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

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

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

Author: Thomas M'Crie

Release date: August 30, 2016 [eBook #52940]

Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52940

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

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

file was produced from images generously made available

by The Internet Archive)

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

Transcriber’s Notes

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

Punctuation has been standardized.

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

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

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

Engraved by J. Cochran.

JAMES STUART, EARL OF MURRAY.

FROM THE ORIGINAL IN THE COLLECTION AT

HOLYROOD PALACE, EDINBURGH.

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

LIFE

OF

JOHN KNOX:

CONTAINING

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE HISTORY OF

THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND.

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

AND

AN APPENDIX,

CONSISTING OF ORIGINAL PAPERS.

BY THOMAS M‘CRIE, D.D.

THE FIFTH EDITION.

VOL. II.

WILLIAM BLACKWOOD, EDINBURGH; AND

T. CADELL, STRAND, LONDON.

MDCCCXXXI.

EDINBURGH:

PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY,

PAUL’S WORK, CANONGATE.

CONTENTS

OF

VOLUME SECOND.

PERIOD SEVENTH.

Knox resumes his situation in Edinburgh—urges the settlement of ecclesiastical polity—aversion to this on the part of the nobles—Knox is employed in compiling the Book of Discipline—this is approved by General Assembly and subscribed by greater part of Privy Council—sketch of the form and order of the reformed church of Scotland—attention to education—avarice of the nobility—influence of the Reformation on literature—introduction of Hebrew into Scotland—John Row—return of Buchanan—remarks on Mr Hume’s representation of the rudeness of Scotland—literary hours in a Scottish minister’s family—cultivation of the vernacular language—David Ferguson—First General Assembly—Knox loses his wife—corresponds with Calvin—his anxiety for the safety of the reformed church—Queen Mary arrives in Scotland—her education—her fixed determination to restore popery—alarm excited by her setting up of mass—behaviour of Knox on this occasion—remarks on this—sanguinary spirit and proceedings of Roman Catholics—hostile intentions of the Queen against Knox—first interview between them—Knox’s opinion of her character—his austerity and vehemence useful—he vindicates the right of holding ecclesiastical assemblies—inveighs against the inadequate provision made for the ministers of the church—his own stipend—attention of town‑council to his support and accommodation—he installs two superintendents—is employed in reconciling the nobility—the Queen is offended at one of his sermons—second interview between them—his great labours in Edinburgh—he obtains a colleague—incidents in the life of John Craig—the Prior of St Andrew’s created Earl of Murray, and made prime minister—insurrection under Huntly—conduct of Knox on that occasion—Quintin Kennedy—dispute between him and Knox—Ninian Wingate—excommunication of Paul Methven—reflections on the severity of the protestant discipline—third interview between Knox and the Queen—artifice of Mary—she prevails on the parliament not to ratify the protestant religion—indignation of Knox at this—breach between him and Earl of Murray—his sermon at the dissolution of parliament—fourth interview between him and the Queen—apology for the sternness of his behaviour—slander against his character—he is accused of high treason—the courtiers endeavour to intimidate him into a submission—his trial and defence—indignation of the Queen at his acquittal.

PERIOD EIGHTH.

The courtiers charge Knox with usurping a papal power—the General Assembly vindicate him—he marries a daughter of Lord Ochiltree—splenetic reflections of the papists on this alliance—dissensions between the court and preachers—apology for the liberty of the pulpit—debate between Knox and secretary Maitland—on Knox’s form of prayer for the Queen—and on his doctrine respecting resistance to civil rulers—Craig’s account of a similar dispute in Bologna—the Queen marries Lord Darnley—change in the court—reasons which induced the nobles who opposed the marriage to take up arms—Queen amuses the protestant ministers—Knox is reconciled to Earl of Murray—gives offence to the King—is inhibited from preaching—town‑council remonstrate against this—he resumes his employment—Goodman leaves St Andrew’s—petition for Knox’s translation to that town refused by Assembly—he is employed to write different treatises for the church—extract from the treatise of Fasting—measures taken by the queen for restoring popery—assassination of Rizzio—sudden changes in the court—Knox retires to Kyle—queen refuses to permit his return to the capital—he resolves to visit his sons in England—receives a recommendation from the General Assembly—carries a letter to the English bishops—archbishop Hamilton restored to his ancient jurisdiction—spirited letter of Knox on that occasion—alienation between Mary and her husband—the King murdered by Bothwell—the Queen’s participation in the murder—her marriage to Bothwell—independent behaviour of John Craig—the queen resigns the crown to her son—Knox returns to Edinburgh—preaches at the coronation of James VI.—his opinion concerning the punishment of Mary—the Earl of Murray is installed in the Regency—act of parliament in favour of the protestant church—state of the church during the regency of Murray—Knox cherishes the desire of retiring from public life—the regent opposed by a party attached to Mary—attempts made on his life—he is assassinated by Hamilton of Bothwelhaugh—national grief at this event—character of Murray—Knox bewails his loss—fabricated conference between them—Thomas Maitland insults over the death of the regent—Knox’s denunciation against him—his pathetic sermon before the regent’s funeral—is struck with apoplexy.

PERIOD NINTH.

Knox recovers from the apoplectic stroke—Kircaldy of Grange joins the Queen’s party—Knox involved in a personal quarrel with him—interposition of the gentlemen of the west in his favour—anonymous libels against him—his spirited answers from the pulpit—Queen’s party take possession of the capital—danger to which Knox is exposed—he is prevailed on to retire to St Andrew’s—civil war—hostility of the Queen’s faction against Knox—he is opposed by their adherents at St Andrew’s—John Hamilton—Archibald Hamilton—execution of archbishop Hamilton—the regent Lennox slain—is succeeded by Earl of Mar—invasion on the jurisdiction of the church—tulchan bishops—not approved of by the General Assembly—Knox’s letter to the assembly at Stirling—his sentiments respecting episcopacy—he refuses to install Douglas as archbishop of St Andrew’s—gradual decay of his health—striking description of his appearance and pulpit eloquence—his familiarity with the students at the university—he publishes an answer to a Scots Jesuit—ardently desires his dissolution—his last letter to the General Assembly—his subscription to Ferguson’s sermon—he returns to Edinburgh—requests a smaller place of worship—Craig removes from Edinburgh—Lawson chosen as successor to Knox—Knox’s letter to him—Bartholomew massacre in France—Knox’s denunciation against Charles IX.—he begins to preach in the Tolbooth church—his last sermon—his sickness—interview between him and his session—his message to Kircaldy—his religious advices, meditations, and comfort during his last illness—his death—his funeral—opinions entertained respecting him by the papists—by foreign reformers—by Scottish protestants—by divines of the church of England—origin and causes of prejudices against him—his character—reflections on the prophecies ascribed to him—account of his family—sufferings of John Welch, his son‑in‑law—interview between him and Lewis XIII.—interview between Mrs Welch and James VI.—character of Knox’s writings—conclusion.

NOTES.

APPENDIX.

SUPPLEMENT.

INDEX.

THE

LIFE

OF

JOHN KNOX.

PERIOD VII.

FROM AUGUST 1560, WHEN HE WAS SETTLED AS MINISTER OF EDINBURGH, AT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE REFORMATION, TO DECEMBER 1563, WHEN HE WAS ACQUITTED FROM A CHARGE OF TREASON.

IN appointing the protestant ministers to particular stations, a measure which engaged the attention of the privy council immediately after the conclusion of the civil war, the temporary arrangements that had been formerly made were in general confirmed, and our Reformer resumed his charge as minister of Edinburgh.[1] For several months he had officiated as minister of St Andrews;[2] but in the end of April 1560, he left that place, and returned to the capital,[3] where he preached during the siege of Leith, and the negotiations which issued in a peace.

Although the parliament had abolished the papal jurisdiction and worship, and ratified the protestant doctrine, as laid down in the Confession of Faith, the reformed church was not yet completely organized in Scotland. Hitherto the Book of Common Order, used by the English church at Geneva, had been generally followed as the rule of public worship and discipline. But this having been compiled for a single congregation, and for one that consisted chiefly of men of education, was found inadequate for the use of an extensive church, composed of a multitude of confederated congregations. Our reformers were anxious to provide the means of religious instruction to the whole people in the kingdom; but they were very far from approving of the promiscuous admission of persons of all descriptions to the peculiar privileges of the church of Christ. From the beginning, they were sensible of the great importance of ecclesiastical discipline, to the prosperity of religion, the maintenance of order, and the preservation of sound doctrine and morals. In the petition presented to parliament in August, the establishment of this was specially requested.[4] And Knox, who had observed the great advantages which attended the observance of a strict discipline at Geneva, and the manifold evils which resulted from the want of it in England, insisted very particularly on this topic, in the discourses which he delivered from the book of Haggai during the sitting of parliament.[5] The difficulties which the reformed ministers had to surmount, before they could accomplish this important object, began to present themselves at this early stage of their progress. When it is considered, that Calvin was subjected to a sentence of banishment from the senate of Geneva, and exposed to a popular tumult, before he could prevail on the citizens to submit to ecclesiastical discipline,[6] we need not be surprised at the opposition which our reformers met with in their endeavours to introduce it into Scotland. Knox’s warm exhortations on this head were at first disregarded; he had the mortification to find his plan of church‑polity derided as a “devout imagination,” by some of the professors of the reformed doctrine;[7]—and the parliament dissolved without coming to any decision on this important point.

As the ministers, however, continued to urge the subject, and the reasonableness of their demands could not be denied, the privy council, soon after the dissolution of the parliament, gave a commission to Knox, and four other ministers, who had formerly been employed along with him in composing the Confession, to draw up a plan of ecclesiastical government.[8] They immediately set about this task, with a diligence and care proportioned to their convictions of its importance. They “took not their example,” says Row, “from any kirk in the world, no, not from Geneva;” but drew their plan from the sacred scriptures. Having arranged the subject under different heads, they divided these among them; and, after they had finished their several parts, they met together and examined them with great attention, spending much time in reading and meditation on the subject, and in earnest prayers for divine direction. When they had drawn up the whole in form, they laid it before the General Assembly, by whom it was approved, after they had caused some of its articles to be abridged.[9] It was also submitted to the privy council; but, although many of the members highly approved of the plan, it was warmly opposed by others. This opposition did not arise from any difference of sentiment between them and the ministers respecting ecclesiastical government, but partly from aversion to the strict discipline which it appointed to be exercised against vice, and partly from reluctance to comply with its requisition for the appropriation of the revenues of the popish church to the support of the new religious and literary establishments. Though not formally ratified by the council, it was, however, subscribed by the greater part of the members;[10] and as the sources of prejudice against it were well known, it was submitted to by the nation, and carried into effect in most of its ecclesiastical regulations.[11] It is known in history by the name of the Book of Policy, or First Book of Discipline.

Considering the activity of Knox in constructing and recommending this platform, and the importance of the subject in itself, it cannot be foreign to our object to take a view of the form and order of the protestant church of Scotland, as delineated in the Book of Discipline, and in other authentic documents of that period.

The ordinary and permanent office‑bearers of the church were of four kinds: the minister, or pastor, to whom the preaching of the gospel and administration of the sacraments belonged; the doctor, or teacher, whose province it was to interpret scripture and confute errors (including those who taught theology in schools and universities); the ruling elder, who assisted the minister in exercising ecclesiastical discipline and government; and the deacon, who had the special oversight of the revenues of the church and the poor. But, besides these, it was found necessary, at this time, to employ some persons in extraordinary and temporary charges. As there was not a sufficient number of ministers to supply the different parts of the country, that the people might not be left altogether destitute of public worship and instruction, certain pious persons, who had received a common education, were appointed to read the scriptures and the common prayers. These were called readers. In large parishes, persons of this description were also employed to relieve the ministers from a part of the public service. If they advanced in knowledge, they were encouraged to add a few plain exhortations to the reading of the scriptures. In this case they were called exhorters; but they were examined and admitted, before entering upon this employment.

The same cause gave rise to another temporary expedient. Instead of fixing all the ministers in particular charges, it was judged proper, after supplying the principal towns, to assign to the rest the superintendence of a large district, over which they were appointed regularly to travel, for the purpose of preaching, of planting churches, and inspecting the conduct of ministers, exhorters, and readers. These were called superintendents. The number originally proposed was ten; but, owing to the scarcity of proper persons, or rather to the want of necessary funds, there were never more than five appointed.[12] The deficiency was supplied by commissioners, or visitors, appointed from time to time by the General Assembly.

None was allowed to preach, or to administer the sacraments, till he was regularly called to this employment. Persons were invested with the pastoral office in the way of being freely elected by the people,[13] examined by the ministers, and publicly admitted in the presence of the congregation. On the day of admission, the minister who presided, after preaching a sermon suited to the occasion, put a number of questions to the candidate, to satisfy the church as to his soundness in the faith, his willingness to undertake the charge, the purity of his motives, and his resolution to discharge the duties of the office with diligence and fidelity. Satisfactory answers having been given to these questions, and the people having signified their adherence to their former choice, the person was admitted and set apart by prayer, without the imposition of hands;[14] and the service was concluded with an exhortation, the singing of a psalm, and the pronouncing of the blessing. Superintendents were admitted in the same way as other ministers.[15] The affairs of each congregation were managed by the minister, elders, and deacons, who constituted the kirk‑session, which met regularly once a‑week, and oftener if business required. There was a meeting called the weekly exercise, or prophesying, held in every considerable town, consisting of the ministers, exhorters, and learned men in the vicinity, for expounding the scriptures. This was afterwards converted into the presbytery, or classical assembly. The superintendent met with the ministers and delegated elders of his district, twice a‑year, in the provincial synod, which took cognizance of ecclesiastical affairs within its bounds. And the General Assembly, which was composed of ministers and elders commissioned from the different parts of the kingdom, met twice, sometimes thrice, in a year, and attended to the interests of the national church.

Public worship was conducted according to the Book of Common Order, with a few variations adapted to the state of Scotland. On Sabbath‑days, the people assembled twice for public worship; and, to promote the instruction of the ignorant, catechising was substituted for preaching in the afternoon. In towns, a sermon was regularly preached on one day of the week besides Sabbath; and on almost every day, the people had an opportunity of hearing public prayers and the reading of the scriptures. Baptism was never dispensed unless it was accompanied with preaching or catechising. The Lord’s supper was administered four times a‑year in towns, and there were ordinarily two “ministrations,” one at an early hour of the morning, and another later in the day. The sign of the cross in baptizing, and kneeling at the Lord’s table, were condemned and laid aside; and anniversary holidays were wholly abolished.[16] We shall afterwards have occasion to advert to the discipline under which offenders were brought.

The compilers of the First Book of Discipline paid particular attention to the state of education. They required that a school should be erected in every parish, for the instruction of youth in the principles of religion, grammar, and the Latin tongue. They proposed that a college should be erected in every “notable town,” in which logic and rhetoric should be taught, along with the learned languages. They seem to have had it in their eye to revive the system adopted by some of the ancient republics, in which the youth were considered as the property of the public rather than of their parents, by obliging the nobility and gentry to educate their children, and by providing, at the public expense, for the education of the children of the poor who discovered talents for learning. Their regulations for the three national universities discover an enlightened regard to the interests of literature, and may suggest hints which deserve attention in the present age.[17] If these were not reduced to practice, the blame cannot be imputed to the reformed ministers, but to the nobility and gentry whose avarice defeated the execution of their plans.

To carry these important measures into effect, permanent funds were requisite; and for these it was natural to look to the patrimony of the church. The hierarchy had been abolished, and the popish clergy excluded from all religious services, by the alterations which the parliament had introduced; and, whatever provision it was proper to allot for the dismissed incumbents during life, it was unreasonable that they should continue to enjoy those emoluments which were attached to offices for which they had been found totally unfit. No successors could be appointed to them; and there was not any individual, or class of men in the nation, who could justly claim a title to the rents of their benefices. The compilers of the Book of Discipline, therefore, proposed that the patrimony of the church should be appropriated, in the first instance, to the support of the new ecclesiastical establishment. Under this head they included the ministry, the schools, and the poor. For the ministers they required that such “honest provision” should be made, as would give “neither occasion of solicitude, neither yet of insolencie and wantonnesse.” In ordinary cases, they thought that forty bolls of meal, and twenty‑six bolls of malt, with a reasonable sum of money, to purchase other necessary articles of provision for his family, was an adequate stipend for a minister. To enable superintendents to defray the extraordinary expenses of travelling in the discharge of their duty, six chalders of bear, nine chalders of meal, three chalders of oats, and six hundred merks in money, were thought necessary as an annual stipend. The salaries of professors were fixed from one to two hundred pounds; and the mode of supporting the poor was left undetermined, until means should be used to suppress “stubborne and idle beggars,” and to ascertain the number of the really necessitous in each parish. The stipends of ministers were to be collected by the deacons from the tithes; but all illegal exactions were to be previously abolished, and measures taken to relieve the labourers of the ground from the oppressive manner in which the tithes had been gathered by the clergy, or by those to whom they had farmed them. The revenues of bishoprics, and of cathedral and collegiate churches, with the rents arising from the endowments of monasteries and other religious foundations, were to be divided, and appropriated to the support of the universities, or of the churches within their bounds.

Nothing could be more unpalatable than doctrine of this kind to a considerable number of the protestant nobility and gentry. They had for some time fixed a covetous eye on the rich revenues of the popish clergy. Some of them had seized upon church‑lands, or retained the tithes in their own hands. Others had taken long leases of them from the clergy for small sums of money, and were anxious to have these private bargains legalized. Hence their aversion to have the Book of Discipline ratified;[18] hence the poverty and the complaints of the ministers, and the languishing state of the universities. The Swiss Reformer, by his eloquence and his firmness, enabled his countrymen to gain a conquest over their avarice, which was more honourable to them than any of their other victories, when he prevailed on them to appropriate the whole revenues of the popish establishment to the support of the protestant church and seminaries of literature.[19] But it was not so easy a matter to manage the turbulent and powerful barons of Scotland, as it was to sway the minds of the burgomasters of Zurich. When we consider, however, the extent of the establishments proposed by our reformers, including the support of the ministry, of parochial schools, of city colleges, and of national universities, we cannot regard the demand which they made on the funds devoted to the church as extravagant or unreasonable. They showed themselves disinterested by the moderate share which they asked for themselves; and the worst that we can say of their plan is, that it was worthy of a more enlightened and liberal age, in which it might have met with rulers more capable of appreciating its utility, and better disposed to carry it into execution.[20]

It is peculiarly pleasing to observe the restoration of religion and of letters going hand in hand, in our native country. Everywhere, indeed, the Reformation had the most powerful influence, direct and remote, on the general promotion of literature. It aroused the human mind from the lethargy in which it had slumbered for ages, released it from the fetters of implicit faith and blind obedience to human authority, and stimulated it to the exertion of its powers in the search of truth. It induced the learned to study with care the original languages in which the sacred books were written; and it diffused knowledge among the illiterate, by laying open the scriptures, and calling upon all to examine them for themselves. The unintelligible jargon which had long infested the schools began to be discarded. Controversies were now decided by appeals to scripture and to common sense; and the disputes which were eagerly maintained led to the improvement of the art of reasoning, and a more rational method of communicating knowledge. Superstition and credulity being undermined, the spirit of enquiry was soon directed to the discovery of the true laws of nature, as well as the genuine doctrines of revelation.

In the south of Europe, the revival of letters preceded the reformation of religion, and materially facilitated its progress. In the north, this order was reversed; and Scotland, in particular, must date the origin of her literary acquirements from the first introduction of the protestant opinions. As the one gained ground, the other was brought forward. We have already seen that the Greek language began to be studied almost as soon as the light of Reformation dawned upon this country; and I have now to state, that the first school for teaching the Hebrew language in Scotland was opened immediately after the establishment of the protestant church. Hebrew was one of the branches of education appointed by the Book of Discipline to be taught in the reformed seminaries, and Providence had furnished a person who was well qualified for that task, which those who filled the chairs in our universities were totally unfit to undertake.

The person to whom I refer was John Row. After finishing his education at St Andrews, and practising for some time as an advocate before the consistorial court there, he left the country about the year 1550, with the view of prosecuting his studies to greater advantage on the continent. Within a short time he received the degree of Doctor of Laws from two Italian universities. He did not, however, confine himself to one branch of study; but, improving the opportunity which he enjoyed, made himself master of the Greek and Hebrew languages. His reputation as a lawyer being high, the Scottish clergy employed him as agent to manage some of their causes before the court of Rome. This introduced him to the friendship of Guido Ascanio Sforza, cardinal of Sancta Flora, and to the acquaintance of two sovereign pontiffs, Julius III. and Paul IV. Had he remained in Italy, it is highly probable that he would soon have attained to honourable preferment in the church; but having lost his health, he determined, in 1558, to return to his native country. The reigning pope had heard, with deep concern, of the progress which the new opinions were making in Scotland, and, as he had great confidence in Row’s talents, appointed him his nuncio, with instructions to use his utmost exertions to oppose them. When he came home, he endeavoured for some time to discharge his commission; but despairing of success, and foreseeing the confusions in which the country was about to be involved, he resolved on returning to Italy. From this resolution he was diverted by the prior of St Andrews, who admired his learning, and conceived good hopes of his conversion, from the candour which he displayed in the management of religious controversy. His constancy was soon after shaken by the discovery of the imposture which the clergy attempted to practise at Musselburgh;[21] and, having held several conferences with Knox, he became a complete convert to the protestant faith. Upon the establishment of the reformation, he was admitted minister of Perth, and, at the recommendation of his brethren, began to give lessons in the Hebrew language to young men who were placed under his tuition.[22]

The interests of literature in Scotland were not a little promoted at this time by the return of Buchanan to his native country. That accomplished scholar, since his flight in 1538, had visited the most celebrated seminaries on the continent, greatly improved his stock of learning, and given ample proof of those talents which, in the opinion of posterity as well as of his contemporaries, have placed him indisputably at the head of modern Latin poets. The reception which he obtained from his countrymen evinced that they were not incapable of estimating his merits; and the satisfaction with which he spent the remainder of his life among them, after he had enjoyed the society of the most learned men in Europe, is a sufficient proof that they had already made no inconsiderable advances in the acquisition of polite literature.[23]

We are apt to form false and exaggerated notions of the rudeness of our ancestors. Scotland was, indeed, at that period, as she is still at the present day, behind many of the southern countries in the cultivation of some of the fine arts, and she was a stranger to that refinement of manners which has oftener been a concealment to vice than an ornament to virtue. But that her inhabitants were “men unacquainted with the pleasures of conversation, ignorant of arts and civility, and corrupted beyond their usual rusticity by a dismal fanaticism, which rendered them incapable of all humanity or improvement,”[24] is an assertion which argues either inexcusable ignorance or deplorable prejudice. Will this character apply to such men as Buchanan, Knox, Row, Willock, Balnaves, Erskine, Maitland, Glencairn, and James Stewart, not to name many others; men who excelled in their respective ranks and professions, who had received a liberal education, travelled into foreign countries, conversed with the best company, and, in addition to their acquaintance with ancient learning, could speak the most polite languages of modern Europe? Perhaps some of our literati, who entertain such a diminutive idea of the taste and learning of those times, might have been taken by surprise, had they been set down at the table of one of our Scottish reformers, surrounded with a circle of his children and pupils, where the conversation was all carried on in French, and the chapter of the bible, at family worship, was read by the boys in French, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Perhaps they might have blushed, if the book had been put into their hands, and they had been required to perform a part of the exercises. Such, however, was the common practice in the house of John Row.[25] Nor was the improvement of our native tongue neglected at that time. David Ferguson, minister of Dunfermline, was celebrated for his attention to this branch of composition. He had not enjoyed the advantage of a university education, but, possessing a good taste and lively fancy, was very successful in refining and enriching the Scottish language, by his discourses and writings.[26]

The first meeting of the General Assembly of the church of Scotland was held at Edinburgh on the 20th of December, 1560. It consisted of forty members, only six of whom were ministers.[27] Knox was one of these; and he continued to sit in most of the meetings of that judicatory until the time of his death. Its deliberations were conducted at first with great simplicity and unanimity. It is a singular circumstance that there were seven different meetings of Assembly without a moderator or president. But as the number of members increased, and business became more complicated, a moderator was appointed to be chosen at every meeting; and he was invested with authority to maintain order. The first person who occupied that place was John Willock, superintendent of Glasgow and the West. Regulations were also enacted concerning the constituent members of the court, the causes which ought to come before them, and the mode of procedure.[28]

In the close of this year, our Reformer suffered a heavy domestic loss, by the death of his valuable wife, who, after sharing the hardships of exile along with her husband, was removed from him just when he had obtained a comfortable settlement for his family.[29] He was left with the charge of two young children, in addition to his other cares. His mother‑in‑law was still with him; but though he took pleasure in her religious conversation, the dejection of mind to which she was subject, and which all his efforts could never completely cure, rather increased than lightened his burden.[30] His acute feelings were severely wounded by this stroke; but he endeavoured to moderate his grief by the consolations which he administered to others, and by application to public duty. He had the satisfaction of receiving, on this occasion, a letter from his much respected friend Calvin, in which expressions of great esteem for his deceased partner were mingled with condolence for his loss.[31]

I may take this opportunity of mentioning, that Knox, with the consent of his brethren, consulted the Genevan reformer upon several difficult questions which occurred respecting the settlement of the Scottish Reformation, and that a number of letters passed between them on this subject.[32]

Anxieties on a public account were felt by Knox along with domestic distress. The Reformation had hitherto advanced with a success equal to his most sanguine expectations; and, at this time, no opposition was publicly made to the new establishment. But matters were still in a very critical state. There were a party in the nation, by no means inconsiderable in numbers and power, who remained addicted to popery; and, though they had given way to the torrent, they anxiously waited for an opportunity to embroil the country in another civil war, for the restoration of the ancient religion. Queen Mary, and her husband, the king of France, had refused to ratify the late treaty, and dismissed the deputy sent by the parliament, with marks of the highest displeasure at the innovations which they had presumed to introduce. A new army was preparing in France for the invasion of Scotland against the spring; emissaries were sent, in the mean time, to encourage and unite the Roman catholics; and it was doubtful if the queen of England would subject herself to new expense and odium, by protecting them from a second attack.[33]

The danger was not unperceived by our Reformer, who laboured to impress the minds of his countrymen with its magnitude, and to excite them speedily to complete the settlement of religion throughout the kingdom, which, he was persuaded, would prove the principal bulwark against the assaults of their adversaries. His admonitions were now listened to with attention by many who had formerly treated them with indifference.[34] The threatened storm, however, blew over, in consequence of the death of the French king; but this necessarily led to a measure which involved the Scottish protestants in a new struggle, and exposed the reformed church to dangers less obvious and striking, but, on that account, not less to be dreaded, than open violence and hostility. This was the invitation given by the protestant nobility to their young queen, who, on the 19th of August, 1561, arrived in Scotland, and assumed the reins of government into her own hands.

The education which Mary had received in France, whatever embellishments it added to her beauty, was the very worst which can be conceived for fitting her to rule her native country in the present juncture. Of a temper naturally violent, the devotion which she had been accustomed to see paid to her personal charms, rendered her extremely impatient of contradiction.[35] Habituated to the splendour and gallantry of the most luxurious and dissolute court in Europe, she could not submit to those restraints which the severer manners of her subjects imposed; and while they took offence at the freedom of her behaviour, she could not conceal the antipathy and disgust which she felt at theirs.[36] Full of high notions of royal prerogative, she regarded the late proceedings in Scotland as a course of rebellion against her legitimate authority. Nursed from her infancy in a blind attachment to the Roman catholic faith, every means had been employed, before she left France, to strengthen this prejudice, and to inspire her with aversion to the religion which had been embraced by her people. She was taught that it would be the great glory of her reign to reduce her kingdom to the obedience of the Roman see, and to co‑operate with the popish princes on the continent in extirpating heresy. If she forsook the religion in which she had been educated, she would forfeit their powerful friendship; if she persevered in it, she might depend upon their assistance to enable her to chastise her rebellious subjects, and to prosecute her claims to the English crown against a heretical usurper.

With these fixed prepossessions, Mary came into Scotland; and she adhered to them with singular pertinacity to the end of her life. To examine the subjects of controversy between the papists and protestants, with the view of ascertaining on which side the truth lay,—to hear the reformed preachers, or permit them to lay before her the grounds of their faith, even in the presence of the clergy whom she had brought along with her,—to do any thing, in short, which might lead to a doubt in her mind respecting the religion in which she had been brought up, were compliances against which she had formed an unalterable determination. As the protestants were in possession of power, it was necessary for her to temporize; but she resolved to withhold her ratification of the late proceedings, and to embrace the first favourable opportunity to overturn them, and re‑establish the ancient system.[37]

The reception which she met with on landing in Scotland was flattering; but an occurrence that took place soon after, damped the joy which had been expressed, and prognosticated future jealousies and confusion. The deputies sent to France with the invitation from the nobles, could not promise her more than the private exercise of her religion; but her uncles, by whom she was accompanied, wishing to take advantage of the spirit of loyalty which had been displayed since their arrival, insisted that she should cause the Roman catholic rites to be performed with all publicity. Influenced by their opinion, and willing to give her subjects an early proof of her firm determination to adhere to the ancient faith, Mary directed preparations to be made for the celebration of a solemn mass in the chapel of Holyroodhouse, on the first Sabbath after her arrival. This service had not been performed in Scotland since the conclusion of the civil war, and was prohibited by an act of the late parliament. So great was the horror with which the protestants viewed its restoration, and the alarm which they felt at finding it countenanced by their queen, that the first rumour of the design excited expressions of strong discontent, which would have burst into an open tumult, had not some of the leading men among the protestants interfered, and exerted their authority in repressing the zeal of the multitude. From regard to public tranquillity, and reluctance to offend the queen at her first return to her native kingdom, Knox used his influence in private conversation to allay the fervour of the more zealous reformers, who were ready to prevent the service by force. But he was not less alarmed at the precedent than his brethren were; and, having exposed the evils of idolatry on the following Sabbath, he concluded his sermon by saying, that “one mass was more fearfull unto him, than if ten thousand armed enemies wer landed in ony parte of the realme, of purpose to suppress the whole religioun.”[38]

At this day, we are apt to be struck with surprise at the conduct of our ancestors, to treat their fears as visionary, or at least as highly exaggerated, and summarily to pronounce them guilty of the same intolerance of which they complained in their adversaries. Persecution for conscience’ sake is so odious, and the least approach to it so dangerous, that we deem it impossible to express too great detestation of any measure which tends to countenance or seems to encourage it. But let us be just as well as liberal. A little reflection upon the circumstances in which our reforming fathers were placed may serve to abate our astonishment, and to qualify our censures. They were actuated by a strong abhorrence of popish idolatry, a feeling which is fully justified by the spirit and precepts of Christianity; and the prospect of the land being again defiled by the revival of its impure rites produced on their minds a sensation, with which, from our ignorance and lukewarmness, as much as our ideas of religious liberty, we are incapable of sympathizing. But they were also influenced by a proper regard to their own preservation; and the fears which they entertained were not fanciful, nor the precautions which they adopted unnecessary.

The warmest friends of toleration and liberty of conscience (some of whom will not readily be charged with protestant prejudices) have granted, that persecution of the most sanguinary kind was inseparable from the system and spirit of popery which was at that time dominant in Europe; and they cannot deny the inference, that the profession and propagation of it were, on this account, justly subjected to penal restraints, as far, at least, as was requisite to prevent it from obtaining the ascendency, and from reacting the bloody scenes which it had already exhibited.[39] The protestants of Scotland had these scenes before their eyes, and fresh in their recollection; and infatuated and criminal indeed would they have been, if, listening to the siren song of toleration, by which their adversaries, with no less impudence than artifice, now attempted to lull them asleep, they had suffered themselves to be thrown off their guard, and neglected to provide against the most distant approaches of the danger by which they were threatened. Could they be ignorant of the perfidious, barbarous, and unrelenting cruelty with which protestants were treated in every Roman catholic kingdom? In France, where so many of their brethren had been put to death, under the influence of the house of Guise; in the Netherlands, where such multitudes had been tortured, beheaded, hanged, drowned, or buried alive; in England, where the flames of persecution were but lately extinguished; and in Spain and Italy, where they still continued to blaze? Could they have forgotten what had taken place in their own country, or the perils from which they had themselves so recently and so narrowly escaped? “God forbid!” exclaimed the lords of the privy council, in the presence of Queen Mary, at a time when they were not disposed to offend her,—“God forbid! that the lives of the faithful stood in the power of the papists; for just experience has taught us what cruelty is in their hearts.”[40]

Nor was this an event so incredible, or so unlikely to happen, as many seem to imagine. The rage for conquest, on the continent, was now converted into a rage for proselytism; and steps had already been taken towards forming that league among the popish princes, which had for its object the universal extermination of protestants. The Scottish queen was passionately addicted to the intoxicating cup of which so many of “the kings of the earth had drunk.” There were numbers in the nation who were similarly disposed. The liberty taken by the queen would soon be demanded for all who declared themselves catholics. Many of those who had hitherto ranged under the protestant standard were lukewarm in the cause; the zeal of others had already suffered a sensible abatement since the arrival of their sovereign;[41] and it was to be feared, that the favours of the court, and the blandishments of an artful and accomplished princess, would make proselytes of some, and lull others into security, while designs were carried on pregnant with ruin to the religion and liberties of the nation. In one word, the public toleration of the popish worship was only a step to its re‑establishment, and this would be the signal for kindling afresh the fires of persecution. It was in this manner that some of the wisest men in the kingdom reasoned at that time;[42] and, had it not been for the uncommon spirit which then existed among the reformers, there is every reason to think that their predictions would have been realized.

To those who accuse the Scottish protestants of displaying the same spirit of intolerance by which the Roman catholics were distinguished, I would recommend the following statement of a French author, who had formed a more just notion of these transactions than many of our own writers. “Mary (says he,) was brought up in France, accustomed to see protestants burnt to death, and instructed in the maxims of her uncles, the Guises, who maintained that it was necessary to exterminate, without mercy, the pretended reformed. With these dispositions she arrived in Scotland, which was wholly reformed, with the exception of a few lords. The kingdom received her, acknowledged her as their queen, and obeyed her in all things according to the laws of the country. I maintain, that, in the state of men’s spirits at that time, if a Huguenot queen had come to take possession of a Roman catholic kingdom, with the slender retinue with which Mary went to Scotland, the first thing they would have done would have been to arrest her; and if she had persevered in her religion, they would have procured her degradation by the pope, thrown her into the Inquisition, and burnt her as a heretic. There is not an honest man who can deny this.”[43]

After all, it is surely unnecessary to apologize for the restrictions which our ancestors were desirous of imposing on queen Mary, to those who approve of the present constitution of Britain, according to which every papist is excluded from succeeding to the throne, and the reigning monarch, by setting up mass in his chapel, would virtually forfeit his crown. Is popery more dangerous now than it was two hundred and fifty years ago?

Besides his fears for the common cause, Knox had at this time grounds of apprehension as to his personal safety. The queen was peculiarly incensed against him on account of the active part which he had taken in the late revolution; the popish clergy who left the kingdom had represented him as the ringleader of her factious subjects; and she had publicly declared, before she left France, that she was determined he should be punished. His book against female government was most probably the ostensible charge on which he was to be prosecuted; and, accordingly, we find him making application, through the English resident at Edinburgh, to secure the favour of Elizabeth; reasonably suspecting that she might be induced to abet the proceedings against him on this ground.[44] But whatever perils he apprehended, from the personal presence of the queen, either to the public or to himself, he used not the smallest influence to prevent her being invited home. On the contrary, he concurred with his brethren in this measure, and also in using means to defeat a scheme which the duke of Chastelherault, under the direction of the archbishop of St Andrew, had formed to exclude her from the government.[45] But when the prior of St Andrews was sent to France with the invitation, he urged that her desisting from the celebration of mass should be one of the conditions of her return; and when he found him and the rest of the council disposed to grant her this liberty within her own chapel, he predicted that “her liberty would be their thraldom.”[46]

In the beginning of September,[47] only a few days after her arrival in Scotland, the queen sent for Knox to the palace, and held a long conversation with him, in the presence of her brother, the prior of St Andrews. Whether she did this of her own accord, or at the suggestion of some of her counsellors, is uncertain; but she seems to have expected to awe him into submission by her authority, if not to confound him by her arguments. The bold freedom with which he replied to all her charges, and vindicated his own conduct, convinced her that the one expectation was not more vain than the other; and the impression which she wished to make on him was left on her own mind.

She accused him of raising her subjects against her mother and herself; of writing a book against her just authority, which, she said, she would cause the most learned in Europe to refute; of being the cause of sedition and bloodshed, when he was in England; and of accomplishing his purposes by magical arts.

To these heavy charges Knox replied, that, if to teach the truth of God in sincerity, to rebuke idolatry, and exhort a people to worship God according to his word, were to excite subjects to rise against their princes, then he stood convicted of that crime; for it had pleased God to employ him, among many others, to disclose unto that realm the vanity of the papistical religion, with the deceit, pride, and tyranny of the Roman antichrist. But if the true knowledge of God and his right worship were the most powerful inducements to subjects cordially to obey their princes, (as they certainly were,) then was he innocent. Her grace, he was persuaded, had at present as unfeigned obedience from the protestants of Scotland, as ever her father, or any of her ancestors, had from those called bishops. With respect to what had been reported to her majesty concerning the fruits of his preaching in England, he was glad that his enemies laid nothing to his charge but what the world knew to be false. If they could prove, that in any of the places where he had resided there was either sedition or mutiny, he would confess himself to be a malefactor. But so far from this being the case, he was not ashamed to say, that in Berwick, where bloodshed had formerly been common among the military, God so blessed his weak labours, that there was as great quietness, during the time he resided in that town, as there was at present in Edinburgh. The slander of practising magic, (an art which he had always condemned,) he could more easily bear, when he recollected that his master, Jesus Christ, had been defamed as one in league with Beelzebub. As to the book which seemed to have offended her majesty so highly, he owned that he wrote it, and he was willing that all the learned should judge of it. He understood that an Englishman had written against it, but he had not read his work. If that author had sufficiently confuted his arguments, and established the contrary opinion, he would confess his error; but to that hour he continued to think himself able to maintain the propositions affirmed in that book against any ten in Europe.

“You think, then, I have no just authority?” said the queen. “Please your majesty,” replied he, “learned men in all ages have had their judgments free, and most commonly disagreeing from the common judgment of the world; such also have they published both with pen and tongue; notwithstanding, they themselves have lived in the common society with others, and have borne patiently with the errors and imperfections which they could not amend. Plato, the philosopher, wrote his book on the commonwealth, in which he condemned many things that then were maintained in the world, and required many things to have been reformed; and yet, notwithstanding, he lived under such policies as then were universally received, without farther troubling of any state. Even so, madam, am I content to do, in uprightness of heart, and with a testimony of a good conscience.” He added, that his sentiments on that subject should be confined to his own breast; and that, if she refrained from persecution, her authority would not be hurt, either by him or his book, “which was written most especially against that wicked Jesabell of England.”

“But ye speak of women in general,” said the queen. “Most true it is, madam; yet it appeareth to me, that wisdom should persuade your grace never to raise trouble for that which to this day has not troubled your majesty, neither in person nor in authority: for of late years many things, which before were held stable, have been called in doubt; yea they have been plainly impugned. But yet, madam, I am assured that neither protestant nor papist shall be able to prove, that any such question was at any time moved either in public or in secret. Now, madam, if I had intended to have troubled your estate, because ye are a woman, I would have chosen a time more convenient for that purpose than I can do now, when your presence is within the realm.”

Changing the subject, she charged him with having taught the people to receive a religion different from that which was allowed by their princes; and she asked, if this was not contrary to the divine command, that subjects should obey their rulers. He replied, that true religion derived its origin and authority not from princes, but from God; that princes were often most ignorant on this point; and that subjects were not bound to frame their religious sentiments and practice according to the arbitrary will of their rulers, else the Hebrews ought to have conformed to the religion of Pharaoh, Daniel and his associates to that of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, and the primitive Christians to that of the Roman emperors. “Yea,” replied the queen, qualifying her assertion; “but none of these men raised the sword against their princes.”—“Yet you cannot deny,” said he, “that they resisted; for those who obey not the commandment given them do in some sort resist.”—“But they resisted not with the sword,” rejoined the queen, pressing home the argument. “God, madam, had not given unto them the power and the means.”—“Think you,” said the queen, “that subjects, having the power, may resist their princes?”—“If princes exceed their bounds, madam, no doubt they may be resisted, even by power. For no greater honour, or greater obedience, is to be given to kings and princes, than God has commanded to be given to father and mother. But the father may be struck with a frenzy, in which he would slay his children. Now, madam, if the children arise, join together, apprehend the father, take the sword from him, bind his hands, and keep him in prison, till the frenzy be over, think you, madam, that the children do any wrong? Even so, madam, is it with princes that would murder the children of God that are subject unto them. Their blind zeal is nothing but a mad frenzy; therefore, to take the sword from them, to bind their hands, and to cast them into prison, till they be brought to a more sober mind, is no disobedience against princes, but just obedience, because it agreeth with the will of God.”

Mary, who had hitherto maintained her courage in reasoning, was completely overpowered by this bold answer; her countenance changed, and she remained in a silent stupor. Her brother spoke to her, and enquired the cause of her uneasiness; but she made no reply. Recovering herself at length, she said, “Well, then, I perceive that my subjects shall obey you, and not me, and will do what they please, and not what I command; and so must I be subject to them, and not they to me.”—“God forbid!” replied the Reformer, “that ever I take upon me to command any to obey me, or to set subjects at liberty to do whatever pleases them. But my travel is, that both princes and subjects may obey God. And think not, madam, that wrong is done you, when you are required to be subject unto God; for it is he who subjects people under princes, and causes obedience to be given unto them. He craves of kings that they be as foster‑fathers to his church, and commands queens to be nurses to his people. And this subjection, madam, unto God and his church, is the greatest dignity that flesh can get upon the face of the earth; for it shall raise them to everlasting glory.”

“But you are not the church that I will nourish,” said the queen; “I will defend the church of Rome; for it is, I think, the true church of God.”—“Your will, madam, is no reason, neither doth your thought make the Roman harlot to be the true and immaculate spouse of Jesus Christ. Wonder not, madam, that I call Rome an harlot, for that church is altogether polluted with all kinds of spiritual fornication, both in doctrine and manners.” He added, that he was ready to prove that the Roman church had declined farther from the purity of religion taught by the apostles, than the Jewish church had degenerated from the ordinances which God gave them by Moses and Aaron, at the time when they denied and crucified the Son of God. “My conscience is not so,” said the queen.—“Conscience, madam, requires knowledge; and I fear that right knowledge you have none.”—“But I have both heard and read.”—“So, madam, did the Jews who crucified Christ Jesus read the law and the prophets, and heard the same interpreted after their manner. Have you heard any teach but such as the pope and cardinals have allowed? and you may be assured, that such will speak nothing to offend their own estate.”

“You interpret the scriptures in one way,” said the queen evasively, “and they in another; whom shall I believe, and who shall be judge?”—“You shall believe God, who plainly speaketh in his word,” replied the Reformer; “and farther than the word teacheth you, you shall believe neither the one nor the other. The word of God is plain in itself; and if there appear any obscurity in one place, the Holy Ghost, who is never contrary to himself, explains the same more clearly in other places, so that there can remain no doubt, but unto such as are obstinately ignorant.” As an example, he selected one of the articles in controversy between the church of Rome and the protestants, and was proceeding to show, that the popish doctrine of the sacrifice of the mass was destitute of all foundation in scripture; but the queen, who was determined to avoid all discussion of the articles of her creed, interrupted him, by saying, that she was unable to contend with him in argument, but if she had those present whom she had heard, they would answer him. “Madam,” replied the Reformer, fervently, “would to God that the learnedest papist in Europe, and he whom you would best believe, were present with your grace to sustain the argument, and that you would wait patiently to hear the matter reasoned to the end! For then, I doubt not, madam, but you would hear the vanity of the papistical religion, and how little ground it hath in the word of God.”—“Well,” said she, “you may perchance get that sooner than you believe.”—“Assuredly, if ever I get that in my life, I get it sooner than I believe; for the ignorant papist cannot patiently reason, and the learned and crafty papist will never come, in your audience, madam, to have the ground of their religion searched out. When you shall let me see the contrary, I shall grant myself to have been deceived in that point.”

The hour of dinner afforded an occasion for breaking off this singular conversation. At taking leave of her majesty, the Reformer said, “I pray God, madam, that you may be as blessed within the commonwealth of Scotland, as ever Deborah was in the commonwealth of Israel.”[48]

I have been the more minute in the narrative of this curious conference, because it affords the most satisfactory refutation of the charge, that Knox treated Mary with rudeness and disrespect. For the same reason I shall lay before the reader a circumstantial account of the subsequent interviews between them, from which we shall perceive that, though the Reformer addressed her with a plainness to which crowned heads are seldom accustomed, he never lost sight of that respect which was due to the person of his sovereign, nor of that decorum which became his own character.

The interview between the queen and the Reformer excited great speculation, and different conjectures were formed as to its probable consequences. The catholics, whose hopes now depended solely on the queen, were alarmed, lest Knox’s rhetoric should have shaken her constancy. The protestants cherished the expectation that she would be induced to attend the protestant sermons, and that her religious prejudices would gradually abate.[49] Knox indulged no such flattering expectations. He had made it his study, during the late conference, to discover the real character of the queen; and when some of his confidential friends asked his opinion of her, he told them that he was very much mistaken if she was not proud, crafty, obstinately wedded to the popish church, and averse to all means of instruction.[50] Writing to Cecil, he says, “The queen neyther is, neyther shal be of our opinion; and, in very dead, her whole proceedings do declair that the cardinalle’s lessons ar so deaplie printed in her heart, that the substance and the qualitie are like to perishe together. I wold be glad to be deceaved, but I fear I shal not. In communication with her, I espyed such craft as I have not found in such aige. Since, hath the court been dead to me and I to it.”[51]

He resolved, therefore, vigilantly to watch her proceedings, and to give timely warning of any danger which might result from them to the reformed interest; and the more that he perceived the zeal of the protestant nobles to cool, and their jealousy to be laid asleep by the winning arts of the queen, the more frequently and loudly did he sound the alarm. Vehement and harsh as his expressions often were—violent, seditious, and insufferable, as his sermons and prayers have been pronounced to be, I have no hesitation in saying, that, as the public peace was never disturbed by them, so they were useful to the public safety, and a principal means of warding off for a time those confusions in which the country was afterwards involved, and which brought on the ultimate ruin of the infatuated queen. His uncourtly and rough manner was not, indeed, calculated to gain upon her mind, (nor is there any reason to think that an opposite manner would have had this effect,) and his admonitions often irritated her; but they obliged her to act with greater reserve and moderation; and they operated, to an indescribable degree, in arousing and keeping awake the zeal and the fears of the nation, which, at that period, were the two great safeguards of the protestant religion in Scotland. We may form an idea of the effect produced by his pulpit‑orations, from the account of the English ambassador, who was one of his constant hearers. “Where your honour,” says he, in a letter to Cecil, “exhorteth us to stoutness, I assure you the voice of one man is able, in an hour, to put more life in us, than six hundred trumpets continually blustering in our ears.”[52]

The Reformer was not ignorant that some of his friends thought him too severe in his language, nor was he always disposed to vindicate the expressions which he employed. Still, however, he was persuaded that the times required the utmost plainness; and he was afraid that snares lurked under the smoothness which was recommended and practised by courtiers. Cecil having given him an advice on this head in one of his letters, Knox replied: “Men deliting to swym betwix two waters have often compleaned upon my severitie. I do fear that that which men terme lenitie and dulcenes, do bring upon themselves and others more fearful destruction, than yit hath ensewed the vehemency of any preacher within this realme.”[53]

That abatement of zeal which he had dreaded from “the holy water of the court,” soon began to appear among the protestant leaders. The general assemblies of the church were a great eye‑sore to the queen, who was very desirous to have them put down. At the first General Assembly held after her arrival, the courtiers, through her influence, absented themselves, and when challenged for this, began to dispute the propriety of such conventions without her majesty’s pleasure. On this point, there was sharp reasoning between Knox and Maitland, who was now made secretary of state. “Take from us the liberty of assemblies, and take from us the gospel,” said the Reformer. “If the liberty of the church must depend upon her allowance or disallowance, we shall want not only assemblies, but also the preaching of the gospel.” It was proposed that the Book of Discipline should be ratified by the queen; but this was keenly opposed by the secretary. “How many of those that subscribed that book will be subject to it?” said he, scoffingly. “All the godly,” it was answered. “Will the duke?” said he. “If he will not,” replied lord Ochiltree, “I wish that his name were scraped, not only out of that book, but also out of our number and company; for to what end shall men subscribe, and never mean to keep word of that which they promise?” Maitland said, that many subscribed it, in fide parentum, implicitly. Knox replied, that the scoff was as untrue as it was unbecoming; for the book was publicly read, and its different heads discussed, for a number of days, and no man was required to subscribe what he did not understand. “Stand content,” said one of the courtiers; “that book will not be obtained.”—“And let God require the injury which the commonwealth shall sustain, at the hands of those who hinder it,” replied the Reformer.[54]

He was still more indignant at their management in settling the provision for the ministers of the church. Hitherto they had lived chiefly on the benevolence of their hearers, and many of them had scarcely the means of subsistence; but repeated complaints having obliged the privy council to take up the affair, they came at last to a determination, that the ecclesiastical revenues should be divided into three parts; that two of these should be given to the ejected popish clergy; and that the third part should be divided between the court and the protestant ministry![55] The persons appointed to “modify the stipends,”[56] were disposed to gratify the queen, and her demands were readily answered, while the sums allotted to the ministers were as ill paid as they were paltry and inadequate. “Weall!” exclaimed Knox, when he heard of this disgraceful arrangement, “if the end of this ordour, pretendit to be takin for sustentatioun of the ministers, be happie, my judgement failes me. I sie twa pairtis freelie gevin to the devill, and the third mon be devyded betwix God and the devill. Who wald have thocht, that when Joseph reulled in Egypt, his brethren sould have travellit for victualles, and have returned with emptie sackes unto thair families? O happie servands of the devill, and miserabill servants of Jesus Christ, if efter this lyf thair wer not hell and heavin!”[57] At a conference held on this subject, Maitland complained of the ingratitude of the ministers, who did not acknowledge the queen’s liberality to them. “Assuredly,” replied Knox, with a derisive smile, “such as receive any thing of the queen are unthankful, if they acknowledge it not; but whether the ministers be of that rank or not, I greatly doubt. Has the queen better title to that which she usurps, be it in giving to others, or in taking to herself, than such as crucified Christ had to divide his garments among them? Let the papists who have the two parts, some that have their thirds free, and some that have gotten abbacies and feu‑lands, thank the queen; the poor preachers will not yet flatter for feeding their bellies. To your dumb dogs, formerly ten thousand was not enough; but to the servants of Christ, that painfully preach his evangell, a thousand pound! how can that be sustained?”—“These words,” he himself tells us, “were judged proud and intolerable, and engendered no small displeasure to the speaker.”[58]

Knox gave vent to his feelings on this subject the more freely, as his complaints could not be imputed to personal motives; for his own stipend, though moderate, was liberal when compared with those of the most of his brethren. From the time of his last return to Scotland, until the conclusion of the war, he had been indebted to the liberality of individuals for the support of his family. After that period, he lodged in the house of David Forrest, a burgess of Edinburgh, from which he removed to the lodging which had belonged to Durie, abbot of Dunfermline. As soon as he began to preach statedly in the city, the town council assigned him an annual stipend of two hundred pounds, which he was entitled to receive quarterly; and they also paid his house‑rent, and his board, during the time that he had resided with Forrest. Subsequent to the settlement made by the privy council, it would seem that he received, at least, a part of his income from the common fund allotted to the ministers of the church; but the good town had still an opportunity of testifying their generosity, by supplying the deficiencies of the legal allowance. Indeed, the uniform attention of the town council to his external support and accommodation, was honourable to them, and deserves to be recorded to their commendation.[59]

In the beginning of the year 1562, he went to Angus to preside in the election and admission of John Erskine of Dun, as superintendent of Angus and Mearns. That respectable baron was one of those whom the first General Assembly declared “apt and able to minister;”[60] and having already contributed in different ways to the advancement of the Reformation, he now devoted himself to the service of the church, in a laborious employment, at a time when she stood eminently in need of the assistance of all the learned and pious. Knox had formerly presided at the installation of John Spotswood, as superintendent of Lothian.[61]

The influence of our Reformer appears from his being employed on different occasions to act as umpire and mediator in disputes of a civil nature among the protestants. He was frequently requested to intercede with the town council in behalf of such of the inhabitants as had subjected themselves to punishment by their disorderly conduct.[62] Soon after his return to Scotland, he had composed a domestic variance between the earl and countess of Argyle.[63] In the year 1561, he had been employed as arbitrator in a difference between Archibald, earl of Angus, and his brothers.[64] And he was now urged by the earl of Bothwell to assist in removing a deadly feud which subsisted between him and the earl of Arran. He was averse to interfere in this business, which had already baffled the authority of the privy council;[65] but at the desire of friends, he yielded, and, after considerable pains, had the satisfaction of bringing the parties to an amicable interview, at which they mutually promised to bury their former differences. But all the fair hopes which he had formed from this reconciliation were speedily blasted. For, in the course of a few days, Arran came to him in great agitation, with the information that Bothwell had endeavoured to engage him in a conspiracy, to seize upon the person of the queen, and to kill the prior of St Andrews, Maitland, and the rest of her counsellors. Knox does not seem to have given much credit to this information; he even endeavoured to prevent Arran from making it public; in this, however, he did not succeed, and both noblemen were imprisoned. It soon after became evident that Arran was lunatic, but the fears of the courtiers show that they did not altogether disbelieve his accusation, and that they suspected that Bothwell had formed a design of which his future conduct proved him not incapable.[66]

In the month of May, Knox had another interview with the queen, on the following occasion. The family of Guise were making the most vigorous efforts to regain that ascendency in the French councils of which they had been deprived since the death of Francis II.; and, as zeal for the catholic religion was the cloak under which they concealed their ambitious designs, they began by stirring up persecution against the protestants. The massacre of Vassy, in the beginning of March, was a prelude to this; in which the duke of Guise and cardinal of Lorrain attacked, with an armed force, a congregation peaceably assembled for worship, killed a number of them, and wounded and mutilated others, not excepting women and children.[67] Intelligence of the success which attended the measures of her uncles was brought to queen Mary, who immediately after gave a splendid ball to her foreign servants, at which the dancing was prolonged to a late hour.

Knox was advertised of the festivities in the palace, and had no doubt that they were occasioned by the accounts which the queen had received from France. He always felt a lively interest in the concerns of the French protestants, with many of whom he was intimately acquainted; and he entertained a very bad opinion of the princes of Lorrain. In his sermon on the following Sabbath, after discoursing of the dignity of magistrates, and the obedience which was due to them, he proceeded to lament the abuse which the greater part of rulers made of their power, and introduced some severe strictures upon the vices to which they were commonly addicted, their oppression, ignorance, hatred of virtue, attachment to bad company, and fondness for foolish pleasures. Glancing at the amusements which were common in the palace, he said that princes were more exercised in dancing and music than in reading or hearing the word of God, and delighted more in fiddlers and flatterers than in the company of wise and grave men, who were capable of giving them wholesome counsel. As to dancing, he said, that, although he did not find it praised in scripture, and profane writers had termed it a gesture more becoming mad than sober men, yet he would not utterly condemn it, provided those who practised it did not neglect the duties of their station, and did not dance, like the Philistines, from joy at the misfortunes of God’s people. If they were guilty of such conduct, their mirth would soon be converted into sorrow. Information of this discourse was quickly conveyed to the queen, with many exaggerations; and the preacher was next day ordered to attend at the palace. Being conveyed into the royal chamber, where the queen sat with her maids of honour and principal counsellors, he was accused of having spoken of her majesty irreverently, and in a manner calculated to bring her under the contempt and hatred of her subjects.

After the queen had made a long speech on that theme, he was allowed to state his defence. He told her majesty, that she had been treated as persons usually were who refused to attend the preaching of the word of God; she had been deceived by the false reports of flatterers. For, if she had heard the calumniated discourse, he did not believe she could have been offended with any thing that he had said. She would now, therefore, be pleased to hear him repeat, as exactly as he could, what he had preached yesterday. Mary was obliged for once to listen to a protestant sermon. Having finished the recapitulation of his discourse, he said, “If any man, madam, will say that I spake more, let him presently accuse me; for I think I have not only touched the sum, but the very words as I spake them.” Several of the company, who had heard the sermon, attested that he had given a fair and accurate account of it. After turning round to the informers, who were dumb, the queen told him, that his words, though sharp enough as related by himself, had been reported to her in a different way. She added, that she knew that her uncles and he were of a different religion, and therefore did not blame him for having no good opinion of them; but if he heard any thing about her conduct which displeased him, he ought to come to herself privately, and she would willingly listen to his admonitions. Knox easily saw through this proposal; and, from what he already knew of Mary’s character, was convinced that she had no inclination to receive his private instructions, but wished merely to induce him to refrain in his sermons from every thing that might be displeasing to the court. He replied, that he was willing to do any thing for her majesty’s contentment, which was consistent with his office; if her grace chose to attend the public sermons, she would have an opportunity of knowing what pleased or displeased him in her and in others; or if she chose to appoint a time when she would hear the substance of the doctrine which he preached in public, he would most gladly wait upon her grace’s pleasure, time, and place; but to come and wait at her chamber‑door, and then to have liberty only to whisper in her ear what people thought and said of her, that would neither his conscience nor his office permit him to do. “For,” added he, in a strain which he sometimes used even on serious occasions, “albeit, at your grace’s commandment, I am heir now, yit can I not tell what uther men shall judge of me, that, at this time of day, am absent from my buke, and waitting upon the court.”—“Ye will not alwayes be at your buke,” said the queen, pettishly, and turned her back. As he left the room “with a reasonable merry countenance,” he overheard one of the popish attendants saying, “He is not afraid!”—“Why should the plesing face of a gentilwoman afray me?” said he, regarding them with a sarcastic scowl; “I have luiked in the faces of mony angry men, and yit have not bene affrayed above measour.”[68]

There was at that time but one place of worship in the city of Edinburgh.[69] The number of inhabitants was, indeed, small, when compared with its present population; but still they must have formed a very large congregation. St Giles’s church, the place then used for worship, was capacious; for we learn that, on some occasions, three thousand persons assembled in it to hear sermon.[70] In this church, Knox had, since 1560, performed all the parts of ministerial duty, without any other assistant than John Cairns, who acted as reader.[71] He preached twice every Sabbath, and thrice on other days of the week.[72] He met regularly once every week with his kirk‑session for discipline,[73] and with the assembly of the neighbourhood for the exercise on the scriptures. He attended, besides, the meetings of the provincial synod and general assembly; and at almost every meeting of the latter, he received an appointment to visit and preach in some distant part of the country. These labours must have been oppressive to a constitution which was already much impaired; especially as he did not indulge in extemporaneous effusions, but devoted a part of every day to study. His parish was sensible of this; and, in April 1562, the town council came to a unanimous resolution to solicit the minister of Canongate to undertake the half of the charge. The ensuing general assembly approved of the council’s proposal, and appointed the translation to take place.[74] It was not, however, accomplished before June 1563, owing, as it would seem, to the difficulty of obtaining an additional stipend.[75]

The person who was appointed colleague to our Reformer was John Craig. A short account of this distinguished minister cannot be altogether foreign to the history of one with whom he was so strictly associated, and it will present incidents which are curious in themselves, and illustrative of the singular manner in which many of the promoters of the Reformation were fitted by providence for engaging in that great undertaking. He was born in 1512, and soon after lost his father in the battle of Flodden, which proved fatal to so many families in Scotland. After finishing his education at the university of St Andrews, he went to England, and became tutor to the family of Lord Dacres; but war having broken out between England and Scotland, he returned to his native country, and entered into the order of Dominican friars. The Scottish clergy were at that time eager in making inquisition for Lutherans; and owing to the circumstance of his having been in England, or to his having dropped some expressions respecting religion which were deemed too free, Craig fell under the suspicion of heresy, and was thrown into prison. The accusation was found to be groundless, and he was set at liberty. But although still attached to the Roman catholic religion, the ignorance and bigotry of the clergy gave him such a disgust at his native country, that he left it in 1537, and, after remaining a short time in England, went to France, and from that to Italy. At the recommendation of the celebrated cardinal Pole, he was admitted among the Dominicans in the city of Bologna, and was soon raised to an honourable employment in that body. In the library of the Inquisition, which was attached to the monastery, he found a copy of Calvin’s Institutions. Being fond of books, he determined to read that work; and the consequence was, that he became a thorough convert to the reformed opinions. In the warmth of his first impressions, he could not refrain from imparting his change of sentiments to his associates, and must soon have fallen a sacrifice to the vigilant guardians of the faith, had not the friendship of a father in the monastery saved him. The old man, who was a native of Scotland, represented the danger to which he exposed himself by avowing such tenets in that place, and advised him, if he was fixed in his views, to retire immediately to some protestant country. With this prudent advice he complied so far as to procure his discharge from the monastery.

At an early period of the Christian era, there were converts to the gospel “in Cæsar’s household;” and in the sixteenth century, the light of reformation penetrated into Italy, and even into the territories of the Roman pontiff. On leaving the monastery of Bologna, Craig entered as tutor into the family of a neighbouring nobleman, who had embraced protestant principles; but he had not resided long in it, when, along with his host, he was delated for heresy, seized by the familiars of the Inquisition, and carried to Rome. After being confined nine months in a noisome dungeon, he was brought to trial, and condemned to be burnt, along with some others, on the 20th of August, 1559. On the evening previous to the day appointed for their execution, the reigning pontiff, Paul IV., died; and, according to an accustomed practice on such occasions, the prisons in Rome were all thrown open. While those who were confined for debt and other civil offences were liberated, heretics, after being allowed to go without the walls of their prison, were conveyed back to their cells. A tumult, however, having been raised that night in the city, Craig and his companions effected their escape, and took refuge in a house at a small distance from Rome. They had not been long there when they were followed by a company of soldiers, sent to apprehend them. On entering the house, the captain looked Craig eagerly in the face, and taking him aside, asked, if he recollected of once relieving a poor wounded soldier in the vicinity of Bologna. Craig was in too great confusion to remember the circumstance. “But I remember it,” replied the captain, “and I am the man whom you relieved, and providence has now put it in my power to return the kindness which you showed to a distressed stranger. You are at liberty; your companions I must take along with me, but, for your sake, shall show them every favour in my power.” He then gave him what money he had upon him, with directions how to make his escape.

We are not yet done with the wonderful incidents in the life of Craig. “Another accident,” says archbishop Spotswood, “befell him, which I should scarcely relate, so incredible it seemeth, if to many of good place he himself had not often repeated it as a singular testimony of God’s care of him.” In the course of his journey through Italy, while he avoided the public roads, and took a circuitous route to escape from pursuit, the money which he had received from the grateful soldier failed him. Having laid himself down by the side of a wood to ruminate on his condition, he perceived a dog approaching him with a purse in its teeth. It occurred to him that it had been sent by some evil‑disposed person who was concealed in the wood, and wished to pick a quarrel with him. He therefore endeavoured to drive it away, but the animal continuing to fawn upon him, he at last took the purse, and found in it a sum of money which enabled him to prosecute his journey. Having reached Vienna, and announced himself as a Dominican, he was employed to preach before the archduke of Austria, who afterwards wore the imperial crown, under the title of Maximilian II. That discerning prince, who was not unfriendly to a religious reform, was so much pleased with the sermon, that he was desirous of retaining Craig; but the new pope, Pius IV., having heard of his reception at the Austrian capital, applied to have him sent back to Rome as a condemned heretic; upon which the archduke dismissed him with a safe‑conduct. When he arrived in England, in 1560, and was informed of the establishment of the reformed religion in his native country, he immediately repaired to Scotland, and was admitted to the ministry. Having in a great measure forgotten his native language during an absence of twenty‑four years, he preached for a short time in Latin to some of the learned in Magdalene chapel. He was afterwards appointed minister of the parish of Canongate, where he had not officiated long, till he was elected colleague to Knox.[76]

The queen still persevered in the line of policy which she had adopted at her first arrival in Scotland, and employed none but protestant counsellors. She intrusted the chief direction of public affairs to the prior of St Andrews, who, in 1562, was created earl of Murray,[77] and married a daughter of the earl marischal. The marriage ceremony was performed by Knox publicly before the congregation, according to the custom at that time; and on that occasion the Reformer reminded the earl of the benefit which the church had hitherto received from his services, and exhorted him to persevere in the same course, lest, if an unfavourable change was perceived, the blame should be imputed to his wife.[78] The fact, however, was, that Knox was more afraid that Murray would be corrupted by his connexion with the court, than by his matrimonial alliance.

Although the protestants filled the cabinet, it was well known that they did not possess the affection and confidence of her majesty, and in consequence of this, various plots were laid to displace and ruin them. During the autumn of 1562, the Roman catholics in Scotland entertained great hopes of a change in their favour. After several unsuccessful attempts to cut off the principal courtiers,[79] the earl of Huntly openly took arms in the north, to rescue the queen from their hands; while the archbishop of St Andrews endeavoured to unite and rouse the papists of the south. On this occasion, our Reformer acted with his usual zeal and foresight. Being appointed by the General Assembly as commissioner to visit the churches of the west, he persuaded the gentlemen of that quarter to enter into a new bond of defence. Hastening into Nithsdale and Galloway, he, by his sermons and conversation, confirmed the protestants in these places. He employed the master of Maxwell to write to the earl of Bothwell, who had escaped from confinement, and meant, it was feared, to join Huntly. He himself wrote to the duke of Chastelherault, warning him not to listen to the solicitations of his brother, the archbishop, nor accede to a conspiracy which would infallibly prove the ruin of his house. By these means the southern parts of the kingdom were preserved in a state of peace, while the vigorous measures of Murray crushed the rebellion in the north.[80] The queen expressed little satisfaction at the victory gained over Huntly, and there is every reason to think, that, if not privy to his rising, she expected to turn it to the advancement of her projects.[81] According to archbishop Spotswood, she scrupled not to say, at this time, that she “hoped, before a year was expired, to have the mass and catholic profession restored through the whole kingdom.”[82]

While these hopes were indulged, the popish clergy thought it necessary to gain credit to their cause, by appearing more openly in defence of their tenets than they had lately done. They began to preach publicly in different parts of the country, and boasted that they were ready to dispute with the protestant ministers.[83]

The person who stept forward as their champion was Quintin Kennedy, uncle to the earl of Cassilis, and abbot of Crossraguel. Though his talents were not of a superior order, the abbot was certainly one of the most respectable of the popish clergy in Scotland, not only in birth, but also in regularity and decorum of conduct. He seems to have spent the greater part of his life in the same neglect of professional duty which characterised his brethren; but he was roused from his inactivity by the zeal and success of the protestant preachers, who, in the years 1556 and 1557, attacked the popish faith, and inveighed against the idleness and corruption of the clergy.[84] At an age when others retire from the field, he began to rub up his long‑neglected armour, and descended into the theological arena.

His first appearance as a polemical writer was in 1558, when he published a short system of catholic tactics, under the title of Ane Compendius Tractive, showing “the nerrest and onlie way to establish the conscience of a Christian man,” in all matters which were in debate concerning faith and religion. This way was no other than implicit faith in the decisions of the church or clergy. When any point of religion was controverted, the scripture might be cited as a witness, but the church was the judge, whose determinations, in general councils canonically assembled, were to be humbly received and submitted to by all the faithful.[85] It was but “a barbour saying,” which the protestants had commonly in their mouths, that every man ought to examine the scriptures for himself. It was sufficient for those who did not occupy the place of teachers, that they had a general knowledge of the creed, the ten commandments, and the Lord’s prayer, according to the sense in which these were explained by the church. And “as to the sacramentis, and all other secretis of the scripture,” every Christian man ought to “stand to the judgement of his pastor, who did bear his burden in all matters doubtsome above his knowledge.”[86]

This was doubtless a very near way to stability of mind, and a most compendious mode of deciding every controversy which might arise, without having recourse to examination, reasoning, or debate. But as the wilful and stubborn reformers would not submit to this easy and short mode of decision, the abbot was reluctantly obliged to enter the lists of argument with them. Accordingly, in the beginning of 1559, he challenged Willock, who was preaching in his neighbourhood, to a dispute on the sacrifice of the mass. The challenge was accepted, the time and place of meeting were fixed; but the dispute did not take place, as Kennedy refused to appear, unless his antagonist would previously engage to submit to the interpretations of scripture which had been given by the ancient doctors of the church.[87] From this time he seems to have made the mass the great subject of his study, and in 1561 wrote a book in its defence, which was answered by George Hay.[88]

On the 30th of August, 1562, the abbot read, in his chapel of Kirkoswald, a number of articles respecting the mass, purgatory, praying to saints, the use of images, and other points, which, he said, he would defend against any who should impugn them, and he promised to declare his mind more fully on the following Sabbath. Knox, who was in the vicinity, came to Kirkoswald on that day, with the design of hearing the abbot, and granting him the disputation which he had courted. In the morning, he sent some gentlemen who accompanied him to acquaint Kennedy with the reason of his coming, and to desire him either to preach according to his promise, or to attend Knox’s sermon, and afterwards to state his objections to the doctrine which might be delivered. The abbot did not think it proper to appear, and Knox preached in the chapel. When he came down from the pulpit, a letter from Kennedy was put into his hand, which led to an epistolary correspondence between them, fully as curious as the dispute which followed.

The abbot wrote to Knox, that he was informed he had come to that quarter of the country “to seik disputation,” which he was so far from refusing that he “earnestlie and effectuouslie covated the samin,” and with that view should meet him next Sunday in any house in Maybole that he choosed, provided not more than twenty persons on each side were allowed to be present. The Reformer replied, that he had come to that quarter for the purpose of preaching the gospel, and not of disputing; that he was under a previous engagement to be in Dumfries on the day mentioned by the abbot, but that he would return with all convenient speed, and fix a time for meeting him. To this letter the abbot sent an answer, to which Knox merely returned a verbal message at the time; but when he afterwards published the correspondence, affixed short notes to it by way of reply. The abbot proposed that they should have “familear, formall, and gentill ressoning.”—“With my whole hart I accept the condition,” replies the Reformer; “for assuredlie, my lord, (so I stile you by reason of blood, and not of office,) chiding and brawling I utterlie abhor.” To Knox’s declaration that he had come to “preach Jesus Christ crucified to be the only Saviour of the world,” the abbot answers, “Praise be to God, that was na newings in this countrie, or ye war borne.”—“I greatlie dout,” replies the Reformer, “if ever Christ Jesus wes truelie preached by a papistical prelat or monk.” As an excuse for his not preaching at Kirkoswald on the day he had promised, the abbot says, that Knox had come to the place convoyed by five or six score strangers. “I lay the night before,” says Knox, “in Mayboil, accompanied with fewer than twentie.” The abbot boasted, that Willock, at a former period, and Hay, more lately, had refused to dispute with him, until they consulted the council and their brethren. “Maister George Hay offered unto you disputation, but ye fled the barrass.” Knox wished the dispute to be conducted publicly in St John’s church, Ayr; for, says he, “I wonder with what conscience ye can require privat conference of those artikles that ye have publicklie proponed. Ye have infected the ears of the simple, ye have wounded the hartes of the godlie, and ye have spoken blasphemie in oppen audience. Let your owne conscience now be judge, if we be bound to answer you in the audience of twenty or forty, of whom the one half are alreadie persuaded in the treuth, and the other perchance so addicted to your error, that they will not be content that light be called light, and darknes, darknes.”—“Ye said ane lytill afore,” answers the abbot, “ye did abhor all chiding and railing, bot nature passis nurtor with yow.”—“I will neither interchange nature nor nurtor with yow, for all the proffets of Crosraguell.”—“Gif the victorie consist in clamor or crying out,” says the abbot, objecting to a public meeting, “I wil quite you the cause but farder pley;[89] and yet, praise be to God, I may whisper in sic manner as I will be hard sufficientlie in the largest house in all Carrick.”—“The larger the house, the better for the auditor and me,” replied the Reformer.

The earl of Cassilis wrote to Knox, expressing his disapprobation of the proposed dispute, as unlikely to do any good, and calculated to endanger the public peace; to which the Reformer replied, by signifying, that his relation had given the challenge, which he was resolved not to decline, and that his lordship ought to encourage him to keep the appointment, from which no bad effects were to be dreaded. Upon this the abbot wrote a letter to Knox, charging him with having procured Cassilis’s letter, to bring him into disgrace, and to advance his own honour; and saying, that he would have “rancountered” him the last time he was in that country, had it not been for the interposition of his nephew. “Ye sal be assured,” adds he, “I sal keip day and place in Mayboill, according to my writing, an I haif my life, and my feit louse;” and in another letter to Knox and the bailies of Ayr, he says, “keip your promes, and pretex na joukrie, by my lorde of Cassilis writing.”—“To nether of these,” says Knox, “did I answer otherwise than by appointing the day, and promising to keap the same. For I can pacientlie suffer wantone men to speak wantonlie, considering that I had sufficientlie answered my lord of Cassilis in that behalf.”

The conditions of the combat were now speedily settled. They agreed to meet on the 28th of September, at eight o’clock in the morning, in the house of the provost of Maybole. Forty persons on each side were to be admitted as witnesses of the dispute, with “as many mo as the house might goodly hold, at the sight of my lord of Cassilis.” And notaries, or scribes, were chosen on each side to record the papers which might be given in by the parties, and the arguments which they advanced in the course of reasoning, to prevent unnecessary repetition, or a false report of the proceedings. These conditions were formally drawn out, and subscribed by the Abbot and the Reformer, on the day preceding the meeting.

When they met, “Johne Knox addressed him to make publict prayer, whereat the abbot wes soir offended at the first, but whil the said John wold in nowise be stayed, he and his gave audience; which being ended, the abbote said, ‘Be my faith, it is weill said.’” The reasoning commenced by reading a paper presented by the abbot, in which, after rehearsing the occasion of his present appearance, and protesting, that his entering into dispute was not to be understood as implying that the points in question were disputable or dubious, being already determined by lawful general councils, he declared his readiness to defend the articles which he had exhibited, beginning with that concerning the sacrifice of the mass. To this paper Knox gave in a written answer in the course of the disputation; and, in the meantime, after stating his opinion respecting general councils, he proceeded to the article in dispute. It was requisite, he said, to state clearly and distinctly the subject in controversy; and he thought the mass contained the four following things: the name, the form and action, the opinion entertained of it, and the actor, with the authority which he had to do what he pretended to do; all of which he was prepared to show, were destitute of any foundation in scripture. The abbot was aware of the difficulty of managing the point on such broad ground, and he had taken up ground of his own, which he thought he could maintain against his antagonist. “As to the masse that he will impung,” said he, “or any mannes masse, yea, an it war the paipes awin masse, I will mantein na thing but Jesus Christes masse, conforme to my article, as it is written, and diffinition contened in my buik, whilk he hes tane on hand to impung.”

Knox expressed his delight at hearing the abbot say, that he would defend nothing but the mass of Christ, for if he adhered to this, they were “on the verray point of an christiane agrement,” as he was ready to allow whatever could be shown to have been instituted by Christ. As to his lordship’s book, he confessed he had not read it, and (without excusing his negligence) requested the definition to be read to him from it. The abbot qualified his assertion by saying, that he meant to defend no other mass, except that which in its “substance, institution, and effect,” was appointed by Christ; and he defined the mass, in its substance and effect, to be the sacrifice and oblation of the Lord’s body and blood, given and offered by him in the last supper; and for the first confirmation of this, he rested upon the oblation of bread and wine by Melchizedec. His argument was, that the scripture declared Christ to be a priest after the order of Melchizedec: Melchizedec offered bread and wine to God: therefore Christ offered or made oblation of his body and blood in the last supper, which was the only instance in which the priesthood of Christ and Melchizedec could agree.

Knox said, that the ceremonies of the mass, and the opinion entertained of it, (as procuring remission of sins to the quick and the dead,) were viewed as important parts of it, and, having a strong hold of the consciences of the people, ought to be taken into the argument; but as the abbot declared himself willing to defend these afterwards, he would proceed to the substance, and proposed, in the first place, to fix the sense in which the word sacrifice or oblation was used in this question. There were sacrifices propitiatoriæ, for expiation, and eucharisticæ, for thanksgiving; in which last sense the mortification of the body, prayer, and almsgiving were called sacrifices in scripture. He wished, therefore, to know whether the abbot understood the word in the first or second of these senses in this dispute. The abbot said, that he would not at present enquire what his opponent meant by a sacrifice propitiatorium; but he held the sacrifice on the cross to be the only sacrifice of redemption, and that of the mass to be the sacrifice of commemoration of the death and passion of Christ. Knox replied, that the chief head which he intended to impugn, seemed to be yielded by the abbot; and he, for his part, cheerfully granted, that there was a commemoration of Christ’s death in the right use of the ordinance of the supper.

The abbot insisted that Knox should proceed to impugn the warrant which he had taken from scripture for his article. “Protesting,” said the Reformer, “that this mekle is win, that the sacrifice of the messe being denied by me to be a sacrifice propitiatorie for the sins of the quick and the dead (according to the opinion thereof before conceaved), hath no patron at the present, I am content to procede.”—“I protest he hes win nothing of me as yit, and referres it to black and white contened in our writing.”—“I have openlie denied the masse to be an sacrifice propitiatorie for the quick, &c., and the defence thereof is denied. And, therefore, I referre me unto the same judges that my lord hath clamed.”—“Ye may denie what ye pleis; for all that ye denie I tak not presentlie to impung; but whair I began, there will I end, that is, to defend the messe conform to my artickle.”—“Your lordship’s ground,” said Knox, after some altercation, “is, that Melchizedeck is the figure of Christe in that he did offer unto God bread and wine, and that it behoved Jesus Christ to offer, in his latter supper, his body and blude under the forms of bread and wine. I answer to your ground yet againe, that Melchizedeck offered neither bread nor wine unto God; and, therefore, it that ye would thereupon conclude hath no assurance of your ground.”—“Preve that,” said the abbot. Knox replied, that according to the rules of just reasoning, he could not be bound to prove a negative; that it was incumbent on his opponent to bring forward some proof for his affirmation, concerning which, the text was altogether silent; and that until the abbot did this, it was sufficient for him simply to deny. But the abbot said, he “stuck to his text,” and insisted that his antagonist should show for what purpose Melchizedec brought out the bread and the wine, if it was not to offer them to God. After protesting that the abbot’s position remained destitute of support, and that he was not bound, in point of argument, to show what became of the bread and wine, or what use was made of them, Knox consented to state his opinion, that they were intended by Melchizedec to refresh Abraham and his company. The abbot had now gained what he wished; and he had a number of objections ready to start against this view of the words, by which he was able at least to protract and involve the dispute. And thus ended the first day’s contest.

When the company convened on the following day, the abbot proceeded to impugn the view which his opponent had given of the text. He urged, first, that Abraham and his company had a sufficiency of provision in the spoils which they had taken from the enemy in their late victory, and did not need Melchizedec’s bread and wine; and, secondly, that the text said that Melchizedec brought them forth, and it was improbable that one man, and he a king, should carry as much as would refresh three hundred and eighteen men. To these objections Knox made such replies as will occur to any person who thinks on the subject. And in this manner did the second day pass.

When they met on the third day, the abbot presented a paper, in which he stated another objection to Knox’s view of the text. After some more altercation on this subject, Knox desired his opponent to proceed, according to his promise, to establish the argument upon which he had rested his cause. But the abbot, being indisposed, rose up, and put into Knox’s hand a book to which he referred him for the proof. By this time, the noblemen and gentlemen present were completely wearied out. For, besides the tedious and uninteresting mode in which the disputation had been managed, they could find entertainment neither for themselves nor for their retinue in Maybole; so that if any person had brought in bread and wine among them, it is presumable that they would not have debated long upon the purpose for which it was brought. Knox proposed that they should adjourn to Ayr and finish the dispute, which was refused by the abbot, who said he would come to Edinburgh for that purpose, provided he could obtain the queen’s permission. Upon this the company dismissed.

The dispute was never resumed, though Knox says that he applied to the privy council for liberty to the abbot to come to Edinburgh for this purpose. Kennedy died in August 1564. It has been said that he was canonized as a saint after his death,[90] and Dempster makes him both a saint and a martyr.[91] I have not seen his name in the Romish calendar, but I find (what is of as great consequence) that the grand argument upon which he insisted in his disputation with the Reformer has been canonized. For in the calendar, at “March 25,” it is written, “Melchezedec sacrifeit breid and wyne in figure of ye bodie and bloud of our lord, whilk is offerit in ye messe.”[92] Doubtless, those who knew the very month and day on which this happened, must have been better acquainted with the design of Melchizedec, than either Moses or Paul.

The abbot, and his friends, having circulated the report that he had the advantage in the disputation, Knox, in 1563, published the account of it from the records of the notaries, to which he added a prologue and short marginal notes. The prologue and his answer to the abbot’s first paper, especially the latter, are pieces of good writing. I have been the more minute in the narrative of this dispute than its merits deserve, because no account of it has hitherto appeared, the tract itself being so exceedingly rare, as to have been seen by few for a long period.[93]

Another priest who defended the Roman catholic cause at this time was Ninian Wingate. He had been schoolmaster of Linlithgow, from which situation he was removed by Spotswood, superintendent of Lothian, on account of his devoted attachment to popery. In the month of February 1562, he sent to Knox a writing, consisting of eighty‑three questions upon the principal topics of dispute between the papists and protestants, which he had drawn up in the name of the inferior clergy, and laity, of the catholic persuasion in Scotland. To some of these, particularly the questions which related to the call of the protestant ministers, the Reformer returned an answer from the pulpit, and Wingate addressed several letters to him, complaining that his answers were not satisfactory. These letters, with addresses to the queen, nobility, bishops, and magistrates of Edinburgh, Wingate committed to the press, but the impression being seized in the printer’s house, (according to bishop Lesley,) the author made his escape, and went to the continent.[94] Knox intended to publish an answer to Wingate’s questions, and to defend the validity of the protestant ministry; but it does not appear that he carried his design into execution.[95]

In the beginning of 1563, Knox went to Jedburgh, by appointment of the General Assembly, to investigate a scandal which had broken out against Paul Methven, the minister of that place, who was suspected of adultery. Methven was found guilty, and excommunicated.[96] Having fled to England, he sent a letter to the General Assembly, professing his willingness to submit to the discipline of the church, but requesting that the account of his process should be deleted from the records of the church. The Assembly declared that he might return with safety to his native country, and that he should be admitted to public repentance, but refused to erase the process from their minutes.[97] He afterwards returned to Scotland; and a severe and humiliating penance was prescribed to him. He was enjoined to appear at the church‑door of Edinburgh, when the second bell rang for public worship, clad in sackcloth, bareheaded, and barefooted; to stand there until the prayer and psalms were finished, when he was to be brought into the church to hear sermon, during which he was to be “placeit in the public spectakell above the peiple.” This appearance he was to make on three several preaching‑days, and on the last of them, being a Sabbath, he was, at the close of the sermon, to profess his sorrow before the congregation, and to request their forgiveness; upon which he was again to be “clad in his awin apparell,” and received into the communion of the church. He was to repeat this course at Dundee and at Jedburgh, where he had officiated as minister.[98] Methven went through a part of this humbling scene, with professions of deep sorrow; but being overwhelmed with shame, and despairing to regain his lost reputation, he stopped in the midst of it, and again retired to England.[99] Prudential considerations were not wanting to induce the reformed church of Scotland to stifle this affair, and to screen from public ignominy a man who had acted a distinguished part in the late reformation of religion. But they refused to listen to these; and by instituting a strict scrutiny into the fact, and inflicting an exemplary punishment upon the criminal, they “approved themselves to be clear in this matter,” and effectually shut the mouths of their popish adversaries.

The mode of public repentance enjoined on this occasion was appointed to be afterwards used in all cases of aggravated immorality.[100] There was nothing in which the Scottish reformers approached nearer to the primitive church than in the rigorous and impartial exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, the relaxation of which, under the papacy, they justly regarded as one great cause of the universal corruption of religion. While they rejected many of the ceremonies which were introduced into the worship of the christian church during the three first centuries, they, from detestation of vice, and a desire to restrain it, did not scruple to conform to a number of their penitential regulations. In some instances they might carry their rigour against offenders to an extreme; but it was a virtuous extreme, compared with the dangerous laxity, or rather total disuse of discipline, which has gradually crept into almost all the churches which retain the name of reformed: even as the scrupulous delicacy with which our forefathers shunned the society of those who had transgressed the rules of morality, is to be preferred to modern manners, by which the vicious obtain easy admission into the company of the virtuous.

“’Twas hard, perhaps, on here and there a waif,

Desirous to return, and not received:

But was an wholesome rigour in the main,

And taught the unblemish’d to preserve with care

That purity, whose loss was loss of all.

———————But now—yes, now,

We are become so candid and so fair,

So liberal in construction, and so rich

In christian charity, (good‑natured age!)

That they are safe, sinners of either sex,

Transgress what laws they may.”

In the month of May, the queen sent for Knox to Lochleven. The popish priests, presuming upon her avowed partiality to them, and her secret promises of protection, had of late become more bold; and, during the late Easter, masses had been openly celebrated in different parts of the kingdom. Repeated proclamations had been issued against this practice by the queen in council, but none of them were carried into execution. The gentlemen of the west country, who were the most zealous protestants, perceiving that the laws were eluded, came to the resolution of executing them, without making any application to the court, and apprehended some of the offenders by way of example. These decided proceedings, which were calculated to defeat the scheme of policy which she had formed, gave great offence to her majesty; but finding that the signification of her displeasure had not the effect of stopping them, she wished to avail herself of the Reformer’s influence for accomplishing her purpose.

She dealt with him very earnestly, for two hours before supper, to persuade the western gentlemen to desist from all interruption of the catholic worship. He told her majesty, that if she would exert her authority in executing the laws of the land, he could promise for the peaceable behaviour of the protestants; but if she thought to elude them, he feared there were some who would let the papists understand that they should not offend with impunity. “Will ye allow, that they shall take my sword in their hands?” said the queen. “The sword of justice is God’s,” replied the Reformer with equal firmness, “and is given to princes and rulers for one end, which, if they transgress, sparing the wicked and oppressing the innocent, they who, in the fear of God, execute judgment where God has commanded, offend not God, although kings do it not.” Having produced some examples from scripture to show that criminals might be punished by persons who did not occupy the place of supreme rulers, he added, that the gentlemen of the West were acting strictly according to law; for the act of parliament gave power to all judges within their bounds, to search for and punish those who should transgress its enactments. He concluded with inculcating a doctrine which has seldom been very pleasing to princes. “It shall be profitable to your majesty to consider what is the thing your grace’s subjects look to receive of your majesty, and what it is that ye ought to do unto them by mutual contract. They are bound to obey you, and that not but in God: ye are bound to keep laws to them. Ye crave of them service: they crave of you protection and defence against wicked doers. Now, madam, if you shall deny your duty unto them, (which especially craves that ye punish malefactors,) think ye to receive full obedience of them? I fear, madam, ye shall not.” The queen broke off the conversation with evident marks of displeasure.

Having imparted the substance of what had passed between them to the earl of Murray, Knox meant to return to Edinburgh next day without waiting for any further communications with the queen. But a message was delivered to him at an early hour in the morning, desiring him not to depart until he had again spoken with her majesty. He accordingly met her at a place in the neighbourhood of Kinross, where she took the amusement of hawking. This interview was very different from that of the preceding evening. Waiving entirely the subject on which they had differed, she conversed with him upon a variety of topics, with the greatest familiarity and apparent confidence. Lord Ruthven (she said) had offered her a ring; but she could not love that nobleman. She knew that he used enchantment;[101] yet he had been made a member of her privy council; and she blamed secretary Lethington for procuring his admission into that body. Knox excused himself from saying any thing of the secretary in his absence. “I understand,” said she, introducing another subject of discourse, “that ye are appointed to go to Dumfries, for the election of a superintendent to be established in these countries.” He answered in the affirmative. “But I understand the bishop of Athens[102] would be superintendent.”—“He is one, madam, that is put in election.”—“If you knew him as well as I do, you would not promote him to that office, nor yet to any other within your kirk.” Knox said that the bishop deceived many, if he did not fear God. “Well, do as you will; but that man is a dangerous man.”

Knox wished to take his leave of her majesty, but she pressed him to stay. “I have one of the greatest matters that have touched me, since I came into this realm, to open to you, and I must have your help in it,” said she, with an air of condescension and confidence as enchanting as if she had put a ring on his finger. She then entered into a long discourse with him concerning a domestic difference between the earl and countess of Argyle. Her ladyship had not, she said, been so circumspect in every thing as could have been wished, but still she was of opinion that his lordship had not treated her in an honest and godly manner. Knox said that he was not unacquainted with the disagreeable variance which had subsisted between that honourable couple, and, before her majesty’s arrival in this country, had effected a reconciliation between them. On that occasion, the countess had promised not to complain to any creature before acquainting him; and having never heard from her on that subject, he had concluded that there was nothing but concord between her and his lordship. “Well,” said the queen, “it is worse than ye believe. But do this much for my sake, as once again to put them at unity, and if she behave not herself as she ought to do, she shall find no favour of me; but in any wise let not my lord know that I have requested you in this matter.” Then introducing the subject of their reasoning on the preceding evening, she said, “I promise to do as ye required: I shall cause summon all offenders; and ye shall know that I shall minister justice.”—“I am assured then,” said he, “that ye shall please God, and enjoy rest and tranquillity within your realm, which to your majesty is more profitable than all the pope’s power can be.” Upon this he took his leave of the queen.[103]

This interview exhibits one part of Mary’s character in a very striking light. It shows how far she was capable of dissembling, what artifice she could employ, and what condescensions she could make, when she was bent on accomplishing a favourite object. She had formerly attacked the Reformer on another quarter without success, and was convinced that it was vain to think of working on his fears; she now resolved to try if she could soothe his stern temper by flattering his vanity, and disarm his jealousy by strong marks of confidence. There is reason to think that she partly succeeded in her design. For, though he was not very susceptible of flattery, and must have been struck with the sudden change in the queen’s views and behaviour, there are few minds that can altogether resist the impression made by the condescending familiarity of persons of superior rank; and our feelings, on such occasions, chide as uncharitable the cold suspicions suggested by our judgment. In obedience to her majesty’s request, he wrote a letter to the earl of Argyle, which was not very pleasing to that nobleman. From deference to the opinion which she had expressed, he enquired more narrowly into the conduct of the bishop of Galloway, and finding some grounds of suspicion, postponed the election. And the report which he gave of the queen’s gracious answer operated in her favour on the public mind.[104]

But if his zeal suffered a temporary intermission, it soon kindled with fresh ardour. On the 19th of May, the archbishop of St Andrews and a number of the principal papists were arraigned by the queen’s orders, before the Lord Justice General, for transgressing the laws; and, having come in her majesty’s will, were committed to ward. But this was merely a stroke of policy, to enable her the more easily to carry her measures in the parliament which met on the following day; and accordingly the prisoners were set at liberty as soon as it was dissolved.[105]

This was the first parliament which had been held since the queen’s arrival in Scotland; and it was natural to expect that their first business would be to ratify the treaty of peace made in July 1560, and the establishment of the protestant religion. If the acts of the former parliament were invalid, as the queen had repeatedly declared, the protestants had no law on their side; they held their religion at the mercy of their sovereign, and might be required, at her pleasure, to submit to popery, as the religion which still possessed the legal establishment. But so well had she laid her plans, such was the effect of her insinuating address, and, above all, so powerful was the temptation of self‑interest on the minds of the protestant leaders, that, by general consent, they passed from this demand, and lost the only favourable opportunity which presented itself, during the reign of Mary, for giving a legal security to the reformed religion, and thereby removing one principal source of national fears and jealousies. An act of oblivion, securing indemnity to those who had been engaged in the late civil war, was indeed passed; but the mode of its enactment virtually implied the invalidity of the treaty in which it had been originally embodied; and the protestants, on their bended knees,[106] supplicated, as a boon from their sovereign, what they had formerly won with their swords, and repeatedly demanded as their right. The other acts made to please the more zealous reformers were expressed with such studied and glaring ambiguity, as to offer an insult to their understandings.[107]

Our Reformer was thunderstruck when first informed of the measures which were in agitation, and could scarcely believe that it was seriously intended to carry them into execution. He immediately procured an interview with some of the leading members of parliament, to whom he represented the danger of allowing that meeting to dissolve without obtaining the ratification of the acts of the preceding parliament, or at least those acts which established the Reformation. They alleged that the queen would never have agreed to call them together, if they had persisted in these demands; but that there was a prospect of her being soon married, and on that occasion they would obtain all their wishes. In vain he reminded them that poets and painters had represented Occasion with a bald hind‑head; in vain he urged, that the event to which they looked forward would be accompanied with difficulties of its own, which would require all their skill and circumspection. Their determination was fixed. He now perceived the full extent of the queen’s dissimulation; and the selfishness and servility of the protestant leaders affected him deeply.

So hot was the altercation between him and the earl of Murray on this subject, that an open rupture ensued. Knox had long looked upon that nobleman as one of the most sincere and steady adherents of the reformed cause; and therefore felt the greater disappointment at his conduct. Under his first irritation he wrote a letter to Murray, in which, after reminding him of his condition when they first became acquainted in London,[108] and the honours to which he had been raised by providence, he solemnly renounced friendship with him, as one who preferred his own interest and the pleasure of his sister to the advancement of religion, left him to the guidance of the new counsellors whom he had chosen, and exonerated him from all future concern in his affairs. This variance, which continued nearly two years, was very gratifying to the queen, and to others who disliked their former familiarity, and who failed not (as Knox informs us) to “cast oil into the flame, until God did quench it by the water of affliction.”[109]

Before the dissolution of the parliament, the Reformer embraced an opportunity of disburdening his mind in the presence of the greater part of the members assembled in his church. After discoursing of the great mercy of God shown to Scotland, in marvellously delivering them from bondage of soul and body, and of the deep ingratitude which he perceived in all ranks of persons, he addressed himself particularly to the nobility. He praised God that he had an opportunity of pouring out the sorrows of his heart in the presence of those who could attest the truth of all that he said. He appealed to their consciences, if he had not, in their greatest extremities, exhorted them to depend upon God, and assured them of preservation and victory, provided they preferred the divine glory to their own lives and secular interests. “I have been with you in your most desperate temptations (continued he, in a strain of impassioned eloquence): in your most extreme dangers I have been with you. St Johnston, Cupar‑moor, and the Craggs of Edinburgh,[110] are yet recent in my heart; yea, that dark and dolorous night wherein all ye, my lords, with shame and fear, left this town, is yet in my mind;[111] and God forbid that ever I forget it! What was, I say, my exhortation to you, and what has fallen in vain of all that ever God promised unto you by my mouth, ye yourselves yet live to testify. There is not one of you, against whom was death and destruction threatened, perished: and how many of your enemies has God plagued before your eyes! Shall this be the thankfulness that ye shall render unto your God? To betray his cause when you have it in your hands to establish it as you please?” He saw nothing (he said) but a cowardly desertion of Christ’s standard. Some had even the effrontery to say that they had neither law nor parliament for their religion. They had the authority of God for their religion, and its truth was independent of human laws; but it was also accepted within this realm in public parliament, and that parliament he would maintain to have been as lawful and as free as any parliament that had ever been held within the kingdom of Scotland.

In the conclusion of his discourse, he adverted to the reports of her majesty’s marriage, and of the princes who courted her hand; and (desiring the audience to mark his words) he predicted the consequences which would ensue, if ever the nobility consented that their sovereign should marry a papist.

Protestants, as well as papists, were offended with the freedom of this sermon, and some who had been most familiar with the preacher now shunned his company. Flatterers were not wanting to run to the queen, and inform her that John Knox had preached against her marriage. After surmounting all opposition to her measures, and managing so successfully the haughty and independent barons of her kingdom, Mary was incensed to think that there should yet be one man of obscure condition, who ventured to condemn her proceedings; and as she could not tame his stubbornness, she determined to punish his temerity. He was ordered instantly to appear before her. Lord Ochiltree, with several gentlemen, accompanied him to the palace; but the superintendent of Angus, Erskine of Dun, was the only person allowed to go with him into the royal presence.

Her majesty received him in a very different manner from what she had done at Lochleven. Never had prince been handled (she passionately exclaimed) as she was; she had borne with him in all his rigorous speeches against herself and her uncles—she had sought his favour by all means—she had offered unto him audience whenever he pleased to admonish her; “and yet,” said she, “I cannot be quit of you. I vow to God I shall be once revenged!” On pronouncing these words with great violence, she burst into a flood of tears, which interrupted her speech. When the queen had composed herself, Knox proceeded calmly to make his defence. Her grace and he had (he said) at different times been engaged in controversy, and he never before had perceived her offended with him. When it should please God to deliver her from the bondage of error in which she had been trained up, through want of instruction in the truth, he trusted that her majesty would not find the liberty of his tongue offensive. Out of the pulpit, he believed, few had occasion to complain of him; but there he was not his own master, but was bound to obey Him who commanded him to speak plainly, and to flatter no flesh on the face of the earth.

“But what have you to do with my marriage?” demanded the queen. He was proceeding to state the extent of his commission as a preacher, and the reasons which led him to touch on that delicate subject; but she interrupted him by repeating her question, “What have ye to do with my marriage? Or what are you in this commonwealth?”—“A subject born within the same, madam,” replied the Reformer, piqued by the last question, and by the contemptuous tone in which it was proposed. “And albeit I be neither earl, lord, nor baron in it, yet has God made me (how abject that ever I be in your eyes) a profitable member within the same. Yea, madam, to me it appertains no less to forewarn of such things as may hurt it, if I foresee them, than it doth to any of the nobility; for both my vocation and conscience require plainness of me. And, therefore, madam, to yourself I say that which I spake in public place: Whensoever the nobility of this realm shall consent that ye be subject to an unfaithful husband, they do as much as in them lieth to renounce Christ, to banish his truth from them, to betray the freedom of this realm, and perchance shall in the end do small comfort to yourself.” At these words, Mary began again to sob and weep with great bitterness. The superintendent, who was a man of mild and gentle spirit, tried to mitigate her grief and resentment; he praised her beauty and her accomplishments; and told her, that there was not a prince in Europe who would not reckon himself happy in gaining her hand. During this scene, the severe and inflexible mind of the Reformer displayed itself. He continued silent, and with unaltered countenance, until the queen had given vent to her feelings. He then protested, that he never took delight in the distress of any creature; it was with great difficulty that he could see his own boys weep when he corrected them for their faults, and far less could he rejoice in her majesty’s tears; but seeing he had given her no just reason of offence, and had only discharged his duty, he was constrained, though unwillingly, to sustain her tears, rather than hurt his conscience, and betray the commonwealth by his silence.

This apology inflamed the queen still more: she ordered him instantly to leave her presence, and to wait the signification of her pleasure in the adjoining room. There he stood as “one whom men had never seen;” all his friends, lord Ochiltree excepted, being afraid to show him the smallest countenance. In this situation he addressed himself to the court‑ladies, who sat in their richest dress in the chamber: “O fair ladies, how plesing war this lyfe of yours, if it sould ever abyde, and then, in the end, that we might pas to hevin with all this gay gear! But fye upon that knave Death, that will come whidder we will or not!” Having engaged them in conversation, by a mixture of seriousness and raillery, he passed the time, till the superintendent came, and informed him that he was allowed to go home until her majesty had taken further advice. The queen insisted to have the judgment of the lords of Articles, whether the words he had used in the pulpit were not actionable; but she was persuaded by her counsellors to abandon the idea of a prosecution. “And so that storme quietit in appearance, bot nevir in the hart.”[112]

No expressions are sufficiently strong to describe the horror which many feel at the monstrous inhumanity of Knox, in remaining unmoved, while “youth, beauty, and royal dignity,”[113] were dissolved in tears before him. Enchanting, surely, must the charms of the queen of Scots have been, and ironhearted the Reformer who could resist the impression of them, when they continue to this day to exercise such a sway over the hearts of men, that even grave and serious authors, not addicted to the language of gallantry and romance, protest, that they cannot read of the tears which she shed on this occasion, without feeling an irresistible inclination to weep along with her. There may be some, however, who, knowing how much real misery there is in the world, are not disposed to waste their feelings unnecessarily, and who are of opinion, that there was not much to commiserate in the condition of the queen, nor to reprobate in the conduct of the Reformer. Considering that she had been so fortunate in her measures, and had found the nobility so ready to gratify all her wishes, the passion by which she suffered herself to be transported was extravagant, and her tears must have been those of anger more than of grief. On the other hand, when we consider that Knox was at this time deserted by his friends, and stood almost alone in resisting the will of a princess, who accomplished her measures chiefly by caresses and tears, we may be disposed to form a more favourable idea of his conduct and motives. We behold not, indeed, the enthusiastic lover, mingling his tears with those of his mistress, and vowing to revenge her wrongs; nor the man of nice sensibility, who loses every other consideration in the gratification of his feelings; but we behold, what is more rare, the stern patriot—the rigid reformer, who, in the discharge of his duty, and in a public cause, can withstand the tide of tenderness as well as the storm of passion. There have been times when such conduct was regarded as the proof of a superior mind; and the man who, from such motives, “hearkened not to the wife of his bosom, nor knew his own children,” has been the object not of censure, but of admiration, in pagan as well as sacred story.

Fertur pudicæ conjugis osculum,

Parvosque natos, ut capitis minor,

Ab se removisse, et virilem

Torvus humi posuisse vultum.

While Knox lay under the displeasure of the court, and had lost the confidence of his principal friends, his enemies judged it a favourable opportunity for attacking him in (what had been universally allowed to be irreproachable) his moral conduct. At the very time that he was engaged in scrutinizing the scandal against Methven, and inflicting upon him the highest censure of the church, it was alleged that he was himself guilty of the same crime. Euphemia Dundas, an inhabitant of Edinburgh, inveighing one day, in the presence of a circle of her acquaintance, against the protestant doctrine and ministers, said, among other things, that John Knox had been a common whoremonger all his life, and that, within a few days past, he “was apprehendit and tane furth of ane killogie with ane common hure.” This might have been passed over by Knox and the church, as an effusion of popish spleen or female scandal; but the recent occurrence at Jedburgh, the situation in which the Reformer at present stood with the court, the public manner in which the charge bad been brought, and the specification of a particular instance, seemed to them to justify and call for a legal investigation. Accordingly, the clerk of the General Assembly, on the 18th of June, gave in a formal representation and petition to the town council, praying, that the woman might be brought before them, and the matter examined; that, if the accusation was found true, the accused might be punished with every degree of merited rigour; and that, if false, the accuser might be dealt with according to the demerit of her offence. She was called, and, appearing before the council, flatly denied that she had ever used any such words; although Knox’s procurator afterwards produced respectable witnesses to prove that she had spoken them.[114]

This convicted calumny, which never gained the smallest credit at the time, would not have deserved notice, had it not been revived, after the Reformer’s death, by the popish writers, who, having caught hold of the report, and dressed it out in all the horrid colours which malice or credulity could suggest, circulated it industriously, by their publications, through the continent. Though I had not been able to trace their slanders to this source, the atrocity of the imputed crimes, the unspotted reputation which Knox uniformly maintained among all his contemporaries, the glaring self‑contradictions of the accusers, and, above all, the notorious spirit of slander and defamation of which they have long stood convicted in the learned world, would have been grounds sufficient for rejecting such charges with detestation. Those who are acquainted with the writings of that period will not think that I speak too strongly; such as are ignorant of them may be satisfied by looking into the notes.[115]

The queen flattered herself that she had at last caught the Reformer in an offence, which would infallibly subject him to punishment. During her residence at Stirling, in the month of August, the domestics whom she left behind her in Holyroodhouse, celebrated the popish worship with greater publicity than had been usual when she was present; and, at the time when the sacrament of the supper was dispensed in Edinburgh, they revived certain superstitious practices which had been laid aside by the Roman catholics, since the establishment of the Reformation. This boldness offended the protestants, and some of them went down to the palace to mark the inhabitants who repaired to the service. Perceiving numbers entering, they burst into the chapel, and presenting themselves at the altar, which was prepared for mass, asked the priest how he “durst be so malapert” as to proceed in that manner, when the queen was absent. Alarmed at this intrusion, the mistress of the household dispatched a messenger to the comptroller, who was attending sermon in St Giles’s church, desiring him to come instantly to save her life and the palace. Having hurried down, accompanied with the magistrates and a guard, the comptroller found every thing quiet, and no appearance of tumult, except what was occasioned by the retinue which he brought along with him.[116] When the report of this affair was conveyed to the queen, she declared her determination not to return to Edinburgh until this riot was punished, and indicted two of the protestants, who had entered the chapel, to stand trial “for forethought felony, hamesucken, and invasion of the palace.” Fearing an intention to proceed to extremities against these men, and that their condemnation would be a preparative to some hostile attempt against their religion, the protestants in Edinburgh resolved that Knox, agreeably to a commission which he had received from the church, should write a circular letter to the principal gentlemen of their persuasion, informing them of the circumstances, and requesting their presence on the day of trial. He wrote the letter according to their request[117] A copy of it having come into the hands of Sinclair, bishop of Ross, and president of the Court of Session, who was a great personal enemy to Knox, he conveyed it immediately to the queen at Stirling. She communicated it to the privy council, who, to her great satisfaction, pronounced it treasonable; but, to give the greater solemnity to the proceedings, it was resolved that an extraordinary meeting of the counsellors, assisted by other noblemen, should be held at Edinburgh, in the end of December, to try the cause; and the Reformer was summoned to appear before this convention.[118]

Previously to the day of trial, great influence was used in private to persuade him to acknowledge a fault, and to throw himself on the queen’s mercy. This he peremptorily refused to do. The master of Maxwell, (afterwards lord Herries,) with whom he had long been intimate, threatened him with the loss of his friendship, and told him that he would repent, if he did not submit to the queen, for men would not bear with him as they had hitherto done. He replied, that he did not understand such language: he had never opposed her majesty except in the article of religion, and surely it was not meant that he should bow to her in that matter; if God stood by him, (which he would do as long as he confided in him, and preferred his glory to his own life,) he regarded little how men should behave towards him; nor did he know wherein they had borne with him, unless in hearing the word of God from his mouth, which, if they should reject, he would lament it, but the injury would be their own.

The earl of Murray, and secretary Maitland, sent for him to the clerk register’s house, and had a long conversation with him to the same purpose. They represented the pains which they had taken to mitigate the queen’s resentment, and intimated that nothing could save him but a timely submission. His reply was similar to that which he had given to Maxwell, that he never would confess a fault when he was conscious of none, and had not learned to “cry treason at every thing which the multitude called treason, nor to fear what they feared.” The wily secretary, finding him determined to abide the consequences of a trial, endeavoured to bring on a dispute on the subject, with the view of ascertaining the grounds on which he meant to defend himself; but Knox, aware of his craft, declined the conversation, and told him it would be foolish to intrust with his defence one who had already prejudged his cause, and pronounced him guilty.

On the day appointed for the trial, the public anxiety was raised to a high pitch, and the palace‑yard and avenues were crowded with people, who waited to learn the result. The Reformer was conducted to the chamber in which the lords were already assembled, and engaged in consultation. When the queen had taken her seat, and perceived Knox standing uncovered at the foot of the table, she burst into a loud fit of laughter. “That man,” said she, “made me weep, and shed never a tear himself: I will now see if I can make him weep.” The secretary opened the proceedings with greater gravity, by stating, in a speech addressed to the Reformer, the reasons why the queen had convened him before her nobility. “Let him acknowledge his own handwriting,” said the queen, “and then we shall judge of the contents of the letter.” A copy of the circular letter being handed to him, he looked at the subscription, and owned that it was his; adding, that though he had subscribed a number of blanks, he had such confidence in the fidelity of the scribe, that he was ready to acknowledge the contents as well as the subscription. “You have done more than I would have done,” said Maitland. “Charity is not suspicious,” replied the Reformer. “Well, well,” said the queen, “read your own letter, and then answer to such things as shall be demanded of you.”—“I will do the best I can,” said he; and having read the letter with an audible voice, returned it to the queen’s advocate, who was commanded to accuse him.

“Heard you ever, my lords, a more despiteful and treasonable letter?” said the queen, looking round the table. “Mr Knox, are you not sorry from your heart, and do you not repent that such a letter has passed your pen, and from you has come to the knowledge of others?” said Maitland. “My lord secretary, before I repent, I must be taught my offence.”—“Offence! if there were no more but the convocation of the queen’s lieges, the offence cannot be denied.”—“Remember yourself, my lord; there is a difference between a lawful convocation and an unlawful. If I have been guilty in this, I offended oft since I came last into Scotland; for what convocation of the brethren has ever been to this hour, unto which my pen served not?”—“Then was then, and now is now,” said the secretary; “we have no need of such convocations as sometimes we have had.”—“The time that has been is even now before my eyes,” rejoined the Reformer; “for I see the poor flock in no less danger than it has been at any time before, except that the devil has got a vizor upon his face. Before, he came in with his own face, discovered by open tyranny, seeking the destruction of all that refused idolatry; and then, I think, you will confess the brethren lawfully assembled themselves for defence of their lives; and now the devil comes under the cloak of justice, to do that which God would not suffer him to do by strength”——

“What is this?” interrupted her majesty, who was offended that he should be allowed such liberty of speech, and thought that she could bring him more closely to the question than any of her counsellors. “What is this? Methinks you trifle with him. Who gave him authority to make convocation of my lieges? Is not that treason?”—“No, madam,” replied lord Ruthven, displeased at the keenness which the queen showed in the cause; “for he makes convocation of the people to hear prayers and sermon almost daily; and whatever your grace or others will think thereof, we think it no treason.”—“Hold your peace,” said the queen; “and let him make answer for himself.”—“I began, madam,” resumed Knox, “to reason with the secretary (whom I take to be a better dialectician than your grace) that all convocations are not unlawful; and now my lord Ruthven has given the instance.”—“I will say nothing against your religion, nor against your convening to your sermons; but what authority have you to convocate my subjects when you will, without my commandment?” He answered, that at his own will he had never convened four persons in Scotland, but at the orders of his brethren he had given many advertisements, and great multitudes had assembled in consequence of them; and if her grace complained that this had been done without her command, he begged leave to answer, that the same objection might be made to all that had been done respecting the reformation of religion in this kingdom. He had never, he said, loved to stir up tumults—never been a preacher of rebellion; on the contrary, he had always taught the people to obey princes and magistrates in all their lawful commands. If he had been more active than the rest of his brethren in calling extraordinary assemblies of the protestants, it was owing to a charge which he had received from the church to do so, as often as he saw a necessity for such meetings, and especially when religion was exposed to danger; and he had repeatedly requested to be exonerated from this irksome and invidious charge, but could not obtain his wish. He must, therefore, be convicted by a just law, before he would profess sorrow for what he had done: he thought he had done no wrong.

“You shall not escape so,” said the queen. “Is it not treason, my lords, to accuse a prince of cruelty? I think there be acts of parliament against such whisperers.” Several of their lordships said that there were such laws. “But wherein can I be accused of this?” asked Knox. “Read this part of your own bill,” said the queen, who showed herself an acute prosecutor. She then ordered the following sentence to be read from his letter:—“This fearful summons is directed against them, [the two persons who were indicted,] to make no doubt a preparative on a few, that a door may be opened to execute cruelty upon a greater multitude.”—“Lo!” exclaimed the queen, exultingly; “what say you to that?” The eyes of the assembly were fixed on the Reformer, and all were anxious to know what answer he would make to this charge.

“Is it lawful for me, madam, to answer for myself? or, shall I be condemned unheard?”—“Say what you can; for I think you have enough to do,” said the queen. “I will first then desire of your grace, madam, and of this most honourable audience, whether your grace knows not, that the obstinate papists are deadly enemies to all such as profess the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that they most earnestly desire the extermination of them, and of the true doctrine that is taught within this realm?” Mary was silent; but the lords, with one voice, exclaimed, “God forbid, that ever the lives of the faithful, or yet the staying of the doctrine, stood in the power of the papists! for just experience has taught us what cruelty lies in their hearts.”—“I must proceed, then,” said the Reformer. “Seeing that I perceive that all will grant, that it was a barbarous thing to destroy such a multitude as profess the gospel of Christ within this realm, which oftener than once or twice they have attempted to do by force,—they, by God and by his providence being disappointed, have invented more crafty and dangerous practices, to wit, to make the prince a party under colour of law; and so what they could not do by open force, they shall perform by crafty deceit. For who thinks, my lords, that the insatiable cruelty of the papists (within this realm I mean) shall end in the murdering of these two brethren, now unjustly summoned, and more unjustly to be accused?—And therefore, madam, cast up, when you list, the acts of your parliament, I have offended nothing against them; for I accuse not, in my letter, your grace, nor yet your nature, of cruelty. But I affirm yet again, that the pestilent papists, who have inflamed your grace against those poor men at this present, are the sons of the devil, and therefore must obey the desires of their father, who has been a liar and manslayer from the beginning.”—“You forget yourself! you are not now in the pulpit,” said the chancellor. “I am in the place where I am demanded of conscience to speak the truth; and therefore the truth I speak, impugn it whoso list.” He added, again addressing the queen, that persons who appeared to be of honest, gentle, and meek natures, had often been corrupted by wicked counsel; and that the papists, who had her ear, were dangerous counsellors, and such her mother had found them to be.

Mary, perceiving that nothing was to be gained by reasoning, began now to upbraid him with his harsh behaviour to her, at their last interview. He spake “fair enough” at present before the lords, she said; but on that occasion he caused her to shed many salt tears, and said, “he set not by her weeping.” This drew from him a vindication of his conduct, in the course of which he gave a narrative of that conference. After this, the secretary, having spoken with the queen, told Knox that he was at liberty to return home for that night. “I thank God and the queen’s majesty,” said he, and retired.

When Knox had withdrawn, the judgment of the nobility was taken respecting his conduct. All of them, with the exception of the immediate dependents of the court, gave it as their opinion, that he had not been guilty of any breach of the laws. The secretary, who had assured the queen of his condemnation, was enraged at this decision. He brought her majesty, who had retired, again into the room, and proceeded to call the votes a second time. This attempt to overawe them incensed the nobility. “What!” said they, “shall the laird of Lethington have power to control us? or, shall the presence of a woman cause us to offend God, and to condemn an innocent man, against our consciences?” They then repeated the vote which they had already given, absolving him from all offence, and, at the same time, praising his modest appearance, and the judicious manner in which he had conducted his defence.

Mary was unable to conceal the mortification and displeasure which she felt at this unexpected acquittal. When the bishop of Ross, who had been the informer, gave his vote on the same side with the rest, she taunted him openly in the presence of the court. “Trouble not the child!” said she; “I pray you trouble him not! for he is newly wakened out of his sleep. Why should not the old fool follow the footsteps of those that have passed before him?” The bishop replied coldly, that her majesty might easily know, that his vote was not influenced by partiality to the person accused.—“That nicht was nyther dancing nor fiddeling in the court; for madam was disappoynted of hir purpose, whilk was to have had Johne Knox in hir will, by vote of her nobility.”[119]

PERIOD VIII.

FROM DECEMBER 1563, WHEN HE WAS ACQUITTED FROM A CHARGE OF TREASON, TO THE YEAR 1570, WHEN HE WAS STRUCK WITH APOPLEXY.

The indignation of the queen at the Reformer’s escape from punishment did not soon abate;[120] and the effects of it fell upon the courtiers who had voted for his exculpation, and upon those who had been unsuccessful in opposing it. The Earl of Murray was among the former,[121] Maitland among the latter. In order to appease her wrath, they again attempted to persuade Knox to soothe her by some voluntary submission; and they engaged that, if he would only agree to go within the walls of the castle, he should be allowed to return immediately to his own house. To this he refused to yield, being convinced that by such a compliance he would throw discredit on the judgment of the nobility who had acquitted him, and confess himself to have been a mover of sedition. Disappointed in their object, they endeavoured to injure him by whispers and detraction; circulating that he had no authority from his brethren for what he had done, and that he arrogated a papal power over the Scottish church, by issuing his letters at pleasure, and exacting an implicit obedience to them. These charges were very groundless and unjust; for there never was, perhaps, an individual who possessed as much influence, and at the same time was so careful to avoid all appearance of assuming superiority over his brethren, or of acting by his own private authority, in matters of public and common concern.

At the meeting of the General Assembly, held in the close of this year, he declined taking any share in the deliberations; but after the public business had been disposed of, he requested liberty to speak on an affair which concerned himself. He stated what he had done in writing the late circular letter, the proceedings to which it had given rise, and the surmises which were still circulating to his prejudice; and he insisted that the church should now examine his conduct in that matter, and particularly that they should declare whether or not they had given him a commission to advertise the brethren, when he foresaw any danger threatening their religion, or any difficult case which required their advice. The courtiers strenuously opposed the discussion of this question; but it was taken up, and the assembly, by a great majority, found that he had been charged with such a commission, and that, in the advertisement which he had lately given, he had not exceeded his powers.[122]

Knox had remained a widower upwards of three years. But in March 1564, he contracted a second marriage with Margaret Stewart, daughter of lord Ochiltree, a nobleman of amiable dispositions, who had been long familiar with our Reformer, and had steadily adhered to him when he was deserted by his other friends.[123] She continued to discharge the duties of a wife to him, with the most pious and affectionate assiduity, until the time of his death. The popish writers, who envied the honours of the Scottish Reformer, have represented this marriage as a proof of his great ambition, and, in the excess of their spleen, have ridiculously imputed to him the project of aiming to raise his progeny to the throne of Scotland; because the family of Ochiltree was of the blood royal! They are quite clear, too, that he gained the heart of the young lady by means of sorcery, and the assistance of the devil. But it seems, that, powerfully as he was seconded, he could not succeed in another attempt which he had previously made; for the same writers inform us, that he paid his addresses to lady Barbara Hamilton, eldest daughter of the duke of Chastelherault, and widow of Lord Fleming, by whom he was repulsed. The account of the appearance that he made at the time of his marriage, which shall be inserted in the notes, the reader will receive according to the degree of its probability, and the credit he may think due to the authorities upon which it rests.[124]

The country continued in a state of quietness during the year 1564; but the same jealousies still subsisted between the court and the church.[125] Her majesty’s prejudices against the reformed religion were unabated, and she maintained a correspondence with its sworn enemies on the continent, which could not altogether escape the vigilance of her protestant subjects.[126] The preachers, on their side, did not relax in their zealous warnings against popery, and as to the dangers which they apprehended; while they complained of the beggary to which the greater part of their own number was reduced, and of the growing lukewarmness of the protestant courtiers. The latter felt uneasy under these reproaches, and, in concert with the queen, were anxious to restrain the license of the pulpit. They began by addressing themselves privately to the more moderate and complying of the ministers, whom they gained over, by their persuasions, to a partial approbation of their measures; and having so far succeeded, they ventured to propose the matter in public, and to request the sanction of the leading members of the General Assembly.

Without intending to vindicate the latitude which was taken by particular preachers at that time, it may be said, in general, that a systematic attempt to restrain the liberty of speech in the pulpit, farther than the correction of occasional excesses might require, would have been a measure fraught with danger to the protestant interest. The reformed preachers were the most vigilant and incorrupt guardians of national liberty; an honourable distinction which their successors maintained during the remainder of that century. It is better to be awaked with rudeness, or even by a false alarm, than to be allowed to sleep on in the midst of dangers. Who would muzzle the mouth of the wakeful animal which guards the house against thieves, because the inmates are sometimes disturbed by his nocturnal vociferation? or substitute in his place a “dumb dog, that cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber?”

Knox, the freedom and sharpness of whose censures the courtiers felt most deeply, was the person whom they chiefly wished to restrain; but it was no easy matter either to overawe him by authority, or by reasoning to procure his acquiescence in their proposals. In the month of June, a conference was held between the principal statesmen and ministers of the church, when this subject was discussed; and in an elaborate debate with Maitland, Knox defended the leading points of his doctrine which had given offence to the court. This debate “admirably displays the talents and character of both the disputants; the acuteness of the former, embellished with learning, but prone to subtlety; the vigorous understanding of the latter, delighting in bold sentiments, and superior to all fear.”[127]

Maitland opened the conference with a plausible speech. He set forth the benefits which they had enjoyed under her Majesty’s government, and dwelt on the liberty which she had granted them in religious matters; he urged the great importance of the ministers of the church cultivating her friendship by every good office in their power, and endeavouring to inspire the people with a favourable opinion of her person and administration; and pointed out the hurtful effects of their being observed to disagree in their form of prayer for her, and in their doctrine concerning the duty of subjects. Addressing himself particularly to Knox, he told him, with much politeness and address, that it was the earnest wish of the council that he should study greater caution, when he had occasion to speak of her majesty from the pulpit: not that they were afraid of his saying any thing very improper, but because the liberty which he used would be taken by persons less modest and prudent. Knox replied to the secretary’s speech. He drew a very different picture of the state of affairs since the queen came to the country; stated the grievances under which the church laboured, and which were daily increasing, instead of being redressed; and added, that, in these circumstances, the courtiers ought not to be surprised at the complaints of the ministers, and the liberties which they took in rebuking sins, which were openly committed, and persisted in notwithstanding all due admonition. At the same time, he professed his readiness to account for any part of his own conduct which had given offence, and to listen to the objections which might be urged against it.

Maitland specified the mode in which the Reformer usually prayed for her majesty, as one thing which gave offence to him and his colleagues. Prayers and tears, it has often been alleged, are the only arms which Christians ought to employ against injuries. But those who have deprived them of other weapons, have usually envied them the use of these also; and if their prayers have not been smoothed down to the temper of their adversaries, so as to become mere compliments to princes under colour of an address to the Almighty, they have often been pronounced to be seditious and treasonable.[128] Knox repeated his common form of prayer for the queen, and requested to be informed in what respects it was deserving of reprehension. “Ye pray for the queen’s majesty with a condition,” replied Maitland, “saying, ‘Illuminate her heart, if thy good pleasure be.’ Where have ye example of such prayer?”—“Wherever the examples are,” rejoined Knox, “I am assured of the rule, ‘If we shall ask any thing according to his will, he will hear us;’ and Christ commanded us to pray, ‘Thy will be done.’”—“But in so doing ye put a doubt in the people’s head of her conversion,” said Maitland.—“Not I, my lord; but her own obstinate rebellion causes more than me to doubt of her conversion.”—“Wherein rebels she against God?”—“In all the actions of her life, but in these two heads especially: that she will not hear the preaching of the blessed evangel of Jesus Christ, and that she maintains that idol the mass.”—“She thinks not that rebellion, but good religion.”—“So thought they who offered their children to Moloch, and yet the spirit of God affirms, that they offered them unto devils, and not unto God.”—“But yet ye can produce the example of none that has so prayed before you,” said the secretary, pressing his former objection. “Well then,” said Knox; “Peter said these words to Simon Magus, ‘Repent of this thy wickedness, and pray to God, that, if it be possible, the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.’ And think ye not, my lord secretary, that the same doubt may touch my heart as touching the queen’s conversion, that then touched the heart of the apostle?”—“I would never hear you or any other call that in doubt,” replied Maitland.—“But your will is no assurance to my conscience.”—“Why say ye that she refuses admonitions?” said Maitland; “she will gladly hear any man.”—“But what obedience ensues? Or, when shall she be seen to give her presence to the public preaching?”—“I think never, so long as she is thus entreated,” replied the secretary. “And so long,” rejoined the Reformer, “ye and all others must be content that I pray so as I may be assured to be heard of my God, either in making her comfortable to his church, or, if he has appointed her to be a scourge to the same, that we may have patience, and she may be bridled.”

“Well then,” said the secretary, “let us come to the second head. Where find ye that the scripture calls any ‘the bond slaves of Satan?’ or, that the prophets spake so irreverently of kings and princes?”—“If the sharpness of the term offend you,” replied the Reformer, “I have not invented that phrase of speaking, but have learned it out of God’s scriptures; for these words I find spoken unto Paul, ‘Behold, I send thee unto the Gentiles, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.’ Mark thir words, my lord, and stur not at the speaking of the Holy Ghost.”

The secretary, who, during the greater part of the dispute, had leaned on the master of Maxwell’s breast, said that he was fatigued, and desired some other person to reason with Knox on the point which remained to be discussed, respecting the authority of magistrates and the duty of subjects. Chancellor Morton ordered George Hay to perform this part. Knox was aware, that the object of the court was, if possible, to divide the ministers, and that they would improve any appearance of diversity of opinion among them, to the prejudice of the common cause. He therefore told Hay, that he had no objections to reason with him, knowing him to be a man of learning and modesty; but he should be sorry to think that they opposed each other, like two scholars of Pythagoras, to show the quickness of their parts by supporting either side of a question; and as he, for his own part, protested that he durst no more support a proposition which he knew to be untrue, than he durst teach false doctrine in the pulpit, so he hoped that his brother would, on the present occasion, advance or maintain nothing but what he was persuaded of in his conscience. This caution had the desired effect, and Hay declared, before the whole assembly, that his judgment exactly coincided with Knox’s on the subject proposed for discussion. “Marry,” said the disappointed secretary, “ye are the well worst of the two; for I remember our reasoning when the queen was in Carrick.”

Perceiving that none of the company was disposed to enter the lists with the Reformer, Maitland again returned to the charge, and engaged to defend the uncontrollable authority of rulers. “Well,” said he, “I am somewhat better provided in this last head, than I was in the other two. Mr Knox, yesterday we heard your judgment upon the 13th to the Romans; we heard the mind of the apostle well opened; we heard the causes why God has established powers upon earth; we heard the necessity that mankind has of the same; and we heard the duty of magistrates sufficiently declared. But in two things I was offended, and I think some more of my lords that then were present: The one was, ye made difference betwixt the ordinance of God, and the persons that are placed in authority; and ye affirmed, that men might resist the persons, and yet not offend God’s ordinance: The other was, that subjects were not bound to obey their princes if they commanded unlawful things, but that they might resist their princes, and were not ever bound to suffer.” Knox said that the secretary had given a correct statement of his sentiments. “How will you prove your division and difference,” said Maitland, “and that the person placed in authority may be resisted, and God’s ordinance not transgressed, seeing that the apostle says, ‘He that resists the power, resists the ordinance of God?’” Knox replied, that the difference was evident from the words of the apostle, and that his affirmative was supported by approved examples. For the apostle asserts, that the powers ordained of God are for the preservation of quiet and peaceable men, and for the punishment of malefactors; whence it is plain, that God’s ordinance is wholly intended for the preservation of mankind, the punishment of vice, and the maintenance of virtue; but the persons placed in authority are often corrupt, unjust, and oppressive. Having referred to the conduct of the people of Israel in rescuing Jonathan from the hands of Saul, which is recorded with approbation, and to the conduct of Doeg, in putting to death the priests at the command of that monarch, which is recorded with disapprobation in scripture, he proceeded thus: “And now, my lord, in answer to the place of the apostle, I say, that ‘the power’ in that place is not to be understood of the unjust commandment of men, but of the just power wherewith God has armed his magistrates to punish sin and to maintain virtue. As if any man should enterprise to take from the hands of a lawful judge a murderer, an adulterer, or any other malefactor that by God’s law deserved the death, this same man resisted God’s ordinance, and procured to himself vengeance and damnation, because that he stayeth God’s sword to strike. But so it is not, if that men, in the fear of God, oppose themselves to the fury and blind rage of princes; for so they resist not God, but the devil, who abuses the sword and authority of God.”—“I understand sufficiently,” said Maitland, “what you mean; and unto the one part I will not oppose myself, but I doubt of the other. For if the queen would command me to slay John Knox, because she is offended at him, I would not obey her; but if she would command others to do it, or yet by a colour of justice take his life from him, I cannot tell if I be bound to defend him against the queen, and against her officers.”—“Under protestation,” replied the Reformer, “that the auditory think not that I speak in favour of myself, I say, my lord, that if ye be persuaded of my innocence, and if God hath given you such power or credit as might deliver me, and yet ye suffer me to perish, that in so doing ye should be criminal, and guilty of my blood.”—“Prove that, and win the plea,” said Maitland. “Well, my lord,” answered Knox, “remember your promise, and I shall be short in my probation.” He then produced the example of Jeremiah, who, when accused by the priests and false prophets, said to the princes, “Know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof.”—“The cases are not like,” said Maitland. “And I would learn,” said Knox, “wherein the dissimilitude stands.”—“First,” replied Maitland, “the king had not condemned him to death. And next, the false prophets, the priests, and the people, accused him without a cause, and therefore they could not but be guilty of his blood.”—“Neither of these fights with my argument,” said Knox; “for, albeit neither the king was present, nor yet had condemned him, yet were the princes and chief counsellors there sitting in judgment, who represented the king’s person and authority. And if ye think that they should all have been criminal only because they all accused him, the plain text witnesses the contrary; for the princes defended him, and so, no doubt, did a great part of the people, and yet he boldly affirms that they should be all guilty of his blood, if that he should be put to death.”—“Then will ye,” said the secretary, “make subjects to control their princes and rulers?”—“And what harm,” asked the Reformer, “should the commonwealth receive, if the corrupt affections of ignorant rulers were moderated, and so bridled, by the wisdom and discretion of godly subjects, that they should do wrong or violence to no man?”

The secretary, finding himself hard pushed, said that they had wandered from the argument; and he professed that if the queen should become a persecutor, he would be as ready as any within the realm to adopt the doctrine of the Reformer. “But our question,” said he, “is, whether that we may, and ought, suppress the queen’s mass. Or, whether that her idolatry should be laid to our charge.”—“Idolatry ought not only to be suppressed,” said Knox, “but the idolater ought to die the death.”—“I know,” answered Maitland, “that the idolater ought to die the death; but by whom?”—“By the people,” rejoined the Reformer; “for the commandment was made to Israel, as ye may read, ‘Hear, O Israel, saith the Lord, the statutes and commandments of the Lord thy God.’”—“But there is no commandment given to the people to punish their king, if he be an idolater.”—“I find no privilege granted unto kings,” said Knox, “more than unto the people, to offend God’s majesty.”—“I grant,” said the secretary; “but yet the people may not be judge unto their king, to punish him, albeit he be an idolater. The people may not execute God’s judgment, but must leave it unto himself, who will either punish it by death, by war, by imprisonment, or by some other kind of plagues.”—“I know,” replied Knox, “the last part of your reason to be true; but for the first I am assured ye have no other warrant except your own imagination, and the opinion of such as more fear to offend princes than God.”

“Why say you so?” said Maitland. “I have the judgments of the most famous men within Europe, and of such as ye yourself will confess both godly and learned.” Upon which he produced a bundle of papers, and read extracts from the writings of the principal reformed divines against resistance to rulers; adding, that he had bestowed more labour on the collection of these authorities than on the reading of commentaries for seven years. Knox replied, that it was a pity he had given himself so much labour, for none of the extracts which he had read bore upon the question under discussion; some of them being directed against the anabaptists, who denied that Christians should be subject to magistrates, or that it was lawful for them to hold the office of magistracy; and the rest referring to the case of a small number of Christians scattered through heathen and infidel countries, which was the situation of the primitive church. In this last case, he said, he perfectly agreed with the writers whom Maitland had quoted; but when the majority of a nation were professors of the true religion, the case was very different. While the posterity of Abraham were few in number, and while they sojourned in different countries, they were merely required to avoid all participation in the idolatrous rites of the heathen; but as soon as they “prospered into a kingdom,” and obtained possession of Canaan, they were strictly charged to suppress idolatry, and to destroy all its monuments and incentives. The same duty was now incumbent on the professors of the true religion in Scotland, whose release from bondage, temporal and spiritual, was no less wonderful than the redemption of the Israelites from Egypt. Formerly, when not more than ten persons in a country were enlightened, and when these were called to seal their testimony to the truth by giving their bodies to the flames, it would have been foolishness to have demanded of the nobility the suppression of idolatry. But now, when knowledge had increased, and God had given such a signal victory to the truth, that it had been publicly embraced by the realm, if they suffered the land to be again defiled, both they and their queen should drink of the cup of divine indignation—she, because, amidst the great light of the gospel, she continued obstinately addicted to idolatry, and they, because they tolerated, and even countenanced her in such conduct.

Maitland challenged his opponent to prove that the apostles or prophets ever taught that subjects might suppress the idolatry of their rulers. Knox appealed to the conduct of the prophet Elisha in anointing Jehu, and giving him a charge to punish the idolatry and bloodshed of the royal family of Ahab. “Jehu was a king before he put any thing in execution,” said the secretary.—“My lord, he was a mere subject, and no king, when the prophet’s servant came to him; yea, and albeit that his fellow captains, hearing of the message, blew the trumpet, and said ‘Jehu is king,’ yet I doubt not but Jezebel both thought and said he was a traitor, and so did many others in Israel and Samaria.”—“Besides this,” said Maitland, “the fact is extraordinary, and ought not to be imitated.”—“It had the ground of God’s ordinary judgment, which commands the idolater to die the death,” answered Knox. “We are not bound to imitate extraordinary examples,” rejoined Maitland, “unless we have like commandment and assurance.” Knox granted that this was true when the example was repugnant to the ordinary precept of the law, as in the case of the Israelites borrowing from the Egyptians without repayment. But when the example agreed with the law, he insisted that it was imitable; and of this kind was the instance to which he had appealed. But, said Maitland, “whatsoever they did, was done at God’s commandment.”—“That fortifies my argument,” retorted the Reformer; “for God, by his commandment, has approved that subjects punish their princes for idolatry and wickedness by them committed.”—“We have not the like commandment,” said the secretary.—“That I deny; for the commandment, that the idolater shall die the death, is perpetual, as ye yourself have granted; ye doubted only who should be the executioner, and I have sufficiently proven that God has raised up the people, and by his prophet has anointed a king, to take vengeance upon the king and his posterity, which fact God since that time has never retracted.”—“Ye have produced but one example,” said Maitland.—“One sufficeth; but yet, God be praised, we lack not others, for the whole people conspired against Amaziah, king of Judah, after he had turned away from the Lord.”—“I doubt whether they did well, or not,” said Maitland.—“God gave sufficient approbation of their fact, for he blessed them with victory, peace, and prosperity, the space of fifty‑two years after.”—“But prosperity does not always prove that God approves the facts of men.”—“Yes, when the facts of men agree with the law of God, and are rewarded according to his promise, I say that the prosperity succeeding the fact is a most infallible assurance that God has approved that fact. And now, my lord, I have but one example to produce, and then I will put an end to my reasoning, because I weary longer to stand.” The lords desired him to take a chair; but he declined it, saying, “that melancholic reasons needed some mirth to be intermixed with them.” After a short dispute on the resistance of the priests to Uzziah, the Reformer recapitulated the propositions which he thought had been established in the course of the debate. “Well,” said Maitland, “I think ye shall not have many learned men of your opinion.” Knox replied, that the truth ceased not to be the truth, because men misunderstood or opposed it, and yet he did not want the suffrages of learned men to his opinions. Upon which he presented a copy of the Apology of Magdeburgh, desiring the secretary to look at the names of the ministers who had approved of the defence of that city against the emperor, and subscribed the proposition, that to resist a tyrant is not to resist the ordinance of God. “Homines obscuri!”[129] said Maitland, slightingly, after perusing the list. “Dei tamen servi!”[130] replied the Reformer.

The secretary now insisted that the questions which they had discussed should be put to the vote, and that the determination of the meeting should fix a rule for uniformity of doctrine among the ministers. Knox protested against this motion, and reminded their lordships that the General Assembly had agreed to the present conference upon the express condition that nothing should be voted or decided at it. At last it was agreed, that the opinions of those who were present should be taken, but that they should not be considered as decisive. Winram, superintendent of Fife, and Douglas, rector of the university of St Andrew’s, were the principal persons among the ministers, who agreed in sentiment with the courtiers. Knox’s colleague, in delivering his opinion, took occasion to give an account of a public dispute at which he had been present in Bologna, upon the question, Whether subjects have a right to control and reform their rulers, when they have been guilty of violating their oaths of office. Thomas de Finola, rector of the University, and Vincentius de Placentia, persons celebrated for their learning, maintained the affirmative on this question, and their opinion was adopted after long discussion. “Ye tell us what was done in Bologna,” exclaimed one of the courtiers; “we are in a kingdom, and they are but a commonwealth.”—“My lord,” replied Craig, “my judgment is, that every kingdom is a commonwealth, or at least should be, albeit that every commonwealth is not a kingdom; and therefore I think that in a kingdom no less diligence ought to be taken that laws be not violated than in a commonwealth, because the tyranny of princes who continually reign in a kingdom, is more hurtful to the subjects than the misgovernment of those that from year to year are changed in free commonwealths.” He added, that the dispute to which he had referred was conducted on general principles, applicable equally to monarchies and republics; and that one of the conclusions adopted was, that, although laws contrary to the law of God, and to the true principles of government, had been introduced, through the negligence of the people or the tyranny of princes, yet the same people, or their posterity, had a right to demand that all things should be reformed according to the original institution of kings and commonwealths.[131]

The speech of Craig alarmed the courtiers as to the issue of the vote; and the clerk register took occasion to observe that, at a former conference, it had been agreed that Knox should write to Calvin to obtain his opinion on this question. Knox corrected this statement, by saying that the secretary had undertaken to consult that reformer, but although repeatedly reminded of his promise, had never fulfilled it. Maitland acknowledged this, and said that upon mature deliberation he durst not, considering his station, ask advice respecting any controversy between the queen and her subjects, without her majesty’s consent. It was now proposed that Knox should write to Calvin; but he refused to be employed in the business. Before he returned to the kingdom, he said, he had obtained the judgment of the most eminent foreign divines on that question, and he could not renew his application to them, without exposing himself to the charge of forgetfulness or inconsistency. The proper course was for them to write, complaining that he had taught such doctrines as he had now defended, and requesting Calvin to communicate his judgment respecting them. This proposal was thought reasonable, but none would undertake the task; and the conference broke up without any determinate resolution being adopted.[132]

The reader must be struck with the difference between this dispute, and that which Knox formerly maintained with the abbot of Crossraguel. Although long, it was kept up by the disputants with great spirit; nor did they take refuge under those ambiguities of speech, or those sophistical forms of argument, of which persons trained to wrangle in the schools were ever ready to avail themselves, to perplex an adversary, or to conceal their own defeat. Few secretaries of state in modern times would, it is presumed, be able to acquit themselves so well as Maitland did, on questions which were decided chiefly by an appeal to the scriptures. But learned and acute as he was, Knox was fully a match for him, and, on the greater part of the topics introduced into the debate, evidently had the advantage, according to the principles held, and the concessions made, by his opponent. For both parties maintained, that idolatry ought to be punished by death; a sentiment which they were led to adopt in consequence of their holding the untenable opinion, that Christian nations are bound to enact the same penalties against all breaches of the moral law, which were enjoined by the judicial laws of Moses.[133] This being taken for granted, the dispute between them resolved itself entirely into a question respecting the prerogatives of princes and the rights and duties of subjects. It may be questioned, too, whether Knox’s reasoning from extraordinary examples, qualified as it was by him, is sufficiently guarded and correct; for the instances in which punishment was inflicted in an extraordinary way on criminals, although the punishment itself was merited and agreeable to law, cannot be pleaded as precedents in ordinary cases. But even when we cannot approve of his reasonings, we are compelled to admire the openness with which he avowed, and the boldness with which he defended, sentiments so opposite to those which were generally received in that age.

In the month of August, Knox went, by appointment of the General Assembly, as visitor of the churches, to Aberdeen and other parts of the north, where he remained six or seven weeks.[134] At the subsequent meeting of Assembly, he received a similar appointment to Fife and Perthshire.[135]

Our Reformer’s predictions at the last meeting of parliament were now fully realized. Another parliament was held in the end of 1564, but nothing was done for securing the protestant religion.[136] The queen’s marriage had long engaged the anxious attention of her ministers, and had been the subject of much negotiation with England and at foreign courts; but the various proposals which had been made with a view to it, and the political intrigues to which they gave rise, were all thwarted by the sudden and strong passion which Mary conceived for Henry, lord Darnley, the son of the earl of Lennox. As this young nobleman, so far as he had discovered any religious sentiments, was inclined to popery,[137] the match could not be very agreeable to the great body of the nation, who had already testified the strongest jealousy at the queen’s attachment to that religion. It was, therefore, natural for the nobility, in the prospect of this event, to provide additional securities for the protestant church, and to insist that the royal sanction, hitherto withheld, should now be granted to its legal establishment. Upon this condition, they promised their consent to the marriage.[138] The queen agreed to summon a parliament to settle this important affair, but she found some pretext for proroguing its meeting;[139] and, having gained a number of the nobility by favours and promises, she proceeded, in July 1565, not only to solemnize the nuptials, but to proclaim her husband king, without the consent of the estates of the kingdom.

The dissatisfaction produced by these precipitate and illegal steps was heightened by the conduct of Darnley. Naturally vain, rash, and vindictive, his unexpected prosperity rendered him insolent and overbearing; and it required all the prudence of the queen to preserve him from falling into contempt, even before their marriage.[140] Although he could not have come to Scotland, and his father could not have been restored to his honours and possessions, considering the opposition made by the house of Hamilton, without the concurrence and interest of the earl of Murray; yet, he no sooner found himself seated in the affections of Mary, than he exerted his influence to deprive that nobleman of her favour, represented the honours which she had conferred on him as excessive, and leagued with those who were hostile to him and to the reformed religion. Lennox, Athole, and David Rizzio, a low‑bred Italian, who had insinuated himself into the good graces of Mary, now ruled the court, to the exclusion of the most able counsellors.[141] Murray had been urged in private to sign an approbation of the intended marriage, but refused to do it until the nobility were consulted.[142] His refusal to gratify the queen, by forwarding a match on which she was passionately bent, obliterated the memory of all his past services, and drew upon him the furious resentment of Darnley. Having declined to attend a convention at Perth, from just apprehensions of personal danger, he was summoned to court by the queen. The summons was repeated three days after her marriage, and because he refused to intrust his person, on her safe conduct, to a court where the influence of his declared enemies prevailed, he was immediately proclaimed an outlaw.[143] In the meantime, the persons who had discovered the greatest hostility to him were openly encouraged. Bothwell was invited to return; lord George Gordon was set at liberty, and the earldom of Huntly restored to him; and the earl of Sutherland was recalled from banishment.[144] The lords who were dissatisfied with the late proceedings, assembled at Stirling, and, after agreeing to request the protection of Elizabeth, retired to their houses;[145] but the queen taking the field with all the forces which she could collect, they were at last compelled to arm in their own defence.[146] Even after they were driven to this extremity, they neglected no means of conciliation. They professed their steadfast loyalty to the queen. They declared that their sole desire was, that the reformed religion should be secured against the dangers to which it was exposed, and that the administration of public affairs should be put into the hands of those whom the nation could trust. And they offered to submit their own cause to be tried by the laws of their country.[147] But the queen spurned all their offers of submission, refused to listen to any intercession in their favour, and advancing against them with an army, obliged them to take refuge in England.[148]

While her marriage with Darnley was in dependence, and she laboured to surmount the opposition made to it by the nobility, Mary had condescended to court the protestant ministers. Having sent for the superintendents of Lothian, Glasgow, and Fife, (for Knox could not now be admitted to her presence,) she amused them with fair words. She was not yet persuaded, she said, of the truth of their religion, but was willing to hear conference and reasoning on the subject; she was also content to attend the public sermons of some of them; and, “above all others, she would gladly hear the superintendent of Angus, for he was a mild and sweet‑natured man, with true honesty and uprightness, Sir John Erskine of Dun.”[149] She even went so far as to be present at a sermon preached by one of the ministers in Callendar‑house, at the baptism of a child of lord Livingston.[150] But as soon as her marriage was accomplished, she told the commissioners of the church, in very plain and determined language, “her majesty neither will, nor may, leave the religion wherein she has been nourished and brought up.”[151] And there was no further proposal of attending either sermon or conference.

The friendship between the earl of Murray and the Reformer had been renewed in the beginning of 1565. Knox was placed in a very delicate predicament by the insurrection under Murray, and the other lords who opposed the queen’s marriage. His father‑in‑law was one of their number. They professed that the security of the protestant religion was the principal ground of their taking arms; and they came to Edinburgh to collect men to their standard. But whatever favour he might have for them, he kept himself clear from any engagement.[152] If he had taken part in this unsuccessful revolt, we need not doubt that her majesty would have embraced the opportunity of punishing him for it, when his principal friends had fled the kingdom.

We find, in fact, that she immediately proceeded against him on a different, but far more slender ground. The young king, who could be either papist or protestant, as it suited him, went sometimes to mass with the queen, and sometimes attended the reformed sermons.[153] To silence the suspicions of his alienation from the protestant religion, circulated by the insurgent lords, he, on the 19th of August, made a solemn appearance in St Giles’s church, sitting on a throne which had been prepared for his reception. Knox preached that day, and happened to prolong the service beyond his usual time. In one part of the sermon, he quoted these words of scripture, “I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them,—children are their oppressors, and women rule over them;” and in another part of it, he mentioned that God punished Ahab, because he did not correct his idolatrous wife, Jezabel.[154] Though no particular application was made by the preacher, the king applied these passages to himself and the queen, and, returning to the palace in great wrath, refused to taste dinner. The papists, who had accompanied him to church, inflamed his resentment and that of the queen by their representations.

That very afternoon Knox was taken from bed,[155] and carried before the privy council. Some respectable inhabitants of the city, understanding his citation, accompanied him to the palace. He was told that he had offended the king, and must desist from preaching as long as their majesties were in Edinburgh. He replied, that “he had spoken nothing but according to his text; and if the church should command him to speak or abstain, he would obey, so far as the word of God would permit him.”[156] Spotswood says, that he not only stood to what he had said in the pulpit, but added, “That as the king, for the queen’s pleasure, had gone to mass, and dishonoured the Lord God, so should He in his justice make her the instrument of his overthrow. This speech,” continues the archbishop’s manuscript, “esteemed too bold at the time, came afterwards to be remembered, and was reckoned among other his prophetical sayings, which certainly were marvellous. The queen, enraged at this answer, burst forth into tears.”[157]

The report of the inhibition laid upon the Reformer created great agitation in the city. His colleague, who was appointed to supply his place during his suspension, threatened to desist entirely from preaching. The town council met, and appointed a deputation to wait on their majesties, and request the reversal of the sentence; and at a second meeting held on the same day, they came to a unanimous resolution that they would, “in no manner of way, consent or grant that his mouth be closed,” but that he should be desired, “at his pleasure, and as God should move his heart, to proceed forward to true doctrine as before, which doctrine they would approve and abide at to their life’s end.”[158]

It does not appear that he continued any time suspended from preaching. For the king and queen left Edinburgh before next Sabbath[159] and the prohibition extended only to the time of their residence in the city. Upon their return, it is probable that they judged it advisable not to enforce an order which had already created much discontent, and might alienate the minds of the people still farther from the present administration. Accordingly, we find him exercising his ministry in Edinburgh with the same boldness as formerly. Complaints were made to the council of the manner in which he prayed for the exiled noblemen; but secretary Maitland, who had formerly found so much fault with his prayers, defended them on the present occasion, saying, that he had heard them, and they were such as nobody could blame.[160]

Christopher Goodman had officiated, with much approbation, as minister of St Andrew’s, since the year 1560; but he was prevailed on, by the solicitations of his friends in England, to return, about this time, to his native country.[161] The commissioners from St Andrew’s were instructed to petition the General Assembly, which met in December this year, that Knox should be translated from Edinburgh to their city. They claimed a right to him, as he had commenced his ministry among them; and they might think, that the dissensions in which he was involved with the court would induce him to prefer a more retired situation. But their petition was refused.[162]

This Assembly imposed on him several important services. He was commissioned to visit the churches in the south of Scotland, and appointed to write “a comfortable letter,” to encourage the ministers, exhorters, and readers, throughout the kingdom, to persevere in the discharge of their functions, which many of them were threatening to abandon, on account of the non‑payment of their stipends; and to excite the people among whom they laboured to relieve their necessities.[163] He had formerly received an appointment to draw up The Form of Excommunication and of Public Repentance.[164] And he was now required to compose a Treatise of Fasting. The Assembly, having taken into consideration the troubles of the country, and the dangers which threatened the whole protestant interest, had appointed a general fast to be kept through the kingdom. The form and order to be observed on that occasion they left to be drawn out by Knox and his colleague; and as nothing had been hitherto published expressly on this subject, they were authorized to explain the duty, as well as to state the reasons which at that period called for this solemn exercise. This treatise does credit to the compilers, both as to matter and form. It is written in a perspicuous and nervous style. In the grounds assigned for fasting, the critical state of all the reformed churches, the late decree of the council of Trent for the extirpation of the protestant name, the combination of the popish princes for carrying it into execution, and the persecutions suffered by their brethren in different countries, are all held forth as a warning to the protestants of Scotland, and urged as calls to repentance and prayer.

The following may serve as a specimen:—“Supposing, we say, that wee had none of these foresaid causes to moove us, yet is there one which if it moove us not to humiliation, wee show ourselves more than insensible. For now is Satan so enlarged against Jesus Christ, and so odious is the light of his gospel unto the Romaine antichrist, that to suppresse it in one province, realme, or nation, he thinketh it nothing, unlesse that in all Europe the godly, and such as abhorre the papisticall impietie, be therewith also utterlie destroyed, and so rased from the face of the earth, that no memory of them shal after remaine. If any thinke that suche crueltie cannot fall into the hearts of men, we send them to be resolved of those fathers of the last councel of Trent, who, in one of their sessions, have thus concluded: All Lutherans, Calvinists, and such as are of the new religion, shall utterly be rooted out. The beginning shall be in France, by conducting of the catholike king, Philip of Spaine, and by some of the nobilitie of France; which matter (they say) put in execution, the whole power of both, together with the popes armie, and force of the duke of Savoy and Ferrar, shall assault Geneva, and shall not leave it till that they have put it to sacke, saving in it no living creature. And with the same mercie shall so many of France as have tasted of the new religion be served. From thence expedition shall be made against the Germanes, to reduce them to the obedience of the apostolike seate. And so shall they proceed to other realmes and nations, never ceasing till that all be rooted out that will not make homage to that Romane idoll. How fearefull a beginning this conclusion and determination had, France will remember moe ages then one. For how manie, above a hundreth thousand men, women, babes, virgines, matrones, and aged fathers suffered, some by sworde, some by water, some by fire, and other torments, the verie enemies themselves are compelled to acknowledge. And albeit that God of his mercie in part disappoynted their cruell enterprises, yet let us not thinke that their will is changed, or their malice asswaged. No; let us be assured, that they abide but opportunitie to finish the worke that cruellie against God, against his trueth, and the true professors of the same, they have begunne, the whisperings whereof are not secreete, neither yet the tokens obscure. For the traffike of that dragon now with the princes of the earth, his promises and flattering enticements, tende to none other ende, but to inflame them against Jesus Christ, and against the true professours of his gospel. For who can thinke that the pope, cardinals, and horned bishops, will offer the greatest portion of their rents, for sustaining of a warre, whereof no commoditie should redound (as they suppose) to themselves?” Having quoted that part of the decree of the council which relates to the assessment imposed on the clergy, for carrying on this holy war, the compilers of the treatise add: “But let us hear their conclusion: France and Germanie (say they) being by these meanes so chastised, abased, and brought to the obedience of the holy Romane church, the fathers doubt not but time shall provide both counsell and commoditie, that the rest of the realmes about may be reduced to one flocke, and one apostolike governour and pastour.—But some shall say, they are yet far from the end of their purpose, and therefore wee neede not be so fearefull, nor so troubled. We answere, the danger may be nearer than we beleeve, yea, perchance a part of it hath bene nearer to our neckes than we have considered. But how so ever it be, seeing that God of his mercie hath brought foorth to light their cruell and bloodie counsell, in which we neede not to doubt but still they continue, it becummeth us not to be negligent or slouthful.”[165]

Strong as their apprehensions were, the danger was nearer to them than they imagined. The most zealous and powerful of the protestant nobles being exiled, the queen determined to carry into execution the design of which she had never lost sight; and while she amused the nation with proclamations against altering the received religion, and tantalized the ministers with offers of more adequate support, was preparing for the speedy restoration of the Roman catholic worship. No means were left unattempted for gaining over the nobility to the ancient religion. The king openly professed himself a convert to it, and officiated in some of its most superstitious rites. The earls of Lennox, Cassilis, and Caithness, with lords Montgomery and Seton, followed his example.[166] The friars were employed to preach at Holyroodhouse, and, to gain the favour of the people, endeavoured to imitate the popular method of the protestant preachers.[167] In the beginning of February 1566, a messenger arrived from the cardinal of Lorrain, with a copy of the catholic league for extirpating the protestants, and instructions to obtain the queen’s subscription to it, and to urge the propriety of adopting the most rigorous measures against the exiled noblemen. Mary scrupled not to set her hand to the league.[168] Previous to this, it is said that she was inclined to yield to the intercessions made in behalf of the exiles; but if ever she felt such a disposition, it is certain that, from the arrival of this embassy, the door of mercy was shut. Murray and his associates were immediately summoned to appear before the parliament which was to meet on the twelfth of March. The lords of the Articles were chosen according to the queen’s pleasure; the popish ecclesiastics were restored to their place in parliament; and the altars to be erected in St Giles’s church, for the celebration of the Roman catholic worship, were already prepared.[169]

But these measures, when ripe for execution, were blasted, in consequence of a secret engagement which the king had entered into with some of the protestant nobles. The first effect produced by this engagement was the well‑known assassination of Rizzio, the unworthy favourite of the queen, who was the principal instigator of the measures against the protestant religion and the banished lords, and had now incurred the jealousy of the king, as well as the contempt of the nobility and the hatred of the people. To have removed this minion from her majesty’s counsels and presence by legitimate means would have been meritorious; but the manner in which it was accomplished was equally inconsistent with law and humanity, and fixes a deep stigma on the characters of those who perpetrated the deed.[170]

A complete change on the state of the court succeeded this event. The popish counsellors fled from the palace; the exiled lords returned out of England; and the parliament was prorogued, without accomplishing any of the objects for which it had been assembled. But Mary soon persuaded the weak and uxorious king to desert the noblemen whom he had made the instruments of his revenge, to retire with her to Dunbar, and to issue a proclamation, disowning his consent to the late attempt; by which he exposed himself to the contempt of the nation, without regaining her affection. Having collected an army, she returned to Edinburgh, threatening to inflict the most exemplary vengeance on all who had been accessory to the murder of her secretary, and the indignity shown to her person. She found herself, however, unable to resume her former plans; and, while the conspirators against Rizzio were forced to flee to England, the earl of Murray, and the other lords who had opposed her marriage, were allowed to remain in the country, and soon after pardoned.

When the queen returned to Edinburgh, Knox left it, and retired to Kyle. There is no reason to think that he was privy to the conspiracy which proved fatal to Rizzio. But it is probable that he had expressed his satisfaction at an event which contributed to the safety of religion and the commonwealth, if not also his approbation of the object of the conspiracy.[171] At any rate, he was sufficiently obnoxious to the queen on other grounds; and as her resentment, on the present occasion, was exceedingly inflamed, it was deemed prudent for him to withdraw.[172]

Having, at last, “got quit” of one who had so long been troublesome to her, Mary was determined to prevent his return to the capital. The town‑council and inhabitants, who had formerly refused to acquiesce in his suspension from preaching for a short time, exerted themselves to obtain his restoration; and powerful intercession was made in his behalf by many of the nobility and gentry. But the queen was deaf to all entreaties. She was even unwilling that he should find a refuge within the kingdom, and wrote to a nobleman in the west country, with whom he resided, to banish him from his house.[173] It does not appear that he returned to Edinburgh, or, at least, that he resumed his ministry in it, until the queen was deprived of the government.

Being banished from his flock, he judged this a favourable opportunity for paying a visit to England. Parental affection increased the desire which he had long felt to accomplish this journey. His two sons had been lately sent by him into that kingdom, to reside with some of their mother’s relations, and to obtain their education in the English seminaries. Having procured the safe conduct of Elizabeth, he applied to the General Assembly, which met in December 1566, for their permission to remove. This was readily granted by them, upon condition of his returning against the time of their next meeting in June. The Assembly likewise gave him a most ample and honourable testimonial, in which they describe him as “a true and faithfull minister, in doctrine pure and sincere, in life and conversation in our sight inculpable,” and one who “has so fruitfully used that talent granted to him by the Eternal, to the advancement of the glory of his godly name, to the propagation of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and edifying of them who heard his preaching, that of duty we must heartily praise His godly name, for that so great a benefit granted unto him for our utility and profit.”[174]

Knox was charged with a letter from the General Assembly to the bishops and ministers of England, interceding for lenity to such of their brethren as scrupled to use the sacerdotal dress enjoined by the laws. The controversy on that subject was at this time carried on with great heat among the English clergy. It is not improbable, that the Assembly interfered in this business at the desire of Knox, to whom the composition of the letter was committed.[175] He could not have forgotten the trouble which he had himself suffered on a similar ground, and he had a high regard for many of the scruplers. This interposition did not procure them any relief. Though the superior clergy had been more zealous to obtain it than they were, Elizabeth was inflexible, and would listen neither to the supplications of her bishops, nor to the advice of her counsellors. Knox’s good opinion of the English queen does not seem to have been improved by this visit.[176]

He performed one important piece of public service before undertaking this journey to England. On the 23d of December, the queen granted a commission, under the privy seal, to the archbishop of St Andrews, restoring him to his ancient jurisdiction, which had been abolished in 1560, by act of parliament.[177] This step was taken, partly to prepare for the restoration of the popish religion, and partly to facilitate another dark design which was soon after disclosed. The protestants could not fail to be both alarmed and enraged at this daring measure. Moved by his own zeal no less than by the advice of his brethren, the Reformer addressed a circular letter to the principal protestants in the kingdom, requesting their immediate advice on the measures most proper to be adopted on this occasion, and enclosing a copy of a proposed supplication to the queen. This letter discovers all the ardour of the writer’s spirit, called forth by such an alarming occurrence. After mentioning the late acts for the provision of the ministry,[178] by which the queen attempted to blind them, he says, “How that any such assignation, or any promise made thereof, can stand in any stable assurance, when that Roman antichrist, by just laws once banished from this realm, shall be intrusted above us, we can no ways understand. Yea, farther, we cannot see what assurance can any within this realm, that hath professed the Lord Jesus, have of life, or inheritance, if the head of that odious beast be cured among us. As from the beginning we have neither spared substance nor life, so mind we not to faint unto the end, to maintain the same, so long as we can find the concurrence of brethren; of whom (as God forbid) if we be destitute, yet we are determined never to be subject to the Roman antichrist, neither yet to his usurped tyranny; but when we can do no farther to suppress that odious beast, we mind to seal it with our blood to our posterity, that the bright knowledge of Jesus Christ hath banished that Man of Sin, and his venomous doctrine, from our hearts and consciences. Let this our letter and request bear witness before God, before his church, before the world, and before your own consciences.”[179] The supplication of the General Assembly to the lords of the privy council, on the same subject, also bears marks of the Reformer’s pen.[180]

During the time that Knox was in England, that tragedy, so well known in Scottish history, was acted, which led to a complete revolution in the government of the kingdom, and, contrary to the designs of the principal actors, threw the power wholly into the hands of the protestants. Mary’s affection for her husband, which had cooled soon after their marriage, was, from the time of Rizzio’s assassination, converted into a fixed hatred, which she was at little pains to conceal. The birth of an heir to the crown produced no reconciliation between the royal parents; the king was not allowed to be present at the baptism of his own son, and was treated with such marked disrespect, even by the servants, that he abandoned the court, and shut himself up in his father’s house. In proportion as the queen’s mind was alienated from her husband, the unprincipled earl of Bothwell grew in her favour. He engrossed the whole management of public affairs, was loaded with honours, and treated by her majesty with every mark of personal regard and affection. In these circumstances, the neglected, unhappy king, was decoyed to Edinburgh, lodged in a solitary dwelling at the extremity of the city, and murdered on the morning of the 10th of February, 1567; the house in which he lay being blown up with gunpowder.

It would be unsuitable to the nature of the present work to enter into the controversy respecting the authors of this murder, which has been agitated with uncommon keenness from that day to the present time. The accusation of the earl of Murray as a party to the deed, is destitute of all proof, and utterly incredible. It was at first circulated with the evident design of turning away the public mind from the real perpetrators; it was insinuated, and afterwards directly brought forward, in the conferences at York and Westminster, as a retaliation upon him for the charge which he exhibited against the queen; and it is now kept up only by the most blind and bigoted of her partisans. That Bothwell was the prime contriver and agent in the murder, cannot admit of a doubt with any impartial and judicious enquirer. And that Mary was privy to the design, and accessory to its execution by permission and approbation, there is, I think, all the evidence, moral and legal, which could reasonably be expected in a case of this kind. The whole of her behaviour towards the king, from the time that she brought him from Glasgow till she left him on the fatal night; the remissness which she discovered in enquiring into the murder; the shameful manner in which she suffered the farce of Bothwell’s trial to be conducted; the glaring act (which struck the whole of Europe, and even her own friends, with horror) of taking to her bed, with indecent haste, the man who was stigmatized as the murderer of her husband; and the manner in which she refused to defend herself, and broke off the conference to which she had agreed, as soon as the charge of accession to the murder was brought against her,—afford the strongest presumptions of her guilt; and, when taken in connexion with the direct evidence arising from letters and depositions, would have been sufficient long ago to shut the mouths of any but the defenders of Mary queen of Scots.[181]

Knox was absent from Edinburgh at the time of the queen’s marriage with Bothwell; but his colleague ably supported the honour of his place and order on that occasion, when the whole nobility of Scotland preserved a passive and disgraceful silence. Being required by both the parties to publish the banns, Craig reluctantly complied, after taking the advice of his session; but, at the same time, he protested from the pulpit, on three several days, and took heaven and earth to witness, that he abhorred and detested the intended marriage as unlawful and scandalous, and solemnly charged the nobility to use their influence to prevent the queen from taking a step, which would inevitably cover her with infamy, and involve her in ruin. Being called before the council, and accused of having exceeded the bounds of his commission, he boldly replied, that the bounds of his commission were the word of God, good laws, and natural reason, to all of which the proposed marriage was contrary. And Bothwell being present, he charged him with the crime of adultery, the precipitancy with which the process of divorce had been carried through, and the suspicions entertained of collusion between him and his wife, of his having murdered the king, and ravished the queen, all of which would be confirmed if they carried their purpose into execution.[182]

The events which followed in rapid succession upon this infamous marriage—the confederation of the nobility for revenging the king’s death, and preserving the person of the infant prince; the flight of Bothwell; the surrender and imprisonment of Mary; her resignation of the government; the coronation of her son; and the appointment of the earl of Murray as regent during his minority, are all well known to the readers of Scottish history.

Knox seems to have returned to his charge at the time that the queen fled with Bothwell to Dunbar. He was present in the General Assembly which met at Edinburgh on the 25th of June, and was delegated by them to go to the west country, and endeavour to persuade the Hamiltons, and others who stood aloof from the confederated lords, to join with them in settling the distracted affairs of the country, and to attend a general convention of the delegates of the churches, to be held on the 20th of July following.[183] In this negotiation he was unsuccessful. But the convention was held, and the nobles, barons, and commissioners of boroughs, who were present, subscribed a number of important articles, with reference to religion and the state of the nation.[184]

On the 29th of July, 1567, the Reformer preached the sermon at the coronation of James VI., in the parish church of Stirling.[185] He objected to the ceremony of unction, as a Jewish rite abused under the papacy; but it was deemed inexpedient, on the present occasion, to depart from the accustomed ceremonial. It was therefore performed by the bishop of Orkney; the superintendents of Lothian and Angus assisting him to place the crown on the king’s head.[186] After the coronation, Knox, along with some others, took instruments, and craved extracts of the proceedings.[187]

When the queen was confined by the lords in the castle of Lochleven, they had not resolved in what manner they should dispose of her person for the future. Some proposed that she should be allowed to leave the kingdom; some that she should be imprisoned during life; while others insisted that she ought to be capitally arraigned. Of this last opinion was Knox, with almost all the ministers, and the great body of the people. The chief ground upon which they insisted for this, was not her maladministration in the government, or the mere safety and peace of the commonwealth; which were the reasons upon which the parliament of England, in the following century, proceeded to the execution of her grandson. But they founded their opinion upon the personal crimes with which Mary was charged. Murder and adultery, they reasoned, were crimes to which the punishment of death was allotted by the law of God and of nations. From this penalty persons of no rank could plead exception. The ordinary forms of judicial procedure made no provision for the trial of a supreme magistrate, because the laws did not suppose that such enormous crimes could be committed by him; but extraordinary cases required extraordinary remedies, and new offences gave birth to new laws. There are examples in Scripture of the capital punishment of princes, nor are precedents of it wanting in the history of Scotland.[188]

Upon these grounds, Knox scrupled not publicly to maintain, that the estates of the kingdom ought to bring Mary to a trial; and, if she was found guilty of the murder of her husband, and an adulterous connexion with Bothwell, that she ought to be put to death. Throkmorton, the English ambassador, held a conference with him, with the view of mitigating the rigour of this judgment; but though he acquiesced in the resolution adopted by the nobility to detain her in prison, he retained his own sentiments, and, after the civil war was kindled by her escape from confinement, repeatedly said, that he considered the nation as suffering for their criminal lenity.[189]

Though the earl of Murray, after his return from banishment, had been pardoned, and re‑admitted to his place in the privy council, he did not regain the confidence of her majesty. Perceiving the ruinous tendency of the course on which she was bent, and despairing of being able to prevent it by his advice, he declined taking any active part in the management of public affairs, and appeared very seldom at court. Soon after the king was murdered, he obtained liberty to leave the kingdom, and retired to France, where he remained till recalled by a message from the confederated lords, after Mary had subscribed the instruments by which she resigned the crown, and appointed him regent during the minority of her son. Having arrived in Scotland, he was formally invested with the regency, on the 22d of August, 1567. No sooner was he confirmed in the government, than he exerted himself with great zeal and prudence to secure the peace of the kingdom, and settle the affairs of the church. A parliament being summoned to meet in the middle of December, he, with the advice of the privy council, previously nominated certain barons, and commissioners of boroughs, to consult upon and digest such overtures as were proper to be laid before that assembly. With these he joined Knox, and four other ministers, to assist in matters which related to the church. This committee met in the beginning of December, and sat until the opening of the parliament. The record of their proceedings, both as to civil and ecclesiastical affairs, has been preserved; and, as many of their propositions were not adopted by the parliament, it is valuable as a declaration of the sentiments of a number of the most able men in the kingdom.[190]

On the 15th of December, Knox preached at the opening of the parliament, and exhorted them to begin with the affairs of religion, in which case they would find better success in their other business. The parliament ratified all the acts which had been passed in 1560, in favour of the protestant religion and against popery. New statutes of a similar kind were added. It was provided, that no prince should afterwards be admitted to the exercise of authority in the kingdom, without taking an oath to maintain the protestant religion; and that none but protestants should be admitted to any office, with the exception of those that were hereditary or held for life. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction, exercised by the assemblies of the church, was formally ratified, and commissioners appointed to define more exactly the causes which came within the sphere of their judgment. The thirds of benefices were appointed to be paid at first hand to collectors nominated by the church, who, after paying the stipends of the ministers, were to account to the exchequer for the surplus. And the funds of provostries, prebendaries, and chaplainries were appropriated to maintain bursars in colleges.[191]

In the act ratifying the jurisdiction of the church, Knox was appointed one of the commissioners for drawing out the particular points which pertained to ecclesiastical judgment, to be presented to next meeting of parliament. The General Assembly, which met about the same time, gave him a commission, along with some others, to act for them in this matter, and, in general, to consult with the regent and council on such ecclesiastical questions as might occur after their dissolution. He was also appointed to assist the superintendent of Lothian in his visitation, and afterward to visit the churches in Kyle, Carrick, and Cunningham.[192]

During the regency of Murray there were no jars between the church and the court, nor any of those unpleasant complaints which had been made at every meeting of the General Assembly before that period, and which were renewed under the succeeding regents.[193] All the grievances of which they complained were not, indeed, redressed; and the provision made by law was still inadequate for the support of such an ecclesiastical establishment as the nation required, including the seminaries of education. But the regent not only received the addresses of the general assemblies in a “manner very different from that to which they had been accustomed;” but showed a disposition to grant their petitions, whenever it was in his power. It was chiefly through his influence that the favourable arrangement concerning the thirds of benefices was made; and he endeavoured, though unsuccessfully, to obtain the consent of parliament to the dissolution of the prelacies, and the appropriation of their revenues to the common fund of the church.[194]

Our Reformer had now reached that point from which he could take a calm and deliberate view of the bustling scene through which he had passed, and of the arduous struggle which he had been so long engaged in, and had at length brought to a happy termination. Papal superstition and tyranny were suppressed and abolished by law; the protestant religion was established; the supreme government of the nation was in the hands of one in whose wisdom and integrity he had the greatest confidence; the church was freed from many of those grievances under which she had hitherto groaned, and enjoyed the prospect of obtaining the redress of such as still remained. The work on which his heart had been so ardently set for such a long period, and for the success of which he had so often trembled, had prospered beyond his utmost expectation. He now congratulated himself on the prospect of being released from all burden of public affairs, and of spending the remainder of his days in religious meditations, and in preparation for that event of whose near approach he was daily admonished by the increasing infirmities of his body.[195] He even secretly cherished the wish of resigning his charge in Edinburgh, and of retiring to that privacy, from which he had been drawn at the commencement of the Scottish Reformation. Speaking of the congregation of which he had been pastor at Geneva, he says, in one of his confidential letters, “God comfort that dispersed little flock, among whom I lived with quietness of conscience and contentment of heart; and amongst whom I would be content to end my days, if so it might stand with God’s good pleasure. For, seeing it hath pleased his majesty, above all men’s expectations, to prosper the work for the performing whereof I left that company, I would even as gladly return to them, if they stood in need of my labours, as ever I was glad to be delivered from the rage of mine enemies. I can give you no reason that I should so desire, other than that my heart so thirsteth.”[196]

But “the way of man is not in himself.” Providence had allotted him farther trials of a public nature: he was yet to see the security of the reformed religion endangered, and the country involved in another civil war, even more distressing than the former, inasmuch as the principal persons on both sides were professed protestants.

From the time that the queen was imprisoned, and the government transferred to the young prince under the regency of Murray, a considerable number of the nobility had withheld their approbation of these proceedings. The popish party were decidedly attached to Mary, and inimical to a revolution, which crushed the hopes which they had all along cherished of accomplishing the restoration of the ancient religion. Others, though professed protestants, were induced by various motives to oppose the new government. Argyle was at this time alienated from Murray by a family quarrel.[197] The house of Hamilton followed that line of narrow and interested policy which they had adopted on former occasions of a similar kind. They were jealous lest the late settlement of the crown should invalidate the right of their chief, the duke of Chastelherault, to the succession; and they were offended that the regency, which they considered as due to him, should have been conferred on Murray.[198] No governor can gratify the expectations of all; and some of those who were early friends of the regent, or had contributed to his advancement, thought that they were not sufficiently rewarded. The very means which he found it necessary to employ, to restore tranquillity and order to the kingdom, created him enemies. During the late confusions, many parts of the country had fallen into a state of anarchy; and the northern counties and the borders presented nothing but scenes of rapine and bloodshed. It was impossible to repress these disorders without making severe examples of the most guilty; and the turbulent and licentious naturally sought the overthrow of a government by which they felt themselves overawed and restrained.[199] But the abilities of the regent enabled him to overcome these difficulties; and he was daily receiving submissions from the most powerful of the opposite party, when, on the 2d of May, 1568, the queen escaped from her confinement in Lochleven. The discontented nobles immediately joined her standard, and, having mustered a large force, avowed their determination to restore her to the exercise of that authority which she had renounced by constraint. This formidable insurrection was defeated by the promptitude of the regent; and, in consequence of the battle of Langside, Mary was driven into England, and her party broken. Elizabeth having procured herself to be chosen umpire between the two parties, the conferences were protracted during so long a period, and the conduct of the English court was so equivocal and contradictory, that the friends of Mary were encouraged to renew their attempts to restore her by force of arms. But although the duke of Chastelherault returned from France with a large sum of money contributed by the popish princes, and came into Scotland in the character of lieutenant of the queen,[200] the regent, by his vigilance, and his vigorous measures, prevented any insurrection, and preserved the kingdom in obedience to the young king’s authority.

Despairing to accomplish their darling object during his life, the partisans of Mary resolved to cut off Murray by private means. During the year 1568, two persons were employed to assassinate him; but the design was discovered and prevented.[201] This did not hinder new machinations. Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, a nephew of the archbishop of St Andrews, undertook to perpetrate the deed. He was one of the prisoners taken at the battle of Langside; but, after being arraigned, condemned, and brought out to execution, he had his life given him by the regent, and was soon after set at liberty along with the other prisoners.[202] It is said that he was actuated by revenge, on account of an injury which he had received, by detaining one of his forfeited estates, or by the cruel manner in which his wife had been dispossessed of it.[203] Whether this was really the case, or whether it was afterwards alleged to diminish the odium of his crime, and turn it away from his party, cannot perhaps be now certainly determined. But it does not appear, that any part of the regent’s conduct towards him was such as to afford the slightest alleviation of a crime, in the commission of which he burst the ties of gratitude, as well as of humanity and justice. On the other hand, there is ample proof that he was incited to make the attempt by the political party with which he was connected.[204] Having formed his resolution, he deliberately followed the regent in his progress to Glasgow, Stirling, and Linlithgow; and, finding an opportunity in the last of these places, shot him through the body with a musket‑ball. The wound proved mortal, and the regent died the same evening. While some of his friends, who stood round his bed, lamented the excessive lenity which he had shown to his enemies, and particularly to his murderer, he replied, with a noble and christian spirit, that nothing would ever make him repent of an act of clemency.[205]

The consternation which is usually produced by the fall of a distinguished leader, was absorbed in the deep distress which the tidings of the regent’s murder spread through the nation. The common people, who had experienced the beneficial effects of his short administration, to a degree altogether unprecedented in the country, felt as if each had lost a father, and loudly demanded vengeance upon the authors of the parricide. Many who had envied or hated him during his life, were now forward to do justice to his virtues. Those who had not been able to conceal their satisfaction on the first intelligence of his death, became ashamed of the indecent exultation which they had so imprudently expressed. The Hamiltons were anxious to clear themselves from the imputation of a crime which they saw to be universally detested. They dismissed the murderer, who was glad to escape from ignominy by condemning himself to perpetual banishment. The only one of his crimes for which the archbishop of St Andrews afterwards expressed contrition before his execution, was his accession to the murder of the regent.[206] Nor were these feelings confined to Scotland; the sensation was general through England, and the expressions of grief and condolence from that country evinced the uncommon esteem in which he was held by all ranks.

It was the happiness of the regent, that, in his youth, he fell into the company of men, who cultivated his vigorous understanding, gave a proper direction to his activity, and instilled into his mind the principles of religion and virtue. His early adoption of the reformed sentiments, the steadiness with which he adhered to them, the uniform correctness of his morals, his integrity, sagacity, and enterprising but cool courage, soon placed him in the first rank among those who embarked in the struggle for the reformation of religion, and the maintenance of national liberties, and secured to him their cordial and unbounded confidence. The honours which Mary conferred on him were not too great for the services which he performed; and had she continued to act by his advice, those measures would have been avoided which brought on her ruin. He was repeatedly placed in a situation which would have tempted the ambition of persons possessed of far inferior abilities; yet he showed no disposition to grasp at the supreme authority. When he accepted the regency, it was in compliance with the decided and uncorrupted choice of the acting majority in the kingdom, pointing him out as the fittest person for occupying that high station; and his conduct, in one of the most delicate and embarrassing situations in which a governor was ever placed, showed that his countrymen were not mistaken in their choice. He united, in no ordinary degree, those qualities, which are rarely combined in the same individual, and which form the character of an accomplished prince. Excelling equally in the arts of war and peace, he reduced the country to obedience by his military skill and valour, and preserved it in a state of tranquillity and order by the wise and impartial administration of justice. Successful in all his warlike enterprises, he never once tarnished the laurels of victory by cruelty or unnecessary rigour to the vanquished. He knew how to maintain the authority of the laws, and to bridle the licentious, by salutary severity, and at the same time to temper the rigour of justice by the interposition of mercy. He used to sit personally in the courts of judicature, and exerted himself to obtain for all the subjects an easy and expeditious decision of litigated causes. His hospitality, his unostentatious charity, his uncommon liberality to the learned, and the anxiety he showed to confer his favours in the manner least calculated to hurt their feelings, have been celebrated by one who had the best opportunities of becoming acquainted with these amiable traits of his character.[207] Nor has the breath of calumny, which has attempted in many ways to blast his reputation, ever insinuated that he oppressed or burdened the public, during his regency, in order to enrich himself or his family. Add to all these qualities, his exemplary piety, the only source of genuine and exalted virtue. His family was so regulated as to resemble a church rather than a court. Not a profane or lewd word was to be heard from any of his domestics. A chapter of the bible was always read at table after dinner and supper; and it was his custom, on such occasions, to require his chaplain, or some learned man present, to give his opinion upon the passage, for his own instruction and that of his family. “A man truly good,” says archbishop Spotswood, “and worthy to be ranked among the best governors that this kingdom hath enjoyed, and, therefore, to this day honoured with the title of The Good Regent.”[208]

This may perhaps be deemed, by some readers, an improper digression. But though it had been less connected with the subject of this work than it is, and though the familiarity and co‑operation between the regent and the Reformer had been less intimate and cordial than they really were, I could not have denied myself the satisfaction of paying a small tribute to the memory of one of the greatest men of his age, who has been traduced and vilified in a most unjustifiable manner, and whose character has been drawn with unfavourable, and, in my opinion, with unfair colours, by the most moderate and impartial of our historians. All that I have attempted, is to sketch the more prominent features of his character. That he was faultless, I am far from wishing to insinuate; but the principal charges which have been brought against him, I consider as either irrelevant, or unproved, or greatly exaggerated. That his exaltation to the highest dignity in the state which a subject could enjoy, produced no unfavourable change on his temper and behaviour, is what none can be prepared to affirm; but I have not seen the contrary established. The confidence which he reposed in his friends was great, and he was inclined to pay much deference to their advice; but that he became the dupe of worthless favourites, and fell by listening to their flattery, and refusing to hearken to wholesome advice, and not by the treachery of his friends and the malice of his enemies, are assertions which have been repeated upon the authority of a single witness, unsupported by facts, and capable of being disproved.[209]

The regent died on the evening of Saturday, the 23d of January, 1570; and the intelligence of his murder was conveyed early next morning to Edinburgh. It is impossible to describe the anguish which the Reformer felt on this occasion. The loss of a noble and endeared friend was the least evil which he had to deplore. Of all the Scottish nobility, he placed the greatest confidence in Murray’s attachment to religion; and his conduct after his elevation to the regency, had served to heighten the good opinion which he formerly entertained of him. He looked upon his death as the greatest calamity which could befall the nation, and as a forerunner of many evils.[210] When the shock produced by the melancholy tidings had subsided, the first thought that rushed into his mind was, that he had himself been the instrument of obtaining, from his clemency, a pardon to the man who had become his murderer; a thought which naturally produced a very different impression on him from what it did on the mind of the dying regent.[211]

In his sermon that day, he introduced the melancholy subject; and after saying, that God in his great mercy raised up pious rulers, and took them away in his displeasure, on account of the sins of a nation, he thus poured out the sorrows of his heart: “O Lord, in what misery and confusion found he this realm! To what rest and quietness now by his labours, suddenly he brought the same, all estates, but especially the poor commons, can witness. Thy image, O Lord, did so clearly shine in that personage, that the devil, and the people to whom he is prince, could not abide it; and so to punish our sins and our ingratitude, (who did not rightly esteem so precious a gift,) thou hast permitted him to fall, to our great grief, in the hands of cruel and traitorous murderers. He is at rest, O Lord; we are left in extreme misery.”[212]

Only a few days before this, and after the plan of the murder was fully concerted, Gavin Hamilton, abbot of Kilwinning, applied to Knox to intercede with the regent in behalf of some of his kinsmen, who were confined for practising against the government. He signified his readiness to do all in his power for the relief of any of that family who were willing to own the authority of the king, but entreated the abbot not to abuse him by employing his services, if his relations intended to do any mischief to the regent;[213] for “I protest,” said he, “before God, who is the only witness now betwixt us, that if there be any thing attempted, by any of that surname, against the person of that man, in that case I discharge myself to you and them for ever.” After the assassination, the abbot sent to desire another interview; but Knox refused to see him, and desired the messenger to say, “I have not now the regent to make suit unto for the Hamiltons.”[214]

At this time there was handed about a fabricated account of a pretended conference held by the late regent with lord Lindsay, Wishart of Pittarrow, the tutor of Pitcur, James Macgill, and Knox; in which they were represented as advising him to set aside the young king, and place the crown on his own head. To give it the greater air of credibility, the modes of expression peculiar to each of the persons were carefully imitated in the speeches put into their mouths. The evident design of circulating it at this time, was to lessen the odium of the murder, and the veneration of the people for the memory of Murray; but it was universally regarded as an impudent and gross forgery. The person who fabricated it was Thomas Maitland, a young man of talents, but corrupted by his brother, the secretary, who had previously engaged himself to the queen’s party, and was suspected of having had a deep hand in the plot for assassinating the regent.[215]

On the day on which the weekly conference was held in Edinburgh, the same person slipped into the pulpit a schedule, containing words to this effect: “Take up now the man whom you accounted another God, and consider the end to which his ambition hath brought him.” It was Knox’s turn to preach that day. On entering the pulpit he took up the paper, supposing it to be a note requesting the prayers of the congregation for a sick person, and having read it, laid it aside without any apparent emotion. But towards the conclusion of his sermon, after deploring the loss which the church and commonwealth had recently sustained, and declaring the account of the conference, which had been circulated, to be false and calumnious, he said that there were persons who rejoiced at the treasonable murder, and scrupled not to make it the subject of their merriment; and particularly, there was one present who had thrown into the pulpit a paper exulting over an event which was the cause of grief to all good men: “that wicked man, whosoever he be, shall not go unpunished, and shall die where there shall be none to lament him.” Maitland, after he went home, said to his sister, that the preacher was raving, when he spake in such a manner of a person who was unknown to him; but she, suspecting that her brother had written the line, reproved him, saying with tears, that none of that man’s denunciations were wont to prove idle. Spotswood (who had his information personally from the mouth of that lady) says, that Maitland died in Italy, “having no known person to attend him.”[216]

On Tuesday the 14th of February, the regent’s corpse was brought from the palace of Holyroodhouse, and interred in the south aisle of the collegiate church of St Giles. Before the funeral, Knox preached a sermon on these words, “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord.” Three thousand persons were dissolved in tears before him, while he described the virtues of the regent, and bewailed his loss.[217] Buchanan paid a tribute to the memory of his deceased patron, by writing the inscription placed on his monument, with that expressive simplicity and brevity which are dictated by genuine grief.[218] A convention of the nobility was held after the funeral, at which it was resolved to avenge his death; but different opinions were entertained as to the mode of doing this, and the commons complained loudly of the remissness with which the resolution was prosecuted. The General Assembly, at their first meeting, testified their detestation of the crime, by ordering the assassin to be publicly excommunicated in all the chief towns of the kingdom, and by appointing the same process to be used against all who should afterwards be convicted of accession to the murder.[219]

During the sitting of the convention, Knox received a number of letters from his acquaintances in England, expressive of their high regard for the character of the regent, and their sorrow at so grievous a loss.[220] One of these was from Christopher Goodman, and another from John Willock, who either had not complied with the invitation of the General Assembly, or had again returned to England.[221] The other letters were from Englishmen, who had no immediate connexion with Scotland. Dr Laurence Humphrey[222] urged Knox to write a memoir of the deceased. Had he done this, his intimate acquaintance with the regent would, no doubt, have enabled him to communicate many particulars of which we must now be content to remain ignorant; but though he had been disposed to undertake this task, the state of his health would have prevented its execution.

The grief which he indulged on account of this mournful event, and the confusions which followed it, preyed upon his spirits, and injured his health.[223] In the month of October, he had a stroke of apoplexy, which affected his speech to a considerable degree. On this occasion, his enemies exulted, and circulated the most exaggerated tales respecting his disorder. The report ran through Scotland and England, that John Knox would never preach or speak more,—that his face was turned into his neck,—that he was become the most deformed creature ever seen,—that he was actually dead.[224] A most unequivocal proof of the high consideration in which he was held, which our Reformer received in common with other great men of his age![225]

PERIOD IX.

FROM OCTOBER 1570, WHEN HE WAS STRUCK WITH APOPLEXY, TO HIS DEATH, IN NOVEMBER 1572.

THOSE who flattered themselves that the Reformer’s disorder was mortal, were disappointed; for he was restored to the use of his speech, and was able, in the course of a few days, to resume preaching, at least on Sabbath days.[226] He never recovered, however, from the debility which was produced by the apoplectic stroke.

The confusions which he had augured from the death of the good regent soon broke out, and again spread the flames of civil discord through the nation. The earl of Lennox, who was the natural guardian of his grandson, was advanced to the regency; but he was deficient in the talents which were requisite for so difficult a station, and the knowledge of his weakness emboldened and increased the party which was attached to the queen. The Hamiltons openly raised her standard, and were strengthened by the influence and abilities of Maitland. William Kircaldy of Grange, whom Murray had made governor of the castle of Edinburgh, after concealing his defection for some time under the flag of neutrality, declared himself on the same side, and became a principal agent in attempting to overturn that government which he had been so zealous in erecting. Maitland’s tergiversation surprised nobody; but the defection of Kircaldy was deeply felt by those with whom he had been so long associated. It proved a source of the keenest distress to Knox. The acquaintance which they had formed in the castle of St Andrews,[227] grew into intimacy during their confinement in the French galleys; and Knox could never forget the services which Kircaldy performed during the subsequent struggle for reformation, and continued to the last to cherish the hope that he was at heart a friend to religion. Under the influence of these feelings, he spared no pains in endeavouring to prevent him from renouncing his fidelity to the king, and afterwards to reclaim him from his apostacy. But in both attempts he was unsuccessful.

In the end of the year 1570, he was personally involved in a disagreeable quarrel with Kircaldy. One of the soldiers belonging to the castle having been imprisoned by the magistrates on a charge of murder, the governor sent a party from the garrison, who broke open the tolbooth, and carried off the prisoner. In his sermon on the following Sabbath, Knox condemned this riot, and violation of the house of justice. Had it been done by the authority of a bloodthirsty man, or one who had no fear of God, he would not, he said, have been so much moved at it; but he was affected to think that one of whom all good men had formed so great expectations, should have fallen so far as to act such a part; one too, who, when formerly in prison, had refused to purchase his own liberty by the shedding of blood.[228] An erroneous and exaggerated report of this censure being conveyed to the castle, the governor, in great rage, made his complaint, first to Knox’s colleague, and afterwards formally to the kirk‑session, that he had been calumniated as a murderer, and required that his character should be vindicated as publicly as it had been traduced. Knox, understanding that his words had been misrepresented, embraced the first opportunity of explaining and vindicating them from the pulpit. On a subsequent day, Kircaldy, who had absented himself from the church nearly a whole year, came down to St Giles’s, accompanied with a number of the persons who had been active in the murder and riot. Regarding this as an attempt to overawe the authorities, and set public opinion at defiance, the Reformer dwelt particularly, in his discourse, upon the sinfulness of forgetting benefits received from God, and warned his hearers against confiding in the divine mercy, while they were knowingly transgressing any of the commandments, or proudly defending their transgression.

Kircaldy was much incensed at this admonition, which he considered as levelled at him, and made use of very threatening language in speaking of the preacher. The report spread that the governor of the castle was become a sworn enemy to Knox, and intended to kill him. Upon this, several noblemen and gentlemen of Kyle and Cunningham sent a letter to Kircaldy, in which, after reminding him of his former appearances for religion, and mentioning the reports which had reached their ears, they warned him against doing any thing to the hurt of that man, whom “God had made the first planter and chief waterer of his church among them,” and protested that “his death and life were as dear to them as their own.”[229]

Knox was not to be deterred from doing what he considered to be his duty. He persisted in warning his hearers to avoid all participation with those who prevented the punishment of atrocious crimes, by supporting the pretensions of the queen, and who exposed the reformed religion to the utmost hazard, by opposing the king’s authority. When the General Assembly met in March, 1571, anonymous libels were thrown into the house where they were sitting, and placards affixed to the church‑doors, accusing him of seditious railing against their sovereign, the queen, refusing to pray for her welfare and conversion, representing her as a reprobate whose repentance was hopeless, and uttering imprecations against her. One of the placards concluded with a threat, that, if the assembly did not restrain him by their authority from using such language, the complainers would themselves apply a remedy to the evil “with greater unquietness.” The assembly having, by public intimation, required the complainers to come forward and substantiate their charges, another anonymous writing appeared, promising that accusers should not be wanting against next assembly, if the preacher continued his offensive speeches, and was “then law‑byding, and not fugitive, according to his accustomed manner.”

Several of his friends dealt with him to pass over these unauthenticated libels in silence, but he refused to comply with this advice, considering that the credit of his ministry was implicated. Accordingly, he produced them in the pulpit, and returned a particular answer to the accusations which they contained. That he had charged the late queen with the crimes of which she had been notoriously guilty, he granted,—that he had railed against her, he denied; nor would they be able to substantiate this charge against him, without at the same time proving Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other inspired writers, to have been railers. “From them he had learned plainly and boldly to call wickedness by its own terms, a fig, a fig, and a spade, a spade.” He had never called the queen reprobate, nor said that her repentance was impossible; but he had affirmed that pride and repentance could not remain long together in one heart. He had prayed, that God, for the comfort of his church, would oppose his power to her pride, and confound her and her assistants in their impiety: this prayer, let them call it imprecation or execration as they pleased, had stricken, and would yet strike, whoever supported her. To the charge of not praying for the queen, he answered, “I am not bound to pray for her in this place, for sovereign to me she is not; and I let them understand that I am not a man of law that has my tongue to sell for silver, or favour of the world.”[230] What title she now had, or ever had to the government, he would not dispute; the estates had deprived her of it, and it belonged to them to answer for this: as for him, he had hitherto lived in obedience to all lawful authority within the kingdom. To the threatening against his life, and the insinuation that he might not be “law‑byding, but fugitive” against next assembly, he replied, that his life was in the custody of Him who had hitherto preserved him from many dangers, that he had reached an age at which he was not apt to flee far, nor could any yet accuse him of having left the people committed to his charge, except at their own command.

After these answers, his enemies fled, as their last resort, to an attack upon his Blast of the Trumpet, and accused him of inconsistency in writing against female government, and yet praying for queen Elizabeth, and seeking her support against his native country. This accusation he also met in the pulpit, and refuted with great spirit. After vindicating his consistency, he concluded in the following manner:—“One thing in the end, I may not pretermit, that is, to give him a lie in his throat that either dare, or will say, that ever I sought support against my native country. What I have been to my country, albeit this unthankful age will not know, yet the ages to come will be compelled to bear witness to the truth. And thus I cease, requiring of all men that has to oppose any thing against me, that he will do it so plainly as I make myself and all my doings manifest to the world; for to me it seems a thing most unreasonable, that, in my decrepit age, I shall be compelled to fight against shadows, and howlets that dare not abide the light.”[231]

The conduct of our Reformer at this period affords a striking display of the unextinguishable ardour of his mind. Previous to the breaking out of the late disturbances, he had given up attendance on church courts. He never went abroad except on Sabbath‑days, to preach in the forenoon. He was so debilitated as to be unable to go to the pulpit without assistance.[232] He had weaned his heart from the world, and expressed his resolution to take no more part in public affairs. In answer to a letter of his esteemed friend, Sir William Douglas of Lochleven, who had informed him of an intended attempt on the castle of St Andrews by archbishop Hamilton, and requested his good offices for certain preachers, we find him, on the 31st of March, 1570, writing as follows:—“How such troublers may be stayed in their enterprises, I commit to God, to whose counsels I commit you in that and all other causes worldly, for I have taken my good‑night of it; and therefore bear with me, good sir, albeit I write not to the superintendent of Fife in the action that ye desire.”[233] But whenever he saw the church and commonwealth seriously in danger, he forgot his infirmities and his resolutions, and entered into the cause with all the keenness of his more vigorous days. Whether the public proceedings of the nation, or his own conduct, were arraigned,—whether the attacks upon them were open or clandestine, he stood prepared to repel them, and convinced the adversaries, that they could not accomplish their designs without opposition, as long as he was able to move or speak.[234]

His situation became very critical in April 1571, when Kircaldy received the Hamiltons, with their forces, into the castle. Their inveteracy against him was so great, that his friends were obliged to watch his house during the night. They proposed forming a guard for the protection of his person when he went abroad; but the governor of the castle forbade this, as implying a suspicion of his own intentions, and offered to send Melvil, one of his officers, to conduct him to and from the church. “He wold gif the woulf the wedder to keip,” says Bannatyne. Induced by the importunity of the citizens, Kircaldy applied to the duke and his party for a protection to Knox; but they refused to pledge their word for his safety, because “there were many rascals and others among them who loved him not, that might do him harm without their knowledge.”[235] Intimations were often given him of threatenings against his life; and one evening a musket‑ball was fired in at his window, and lodged in the roof of the apartment in which he was sitting. It happened that he sat at the time in a different part of the room from that which he had been accustomed to occupy, otherwise the ball, from the direction it took, must have struck him.[236] Alarmed by this occurrence, a deputation of the citizens, accompanied by his colleague, waited upon him, and renewed a request which they had formerly made, that he would remove from Edinburgh, to a place where his life would be in greater safety, until the queen’s party should evacuate the town. But he refused to yield to them, apprehending that his enemies wished to intimidate him into flight, that they might carry on their designs more quietly, and then accuse him of cowardice. Being unable to persuade him by any other means, they had recourse at last to an argument which prevailed. They told him that if he was attacked, they were determined to risk their lives in his defence, and if blood was shed in the quarrel, which was highly probable, they would leave it on his head. Upon this he consented to remove from the city, “sore against his will.”[237]

He left Edinburgh on the 5th of May, 1571, and crossing the Frith at Leith, travelled by short stages to St Andrews, which he had chosen as the place of his retreat.[238] His pulpit was filled by Alexander Gordon, bishop of Galloway, who preached and prayed in a manner more acceptable to the queen’s party than his predecessor, but little to the satisfaction of the people, who despised him on account of his weakness, and disliked him for supplanting their favourite pastor.[239] A number of the most respectable inhabitants were driven from the capital by violence, while others were induced to quit it, and retire to Leith, that they might not be understood as even practically submitting to the queen’s authority. The church of Edinburgh was for a time dissolved. The celebration of the Lord’s supper was suspended. And, whereas formerly scarce a day passed without some public exercise of religion, there was now, during a whole week, “neither preaching nor prayer; neither was there any sound of bell heard in all the town, except the ringing of the cannon.”[240]

The kingdom was now subjected to all the miseries of civil war and intestine faction. In almost every part of the country there were adherents to the king and to the queen, who exasperated each other by reciprocal reproaches and injuries. The regent fortified Leith, while the queen’s party kept possession of the castle and town of Edinburgh. As the two armies lay at a small distance from one another, and neither of them was sufficiently strong for undertaking to dispossess the other, they were daily engaged in petty skirmishes; and several acts of disgraceful retaliation, which rarely happen in the open field, were committed on both sides. The evidence which the queen’s friends gave of their personal antipathy to the Reformer, clearly showed that his life would have been in imminent danger, if he had remained among them. An inhabitant of Leith was assaulted and his body mutilated, because he was of the same name with him. A servant of John Craig, being met one day by a reconnoitring party, and asked who was his master, answered, in his trepidation, Mr Knox; upon which he was seized, and, although he immediately corrected his mistake, they desired him to “hold at his first master,” and dragged him to prison. Having fortified St Giles’s steeple to overawe the inhabitants, the soldiers baptized one of the cannons by the name of Knox, which they were so fond of firing, that it burst, killed two of the party, and wounded others.[241] They circulated the most ridiculous tales respecting his conduct at St Andrews. John Law, the letter‑carrier of that city, being in the castle of Edinburgh, “the ladie Home and utheris wald neidis thraip in his face, that” John Knox “was banist the said toune, becaus that in the yarde he had reasit sum sanctis, amongis whome thair came up the devill with hornis, which when his servant Richart sawe, [he] ran woode, and so died.”[242]

Although he was now free from personal danger, Knox did not find St Andrews that peaceful retreat which he had expected. The friends of Kircaldy, and of Sir James Balfour,[243] resided in the neighbourhood, and the Hamiltons had their relations and partisans both in the university and among the ministry. These were thorns in the Reformer’s side, and made his situation very uneasy, as long as he resided among them. Having left Edinburgh, because he could not be permitted to disburden his conscience, by testifying against the designs of persons whom he regarded as conspirators against the legal government of the country, and favourers of a faction who intended nothing less than the overthrow of the reformed religion, it was not to be expected that he would preserve silence on this subject at St Andrews. Accordingly, in the discourses which he preached on the eleventh chapter of Daniel’s prophecy, he frequently took occasion to advert to recent transactions, and to inveigh against the murder of the late king, and of the regent. This was very grating to the ears of the opposite faction, particularly to Robert and Archibald Hamilton, the former one of the ministers of the city, and the latter a professor in one of the colleges. Irritated by the censures which Knox pronounced against his kinsmen, Robert Hamilton attempted to injure his reputation, by circulating in private that it did not become him to exclaim so loudly against murderers; for he had seen his subscription, along with that of the earl of Murray, to a bond for assassinating Darnley at Perth. When this came to the Reformer’s ears, he immediately wrote a letter to Hamilton, desiring him to say, whether he was the author of the slanderous report. Not receiving a satisfactory answer, he communicated the matter to Douglas, rector of the university, and Rutherford, provost of St Salvator’s college; requesting them to converse with their colleague on the subject, and to inform him, that if he did not give satisfaction for the slander which he had propagated, a complaint would be lodged against him before the church. Upon this he came to Knox’s room, and denied that he had ever given any ground for such a scandalous surmise.[244]

Archibald Hamilton being complained of for withdrawing from Knox’s sermons, and for accusing him of intolerable railing, endeavoured to bring the matter under the cognizance of the masters of the university, among whom he possessed considerable influence.[245] Knox did not scruple to give an account of his conduct before the professors for their satisfaction; but he judged it necessary to enter a protest, that his appearance before them should not invalidate the liberty of the pulpit, nor the authority of the regular church‑courts, to which, and not to any university, the judgment of religious doctrine belonged.[246] This incident accounts for the zeal with which he expresses himself on this subject, in one of his letters to the General Assembly; in which he exhorts them, above all things, to preserve the church from the bondage of the universities, and not to exempt them from ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or allow them to become judges of the doctrine taught from the pulpit.[247]

The military operations during the civil war were chiefly distinguished by two enterprises, which claim our notice from the influence which they had upon the affairs of the church. The one was the taking of Dunbarton castle, which was surprised, on the 2d of April, 1571, by a small party of the regent’s forces, led by captain Crawford of Jordanhill. Archbishop Hamilton having fallen into the hands of the captors, was soon after condemned, and ended his life on the gibbet. The execution of prisoners, although chargeable with crimes which merit death, is ordinarily avoided in civil contests, because it produces reprisals from the opposite party; but in every other respect the fate of Hamilton is not a subject of regret or of censure. Of all the queen’s adherents, his motives for supporting her cause appear to have been the most unworthy; and his talents and rank in the church ought not to be pleaded in extenuation of the vices by which his private character was stained, or the crimes of which he had been guilty.[248] The death of Hamilton gave occasion to a change in the ecclesiastical government, of which I shall speak immediately.

An enterprise equally bold with Crawford’s, but less successful, was planned by Kircaldy. While the regent Lennox was holding a parliament at Stirling, which was numerously attended, a party of soldiers suddenly entered the town early on the morning of September 3, 1571, seized the regent and the nobility who were along with him, and carried them away prisoners. The alarm having been given, the earl of Mar sallied from the castle, and with the assistance of the townsmen, dispersed the assailants, and rescued the noblemen.[249] But this was not accomplished without the loss of the regent, who was slain by the orders of lord Claud Hamilton, in revenge for the death of the archbishop of St Andrews. Lennox was succeeded in the regency by the earl of Mar, a nobleman of great moderation, who, during the short time that he held that office, exerted himself to restore peace to the kingdom, and brought the negotiations for this purpose very near to a successful termination.

During these transactions the courtiers were devising a scheme for securing to themselves the principal part of the ecclesiastical revenues, which led to an alteration of the polity of the church. We have repeatedly had occasion to notice the aversion of the nobility to the Book of Discipline, and the principal source from which this aversion sprung. While the earl of Murray administered the government, he prevented any new encroachments upon the rights of the church; but the succeeding regents were either less friendly to them, or less able to check the avarice of the more powerful nobles. Several of the richest benefices having become vacant by the death or by the forfeiture of the popish incumbents who had been permitted to retain them, it was necessary to determine in what manner they should be disposed of. The church had uniformly required that their revenues should be divided, and applied to the support of the religious and literary establishments; but with this demand the courtiers were as much indisposed to comply as ever. At the same time, the secularization of them was deemed too bold a step; nor could laymen, with any shadow of consistency, or by a valid title, hold benefices which the law declared to be ecclesiastical. The expedient resolved on was, that the bishoprics and other rich livings should be presented to certain ministers, who, previous to their admission, should make over the principal part of the revenues to such noblemen as had obtained the patronage of them from the court. This plan, which was concerted under the regency of Lennox, was carried into execution during that of Mar, chiefly by the influence of the earl of Morton.

Morton having obtained from the court a gift of the archbishopric of St Andrews, vacant by the execution of Hamilton, entered into a private agreement respecting its revenues with John Douglas, rector of the university, whom he presented to that see. At the meeting of parliament in Stirling, August 1571, the commissioners of the General Assembly protested against this transaction; but through the interest of Morton, Douglas, though not yet elected, was admitted to a seat in parliament, and the new scheme for seizing on the ecclesiastical livings was confirmed, notwithstanding the warm remonstrances of the ministers of the church, and the strenuous opposition of the more zealous and disinterested barons.[250] Bishoprics and other great benefices were now openly conferred on noblemen, on persons totally unqualified for the ministry, and even on minors. Pluralities were multiplied; the ecclesiastical courts were hindered in the exercise of their jurisdiction;[251] and the collectors of the church were prohibited from gathering the thirds, until some new regulation was adopted for supplying the necessities of the court.[252]

These proceedings having created great dissatisfaction through the nation, the regent and council called an extraordinary assembly of superintendents and other ministers, to meet at Leith in January 1572, to consult about an order which might prove more acceptable. Through the influence of the court, this convention consented that the titles of archbishop, and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, should be retained; that the bounds of the ancient dioceses should not be altered during the king’s minority; and that qualified parsons from among the ministers should be advanced to these dignities. They, however, allotted no greater power to archbishops and bishops than to superintendents, with whom they were to be equally subject to the assemblies of the church.[253] These regulations were submitted to the ensuing General Assembly at St Andrews, but as that meeting was thinly attended, it came to no determination respecting them. The Assembly held at Perth, in August 1572, resumed the subject, and came to the following resolution:—That the regulations contained certain titles, such as archbishop, dean, archdean, chancellor, and chapter, which savoured of popery, and were scandalous and offensive to their ears; and that the whole assembly, including the commissioners which had met at Leith, unanimously protested that they did not approve of these titles, that they submitted to the regulations merely as an interim arrangement, and that they would exert themselves to obtain a more perfect order from the regent and council.[254] Such was the origin and nature of that species of episcopacy which was introduced into the reformed church of Scotland, during the minority of James VI. It was disapproved of by the ministers of the church; and on the part of the courtiers and nobility, it does not appear to have proceeded from predilection to hierarchical government, but from the desire which they felt to obtain possession of the revenues of the church. This was emphatically expressed by the name of tulchan bishops,[255] which was commonly applied to those who were at that time admitted to the office.

Knox did not fail from the beginning to oppose these encroachments on the rights and property of the church. Being unable to attend the General Assembly held at Stirling in August 1571, he addressed a letter to it, warning the members of the new contest which he foresaw they would have to maintain, and animating them to fidelity and courage. “And now, brethren,” says he, “because the daily decay of natural strength threateneth my certain and sudden departing from the misery of this life, of love and conscience I exhort you, yea, in the fear of God, I charge and command you, that ye take heed unto yourselves, and to the flock over which God hath placed you pastors. Unfaithful and traitorous to the flock shall ye be before the Lord Jesus Christ, if, with your consent directly, ye suffer unworthy men to be thrust into the ministry of the church, under whatever pretence it shall be. Remember and judge before whom we must make our account, and resist that tyranny as ye would avoid hell‑fire. This battle will be hard, but in the second point it will be harder; that is, that with the like uprightness and strength in God, ye gainstand the merciless devourers of the patrimony of the church. If men will spoil, let them do it to their own peril and condemnation, but communicate ye not with their sins, of whatsoever estate they be, by consent nor by silence; but with public proclamation make this known unto the world, that ye are innocent of robbery, whereof ye will seek redress of God and man. God give you wisdom and stout courage in so just a cause, and me an happy end.”[256] In a letter which he afterwards wrote to Wishart of Pitarrow, he also expresses himself in a strain of honest but keen indignation at the avarice of the nobility.[257]

It has been insinuated that Knox gave his approbation to the resolutions of the convention at Leith to restore the episcopal office; and the articles sent by him to the General Assembly, in August, 1572, have been appealed to as a proof of this. But all that can be fairly deduced from these articles is, that he desired the conditions and limitations agreed upon by that convention to be strictly observed in the election of bishops, in opposition to the granting of bishoprics to laymen,[258] and to the simoniacal pactions which the ministers made with the nobles on receiving presentations. Provided one of the propositions made by him to the Assembly had been enforced, and the bishops had been bound to give an account of the whole of their rents, and either to support ministers in the particular places from which they derived these, or else to pay into the funds of the church the sums requisite for this purpose, it is evident that the mercenary views both of patrons and presentees would have been defeated, and the church would have gained her object, the use of the episcopal revenues. The prospect of this induced some honest ministers to agree to the proposed regulations, at the convention held in Leith. But it required a greater portion of disinterested firmness than falls to most men, to act upon this principle;[259] and the nobles were able to find, even at that period, a sufficient number of pliant, needy, or covetous ministers, to be the partners or the dupes of their avarice.

Though our Reformer was of opinion, that, in certain circumstances of the church, a power might be delegated to some ministers to inspect the congregations within a particular district, and accordingly recommended the appointment of superintendents at the first establishment of the Reformation in Scotland, yet he did not allow of any class of office‑bearers in the church, under whatever name, who were superior either in office or in order to ministers or presbyters. His sentiments were not more favourable to diocesan episcopacy in his latter than they had been in his earlier days. Writing to a correspondent in England, in the year 1568, he says, “I would most gladly pass through the course that God hath appointed to my labours, giving thanks to his holy name, for that it hath pleased his mercy to make me not a lord bishop, but a painful preacher of his blessed evangel.”[260] In his correspondence with Beza, he had informed him of the government established in the Scottish church; and at this very time he received a letter from that reformer, congratulating him that he had banished the order of bishops, and admonishing him and his colleagues to beware of suffering it to re‑enter under the deceitful pretext of preserving unity.[261] He had an opportunity of publicly declaring his sentiments on this subject, at the installation of Douglas as archbishop of St Andrews. Having preached as usual on Sabbath, February 13, 1572, the earl of Morton, who was present, desired him to inaugurate Douglas; but he positively refused, and pronounced an anathema against both the donor and the receiver of the bishopric. The provost of St Salvator’s college having said that Knox’s conduct proceeded from disappointment, because the bishopric had not been conferred on himself, he, on the following Sabbath, repelled this invidious charge. He had refused, he said, a greater bishopric than that of St Andrews, which he might have had by the favour of greater men than Douglas had his:[262] what he had spoken was for the exoneration of his conscience, that the church of Scotland might not be subject to that order, especially after a very different one had been settled in the Book of Discipline, subscribed by the nobility, and ratified by parliament. He lamented also that a burden should have been laid upon an old man, which twenty men of the greatest ability could not sustain.[263] In the General Assembly held at St Andrews in the following month, he not only entered a protest against the election of Douglas,[264] but also “opponed himself directly to the making of bishops.”[265]

While he was engaged in these contests, his bodily strength was every day sensibly decaying. Yet he continued to preach, although unable to walk to the pulpit without assistance; and, when warmed with his subject, he forgot his weakness, and electrified the audience with his eloquence. James Melville, afterwards minister of Anstruther, was then a student at the college, and one of his constant hearers. The account which he has given of his appearance is exceedingly striking; and, as any translation would enfeeble it, I shall give it in his own words. “Of all the benefits I had that year [1571], was the coming of that maist notable profet and apostle of our nation, Mr Johne Knox, to St Andrews, who, be the faction of the queen occupeing the castell and town of Edinburgh, was compellit to remove therefra, with a number of the best, and chusit to come to St Andrews. I heard him teache there the prophecies of Daniel, that simmer and the wintar following. I had my pen and my little buike, and tuke away sic things as I could comprehend. In the opening up of his text, he was moderat the space of an half houre; but when he entered to application, he made me so to grew[266] and tremble, that I could not hald a pen to wryt.—He was very weik. I saw him, everie day of his doctrine, go hulie and fear,[267] with a furring of marticks about his neck, a staffe in the ane hand, and gude, godlie Richart Ballanden, his servand, halden up the uther oxter,[268] from the abbey to the parish kirk, and, by the said Richart, and another servand, lifted up to the pulpit, whar he behovit to lean at his first entrie; bot, er he haid done with his sermone, he was sa active and vigorous, that he was lyk to ding the pulpit in blads,[269] and flie out of it.”[270]

The persons with whom the Reformer was most familiar at St Andrews, were the professors of St Leonard’s college, who often visited him at his lodging in the abbey. This college was distinguished by its warm attachment to the doctrines of the Reformation, which it had embraced at a very early period;[271] while the two other colleges were disaffected to the authority of the king, and several of their teachers suspected of leaning to popery. The Reformer was accustomed to amuse himself by walking in St Leonard’s Yard, and to look with peculiar complacency on the students, whom he regarded as the rising hope of the church. He would sometimes call them to him, and bless them, and exhort them to be diligent in their studies, to attend to the instructions of their teachers, and imitate the good example which they set before them, to acquaint themselves with God, and with the great work which he had lately performed in their native country, and to cleave to the good cause. These familiar advices, from a person so venerable, made a deep impression on the minds of the young men. He even condescended to be present at a college‑exercise performed by them at the marriage of one of their regents, in which the siege and taking of Edinburgh castle was dramatically represented.[272]

During his stay at St Andrews, he published a vindication of the reformed religion, in answer to a letter written by Tyrie, a Scottish Jesuit. The argumentative part of the work was finished by him in 1568; but he sent it abroad at this time, with additions, as a farewell address to the world, and a dying testimony to the truth which he had long taught and defended.[273] Along with it he published one of the religious letters which he had formerly written to his mother‑in‑law, Mrs Bowes; and, in an advertisement prefixed to this, he informs us that she had lately departed this life, and that he could not allow the opportunity to slip of acquainting the public, by means of this letter, with the intimate Christian friendship which had so long subsisted between them.

The ardent desire which he felt to be released by death from the troubles of the present life, appears in all that he wrote about this time. “Weary of the world,” and “thirsting to depart,” are expressions frequently used by him. The dedication of the above‑mentioned work is thus inscribed:—“John Knox, the servant of Jesus Christ, now wearie of the world, and daylie luiking for the resolution of this my earthly tabernakle, to the faithful that God of his mercie shall appoint to fight after me.” In the conclusion of it, he says, “Call for me, deir brethren, that God, in his mercy, will pleis to put end to my long and panefull battell. For now being unable to fight, as God sumtymes gave strength, I thirst an end befoir I be more troublesum to the faithfull. And yet, Lord, let my desyre be moderate be thy holy spirit.” In a prayer subjoined to the dedication, are these words:—“To thee, O Lord, I commend my spirit. For I thirst to be resolved from this body of sin, and am assured that I shall rise agane in glorie; howsoever it be that the wicked for a tyme sall trode me and others, thy servandes, under their feit. Be merciful, O Lord, unto the kirk within this realme; continew with it the light of thy evangell; augment the number of true preicheris. And let thy mercifull providence luke upon my desolate bedfellow, the fruit of hir bosome, and my two deir children, Nathanael and Eleazar.[274] Now, Lord, put end to my miserie.” The advertisement “to the faithful reader,” dated at St Andrews, 12th July 1571, concludes in the following manner:—“I hartly salute and take my good night of all the faithful of both realmes, earnestly desyring the assistance of their prayers, that, without any notable slander to the evangel of Jesus Christ, I may end my battel; for, as the worlde is wearie of me, so am I of it.”

The General Assembly being appointed to meet at Perth on the 6th of August, he took his leave of them in a letter, along with which he transmitted certain articles and questions which he recommended to their consideration. The Assembly returned him an answer, declaring their approbation of his propositions, and their earnest desires for his preservation and comfort.[275] The last piece of public service which he performed at their request, was to examine and approve of a sermon which had been lately preached by David Ferguson, minister of Dunfermline. His subscription to this sermon, like every thing which proceeded from his mouth or pen about this time, is uncommonly striking. “John Knox, with my dead hand, but glaid heart, praising God, that of his mercy he levis such light to his kirk in this desolation.”[276]

From the rapid decline of his health, in the spring of 1572, there was every appearance of his ending his days at St Andrews; but it pleased God that he should be restored once more to his flock, and allowed to die peaceably among them. In consequence of a cessation of arms agreed to, in the end of July, between the regent and the adherents of the queen, the city of Edinburgh was abandoned by the forces of the latter, and secured from the annoyance of the garrison in the castle. As soon as the banished citizens returned to their houses,[277] they sent a deputation to St Andrews, with a letter to Knox, expressive of their earnest desire “that once again his voice might be heard among them,” and entreating him immediately to come to Edinburgh, if his health would at all permit; for, said they, “loath we are to disease or hurt your person any ways, but far loather to want you.”[278] After reading the letter, and conversing with the commissioners, he expressed his willingness to return, but under the express condition, that he should not be urged to preserve silence respecting the conduct of those who held the castle; “whose treasonable and tyrannical deeds he would cry out against, as long as he was able to speak.” He, therefore, desired them to acquaint their constituents with this, lest they should afterwards repent of his austerity, and be apprehensive of ill‑treatment on his account. The commissioners assured him, that they did not mean to put a bridle in his mouth, but wished him to discharge his duty as he had been accustomed to do. He repeated this intimation, after his arrival at Edinburgh, to the principal persons of his congregation, and received the same assurance from them, before he would resume preaching.[279]

On the 17th of August, to the great joy of the queen’s faction, whom he had overawed during his residence among them, the Reformer left St Andrews, along with his family. He was accompanied so far on his journey by the principal persons of his acquaintance in the town, who sorrowfully took their leave of him, in the prospect of seeing his face no more. Being obliged by his weakness to travel slowly, it was the 23d of the month before he reached Leith, from which, after resting a day or two, he came to Edinburgh. The inhabitants enjoyed the satisfaction of seeing him again in his own pulpit, on the first Sabbath after he arrived; but his voice was now so enfeebled that he could not be heard by the half of the congregation. Nobody was more sensible of this than himself. He therefore requested his session to provide a smaller house, in which he could be heard, if it were only by a hundred persons; for his voice, he said, was not able, even in his best time, to extend over the multitude which assembled in that large church, much less now when he was so greatly debilitated. This request was readily complied with by the session.[280]

During his absence, a coolness had taken place between his colleague and the parish, who found fault with him for temporizing during the time that the queen’s party retained possession of the city. In consequence of this, they had mutually agreed to separate.[281] After preaching two years in Montrose, Craig removed to Aberdeen, where he acted as visitor of the churches in Buchan and Mar; and was afterwards chosen minister to the royal household, a situation which he held until his death in 1600, at the advanced age of eighty‑eight.[282] Being deprived of both their pastors, and having no prospect that Knox, although he should return, would be capable of performing the public service among them, the kirk‑session of Edinburgh had instructed their delegates to the General Assembly lately held at Perth, to petition that court for liberty to choose from the ministry a colleague to the Reformer. The Assembly granted their request, and ordained any minister (those of Perth and Dundee excepted) who might be chosen by Knox, the superintendent of Lothian, and the church of Edinburgh, to comply with their invitation, and remove to the capital.[283] When the commissioners came to St Andrews, they found the superintendent along with Knox, and having consulted with them, it was agreed to nominate and recommend James Lawson, sub‑principal of the university of Aberdeen, a man eminent for his piety, learning, and eloquence.[284] Perceiving, on his return to Edinburgh, that he could not long be able to endure the fatigue of preaching, and that he was already incapacitated for all other ministerial duties, Knox was extremely solicitous to have this business speedily settled, lest the congregation should be left “as sheep without a shepherd,” when he was called away. The session and the superintendent having sent letters of invitation to Lawson, the Reformer wrote him at the same time, urging his speedy compliance with their requests. This letter is very descriptive of the state of his mind at this interesting period.

“All worldlie strenth, yea ewin in thingis spirituall, decayes; and yet sall never the work of God decay. Belovit brother, seeing that God of his mercie, far above my expectatione, has callit me ones againe to Edinburgh, and yet that I feill nature so decayed, and daylie to decay, that I luke not for a long continewance of my battell, I wald gladlie anes discharge my conscience into your bosome, and into the bosome of utheris, in whome I think the feare of God remanes. Gif I hath had the habilitie of bodie, I suld not have put you to the pane to the whilk I now requyre you, that is, anes to visite me, that we may conferre together of heawinlie thingis; for into earth there is no stability, except the kirk of Jesus Christ, ever fightand vnder the crosse, to whose myghtie protectione I hartlie comitt you. Of Edinburgh the vii of September, 1572. Jhone Knox.

“Haist, leist ye come too lait.”[285]

In the beginning of September, intelligence reached Edinburgh, that the admiral of France, the brave, the generous, the pious Coligni, was murdered in the city of Paris, by the orders of Charles IX. Immediately on the back of this, tidings arrived of that most detestable and unparalleled scene of barbarity and treachery, the general massacre of the protestants throughout that kingdom. Post after post brought fresh accounts of the most shocking and unheard‑of cruelties. Hired cut‑throats and fanatical cannibals marched from city to city, paraded the streets, and entered into the houses of those that were marked out for destruction. No reverence was shown to the hoary head, no respect to rank or talents, no pity to tender age or sex. Infants, aged matrons, and women upon the point of their delivery, were trodden under the feet of the assassins, or dragged with hooks into the rivers; others, after being thrown into prison, were instantly brought out and butchered in cold blood. Seventy thousand persons were murdered in one week. For several days, the streets of Paris literally ran with blood. The savage monarch, standing at the windows of the palace, with his courtiers, glutted his eyes with the inhuman spectacle, and amused himself with firing upon the miserable fugitives who sought shelter at his merciless gates.[286]

The intelligence of this massacre (for which a solemn thanksgiving was offered up at Rome by order of the pope[287]) produced the same horror and consternation in Scotland as in every other protestant country.[288] It inflicted a deep wound on the exhausted spirit of Knox. Besides the blow struck at the reformed body, he had to lament the loss of many individuals, eminent for piety, learning, and rank, whom he numbered among his acquaintance. Being conveyed to the pulpit, and summoning up the remainder of his strength, he thundered the vengeance of Heaven against “that cruel murderer and false traitor, the king of France,” and desired Le Croc, the French ambassador, to tell his master, that sentence was pronounced against him in Scotland, that the divine vengeance would never depart from him, nor from his house, if repentance did not ensue; but his name would remain an execration to posterity, and none proceeding from his loins should enjoy his kingdom in peace. The ambassador complained of the indignity offered to his master, and required the regent to silence the preacher; but this was refused, upon which he left Scotland.[289]

Lawson, having received the letters of invitation, hastened to Edinburgh. He had the satisfaction to find that Knox was still able to receive him; and, having preached to the people, gave universal satisfaction. On the following Sabbath, the 21st of September, Knox began to preach in the Tolbooth church, which was now fitted up for him. He chose for the subject of his discourses, the account of our Saviour’s crucifixion, as recorded in the twenty‑seventh chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew, a theme with which he had often expressed a wish to close his ministry. On Sabbath, the 9th of November, he presided at the installation of Lawson as his colleague and successor. The sermon was preached by him in the Tolbooth church; after which he removed, with the audience, to the large church, where he went through the accustomed form of admission, by proposing the questions to the minister and people, addressing an exhortation to both, and praying for the divine blessing upon their connexion. On no former occasion did he give more satisfaction to those who were able to hear him. After declaring the respective duties of pastor and people, he protested, in the presence of him to whom he expected soon to give an account, that he had walked among them with a good conscience, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ in all sincerity, not studying to please men, nor to gratify his own affections; he praised God, that he had been pleased to give them a pastor in his room, when he was now unable to teach; he fervently prayed, that any gifts which had been conferred on himself might be augmented a thousand fold in his successor; and, in a most serious and impressive manner, he exhorted and charged the whole assembly to adhere steadfastly to the faith which they had professed. Having finished the service, and pronounced the blessing with a cheerful but exhausted voice, he descended from the pulpit, and leaning upon his staff and the arm of an attendant, crept down the street, which was lined with the audience, who, as if anxious to take the last sight of their beloved pastor, followed him until he entered his house, from which he never again came out alive.[290]

On Tuesday following, the 11th of November, he was seized with a severe cough, which greatly affected his breathing.[291] When his friends, anxious to prolong his life, proposed to call in the assistance of physicians, he readily acquiesced, saying that he would not neglect the ordinary means of health, although he was persuaded that death would soon put an end to all his sorrows. It had been his ordinary practice to read every day some chapters of the Old and New Testament; to which he added a certain number of the Psalms of David, the whole of which he perused regularly once a‑month. On Thursday the 13th, he sickened, and was obliged to desist from his course of reading; but he gave directions to his wife, and his secretary, Richard Bannatyne, that one of them should every day read to him, with a distinct voice, the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel according to John, the fifty‑third of Isaiah, and a chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians. This was punctually complied with during the whole time of his sickness; and scarcely an hour passed in which some part of scripture was not read in his hearing. Besides the above passages, he, at different times, fixed on certain Psalms, and some of Calvin’s French sermons on the Ephesians. Thinking him at times to be asleep, when they were engaged in reading, they enquired if he heard them, to which he answered, “I hear, (I praise God,) and understand far better;” words which he uttered for the last time, within four hours of his death.

The same day on which he sickened, he desired his wife to discharge the servants’ wages; and wishing next day to pay one of his men‑servants himself, he gave him twenty shillings above his fee, saying, “Thou wilt never receive more from me in this life.” To all of them he addressed suitable exhortations to walk in the fear of God, and as became Christians who had lived in his family.

On Friday, the 14th, he rose from bed at an earlier hour than usual; and thinking that it was Sabbath, said, that he meant to go to church, and preach on the resurrection of Christ, upon which he had been meditating through the night. This was the subject on which he should have preached in his ordinary course. But he was so weak, that he needed to be supported from his bedside by two men, and it was with great difficulty that he could sit on a chair.

Next day, at noon, John Durie, one of the ministers of Leith, and Archibald Steward, who were among his most intimate acquaintance, came into his room. Perceiving that he was very sick, they wished to take their leave, but he insisted that they should remain, and having prevailed with them to stay dinner, he rose from bed, and came to the table, which was the last time that he ever sat at it. He ordered a hogshead of wine which was in his cellar to be pierced for them; and, with a hilarity which he delighted to indulge among his friends, desired Steward to send for some of it as long as it lasted, for he would not tarry until it was all drunk.

On Sabbath, the 16th, he kept his bed, and mistaking it for the first day of the fast appointed on account of the French massacre, refused to take any dinner. Fairley of Braid, who was present, informed him that the fast did not commence until the following Sabbath, and sitting down, and dining before his bed, prevailed on him to take a little food.

He was very anxious to meet once more with the session of his church, to leave them his dying charge, and bid them a last farewell. In compliance with this wish, his colleague, the elders, and deacons, with David Lindsay, one of the ministers of Leith, assembled in his room on Monday the 17th, when he addressed them in the following words, which made a deep and lasting impression on the minds of all:—“The day approaches, and is now before the door, for which I have frequently and vehemently thirsted, when I shall be released from my great labours and innumerable sorrows, and shall be with Christ. And now, God is my witness, whom I have served in the spirit in the gospel of his Son, that I have taught nothing but the true and solid doctrine of the gospel of the Son of God, and have had it for my only object to instruct the ignorant, to confirm the faithful, to comfort the weak, the fearful, and the distressed, by the promises of grace, and to fight against the proud and rebellious by the divine threatenings. I know that many have frequently complained, and do still loudly complain, of my too great severity; but God knows that my mind was always void of hatred to the persons of those against whom I thundered the severest judgments. I cannot deny that I felt the greatest abhorrence at the sins in which they indulged, but still I kept this one thing in view, that, if possible, I might gain them to the Lord. What influenced me to utter whatever the Lord put into my mouth, so boldly, and without respect of persons, was a reverential fear of my God, who called and of his grace appointed me to be a steward of divine mysteries, and a belief that he will demand an account of the manner in which I have discharged the trust committed to me, when I shall stand at last before his tribunal. I profess, therefore, before God, and before his holy angels, that I never made merchandise of the sacred word of God, never studied to please men, never indulged my own private passions or those of others, but faithfully distributed the talents intrusted to me for the edification of the church over which I watched. Whatever obloquy wicked men may cast on me respecting this point, I rejoice in the testimony of a good conscience. In the meantime, my dear brethren, do you persevere in the eternal truth of the gospel: wait diligently on the flock over which the Lord hath set you, and which he redeemed with the blood of his only begotten Son. And thou, my dearest brother Lawson, fight the good fight, and do the work of the Lord joyfully and resolutely. The Lord from on high bless you, and the whole church of Edinburgh, against whom, as long as they persevere in the word of truth which they have heard of me, the gates of hell shall not prevail.”[292] Having warned them against countenancing those who disowned the king’s authority, and made some observations on a complaint which Maitland had lodged against him before the session, he became so exhausted as to be obliged to desist from speaking. Those who were present were filled both with joy and grief by this affecting address. After reminding him of the warfare which he had endured, and the triumph which awaited him, and joining in prayer, they took their leave of him, drowned in tears.

When they were going out, he desired his colleague and Lindsay to remain behind. “There is one thing that greatly grieves me,” said he to them. “You have been witnesses of the former courage and constancy of Grange in the cause of God; but now, alas! into what a gulf has he precipitated himself! I entreat you not to refuse the request which I now make to you. Go to the castle, and tell him: ‘John Knox remains the same man now when he is about to die, that ever he knew him when able in body, and wills him to consider what he was, and the estate in which he now stands, which is a great part of his trouble. Neither the craggy rock in which he miserably confides, nor the carnal prudence of that man [Maitland] whom he esteems a demi‑god, nor the assistance of strangers, shall preserve him; but he shall be disgracefully dragged from his nest to punishment, and hung on a gallows before the face of the sun, unless he speedily amend his life, and flee to the mercy of God.’ That man’s soul is dear to me, and I would not have it perish, if I could save it.” The ministers undertook to execute this commission; and going up to the castle, they obtained an interview with the governor, and delivered their message. He at first exhibited symptoms of relenting, but having consulted apart with Maitland, he returned, and gave them a very unpleasant answer. This being reported to Knox, he was much grieved, and said, that he had been earnest in prayer for that man, and still trusted that his soul would be saved, although his body should come to a miserable end.[293]

After his interview with the session he became much worse; his difficulty of breathing increased, and he could not speak without great and obvious pain. Yet he continued still to receive persons of every rank, who came in great numbers to visit him, and suffered none to go away without advices, which he uttered with such variety and suitableness as astonished those who waited upon him. Lord Boyd, coming into his chamber, said, “I know, sir, that I have offended you in many things, and am now come to crave your pardon.” The answer was not heard, as the attendants retired and left them alone; but his lordship returned next day in company with Drumlanrig and Morton. The Reformer’s private conversation with the latter was very particular, as afterwards related by the earl himself. He asked him, if he was previously acquainted with the design to murder the late king. Morton having answered in the negative,[294] he said, “Well, God has beautified you with many benefits which he has not given to every man; as he has given you riches, wisdom, and friends, and now is to prefer you to the government of this realm.[295] And, therefore, in the name of God, I charge you to use all these benefits aright, and better in time to come than ye have done in times bypast; first to God’s glory, to the furtherance of the evangel, the maintenance of the church of God, and his ministry; next for the weal of the king, and his realm and true subjects. If so ye shall do, God shall bless you and honour you; but if ye do it not, God shall spoil you of these benefits, and your end shall be ignominy and shame.”[296]

On Thursday, the 20th, lord Lindsay, the bishop of Caithness, and several gentlemen, visited him. He exhorted them to continue in the truth which they had heard, for there was no other word of salvation, and besought them to have nothing to do with those in the castle. The earl of Glencairn (who had often visited him) came in, with lord Ruthven. The latter, who called only once, said to him, “If there be any thing, Sir, that I am able to do for you, I pray you charge me.” His reply was, “I care not for all the pleasure and friendship of the world.”

A religious lady of his acquaintance desired him to praise God for what good he had done, and was beginning to speak in his commendation, when he interrupted her. “Tongue! tongue! lady; flesh of itself is over‑proud, and needs no means to esteem itself.” He put her in mind of what had been said to her long ago, “Lady, lady, the black one has never trampit on your fute;” and exhorted her to lay aside pride, and be clothed with humility. He then protested as to himself, as he had often done before, that he relied wholly on the free mercy of God, manifested to mankind through his dear Son Jesus Christ, whom alone he embraced for wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. The rest of the company having taken their leave of him, he said to Fairley of Braid, “Every one bids me good‑night; but when will you do it? I have been greatly indebted unto you; for which I shall never be able to recompense you; but I commit you to one that is able to do it, to the eternal God.”

On Friday, the 21st, he desired Richard Bannatyne to order his coffin to be made. During that day he was much engaged in meditation and prayer. These words dropped from his lips at intervals: “Come, Lord Jesus.—Sweet Jesus, into thy hand I commend my spirit.—Be merciful, Lord, to thy church which thou hast redeemed.—Give peace to this afflicted commonwealth.—Raise up faithful pastors who will take the charge of thy church.—Grant us, Lord, the perfect hatred of sin, both by the evidences of thy wrath and mercy.” In the midst of his meditations, he often addressed those who stood by, in such sentences as these:—“O serve the Lord in fear, and death shall not be terrible to you. Nay, blessed shall death be to those who have felt the power of the death of the only begotten Son of God.”

On Sabbath, the 23d, (which was the first day of the national fast,) during the afternoon sermon, after lying a considerable time quiet, he suddenly exclaimed, “If any be present, let them come and see the work of God.” Thinking that his death was at hand, Bannatyne sent to the church for Johnston of Elphingston. When he came to the bedside, Knox burst out in these rapturous expressions:—“I have been these two last nights in meditation on the troubled state of the church of God, the spouse of Jesus Christ, despised of the world, but precious in the sight of God. I have called to God for her, and have committed her to her head, Jesus Christ. I have fought against spiritual wickedness in heavenly things, and have prevailed. I have been in heaven, and have possession. I have tasted of the heavenly joys where presently I am.” He then repeated the Lord’s prayer and the creed, interjecting devout aspirations between the articles of the latter.

After sermon, many came to visit him. Perceiving that he breathed with great difficulty, some of them asked, if he felt much pain. He answered, that he was willing to lie there for years, if God so pleased, and if he continued to shine upon his soul through Jesus Christ. He slept very little; but was employed almost incessantly either in meditation, in prayer, or in exhortation. “Live in Christ. Live in Christ, and then flesh need not fear death.—Lord, grant true pastors to thy church, that purity of doctrine may be retained.—Restore peace again to this commonwealth, with godly rulers and magistrates.—Once, Lord, make an end of my trouble.” Then, stretching his hands towards heaven, he said, “Lord, I commend my spirit, soul, and body, and all, into thy hands. Thou knowest, O Lord, my troubles: I do not murmur against thee.” His pious ejaculations were so numerous, that those who waited on him could recollect only a small portion of what he uttered; for seldom was he silent, when they were not employed in reading or in prayer.

Monday, the 24th of November, was the last day that he spent on earth. That morning he could not be persuaded to lie in bed, but, though unable to stand alone, rose between nine and ten o’clock, and put on his stockings and doublet. Being conducted to a chair, he sat about half an hour, and then was put to bed again. In the progress of the day, it appeared evident that his end drew near. Besides his wife and Bannatyne, Campbell of Kinyeancleugh, Johnston of Elphingston, and Dr Preston, three of his most intimate acquaintance, sat by turns at his bedside. Kinyeancleugh asked him if he had any pain. “It is no painful pain, but such a pain as shall soon, I trust, put end to the battle. I must leave the care of my wife and children to you,” continued he, “to whom you must be a husband in my room.” About three o’clock in the afternoon, one of his eyes failed, and his speech was considerably affected. He desired his wife to read the fifteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians. “Is not that a comfortable chapter?” said he, when it was finished. “O what sweet and salutary consolation the Lord hath afforded me from that chapter!” A little after, he said, “Now, for the last time, I commend my soul, spirit, and body, (touching three of his fingers,) into thy hand, O Lord.” About five o’clock, he said to his wife, “Go, read where I cast my first anchor;” upon which she read the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel, and afterwards a part of Calvin’s sermons on the Ephesians.

After this he appeared to fall into a slumber, interrupted by heavy moans, during which the attendants looked every moment for his dissolution. But at length he awaked, as if from sleep, and being asked the cause of his sighing so deeply, replied:—“I have formerly, during my frail life, sustained many contests, and many assaults of Satan; but at present he hath assailed me most fearfully, and put forth all his strength to devour, and make an end of me at once. Often before has he placed my sins before my eyes, often tempted me to despair, often endeavoured to ensnare me by the allurements of the world; but these weapons were broken by the sword of the Spirit, the word of God, and the enemy failed. Now he has attacked me in another way: the cunning serpent has laboured to persuade me that I have merited heaven and eternal blessedness, by the faithful discharge of my ministry. But blessed be God, who has enabled me to beat down and quench this fiery dart, by suggesting to me such passages of Scripture as these:—‘What hast thou that thou hast not received?—By the grace of God I am what I am:—Not I, but the grace of God in me.’ Upon this, as one vanquished, he left me. Wherefore I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ, who has been pleased to give me the victory; and I am persuaded that the tempter shall not again attack me, but, within a short time, I shall, without any great pain of body, or anguish of mind, exchange this mortal and miserable life for a blessed immortality through Jesus Christ.”

He then lay quiet for some hours, except that now and then he desired them to wet his mouth with a little weak ale. At ten o’clock, they read the evening prayer, which they had delayed beyond the usual hour, from an apprehension that he was asleep. After this exercise was concluded, Dr Preston asked him if he had heard the prayers. “Would to God,” said he, “that you and all men had heard them as I have heard them; I praise God for that heavenly sound.” The doctor rose up, and Kinyeancleugh sat down before his bed. About eleven o’clock, he gave a deep sigh, and said, “Now it is come.” Bannatyne immediately drew near, and desired him to think upon those comfortable promises of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which he had so often declared to others; and, perceiving that he was speechless, requested him to give them a sign that he heard them, and died in peace. Upon this he lifted up one of his hands, and, sighing twice, expired without a struggle.[297]

He died in the sixty‑seventh year of his age, not so much oppressed with years, as worn out and exhausted by his extraordinary labours of body and anxieties of mind. Few men were ever exposed to more dangers, or underwent greater hardships. From the time that he embraced the reformed religion till he breathed his last, seldom did he enjoy a respite from trouble; and he emerged from one scene of difficulty and danger, only to be involved in another still more distressing. Obliged to flee from St Andrews to escape the fury of cardinal Beatoun, he found a retreat in East Lothian, from which he was hunted by archbishop Hamilton. He lived for several years as an outlaw, in daily apprehension of falling a prey to those who eagerly sought his life. The few months during which he enjoyed protection in the castle of St Andrews, were succeeded by a long and rigorous captivity. After enjoying some repose in England, he was again driven into banishment, and for five years wandered as an exile on the continent. When he returned to his native country, it was to engage in a struggle of the most perilous and arduous kind. After the Reformation was established, and he was settled in the capital, he was involved in a continual contest with the court. When he was relieved from this warfare, and thought only of ending his days in peace, he was again called into the field; and, although scarcely able to walk, was obliged to remove from his flock, and to avoid the fury of his enemies by submitting to a new banishment. He was repeatedly condemned for heresy, and proclaimed an outlaw; thrice he was accused of high treason, and on two of these occasions he appeared and underwent a trial. A price was publicly set on his head; assassins were employed to kill him; and his life was attempted both with the pistol and the dagger. Yet he escaped all these perils, and finished his course in peace and in honour. No wonder that he was weary of the world, and anxious to depart; and with great propriety might it be said, at his decease, that “he rested from his labours.”

On Wednesday, the 26th of November, he was interred in the churchyard of St Giles.[298] His funeral was attended by the newly elected regent, Morton, by all the nobility who were in the city, and a great concourse of people. When his body was laid in the grave, the regent emphatically pronounced his eulogium, in these words, “There lies he, who never feared the face of man.”[299]

The character of this extraordinary man has been drawn in opposite colours, by different writers, and at different times. And the changes which have taken place in the public opinion about him, with the causes which have produced them, form a subject neither uncurious, nor unworthy of attention.

The interest excited by the revolutions of Scotland, ecclesiastical and political, in which he acted so conspicuous a part, caused his name to be known throughout Europe, more extensively than those of most of the reformers. When we reflect, that the Roman catholics looked upon him as the principal instrument in overthrowing their religious establishment in this country, we are prepared to expect that writers of that persuasion would represent his character in an unfavourable light; and that, in addition to the common charges of heresy and apostasy, they would describe him as a man of a restless, turbulent spirit, and of rebellious principles. We will not even be greatly surprised though we find them charging him with whoredom, because, being a priest, he entered into wedlock, once and a second time; and imputing his change of religion to a desire of releasing himself from the bonds by which the popish clergy were professionally bound to chastity. But all this is nothing to the portraits which they have drawn of him, in which, to the violation of all credibility, he is unblushingly represented as a man, or rather a monster, of the most profligate character, who gloried in depravity, who avowedly indulged in the most vicious practices, and upon whom providence fixed the most evident marks of reprobation at his death, which was accompanied with circumstances that excited the utmost horror in the beholders.[300] This might astonish us, did we not know, from undoubted documents, that there were at that time a class of writers, who, by inventing or retailing such malignant calumnies, attempted to blast the fairest and most unblemished characters among those who appeared in opposition to the church of Rome; and that, absurd and outrageous as the accusations were, they were greedily swallowed by the numerous slaves of prejudice and credulity. The memory of no one was loaded with a greater share of this obloquy than our Reformer’s. But these accounts have long ago lost every degree of credit; and they now remain only as a proof of the spirit of lies or of strong delusion, by which these writers were actuated, and of the deep and deadly hatred which they had conceived against the object of their calumny, on account of his strenuous and successful exertions in overthrowing the fabric of papal superstition and despotism.

Knox was known and esteemed by the principal persons among the reformed in France, Switzerland, and Germany. We have had occasion repeatedly to mention his friendship with the reformer of Geneva. Beza, the successor of Calvin, was also personally acquainted with him; the letters which he wrote to him abound with expressions of the warmest regard, and highest esteem; and, in his Images of Illustrious Men, he afterwards raised an affectionate tribute to our Reformer’s memory. This was done, at a subsequent period, by the German biographer, Melchior Adam, the Dutch Van Heiden, and the French La Roque. The late historian of the literature of Geneva, (whose religious sentiments are very different from those of Calvin and Beza,) although he is displeased with the philippics which Knox sometimes pronounced from the pulpit, says, that “he immortalized himself by his courage against popery, and his firmness against the tyranny of Mary; and that though a violent, he was always an open and honourable, enemy to the catholics.”[301]

The affectionate veneration in which his memory continued to be held in Scotland after his death, evinces that the influence which he possessed among his countrymen during his life was not constrained, but founded on the high opinion which they entertained of his virtues and talents. Bannatyne has drawn his character in the most glowing colours; and, although allowances must be made for the enthusiasm with which a favourite servant[302] wrote of a beloved and revered master, yet, as he lived long in the Reformer’s family, and was himself a man of respectability and learning, his testimony is by no means to be disregarded. In a speech which he delivered before the General Assembly in March 1571, when in his master’s name he craved justice against the calumnies circulated by the queen’s party, he said, “It has pleased God to make me a servant to that man John Knox, whom I serve, as God bears me witness, not so much in respect of my worldly commodity, as for that integrity and uprightness which I have ever known, and presently understand, to be in him, especially in the faithful administration of his office, in teaching of the word of God; and if I understood, or knew that he was a false teacher, a seducer, a raiser of schism, or one that makes division in the church of God, as he is reported to be by the former accusations, I would not serve him for all the substance in Edinburgh.”[303] And, in his journal, after giving an account of Knox’s death, he adds:—“In this manner departed this man of God: the light of Scotland, the comfort of the church within the same, the mirror of godliness, and pattern and example to all true ministers, in purity of life, soundness of doctrine, and boldness in reproving of wickedness; one that cared not the favour of men, how great soever they were. What dexterity in teaching, boldness in reproving, and hatred of wickedness was in him, my ignorant dullness is not able to declare, which if I should preis[304] to set out, it were as one who would light a candle to let men see the sun; seeing all his virtues are better known and notified to the world a thousand fold than I am able to express.”[305]

Principal Smeton’s character of him, while it is less liable to the suspicion of partiality, is equally honourable and flattering. “I know not,” says he, “if ever so much piety and genius were lodged in such a frail and weak body. Certain I am, that it will be difficult to find one in whom the gifts of the Holy Spirit shone so bright, to the comfort of the church of Scotland. None spared himself less in enduring fatigues bodily and mental; none was more intent on discharging the duties of the province assigned to him.” And again, addressing his calumniator Hamilton, he says, “This illustrious, I say illustrious servant of God, John Knox, I shall clear from your feigned accusations and slanders, by the testimony of a venerable assembly rather than by my own denial. This pious duty, this reward of a well‑spent life, all its members most cheerfully discharge to their excellent instructor in Christ Jesus. This testimony of gratitude they all owe to him, who, they know, ceased not to deserve well of all till he ceased to breathe. Released from a body exhausted in Christian warfare, and translated to a blessed rest, where he has obtained the sweet reward of his labours, he now triumphs with Christ. But beware, sycophant, of insulting him when dead; for he has left behind him as many defenders of his reputation as there are persons who were drawn, by his faithful preaching, from the gulf of ignorance to the knowledge of the gospel.”[306]

The divines of the church of England, who were contemporary with Knox, entertained a great respect for his character, and ranked him along with the most eminent of their own reformers.[307] I have already produced the mark of esteem which bishop Bale conferred on him, and the terms of approbation in which he was mentioned by Dr Fulke, one of the most learned of the English divines in the sixteenth century.[308] Aylmer, in a work written to confute one of his opinions, bears a voluntary testimony to his learning and integrity.[309] And Ridley, who stickled more for the ceremonies of the church than any of his brethren in the reign of Edward VI., and who was displeased with the opposition which Knox made to the introduction of the English liturgy at Frankfort, expressed his high opinion of him, as “a man of wit, much good learning, and earnest zeal.”[310] Whatever dissatisfaction they felt at his pointed reprehension of several parts of their ecclesiastical establishment, the English dignitaries, under Elizabeth, rejoiced at the success of his exertions, and without scruple expressed their approbation of many of his measures which were afterwards severely censured by their successors.[311] I need scarcely add, that his memory was held in veneration by the English Puritans. Some of the chief men among them were personally acquainted with him during his residence in England and on the continent; and others of them corresponded with him by letter. They highly esteemed his writings, sought for his manuscripts with avidity, and published them with testimonies of the warmest approbation.[312]

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

James carried his antipathies to the presbyterian church and reformers along with him to England, and he found it an easy matter to infuse them into the minds of his new subjects. Incensed at the freedom which Buchanan had used in his history of the transactions during the reign of Mary, he had, before leaving Scotland, procured the condemnation of that work by an act of parliament. And now he did not think it enough that he had got Camden’s history of that period manufactured to his mind, but employed agents to induce the French historian, De Thou, to adopt his representations; and because that great man scrupled to receive the royal testimony respecting events which happened before James was born, or when he was a child, in opposition to the most credible evidence, his majesty was pleased to complain that he had been treated disrespectfully.[316] Charles I. carried these prejudices even farther than his father had done. During his reign, passive obedience, arminianism, and semi‑popery, formed the court religion; Calvinism and presbytery were held in the greatest detestation, and proscribed both as political and religious heresies. In the reign of the second Charles, the court, the bench, the pulpit, the press, and the stage, united in loading presbyterians with every species of abuse, and in holding them forth as a gloomy, unsocial, turbulent, and fanatical race. And a large share of these contumelies uniformly fell on the head of Knox, who, it was alleged, had brought the obnoxious principles of the sect from Geneva, and planted them in his native country, from which they had spread into England. The revolution was effected in England by a coalition of parties of very different principles, some of which were not of the most liberal kind. Though this event abated the force of the prejudices alluded to, it by no means removed them; and a considerable time after it took place, the great, the fashionable, and even the learned, among the English, regarded the Scots as only beginning to emerge from that inelegance and barbarism which had been produced by the peculiar sentiments of Knox and his followers.

The great body of his countrymen, however, continued long to entertain a just sense of the many obligations which they were under to Knox. After the government of the church of Scotland was conformed to the English model, the Scottish prelates still professed to look back to their national Reformer with sentiments of gratitude and veneration; and archbishop Spotswood describes him as “a man endued with rare gifts, and a chief instrument that God used for the work of those times.”[317] For a considerable time after the revolution, the presbyterians of Scotland treated with deserved contempt the libels which English writers had published against him; and blushed not to avow their admiration of a man to whose labours they were indebted for an ecclesiastical establishment, more scriptural and more liberal than that of which their neighbours could boast. The Union first produced a change in our national feelings on this subject. The shortlived jealousy of English predominance, felt by many of our countrymen on that occasion, was succeeded by a passion for conformity to our southern neighbours; and so fond did we become of their good opinion, and so eager to secure it, that we were disposed to sacrifice to their taste and their prejudices, sentiments which truth as well as national honour required us to retain and cherish. Our most popular writers are not exempt from this charge; and even in works professing to be executed by the united talents of our literati, the misrepresentations and gross blunders of which English writers had been guilty in their accounts of our reformation, and the false and scandalous accusations which they had brought against our reformers, have been generally adopted and widely circulated, instead of meeting with the exposure and reprobation which they so justly merited.

The prejudices entertained against our Reformer by the friends of absolute monarchy, were taken up in all their force, subsequently to the revolution, by the adherents of the Stuart family, whose religious notions, approximating very nearly to the popish, joined with their slavish principle respecting non‑resistance to kings, led them to disapprove of almost every measure adopted at the time of the Reformation, and to condemn the whole as a series of disorder, sedition, and rebellion against lawful authority. The spirit by which the Jacobitish faction was actuated, did not become extinct with the family which had so long been the object of their devotion; and while they transferred their allegiance to the house of Hanover, they retained those principles which had incited them repeatedly to attempt its expulsion from the throne. The alarm produced by that revolution which of late has shaken the thrones of so many of the princes of Europe, has greatly increased this party; and with the view of preserving the present constitution of Britain, principles have been widely disseminated, which, if they had been generally received in the sixteenth century, would have perpetuated the reign of popery and arbitrary power in Scotland. From persons of such principles, nothing favourable to our Reformer can be expected. But the greatest torrent of abuse, poured upon his character, has proceeded from those literary champions who have come forward to avenge the wrongs, and vindicate the innocence, of the peerless and immaculate Mary, queen of Scots! Having conjured up in their imagination the image of an ideal goddess, they have sacrificed to the object of their adoration all the characters, which, in that age, were most estimable for learning, patriotism, integrity, and religion. As if the quarrel which they had espoused exempted them from the ordinary laws of controversial warfare, and conferred on them the absolute and undefeasible privilege of calumniating and defaming at pleasure, they have pronounced every person who spoke, wrote, or acted against that queen, to be a hypocrite or a villain. In the raving style of these writers, Knox was “a fanatical incendiary—a holy savage—the son of violence and barbarism—the religious Sachem of religious Mohawks.”[318]

I cannot do justice to the subject without adverting here to the influence of the popular histories of those transactions written by two distinguished individuals of our own country. The political prejudices and sceptical opinions of Mr Hume are well known, and appear prominently in every part of his History of England. Regarding the various systems of religious belief and worship as distinguished from one another merely by different shades of falsehood and superstition, he has been led, by a strange but not inexplicable bias, almost uniformly to show the most marked partiality to the grosser and more corrupt forms of religion; has spoken with greater contempt of the protestants than of the Roman catholics, and treated the Scottish with greater severity than the English reformers. Forgetting what was due to the character of a philosopher, which he was so ambitious to maintain in his other writings, he has acted as the partisan and advocate of a particular family; and, in vindicating some of the worst measures of the Stuarts, has done signal injustice to the memory of the most illustrious patriots of both kingdoms. Though convinced that the queen of Scotland was guilty of the crimes laid to her charge, he has laboured to screen her from the infamy to which a fair and unvarnished statement of facts must have exposed her character, by fixing the attention of his readers on an untrue and exaggerated representation of the rudeness of Knox and the other reformers by whom she was surrounded, and by absurdly imputing to their treatment of her the faults into which she was betrayed. No person who is acquainted with the writings of Dr Robertson will accuse him of being actuated by such improper motives. But the warmest admirers of his History of Scotland cannot deny, that he has been misled by the temptation of making Mary the heroine of his story, and of thus interesting his readers deeply in his narrative, by blending the tender and romantic with the more dry and uninteresting detail of public transactions. By a studious exhibition of the personal charms and accomplishments of the queen, by representing her faults as arising from the unfortunate circumstances in which she was placed, by touching gently on the errors of her conduct, while he dwells on the cruelty and the dissimulation of her rival, and by describing her sufferings as exceeding the tragical distresses which fancy has feigned to excite sorrow and commiseration, he throws a veil over those vices which he could not deny; while the sympathy which his pathetic account of her death naturally awakens in the minds of his readers, effaces the impressions of her guilt which his preceding narrative had produced. However amiable the feelings of the author might be, the tendency of such a representation is evident. The Dissertation on the murder of king Henry has, no doubt, convinced many of Mary’s accession to the perpetration of that deed; but the History of Scotland has done more to prepossess the public mind in favour of that princess, than all the defences of her most zealous and ingenious advocates, and consequently to excite prejudice against her opponents, who, on the supposition of her guilt, acted a most meritorious part, and are entitled, in other respects, to the gratitude and veneration of posterity.

The increase of infidelity and indifference to religion in modern times, especially among the learned, has contributed, in no small degree, to swell the tide of prejudice against our Reformer. Whatever satisfaction persons of this description may express or feel at the reformation from popery, as the means of emancipating the world from superstition and priestcraft, they naturally despise and dislike men who were inspired with the love of religion, and in whose plans of reform the acquisition of civil liberty, and the advancement of literature, held a subordinate place to the revival of primitive Christianity.

Nor can it escape observation, that prejudices against the characters and proceedings of our reformers are now far more general than they formerly were among those who still profess to adhere to their doctrine and system of church government. Impressed with a high idea of the illumination of the present age, and entertaining a low estimate of the attainments of those which preceded it; imperfectly acquainted with the enormity and extent of the corrupt system of religion which existed in this country at the era of the reformation; inattentive to the spirit and principles of the adversaries with whom our reformers were obliged to contend, and to the dangers and difficulties with which they had to struggle,—they have too easily lent an ear to the calumnies which have been circulated to their prejudice, and rashly condemned measures which will be found, on examination, to have been necessary to secure and to transmit the invaluable blessings which we now enjoy.

Having given this account of the opinions entertained respecting our Reformer, I shall endeavour to sketch, with as much truth as I can, the leading features of his character.

That he possessed strong natural talents is unquestionable. Inquisitive, ardent, acute; vigorous and bold in his conceptions, he entered into all the subtilties of the scholastic science then in vogue; yet, disgusted with its barren results, sought out a new course of study, which gradually led to a complete revolution in his sentiments. In his early years he had not access to that finished education which many of his contemporaries obtained in foreign universities, and he was afterwards prevented, by his unsettled and active mode of life, from prosecuting his studies with leisure; but his abilities and application enabled him in a great measure to surmount these disadvantages, and he remained a stranger to none of the branches of learning which in that age were cultivated by persons of his profession. He united in a high degree the love of study with a disposition to active employment. The truths which he discovered, he felt an irresistible impulse to impart to others, for which he was qualified by a bold, fervid, and impetuous eloquence, singularly adapted to arrest the attention, and govern the passions, of a fierce and unpolished people.

From the time that he embraced the reformed doctrine, the desire of propagating it, and of delivering his countrymen from the delusions and thraldom of popery, became his ruling passion, to which he was always ready to sacrifice his ease, his interest, his reputation, and his life. An ardent attachment to civil liberty held the next place in his breast to love of the reformed religion. That the zeal with which he laboured to advance these objects, was of the most disinterested kind, no candid person who has paid attention to his life can doubt for a moment, whatever opinion may be entertained of some of the means which he employed for that purpose. He thought only of advancing the glory of God, and promoting the welfare of his country. Intrepidity, independence and elevation of mind, indefatigable activity, and constancy which no disappointments could shake, eminently qualified him for the hazardous and difficult post which he occupied. His integrity was above the suspicion of corruption; his firmness proof equally against the solicitations of friends and the threats of enemies. Though his impetuosity and courage led him frequently to expose himself to danger, we never find him neglecting to take prudent precautions for his safety. The confidence reposed in him by his countrymen, shows the high opinion which they entertained of his sagacity as well as of his honesty. The measures taken for advancing the Reformation, were either adopted at his suggestion, or sanctioned by his advice; and we must pronounce them to have been as wisely planned as they were boldly executed.

His ministerial functions were discharged with the greatest assiduity, fidelity, and fervour. No avocation or infirmity prevented him from appearing in the pulpit. Preaching was an employment in which he delighted, and for which he was qualified, by an extensive acquaintance with the scriptures, and by the happy art of applying them, in the most striking manner, to the existing circumstances of the church and of his hearers. His powers of alarming the conscience, and arousing the passions, have been frequently celebrated; but he excelled also in unfolding the consolations of the gospel, and in calming the breasts of those who were agitated by a sense of guilt, or suffering under the ordinary afflictions of life. When he discoursed of the griefs and joys, the conflicts and triumphs, of genuine christians, he described what he had himself known and experienced. The letters which he wrote to his familiar acquaintances breathe the most ardent piety. The religious meditations in which he spent his last sickness, were not confined to that period of his life; they had been his habitual employment from the time that he was brought to the knowledge of the truth, and his solace amidst all the hardships and perils through which he had passed.

With his brethren in the ministry he lived in the utmost cordiality. We never read of the slightest variance between him and any of his colleagues. While he was dreaded and hated by the licentious and profane, whose vices he never spared, the religious and sober part of his countrymen felt a veneration for him, which was founded on his unblemished reputation, as well as his popular talents as a preacher. In private life, he was beloved and revered by his friends and domestics. He was subject to the illapses of melancholy and depression of spirits, arising partly from natural constitution, and partly from the maladies which had long preyed upon his health; which made him (to use his own expression) churlish, and less capable of pleasing and gratifying his friends than he was otherwise disposed to be. This he confessed, and requested them to excuse;[319] but his friendship was sincere, affectionate, and steady. When free from this morose affection, he relished the pleasures of society, and, among his acquaintances, was accustomed to unbend his mind, by indulging in innocent recreation, and in the sallies of wit and humour, to which he had a strong propensity, notwithstanding the graveness of his general deportment. In the course of his public life, the severer virtues of his character were more frequently called into action; but we have met with repeated instances of his acute sensibility; and the unaffected tenderness which occasionally breaks forth in his private letters, shows that he was no stranger to any of the charities of human life, and that he could “rejoice with them that rejoiced, and weep with them that wept.”

Most of his faults may be traced to his natural temperament, and to the character of the age and country in which he lived. His passions were strong; he felt with the utmost keenness on every subject which interested him; and as he felt he expressed himself, without disguise and without affectation. The warmth of his zeal was apt to betray him into intemperate language; his inflexible adherence to his opinions inclined to obstinacy; and his independence of mind occasionally assumed the appearance of haughtiness and disdain. In one solitary instance, the anxiety which he felt for the preservation of the great cause in which he was so deeply interested, betrayed him into an advice which was not more inconsistent with the laws of strict morality, than it was contrary to the stern uprightness, and undisguised sincerity, which characterised the rest of his conduct. A stranger to complimentary or smooth language, little concerned about the manner in which his reproofs were received, provided they were merited, too much impressed with the evil of the offence to think of the rank or character of the offender, he often “uttered his admonitions with an acrimony and vehemence more apt to irritate than to reclaim.” But he protested, at a time when persons are least in danger of deception, and in a manner which should banish every suspicion of the purity of his motives, that, in his sharpest rebukes, he was influenced by hatred of vice, not of the vicious; that his great aim was to reclaim the guilty, and that in using those means which were necessary for this end, he frequently did violence to his own feelings.

Those who have charged him with insensibility and inhumanity, have fallen into a mistake very common with superficial thinkers, who, in judging of the character of persons who lived in a state of society very different from their own, have pronounced upon their moral qualities from the mere aspect of their exterior manners. He was austere, not unfeeling; stern, not savage; vehement, not vindictive. There is not an instance of his employing his influence to revenge any personal injury which he had received. Rigid as his maxims respecting the execution of justice were, there are numerous instances on record of his interceding for the pardon of criminals; and, unless when crimes were atrocious, or when the welfare of the state was in the most imminent danger, he never exhorted the executive government to the exercise of severity. The boldness and ardour of his mind, called forth by the peculiar circumstances of the times, led him to push his sentiments on some subjects to an extreme, and no consideration could induce him to retract an opinion of which he continued to be persuaded; but his behaviour after his publication against female government, proves that he satisfied himself with declaring his own views, without seeking to disturb the public peace by urging their adoption. His conduct at Frankfort evinced his moderation in religious differences among brethren of the same faith, and his disposition to make all reasonable allowances for those who could not go the same length with him in reformation, provided they abstained from imposing upon the consciences of others. The liberties which he took in censuring from the pulpit the actions of individuals of the highest rank and station, appear the more strange and intolerable to us, when contrasted with the reserve and timidity of modern times; but we should recollect that they were then common, and that they were not without their utility, in an age when the licentiousness and oppression of the great and powerful often set at defiance the ordinary restraints of law.

In contemplating such a character as that of Knox, it is not the man so much as the reformer, that ought to engage our attention. The talents which are suited to one age and station would be altogether unsuitable to another; and the wisdom displayed by Providence, in raising up persons endowed with qualities singularly adapted to the work which they have to perform for the benefit of mankind, demands our particular consideration. We must admire the austere and rough reformer, whose voice once cried in the wilderness, who was clothed with camel’s hair, and girt about the loins with a leathern girdle, who came neither eating nor drinking, but laying the axe to the root of every tree, warned a generation of vipers to flee from the wrath to come, saying even to the tyrant upon the throne, “It is not lawful for thee.” And we must consider him as fitted for “serving the will of God in his generation,” according to his rank and place, as well as his Divine Master, whose advent he announced, who “did not strive, nor cry, nor cause his voice to be heard in the streets, nor break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax.” To those who complain, that they are disappointed at not finding, in our national Reformer, courteous manners, and a winning address, we may say, in the language of our Lord to the Jews concerning the Baptist: “What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind? What went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled, and live delicately, are in kings’ courts. But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.” To the men of this generation, as well as to the Jews of old, may be applied the parable of the children sitting in the market‑place, and calling one to another, and saying, “We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not wept.” Disaffection to the work often lurks under cavils against the instruments by which it is carried on; and had Knox been softer and more yielding in his temper, he would have been pronounced unfit for his office by the very persons who now censure his harshness and severity. “But wisdom is justified of all her children.” Before the Reformation, superstition, shielded by ignorance, and armed with power, governed with gigantic sway. Men of mild spirits, and of gentle manners, would have been as unfit for taking the field against this enemy, as a dwarf or a child for encountering a giant. What did Erasmus in the days of Luther? What would Lowth have done in the days of Wickliffe, or Blair in those of Knox? It has been justly observed concerning our Reformer, that “those very qualities which now render his character less amiable, fitted him to be the instrument of providence for advancing the Reformation among a fierce people, and enabled him to face danger, and surmount opposition, from which a person of a more gentle spirit would have been apt to shrink back.”[320] Viewing his character in this light, those who cannot regard him as an amiable man, may, without hesitation, pronounce him a Great Reformer.

The most disinterested of the nobility, who were embarked with him in the same cause, sacrificed on some occasions the public good to their private interests, and disappointed the hopes which he had formed of them. The most upright of his associates in the ministry relaxed their exertions, or suffered themselves at times to be drawn into measures that were unsuitable to their station, and hurtful to the reformed religion. Goodman, after being adopted by the church of Scotland, and ranked among her reformers, yielded so far to the love of country as to desert a people who were warmly attached to him, and return to the bosom of a less pure church, which received him with coldness and distrust. Willock, after acquitting himself honourably from the commencement of the interesting conflict, withdrew before the victory was completely secured, and, wearied out with the successive troubles in which his native country was involved, sought a retreat for himself in England. Craig, being left without the assistance of his colleague, and placed between two conflicting parties, betrayed his fears by having recourse to temporizing measures. Douglas, in his old age, became the dupe of persons whose rapacity impoverished the protestant church. And each of the superintendents was, at one time or another, complained of for neglect or for partiality, in the discharge of his functions. But from the time that the standard of truth was first raised by him in his native country, till it dropped from his hands at death, Knox never shrunk from danger—never consulted his own ease or advantage—never entered into any compromise with the enemy—never was bribed or frightened into cowardly silence; but keeping his eye singly and steadily fixed on the advancement of religion and of liberty, supported throughout the character of the Reformer of Scotland.

Knox bore a striking resemblance to Luther in personal intrepidity and in popular eloquence. He approached nearest to Calvin in his religious sentiments, in the severity of his manners, and in a certain impressive air of melancholy which pervaded his character. And he resembled Zuinglius in his ardent attachment to the principles of civil liberty, and in combining his exertions for the reformation of the church with uniform endeavours to improve the political state of the people. Not that I would place our Reformer on a level with this illustrious triumvirate. There is a splendour which surrounds the great German reformer, partly arising from the intrinsic heroism of his character, and partly reflected from the interesting situation in which his long and doubtful struggle with the court of Rome placed him in the eyes of Europe, which removes him at a distance from all who started in the same glorious career. The Genevese reformer surpassed Knox in the extent of his theological learning, and in the unrivalled solidity and clearness of his judgment. And the reformer of Switzerland, though inferior to him in masculine elocution, and in daring courage, excelled him in self‑command, in prudence, and in that species of eloquence which steals into the heart, convinces without irritating, and governs without assuming the tone of authority. But although “he attained not to the first three,” I know not, among all the eminent men who appeared at that period, any name which is so well entitled to be placed next to theirs as that of Knox, whether we consider the talents with which he was endowed, or the important services which he performed.

There are perhaps few who have attended to the active and laborious exertions of our Reformer, who have not been insensibly led to form the opinion that he was of a robust constitution. This is however a mistake. He was of small stature, and of a weakly habit of body;[321] a circumstance which serves to give us a higher idea of the vigour of his mind. His portrait seems to have been taken more than once during his life, and has been frequently engraved.[322] It continues still to frown in the antechamber of queen Mary, to whom he was often an ungracious visitor. We discern in it the traits of his characteristic intrepidity, austerity, and keen penetration. Nor can we overlook his beard, which, according to the custom of the times, he wore long, and reaching to his middle; a circumstance which I mention the rather, because some writers have gravely assured us, that it was the chief thing which procured him reverence among his countrymen.[323] A popish author has informed us, that he was gratified with having his picture drawn, and has expressed much horror at this, seeing he had caused all the images of the saints to be broken.[324]

One charge against him has not yet been noticed. He has been accused of setting up himself for a prophet, of presuming to intrude into the secret counsel of God, and of enthusiastically confounding the suggestions of his own imagination, and the effusions of his own spirit, with the dictates of inspiration, and immediate communications from heaven. Let us examine this accusation a little. It is proper, in the first place, to hear his own statement of the grounds on which he proceeded in many of those warnings which have been denominated predictions. Having, in one of his treatises, denounced the judgments to which the inhabitants of England exposed themselves, by renouncing the gospel, and returning to idolatry, he gives the following explication of the warrant which he had for his threatenings. “Ye would know the groundis of my certitude. God grant that, hearing thame, ye may understand, and stedfastlie believe the same. My assurances are not the mervalles of Merlin, nor yit the dark sentences of prophane prophesies; but the plane treuth of Godis word, the invincibill justice of the everlasting God, and the ordinarie course of his punismentis and plagis frome the beginning, are my assurance and groundis. Godis word threatneth destructioun to all inobedient; his immutabill justice must requyre the same; the ordinarie punishments and plaguis schaw exempillis. What man then can ceise to prophesie?”[325] We find him expressing himself in a similar way, in his defence of the threatenings which he uttered against those who had been guilty of the murder of king Henry, and the regent Murray. He denies that he had spoken “as one that entered into the secret counsel of God,” and insists that he had merely declared the judgment which was pronounced in the divine law against murderers, and which had often been exemplified in the vengeance which overtook them, even in this life.[326] In so far then his threatenings, or predictions, (for so he repeatedly calls them,) do not stand in need of an apology. Though sometimes expressed in absolute or indefinite language, it is but fair and reasonable to understand them, like similar declarations in scripture, as implying a tacit condition.

There are, however, several of his sayings which, perhaps, cannot be vindicated upon these principles, and which he himself seems to have rested upon different grounds.[327] Of this kind are the assurances which he expressed, from the beginning of the Scottish troubles, that the cause of the congregation would ultimately prevail; his confident hope of again preaching in his native country and at St Andrews, avowed by him during his imprisonment on board the French galleys, and frequently repeated during his exile; with the intimations which he gave respecting the death of Thomas Maitland, and Kircaldy of Grange. It cannot be denied that his contemporaries considered these as proceeding from a prophetic spirit, and have attested that they received an exact accomplishment. Without entering on a particular examination of these instances, or venturing to give a decisive opinion respecting any of them, I shall confine myself to a few general observations.

The most easy way of getting rid of this delicate subject is to dismiss it at once, and summarily to pronounce that all pretensions to extraordinary premonitions, since the completing of the canon of inspiration, are unwarranted, and that they ought, without examination, to be discarded and treated as fanciful and visionary. Nor would this fix any peculiar imputation on the character or talents of our Reformer, when it is considered that the most learned persons of that age were under the influence of a still greater weakness, and strongly addicted to the belief of judicial astrology. But I doubt much if this method of determining the question would be doing justice to the subject. Est periculum, ne, aut neglectis his impia fraude, aut susceptis, anili superstitione, obligemur.[328] On the one hand, the disposition which mankind discover to pry into the secrets of futurity, has been always accompanied with much credulity and superstition; and it cannot be denied, that the age in which Knox lived was prone to credit the marvellous, especially as to the infliction of divine judgments on individuals. A judicious person, who is aware of this, will not be disposed to acknowledge as preternatural whatever was formerly regarded in this light, and will be on his guard against the illusions of imagination as to impressions which may be made on his own mind.

Nor would it be difficult to produce instances in which writers of a subsequent age, through mistake or under the influence of prepossession, have given a prophetical meaning to words, which originally were not intended to convey any such idea. But, on the other hand, is there not a danger of running into scepticism, and of laying down general principles which may lead us obstinately to contest the truth of the best authenticated facts, if not also to limit the operations of divine providence? This is the extreme to which the present age inclines. That there are instances of persons having had presentiments as to events which afterwards did happen to themselves and others, there is, I think, the best reason to believe. Those who laugh at vulgar credulity, and exert their ingenuity in accounting for such phenomena on ordinary principles, have been exceedingly puzzled with some of these facts—a great deal more puzzled than they have confessed; and the solutions which they have given are, in some cases, as mysterious as any thing included in the intervention of superior spirits, or in preternatural and divine intimations.[329] The canon of our faith, as Christians, is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; we must not look to impressions or new revelations as the rule of our duty; but that God may, on particular occasions, forewarn persons of some things which shall happen, to testify his approbation of them, to encourage them to confide in him in circumstances of peculiar difficulty, or to serve other important purposes, is not, I think, inconsistent with the principles of either natural or revealed religion. If to believe this be enthusiasm, it is an enthusiasm into which some of the most enlightened and sober men, in modern as well as ancient times, have fallen.[330] The reformers were men of singular piety; they were exposed to uncommon opposition, and had uncommon services to perform; they were endued with extraordinary gifts, and why may we not suppose that they were occasionally favoured with extraordinary premonitions, with respect to certain events which concerned themselves, other individuals, or the church in general? But whatever intimations of this kind they received, they never proposed them as a rule of action to themselves or others, nor rested the authority of their mission upon these, nor appealed to them as constituting any part of the evidence of those doctrines which they preached to the world.

Our Reformer left behind him a widow and five children. His two sons were born to him by his first wife, Marjory Bowes. We have already seen, that, about the year 1566, they went to England, where their mother’s relations resided. They received their education at St John’s college, in the university of Cambridge; their names being enrolled in the matriculation‑book only eight days after the death of their father. Nathanael, the eldest of them, after obtaining the degrees of bachelor and master of arts, and being admitted fellow of the college, died in 1580. Eleazar, the youngest son, in addition to the honours attained by his brother, was created bachelor of divinity, ordained one of the preachers of the university, and admitted to the vicarage of Clacton‑Magna. He died in 1591, and was buried in the chapel of St John’s college.[331] It appears that both sons died without issue, and the family of the Reformer became extinct in the male line. His other children were daughters by his second wife. The General Assembly testified their respect for his memory by assigning his stipend, for the year after his death, to his widow and three daughters, and this appears to have been continued for some time by the regent Morton, who, though charged with avarice during his administration, treated them with uniform attention and kindness.[332] Margaret Stewart, his widow, was afterwards married to Sir Andrew Ker of Fadounside, a strenuous supporter of the Reformation.[333] The names of his daughters were Martha, Margaret, and Elizabeth.[334] The first was married to James Fleming, a minister of the church of Scotland;[335] the second, to Zachary, son of the celebrated Robert Pont;[336] and the third to John Welch, minister of Ayr.

Mrs Welch seems to have inherited no inconsiderable portion of her father’s spirit, and she had her share of similar hardships. Her husband was one of those patriotic ministers who resisted the arbitrary measures pursued by James VI. for overturning the government and liberties of the presbyterian church of Scotland. Being determined to abolish the General Assembly, James had, for a considerable time, prevented the meetings of that court by successive prorogations. Perceiving the design of the court, a number of the delegates from synods resolved to keep the diet which had been appointed to be held at Aberdeen in July 1605. They merely constituted the Assembly and appointed a day for its next meeting, and being charged by Laurieston, the king’s commissioner, to dissolve, immediately obeyed; but the commissioner, having ante‑dated the charge, several of the leading members were thrown into prison. Welch and five of his brethren, when called before the privy council, declined that court, as incompetent to judge the offence of which they were accused, according to the laws of the kingdom; on which account they were indicted to stand trial for treason at Linlithgow. Their trial was conducted in the most illegal and unjust manner. The king’s advocate told the jury that the only thing which came under their cognizance was the fact of the declinature, the judges having already found that it was treasonable; and threatened them with an “azize of error,” if they did not proceed as he directed them. After the jury were empannelled, the justice‑clerk went in and threatened them with his majesty’s displeasure, if they acquitted the prisoners. The greater part of the jurors being still reluctant, the chancellor went out and consulted with the other judges, who promised that no punishment should be inflicted on the prisoners, provided the jury brought in a verdict agreeable to the court. By such disgraceful methods, they were induced, at midnight, to find, by a majority of three, that the prisoners were guilty, upon which, they were condemned to suffer the death of traitors.[337]

Leaving her children at Ayr, Mrs Welch attended her husband in prison, and was present at Linlithgow, with the wives of the other prisoners, on the day of trial. When informed of the sentence, these heroines, instead of lamenting their fate, praised God who had given their husbands courage to stand to the cause of their Master, adding, that, like him, they had been judged and condemned under the covert of night.[338]

The sentence of death having been changed into banishment, she accompanied her husband to France, where they remained for sixteen years. Mr Welch applied himself with such assiduity to the acquisition of the language of the country, that he was able, in the course of fourteen weeks, to preach in French, and was chosen minister to a protestant congregation at Nerac, from which he was translated to St Jean d’Angely, a fortified town in Lower Charente. War having broken out between Lewis XIII. and his protestant subjects, St Jean d’Angely was besieged by the king in person. On this occasion, Welch not only animated the inhabitants of the town to a vigorous resistance by his exhortations, but he appeared on the walls, and gave his assistance to the garrison. The king was at last admitted into the town in consequence of a treaty, and being displeased that Welch preached during his residence in it, sent the duke d’Espernon, with a company of soldiers, to take him from the pulpit. When the preacher saw the duke enter the church, he ordered his hearers to make room for the marshal of France, and desired him to sit down and hear the word of God. He spoke with such an air of authority that the duke involuntarily took a seat, and listened to the sermon with great gravity and attention. He then brought Welch to the king, who asked him, how he durst preach there, since it was contrary to the laws of the kingdom for any of the pretended reformed to officiate in places where the court resided. “Sir,” replied Welch, “if your majesty knew what I preached, you would not only come and hear it yourself, but make all France hear it; for I preach not as those men you use to hear. First, I preach that you must be saved by the merits of Jesus Christ, and not your own; and I am sure your conscience tells you that your good works will never merit heaven. Next, I preach, that, as you are king of France, there is no man on earth above you; but these men whom you hear, subject you to the pope of Rome, which I will never do.” Pleased with this reply, Lewis said to him, “Hé bien, vous seriez mon ministre;”[339] and addressing him by the title of Father, assured him of his protection. And he was as good as his word; for St Jean d’Angely being reduced by the royal forces in 1621, the king gave directions to De Vitry, one of his generals, to take care of his minister; in consequence of which, Welch and his family were conveyed, at his majesty’s expense, to Rochelle.[340]

Having lost his health, and the physicians informing him that the only prospect which he had of recovering it, was by returning to his native country, Mr Welch ventured, in the year 1622, to come to London. But his own sovereign was incapable of treating him with that generosity which he had experienced from the French monarch; and, dreading the influence of a man who was far gone with a consumption, he absolutely refused to give him permission to return to Scotland. Mrs Welch, by means of some of her mother’s relations at court, obtained access to James, and petitioned him to grant this liberty to her husband. The following singular conversation took place on that occasion. His majesty asked her, who was her father. She replied, “John Knox.”—“Knox and Welch!” exclaimed he, “the devil never made such a match as that.”—“It’s right like, sir,” said she, “for we never speired[341] his advice.” He asked her how many children her father had left, and if they were lads or lasses. She said three, and they were all lasses. “God be thanked!” cried the king, lifting up both his hands; “for an they had been three lads, I had never bruiked[342] my three kingdoms in peace.” She again urged her request, that he would give her husband his native air. “Give him his native air!” replied the king, “give him the devil!”—“Give that to your hungry courtiers,” said she, offended at his profaneness. He told her at last, that if she would persuade her husband to submit to the bishops, he would allow him to return to Scotland. Mrs Welch, lifting up her apron, and holding it towards the king, replied, in the true spirit of her father, “Please your majesty, I’d rather kep[343] his head there.”[344]

Welch was soon after released from the power of the despot, and from his own sufferings. “This month of May, 1622,” says one of his intimate friends, “we received intelligence of the death of that holy servant of God, Mr Welch, one of the fathers and pillars of that church, and the light of his age, who died at London, an exile from his native country, on account of his opposition to the re‑establishment of episcopal government, and his firm support of the presbyterian and synodical discipline, received and established among us; and that after eighteen years’ banishment—a man full of the Holy Spirit zeal, charity, and incredible diligence in the duties of his office.” The death of his wife is recorded by the same pen. “This month of January, 1625, died at Ayr, my cousin, Mrs Welch, daughter of that great servant of God, the late John Knox, and wife of that holy man of God, Mr Welch, above‑mentioned; a spouse and daughter worthy of such a husband, and such a father.”[345]

The account of our Reformer’s publications has been partly anticipated in the course of the preceding narrative. Though his writings were of great utility, it was not by them, but by his personal exertions, that he chiefly advanced the Reformation, and transmitted his name to posterity. He did not view this as the field in which he was called to labour. “That I did not in writing communicate my judgment upon the scriptures,” says he, “I have ever thought myself to have most just reason. For, considering myself rather called of my God to instruct the ignorant, comfort the sorrowful, confirm the weak, and rebuke the proud, by tongue and lively voice, in these most corrupt days, than to compose books for the age to come, (seeing that so much is written, and by men of most singular erudition, and yet so little well observed,) I decreed to contain myself within the bounds of that vocation whereunto I found myself especially called.”[346] This resolution was most judiciously formed. His situation was very different from that of the first protestant reformers. They found the whole world in ignorance of the doctrines of Christianity. Men were either destitute of books, or such as they possessed were calculated only to mislead. The oral instructions of a few individuals could extend but a small way; it was principally by means of their writings, which circulated with amazing rapidity, that they benefited mankind, and became not merely the instructors of the particular cities and countries where they resided and preached, but the reformers of Europe. By the time that Knox appeared on the field, their translations of scripture, their judicious commentaries on its different books, and their able defences of its doctrines, were laid open to the English reader.[347] What was more immediately required of him was to use the peculiar talent in which he excelled, and, “by tongue and lively voice,” to imprint the doctrines of the Bible upon the hearts of his countrymen. When he was deprived of an opportunity of doing this during his exile, there could not be a more proper substitute than that which he adopted, by publishing familiar epistles, exhortations, and admonitions, in which he briefly reminded them of the truths which they had embraced, and warned them to flee from the abominations of popery. These could be circulated and read with far more ease, and to a far greater extent, than large treatises.

Of the many sermons preached by him during his ministry, he published but one, which was extorted from him by peculiar circumstances. It affords a very favourable specimen of his talents; and shows, that if he had applied himself to writing, he was qualified for excelling in that department. He had a ready command of language, and expressed himself with great perspicuity, animation, and force. Though he despised the tinsel of rhetoric, he was acquainted with the principles of that art, and when he had leisure and inclination to polish his style, wrote with propriety, and even with elegance. Those who have read his Letter to the Queen Regent, his Answer to Tyrie, or his papers in the account of the dispute with Kennedy, will be satisfied of this. During his residence in England, he acquired the habit of writing the language according to the manner of that country; and in all his publications which appeared during his lifetime, the English and not the Scottish orthography and mode of expression are used.[348] In this respect, there is a very evident difference between them and the vernacular writings of Buchanan.

His practical treatises are among the least known, but most valuable, of his writings. In depth of religious feeling, and in power of utterance, they are superior to any works of the same kind which appeared in that age. The thoughts are often original, and always expressed in a style of originality, possessing great dignity and strength, without affectation or extravagance.[349]

The freedoms which have been used in the republication of such of his works as are best known, have contributed to injure his literary reputation. They were translated into the language commonly used in the middle of the seventeenth century, by which they were deprived of the antique costume which they formerly wore, and contracted an air of vulgarity which did not originally belong to them. Besides this, they have been reprinted with innumerable omissions, interpolations, and alterations, which frequently affect the sense, and always enfeeble the language. The two works which have been most read, are the least accurate and polished, in point of style, of all his writings. His tract against female government was hastily published by him, under great irritation of mind at the increasing cruelty of Mary, queen of England. His History of the Reformation was undertaken during the confusions of the civil war, and was afterwards continued by him at intervals snatched from numerous avocations. The collection of historical materials is a work of labour and time; the digesting and arranging of them into a regular narrative require much leisure and undivided attention. The want of these sufficiently accounts for the confusion that is often observable in that work. But notwithstanding this, and particular mistakes from which no work of the kind can be free, it still continues to be the principal source of information as to ecclesiastical proceedings in that period; and although great keenness has been shown in attacking its authenticity and accuracy, it has been confirmed, in all the leading facts, by an examination of those ancient documents which the industry of later times has brought to light.[350]

His defence of Predestination, the only theological treatise of any extent which was published by him, is rare, and has been seen by few. It is written with perspicuity, and discovers his controversial acuteness, with becoming caution, in handling that delicate question. A catalogue of his publications, as complete as I have been able to draw up, will be found in the notes.[351]

I have thus attempted to give an account of our national Reformer, of the principal events of his life, his sentiments, writings, and exertions in the cause of religion and liberty. If what I have done shall contribute to set his character in a more just light than that in which it has been generally represented, and to correct the erroneous views of it which have long been prevalent; or if it shall tend to elucidate the ecclesiastical history of the eventful period in which he lived, and be the means of illustrating the superintendence of a wise and merciful Providence, in the accomplishment of a revolution of all others the most interesting and beneficial to this country, I shall not think any labour which I have bestowed on the subject to have been thrown away, or unrewarded.

NOTES

TO

VOLUME SECOND.

Note A.

I SHALL, in this note, add some particulars respecting the early practice of the reformed church of Scotland, under the following heads:

Of Doctors.—The doctrine of the church of Scotland, and indeed of other reformed churches, on this head, has not been very uniform and decided. The first Book of Discipline does not mention doctors, but it seems to take for granted what has been stated respecting them in the Book of Common Order, where they are declared to be “a fourth kind of ministers left to the church of Christ,” although the English church at Geneva could not attain them. Knox’s Liturgy, p. 14. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 409, 410. In the second Book of Discipline, the office of doctor is expressly mentioned as “ane of the twa ordinar and perpetual functions that travel in the world,” and “different from the pastor, not only in name, but in diversity of gifts.” The doctor is to “assist the pastor in the government of the kirk, and concur with the elders his brethren in all assemblies,” but not “to minister the sacraments or celebrate marriage.” Dunlop, ii. 773, 774. The Book of Common Order and second Book of Discipline agree in comprehending, under the name and office of a doctor, “the order in schooles, colledges, and universities.” Ibid. The fact seems to be, that there never were any doctors in the church of Scotland, except the teachers of divinity in the universities. “Quamvis ecclesia nostra,” says Calderwood, “post primam reformationem, quatuor agnoscat ministrorum genera, pastorum, doctorum, presbyterorum, et diaconorum, tamen doctores alios nondum habuit quam scholarchas.” De Regimine Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ Brevis Relatio, p. 1, 2. Anno, 1618. Some writers have asserted, that it was as doctors that Buchanan and Andrew Melville sat, and sometimes presided, in the church courts. The episcopalians having objected, that the church of Scotland admitted persons to act as moderators in her assemblies who were in no ecclesiastical office, and having appealed to the instances of the two persons above mentioned, Mr Baillie gives this answer: “Mr Melvil was a doctor of divinity, and so long as episcopal persecution permitted, did sit with great renowne in the prime chair we had of that faculty: George Buchanan had sometimes, as I have heard, been a preacher at St Andrews: after his long travells he was employed by our church and state to be a teacher to king James and his family: of his faithfulnesse in this charge he left, I believe, to the world good and satisfactory tokens: the eminency of this person was so great, that no society of men need be ashamed to have been moderated by his wisdome.” Historical Vindication, p. 21, 22. The report which Mr Baillie had heard of Buchanan having been a preacher, probably originated from the divinity lectures which Calderwood informs us he read with great applause in the university of St Andrews. “Buchanan and Mr Melvill were doctors of divinity,” says Rutherford, in his Lex Rex, pref. p. 5. Lond. 1644.

Of Readers.—Those employed as readers appear to have often transgressed the bounds prescribed to them, and to have both solemnized marriage, and administered the sacraments. Different acts of Assembly were made to restrain these excesses. The General Assembly, in October 1576, prohibited all readers from ministering “the holie sacrament of the Lord, except such as hes the word of exhortation.” The Assembly which met in July 1579 inhibited them from celebrating marriage, unless they were found meet by “the commission, or synodal assembly.” At length, in April 1581, the order was suppressed. “Anent readers: Forsamekle as in assemblies preceding, the office thereof was concludit to be no ordinar office in the kirk of God, and the admission of them suspendit to the present assemblie, the kirk in ane voyce hes votit and concludit farder, that in na tymes coming any reider be admitted to the office of reider, be any having power within the kirk.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, in loc.

Of Superintendents.—The church of Scotland did not consider superintendents as ordinary or permanent office‑bearers in the church. They are not mentioned in the Book of Common Order. The first Book of Discipline explicitly declares, that their appointment was a matter of temporary expedience, for the plantation of the church, and on account of the paucity of ministers. Its words are, “Because we have appointed a larger stipend to them that shall be superintendents than to the rest of the ministers, we have thought good to signifie to your honours such reasons as moved us to make difference betwixt teachers at this time.” And again: “We consider that if the ministers whom God hath endowed with his singular graces amongst us should be appointed to several places, there to make their continual residence, that then the greatest part of the realme should be destitute of all doctrine; which should not onely be the occasion of great murmur, but also be dangerous to the salvation of many. And therefore we have thought it a thing most expedient at this time, that from the whole number of godly and learned men, now presently in this realm, be selected ten or twelve, (for in so many provinces we have divided the whole,) to whom charge and commandment should be given, to plant and erect kirkes, to set, order, and appoint ministers, as the former order prescribes, to the countries that shall be appointed to their care where none are now.” First and second Books of Discipline, p. 35, printed anno 1621. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 538, 539. Archbishop Spotswood has not acted faithfully, if his History has been printed, in this place, exactly according to his manuscript. He has omitted the passages above quoted, and has comprehended the whole of the two paragraphs from which they are extracted in a short sentence of his own, which is far from being a full expression of the meaning of the compilers. History, p. 158. Lond. 1677. This is the more inexcusable as he says, that for “the clearing of many questions which were afterwards agitated in the church,” he “thought meet word by word to insert the same [the First Book of Discipline] that the reader may see what were the grounds laid down at first for the government of the church.” Ibid. p. 152. He could not be ignorant that the grounds of the appointment of superintendents formed one of the principal questions agitated between him and his anti‑episcopal opponents. I have examined the copy of the First Book of Discipline, inserted in an old MS. copy of Knox’s Historie, and find that it exactly agrees with the quotations which I have made from the editions published in 1621, and by Dunlop. Dr Robertson has been misled by the archbishop. “On the first introduction of his system,” says he, “Knox did not deem it expedient to depart altogether from the ancient form. Instead of bishops, he proposed to establish ten or twelve superintendents in different parts of the kingdom.” As his authority for this statement, he refers solely to the mutilated account in Spotswood. Hist. of Scotland, ii. 42, 43. Lond. 1809. Mr Laing, from an examination of the original documents, has given a more accurate account, and pronounced the appointment of superintendents to have been a “temporary expedient.” History of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 17, 18. Lond. 1804.

The superintendents were elected and admitted in the same manner as other pastors. Knox, 263. They were equally subject to rebuke, suspension, and deposition, as the rest of the ministers of the church. In the examination of those whom they admitted to the ministry, they were bound to associate with them the ministers of the neighbouring parishes. They could not exercise any spiritual jurisdiction without the consent of the provincial synods, over which they had no negative voice. They were accountable to the General Assembly for the whole of their conduct. The laborious task imposed upon them is what few bishops have ever submitted to. “They must be preachers themselves;” they are charged to “remain in no place above twenty daies in their visitation, till they are passed through their whole bounds.” They “must thrice everie week preach at the least.” When they return to their principal town of residence, “they must likewise be exercised in preaching;” and having remained in it “three or foure monthes at most, they shall be compelled (unless by sicknesse they be retained) to re‑enter in visitation.” Dunlop, ii. 542. De Regimine Eccles. Scotican. Brevis Relatio, p. 5, 6. Epistolæ Philadelphi Vindiciæ contra calumnias Spotswodi: Altare Damascenum, p. 724–727. Lugd. Batav. 1708. In the last mentioned tract (of which Calderwood was the author) the difference between the Scottish superintendents and Anglican bishops is drawn out under thirteen heads. Spotswood’s treatise is entitled, Refutatio Libelli de Regimine Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ. Lond. 1620.

The visitors or commissioners of provinces exercised the same power as the superintendents; the only difference between them was, that the former received their commission from one assembly to another. Altare Damascenum, p. 727. But these commissions appear sometimes to have been granted for a longer period; for one of Robert Pont’s titles was Commissioner of Murray. Perhaps, in this case, a commissioner differed from a superintendent, merely in not being obliged to have his stated residence within the bounds of the province committed to his inspection.

Of the weekly Exercise or Prophesying.—This was an exercise on the scriptures, intended for the improvement of ministers, the trial of the gifts of those who might afterwards be employed in the service of the church, and the general instruction of the people. It was to be held in every town “where schools and repaire of learned men are.” For conducting the exercise, there was an association of the ministers, and other learned men, in the town and vicinity, called “the company of interpreters.” They alternately expounded a passage of scripture; and others who were present were encouraged to deliver their sentiments. After the exercise was finished, the constituent members of the association retired, and delivered their judgment on the discourses which had been delivered. Books of Discipline, ut supra, p. 60–62. Dunlop, ii. 587–591. After the erection of regular presbyteries, this exercise formed an important part of their employment; and at every meeting, two of the members by turns were accustomed to expound the scriptures. De Regimine Eccl. Scot. Brevis Relatio, p. 3. Until lately traces of this ancient practice remained, and there is reason to regret that it has generally gone into desuetude among presbyterian bodies. Associations of the same kind were formed in England. From 1571 to 1576, they spread through that kingdom, and were patronized by the bishops of London, Winton, Bath and Wells, Litchfield, Gloucester, Lincoln, Chichester, Exon, St David’s, by Sandys, archbishop of York, and by Grindal, archbishop of Canterbury. Several of the courtiers, as Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir Francis Knollys, and Sir Thomas Smith, greatly approved of them; and, at a future period, they were recommended to king James by lord Bacon. But they were suppressed by an imperious mandate from Elizabeth. Some interesting particulars respecting their number, regulations, and suppression, may be seen in Strype’s Annals, ii. 90–95, 219, 220, 318–324, 486. Life of Grindal, p. 219–227, 230, 299, 300. Life of Parker, 460–462. They were formed on the model of the Scottish Exercises, and in their regulations, the very words of the First Book of Discipline are sometimes used. A species of ecclesiastical discipline was joined with them in some dioceses. I also observe a striking resemblance between the directions given by bishop Scambler for the celebration of the Lord’s supper, and the mode which was then used in Scotland, particularly as to the circumstances of two communions or ministrations on the same day, and the early hour of the service. Strype’s Annals, ii. 91, compared with Scott’s History of the Scottish Reformers, p. 192.

Keith has given a quotation from the MS. copy of Spotswood’s History, in which the archbishop signifies, that at the time of the compilation of the First Book of Discipline, several of the reformed ministers wished to retain the ancient polity, after removing the grosser corruptions and abuses, but that Knox overruled this motion. Keith, 492. But there is no trace, in the authentic documents of that period, of any diversity of opinion among the Scottish reformers on this head. The supposition is contradicted by Row, (see above, p. 4, 5,) and by their own language. Dunlop, iii. 518. Knox’s Historie, 282. It is probable that the archbishop’s story had its original at a later period, when the design of conforming the church of Scotland to the English model began to be entertained. I am not inclined to give much more credit to another tale of Spotswood, respecting a message which archbishop Hamilton is said to have sent to Knox by John Brand. History, 174. Keith, 495.

Note B.

Sentiments of the Reformed Ministers respecting Tithes, and the Property of the Church.—These are laid down in the First Book of Discipline, chap. v. and viii. Dunlop, ii. 533–538, 562–568. Considerable light is also thrown upon them by the private writings of that period. The reformed ministers did not regard tithes as of divine right, nor think that it was sacrilegious in every case to apply to secular purposes those funds which had been originally set apart to a religious use. But they held that, by the Christian as well as the Jewish law, a competent subsistence was appointed to be made for the ministers of religion; that it is incumbent on a nation which has received the true religion to make public provision for the outward maintenance of its ordinances; that the appropriation of the tenth part of property for this purpose is at least recommended by primeval usage, by the sanction of divine wisdom in the Jewish constitution, and by the laws and practice of Christian empires and kingdoms; that property which had been set apart and given for religious ends could not justly, or without sacrilege, be alienated, as long as it was needed for these purposes; and that though many of the donors might have had the support of superstitious observances immediately in their eye, still it was with a view to religion that they made such gifts. In as far as it should appear that the ecclesiastical revenues were superabundant and unnecessary, they were willing that the surplus should be applied to the common service of the state. To illustrate their sentiments on this subject, and the manner in which they complained of the alienation of church‑property, I shall add a few extracts from some of their writings which are not commonly consulted.

My first extracts shall be from Ferguson’s sermon, to which our Reformer set his hand a little before his death. Having given an account of the law of Moses, the ordinance of the New Testament, and the practice of the primitive church, he adds, “Ye se, then, that the ministers of the primitive kirk (that levit befoir princes wer Christianes and nurishers of the kirk, as it was propheseit) wer na beggaris, suppois they wer no lordis that aboundit in superfluous welth, as the papis bischoppis did; bot had sufficient asweill for the necessitie of thair owin families, as for the help of uther Christianes that now and then, as occasiounes servit, repairit to thair housis.—Quhen the tyme come foirspokin bi David (Psal. lxviii. and cii.) that kingis and empereouris, and thair kingdomes, suld serve the Lord, and bring giftes unto him,” they, “following his example that only is wyse, ordainit be thair authoritie, that the tiendis sulde serve to the same use in the tyme of the gospell.”—“Our youth aucht also to be nurischit and maintenit at the schuillis, and thairoutof efterward micht spring preicheris, counsellouris, physiciounis, and all other kinds of learnit men that we have neid of. For the scheulis are the seid of the kirk and common welth, and our childrene are the hope of the posteritie, quhilk being neglectit, thair can nathing be luikit for bot that barbarous ignorance sall overflow all. For suppois God has wonderfullie, at this time, steirit up priecheris amang us, even quhen darkness and ignorance had the upperhand, he will not do sa heirefter, seeing we have the ordinarie meane to provide them, quhilk gif we contempne, in vane sall we loke for extraordinary proviscioun. Israel was miraculusslie fed in the wildernes with manna, bot how soon thay did eit of the corne of the land of Canaan, the manna ceissit, nouther had they it ony moir, bot levit efterward on the frute of the ground, ordinarilie labourit with thair handis. I speik to prudent men that may understand and judge quhat I say.” After deploring the decayed state of the churches and schools, and the poverty of the ministers, he adds, “I am compellit to speik this, thocht I be als plane as pleasant, and appear to yow as the greatest fule of the rest to stand up heir to utter that quhilk other men thinkis. Weill; let me be countit a fule for speiking the treuth. I regard not; nouther may I spair to speik it, thocht I suld be judgeit in our awin cause to be carryit away with a particular affectioun; following heirin the exampil of our prophet Malachie.”—“Ye marvel, I doubt not, quhy ye have not prevailit aganis yone throtcutteris and unnaturall murtherers within the towne and castell of Edinburgh, specially ye heving a maist just actioun, being ma in number, and mair vailyeant men, and nathing inferiour to thame in wisdome, circumspectioun, or ony gud qualiteis, outher of body or mynd. Bot ceis to marvel; for the caus quhy that ye have not prevailit aganis thame long or now, amang mony uther your sinnis quhairwith ye are defylt, is this, that the spuilyie of the pure is in your housis; ye invaid that quhilk our forbearis gave of gude zeill to Goddis honour, and the commoun welth of the kirk; ye spuilye to your awn private usis, without outher ryme or resoun, nouther will ye be controllit. This, this, I say, is the chief caus that nathing prosperis in your handis. I grant that our fatheris, of immoderate zeill, (besyde the teindis and necessarie rentis of the kirk,) gave thairunto superfluously, and mair nor aneuch. Quhat then is to be done? but that the preicheris of God’s word be reasonablie sustenit, seing thair is eneuch and over mekel to do it, the schullis and the pure be weill provydit, as thay aucht, and the tempellis honestly and reverently repairit, that the pepill, without injurie of wynd or wedder, may sit and heir Goddis word, and participat of his haly sacramentis. And gif thair restis ony thing unspendit quhen this is done (as na dout thair wil), in the name of God, let it be bestowit on the nixt necessarie affairis of the commoun welth, and not to any mannis private commoditie.” Ane Sermon preachit befoir the regent and nobilitie—be David Fergussone. B iv. v. C. Lepreuik, 1572.

The following extracts are taken from Sermons against Sacrilege by Robert Pont. “From the yeare of our Lorde 1560, unto this present time, the greatest study of all men of power of this land, hes bene, by all kinde of inventions, to spoyle the kirk of Christ of her patrimonie, by chopping and changing, diminishing of rentals, converting of victual in small sumes of money: setting of fewes within the availe, long tackes uppon tackes, with two or three liferentes, with many twentie yeares in an tack, annexationes, erectiones of kirk‑rents in temporall livings and heritage, pensiones, simple donationes, erecting of new patronages, union of teindes, making of new abattes, commendataries, priors, with other papistical titles, which ought to have no place in a reformed kirk and countrie; with an infinite of other corrupt and fraudfull waies, to the detriment and hurte of the kirke, the schooles, and the poore, without any stay or gaine‑calling.

“Treuth it is, parliaments have been conveened, and acts have bene made, for providing ministers of competent livinges; for reparaling of parish kirkes, for trayning up the youth in schooles of theologie. It hath bene also promised, and subscribed in writte, by a great parte of the nobilitie, that the poore labourers of the grounde, should have an ease and reliefe of the rigorous exacting of their teindes: and many other good thinges have been devised, tending to the advancement of the glorie of God, and establishing of Christ his kingdome. Amongst us, namely, in time of the governemente of that good regente (whome for honoures cause I name) who, although he could not doe all that hee would have done, (having so manie hinderances and enemies,) yet his dooings might have been a perfite patterne of godlinesse to the reste of the nobilitie, to make thame bene content to live uppon their owne rentes, and to cease from robbing and spoyling the patrimonie of the kirke.” Having proposed the objection, that the Levitical law of Moses is abrogated, and that therefore his authorities from the Old Testament had no force under the gospel, he adds: “I aunswere concerning these lands or annual rentes, out of landes delated and given to the kirke, that although the Leviticall lawe, with the ceremonies thereof, concerning the outwarde observation, hath taken an ende, and is fulfilled in Christ; yet the substance of the policie, concerning interteinment of the service of God, and uphold of religion, still remaines. And it is no lesse necessarie, that the ministerie of God amongst us be mainteined; and that sufficient provision be made to serve other godlie uses, whereunto the kirke‑rentes ought to be applyed, nor it was that the priestes and levites shoulde bene upholden in the time of the olde law. And as to the holinesse or unholines of these landes and revenues: albeit in their owne nature (as I said in the former sermon) they be like other earthly possessiones; yet, in so far as they were applyed to an holy use, they may wel be called holy possessions and rents, as the kirk is holy, to whose use they are appointed.—I will not deny but the teindes might be possibly changed, in other meanes of sufficient provision for the kirke, if such godly zeale were now amongst men, as was of olde time. But in so farre as we see the plane contrarie, that men are now readier to take away, than ever our predecessors were to give; it were a foolish thing to loose the certaine for the uncertaine, and that which is never likely to come to passe.” Pont’s Sermons against Sacrilege. B, 8. C, 2. C, 8. E, 6. Waldegrave, 1599.

It appears from the following extract, that Pont undertook this work at the desire of the General Assembly.—“July 3, 1591. Mr Robert Pont is ordained to writ against sacrilege, and show his travells to the next assembly.” Matthew Crawfurd’s MS. History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 161.

Note C.

Of John Row, and the introduction of Hebrew Literature into Scotland.—The following notices of Row’s employment at Rome are furnished by a very curious and valuable manuscript in the possession of Thomas Thomson, Esquire. Besides papal bulls relating to bishoprics and benefices in Scotland about the middle of the sixteenth century, it contains a number of important documents as to the correspondence between the Scottish primate and the Roman court, together with accounts of receipts and disbursements by the agent at Rome for the earl of Arran, governor of Scotland, John Hamilton, archbishop of St Andrews, and Gavin and Claud Hamilton. John Row was employed as their procurator. In “Ane Recollectioun of my lord of Sanct Andros missives to my lord of Kilwinning,” (MS. p. 324,) is the following article:—

“And is content M. Johne Row was put in charge of his l[ordship’s] affairs in Rome, xi Martii, 1554.”

In “Ane memoir of all things left wt M. Johne Row be Gavin, commendator of Kilwinning, at his departing of Rome, 20 mēssis Martii, 1555,” (MS. p. 240,) is the following:—

“Item, apointed wt M. Johne Row for the provestrie of Kirkfield, and caus M. Alexr Forres send his mandat to ratify the xxli pension reservit to the said M. Jhone.”

In a variety of letters to the pope, “concerning my lord duckis bairnis, my lord archbishope of Sanctandros, bischope Argile, my lord Kilwinning self, and uttheris thair frends,” to cardinal Sermonet, “regni Scotiæ promotori,” and to other members of the sacred college, from John, archbishop of St Andrews, Gavin, coadjutor to the archbishop, James earl of Arran, and Mary dowager queen and regent of the kingdom; written during the years 1555 and 1556, and inserted in the same manuscript, John Row is recognised and recommended as “procurator for the see of St Andrews.” At the close of the book is a table of ciphers, with an explanation, to which this title is prefixed, “Ciphre send be my l. of Sanct andros of Edr xiij May, 1555, to M. Johne Row in Rome.”

One great object of the negotiation with Rome, in which Row was employed, was the obtaining of a confirmation and extension of the powers formerly granted to the archbishop of St Andrews as primate and legatus natus of Scotland, from which Gavin Dunbar, late archbishop of Glasgow, had procured an exemption. In support of his claim, the primate urges, that “there had always been a great number of heretics in the diocese of Glasgow;” that its proximity to England “gave easy ingress and egress to persons of bad manners and opinions;” that various scandals and enormities, such as “the burning of the images of God and the saints, the contempt of prelates, the beating of priests and monks, and the eating of forbidden meats,” were committed within its bounds, and that the archbishop could not suppress these evils in his diocese, and at the same time hindered the primate from exerting his power for this purpose. The following passage, in one of the informations presented to the court of Rome, throws light on the fate of two individuals whom we have already (vol. i. p. 162, 373) had occasion to mention. “Insuper cum magna pars dioc̄ Glasguen̄ nuper fuerat heresibus infecta, et tam durante vita dicti quondam Gavini vltimi archiepiscopi Glasguen̄ quam sede vacante, maxima scandala contra Catholicam fidem perpetrabantur. nec in potestate sedis Glasguen̄ et suorum suffraganeorum erat eorum potentie resistere. Sed D. Archiepiscopus Sancti andree modernus metropolitano ac jure prouinciali eandem diocesin visitavit, et repurgavit malis hominibus heresiarchis. In cuius testimonium ipse sua propria persona expugnavit locum de Ochiltre, et inde inuito domino ejusdem detrusit ad carceres et vincula quendam apostatam nomine Macbraire heresiarcham, et eiusdem fautores gravibus penis mulctauit. Et similiter alterum Vallasium nuncupatum in sua heresi perseuerantem in eadem diocesi Glasguen̄ natum hereticas opiniones profitentem publica omnium regni ordinum prelatorum conuentione de heresi conuictum et condemnatum curie traditit seculari ad comburendum. Et ita curavit heresis pestem puniri quod sedes Glasguen̄ minime potuit facere. que res cum sic notissima probationi vlteriori non multum indigens que si esset necessaria omnibus Scotis Rome satis innotescit.” [MS. fol. 179, comp. fo. 185–187.]

Row left Rome on the 20th of May, and arrived in Scotland on the 29th of September, 1558. The following is the account of his conversion from popery given by his son. Being in Cleish, the house of the gentleman who had detected the imposture at Musselburgh, (see vol. i. p. 322,) the young man who was said to have been cured of blindness, was brought into his presence, where he “played his pavie,” by “flyping up the lid of his eyes, and casting up the white.” While Row was confounded at this discovery, the gentleman addressed him very seriously: “Weill, Mr John Row, ye are a great clergyman, and a great linguist and lawyer, but I charge you, as you must answer to the great God at the last day, that ye do not now hold out any light that God offers you, but that ye will, as soon as ye come to your study, close the door upon you, and take your Bible, and seriously pray to God that ye may understand the scriptures.—Read the 2d ch. of the 2d epistle to the Thessalonians; and if ye do not see your master, the pope, to be the great antichrist who comes with lying wonders to deceive the people of God, (as now he and his deceiving rabble of clergy in Scotland have done lately at Musselburgh,) ye shall say Squire Meldrum has no skill.” Row, Historie of the Kirk, p. 356; copy of the MS. transcribed in 1726. After conference with several of the reformed ministers, and particularly Knox, he made formal abjuration of popery. “Ipse Nuncius,” says his grandson, “nassa evangelii irretitus, ejus pura, pia, pathetica prædicatione inescatus, pontificiis syrtibus, famigerati Knoxi opera, extractus est.” Hebreæ linguæ Institutiones, a M. Joa. Row, epist. dedic. A 3, b. Glasguæ, 1644. In the beginning of the year 1560 he was admitted minister of Kinneuchar in Fife, where he married Margaret Beatoun, a daughter of the laird of Balfour. Row’s Historie, ut supra. Before the end of that year he was translated to Perth. Knox, 236. Keith, 498. His son informs us that he was born at Row, a place situated between Stirling and Dumblane, and which belonged to the family. That he was an author appears from the testament of Thomas Bassinden, printer in Edinburgh, who died on the 18th of October, 1577, and the inventory of whose goods contains the following lines:—“Item, ane M. Johne Rowis signes of the sacramentis, price xijd.”

During his residence in Italy, Row had acquired the knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages. The latter was at that time almost entirely unknown in Scotland, and he immediately began, at the recommendation of his brethren, to teach it. The grammar‑school of Perth was then the most celebrated in the kingdom, and noblemen and gentlemen were accustomed to send their children thither for their education. Many of these were boarded with Row, who instructed them in Greek and Hebrew. As nothing but Latin was spoken by the boys in the school and in the fields, so nothing was spoken in Row’s house but French. The passages of scripture read in the family before and after meals, if in the Old Testament, were read in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, and English; if in the New Testament, they were read in Greek, &c. His son John, when he was between four and five years old, was taught the Hebrew characters, before he knew the English letters; and at eight years of age he read the Hebrew chapter in the family. When he went to the newly‑erected university of Edinburgh, his uncommon acquaintance with the Hebrew language attracted the particular notice of the learned and amiable principal Rollock. Row’s Historie, 372–375. Hebreæ Ling. Institut. ut supra. Row gave instructions to the master of the grammar‑school in the Greek tongue, by which means it came to be afterwards taught in Perth. And in 1637 his grandson John Row became rector of that school, in which he taught Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. This produced the following encomiastic verses by John Adamson, principal of the college of Edinburgh.

Perthana quondam Latialis linguæ schola

Laude cluebat, fueratque unius labri;

Nunc est trilinguis, Latio jungens Græciam,

Et huic Palæstinam; omnium linguis loquens.

O ter beatam te nunc Perthanam scholam!

O ter beatum Rollum rectorem tuum!

Per quem juventus, barbariæ procul habitu,

Rudis et tenella primulis labellulis

Solymas, Athenas, et Romam scite sonat.

About the year 1567, James Lawson (afterwards Knox’s successor at Edinburgh) returned from the continent, where he had studied Hebrew. The professors of St Andrews prevailed on him to give lessons in that language in their university. Life of Lawson, p. 2, in Wodrow’s MS. Collections, vol. i. Bibl. Coll. Glas. As he was made sub‑principal in the university of Aberdeen, in 1569, it is to be presumed that he would also teach that language there. Lawson, after his settlement in Edinburgh, patronised the interests of literature in this city. It was chiefly by his exertions that the buildings for the high‑school were completed in 1578. His intentions were to have it erected into an university, or at least to make it schola illustris, with classes of logic and philosophy. The books destined for the library were kept in his house, previous to the foundation of the college. Crawfurd’s History of the University of Edinburgh, p. 19, 20. It is unnecessary to say any thing here of the influence which Andrew Melville exerted on the promotion of Oriental literature in this country. Thomas Smeton, who succeeded Melville as principal of the university of Glasgow, was a Hebrew scholar, as appears from his answer to Hamilton’s dialogue. Those who held the situation of principal in the universities at that time were accustomed to teach such branches of learning as were most neglected.

Note D.

Of George Buchanan.—As every thing relating to this scholar must be interesting to the learned, I shall add a few notices of him which have been hitherto overlooked.

The following entries in the treasurer’s accounts refer to the period during which he was tutor to James Stewart, abbot of Melrose and Kelso, an illegitimate son of James V.

“Anno 1536. Item, the xvi day of februar, be the kingis gracis precept and speciale cōmand, to Maister George Balquhanan and Andro Mylin, seruandis to lord James, to be thame twa gownis, xi elnis pareis blak, price of the elne xxxijs. Sum̅a, xvijli xijs, &c. &c.

“Augt 1537. Item, to Maistr George Buchquhanan, at the king’s command, xxli.

[July 1537.] “Item, for vi elnis paris blak to be Maister George Balquhanan ane gown, price of the elne xxxvis. Sum̅a, xli xvis.” [Compot. Thesaur.]

From the manuscript belonging to Thomas Thomson, Esq. quoted in the preceding note, it appears that an absolution was procured at Rome, for George Buchanan, by the regent Arran and the archbishop of St Andrews; and that his brother Patrick was appointed tutor to the regent’s children at Paris. In an accompt entitled “The archden of Sanctandros memole of expenses in Rome,” (MS. p. 141,) is the following article:—

[1553.] “Item, for M. George Balquhan̄anes absolution, crowns 9.”

In the papers of Gawen, commendator of Kilwinning, (MS. p. 204, 206, 235, 325,) are the following articles:—

“Item, given to M. Patric Balquhannan to ane gud compt, 24 July, 1554, vc franks.

“And I haif left with M. Patric Balquhannan in ane steil box vc crownis, 1 Rois nobilis, and xiiij Hary nobilis. Parisiis, 28 July, 1554.

“Memoir of the geir left with Maister Patrik Bawquhenan the xxvii day of July, anno liiijo, at my departyng to Chattelleraut, &c.

“And to tak sikernes at M. Patric Balquhanan suld serve my lordis bairnis, and quitclame his pension quhen he war benefitit 26. 1554.”

The following extracts from the treasurer’s accounts refer to the year 1568, when Buchanan accompanied the regent Murray to England, to justify the charges against Mary queen of Scots.

“Item, the said day [27 May] to ane boy passand of Stirriling, w{t} clois writtings of my lord regent g. to the lard of Buchquhannane and Maister George Buchquhannane, being baith in Sanctandr. iiij.

“June 26th. Item, the said day to ane boy passand of Edinburgh to Sanctandrois wt ane clois writting of my lord regent g. to maister George Buchquhannane, vs.

“Item, the said xxvij day of August, be my lord regentis grace speciale command, to Maister George Buchquhannane, v elns ij quarteris of fyne blak veluote, ye eln vijli. Sum̅a, xxxviijli xs.

“Item, to him ane sleik of chamlot of silk, xxijli.

“Item, ij elnis ij quarteris of Londoun claith, the eln iiijli xs. Summa, xijli vijs vjd.” [Compot. Thesaur.]

As his imprisonment in Portugal, and his release from confinement, have been imperfectly related, I shall here insert two accounts of them, which have escaped the notice of his biographers. Principal Smeton’s account, which was most probably derived from Buchanan himself, is the following. “Vivit adhuc,” says he in his answer to Hamilton, “te utinam diu vivat, orbis terrarum, non Scotiæ tantum, decus GEORGIUS BUCHANANUS; quem inepte facerem, si a rabidi canis latratu defendere conarer, extra omnem ingenii aleam omnium judicio constitutum. Quod de abjurata ab eo hæresi adscribis, impudentissimum est mendacium, Hamiltoni. Duplici quidem de causa in veræ religionis suspicionem in Lusitania venit; tum quod Seraphici ordinis mysteria in Franciscano suo apertius reuelasset: tum quod in priuato colloquio discipulis quibusdam dixisset, videri sibi Augustinum transubstantiationis figmento non prorsus fauere. In carcerem coniectus causam capitis perorauit. Franciscanum se regis sui iussu scripsisse; nec quicquam in eo esse quod vllum fidei Christianæ dogma conuellat. Versus quosdam memoriter pronuntiare iussus (nam nemo ibi libellum habebat) memoriæ iacturam causatus est. De transubstantione respondit; non alia se quam Augustini verba recitasse, ex cap. 16. lib. 3. de Doctrina Christiana. Quæ sic habent. ‘Si præceptiua locutio est, aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, aut vtilitatem aut beneficentiam iubens, non est figurata: Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere, aut vtilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaueritis, inquit, carnem filij hominis et sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere. Figura est ergo, præcipiens passioni DOMINI esse communicandum, et suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa et vulnerata sit.’ Hæc, inquit, si hæresim sapiunt, prius Augustinum damnate; quod vt feceritis, haud æquum tamen erit, vt ego alienæ culpæ pœnas luam. Ergo cum nec ratione, nec testimonio cuiusquam conuinci posset, iudicum calculis absolutus in Galliam redijt; tanto bonarum litterarum damno, vt ipsemet postea Lusitaniæ Rex amantissimis eum scriptis reuocarit. Sed frustra. Summo enim DEI beneficio ex crudelissimis inquisitorum manibus liberatus, in discrimen se iterum conijcere noluit: cum in Gallia præsertim, omnium quæ sub sole sunt regionum humanitate, optimarum artium studijs et doctorum numero prima, opimæ illi, et admodum honorificæ conditiones deferrentur. Sed BUCHANANUM singularis animi candor, et in omni genere perspecta virtus satis per se defendet.” Smetoni Responsio ad Virulentum Arch. Hamiltonii Dialogum, Edinburgi, 1579. p. 89, 90.

I shall add the account which Archibald Hamilton gives of this affair, in his reply to Smeton, although the judicious reader will be of opinion that no credit is due to such a writer, especially when his testimony is flatly contradicted by that of Smeton, and of Buchanan himself. “Tam illud quidem contra regis Scotorum integritatem, quam hoc contra Hyspanorum nunquam satis laudatam in examinandis hæreticis severitatem, malitiose confictum, et utrumque longe falsissimum est. Nequo enim Jacobus Quintus, in tenenda atque asserenda fide Catholica princeps nulli omnium secundus, tam impuro et procaci pasquillo, auctorem se unquam dedisset: neq; theologorum gravissima censura, tam impiam athei poetæ dicacitatem impune abire permisisset: et ut prioris mendacii falsitas illustrium dominorum Askein et Levingston publico testimonio evicta tunc fuit: quando legatione apud Gallos functi, regis nomine hæreseos convictum Buchananum Hyspanorum legato detulerunt: Ita ducentorum qui non disputationem sed supplicem lachrymantis deprecationem audiverunt, sententiis, alterius illius figmenti vanitas coargui potest. sin illæ non satis fortiter premunt quod longe a nobis absint, et nostrorum hominum, quod rei gestæ non interfuerunt narratio digna fide minus videatur: Publicè tamen urbis commentarii, in quos res gestæ referri solent, auctoritate vacare non debent, qui aperte adhuc testabuntur non Augustini testimonio. cap. 17. libri tertii de doctrina Christiana, sed Psalmographi versum, psalmo vigesimo quarto, subsidio ei tunc fuisse: dum ad Cardinalis pedes provulutus, flebili voce, verba ista proferebat (delicta juventutis meæ et ignorantias ne memineris Domine) eam recantationis formulam, ab eo tunc temporis usurpatum, ad eum sane finem obiter attigi, ut tandem Scotia intelligeret, quam gravem et constantem nunc patriarcham in religione sequitur: dum levis poetæ et abjurati hæretici paradoxa omnia pro certissimis spiritus sancti oraculis habet.” Calvinianæ Confusionis Demonstratio.—per Archibaldum Hammiltonium, p. 252 b. 253 a. Parisiis, 1581.

Note E.

Of David Ferguson, and the cultivation of the Scottish Language.—I have said in the text, that the reformers, while they exerted themselves to revive the knowledge of the learned languages, did not neglect the improvement of their native tongue; and that, among others, David Ferguson, minister of Dunfermline, distinguished himself in this department. It appears, from a document already produced, (vol. I., Note GG,) that he belonged originally to Dundee. Though “not graduated in a college,” he was very far from being illiterate, and was much admired for the quickness of his wit and good taste, as well as for his piety—“elegantis ingenii et magnæ pietatis virum,” says Smeton, Responsio ad Hamilt. Dialog. p. 92. Row’s Coronis to his Historie, p. 314 of copy in Divinity Lib. Edin. The sermon which he preached at Leith before the regent and nobility, and afterwards published, (see above, p. 210,) is a proof of this; and had it not been a sermon, would most probably have been republished before this time, as a specimen of good Scottish composition. Extracts from it may be seen in Note B. John Davidson, then one of the regents at St Andrews, celebrated the success of the author in refining his vernacular language, in the following Latin lines, which are prefixed to the sermon:—

Græcia melifluo quantum det nestoris ori,

Aut Demostheneo debeat eloquio;

Ipsi facundo quantum (mihi crede) parenti

Attribuat linguæ turba togata suæ;

Nos tibi, Fergusi, tantum debere fatemur,

Scotanam linguam qui reparare studes.

Sermonem patriam ditas; inculta vetustas

Horret qua longe barbariemque fugas;

Adde etiam, neque abest facundis gratia dictis,

Respondet verbis materia apta tuis.

Quod satis ostendit nobis tua concio præsens,

Qua nihil in lucem doctius ire potest.

Besides this sermon, Ferguson was the author of a collection of Scottish Proverbs, and of an Answer to the Rejoinder, which the Jesuit Tyrie made to Knox. That abusive writer, James Laing, calls this last work “a barbarous, and Scotican epistle,” and rails against its author as an ignorant sutor and glover, who knew neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin. As for himself, although a Scotsman, Laing tells us, that he thought it beneath him to write in a language which was fit only for barbarians and heretics. “Tres sunt linguæ elegantes et ingenuæ, Hebraica, Græca, et Latina, quæ nobilibus principibus—sunt dignæ: cæteras linguas, cum sint barbaræ, barbaris et hæreticis tanquam propriis relinquo.” De Vita Hæreticorum, Dedic. p. ult. et p. 31. Paris, 1581. Notwithstanding this writer’s boasting of his literature, and the opportunities which he takes to display it, he did not know the top from the bottom of a Hebrew letter, if we may judge from his book, p. 94, b. Laing’s objection to the literature of Ferguson may, however, be thought as solid as that which another popish writer has brought against his morals, by accusing him of using pepper instead of salt to his beef. “At hi quibus carnem accendant irritentque, novas artes quotidie excogitant;” and on the margin, he says, “Exemplo est David Ferguson ad macerandas carnes bubulas pipere pro sale utens.” Hamilton. De Confus. Calvinianæ Sectæ, p. 76. But to do justice to Hamilton, it is proper to mention, that pepper was at that time so high priced as to be a morsel only for a pope or a cardinal, and very unfit for the mouths of barbers, cobblers, &c., of which rank he tells us the reformed preachers generally were. Principal Smeton, after saying that Ferguson had reared a numerous family on a very moderate stipend, adds:—“Undenam ergo illi, amabo te, tantum piperis ad carnes quotannis macerandas quantum sexcentis apud nos aureis nummis nemo unquam compararit?” Smetoni Responsio ad Hamilt. p. 95. The truth is, there was too much salt and pepper in the writings of Ferguson for the papists.

A number of Ferguson’s witty sayings are recorded by his son‑in‑law, John Row. James VI. who resided frequently at Dunfermline, used to take great delight in his conversation. “David,” said James to him one day, “why may not I have bishops in Scotland as well as they have in England?”—“Yea, Sir,” replied Ferguson, “ye may have bishops here; but remember ye must make us all bishops, else will ye never content us. For if ye set up ten or twelve lowns over honest men’s heads, (honest men will not have your antichristian prelacies,) and give them more thousands to debauch and mispend than honest men have hundreds or scores, we wil never al be content. We ar Paul’s bishopis, Sir, Christ’s bishopis; ha’d us as we are.”—“The d—l haid aills you,” replied James, “but that ye would all be alike; ye cannot abide ony to be abone you.”—“Sir!” said the minister, “do not ban.” Row’s Coronis to his Historie of the Kirk, p. 314. Ferguson seems to have amused himself with some of those incidents which were generally reckoned ominous. The king having once asked him, very seriously, what he thought was the reason that the Master of Gray’s house shook during the night, he answered, “Why should not the devil rock his awin bairns?” Having met at St Andrews along with other commissioners of the church, to protest against the inauguration of Patrick Adamson as archbishop of that see, one came in and told them, that there was a crow “crouping” on the roof of the church. “That’s a bad omen,” said he, shaking his head, “for inauguration is from avium garritu, the raven is omnimodo a black bird, and it cries corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.” Row’s Historie, p. 40.

It may not be improper to insert here the inscription on the tomb of John Row, the historian to whom I have so often been indebted, who was third son of the learned minister of Perth, and married Grizzel, daughter to David Ferguson of Dunfermline. It is on his monument in the churchyard of Carnock.

“Hic jacet M. Jo. Row, Pastor hujus Ecclesiæ fidelissimus. Vixit acerrimus veritatis et fœderis Scoticani assertor, Hierarchiæ pseudo‑episcopalis, et Romanorum rituum, cordicitus osor, in frequenti symmystarum apostasia cubi instar constantissimus.—Duxit Gricellidam Fergusonam, cum qua annos 51 conjunctissime vixit. Huic ecclesiæ annos 54 praefuit. Obiit Junij 26to, anno domini 1646. Ætatis 78. Obiit et illa Januarij 30mo, 1659.”

Note F.

Order of Procedure at the first Meetings of the General Assembly.—The first appointment of a moderator was in December 1563. “It was proponit be the haill assemblie yat ane moderator suld be appointit for avoyding confusioun in reasoning.” Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 8. The Assembly which met at Perth, August 1572, ordained, as a perpetual law, that no person of whatever estate take in hand to speak without license asked and given by the moderator, that moderation should be kept in reasoning, and silence when commanded by the moderator, under pain of removal from the assembly, and not to re‑enter during that convention. Ibid. p. 55. In July 1568, to correct evils, “be reason of the pluralitie and confusion of voices,” it was enacted, that none should have power to vote but superintendents, commissioners appointed to visit kirks, ministers “brought with yame, presented as habile to reasone, and having knowledge to judge,” and commissioners of burghs, shires, and universities. The ministers were to be chosen at the synodal convention of the diocese, by consent of the rest of the ministry and gentlemen that shall convene at the said synodal convention; commissioners of burghs by “the counsell and kirk of their awn townes.”—“None to be admitted without sufficient commission or wreit.” And to prevent a monopoly of power, they were to be changed from assembly to assembly. Ibid, p. 38. The assembly, March 15 69 ⁄ 70, settled the following order of procedure. After sermon and prayer by the former moderator, 1. A new moderator to be chosen. 2. Superintendents, commissioners, &c. to be tried. First, the superintendents being removed, enquiry was made of the ministers and commissioners of their bounds if they had any charges to lay against them as to neglect of duty, &c. If any charge was brought, it was examined, and sentence passed. The same order was observed in the trial of the other members of assembly. 3. The case of penitents and persons under censure to be considered. Lastly, The business left undecided by last assembly, or brought before the present, to be taken up. Ibid. p. 47.

Note G.

Epistolary Correspondence between Knox and Calvin.—In a letter, dated 28th August, 1559, Knox requests Calvin’s opinion on the two following questions. 1. Whether bastards, the children of idolaters and excommunicated persons, should be admitted to baptism, before their parents gave satisfaction to the church, or they themselves were able to require it? 2. Whether monks and popish priests, who neither serve the church, nor are capable of serving it, although they have renounced their errors, ought to have the annual rents of the church paid to them? Knox had maintained the negative on the last question. The letter is said to be written raptim. “Plura scribere vetat febris qua crucior, laborum moles qua premor, et Gallorum bombardæ, qui, ut nos opprimant, appulerunt.” (Comp. Historie, p. 161.) Calvin, in a leter dated Nov. 8, 1559, answers, that it was his opinion and that of his colleagues, on the first question, That the sacrament of baptism was not to be administered to those who were without the church, nor to any without proper sponsors; but the promise (upon which the right was founded) was not confined to the posterity in the first degree: and therefore those who were descended from godly parents were to be viewed as belonging to the church, although their parents or even grand‑parents had become apostates, and such children were not to be refused baptism, provided persons appeared as sponsors, engaging for their religious education. “Adde quod alia est nunc renascentis ecclesiæ ratio, quam rite formatæ et compositæ.” (Comp. Dunlop, ii. 573.) On the second question, he says, That although those who performed no service in the church had not a just claim to be supported by its funds, still, as the popish clergy had brought themselves under engagements in times of ignorance, and had consumed a part of their lives in idleness, it seemed harsh to deprive them of all support. He therefore advises a middle course to be adopted. Calvini Epistolæ et Responsa, p. 516–520. Hanoviæ, 1597. Ibid. p. 201, 202, in Oper. tom. ix. Amstælod. 1667.

From another letter of Calvin to Knox, dated April 23, 1561, it appears that the Genevese Reformer had been consulted by our countrymen on some other points of considerable difficulty,—most probably those questions on which the nobility and the ministers differed. He wrote them accordingly, but soon after was applied to a second time for his opinion on the same subject, as his first letter had miscarried. Knowing that his judgment was not altogether agreeable to some of his correspondents, he suspected that they wished to draw from him an answer more favourable to their own sentiments, and expressed his dissatisfaction at such conduct. Knox, who appears to have been employed in the correspondence, was grieved at this suspicion, and vindicated himself from the imputation. Calvin, in this letter, apologises for his severity, and assures him that he never entertained any suspicion of his integrity. “Te vero dolose quicquam egisse, neque dixi, neque suspicatus sum.—Ac mihi dolet, quod exciderat ex ore meo, sic in animum tuum penetrasse, ut putares malæ fidei aut astutiæ, a qua te remotum esse judico, fuisse insimulatam. Facessat igitur metus ille vel cura.” In both letters, Calvin signifies his high satisfaction at the wonderful success of the Reformation in Scotland. The conclusion of the last is expressive of the unaffected piety of the writer, and his warm regard for his correspondent. “Hic versamur inter multa discrimina. Una tantum cælestis præsidii fiducia nos a trepidatione eximit: quanvis non simus metu vacui. Vale, eximie vir, et ex animo colende frater. Dominus tibi semper adsit, te gubernet, tueatur, ac sustentet sua virtute.” Ut supra, p. 564–566, et in alter. edit. p. 150.

These are the only parts of the correspondence between Calvin and our Reformer which have been published; but Mons. Senebier, the librarian of Geneva, has informed us that there are a number of Knox’s letters to Calvin preserved in the public library of that city. Histoire Litteraire de Geneve, tom. i. p. 380.

During his residence at Geneva, Knox became acquainted with Beza, who then acted as professor of Greek in the neighbouring city of Lausanne, from which he was translated to Geneva, upon the erection of the university there, the same year in which our Reformer returned to Scotland. An epistolary correspondence was afterwards maintained between them. Two letters of Beza to Knox, the one dated June 3, 1569, the other April 12, 1572, are inserted in Epistol. Theolog. Bezæ, p. 333–336, 344–346, of the first edition; and p. 304–307, 314–316, of the second edition, Genevæ, 1575. Both of them evince the writer’s ardent regard for our Reformer, and his high opinion of our reformation. The first letter is inscribed, “To John Knox, the Restorer of the Gospel of God in Scotland,” and begins with these words: “Gratiam et pacem tibi, mi frater, omnibusque vestris sanctis ecclesiis opto a Deo et Patre Domini nostri Jesu Christi, cui etiam gratias ago assidue, tum de tanta ipsius in vos beneficentia, tum de vestra singulari in asserendo ipsius cultu constantia et animi fortitudine.—Euge, mi frater, quam recte illud quod disciplinam simul cum doctrina conjungitis? Obsecro et obtestor ut ita pergatis, ne vobis idem quod tam multis eveniat, ut qui in limine impegerint, progredi non possint, imo etiam interdum ne velint quidem, quod longe misserrimum est.” The second letter, which behoved to be received by Knox only a few months before his death, could not fail to be gratifying to him, even although he had then taken a formal “farewell of the world.” It is addressed “To his dearest Brother and Colleague,” and begins in the following lofty strain of affection: “Etsi tanto terrarum et maris ipsius intervallo disjuncti corporibus sumus, mi Cnoxe, tamen minime dubito quin inter nos semper viguerit, et ad extremum vigeat, summa illa animorum conjunctio, unius ejusdemque spiritus fideique vinculo sancita.”

Note H.

Evidence of Queen Mary’s design to restore the Roman Catholic Religion in Scotland.—The reader who doubts that this was her uniform object from the time that she left France, may consult the following authorities. Throkmorton’s Conference with Mary, in Knox, Historie, 275–277. Keith, History, 164–167. Life of bishop Lesley, in Anderson’s Collections, i. 4, iii. 9. The letters of the cardinal de St Croix, (ambassador from the pope to the court of France,) extracted from the Vatican library, afford a striking demonstration of the intentions of the queen. St Croix writes to cardinal Borromeo, that the grand prior of France (one of Mary’s uncles) and Mons. Danville had arrived from Scotland on the 17th November (1561,) and had brought information, that the queen was going on successfully in surmounting all opposition to her in that kingdom. Being informed one day that some heretics had extinguished the candles on her altar, she repaired to the chapel, and having ascertained the fact, commanded a baron, one of the most powerful and most addicted to Lutheranism, to re‑light the candles, and place them on the altar: in which she was instantly obeyed. After relating another instance of her spirited conduct against the magistrates of a certain borough who had banished the popish priests, the cardinal adds:—“by these means she has acquired greater authority and power, for enabling her to restore the ancient religion;” “con che acquesta tutta via maggior autorita et forze, per posser restituer en quel regno l’antica religione.” Aymon, Synodes Nationaux des Eglises Reformees de France, tom. i. p. 17, 18.

Note I.

Sanguinary Spirit and Principles of Roman Catholics.—Bayle, Commentaire Philosophique, tome i. pref. xiv. part ii. chap. v. p. 343, 347, anno 1686, and his Critique Generale de l’Histoire du Caivinisme, p. 486, 501–519. Hume’s Hist. of England, vol. vii. chap. i. p. 24. Lond. 1793, 12mo. Robertson’s History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 62, 143, 352. Lond. 1809.

“Les Papistes,” says Bayle, in a treatise in which he pleads for toleration on a very extensive basis—“Les Papistes eux‑memes sont les premiers en ce pais‑ci à crier qu’il n’y a rien de plus injuste que de vexer la conscience. Pensée ridicule en leur bouche! et non seulement ridicule, mais traitresse, &c. i.e. The papists themselves are the first in this country [Britain] to exclaim that there is nothing more unjust than to distress conscience. A sentiment ridiculous in their mouth! and not only ridiculous, but treacherous, and marked with that dishonesty which they have uniformly discovered for so many ages. For they would not fail, in three years, to burn and butcher all who refused to go to mass, if they acquired the power, and could avail themselves of the baseness of a sufficient number of court parasites, men of venal souls, and unworthy of the protestant name which they bear, to overturn the fundamental barriers which so salutarily restrain the royal power.” Commentaire Philosophique, pref. p. xiii. xiv.

The sentiments contained in the following passage are now become so antiquated and unintelligible, that I shall not risk my credit by venturing to translate it. “Les malheurs qui sont arrivez à nos freres de France tourneront, comme il y a apparence, à notre profit. Il nous out remis dans la necessaire defiance du Papisme, il nous out fait voir que cette fausse religion ne s’amende pas par le long age, qu’elle est toujours, comme au tems jadis, animée de l’esprit de fourbe et de cruauté, et que malgré la politesse, l’honneteté, la civilité, qui regne dans les manieres de ce siecle plus qu’en aucun autre, elle est toujours brutale et farouche. Chose etrange! tout ce qu’il y avoit de grossier dans les mœurs de nos ancestres s’est evanouit; à cet air rustique et sauvage des vieux tems a succedé par toute l’Europe Chretienne une douceur et une civilité extreme. Il n’y a que le Papisme qui ne se sent point du changement, et qui retient toujours son ancienne et habituelle ferocité. Nous nous imaginions nous autres Anglois, que c’etoit une bete apprivoisseé, un loup et un tigre qui avoit oublie son naturel sauvage; mais Dieu merci aux Convertisseurs de France, nous nous sommes desabusez, et nous savons à qui nous aurions à faire si notre sort etoit entre leurs mains. Pesans bien cela et considerons quel malheur nous pendroit sur la tete, si nous laissions croitre le Papisme dans ce bien heureux climats. Je ne veux pas que cela nous porte à faire aucunes represailles sur les papistes; non, je deteste ces imitations; je souhaite seulement qu’ils n’aquierent pas la force d’executer sur nous ce qu’ils savent faire.” Ibid. p. xv. xviii. xix.

Note K.

The following extracts from the records of the town council of Edinburgh, show the attention which they paid to the support and accommodation of their minister.

May 8, 1560. The provost, bailies, and council ordain the treasurer to pay the sum of L.40 Scots for furnishing of the minister, John Knox, in his household; and because he had been furnished on David Forrester’s expenses since his coming to this town, for the space of 15 days, ordains to receive David’s accompts, and make payment.—“Penultimo Octobris 1560. The quhilk day, the provost, baillies, and counsaill ordainis James Barroun to pay to John Knox the soulme of sax scoir pounds of the reddiest money of the solmes being in his hands, and sicklyk the soulme of L.20.” This last sum seems to have been allotted for repairs on his house.—“12th Dec. 1560. The provost, baillies, and counsill ordanis James Barroun (dean of guild of last year) to pay and deliver to John Knox, minister, the soume of fiftie pound for supporting of his charges, and that incontinent after the sight heirof, and gif it beis funden that the said James be superexpendit, after the making of his accompt, precepts shall be given in maist strait forme, commanding the treasurer to mak him gud and thankfull payment of his haill superexpensis, within aught days nixt thairafter.” From the minutes of Dec. 22, 1560, April 5, and May 28, 1561, it appears that his fixed stipend was L.200 a‑year; for L.50 is ordered, each time, “for his quarter payment” or “dues.” On Dec. 14, 1560, it was agreed that his house rent should afterwards be “paid at the rate of 15 merks a‑year.”

“Penultimo Octobris [1561.] The samine day the provost, baillies, and counsail ordanis the dene of gyld, with all diligence, to mak ane warme stuydye of dailles to the minister, Johne Knox, within his hous, abone the hall of the same, with lyht and wyndokis thereunto, and all uther necessaris: and the expenciss disbursit be him salbe allowit to him in his accomptis.”—“January 1561 (i.e. 1562) the provost, baillies, and counsale, understanding that the minister, Jhone Knox, is requyrit be the hale kirk to passe in the partis of Anguss and Mearnys, for electing of ane superintendent thare, to the quhilk they themselfs hes grantit, thairfoir ordains Alexander Guthrie, dene of gild, to pass in companie with him, for furnishing of the said ministeris charges, and to deburse and pay the same of the readeast of the townis gudis in his handis, quhilk salbe allowit in his accomptis: And further haist the said minister hame, that the kirk hear be not desolait.”

To these extracts respecting Knox, I may add one from the same records respecting Willock, who officiated in his place as minister of Edinburgh during the civil war. “29 August, 1560. The counsail ordains their treasurer to deliver to John Willock 22 crownes of the sone for recompense of the great traveill sustenit be him this haill yiere bygane, in preching and administring the sacramentis within this burgh, and ordanis ane member of the counsall to thank him for his greit benevolence, and for the greit travaill forsaid.” Previous to this, they had remunerated John Cairns, with whom Willock had lodged.

In the text I have mentioned, that, after the arrangement made by the privy council respecting the thirds of benefices, Knox seems to have received part of his stipend from the common fund. The extracts which Keith has given from the books of assignation mention only two allowances made to him. “To John Knox, minister, wheat 2 c[halders], bear 6 c. meal o. oates 4 c.” Whether this was for the year 1563, or not, Keith does not say. He adds in a note, “For the year 1568, I see L.333, 6s. 8d. given to Mr Knox.” History, Appendix, 188. His stipend at the time of his death will be stated in Note BB. Keith has inserted, from the books of assignation, the prices of the principal articles of living at that time, from which an idea of the value of money may be formed. Ibid. 189. The following are a specimen. In Fyfe, Lothian, Merse, and Teviotdale, for 1573, wheat, L.26, 13s. 4d. the chalder; bear, L.21, 6s. 8d.; meal, L.16; oats, 20 merks. Or, according to another account, without expressing any county, wheat, L.1 the boll; bear, L.1, 13s. 4d.; meal the same; oats, 10s.; malt, L.2; rye, and pease and beans, the same; mairts of Aberdeen, L.2, 13s. 4d. the piece; sheep, 9s.; poultry, 4s. the dozen; geese, 1s. the piece; cheese, 6s. 8d. the stone.

Note L.

Protocol—James Nicolson.

Pro Johanne Knox.

Knox’s Protest in the affairs of the Earl of Angus.—Vigesimo quarto die mensis Octobris, anno Domini millesimo quingentesimo sexagesimo primo, in presence of me notair, and witnesses vnderwrittin, Comperit Johnne Knox, minister of Edinburgh, and thair being requyrit be George Dowglas, sone naturall to vmquhile Archibald erle of Angus that last deceissit, to deliuer agane to him the letter of renunciatioun maid be the said George of the landis, lordschip, and baronie of Abirnethy, and regalite thairof, with the maner, places, mylnis, multuris, woddis, fischingis, tennentis, tennandriys, service of free tennentis, aduocatiounis, donationis, and rychtis of patronages of the kirkis, benefices, collegis, and prebendarys thairof, &c., in favouris of Archibald, now erle of Angus, of the daitt at Edinburgh, the xxiiij day of Junij the zeir of God Im vc threscoir ane zeiris; and consignit and putt be him in the handis of the said Johnne, in hoip of aggreance to haif bene dressit betuix him the said erle and his tutouris. Ansuerit, that he granted the resaving of the said lettir, vnder conditioun foirsaid; and that he had bestowit his faithfull laubouris besyde the travellis tane zairin be diuers noble men to haif had that mater aggreit. Be quham thair wes diuers reasonable offeris maid to the said George, quhilkis he hes refusit, and thairfoir protestit gif that his refuis turne heirefter to his awin damnage, that the said Johnne be innocent thairof. Testifiand to the said George, in his awin presence and ouris, and also befoir God, that the offer maid is mair reasonable nor he belevis the said George is able to haif ony proffett or gaynes vtherwyis thairbi. And thairupoun the said Johnne deliuerit to the said George his said lettir of renunciatioun, of the daitt foirsaid, vnder his seill and subscriptioun, quhilk the said George confessit and recognoscit to be the same quhilk he deliuerit, togidder also with his seill in lead, quhilkis the said George resavit and dischargit the said Johnne thairof. Quhairupoun the said Jon askit instrumentis. Done in maister James M‘gillis study, at vj houris at evin, or thairbi. Present thairat the said Maister James, clerk of reḡri; Maister George Hay, vicare of Eddilstoune; Adam Wauchop, and I James Nicolson.

J. NICOLSON.

Note M.[352]

Minutes of the Town Council of Edinburgh respecting a second Minister.—“10th April, 1562.—The same day the counsale, understanding the tedious and havie labours sufferit be the minister, Jhone Knox, in preiching thrise in the oulk, and twise on the Sounday, ordains with ane consent to solist and persuade Maister Jhone Craig, presentlie minister of the Canongait, to accept upoun him the half chargis of the preaching of the said kirk of Edinburgh for sic gud deid as thai can aggre on.”—That this measure was not carried into effect for some time after, appears from the following act of council. “18th June, 1563.—After lang reasoning upon the necessities of ministers, finds that there salbe ane uther minister elected be the provost, baillies, and counsale, dekynes and elderis of this burgh, and addit to Johne Knox, minister.” From the same act and subsequent measures, it is evident that the want of necessary funds was the cause of the delay. For the council resolved, that “for susteaning of thame baith, togidder with Johne Cairns reider,” the deacons should meet with the trades and the merchants, to see what they would be willing to give. The reports made to the council bore that, if they would fix a particular stipend, the trades were willing to pay a fifth part of it, according to old custom. But although Craig had not been translated from the Canongate, he seems to have performed a part of the duty in Edinburgh; for, in the same month, I find the council appointing a number of persons “to go amang the faithfull who had communicate,” and make a collection for “Johnne Craig and Johnne Cairns, who had received nothing for a lang time.” This expedient they were obliged afterwards to repeat. On the 26th September, 1561, the council had agreed to give “to John Cairns, lector of morning prayeris, 100 merks a‑year, in tyme to cum.” Records of Town Council.

Note N.

Writings of Quintin Kennedy and George Hay.—Keith has inserted a letter which Kennedy wrote to the archbishop of Glasgow, and the correspondence between him and Willock, in 1559. He has also given large extracts from his Compendious Tractive. History, Append. p. 193–203. The following quotations may be added, for verifying the statement which I have made in the text. Having quoted John, v. 39, Kennedy says, “Marke (gud redare) the Scripture to occupy the place of ane wytnes, and not the place of ane juge.” A, iiij. In a subsequent part of the work, he endeavours to qualify what he had stated respecting the church being judge of all matters in religion. “We never say in all our lytil tractive, that the kirk is juge to the Scripture, bot yat the kirk is juge to discern quhilk is the trew Scripture of God, and to mak manifest to the congregation the trew understandyng of the samyn.” Ibid. H, v. This explication does not much mend the matter; for certainly he who has the power of calling what witnesses he pleases, and of putting what sense he pleases upon their testimony, is to all intents and purposes the judge of the witnesses, and of their evidence. Having mentioned that there were persons “swa religious and clean fyngerit, that thair wil na thyng perswade thaim without testimony of Scripture,” he adds, “All Christin men havand ane generale understanding of the articles of our faith (conforme to the understanding that the kirk hes teacheit ws); the ten commandements, the prayer of the Lord callit the Pater noster, it suffices to thame to quhame it does not appertene of thair office nor vocatioun, to occupy the place of the prechairis or techeairis in the congregatioun. As to the sacramentis, and all uther secretis of the Scripture, stand to the jugement of thy pasture, (without curious ressoning or cersing of the secretis of Godis word,) quha beiris thy burding in all materis doutsum abone thy knawledge, conforme to the saying of the apostle, ‘Obey unto your superioris,’ &c. And in cais they be negligent, ressave doctryne of the kirk, as the tyme teicheis ws. Be this way (quhilk is conforme to Godis word and all veritie) it sall be asie to all men, quhat place or estait in the congregatioun that ever he occupy, to beir his awin burding.” Ibid. D, vii.

Another work of Kennedy has lately been printed, from a MS. in the Auchinleck library, under the following title: “Ane Oratioune in fauouris of all thais of the Congregatione, exhortand thaim to aspy how wonderfullie thai ar abusit be thair dissaitful prechouris, set furth be master Quintine Kennedy, Commendatour of Corsraguell, ye zeir of Gode 1561.” Edinburgh, 1812. Perhaps this oration was printed in the year mentioned in the title, although no copy is now to be found, and was one of “his books,” referred to by the abbot in his dispute with Knox. I have already given extracts from this book, in vol. i. p. 398, 439. It concludes in the following manner: “Quharfor, with all my hart exhortis, prays, and but mercie appellis thar pestilent precheouris,” [on the margin, “Knox, Willock, Winrame, Gudmane, Dowglasse, Heriot, Spottiswoode, and all ye rest.”] “puffit vp with vane glore, quhilkis rackinnis thaimselfis of gretar knawlege nor Christis haill kirk, cumand but authoritie, subuertand, subornande, and circumuenande the simple peple, cersande thair pray like the deuillis rachis, barkcand bauldly like bardis, aganis the blissit sacrament of the altare, the sacrifice of the mess, and all vther godlie ordinance of Jhesus Christ and his kirk, to preiss their wittis and inginis, and to streik all thair pennis in my contrar, makande the congregatioun and all vtheris to vnderstande, gif I do propirly, truely, and godly, or nocht, invey aganis thair deuillische doctrine and doyingis. Failyeande thairof, recant, for schame, recant (ye famouse precheouris) and cum in obedience to the kirk of God, quhilk ye haue stubbornlie misknawin this lang time bypast, (and that nocht without grete dangere to your avne saulis and mony vtheris,) thairfor recant, in tyme recant, as ye lufe your saluation, and cry God mercie: To quham, with the Sone and Haly Gaist, be prayse, honour, and glore, for ever ande ever. Amen. Progenies viperarum fugite a ventura ira, nam securis ad radicem arboris posita est, penitentiam agite. Matth. iii.”

In his dispute with Knox, the abbot mentions his “books,” and he refers particularly to a book which he had published in 1561, on the sacrament of the mass. There is in the library of Alexander Boswell, Esq. of Auchinleck, a MS. by the abbot, entitled, “Ane familiar commune and ressoning anent the misterie of the sacrifice of the mess, betwixt twa brether, master Quintin Kennedy, comendator of Corsraguell, and James Kennedy of    . In the yeir of God ane thousand, five hundred, three scoir ane yeir.” It was answered by George Hay, in a work entitled, “The Confutation of the Abbote of Crosraguels Masse, set furth by Maister George Hay. Imprinted at Edinburgh by Robert Lekpreuik, 1563.” The dedication is inscribed, “To the most noble, potent, and godlie Lord James Earle of Murray.” This is the book to which Winzet alludes on the margin of his Buke of Questionis, where he says, “Mr George Hay, fy haist zow to recant.” Keith, Append. p. 236, 246. I have been favoured with the sight of a copy of this rare tract, belonging to Richard Heber, Esq. It would seem that the abbot’s treatise was not printed, but that copies of it had been transcribed, and industriously circulated through the country in manuscript; for Hay repeatedly makes the supposition that there might be variations in the different copies, and on one occasion confesses that he could not read a passage in the copy which he used. “Followeth, another objection made by James. Alwayes,” sayes he, “all ze wha vses the Masse, dois not (this (not) is not in the text, that is come to my handes, but because the sentence requireth it, I haue added it) as Christe did in the latter supper,” &c. He gives another quotation from the abbot in the following manner: “Trewly, brother, and ze be sa scrupulus Scripturares, that ze will do nothing but (but is not in my text) as Christe did, towards the vse of the Sacramentes, ze will subuert our haile Faith, and commend our awin doinges,[353] (so I ride it) (our owen doinges or commonly I can not tell which should be red, or if there be any other thing yet,) for quhair finde ze that Christe euer appointed ane man to be baptized,” &c. Fol. 36, b. 37, a, b.

The following account of the abbot’s talents and acquaintance with the Fathers may serve as a specimen of Hay’s style. “Trew it is, that before this boke of the abbote of Crosraguel’s wes set furth and published, sindrie and diuers were the opinions of men concerning it. For the sorte of them that be cōmonly tearmed Papistes, aduersaries to all trew religion, thoght in verie deid that they should receaue such a confort, yea, such a gun as no munition myght withstand, no strengthe resiste, nether yet any maner of force repel. They were encuraged by the brute and fame of the man, who onely wolde appeare in these tymes to haue dexteritie of ingyne, helped and auanced by long progres of tyme spent in good letters, yea, ād besydes the Scriptures of God, will also appeare to haue the conference, judgment, and authoritie of the ancient Fathers and councils, which it may seme to the reader that he feadeth (not unlyke the nyne Muses) in his bosome. I my self hauing hade some tymes credit and acquentence of the man, loked for some what that might haue troubled the cōsciences of waiklinges, and of such as stayed them selues vpon a glistering and semely ymagination of mans heart, rather then upon the written and reueiled treuth, by the spirite of God. For it wes not vnknawen to me how familiare he hath bene with the scolastike sophisters, their thornie questions, and scabrus conclusions, yea and some of the ancient doctors, whose writinges, what by ignorance of tyme seduced, what by affection carryed away, I thoght wel he should wreist to his vngodly opinion.” Fol. 3, a. Having pointed out a false quotation, which the abbot had made from Chrysostom, Hay adds, “Hereby it is easy to perceaue how vainely ye ascribe such reading of the ancientes vnto your self, as in your writinges ye take vpon you, that ye will seme in the eyes of the people, to be the onely he in this realme versed in antiquitie. And now to say my judgment frely, I truste ye haue no workes of such men as ye draw your authorities out of, but onely hath, I can not tell what lytle scabbed treaties of Eccius, Cochleus, Hosius, Stanislaus youre new start up Campion, and of such others of your factiō, and taketh out of them, such thinges as ye think may serue to your wicked and blasphemus purpose. What credite now, or what authoritie oght to be given to such places, as thou draweth out of the doctors, who belyke neuer hath sene there workes, nether yet knoweth to what purpose they speak, if they speak of their owne mynde, or of their aduersaries, whither they speak by an interrogation or conclusiuely, and determinatly, whither they speak ὑπερβολικως,[354] that is excessiuely, to extoll the dignitie of the mater they haue in hand (which is not rare in this author) or simplie. Thus the text it self is to be considered, that it that preceadeth being conferred with it that followeth, the mynde and sentence of the author may be knowen perfytlie. Not that I will hereby damne yong men, who ether excluded by tyme, or els lacking bookes, muste giue credite to good authorities, but in this man who will seme to be an other Anacharses inter sordidos Scythas, it is intollerable, who is sequestrate frome the common societie of men, and trauell in the common wealth, hauing not els to do, but that he hath inioyned to him self, that is to ly by a pleasing bray, and cast in stones to trouble the faire and cleare rinning watter.” Fol. 18, b. 19, a.

Lepreuik, in an advertisement to the reader, apologizes for his want of Greek characters, which he was forced to have supplied by manuscript. Herbert’s edit. of Ames, p. 1487. This fact illustrates what I have mentioned in vol. i. 347. Herbert questions Ames’s statement, that they had no Hebrew or Greek types in Scotland in 1579, and he appeals to a book printed ‘at Edinburgh, be Leighe Mannenby, anno Domini 1578,’ in which Greek characters are found. Ibid. p. 1499, 1500. But this cannot overthrow Ames’s statement, which is correct; for the imprint of that book is undoubtedly fictitious, as no such Scottish printer as “Leighe Mannenby” seems to have ever existed.

Note O.

Ordination of reformed Ministers.—In the prologue to the “Reasoning betwixt Jo. Knox and the abbot of Crossraguell,” Knox adverts to the cavils of the papists against the validity of the call of the reformed ministers, and intimates his intention of returning an answer to the questions on this head which had been proposed to him by Ninian Winget, the “Procutour for the Papists.” There are some general remarks on this subject in his answer to Tyrie’s Letter, but I do not think that he ever published any thing professedly on the point. There is a ridiculous tale told by a popish writer concerning a pretended convention held by the reformed ministers in Scotland to determine in what manner they should proceed in the admission of ministers. Willock proposed as a weighty difficulty, that if they used imposition of hands, or any other ceremony commonly practised in the church, they would be asked to show, that they themselves had been admitted by the same ceremonies, and thus the lawfulness of their vocation would be called in question. “Johann kmnox ansuerit maist resolutlie, ‘Buf, buf, man, we ar anes entered, let se quha dar put us out agane;’ meaning that thair was not sa monie gunnis and pistollis in the countrie to put him out as was to intrud him with violence. Sua Johann kmnox, to his awin confusion, entered not in the kirk be ordinar vocatione or imposition of handis, but be imposition of ‘bullatis and pouldir in culringis and lang gunnis;’ sua ye mister not to trubill you farder in seiking out of Johann kmnox vocatione.”—This story “I understude,” says the author, “of ane nobil and honourable man, quha can yit beir witnes gif I lea or not.” He took care, however, not to give the name of the nobleman. Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 129. Parise, 1581.

Note P.

Strictness and impartiality of Discipline.—The form of satisfaction enjoined in the case of Methven, was appointed for all who should be excommunicated for murder, adultery, incest, or other aggravated crimes. The murderer was to bear in his hand “the same or lyke weapoun whairwith the murther was committed.” Buik of the Univ. Kirk, p. 38. Other rules observed in cases of discipline may be seen in Knox’s Liturgy, p. 55–67, edit. 1611, and in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 704–756. Impartiality, as well as severity, distinguished the discipline of those times. “Gryt men offending in sick crymes as deserves seckclaith, they suld receave the same als weill as the pure.—Na superintendant nor commissioner, with advyce of any particular kirk of yair jurisdiction, may dispense with the extreamitie of sackcloth, prescrivit be the actes of the generall discipline, for any pecuniall sum or paine ad pios usus.” Buik of the Univ. Kirk, August, 1573. Dunlop, ii. 753. This was not a mere theoretic proposition. For, in 1563, we find the lord treasurer making public satisfaction, (Keith, 245, 529;) in 1567, the countess of Argyle, (Buik of the Univ. Kirk, p. 37,) and in 1568, the bishop of Orkney, (Anderson’s Collections, ii. 284.) Let not our modern fashionables and great ones be alarmed at hearing of such things. Those days are gone, and will not, it is likely, soon return.

The parliament, or the magistracy of particular burghs, enacted punishments of a corporal kind against certain crimes which were ordinarily tried in the church courts. Some of these existed before the Reformation, and some of them were posterior to it; but the infliction as well as the enacting of them, pertained to the civil magistrate. Knox, p. 269. In the minutes of several kirk‑sessions, however, the sentences inflicting them are found recorded along with censures properly ecclesiastical. The following extract accounts for this in part. “What you bring” (says Mr Baillie, in his answer to bishop Maxwell) “of pecuniary mulcts, imprisonments, banishments, jogges, cutting of haire, and such like, it becomes neither you to charge, nor us to be charged with, any such matters: No church assembly in Scotland assumes the least degree of power, to inflict the smallest civill punishment upon any person; the Generall Assembly it selfe hath no power to fine any creature so much as in one groat: It is true, the lawes of the land appoint pecuniary mulcts, imprisonment, joggs, pillories, and banishment for some odious crimes, and the power of putting these lawes in execution is placed by the parliament in the hands of the inferior magistrates in burroughs or shires, or of others to whom the counsel table gives a speciall commission for that end; ordinarily some of these civill persons are ruling elders, and sit with the eldership: So when the eldership have cognosced upon the scandall alone of criminall persons, and have used their spirituall censures only to bring the party to repentance, some of the ruling elders, by virtue of their civill office or commission, will impose a mulct, or send to prison or stocks, or banish out of the bounds of some little circuit, according as the act of parliament or counsell do appoint it. But that the eldership should imploy its ecclesiastick and spirituall power for any such end, none of us doe defend. That either in Scotland or any where else in the world the haire of any person is commanded to be cut by any church judicatory for disgrace and punishment, is (as I take it) but a foolish fable. That any person truely penitent is threatened in Scotland, with church censures for non‑payment of monies, is in the former category of calumnies.” Historical Vindication of the government of the Church of Scotland, p. 17, 18. Lond. 1646. I have in my possession (extracted from the records of a kirk session) a commission, granted in 1701, by the sheriff‑depute of Berwickshire, constituting one of the elders session‑bailie, for executing the laws against profaneness, agreeably to an act of parliament authorizing the appointment of such an officer in parishes within which no ordinary magistrate resided.

I may add the following quotation from another able and strenuous assertor of the presbyterian discipline and government. “Ubi originalis causa excommunicationis est delictum violans jura et libertates ecclesiæ, &c. When the original cause of excommunication is an offence violating the rights and liberties of the church, either in the way of loss being sustained or injury being done, I confess that the assistance of the secular arm may be implored, and the guilty person may be forced to repair the loss and to give civil satisfaction; or even if the person already excommunicated shall testify a disposition to disturb the religious service, or to violate the rights and liberties of the church. But where no loss or injury to the rights and liberties of the church arises from the offence or from the contumacy, but scandal alone is given, I know not whether any person is to be forced to what is called penitential satisfaction, by imploring the assistance of the secular arm. For as the church has no coactive power in herself, so neither ought she to use it indirectly to extort confessions which are constrained, and consequently counterfeit.” Calderwood, Altare Damascenum, p. 312–3. edit. Lugd. Bat. 1708.

Note Q.

Mr Hume’s misrepresentations of the behaviour of the Reformers to Queen Mary.—The whole account which this historian has given of the conduct of the protestant clergy towards Mary, from her arrival in Scotland until her marriage with Darnley, is very remote from sober and genuine history. It is rather a satire against the Reformation, which he charges with rebellion; against the presbyterian church, whose genius he describes as essentially productive of fanaticism and vulgarity; and against his native country, the inhabitants of which, without exception, he represents as overrun with rusticity, strangers to the arts, to civility, and the pleasures of conversation. History, Reign of Eliz. chap. i. near the close. “Il n’est rien de plus facile quand on a beaucoup d’esprit, et beaucoup d’experience dans l’art de faire des livres, que de composer une Histoire satyrique, des meme faits qui ont servi à faire une Eloge. Deux lignes supprimée, ou pour ou contre, dans l’exposition d’un fait, sont capables de faire paroistre un homme ou fort innocent, ou fort coupable: et comme par la seule transposition de quelques mots, on peut faire d’un discours fort saint un discours impie; de meme par la seule transposition de quelques circonstances, l’on peut faire de l’action la plus criminelle, l’action la plus vertueuse.” Bayle, Critique Generale de l’Histoire du Calvinisme, p. 13, 2de edition, 1683. To this charge the historian of England has exposed himself on more than one occasion.

I cannot here expose all his misstatements in the passage to which I have referred. He keeps out of view the fixed resolution of the queen to re‑establish the Romish religion, with all the perils to which the protestants were exposed. He artfully introduces his narrative, by placing her proclamation against altering the protestant religion before the symptoms of popular discontent at her setting up of mass; whereas the proclamation was issued after these, and would never have appeared, had it not been found necessary to allay the apprehensions of the people. Knox, 285. Keith, 504, 505. As a proof that the preachers “took a pride in vilifying, even to her face, this amiable princess,” he gives extracts from an address to her by the General Assembly, without ever hinting that this was merely a draught or overture; that every offensive expression was erased from it before it was adopted by the assembly; and that, when the address was presented by the superintendents of Lothian and Fife, the queen said, “Here are many fair words; I cannot tell what the hearts are.” Knox, 315. Mr H. goes on to say: “The ringleader in all these insults on Majesty, was John Knox.—His usual appellation for the queen was Jezebel.” This is a mistake. Neither in his sermons, nor in his prayers, nor in conversation, did he give this appellation to Mary, so long as she was queen; but always honoured her before the people, as well as in her own presence, even when he lamented and condemned her errors. Afterwards, indeed, when for her crimes (of which no man was more convinced than Mr H.) she was removed from the government, and he no longer acknowledged her as his sovereign, he did apply this name to her. It is so far from being true, that “the whole life of Mary was, from the demeanour of these men, filled with bitterness and sorrow,” or that she “was curbed in all amusements by the absurd severity of these reformers,” that she retained her “gaiety and ease,” until, by her imprudent marriage with Darnley, she with her own hand planted thorns under her pillow; while the preachers were most free in their sermons, she enjoyed all manner of liberty; her mass was never taken from her; she was allowed to indulge her “feasting, finery, dancing, balls, and whoredom, their necessary attendant;” nor was she ever interrupted in these amusements, except when her own husband deprived her of her favourite Italian fiddler, a loss for which she afterwards took ample vengeance. It is difficult to conceive how one acquainted with the history of that period, and the character of the queen, could impute the “errors of her subsequent conduct” to the “harsh and preposterous usage which she met with” from the reformers. Nor can there be a greater satire upon the general character of Mary, (previous to her first marriage,) than to say, that “she found every moment reason to regret her leaving that country, from whose manners she had, in her early youth, received the first impressions.” It is well known that the court at which she received her education was most dissolute; and the supposition that she carried away the innocent polish and refinement of their manners, without contracting their criminal contagion, is not only incredible, but contradicted by the confessions of her friends. Memoires de Chastelnau, augmentez par J. le Laboureur, Prieur de Juvigné, tom. i. p. 528. A Bruxelles, 1731. I have no desire, however, to dip into this subject, or to drag to light facts unfavourable to that unhappy princess; although the unwarranted and persevering attacks which have been made upon worthy men, in order to reconcile the “future conduct” of Mary, with “the general tenor of her character,” would justify far greater freedoms than have been lately used in this way.

“We are too apt to figure to ourselves the reformers of that age, as persons of impolitic and inflexible austerity.” This is the remark of one who was much better acquainted with their history than Mr Hume. Lord Hailes, Historical Mem. of the Provincial Councils of the Scottish Clergy, p. 41. Comp. Knox, Historie, p. 310. See also Note Z.

Mr Hume’s object, in the passage on which I have animadverted, was to blacken the reformers, rather than to exalt the queen, of whose character he had at bottom no great opinion. “Tell Goodall,” says he, in a letter to Dr Robertson, “that if he can but give up queen Mary, I hope to satisfy him in every thing else; and he will have the pleasure of seeing John Knox, and the reformers, made very ridiculous.” Indeed, Mr Hume confessed to his confidential friends, that he had, in his history, drawn the character of that princess in too favourable colours. “I am afraid,” says he to the same correspondent, “that you, as well as myself, have drawn Mary’s character with too great softenings. She was undoubtedly a violent woman at all times.” Stewart’s Life of Robertson, p. 37, 38.

Note R.

Proceedings of Town Council in a slander against Knox.—“18mo Junii, 1563.—The samyn day, in presence of the baillies and counsale, comperit Jhone Gray, scribe to the kirk, and presentit the supplicatione following, in name of the haill kirk, bering that it was laitlie cummen to thair knawledge bi the report of faythfull bretherins, that within thir few dayis Eufame Dundas, in the presence of ane multitude, had spokin divers injurious and sclandarous wordis baith of the doctrine and ministeris. And in especiall of Jhonne Knox, minister, sayand, that within few dayis past, the said Jhonne Knox was apprehendit and tane furth of ane killogye with ane commoun hure; and that he had bene ane commone harlot all his dayis. Quhairfore it was maist humblie desyrit that the said Eufame myt be callit and examinat upone the said supplicatione, and gif the wordis abone written, spokin bi hir, myt be knawin or tryit to be of veritie, that the said Jhonne Knox myt be punist with all rigour without favour: otherwyse to tak sic ordour with hir as myt stand with the glory of God, and that sclander myt be takin from the kirk. As at mair length is contenit in the said supplication. Quhilk beand red to the said Eufame, personallie present in judgement, scho denyit the samyn, and Fryday the 25 day of Junii instant assignit to hir to here and see witnes producit for preving of the allegiance abone expremit, and scho is warnyt apud acta.” Records of Town Council of Edinburgh, of the above date.

The minute of the 25th contains the account of the proof which Knox’s procurator led to show that Eufame Dundas had uttered the scandal which she now denied, and the appointment that the parties should be “warnit literatorie to hear sentence given in the said action.” I have not observed any thing more respecting the cause in the minutes, and it is probable, that the Reformer, having obtained the vindication of his character, prevailed on the judges not to inflict punishment on the accuser.

Note S.

Calumnies of the Popish writers against Knox and other Reformers.—“C’est rendre sans doute,” says Bayle, “quelques service à la memoire de Jean Knox, que de fair voir les extravagances de ceux qui ont dechiré sa reputation.” And, having referred to the “gross and extravagant slanders” of one writer, he adds, “this alone is a sufficient prejudice against all which the Roman Catholic writers have published concerning the great Reformer of Scotland.” Dict. art. Knox. If Mons. Bayle could speak in this manner upon a quotation from one author, what conclusion shall we draw from the following quotations?

The first writer who attacked Knox’s character after his death, was Archibald Hamilton, whose hostility against him was inflamed by a personal quarrel, as well as by political and religious considerations. (See above, p. 194.) His book shows how much he was disposed to recommend himself to the papists, by throwing out whatever was most injurious to his former connexions. But there were too many alive at that time to refute any charge which might be brought against the Reformer’s moral character. Accordingly, when he aimed the most envenomed thrust at his reputation, Hamilton masked it under the name of an apprehension or surmise. Having said, that, on the death of Edward VI., “he fled to Geneva with a noble and rich lady,” (which, by the by, is also a falsehood,) he adds, in a parenthesis, “qua simul et filia matris pellice familiariter usus fuisse putabatur.” De Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ, p. 65, a. Parisiis, 1577.

In 1579, Principal Smeton published his answer to Hamilton’s book, in which he repelled the charges which he had brought against Knox, and pronounced the above mentioned surmise a malicious calumny, for which the accuser could not adduce the slightest proof, and which was refuted by the spotless character which the Reformer had maintained before the whole world. Smetoni Responsio ad Virulent. Dial. Hamiltonii, p. 95. Edinb. 1579. It now behoved Hamilton either to retract or to prove his injurious insinuation. But how did he act in his reply to Smeton? Under the pretence of repeating what he had said in his former book, he introduces a number of other slanders against Knox’s character, of which he had not given the most distant hint before; and (incredible to be told!) he absolutely avers, that he had formerly specified all these crimes, and condescended upon the places, times, and other circumstances of their commission; although, in his former publication, he had not said one word on the subject except the general surmise which I have quoted above!!! “Pueritiam prematura venere et polluto insuper patris thoro infamem notavi. Inde adolescentiam perpetuis assuetam adulteriis designavi. Post hanc maturioris ætatis apostasin, &c. descripsi: res ipsas ut gestæ erunt retuli: loca, tempora, et reliquas omnes circumstantias notavi.” Calvinianæ Confusionis Demonstratio, contra maledicam Ministrorum Scotiæ responsionem; per Archibaldum Hamiltonium, in Sancta Christi Ecclesia Presbyterum. p. 253. Parisiis, 1581. Than this what can be a stronger mark of one who has “made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience,” who “is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself?” After this we cannot wonder at his casting off all shame, and asserting: “Itane vero in maledictis ducitis, quæ impurus homucio non vno, aut paucis, sed multis, et fere dicam omnibus attestantibus, designavit? patris thorum infami incestu pollutum, et tot commissa adulteria, quot in ædibus, intra quas admittebatur, relicta vestigia etiamnū recitant Laudoniensis omnes nobiles, juxta et ignobiles.” Ut supra, p. 253, b.

We are not left to impute these slanders to personal malice, or to the miserable shifts of an unprincipled individual, who, having rashly committed himself by advancing a falsehood, attempts to maintain his credit by bold assertions and fresh calumnies. For, in the very same year in which Hamilton’s last work appeared, we find another popish author writing in the following terms: “Johne Kmnox your first apostel, quha caused ane young woman in my lord Ochiltreis place fal almaist dead, because sche saw his maister Satthan in ane black mannis likenese with him, throuche ane bore of the dure: quha was also ane manifest adulterare bringand furth of Ingland baith the mother and the dochter whom he persuadit that it was lesum to leve her housband, and adhere unto him, making ane fleshe of himself, the mother, and the dochter, as if he wald conjoyne in ane religione, the auld synagogue of the Jeuis with the new fundat kirk of the Gentiles.” In another place he introduces the account of his second marriage with these words: “That renegat and perjurit priest schir Johane Kmnox, quha efter the death of his first harlot, quhilk he mareit incurring eternal damnation be breking his vou and promise of chastitie, quhen his age requyrit rather that with tearis and lamentations he sould have chastised his flesh and bewailit the breaking of his vou, as also the horribil incest with his gudmother in ane killogie of Haddingtoun.” Burne’s Disputation concerning the Controversit Headdis of Religion, p. 102, 143. Parise, 1581. But Burne, and even Hamilton, were outstripped in calumny by that most impudent of all liars, James Laing, who published in Latin an account of the lives and manners of the heretics of his time. There are few pages of his book in which he does not abuse our Reformer; but in (what he calls) his Life, he has exceeded any thing which was ever dictated either by personal malice, or by religious rancour. “Statim,” says he, “ab initio suæ pueritiæ omni genere turpissimi facinoris infectus fuit. Vix excesserat jam ex ephebis, cum patris sui uxorem violarat, suam novercam vitiarat, et cum ea, cui reverentia potissimum adhibenda fuerat, nefarium stuprum fecerat.” His bishop having, forsooth, called him to account for these crimes, he straightway became inflamed with the utmost hatred to the catholic religion. “Deinde non modo cum profanis, sed etiam cum quibuscunque sceleratissimis, perditissimis, et potissimum omnium hæreticis est versatus, et quo quisque erat immanior, sceleratior, crudelior, eo ei carior et gratior fuit.—Ne unum quidem diem sceleratissimus hæreticus sine una et item altera meretrice traducere potuit.—Continuo cum tribus meretricibus, quæ videbantur posse sufficere uni sacerdoti, in Scotia convolat.—Ceterum hic lascivus caper, quem assidue sequebatur lasciva capella, partim perpetuis crapulis, partim vino, lustrisque ita confectus fuit, ut quotiescunq. conscendere suggestum ad maledicendum, velim precandum [vel imprecandum?] suis, opus erat illi duobus aut tribus viris, a quibus elevandus atq. sustendandus erat.” De Vita et Moribus atque Rebus Gestis Hæreticorum nostri temporis. Authore Jacobo Laingæo Scoto Doctore Sorbonico, fol. 113, b. 114, a, b. 115, a. Parisiis, 1581. Cum Privilegio. Nor were such accounts confined to that age. In the beginning of the following century, they were repeated by John Hamilton. Facile Traictise, contenand ane infallible reul to discern trew from fals religion, p. 60. Louvain, 1600. In 1623, an English writer refers to James Laing’s work for an authentic account of Knox’s private life. The Image of bothe Churches, Jherusalem and Babell, by P. D. M. p. 134. Tornay, 1623. And as late as 1628, we find Father Alexander Baillie retailing, in the English language, all the gross tales of his predecessors, with additions of his own, in which he shows a total disregard to the best‑known facts in the Reformer’s life. “Jhon Knox,” says he, “being chaplane to the laird of Balvurie, and accused for his vices and leecherie, was found so guiltie and culpable that to eschevie the just punishment prepared for him he presently fled away into Ingland.” He afterwards says, that Knox, after the death of his second wife, [that is, twenty years at least after his own death,] “shamefully fell in the abominable vice of incestuous adultery, as Archib. Hamilton and others doe witnesse;” and as a proof that Knox reckoned this vice no blot, Baillie puts into his mouth a gross defence of it, in the very words which Sanders, in his book against the Anglican Schism, had represented Sir Francis Brian as using in a conversation with Henry VIII. Baillie’s True Information of the Unhallowed Offspring, Progress, and Impoison’d Fruits of our Scottish‑Calvinian Gospel and Gospellers, p. 14, 41. Wirtsburgh, 1628.

It is evident that these outrageous and contradictory calumnies have been all grafted upon the convicted he mentioned in the preceding note, and on the malignant insinuation of Archibald Hamilton. The characters of the foreign reformers were traduced in the very same manner by the popish writers. Those who have seen Bolsec’s Lives of Calvin and Beza, or others written in the same spirit, must be sufficiently convinced of this. Will it be believed that, in the middle of the seventeenth century, a book should have been published under the name of Cardinal de Richlieu, in which it is asserted that “Calvin being condemned for acts of incontinency, which he had carried to the utmost extremity of vice, [ses incontinences, qui le porterent jusques aux dernieres extremitez du vice,] retired from Noyon (his native city) and from the Roman church, at the same time?” And that this should have been published after the cardinal himself had examined the registers of Noyon, which stated facts totally inconsistent with the supposition of such a thing having ever been imputed to him? La Defence de Calvin, par Charles Drelincourt, p. 10, 11, 33. Geneve, 1667. Our countrymen of the popish persuasion were careful to retail all the calumnies against the foreign reformers, and they do so in a manner peculiar to themselves. Nicol Burne most seriously asserts that Luther was begotten of the devil, as to his carnal as well as his spiritual generation; and in order to prove that this was not impossible, he advances the most profane argument that ever proceeded from the mouth or pen of a Christian. Disputation, p. 141. The same thing is asserted by James Laing. De Vita Hæretic. fol. 1, b. In a pretended translation into Scots of a poem written by Beza in his youth, (which the Roman Catholics, after he left their communion, were careful to preserve from oblivion,) Burne has unblushingly inserted some scandalous and disgraceful lines, for which he had not the slightest warrant from the original. Disputation, p. 103, 104. John Hamilton says, that “Calvin did ane miracle to mak ane quik man ane deid, quhilk miracle was done in Geneve to ane Brulæus of Ostune, with whome he contractit for a piece of money to fenzie himself deid, and to ryse to lyfe at his prayers, when he sulde chope thryse upon his biere: bot the compagnion forget to ryse again, whilk come to Calvin’s schame.” Facile Traictise, p. 412. But the following narrative is still more marvellous, and lest his readers should doubt its truth, the author prays them to “suspend thair judgement, quhill they spere [until they enquire at] the maist affectionat Protestantis of Scotland quha has bene in Geneve. Surelie,” continues he, “I ressavit the treuth of this be honorable gentilmen of our countrie, quha confessit to me before gud vitnes, that the devil gangis familiarlie up and down the town, and speciallie cumis to pure and indigent men quha sellis thair saullis to him for ten sous, sum for mair or less. The money is verie plesant quhen they ressave it; bot putting hand to thair purse, quhen they vald by thair denner, thay find nathing but uther stane or stick.” Hamilton’s Catholik and Facile Traictise, fol. 50, b. Paris, 1581. Laing, in his Life of Calvin, (of which Senebier has justly said “that it would be impossible to believe that such a libel had been written, if it were not to be seen in print,”) has raked together all the base aspersions which had been cast upon that reformer, and has spent a number of pages in endeavouring to show that he was guilty of stealing a sum of money. De Vita Hæret. fol. 76, b.–79, b. Of Buchanan, whom he calls “homo sacrarum literarum imperitissimus, simulque impudentissimus,” he relates a number of impieties, of which this is the last, “plurimi etiam narrant illum miserrimum hominem quandam in sacro fonte, quo infantes aqua benedicta ablui solent, adsit reverentia dictis, oletum fecisse.” Ibid. fol. 40, a. One example more, and I have done. “Te admonerem de quodam impio hæretico sacerdote Davidson, quem audivi his jam multis annis publice cum quadam meretrice scortatum esse, quam fertur peperisse prima nocte, qua cum illa dormivit, quod hic doctores medici pro magno miraculo habent; cum vix mulieres ante nonum mensem, vel octavum parere soleant.” Ibid. fol. 36, b, 37, a.

Persons must have had their foreheads, as well as their consciences, “seared with a hot iron,” before they could publish such things to the world as facts. Yet Laing’s book was approved, and declared worthy of publication, by two doctors of the university of Paris. Its grossest slanders against the Scottish reformers were literally copied, and circulated through the continent as undoubted truths, by Reginaldus, Spondanus, Julius Breigerus, and many other foreign popish authors. Each of these added some fabrication of his own; and one of them is so ridiculously ignorant as to rail against our Reformer by the name of Noptz. Bayle, Dictionnaire, art. Knox, Note G. Archibald Hamilton’s two works had the same respectable recommendations with Laing’s book, and one of them is declared to be “very orthodox, and worthy of being ushered into the light for the profit of the church.” And John Hamilton was chosen tutor to two cardinals, appointed professor of philosophy in the Royal College of Navarre, elected, by the students of the German nation in Paris, to the cure of the parish of St Cosmus and Damian, presented to it by the university, and confirmed in it by the parliament; and, in fine, was chosen rector of the university of Paris!!! So eager were foreigners to load with honours the most bigoted and fanatical of our popish refugees. Sketch of the Life of John Hamilton, p. 2, 3, written by Lord Hailes.

I know that it was common in that age for controversial writers of all descriptions to indulge themselves in a coarseness of invective against their antagonists, which would not be tolerated at present: but this is quite a different thing from what I have given examples of in this note. With respect to the complaints which protestant writers made of the profligacy of the popish clergy, the truth of these is incontestably established by the testimony of Roman Catholic authors, and by the public documents of their own church. Nor do I wish to insinuate that all the popish writers were of the same description with those whom I have quoted, or that there were not many Roman Catholics, even at that time, who disapproved of the use of these dishonourable and empoisoned weapons; but the great number of such publications, the wide circulation which they obtained, and the length of time during which they continued to issue from the popish presses, demonstrate the extent to which a spirit of lying and defamation was carried in the Roman church. Petty dabblers in antiquity, and flippant orators, who have read a general history of those times, or a modern Roman catholic pamphlet, must be allowed to repeat the trite maxim, of faults on both sides, and to conceal their ignorance under the veil of moderation, by representing these faults as equal; but I aver that no candid person, who is duly acquainted with the writings of that period, will pretend to account for the above‑mentioned calumnies, by imputing them to a spirit of asperity and prejudice common to both parties.

Note T.

Popish accounts of Knox’s second marriage.—“Heaving laid aside al feir of the panis of hel, and regarding na thing the honestie of the warld, as ane bund sklave of the Devil, being kendillit with an unquenshible lust and ambition, he durst be sua bauld to enterpryse the sute of marriage with the maist honorabil ladie, my ladie Fleming, my lord duke’s eldest dochter, to the end that his seid, being of the blude royal, and gydit be thair father’s spirit, might have aspyrit to the croun. And because he receavit ane refusal, it is notoriouslie knawin how deidlie he haited the hail hous of the Hamiltonis.—And this maist honest refusal would nather stench his lust nor ambition; bot a lytel efter he did persew to have allyance with the honorabill hous of Ochiltrie of the kyng’s M. awin blude; Rydand thair with ane gret court, on ane trim gelding, nocht lyk ane prophet or ane auld decrepit priest, as he was, bot lyk as he had bene ane of the blude royal, with his bendes of taffetie feschnit with golden ringis, and precious stanes: And as is planelie reportit in the countrey, be sorcerie and witchcraft did sua allure that puir gentil woman, that scho could not leve without him; whilk appeiris to be of gret probabilitie, scho being ane damsel of nobel blud, and he ane auld decrepit creatur of maist bais degrie of onie that could be found in the countrey: Sua that sik ane nobil hous could not have degenerat sua far, except Johann kmnox had interposed the powar of his maister the Devil, quha as he transfiguris him self sumtymes in an angel of licht; sua he causit Johann kmnox appeir ane of the maist nobil and lustie men that could be found in the warld.” Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 143, 144. But the devil outwitted himself in his design of raising the progeny of the Reformer to the throne of Scotland, if we may believe another popish writer. “For as the common and constant brute of the people reported, as writeth Reginaldus [a most competent witness!] and others, it chanced not long after the marriage, that she [Knox’s wife] lying in her bed, and perceiving a blak, uglie, il‑favoured man busily talking with him in the same chamber, was sodainely amazed, that she took seikness and dyed;” [nor does the author want honourable witnesses to support this fact, for he immediately adds,] “as she revealed to two of her friends, being ladyes, come thither to visite her a little before her decease.” Father A. Baillie’s True Information, p. 41. It is unfortunate, however, for the credit of this “True Information,” that the Reformer’s wife not only lived to bear him several children, but survived him many years. James owed the safety of his crown to another cause. See above, p. 274.

Note U.

Of Christopher Goodman.—From the intimate and long friendship which subsisted between him and our Reformer, this divine deserves more particular notice in this work. The Goodmans were a family of respectability in Chester, and repeatedly held the office of magistrates in that city. In a pedigree of the family, preserved in the British Museum, “Adam Goodman a marchant, and Selay Linge,” have a son “Christoph. prcher.” Harl. MSS. No. 2038. 32. f. 99. During the reign of Edward VI. he read lectures on divinity in Oxford. Strype’s Annals, i. 124. At the accession of queen Mary, he retired first to Strasburg, and afterwards to Frankfort. When he was at Strasburg, he joined in a common letter, advising the exiles of Frankfort to alter as little as possible in the English service; but he became afterwards so much convinced of the propriety of alterations, and was so much offended at the conduct of the Coxian party, that he removed from Frankfort to Geneva, along with those who were of the same sentiments with himself, and was chosen by them joint minister with Knox. Troubles at Franckford, p. 22, 23, 54, 55, 59.

In 1558, he published the book which afterwards created him a great deal of trouble. Its title is, “How superior powers ought to be obeyed: of their subjects and wherein they may lawfully by God’s worde be disobeyed and resisted. Wherein also is declared the cause of all this present miserie in England, and the onely way to remedy the same. By Christopher Goodman. Printed at Geneva, by John Crispin, MDLVIII.” In this book he subscribed to the opinion respecting female government, which his colleague had published a few months before. He maintained that the power of kings and magistrates was limited, and that they might lawfully be resisted, deposed, and punished by their subjects, if they became tyrannical and wicked. These principles he applied particularly to the government of the English Mary. A copy of verses by William Kethe (who translated some of the Psalms into English metre) is added to the work, of which the following is a specimen:—

“Whom fury long fostered by suffrance and awe,

Have right rule subverted, and made will their law.

Whose pride how to temper, this truth will thee tell;

So as thou resist may’st, and yet not rebel.”

Goodman came to England in 1559, but he found queen Elizabeth so much displeased at his publication, that he kept himself private. Burnet, iii. Append. 274. On this account, and in compliance with the urgent request of our Reformer, he came to Scotland. When the lords of the congregation chose him one of the council for matters of religion, the earl of Arran endeavoured to appease the resentment which the English queen still entertained against him. Sadler, i. 510, 511, 532. In 1562, the earl of Warwick repeatedly interceded for him, and for his being recalled from Scotland; “of whom,” says he, “I have heard suche good commendation both of the lord James of Scotland and others, that it seemeth great pitie, that our countrye suld want so worthy and learned an instrument.” Forbes’s State Papers, ii. 235. Calvin urged Goodman not to leave Scotland until the Reformation was completely established. Epistolæ, p. 566. Hannoviæ, 1597. When he did return to his native country in 1565, it was with great difficulty that he was received into favour, notwithstanding the friends he had at court. He was obliged to make a recantation of the offensive doctrines in his publication. He protested and professed that “good and godly women may lawfully govern whole realms and nations;” but he qualified and explained, rather than recanted, what he had taught respecting the punishment of tyrants. Strype has inserted the document in his Annals, i. 126; but he has certainly placed it under the wrong year. Collier calls it “a lame recantation.” Eccl. Hist. ii. 440. In 1572, Goodman subscribed, in the presence of the queen’s ecclesiastical commissioners, a more ample protestation of his obedience to Elizabeth. Strype’s Annals, ii. 95, 96. He was also harassed on account of his non‑conformity to the English ceremonies. Life of Grindal, 170. Life of Parker, 325, 326. Knox corresponded with him after he left Scotland; and Calderwood has preserved a letter which he wrote to him in 1571, in which he alludes to the troubles which he understood his friend was exposed to. MS. ii. 270. Goodman accompanied Sir Henry Sidney to Ireland when he was sent to subdue the popish rebels in that country. Troubles at Franckford, p. 196. In 1580, he resided at Chester, from which he sent his salutations to Buchanan. Buchanani Epistolæ, 30, 31. Oper. edit. Rud. He died at Chester, in 1601, according to verses to his memory in Supplement. Goodman’s book was quoted, but for very different purposes, by Bancroft, (Dangerous Positions, b. ii. chap. i.) and by Milton, (Tenure of Magistrates: Prose Works by Symmons, vol. iii. p. 196.)

Goodman was not the only person belonging to the English church who published free sentiments respecting civil government. About the same time with his book, there appeared another work on that subject, entitled, “A Short Treatise of Politique Pouuer, and of the True Obedience which Subjectes owe to Kynges.” Its author was Dr John Ponet, bishop, first of Rochester, and afterwards of Winchester, under Edward VI. Ames, iii. 1594. He discusses the questions respecting the origin of political authority, its absolute or limited nature, the limits of obedience, and the deposition and punishment of tyrants. “This book,” says Strype, “was not over favourable to princes. Their rigors and persecutions, and the arbitrary proceedings with their peaceable subjects in those times, put them upon examining the extent of their power, which some were willing to curtail and straiten as much as they could.—This book was printed again in the year 1642, to serve the turn of those times.” Memorials of the Reformation, iii. 328, 329. In the second edition of the work, it is said to have been originally published in 1556. Collier (who was a keen Tory) calls it “a most pestilent discourse.” He wished to believe that bishop Ponet was not the author, but it is evident from what he says, that he could see no reason for departing from the common opinion. History, ii. 363. Ponet was a superior scholar. He read the Greek Lecture in the university of Cambridge about 1525, and was among the first who adopted the new method of pronouncing that language introduced by Sir Thomas Smith. He also wrote several books on mathematics and other subjects, which were greatly esteemed. Strype’s Life of Sir Thomas Smith, p. 26, 27. Ames, Typ. Antiq. i. 599. ii. 753, 1146. iii. 1587.

Note V.

The proceedings of the committee appointed to prepare overtures to the parliament, Dec. 1567, are to be found in Robertson’s Records of the Parliament of Scotland, and Act. Parl. Scot. vol. iii. Almost the only ecclesiastical propositions of the committee which were not adopted by the parliament, were such as related to the patrimony of the church. I shall extract one or two respecting the commonwealth, which did not obtain a parliamentary sanction. “Als it is thocht expedient that in na tymes cuming ony women salbe admittit to the publict autoritie of the realme, or function in publict government within ye same.” On the margin, opposite to this, is written, “Fund gude;” which is expressive, as I understand it, of the committee’s approbation of the motion. As Knox, at a period subsequent to this, declared from the pulpit that he had never “entreated that argument in publict or in privat” since his last arrival in Scotland, (Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 117,) it appears that this motion had been made by some other member of the committee. The late misconduct of queen Mary must have had a great effect in inclining them to give this advice. The 23d article does great honour to the enlightened views of the movers. It proposes that all hereditary jurisdictions throughout the kingdom should be abolished. On the margin is written, “Apprevit,” and farther down, “Supercedis.” A long time elapsed, before this measure, so necessary to the salutary administration of justice, was adopted in Scotland. The 30th article also is of great importance, as intended to prevent delay of justice, by shortening processes. The following was a proposed sumptuary law: “Item, that it be lauchfull to na wemen to weir abone yair estait except howris.” On the margin of this is written, “This act is verray gude.” Act. Parl. Scot. vol. iii. p. 38–40. Robertson’s Rec. of Parl. p. 795, 798.

The ministers appointed on this committee, were “Maister Johne Spottiswood, Maister Johne Craig, Johne Knox, Maister Johne Row, and Maister David Lindsay.” It will be observed that our Reformer is the only one who has not “Maister” prefixed to his name. This title was expressive of an academical degree. It was commonly given in that age to Masters of Arts, as well as Doctors of Law, and in their subscriptions they put the letter M. or the word “Maister,” before their names.

Note W.

Remarks on Dr Robertson’s character of the Regent Murray.—I am not moved with the unfavourable representations which the partisans of Mary have given of Murray, nor am I surprised at the cold manner in which Mr Hume has spoken of him; but I confess that it pains me to think of the way in which Dr Robertson has drawn his character. The faint praise which he has bestowed on him, the doubt which he has thrown over his moral qualities, and the unqualified censures which he has pronounced upon some parts of his conduct, have, I am afraid, done more injury to the regent’s memory, than the exaggerated accounts of his adversaries. History of Scotland, vol. ii. 315, 316. Lond. 1809. Having said this much, it will be expected that I shall be more particular. In addition to those qualities which “even his enemies allow him to have possessed in an eminent degree,” Dr R. mentions his humanity, his distinguished patronage of learning, and impartial administration of justice. “Zealous for religion,” he adds, “to a degree which distinguished him even at a time when professions of that kind were not uncommon.” This is what every person must allow, but it certainly is far from doing justice to this part of the regent’s character. His professions of religion were uniformly supported in all the different situations in which he was placed; his strict regard to divine institutions was accompanied with the most correct and exemplary morals; his religious principle triumphed over a temptation which proved too powerful for almost all the protestant nobility. (See above, p. 290.) When there exist such proofs of sincerity, to withhold the tribute due to it is injurious not only to the individual, but to the general interests of religion. After bearing a decided testimony to the “disinterested passion for the liberty of his country,” which prompted Murray to oppose the pernicious system of the princes of Lorrain, and the “zeal and affection” with which he served Mary on her return to Scotland, the historian adds:—“But, on the other hand, his ambition was immoderate; and events happened that opened to him vast projects, which allured his enterprising genius, and led him to actions inconsistent with the duty of a subject.” That his ambition was “immoderate” does not, I think, appear from any evidence which has been produced. Dr R. has defended him from the charge as brought against him at an earlier period of his life, and we have met with facts that serve to corroborate the defence. (See vol. i. p. 443.) The “vast projects” that opened to him must be limited to the attainment of the regency; for I do not think that Dr R. ever for a moment gave credit to the ridiculous tale, that he designed to set aside the young king, and seat himself upon the throne. His acceptance of the regency cannot be pronounced “inconsistent with the duty of a subject,” without determining the question, Whether the nation was warranted, by the misconduct and crimes of Mary, to remove her from the government, and to crown her son. “Her boldest advocates,” says Mr Laing, “will not venture to assert, that, on the supposition of the fact being fully proved, that she was notoriously guilty of her husband’s murder, she was entitled to be restored.” History of Scotland, i. 137, second edition. Murray was fully satisfied of her guilt before he accepted the regency. Never was any person raised to such a high station with less evidence of his having ambitiously courted the preferment. Instead of remaining in the country to turn the embroiled state of affairs to his personal advantage, he, within two months after the murder of the king, left Scotland, not clandestinely, but after having asked and obtained leave. And whither did he retire? Not into England, to concert measures with that court, or the more easily to carry on a correspondence with the friends whom he had left behind him; but into France, where his motions could be watched by the friends of Mary. Ibid. p. 59–61. The association for revenging the king’s murder, and for preserving the young prince, the surrender of Mary, and her imprisonment in Lochleven, followed so unexpectedly and so rapidly, that they could not have proceeded from his direction. Nay, there is positive evidence that the lords who had imprisoned Mary, so far from having acted in concert with Murray, were suspicious that he would counteract their designs. “As yet theys lordes wyll not suffer Mr Nycholas Elveston, sent from the L. of Murrey, to have access to the quene, nor to send my L. of Murrey’s letter unto her.” Throkmorton’s Letters to Cecil, and to Elizabeth, 16th July, 1567, apud Laing’s History of Scotland, ii. Append. No. 13, p. 121, 126. When he returned to Scotland, he found that the queen had executed formal deeds resigning the government, and appointing him regent during the minority of her son, and that the young prince was already crowned. Hume, vol. v. Note K.

“His treatment of the queen, to whose bounty he was so much indebted, was unbrotherly and ungrateful.” To the charge of ingratitude, I can only reply, by repeating what I have said in the text, that all the honours which she conferred on him were not too great a reward for the important services which he had rendered her. How often have persons been celebrated for sacrificing parental as well as brotherly affection to the public good! The probable reasons for Murray’s interview with the queen in Lochleven have been stated by Mr Laing. History, i. 119–121. Were I to speak of what was incumbent on him as a christian brother with the view of bringing her to a just sense of the iniquity of her conduct, I would use language which, I am afraid, would not be understood by many readers, and which many professed christians seem to forget, when they talk on this subject. Any exertions which were necessary to save his sister’s life were not wanting on the part of Murray. To restore her to the government, or even, as matters then stood, to restore her to liberty, he was not bound by any ties either of a public or private kind. Had he amused her with the hopes of this, he might have escaped the charge of harshness, but his conduct would have been more unbrotherly.

“But he deceived and betrayed Norfolk with a baseness unworthy of a man of honour.” To this harsh censure I oppose the opinion of Mr Hume, who will not be suspected of partiality to the regent. “Particularly,” says he, in a letter to Dr Robertson, written after the publication of his History of Scotland, “I could almost undertake to convince you that the earl of Murray’s conduct with the duke of Norfolk was no way dishonourable.” Stewart’s Life of Robertson: History, i. 158. See also, in confirmation of this, “Part of a letter from the earl of Murray to L. B.,” inserted in vol. ii. Append. No. xxxiii.

“His elevation to such unexpected dignity [the reader will observe that it was unexpected] inspired him with new passions, with haughtiness and reserve: and instead of his natural manner, which was blunt and open, he affected the arts of dissimulation and refinement. Fond, towards the end of his life, of flattery, and impatient of advice, his creatures, by soothing his vanity, led him astray, while his ancient friends stood at a distance, and predicted his approaching fall.” Certainly the facts stated by Dr Robertson in the preceding part of his narrative, do not prepare the mind of his reader for these charges. The severity of the regent’s virtues had, indeed, been mentioned, and it had been asserted that his deportment had become distant and haughty. The authority of Sir James Melvil was referred to in support of this statement; and I am satisfied that it was upon his testimony chiefly that the historian proceeded, when he gave the above account of Murray’s conduct during the latter part of his life. I submit to the reader the following remarks on the degree of credit due to the authority of Melvil.

In the first place, there is every reason to think, either that Melvil’s Memoirs have been unfaithfully published by the editor, or that the narrative which the author of them has given of affairs, from the queen’s marriage with Bothwell to the death of the earl of Murray, is incorrect and unfaithful. I shall not take it upon me to determine which of these is the most probable supposition, but am of opinion that either the one or the other must be admitted. The charge which was brought against queen Mary of participation in the murder of her husband, with all the proofs produced in support of it, is suppressed, and studiously kept out of view in the Memoirs. There is not one word in them respecting the celebrated letters to Bothwell, although they formed the grand vindication of the regent and his friends. The same inference may be drawn from the ridiculous account given of the appearance made by the regent before the commissioners at York, when he presented the nameless accusation against Mary (Memoirs, 96, 97, Lond. 1683); an account which is completely discredited by the journals of both parties, and which neither Hume nor Robertson thought worthy of the slightest regard. It is observable, that Melvil could not be ignorant of the real transaction, as he was present at York; and that the design of this, as well as of the subsequent part of his narrative, is to represent the regent as weakly suffering himself to be duped and misled by designing and violent counsellors. Mr Laing has adverted to both of these things as discreditable to the Memoirs. History, ut supra, i. 118.—I shall produce only one other instance of the same kind. Speaking of the queen’s marriage with Bothwell, Melvil says: “I cannot tell how nor by what law he parted with his own wife, sister to the earl of Huntly.” Mem. 80. Is it credible, that one who was in the midst of the scene, and acquainted even with the secrets of state at that time, could be ignorant of that which was proclaimed to all the world? If it should be alleged that Melvil, writing in his old age, might have forgotten this glaring fact, (the excuse commonly made for his inaccuracies,) I am afraid that the apology will detract as much from the credibility of his Memoirs as the charge which it is brought to repel.

2. In estimating the degree of regard due to the censures which Melvil has passed on the regent’s conduct, we must keep in view the political course which he himself steered. Sir James appears to have been a man of amiable dispositions, whose mind was cultivated by the study of letters; but those who have carefully read his Memoirs must, I think, be convinced that his penetration was not great, and that his politics were undecided, temporizing, and inconsistent. He was always at court, and always tampering with those who were out of court. We find him exposing himself to danger by dissuading his mistress from marrying Bothwell, and yet countenancing the marriage by his presence; acting as an agent for those who had imprisoned the queen, and yet intriguing with those who wished to set her at liberty; carrying a common message from the king’s lords to the earl of Murray upon his return out of France, and yet secretly conveying another message tending to counteract the design of the former; supporting Murray in the regency, and yet trafficking with those who wished to undermine his authority. I do not call in question the goodness of his intentions in all this: I am willing to believe that a desire for the peace of the country, or attachment to the queen, induced him to go between, and labour to reconcile, the contending parties. But when parties are discordant—when their interests, or the objects at which they shoot, are diametrically opposite, to persevere in such attempts is preposterous, and cannot fail to foster and increase confusions. Who believes that the Hamiltons were disposed to join with the king’s party? or that the latter, when unassured of the assistance of England, were averse to a junction with the former? Yet Melvil asserts both of these things. Mem. 85, 86, 90. Who thinks that there was the smallest feasibility in what he proposed to the regent as “a present remedy for his preservation?” or believes that Maitland would have consented to go into France, and Kircaldy to deliver up the castle of Edinburgh? The regent heard him patiently; he respected the goodness of the man; but he saw that he was the dupe of Maitland’s artifices, and he followed his own superior judgment. For rejecting such advices as this (and not the religious proverbs, and political aphorisms, which he quoted to him from Solomon, Augustine, Isocrates, Plutarch, and Theopompus) has Melvil charged him with refusing the counsel of his oldest and wisest friends. Mem. 102–104.

3. What were the errors committed by the regent which precipitated his fall? There are two referred to by Melvil; the imprisonment of the duke and lord Herries, and the accusation of Maitland and Balfour. Mem. 100, 101. In vindication of the former step, I have only to appeal to the narrative which Dr Robertson has given of that affair. Vol. ii. p. 266–299. With respect to the latter, Sir James Balfour was “the most corrupt man of that age,” (ibid. p. 367,) and Maitland was at that time deeply engaged in intrigues against the regent, ibid. p. 307. There is not a doubt that both of them were accessory to the murder of Darnley, (Laing, i. 28, 135, ii. 22); they were arrested and accused at this time at the instance of Lennox, and in consequence of the recent confession of one of Bothwell’s servants; and Maitland was preserved by the queen’s friends assembling in arms for his rescue, which compelled the regent to adjourn his trial. Ibid. ii. 37. Appendix, No. 28, p. 298–9.

4. Who were the unworthy favourites by whose flattery and evil counsel the regent was led astray? Dr Robertson mentions “captain Crawford, one of his creatures.” This is the same person whom he afterwards calls “captain Crawford of Jordanhill, a gallant and enterprising officer,” who distinguished himself so much by the surprise of the castle of Dumbarton. History, ii. 307, 331, comp. Laing, ii. 297, 298; and Douglas’s Baronage of Scotland, 429. Morton, Lindsay, Wishart of Pittarow, Macgill of Rankeillor, Pitcairn abbot of Dunfermline, Balnaves of Hallhill, and Wood of Tilliedavy, were among the regent’s counsellors.

5. Who were his old friends who lost his favour? They could be no other than Balfour, Maitland, Kircaldy, and Melvil himself. Of the two former I need not say a word. Kircaldy of Grange was a brave man, and had long been the intimate friend of the regent; but he was already corrupted by Maitland, and had secretly entered into his schemes for restoring the queen. Robertson, ii. 307. Of Melvil I have already spoken; nay, he himself testifies that the regent continued to the last to listen to his good advices. “The most part of these sentences, (says he,) drawn out of the Bible, I used to rehearse to him at several occasions, and he took better with these at my hands, who he knew had no by‑end, than if they had proceeded from the most learned philosopher. Therefore at his desire I promised to put them in writing, to give him them to keep in his pocket; but he was slain before I could meet with him.” Mem. 104. How this is to be reconciled with other assertions in the Memoirs, I leave others to determine. It required no great sagacity in the ancient friends of the regent to “predict his approaching fall,” when repeated attempts had already been made to assassinate him, and when some of them were privy to the conspiracy then forming against his life; and it says little for their ancient friendship, that they “stood at a distance,” and allowed it to be carried into execution.

There are three honourable testimonies to the excellence of the regent’s character, which must have weight with all candid persons. The first is that of the great historian De Thou. He not only examined the histories which both parties had published of the transactions in Scotland, which made so much noise through Europe, but he carefully conversed with the most intelligent and candid Scotsmen, papists and protestants, whom he had the opportunity of seeing in France. When that part of his history which embraced these events was in the press, he applied to his friend Camden for advice, acquainting him that he was greatly embarrassed, and apprehensive of displeasing King James, who, he understood, was incensed against Buchanan’s History. “I do not wish (says he) to incur the charge of imprudence or malignity from a certain personage who has honoured me with his letters, and encouraged me to publish the rest of my history with the same candour, and regard for truth.” Camden, in reply, exhorted him to study moderation, and told him the story which he had received from his master, imputing the disturbances in Scotland chiefly to the ambition of Murray. Durand, Histoire du XVI. Siecle, tom. vii. contenant la Vie de Monsieur De Thou, p. 226–231. But notwithstanding the respect which he entertained for Camden, and the desire which he felt to please James, De Thou found himself obliged, by a sacred regard to truth, to reject the above imputation, and to adopt in the main the narrative of Buchanan. I shall quote, from his answer to Camden, the character which he draws of Murray. Having mentioned the accusation brought against him, of ambitiously and wickedly aiming at the crown, he says: “This is constantly denied by all the credible Scotsmen with whom I have had opportunity to converse, not even excepting those who otherwise were great enemies to Murray on a religious account; for they affirm, that, religion apart, HE WAS A MAN WITHOUT AMBITION, WITHOUT AVARICE, INCAPABLE OF DOING AN INJURY TO ANY ONE, DISTINGUISHED BY HIS VIRTUE, AFFABILITY, BENEFICENCE, AND INNOCENCE OF LIFE; and that, had it not been for him, those who tear his memory since his death would never have attained that authority which they now enjoy.”—“Res ipsa loquitur: nam demus, quod ab diversa tradentibus jactatur, Moravium ambitione ardentem scelerate regnum appetisse, quod tamen constanter negant omnes fide digni Scoti, quoscunque mihi alloqui contigit, etiam ii quibus alioqui Moravius ob religionis causam summe invisus erat; nam virum fuisse aiebant, extra religionis causam, ab omni ambitione, avaritia, et in quenquam injuria alienum, virtute, comitate, beneficentia, vitæ innocentia, præstantem; et qui nisi fuisset, eos, qui tantopere mortuum exagitant, hodie minime rerum potiturus fuisse.” Epistolæ de Nova Thuani Histor. Editione Paranda. p. 40, in tom. i. Thuani Histor. et tom. vii. cap. v. p. 5. Buckley, 1733.

A second testimony of a very strong kind in favour of the regent is that of archbishop Spotswood. He must have conversed with many who were personally acquainted with Murray; he knew the unfavourable sentiments which James entertained respecting him, which had been published in Camden’s Annals; and he had long enjoyed the favour of that monarch; yet, in his history, he has drawn the character of the regent in as flattering colours as Buchanan himself has done. The last testimony to which I shall appeal is the Vox Populi, strongly expressed by the title of The Good Regent, which it imposed on him, and by which his memory was handed down to posterity. Had he, elated by prosperity, become haughty and reserved, or, intoxicated with flattery, yielded himself up to unprincipled and avaricious favourites, the people must soon have felt the effects of the change, and would never have cherished his name with such enthusiastic gratitude and unmingled admiration.

Note X.

Inscription to the memory of the Regent Murray.—The regent’s monument is yet entire and in good order. It stands in that part of St Giles, now called the Old Church, (the former aisle having been taken into the body of the church when it was lately fitted up,) at the back of the pulpit, on the east side. At the top is the figure of an eagle, and below it “1570,” the date of the erection of the monument. In the middle is a brass plate, on which the following ornaments and inscriptions are engraved: The family arms, with the motto “Salus per Christum” (Salvation through Christ): On one side of the arms, a female figure with a cross and Bible, the word “Religio” above, and below “Pietas sine vindice luget” (Piety mourns without a defender); on the other side, another female figure, in a mourning posture, with the head reclining on the hand, the word “Justicia” above, and below “Jus exarmatum est” (Justice is disarmed.) Underneath is the following inscription, composed by Buchanan:

23 JANVARII 1569.

JACOBO · STOVARTO · MORAVIÆ · COMITI · SCOTIÆ ·

PROREGI · VIRO · ÆTATIS · SVÆ · LONGE · OPTIMO ·

AB · INIMICIS · OMNIS · MEMORIÆ · DETERRIMIS ·

EX · INSIDIIS · EXTINCTO · CEV · PATRI ·

COMMVNI · PATRIA · MOERENS · POSVIT ·

The verses in which Buchanan celebrated the regent are accessible to every scholar. The following lines are less known:

JACOBUS STUARTUS.

Moraviæ Comes, Prorex pro Jacobo vi. rem Scoticam feliciter gessit, puræ Religionis assertor acerrimus. Ab æmulis Limnuchi ex insidiis glande trajectus, magno omnium desiderio moritur ad d. xxiii. Januarii, Anno Christi 1570.

Ter tua dicturus cum dicere singula conor,

Ter numeri, et numeros destituere soni.

Nobilitas, animus, probitas, sapientia, virtus,

Consilium, imperium, pectora sancta, fides,

Cuncta mihi simul hæc instant certamine magno:

Ut sibi, sic certant viribus ista meis;

Ipsi adeo Aonides cum vellent dicere, cedunt

Sponte sua numeris, hæc, Buchanane, tuis.

Johannis Jonstoni Heroes, p. 31, 32

Lugduni Batavorum, 1603.

Knox, among others, warned the regent of the designs which his enemies had formed against his life. “When the Mr of Grahame (says Bannatyne) come and drew him to Dumbartane, he [Knox] plainlie said to the regent then, that it was onlie done for a trane be that meanis to cut him off, as it came to pas; also when he was in Stirveling, being returned from Dumbartane, he sent me to my ladie the regentis wyfe, tuo sundrie tymes, and desyrit her to signifie my lord her husband, that he suld not come to Lynlythgow. So that gif his counsall had bene followed, he had not died at that tyme. And my ladie the last tyme sent Mr Jhone Wood, to desyre him to avoid Lynlythgow. But God thought vs not worthy of sic a rewlare above vs, and also he wald thereby have the wickitnes of vthers knawin, whilk then was hid; and therefore did God then tak him fra us. But lat the Hamiltonis, the lard of Grange, with the rest of that factione, lay their compt and recken thair advantage and wining since.” Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 428, 429. The intrepidity of Murray prompted him to despise these prudential admonition, and defeated the precaution of his friends.

Mr Scott has, by a poetical license, introduced the Reformer as present at Linlithgow, to grace the regent’s fall.

From the wild border’s humbled side,

In haughty triumph marched he,

While Knox relax’d his bigot pride,

And smiled the traitorous pomp to see.

Ballads and Lyrical Pieces, p. 52. Edin. 1810.

Note Y.

Sentiments of Scottish Reformers on the difference between civil and ecclesiastical authority.—I may subjoin a few facts which ascertain the opinion of our reformers on this subject.—In common with other reformed churches, they allowed that civil rulers have a right to employ their authority for the reformation of religion within their dominions, especially when, as was universally the case under the papacy, religious abuses and corruptions affect the state as well as the church, and are interwoven with the civil constitution and administration; they allowed them a power of making laws for the support and advancement of religion; and they held that, where a reformed church existed, there might be a co‑operation between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities about certain objects which came under the cognizance of both, each of them acting within its own line, and with a view to the proper ends of its institution. But, on the other hand, they maintained that civil and ecclesiastical authority were essentially distinct, and they refused that civil rulers had a supremacy over the church as such, or a right to model her government and worship, and to assume to themselves the internal management of her affairs.

The Scottish reformers never ascribed or allowed to civil rulers the same authority in ecclesiastical matters which the English did. In particular, they resisted from the beginning the claim of ecclesiastical supremacy granted to the English monarchs. On the 7th July, 1568, “It was delatit and fund that Thomas Bassinden, printer in Edinburgh, imprintit an buik, intitulat The Fall of the Roman Kirk, naming our King and Soverane Supreme Head of the Primitive Kirk—The haill assemblie ordaint the said Thomas to call in agane all the foirsaidis buikis yat he hes sauld, and keip the rest unsauld, until he alter the forsaid title. Attour, the assemblie appoyntit Mr Alex. Arburthnot to revise the rest of the forsaid tractat, and report to the kirk quhat doctrine he findis thairin.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 38, 39. The General Assembly were frequently occupied in settling the bounds between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and in March 1570 arranged the objects which pertained to the latter under six heads; including, among other things, the judgment of doctrine, administration of divine ordinances, the election, examination, admission, suspension, &c., of ministers, and all cases of discipline. The following is the concluding article: “And because the conjunction of marriages pertaineth to the ministrie, the causis of adherents and divorcements aucht also to perteine to thame, as naturallie annexit thairto.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 51. Actes of the General Assemblies, prefixed to the First and Second Booke of Discipline, printed in 1621, p. 3, 4.

On occasion of some encroachments made on the liberties of the church in 1571, John Erskine of Dun, superintendent of Angus and Mearns, addressed two letters to the regent Mar. They are written in a clear, spirited, and forcible style, contain an accurate statement of the essential distinction between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and should be read by all who wish to know the early sentiments of the church of Scotland on this subject. See Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 279–290.

It has always been a principle of the presbyterian church of Scotland, that the ministers of religion ought not to be distracted from the duties of their office by holding civil places. The first General Assembly (Dec. 1560) agreed to petition the Estates, to “remove ministers from civil offices, according to the canon law.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 2. At the request of the regent Mar, the assembly, or convention, which met at Leith in January 1571–2, allowed Mr Robert Pont, on account of his great knowledge of the laws, to act as a Lord of Session. Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 54. But in March 1572–3, the regent Morton having laid before them a proposal for appointing some ministers Lords of Session, the Assembly “votit throughout that naine was able nor apt to bear the saides twa charges.” They therefore prohibited any minister from accepting the place of a senator; from this inhibition they, however, excepted Pont. Ibid, p. 56. In 1584, Pont resigned his place as a Lord of Session, or rather was deprived of it, in consequence of the act of parliament passed that year, declaring that none of the ministers of God’s word and sacraments—“in time cuming sall in ony waies accept, use, or administrat ony place of judicature, in quhatsumever civil or criminal causes, nocht to be of the Colledge of Justice, Commissioners, Advocates, court Clerkes or Notaris in ony matteris (the making of testamentes onely excepted).” Skene’s Acts, fol. 59, b. Edinburgh, 1597. Lord Hailes’s Catalogue of the Lords of Session, p. 5, and note 34.

The name of Pont often occurs in the account of ecclesiastical transactions during the remainder of the sixteenth century. The writer of Additional Notes to Lord Hailes’s Catalogue of the Lords of Session, calls him by mistake, “the first presbyterian minister of the West Kirk,” p. 8. Edinburgh, 1798. William Harlaw preceded him in that situation, (Keith, 498,) and continued to hold it in August 1571. See Letter to him from the duke and Huntly, in Bannatyne’s Journal, 217. Pont was also commissioner of Murray, and provost of Trinity College, Edinburgh. Upon the death of the earl of March, James VI. offered him the bishopric of Caithness, but he declined accepting it. Keith’s Scottish Bishops, 129. He was the author of several publications, besides the sermons against Sacrilege, repeatedly mentioned.

The time of his death, and his age, appear from the following inscription on his tombstone, in St Cuthbert’s churchyard:

ILLE EGO, ROBERT^9 PONTA‑

N^9 IN HOC PROPE SACRO

CHRISTI QUI FUERA‾‾ PASTOR

GREGIS AUSPICE CHRISTO

ÆTERNÆ HIC RECUBANS EX‑

SPECTO RESURGERE VITÆ.

OBIIT DIE‾‾ ÆT 81, MEN‑

SIS 8 MAII, A. D. 1606.[355]

Note Z.

Particulars respecting Knox’s residence at St Andrews.—The following particulars are extracted from the MS. Diary of Mr James Melville. “Ther wer twa in St Androis wha war his aydant heirars, and wraitt his sermons, ane my condiscipule, Mr Andro Young, minister of Dumblane, who translated sum of them into Latin, and read thame in the hall of the collage insteid of his orations.” The other was a servant of Mr Robert Hamilton, but with what view he took notes Melville could not say. Diary, p. 28.—“Mr Knox wald sum tymes cum in, and repast him in our colleage yeard, and call ws schollars unto him and bliss ws, and exhort ws to knaw God, and his wark in our countrey, and stand be the guid caus, to use our tyme weill, and learn the guid instructiones and follow the guid example of our maisters. Our haill collag [St Leonard’s] maisters and schollars war sound and zelus for the guid caus, the uther twa colleges not sa.” p. 23. “This yeir in the moneth of July, Mr Jhone Davidsone, an of our regents, maid a pley at the marriage of Mr Jhone Colvin, quhilk I saw playit in Mr Knox presence, wharin, according to Mr Knox doctrine, the castle of Edinburgh was besieged, takin, and the captin, with ane or twa with him, hangit in effigie.” p. 24. This seems to have been an exercise among the students at the university. The following extract shows that the fine arts were not then uncultivated, and that the professors and students attended to them in their recreations. “I lernit singing and pleying on instrumentis passing weill, and wald gladlie spend tyme, whar the exercise thairof was within the collag; for twa or thrie of our condisciples pleyed fellin weill on the virginals, and another on the lute and githorn. Our regent had also the pinalds in his chalmer, and lernit sum thing, and I efter him.” Melville adds, that his fondness for music was, at one period, in danger of drawing away his attention from more important studies, but that he overcame the temptation, p. 25.

I may add an extract from the same Diary, relating an incident in the life of one who entertained a high respect for Knox, and afterwards became a distinguished minister in the church. “The ordor of four kirks to a minister, then maid by the erle of Morton, now maid regent, against the quilk Mr Johne Davidsone, an of the regents of our collag, made a buik called The Conference betwix the Clark and the Courtier; for the quhilk he was summoned befor the Justice Air at Haddington this winter (1573) the lest of our course, and banished the countrey.” p. 24. This dialogue, which is in verse, contains the following lines:

Had gude John Knox not yit bene deid,

It had not cum unto this heid:

Had thay myndit till sic ane steir,

He had maid hevin and eirth to heir.

The General Assembly, in October 1577, presented a supplication to the regent Morton, requesting him to allow Mr Davidson to return home from England. Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 70. The editor of Davidson’s Poetical Remains (lately printed) has furnished some interesting information concerning the author. I am indebted to him for correcting a mistake into which I had fallen in the Life of Melville. Davidson returned to Scotland during the lifetime of the regent, though not until his fall. Hume of Godscroft, in his account of Morton’s behaviour before his execution, says, “There he embraced Mr John Davidson, and said to him, you wrote a book, for which I was angry with you; but I never meant any ill to you,—forgive me. Mr Davidson was so moved herewith, that he could not refrain from weeping.” History of the House of Douglas and Angus, ii. 279, 12mo.

Note AA.

Verses to the memory of Knox.—Beza has inserted no verses to the memory of our Reformer, in his Icones, id est, Veræ Imagines Virorum Doctrina simul et Pietate Illustrium, published by him in Latin, anno 1580. But of this work, a French version was published under the title of Les Vrais Pourtraits des Hommes Illustres en Pieté et Doctrine. Geneve, 1581, 4to. In this translation are inserted original verses on Knox, &c. Irving’s Memoirs of Buchanan, 234. Having never seen this translation, I cannot say whether the verses which it contains coincide with those which I am about to quote.

Jacobus Verheiden published “Præstantium aliquot Theologorum, qui Romæ Antichristum oppugnarunt, Effigies, quibus addita eorum Elogia, librorumque Catalogi. Hag. Comit. 1602.” A new edition of this was published by Fredericus Roth‑Scholtz, under the title of “Jacobi Verheidenii Hagæ‑Comitis Imagines et Elogia, &c. Hagæ‑Comitum, 1725.” In this work the following lines are placed under the portrait of Knox:—

Scottorum primum te Ecclesia, CNOXE, docentem,

Audiit, auspiciis estque redacta tuis.

Nam te cælestis pietas super omnia traxit,

Atque Reformatæ Religionis amor.

To the account of his life and writings, in the same work, is added an Epigram in Greek and in Latin, which, according to a common practice in such compositions, consists of a play upon his name, and that of his country, in the way of contrast; representing Knox as driving the nocturnal crows, or scotican sophists, from Scotland. As the author informs us that the Batavian youth amused themselves in making these epigrams, and thinks that some of them will amuse the reader, I shall not withhold this specimen in both languages.

Νυκτερίδας, νυκτὸς κόρακας, καὶ νύκτα ἀφεγγῆ,

Ἄλλα τε λύγρ’ Ἠὼς φεύγει ἀλεξίκακος·

Ὅυτως μὲν ΚΝΟΞΟΣ Σκοτικοὺς δνοφερούς τε σοφιστὰς

Ἐν Σκοτίῃ πάτρῃ ἔκβαλε λαμπόμενος.

Nocturnos corvos, noctem obscuramque, volantes

Mures, Aurora et cetera dira fugat:

Sic CNOXVS Scoticos simul obscurosque sophistas

Ex Scotica lucens ejicit hic patria.

Verheidenii Imagines et Elogia, p. 69, 70.

Hagæ‑Comitum, 1725.

Davidson’s Poem, and Johnston’s Verses, to the memory of Knox, will be found in the Supplement.

Note BB.

Popish account of Knox’s death.—The slanders propagated by the popish writers against our Reformer’s character have been stated in Note S. After the specimen there given, it will not be expected that I shall dwell upon the equally extravagant and incredible narratives which they circulated concerning the manner of his death. I shall, however, translate the substance of Archibald Hamilton’s account, the original picture from which so many copies were afterwards taken. “The opening of his mouth,” he says, “was drawn out to such a length of deformity, that his face resembled that of a dog, as his voice also did the barking of that animal. The voice failed from that tongue, which had been the cause of so much mischief, and his death, most grateful to his country, soon followed. In his last sickness, he was occupied not so much in meditating upon death, as in thinking upon civil and worldly affairs. When a number of his friends, who held him in the greatest veneration, were assembled in his chamber, and anxious to hear from him something tending to the confirmation of his former doctrine, and to their comfort, he, perceiving that his death approached, and that he could gain no more advantage by the pretext of religion, disclosed to them the mysteries of that Savoyan art (Sabaudicæ disciplinæ, magic) which he had hitherto kept secret; confessed the injustice of that authority which was then defended by arms against the exiled queen; and declared many things concerning her return, and the restoration of religion after his death. One of the company, who had taken the pen to record his dying sayings, thinking that he was in a delirium, desisted from writing, upon which Knox, with a stern countenance, and great asperity of language, began to upbraid him: ‘Thou good‑for‑nothing man! why dost thou leave off writing what my presaging mind foresees as about to happen in this kingdom? Dost thou distrust me? Dost thou not believe that all which I say shall most certainly happen? But that I may attest to thee and others how undoubted the things which I have just spoken are, go out all of you from me, and I will in a moment confirm them by a new and unheard‑of proof.’ They withdrew at length, though reluctantly, leaving only the lighted candles in the chamber, and soon returned, expecting to witness some prodigy, when they found the lights extinguished, and his dead body lying prostrate on the ground.” Hamilton adds, that the spectators, after recovering from their astonishment, replaced the dead body in the bed, and entered into an agreement to conceal what they had witnessed; but God, unwilling that such a document should be unknown, disclosed it, “both by the amanuensis himself, [Robertus Kambel a Pinkincleugh,] soon after taken off by a similar death, and by others who, although unwillingly, made clear confessions.” De Confusione Calvin. Sectæ apud Scotos, fol. 66, 67. Those who have not access to the work itself, will find the original words extracted, although with some slight inaccuracies, by Mackenzie. Lives of Scottish writers, iii, 131, 132. “All the rest of the Romish writers,” says Mackenzie, “insist upon such like ridiculous stories that are altogether improbable.” Hamilton’s fabrications gave occasion, however, to the publication of that minute and satisfactory narrative of the last illness and death of Knox, drawn up by one who waited on him all the time, and added by principal Smeton to the answer which he made to that virulent writer. See above, p. 219. Yet the popish writers continued to retail Hamilton’s story until a late period. It was published by Knot in his Protestancy Condemned, Doway 1654; and in The Politician’s Catechism, printed at Antwerp, 1658, “permissu superiorum.” Those who wish to see the variations which it had undergone by that time, and who have not met with these writings, may be satisfied by looking into Strype’s Life of Archbishop Parker, p. 367.

“The miserable, horrible, detestable, and execrable deaths” of Luther, Calvin, and other heretics of that time, are particularly recorded by James Laing, in the work to which I have repeatedly referred.

Note CC.

Knox’s stipend.—The General Assembly held in March 1573, passed the following act:—“The Assemblie, considering that the travels of umqll Johne Knox, merits favourablie to be remembrit in his posteritie, gives to Margaret Stewart, his relict, and hir thrie daughters of the said umqll Johne, the pension qlk he himselfe had in his tyme of the kirk, and that for the year aproachand and following his deceis, of the year of God 1573, to their education and support, extending to five hundreth merks money, twa ch. quhait, sax ch. beir, four ch. aittes.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 56.

On the 25th of May, 1574, in an action “at the instance of Margaret Haldin, relict of umqll Mr Henry Fowlis of Colingtown, takesman and fermorar of the kirk of Haillis, aganis Margaret Stewart, relict of umqll Johnne Knox, minister, and Andro Ker of Fadounsyd, now hir spous for his entress, and Maister Adam Lethame, minister at the kirkis of Currie, Haillis, and Sanct Katherine of the hoppis;” setting forth that both these parties demanded from her, the said Margaret Halden, “the sowme of 1c pundis wt the kirkland of Currie, viz., the thrid of the personage of Currie, extending to lxiiijli viijs xd and thrid pairt penny, and the rest extending to xxxvli xis 1d twa pairt penny, furth of the thrid of Dumfermling,—and she aucht not to be compellit to mak dowbill payment thairof.—The lordis of counsale desernis and ordanis the same Margaret Haldin to answer, obey, and mak payment to the said Margaret Stewart, relict foirsaid, and her bairnes, of the dewtie contenit in the said tak of the crop and yeir of God, 1m vc lxxiiij yeris, as pairtie fundin be the saidis lordis haveand maist ryt thairto, conforme to ane decreit given by the lordis of secreit counsale, of the dait the 25 day of Marche, the yeir of God 1m vc lxxiiij yeris, schawin and produced befoir the saidis lordis,” &c. Reg. of Decreets of Court of Session, vol. lvi. fo. 45.

On the 23d of May, 1569, in an action “at the instance of Allan Couttis, chalmerlain of the abbacy of Dumfermling, aganis Johne Knox, minister of Christes evengell, allegeing that the silver males victuall of certane landis and tiendis of the said abbacy of Dumfermling ar assignit to him in payment of his stipend of the crope and yeir of God 1m vc lxviij yeris,—and that the said complener, as chalmerlane foirsaid, is awand to him the sowme of twa hundreth and fiftie merkis, as for the silver maill of the landis assignit to him as said is, of the terme of Witsonday, the yeir of God foirsaid. The lordis of consale decernis the said Allane Cowtes to answer and obey the said Johne Knox of the said termes payment, as pairtie fundin by the said lordis havand maist right thairto, after the form and tenor of the assignation given and granted to him thairupon, of the dait the 21 day of September the yeir of God 1m vc lxviij yeris,” &c. Reg. of Decreets, vol. xlii. fo. 437.

The following extracts throw light on the subject of his stipend at an earlier period:—

“The Compt of Sir John Wyisharte of Pitarrow, Knycht Comptroller and Collector Generall of the Thredis of the Benefices of the Realme, 1564.

“And upown the first day of August, anno &c. lxiiij, delivered to Johne Knox, minister, at my lord comptrollaris command, in part of payment of his stipend, the soume of ane hundreth pundis, as his acquittance beris,       jc li.

“And mair deliverit to Margaret Fowles, Johne Knox servand, the x day of October, the soume of twentye pundis,       xxli.

“And upoune the xvij day of October, ȝeir abonewritten, to John Reid, servand to Johne Knox, the soume of fourtye pundis,       xlli.

“And mair, the ix day of Januar, ȝeir foirsaid, anno &c. deliverit to Robert Watsone, burges of Edinburgh, for Johnne Knox, the sowme of ane hundrethe pundis, as his acquittance therupoune beris,       jc li.

“And to Johnne Willock, the xviij day of September, ȝeir, &c. lxiiij, deliverit the soume of fouretye pundis at my lord comptrollaris command, in part of payment of his stipend, as his acquittance beris,       xlli.

“Alsua the comptare aucht to be discharged of the prices of six chalderis beir at twa merkis the boll, and four chalder aittis at xxs the boll, coft be the comptare, and delivered to the said John Knox, minister, for the beir and aits allowit in his stipend of the lxiiij yeiris crop, quherof na allowance is tane be ony of the collectouris of befoir, extending in money to       ijc xxiiijli.

“The Compt of Schir Williame Murray of Tullybardin, knight comptroller and collector generall of the thriddis of the benefices, &c. At Edr. Jan. 2, 1567, of crope 1566.

“And als the comptare aucht to be discharged of the soume of twa hundreth fourescoir twa pundis threttene schillingis four penneis, pait and deliverit be the comptare to Johne Knox, minister, for the half of his stipend of the cropp and ȝeir of God Im vc lxvj yeiris baith silver and victuall at command of my lord regentis precept, as the same and his acquittance producit upon compt proportis,       ijc lxxxij lib xiijs iiijd.

“And of the soume of ane hundreth thretty three pundis six schillinges aucht penneis pait be the comptare to William Stewart, Ross Herald, translater of sic werkis in the kirk as ar necessar for edifiing of the people, quherof he hes had allocatioun of ald be the appointment of the Buke of the modificatioun of the ministerie.       jc xxxiijli vis viijd.”

Note DD.

Of Knox’s descendants.—In the former editions of this work, it was stated that one of our Reformer’s daughters was married to Robert Pont, minister of St Cuthbert’s; but I have since ascertained that her husband was Zachary Pont, one of the sons of that minister. This appears from the following documents:

“Nov. 13. 1599.—Mr Zach. Pont, portioner of Schyresmilne, and Margaret Knox, his spouse,” inhibited by Bessie Colvill.

“11 Feby, 1602.—Said Mr Zach. Pont and spouse inhibited by Mr Johne Velsche, minister of Godis word at our bust of Kirckcudbryt, and Elizabethe Knox his spous.” Pont owes complainers 1000m, as per contract between parties at Schyrismylne, 8 Apr. 1596. Regd in books of Session, 17 Nov. 1601. (Particular Register of Inhibitions, vol. v.)

“Marg. Knox, spous to Mr Zach. Pont, minister at Boar in Cathnes, wt consent of Mr Jon Ker, minister at Preston, and Mr Jas Knox, ane of the regents of the College of Edn,” receives from Andro Lord Stewart of Vchiltrie, 1300 merks. (Gen. Reg. of Decreets, vol. cvii; 28 May, 1605.) There is a previous deed relating to the same transaction, which is signed by “Mr Jon Ker, sone to umqll Andro Ker of Fadounside, witnes”. (Ibid. vol. civ; 13 Dec. 1664.)

The celebrated Dr Witherspoon, minister of Paisley, and afterwards president of the college of New Jersey, in America, was a descendant of our Reformer: and, according to the information of Dr Samuel Stanhope Smith, his son‑in‑law, and successor in the presidency, traced his line of descent through Mrs Welch.

I have been favoured with the following pedigree from Alexander Thomson, Esq. of Banchory, in Aberdeenshire. “John Knox, the celebrated Reformer, left three daughters, one of whom was married to a Mr Baillie of the Jerviswood family, and by him had a daughter, who was married to a Mr Kirkton of Edinburgh. By this marriage Mr Kirkton had a daughter, Margaret, who was married to Dr Andrew Skene in Aberdeen. Dr Skene left several children, the eldest of whom, Dr Andrew Skene, had by his wife, Miss Lumsden of Cushnie, several sons and daughters. One of these, Mary, was married to Andrew Thomson of Banchory, who had issue by her, Margaret, Andrew, and Alexander. Andrew married Miss Hamilton, daughter of Dr Hamilton, of Marischall College, Aberdeen, and by her had issue, Alexander, born June 21, 1798, and present proprietor of Banchory.” It is not uncommon for persons who happen to be of the same name with an individual who has attained celebrity, to claim a family relation to him upon very slender grounds. But in the present instance, not to mention the particularity of detail in the genealogical table, there is no ground to suspect that the tradition could have such an origin; as the name of Knox occurs only at the earliest stage of the supposed connexion. Perhaps one of the Reformer’s daughters was twice married; or, which I think more probable, it was one of his grand‑daughters who married a Mr Baillie of Jerviswood. Among the pictures at Mellerstain (now the seat of the ancient family of Jerviswood) is a portrait of captain Kirkton, an officer of the Royal Navy. And we know from other authorities, that Robert Baillie of Jerviswood, who was executed at Edinburgh in 1684, was brother‑in‑law to Mr James Kirkton, minister first at Merton, and afterwards in Edinburgh. Burnet’s Hist. of his own Times, ii. 157. Wodrow, i. 422.

Mr Thomson of Banchory possesses from his ancestors an antique watch; and the tradition in the family is, that this watch belonged to the Reformer, and was presented to him by queen Mary, at a time when she was anxious to cajole him into an approbation of her measures. On the brass‑plate of the inner case are the words, N. Forfaict à Paris. Professor Leslie, whose extensive acquaintance with the history of inventions is well known, after examining an accurate description of this time‑piece by Dr Knight of Aberdeen, says, “that the watch in question might have been the property of John Knox, is possible, and the tradition is in this case not improbable. At the same time it must be admitted, that pocket watches were extremely rare at that period, and probably confined for the most part to princes and the more opulent nobility.” He adds, “I have had the opportunity of inspecting an antique watch, through the politeness of Mr J. Scot, late chemist in Edinburgh, the lineal descendant of a Frenchman of the name of Massie, who, having attended queen Mary into Scotland, had received the relic from his mistress. It is a small round old watch, scarcely exceeding an inch in diameter, and made by Hubert in Rouen. It is precisely of the same structure, but without carving or other ornament, as the one with which that artful princess is said to have endeavoured to bribe our stern reformer.”

I have only to add, that no notice is taken of this relic and token of royal favour in the testament of John Knox, or in the inventory of his goods presented by his widow after his decease.

Note EE.

Of Knox’s History of the Reformation.—When they first formed themselves into an association to advance the reformation of religion, the protestants of Scotland, aware that their conduct would be misrepresented, appointed some of their number to commit their proceedings to writing. This laudable practice was continued by them, and the most important events connected with the progress of the Reformation were registered along with the resolutions adopted at their meetings. After they came to an open breach with the queen regent, and she had accused them of rebellious intentions both to their countrymen and to foreign nations, they resolved that a narrative of their proceedings should be drawn up from these records, and that it should be published to the world for their vindication. Preface to the Gentill Reidare, prefixed to Knox’s Historie, and Præfatio to the Secunde Booke of the Historie, p. 115, edit. 1732. The confusions produced by the civil war prevented them from executing this resolution at the time intended, and the object originally in view was in part answered by occasional proclamations which they had been obliged to make, and by answers which they had published to proclamations issued by the regent. The design was not, however, laid aside; and the person to whom the compilation was committed continued the narrative. The book which is placed second in the printed history was first composed. The third book was next composed, and contains a circumstantial account of the steps taken by the Congregation to obtain assistance from England, which it was judged imprudent to disclose when the former book was drawn up. It brings down the history to queen Mary’s arrival in Scotland. The book which occupies the first place in the printed history was composed after these, and intended as an introduction to them, bringing down the history from the first dawn of the Reformation in Scotland to 1558. See preface to the Gentill Reidare, ut supra. The publication being still delayed, the fourth book was added, which contains the history of ecclesiastical transactions from the arrival of Mary to the end of 1564. The first and fourth books were composed during the years 1566, 1567, and 1568. Historie, p. 86, 108, 282. Some additions were made to the fourth book so late as 1571. Ibid. p. 338. The fifth book in the printed history is not found in any of the ancient MSS. It was added by David Buchanan, but whether he published it from an old MS. or compiled it himself, cannot now be ascertained.

The history was composed by one person, (Preface, ut supra,) and there is no reason for doubting that Knox was the author. In a letter which he wrote on the 23d of October, 1559, he mentions the design of publishing it. Keith, Append. p. 30. The English ambassador, Randolph, says, in a letter to Cecil, dated Edinburgh, 23d September, 1560, “I have tawlked at large with Mr Knox concernynge hys historie. As mykle as ys wrytten thereof shall be sent to your honour, at the comynge of the Lords embassadors by Mr John Woode: He hath wrytten only one booke. If yow lyke that, he shall contynue the same, or adde onie more. He sayethe, that he must have farther helpe than is to be had in this countrie, for more assured knouledge of thyngs passed, than he hath hymself, or can com bye here: yt is a worke not to be neglected, and greatly to be wyshed that yt sholde be well handled.” Life of the Author, p. xliii., prefixed to Knox’s Historie, edit. 1732. From a letter written by Knox to Mr John Wood, and dated Feb. 14, 1568, it appears that he had come to the resolution of withholding the history from the public during his life. See Appendix. The important light in which he considered the work, appears from the way in which he expressed himself in April 1571, when he found that the state of his health would not permit him to finish it. “Lord, provyde for thy flocks trew pastouris; rease thou up the spretis of some to observe thy notable workis, faythfullie to commit the same to writ, that the prosperities [posterities] to come may praise thy holie name, for the great graces plentyfullie powred foorth upon this vnthankfull generatione. Jhone Knox trusting end of trawell.” Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 129. He did not, however, desist altogether from the prosecution of the work. It appears from two letters of Alexander Hay, clerk to the privy council, written in December 1571, that the Reformer had applied to him for papers to assist him in the continuation of his history. The papers which Hay proposed to send him related to the years 1567–1571, a period which the printed history does not reach. Bannatyne, p. 294–302.

The following petition, presented by Bannatyne to the first General Assembly which met after our Reformer’s death, with the act of Assembly relating to it, gives the most satisfactory information respecting the history. “Unto your Wisdoms humbly means and shows, I, your servitor Richard Bannatyne, servant to your unquhill most dearest brother John Knox of worthy memory: That where it is not unknown to your wisdoms, that he left to the kirk and town of Edinburgh his history, containing in effect the beginning and progress of Christ’s true religion, now of God’s great mercy established in this realm; wherein he hath continued and perfectly ended at the year of God 1564. So that of things done sinsyne, nothing be him is put in that form and order that he has put the former. Yet not the less there are certain scrolls and papers, and minuts of things left to me by him, to use at my pleasure, whereof a part were written and subscribed by his own hand, and another be mine at his command, which, if they were collected and gathered together, would make a sufficient declaration of the principal things that have occurred since the ending of his former history, at the year foresaid; and so should serve for stuff and matter, to any of understanding and ability in that kinde of exercise, that would apply themselves to make a history, even unto the day of his death. But for so meikle as the said scrolls are so intacked and mixed together, that if they should come in any hands not used nor accustomed with the same, as I have been, they should altogether lose and perish: And seeing also I am not able, on my own costs and expenses, to apply myself and spend my time to put them in order, which would consume a very long time; much less am I able to write them, and put them in register, as they require to be, without your wisdoms make some provision for the same: Wherefore I most humbly request your wisdoms, That I may have some reasonable pension appointed to me by your wisdoms discretion, that thereby I may be more able to await and attend upon the samine; lest these things, done by that servant of God dear to you all, should perish and decay, which they shall do indeed, if they be not put in register, which I will do willinglie, if your wisdoms would provide, as said is. And your wisdoms answer,” &c. To this supplication the Assembly gave the following answer:—“The Assembly accepted the said Richard’s offer, and request the kirk of Edinburgh, to provide and appoint some learned men, to support Richard Bannatyne, to put the said history, that is now in scrolls and papers, in good form, with aid of the said Richard. And because he is not able to await thereon, upon his own expences, appoints to him the sum of forty pounds, to be payed of the 1572 years crope, be the collectors under‑written, viz. the collector of Lothian, Fife, Angus, and the West, Galloway, and Murray, every one of them to pay six pound thirteen shillings four pennies of the said crope; and it shall be allowed to them in count, they bringing the said Richard’s acquittance thereupon.” Life of the Author, p. xliv. xlv. prefixed to Historie, edit. 1732. Book of Univ. Kirk, p. 56.

It is probable that the deficiency of the funds of the church prevented the publication of the history during Morton’s regency; and the change of politics after James assumed the reins of government into his own hands, precluded all hope of its being allowed to be printed in Scotland. An attempt was made to have it printed in England; but after the work had proceeded so far, the press was stopped. This appears from the following extract from Calderwood’s MSS. “February, 1586, Vaultrollier the printer took with him a copy of Mr Knox’s History to England, and printed twelve hundred of them; the stationers, at the archbishop’s command, seized them the 18 of February; it was thought that he would get leave to proceed again, because the council perceived that it would bring the queen of Scots in detestation.” Calderwood’s MS. apud Life of Knox, p. 45, prefixed to edition of Historie, Edinburgh, 1732. Bishop Bancroft also mentions it in the following terms, “If you ever meet with the History of the Church of Scotland penned by Mr Knox, and printed by Vaultrollier, read the pages quoted here in the margent.” Bancroft’s Survey, (originally printed in 1593,) republished in 1663, p. 37. Copies of this imperfect edition were allowed to go abroad, and are still to be met with. In 1644, David Buchanan published his edition of Knox’s History at London in folio, which was reprinted the same year at Edinburgh in quarto. The editor prefixed a preface concerning the antiquity of the Scots, and a Life of Knox, both of which were written by himself. He modernised the language of the history; but not satisfied with this, he also altered the narrative, by excluding some parts of it, and by making numerous interpolations. It appears from the passage formerly quoted from Milton, (see vol. i. p. 464,) that attempts were made to suppress, or at least to mutilate, this edition; but the passage is so obscure that we cannot learn from what quarter these attempts were made. At last, a genuine and complete edition of the history was printed in 1732, from a manuscript belonging to the university of Glasgow, compared with several other manuscripts of undoubted antiquity. Those who wish to know the great difference between this edition and that of David Buchanan, may consult Mr Wodrow’s letter, inserted at large in the Life of the Author, p. xlvi–li. prefixed to the Historie, edit. 1732, and partially inserted in Nicolson’s Scottish Historical Library, p. 132–141. Lond. 1736. All the editions of the history lately published are mere copies of Buchanan’s spurious and interpolated one.

This deduction of facts may serve to clear the subject of the History from the difficulties in which it has been involved. That Knox was the author of the first four books, as they are printed in the edition 1732, is beyond all reasonable doubt. After the publication of that edition, it is mere perverseness to endeavour to discredit the authenticity or genuineness of the History, by insisting on the alterations and interpolations of David Buchanan. To infer that he was not the author of the History from the difference between its style and that of his undoubted works, is quite conjectural. The historical and the didactic styles are different in themselves; and when we consider the intervals at which the history was composed, the numerous avocations which distracted the author’s attention, and the multiplicity of facts which it was requisite for him to collect and investigate, we will not be surprised to find this work inferior, in point of language and arrangement, to those tracts which he composed on single topics, and which, having the sentiments at his command, he was left at liberty to arrange and to adorn. The facts which I have produced tend also to corroborate the credibility of the History, as they evince that, however negligent as to points of inferior consideration, the author was most active and laborious in searching for materials, and in procuring, when it was at all possible, original and authentic documents. And such was his character for integrity, that I am persuaded there are few, if any, who believe that he would insert as a fact any thing of whose truth he was not fully convinced.

Note FF.

Catalogue of Knox’s writings.—The following catalogue of the Reformer’s works will, I trust, be found more correct and complete than any one which has hitherto appeared. The titles have been accurately copied from the books themselves, when I could possibly procure them, and at the end of each I have mentioned where a copy may be seen. For the titles of such as I have not seen, I have had recourse to the best authorities, as marked after each article. I have also noticed those of which there are copies in the MS. volume in my possession.

1. “An admonition, or warning, that the faithfull Christians in London, Newcastel, Berwycke, and others, may avoide God’s vengeance both in thys life and in the life to come. Compyled by the servaunt of God, John Knokes.” A cut of truth, poor woman, handcuffed and fastened in the stocks, with a halter about her neck, held by Tyrannye on the one hand, while Crueltye, with a cornered cap, is threatening her with a rod on the other. Beneath the cut, “The persecuted speaketh,

I fear not death, nor passe not for bands:

Only in God put I my whole trust,

For God will requyre my blod at your hands,

And this I know that once dye I must,

Only for Chryst, my lyfe if I give:

Death is no death, but a meane for to leyve.”

Under these verses in ancient writing “John Frythe boke Red and send yt agayne.” E, in eights. “From Wittonburge by Nicholas Dorcastor. Anno M.D.LIIII. the viii of May. Cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum.” W. H. (Ames by Herbert, p. 1576,) sixteens. Comp. Tanneri Bibliotheca Britannico‑Hibernica, p. 460. See above, vol. i. p. 136, note.

2. “A faythful admonition made by John Knox, unto the professours of God’s truthe in England, whereby thou mayest learne howe God wyll have his churche exercised with troubles, and how he defendeth it in the same. Esaie ix. After all this shall not the Lordes wrath ceasse, but yet shall hys hande be stretched out styll. Ibidem. Take hede that the Lorde roote thee not out both heade and tayle in one daye.”

On the back of title: “The epistle of a banyshed manne out of Leycestershire sometime one of the preachers of Goddes worde there, to the Christen reader wysheth health, deliveraunce, and felicitie.”

“Imprynted at Kalykow the 20 daye of Julii 1554. Cum gratia et privilegio ad Imprimendum solum.” French black letter, extends to I, and makes 63 leaves. Advocates’ Library. A copy of this in MS. Vol.

3. “A godly letter sent to the faythefull in London, Newcastell, Barwyke, and to all other within the realme of Englande, that love the coming of our Lord Jesus, by Jhon knox. Matth. x. He that continueth unto the ende shall be saved. Imprinted in Rome, before the Castel of S. Aungel, at the signe of Sainct Peter. In the moneth of July, in the yeare of our Lord 1554.” D, 28 leaves, Fr. black letter. Advocates’ Library. A copy in MS. Vol.

4. “A confession and declaratiō of praiers added thereunto, by Jhon Knox, minister of christes most sacred Evangely, upon the death of that moste famous king Edward the VI. kynge of Englande, Fraunce, and Ireland, in which confession, the sayde Jhon doth accuse no less hys owne offences, than the offences of others, to be the cause of the awaye takinge of that most godly prince, nowe raininge with Chryst whyle we abyde plagues for our unthāfulnesse. Imprinted in Rome, before the Castel of S. Aungel, at the signe of Sainct Peter. In the moneth of July, in the yeare of our Lorde, 1554.” C, 19 leaves. Fr. black letter. Advocates’ Library.

The “Confession” is inserted in vol. i. Note U. The “Declaration of Praiers” is in MS. Vol. See vol. i. Note N. Another edition was licensed in 1580. See Ames, p. 1146.

5. “The copie of a letter sent to the ladye Mary dowagire, regent of Scotland, by John Knox in the yeare 1556. Here is also a notable sermon, mayde by the sayde John Knox, wherein is evydentlye proved that the masse is and alwayes hath been abhominable before God, and Idolatrye. Scrutamini Scripturas.” H, extends to 64 leaves, 16mo. Black letter. No year or place of printing. A copy of this rare book, which belonged to the late Duke of Roxburghe, is now in the Advocates’ Library.

Ames (p. 1587) introduces this book as printed in 1556, but without alleging any authority; and (p. 1834) he speaks of the Sermon against the Mass as printed in 1550, for which he quotes T. Baker’s Maunsell, p. 101. Both the tracts contained in this book are in MS. Vol.

6. “Ane Exposition upon the syxth Psalme of Dauid, wherein is declared hys crosse, complayntes and prayers, moste necessarie too be red of all them, for their singular comforte, that vnder the banner of Christe are by Satan assaulted, and feele the heauye burthen of synne, with which they are oppressed. The paciente abydinge of the sore afflicted was neuer yet confounded.” Ends on the reverse of the last leaf of F. On G begins, “A comfortable Epistell sente to the afflicted church of Chryst, exhortynge thē to beare hys crosse with paciēce, lokyng euery houre for hys commynge agayne to the greate comfort and consolacion of hys chosen, with a prophecy of ye destruction of the wycked. Whereunto is joyned a most wholesome counsell, howe to behaue ourselues in the myddes of thys wycked generacion touching the daily exercise of Gods most holy and sacred worde. Wrytten by the man of God, J. K.”

A copy of this very rare collection of tracts, which also belonged to the late Duke of Roxburghe, is now in the Advocates’ Library. It wants two or three leaves at the close,—ending with I, 5. Black letter, 16mo. (All of these are in MS. Volume. The “wholesome counsell” is inserted in vol. i. Note Z.) In the same volume, and printed with the same type, are two tracts by “Gracious Menewe,” the first on “Auricular Confession,” and the second, “Of the Communion in both kyndes.” It has been conjectured that Knox wrote these under a fictitious name.

7. “The copie of a lettre delivered to the laidie Marie, Regent of Scotland, from Johne Knox minister of Goddes worde, in the yeare of our Lord 1556, and nowe augmented and explained by the author in the yeare of our Lord 1558.” Device: two arches, one narrow, the other broad; over the narrow one is a crown of laurel, over the broad one flames of fire, with this motto about them, “Enter in at the streit gate: for wide is the gate, and brode is the waye, that leadeth to destruction, Matth. vii.” Printed at Geneva, by James Pollain, and Antonie Rebul. M.D.LVIII. D, extends to 28 leaves. Rom. letter, 16mo. Advocates’ Library.

8. “The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regement of Wemen. Veritas temporis filia. M.D.LVIII.” 56 leaves, Rom. letter. Advocates’ Library.

9. “The Appellation of Johne Knoxe from the cruell and most unjust sentence pronounced against him by the false bishoppes and clergie of Scotland, with his supplication and exhortation to the nobilitie, estates and cōmunalitie of the same realme. Printed at Geneva M.D.LVIII.” The appellation is addressed “To the nobilitie, and estates of Scotlād” only; the epistle, “To his beloved brethren the cōmunalitie of Scotlād,” annexed, begins at folio 47, and concludes at folio 59, “Be witnesse to my appellation.—From Geneva the 14 of July, 1558. Your brother to commaunde in godliness, John Knoxe.” On the back of which leaf begins: “An admonition to England and Scotland to call them to repentance, written by Antoni Gilby.” On the back of leaf 78, “Psalme of David xciiii turned into metre by W. Kethe,” ends on first page of folio 80—Rom. letter, 16mo. Advocates’ Library.

It is a mistake to suppose that “Antoni Gilby” was a fictitious name assumed by Knox. Gilby was a member of the English church at Geneva. (See vol. i. p. 187.) Ames mentions several publications by him. See also Tanneri Bibliotheca, p. 318.

10. “The copie of his [John Knox’s] epistle, sent unto Newcastle, and Barwick. [This was, perhaps, another edition of No. 3.] Also a brief exhortatione to Englande for the speedy embracing of Christes gospell, heretofore, by the tyranny of Mary, suppressed. Prin. at Geneva, 1559.” Maunsell, p. 65. With a catalogue of Martyrs, 16mo. Ames, p. 1600. Comp. Tanner, p. 460.

11. “An Answer to a great number of blasphemous cauillations written by an Anabaptist, and Adversarie to Gods eternal Predestination; and confuted by Iohn Knox, minister of Gods worde in Scotland: Wherein the Author so discouereth the craft and falshode of that sect, that the godly knowing that error, may be confirmed in the trueth by the euident worde of God. Prov. xxx. There is a generatiō that are pure in their own cōceit, and yet are not washed from their filthiness. Printed by Iohn Crespin, M.D.LX.” Rom. letter, 454 pages. Advocates’ Library. Another edition was licensed 1580; and it was again printed in 1591. See Ames, p. 1196, 1254, 1263.

12. “Heir followeth the coppie of the ressoning which was betuix the Abbote of Crossraguell and John Knox in Mayboil concerning the Masse, in the yeare of God, a thousand five hundreth thre scoir and two yeares. Apocalips xxii. For I protest, &c. Imprinted at Edinburgh by Robert Lekpreuik, and are to be solde at his hous, at the nether bow. Cum privilegio, 1563.” The running title is “The ressoning betwix Jo. Knox and the abbotte of Crossraguell.” In the library of Alexander Boswell, Esq. of Auchinleck. See above, p. 73.

13. “A sermon preached by John Knox, minister of Christ Jesus, in the publique audience of the church of Edenbrough, within the realme of Scotland, upon Sunday the 19 of August, 1565. For the which the said John Knoxe was inhibite preaching for a season, 1 Tim. iv. The time is come that men cannot abyde the sermon of veritie nor holsome doctrine. To this is adjoyned an exortation unto all the faithfull within the sayde realme, for the reliefe of such as faythfully trauayle in the preaching of Gods word. Written by the same John Knoxe, at the commandment of the ministrie aforesaid.” Consists of 49 leaves; and 11 more, “Of the superintendents to the faithful.” No name of place, nor printer. Sixteens. Ames, p. 1488–89. Tanner, p. 460.

14. “To his loving brethren whome God ones gloriously gathered in the church of Edinburgh, and now are dispersed for tryall of our faith, &c. Johne Knox. Imprented at Striviling be Robert Lekpreuik. Anno Do. M.D.LXXI.” Rom. letter, 4 leaves, 16mo. Advocates’ Library.

15. “An Answer to a letter of a Jesuit named Tyrie, be Johne Knox. Proverbs xxvi. Answer not a foole according to his foolishness, least thou be lyke him: answer a foole according to his foolishness least he be wise in his owē cōseat.

“The contrarietie appearing at the first sight betwix thir twa sentēcis, stayit for a tyme baith heart to meditate and hand to wryte any thing, cōtrair that blasphemous letter. But when with better mynd, God gave me to considder, that whosoever opponis not him self bouldly to blasphemy and manifest leis, differis lytill fra tratouris: cloking and fostering, so far as in them ly, the treasoun of traitouris, and dampnable impietie of those, against whome Gods just vengeance mon burne without end, unless spedie repentāce follow: To quyet therefore my owne conscience, I put hande to the pen as followeth:—Imprentit at Sanctandrois be Robert Lekpruik, Anno Do. 1572.”

“Jhone Knox, the servand of Jesus Christ, now wearie of the world, and daylie luiking for the resolution of this my earthly tabernakle, to the faithful,” &c. 3 pages. Then a prayer in 3 pages, which concludes, “Now, Lord, put an end to my miserie. At Edinburgh the 12 day of Marche 1565.”—On next page begins “An Answer,” &c. At the end, “Of Edinburgh the 10 day of August, anno do. 1568.” Next, “To the Faithfull Reader”—ends “For as the worlde is wearie of me: so am I of it. Of Sanctandrois the 12 of Julii 1572. Johne Knox”—“Followeth the letter as it past from my hand at Diep the 20 Julii 1554. To his loving mother,” &c. (This letter is in MS. Vol.) In all 45 leaves. Rom. letter. Advocates’ Library.

16. “A Fort for the Afflicted. Wherein are ministred many notable and excellent remedies against the stormes of tribulation: Written chiefly for the comforte of Christes little flocke, which is the small number of the faithfull, by John Knoxe. John xvi. 23.” This is an exposition upon the 6th Psalm. It has prefixed, an epistle “To the Religious Reader, by Abr. Flemming.”—“To his beloved mother, J. K. sendeth greeting in the Lorde.” At the end is “A comfortable epistle sent to the afflicted churche of Christ, exhorting them to bear his crosse with patience, &c. Written at Deepe 31 May, 1554.” F 4, in eights. W. H. (Ames, p. 1118.) Tanner (p. 460) says it was printed “Lond. 1580.” This is another edition of the two first tracts described in No. 6.

17. Sermon on Ezekiel ix. 4, printed anno 1580. See a Catalogue of Writers on O. and N. Testament, p. 107. Lond. 1663.

18. “A Notable and Comfortable exposition of M. John Knoxes upon the fourth of Matthew, concerning the tentations of Christ. First had in the public church, and afterwards written for the comfort of certaine private friends, and now published in print for the benefit of all that fear God. At London printed by Robert Waldegrave for Thomas Man, dwelling in Paternoster Row, at the signe of the Talbot.” Advocates’ Library. In MS. Vol.

The words in Italics are supplied, the copy being torn in these places. The book is dedicated by “Johne Fielde,” the publisher, to the “vertuous and my very godly friend Mres Anne Provze of Exeter,” who was the widow of “M. Edward Derring,” a celebrated non‑conformist. Field was also a noted puritan. See Bancroft’s Dangerous Positions, b. iii. chap. 1–5. Field had received the MS. from Mrs Prouze. At the end of the dedication is, “London the first day of the first moneth in the year 1583.” The book consists of 24 leaves.

19. “The Historie of the Church of Scotland.” Imperfect, beginning with page 17. “BY THESE ARTICLES which God of his merciful providence causeth the enemies of his truth to keep in their registers, &c.” and ending with M m, p. 560. “For we judge it a thing most contrarious to reason, godlynes, and equitie, that the widow of the children and him who in;” being part of “the fift head” of the First Book of Discipline. 8vo. Advocates’ Library. This edition is very rare, and none of the copies which have been seen are more complete than that which has been just described. See above, p. 359.

It is unnecessary to give the title of David Buchanan’s edition, printed in 1644 at London, in folio, and reprinted the same year at Edinburgh in quarto.—The genuine and complete edition of the History was published in folio, under the following title:—

“The Historie of the Reformation of Religioun within the Realm of Scotland, conteining the manner and be quhat persons the lycht of Christis Evangell has bein manifested unto this realme, after that horribill and universal defection from the treuth, whiche has come by the means of that Romane Antichryst. Together with the Life of Johne Knoxe, the author, and several curious pieces wrote by him; particularly that most rare and scarce one entitled, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstruous Regiment of Women, and a large Index and Glossary. Taken from the original manuscript in the University Library of Glasgow, and compared with other ancient copies. Edinburgh: Printed by Robert Fleming and Company, 1732.” The life was written by Mr Matthew Crawfurd. See last Note.

Besides the above publications, which were all undoubtedly composed by our Reformer, there are others ascribed to him upon more dubious grounds. Bale, in his Scrip. Maj. Brit. post. pars. art. Knoxus, and Verheiden and Melchior Adam, upon his authority, appear, in several instances, to have given different names to the same tract. They mention among his printed works, “In Genesin Conciones.” We know that he preached sermons on Genesis at Franckfort, (see vol. i. 148,) and it is not unlikely that he continued to do so at Geneva. Perhaps Bale, hearing of these, might think that they were published. Bishop Tanner has enumerated among his works, “Exposition on Daniel, Malburg. M.D.XXIX. 8vo.” Bibliotheca, p. 460. As he mentions the place and year of printing, more credit is due to his account: but there is evidently a mistake in the year, for Knox had not at that time begun to write. It may however be an error of the press for a later year. We have seen (vol. ii. p. 192) that he preached on Daniel at St Andrews.

During the reign of queen Mary of England, a book was published, with this title, “The Huntyng of the Romysh Voulfe,” &c. Of this tract a new edition was printed in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, under the title of “The Hunting of the Fox and the Wolfe, because they make hauocke of the sheepe of Christ Jesus.” This edition is introduced with a preface by an anonymous author, “To al my faithful Brethren in Christ Jesu, and to all other that labour to weede out the weedes of poperie,” &c. The writer of the preface is very severe against the relics of popery retained in the worship of the church of England by the Act of Uniformity. “My good fathers and deare Brethren, who are first called to ye battel to strive for God’s glory and the edificatiō of his people, againste the Romish reliques, and rags of Antichriste, I doubt not but that you will courageouslye and constātly in Christ, rap at these rages of God’s enemies, and that you will by this occasiō race vp many as great enormities, that we al know and labour to race out al the dregs and remnāts of transformed poperie, that are crept into England, by too much lenitie of thē that will be named the Lords of the clergie,” &c. This preface has been ascribed to our Reformer. “So far,” says Herbert, “as one may be allowed to guess at the author by the style, &c. I am inclined to believe this address was written by John Knox, who for magnanimity, courage, and zeal for God’s glory, was at least equal to any of our reformers.” This surmise is in some measure supported by the cut of Truth, &c. at the end of this tract; the same as prefixed to that author’s Admonition or warning, &c, as p. 1576, except only the name of Sutleti being here given to the figure there inscribed Crueltye.” Herbert’s edition of Ames, p. 1605, 1606.

I have not introduced into this catalogue the Form of Excommunication, which was wholly, nor the Treatise of Fasting, which was chiefly, composed by Knox, nor any other of the public papers in which he had a hand, but which were published in the name of the General Assembly.

In an epistle to the reader, contained in his answer to Tyrie, Knox mentions that he had beside him a collection of letters which he had written to Mrs Bowes, and which the state of his health alone prevented him from publishing. It also appears from Field’s dedication prefixed to Knox’s Exposition of the fourth of Matthew, (see p. 240,) that a number of our Reformer’s manuscripts were in circulation in England as well as Scotland. I have in my possession a manuscript volume, containing tracts and letters written by him between 1550 and 1558. This is unquestionably the identical volume which formerly belonged to the Rev. Mr Wodrow, (author of the History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland,) and described under the name of the Quarto volume of MSS. in Crawfurd’s Life of Knox, p. 53, 54, prefixed to the edition of his Historie published in 1732. It consists of 518 pages, including the contents. On the leaf at the beginning of the volume is this title: “The epistles of Mr John Knox, worthy to be read because of the authority of the wryter, the solidity of the matter, and the comfortable Christian experience to be found therein. Edr. 22 feb. 1683. H. T. m. p.” Below, in a hand considerably older, are these words: “This booke belong’d somtyme to Margaret Stewart, widow to Mr Knox, afterwards married to the knight of fawdonesyde. Sister shee was to James Earl of Arran.” Then follow the six tracts described by Mr Crawfurd, in the place above referred to. At the beginning of the Letters, in a hand older than the former, and the same with that in which the Letters themselves are written, is this title: “Certane epistillis and letters of ye servand of God, Johne Knox, send from dyvers places to his friendis and familiaris in Jesus Chryst.” On the margin of the tracts are several short notes by the transcriber, referring to his own times, such as this, “our case at this day in Scotland, 1603.” This ascertains the date of their transcription; and I think it highly probable that they were copied by Mr John Welsh, a son‑in‑law of the Reformer, one of whose letters is inserted on some blank leaves in the middle of the volume. The letters have evidently been written by the same person (although the hand appears older); and, on the margin of a treatise at the end of them, “1603” occurs. Margaret Stewart, the Reformer’s relict, was alive about the end of the 16th century; but whether the manuscript in my possession belonged to her, or be considered as a transcript from hers, there can be no doubt of its antiquity and genuineness. I have found, upon examination, that all the six tracts in the beginning of the volume have been published; but as the manuscript is more correct than any of the printed editions which I have seen, I have generally followed it in the extracts which I have given from these tracts. The letters are forty‑three in number, besides the letter to the queen regent, the Discourse on the temptation of Christ, and the Additions to the Apology of the Parisian Protestants, which are inserted among them. Three of the letters also have been published, and are noticed in Nos. 6 and 15 of this Catalogue; the remainder, as far as I can learn, never appeared in print. They consist chiefly of religious advices to the friends with whom he corresponded; but a number of facts and allusions to his external circumstances are interspersed. Mr Wodrow possessed another volume of Knox’s MSS., in folio, which is described by Crawfurd, Life, p. 53, ut supra. It contains nothing additional to what I have mentioned in this Note.—In a letter, addressed to Mr Robert Durie, from Sedan, 24th May, 1616, Andrew Melville says: “I left with my lufing and faithful gossep, your father‑in‑law, Mr Knox’s letters. I wish them to be furthcuming.”

APPENDIX,

CONSISTING OF LETTERS WRITTEN BY KNOX, AND OTHER PAPERS, HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED.

[356]No I. [From MS. Letters, p. 243.]

The firste letter to his mothir in law, mestres Bowis.

Rycht deirlibelovit mother in oure saviour Jesus Chryst, when I call to mynd and revolve with myself the trubillis and afflictionis of Godis elect frome the begyning (in whiche I do not forget yow) thair is within my hart tuo extreme contraries; a dolour almaist unspeakabill, and a joy and comfort whilk, be mannis sences, can not be comprehendit nor understand. The cheif caussis of dolour be two; the ane is the rememberance of syn, whilk I daylie feill remanyng in this corrupt nature, whilk was and is sa odius and detestabill in the presence of oure hevinlie father, that by na uther sacrifice culd or myght the same be purgeit, except by the blude and deth of the onlie innocent sone of God. When I deiplie do considder the caus of Chrystis deth to haif bene syn, and syn yit to dwell in all flesche, with paule I am compellit to sob and grone as ane man under ane heavie burdene, ye, and sumtymes to cry, O wreachit and miserabill man that I am, wha sall delyver me fra this bodie of syn! The uther caus of my dolour is that sic as maist gladlie wald remane togidder, for mutuall comfort ane of another, can not be sufferit sa to do. Since the first day that it pleasit the providence of God to bring yow and me in familiaritie, I have alwayis delytit in your company; and when labours wald permit, ye knaw I have not spairit houris to talk and commoun with yow, the frute whairof I did not than fullie understand nor perceave. But now absent, and so absent that by corporal presence nather of ws can resave comfort of uther, I call to mynd how that oftymes when, with dolorous hartis, we haif begun our talking, God hath send greit comfort unto baithe, whilk now for my awn part I commounlie want. The exposicioun of your trubillis, and acknawledging of your infirmitie, war first unto me a verie mirrour and glass whairin I beheld my self sa rychtlie payntit furth, that nathing culd be mair evident to my awn eis. And than the searching of the scriptures for Godis sueit promissis, and for his mercies frelie givin unto miserable offenderis, (for his nature delyteth to schew mercie whair maist miserie ringeth), the collectioun and applying of Godis mercies, I say, wer unto me as the breaking and handilling with my awn handis of the maist sweit and delectabill ungumentis, whairof I culd not but receave sum comfort be thair naturall sweit odouris. But now, albeit I never lack the presence and plane image of my awn wreachit infirmitie; yet seing syn sa manifestlie abound in al estaitis, I am compellit to thounder out the threattnyngis of God aganis the obstinat rebellaris, in doing whairof (albeit as God knaweth I am no malicious nor obstinat synner) I sumtymes am woundit, knawing myself criminall and giltie in many, ye in all (malicious obstinacie laid asyd) thingis that in utheris I reprehend. Judge not, mother, that I wrait theis thingis debassing my self otheris wayis than I am: na; I am wors than my pen can expres. In bodie ye think I am no adulterer: lat sa be; but the hart is infectit with foull lustis, and will lust albeit I lament never samekill. Externallie I commit na idolatrie; but my wicked hart luffeth the self, and cannot be refranit fra vane imaginationis, ye, not fra sic as wer the fountane of all idolatrie. I am na mankiller with my handis; but I help not my nedie brother sa liberallie as I may and aucht. I steill not hors, money, nor claithis fra my nychbour; but that small portioun of warldlie substance I bestow not sa rychtlie as his halie law requyreth. I bear na fals witnes aganis my nychbour in judgement or utherwayis befor men; but I speik not the treuth of God sa boldlie as it becumeth his true messinger to do. And thus in conclusioun thair is na vyce repugnyng to Godis halie will, expressit in his law, whairwith my hart is not infectit.

This mekill writtin and dytit befoir the resait of your letteris, whilk I resavit the 21st of June. They war unto my hart sum comfort for dyvers caussis not necessar to be rehersit, but maist (as knaweth God) for that I find ane congruence betwix ws in spreit, being sa fer distant in bodie. ffor when that digestlie I did avys with your letter, I did considder that I myself was complenyng evin the self sam thingis at that verie instant moment that I ressavit your letter. Be my pen ffrome a sorrowfull hart I culd not but brust forth and say, “O Lord, how wonderfull ar thi workis! how dois thou try and prufe thi chosin children as gold by the fyre! how canest thou in maner hyd thi face fra thy awn spous, that thi presence efter may be mair delectabill! how canest thou bring thi sainctis lowe, that thou may carie thame to glorie everlasting! how canest thou suffer thi strang faithful messingeris in many thingis yit to wressill with wreachit infirmitie and febill weaknes, ye and sumtymes permittis thou thame horribillie to fall, partlie that na flesche sall have whairof it may glorie befoir the, and partlie that utheris of smaller estait and meaner giftis in thi kyrk myght resave sum consolatioun, albeit thay find in thame selves wickit motions whilk they are not abill to expell!” My purpois was, befoir I ressavit your letter, to have exhortit you to pacience and to fast, adhering to Godis promisis, albeit that your flesche, the divill, and uther your enemyis, wald persuad you to the contrare; for, by the artis and subteliteis that the adversarie useth aganis me, I not only do conjecture, but also planelie dois sie your assaltis and trubill. And sa lykwys, in the bowellis of Chrystis mercie, maist ernistlie I beseik you, by that infirmitie that ye knaw remaineth in me, (wars I am than I can wryt,) pacientlie to beir, albeit that ye haif not sic perfection as ye wald, and albeit also your motionis be sic as be maist vyle and abominabill, yet not to sorrow abuf measure. Gif I to whom God hes gevin greatter giftis (I wryt to his prais) be yit sa wrappit into miserie, that what I wald I can not do, and what I wald not, that with sainct paule, I say, I daylie ye everie hour and moment I devys to do, and in my hart, ficht I never sa fast in the contrarie I perform and do,—gif sic wreachit wickitnes remane in Godis cheif ministeris, what wonder albeit the same remane in yow? Gif Godis strangest men of war be beattin bak in thair face, that what thay wald they can not destroy nor kill, is it any sic offence to yow to be tossit as ye compleane, that thairfoir ye suld distrust Goddis frie promissis? God forbid, deir mother! the power of God is knawin be oure weaknes, and theis dolouris and infirmiteis be maist profitabill to ws; for by the same is our pryde beattin doun, whilk is not easie utherwayis to be done. By thame ar oure misereis knawn, sa that we, acknawledging oure selves misterfull, seikis the phesitioun. By thame cum we, be the operatioun of the halie spreit, to the hatred of syn, and be thame cum we to the hunger and thrist of justice, and to desyre to be desolued, and sa to ring with oure Chryst Jesus, whilk without this battell and sorrow this flesche culd never do. And sa fra the doloris I proceid to the comfort.

As the caussis of dolour be tuo, whilk ar present syn, and the lack of sic company as in whome we maist culd delyt, sa is the caussis of my comfort not ymaginit of my brane, but pronuncit first be God, and efter graftit in the hartis of Godis children by his halie spreit. Thay ar lykwys tuo; whilk is a justice inviolable offerit be our flesche befoir the trone of our heavinlie father, and ane assureit hoip of that generall assemblie and gathering togither of Godis dispersit flok, in that day when all teairs salbe wipit fra oure eis, when deth salbe vincuisit, and may na mair dissever sic as feiring God this day in the flesche murnis under the burdene of syn. Off oure present justice, notwithstanding syn remane in our mortall bodeis, ar we assureit by the faithfull witnes of Jesus Chryst, Johne the apostill, saying, “gif we confes oure synnis, faithfull and just is God to remit and forgive our synnis.” Mark the wordis of the apostill, gif we confes oure synnis God man forgive thame, becaus hie is faithfull and just. To confessioun of synnis ar theis thingis requisit; ffirst we man acknawledge the syn, and it is to be notit that sumtymes Godis verie elect, albeit they have synnit maist haynouslie, does not acknawledge syn and thairfoir can not at all tymes confes the same; for syn is not knawin unto sictyme as the vale be takin fra the conscience of the offender, that he may sie and behald the filthines of syn, what punishment be Godis just jugenentis is dew for the sam, and then (whilk is the 2 thing requisit to confessioun) begynnis the haitred of syn and of oure selves for contempnying of God and of his halie law; whairof last springis that whilk we call hoip of mercie, whilk is nathing els but a sob fra a trubillit hart, confoundit and aschamit for syn, thristing remissioun and Gods frie mercie, whairupon of necessitie man follow this conclusioun, God hes remittit and frelie forgevin the syn; and why? for “hie is faithfull and just” sayeth the apostill. Comfortabill and mervelous caussis! first, God is faithfull, ergo, hie man forgive syn. A comfortable consequent upon a maist sure ground! for Godis fidelitie can na mair faill nor can him self. Then lat this argument be gatherit for oure comfort; the office of the faithfull is to keip promeis; but God is faithfull, ergo, he man keip promeis. That God hes promissit remissioun of synis to sic as be repentant, I neid not now to recit the places. But let this collectioun of the promissis be maid, God promissis remissioun of synis to all that confessis the same; but I confes my synnis, for I sie the filthines thairof, and how justlie God may condemp me for my iniquities. I sob and I lament for that I can not be quyt and red of syn, I desyre to leif a mair perfyt lyfe. Thir ar infallible signis, seillis, and takinis, that God hes remittit the syn; for God is faithfull that sa hes promissit, and can na mair deceave nor hie can ceis to be God. But what reasone is this, God is just, thairfoir hie man forgive syn? A wonderous caus and reasone in deid! ffor the flesche and naturall man can understand nathing but the contrar, for thus man it reasone: the justice of God is offendit be my synnis, sa God man neidis have a satisfactioun, and requyre ane punissment. Gif we understand of whome God requyris satisfactioun, whether of ws, or of the handis of his onlie sone, and whais punisment is abill to recompens oure synnis, than sall we haif greit cause to rejose, remembering that God is a just God; for the office of the just man is to stand content when hie hes ressavit his dewtie. But God hes ressavit alredie at the handis of his onlie sone all that is dew for our synnis, and sa can not his justice requyre nor craif any mair of ws ather satisfactioun or recompensatioun for our synnis. Advert, mother, the sure pilleris and fundation of oure salvation to be Godis faithfulnes and justice. Hie that is faithful has promissit frie remissioun to all penitent synneris, and hie that is just, hes ressavit alredie a full satisfactioun for the synis of all thais that imbrace Chryst Jesus to be the only saviour of the warld. What restis than to us to be done? nathing but to acknawledge oure miserie and wrechednes, whilk na flesche can do sa unfenidlie as they that daylie feillis the wecht of syn. And uther, mother, caus haif we nane of desperatioun, albeit the divill rage never sa cruellie, and albeit the flesche be never sa fraill, daylie and hourlie lusting aganis Godis halie commandementis, ye, stryving aganis the same. This is not the tyme of justice befoir oure awn eis; we luke for that whilk is promissit, the kingdome everlasting, preparit to ws fra the begynning, whairof we ar maid airis be Godis apoyntment, reabillit [i.e. legitimated or restored] thairto be Chrystis death, to whom we sall be gatherit, when efter we sall never depart, whilk to remember is my singular comfort, but thairof now I can not wryte. My commendationis to all whom effeiris. I commit you to the protectioun of the omnipotent.

At Londoun the 23d of June, 1553, your sone unfeaned,

Johne Knox.

No II. [MS. Letters, p. 333.]

To mariorie bowis wha was his first wyfe.

Deirlibelovit sister in the commoun faith of Jesus our saviour, the place of Johne forbidding ws to salut sic as bringeth not the hailsome doctrine, admonisseth ws what danger cumeth be fals teacheris, evin the destructioun of bodie and saule; whairfoir the spreit of God willeth ws to be sa cairfull to avoyd the company of all that teachis doctrine contrarie to the treuth of Chryst, that we communicat with thame in nathing that may appeir to manteane or defend thame in thair corrupt opinioun, for hie that bidis thame godspeid, communicatis with thair syn, that is, hie that apeiris, be keiping thame company, or assisting unto thame in thair proceidingis, to favour thair doctrine, is giltie befoir God of thair iniquitie, baith becaus hie doith confirme thame in thair error be his silence, and also confirmes utheris to credit thair doctrine, becaus hie opponis not himself thairto: and sa to bid thame godspeid is not to speik unto thame commounlie as we for civill honestie to men unknawn, but it is efter we have hard of heir als doctrine to be conversant with thame, and sa intreat thame as they had not offendit in thair doctrine. The place of Jamis teachis ws, belovit sister, that in Jesus Chryst all that unfeandlie profes him are equall befoir him, and that ryches nor warldlie honouris ar nathing regairdit in his syght; and thairfoir wald the spreit of God, speiking in the apostill, that sic as ar trew christianis suld have mair respect to the spirituall giftis whairwith God had doteth his messingeris, nor to externall ryches, whilk oftymes the wicket possessis, the having whairof makis man nether nobill nor godlie, albeit sa judge the blind affectionis of men. The apostill dampneth sic as preferis a man with a golden chayne to the pure; but heirof will I speik no more. The spreit of God sall instruct your hart what is maist comfortable to the trubillit conscience of your mother, and pray ernistlie that sa may be. Whair the adversarie objectis, sche aucht not think wicket thoughts, answer thairto, that is trew, but seing this oure nature is corruptit with syn whilk entirrit be his suggestioun, it must think and wirk wickitlie be his assaltis, but hie sal beir the condigne punisment thairof, becaus be him syn first entirit, and also be him it doith continew whillis this karkais be resolved. And whair hie inquyris what Chryst is, answer hie is the seid of the woman promissit be God to break down the serpentis heid, whilk hie hath done alreadie in him self appeiring in this oure flesche, subject to all passionis that may fall in this oure nature, onlie syn exceptit; and efter the death sufferit, hie heth, be power of his godheid, rissin agane triumphant victour over deth, hell and syn, not to him self, for thairto was hie na dettour, but for sic as thristis salvatioun be him onlie, whom he may na mair los, nor he may ceas to be the sone of God and the saviour of the warld. And whair hie wald perswade that sche is contrarie the word thairinto, hie leis according to his nature, whairin thair is na treuth; for gif sche wer contrarie the word, or denyit it, to what effect sa ernistlie suld sche desyre the company of sic as teacheth and professeth it? Thair is na dout but hie, as he is the accusatour of all Godis elect, studieth to trubill her conscience, that according to hir desyre, sche may not rest in Jesus oure Lord. Be vigilant in prayer. I think this be the first letter that ever I wrait to you.

In great haist your brother,

Johne Knox.

No III. [MS. Letters, p. 283.]

To his Mother‑in‑law, and his Wife.

ffrome the eis of his Sanctis sal the Lord wype away all teiris and murnyng.

Deir mother and spous unfeanidlie belovit in the bowells of oure Saviour Chryst Jesus, with my verie hartlie commendationis. I perusit baith your letteris, not only directit to me, but also it that sorrowfullie compleanis upon the unthankfulnes of your brother as also of myne, that ye suld not have bene equallie maid privie to my coming in the countrie with utheris, whairof the enemy wald persuad yow (ane argument maist fals and untrew) that we judge you not to be of our noumber. Deir mother, be not sa suddanlie moveit, hie is your enemy that sa wald persuad you. God I tak to recorde in my conscience that nane is this day within the realme of Ingland, with whome I wald mair gladlie speik (onlie sche whome God hath offirit unto me, and commandit me to lufe as my awn flesche, exceptit) than with you. For your causis principallie enterprysit I this jurney; for hering my servand to be stayit, and his letteris to be takin, I culd na wys be pacifeit (for the maist part of my letteris was for your instructioun and comfort) till farther knawledge of your estait, and that ye wer na soner advertisit, only want of a faithfull messinger was the caus; for my coming to the countrey was sa sone noysit abrod, that with greit difficultie culd I be convoyit fra a place to another. I knew na sic danger as was suspectit be my brethrene; ffor as for my letteris in them is nathing conteanid, except exhortation to constancie in that treuth whilk God hes opinlie laid befoir our eis, whilk I am not myndit to deny whenever sic questions sal be demandit of me. But the cause moveing me that ffor a tyme I wald have bene clos, was, that I purposit (gif sa had bene possible) to have spokin with my wyfe, whilk now I persave is nathing apeirand, whill God offer sum better occasioun. My brethren, partlie be admonitioun, and partlie by teiris, compellis me to obey sumwhat contrair to my awn mynd; for never can I die in a mair honest quarrell nor to suffer as a witnes of that treuth whairof God hes maid me a messinger, whilk with hart I belive maist assuredlie, (the halie Gaist beiring witnes to my conscience,) and with mouth I trust to God to confes, in presence of the warld, the onlie doctrine of lyfe. Notwithstanding this my mynd, gif God sall prepair the way, I will obey the voces of my brethrene, and will gif place to the furie and rage of Sathan for a tyme. And sa can I not espy how that ether of yow baith I can speik at this tyme. But, gif God pleis preserve me at this tyme, whairof I am not yit resolved, then sal thair lak in me na gud will, that ye may knaw the place of my residence, and farthir of my mynd. But now, deir mother, haif we cause to rejois, for our heavinlie Father, wha callit us be grace to wryt in our hartis the signis and seallis of our election in Chryst Jesus his sone, begynnis now to correct our crukedness, and to mak us lyke in suffering afflictionis, schame and rebuke of the warld, to the greit bischope of our saullis, wha by mekill tribulation did enter in his glorie, as of necessitie man everie ane to whome that kingdome is apoyntit. And thairfor, mother, be nathing abasched of theis maist dolorous dayis, whilk schortlie sal have end to oure everlasting comfort. Thay ar not cropin upon ws without knawledge and foirsight; how oft have ye heard theis dayis foirspokin? thairfoir now grudge not, but pacientlie abyd the Lords delyverance. Hie that foirspak the trubill, promissis everlasting pleasure by the same word; albeit the flesche complene, dispair nathing, for it must follow the awn nature, and it is not dampnabill in the syght of oure Father; albeit the corrupt fraill flesche draw bak and refuse the croce, ffor that is as naturall to the flesche, as in hunger and thirst to covet reasonable sustenance. Onlie follow not the affectionis of the flesche to cōmit iniquytie; neither for feir of deth, nor for love of lyf, cōmit ye idolatrie; neither yit gif your presence whair the same is committit, but hait it, avoid it, and flee frome it. But your leter makis mention that ye haif pleasure and delyt in it: na, mother, I espy the contrarie, for ye compleane and lament that sic motionis ar within you; this is na sign that ye delyt in thame, for na man compleanis of that whairin hie delytis. Ye ar in na wors cas, tuiching that poynt, nor yet tuiching any uther whairof ye desyre to be red, than was the apostil, when with gronyng and angusche of hart he did cry, “O unhappie man that I am, wha sal delyver me fra this bodie of syn:” reid the haill chapter, and gif glorie to God that lattis you knaw your awn infirmitie, that from Chryst allone ye may be content to resave that whilk never remanit in corruptibill flesche, that is, the justice whilk is acceptabill befoir God, the justice by faith and not by workis, that ye may glorie in him wha frelie gives that whilk we deserve not. And thus nether feir that, nor uther assaltis of the divill, sa lang as in bodie ye obey not his persuasionis. Schortnes of tyme, and multitude of cairis, will not lat me wryt at this present sa plentifullie as I wald. Ye will me to charge you in suche thingis as I mister, God grant that ye may be abill to relief the nedie. Ye may be sure that I wald be bold upon you, for of your gude hart I am persuadit, but of your power and abilitie I greitlie dout. I will not mak you privie how ryche I am, but off Loundoun I departit with les money then ten grottis, but God hes sence provydit, and will provyd I dout not, heirefter abundantlie for this lyfe. Ather the quenis majestie, or sum thesaurer will be XL pounds rycher by me for samekill lack I of dewtie of my patentis. But that litill trubillis me. Rest in Chryst Jesus, your sone,

1553.       Johne Knox.

No IV. [MS. Letters, p. 303.]

To his mother‑in‑law, Mrs Bowis.

Blissit be thais that mourne for ryghteousnes sake, &c.

Belovit mother with my hartlie commendatioun in the Lord. Let not your present dulnes discorage yow above measure: the wisdome of our God knawis what is maist expedient for our fraill nature, gif the bodie suld alwayis be in travell, it suld faynt and be unabill to continew in labour, the spreit hes his travell, whilk is a sobbing and murnyng for syn, fra whilk unles it sumtymes suld rest, it suddanlie suld be consumit. It doith na mair offend Godis maiestie that the spreit sumtyme lye as it were asleip, nether hauing sence of greit dolour nor greit comfort, mair than it doith offend him that the bodie use the natural rest, ceassing fra all externall exercis. Ye sall consider, mother, that the eis of God dois pers mair deiplie than we be war of; we, according to the blind ignorance whilk lurketh within ws, do judge but as we do feil for the present, but hie, according to his eternall wisdome, dois judge thingis lang befoir thay cum to pas. We judge that caldnes and angusche of spreit ar hurtfull, becaus we sie not the end whairfoir God dois suffer ws to be trubillit with sic temptationis; but his maiestie, wha onlie knawis the mass whairof man is maid, and causeth all thingis to work to the profit of his elect, knawis also how necessarie sic trubillis ar to dantoun the pryd of oure corrupt nature. Thair is a spirituall pryd whilk is not haistelie suppressit in Godis verie elect children, as witnesses sanct paule. God hath wroth greit thingis be yow in the syght of uthir men, with whilk (unless the mell of inward angusche did beat them doun) ye myght be steirit up to sum vane glorie, whilk is a vennoume mair subtil than ony man do espy. I can wryt to you be my awn experience. I have sumtymes bene in that securitie that I felt not dolour for syn, nether yit displeasure aganis myself for any iniquitie in whilk I did offend; but rather my vane hart did this flatter myself, (I wryt the treuth to my awn confusioun, and to the glorie of my heavenlie father through Jesus Christ,) ‘Thou hes sufferit great troubill for professing of Chrystis treuth, God hes done great thingis for the, delyvering the fra that maist cruell bondage, [galleis: on the margin], hie has placeit the in a maist honourabill vocatioun, and thy labours ar not without frute; thairfoir thou aucht rejos and gif prais unto God.’ O mother this was a suptill serpent wha this culd pour in vennoume, I not perceaving it; but blissit be my God wha permittit me not to sleip lang in that estait. I drank schortlie efter this flatterie of myself a cupe of contra poysone, the bitternes whairof doith yit sa remane in my breist, that whatever I have sufferit, or presentlie dois I reput as doung, yea, and my self worthie of dampnation for my ingratitude towardis my God. The lyke, mother, myt have cumin to yow, gif the secreit brydall of afflictioun did not refrane vane cogitationis; but of this I have written to yow mair planelie in my other letteris. And this I commit you to the protectioun of the omnipotent for ever.

Yours at his power,

Johnne Knox.

No V. [MS. Letters, p. 335–6.]

To his Sister.

The spreit of God the father, be Jesus Chryst, comfort and assist yow to the end. Amen.

Touching the sonis of Jacob, who cruellie, contrar to thair solempned promeis and othe, did murther and slay the citisens of Sichem; whasa ryghtlie marketh the scriptures of God sall easelie espy thame maist grevouslie to have offendit. ffor albeit the transgression of the young man was haynous befoir God, yit wer thay na civill maiestratis, and thairfoir had na autoritie to punis. And farther, thay committit treasone, and in sa fer as in thame was blasphemit God and his halie name, making it odious to the nationis about, seing thay under pretence of religioun, and of ressaving them in leage with God and with the pepill, did disceatfullie as also cruellie destroy the haill citie suspecting na danger. Albeit sum laboureth to excus thair syn be the zeall thay had that thay myght not suffer thair sister to be abusit lyke ane harlot, yit the spreit of God speiking in thair awn father, efter lang advysement, in the extreamitie of his deth, utterlie dampneth thair wickit act, saying, “Semioun and Levi, brethren, &c., lat not my saule entir in thair consall, nor yit my glorie into thair company, for in thair furie thay killit a man, and for thair lust destroyit the citie, cursit is thair heit or rage, for it is vehement, and thair indignatioun, for it is intractable, I sall dispers thame in Jacob, and scatter thame abrod in Israell.” Heir may ye espy, sister, that God dampneth thair het displeasure and cruell act, as maist wickit and worthie of punisment. But perchance it may be inquyrit, why did God suffer the men that had professit his name be ressaving the sign of circumsitioun sa unmercifullie to be entreatit? I myght answer, God sufferis his awn in all ageis be the ungodlie to be cruellie tormentit. But sic was not the case of thir men, whom na doubt the justice of God faund cryminall and worthie the deth. ffor thay did abus his sacramentall signe, receaving it nether at God’s commandement, nor having any respect to his honour, nor to the advancement of his name, nor yit trusting in his promissis, nor desyreing the incres or multiplicatioun of Godis pepill, but onlie for a warldie purpois, thinking thairby to have attaynit ryches and ease, be joynyng thameselves to Godis pepill. And sa the justice of God faund thame worthie of punisment, and sa permittit thame justlie on his part to be afflictit and destroyit be the ungodlie, whilk is a terribill exempill to sic as in caus of religioun mair seikis the profit of the warld nor eternall salvatioun. But hereof na mair. Thus brieflie and rudlie have I writtin unto yow, becaus I remember myself anis to have maid yow a promeis sa to do, and everie word of the mouth of the faithfull (yf sa impeid not God) aught to be keipit. And now rest in Chryst. After this I think ye sall rasave na mair of my handis. In haist with sair trubillit hart.

Yours as ever in godlines,

[Anno 1553.]       Johne Knox.

No VI. LETTER OF JOHN KNOX TO JOHN FOX.

(See vol. i. p. 219.)

[British Museum. Harl. MSS. 416, 34. § 70.]

An Original.

Indorsed “To his louinge brother master fox be these delyuered at Basill.”

The mightie comforth of the holie ghost for salutation.

Dearlie beloued brother, albeit at the deꝓture of this our brother from whom I receaved yor loving and frendlie lr̄e, my selue could writ nothing be reason of the euill disposition of my bodie, yit becaus I could not suffer him to depert without som remembrance of my deutie to you, I vsed the help of my left hand, that is of my wief, in scribbling these fewe lynes vnto you, as touching my purpose and mynd in the publishing the first blast of the trompet.

When the secreates of all hartes shalbe disclosed, that shalbe knowē wch now by manye can not be perswaded, to wit, that therin I nether haue sought my selue, nether yit the vain prase of men. my rude veheraencie and inconsidered affirmations wch may appear rather to procead from coler then of zeal and reason, I do not excuse, but to haue vsed anye other tytle more plausible, therby to haue allured the world by any art as I never purposed so do I not yit purpose. to me it is ynewgh to say that black is not whit, and mans tyrannye and foolishnes is not goddes perfite ordinance, wch thinge I do not so much to correct comon welthes as to delyuer my own conscience, and to instruct the consciences of som semple who yit I fear be ignorant in that matter, but ferther of this I delay to better opportunytie. Salut yor wief and dowghter hartlie in my nam. the grace of our lord Jesus Christ rest wt you now and euer. from geneva the 18 of May, 1558.

Your brother to power,

Johne Knox.

I yor sister the writer herof saluteth you and yor wief most hartlie thanking hir of hir loving tokens wch my mother and I receaued from Mrs Kent.

No VII. [Cald. MS. Vol. I. p. 427.][357]

Extract of a letter from John Knox to Mrs Anne Locke.

(See vol. i. p. 268.)

—— The queen and her counsell made promise that no person within Sanct Johnston, neither yet of these that assisted them, should be troubled for any thing done either in religion, either yet in down casting of places, till the sentence of the estates in Parliament had decided the controversie, and that no bands of French souldiers should be left behind the queen and counsell in the town, and that no idolatrie should be erected, nor alteration made within the town. But after she had obtained her desire, all godlie promises were forgotten; for the Sunday next after her entering, mess was said upon a dyeing table (for ye shall understand all the alters were prophaned); the poor professors were oppressed; when children were slain, she did but smile, excusing the fact be the chance of fortune; and at her departure, she left 400 souldiers, Scottismen, but paid by France, to dantoun the town. She changed the provist, and exiled all godlie men. This crueltie and deceit displeased many that before assisted her with their presence and counsell; and among others, the earl of Argyle and the prior of Sanct Andrews left [her], and joined themselves to the congregation openly, whilk as it was displeasing to her and to the shavellings, so it was most comfortable and joyfull to us, for by their presence were the hearts of many erected from desperation. At their commandment I repaired to them at St Andrewis, wher consultation being had, it was concluded that Christ Jesus should there be openlie preached, that the places and monuments of idolatrie should be removed, and superstitious habits changed. This reformation was begun the 14th of June. In the meantime came the bishop of St Andrewis to the towne, accompanied with a great band of warriours, and gave a strate commandement, that no preaching should be made by me, who was both brunt in figure and horned, assuring the lords that if they suffered me to preach that twelve haquebuts should lyght upon my nose at once. O burning charitie of a bloodie bishop! But as that boast did litle affray me, so did it more incense and inflamme with courage the harts of the godlie, who with one voyce proclaimed that Christ Jesus should be preached in despite of Sathan, and so that Sabbath and three dayes after I did occupy the publike place in the midst of the doctors who this day are even as dumbe as their idols which wer brunt in their presence. The bishop departed to the Queene, frustrat of his intent, for he had promised to bring me to her either alyve or dead: and incontinent was a new army assembled, and forward they marched against St Andrews. It was not thought expedient that we should abide them lurking in a town, and so we past to the fields and met them at Couper, where lodging was appointed for the camp, but we prevented them: where we remained upon their coming till the nixt day, when both armies were in sight of other within shot of cannon, and we looked for nothing but the extremitie of batle: not that we intended to pursue, but only to stand in camp where our field was pitched for defence of ourselves. There came from our adversaries ane ambassador desiring speech and communing of the lords, which gladlie of us being granted, after long reasoning the queene offered a free remission of all crimes bypast, sua that they would no furder proceed against friars and abbayes, and that no more preaching should be used publicklie. But the lords and the brethren refused such appointment, declaring that the fear of no mortal creature should cause them betray the veritie known and professed, neither yet to suffer idolatrie to be maintained in the bounds committed to their charge. The adversaries perceiving that neither threatening, flatterie, nor deceit, could break the bold constancie and godlie purpose of the lords, barons, gentlemen, and commons, who were there assembled to the number of 3000 in on days warning, they were content to tak assurance for 8 days, permitting unto us freedom of religion in the meantime. In the whilk the abbay of Lindores, a place of black monkes, distant from St Andrewis twelve myles, we reformed, their altars overthrew we, their idols, vestments of idolatrie, and mass books, we burnt in their presence, and commanded them to cast away their monkish habits. Divers chanons of St Andrewis have given notable confessions, and have declared themselves manifest enemies to the pope, to the mass, and to all superstition. [Then follows what is inserted, vol. i. p. 280–1.]—We fear that the tyrannie of France shall, under the cloak of religion, seek a plain conquest of us; but potent is God to confound their counsell and to break their force. God move the hearts of such as profes Christ Jesus with us, to have respect to our infancie, and open their eyes to see that our ruin shall be their destruction. Communicat the contents herof (which I write to you, least by divers rumours ye should be troubled and wee slandered) with all faithfull, but especiallie with the afflicted of that little flock, now dispersed and destitute of these pleasant pastures in which some tyme they fed abundantlie. If any remain at Geneva, let either this same or the double of it be sent unto them, and likeways unto my dear brother Mr Goodman, whose presence I more thirst for than she that is my own flesh. Will him therefor in the name of the Lord Jesus (all delay and excuse set apart) to visit me; for the necessity is great here. If he come be sea, let him be addressed unto Dundie, and let him ask for George Levell, for George Rollock, or Wm. Carmichael. If he come to Leith, let him repair to Edinburgh, and enquire for James Baron, Edward Hope, Adam Fullertoun, or for John Johnston writer, be whom he will get knowledge of me. If my mother and my wife come be you, will them to make the expedition that goodly they can to visit me, or at least to come to the north parts, where they shall know my mind, which now I can not write, being oppressed with hourly cares. This bearer is a poor man unknown in the country, to whom I beseech you shew reasonable favour and tenderness, touching his merchandize and the just selling thereof. Thus, with hearty commendations to all faithfull, I heartily commit you to the protection of the Omnipotent. From Sanct Andrewes the 23d of June 1559.

No VIII. [Cald. I. 522.]

To the same. (See vol. i. 312.)

Lest that the rumours of our troubles trouble you above measure, dear sister, I thought good in these few words to signifie unto you that our esperance is yet good in our God, that he for his great names sake will give such success to this enterprise as nether shall these whom he hath appointed to sigh in this be utterlie confounded, neither yet that our enemies shall have occasion to blaspheme the verity, nor yet triumph over us in the end. We trusted too much, dear sister, in our owne strenth, and speciallie since the erle of Arran and his friends were joyned to our number. Amongst us also were such as more sought the purse than Christ’s glory. Wee by this overthrow are brought to acknowledge, what is a multitude without the present help of God! and the hollow hearts of many are now revealled. God make us humble in his eyes, and then I fear not the furie of the adversaries, who, be ye assured, doe sore rage, so as yet their crueltie must neids crave vengeance from him whose members they persecute. Our dear brethren and sisters in Edinburgh and Lothian who lay nearest these bloode thirsty tyrants, are so troubled and vexed that it is a pity to remember their estate. Our God comfort them. We stand universally in great fear, and yet we hope deliverance. I wrote to you before to be suitor to some faithfull, that they would move such as have abundance to consider our estate, and to make for us some provision of money to keep soldiers and our company together. And herein yet again I cannot cease to move you. I can not well write to any other, because the action may seem to appertaine to my own country onlie. But because I trust ye suspect me not of avarice, I am bold to say to you that if we perish in this our enterprise, the limits of London will be straiter than they are now within few years. Many things I have which I would have required for myself, namely Calvin on Isaiah, and his Institutions revised. But common troubles cause me to neglect all private business. If ye can find the means to send me the books before written, or any other that be new and profitable, I will provide that ye shall receive the prices upon your advertisement. My wife saluteth you. Salute all faithfull heartilie in my name, especiallie those of familiar acquaintance, of whom I crave pardon that I write not, being not so quiet as ye would wish. My onlie comfort is that our troubles shall pass sooner, peradventure, than our enemies look. Grace be with you. From St Andrews, in haste, the 18th November, 1559. Yours known,

John Knox.

Mr Gudeman is in the west country in Ayr, who willed me to salute you in his name as oft as I wrote you.

No IX. [Cald. I. 524.]

To the same. (See vol. i. 315.)

We shall meet when death shall not dissever.

Two letters I have received from you, dear sister, both almost at one time, the one is dated at London the 28th of November, the other of the same place the 2d of December. The letter of the last date I first read, which made mention of your trouble be reason of a suddan fire in a lodging near to you; that you had sought all means for our support, as well of those of high as of low degree; but that it was not needfull that any thing should be sent unto us, because it was supposed that the highest would support us; and last, that ye had not received the answer of your doubts. In your other letters, after your most comfortable discourse of God’s providence for his people in their greatest necessitie, ye godlie and trulie conclude that neither could their unworthiness, neither yet their want of things judged necessarie for their preservation, stop his majestie’s mercie from them. Thereafter ye will me to avoid danger, and rather to fight by prayer in some place removed from danger than expose my self to the hazard of battell, and so ye conclude by praising God’s mercie as did Jeremy in his greatest anguish, &c.

What support should come to us be consent of counsell and authoritie I am uncertain. But suppose it shall be greater than yet is bruted, that ought not to stay the liberall hands of the godlie to support us privatelie. For the public support of an army shall not make such as now be superexpended able to serve without private support. I will make the matter more plain be one example. I know one man that since the 10th of May hath spent in this action thirteen thousand crowns of the summe [sonne], besydes his victuals and other fruits of the ground. His treasure being now consumed, he cannot, without support, susteane the number which before he brought to the field. If he and such others that are in lyke condition with him shall be absent, or yet if numbers shall decay, our enemies shall seem to prevail in the field, and therfor desired I some collection to be made, to the end that the present necessitie of some might have been relieved. If the matter pertained not to my native country, I would be more vehement in persuasion, but God shall support even how, when, and by whom it shall please his blessed majestie. Sorry I am that ye have not received my answer unto your doubts, not so much that I think that ye greatlie need them, as that I would not put you in suspicion that I contemned your requests. The rest of my wife hath been so unrestful since her arrival here, that scarcelie could she tell upon the morrow what she wrote at night. She cannot find my first extract. And therfor, if any scruple remaine in your conscience, put pen again to paper, and look for ane answer, as God shall give opportunitie. God make yourself participant of the same comfort which you wrote unto me: and in very deed, dear sister, I have no less need of comfort, notwithstanding that I am not altogether ignorant, than hath the bound man to be fed, albeit in store he hath great substance. I have read the cares and tentations of Moses, and sometymes I have supposed myself to be well practised in such dangerous battells. But, alace! I now perceive that all my practice before was but mere speculation, for one day of troubles since my last arrival in Scotland hath more pierced my heart than all the torments of the galleys did the space of 19 months. For that torment, for the most part, did touch the bodie, but this pierceth the soul and inward affections. Then was I assuredlie persuaded that I should not die untill I had preached Christ Jesus even where I now am, and yet having now my heart’s desyre, I am nothing satisfied, neither yet rejoice. My God remove my unthankfulness. From Sanct Andrews, the last of December 1559.

Yours known in Christ,

John Knox.

No X. [Cald. I. 533.]

To the same. (See vol. i. 317.)

The eternal our God shall shortly put an end to all our troubles.

Lest that sinister rumours should trouble you above measure, dear sister, I can not but certify you of our estate as often as convenient messengers occur. The French, as before I wrote unto you, have pursued us with great furie, but God hath so bridled them, that since the 5th day when they put to flight the men of Kinghorn, Kircaldy, and Dysart, they have had of us (all praise be to our God) no advantage. They lost in a morning a lieutenant, the boldest of their company, and fourty of their bravest soldiers, diverse of them having been taken and diverse slain in skirmishing. They have done greatest harm to such as did best entertain them; for from them they have taken sheep, horse, and plenishing. Our friends, and foes to them, did continually remove from their way all moveables that to them appertained. They have casten to the ground the laird of Grange’s principal house, called the Grange, and have spoiled his other places. God will recompense him, I doubt not, for in this cause, and since the beginning of this last trouble especially, he hath behaved himself so boldly as never man of our realm hath deserved more praise. He hath been in many dangers, and yet God hath delivered him above mens expectations. He was shot at Lundie, right under the left pape, thorrow the jacket, doublet, and shirt, and the bullet did stick in one of his ribs. Mr Whitelaw hath gotten a fall, by which he is unable to bear arms. But God be praised both their lives be saved. I remained all this time in St Andrews with sorrowful heart, and yet as God did minister his spirit comforting the afflicted, who, albeit they quaked for a time, yet do now praise God who suddenly averted from them that terrible plague devised for them by the ungodly. The French men approached, within 6 miles, yet at the sight of certain of your ships, they retired more in one day than they advanced in ten. We have had wonderful experience of God’s merciful providence, and for my own part I were more than unthankful if I should not confess that God hath heard the sobs of my wretched heart, and hath not deceived me of that little spark of hope which his holy spirit did kindle and foster in my heart. God give me grace to acknowledge his benefit received, and to make such fruit of it as becometh his servant. If ye can find a messenger, I heartily pray you to send me the books for which I wrote before. I must be bold over your liberality not only in that, but in greater things as I shall need. Please you cause this other letter inclosed be surely conveyed to Miles Coverdale. Salute all faithful acquaintance, Mr Hickman and his bedfellow, your husband, Mr Michael and his spouse as unacquainted, especially remembered. I know not what of our brethren at Geneva be with you. But to such as be there, I beseech you to say, that I think that I myself do now find the truth of that which oft I have said in their audience, to wit, that after our departure from Geneva should our dolour beginne. But my good hope is in God that it shall end to his glory and our comfort. Rest in Christ Jesus. From Sanct Andrews, the 4th of February 1559.

Your brother.

John Knox.

No XI. [Cald. II. 89.]

John Knox to Mr John Wood, Secretary to the Regent. 14th Feb. 1568.

My purpose, beloved in the Lord, concerning that which oft and now last ye crave, I wrote to you before, from which I can not be moved, and, therefore, of my friends I will ask pardon, howbeit on that one head I play the churle, retaining to myself that which will rather hurt me than profit them, during my days, which I hope in God shall not be long, and then it shall be in the opinion of others whether it shall be suppressed, or come to light.[358] God for his great mercies sake put such end to the troubles of France, as the purity of his evangell may have free passage within that realme; and idolatry, with the maintainers of the same, may once be overthrown by order of justice, or other ways as his godly wisdom hath appointed. In my opinion England and Scotland have both no less cause to fear than the faithful in France, for what they suffer in present action is laid up in store, let us be assured, for both countries. The ground of my assurance is not the determination of the council of Trent, for that decree is but the utterance of their own malice; but the justice of God is my assurance, for it cannot spare to punish all realmes and nations that is or shall be like to Jerusalem, against whose iniquity God long cried be his servants the prophets, but found no repentance. The truth of God hath been now of some years manifested to both, but what obedience, the words, works, and behaviour of men give sufficient testimony. God grant Mr Gudman a prosperous and happy success in the acceptation of his charge, and in all his other enterprises to God’s glory and the comfort of his kirk; and so will I the more patiently bear his absence, weaning myself from all comfort that I looked to have received be his presence and familiarity. Because I have the testimony of a good conscience, that in writing of that treatise, against which so many worldly men have stormed, and yet storm, I neither sought myself nor worldly promotion, and because as yet I have neither heard nor seen law nor scripture to overthrow my ground,[359] I may appeal to a more indifferent judge than Dr Jewell. I would most gladly pass through the course that God hath appointed to my labours, in meditation with my God, and giving thanks to his holy name, for that it hath pleased his mercy to make me not a lord bishop, but a painful preacher of his blessed evangell, in the function whereof it hath pleased his majesty for Christ his son’s sake to deliver me from the contradiction of moe enemies than one or two, which maketh me the more slow and less careful to revenge be word or writ whatever injury hath been done against me in my own particular. But if that men will not cease to impugne the truth, the faithfull will pardon me if I offend such as for pleasure of flesh fear not to offend God. The defence and maintenance of superstitious trifles produced never better fruit in the end than I perceive is budding amongst you, schisme, which no doubt is a forerunner of greater desolation, unless there be speedy repentance.—[Then follows what has been already quoted in vol. ii. p. 162.]—The faithfull of your acquaintance here salute you. The grace of the Lord rest with you.

No XII. [Cald. II. 107.]

The same to the same. (See above, p. 165.)

I thank you heartily, dearly beloved in the Lord Jesus, that ye had such remembrance of me as to certify of that part which not a little troubled and yet troubleth me. What I have done or am able to do in that behalf I will not trouble you at this present, this only excepted, that it will please you to travel as in the end of your letter ye write ye would do, to wit, that my sons might be Denezans there. I am informed both be letter and be tongue, besides conjectures that probably may be gathered, that the Duke and his friends are inflamed against me. Ofter than once I have called to mind your words to me that day that I had been more than vehement, as some men thought, in the end of the —— chapter of John’s Evangell, concerning the treasonable departure of Judas from Christ, and of the causes thereof. Before that I came forth of the preaching place, ye said, Before my God I think your eyes shal see performed that which your mouth hath pronounced. My words were these, I fear that such as have entered with us in professing of the Evangell, as Judas did with Christ, shall depart and follow Judas, how soon the expectation of gain and worldly promotion faileth them. Time will try farther, and we shall see overmuch. We look daily for the arrival of the duke and his Frenchmen, sent to restore Satan to his kingdome, in the person of his dearest lieutenant, sent, I say, to repress religion, not from the king of France, but from the Cardinall of Lorrane in favour of his dearest nice. Lett England take heed, for surely their neighbours houses are on fire. I would, dear brother, that ye should travell with zealous men, that they may consider our estate. What I would say, ye may easily conjecture. Without support we are not able to resist the force of the domesticall enemies, (unless God work miraculously,) much less are we able to stand against the puissance of France, the substance of the Pope, and the malice of the house of Guise, unless we be comforted be others than by ourselves. Ye know our estate, and therefore I will not insist to deplore our poverty. The whole comfort of the enemies is this, that be treason or other means they may cutt off the Regent, and then cutt the throat of the innocent king. How narrowly hath the regent escaped once, I suppose ye have heard. As their malice is not quenched, so ceaseth not the practice of the wicked, to put in execution the cruelty devised. I live as a man already dead from all affairs civil, and therefore I praise my God; for so I have some quietness in spirit, and time to meditate on death, and upon the troubles I have long feared and foreseeth. The Lord assist you with his holy spirit, and put an end to my travells, to his own glory, and to the comfort of his kirk; for assuredly, brother, this miserable life is bitter unto me. Salute your bedfellow in my name, and the rest in Christ Jesus. The faithfull here salute you. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ rest with you for ever.

Of Edinburgh the 10 of September 1568.

No XIII. [Cald. MS. I. 380.]

Extract of a Letter from John Knox to Mrs Anne Locke, dated 6th April, 1559. (See above, p. 253.)

—— Your letters, dear sister, dated at Geneva the 17th of February, received I in Deepe the 17th of March. Touching my negligence in writing to you, at other times I fear it shall be little amended, except that better occasions than yet I know be offered. For oft to write when few messingers can be found is but foolishness. My remembrance of you is not yet so dead, but I trust it shall be fresh enough, albeit it be renewed be no outward tokin for one year. Of nature I am churlish, and in conditions different from many. Yet one thing I ashame not to affirme that familiarity once thoroughly contracted was never yet broken be my default. The cause may be that I have rather need of all than that any have need of me.—

Extract of a Letter from John Knox “To a friend in England.” [Cald. II. 144.]

Of Edinburgh, 19th August, 1569.

—— If from day to day thir seven years bypast, I had not looked for an end of my travells, I could have no excuse of my obstinate fault toward you, beloved in the Lord, be whom I have received, besides commendations and letters, divers tokens of your unfained friendship, yet have negligently pretermitted all office of humanity toward you, whereinto I acknowledge my offence, for albeit I have been tossed with many storms all the time before expressed, yet might I have gratified you and others faithfull with some remembrance of my estate, if that this my churlish nature, for the most part oppressed with melancholy, had not stayed tongue and pen from doing of their duty. Yea, even now, when that I could somewhat satisfy your desire, I find within myself no small repugnance, for this I find objected to my wretched heart, ‘Foolish man! what seeks thou in writing of missives in this corruptible age? Hath thou not a full satiety of all the vanities under the sun? Hath not thy eldest and stoutest acquaintance buried thee in oblivion, and art not thou in that estate be age, that nature itself calleth thee from the pleasures of things temporall? Is it not then more than foolishness unto thee to hunt for acquaintance on the earth, of what estate or condition whatsomever the person be?’ To these objections I could answer nothing, (much more I think than is written,) but that I would write with what imperfections I little regard.——

No XIV. Letter to Sir William Douglas of Lochleven, 31 Mar. 1570.

[The original is among the papers of the family, at Dalmahoy.]

After harty commendatioun of my service unto you, rycht wyrshippfull, I receaved your missive this last of March, perceaving tharby the bruite that ye hear of the purpose of some to tak the castell of Sanctandrois, quhilk bruite I easely beleve be not all togidder vane, for men will not faill to hurt what thei can the quietnes of this realme, and to reenter in thare usurped possessioun and injust uplifting of the fruitis that never did justlie apperteane to sick idill bellies. How sick trublaris may be stayed of thare interpryses I remitt to God, to whose counsall I committ you in that and all other cases worldly; for I have tacken my gude nycht of it, and therfor bear with me gude Sr, albeit I write not to the superintendent of Fyff in the actioun that ye desyr as concernyng the excuse of the tua ministeris, to our superintendent I shall do the best that I can when I meitt with him; and thus with my harty commendatioun I committ you to the protectioun of the omnipotent. Of Edinburghe the sam hour I receaved yours this Friday att 5 afternone 1570.

Yours to power in God trubled in body,

Johne Knox.

(In dorso)

To the Rycht Worshepful

the Lard of Lochlevin.

No XV. [Cald. II. 269.]

John Knox to Sir John Wishart of Pittarrow.

(See above, p. 201.)

The end of all worldly trouble and pleasure both approacheth. Blessed are they that patiently abide in the truth, not joining hands nor heart with impiety, how that ever it triumph.

Right worshipfull, after hearty commendations, your letter, dated at Pittarrow the 14th of July, received I in Sanct Andrews, the 15th of the same. The brute and armour of Adam Gordon and his doings, and preparations made to resist him was diverse, but nothing that I heard moved me, for I perceive the cup of iniquity is not yet full. Of one thing I am assured, that God of his mercy will not suffer his own to be tempted above measure, neither will he suffer iniquity to be ever unpunished. From me can come no other counsel than ye have heard from the beginning of our acquaintance, to wit, that not only action defileth and maketh guilty before God, but also consent of heart, and all paction with the wicked. Out of bed, and from my book, I come not but once in the week, and so few tidings come to me. What order God shall put into the mind of the authority to take for staying of their present troubles, I know not, but ever still my dull heart feareth the worst, and that because no appearance of right conversion unto God, but both the parties stands as it were fighting against God himself in justification of their wickedness. The murderers assembled in the castle of Edinburgh, and their assisters, justify all that they have done to be well and rightly done; and the contrar party as little repenteth the troubling and oppressing of the poor kirk of God as ever they did; for if they can have the kirk‑lands to be annexed to their houses, they appear to take no more care of the instruction of the ignorant, and of the feeding of the flock of Jesus Christ, than ever did the Papists, whom we have condemned, and yet are worse ourselves in that behalf: for they according to their blind zeal spared nothing that either might have maintained or holden up that which they took for God’s service; but we, alace! in the midds of the light forgett the heaven and draw to the earth. Dayly looking for an end of my battel, I have set forth ane answer to a Jesuit who long hath railed against our religion, as the reading of this tractat will more plainly let you understand. The letter in the end of it, if it serve not for the estate of Scotland, yet it will serve a troubled conscience, so long as the kirk of God remaineth in either realme. With my hearty commendations to your bedfellow, and to my Lord Marshall, the Master, and to the faithfull in your company. Deliver to them the book according to their directions, and pray the faithfull in my name to recommend me to God in their prayers, for my battel is strong, and yet without great corporal pain. The Lord Jesus, who hath once redeemed us, who hath also of his mercy given unto us the light of his blessed countenance, continue us in that light that once we have received externally, and at his good pleasure put an end to all the troubles of his own spouse, the kirk, which now sobbeth and crieth, Come Lord Jesus, come Lord Jesus; whose omnipotent Spirit conduct you to the end. Amen.

At Sanct Andrews, 19th of July. [1572.]

No XVI. [Cald. II. 270.]

John Knox to Mr Goodman.

Written about the same time with the preceding.

Beloved brother, I can not praise God of your trouble; but that of his mercie he hath made you one against whom Satan bendeth all his engines, therof unfainedlie I praise my God, beseeching him to strengthen you to fight your battell lawfully to the end. That we shall meet in this life there is no hope; for to my bodie it is impossible to be carried from countrie to countrie, and of your comfortable presence where I am I have small, yea no esperance. The name of God be praised, who of his mercie hath left me so great comfort of you in this life. That ye may understand that my heart is pierced with the present troubles, from the castle of Edinburgh hath sprung all the murthers first and last committed in this realme, yea, and all the troubles and treasons conspired in England, God confound the wicked devisers with their wicked devises. So long as it pleased God to continue unto me any strength, I ceased not to forwarn these dayes publickly, as Edinburgh can witness, and secretlie, as Mr Randolph and others of that nation with whom I secretlie conferred, can testifie. Remedy now on earth resteth none, but onlie that both England and Scotland humbly submit themselves to the correcting hand of God, with humble confession of their former inobedience, that blood was not punished, when he be his servants publicly craved justice according to his law; in which head your realme is no less guilty than we, who now drink the bitter part of the cup, which God of his mercie avert from you. And thus weary of the world, with my hearty commendations to all faithful acquaintance, Mr Bodlih and his bedfellow especially remembered, I commit you to the protection of the omnipotent. Off Sanct Andrews.

No XVII. [Calderwood’s MS. ad an. 1570. Advocates’ Library.]

Prayer used by John Knox after the Regent’s death.

O Lord, what shall we add to the former petitions we know not; yea, alace, O Lord, our owne consciences bear us record that we are unworthie that thou should either encreass or yet continue thy graces with us, be reason of our horrible ingratitude. In our extreme miseries we called, and thou in the multitude of thy mercies heard us; and first thou delivered us from the tyrannie of mercieless strangers, next from the bondage of idolatry, and last from the yoak of that wretched woman, the mother of all mischief, and in her place thou didst erect her sonne, and to supply his infancie thou didst appoynt a regent endued with such graces as the divell himself cannot accuse or justly convict him, this only excepted that foolish pity did so farre prevaill in him, concerning execution and punishment which thou commanded to have been executed upon her, and upon her complices, the murtherers of her husband. O Lord, in what miserie and confusion found he this realme! To what rest and quietnesse now be his labours suddanlie he brought the same, all estates, but speciallie the poor commons, can witness. Thy image, Lord, did so clearlie shyne in that personage, that the divell, and the wicked to whom he is prince, could not abyde it. And so to punish our sinnes and ingratitude, who did not ryghtlie esteem so pretious a gift, thou hes permitted him to fall, to our great griefe, in the hands of cruell and traterous murtherers. He is at rest, O Lord, and we are left in extreme miserie! Be mercifull to us, and suffer not Satan to prevaill against thy little flocke within this realme, neither yet, O Lord, let bloode thirsty men come to the end of their wicked enterprises. Preserve, O Lord, our young king, although he be ane infant; give unto him the spirit of sanctification, with encreasse of the same as he groweth in yeares. Let his raigne, O Lord, be such as thou may be glorified, and thy little flock comforted by it. Seeing that we are now left as a flock without a pastor in civill policie, and as a shippe without a rudder in the midst of the storm, let thy providence watch, Lord, and defend us in these dangerous dayes, that the wicked of the world may see that as weill without the help of man, as with it, thou art able to rule, maintain, and defend the little flock that dependeth upon thee. And because, O Lord, the shedding of innocent bloode hes ever been, and yet is odious in thy presence, yea, that it defyleth the whole land where it is shed and not punished, we crave of thee, for Christ thy sonnes sake, that thou wilt so try and punish the two treasonable and cruell murthers latelie committed, that the inventars, devysers, authors, and maintainers of treasonable crueltie, may be either thoroughlie converted or confounded. O Lord, if thy mercie prevent us not, we cannot escape just condemnation, for that Scotland hath spared, and England hath maintained, the lyfe of that most wicked woman. Oppose thy power, O Lord, to the pryde of that cruell murtherer of her owne husband; confound her faction and their subtile enterprises of what estate and condition soever they be; and let them and the world know, that thou art a God that can deprehend the wise in their own wisdome, and the proud in the imagination of their wicked hearts, to their everlasting confusioun. Lord, retain us that call upon thee in thy true fear. Let us grow in the same. Give thou strength to us to fight our battell, yea, Lord, to fight it lawfullie, and to end our lives in the sanctification of thy holy name.

No XVIII. [Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 45. Advocates’ Library.]

My Lord Regent’s letter to the Assembly.

After our maist heartie commendationes, seing we are not able to [be] present [at] the assembly now approachand, as our intentioun was, we thoght it convenient brieflie to give you significatioun of our meaning in wryte, of the qlk we pray you take good consideration, and accordinglie to give you advertisement. Ye are not ignorant, as we suppose, what hes bene the estate of the kirk of God within this realme, baith before we accepted the burdein of regment, and sensyne. How first the thrids of benefices were grantit and the ministrie thereby partly releivit and sustainit in sick sort, that nothing inlaikit that our travells could procure. The first ordour indeed was diverse ways interruptit and broken, bot chieflie in that yeir when we were exylit in Ingland, quherthrough the haill ministers that year were frustrate of their living; shortlie the estate of government altering at Gods pleasure, and the king our soveraine being inaugurate with the crowne of this kingdom, the first thing yt we were carefull of was, that the trew religioun might be established, and the ministers of the evangell made certaine of their livings and sustentation in tyme comeing. Ye knaw, at the parliament we war maist willing that the kirk should have been put in full possession of the proper patrimonie. And toward the thrids, we exped in our travels, and inlaikit only a consent to the dissolution of the prelacies, whereunto althogh we were earnestly bent, yet the estates delayit, and wald not agrie therunto. And sen that tyme to this houre, we trust ye will affirme, that we have pretermittit nothing that may advance the religione, and put the professors thereof in suretie, whereanent the haill and only inlaik hes been in the civill troubles that God hes suffered the countrey to be plaguet with: now the matter being after so great rage brocht to some stay and quyetnes, it was convenient that we return where matters left, and prease to reduce them to the estate they stood in. Ane thing we man call to remembrance, that at sick time as we travellit in the parliament to cause the estates to grie that the thrids should be discernit to pertaine to the ministrie, they plainly opponit them to us in respect of the first act, alledgand that with the sustentation of the ministrie, there was also regard to be had to the support of the prince, in sustaining of the publick chairges, quhilks if they had not some reliefe be that meines, the revenue of the crown being so diminischit, and the ordinar chairges cume to sic grytnes, on force they wold be burdenit with exactionis, and so this dangerous argument compellit us to promitt to the estates, That we wald take upon us, the act being grantit to the kirk, they should satisfy and agrie to any thing suld be thocht reasonable for supporting of the publick chairges of the prince, and according to this the commissioner deput for the affairs of the kirk agreit to certaine assignations of the thrids for supporting of the king and us bearing authoritie. Quhilk order had been sufficient for the haill, if the civill trouble had not occurit, yet the disobedience growand so universallie, we ar content to sustain our part of the inlaik and loss for the tyme bypast, but because there hes been murmure and grudge for that thing assignit to the kings houss and ours, and some other needful things in the state, as that thereby the ministers were frustrate of their appointit stipendis, some communicatione was had at St Androes, and nothing yet concludit, quhill the general assembly of the kirk; quhilk now moves us to wreit to you in this forme, prayand you rychtly to consider the necessitie of the cause, and how the same hes proceeded fra the beginning, haveing respect that the kirk will [not] be very well obeyit without the king’s authoritie and power, and that now the propertie of the crowne is not able to sustaine the ordinarie chairges. how in the beginning the thrids had not been grantit, if the necessitie of the prince had not been ane of the chiefe caussis, and at the parliament the estates, as we before have written, stack to consent that the haill thrids sould be declareit to pertaine to the ministrie, whill first we tooke in hand, that they being made without conditione in favours of the kirk, the same wald againe condescend to sa meikle as wold be sufficient to the support of the public affaires, in foorth setting of the kings authoritie, and that therefore ye will now aggrie, and condescend to ane certaine and speciall assignatione of it that sal be imployit in this use. The quantity whereof diverse of yourselves, and the beirer Mr John Wood our servant, can informe you, that after ye may distribute to everie man having chairge in the kirk of God, his stipend, according to the conditione of the place he serves in, according to your w. discretione. Hereby all confusione that lang has troublit the estate of the kirk toward the stipend sal be avoydit, and some special provisione being made for sustaining of their publick chairges, we may the better hald hand to sie the kirk obeyit of that whereon the ministers sould live, as we [sic] sall report, that dureing our travells in the north countrey, have found our effectuous good will, and travellis in their furtherance. farther, we man put you in mind brieflie, of ane matter that occurit at our late being in Elgin. Ane Nicoll Sudderland in ffores, was put to the knawledge of ane assyse for incest, and with him the woman; the assyse hes convict him of the fault, but the question is, whether the same be incest or not, so that we behoovit to delay the executione whill we behoovit to have your resolution at this assemblie. The case is, that the woman was harlot of before to the said Nicholl’s mother’s brother, herein Mr Rot Pont can informe you more amplie, to whais sufficiencie we remitt the rest. Moreover, at our coming at Abd yr came ane nameit Portfeild, minister provydit of before to the viccarage of Ardrossane, and requyrit also of vs, that he might have the viccarage of Stevinsone, seing both was ane matter meane enough to sustaine him, and because the kirks were neir, he might discharge the cure of both. We haveing him comendit be diverse great men to the same, but thocht gude to advertyse you, yt this preparative induce not evill example and corruption: alwayes in cace sick things occurre heireafter, let vs vnderstand what ye wald have vs to doe, as in lyke maner towards the chaplenries yt sall happin to vaike, qr anent because there is no certaine ordour, and prescryvit [sic] some confusion stands, some desyreand them for lyfetime, some for infants that are of the schooles, and some for vii zeirs, we are sometyme preasit to receive or confirme assignatiouns or demissioun of benefices, the preparative whereof apperis to bring with it corruptioun, and so we wold be resolvit how to proceid, befor our coming fra fyfe. and sensyne we have been very willing to doe justice on all suspectit persons of witchcraft, as also vpon adulterers, incestuous persons, and abusers of ye sacrament, qrin we could not have sick expeditioun as we wold have wischet, because we have no uther probabilitie whereby to try and convict ym, but ane generall delation of names, ye persons suspect not being for the most part tryit and convict be ordour of the kirk of befoir. This hindrit many things qlk utherwayes might have bein done, and yrfore we pray you appoint and prescryve how the judgement of the kirk may proceid and be execute against all sick trespassors, befor complaint be made to vs, that when we come to the cuntrey, we may cause execute ye law, and be releivit of the triall of inquisition heiranent. We thoght expedient to give you this to advertisement, and so remitts the haill to your care and diligence, committis you in the protection of eternall God. aberd. ye last day of Junii 1569.

Your assurit friend,

James Regent.

No XIX. PEDIGREE

OF

BOWES OF STREATLAM.

(See Vol. I. p. 89.)

[For the information contained in this article, I am indebted to Robert Surtees of Mainsforth, Esq.]

“Richard Bowes (of Aske in Yorkshire) youngest sonne of Sr Raph Bowes of Streatlam Knight (& of his wife Marjory daughter & one of ye heirs of Sr Richard Conyers of South Cowton Knt). He married Elizabeth ye daughter & one of ye co‑heirs of Sr Roger Aske of Aske Kt & by hir had issue Sr George Bowes ye Knight Marshall & at length heire maile of the whole family of Bowes: Robert Bowes 2d sonne: and ten daughters: viz. 1. Bridgit married to Thomas Hussey Esqr. ye next heire maile to ye Lord Hussey. 2. Eliz. mard John Bainbrigge of Snotterton Esq. 3. Anne mard Marmaduke Vincent Esq. Muriall mar. to — Jackson of Bedale Esq. Marjory† to Mr Knoxes§ a Devine in Scotland. Margaret to Thomas Middleton Esq. & after to Ambrose Burbeck. Margery Lucy Agnes & Jane all died unmarried.”

[On the margin, in a different hand,] “† sometime called Joane to distinguish her from her sister of the same name. § Knox the famouse Reformer.”

The above is extracted verbatim from a narrative Pedigree compiled about 1640 by Thomas Bowes, whose autograph is on the last page, and which is now in the possession of Mr Surtees, having been purchased by him at the sale of Counsellor Gill’s Library several years ago.

The Pedigree in the Herald’s office stands on the opposite page. It notices only four of the daughters, entirely omitting Mrs Knox and the four unmarried maidens mentioned above. This is from the Visitation of Durham, by Flower, Norroy, 1575.

The Visitation by St George, 1615, is still less full; it names only Ralph, Robert, and Richard, omitting all the daughters.—A modern Pedigree of less authority amongst Mr Allan’s collections at Grange, states Knox’s wife to be Joan—but is answered by the old narrative statement, which is far the fullest, and by the marginal note affixed to it. It was very common at that time to have two children of the same Christian name.

The Knight Marshall had two wives. From the first, a Mallory of Studley, descends Thomas Bowes, now of Bradley, Esq. Co. Pal. who is the male heir of the whole family; but the issue of the second match, a Talbot of Grafton, got the chief estate, now in the Earl of Strathmore by heirs general.

No XX. THE TESTAMENT OF JOHN KNOX.

[From the Commissary Records of Edinburgh.]

Ye testament testamentare & Inventare of the guids geir sowmes of money & dettis ꝓtenīg to vmqle Johnne Knox mīister of ye evangell of Christ Jesus the tyme of his deceis quha deceissit vpoun ye xxiiii day of november The zeir of God im vc lxxii zeiris ffaithfullie maid & gevin vp be him self vpoun ye xiii day of May the zeir of God foirsaid And ꝓtlie be m̅garet Stewart his relict quhome wt Martha m̅garet & Elizabeth Knoxis his dochteris he vpoun ye xiii day of Maii in his Lattir will vnderwrittin nōīate his executors testamētaris as the samē of the dait foirsaid beiris.

Johnne Knox

xiii Jarii    1572.

In the first the said vmqle Jhonne grantit him to haif had the tyme foirsaid Tua sylver drinking coupis m̅kit with J. K. M. on ye ane syde and on the vthir syde with E. B. N. cōtening xxv vnces or thairby Tua salt fattis of syluer of xiiii vnces vecht and ane half Auchtene sylver spvnes contening xx vnce wecht & a quarter price of the vnce xxvi s. viii d. Summa ffoureskoir punds of the qlk syluer work abonewritten the airschip is to be deducit and takin of. Item the said m̅garet ane of the saids executours grantit that the said vmqle Johne had the tyme of his deceis foirsaid in pois ane hundēt pundes. Item his buikis alsweill vpoun the Scriptures as vyer ꝓphane authors wort vixx and x li. Item in vtensile & domicile the airschip being deducit to the avail of xxx li.

Sūma Inventarii.——iic lxxxxvi li. vi. s. viii d.

ffollowis the dettis awing to the deid.

Item yair wes awing to the said umqle Johnne ye tyme of his deceis foirsaid be Andro lord Stewart of Vchiltree his guidfather the sowme of lxxx li. of Lent money. Item be Wm Fiddes baxter xli. restand awand to the said vmqle Johnne of quheit qlk he ressavit to gif breid for. Item be Agnes Weymes relict of vmqle Andro Mernis cietener of St Androis xix li. xi s. 1 d. 1 ob. for the rest of beir qlk scho ressauit fra ye said vmqle Johnne to mak aill of. Item be m̅garet Spens Spous to Mr Robert Glen xviii li. xv s. iii d. for beir qlk scho ressauit fra the said vmqle to delyuer aill of. Item restand awand to the said vmqle Johnne the tyme foirsaid for ane pairt of his pensioun qlk he had furth of the kirk of Haddingtoun be the ꝓsones following the victualles underwritten of the zeiris and cropes resive underspecifeit viz. of the crope and zeir of god im vc lxxi zeiris be James Fiddes for ane pairt of his teyndis of the Nūland liand in the parochin of Haddingtoun Ane boll of quheit ane boll ane firlote beir vii bollis aitts. be Adame Ethingtoun in Quhitrig ane boll of quheit sex bollis aitts price of the boll of quheit the said zeir 1 s. price of the boll of beir the said zeir twa m̅kis and price of the boll of aittis the same zeir xx s. Sūma xix li. xiii s. iiii d. Item be the said James Fiddes for his teyndis of the saids lands of Nūland of the crope & zeir of God im vc lxxii zeiris ane boll of quheit ane boll ane firlote beir sevin bollis aittis. Be James Oliphant & Robert Hepburne for yair teyndis of the landis of Stenestoun liand within the said parochin ye said zeir sex bollis quheit sex bollis beir and xx bollis aittis. be ye said Adame Ethingtoun in Quhitrig for his teyndis of the saidis lands the said zeir ane boll of quheit ane boll of beir & sex bollis aittis. Be Johnne gulanis wyfe in Auldersoun for hir teyndis yrof of ye zeir foirsaid twa bollis quheit twa bollis beir and viii bollis aittis Price of ye boll of quheit the said zeir 1 s. price of the boll beir ye said zeir twa m̅kis and price of the boll aittis ye same zeir xx s. Summa lxxix li. xiii s. iiii d. Item restand awand to the said umqle Johnne the tyme of his deceis foirsaid be the ꝓsons following the sowmes of money & victuale underwrittin as for ane ꝓt of his stipende assignit to him for s̃uīg in the mīistrie of the said crope & zeir of God, im vc lxxi zeiris in the first be Margaret Haldane Lady Colingtoun for the lambes term in the said zeir xxxiii li. vi s. viii d. Be Mr Robert Wynrahame collector of Fyfe xxxii li. xvii s. for ye said vmqle John̄is victuale of the said pensioun sauld be him the said zeir. Be Robert Bennet thre firlottis quheit ꝓce of the boll 1 s. Summa xxxii s. vi d. Item restand awand to the said vmqle Jhonne the victuale and underspecifeit as for ane ꝓt of his said stipend the crop & zeir of God im vc lxxii zeiris. In the first be Williame m̅chingstoun in Inneresk thre bollis tua firlottis tua peckis quheit. Be Williame Vernor yair tua bollis tua firlottis thre peckis quheit. Be George Formā yair thre bollis tua firlottis tua pectis quheit. Be Robert Dowglas thre bollis tua firlotis tua pectis quheit. Be Johnne Cranistoun in Monktounhall thre bollis thre firlottis quheit. Be Johne Kerss yair thre bollis ane firlot tua pectis quheit. Be Thomas Thomsoun yair tua bollis tua firlottis tua pectis quheit. Be Adame wricht tua bollis ane firlit quheit. Be Williame Johnestoun foure bollis ane firlot quheit. Be Dauid Hill in Inneresk ane boll thre firlotts thre pectis quheit. extenden̄ to tua chalder quheit price of ye boll of quheit the said zeir 1 s. Sūma lxxx li. Be helene Cowtis relict of umqle Richard Prestoun of quhithill ane chalder beir. Be Jonet Betoun in Litill Monktoun ellevin bollis beir. Be Williame Wauchop of Nudry m̅schell for the teyndis of the lands of Calcoittis thre bollis beir. Be Johnne Hill of that ilk tua bollis beir. Be the tennentis of the parochin of Kynglassie for chalderis beir as followis. Be Johnne Boswall in Gaitmylk ane chalder beir. Williame Swyne yair viii bollis beir. George Tod in Kyninmonth ane chalder beir. Helene Mertyne in Kynglassie and Wm Boswall hir sone tuelf bollis beir. Wm Boswall in Stintoun xii bollis beir extenden̄ in ye haill to sex chalderis beir price of the boll ōrheid tua m̅kis. Sūa ane hundret twentie aucht pundis. Be the tennētis of the parochin of Newbirnshyre in Fyffe foure chalderis aittis as follows vizt Williame Dishingtoun in Ranelery fourtene bollis aittis. Thome Alcheur yair xiiii bollis beir. Johnne Zoung in the Coittis sex bollis aittis. Be David Sympsoun yair sex bollis aittis and be Andro . . . . . . . . yair sex bollis aittis. Be David Johnesoun in Moncturpie aucht bollis aittis. Be . . . . . . . . Sympsoun foure bollis aittis price of the boll ouerheid xx s. Summa lxiiii li. Item restand awand to ye said umqle Johnne, the sowmes underspecifeit as for ane ꝓt of ye sylver of his said stipend of the said zeir of God im vc lxxii zeiris. In the first be James Rig of Carberry for the half teynd of Cowsland xxxiii li. vi s. viii d. Be . . . . . . lady Edmestoun Spous to Andro Ker of hirsell knyt, for the vyr half of the teyndis of the lands foirsaids xxxiii li. vi s. viii d. Be the said m̅garet Haldane lady Colyngtoun for the teynd of Hailis lxvi li. xiii s. viii d. Be Robert Bennet xxxiii li. vi s. viii d. Be Mr James Macgill of Rankelor, neyer for his males of the lands of Pinkie for the t̃mes of Witsonday and m̅tymes In the said zeir of god im vc lxxii zeiris li lib. vi s. viii d. And als resting be him of the males of the landis foirsaids of the zeir of God im vc lxx zeiris xlv s. viii d. Be the executirs of vmqle Gilbert Edmestoun for the males of the lands of Wowmet of the t̃me of m̅tymes the said zeir of God im vc lxxii zeiris xxii li. viii s. Be Jonet betoun for the males of Litill Monktoun Nyne pundis. Be the said . . . . . . . . Lady Edmestone and Archibald Prestoun of Wallefeild for the males of Netoun xiiii li. xi s. vi d. Be James Rig of Carberry for the Maill yrof xx li. Item be . . . . . . . . of Nudry for the Males of Calcottes thre pundes. Be Robert Douglas in Inneresk for his males iii lib. xix s. iiii d. Be Wm m̅chinston thair for his few maill xxvii s. x d.

Summa of the detis abone writtin awing to ye deid

viiic   xxx li. xix s. vi d.

Na detis awing be the deid

Summa of ye Inventare wt   ye detis awing to the deid

im vc   xxvi li. xix s. vi d.

To be Diuidit in thre ꝓtis ye deidis pairt yr  of extends to

iiic   lxxv li. xiii s. ii d.

ffollowis the latter will and legacie.

Lord Jesus I ǫmend my trublit spreit in thy ꝓtectioun and defence and thy troublit kirk to thy m̅cie. Becaus I haif had to do wt dyuers ꝓsonages of the mīistrie qrunto god of his m̅cie erectit me wt in this realme my dewetie cravis that I sall leve unto thaim now ane testimony of my mynd. And first unto the papistis and to the vnthankfull warld I say that althocht my lyfe hes bene vnto thaim odious and that oftintimes yai haif socht my destruction & ye destructioun of ye kirk qlk god of his mercie hes plantit within this realme & hes alwayis preservit & kepit the samin fra thair crewale Int̃prysis zet to yaim I am ǫpellit to say that onles thai spedele repent my departing of this lyfe salbe to yaim the greatest calamitie that evir zet hes apprehendit yaim. sum small apperance yai may zit haife in my lyfe gif thai haif grace to se ane deid man haif I bene almaist yir tua zeiris last bypast And zet I wald that yai suld rypelie considder in quhat bettir estait yai and yair materis stands in yan it hes done befoir and thai haif hard of lang tyme befoir threatnit. bot becaus yai will nocht admit me for ane adminiser, I gif yaī ouir to the Judgement of him quha knawis ye hartis of all and will disclose the secretis yairof in dew tyme. And yis far to the papistis. To the faithfull God befoir his sone Jesus christ and befoir his halie Angellis I ꝓtest yat God be my mouth, be I nevir sa abiect, hes schawin to zow his trewth in all simplicitie. Nane I haif corrupted, nane haif I defraudit, m̅chandise haif I nocht maide (to godis glorie I write) of the glorious evangell of Jesus Christ, bot according to the measr of the grace graunted unto me, I haif dividit the sermont of trewth in just ꝓtis, beatin doun the pryde of the proude In all that did declare yr rebellioun aganis God, according as God in his law gevis to me zit testimonie, & raising vp the ǫsciences trublit with the knawledge of yr awin synnis be the declaring of Jesus Christ the strength of his death & the michtie operatioun of his resurrectioun. In the hartis of the faithfull off yis I say I haif ane testimony yis day in my conscience befoir God, how yat evir ye warld rage. Be cōstant yr foir in doctrine that anis publictlie ze have professit, lat nocht sclandrous dayis draw zow away fra Jesus Christ, nayir lat the prosperitie of the wickit move zow to follow it nor yame. ffor howsoeuer it be yat God appeiris to neglect his awin for ane seasoun, zit he remanis ane Just Juge quha nathir can nor will justifie the wickit. I am nocht ignorant yat mony wald that I suld enter in particulare determinatioun of thir ꝓn̄t trubles, to quhome I planelie and simplie āswer yat as I neuir excedit ye boundis of Goddis scriptures, sua will I nocht do in yis pairt by Godis grace. Bot heirof I am assurit be him quha nathair can dissave nor be dissavit yat the castell of Edinburt, in the qlk all the murthour all the truble & the haill destructioun of yis puir commounweill was Inventit, as our awin eis may witness, by yaim & by yair mātenaris was put in executioun, sall cum to destructioun mantene it quhasa list, The destructioun I say of body & saull, except yai repent. I luik not to the momētary prosperitie of ye wicked, ze not althot yai suld remane conquerors to the cūing of or lord Jesus, bot I luik to this sentence, that quhasaeuir scheddis Innocent bluid defyles the land and provoikis Godis wrath aganis himself & the land, vntill his bluid be sched agane be ordor of law to satisfie gods anger. This is nocht the first tyme that ze haif hard this sentence. althot yat mony at all tymes sturrit at sik severitie I zit afferme the same being reddy to entir to gif compt befoir his Maiestie of the stewartship he committit vnto me. I knaw in my death the rumours salbe strange, bot be ze nocht trublit abone measor, belouit in the Lord Jesus. Bot zit agane I say, remane cōstāt in ye trewt, & he quha of his m̅cie send me, conductit me, and prosperet ye work in my hand aganis Sathan will provide for zow abundantlie, quhen yat athir my bluid sall wattir the doctrine taucht be me, or he of his mercie vtherwayis provide to put ane end to yis my battell. My executors I mak constitute & ordane m̅garet Stewart my spous, Martha Margaret & Elizabeth knoxis my dochteris, and the faithfull to be ōrsmen. To my tua sones Nathaneell & Eleazare Knoxis I unfeignedlie leif ye same benedictioun yat yair dairest mider Mariorie Bowss left vnto yaim To wit that God for his sone christ Jesus saik wald of his mercie mak yaim his trew fereris and als vpricht worschippers of him as ony yat euer sprang out of Abrahames loynes, quhairto now as than I fra my trublit hart say amen. ffurther I have delyuerit be Maister Randulphe to Mr Robert Bowss schereff of the bischoprik & bruder to ye said Mariorie my vmqle dairest spous ye sowme of fyve hundreth punds of scottis money to ye vtilitie and proffett of my saidis tua sonis, The qlk money is yat pairt of substāce yat fell or pertenit to yaim be the deces of Mariorie Bowss yair moder of blissit memory, And augmētit be me as I myt or may spair to mak out the said sowme, for I ressavit of yris bot ane hundret merkis sterling, qlk I of my povirtie extendit to fyve hundret punds scottis, and yat in contentatioun of yair bairns pairt of geir qlkis may fall to yaī by my deces. Item I leif to my saids tua sones Tua sylver drinking cowpis the ane of thaī is m̅ket J. K. M. on ye ane syde, and on ye vther syde wt E. B. N. And in like mnner ye toyir wt ye same m̅k and lēres, The wecht of ye saidis tua cuipis contenand xxii vnce, or yrby, Tua salt fattis of sylver and xviii sylver spvnes, weyand xxxiiii z. and ane qr vnces, price of ye vnce ōrheid xxvi s. viii d. The qlks cuipis salt fattis & spvnes I leif in keping to ye said Margaret my spous qll my saidis sones be of the aige of xxi zeiris At ye qlk tyme I ordane & commandis hir to delyver the samī to my saidis sones, or to ony ane of yaim, gif be deces ye vthir faillis. Item I leif also to my saids sones ane pairt of my saidis buikis of ye availl of xxx li And failzeing of my saids sones & thair airis I ordane the foirsaidis fyve hundret punds wt ye syluer cuips spvnes saltfattis and buikis to return agane as eftir followis, That is to say, ye ane equale half yrof to ye said Margaret my spous & my saids thrie dochteris, And ye vyir half of ye samī to my bruder Williame Knox & his airis quhatsumevir. Item I leif to my said spous Margaret Stewart ye Aucht hundret merkis qlkis ar laid vpoun the landis of pennymoir quhairin scho is infeft be Andro lord Stewart of vchiltree my fader of law, and failzeing of ye said Margaret I leif ye samē to my saids thre dochters & failzeing of thaim I leif the samin to ye said Andro lord Stewart of vchiltrie & his airis quhatsūeuir, chairgeing & requyring my said fader of law & his airis, as yai will āsuer befoir yat incorruptible Judge ye lord Jesus, yat yai suffer not my said spous & children to be defraudit or evill payit of the males & ānual rent of the saids lands during the nonredemptioun of ye samī. Item I leif to paule knox my bruder sonne ane hundreth pundis qlk lyis in wodset upoun Robert Campbellis landis in Kinzeanclewt & quhairin the said paule is ellis infeft, and yat to be ane help to hald him at ye scuilis. And as concerning ye rest of my haill guids quhatsumeuir I leif to be dividit betuix my said spous & my saids thre dochteris, and becaus my said spous man tak the cair of my saidis dochteris & faithfullie travell for thair guid nurischment & upbringing, Thairfoir I leif my said spous ye use of yr geir qll yaibe mareit or cum to perfite aige, at qlk tyme I ordane thaim every ane as the tyme approches to haif yair awin yat to yaim appertenis

sic subscribitur       Johne Knox.

Johne Adamesoun witness

Rot Watsoun witness

Johne Johnesstoun witness

Quotta

gratis.

The quote of yis testament is given gratis be spēale command of my lords Commissaris.

No XXI. THE TESTAMENT OF MRS WELSH.

[Glasgow Testament Register.]

The Testament testamentar and Inventar of the guidis, geir, debtis and soumes of money quhilkis pertenit to vmquhile Elizabeth Knox, relict of vmquhile Mr Johnne Welsche, sumtyme minister at Air, within the parochin yairof, the tyme of hir deceis Quha deceist In the moneth of Januar, the zeir of God Imvjc tuentie fyve zeiris, ffaythfullie maid and gevin vp be hir awin mouthe Insafar as concernes the nominatioun of hir executouris nominat be hir and legacie vnderwrittin, and pairtlie maid and gevin vp be Mr James Inglis, minister at Daylie, Mr Josias Welsche hir sone, twa of the executouris nominat be the defunct Insafar as concernes the vpgeving of the Inuentar of hir guidis, geir, debtis awand In and Out, As hir latterwill and testament of the daite vnderwrittin mair fullie proportis.

Inuentar.

Item, the defunct had the tyme foirsaid the guidis and geir vnderwrittin of the availlis, quantities and pryces eftirspecifeit, vizt the Insycht of the hous in vtincillis and domicillis with the abuilzement of the defunctis bodie estimat to iijc lxxxli.

Summa of the Inuentar       iijc lxxxli

Debtis awand In.

Item, thair was awand to the defunct the tyme foirsaid, the sowmes of money following: Be the persones eftirspecifeit, viz. Be Robert Wallace, burges of Air, and his cautionneris ijm iijc xxxiijli vjs viijd. Be Johnne Stewart burges yair vjc lxvjli xiijm iiijd. Be the Lady Cesnokis and hir sone the laird of Cesnok, vjc lxvjli xiijs iiijd. Be Archibald Dumbar, jc xxxiijli vjs viijd. Be Vchtred McDowgall of Mondork lxvjli xiijs iiijd. Be Johnne Stewart jc xxxiijli vjs viijd.

Summa of the debtis in,       iiijm li

Summa of the inuentar and debtis,       iiijm iijc lxxxli

Debtis awand out.

Item, thair was awand be the defunct, the tyme foirsaid, the sowmes of money following:—To the persones eftir specifeit, viz. To Jonet Kennedy of fie, xxli; to Bessie Ingrahame of fie, xli; to Allan Cathcart, hir servand, of fie, xxxli.

Summa of the debtis out,       lxli

Restis frie geir, debtis deducit,       iiijm iijc xxli

Na diuisioune.

Quota be compositioune,       ijc xix merkis.

Legacie.

At Air, the aucht day of Januar, the zeir of God Im vjc tuentie fyve zeiris, I, Elizabeth, relict of vmqle Mr Johnne Welsche, sumtyme minister at Air, being, at the pleasour of the Lord, now viseit with seiknes and infirmitie of bodye, vncertane of the hore of my daithe, hes thairfoir, for setting in ordour of my wordlie effairis, maid my testament and latterwill, as followis: Be the quhilk I nominat, mak, and constitute Mr James Inglis, minister at Daylie, Mr Josias Welsche, my sone, and Nathaniell Welsche, also my sonne, my onlie executouris; and willis and requestis Mr Jonn Ker, minister at Prestounepannis; Williame Stewart, brother‑german to Josias Stewart of Bonytoune; Alexander Schaw of Keirhill, and Johnne Stewart, lait bailzie of Air, to be ouerismen and ouersearis of the weill of my bairnes; and referris the vpgeving of the inuentar of my guidis, geir, debtis and sowmes of money belanging vnto me to the saidis Mr James Inglis, Mr Josias Welsche, and Nathaniell Welsche, my executouris foirsaidis, quhilk I declair salbe als sufficient as gif I had gevin vp the samyne myself. Item, I leif to the puir and hospitalitie of Air ffourtie pundis money of this realme; and I leiff the haill rest and remanent of my guidis, geir, debtis, sowmes of money, and vtheris quhatsumever belanging vnto me, or quhairvnto I haue richt and title in ony sort, to the said Mr Josias Welsche, Nathaniell Welsche, my sones, and to Luyse Welsche, my dochter, equallie amangis thame thrie, be equall diuisioun. Item, I leif to the said Mr Josias Welsche, twa gold ringis. Item, to the said Nathaniell Welsche, ane gold ring; and I leif ane pair of golden̄ bracelettis and ane chinze of gold, ane taffatie gowne, and dames wyliecoitt, and ane taffatie wyliecoitt, with my sylwir belt; and with sex gold ringis, ane lang stalkit sylwir coup, twa sylwir spwnes, to the said Lwyse Welsche, my dochter. Item, I leif to the said Mr Josias Welsche ane marmet sylwir pott, with the cover yairof and twa sylwir spunes; and I leif to the said Nathaniell Welsche, twa sylwir spunes. In witnes of the quhilk thing, to this my present testament, writtin be George Masoune, notar, I haue subscryvit the samyne with my hand, at Air, the aucht day of Januar, the zeir of God Im vjc tuentie fyve zeiris; befoir thir witnesses, James Will, merchand burges of Edinburgh, the saidis William Stewart, and Allexander Schaw, with Allane Cathcart, my servitor, and the said George Masoune, writter heerof. Sic subscribitur, Elizabethe Knox. Williame Stewart, witnes; James Will, witnes; George Masoune, notar, witnes.

I, Mr James Hammiltoune, of Westport, commissar of Glasgow, &c., be the tennor heirof, ratifeis, approvis, and confermis this present testament and inuentar, insafar as the samyne is dewlie and lauchfullie maid and gevin vp, nathing omittit furth of the samyne, nor set within the just availl yairincontenit, and gevis and committis full power and intromissioun with the guidis and geir abonewrittin to the saidis Mr James Inglis and Mr Johne Welsche, twa of the executouris abonespecifeit allanerlie, with power to yame to call and persew yairfoir. Becaus twa of the executouris foirsaid hes maid fayth, as vse is, in respect of the said Nathaniell Welsch, the vther executouris minoritie, and hes fund cautioun, as law will, as ane act maid yairvpoune at lenth beiris. At Glasgow, the xxiij day of Maij, 1625 zeiris.

No XXII.

Extracts from “A Historie of the Estate of Scotland from the year 1559 to the year 1566.”—MS. belonging to Thomas Thomson, Esq.

[This is the MS. to which I have frequently referred in the account which I have given of the differences between the queen regent and the Protestants, in the years 1558 and 1559. At the beginning of it is the date “7th January, 1663,” most probably the day on which the writing was begun. It is undoubtedly a transcript from a more ancient MS., and the transcriber has not been well acquainted with the old hand. Accordingly, he has sometimes left blanks, and at other times has evidently given a false reading. Only a small part of the original MS. seems to have been transcribed by him. In making the following extracts from it, I have endeavoured to select such passages as contain facts or circumstances not mentioned in other histories; and I am not without hopes that the publication of these may contribute to the discovery of the original MS., which may be preserved in some public library or private repository.]

In the moneth of Julij anno 1558, conveened in Edenburgh a certen number of the professours of Christ’s Evangell. The cause of their meeting wes partly to assist certen brethren of Dundie who wer summoned to vnderly the law by instigation of the bishops. And after consultation ād advice taken, the presented a suplication in the palace of Halyrud house to the queene regent, conteining in effect thes articles ffollowing. In the first desyring that it might be lawfull to all such as pleased to meete publiquely that in any part within this realme of Scotland to read comon prayers in the mother tongue. Secondly, that it should be lawfull to all persons haveing knowledge to preach the word of God without the leaven of mens traditions. Thirdly, that it should be lawfull for the sayd persons, ministers of God’s word, to minister the sacraments, to witt, of baptisme and the lords supper, according to the true institution commanded by Christ and his apostels, and to the faithfull to receave the same. The which supplication the said queene regent receaved with a joyfull countenance forth of the hands of the Laird of Cadder in the presence of a great part of the nobilitie, the Papist Bishops also being present. And at that tyme shee gave an indifferent answere, saying always shoe would advise in the matter. But soone after shoe delyvered the sayd supplication to the Bpp of St Andrewes to be advised with him that wes to be done, as the yssue of the said matter did declare. Alwayes the faithfull reioiced and gave condigne thanks to the eternall our God, for that it had pleased him to give them the boldness to vtter themselves to be such as desyred the advancemt of his glory notwithstanding the multitude of their enemies. At the same meeting ther wer certen brethren of Dundie, who were summoned to vnderly the law for the cause of religion. They wer releived vpon securitie to enter vpon eight dayes warning. Finally departing from Edenbrugh, everie man in their owne shyrs and townes they beganne to proceed according to the effect of the said articles privatly and publickly where they might without occasion of sedition or greate trouble: the greatest fervencie apeared in the Mearns and Angus, and Kyle and Fife or Lothian; but chiefly the faithfull in Dundie exceeded all the rest in zeall and boldnes, preferring the true religion to all things temporall. But in Edenburgh their meeting wes but in private houses.——

In October the minister of Gods word John Willock came into this countrie, by whose godly sermons the brethren were strengthened in all places where the faithfull came, and the number increased dayly; bot Sathan never ceases to suppress by all meanes the truth where he perceaves the same truely to increase. In the end of September following the Bpp of St Andrews caused summone the preachers, viz. John Willok, John Douglas, William Harlaw, Paul Meffan, and John     to appeare before him at St Andrews the second of February following; wherof the brethren being advertised, advised what wes to be done, and after consultation taken in the matter, caused informe the queene regent that the said preachers would appear with such multitudes of men professing their doctrine as wes never seen befor in such like cases in this countrie. Then the queene fearing some vproare or sedition, desyred the Bishopp to continue the matter, and declared that shee would send for the nobilitie and estates of the realme to advise for some reformation in religion, and for the same purpose assigned the seventh of March following for a convention to be holden at Edenburgh. bot the Bpp of St Andrews caused warne all the sects of the Papists to the said day to hold a provincial counsell at Edenburgh, wher they being mett after some commoneing by the principall Bpps with the nobles, whereof nothing in effect followed; then the sayd Bpps after their old manner offered themselves to the queene, to doe all that shee would command them, proveiding that they might be maintained in their dignitie for the suppressing of the truth, and after they were agreed with her vpon the summe which wes within 15000l. they sate them downe in the Blackfryers of Edenburgh in their vsuall councell. Where the 7th day wes devised, and the next sunday the 15th of March the said Bpp sang a magnifick mass of the holy spirit, as they tearmed it, for a beginning of the deformation. On the other part the cōmissioners of the faithfull met by themselves at the same tyme in Edenburgh, and everie day consulted for the furtherance of the gospell; and finally perceaving that the queene regent and the Papists were agreed by reasone of the said summe promised by them to her, they departed, leaving the Papists still at their provinciall councell; Where, amongst others of the statutes, the 23d of March the queene regent caused proclame this at the markett crosses at Edr and other places, conteining in effect, that no manner of persone should take vpon hands to preach or minister the sacraments, except they were therto admitted by the ordinarie or Bishopp vnder no less paine then death. And because they vnderstood perfectly of the afore said proclamation that it wes disobeyed and contemned by the preachers, in April following,[360] for contravening of the said acts and proclamations vnder the paine of Rebellion and putting to the horne, which thing was done express agt. the laws and practice of the Countrie. In the end of this moneth of Aprill the minister of Gods word John Knox arrived at Leith,[361] and on the next day after his commeing, which wes called Phillipp and Jacobs day, the Papists meeting at the Councell being well sett downe in the Blackfryers of Edenbrugh, one came in and assured them that John Knox wes now come out of ffrance, [and] had bene all that night in the Towne: at the wch newes they being all astonished, leaving the councell rose suddenly from the board where they satt, and passing forth to the yeard altogether abashed, fearing the thing which came suddenly to pass. In the mean time that court wes cast so that they never mett there again to this day. Nevertherless they sent incontinent a post to Glasgow to the queene, acquainting her of the matter, who caused him to be blowne loud to the horne the third day after. Bot in the mean time the faithfull being informed of his commeing and thirwith encouraged ceased not to give praise to God, and finally he being convoyed to Dundie incontinent preached the word publicquely.——

Alwayes when they [the Lords of the Congregation] had purged the kirks in Sterling, and ordered the Friers as they had done with them in St Johnstone and St Andrewes, destroying the Altars and Idolls, caused the Evangell to be publicquely preached in the Parish Kirk, then they came to Edenbrugh the penult day of June not above 1000 horse in companie, at the first commeing, with some men of warr about 300 men. But before their commeing to Edenbrugh, the Friers takeing the fray, for their master the Lord Seyton then Provost who wes appointed them, wes wearie of his office, the ffriers then begane to dispose amongst their acquaintance the best of their goods which were left at that tyme, which thing the Rascall people perceiving went in finding the yates open and suddenly fell to work and sacked all. So that before the arriving of the Congregation neither Altars, nor Idolls, nor any thing pertaining to Idolatrie in the friers, wes left standing: soe that the whole Churches about Edenburgh, as well as within the Towne being purged, the faithfull reioiced giving condigne thanks to the Eternall God who of his mercie had wrought so great things without the expectation of all men. The minister of Gods word John Knox the same day that the Congregation came to Edenbrugh, made a Sermone in St Giles Church, and the next day in the Abbay, so that the dumbe Idolls and all darkness being taken away, the clear Ligh‑shineing of Gods word was truely preached. The third day after the arriveing of the Congregation at Edenburgh, My Lord of Glenkarne with the Gent. of the west countrie came to her [there?] after that they had purchased [purged] the churches in Glasgow of Idolatrie. The names of the Lords of the congregation wes the Earle of Argyle, the Lord James, the Earle of Glencarne, the Earle of Menteeth, the Earle Rothes. The same day after their comeing to Edr. the Lords and Principalls of the Congregation send to the Queene Regent, being at Dumbarr, my Lord of Glencarne, the lairds of Cunninghamhead and Pittaro, declaring to her that the whole prætence wes for the suppressing of Idolatrie and advancement of the glory of God, desyring her to release the Preachers from the horne, so that they might publicquely preach the word of God. The Lords in that cause offered to doe obedience and service, protesting that they meant nothing but the setting furth of true religion, and suppressing Idolatrie and superstition, and advancing the glory of God by preaching of the word. Att that tyme they obtined of the Queene that the Preachers should be released from the horne so that they might preach freely to all such as pleased to heare them, which wes put in execution the nixt day after when they were released.[362] After this there were divers commeings [communings] for appointment in Haddington and other places, the Earl of Huntley being present for the Queene and others such as shee pleased to appoint. The things that the Lords demanded consisted only of these two heads, that the word of God might be publiquely preached, and the frenchmen sent forth of the countrie; but her mind was to drive tyme with them as well appeared. For shee had sent alreadie to france for more men of warr. During this tyme the Congregation of Edinburgh elected and chose John Knox publiquely in the Tolbooth of Edr. for their minister the 7th of July.——

At length shee [the Queen Regent] took purpose at Dumbarr, by conclusion of the Councell, the 22th of Julij, being assuredly informed that the number of the Congregation wes verie small, should come to Edr. and compell the Congregation to dislodge. And for this purpose they made all readie that night to depart in the morning following. The Lords of the Congregation being advertised hereof (not withstanding their small number) resolved constantly to resist their [the] violence of their adversaries putting their trust in God whose cause they meantyned, preferring the equitie of their cause before the power and strenght of men. In the mean tyme there wes greate feare in the Towne everie man wundering what end and successe the matter should take. Shortly so shoone as the Lords were advertised that the men of warr commeing from Dumbar drew neere the Towne, the 25th of June airly in the morning at the sound of the Common Bell where     forth of Edr. with soe muney as God had moved their herts to assist them. The whole number of the Congregation exceeded not 1500 men. Which small number being putt in order in the East side of Graigingate, incontinent the horse men being with my Lord Duke and Monsieur D’ossell appeared to them vpon the sands of Leith north west from Lestellrigg moveing towards Leith. And as soone as they come neere the East part of Gouburnes house that wes, they shott from the said place a peece of ordinance which dispersed the said horsemen, but soone after they yielded [i.e. the Lords of the Congregation retired] themselves, perceaving the whole number approaching, which were about 5000 men, horse and foote. The Congregation stood still in order on the east side of the Craig, and perceaving the adversaries within half a mile they prepared themselvis to battell, not mynding [i.e. meaning] to remove out of that place. And albeit the Lordis had desyred the Captaine of the Castell, the Lord Erskin, to be on their side, nevertheless they could not persuade him to shew them any favour, yet after the Principall Lords had spoken with him, they sent from the Craigs desyring him that in respect in his conscience he favored the Evangell, and that the matter depended fully here vpon, that he would assist them with such help as he might, which thing he refused vtterly, assuring them that, if they would now [not?] take such appointment as they might have, he would declare himselve their enemie, as he had promised to the Queene in Dumbarr. In the mean tyme rideing on either side, they began to speake to appoint the matter which wes agreed vpon.——

[Anno 1560.] it wes printed that the English men would be In Scottland the 25th of March by land. After my Lord James had finally agreed with the Duke of Norfolke vpon all things, he arrived againe at Pittenweeme the 9th day after his departing. In the meane tyme the Princippalls of the ffrenchmen being informed that the Queenes Armie wes not in readiness to come in before the said day, they tooke a high enterpryse. For the 7th of March, they departed forth of Leith and other places where they had beine in garrisone to the greate destruction and loss of the Countrie, the number of 2000 souldiers of the most able and best equipeit, beside 300 Horsemen and marched towards Lithgow, where they remained the firs night. All the Countrie wes in a fray, not knowing their purpose vntill the nixt day at night they came to Monebeth, and some of them lodged in Kirk in Tillock. The Duke being surely advertised that their purpose wes to come to Glasgow, he departed with small company the night before their arriving. There wes in my Lord Duke’s Company, the Earles of Arrane, Argyle, and Glencarne, with their howsholds only, ffor they suspected not nor would not have thought that the ffrenchmen durst at that tyme have taken such an enterprice. Imediately there wes proclamation made through Cliddesdale and other shires, and likewise privie writings sent by my Lord Duke and the other Lords to their friends and servants, That they should incontinently cume to him in Hamilton for their defence, and resistance of the ffrenchmen, and because warr [beacons were] brunt upon the highest hills for the same effect. But indeed they gather slowly, so that it appeared planly, if God would have suffered it, the ffrenchmen might easily and without any resistance have come vp Clyde, and had done whatever it had pleased them throughout all that Countrie. Not with standing after that they had taken by force the Bpps Castle, and had cruelly hanged a part of the souldiers (Scotts men) that were therein, and had chased the rest that made resistance in the Towne, the second day after ther comeing to Glasgow there came a writing to him [them] from the Queene, containing in effect that shee wes surely informed that the English armie was alreadie come from Barwick and within Scotland; wherefore shee wiled them with all possible expedition to returne againe, which they did imediately. The damage which they did wes not so greate as men supposed for they had no tyme sufficient. When the Lords that were at Hamilton were advertised of their departing, my Lord of Arrane with soe many horsemen as were readie, past fordward to follow the ffrenchmen, pretending that if they had seen sufficient occasione to have midled with them. The next day they showed themselves as the ffrenchmen past by the Callender, but there wes no appearance, ffor there wes no partie. Alwayes they kept them closs together, for they exceeded not 800 men. Soe the ffrenchmen came to Lithgow, where they lay the space of 8 dayes, and made continuall spoile in all the Countrie about within the space of viii miles. The damage which they did of all     especially of cattle, sheepe, and horse wes exceeding great, and likewise killed and tooke diverse men prisoners. Dureing this tyme the Congregation prepared themselves to meet the English armie, and for the same purpose there wes proclamation made in Cliddesdall, ffyfe, Angus, Mernes, and Strathearne. The ffrenchmen being surely advertised that the English armie wes in readinesse they came to Leith the 29 of March, where all things were prepared that were necessare for their defence, and every day they made spoil in the Countrie.——

No XXIII. Letter, James V., concerning the progress of the Lutheran opinions in the diocese of Aberdeen, anno 1525.[363]

[Extracted from the Burgh Records of Aberdeen.]

Curia ballivorum burgi de Abirden̄, tenta xviijo die mensis Augusti 1525.

Our Soueranis lr̄es in contrar Luthyr.

James, be the grace of God, kinge of Scottis, to our Schereff of Aberdene, and his deput, and to our louitts, Schyr Johne ruderfurd knyt, and thomas mēzeis of Petfothellis, our scherefys in that part coniunctlie and seuerallie specialie constitut, greting, fforsamekill as it is humelie menyt and schewin to ws be ane Reuerend fader in god, and our truist consalour, gawyne, bischop of Aberdene, yat quhar syndry strangers ande otheris wtin his diocesy of Aberdene, has bukys of that heretick luthyr and favors his errorys and fals opinionys, incontrar our act of parliament laitlie mayd in or last parliament, Oure will is heirfor, ande we charge zow straitle and commandis yat incontynent thir our lr̄es sayne ze [make] publick ye sayde act at all places neydfull and tak inquisition̄e gyfe ony personys be fundin wtin the sayde diocesy of Aberdene, that hes sic bukys, or fauorys sic arorys of the said luthyr, and that ze confisk yr gudes and inbring ye samyn to our wss and profict, efter the forme of the said act, as ze will ansuer yrupoun, ye quhilk to do, we commyt to you coniunctlie and seurlie oure full power be thyr oure lr̄es deliuering yame to zow deulie execut ande indorset agane to the berar. Geuin vnder our signet, at Edinburgh, ye sevint day of August, and of our regne ye xij zēyr.

Ex deliberacione dominor̄ consilii, &c.

CHEPMAN.

SUPPLEMENT.

The first Poem inserted in the Supplement is so exceedingly rare, that the copy from which I have printed, is supposed to be unique. It is valuable as the principal events in our Reformer’s life are commemorated in it, and the leading features of his character delineated, by the pen of one who was personally acquainted with him. As a curious specimen of the Scottish language and versification at the period in which it was composed, the old orthography has been carefully retained. The serious reader will be pleased in tracing the vein of piety which runs through rhymes which must appear to him rude, and sometimes almost unintelligible.—Its author, John Davidson, was a regent, or teacher, in the University of St Andrews, and afterwards successively minister of Libberton, and of Salt‑Preston, now called Prestonpans. I have already referred to several of his other writings. Vol. i. p. 354. Vol. ii. p. 241, 349. He also published a Catechism, entitled, “Some Helpes for Young Schollers in Christianity,” printed at Edinburgh, by Robert Waldegrave in 1602. And he died about 1608. Note subjoined to Jameson’s edition of his Catechism, in 1708. Life of Davidson, in Wodrow’s MSS. vol. i. Bibl. Coll. Glas.

The Latin Poems which follow are taken from a manuscript in the Advocates’ Library, and exhibit traits in the characters of the principal Scottish Martyrs and Reformers, with allusions to several events in their lives, which I have not met with elsewhere. On this account, and also as a specimen of Scottish literature, I have published a selection from the MS., which appears to have been written about the beginning of the seventeenth century. From the corrections with which it abounds, there is reason to think that the copy in the Library had belonged to the author. It likewise contains Latin Poems, entitled, “Icones Regum Judæ et Israelis.”—The author, John Johnston, was a professor of St Mary’s College, in the University of St Andrews, at the close of the sixteenth, and commencement of the seventeenth, century; and was the intimate friend and associate of Andrew Melville, the learned principal of that College. He published, “Heroes ex omni Historia Scotica lectissimi. Lugduni Batavorum, 1603.” 4to. And also “Inscriptiones Heroicæ Regum Scotorum,” which were reprinted in “Deliciæ Poetarum Scotorum.” His verses on Buchanan are inserted in “Poetarum Scotorum Musæ Sacræ,” tom. ii. p. 500. It is said that he also published a book on the government of the church by bishops; but this I have not seen. There is a Life of Johnston, in Wodrow’s MSS. vol. ii. Bibl. Coll. Glas.

ANE BREIF COM-

MENDATIOVN OF VPRICHT-

nes, in respect of the surenes of the same, to all that

walk in it, amplifyit chiefly be that notabill docu-

ment of Goddis michtie protectioun, in preser-

uing his maist vpricht seruand, and feruent

Messinger of Christis Euangell, Iohne

Knox. Set furth in Inglis meter be

M. Iohne Dauidsone, Regent

in S.Leonards College.

¶ Quhairunto is addit in the end ane short discurs of the Estaitis quha hes cause to deploir the deith of this Excellent seruand of God.

¶ PSALME. XXXVII.

¶ Mark the vpricht man, and behauld the Iust, for the end of that man is peace.

¶ IMPRENTIT AT SANCTAN-

drois be Robert Lekpreuik. Anno. 1573.

TO THE MAIST GODLIE, ANCIENT, AND WORTHIE

Schir Iohne Wischart of Pittarrow Knicht, M. Johne Dauid-

sone wissis the continuall assistance of the Spreit of

God, to the end, and in the end.

CONSIDERING with my self (maist worthie Knicht) the greit frailtie and vnsureness of all strenthis eirthly quhatsūeuer, quharin mā lefing god, vsis to put his traist on the ane part, and the sure fortres and saifgaird of vprichtnes, howbeit destitute of all aide warldly on the vther part: I culd not withhald my pen frō vttering of that praise and commendation of vprichtnes, quhilk in my mynde I had consauit of the same. Being chiefly mouit heirunto be the Miraculous (as I may weill call it) and maist wonderfull preseruatioun of that maist notabill seruand of God, and sinceir Preicheour of Christis Euangell, Iohne Knox. Quha being bot of small estimatioun befoir the eyis of the warld, (zit greit befoir God,) was hatit vnto the deith. And that euin be Kingis, Queenis, Princes, and greit men of the warld, and finally be all the rabill of Sathanis suddartis[364], in Scotland, Ingland, and France. Zea, not only was he hatit, and raillit on, bot also persecutit maist scharply, and huntit from place to place as ane vnworthie of ony societie with man. And althocht thay wer michtie and potent, zea, and wantit na euill will, and he on the vther syde ane pure man, alane, and oft tymes without help, or assistance of ye warld, zit was he michtely preseruit, and as in a maist sure saifgard (all the wickits attentis quha thristit nathing mair than his blude being frustrat) conducted to an maist quyet, peaciabill and happy end, to the greit aduancement of Goddis glorie, and singulare comfort of his Kirk, and to the confusioun of Sathan and discōfort of all his wickit instrumētis. Thairfoir that this sa notabil and euidēt ane documēt of the louing cair of our god towardis his seruāds svld not with him be buryit bot abyde recent in memorie till all the inhabitantis of this Realme in all ages to cum. I haue preissit[365] schortly in this lytill paper to mak, as it wer, ane memoriall of the same, and yat in that lāguage quhilk is maist cōmoun to this hail Realme, to the intent that asweill vnleirnit as lernit may be partakeirs of the same. Not that I think my self abill to handill sa worthie ane mater worthelie in ony toung, bot that partly I may schaw my gude will in this matter, and partly to gif occasioun to vtheris, that baith hes mair dexteritie in sic thingis, and greiter opportunitie of tyme, to intreit the same at greiter lenth. That be calling to mynd this notabill exēpill of Godis louing cair towardis vs, we in all thir feirfull dayis (quharin he that seis not tryall approaching neir is destitute of Iudgement) may be strenthnit and encourageit to ga fordwart vprichtly, eurie ane in our awin vocatioun, without declyning outher to the richt hand or the left. And principally that our watche men faint not, nor begin to iouk[366], or flatter with the world for feir of Tyrānis, bot that thay may haue brasin facis, and foirheidis of Iron againis the threitnings of the wickit, cōdempning impietie of all persounis in plane termis, following the ensāpill of this maist zelous seruād of God, of quhōe heirtofoir we hau maid mentioun, and that being assurit gif sa thay walk vprichtly in dischargeing of thair office, that thay ar in ye protectioun of the Almichtie.

¶ And this small frute of my sober trauellis, I haue thocht gude to offer and present to zow (maist worthie Knicht) not sa mekill for that, that I thocht it worthie to be presentit til ony: as that I wald let my gude will and grate[367] mynd, be the same appeir towardis zow, throw quhais procurement I obteinit the benefite of that godly and faithfull (thocht mockit and falsly traducit of the warld) societie, quhairof presently I am participant. For the quhilk I acknawledge me, and my humbill seruice alwayis addettit to zour honour. And howbeit (as I mon confes) na thing can proceid of me that may in ony wayis correspond to zour meritis towardis me: zit sal the thankfulnes of mynd at na tyme (God willing) be deficient. Quhilk is to be acceptit quhair vther thingis are lacking, in place of greit rewaird. And the rather haue I takin bauldness to dedicate this lytill Treateis vnto zour honour, baith becaus I vnderstude, zow euer to haue bene sen zour Chyldheid, ane vnfenzeit fauourar, and mantenar to zour power of vprichtnes, quhais praise in this lytill Volume is intreatit. And also, that this notabill seruand of God (quhais michtie preseruatioun, notwithstanding the wickitis rage, to ane quyet end, chiefly mufit me to this busines) was maist belufit of zow quhile he leuit, and yat for yat greit vprightness quhilk ze saw from tyme to tyme maist viuely expres the self in him. And finally, that your honour may be mufit heirby, as ze haue begunne and continewit to this day ane zelous professour of Goddis word, mantenar of the samin, and lufer of his seruandis: sa ze may perseuer to the end of zour lyfe, without sclander to zour professioun, euer approuing the treuth, and haitting impietie in all persounis, not leaning to warldly wisdome, nor louking for the pleasure of greit men in the warld: Sen nane of thir thingis, but only vprichtnes, can outher mak ane pleasand to God, or zit sure in this warld. And sa traisting that zour honour will accept this my sober offer (till God grant better occasioun of greter) intill gude part, I commit zow to the protectioun of the Almichtie, that quhen it sall pleis God to tak zow furth of this miserie, ze may end zour lyfe in the sanctificatioun of his haly name. To whom be praise and Glorie, for euer. Amen. From Sanct‑androis the XVIII. of February.

ANE BREIF COMMENDATIOVN OF VPRICHTNES

SEN that we se men till haue studyit ay

Into this eirth sic strengthis to prepair,

As micht be saifgaird to thame nicht and day,

Quhen ony danger dang thame in dispair,

Wald thow gude Reider haue ane strenth preclair[368]        , Prouer. 10, 12,

Maist strang and stark to rin to in distres,           13, 18.

This lytill schedull schortly sall declair         Ecclesi. 9.

How that the surest Towre is vprichtnes.         Ps. 25, 27, 91.

Quhilk vprichtnes we may descriue to be:

Ane traid of lyfe conforme to Godds command,         Iob. 31.

Without all poysoun of Hypocrisie,

Or turning to and fra, from hand to hand.

Bot stoutly at the word of God to stand,         Prouer. 5.

Eschewing alwayis it for to transgres,         Psalm 18.

Not bowing back for thame that contramand.

This wayis we may descriue this vprichtnes.

For first thair is na Castell, Towre, nor Toun,

Nor naturall strenth, as Alexander sayis,         Q. Curt. li. 7.

Bot mānis Ingyne may vincous and ding doun,

As that he had experience in his dayis,

Na strenth was sure to theme that was his fais:

The Craig in Asia did beir witnes,         Q. Curt. li. 7.

Howbeit in hicht vnto the sky it rais,

It was ouercum for laik of vprichtnes.

Euin sa that bailful Bour of Babilone,         Q. Curt. li. 5.

Na saifgaird was to Darius we reid,         Ieremi. 51.

Suppois it was ane maist strang Dongeone,

And mony ma I micht declair in deid

Bot sic exempellis Foraine nane we neid;

Quhat surenes fand the Bischopis halynes,

Into Dumbartane quhair he pat his Creid?

It was not half sa sure as vprichtnes.

The force of men gif ony will obtend,         Ps. 33. 40. 60.

Kinred, or friends to be ane gaird maist strang,         Esai. 31.

All is bot vane, they can not man defend,         Jeremi. 17.

For quha mair surely into Royat[369]         rang,

Nor the greit Conquerour his friendis amang,         Q. Curt. lib. 10.

Zit was he poysonit, as sum dois express,

Intill his Camp quhilk he had led sa lang:

Than quhat is force of man till vprichtnes.

Riches and rent we ken dois not abyde,         Prouer. 11.

Bot flitts and fochis[370]         euer to and fra; Eccles. 5.

Than vane it is in thame for to confyde,         Job. 11.

Sen that we se thame asweill cum as ga:         Psalm. 49.

Thairfoir my friendis sen that the case is sa,         1. Timot. 6.

That warldly strenth can haue na sickernes,         Zephan. 1.

Sum vther saifgaird surely we mon ha,         Ecclesi. 2.

Quhilk is nocht ellis bot only vprichtnes.         Nahum. 3.

Bot sum perchance that winks mair wylelie,

Will say thay wait ane wyle[371]         that I na wist,

With iouking thay will jangil[372]         craftelie,

And on thair feit will ay licht quhen thay list,

Thinking all surenes thairin to consist:

Hypocrisie is quent[373]         with quyetnes,

Bot all begylit thay ar into the mist;

For nathing can be sure but vprichtnes.

For quhat become of fals Achitophell,

For als far as he saw before his neis,         2. Sam. 17.

The Scriptures schawis I neid not heir to tell.

The lyke of this in mony Historeis,

I micht bring furth that to my purpois greis,         Psalm. 7.

How Hypocrites into thair craftynes,         Ester. 7.

Thame selfis hes trappit with greit misereis,

Becaus thay did eschew all vprichtnes.

Bot quha sa euer on the vther syde

Hes preissit peirtly to leif vprichtlie,         Ester. 6.

And be the treuth bound bauldly till abyde,         Dani. 6.

Hes euer had the maist securitie.

For thay had God thair buckler for to be,

Quhome we mon grant to be ane strang fortres,         Psalm. 76.

Of quhome the Deuill can not get victorie,         Psalm. 89.

Nor all the enemies of vprichtnes.

Think weill my friendis this is na fenzeit fair,[374]         1 Sam. 17. 18.

For quha sa list of Dauid for to reid,           19. 20. 21. 22.

May se quhat enemies he had alquhair,           29. 33.

And zit how surely he did ay proceid;         2. Sam. 2. 3. 5. 8.

Becaus he walkit vprichtly in deid.           15. 16. 18. 20.

He was mair sure from Saulis cruelnes,

Nor gif ten thousand men intill his neid,         1 Sam. 23.

Had with him bene syne lackit vprichtnes.

Of sic exempills we micht bring anew,

Bot ane thair is that preifis our purpois plane,

Of Daniell that Propheit wyse and trew,         Dani. 6.

How oft was he in danger to be slane!

Into the Lyonis Den he fand na pane:

The three Children the fyre did not oppres.         Dani. 3.

I think this only Historie might gane,

To preif how sure a Towre is vprichtnes.

Bot zit becaus exempills fetchit far,

Mufis not so muche as thay thingis quhilk we se,

I purpois schortly now for to cum nar,

Vnto the but[375]         quhair chiefly I wald be:

That is to schaw the prufe befoir zour ee

Of thir premissis, as all mon confes

That hes sene God wirking in this countrie,

How ane hes bene perseruit in vprichtnes.

It is Iohne Knox in deid quhome of I mene,

That feruent faithfull seruand of the Lord,

Quhome I dar bauldly byde at till haue bene,

Ane maist trew Preichour of the Lordis word.

I rak nathing quhat Rebalds[376]         heir record,

Quha neuer culd speik gude of godlynes.

This man I say eschaipit fyre and sword,

And deit in peace, in praise of vprichtnes.

Bot that this may be maid mair manifest:

I will discurs sum thing in speciall,

Tuiching this Lamp, on lyfe quhill he did lest.

First he descendit bot of linage small;

As commaunly God vsis for to call         Amos. i. 7.

The sempil sort his summoundis til expres.         Mark. 1.

Sa calling him, he gaue him giftis with all         1. Cor. 1.

Maist excellent, besyde his vprichtnes.         Iaco. 2.

For weill I wait that Scotland neuer bure,

In Scottis leid[377]         ane man mair Eloquent.

Into perswading also I am sure,

Was nane in Europe that was more potent.

In Greik and Hebrew he was excellent,

And als in Latine toung his propernes,

Was tryit trym quhen scollers wer present.

Bot thir wer nathing till his vprichtnes.

For fra the tyme that God anis did him call,

To bring thay joyfull newis vnto this land,

Quhilk hes illuminat baith greit and small,

He maid na stop but passit to fra hand,

Idolatrie maist stoutly to ganestand:

And chiefly that great Idoll of the Mes.

Howbeit maist michtie enemies he fand,

Zit schrinkit he na quhit from vprichtnes.

The greuous Galayis maid him not agast,

Althocht the Prelats gold in greit did geif,

Ouir schipburd in the sey him for to cast,

He fand sic grace they sufferit him to leif.

Zea mairatour thay did him not mischeif,

As thay did his Companzeounis mair and les,

With pynefull panis quhen thay thair pythis did preif,

God sa prouydit for his vprichtnes.

In Ingland syne he did eschaip the Ire,

Of Iesabell, that Monstour of Mahoun,[378]

In Scotland nixt with terrour him to tyre,

Thay brint his picture in Edinburgh Toun.

Bot sen to Scotland last he maid him boun,[379]

Quhat battell he hes bidden ze may ges,

Sen Dagon and thay Deuillis he gart ding doun,

In spite of thame that hatit vprichtnes.

Thay that hes bene cheif in Authoritie,

For the maist part had him at deidly feid,

Zit he eschaipit all their crueltie,

Howbeit oftymes thay did deuyse his deid,

Zea, sum wer knawin perfitely be the heid

Quha vndertuke his Dirige for to dres,

Zit bauldly be hes baner he abaid,

And did not iouk ane ioit from vprichtnes.

Bot cheifly anis he was put to ane preace,[380]

Quhen that the Quene of tressoun did accuse him

Befoir hir Lords in haly Rudehous place.

Quhair clawbacks of the Court thocht till abuse him

Sa prudētly this Propheit yair did vse him,

Into refuting of thair fulischenes,

That all the haill Nobilitie did ruse[381]         him

And praisit God for his greit vprichtnes.

Quhen Quene and Court could not get him cōuict,

Bot sa wer disappointit of thair pray,

Thay fryit in furie that he schaipit quick,

Zit at the leist to get thair wills sum way,

Thay wald haue had him wardit for ane day,

In Dauois Towre, zea, for ane hour or les,

It was denyit for ocht the Quene culd say.

Thair micht be sene how sure was vprichtnes.

Bot in quhat perrell trow ze he was last,

Quhen Edinburgh he left with hart full sair,

Doubtles na les nor ony that hes past,

In spyte thay spak that him thay suld not spair

Thay suld him schuit into the pulpit thair

Becaus he did rebuke their fylthenes,

And mischant[382]         murther that infects the air,

Zit God preseruit him in vprichtnes.

Mony may dangers nor I can declair,

Be sey and land this Propheit did sustene,

In France and Ingland, Scotland, heir and thair,

Quhilk I refer to thame that mair hes bene

Intill his company and sic things sene,

Bot this far schortly I haue maid progress,

To preif how God maist surely dois mantene,

Sic as continew intil vprichtnes.

For this Excellent seruand of the Lord,

Vnto the deith was hatit as we knaw,

For sinceir preiching of the Lordis word

With Kingis, Princes, hie estait and law,

Zit in thair Ire him micht thay not ouirthraw,

He did depart in peace and plesandnes:

For all the troublis that ze hard vs schaw

That he sustenit for lufe of vprichtnes.

And this is merwell gif we will consider,

Ane sempill man but[383]         warldly force or aide,

Aganis quhome Kings and Princes did confidder[384]

How he suld fend[385] from furie and thair fead,[386]

Syne leaue this lyfe with list for all thair plaid,[387]

He had ane surer gaird we mon confes,

Nor ony warldly strength that can be maid,

Quhilk was nathing but only vprichtnes.

Bot sum may say quhairto suld thow prefer

This vprichtnes quhilk thow extolls sa hie

Vntil all warldly strenthis that euer wer?

Sen that the contrair daylie we may se,

How upricht men ar murtherit mischantlie,         Gene. 4.

As first was Abell with greit cruelnes,         Matth. 14.

Gude Iohne the Baptist, and als Zacharie,         2. Chro. 24.

Zea, Christ him self for all his vprichtnes.         Matth. 27.

Peter and Paull with mony may sensyne.         Euseb. To. 4.

And of lat zeiris in Ingland as we knaw,           fol. 7.

How mony piteously was put to pyne.

And now in France that schame is for to schaw.         Vide Sleidanum.

Iames our gude Regent rakkin in that raw,[388]

Quha had rung zit wer not his richteousnes.

Sa, I can se nathing sa sone ouirthraw

Man in this eirth as dois this vprichtnes.

To this I answer into termis schort,

Quhen warldly strenth is vincust and maid waist,         Prouer. 11.

With it man tynis baith courage and comfort,

Quhen it is tynt quhairin he pat his traist:

Bot quho that deith in vprichtnes dois taist,         Prouer. 11.

Sall haue the lyfe that lests with joyfulnes,         Matth. 16.

Sa they ar sure, becaus they ar imbraist

Be the Eternall for thair vprichtnes.

Bot this sa lichtly we may not pass by:

I grant indeed quha preissis vprichtlie

To serue the Lord mon first themselfis deny,         Matth. 16.

And na wayis dres to daut[389]         thame daintelie

Bot thame prepair for troublis Identlie[390]        , 2 Timo. 3.

For troublis ar the bage they mon posses,         Psalm. 34.

Sen Sathan ceisis not continuallie         1 Pet. 5.

To troubill thame that followi vprichtnes.         Iob 1.

Quhylis harling[391]         thame befoir Princes and Kings, Luc. 21.

As rauing Rebalds rudelie to be rent,         1. Reg. 10.

Accusing thame of troubling of all things,         1. Reg. 17.

As cankerit Carlis that can not be content,

Except all things be done be thair consent:

Now scornit, now scurgeit, now bād with bitternes,         Matth. 27.

Imprissonit, and sindrie fassiounis schent[392]        , Ieremi. 38.

And sum tymes dreuin to deith for vprichtnes.         Act. 12.

This is thair lote oftymes I will not lane[393]

Into this eirth that vse to be vpricht,

Bot quhat of this? my purpois zit is plane:

That is, that they are surer day, and nicht,         Psalm. 91.

For all this wo, nor ony warldly wicht:         Psalm. 118.

For in thair conscience is mair quyetnes

In greitest troublis, nor the men of micht

Hes in thair Castells, without vprichtnes.

For quhen Belshazzer greit King of the Eist,         Dani. 5.

Ane thousand of his Princes had gart call,

Drinkand the wyne befoir thame at the Feist,

Intill his prydefull Pomp Imperiall:

Euin in the middis of this his mirrie hall

He saw ane sicht that sank him in sadnes,

Quhen he persauit the fingers on the wall,

Wryting his wrak for his vnvprichtnes.

Quhat sall I say? I neid not till insist,

To schaw how thay to God that dois Rebell,

In thair maist micht can not be haldin blist,

For in this warld they do begin thair hell,

As Cain did that slew the iust Abell:         Gene. 4.

Within thair breist thay beir sic bailfulnes,         Esai. 66.

That toung of men can not the teynd part tell,         Prouer. 15.

Of inwart torments for vnvprichtnes.

Bot thay that walks vprichtly with the Lord,         Prouer. 14.

In greitest troublis wantis not inwart rest,

As the Apostillis doung[394]         for Godds word, Act. 5.

Reioysit that for Christ sa thay were drest;

Peter in prisone sleipit but molest;         Act. 12.

Paull in the stocks and Sylas with glaidnes,         Act. 16.

Did sing ane Psalme at midnicht, sa the best

Surenes that man can haue, is vprichtnes.

Sa be this surenes now I do not mene,

That Godds seruands ar neuer tane away,

Be cruell men, for the contrair is sene,

For God oftymes of his Iudgements I say,

Letts thame so fall, as thocht befoir the day:

To plague the warld for thair vnthankfulnes,

Quhilk is not worthie of sic men as thay.         Esai. 3.

Bot I mene this be strenth of vprichtnes.         Heb. 11.

That quhen it plesis God to let thame fall,

Thay haue sic inwart comfort without cair,         Act. 7.

That thay depart with ioy Angelicall,         2 Timot. 4.

Of lyfe assurit that lestis for euer mair.

And zit sum tyme he dois his seruands spair,         Esai. 41.

To let the Tyrannis se his michtines,         Ierem. 1. 4. 5.

In spyte of thame, that he can his alquhair,

Preserue maist surely intill vprichtnes.

Quhilk we haue sene as we can not deny,

Into Iohne Knoxis michtie preseruation,

Quhilk till our comfort we suld all apply,

I mene that ar the Faithfull Congregatioun.

Sen he departit with sic consolatioun

Euen as he leuit, he deit in Faithfulnes,

Being assurit in Christ of his Saluatioun,

As in the end he schew with vprichtnes.

Sa is he past from pane to plesure ay,

And till greit eis doubtles vntill him sell,

Bot for ane plague till vs I dair weill say,

As sair I feir we sall heir schortly tell,

Schir wink at vice[395]         beginnis to tune his bell.

Bot on this heid na mair I will digres,

That gude men hes mair rest in all perrell

Nor wickit in thair welth bot vprichtnes.

Then sen alwayis we se that men ar sure

Throw vprichtnes quhidder thay liue or die,         Psalm. 37.

Let all gud Cristianes Imploy thair cure,

In thair vocatioun to leif vprichtlie;

And cheifly let all preicheouris warnit be,

That this day God and the gude caus profes,

Na wayis to wink at sic Impietie

As cheifly dois withstand all vprichtnes.         Tit. 1.

Taking exempill of this Propheit plane,

Quhome heir befoir we breuit in this bill[396]        ,

Quha Godds reuelit will wald neuer lane,

Quhen men begouth for to delyte in ill,

He wald not wane ane wy[397]         for na mānis will

For to rebuke Erle, Barrone, or Burges,

Quhen in thair wickit wayis thay walkit still.

Follow this Lamp I say of vprichtnes.

Let nouther lufe of friend, nor feir of fais,

Mufe zow to mank[398]         zour Message, or hald bak

Ane iot of zour Commission ony wayis:         Psalm 40.

Call ay quhite, quhite, and blak, that quhilk is blak,         Esai. 5.

Ane Gallimafray[399]         neuer of them mak:

Bot ane gud caus distingue from wickitnes,         2. Timot. 2.

This kynd of phrais sumtymes this Propheit spak,

Quhen he saw sum not vsing vprichtnes.

In generall do not all things inuolue,

Thinking zour selfis dischargeit than to be,         2. Timot. 2.

Thocht na manis mynd in maters ze resolue:

For (zit till vse this same manis Elogie)

To speik the treuth, and speik the treuth trewlie,         Num. 23. 24.

Is not a thing[400]         (said he) brethren doutles.

Thairfoir speik trewly but Hypocrisie,

Gif ze wald haue the praise of vprichtnes.

Let vice ay in the awin cullouris be kend,         2 Timot. 4.

But beiring with, or zit extenuatioun,

Schawing how heichly God it dois offend,         Act. 17.

Spairing na stait that maks preuaricatioun:         Esai. 58.

Let it be sene till all the Congregatioun,         1 Timot. 5.

That ze sic haitrent haue at wicketnes,

That ze mon dampne their greit abhominatioun,

Quha planely fechtis aganis all vprichtnes.

Quhilk tred of doctrine gif ze anis begin         Psalm. 38.

I grant the Deuill and warld will be agane zow;         Psalm. 41.

The feid of fremmit, and craibing of zour kin,[401]

First ze sall find, syne terrour to constraine zow

To syle the suith[402], and sunze[403], I will plane[404]         zow.

The Zock is not sa licht as sum dois ges;         Nahum. 1.

Bot zit haue ze na dreid quha do disdane zow,         Psalm. 31.

Sen that zour fortres sure is vprichtnes.         Psalm. 34.

For pleis it God zour lyfe to lenthen heir,

Thocht all the warld aganis zow wald conspyre,

Thay sall not haue the power zow to deir[405]        ,

Albeit thay rage and rin wod[406]         in thair Ire,

And gif that God thinks gude be sword or fyre

To let zow fall, be ay in reddynes:

Being assurit that heuin salbe zour hyre,         2 Timot. 4.

Because ze endit sa in vprichtnes.

Let not the lufe of this lyfe temporall,

Quhilk ze mon lose, but let, quhen ze leist wene[407]        ,

Stay zow to cois[408]         with lyfe Celestiall.

Quhen euer that the chois cumis thame betwene,

Christis sentence in zour garden keip ay grene,

Quha sauis his lyfe shall lois it not the les.         Matth. 16.

Quhilk euin into this warld hes oft bene sene,

Quhat gaine is than to deny vprichtnes?

Than to conclude, sen in thir dangerous dayis

Sa mony terrours Tyranis casts befoir zow,

Call vpon God to strenthen zow alwayis,

That with his haly Spreit he will decoir zow,

As he hes done his seruands ay befoir zow,

That ze may neuer wink at wickitnes,         Esai. 51.

With Gun & Gainze[409]         thocht thay boist to gor zow,

Sen that zour Towre sa sure is vprichtnes.

¶ FINIS. M. I. D.

ANE SCHORT

DISCVRS OF THE ESTAITIS

quha hes caus to deploir the deith of this

Excellent seruand of God.

THOW pure contempnit Kirk of God,

In Scotland scatterit far abrod,

Quhat leid[410] may let the to lament:

Sen baith the Tyger and the Tod,

Maist cruellie cummis the to rent.

Thow wants ane watcheman that tuke tent,

Baith nicht and day that nocht suld noy the,

Allace thow wants the Instrument,

That was thy Lanterne to conuoy the.

Thy lemand[411] Lamp that schew sic licht,

Was gude Iohne Knox, ane man vpricht,

Quhais deith thow daylie may deploir.

His presence maid thy bewtie bricht,

And all thy doings did decoir:

He did him haillie indeuoir,

Thy richteous actioun to mantene,

And libertie to the restoir,

Pleading thy caus with King and Quene.

He neuer huntit benefice,

Nor catchit was with Couatice,

Thocht he had offers mony one

And was als meit for sic office

As outher gellie[412] Iok or Iohne,

His mynd was ay sa the vpon,

Thy only weilfair was his welth;

Thairfoir lament sen he is gone,

That huikit nathing[413] for thy helth.

Lament Assemblie Generall,

At thy Conuentionis, ane and all,

For thou wilt mis ane Moderatour,

Quhais presence mufit greit and small,

And terrifeit baith theif and tratour,

With all vnrewlie Rubiatour,[414]

Thair ionkers durst not kyth thair cure,

For feir of fasting in the frateur,[415]

And tynsall of the charge thay bure.

But now I feir that thow sall se

Greit missing of that man to be,

Quhen craftie heidis sall na mair hyde

The hurde[416] of thair hypocrisie,

Bot all sinceirnes set asyde,

With policie will all things gyde,

Thir Balamis birds sair may thow feir:

Thairfoir be Godds buke abyde,

And to sic bablers giue na eir.

Giue strange opiniounis enteris in,

Tak tent quha sic thingis dois begin,

And with sic matteris mynts to mell;[417]

For Sathan ceisis not fra sin,

The Kirk of Christ seiking to quell.

Sic foly faill not to refell:

For when the reik[418] beginnis to ryse,

The fyre will follow as thay tell,

Be it not quencheit be the wyse.

Bot cheifly murne and mak thy mane,

Thou Kirk of Edinburgh allane,

For thow may rew by[419] all the rest,

That this day thow wants sickin ane,

Thy speciall Pastour, and the best

That ony Kirk had eist or west.

He did comfort the in all cair,

And the foirwairnd of thy molest,

Quhairby thow micht thyself prepair.

There was na troubill come to the,

Bot he foirspak it oppinlie,

Thocht sum the mater than did mock,

Gif he spak suith now thow may se,

This day thy held is in the zock,

God send the blyithnes of this block,

And freith the from thy fais aboue the;

For thow art the maist feruent flock

That Scotland beiris, as deid dois proue the.

And giue God sa handills the best,

Allace what sall cum of the rest,

Except repentance rin and red:

It is ane mirrour manifest,

Of dule and dolour to be dred,

To fall on thame this barret[420] bred.

Bot till our purpois to returne,

Thocht of this feir thow salbe fred,

Zit hes thow mater for to murne.

Becaus that watcheman thow dois want,

That the in puretie did plant,

And comfortit thy congregatioun:

Bot zit thocht he be gane I grant

The Lord can send the consolatioun,

Gif thow giue him dew adoratioun,

He will not leaue the comfortles,

As alreddy thow hes probatioun.

God grant thy Preicheours vprichtnes.

¶ Ze Lords also that dois frequent

The loft in Sanct Geills Kirk lament,

That Bogill[421] thair that ze hard blaw,

With quhome quhyles ze wer small content,

For the schairp threitnings he did schaw:

Zit thay maid zow sumquhat stand aw,

Thocht not so muche as neid requyrit.

This day in graue he lyis full law,

Quhilk langtyme was of him desyrit.

For seing all things not go weill,

He said thair suld not mis ane reill

That suld the cheifest walkin vp.

Gif he said suith this day ze feill,

Luke gif God hes begun to quhup,

Bot thair byds zit ane sowrer Cup,

Except zour maners ze amend,

The dreggs but dout als ze sall sup:

From whilk danger God zow defend.

Sanctandrois als not to leif out,

His deith thou may deploir but dout,

Thow knawis he lude the by the laue,[422]

For first in the he gaue the rout

Till Antechrist that Romische slaue,

Preicheing that Christ did only saue.

Bot last, of Edinburgh exprest,

Quhen he was not far fra his graue,

He come to the by all the rest.

God grant that thow may thankfull be,

For his greit graces schawin to the,

In sending the his seruands trew,

Amen. Thow heiris na mair of me.

Bot Kyle, and Cuninghame may rew

Als sair as ony that I schew,

To quhome this darling was maist deir;

And vther gentill men anew,

Quhome I haue not reheirsit heir.

Than last of all to turn to zow,

That wer our brethren, bot not now:

God grant agane ze may cum hame,

For we suld wis zour weill I vow,

As also did this man be Name,

Thocht sum said he did zow defame,

He prayit to God that ze micht turne,

That ze micht schaip Eternall schame;

Thairfoir zour part is als to murne.

For doutles he was mair zour freind,

Nor thay that winkit, or manteind

Zour fulische factioun and vnfair.

In deid that ze suld not susteind,

He thunderit threitnings to the air,

To terrifie zow mair and mair,

And rug[423] zow back that ze micht rew;[424]

For he knew perseueird ze thair,

Ze wer bot schipwrak but reskew.[425]

Than all this land thow may lament,

That thow lacks sic ane Instrument,

Till sum not plesand, zit, sa plane,

That all the godly was content.

Allace his lyke he left not ane,

Nor I feir sall not se agane:

Bot zit let vs nawayis dispair,

For quhy our God dois zit remane,

Quha can and will for his prepair.

For thocht his deith we do deploir,

Zit is he not our God thairfoir:

As wickit wardlings wald obtend,

Gone is zour God quhairin ze gloir.

The leuing God we mak it kend,

Is he, on quhome we do depend,

Quha will not leaue vs in distres,

Bot will his seruands till vs send,

Till gyde vs throw this wildernes.

Thairfoir letting thir Bablers be,

Quhais chief Religioun is to lie,

And all Godds seruands to backbyte,

Traducing this man principallie:

Let thame spew out in thair dispyte,

All that thay will be word or wryte.

Lyke as him self is into gloir,

Sa sall all ages ay recyte,

Iohne Knoxis Name, with greit decoir.

¶ FINIS.

QVAM TVTVM

SIT PROPVGNACVLVM, DEO SINE

fuco inseruire, ex mirifica eximii Dei serui IOANNIS

KNOXII, in tranquillum vitæ exitum, illusis omnibus

impiorum conatibus, conseruatione, & eius exemplum

sequi, monemur.

QVEM petiere diu crudeles igne tyranni,

Sæpius & ferro quem petiere duces.

Occubuit (mirum) nullo violatus ab hoste,

Eximius Christi KNOXIVS ille sator.

Nam pater Æthereus Regum moderatur habenas,

Electosque potens protegit vsque suos.

Muniat hinc igitur nostras fiducia mentes,

Ne mors nos tetricis terreat vlla minis.

Quóq; minus trepidi sistamus tramite recto,

Huius ne pigeat viuere more viri.

¶ FINIS. Quod M. I. D.

EXCERPTA E POEMATIS

JOHANNIS JONSTONI;

QUIBUS TITULI

ΠΕΡΙ ΣΤΕΦΑΝΩΝ

SIVE

DE CORONIS MARTYRUM IN SCOTIA;

NECNON

PECVLIVM ECCLESIÆ SCOTICANÆ.

MS. IN BIBL. FACULT. JURID. EDIN. A. 6. 42.

PATRITIUS HAMILTONVS,[426]

Martyr, Andreapoli xxviii. Febr. An. Christi 1527.

E Cælo alluxit primam Germania lucem,

Qua Lanus, et vitreis qua fluit Albis aquis.

Intulit hinc lucem nostræ Dux prævius oræ.

O felix terra! hoc si foret usa duce!

Dira superstitio grassata tyrannide in omnes,

Omniaque involvens Cimmeriis tenebris,

Ille nequit lucem hanc sufferre. Ergo omnis in unam,

Fraude, odiis, furiis, turba cruenta coit.

Igne cremant. Vivus lucis qui fulserat igne,

Par erat, ut moriens lumina ab igne daret.

JOANNES MACHABÆVS,[427]

Alpinus, Christianismi in Dania Instaurator, Hafniæ Theol. Professor; floruit 1550, teste Balæo.

I.

Qvae tulit in lucem me Scotia, luce frui me

Non tulit. Haud mirum: sprevit et ipsa Deum.

Anglia vix cepit. Subeuntem Teutonis ora

Suscipiens fovit L. . onis in gremio.

Lvtheri hic tetigisse datum dextramque Philippi:

Cernere et hic Christvm lucidiore die.

Me doctore dehinc amplexa est Dania Christvm;

Hafnia dat patriam, datque eadem tumulum.

Huc vitæ cursus: supremi hic meta laboris.

Hinc vehor exilii liber in astra metu.

Havd jactura gravis, patria tellure carere:

In patria gravior posse carere Deo.

II.

De Joh. Machabæo Patre, et Christiano,

Filio Patris simillimo.

Excedens terris Machabævs liquerat vno

Unius in nato pectoris effigiem.

Filius hanc solam potuit tibi promere: at illvm

Mors habet. Ecquis eam reddere nunc valeat?

ALEX. ALESIVS,[428]

(Obiit Lipsiæ xx Junij 1565.)

Lipsiæ Theol. Professor, de se et Joh. Machabæo.

Sors eadem exilii nobis, vitæque laborumque,

Ex quo nos Christi conciliavit amor.

Una salus amborum, unum et commune periclum;

Pertulimus pariter præstite cuncta Deo.

Dania te coluit. Me Lipsia culta docentem

Audiit, et sacros hausit ab ore sonvs.

Qui mea scripta legit, Machabævm cernat in illis.

Alterutrum noscis, noscis utrumque simul.

JOHANNES ROCHIVS[429] et THOMAS GULIELMIVS,[430]

Uterque a sacris Jac. Hamiltono Scotie Gubernatori, uterque Christi nomine Exul; et ille postea Martyr in Anglia, 22 decemb. 1557, Londinj.

Postquam iterum premitur redivivi gloria Christi,

Et crudelis adhuc omnia Presul agit,

Cessimus inviti Invidiæ, et crudelibus iris.

Ah! facilis nocuit Principis ingenium.

Doctores nuper quæ nos adscripserat Aula

Deficit: et nostræ spes cecidere simul.

Redditur exilium Christi pro munere. Christvs

Exul erat: nobis sitne probro exilium?

Quid si mors adeunda sit? O mors illa beata!

Qua vitæ melior parta corona foret.

GEORGIVS SOPHOCARDIVS,[431]

Sive Wys‑hartus, Martyr, Andreapoli, Kal. Martii an. 1546.

Quam bene conveniunt divinis nomina rebus!

Divinæ hic Sophiæ corque oculusque viget.

Qui Patris arcanam Sophiam, cælique recessus

Corde fovens, terris Numina tanta aperit.

Vnus amor Christvs. Pro Christo concitus ardor

Altius humanis Enthea corda rapit.

Præteritis aptans præsentia, jvdicat omnia;

Et ventura dehinc ordine quæque docet.

Ipse suam mortem, tempusque modumque profatur,

Fataque Carnifici tristia Sacrilego.

Terrificam ad flammam stetit imperterritus. Ipsa

Quin stupet invictos sic pavefacta animos,

Vt vix ausa dehinc sit paucos carpere. Tota

Ilicet innocui victa cruore viri est.

JOHANNES WEDDERBVRNVS,[432]

Pulsus in exilium, an. 1546. Exul in Anglia moritur 1556.

I.

Non meriti est nostri, meritas tibi dicere grates,

Aut paria, aut aliqua parte referre vicem.

Quæ meruisse alii vellent, nec posse mereri est:

Hæc velle, hæc posse, hæc te meruisse tuum est.

Sic facis atque canis sacra: sic agis omnia, nil ut

Sanctius, et nusquam purior ulla fides.

Hinc nullum magis invisum caput hostibus: hinc et

Nemo umquam meruit charior esse bonis.

Grandius hoc meritum, nil te meruisse fateris,

Humanis meritis nec superesse locum.

II.

DE JOHANNE, JACOBO, ET ROBERTO WEDDERBVRNO, FRATRIBUS.

Divisvm imperium, per tres, tria Numina, Fratres,

Infera quæque vides, quæque superna, canunt.

Vos miror potius tres vero nomine fratres,

Vosque supra veneror, Numina vana, Deos;

Concordes animas, clarissima lumina gentis,

Tres paribus studiis, tres pietate pares.

Felices qui vos tales genuere parentes,

Quæque orbi tellus pignora rara dedit.

Progenitos Cælo Alectum[433] dedit inclyta terris:

Inde DEI‑DONUM nomen habere putem.

JOHANNES KNOXVS.[434]

Primus Evangelii Instaurator in Scotia, post superiora cruenta illa tempora, obiit placide Edinburgi XXIV. IXbris, hora noctis undecima, 1572.

I.

Hic ille est Scotorum Knoxus Apostolus olim,

Cui prior hos ingens Beza dedit titulos:

Interpres cæli, vero qui Numine plenus,

Plurima venturi præscia signa dedit.

Facundum pectus. Libertas maxima fandi.

Totus inexhausto flagrat amore Dei.

Quam pia cura Poli, tam humani meta furoris:

Tanto plus victor, quo furit iste magis.

Post varios hostes aggressa Calumnia tandem

Hoc didicit, nulli nec sibi habere fidem.

Herovm Pietas odio est mortalibus. Unum hoc

Arguat Heroem hunc cœlitus esse datum.

II.

Cvra Dei: Romæ pestis: Mundi horror: et Orci

Pernicies: cæli fulmen ab arce tonans.

Limite in hoc modico tanti jacet hospitis umbra:

Vmbra silet; tamen est hostibus horror adhuc.

JOHANNES WILLOCVS.[435]

Obiit in Anglia.

Cum Patriæ implessem donis cœlestibus urbes,

Mille olim obiiciens mortibus hanc animam,

Ipsa adeo exultat cæli sic luce sereni,

Pene sibi ut cælum, et lux queat esse aliis:

Excessi patria lætus tellure, libensque:

Vt vicina istis crescerat aucta opibus.

Hic etiam sevi cælestia semina verbi;

Gensque pia hic nostram plurima sensit opem.

Hæc et opes mihi, cumque opibus cumulavit honores;

Nec secus ac Patria me Anglia civem habuit.

Bis civis gemina in patria: mihi tertia restat;

Possidet hæredem tertia sola suum.

CHRISTOPHORVS GVDMANNVS,[436]

Anglus, Ecclesiastes Andreapolitanus: moritur in Cestrensi provincia Angliæ an. 1601.

Non Ego, ceu credis, Scotis peregrinus in oris:

Publica nec rerum cura aliena mihi.

Hic geniti Christo, hic geritur Republica Christi:

Christi Ego sum. In Christo his sumque ego congenitus;

Quin genui hic partem Christo. Patremque Ducemque

Et licet, et gaudent me vocitare suum.

Queis patriam peperi: non hanc: sed quæ altera cælo est,

Hac prior; his dicar qui peregrinus ego:

Alterutra jactent se alii regione profectos,

Nomine se jactat utraque terra meo.

JOHANNES ARESKINUS,[437]

Dunius, Equestri familia ortus, Religionis gravis et constans assertor, concionator nobilis, natus annos LXXX, moritur  XII Martij, 1590.

Post tot avos veteres, et tot decora inclyta rerum

Surgit Areskino gloria major adhuc:

Scilicet illa Crucis Christi, quæ sola perennis:

Quæ regit una homines, quæ facit una deos.

Robora consiliis, pietatem miscet utrisque;

Et faciendo docet, atque docendo facit.

Heroem nullum huic æquarint secula. Nullus

Inter avos veteres fama et honore prior.

JOHANNES BRABNERVS,[438]

Aberdonensis, Ecclesiastes Celurcanus[439] et Dunensis, moritur an. 1564, postr. Kal. Novembris.

Nascendi primam dedit Aberdonia lucem:

Ille renascendi munera rettribuit.

Vtrum ergo debet Patriæ plus, an Patria illi?

Mutua sic rerum gratia rite coit.

JOHANNES VIN‑RAMVS,[440]

Cænobii Augustinianorum olim Præfectus apud Andreanos, postea inter Christi Ministros: obiit senex XXIIX. Septemb. 1581.

Quo te censu hominum, quo te, Vin‑Rame, reponam

In numero? hic multum est anxia mens animi.

Se prodit Pietas, neque turbida lucis imago est:

Spargit enim de se lumina clara sui.

Quin te aperi tandem manifesto in lumine. Pelle

Turbidulos sensus, cumque pudore metus.

Cum pietate etenim postquam se nubila miscet

Mens hominum, lucis deperit ille vigor.

Gaudet agens Pietas manifesta in luce. Nec illa

Sit Pietas, quæ haud pro scit Pietate mori.

JOHANNES ROWIVS,[441]

Ecclesiastes Perthensis, obit xvi. VIIIbris an. 1580.

Consilio præstans, rebus gravis auctor agendis,

Præcipuos inter, Lumina prima Patres.

Cognitio varia: immensa experientia rerum.

Omnigenam linguam mens præit ingenii:

Exactor disciplinæ, vindexque severus,

Ipse sibi censor, seque ad amussim habuit:

Sancta domus, castique lares, frons læta, severa:

Larga manus miseris, mensa benigna bonis.

Vrbis delicium: sancti pia copula amoris:

Una fides, fidei publica cura simul

Clara viris, cultuque decens, pulcherrima Pertha:

Rowivs at Perthæ haud ultima fama fuit.

JACOBVS LAUSONIVS,[442]

Ecclesiastes Edinburgensis, obiit xii. Octobris an. 1584.

Ingenio felix Lausonivs, ore diserto,

Acer judicio, consiliisque gravis.

Corpore non magno, mens ingens: Spiritus ardens,

Invectumque decus pectoris atque animi.

Non tulit Impietas. Patria migrare necesse est.

Mitior in profugum terra aliena fuit.

Hospitii cui jura volens vivo ista dedisset,

Multa gemens tristi in funere dat tumulum.

DAVID FERGVSIVS,[443]

Pastor ad Fermilo‑dunum, obiit xxiij Augusti an. 1598.

Qvem non erudiit solers Academia, quem non

Finxit Stagira nobilis:

Nesciit ille tamen nescire illa omnia solers,

Quæ et ista et illa prodidit,

Quin Doctore Deo scivit meliora sequutus,

Quæ et ista et illa nesciit.

Disce hinc quæ melius doceas Academia. Tuqe

Disce hinc Stagira nobilis.

GEORGIVS HAIVS.

Postqvam animum primis patriæ effinxere Camenæ

Artibus, excepit culta Lvteta sinu.

Cecropiis opibus, spoliisque orientis onustus,

Intulit in patriam munera opima suam.

Ingenium vegetum comitatur gratia linguæ

Lactea Nectareo verba lepore fluunt.

Dum parat excedens locupletes linquere natos,

Publica privatis posthabuisse ferunt.

Optima sed Pietas patrimonî portio. Privis

Si nimium indulges, publica rapta ruunt.

INDEX.

A

Aberdeen.

A celebrated grammar school in, i. 4.

Greek early taught in, i. 343–4.

Reformed doctrine early embraced in, ii. 426.

Adamson, Patrick.

Joins the reformed preachers, i. 320.

Appointed successor to Buchanan as Principal of St Leonard’s college, i. 346.

Aless, Alexander.

Embraces the reformed sentiments, and is obliged to leave Scotland, i. 31, 370.

Made Professor at Leipsic, i. 371.

Verses on, ii. 440–1.

Alexander, Robert, advocate.

An early favourer of the reformation, i. 31.

Writes the testament of the Earl of Errol in Scots metre, i. 376.

Alexandersoun, Andrew.

A martyr, i. 357, 361.

Anabaptists.

Knox’s warning against the dangerous principles of, i. 207–11.

Anderson, Robert.

Convicted of heresy, i. 361.

Anderson, William.

Convicted of heresy, i. 359.

Andrew’s, St.

Knox teaches philosophy at, i. 12.

Reformed opinions spread privately in University of, i. 37–8, 369–71.

Knox retires from, i. 38.

Knox’s first sermon at, i. 60.

Knox expresses his confident hope of again preaching in, i. 69–70.

Opposition to Knox’s preaching at, i. 265; ii. 382–3.

Knox preaches at, i. 267.

Demolition of monasteries at, i. 267.

Petition for Knox’s translation to, ii. 138.

Knox retires to, ii. 189.

Meets with opposition at, ii. 191–4.

His preaching and exhortations to the students at, ii. 205–7, 348.

Knox leaves, ii. 212.

Andrew’s, St, Castle of.

Seized by the conspirators against Cardinal Beatoun, i. 44.

Retained by them, i. 46.

Knox takes refuge in, i. 49.

Sacrament of the Supper first dispensed in the Protestant form in, i. 65.

Besieged and taken, i. 66.

Andrew’s, St, Prior of.

See Stewart, Lord James.

Angus, Earl of.

Knox employed in affairs of, ii. 47, 309.

Annand, George.

Convicted of heresy, i. 361.

Annand, James.

Convicted of heresy, i. 361.

Annand, Dean John.

His dispute with Knox and Rough, i. 58.

Arbugkill, a friar.

His attempt to defend the popish ceremonies against Knox, i. 63–4.

Arbuthnot, Alexander.

Appointed by the General Assembly to revise a suspicious book, ii. 346.

Argyle, Countess of.

Conversation between Knox and the Queen respecting her, ii. 81.

Her public repentance, ii. 317.

Argyle, old Earl of.

Knox preaches in the house of, i. 187–8.

John Douglas taken under the protection of, i. 229.

Correspondence between archbishop Hamilton and, i. 230–1.

Argyle, young Earl of.

Attends Knox’s sermons at Calder‑house, i. 177.

Joins the Congregation, i. 263–5.

Knox employed in removing a variance between him and his lady, ii. 47.

Variance between earl of Murray and, ii. 163.

Arran, Earl of.

Is suspected by the clergy, i. 36.

Made regent of Scotland, i. 39.

Abjures the reformed doctrine, ib.

Resigns the regency to the Queen dowager, i. 168.

Is made Duke of Chastelherault, ib. See Chastelherault.

Arran, Earl of, son to the former.

Comes to Scotland, and persuades his father to join the Congregation, i. 295.

English ministers wish him raised to the Scottish throne, and married to Elizabeth, i. 459.

Knox employed in removing a feud between Bothwell and, ii. 47.

Lunacy of, 48.

Articles of Church of England.

Knox employed in revising, i. 88.

Assembly, Classical.

See Presbytery.

Assembly, General.

What, ii. 9.

The first, ii. 18.

Moderator of, when introduced, ii. 19.

Approve of Knox’s conduct, ii. 108.

Employ Knox in drawing up public papers, ii. 139–40.

Their recommendation of Knox, ii. 148.

Give a commission to him, ii. 159.

Order the murderer of Regent Murray to be excommunicated in all the churches of the kingdom, ii. 176–7.

Their protestation against hierarchical titles, ii. 199–200.

Knox’s letter to, ii. 200–1.

His last letter to, ii. 210.

Their attention to the widow and daughters of Knox, ii. 268.

Order of procedure in, ii. 301–2.

Athole, Duke of.

His reason for voting against the protestant Confession, i. 330.

Augustine.

Influence of his writings on Knox, i. 13.

Aylmer, John.

Answers Knox’s Blast, i. 220.

Character of his work, i. 223–6.

His address to the bishops, i. 401.

His invective against the King of France, i. 415.

His sentiments respecting the English constitution, i. 433.

His commendation of Knox, ii. 239.

Ayr.

A minister early settled in, i. 283.

B

Baillie, Alexander.

His calumnies against Knox and other reformers, ii. 326.

Baillies of Jerviswood.

A daughter of Knox married to one of the, ii. 451.

Balcanquhal, Walter.

Defends Knox, ii. 242.

Bale, Bishop.

Dedicates a book to Knox, i. 236.

Balfour, Sir James.

His conversation with Knox in the French galleys, i. 69–70.

Accessory to the murder of Darnley, ii. 340.

Ballates.

Gude and godlie, i. 379.

Similar compositions in other countries, ib.

Ballesky, Martin.

Forfeited for reading English books, i. 364.

Balnaves, Sir Henry, of Halhill.

An early favourer of the reformation, i. 35, 289, 360, 396.

His learning and reputation, i. 50.

Takes refuge in the Castle of St Andrews, i. 51.

Urges Knox to become a preacher, i. 52.

Composes a book on justification in the French prison, i. 71.

Extracts from Knox’s dedication to it, i. 72–5.

Extracts from the book, i. 390–6.

Bancroft, Dr.

The first episcopalian who wrote disrespectfully of Knox, ii. 241.

Davidson’s answer to, ib.

Bannatyne, Richard, Secretary to Knox.

Discovers a MS. of Balnaves, i. 72.

Knox’s request to, at the beginning of his last illness, ii. 220.

His character of Knox, ii. 237–8.

His petition to the general assembly, ii. 360.

Barron, James.

i. 196; ii. 390.

Bassinden, Thomas.

General assembly order a book printed by him to be called in, ii. 346.

Beatoun, Cardinal David, archbishop of St Andrews.

Appoints assassins to kill Knox, i. 38.

Defeats the proposed marriage between Queen Mary and Edward VI., i. 39.

His cruelties to the Reformers, i. 43.

His assassination, i. 44, 382.

Knox’s opinion of this, i. 47–9, 384–7.

Beatoun, James, archbishop of St Andrews.

Puts Patrick Hamilton to death, i. 29–30.

Beatoun, James, archbishop of Glasgow.

His character of Knox, i. 181.

Dispute between him and archbishop Hamilton, i. 249; ii. 292.

Berwick.

Knox preaches at, i. 80–1.

Knox visits, i. 172, 174, 287.

Beveridge, ——.

Suffers martyrdom, i. 31, 355.

Beza.

Congratulates Knox on the abolition of episcopacy, ii. 203–4.

Epistolary correspondence between Knox and, ii. 304.

Bible, English.

Imported into Scotland, i. 32.

Authorized by Parliament, i. 40.

Circulation of, i. 40, 359, 360.

Bible, Geneva.

Knox one of the translators of, i. 217.

Blacat, John.

Pursued for heresy, i. 357.

Blast, First, of the Trumpet.

i. 219–26, 237, 239, 284.

Knox’s explanation to Queen Mary respecting, ii. 33–4, 356.

See Aylmer, and Government, Female.

Bodlih, Mr.

ii. 402.

Boece, Hector, principal of the university of Aberdeen.

i. 3, 5.

Bonner, Bishop.

John Rough put to death by, i. 67.

Barbarity of, i. 138.

Lenity with which he was treated by Elizabeth, i. 238.

Book of Common Order.

See Geneva, Order of.

Bothwell, Earl of.

Knox employed to remove a feud between him and young Earl of Arran, ii. 47, 48.

Murders the king, ii. 152.

Marries the Queen, ii. 153–4.

Borthwick, Lord.

His reason for voting against the protestant Confession, i. 330.

Borthwick, Sir John.

His opinion of the Reformation of Henry VIII. i. 46.

Released from the pains of heresy, i. 368.

Bowes of Streatlam.

Pedigree of, ii. 407.

Bowes, Elizabeth.

Favourable to the marriage between Knox and her daughter, i. 89.

Letters from Knox to, i. 174, 182; ii. 374, 381, 383.

Loses her husband, i. 187, 282.

Further particulars of, i. 281; ii. 208, 407.

Bowes, Marjory.

Knox married to, i. 88, 144.

Knox’s letters to, intercepted, i. 118.

Accompanies her husband to Geneva, i. 187.

Joins her husband in Scotland, i. 281–2.

Her death, ii. 19.

Knox’s letters to, ii. 379, 381.

Her parentage, ii. 407.

Bowes, Richard.

Father of Mrs Knox, i. 89.

Bowes, Sir Robert, brother to the former.

Painful interview of Knox with, i. 115; ii. 407.

Boyd, Lord.

Joins the Congregation, i. 263.

Craves Knox’s pardon on his death‑bed, ii. 225.

Brabner, John.

Verses on, ii. 460.

Bradford, John.

i. 86, 109, 411–2.

Braid.

See Fairley, laird of.

Brechin.

Early provided with a minister, i. 283.

See Chisholm.

Bristol.

George Wishart preaches at, i. 383.

Brown, John.

Convicted of heresy, i. 364.

Buchanan, George.

Studies under Major about same time with Knox, i. 7.

Similarity of their sentiments, i. 8, 10.

Knox’s commendation of him, i. 11.

Embraces the reformed sentiments, and leaves the kingdom, i. 31.

His return to Scotland, ii. 16–17.

His tribute to the regent Murray’s memory, ii. 176.

Sits in the general assembly as a doctor, ii. 282.

Further particulars respecting, ii. 295–8.

Calumnies of popish writers against, ii. 298, 328.

Buchanan, Patrick.

ii. 295–6.

Bucer, Martin.

i. 79.

Burne, Nicol.

His calumnies against Knox, ii. 324.

Against the foreign reformers, ii. 327.

C

Cairns, John.

A Reader in Edinburgh, ii. 52, 147, 308.

Cairns, Henry.

Convicted of heresy, i. 358, 366.

Caithness, Robert Stewart, bishop of.

Visits Knox on his death‑bed, ii. 226.

Calvin, John.

High reputation of, i. 134.

Respect of English reformers for, ib.

Friendship between Knox and, i. 135, 142.

Character of the English liturgy by, i. 145.

Is displeased with Knox’s treatment at Frankfort, i. 159.

Advises Knox to return to Scotland, i. 197.

Difficulties which he had met with in establishing ecclesiastical discipline, ii. 3.

Knox’s correspondence with, ii. 20, 302.

Comparison between Knox and, ii. 260.

Cameron, James.

Convicted of heresy, i. 367.

Campbell of Kineancleugh.

Accompanies Knox to Ayrshire, i. 178.

And to Castle Campbell, i. 187.

Is surety for Willock, i. 253, 447.

Attends Knox in his last illness, ii. 229.

Campbell of Loudon, Sir Hugh.

i. 253.

Cant, Robert.

Convicted of heresy, i. 358, 359, 363.

Carmichael, Richard.

Convicted of heresy, i. 365.

Carmichael, William.

ii. 389.

Carsewell, John, afterwards superintendent of Argyle.

Joins the reformed preachers, i. 320; ii. 7.

Cassillis, Earl of.

Suspected by the clergy, i. 36.

Catalogue.

Of Knox’s works, ii. 363.

Cecil.

Correspondence between Knox and, i. 243, 284, 287; ii. 42.

Chastelherault, Duke of.

Knox warns against his ambitious designs, i. 212.

He joins the Congregation, i. 295.

Knox’s freedom in pointing out his faults, i. 313.

His design of excluding Mary from the throne opposed by Knox, ii. 31.

He is offended at the regency being conferred on Murray, ii. 163–4.

Is made lieutenant for the Queen, ii. 164.

Knox’s early suspicions of him, ii. 396.

See Arran, Earl of.

Chisholm, William, Bishop of Brechin.

Persecutes Wishart for teaching the Greek New Testament, i. 343.

Christison, John.

Tried for heresy, i. 253, 257, 447–8.

Church, Protestant, of Scotland.

Sketch of its form of government and worship, ii. 6–12.

Danger to which it was exposed from Mary, ii. 25–7.

Inadequate provision for the ministers of, ii. 43–4.

Critical state of, ii. 140–4.

Improved state of, under Murray’s regency, ii. 159–62.

Sentiments of, respecting the difference between civil and ecclesiastical authority, ii. 345–7.

Clergy, Popish, of Scotland.

Knox ordained by, i. 12, 348; ii. 450.

Their character before the Reformation, i. 14–24.

Persecute the reformers, i. 24, 31.

Instigate James V. to proscribe the protestant nobles and gentry, i. 36.

Suspect Knox of heresy, i. 37.

Degrade him from the priesthood, i. 38.

Their politic plan to counteract his preaching at St Andrew’s, i. 64–5.

Summon Knox before them, i. 181.

Condemn him as a heretic, and burn his effigy, i. 190.

Knox’s appellation from their sentence, i. 215.

Panic‑struck at Knox’s return to Scotland, i. 257.

Their feeble exertions to counteract the reformation, i. 320.

Their pretended miracle at Musselburgh, i. 321–4.

Their ignorance of Greek, i. 344.

Their representations of Knox’s character, ii. 94, 235, 322–9.

And concerning his second marriage, ii. 109–10, 329–30.

See Council, Provincial, and Popery.

Clerk, William.

Convicted of heresy, i. 358, 366.

Cockburn, John, of Ormiston.

Places his son under Knox’s care, i. 42, 46.

Is outlawed, i. 162, 360.

Cocklaw, Thomas, parson of Tullibody.

i. 356, 358, 363.

Colville, Robert, of Cleish.

His detection of the pretended miracle at Musselburgh, i. 322–4; ii. 292.

Colvin, John.

ii. 349.

Commissioners.

See Visitors.

Congregation, The.

Their pacific intentions, i. 260.

Deceived by Queen Regent, i. 262.

First Lords of, i. 263.

Obtain assistance against the Regent from Elizabeth, i. 287–89.

Unfavourable turn in their affairs, i. 312; ii. 390.

Knox reanimates them, i. 313–15.

English army arrives to assist them, i. 318; ii. 426.

Their loyalty, i. 457–60.

See Protestants, Scottish.

Cornaca, Helen.

Applies for the degree of Doctor in Divinity, i. 224, 435.

Corpse‑present.

i. 23, 350–4.

Council, Provincial, of Scottish clergy.

Acknowledge the corruptions of the Church, i. 163.

Their canons for reformation, i. 166–7, 416–18.

Catechism published by their order, i. 167, 418–26.

Application of the protestants to, i. 250.

Remonstrance by Roman Catholics to, ib.

Agreement between Queen Regent and, i. 252.

See Clergy, Popish, and Popery.

Council, Privy, of Scotland.

Knox an extraordinary member of, i. 298.

Knox tried before, ii. 99, 105.

Suspend Knox from preaching for a time, ii. 136.

Covenant, Religious.

The first in Scotland, entered into by protestants of Mearns, i. 179.

Another subscribed by the lords, i. 226.

Another by the protestants of Edinburgh, ii. 211.

Coverdale, Miles, bishop of Exeter.

i. 372; ii. 389.

Cowsland, Walter.

Convicted of heresy, i. 358, 363.

Cox, Dr Richard.

i. 147–56.

His sentiments concerning ceremonies, i. 400–3.

Craig, John.

Account of, ii. 53–7.

His account of a dispute on resistance at Bologna, ii. 126–7.

His spirited behaviour at the Queen’s marriage with Bothwell, ii. 153–4.

Leaves Edinburgh, ii. 213.

Crail.

Knox preaches in, i. 265.

Demolition of the monasteries at, i. 268.

Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury.

His zeal in advancing the reformation, i. 78–80.

Employs Knox to preach at Berwick, i. 80.

Disposed to carry the reformation of the English church farther, i. 400, 408–9.

Crichton of Brunston.

i. 162.

Croft, Sir James.

Knox’s interview with, at Berwick, i. 287.

Employed by Elizabeth to correspond with the Congregation, i. 288.

His reprimand of Knox’s proposal, i. 292.

Crossraguell, Abbot of.

See Kennedy, Quintin.

Cuninghame, Andrew, son of the Master of Glencairn.

Convicted of heresy, i. 364.

See Glencairn.

Cupar.

The forces of the Queen Regent and Congregation meet at, i. 267, 277; ii. 388.

Demolition of the Monasteries at, i. 268.

D

Darnley, Lord.

Is married to Queen Mary, ii. 130–1.

Displeased at a sermon of Knox, ii. 135–6.

Professes himself a papist, ii. 143.

Is murdered, ii. 151.

Alleged plot against his life at Perth, ii. 192–3.

Davidson, John.

Account of Scottish martyrs by, i. 354.

His answers to Bancroft, ii. 241.

His Latin verses, ii. 288.

Banished by Morton, ii. 349.

His poem on Knox, ii. 431.

Deacons.

Appointed at an early period of the reformation, i. 227.

In the foreign churches at London, i. 406.

Their office, ii. 6.

Number of, in Edinburgh, ii. 53.

Delaporte, Mons.

Knox acts as colleague to, at Dieppe, i. 203.

Dieppe, in France.

Knox on leaving England lands at, i. 120.

He visits, i. 132, 134, 136, 172, 188, 197, 236.

Discipline, Ecclesiastical.

Scottish reformers sensible of its importance, ii. 2.

Strictness of, ii. 76–7.

Strictness and impartiality of, in the church of Scotland, ii. 76, 317.

Did not include civil punishments, ii. 318.

Discipline, First Book of.

Knox one of its compilers, ii. 4.

Approbation of, ii. 5.

Its plan, ii. 6.

Reasons of the nobility’s aversion to, ii. 12.

Doctors.

Their office in the protestant church, ii. 6, 281–2.

Douglas, Bishop Gawin.

Besieges the cathedral of Dunkeld, i. 15.

Douglas, George.

See Angus, Earl of.

Douglas, Hugh, of Langniddrie.

Knox tutor to the family of, i. 38, 42, 46, 49.

Douglas, John.

Taken into Argyle’s family as chaplain, i. 229, 232.

Preaches under the name of Grant, i. 233.

Presented to the archbishopric of St Andrews, ii. 198.

Knox refuses to inaugurate him, ii. 204–5.

Summoned before a provincial council, ii. 421.

Dunbar, Gavin, archbishop of Glasgow.

His sermon at Ayr, i. 16.

Reformers in diocese of, ii. 292.

Duncan, John.

Convicted of heresy, i. 362.

Dundas, Euphemia.

Slanders Knox, ii. 93.

Dundas, George.

An early Greek scholar, i. 343.

Dundee.

The first town in which a protestant congregation was formed, i. 227.

Protestants of, summoned, ii. 404–5.

Great zeal of, ii. 405.

Knox preaches at, ii. 407.

Durham, bishop of.

See Tonstal.

Durie, John.

Visits Knox in his last illness, ii. 221.

E

Edinburgh.

Knox preaches privately in, i. 173.

He preaches publicly in, i. 182.

He is burned in effigy at the cross of, i. 188.

A protestant church formed in, i. 227.

Demolition of the monasteries at, i. 268; ii. 423.

Knox chosen minister of, i. 277; ii. 424.

Leaves it, i. 279.

Knox resumes his ministry in, ii. 1.

Knox retires from, ii. 146.

Knox returns to, ii. 154.

Knox forced again to leave, ii. 189.

Inhabitants of, enter into a solemn league, ii. 211.

Knox arrives at, ii. 212.

Edinburgh, Kirk Session of.

Number of, ii. 53.

Provide a smaller place of worship for Knox, ii. 212.

Knox’s interview with, on his death‑bed, ii. 221–3.

Edinburgh, Town Council of.

Their attention to the support of Knox, ii. 46, 307.

Provide him with a colleague, ii. 53, 57.

Their proceedings respecting a slander against Knox, ii. 94, 322.

Remonstrate against the suspension of Knox, ii. 137–8.

Edward VI. of England.

Proposed marriage between Queen Mary and, i. 39.

Knox made a chaplain to, i. 86.

Offers Knox a bishopric, i. 95, 100–1.

His plan for improving the English church, i. 107, 405–10.

State of his court, i. 108.

Spirited conduct of his chaplains, i. 109, 410.

Last Sermon of Knox before him, i. 110.

Distress of Knox at his death, i. 111.

Knox’s prayer after his death, i. 412.

Elder, John.

Convicted of heresy, i. 359.

Elders, Ruling.

Appointed at an early period of the Reformation, i. 227.

In the foreign churches in London, i. 406.

Their office in the church of Scotland, ii. 6.

Elizabeth, Queen of England.

Refuses to allow Knox to pass through England, i. 236.

Her impolitic severity to the English exiles at Geneva, i. 238.

Her lenity to the Papists, i. 238.

Grants a safe conduct to Knox’s wife, i. 282.

Knox apologizes to her for his Blast, i. 287.

She resolves to assist the Congregation, i. 288–90.

Sends an army to their assistance, i. 317.

Obtains advantageous terms of peace for them, i. 319.

Her personal aversion to the Scottish war, i. 456.

Knox’s opinion of her religious principles, ii. 148.

England.

State of the Reformation in, under Henry VIII., i. 44–5.

Knox arrives in, i. 78.

State of religion in, under Edward VI., i. 78–9.

Popery restored in, i. 118–19.

Knox leaves, i. 120.

Knox’s Admonition to, i. 137, 152.

Persecution in, i. 138.

Exiles from, i. 141–2.

Knox visits his sons in, ii. 147.

Carries a letter to the bishops of, ii. 148.

England, Church of.

Knox’s reasons for refusing a fixed charge in, i. 98.

Refuses a bishopric in, i. 100, 204.

His sentiments respecting the government and worship of, i. 101–5.

Private opinions of the reformers of, similar to Knox’s, i. 105–6, 400–5.

England, Privy Council of.

Employ Knox to preach, i. 80.

Confer on him marks of approbation, i. 90.

Knox honourably acquitted by, i. 92, 95.

Offer Knox the living of All Hallows, i. 98–100.

They petition Elizabeth to assist the Congregation, i. 442.

Errol, William Earl of.

An early friend of the Reformation, i. 34, 376.

Erskine, Lord.

Attends Knox’s sermons, i. 177.

Invites him to return to Scotland, i. 196.

Refuses to assist the Congregation, i. 278; ii. 425.

See Mar, Earl of.

Erskine, John, of Dun.

Greek language first patronised by, i. 6.

Reformed sentiments embraced by, i. 35.

He attends Knox’s Sermons at Edinburgh, i. 173.

Takes him to Dun, i. 177.

Favours the preachers, i. 233–7, 447.

Made superintendent of Angus and Mearns, ii. 7, 46.

Soothes Queen Mary, ii. 90.

Her good opinion of him, ii. 133.

His letters to Regent Mar, ii. 346.

Verses on, ii. 444.

Exercise, Weekly.

What, ii. 8, 285.

Practised in England, ib.

Exhorters.

ii. 7.

Exiles.

Scottish, i. 369–74.

F

Fagius, Paul.

i. 79.

Fairley of Braid.

His attention to Knox during his last illness, ii. 221, 227.

Fergusson, David.

Summoned for heresy, i. 446.

Improves the Scottish language, ii. 18, 298.

Knox’s recommendation to his sermon, ii. 210.

Extracts from it, ii. 287–9.

His character, ii. 298–301.

Verses on, ii. 462.

Field, John.

His commendation of Knox, ii. 240.

Fife, John.

Embraces the reformed sentiments, i. 31.

Account of, i. 371.

Fleming, James.

Marries one of Knox’s daughters, ii. 269.

Flescheour, Alexander.

Convicted of heresy, i. 361.

Forman, bishop of Murray.

Says grace before the Pope, i. 19.

Forrest, David.

Knox lodges with, ii. 46.

Forrest, Henry.

Suffers martyrdom, i. 31.

Account of, i. 354.

Forrest, Thomas, vicar of Dollar.

Suffers martyrdom, i. 31.

Account of, i. 355.

Forrester, Robert.

Suffers martyrdom, i. 31.

Account of, i. 355, 365.

Foster, (Forester,) William.

Convicted of heresy, i. 358, 365.

Fox, John, the martyrologist.

i. 146, 156.

Disapproves of Knox’s Blast, i. 219.

Knox’s letter to, ii. 452.

France.

Knox carried prisoner to, i. 67.

His apology for the persecuted Protestants in, i. 200–2.

Knox preaches in, i. 202.

Designs of, against Scotland and England, i. 241–2.

Sends troops to the assistance of the Queen Regent, i. 283.

Persecution against the Protestants in, ii. 48.

Bartholomew massacre in, ii. 215–16.

Distress of Knox at this, ii. 216.

His denunciation against the King of, ii. 217.

France, Galleys of.

Knox confined in, i. 67–8.

His conduct in, i. 69, 71, 87.

Frankfort on the Maine.

English exiles obtain a place of worship at, i. 142.

Knox called to be minister at, i. 143, 414.

Dissensions about the English liturgy at, i. 144.

Moderation of Knox in these, i. 146, 149.

Knox accused of treason to magistrates of, i. 151.

Knox leaves, i. 155.

Disputes continue at, i. 156.

Fullerton, Adam.

ii. 390.

G

Galloway, Bishop of.

See Gordon.

Galloway, Patrick.

Defends the Scottish reformers, ii. 242.

Gardiner, bishop of Winchester.

Cruelty of, i. 138.

Gau, John.

i. 376.

Geneva.

Knox visits, i. 134.

He studies at, i. 139.

Is invited to be pastor to the English church in, i. 187.

Leaves it for Scotland, i. 197.

Returns to, i. 203.

Knox obtains the freedom of the city, i. 236.

He leaves it finally, ib.

Cherishes the desire of returning to, ii. 162.

See Bible.

Geneva, Church of.

Knox did not derive his first ideas of ecclesiastical polity from, i. 101.

Scottish church differed in some points from, i. 102.

Geneva, Order of.

Its composition, i. 146.

Time of its introduction into Scotland, i. 439.

Difference between it and English liturgy, i. 440.

Worship generally conducted according to it in Scotland, ii. 9.

Gifford.

Knox supposed to have been born at, i. 1, 335.

Giffordgate.

See Haddington.

Gilby, Anthony.

i. 146, 187, 219; ii. 366–7.

Glasgow, University of.

Knox studies at, i. 3, 339.

Extracts from records of, i. 340–2.

Glencairn, Alexander, Earl of.

An early friend of the Reformation, i. 34.

The sacrament celebrated by Knox at his house, i. 179.

Presents a letter from Knox to the Queen Regent, i. 186.

Invites Knox to return to Scotland, i. 196.

Remonstrates with the Queen Regent, i. 253.

Comes to the assistance of the Protestants, i. 261.

Visits Knox on his death‑bed, ii. 226.

Reforms the churches at Glasgow, ii. 423.

Glencairn, William Earl of, father to the former.

An early friend of the Reformation, i. 35.

See Cuninghame, Andrew.

Glenorchy, laird of.

A hearer of Knox, i. 188.

Goodman, Christopher.

Colleague to Knox at Geneva, i. 187, 194, 219, 255, 293.

Comes to Scotland, i. 282; ii. 389.

An extraordinary member of privy council, i. 298.

Returns to England, ii. 138.

Further account of, ii. 177, 331–4.

Knox’s letter to, ii. 401.

Verses on, ii. 459.

Gordon, bishop of Galloway.

One of the protestant privy counsellors, i. 298.

Disappointed in his expectations of being made superintendent, ii. 80, 82.

Occupies Knox’s pulpit, ii. 189.

Vindicates the Queen’s authority, ib.

Gourlay, Norman.

Suffers martyrdom, i. 31.

Account of, i. 354.

Government, Female.

Its incongruity when joined with ecclesiastical supremacy, i. 435–6.

Resolution of a committee of the Scottish parliament against, ii. 334.

See Blast.

Government, Political.

Influence of the Reformation on, i. 299–303.

Knox’s sentiments respecting, i. 303–6, 460–4.

Grange, Laird of.

See Kircaldy.

Greek language.

Its introduction into Scotland and progress, i. 5, 6, 343–7; ii. 315.

Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury.

Approves of presbyterian ordination, i. 56.

His sermons before the court, i. 410–12.

Guillame, Thomas.

Chaplain to the Regent Arran, instructs Knox in the reformed doctrine, i. 40.

Retires into England, i. 41.

Verses on, ii. 456.

H

Haddington.

Knox born in Giffordgate of, i. 1, 336.

Educated at grammar school of, i. 3.

Haddon, James.

i. 411.

Hamilton, Archibald.

His opposition to Knox, ii. 192.

His apostasy, ii. 194.

His calumnies against Knox, ii. 323.

His calumnies against Buchanan, ii. 297.

His account of Knox’s death, ii. 351.

Hamilton, Gavin, abbot of Kilwinning.

Intercourse between Knox and, ii. 173.

His negotiations at Rome, ii. 291.

Hamilton, James, of Bothwelhaugh.

Assassinates the Regent Murray, ii. 165–8.

Hamilton, James, of Kincavil.

Convicted of heresy, i. 369.

Hamilton, John, archbishop of St Andrews.

Persecutes Knox, i. 44.

Persecutes the protestants as enemies to the state, i. 161.

His Catechism, i. 166, 418.

His correspondence with the Earl of Argyle, i. 230.

Puts Walter Mill to death, i. 232.

Reconciliation between him and the Queen Regent, i. 246.

Between him and archbishop Beatoun, i. 249.

Opposes Knox’s preaching at St Andrew’s, i. 265; ii. 388.

His sermon, i. 279.

Restored to his jurisdiction by Queen Mary, ii. 149.

Accessory to the Regent Murray’s murder, ii. 168.

Is executed, ii. 195.

Correspondence with Rome, ii. 291.

Hamilton, John, a secular priest.

His ridiculous stories concerning the reformers, ii. 327–9.

Hamilton, Robert.

His calumny against Knox, ii. 192.

Hamilton, Patrick.

Reproves the corruptions of the clergy, i. 27.

Travels to Germany, i. 28.

Suffers martyrdom in Scotland, i. 29.

Verses on, ii. 454.

Harlow, William.

Preaches in England, i. 169.

Preaches in Scotland, i. 170, 233.

Tried for heresy, i. 253, 257, 447–8.

Becomes minister of the West Kirk, ii. 52, 347.

Harrison, James.

Embraces the reformed sentiments, and leaves Scotland, i. 31.

Account of, i. 374.

Hay, George.

His answer to the abbot of Crossraguell’s mass, ii. 62, 64, 313–16.

Verses on, ii. 462.

Hay, Andrew.

Joins the reformed preachers, i. 320.

Hay, James.

Convicted of heresy, i. 361.

Hebrew language.

Knox acquires the knowledge of, i. 6, 139.

Studied in Scotland, ii. 15, 291–5.

Henderson, Henry, (master of the grammar school of Edinburgh).

Suffers martyrdom, i. 359.

Henry VIII. of England.

Presses the marriage of his son and the Queen of Scots, i. 39.

His partial reformation disliked by the Scottish reformers, i. 44–6.

Hepburn, John, prior.

Storms the episcopal Castle of St Andrews, i. 15.

Herries, Lord.

See Maxwell.

Herriot, Adam, a friar of St Andrews.

Joins the reformed preachers, i. 319–20.

Hickman, Mr.

i. 114; ii. 394.

Hooper, Bishop.

i. 149, 400–1.

Hope, Edward.

ii. 390.

Hume, Mr.

His remarks on Knox’s account of the assassination of Beatoun, i. 384–7.

His representation of the rudeness of Scotland, ii. 17.

His misrepresentations of the Scottish reformers, ii. 247–8.

His account of the conduct of Knox to Mary, ii. 319–22.

Huncan, (Duncan?) James.

Convicted of heresy, i. 359.

Huntly, Earl of.

His insurrection, ii. 58.

Hutcheson, Sir John.

Convicted of heresy, i. 367.

J

James V.

Refuses to proscribe the protestants, i. 35.

Persecution during the reign of, i. 354–67.

Letter against heresy in Aberdeen by, ii. 427.

James VI.

Knox preaches at coronation of, ii. 155.

His prejudices against the Scottish reformers, ii. 241–3.

Conversation between him and one of Knox’s daughters, ii. 273–4.

Jameson, Margaret.

Convicted of heresy, i. 358, 366.

Jerome.

Influence of his writings on Knox, i. 13.

Jewel, Bishop.

His opinion of episcopacy and ceremonies, i. 301, 303.

Disapproves of Knox’s book on female government, ii. 396.

Johnston of Elphingston.

ii. 228.

Johnston, John.

Writer in Edinburgh, ii. 390.

Johnston, St.

See Perth.

Johnston, William, advocate.

An early favourer of the reformation, i. 35.

Jonston, John, of St Andrew’s.

His verses on Scottish Reformers, ii. 454–62.

K

Kennedy, Quintin.

His answer to Knox’s defence before Tonstal, i. 398.

His Compendious Tractive, ii. 60.

Challenges Willock to a dispute on the Mass, ii. 62.

Dispute between Knox and, ii. 62–73.

Farther account of his writings, ii. 311–16.

See Hay, George.

Kennedy, Quintin.

Suffers martyrdom, i. 31.

Account of, i. 355, 376.

Ker, Sir Andrew, of Fadounside.

Marries Knox’s widow, ii. 269, 352, 356.

Kethe, William.

ii. 331–2.

Kilmaurs, Lord.

See Glencairn, Alexander.

Kineancleugh.

See Campbell.

Kircaldy, William, of Grange.

An active agent of the Congregation, i. 284.

Excommunicated for the slaughter of Cardinal Beatoun, i. 360.

Governor of the Castle of Edinburgh for the Regent, ii. 180.

His defection, ii. 181.

Knox involved in a personal quarrel with, ii. 182–3.

Offers Knox a guard, ii. 188.

Knox’s dying message to, ii. 224.

Knox’s testimony to his former zeal, ii. 393.

Knollys, Sir Francis.

His account of the protestant worship in Scotland, i. 440.

Knox, Sir Francis, father of the Reformer.

His parentage, and situation in life, i. 2, 337–8.

Knox, Eleazar, son to the Reformer.

Account of, ii. 209, 268.

Knox, Elizabeth, the Reformer’s daughter.

Her fortitude at her husband’s trial, ii. 269, 271.

Conversation between James VI. and, ii. 273–4.

Her testament, ii. 417.

See Welch.

Knox, Margaret, the Reformer’s daughter.

ii. 269.

Knox, Martha, the Reformer’s daughter.

ii. 269.

Knox, Nathanael, son to the Reformer.

Account of, ii. 209, 268.

Knox, Paul.

ii. 416.

Knox, William, brother to the Reformer, and minister of Cockpen.

i. 90–1.

Knox, of Ranferly.

i. 2, 235, 237.

Kyd, Thomas.

Convicted of heresy, i. 357, 362.

Kyllor, a friar.

Suffers martyrdom, i. 31.

Account of, i. 355, 376.

L

Laing, James.

His calumnies against Knox, ii. 325–6.

And against other reformers, ii. 326–9.

Lambert of Avignon.

Patrick Hamilton studies under him at Marburg, i. 29.

Lambert, John.

Degraded from the priesthood, i. 363.

Langniddrie, chapel at.

Called Knox’s Kirk, i. 43.

See Douglas, Hugh.

Lasco, John A.

Character of, i. 406.

His account of the foreign churches in London, i. 406–8.

His account of Edward VI.’s plan for the gradual reformation of the church of England, i. 408–10.

Latin.

Schools in Scotland, i. 4, 5.

Latimer, Bishop.

i. 88, 109, 411.

Lawson, James, sub‑principal of the University of Aberdeen.

Chosen colleague to Knox, ii. 214.

Knox’s letter of invitation to, ii. 214–15.

Knox preaches for the last time at the admission of, ii. 217–18.

Teaches Hebrew at St Andrew’s, ii. 294.

His exertions in establishing the High School of Edinburgh, ii. 295.

Verses on, ii. 461.

Leith.

Queen Regent takes possession of, i. 277.

Fortified by Regent Lennox, ii. 190.

Convention at, ii. 198.

Lennox, Earl of.

Made Regent, ii. 181.

Is killed, ii. 196–7.

Leslie, Normand.

i. 161, 360.

Lethington.

See Maitland, William.

Level, George.

ii. 389.

Lever, Thomas.

i. 411.

Lewis XIII. of France.

Interview between John Welch and, ii. 271–2.

Liberty, civil.

Popery unfriendly to, i. 299.

Influence of the reformation on, i. 301.

Knox attached to, i. 303.

Lindores, Abbey of.

i. 270; ii. 389.

Lindsay, Lord.

ii. 226, 341.

Lindsay, Sir David, of the Mount.

An early favourer of the reformation, i. 35.

Influence of his poems on the reformation, i. 49, 210, 377, 382.

Urges Knox to become a preacher, i. 52.

Literature, State of.

In Scotland, i. 3–6.

Influence of the reformation on, ii. 10, 13–14.

See Greek and Hebrew.

Liturgy, English.

Knox employed in the revisal of, i. 87, 399.

Dissensions at Frankfort about, i. 4–60.

Opinion of early bishops concerning, i. 402.

Whether used in Scotland at the beginning of the reformation, i. 437–41.

Liturgy, Knox’s.

See Geneva, Order of.

Locke, Mr.

Knox lodges in the house of, i. 114, 195.

Locke, Mrs Anne.

Knox’s letters to, i. 255; ii. 387–394.

Logie, Gawin, principal of St Leonard’s college.

An early reformer, i. 30.

Leaves the kingdom, i. 31, 369.

Logie, Robert.

i. 370.

London.

Knox summoned to, i. 93.

Preaches in, i. 95–7.

Lorn, Lord.

See Argyle, young Earl of.

Lovell, or Levell, George.

i. 253, 357, 446–8; ii. 389.

Lovell, James.

Convicted of heresy, i. 366.

Lowett, (Lovell?) George.

Pursued for heresy, i. 357.

Luther.

Anecdotes of, i. 20, 100.

His apologies, i. 285.

Comparison between Knox and, ii. 260.

M

Macbee, (Maccabæus,) John.

Embraces the reformed sentiments, and is obliged to leave the kingdom, i. 31.

Made professor at Copenhagen, i. 372.

His proper name, M‘Alpine, i. 373.

Verses on, ii. 440.

Macbray, (Macbraire,) John.

An early reformer, i. 31, 373, 414; ii. 292.

Macdowal, John.

An early reformer, i. 81, 373.

Maitland, Thomas.

Author of a fabricated conference between Knox and the Regent Murray, ii. 174.

Insults over the Regent’s death, ii. 175.

Maitland, William, of Lethington.

Attends Knox’s sermons at Edinburgh, i. 173.

Reasoning between Knox and, i. 175; ii. 42–3, 112–28.

His conduct at Knox’s trial, ii. 98, 105.

Defends Knox’s prayers, ii. 138.

His defection from the Regent Murray, ii. 167, 223–4.

Major, John.

Knox’s education under, i. 7, 339.

Political and religious sentiments of, i. 7–9.

Present at Knox’s first sermon, i. 61.

Mar, Countess of.

ii. 12.

Mar, Earl of.

Made Regent, ii. 196.

His death, ii. 226.

See Erskine, Lord.

Marischal, Earl.

Suspected by the clergy, i. 36.

Favours Knox, i. 183.

Remains neutral in the contest between Queen Regent and the Congregation, i. 263.

Knox sends salutations to him, ii. 401.

Marsiliers, Pierre de.

Teaches Greek at Montrose, i. 345.

Martyrs, Scottish.

i. 354–369.

Martyr, Peter.

i. 78–9.

Mary, Queen of England.

Proclaimed, i. 112.

His prayer for, i. 113, 412.

Her cruelty, i. 138.

This promotes the reformation in Scotland, i. 169.

Manner in which the English Exiles spoke of, i. 415.

Mary, of Guise, Queen Dowager of Scotland.

Her intriguing spirit, i. 39.

Favours the Reformers, i. 168.

The protestant barons petition her, i. 233.

Her dissimulation, i. 245–6, 257.

Prohibits the protestant preachers, i. 252.

Summons them to Stirling, i. 254.

Proclaims Knox an outlaw, i. 256.

Advances with an army to Perth, i. 260.

Violates the treaty of Perth, i. 262; ii. 387.

Offers a reward for Knox’s head, i. 294.

Knox advises her suspension, i. 297.

Reflections on this, i. 298.

Her death, i. 318–19.

Remarks on Dr Robertson’s account of her conduct, i. 444.

Mary, Queen of Scots.

Her proposed marriage with Edward VI. defeated, i. 39.

Married to the Dauphin, i. 39, 77.

Refuses to ratify the acts of Scots Parliament, ii. 21.

Arrives in Scotland, ii. 22.

Her education, and prejudices against the protestant religion, ib.

Popular alarm at her setting up mass, ii. 24.

Resolves to punish Knox, ii. 30.

Interview between Knox and, ii. 31–40.

Second interview between Knox and, ii. 48–52.

Third interview between Knox and, ii. 77–82.

Her artifice, ii. 82–3.

Prevails on the Parliament not to ratify the reformed religion, ii. 83–5.

Fourth interview between Knox and, ii. 88–92.

Her conduct at Knox’s trial by the Council, ii. 95–106.

Writes to the Pope, and Council of Trent, ii. 110–11.

Knox’s form of prayer for, ii. 113–16.

Marries Lord Darnley, ii. 130–1.

Resolves on restoring the Popish worship, ii. 143, 305.

Banishes Knox from Edinburgh, ii. 147.

Restores archbishop Hamilton, ii. 149.

Her alienation from her husband, ii. 151.

Her participation in the murder of her husband, ii. 150–2.

Her marriage with Bothwell, ii. 153–4.

Her imprisonment and resignation, ii. 154–5.

Knox vindicates his not praying for her, ii. 185.

Maxwell, Master of.

i. 440; ii. 98.

Melville, Andrew.

i. 345; ii. 242, 295.

Melville, Sir James.

Strictures on his memoirs, i. 445.

On his account of Regent Murray, ii. 338, 341.

Melville, James.

His account of Knox’s pulpit eloquence, ii. 205–6.

Melville, Sir John, of Raith.

An early favourer of the reformation, i. 35.

Is executed, i. 162.

Methven, Paul.

One of the protestant ministers, i. 233, 253, 447–8.

Excommunicated, ii. 74–6.

Mill, Walter.

His martyrdom, i. 231.

Milton, John.

His eulogy of Knox, i. 464.

Monasteries, Scottish.

Their number and degeneracy, i. 17–18, 348–9.

Causes of their demolition at Perth, i. 257, 268.

Apology for this measure, i. 270–6.

Lamentation over, i. 449.

Loss sustained by their demolition, i. 450–6.

Monteith, Earl of.

Joins the Congregation, i. 263, ii. 423.

Montgomery, Robert.

Joins the reformed preachers, i. 320.

Montrose.

Greek early taught in, i. 6, 343.

Early provided with a minister, i. 283.

Morrison, John.

i. 56.

Morton, Earl of.

Accused of simony, ii. 198.

His interview with Knox on his death‑bed, ii. 225–6.

Elected Regent, ii. 226.

His eulogium on Knox, ii. 234.

His attention to Knox’s family, ii. 268.

Murray, Earl of.

In favour with Mary, ii. 58.

Variance between Knox and, ii. 85–6.

Endeavours to intimidate Knox, ii. 98.

Defends Knox, ii. 107.

Is outlawed, ii. 132–3.

Returns from banishment, ii. 145.

Appointed Regent, ii. 157.

His favour to the protestant church, ii. 160–1.

Is assassinated, ii. 165, 167.

His character, ii. 168–70.

Distress of Knox at his death, ii. 172–4.

Fabricated conference between Knox and, ii. 174.

Knox’s sermon before his funeral, ii. 177.

Remarks on Dr Robertson’s character of, ii. 335–43.

Epitaph, and verses on, ii. 343–5.

Prayer used by Knox after the death of, ii. 402.

Letter to General Assembly by, ii. 404.

See Stewart, Lord James.

Murray, Patrick, of Tibbermuir.

i. 447.

Murray, Sir William, of Tullybardine.

ii. 355.

N

Newcastle upon Tyne.

Knox preaches at, i. 83, 86, 95.

Knox offered the bishopric of, i. 100.

Northumberland, Duke of.

Offended at Knox, i. 92–3.

O

Ochiltree, Lord.

Knox marries the daughter of, ii. 109.

See Stewart, Walter, and Margaret.

Ormiston, Laird of.

See Cockburn.

P

Parliament, Scottish.

Protestant confession ratified by, i. 328–31.

Their indifference about the security of the protestant religion, ii. 83.

Knox prepares overtures for, ii. 158, 334.

Receives a commission from, ii. 159.

See Bible and Reformation.

Parkhurst, Bishop.

i. 171, 400–4.

Paterson, John.

Convicted of heresy, i. 357, 362.

Paterson, Robert.

Convicted of heresy, i. 357, 362.

Patritz, John.

i. 233.

Perth.

Demolition of monasteries at, i. 257.

Queen Regent threatens, i. 260.

Violates the treaty of, i. 262; ii. 387.

A minister settled in, i. 283.

Hebrew first taught at, ii. 16, 293.

Verses on the grammar school of, ii. 294.

See Simson, Andrew.

Pillour, Laurence.

Convicted of heresy, i. 359.

Pitmilly, Laird of.

i. 360.

Pittarrow, Laird of.

See Wishart, Sir John.

Poetry.

Its influence in promoting the reformation, i. 33–4, 374–380.

Ponet, Bishop.

Similarity of his political sentiments to Knox’s, ii. 333.

Pont, Robert.

ii. 269, 285.

Extracts from his sermons, ii. 289.

Account of, ii. 347–8, 356, 406.

Popery.

State of, in Scotland, i. 14.

Sanguinary spirit of, ii. 26–7, 306–7.

Preparations for its restoration in Scotland, ii. 143.

Portfield, ——.

ii. 406.

Presbytery.

Early state of, ii. 8, 9.

Preston, Dr.

Attends Knox in his last illness, ii. 229, 231.

Prophesying.

See Exercise, Weekly.

Protestant Lords.

Invite Knox to return from Geneva, i. 196.

Repent of this, i. 197.

Knox animates them by his letters, i. 198.

His advice to them respecting resistance, i. 212–14.

Renew their invitation to Knox, i. 226.

Petition the Queen Regent, i. 233, 441.

Resolve on decisive measures, i. 263.

Their aversion to the Book of Discipline, ii. 12, 13.

Protestant Preachers.

Summoned to Stirling, i. 254.

Knox resolves to accompany them, i. 256.

Outlawed, i. 257.

Released, i. 277.

Their exertions during the civil war, i. 319.

Their increase, i. 320.

R

Randolph, the English ambassador.

His account of Knox’s preaching, ii. 41.

His letter respecting Knox’s History, ii. 359.

Knox’s confidential communications with, ii. 402.

Readers.

Their temporary employment, ii. 6, 282.

Reformation in Scotland.

Urgent necessity of, i. 24–5.

Causes of its progress, i. 32, 34.

Early embraced by nobles and gentry, i. 35.

Spreads in the University of St Andrews, i. 30, 37.

Laws against, i. 37–8, 163.

Embraced by Knox, i. 38.

Languishing state of, i. 160–68.

Causes of its revival, i. 168–71.

Progress of, i. 190, 226.

Its influence on civil liberty, i. 301–14.

Established by Parliament, i. 330.

Knox’s History of, ii. 358.

See Church, Protestant.

Reformers, English.

Approve of Knox’s call to the ministry, i. 55.

Dislike many things in their ecclesiastical establishment, i. 105, 400–5.

Their opinion of Knox, ii. 239–40.

Religion.

Corrupt form of it in Scotland before the Reformation, i. 14–24.

Resistance to civil rulers.

Knox’s advice respecting, i. 212–4.

Doctrine of the New Testament respecting, i. 308–12.

Knox vindicates it before Queen Mary, ii. 35–6.

Debate between Knox and Maitland concerning, ii. 117–25.

Craig’s account of a dispute on, at Bologna, ii. 126–7.

See Government, Political.

Richardson, Robert.

Embraces the reformed sentiments, and is obliged to leave Scotland, i. 31.

Account of, i. 374.

Ridley, Bishop.

His testimony to Knox, i. 411. ii. 240.

Rizzio, David.

Assassination of, ii. 144.

Robertson, Dr.

Remarks on his account of the Queen Regent’s conduct to the protestants, i. 444.

On his character of Queen Mary, ii. 248–9.

On his character of Regent Murray, ii. 335–43.

Robeson, John.

Convicted of heresy, i. 358.

Rollock, George.

ii. 389.

Rollock, James.

Convicted of heresy, i. 358, 359, 365.

Rollock, Richard.

Convicted of heresy, i. 362.

Rothes, Earl of.

Joins the Congregation, i. 263; ii. 423.

Rough, John.

A friar, embraces the Reformation, i. 51–2.

His solemn charge to Knox to undertake the ministry, i. 53.

Knox assists him in a dispute, i. 58.

Summoned before the clergy, i. 62.

Is martyred in England, i. 67.

Verses on, ii. 456.

Row, John.

Account of, ii. 15.

Teaches Hebrew at Perth, ii. 16.

Further account of, ii. 291–3.

Verses on, ii. 461.

Row, son to the above.

His early proficiency in Hebrew, ii. 294.

His epitaph, ii. 301.

Russel, Jerom.

Suffers martyrdom, i. 31.

Account of, i. 355.

Ruthven, Lilias, daughter to Lord Ruthven.

An early favourer of the Reformation, i. 35.

Ruthven, Lord.

An early favourer of the Reformation, i. 35.

Ruthven, Lord, son to the former.

Joins the Congregation, i. 263.

His son visits Knox on his death‑bed, ii. 226.

S

Sadler, Sir Ralph.

Ambassador from Henry VIII., i. 45.

Carries on the correspondence with the Congregation, i. 288.

Greek motto of, i. 344.

Sandilands, Sir James.

An early favourer of the Reformation, i. 35.

Knox dispenses the sacrament in the house of, i. 176.

A petition to the Queen Regent presented by, i. 234, 441.

Seatoun, Alexander.

Embraces the reformed sentiments, and is obliged to leave Scotland, i. 31.

Account of, i. 370.

Scotland.

State of literature in, at commencement of the Reformation, i. 3–6.

State of Religion in, i. 14–24.

Scottish language, cultivation of.

By the reformers, ii. 18, 298.

Scrimger, Henry.

i. 346.

Session, Kirk.

What, ii. 8.

Session, Court of.

Robert Pont one of the judges of, ii. 347.

Simson, Andrew, master of the grammar school of Perth.

i. 5.

Anecdote respecting the scholars of, i. 377.

See Dunbar.

Simson, Duncan.

Suffers martyrdom, i. 31.

Account of, i. 354, 357, 363.

Simson, Patrick.

Teaches Greek at Spot, i. 346.

Sinclair.

The name of Knox’s mother, i. 2.

Sinclair, Bishop of Ross.

Informs against Knox, ii. 97.

Votes for his acquittal, ii. 105.

Smeton, Thomas.

His learning, i. 347.

His account of Knox’s last illness and death, ii. 219.

His character of Knox, ii. 238–9.

His Hebrew literature, ii. 295.

Somerset, Protector of England.

His fall lamented by Knox, i. 92.

Somerville, Lord.

His vote against protestant confession, i. 330.

Spotswood, John.

Favours the Reformation, i. 177.

Joins the preachers, i. 320.

Made superintendent of Lothian, ii. 7, 47.

Spotswood, Archbishop.

His commendation of Knox, ii. 244.

His account of the Book of Discipline, ii. 283–4.

Stewart, Archibald.

Visits Knox on his death‑bed, ii. 221.

Stewart, Lord James, Prior of St Andrews.

Attends Knox’s sermons, i. 177.

Invites Knox to return to Scotland, i. 196.

Joins the Congregation, i. 263–4.

Proofs of his loyalty, i. 458.

Created Earl of Murray, ii. 58.

See Murray, Earl of.

Stewart, John, son to Lord Methven.

An early favourer of the reformation, i. 35.

Convicted of heresy, i. 367.

Stewart, Margaret, daughter of Lord Ochiltree.

Married to Knox, ii. 109, 220, 268, 410, 415.

Married to Sir A. Ker of Fadounside, ii. 268, 353.

Copy of Knox’s letters in her possession, ii. 372.

Stewart, Walter, son to Lord Ochiltree.

Convicted of heresy, i. 360, 362.

Stewart, William.

Translator for the kirk, ii. 355.

Stirling.

Demolition of the monasteries at, i. 268; ii. 425.

A minister early settled in, i. 283.

Story, Dr.

His defence of Mary’s persecution, i. 239.

Straiton, David.

Suffers martyrdom, i. 31.

Account of, i. 353, 358, 363.

Straiton, of Lauriston.

An early friend of the Reformation, i. 35.

Sudderland, Nicoll.

ii. 406.

Superintendents.

Bishops so called in England, i. 401.

Their office in the foreign churches in London, i. 406.

Difference between diocesan bishops and, ii. 283–4.

Switzerland.

Knox visits, i. 132.

Syme, James.

i. 173, 196.

Synods, Provincial.

What, ii. 9

T

Testament of Knox.

ii. 410–16.

Testament of Mrs Welch.

ii. 417.

Throkmorton, Sir Nicholas.

i. 281, 457; ii. 157.

Thou, De.

His character of Regent Murray, ii. 341–2.

Tonstal, Bishop of Durham.

Character of, i. 81–2, 238.

Knox’s defence before, i. 83–4, 395–9.

Tremellius, Emanuel.

i. 79.

Tulchan Bishops.

ii. 200.

Tyrie, John.

Knox’s answer to, ii. 207–9.

V

Vaus, John, rector of the school of Aberdeen.

i. 4, 5.

Venable, John.

Reformer of Dieppe, i. 203.

Visitors of churches.

What, ii. 7.

W

Wallace, Adam.

His martyrdom, i. 162; ii. 292.

Wannand, Alexander.

Convicted of heresy, i. 357, 362.

Wedderburn, James.

Author of satires against the popish clergy, i. 376.

Verses on, ii. 457.

Wedderburn, Gilbert.

Convicted of heresy, i. 357, 362.

Wedderburn, John.

Convicted of heresy, i. 358–9.

Wedderburn, John and Robert.

Authors of Psalms and Godly Ballads, i. 378.

Verses on, ii. 457.

Welch, John.

Marries one of Knox’s daughters, ii. 269.

Is found guilty of treason, ii. 270–1.

Interview between Lewis XIII. and, ii. 272.

See Knox, Elizabeth.

Whitlaw, Alexander, of Greenrig.

i. 282, 287; ii. 394.

Whittingham, Dean of Durham.

Ordained at Geneva, i. 56.

A friend of Knox, i. 146, 153.

Successor to Knox at Geneva, i. 197.

Eulogium on him by the Earl of Warwick, i. 432–3.

Williams.

See Guillaume.

Willock, John.

Returns to Scotland, i. 170.

Preaches privately, i. 171, 173.

Leaves Scotland, i. 175.

Returns and joins the protestant preachers, i. 233.

Tried for heresy, i. 253, 257, 447–8.

Officiates for Knox in Edinburgh, i. 279.

His advice respecting the suspension of the Queen Regent, i. 297.

Made a member of the extraordinary Privy Council, i. 298.

His stipend, i. 308, ii. 355.

Made superintendent of Glasgow, ii. 7.

Goes to England, ii. 177.

Calumny against, ib.

Pretended conversation between Knox and, ii. 316.

Verses on, ii. 459.

Wingate, (Winzet,) Ninian.

Knox’s controversy with, ii. 73.

Winchester of Kinglassie, George.

Convicted of heresy, i. 162, 367.

Winram, John, Sub‑prior of St Andrews.

Connives at the reformed opinions, i. 30.

His cautious behaviour, i. 62.

Joins the reformers, i. 319.

Made superintendent of Fife, i. 424; ii. 7.

His Catechism, i. 424.

Verses on, ii. 460.

Wishart, George.

Banished for teaching the Greek New Testament, i. 47, 343.

Returns to Scotland, i. 41.

Knox attends, i. 42.

Is outlawed, i. 360.

Account of him by one of his scholars, i. 380.

Bears a fagot at Bristol, i. 383.

Translates the Swiss confession, i. 384.

Verses on, ii. 456.

Wishart, Sir John, of Pittarrow, brother to the former.

Knox writes to, i. 200.

Made comptroller, ii. 44, 96, 354.

Knox’s letter to, ii. 400.

Davidson’s dedication to, ii. 431.

Wood, John, Secretary to the Regent Murray.

Is assassinated, ii. 166.

Knox’s letters to, ii. 395, 397.

Z

Zuinglius.

His influence with the senate of Zurich, ii. 13.

Comparison between Knox and, ii. 260.

THE END.

EDINBURGH:

PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY,

PAUL’S WORK, CANONGATE.

Footnotes.

1  –

Knox, Historie, p. 236.

2  –

“Ult. Mart. 1560. Margaret Aidnam askit God and the Congregatioun forgiveness of the adultery committed be her wt    William Rantoun, publiclie in the paroche kirke of this town: John Knox beand at that tyme minister.” Records of the Kirk Session of St Andrews.

3  –

Records of Town Council of Edinburgh, May 8, 1560.

4  –

Knox, Historie, p. 238.

5  –

Knox, Historie, p. 237.

6  –

Beza, Vita Calvini. Melch. Adami Vitæ Exter. Theolog. p. 70, 88. Persons unfriendly to the government of the reformed churches, have represented the opposition made to Calvin and his brethren, as arising from their attempts to have their discipline established by human laws, and supported by civil penalties. This is an unfair representation of the case. “Neque enim consentaneum est,” says Calvin, “ut qui monitionibus nostris obtemperare noluerint, eos ad magistratum deferamus.” Institut. Christ. Relig. p. 434. Ludg. Batav. 1654. The dispute between him and his opponents turned on this question, Are ministers obliged to administer the sacraments to those whom they judge unworthy? Or, (which amounts to the same thing,) Are the decisions of the church‑court in such matters to be reviewed and reversed by the civil court? Melch. Adam. ut supra. And this will be found to have been the true state of the question in Scotland, in the greater part of the dissensions between the court and the church, after the establishment of the Reformation.

7  –

Knox, Historie, p. 237, 256.

8  –

The names of the ministers who composed the Confession of Faith, and the Book of Discipline, were John Winram, John Spotswood, John Douglas, John Row, and John Knox. Ibid. p. 256.

9  –

Row, MS. Historie of the Kirk, p. 12, 16, 17. It is probable that the meeting of assembly by which the Book of Discipline was approved, was that which Knox calls a convention, held on the 5th of January, 1561. Historie, p. 261, 295. The first General Assembly appointed a meeting to be held at that time. Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 3. MS. in Advocates’ Library. But there is no account of its proceedings in that or in any other register which I have had access to see. In the copy of the First Book of Discipline, published (by Calderwood, I believe) in 1621, p. 23, 70; and in Dunlop’s Confessions, vol. ii. p. 517, 605, it is said, that the order for compiling it was given on the 29th of April, 1560, and that it was finished by them on the 20th of May following. But, as the civil war was not then concluded, I have followed the account given by Knox, who says, that it was undertaken subsequently to the meeting of parliament in August that year. Historie, p. 256.

10  –

In Dunlop’s Collect. of Confessions, ii. 436, the approbation of it is styled an act of secret council, 25th January, 1560, i.e.    1561.

11  –

Knox, Historie, p. 256, 257, 295, 296. Keith, 496, 497. Dunlop, ii. 606–608.

12  –

The General Assembly had, at different times, under their consideration the appointment of superintendents for Jedburgh, Dumfries, Aberdeen, and Banff; but came to no conclusion. Those actually appointed were, John Erskine of Dun for Angus; John Winram for Fife; John Spotswood for Lothian; John Willock for Glasgow; and John Carswell for Argyle. Keith’s Hist. p. 511, 512, 518–9. Carswell is not mentioned, among the superintendents, in a curious document recently printed; but it contains no list of the ministers in Argyle. Register of Ministers, Exhorters, and Readers, and of their Stipends, after the period of the Reformation, p. 1, 2, Edinburgh, 1830.

13  –

Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 524, 526, 545, 577, 638, 639.

14  –

Dunlop, ii. 526. Imposition of hands was afterwards appointed to be used by the Second Book of Discipline. Ibid. 768–9.

15  –

Knox, Historie, p. 263–266.

16  –

For an illustration of some of these facts, see Note A   .

17  –

First Book of Discipline, chap. vii. Dunlop, ii. 547–561.

18  –

Knox mentions Lord Erskine, (afterwards Earl of Mar,) as one of the chief noblemen who refused to subscribe the discipline, and assigns two reasons for his refusal; first, “he hes a very Jesabell to his wife,” and second, “if the pure, the scullis, and the ministry of the kirk, had thair awin, his kitcheing wald want twa partes and mair of that quhilk he now injustly possesses.” Historie, p. 256. My Lady Mar’s passion for money was well known at that time, and is referred to in Lord Thirlstane’s “Admonitioun to my Lord of Mar Regent,” published in Ancient Scottish Poems from Maitland MS. p. 164. Lond. 1786:

“Nor, to content thy marrow’s covatice,

Put not thyself in perrell for to pereis.”

19  –

Hess, Life of Zuingle, p. 201–207. Gerdes. i. 309.

20  –

See Note B   .

21  –

See vol. i. p. 321.

22  –

Row’s MS. Historie, ut sup. p. 308, 356, 372. See also Note C   .

23  –

See Note D   .

24  –

Hume, History of England, vol. v. chap. 38, p. 51. Lond. 1807.

25  –

Row’s MS. p. 372.

26  –

See Note E   .

27  –

Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 2. MS. Adv. Lib. Keith, 498.

28  –

See Note F   .

29  –

Knox, Historie, p. 260.

30  –

Preface to a Letter, added to An Answer to a Letter of a Jesuit, named Tyrie, he Johne Knox.—Sanctandrois—Anno Do. 1572.

31  –

Calvini Epistolæ, p. 150: Oper. tom. ix. “Viduitas tua mihi, ut debet, tristis et acerba est. Uxorem nactus eras cui non reperiuntur passim similes,” &c. In a letter to Christopher Goodman, written at the same time, Calvin says, “Fratrem nostrum Knoxum, etsi non parum doleo suavissima uxore fuisse privatum, gaudeo tamen ejus morte non ita fuisse afflictum, quin strenue operam suam Christo et ecclesiæ impendat.” Ibid. Calvin had lost his own wife in 1549. Epistolæ et Responsa, p. 212–3, 225. Hanov. 1597.

32  –

See Note G   .

33  –

Knox, 257, 258. Buchanan, i. 326, 327. Spotswood, 150, 151. Keith, 154, 157.

34  –

Knox, 260.

35  –

Mr Hume’s letter, printed in the Life of Dr Robertson: History of Scotland, vol. i. 25. Lond. 1809. Anderson’s Collections, vol. iv. part i. p. 71, 72, 74, 79.

36  –

“How sone that ever her French fillokes, fidlars, and utheris of that band, gat the hous alone, thair mycht be sene skipping not veray comelie for honest women. Her comune talk was in secrete, that sche saw nothing in Scotland but gravity, quhilk repugned altogidder to her nature, for sche was brocht up in joyeusetie.” Knox, Historie, p. 294.

37  –

See Note H   .

38  –

Knox, Historie, p. 284–287.

39  –

See Note I   .

40  –

Knox, Historie, p. 341.

41  –

Knox, Historie, p. 282, 283, 285, 287.

42  –

Several of the above considerations, along with others, are forcibly stated in a letter of Maitland to Cecil, written a short time before Queen Mary’s arrival in Scotland. Keith, App. 92–95. That sagacious, but supple politician was among the first to verify some of his own predictions. That such fears were very general in the nation appears also from a letter of Randolph. Robertson, Append. No. 5.

43  –

Histoire du Calvinisme et celle du Papisme mises en Parellele; ou Apologie pour les Reformateurs, pour la Reformation, et pour les Reformez, tome i. p. 334. A Rotterdam, 1683, 4to. The affirmation of this writer is completely supported by the well‑known history of Henry IV. of France, (not to mention other instances,) whose recantation of Calvinism, although it smoothed his way to the throne, could not efface the indelible stigma of his former heresy, secure the affections of his Roman catholic subjects, or avert from his breast the consecrated poniard of the assassin.

44  –

Randolph to Cecil, 9th Aug. 1561, apud Robertson’s Scotland, Appendix, No. 5, and Keith, p. 190. A letter of Maitland to Cecil, of the same date with the above, seems to refer to the same design; and I shall take the opportunity of correcting (what appears to me) an error in the transcription of this letter. “I wish to God,” says Maitland, “the first warre may be planely intended against them by Knox   , for so shold it be manifest that the suppressing of religion was ment; but I fear more she will proceed tharunto by indirect means. And nothing for us so dangerouse as temporising.” Haynes, p. 367. This seems altogether unintelligible; but if the words which I have printed in Italics be transposed, and read thus, “by them against Knox,” they will make sense, and correspond with the strain of the letter, and with the fact mentioned by Randolph, in his letter to Cecil written on the same day. Maitland expresses his fears that Mary would have recourse to crafty measures for undermining their cause, instead of persevering in the design which she had avowed of prosecuting Knox.

45  –

Knox, Historie, p. 269.

46  –

Ibid. p. 262.

47  –

Keith, 188.

48  –

Knox, Historie, p. 287–292.

49  –

Ibid. p. 292.

50  –

Knox, Historie, p. 292. Keith, 197.

51  –

Letter, Knox to Cecil, 7th October, 1561: Haynes, State Papers, p. 372.

52 –

Randolph’s letter, in Keith, 188. In this letter, the ambassador states some circumstances as to the first interview between the queen and the Reformer, which are not mentioned in Knox’s History. He “knocked so hastily upon her heart, that he made her to weep, as well you know there be some of that sex that will do that as well for anger as for grief; though in this the lord James will disagree with me. He concluded so in the end with her, that he hath liberty to speak his conscience, [and] to give unto her such reverence as becometh the ministers of God unto the superior powers.”

53  –

Haynes, 372. An epistolary correspondence was at this time maintained between secretary Cecil and our Reformer. Keith, 191, 192, 194. Robertson, Append. No. 5.

54  –

Knox, Historie, p. 295–6.

55  –

Keith, App. 175–179. Knox, 296–300.

56  –

The privy council appointed certain persons to fix the sums which were to be appropriated to the court and to the ministry, and also the particular salaries which were to be allotted to individual ministers, according to the circumstances in which they were placed. The officers appointed for this purpose composed a board or court, under the privy council, and was called the court of modification.

57  –

“So busie,” says he, “and circumspect wer the modificators, (because it was a new office, the terme must also be new,) that the ministers should not be over‑wantoun, that an hundred merks was sufficient to an single man, being a commone minister: thre hundreth merks was the hiest apoynted to any, except the superintendents and a few utheris.” Historie, 301. “Mr Knox is not at all here diminishing the sum,” says Keith; “for the original books of assignation to the ministers, which now ly before me, ascertain the truth of what he says,” p. 508. Wishart of Pittarrow, who was comptroller of the modification, pinched the ministers so much that it became a proverb—“The gude laird of Petarro was an ernest professour of Christ, bot the mekill devill receave the comptroller.” Sir John Wishart of Pittarrow, was appointed comptroller on the 1st of March, 1561. Reg. Sigil. Secr. lib. xxi. 5.

58  –

Knox, Historie, p. 201–2.

59  –

See Extracts from the Records of the Town Council in Note K   .

60  –

Keith, p. 498.

61  –

The form observed on that occasion, which was followed in the admission or ordination of all the superintendents and other ministers, is inserted at length in Knox’s Historie, p. 263–266; and in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 627–636.

62  –

Knox, Historie, p. 270.

63  –

Ibid. p. 328–9.

64  –

See Note L   .

65  –

Keith, 215.

66  –

Knox, Historie, 305–308, and letter to Locke, 6th May, 1562, in Cald. MS. i. 755, 756. Spotswood, 184.

67  –

Histoire des Martyrs, fol. 558, 559. Anno 1597.

68  –

Knox, Historie, 308–311.

69  –

St Cuthberts, or the West Church, was at that time (as it is at present) a distinct parish, of which William Harlow was minister. There was also a minister in Canongate or Holyroodhouse.

70  –

Cald. MS. ii. 157.

71  –

Records of Town Council, 26th October, 1561.

72  –

Ibid. 10th April, 1562.

73  –

The number of elders in the session of Edinburgh was twelve, and of deacons sixteen. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 638.

74  –

Calderwood, apud Keith, 514.

75  –

See Note M   .

76  –

Row, MS. Historie of the Kirk, p. 47. Spotswood, p. 463–4. I have chiefly followed Row’s narrative. By comparing it with Spotswood’s, the reader will perceive that they differ in a few unimportant circumstances. Row mentions that he had his information from several persons who had heard Craig himself relate the story, and particularly from his widow, “dame Craig,” who survived her husband, and lived in Edinburgh until 1630. Mr John Craig, minister, his wife, Marion Small, and his eldest son, Mr William, are mentioned, under the date 16th August, 1594, in Burgh Sas. ix. 60.

77  –

Keith, p. 226.

78  –

Knox, Historie, p. 302.

79  –

Keith, 230. Knox, 321.

80  –

Knox, 316–318.

81  –

The historian of the family of Gordon expressly says, that “her majesty thought, by the earle of Huntlie his power in the north, to get herselff fred from the hands of her bastard brother, James, earle of Morray;” and that “the earle of Huntlie (at the quein’s own desyre) did gather some forces, to get her out of the earle of Murraye’s power.” Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland, by Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstoun, p. 140, 141.

82  –

Spotswood, 185.

83  –

Knox, Historie, p. 316, 318.

84  –

The Reasoning betwixt Jo. Knox and the abbote of Crossraguell, fol. 4. Edinburgh, 1563.

85  –

Kennedy, Compendius Tractive, A, iiij.

86  –

Ibid. D, vii.

87  –

Keith, App. 195–199. Kennedy, in a letter to the archbishop of Glasgow, says, “Willock, and the rest of his counsell, labourit earnestlie to sie gif I wald admitt the scripture onlye juge, and, be that meines, to haif maid me contrarry to my awin buke; bot thair labouris wes in waist.—I held me evir fast at ane grounde.” And he triumphs, that he “draif the lymmar—to refuse the interpretation of the doctoris allegeit be him and all utheris, bot so far as he thocht they war agreable with the worde of God, quhilk was as rycht nocht.” Ibid. 193, 194.

88  –

See Note N   .

89  –

Without farther plea.

90  –

Crawford’s Peerage of Scotland, p. 75.

91  –

“Augustus 22—Monasterio Crucis regalis obitus Beati Quintini Kennedii abbatis, Comitis Cassilii fratris, qui admiranda constantia sex annis totis, cum hæresi nascente, et jam confirmata conflixit, ad extremum lento veneno consumptus, corruptoque sanguine excessit.” Dempsteri Menologium Scotorum, p. 20. Bononiæ, 1622.

92  –

See Calendar, by “M. Adam King, profeseur of philosophie and Mathimatikis at Paris,” prefixed to a Scottish translation of Canisius’s Catechism, printed in 1587.

93  –

Knox gives merely a general notice of this dispute in his Historie, p. 318. Keith, who was very industrious in collecting whatever referred to the ecclesiastical history of that period, could not obtain a copy of the printed disputation, and had heard of but one imperfect copy. History, App. 255. The only copy known to exist at present, is in the library of Alexander Boswell, Esq. of Auchinleck.—Since the publication of the first edition of this Life, Mr Boswell has printed a small impression of this unique, being an exact fac simile    of the original edition, for the gratification of the curious.

94  –

Lesley, apud Keith, p. 501. App. 223. Lesley speaks of a dispute between Knox and Wingate, but that historian is often incorrect in his details. The dispute between the doctors of Aberdeen and the ministers, which took place in the beginning of 1561, is mentioned by Knox, Historie, p. 261, 262. It would seem from a letter of Randolph, that there was a dispute in the end of 1561, between some of the ministers and a Parisian divine, who had accompanied the queen. Keith, 208. Wingate published at Antwerp, his “Buke of Fourscoir Three Questionis,” in 1563. Keith has reprinted this, along with his “Tractatis,” originally printed at Edinburgh. He calls them “very rare and much noted pieces.” History, App. 203. In point of argument or sentiment, they are certainly not noted; but they contain a strong proof of the extreme corruption which prevailed among the superior popish clergy, against which Wingate inveighs as keenly as any reformer. His second book concludes with this exclamation, “Och, for mair paper or pennyis!” Wingate translated several works of the Fathers into the Scottish language, some of which are mentioned by him in his Tractatis. Keith, App. 226, 227. He was made abbot of a Scottish monastery at Ratisbon. Mackenzie’s Lives, vol. iii. p. 149.

95  –

See Note O   .

96  –

Knox, Historie, p. 323, 324. Keith, 522.

97  –

Keith, p. 538.

98  –

Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 23. Keith, 559, 560.

99  –

Knox, Historie, p. 398.

100  –

See Note P   .

101  –

Comp. Knox, Historie, 327, with Keith, Append. 125.

102  –

In Knox’s Historie, it is printed Cathenis, by mistake, instead of Athenis. The person referred to is Alexander Gordon, brother to George, earl of Huntly, who was slain at Corrichie in 1562. Scarcely any Scottish prelate ever occupied so many different sees, or occupied them for so short a time. He was bishop of Caithness, archbishop of Glasgow, bishop of the Isles, and bishop of Galloway. When he was deprived of the see of Glasgow, the pope, as a recompense, created him titular    archbishop of Athens. Gordon’s Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland, p. 111–12, 137, 290. Keith’s Scottish Bishops, p. 128, 153, 166, 175.

103  –

Knox, Historie, p. 326–328.

104  –

Knox, Historie, p. 327–329.

105  –

Ibid. p. 330–334.

106  –

Spotswood, 188. “We are very much obliged to the information of archbishop Spotswood” for this, says honest Keith. History, 240.

107  –

Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 536–8. Knox, 331. Keith, 240.

108  –

I have not been able to ascertain the time at which the acquaintance between the earl of Murray and the Reformer commenced. It was probably soon after Knox came into England, in the reign of Edward VI. A popish writer has mentioned their meeting, and grafted upon it the calumny, current among the party, that the earl had formed the ambitious project of wresting the crown from his sister, and placing it on his own head. “Johann Kmnox deceavit him,” says he, “in S. Paules kirk in Londone, bringand him in consait, that God had chosen him extraordinarilie as ane Josias, to be king of Scotland, to rute out idolatrie, and to plant the licht of the new evangel: quhair thay convenit in this manner, That the prior of St Androis, erl of Murray, sould mentene the new Elias againis the priestes of Baal, (for sua blasphemouslie he namit the priestes of Christ Jesus.) And the neu Elias sould fortifie the new Josias, be procuring the favour of the people againis Iesabel, blaspheming maist impudentlie the quenis M.” Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 156. Knox was at least better acquainted with scripture‑history than to make Josias contemporary with Elias and Jesabel.

109  –

Knox, Historie, p. 331.

110  –

Referring to the critical circumstances in which the lords of the Congregation had been situated at these places, when the queen regent threatened to attack them with superior forces. See vol. i. p. 260, 267, 277.

111  –

See vol. i. p. 312–3.

112  –

Knox, Historie, p. 332–334.

113  –

These are the words of Mr Hume, who holds a distinguished place among the writers who have excited prejudices against our Reformer on the score of cruelty to Mary. The reader will find some remarks on the statements of that able but artful historian in Note Q   .

114  –

See Note R   .

115  –

See Note S   .

116  –

Spotswood gives a different account of this affair, which has been adopted by several writers. He not only says that the protestants “forced the gates; but that some [of the papists] were taken and carried to prison, many escaped the back way with the priest himself.” History, p. 188. But he could not have the opportunity of being so well acquainted with the circumstances as Knox, whose account is totally irreconcilable with the archbishop’s. Knox expressly says, that, besides entering the chapel, and addressing the priest as above mentioned, “no farther was done or said.” Historie, p. 335, 336. Had some of the papists been carried to prison, he never could have given such an account as he has done, not only in his history, but also in his circular letter, which was produced at his trial, without any allegation that it contained an unfair or partial statement of facts.

117  –

Knox, Historie, p. 336, 337.

118  –

It has been doubted, whether this meeting acted as a court of judicature in trying Knox, or was called to determine whether he should be brought to a judicial trial. Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems, vol. i. p. 72. The justice‑general, the lord advocate, and the other law‑lords, were present; but they had seats in the privy council. Upon the whole, I am inclined to think that this was an extraordinary meeting of the privy council, to which other noblemen, besides the counsellors, were called, to give the proceedings greater weight with the public. The object of the queen was, in the first place, to procure the imprisonment of Knox, after which she might proceed against him as she thought most prudent. Knox, Historie, p. 339, 340. Spotswood, p. 188.

119  –

Knox, Historie, p. 238–343. Spotswood, p. 188. The account of the trial given by Calderwood, in his MS., has been compared with that of Knox, and exactly agrees with it.

120  –

Keith, 248, 251.

121  –

Sir Thomas Randolph, in a letter, dated 27th Feb. 1564, mentions “some unkindness between Murray and the queen, about Knox, whose parte he taketh.” Keith, 249.

122  –

Keith, 527, 528. Knox, 344, 345.

123  –

Randolph, in a letter to Cecil, 18th March, 1563/4, says:—“Knox askt in church to be marryed to Margrett Steward, the daughter of the Lord Ochiltre;” referring to the proclamation of banns. Keith, 251. Lord Ochiltree was descended from Robert, duke of Albany, second son of King Robert II. His father exchanged the lands and title of Evandale for those of Ochiltree. Douglas’s Peerage, 522. Crawfurd’s Renfrew, and Royal House of Stewart, by Semple, part i. p. 92–94. The second son of lord Ochiltree, and brother‑in‑law of the Reformer, was Sir James Stewart of Bothwellmuir, afterwards the infamous favourite of James VI. who created him Earl of Arran. Crawfurd, in his Officers of State, (p. 488,) has published a protestation which Arran made of his lineage, and title of priority to the duke of Lennox, his rival in James’s favour. The Reformer’s father‑in‑law was usually called the good    lord Ochiltree; and was “a man rather borne to mak peace than to brag upon the calsey.” Knox’s Historie, p. 304.

124  –

See Note T   .

125  –

Robertson’s History of Scotland, vol. ii. 108. Lond. 1809.

126  –

In a letter to the Council of Trent, dated 18th March 1563/4, Mary laments “that the situation of her affairs—hujus temporis tanta injuria,” did not permit her to send some of her prelates to that council; and assures them of her great and unalterable devotion to the Apostolic see—“nostra perpetua mente ac voluntate, in ejusdem sedis observantia et submissione.” In a letter, written Jan. 3d of the same year, she entreats the cardinal of Lorrain to assure the pope of her resolution to live and die a catholic. And on the last day of the same month, she writes to his holiness himself lamenting the damnable errors—“damnabili errori,” in which she found her subjects plunged, and informing him that her intention, from the time she left France, had uniformly been to re‑establish the ancient religion. MS. Letters, extracted from the Barberini Library, in Advoc. Lib. A. 2. 11.

127  –

Robertson, Hist. of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 109.

128  –

During the reign of Mary of England, the manner in which the protestants prayed for her, in their conventicles, was declared high treason. Act. Parl. 1, and 2, Philip and Mary, cap. 9. Nor did the psalms and prayers of the primitive Christians escape punishment under the “tolerant” emperor Julian. Works of the Reverend Samuel Johnston, p. 20–22. London, 1713.

129  –

Men of no note.

130  –

Servants of God, however.

131  –

Craig, who was rather facile in his disposition, and apt to be moulded by those who were about him, seems afterwards to have recanted the principle which he maintained on this occasion. For I suppose he is the person who preached the sermon at Linlithgow, mentioned by Hume of Godscroft, in his History of the House of Douglas and Angus, ii. 383, 385. That historian has inserted some very ingenious observations on the subject, by way of strictures on the sermon.

132  –

Knox, Historie, p. 348–366.

133  –

This was an opinion generally entertained among the Reformers; and it was one ground (though not the only one, as we have seen, p. 25) upon which they vindicated the penal statutes against the mass and image worship. At the same time, while they laboured to restrain these evils, they discovered no disposition to proceed to capital punishment, even when it was completely in their power. I never read nor heard of an instance, in the time of our Reformer, of a person being put to death for performing any part of the Roman catholic worship. If the reason of this disconformity between their opinion and their practice be asked, I can only answer,—their aversion to blood. “God,” says our Reformer, addressing the popish princes who persecuted the protestants, “will not use his saintes and chosen children to punish you. For with them is alwaies mercie, yea, even althogh God have pronounced a curse and malediction; as in the history of Josua is plaine. But as ye have pronounced wrong and cruel judgment without mercie, so will he punish you by such as in whom there is no mercie.” Answer to the Cavillations of an Anabaptist, p. 449.

134  –

The magistrates of Edinburgh, understanding that Mr Christopher Goodman was appointed to preach during the absence of their own ministers, directed a committee of their number to wait upon him, and to “offer him, in their names, all honourabill intertenment, and cause the stewart of Jhonne Knox house to keep table to him upoun the town’s expensis.” Records of Town Council for 23d Aug. 1564.

135  –

Keith, 535, 537, 540.

136  –

Knox, Historie, p. 368.

137  –

Keith, p. 278, note (a.)

138  –

Knox, p. 373.

139  –

Keith, 279. Knox, 374, 378.

140  –

Keith, 329. Robertson, ii. 125.

141  –

Knox, 372, 374. Robertson, ii. 114, 120.

142  –

Knox, 372.

143  –

Ibid. 379. Keith, 309, 310. Append. 108–110.

144  –

Knox, 368, 379, 386. Keith, 309, 310. Gordon’s Genealog. Hist. of the earldom of Sutherland, 143–4.

145  –

Keith, 300, 304, 306.

146  –

Robertson, ii. 131. Laing, History of Scotland.

147  –

Knox, Historie, 382, 384, 386.

148  –

Ibid. 388.

149  –

Ibid. 373, 374.

150  –

Knox, Historie, 377.

151  –

Ibid. 376.

152  –

Goodall says, that Knox was engaged with the Earl of Murray in a plot for seizing Darnley; but he has produced no evidence of his assertion. Life of Queen Mary, i. 207–209.

153  –

Keith, 301–2.

154  –

Sermon on Isa. xxvi. 13, 14: History of the Reformation, Edin. 1644, 4to. Append. p. 120, 128. Spotswood says, that Knox, in his sermon, (either doubting the king’s sincerity, or favouring the faction of the noblemen,) “fell upon him with a bitter reproof.” History, 191. But the archbishop does not seem to have read the sermon, which contains no reproof of the king, either bitter or mild. Indeed, the preacher appears, on that occasion, to have used less freedom than ordinary in the application. Strype, Annals, i. 527, 23d August, 1565.

155  –

Preface to the Sermon, ut supra.

156  –

Ibid. Records of Town Council. Knox, Historie, p. 381. Being called before the privy council, he wrote out the sermon, as exactly according to what he had preached as possible, and sent it to the press, to let the impartial see “upon how small occasions great offence is now taken.” At the end of it is this postscript:—“Lord, into thy hands I commend my spirit; for the terrible roaring of gunnes, and the noise of armour, do so pierce my heart, that my soul thirsteth to depart.” On the margin are these words:—“The castle of Edinburgh was shooting against the exiled for Christ Jesus’ sake.” Then follows the date at which the writing was finished. “The last day of August 1565, at four of the clock in the afternoon, written indigestly, but yet truly, so farre as memory would serve, of those things that in publike I spake on Sunday, August 19, for the which I was discharged to preach for a time. Be mercifull to thy flock, O Lord, and at thy pleasure put end to my misery. John Knox.”

157  –

Spotswood, 191, 192. Keith, 546, 547. Keith calls in question the archbishop’s narrative; because Knox, in his history, does not say that the queen was present, and does not mention the prediction, although “fond enough to catch at and force such things upon his readers.” But Knox did not write this part of the history; the fifth book having been compiled after his death, and not being found in old MSS. See Advertisement, prefixed to the edition of his Historie, Edin. 1732. It must be confessed, however, that Spotswood’s account of this affair is inaccurate in a number of particulars. David Buchanan says, that the king had “cast the psalme booke in the fire,” which was the cause of Knox’s denunciation against him. Life of Knox, prefixed to History of the Reformation.

158  –

Records of Town Council, 23d August, 1565. Keith, 547.

159  –

Knox, Historie, p. 381.

160  –

Ibid. p. 389.

161  –

See Note U   .

162  –

Keith, 562.

163  –

Keith, 538.

164  –

This appointment was laid upon him in June 1563. Keith, 525. He does not seem to have executed it till 1567; which is the date subjoined to a prayer at the end of the treatise. Then follows a postscript: “This booke is thought necessary and profitable for the church, and commanded to be printed by the Generall Assemblie.” The order for printing it seems to have been first given by the Assembly in 1568, and renewed in 1571. Psalmes in meeter, &c. (commonly called Knox’s Liturgy), printed by Andro Hart, A. 1611, p. 28, 67. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 705, 747.

165  –

Treatise of Fasting, in Knox’s Liturgy, p. 157–160. edit. 1611; and in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 661–664.

166  –

Robertson, Append. No. 14. Keith, Append. p. 165, 167. Knox, 389–391.

167  –

The friars were so little esteemed, that they soon wearied of preaching. They boasted that they would dispute with the protestant ministers; but when the commissioners of the General Assembly waited on their majesties, and requested that this might be granted in their presence, the queen replied, that “sche wald not jeopard her religioun upon sick as were thare present; for sche knew weill enouch, that the protestants wer more learned.” Knox, Historie, p. 391.

168  –

Keith, p. 326. Append. 167. Melvil’s Memoires, 63, 64. Robertson, Append. No. 14.

169  –

Knox, 392, 394. Keith, Append. 126. The queen’s letter to the archbishop of Glasgow, apud Keith, 331. Goodall and Blackwood, apud Robertson, ii. 145. Lond. 1809.

170  –

The noblemen wished to bring Rizzio to a public trial; but the king would not wait for this, and determined that he should be seized in the queen’s presence, although she was big with child, that he might upbraid her for the wrongs which he had suffered. Keith, App. 121, 122. Robertson, iii. 318. App. No. 15. Douglas of Lochleven, who was engaged in the combination against Rizzio, says that it was their purpose to have “punist him be order of justice; bot men proponit and God disponit udir wais, be sic extraordinar means, quhilk truly my aune hart aborit quhan I saw him; for I never consentit that he suld haiff been usit by [beside] justice, nather was it in ony nobellman his mind.” Speaking of Rizzio’s influence, Douglas says, “I causit offer to him, gif he wald stay the erle of Murray’s forfaltour, he suld haiff v thowsand pundis Scottis; his answer was, xx thowsand and that wer all alik; it wald not be.” MS. papers of the laird of Lochleven.

171  –

King James VI. having found great fault with Knox for approving of the assassination of Rizzio, one of the ministers said, that “the slaughter of David [Rizzio], so far as it was the work of God, was allowed by Mr Knox, and not otherwise.” Cald. MS. ad ann. 1591. Knox himself does not, however, state this qualification, when he mentions the subject incidentally. Historie, 86. Robertson, ii. 161–2.

172  –

Knox, Historie, 395. Answer to Tyrie, A.iiij.

173  –

Letter from archbishop Grindal to Bullinger, 17th August, 1566: Strype’s Grindal, Append. 20. Letter from bishop Parkhurst, written in December 1566: Burnet’s Hist. of Reform. iii. Append. No. 91. In the Assembly which met in June this year, Craig desired that “John Carnes, who had read prayers and exhorted four years and more in Edinburgh, and had weill profited, might be joyned with him as colleague in the kirk of Edinburgh, in respect he was alone.” Keith, 560.

174  –

Keith, 56.

175  –

Ibid. 565, 566. Knox, 402, 403. Spotswood, 198, 199. The letter was subscribed by “John Davidson, for James Nicoldson, writer and clarke of the church of Edinborough.” Strype’s Life of Archbishop Parker, Append. p. 88.

176  –

Speaking of England, he says, “And yet is sche that now rigneth over thame nether gude protestant, nor yet resolute papist; let the warld juge quhilk is the third.” Historie, p. 277. By comparing this with p. 269, it appears that it was written by him in 1567, and consequently after his return from England.

177  –

Reg. Secr. Sig. lib. xxxv. f. 99. Laing’s History of Scotland, vol. i. 75, 76. 2d edit. This historian has refuted the charges of forgery which Whitaker had brought against Knox and Calderwood on this head. Ibid. p. 78, 79.

178  –

Keith, p. 561, 562. The occurrence which had taken place helps to explain the coldness with which the Assembly received the information of these acts in their favour. Ibid. p. 563.

179  –

Cald. MS. apud Keith, 566, 567.

180  –

Ibid. 567–8.

181  –

Those who wish to see the proof of these assertions, may consult Mr Hume’s History of the period, with the Notes; Dr Robertson’s, with his Dissertation; and especially Mr Laing’s Dissertation on the subject. This last writer has examined the point with great calmness, accuracy, and acuteness, has established the genuineness of the letters to Bothwell, and cleared the whole evidence from the objections and cavils of the fantastical Whitaker, a late author, who has equalled any of his predecessors in prejudice, and exceeded all of them in the illiberal and virulent abuse with which he has treated the most respectable of his opponents. The principal writers who in modern times have undertaken the defence of Mary, are Goodall, Tytler, Stuart, and Whitaker.

182  –

Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 85, 87, 103. Anderson’s Collections, ii. 278–283. Knox, 405, 406. Spotswood, 202, 203. Craig gave in a narrative and defence of his conduct to the General Assembly, 30th Dec. 1567; but it was not until the 6th July, 1569, that the Assembly overtook the formal consideration of that affair, when they declared that “he had done the dewtie of a faithfull minister.”

183  –

Keith, 574, 577. Knox, 410.

184  –

Keith, 581–583. Knox, 411. Spotswood, 209, 210.

185  –

Knox, 412. Buchanan calls it luculentam concionem   . Hist. lib. xviii. Oper. tom. i. p. 366.

186  –

Cald. MS. ii. 67, 68. Anderson’s Collections, ii. 249. One author says that Knox was employed in putting the crown on the king’s head. “Diadema Joannis Knoxii manibus capiti regio impositum.” Archibaldus Simsonus, Annales Eccles. Scotican. p. 9. MS. in the possession of Thomas Thomson, Esq.

187  –

Keith, 439. Keith expresses his surprise at Knox’s taking instruments in the name of the estates, as he “could properly belong to no estate at all.” Hist. p. 440. But the record does not say that he took instruments in the name of the estates. It is evident that he acted in the name of the church, which was considered as having an interest in the transaction, as by one clause of the coronation oath, the king engaged to maintain the reformed religion, and the privileges of the protestant church. Ibid. p. 438.

188  –

Keith, 421, 422, 423. Throkmorton’s Letters, 14th and 18th July: Robertson, Append. No. 21. “The women,” says the ambassador, “be most furious and impudent against the queen, and yet the men be mad enough.”

189  –

Cald. MS. ii. 73. Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 113.

190  –

See Note V   .

191  –

Act. Parl. Scot. iii. p. 14–25. Cald. MS. ad ann. 1567.

192  –

Cald. ut supra. Keith, 585, 586.

193  –

Dr Robertson says, that the regulation respecting the thirds, made by the parliament in December 1567, did not produce any considerable change in the situation of the clergy, and speaks of them as still “groaning under extreme poverty, unable to obtain any thing but fair words and liberal promises.” History of Scotland, ii. 250, 312. Lond. 1809. But the law which gave power to the collectors appointed by the church to uplift the thirds, and to pay the stipends, before any thing was allowed to the court, was certainly a very considerable benefit. The church herself viewed it in this light. Calderwood says, that “the ministers were now refreshed with the allowance made by the last parliament.” MS. ad ann. 1567. And the Assembly, in their letter inviting Willock to return from England, expressly say, “Our enemies, praised be God, are dashed; religion established; sufficient provision made for ministers,” &c. Keith, 590. The account which I have given in the text is, I think, supported by the register of the five general assemblies which were held during the regency of Murray.

194  –

Letter from the Regent to the General Assembly, ult. June, 1569, in Appendix. Buik of Universal Kirk, p. 45–47.

195  –

Cald. MS. ii. 108.

196  –

Letter to John Wood, 14th of February, 1568; Cald. MS. ii. 91.

197  –

Throkmorton to Elizabeth, 22d August, 1567; Keith, 450.

198  –

Throkmorton’s letters of 14th, 16th, 18th, and 19th July, 1567: Robertson, Append. No. 21. Laing, ii. Append. No. 31, p. 125. Keith, p. 423. The protestation taken, at the coronation of James VI. by Arthur Hamilton of Meriton, in the name of the duke, is confined to the point of his succession to the crown, and does not allude in the slightest degree to the right of the queen. Keith, 437. Of the same strain was the protest which was intended to have been made at the parliament held in December 1567; a copy of which, and a minute of a conversation on the subject between the regent and Arthur Hamilton, are preserved among the Hamilton MSS.

199  –

Buchanan. Oper. i. 346. Keith, 407.

200  –

Spotswood, 216. Letter, Knox to Wood, 10th September, 1568, published in the Appendix.

201  –

The Hist. of King James the Sext, p. 48. Birrel’s Diary, 17, in Dalyell’s Fragments of Scottish History. Laing, ii. 269. See also Letter, Knox to Wood, 10th September, 1568, ut supra.

202  –

Hist. of King James the Sext, p. 43, 63.

203  –

This story is related in very different ways. One account makes the revenge to turn solely upon the treatment of his wife, who, expecting to be allowed to remain in her house of “Woodislie,” was “uncourtouslie and unmercifullie put thairfra, all her gudis tane fra hir, and schoe left stark naked. The gentilwoman, quhat for grief of mynd and exceeding cald, that schoe had then contractit, conceaved sic madness as was almost incredible.” Historie of King James the Sext, p. 74. Spotswood’s account is different. He says, that Bothwellhaugh had redeemed his life by yielding up the lands of Woodhouselie, which were given to the Justice Clerk, and he refusing to part with them, Bothwellhaugh “made his quarrel to the regent, [i.e.    revenged himself upon the regent,] who was most innocent, and had restored him to life and liberty.” Spotsw. History, p. 233. Crawfurd, in his Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, p. 140, 1st edit., says, that “Murray sent some officers to take possession of the house, who not only turned the gentlewoman out of doors, but,” &c. This is the authority which has been relied upon by all those writers who have charged the regent with cruelty in this transaction; yet it is now discovered that the interpolation of Murray’s name in this place is one of those forgeries by which that work is disgraced from beginning to end. Hist. of King James the Sext, preface, and p. 74.

204  –

This is clear from many considerations. Within a few days after the regent’s assassination, his secretary, Mr John Wood, was murdered in Fife. Anderson’s Col. iii. 84. The house in which Bothwellhaugh concealed himself, while he committed the murder, belonged to the archbishop of St Andrews, who acknowledged that he was privy and accessory to the deed. Historie of King James the Sext, p. 117. The horse on which the murderer escaped belonged to John Hamilton, abbot of Arbroath, one of the duke’s sons. Cald. ad ann. 1570. He rode immediately to Hamilton, where he was “received with great applause.” Ibid. Nay, grounds are not wanting for strong suspicion, that Maitland, and even Kircaldy of Grange, who had long been the bosom friend of the regent, were acquainted with the conspiracy against his life. Ibid. Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 429. Buchan. i. 384.

205  –

Cald. ut supra. Buchanani Oper. i. 385. Spotswood, 233.

206  –

Bannatyne, p. 121. “To the thrid head” (his participation in the murder of the regent) the archbishop “answerit thus: That he not only knew thairof, and wald not stopp it, bot rather furtherit the deed thairof, quhilk he repentit, and askit God mercie for the same.” Hist. of James the Sext, p. 117. “Jhon Hamilton, bishop of Sanctandros, enemie to thy kirk and to the kingis autoritie, confessit at his daith of the knawledge of the erle of Morray regent’s murther, and that he myght haif stayit the same giff he plesit.” MS. Papers of the Laird of Lochleven. Yet an author, in the nineteenth century, can write of this deed in the following terms:—“The heiress of Woodhouselie fell a sacrifice to the corrupt tyranny of the regent Murray. Her husband, Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, put the guilty tyrant to death, as ‘base‑born Murray rode through old Linlithgow’s crowded town.’” Chalmers’s Caledonia, ii. 571.

207  –

Buchanan. Oper. i. 385.

208  –

History, 234.

209  –

See Note W   .

210  –

Smetoni Responsio ad Hamiltonii Dialogum, p. 116.

211  –

“Upon the 22 of Maii, the sherife of Linlithgow, the laird of Innerweek, James Hamilton of Bothelhaugh, and six others, were put to an assyse; their hands bound; and pardoned at the request of Mr Knox, whereof he sore repented; for Bothwelhaugh killed the regent shortlie after.” Cald. MS. ad ann. 1568.

212  –

Cald. MS. ii. 150. He is said to have added this to his usual prayers after dinner and supper. But in a volume of Calderwood’s History, in the Advocates’ Library in Edinburgh, (which has been transcribed more early than any copy which I have seen,) these words are scored out; and it is introduced as the prayer which he offered up in public, on the day on which he was informed of the regent’s death.

213  –

Great apprehensions of this were entertained by the regent’s friends. Bannatyne, 428, 9.

214  –

Cald. MS. ad ann. 1570.

215  –

Ibid. ii. 151–157.

216  –

Spotswood, p. 234. Mackenzie labours to discredit the archbishop’s narrative of this affair. Lives of Scottish Writers, iii. 195, 196. But whatever opinion we may form about the prediction, it cannot be doubted that Spotswood had the best means of information respecting the facts which he relates. Nor has Mackenzie any other authority for what he says about the death of Maitland than the archbishop’s.

217  –

Cald. MS. ii. 157.

218  –

The inscription, engraved on brass, is yet preserved; and a copy of it will be found in Note X   . But Buchanan has, in his History, reared to the regent “a monument more durable than brass,” which will preserve his memory as long as the language in which it is written shall continue to be understood, and as long as a picture taken from life shall be preferred to the representations of fancy or of prejudice. Nor has he neglected to celebrate him in his verses. Epigram. lib. ii. 29. iii. 7, 9, 18.

219  –

Spotswood, 235.

220  –

Cald. ut supra.

221  –

A late author has very wantonly attempted to load the memory of this excellent man with a capital crime. He gives the following extract from the paper office, 22d April, 1590: “Twa men, the ane namyt Johnne Gibsone, Scottishman, preacher, and the other Johnne Willokis, now baith lying in prison at Leicester, were convicted by a jury of robbery.” The last of these convicts, says he, was “the reforming coadjutor of Knox.” Chalmers’s Life of Ruddiman, p. 307. What evidence has this author for saying so? Nothing but the sameness of the name! Just as if a person, on reading in the public papers of one George Chalmers who was convicted of a robbery, (no unlikely thing,) should immediately take it into his head that this was, and could be, no other than the author of the Life of Ruddiman, and Caledonia! It is evident that the second convict was no preacher, else this designation would have been added to his name, as well as to that of the first. It is probable that Willock, who was a preacher as early as 1540, was not alive in 1590: it is utterly incredible that he should then have been in a condition to act as a robber.—But it is paying too much regard to such a charge to bring exculpatory proof.

222  –

In the copy of Cald. MS. belonging to the church of Scotland, the name is written Winfrid; but in the copy in the Advocates’ Library, it is Umfrede   . The person meant is evidently Dr Laurence Humphrey (Umfredius), Professor of divinity, and Head of one of the colleges, in the University of Oxford. This learned man was a puritan, but enjoyed the patronage of Secretary Cecil. Strype’s Annals, i. 421, 430–432.

223  –

Smetoni Respons. ad Hamilt. p. 116.

224  –

Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 54. Cald. MS. ii. 206. Bannatyne says “the disorder was a kynd of apoplexia, called by the phisitiones resolutione;” probably a more gentle stroke of the disorder, attended with relaxation of the system.

225  –

In 1556, Calvin was suddenly seized in the pulpit with a fever, which confined him to his bed for a considerable time, and from which it was not thought he would recover. On hearing this, the popish clergy of Noyon, his native city, met, and rather prematurely gave public thanks to God for his death. Melch. Adam, Vitæ Exter. Theol. p. 93.—“Plusieurs grands hommes (says Senebier) ont partagé cet honneur avec Calvin, et ont eu, comme lui, la satisfaction de connoitre la profonde estime qu’on avoit concue pour eux.” Histoire Litteraire de Geneve, tom. i. p. 228. Luther, having received in 1545 a copy of an account of his own death, printed at Naples, caused it to be reprinted, with this note:—“I, Doctor Martin Luther, attest that I received this frantic fable on this 21st of March, and am delighted beyond measure to understand that the devil and his spawn, the pope and papists, hate me so heartily.” Seckendorf, Hist. Lutheran. lib. iii. p. 581.

226  –

Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 55.

227  –

James Kircaldy of Grange was restored to his lands, &c., at the request and special desire of Henry II. of France, by letters under the signet and privy seal of queen Mary, dated at Paris, 26th February, 1556. William Kircaldy of Grange, son and heir to the former, was restored by letters dated the 13th of February, 1561. Reg. Secr. Sig. Lib. xxxi. f. 16.

228  –

See vol. i. p. 75.

229  –

Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 67–87.

230  –

Crawford, in his Memoirs of Scotland, (p. 186, Edin. Anno 1706,) among other things disgraceful to our Reformers, says that they openly avowed, on this occasion, “That to pray for, or forgive our real or reputed enemies, was no part of a Christian’s duty.” It is sufficient to say, that there is not one word of this in the “authentick MS.” from which he professes that his Memoirs were “faithfully published.” See Historie and Life of King James the Sext, p. 113, 114. The public are under great obligations to Mr Malcolm Laing, for exposing this literary forgery, which had continued so long to impose upon our most acute and industrious historians.

231  –

The accusation and defence may be seen at full length in Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 190–210.

232  –

Bannatyne, p. 77.

233  –

Letter to the Laird of Lochleven, in the Appendix.

234  –

The lively interest which he continued to take in public affairs, is apparent from the letters of his correspondents. Captain Crawford of Jordanhill sent him, at his desire, a minute account of the taking of Dunbarton castle, with an inventory of the arms, ammunition, and provisions, which were found in it. Bannatyne, 123. There are also two letters to him from Alexander Hay, clerk of the privy council, informing him of the most important transactions in England, and on the continent. Ibid. 294–302.

235  –

Bannatyne, 132–3, 145.

236  –

Cald. MS. ad ann. 1572. Life prefixed to History, anno 1644.

237  –

Bannatyne, 144–146.

238  –

Ibid. Historie of King James the Sext, p. 123.

239  –

Keith’s Scottish Bishops, 166. The principles upon which the bishop vindicated the authority of the queen, and the duty of praying for her in the pulpit, show the strong and universal opinion entertained of her guilt at that time. He did not venture to insinuate her innocence, although the town was full of armed men, who were enlisted under her banners. Bannatyne, 181, 182.

240  –

Bannatyne, 144, 169,170. Hist. of King James the Sext, 123, 124. Knox’s Epistle to his Brethren of the Church of Edinburgh, now dispersed. Streveling, 1571.

241  –

Bannatyne, 154, 240, 322.

242  –

Bannatyne, 309, 310. “Gif this had been their first inventit lie,” says the same Richart, “I wald never have blackit paper for it.”

243  –

See vol. i. p. 69.

244  –

Bannatyne, 380–3. Goodall, after relating this story, attempts, but with his usual imbecility of argument, to deduce from it, that Murray had really conspired to murder Darnly, and that Knox was one of his accomplices. “They all talk of it,” says he, “as a known uncontroverted matter of fact. And Knox’s waving all prosecution, and hushing up the business, is more than a tacit acknowledgment that he was in that plot, and a subscriber.” Examination, i. 211. According to this doctrine, if a person shall rest satisfied with a private apology for a slander which a weak and irritable man had imprudently circulated to his prejudice, and if he shall decline a public prosecution, this must be regarded as good proof of his guilt, and of the truth of the report! With respect to Murray’s having conspired against Darnly at the time of his marriage, it is true that such a thing was reported; but it is not mentioned in the proceedings against that nobleman, nor is there the least allusion to it in any of the proclamations which the queen issued against him, although Murray publicly accused Darnly of a plot against his life. If the court had credited that report, and possessed any evidence of its truth, it will not be easy to account for this silence.

245  –

Archibald Hamilton, a short time after this, left Scotland; and going to France, made a recantation of the protestant religion. As an evidence of the sincerity of his conversion to popery, he published De Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ apud Scotos Dialogus; a book which I have frequently referred to, and which strikingly exemplifies the adage, Omnis apostata osor acerrimus sui ordinis. In the copious abuse of Knox with which it teems, we are reminded of the present quarrel. Thomas Smeton, principal of the university of Glasgow, published an elegant and masterly answer to this Dialogue. Hamilton replied in a work entitled, Calvinianæ Confusionis Demonstratio: Parisiis    1581. Of this treatise, which is rarer than his first, specimens will be found in the notes at the end of this volume.

246  –

Hamiltonii Dialog. p. 61. Smetoni Responsio ad Hamiltonii Dialogum, p. 90, 91. Bannatyne, 383–385.

247  –

Bannatyne, 364.

248  –

Archbishop Spotswood is displeased that a bishop, and one of his predecessors in the see of St Andrews, should have suffered so disgraceful a punishment. History, p. 252. Even Dr Robertson seems to have felt the esprit de corps on this occasion. It is surprising that this accurate historian should say, that the accusations against Hamilton, as “accessory to the murder both of the king and regent were supported by no proof,” and that his enemies, by “imputing to him such odious crimes,” merely “sought some colour” for the sentence which they pronounced against him. History of Scotland, ii. 334. Hamilton confessed his accession to the regent’s murder. See above, p. 168   . As the record of the trial has not been preserved, we cannot determine what evidence was brought forward; but there are good grounds for believing that he was also concerned in the murder of the king. Keith, 447. Spotswood, 252.

249  –

Dr Robertson seems to regret the failure of this expedition, and says that if Kircaldy’s plan had succeeded, it would have “restored peace to his country.” History of Scotland, ii. 339. It would certainly have given a very dangerous blow to the king’s party; but it is not easy to conceive how it could have produced a desirable or lasting peace, when we consider the dispositions of the great body of the nation, the situation of the queen, and the temper and views of her adherents.

250  –

Bannatyne, 246, 250, 255, 257, 260, 285.

251  –

See Note Y   .

252  –

Ibid. 253, 278, 312, 367. Cald. MS. ii. 284, 295.

253  –

Records of Privy Council, January 16, 1571. Cald. MS. ii. 310–325. Calderwood, De Reg. Eccl. Scotic. relatio, p. 8, anno 1618; and Epist. Philad. Vind. apud Altare Damasc. p. 727–729. Lugd. Batav. 1708. Petrie, part ii. p. 372–374.

254  –

Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 55. Matthew Crawfurd’s History of the Church of Scotland, MS. vol. i. p. 80.

255  –

A tulchan is a calf’s skin stuffed with straw, set up to make the cow give her milk freely.

256  –

Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 53. Cald. MS. ii. 280, 281. Petrie, part ii. 370. Spotsw. 258. Collier says, that, in Knox’s letter to the Assembly at Stirling, “there are some passages not unbecoming a person of integrity and courage,” Hist. ii. 533. Those who are acquainted with the spirit of this historian, will think this high praise from such a quarter.

257  –

See this Letter in the Appendix.

258  –

One glaring instance of this had just taken place, in giving the bishopric of Ross to Lord Methven. Bannatyne, 366. Robertson’s History of Scotland, ii. 358, 359.

259  –

I have read somewhere (though I cannot at present find my authority) that Robert Pont, when offered a bishopric, took the advice of the General Assembly as to accepting it, and professed his readiness to apply its funds to the support of the ministry within the diocese.

260  –

Letter to Mr John Wood, Feb. 14, 1568, in the Appendix.

261  –

In this letter, Beza commends Knox for establishing, not merely the purity of doctrine in the Scottish church, but also discipline and good order, without which the former could not be preserved for any time. Bezæ Epistol. Theol. ep. lxxxix. p. 344–355, edit. 1572.

262  –

Meaning Edward VI. of England and his council. See vol. i. p. 101.

263  –

Bannatyne, 321, 325, 375. Cald. MS. ii. 269, 338, 340. Douglas, after he was made bishop, was continued in his offices of rector of the university, and provost of St Mary’s college. James Melville says, that he was “a good upright‑hearted man, but ambitious and simple;” and that Knox spoke against him “bot sparinglie, because he loved the man.” MS. Diary, p. 27.

264  –

Bannatyne, 331.

265  –

Melville’s MS. Diary, p. 26.

266  –

i.e.    thrill.

267  –

i.e.    slowly and warily.

268  –

i.e.    arm‑pit.

269  –

i.e.    it appeared as if he would beat the pulpit in pieces.

270  –

Melville’s Diary, p. 23, 28. It is not without reason that I have added the above explanation of some phrases in this extract, as the reader will perceive from the following version of it, by a modern French writer, in the Journal des Debats:—“A presbyterian fanatic, named Knox, stirred up the people by his violent preaching. Nothing proves the coarseness of that people so much, as the ascendency which such a madman possessed over them; old and broken down, and so helpless, as to be hardly able to crawl along, he was raised to his pulpit by two zealous disciples, where he began his sermon with a feeble voice, and slow action; but soon heating himself, by the force of his passion and hatred, he bestirred himself like a madman; he broke his pulpit, and jumped into the midst of his auditors, (sautoit au des auditeurs,) transported by his violent declamation, and words still more violent.” For this morceau    I am indebted to the Editor of “The Poetical Remains of Mr John Davidson, Edinburgh, 1829.”

271  –

See vol. i. p. 30.

272  –

See Note Z   .

273  –

Tyrie published a reply to this, under the title of “The Refutation of ane Answer made be Schir Johne Knox to ane Letter, send be James Tyrie to his vmquhyle brother. Set furth be James Tyrie, Parisiis, 1573. Cvm Privilegio.” H. fol. 57. 12mo. It includes Tyrie’s first letter, and Knox’s answer, but not the other papers originally printed along with that answer. “Mr Knox,” says Keith, “makes some good and solid observations, from which, in my opinion, the Jesuit [in his reply] has not handsomely extricated himself.” History, Append. p. 255.

274  –

Tyrie, in his reply, scoffs at this amiable expression of piety; and in doing so, the Jesuit discovers that he was as great a stranger to conjugal and parental feelings, as he was to the rules of logic. “He [Knox] sais, that of tuay propositionis quhilkis ar verray trew, I collect ane conclusione maist false and repugnant to all veritie. Ane Dialectitian wald answer that Schir Johne Knox hes nocht weill considderit the rewlis of Dialectik, to affirme ane fals conclusion to follow of trew premissis. Bot becaus I knaw his greit occupationis, and sollicitude he hes of his wyf and childrine, that he culd nocht take tent to sic trifflis, I will pas this with silence.” Refutation, ut supra, fol. 4, a.

275  –

Bannatyne, 364–369. Cald. ii. 355, 366.

276  –

“Ane sermon prechit before the regent and nobilitie upon a part of the third chapter of Malachi [verses 7–12], in the kirk of Leith, at the time of the Generall Assemblie, on Sonday the 13 of Januarie. Anno Do. 1571. Be David Fergusone, minister of the evangell at Dunfermline. Imprentit at Sanctandrois, be Robert Lekpreuik. Anno Do. MDLXXII.” The dedication to the regent Mar is dated 20th August, 1572.

277  –

Previous to the cessation of arms, the banished citizens (who had taken up their residence chiefly in Leith) entered into a solemn league, by which they engaged “in the fear of God the Father, of his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holie Spirit, tackand to witness his holie name,” that they would, with their lives, lands, and goods, promote the gospel professed among them, maintain the authority of the king and regent, assist and concur with others against their enemies in the castle, defend one another if attacked, and submit any variances which might arise among themselves to brotherly arbitration, or to the judgment of the town‑council. Bannatyne, 361–364.

278  –

Bannatyne, 370–373.

279  –

Bannatyne, 372, 373.

280  –

Bannatyne, p. 373, 385. Smetoni Respons. p. 117, 118.

281  –

Ibid. 150, 370.

282  –

Spotswood, 464. When informed that his majesty had made choice of Craig, the General Assembly, July 1580, “blessed the Lord, and praised the King for his zeal.” Row, Hist. of the Kirk, 47.

283  –

Smetoni Respons. 118. Bannatyne, 370.

284  –

Smeton, ut supra. Bannatyne, 372. James Melville thus describes Lawson:—“A man of singular learning, zeal, and eloquence, whom I never hard preache bot he meltit my hart with teares.” MS. Diary, 23. See also note C   , at the end of this volume.

285  –

Bannatyne, 386.

286  –

Memoires de Sully, tom. i. 16. Paris, 1664. Brantosme Memoires, apud Jurieu, Apologie pour la Reformation, tom. 420. Smetoni Respons. ad Hamilt. Dial. p. 117. Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 388–396.

287  –

The papal bull for the jubilee may be seen in Strype’s Life of archbishop Parker. Append. No. 68, p. 108.

288  –

The regent Mar issued a proclamation on this occasion, summoning a general convention of deputies from all parts of the kingdom, to deliberate on the measures proper to be adopted for defence against the cruel and treasonable conspiracies of the papists. Bannatyne, 397–401. Strype has inserted the preamble, and one of the articles, of a supplication presented by this convention to the regent and council. Annals, ii. 180, 181. This may be compared with the more full account of their proceedings, in Bannatyne, 406–411.

289  –

Bannatyne, 401, 402.

290  –

Smetoni Responsio, 118. The house which the Reformer possessed is situated near the bottom of the High Street, a little below the Fountain well. These three words are inscribed on the wall, ΘΕΟΣ, DEUS, G   OD.

291  –

As it is unnecessary to repeat the quotations, the reader may be informed, once for all, that the account of the Reformer’s last illness and death is taken from the following authorities:—“Eximii viri Joannis Knoxii, Scoticanæ Ecclesiæ instauratoris, Vera extremæ vitæ et obitus Historia,” published by Thomas Smeton, principal of the university of Glasgow, at the end of his “Responsio ad Hamiltonii Dialogum. Edinburgi, apud Johannem Rosseum. Pro Henrico Charteris. Anno Do. 1579. Cum Privilegio Regali:”—“Journal of the Transactions in Scotland, (Annis) 1570–1573, by Richard Bannatyne, secretary to John Knox,” 413–429, edited from an authentic MS. by J. Graham Dalyell, Esq. Anno 1806:—Spotswood’s History, p. 265–267. Anno 1677: and Calderwood’s MS. History, ad ann. 1572; copy in Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh, transcribed anno 1634. The two first of these works contain the most ancient and authentic narratives, both being written at the time of the event, and by persons who were eye and ear witnesses of what they relate.

292  –

This speech is translated from the Latin of Smeton, which accounts for the difference of style which the attentive reader must have remarked.

293  –

After the castle surrendered, and Kircaldy was condemned to die, Lindsay attended him at his earnest desire, and received much satisfaction from conversation with him. When he was on the scaffold, he desired the minister to repeat Knox’s last words respecting him, and said that he hoped they would prove true. James Melville had this information from Lindsay. MS. Diary, p. 29, 30. See also Spotswood, 266, 272.

294  –

Morton afterwards acknowledged that he did know of the murder; but excused himself for concealing it. “The quene,” he said, “was the doare thareof;” and as for the king, he was “sic a bairne, that there was nothing tauld him but he wald reveill it to hir agane.” Bannatyne, 494, 497.

295  –

The regent Mar died on the 29th of October preceding. The nobility were at this time assembled at Edinburgh to choose his successor, and it was understood that Morton would be raised to that dignity. He was elected regent on the day of Knox’s death. Bannatyne, 411, 412, 427. The author of the Historie of King James the Sext says, that the regent died October 18, and adds, “efter him dyed Johne Knox in that same moneth,” p. 197. But he has mistaken the dates.

296  –

Morton gave this account of his conference with the Reformer to the ministers who attended him before his execution. Being asked if he had not found Knox’s admonition true, he replied, “I have fand it indeid.” Morton’s Confession. Bannatyne, 508, 509.

297  –

“Manum itaque, quasi nouas vires jamjam moriturus concipiens, cœlum versus erigit, duobusque emissis suspiriis, e mortali corpore emigrauit, citra vllum aut pedum aut aliarum partium corporis motum, vt potius dormire quam occidisse videretur.” Smetoni Responsio, p. 123.

298  –

Cald. MS. ad ann. 1572. Bannatyne, 429. Spotswood, 267. The area of the Parliament Square was formerly the churchyard of St Giles. Some think that he was buried in one of the aisles of his own church. The place where the Reformer preached is that which is now called the Old Church. It has, however, undergone a great change since his time. The space now occupied by the pulpit and the greater part of the seats, was then an aisle; and the church was considerably more to the north of the building than at present. The small church fitted up for him a few weeks before his death is called, by Bannatyne, the Tolbooth. Whether it was exactly that part of the building now called the Tolbooth church I do not know.

299  –

Some verses to the Reformer’s memory may be seen in Note AA   .

300  –

See Note BB   .

301  –

Senelier, Hist. Lit. de Geneve, i. 377.

302  –

The reader should observe, that the word servant, or servitor, was then used with greater latitude than it is now, and in old writings often signifies the person whom we call by the more honourable names of clerk, secretary, or man of business. As the drawing of the principal ecclesiastical papers, and the compiling of the history of public proceedings, were committed to our Reformer, from the time of his last return to Scotland, he kept a person of this description in his family, and Bannatyne held the situation.

303  –

Journal, 104, 105.

304  –

i.e.    labour.

305  –

Bannatyne, 427, 429.

306  –

Smetoni Resp. ad Hamilt. Dial. p. 95, 115.

307  –

Calfhill’s Answere to the Treatise of the Crosse: Preface to the Readers, fol. 18, a. Lond. 1565. This writer was cousin to Toby Matthews, archbishop of York; and in the Convocation which met in 1562, sat as a representative of the clergy of London, and the canons of Oxford. Strype, Annals, i. 289, 292–3.

308  –

See vol. i. 236, 387–8.

309  –

Harborowe for faithful and Trewe Subjects, B. B. 2. C. C. 2. Strype’s Life of Aylmer, p. 238.

310  –

Strype’s Life of Grindal, p. 19, 20.

311  –

Burnet, vol. ii. Appendix, part iii. B. vi. p. 351, 352.

312  –

In a dedication of Knox’s “Exposition of the Temptation of Christ,” John Field, the publisher, says: “If ever God shall vouchsafe the church so great a benefite; when his infinite letters, and sundry other treatises shall be gathered together, it shall appear what an excellent man he was, and what a wonderfull losse that church of Scotland susteined when that worthie man was taken from them.—If, by yourselfe or others, you can procure any other his writings or letters here at home, or abroad in Scotland, be a meane that we may receive them. It were great pittie that any the least of his writinges should be lost: for he evermore wrote both godly and diligently, in questions of divinitie, and also of church policie; and his letters being had togeather, would togeather set out an whole historie of the churches where he lived.”

313  –

In a sermon preached by him at Paul’s Cross, before the Parliament of England, Feb. 9, 1588, on 1 John iv. 1, printed in 1588, and reprinted in 1636. He enlarged on the subject in two posterior treatises, the one entitled, “Dangerous Positions; or Scottish Genevating, and English Scottizing:” The other, “A Survey of the Pretended Holy Discipline.”

314  –

John Davidson, minister first at Libberton, and afterwards at Prestonpans, answered Bancroft in a book entitled, “Dr Bancroft’s Rashnes in Rayling against the Church of Scotland;” printed at Edinburgh, 1590.

315  –

Cald. MS. ad an. 1570; quarto copy in Advocates’ Library, vol. ii. p. 260, 261.

316  –

De Thuani Histor. Successu apud Jacobum I. Mag. Brit. Regem: Thuani Hist. tom. vii. pars v. edit. Buckley, 1733. Laing’s Hist. of Scotland, i. 228–241. 2nd edit.

317  –

History, 261.

318  –

Whitaker’s Vindication of Queen Mary, passim   . The same writer designs Buchanan “a serpent—daring calumniator—leviathan of slander—the second of all human forgers, and the first of all human slanderers.” Dr Robertson he calls “a disciple of the old school of slander—a liar—and one for whom bedlam is no bedlam.”

319  –

See Extracts from his Letters to “Mrs Locke, 6th April, 1559,” and to “A Friend in England, 19th August, 1569;” published in the Appendix.

320  –

Robertson, Hist. of Scotland.

321  –

“Haud scio an unquam—magis ingenium in fragili et imbecillo corpusculo collocarit.” Smetoni Respons. ad Dialog. Hamilt. p. 115.

322  –

A print of him, cut in wood, was inserted by Beza, in his Icones. There is another in Verheideni Imagines. See also Grainger’s Biographical History of England, i. 164.

323  –

Henry Fowlis, apud Mackenzie’s Lives of Scottish Writers, ii. 132. The learned    Fellow of Lincoln College had perhaps discovered that the magical virtue which the popish writers ascribed to Knox, resided in his beard.

324  –

“Audivi mente captos hereticos Scotos eo etiam insaniæ aliquando venisse, quod sceleratissimi, atque omnium literarum imperitissimi nebulonis Knox, pessimi hæretici, qui omnes imagines sanctorum frangi præceperat, imaginem suam non tam fabricari passum fuisse, quam jam fabricatam non parum probasse.” Laingæus de Vita et Moribus Hæretic. p. 65–66. The same writer tells us, as a proof of Calvin’s vain‑glory, that he allowed his picture to be carried about on the necks of men and women, like that of a God; and that, when reminded that the picture of Christ was as precious as his, he returned a profane answer; “fertur eum hoc tantum respondisse, Qui huic rei invidet crepet medius   .” Ibid.

325  –

Letter to the Faithfull in London, Newcastell, and Barwick; in MS. Letters, p. 113.

326  –

Bannatyne, 111, 112, 420, 421.

327  –

See the Epistle to the Reader, prefixed to his Sermon, Append. to History, p. 113. Edin. 1644, 4to.

328  –

Cicero de Divinat. lib. i. 4.

329  –

This is acknowledged by one who had attempted this more frequently, and with greater acuteness, than any of them. “De tels faits, dont l’univers est tout plein, embarrassent plus les esprits forts qu’ils ne le temoignent.” Bayle, Dictionnaire, Art. Maldonat, Note G. What he says, elsewhere, of dreams, may be applied to this subject; “they contain infinitely less mystery than the multitude believe, and a little more than sceptics believe; and those who reject them wholly, give reason either to suspect their sincerity, or to charge them with prejudice and incapacity to discern the force of evidence.” Ibid. Art. Majus, Note D.

330  –

“Setting aside these sorts of divination as extremely suspicious,” says a modern author, who was not addicted to enthusiastic notions, “there remain predictions by dreams, and by sudden impulses, upon persons who were not of the fraternity of impostors; these were allowed to be sometimes preternatural by many of the learned pagans, and cannot, I think, be disproved, and should not be totally rejected.” Dr Jortin’s Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 93. See also p. 45, 77. Lond. 1805. The learned reader may also consult the epicrisis of Witsius on this question: the whole dissertation, intended chiefly to expose the opposite extreme, is well entitled to a perusal. Miscellanea Sacra, tom. i. p. 391.

331  –

Newcourt’s Repert. Londin. ii. 154. Communications from Mr Thomas Baker, apud Life of Knox, prefixed to Historie of the Reformation, edit. 1732, p. xli. xlii.

332  –

Melville’s MS. Diary, p. 39. See also Note CC   .

333  –

Douglas’s Peerage of Scotland, p. 522.

334  –

The Testament of John Knox, in the Appendix.

335  –

He was the grandfather of Mr Robert Fleming, minister in London, and author of the well known Book, The Fulfilling of the Scriptures. But Mr Robert’s father was of a different marriage. Fleming’s Practical Discourse on the Death of King William, preface, p. 14. Lond. 1702.

336  –

See Note DD   .

337  –

Matthew Crawfurd’s History of the church of Scotland, MS. vol. i. 258–283. The Reformation of Religion in Scotland, written by Mr John Forbes, MS. p. 131–151. The copy of this last work, which is in my possession, was transcribed “ex Authoris autographo,” in the year 1726. The author was one of the condemned ministers. His narrative properly begins at the year 1580, but is chiefly occupied in detailing the transactions which preceded and followed the Assembly at Aberdeen.

338  –

Row’s MS. Historie, p. 111, 122.

339  –

“Very well; you shall be my minister.”

340  –

History of Mr John Welch, p. 31–33. Edinburgh, 1703. Characteristics of Eminent Ministers, subjoined to Livingston’s Life: Art. John Welch. Mr Livingston received his account of the above transactions in France, from Lord Kenmure, who resided in Mr Welch’s house. The author of the History of Welch, says, that he received his information from the personal acquaintances of that minister. That work was drawn up by Mr James Kirkton, who married a descendant of Knox, and consequently a relation of Mrs Welch. See the article concerning Knox’s descendants in Additions. The Life of Welch contains an account of an extraordinary occurrence relating to the first Lord Castlestewart, (ancestor of Lord Castlereagh,) who, when a young man, lodged with Mr Welch in France.

341  –

Asked.

342  –

Enjoyed.

343  –

Receive.

344  –

I met with the account of this conversation in a MS. written by Mr Robert Traill, minister in London, entitled, “An Accompt of several passages in the lives of some eminent men in the nation, not recorded in any history.” It is inserted in the heart of a common‑place book, containing notes of sermons, &c, written by him when a student of divinity at St Andrews, between 1659 and 1663. He received the account from aged persons, and says, that the conference between King James and Mrs Welch “is current to this day in the mouths of many.” I have since seen the same story in Wodrow’s MS. Collections, vol. i. Life of Welch, p. 27, Bibl. Coll. Glass. James stood in great awe of Mr Welch, who often reproved him for his habit of profane swearing. If he had, at any time, been swearing in a public place, he would have turned round, and asked, if Welch was near. Traill’s MS. ut supra.

345  –

Obituary of Robert Boyd of Trochrig, in Wodrow’s MS. Collections, vol. v. p. 145, 148. Bannatyne Miscellany, vol. i. p. 291, 295. See Mrs Welch’s Testament, in the Appendix.

346  –

Preface to his Sermon, apud History, p. 113. Edin. 1644.

347  –

Those who have not directed their attention to this point cannot easily conceive to what extent the translation of foreign theological books into our language was carried at that time. There was scarcely a book of any celebrity published in Latin by the continental reformers, that did not appear in an English version. Bibliographers, and the annalists of printing, are very defective in the information which they communicate on this branch.

348  –

It is to this that Ninian Winget refers in one of his letters addressed to Knox. “Gif ye, throw curiositie of novationis, hes forzet our auld plane Scottis, quhilk zour mother lernit zow, in tymes coming I sall wrytt to zow my mynd in Latin, for I am nocht acquyntit with zour Southeroun   .” Keith, Append. 254.

349  –

Knox’s practical writings have been lately collected and reprinted. This, so far as it may have arisen, even indirectly, from what I have done in illustrating the events of his life, I regard as one of the most pleasing fruits of my labour; nor do I regret (though I did regret it) that the work has issued from the press of London, instead of Edinburgh.

350  –

See Note EE   .

351  –

See Note FF   . It may be proper to notice that our Reformer’s writings had the honour of being marked in the Index Expurgatorius of Rome. “Joannes Chnoxus Scotus” occurs in Index Librorum Prohibitorum, p. 49. Rothomagi, 1625.

352  –

In the page referred to, this is, by mistake, described as Note L.

353  –

It is probable that the words which puzzled Hay should be read, and condemn your awin doinges   .

354  –

The Greek word is inserted with a pen.

355  –

History of the Church and Parish of St Cuthbert, or West Kirk of Edinburgh, p. 38. Edin. 1829.

356  –

The first five Nos. are religious letters; the rest contain historical matter.

357  –

The following letters from Calderwood, have been corrected by comparing different copies. The style has evidently been modernized.

358  –

He seems to refer here to his History of the Reformation.

359  –

Referring, most probably, to his treatise against Female Government.

360  –

“They were summoned,” or some such words, must be supplied here.

361  –

There is a mistake here as to the date. Knox arrived on the 2d of May. See vol. i. p. 246, 256.

362  –

Are we to infer from this that the protestant ministers had desisted from preaching while they were outlawed? I do not, indeed, recollect of an instance of any of them, except Knox, preaching during that time.

363  –

See vol. i. p. 37, 38.

364  –

soldiers.

365  –

pressed, endeavoured.

366  –

shift.

367  –

grateful.

368  –

excellent.

369  –

royalty.

370  –

changes situation.

371  –

know a trick.

372  –

juggle.

373  –

acquainted, or (perhaps) crafty.

374  –

feigned affair.

375  –

butt, or mark.

376  –

I regard nothing what worthless fellows, &c.

377  –

language.

378  –

the devil.

379  –

ready.

380  –

press, difficulty.

381  –

extol.

382  –

wicked.

383  –

without.

384  –

confederate.

385  –

defend.

386  –

enmity.

387  –

plea, controversy.

388  –

reckon in that rank.

389  –

cherish.

390  –

diligently.

391  –

dragging.

392  –

maimed, or disgraced.

393  –

conceal.

394  –

beat, or scourged.

395  –

Sir Wink‑at‑vice, an allegorical character.

396  –

described in this work.

397  –

probably, waynd ane wee, i.e.    swerve a little.

398  –

curtail.

399  –

a hotch‑potch.

400  –

one thing.

401  –

the hostility of strangers, and anger of relations.

402  –

conceal the truth.

403  –

anxiety.

404  –

plainly tell.

405  –

injure.

406  –

run mad.

407  –

without hinderance, when ye least think.

408  –

barter.

409  –

gainze    signifies sometimes an engine for throwing weapons, and sometimes the weapon thrown.

410  –

lay or song.

411  –

shining, blazing.

412  –

good fellow, bon vivant   .

413  –

thought nothing too much.

414  –

ragamuffin, vagabond.

415  –

fraternity, alluding to the fastings of the friars.

416  –

treasure.

417  –

attempts to meddle.

418  –

smoke.

419  –

above.

420  –

trouble, contention.

421  –

bugle‑horn.

422  –

Thou knowest he loved thee above the rest.

423  –

pull.

424  –

repent.

425  –

but shipwrecked without rescue.

426  –

See vol. i. p. 28.

427  –

See vol. i. 357.

428  –

See vol. i. 356.

429  –

See vol. i. p. 51, 67.

430  –

See vol. i. p. 40.

431  –

See vol. i. p. 41.

432  –

See vol. i. p. 362, 364.

433  –

Dundee.

434  –

The name of Schir John Knox    occurs as a witness to a deed concerning Rannelton Law, dated 8th March, 1541, and preserved in an old volume of Protocols, belonging to the burgh of Haddington. There is good reason to think that our Reformer is the person named in that deed, which, in this view, confirms the statement in vol. i. p. 12, that he was in priests’ orders before he left the church of Rome.

435  –

See vol. i. p. 171. Vol. ii. p. 178   .

436  –

See vol. ii. p. 328   .

437  –

See vol. i. p. 174.

438  –

I have not met elsewhere with any notice of Brebner or Bremner   .

439  –

i.e.    of Montrose.

440  –

See vol. i. p. 31, 410.

441  –

See vol. ii. p. 15   .

442  –

See vol. ii. p. 213   .

443  –

See vol. ii. p. 18   .

Transcriber’s Notes.

The following corrections have been made in the text:

1  –

‘add she’ replaced with ‘adds he’

(be assured,” adds he, “I sal)

2  –

‘Leat’ replaced with ‘Lest’

(Lest that the rumours of)

3  –

‘anwers’ replaced with ‘answers’

(His answers to Bancroft, ii. 241.)

4  –

‘ii. 428’ replaced with ‘i. 277’

(Released, i. 277.)

5  –

‘sermous’ replaced with ‘sermons’

(Attends Knox’s sermons, i. 177.)

6  –

‘Note L’ replaced with ‘Note M’

(See Note M.)

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

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

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

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

LIFE OF JOHN KNOX

CONTENTS OF VOLUME SECOND.

PERIOD VII.

PERIOD .

PERIOD .

NOTES TO VOLUME SECOND.

APPENDIX, CONSISTING OF LETTERS WRITTEN BY KNOX, AND OTHER PAPERS, HITHERTO UNPUBLISHED.

SUPPLEMENT.

PERIOD .

Footnotes.

Transcriber’s Notes.

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE