Life of John Knox, Fifth Edition, Vol. 1 of 2 - Containing Illustrations of the History of the Reformation in Scotland

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Life of John Knox, Fifth Edition, Vol. 1 of 2 - Containing Illustrations of the History of the Reformation in Scotland
Author: M'Crie, Thomas
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Life of John Knox, Fifth Edition, Vol. 1 of 2 - Containing Illustrations of the History of the Reformation in Scotland" ***

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ The page numbers from the original book are shown in braces │
│ {} for reference purposes. │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ transliteration: │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ superscripts --> x{th} │
│ │
│ 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 number in │
│ brackets [2] and have been accumulated in a single section │
│ 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 single section at the end of the book. │
│ │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

[Illustration]

Engraved by J. Cochran.

JOHN KNOX

FROM THE ORIGINAL PICTURE IN THE POSSESSION OF

LORD TORPHICHEN.

_Published by W. Blackwood, Edinburgh, April 10, 1831._

{i}
LIFE

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.

THOMAS M‘CRIE, D.D.

THE FIFTH EDITION.

VOL. I.

WILLIAM BLACKWOOD, EDINBURGH; AND
T. CADELL, STRAND, LONDON.
MDCCCXXXI.

{ii}
EDINBURGH:
PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY,
PAUL’S WORK, CANONGATE.

{iii}
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 {iv} 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 {v} 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]

{vi} 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 {vii} 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 {viii} 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 {ix} 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. {x} 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 {xi} 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 {xii} 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._

{xiii}
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._

{xv}
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._

{xvi}

{xvii}
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., Page 1

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
{xviii} 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, Page 37

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, Page 78

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 {xix} 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, Page 121

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 {xx} 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, Page 194

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 {xxi} 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 {xxii} miracle at Musselburgh――meeting
of parliament――petition of Protestants――Protestant Confession
of Faith ratified by parliament――retrospective view of the
advancement of the Reformation, Page 245

NOTES. Page 335

{1}
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 {2} 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, {3}
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]

{4} 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, {5} 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 {6} 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
{7} 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 {8} 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 {9} 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 {10} 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 {11} 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 {12} 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 {13} 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 {14} 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, {15} 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 {16} 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 {17}
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 {18} 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 {19} 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, {20} 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,
{21} 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 {22} 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 {23} 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 {24} 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 {25} 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 {26} 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 {27} 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 {28} 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 {29} 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,” {30} 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 {31} 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 {32} 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 {33} 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
{34} 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, {35} 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 {36}
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]

{37}
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 {38}
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]

{39} 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 {40} 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 {41} 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 {42} 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 {43} 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 {44} 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 {45} 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]

{46} 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, {47} 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 {48} 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 {49} 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.
{50} 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 {51} 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 {52} 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 {53} 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]

{54} 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 {55}
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 {56} 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 {57} 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 {58}
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 {59} 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 {60} 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 {61} 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 {62} 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 {63} 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 {64} 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 {65} 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 {66} 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 {67} 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 {68} 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 {69}
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,” {70} 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]

{71} 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; {72} 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 {73} 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] {74} 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 {75} 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 {76} 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 {77} 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.

{78}
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 {79} 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 {80} 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 {81} 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 {82} 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 {83} 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
{84} 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, {85} 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] {86} 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]

{87} 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 {88} 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 {89} 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 {90} 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]

{91} 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 {92} 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 {93} 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 {94} 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 {95} 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 {96} 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 {97}
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]

{98} 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 {99} 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 {100} 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 {101} 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. {102} 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, {103} 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
{104} 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 {105} 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 {106} 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 {107}
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 {108} 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 {109} 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
{110} 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 {111} 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 {112} 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]

{113} 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; {114} 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. {115} 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 {116} 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
{117} 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 {118}
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 {119} 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]

{120} 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]

{121}
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 {122} 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 {123} 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 {124} 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 {125} 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 {126} 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 {127} 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 {128} 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 {129} 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 {130}
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 {131} 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 {132} 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 {133} 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 {134} 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 {135} 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 {136}
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, {137} 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 {138} 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, {139} 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 {140} 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 {141} 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 {142} 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 {143} 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, {144} 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 {145}
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 {146} 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 {147}
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, {148} 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 {149} 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 {150} 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 {151} 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 {152} 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 {153} 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, {154}
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 {155} 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
{156} 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]

{157} 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 {158} 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 {159} 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 {160} 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
{161} 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 {162} 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 {163} 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 {164} 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, {165} 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 {166} 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 {167} 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, {168} 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 {169} 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] {170} 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 {171} 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]

{172} 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]

{173} 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 {174} 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 {175} 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
{176} 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 {177} 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 {178}
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 {179} 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 {180}
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, {181}
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 {182} 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 {183} 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, {184} 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 {185} 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 {186} 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 {187} 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 {188} 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 {189} 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. {190} 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 {191} 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 {192} 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 {193}
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.

{194}
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 {195} 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 {196}
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, {197} 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 {198} 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 {199} 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 {200} 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 {201} 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]

{202} 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 {203} 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 {204} 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 {205} 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 {206} 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.

{207} 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.

{208} 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
{209} 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, {210} 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 {211} 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. {212} 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 {213} 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 {215} 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 {216} 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 {217} 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 {218} 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 {219} 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]

{220} 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 {221} 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 {222} 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.

{223} 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 {224} 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]

{225} 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, {226} “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 {227} 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, {228} 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 {229} 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 {230} 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 {231} 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 {232}
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 {233} 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 {234} 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. {235}
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 {236} 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 {237} 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 {238} “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 {239} 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, {240} 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
{241} 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 {242} 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
{243} 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 {244} 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]

{245}
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 {246} 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 {247} 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 {248} 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 {249} 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]

{250} 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 {251} 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 {252} 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 {253} 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, {254} 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.

{255} “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 {256} 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.

{257} 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, {258} 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 {259} 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 {260} 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 {261}
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 {262} 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 {263} 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
{264} 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 {265}
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.

{266} 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 {267} 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 {268} 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:
{269} 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 {270} 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 {271} 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 {272} 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 {273} 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 {274} 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, {275} 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 {276} 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 {277} 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 {278} 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 {279} 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 {280}
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 {281} 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 {282} 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,
{283} 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 {284} 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, {285} 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 {286} 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 {287} 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 {288} 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 {289} 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; {290}
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]

{291} 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 {292} “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 {293} 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 {294} 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]

{295} 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 {296} 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, {297} 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 {298} 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 {299} 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 {300} 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 {301} 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 {302} 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 {303} 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 {304} 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 {305} 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 {306} 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 {307} 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.

{308} 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 {309} 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 {310} 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.

{311} 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,
{312} 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 {313} 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
{314} 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; {315} 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,
{316} 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 {317} 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 {318} 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 {319} 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 {320} 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 {321} 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 {322}
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 {323} 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 {324}
“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 {325} 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 {326} 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 {327} 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 {328}
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 {329}
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 {330} 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 {331} 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 {332} 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 {333} 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.
{334}

{335}
NOTES
TO
VOLUME FIRST.

Note A, Footnote 2.

_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 {336} 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 {337} 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 {338} 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 {339} 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, Footnote 6.

_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.
{340} 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 D{ni} millesimo quingentesimo
decimo octavo, &c.

“Eodem die――Incorporati sub dicto D{no} Rectore, Egregius vir Mag{r}
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 Dom{i} millesimo quingentesimo vicesimo primo. Pro
Electione novi Rectoris――In quaquidem Congregatione Electi fuerunt
tres Intrantes, viz. Mag{r} Mattheus Steward Decanus facultatis,
Johannes Majoris Theologie Professor, et nationis Albanie nullus
interfuit, et Will{mus} Crechtoun Canonicus Glasguensis――Qui remoti,
maturaque deliberatione prehabita, unanimi eorum consensu, Venerabilem
et egregium Virum Jacobum Steward Prepositum ecclesie Collegiate de
Dunbertane, absentem tanquam {341} 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 D{no} 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 Mag{r} Mattheus Reid, Mag{r} schole
gramaticalis. Et in promotorem Mag{r} Andreas Smytht. Et in
Procuratorem Mag{r} 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. Mg{r} Thomas leiss Canonicus Dunblanensis, Johannes Majoris
Principalis regens, et Johannes Reid Vicarius de Campsy――Qui remoti,
matura et digesta deliberatione prehabita, {342} 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 Alex{r} Dikke
Johannes hereot Adam Kyngorne
Nigellus Campbal Nigellus forguissone
Will{mus} Steward Johannes huntar
Johannes Hamyltoun Jacobus Mosman
Johannes Knox Dñus Johannes Keyne presbiter
Archibaldus Langsyd 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
Thesaur{ius} 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 {343} Knox took any degree there, which confirms the doubt that I
have already expressed on that subject.

Note C, Footnote 12.

_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
{344} 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 {345} 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 {346}
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 {347} 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, Footnote 16.

_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. {348} “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, Footnote 21.

_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. {349} 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, Footnote 30.

_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 {350} 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, Footnote 36.

_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 {351} 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,
{352} 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
{353} 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 {354} 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, Footnote 47.

_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, {355} 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 {356} 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 {357}
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, m{r}, 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, m{r}, 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 vj{li} xiij{s} iiij{d}. in completam solutionem bonorum
eschaetorum quondam domini Duncani Symsone capellani condamnati et
ad mortem justificati pro certis criminibus heresieos concess. Jacobo
Menteith.

Et de xx{li} in completam solutionem compositionis vinius tenementi
jacen. infra burgum de Dunde, pertinen. domino Regi per {358} decessum
David Straitoun in Quhitstoun, justificati ad mortem pro certis
criminibus heresieos concess. Dauid Garne et Mariote Erskyn.

Et de vj{li} xiij{s} iiij{d} in completam solutionem compositionis
bonorum eschaetorum Roberti Cant, abiurati de certis criminibus
heresieos concess. dicto Roberto.

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

Et de iij{li} in completam solutionem compositionis bonorum
eschaetorum Johannis Robesone, pauperis, abiurati certis criminibus
heresios eiidem concess.

Et de xx{li} 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 xl{s} 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. Alex{ro} 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 xl{li} 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 Edinbur{t} and Striueling vis.

Item, deliuerit to Johnne Patersone pursevant――to pass to Dunde, {359}
and serche James Rollokkis gudis, and Maister Johnne Wedderburn xxs.

Annis 1539, 1540. (Non onerat se, &c.) Nec de x{li} 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 ij{c 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 ij{c li} compositionis remissionis concess. Johanni Elder,[481]
burgensis de Perth, pro disputatione in Sacris Scripturis contra
tenorem acti parliamenti.

Et de xl{li} 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 {360}
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 iij{li} 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 vmq{ll} 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 I{m}v{c}. xxxvij ȝeris. xx{li}.
[Reg. Sec. Sigilli, lib. xi. f. 51.] Per Signaturam.

{361} 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 my{t} 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 I{m}v{c}. xxxviij ȝeris, i{cli}.
[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, q{lkis}
pertenit to vmq{ll} 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 I{m}v{c}. xxxviij. ȝeris iiij{li}. [Lib. xij. f. 19.]

{362} 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. xiij{li}. vi{s}. viij{d}.
[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 þ{r}of, 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 I{m}v{c}. xxxviij ȝeris.
[Lib. xij. f. 33, b.] Subscrip{t} 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
I{m}v{c}. xxxviij ȝeris. x{li}.
[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 vmq{ll} 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 I{m}v{c}. xxxviij ȝeris.
[Lib. xiij. f. 18.] Per Signaturam.

{363} 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 S{r} Thomas Coklaw, curat of Tulibody,
and now to our souerane lord, throw being of the said S{r} Thomas
abiurit of heresy, &c. At Linlithgow, the xvij day of Januar, the ȝer
of God I{m}v{c}. xxxviij ȝeris. xl{li}.
[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
predic{t} (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 vmq{ll} Sir
Duncane Symsouñ, chaplane, and pertenyng to our souerane lord be
resouñ of eschete, throw justifying of the said S{r} Duncane to the
deid for certane crymes of heresy, imput to him, &c. At Edinburgh, the
first day of Marche, the ȝer forsaid (1538.) vj{li}. xiij{s}. iiij{d}.
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.) vj{li}.
xiij{s}. iiij{d}.
[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 nuncupa{t} 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 {364} et ad
mortem justificatus extitit, &c. Apud Linlithgow, decimo die mensis
Martij, anno domini I{m}v{c}. 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.) ij{c}.
l{li}.
[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 o{r} 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 I{m}.v{c}.xxxviij ȝeiris i{c}.li.
[Ib. f. 83.] Per Signaturam.

Ane letter maid to Andro Cunnynghame, sone to William Cunnynghame,
kny{t}, 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, I{m}.v{c}.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 {365} 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.) xx{li}.
[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 I{m}.v{c}.xxxviij ȝeris. ix{li}.
[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 xxiiij{to} die mensis
Martij, anno, &c. v{c}.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 I{m}.v{c}.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 {366}
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.) vj{li}.
xiij{s}.iiii{d}.
[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.) x{li}.xij{s}.
[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).
x{li}.
[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.]

{367} 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 my{t} 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 Edinbur{t}, 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 Edinbur{h}, {368} 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, kny{t}, 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 my{t}
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, {369} the last day of Februare, the
ȝeir of God I{m}.v{c}.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, I{m}.v{c}.lxiij ȝeris.
[Lib. xxxi. f. 35, b.] Per Signaturam.

Note I, Footnote 48.

_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. {370} 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 {371} 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 {372} 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, {373} 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 {374} 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, Footnote 50.

_Influence of Poetry in promoting the Reformation._――As the {375}
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.
{376} 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
{377} 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. {378} 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 {379} 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, {380} 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, Footnote 60.

_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 {381} 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.”

{382} 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, {383} 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 S{t} 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 erro{r} 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 s{d} diocese and soon aft{r} 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 S{t}
Nicholas church aforsaid and the parishe of the same the 13 July
and in Christe church the 20 July abovesaid foll{g}, which was duely
executed in the time aforsaid:”

This is extracted from the “Mayor’s Kalendar,” a vellum manuscript
{384} 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, Footnote 71.

_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 {385} 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 {386} 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 {387} 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, Footnote 97.

_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 {388} 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 {389} 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 {390} 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, Footnote 106.

_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 {391} 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. {392} 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 {393}
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 {394} 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._

{395}
Note P, Footnote 120.

_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 {396} 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 {397} 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.

{398} 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 {399} “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, Footnote 127.

_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, {400} 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, Footnote 159.

_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 {401} 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, {402} 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 {403} 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, {404} 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 {405} 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, Footnote 160.

_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 {406} 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 {407} 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 {408} 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 {409} 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 {410} 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, Footnote 162.

_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 {411} 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 {412} 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, Footnote 169.

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 {413} 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.”

{414}
Note V, Footnote 207.

_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 wood Mighell Gill
Thomas Cole Iohn Stanton Iohn Samford
VVilliam VVilliams VVilliam VValton Iohn VVood
George Chidley Jasper swyft Thomas Sorby
VVilliam Hammon Iohn Geofrie Anthony Cariar
Thomas Steward Iohn Graie Hugh Alforde.”

A Brieff Discours off the Troubles begonne at Franckford in {415}
Germany Anno Domini 1554. Abowte the Booke off Common prayer and
Ceremonies. Pag. xix. xx. Printed M.D.LXXV.

Note W, Footnote 218.

_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 {416} 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, Footnote 243.

_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 {417} 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 {418} 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, Footnote 245.

_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.”

{419} 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, {420} 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.

{421} 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 {422} 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 {423} 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)
{424} _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, {425} 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 {426} 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, Footnote 282.

_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 {427} 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
{428} 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 {429} 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 {430}
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 {431}
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 {432} 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, Footnote 289.

_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 {433} 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, Footnote 318.

_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 {434} 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, Footnote 323.

_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
{435} 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 {436} 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.

{437}
Note DD, Footnote 330.

_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 {438} 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 {439} 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 Dec{r} 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 {440} 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 {441} 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, Footnote 342.

_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 {442}
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 {443} 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 {444} 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, Footnote 360.

_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 {445}
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 {446} 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, Footnote 363.

_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 bur{t} 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, {447} 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, iij{li}
v{s}. (Compot. Thesaur.)

Feb. 9, 1558‒9. Proclamation to St Andrews, Cowper, Dundee, Montrose,
Aberdeen, charging all and sundrie o{r} 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, x{o} die mensis Maij, anno, &c.
lix{o}, per Henricum Levingstoun, prepositum de Striueling,
Justiciarium deputatum.

Quo die, Georgius Luvell, burgen̄ de Dunde, per literas S D N regis et
regine sepe voca{t} ad intrand. Paulum Methwen, Joannes Erskin de Dvne
sepe voca{t} ad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun, Patricius Murray
de Tibbermuir sepe voca{t} ad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw, et Robertus
Campbell de Kinzeclen{t} sepe voca{t} 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. xxvj{to} 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 predic{t} temporibus suprascrip{t} 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
{448} 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 confec{t} vt
in hujusmodi literis criminalibus latius continetur. Et non comparen̄
amerciatus fuit dictus Georgius Luvell pro nonintroitu prefati Pauli
Methwen in pena xj{li}. 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 voca{t} 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 voca{t} 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 xl{ta} 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 voc{t} 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 xxvjt{to} 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 denun{r}. 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
{449} 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, Footnote 401.

_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 {450} 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, Footnote 405.

_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 {451} 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, {452} 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.

“Faill not, bot ze tak guid (Signed)
heyd that neither the dasks, “AR. ERGYLL.
windocks, nor durris, be ony
ways hurt or broken――――――――eyther “JAMES STEWART.
glassin wark or iron wark.”
“RUTHVEN.”

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 {453} 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
{454} 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 {455} 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 {456}
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, Footnote 441.

_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 {457} 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, Footnote 450.

_Loyalty of the Scottish Protestants._――The hostile advance of the
regent against Perth, first drove the lords of the Congregation
{458} 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 {459} 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 {460}
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, Footnote 458.

_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 {461} 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 {462} 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 {463} 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 {464} 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
x{li}.”

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:

Page 248:
Sentence starting: And the primate, at her....
― ‘fist’ replaced with ‘first’
(same place on the first of March)

Page 318:
Sentence starting: The armament which they had....
― ‘he’ replaced with ‘the’
(from the severe persecutions)

Page 330:
Sentence starting: And the farther consideration....
― ‘tha’ replaced with ‘that’
(that none might pretend)

Page 394:
– Text page 394 mislabeled as ‘396’
(in {394} this article)
Sentence starting: _Confession of Faith; conteining....
― ‘1348’ replaced with ‘1548’
(pallaice of Roane, in the year 1548)

Page 407:
Sentence starting: “Premierement que la Ministere....
– ‘l’Egliss’ replaced with ‘l’Eglise’
(diuine en l’Eglise de Christ,)
Sentence starting: Et non pas qu’il luy ait donné....
– ‘aiusy’ replaced with ‘ainsy’
(ainsy que tres bien)

Page 419:
Sentence starting: Caveant vero ipsi rectores,...
– ‘nici’ replaced with ‘nisi’
(nisi ex judicio,)

Page 420:
Sentence starting: Et si aliquis id attentare....
– ‘contraversias’ replaced with ‘controversias’
(ullis controversias et quæstiones)

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Life of John Knox, Fifth Edition, Vol. 1 of 2 - Containing Illustrations of the History of the Reformation in Scotland" ***

Home