated as often as death visited the family.[36] Ecclesiastical censures were fulminated against those who were reluctant in making these payments, or who showed themselves disobedient to the clergy; and, for a little money, they were prostituted on the most trifling occasions.[37] Divine service was neglected; and, except on festival days, the churches, in many parts of the country, were no longer employed for sacred purposes, but served as sanctuaries for malefactors, places of traffic, or resorts for pastime.[38]

Persecution, and the suppression of free inquiry, were the only weapons by which its interested supporters were able to defend this system of corruption and imposture. Every avenue by which truth might enter was carefully guarded. Learning was branded as the parent of heresy. The most frightful pictures were drawn of those who had separated from the Romish church, and held up before the eyes of the people, to deter them from imitating their example. If any person, who had attained a degree of illumination amidst the general darkness, began to hint dissatisfaction with the conduct of churchmen, and to propose the correction of abuses, he was immediately stigmatized as a heretic, and, if he did not secure his safety by flight, was immured in a dungeon, or committed to the flames. And when at last, in spite of all their precautions, the light which was shining around did break in and spread through the nation, the clergy prepared to adopt the most desperate and bloody measures for its extinction.

From this imperfect sketch of the state of religion in this country, we may see how false the representation is which some persons would impose on us; as if popery were a system, erroneous, indeed, but purely speculative, superstitious but harmless, provided it had not been accidentally accompanied with intolerance and cruelty. The very reverse is the truth. It may be safely said, that there is not one of its erroneous tenets, or of its superstitious practices, which was not either originally contrived, or afterwards accommodated, to advance and support some practical abuse; to aggrandize the ecclesiastical order, secure to them immunity from civil jurisdiction, sanctify their encroachments upon secular authorities, vindicate their usurpations upon the consciences of men, cherish implicit obedience to the decisions of the church, and extinguish free inquiry and liberal science.

It was a system not more repugnant to the religion of the Bible, than incompatible with the legitimate rights of princes, and the independence, liberty, and prosperity of kingdoms; not more destructive to the souls of men, than to domestic and social happiness, and the principles of sound morality. Considerations from every quarter combined in calling aloud for a radical and complete reform. The exertions of every description of persons, of the man of letters, the patriot, the prince, as well as the Christian, each acting in his own sphere for his own interests, with the joint concurrence of all as in a common cause, were urgently required for extirpating abuses, of which all had reason to complain, and for effectuating a revolution, in the advantages of which all would participate. There was, however, no reasonable prospect of accomplishing this, without exposing, in the first place, the falsehood of those notions which have been called speculative. It was principally by means of these that superstition had established its empire over the minds of men; behind them the Romish ecclesiastics had intrenched themselves, and defended their usurped prerogatives and possessions; and had any prince or legislature endeavoured to deprive them of these, while the great body of the people remained unenlightened, it would soon have been found that the attempt was premature in itself, and replete with danger to those by whom it was made. To the revival of the primitive doctrines and institutions of Christianity, by the preaching and writings of the reformers, and to those controversies by which the popish errors were confuted from scripture, (for which many modern philosophers seem to have a thorough contempt,) we are chiefly indebted for the overthrow of superstition, ignorance, and despotism; and, in fact, all the blessings, political and religious, which we enjoy, may be traced to the Reformation from popery.

How grateful should we be to divine providence for this happy revolution! For those persons do but “sport with their own imaginations,” who flatter themselves that it must have taken place in the ordinary course of human affairs, and overlook the many convincing proofs of the superintending direction of superior wisdom in the whole combination of circumstances which contributed to bring about the Reformation in this country, as well as throughout Europe. How much are we indebted to those men, who, under God, were the instruments in effecting it, men who cheerfully hazarded their lives to achieve a design which involved the felicity of millions unborn; who boldly attacked the system of error and corruption, though fortified by popular credulity, by custom, and by laws, fenced with the most dreadful penalties; and who, having forced the stronghold of superstition, and penetrated the recesses of its temple, tore aside the veil that concealed the monstrous idol which the world had so long ignorantly worshipped, dissolved the spell by which the human mind was bound, and restored it to liberty! How criminal must those be, who, sitting at ease under the vines and fig‑trees, planted by the labours and watered with the blood of these patriots, discover their disesteem of the invaluable privileges which they inherit, or their ignorance of the expense at which they were purchased, by the most unworthy treatment of those to whom they owe them—misrepresent their actions, calumniate their motives, and load their memories with every species of abuse![39]

The reformed doctrine had made considerable progress in Scotland before it was embraced by Knox. Patrick Hamilton, a youth of royal lineage,[40] obtained the honour, not conferred upon many of his rank of first announcing its glad tidings to his countrymen, and of sealing them with his blood. He was born in the year 1504; and being designed for the church by his relations, the abbacy of Ferne was conferred upon him in his childhood, according to a ridiculous custom which prevailed at that period. But, as early as the year 1526, and previous to the breach of Henry VIII. with the Romish see, a gleam of light was, by some unknown means,[41] imparted to his mind, amidst the darkness which brooded around him. His recommendations of ancient literature, at the expense of the philosophy which was then taught in the schools, and the free language which he used in speaking of the corruptions of the church, had already drawn upon him the suspicions of the clergy, when he resolved to leave Scotland, and to improve his mind by travelling on the continent. He set out with three attendants, and, attracted by the fame of Luther, repaired to Wittemberg. Luther and Melanchthon were highly pleased with his zeal; and, after retaining him a short time with them, they recommended him to the university of Marburg. This university was newly erected by that enlightened prince, Philip, landgrave of Hesse, who had placed at its head the learned and pious Francis Lambert of Avignon. Lambert, who had left his native country, and sacrificed a lucrative situation, from love to the reformed religion, conceived a strong attachment to the young Scotsman, who imbibed his instructions with extraordinary avidity. While he was daily advancing in acquaintance with the scriptures, Hamilton was seized with an unconquerable desire of imparting to his countrymen the knowledge which he had acquired. In vain did Lambert represent to him the dangers to which he would be exposed; his determination was fixed; and, taking along with him a single attendant, he left Marburg, and returned to Scotland.[42]

The clergy did not allow him long time to disseminate his opinions. Pretending to wish a free conference with him, they decoyed him to St Andrews, where he was thrown into prison by archbishop Beatoun, and committed to the flames on the last day of February 1528, and in the twenty‑fourth year of his age. On his trial he defended his opinions with firmness, yet with great modesty; and the mildness, patience, and fortitude, which he displayed at the stake, equalled those of the first martyrs of Christianity. He expired with these words in his mouth: “How long, O Lord, shall darkness cover this realm! How long wilt thou suffer this tyranny of men! Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”[43] “The murder of Hamilton,” says a modern historian,[44] “was afterwards avenged in the blood of the nephew and successor of his persecutor;” and the flames in which he expired were, “in the course of one generation, to enlighten all Scotland, and to consume, with avenging fury, the Catholic superstition, the papal power, and the prelacy itself.”

The good effects which resulted from the martyrdom of Hamilton soon began to appear. Many of the learned, as well as of the common people, in St Andrews, beheld with deep interest the cruel death of a person of rank, and could not refrain from admiring the heroism with which he endured it. This excited inquiry into the opinions for which he suffered, and the result of inquiry in many cases was a conviction of their truth. Gawin Logie, principal of St Leonard’s college, was so successful in instilling them into the minds of the students under his care, that it became proverbial to say of any one who was suspected of Lutheranism, that “he had drunk of St Leonard’s well.”[45] Under the connivance of John Winram, the subprior, they also secretly spread among the noviciates of the abbey.[46]

These sentiments were not long confined to St Andrews, and everywhere persons were to be found who held that Patrick Hamilton had died a martyr. Alarmed at the progress of the new opinions, the clergy adopted the most rigorous measures for their extirpation. Strict inquisition was made after heretics; the flames of persecution were kindled in all quarters of the country; and, from 1530 to 1540, many innocent and excellent men suffered the most inhuman death.[47] Henry Forrest, David Straiton, Norman Gourlay, Jerom Russel, Kennedy, Kyllor, Beveridge, Duncan Sympson, Robert Forrester, and Thomas Forrest, were the names of those early martyrs, whose sufferings deserve a more conspicuous place than can be given to them in these pages. A few, whose constancy was overcome by the horrors of the stake, purchased their lives by abjuring their opinions. Numbers made their escape to England and the continent; among whom were the following learned men, Gawin Logie, Alexander Seatoun, Alexander Aless, John Macbee, John Fife, John Macdowal, John Macbray, George Buchanan, James Harrison, and Robert Richardson.[48] Few of these exiles afterwards returned to their native country. England, Denmark, Germany, France, and even Portugal, offered an asylum to them; and foreign universities and schools enjoyed the benefit of those talents which their bigoted countrymen were incapable of appreciating. To maintain their authority, and to preserve those corruptions from which they derived their wealth, the clergy would willingly have driven into banishment all the learned men in the kingdom, and quenched for ever the light of science in Scotland.

Various causes contributed to prevent these violent measures from arresting the progress of the truth. Among these the first place is unquestionably due to the circulation of the Scriptures in the vulgar language. Against this the patrons of ignorance had endeavoured to guard with the utmost jealousy. But when the desire of knowledge has once been excited among a people, they easily contrive methods of eluding the vigilance of those who would prevent them from gratifying it. By means of merchants who traded, from England and the continent, to the ports of Leith, Dundee, and Montrose, Tindall’s translations of the scriptures, with many protestant books, were imported. These were consigned to persons of tried principles and prudence, who circulated them in private with great industry. One copy of the Bible, or of the New Testament, supplied several families. At the dead hour of night, when others were asleep, they assembled in a private house; the sacred volume was brought from its concealment; and, while one read, the rest listened with mute attention. In this way the knowledge of the scriptures was diffused, at a period when it does not appear that there was a single public teacher of the truth in Scotland.[49]

Nor must we overlook another means which operated very extensively in alienating the public mind from the established religion. Those who have investigated the causes which led to the Reformation on the continent, have ascribed a considerable share of influence to the writings of the poets and satirists of the age. Poetry has charms for persons of every description; and in return for the pleasure which it affords them, mankind have in all ages been disposed to allow a greater liberty to poets than to any other class of writers. Strange as it may appear, the poets who flourished before the Reformation used very great freedom with the church, and there were not wanting many persons of exalted rank who encouraged them in this species of composition. The same individuals who were ready, at the call of the pope and clergy, to undertake a crusade for extirpating heresy, entertained poets who inveighed against the abuses of the court of Rome, and lampooned the religious orders. One day they assisted at an auto‑da‑fe, in which heretics were committed to the flames for the preservation of the catholic church; next day they were present at the acting of a pantomime or a play, in which the ministers of that church were held up to ridicule. Intoxicated with power, and lulled asleep by indolence, the clergy had either overlooked these attacks, or treated them with contempt; it was only from experience that they learned their injurious tendency; and before they made the discovery, the practice had become so common that it could no longer be restrained. This weapon was wielded with much success by the friends of the Reformed doctrine in Scotland. Some of their number had acquired great celebrity among their countrymen as poets; and others, who could not lay claim to high poetical merit, possessed a talent for wit and humour. They employed themselves in writing satires, in which the ignorance, the negligence, and the immorality, of the clergy were stigmatized, and the absurdities and superstitions of the popish religion exposed to ridicule. These poetical effusions were easily committed to memory, and were circulated without the intervention of the press, which was at that time entirely under the control of the bishops. An attack still more bold was made upon the church. Dramatic compositions, partly written in the same strain, were repeatedly acted in the presence of the royal family, the nobility, and vast assemblies of people, to the great mortification, and the still greater disadvantage, of the clergy. The bishops repeatedly procured the enactment of laws against the circulation of seditious rhymes, and blasphemous ballads; but metrical epistles, moralities, and psalms, in the Scottish language, continued to be read with avidity, notwithstanding prohibitory statutes and legal prosecutions.[50]

In the year 1540, the reformed doctrine could number among its converts, besides a multitude of the common people, many persons of rank and external respectability: among whom were William, earl of Glencairn; his son Alexander, lord Kilmaurs; William, earl of Errol; William, lord Ruthven; his daughter Lillias, wife of the master of Drummond; John Stewart, son of lord Methven; Sir James Sandilands, Sir David Lindsay, Campbell of Cesnock, Erskine of Dun, Melville of Raith, Balnaves of Halhill, Straiton of Lauriston, with William Johnston, and Robert Alexander, advocates.[51] The early period at which they were enrolled as friends to the Reformation, renders these names more worthy of consideration. It has often been alleged, that the desire of sharing in the rich spoils of the popish church, together with the intrigues of the court of England, engaged the Scottish nobles on the side of the reformed religion. At a later period, there is reason to think that this allegation was not altogether groundless. But at the time of which we now speak, the prospect of overturning the established church was too distant and uncertain, to induce persons, who had no higher motive than to gratify avarice, to take a step by which they exposed their lives and fortunes to the most imminent hazard; nor had the English monarch yet extended his influence in Scotland, by those arts of political intrigue which he afterwards employed.

During the two last years of the reign of James V., the numbers of the reformed rapidly increased. Twice did the clergy attempt to cut them off by a desperate blow. They presented to the king a list, containing the names of some hundreds, possessed of property and wealth, whom they denounced as heretics; and endeavoured to procure his consent to their condemnation, by flattering him with the immense riches which would accrue to him from the forfeiture of their estates. When this proposal was first made to him, James rejected it with strong marks of displeasure; but so violent was the antipathy which he at last conceived against his nobility, and so much did he fall under the influence of the clergy, that it is highly probable he would have yielded to the solicitations of the latter, if the disgraceful issue of an expedition, which they had instigated him to undertake against the English, had not impaired his reason, and put an end to his unhappy life, on the 13th of December, 1542.[52]

PERIOD II.

FROM THE YEAR 1542, WHEN HE EMBRACED THE REFORMED RELIGION, TO THE YEAR 1549, WHEN HE WAS RELEASED FROM THE FRENCH GALLEYS.

WHILE this fermentation of opinion was spreading through the nation, Knox, from the state of his mind, could not remain long unaffected. The reformed doctrines had been imbibed by several persons of his acquaintance, and they were the topic of common conversation and dispute among the learned and inquisitive at the university.[53] His change of views first discovered itself in his philosophical lectures, in which he began to forsake the scholastic path, and to recommend to his pupils a more rational and useful method of study. Even this innovation excited against him violent suspicions of heresy, which were confirmed, when he proceeded to reprehend the corruptions that prevailed in the church. He was then teaching at St Andrews; but it was impossible for him to remain long in a town, which was wholly under the power of cardinal Beatoun, the chief supporter of the Romish church, and a determined enemy to all reform. Accordingly he left that place, and retired to the south of Scotland, where he avowed his belief of the protestant doctrine. Provoked by his defection, and alarmed lest he should draw others after him, the clergy were anxious to rid themselves of such an adversary. Having passed sentence against him as a heretic, and degraded him from the priesthood, the cardinal employed assassins to waylay him, by whose hands he must have fallen, had not providence placed him under the protection of Douglas of Langniddrie.[54]

The change produced in the political state of the kingdom by the death of James V. had great influence upon the Reformation. After a bold but unsuccessful attempt by cardinal Beatoun, to secure to himself the government during the minority of the infant queen, the earl of Arran was peaceably established in the regency. Arran had formerly shown himself attached to the reformed doctrines, and he was now surrounded with counsellors who were of the same principles. Henry VIII. laid hold of this opportunity for accomplishing his favourite measure of uniting the two crowns, and eagerly pressed a marriage between his son Edward and Mary, the young queen of Scots. Notwithstanding the determined opposition of the whole body of the clergy, the Scottish parliament agreed to the match; commissioners were sent into England to settle the terms; and the contract of marriage was drawn out, subscribed, and ratified by all the parties. But through the intrigues of the cardinal and queen‑mother, the fickleness and timidity of the regent, and the violence of the English monarch, the treaty, after proceeding thus far, was broken off; and Arran not only renounced connexion with England, but abjured the reformed religion publicly in the church of Stirling. The Scottish queen was soon after betrothed to the dauphin of France, and sent into that kingdom; a measure which, at a subsequent period, nearly accomplished the ruin of the independence of Scotland, and the extirpation of the protestant religion.

The Reformation had, however, made very considerable progress during the short time that it was patronised by the regent. In 1542, the parliament passed an act, declaring it lawful for all the subjects to read the scriptures in the vulgar language. This act, which was proclaimed in spite of the protestations of the bishops, was a signal triumph of truth over error.[55] Formerly, it was reckoned a crime to look on the sacred books; now, to read them was safe, and even the way to honour. The Bible was to be seen on every gentleman’s table; the New Testament was almost in every one’s hands.[56] Hitherto the Reformation had been advanced by books imported from England; but now the errors of popery were attacked in publications which issued from the Scottish press. The reformed preachers, whom the regent had chosen as chaplains, disseminated their doctrines throughout the kingdom, and, under the sanction of his authority, made many converts from the Roman catholic faith.[57]

One of these preachers deserves particular notice here, as it was by means of his sermons that Knox first perceived the beauty of evangelical truth, and had deep impressions of religion made upon his heart.[58] Thomas Guillaume, or Williams, was born at Athelstoneford, a village in East Lothian, and had entered into the order of Blackfriars, or Dominican monks, among whom he rose to great eminence.[59] But having embraced the sentiments of the reformers, he threw off the monkish habit. His learning and elocution recommended him to Arran and his protestant counsellors; and he was much esteemed by the people as a clear expositor of scripture. When the regent began to waver in his attachment to the Reformation, Guillaume was dismissed from the court, and retired into England, after which I do not find him noticed in history.

But the person to whom our Reformer was most indebted, was George Wishart, a brother of the laird of Pittarow in Mearns. Being driven into banishment by the bishop of Brechin, for teaching the Greek Testament in Montrose, he had resided for some years at the university of Cambridge. In the year 1544, he returned to his native country, in the company of the commissioners who had been sent to negotiate a treaty with Henry VIII. of England. Seldom do we meet, in ecclesiastical history, with a character so amiable and interesting as that of George Wishart. Excelling all his countrymen at that period in learning, of the most persuasive eloquence, irreproachable in life, courteous and affable in manners, his fervent piety, zeal, and courage in the cause of truth, were tempered with uncommon meekness, modesty, patience, prudence, and charity.[60] In his tour of preaching through Scotland, he was usually accompanied by some of the principal gentry; and the people, who flocked to hear him, were ravished with his discourses. To this teacher Knox attached himself, and profited greatly by his sermons and private instructions. During the last visit which Wishart paid to Lothian, Knox waited constantly on his person, and bore the sword, which was carried before him, from the time that an attempt was made to assassinate him in Dundee. Wishart was highly pleased with the zeal of his faithful attendant, and seems to have presaged his future usefulness, at the same time that he laboured under a strong presentiment of his own approaching martyrdom. On the night on which he was apprehended by Bothwell at the instigation of the cardinal, he directed the sword to be taken from Knox; and, on the latter insisting for liberty to accompany him to Ormiston, the martyr dismissed him with this reply, “Nay, return to your bairnes,” (meaning his pupils,) “and God bless you: ane is sufficient for a sacrifice.”

Having relinquished all thoughts of officiating in that church which had invested him with clerical orders, Knox had entered as tutor into the family of Hugh Douglas of Langniddrie, a gentleman in East Lothian, who had embraced the reformed doctrines. John Cockburn of Ormiston, a neighbouring gentleman of the same persuasion, also put his son under his tuition. These young men were instructed by him in the principles of religion, as well as in the learned languages. He managed their religious instruction in such a way as to allow the rest of the family, and the people of the neighbourhood, to reap advantage from it. He catechised them publicly in a chapel at Langniddrie, in which he also read, at stated times, a chapter of the Bible, accompanied with explanatory remarks. The memory of this fact has been preserved by tradition, and the chapel, the ruins of which are still apparent, is popularly called John Knox’s Kirk.[61]

It was not to be expected that he would be suffered long to continue this employment, under a government which was now entirely at the devotion of cardinal Beatoun, who had gained a complete ascendant over the mind of the timid and irresolute regent. But in the midst of his cruelties, and while he was planning still more desperate deeds,[62] the cardinal was himself suddenly cut off. A conspiracy was formed against his life; and a small but determined band (some of whom seem to have been instigated by resentment for private injuries, and the influence of the English court, others animated by a desire to revenge his cruelties, and deliver their country from his oppression) seized upon the castle of St Andrews, in which he resided, and put him to death, on the 29th of May, 1546.

The death of Beatoun did not, however, free Knox from persecution. John Hamilton, an illegitimate brother of the regent, who was nominated to the vacant bishoprick, sought his life with as great eagerness as his predecessor. He was obliged to conceal himself, and to remove from place to place, to provide for his safety. Wearied with this mode of living, and apprehensive that he would some day fall into the hands of his enemies, he came to the resolution of leaving Scotland.

England presented the readiest and most natural sanctuary to those who were persecuted by the Scottish prelates. But though they usually fled to that kingdom in the first instance, they did not find their situation comfortable, and the greater part, after a short residence there, proceeded to the continent. Henry VIII., from motives which, to say the least, were highly suspicious, had renounced subjection to the Roman see, and compelled his subjects to follow his example. He invested himself with the ecclesiastical supremacy, within his own dominions, which he had wrested from the bishop of Rome; and in the arrogant and violent exercise of that power, the English pope was scarcely exceeded by any of the pretended successors of St Peter. Having signalized himself at a former period as a literary champion against Luther, he was anxious to demonstrate that his breach with the court of Rome had not alienated him from the catholic faith; and he would suffer none to proceed a step beyond the narrow and capricious line of reform which he was pleased to prescribe. Hence the motley system of religion which he established, and the contradictory measures by which it was supported. Statutes against the authority of the pope, and against the tenets of Luther, were enacted in the same parliament; and papists and protestants were alternately brought to the same stake. The protestants in Scotland were universally dissatisfied with this bastard reformation, a circumstance which had contributed not a little to cool their zeal for the lately proposed alliance with England. Sir Ralph Sadler, his ambassador, found himself in a very awkward predicament on this account; for the papists were offended because he had gone so far from Rome, the protestants because he had gone no farther. The latter disrelished, in particular, the restrictions which he had imposed upon the reading and interpretation of the scriptures, and which he urged the regent to imitate in Scotland. And they had no desire for the king’s book, of which Sadler was furnished with copies to distribute, and which lay as a drug upon his hands.[63]

On these accounts, Knox had no desire to go to England, where, although “the pope’s name was suppressed, his laws and corruptions remained in full vigour.”[64] His determination was to visit Germany, and to prosecute his studies in some of the protestant universities, until he should see a favourable change in the state of his native country. But the lairds of Langniddrie and Ormiston, who were extremely reluctant to part with him, prevailed on him to relinquish his design, and to repair, along with their sons, to the castle of St Andrews.[65]

The conspirators against cardinal Beatoun kept possession of the castle after his death. The regent had assembled an army and laid siege to it, from a desire not so much to avenge the murder of the cardinal, at whose fall he secretly rejoiced, as to comply with the importunity of the clergy, and to release his eldest son, who had been retained by Beatoun as a pledge of his father’s fidelity, and had now fallen into the hands of the conspirators. But the besieged, having obtained assistance from England, baffled all his skill; and a treaty was at last concluded, by which they engaged to deliver up the castle to the regent, upon his procuring to them from Rome a pardon for the cardinal’s murder. The pardon was obtained; but the conspirators, alarmed, or affecting to be alarmed, at the contradictory terms in which it was expressed, refused to perform their stipulation, and the regent felt himself unable, without foreign aid, to enforce a compliance. In this interval, a number of persons, who were harassed for their attachment to the reformed sentiments, repaired to the castle, where they enjoyed the free exercise of their religion.[66]

Writers, unfriendly to Knox, have endeavoured to fix an accusation upon him respecting the assassination of cardinal Beatoun. Some have ignorantly asserted, that he was one of the conspirators.[67] Others, better informed, have argued that he made himself accessary to their crime, by taking shelter among them.[68] With more plausibility, others have appealed to his writings, as a proof that he vindicated the deed of the conspirators as laudable, or at least innocent. I know that some of Knox’s vindicators have denied this charge, and maintain that he justified it only so far as it was the work of God, or a just retribution in providence for the crimes of which the cardinal had been guilty, without approving the conduct of those who were the instruments of punishing him.[69] The just judgment of heaven is, I acknowledge, the chief thing to which he directs the attention of his readers; at the same time, I think no one who carefully reads what he has written on this subject, can doubt that he justified the action of the conspirators.[70] The truth is, he held the opinion, that persons who, according to the law of God, and the just laws of society, have forfeited their lives, by the commission of flagrant crimes, such as notorious murderers and tyrants, may warrantably be put to death by private individuals, provided all redress, in the ordinary course of justice, is rendered impossible, in consequence of the offenders having usurped the executive authority, or being systematically protected by oppressive rulers. This is an opinion of the same kind with that of tyrannicide, held by so many of the ancients, and defended by Buchanan, in his dialogue, De jure regni apud Scotos. It is a principle, I confess, of very dangerous application, and extremely liable to be abused by factious, fanatical, and desperate men, as a pretext for perpetrating the most nefarious deeds. It would be unjust, however, on this account, to confound it with the principle, which, by giving to individuals a liberty to revenge their own quarrels, legitimates assassination, a practice which was exceedingly common in that age. I may add, that there have been instances of persons, not invested with public authority, taking the execution of punishment into their own hands, whom we may scruple to load with an aggravated charge of murder, although we cannot approve of their conduct.[71]

Knox entered the castle of St Andrews at the time of Easter, 1547, and conducted the education of his pupils after his accustomed manner. In the chapel within the castle, he read to them lectures upon the scriptures, beginning at the place in the gospel according to John where he had left off at Langniddrie; and he catechised them publicly in the parish church belonging to the city. Among the refugees in the castle who attended these exercises, and who had not been concerned in the conspiracy against Beatoun,[72] there were three persons who deserve to be particularly noticed.

Sir David Lindsay of the Mount, Lyon King at Arms, had been a favourite at the court both of James IV. and of his son, James V. He was esteemed one of the first poets of the age, and his writings had contributed greatly to the advancement of the Reformation. Notwithstanding the indelicacy which disfigures several of his poetical productions,[73] the personal deportment of Lindsay was grave; his morals were correct; and his writings discover a strong desire to reform the manners of the age, as well as ample proofs of true poetical genius, extensive learning, and wit the most keen and penetrating. He had long lashed the vices of the clergy, and exposed the absurdities and superstitions of popery, in the most popular and poignant satires; being protected by James V. who retained a strong attachment to the companion of his early sports, and the poet who had often amused his leisure hours. After the death of that monarch, he entered zealously into the measures pursued by the earl of Arran at the commencement of his government; and when the regent dismissed his reforming counsellors, Sir David was left exposed to the vengeance of the clergy, who could never forgive the injuries which they had received from his pen.[74]

Henry Balnaves of Halhill had raised himself, by his talents and probity, from an obscure situation to the highest honours of the state, and was justly regarded as one of the principal ornaments of the reformed cause in Scotland. Descended from poor parents in the town of Kirkcaldy, he travelled, when only a boy, to the continent, and, hearing of a free school in Cologne, he gained admission to it, and received a liberal education, together with instruction in the principles of the protestant religion. Returning to his native country, he applied himself to the study of law, and practised for some time before the consistorial court of St Andrews.[75] Notwithstanding the jealousy of the clergy, his reputation daily increased, and he at length obtained a seat in parliament and in the court of Session.[76] James V. employed him in managing public affairs of great importance; and at the beginning of Arran’s regency, he was made secretary of State. The active part which he at that time took in the measures for promoting the Reformation, rendered him peculiarly obnoxious to the administration which succeeded, and obliged him to seek shelter within the walls of the castle.[77]

John Rough, having conceived a disgust at being deprived of some property to which he thought himself entitled, had left his parents, and entered a monastery in Stirling, when he was only seventeen years of age.[78] During the time that the light of divine truth was spreading through the nation, and penetrating even the recesses of cloisters, he had felt its influence, and became a convert to the reformed sentiments. The reputation which he had gained as a preacher was such, that, in the year 1543, the earl of Arran procured a dispensation for his leaving the monastery, and appointed him one of his chaplains. Upon the apostacy of Arran from the reformed religion, he retired first into Kyle, and afterwards into the castle of St Andrews, where he was chosen preacher to the garrison.[79]

These persons were so much pleased with Knox’s talents, and his manner of teaching his pupils, that they urged him strongly to preach in public, and to become colleague to Rough. But he resisted all their solicitations, assigning as his reason, that he did not consider himself as having a call to this employment, and would not be guilty of intrusion. They did not, however, desist from their purpose; but having consulted with their brethren, came to a resolution, without his knowledge, that a call should be publicly given him, in the name of the whole, to become one of their ministers.

Accordingly, on a day fixed for the purpose, Rough preached a sermon on the election of ministers, in which he declared the power which a congregation, however small, had over any one in whom they perceived gifts suited to the office, and how dangerous it was for such a person to reject the call of those who desired instruction. Sermon being concluded, the preacher turned to Knox, who was present, and addressed him in these words: “Brother, you shall not be offended, although I speak unto you that which I have in charge, even from all those that are here present, which is this: In the name of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ, and in the name of all that presently call you by my mouth, I charge you that you refuse not this holy vocation, but as you tender the glory of God, the increase of Christ’s kingdom, the edification of your brethren, and the comfort of me, whom you understand well enough to be oppressed by the multitude of labours, that you take the public office and charge of preaching, even as you look to avoid God’s heavy displeasure, and desire that he shall multiply his graces unto you.” Then, addressing himself to the congregation, he said, “Was not this your charge unto me? and do ye not approve this vocation?” They all answered, “It was; and we approve it.” Overwhelmed by this unexpected and solemn charge, Knox, after an ineffectual attempt to address the audience, burst into tears, rushed out of the assembly, and shut himself up in his chamber. “His countenance and behaviour, from that day till the day that he was compelled to present himself in the public place of preaching, did sufficiently declare the grief and trouble of his heart; for no man saw any sign of mirth from him, neither had he pleasure to accompany any man for many days together.”[80]

This proof of the sensibility of his temper, and the reluctance which he felt at undertaking a public office, may surprise those who have carelessly adopted the common notions respecting our Reformer’s character; but we shall meet with many examples of the same kind in the course of his life. The scene, too, will be extremely interesting to such as are impressed with the weight of the ministerial function, and will naturally awaken a train of feelings in the breasts of those who have been intrusted with the gospel. It revives the memory of those early days of the church, when persons did not rush forward to the altar, nor beg to “be put into one of the priest’s offices, to eat a piece of bread;” when men of piety and talents, deeply affected with the awful responsibility of the office, and with their own insufficiency, were with great difficulty induced to take on them those orders which they had long desired, and for which they had laboured to qualify themselves. What a contrast did this exhibit to the conduct of the herd, which at that time filled the stalls of the popish church! The behaviour of Knox serves also to reprove those who become preachers of their own accord; and who, from vague and enthusiastic desires of doing good, or a fond conceit of their own gifts, trample upon good order, and thrust themselves into public employment without any regular call.

We must not, however, imagine, that his distress of mind, and the reluctance which he discovered to comply with the call which he had received, proceeded from consciousness of its invalidity, through the defect of certain external formalities which had been usual in the church, or which, in ordinary cases, may be observed with propriety in the installation of persons into sacred offices. These, as far as warranted by scripture, or conducive to the preservation of order, he did not contemn; and his judgment respecting them may be learned from the early practice of the Scottish reformed church, in the organization of which he had so active a share. In common with all the original reformers, he rejected the necessity of episcopal ordination, as totally unauthorized by the laws of Christ; nor did he even regard the imposition of the hands of presbyters as a rite essential to the validity of orders, or of necessary observance in all circumstances of the church. The papists, indeed, did not fail to declaim on this topic, representing Knox, and other reformed ministers, as destitute of all lawful vocation. In the same strain did many hierarchical writers of the English church afterwards learn to talk, not scrupling, by their extravagant doctrine of the absolute necessity of ordination by the hands of a bishop who derived his powers by uninterrupted succession from the apostles, to invalidate and nullify the orders of all the reformed churches, except their own; a doctrine which has been revived in the present enlightened age, and unblushingly avowed and defended, with the greater part of its absurd, illiberal, and horrid consequences. The fathers of the English reformation, however, were very far from entertaining such contracted and unchristian sentiments. When Knox afterwards went to England, they accepted his services without the smallest hesitation. They maintained a constant correspondence with the reformed divines on the continent, and cheerfully owned them as brethren and fellow‑labourers in the ministry. And they were not so ignorant of their principles, nor so forgetful of their character, as to prefer ordination by popish prelates to that which was conferred by protestant presbyters.[81] I will not say that our Reformer utterly disregarded his early ordination in the popish church, although, if we may credit the testimony of his adversaries, this was his sentiment;[82] but I have little doubt that he looked upon the charge which he received at St Andrews as principally constituting his call to the ministry.

His distress of mind on the present occasion proceeded from a higher source than the deficiency of some external formalities in his call. He had now very different thoughts as to the importance of the ministerial office, from what he had entertained when ceremoniously invested with orders. The care of immortal souls, of whom he must give an account to the chief bishop; the charge of declaring “the whole counsel of God, keeping nothing back,” however ungrateful it might be to his hearers; the manner of life, afflictions, persecutions, imprisonment, exile, and violent death, to which the preachers of the protestant doctrine were exposed; the hazard of his sinking under these hardships, and “making shipwreck of faith and a good conscience;”—these, with similar considerations, rushed into his mind, and filled it with anxiety and fear. Satisfied, at length, that he had the call of God to engage in this work, he composed his mind to a reliance on him who had engaged to make his “strength perfect in the weakness” of his servants, and resolved, with the apostle, “not to count his life dear, that he might finish with joy the ministry which he received of the Lord, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.” Often did he afterwards reflect with lively emotion upon this very interesting step of his life, and never, in the midst of his greatest sufferings, did he see reason to repent of the choice which he had so deliberately made.

An occurrence which took place about this time contributed to fix his wavering resolution, and induced an earlier compliance with the call of the congregation than he might otherwise have been disposed to yield. Though sound in doctrine, Rough’s literary acquirements were moderate. Of this circumstance the patrons of the established religion in the university and abbey took advantage; and among others, dean John Annand[83] had long proved vexatious to him, by stating objections to the doctrine which he preached, and entangling him with sophisms, or garbled quotations from the fathers. Knox had assisted the preacher with his pen, and by his superior skill in logic and the writings of the fathers, had exposed Annand’s fallacies, and confuted the popish errors. This polemic, being, one day, at a public disputation in the parish church, driven from all his usual defences, fled, as his last refuge, to the infallible authority of the church, which, he alleged, had rendered all further debate on these points unnecessary, in consequence of its having condemned the tenets of the Lutherans as heretical. To this Knox replied, that, before they could submit to such a summary determination of the matters in controversy, it was requisite to ascertain the true church by the marks given in scripture, lest they should blindly receive, as their spiritual mother, “a harlot instead of the immaculate spouse of Jesus Christ.” “For,” continued he, “as for your Roman church, as it is now corrupted, wherein stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt that it is the synagogue of Satan, and the head thereof, called the pope, to be that man of sin of whom the apostle speaks, than I doubt that Jesus Christ suffered by the procurement of the visible church of Jerusalem. Yea, I offer myself, by word or writing, to prove the Roman church this day farther degenerate from the purity which was in the days of the apostles, than were the church of the Jews from the ordinances given by Moses, when they consented to the innocent death of Jesus Christ.” This was a bold charge; but the minds of the people were prepared to listen to the proof. They exclaimed, that, if this was true, they had been miserably deceived, and insisted that, as they could not all read his writings, he should ascend the pulpit, and give them an opportunity of hearing the probation of what he had so confidently affirmed. The request was reasonable, and the challenge was not to be retracted. The following Sabbath was accordingly fixed for making good his promise.

On the day appointed, he appeared in the pulpit of the parish church, and gave out the twenty‑fourth and twenty‑fifth verses of the seventh chapter of Daniel, as his text. After an introduction, in which he explained the vision, and showed that the four animals hieroglyphically represented four empires—the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman, out of the ruins of the last of which rose the empire described in his text, he proceeded to show that this was applicable to no power but the papal. He compared the parallel passages in the New Testament, and showed that the king mentioned in his text was the same elsewhere called the Man of Sin, the Antichrist, the Babylonian harlot; and that, in prophetical style, these expressions did not describe a single person, but a body or multitude of people under a wicked head, including a succession of persons occupying the same place. In support of his assertion, that the papal power was antichristian, he described it under the three heads of life, doctrine, and laws. He depicted the scandalous lives of the popes from records published by Roman catholic writers, and contrasted their doctrine and laws with those of the New Testament, particularly on the heads of justification, holidays, and abstinence from meats and from marriage. He quoted from the canon law the blasphemous titles and prerogatives ascribed to the pope, as an additional proof that he was described in his text.[84] In conclusion, he signified that, if any of his hearers thought that he had misquoted or misinterpreted the testimonies which he had produced from the scriptures, ecclesiastical history, or the writings of the fathers, he was ready, upon their coming to him, in the presence of witnesses, to give them satisfaction. Among the audience were his former preceptor, Major, and the other members of the university, the sub‑prior of the abbey, and a great number of canons and friars of different orders.

This sermon, delivered with a considerable portion of that popular eloquence for which Knox was afterwards so celebrated, made a great noise, and excited much speculation among all classes.[85] The preachers who had preceded him, not even excepting Wishart, had contented themselves with refuting some of the grosser errors of the established religion; Knox struck at the root of popery, by boldly pronouncing the pope to be antichrist, and the whole system erroneous and antiscriptural. The report of this sermon, and of the effects produced by it, having reached Hamilton, the bishop‑elect of St Andrews, he wrote to Winram, who was vicar‑general during the vacancy of the see, expressing his surprise that such heretical and schismatical tenets were allowed to be taught without opposition. Winram was at bottom friendly to the reformed doctrine; but he durst not altogether disregard this admonition, and therefore appointed a convention of the learned men of the abbey and university to be held in St Leonard’s Yards, to which he summoned Knox and Rough.

The two preachers appeared before that assembly. Nine articles, drawn from their sermons, were exhibited, “the strangeness of which,” the sub‑prior said, “had moved him to call for them to hear their answers.” Knox conducted the defence, for himself and his colleague, with much acuteness and moderation. He expressed high satisfaction at appearing before an auditory so honourable, modest, and grave. As he was not a stranger to the report concerning the private sentiments of Winram, and nothing was more abhorrent to his own mind than dissimulation, he, before commencing his defence, obtested him to deal uprightly in a matter of such magnitude. “The people,” he said, “ought not to be deceived or left in the dark; if his colleague and he had advanced any thing unscriptural, he wished the sub‑prior by all means to expose it; but if, on the other hand, the doctrine taught by them was true, it was his duty to give it the sanction of his authority.” Winram cautiously replied, that he did not come there as a judge, and would neither approve nor condemn; he wished a free conference, and, if Knox pleased, he would reason with him a little. Accordingly, he proceeded to state some objections to one of the propositions maintained by Knox, “That, in the worship of God, and especially in the administration of the sacraments, the rule prescribed in the scriptures is to be observed without addition or diminution; and that the church has no right to devise religious ceremonies, and impose significations upon them.” After maintaining the argument for a short time, the sub‑prior devolved it on a grey‑friar, named Arbugkill, who took it up with great confidence, but was soon forced to yield with disgrace. He rashly engaged to prove the divine institution of ceremonies; and, being pushed by his antagonist from the gospels and acts to the epistles, and from one epistle to another, he was driven at last to affirm, “that the apostles had not received the Holy Ghost when they wrote the epistles, but they afterwards received him, and ordained ceremonies.” Knox smiled at the extravagant assertion. “Father!” exclaimed the sub‑prior, “what say ye? God forbid that ye say that! for then farewell the ground of our faith.” Alarmed and abashed, the friar attempted to correct his error, but in vain. He could not afterwards be brought to argument upon any of the articles, but resolved all into the authority of the church. His opponent urging that the church could have no authority to act in opposition to the express directions of scripture, which enjoined an exact conformity to the divine laws respecting worship: “If so,” said Arbugkill, “you will leave us no church.” “Yes,” rejoined Knox, sarcastically, “in David I read of the church of malignants. Odi ecclesiam malignantium; this church you may have without the word, and fighting against it. Of this church if you will be, I cannot hinder you; but as for me, I will be of no other church but that which has Jesus Christ for pastor, hears his voice, and will not hear the voice of a stranger.” For purgatory, the friar had no better authority than that of Virgil in the sixth Æneid; and the pains of it, according to him, were—a bad wife.[86]

Solventur risu tabulæ; tu missus abibis.

Instructed by the issue of this convention, the papists avoided for the future all disputation, which tended only to injure their cause. Had the castle of St Andrews been in their power, they would soon have silenced these troublesome preachers; but as matters stood, more moderate and crafty measures were necessary. The plan adopted for counteracting the popular preaching of Knox and Rough was artfully laid. Orders were issued, that all the learned men of the abbey and university should preach by turns every Sunday in the parish church. By this means the reformed preachers were excluded on those days, when the greatest audiences attended; and it was expected that the diligence of the established clergy would conciliate the affections of the people. To avoid offence or occasion of speculation, they were also instructed not to touch in their sermons upon any of the controverted points. Knox easily saw through this artifice; but he contented himself with expressing a wish, in the sermons which he still delivered on week days, that the clergy would show themselves equally diligent in places where their labours were more necessary. He, at the same time, expressed his satisfaction that Christ was preached, and that nothing was spoken publicly against the truth; if any thing of this kind should be attempted, he requested the people to suspend their judgment, until they should have an opportunity of hearing him in reply.[87]

His labours were so successful, during the few months that he preached at St Andrews, that, besides the garrison in the castle, a great number of the inhabitants of the town renounced popery, and made profession of the protestant faith, by participating of the Lord’s supper. This was the first time that the sacrament of the supper was dispensed after the reformed mode in Scotland; if we except the administration of it by Wishart in the same place, which was performed with great privacy, immediately before his martyrdom.[88] Those who preceded Knox appear to have contented themselves with preaching; and such as embraced their doctrine had most probably continued to receive the sacraments from the popish clergy, at least from such of them as were most friendly to the reformation of the church. The gratification which he felt in these first fruits of his ministry, was considerably abated by instances of vicious conduct in the persons under his charge, some of whom were guilty of those acts of licentiousness which are too common among soldiery when placed in similar circumstances. From the time that he was chosen to be their preacher, he had openly rebuked these disorders; and when he perceived that his admonitions failed in putting a stop to them, he did not conceal his apprehensions of the unsuccessful issue of the enterprise in which they were engaged.[89]

In the end of June 1547, a French fleet, with a considerable body of land forces, under the command of Leo Strozzi, appeared before St Andrews, to assist the governor in the reduction of the castle. It was invested both by sea and land; and being disappointed of the expected aid from England, the besieged, after a brave and vigorous resistance, were under the necessity of capitulating to the French commander on the last day of July. The terms which they obtained were honourable; the lives of all in the castle were to be spared, they were to be transported to France, and if they did not choose to enter into the service of the French king, were to be conveyed to any country which they might prefer, except Scotland. John Rough had left them previous to the commencement of the siege, and retired to England.[90] Knox, although he did not expect that the garrison would be able to hold out, could not prevail upon himself to desert his charge, and resolved to share with his brethren in the hazard of the siege. He was conveyed along with them on board the fleet, which, in a few days, set sail for France, arrived at Fecamp, and, going up the Seine, anchored before Rouen. The capitulation was violated, and they were all detained prisoners of war, at the solicitation of the pope and Scottish clergy. The principal gentlemen were incarcerated in Rouen, Cherburg, Brest and Mont St Michel. Knox, with a few others, was confined on board the galleys, and in addition to the rigours of ordinary captivity, was loaded with chains, and exposed to all the indignities with which papists were accustomed to treat those whom they regarded as heretics.[91]

From Rouen they sailed to Nantes, and lay upon the Loire during the following winter. Solicitations, threatenings, and violence, were all employed to induce the prisoners to change their religion, or at least to countenance the popish worship. But so great was their abhorrence of that system, that not a single individual of the whole company, on land or water, could be induced to symbolize in the smallest degree with idolaters. While the prison‑ships lay on the Loire, mass was frequently said, and salve regina sung, on board, or on the shore within their hearing. On these occasions they were brought out and threatened with the torture, if they did not give the usual signs of reverence; but instead of complying, they covered their heads as soon as the service began. Knox has preserved, in his history, a humorous incident which took place on one of these occasions; and although he has not said so, it is highly probable that he himself was the person concerned in the affair. One day a fine painted image of the Virgin was brought into one of the galleys, and a Scottish prisoner was desired to give it the kiss of adoration. He refused, saying that such idols were accursed, and he would not touch it. “But you shall,” replied one of the officers roughly, at the same time forcing it towards his mouth. Upon this the prisoner seized the image, and throwing it into the river, said, “Lat our Ladie now save hirself; sche is lycht enoughe, lat hir leirne to swyme.” The officers with difficulty saved their goddess from the waves; and the prisoners were relieved for the future from such troublesome importunities.[92]

In summer 1548, as nearly as I can collect, the galleys in which they were confined returned to Scotland, and continued for a considerable time on the east coast, watching for English vessels. Knox’s health was now greatly impaired by the severity of his confinement, and he was seized with a fever, during which his life was despaired of by all in the ship.[93] But even in this state, his fortitude of mind remained unsubdued,[94] and he comforted his fellow‑prisoners with hopes of release. To their anxious desponding inquiries (natural to men in their situation), “if he thought they would ever obtain their liberty,” his uniform answer was, “God will deliver us to his glory, even in this life.” While they lay on the coast between Dundee and St Andrews, Mr (afterwards Sir) James Balfour, who was confined in the same ship with him, pointed to the spires of St Andrews, and asked him if he knew the place. “Yes,” replied the sickly and emaciated captive, “I know it well; for I see the steeple of that place where God first opened my mouth in public to his glory; and I am fully persuaded, how weak soever I now appear, that I shall not depart this life, till that my tongue shall glorify his godly name in the same place.” This striking reply Sir James repeated, in the presence of a number of witnesses, many years before Knox returned to Scotland, and when there was very little prospect of his words being verified.[95]

We must not, however, think that he possessed this tranquillity and elevation of mind, during the whole period of his imprisonment. When first thrown into fetters, insulted by his enemies, and deprived of all prospect of release, he was not a stranger to the anguish of despondency, so pathetically described by the royal psalmist of Israel.[96] He felt that conflict in his spirit, with which all good men are acquainted, and which becomes peculiarly sharp when aggravated by corporal affliction. But, having had recourse to prayer, the never‑failing refuge of the oppressed, he was relieved from all his fears, and, reposing upon the promise and the providence of the God whom he served, he attained to “the confidence and rejoicing of hope.” Those who wish for a more particular account of the state of his mind at this time, will find it in the notes, extracted from a rare work which he composed on prayer, and the chief materials of which were suggested by his own experience.[97]

When free from fever, he relieved the tedious hours of captivity, by committing to writing a confession of his faith, containing the substance of what he had taught at St Andrews, with a particular account of the disputation which he had maintained in St Leonard’s Yards. This he found means to convey to his religious acquaintances in Scotland, accompanied with an earnest exhortation to persevere in the faith which they had professed, whatever persecutions they might suffer for its sake.[98] To this confession I find him referring, in the defence which he afterwards made before the bishop of Durham. “Let no man think, that because I am in the realm of England, therefore so boldly I speak. No: God hath taken that suspicion from me. For the body lying in most painful bands, in the midst of cruel tyrants, his mercy and goodness provided that the hand should write and bear witness to the confession of the heart, more abundantly than ever yet the tongue spake.”[99]

Notwithstanding the rigour of their confinement, the prisoners who were separated found opportunities of occasionally corresponding with one another. Henry Balnaves of Hallhill had composed, in his prison, a treatise on Justification and the Works and Conversation of a Justified Man. This having been conveyed to Knox, probably after his return from the coast of Scotland, he was so much pleased with the work, that he divided it into chapters, and added some marginal notes, and a concise epitome of its contents; to the whole he prefixed a recommendatory dedication, intending that it should be published for the use of his brethren in Scotland, as soon as an opportunity offered.[100] The reader will not, I am persuaded, be displeased to have some extracts from this dedication, which represent, more forcibly than any description of mine can do, the pious and heroic spirit which animated the Reformer, when “his feet lay in irons;” and I shall quote more freely, as the book is rare.

It is thus inscribed:[101] “John Knox, the bound servant of Jesus Christ, unto his best beloved brethren of the congregation of the castle of St Andrews, and to all professors of Christ’s true evangel, desireth grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, with perpetual consolation of the Holy Spirit.” After mentioning a number of instances in which the name of God had been magnified, and the interests of religion advanced, by the exile of those who were driven from their native countries by tyranny, as in the examples of Joseph, Moses, Daniel, and the primitive Christians, he goes on thus: “Which thing shall openly declare this godly work subsequent. The counsel of Satan in the persecution[102] of us, first, was to stop the wholesome wind of Christ’s evangel to blow upon the parts where we converse and dwell; and, secondly, so to oppress ourselves by corporal affliction and worldly calamities, that no place should we find to godly study. But by the great mercy and infinite goodness of God our Father, shall these his counsels be frustrate and vain. For, in despite of him and all his wicked members, shall yet that same word (O Lord! this I speak, confiding in thy holy promise) openly be proclaimed in that same country. And how that our merciful Father, amongst these tempestuous storms, by[103] all men’s expectation, hath provided some rest for us, this present work shall testify, which was sent to me in Roane, lying in irons, and sore troubled by corporal infirmity, in a galley named Nostre Dame, by an honourable brother, Mr Henry Balnaves of Hallhill, for the present holden as prisoner, (though unjustly) in the old palace of Roane.[104] Which work after I had once again read, to the great comfort and consolation of my spirit, by counsel and advice of the foresaid noble and faithful man, author of the said work, I thought expedient it should be digested in chapters, &c. Which thing I have done as imbecility of ingine[105] and incommodity of place would permit; not so much to illustrate the work (which in the self is godly and perfect) as, together with the foresaid nobleman and faithful brother, to give my confession of the article of justification therein contained.[106] And I beseech you, beloved brethren, earnestly to consider, if we deny any thing presently, (or yet conceal and hide,) which any time before we professed in that article. And now we have not the castle of St Andrews to be our defence, as some of our enemies falsely accused us, saying, If we wanted our walls, we would not speak so boldly. But blessed be that Lord whose infinite goodness and wisdom hath taken from us the occasion of that slander, and hath shown unto us, that the serpent hath power only to sting the heel, that is, to molest and trouble the flesh, but not to move the spirit from constant adhering to Christ Jesus, nor public professing of his true word. O blessed be thou, Eternal Father! which, by thy only mercy, hast preserved us to this day, and provided that the confession of our faith (which ever we desired all men to have known) should, by this treatise, come plainly to light. Continue, O Lord! and grant unto us, that, as now with pen and ink, so shortly we may confess with voice and tongue the same before thy congregation; upon whom look, O Lord God! with the eyes of thy mercy, and suffer no more darkness to prevail. I pray you pardon me, beloved brethren, that on this manner I digress: vehemency of spirit (the Lord knoweth I lie not) compelleth me thereto.”

The prisoners in Mont St Michel consulted Knox, as to the lawfulness of attempting to escape by breaking their prison, which was opposed by some of them, lest their escape should subject their brethren who remained in confinement to more severe treatment. He returned for answer, that such fears were not a sufficient reason for relinquishing the design, and that they might, with a safe conscience, effect their escape, provided it could be done “without the blood of any shed or spilt; but to shed any man’s blood for their freedom, he would never consent.”[107] The attempt was accordingly made by them, and successfully executed, “without harm done to the person of any, and without touching any thing that appertained to the king, the captain, or the house.”[108]

At length, after enduring a tedious and severe imprisonment of nineteen months, Knox obtained his liberty. This happened in the month of February, 1549, according to the modern computation.[109] By what means his liberation was procured I cannot certainly determine. One account says, that the galley in which he was confined was taken in the Channel by the English.[110] According to another account, he was liberated by order of the king of France, because it appeared, on examination, that he was not concerned in the murder of cardinal Beatoun, nor accessory to other crimes committed by those who held the castle of St Andrews.[111] In the opinion of others, his liberty was purchased by his acquaintances, who fondly cherished the hope that he was destined to accomplish some great achievements, and were anxious, by their interposition in his behalf, to be instrumental in promoting the designs of providence.[112] It is more probable, however, that he owed his deliverance to the comparative indifference with which he and his brethren were now regarded by the French court, who, having procured the consent of the parliament of Scotland to the marriage of queen Mary to the dauphin, and obtained possession of her person, felt no longer any inclination to revenge the quarrels of the Scottish clergy.

PERIOD III.

FROM THE YEAR 1549, WHEN HE WAS RELEASED FROM THE FRENCH GALLEYS, TO THE YEAR 1554, WHEN HE FLED FROM ENGLAND.

UPON regaining his liberty, Knox immediately repaired to England. The objections which he had formerly entertained against a residence in that kingdom were now in a great measure removed. Henry VIII. had died in the year 1547; and archbishop Cranmer, released from the severe restraint under which he had been held by his tyrannical and capricious master, now exerted himself with much zeal in advancing the Reformation. In this he was cordially supported by those who governed the kingdom during the minority of Edward VI. But the undertaking was extensive and difficult; and, in carrying it on, he found a great deficiency of ecclesiastical coadjutors. Although the most of the bishops had externally complied with the alterations introduced by authority, they remained attached to the old religion, and secretly thwarted, instead of seconding, the measures of the primate. The inferior clergy were, in general, as unable as they were unwilling to undertake the instruction of the people,[113] whose ignorance of religion was in many parts of the country extreme, and whose superstitious habits had become quite inveterate. This evil, which prevailed universally throughout the popish church, instead of being corrected, was considerably aggravated by a ruinous measure adopted at the commencement of the English reformation. When Henry suppressed the monasteries, and seized their revenues, he allotted pensions to the monks during life; but to relieve the royal treasury of this burden, small benefices in the gift of the crown were afterwards substituted in the place of pensions. The example of the monarch was imitated by the nobles who had procured monastic lands. By this means a great part of the inferior livings were held by ignorant and superstitious monks, who were a dead weight upon the English church, and a principal cause of the nation’s sudden relapse to popery, at the subsequent accession of queen Mary.[114]

Cranmer had already adopted measures for remedying this alarming evil. With the concurrence of the protector and privy council, he had invited a number of learned protestants from Germany into England, and had placed Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, Paul Fagius, and Emanuel Tremellius, as professors in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. This was a wise measure, which secured a future supply of useful preachers, trained up by these able masters; but the necessity was urgent, and demanded immediate provision. For this purpose, instead of fixing a number of orthodox and popular preachers in particular charges, it was judged most expedient to employ them in itinerating through different parts of the kingdom, where the clergy were most illiterate or disaffected to the Reformation, and where the inhabitants were most addicted to superstition.

In these circumstances, our zealous countryman did not remain long unemployed. The reputation which he had gained by his preaching at St Andrews,[115] and his late sufferings, recommended him to the English council; and soon after his arrival in England, he was sent down from London to preach in Berwick.[116]

The council had every reason to be pleased with the choice which they had made of a northern preacher. He had long thirsted for the opportunity which he now enjoyed. His love for the truth, and his zeal against popery, had been inflamed during his captivity, and he spared neither time nor labour in the instruction of those to whom he was sent. Regarding the worship of the Romish church as idolatrous, and its doctrines as damnable, he attacked both with the utmost fervour, and exerted himself in drawing his hearers from the belief of the one, and from the observance of the other, with as much eagerness as if he had been saving their lives from a devouring flame or flood. Nor were his efforts fruitless. During the two years that he continued in Berwick, numbers were converted by his ministry from ignorance and the errors of popery; and a visible reformation of manners was produced upon the soldiers of the garrison, who had formerly been noted for licentiousness and turbulence.[117]

The popularity and success of a protestant preacher were very galling to the clergy in that quarter, who were, almost to a man, bigoted papists, and enjoyed the patronage of the bishop of the diocese. Tonstal, bishop of Durham, like his friend Sir Thomas More, was one of those men of whom it is extremely difficult to give a correct idea, qualities of an opposite kind being mixed and blended in his character. Surpassing all his brethren in polite learning, he was the patron of bigotry and superstition. Displaying, in private life, that moderation and suavity of manners which liberal studies usually inspire,[118] he was accessory to the public measures of a reign disgraced throughout by the most shocking barbarities. Claiming our praise for honesty by opposing in parliament innovations which his judgment condemned, he forfeited it by the most tame acquiescence and ample conformity; thereby maintaining his station amidst all the revolutions of religion during three successive reigns. He had paid little attention to the science immediately connected with his profession, and most probably was indifferent to the controversies then agitated; but, living in an age in which it was necessary for every man to choose his side, he adhered to those opinions which had been long established, and which were friendly to the power and splendour of the ecclesiastical order. As if anxious to atone for his fault, in having been instrumental in producing a breach between England and the Roman see, he opposed in parliament all the subsequent changes. Opposition awakened his zeal; he became at last a strenuous advocate for the popish tenets; and wrote a book in defence of transubstantiation, of which, says bishop Burnet, “the Latin style is better than the divinity.”

The labours of one who exerted himself to overthrow what the bishop wished to support, could not fail to be very disagreeable to Tonstal. As Knox acted under the authority of the protector and council, he durst not inhibit him; but he was disposed to listen to the informations which were lodged against him by the clergy. Although the town of Berwick was Knox’s principal station during the years 1549 and 1550, it is probable that he was appointed to preach occasionally in the adjacent country. Whether, in the course of his itinerancy, he had preached in Newcastle, or whether he was called up to it in consequence of complaints against the sermons which he had delivered at Berwick, it is difficult to ascertain. It is, however, certain, that a charge was exhibited against him before the bishop, for teaching that the sacrifice of the mass was idolatrous, and that a day was appointed for him publicly to assign his reasons for this opinion.

Accordingly, on the 4th of April, 1550, a large assembly being convened in Newcastle, among whom were the members of the council,[119] the bishop of Durham, and the learned men of his cathedral, Knox delivered in their presence an ample defence of his doctrine. After an appropriate exordium, in which he stated to the audience the occasion and design of his appearance, and cautioned them against the powerful prejudices of education and custom in favour of erroneous opinions and corrupt practices in religion, he proceeded to establish the doctrine which he had taught. The manner in which he treated the subject was well adapted to his auditory, which was composed both of the learned and the illiterate. He proposed his arguments in the syllogistic form, according to the practice of the schools, but illustrated them with a plainness level to the meanest capacity among his hearers. The propositions on which he rested his defence are very descriptive of his characteristic boldness of thinking and acting. A more cautious and timid disputant would have satisfied himself with attacking the grosser notions which were generally entertained by the people on this subject, and exposing the glaring abuses of which the priests were guilty in the lucrative sale of masses. Knox scorned to occupy himself in demolishing these feeble and falling outworks, and proceeded directly to establish a principle which overthrew the whole fabric of superstition. He engaged to prove that the mass, “even in her most high degree,” and when stripped of the meretricious dress in which she now appeared, was an idol struck from the inventive brain of superstition, which had supplanted the sacrament of the supper, and engrossed the honour due to the person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. “Spare no arrows,” was Knox’s motto; the authority of scripture, and the force of reasoning, grave reproof, and pointed irony, were weapons which he alternately employed. In the course of this defence, he did not restrain those sallies of raillery, which the fooleries of the popish superstition irresistibly provoke, even from such as are deeply impressed with its pernicious tendency. Before concluding his discourse, he adverted to certain doctrines which he had heard in that place on the preceding sabbath, the falsehood of which he engaged to demonstrate; but, in the first place, he said, he would submit the notes of the sermon, which he had taken down, to the preacher, that he might correct them as he saw proper; for his object was not to misrepresent, or captiously entrap a speaker, by catching at words unadvisedly uttered, but to defend the truth, and warn his hearers against errors destructive to their souls. The defence, as drawn up by Knox himself, is now before me in manuscript, and the reader who wishes a more particular account of its contents, will find it in the notes.[120]

This defence had the effect of extending Knox’s fame through the north of England, while it completely silenced the bishop and his learned assistants.[121] He continued to preach at Berwick during the remaining part of this year, and in the following was removed to Newcastle, and placed in a sphere of greater usefulness. In December 1551, the privy council conferred on him a mark of their approbation, by appointing him one of king Edward’s chaplains in ordinary. “It was appointed,” says his majesty, in a journal of important transactions which he wrote with his own hand, “that I should have six chaplains ordinary, of which two ever to be present, and four absent in preaching; one year, two in Wales, two in Lancashire and Derby; next year, two in the marches of Scotland, and two in Yorkshire; the third year, two in Norfolk and Essex, and two in Kent and Sussex. These six to be Bill, Harle,[122] Perne, Grindal, Bradford, and ——.”[123] The name of the sixth has been dashed out of the journal, but the industrious Strype has shown that it was Knox.[124] “These, it seems, were the most zealous and readiest preachers, who were sent about as itinerants, to supply the defects of the greatest part of the clergy, who were generally very faulty.”[125] An annual salary of forty pounds was allotted to each of the chaplains.[126]

In the course of this year, Knox was consulted about the Book of Common Prayer, which was undergoing a revisal. On that occasion, it is probable that he was called up for a short time to London. Although the persons who had the chief direction of ecclesiastical affairs were not disposed, or did not deem it as yet expedient, to introduce that thorough reform which he judged necessary, in order to reduce the worship of the English church to the scripture‑model, his representations on this head were not altogether disregarded. He had influence to procure an important change in the communion‑office, completely excluding the notion of the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament, and guarding against the adoration of the elements, which was too much countenanced by the practice still continued, of kneeling at their reception.[127] In his Admonition to the Professors of the Truth in England, Knox speaks of these amendments with great satisfaction. “Also God gave boldness and knowledge to the court of parliament to take away the round clipped god, wherein standeth all the holiness of the papists, and to command common bread to be used at the Lord’s table, and also to take away the most part of superstitions (kneeling at the Lord’s table excepted) which before profaned Christ’s true religion.” These alterations gave great offence to the papists. In a disputation with Latimer, after the accession of queen Mary, the prolocutor, Dr Weston, complained of our countryman’s influence in procuring them. “A runnagate Scot did take away the adoration or worshipping of Christ in the sacrament, by whose procurement that heresy was put into the last communion‑book; so much prevailed that one man’s authority at that time.”[128] In the following year, he was employed in revising the Articles of Religion, previous to their ratification by parliament.[129]

During his residence at Berwick, he had formed an acquaintance with Marjory Bowes, a young lady who afterwards became his wife. Her father, Richard Bowes, was the youngest son of Sir Ralph Bowes of Streatlam; her mother was Elizabeth, the daughter and one of the co‑heirs of Sir Roger Aske of Aske.[130] Before he left Berwick, Knox had paid his addresses to this young lady, and met with a favourable reception. Her mother also was friendly to the match; but, owing to some reason, most probably the presumed aversion of her father, it was deemed prudent to delay solemnizing the union. But having come under a formal promise to her, he considered himself, from that time, as sacredly bound, and in his letters to Mrs Bowes always addressed that lady by the name of mother.[131]

Without derogating from the praise justly due to those worthy men who were at this time employed in disseminating religious truth through England, I may say, that our countryman was not behind the first of them, in the unwearied assiduity with which he laboured in the stations assigned to him. From an early period his mind seems to have presaged, that the golden opportunity now enjoyed would not be of long duration. He was eager to “redeem the time,” and indefatigable both in his studies and in teaching. In addition to his ordinary services on sabbath, he preached regularly on week‑days, frequently on every day of the week.[132] Besides the portion of time which he allotted to study, he was often employed in conversing with persons who applied to him for advice on religious subjects.[133] The council were not insensible to the value of his services, and conferred on him several marks of their approbation. They wrote different letters to the governors and principal inhabitants of the places where he preached, recommending him to their notice and protection.[134] They secured him in the regular payment of his salary until he should be provided with a benefice.[135] And out of respect to him, they, in September 1552, granted a patent to his brother, William Knox, a merchant, giving him liberty, for a limited time, to trade to any port of England, in a vessel of a hundred tons burden.[136]

But the things which recommended Knox to the council, drew upon him the hatred of a numerous and powerful party in the northern counties, who remained addicted to popery. Irritated by his boldness and success in attacking their superstition, and sensible that it would be vain, and even dangerous, to prefer an accusation against him on that ground, they watched for an opportunity of catching at something in his discourses or behaviour, which they might improve to his disadvantage. He had long observed, with great anxiety, the impatience with which the papists submitted to the present government, and their eager desires for any change which might lead to the overthrow of the protestant religion,—desires which were expressed by them in the north, without that reserve which prudence dictated in places adjacent to the seat of authority. He had witnessed the joy with which they received the news of the protector’s fall, and was no stranger to the satisfaction with which they circulated prognostications as to the speedy demise of the king. In a sermon preached by him about Christmas 1552, he gave vent to his feelings on this subject; and, lamenting the obstinacy of the papists, asserted, that such as were enemies to the gospel then preached in England, were secret traitors to the crown and commonwealth, thirsted for nothing more than his majesty’s death, and cared not who should reign over them, provided they got their idolatry again erected. The freedom of this speech was immediately laid hold of by his enemies, and transmitted, with many aggravations, to some great men about court, secretly in their interest, who thereupon accused him of high misdemeanours before the privy council.[137]

In taking this step, they were not a little encouraged by their knowledge of the sentiments of the duke of Northumberland, who had lately come down to his charge as warden‑general of the northern marches.[138] This ambitious and unprincipled nobleman had affected much zeal for the reformed religion, that he might the more easily attain the highest preferment in the state, which he had recently secured by the ruin of the duke of Somerset, the protector of the kingdom. Knox had offended him by publicly lamenting the fall of Somerset as dangerous to the reformation, of which this nobleman had always shown himself a zealous friend, however blameable his conduct might have been in other respects.[139] Nor could the freedom which the preacher used in reproving from the pulpit the vices of great as well as small, fail to be displeasing to a man of Northumberland’s character. On these accounts, the duke was desirous to have Knox removed from that quarter, and had actually applied for this, by a letter to the council, previous to the occurrence just mentioned, alleging, as a pretext for this, that great numbers of Scotsmen resorted to him; as if any real danger was to be apprehended from this intercourse with a man, of whose fidelity the existing government had so many strong pledges, and who uniformly employed all his influence to remove the prejudices of his countrymen against England.[140]

In consequence of the charge exhibited against him to the council, he was summoned to repair immediately to London, and answer for his conduct. The following extract of a letter, written by him to Miss Bowes,[141] will show the state of his mind on receiving this citation. “Urgent necessity will not suffer that I testify my mind unto you. My lord of Westmoreland[142] has written unto me this Wednesday, at six of the clock at night, immediately thereafter to repair unto him, as I will answer at my peril. I could not obtain license to remain the time of the sermon upon the morrow. Blessed be God who does ratify and confirm the truth of his word from time to time, as our weakness shall require! Your adversary, sister, doth labour that you should doubt whether this be the word of God or not. If there had never been testimonial of the undoubted truth thereof before these our ages, may not such things as we see daily come to pass prove the verity thereof? Doth it not affirm, that it shall be preached, and yet contemned and lightly regarded by many; that the true professors thereof shall be hated by father, mother, and others of the contrary religion; that the most faithful shall be persecuted? And cometh not all these things to pass in ourselves? Rejoice, sister, for the same word that forspeaketh trouble doth certify us of the glory consequent. As for myself, albeit the extremity should now apprehend me, it is not come unlooked for. But, alas! I fear that yet I be not ripe nor able to glorify Christ by my death; but what lacketh now, God shall perform in his own time.—Be sure I will not forget you and your company, so long as mortal man may remember any earthly creature.”[143]

Upon reaching London, he found that his enemies had been uncommonly industrious in their endeavours to excite prejudices against him. But the council, after hearing his defence, were convinced of the malice of his accusers, and gave him an honourable acquittal. He was employed to preach before the court, and his sermons gave great satisfaction to his majesty, who contracted a favour for him, and was anxious to have him promoted in the church.[144] The council resolved that he should preach in London and the southern counties during the following year; but they allowed him to return for a short time to Newcastle, either that he might settle his affairs in the north, or that a public testimony might be borne to his innocence in the place where it had been attacked. In a letter to his sister, dated Newcastle, 23d March, 1553, we find him writing as follows. “Look farther of this matter in the other letter,[145] written unto you at such time as many thought I should never write after to man. Heinous were the delations laid against me, and many are the lies that are made to the council. But God one day shall destroy all lying tongues, and shall deliver his servants from calamity. I look but one day or other to fall in their hands; for more and more rageth the members of the devil against me. This assault of Satan has been to his confusion, and to the glory of God. And therefore, sister, cease not to praise God, and to call for my comfort; for great is the multitude of enemies, whom every one the Lord shall confound. I intend not to depart from Newcastle before Easter.”

His confinement in the French galleys, together with his labours in England, had considerably impaired the vigour of his constitution, and brought on the gravel. In the course of the year 1553, he endured several violent attacks of this acute disorder, accompanied with severe pain in his head and stomach. “My daily labours must now increase,” says he, in the letter last quoted, “and therefore spare me as much as you may. My old malady troubles me sore, and nothing is more contrarious to my health than writing. Think not that I weary to visit you; but unless my pain shall cease, I will altogether become unprofitable. Work, O Lord, even as pleaseth thy infinite goodness, and relax the troubles, at thy own pleasure, of such as seeketh thy glory to shine. Amen!”[146] In another letter to the same correspondent, he writes: “The pain of my head and stomach troubles me greatly. Daily I find my body decay; but the providence of my God shall not be frustrate. I am charged to be at Widdrington upon Sunday, where I think I shall also remain Monday. The spirit of the Lord Jesus rest with you. Desire such faithful with whom ye communicate your mind, to pray that, at the pleasure of our good God, my dolour both of body and spirit may be relieved somewhat; for presently it is very bitter. Never found I the spirit, I praise my God, so abundant, where God’s glory ought to be declared; and therefore I am sure there abides something that yet we see not.”[147] “Your messenger,” says he in another letter, “found me in bed, after a sore trouble and most dolorous night; and so dolour may complain to dolour when we two meet. But the infinite goodness of God, who never despiseth the petitions of a sore troubled heart, shall, at his good pleasure, put end to these pains that we presently suffer, and, in place thereof, shall crown us with glory and immortality for ever. But, dear sister, I am even of mind with faithful Job, yet most sore tormented, that my pain shall have no end in this life. The power of God may, against the purpose of my heart, alter such things as appear not to be altered, as he did unto Job; but dolour and pain, with sore anguish, cries the contrary. And this is more plain than ever I spake, to let you know ye have a fellow and companion in trouble. And thus rest in Christ; for the head of the serpent is already broken down, and he is stinging us upon the heel.”[148]

About the beginning of April 1553, he returned to London. In the month of February preceding, archbishop Cranmer had been directed by the council to present him to the vacant living of All‑Hallows, in the city.[149] This proposal, which originated in the personal favour of the young king, was very disagreeable to Northumberland, who exerted himself privately to hinder the appointment. But the interference of this nobleman was unnecessary; for Knox declined the living when it was offered to him, and, being questioned as to his reasons, readily acknowledged that he had not freedom in his mind to accept of a fixed charge in the present state of the English church. His refusal, with the reasons which he had assigned for it, gave offence, and, on the 14th of April, he was called before the privy council. There were present the archbishop of Canterbury, Goodrick, bishop of Ely and lord chancellor, the earls of Bedford, Northampton, and Shrewsbury, the lords treasurer and chamberlain, and the two secretaries of state. They asked him, why he had refused the benefice provided for him in London. He answered, that he was fully satisfied that he could be more useful to the church in another situation. Being interrogated, if it was his opinion, that no person could lawfully serve in ecclesiastical ministrations according to the present laws of that realm, he frankly replied, that there were many things in the English church which needed reformation, and that unless they were reformed, ministers could not, in his opinion, discharge their office conscientiously in the sight of God: for no minister had authority, according to the existing laws, to prevent the unworthy from participating of the sacraments, which was “a chief point of his office.” Being asked, if kneeling at the Lord’s table was not a matter of indifference, he replied, that Christ’s action at the communion was most perfect, and in it no such posture was used; that it was most safe to follow his example; and that kneeling was an addition and invention of men. On this article, there was a smart dispute between him and some of the members of the council. After long reasoning, he was told that they had not sent for him with any bad design, but were sorry to understand that he was of a judgment contrary to the common order. He said he was sorry that the common order was contrary to Christ’s institution. The council dismissed him with soft words, advising him to use all means for removing the dislike which he had conceived to some of the forms of their church, and to reconcile his mind, if possible, to the idea of communicating according to the established rites.[150]

Scruples which had resisted the force of authority and argument, have often been found to yield to the more powerful influence of lucrative and honourable situations. But whether, with some, we shall consider Knox’s conduct on this occasion as indicating the poverty of his spirit,[151] or shall regard it as a proof of true independence of mind, the prospect of elevation to the episcopal bench could not overcome the repugnance which he felt to a closer connexion with the church of England. Edward VI., with the concurrence of his privy council, offered him a bishopric. But he rejected it; and in the reasons which he gave for his refusal, declared the episcopal office to be destitute of divine authority in itself, and its exercise in the English church to be inconsistent with the ecclesiastical canons. This is attested by Beza, a contemporary author.[152] Knox himself, in one of his treatises, speaks of the “high promotions” offered him by Edward;[153] and we shall find him, at a later period of his life, expressly asserting that he had refused a bishopric. Tonstal having been sequestered upon a charge of misprision of treason, the council came to a resolution, about this time, to divide his extensive diocese into two bishoprics, the seat of one of which was to be at Durham, and of the other at Newcastle. Ridley, bishop of London, was to be translated to the former, and it is highly probable that Knox was intended for the latter. “He was offered a bishopric,” says Brand, “probably the new founded one at Newcastle, which he refused—revera noluit episcopari.”[154]

It may be proper, in this place, to give a more particular account of Knox’s sentiments respecting the English church. The reformation of religion, it is well known, was conducted on very different principles in England and in Scotland, both as to worship and ecclesiastical polity. In England, the papal supremacy was transferred to the prince, the hierarchy, being subjected to the civil power, was suffered to remain, and, the grosser superstitions having been removed, the principal forms of the ancient worship were retained; whereas, in Scotland, all of these were discarded, as destitute of divine authority, unprofitable, burdensome, or savouring of popery, and the worship and government of the church were reduced to the primitive standard of scriptural simplicity. The influence of Knox in recommending this establishment to his countrymen, is universally allowed; but, as he officiated for a considerable time in the church of England, and on this account was supposed to have been pleased with its constitution, it has been usually said, that he afterwards contracted a dislike to it during his exile on the continent, and having imbibed the sentiments of Calvin, brought them along with him to his native country, and organized the Scottish church after the Genevan model. This statement is inaccurate. His objections to the English liturgy were increased and strengthened during his residence on the continent, but they existed before that time. His judgment respecting ecclesiastical government and discipline was matured during that period, but his radical sentiments on these heads were formed long before he saw Calvin, or had any intercourse with the foreign reformers. At Geneva he saw a church, which, upon the whole, corresponded with his idea of the divinely authorized pattern; but he did not indiscriminately approve, nor servilely imitate, either that or any other existing establishment.[155]

As early as the year 1547, he taught, in his first sermons at St Andrews, that no mortal man could be head of the church; that there were no true bishops, but such as preached personally without a substitute; that in religion men were bound to regulate themselves by divine laws; and that the sacraments ought to be administered exactly according to the institution and example of Christ. We have seen that, in a solemn disputation in the same place, he maintained that the church has no authority, on pretext of decorating divine service, to devise religious ceremonies, and impose upon them arbitrary significations.[156] This position he also defended in the year 1550, at Newcastle, and on his subsequent appearance before the privy council at London. It was impossible that the English church, in any of the shapes which it assumed, could stand the test of these principles. The ecclesiastical supremacy, the various orders and dependencies of the hierarchy, crossing in baptism, and kneeling in the eucharist, with other ceremonies—the theatrical dress, the mimical gestures, the vain repetitions used in religious service, were all condemned and repudiated by the cardinal principle to which he steadily adhered, that, in the church of Christ, and especially in the acts of worship, every thing ought to be arranged and conducted, not by the pleasure and appointment of men, but according to the dictates of inspired wisdom and authority.

He rejoiced that liberty and encouragement were given to preach the pure word of God throughout the extensive realm of England; that idolatry and gross superstition were suppressed; and that the rulers were disposed to support the Reformation, and even to carry it farther than had yet been done. Considering the character of the greater part of the clergy, the extreme paucity of useful preachers, and other hinderances to the introduction of the primitive order and discipline of the church, he acquiesced in the authority exercised by a part of the bishops, under the direction of the privy council, and endeavoured to strengthen their hands, in the advancement of the common cause, by painful preaching in the stations which were assigned to him. But he could not be induced to contradict or to conceal his fixed sentiments, and he cautiously avoided coming under engagements, by which he must have assented to what, in his decided judgment, was either in its own nature unlawful, or injurious in its tendency to the interests of religion. Upon these principles, he never submitted to the unlimited use of the liturgy, during the time that he was in England,[157] and refused to become a bishop, or to accept a parochial charge. When he perceived that the progress of the Reformation was arrested, by the influence of a popish faction, and the dictates of a temporizing policy; that abuses, which had formerly been acknowledged, began to be openly vindicated and stiffly maintained; above all, when he saw, after the accession of Elizabeth, that a retrograde course was taken, and a yoke of ceremonies, more grievous than that which the most sincere protestants had formerly complained of, was imposed and enforced by arbitrary statutes, he judged it necessary to speak in a tone of more decided and severe reprehension.

Among other things which he censured in the English ecclesiastical establishment, were the continuing to employ a great number of ignorant and insufficient priests, who had been accustomed to nothing but saying mass and singing the litany; the general substitution of the reading of homilies, the mumbling of prayers, or the chanting of matins and even‑song, in the place of preaching; the formal celebration of the sacraments, unaccompanied with instruction to the people; the scandalous prevalence of pluralities; and the total want of ecclesiastical discipline. He was of opinion, that the clergy ought not to be entangled, and diverted from the duties of their office, by holding civil places; that the bishops should lay aside their secular titles and dignities; that the bishoprics should be divided, so that in every city or large town there might be placed a godly and learned man, with others joined with him, for the management of ecclesiastical matters; and that schools for the education of youth should be universally erected through the nation.[158]

Nor did the principal persons who were active in effecting the English reformation differ widely from Knox in these sentiments, although they might not have the same conviction of their importance, and of the expediency of reducing them to practice. We should mistake exceedingly, if we supposed that they were men of the same principles and temper with many who succeeded to their places, or that they were satisfied with the pitch to which they had carried the reformation of the English church, and regarded it as a paragon and perfect pattern to other churches. They were strangers to those extravagant and illiberal notions which were afterwards adopted by the fond admirers of the hierarchy and liturgy. They would have laughed at the man who seriously asserted, that the ecclesiastical ceremonies constituted any part of “the beauty of holiness,” or that the imposition of the hands of a bishop was essential to the validity of ordination; and they would not have owned that person as a protestant who would have ventured to insinuate, that where these were wanting, there was no Christian ministry, no ordinances, no church, and perhaps—no salvation. Many things which their successors have applauded, they barely tolerated; and they would have been happy if the circumstances of their time would have permitted them to introduce alterations, which have since been cried down as puritanical innovations. Strange as it may appear to some, I am not afraid of exceeding the truth when I say, that if the English reformers, including the protestant bishops, had been left to their own choice,—if they had not been held back and retarded by a large mass of popishly affected clergy in the reign of Edward, and restrained by the supreme civil authority on the accession of Elizabeth, they would have brought the government and worship of the church of England nearly to the pattern of other reformed churches. If the reader doubts this, he may consult the evidence produced in the notes.[159]

Such, in particular, was the earnest wish of his majesty Edward VI., a prince who, besides his other rare qualities, had an unfeigned reverence for the word of God, and a disposition to comply with its precepts in preference to custom and established usages; and who showed himself uniformly inclined to give relief to his conscientious subjects, and sincerely bent on promoting the union of all the friends of the reformed religion at home and abroad. Of his intention on this head, there remain the most unquestionable and satisfactory documents.[160] Had his life been spared, there is every reason to think that he would have accomplished the correction or removal of those evils in the English church, which the most steady and enlightened protestants have lamented. Had his sister Elizabeth been of the same spirit with him, and prosecuted the plan which he laid down, the consequences would have been most happy both for herself and for her people, for the government and for the church. She would have united all the friends of the Reformation, who were the great support of her authority. She would have weakened the interest of the Roman catholics, whom all her accommodating measures could not gain, nor prevent from repeatedly conspiring against her life and crown. She would have put an end to those dissensions among her protestant subjects, which continued during the whole of her reign, which she bequeathed as a legacy to her successors, and which, being fomented and exasperated by the severities employed for their suppression, burst forth at length, to the temporary overthrow of the monarchy, as well as of the hierarchy, whose exorbitancies it had patronised and whose corruptions it had sanctioned and maintained;—dissensions, which subsist to this day; which, though softened by the partial lenitive of a toleration, have gradually alienated from the communion of that church a large proportion of the people, and which, if a timely and suitable remedy be not applied, may ultimately undermine the foundations of the English establishment.

During the time that Knox was in London, he had full opportunity for observing the state of the court; and the observations which he made filled his mind with the most anxious forebodings. Of the piety and sincerity of the young king he entertained not the smallest doubt. Personal acquaintance heightened the idea which he had conceived of his character from report, and enabled him to add his testimony to the tribute of praise, which all who knew that prince had so cheerfully paid to his uncommon virtues and endowments.[161] But the principal courtiers, by whom he was at that time surrounded, were persons of a very different description, and gave proofs, too unequivocal to be mistaken, of indifference to all religion, and of a readiness to acquiesce, and even to assist, in the re‑establishment of the ancient superstition, whenever a change of rulers should render this measure practicable and expedient. The health of Edward, which had long been declining, growing gradually worse, so that no hope of his recovery remained, they were eager only about the aggrandizing of their families, and providing for the security of their places and fortunes.

The royal chaplains were men of a very different character from those who have usually occupied that place in the courts of princes. They were no time‑serving, supple, smooth‑tongued parasites; they were not afraid of forfeiting their pensions, or of alarming the consciences, and wounding the delicate ears, of their royal and noble auditors, by denouncing the vices which they committed, and the judgments of Heaven to which they exposed themselves. The freedom used by the venerable Latimer is well known from his printed sermons, which, for their homely honesty, artless simplicity, native humour, and genuine pictures of the manners of the age, continue still to be read with interest. Grindal, Lever, and Bradford, who were superior to Latimer in learning, evinced the same fidelity and courage. They censured the ambition, avarice, luxury, oppression, and irreligion which reigned in the court. As long as their sovereign was able to give personal attendance on the sermons, the preachers were treated with exterior decency and respect; but after he was confined to his chamber by a consumptive cough, the resentment of the courtiers vented itself openly in the most contumelious speeches and insolent behaviour.[162]

From what the reader has already seen of Knox’s character, he may readily conceive that the sermons delivered by him at court, were not less free and bold than those of his colleagues. We may form a judgment of them from the account which he has given of the last sermon preached by him before his majesty; in which he directed several piercing glances of reproof at the haughty premier and his crafty relation, the marquis of Winchester, lord high treasurer, both of whom were among his hearers. His text was John, xiii. 18. “He that eateth bread with me, hath lifted up his heel against me.” It had been often seen, he said, that the most excellent and godly princes were surrounded with false and ungodly officers and counsellors. Having enquired into the reasons of this, and illustrated the fact from the scripture examples of Achitophel under King David, Shebna under Hezekiah, and Judas under Jesus Christ, he added: “What wonder is it, then, that a young and innocent king be deceived by crafty, covetous, wicked, and ungodly counsellors? I am greatly afraid that Achitophel be counsellor, that Judas bear the purse, and that Shebna be scribe, comptroller, and treasurer.”[163]

On the 6th of July, 1553, Edward VI. departed this life, to the unspeakable grief of all the lovers of learning, virtue, and the protestant religion; and a black cloud spread over England, which, after hovering a while, burst into a dreadful storm, that raged during five years with the most destructive fury. Knox was at this time in London.[164] He received the afflicting tidings of his majesty’s decease with becoming fortitude and resignation to the sovereign will of Heaven. The event did not meet him unprepared: he had long anticipated it, with its probable consequences; the prospect had produced the keenest anguish in his breast, and drawn tears from his eyes; and he had frequently introduced the subject into his public discourses and confidential conversations with his friends. Writing to Mrs Bowes, some time after this, he says, “How oft have you and I talked of these present days, till neither of us both could refrain tears, when no such appearance then was seen of man! How oft have I said unto you, that I looked daily for trouble, and that I wondered at it, that so long I should escape it! What moved me to refuse (and that with displeasure of all men, even of those that best loved me) those high promotions that were offered by him whom God hath taken from us for our offences? Assuredly the foresight of trouble to come.[165] How oft have I said unto you that the time would not be long that England would give me bread! Advise with the last letter that I wrote unto your brother‑in‑law, and consider what is therein contained.”[166]

He remained in London until the 19th of July, when Mary was proclaimed queen, only nine days after the same ceremony had been performed in that city for the amiable and unfortunate Lady Jane Grey. The thoughtless demonstrations of joy given by the inhabitants, at an event which threatened such danger to the religious faith which they still avowed, affected him so deeply, that he could not refrain, in his sermons, from publicly testifying his displeasure at their conduct, and from warning them of the calamities which they had reason to dread.[167] Immediately after this, he appears to have withdrawn from London, and retired to the north of England, being justly apprehensive of the measures which might be pursued by the new government.[168]

To induce the protestants to submit peaceably to her authority, Mary amused them for some time with proclamations, in which she promised not to do violence to their consciences. Though aware of the bigotry of the queen, and the spirit of the religion to which she was devoted, the protestant ministers reckoned it their duty to improve this respite. In the month of August, Knox returned to the south, and resumed his labours. It seems to have been at this time that he composed the Confession and Prayer, commonly used by him in the congregations to which he preached, in which he prayed for queen Mary by name, and for the suppression of such as meditated rebellion.[169] While he itinerated through Buckinghamshire, he was attended by large audiences, which his popularity and the alarming crisis drew together; especially at Amersham, a borough formerly noted for the general reception of the doctrines of Wickliffe, the precursor of the Reformation in England, and from which the seed sown by his followers had never been altogether eradicated.[170] Wherever he went, he earnestly exhorted the people to repentance under the tokens of divine displeasure, and to a steady adherence to the faith which they had embraced. He continued to preach in Buckinghamshire and Kent during the harvest months, although the measures of government daily rendered his safety more precarious; and in the beginning of November, returned to London, where he resided chiefly with Mr Locke and Mr Hickman, two respectable merchants of his acquaintance.[171]

While the measures of the new government threatened danger to all the protestants in the kingdom, and our countryman was under daily apprehensions of imprisonment, he met with a severe trial of a private nature. I have already mentioned his engagements to Miss Bowes. At this time, it was judged proper by both parties to avow the connexion, and to proceed to solemnize their union. This step was opposed by the young lady’s father; and his opposition was accompanied with circumstances which gave much distress to Mrs Bowes and her daughter, as well as to Knox. His refusal seems to have proceeded from family pride; but there is reason to think it was also influenced by religious considerations; as, from different hints dropped in the correspondence about this affair, he appears to have been, if not inclined to popery in his judgment, at least resolved to comply with the religion now favoured by the court. On this subject I find Knox writing from London to Mrs Bowes, in a letter, dated 20th September, 1553. “My great labours, wherein I desire your daily prayers, will not suffer me to satisfy my mind touching all the process between your husband and you touching my matter with his daughter. I praise God heartily both for your boldness and constancy. But, I beseech you, mother, trouble not yourself too much therewith. It becomes me now to jeopard my life for the comfort and deliverance of my own flesh,[172] as that I will do by God’s grace, both fear and friendship of all earthly creature laid aside. I have written to your husband, the contents whereof I trust our brother Harry will declare to you and my wife. If I escape sickness and imprisonment, [you may] be sure to see me soon.”[173]

His wife and mother‑in‑law were anxious that he should settle in Berwick, or its neighbourhood, where he might perhaps be allowed to reside peaceably, although in a more private way than formerly. To this proposal he does not seem to have been averse, provided he could have seen any prospect of his being able to support himself. Since the accession of queen Mary, the payment of the salary allotted him by government had been stopped. Indeed, he had not received any part of it for the last twelve months.[174] His father‑in‑law was abundantly able to give him a sufficient establishment; but Knox’s spirit could not brook the thought of being dependent on one who had treated him with coldness and disdain. Induced by the importunity of Mrs Bowes, he applied to her brother‑in‑law, Sir Robert Bowes, and attempted, by a candid explanation of all circumstances, to remove any umbrage which had been conceived against him by the family, and to procure an amicable settlement of the whole affair. The unfavourable issue of this interview was communicated by him in a letter to Mrs Bowes, of which the following is an extract:

“Dear mother, so may and will I call you, not only for the tender affection I bear unto you in Christ, but also for the motherly kindness ye have shewn unto me at all times since our first acquaintance; albeit such things as I have desired, (if it had pleased God,) and ye and others have long desired, are never like to come to pass, yet shall ye be sure that my love and care toward you shall never abate, so long as I can care for any earthly creature. Ye shall understand that this 6th of November, I spake with Sir Robert Bowes on the matter ye know, according to your request, whose disdainful, yea, despiteful words have so pierced my heart, that my life is bitter unto me. I bear a good countenance with a sore troubled heart; while he that ought to consider matters with a deep judgment is become not only a despiser, but also a taunter of God’s messengers. God be merciful unto him. Among other his most unpleasing words, while that I was about to have declared my part in the whole matter, he said, ‘Away with your rhetorical reasons, for I will not be persuaded with them.’ God knows I did use no rhetoric or coloured speech, but would have spoken the truth, and that in most simple manner. I am not a good orator in my own cause. But what he would not be content to hear of me, God shall declare to him one day to his displeasure, unless he repent. It is supposed that all the matter comes by you and me. I pray God that your conscience were quiet and at peace, and I regard not what country consume this my wicked carcase. And were it not that no man’s unthankfulness shall move me (God supporting my infirmity) to cease to do profit unto Christ’s congregation, those days should be few that England would give me bread. And I fear that, when all is done, I shall be driven to that end; for I cannot abide the disdainful hatred of those, of whom not only I thought I might have craved kindness, but also to whom God hath been by me more liberal than they be thankful. But so must men declare themselves. Affection does trouble me at this present; yet I doubt not to overcome by him, who will not leave comfortless his afflicted to the end, whose omnipotent spirit rest with you. Amen.”[175]

He refers to the same disagreeable affair in another letter written about the end of this year. After mentioning the bad state of his health, which had been greatly increased by distress of mind, he adds, “It will be after the 12th day before I can be at Berwick; and almost I am determined not to come at all. Ye know the cause. God be more merciful unto some, than they are equitable unto me in judgment. The testimony of my conscience absolves me, before his face who looks not upon the presence of man.”[176] These extracts show us the heart of the writer; they discover the sensibility of his temper, the keenness of his feelings, and his pride and independence of spirit struggling with a sense of duty, and affection to his relations.

About the end of November, or the beginning of December, he retired from the south to Newcastle. The parliament had by this time repealed all the laws made in favour of the Reformation, and restored the Roman catholic religion; but such as pleased, were permitted to observe the protestant worship until the 20th of December. After that period they were thrown out of the protection of the law, and exposed to the pains decreed against heretics. Many of the bishops and ministers were already committed to prison; others had escaped beyond sea. Knox could not, however, prevail on himself either to flee the kingdom, or to desist from preaching. Three days after the period limited by the statute had elapsed, he says in one of his letters, “I may not answer your places of scripture, nor yet write the exposition of the sixth psalm, for every day of this week must I preach, if this wicked carcase will permit.”[177]

His enemies, who had been defeated in their attempts to ruin him under the former government, had now access to rulers sufficiently disposed to listen to their information. They were not dilatory in improving the opportunity. In the end of December 1553, or beginning of January 1554, his servant was seized, as he carried letters from him to his wife and mother‑in‑law, and the letters were taken from him, in the hopes of finding in them some matter of accusation against the writer. As they contained merely religious advices, and exhortations to constancy in the protestant faith, which he was prepared to avow before any court to which he might be called, he was not alarmed at their interception. But, being aware of the uneasiness which the report would give to his friends at Berwick, he set out immediately with the design of visiting them. Notwithstanding the secrecy with which he conducted this journey, the rumour of it quickly spread; and some of his wife’s relations who had joined him, perceiving that he was in imminent danger, prevailed on him, greatly against his own inclination, to relinquish the design of proceeding to Berwick, and retire to a place of safety on the coast, from which he might escape by sea, provided the search for him was continued. From this retreat he wrote to his wife and her mother, acquainting them with the reasons of his absconding, and the small prospect which he had of being able at that time to see them. “His brethren,” he said, “had, partly by admonition, partly by tears, compelled him to obey,” somewhat contrary to his own mind; for “never could he die in a more honest quarrel,” than by suffering as a witness for that truth of which God had made him a messenger. Notwithstanding this state of his mind, he promised, if providence prepared the way, to “obey the voices of his brethren, and give place to the fury and rage of Satan for a time.”[178]

Having ascertained that his friends were not mistaken in the apprehensions which they felt for his safety, and that he could not hope to elude the pursuit of his enemies, if he remained in England, he procured a vessel, which landed him safely at Dieppe, a port of Normandy in France, on the 20th of January, 1554.[179]

PERIOD IV.

FROM THE YEAR 1554, WHEN HE LEFT ENGLAND, TO THE YEAR 1556, WHEN HE RETURNED TO GENEVA, AFTER VISITING SCOTLAND.

PROVIDENCE, having more important services in reserve for Knox, made use of the urgent importunities of his friends to hurry him away from those dangers, to which, had he been left to the determination of his own mind, his zeal and fearlessness would have prompted him to expose himself. No sooner did he reach a foreign shore, than he began to regret the course which he had been induced to take. When he thought upon his fellow‑preachers, whom he had left behind him immured in dungeons, and the people lately under his charge, now scattered abroad as sheep without a shepherd, he felt an indescribable pang, and an almost irresistible desire to return and share in the hazardous but honourable conflict. Although he had only complied with the divine direction, “when they persecute you in one city, flee ye unto another,” and although in his own breast he stood acquitted of cowardice, yet he found it difficult to divest his conduct of the appearance of that weakness, and was afraid that it might operate as a discouragement to his brethren in England, and induce them to make sinful compliances with a view of saving their lives.

On this subject we find him unbosoming himself to Mrs Bowes in his letters from Dieppe. “The desire that I have to hear of your continuance with Christ Jesus, in the day of this his battle, (which shortly shall end to the confusion of his proud enemies,) neither by tongue nor by pen can I express, beloved mother. Assuredly, it is such, that it vanquisheth and overcometh all remembrance and solicitude which the flesh useth to take for feeding and defence of herself. For, in every realm and nation, God will stir up some one or other to minister those things that appertain to this wretched life, and, if men will cease to do their office, yet will he send his ravens; so that in every place, perchance, I may find some fathers to my body. But, alas! where I shall find children to be begotten unto God by the word of life, that can I not presently consider; and therefore the spiritual life of such as some time boldly professed Christ, (God knoweth,) is to my heart more dear than all the glory, riches, and honour in earth; and the falling back of such men, as I hear daily to turn back to that idol again, is to me more dolorous than, I trust, the corporal death shall be, whenever it shall come at God’s appointment. Some will ask, Then why did I flee? Assuredly I cannot tell; but of one thing I am sure, the fear of death was not the chief cause of my fleeing. I trust that one cause hath been to let me see with my corporal eyes, that all had not a true heart to Christ Jesus, that, in the day of rest and peace, bare a fair face. But my fleeing is no matter; by God’s grace I may come to battle before that all the conflict be ended. And haste the time, O Lord, at thy good pleasure, that once again my tongue may yet praise thy holy name before the congregation, if it were but in the very hour of death!”—“I would not bow my knee before that most abominable idol for all the torments that earthly tyrants can devise, God so assisting me, as his Holy Spirit presently moveth me to write unfeignedly. And albeit that I have, in the beginning of this battle, appeared to play the faint‑hearted and feeble soldier, (the cause I remit to God,) yet my prayer is, that I may be restored to the battle again. And blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I am not left so bare without comfort, but my hope is to obtain such mercy, that, if a short end be not made of all my miseries by final death, (which to me were no small advantage,) that yet, by him who never despised the sobs of the sore afflicted, I shall be so encouraged to fight, that England and Scotland shall both know, that I am ready to suffer more than either poverty or exile, for the profession of that doctrine, and that heavenly religion, whereof it has pleased his merciful providence to make me, among others, a simple soldier and witness‑bearer unto men. And therefore, mother, let no fear enter into your heart, as that I, escaping the furious rage of these ravening wolves that for our unthankfulness are lately loosed from their bands, do repent any thing of my former fervency. No, mother; for a few sermons by me to be made within England, my heart at this hour could be content to suffer more than nature were able to sustain; as, by the grace of the most mighty and most merciful God, who only is God of comfort and consolation through Christ Jesus, one day shall be known.”[180]

In his present sequestered situation, Knox had full leisure to meditate upon the surprising vicissitudes in his lot during the last seven years—his singular call to the ministry and employment at St Andrews—his subsequent imprisonment and release—the sphere of usefulness in which he had been placed in England, with the afflicting manner in which he was excluded from it, and driven to seek refuge as an exile in that country to which he had formerly been carried as a prisoner. This last event seemed in a special manner to summon him to a solemn review of the manner in which he had discharged the sacred trust committed to him, as “a steward of the mysteries of God.” It will throw light on his character, and may not be without use to such as occupy a public station in the church, to exhibit the result of his reflections on this subject.

He could not deny, without ingratitude to him who had called him to be his servant, that his qualifications for the ministry had been in no small degree improved since he came to England; and he had the testimony of his own conscience, in addition to that of his numerous auditors, that he had not altogether neglected the gifts bestowed on him, but had exercised them with some measure of fidelity and painfulness. At the same time, he found reason for self‑accusation on different grounds. Having mentioned, in one of his letters, the reiterated charge of Christ to Peter, “Feed my sheep, feed my lambs,” he exclaims, “O, alas! how small is the number of pastors that obeys this commandment. But this matter will I not deplore, except that I, not speaking of others, will accuse myself that do not, I confess, the uttermost of my power in feeding the lambs and sheep of Christ. I satisfy, peradventure, many men in the small labours I take, but I satisfy not myself. I have done somewhat, but not according to my duty.”[181] In the discharge of private duties, he acknowledges, that shame, and the fear of incurring the scandal of the world, had sometimes hindered him from visiting the female part of his charge, and administering to them the instruction and comfort which they craved. In public ministrations, he had been deficient in fervency and fidelity, in impartiality, and in diligence. He could not charge himself with flattery, and his “rude plainness” had given offence to some; but his conscience now accused him of not having been sufficiently plain in admonishing offenders. His custom had been to describe the vices of which his hearers were guilty in such colours that they might read their own image; but, being “unwilling to provoke all men” against him, he had restrained himself from particular application. Though his “eye had not been much set on worldly promotion,” he had sometimes been allured, by affection for friends and familiar acquaintances, to reside too long in some places, to the neglect of others which had an equal or perhaps stronger claim on his labours. Formerly he thought he had not sinned, if he had not been idle; now he was convinced that it was his duty to have considered how long he should remain in one place, and how many hungry souls were starving elsewhere. Sometimes, at the solicitation of friends, he had spared himself, and devoted to worldly business, or to bodily recreation and exercise, the time which ought to have been employed in the discharge of his official duties. “Besides these,” says he, “I was assaulted, yea infected, with more gross sins, that is, my wicked nature desired the favours, the estimation, and praise of men; against which, albeit that sometimes the Spirit of God did move me to fight, and earnestly did stir me (God knoweth I lie not) to sob and lament for these imperfections, yet never ceased they to trouble me when any occasion was offered; and so privily and craftily did they enter into my breast, that I could not perceive myself to be wounded till vainglory had almost got the upper hand. O Lord! be merciful to my great offence; and deal not with me according to my great iniquity, but according to the multitude of thy mercies.”[182]

Such was the strict scrutiny which Knox made into his ministerial conduct. To many the offences of which he accused himself will appear slight and venial, while others will perceive in them nothing worthy of blame; but they struck his mind in a very different light, in the hour of adversity and solitary meditation. If he, whose labours were so abundant as to appear to us excessive, had such reason for self‑condemnation, how few are there in the same station who may not say, “I do remember my faults this day!”

He did not, however, abandon himself to melancholy and unavailing complaints. One of his first cares, after arriving at Dieppe, was to employ his pen in writing suitable advices to those whom he could no longer instruct by preaching and conversation. With this view, he transmitted to England two short treatises. The one was an exposition of the sixth Psalm, which, at the request of Mrs Bowes, he had begun to write in England, but had not found leisure to finish. It is an excellent practical discourse upon that portion of scripture, and will be read with peculiar satisfaction by those who have been trained to religion in the school of adversity. The other treatise was a large letter, addressed to those in London and other parts of England, among whom he had been employed as a preacher. The drift of it was to warn them against abandoning the religion which they had embraced, or giving countenance to the idolatrous worship now erected among them. The reader of this letter cannot fail to be struck with its animated strain, when he reflects that it proceeded from a forlorn exile, in a strange country, without a single acquaintance, and ignorant where he would find a place of abode, or the means of subsistence. As a specimen of elevated piety and the most fervid eloquence, I cannot refrain from quoting the conclusion of the letter; in which he addresses their consciences, their hopes, their fears, and adjures them, by all that is sacred, and all that is dear to them, as men, as parents, and as Christians, not to start back from their good profession, and plunge themselves and their posterity into the gulf of ignorance and idolatry.

“Allace! sall we, efter so many graces that God has offerit in our dayis, for pleasure, or for vane threatnying of thame whome our hart knaweth and our mouthes have confessit to be odious idolateris, altogidder without resistance turne back to our vomit and damnabill ydolatrie, to the perdition of us and our posteritie? O horribill to be hard! Sall Godis halie preceptis wirk no greater obedience in us? Sall nature no otherwayis molifie our hartis? Sall not fatherlie pitie overcum this cruelnes? I speik to you, O natural fatheris! Behold your children with the eie of mercie, and considder the end of thair creatioun. Crueltie it were to saif your selves, and damn thame. But, O! more than crueltie, and madnes that can not be expressit, gif,[183] for the pleasure of a moment, ye depryve yourselves and your posteritie of that eternall joy that is ordanit for thame that continewis in confessioun of Christis name to the end. Gif natural lufe, fatherly affectioun, reverence of God, feir of torment, or yit hoip of lyfe, move you, then will ye ganestand that abominabill ydol; whilk, gif ye do not, then, allace! the sone[184] is gone doun, and the lyht is quyte lost, the trompet is ceissit, and ydolatrie is placeit in quietnes and rest. But gif God sall strenthin you, (as unfainedlie I pray that his majestie may,) then is their but ane dark clude overspred the sone for ane moment, whilk schortlie shall vanische, sa that the beames efter salbe seven fald mair bryht and amiable nor they were befoir. Your patience and constancie salbe a louder trompit to your posteritie than were the voces of the prophetis that instructit you; and so is not the trompit ceissit sa lang as any baldlie resistith ydolatrie. And, thairfoir, for the tender mercies of God, arme yourselves to stand with Christ in this his schorte battell.

“Let it be knawn to your posteritie that ye wer Christianis, and no ydolateris; that ye learnit Chryst in tyme of rest, and baldlie professit him in tyme of trubill. The preceptis, think ye, are scharpe and hard to be observit; and yet agane I affirme, that comparit with the plagis that sall assuredlie fall upon obstinat ydolateris, thay salbe fund easie and lycht. For avoyding of ydolatrie ye may perchance be compellit to leave your native contrie and realme, but obeyris of ydolatrie without end salbe compellit to burne in hell; for avoyding ydolatrie your substance salbe spoillit, but for obeying ydolatrie heavenly ryches salbe lost; for avoyding ydolatrie ye may fall into the handis of earthlie tirantis, but obeyeris, manteaneris, and consentaris to ydolatrie sall not eschaip the handis of the liveing God; for avoyding of ydolatrie your children salbe depryvit of father, friendis, ryches, and of rest, but by obeying ydolatrie they sall be left without God, without the knawledge of his word, and without hoip of his kingdome. Considder, deir brethrene, that how mekill mair[185] dolorous and feirfull it is to be tormentit in hell than to suffer trubill in erth, to be depryvit of heavenlie joy than to be rubbit of transitorie ryches, to fall in the hands of the liveing God than to obey manis vane and uncertane displeasure, to leif oure children destitute of God than to leif thame unprovydit befoir the world,—sa mekill mair feirful it is to obey ydolatrie, or by dissembling to consent to the same, than by avoyding and flying from the abominatioun, to suffer what inconvenient may follow thairupon.

“Ye feir corporall deth. Gif nature admitit any man to live ever, then had your feir sum aperance of reasone. But gif corporall deth be commoun to all, why will ye jeoparde to lois eternall lyfe, to eschaip that which neither ryche nor pure, nether wyse nor ignorant, proud of stomoke nor febill of corage, and finally, no earthlie creature, by no craft nor ingyne[186] of man, did ever avoid. Gif any eschapit the uglie face and horibill feir of deth, it was thay that baldlie confessit Chryst befoir men.—Why aucht the way of lyfe to be so feirfull by reasone of any pane, considering that a great noumber of oure brethrene hes past befoir ws, by lyke dangeris as we feir. A stout and prudent marinell, in tyme of tempest, seeing but one or two schippis, or like weschells to his, pass throughout any danger, and to win a sure harberie, will have gud esperance,[187] by the lyke wind, to do the same. Allace! sall ye be mair feirfull to win lyfe eternall, than the natural man is to save the corporall lyfe? Hes not the maist part of the sanctis of God from the begynning enterit into thair rest, by torment and trubillis? And yit what complayntis find we in their mouthis, except it be the lamenting of thair persecuteris? Did God comfort thame? and sall his Majestie despyse us, gif, in fichting aganis iniquitie, we will follow thair futstepis? Hie will not.”[188]

On the last day of February, 1554,[189] he set out from Dieppe, like the Hebrew patriarch of old, “not knowing whither he went;”[190] and “committing his way to God,” travelled through France to Switzerland. A correspondence had been kept up between some of the English reformers and the most noted divines of the Helvetic church. The latter had already heard, with the sincerest grief, of the overthrow of the Reformation, and the dispersion of its friends, in England. On making himself known, Knox was cordially received by them, and treated with the most affectionate hospitality. He spent some time in Switzerland, visiting the particular churches, and conferring with the learned men of that country; and embraced the opportunity of submitting to them certain difficult questions, which were suggested by the present conjuncture of affairs in England, and about which his mind had been greatly occupied. Their views with respect to these coinciding with his own, he was confirmed in the judgment which he had already formed for himself.[191]

In the beginning of May he returned to Dieppe, to receive information from England; a journey which he repeated at intervals as long as he remained on the continent. The kind reception which he had met with, and the agreeable company which he enjoyed, during his short residence in Switzerland, had helped to dissipate the cloud which hung upon his spirits when he landed in France, and to open his mind to more pleasing prospects as to the issue of the present afflicting events. This appears from a letter written by him at this time, and addressed “To his afflicted brethren.” After discoursing of the situation of the disciples of Christ during the time that he lay in the grave, and of the sudden transition which they experienced, upon the reappearance of their master, from the depth of sorrow to the summit of joy, he adds: “The remembrance thereof is unto my heart great matter of consolation. For yet my good hope is, that one day or other, Christ Jesus, that now is crucified in England, shall rise again, in despite of his enemies, and shall appear to his weak and sore troubled disciples (for yet some he hath in that wretched and miserable realm); to whom he shall say, ‘Peace be unto you; it is I, be not afraid.’”[192]

His spirit was also refreshed at this time, by the information that he received of the constancy with which his mother‑in‑law adhered to the protestant faith. Her husband, it appears, took it for granted that she and the rest of the family had consciences equally accommodating with his own. It was not until she had evinced, in the most determined manner, her resolution to forsake friends and native country, rather than sacrifice her religion, that she was released from his importunities to comply with the Roman catholic religion.[193] Before he went to Switzerland, Knox had signified his intention, if his life was spared, of visiting his friends at Berwick.[194] When he returned to Dieppe, he had not relinquished the thoughts of this enterprise.[195] It is likely that his friends had, in their letters, dissuaded him from it; and, after cool consideration, he resolved to postpone an attempt, by which he must have risked his life, without the prospect of doing any good.[196]

Wherefore, setting out again from Dieppe, he repaired to Geneva. The celebrated Calvin was then in the zenith of his reputation and usefulness in that city, and having completed its ecclesiastical establishment, and surmounted the opposition raised by those who envied his authority, or disliked his system of doctrine and discipline, was securely seated in the affections of the citizens. His writings were already translated into most of the languages of Europe; and Geneva was thronged with strangers from England, France, Germany, Poland, Hungary, and even from Spain and Italy, who came to consult him about the advancement of the Reformation, or to find shelter from the persecutions to which they were exposed, in their native countries. The name of Calvin was respected by none more than the protestants of England; and, at the desire of archbishop Cranmer, he had imparted to the protector Somerset, and to Edward VI., his advice as to the best method of advancing the Reformation in that kingdom.[197] Knox was affectionately received by him as a refugee from England, and an intimate friendship was soon formed between them, which subsisted until the death of Calvin in 1564. They were nearly of the same age; and there was a striking similarity in their sentiments, and in the more prominent features of their character. The Genevan reformer was highly pleased with the piety and talents of Knox, who, in his turn, entertained a greater esteem and deference for Calvin than for any other of the reformers. As Geneva was an eligible situation for prosecuting study, and as he approved much of the religious order established in that city, he resolved to make it the ordinary place of his residence during the continuance of his exile.

But no prospect of personal safety or accommodation could banish from his mind the thoughts of his persecuted countrymen. In the month of July he undertook another journey to Dieppe, to inform himself accurately of their situation, and to learn if he could do any thing for their comfort.[198] The tidings he received on this occasion tore open those wounds which had begun to close. In Scotland, every thing was dark and discouraging. The severities used against the protestants of England daily increased; and, what was still more afflicting to him, many of those who had embraced the truth under his ministry had been induced to return to the communion of the popish church. In the agony of his spirit, he wrote to them, setting before them the destruction to which they exposed their immortal souls by such cowardly desertion, and earnestly calling them to repentance.[199] Under his present impressions, he repeated his former admonitions to his mother‑in‑law, and to his wife; over whose religious constancy he was tenderly jealous. “By pen will I write (because the bodies are put asunder to meet again at God’s pleasure) that which, by mouth, and face to face, ye have heard, that if man or angel labour to bring you back from the confession that once you have given, let them in that behalf be accursed. If any trouble you above measure, whether they be magistrates or carnal friends, they shall bear their just condemnation, unless they speedily repent. But now, mother, comfort you my heart (God grant ye may) in this my great affliction and dolorous pilgrimage; continue stoutly to the end, and bow you never before that idol, and so will the rest of worldly troubles be unto me more tolerable. With my own heart I often commune, yea, and, as it were comforting myself, I appear to triumph, that God shall never suffer you to fall in that rebuke. Sure I am that both ye would fear and eschame to commit that abomination in my presence, who am but a wretched man, subject to sin and misery like to yourself. But, O mother! though no earthly creature should be offended with you, yet fear ye the presence and offence of him, who, present in all places, searcheth the very heart and reins, whose indignation, once kindled against the inobedient, (and no sin more inflameth his wrath than idolatry doth,) no creature in heaven nor in earth is able to appease.”[200]

He was in this state of mind when he composed the Admonition to England, which was published about the end of this year. Those who have censured him, as indulging in an excessive vehemence of spirit and bitterness of language, usually refer to this tract in support of their charge.[201] It is true, that he there paints the persecuting papists in the blackest colours, and holds them up as objects of human execration and divine vengeance. I do not now stop to enquire, whether he was chargeable with transgressing the bounds of moderation prescribed by reason and religion, in the expression of his indignation and zeal; or whether the censures pronounced by his accusers, and the principles upon which they proceed, do not involve a condemnation of the temper and language of the most righteous men mentioned in scripture, and even of our Saviour himself. But, I may ask, is there no apology for his severity to be found in the character of the persons against whom he wrote, and in the state of his own feelings, lacerated, not by personal sufferings, but by sympathy with his suffering brethren, who were driven into prisons by their unnatural countrymen, “as sheep for the slaughter,” to be brought forth and barbarously immolated to appease the Roman Moloch? Who could suppress indignation in speaking of the conduct of men, who, having raised themselves to honour and affluence by the warmest professions of friendship to the reformed religion under the preceding reign, now abetted the most violent measures against their former brethren and benefactors? What terms were too strong for stigmatizing the execrable system of persecution coolly projected by the dissembling, vindictive Gardiner, the brutal barbarity of the bloody Bonner, or the unrelenting, insatiable cruelty of Mary, who, having extinguished the feelings of humanity, and divested herself of the tenderness which characterises her sex, continued to urge to fresh severities the willing instruments of her cruelty, after they were sated with blood, and to issue orders for the murder of her subjects, until her own husband, bigoted and unfeeling as he was, turned with disgust from the spectacle?

On such a theme ’tis impious to be calm;

Passion is reason, transport temper here.

Oppression makes a wise man mad; but (to use the words of a modern orator, with a more just application) “the distemper is still the madness of the wise, which is better than the sobriety of fools. Their cry is the voice of sacred misery, exalted, not into wild raving, but into the sanctified frenzy of prophecy and inspiration.”

Knox returned to Geneva, and applied himself to study with all the ardour of youth, although his age now bordered upon fifty. It seems to have been at this time that he made himself master of the Hebrew language, which he had no opportunity of acquiring in early life.[202] It is natural to enquire, by what funds he was supported during his exile. However much inclined his mother‑in‑law was to relieve his necessities, the disposition of her husband appears to have put it greatly out of her power. Any small sums which his friends had advanced to him, before his sudden departure from England, were exhausted; and he was at this time very much straitened for money. Being unwilling to burden strangers, he looked for assistance to the voluntary contributions of those among whom he had laboured. In a letter to Mrs Bowes, he says, “My own estate I cannot well declare; but God shall guide the footsteps of him that is wilsome, and will feed him in trouble that never greatly solicited for the world. If any collection might be made among the faithful, it were no shame for me to receive that which Paul refused not in the time of his trouble. But all I remit to his providence that ever careth for his own.”[203] I find that remittances were made to him by particular friends, both in England and Scotland, during his residence on the continent.[204]

Meanwhile, the persecution growing hot in England, great numbers of protestants had made their escape from that kingdom. Before the close of the year 1554, there were on the continent several hundred Englishmen of good education, besides others of different ranks, who had preferred religion to country, and voluntarily encountered all the hardships of exile, that they might hold fast the profession of the protestant faith. The foreign reformed churches exhibited, on this occasion, an amiable proof of the spirit of their religion, and amply recompensed the kindness which England had shown to strangers during the reign of Edward. They emulated one another in exertions to accommodate the unfortunate refugees who were dispersed among them, and endeavoured, with the most affectionate solicitude, to supply their wants and alleviate their sufferings.[205] The principal places in which the English exiles obtained settlements, were Zurich, Basle, Geneva, Arrow, Embden, Wesel, Strasburg, Duysburg, and Frankfort.

Frankfort on the Maine was a rich imperial city of Germany, which, at an early period, had embraced the Reformation, and befriended protestant refugees from all countries, so far as this could be done without coming to an open breach with the emperor, by whom their conduct was watched with a jealous eye. There was already a church of French protestants in that city. On the 14th of July, 1554, the English who had come to Frankfort obtained from the magistrates the joint use of the place of worship allotted to the French, with liberty to perform religious service in their own language.[206] This was granted upon the condition of their conforming, as nearly as possible, to the mode of worship used by the French church; a prudent precaution dictated by the political situation in which the city was placed. The offer was gratefully accepted by the English, who came to a unanimous agreement, that they would omit the use of the surplice, the litany, the audible responses, and some other ceremonies prescribed by the English liturgy, which, “in those reformed churches, would seem more than strange,” or which were “superstitious and superfluous.” Having settled this point in the most harmonious manner, elected deacons and a temporary pastor, and agreed upon certain rules of discipline, they wrote a circular letter to their brethren who were scattered through different places, informing them of the agreeable settlement which they had obtained, and inviting them to participate in their accommodations at Frankfort, and unite with them in prayers for the afflicted church of England. The exiles at Strasburg, in their reply to this letter, recommended to them certain persons as well qualified for filling the offices of superintendent and pastor; a recommendation not asked by the congregation at Frankfort, who did not think a superintendent necessary in their situation, and who intended to put themselves under the inspection of two or three pastors invested with equal authority. They, accordingly, proceeded to make choice of three persons to this office. One of these was Knox, who received information of his election by a letter written in the name of the congregation, and subscribed by its principal members.[207]

The deputation which waited on him with this invitation found him engaged in the prosecution of his studies at Geneva. From aversion to sacrifice the advantages which he enjoyed, or from the apprehension of difficulties that he might meet with at Frankfort, he would gladly have excused himself from accepting the invitation. But the deputies having employed the powerful intercession of Calvin,[208] he was induced to comply, and repairing to Frankfort in the month of November, commenced his ministry with the universal consent and approbation of the church. Previous to his arrival, however, the harmony which at first subsisted among that people had been disturbed. In reply to the letter addressed to them, the exiles at Zurich had signified that they would not come to Frankfort, unless they obtained security that the church there would “use the same order of service concerning religion, which was, in England, last set forth by king Edward;” for they were fully determined “to admit and use no other.” They alleged, that, by varying from that service, they would give occasion to their adversaries to charge their religion with imperfection and mutability, and would condemn their brethren who were sealing it with their blood in England. To these representations the brethren at Frankfort replied, that they had obtained the liberty of a place of worship, upon condition of their accommodating themselves as much as possible to the forms used by the French church; that there were a number of things in the English service‑book which would be offensive to the protestants among whom they resided, and which had been occasion of scruple to conscientious persons at home; that, by the variations which they had introduced, they were very far from meaning to throw any reflection upon the regulations of their late sovereign and his council, who had themselves altered many things, and had resolved on still greater alterations, without thinking that they gave any handle to their popish adversaries; and still less did they mean to detract from the credit of the martyrs, who, they were persuaded, shed their blood in confirmation of more important things than mutable ceremonies of human appointment. This reply had the effect of lowering the tone of the exiles at Zurich, but it did not satisfy them; and, instead of desisting from the controversy, and contenting themselves with remaining where they were, they instigated their brethren at Strasburg to urge the same request, and, by letters and messengers, fomented dissension in the congregation at Frankfort.[209]

When Knox arrived, he found that the seeds of animosity had already sprung up among them. From what we already know of his sentiments respecting the English service‑book, we may be sure that the eagerness manifested by those who wished to impose it was very displeasing to him. But so sensible was he of the pernicious and discreditable effects of division among brethren exiled for the same faith, that he resolved to act as a moderator between the two parties, and to avoid, as far as possible, every thing which might have a tendency to widen or continue the breach. Accordingly, when the congregation had agreed to adopt the order of the Genevan church,[210] and requested him to proceed to administer the communion according to it, although he approved of that form, he declined carrying it into practice, until their learned brethren in other places were consulted. At the same time, he signified that he had not freedom to dispense the sacraments agreeably to the English liturgy. If he could not be allowed to perform this service in a manner more consonant to scripture, he requested that some other person might be employed in this part of duty, in which case he would willingly confine himself to preaching; and if neither of these could be granted, he besought them to release him altogether from his charge. To this last request they would by no means consent.

Fearing that, if these differences were not speedily accommodated, they would burst into a flame, Knox, and some other members of the congregation, drew up a summary of the Book of Common Prayer, and, having translated it into Latin, sent it to Calvin for his opinion and advice. In a reply, dated January 20, 1555, Calvin stated, that he was grieved to hear of the unseemly contentions which prevailed among them; that, although he had always recommended moderation respecting external ceremonies, yet he could not but condemn the obstinacy of those who would consent to no change of old customs; that in the liturgy of England he had found many tolerable fooleries, (tolerabiles ineptias,)—practices which might be tolerated at the beginning of a reformation, but ought to be removed as soon as possible; that, in his opinion, the present condition of the English exiles warranted them to attempt this, and to agree upon an order more conducive to edification; and that, for his part, he could not understand what those persons meant who discovered such fondness for popish dregs.[211]

This letter, when read to the congregation, had a great effect in repressing the keenness of such as had urged the unlimited use of the liturgy; and a committee was appointed to draw up a form which might put an end to all differences.[212] When this committee met, Knox told them that he was convinced it was necessary for one of the parties to relent before they could come to an amicable settlement; and that he would therefore state what he judged most proper to be done, and having exonerated himself, would allow them, without opposition, to determine as they should answer to God and the church. They accordingly agreed upon a form of worship, in which the English liturgy was followed, so far as their circumstances and the general ends of edification, permitted. This was to continue in force until the end of April next; and if any dispute arose in the interval, it was to be referred to five of the most celebrated foreign divines. The agreement was subscribed by all the members of the congregation; thanks were publicly returned to God for the restoration of harmony; and the communion was received as a pledge of union, and of the burial of all past offences.

But this agreement was soon after violated, and the peace of that unhappy congregation again broken, in the most wanton and inexcusable manner. On the 13th of March, 1555, Dr Cox, who had been preceptor to Edward VI., came from England to Frankfort, with some others in his company. The first day on which they attended public worship after their arrival, they broke through the established order, by answering aloud after the minister in the time of divine service. Being admonished by some of the elders to refrain from that practice, they insolently replied, “that they would do as they had done in England; and they would have the face of an English church.”—“The Lord grant it to have the face of Christ’s church,” says Knox, in an account which he drew up of these transactions; “and therefore I would have had it agreeable, in outward rites and ceremonies, with Christian churches reformed.”[213]

On the following Sabbath, one of their number, having intruded himself into the pulpit, without the consent of the pastors or the congregation, read the litany, while Cox and his accomplices echoed the responses. This offensive behaviour was aggravated by the consideration, that some of them had, before leaving England, been guilty of compliances with popery, for which they had not yet given satisfaction to their brethren.

Such an infraction of public order, as well as insult upon the whole body, could not be passed over in silence. It was Knox’s turn to preach on the afternoon of the Sabbath when this occurred. In his ordinary course of lecturing through the book of Genesis, he had occasion to discourse of the manner in which offences committed by professors of religion ought to be treated. Having mentioned that there were infirmities in their conduct over which a veil should be thrown, he proceeded to remark, that offences which openly dishonoured God and disturbed the peace of the church, ought to be disclosed and publicly rebuked. He then reminded them of the contention which had existed in the congregation, and of the happy manner in which, after long and painful labour, it had been ended, to the joy of all, by the solemn agreement which had that day been so flagrantly violated. This, he said, it became not the proudest of them to have attempted. Nothing which was destitute of a divine warrant ought to be obtruded upon any Christian church. In that book for which some entertained such an overweening fondness, he would undertake to prove publicly, that there were things imperfect, impure, and superstitious; and if any should go about to burden a free congregation with such things, he would not fail, as often as he occupied that place, provided his text afforded occasion, to oppose their design. As he had been forced to enter upon that subject, he would say further, that, in his judgment, slackness in reforming religion, when time and opportunity were granted for this purpose, was one cause of the divine displeasure against England. He adverted also to the trouble which bishop Hooper had suffered for refusing to comply with some of the ceremonies, to the want of discipline, and to the well‑known fact, that three, four, or five benefices had been held by one man, to the depriving of the flock of Christ of their necessary food.

This free reprimand was highly resented by those against whom it was levelled, especially by such as had held pluralities in England, who insisted that the preacher should be called to account for slandering their mother church. A special meeting being held for the consideration of this affair, the friends of the liturgy, instead of prosecuting their complaints against Knox, began with requiring that Cox and his friends should be admitted to a vote in the discussion. This was resisted by the great majority, on the ground that these persons had not yet subscribed the discipline of the church, nor given satisfaction for their late disorderly conduct, and their sinful compliances in England. The behaviour of our Reformer, on this occasion, was more remarkable for magnanimity than prudence. Although aware of the hostility of Cox’s adherents to himself, and that they sought admission chiefly to overpower him by numbers, he was so confident of the justice of his cause, and so anxious to remove prejudices, that he entreated and prevailed with the meeting to yield to their unreasonable request, and to admit them immediately to a vote. “I know,” said he, “that your earnest desire to be received at this instant within the number of the congregation, is, that, by the multitude of your voices, ye may overthrow my cause. Howbeit, the matter is so evident, that ye shall not be able to do it. I fear not your judgment; and therefore do require that ye may be admitted.”[214] This disinterestedness was thrown away on the opposite party; for no sooner were they admitted, and had obtained a majority of voices, than Cox, usurping an authority with which he had never been invested, discharged Knox from preaching, and from all interference in the congregational affairs.[215]

The great body of the congregation were indignant at these proceedings; and there was reason to fear that the mutual animosity would break out into a disgraceful tumult. To prevent this, some of the members made a representation of the case to the senate of Frankfort, who, after recommending in vain a private accommodation, issued an order that the congregation should conform exactly to the mode of service used by the French church, as nothing but confusion had ensued since they departed from it; and threatened, if this was not complied with, to shut up their place of worship. To this peremptory injunction the Coxian faction pretended a cheerful submission, while they clandestinely concerted measures for obtaining its revocation, and enforcing their favourite liturgy upon a reclaiming congregation.

Perceiving the influence which our countryman had in the church, and despairing to carry their plan into execution so long as he was among them, they determined, in the first place, to rid themselves of his presence. To accomplish this object, they had recourse to one of the basest and most unchristian arts ever employed to ruin an adversary. Two of them, in concurrence with others, went privately to the magistrates, and accused Knox of high treason against the emperor of Germany, his son Philip, and queen Mary of England; putting into their hands at the same time a copy of a book which he had lately published, and in which the passages containing the grounds of charge were marked. “O Lord God!” says Knox, when relating this step, “open their hearts to see their wickedness, and forgive them for thy manifold mercies. And I forgive them, O Lord, from the bottom of mine heart. But that thy message sent by my mouth may not be slandered, I am compelled to declare the cause of my departing, and to utter their follies, to their amendment, I trust, and the example of others, who, in the same banishment, can have so cruel hearts as to persecute their brethren.”[216] The book which the informers left with the magistrates was his Admonition to England; and the passage upon which they principally fixed, as substantiating the charge of treason against the emperor, was the following, originally spoken to the inhabitants of Amersham in Buckinghamshire,[217] on occasion of the rumoured marriage of queen Mary with Philip, the son and heir of Charles V., a match which was at that time dreaded by many of the English catholics. “O England, England, if thou obstinately wilt return into Egypt, that is, if thou contract marriage, confederacy, or league with such princes as do maintain and advance idolatry, such as the emperor, who is no less enemy to Christ than ever was Nero—if for the pleasure of such princes thou return to thy old abominations before used under papistry, then assuredly, O England, thou shalt be plagued and brought to desolation, by the means of those whose favour thou seekest!” The other passages related to the cruelties of the English queen. Not to speak of the extravagance of the charge which they founded upon these passages, and of the unbrotherly spirit which they discovered, it was with little grace and consistency that the sticklers for the English forms availed themselves of the strong language which Knox had employed in the warmth of his zeal, in order to excite prejudices against him; and it would be no difficult task to extract from their writings declamations against their own queen, and against foreign princes, more intemperate than any thing that ever proceeded from his pen.[218]

In consequence of this accusation, the magistrates sent for Whittingham, a respectable member of the English congregation, and interrogated him concerning Knox’s character. He told them that he was “a learned, grave, and godly man.” They then acquainted him with the serious accusation which had been lodged against him by some of his countrymen, and giving him the book, charged him, sub pœna pacis, to bring them an exact Latin translation of the passages which were marked. This being done, they commanded Knox to desist from preaching until their pleasure should be known. To this command he peaceably submitted; “yet,” says he in his narrative, “being desirous to hear others, I went to the church next day, not thinking that my company would have offended any. But as soon as my accusers saw me, they, with —— and others, departed from the sermon; some of them protesting with great vehemence, that they would not tarry where I was.”[219] The magistrates were extremely perplexed how to act in this delicate business. On the one hand, they were satisfied of the malice of Knox’s accusers; on the other, they were afraid that information of the charge would be conveyed to the emperor’s council, which then sat at Augsburg, and that they might be obliged to deliver up the accused to them, or to the queen of England. In this dilemma, they desired Whittingham to advise his friend privately to retire of his own accord from Frankfort. At the same time, they did not dissemble their detestation of the unnatural conduct of the informers, who, having waited upon them to know the result of their deliberations, were dismissed from their presence with evident marks of displeasure.

On the 25th of March, Knox delivered a most consolatory discourse to about fifty members of the congregation, who assembled at his lodgings in the evening. Next day they accompanied him some miles on his journey from Frankfort, and, with heavy hearts and many tears, committed him to God, and took their leave.

No sooner was Knox gone, than Cox, who had privately concerted the plan with Glauberg, a civilian, and nephew of the chief magistrate, procured an order from the senate for the unlimited use of the English liturgy, by means of the false representation, that it was now universally acceptable to the congregation. The next step was the abrogation of the code of discipline, and then the appointment of a bishop, or superintendent over the pastors. Having accomplished these important improvements, they could now boast that they had “the face of an English church.” Yes, they could now raise their heads above all the reformed churches which had the honour of entertaining them, and which, though they might have all the office‑bearers and ordinances instituted by Christ, had neither bishop, nor litany, nor surplice! They could now lift up their faces in the presence of the church of Rome herself, and cherish the hope that she would not altogether disown them! But let me not forget, that the men of whom I write were at this time suffering exile for the protestant religion, and that they really detested the body of popery, though childishly and superstitiously attached to its attire, and gestures, and language.

The sequel of the transactions in the English congregation at Frankfort, does not properly belong to this memoir. I shall only add, that after some ineffectual attempts to obtain satisfaction for the breach of the church’s peace, and the injurious treatment of their minister, a considerable number of the members left the city. Some of them, among whom was Fox, the celebrated martyrologist, repaired to Basle. The greater part went to Geneva, where they obtained a place of worship, and lived in great harmony and love, until the storm of persecution in England blew over at the death of queen Mary; while those who remained at Frankfort, as if to expiate their offence against Knox, continued a prey to endless contention. Cox and his learned colleagues, having accomplished their favourite object, soon left them to compose the strife which they had excited, and provided themselves elsewhere with a less expensive situation for carrying on their studies.[220]

I have been the more minute in the detail of these transactions, not only on account of the share which the subject of this memoir had in them, but because they throw light upon the controversy between the conformists and non‑conformists, which runs through the succeeding period of the ecclesiastical history of England. “The troubles at Frankfort” present, in miniature, a striking picture of that contentious scene which was afterwards exhibited on a larger scale in the mother‑country. The issue of that affair augured ill as to the prospect of an amicable adjustment of the litigated points. It had been usual to urge conformity to the obnoxious ceremonies, from the respect due to the authority by which they were enjoined. But in this instance the civil authority, so far from enjoining, had rather discountenanced them. If they were urged with such intolerant importunity in a place where the laws and customs were repugnant to them, what was to be expected in England, where law and custom were on their side? The divines who received ecclesiastical preferment at the accession of Elizabeth, professed, that they desired the removal of these grounds of strife, but could not obtain it from the queen; and I am disposed to give many of them credit for the sincerity of their professions. But as they showed themselves so stiff and unyielding when the matter was wholly in their own power—as some of them were so eager in wreathing a yoke about the consciences of their brethren as to urge reluctant magistrates to rivet it, is it any wonder that their applications for relief were cold and ineffectual, when made to rulers who were disposed to make the yoke still more severe, and to “chastise with scorpions those whom they had chastised with whips?” I repeat it; when I consider the transactions at Frankfort, I am not surprised at the defeat of every subsequent attempt to advance the Reformation in England, or to procure relief to those who scrupled to yield conformity to some of the ecclesiastical laws. I know it is pleaded, that the things complained of are matters of indifference, not prohibited in scripture, not imposed as essential to religion or necessary to salvation, matters that can affect no well‑informed conscience; and that such as refuse them, when enacted by authority, are influenced by unreasonable scrupulosity, conceited, pragmatical, opinionative. This has been the usual language of a ruling party, when imposing upon the consciences of the minority. But not to urge here the danger of allowing to any class of rulers, civil or ecclesiastical, a power of enjoining indifferent things in religion; nor the undeniable fact, that the burdensome system of ceremonial observances, by which religion was corrupted under the papacy, was gradually introduced under these and similar pretexts; nor that the things in question, when complexly and formally considered, are not really matters of indifference; not to insist at present upon these topics, the answer to the above plea is short and decisive. These things appear matters of conscience and importance to the scruplers; you say they are matters of indifference. Why then violate the sacred peace of the church, and perpetuate division; why silence, deprive, harass, and starve men of acknowledged learning and piety, and drive from communion a sober and devout people; why torture their consciences, and endanger their souls, by the imposition of things, which, in your judgment, are indifferent, not necessary, and unworthy to become objects of contention?

Upon retiring from Frankfort, Knox went directly to Geneva. He was cordially welcomed back by Calvin. As his advice had great weight in disposing Knox to comply with the invitation from Frankfort, he felt much hurt at the treatment which had obliged him to leave it. In reply to an apologetic epistle which he received from Dr Cox, Calvin, although he prudently restrained himself from saying any thing which might revive or increase the flame, could not conceal his opinion, that Knox had been used in an unbrotherly and unchristian manner, and that it would have been better for his accuser to have remained at home, than to have come into a foreign country as a firebrand to inflame a peaceable society.[221]

It appeared from the event, that providence had disengaged Knox from his late charge, to employ him on a more important service. From the time that he was carried prisoner into France, he had never lost sight of Scotland, nor relinquished the hope of again preaching in his native country. While he resided at Berwick and Newcastle, he had frequent opportunities of personal intercourse with his countrymen, and of learning the state of religion among them.[222] His unintermitted labours, during the five years which he spent in England, by occupying his time and attention, lessened the regret which he felt at seeing the object of his wishes apparently at as great a distance as ever. Upon leaving that kingdom, his thoughts were anxiously turned to Scotland. He found means to carry on an epistolary correspondence with some of his friends at home; one great object of his journeys to Dieppe was to receive their letters;[223] and he had the satisfaction, soon after his retreat from Frankfort, to obtain such information from them, as encouraged him to execute his design of paying a visit to his native country. To prepare the reader for the account of this journey, it will be necessary to take a view of the principal events which had occurred in that kingdom from the time that Knox was forced to leave it.

The surrender of the castle of St Andrews seemed to have given an irrecoverable blow to the reformed interest in Scotland. Among the prisoners conveyed to France were some of the most zealous and able protestants in the kingdom; and the rest, seeing themselves at the mercy of their adversaries, were dispirited and intimidated. The clergy triumphed in the victory which they had obtained,[224] and flattered themselves that they would now be able with ease to stifle all opposition to their measures. The regent, being guided entirely by his brother, the archbishop of St Andrews, was ready to employ all the power of the state in support of the church, and for suppressing those who refused to submit to her decisions. During the confusions produced by the invasion of the kingdom under the duke of Somerset, and by the disastrous defeat of the Scots at Pinkie, in the year 1547, the regent found it his interest not to irritate the protestants; but no sooner was he freed from the alarm created by these events than be began to treat them with severity. Aware that it would be extremely invidious to prosecute the barons and gentry upon a charge of heresy, and perhaps convinced that such measures in the time of his predecessor, had proved injurious to the hierarchy, the crafty primate commenced his attack by bringing them to trial for crimes against the state.[225] Although they had conducted themselves in the most peaceable and loyal manner during the late invasion, and many of them had died under the standard of the regent,[226] they were accused of being secretly favourable to the English, and of holding correspondence with them. Cockburn of Ormiston, and Crichton of Brunston, were banished, and their estates forfeited.[227] Sir John Melville of Raith, a gentleman of distinguished probity, and of untainted loyalty, was accused of a traitorous connexion with the enemy; and although the only evidence adduced in support of the charge was a letter written by him to one of his sons then in England, and although this letter contained nothing criminal, yet was he unjustly condemned and beheaded.[228] The signing of a treaty of peace with England, in 1550, was a signal for the clergy to proceed to acts of more undisguised persecution. Adam Wallace, who had lived for some time as tutor in the family of Ormiston, was apprehended, and being tried for heresy before a convention of clergy and nobility was committed to the flames on the Castle‑hill of Edinburgh.[229] These prosecutions were not confined to persons in holy orders. George Winchester of Kinglassie was summoned before the archbishop and clergy at St Andrews, and, having made his escape, was condemned as a heretic, and his goods escheated.[230] In the following year, the parliament renewed the laws in support of the church, and added a new statute against the circulation of heretical ballads and tragedies.[231]

By these severe measures the clergy struck terror into the minds of the nation; but they were unable to conceal the glaring corruptions by which their own order was disgraced, and they could not remain strangers to the murmurs that these had excited throughout the whole kingdom. In the month of November 1549, a provincial council was held at Edinburgh “for the reformation of the church, and the extirpation of heresy.[232] This council acknowledged that “corruption and profane lewdness of life as well as gross ignorance of arts and sciences, reigned among the clergy of almost every degree,”[233] and they enacted no fewer than fifty‑eight canons for correcting these evils. They agreed to carry into execution the decree of the general council of Basle, which ordained, that every clergyman who lived in concubinage should be deprived of the revenues of his benefice for three months, and that if, after due admonition, he did not dismiss his concubine, or if he took to himself another, he should be deprived of his benefices altogether.[234] They exhorted the prelates and inferior clergy not to retain in their own houses their bastard children, nor suffer them to be promoted directly or indirectly to their own benefices, nor employ the patrimony of the church for the purpose of marrying them to barons, or of erecting baronages for them.[235] That the distinction between clergy and laity might be visibly preserved, they appointed the ordinaries to charge the priests under their care to desist from the practice of preserving their beards, which had begun to prevail, and to see that the canonical tonsure was duly observed.[236] To remedy the neglect of public instruction, which was loudly complained of, they agreed to observe the act of the council of Trent, which ordained that every bishop, “according to the grace given to him,” should preach personally four times a year at least, unless lawfully hindered; and that such of them as were unfit for this duty, through want of practice, should endeavour to qualify themselves, and for that end should entertain in their houses learned divines capable of instructing them. The same injunctions were laid on rectors.[237] They determined that a benefice should be set apart in each bishopric and monastery, for supporting a preacher who might supply the want of teaching within their bounds; that, where no such benefice was set apart, pensions should be allotted; and that, where neither of these was provided, the preacher should be entitled to demand from the rector forty shillings a‑year, provided he had preached four times in his parish within that period.[238] The council made a number of other regulations, concerning the dress and diet of the clergy, the course of study in cathedral churches and monasteries, union of benefices, pluralities, ordinations, dispensations, and the method of process in consistorial courts. But not trusting altogether to these remedies for the cure of heresy, they farther ordained that the bishop of each diocese, and the head of each monastery, should appoint “inquisitors of heretical pravity, men of piety, probity, learning, good fame, and great circumspection,” who should make the most diligent search after heresies, foreign opinions, condemned books, and particularly profane songs, intended to defame the clergy, or to detract from the authority of the ecclesiastical constitutions.[239]

Another provincial council, held in 1551 and 1552, besides ratifying the preceding canons,[240] adopted an additional expedient for correcting the continued neglect of public instruction. After declaring that “the inferior clergy, and the prelates for the most part, were still unqualified for instructing the people in the catholic faith, and other things necessary to salvation, and for reclaiming the erroneous,” they proceeded to approve of a catechism which had been compiled in the Scottish language, ordered that it should be printed, and that copies of it should be sent to all rectors, vicars, and curates, who were enjoined to read a portion of it, instead of a sermon, to their parishioners, on every Sunday and holiday, when no person qualified for preaching was present. The rectors, vicars, and curates, were enjoined to practise daily in reading their catechism, lest, on ascending the pulpit, they should stammer and blunder, and thereby expose themselves to the laughter of the people. The archbishop was directed, after supplying the clergy with copies, to keep the remainder beside him “in firm custody;” and the inferior clergy were prohibited from indiscreetly communicating their copies to the people, without the permission of their bishops, who might allow this privilege to “certain honest, grave, trusty, and discreet laics, who appeared to desire it for the sake of instruction, and not of gratifying curiosity.”[241] If any of the hearers testified a disposition to call in question any part of the catechism, the clerical reader was prohibited, under the pain of deprivation, from entering into dispute with them on the subject, and was instructed to delate them to the inquisitors.[242]

Many of the regulations enacted by these two councils were excellent;[243] but the execution of them was committed to the very persons who were interested in support of the evils against which they were directed. Accordingly, the canons of the Scottish clergy, like those of general councils called for the reformation of the church, instead of correcting, served only to proclaim the abuses which prevailed. We know from the declarations of subsequent provincial councils,[244] as well as from the complaints of the people, that the licentiousness of the clergy continued; and the catechism which they had sanctioned seems to have been but little used. I have not found it mentioned by any writer of that age, popish or protestant; and we know of its existence only from the canon of the assembly which authorized its use, and from a few copies of it which have descended to our time.[245]

The council which met in 1551, boasts that, through the singular favour of the government, and the vigilance of the prelates, heresy, which had formerly spread through the kingdom, was now repressed, and almost extinguished.[246] There were still, however, many protestants in the nation; but they were deprived of teachers, and they satisfied themselves with retaining their sentiments, without exposing their lives to inevitable destruction by avowing their creed, or exciting the suspicions of the clergy by holding private conventicles. In this state they remained from 1551 to 1554.

While the Reformation was in this languishing condition, it experienced a sudden revival in Scotland, from two causes which appeared at first view to threaten its utter extinction in Britain. These were the elevation of the queen dowager to the regency of Scotland, and the accession of Mary to the throne of England.

The queen dowager of Scotland, who possessed a great portion of that ambition by which her brothers, the princes of Lorrain, were fired, had long formed the design of wresting the regency from the hands of Arran. After a series of political intrigue, in which she discovered the most consummate and persevering address, she at last succeeded; and, on the 10th of April, 1554, the regent resigned his office to her in the presence of parliament, and retired into private life with the title of duke of Chastelherault. The dowager had at an early period made her court to the protestants, whom Arran had alienated from him by persecution; and, to induce them to favour her pretensions, she promised to screen them from the violence of the clergy. Having received their cordial support, and finding it necessary still to use them as a check upon the clergy, who, under the influence of the primate, favoured the interest of her rival, the queen regent secretly countenanced them, and the protestants were emboldened again to avow their sentiments.

In the meantime, the queen of England was exerting all her power to crush the Reformation; and had the court of Scotland acted in concert with her for this purpose, the protestants must, according to all human probability, have been exterminated in Britain. But the English queen having married Philip, king of Spain, while the queen regent was indissolubly attached to France, the rival of Spain, a coldness was produced between these two princesses, which was soon after succeeded by an open breach. Among the protestants who fled from the cruelty of Mary, some took refuge in Scotland, where they were suffered to remain undisturbed, and even to teach in private, through the connivance of the new regent, and in consequence of the security into which the clergy had been lulled by success. Travelling from place to place, they propagated instruction, and by their example and their exhortations fanned the latent zeal of those who had formerly received the knowledge of the truth.

William Harlow, whose zeal and acquaintance with the scriptures compensated for the defects of his education, was the first preacher who at this time came to Scotland. Let those who do not know, or who wish to forget, that the religion which they profess was first preached by fishermen and tentmakers, labour to conceal the occupations of some of those men whom providence raised up to spread the reformed gospel through their native country. Harlow had followed the trade of a tailor in Edinburgh;[247] but having imbibed the protestant doctrine, he retired to England, where he was admitted to deacon’s orders, and employed as a preacher, during the reign of Edward VI.[248] Upon his return to Scotland, he remained for some time in Ayrshire, and continued to preach in different parts of the country, with great fervour and diligence, until the establishment of the Reformation, when he was admitted minister of St Cuthbert’s, in the vicinity of Edinburgh.[249]

Some time after him arrived John Willock. This reformer afterwards became the principal coadjutor of Knox, who never mentions him without expressions of affection and esteem. The cordiality which subsisted between them, the harmony of their sentiments, and the combination of the peculiar talents and qualities by which they were distinguished, conduced in no small degree to the advancement of the Reformation. Willock was not inferior to Knox in learning, and, though he did not equal him in eloquence and intrepidity, surpassed him in affability, in moderation, and in address:[250] qualities which enabled him sometimes to maintain his station and to accomplish his purposes, when his colleague could not act with safety or with success. He was a native of Ayrshire, and had belonged to the order of Franciscan friars; but, having embraced the reformed opinions at an early period, he threw off the monastic habit, and fled to England. During the persecution for the Six Articles in 1541, he was thrown into the prison of the Fleet. He afterwards became chaplain to the duke of Suffolk, the father of lady Jane Grey;[251] and upon the accession of queen Mary, left England, and took up his residence at Embden. Having practised there as a physician, he was introduced to Anne, duchess of Friesland, who patronised the Reformation,[252] and whose opinion of his talents and integrity induced her to send him to Scotland, in the summer of 1555, with a commission to the queen regent, to make some arrangements respecting the trade carried on between the two countries. The public character with which he was invested gave Willock an opportunity of cultivating acquaintance with the leading protestants, and while he resided in Edinburgh, they met with him in private, and listened to his religious instructions.[253]

Knox received the news of this favourable change in the situation of his brethren with heartfelt satisfaction. He did not know what it was to fear danger, and was little accustomed to consult his own ease, when he had the prospect of being useful in advancing the interests of truth; but he acknowledges that, on the present occasion, he was at first averse to a journey into Scotland, notwithstanding some encouraging circumstances in the intelligence which he had received from that quarter. He had been so much tossed about of late, that he felt a peculiar relish in the learned leisure which he at present enjoyed, and which he was desirous to prolong. His anxiety to see his wife, after an absence of nearly two years, and the importunity with which his mother‑in‑law, in her letters, urged him to visit them, determined him at last to undertake the journey.[254] Setting out from Geneva in the month of August 1555, he came to Dieppe, and, sailing from that port, landed on the east coast, near the boundaries between Scotland and England, about the end of harvest.[255] He repaired immediately to Berwick, where he had the satisfaction of finding his wife and her mother in comfortable circumstances, and enjoying the happiness of religious society with several individuals in that city, who, like themselves, had not “bowed the knee” to the established idolatry, nor consented to “receive the mark” of antichrist.[256]

Having remained some time with them, he set out secretly to visit the protestants in Edinburgh; intending, after a short stay, to return to Berwick. But he found employment which detained him beyond his expectation. He lodged with James Syme, a respectable burgess of Edinburgh, in whose house the friends of the Reformation assembled, to attend the instructions of Knox, as soon as they were informed of his arrival. Few of the inhabitants of the metropolis had as yet embraced the reformed doctrines, but several persons had repaired to it at this time, from other parts of the country, to meet with Willock. Among these were John Erskine of Dun, whom we had formerly occasion to mention as an early favourer of the new opinions, and a distinguished patron of literature,[257] and whose great respectability of character, and approved loyalty and patriotism, had preserved him from the resentment of the clergy, and the jealousy of the government, during successive periods of persecution;[258] and William Maitland of Lethington, a young gentleman of the finest parts, improved by a superior education, but inclined to subtlety in reasoning, accommodating in his religious sentiments, and extremely versatile in his political conduct. Highly gratified with Knox’s discourses, which were greatly superior to any which they had heard either from popish or protestant preachers, they brought their acquaintances along with them to hear him, and his audiences daily increased. Being confined to a private house, he was obliged to preach to successive assemblies; and was unremittingly employed, by night as well as by day, in communicating instruction to persons who demanded it with extraordinary avidity. The following letter, written by him to Mrs Bowes, to excuse himself for not returning so soon as he had purposed, will convey the best idea of his employment and feelings on this interesting occasion.

“The wayis of man are not in his awn power. Albeit my journey toward Scotland, belovit mother, was maist contrarious to my awn judgment, befoir I did interpryse the same; yet this day I prais God for thame wha was the cause externall of my resort to theis quarteris; that is, I prais God in yow and for yow, whom hie maid the instrument to draw me from the den of my awn eas, (you allane did draw me from the rest of quyet studie,) to contemplat and behald the fervent thirst of our brethrene, night and day sobbing and gronying for the breide of life. Gif I had not sene it with my eis, in my awn country, I culd not have beleveit it! I praisit God, when I was with you, perceaving that, in the middis of Sodome, God had mo Lottis than one, and mo faithful douchteris than tua. But the fervencie heir doith fer exceid all utheris that I have seen. And thairfor ye sall paciently bear, altho’ I spend heir yet sum dayis; for depart I cannot, unto sic tyme as God quenche thair thirst a litill. Yea, mother, thair fervencie doith sa ravische me, that I cannot but accus and condemp my sleuthful coldnes. God grant thame thair hartis desyre; and I pray yow adverteis [me] of your estait, and of thingis that have occurit sense your last wrytting. Comfort yourself in Godis promissis, and be assureit that God steiris up mo friendis than we be war of. My commendation to all in your company. I commit you to the protectioun of the omnipotent. In great haist; the 4. of November, 1555. From Scotland. Your sone, Johne Knox.”[259]

Having executed his commission, Willock returned to Embden; and he quitted Scotland with the less regret, as he left behind him one who was so capable of promoting the cause which he had at heart. When he first arrived in Scotland, Knox found that the friends of the reformed doctrine continued, in general, to attend the popish worship, and even the celebration of mass; principally with the view of avoiding the scandal which they would otherwise incur. Highly disapproving of this practice, he laboured, in his conversation and sermons, to convince them of the great impiety of that part of the popish service, and the criminality of countenancing it by their presence. Doubts being still entertained on the subject by some, a meeting of the protestants in the city was held for the express purpose of discussing the question. Maitland defended the practice with all the ingenuity and learning for which he was distinguished; but his arguments were so satisfactorily answered by Knox, that he yielded the point as indefensible, and agreed, with the rest of his brethren, to abstain for the future from such temporizing conduct. Thus was a formal separation made from the popish church in Scotland, which may be justly regarded as an important step in the Reformation.[260]

Erskine of Dun prevailed on Knox to accompany him to his family seat in the shire of Angus, where he continued a month, during which he preached every day. The principal persons in that neighbourhood attended his sermons. After his return to the south of the Forth, he resided at Calder‑house,[261] in West Lothian, the seat of Sir James Sandilands, commonly called Lord St John, because he was chief in Scotland of the religious order of military knights who went by the name of Hospitallers, or Knights of St John. This gentleman, who was now venerable for his grey hairs as well as for his valour, sagacity, and correct morals, had long been a sincere friend to the reformed cause, and had contributed to its preservation in that part of the country.[262] In 1548, he had presented to the parsonage of Calder, John Spottiswood,[263] afterwards the reformed superintendent of Lothian, who had imbibed the protestant doctrines from archbishop Cranmer in England, and who instilled them into the minds of his parishioners, and of the nobility and gentry that frequented the house of his patron.[264] Among those who attended Knox’s sermons at Calder, were three young noblemen, who made a great figure in the public transactions which followed;—Archibald, lord Lorn, who, succeeding to the earldom of Argyle at the most critical period of the Reformation, promoted, with all the ardour of youthful zeal, that cause which his father had espoused in extreme old age;—John, lord Erskine, afterwards earl of Mar, who commanded the important fortress of Edinburgh castle, during the civil war which ensued between the queen‑regent and the protestants, and died regent of Scotland;—and lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son of James V., who was subsequently created earl of Murray, and was the first regent of the kingdom during the minority of James VI. Being designed for the church, the last named nobleman had been in his youth made prior of St Andrews—a title by which he is often mentioned in history; but, on arriving at manhood, he discovered no inclination to follow the clerical profession. He was at this time in the twenty‑second year of his age;[265] and although he had lived for the most part in retirement from the court, had already given proofs of those superior talents which he had soon a more favourable opportunity of displaying. Knox had formerly met with him in London, and his sagacity led him, even at that time, to form the highest expectations from the talents and spirit of the youthful prior.[266] The three noblemen were much gratified with Knox’s doctrine, and his exhortations made an impression upon their minds, which remained during the succeeding part of their lives.

In the beginning of the year 1556, he was conducted by Lockhart of Bar, and Campbell of Kineancleugh, to Kyle, the ancient receptacle of the Scottish Lollards, where there were a number of adherents to the reformed doctrine. He preached in the houses of Bar, Kineancleugh, Carnell, Ochiltree, and Gadgirth, and in the town of Ayr. In several of these places he also dispensed the sacrament of our Lord’s supper. A little before Easter, he went to Finlayston, the baronial mansion of the noble family of Glencairn. William, earl of Glencairn, having been killed at the battle of Pinkie, had been succeeded by his son, Alexander, whose superior learning and ability did not escape the discerning eye of Sir Ralph Sadler, during his embassy in Scotland.[267] He was an ardent and steady friend to the reformed religion, and had carefully instructed his family in its principles. In his house, besides preaching, Knox dispensed the sacrament of the supper; the earl himself, his countess, and two of their sons, with a number of their friends and acquaintance, participating of that sacred feast.[268]

From Finlayston he returned to Calder‑house, and soon after paid a second visit to Dun, during which he preached more openly than before. At this time the greater part of the gentlemen of Mearns made profession of the reformed religion, by sitting down at the Lord’s table; and entered into a solemn and mutual bond, in which they renounced the popish communion, and engaged to maintain and promote the pure preaching of the gospel, as providence should favour them with opportunities.[269]

This seems to have been the first of those religious bonds or covenants, by which the confederation of the protestants in Scotland was so frequently ratified. Although they have been condemned as unwarranted in a religious point of view, and dangerous in a political, yet are they completely defensible upon the principles both of conscience and policy. A mutual agreement, compact, or covenant, is virtually implied in the constitution of every society, civil or religious; and the dictates of natural law conspire with the declarations of revelation in sanctioning the warrantableness and propriety of explicit engagements, about any lawful and important matter, and of ratifying these, if circumstances shall require it, by formal subscription, and by a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts. By strengthening the motives to fidelity and constancy, and thus producing mutual confidence among those who are embarked in the same cause, they have proved eminently beneficial in the reformation of churches and nations, and in securing the religious and political privileges of men. The misapplication of them, when employed in a bad cause and for mischievous ends, can be no argument against their use in a legitimate way, and for laudable purposes. And the reasoning employed to prove that such covenants should not be entered into without the permission of rulers, would lead to the conclusion, that subjects ought never to profess a religion to which their superiors are hostile, nor make any attempts to obtain the reform of abuses, or the redress of grievances, without the consent and approbation of those who are interested in their support.

The dangers to which Knox and his friends had been accustomed, taught them to conduct matters with such secrecy, that he had preached for a considerable time, and in different quarters of the country, before the clergy knew that he was in the kingdom. Concealment was, however, impracticable after his audiences became numerous. His preaching at Ayr was reported to the court, and formed the topic of conversation in the presence of the queen regent. Some one in the company having affirmed that the preacher was an Englishman, “a prelate, not of the least pride, said, ‘Nay; no Englishman, but it is Knox, that knave.’” This was Beatoun, archbishop of Glasgow. “It was my Lord’s pleasure,” says Knox, “so to baptize a poor man; the reason whereof, if it should be required, his rochet and mitre must stand for authority. What further liberty he used in defining things alike uncertain to him, to wit, of my learning and doctrine, at this present I omit. For what hath my life and conversation been, since it hath pleased God to call me from the puddle of papistry, let my very enemies speak; and what learning I have, they may prove when they please.”[270] Interest was at that time made by the bishops for his apprehension, but without success.[271]

After his last journey to Angus, the friars flocked from all quarters to the bishops, and instigated them to adopt speedy and decisive measures for checking the alarming effects of his preaching. In consequence of this, he was summoned to appear before a convention of the clergy, in the church of the Blackfriars at Edinburgh, on the 15th of May. This diet he resolved to keep, and with that view came to Edinburgh, before the day appointed, accompanied by Erskine of Dun, and several other gentlemen. The clergy had never dreamed of his attendance. Being apprised of his determination, and afraid to bring matters to extremity, while unassured of the regent’s decided support, they met beforehand, set aside the summons under pretence of some informality, and deserted the diet against him. On the day on which he should have appeared as a culprit, Knox preached in the bishop of Dunkeld’s large lodging, to a far greater audience than had before attended him in Edinburgh. During the ten following days, he preached in the same place, forenoon and afternoon; none of the clergy making the smallest attempt to disturb him. It was in the midst of these labours, that he wrote the following hasty lines to Mrs Bowes.

“Belovit mother, with my maist hartlie commendation in the Lord Jesus, albeit I was fullie purpoisit to have visitit yow before this tyme, yet hath God laid impedimentis, whilk I culd not avoyd. Thay are suche as I dout not ar to his glorie, and to the comfort of many heir. The trumpet blew the ald sound thrie dayis together, till privat houssis of indifferent largenes culd not conteane the voce of it. God, for Christ his Sonis sake, grant me to be myndful, that the sobbis of my hart hath not been in vane, nor neglectit in the presence of his majestie. O! sweet war the death that suld follow sic fourtie dayis in Edinburgh, as heir I have had thrie. Rejose, mother; the tyme of our deliverance approacheth: for, as Sathan rageth, sa dois the grace of the Halie Spreit abound, and daylie geveth new testymonyis of the everlasting love of oure mercifull Father. I can wryt na mair to you at this present. The grace of the Lord Jesus rest with you. In haste—this Monunday—your sone, John Knox.”[272]

About this time, the Earl Marischal was induced to attend an evening exhortation delivered by Knox. He was so much pleased with the discourse, that he joined with Glencairn in urging the preacher to write a letter to the queen regent, which, they thought, might have the effect of inclining her to protect the reformed preachers, if not also to lend a favourable ear to their doctrine. With this request he was induced to comply.[273]

As a specimen of the manner in which this letter was written, I shall give the following quotation, in the original language. “I dout not, that the rumouris, whilk haif cumin to your grace’s earis of me, haif bene such, that (yf all reportis wer trew) I wer unworthie to live in the earth. And wonder it is, that the voces of the multitude suld not so have inflamed your grace’s hart with just hatred of such a one as I am accuseit to be, that all acces to pitie suld have been schute up. I am traducit as ane heretick, accusit as a false teacher and seducer of the pepill, besides other opprobries, whilk (affirmit by men of warldlie honour and estimation) may easelie kendill the wrath of majestratis, whair innocencie is not knawin. But blissit be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Chryst, who, by the dew of his heavenly grace, hath so quenchit the fyre of displeasure as yit in your grace’s hart, (whilk of lait dayis I have understood,) that Sathan is frustrat of his interpryse and purpois. Whilk is to my heart no small comfort; not so muche (God is witnes) for any benefit that I can resave in this miserable lyfe, by protectioun of any earthlie creature, (for the cupe whilk it behoveth me to drink is apoyntit by the wisdome of him whois consallis ar not changeable,) as that I am for that benefit whilk I am assurit your grace sall resave; yf that ye continew in like moderation and clemencie towardis utheris that maist unjustlie ar and sal be accusit, as that your grace hath begun towardis me, and my most desperate cause.” An orator (he continued) might justly require of her grace a motherly pity towards her subjects, the execution of justice upon murderers and oppressors, a heart free from avarice and partiality, a mind studious of the public welfare, with other virtues which heathen as well as inspired writers required of rulers. But, in his opinion, it was vain to crave reformation of manners, when religion was so much corrupted. He could not propose, in the present letter, to lay open the sources, progress, and extent of those errors and corruptions which had overspread and inundated the church; but, if her majesty would grant him opportunity and liberty of speech, he was ready to undertake this task. In the meantime, he could not refrain from calling her attention to this important subject, and pointing out to her the fallacy of some general prejudices, by which she was in danger of being deluded. She ought to beware of thinking, that the care of religion did not belong to magistrates, but was devolved wholly on the clergy; that it was a thing incredible that religion should be so universally depraved; or that true religion was to be judged of by the majority of voices, by custom, by the laws and determinations of men, or by any thing but the infallible dictates of inspired scripture. He knew that innovations in religion were deemed hazardous; but the urgent necessity and immense magnitude of the object ought, in the present case, to swallow up the fear of danger. He was aware that a public reformation might be thought to exceed her authority as regent; but she could not be bound to maintain idolatry and manifest abuses, nor to suffer the clergy to murder innocent men, merely because they worshipped God according to his word.

Though Knox’s pen was not the most smooth nor delicate, and though he often irritated by the plainness and severity of his language, the letter to the queen regent is very far from being uncourtly or inelegant. It seems to have been written with great care, and in point of style may be compared with any composition of that period, for simplicity and forcible expression.[274] Its strain was well calculated for stimulating the enquiries, and confirming the resolutions, of one who was impressed with a conviction of the reigning evils in the church, or who, though not resolved in judgment as to the matters in controversy, was determined to preserve moderation between the contending parties. Notwithstanding her imposing manners, the regent was not a person of this description. The earl of Glencairn delivered the letter into her hand; she glanced over it with a careless air, and gave it to the archbishop of Glasgow, saying, “Please you, my lord, to read a pasquil.”[275] The report of this induced Knox, after he retired from Scotland, to publish the letter, with additions. The style of the additions is more spirited and sharp than that of the original letter; but there is nothing even in them which is indecorous, or which will warrant the charge which has been brought against him of being accustomed to treat crowned heads with irreverence and disrespect. “As charitie,” says he, “persuadeth me to interpret thinges doubtfully spoken in the best sence, so my dutie to God (who hath commanded me to flatter no prince in the earth) compelleth me to say, that if no more ye esteme the admonition of God nor the cardinalles do the scoffing of pasquilles, then he shall schortly send you messagers, with whom ye shall not be able on that maner to jest.—I did not speak unto you, madame, by my former lettre, nether yet do I now, as Pasquillus doth to the pope, in behalf of such as dare not utter their names; but I come, in the name of Jesus Christ, affirming that the religion which ye maintain is damnable idolatrie: the which I offre myselfe to prove by the most evident testimonies of Goddis scriptures. And, in this quarrelle, I present myself againste all the papistes within the realme, desireing none other armore but Goddis holie word, and the libertie of my tonge.”[276]

While he was thus employed in Scotland, he received letters from the English congregation at Geneva, stating that they had made choice of him as one of their pastors, and urging him to come and take the inspection of them.[277] He judged it his duty to comply with this invitation, and began immediately to prepare for the journey. His wife and mother‑in‑law had by this time joined him at Edinburgh; and Mrs Bowes, being now a widow, resolved to accompany Mrs Knox and her husband to Geneva. Having sent them before him in a vessel to Dieppe, Knox again visited and took his leave of the brethren in the different places where he had preached. He was conducted, by his friend Campbell of Kineancleuch, to the earl of Argyle, and preached for some days at his seat of Castle Campbell.[278] That aged nobleman appears to have received durable impressions from the instructions of the Reformer. He resisted all the arts which the clergy afterwards employed to detach him from the protestant interest, and on his death‑bed laid a solemn charge upon his son to use his utmost influence for its preservation and advancement. Argyle, and Glenorchy, who was also a hearer of Knox, endeavoured to detain him in Scotland, but without success. “If God so blessed their small beginnings,” he said, “that they continued in godliness, whensoever they pleased to command him, they should find him obedient. But once he must needs visit that little flock, which the wickedness of men had compelled him to leave.” Accordingly, in the month of July 1556, he left Scotland, and having joined his family at Dieppe, proceeded along with them to Geneva.[279]

No sooner did the clergy understand that he had quitted the kingdom, than they, in a dastardly manner, renewed the summons against him which they had deserted during his presence, and, upon his failing to appear, passed sentence against him, adjudging his body to the flames, and his soul to damnation. As his person was out of their reach, they caused his effigy to be ignominiously burned at the cross of Edinburgh. Against this sentence he drew up his Appellation, which he afterwards published, with a supplication and exhortation, directed to the nobility and commonalty of Scotland. It may not be improper here to subjoin the summary which he gave in this treatise of the doctrine taught by him during his late visit to Scotland, which the clergy pronounced so execrable, and deserving of such horrible punishment. He taught, that there is no other name by which men can be saved but that of Jesus, and that all reliance on the merits of others is vain and delusive; that the Saviour having by his one sacrifice sanctified and reconciled to God those who should inherit the promised kingdom, all other sacrifices which men pretend to offer for sin are blasphemous; that all men ought to hate sin, which is so odious before God that no sacrifice but the death of his Son could satisfy for it; that they ought to magnify their heavenly Father, who did not spare him who is the substance of his glory, but gave him up to suffer the ignominious and cruel death of the cross for us; and that those who have been washed from their former sins are bound to lead a new life, fighting against the lusts of the flesh, and studying to glorify God by good works. In conformity with the certification of his Master, that he would deny and be ashamed of those who should deny and be ashamed of him and his words before a wicked generation, he further taught, that it is incumbent on those who hope for life everlasting, to make an open profession of the doctrine of Christ, and to avoid idolatry, superstition, vain religion, and, in one word, every way of worship which is destitute of authority from the word of God. This doctrine he did believe so conformable to God’s holy scriptures, that he thought no creature could have been so impudent as to deny any point or article of it; yet had the false bishops and ungodly clergy condemned him as a heretic, and his doctrine as heretical, and pronounced against him the sentence of death, in testimony of which they had burnt his effigy: from which sentence he appealed to a lawful and general council, to be held agreeably to ancient laws and canons; humbly requesting the nobility and commons of Scotland, to take him, and others who were accused and persecuted, under their protection, until such time as these controversies were decided, and to regard this his plain appellation as of no less effect, than if it had been made with the accustomed solemnity and ceremonies.[280]

The late visit of our Reformer was of vast consequence. By his labours on this occasion, he laid the foundations of that noble edifice which he was afterwards so instrumental in completing. The friends of the protestant doctrine were separated from the corrupt communion to which, in a certain degree, they had hitherto adhered; their information in scriptural truth was greatly improved; and they were brought together in different parts of the nation, and prepared for being organized into a regular church, as soon as providence should grant them external liberty, and furnish them with persons qualified for acting as overseers. Some may be apt to blame him for abandoning with too great precipitation the undertaking which he had so auspiciously begun. But, without pretending to ascertain the train of reflections which occurred to his mind, we may trace, in his determination, the wise arrangements of that providence which watched over the infant Reformation, and guided the steps of the Reformer. His absence was now no less conducive to the preservation of the cause, than his presence and personal labours had lately been to its advancement. Matters were not yet ripened for a general reformation in Scotland; and the clergy would never have suffered so zealous and able a champion of the new doctrines to live in the country. By retiring at this time, he not only preserved his own life, and reserved his labours to a more fit opportunity, but he also averted the storm of persecution from the heads of his brethren. Deprived of teachers, they became objects of less jealousy to their adversaries; while in their private meetings, they continued to confirm one another in the doctrine which they had received, and the seed lately sown had sufficient time to take root and spread.

Before he took his departure, Knox gave his brethren such directions as he judged most necessary, and most useful to them, in their present circumstances. Not satisfied with communicating these orally, he committed them to writing in a common letter, which he either left behind him, or sent from Dieppe, to be circulated in the different quarters where he had preached. In this letter, he warmly recommends to every one the frequent and careful perusal of the scriptures. He inculcates the duty of attending to religious instruction and worship in each family. He exhorts the brethren to meet together once every week, if practicable, and gives them directions for conducting their assemblies, in the manner best adapted to their mutual improvement, while destitute of public teachers. They ought to begin with confession of sins, and invocation of the divine blessing. A portion of the scriptures should then be read; and they would find it of great advantage to observe a regular course in their reading, and to join a chapter of the Old and of the New Testament together. After the reading of the scriptures, if an exhortation, interpretation, or doubt, occurred to any brother, he might speak; but he ought to do it with modesty, and a desire to edify or to be edified, carefully avoiding “multiplication of words, perplexed interpretation, and wilfulness in reasoning.” If, in the course of reading or conference, they met with any difficulties which they could not solve, he advised them to commit these to writing, before they separated, that they might submit them to the judgment of the learned; and he signified his own readiness to give them his advice by letter, whenever it should be required. Their assemblies ought always to be closed, as well as opened, by prayer.[281] There is every reason to conclude, that these directions were punctually complied with; this letter may therefore be viewed as an important document regarding the state of the protestant church in Scotland, previous to the establishment of the Reformation, and shall be inserted at large in the notes.[282]

Among his subsequent letters are answers to questions which his countrymen had transmitted to him for advice. The questions are such as might be supposed to arise in the minds of pious persons lately made acquainted with scripture, puzzled with particular expressions, and at a loss how to apply some of its directions to their situation. They discover an inquisitive and conscientious disposition; and at the same time, illustrate the disadvantages under which ordinary Christians labour when deprived of the assistance of learned teachers.[283] Our Reformer’s answers display an intimate acquaintance with scripture, and dexterity in expounding it, with prudence in giving advice in cases of conscience, so as not to encourage a dangerous laxity on the one hand, or scrupulosity and excessive rigidness on the other.

PERIOD V.

FROM THE YEAR 1556, WHEN HE RETURNED TO GENEVA, AFTER VISITING SCOTLAND, TO MAY 1559, WHEN HE RETURNED TO SCOTLAND FOR THE LAST TIME.

KNOX reached Geneva before the end of harvest, and took upon him the charge of the English congregation there,[284] among whom he laboured during the two following years. This short period was the most quiet of his life. In the bosom of his own family, he experienced that soothing care to which he had hitherto been a stranger, and which his frequent bodily ailments now required. Two sons were borne to him in Geneva. The greatest affection to him, and cordiality among themselves, subsisted in the small flock under his charge. With his colleague, Christopher Goodman, he lived as a brother; and he was happy in the friendship of Calvin and the other pastors of Geneva. So much was he pleased with the purity of religion established in that city, that he warmly recommended it to his religious acquaintances in England, as the best Christian asylum to which they could flee. “In my heart,” says he, in a letter to his friend Mr Locke, “I could have wished, yea, and cannot cease to wish, that it might please God to guide and conduct yourself to this place, where, I neither fear nor eshame to say, is the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the apostles. In other places I confess Christ to be truly preached; but manners and religion to be so sincerely reformed, I have not yet seen in any other place beside.”[285]

But neither the enjoyment of personal accommodations, nor the pleasures of literary society, nor the endearments of domestic happiness, could subdue Knox’s ruling passion, or unfix his determination to revisit Scotland, as soon as an opportunity should offer, for advancing the Reformation among his countrymen. In a letter written to some of his friends in Edinburgh, March 16, 1557, he expresses himself in the following manner: “My own motion and daily prayer is, not only that I may visit you, but also that with joy I may end my battle among you. And assure yourself of this, that whenever a greater number among you shall call upon me than now hath bound me to serve them, by his grace it shall not be the fear of punishment, neither yet of the death temporal, that shall impede my coming to you.”[286] A certain heroic confidence, and assurance of ultimate success, have often been displayed by those whom providence has raised up to achieve great revolutions in the world; by which they have been borne up under discouragements which would have overwhelmed men of ordinary spirits, and emboldened to face dangers from which others would have shrunk appalled. Knox possessed no inconsiderable portion of that enthusiastic heroism which was so conspicuous in the German reformer. “Satan, I confess, rageth,” says he, in a letter written at this time; “but potent is he that promiseth to be with us, in all such enterprises as we take in hand at his commandment, for the glory of his name, and for maintenance of his true religion. And therefore the less fear we any contrary power; yea, in the boldness of our God, we altogether contemn them, be they kings, emperors, men, angels, or devils. For they shall be never able to prevail against the simple truth of God which we openly profess; by the permission of God they may appear to prevail against our bodies, but our cause shall triumph in despite of Satan.”[287]

Soon after the above letter had been written, two citizens of Edinburgh, James Syme and James Barron, arrived at Geneva with a letter and credentials, from the earl of Glencairn, and lords Lorn, Erskine, and James Stewart; informing him, that the professors of the reformed doctrine remained steadfast, that its adversaries were daily losing credit in the nation, and that those who possessed the supreme authority, although they had not yet declared themselves friendly to it, continued to refrain from persecution; and inviting him, in their own name, and in that of their brethren, to return to Scotland, where he would find them all ready to receive him, and to spend their lives and fortunes in advancing the cause which they had espoused.[288]

Knox, at the same time that he laid this letter before his congregation, craved the advice of Calvin and the other ministers of Geneva. They gave it as their opinion, “that he could not refuse the call without showing himself rebellious to God, and unmerciful to his country.” His congregation agreed to sacrifice their particular interest to the greater good of the church; and his own family silently acquiesced. Upon this, he returned an answer to the letter of the nobility, signifying that he meant to visit them with all reasonable expedition. The congregation chose as his successor William Whittingham,[289] a learned Englishman, with whom he had been long united by the ties of friendship and congeniality of sentiment. Having settled his other affairs, he took an affectionate leave of his friends at Geneva, and went to Dieppe, in the month of October. But on his arrival there, he received letters from Scotland, written in a very different strain from the former. By these he was informed, that new consultations had been held among the protestants in that country; that some of them began to repent of the invitation which they had given him to return; and that the greater part seemed irresolute and faint‑hearted.

This intelligence exceedingly disconcerted and embarrassed him. He instantly dispatched a letter to the nobility who had invited him, upbraiding them for their timidity and inconstancy. The information which he had just received, had (he said) confounded him, and pierced his heart with sorrow. After taking the advice of the most learned and godly in Europe, to satisfy his own conscience and theirs as to the propriety of this enterprise, the abandonment of it must reflect disgrace either on him or them—it argued either that he had been marvellously forward and vain, or that they had betrayed great imprudence and want of judgment in the invitation which they had given him. To some it might appear a small matter that he had left his poor family destitute of a head, and committed the care of his little but dearly‑beloved flock to another; but, for his part, he could not name the sum that would induce him to go through that scene a second time, and to behold so many grave men weeping at his departure. What answer could he give to those who enquired, why he did not prosecute his journey? He could take God to witness, that the personal inconveniences to which he had been subjected, and the mortification which he felt at the disappointment, were not the chief causes of his grief. He was alarmed at the awful consequences which would ensue—at the bondage and misery, spiritual and temporal, which they would entail on themselves and their children, their subjects and their posterity, if they neglected the present opportunity of introducing the gospel into their native country. In his conscience, he could exempt none that bore the name of nobility in Scotland from blame in this affair. His words might perhaps appear sharp and indiscreet; but charity would construe them in the best sense, and wise men would consider that a true friend cannot flatter, especially in a matter which involves the salvation of the bodies and souls, not of a few persons, but of a whole realm. “What are the sobs, and what is the affliction, of my troubled heart, God shall one day declare. But this will I add to my former rigour and severity; to wit, if any persuade you, for fear or dangers to follow, to faint in your former purpose, be he esteemed never so wise and friendly, let him be judged of you both foolish and your mortal enemy.—I am not ignorant that fearful troubles shall ensue your enterprise, as in my former letters I did signify unto you. But, O! joyful and comfortable are those troubles and adversities which man sustaineth for accomplishment of God’s will revealed in his word. For how terrible soever they appear to the judgment of natural men, yet are they never able to devour nor utterly to consume the sufferers; for the invisible and invincible power of God sustaineth and preserveth, according to his promise, all such as with simplicity do obey him.—No less cause have ye to enter in your former enterprise, than Moses had to go to the presence of Pharaoh; for your subjects, yea, your brethren, are oppressed—their bodies and souls holden in bondage; and God speaketh to your consciences (unless ye be dead with the blind world), that ye ought to hazard your own lives, be it against kings or emperors, for their deliverance. For only for that cause are ye called princes of the people, and receive honour, tribute, and homage at God’s commandment,—not by reason of your birth and progeny (as the most part of men falsely do suppose), but by reason of your office and duty; which is, to vindicate and deliver your subjects and brethren from all violence and oppression, to the uttermost of your power.”[290]

Having sent off this letter, with others written in the same strain, to Erskine of Dun, Wishart of Pitterow, and some other gentlemen of his acquaintance, he cherished the hope that he would soon receive more favourable accounts from Scotland, and resolved in the meantime to remain in France.[291] The reformed doctrine had been early introduced into that kingdom; it had been copiously watered with the blood of martyrs; and all the violence which had been employed by its enemies had not been able to extirpate it, or to prevent its spreading among all ranks. The Parisian protestants were at present smarting under the effects of one of those massacres, which so often disgraced the Roman catholic religion in that country, before as well as after the commencement of the civil wars. Not satisfied with assaulting them when peaceably assembled for worship in a private house, and treating them with great barbarity, their adversaries, in imitation of their pagan predecessors, invented the most diabolical calumnies against them, and circulated the report that they were guilty of abominable practices in their religious assemblies.[292] The innocent sufferers had drawn up an apology, in which they vindicated themselves from the atrocious charge; and Knox, having got this translated into English, wrote a preface and additions to it, with the intention of publishing it for the use of his countrymen.[293]

Having formed an acquaintance with many of the protestants of France, and being able to speak their language, he occasionally preached to them in passing through the country. It seems to have been on this occasion that he preached in the city of Rochelle, and having alluded to his native country in the course of his sermon, told his audience that he expected, within a few years, to preach in the church of St Giles, in Edinburgh.[294]

It does not appear that there were any protestants in Dieppe when Knox first visited it. But he had now the satisfaction of officiating in a reformed church, recently planted in that town. In the course of the year 1557, a travelling merchant from Geneva, named John Venable, had come to Dieppe, and by his conversation and the circulation of books, imparted the knowledge of the protestant doctrine to some of the inhabitants. At his request, they were visited by Delajonché, pastor at Rouen, who applied to the ministers of Geneva to furnish them with a preacher. They sent André de Sequeran, sieur d’Amont, who, having removed in the course of a few months, was succeeded by Delaporte, one of the pastors of the church of Rouen. Knox having come to Dieppe at this time, was chosen colleague to Delaporte; and under their ministry the Reformation was embraced by some of the principal persons of the town, and among the rest by M. de Bagueville, a descendant of Charles Martel. A surprising change was soon observed on the morals of the inhabitants, which had formerly been very dissolute; and the church at Dieppe continued long in a flourishing condition.[295]

Being disappointed in his expectation of letters from Scotland, Knox determined to relinquish his journey, and return to Geneva. This resolution does not accord with the usual firmness of our Reformer, and is not sufficiently accounted for in the common histories. The protestant nobles had not retracted their invitation; the discouraging letters which he had received, were written by individuals without any authority from the rest; and if their zeal and courage had begun to flag, his presence was the more necessary to recruit them. From the letters which he wrote to his familiar acquaintance, I am enabled to state the motives by which he was actuated in making this retrograde step. He was perfectly aware that a violent struggle must precede the establishment of the Reformation in his native country; he knew that his presence in Scotland would excite the rage of the clergy, who would make every effort to crush their adversaries, and to maintain the lucrative system of superstition; and he dreaded that civil discord, and tumult, and bloodshed, would ensue. The prospect of these things rushed into his mind, and (regardless of public tranquillity as some have pronounced him to be) staggered his resolution to prosecute an undertaking, which, in his judgment, was not only lawful, but laudable, and necessary. “When,” says he, “I heard such troubles as appeared in that realm, I began to dispute with myself as followeth: ‘Shall Christ, the author of peace, concord, and quietness, be preached where war is proclaimed, sedition engendered, and tumults appear to rise? Shall not his evangel be accused as the cause of all this calamity which is like to follow? What comfort canst thou have to see the one half of the people rise up against the other, yea, to jeopard the one to murder and destroy the other? But, above all, what joy shall it be to thy heart, to behold with thy eyes thy native country betrayed into the hands of strangers, which to no man’s judgment can be avoided; because that those who ought to defend it, and the liberty thereof, are so blind, dull, and obstinate, that they will not see their own destruction?’”[296] To “these and more deep cogitations,” which continued to distract his mind for several months after he returned to Geneva, he principally imputed his abandonment of the journey to Scotland. At the same time, he was convinced that they were not sufficient to justify his desisting from an undertaking recommended by so many powerful considerations. “But, alas!” says he, “as the wounded man, be he never so expert in physick or surgery, cannot suddenly mitigate his own pain and dolour, no more can I the fear and grief of my heart, although I am not ignorant of what is to be done. It may also be, that the doubts and cold writing of some brethren did augment my dolour, and somewhat discourage me that before was more nor feeble. But nothing do I so much accuse as myself.” Whatever were the secondary causes of this step, I cannot help again directing the reader’s attention to the wisdom of providence, in throwing impediments in his way, by which his return to Scotland was protracted to a period, before which it might have been injurious, and at which it was calculated to be in the highest degree beneficial, to the great cause that he meant to promote.

In judging of Knox’s influence in advancing the Reformation, we must take into view not only his personal labours, but also the epistolary correspondence which he maintained with his countrymen. By this he instructed them in his absence, communicated his own advice, and that of the learned among whom he resided, upon every difficult case which occurred, and animated them to constancy and perseverance. During his residence at Dieppe, he transmitted to Scotland two long letters, which deserve particular notice. The one, dated on the 1st of December, is directed to the protestants in general; the other, dated on the 17th of that month, is addressed to the nobility. In both of them he prudently avoids any reference to his late disappointment.

In the first letter he strongly inculcates purity of morals, and warns all who professed the reformed religion against those irregularities of life, which were employed to the disparagement of their cause, by two classes of persons;—by the papists, who, although the same vices prevailed in a far higher degree among themselves, represented them as the native fruits of the reformed doctrine;—and by a new sect, who were enemies to superstition, but who had deserted the reformed communion, and were become scarcely less hostile to it than the papists. The principal design of this letter was to put his countrymen on their guard against the arts of this last class of persons and to expose their leading errors.

The persons to whom he referred went under the general name of anabaptists, a sect which sprung up soon after the commencement of the Reformation under Luther, and, breaking out into the greatest excesses, produced violent commotions in different parts of Germany. Being suppressed in the place of its birth, it spread through other countries, and secretly made converts by high pretensions to seriousness and Christian simplicity; the spirit of wild fanaticism, which at first characterised its disciples gradually subsiding after the first effervescence. Extravagancies of a similar kind have not unfrequently accompanied great revolutions; when the minds of men, released from the fetters of implicit obedience, and dazzled by a sudden illumination, have been disposed to fly to the extreme of anarchy and turbulence. Nothing proved more vexatious to the original reformers than this. It was urged by the defenders of the old system as a popular argument against all change. The extravagant opinions and disorderly practices of the new sect, though disowned and opposed by all sober protestants, were artfully imputed to them by their adversaries. And many who had declared themselves friendly to reform, alarmed, or pretending to be alarmed, at this hideous spectre, drew back, and sheltered themselves within the sacred pale of that church, which, notwithstanding her notorious dissensions, errors, and corruption, both in head and members, continued to arrogate to herself exclusively the properties of unity, universality, and perpetual infallibility.

The radical error of this sect, according to the more improved system held by them at the time of which I write, was a fond conceit of a certain ideal spirituality and perfection, by which they considered the Christian church to be essentially distinguished from the Jewish, which was, in their opinion, a mere carnal, secular society. Entertaining this notion, they were naturally led to abridge the rule of faith and manners, by confining themselves almost entirely to the New Testament, and to adopt their other opinions concerning the unlawfulness of infant baptism, of civil magistracy, national churches, oaths, and defensive war. But besides these tenets, the anabaptists were, at this period, generally infected with the Pelagian heresy, and united with the papists in loading the doctrines which the reformers held respecting predestination and grace with the most odious charges.[297]

Our Reformer had occasion to meet with some of these sectaries both in England and on the continent, and had ascertained their extravagant and dangerous principles. In the year 1553, one of them came to his lodging in London, and, after requiring secrecy, gave him a book, written by one of the party, which he pressed him to read. It contained the following proposition, “God made not the world, nor the wicked creatures in it; but these were made by the devil, who is therefore called the God of this world.” He immediately warned the man against such gross doctrine, and began to explain to him the sense in which the devil is called “the god of this world” in scripture. “Tush for your written word!” replied the enthusiast, “we have as good and as sure a word and veritie that teacheth us this doctrine, as ye have for you and your opinion.”[298] Being apprised that persons who had imbibed these opinions were creeping into Scotland, Knox was afraid that they might insidiously instil their poison into the minds of some of his brethren. He refuted their opinion respecting church‑communion, by showing that they required a purity which had never been found in the church, either before or since the completion of the canon of scripture. In opposition to their Pelagian tenets, he gave the following statement of his sentiments: “If there be any thing which God did not predestinate or appoint, then lacked he wisdom and free regimen; or, if any thing was ever done, or yet after shall be done, in heaven or in earth, which he might not have impeded, (if so had been his godly pleasure,) then he is not omnipotent; which three properties, to wit, wisdom, free regimen, and power, denied to be in God, I pray you what rests in his godhead? The wisdom of our God we acknowledge to be such, that it compelleth the very malice of Satan, and the horrible iniquity of such as be drowned in sin, to serve to his glory and to the profit of his elect. His power we believe and confess to be infinite, and such as no creature in heaven or earth is able to resist. And his regimen we acknowledge to be so free, that none of his creatures dare present them in judgment, to reason or demand the question, why hast thou done this or that? But the fountain of this their damnable error, (which is, that in God they can acknowledge no justice except that which their foolish brain is able to comprehend,) at more opportunity, God willing, we shall intreat.”[299]

He assigns his reasons for warning them so particularly against the seduction of these erroneous teachers. Under the cloak of mortification, and the colour of a godly life, they “supplanted the dignity of Christ,” and “were become enemies to free justification by faith in his blood.” The malice of papists was now visible to all the world; the hypocrisy of mercenary teachers and ungodly professors would soon discover itself; and seldom had open tyranny been able to suppress the true religion, when it had once been earnestly embraced by the body of any nation or province. “But deceivable and false doctrine is a poison and venom, which, once drunken and received, with great difficulty can afterward be purged.” Accordingly, he charged them to “try the spirits” which came to them, and to suffer no man to take the office of preacher upon him of his own accord and without trial, or to assemble the people in secret meetings; else Satan would soon have his emissaries among them, who would “destroy the plantation of our heavenly Father.”[300] His admonitions, on this head, were not without effect; and the protestants of Scotland, instead of being distracted with these opinions, remained united in their views, as to doctrine, worship, and discipline.

His letter to the protestant lords breathes an ardent and elevated spirit. Its object was to purify their minds from selfish and worldly principles—to raise, sanctify, and christianize their views, by exhibiting and recommending to them the examples of those great and good men whose characters were delineated, and whose deeds were recorded, in the sacred annals. The glory of God, the advancement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the salvation of themselves and their brethren, the emancipation of their country from spiritual and political bondage—these, and not their own honour and aggrandizement, or the revenging of their petty private feuds, were the objects which they ought to keep steadily and solely in view.

In this letter, he also communicates his advice on the delicate question of resistance to supreme rulers. They had consulted him on this subject, and he had submitted it to the judgment of the most learned men on the continent. Soon after they had agreed to the marriage of their young queen to the dauphin of France, the Scots began to be jealous of the designs of the French court against their liberties and independence. Their jealousies increased after the regency was transferred to the queen dowager, who was wholly devoted to the interest of France, and had contrived, under different pretexts, to keep a body of French troops in the kingdom. It was not difficult to excite to resistance the independent and haughty barons of Scotland, accustomed to yield a very limited and precarious obedience even to their native princes. They had lately given a proof of this by their refusal to co‑operate in the war against England, which they considered as undertaken merely for French interests. And, encouraged by this circumstance, the duke of Chastelherault had begun, under the direction of his brother, the archbishop of St Andrews, to intrigue for regaining the authority which he had reluctantly resigned.

Our Reformer displayed his moderation, and the soundness of his principles, by the advice which he gave at this critical period. He did not attempt to inflame the irascible minds of the nobility by aggravating the male‑administration of the queen regent; far less did he advise them to join with the duke, and others who were discontented with the government, and to endeavour in this way to advance their cause. Instead of this, he informed them that it was currently reported on the continent that a rebellion was intended in Scotland; and he solemnly charged all the professors of the protestant religion to avoid accession to it, and to beware of countenancing those who sought to promote their private and worldly ends by disturbing the government. “He did not mean,” he said, “to retract the principle which he had advanced in former letters, nor to deny the lawfulness of inferior magistrates, and the body of a nation, resisting the tyrannical measures of supreme rulers.” He still held, that there was “a great difference between lawful obedience, and a fearful flattering of princes, or an unjust accomplishment of their desires, in things which be required or devised for the destruction of a commonwealth.” The nobility were the hereditary guardians of the national liberties; and there were limits beyond which obedience was not due by subjects. But recourse ought not to be had to resistance, except when matters were tyrannically driven to an extreme. And it was peculiarly incumbent on the protestants of Scotland to be circumspect in all their proceedings, that they might give their adversaries no reason to allege that seditious and rebellious designs were concealed under the cloak of zeal for reforming religion. His advice and solemn charge to them therefore was, that they should continue to yield cheerful obedience to all the lawful commands of the regent, and endeavour, by humble and repeated requests, to procure her favour, and to prevail upon her, if not to promote their cause, at least to protect them from persecution. If she refused to take any steps for reforming religion, it was their duty to provide that the gospel should be preached, and the sacraments administered in purity, to themselves and their brethren. If, while they were endeavouring peaceably to accomplish this, attempts should be made to crush them by violence, he did not think, considering the station which they occupied, that they were bound to look on and see their innocent brethren murdered. On the contrary, it was lawful for them, nay, it was their incumbent duty, to stand up in their defence. But even in this case they ought to protest their readiness to obey the regent in every thing consistent with their fidelity to God, and to avoid all association with the ambitious, the factious, and the turbulent.[301]

This is a specimen of the correspondence which Knox maintained with the protestant nobility, by which he enlightened their views, aroused their zeal, and restrained their impetuosity, at this important juncture. I shall afterwards have occasion to call the attention of the reader more particularly to his political principles.

Knox returned to Geneva in the beginning of the year 1558. During that year, he was engaged, along with several learned men of his congregation, in making a new translation of the Bible into English; which, from the place where it was composed and first printed, has obtained the name of the Geneva Bible.[302] It was at this time also that he published his Letter to the queen regent, and his Appellation and Exhortation; both of which were transmitted to Scotland, and contributed not a little to the spread of the reformed opinions. I have already given an account of the first of these tracts, which was chiefly intended for removing the prejudices of Roman catholics. The last was more immediately designed for instructing and animating the friends of the reformed religion. Addressing himself to the nobility and estates of the kingdom, he shows that the care and reformation of religion belonged to them as civil rulers, and constituted one of the primary duties of their office. This was a dictate of nature as well as revelation; and he would not insist on it, lest he should seem to suppose them “lesse careful over God’s true religion, than were the ethnicks[303] over their idolatrie.” Inferior magistrates, within the sphere of their jurisdiction—the nobles and estates of a kingdom, as well as kings and princes, were bound to attend to this high duty. He then addresses himself to the commonalty of Scotland, and points out their duty and interest, with regard to the important controversy in agitation. They were rational creatures, formed after the image of God—they had souls to be saved—they were accountable for their conduct—they were bound to judge of the truth of religion, and to make profession of it, as well as kings, nobles, or bishops. If idolatry was maintained, if the gospel was suppressed, if the blood of the innocent was shed, and if, in these circumstances, they kept silence, and did not exert themselves to prevent such evils, how could they vindicate their conduct?[304]

But the most singular treatise published this year by Knox, and that which made the greatest noise, was, “The first Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment[305] of Women;” in which he attacked, with great vehemence, the practice of admitting females to the government of nations. There is some reason to think that his mind was struck with the incongruity of this practice as early as Mary’s accession to the throne of England.[306] This was probably one of the points on which he had conferred with the Swiss divines in 1554.[307] That his sentiments respecting it were fixed in 1556, appears from an incidental reference to the subject in one of his familiar letters.[308] Influenced, however, by deference to the opinion of others, he refrained for a considerable time from publishing them to the world. But at last, provoked by the tyranny of the queen of England, and wearied out with her increasing cruelties, he applied the trumpet to his mouth, and uttered a terrible blast. “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire, above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, a thing most contrarious to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and, finally, it is a subversion of all equity and justice.” Such is the first sentence and principal proposition of the work. The arguments by which he endeavours to establish it are, that nature intended the female sex for subjection, not superiority, to the male, as appears from their infirmities, corporal and mental (excepting always such as God, “by singular privilege, and for certain causes, exempted from the common rank of women”); that the divine law, announced at the creation of the first pair, had expressly assigned to man the dominion over woman, and commanded her to be subject to him; that female government was not permitted among the Jews; that it is contrary to apostolical injunctions; and that it leads to the perversion of government, and other pernicious consequences.

Knox’s theory on this subject was not novel. In support of his opinion, he could appeal to the constitutions of the free states of antiquity, and to the authority of their most celebrated legislators and philosophers.[309] In the kingdom of France, females were, by an express law, excluded from succeeding to the crown. Edward VI., some time before his death, had proposed to the privy council the adoption of this law in England; but the motion, not suiting the ambitious views of the duke of Northumberland, was overruled.[310] Though his opinion was sanctioned by such high authority, Knox was by no means sanguine in his expectations as to the reception of this performance. He tells us, in the preface, that he laid his account not only with the indignation of those who were interested in the support of the reprobated practice, but also with the disapprobation of such gentle spirits among the learned as would be alarmed at the boldness of the attack. He did not doubt, that he would be called “curious, despiteful, a sower of sedition, and one day perchance be attainted for treason;” but, in uttering a truth of which he was deeply convinced, he was determined to “cover his eyes, and shut his ears,” from these dangers and obloquies. He was not mistaken in his anticipations. It exposed him to the resentment of two queens, during whose reign it was his lot to live; the one his native princess, and the other exerting a sway over Scotland scarcely inferior to that of any of its monarchs. Several of the English exiles approved of his opinion,[311] and few of them would have been displeased at seeing it reduced to practice, at the time that the Blast was published. But queen Mary dying soon after it appeared, and her sister Elizabeth succeeding her, they raised a great outcry against it. John Fox wrote a letter to the author, in which he expostulated with him, in a very friendly manner, as to the impropriety of the publication, and the severity of its language. Knox, in his reply, did not excuse his “rude vehemencie and inconsidered affirmations, which may appear rather to proceed from choler than of zeal and reason;” but signified, that he was still persuaded of the principal proposition which he had maintained.[312]

His original intention was to blow his trumpet thrice, and to publish his name with the last blast, to prevent the odium from falling on any other person. But, finding that it gave offence to many of his brethren, and being desirous to strengthen rather than invalidate the authority of Elizabeth, he relinquished his design of prosecuting the discussion.[313] He retained his sentiments to the last, but abstained from any further declaration of them, and from replying to his opponents; although he was provoked by their censures and triumph, and sometimes hinted, in his private letters, that he would break silence, if they did not study greater moderation.

In the course of the following year, an answer to the Blast appeared, under the title of “An Harborow for Faithful Subjects.”[314] Though anonymous, like the book to which it was a reply, it was soon declared to be the production of John Aylmer, one of the English refugees on the continent, who had been archdeacon of Stowe, and tutor to Lady Jane Grey. It was not undertaken until the accession of Elizabeth, and was written, as Aylmer’s biographer informs us, “upon a consultation holden among the exiles, the better to obtain the favour of the new queen, and to take off any jealousy she might conceive of them, and of the religion which they professed.”[315] Aylmer himself says, that, if the author of the Blast “had not swerved from the particular question to the general,” but had confined himself to the queen who filled the throne when he wrote, “he could have said nothing too much, nor in such wise as to have offended any indifferent man;” and he allows with Knox that Mary’s government was “unnatural, unreasonable, unjust, and unlawful.”[316] From these and some other considerations, Knox was induced to express a suspicion, that his opponent had accommodated his doctrine to the times, and courted the favour of the reigning princess, by flattering her vanity and love of power.[317] It is certain, that, if Knox is entitled to the praise of boldness and disinterestedness, Aylmer carried away the palm for prudence; the latter was advanced to the bishopric of London, the former could not, without great difficulty, obtain leave to set his foot again upon English ground. Knox’s Trumpet would never have sounded its alarm, had it not been for the tyranny of Mary, and there is reason to think that Aylmer would never have opened his “Harborow for faithful subjects,” but for the auspicious succession of Elizabeth.

This, however, is independent of the merits of the question, which I do not feel inclined to examine minutely. The change which has taken place in the mode of administering government in modern times, renders it of less practical importance than it was formerly, when so much depended upon the personal talents and activity of the reigning prince. It may be added, that the evils incident to a female reign will be less felt under such a constitution as that of Britain, than under a pure and absolute monarchy. This last consideration is urged by Aylmer; and here his reasoning is most satisfactory.[318] The Blast bears the marks of hasty composition.[319] The Harborow has evidently been written with great care; it contains a good collection of historical facts bearing on the question; and, though more distinguished for rhetorical exaggeration than logical precision, the reasoning is ingeniously conducted, and occasionally enlivened by strokes of humour.[320] It is, upon the whole, a curious as well as rare work.

After all, it is easier to vindicate the expediency of continuing the practice, where it has been established by law and usage, than to support the affirmative, when the question is propounded as a general thesis on government. It may fairly be questioned, if Aylmer has refuted the principal arguments of his opponent; and had Knox deemed it prudent to rejoin, he might have exposed the fallacy of his reasoning in different instances. In replying to the argument from the apostolical canon,[321] the archdeacon is not a little puzzled. Distrusting his distinction between the greater office, “the ecclesiastical function,” and the less, “extern policy,” he argues, that the apostle’s prohibition may be considered as temporary, and peculiarly applicable to the women of his own time; and he insists that his clients shall not, in toto, be excluded from teaching and ruling in the church, any more than in the state. “Me thinke,” says he, very seriously, “even in this poynte, we must use επιεικια, a certain moderacion, not absolutely, and in every wise to debar them herein (as it shall please God) to serve Christ. Are there not, in England, women, think you, that for their learninge and wisdom, could tell their householde and neighbouris as good a tale as the best Sir Jhone there?”[322] Beyond all question. Who can doubt that the learned Lady Elizabeth, who on a certain time interrupted the dean of her chapel, and told him to “stick to his text,” was able to make as good a sermon as any of her clergy? or, that she was better qualified for other parts of the duty, when she composed a book of prayers for herself, while they were obliged to use one made to their hands? In fact, the view which the archdeacon gave of the text was necessary to vindicate the authority of his queen, who was head, or supreme governor, of the church, as well as of the state. She who, by law, had supreme authority over all the reverend and right reverend divines in the land, with power to superintend, suspend, and control them in all their ecclesiastical functions—who, by her injunctions, could direct the primate himself when to preach, and how to preach—and who could license and silence ministers at her pleasure, must have been bound very moderately indeed by the apostolical prohibition, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Reason would also say, that she had an equal right to assume the exercise of the office in her own person, if she chose to avail herself of that right; and had she issued a congé d’élire, accompanied with her royal recommendation to elect some learned sister to a vacant see, the archdeacon at least would not have felt so squeamish at complying with it, as the Italian university did at conferring the degree of Doctor in Divinity upon the learned Helen Lucrecia Piscopia Cornaca.[323]

There are some things in the Harborow which might have been unpalatable to the queen, if the author had not sweetened them with that personal flattery, which was as agreeable to Elizabeth as to others of her sex and rank, and which he took care to administer in sufficient quantities before concluding his work. The ladies will be ready to excuse a slight slip of the pen in the good archdeacon, in consideration of the handsome manner in which he has defended their right to rule; but they will scarcely believe that the following description of the sex could proceed from him. “Some women,” says he, “be wiser, better learned, discreater, constanter, than a number of men;” but others (“the most part,” according to his biographer) he describes[324] as “fond, foolish, wanton, flibbergibs, tatlers, trifling, wavering, witles, without counsel, feable, carles, rashe, proud, daintie, nise, tale‑bearers, eves‑droppers, rumour‑raisers, evil‑tongued, worse‑minded, and, in every wise, doltified with the dregges of the devil’s doungehill!!!” The rude author of the monstrous Blast never spoke of the sex in terms half so disrespectful as these. One would suppose that Aylmer had already renounced the character of advocate of the fair sex, and recanted his principles on that head, as he did respecting the titles and revenues of bishops, which he inveighed against before his return from exile, but afterwards accepted with little scruple; and, when reminded of the language which he had formerly used, apologized for himself by saying, “When I was a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things.”[325]—But it is time to return to the narrative.

Our Reformer’s letter to the protestant lords in Scotland produced its intended effect, in reanimating their drooping courage. At a consultative meeting, held at Edinburgh in December 1557, they unanimously resolved to adhere to one another, and exert themselves in advancing the Reformation. Having subscribed a solemn bond of mutual assurance, they renewed their invitation to Knox; and being afraid that he might hesitate on account of their former irresolution, they wrote to Calvin, to employ his influence to induce him to comply. Their letters did not reach Geneva until November 1558.[326] By the same conveyance, Knox received letters of a later date, communicating the most agreeable intelligence respecting the progress which the reformed cause had made, and the flourishing appearance which it continued to wear, in Scotland.

Through the exertions of our Reformer, during his residence among them in the year 1556, and in pursuance of the instructions which he left behind him, the protestants had formed themselves into congregations, which met in different parts of the country with greater or less privacy, according to the opportunities which they enjoyed. Having come to the resolution of withdrawing from the popish worship, they provided for their religious instruction and mutual edification in the best manner that their circumstances would permit. As there were no ministers among them, they continued for some time to be deprived of the dispensation of the sacraments;[327] but certain intelligent and pious men of their number were chosen to read the scriptures, to exhort, and offer up prayers in their assemblies. Convinced of the necessity of order and discipline in their societies, and desirous to have them organized, as far as was in their power, agreeably to the institution of Christ, they next proceeded to choose elders for the inspection of their manners, to whom they promised subjection, and deacons for the collection and distribution of alms to the poor.[328] Edinburgh was the first place in which this order was established: Dundee the first town in which a reformed church was completely organized, provided with a regular minister, and favoured with the dispensation of the sacraments.

During the war with England, which began in autumn 1556, and continued through the following year, the protestants enjoyed considerable liberty; and they improved it with great zeal and success. The clergy were not indifferent to the progress which the reformed opinions were daily making, and they prevailed with the regent to summon such as had presumed to preach without their authority; but she was obliged to abandon the process against them, in consequence of the arrival of certain gentlemen from the west country, who demanded their release in a tone which declared that they were resolved not to be refused.[329]

At a meeting of the nobles and barons attached to the Reformation, held at Edinburgh in December 1557, two resolutions were adopted for regulating their conduct in the present delicate juncture. It was agreed, in the first place, that they should rest satisfied for the present with requiring that prayers, and the lessons of the Old and New Testament, should be read in English, according to the book of Common Prayer,[330] in every parish, on Sundays and festival days, by the curates of the respective parishes, or, if they were unable or unwilling, by such persons within the bounds as were best qualified. And, secondly, that the reformed preachers should teach in private houses only, till the government should allow them to preach in public.[331] The first resolution has been represented as an unwarrantable assumption of authority by this reforming assembly, and as implying that they had a right to dictate to the whole nation, by setting aside the established worship, and imposing a new form. This construction is, however, irreconcilable with the situation in which they were then placed, and with the moderate and submissive tone in which they continued to urge their claims at a subsequent period. It is rather to be viewed as expressing the opinion of that meeting respecting the degree of reformation which individuals of their body might introduce, in places to which their authority and influence extended. And, accordingly, it was reduced to practice in many parishes where protestant barons resided, and where the people were disposed to imitate their example.[332]

In pursuance of the second resolution agreed on at the general meeting, the earl of Argyle undertook the protection of John Douglas, a carmelite friar, who had embraced the reformed sentiments;[333] and the rest of the preachers were received into the houses of other barons, and employed to preach as their chaplains. This measure alarmed the clergy no less than the former practice of itinerant preaching had done. They saw that it would be vain to commence prosecutions against preachers who were entertained in the families of the principal men in the kingdom; and they resolved to exert all their influence to deprive them of such powerful patronage. Presuming upon the easy temper of the aged earl of Argyle, and upon the friendship which had long subsisted between his family and the Hamiltons, the archbishop of St Andrews wrote a letter to that nobleman in a very insinuating strain, and at the same time sent a relation of his own, Sir David Hamilton, with instructions to represent the danger to which he exposed his noble house by countenancing Douglas, and to intreat him, in the most earnest manner, to withdraw his protection from such a pestilent heretic. Argyle’s reply was temperate and respectful, but at the same time firm and spirited: he not only vindicated the doctrine taught by his chaplain, and refused to dismiss him, but made several shrewd and pointed remarks which the archbishop could not fail to apply to himself. The bishop having written that he felt himself bound “in honour and conscience” to enquire into the heresies of which Douglas was accused, the earl replies: “He preiches against idolatrie, I remit to your lordschip’s conscience gif it be heresie or not; he preiches against adulterie and fornicatioun, I referre that to your lordschip’s conscience;[334] he preiches against hypocrisie, I referre that to your lordschip’s conscience; he preiches against all maner of abuses and corruptioun of Christis sincere religioun, I referre that to your lordschip’s conscience. My lord, I exhort yow, in Christis name, to wey all thir affairis in your conscience, and considder if it be your dewtie also not onlie to thole[335] this, bot in like maner to do the same. This is all, my lord, that I varie in my age, and na uther thing bot that I knew not befoir these offences to be abhominable to God, and now, knawing his will by manifestatioun of his word, abhorres thame.” Referring to the bishop’s offer to send him a learned and catholic teacher, the earl replies, “God Almichtie send us mony of that sorte, that will preiche trewlie, and nathing but ane catholic universall christian fayth; and we Hieland rude pepill hes mister[336] of thame. And if your lordschip wald get and provyde me sic a man, I sould provyde him a corporal leving as to my self, with grit thanks to your lordschip; for trewlie, I and many ma hes grit mister of sic men. And becaus I am abill to sustain ma nor ane of thame, I will requeist your lordschip earnestlie to provyde me sic a man as ye wrait; for the harvest is grit, and thair ar few labouraris.”[337]

Foiled in his attempts to prevail on the nobility to withdraw their protection from the preachers, the archbishop determined to wreak his vengeance upon such of them as were still within his power, and proceeded to revive those cruel measures which had been suspended for several years, by the political circumstances of the country rather than by the clemency and moderation of the clergy. Walter Mill, parish‑priest of Lunan in Angus, having been condemned as a heretic in the time of cardinal Beatoun, had escaped from execution, and continued to preach, sometimes in private, and at other times openly, in different quarters of the kingdom. Being lately discovered by one of the archbishop’s spies, he was brought to trial at St Andrews. He appeared before the court so worn out with age, and the hardships which he had endured, that it was not expected he would be able to answer the questions which might be put to him; but, to the surprise of all, he conducted his defence with great spirit. Such was the compassion excited by his appearance, and the horror which was now felt at the punishment to which he was doomed, that the clergy, after pronouncing him guilty, could not procure a secular judge to pass sentence of death upon him, and the archbishop was at last obliged to employ a worthless servant of his own to perform the odious task. On the 28th of August 1558, Mill expired amidst the flames, uttering these words: “As for me, I am fourscore and two years old, and cannot live long by course of nature; but a hundred better shall rise out of the ashes of my bones. I trust in God, I shall be the last that shall suffer death in Scotland for this cause!”[338]

This barbarous and illegal execution produced effects of the greatest importance. It raised the horror of the nation to an incredible pitch; and as it was believed, at that time, that the regent was not accessory to the deed, their indignation was directed wholly against the clergy. Throwing aside all fear, and disregarding those restraints which prudence, or respect for established order, had hitherto imposed on them, the people now assembled openly to join in the reformed worship, and avowed their determination to adhere to it at all hazards. Harlow, Douglas, Paul Methven, and some others, were emboldened to break through the regulations to which they had submitted, and began to preach, and administer the sacraments, with greater publicity than formerly.[339] In the month of October,[340] they were joined by John Willock, who returned a second time from Embden.

Meanwhile, the protestant barons, having assembled at Edinburgh in the month of July,[341] had resolved to lay their complaints in a formal manner before the regent. They renewed the request which they had formerly made, that she would, by her authority, and in concurrence with the parliament, restrain the violence of the clergy, correct the flagrant and insufferable abuses which prevailed in the church, and grant to them and their brethren the liberty of religious instruction and worship, at least according to a restricted plan which they laid before her, and to which they were willing to submit, till their grievances should be deliberately examined and legally redressed.[342] Their petition was presented to the regent, in the palace of Holyroodhouse, by Sir James Sandilands of Calder, in the presence of a number of the nobility and bishops. Her reply was such as to persuade them that she was friendly to their proposals; she promised, that she would take measures for carrying them legally into effect, as soon as it was in her power, and assured them, that, in the meantime, they might depend on her protection.[343]

It did not require many arguments to persuade Knox to comply with an invitation, which was accompanied with such gratifying intelligence; and he began immediately to prepare for his journey to Scotland. The future settlement of the congregation under his charge, occupied him for some time. Information being received of the death of Mary, queen of England,[344] and the accession of Elizabeth, the protestant refugees hastened to return to their native country. The congregation at Geneva, having met to return thanks to God for this deliverance, agreed to send one of their number with letters to their brethren in different places of the continent, and particularly in Frankfort, congratulating them on the late happy change, and requesting a confirmation of the mutual reconciliation which had already been effected, the burial of all past offences, and a brotherly co‑operation, in endeavouring to obtain such a settlement of religion in England as would be agreeable to all the sincere well‑wishers of the Reformation. A favourable return to their letters being obtained,[345] they took leave of the hospitable city, and set out for their native country. By them Knox sent letters to some of his former acquaintances, who were now in the court of Elizabeth, requesting permission to travel through England on his way to Scotland.

In the month of January 1559, our Reformer took his leave of Geneva for the last time.[346] In addition to former marks of respect, the republic, before his departure, conferred on him the freedom of the city.[347] He left his wife and family behind him, until he should ascertain that they could live with safety in Scotland. Upon his arrival at Dieppe, in the middle of March, he received information that the English government had refused to grant him liberty to pass through their dominions. The request had appeared so reasonable to his own mind, considering the station which he had held in that country, and the object of his present journey, that he once thought of proceeding to London without waiting for a formal permission; yet it was with some difficulty that those who presented his letters escaped imprisonment.[348]

This impolitic severity was occasioned by the informations of some of the exiles, who had not forgotten the old quarrel at Frankfort, and had accused of disloyalty and disaffection to the queen, not only Knox, but all those who had been under his charge at Geneva, whom they represented as proselytes to the opinion which he had published against female government.[349] There was not an individual who could believe that Knox had the most distant eye to Elizabeth in publishing the obnoxious book; nor a person of judgment who could seriously think that her government was exposed to the slightest danger from him or his associates, who felt no less joy at her auspicious accession than their brethren.[350] If he had been imprudent in that publication, if he had “swerved from the particular question to the general,” his error (to use the words of his respondent) “rose not of malice, but of zeal, and by looking more to the present cruelty, than to the inconveniences that after might follow;” and it was the part of generosity and of good policy to overlook the fault. Instead of this, Elizabeth and her counsellors took up the charge in a serious light; and the accused were treated with such harshness and disdain, that they repented of leaving their late asylum to return to their native country. One cannot help feeling indignant at this weak revenge, when it is considered that Elizabeth had admitted to favour, and retained at court, persons who had endeavoured to prevent her succession, and who had thirsted for her blood;[351] and that those who, under the preceding reign, had advised and practised the greatest severities against the protestants, were now treated with the utmost lenity. Even the infamous Bonner was allowed to appear at court, and, although the queen shuddered at the thought of a man who was polluted with so much blood kissing her hand, yet was he at this time going about London without the smallest molestation.[352] In the first parliament of Elizabeth, one Dr Story made a speech, in which he had the effrontery to justify the cruelties of Mary, to boast of his own activity in carrying her orders into execution, and to regret that measures still more violent and effectual had not been adopted for the utter extirpation of heresy.[353] Nor does it appear that this speech was resented either by the house or by the queen.

De nobis, post hæc, tristis sententia fertur:

Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas.

The refusal of his request, and the harsh treatment of his flock, touched to the quick the irritable temper of our Reformer; and it was with some difficulty that he suppressed the desire which he felt rising in his breast, to prosecute a controversy which he had resolved to abandon. “My first Blast,” says he, in a letter, dated Dieppe, 6th April 1559, “hath blown from me all my friends in England. My conscience bears record, that yet I seek the favour of my God; and so I am in the less fear. The second Blast, I fear, shall sound somewhat more sharp, except that men be more moderate than I hear they are.—England hath refused me; but because, before, it did refuse Christ Jesus, the less do I regard the loss of this familiarity. And yet have I been a secret and assured friend to thee, O England, in cases which thyself could not have remedied.”[354] But greater designs occupied his mind, and engrossed his attention. It was not for the sake of personal safety, nor from the vanity of appearing at court, that he desired to pass through England. He felt the natural wish to visit his old acquaintance in that country, and was anxious for an opportunity of once more addressing those to whom he had preached, especially at Newcastle and Berwick. But there was another object which he had still more at heart, and in which the welfare of both England and Scotland were concerned.

Notwithstanding the flattering accounts which he had received of the favourable disposition of the queen regent towards the protestants, and the directions which he sent them to cultivate this, he appears to have always entertained suspicions of the sincerity of her professions. Since he left Geneva, these suspicions had been confirmed; and the information which he had procured, in travelling through France, conspired with intelligence which he had lately received from Scotland, to convince him, that the immediate suppression of the Reformation in his native country, and its consequent suppression in the neighbouring kingdom, were intended. The plan projected by the gigantic ambition of the princes of Lorrain, brothers of the queen regent of Scotland, has been developed, and described with great accuracy and ability, by a celebrated modern historian.[355] Suffice it to say here, that their counsels had determined the French court to set up the claim of the young queen of Scots to the crown of England; to attack Elizabeth, and wrest the sceptre from her hands, under the pretext that she was a bastard and a heretic; and to commence their operations by suppressing the Reformation, and establishing the French influence, in Scotland, as the best preparative to an attack upon the dominions of the English queen. In the course of his journeys through France, Knox had formed an acquaintance with certain persons about the court, and, by their means, had gained some knowledge of this plan.[356] He was convinced that the Scottish reformers were unable to resist the power which France might bring against them; and that it was no less the interest than the duty of the English court to afford them the most effectual support. But he was afraid that a selfish and narrow policy might prevent them from doing this until it was too late, and was therefore anxious to call their attention to the subject at an early period, and to put them in possession of the facts that had come to his knowledge. The assistance which Elizabeth granted to the Scottish protestants in the year 1560, was dictated by the soundest policy. It baffled and defeated the designs of her enemies at the very outset; it gave her an influence over Scotland, which all her predecessors could not obtain by the terror of their arms, nor the influence of their money; and it secured the stability of her government, by extending and strengthening the protestant interest, the principal pillar on which it rested. And it reflects not a little credit on our Reformer’s sagacity, that he had conceived this plan at so early a period, was the first person who proposed it, and persisted, in spite of great discouragements, to urge its adoption, until his endeavours were ultimately crowned with success.

Deeply impressed with these considerations, he resolved, although he had already been twice repulsed, to brook the mortification, and make another attempt to obtain an interview with some confidential agent of the English government. With this view, he, on the 10th of April, wrote a letter to secretary Cecil, with whom he had been personally acquainted during his residence in London. Adverting to the treatment of the exiles who had returned from Geneva, he exculpated them from all responsibility as to the offensive book which he had published, and assured him that he had not consulted with any of them previous to its publication. As for himself, he did not mean to deny that he was the author, nor was he yet prepared to retract the leading sentiment which it contained. But he was not, on that account, less friendly to the person and government of Elizabeth, in whose exaltation he cordially rejoiced; although he rested the defence of her authority upon grounds different from the common. This was the third time that he had craved liberty to pass through England. He had no desire to visit the court, nor to remain long in the country; but he was anxious to communicate to him, or some other trusty person, matters of great importance, which it was not prudent to commit to writing, or intrust to an ordinary messenger. If his request was refused, it would turn out to the disadvantage of England.[357]

The situation in which he stood at this time with the court of England was so well known, that it was not without great difficulty that he could find a messenger to carry his letter;[358] and, either despairing of the success of his application, or urged by intelligence received from Scotland, he sailed from Dieppe on the 22d of April, and landed safely at Leith on the 2d of May, 1559.[359]

PERIOD VI.

FROM MAY 1559, WHEN HE FINALLY RETURNED TO SCOTLAND, TO AUGUST 1560, WHEN HE WAS SETTLED AS MINISTER OF EDINBURGH, AT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE REFORMATION.

ON his arrival, Knox found matters in the most critical state in Scotland. The queen regent had thrown off the mask which she had long worn, and avowed her determination forcibly to suppress the Reformation. As long as she stood in need of the assistance of the protestants, to support her authority against the Hamiltons, and to procure the matrimonial crown for her son‑in‑law, the dauphin of France, she courted their friendship, listened to their plans of reform, professed her dissatisfaction with the ecclesiastical order, and her desire of correcting its corruption and tyranny as soon as a fit opportunity offered, and flattered them, if not with the hopes of her joining their party, at least with assurances that she would shield them from the fury of the clergy. So completely were they duped by her consummate address and dissimulation, that they complied with all her requests, restrained their preachers from teaching in public, and desisted from presenting to the parliament a petition which they had prepared; nor would they believe her to be insincere, even after different parts of her conduct had afforded strong grounds for suspicion. But, having accomplished the great objects which she had in view, she at last adopted measures which completely undeceived them, and discovered the gulf into which they were about to be precipitated.

As this discovery of the regent’s duplicity produced consequences of the greatest importance; as it completely alienated from her the minds of the reformers, and aroused that spirit of determined and united opposition to her insidious policy, and her violent measures, which ultimately led to the establishment of the Reformation; and as the facts connected with it have not been accurately or fully stated in our common histories,[360] the reader may not be displeased at having the following more circumstantial detail laid before him.

A mutual jealousy had long subsisted between the queen regent and that able but unprincipled prelate, archbishop Hamilton, whose zeal for the church was uniformly subordinated to personal ambition, and the desire of aggrandizing his family. While he exerted the influence which his station gave him over the clergy to embarrass the administration of the regent, she employed the protestants as a counter‑balance to his power. But amidst the jarring excited by rival interests, both parties beheld the rapid progress of the reformed sentiments with equal concern; and intelligent persons early foresaw, that their differences would finally be compromised, and a coalition formed between them to accomplish the ruin of the protestants.[361] It does not appear that the primate ever entertained the slightest suspicion that the regent was friendly to the cause of the reformers. Independently of her own sentiments, he was well acquainted with the influence which her brothers possessed over her, and with their devoted attachment to the Roman catholic church. Had he not had good reasons for presuming upon her connivance and secret approbation, his known prudence would not have allowed him to venture upon the invidious measure of putting Mill to death. As early as July 1558, she had held consultations with him on the course which should be adopted for checking the Reformation.[362] In consequence of these, steps were taken to bring to trial certain individuals who had given great offence to the clergy by expounding the scriptures in private meetings, and contemning the laws of the church.[363] And immediately after the meeting of parliament in November, at which the regent obtained, by the assistance of the protestants, all the objects which she wished to carry, the primate received positive assurances of her support in his exertions for maintaining the authority of the church. Accordingly, in the end of December, he summoned the reformed preachers to appear before him in St Andrews, on the 2d of February following, to answer for their conduct in usurping the sacred office, and disseminating heretical doctrines.[364]

Upon this, a deputation of the protestants waited on the regent, and informed her, that, after what had recently taken place in the instance of Mill, they were determined to attend and see justice done to their preachers; and that, if the prosecution went forward, there would be a greater convocation at St Andrews than had been seen at any trial in Scotland for a long period. Dreading the consequences of a concourse of people in a place adjacent to counties in which the protestants were numerous, the queen wrote to the archbishop to prorogue the trial. She, at the same time, summoned a convention of the nobility, to be held at Edinburgh on the 7th of March, to advise upon the most proper measures for settling the religious differences which had so long agitated the nation.[365] And the primate, at her request, called a provincial council of the clergy to meet in the same place on the first of March.[366]

When our Saviour was condemned to be crucified, it was observed, that, “on the same day, Pilate and Herod were made friends together, for before they were at enmity between themselves.” The determination which was at this time formed to crush the protestant interest in Scotland, seems to have brought about the reconciliation of more than the queen regent and the primate. A rivalship had long subsisted between those who occupied the two Scottish archbishoprics; the bishops of Glasgow insisting on the independence of their see, and boasting of the priority of its erection, while the bishops of St Andrews claimed an authoritative primacy over all the clergy in the kingdom, as belonging to that see from the time of its foundation.[367] Hamilton, in the mandate issued for assembling this council, had asserted his primacy in very formal terms, founding upon it, as well as upon the authority with which he was invested as papal legate, his right to convocate the clergy.[368] Beatoun, archbishop of Glasgow, seems to have resented this claim of superiority, and declined for some time to countenance the council by his presence, or to cite his suffragans and the clergy of his diocese to attend. This dissension, which might have proved highly injurious to the Roman church at this critical period, was got accommodated, and Beatoun, with the western clergy, at length joined the council.[369]

In the mean time, the protestants, having assembled at Edinburgh, appointed commissioners to lay their representations before the convention of the nobility, and the council of the clergy.[370] The commissioners gave in to the latter certain preliminary articles of reformation, in which they craved, that the religious service should be performed in the vulgar tongue; that such as were unfit for the pastoral office should be removed from their benefices; that, in time coming, bishops should be admitted with the assent of the barons of the diocese, and parish‑priests with the assent of the parishioners; and that measures should be adopted for preventing immoral and ignorant persons from being employed in ecclesiastical functions.[371] But there was another paper laid before the council, which, it is probable, gave them more uneasiness than the representation of the protestants. This was a remonstrance by certain persons attached to the Roman catholic faith, “craving redress of several grievances complained of in the ecclesiastical administration of Scotland.” It consisted of thirteen articles, in which, among other points of reformation, they required that the exacting of corpse‑presents and Easter offerings should be abolished; that, for the more effectual instruction of those who partake of the sacraments, “there should be an godlie and faithful declaration set forth in Inglis toung, to be first shewin to the pepil at all times,” when any of the sacraments are administered; and that the common prayers and litanies should also be read in the vulgar language. At the same time, they desired that none should be permitted to speak irreverently of the mass, make innovations upon the ceremonies of the church, or administer divine ordinances without authority from the bishops.[372]

The council were not disposed to agree to the proposals either of the protestant or the popish reformers. After making certain partial regulations relating to some of the grievances complained of by the latter,[373] and renewing the canons of former councils respecting the lives of the clergy and public instruction,[374] they refused to allow any part of the public service to be performed in the vulgar language;[375] they ratified in the strongest terms all the popish doctrines which were controverted by the protestants;[376] and they ordained, that strict inquisition should be made after such as absented themselves from the celebration of mass,[377] and that excommunications should be fulminated against those who administered or received the sacraments after the protestant forms, and against parents and sponsors who had presented children for baptism to the reformed preachers, and did not bring them to the priests to be re‑baptized.[378]

The council were emboldened to take these decisive steps in consequence of a secret treaty which they had concluded with the regent, and in which they had stipulated to raise a large sum of money to enable her to suppress the reformers.[379] This arrangement could not be long concealed from the protestant deputies, who, perceiving that they were mocked by the clergy, and abandoned by the court, broke off the fruitless negotiations in which they had been engaged, and left Edinburgh. They were no sooner gone than a proclamation was made at the market cross, by order of the regent, prohibiting any person from preaching or administering the sacraments without authority from the bishops, and commanding all the subjects to prepare to celebrate the ensuing feast of Easter, according to the rites of the catholic church. Understanding that her proclamation was disregarded, she determined on taking decisive steps to enforce obedience, by bringing the preachers to justice.[380] Accordingly, Paul Methven, John Christison, William Harlow, and John Willock, were summoned to stand trial before the justiciary court at Stirling, on the 10th of May, for usurping the ministerial office, for administering, without the consent of their ordinaries, the sacrament of the altar in a manner different from that of the catholic church, during three several days of the late feast of Easter, in the burghs and boundaries of Dundee, Montrose, and various other places in the sheriffdoms of Forfar and Kincardine, and for convening the subjects in these places, preaching to them, seducing them to their erroneous doctrines, and exciting seditions and tumults. As the preachers were resolved to make their appearance, George Lovell, burgess of Dundee, became surety for Methven, John Erskine of Dun for Christison, Patrick Murray of Tibbermuir for Harlaw, and Robert Campbell of Kinyeancleugh for Willock.[381]

To prevent matters from coming to extremity, the earl of Glencairn, and Sir Hugh Campbell of Loudon, sheriff of Ayr, waited on the queen, and remonstrated against these proceedings; but she told them haughtily, that, “in spite of them, all their preachers should be banished from Scotland.” They reminded her of the promises she had repeatedly made to protect them; upon which she unblushingly replied, that “it became not subjects to burden their princes with promises, farther than they pleased to keep them.” Surprised, but not intimidated, at this language, Glencairn and Loudon told her, that, if she violated the engagements which she had come under to her subjects, they would consider themselves as absolved from their allegiance to her. After they had remonstrated with her very freely, and pointed out the dangerous consequences that might result from adopting such a line of conduct, she began to speak in a milder tone, and promised to suspend the trial of the preachers, and take the whole affair into serious consideration[382] But receiving intelligence soon after that peace was concluded between France and Spain, by a treaty in which these two powers had agreed to unite their endeavours for the extirpation of heresy, and being irritated by the introduction of the reformed worship into the town of Perth, she ordered the process against the preachers to go on, and summoned them peremptorily to stand their trial at Stirling on the appointed day.[383]

The state of our Reformer’s mind, upon receiving this information, will appear from the following letter, hastily written by him on the day after he landed in Scotland.

“The perpetual comfort of the Holy Ghost for salutation. These few lines are to signify unto you, dear sister, that it hath pleased the merciful providence of my heavenly father to conduct me to Edinburgh, where I arrived the 2d of May: uncertain as yet what God shall further work in this country, except that I see the battle shall be great. For Satan rageth even to the uttermost, and I am come, I praise my God, even in the brunt of the battle. For my fellow preachers have a day appointed to answer before the queen regent, the 10th of this instant, when I intend (if God impede not) also to be present; by life, by death, or else by both, to glorify his godly name, who thus mercifully hath heard my long cries. Assist me, sister, with your prayers, that now I shrink not, when the battle approacheth. Other things I have to communicate with you, but travel after travel doth so occupy me, that no time is granted me to write. Advertise my brother, Mr Goodman, of my estate; as, in my other letter sent unto you from Dieppe, I willed you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ rest with you. From Edinburgh, in haste, the 3d of May.”[384]

His arrival in Scotland was not long concealed from the clergy. On the morning after he landed at Leith, one came to the monastery of the Greyfriars, where the provincial council was still sitting,[385] and informed them that John Knox was come from France, and had slept last night in Edinburgh. The clergy were panic‑struck with the intelligence, and foreboding the ruin of all the plans which they had formed with so much care, they dismissed the council in great haste and confusion. A messenger was instantly dispatched by them with the information to the queen regent, who was at Glasgow; and within a few days Knox was proclaimed an outlaw and a rebel, in virtue of the sentence formerly pronounced against him by the clergy.[386]

Although his own cause was prejudged, and he knew that he was liable to be apprehended as a condemned heretic, he did not hesitate a moment in resolving to present himself voluntarily at Stirling, to assist his brethren in their defence, and share their danger. Having remained only a single day at Edinburgh, he hurried to Dundee, where he found the principal protestants in Angus and Mearns already assembled, and determined to attend their ministers to the place of trial, and avow their adherence to the doctrines for which they were accused. The providential arrival of such an able champion of the cause, at this crisis, must have been very encouraging to the assembly; and the liberty of accompanying them, which he requested, was readily granted.

Lest the unexpected approach of such a multitude, though unarmed, should alarm or offend the regent, the assembled protestants agreed to stop at Perth, and sent Erskine of Dun before them to Stirling, to acquaint her with the peaceable object and manner of their coming. Apprehensive that their presence would disconcert her measures, the regent had again recourse to dissimulation. She persuaded Erskine to write to his brethren to desist from their intended journey, and authorized him to promise, in her name, that she would put a stop to the trial. The protestants testified their pacific intentions by a cheerful compliance with this request, and the greater part, confiding in the royal promise, returned to their homes. But when the day of trial came, the summons was called by the orders of the queen, the preachers were outlawed for not appearing, and all persons were prohibited, under the pain of rebellion, from harbouring or assisting them.[387] At the same time, the gentlemen who had given security for their appearance, were fined.[388]

Escaping from Stirling, Erskine brought to Perth the intelligence of this disgraceful transaction, which could not fail to incense the protestants. It happened that, on the same day on which the news came, Knox, who remained at Perth, preached a sermon, in which he exposed the idolatry of the mass, and of image‑worship. The audience had quietly dismissed, and a few idle persons only loitered in the church, when an imprudent priest, wishing to try the disposition of the people, or to show his contempt of the doctrine which had just been delivered, uncovered a rich altar‑piece, decorated with images, and prepared to celebrate mass. A boy, having uttered some expressions of disapprobation, was struck by the priest. He retaliated by throwing a stone at the aggressor, which, falling on the altar, broke one of the images. This operated as a signal upon the people present, who had sympathized with the boy; and, in the course of a few minutes, the altar, images, and all the ornaments of the church, were torn down, and trampled under foot. The noise soon collected a mob, which, finding no employment in the church, flew, by a sudden and irresistible impulse, upon the monasteries; and although the magistrates of the town and the preachers assembled as soon as they heard of the riot, yet neither the persuasions of the one, nor the authority of the other, could restrain the fury of the people, until the houses of the grey and black friars, with the costly edifice of the Carthusian monks, were laid in ruins. None of the gentlemen or sober part of the congregation were concerned in this unpremeditated tumult; it was wholly confined to the lowest of the inhabitants, or, as Knox designs them, “the rascal multitude.”[389]

The demolition of the monasteries having been represented as the first‑fruits of our Reformer’s labours on this occasion, it was necessary to give this minute account of the causes which produced that event. Whatever his sentiments were as to the destruction of the instruments and monuments of idolatry, he did not wish the work to be accomplished in an irregular manner; he was sensible that tumultuary proceedings, especially in present circumstances, were prejudicial to the cause of the reformers; and, instead of instigating, he exerted himself in putting a stop to, the ravages of the mob. If this disorderly conduct must be traced to a remote cause, we can impute it only to the wanton and dishonourable perfidy of the queen regent.

In fact, nothing could be more favourable to the designs of the regent than this riot. By her recent conduct, she had forfeited the confidence of the protestants, and even exposed herself in the eyes of the sober and moderate of her own party. This occurrence afforded her an opportunity of turning the public indignation from herself, and directing it against the protestants. She did not fail to improve it with her usual address. She magnified the accidental tumult into a dangerous and designed rebellion. Having called the nobility to Stirling, she, in her interviews with them, insisted upon such topics as were best calculated to persuade the parties into which they were divided. In conversing with the catholics, she dwelt upon the sacrilegious overthrow of those venerable structures which their ancestors had dedicated to the service of God. To the protestants who had not joined their brethren at Perth, she complained of the destruction of the Charter‑house, which was a royal foundation; and, protesting that she had no intention of offering violence to their consciences, promised to protect them, provided they would assist her in punishing those who had been guilty of this violation of public order.[390] Having inflamed the minds of both parties, she collected an army from the adjacent counties,[391] and advanced to Perth, threatening to lay waste the town with fire and sword, and to inflict the most exemplary vengeance on all who had been instrumental in producing the riot.[392]

The protestants of the north were not insensible to their danger, and did all in their power to avert the storm which threatened them. They wrote to the queen regent, to the commander of the French troops, to the popish nobles, and to those of their own persuasion: they solemnly disclaimed all rebellious intentions; they protested their readiness to yield due obedience to the government; they entreated all to refrain from offering violence to peaceable subjects, who sought only the liberty of their consciences, and the reformation of religion. But, finding all their endeavours fruitless, they resolved not to suffer themselves and their brethren to be massacred, and prepared for a defence of the town against an illegal and furious assault. And so prompt and vigorous were they in the measures which they adopted, that the regent, when she approached, deeming it imprudent to attack them, proposed overtures of accommodation, to which they readily acceded.[393]

While the two armies lay before Perth, and negotiations were going on between them, our Reformer obtained an interview with the prior of St Andrews and the young earl of Argyle, who adhered to the regent. He reminded them of the solemn engagements which they had contracted, and charged them with violating these, by abetting measures which tended to suppress the reformed religion, and enslave their native country. The noblemen replied, that they had been induced, by the representations of the regent and the clergy, to believe that their brethren intended to swerve from their former loyalty, and, although they were now convinced that this charge was unfounded, they were anxious to fulfil the promise which they had made to the queen, by bringing the present difference to an amicable termination; but, if she should violate the proposed treaty, they would withdraw their countenance from her, and openly take part with their brethren, to whom they considered themselves as bound by the most sacred ties. The regent was not long in affording them an opportunity of verifying their promise. No sooner had she taken possession of Perth, and perceived that the forces of the protestants were disbanded, than she began to disregard the conditions to which she had agreed. Argyle and the prior remonstrated against the infractions of a treaty which they had concluded at her earnest request, but were answered in such an unsatisfactory manner, that they deserted her court, and could never afterwards be persuaded to place any confidence in her promises.[394]

From the time that the leading protestants discovered the hostile intentions of the regent, they had used great industry to ascertain the numbers of their friends, to establish means of correspondence among them, and to have them united by the strictest bonds. For this purpose, copies of their religious covenant were committed to persons who procured subscriptions to it in the different districts where they resided.[395] From the designation which they gave themselves in this covenant, or from the union which subsisted among them, they began at this time to be distinguished by the name of The Congregation. The nobles who had joined the association, were the earls of Argyle, Glencairn, Monteith, and Rothes; lords Ochiltree, Boyd, Ruthven, and the prior of St Andrews. The earl Marischal, and lord Erskine, with some others who were friendly to the reformed religion, still supported the regent, or remained neutral. A large proportion of the lesser barons belonged to the Congregation; particularly those of Mearns, Angus, Strathearn, Monteith, Fyfe, Cunningham, Kyle, Carrick, and Galloway.[396]

In the beginning of June, the lords of the Congregation held a consultation on the measures which they should adopt for their own security, and for the advancement of the Reformation. They had repeatedly applied to the clergy to rectify the abuses which prevailed in the church, and to release them from those unjust and oppressive laws by which their consciences had long been enslaved; but their petitions had been treated with neglect and disdain. “To abandon usurped power, to renounce lucrative error, are sacrifices which the virtue of individuals has, on some occasions, offered to truth; but from any society of men no such effort can be expected. The corruptions of a society, recommended by common utility, and justified by universal practice, are viewed by its members without shame or horror; and reformation never proceeds from themselves, but is always forced upon them by some foreign hand.”[397] Convinced of this, the protestant leaders had next addressed themselves to the regent, and requested her to employ her authority to bring about a reformation, which could not be much longer deferred, without interrupting the peace of the kingdom. As long as they had any reason to think that she was disposed to listen to their petitions, they had waited with exemplary patience, and restrained the ardour of such of their friends as were inclined, without further delay, to use the right which nature and Christianity gave them; but the regent had disappointed their expectations, and from being a professed friend was become a declared enemy; they could no longer place the smallest dependence on her promises; and they were satisfied that she had formed a systematic plan for suppressing the Reformation, and enforcing the existing ecclesiastical laws in all their rigour. It behoved them now either to submit to have their chains riveted, or by a bold and vigorous effort to shake them off altogether. They determined upon the latter. The scandalous lives of the established clergy, their total neglect of the religious instruction of the people, and the profanation of Christian worship by gross idolatry, were the most glaring abuses. The lords of the Congregation resolved to take immediate steps for removing these, by abolishing the popish service, and setting up the reformed worship in all those places to which their authority or influence extended, and in which the greater part of the inhabitants were friendly to the design. This step is justified in part by the feudal ideas respecting the jurisdiction of the nobility, which at that time prevailed in Scotland; the urgent and extreme necessity of the case, however, forms its best vindication. A great part of the nation loudly demanded such a reformation, and, had not regular measures been adopted for its introduction, the popular indignation would have effected the work in a more exceptionable way.

St Andrews was the place fixed on for commencing these operations. With this view, the earl of Argyle, and lord James Stewart, who was prior of the abbey of St Andrews, made an appointment with Knox to meet them, on a certain day, in that city. Travelling along the east coast of Fife, he preached at Anstruther and Crail, and, on the 9th of June, joined them at St Andrews. The archbishop, apprized of his design to preach in his cathedral, assembled an armed force, and sent information to him, that if he appeared in the pulpit, he would give orders to the soldiers to fire upon him. The noblemen, having met to consult what ought to be done, agreed that Knox should desist from preaching at that time, and strongly urged upon him the reasons of their opinion. Their retinue was very slender; they had not yet ascertained the disposition of the inhabitants of the town; the queen regent lay at a small distance with an army; and his appearance in the pulpit might lead to the sacrifice of his own life, and the lives of those who were determined to defend him from violence.

There are occasions on which it is a proof of superior wisdom to disregard the ordinary dictates of prudence; on which, to face danger is to avoid it, to flee from it is to invite it. Had the reformers, after announcing their intentions, suffered themselves to be intimidated by the bravading attitude and language of the archbishop, their cause would, at the very outset, have received a blow, from which it would not easily have recovered. This was prevented by the firmness and intrepidity of Knox. Fired with the recollection of the part which he had formerly acted on that spot, and with the near prospect of realizing the sanguine hopes which he had so long cherished in his breast, he resisted all the importunities of his friends. He could take God to witness, he said, that he never preached in contempt of any man, nor with the design of hurting an earthly creature; but to delay to preach next day, (unless forcibly hindered,) he could not in conscience agree. In that town, and in that church, had God first raised him to the dignity of a preacher, and from it he had been “reft” by French tyranny, at the instigation of the Scots bishops. The length of his imprisonment, and the tortures which he had endured, he would not at present recite; but one thing he could not conceal, that, in the hearing of many yet alive, he had expressed his confident hope of again preaching in St Andrews. Now, therefore, when providence, beyond all men’s expectation, had brought him to that place, he besought them not to hinder him. “As for the fear of danger, that may come to me,” continued he, “let no man be solicitous; for my life is in the custody of him whose glory I seek. I desire the hand nor weapon of no man to defend me. I only crave audience; which, if it be denied here unto me at this time, I must seek where I may have it.”

This intrepid reply silenced all remonstrance; and next day, Knox appeared in the pulpit, and preached to a numerous assembly, including many of the clergy, without experiencing the slightest interruption. He discoursed on the subject of our Saviour’s ejecting the profane traffickers from the temple of Jerusalem, from which he took occasion to expose the enormous corruptions which had been introduced into the church under the papacy, and to point out what was incumbent upon Christians, in their different spheres, for removing them. On the three following days he preached in the same place; and such was the influence of his doctrine, that the provost, bailies, and inhabitants, harmoniously agreed to set up the reformed worship in the town; the church was stripped of images and pictures, and the monasteries were pulled down. This happened on the 14th of June, 1559.

Understanding that the lords at St Andrews were accompanied by a small retinue, the queen regent, who lay at Falkland, attempted to surprise them. But the protestants in Angus, having received information of the critical situation of their brethren, came to their assistance with such celerity and in such numbers, that they were able to face the royal army at Cupar‑moor; and the regent, afraid to risk a battle, consented to a truce, by which she engaged to remove her French troops from Fife, and to send commissioners to St Andrews for the purpose of settling all differences between her and the Congregation. The troops were removed, but no commissioners appeared; and the lords of the Congregation, being apprized that the queen intended to fortify the passage of the Forth at Stirling, and to cut off their communication with the protestants in the south, proceeded to Perth, and, having expelled the garrison from that town, by a rapid march seized upon Stirling, and, advancing, took possession of the capital of the kingdom; the regent, as they approached, retiring with her forces to Dunbar.[398]

The example of St Andrews, in abolishing the popish worship, was quickly followed in other parts of the kingdom; and, in the course of a few weeks, at Crail, at Cupar, at Lindores, at Stirling, at Linlithgow, at Edinburgh, and at Glasgow, the houses of the monks were overthrown, and all the instruments of idolatry destroyed.[399]

These proceedings were celebrated in the singular lays, which were at that time circulated among the reformers.

His cardinalles hes cause to mourne,

His bishops are borne a backe;

His abbots gat an uncouth turne,

When shavellinges went to sacke:

With burges wifes they led their lives,

And fare better than wee.

Hay trix, trim goe trix, under the greene‑wod tree.

His Carmelites and Jacobinis,

His Dominikes had great adoe;

His Cordeliers and Augustines,

Sanct Francis’s ordour to;

The sillie friers, mony yeiris

With babbling bleirit our ee.

Hay trix, &c.

Had not your self begun the weiris,

Your stepillis had been standand yit;

It was the flattering of your friers

That ever gart sanct Francis flit:

Ye grew sa superstitious

In wickednesse,

It gart us grow malicious

Contrair your messe.[400]

Scarcely any thing in the progress of the Scottish Reformation has been more frequently or more loudly condemned than the demolition of those edifices upon which superstition had lavished all the ornaments of the chisel and the pencil. To the Roman catholics, who anathematized all who were engaged in this work of inexpiable sacrilege, and represented it as involving the complete overthrow of religion,[401] have succeeded another race of writers, who, although they do not, in general, make high pretensions to devotion, have not scrupled, at times, to borrow the language of their predecessors, and have bewailed the wreck of these precious monuments in as bitter strains as ever idolator did the loss of his gods. These are the warm admirers of Gothic architecture, and other relics of ancient art; some of whom, if we may judge from their language, would welcome back the reign of superstition, with all its ignorance and bigotry, if they could recover the objects of their adoration.[402] Writers of this stamp depict the ravages and devastation which marked the progress of the Reformation, in colours as dark as ever were employed by the historian in describing the overthrow of ancient learning, by the irruption of the barbarous Huns and Vandals. Our Reformer cannot be mentioned by them but with symptoms of horror, and in terms of detestation, as a barbarian, a savage, and a ring‑leader of mobs, for overthrowing whatever was venerable in antiquity, or sacred in religion. It is unnecessary to produce instances.

Expectes eadem a summo minimoque poeta.

To remind such persons of the divine mandate to destroy all monuments of idolatry in the land of Canaan would be altogether insufferable, and might provoke, from some of them, a profane attack upon the authority from which it proceeded. To plead the example of the early Christians, in demolishing the temples and statues dedicated to pagan polytheism, would only awaken the keen regrets that are felt for the irreparable loss.[403] It would be still worse to refer to the apocalyptic predictions, which some have been so fanatical as to think were fulfilled in the miserable spoliation of that “great city,” which, under all its revolutions, has so eminently proved the nurse of the arts, and given encouragement to painters, statuaries, and sculptors, to “harpers, and musicians, and pipers, and trumpeters, and craftsmen of whatsoever craft,” who to this day have not forgotten their obligations to it, nor ceased to bewail its destruction. In any apology which I make for the reformers, I would alleviate instead of aggravating the distress which is felt for the loss of such valuable memorials of antiquity. It has been observed by high authority, that there are certain commodities which derive their principal value from their extreme rarity, and which, if found in great quantities, would cease to be sought after or prized. A nobleman of great literary reputation has, indeed, questioned the justness of this observation, so far as respects precious stones and metals.[404] But I flatter myself, that the noble author and the learned critic, however much they may differ as to public wealth, will agree that the observation is perfectly just, as applied to those commodities which constitute the wealth and engage the researches of the antiquary. With him rarity is always an essential requisite and primary recommendation. His property, like that of the possessor of the famous Sibylline books, does not decrease in value by the reduction of its quantity, but after the greater part has been destroyed, becomes still more precious. If the matter be viewed in this light, antiquarians have no reason to complain of the ravages of the reformers, who have left them such valuable remains, and placed them in that very state which awakens in their minds the most lively sentiments of the sublime and beautiful, by reducing them to—ruins.

But, to speak seriously, I would not be thought so great an enemy to any of the fine arts, as to rejoice at the wanton destruction of their models, ancient or modern, or to vindicate those, who, from ignorance and fanatical rage, may have excited the mob to such violence. But I am satisfied, that the charges usually brought against our reformers on this head are highly exaggerated, and in some instances altogether groundless. The demolition of the monasteries is, in fact, the only thing of which they can be fairly accused. Cathedral and parochial churches, and, in several places, the chapels attached to monasteries, were appropriated to the protestant worship; and, in the orders issued for stripping them of images, idolatrous pictures, and superstitious furniture, particular directions were given to avoid whatever might injure the buildings, or deface any of their ordinary decorations. It is true, that some churches suffered from popular violence during the ferment of the Reformation; and that others were dilapidated, in consequence of their most valuable materials being sold to defray the expenses of the war in which the protestants were involved; but the former will not be matter of surprise to those who have attended to the conduct of other nations in similar circumstances, and the latter will be censured by such persons only as are incapable of entering into the feelings of a people who were engaged in a struggle for their lives, their liberties, and their religion. Of all the charges thrown out against our reformers, the most ridiculous is, that, in their zeal against popery, they waged war against literature, by destroying the valuable books and records which had been deposited in the monasteries. The state of learning among the monks, at the era of the Reformation, was wretched, and their libraries poor; the only persons who patronized or cultivated literature in Scotland were protestants; and so far from sweeping away any literary monuments which remained, the reformers were disposed to search for them among the rubbish, and to preserve them with the utmost care. In this respect we have no reason to deprecate a comparison between our Reformation and that of England, notwithstanding the flattering accounts which have been given of the orderly and temperate manner in which the latter was conducted under the superintending control of the supreme powers.[405]

But, even although the irregularities committed in the progress of that work had been greater than have been represented, I must still reprobate the spirit which disposes persons to dwell with unceasing lamentation upon losses, which, in the view of an enlightened and liberal mind, will sink and disappear in the magnitude of the incalculable good which rose from the wreck of the revolution. What! do we celebrate, with public rejoicings, victories over the enemies of our country, in the gaining of which the lives of thousands of our fellow‑creatures have been sacrificed? and shall solemn masses and sad dirges, accompanied with direful execrations, be everlastingly sung, for the mangled members of statues, torn pictures, and ruined towers? Shall those who, by a display of the horrors of war, would persuade their countrymen to repent of a contest which had been distinguished with uncommon feats of valour, and crowned with the most brilliant success, be accused of a desire to tarnish the national glory? Shall the topics on which they insist, however forcible in themselves—the effusion of human blood, the sacking of cities, the devastation of fertile provinces, the ruin of arts and manufactures, and the intolerable burdens entailed even upon the victors themselves—be represented as mere commonplace topics, employed as a cover to disloyalty? And do not those who, at the distance of nearly three centuries, continue to wail evils of a far inferior kind which attended the Reformation, justly expose themselves to the suspicion of indifference and disaffection to a cause, in comparison with which all contests between rival kingdoms and sovereigns dwindle into insignificance? I will go farther, and say, that I look upon the destruction of these monuments as a piece of good policy, which contributed materially to the overthrow of the Roman catholic religion, and the prevention of its re‑establishment. It was chiefly by the magnificence of its temples, and the splendid apparatus of its worship, that the popish church fascinated the senses and imaginations of the people. A more successful method of attacking it, therefore, could not be adopted than the demolition of what contributed so much to uphold and extend its influence. There is more wisdom than many seem to perceive in the maxim which Knox is said to have inculcated, “that the best way to keep the rooks from returning, was to pull down their nests.” In demolishing, or rendering uninhabitable, all those buildings which had served for the maintenance of the ancient superstition, (except what were requisite for the protestant worship,) the reformers only acted upon the principles of a prudent general, who dismantles or razes the fortifications which he is unable to keep, and which might afterwards be seized and employed against him by the enemy. Had they been allowed to remain in their former splendour, the popish clergy would not have ceased to indulge hopes, and to make efforts to be restored to them; occasions would have been taken to tamper with the credulous, and to inflame the minds of the superstitious; and the reformers might soon have found reason to repent their ill‑judged forbearance.[406]

Our Reformer was along with the forces of the Congregation when they faced the army of the regent in Cupar‑moor;[407] he accompanied them on their expedition to Perth.[408] and in the end of June arrived with them at Edinburgh.[409] On the same day he preached in St Giles’s, and next day in the Abbey church. On the 7th of July, the inhabitants of the metropolis met in the Tolbooth, and made choice of him as their minister. With this choice, which was approved of by his brethren, he judged it his duty to comply, and immediately began his labours in the city.[410]

On their arrival at Edinburgh, the lords of the Congregation had sent deputies to Dunbar, to assure the queen that they had no intention of throwing off their allegiance, and to induce her to yield to reasonable terms of accommodation. As a preliminary, she agreed to release their ministers from the sentence of outlawry, and allow them to preach to those who chose to hear them.[411] Meanwhile, she was busily employed in endeavours to disunite her opponents. Having spun out the negotiations which they had opened with her, until she understood that the greater part of their forces had left them, she advanced suddenly with her army to Edinburgh. The protestants took up a position on the east side of Craigingate,[412] and resolved to defend the capital, though against superior forces;[413] but Leith having opened its gates to her, and lord Erskine, who commanded the castle, threatening to fire upon them, they were forced to conclude a treaty, by which they agreed to leave Edinburgh. They stipulated, however, that the inhabitants should be left at liberty to use that form of worship which was most acceptable to them.[414] Knox would have remained with his congregation after the regent took possession of the city; but the nobles, knowing the value of his services, and the danger to which his life would be exposed, insisted on his accompanying them.[415] Willock, who was less obnoxious to the hatred of the court and clergy, was therefore substituted in his place; and the prudence and firmness which this preacher displayed in that difficult situation proved that he was not unworthy of the choice which had fallen on him. The regent was extremely anxious to have the Roman catholic service re‑established in the church of St Giles, and employed the earl of Huntly to persuade the citizens to declare in favour of the measure; but neither the authority of the queen, nor the entreaties which Huntly employed, both in private and at a public meeting called with that view, could prevail with them to swerve from their profession of the reformed religion, or to relinquish the right which was secured to them by the late treaty.[416] Although the French soldiers who had come to the regent’s assistance kept the city in alarm, and disturbed the protestant service,[417] Willock maintained his place; and in the month of August he administered the sacrament of the supper after the reformed manner in St Giles’s church.[418] The celebration of the popish worship was confined to the royal chapel and the church of Holyroodhouse, during the time that the capital was in the possession of the royal forces.[419]

In the month of August, a singular phenomenon was seen in the Abbey church. The archbishop of St Andrews appeared in the pulpit, and preached. If his grace did not acquit himself with great ability on the occasion, he at least behaved with becoming modesty. After discoursing for a short time, he requested the audience to excuse the defects of his sermon, as he had not been accustomed to the employment, and told them that he had provided a very skilful preacher to succeed him; upon which he concluded, and gave way to friar Black.[420]

On retiring from Edinburgh, Knox undertook a tour of preaching through the kingdom. The wide field which was before him, the interesting situation in which he was placed, the dangers by which he was surrounded, and the hopes which he cherished, increased the ardour of his zeal, and stimulated him to extraordinary exertions both of body and mind. Within less than two months, he travelled over a great part of Scotland. He visited Kelso, and Jedburgh, and Dumfries, and Ayr, and Stirling, and Perth, and Brechin, and Montrose, and Dundee, and returned to St Andrews. This itinerancy had great influence in diffusing the knowledge of the truth, and in strengthening the protestant interest. The attention of the nation was aroused; their eyes were opened to the errors by which they had been deluded; and they panted for a continued and more copious supply of the word of life, which they had once been permitted to taste, and had felt so refreshing to their souls.[421] I cannot better describe the emotions which this success excited in Knox’s breast, than by quoting from the familiar letters which he wrote at intervals snatched from his constant employment.

“Thus far hath God advanced the glory of his dear Son among us,” says he, in a letter written from St Andrews, on the 23d of June. “O! that my heart could be thankful for the superexcellent benefit of my God. The long thirst of my wretched heart is satisfied in abundance that is above my expectation; for now forty days and more hath my God used my tongue, in my native country, to the manifestation of his glory. Whatsoever now shall follow as touching my own carcass, his holy name be praised. The thirst of the poor people, as well as of the nobility, here, is wondrous great; which putteth me in comfort, that Christ Jesus shall triumph here in the north and extreme parts of the earth for a space.” In another letter, dated the 2d of September, he says: “Time to me is so precious, that with great difficulty can I steal one hour in eight days, either to satisfy myself, or to gratify my friends. I have been in continual travel since the day of appointment;[422] and, notwithstanding the fevers have vexed me, yet have I travelled through the most part of this realm, where (all praise to His blessed Majesty!) men of all sorts and conditions embrace the truth. Enemies we have many, by reason of the Frenchmen who lately arrived, of whom our papists hope golden hills. As we be not able to resist, we do nothing but go about Jericho, blowing with trumpets, as God giveth strength, hoping victory by his power alone.”[423]

Soon after his arrival in Scotland, he wrote for his wife and family, whom he had left behind him at Geneva. On the 13th of June, Mrs Knox and her mother were at Paris, and applied to Sir Nicholas Throkmorton, the English ambassador, for a safe conduct to pass into England. Throkmorton, who by this time had penetrated the counsels of the French court, not only granted this request, but wrote a letter to Elizabeth, in which he urged the propriety of overlooking the offence which Knox had given by his publication against female government, and of conciliating him by the kind treatment of his wife; seeing he was in great credit with the lords of the Congregation, had been the principal instrument in producing the late change in Scotland, and was capable of doing essential service to her majesty.[424] Accordingly, Mrs Knox came into England, and, being conveyed to the borders by the directions of the court, reached her husband in safety, on the 20th of September.[425] Mrs Bowes, after remaining a short time in her native country, followed her daughter into Scotland, where she remained until her death.[426]

The arrival of his family was the more gratifying to our Reformer, that they were accompanied by Christopher Goodman, his late colleague at Geneva. He had repeatedly written, in the most pressing manner, for him to come to his assistance, and expressed much uneasiness at the delay of his arrival.[427] Goodman became minister of Ayr, and was afterwards translated to St Andrews. The settlement of protestant ministers began to take place at an earlier period than is mentioned in our common histories. Previous to September, 1559, eight towns were provided with pastors; and other places remained unprovided owing to the scarcity of preachers.[428]

In the mean time, it became daily more apparent that the lords of the Congregation would be unable, without foreign aid, to maintain the struggle in which they were involved. Had the contest been merely between them and the domestic party of the regent, they would soon have brought it to a successful termination; but they could not withstand the veteran troops which France had already sent to her assistance, and was preparing to send in still more formidable numbers.[429] As far back as the middle of June, our Reformer had renewed his exertions for obtaining assistance from England, and persuaded William Kircaldy of Grange, first to write, and afterwards to pay a visit, to Sir Henry Percy, who held a public situation on the English marches. Percy immediately transmitted his representations to London, and an answer was returned from Secretary Cecil, encouraging the correspondence.[430]

Knox himself wrote to Cecil, requesting permission to visit England,[431] and inclosed a letter to queen Elizabeth, in which he attempted to apologize for his rude attack upon female government. When a man has been “overtaken in a fault,” it is his glory to confess it; but those who have been so unfortunate as to incur the resentment of princes, must, if they expect to appease them, condescend to very ample and humiliating apologies. Luther involved himself more than once by attempting this task, and, had not the lustre of his talents protected him, his reputation must have suffered materially from his ill success. He was prevailed on to write submissive apologies to Leo X. and Henry VIII. for the freedom with which he had treated them in his writings; but, in both instances, his apologies were rejected with contempt, and he found himself under the necessity of retracting his retractations.[432] Knox was in no danger of committing himself in this way. He was less violent in his temper than the German reformer, but he was also less flexible and accommodating. There was nothing at which he was more awkward than apologies, condescensions, and civilities; and on the present occasion he was placed in a very embarrassing predicament, as his judgment would not permit him to retract the sentiment which had given offence to the English queen. In his letter to Elizabeth, he expresses deep distress at having incurred her displeasure, and warm attachment to her government; but the grounds on which he advises her to found her title to the crown, and indeed the whole strain in which the letter is written, are such as must have aggravated, instead of extenuating, his offence in the opinion of that high‑minded princess.[433] But, although his apology had been more ample and humble than it was, it is not probable that he would have succeeded better with Elizabeth than Luther did with her father. Christopher Goodman, after his return to England, was obliged, at two several periods, to subscribe a recantation of the opinion which he had given against the lawfulness of female government, nor could all his condescensions procure for him the favour of his sovereign.[434] In fact, Elizabeth was all along extremely tender on the subject of her right to the throne; she never failed to resent every attack that was made upon this, from whatever quarter it came; and, although several historians have amused their readers with accounts of her ambition to be thought more beautiful and accomplished than the queen of Scots,[435] I am persuaded that she was always more jealous of Mary as a competitor for the crown, than as a rival in personal charms.

It does not, however, appear, that Elizabeth ever saw Knox’s letter, and I have little doubt that it was suppressed by the sagacious secretary.[436] Cecil was himself friendly to the measure of assisting the Scottish Congregation, and exerted all his influence to bring over the queen and her council to his opinion. Accordingly, Knox received a message, desiring him to meet Sir Henry Percy at Alnwick, on the 2d of August, upon business which required the utmost secrecy and dispatch; and Cecil himself came down to Stamford to hold an interview with him.[437] The confusion produced by the advance of the regent’s army upon Edinburgh, retarded his journey; but no sooner was this settled, than Knox sailed from Pittenweem to Holy Island. Finding that Percy was recalled from the borders, he applied to Sir James Croft, the governor of Berwick. Croft, who was not unapprized of the design on which he came, dissuaded him from proceeding farther into England, and undertook to despatch his communications to London, and to procure a speedy return. Alexander Whitlaw of Greenrig, who had been banished from Scotland, having come to London on his way from France, was intrusted by the English court with their answer to the letters of the Congregation. Arriving at Berwick, he delivered the despatches to Knox, who hastened with them to Stirling, where a meeting of the protestant lords was to be held. He prudently returned by sea to Fife; for the queen regent had come to the knowledge of his journey to England, and Whitlaw, in travelling through East Lothian, being mistaken for Knox, was hotly pursued, and made his escape with great difficulty.[438] The irresolution or the caution of Elizabeth’s cabinet had led them to express themselves in such general and unsatisfactory terms, that the lords of the Congregation, when the letters were laid before them, were both disappointed and displeased; and it was with some difficulty that our Reformer obtained permission from them to write again to London in his own name. The representation which he gave of the urgency of the case, and the danger of further hesitation or delay, produced a speedy reply, desiring them to send a confidential messenger to Berwick, who would receive a sum of money to assist them in prosecuting the war. About the same time, Sir Ralph Sadler was sent down to Berwick, to act as an accredited but secret agent, and the correspondence between the court of London and the lords of the Congregation continued afterwards to be carried on through him and Sir James Croft, until the English auxiliary army entered Scotland.[439]

If we reflect upon the connexion which the religious and civil liberties of the nation had with the contest in which the protestants were engaged, and upon our Reformer’s zeal in that cause, we shall not be greatly surprised to find him at this time acting in the character of a politician. Extraordinary cases cannot be measured by ordinary rules. In a great emergency, when all that is valuable and dear to a people is at stake, it becomes the duty of every individual to step forward, and exert all his talents for the public good. Learning was at this time rare among the nobility; and though there were men of distinguished abilities among the protestant leaders, few of them had been accustomed to transact public business. Accordingly, the management of the correspondence with England was for a time devolved chiefly on Knox and Balnaves. But our Reformer submitted to the task merely from a sense of duty and regard to the common cause; and when the younger Maitland acceded to their party, he expressed the greatest satisfaction at the prospect of being relieved from the burden.[440]

It was not without reason that he longed for this deliverance. He now felt that it was as difficult to preserve integrity and Christian simplicity amidst the crooked wiles of political intrigue, as he had formerly found it to pursue truth through the perplexing mazes of scholastic sophistry. In performing a task foreign to his habits, and repugnant to his disposition, he met with a good deal of vexation, and several unpleasant rubs. These were owing partly to his own impetuosity, and partly to the grudge entertained against him by Elizabeth, but chiefly to the particular line of policy which the English cabinet had resolved to pursue. They were convinced of the danger of allowing the Scottish protestants to be suppressed; but they wished to confine themselves to pecuniary aid, believing that by such assistance the lords of the Congregation would be able to expel the French, and bring the contest to a successful issue, while, by the secresy with which it could be conveyed, an open breach between France and England would be prevented. This plan, which originated in the personal disinclination of Elizabeth to the Scottish war,[441] rather than in the judgment of her wisest counsellors, protracted the contest, and gave occasion to some angry disputes between the English agents and those of the Congregation. The former were continually urging the associated lords to attack the forces of the regent, before she received fresh succours from France, and blaming their slow operations; they complained of the want of secresy in the correspondence with England; and even insinuated that the money, intended for the common cause, was partially applied to private purposes. The latter were irritated by this insinuation, and urged the necessity of military as well as pecuniary assistance.[442]

In a letter to Sir James Croft, Knox represented the great importance of their being speedily assisted with troops, without which they would be in much hazard of miscarrying in an attack upon the fortifications of Leith. The court of England, he said, ought not to hesitate at offending France, of whose hostile intentions against them they had the most satisfactory evidence. But “if ye list to craft with thame,” continued he, “the sending of a thousand or mo men to us can breake no league nor point of peace contracted betwixt you and France: for it is free for your subjects to serve in warr anie prince or nation for their wages; and if ye fear that such excuses will not prevail, ye may declare thame rebelles to your realme when ye shall be assured that thei be in our companye.” No doubt such things have been often done; and such “political casuistry” (as Keith not improperly styles it) is not unknown at courts. But it must be confessed, that the measure recommended by Knox (the morality of which must stand on the same grounds with the assistance which the English were at that time affording) was too glaring to be concealed by the excuses which he suggested. Croft laid hold of this opportunity to check the impetuosity of his correspondent, and wrote him, that he wondered how he, “being a wise man,” would require from them such aid as they could not give “without breach of treaty, and dishonour;” and that “the world was not so blind but that it could soon espy” the “devices” by which he proposed “to colour their doings.” Knox, in his reply, apologized for his “unreasonable request;” but, at the same time, reminded Croft of the common practice of courts in such matters, and the conduct of the French court towards the English in a recent instance.[443] He was not ignorant, he said, of the inconveniences which might attend an open declaration in their favour, but feared that they would have cause to “repent the drift of time, when the remedy would not be so easy.”[444]

This is the only instance in which I have found our Reformer recommending dissimulation, which was very foreign to the openness of his natural temper, and the blunt and rigid honesty that marked his general conduct. His own opinion was, that the English court ought from the first to have done what they found themselves obliged to do at last—avow their resolution to support the Congregation. Keith praises Croft’s “just reprimand on Mr Knox’s double fac’d proposition,” and Cecil says, that his “audacite was well tamed.” We must not, however, imagine, that these statesmen had any scruple of conscience, or nice feeling of honour on this point. For, on the very day on which Croft reprimanded Knox, he wrote to Cecil that he thought the queen ought openly to take part with the Congregation. And in the same letter in which Cecil speaks of Knox’s audacity, he advises Croft to adopt in substance the very measure which our Reformer had recommended, by sending five or six officers, who should “steal from thence with appearance of displeasure for lack of interteynment;” and in a subsequent letter, he gives directions to send three or four, fit for being captains, who should give out that they left Berwick, “as men desyrous to be exercised in the warres, rather than to lye idely in that towne.”[445]

Notwithstanding the prejudice which existed in the English court against our Reformer,[446] on account of his “audacity” in attacking female prerogative, they were too well acquainted with his integrity and influence to decline his services. Cecil kept up a correspondence with him; and in the directions sent from London for the management of the subsidy, it was expressly provided, that he should be one of the council for examining the receipts and payments, to see that it was applied to “the common action,” and not to any private use.[447]

In the mean time, his zeal and activity, in the cause of the Congregation, exposed him to the deadly resentment of the queen regent and the papists. A reward was publicly offered to any one who should apprehend or kill him; and not a few, actuated by hatred or avarice, lay in wait to seize his person. But this did not deter him from appearing in public, nor from travelling through the country in the discharge of his duty. His exertions at this period were incredibly great. By day he was employed in preaching, by night in writing letters on public business. He was the soul of the Congregation; was always found at the post of danger; and by his presence, his public discourses, and private advices, animated the whole body, and defeated the schemes employed to corrupt or disunite them.[448]

The Congregation had lately received a considerable increase of strength by the accession of the former regent, the duke of Chastelherault. His eldest son, the earl of Arran, who commanded the Scots guard in France, had embraced the principles of the Reformation; understanding that the French court, which was entirely under the direction of the princes of Lorrain, intended to throw him into prison, he secretly retired to Geneva, from which he was conveyed to London by the assistance of Elizabeth’s ministers. In the month of August he came to his father at Hamilton. The representations of his son, joined with those of the English cabinet, and with his own jealousy of the designs of the queen regent, easily gained over the vacillating duke, who met with the lords of the Congregation, and subscribed their bond of confederation.[449]

Our Reformer was now called to take a share in a very delicate and important measure. When they first had recourse to arms in their own defence, the lords of the Congregation had no intention of making any alteration in the government, or of assuming the exercise of the supreme authority.[450] Even after they had adopted a more regular and permanent system of resistance to the measures of the queen regent, they continued to recognise the station which she held, presented petitions to her, and listened respectfully to the proposals which she made for removing the grounds of variance. But finding that she was fully bent upon the execution of her plan for subverting the national liberties, and that her official situation gave her great advantages in carrying on this design, they began to deliberate upon the propriety of adopting a different line of conduct. Their sovereigns were minors, in a foreign country, and under the management of persons to whose influence the evils of which they complained were principally to be ascribed. The queen dowager held the regency by the authority of parliament; and might she not be deprived of it by the same authority? In the present state of the country, it was impossible for a free and regular parliament to meet; but the majority of the nation had declared their dissatisfaction with her administration; and was it not competent for them to provide for the public safety, which was exposed to such imminent danger? These were the questions which formed the topic of frequent conversation at this time.

After much deliberation, a numerous assembly, consisting of nobles, barons, and representatives of boroughs, met at Edinburgh, on the 21st of October, 1559, to bring this important point to a solemn issue. To this assembly Knox and Willock were called; and the question being stated to them, they were required to deliver their opinions as to the lawfulness of the proposed measure. Willock, who then officiated as minister of Edinburgh, being first asked, declared it to be his judgment, founded on reason and scripture, that the power of rulers was limited; that they might be deprived of it upon valid grounds; and that the queen regent having, by fortifying Leith, and introducing foreign troops into the country, evinced a fixed determination to oppress and enslave the kingdom, might justly be divested of her authority, by the nobles and barons, as native counsellors of the realm, whose petitions and remonstrances she had repeatedly rejected. Knox assented to the opinion delivered by his brother, and added, that the assembly might, with safe consciences, act upon it, provided they attended to the three following things: First, that they did not suffer the misconduct of the queen regent to alienate their affections from due allegiance to their sovereigns, Francis and Mary; second, that they were not actuated in the measure by private hatred or envy of the queen dowager, but by regard to the safety of the commonwealth; and, third, that any sentence which they might at this time pronounce, should not preclude her re‑admission to office, if she afterwards discovered sorrow for her conduct, and a disposition to submit to the advice of the estates of the nation. After this, the whole assembly, having severally delivered their opinions, did, by a solemn deed, suspend the queen dowager from her authority as regent of the kingdom, until the meeting of a free parliament;[451] and, at the same time, elected a council for the management of public affairs during this interval.[452] When the council had occasion to treat of matters connected with religion, four of the ministers were appointed to assist in their deliberations. These were Knox, Willock, Goodman, and Alexander Gordon, bishop of Galloway, who had embraced the Reformation.[453]

It has been alleged by some writers, that the question respecting the suspension of the queen regent was altogether incompetent for ministers of the gospel to determine, and that Knox and Willock, by the advice which they gave on this occasion, exposed themselves unnecessarily to odium.[454] But it is not easy to see how they could have been excused in refusing to deliver their opinion, when required by those who had submitted to their ministry, upon a measure which involved a case of conscience, as well as a question of law and political right. The advice which was actually given and followed is a matter of greater consequence, than the quarter from which it came. As this rests upon principles very different from those which produced resistance to princes, and limitation on their authority, under feudal governments, and as our Reformer has been the object of much animadversion for inculcating these principles, I shall embrace the present opportunity to offer a few remarks on this interesting subject.

Among the various causes which affected the general state of society and government in Europe, during the middle ages, the influence of religion cannot be overlooked. Debased by ignorance, and fettered by superstition, the minds of men were prepared to acquiesce without examination in the claims of authority, and tamely to submit to every yoke. In whatever light we view popery, the genius of that singular system of religion will be found to be adverse to liberty. The court of Rome, while it aimed directly at the establishment of a spiritual despotism in the hands of ecclesiastics, contributed to rivet the chains of political servitude upon the people. In return for the support which princes yielded to its arrogant claims, it was content to invest them with an absolute authority over the bodies of their subjects. By the priestly unction, performed at the coronation of kings in the name of the holy see, a sacred character was understood to be imparted, which raised them to a superiority over their nobility which they did not possess according to feudal ideas, rendered their persons inviolable, and their office divine. Although the sovereign pontiffs claimed, and on different occasions exercised, the power of dethroning kings, and of absolving subjects from their allegiance; yet any attempt of this kind, when it proceeded from the people themselves, was denounced as a crime deserving the severest punishment in this world, and damnation in the next. Hence sprung the doctrine of the divine right of kings to rule independently of their people, and of passive obedience and non‑resistance to their will; under the sanction of which they were encouraged to sport with the lives and happiness of their subjects, and to indulge in the most tyrannical and wanton acts of oppression, without the dread of resistance, or of being called to an account by any power on earth. Even in countries where the people were understood to enjoy certain political privileges, transmitted from remote ages, or wrested from their princes on some favourable occasions, these principles were generally prevalent; and, availing himself of them, it was easy for an ambitious and powerful monarch to violate the rights of the people with impunity, and upon a constitution, the forms of which were friendly to popular liberty, to establish an administration completely arbitrary and despotic.

The contest between papal sovereignty and the authority of general councils, which was carried on during the fifteenth century, elicited some of the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards applied to political government. The revival of learning, by unfolding the principles of legislation, and modes of government in the republics of ancient Greece and Rome, gradually led to more liberal notions on this subject. But these were confined to a few, and had no influence upon the general state of society. The spirit infused by philosophy and literature is too feeble and contracted to produce a radical reform of established abuses; and learned men, proud of their own superior illumination, and satisfied with the liberty of indulging their speculations, have generally been too indifferent or too timid to attempt the improvement of the multitude. It is to the religious spirit excited during the sixteenth century, which spread rapidly through Europe, and diffused itself among all classes of men, that we are chiefly indebted for the propagation of the genuine principles of rational liberty, and the consequent amelioration of government.

Civil and ecclesiastical tyranny were so closely combined, that it was impossible for men to emancipate themselves from the latter without throwing off the former; and from arguments which established their religious rights, the transition was easy, and almost unavoidable, to disquisitions about their civil privileges. In those kingdoms in which the rulers threw off the Roman yoke, and introduced the Reformation by their authority, the influence was more imperceptible and slow; and in some of them, as in England, the power taken from the ecclesiastical was thrown into the regal scale, which proved so far prejudicial to popular liberty. But where the Reformation was embraced by the great body of a nation, while the ruling powers continued to oppose it, the effect was visible and immediate. The interested and obstinate support which rulers gave to the old system of error and ecclesiastical tyranny, and their cruel persecution of all who favoured the new opinions, drove their subjects to enquire into the just limits of authority and obedience. Their judgments once informed as to the rights to which they were entitled, and their consciences satisfied respecting the means which they might employ to acquire them, the immense importance of the immediate object in view, their emancipation from religious bondage, and the salvation of themselves and their posterity, impelled them to make the attempt with an enthusiasm and perseverance which the mere love of civil liberty could not have inspired.

In effecting that memorable revolution, which terminated in favour of religious and political liberty in so many nations of Europe, the public teachers of the protestant doctrine had a principal influence. By their instructions and exhortations, they roused the people to consider their rights and exert their power; they stimulated timid and wary politicians; they encouraged and animated princes, nobles, and confederated states, with their armies, against the most formidable opposition, and under the most overwhelming difficulties, until their exertions were ultimately crowned with success. These facts are now admitted, and this honour has at last, through the force of truth, been conceded to the religious leaders of the protestant Reformation, by philosophical writers, who had too long branded them as ignorant and fanatical.[455]

Our Reformer had caught a large portion of the spirit of civil liberty. We have already adverted to the circumstance in his education which directed his attention, at an early period, to some of its principles.[456] His subsequent studies introduced him to an acquaintance with the maxims and modes of government in the free states of antiquity; and it is reasonable to suppose that his intercourse with the republics of Switzerland and Geneva had some influence on his political creed. Having formed his sentiments independently of the prejudices arising from established laws, long usage, and commonly received opinions, his zeal and intrepidity prompted him to avow and propagate them, when others, less sanguine and resolute, would have been restrained by fear, or by despair of success.[457] Extensive observation had convinced him of the glaring perversion of government in the European kingdoms; but his principles led him to desire their reform, not their subversion. His admiration of the polity of republics, ancient or modern, was not so great or indiscriminate as to prevent him from separating the essential principles of equity and freedom which they contained, from others which were incompatible with monarchy. He was perfectly sensible of the necessity of regular government to the maintenance of justice and order, and aware of the danger of setting men loose from its salutary control. And he uniformly inculcated a conscientious obedience to the lawful commands of rulers, and respect to their persons as well as to their authority, even when they were chargeable with various mismanagements, so long as they did not break through all the restraints of law and justice, and cease to perform the great and fundamental duties of their office.

But he held that rulers, supreme as well as subordinate, were invested with authority for the public good; that obedience was not due to them in any thing contrary to the divine law, natural or revealed; that, in every free and well‑constituted government, the law of the land was superior to the will of the prince; that inferior magistrates and subjects might restrain the supreme magistrate from particular illegal acts, without throwing off their allegiance, or being guilty of rebellion; that no class of men have an original, inherent, and indefeasible right to rule over a people, independently of their will and consent; that every nation is entitled to provide and require that they shall be ruled by laws which are agreeable to the divine law, and calculated to promote their welfare; that there is a mutual compact, tacit and implied, if not formal and explicit, between rulers and their subjects; and, if the former shall flagrantly violate this, employ that power for the destruction of the commonwealth which was committed to them for its preservation and benefit, or, in one word, if they shall become habitual tyrants and notorious oppressors, that the people are absolved from allegiance, and have a right to resist them, formally to depose them from their place, and to elect others in their room.

The real power of the Scottish kings was, indeed, always limited, and there are in our history, previous to the era of the Reformation, many instances of resistance to their authority. But, though these were pleaded as precedents on this occasion, it must be confessed that we cannot trace them to the principles of genuine liberty. They were the effects of sudden resentment on account of some extraordinary act of male‑administration, or of the ambition of some powerful baron, or of the jealousy with which the feudal aristocracy watched over the privileges of their own order. The people who followed the standards of their chiefs had little interest in the struggle, and derived no benefit from the limitations which were imposed upon the sovereign. But, at this time, more just and enlarged sentiments were diffused through the nation, and the idea of a commonwealth, including the mass of the people as well as the privileged orders, began to be entertained. Our Reformer, whose notions of hereditary right, whether in kings or nobles, were not exalted, studied to repress the insolence and oppression of the nobility. He reminded them of the original equality of men, and the ends for which some were raised above others; and he taught the people that they had rights to preserve, as well as duties to perform. With respect to female government, he never moved any question among his countrymen, nor attempted to gain proselytes to his opinion.[458]

Such, in substance, were the political sentiments which were inculcated by our Reformer, and which were more than once acted upon in Scotland during his lifetime. That in an age when the principles of political liberty were only beginning to be understood, such sentiments should have been regarded with a suspicious eye by some of the learned who had not yet thrown off common prejudices, and that they should have exposed those who maintained them to a charge of treason from despotical rulers and their numerous satellites, is far from being matter of wonder. But it must excite both surprise and indignation, to find writers in the present enlightened age, and under the sunshine of British liberty, (if our sun is not fast going down,) expressing their abhorrence of these principles, and exhausting upon their authors all the invective and virulence of the former anti‑monarcho‑machi, and advocates of passive obedience. They are essentially the principles upon which the free constitution of Britain rests; and the most obnoxious of them were reduced to practice at the memorable era of the Revolution, when the necessity of employing them was not more urgent or unquestionable, than it was at the suspension of the queen regent of Scotland, and the subsequent deposition of her daughter.

I have said essentially: for I would not be understood as meaning to say, that every proposition advanced by Knox, on this subject, is expressed in the most guarded and unexceptionable manner, or that all the cases in which he was led to vindicate forcible resistance to rulers, were such as rendered it necessary, and as may be pleaded as precedents in modern times. The political doctrines maintained at that period received a tincture from the spirit of the age, and were accommodated to a state of society and government comparatively rude and unsettled. The checks which have since been introduced into the constitution, and the influence which public opinion, expressed by the organ of a free press, has upon the conduct of rulers, are sufficient, in ordinary cases, to restrain dangerous encroachments, or to afford the means of correcting them in a peaceable way; and have thus happily superseded the necessity of having recourse to those desperate but decisive remedies which were formerly applied by an oppressed and indignant people. But if ever the time come when these principles shall be generally abjured or forgotten, the extinction of the boasted liberty of Britain will not be far off.

There are objections against our Reformer’s political principles which demand consideration, from the authority to which they appeal, and the influence which they may have on pious minds. “The doctrine of resistance to civil rulers,” it is alleged, “is repugnant to the express directions of the New Testament, which repeatedly enjoin Christians to be subject to ‘the powers that be,’ and denounce damnation against such as disobey or resist them on any pretext whatever. With the literal and strict import of these precepts the example of the primitive Christians agreed; for, even after they became very numerous, so as to be capable of opposing the government under which they lived, they never attempted to shake off the authority of the Roman emperors, or to employ force to protect themselves from the tyranny and persecutions to which they were exposed. Besides, granting that it is lawful for subjects to vindicate their civil rights and privileges by resisting arbitrary rulers, to have recourse to forcible measures for promoting Christianity, is diametrically opposite to the genius of that religion, which was propagated at first, and is still to be defended, not by arms and violence, but by teaching and suffering.”

These objections are more specious than solid. The directions and precepts on this subject, which are contained in the New Testament, must not be stretched beyond their evident scope and proper import. They do not give greater power to magistrates than they formerly possessed, nor do they supersede any of the rights or privileges to which subjects were entitled, by the common law of nature, or by the particular statutes of any country. The New Testament does not give directions to communities respecting the original formation or subsequent improvement of their civil constitutions, nor prescribe the course which ought to be pursued in certain extraordinary cases, when rulers abuse the power with which they are invested, and convert their legitimate authority into an engine of despotism and oppression.[459] It supposes magistrates to be acting within the proper line of their office, and discharging its duties to the advantage of the society over which they are placed. And it teaches Christians, that the liberty which Christ purchased, and to the enjoyment of which they are called by the gospel, does not exempt them from subjection and obedience to civil authority, which is a divine ordinance for the good of mankind; that they are bound to obey existing rulers, although they should be of a different religion from themselves; and that Christianity, so far from setting them free from obligations to this or any other relative duty, strengthens these obligations, and requires them to discharge their duties for conscience‑sake, with fidelity, cheerfulness, patience, long‑suffering, and singleness of heart. Viewed in this light, nothing can be more reasonable in its own nature, or more honourable to the gospel, than the directions which it gives on this subject; and we must perceive a peculiar propriety in the frequency and earnestness with which they are urged, when we consider the danger in which the primitive christians were of supposing, that they were liberated from the ordinary restraints of the rest of mankind. But if we shall go beyond this, and assert that the scriptures have prohibited resistance to rulers in every case, and that the great body of a nation consisting of christians, in attempting to curb the fury of their rulers, or to deprive them of the power which they have grossly abused, are guilty of that crime against which the apostle denounces damnation, we represent the beneficent religion of Jesus as sanctioning despotism, and entailing all the evils of political bondage upon mankind; and we tread in the steps of those enemies to christianity, who, under the colour of paying a compliment to its pacific, submissive, tolerant, and self‑denying maxims, have represented it as calculated to produce a passive, servile spirit, and to extinguish courage, patriotism, the love of civil liberty, the desire of self‑preservation, and every kind of disposition to repel injuries, or to obtain the redress of the most intolerable grievances.

The example of the primitive christians is not binding upon others any farther than it is conformable to the scriptures; and the circumstances in which they were placed were totally different from those of the protestants in Scotland, and in other countries, at the time of the Reformation. The fathers often indulge in oratorical exaggerations when speaking of the numbers of the christians; nor is there any satisfactory evidence that they ever approached near to a majority of the Roman empire, during the time that they were exposed to persecution.

“If thou mayst be made free, use it rather,” says the Apostle; a maxim which is applicable, by just analogy, to political as well as domestic freedom. The christian religion natively tends to cherish and diffuse a spirit favourable to civil liberty, and this, in its turn, has the most happy influence upon christianity, which never flourished extensively, and for a long period, in any country where despotism prevailed. It must therefore be the duty of every christian to exert himself for the acquisition and defence of this invaluable blessing. Christianity ought not to be propagated by force of arms; but the external liberty of professing it may be vindicated in that way both against foreign invaders and against domestic tyrants. If the free exercise of their religion, or their right to remove religious abuses, enter into the grounds of the struggle which a nation maintains against oppressive rulers, the cause becomes of vastly more importance, its justice is more unquestionable, and it is still more worthy, not only of their prayers and petitions, but of their blood and treasure, than if it had been maintained solely for the purpose of securing their fortunes, or of acquiring some mere worldly privilege. And to those whose minds are not warped by prejudice, and who do not labour under a confusion of ideas on the subject, it must surely appear paradoxical to assert, that, while God has granted to subjects a right to take the sword of just defence for securing objects of a temporary and inferior nature, he has prohibited them from using this remedy, and left them at the mercy of every lawless despot, with respect to a concern the most important of all, whether it be viewed as relating to his own honour, or to the welfare of mankind.

Those who judge of the propriety of any measure from the success with which it is accompanied, will be disposed to condemn the suspension of the queen regent. Soon after this step was taken, the affairs of the Congregation began to wear a gloomy aspect. The messenger whom they sent to Berwick to receive a remittance from the English court, was intercepted on his return, and rifled of the treasure; their soldiers mutinied for want of pay; they were repulsed in a premature assault upon the fortifications of Leith, and worsted in a skirmish with the French troops; the secret emissaries of the regent were too successful among them; their numbers daily decreased; and the remainder, disunited, dispirited and dismayed, came to the resolution of abandoning Edinburgh on the evening of the 5th of November, and retreated with precipitation and disgrace to Stirling.

Amidst the universal dejection produced by these disasters, the spirit of Knox remained unsubdued. On the day after their arrival at Stirling, he mounted the pulpit, and delivered a discourse, which had a wonderful effect in rekindling the zeal and courage of the Congregation. Their faces (he said) were confounded, their enemies triumphed, their hearts had quaked for fear, and still remained oppressed with sorrow and shame. Why had God thus dejected them? The situation of their affairs required plain language, and he would use it. In the present distressed state of their minds, they were in danger of attributing these misfortunes to a wrong cause, and of imagining that they had offended in taking the sword of self‑defence into their hands; just as the tribes of Israel did, when twice discomfited in the war which they undertook, by divine direction, against their brethren the Benjamites. Having divided the Congregation into two classes, those who had been embarked in this cause from the beginning, and those who had lately acceded to it, he proceeded to point out what he considered as blameable in the conduct of each. The former (he said) had laid aside that humility and dependence upon divine providence which they had discovered when their number was small; and, since they were joined by the Hamiltons, had become elated, secure, and self‑confident. “But wherein had my lord duke and his friends offended? I am uncertain if my lord’s grace has unfeignedly repented of his assistance to these murderers, unjustly pursuing us. Yea, I am uncertain if he has repented of that innocent blood of Christ’s blessed martyrs, which was shed in his default. But let it be that so he has done (as I hear that he has confessed his fault before the lords and brethren of the Congregation); yet I am assured that neither he, nor yet his friends, did feel before this time the anguish and grief of heart which we felt, when in their blind fury they pursued us. And therefore God hath justly permitted both them and us to fall in this fearful confusion at once,—us, for that we put our trust and confidence in man, and them, because they should feel in their own hearts how bitter was the cup which they made others drink before them.” After exhorting all to amendment of life, to prayers, and works of charity, he concluded with an animating address. “God,” he said, “often suffered the wicked to triumph for a while, and exposed his chosen congregation to mockery, dangers, and apparent destruction, in order to abase their self‑confidence, and induce them to look to himself for deliverance and victory. If they turned unfeignedly to the Eternal, he no more doubted that their present distress would be converted into joy, and followed by success, than he doubted that Israel was finally victorious over the Benjamites, after being twice repulsed with ignominy. The cause in which they were engaged would prevail in Scotland, in spite of all opposition. It was the eternal truth of the eternal God which they maintained; it might be oppressed for a time, but would ultimately triumph.”[460]

The audience, who had entered the church in deep despondency, left it with renovated courage. In the afternoon the council met, and, after prayer by the Reformer, unanimously agreed to despatch William Maitland of Lethington to London, to supplicate more effectual assistance from Elizabeth. In the mean time, as they were unable to keep the field, it was agreed that they should divide, and that the one half of the council should remain at Glasgow, and the other at St Andrews. Knox was appointed to attend the latter in the double capacity of preacher and secretary. The French having, in the beginning of the year 1560, penetrated into Fife, he encouraged that small band, which, under the earl of Arran, and the prior of St Andrews, bravely resisted their progress, until the appearance of the English fleet compelled the enemy to retreat with precipitation.[461]

The disaster which obliged the protestant army to raise the siege of Leith, and to evacuate Edinburgh, turned out eventually to the advantage of their cause. It induced the English court to abandon the line of cautious policy which they had hitherto pursued. Maitland’s embassy to London was successful; and, on the 27th of February, 1560, Elizabeth concluded a formal treaty with the lords of the Congregation, by which she engaged to send an army into Scotland, to assist them in expelling the French forces. Being informed of this treaty, the queen regent resolved to disperse the troops which were collected at Glasgow under the duke of Chastelherault, before the English army could arrive. On the 7th of March, the French, amounting to two thousand foot, and three hundred horse, issued from Leith, and, proceeding by Linlithgow and Kirkintilloch, suddenly appeared before Glasgow. Having reduced the episcopal castle, they were preparing to advance to Hamilton, when they received a message from the queen regent, informing them that the English army had begun its march into Scotland; upon which they relinquished their design, and returned to Leith, carrying along with them a number of prisoners and a considerable booty.[462] In the beginning of April, the English army joined the forces of the Congregation. The French shut themselves up within the fortifications of Leith, which was invested both by sea and land; and the queen regent, who had for some time been in a declining state of health, was received by lord Erskine into the castle of Edinburgh, where she died during the siege of Leith.

These proceedings were viewed with deep interest by the court of France. Henry II., having died in July 1559, was succeeded by Francis II., the husband of the young queen of Scots; in consequence of which, the administration of affairs fell entirely into the hands of the duke of Guise and the cardinal of Lorrain. They employed every art of political intrigue to prevent the queen of England from giving assistance to the Scottish Congregation, and to prevail on her to desert them, after she had undertaken their protection. Nor were they altogether unsuccessful in their attempts. Elizabeth, partly from extreme caution and parsimony, and partly from the influence of some of her counsellors, was induced to listen to their plausible proposals; she delayed the march of her army into Scotland, and after the siege of Leith was commenced, suspended the military operations, and engaged in premature negotiations for peace. This last step justly alarmed the Congregation; and while they neglected no means to persuade the English court to perform the stipulations of the late treaty, they prepared for the worst, by renewing their covenant among themselves.

Elizabeth at last listened to the advice of her ablest ministers, and resolved to prosecute the war with vigour. No sooner did she evince this determination than the French court yielded to all her demands. The armament which they had lately fitted out at great expense for Scotland had been dispersed by a storm; the frith of Forth was blocked up by an English fleet; and a confederacy had been formed among a number of the nobility in France, to remove the princes of Lorrain from the administration of public affairs, and to free the protestants in that kingdom from the severe persecutions to which they had hitherto been exposed.[463] Influenced by these circumstances,the French cabinet sent plenipotentiaries to Edinburgh, who concluded a treaty with England, by which the Scottish differences were also adjusted. By this treaty it was provided, that the French troops should immediately be removed from Scotland; that an amnesty should be granted to all who had been engaged in the late resistance to the queen regent; that the principal grievances of which they complained in the civil administration should be redressed; that a free parliament should be held to settle the other affairs of the kingdom; and that, during the absence of their sovereigns, the government should be administered by a council to be chosen partly by Francis and Mary, and partly by the estates of the nation. The treaty was signed on the 7th of July; on the 16th, the French army embarked at Leith, and the English troops began their march into their own country; and on the 19th, the Congregation assembled in St Giles’s church, to return solemn thanks to God for the restoration of peace, and the success which had crowned their exertions.[464] In this manner terminated the civil war which attended the Scottish Reformation, after it had continued for twelve months, with less rancour and bloodshed than have distinguished any other contest of a similar kind.

During the continuance of the war, the protestant preachers had been assiduous in disseminating knowledge through all parts of the kingdom, and their success was equal to their diligence. They had received a considerable accession to their number from the ranks of their opponents. While we venerate those men who enlisted under the banners of truth when her friends were few, and who boldly took the field in her defence when the victory was yet dubious and distant, and while we cheerfully award to them the highest meed of honour,—let us not load with heavy censure, or even deprive of all praise, such as, less enlightened, or less courageous, were tardy in appearing for the cause. He who “knew what is in man,” has taught us not to reject such disciples, in the dawn of light, and in perilous times. Nicodemus, who at first “came to Jesus by night,” and Joseph of Arimathea, who was his disciple, “but secretly for fear of the Jews,” afterwards avouched their faith in him, and obtained the honour of embalming and interring his body, when all his early followers had forsaken him and fled. Several of the Scottish clergy, who were favourable to the protestant doctrine, had contrived to retain their places in the church, by concealing their sentiments, or by securing the favour of some powerful patron. Of this class were John Winram, sub-prior of the abbey of St Andrews, Adam Herriot, a friar of that abbey, John Spottiswood, parson of Calder, and John Carsewell, rector of Kilmartine. In the gradual diffusion of knowledge through the nation, the minds of many who were attending the schools had been also enlightened; among whom were David Lindsay, Andrew Hay, Robert Montgomery, Patrick Adamson, and Robert and Archibald Hamilton. During the year 1559, these men came forward as auxiliaries to the first protestant preachers; and so successful were they in instructing the people, that the French would have found it extremely difficult to support the ancient superstition, though they had proved victorious in the military contest.

On the other hand, the exertions of the popish clergy had been feeble in the extreme. Too corrupt to think of reforming their manners, too illiterate to be capable of defending their errors, they placed their forlorn hope on the success of the French arms, and looked forward to the issue of the war as involving the establishment or the ruin of their religion. The bishop of Amiens, who came to Scotland in the double capacity of ambassador from the French court and papal legate, was accompanied by three doctors of the Sorbonne, who gave out that they would confound the reformed ministers, and bring back the people whom they had misled to the bosom of the church, by the force of argument and persuasion. Lesley boasts of the success which attended their exertions; but there is good reason for thinking, that these foreign divines confined themselves to the easier task of instructing the Scottish clergy to perform the religious service with greater solemnity, and to purify the churches, in a canonical manner, from the pollution which they had contracted by the profane worship of heretics.[465] One effort, however, was made by the popish clergy to support their sinking cause, which, if it had succeeded, would have done more to retrieve their reputation than all the arguments of the Sorbonists; and, as this was the last attempt of the kind that ever was made in Scotland, the reader may be gratified with the following account of it.

In the neighbourhood of Musselburgh was a chapel dedicated to our Lady of Loretto, the sanctity of which was increased from its having been the favourite abode of the celebrated Thomas the Hermit. To this sacred place the inhabitants of Scotland, from time immemorial, had repaired in pilgrimage, to present their offerings to the Virgin, and to experience the efficacy of her prayers, and the healing virtue of the wonder‑working “Hermit of Lareit.”[466] In the course of the year 1559, public notice was given by the friars, that they intended to put the truth of their religion to the proof, by performing a miracle at this chapel upon a young man who had been born blind. On the day appointed, a vast concourse of spectators assembled from all parts of Lothian. The young man, accompanied with a solemn procession of monks, was conducted to a scaffold, erected on the outside of the chapel, and was exhibited to the multitude. Many of them knew him to be the blind man whom they had often seen begging, and whose necessities they had relieved; all looked on him, and pronounced him stone blind. The friars then proceeded to their devotions with great fervency, invoking the assistance of the Virgin, at whose shrine they stood, and that of all the saints whom they honoured; and after some time spent in prayers and religious ceremonies, the blind man opened his eyes, to the astonishment of the spectators. Having returned thanks to the friars and their saintly patrons for this wonderful cure, he was allowed to go down from the scaffold to gratify the curiosity of the people, and to receive their alms.

It happened that there was among the crowd a gentleman of Fife, Robert Colville of Cleish,[467] who, from his romantic bravery, was usually called Squire Meldrum, in allusion to a person of that name who had been celebrated by Sir David Lindsay. He was of protestant principles, but his wife was a Roman catholic, and, being pregnant at this time, had sent a servant with a present to the chapel of Loretto, to procure the assistance of the Virgin in her labour. The squire was too gallant to hurt his lady’s feelings by prohibiting the present from being sent off, but he resolved to prevent the superstitious offering, and with that view had come to Musselburgh. He witnessed the miracle of curing the blind man with the distrust natural to a protestant, and determined, if possible, to detect the imposition before he left the place. Wherefore, having sought out the young man from the crowd, he put a piece of money into his hand, and persuaded him to accompany him to his lodgings in Edinburgh. Taking him into a private room, and locking the door, he told him plainly that he was convinced he had engaged in a wicked conspiracy with the friars to impose on the credulity of the people, and at last drew from him the secret of the story. When a boy, he had been employed to tend the cattle belonging to the nuns of Sciennes, in the vicinity of Edinburgh, and had attracted their attention by a peculiar faculty which he had of turning up the white of his eyes, and of keeping them in this position, so as to appear quite blind. Certain friars in the city, having come to the knowledge of this fact, conceived the design of making it subservient to their purposes; and, having prevailed on the sisters of Sciennes to part with the poor boy, lodged him in one of their cells. By daily practice he became an adept in the art of counterfeiting blindness; and after he had remained so long in concealment as not to be recognised by his former acquaintance, he was sent forth to beg as a blind pauper; the friars having previously bound him, by a solemn vow, not to reveal the secret. To confirm his narrative, he “played his pavie” before the squire, by “flypping up the lid of his eyes, and casting up the white,” so as to appear as blind as he did on the scaffold at Loretto. The gentleman laid before him the iniquity of his conduct, and told him that he must next day repeat the whole story publicly at the cross of Edinburgh; and, as this would expose him to the vengeance of the friars, he engaged to become his protector, and to retain him as a servant in his house. The young man complied with his directions, and Cleish, with his drawn sword in his hand, having stood by him till he had finished his confession, placed him on the same horse with himself, and carried him off to Fife. The detection of this imposture was quickly published through the country, and covered the friars with confusion. My author does not say whether it cured Lady Cleish of her superstition, but I shall afterwards have occasion to notice its influence in opening the eyes of one who became a distinguished promoter of the Reformation.[468]

The treaty which put an end to the civil war in Scotland, made no particular settlement respecting the religious differences,[469] but it was, on that very account, the more fatal to popery. The protestants were left in the possession of authority; and they were now by far the most powerful party in the nation, both as to rank and numbers. With the exception of those places which had been occupied by the queen regent and her foreign auxiliaries, the Roman catholic worship was almost universally deserted throughout the kingdom, and no provision was made in the treaty for its restoration. The firm hold which it once had on the opinions and affections of the people was completely loosened; it was supported by force alone; and the moment that the French troops embarked, that fabric which had stood for ages in Scotland fell to the ground. Its feeble and dismayed priests ceased of their own accord from the celebration of its rites; and the reformed service was peaceably set up, wherever ministers could be found to perform it. The parliament, when it entered upon the consideration of the state of religion, as one of the points, undecided by the commissioners, which had been left to them,[470] had little else to do but to sanction what the nation had previously done, by legally abolishing the popish, and establishing the protestant religion.

When the circumstances in which they were assembled, and the affairs on which they were called to deliberate, are taken into consideration, this must be regarded as the most important meeting of the estates of the kingdom that had ever been held in Scotland. It engrossed the attention of the nation, and the eyes of Europe were fixed on its proceedings. The parliament met on the 10th of July, but, agreeably to the terms of the treaty, it was prorogued, without entering on business, until the first day of August. Although a great concourse of people resorted to Edinburgh on that occasion, yet no tumult or disturbance of the public peace occurred. Many of the lords spiritual and temporal, who were attached to popery, absented themselves; but the chief patrons of the old religion, as the archbishop of St Andrews, and the bishops of Dumblane and Dunkeld, countenanced the assembly by their presence, and were allowed to act with freedom as lords of parliament. There is one fact in its constitution and proceedings which strikingly illustrates the influence of the Reformation upon political liberty. In the reign of James I. the lesser barons had been exempted from personal attendance on parliament, and permitted to elect representatives in their different shires. But a privilege which in modern times is so eagerly coveted, was then so little prized, that, except in a few instances, no representatives from the shires had appeared in parliament,[471] and the lesser barons had almost forfeited their right by neglecting to exercise it. At this time, however, they assembled at Edinburgh, and agreed upon a petition to the parliament, claiming to be restored to their ancient privilege. The petition was granted, and, in consequence of this, about a hundred gentlemen took their seats.[472]

The business of religion was introduced by a petition presented by a number of protestants of different ranks, in which, after rehearsing their former endeavours to procure the removal of the corruptions which had infected the church, they requested parliament to use the power which providence had now put into their hands for effecting this great and urgent work. They craved three things in general,—that the anti‑christian doctrine maintained in the popish church should be discarded; that means should be used to restore purity of worship, and primitive discipline; and that the ecclesiastical revenues, which had been engrossed by a corrupt and indolent hierarchy, should be applied to the support of a pious and active ministry, to the promotion of learning, and to the relief of the poor. They declared, that they were ready to substantiate the justice of all their demands, and, in particular, to prove, that those who arrogated to themselves the name of clergy were destitute of all right to be accounted ministers of religion, and that, from the tyranny which they had exercised, and their vassalage to the court of Rome, they could not be safely tolerated, and far less intrusted with power, in a reformed commonwealth.[473]

In answer to the first demand, the parliament required the reformed ministers to lay before them a summary of doctrine which they could prove to be consonant with the scriptures, and which they desired to have established. The ministers were not unprepared for this task; and, in the course of four days, they presented a Confession of Faith, as the product of their joint labours, and an expression of their unanimous judgment. It agreed with the confessions which had been published by other reformed churches. Professing belief in the common articles of Christianity respecting the divine nature, the trinity, the creation of the world, the origin of evil, and the person of the Saviour, which were retained by the church of Rome, in opposition to the errors broached by ancient heretics, it condemned not only the idolatrous and superstitious tenets of that church, but also its gross depravation of the doctrine of scripture respecting the state of fallen man, and the method of his recovery. It declared that by “original sin was the image of God defacit in man, and he and his posteritie of nature become enemies to God, slaifis to Sathan, and seruandis to sin:”—that “all our salvatioun springs fra the eternall and immutabill decree of God, wha of meir grace electit us in Christ Jesus, his Sone, before the foundatione of the warld was laid:”—that it behoves us “to apprehend Christ Jesus, with his justice and satisfactioun, wha is the end and accomplischement of the law, by whome we ar set at this libertie, that the curse and maledictioun of God fall not upon us:”—that “as God the Father creatit us whan we war not, as his Sone our Lord Jesus redemit us whan we were enemies to him, sa alswa the Haly Gaist dois sanctifie and regenerat us, without all respect of ony merite proceeding fra us, be it befoir or be it efter our regeneratioun,—to speik this ane thing yit in mair plaine wordis, as we willinglie spoyle ourselfis of all honour and gloir of our awin creatioun and redemptioun, sa do we alswa of our regeneratioun and sanctificatioun, for of our selfis we ar not sufficient to think ane gude thocht, bot he wha hes begun the wark in us is onlie he that continewis us in the same, to the praise and glorie of his undeservit grace:”—and, in fine, it declared that, although good works proceed “not from our fre‑will, but the Spirit of the Lord Jesus,” and although those that boast of the merit of their own works, “boist themselfis of that whilk is nocht,” yet “blasphemie it is to say, that Christ abydis in the hartis of sic as in whome thair is no spirite of sanctificatioun; and all wirkers of iniquitie have nouther trew faith, nouther ony portioun of the Spirite of the Lord Jesus, sa lang as obstinatlie they continew in thair wickitnes.”[474]

The Confession was read first before the lords of Articles, and afterwards before the whole parliament. The protestant ministers attended in the house to defend it, if attacked, and to give satisfaction to the members respecting any point which might appear dubious. Those who had objections to it were formally required to state them. And the farther consideration of it was adjourned to a subsequent day, that none might pretend that an undue advantage had been taken of him, or that a matter of such importance had been concluded precipitately. On the 17th of August, the parliament resumed the subject, and, previous to the vote, the Confession was again read, article by article.[475] The earl of Athole, and lords Somerville and Borthwick, were the only persons of the temporal estate who voted in the negative, assigning this as their reason, “We will beleve as our forefatheris belevit.”[476] “The bischopis spak nothing.”[477] After the vote establishing the Confession of faith, the earl Marischal rose, and declared, that the silence of the clergy had confirmed him in his belief of the protestant doctrine; and he protested, that if any of the ecclesiastical estate should afterwards oppose the doctrine which had just been received, they should be entitled to no credit; seeing, after full knowledge of it, and ample time for deliberation, they had allowed it to pass without the smallest opposition or contradiction.[478] On the 24th of August, the parliament abolished the papal jurisdiction, prohibited, under certain penalties, the celebration of mass, and rescinded all the laws formerly made in support of the Roman catholic church, and against the reformed faith.[479]

Thus did the reformed religion advance in Scotland, from small beginnings, and amidst great opposition, until it attained a parliamentary establishment. Besides the influence of heaven secretly accompanying the labours of the preachers and confessors of the truth, the serious and inquisitive reader will trace the wise arrangements of providence in that concatenation of events which contributed to its rise, preservation, and increase,—by overruling the caprice, the ambition, the avarice, and the interested policy of princes and cabinets, many of whom had nothing less in view than to favour that cause, which they were so instrumental in promoting.

The breach of Henry VIII. of England with the Roman see, awakened the attention of the inhabitants of the northern part of the island to a controversy which had formerly been carried on at too great a distance to interest them, and led not a few to desire a reformation more improved than the model which that monarch had held out to them. The premature death of James V. of Scotland saved the protestants from destruction. During the short period in which they received the countenance of civil authority, at the commencement of Arran’s administration, the seeds of the reformed doctrine were so widely spread, and took such deep root, as to be able to resist the violent measures which the regent, after his recantation, employed to extirpate them. Those who were driven from the country by persecution found an asylum in England, under the decidedly protestant government of Edward VI. After his death, the alliance of England with Spain, and of Scotland with France, the two great contending powers on the continent, prevented that concert between the two courts which might have proved fatal to the protestant religion in Britain. While the cruelties of the English queen drove protestant preachers into Scotland, the political schemes of the queen regent induced her to favour them, and to connive at the propagation of their opinions. At the critical moment when the latter had accomplished her favourite designs, and was preparing to crush the Reformation, Elizabeth ascended the throne of England, and was induced, by political no less than religious considerations, to support the Scottish reformers. The French court was no less bent on suppressing them, and, having lately concluded peace with Spain, was left at liberty to direct its undivided attention to the accomplishment of that object; but at this critical moment, those intestine dissensions, which continued so long to desolate France, broke out, and forced its ministers to accede to that treaty, which put an end to French influence, and the papal religion, in Scotland.

NOTES

TO

VOLUME FIRST.

Note A.

Place of Knox’s Birth, and his Parentage.—Although the question respecting Knox’s birth‑place is not of very great importance, I shall state the authorities for the different opinions which are entertained on the subject.

Beza, who was contemporary, and personally acquainted, with our Reformer, designs him “Joannes Cnoxus, Scotus, Giffordiensis,” evidently meaning that he was a native of the town of Gifford. Icones, seu Imagines Illustrium Virorum, Ee. iij. an. 1580. Spotswood, who was born in 1565, and could receive information from his father, and other persons intimately acquainted with Knox, says that he was “born in Gifford within Lothian.” History, p. 265, edit. 1677. David Buchanan, in his Memoir of Knox, prefixed to the edition of his History, and published in 1644, gives the same account; which has been followed in the Life written by Matthew Crawfurd, and prefixed to the edition of the History, 1732; and by Wodrow, in his MS. Collections, respecting the Scottish Reformers, in Bibl. Coll. Glas. In a Genealogical Account of the Knoxes, which is in the possession of the family of the late Mr James Knox, minister of Scoon, the Reformer’s father is said to have been a brother of the family of Ranferlie, and “proprietor of the estate of Gifford.” Scott’s History of the Scottish Reformers, p. 94.

On the other hand, Archibald Hamilton, who was his countryman, as well as his contemporary and acquaintance, says that Knox was born in the town of Haddington: “Obscuris natus parentibus in Hadintona oppido in Laudonia.” De Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ apud Scotos Dialogus, fol. 64, a. Parisiis, 1577. Another Scotsman, who wrote in that age, says that he was born near Haddington; “prope Haddintonam.” Laingæus De vita, et moribus, atque rebus gestis Hæreticorum nostri temporis, fol. 113, b. Parisiis, 1581. Dr Barclay, late minister of Haddington, advanced an opinion which reconciles the two last authorities, (although it is probable that he never saw either of them,) by asserting that our Reformer was born in one of the suburbs of Haddington, called the Giffordgate. Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland, p. 69, 70.

The testimony of Archibald Hamilton is not altogether without weight; for, although he has retailed a number of gross falsehoods in the work referred to, there does not appear to be any reason for supposing that he would intentionally mislead his readers on such a circumstance as the birth‑place of the Reformer. But I consider Spotswood’s statement as going far to set aside Hamilton’s; for, as the archbishop could scarcely be ignorant of it, and as he fixes Knox’s birth at a different place, it is reasonable to suppose that he had good reasons for varying from a preceding authority. The grounds of Dr Barclay’s opinion are, that, according to the tradition of the place, the Reformer was a native of Haddington; that the house in which he was born is still pointed out in the Giffordgate; and that this house, with some adjoining acres of land, belonged for a number of generations to a family of the name of Knox, who claimed kindred with the Reformer, and who lately sold the property to the earl of Wemyss. I acknowledge that popular tradition may be allowed to determine a point of this nature, provided it is not contradicted by other evidence. In the present case, it is not altogether free from this objection. As the sons of the Reformer died without issue, there is no reason to think that the family which resided in the Giffordgate was lineally descended from him. Still, however, the property might have belonged to his elder brother, which is consistent with the supposition of his being born in the house which tradition has marked out. But I have lately been favoured with extracts from the title‑deeds of that property, now in the possession of the earl of Wemyss, extending from the year 1598 downwards, which are not favourable to that supposition. On the 18th of February, 1598, William Knox in Moreham, and Elizabeth Schortes his wife, were infeft in subjects in Nungate (of Haddington,) by virtue of a crown charter. This charter contains no statement of the warrants on which it proceeded, farther than that the lands formerly belonged to the Abbey of Haddington, and were annexed to the crown. Having communicated the names of the persons mentioned in the first charter and subsequent deeds to the Reverend Mr Scott of Perth, with a request to be informed, if any such names occur in the genealogy of the Knox family which belonged to the late Mr Knox, minister of Scoon, I was favoured with an answer, saying, that neither the name of William Knox at Moreham, nor that of any other person answering to the description in my letter, is to be found in that genealogy. But, farther, the charter expressly states, that the lands in question belonged to the Abbey of Haddington, and, as they must have been annexed to the crown subsequently to the Reformation, they could not be the property of the family at the time of our Reformer’s birth. The tradition of his having been born in the Giffordgate is therefore supported merely by the possibility that his parents might have resided in that house while it was the property of the Abbey. In opposition to this, we have the authorities already mentioned in support of the opinion that he was born in the village of Gifford.

With respect to the parentage of our Reformer, David Buchanan says that his “father was a brother’s son of the house of Ranferlie.” Life, prefixed to History of the Reformation, edit. 1644. In a conversation with the earl of Bothwell, Knox gave the following account of his ancestors: “My lord,” said he, “my great grandfather, gudeschir, and father, have served your Lordchip’s predecessours, and some of them have dyed under their standards; and this is a pairt of the obligatioun of our Scottish kindness.” Historie of the Reformatioun, p. 306, edit. 1732. Matthew Crawfurd says, that “these words seem to import that Mr Knox’s predecessors were in some honourable station under the earls of Bothwell, at that time the most powerful family in East Lothian,” Life of the Author, p. ii. prefixed to Historie, edit. 1732. The only thing which I would infer from his words is, that his ancestors had settled in Lothian as early as the time of his great‑grandfather. I do not wish to represent the Reformer as either of noble or of gentle birth, and cannot place much dependence on the assertion in the preceding note, which makes his father “proprietor of the estate of Gifford.” John Davidson, in the poem written in commendation of him, says,

“First he descendit bot of lineage small,

As commonly God usis for to call

The sempill sort his summoundis til expres.”

At the same time, the statement given by some authors of the meanness and poverty of his parents is not supported by good evidence, and can in part be disproved. Dr Mackenzie says, the Reformer was “the son of a poor countryman, as we are informed by those who knew him very well: his parents, though in a mean condition, put their son to the grammar‑school of Haddington; where, after he had learned his grammar, he served for some time the laird of Langniddrie’s children, who being sent by their parents to the university of St Andrews, he thereby had occasion of learning his philosophy.” Lives of Scottish Writers, vol. iii. p. 111. As his authorities for these assertions, the Doctor has printed on the margin, “Dr Hamilton, Dr Bailie, and many others;” popish writers, who, regardless of their own character, fabricated or retailed such stories as they thought most discreditable to the Reformer, many of which Mackenzie himself is obliged to pronounce “ridiculous stories, that are altogether improbable,” p. 132. “Dr Bailie” was Alexander Bailie, a Benedictine monk in the Scottish monastery of Wirtsburgh; and, as he published the work to which Mackenzie refers in the year 1628, it is ridiculous to talk of his being well acquainted with either the Reformer or his father. Hamilton, (the earliest authority,) instead of supporting Mackenzie’s assertions, informs us, as far as his language is intelligible, that Knox was in priest’s orders before he undertook the care of children: “quo victum sibi pararet magis quam ut deo serviret (Simonis illius magi huc usque sequutus vestigia) presbyter primum fieri de more, quamvis illiteratus, tum in privatis ædibus puerorum in vulgaribus literis formandorum curam capere coactus est.” De Confusione Calv. Sectæ, p. 64. The fact is, that Knox entered into the family of Langniddrie as tutor, after he had finished his education at the university; and so late as 1547, he was employed in teaching the young men their grammar. Historie, p. 67.

Note B.

Of Knox’s Academical Education.—I have been a good deal puzzled on the subject of the academical studies of our Reformer. Depending on the testimony of the earliest and most credible writers, I stated, in the former editions of this work, that he studied, and took the degree of Master of Arts, at St Andrews. After a minute examination, however, I was unable to find his name in the records of that university. Still I did not feel warranted to drop the account which I had given on such respectable authority, and contented myself with mentioning the unsuccessful result of my investigations. But when engaged in examining the records of the university of Glasgow with a view to another work, I accidentally met with evidence which convinces me that the common statement is erroneous. Knox was educated at the university, not of St Andrews, but of Glasgow.

In the “Annales Universitatis Glasguensis,” the name “Johannes Knox” occurs among the Incorporati, or those who were matriculated, in the year 1522. In coming to the conclusion that this was our Reformer, I do not rest simply on his name occurring in the record. This opinion is confirmed by the two following circumstances. 1. The time answers to that at which he might be supposed to have entered the university; for in 1522, he was seventeen years of age. 2. John Major was at that time Principal of the university of Glasgow; and all the ancient accounts agree that Knox studied under that celebrated professor.—This circumstance may perhaps account for the mistake into which the old writers have fallen on this subject. They appear to have been ignorant of the fact that Major taught at that time in Glasgow; and being informed that Knox studied under him, they concluded that he did so at St Andrews, where that professor was known to have resided for many years.

I take this opportunity of filling up a blank in the life of Major. Dempster, Dupin, and other writers, mention that, after being made Doctor of Divinity in 1505, he taught for some years at Glasgow, but that, owing to the confusions in his native country, he removed from it to Paris. I will not take upon me to say that this account is erroneous; but I have not been able to discover the name of Major in the records of the university of Glasgow at that period. Upon Major’s return from France, the above‑mentioned authors represent him as going directly to St Andrews. But from the subsequent extracts it will appear that he went first to Glasgow, and for several years held the situation of Principal and Professor of Divinity in the university of that city.

In the old Register, entitled “Annales Universitatis Glasguensis,” are the following minutes relating to Major. The last of them contains the matriculation of Knox.

“ELECTIO RECTORIS.

“Congregatione generali alme Universitatis Glasguen. Citatione previa, &c. Die tertio mensis Novembris anno Dni millesimo quingentesimo decimo octavo, &c.

“Eodem die—Incorporati sub dicto Dno Rectore, Egregius vir Magr Johannes Majoris Doctor Parisiensis ac principalis regens Collegie et pedagogii dicte Universitatis, Canonicusque Capelli regie, ac Vicarius de Dunlop, &c.” (43 names follow.)

There is no further mention made of Major until 1521, when the following minute is found:

“ELECTIO RECTORIS.

“Congregatione generali, &c. In festo sanctorum Marthirum Crispini et Crispiniani, anno Domi millesimo quingentesimo vicesimo primo. Pro Electione novi Rectoris—In quaquidem Congregatione Electi fuerunt tres Intrantes, viz. Magr Mattheus Steward Decanus facultatis, Johannes Majoris Theologie Professor, et nationis Albanie nullus interfuit, et Willmus Crechtoun Canonicus Glasguensis—Qui remoti, maturaque deliberatione prehabita, unanimi eorum consensu, Venerabilem et egregium Virum Jacobum Steward Prepositum ecclesie Collegiate de Dunbertane, absentem tanquam presentem, in Rectorem eligerunt et electum pronunciarunt. Qui postea inclinatus supplicationibus suppositorum hujus modi onus in se acceptavit. Insuper in eadem Congregatione electi fuerunt quatuor Deputati ad consulendum et assistendum dicto Dno rectori in omnibus et singulis causis per ipsum tractandis, viz. Mag̃ri Johannes Majoris predictus, Willm̃s Chrichtoun, Johannes Reid, Jacobus Neilsoun—Necnon Electus fuit in bursarium discretus vir Magr Mattheus Reid, Magr schole gramaticalis. Et in promotorem Magr Andreas Smytht. Et in Procuratorem Magr Nicholaus Witherspuyne.

“Die xxiiij mensis Maij anno Dñi millesimo quingentesimo xxij.

“Congregatione generali Universitatis Glasguen. facta loco Capitulari ecclesie metropolitane ejusdem die xxiiij mensis maij Anno Dñi Millesimo quingentesimo xxij, per Venerabilem Virum Mgr̃m Jacobum Steward Prepositum ecclie Collegiate de Dunbertane ac Rectorem dicte Universitatis, Presentibus Ibidem Honorabilibus Viris, Magistris Johanne Majore, theologie professore, thesaurario Capelle regie Stirlingensis, Vicarioque de Dunlop, ac Principali regente dicte Collegie, Johanne Doby Canonico Glasguensi ac prebendario de Ancrum, Jacobo Neilson Vicario de Colmanel, Johanne Spruele Vicario de Dundonald, Jacobo Lyndesay secundario regente, aliisque patribus, Magistris, Studentibus, ac suppositis, inibi Congregatis—In quaquidem Congregatione Idem Dñus Rector Exposuit et Declaravit, &c.

“ELECTIO RECTORIS.

“Congregatione generali alme Universitatis Glass. Citatione previa per edictum publicum in Valvis ecclesie metripolitane affixum, Celebrata loco Capitulari ejusdem, In festo Sanctorum Marthirum Crispini et Crispiniani, Anno Dñi Millesimo quingentesimo Vicesimo secundo, Pro electione novi Rectoris. In quaquidem Congregatione electi fuerunt tres Intrantes, eoquod nullus nationis albanie extunc interfuit, viz. Mgr Thomas leiss Canonicus Dunblanensis, Johannes Majoris Principalis regens, et Johannes Reid Vicarius de Campsy—Qui remoti, matura et digesta deliberatione prehabita, unanimi eorum Consensu, Venerabilem et egregium Virum Mgr̃m Jacobum Steward Prepositum Ecclesie Collegiate de Dunbertane, absentem tanquam presentem, in rectorem Continuarunt, eligerunt, et pronunciarunt—Qui postea supplicationebus magistrorum inclinatus hujus modi onus en se acceptavit. Insuper in eadem Congregatione electi fuerunt tres Deputati ad assistendum et consulendum dicto Dño Rectori in omnibus et singulis causis dicte Universitatis per eundem tractandis, viz. Prescripti magistri, Johannes Majoris, Johannes Reid, et Mg̃r Mattheus Steward Vicarius de Mayboile, Et Continuatus fuit in bursarium Mg̃r Mattheus Reid. Necnon electus fuit in procuratorem et promotorem Universitatis Mg̃r Nicholaus Vitherspuyne Vicarius de Straithawane—Incorporati sub dicto Dño Rectore,

Andreas Cottis

Johannes hereot

Nigellus Campbal

Willmus Steward

Johannes Hamyltoun

Johannes Knox

Archibaldus Langsyd    Alexr Dikke

Adam Kyngorne

Nigellus forguissone

Johannes huntar

Jacobus Mosman

Dñus Johannes Keyne presbiter

Patricius letryg Civis Glass.”

In the records of the university of Glasgow, Major is uniformly called Joannes Majoris. It appears from Dr Lee’s extracts, published in the second edition of Dr Irving’s Memoirs of Buchanan, (p. 373,) that Major was incorporated into the university of St Andrews, on the 9th of June 1523. He is there designed “Doctor Theologus Parisiensis, et Thesaurius Capellæ Regiæ;” and in an instrument of seisin, belonging to that seminary, he is styled “Vicarius de Dunloppie Glasg.”—Some may perhaps be inclined to suppose that Knox followed Major to St Andrews, and attended his lectures, though not formally incorporated into that university; and consequently that the old writers had some foundation for their statement on this head. But if this was the case, it is not very probable that the truth of it can be now ascertained. I have only to add, that I cannot perceive, from the records of Glasgow, that Knox took any degree there, which confirms the doubt that I have already expressed on that subject.

Note C.

Of the Early State of Grecian Literature in Scotland.—In this note I shall throw together such facts as I have met with relating to the introduction of the Greek language into Scotland, and the progress which it made during the sixteenth century. They are scanty; but I trust they will not be altogether unacceptable to those who take an interest in the subject.

In the year 1522, Boece mentions George Dundas as a good Greek scholar. He was master of the Knights of St John in Scotland, and had, most probably, acquired the knowledge of the language on the Continent. “Georgius Dundas grecas atq; latinas literas apprime doctus, equitum Hierosolymitanorum intra Scotorum regnum magistratum multo sudore (superatis emulis) postea adeptus.” Boetii Vitæ Episcop. Murth. et Aberdon. fol. xxvii. b. It is reasonable to suppose that some other individuals in the nation acquired it in the same way; but Boece makes no mention of Greek among the branches taught at the universities in his time, although he is minute in his details. Nor do I find any other reference to the subject previous to the year 1534, when Erskine of Dun brought a learned man from France, and employed him to teach Greek in Montrose, as mentioned in that part of the Life to which this note refers. At his school, George Wishart, the martyr, must have obtained the knowledge of the language, and he seems to have been assistant or successor to his master. The bishop of Brechin (William Chisholm), hearing that Wishart taught the Greek New Testament in Montrose, summoned him to appear before him on a charge of heresy, upon which he fled the kingdom. This was in 1538. Petrie, part ii. p. 182. It is likely that Knox was taught Greek by Wishart after the return of the latter from England. Buchanan seems to have acquired the language during his residence on the Continent. Epist. p. 25. Oper. edit. Rudd.

Lesley says, that James V., during his progress through the kingdom in 1540, came to Aberdeen, and among other entertainments which were given him, the students of the university “recited orations in the Greek and Latin tongue, composed with the greatest skill”—“Orationes in Greca Latinaque lingua, summo artificio instructæ.” Leslæus de rebus gestis Scotorum, lib. ix. p. 430. edit. 1675. When we consider the state of learning at that period in Scotland, there is reason for suspecting that the bishop’s description is highly coloured, yet as he entered that university a few years after, we may conclude from it that some attention was at that time paid to the study of Greek in Aberdeen. It might have been introduced by Hector Boece, the learned principal of that university. If the king was entertained with the great learning of the students of Aberdeen, the English ambassador was no less diverted, in the very same year, with the ignorance which our bishops discovered of the Greek tongue. The ambassador, who was a scholar as well as a statesman, had caused his men to wear on their sleeves the following Greek motto, ΜΟΝΩ ΑΝΑΚΤΙ ΔΟΥΛΕΥΩ, “I serve the king only.” This the Scottish bishops, whose knowledge did not extend beyond Latin, read MONACHULUS, “a little monk,” and thereupon circulated the report that the ambassador’s servants were monks, who had been taken out of the monasteries lately suppressed in England. To counteract this report, Sadler was obliged to furnish a translation of the inscription. “It appeareth (says he) they are no good Grecians. And now the effect of my words is known, and they be well laughed at for their learned interpretation.” Sadler’s Letters, i. 48, 49. Edinburgh, 1809. In a debate which occurred in the Parliament which met in 1543, individuals among the nobility and other lay members discovered more knowledge of Greek than all the ecclesiastical bench. Knox, Historie, 34.

Foreign writers have been amused with the information, that many of the Scottish clergy affirmed, “that Martin Luther had lately composed a wicked book called the New Testament; but that they, for their part, would adhere to the Old Testament.” Perizonii Hist. Seculi xvi. p. 233. Gerdesii Histor. Reform. tom. iv. p. 314. Buchanani Oper. i. 291. Ignorant, however, as our clergy were, they were not more illiterate than many on the Continent. A foreign monk, declaiming one day in the pulpit against Lutherans and Zuinglians, said to his audience: “A new language was invented some time ago, called Greek, which has been the mother of all these heresies. A book is printed in this language, called the New Testament, which contains many dangerous things. Another language is now forming, the Hebrew; whoever learns it immediately becomes a Jew.” No wonder, after this, that the commissioners of the senate of Lucern should have confiscated the works of Aristotle, Plato, and some of the Greek poets, which they found in the library of a friend of Zuinglius, concluding, that every book printed in that language must be infected with Lutheranism. J. von Mullers Schw. Gesch. Hess, Life of Ulrich Zuingle, p. 213.

To return to the seminary at Montrose: it was kept up, by the public spirit of its patron, until the establishment of the Reformation. Some years before that event, the celebrated linguist, Andrew Melville, received his education at this school, under Pierre de Marsiliers, a Frenchman. And he had made such proficiency in Greek, when he entered the university of St Andrews, about the year 1559, that he was able to read Aristotle in the original language, “which even his masters themselves understood not.” Life of Andrew Melville, p. 2, in Wodrow’s MSS. Bibl. Coll. Glas. vol. i. and James Melville’s Diary, p. 32. For, although the logics, ethics, &c. of Aristotle, were then read in the colleges, it was in a Latin translation. “The regent of St Leonard’s,” says James Melville, “tauld me of my uncle Mr Andro Melvill, whom he knew, in the tyme of his cours in the new collag, to use the Greik logicks of Aristotle, quhilk was a wonder to them, he was so fyne a scholar, and of sic expectation.” MS. Diary, p. 25.

By the First Book of Discipline, it was provided, that there should “be a reader of Greek” in one of the colleges of each university, who “shall compleat the grammar thereof in three months,” and “shall interpret some book of Plato, together with some places of the New Testament, and shall compleat his course the same year.” Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 553. The small number of learned men, the deficiency of funds, and the confusions in which the country was afterwards involved, prevented, in a great degree, the execution of this wise measure. Owing to the last of these circumstances, some learned Scotsmen devoted their talents to the service of foreign seminaries, instead of returning to their native country. Buchanani Epist. p. 7, 9, 10, 33. One of these was Henry Scrimger, celebrated for his Grecian literature. Some particulars respecting him may be seen in Senebier, Hist. Litter. de Geneve, tom. i. art. Scrimger. See also Teissier, Eloges. tom. iii. 383–385. Leide, 1715. On account of the scarcity of preachers, it was also found necessary to settle several of the learned men in towns which were not the seat of a university. Some of these undertook the instruction of youth, along with the pastoral inspection of their parishes. John Row taught the Greek tongue in Perth. See vol. ii. Note C. The venerable teacher, Andrew Simson, (see p. 5,) does not appear to have been capable of this task; but he was careful that his son Patrick should not labour under the same defect. He was sent to the university of Cambridge, in which he made great proficiency; and after his return to Scotland, taught Greek at Spot, a village in East Lothian, where he was minister for some time. Row’s MS. p. 96 of a copy in the Divinity Lib. Edin. It is reasonable to suppose, that this branch of study would not be neglected at St Andrews during the time that Buchanan was principal of St Leonard’s college, from 1565 to 1570. Patrick Adamson, to whom he demitted this office, and whom he recommended for his “literature and sufficiency,” (Buch. Op. i. 10,) was not then in the kingdom; and the state of education languished for some time in that university. James Melville, who entered it in 1570, gives the following account. “Our regent begoud, and teacheth us the a, b, c, of the Greik, and the simple declinationis, but went no farder.” MS. Diary, p. 26. Græcum est, non legitur, was at this time an adage, even with persons who had received a university education. Row’s MS. ut supra.

The return of Andrew Melville in 1574, gave a new impulse to literature in Scotland. That celebrated scholar had perfected himself in the knowledge of the languages during the nine years which he spent on the Continent, and had astonished the learned at Geneva by the fluency with which he read and spoke Greek. MS. Diary, ut sup. p. 33. He was first made Principal of the university of Glasgow, and afterwards removed to the university of St Andrews. Such was his celebrity, that he attracted students from England and foreign countries, whereas formerly it had been the custom for the Scottish youth to go abroad for their education. Spotswood, with whom he was no favourite, and Calderwood, equally bear testimony to his profound knowledge of this language. Soon after Melville, Thomas Smeton, another Greek scholar, returned to Scotland, and was made Principal of the university of Glasgow.—I may mention here, although it belongs to the subject of typography, that there appear to have been neither Greek nor Hebrew types in this country in 1579, when Smeton’s Answer to Archibald Hamilton was printed; for blanks are left for all the phrases and quotations in these languages, which the author intended to introduce. In my copy of the book, a number of the blanks have been filled up with a pen by the author’s own hand.

Note D.

Of Major’s Political Sentiments.—The following are some of the passages from which the account of these, given in the text, has been drawn. Similar sentiments occur in his History of Scotland; but as it has been insinuated that he, in that work, merely copied Boece, I shall quote from his other writings, which are more rarely consulted.

“Ad policiam regalem non requiritur quod rex sit supra omnes sui regni tam regulariter quam casualiter—sed sat est quod rex sit supra unumquamlibet, et supra totum regnum regulariter, et regnum sit supra eum casualiter et in aliquo eventu.” Again, “Similiter in regno: et in toto populo libero est suprema fontalis potestas inabrogabilis; in rege vero potestas mysterialis [ministerialis?] honesto ministerio. Et sic aliquo modo sunt duo potestates; sed quia una ordinetur propter aliam, potest vocari una effectualiter, et casu quo regnum rex in tyrannidem convertat et etiam incorrigibilis, potest a populo deponi, tanquam a superiore potestate.” Expos. Matth. fol. 71, a. c. Paris. 1518. To the objection urged against this principle from the metaphorical designation of head given to a king, he answers: “Non est omnino simile inter caput verum et corpus verum, et inter caput mysticum et corpus mysticum. Caput verum est supra reliquam partem sui corporis, et tamen nego regem esse majoris potestatis quam reliquam partem sui regni,” &c. Ibid. fol. 62. b. “Rex utilitatem reipublicæ dissipans et evertens incorrigibilis, est deponendus a communitate cui præest. Rex non habet robur et auctoritatem nisi a regno cui libere præest,” Ibid. fol. 69. c. Speaking of the excision of a corrupt member from the human body, in illustration of the treatment of a tyrant, he says: “Cum licentia totius corporis veri tollitur hoc membrum; etiam facultate totius corporis mystici, tu, tamque minister com̃itatis, potes hunc tyrannum occidere, dum est licite condempnatus.” Tert. Sentent. fol. 139, c. d. Paris. 1517.

Note E.

Concerning the Popish Ordination of Knox.—Some have hesitated to admit that Knox was in priest’s orders in the church of Rome: I think it unquestionable. The fact is attested both by protestant and popish writers. Beza says, “Cnoxius, igitur, (ut manifeste appareat totum hoc admirabile Domini opus esse) ad Joannis illius Majoris, celeberrimi inter Sophistas nominis, veluti pedes in Sanctandreæ oppido educatus, atque adeo SACERDOS FACTUS, apertaque celebri schola, quum jam videretur illo suo præceptore nihil inferior Sophista futurus, lucem tamen in tenebris et sibi et aliis accendit.” Icones Illustr. Viror. Ee. iij. Comp. Spotswood’s History, p. 265. Lond. 1677. Ninian Winget, in certain letters sent by him to Knox in the year 1561, says, “Ye renunce and estemis that ordinatioun null or erar wikit, be the quhilk somtyme ye war callit Schir Johne.” And again: “We can persave, be your awin allegiance, na power that ever ye had, except it quhilk was gevin to you in the sacrament of ordination, be auctoritie of priesthed. Quhilk auctoritie give ye esteme as nochtis, be reasoun it was gevin to you (as ye speik) by ane Papist Bishope,” &c. Winzet’s Letteris and Tractatis: Keith, Append. p. 212, 213. Winget’s drift was to prove, that Knox had no lawful call to the ministry: consequently, he would not have mentioned his popish ordination, if the fact had not been well known and undeniable. Nicol Burne, arguing on the same point, allows that Knox had received the order of priesthood from the Romish church. Disputation concerning the Controversit Headdis of Religion, p. 128. Paris, 1581. And in a scurrilous poem against the ministers of Scotland, printed at the end of that book, he calls him,

—————— that fals apostat priest,

Enemie to Christ, and mannis salvatioun,

Your maister Knox.

The objection of the Roman Catholics to the legality of our Reformer’s vocation, was, that although he had received the power of order, he wanted that of jurisdiction; these two being distinct according to the canon law, “The powere of ordere is not sufficient to ane man to preache, bot he man have also jurisdictione over thame to whom he preaches. Johann Kmnox resavit never sic jurisdictione fra the Roman kirk to preache in the realme of Scotland: thairfoir suppoise he receavit from it the ordere of priestheade, yet he had na pouar to preache, nor to lauchfullie administrat the Sacramentes.” Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 128.

Note F.

Number of Scottish Monks.—We have no good Monasticon of Scotland; and it is now impossible to ascertain the exact number of regular clergy, or even religious houses, that were in this country. The best and most particular account of the introduction of the different monastic orders from England and the Continent is contained in the first volume of Mr Chalmers’s Caledonia. Dr Jamieson, in his history of the ancient Culdees, lately published, has traced, with much attention, the measures pursued for suppressing the ancient monks, to make way for the new orders which were immediately dependent upon Rome. In Spotswood’s Account, published at the end of Keith’s Catalogue of Bishops, 170 religious houses are enumerated; but his account is defective. Mr Dalyell, upon the authority of a MS., has stated the number of the monks and nuns in this country as amounting only to 1114, about the period of the Reformation. Cursory remarks prefixed to Scottish Poems of the 16th century, vol. i. p. 38, 39. Edin. 1801. Taking the number of monasteries according to Spotswood’s account, this would allow only seven persons to each house on an average, a number incredibly small. It will be still smaller, if we suppose that there were 260 religious houses, as stated by Mr Dalyell in another publication. Fragments of Scottish History, p. 11, 28. In the year 1542, there were 200 monks in Melrose alone. Ibid. The number in the abbey of Dunfermline seems to have varied from 30 to 50. Dalyell’s Tract on Monastic Antiquities, p. 13. And Paisley, Elgin, and Arbroath, were not inferior to it in their endowments.

In general it may be observed, that the passion for the monastic life appears not to have been on the increase even in the early part of the 16th century. But if we would form an estimate of the number of the monks, we must allow for a great diminution from 1538 to 1559. During that period, many of them, and especially the younger ones, embraced the reformed opinions, and deserted the convents. Cald. MS. i. 97, 100, 151. When the monastery of the Greyfriars at Perth was destroyed in 1559, only eight monks belonged to it. Knox, Historie, p. 128.

Note G.

Of the Corpse‑present.—This was a forced benevolence, not due by any law, or canon of the church, at least in Scotland. It was demanded by the vicar, and seems to have been distinct from the ordinary dues exacted for the interment of the body, and deliverance of the soul from purgatory. This perquisite consisted, in country parishes, of the best cow which belonged to the deceased, and the uppermost cloth or covering of his bed, or the finest of his body‑clothes. It has been suggested, that it was exacted on pretext of dues which the person might have failed to pay during his lifetime. But whatever might afterwards be made the pretext, I think it most probable that the clergy borrowed the hint from the perquisites common in feudal times. The “cors‑presant kow” answers to the “hereyield horse,” which was paid to a landlord on the death of his tenant. The uppermost cloth seems to have been a perquisite belonging to persons occupying different offices. When Bishop Lesley was relieved from the Tower of London, a demand of this kind was made upon him. “The gentleman‑porter of the Tower (says he) retained my satin gown as due to him, because it was my uppermost‑cloth when I entered in the Tower.” Negotiations, in Anderson’s Collections, iii. 247.

The corpse‑present was not confined to Scotland. We find the English House of Commons complaining of it, in 1530. Fox, 907, edit. 1596. It was exacted with great rigour in Scotland; and if any vicar, more humane than the rest, passed from the demand, he gave an unpardonable offence to his brethren. Lindsay of Pitscottie’s Hist. p. 151, folio edit. Edin. 1728. Fox, 1153. It was felt as a very galling oppression, and is often mentioned with indignation in the writings of Sir David Lindsay.

Schir, be quhat law, tell me quharefor, or why,

That ane vickar suld tak fra me three ky?

Ane for my father, and for my wyfe ane uther,

And the third kow he tuke for Mald my mother.

They haif na law, exceptand consuetude,

Quhilk law to them is sufficient and gude.

And als the vicar, as I trow,

He will nocht faill to tak ane kow

And upmaist claith, thocht babis thame ban,

From ane pure selie husbandman;

Quhen that he lyis for til de,

Having small bairnis twa or thre,

And hes thre ky withoutin mo,

The vicar must have ane of tho,

With the gray cloke that happis the bed,

Howbeit that he be purelye cled;

And gif the wyfe de on the morne,

Thocht all the babis suld be forlorne,

The uther kow he cliekis away,

With hir pure cote of roplock gray;

And gif, within twa days or thre,

The eldest chyld hapinis to de,

Of the third kow he will be sure.

Quhen he hes all then under his cure,

And father and mother baith ar deid,

Beg mon the babis, without remeid.

Chalmers’s Lindsay, ii. 7, 8, iii. 105.

When the alarming progress of the new opinions threatened the overthrow of the whole establishment, the clergy professed their willingness to remit, or at least to moderate, this shameful tribute. But they did not make this concession until a remonstrance on the subject was presented by a number of persons who were attached to the Roman catholic faith. This remonstrance was laid before the Provincial Council in 1558–9, and contains the following article, which serves to corroborate the strong statement which the poet has given of the rigour of the clergy in extorting these benevolences. “Item, Because yat ye corps presentes, kow, and finest claith, and the silver commonlie callit the kirk richts, and Pasch offrands, quhilk is taken at Pasch fra men and women for distribution of ye sacraments of ye blessit body and blud of Jesus Christ, were at ye beginning but as offrands and gifts, at the discretion and benevolence of the givar only; and now be distance of tym, ye kirkmen usis to compell men to ye paying yarof be authority and jurisdiction, sua that yai will not only fulminat yar sentence of cursing, but als stop and debar men and women to cum to ye reddy using of ye sacraments of haly kirk, quhile yai be sattisfiet yarof with all rigor: quhilk thing has na ground of ye law of God, nor halie kirk, and als is veray sclandrous, and gives occasion to the puir to murmur gretymly againes ye state ecclesiastick for the doing of ye premissis; and therefore it is thocht expedient yat ane reformation be maid of ye premissis, and that sic things be na mair usit in tymes to cum within this realm, at ye least yat na man be compellit be authority of haly kirk to pay ye premissis; but yat it shall onlie remane in the free will of the giver to gif and offir sic things be way of almous, and for uphalding of ye priests and ministers of the halie kirk, as his conscience and charitie moves him to: and quhair ye curatis and ministers forsaids, has not eneuch of yar sustentation by the saids kirk richts, that ye ordinaries every man within his awin diocesie take order, that the persons and uplifters of ye uther deutys perteining to the kirk, contributs to yar sustentation effeirindlie.” Wilkins, Concilia Magnæ Britanniæ, tom. iv. p. 208.

Upon this, the council came to the following curious resolution on the subject: That to “take away the murmurs of those who spoke against mortuaries,” when any person died, his goods, after paying his debts, should be divided into due portions (debitas partes), and if the dead’s part (defuncti pars) [see Note X] did not exceed ten pounds Scots, the vicar should compound for his mortuary and uppermost cloth by taking forty shillings; if it was under ten pounds, and not below twenty shillings, that he should compound according to the above proportion, (pro rata quadraginta solidorum de decem libris;) but if it was under twenty shillings, that the vicar should make no demand. With respect to barons and burgesses, and all persons whose portion exceeded ten pounds, the old custom was to remain in force; and the ordinary remedy was to be used against those who should make wrong inventories; i.e. they should be subjected to excommunication and its penalties.—With respect to pasch‑offerings, and small tithes, the council decreed, that “for avoiding popular murmur, especially at the time of Easter,” the vicars should, a little before Lent, in the month of February, settle (or, make an agreement, rationem ineant) with their parishioners for their small tithes, both personal and mixed, and also for other offerings due to the church (aliis quoque oblationibus ecclesiæ debitis); and that there should be no exactions during Easter, although spontaneous oblations might still be received at that time. Can. Concil. 21. and 32: Wilkins, Concil. ut supra, p. 214, 216.

It appears from this, how very cautious the clergy were in their plans of reform, and how eagerly they clung to the most illegal and invidious claims, at the very time when they were in the utmost danger of being deprived of all their usurped prerogatives and possessions. Lord Hailes’s words need explication, when he says that “the 32d canon [of this council] abolishes oblations at Easter.” Provincial Councils, p. 40.

I need scarcely add, that all these exactions were abolished at the establishment of the Reformation. “The uppermost claith, corps‑present, clerk‑maile, the pasche‑offering, teind‑aile, and all handlings upaland, can neither be required nor received of good conscience.” First Book of Discipline, p. 48. Printed Anno 1621. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 563.

Note H.

Scottish Martyrs, and Prosecutions for Heresy.—We are indebted to John Fox, the industrious English martyrologist, for a great part of the facts respecting our countrymen who suffered for the reformed doctrine. John Davidson, minister of Prestonpans, composed, in Latin, an account of Scottish martyrs, which, if it had been preserved, would have furnished us with more full information respecting them. Calderwood, however, had the use of it, when he compiled his history. A late author has said, that “most of those martyred seem to have been weak illiterate men; nay, they appear even to have been deficient in intellect.” Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems of 16th century, i. 24. I must take it for granted, that this author had not in his eye Patrick Hamilton, whose vigorous understanding discovered truth in the midst of darkness worse than Cimmerian, who obtained the praises of Luther, Melanchthon, and Lambert of Avignon, and of whom a modern historian has said that he received “the eternal fame of being the proto‑martyr of the freedom of the human mind.” Nor George Wishart, whose learning, fortitude, and mild benevolence, have been celebrated by writers of every description. But even among those who suffered from Hamilton to Wishart, there was scarcely one who was not above the ordinary class, both as to talents and learning.

Henry Forrest, who suffered at St Andrews in 1530, for possessing a copy of the New Testament, and affirming that Patrick Hamilton was a true martyr, had been, though a young man, invested with the orders of Bennet and Colet. Fox, 895. Knox, 19. Spotswood, 65. David Straiton was a gentleman, and brother to the laird of Lauriston. He was instructed in the protestant principles by John Erskine of Dun, who had newly arrived from his travels. In 1534, he was committed to the flames at Greenside, in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh. His fellow‑sufferer, Norman Gourlay, was in secular orders, and “a man of reasonabell eruditioun.” He had been abroad, and had married upon his return, which was the chief offence for which he suffered. “For,” says Pitscottie, “they would thole no priest to marry, but they would punish, and burn him to the dead; but if he had used then ten thousand whores, he had not been burnt.” History, p. 150, 152. Fox, 896. Knox, 21, 22. Spotswood, 66. In 1538, two young men of the most interesting characters suffered, with the greatest heroism, at Glasgow. The one was Jerom Russel, a cordelier friar, “a young man of a meek nature, quick spirit, and of good letteris;” the other was a young gentleman of the name of Kennedy, only eighteen years of age, and “of excellent ingyne for Scottische poetry.” Knox, 22. Spotsw. 67. Keith, 9. During the same year, five persons were burnt on the Castle‑hill of Edinburgh: Robert Forrester was a gentleman; Sir Duncan Simson was a secular priest; Beveridge and Kyllor were friars. The last of these had (according to the custom of the times) composed a tragedy on the crucifixion of Christ, in which he painted, in a very lively manner, the conduct of the popish clergy, under that of the Jewish priests. Ibid.

The other person who suffered at that time was Thomas Forrest, commonly called the Vicar of Dollar. I shall add some particulars respecting this excellent man, which are not to be found in the common histories. He was of the house of Forret, or Forest, in Fife, and his father had been master‑stabler to James IV. After acquiring the rudiments of grammar in Scotland, he was sent abroad by the kindness of a noblewoman, and prosecuted his education at Cologne. Returning to his native country, he was admitted a canon regular in the monastery of St Colm’s Inch. It happened that a dispute arose between the abbot and the canons, respecting the allowance due to them, and the latter got the book of foundation to examine into their rights. With the view of inducing them to part with it, the abbot gave them a volume of Augustine’s works, which was in the monastery. “O, happy and blessed was that book to me,” did Forrest often say, “by which I came to the knowledge of the truth!” Having applied himself to the reading of the Scriptures, he was the means of converting a number of the young canons: “but the old bottles,” he used to say, “would not receive the new wine.” The abbot frequently advised him to keep his mind to himself, else he would incur punishment. “I thank you, my lord,” was his answer, “ye are a friend to my body, but not to my soul.” He was afterwards admitted to the vicarage of Dollar, in which situation he rendered himself obnoxious to his brethren, by his diligence in instructing his parish, and his benevolence in freeing them from oppressive exactions. When the agents of the pope came into his bounds to sell indulgences, he said, “Parishioners, I am bound to speak the truth to you; this is but to deceive you. There is no pardon for our sins that can come to us, either from pope or any other, but only by the blood of Christ.” He composed a short catechism. It was his custom to rise at six o’clock in the morning, and study till midday. He committed three chapters of the bible to memory every day, and made his servant hear him repeat them at night. He was often summoned before the bishops of Dunkeld and St Andrews. These facts were communicated by his servant Andrew Kirkie, in a letter to John Davidson, who inserted them in his account of Scottish martyrs. Cald. MS. i. 99, 100, 151.

An amusing account of the vicar’s examination before the bishop of Dunkeld may be seen in Fox, 1153; and an interesting account of his trial in Pitscottie, 150–152. But both these authors are wrong as to the time of his martyrdom, the latter placing it in 1530, and the former in 1540, instead of 1538. Fox says, that three or four men of Stirling suffered death at the same time, because they were present at the marriage of “the vicar of Twybode [Tullybody], near Stirling, and did eat flesh in Lent, at the said bridal.” p. 1154.

In consequence of a more diligent search into our ancient records, made since the former editions of this work appeared, I have discovered a number of additional facts respecting those who suffered for the reformed opinions in Scotland. I think it best to give these in the form, and in the order, in which they occur in the several records that I have consulted. It appears that the prosecutions for heresy from 1534 to 1540 were numerous. How many poor persons suffered during that period it is impossible to ascertain, as the names of those only who possessed property have a place in the documents to be quoted.

The following extracts are taken from the books kept by the lord treasurer, and preserved in the Register House, under the title of “Compot. Thesaur.” The dates will be sufficient to guide those who wish to consult the original document.[480]

Anno 1534. Item, for 16 sergis to thame to turss that was accusit of heresy       xs. viiid.

Item, (Sept. 1536.) to James Bissat, mr, to pas with lettres to the provost and bailies of Dunde and Sanct Johnestoun to serche and seik John Blacat and George Lowett [Lovell?] suspect of hanging of the image of Sanct Francis, and to his wage       xxs.

Item, 28. (May, 1537.) to Cudde George, mr, to pas to summon the men of Aire, to compeir befoir the Lordis, anent the geir of theme quhilk was convict of heresy       xxs.

Annis 1537, 1538. Et (onerat se) de iiij li. integre compositionis bonorum eschaetorum quondam Andreæ Alexandersoun, justificat. pro crimine heresis.

Et de xiiii li. vi. s. viii d. integre compositionis bonorum eschaetorum Gilberti Wedderburne, et Johannis Patersoun, burgen. de Dunde, pertinent. domino Regi, ratione quod ipsi convicti fuerint per judicium ecclesiæ, de crimine heresis eiisd. vendit.

Annis 1538, 1539. Et (onerat se) de x li. in completam solutionem compositionis bonorum eschaetorum Thome Kyd, Roberti Patersone, Alexandri Wannand, et Johannis Patersone, commorañ in oppido de Dunde, abiurat. de certis criminibus heresieos eisdem concess. de mandato domini regis.

Et de vjli xiijs iiijd. in completam solutionem bonorum eschaetorum quondam domini Duncani Symsone capellani condamnati et ad mortem justificati pro certis criminibus heresieos concess. Jacobo Menteith.

Et de xxli in completam solutionem compositionis vinius tenementi jacen. infra burgum de Dunde, pertinen. domino Regi per decessum David Straitoun in Quhitstoun, justificati ad mortem pro certis criminibus heresieos concess. Dauid Garne et Mariote Erskyn.

Et de vjli xiijs iiijd in completam solutionem compositionis bonorum eschaetorum Roberti Cant, abiurati de certis criminibus heresieos concess. dicto Roberto.

Et de xxli in completam solutionem compositionis bonorum eschaetorum Walteri Cowsland, burgensis de Striueling, abiurati de similibus criminibus concess. dicto Waltero.

Et de iijli in completam solutionem compositionis bonorum eschaetorum Johannis Robesone, pauperis, abiurati certis criminibus heresios eiidem concess.

Et de xxli in completam solutionem compositionis unius partis bonorum eschaetorum Jacobi Rollok, burgensis de Dunde, condampnati de certis criminibus heresieos concess. David Rollok, eius fratri.

Et de xls in completam solutionem compositionis bonorum eschaetorum magistri Johannis Wedderburn, convict. de certis criminibus heresieos concess. Henrico Wedderburn eius fratri.

Et de, &c. Margarete Jamesone in Tulybody, condampnate de certis criminibus heresieos concess. Jacobo Murray, servitori domini regis.

Et de, &c. Henrici Carnys, incole de Leith, fugitiui et condampnati de certis criminibus heresieos concess. uxori et prolibus eiusdem de mandato domini Regis.

Et de, &c. Willielmi Clerk fugitiui et condampnati de certis criminibus heresieos concess. Alexro Urrok de Sillebanke.

Et de, &c. Willielmi Foster abiurati de certis criminibus heresieos concess. Johanni Cowane et Jonete Tenand, eius sponse.

Item, idem onerat se de xlli in completam solutionem compositionis bonorum eschaetorum domini Thome Coklaw, curati de Tulybody, condampnati de certis criminibus heresieos concess. Jacobo Murray, seruitori domini regis.

Marche (1538–9). Item, deliuerit to Archibald Heriot, messinger, to pass and serche thair gudis, quhilkis war obiurit and declarit heritikis in Edinburt and Striueling       vis.

Item, deliuerit to Johnne Patersone pursevant—to pass to Dunde, and serche James Rollokkis gudis, and Maister Johnne Wedderburn       xxs.

Annis 1539, 1540. (Non onerat se, &c.) Nec de xli in completam solutionem compositionis bonorum eschaetorum magistri Henrici Henderson convict. de crimine heresieos ab antiquo concess. Jacobo Bannattyne, ex eo quod dominus rex remisit eandem summam dicto Jacobo, in compensatione suorum laborum in officio thesaurarie.

Anno 1542–3. Item, the xxi day of Marche, geven to William Champney, messinger, passand with lettres to proclame the act anent the having of the New Testament in Inglis in the Westland       xls.

Similar letters to the Magistrates of Dundee, Aberdeen, Elgin, Forres, and Inverness; and to Lanark, Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, Wigton.

Item, the xxviii day of Marche, geven to Johnne Cob, messinger, passand to Dumfermeling and Perth, to proclame twa letteris tuiching the having of the Scripture in Inglis, and with ane clois writting to the erle of Argyle       xxiis.

Item, the xx day of Februar, gevin to Carrick pursuivant, passand with lettres to proclame in Sanctandrois and Cowper the act tuiching the doing of devyne service, and lettres raisit thairupon       xxiis.

Annis 1543–1546. Et (onerat se) de ijc li compositionis bonorum eschaetorum Jacobi Huncan et Roberti Cant, convict. pro disputatione in Sacris Scripturis contra tenorem acti parliamenti, concess. Cristine Pipar.

————— Willielmi Anderson convict. ut supra ob causam suprascriptam, concess. Cristine Kerss, sponse dicti Willielmi.

Et de ijc li compositionis remissionis concess. Johanni Elder,[481] burgensis de Perth, pro disputatione in Sacris Scripturis contra tenorem acti parliamenti.

Et de xlli compositionis remissionis concess. Laurencio Pillour, pro predicta causa.[481]

Item, the xij day of Januar 1543–4, after the aggreance maid betwix my lord governour and the saidis lordis, convenit in Leith, aganis his grace hyrit liiij cart hors quhilk past agane to Striviling with the said artalze, and fra Striviling to Sanct Johnstoun, Dunde, for punissing of certane hereticks within the said townes, and paid the saidis hors eight days wages, &c.

January 20. At my lord governoris departing toward Sanct Johnestoun, for punishment as said is.

Item, (16 March 1545–6), to summons the laird of Ormistoun to underly the law in Edinburgh, the xij day of Aprile nixt to cum, for resetting of Maister George Wischeart, he being at the horne, &c., and for breaking ward.

Item, xxviij May, (1546), to ane boy to pas to my lord Argyle with ane closit writting of my lord governours, to shew the slaughtar of the Cardinal       viijs.

November 24, 1546. For copying of the gret cursing raisit upon Normond Leslie, laird of Grange, and their complices, for the slauchter of my lord Cardinall, quhilk copie was sent to thame in the castell       vs.

December. For summonding Jonet Monnypennie, dochter of the laird of Pitmilly, for remaining in the castle, and assisting Leslie and his complices.

December 1548. Summons of treason against the laird of Pitmilly, and Mr Henry Balnaves.

January 1551–2. Item, for the Inglis bukis to my lord governour, viz. ane perraphrasis upoun the Evangelistis, and ane New Testament, and Hopper on the x Commandementes       iijli xvs.

The extracts which follow are from the Register of Privy Seal, and contain grants of property which had been confiscated by sentences of the ecclesiastical courts for heresy, but which was afterwards bestowed on certain individuals upon their paying a composition to the royal treasury.

Ane letter maid to Andro, lord Vchiltre, of the gift of all eschete gudis movabill and vnmovabill, als wele of the byrun malis of parroche clerkschippis, as vtherwais pertenyng to vmqll Walter Stewart, sone to the said lord, and pertenis to our souerane lord, be resoun þat the said Walter was abiurit of heresy, etc. At Linlithgow, the xxix day of December, the ȝeir of God Imvc. xxxvij ȝeris. xxli.

[Reg. Sec. Sigilli, lib. xi. f. 51.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to James Annand, George Annand, Robert Andersoun, Johnne Flescheour, and Alexander Flescheour, burges of Dunde, makand mentiouñ that þai ar convict be ane sentence of the spirituale juge of heresy, of the quhilk þai wer dilatit and abiurit, quharthrow all þare gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, pertenis, and suld pertene, to our souerane lord, be resouñ of eschete. And for þair gude, trew, and thankfull seruice, done be þame to his hienes, and compositioun pait be þame to his thesaurer, his grace hes remittit and forgevin to thame the eschete of all þair gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, and hes quitclamit and dischargit þaim þairof, and all þat may follow þairvpouñ, foreuer. And als his grace, of his speciale grace, autorite riall and kinglie power, hes rehabilit the saidis personis to stand in prief and witness, and to vse and exerce all lefull dedis in jugement, and outwith siclik and als frelie in all thingis, as þai myt haue done befor the tyme þat þai wer convict of the said heresy, and incurrit þairthrow notam infamie. And hes restorit, reponit, and reintegrate þame to þare gude fame, heritage, landis, gudis, and warldie honouris, in all, and be all thingis, as þai wer befor the tyme þai wer convict of the said heresy, without ony reproche, murmur, detractioun, or blasphematiouñ, to be maid, said, or done to þame þairthrow, in word or deid, in onywys in tyme cuming, &c. At Edinburgh, the xvij day of July, the ȝer of God Imvc. xxxviij ȝeris, icli.

[Lib. xij. f. 23.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Dauid Wod, in the craig, his airis and assignais, of the gift of all gudis, movable and vnmovable, quhilkis pertenit to James Hay, burges of Dunde. And now ar decernit be ane sentence of the spirituale juge, to pertene to our souerane lord be resoun of eschete for heresy, of the quhilk he wes dilatit, &c. At Edinburgh, the xxvij day of July, the ȝeire of God forsaid (1538).

[Lib. xij. f. 3.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Maister Laurence Young, his airis and assignais, ane or ma, of the gift of all gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, qlkis pertenit to vmqll Andro Alexandersouñ, and now pertenyng to our souerane lord be resoun of eschete, throw being of the said vmqle Andro convict of heresy, and justifyit to the deid for the samyn, with power, &c. At Stirling, the xxiij day of August, the ȝeir of God Imvc. xxxviij. ȝeris iiijli. [Lib. xij. f. 19.]

Ane letter maid to Gilbert Wedderburñ, and Johne Patersoun, burgesses of Dunde, in forme aboue writtin, &c. At Linlithgow, þe viij day of September, the ȝer forsaid. xiijli. vis. viijd.

[Lib. xij. f. 23.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Richart Rollok, burges of Dunde, in forme following: James be the grace of God king of Scottis, to all and sindry our officiaris, liegis, and subditis, quham it efferis, quhais knawlege þir our letters sal cum, greting. fforsamekle as Richart Rollok, burges of our burgh of Dunde, wes dilatit of certane poyntis of heresy, and wes abiurit and convict þrof, quharthrow all his landis and gudis, &c. &c. [as above,] in tyme cuming. Quharfore we charge straitlie, and commandis ȝou, all and sindry our officiaris, liegis, and subditis forsaidis, þat nane of ȝou tak apouñ hand to do or attempt ony thing in contrar, violatiouñ, or breking of þis our remit, and discharge, rehabilitatiouñ, restitutiouñ, and reintegratiouñ, in ony wyse in tyme cuming, vnder all the hieast pane, charge, and offence, þat ȝe, and ilk ane of ȝou, may committ and inrin aganis our maiestie in þat part, dischargeing ȝou, all our officiaris present and tocum, of all intrometting, poynding, distrinȝeing, and vptaking of þe said Richartis gudis, as our eschete for þe causs forsaid, and of ȝour offices in þat part, be þir our letteris for euer. Subscriuit with our hand, and vnder our priue sele, at Abirbrothok, the xiij day of October, the ȝere of God Imvc. xxxviij ȝeris.

[Lib. xij. f. 33, b.]       Subscript per Regem.

Ane letter maid to Thomas Kyd, Robert Patersoun, Alexander Vannand, and Johne Duncane, burges of Dunde, in forme of the letter befor writtin, &c. At Linlithgow, the last day of September, the ȝer of God Imvc. xxxviij ȝeris. xli.

[Lib. xij. f. 33.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to maister Johne Porterfeild, his airis and assignais, ane or ma, of the gift of all gudis, movabill and vnmovable, als weile of the birun proffittis of parroche‑clerkschippis, as vtheris quhilkis pertenit to vmqll Walter Stewart, sone to Andro, lord Vchiltre, and throw his abiuratiouñ of heresy, pertenyng to our souerane lord be resouñ of eschete, &c. At Edinburgh, the xiij day of December, the ȝeire of God Imvc. xxxviij ȝeris.

[Lib. xiij. f. 18.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to the said James (Murray), his airis and assignais, are or ma, of the gift of the gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, quhilkis pertenit to Sr Thomas Coklaw, curat of Tulibody, and now to our souerane lord, throw being of the said Sr Thomas abiurit of heresy, &c. At Linlithgow, the xvij day of Januar, the ȝer of God Imvc. xxxviij ȝeris. xlli.

[Lib. xij. f. 94.]       Per Signaturam.

Presentatio Alexandri Scott, super prebenda capelle regie Striuilingeñ, nuncupat. are quam Dominus Johannes Lambert prius habuit nunc vacañ ob inhabilitatem ipsius Domini Johannis, ex eo quod ipse de suis ordinibus, sacerdotalibus, degradatus, extitit ad presentationem domini regis, et collationem episcopi Candidecase et capelle regie pleno jure spectañ, &c. Apud Edinburgh, vltimo Februarij, anno predict (1538).

[Ib. f. 71.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to James Menteith, his airis and assignais, of the gift of the eschete of all gudis, quhilkis pertenit to vmqll Sir Duncane Symsouñ, chaplane, and pertenyng to our souerane lord be resouñ of eschete, throw justifying of the said Sr Duncane to the deid for certane crymes of heresy, imput to him, &c. At Edinburgh, the first day of Marche, the ȝer forsaid (1538.) vjli. xiijs. iiijd. except takis and stedingis.

[Lib. xij. f. 76.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Robert Cant, burges of Edinburgh, of the gift of his avne eschete guidis pertenyng to the king be resouñ forsaid, &c. At Linlithgow, the vj day of Marche, the ȝer forsaid (1538.) vjli. xiijs. iiijd.

[Ib. f. 80.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Walter Cowsland, burges of Striuiling, of the gift of his avne gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, pertening to the kingis grace be resouñ of eschete throw being of the said Robert abiurit of heresy, &c. At Linlithgow, the aucht day of Marche, the ȝer forsaid (1538).

[Ib. f. 80.]       Per Signaturam.

Preceptum carte Davidis Gardin, burgeñ de Dunde, et Mariote Erskin, sue sponse super toto et integro illo tenemento, cum pertineñ jaceñ infra predictum burgum, ex parte boreali vici vulgo Murray gait eiusdem nuncupat inter terras heredum quondam Johannis Barie ex parte orientali et terras heredum quondam Roberti Ramsay ex occidentali. Quodquidem terre tenementum quondam Dauid Stratoun perprius hereditarie pertinuit et nunc Regi pertinet ratione eschaete ob heresis punctus per ipsum commiss. de quibus accusatus et ad mortem justificatus extitit, &c. Apud Linlithgow, decimo die mensis Martij, anno domini Imvc. xxxviij.

[Lib. xiij. f. 26.]       Per Signetum.

Ane letter maid to Martyne Ballesky, renunceand to him the eschete of all his gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, and quitclamand and dischargeand him þairof, pertening to our souerane lord throw cumin in will of the said Martyne befor the justice, for breking of our souerane lordis proclamatiouñ, in having and vsing, efter þe making þairof, of certane Inglis bukis contenit in the samyn, &c. At Linlithgow, the xij day of Marche, the ȝer forsaid (1538.) ijc. lli.

[Lib. xij. f. 81.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Maister James Foulis of Colintoun, clerk of register, his airis and assignais, ane or ma, of the gift of all and sindry the gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, landis, rentis, possessionis, reversionis, dettis, obligationis, and contractis, with the advocatioun and donatioun of the chaplanrie foundit at Sanct Francis altar, within the college kirk of Sanct Gele, in Edinburgh, with all richt of the patronage þairof, and all vther richtis quhatsumever quhilkis pertenit to Johne Broun, burges of Edinburgh, and now pertenis to or souerane lord, be resoun of eschete throw being of the said Johne dilatit, accusit, and abiurit of certane crymes and poyntis of heresy, as in the proces and sentence led, deducit, and gevin aganis him þairupoun at mair lenth, is contenit, with power, &c. At Linlithgow, the xiij day of Marche, the ȝeire of God Im.vc.xxxviij ȝeiris ic.li.

[Ib. f. 83.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Andro Cunnynghame, sone to William Cunnynghame, knyt, maister of Glencarne, remittand and forgevand to the said Andro his eschete goods, movabill and vnmovabill, pertenying to our souerane lord, be resoun of eschete throw being of the said Andro abiurit of heresy before the spirituale juge, as the sentence gevin þairupoun beris, &c. At Linlithgow, the xv day of Marche, the ȝer of God, Im.vc.xxxviij.

[Lib. xiij. f. 3 b.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Dauid Rollok, burges of Dunde, his airis and assignais, ane or ma, of the gift of the eschete of all gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, heretages, dettis, takkis, stedingis, cornis, cattale, money, gold, siluer, jowellis, and vtheris quhatsumever quhilkis pertenit to James Rollok, burges of the said burgh, except the said James part of ane wynd‑myln liand within Dunde, and now pertening to our souerane lord, be resoun of eschete throw being of the said James fugityve fra the law for certane poyntis of heresy imput to him, &c. At Linlithgow, the xxij day of Marche, the ȝer forsaid (1538.) xxli.

[Lib. xij. f. 87 b.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Johnne Cowane, burges of Striueling, and Jonet Tennent, his spous, thare airis and assignais, ane or ma, of the gift of all gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, landis, heretages, cornis, catale, takkis, stedingis, dettis, obligationis, jowellis, sovmes of money, and vtheris quhatsumever quhilkis pertenit to William Forester, sone and apperand are to Johne Forester, burges of the said burgh, and now pertenying to our souerane lord, be resoun of eschete throw abiuratioun of the said William for certane poyntis of heresy confessit be him in jugement, &c. At Linlithgow, the xxiiij day of Marche, the ȝer of God Im.vc.xxxviij ȝeris. ixli.

[Lib. xiij. f. 40.]       Per Signaturam.

Preceptum carte Johannis Domini Erskin super vna domo cum pertineñ jaceñ ex parte australi vici publici burgi de Striueling inter vinellam pretorij eiusdem ex parte orientali etc. Quequidem domus quondam Roberto Forester perprius hereditarie pertinuit, et nunc regi pertinet ratione eschaete ob nonnulla heresis crimina per dictum quondam Roberto commiss., etc. Apud Linlithgow xxiiijto die mensis Martij, anno, &c. vc.xxxviij.

[Lib. xiij. f. 14.]       Per Signetum.

Ane letter maid to Richart Carmichaell, remittand to him his eschete gudis pertenying to our souerane, throw being of the said Richard abiurit of heresy, &c. At Linlithgow, the xxv day of Marche, the ȝer of God Im.vc.xxxix ȝeris.

[Lib. xij. f. 87.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Walter Scrymgeour of Glaswell his airis and assignais, ane or ma, of the gift of all and haile the takkis and assedationis quhilkis James Rollok, burges of Dunde, had of the commoun myln and wynd‑myln of the said burgh of Dunde, now fallin and cumin into our souerane lordis handis, be resoun of eschete for certane crymes of heresis committit be the said James, and he adjugit and condamnit þairintill, as the process led þairupon at mair lenth proportis, with power, &c. At Linlithgow, the xxviij day of Marche, the ȝeir forsaid (1539).

[Lib. xij. f. 93.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to James Murray, maister of aile seller, his airis and assignais, ane or ma, of the gift of all gudis, movable and vnmovabill, dettis, takkis, stedingis, sovmes of money, and vtheris quhatsumever, quhilkis pertenit to Margarete Jamesoun in Tulibody, and now pertenying, or onywis sall happin or may pertene to our souerane lord, be resoun of eschete, throw non fulfilling of certane pennance ordanit to be done be hir be the ordinar, for certane crymes of heresy committit be hir, of the quhilkis scho wes convict in jugement, &c. At Stirling, the aucht day of Aprill, the ȝer forsaid (1539.) vjli.xiijs.iiiid.

[Lib. xij. f. 93.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Charlis, James, Robert, George, Johnne, Andro, Archibald, Helene, Margaret, Elizabeth, Isabell, and Agnes Carnis, sonis and dochteris to Henry Carnis in Leith, yair airis and assignais, ane or ma, off the gift of all gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, dettis, takkis, schip, obligationis, sovmes of money, and vtheris gudis quhatsumever quhilkis pertenit to the said Henry, and now decernit to pertene to our souerane lord, be resoun of eschete for heresy, of the quhilk the said Henry was abiurit be ane sentence gevin be the spirituale juge aganis him for the samyn, &c. At Stirling, the viij day of Aprile, the ȝer forsaid (1539.) xli.xijs.

[Lib. xij. f. 94.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Alexander Orrok of Silliebawke, his airis and assignais, of the gift of all gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, cornis, catale, dettis, takkis, stedingis, money, gold, siluer, and vtheris gudis quhatsumever quhilkis pertenit to William Clerk, clerk of the schip callit the Barge, and now pertenying to our souerane lord, be resoun of eschete throw being of the said William convict of heresy, &c. At Stirling, the viij day of Aprile, the ȝeire forsaid (1539). xli.

[Lib. xij. f. 94.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to James Lovell, of the gift of his awne eschete gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, pertenying to our souerane lord throw being of the said James abiurit of heresy, &c. At Sanctandros, the xi day of May, the ȝer forsaid (1539). [Lib. xiij. f. 4.]

Ane letter maid to Johnne Henry, his airis and assignais, ane or ma, of the gift of all gudis, movabill and vnmovabill, quhilkis pertenit to Johnne Cameroun, burges of Perth, and now pertening to our souerane lord, be resoun of eschete throw being of the said Johne declarit heretyke, etc. At Sanctandros, the xxvi day of May, ye ȝer forsaid (1539).

[Lib. xiij. f. 26.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Johne Stewart, sone to Henry, lord Methven, rehabilland him to stand in preif and witness, and to exerce all lefull dedis in jugement, and outwith, and als frelie, in all thingis as he myt have done befor the tyme he was convict of heresy, etc. At Edinburgh, the xxij day of Februare, the ȝer forsaid (1539).

[Lib. xiij. f. 65, b.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Oliuer Sinclar and his assignais, ane or maa, of the gift of all gudis, movable and vnmovable, dettis, takkis, obligationis, sovmes of money, and vtheris gudis quhatsumever quhilkis pertenit to Sir David Huchesone, prouest of Rosling, and now pertening, or ony wise sal happin or may pertene to ws, throw being of the said Sir Dauid abiurit of certane poyntis of heresy, of the quhilkis he was dilatit, and ane sentence of the spirituale juge gevin aganis him þairupoun, as the same proportis, with power to the said Oliuer and his assignais, ane or maa, to intromet and tak vp ye saidis eschete gudis, etc. At Edinburt, the xiij day of August, the ȝer foirsaid (1540).

[Lib. xiv. f. 8, b.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Maister Williame Arthur, citinare of Sanctandross, his airis and assignais, of the gift of the escheit of all gudis, movable and vnmovable, dettis, takkis, steiddingis, rowmes, possessions, teyndis, cornis, catale, actiones, obligationis, sowmes of money, and vtheris gudis quhatsumevir, quhilkis pertenit to George Wynchister, cietinar of the said ciete, and now pertening to oure souerane lady, and being in hir hienes handis be resoun of escheit throw the said Georgeis noncomperance before ane maist reverand fader in God, Johnne, archbishop of Sanctandros, his juge ordner, to haif vnderlyne the law for certane crymes of herisie quhairof he was dilaittit and convict of the samyn, and yairfore declarit heretick, as at mair length is contenit in the sentence and proces led and gevin aganis him þairvpone, with powar, &c. At Edinburh, the xiiij day of September, the ȝeir of God, ane thousand, fyve hundreith, and fyfty ȝeiris.

[Lib. xxiv. f. 24, b.]       Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid, makand mentioun, That yair was ane pretendit sentence of auld gevin aganis Johnne Boirthwikt of Ciueray, knyt, declaring him to be ane allegit heretike, as the said sentence beiris, quhilk was gevin aganis him in his absence, without ony defence maid be him, and he yairby allegit to be depriuit of all honour, and dispossessit of all his landes, rowmes, and possessionis; Nochttheles, oure souerane lady, of hir auctorite royal, speciall grace, and fauour, rehabillis the said Johnne, and restoiris him to all his landis, heretages, takkis, stedingis, rowmes, and possessionis, and to all and sindrie his gudis, movable and vnmovable, quhatsumevir, and to his honour, fame, and dignitie; and reponis him agane in the same estait he was in befoir the leding and deduceing of the said pretendit sentence aganis him, sua that he may peceabillie brouk, joys, occupy, labour, and manure his landis, rowmes, takis, stedingis, and possessionis, intromet and vptak the malis, fermes, proffittis, and dewiteis yairof, off all ȝeiris and termes bigane, restand vnpayit sin the geving and deduceing of the said pretendit sentence aganis him, and gif neid be, to convene, call, follow, and persew the detenaris yairof, befoir quhatsumeuir juge or jugeis, spirituale or temporale, vnto the finall end and recovering of the samin vpoun yame, and to stand in jugement, beir witnes, and frelie vse and exerce all maner of offices or vther publict efferis in hir common weill, in jugement, and outwith, and joys and brouk siclike priuilegeis as he did, or myt have done, befoir the leding and deduceing of the said pretendit proces aganis him, siclike as the samyn had neuer bene gevin or pronunceit, &c. With inhibitioun in the samyn to all and sindrie our souerane lady’s liegis and subdittis baith spirituall and temporall, of quhatsumeuir auctoritie or dignitie yai be of, that nane of thame tak vpoun hand to molest, truble, or invaid the said Johnne in his person, fame, landis, gudis, or possessionis, for quhatsumevir caus or actioun bigane; or to detract, bakbyte, sclander, or defame him, in ony maner of way, vnder all hieast pane, and charge, and offence. That þai and ilk ane of þame may commit and inryn aganis her maiestie, in þat parte, &c. At Sanctandrois, the last day of Februare, the ȝeir of God Im.vc.lxij ȝeiris.

[Lib. xxxj. f. 79, b.]       Per Signaturam.[482]

Ane letter maid makand mention that thair wes ane pretendit sentence gevin and pronunceit againis James Hamiltoun of Kincavill, of lang tyme begane in his absence, for null defence, declaring him to be ane allegeit heretike, as the pretendit sentence gevin thairupoune buir; be the quhilk, he was allegit to be depryvit of all honoure, fame, and dignitie, and dispossessit of all his landis, heretages, rowmes, possessionis, teyndis, and vtheris pertening to him, quhilk pretended decrete and sentence the said James hes gotten retretit and reducit, with all that followith thairupoune: Thairfore oure said souerane ladie, of her auctorite royall speciale grace and favoure, rehabillis the said James, and restoris him to all his landis, &c. [in similar terms with the preceding.] At Edinburgh, the fift day of Merche, the ȝeir of God, Im.vc.lxiij ȝeris.

[Lib. xxxi. f. 35, b.]       Per Signaturam.

Note I.

Protestant Exiles from Scotland.—I have not reckoned it necessary to insert in this work those particulars respecting Scottish reformers before Patrick Hamilton, which have been repeatedly published in the Life of Andrew Melville. The reader may consult vol. i. p. 8, 418–421 of the second edition of that work.—In this note, I shall state a few facts respecting those eminent men who were obliged to forsake their native country subsequently to Hamilton’s martyrdom, in consequence of having expressed sentiments favourable to the Reformation.

Gawin Logie, who, in his important station of rector of St Leonard’s College, was so useful in spreading the reformed doctrine, drew upon himself the jealousy of the clergy. More decided in his sentiments, and more avowed in his censure of the prevailing abuses, than the sub‑prior of the abbey, (who maintained his situation until the establishment of the Reformation,) Logie found it necessary to consult his safety by leaving the country in 1533. Cald. MS. i. 82. I have not seen any notice of him after this. Robert Logie, a kinsman of Gawin, was a canon regular of Cambuskenneth, and employed in instructing the novices. Having embraced the reformed sentiments, he, in 1538, fled into England, and became a preacher there. Thomas Cocklaw, parish priest of Tullibody, seems to have accompanied him, and was also employed as a preacher in England. Ibid. p. 97.

Alexander Seaton was confessor to James V. The cause of his flight from Scotland, his letter to the King, and his retiring to England, are recorded in our common histories. Fox (p. 1000) informs us that he was accused of heresy before Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, in 1541, and induced to recant certain articles which he had preached. Spotswood (p. 65) speaks of “the treatises he left behind him,” and, among others, his “Examination by Gardiner and Bonner,” from which it appears that “he never denied any point which formerly he taught.” Fox had not seen this. We learn from another quarter, that, after his trial, he continued to preach the truths for which he had been accused. Bale says that he died in 1542, in the family of Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, who retained him as his chaplain. Script. Brytan. Post. Pars. p. 224.

Alexander Aless was a canon of the metropolitan church of St Andrews. His conversion to the protestant faith was very singular. Being a young man of quick parts, and well versed in scholastic theology, and having studied the Lutheran controversy, he undertook to reclaim Patrick Hamilton from heresy, and held several conferences with him for this purpose. But, instead of making a convert of Hamilton, he was himself staggered by the reasoning of that gentleman. His doubts were greatly strengthened by the constancy with which he saw the martyr adhere to his sentiments to the last, amidst the scorn, rage, and cruelty of his enemies. Alesii Præfat. Comment. in Joannem: Jacobi Thomasii Orationes, p. 307, 308. Lipsiæ, 1737. Bayle, Dictionnaire, Art. Ales. A short time after this, he delivered a Latin oration before an ecclesiastical synod, in which he censured the vices of the clergy, and exhorted them to diligence and a godly life. This was enough to bring him under the suspicion of heresy, and he was thrown into prison, from which, after a year’s confinement, he made his escape, and, getting into a vessel which lay on the coast, eluded his persecutors. He escaped in 1532. Cald. MS. i. 76. On leaving his native country, Aless went to Germany, where he was virulently attacked by Cochlæus, whom the Scots bishops hired to abuse him.[483] On the invitation of lord Cromwell and archbishop Cranmer, he came to England in 1535, and was appointed Professor of Theology in the university of Cambridge. But he had scarcely commenced his lectures, when the patrons of popery excited such opposition to him that he resolved to relinquish his situation. Having, at a former period of his life, applied to medical studies, he went to Dr Nicol, a celebrated physician in London, and, after remaining with him for some years, commenced practice, not without success. In 1537, lord Cromwell having met him one day accidentally on the street, carried him to the convocation, and persuaded him to engage, without preparation, in a dispute with the bishop of London, on the subject of the sacraments; of which Aless has given a particular account in one of his publications. De Authoritate Verbi Dei Liber Alexandri Alesii, contra Episcopum Lundinensem, p. 13–31. Argentorati, apud Cratonem Mylium, An. M.D.XLII. Archbishop Parker calls him, “virum in theologia perdoctum.” In 1540, he returned to Germany, was made Professor of Divinity at Leipsic, assisted at several public conferences, and wrote many books, which were much esteemed. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 402, 403. Bayle, Dict. ut supra. He died on the 17th of March, 1565, in the 65th year of his age. (Vita Alex. Alesii, in Observ. Select, vol. v. p. 443. Halæ Magd. 1702.) Bishop Bale was personally acquainted with him, and has enumerated his works. Ut supra, p. 176.

John Fife fled from St Andrews, accompanied Aless to Germany, and shared in his honours at Leipsic. “Francofurti ad Viadrum Scotus quidam, Joannis Fidelis, Theologiæ Doctor et Professor fuit; et anno 1551 rectoratum Academiæ gessit, ut in Actis Lipsiensibus Eruditorum anno 1684, p. 386, notatum est. Sed dubitari vix debet, Fidelem illum eundem fuisse qui Fife, sive Fief, dicebatur, cum ea vox feudum significet, ad quod alludit nomen Fidelis.” Seckendorf. Hist. Luth. lib. iii. sec. 25. Fife returned to Scotland, acted as a minister, and died in St Leonard’s College, soon after the establishment of the Reformation. Cald. MS. i. 78. Knox, 20. Strype’s Cranmer, 403.

John Macbee, known on the continent by the name of Dr Maccabæus, fled to England in 1532, and was entertained by bishop Shaxton. He afterwards retired to Denmark, and was of great use to Christian III. in the settlement of the reformed religion in his dominions. He was made a professor in the university of Copenhagen. Gerdesii Historia Evang. Renovat. iii. 417–425. The Danish monarch held him in great esteem, and, at his request, wrote to queen Mary of England, in behalf of his brother‑in‑law, Miles Coverdale, bishop of Exeter, and the venerable translator of the bible, who was released from prison through his importunity. Bale, ut supra, p. 226. Fox, 1390. Maccabæus was acquainted with the Danish and German languages, and assisted in the translation of the bible into Danish (according to Luther’s first German translation), which was printed in folio at Copenhagen, in 1550, by Ludov. Diest, accompanied with a marginal index, parallel places, and plates. Maittaire, apud Chalmers’s Lindsay, i. 82. Gerdes. Hist. tom. iii. Præfatio, **3. An edition of Lindsay’s “Monarchie” bears on the title‑page, that it was “imprintit at the command and expensis off Dr Machabæus, in Capmanhouin.” But the editor of Lindsay insists, that this is “a deceptious title‑page.” Ut supra, 80, 81. That Maccabæus was alive in 1557, appears from the following passage of a Danish literary work: “In facultate Theologica, Doctores creati sequentes in Academia Hafniæ Aº. 1557, a D. Joh. Maccabeo, M. Nic. Hemmingius Theolog. Professor,” &c. Albert Thura, Idea Histor. Literar. Danorum, p. 333. Hamburgi, 1723. This writer (p. 274) mentions “Annot. in Matthæum” as written by him, but does not say whether it was a MS. or a printed book. Bale mentions another work of his, entitled, “De vera et falsa Religione.” Ut supra, p. 226. Those who have access to the Bibliotheca Dunica, will find some of his writings inserted in that work, Part v. and viii. Gerdes. iii. 417. Among the MSS. bequeathed by archbishop Parker to Corpus Christi Collegi, is “De conjugio sacerdotum, an liceat sacris initiatis contrahere matrimonium affirmatur autore Johanne Macchabeo Scoto.”

We learn from Bale, that Maccabæus was well born (“præclara familia”); and that, having discovered from his infancy a strong propensity to learning, his parents provided him with the best teachers. But I have an additional piece of information to communicate, which cannot fail to be gratifying to some readers: The proper name of this divine was neither Maccabæus nor Macbee, but Macalpine, and he belonged to the noble and celebrated Clan Alpine. In what degree of kindred he stood to the noted Roderigh Vich Alpine dhu, and whether he was obliged to change his name on account of the outrage which caused that chieftain and his whole clan to be proclaimed rebels, I cannot determine, as I have met with no northern Scald, or Gaelish bard, who has touched on these circumstances. But the following are my authorities for the statement which I have given: “Ad docendas sacras literas accersivit [Danniæ Rex] Johannem Maccabæum, proprio nomine Macalpinum, Scotum, virum doctrina et pietate gravem, Regique ac bonis omnibus modestia longe carissimum.” Vinding. Descript. Acad. Hafniæ, p. 71–73. “Reliquerat is, qui ex nobili et antiqua Macalpinorum in Scotia familia ortum trahebat, Religionis erga, Scotiam, et migraverat Witebergam, atque ibi cum Luthero et Melanchthone familiaritatem contraxerat, unde Hafniam vocatus Academiæ præfuit per annos sedecim, mortuus d. 6. Decemb. 1557.” Gerdes. iii. p. 417. See also the verses on Maccabæus in Supplement.

Macdowal repaired to Holland, and was so much esteemed, that he was raised, though a stranger, to the chief magistracy in one of its boroughs. Knox, 20.

John Mackbray, or Macbrair, a gentleman of Galloway, fled to England about 1538, and at the death of Edward VI. retired to Frankfort, where he preached to the English congregation. Troubles at Frankford, p. 13, 20, 25. Spotswood, 97. He afterwards became pastor of a congregation in Lower Germany, and wrote an account of the formation and progress of that church. Balei Scriptores M. Brytan, p. 229. On the accession of Elizabeth, he returned to England, and officiated as a preacher in that country. He is called “an eminent exile,” in Strype’s Annals, i. 130. Grindal, p. 26. On the 13th of November, 1568, he was inducted to the vicarage of St Nicholas, in Newcastle, and was buried there on November 16, 1584. Dr Jackson complains that “Mackbray, Knox, and Udale, had sown their tares in Newcastle.” Heylin speaks in the same strain. Brand’s Hist. of Newcastle, p. 303. Bale (p. 229) mentions several works of Mackbray, and says that he “wrote elegantly in Latin.” Spotswood also mentions some of his works. Ut supra.

The causes of Buchanan’s imprisonment and escape from Scotland, and his reception and employments on the continent, may be found in other publications which are accessible to the reader. See Irving’s Memoirs of Buchanan, and Chalmers’s Life of Ruddiman. Some facts which have not been fully stated by his biographers, will be found in a subsequent part of this work.

James Harrison was a native of the south of Scotland, and liberally educated, says Bale. He seems to have gone to England at a period somewhat later than the others mentioned in this note. He wrote a treatise, “De regnorum unione,” in which he warmly recommended to his countrymen the advantages of a union with England. It was dedicated to the duke of Somerset, in 1547. Bale (p. 225) gives the first words of it, “Comminiscens, ut soleo per ocium;” and calls it “elegans ac mellitum opus.”

Robert Richardson was a canon of the monastery of Cambuskenneth, and fled to England in 1538. Cald. MS. i. 97. I suppose he is the person who is called “Sir Robert Richardson, priest,” in Sadler’s Letters. He was sent into Scotland in 1543, by Henry VIII., with a recommendation to the regent Arran, who employed him in preaching through the kingdom, along with Guillaume and Rough. When the regent apostatized from the reformed cause, he withdrew his protection from Richardson, who was obliged to flee a second time into England, to escape the cardinal’s persecution. Sadler’s State Papers, i. 210, 217, 344.

Note K.

Influence of Poetry in promoting the Reformation.—As the influence which the poets and satirists of the age had upon the Reformation, is a subject curious in itself, and to which little attention has been paid, the following illustrations of what has been generally stated in the text, may not be unacceptable to some readers. Dante, Petrarch, Boccacio, and other Italian writers, by descanting on the ambition, luxury, and scandalous manners of the clergy, had contributed greatly to lessen the veneration in which they had been long held, and to produce in the minds of men a conviction of the necessity of a reformation. “There was,” says John Gerson, chancellor of the university of Paris, “one called Johannes Meldinensis, who wrote a book called the Romaunt of the Rose, which book, if I only had, and that there were no more in the world, I would rather burn it than take five hundred pounds for the same; and if I thought the author thereof did not repent of that book before he died, I would no more pray for him, than I would for Judas that betrayed Christ.” Catal. MSS. in Adv. Lib. The writings of Chaucer, and especially those of Langland, had the same effect in England, When the religious struggle had actually commenced, and become hot, a diversion, by no means inconsiderable, was made in favour of the reformers by the satirists and poets of the age. A pantomime, intended to degrade the court of Rome and the clergy, was acted before Charles V. at the Augsburg assembly. Lud. Fabricius de Ludis Scenicis, p. 231. Gerdesii Historia Evangel. Renovat. tom. ii. Docum. No. vii. p. 48. In 1524, a tragedy was acted at Paris, in the presence of Francis I., in which the success of Luther was represented, and the pope and cardinals were ridiculed, by kindling a fire, which all their efforts could not extinguish. Jacob. Burchard. de Vita Ulrici Hutteni, pars ii. 293, pars iii. p. 296. Gerdes. Hist. iv. 315. As late as 1561, the pope’s ambassador complained to the queen mother of France, that the young king, Charles IX., had assisted at a show, in which he had counterfeited a friar. Letters of the cardinal de St Croix, prefixed to Aymons, Synodes Nationaux de France, tom. i. p. 7–11. In Switzerland, Nic. Manuel wrote certain comedies of this description in the year 1522, which were published under the title of Fastnachts Spielen, at Berne, in 1525. Gerdes. ii. 451. There were similar compositions in Holland. Brand’s Hist. of the Reformation, i. 127, 128. Lond. 1720. And also in England. Burnet’s Hist. of the Reform. i. 318. Nasmith, Catal. Libr. Manuscr. Colleg. Corporis Christi, p. 93.

In Scotland, the same weapons were employed in attacking the church. The first protestant books circulated in Scotland came chiefly from England. Mr Chalmers has mentioned “the very first reforming treatise which was, probably, written in Scotland,” compiled by “Johne Gau,” and printed at Malmoe in Sweden, anno 1533. We would have been still more obliged to the learned author, if he had given us some idea of its contents, instead of dismissing it with the flourish, “Had all been like this!” which, whether he meant to apply to the elegance of the printing, or the orthodoxy of the sentiments, it is difficult to say. Caledonia, ii. 616. Calderwood seems to say that books against popery began to be printed in this country in 1543. MS. ad h. ann. But, previously to that period, the reformed sentiments were diffused by metrical and dramatic writings. The satire of Buchanan against the Franciscan friars, for which he was thrown into prison, was elegant and pungent, but, being written in Latin, it could be felt only by the learned. The same may be said as to his “Baptistes.” But a passion for Scottish poetry had been lately produced in the nation by the compositions of some of our ingenious countrymen, and this now began to be improved by the friends of the Reformation. Kennedy and Kyllor distinguished themselves in this line. See above, p. 354. Kyllor’s Scripture‑drama was exhibited before James V. at Stirling, about the year 1535; and the most simple perceived the resemblance between the Jewish priests and the Scottish clergy, in opposing the truth, and persecuting its friends. Knox, 22. Soon after this, Alexander, Lord Kilmaurs, wrote his Epistle from the Hermit of Lareit to the greyfriars. Ibid. 24, 25. James Stewart, son of Lord Methven, composed poems and ballads in a similar strain, after the death of the vicar of Dollar; and Robert Alexander, advocate, published the earl of Errol’s “Testament,” in Scottish metre, which was printed at Edinburgh, Cald. MS. i. 103. James Wedderburn, son of a merchant in Dundee, converted the history of the beheading of John the Baptist into a dramatic form, and also the history of the tyrant Dionysius, which were acted at Dundee. In both of these, the popish religion was attacked. Cald. MS. ad an. 1540. Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, p. 31.

But the poet who had the greatest influence in promoting the Reformation was Sir David Lindsay. His “Satyre on the three Estates,” and his “Monarchies,” had this for their principal object. The former was acted at Cupar in Fife, in the year 1535; at Linlithgow, before the king and queen, the court, and country, in 1540; and at Edinburgh, before the queen regent, a great part of the nobility, and a vast number of people, in 1554. Chalmers’s Lindsay, i. 60, 61. Row says, that it was also acted “in the amphitheatre of St Johnstoun.” MS. History of the Kirk, p. 3. It exposed the avarice, luxury, and profligacy, of the religious orders; the temporal power and opulence of the bishops, with their total neglect of preaching; the prohibition of the reading of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue; the extolling of pardons, relics, &c. In his “Monarchies,” composed by him at a subsequent period, he traced the rise and progress of the papacy, and has discovered a knowledge of history, and of the causes that produced the corruption of Christianity, which would not disgrace any modern author. The poems of Lindsay were read by “every man, woman, and child.” Row has preserved an anecdote, which serves to illustrate their influence, and the manner in which the reformed sentiments were propagated at that period. Some time between 1550 and 1558, a friar was preaching at Perth in the church where the scholars of Andrew Simson attended public worship. In the course of his sermon, after relating some of the miracles wrought at the shrines of the saints, he began to inveigh bitterly against the Lutheran preachers who were going about the country, and endeavouring to withdraw the people from the Catholic faith. When he was in the midst of his invective, a loud hissing arose in that part of the church where the boys, to the number of three hundred, were seated, so that the friar, abashed and affrighted, broke off his discourse, and fled from the pulpit. A complaint having been made to the master, he instituted an enquiry into the cause of the disturbance, and to his astonishment found that it originated with the son of a craftsman in the town, who had a copy of Lindsay’s “Monarchies,” which he had read at intervals to his schoolfellows. When the master was about to administer severe chastisement to him, for the tumult which he had occasioned, and also for retaining in his possession such a heretical book, the boy very spiritedly replied, that the book was not heretical, requested his master to read it, and professed his readiness to submit to punishment, provided any heresy was found in it. This proposal appeared so reasonable to Simson that he perused the work, which he had not formerly seen, and was convinced of the truth of the boy’s statement. He accordingly made the best excuse which he could to the magistrates for the behaviour of his scholars, and advised the friar to abstain in future from extolling miracles, and from abusing the protestant preachers. From that time Simson was friendly to the Reformation. MS. Historie of the Kirk, p. 3, 4.

In every protestant country, a metrical version of the Psalms, in the vernacular language, appeared at a very early period. The French version begun by Clement Marot, and completed by Beza, contributed much to the spread of the Reformation in France. The Psalms were sung by Francis I. and Henry II. and by their courtiers. The catholics flocked for a time to the assemblies of the protestants to listen to their psalmody. Bayle, Dictionnaire, art. Marot, Notes N, O, P. At a later period, cardinal Chastillon proposed to the papal ambassador, as the best method for checking the progress of heresy, that his holiness should authorize some “good and godly” songs to be sung by the French, “cantar alcune cose in lingua Francese, le quali pero fossero parole buono et sante, et prima approvate de sua Beatitudine.” Lettres de St Croix: Aymons, ut supra, tom. i. p. 7, 9, 11. It has been said, that there was a Scottish version of the Psalms at a very early period. Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, p. 35. It is more certain, that before the year 1546, a number of the Psalms were translated in metre; for George Wishart sung one of them in the house of Ormiston, on the night in which he was apprehended. Knox, Historie, p. 49. The two lines quoted by Knox answer to the beginning of the second stanza of the 51st Psalm, inserted in Scottish Poems of the 16th Century, p. 111. They were commonly sung in the assemblies of the protestants, in the year 1556. Knox, 96. John and Robert Wedderburn, brothers to the poet of that name mentioned above, appear to have been the principal translators of them. Cald. MS. i. 108, 109. The version was not completed; and at the establishment of the Reformation, it was supplanted in the churches, by the version begun by Sternhold and Hopkins, and finished by the English exiles at Geneva.

But the most singular measure adopted for circulating the reformed opinions in Scotland was the composition of “Gude and godly ballates, changed out of prophaine sanges, for avoyding of sinne and harlotrie.” John and Robert Wedderburn were the chief authors of this work also. Cald. ut supra. Row’s Hist. of the Kirk, p. 4. The title sufficiently indicates their nature and design. The air, the measure, the initial line, or the chorus of the ballads most commonly sung by the people at that time, were transferred to hymns of devotion. Unnatural, indelicate, and gross as this association appears to us, these spiritual songs edified multitudes in that age. We must not think that this originated in any peculiar depravation of taste in our reforming countrymen. Spiritual songs constructed upon the same principle were common in Italy. Roscoe’s Lorenzo de Medici, i. 309. 4to. At the beginning of the Reformation, the very same practice was adopted in Holland as in Scotland. “The protestants first sung in their families, and private assemblies, the psalms of the noble lord of Nievelte, which he published in 1540, ut homines ab amatoriis, haud raro obscœnis, aliisque vanis canticis, quibus omnia in urbibus et vicis personabant, avocaret. Sed quia modulationes vanarum cantionum (alias enim homines non tenebant) adhibuerat,” &c. Gisberti Voetii Politica Ecclesiastica, tom. i. p. 534. Amstælod. 1663, 4to. Florimond de Remond objected to the psalms of Marot, that the airs of some of them were borrowed from vulgar ballads. A Roman Catholic version of the Psalms in Flemish verse, printed at Antwerp by Simon Cock, in 1540, has the first line of a ballad printed at the head of every psalm. Bayle, Dict. art. Marot. Note N. The spiritual songs of Colletet, although composed a century after our “Godly Ballates,” were constructed on still more exceptionable models. “Et moy, Monsieur,” says Mons. Jurieu, “je vous feray voir, quand il vous plaira, les cantiques spirituels de Colletet imprimés à Paris, chés Antoine de Raflé, avec privilege du Roy, de l’an 1660. Livre curieux, où vous trouverés des Noëls sur le chant de ce vaudeville infame qui commence, Il faut chanter une histoire de la femme d’un manant, &c. le reste est un conte scandeleux autant qu’il y en ait dans le Satyricon de Petrone. Vous en trouverés un autre sur l’air de ces paroles libertines d’une chanson de l’opera:

A quoy bon tant de raison, dans un bel aage.

Un autre sur ce vaudeville impudent:

Allés vous  .  .  .  .  .

Un galant tout nouveau, &c.

Dés le temps de Henri II. parce que toute la Cour chantoit les Pseaumes de Marot, le Cardinal de Lorraine jugea que, pour arrester un si grand desordre, il seroit très edifiant de faire tourner des odes d’Horace en rime Françoise, pour nourrir la pieté de cette cour si devote.” Apologie pour les Reformateurs, &c. tom. i. 129, 4to. A Rotterdam, 1683.

Note L.

Of George Wishart.—The following graphic description of this interesting martyr is contained in a letter written by a person who had been one of his pupils at Cambridge, and transmitted by him to John Fox, who inserted it in his work, p. 1155. edit. 1596.

“About the yeare of our Lord, a thousand, five hundreth, fortie and three, there was, in the universitie of Cambridge, one Maister George Wischart, commonly called Maister George of Bennet’s Colledge, who was a man of tall stature, polde headed, and on the same a round French cap of the best. Judged of melancholye complexion by his phsiognomie, black haired, long bearded, comely of personage, well spoken after his country of Scotland, courteous, lowly, lovely, glad to teach, desirous to learne, and was well traulled, hauing on him for his habit or clothing, neuer but a mantell frise gowne to the shoes, a blacke Millian fustain dublet, and plaine blacke hosen, course new canuasse for his shirtes, and white falling bandes and cuffes at the hands. All the which apparell, he gaue to the poore, some weekly, some monethly, some quarterly as hee liked, sauing his Frenche cappe, which hee kept the whole yeere of my beeing with him. Hee was a man modest, temperate, fearing God, hating couetousnesse: for his charitie had neuer ende, night, noone, nor daye: hee forbare one meale in three, one day in foure for the most part, except something to comfort nature. [When accused, at his trial, of contemning fasting, he replied, ‘My Lordis, I find that fasting is commendit in the scriptur.—And not so only; bot I have leirnit by experience, that fasting is gude for the healthe and conservation of the body.’ Knox, 60.] Hee lay hard upon a pouffe of straw: course new canuasse sheetes, which, when he changed, he gaue away. Hee had commonly by his bedside, a tubbe of water, in the which (his people being in bed, the candle put out, and all quiet) hee used to bathe himselfe, as I being very yong, being assured offen, heard him, and in one light night discerned him. Hee loved me tenderly, and I him, for my age, as effectually. Hee taught with great modestie and grauitie, so that some of his people thought him seuere, and would haue slain him, but the Lord was his defence. And hee, after due correction for their malice, by good exhortation amended them, and hee went his way. O that the Lord had left him to mee his poore boy, that hee might haue finished that hee had begunne! For in his Religion hee was as you see heere in the rest of his life, when he went into Scotland with diuers of the Nobilitie, that came for a treaty to king Henry the eight. His learning was no less sufficient than his desire, alwayes prest and readie to do good in that hee was able, both in the house priuately, and in the schoole publickely, professing and reading divors authours.

“If I should declare his loue to mee and all men, his charitie to the poore, in giuing, relieuing, caring, helping, prouiding, yea infinitely studying how to do good unto all, and hurt to none, I should sooner want words than just cause to commend him.

“All this I testifie, with my whole heart and trueth, of this godly man. Hee that made all, gouerneth all, and shall iudge all, knoweth I speake the throth, that the simple may be satisfied, the arrogant confounded, the hypocrite disclosed.

τέλος       Emery Tylney.”

A particular account of Wishart’s trial and execution was published in England, apparently soon after the assassination of Beatoun. This very rare little book does not appear to have been seen by any of the writers who have mentioned it. The following account is taken from a copy, belonging to Richard Heber, Esq., who communicated it to me with that liberality for which he is so eminently distinguished. The general title is: “The tragical death of Dauid Beatō Bishoppe of sainct Andrewes in Scotland; Wherunto is ioyned the martyrdom of maister George Wyseharte gentleman, for whose sake the aforesayed bishoppe was not longe after slayne. Wherein thou maist learne what a burnynge charitie they shewed not only towardes him: but vnto al suche as come to their hādes for the blessed Gospels sake.” On the next leaf begins, “Roberte Burrant to the reader,” being a preface extending to 12 leaves, ending on B. iiiii. After this is the following title of the Tragedy or poem: “Here followeth the Tragedy of the late moste reuerende father Dauid, by the mercie of God Cardinall and archbishoppe of sainct Andrews. And of the whole realme of Scotland primate, legate and chaunceler. And administrator of the bishoprich of Merapois in Fraunce. And cōmendator perpetuall of the abbay of Aberbrothoke, compiled by sir Dauid Lindsaye of the mounte Knyghte. Alias, Lione, kyng of armes. Anno M.D. xlvi. Ultimo Maii. The wordes of Dauid Beaton the cardinall aforesaied at his death. Alas alas, slaye me not, I am a priest.” The poem begins on the reverse, and ends on the first page of C. vii. On the back of that leaf is,—“The accusation of maister George Wysehart gentlemā, who suffered martrydome for the faith of Christ Jesu, at S. Andrewes in Scotlād the first day of Marche. In the yere of our Lorde, M.D. xlvi. wyth the articles which he was accused of, and his swete answeres to the same, wherunto are ioyned his godly oratiōs and praiers.—With most tendre affection and unfeyned herte, considere,” &c. The narrative ends on the first page of F. vi, with these words, “complayning of thys innocent lābes slaughter.”—“Imprinted at London, by John Day, and William Seres, dwellynge in Sepulchres parish at the signe of the Resurrection, a little aboue Holbourne conduiet. Cum gracia et priuilegio ad imprimendum solum.” In eights. The tragedy of Beatoun is printed in small, and the account of Wishart’s trial in large black letter. The date of printing is not mentioned. Those who have fixed on the year 1546 have been influenced by the occurring of this date on the title of the tragedy, which evidently refers to the time of Beatoun’s death. It is probable, however, from some expressions in the preface, as well as from other considerations, that it was printed soon after that event. Fox has embodied the whole account of Wishart’s trial in his Acts and Monuments, p. 1154–1158, “Ex. Histor. Impressa.” Knox has transcribed it from Fox. Historie, p. 72.

Wishart had travelled on the continent. Knox, 56. Lesly, p. 458. Buchanan calls him Sophocardius, supposing his name to be Wiseheart, a mistake which has been corrected by an intelligent foreign historian, who says that the original name was Guiscard, a name common in France, from which country the Wischards (for so Knox writes it) originally came to Scotland. Gerdesii Hist. Reformat. tom. iv. p. 314. See also Ruddiman’s Propriorum nominum Interpretatio, subjoined to Buchanan’s History.

The following extract from the records of the city of Bristol has been obligingly sent me by Theodore Laurance, Esq.

“30 Henry viij. That this yere the 15 May a Scot named George Wysard sett furth his lecture in St Nicholas Church of Bristowe the most blasphemous heresy that ever was herd, openly declarying that Christs mother hath not nor coulde merite for him nor yett for us, wich heresy brought many of the commons of this towne into a greate error and dyvers of theym were persuaded by that hereticall lecture to heresy. Wherupon the said stiff necked Scot was accused by Mr John Kerne deane of the sd diocese        and soon aftr he was sent to the moost reverend father in God the archebishop of Canterbury bifore whom and others, that is to signifie, the bishops of Bathe Norwhiche and Chichester, with others, as doctors        and he bifore theym was examyned convicted and condemned in and upon the detestable heresy above mentioned, whereupon he was injoyned to bere a fagott in St Nicholas church aforsaid and the parishe of the same the 13 July and in Christe church the 20 July abovesaid follg, which was duely executed in the time aforsaid:”

This is extracted from the “Mayor’s Kalendar,” a vellum manuscript book of great antiquity, which is usually produced at the swearing in of the mayor, as it has a drawing of that ceremony, and refers to some old customs observed on the occasion. I have no doubt that the person referred to is George Wishart, the Scottish martyr. The facts related happened on the year after he left Scotland. In the course of that year John Lambert suffered martyrdom for denying transubstantiation, and Henry VIII. was using the severest measures against the protestants. The circumstance of George Wysard having recanted what he had taught respecting the Virgin, is not sufficient to discredit this supposition. Whether his recantation proceeded from fear, or from his being entangled by the sophistry of his judges, any stain which it affixed to his character was completely effaced by the fortitude and constancy with which he afterwards suffered.

The following is the title of a very rare book, which appears to have been written by George Wishart during his travels on the continent, and printed after his death:

“The Confescion of the fayth of the Sweserlādes.

“This Confescion was fyrste wrytten and set out by the ministers of the churche and congregacion of Sweuerland, where all godlyness is receyued, and the word hadde in most reuerence, and from thence was sent vnto the Emperours maiestie, then holdynge a gryat counsell or parliament in the yeare of our Lord God M. V. C. XXXVII. in the moneth of February.

“Translated out of Laten by George Vsher, a Scotchman, who was burned in Scotland, the yeare of oure Lorde M. V. C. XLVI.”

Note M.

Of Knox’s Language respecting the Assassination of Cardinal Beatoun.—Mr Hume has, not very philosophically, inferred the savageness of Knox’s temper from the evident satisfaction with which he wrote of Cardinal Beatoun’s assassination; and in this judgment he has been followed by several writers. If to express satisfaction at cutting off one who was regarded as a public enemy be viewed as an infallible mark of cruelty, we must pronounce this verdict upon many who were never before suspected of such a disposition. The manner in which the Christian fathers expressed themselves, respecting the death of the persecutors of the church, is not unknown. See Julian the apostate, chap. vii. viii. in Works of the Rev. Samuel Johnston, p. 22–24. Bayle, Critique General de l’Histoire du Calvinisme, p. 295. Even the mild and philosophic Erasmus could not refrain from declaring his joy at the violent death of two of the most learned and eminent reformers. “Bene habet (says he) quod duo Coriphæi perierunt, Zuinglius in acie, Oecolampadius paulo post febri et apostemate. Quod si illis favisset Ενυαλιος, actum est de nobis.” Epist. 1205: Jortin’s Life of Erasmus, ii. 28. Sir Walter Scott, in his Cadyow Castle, (See Lyrical Pieces,) has lately exerted all his poetic powers to invest Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh with the character of a hero, in assassinating the regent Murray, a person who is no more to be compared to cardinal Beatoun, than “Hyperion to a Satyr.” I know the apology that will be made for the poet (although I think he might have found, in this, and in some other instances, a subject more worthy of his muse); but what shall we say of the historian who narrates the action of Bothwellhaugh “approvingly,” celebrates the “happy pencil of the poet” in describing it, and insults over the fall of Murray, by quoting a sarcastic line from the poem, in the very act of relating his death! Chalmers’s Caledonia, ii. 571. Yet this same writer is highly displeased that Sir David Lindsay, in his Tragedy of Beatoun, has “no burst of indignation” at the cardinal’s murder; and twice in the same work he has related with triumph, that, on the margin of one edition of Knox’s history, the part which James Melvin acted in that scene is called a “godly fact.” And he pronounces the assassination of Beatoun to be “the foulest crime which ever stained a country, except perhaps the similar murder of archbishop Sharpe, within the same shire, in the subsequent century, by similar miscreants.” Chalmers’s Works of Lyndsay, vol. i. 34, 35, ii. 231. How marvellously does prejudice distort the judgment even of learned men! And how surprising to find the assassination of two sanguinary persecutors represented as more criminal than the murder of the generous Henry IV., the patriotic Prince of Orange, and the brave and pious Coligni! There are not a few persons who can read in cold blood of thousands of innocent persons being murdered under the consecrated cloak of authority, but who “burst into indignation” at the mention of the rare fact (ocurring once in a century) of a person, who, goaded by oppression and reduced to despair, has been driven to the extremity of taking vengeance on the proud and tyrannical author of his own and his country’s wrongs.—I mention these things to show the need which certain writers have to look at home, and to judge of characters and actions with a little more impartiality, or at least consistency.

Honest Keith, whose personal feelings do not appear to have been violent, has expressed with much simplicity the feelings of his party, in the reflections which be makes on the cardinal’s assassination. “What might have proved (says he) to be the issue of such procedure [Beatoun’s severe measures against the reformers], had he enjoyed his life for any considerable time, I shall not pretend to judge: Only this seems to be certain, that by his death the reins of the government were much loosened; and some persons came to be considerable soon after, who probably, if he had lived, had never got the opportunity to perpetrate such villanies, under the cloak of religion, as ’tis certain they did; he being at least no less a statesman than a clergyman.” History, p. 45. This language needs no commentary; and the callousness to the interests of (I say not the Reformation, for that is entirely out of the question, but) humanity, implied in the prospect that Keith takes of the cruelties which the protestants must have suffered from the cardinal, if his life had been spared, is far more reprehensible than any satisfaction which Knox expressed at his death.

“It is very horrid,” says Hume, “but at the same time somewhat amusing, to consider the joy, alacrity, and pleasure which that historian [Knox] discovers in his narrative of this assassination.” History of England, vol. vi. chap. iv. Mr Hume makes a partial apology for Knox by the description which he gives of his own feelings; while he allows that what, in the main, excites horror, may produce some amusement. It is well known that there are writers who can treat the most sacred subjects with a levity bordering upon profaneness. Must we at once pronounce them profane? And is nothing to be set down to the score of natural temper inclining them to wit and humour? The Reformer rejoiced at the death of Beatoun; and even those who could not approve of the act of the conspirators, were happy that he was taken away:

“As for the Cardinal, we grant,

He was a man we weell might want,

And we’ll forget him sone:

And yet I think, the sooth to say,

Although the lown is weell away,

The deed was foully done.”

The pleasantry which Knox has mingled with the narrative of his death and burial is unseasonable and unbecoming. But it is to be imputed, not to any pleasure which he took in describing a bloody scene, but to the strong propensity which he felt to indulge his vein of humour. Those who have read his history with attention, must have perceived that he is not able to check this, even on very serious occasions. I shall at present refer to one instance only. None will doubt that his mind was deeply affected in relating the trial and execution of his esteemed friend, and revered instructor, George Wishart. Yet, even in the midst of his narrative of this event, he could not abstain from inserting the truly ludicrous description of a quarrel which arose on that occasion between the archbishops of St Andrew’s and Glasgow; for which he apologizes thus:—“Gif we interlace merrines with ernest matters, pardone us, gude reidare, for the fact is sa notable that it deserves lang memorie.” Historie, p. 51.

Note N.

Knox in the French Galleys.—The following curious notice as to this event in our Reformer’s life, will form an appropriate introduction to the extracts referred to in the text. It has been preserved by the learned Dr Fulke, and is given as an answer to a popish writer, who had said, in the way of detraction, “Knokes was a galley slave three yeares.”—“The more wicked,” replies Fulke, “those papistes which betrayed him into the galley. The master whereof was glad to be rid of him, because he never had good successe, so long as he kept that holy man in slaverie, whome also in danger of tempest, though an errant papiste, he would desire to commend him and his galley to God in his praiers.” T. Stapleton and Martiall (two popish heretics) confuted. By D. Fulke, master of Pembroke‑hall, in Cambridge, p. 116. Lond. 1580.

I shall give Knox’s own account of his feelings on that occasion, from the MS. copy of his Treatise on Prayer in my possession, preserving the original language, which is altered in the printed edition. Those who have access to the latter can compare the two.

“I mene not,” says he, “that any man, in extreamitie of trubill, can be without a present dolour, and without a greater feir of trubill to follow. Trubill and feir are the very spurris to prayer. For when man, compassit about with vehement calamities, and vexit with continewall solicitude, having by help of man no hope of deliverance, with soir oppressit and punissit hart, feiring also greater punisment to follow, from the deip pit of tribulation, doith call to God for comfort and support, such prayer ascendeth into Godis presence, and returneth not in vane.” Having illustrated this from the exercise of David, as described in the viith psalm, he proceeds, “This is not written for David onlie, but for all such as sall suffer tribulatioun to the end of the world. For I, the wryter hereof, (lat this be said to the laude and prais of God allone) in angusche of mynd, and vehement tribulatioun and afflictioun, called to the Lord, when not only the ungodlie, but evin my faithfull brether, ye and my awn self (that is, all natural understanding) judgeit my cause to be irremedeable; and yit in my greatest calamitie, and when my panis wer most cruell, wold his eternall wisdome that my handis suld wryt far contrarie to the judgement of carnall reasone, whilk his mercie hath pruved trew. Blessit be his halie name.[484] And therefore dar I be bold in the veritie of Godis word, to promeis that, notwithstanding the vehemencie of trubill, the long continewance thairof, the desperatioun of all men, the feirfulness, danger, dolour, and angusche of oure awn hartis, yit, yf we call constantlie to God, that, beyound expectatioun of all men, hie sall delyver.” p. 52–54. After showing that prayers for temporal deliverance ought always to be offered up with submission to the divine will, that God often delays the deliverance of the body while he mitigates the distress of the spirit, and sometimes permits his saints “to drink, before the maturity of age, the bitter cupe of corporall death, that thairby thay may receave medicine, and cure from all infirmitie,” he adds: “Albeit we sie thairfoir no appeirand help to our selves, nor yit to otheris afflictit, lat ws not ceis to call, (thinking our prayeris to be vane;) for whatsoever cum of our bodeis, God sall gif unspeakabill comfort to the spreit, and sall turne all to our comodities beyound our awn expectatioun. The caus that I am so lang and tedious in this matter is, for that I knaw how hard the batell is between the spreit and the flesche, under the heavie cros of afflictioun, whair no warldlie defence, but present death dois appeir. I knaw the grudging and murmuring complaints of the flesche; I knaw the anger, wrath, and indignatioun, whilk it consaveth aganis God, calling all his promissis in dout, and being readie everie hour utterlie to fall from God: aganis whilk restis onlie faith provoking us to call ernistlie, and pray for assistance of Godis spreit, whairin if we continew, our maist disperat calamiteis sall hie turn to gladnes, and to a prosperous end.[485] To thee, O Lord, allone be prais; for with experience I wryt this, and speak.” MS. Letters, p. 65, 66.

The edition was printed most probably in England, (Rome is on the title‑page,) during the persecution, from a MS. sent by Knox from Dieppe, and so incorrectly, that it is often impossible to make sense of it. The following are specimens: “Diffysed,” fol. 2, “difficil,” MS.—“A pure word of God,” fol. 2, “a puritie allowit of God,” MS.—“Consent,” fol. 3, “conceat,” MS.—“May any other Jesas Christ, except I, in these wordes, make intercession for sinners?” fol. 11. “May any other (Jesus Christ except) in these wordes mak intercession for sinneris?” MS.; the transcriber having mistaken the concluding mark of parenthesis for the pronoun.—“Carkese slepe,” fol. 16, “carleslie slepeth,” MS. In quoting Isa. lxiv. 5, the printed edition has employed a word which I have not seen in any old version of the Bible. “Thou art crabbid, O Lord, because we have sinned,” fol. 4; and again in verse 9, “Be not crabbid, O Lord, remember not our iniquities for ever.” In the MS. it is angrie, in both instances. In fol. xvi. is a greater variation: “For with such as do aleage that God may not chaunge his sentence, and our prayers therefore to be vayne, can I no wyse agree.” Instead of this the MS. has, “whilk thing if we do unfeanedlie, he will revoke his wrath, and in the middis of his furie think upon mercie.”—There are similar variations between the MS. and the printed copies of most of his other tracts. They show that the MS. which I possess has not been transcribed from these copies, according to a custom very common in that age.

Note O.

Extracts from Balnaves’s Confession of Faith, or Treatise on Justification.—In reading the writings of the first reformers there are two things which must strike our minds. The first, is the exact conformity between the doctrine maintained by them respecting the justification of sinners, and that of the apostles. The second, is the surprising harmony which subsisted among them on this important doctrine. On some questions respecting the sacraments, and the external government and worship of the church, they differed; but upon the article of free justification, Luther and Zuinglius, Melanchthon and Calvin, Cranmer and Knox, spoke the very same language. This was not owing to their having read each other’s writings, but because they copied from the same divine original. The clearness with which they understood and explained this great truth is also very observable. More learned and able defences of it have since appeared; but I question if it has ever been stated in more scriptural, unequivocal, and decided language, than in the writings of the early reformers. Some of their successors, by giving way to speculation, gradually lost sight of this distinguishing badge of the Reformation, and landed at last in Arminianism, which is nothing else but the popish doctrine in a protestant dress. Knox has informed us, that his design, in preparing for the press the treatise written by Sir Henry Balnaves, was to give, along with the author, his “confession of the article of justification therein contained.” I cannot, therefore, lay before the reader a more correct view of our Reformer’s sentiments upon this fundamental article of faith, than by quoting from a book which was revised and approved by him.

Having given the philosophical definition of justice or righteousness, and explained what is meant by civil and ceremonial justice, the author proceeds as follows:—“The justice of the lawe morall or Moses’s lawe, which is the lawe of God, exceedeth and is far above the other two justices. It is the perfite obedience required of man, according to all the works and deeds of the same; not only in externall and outward deeds, but also with the inward affections and motions of the hart, conforme to the commandement of the same (saying), Thou shalt love thy Lord God with all thy hart, with all thy mind, with all thy power and strength, and thy neighbour as thyselfe. This is no other thing but the lawe of nature, prented in the hart of man, in the beginning; nowe made patent by the mouth of God to man, to utter his sin, and make his corrupted nature more patent to himselfe. And so is the lawe of nature and the lawe of Moses joyned together in a knot; which is a doctrine teaching all men a perfite rule, to know what he should do, and what he should leave undone, both to God and his neighbour. The justice of the lawe, is to fulfill the lawe; that is, to doo the perfite workes of the lawe as they are required, from the bottome of the hart, and as they are declared and expounded by Christ; and whosoever transgresseth the same, shall never be pronounced just of the lawe. But there was never man that fulfilled this lawe to the uttermost perfection thereof, except only Jesus Christ. Therefore, in the lawe can we not find our justice, because of the deedes of the lawe no flesh shall be made just before God.” p. 57, 58.

“For transgression of the commandement of God, our forefather Adam was exiled and banished forth of paradise, and spoiled of the integrity, perfection, and all the excellent qualities, dignities, and godlie vertues, with which he was endued by his creation, made rebell, and disobedient to God in his owne default. And therefore he might not fulfill the lawe to the perfection as the same required. For the lawe remaining in the owne perfection, just, holye, and good, requireth and asketh the same of man, to be indeed fulfilled. But all men proceeding from Adam, by natural propagation, have the same imperfection that hee had; the which corruption of nature resisteth the will and goodness of the lawe, which is the cause that wee fulfil not the same, nor may not of our power and strength, through the infirmitie and weakness of our flesh, which is enemie to the spirit, as the apostle saith.” p. 79, 80.

“Notwithstanding, after the fall of man, remained with our first parents some rest and footsteppes of this lawe, knowledge, and vertues, in the which he was created, and of him descended in us; by the which of our free will and power, we may do the outward deeds of the lawe, as is before written. This knowledge deceaved and beguiled the philosophers; for they looke but to the reason and judgement of man, and could not perceave the inward corruption of nature, but ever supponed man to bee clean and pure of nature, and might, of his own free will and naturall reason, fulfill all perfection. And when they perceaved the wickednes of man from his birth, they judged that to be by reason of the planete under whom he was borne, or through evill nourishing, upbringing, or other accidents, and could never consider the corrupted nature of man, which is the cause of all our wickednes; and therefore they erred, and were deceaved in their opinions and judgements; but the perfite Christian man should looke first in his corruption of nature, and consider what the law requireth of him, in the which he findeth his imperfection and sinnes accused, (for that is the office of the lawe, to utter sinne to man, and giveth him no remedy,) then of necessitie is he compelled either to despaire or seek Christ, by whom he shall get the justice that is of value before God, which can not be gotten by any lawe or workes, because by the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be justified before God.” p. 81–83.

“This proposition of the holy spirite is so perfite, that it excludeth (if ye will understande the same right) all the vaine foolish arguments of sophistrie made by the justifiers of themselfes, which perverte the words of S. Paule (as they doo the other scriptures of God) to their perversed sence and mind; saying, that the apostle excludeth by these wordes the workes of the law ceremonial, and not the deeds of the lawe of nature, and morall lawe of Moyses. The which shameless sayings are expressly evacuat by the wordes of the apostle, insomuch that no man of righteous judgement can deny, but shall feel the same as it were in their hands, by this probation. The lawe speaketh to all, that is, accuseth all men that are under the lawe. All men are under the lawe of nature, or the lawe of Moyses, therefore the apostle speaketh of the lawe of nature and Moyses, and of all men which he comprehendeth under Jewe and Gentill, as he proveth by his argumentes in the first and second chap. to the Romans, and concludeth in the third chap. all men are sinners. If all men bee sinners, none is just; if none bee just, none fulfill the lawe; if none fulfill the lawe, the lawe can pronounce none just; therefore concludeth he, that of the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be fonde just before God. The same is proved by David in the 130 Psalme. Here ye see by the words of the apostle, he intends to prove and declare all men sinners; that is, to stoppe all men’s mouths, and to dryve them to Christ by the accusation of the lawe. No lawe may make or declare all men sinners, and subdue the whole world to God, but the lawe of nature and Moyses; therefore, under that word (lawe) the apostle comprehendeth the lawe morall, and not the lawe ceremonial only.” p. 84, 85.

“But think not that I intende through these assertions to exclude good workes; no, God forbid, for good workes are the gift of God, and his good creatures, and ought and should be done of a Christian, as shalbe showen hereafter at length in their place; but in this article of justification, yee must either exclude all workes, or els exclude Christ from you, and make your selfes just; the which is impossible to do. Christ is the end of the lawe (unto righteousness) to all that beleeve, that is, Christ is the consummation and fulfilling of the lawe, and that justice whiche the law requireth; and all they which beleeve in him, are just by imputation through faith, and for his sake are repute and accepted as just. This is the justice of faith, of the which the apostle speaketh, Rom. the 10 chapter: therefore, if ye wilbee just, seeke Christ, and not the lawe, nor your invented workes, which are lesse than the lawe. Christ shall have no mixtion with the lawe, nor workes thereof, in this article of justification; because the lawe is as contrarie to the office of Christ, as darknes to light, and is as farre different as heaven and earth. For the office of the lawe is to accuse the wicked, feare them, and condemne them, as transgressors of the same; the office of Christ is to preache mercy, remission of sinnes, freely in his bloode through faith, give consolation, and to save sinners: for hee came not into this world to call them which ar just, or think themselves just, but to call sinners to repentance.” p. 100, 126, 127, 128.

“This faith which only justifieth and giveth life, is not idle nor remaineth alone; nevertheless, it alone justifieth, and then it works by charitie; for unfained faith may no more abyde idle from working in love, than the good tree may from bringing foorth her fruite in due time; and yet the fruite is not the cause of the tree, nor maketh the tree good, but the tree is the cause of the fruite; and the good tree bringeth forth good fruite, by the which it is knowen goode: even so it is of the faithfull man, the workes make him not faithfull nor just, nor yet are the cause thereof; but the faithfull and just man bringeth forth and maketh good workes, to the honour and glorie of God, and profit of his neighbour, which beare witnesse of his inward faith, and testify him to be just before man.” p. 131, 132. In the following part of the treatise, the author shows at large, that the doctrine of gratuitous justification does not release Christians from obligation to perform good works, and inculcates the duties incumbent upon them in the different spheres of life in which they may be placed. Confession of Faith; conteining how the troubled man should seeke refuge at his God; compiled by M. Henry Balnaves of Halhill,[486] and one of the Lords of Session of Scotland, being a prisoner within the old pallaice of Roane, in the year 1548. T. Vautrollier, Edin. 1584.

Note P.

Extracts from Knox’s Defence before the Bishop of Durham.—Since the publication of the first edition of this Life, I have seen a copy of this Defence in print. Its title will be found in the catalogue of Knox’s works, to be inserted in the last note of volume second. The printed edition agrees more exactly with the MS. in my possession than any of his other works which I have had the opportunity of comparing. The extracts given in this note are continued in their original form, to preserve the orthography of the MS., which constitutes almost the only difference between it and the printed edition.

“The fourt of Apryle in the yeir 1550, was appoyntit to Johne Knox, preacher of the halie evangell of Jesus Chryst, to gif his confessioun why hie affirmed the mes idolatrie; whilk day, in presence of the consale and congregatioun, amangis whome was also present the bischope of Duram and his doctors, on this manner his beginneth.

“This day I do appeir in your presence, honourabill audience, to gif a reasone why so constantlie I do affirme the mes to be, and at all tymes to haif bene, idolatrie and abominatioun before God; and becaus men of great eruditioun, in your audience, affirmed the contrarie, most gladlie wold I that heir thay wer present, either in proper persone, or els by thair learnit men, to ponder and wey the causis moveing me thairto: for unles I evidentlie prufe myne intent be Goddis halie scriptures, I will recant it as wickit doctrine, and confes my self maist worthie of grevous punisment. How difficil it is to pull furth of the hartis of the pepill the thing whairin opinioun of holines standeth, declareth the great tumult and uprore moveit aganis Paule by Demetrius and his fellowis, who by idolatrie gat great vantage, as our priestis have done be the mes in tymes past. The pepill, I say, heiring that the honor of thair great goddes Diana stude in jeopardie, with furious voces cryit, ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians;’—and heirunto wer thay moveit be lang custom and fals opinioun. I knaw, that in the mes bath not onlie bene estemit great holines and honoring of God, but also the ground and fundatioun of our religioun: so that, in opinioun of many, the mes taken away, thair resteth no trew wirschipping nor honoring of God in the erth. The deiper hath it persit the hartis of men yat it occupyith the place of the last and misticall supper of our Lord Jesus. But yf I sal, be plane and evident scriptures, prove the mes, in hir mair honest garment, to haif been idolatrie befoir God, and blasphemous to the death and passioun of Chryst, and contrarie to the supper of Jesus Chryst, than gude hope have I, honorable audience and belovit brethrene, that the feir, love, and obedience of God, who in his scriptures hath spokin all veritie necessarie for oure salvatioun, sall move yow to gif place to the same. O Lord eternal! move and governe my toung to speak the veritie, and the hartis of thir pepill to understand and obey the same.” MS. Letters, p. 1, 2.

In proof of his position, he laid down and defended two syllogisms. The first is thus stated: “All wirschipping, honoring, or service inventit by the brane of man in the religioun of God, without his awn expres commandement, is idolatrie: the mes is inventit by the brane of man without any commandement of God: thairfoir it is idolatrie.” The second syllogism is thus framed: “All honoring or service of God, whairunto is addit a wickit opinioun, is abominatioun: unto the mes is addit a wickit opinioun: thairfoir it is abominatioun.” p. 3, 21. In support of the major proposition of his first syllogism, he argues from 1 Sam. xiii. 11–14. xv. 22, 23. Deut. iv. 2. xii. 8, 32. 1 Cor. xi. 23. Take the following as a specimen:—“We may not think ws so frie nor wyse that we may do unto God, and unto his honour, what we think expedient. No: the contrarie is commandit by God, saying, ‘Unto my word sall ye ad nothing, nothing sall ye deminische thairfrome, that ye might observe the preceptis of your Lord God.’ Whilk wordis ar not to be understand of the decalogue and law moral onlie, but of statutis, rytes, and ceremonyis; for equall obedience of all his lawis requyreth God. And in witnis thairof, Nadab and Abihu offiring strange fyre, whairof God had geven unto thame na charge, wer instantlie, as thay offirit, punissit to death by fyre.—In the punisment of theis two afoirsaid is to be observit, that Nadab and Abihu wer the principal priestis nixt to Aron thair father, and that they were comprehendit neither in adulterie, covetusnes, nor desyre of warldlie honor, but of a gud zeall and simpill intent wer making sacrifice, desyreing no profit of the pepill thairby, but to honor God, and to metigat his wraith. And yit in the doing of this self same act and sacrifice wer they consumit away with fyre; whairof it is plane, that nether the preeminence of the persone or man that maketh or setteth up any religioun without the express commandement of God, nor yet the intent whairof hie doith the same, is acceptit befoir God: for nothing in his religioun will hie admit without his awn word, but all that is addit thairto doith hie abhor, and punisseth the inventoris and doeris thairof, as ye haif hard in Nadab and Abihu.” p. 6, 7.

The following extracts will exemplify the irony with which he treated the popish tenets: “Jesus Chryst sayeth, ‘I will lay upon yow none other burdene than I haif alreadie;’ and, ‘that whilk ye haif observe diligentlie.’ O God eternal! hast thow laid none uther burdene upon our backis than Jesus Chryst laid be his word? Then who hath burdenit ws with all theis ceremonyis? prescrybid fasting, compellit chastitie, unlawfull vowis, invocatioun of sanctis, and with the idolatrie of the mes? The divill, the divill, brethrene, inventit all theis burdenis to depres imprudent men to perditioun.” p. 10. Speaking of the canon of the mass, he says, “I will preve, that thairin is indigest, barbarous, folische congestioun of wordis, imperfectioun of sentences, ungodlie invocationis, and diabolicall conjurationis. And this is that holie canon whois autoritie precelleth all scriptures! O! it was so holie it might not be spoken planelie as the rest, but secreitlie it behoved to be whisperit! That was not evil devysit; for yf all men had hard it, sum wold have espyit the vanitie thairof.—Thay say, Hoc est enim corpus meum. I pray thame schew, whair find thay enim? O! heir mak thay a great matter; and heir lyeth a secreit misterie, and hid operatioun! For in fyve wordis conceaved the virgin Marie, say thay, when sche conceavit the Sone of God. What yf sche had spokin sevin, ten, or twentie words? or what yf sche had not spoken in thrie? Suld thairby the determinat consalle been impeidit? But, O papists! is God a juglar? Useth he certane noumer of wordis in performing his intent?” p. 18, 19.

Quintin Kennedy, abbot of Crossraguel, in an Oration, composed by him in 1561, made some remarks on Knox’s book against the Mass. “Shortly,” says he, “will we call to remembrance ane notable syllogisme (or argument) sett furth be ane famouss preachour, callit John Knox, in his sermon againis the mess, in manner as efter followis.” And having quoted the first syllogism, as already expressed in this note, he answers: “As to the first part of his syllogisme, quhar he dois affirme all worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne without expres command of God to be ydolatrie, it is als falss as Goddis wourd is trew; for quhy? did not Abel, Abraham, Noe, and diuerse vtheris of the aulde fatheris, inuent meanis and ways to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, and wes acceptable to the Lord God, as the Aulde Testament techis ws? Did not Cornelius centurio in likewise inuent meanis and ways to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, quhilk wes acceptable to God, as the New Testament plainly teachis ws? Thus ma we clearlie persaue that this wickit syllogisme aboue rehersit is express aganis the scripture of Almychtie God, bayth Aulde Testament and New. Secundlie, to preve his fals and wicket syllogisme, impropirlie callis he to remembrance the scripture of Almychti God, quhare mentione is maid how king Saule made sacrifice onto God of his owne brayne, and wes nocht acceptable to the Lorde God. Mark this place of the scripture, and it salbe easely persavit that it is all wayis impropirlie appliit; for quhy, his syllogisme makis mentione of the worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, without expres commande of God; and this place of scripture testifeis plainly of the worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, express contrar to the commande of God. And sua may we clearlie vnderstand that this first part of his syllogisme differis far fra the testimonie of scripture, adducit be him for confirmatione of the samin; bicaus thair is ane grete difference betuix the worschipping of God inuentit be manne, without expres commande of God, and the worschipping of God inuentit be manne, express contrar to the commande of God; the ane may neuer stand with the scripture; the vther aggreis with the scripture, bayth Aulde Testament and New, as I haif all reddy declarit.” In fine, the abbot insists that Saul “committit na ydolatrie,” for “albeit the scripture dois affirme that stubborness is as the wicketnes of ydolatrie, nochttheles stubbornes is nocht ydolatrie.” Ane Oratioune set furth be Master Quintine Kennedy, Commendatour of Corsraguell, ye zeir of Gode 1561, p. 5–8. Edinburgh, 1812.

Note Q.

Changes on the English Liturgy.—In the Communion‑Book, as set forth in 1548, the words pronounced by the minister at delivering the bread were, “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life;” and at the delivery of the cup, “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve,” &c. As altered in the corrected Prayer Book of Edward VI. the words pronounced were, ‘Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee; and feed on him in thy heart by faith—Drink this in remembrance Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.” A rubric was also added, to be read at the celebration of the communion, declaring, that, although the posture of kneeling was retained to signify our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ, and to prevent profanation and disorder; yet “no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either to the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood; for the bread and wine retained their natural substances, and Christ’s natural body was in heaven, and could not be in more places than one at the same time.” Collier, ii. 310: Records, No. 70.

In the settlement of religion, at the commencement of Elizabeth’s reign, the old form of words at delivering the elements was super‑induced upon the new, which, like the patching of old and new cloth in a garment, marred the whole, and pleased neither protestants nor papists; and the rubric, explanatory of kneeling, was thrown out. At the restoration of Charles II., “the church thought fit (says Collier) to condescend so far as to restore the rubric of King Edward’s reign,” to please “some people either of weak judgments or contentious humours.” A piece of condescension, with which the historian pretty plainly intimates his dissatisfaction. In the liturgy which was attempted to be imposed upon the Scottish church in 1637, all the qualifications and explications in the last prayer‑book of Edward VI. were completely excluded, and various expressions, postures, and gestures, favourable to the popish notions and superstition, were unblushingly borrowed from the mass‑book. But the rulers of the church in the three kingdoms were then posting fast to Rome, when they were overturned in their mad career.

Note R.

Sentiments of English Reformers respecting the government and worship of the Church.—I shall endeavour to compress the body of evidence which can be produced for the conformity between the private sentiments of the English reformers respecting worship and church‑government, and those of Knox, along with the reformers of Switzerland and Geneva. Hooper, in a letter dated Feb. 8, 1550, informs Bullinger that “the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Rochester, Ely, St David’s, Lincoln, and Bath, were sincerely bent on advancing the purity of doctrine, agreeing IN ALL THINGS with the Helvetic churches.” Burnet, iii. 201. Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, in a letter to Gualter, Feb. 4, 1573, fervently exclaims, “O! would to God, would to God, once at last, all the English people would in good earnest propound to themselves to follow the church of Zurich as the most absolute pattern.” Strype’s Annals, ii. 286, 342.

Cranmer expressed his opinion formally in writing, that “the bishops and priests were at one time, and were no two things, but both ONE OFFICE in the beginning of Christ’s religion.”—“The bishop of St David’s, my lord elect of Westminster, Dr Cox, Dr Redman, say that at the beginning they were all ONE.” Collier, ii. Records, No. 49. Burnet, i. Append. p. 223–225. Thirteen bishops, with a great number of other ecclesiastics, subscribed this proposition, “that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops.” Burnet, ut supra, p. 324. Cranmer says, “In the New Testament he that is appointed a bishop or a priest needed not consecration, by the scripture, for election or appointment thereto is sufficient.” And of the same judgment was the bishop of St David’s. Ibid. 228, 230. Latimer and Hooper maintained the identity of bishops and presbyters, by divine institution. Voetii Polit. Eccles. tom. ii. p. 837. This was also the opinion of Pilkington, bishop of Durham. Treatise on the burning of St Paul’s, apud Cald. Altare Damascenum, p. 204. Bishop Jewel assents to it in his Answer to Harding, p. 121. And on the accession of Elizabeth, he expressed his hope, that “the bishops would become pastors, labourers, and watchmen, and that the great riches of bishoprics would be diminished and reduced to mediocrity, that, being delivered from regal and courtly pomp, they might take care of the flock of Christ.” Burnet, iii. 288. In the same year, Dr Aylmer addressed the right reverend bench in these terms: “Come of, you bishops, away with your superfluities, yield up your thousands, be content with hundreds, as they be in other reformed churches, where there be as great learned men as you are. Let your portion be priestlike and not princelike. Let the queen have the rest of your temporalities and other lands to maintain these warres which you procured, and your mistresse left her; and with the reste builde and found scholes thorow out the realme: that every parishe church may have his preacher, every city his superintendent, to live honestly and not pompously; which will never be onles your landes be dispersed and bestowed upon many which now feedeth and fatteth but one.—I would our countryman Wicliefe’s boke which he wrote, De Ecclesia, were in print, and there should you see that your wrinches and cavillations be nothing worthie. It was my chaunce to happen of it in ones hand that brought it out of Bohemia.” An Harborowe for Faithful and Trew Subjects, sig. O, 4. Cranmer expressed himself in a similar strain respecting the “glorious titles, styles, and pomps,” which were come into the church through the working of the spirit of Diotrephes, and professed his readiness to lay them aside. Strype’s Cranmer, Append. p. 20. Burnet, iii. 105. Append. p. 88. In fact, the title of bishop was very generally disused in common speech during the reign of Edward VI., and that of superintendent substituted in its place. And this change of style was vindicated by Ponet, bishop of Winchester, in an answer which he published to a popish writer. Strype’s Memorials of the Reformation, ii. 444, 445.

It was proposed by Cranmer to erect courts similar to the kirk‑sessions and provincial synods afterwards introduced into the Scottish church. Burnet, iii. 214. Reformatio Leg. Eccles. cap. 8, 10. He ardently wished the suppression of prebendaries, “an estate,” he said, “which St Paule, reckoning up the degrees and estates allowed in his time, could not find in the church of Christ.” Burnet, iii. Append. p. 157, 158. All the protestant bishops and divines in the reign of Edward VI. were anxious for the introduction of ecclesiastical discipline. Dr Cox (Oct. 5, 1552,) complains bitterly of the opposition of the courtiers to this measure, and says, that, if it was not adopted, “the kingdom of God would be taken away from them.” Latimer’s Sermons, fol. cix. b. Lond. 1570. Strype’s Memor. of the Reform. ii. 366. Repository of Orig. p. 150.

Cranmer and his colleagues were far from being satisfied with the purity of the last common‑prayer book of Edward; and the primate had drawn up one which is said to have been “an hundred times more perfect.” Troubles at Franckfort, p. 50. He and Ridley intended to procure an act for abolishing the sacerdotal habits; “for they only defended their lawfulness, but not their fitness.” Burnet’s Letters respecting Switzerland, &c. p. 52. Rotterdam, 1686. When Grindal was appointed to the bishopric of London, he “remained under some scruples of conscience about some things, especially the habits and certain ceremonies required to be used of such as were bishops. For the reformed in these times (says Strype) generally went upon the ground, that, in order to the complete freeing of the church of Christ from the errors and corruptions of Rome, every usage and custom practised by that apostate and idolatrous church should be abolished,—and that the service of God should be most simple, stript of all that show, pomp, and appearance that had been customarily used before, esteeming all that to be no better than superstitious and anti‑christian.” Life of Grindal, p. 28. Horn and others had the same views and scruples. “By the letters,” says Bishop Burnet, “of which I read the originals, [in the archives of Zurich,] it appears that the bishops preserved the habits rather in compliance with the queen’s inclinations than out of any liking they had to them; so far were they from liking, that they plainly expressed their dislike of them.” Burnet’s Letters, ut supra, p. 51. Before they accepted the office, they endeavoured to obtain the abrogation of the ceremonies; and when the act enjoining them passed, they were induced to comply chiefly by their fears that Papists or Lutherans would be put into their places. Strype’s Annals, i. 175, Burnet, ii. 376, and his Sermon on Psal. cxlv. 15, preached before the House of Commons, Jan. 1688. Cox writes to Bullinger, 5th May 1551, “I think all things in the church ought to be pure and simple, removed at the greatest distance from the pomps and elements of the world. But in this our church what can I do in so low a station?” Strype’s Memor. of the Reform. ii. 305. Burnet, iii. 202. Jewel, in a letter to Martyr, Nov. 5, 1559, calls the clerical habits “a stage‑dress” (vestis scenica), to which those alone were attached who “had nothing else to recommend them to the people, but a comical dress,”—“stipites sine ingenio, sine doctrina, sine moribus, veste saltem comica volebant populo commendari.” He engages that no exertions of his should be wanting to banish utterly these ridiculous trifles, “ludicris ineptiis,” and relics of the Amorites, as his correspondent (he says) had well designed them. And, at a period still later, (Feb. 8, 1566), he writes to Bullinger, that he “wished that the very slightest footsteps of popery might be removed out of the church and minds of men; but the queen would at that time suffer no change in religion.” Burnet, iii. Append. p. 291. ii. Append. p. 351. Strype’s Annals, i. 174. Grindal and Horn wrote to Zurich, that they did not approve of, but merely suffered, kneeling in the eucharist, and singing with the cross in baptism, with some other ceremonies, hoping that they would speedily obtain their abrogation. Burnet, ii. 310, 314. As to Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, Pilkington of Durham, and Sands of Worcester, the non‑conformists bear testimony, that these prelates discovered the greatest zeal in endeavouring to procure their abrogation. Ibid. iii. 316. The most respectable of the clergy in the lower house were of the same sentiments with the bishops on this subject. In the year 1562, the abrogation of the most offensive ceremonies was, after long reasoning, put to the vote in the convocation, and carried by a majority of those present, but, when the proxies were included, there was found a majority of ONE for retaining them. The arguments used, by archbishop Parker’s chaplains, to prevail upon the house to agree to this, derived their chief force from their being understood to be the sentiments of the queen. Burnet, ii. Append. p. 319, 320. Strype’s Annals, i. 298–300.

From these facts, (and a collection much more ample could easily be made,) the reader will see who were the first puritans, and how very different the sentiments of the English reformers were from those of their successors. Those good men who had the direction of ecclesiastical affairs in the reign of Edward VI. thought it most prudent to proceed gradually and slowly, in removing the abuses, and correcting the evils, which had overspread the church; and to indulge the people for a season with those external forms to which they had been habituated, that they might draw them more easily from their superstitious notions and practices, and in due time perfect the reformation to the satisfaction of all. The plan was plausible; but its issue was very different from what was intended by those who proposed it. Nor was this unforeseen by persons who wished well to the church of England. After the bishops had resolved to rest satisfied with the establishment which they obtained, and felt themselves disturbed by the complaints of the puritans, (as they were afterwards called,) they endeavoured to engage the foreign divines on their side; and having, by partial representations, and through the respect entertained for the government of England, obtained letters from them somewhat favourable to their views, they employed these to bear down such as pleaded for a more pure reformation. Whitgift made great use of this weapon in his controversy with Cartwright. Bishop Parkhurst wrote to Gualter, a celebrated Swiss divine, cautioning him on this head, adding, that he had refused to communicate some of Gualter’s letters to Whitgift; because, “if any thing made for the ceremonies, he presently clapped it into his book and printed it.” Strype’s Annals, ii. 286, 287. But these divines had formerly delivered their unbiassed judgment, disapproving of such temporizing measures. Cranmer having signified to the Genevese Reformer, that he “could do nothing more profitable to the church, than to write often to the king,” Calvin wrote a letter to the archbishop in 1551, in which he lamented the procrastination used, and expressed his fears, that “a long winter would succeed to so many harvests spent in deliberation.” Epist. p. 62: Oper. tom. ix. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 413. Peter Martyr, in June 1550, gave it as his opinion, that “the innumerable corruptions, infinite abuses, and immense superstition, could be reformed only by a simple recurrence to the pure fountain, and unadulterated original principles.” And the prudential advice, that as few changes as possible should be made, he called “a device of Satan, to render the regress to popery more easy.” Burnet, iii. Append, p. 200. Gualter, in a letter dated Jan. 16, 1559, says, that such advices, though “according to a carnal judgment full of modesty, and apparently conducive to the maintenance of concord,” were to be ascribed to “the public enemy of man’s salvation;” and he prophetically warns those who suffered abuses to remain and strengthen themselves in England, that “afterwards they would scarcely be able to eradicate them by all their efforts and struggles.” Ibid. iii. 273. Append, p. 265.

Fuller says, that the English Reformers “permitted ignorant people to retain some fond customs, that they might remove the most dangerous and destructive superstitions; as mothers, to get children to part with knives, are content to let them play with rattles.” Very good: but if children are suffered to play too long with rattles, they are in great danger of not parting with them all their days.

Note S.

Plan of Edward VI. for advancing the Reformation of the Church of England.—A plan of improvements in the English church, which Edward VI. drew with his own hand, may be seen in Strype’s Memorials of the Reformation, ii. 341–343. He was desirous of the establishment of ecclesiastical discipline, but sensible that the incumbent bishops were in general of such a description as to be unfit for its exercise. “Some for papistry,” says he, “some for ignorance, some for their ill‑name, some for all these, are men unable to execute discipline.” Accordingly, he adds, “as for discipline, I would wish no authority given generally to all bishops; but that commission be given to those of the best sort of them to exercise it in their dioceses.” King Edward’s Remains: Burnet, ii. Records, p. 69.

Omitting other proofs of his intentions, I shall produce the decisive one of his conduct towards the foreign churches settled in London under the inspection of John A Lasco. A Lasco was a Polish nobleman, who had forsaken his native country from love to the reformed religion. In his youth, he enjoyed the friendship of Erasmus, who, in one of his letters, passes a high encomium on him. “Senex, juvenis convictu, factus sum melior; ac sobrietatem, temperantiam, verecundiam, linguæ moderationem, modestiam, prudentiam, integritatem, quam juvenis a sene discere debuerat, a juvene senex didici.” Erasmi Epist. lib. 28, ep. 3. He was offered two bishoprics, one in his native country, and another in Hungary; but he rejected both, and retiring into Friesland, became pastor of a protestant congregation at Embden. Gerdes. Hist. Reform, iii. 145–150. The protestant churches in the Low Countries being dissipated in consequence of the troubles produced by the Interim, he came to England at the pressing invitation of Cranmer, and was chosen superintendent of the German, French, and Italian congregations erected in London, which consisted of between 3000 and 4000 persons. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 234–241. Gerdes. ut sup. p. 150, 235.

A Lasco afterwards published an account of the form of government and worship used in these congregations, which greatly resembled that which was introduced into Scotland at the establishment of the Reformation. The affairs of each congregation were managed by a minister, ruling elders, and deacons; and each of these offices was considered as of divine institution. Ut infra, fol. i. 6, b. 11. The inspection of the different congregations was committed to a superintendent, “who was greater only in respect of his greater trouble and care, not having more authority than the other elders, either as to the ministry of the word and sacraments, or as to the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, to which he was subject equally with the rest.”—“Cestuy est appellé, au preuilege du Roy, Superintendant, lequel est plus grand que les autres, seulement en ce qu’il a plus de peine et de soing que tous les autres, non seulement au gouuernement de toute l’Eglise, mais aussy a la defendre cōtre les effortz de tous ses aduersaires, et a retenir vn consentement vnanime de tous, aux differens de la doctrine. D’avantage il n’a point plus d’autorité que les autres Anciēs, au Ministere de la parolle, et des sacremens, et en l’usage de la discipline de l’Eglise, a la quelle il est subiect cōme tous les autres. Et comme il a soing des autres au cause de son Ministere, pareillement il se soubmet au soing des autres, en l’obeissance de la parolle de Dieu, et obseruation de la discipline.” Ut infra, fol. i. b. It is proper, however, to mention that A Lasco, although he allows no superiority of office or authority to superintendents, considers that they were of divine appointment, and that Peter held this rank among the apostles. “Premierement que la Ministere de Superintendant, ou Inspecteur, est vne ordonnance diuine en l’Eglise de Christ, instituée du Seigneur Iesus Christ ētre les Apostres mesmes: quād il commanda a Pierre specialement, de confirmer ses autres freres en la foy. Et non pas qu’il luy ait donné autorité sus les autres Apostres: comme le Pape de Rome songe: mais qu’il failloit retenir en l’Eglise vne puissance egalle de tous les Apostres, auec Pierre per vng certain ordre d’une solicitude, des vns pour les autres: ainsy que tres bien l’enseigne sainct Ciprian martyr. Et aussy nous voyons manifestement, qu’un mesme Ministere est egalement attribué a tous les Anciens de l’Eglise, qui sont nommez Inspecteurs, et en Grec Euesques. Nous entendons aussy Iean et Iaques auoir tel honneur que Pierre en l’Eglise de Ierusalem. Mais a fin qu’il y ait quelque ordre, en vn mesme gouuernement Ecclesiastique, entre tous les Anciens, et que tout soit faict par ordre et honnestement, il le faut commencer a vn. Or pour ce qu’il y a bien a faire de quelz, on doit cōmencer lé gouuernement en toute l’Eglise; ores que tous les Anciens ayent vne mesme puissance.” Toute la forme et maniere de Ministere Ecclesiastique en l’Eglise des estrāgers, dresseé a Londres en Angleterre. Par M. Jean a Lasco, Baron de Polonie. Traduit de Latin en Francois et imprimé par Giles Ctematius. 1556, fol. 8, b. 9, a. Imposition of hands was used in the ordination of superintendents, ministers, ruling elders, and deacons. Ibid. fol. 27, 31, 35. The communicants sat at the Lord’s table, and A Lasco spends a number of pages in proving that this posture is preferable to kneeling. Fol. 80–88. In fine, he says, “We have laid aside all the relics of popery, with its mummeries, and we have studied the greatest possible simplicity in ceremonies.” Ibid. fol. 79, b.

Notwithstanding these sentiments, and these pieces of disconformity to the practice of the church of England, A Lasco was held in the greatest esteem, and warmly patronized, not only by Cranmer, but also by the young king, who granted him letters patent, erecting him and the other ministers of the foreign congregations into a body corporate. The patent runs in these terms: “Edward, &c. We being specially induced, by great and weighty considerations, and particularly considering how much it becomes Christian princes to be animated with love and care of the sacred gospel of God, and apostolical religion, begun, instituted, and delivered by Christ himself, without which policy and civil government can neither subsist long, nor maintain their reputation, unless princes and illustrious persons whom God hath appointed for the government of kingdoms do first of all take care that pure and uncorrupted religion be diffused through the whole body of the commonwealth, and that a church instituted in truly Christian and apostolical doctrines and rites—be preserved, &c, with this intent and purpose, that there may be an uncorrupted interpretation of the holy gospel, and administration of the sacraments, according to the word of God, and apostolical observance, by the ministers of the church of the Germans, &c. we command and strictly charge the mayor, &c. that they permit the said superintendent and ministers, freely and quietly to enjoy, use, and exercise their own peculiar ecclesiastical discipline, notwithstanding that they do not agree with the rites and ceremonies used in our kingdom,” &c. The patent may be seen at large in Burnet, ii. Records, p. 202.

But the ulterior design which the king intended to accomplish by the incorporation of this church, is what I have particularly in view. This is explicitly stated by A Lasco, in a book which he published in 1555. In his dedication of it to Sigismund, king of Poland, he says, “When I was called by that king, [Edward VI.] and when certain laws of the country stood in the way, so that the public rites of divine worship used under popery could not immediately be purged out (which the king himself desired;) and when I was earnest for the foreign churches, it was at length his pleasure, that the public rites of the English churches should be reformed by degrees, as far as could be got done by the laws of the country; but that strangers, who were not strictly bound to these laws in this matter, should have churches granted unto them, in which they should freely regulate all things wholly according to apostolical doctrine and practice, without any regard to the rites of the country; that by this means the English churches also might be excited to embrace the apostolical purity, by the unanimous consent of all the estates of the kingdom. Of this project, the king himself, from his great piety, was both the chief author and the defender. For, although it was almost universally acceptable to the king’s council, and the archbishop of Canterbury promoted it with all his might, there were not wanting some who took it ill, and would have opposed it, had not his Majesty checked them by his authority, and the reasons which he adduced for the design.” Again, in the Appendix to the same book, p. 649, he says, “The care of our church was committed to us chiefly with this view, that in the ministration thereof, we should follow the rule of the divine word and apostolical observance, rather than any rites of other churches. In fine, we were admonished both by the king himself, and his chief nobility, to use this great liberty granted to us in our ministry, rightly and faithfully, not to please men but for the glory of God, by promoting the reformation of his worship.” The following are the original words of the author: “Cum ego quoque per Regem illum vocatus essem: et leges quædam patriæ obstarent, quominus publici potissimum cultus divini ritus sub papismo usurpati (pro eo ac rex ipse cupiebat) repurgari protinus possunt. Ego vero peregrinorum ecclesiis sedulo instarem, ita demum placuit, ut ritus publici in Anglicis Ecclesiis per gradus quosdam (quantum per leges patrias omnino liceret) repurgarentur: Peregrinis vero hominibus (qui patriis hac alioqui in parte legibus non usque adeo tenerentur) ecclesiæ concederentur in quibus omnia libere, et nulla rituum patriorum habita ratione (juxta doctrinam duntaxit atque observationem apostolicam) instituerentur, ita enim fore, ut Anglicæ quoque ecclesiæ ad puritatem apostolicam amplectendam unanimi omnium regni ordinum consensu excitarentur. Ejus vero consilii rex ipsemet (pro sua pietate) præcipuus non autor tantum, sed etiam propugnator fuit. Etsi enim id in senatu regio omnibus propemodum placeret, ipseque Cantuariensis archiepiscopus rem omnibus modis promoveret; non deerant tamen qui id moleste ferrent, adeoque et reluctaturi fuerint huic instituto regio, nisi rex ipse, non tantum authoritate sua restitisset: sed productus etiam instituti hujus rationibus conatus eorum repressisset.” De Ordinatione Ecclesiarum peregrinarum in Anglia. Epist. Dedic. et p. 649. Larger extracts from this work may be seen in Voetii Politica Ecclesiastica, tom. i. 420–422.

Had Mr Gilpin been acquainted with these facts, he would have spoken with a little more moderation and respect concerning this accomplished reformer, than he has done in the following passage. “By the favour of Edward VI. he was allowed to open a church for the use of his own persuasion. But he made only a bad use of this indulgence; interfering very impertinently in the controversies then on foot.” Gilpin’s Lives of Latimer and Gilpin, p. 243. Lond. 1780. Writers who, like Gilpin, deal in abridgements, should be very cautious and sparing in the reflections which they make on characters, as they are apt to mislead their readers, without furnishing them with the facts which would serve to correct their mistakes.

Note T.

Chaplains of Edward VI.—The following account of the freedom used by the chaplains of Edward VI. in reproving the vices of the courtiers, is given by Knox, in his “Letters to the Faithful in London,” &c. I quote from the MS.

“How boldlie thair synis wer rebukeit, even in thair faces, suche as wer present can witnes with me. Almost thair wes none that occupyit the place [pulpit] but he did prophesie, and planelie speake, the plaguis that ar begun, and assuredlie sall end. Mr Grindal planelie spak the deth of the kingis maieste, complayning on his houshald servandis and officeris, who nether eschameit nor feirit to raill aganis Godis trew word, and aganis the preacheris of the same. The godlie and fervent man, maister Lever, planelie spak the desolatioun of the commoun weill, and the plaguis whilk suld follow schortlie. Maister Bradfurde (whome God, for Chrystis his Sonis sake, comfort to the end) spared not the proudest, but boldie declareit that Godis vengence suld schortlie stryke thame that than wer in autoritie, becaus thay abhorrit and lothed the trew word of the everlasting God. And amangis many uther willit thame to tak exempill be the lait duck of Somerset, who became so cald in hering Godis word, that the yeir befoir his last apprehensioun, hie wald ga visit his masonis, and wald not dingyie[487] himself to ga from his gallerie to his hall for hering of a sermone. God punnissit him (said the godlie preacher), and that suddanlie; and sall hie spair you that be dowbill mair wickit? No: hie sall not.[488] Will ye, or will ye not, ye shall drink the cupe of the Lordis wrath. Judicium domini! judicium domini! the judgment of the Lord! the judgment of the Lord! lamentabillie cryit hie, with weipping teiris. Maister Hadden most learnedlie opinit the causis of the bypast plagis, affirmyng that the wors were to follow, unless repentance suld schortlie be found. Thir things, and mekill mair I hard planelie spokin, efter that the haill counsale had said, thay wald heir no mo of thair sermonis; they wer but indifferent fellowis; ye, and sum of thame eschameit not to call them pratting knaves. But now will I not speik all that I knaw, for yf God continew my lyfe in this trubill, I intend to prepair ane dische for suche as than led the ring in the gospell: but now thay haif bene at the scule of Placebo, and amangis laddis [ladies] hes learnit to dance, as the devill list to pype!” P. 120, 121.

With Knox’s representation exactly agrees the affecting “Lamentation for the change of religion in England,” composed in prison by bishop Ridley, in which he names our countryman, along with Latimer, Lever, and Bradford, as distinguishing themselves by the faithfulness and boldness with which they censured the vices which reigned at court. I would willingly make extracts from it, but must refer the reader to the paper itself, which he will find inserted at large, in the account of the bishop’s trial and martyrdom, by Fox, p. 1614–1620. Edit. anno 1596.

Grindal was an exile during the reign of Mary, and, under Elizabeth, was made successively bishop of London, archbishop of York, and archbishop of Canterbury. Thomas Lever was a very learned man, and Master of St John’s College, Cambridge. He was Knox’s colleague at Frankfort. Upon the accession of Elizabeth, he was admitted to a prebend in the cathedral of Durham, but was afterwards deprived of it on account of non‑conformity. He seems to have been allowed to preach through the country, and, in 1577, died Master of Sherburn Hospital. Some of his sermons are in print. Troubles of Franckfort, p. 13–28. Strype’s Parker, p. 212. App. 77. Grindal, 170. Annals, iii. 512–514. Hutchinson’s Durham, ii. 594. John Bradford was in prison when Knox wrote the above account of him, and was soon after committed to the flames. James Haddon had been chaplain to the Duke of Suffolk, and went to Strasburg at the death of Edward VI. He was chosen, along with Knox, to be one of the ministers of the English church at Franckfort, but declined accepting the office. Troubles of Franckfort, 13, 16, 23. Strype’s Annals, ii. Append. p. 46.

Note U.

The Confession or Prayer, composed and used by Knox, after the death of Edward VI. and the accession of Mary, shows the state of his mind at that crisis, and refutes the unfounded charges of the popish, and of some episcopal writers, that he was guilty of stirring up rebellion against the queen. I extract it from his treatise on Prayer, printed in 1554, which is now exceedingly rare.

“Omnipotent and everlasting God, father of our Lorde Jesus Chryste, who be thy eternal providence, disposeth kingdoms as best seameth to thy wisdom, we acknowledge and confesse thy judgementis to be righteous, in that thou hast taken from us, for our ingratitude, and for abusinge of thy most holy word, our native king, and earthly comforter. Justly may thou poure forth upon us the uttermoste of thy plagues; for that we have not knowen the dayes and tymes of our merciful visitacion. We have contempned thy worde, and despised thy mercies. We have transgressed thy lawes: for deceitfully have we wrought everie man with our neighbours; oppression and violence we have not abhorred; charitie hath not apeared among us, as our profession requireth. We have little regarded the voices of thy prophets; thy threatnings we have esteemed vanitie and wynd: so that in us, as of ourselfis, restis nothing worthy of thy mercies. For all are found frutless, even the princes with the prophetes, as withered trees apt and mete toe be burnt in the fyre of thy eternal displeasure. But, O Lord, behold thy own mercy and goodness, that thou may purdge and remove the most filthy burden of oure most horrible offences. Let thy love overcome the severitie of thy judgmentis, even as it did in geving to the world thy onely Sonne Jesus when all mankynde was lost, and no obedience was lefte in Adam nor in his sede. Regenerate our hartes, O Lord, by the strength of the Holy Ghost. Convert thou us, and we shall be converted. Work thou in us unfeigned repentance, and move thou our hartes too obey thy holy lawes. Behold our trobles and apparent destruction; and stay the sword of thy vengeaunce, before it devoure us. Place above us, O Lord, for thy great mercies sake, such a head, with such rulers and magistrates, as feareth thy name, and willeth the glory of Christ Jesus to spred. Take not from us the light of thy euangely, and suffer thou no papistrie to prevail in this realme. Illuminate the harte of our soveraigne ladye, quene Marie, with prignant gifts of thy Holy Ghoste. And inflame the hartes of her counsayl with thy trew fear and love. Represse thou the pryde of those that wolde rebelle. And remove from all hartes the contempte of the worde. Let not our enemies rejoyce at our destruction; but loke thou too the honor of thy own name, O Lorde, and let thy gospell be preached with boldenes in this realme. If thy justice must punish, then punish our bodies with the rodde of thy mercy. But, O Lord, let us never revolte nor turne backe to idolatrie agayne. Mytigate the hartes of those that persecute us, and let us not faynte under the crosse of our Saviour; but assist us with the Holy Ghoste, even to the end.”

Note V.

Call and Invitation to Knox from the English Congregation at Franchfort.—“We haue receiued letters from oure brethren off Strausbrough, but not in suche sorte and ample wise as we looked for, wheruppon we assembled together in the H. Goaste we hope, and haue with one voice and consent chosen yow so particulerly to be one off the ministers off our congregation here, to preache vnto vs the most liuely worde off God, accordinge to the gift that God hathe giuen yow, for as much as we haue here throughe the merciful goodnes off God a churche to be congregated together in the name off Christe, and be all of one body, and also beinge of one natiō, tonge, and countrie. And at this presente, hauing neede off suche a one as yow, we do desier yow, and also require yow in the name off God not to deny vs, nor to refuse theis oure requests, but that yow will aide, helpe, and assiste vs with your presence in this our good and godlie enterprise, which we haue take in hand to the glorie off God and the profit off his congregation and the poore sheepe off Christ dispersed abroad, who withe your and like presences, woulde come hither and be of one folde, where as nowe they wander abroad as loste sheepe without anie gide. We mistruste not that yow will ioifullie accepte this callinge. Fare ye well from Franckford this 24. off September.

“Your louinge brethern,

Iohn Bale

Edmond Sutton

Iohn Makebraie.

VVilliam VVhittingham

Thomas Cole

VVilliam VVilliams

George Chidley

VVilliam Hammon

Thomas Steward    Thomas wood

Iohn Stanton

VVilliam VValton

Jasper swyft

Iohn Geofrie

Iohn Graie    Mighell Gill

Iohn Samford

Iohn VVood

Thomas Sorby

Anthony Cariar

Hugh Alforde.”

A Brieff Discours off the Troubles begonne at Franckford in Germany Anno Domini 1554. Abowte the Booke off Common prayer and Ceremonies. Pag. xix. xx. Printed M.D.LXXV.

Note W.

Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?

Knox was accused by the English exiles of High Treason, because he charged queen Mary with cruelty, and said that the emperor was as great an enemy to Christ as Nero. But his accusers, it might easily be shown, used stronger language on this subject than ever he did. Mr Strype informs us that the protestants who felt and outlived the persecution of Mary, used the very worst epithets in speaking of her character. Memorials of the Reform, iii. 472. We need no other proof of this than the Oration composed by John Hales, and pronounced by a nobleman before queen Elizabeth, at her entrance upon the government. Speaking of the late persecution under Mary, the orator exclaims, “O cruelty! cruelty! far exceeding all crueltys committed by those ancient and famous tyrants, and cruel murderers, Pharaoh, Herod, Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Maximine, Dioclesian, Decius; whose names, for their cruel persecution of the people of God, and their own tyranny practised on the people, have been, be, and ever shall be in perpetual hatred, and their souls in continual torments in hell.” The late Queen he calls “Athalia, malicious Mary, unnatural woman; no, no woman, but a monster, and the Devil of hell, covered with the shape of a woman.” See Works of the Rev. Samuel Johnston, p. 144.

Nor did they speak in more civil terms of foreign princes. Take, for an example, the invective of Aylmer against the French king, Henry II. “Is he a king or a devil, a Christian, or a Lucifer, that bi his cursed confederacie so encourageth the Turke? Oh! wicked catife and fierebrand of hell, which, for th’ increasing of his pompe and vayn glory, (which he shall not long enjoy,) wil betray Christ and his cross, to his mortal enemy. Oh, foolish Germains! which see not their own undoing, which conspire not together with the rest of Christian princes to pull such a traytour to God, and his kingdom, by the eares out of France, and hang him against the sonne a drying. The devill hath none other of his sede nowe but him, to maintaine both the spiritual and the temporall antichryste, the Pope and the Turke. Wherefore seeing he hath forsaken God, lyke an apostata, and sold himself to the devil, let us not doubte but God will be with us against him, whensoever he shall seek to wrong us; and I trust he will now, in the latter age of the worlde, shew his myght in cuttynge of this proude Holofernes’ head by the handes of our Judith. Oh! blessed is that man that loseth his lyfe against such a Termagaunt! Yea, more blessed shall they be that spend their lyves against him than against his great maister, the Turke: for the Turke never understode the crosse of Christ; but this Turkish apostata is named a devellis name, Christianissimus, and is in the very heart of Christendome, and lyke a traiterous Saracene, is Christ’s enemy.” Harborowe for Faithfull Subjects, Q. 1. Strasborowe, 1559.

I do not find Collier, nor other high‑church historians, quoting or commenting upon such language. On the contrary, Aylmer is praised by them for “his handsome pen,” while every opportunity is taken to inveigh against the virulence of our Reformer. We may safely challenge them to prove that he ever indulged in language so intemperate, or so disrespectful to princes, as that which I have just quoted.

Note X.

Canons of Scottish Councils.—“When a house is in flames,” says Lord Hailes, “it is vain to draw up regulations for the bridling of joists or the sweeping of chimneys.” Such was the situation of the popish church in Scotland, when the clergy began to speak of reforming abuses. The 21st canon of the council which met in 1549, ordains that there should be a reader of theology in each cathedral church, whose lectures should be attended by the bishop and canons, “si voluntas fuerit;” and also a lecturer on canon law. The 22d canon decrees that there should be a lecturer on theology in each monastery. Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 52. The 26th canon enjoins the rectors of universities to see that the students are well instructed in Latin grammar and in logic. The 28th appoints the ordinaries to call all the curates within their bounds before them, to examine them anew, and to reject those who are found insufficient for their office. The last eight canons were intended to regulate the consistorial courts. Ibid. p. 53, 58, 59. To the 14th canon of the council which sat in 1551–2, we owe the establishment of our parochial registers of proclamation of banns and baptisms. After renewing former statutes against clandestine marriages, and in favour of proclamation of banns of marriage, the canon goes on to enact, “Ut singuli curati deinceps habeant registrum, in quo nomina infantum baptizatorum inscribantur, una cum nominibus personarum, quæ talium baptizatorum parentes communiter habenter et reputantur, nec non compatrum et commatrum, cum die, anno, mense, adscriptis etiam duobus testibus notent; quod etiam ipsum in bannorum proclamationibus servetur, quas præsens conventio in ecclesiis parochialibus tam viri quam mulieris respective, si diversarum fuerint parochiarum, fieri mandat; quæ equidem registra inter pretiosissima ecclesiæ jocalia conservari vult et præcipit, quodque decani in suis visitationibus, desuper diligentem indaginem faciant, et defficientes ad commissarios referant, ut graviter in eosdem animadvertatur.” Wilkins, ut sup. p. 71, 72.

The 6th canon enacts regulations respecting testaments. On this subject, the following quotation, from the proceedings of a council in 1420, will serve to explain the canon which modified the exaction of mortuaries, mentioned in p. 351. The clergy of each diocese reported on oath to the council, “That the practice was first to pay the debts of the deceased, and then to divide his effects into three equal portions, whereof one was given to his widow, and one to his children: That the executors bestowed the remaining third in payment of legacies, and for the soul of the deceased (pro exequiis et anima defuncti): That of this third or dead’s part (defuncti pars) the executors were wont to pay, or to compound with the ordinary, at the rate of five per cent for the expense of confirmation.” Chartulary of Moray, apud Lord Hailes’s Prov. Councils, p. 23. Besides the five per cent claimed by the bishop, we have already seen that the vicar had twenty per cent, even according to the mitigated arrangement, before any legacy was paid. No mention is made of the case of a person leaving neither wife nor children; and there it was,” says Lord Hailes, “that the clergy reaped their harvest.” He might have added the case of persons dying intestate, to whom the bishops had the power of naming executors. That was the golden age of the clergy, when they were under no necessity of instituting processes for augmentation from unexhausted teinds, or of count and reckoning to recover the use of funds destined to their support!

Note Y.

Of the Catechism commonly called Archbishop Hamilton’s.—Very different and discordant accounts have been given of this book. My account is taken from the catechism itself, compared with the canon of the council which authorized its use. The title is as follows:—

“THE CATECHISME, That is to say, ane cōmone and catholik instructioun of the christin people in materis of our catholic faith and religioun, quhilk na gud christin man or woman suld misknaw: set furth be ye maist reuerend father in God Johne Archbischop of sanct Androus Legatnait and primat of ye kirk of Scotland, in his prouincial counsale haldin at Edinburgh the xxvi. day of Januarie, the zeir of our Lord 1551, with the aduise and counsale of the bischoippis and other prelatis, with doctours of Theologie and Canon law of the said realme of Scotland present for the tyme.—S. Aug. libro 4 de trinitate. cap. 6.—Contra rationem nemo sobrius, contra scripturam nemo christianus, contra ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit.—Agane reasone na sober man, agane scripture na christin man, agane the kirk na peaceabil or quiet man will iudge, or hald opinioun.” On the back of title are two copies of Latin verses, “Ad. Pivm Lectorem.” The title, preface by the archbishop, and “table of materis,” are on thirteen leaves. The catechism begins on folio i, and ends on folio ccvi, after which there are three pages of errata, on the last of which is the following colophon. “Prentit at Sanct Androus, be the command and expēsis of the maist reuerend father in God, Johne Archbischop of sanct Androus, and primat of ye hail kirk of Scotland, the xxix day of August, the zeir of our Lord M.D. lii.”

The archbishop’s epistle addressed to “Personis, Vicars, and Curattis,” prefixed to the catechism, informs us of its design and use. “First to your awin erudition.—Secundly, According to the decreit maid in our prouincial counsale, our will is that ye reid ye samyn catechisme diligently, distinctly, and plainly, ilk ane of yow to your awin parochianaris, for thair cōmon instructioun and spiritual edificatioun in the word of God, necessarie of thame to be knawin.” The canon of the council provides that it be read “omnibus dominicis et festivis,” which is thus explained in the close of the archbishop’s epistle: “Euerilk Sonday and principal halydaie, quhen yair cummis na precheour to thame to schaw thame the word of God, to haue yis catechisme usit and reid to yame in steid of preching, quhil [until] God of his gudnes prouide ane sufficient nowmer of catholyk and abil precheouris, quhilk sal be within few yeiris as we traist in God.”

As it is entitled a catechism, was printed in the vulgar language, is said to be designed for the instruction of the people, and no prohibition of its use is mentioned in the book itself, we might be apt to conclude, that it was intended to be circulated among the people, and to be promiscuously read; and accordingly several writers have represented the matter in this light. But that this was very far from being the design of those who approved and set it forth, is placed beyond all doubt by the directions which the council gave respecting it, both to the archbishop and to the clergy. “Cujus quidem libri exemplaria omnia, ubi excussa fuerint, præsentari ipse reverendismo mandat et ordinat præsens concilium, ut ipse singulas tam suis ecclesiasticis, quam aliis singulis locorum ordinariis, quot cuique diocesi pro rectorum, vicariorum, ac curatorum numero et multitudine sufficere videntur, eis tribuat; reliqua vero apud ipsum reverendissimum remaneant, et firma custodia serventur, prout tempus et necessitas postulaverint, dispertienda. Caveant vero ipsi rectores, vicarii, et curati, ne sua exemplaria secularibus quibusque indiscrete communicent, nisi ex judicio, concilio, et discretione sui ordinarii; quibus ordinariis licebit nonnullis probis, gravibus, bonæ fidei, ac discretis viris laicis, ejusdem catechisme exemplaria communicare, et iis pottisimum, qui videbuntur potius suæ instructionis causa, quam curiositatis cujuscunque eadem expetere.” Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 72. Lord Hailes had therefore reason for saying (in opposition to Mackenzie’s tale of the archbishop allowing “the pedlars to take two pennies for their pains in hawking it abroad”) that the council “uses as many precautions to prevent it from coming into the hands of the laity, as if it had been a book replete with the most pestilent heresy.” Provincial Councils, p. 36. It would have been imprudent to insert the prohibition in the book itself, copies of which, notwithstanding all their precautions, would come into the hands of improper persons; but the canon of the council remained the rule for regulating the clergy in the use of it. Nor is there any thing in the catechism which is inconsistent with the canon, or which implies that it was to come into the hands of the people. It is all along supposed that they were to be instructed by hearing, not by reading it. This is particularly evident from the concluding address. “O christin pepil, we exhort yow with all diligence, heir, understand, and keip in your remembrance, the haly wordis of God, quhilk in this present catechisme ar trewly and catholykly exponit to your spiritual edification.” And again: “Gif ye persaif be frequent heiring heirof your self spiritually instruckit mair than ye haue bein in tymes bygane, geue the thankis thairof only to God.”

If any of the hearers presumed to move any controversy respecting the passage read from the catechism, they were to be delivered over to the inquisitors, and no clergyman was allowed to answer their questions, or to enter into any dispute with them on the subject, unless he had a written license for this from his bishop. “Hoc tamen proviso, ut non liceat cuiquam auditorum super lectis, aut modo quo supra recitatis, controversiam ipsi rectori seu vicario seu curato movere. Et si aliquis id attentare præsumpserit deferatur inquisitoribus hæreticæ pravitatis; nec vicissim licebit ulli rectori, vicario, seu curato, nisi ad hoc ipsum (specialiter habita consideratione ipsius qualificationis) fuerit ab ordinario loci ei facultas concessa in scriptis, ullis controversias et quæstiones hujusmodi moventibus desuper respondere, aut disputationes ingredi, sed mox respondeatur, se hujusmodi disputationis resolutiones ad ipsos ordinarios remittere, et hoc sub pœna privationis ab hujusmodi officio seu beneficio.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 73.

The catechism consists of an explication of the ten commandments, the apostles’ creed, the seven sacraments, the Lord’s prayer, and the Ave Maria. Lord Hailes has animadverted on Keith for saying that the author shows “his wisdom and moderation in handsomely eviting to enter upon the controverted points;” and he has given extracts from it asserting the doctrine of transubstantiation, the propriety of withholding the cup from the laity, and of prayers to the saints. Prov. Councils, p. 35, 36. I may add, that the use of images in worship, purgatory, prayers for the dead, the removal of original sin by baptism, the sinlessness of concupiscence after baptism, the mystical signification of the ceremonies practised in that ordinance,—the exorcism, or blowing upon the child at the church door, and making the sign of the cross on its brow and breast, putting salt into its mouth, anointing its nostrils and ears with spittle, and its breast and back with oil, with the application of chrism to the forehead, the clothing of it with the cude or white linen cloth, and putting a lighted torch or candle into its hand; these, with other doctrines and ceremonies of the popish church, are all taught and vindicated. At the same time, while the opinions peculiar to popery are stated and defended, there is an evident design of turning away the attention of the people from these controversies, by reminding them of their duty to “belief as the haly catholic kirk beliefis;” and a great part of the book is occupied in declaring duties and general doctrines about which there was no dispute between papists and protestants. Considerable art is also used in introducing some of the most exceptionable articles of popery under the cover of unquestionable truths. Thus on the question, “Quhat things suld move us to belief the word of God?” The first reason which is given is, “Ye eternal and infallible veritie of God, fra quhome na lesing may procede, na mair than myrknes may cum fra the cleir schenand sonne.” But how gradually and artfully are the people led away from the scriptures in what follows! “The secund thing that suld moue us to belief the word of God, and to knaw quhilk is the worde of God, quhilk are the haly bukis quharin the word of God is contenit, and quhat is the trew sense of the same bukis, is ye consent and authoritie of our mother the haly kirk, fra the apostils tyme hitherto, and specially quhen it is lawfully gadderit be the haly spirit in ane general counsel, quhairof sainct Augustine sais thus:—‘I wald nocht gif credence to the euangel, except that the universal kirk warnis me sa to do.’ And tharfor lair thir twa lessonis. The ane is, quhatsaeuir the haly spirit reuelis and schawis to us, other in the bukis of haly scripture, or in ye determinatiouns and definitiouns of general counsellis, lawfully gadderit for the corroboracion and maintenans of our faith, we suld beleif ye same to be trew word of God, and thairto gyf ferme credence as to the verite that is infallible. The second lesson, ye that ar simple and unleirnit men and wemen suld expressly belief al the artickils of your Crede, as for all uthir hie misteries and matteris of the scripture ye aucht to belief generally as the kirk of God beleiffis. And this faith is sufficient to yow, for the perfectioun of that faith quhilk ye ar bund to haif.” Fol. xiiii. b. xv. a. A specimen of the same kind occurs on the question, How is the true sense of the scripture to be discerned? where, after being gravely taught the usefulness of collating one place with another, and attending to the connexion of the passage, the people are told that this belongs to such as have the gift called interpretatio sermonum, and are then devoutly set down at the feet of the doctors of the church, and taught implicitly to receive the decisions of councils. “Quharfor, he that will nocht heir, resaif, and obey ye diffinitionis and determinationis of lauchful general counsellis concerning materis of our faith, he is nocht to be accountit a trew christin man, according to the wordis of our salviour,—‘Gif he will nocht heir the kirk, lat him be to the as ane infidele, unchristinit, and ane publican.’ Thus ye haif quha is ane herityk, and how he brekis the first command.” Fol. xviii. b. xix. b.

As all who question the infallible decisions of the church are pronounced guilty of a breach of the first commandment, the Roman Catholics are, with no less ease, exculpated from a breach of the second, by the insertion of a convenient parenthesis. The reader will observe, that, according to a division of the law first countenanced by Augustine, and of which the popish church is extremely fond, the first and second commandments are thrown into one, and, to make up the number, the tenth is split into two; although the compilers of the catechism found it impracticable to keep to this last division in their explication. The following is their enunciation of the first commandment: “I am ye Lord thi God, quhilk hais brocht ye fra the land of Egypt, fra the house of bondage. Thow sall haif no other goddis but me, thou sal nocht mak to thee (as gods) ony grauit ymage, nother ony similitude of ony thing that is in the heuin abone, or in ye erd beneth, nor of ony thing yat is in the watter under the erd. Thow sal nocht adorne yame, nor worschip yame (as goddis).” Fol. xii. a. It is fair, however, to hear the explication which the authors of the catechism give respecting images. “Ar ymages aganis the first command? Na, sa thai be weil usit. Quhat is the rycht use of ymagis? Imagis to be made na haly writ forbiddis (sais venerabil Bede) for the sycht of thame, specially of the crucifixe giffis greit compunction to thame quhilk behaldis it with faith in Christ, and to yame that are unletterat, it geffis a quik remembrance of ye passion of Christ. Salomon in tyme of his wisdome, nocht without the inspiration of God, made ymages in ye temple. Mosyes the excellent prophet and trew seruand of God, made and ereckit a brassin ymage of a serpent, (quhilk figurit the lyfting vp of our Salwiour Jesus Christ vpon the crosse,) and als, be the cōmand of God, causit mak the ymagis of twa angellis callit cherubinis, quhilk thing thir twa sa excellēt men in wisedome wald neuir haif done, gif the makin of ymagis war aganis ye cōmand of God. Bot utterly yis command forbiddis to mak ymagis to that effect, that thai suld be adornit and wirschippit as goddis, or with ony godlie honour, ye quhilk sentence is expremit by thir wordis: Non adorabis ea neq; coles. Thow sall nocht adore yame nor wirschip thame as goddis. Now we suld nocht gif goddis honour, or Christis honour to ony ymage, but to God allanerly, representit be ane ymage.” Fol. xxiii. b.

In the explication of the fifth article of the Creed, is a particular account of the four places in hell; infernus damnatorum, puerorum, purgandorum, et patrum. The following proof is given of our Saviour’s descent into hell, to deliver the saints who had been confined in the last mentioned place until the time of his death. “Also ye same deliuerāce was prophesit be the prophet Osee: Ero mors tua, o mors, ero morsus tuus o inferne. O dede (says our saluiour) I sal be thi dede—O hel I sal byte the. The man yat bytes ony thing, he takis part to him, and lattis part remaine behind. Sa our saluiour passand doune to hell, he fulfyllit this prophesie, takand part of saulis out fra hell with him, and leiffand part behind him. Quhom tuk he with him? bot thame that was haly and gud, quhilk was haldin thair as presonaris,” Fol. cviii.

Upon the whole, this catechism has been written with great care, and the style is by no means bad. It is singular that it should have been so little noticed by the writers of that age, and that it does not appear who was its compiler. The provincial council describe it merely as “a certain book written in the vulgar and Scottish dialect,—librum quendam vulgari et Scotico idiomate conscriptum;” and having examined and approved of it, they commit to the archbishop, as primate, the care of seeing it printed. As it was printed at his expense, and as his name appears on the title‑page and colophon, it has been usually called Archbishop Hamilton’s Catechism. But there is not the least reason for thinking that the primate would have taken the trouble to compose a book consisting of 411 pages quarto, even although he had been in other respects qualified for the task. Bale, in his account of Scottish writers, mentions “Joannes Wouram, vel Wyrem,” whom he calls “a canon regular in St Andrews;” and he ascribes to him “a catechism in his vernacular language, scripsit in vulgari sermone catechismum fidei.” Scriptores M. Brytanniæ Post. Pars, p. 224. I have little doubt that John Winram, sub‑prior of the abbey of St Andrew, and afterwards superintendent of Fife, is the person to whom Bale refers. Could he be the author of the catechism under consideration? Though early regarded as favourable to the reformed opinions, Winram did not leave the popish church until a very late period; and his conduct, during the intermediate struggle, was extremely ambiguous, and often contradictory. The clergy frequently availed themselves of his talents, and of his reputation with the people, to diminish the odium of their obnoxious measures, or to recommend their partial and inefficient plans of reform. He was employed to preach at the trial of Wishart, and was present at the trials of Wallace and Mill. Fox, 1155, 1158, 1161, edit. 1596. He was a member of the provincial council which met in 1549, and is styled, in the register, “ecclesiæ metrop. primitialis, S. Andreæ canonicus regularis, supprior, theologiæ doctor.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 46. That council employed him to draw up the canon intended to settle the ridiculous dispute, which had been warmly agitated among the clergy, whether the Pater Noster should be said to the saints, or to God alone. Comp. Fox, 1161, with Wilkins, 57, 58. And in the council which sat in 1559, he was nominated one of the six persons to whose examination and admonition the archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow submitted their private conduct. Wilkins, p. 209.[489]

Spotswood seems to have confounded this Catechism with a smaller treatise called by the people The twa‑penny Faith. History, p. 92. This last was set forth by the council which met in 1559. Knox, Historie, p. 109, 110. The following extracts from the proceedings of that council may, perhaps, throw some light on the history of this publication. The Roman Catholic Remonstrants, in their representations to the council, required, “yat yar be an godlie and fruitfull declaration set forth in Inglis toung, to be first shewin to the pepill at all times, quhen the sacrament of the blissit body and blud of Jesus Christ is exhibit and destribut, and sicklyke, when baptism and marriage are solemnizit, in face of halie kirk; and yat it be declarit to yaim, yat assist at the sacraments, quhat is the effect yarof, and yat it be spirit at yam be ye prist ministrant, gif yai be reddy to resave the samen; with sick utheris interogatories, as ar necessar for instructing of the poynts of mens salvation, and requires to be answerit unto be all yai, that wald be participant, etc. and yir things to be don before ye using of ye ceremony of haly kirk, etc.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 207, 208. The following canon of the council seems to contain the answer to this petition. “Insuper ut populus Christianus sacramentorum ecclesiæ verum effectum, vim ac usum facilius ac commodius intelligere valeat, statuit hoc præsens concilium quasdam catholicas exhortationes, easque succinctas declarationes sacramentorum baptismi, sacrosanctæ eucharistiæ, extremæ unctionis, matrimonii, auctoritate hujus concilii edendas, et inferius inserendas, quas singuli parochi, vel alii presbyteri eorundem sacramentorum legitimi ministri, ipsa sacramenta ministraturi, singulis suam propriam et debitam exhortationem præmittant, et publice et distincte recitent, et legant singuli curati et vicarii, dum sacræ missæ sacrificium diebus dominicis et aliis majoribus festis sunt celebraturi, infra scriptam exhortationem; et ejusdem sacrificii declarationem publice in ecclesia similiter legant, quo populus christianus majori pietatis effectu rebus divinis assistat, et intersit,” &c. Wilkins, ut supra, p. 213. These Exhortations and Declarations were not inserted in the MS. from which Wilkins copied. I am inclined to think that they were published, and that they formed what was called, in derision, The two‑penny Faith. Comp. Buchanani Oper. i. 312.

Note Z.

Knox’s Letter of Instruction to the Protestants of Scotland during his absence.—In the first edition, I printed this letter in the Appendix as an unpublished paper. I have since discovered a printed copy; but as it is exceedingly rare, and as the letter itself is so valuable, I shall insert it in this place.

“To his brethren in Scotland efter hie had bene quyet among thame. The comfort of the halie Gaist for salutatioun.

“Not sa mekill to instruct you as to leave with you, dearlie belovit brethren, sum testimony of my love, I have thought gud to communicate with you, in theis few lynis, my weak consall, how I wald ye suld behave yourselves in the middis of this wickit generatioun, tuiching the exercis of Godis maist halie and sacred word, without the whilk, nether sall knawledge incres, godlines apeir, nor fervencie continew amang yow. For as the word of God is the begyning of lyfe spirituall, without whilk all flesche is deid in Godis presence, and the lanterne to our feit, without the bryghtnes whairof all the posteritie of Adame doith walk in darknes, and as it is the fundament of faith, without the whilk na man understandeth the gud will of God, sa is it also the onlie organe and instrument whilk God useth to strenthin the weak, to comfort the afflictit, to reduce to mercie be repentance sic as have sliddin, and finallie to preserve and keip the verie lyfe of the saule in all assaltis and temptationis, and thairfoir yf that ye desyr your knawledge to be incressit, your faith to be confirmit, your consciencis to be quyetit and comfortit, or finallie your saule to be preservit in lyfe, lat your exercis be frequent in the law of your Lord God; despys not that precept whilk Moses, (who, be his awn experience had learnit what comfort lyeth within the word of God) gave to the isralitis in theis wordis: ‘Theis wordis whilk I command the this day salbe in thi hart, and thou sal exercis thi children in thame, thou sal talk of thame when thou art at home in thi hous, and as thou walkest be the way, and when thou lyis doun, and when thou rysis up, and thou sall bind thame for a signe upon thi hand, and thay salbe paperis of rememberance betwene thi eis, and thou sall wryt thame upon the postis of thi hous and upon thi gatis.’ And moses in another place commandis thame to ‘remember the law of the Lord God, to do it, that it may be weill unto thame, and with thair children in the land whilk the Lord sall gif thame;’ meanyng that, lyke as frequent memorie and repetitioun of Godis preceptis is the middis whairby the feir of God, whilk is the begynning of all wisdome and filicitie, is keipit recent in mynd, sa as negligence and oblivioun of Godis benefitis ressavit the first grie of defectioun fra God. Now yf the law, whilk be reasone of our weakness can wirk nathing but wraith and anger, was sa effectuall that, rememberit and rehersit of purpois to do, it brought to the pepill a corporall benedictioun, what sall we say that the glorious gospell of Chryst Jesus doith wirk, so that it be with reverence intreatit! St Paule calleth [it] the sueit odour of lyfe unto thois that suld resaif lyfe, borrowing his similitude fra odoriferous herbis or precious unguementis, whais nature is the mair thay be touchit or moveit to send furth thair odour mair pleasing and delectabill: even sic, deir brethren, is the blissit evangell of oure Lorde Jesus; for the mair that it be intreatit, the mair comfortable and mair plissant is it to sic as do heir, read, and exercis the sam. I am not ignorant that, as the isralitis lothit manna becaus that everie day thay saw and eat but ane thing, sa sum thair be now a dayis (wha will not be haldin of the worst sort) that efter anis reading sum parcellis of the scriptures do convert thame selves altogether to prophane autors and humane letteris, becaus that the varietie of matteris thairin conteaynit doith bring with it a daylie delectatioun, whair contrairwys within the simpill scriptures of God the perpetuall repititioun of a thing is fascheous and werisome. This temptatioun I confess may enter in Godis verie elect for a tyme, but impossibill is it that thairin thay continew to the end: for Godis electioun, besydis othir evident signis, hath this ever joynit with it that Godis elect ar callit from ignorance (I speik of thois that ar cumin to the yeiris of knawledge) to sum taist and feilling of Godis mercie, of whilk thay ar never satisfeit in this lyfe, but fray tyme to tyme thay hunger and thay thrist to eat the breid that descendit fra the heavin, and to drink the watter that springeth into lyfe everlasting, whilk thay can not do but be the meanis of faith, and faith luketh ever to the will of God revealit be his word, sa that faith hath baith her begynning and continewance be the word of God; and sa I say that impossibill it is that Godis chosin children can despys or reiect the word of their salvatioun be any lang continewance, nether yit loth of it to the end. Often it is that Godis elect ar haldin in sic bondage and thraldome that they can not have the breid of lyfe brokin unto thame, neither yit libertie to exercis thame selves in Godis halie word, but then doith not Godis deir children loth but maist gredilie do thay covet the fude of thair saulis; then do they accuse thair former negligence, then lament and bewaill thay the miserable afflictioun of thair brethren, and than cry and call thay in thair hartis (and opinlie whair thay dar) for frie passage to the gospell. This hungir and thrist doith argue and prufe the lyfe of thair saulis. But gif sic men as having libertie to reid and exercis thame selves in Godis halie scripture, and yet do begin to wearie because fra tyme to tyme thay reid but a [one] thing, I ask, why weirie thay not also everie day to drink wyne, to eat bread, everie day to behald the bryghtnes of the sone, and sa to use the rest of Godis creatures whilk everie day do keip thair awn substance, cours, and nature? Thay sall anser, I trust, because sic creatures have a strenth as oft as thay ar usit to expell hungir and quenche thrist, to restoir strenth, and to preserve the lyfe. O miserabill wreachis, wha dar attribut mair power and strenth to the corruptible creatures in nurisching and preserving the mortall karcass, than to the eternall word of God in nurissment of the saule whilk is immortal! To reasone with thair abominable unthankfulnes at this present it is not my purpois. But to yow, deir brethrene, I wryt my knawledge, and do speik my conscience, that sa necessarie as meit and drink is to the preservation of lyfe corporall, and so necessarie as the heit and bryghtnes of the sone is to the quicknyng of the herbis and to expell darknes, sa necessarie is also to lyfe everlasting, and to the illuminatioun and lyght of the saule, the perpetuall meditation, exercis, and use of Godis halie word.

“And thairfoir, deir brethrene, yf that you luke for a lyfe to cum, of necessitie it is that ye exercise yourselves in the buke of the Lord your God. Lat na day slip over without sum comfort ressavit fra the mouth of God. Opin your earis, and hie will speak evin pleasing thingis to your hart. Clois not your eis, but diligentlie let thame behald what portioun of substance is left to yow within your fatheris testament. Let your toungis learne to prais the gracious gudness of him wha of his meir mercie hath callit you fra darknes to lyght and fra deth to lyfe. Neither yit may ye do this sa quyetlie that ye will admit na witnessis; nay, brethren, ye are ordeynit of God to reule and governe your awn housis in his trew feir, and according to his halie word. Within your awn housis, I say, in sum cassis ye are bishopis and kingis, your wyffis, children, and familie ar your bishoprik and charge; of you it sal be requyrit how cairfullie and diligentlie ye have instructit thame in Godis trew knawledge, how that ye have studeit in thame to plant vertew and to repress vyce. And thairfoir, I say, ye must mak thame partakeris in reading, exhortation, and in making commoun prayeris, whilk I wald in everie hous wer usit anis a day at leist. But above all things, deir brethren, studie to practis in lyfe that whilk the Lord commandis, and then be ye assurit that ye sall never heir nor reid the same without frute: and this mekill for the exercises within your housis.

“Considdering that St Paul callis the congregatioun the bodie of Chryst, wheirof everie ane of us is a member, teaching ws thairby that na member is of sufficience to susteane and feide the self without the help and support of any uther, I think it necessarie that for the conferrence of scriptures, assemblies of brethren be had. The order thairin to be observit, is expressit be sanct paule, and thairfoir I neid not to use many wordis in that behalf: onlie willing that when ye convene, (whilk I wald wer anis a week,) that your begynning suld be fra confessing of your offences, and invocatioun of the spreit of the Lord Jesus to assist yow in all your godlie interprysis; and than lat sum place of scripture be planelie and distinctlie red, samekill as sal be thocht sufficient for a day or tyme, whilk endit, gif any brother have exhortation, interpretatioun, or dout, lat him not feir to speik and move the same, sa that he do it with moderatioun, either to edifie or be edifeit. And heirof I dout not but great profit sall schortlie ensew, for first be heiring, reiding, and conferring the scriptures in the assemblie, the haill bodie of the scriptures of God salbecum familiar, the judgement and spreitis of men salbe tryit, thair pacience and modestie salbe knawin, and finallie thair giftis and utterance sall appeir. Multiplicatioun of wordis, perplext interpretatioun, and wilfulnes in reasonyng is to be avoydit at all tymes and in all places, but chieflie in the congregatioun, whair nathing aucht to be respectit except the glorie of God, and comfort or edificatioun of our brethrene. Yf any thing occur within the text, or yit arys in reasonyng, whilk your judgementis can not resolve, or capacities aprehend, let the same be notit and put in wryt befoir ye depart the congregatioun, that when God sall offir unto yow any interpreter your doutis being notit and knawin, may have the mair expedit resolutioun, or els that when ye sall have occasion to wryt to sic as with whome ye wald communicat your judgementis, your letteris may signifie and declair your unfeaned desyre that ye haue of God and of his trew knawledge, and thay, I dout not, according to thair talentis, will indeuour and bestow thair faithfull labors, [to] satisfie your godlie petitionis. Of myself I will speak as I think, I will moir gladlie spend xv houris in communicatting my judgement with yow, in explainyng as God pleasis to oppin to me anyplace of scripture, than half ane hour in any other matter besyd.

“Farther, in reading the scripture I wald ye suld joyne sum bukis of the ald and sum of the new Testament together, as genesis and ane of the evangelistis, exodus with another, and sa furth, euer ending sic bukis as ye begyn, (as the tyme will suffer,) for it sall greitly comfort yow to heir that harmony and weiltunit sang of the halie spreit speiking in oure fatheris frome the begyning. It sall confirme yow in theis dangerous and perrellous dayis, to behald the face of Christ Jesus his loving spous and kirk, from Abell to him self, and frome him self to this day, in all ageis to be ane. Be frequent in the prophetis and in the epistillis of St Paul, for the multitude of matteris maist comfortable thairin conteanit requyreth exercis and gud memorie. Lyke as your assemblis aucht to begyn with confessioun and invocatioun of Godis halie spreit, sa wald I that thay wer never finissit without thanksgiving and commoun prayeris for princes, rulers, and maiestratis, for the libertie and frie passage of Chrystis evangell, for the comfort and delyverance of our afflictit brethrene in all places now persecutit, but maist cruellie now within the realme of France and Ingland, and for sic uther thingis, as the spreit of the Lord Jesus sal teache unto yow to be profitable ether to your selues, or yit to your brethren whairsoeuer thay be. If this, or better, dear brethrene, I sall heir that ye exercise your selues, then will I prais God for your great obedience, as for thame that not onlie haue ressavit the word of grace with gladnes, but that also with cair and diligence do keip the same as a treasure and jewell maist precious. And becaus that I can not expect that ye will do the contrarie, at this present I will vse na threatenyngis, for my gud hoip is, that ye sall walk as the sonis of lyght in the middis of this wickit generatioun, that ye salbe as starris in the nyght ceassone, wha yit ar not changeit into darknes, that ye salbe as wheit amangis the kokill, and yit that ye sall not change your nature whilk ye haue ressavit be grace, through the fellowschip and participatioun whilk we haue with the Lord Jesus in his bodie and blud. And finallie, that ye salbe of the novmber of the prvdent virginis, daylie renewing your lampis with oyle, as thai that pacientlie abyd the glorious aparitioun and cuming of the Lord Jesus, whais omnipotent spreit rule and instruct, illuminat and comfort your hartis and myndis in all assaltis, now and euer. Amen. The grace of the Lord Jesus rest with yow. Remember my weaknes in your daylie prayeris, the 7 of July 1557.

“Your brother vnfeaned Johnne Knox.”

MS. Letters, p. 352–359.

Note AA.

William Whittingham, the successor of Knox at Geneva, was the son of William Whittingham, Esq. of Holmeside, in the county of Chester. He was born anno 1524, and educated at Oxford, where he was held in great reputation for his learning. On the accession of queen Mary, he went first to Frankfort, and afterwards to Geneva, where he married Catherine, the sister of John Calvin. He was one of the translators of the Geneva Bible, and composed several of the metrical psalms published at the same time, which have his initials prefixed to them. He fell under the displeasure of queen Elizabeth, on account of a commendatory preface which he wrote to Christopher Goodman’s book on Obedience to Superior Powers, in which, among other free sentiments, female government was condemned. But he enjoyed the protection of some of her principal courtiers. In 1560, he accompanied the earl of Bedford on an embassy to France, and, in 1562 and 1563, acted as chaplain to the earl of Warwick, during the defence of Havre de Grace. That brave nobleman was at a loss for words to express his high esteem of him. In a letter to Cecil, Nov. 20, 1562, Warwick writes: “I assure yow, we may all here thinck our selves happy in having soch a man amongest us as Mr Whyttingham is, not only for the greate vertues in him, but lykewise for the care he hath to serve our mistris besydes: wherfore, in my opynion, he doth well deserve grete thankes at her majesties handis.” And in a letter written by him, July 24, 1563, when he was in daily expectation of an assault by the French, he says to his brother, lord Robert Dudley, afterwards earl of Leicester; “My deare brother, for that I had, in my letter to the quene’s majesty, forgot my humblest thancks for the behalff of my deare frinde Mr Whittingam, for the great favour it hath pleased her to shew him for my sake: I besetch yow therefore do not forget to render them unto her majesty. Farewell, my deare and loving brother, a thousand tymes, and the Lord send you well to do.” Forbes, State Papers, ii. 207, 418, 487.

In 1563, Whittingham was made dean of Durham, which seems to have been the favour for which Warwick was so grateful to Elizabeth. I have already mentioned (p. 56) that an unsuccessful attempt was made to invalidate the ordination which he had received at Geneva. On that occasion, Dr Hutton, dean of York, told archbishop Sandys, that Whittingham “was ordained in a better manner than even the archbishop himself;” and the lord president said, he could not in conscience agree to “allow of the popish massing priests in our ministry, and to disallow of ministers made in a reformed church.” Whittingham never conformed fully to the English church, and died in 1579. Hutchinson’s History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, ii. 143–152, 378.

Note BB.

Aylmer’s Sentiments respecting the English Constitution.—The view which Aylmer has given of the English constitution is very different from that which Mr Hume has laboured to establish, by dwelling upon some arbitrary measures of the house of Tudor. As his work is seldom consulted, I may be excused for inserting a few extracts from it on this subject. It will be seen that he carefully distinguishes between the principles of the constitution, and those proceedings which were at variance with them. “But if this be utterly taken from them [women] in this place, what maketh it against their government in a politike weale, where neither the woman nor the man ruleth (if there be no tyrants), but the laws. For, as Plato saith, Illi civitati paratum est exitium ubi magistratus legibus imperat, et non leges magistratui: That city is at the pit’s brinke, wherein the magistrate ruleth the lawes, and not the lawes the magistrate.” And a little afterwards: “Well; a woman may not reigne in Englande. Better in Englande, than any where, as it shall wel appere to him that, with out affection, will consider the kind of regimen. Whyle I confer ours with other (as it is in itselfe, and not mained by usurpacion), I can find none either so good or so indifferent. The regemente of Englande is not a mere monarchie, as some for lacke of consideracion thinke, nor a mere oligarchie nor democratie, but a rule mixed of all these, wherein ech one of these have or should have like authoritie. The image whereof, and not the image, but the thinge in dede, is to be sene in the parliament hous, wherein you shall find these 3 estats; the king or quene which representeth the monarche, the noblemen which be the aristocratie, and the burgesses and knights the democratcie.—If the parliament use their privileges, the king can ordain nothing without them: If he do, it is his fault in usurping it, and their fault in permitting it. Wherefore, in my judgment, those that in king Henry the VIII.’s daies would not grant him that his proclamations should have the force of a statute, were good fathers of the countrie, and worthy commendacion in defending their liberty. Wold God that that court of late daies had feared no more the farceness of a woman, than they did the displeasure of such a man. Then should they not have stouped, contrary to their othes and alledgeaunce to the crowne, against the privilege of that house, upon their marye bones to receive the devil’s blessenge brought unto them by Satan’s apostle, the cardinal. God forgeve him for the doing, and them for obeying! But to what purpose is all this? To declare that it is not in England so daungerous a matter to have a woman ruler, as men take it to be.—If, on thother part, the regement were such as all hanged upon the king’s or quene’s wil, and not upon the lawes written; if she might decre and make lawes alone, without her senate; if she judged offences according to her wisdom, and not by limitation of statutes and laws; if she might dispose alone of war and peace; if, to be short, she wer a mer monarch, and not a mixed ruler, you might peradventure make me to fear the matter the more, and the less to defend the cause.” Harborowe for Faithfull and Trew Subjects. H. 2 & 3.

Note CC.

Female Supremacy.—“Our countryman, John Knox, has been much censured for want of civility and politeness to the fair sex; and particularly for sounding a first and second ‘blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regiment of women.’ He was indeed no milksop courtier, who can sacrifice the public weal to the punctilios of politeness, or consider the interests of nations as a point of gallantry. His reasons for the abolition of all female government, if they are not entirely convincing, may be allowed at least to be specious; and might well be indulged as a harmless speculative opinion in one who was disposed as he was to make no bad use of it in practice, and to give all dutiful respect to whomsoever the will of God and the commonwealth had assigned the sovereign power. But though the point may be conceded in regard to secular government, in ordering of which the constitutions and customs and mere pleasure of communities may be allowed to establish what is not morally evil; it will not follow that the essential order and positive law of the spiritual kingdom may also be sported with, and subverted.—Let the English, if they please, admit a weak, fickle, freakish, bigoted, gallantish or imperious woman, to sway the sceptre of political dominion over millions of men, and even over her own husband in the crowd, to whom at the altar she had previously vowed obedience, they shall meet with no opposition from the presbyterians; provided they do not also authorize her to lord it, or lady it, over their faith and consciences, as well as over their bodies, goods, and chattels.

“By the laws of the Romish church, no female can be admitted to a participation of clerical power. Not so much as the ancient order of deaconesses now remains in her. Her casuists have examined and debated this thesis, Whether a woman may have the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon her; and have determined it in the negative.[490] But of the philosophical dignity they are not quite so jealous. Helen Lucrecia Piscopia Cornaca, of famous memory, once applied for her degree in divinity in an Italian university; but cardinal Barbarigo, bishop of Padua, was far from being disposed to grant it; so that this learned lady was obliged to content herself with a doctorate in philosophy, which, with universal applause, was actually conferred upon her, June 25, 1678.[491] But the English climate savours nothing of this Italian jealousy; nor are the divines in it so niggardly of their honours. We do not hear indeed that they have formally matriculated any ladies, in the universities, or obliged them, by canon, or act of parliament, to take out degrees, either in law, in philosophy, or divinity, to qualify them for ecclesiastical preferment, (even the highest pinnacle of it;) though their laws hold males utterly unqualified for holding any lucrative place in the church, or in ecclesiastic courts, without these: Nor can a man be admitted to the lowest curacy, or be fellow or student in a university, until he have learned and digested all the articles, homilies, canons, rubrics, modes, and figures of the church of England, as he cannot even be sergeant or exciseman, till he understand perfectly the superior devotion of kneeling above sitting. But it is very possible, though they do not bear the learned titles, the ladies may know as much of learning and divinity, as those who do. And though they may not receive ordination on Ember‑week for the inferior orders, yet it is enacted and provided, that one of their number may be raised at once per saltum, not only above all the peers and peeresses, but over all the graduates, reverend dignitaries, and mitred heads in the kingdom. The solemn inaugurating unction once applied, then cedite Romani doctores, cedite graij. Henceforward, as the queen of Sheba came from the uttermost end of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and to have every enigma and hard question solved, so must every master, doctor, heads of universities, every diocesan and metropolitan, however wise, have recourse to their queen, by reference or appeal, with every difficult question, and every learned and deep controversy, and be responsible to her for their every decision. How flattering a constitution this to woman‑kind—if they be indeed so very fond of precedence and rule, as is commonly said! She must have an unreasonable and unbounded ambition indeed whom this will not content; though she should not be also further told in plain terms, that she is a goddess, and in her office superior to Christ; as some court‑clergymen have ventured to affirm of their visible head.”—A Historico‑Politico‑Ecclesiastical Dissertation on the Supremacy of Civil Powers in Matters of Religion, particularly the Ecclesiastical Supremacy annexed to the English Crown; by Archibald Bruce, Minister of the Gospel, p. 46–50. Edinburgh, 1802.

Note DD.

Of the Form of Prayer used in Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation.—It is natural to enquire here what is meant by the “buik of comon prayeris,” which the protestants, in 1557, agreed to use, or which was afterwards followed in their public worship. Was it the common prayer‑book of Edward VI., or was it a different one? This question was keenly canvassed, after the Revolution, by the Scottish episcopalians and presbyterians. Mr Sage, the most able champion of the episcopalians, insisted that it was the English liturgy, and endeavoured to prove that this was, during, “at least, seven years, in continued practice in Scotland,” i.e. from 1557 to 1564. Fundamental Charter of Presbytery Examined, p. 95–101, 349. 2d edit. Lond. 1697. Mr Anderson, minister of Dumbarton, who was the most acute advocate of presbytery, answered this part of the Fundamental Charter, and adduced a number of arguments to prove that it was the liturgy, not of Edward VI., but of the English church at Geneva, of which Knox was minister, which was used in Scotland from the time that protestant congregations were formed in this country. The Countreyman’s Letter to the Curat, p. 65–77, printed in 1711. I shall state a few facts, without entering into reasoning. Mr Anderson says, that he had in his possession a copy, in Latin, of the liturgy used in the English church at Frankfort, the preface of which bears date the 1st of September, 1554. He adds, that this had been translated from English into Latin; and that the prayers in it are exactly the same with those which are found in the Order of Geneva, afterwards adopted by the Scottish church; only there are some additional prayers in the latter accommodated to the circumstances of Scotland. Ibid. p. 64. This must have been the form of worship agreed on by the exiles immediately after their arrival at Frankfort. Troubles of Franckford, p. 7. Before the end of that year, the form of worship observed by the Genevan church was printed in English. Ibid. p. 27. In the beginning of the following year, the form afterwards used by the English church at Geneva was composed, which differed very little from that which was first used at Frankfort. Ibid. p. 37. This was printed in the beginning of 1556. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 401. It is not unlikely that Knox, in his visit to Scotland, in 1555, would carry with him copies of the two former liturgies, and that he would send copies of the latter, on his return to Geneva. After all, I think it extremely probable, that copies of the liturgy of Edward VI. were still more numerous in Scotland at that time, and that they were used by some of the protestants at the beginning of the Reformation. This appears from a letter of Cecil to Throkmorton, 9th July, 1559. “The protestants be at Edynborough. They offer no violence, but dissolve religiose howsees; directyng the lands thereof to the crowne, and to ministery in the chirch. The parish churchees they delyver of altars and imagees, and have receved the service of the church of England, accordyng to King Edward’s Booke.” Forbes’s State Papers, i. 155. Another thing which inclines me to think that the English liturgy was in the eye of those who made the agreement in Dec. 1557 is, that they mention the reading of “the lessonis of the New and Auld Testament, conforme to the ordour of the Buik of Commoun‑Prayeris.” Anderson gives a quotation from the preface to the Frankfort liturgy, in which the compilers vindicate themselves against the objection, that they had omitted the reading of the gospels and epistles, by saying that they read in order not only these, but all the books of scripture. And he insists that by the “lessonis of the New and Auld Testament,” our reformers meant no more than the reading of the scriptures in general. This reply does not appear to me satisfactory.

But though the Scottish protestants, at that time, agreed to make use of the prayers and scripture‑lessons contained in the English liturgy, it cannot be inferred from this, that they approved of it without limitations, or that they meant to bind themselves to all its forms and ceremonies. The contrary is evident. It appoints lessons to be read from the apocrypha; but they expressly confined their reading to “the lessons of the New and Old Testament.” A great part of the English liturgy can be read by a priest only; but all that they proposed to use could be performed by “the most qualifeit in the parochin,” provided the curate refused, or was unqualified. I need scarcely add, that, if they had adopted that liturgy without qualification, their invitation to Knox must have come with a very bad grace. It must have been to this purpose, (to use Mr Anderson’s words,) “Pray, good Mr Knox, come over and help us; and for your encouragement against you come, you shall find the English liturgy, against which you preached in Scotland, against which you declared before the counsel of England, for opposing which you were brought in danger of your neck at Francford; this English liturgy you shall find the authorized form of worship, and that by an ordinance of our making.” The Countreyman’s Letter, ut supra, p. 69.

We can trace back the use of the Book of Common Order, (or, Order of Geneva,) by the church of Scotland, from the year 1564. The General Assembly, Dec. 26, 1564, ordained “that everie minister, exhorter, and reader sall have one of the Psalme Bookes latelie printed in Edinburgh, and use the order contained therein in prayers, marriage, and ministration of the sacraments.” Keith, 538. This refers to the edition of the Geneva Order and Psalms, which had been printed during that year by Lepreuik. “In the generall assemblie convened at Edinr. in Decr 1562, for printing of the psalmes, the kirk lent Rob. Lickprivick, printer, tva hundreth pounds, to help to buy irons, ink, and papper, and to fie craftesmen for printing.” Reasons for continuing the use of the old metrical Version of the Psalms, p. 232, of a MS. (written in 1632) belonging to Robert Græme, Esq. advocate. But although this was the first edition of the book printed in this country, it had been previously printed both at Geneva and in England; and was used in the church of Scotland. For in the assembly which met in Dec. 1562, it was concluded, “that an uniforme Order sould be keeped in ministration of the sacraments, solemnization of marriages, and burial of the dead, according to the Booke of Geneva.” Keith, 519. Petrie, part ii. p. 233. Nor was it then introduced for the first time; for the Abbot of Crossraguel, in a book set forth by him in 1561, mentions it as the established form of prayers at the time he wrote. “I will call to remembrance,” says he, “the sayings of quhilkis ar written to the redar, in thair buke callit the forme of prayeris, as eftir followis, viz. ‘As for the wourdis of the Lordis supper, we rehers thaim nocht bicaus thai sulde change the substance of the breid and wine, or that the repetitione tharof, with the entent of the sacrificear, sulde make the sacraments (as the papists falslie belevis).” Ane Oratioune be Master Quintine Kennedy, p. 15, Edin. 1812. The passage quoted by Kennedy is in the book of Common Order. Dunlop, ii. 454. The First Book of Discipline, framed in 1560, expressly approves of the Order of Geneva, which it calls “our Book of Common Order,” and mentions its being “used in some of our churches,” previous to that period. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 520, 548, 583. From these facts it is evident that, although the scripture lessons and the prayers in the English liturgy were at first used by some of the Scottish protestants, yet they never received that book as a whole; that the Order of Geneva was introduced among them before the establishment of the Reformation; and that it became the universal form of worship as soon as a sufficient number of copies of it could be procured. If any other evidence of this were necessary, I might produce the testimony of Sir Francis Knollys, the English ambassador. When queen Mary fled into England, in 1568, she feigned her willingness to give up with the mass, and to adopt the English Common Prayer Book, provided Elizabeth would assist her in regaining her crown. Lord Herries having made this proposal in her name, Sir Francis replied, “that, yf he meant thereby to condempne the form and order of common prayer now used in Skotland, agreeable with divers well reformed churches,—or that he meant to expel all the learned preachers of Skotland, yff they would not return back to receave and wayr cornered capes and typpets, with surpless and coopes, which they have left by order contynually since their first receavyng of the gospel into that realme; then he myght so fyght for the shadow and image of religion that he myght bring the body and truth in danger.” Anderson’s Collections, vol. iv., part i., p. 110, 111.

As this subject has been introduced, I may make an observation or two respecting the form of prayers used in the church of Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation. What has been called Knox’s Liturgy, was the Book of Common Order, first used by the English church at Geneva. It contains forms of prayers for the different parts of public worship; and this is the only resemblance which it hears to the English liturgy. But there is this important difference between the two: in the English, the minister is restricted to the repetition of the very words of the prayers; in the Scottish, he is left at liberty to vary from them, and to substitute prayers of his own in their room. The following quotations will exemplify the mode of the latter. “When the congregation is assembled at the houre appointed, the minister useth one of these two confessions, or like in effect.”—“The minister after the sermon useth this prayer following, or such like.” Similar declarations are prefixed to the prayers to be used at the celebration of baptism and of the Lord’s supper. And at the end of the account of the public service of the Sabbath this intimation is subjoined; “It shall not be necessarie for the minister daylie to repeat all these things before mentioned, but, beginning with some manner of confession, to proceed to the sermon, which ended, he either useth the prayer for all estates before mentioned, or else prayeth as the Spirit of God shall move his heart, framing the same according to the time and matter which he hath entreated of.” Knox’s Liturgy, p. 74, 83, 86, 120. Edin. 1611. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 417, 421, 426, 443, 450. And at the end of the Form of Excommunication, it is signified, “This order may be enlarged or contracted as the wisdome of the discreet minister shall think expedient; for we rather shew the way to the ignorant, than prescribe order to the learned that cannot be amended.” Dunlop, ii. 746. The Scottish prayers, therefore, were intended as a help to the ignorant, not as a restraint upon those who could pray without a set form. The readers and exhorters commonly used them; but even they were encouraged to perform the service in a different manner. Knox’s Liturgy, p. 189. Dunlop, ii. 694.

Note EE.

Of the Petitions presented by the Protestants to the Queen Regent.—The petition which Sir James Sandilands presented, in the name of his brethren, contained five requests. 1. That, as by the laws of the land, they had, after long debate, obtained liberty to read the scriptures in their native language, it should also be lawful for them to use, publicly or privately, “comoun prayaris in our vulgar toung.” 2. That if, in the course of reading the scriptures in their assemblies, any difficulty occurred, it should be lawful for any “qualifeit persone in knawledge” to explain it, subject to the judgment of “the maist godlie and maist learnit within the realme.” 3. “That the holy sacrament of baptisme may be used in the vulgar toung,” accompanied with instruction to the parties and to the church. 4. “That the sacrament of the Lordis supper, or of his most blessed body and blude, may likewise be ministrate in the vulgar toung, and in both kindis.” And lastly, “that the wicket, slanderous, and detestabill lyif of Prelatis, and of the stait ecclesiastical, may be so reformed that the pepill by thame have not occasioun, as of mony dayis they have had, to contempe their ministrie and the preiching, whairof they sould be messengers;” and to remove suspicion of interested motives in making this request, they add, “we ar content that not only the reulles and preceptis of the New Testament, but also the wryttings of the ancient Fatheris, and the godly approved lawis of Justiniane, decyde the controversie that is betwix us and thame.” Knox, Historie, p. 120, 121. Spotswood (p. 119) omits the article respecting baptism, and introduces another: “that the election of ministers should be according to the manner used in the primitive church.” See also Buchanani Oper. i. 311.

This petition discovers great moderation on the part of the protestants. Historians differ as to the precise time at which it was presented. Spotswood (p. 108) places his account of it after the martyrdom of Mill. And the writer of the Historie of the Estate of Scotland from 1559 to 1566 (p. 1) says that it was presented in July 1558. On the contrary, Knox (p. 120, 122) places it before the death of Mill. It is highly probable that the protestants petitioned the queen regent both before and after that event, and that on both occasions they employed Sir James Sandilands as their representative. In this light I have represented the matter in the text. But I am inclined, upon the whole, to consider Knox’s statement as the most correct. He had the best opportunity of ascertaining the fact. This was the part of his history which was first written by him, soon after his arrival in Scotland, when the transaction must have been fresh in the recollection of all his associates. There is no reference in the petition to the illegal execution of Mill, which would scarcely have been omitted, if it had previously taken place. The objection urged by Keith, from the clause in the petition which supposes that the queen was married, does not appear to have great weight. The parliament, in December 1557, had agreed to the solemnization of the marriage; their commissioners had sailed for France, in February, to be present at the ceremony, which was appointed to take place on the 24th of April. In these circumstances the protestants might, without any impropriety, request that they should be allowed liberty to use the common prayers in the vulgar tongue, to the end that they might “be induced, in fervent and oft prayers, to commend unto God—the queen our soverane, hir honorabill and gracious husband,” &c. Keith is wrong when he says that Knox has fixed the execution of Mill “to the 8th of April, which was above two weeks before the queen’s marriage.” History, p. 80, note. Knox says he was put to death “the twentie aucht day of Aprylle,” which was four days after the marriage. Historie, p. 122.

After the martyrdom of Mill, the protestants renewed their application to the regent, with a warm remonstrance against the cruelty of the clergy. Knox, Historie, p. 122. As the parliament held in November 1558 was approaching, they delivered another petition to her, desiring that it should be laid before the meeting of the estates. In this they requested, that the laws, by which the clergy justified their severe and cruel proceedings against them, should be abrogated, or suspended until the present controversies in religion were regularly determined; or, if this could not be granted, that the clergy should not act as judges, but be obliged to sustain the character of accusers before a temporal judge, and that the same mode of defence should be granted to persons accused of heresy as in other criminal processes. Being persuaded by the promises of the regent to desist from laying this petition before that meeting of parliament, they substituted a protestation; in which they declared that, having waived urging their petitions from regard to the state of public affairs, they should not be liable to any penalties for using that liberty to which they had a just title, and for which they had frequently petitioned, and that, if any tumult was excited by religious differences, or by violent attempts to reform those abuses in religion which were become intolerable, this should not be imputed to them, who had always requested an orderly reformation of these abuses, but to the persons who had resisted every attempt of this kind. Ibid. p. 122–125. Spotswood, 119, 120.

Note FF.

Dissimulation of the Queen Regent.—I am sensible that my account of the conduct of the queen regent to the protestants differs from that which has been given by Dr Robertson. He imputes her change of measures entirely to the overruling influence of her brothers, and seems to acquit her of insincerity in the countenance which she had shown, and the promises which she had repeatedly made, to the protestant leaders. In any remarks which I shall make upon this account, I wish to be understood as not detracting in the slightest degree from the merit of his able, accurate, and luminous statement of the plans conceived by the princes of Lorrain. Having mentioned the first symptoms of the regent’s alienation from the reformers, Dr Robertson says: “In order to account for this, our historians do little more than produce the trite observation concerning the influence of prosperity to alter the character and corrupt the heart,” I do not know the particular historians to whom he may refer, but those of the protestant persuasion whom I have consulted, impute her change of conduct, not to the above cause, but to the circumstance of her having accomplished the great objects which she had in view, upon which she no longer stood in need of the assistance of the reformers. Accordingly, they charge her with duplicity in her former proceedings with them. Knox, 96, 110, 122, 125. Buchanan, i. 312. Spotswood, 117, 119, 120. I think they had good reasons for this charge. At a very early period, she gave a striking proof of her disposition and talent for the deepest dissimulation. I refer to her behaviour in the intercourse which she had with Sir Ralph Sadler, in 1543, on which occasion she acted a part not less important than cardinal Beatoun himself, threw the ambassador into the greatest perplexity, and completely duped the English monarch. Sadler, i. 84–88, 100, 111–113, 249–253. The governor wanted not reason to say, “as she is both subtle and wily, so she hath a vengeable engine and wit to work her purpose.” It is impossible to read the account of her smooth conduct to the reformers, without perceiving the art with which she acted. There is also reason for thinking that she was privy to the execution of Walter Mill, and had encouraged the archbishop of St Andrews to take that step. Indeed, in his letter to the Earl of Argyle, written a few weeks before that event, the archbishop expressly says, that she murmured heavily against him because he did not use severe measures to check the progress of heresy; and Argyle, in his answer, does not call this in question. Knox, 103, 108.

I do not doubt that the regent was precipitated into the most violent measures which she adopted by the counsels of her brothers; and that she remonstrated against the impolicy of these, is attested by Castelnau, to whom Dr Robertson refers as one of his authorities. But I think that she had altered her conduct to the protestants, and declared her resolution to abet the measures of the clergy against them, previous to the time that she is said to have received these strong representations from France. This appears even from the narrative of Castelnau, who has connected the advice given by the princes of Lorrain with the mission of La Brosse and the bishop of Amiens, who did not arrive in Scotland until September 1559, after the civil war was kindled. Jebb, ii. 246. Keith, 102. Sadler, i. 470. But it will be still more apparent from an examination of the testimony of Sir James Melvil, the other authority to whom Dr Robertson appeals. Melvil says that, after the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis was concluded, Bettancourt was sent into Scotland to procure the ratification of it by the queen regent; and that he was charged by the cardinal of Lorrain to inform her, that the popish princes had agreed to join in extirpating heresy, and to require that she should immediately take steps for suppressing the Scottish protestants. Melvil adds, that these instructions, mixed with some threatenings, having been received, the regent “determined to follow them. She therefore issued out a proclamation, a little before Easter, commanding every man, great and small, to observe the Roman catholic religion.” Melvil’s Memoirs, p. 23, 24. Lond. 1683. The proclamation to observe Easter in the catholic manner is mentioned by all our historians as the decisive declaration of the queen’s change of measures. Now the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis was not concluded until the 2d of April, 1559. Forbes, i. 68, 81. But Easter fell that year on the 29th of March, six days before Bettancourt could undertake his journey to Scotland. The proclamation respecting the observance of that festival must therefore have been issued some weeks before Bettancourt’s arrival. Nay, we know from other evidence, that the breach between the queen regent and the protestants had taken place on the 6th of March; for this is the date from which the act of oblivion afterwards granted is reckoned. Keith, 141, 151. There is, therefore, a glaring anachronism in Melvil’s narrative; and whatever influence Bettancourt’s embassy had in instigating the regent to more violent measures, she had previously taken her side, and declared her determination to oppose the progress of the Reformation.

There are several other mistakes which Sir James Melvil has committed in his narrative of the transactions of this period. Even in the account of his own embassy into Scotland, in the reign of Henry II., and of the speech which the constable Montmorency made to him on that occasion, he has introduced the constable as mentioning, among his reasons, the shipwreck of the marquis D’Elbeuf, which did not happen till some months after, when the French king was dead. Memoirs, p. 31. Sadler, i. 417. In my humble opinion, all our historians have given too easy credit to Melvil, both in his statements of fact, and in his representations of character.

Note GG.

Trial of the Reformed Preachers.—July 7, 1558. Item, the said day, to David Lindsay, Rothesay herauld, passand of Edinburgh, with letteris, to summond George Luvell, David Fergusone, and certain utheris personis within the burt of Dunde, to tak sourte of thame that thai sall compeir befoir the justice and his deputies in the tolbuith of Edinburgh, the xxviii day of Julii instant, for thair wrongus using and wresting of the scripture, and disputting upoun erroneus opinions, and eiting of flesche in Lenterone and utheris forbidding tymes, contrair the actis of parliament, iijli vs. (Compot. Thesaur.)

Feb. 9, 1558–9. Proclamation to St Andrews, Cowper, Dundee, Montrose, Aberdeen, charging all and sundrie or soverane ladies liegis, that nane of thame tak upoun hand to commit, attempt, or do any injurie or violence, disturbe the service usit in the kirkis, strike manneis, or bost priestis, or to eit flesche in Lenterone, under the pane of deid.—Also to Linlithgow, Glasgow, Irvine, Ayr, with siclike letteris. (Compot. Thesaur.)

Curia Justiciarie S D N regis et regine, tenta et inchoata in pretorio burgi de Striueling, xo die mensis Maij, anno, &c. lixo, per Henricum Levingstoun, prepositum de Striueling, Justiciarium deputatum.

Quo die, Georgius Luvell, burgen̄ de Dunde, per literas S D N regis et regine sepe vocat ad intrand. Paulum Methwen, Joannes Erskin de Dvne sepe vocat ad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun, Patricius Murray de Tibbermuir sepe vocat ad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw, et Robertus Campbell de Kinzeclent sepe vocat ad intrand. Joannem Willok coram justiciario S D N regis et regine, ejusue deputatis, dictis die et loco ad subeund legem pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias ipso in ministrum euisdem minime legitime admisso existen̄ in festo Pasche, viz. xxvjto die mensis Martij vltimo elapso et quotidie per spatium trium dierum hujusmodi festum immediate preceden̄ atque abhinc continuo suo more sacramentum altaris pluribus S D N regis et regine subditis infra burgos de Dunde, Monthros, aliisque diversis partibus et locis infra vicecomitatus de Foirfare et Kynkardin, eisdem adjacen̄, a diuino et laudabili vsu fidelis ecclesie catholice longe diuerso et differente administrando, necnon pro conventione et congregatione hujusmodi subditorum infra burgos et bondas predict temporibus suprascript ipso minime per locorum ordinarios admisso seu approbato etiam absque earundem licentia dictis subditis sermocinan̄ et predican̄ atque per suos sermones illos ad suas errabiles et seditiosas doctrinas et scismata perswaden̄ et seducen̄ auctoritatem S D N regis et regine inde vsurpan̄ atque inter suos subditos antedict. seditiones et tumultus facien̄ contra tenorem literarum proclamationis de super confect vt in hujusmodi literis criminalibus latius continetur. Et non comparen̄ amerciatus fuit dictus Georgius Luvell pro nonintroitu prefati Pauli Methwen in pena xjli. Et judicium redditum fuit quod ipse Paulus ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis vsubus applicabantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.

Eodem die, Joannes Erskin de Dvne, per literas S D N regis et regine sepe vocat ad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun coram dicto justiciario deputato ad subeund. legem, pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias, [&c. ut supra,] quod dictus frater Joannes ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur, &c.

Dicto die, Patricius Murray de Tibbermuir sepe vocat per literas S D N regis et regine ad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw coram dicto justitiario deputato ad subeund. legem pro criminibus immediate prescriptis. Et non comparen̄ amerciatus fuit dictus Patricius, pro non introitu dicti Willielmi Harlaw in pena xlta lib. Et judicium redditum fuit quod ipse Willielmus ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur. Et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis usibus applicantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.

Prefato die, Robertus Campbell de Kinzecluch per literas S D N regis et regine sepe voct ad intrand. Joannem Willok coram dicto justitiaro deputato, dictis die et loco ad subeund. legem pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias ipso io ministrum eiusdem minime legitime admisso existen̄ in festo Pasche, viz xxvjtto die mensis Martij ultimo elapso et quotidie per spatium trium dierum hujusmodi festum immediate preceden̄ &c. Et judicium redditum fuit quod dictus Joannes Willok ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunr. Et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis vsubus applicantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.

Eodem die, prefati Paulus Methwen, frater Joannes Cristesoun Willielmus Harlaw et Joannes Willok denunciati fuerunt rebelles S D N regis et regine, et ad cornu eorundem positi fuerunt per publicam proclamationem apud crucem foralem burgi de Striueling, per Joannem Duncane, seriandum et officiarium dicte curie demandato prefati justitiarij deputati, coram his testibus, Roberto Forrester de Calzemuke, Alexandro Forrester alias Carrik signifero, Willielmo Smyth, et Joanne Grahame, notario publico, cum diuersis aliis. [Justiciary Records: Book extending from 14th February 1558 to 22d May 1559.]

Note HH.

Lamentation over the demolition of the Religious Houses.—“Truely, among all their deeds and devises, the casting doune of the churches was the most foolish and furious worke, the most shreud and execrable turne that ever Hornok himself culd have done or devised. For out of al doubt that great grandfather of Calvine, and old enemie of mankind, not only inspired every one of those sacrelegious hellhounds with his flaming spirit of malice and blasphemie, as he did their forefathers Luther and Calvine: bot also was then present as maister of worke, busily beholding his servands and hirelings working his wil and bringing to pass his long desired contentment.—They changed the churches (which God himself called his house of prayer) into filthie and abominable houses of sensual men, yea, and of unreasonable beasts: when as they made stables in Halyrudhous, sheep‑houses of S. Antone, and S. Leonard’s chapels, tolbooths of S. Gillis, &c. which this day may be seene, to the great griefe and sorrow of al good Christians, to the shame and confusion of Edinburgh, and to the everlasting damnation of the doers thereof, the sedicious ministers, Knox and his complices.” After weeping over the ruins of “Abbirbroth,” the writer returns to St Giles, and represents our Saviour as lamenting its profanation by the setting up of “the abomination of desolation,” the courts of justice, within that holy ground. “How wold he say, if he were now entering in at S. Giles, and looking to bare wals, and pillars al cled with dust, sweepings and cobwebs, instead of painting and tapestrie; and on every side beholding the restless resorting of people treating of their worldly affaires, some writing and making of obligations, contracts and discharges, others laying countes or telling over sowmes of money, and two and two walking and talking to and fro, some about merchandise or the lawes, and too many, alas! about drinking and courting of woeman, yea, and perhaps about worse nor I can imagine, as it is wont to be done al the day long in the common Exchanges of London and Amsterdam and other great cities? And turning him farther towards the west end of the church, which is divided in a high house for the Colledge of Justice, called the Session or Senat‑house, and a lower house called the low Tolbooth, where the balives of the town use to sit and judge common actions and pleas in the one end thereof, and a number of harlots and scolds for flyting and whoredom, inclosed in the other: And these, I mean, if our Saviour were present to behold such abominable desolation, that where altars were erected, and sacrifices, with continual praises and praiers, were wont to be offered up to the Lord, in remembrance of that bloody sacrifice of Christ on the crosse, there now are holes for whores, and cages for scolds, where nothing is hard bot banning and swearing, and every one upbraiding another: O what grieve and sorrow wold our Lord tak at the beholding of such profanation and sacrilege!” Father Alexander Baillie’s True Information of the unhallowed offspring, progress and impoison’d fruits of our Scottish‑Calvinian Gospel and Gospellers, p. 24, 25, 27, 28. Wirtsburg, 1628.

Note II.

Alleged Excesses of the Reformers.—It would be endless to enter into an examination of the exaggerated accounts which have been given of the “pitiful devastation” committed by the reformers. I shall content myself with stating a few facts, which may satisfy the candid and considerate that no such great blame is imputable to them. The demolition of the monasteries, with their dependencies, will be found to comprehend the sum of what they can be justly charged with. And yet again, I would ask those who are most disposed to blame them for this, What purpose could the allowing of these buildings to stand have served, if not to cherish the hopes and excite the desires of the catholics, to regain possession of them? To what use could the reformers possibly have converted them? Is it to be supposed that they could form the idea of preserving them for the gratification of a race of antiquaries, who were to rise up in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Have these gentlemen, with all their zeal, ever testified their regard for these sacred monuments, by associations and subscriptions to preserve the mouldering remains from going to their original dust? The reformed ministers had enough to do, in exciting the nobility and gentry to keep the parish churches in decent repair, without undertaking the additional task of supporting huge and useless fabrics. But enough of this—Let not any distress themselves by supposing that the costly furniture of the monasteries and churches was all consumed by the flames. Fanatical as the reformers were, they “reservit the best part thairof unburnt,” and converted it into money, some of which went into the public purse, but the greater part into the private pockets of the nobles. Winzet, apud Keith, Append. 245. The idols and images were indeed committed to the flames without mercy; but considering the example that their adversaries had set them of consigning the living images of God to this fate, the retaliation was certainly moderate; and that these were the only sacrifices which they offered up, we have the testimony of a popish writer. Leslæus, de Reb. Gest. Scotorum, lib. x. p. 537, edit. 1675.

The act of privy council for demolishing idolatrous houses did not extend to cathedrals or to parish churches. Spotswood, p. 174, 175. In the First Book of Discipline, indeed, cathedral‑churches, if not used as parish‑churches, are mentioned among the places to be suppressed; but so far was this case from occurring, that it was found necessary to employ many of the chapels attached to monasteries, and collegiate churches, as places for the protestant worship. That, in the first effervescence of popular zeal, some of the cathedrals and other churches should have suffered, is not much to be wondered at. “What you speak of Mr Knox preaching for the pulling down of churches,” says Mr Baillie, in his answer to bishop Maxwell, “is like the rest of your lies. I have not heard that in all our land above three or foure churches were cast down.” Historical Vindication of the Government of the church of Scotland, p. 40. Mr Baillie had the historical collections of Calderwood in his possession when he composed that work. This statement is confirmed by the testimony of Cecil in the letter quoted above, (p. [424].) The churches were merely to be stripped of monuments of idolatry and instruments of superstition; and in carrying this into effect, great care was ordered to be taken that the buildings should not be injured. Lord James Stewart (afterwards earl of Murray) was the person to whom the execution of the act in the northern part of the kingdom was committed; and we have an authentic document of the manner in which he proceeded, in an order issued by him, and written with his own hand, for purging the cathedral church of Dunkeld.[492] The following is an exact copy of that order:

“To our traist friendis, the Lairds of Arntilly and Kinvaid.

“Traist friendis, after maist harty commendacion, we pray yow faill not to pass incontinent to the kyrk of Dunkeld, and tak doun the haill images thereof, and bring furth to the kyrkzayrd, and burn thaym oppinly. And siclyk cast down the altaris, and purge the kyrk of all kynd of monuments of idolatrye. And this ze faill not to do, as ze will do us singular empleseur; and so committis you to the protection of God. From Edinburgh, the xii. of August, 1560.

(Signed)

“AR. ERGYLL.

“JAMES STEWART.

“RUTHVEN.”

“Faill not, bot ze tak guid heyd that neither the dasks, windocks, nor durris, be ony ways hurt or broken————eyther glassin wark or iron wark.”

We may take it for granted that the same caution was used in the rest of the commissions. If it be asked, how it happened that the cathedrals, and many other churches, fell into such a ruined state, the following quotations may serve for an answer. They are taken from a scarce work written by Robert Pont, commissioner of Murray, and one of the lords of Session. “Yet, a great many, not onely of the raskall sorte, but sundry men of name and worldly reputation, joyned themselves with the congregation of the reformers, not so much for zeale of religion, as to reape some earthly commoditie, and to be enriched by spoyle of the kirkes and abbey places. And when the preachers told them that such places of idolatrie should be pulled down, they accepted gladly the enterprise; and rudely passing to worke, pulled down all, both idoles and places where they were found. Not making difference betweene these places of idolatrie, and many parish kirks, where God’s word shuld have bin preached in many parts where they resorted, as in such tumultes and suddainties useth to come to passe; namelye, among such a nation as we are. Another thing fell out at that time, which may be excused by reason of necessitie; when as the lordes, and some of the nobilitie, principall enterprysers of the Reformation, having to do with the Frenchmen, and many their assisters of our owne nation, enemies to these proceedings, were forced, not onely to ingage their owne landes, and bestowe whatsoever they were able to furnishe of their own patrimonie, for maintenance of men of warre, and other charges, but also to take the lead and belles, with other jewelles and ornaments of kirkes, abbayes, and other places of superstition, to employ the same, and the prises thereof, to resist the enemies. The most parte of the realme beand in their contrarie. This, I say, cannot be altogether blamed.” Against Sacrilege, Three Sermons preached by Maister Robert Pont, an aged Pastour in the Kirk of God. B. 6, 7. Edinburgh, 1599. Comp. Keith, p. 468.

But what shall we say of the immense loss which literature sustained on that occasion? “Bibliothecks destroied, the volumes of the fathers, councells, and other books of humane learning, with the registers of the church, cast into the streets, afterwards gathered in heaps, and consumed with fire.” Spotswood’s MS. Keith, Historie, p. 508. Does not such conduct equal the fanaticism of the Mahometan chieftain who deprived the world of the invaluable Alexandrine library? As every one is apt to deplore the loss of that commodity upon which he sets the greatest value, I might feel more inclined to join in this lamentation, were I not convinced that the real loss was extremely trifling, and that it has been compensated ten thousand fold. Where and of what kind were these bibliothecks? Omne ignotum magnificum. The public was long amused with the tale of a classical library at Iona, which promised a complete copy of Livy’s works, not to be found in all the world beside; a miracle which Mr Gibbon, in the abundance of his literary faith, seems to have been inclined to admit. Danes, and Reformers, and Republicans, were successively anathematized, and consigned to the shades of barbarism, for the destruction of what (for aught that appears) seems to have existed only in the brains of antiquarians. It has been common to say, that all the learning of the times was confined to monasteries. This was true at a certain period; but it had ceased to be the fact in the age in which the Reformation took place. Low as literature was in Scotland at the beginning of the 16th century, for the credit of my country, I trust that it was not in so poor a state in the universities as it was in the monasteries. Take the account of one who has bestowed much attention on the monastic antiquities of Scotland. “Monkish ambition terminated in acquiring skill in scholastic disputation. If any thing besides simple theology was read, it might consist of the legends of saints, who were pictured converting infidels, interceding for offenders, and overreaching fiends; or of romances, recording the valour of some hardy adventurer, continually occupied in wars with pagans, or in vanquishing giants, foiling necromancers, and combating dragons. Some were chroniclers; and books of the laws might be transcribed or deposited with monks. Some monks might be conversant in medicine and the occult sciences.” Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems, i. 17, 18.

But we are not left to conjecture, or to general inferences, concerning the state of the monastic libraries. We have the catalogues of two libraries, the one of a monastery, the other of a collegiate church; which may be deemed fair specimens of the condition of the remainder in the respective ages to which they belonged. The former is the catalogue of the library of the Culdean monastery at Lochleven in the 12th century. It consisted of only seventeen books, all of them necessarily in manuscript. Among these were a pastoral, graduale, and missale, books common to all monasteries, and without which their religious service could not be performed; the Text of the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles; an Exposition of Genesis; a Collection of Sentences; and an Interpretation of Sayings. The rest seem to have consisted of some of the writings of Prosper, and perhaps of Origen and Jerom. Jamieson’s Historical account of the ancient Culdees, p. 376–8. It may be granted that this collection of books was by no means despicable in that age; but certainly it contained nothing, the loss of which has been injurious to literature. I have no doubt that, if a copy of the Gospels, with the Lochleven seal or superscription, (whether authentic or fictitious,) were to occur, it would, with antiquarians, give as high a price as a Polyglot; without the smallest regard to its utility in settling the original text. From the 12th to the 16th century, the monastic libraries did not improve. The catalogue of the library at Stirling exhibits the true state of learning at the beginning of the last mentioned period. It contained, indeed, a copy of the gospels and epistles in manuscript, most probably in Latin; the remainder of its contents was purely monkish. There were four missals, two psalters, four antiphonies, three breviaries, two legends, four graduals, and ten processionals. Dalyell’s Fragments of Scottish History, p. 77.

I have occasionally met, in the course of my reading, with notices of volumes of the Fathers being in the possession of the Scottish monasteries, but nothing from which I could conclude that they had complete copies of any of their writings. The abbot of Crossraguel, indeed, speaks of his being in possession of a large stock of this kind, (Keith, Append. 193,) which some writers have been pleased to calculate at “a cart‑load.” It does not appear, however, that they belonged to the monastery over which he presided. But whatever books of this kind were to be found in them, the reformers would be anxious to preserve, not to destroy. The chartularies were the most valuable writings deposited in monasteries; and many of these have been transmitted to us. The reformers were not disposed to consume these records, and we find them making use of them in their writings. Knox, Historie, p. 1, 2, 3. The mass‑books were the most likely objects of their vengeance; and I have little doubt that a number of these were committed to the flames, in testimony of their abhorrence of the popish worship. Yet they were careful to preserve copies of them, which they produced in their disputes with the Roman catholics. Ibid. p. 261.

But whatever literary ravages were committed, let them not be imputed exclusively to the tumultuary reformation of Scotland, to the fanaticism of our reformers, or the barbarous ignorance of our nobles. In England, the same proceedings took place to a far greater extent, and the loss must have been far greater. “Another misfortune,” says Collier, “consequent upon the suppression of the abbeys, was an ignorant destruction of a great many valuable books. The books, instead of being removed to royal libraries, to those of cathedrals, or the universities, were frequently thrown in to the grantees, as things of slender consideration. Their avarice was sometimes so mean, and their ignorance so undistinguishing, that when the covers were somewhat rich, and would yield a little, they pulled them off, threw away the books, or turned them to waste paper.”—“A number of them which purchased these superstitious mansions,” says bishop Bale, “reserved of those library books, some to serve their jacks, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots, and some they sold to the grocers and soap‑sellers, and some they sent over the sea to bookbinders, not in small numbers, but at times whole ships full. Yea, the universities are not clear in this detestable fact; but cursed is the belly which seeketh to be fed with so ungodly gains, and so deeply shameth his native country. I know a merchant man (which shall at this time be nameless) that bought the contents of two noble libraries for forty shillings price; a shame it is to be spoken. This stuff hath he occupied instead of grey paper by the space of more than these ten years, and yet hath he store enough for as many years to come.” Bale’s Declaration: Collier’s Eccles. Hist. ii. 166.

Note KK.

Aversion of Queen Elizabeth to the Scottish War.—The personal aversion of Elizabeth to engage in the war of the Scottish Reformation, has not, so far as I have observed, been noticed by any of our historians. It is, however, a fact well authenticated by state papers, whether it arose from extreme caution at the commencement of her reign, from her known parsimony, or from her high notions respecting royal prerogative. Cecil mentions it repeatedly in his correspondence with Throkmorton. “God trieth us,” says he, “with may difficulties. The queen’s majestie never liketh this matter of Scotland; you knowe what hangeth thereuppon: weak‑hearted men and flatterers will follow that way.—I have had such a torment herin with the queen’s majestie, as an ague hath not in five fitts so much abated.” Forbes, i. 454, 455. In another letter he says, “What will follow of my going towardes Scotlande, I know not; but I feare the success, quia, the queen’s majestie is so evil disposed to the matter, which troubleth us all.” Ibid. 460. It was not until her council had presented a formal petition to her, that she gave her consent. Ibid. 390. Even after she had agreed to hostilities, she began to waver, and listen to the artful proposals of the French court, who endeavoured to amuse her until such time as they were able to convey more effectual aid to the queen regent of Scotland. Killigrew, in a letter to Throkmorton, after mentioning the repulse of the English army in an assault on the fortifications of Leith, says: “This, together with the bishopes [of Valance] relation unto the queen’s majestie, caused her to renew the opinion of Cassandra.” Ibid. 456. This was the principal cause of the suspension of hostilities, and the premature attempt to negotiate, in April 1560, which so justly alarmed the lords of the Congregation: an occurrence which is also passed over in our common histories. Sadler, i. 719, 721. The Scottish protestants were much indebted to Cecil and Throkmorton for the assistance which they obtained from England. A number of the counsellors, who had been in the cabinet of queen Mary, did all in their power to foster the disinclination of Elizabeth. Lord Gray, in one of his dispatches, complains of the influence of these ministers, whom he calls Phillipians, from their attachment to the interest of the king of Spain. Haynes, p. 295.

Note LL.

Loyalty of the Scottish Protestants.—The hostile advance of the regent against Perth, first drove the lords of the Congregation to take arms in their own defence. Her reiterated infraction of treaties, and the gradual developement of her designs, by the introduction of French troops into the kingdom, rendered the prospect of an amicable and permanent adjustment of differences very improbable, and dictated the propriety of strengthening their confederation, that they might be prepared for a sudden and more formidable attack. These considerations are sufficient to justify the posture of defence in which they kept themselves during the summer of 1559, and the steps which they took to secure assistance from England. If their exact situation is not kept in view, an accurate judgment of their conduct cannot be formed, and their partial and temporary resistance to the measures of the regent will be regarded as an avowed rebellion against her authority. But whatever be the modern ideas on this subject, they did not consider the former as necessarily implying the latter, and they continued to profess not only their allegiance to their sovereign, but also their readiness to obey the queen regent in every thing not inconsistent with their security, and the liberties of the nation; nay, they actually yielded obedience to her, by paying taxes to the officers whom she appointed to receive them. Knox, p. 176. Private and confidential letters are justly considered as the most satisfactory evidence as to the intentions of men. Our Reformer, in a letter to Mrs Locke, written on the 25th of July, 1559, says, “The queen is retired unto Dunbar. The fine [end] is known unto God. We mean no tumult, no alteration of authority, but only the reformation of religion, and suppression of idolatry.” Cald. MS. i. 429. At an early period, indeed, she accused them of a design to throw off their allegiance. When the prior of St Andrews joined their party, she industriously circulated the report that he ambitiously aimed at the sovereignty, and that they intended to confer it upon him. Knox, 149. Forbes, i. 180. It was one of the special instructions given to Sir Ralph Sadler, when he was sent down to Berwick, that he should “explore the very trueth” as to this report. Sadler, i. 731. In all his confidential correspondence with his court, there is not the slightest insinuation that Sadler had discovered any evidence to induce him to credit that charge. This is a strong proof of the prior’s innocence, if it be taken in connexion with what I shall immediately state; not to mention the testimony of Sir James Melvil. Memoirs, p. 27.

When the earl of Arran joined the Congregation, the queen regent circulated the same report respecting him. Knox, p. 174. So far as the Congregation were concerned, this accusation was equally unfounded as the former. Ibid. p. 176. But there are some circumstances connected with it, which deserve attention, as they set the loyalty of the Scottish protestants in a very clear light. The earl of Arran, and not the prior of St Andrews, was the favourite of the English court. Messengers were appointed by them to bring him from the continent, and he was conducted through England into Scotland, to be placed at the head of the Congregation. Forbes, i. 164, 166, 171, 216. Sadler, i. 417, 421, 437, 439. There is also good evidence that the ministers of Elizabeth wished him to be raised to the throne of Scotland, if not also that they had projected the uniting of the two crowns by a marriage between him and Elizabeth. “The way to perfait this assuredly,” says Throkmorton to Cecil, “is, that the erle of Arraine do as Edward the IV. did, when he landed at Ravenspurg: [he pretended to the duchy of York, and having that, he would not leave till he had the “diademe,”] for then of necessitie th’ erle of Arran must depend upon the devotion of England, to maintein and defend himself. I feare all other devises and handelings will prove like an apotecary his shop; and therefore I leave to your discretion to provyde by all meanes for this matter, both there and in Scotland.” And again: “Methinks, the lord of Grange, Ledington, Balnaves, and the chief doers of the Congregation, (which I wold wish specially to be done and procured by the prior of St Andrewes,) should be persuaded to set forward these purposes before: for there is no way for them to have any safety or surety, oneles thei make the earl of Arran king; and as it is their surety, so it is also ours. In this matter there must be used both wisdome, courage, and sped.” Forbes, i. 435, 436. Throkmorton, it is to be observed, was at this time the most confidential friend of Cecil, and, in his dispatches from France, pressed the adoption of those measures which the secretary had recommended to the queen and council. Had not the Congregation been decidedly averse to any change of the government which would have set aside their queen, it seems highly probable that this plan would have been carried into execution. The report of an intended marriage between Elizabeth and Arran was general at that time; and whatever were the queen’s own intentions, it seems to have been seriously contemplated by her ministers. Forbes, 214, 215, 282, 288. This accounts for the recommendation of this measure by the Scottish Estates, after the conclusion of the civil war. Keith, 154.

Note MM.

Authorities for the statement of Knox’s Political Principles.—The following extracts from his writings relate to the principal points touched in the statement of his political sentiments:—

“In few wordis to speik my conscience; the regiment of princes is this day cum to that heap of iniquitie, that no godlie man can bruke office or autoritie under thame, but in so doing hie salbe compellit not onlie aganis equitie and justice to oppress the pure, but also expressedlie to fycht againis God and his ordinance, either in maintenance of idolatrie, or ellis in persecuting Godis chosin childrene. And what must follow heirof, but that ether princeis be reformit and be compellit also to reform their wickit laws, or els all gud men depart fra thair service and companie.” Additions to the Apology of the Parisian Protestants: MS. Letters, p. 477. Dr Robertson has ascribed to Knox and Buchanan an “excessive admiration of ancient policy;” and he says, their “principles, authorities, and examples, were all drawn from ancient writers,” and their political system founded “not on the maxims of feudal, but of ancient republican government.” History of Scotland, vol. i. b. ii. p. 391. Lond. 1809. These assertions need some qualification. If republican government be opposed to absolute monarchy, the principles of Knox and Buchanan may be denominated republican; but if the term (as now commonly understood) be used in contradistinction to monarchy itself, it cannot be shown that they admired or recommended republicanism. They were the friends of limited monarchy. It is the excellence of the government of Britain, that the feudal maxims which once predominated in it, have been corrected, or their influence counteracted, by others borrowed from republican constitutions. And it is not a little to the credit of these great men, and evinces their good sense and moderation, that, notwithstanding all their admiration of ancient models of legislation, in comparison with the existing feudal monuments, they contented themselves with recommending such principles as tended to restrain the arbitrary power of kings, and secure the rights of the people. Nor were all their authorities and examples drawn from ancient writers, as may be seen in Buchanan’s dialogue, De jure regni apud Scotos.

In a letter written by him to the queen dowager, a few days after her suspension from the regency, Knox says, “My toung did bothe perswade and obtein, that your authoritie and regiment suld be obeyed of us in all things lawfull, till ye declair yourself opin enemie to this comoun welthe; as now, allace! ye have done.” Historie, p. 180. This declaration is justified by the letters which he wrote to his brethren before his arrival in Scotland. The following extract from a letter addressed to the protestant nobility, December 17, 1557, is a specimen: “But now, no farder to trubill you at the present, I will onlie advertis you of sic bruit as I heir in thir partis, uncertainlie noysit, whilk is this, that contradictioun and rebellioun is maid to the autoritie be sum in that realme. In whilk poynt my conscience will not suffer me to keip back from you my consall, yea, my judgment and commandement, whilk I communicat with yow in Godis feir, and by the assurance of his trueth, whilk is this, that nane of you that seik to promot the glorie of Chryst do suddanlie disobey or displeas the establissit autoritie in things lawful, neither yet that ye assist or fortifie such as, for their awn particular caus and warldlie promotioun, wald trubill the same. But, in the bowallis of Chryst Jesus, I exhort yow, that, with all simplicitie and lawfull obedience, with boldness in God, and with opin confessioun of your faith, ye seek the favour of the autoritie, that by it (yf possible be) the cause in whilk ye labour may be promotit, or, at the leist, not persecutit: Whilk thing, efter all humill request, yf ye can not atteane, then, with oppin and solemp protestation of your obedience to be given to the autoritie in all thingis not planelie repugnying to God, ye lawfullie may attemp the extreamitie, whilk is, to provyd (whidder the autoritie will consent or no) that Chrystis evangell may be trewlie preachit, and his haly sacramentis rychtlie ministerit unto yow and to your brethren, the subjectis of that realme. And farder ye lawfullie may, yea, and thairto is bound, to defend your brethrene from persecutioun and tiranny, be it aganis princes or emprioris, to the uttermost of your power; provyding alwayis (as I have said) that nether your self deny lawfull obedience, nether yit that ye assist nor promot thois that seik autoritie and pre‑eminence of warldlie glorie.” MS. Letters, p. 434, 435.

In a conversation with queen Mary at Lochleven, we find him inculcating the doctrine of a mutual compact between rulers and subjects. “It sall be profitabill to your majesty to consider quhat is the thing your grace’s subjects luiks to receave of your majesty, and quhat it is that ye aucht to do unto thame by mutual contract. They ar bound to obey you, and that not bot in God; ye ar bound to keip lawes unto thame. Ye crave of thame service; they crave of you protectioun and defence against wicked doars. Now, madam, if you sall deny your dewty unto thame, (quhilk especialy craves that ye punish malefactors,) think ye to receave full obedience of thame?” Historie, p. 327. This sentiment was adopted by his countrymen. The committee appointed by the regent Murray, to prepare overtures for the parliament which met in December 1567, (of which committee our Reformer was a member,) agreed to this proposition: “The band and contract to be mutuale and reciprous in all tymes cuming betwixt the prince and God, and his faithful people, according to the word of God.” Robertson’s Records of Parliament, p. 796. This was also one of the articles subscribed at the General Assembly in July preceding; and their language is still more clear and express,—“mutual and reciproque in all tymes coming betwixt the prince and God, and also betwixt the prince and faithful people.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 34, Advocates’ Library. Keith, 582. See also the proclamation of the king’s authority, in Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 205. Keith, 441. The right of resistance was formally recognised in the inscription on a coin stamped soon after the coronation of James VI. On one of the sides is the figure of a sword with a crown upon it; and the words of Trajan circumscribed, Pro me; si mereor, in me; i.e. Use this sword for me; if I deserve it, against me. Cardonell’s Numismata Scotiæ, plate ix. p. 101. Our Reformer’s Appellation may be consulted for the proof of what has been asserted (p. 305, 306) as to his endeavours to repress aristocratical tyranny, and to awaken the mass of the people to a due sense of their rights. See also his Historie, p. 100. The effect of the Reformation in extending popular liberty was very visible in the parliament which met in August 1560, in which there were representatives from all the boroughs, and a hundred lesser barons, “with mony otheris baronis, fre‑halderis, and landit men.” Keith informs us that, during a space of no less than seventy‑seven years preceding, “scarcely had one of the inferior gentry appeared in parliament. And therefore,” adds he, “I know not but it may be deemed somewhat unusual, for a hundred of them to jump all at once into the parliament, especially in such a juncture as the present was.” History, p. 147, 148. The petition presented by the lesser barons, for liberty to sit and vote in the parliament, has this remarkable clause in it; “otherwise we think that whatsomever ordinances and statutes be made concerning us and our estate, we not being required and suffered to reason and vote at the making thereof, that the same should not oblige us to stand thereto.” Robertson’s History of Scotland, Append. No. 4.

Liberal principles respecting civil government accompanied the progress of the Reformation. Knox had the concurrence of English bishops in his doctrine concerning the limited authority of kings, and the lawfulness of resisting them. See above, Note BB, and vol. ii. Note U. And he had the express approbation of the principal divines in the foreign churches. Historie, 363, 366. In the 17th century, some of the French reformed divines, in their great loyalty to the Grand Monarque, disclaimed our Reformer’s political sentiments, and represented them as proceeding from the fervid and daring spirit of the Scottish nation, or adapted to the peculiar constitution of their government. Riveti Castig. in Balzacum, cap. xiii. § 14: Oper. tom. iii. p. 539. Quotations from other French authors are given by Bayle, Diet. Art. Knox, Note E. In the controversy occasioned by the execution of Charles I., our Reformer’s name and principles were introduced. Milton appealed to him, and quoted his writings, in defence of that deed. One of Milton’s opponents told him that he could produce in his support only a single Scot, “whom his own age could not suffer, and whom all the reformed, especially the French, condemned in this point.” Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Cœlum, p. 129. Hagæ‑Comit. 1625; written by Pierre du Moulin, the son. Milton, in his rejoinder, urges with truth, that Knox had asserted, that his opinions were approved of by Calvin, and other eminent divines of the reformed churches. Miltoni Defensio Secunda, p. 101.

Long before the controversy respecting the execution of Charles, Milton had expressed himself in terms of high praise concerning our Reformer. Arguing against the abuses committed by licensers of the press, he says, “Nay, which is more lamentable, if the work of any deceased author, though never so famous in his lifetime and even to this day, come to their hands for license to be printed or reprinted, if there be found in his book one sentence of a venturous edge, uttered in the height of zeal, (and who knows whether it might not be the dictate of a divine spirit?) yet, not suiting with every low decrepit humour of their own, though it were KNOX himself, the reformer of a kingdom, that spake it, they will not pardon him their dash: the sense of that great man shall to all posterity be lost for the fearfulness, or the presumptuous rashness of a prefunctory licenser. And to what an author this violence hath bin lately done, and in what book of greatest consequence to be faithfully publisht, I could now instance, but shall forbear till a more convenient season.” Prose Works, vol. i. p. 311. The tract from which this quotation is made, was first published in 1644, the year in which David Buchanan’s edition of Knox’s History appeared; and Milton evidently refers to that work.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

EDINBURGH:

PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE & COMPANY,

PAUL’S WORK, CANONGATE.

Footnotes.

1  —

See an account of this MS. in vol. ii. p. 367   .

2  —

See Note A   .

3  —

Nisbet’s Heraldry, p. 180. Crawfurd’s Renfrew, by Semple, Part II, p. 30, 139. Account of Knox, prefixed to his Historie, anno 1732, page ii. Keith’s Scottish Bishops, p. 177.

4  —

In times of persecution or war, when there was a risk of his letters being intercepted, the Reformer was accustomed to subscribe, “John Sinclair.” Under this signature at one of them, in the collection of his letters in my possession, is the following note: “Yis was his mother’s surname, wlk he wrait in time of trubill.” MS. Letters, p. 346.

5  —

See Note A   .

6  —

See Note B   . Beza (Icones Virorum Illustrium, Ee. iij. anno 1580) and Verheiden (Effigies et Elogia Præstant. Theolog. p. 92. Hagæcomit. 1602) say that Knox was educated at the university of St Andrews.

7  —

Boetii Vitæ Episcopor. Murthlac. et Aberdon. fol. xxix. coll. cum fol. xxvi–xxviii. Impress. anno 1522. This little work is of great value, and contains almost the only authentic notices which we possess, as to the state of learning in Scotland, about the beginning of the sixteenth century. Mackenzie, the copier of the fabulous Dempster, (who gives an account of learned men who never existed, and of books that no man ever saw or could see,) talks of almost every writer whom he mentions, as finishing “the course of his studies in the Belles Lettres and Philosophy,” in one of the Scots universities. These are merely words of course. The Aristotelian rules concerning rhetoric were taught by the professors of scholastic philosophy; but it does not appear that stated lectures of this kind were read, until the time of the Reformation, when they were appointed to be regularly delivered in the colleges. First Book of Discipline, p. 40, 42, edit. anno 1621.

8  —

In the twelfth century, there was a school at Abernethy and at Roxburgh. Sir James Dalrymple’s Collections, p. 226, 255. Other schools in that and the subsequent century are mentioned in charters, apud Chalmers’s Caledonia, i. 76.

9  —

Caledonia, i. 768.

10  —

Boetii Vitæ, fol. xxx. Vaus was the author of “Rudimenta Artis Grammaticæ per Jo. Vaus Scotvm Selecta—Edinbvrgi Excudebat Robertus Lekpreuik, Anno Do. 1566.” 4to. This was probably another edition of the work printed by Jod. Bad. Ascensius, Paris, 1522.

11  —

Row’s History of the Kirk of Scotland, MS. p. 3, 4. Simson taught at Perth between 1550 and 1560. At the establishment of the Reformation, he became minister of Dunning and Cargill, from which he was translated, in 1566, to Dunbar, where he sustained the double office of minister of the parish, and master of the grammar‑school. He was the author of the Latin Rudiments, which continued to be taught in the schools of Scotland until the time of Ruddiman, and were much esteemed by that accomplished scholar. Row, ut supra. Keith’s History, p. 534. Chalmers’s Life of Ruddiman, p. 21, 22, 63.

12  —

Life of John Erskine of Dun, p. 2, in Wodrow MSS. vol. i. Bibl. Coll. Glas. This industrious collector had access to some of Erskine’s papers, when employed in compiling his life. Additional facts respecting the early state of Greek literature in Scotland will be found in Note C   .

13  —

“In the Hebrew toung, (says Knox, in his defence before the bishop of Durham,) I confess myself ignorant, but have, as God knaweth, fervent thirst to have sum entrance thairin.” MS. Letters, p. 16.

14  —

Major had come to St Andrews in 1523. The Records of that University shew that Buchanan was not of St Salvator’s College, but of St Mary’s. It is probable that Major at that time taught in this College; and it was not until 1533 that he became provost, or principal, of St Salvator’s.

15  —

These sentiments are collected from his Commentaries on the Third Book of the Master of Sentences, and from his Exposition of Matthew’s Gospel; printed in Latin at Paris, the former in 1517, and the latter in 1518.

16  —

See Note D   .

17  —

Lord Hailes, having given an example of this, adds, “After this, can Buchanan be censured for saying that he was ‘solo cognomine Major   ?’” (Provincial Councils of the Scottish Clergy, p. 11.) By the way, it was Major who first said this of himself. It was the sight of these words, “Joannes, solo cognomine Major,” in the dedicatory epistle to his writings, that drew from Buchanan the satirical lines, which have been so often appealed to by his enemies, as an infallible proof of the badness of his heart. If fault there was in this, we may certainly make the apology which his learned editor produces for him in another case, “non tam hominis vitium, quam poetæ.” Poets and wits cannot always spare their best friends.

18  —

Buchanan always mentions Knox in terms of high respect, Oper. ed. Ruddiman. p. 313, 321, 366. And the Reformer, in his Historie, has borne testimony to the virtues as well as splendid talents of the Poet: “That notable man, Mr George Bucquhanane—remanis alyve to this day, in the yeir of God 1566 years, to the glory of God, to the gret honour of this natioun, and to the comfort of thame that delyte in letters and vertew. That singulare wark of David’s Psalmes, in Latin meetre and poesie, besyd mony uther, can witness the rare graices of God gevin to that man.” Historie, p. 24.

19  —

D. Buchanan’s Life of Knox. Mackenzie’s Lives, iii. 111. Although I have followed the common accounts, I have great doubts if Knox was made Master of Arts. It was usual to put Mr before the names of those who had been laureated, but I have never seen this title prefixed to his name in any old record.

20  —

“In hac igitur Anthropotheologia egregie versatus Cnoxus, eandem et magna autoritate docuit: visusque fuit magistro suo (si qua in subtilitate felicitas,) in quibusdam felicior.” Verheiden, Effigies et Elogia Præstant. Theolog. p. 92. Hagæcomit. 1602. Bezæ Icones, Ee. iij. Melch. Adami Vitæ Theolog. Exter. p. 137. Francofurti, 1618.

21  —

See Note E   .

22  —

Bezæ Icones, Verheidenii Effigies, Melchior Adam; ut supra. Spotswood’s History, p. 265. Lond. 1677.

23  —

During the minority of James V. the celebrated Gawin Douglas was recommended by the Queen to the archbishopric of St Andrews; but John Hepburn, prior of the regular canons, opposed the nomination, and took the archiepiscopal palace by storm. Douglas afterwards laid siege to the cathedral of Dunkeld, and carried it, more by the thunder of his cannon, than the dread of the excommunication which he threatened to fulminate against his antagonist. Buch. Hist. xiii. 44. Spotsw. 61. Life of Gawin Douglas, prefixed to his translation of the Æneid; Ruddiman’s edition.

24  —

Sir David Lyndsay’s Works, by Chalmers, i. 344. ii. 237, 238. Winzet, and Kennedy; apud Keith, App. 488, 504.

25  —

The Popes were accustomed to grant liberty to the commendators to dispose of benefices which they held by this tenure, to others who should succeed to them after their death. Introduction to Scots Biography, in Wodrow MSS. vol. ix. p. 171; Bibl. Coll. Glas. So late as anno 1534, Clement VII. granted, in commendam, to his nephew Hypolitus, Cardinal de Medici, ALL    the benefices in the world, secular and regular, dignities and parsonages, simple and with cure, being vacant, for six months; with power to dispose of all their fruits, and convert them to his own use. Father Paul’s History of the Council of Trent, lib. 1, p. 251. Lond. 1620.

26  —

One exception occurs, and must not be omitted. When George Wishart was preaching in Ayr, Dunbar, archbishop of Glasgow, took possession of the pulpit, in order to exclude the Reformer. Some of the more zealous hearers would have dispossessed the bishop, but Wishart would not suffer them. “The bishope preichit to his jackmen, and to some auld boisses of the toun. The soum of all his sermone was, They sey, we sould preiche: Quhy not? Better lait thryve nor nevir thryve. Had us still for your bishope, and we sall provyde better the nixt tyme.” Knox, Historie, p. 44.

27  —

War not the preiching of the begging freiris,

Tint war the faith among the seculeiris.

Lyndsay, ut supra, i. 343, comp. ii. 101.

28  —

Lord Hailes’s Notes on Ancient Scottish Poems, p. 249, 250, 297, 309. We need not appeal to the testimony of the reformers, nor to satirical poems published at that time, in proof of the extreme profligacy of the popish clergy. The truth is registered in the Acts of Parliament, and in the decrees of their own councils, (Wilkins, Concil. tom. iv. p. 46–60. Keith’s Hist. pref. xiv. and p. 14,) in the records of legitimation, (Lord Hailes, ut supra, p. 249, 250,) and in the confessions of their own writers. (Kennedy and Winzet, apud Keith, append. 202, 205–7. Lesley, Hist. 232. Father Alexander Baillie’s True Information of the Unhallowed Offspring, &c., of our Scottish Calvinian Gospel, p. 15, 16; Wirtzburg, anno 1628.)

29  —

In consequence of a very powerful confederacy against the religious knight, called Templars, and upon charges of the most flagitious crimes, that order was suppressed by a general council, anno 1312; but their possessions were conferred upon another order of sacred knights. The plenitude of papal power was stretched to the very utmost, in this dread attempt: “Quanquam (says his holiness in the bull) de jure non possumus, tamen ad plenitudinem potestatis dictum ordinem reprobamus.” Walsingham, Histor. Angl. p. 99. When the Gilbertine monks retired from Scotland, because the air of the country did not agree with them, their revenues were, upon their resignation, transferred to the monastery of Paisley. Keith’s Scottish Bishops, p. 266.

30  —

See Note F   .

31  —

Fox, p. 1153, printed anno 1596. Chalmers’s Lyndsay, ii. 62, 63, 64. Lord Hailes, Provincial Councils of the Scottish Clergy, p. 30. Sir Ralph Sadler’s testimony to the clergy, as the only men of learning about the court of James V., may seem to contradict what I have asserted. But Sadler speaks of their talents for political management, and in the same letters gives a proof of their ignorance in other respects. The clergy, at that time, made law their principal study, and endeavoured to qualify themselves for offices of state. This, however, engaged their whole attention, and they were grossly ignorant in their own profession. Sadler’s State Papers, i. 47, 48; Edin. 1809. Knox, Historie, p. 18.

Andrew Forman, bishop of Murray, and papal legate for Scotland, being obliged to say grace, at an entertainment which he gave to the pope and cardinals in Rome, blundered so in his latinity, that his holiness and their eminences lost their gravity, which so disconcerted the bishop, that he concluded the blessing by giving all the false carles to the devil,    in nomine patris, filii, et sancti spiritus; to which the company, not understanding his Scoto‑Latin, said Amen. “The holy bishop,” says Pitscottie, “was not a good scholar, and had not good Latin.” History, p. 106.

32  —

Wilkins, Concilia, tom. iv. 72. Lord Hailes’s Provincial Councils of the Scottish Clergy, p. 36.

33  —

Luther often mentioned to his familiar acquaintances the advantage which he derived from a visit to Rome in 1510, and used to say that he would not exchange that journey for 1000 florins; so much did it contribute to open his eyes to the corruptions of the Romish court, and to weaken his prejudices. Melchior. Adami, Vitæ Germ. Theol. p. 104. Erasmus had a sensation of the same kind, although weaker. John Rough, one of the Scottish Reformers, felt in a similar way, after visiting Rome. Fox, p. 1841.

34  —

Notwithstanding laws repeatedly made to restrain persons from going to Rome, to obtain benefices, the practice was greatly on the increase about the time of the Reformation.

It is schort tyme sen ony benefice

Was sped in Rome, except great bishoprics;

But now, for ane unworthy vickarage,

A priest will rin to Rome in Pilgrimage.

Ane cavill quhilk was never at the scule

Will rin to Rome, and keep ane bischopis mule:

And syne cum hame with mony a colorit crack,

With ane burdin of beneficis on his back.

CHALMERS’S Lyndsay, ii. 60.

35  —

Knox, 14–16. Spotswood, 64, 69. Keith, append. 205. Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems of the Sixteenth Century, i. 16–18. Chalmers’s Lyndsay, i. 211.

36  —

See Note G.

37  —

Knox, Historie, p. 14.

38  —

Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, ut supra, i. 28.

39  —

Patriots have toil’d, and in their country’s cause

Bled nobly; and their deeds, as they deserve,

Receive proud recompense.————————

But fairer wreaths are due, though never paid,

To those who, posted at the shrine of truth,

Have fallen in her defence.————————

Yet few remember them.————————

————————With their names

No bard embalms and sanctifies his song:

And history, so warm on meaner themes,

Is cold on this. She execrates, indeed,

The tyranny that doom’d them to the fire,

But gives the glorious sufferers little praise.

COWPER Task, Book V.

In the margin, Cowper names Hume as chargeable with the injustice which he so feelingly upbraids. While it is painful to think that other historians, since Hume, have exposed themselves to the same censure, it is pleasing to reflect, that Cowper is not the only poet who has “sanctified,” and, I trust, “embalmed his song,” with the praises of these patriots. The reader will easily perceive that I refer to the author of    The Sabbath.

40  —

His father, Sir Patrick Hamilton of Kincavil, was son of Lord Hamilton, who married a sister of King James III. His mother was a daughter of John Duke of Albany, brother to the same monarch. Pinkerton’s Hist. of Scotland, ii. 45, 46, 289.

41  —

There was an act of parliament, as early as 17th July, 1525, prohibiting ships from bringing any books of Luther or his disciples into Scotland, which had always “bene clene of all sic filth and vice.” Act. Parl. Scot., vol. ii. p. 295. This renders it highly probable, that such books had already been introduced into this country.

42  —

F. Lamberti Avenionensis Comment. in Apocalypsin, præfat. anno 1528.

43  —

Lambert, ut supra. Bezæ Icones, Ffj. Fox, 888. Knox, 4–6. Lindsay of Pitscottie’s History of Scotland, p. 133–5; Edin. 1728. This last author gives a very interesting account of Hamilton’s trial, but he is wrong as to the year of his martyrdom.

44  —

Pinkerton.

45  —

Cald. MS. i. 69.

46  —

In 1546, Winram having spoken to the bishops in favour of George Wishart, cardinal Beatoun upbraided him, saying, “Well, sir, and you, we know what a man you are, seven years ago.” Pitscottie, 189.

47  —

See Note H   .

48  —

See Note I   .

49  —

Wodrow’s MSS. in Bibl. Coll. Glas. vol. i. p. 2. Calderwood’s MS. Hist. of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 35. Knox, Historie, p. 22.

50  —

See Note K   .

51  —

Cald. MS. i. 103, 119. Sadler, i. 47. Knox, 21, 24.

52  —

Sadler, i. 94. Knox, 27, 28. Pitscottie, 164. Keith, 22. Sir James Melvil’s Memoirs, 2–4. Lond. 1683. Knox says, that the roll contained “mo than ane hundreth landit men, besides utheris of meener degre, amongis quhome was the lord Hamiltoun, then second persoun of the realme.” Sadler says, “eighteen score noblemen and gentlemen, all well minded to God’s word, which then they durst not avow;” among whom were the earl of Arran, the earl of Cassils, and the earl Marishal. Pitscottie says, “seventeen score;” but he includes in his account, not only “earls, lords, barons, gentlemen,” but also “honest burgesses and craftsmen.”

53  —

The progress of opinion in Scotland, and the jealous measures adopted for checking it, may be traced in the variations introduced into the Act of Parliament, 17th July, 1525, “For eschewing of Heresy,” as these are marked in the original record. The act, as originally drawn, in prohibiting the rehearsing of, or disputing about, the heresies of Luther or his disciples, has this exception: “gif” (i.e. unless) “it be to the confusioun thairof;” but this being thought too loose, the following clause is added on the margin, “and that be clerkis in the sculis alenarlie.” According to the tenour of the act when passed in 1525, “na maner of persoun, strangear   , that happenis to arrive with thare schip within ony part of this realme, bring with thame any bukis or workis of the said Luther his discipulis or servandis, disputis or rehersis his heresies, &c., under the pane of escheting of thare schipis and guidis, and putting of thaire personis in presoun.” But in 1527, the chancellor and lords of council added this clause: “and all uther the kingis liegis assistaris to sic opunyeons be punist in semeible wise, and the effect of the said act to straik upon thaim.”—From this it appears, that, in 1525, protestant books and opinions were circulated by strangers only, who came into Scotland for the purpose of trade; but that, in 1527, it was found necessary to extend the penalties of the act to natives of the kingdom. Both these additions were embodied in the act, as renewed 12th June, 1535. Acta Parliamentorum Scotiæ, vol. ii. p. 295, 341, 342, published by the authority of his Majesty’s commissioners on the public records of the kingdom. This highly valuable and accurate work will afterwards be referred to under the title of Act. Parl. Scot.

54  —

Bezæ Icones, Ee. iij.

55  —

Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 415, 425. Sadler’s Letters, i. 83. Crawfurd’s Officers of State, 77, 438. Keith, 36, 37.

56  —

Knox, 34.

57  —

Ibid. 33, 34.

58  —

Life of Knox, prefixed to his History of the Reformation, anno 1644.

59  —

Cald. MS. i. 118. Calderwood says that he was provincial of the order of Dominicans, or Blackfriars, in Scotland. But a late author informs us, that the chartulary of the Blackfriars’ monastery at Perth mentions John Grierson as having been provincial from the year 1525, to the time of the Reformation. Scott’s History of the Reformers, p. 96.

60  —

See Note L   .

61  —

Chalmers’s Caledonia, ii. 526. comp. Knox. Historie, 67.

62  —

In his progress through the kingdom with the governor, he instigated him “to hang (at Perth) four honest men, for eating of a goose on Friday; and drowned a young woman, because she refused to pray to our lady in her birth.” Pitscottie, 188. Knox says, that the woman, “having an soucking babe upon hir briest, was drounit.” Historie, 40. Petrie’s History of the Church of Scotland, part ii. p. 182. He had planned the destruction of the principal gentlemen of Fife, as appeared from documents found after his death. Knox, 63, 64.

63  —

Sadler’s State Papers, i. 264, 265. comp. p. 128. Sir John Borthwick (who fled to England in the year 1540) ridicules the Scottish clergy for making it an article of accusation against him, that he had approved of “all those heresies, commonly called the heresies of England;” “Because,” says he, “what religion at that time was used in England, the like the whole realm of Scotland did embrace; in this point only the Englishmen differed from the Scottes, that they had cast off the yoke of Antichrist, the other not. Idols were worshipped of both nations; the prophanating of the supper and baptisme was like unto them both.—Truly, it is most false that I had subscribed unto such kinde of heresies.” Fox, 1149, 1150.

64  —

Knox, Historie, p. 67.

65  —

Ibid.

66  —

Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 471, 477–9. Keith, 50, 51. Knox, 66, 67. Buchanan, i. 296.

67  —

This is done in a book, entitled, “The Image of both Churches, Hierusalem and Babell, Unitie and Confusion, Obedience and Sedition, by P. D. M.” (supposed to be Sir Tobie Matthews,) p. 139, 140, Torney, 1623. In p. 136, the author says, “Yet there is one aduise of Knox which is to be recorded with admiration, ‘It wear good, that rewards wear publicklie appointed by the peopl for such as kill tyrants, as well as for those that kill wolfs.’” In proof of this he refers to Knox’s Historie, p. 372. The reader, who chooses to give himself the trouble, will probably search in vain (as I have done) for such a sentiment, either in that or in any other part of the History.

68  —

“Quorum se societate, non multo post, implicaret Joannes Knoxus, Calvinistarum minister, qui se evangelicæ perfectionis cumulum assecutum non arbitrabatur nisi in cardinalis ac sacerdotis sanguine ac cæde triumphasset.” Leslæus de rebus gestis Scotorum, lib. x. The bishop should have recollected, that the violence of his popish brethren drove “the Calvinistic minister” to this “pinnacle of evangelical perfection.”

69  —

Principal Baillie’s Historical Vindication of the government of the church of Scotland, p. 42. A. 1646. Cald. MS. ad an. 1590.

70  —

Historie, 86.

71  —

See Note M   .

72  —

Spotswood says, that “seven‑score persons entered into the castle the day after the slaughter” of the cardinal. History, p. 84.

73  —

The coarseness of the age, and the strong temptation which he was under to gratify a voluptuous prince, will not excuse the gross indelicacies of Lindsay; and still less will the desire of preserving the ancient dialect of Scotland, and of gratifying an antiquarian passion, apologise for giving to the modern public a complete    edition of his works, accompanied with a glossary and explanatory notes.

74  —

Heroes ex omni Historia Scotica lectissimi: Auctore Johan. Jonstono Abredonense Scoto, p. 27, 28. Lugduni Batavorum, 1603. 4to. Chalmers’s Life of Lindsay, Works, vol. i.

75  —

Cald. MS. i. 119.

76  —

Lord Hailes, Catalogue of the Lords of Session, p. 2. Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 353.

77  —

Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 409. Sadler’s State Papers, i. 83. Knox, 35.

78  —

Fox, p. 1840. He was born A.D. 1510.

79  —

Fox, p. 1840. Knox, Historie, p. 33, 36, 67.

80  —

Knox, Historie, p. 68.

81  —

Whittingham, dean of Durham, was ordained in the English church at Geneva, of which Knox was pastor; and Travers, the opponent of Hooker, was ordained by a presbytery at Antwerp. Attempts were made by some highflyers to invalidate their orders, and induce them to submit to re‑ordination; but they did not succeed. Strype’s Annals, vol. ii. 520–4.

In the year 1582, archbishop Grindal, by a formal deed, declared the validity of the orders of Mr John Morrison, who had been ordained by the synod of Lothian, “according to the _laudable_ form and rite of the reformed church of Scotland,” says the instrument, “per generalem synodum sive congregationem illius comitatus, juxta laudabilem ecclesiæ Scotiæ Reformatæ formam et ritum, ad sacros ordines et sacrosanctum ministerium per manuum impositionem admissus et ordinatus.—Nos igitur formam ordinationis et præfectionis tuæ hujusmodi, modo præmisso factam, quantum in nos est, et de jure possumus, approbantes et ratificantes,” &c. Strype’s Life of Grindal. Append. Book ii. Numb. xvii. p. 101.

It has been objected, that archbishop Grindal was at this time under sequestration, and that the license was granted, not by him, but by Dr Aubrey, as vicar general. To this it is sufficient to reply, that Mr Strype is of opinion that the sequestration was taken off from the time that the writs and instruments run in the name of Aubrey alone, without any mention of Clark, (Life of Grindal, p. 271;) that, even during the period of the sequestration, “all licenses to preach, &c. were granted by these two civilians, with a deference to the archbishop, and consultation with him in what they did,” (Ibid. p. 240;) and that the license in question bears, that it was granted “with    the consent and express command of the most reverend father in Christ, the lord Edmund, by the divine providence, archbishop of Canterbury, to us signified;”—“de consensu et expresso mandato reverendiss. in Christo patris domini Edmundi, &c. nobis significato.” Ibid. p. 271. Append. p. 101.

82  —

Ninian Winzet, apud Keith’s History, App. p. 212, 213. Burne’s Disputation, p. 128. Parise, 1581.

83  —

In the former editions, I had spoken of Annand as probably a friar, who, according to the custom of the times, had assumed the honorary title of dean. But I have since ascertained, that he was a person of great note in the university. It appears from the Records, that he was principal of St Leonard’s College in 1544, and continued to hold that office during several years subsequent to that period.

84  —

The doctrine which the preacher delivered at this time was afterwards put into “ornate meeter,” by one of his hearers, Sir David Lindsay, who, in his “Monarchie,” finished in 1553, has given a particular account of the rise and corruptions of popery, under the name of the “fifth spiritual and papal monarchie.” Chalmers’s Lindsay, iii. 86–116.

85  —

“Sum said, utheris hued the branches of papistry, bot he straiketh at the rute, to destroye the whole. Utheris said, gif the doctors and magistri nostri defend not now the pope and his authoritie, which in their owin presence is so manifestlie impugnit, the devill have my part of him and his lawes bothe. Utheris said, Mr George Wischeart spak never so planelie, and yet he was brunt; even so will he be in the end. Utheris said, the tyrannie of the cardinal maid not his cause the better, neither yet the suffering of Godis servand maid his cause the wors.—And thairfoir we wald counsail yow and thame to provyde better defences than fyre and sword; for it may be that allis ye shall be disappointed: men now have uther eyes than they had then. This answer gave the laird of Nydrie.” Knox, Historie, p. 70.

86  —

Knox, Historie, p. 70–74. “Alexander Arbuckylle” was made Bachelor of Arts, Nov. 3, 1525. Act. Fac. Art.

87  —

Knox, Historie, 74, 75.

88  —

Buchanan, Hist. lib. xv. Oper. tom. i. 293, 294. Pitscottie, 189, folio edit.

89  —

Buchan. Oper. i. 296. Pitscottie, 191. Knox, 76.

90  —

Rough continued to preach in England until the death of Edward VI. when he retired to Norden in Friesland. There he was obliged to support himself and his wife (whom he had married in England) by knitting caps, stockings, &c. Having come over to London in the course of his trade, he heard of a congregation of protestants which met secretly in that city, to whom he joined himself, and was elected their pastor. A few weeks after this, the conventicle was discovered by the treachery of one of their own number, and Rough was carried before bishop Bonner, by whose orders he was committed to the flames, on the 22d of December 1557. An account of his examination, and two of his letters breathing the true spirit of a martyr, may be seen in Fox, p. 1840–1842.

91  —

Balnaves’s Confession, Epist. Dedic. Archibald Hamilton says that he was condemned to work at the oar;—“impellendis longarum navium remis, cum reliquis adjudicatur.” Dialogus de Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ, p. 64, b.

92  —

Knox, Historie, p. 83.

93  —

MS. Letters, p. 53.

94  —

One of his most bitter adversaries has borne an involuntary but honourable testimony to his magnanimity at this time. “Ubi longo maris tædio, et laboris molestia extenuatum quidem, et subactum corpus fuit; sed animi elatio eum subinde rerum magnarum spe extimulans, nihilo magis tunc quam prius quiescere potuit.”—Hamiltonii Dialogus, p. 64, b.

95  —

Knox, Historie, p. 74.

96  —

Psalm xlii.

97  —

See Note N   .

98  —

Knox, Historie, p. 74. This Treatise appears to have been lost.

99  —

MS. Letters, p. 40.

100  —

The manuscript, there is reason to think, was conveyed to Scotland about that time, but it fell aside, and was long considered as lost. After the death of Knox, it was discovered by his servant, Richard Bannatyne, in the house of Ormiston, and was printed, anno 1584, by Thomas Vaultrollier, in 12mo, with the title of “Confession of Faith, &c. by Henry Balnaves of Hallhill, one of the Lords of Council and Session of Scotland.”—David Buchanan, in his edition of Knox’s History, anno 1644, among his other alterations and interpolations, makes Knox to say that this work was published at the time he wrote his History; which may be numbered among the anachronisms in that edition, which, for some time, discredited the authenticity of the History, and led many to deny that Knox was its author. But in the genuine editions, Knox expresses the very reverse. “In the presoun, he (Balnaves) wrait a maist profitabill treatise of justificatioun, and of the warkis and conversatioun of a justifyed man: ‘but how it was suppressit we knaw not.’” Historie, p. 83, Edin. anno 1732. See also p. 181, of the first edition, in 8vo, printed at London by Vaultrollier in the year 1586.

101  —

I have not adhered to the orthography of the printed work, which is evidently different from what it must have been in the MS.

102  —

It is “perfection” in the printed copy, which is evidently a mistake.

103  —

i.e.    beyond.

104  —

Rouen, not Roanne, is the place meant.

105  —

i.e.    genius or knowledge.

106  —

See Note O   .

107  —

This is the man whom a high‑church historian has represented as holding the principles of the ancient Zealots or Siccarii, and teaching that any person who met a papist might kill him! Collier, Eccles. Hist. ii. 545.

108  —

Knox, Historie, p. 84, 85.

109  —

In one of his letters, preserved by Calderwood, Knox says, that he was nineteen months in the French galleys. Cald. MS. vol. i. 256. In the printed Calderwood, the period of his confinement is limited to nine    months, a mistake which has been copied by several writers. It is proper that the reader of that book should be aware, that it is an abridgement of a larger work, still in manuscript; and though there is reason to believe that it was drawn up by Calderwood himself, yet, having been printed after his death, and in a foreign country, it is often incorrect. Knox, in a conference with Mary of Scotland, told the queen that he was five years resident in England (Historie, p. 289). Now, as he came to England immediately after he obtained his liberty, and left it (as we shall afterwards see) in the end of January or beginning of February, 1554, this accords exactly with the date of his liberation, which is given above from Calderwood’s MS.

110  —

This is mentioned in a MS. in my possession; but little credit can be given to it, as it is written in a modern hand, and no authority is produced.

111  —

Petrie’s Church History, part ii. p. 184.

112  —

Hamiltonii Dialog. p. 64.

113  —

Peter Martyr, in a letter, dated Oxford, 1st July, 1650, laments the paucity of useful preachers in England, “Doleo plus quam dici possit, tanta ubique in Anglia verbi Dei penuria laborari; et eos qui oves Christi doctrina pascere tenentur, cum usque eo remisse agant, ut officium facere prorsus recusant, nescio quo fletu, quibusve lachrymis deplorari possit. Verum confido fore ut meliora simus visuri.” Martyri Epist. apud Loc. Commun. p. 760. Genevæ, 1624.

114  —

Burnet’s Hist. of the Reformation, II. 24. The suppression of the chantries, in the reign of Edward VI. was attended with similar effects. Strype’s Memorials of the Reformation, ii. 446.

115  —

I omitted mentioning in the proper place, that the biographer of Sir David Lindsay has stated, from the minutes of the English council, that Knox was in the pay of England as early as the year 1547. Chalmers’s Lindsay, i. 32. I cannot suppose that the learned author would confound the salary which Knox received during his residence in England, with a pension allotted to him when he was in his native country. But, on the other hand, I think it very unlikely that he should have been known to the English court before he entered the castle of St Andrews, and am inclined to suppose that any pension which he received from them did not commence until that period at soonest. Mr Chalmers’s language conveys the idea, that he was pensioned by England before he went to the castle.

116  —

Strype’s Memor. of the Reform. iii. 235. Knox, Hist. 85, 289.

117  —

Knox, Historie, p. 289.

118  —

Sir Thomas More, in one of his letters to Erasmus, gives the following character of Tonstal: “Ut nemo est omnibus bonis literis instructior, nemo vita moribusque severior, ita nemo est usquam in convictu jucundior.”

119  —

Besides the great council which managed the affairs of the kingdom under the protector, a number of the privy‑councillors who belonged to that part of the country, composed a subordinate board, called “the council of the north.” The members here referred to probably belonged to this council, and not to the town council of Newcastle. If I am right in this conjecture, Knox might owe to them, and not to the bishop, the liberty of this public defence.

120  —

See Note P   .

121  —

The compiler of the account of Knox, prefixed to the edition of his History printed in 1732, says, that the MS. containing the defence, bears that it “quite silenced” the bishop and his doctors. But that writer does not appear to have ever seen the MS., which contains nothing of the kind. The fact, however, is attested by the bishop of Ossory, who had good opportunities of knowing the truth, and who is accurate in his account of other circumstances relative to it. His words are, “Et 4 die Aprilis ejusdem anni [1550] aperiens in concione opinionem, ejus idolatrias et horrendas blasphemias, tam solidis argumentis, abominationem esse probabat, ut, cum omnibus sciolis, Saturnius ille somniator [Dunelmensis] refragare non possit.” Baleus, De Script. Scot. et Hibern. Art. Knoxus.

122  —

John Harle or Harley, was afterwards made bishop of Hereford, May 26, 1553. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 301. A late writer has confounded this Englishman with William Harlowe, who was minister of St Cuthbert’s church, near Edinburgh. Scott’s History of the Reformers in Scotland, p. 242.

123  —

King Edward’s Journal, apud Burnet, ii. Records, p. 42.

124  —

Memorials of the Reformation, ii. 297. Memor. of Cranmer, p. 292. Burnet, iii. 212. Records, 420, 422.

125  —

Burnet, ii. 171.

126  —

Strype’s Memor. of Reform. ut supra. Life of Grindal, p. 7. Mr Strype says, that the number of chaplains was afterwards reduced to four, Bradford and Knox being dropped from the list. But both of these preached in their turn before the court, in the year 1553. And in the council‑book a warrant is granted, October 27, 1552, to four gentlemen, to pay to Knox, “his majesty’s preacher in the north, forty pounds, as his majesty’s reward.” Strype’s Cranmer, 292. This salary he retained until the death of Edward; for, in a letter written by him at the time he left England, he says: “Ather the queen’s majestie, or sum thesaurer, will be 40 pounds rycher by me, sae meikle lack I of the dutie of my patentis; but that littil trublis me.” MS. Letters, p. 286.

127  —

See Note Q   .

128  —

Fox, p. 1326. Strype questions the truth of Weston’s statement, and says that Knox “was hardly come into England (at least any farther than Newcastle) at this time.” Annals, iii. 117. But we have already seen that he arrived in England as early as the beginning of 1549.

129  —

“October 2, (1552,) a letter was directed to Mess. Harley, Bill, Horn, Grindal, Pern, and Knox, to consider certain articles exhibited to the king’s majesty, to be subscribed by all such as shall be admitted to be preachers or ministers in any part of the realm; and to make report of their opinions touching the same.” Council‑book, apud Strype’s Cranmer, p. 273. Their report was returned before the 20th of November, ibid. p. 301. Burnet says, the order was given Oct. 20. History, iii. 212. The articles agreed to at this time were forty‑two. In 1562, they were reduced to thirty‑nine, their present number.

130  —

See the pedigree    of the family of Bowes among the original papers at the end of the work.

131  —

From this appellation in the MS. letters, I concluded that Knox was married to Miss Bowes before he left Berwick, until I met with one of his printed works, to which a letter from him to Mrs Bowes is added. On the margin of this, opposite to a place in which he had called her mother, is this note: “I had maid faithful promise, before witnes, to Mariorie Bowes her daughter, so as she took me for sone, I hartly embrased her as my mother.” Knox’s Answer to Tyrie the Jesuit. F. ij.

132  —

MS. Letters, p. 265, 276.

133  —

Ibid, passim.

134  —

They wrote a letter in commendation of him, Dec. 9, 1552, to Lord Wharton, deputy warden of the Borders. During the following year, when he was employed in Buckinghamshire, in order to secure greater acceptance and respect to him in that county, the council wrote in his favour to lords Russel and Windsor, to the justices of the peace, and to several other gentlemen. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 292.

135  —

Strype’s Memor. of the Reformation, ii. 533.

136  —

Bishop Burnet, and Mr Strype, (Memor. of Reform, ii. 299,) who have recorded this fact, conjectured that the patentee was a relation of our Reformer. That he was his brother, is evident from Knox’s letters, which mention his being in England about this time. In a letter written in 1553, he says: “My brother, Williame Knox, is presentlie with me. What ye wald haif frome Scotland, let me knaw this Monunday at nicht; for hie must depart on Tyisday.” MS. Letters, p. 271. Perhaps the same person is referred to in the following extract from another letter: “My brother hath communicat his haill hart with me, and I persave the mychtie operation of God. And sa let us be establissit in his infinit gudnes and maist sure promissis.” Ib. p. 266.

William Knox afterwards became a preacher, and was minister of Cockpen, in Mid‑Lothian, after the establishment of the Reformation in Scotland. No fewer than fourteen ministers of the church of Scotland are numbered among his descendants. Genealogical Account of the Knoxes, apud Scott’s History of the Reformers in Scotland, p. 152.

137  —

MS. Letters, p. 193. Knox’s Admonition to the Professors of the Truth in England, p. 61, apud History, Edin. 1644, 4to.

138  —

The earl of Warwick, now created duke of Northumberland, was appointed warden‑general of the northern marches in Oct. 1551. But being occupied in securing his interest at court, he got himself excused from going north until June 1552. Strype’s Memor. of the Reformation, ii. 282, 339.

139  —

MS. Letters, p. 112, 173. Admonition, p. 51, apud History, Edinburgh, 1644. Knox considered that the papists had a secret hand in fomenting those dissensions which led to the condemnation and death of the protector. Nor were his suspicions ill‑founded. See Strype’s Memor. of the Reform. ii. 306–7.

140  —

The duke’s letter was dated Nov. 23, 1552. Haynes, State Papers, p. 136. Brand’s History of Newcastle, p. 304. Redpath’s Border History, p. 577.

141  —

A great number of his letters in the MS. are superscribed “To his sister.” It appears from internal evidence, that this was a daughter of Mrs Bowes; and, although I cannot be positive, I am inclined to think that she was the young lady whom he married. One letter has this superscription, “To Mariorie Bowes, who was his first wife.” In it he addresses her by the name of Sister   , and at the close, says, “I think this be the first letter that ever I wrait to you.” MS. Letters, p. 335. But there is no date by which to compare it with other letters.

142  —

Henry Nevyl, earl of Westmoreland, was, by the interest of the duke of Northumberland, admitted a member of the privy council in 1552. He was also a member of the council for the north, and lord lieutenant of the bishopric of Durham. His private character was indifferent. Strype’s Memor. of the Reformation, ii. 401, 457–9.

143  —

MS. Letters, p. 267–9.

144  —

MS. Letters, p. 112. Melchior Adam, Vitæ Theolog. Ext. p. 137.

145  —

The letter last quoted. MS. Letters, p. 273–4, compared with p. 268.

146  —

MS. Letters, p. 276.

147  —

MS. Letters, p. 260–1.

148  —

Ibid. p. 262.

149  —

Strype’s Cranmer, p. 292.

150  —

The account of his examination before the council is taken from a letter of Knox, the substance of which has been inserted by Calderwood, in his MS. History, and by Strype, in his Memorials of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 400.

151  —

Luther having rejected with disdain the great offers by which Alexander, the papal legate, attempted to gain him over to the court of Rome, “He is a ferocious brute,” exclaimed the legate, equally confounded and disappointed, “whom nothing can soften, and who regards riches and honours as mere dirt; otherwise the pope would long ago have loaded him with favours.”—Beausobre’s History of the Reformation, i. 395, 6. Macaulay’s Translation.

152  —

Bezæ Icones, Ee iij. See also Verheideni Effigies, p. 92, 93. Melch. Adam. p. 137.

153  —

MS. Letters, p. 73. The passage will afterwards be quoted.

154  —

History of Newcastle, p. 304. Surtees’s Durham, vol. i. p. lxx.

155  —

The churches of Geneva and Scotland did not agree in all points. Though holidays were abolished in Geneva at the commencement of the Reformation, the observance of a number of them was very soon restored, and has always continued in that church; but this practice was wholly rejected by the church of Scotland, from the very first establishment of the Reformation, and its introduction has always been vigorously resisted by her. Other things in which they differed might easily be mentioned.

156  —

Knox, Historie, p. 72–74, and this Life, p. 63, 64.

157  —

Cald. MS. i. 250. During the reign of Edward, and even the first years of that of his sister Elizabeth, absolute conformity to the liturgy was not pressed upon ministers. Strype’s Annals, i. 419, 432. Burnet, iii. 305, 311. Hutchinson’s Antiq. of Durham, i. 453. Archbishop Parker, in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, administered the elements to the communicants standing, in the cathedral church of Canterbury. Her majesty’s commissioners appointed the communion to be received in the same posture in Coventry; and the practice was continued in that town as late, at least, as the year 1608. Certain demands propounded unto Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, p. 45, anno 1605. Removal of Imputations laid upon the ministers of Devon and Cornwall, p. 51, anno 1606. Dispute upon the question of Kneeling, p. 131, anno 1608.

158  —

This statement of his sentiments is drawn from his Brief Exhortation to England for the speedy embracing of Christ’s gospel, printed at Geneva, anno 1559, and at the end of his History, Edinburgh, 1644, 4to; and from his letters to Mrs Locke, dated 6th April, and 15th October, 1559, in Cald. MS. i. p. 380, 491.

159  —

See Note R   .

160  —

See Note S   .

161  —

“We had,” says he in his Letter to the Faithful in London, Newcastle, and Berwick, “ane king of sa godlie disposition towardis vertew, and the treuth of God, that nane frome the beginning passit him, and (to my knawledge) none of his yeiris did ever mache him in that behalf; gif hie myght haif bene lord of his awn will.” MS. Letters, p. 119. He has passed a fuller encomium on this prince, in his Historie, p. 89.

162  —

See Note T   .

163  —

MS. Letters, p. 175–177, and Admonition, p. 52, 54, apud History, Edin. 1644, 4to.

164  —

One of his letters to Mrs Bowes is dated London, 22d June, 1553. MS. Letters, p. 249. And from other letters it appears that he was there in the following month.

165  —

We have already seen (p. 101–103) that this was not his sole reason for refusing preferment in the English church.

166  —

MS. Letters, p. 73, 74, also p. 250.

167  —

In his “Letter to the Faithful in London,” &c. he puts them in mind of the premonitions which he had given on different occasions, and, among others, of “what was spoken in Londone in ma places nor ane, when fyreis of joy and ryatous banketting wer at the proclamation of Marie your quene.” MS. Letters, 112, 113.

168  —

One of his letters is dated Carlisle, 26th July, 1553. MS. Letters, p. 270.

169  —

See Note U   .

170  —

Fox, 718, 748–9, 751–766. Knox, Admonition, p. 67, appendix to History, Edin. 1644, 4to.

171  —

MS. Letters, p. 289, 291.

172  —

His wife.

173  —

MS. Letters, p. 290, 291.

174  —

Ibid. p. 196.

175  —

MS. Letters, p. 293, 294.

176  —

Ibid. p. 265.

177  —

MS. Letters, p. 265.

178  —

MS. Letters, p. 284.

179  —

MS. Letters, p. 318. Archibald Hamilton has trumped up a ridiculous story, respecting Knox’s flight from England. He says, that by teaching the unlawfulness of female government, he had excited a dangerous rebellion against queen Mary. But the queen, having marched against the rebels, defeated them with great slaughter; upon which Knox, stained with their blood, fled to Geneva, carrying along with him a rich noblewoman! Dialog. de Confus. Calv. Sect. p. 65.

180  —

MS. Letters, p. 70, 71, 107, 108.

181  —

MS. Letters, p. 308, 309.

182  —

MS. Letters, p. 165–167. Admonition, p. 46–48.

183  —

If.

184  —

Sun.

185  —

Much more.

186  —

Wit.

187  —

Hope.

188  —

Letter to the Faithful in London, &c. in MS. Letters, p. 149–151, 156.

189  —

His Exposition of the sixth Psalm concludes with these words: “Upon the very point of my journey, the last of February, 1553.” MS. Letters, p. 109. The reader will recollect, that in our reformer’s time, they did not begin the year until the 25th of March; so that “February 1553,” according to the old reckoning, is “February 1554,” according to the modern.

190  —

His Letter to the Faithful in London, &c. concludes thus:—“From ane sore trubillit hart, upon my departure from Diep, 1553, whither God knaweth   . In God is my trust through Jesus Chryst his sone; and thairfor I feir not the tyrannie of man, nether yet what the devill can invent against me. Rejoice, ye faithfull; for in joy shall we meit, wher deth may not dissever us.” MS. Letters, p. 157, 158.

191  —

In a letter, dated Dieppe, May 10, 1554, he says, “My awin estait is this: since the 28 of Januar,” counting from the time he came to France, “I have travellit throughout all the congregations of Helvetia, and has reasonit with all the pastoris and many other excellentlie learnit men, upon sic matters as now I cannot comit to wrytting.” MS. Letters, p. 318.

192  —

MS. Letters, p. 313–315.

193  —

Ibid. p. 311.

194  —

MS. Letters, p. 106.

195  —

Ibid. p. 319.

196  —

Ibid. p. 310.

197  —

Strype’s Cranmer, p. 413. Calvini Epist. et Respons. p. 179, 245, 248, Hanov. 1597.

198  —

One of his letters to Mrs Bowes, is dated “At Diep the 20 of July, 1554, after I had visited Geneva and uther partis, and returned to Diep to learn the estait of Ingland and Scotland.” MS. Letters, p. 255, 256. This is the letter which was published by Knox, along with his answer to Tyrie, in 1572, after the death of Mrs Bowes.

199  —

In the letter mentioned in last note, he refers his mother‑in‑law to “a general letter written,” says he, “be me in greit anguiss of hart, to the congregationis of whome I heir say a greit part, under pretence that thai may keip faith secreitt in the hart, and yet do as idolaters do, beginnis now to fall before that idoll. But O, alas! blindit and desavit ar thai; as they sall knaw in the Lordis visitatioun, whilk, sa assuredlie as our God liveth, sall shortlie apprehend thai backstarteris amangis the middis of idolateris.” MS. Letters, p. 252. On the margin of the printed copy is his note: “Frequent letters written by Johne Knox to decline from idolatrie.”

200  —

MS. Letters, p. 251–253.

201  —

Collier, Eccles. History, ii. 441.

202  —

MS. Letters, p. 322. Davidson’s Brief Commendatioun of Uprichtnes; reprinted in the Supplement.

203  —

MS. Letters, p. 256.

204  —

MS. Letters, 344, 373.

205  —

It is painful to observe, that many of the Lutherans, at this time, disgraced themselves by their illiberal inhospitality, refusing, in different instances, to admit those who fled from England into their harbours and towns, because they differed from them in their sentiments on the sacramental controversy. Melch. Adami Vitæ Exter. Theolog. p. 20. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 353, 361. Gerdesii Hist. Reform. tom. iii. 235–7.

206  —

The English exiles were greatly indebted for this favour to the friendly services of the French pastors. One of these, Valerandus Polanus, was a native of Flanders, and had been minister of a congregation in Strasburg. During the confusions produced in Germany by the Interim, he had retired along with his congregation to England, and obtained a settlement at Glastonbury. Upon the death of Edward VI. he went to Frankfort. Strype’s Memor. of the Reform. ii. 242.

207  —

See Note V   .

208  —

Knox, Historie, p. 85.

209  —

Brieff Discours off the Troubles begonne at Franckford in Germany, Anno Domini 1554. Abowte the booke off Common Prayer, p. xviii–xxiv. Printed in 1575. This work contains a full account of the transactions of the English church at Frankfort, confirmed by original papers. The author was a non‑conformist, but his narrative was allowed to be accurate by the opposite party. To save repetition, I may mention once for all, that, when no authority is referred to, my statement of these transactions is taken from this book. It was reprinted in 1642, and is also to be found in the second volume of the Phenix, or a Revival of Scarce and Valuable Pieces. Lond. 1707–8. But I have made use of the first edition.

210  —

This was the order of worship used by the church of Geneva, of which Calvin was minister. It had been lately translated into English.

211  —

Calvini Epist. p. 28: Oper. tom. ix. Amstælodami. anno 1667.

212  —

Previous to the appointment of this committee, Knox, Whittingham, Fox, Gilby, and T. Cole, had composed (what was afterwards called) The Order of Geneva, but it did not meet the views of all concerned. This was different from the order of the Genevan church, already referred to; and obtained its name from the circumstance of its having been first used by the English church at Geneva. It was afterwards used in the church of Scotland under the name of the Book of Common Order, and is sometimes called Knox’s Liturgy.

213  —

Cald. MS. i. 249.

214  —

Cald. MS. i. 252.

215  —

Collier (ii. 395) says that Knox manifested in this instance “a surprising    compliance.” But it appears, even from the account given by that historian, that, in the whole of the Frankfort affair, our Reformer displayed the greatest moderation and forbearance, while the conduct of his opponents was marked throughout with violence and want of charity.

216  —

Cald. MS. i. 254. Upon his return to Geneva, Knox committed to writing a narrative of the causes of his retiring from Frankfort. This he intended to publish in his own defence; but on mature deliberation, he resolved to suppress it, and to leave his own character to suffer, rather than expose his brethren and the common cause in which they were engaged. His narrative was preserved by Calderwood, and has furnished me with several facts. It contains the names of the persons who accused him to the senate of Frankfort, and of their advisers, which I have omitted, after the example of Knox, in the notice which he has taken of the affair, in his Historie of the Reformation, p. 85.

217  —

See above, p. 113   .

218  —

See Note W   .

219  —

Cald, MS. i. 255. Mr Strype has not discovered his usual impartiality or accuracy in the short account he has given of this affair. He says that Knox had “published some dangerous principles about government,” and that the informers “thought it fit for their own security to make an open complaint against him.” Memor. of the Reform. iii. 242. Knox had, at that time, published nothing on the subject of government; and Collier himself does not pretend such an excuse for the actors.

220  —

Cox was afterwards made to feel a little the galling yoke which he strove to impose on his brethren. Upon the accession of Elizabeth, that stately princess, still fonder of pompous and popish equipage than her clergy, kept a crucifix in her chapel, and ordered her chaplains to perform divine service before it. Dr Cox was the only one of the refugees who complied with this order, but his conscience afterwards remonstrating against it, he wrote a letter to the queen, requesting to be excused from continuing the practice. It is observable, that in this letter he employs the great argument which Knox had used against other ceremonies, while he prostrates himself before his haughty mistress with a submission to which our Reformer would never have stooped. “I ought,” says he, “to do nothing touching religion, which may appear doubtful whether it pleaseth God or not; for our religion ought to be certain, and grounded upon God’s word and will. Tender my sute, I beseech you, in visceribus Jesu Christi   , my dear sovereign, and most gracious queen Elizabeth.” Burnet, ii. Append. 294. The crucifix was removed at this time, but was again introduced about 1570. Strype’s Parker, p. 310. Dr Cox afterwards fell under the displeasure of his “dear sovereign,” for maintaining rather stiffly his right to some of the revenues of his bishopric. Strype’s Annals, ii. 579. It is but justice, however, to this learned man to say, that I do not find him taking a very active part against the non‑conformists, after his return to England; he even made some attempts for the removal of the obnoxious ceremonies.

221  —

Calvini Epistolæ, p. 98, ut supra. This letter is addressed “Cnoxo” (by mistake of the publisher, instead of Coxo   ,) “et Gregalibus. Pridie Idus Junii, 1555.” Knox was at Geneva when Calvin wrote that letter.

222  —

See above, p. 91, 93   .

223  —

MS. Letters, p. 255–6.

224  —

The following lines were commonly repeated at this time, in allusion to Normand Leslie, who headed the conspirators against cardinal Beatoun:

Priestis, content you now, priestis, content you now;

For Normand, and his companie, hes fillit the gallayis fow.

225  —

MS. Letters, p. 435, 438.

226  —

Knox, Historie, p. 78. Hume of Godscroft’s History, ii. 128.

227  —

Knox, Historie, p. 80.

228  —

Buchanani Oper. i. 302. Knox, Historie, p. 82. The following tribute to the memory of this patriot occurs in a work of one of our Latin poets, which is rarely to be met with:

JOHANNES MALVILLUS RETHIUS,

Nobilis Fifanus, Jacobo V. regi olim familiarissimus, summa vitæ innocentia, ob puræ relligionis studium, in suspicione falsi criminis, iniquissimo judicio sublatus est Aº Christi 1548.

Quidnam ego commerui, quæ tanta injuria facti,

Hostis ut in nostrum sæviat ense caput?

Idem hostis, judexque simul. Pro crimine, Christi

Relligio, et fædo crimine pura manus.

O secla! O mores: scelerum sic tollere pœnas

Ut virtus sceleri debita damna luat.

Joh. Jonstoni Heroes, pp. 28, 29.

229  —

Knox, Historie, p. 87, 88. Spotswood, 90, 91. Bezæ Icones, Ff. ij.

230  —

Winchester’s brother‑in‑law, William Arthur of Cairnes, obtained his property; and by a disposition, dated 27th August, 1555, “out of pity to Christian Martine,” (wife of George Winchester,) “and her eight fatherless children, disponed to her in liferent the fore‑tenement and the tacks of Kinglassie and Polduff, sometime pertaining to the said George, with his haill moveables, fallen in escheat, upon her paying to him the composition that he paid therefor.” MS. Genealogical Collections of Martin of Clermont, vol. i. p. 583–5.

231  —

Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 488–9.

232  —

This council assembled at Linlithgow, but was transferred to Edinburgh. Wilkins, Concil. tom. iv. 46. conf. p. 209.

233  —

Proem. Concil. apud Wilkins, iv. 46.

234  —

Canon 1. Ibid. p. 47.

235  —

Can. 2. Ibid. p. 48.

236  —

Can. 5. Ibid. p. 48.

237  —

Can. 15, 20. Ibid. p. 50–1.

238  —

Can. 42, 45. Ibid. 56–7.

239  —

Can. 43, 44, 47. Ibid. p. 57–8.

240  —

Ibid. 69–73.

241  —

Can. 16. Ibid. p. 72–3.

242  —

Ibid. p. 73.

243  —

See Note X.

244  —

Wilkins, iv. 207, 209, 210. Keith, pref. p. xiv.

245  —

See Note Y   .

246  —

Wilkins, iv. 72.

247  —

Keith, Append. p. 90. Episcopal writers have sometimes upbraided the Scottish church, as reformed by tradesmen and mechanics. They have, however, no reason to talk in this strain; for, in the first place, a sensible, pious tradesman, is surely better qualified for communicating religious instruction than an ignorant, superstitious priest; and, secondly, the church of England herself, after trying those of the latter class, was glad to betake herself to the former. See Strype’s Annals, i. 176, 177.

248  —

Cald. MS. i. 256.

249  —

Keith, History, p. 498.

250  —

Smetonii Respons. ad. Arch. Hamiltoni Dialog, p. 93. Edinburgh,1579.

251  —

Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, celebrates Willock among the chaplains of the duke, in the following lines:

Quid memorem quanta Wilocus, Skinerus et Haddon,

Ælmerusque tuos ornârint luce penates?

O! Deus, O! quales juvenes? Quo principe digni?

His tua luminibus splendet domus.

Strype’s Annals, ii. Append, p. 46.

252  —

Gerdesii Hist. Reform, iii. 147–8.

253  —

Spotswood, p. 93. Knox, 90.

254  —

MS. Letters, p. 342.

255  —

Discours of the Troubles at Franckford, p. lv. lix. Knox, Historie, p. 90.

256  —

MS. Letters, p. 343.

257  —

See above, p. 6, 35   .

258  —

Buchanani Oper. i. 301. Keith Append. p. 57.

259  —

MS. Letters, p. 342, 343.

260  —

Knox, Historie, p. 91.

261  —

On the back of a picture of our Reformer, which hangs in one of the rooms of Lord Torphichen’s house at Calder, is this inscription: “The Rev. John Knox.—The first sacrament of the supper given in Scotland after the Reformation, was dispensed in this hall.” The commencement of the Reformation is here dated from the present visit of Knox to Scotland; for we have already seen that he administered the ordinance in the castle of St Andrews, in 1547. The account given by Knox in his History of the Reformation, (p. 92,) seems to imply that he performed this service in the west country, before he did it in Calder‑house.

262  —

Knox, Historie, p. 91, 118.

263  —

Keith, p. 530.

264  —

Spotswood, p. 90.

265  —

Chalmers’s Caledonia, i. 848.

266  —

Knox, Historie, p. 91, 331.

267  —

Sadler’s State Papers, i. 83. Hume of Godscroft’s Hist. ii. 128.

268  —

The silver cups which were used on that occasion were till of late carefully preserved by the family of Glencairn at Finlayston; and the parish of Kilmalcolm was regularly favoured with the use of them at the time of dispensing the sacrament. “The people,” says the minister, in his account of that parish, “respect them much for their antiquity, as well as for the solemnity attending them in former and later times.” Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. iv. p. 279. This writer thinks they had been originally candlesticks, and converted to this use on the emergent occasion; the hollow bottom reversed forming the mouth of the cup, and the middle, after the socket was screwed out, being converted into the foot. But it is not very likely that the family of Glencairn were obliged to have recourse to this expedient.

269  —

Knox, Historie, p. 92.

270  —

Letter to Mary, regent of Scotland, apud Historie, p. 417.

271  —

Ibid. p. 416, 417.

272  —

MS. Letters, p. 343, 344.

273  —

Knox, Historie, p. 92. Another hearer of Knox at this time was Henry Drummond of Riccartowne, who was married to a niece of Robert Creighton, bishop of Dunkeld. Lord Strathallan’s Account of the House of Drummond, MS. in Advocates’ Library.

274  —

This is more evident from the letter in its original language, which is now before me in manuscript. In the copies of it which have been published along with his History, and even in the edition of 1732, freedoms have been used, and the style is not a little injured by the insertion of unnecessary and enfeebling expletives.

275  —

Historie, p. 92, 425.

276  —

Letter, &c. apud Historie, p. 425, 426.

277  —

This congregation, (which consisted of those who had withdrawn from Frankfort,) as early as September 1555, “chose Knox and Goodman for their pastors, and Gilby requested to supplie the rome till Knox returned owte of France.” Troubles at Franckford, p. lix.

278  —

A piece of sloping ground on the south side of the castle is still pointed out as the spot on which Knox preached.

279  —

Knox, Historie, p. 92–3, 108.

280  —

Appellation, &c. apud Historie, p. 428.

281  —

MS. Letters, p. 352–359.

282  —

See Note Z   .

283  —

Among the questions proposed were the following: Whether the baptism administered by the popish priests was valid, and did not require repetition? Whether all the things prohibited in the decree of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem (Acts, xv.) were still unlawful? Whether the prohibition in 2d John, verse 10, extended to the common    salutation of those who taught erroneous doctrine? How are the directions respecting dress, in 2d Peter, iii. 3, to be obeyed? In what sense is God said to repent?

284  —

The congregation appear to have delayed the final settlement of their form of worship and discipline until Knox’s arrival; for the preface to The Order of Geneva, is dated “the 10th of February, anno 1556.” Dunlop’s Collection of Confessions, ii. 401. If this date was according to the old method of reckoning, Knox must have been present at the time. But I am not sure but that the new mode of beginning the year in January was introduced in Geneva as early as 1556.

285  —

MS. Letters, p. 377.

286  —

MS. Letters, p. 408.

287  —

Ibid. p. 378.

288  —

Knox, Historie, p. 97, 98.

289  —

See Note AA   .

290  —

Knox, Historie, p. 98–100.

291  —

I find him, about this time, addressing a letter to one of his correspondents from Lyons. MS. Letters, p. 346. This letter is subscribed John Sinclair. See above, Footnote 4   .

292  —

Histoire des Martyrs, p. 425, 426. Anno 1597. Folio. Beza, Vita Calvini, ad ann. 1557. The cardinal of Lorrain, uncle to Mary the young queen of Scotland, was industrious in propagating these vile calumnies; a circumstance which increased Knox’s bad opinion of that determined enemy of the Reformation. This is mentioned by him in his preface to the Parisian Apology. “This was not bruited be the rude and ignorant pepil; but a cardinall (whais ipocrisie nevertheless is not abil to cover his awn filthiness) eschamit not openlie at his tabill to affirm that maist impudent and manifest lie; adding moreover (to the further declaratioun whais sone he was) that, in the hous whair thay wer apprehendit, 8 bedis wer preparit. When in verie deed, in that place whair they did convene, (except a table for the Lord’s supper to have been ministered, a chayr for the preicher, and bankis and stullis for the easement of the auditors,) no preparation nor furniture was abill to be proved, not even by the verie enemyis.” MS. Letters, p. 445, 446.

293  —

MS. Letters, p. 442–500. The apology of the Parisian protestants was published; but I do not think that the English translation, with Knox’s additions, ever appeared in print. The writer of the Life of Knox, prefixed to the edition of his History, 1732, p. xxi., has fallen into several blunders on this subject. There are no letters to the French protestants in the MS. to which he refers. The apology was written by the Parisians themselves, and Knox informs us, that a part of the translation only was done by him—“the former and maist part was translatit by another, because of my other labors.” Ut supra, p. 446.

294  —

“Having particularly declared to me,” says Row, “by those who heard him say, when he was in Rochel, in France, that within two or three years he hoped to preach the gospel publicly in St Giles in Edinburgh. But the persons who heard him say it, being papists for the time, and yet persuaded by a nobleman to hear him preach privately, and see him baptise a bairn that was carried many miles to him for that purpose, thought that such a thing could never come to pass, and hated him for so speaking; yet, coming home to Scotland, and through stress of weather likely to perish, they began to think of his preaching, and allowed of every part of it, and vowed to God, if he would preserve their lives, that they would forsake papistry, and follow the calling of God; whilk they did, and saw and heard John Knox preach openly in the kirk of Edinburgh, at the time whereof he spoke to them.” Row’s Historie, MS. p. 8, 9. The same fact is mentioned by Pierre de la Roque, a French author, in Recueil des Dernieres Heures Edifiantes: Wodrow, MSS. No. 15. Advocates’ Library.

295  —

Annuaire, ou Repertoire Ecclesiastique, à l’usage des Eglises reformées et protestantes de l’empire Français, par M. Rabaut le Jeune, p. 273, 274. A Paris, 1807.

The pastor of Dieppe was a member of the first National Synod of the reformed churches of France, held at Paris in 1559. Quick’s Synodicon, 1, 2, 7. In 1630, there were upwards of 5000 communicants in the church of Dieppe. Diary of Mr Robert Trail, minister of Greyfriars, Edinburgh, p. 22, 23. MS. in the possession of the Rev. Dr Trail.

296  —

MS. Letters, p. 349.

297  —

The Careles by Necessitie, as reprinted in Knox’s Answer to an Anabaptist, in 1560. Spanhemii (Patris) Disput. Theol. Miscell. Genevæ, 1652. Spanhemii (Fillii) Opera, tom. iii. p. 771–798.—It is scarcely necessary to state, that the greater part of those who, in the present day, oppose the baptism of infants, do not hold a number of the tenets specified above. They are decidedly hostile to Pelagianism, and friendly to the doctrine of grace. So far from denying the lawfulness of magistracy among christians, they have in general (at least in Scotland) adopted the principle of non‑resistance to civil rulers in all cases.

298  —

Knox, Answer to the Blasphemous Cavillations written by an Anabaptist, p. 405, 407. Anno 1560.

299  —

This he afterwards accomplished in the book referred to in the preceding note.

300  —

MS. Letters, p. 403–424.

301  —

MS. Letters, p. 424–438.

302  —

Strype’s Mem. of Parker, p. 205. This translation was often reprinted in Britain. The freedom of remark used in the notes gave offence to queen Elizabeth, and her successor James; the last of whom said, that it was the worst translation which he had seen. Notwithstanding this expression of disapprobation, it is evident that the translators appointed by his authority made great use of it; and if they had followed it still more, the version which they have given us would, upon the whole, have been improved. The late Dr Geddes had a very different opinion of it from the royal critic.

I pretend not to know the versions referred to in the following passage of a foreign critic:—“Nec vero melius operā suæ factioni, vel astuta vulpecula illa Joannes Cnoxius Scotus, vel ōes magnæ & celebris Anglicanæ veridictianæ reformationis authores, cum in suis Bibliis eodem capite, ita reponunt: Scoti primi quia proprius Calvinisimo accedunt: ‘Thou ar Piter, and vpon that rok I wil buld my kirk,’ id est, tu es Petrus, & super istam rupē ego volo ædificare meā Ecclesiā. Videmus ‘that rok’ non esse id quod Petrum Cnoxius vocauit, atque Dominus Petrum affatur, et de eodem intelligit fore ipsum Ecclesiæ suæ columen. Angli nihil habent discriminis, nisi quod dicunt ‘churk’ pro ‘Kirk.’” Paradigma De Quatuor Linguis Orientalibvs Præcipvis. Petro Victore Caietano Palma Avthore, p. 115. Parisiis, 1595.

303  —

i.e.    heathen.

304  —

Appellation, apud Historie, p. 431–140, 453, 454.

305  —

i.e.    regimen, or government.

306  —

First Blast, apud Historie, p. 478.

307  —

MS. Letters, p. 318, 319.

308  —

Ibid. p. 322, 323.

309  —

Tacitus has expressed his contempt of those who submit to female government with his usual emphatic brevity, in the account which he gives of the Sitones, a German tribe. “Cætera similes, uno differunt, quod fœmina dominatur; in tantum, non modo a libertate, sed etiam a servitute degenerant.” De Mor. Germ. c. 45.

310  —

Warner’s Eccles. History of England, ii. 308.

311  —

Christopher Goodman adopted the sentiment, and commended the publication of his colleague, in his book on “Obedience to Superior Powers.” Whittingham and Gilby declared themselves on the same side of the question. I might also mention countrymen of his own, who agreed with Knox on this subject; as James Kennedy, the celebrated archbishop of St Andrews, and Sir David Lindsay. Buchanani Hist. lib. xii. tom. i. 221–24, edit. Rudim. Chalmers’s Lindsay, iii. 175.

312  —

Strype’s Annals, i. 127. Fox’s letter was written before the death of queen Mary. Knox’s answer to it, from the original in the British Museum, will be found in the Appendix.

313  —

The heads of the intended second Blast are subjoined to his Appellation, which was published some months after the first Blast.

314  —

“An Harborowe for Faithful and Trewe Subjectes, against the late blowne Blaste, concerning the Government of Wemen,” &c. anno MD. lix. At Strasborowe the 26. of Aprill. The Blast drew forth several other defences of female government, two of which were written by natives of Scotland. Bishop Lesley’s tract on this subject was printed along with his defence of queen Mary’s honour. David Chalmers, one of the lords of session, published his “Discours de la légitime succession des Femmes,” after he retired from Scotland. Lord Hailes’s Catal. of the Lords of Session, note 23. Mackenzie’s Lives, iii. 388, 392.

315  —

Strype’s Life of Aylmer, p. 16.

316  —

Harborowe, sig. B. Strype says, contrary to the plain meaning of the passage, that Aylmer speaks here of “the Scotch    queen Mary.” Life of Aylmer, p. 230.

317  —

The same suspicion seems to have been entertained by some of Elizabeth’s courtiers. Strype’s Aylmer, p. 20.

318  —

See Note BB   .

319  —

The editions of the Blast printed along with Knox’s History, are all extremely incorrect: whole sentences are often omitted.

320  —

In his answer to Knox’s argument, from Isaiah, iii. 12, he concludes thus: “Therefore the argumente ariseth from wrong understandinge. As the vicar of Trumpenton understode Eli, Eli, lamazabatani, when he read the passion on Palme Sonday. When he came to that place, he stopped, and calling the churchwardens, saide, ‘Neighbours! this gear must be amended. Here is Eli twice in the book: I assure you if my L. [the bishop] of Elie come this waye, and see it, he will have the book. Therefore, by mine advice, we shall scrape it out, and put in our own towne’s name, Trumpington, Trumpington, lamah zabactani   .’ They consented, and he did so, because he understode no grewe.” Harborowe, G. 3. G. 4.

321  —

1 Tim. ii. 11–14.

322  —

Harborowe, G. 4. H.

323  —

See Note CC   .

324  —

Harborowe, sig. G. 3. Life of Aylmer, p. 279.

325  —

Life of Aylmer, p. 269.

326  —

Knox, Historie, p. 101.

327  —

Ninian Winget says, that “sum lordis and gentilmen” ministered the sacrament of the supper “to their awn household servandis and tenantis.” If only one instance of this kind occurred, the papists would exaggerate it. The same writer adds, “that Knox blamed the persons who did it, saying, that they had ‘gretumlie failzeit.’” Winzet’s Buke of Fourscoir Three Questions, in Keith, Append. p. 239. Comp. Knox, p. 217.

328  —

Cald. MS. i. 257. “The Electioun of Eldaris and Deaconis in the church of Edinburgh,” in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 635, 636. Calderwood places his account of this under the year 1555; but I think that date too early. It was rather in the end of 1556, or in the course of 1557. The names of the first elders in Edinburgh were George Smail, Michael Robertson, Adam Craig, John Cairns, and Alexander Hope. There were at first two assemblies in Edinburgh; but Erskine of Dun persuaded them to unite, and they met sometimes in the houses of Robert Watson and James Barron, and sometimes in the abbey.

329  —

Knox, Historie, p. 94–5.

330  —

See Note DD   .

331  —

Knox, 101.

332  —

Spotswood, p. 117.

333  —

Ibid. Knox, p. 102.

334  —

How the bishop’s conscience stood affected as to these points we know not; but it is certain that his practice was very far from being immaculate. Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 209, Knox, Historie, p. 104. Keith, p. 208.

335  —

Endure.

336  —

Need.

337  —

Knox, Historie, p. 106–7.

338  —

Lindsay of Pitscottie’s History, p. 200–1. Knox, 122. Spotswood, 95–7. Petrie, Part ii. 191.

339  —

Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 216. Besides the persons above named, the council mention (in the place here referred to) “Johannes Patritz, et alii complures, catholicæ fidei et ecclesiasticæ unitatis desertores.” Who this Patritz was I do not know. The reformed preachers were obliged to assume feigned names on particular occasions, to escape apprehension. Thus Douglas went by the name of Grant. Comp. Knox, Historie, p. 103, 106.

340  —

Historie of the Estate of Scotland from 1559 to 1566, p. 1. MS. belonging to Thomas Thomson, Esq. Advocate. This MS., which I had not seen when I published the first edition of this work, contains a number of minute particulars not mentioned in other histories. It would have been extremely valuable if it had been complete, but the copy which I have used stops short in the middle of the year 1560.

341  —

Ibid.

342  —

See Note EE   .

343  —

Knox, Historie, p. 122. Bishop Bale, who was then at Basle, inserted, in a work which he was just publishing, a letter sent him at this time by Thomas Cole, an English refugee residing at Geneva, communicating this information. “Heri enim,” says Cole, “D. Knoxus ex Scotia nova certissima de immutata religione accepit: Christum publice per totum illud regnum doceri; et ita demum hominum corda occupasse, ut omni metu posito audeant publicis precibus interesse sua lingua celebratis, et sacramenta quoque habeant rite administrata, impuris antichristi ceremoniis abjectis.—Nunc regina cogitat Reformationem religionis, indicto die quo conventus fiat totius regni, &c.” Scriptor. Illustr. Major. Britanniæ Poster. Pars. Art. Knoxus.    Basil, 1559.

344  —

“God would not suffer her to reign long,” says a catholic writer, “either on account of the sins of her father, or on account of the sins of her people, who were unworthy of a princess so holy, so pious, and endued with such divine and rare dispositions.” Laing, de Vita Hæretic. fol. 28.

345  —

Troubles at Franckford, p. 189, 190.

346  —

Cald. MS. i. 380.

347  —

Histoire Littéraire de Geneve, par Jean Senebier, tome i. 375, Genev. 1786. It is somewhat singular, that Calvin did not obtain this honour until December 1559. “Il n’y a cependant point de citoyen,” says Senebier, “qui ait acheté ce titre honorable aussi chèrement que lui par ses services, et je ne crois pas qu’il y en ait beaucoup qui l’aient autant mérité, et qui le rendent aussi célébre.” Ibid. p. 230, 231.

Our Reformer obtained another public testimony of esteem at this time from bishop Bale, who dedicated his work on Scottish Writers to him and Alexander Aless. The praise which he bestows on him deserves the more notice, because the bishop had been one of his opponents at Frankfort. “Te vero, Knoxe, frater amatissime, conjunxit mihi Anglia et Germania, imprimis autem doctrinæ nostræ in Christo Domino fraterna consensio. Nemo est enim qui tuam fidem, constantiam, patientiam, tot erumnis, tanta persecutione, exilioque diuturno et gravi, testatum, non collaudet, et non admiretur, non amplectatur.” Balei Script. Illustr. Maj. Brit. Poster. Pars, p. 175, 176. Basiliæ, ex officina Joan. Operini, 1559. Mense Februario.

348  —

Knox, Historie, p. 205.

349  —

Knox, Historie, 206, 210.

350  —

In February 1559, the English exiles at Geneva published a prose translation of the book of Psalms, which they dedicated to Elizabeth; and in this dedication, their congratulations on her accession to the throne, and their professions of loyalty, are as warm as those of any of her subjects were. It is inscribed, “To the most Vertuous and Noble Queene Elizabeth, Queene of Englande, France, and Irelande, &c. your humble subjects of the English church at Geneva, wyth grace, &c.” After mentioning that they had employed the time of their exile in revising the English translation of the Bible, and endeavouring to bring it as near as they could to the pure simplicity and true meaning of the Hebrew tongue, they add: “When we heard that the almightie and most mercyfull God had no less myraculously preferred you to that excellent dignitie, than he had aboue all mens expectations preserued you from the furie of such as sought your blood: with most joyful myndes and great diligence we endeavoured our selves, to set foorth and dedicate this most excellent booke of the Psalmes vnto your grace as a speciall token of our seruice and good will, till the rest of the Byble, which, praysed be God, is in good readinesse, may be accomplished and presented.” Epistle, p. 3, prefixed to the Booke of Psalmes, Geneva, 1559, 16mo.

351  —

Haynes, State Papers, p. 295. Knox, Historie, p. 210.

352  —

Burnet, ii. 374, 396. Stow, Annals, p. 635, edit. 1631. When afterwards committed to the Marshalsea for refusing to take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, Bonner was kept “under a very easy restraint.” Godwin de Præsulibus Angliæ, p. 251, edit. 1616. Stapleton, a popish writer, says that Tonstal was “cast into prison, as most of the bishops were, where he made a glorious end of a confessor, and satisfied for his former crime of schisme.”—“A prison!” exclaims Dr Jortin. “Lambeth palace, and the archbishop’s table, was a dreadful dungeon, to be sure; and as bad as those into which the righteous Bonner, and other saints of the same class, used to thrust the poor heretics! Will men never be ashamed of these godly tricks and disingenuous prevarications?” Life of Erasmus, i. 101.

353  —

He said, “that he saw nothing to be ashamed of or sorry for; wished that he had done more, and that he and others had been more vehement in executing the laws; and said that it grieved him that they laboured only about the young and little twigs, whereas they should have struck at the root;” by which he was understood to mean queen Elizabeth. Strype’s Annals, i. 79, 536.

354  —

Cald. MS. i. 384. See also Knox, Historie, p. 204–207.

355  —

Robertson’s History of Scotland, b. ii. ad an. 1559.

356  —

Knox, Historie, p. 206, 214, 260. He had an opportunity of receiving a confirmation of this intelligence during his voyage to Scotland. In the same ship in which he sailed, there was sent by the French court to the queen regent, a staff of state, with a great seal, on which were engraved the arms of France, Scotland, and England. This was shown to him in great secrecy. The English court, after they were awakened from their lethargy, and convinced of the hostile designs of France, applied to Knox for the information which they might have had from him six months before. Cotton MSS. Caligula, b. ix. f. 38, 74. Sadler’s State Papers, i. 463, 688. Keith, Append. p. 38, 42. The English certainly suffered themselves to be amused during the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis, while the courts of France and Spain concerted measures dangerous to England, and to the whole protestant interest. Dr Wotton, one of the commissioners, complains, in a letter to Cecil, of want of intelligence, and that the English had no spies on the continent. Forbes’s State Papers, i. 23.

357  —

Knox, Historie, p. 204, 206.

358  —

The person whom he at last persuaded to take his letter was Richard Harrison. But the cautious spy, (for such was his employment at that time,) dreading that Knox had made him the bearer of another Blast, which, if it did not endanger the throne of Elizabeth, might blow up his credit with the court, prudently communicated the suspicious packet to Sir Nicholas Throkmorton, the English ambassador at the court of France, who conveyed it to London. Letter from Throkmorton to Cecil, 15th of May, 1559: Forbes’s State Papers, i. 90, 91.

359  —

Cald. MS. i. 392, 393. Knox, Historie, p. 127, 207.

360  —

Some remarks on the representation which Dr Robertson has given of the regent’s conduct will be found in Note FF   .

361  —

Knox, Historie, p. 125.

362  —

MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, from 1559 to 1566, p. 1.

363  —

See Note GG   .

364  —

MS. Historie, ut sup. p. 2.

365  —

Ibid. p. 2, 3.

366  —

Ibid. p. 3. Wilkins, Concilia, tom. iv. p. 205.

367  —

Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 342. Knox, p. 51. Spotswood, 24. Lord Hailes, Provincial Councils, 39, 40.

368  —

Wilkins, Concilia, iv. p. 204–5.

369  —

The primate’s letter, summoning the archbishop of Glasgow to the council, is dated the last day of January. Wilkins, ut supra. The council met on the 1st of March. Ibid. p. 208. But the archbishop of Glasgow’s letter, calling his clergy to the council, is dated so late as the 18th of March, and he requires them to attend on the 6th of April. Ibid. p. 206. We may also observe that Beatoun, in his citation, takes no notice of the primate’s mandate. It is likely that the matter was settled by the good offices of the queen regent, whose favourable inclinations towards the church are warmly celebrated by the council. Ibid. p. 209.

370  —

MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 3.

371  —

Lesley, Hist. p. 546. Lord Hailes, Provincial Councils, p. 38.

372  —

Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 207–8. Wilkins has inserted the Remonstrance at large, which he procured from the Records in the Scots college at Paris. It is surprising that this curious document should have escaped the inquisitive eye of Lord Hailes, who has not taken the slightest notice of it in his account of the Scottish councils.

373  —

Can. 21, 22, 24, 32: in Wilkins, 214–16.

374  —

Can. 2–20: ibid. p. 210–14.

375  —

Lesley, Hist. p. 546. Lord Hailes, Prov. Coun. p. 38–9.

376  —

Can. 16: in Wilkins, ut sup. p. 212–13.

377  —

Can. 30. Ibid. p. 216.

378  —

Can. 33, 34. Ibid. p. 216–17. The following is the form of words appointed by the council to be used by the priest in re‑baptization:—“Si tu es baptizatus, ego non te baptizo; sed si non es baptizatus, ego te baptizo, in nomine Patris,” &c. i.e.    “If thou hast been baptized, I do not baptize thee; but if thou hast not been baptized, I do baptize thee, in the name of the Father,” &c. This was not, however, a new form.

379  —

MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 3. Knox, Historie, p. 122. According to the first of these authorities, the sum promised by the clergy was £15,000; but according to a chronicle written by the laird of Erleshall, and referred to by Knox, it was £40,000.

380  —

MS. Hist. of the Estate of Scotland, ut sup.

381  —

Justiciary Records, May 10, 1559.

382  —

Knox, 126.

383  —

Ibid. Spotswood, 120–1. Buchanani Oper. i. 312–3.

384  —

Letter to Mrs Anne Locke, apud Cald. MS. i. 393.

385  —

MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 3, 4. Knox, Historie, p. 109. In the preamble to the acts of this council, it is said to have been “finitum 10 die mensis Aprilis.” But in the conclusion of the acts, there is an expression which enables us to reconcile this with the two preceding authorities—”finiendo seu finito    die 10 mensis Aprilis:” from which it appears that, though the acts were concluded, it was not yet agreed to close the council on that day. Wilkins, iv. 209, 217.

386  —

MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 4.

387  —

Knox, Historie, p. 127. Spotswood, 121. Buchanani Oper. i. 313.

388  —

See Note GG   .

389  —

Knox, Historie, p. 128. Buchanani Oper. i. 313.

390  —

Knox, Historie, p. 128–9, 135, 137.

391  —

MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 5.

392  —

Buchanani Oper. i. 313. Knox, 128. A writer has given the name of “bellum imaginarium” to this war, undertaken by the regent to avenge the destruction of the images; and the crimes charged upon the protestants he denominates “mere imaginaria    seditio et rebellio.” Historie of the Church of Scotland to 1566. MS. Adv. Lib. A. 5, 43.

393  —

When the overtures were proposed to the protestants, they exclaimed with one voice, “Cursit be they that seik effusioun of blude, weir, or dissentioun. Lat us possess Christ Jesus, and the benefite of his evangell, and nane within Scotland sall be mair obedient subjectis than we sall be.” Knox, Historie, p. 137. The regent’s army consisted of 8000, that of the protestants amounted to 5000 men. This seems to have been the number of the latter previous to the arrival of the earl of Glencairn with a reinforcement from the west. Glencairn had joined them, before the conclusion of the treaty, with 2500 men, a circumstance which did not alter their pacific wishes. Cald. MS. i. 426. MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 5. Knox, Historie, 136.

394  —

MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 6. Knox, 135–9. Buchanani Oper. i. 314–5. Spotswood, 123.

395  —

Buchanani Oper. i. 311.

396  —

MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 8. Knox, Historie, 136, 138, 144.

397  —

Dr Robertson.

398  —

Knox, Historie, 141–146. Buchanani Oper. i. 315–6. Spotswood, 142–6.

399  —

Letter written by Knox from St Andrews, 23d June, 1559: Cald. MS. i. 426, 428. Knox, Historie, p. 140, 141. MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 6.

400  —

Gude and godly Ballates, in Dalyell’s Scottish Poems of the 16th century, ii. 192, 198.

401  —

The tolbooth of Musselburgh was built out of the ruins of the chapel of Loretto; on which account the good people of that town were, till lately, annually excommunicated at Rome. Sibbald’s Chronicle of Scottish Poetry, iii. 19. Those who wish to see a specimen of catholic declamation on this subject, may consult Note HH   .

402  —

The reader may take one example, which I adduce, not because it is the strongest, but because it happens to be at hand. “This abbey [Kelso] was demolished 1569, in consequence of the enthusiastic Reformation, which, in its violence, was a greater disgrace to religion than all the errors it was intended to subvert. Reformation has hitherto always appeared in the form of a zealot, full of fanatic fury, with violence subduing, but through madness creating, almost as many mischiefs in its oversights, as it overthrows errors in its pursuit. Religion has received a greater shock from the present struggle to repress some formularies and save some scruples, than it ever did by the growth of superstition.” Hutchinson’s History of Northumberland, and of an Excursion to the Abbey of Melrose, i. 265.

403  —

“Alas! how little of its former splendour have time and the fanatic rage of the early Christians left to the Roman forum! The covered passage, with a flight of steps, founded by Tarquin the elder, is no more here to shelter us from bad weather, or to serve for the spectators to entertain themselves with mountebanks in the market‑place.” A most deplorable loss, truly! This writer adds, that the statues of the twelve gods are yet standing: no great proof, one would imagine, of the fanatic rage of the Christians. Kotzebue’s Travels through Italy, vol. i. p. 200.

404  —

Edinburgh Review, vol. iv. p. 348, and Lord Lauderdale’s Observations on Edinburgh Review.

405  —

See Note II   .

406  —

——When we had quell’d

The strength of Aztlan, we should have thrown down

Her altars, cast her idols to the fire.

——The priests combined to save their craft;

And soon the rumour ran of evil signs

And tokens; in the temple had been heard

Wailings and loud lament; the eternal fire

Gave dismally a dim and doubtful flame;

And from the censer, which at morn should steam

Sweet odours to the sun, a fetid cloud

Black and portentous rose.

Southey’s Madoc, part i. book ii.

407  —

Knox, Historie, p. 332.

408  —

Ibid. p. 146.

409  —

Ibid. p. 145.

410  —

MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 8, 9.

411  —

Ibid. p. 7.

412  —

Probably a part of the Caltonhill.

413  —

The army of the regent consisted of 5000 men, the Congregation could not muster above 1500. MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 9.

414  —

Ibid. p. 10. Knox, Historie, 151–5.

415  —

Knox, Historie, p. 158.

416  —

MS. Historie of the Estate, &c. p. 11.

417  —

Knox, 159.

418  —

MS. Historie, p. 12.

419  —

Ibid. Knox, 159.

420  —

MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p.12.

421  —

Cald. MS. i. 472, 473. Forbes, i. 131, 155. Sadler, i. 431, 432.

422  —

This refers to the agreement between the regent and lords of the Congregation, by which the latter gave up Edinburgh. The lords left Edinburgh on the 25th of July. MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 10. Knox, Historie, p. 154.

423  —

Cald. MS. i. 428, 471.

424  —

Forbes, i. 129, 130. Throkmorton wrote to the same effect to Cecil, in letters dated 7th June, and 19th July, 1559. Ibid. p. 119, 167. The ambassador was probably moved to more earnestness in this matter by the influence of Alexander Whitlaw of Greenrig, a particular friend of our Reformer, who was at this time in France. He returned soon after to Scotland, and Throkmorton recommended him to Cecil, as “a very honest, sober, and godly man.”—“You must let him se as littel sin in England as yowe maye.”—He “is greatly estemyd of Jhone Knokes, and he doth allso favour hym above other: nevertheless, he is sory for his boke rashly written.” Ibid. 137, 147–149.

425  —

Cald. MS. i. 491.

426  —

Knox applied to the English court for a safe‑conduct for Mrs Bowes to come into Scotland, which was granted about the month of October, 1559. Sadler, i. 456, 479, 509. I have already noticed, (p. 187,) that Mrs Bowes’s husband was dead. The particular time of his death I have not ascertained, but it seems to have been between 1554 and 1556. She is designed a widow, in the correspondence between Cecil and Sadler.

427  —

Cald. MS. i. 429, 473.

428  —

Edinburgh, St Andrews, Dundee, Perth, Brechin, Montrose, Stirling, and Ayr, were the towns provided with ministers. Letter, Knox to Locke, 2d Sept. 1559: Cald. MS. i. 472.

429  —

Sadler, i. 403, 411. Forbes, vol. i. passim. Dr Robertson complains that, from the carelessness of the contemporary historians, it is impossible to ascertain the number of French soldiers in Scotland, or at what times, and under what pretexts, they had returned, after having left the kingdom in 1550. History of Scotland, p. 108. Lond. 1791. In September 1559, when the queen regent retired within the fortifications of Leith, her forces amounted to 3000 soldiers, of whom 500 only were Scots. MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland from 1559 to 1566, p. 13. A thousand men had arrived from France in the month of August, and it does not appear that any other arrival had taken place since the commencement of the late commotions. It seems pretty evident that the other 1500 had been sent from France during the war between Scotland and England, in 1556 and 1557. The lords of the Congregation mustered 8000 men in September; but only 1000 of these were trained to arms. Ibid.

430  —

Knox, Historie, p. 207.

431  —

Ibid. p. 209. Forbes, i. 155, 167.

432  —

Beausobre, Hist. Reform, i. 355–377. Macaulay’s translation. Milner’s History of the Church, iv. 948–9. This last historian, speaking of Luther’s apology to Henry, says, that he went “quite far enough, either for the dignity of a leading reformer, or the simplicity of a follower of Christ.” Luther himself, after receiving Henry’s reply, appears to have been abundantly sensible of the ridiculous situation in which he had placed himself, and, with a facetiousness which seldom forsook him, asked his friends, if they would not now advise him to write penitential epistles to the archbishop of Mentz, the archduke Ferdinand, and other princes whom he had offended. Milner, ut sup. p. 956.

433  —

Knox, Historie, p. 210–2.

434  —

Strype, Annals, i. 126, ii. 95–6. Life of Grindal, 170, and Life of Parker, 325–6.

435  —

See Sir James Melvil’s account of his interview with Elizabeth, Memoirs, p. 49–51, which has been adopted, and detailed by Mr Hume, and other historians.

436  —

Cecil was accustomed to keep back intelligence which he knew would be disagreeable to his mistress. A curious instance of this occurs with respect to the misfortune which happened to Cockburn of Ormiston, while conveying a subsidy which she had sent to the Congregation. Sadler, i. 573. We learn from one of his letters, that he did not usually communicate the epistles of our Reformer, whom he knew to be no favourite with Elizabeth. Ibid. p. 535.

437  —

Knox, Historie, p. 212.

438  —

Knox, Historie, 59, 213.

439  —

Knox, Historie, p. 212–214. The State Papers of Sir Ralph Sadler have been lately published in 2 vols. 4to. The 1st volume contains the greater part of the letters that passed between Sadler and the agents of the Congregation. They throw much light upon this interesting period of our national history, and ought to be consulted, in addition to the histories which appeared previous to their publication.

440  —

Keith, Append. 42.

441  —

See Note KK   .

442  —

Sadler, i. 520, 524. Randolph mentions in one of his letters, that both Knox and Balnaves were discontented. Keith has inserted a letter in which Balnaves complains of, and vindicates himself from, the charges brought against him. Sadler afterwards endeavoured to pacify them. Keith, Append. 43, 44. Sadler, i. p. 537, 548. Notwithstanding the complaints against the Congregation for being too “open,” there is some reason to think that Sir James Croft’s own secretary had informed the queen regent of the correspondence between England and the Congregation, Forbes, i. p. 137.

443  —

“See how Mr Knox still presses his under‑hand management!” says Keith. Quære   : Did the honest bishop never find any occasion, in the course of his history, to reprimand such management in his own friends? or, did he think that intrigue was criminal, only when it was employed by protestant cabinets and ministers?

444  —

Keith, Append. 40–42. Sadler, i. p. 523. In fact, if a storm had not dispersed and shattered the French fleet, which had on board the marquis D’Elbeuf, and a large body of troops, destined for the reinforcement of the queen regent, the English, after so long delay, would have found it very difficult to expel the French from Scotland.

445  —

Sadler, i. 522, 534, 568.

446  —

The lords of the Congregation having proposed to send our Reformer to London as one of their commissioners, Cecil found it necessary to discourage the proposal. “Of all others, Knoxees name, if it be not Goodman’s, is most odious here; and therefore, I wish no mention of him [coming] hither.” And in another letter he says; “His writings [i.e.    Knox’s letters] doo no good here; and therefore I doo rather suppress them, and yet I meane not but that ye should contynue in sending of them.” Sadler, i. 532, 535. The editor of Sadler supposes, without any reason, that Knox and Goodman were disliked by the English court on account of their Geneva discipline, and republican tenets. The unpardonable offence of which both had been guilty was different from either of these; they had attacked “the regiment of women.”

447  —

Sadler, i. 540. Keith, Append. 40.

448  —

“In twenty‑four hours, I have not four free to natural rest, and easce of this wicked carcass. Remember my last request for my mother, and say to Mr George,” (Sir George Bowes, his brother‑in‑law,) “that I have need of a good and an assured horse; for great watch is laid for my apprehension, and large money promised till any that shall kyll me.——And this part of my care now poured in your bosom, I cease farther to trouble you, being troubled myself in body and spirit, for the troubles that be present, and appear to grow. At mydnicht.

“Many things I have to writ, which now tym suffereth not, but after, if ye mak haste with this messinger, ye shall undirstand more.      R      ryt      I write with      sleaping eis.” Knox’s letter to Raylton, 23d October, 1559. Keith, Append. 38. Sadler, i. 681, 682.

This letter, written with the Reformer’s own hand, is in the British Museum. Cotton MS. Calig. B. ix. f. 38. The conclusion of the letter, which is here printed in imitation of the original, is very descriptive of the state of the writer at the time. It also appears from this letter, that, amidst his other employments, he had already begun and made considerable progress in his History of the Reformation.

449  —

Forbes, i. 117, 144, 163, 166. Sadler, i. 404, 417, 447.

450  —

See Note LL   .

451  —

Dr Robertson says, “It was the work but of one day to examine and resolve this nice problem, concerning the behaviour of subjects towards a ruler who abuses his power.” But it may be observed, that this was the formal    determination of the question. It had been discussed among the protestants frequently before this meeting, and, as early as the beginning of September, they were nearly unanimous about it. Sadler, i, 433. It should also be noticed, that the queen regent was only suspended from, not absolutely “deprived of,” her office.

452  —

Knox, 182–187.

453  —

Sadler, i. 510, 511.

454  —

Spotswood, p. 137. Keith, p. 104.

455  —

Villers’s Essay on the spirit and influence of the Reformation of Luther, Mill’s Translation, p. 183, 186, 321, 327.

456  —

See above, p. 7–9   .

457  —

“I prais my God,” said he, “I have not learned to cry conjuration and treasoun at every thing that the godles multitude does condemn, neither yet to fear the things that they fear.” Conference with Murray and Maitland: Historie, p. 339.

458  —

The authorities for this statement of Knox’s political opinions will be found in Note MM   .

459  —

“Concedit autem,” says Melanchthon, “evangelium uti legibus politicis cum ratione congruentibus. Imo si talis defensio non esset concessa, transformaretur evangelium in doctrinam politicam, et stabiliret infinitam tyranniden.” Comment. in Prov. xxiv. 21, 22. And again: “Non constituit evangelium novas politias, quare nec infinitam servitutem præcepit.” 2. Artic. Symbol. Nicen. sub quæstione, Utrum armis reprimendi sunt tyranni?    This argument influenced Luther to retract the unlimited condemnation of resistance which he had formerly published, and to approve of the League of Smalcald. Sleidan, Comment. lib. 8. Dean Milner has overlooked this fact, in his statement of the political principles of that Reformer.

460  —

Knox has preserved in his History (p. 194–197) the principal topics on which he insisted in this sermon.

461  —

Knox, Historie, p. 197, 201, 215. Spotswood, p. 140. MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland, p. 19–22.

462  —

A particular account of this expedition, overlooked in our common histories, is given in MS. Historie of the Estate of Scotland from 1559 to 1566, p. 25–7. Lesley (p. 519) refers to it obscurely. Spotswood (p. 140) and Keith (p. 110) have confounded it with a different expedition, which was undertaken in November preceding.

463  —

Those who wish to see a particular account of the negociations between France and England, and of the motives which influenced both courts in their conduct towards Scotland, may consult the letters published by Forbes and Haynes, particularly those written from November 1559 to July 1560.

464  —

Buchanani Oper. i. 313. Knox, 229–234. Spotswood, p. 147–9. Keith, p. 130–145.

465  —

Lesley, p. 516–7. Spotswood, 133–4. Keith, 102. Sadler says, that the bishop of Amiens came “to curse, and also to dispute with the protestants, and to reconcile them, if it wolbe.” State Papers, i. 470.

466  —

The earl of Glencairn’s satirical poem against the friars is written in the form of an epistle from this hermit. Knox, Historie, p. 25.

467  —

He was the ancestor of Lord Colville of Ochiltree (Douglas’s Peerage, p. 147); and was killed at the siege of Leith, on the 7th of May, 1560. Knox, Historie, p. 227.

468  —

Row’s MS. Historie of the Kirk, p. 356, transcribed in 1726. An account of this pretended miracle and its detection, probably taken from the above MS., will be found in the Weekly Magazine for June 1772.

469  —

The English ambassadors, in a letter to Elizabeth, say: “Two things have bene tow hott [too hot] for the French too meddle withal; and therefore they be passed, and left as they found them. The first is the matter of religion, which is here as freely, and rather more earnestly, (as I, the secretary, thynk,) receaved than in England: a hard thyng now to alter, as it is planted.” Haynes, p. 352. Dr Wotton, dean of Windsor, and secretary Cecil, are the subscribers of this letter; but as it would have been rather too much for the dean to say that religion was “more earnestly received” in Scotland than in England, the secretary alone vouches for that fact.

470  —

By one of the articles of the treaty, the parliament, after agreeing upon such things as they thought necessary for the reformation of religion, were to send deputies into France to represent them to their Majesties. Knox, Historie, p. 234. Spotswood, p. 149.

471  —

Robertson’s History of Scotland, b. i. Keith, p. 147–8.

472  —

Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 525–6. Keith, 146–7. Robertson, i. Append. No. iv. In the list of members in this parliament, the names of the lesser barons, or gentlemen of the shire, are inserted after those of the commissioners of boroughs; the roll having been made up previous to the admission of the former.

473  —

Knox, Historie, p. 237–8.

474  —

Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 526–534. Knox, Historie, p. 240–253. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 21–98.

475  —

In Knox’s Historie, “the 17th day of July” is printed, by mistake, instead of the 17th of August   . Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 534.

476  —

Knox, Historie, p. 253.

477  —

Keith is at a great loss to account for, and excuse, the silence of the popish clergy (to whom he is uniformly partial); and he found himself obliged to retract one apology which he had made for them, viz. that they were deterred from speaking by the threatenings of their opponents. History, p. 149, 150, comp. 488, note (a).

478  —

Knox, Historie, p. 253.

479  —

Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 534–5. Knox, Historie, p. 254–5.

480  —

In an early part of the Record, is the following entry:—

Item, the xii of November, (1516,) to Margaret Cornewle for i buk takin fra her and gevin to my l. of Sanct Andros,          xxxiii li.

481  —

Comp. Knox, Historie, p. 40.

482  —

Comp. Bannatyne Miscellany, vol. i. p. 253–263.

483  —

In the Treasurer’s Accompts, under the year 1534, is the following entry:

“Item, to ane servand of Cocleus, quhilk bro   t fra his maister ane buik intitulat     , to his reward       xli.”

484  —

The words in Italics are not in the printed copies.

485  —

The printed copies, instead of “end,” have “fyne;” a word sometimes used in the MS. Letters.

486  —

A charter of confirmation was granted to Mr Henry Balnaves and Christian Scheves, his spouse, of the lands of “Ester Cullessy vocat. Halhill,” on the 10th of August, 1538. Reg. Secr. Sigil. lib. xiij. f. 20. On the 12th of May, 1562, a letter under the privy seal was granted to Mr Henry Balnaves of Halhill, restoring him to his lands, honours, &c., of which he had been deprived “for certane allegit crymes of lese majestie imput to him.” Ibid. lib. xxxi. f. 16.

487  —

i.e.    deign: in the printed copies it is “disease himself.”

488  —

The printed copies are unintelligible here.

489  —

In a list of books belonging to the university of St Andrews, Winram’s Catechism is entered as a work distinct from that of Hamilton. Life of Andrew Melville, vol. i. p. 191.

490  —

Carol. Rinaldinij. Matth. Analit. art. pars 3tia.

491  —

Nouvell. de la Republ. de Lett.    1685.

492  —

Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. xx. p. 422.

Transcriber’s Notes.

The following corrections have been made in the text:

1  —

‘fist’ replaced with ‘first’

(same place on the first of March)

2  —

‘he’ replaced with ‘the’

(from the severe persecutions)

3  —

‘tha’ replaced with ‘that’

(that none might pretend)

4  —

Text page 394 mislabeled as ‘396’

5  —

‘1348’ replaced with ‘1548’

(pallaice of Roane, in the year 1548)

6  —

‘l’Egliss’ replaced with ‘l’Eglise’

(diuine en l’Eglise de Christ,)

7  —

‘aiusy’ replaced with ‘ainsy’

(ainsy que tres bien)

8  —

‘nici’ replaced with ‘nisi’

(nisi ex judicio,)

9  —

‘contraversias’ replaced with ‘controversias’

(ullis controversias et quæstiones)

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LIFE OF JOHN KNOX, FIFTH EDITION, VOL. 1 OF 2 ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

LIFE OF JOHN KNOX

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

ADVERTISEMENT TO THE FIFTH EDITION.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME FIRST.

PERIOD I.

PERIOD II.

PERIOD III.

PERIOD IV.

PERIOD V.

PERIOD VI.

NOTES TO VOLUME FIRST.

Footnotes.

Transcriber’s Notes.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE