



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)









  ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │                                                                │
  │                      Transcriber’s Notes                       │
  │                                                                │
  │                                                                │
  │  Punctuation has been standardized.                            │
  │                                                                │
  │  Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps.      │
  │                                                                │
  │  The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has   │
  │  been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there    │
  │  is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image   │
  │  adequately.                                                   │
  │                                                                │
  │  The page numbers from the original book are shown in braces   │
  │  {} for reference purposes.                                    │
  │                                                                │
  │  Non-printable characteristics have been given the following   │
  │  transliteration:                                              │
  │      Italic text: --> _text_                                   │
  │      superscripts --> x{th}                                    │
  │                                                                │
  │  This book was written in a period when many words had         │
  │  not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have     │
  │  multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in   │
  │  the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated     │
  │  with a Transcriber’s Note.                                    │
  │                                                                │
  │  Footnotes are identified in the text with a number in         │
  │  brackets [2] and have been accumulated in a single section    │
  │  at the end of the text.                                       │
  │                                                                │
  │  Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the   │
  │  text or to provide additional information for the modern      │
  │  reader. These notes are not identified in the text, but have  │
  │  been accumulated in a single section at the end of the book.  │
  │                                                                │
  └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘




                Illustration: Engraved by J. Cochran.

                     JAMES STUART, EARL OF MURRAY.

                 FROM THE ORIGINAL IN THE COLLECTION AT

                      HOLYROOD PALACE, EDINBURGH.


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




{i}
                                 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.




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




{iii}
                               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 {iv} 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,                                         Page   1


                            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 <DW7>s 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 {v} 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,    Page 107


                            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
    {vi} 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 <DW7>s――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,     Page 180


  NOTES,                                                          281

  APPENDIX,                                                       374

  SUPPLEMENT,                                                     429

  INDEX,                                                          465




{1}
                               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, {2} 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, {3} 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 {4} 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 {5} 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
{6} 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, {7} 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.

{8} 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, {9} 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 {10} 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 {11} 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 {12} 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, {13} 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 {14} 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 {15} 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 {16} 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 {17} 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 {18}
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 {19}
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 {20} 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 {21} 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 {22} 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 {23} 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 <DW7>s 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]

{24} 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 {25}
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 {26} 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 {27} 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
<DW7>s; 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 {28} 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 {29} 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 <DW7> 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 {30} 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, {31}
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 {32} 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 {33} 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 {34} 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 <DW7> 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,
{35} 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 {36} 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.”

{37} “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 {38} 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 <DW7> 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 <DW7> cannot
patiently reason, and the learned and crafty <DW7> 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 {39} 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 {40} 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 {41} 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 {42} 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 {43} 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 {44} 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, {45} 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 <DW7>s 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 {46} 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 {47} 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, {48} 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 {49} 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 {50} 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,
{51} 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,
{52} “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 {53} 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 {54} 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 {55} 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, {56} 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 {57} 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]

{58} 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 {59} took arms in the north, to rescue the
queen from their hands; while the archbishop of St Andrews endeavoured
to unite and rouse the <DW7>s 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 {60} 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, {61} 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 {62} 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, {63} 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 {64} 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 {65} 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,” {66} 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 {67} 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
{68} 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, {69} 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 {70}
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 {71} 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 {72} 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 {73} 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 <DW7>s
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 {74} 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 {75} 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 {76} 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 {77} 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 {78} 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 <DW7>s 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 {79} 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 {80} 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 {81} 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 {82} 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 {83} 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 <DW7>s 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 {84} 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 {85} 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 {86} 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, {87}
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 {88} 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 <DW7>.

Protestants, as well as <DW7>s, 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) {89} 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 {90} 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 {91} 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
{92} 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 {93} 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 {94} 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 {95} 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 {96}
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 {97} 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 {98} 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 {99} 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,” {100} 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; {101} 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 {102} 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 {103} 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 <DW7>s 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 <DW7>s! 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 <DW7>s (within this realm I mean) shall
end in the murdering of these two brethren, now unjustly summoned, and
more unjustly to {104} 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
<DW7>s, 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 <DW7>s, 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.

{105} 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 {106}
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]




{107}
                             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 {108} 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]

{109} 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 {110} 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 {111} 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
{112} 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 {113}
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 {114} 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
{115} 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 {116}
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 {117}
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 {118} 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 {119} 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 {120} 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,
{121} 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 {122} 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 {123} 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, {124} 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 {125} 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, {126}
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
{127} 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 {128} 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, {129} 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 {130} 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 {131} 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 {132} 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 {133} 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] {134} 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 <DW7> {135} 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 <DW7>s, who had accompanied him to church, inflamed
his resentment and that of the queen by their representations.

{136} 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 {137}
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 {138} 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 {139} 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, {140} 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 {141}
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 {142} 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 {143} 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 {144} 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]

{145} 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 {146} 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 {147} 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 {148} 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]

{149} 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 {150} 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, {151} 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; {152}
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]

{153} 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 {154} 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 {155} 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 {156} 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]

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

{172} 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: {173} “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 {174} 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 {175} 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]

{176} 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 {177} 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 {178} 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
{179} of the high consideration in which he was held, which our
Reformer received in common with other great men of his age![225]




{180}
                              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 {181} 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 {182} 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.

{183} 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 {184} 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 {185} 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.

{186} 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 {187} 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]

{188} 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 {189}
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 {190} 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 {191} 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,
{192} 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 {193} 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,
{194} 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 {195} 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 {196} 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.

{197} 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 {198} 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 {199}
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 {200} 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, {201} 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,
{202} 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 {203} 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 {204}
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 {205} 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 {206}
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 {207} 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 {208} 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 {209} 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 {210} 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 {211} 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 {212} 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, {213} 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
{214} 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 {215} 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 {216} 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 {217} 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. {218} 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]

{219} 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 {220} 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 {221} 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, {222} 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 {223} 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. {224} “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]

{225} 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 {226} 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 {227} 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 {228} 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
{229} 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,” {230}
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 {231} 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 {232} 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 {233} 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 {234} 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 {235} 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 {236} 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 {237} 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 {238} 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. {239} 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 {240} 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]

{241} 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 {242} 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 {243}
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 {244} 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 {245} 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, {246} 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 {247} 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 {248}
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, {249} 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 {250} 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 {251}
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 {252} 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 {253} 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 {254} 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 {255} 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 {256} 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 {257} 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 {258} 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, {259} 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 {260} 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 {261}
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 {262} 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 {263} 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 {264} 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 {265} 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 {266} 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 {267}
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 {268} 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 {269} 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. {270} 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 {271} 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 {272}
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]

{273} 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 {274} 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
{275} 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 {276} 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 {277}
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 {278} 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, {279} 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 {280} 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.




{281}
                                NOTES
                                  TO
                            VOLUME SECOND.


                         Note A, Footnote 16.

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, {282} 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.

{283} _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
{284} 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 {285} 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, {286} 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, Footnote 20.

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

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, {288}
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, {289} 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 {290} 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.


{291}
                         Note C, Footnote 22.

_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 w{t} 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 w{t} M. Johne Row for the provestrie of Kirkfield, and
caus M. Alex{r} Forres send his mandat to ratify the xx{li} 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 Ed{r} 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
{292} 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, {293} (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 {294} 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, {295} 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, Footnote 23.

_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 xxxij{s}. Sum̅a, xvij{li} xij{s}, &c. &c.

“Aug{t} 1537. Item, to Maist{r} George Buchquhanan, at the king’s
command, xx{li}.

[July 1537.] “Item, for vi elnis paris blak to be Maister George
Balquhanan ane gown, price of the elne xxxvi{s}. Sum̅a, x{li} xvi{s}.”
[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 {296} tutor to
the regent’s children at Paris. In an accompt entitled “The archden
of Sanctandros memo{le} 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,
v{c} franks.

“And I haif left with M. Patric Balquhannan in ane steil box v{c}
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 liiij{o}, 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 w{t} ane clois writting of my lord regent g. to maister
George Buchquhannane, v{s}.

“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 vij{li}. Sum̅a, xxxviij{li} x{s}.

“Item, to him ane sleik of chamlot of silk, xxij{li}.

“Item, ij elnis ij quarteris of Londoun claith, the eln iiij{li} x{s}.
Summa, xij{li} vij{s} vj{d}.” [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, {297} 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 {298}
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, Footnote 26.

_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 {299}
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 {300} 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 <DW7>s.

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 {301} 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, Footnote 28.

_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 {302} 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
1569/70, 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, Footnote 32.

_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, {303} 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 {304} 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 {305} 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, Footnote 37.

_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.


{306}
                         Note I, Footnote 39.

_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 <DW7>s 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 {307} 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, Footnote 59.

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.” {308} 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 {309} 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, Footnote 64.

                      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 I{m} v{c} 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 {310}
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 Jo{n} 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, Footnote 75.[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, {311} 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, Footnote 88.

_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 {312} 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 {313} 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, {314} 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 {315} 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 {316} 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, Footnote 95.

_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 <DW7>s 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.


{317}
                        Note P, Footnote 100.

_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: {318} 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, {319} 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, Footnote 113.

_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, {320} 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 {321} 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 {322} 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, Footnote 114.

_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 {323} obtained the
vindication of his character, prevailed on the judges not to inflict
punishment on the accuser.


                        Note S, Footnote 115.

_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 <DW7>s, 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 (324) 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 {325} 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 {326} 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 {327} 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 {328} 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
“<DW25> 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 {329} 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, Footnote 124.

_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
{330} 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 {331} him many years. James owed the safety of his crown
to another cause. See above, p. 274.


                        Note U, Footnote 161.

_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 {332} 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, {333} 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 {334} 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, Footnote 190.

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 {335} 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, Footnote 209.

_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 {336} 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 {337} 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 {338} 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 {339} 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 {340} 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 {341} 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 {342}
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,
<DW7>s 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
{343} 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, Footnote 218.

_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 {344} 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 {345} 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, Footnote 251.

_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 {346} 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 {347} 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 {348} 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, ROBERTꝰ PONTA‑
                       Nꝰ 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, Footnote 272.

_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
{349} 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. {350} 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, Footnote 299.

_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.

{351} 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, Footnote 300.

_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 {352} 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 {353} 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, Footnote 332.

_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 umq{ll} Mr Henry Fowlis of Colingtown, takesman and
fermorar of the kirk of Haillis, aganis Margaret Stewart, relict of
umq{ll} 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 {354} of the hoppis;”
setting forth that both these parties demanded from her, the said
Margaret Halden, “the sowme of 1{c} pundis w{t} the kirkland of Currie,
viz., the thrid of the personage of Currie, extending to lxiiij{li}
viij{s} x{d} and thrid pairt penny, and the rest extending to xxxv{li}
xi{s} 1{d} 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, 1{m} v{c} 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 1{m} v{c} 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 1{m} v{c} 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 1{m} v{c} 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 {355}
of payment of his stipend, the soume of ane hundreth pundis, as his
acquittance beris,                                           j{c li}.

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

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

“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,       j{c 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,
                                                              xl{li}.

“Alsua the comptare aucht to be discharged of the prices of six
chalderis beir at twa merkis the boll, and four chalder aittis at xx{s}
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                    ij{c} xxiiij{li}.

“The Comp{t} of Schir Williame Murray of Tullybardin, knight
comptroller and collector generall of the thriddis of the benefices,
&c. At Ed{r}. 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 I{m} v{c} lxvj yeiris
baith silver and victuall at command of my lord regentis precept, as
the same and his acquittance producit upon compt proportis,
                                  ij{c} lxxxij {lib} xiij{s} iiij{d}.

“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.
                                      j{c} xxxiij{li} vi{s} viij{d}.”


{356}
                        Note DD. Footnote 336.

_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 Feb{y}, 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 1000{m}, as per
contract between parties at Schyrismylne, 8 Apr. 1596. Reg{d} 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,
w{t} consent of Mr Jo{n} Ker, minister at Preston, and Mr Ja{s} Knox,
ane of the regents of the College of Ed{n},” 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 Jo{n} Ker, sone to umq{ll} 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 {357} 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 {358}
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, Footnote 350.

_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 {359} 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 {360} 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 {361}
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 {362} 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. {363} 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, Footnote 351.

_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,

  {364}     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 {365} 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 {366} 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 {367} 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 {368} 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 {369} 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 {370} 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 {371} 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 {372}
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 {373} 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.”




{374}
                              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 {375} 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.

{376} 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, {377} 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 {378} 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 {379} 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 {380} 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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{381}
                    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 {382}
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 {383} 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 {384} 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, my{t} 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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{385}
                    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 {386} 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 yo{r} 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
w{ch} 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 w{ch} may appear {387}
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, w{ch}
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 yo{r} wief and dowghter hartlie in my nam. the
grace of our lord Jesus Christ rest w{t} you now and euer. from geneva
the 18 of May, 1558.

                        Your brother to power,

                                                          Johne Knox.

I yo{r} sister the writer herof saluteth you and yo{r} wief most
hartlie thanking hir of hir loving tokens w{ch} 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 {388} 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 {389} 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. {390} 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
{391} 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 {392} 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 {393} 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 {394} 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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{395}
                        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 {396} 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 {397} 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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{398}
                     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 {399} 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 S{r}, 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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{400}
                       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 <DW7>s, 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 {401}
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 {402} 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 {403} 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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{404}
            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 y{t} 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 {405} 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 {406} 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 Ro{t} Pont can informe you more amplie, to whais
sufficiencie we remitt the rest. Moreover, at our coming at Ab{d}
y{r} 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, y{t} 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 y{t} sall happin to vaike, q{r}
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 y{e} sacrament, q{r}in we could
not have sick expeditioun as we wold have wischet, because {407} we
have no uther probabilitie whereby to try and convict y{m}, but ane
generall delation of names, y{e} persons suspect not being for the
most part tryit and convict be ordour of the kirk of befoir. This
hindrit many things q{lk} utherwayes might have bein done, and y{r}
fore 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 y{e} 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. y{e} 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 S{r} Raph
Bowes of Streatlam Knight (& of his wife Marjory daughter & one of
ye heirs of S{r} Richard Conyers of South Cowton Knt). He married
Elizabeth ye daughter & one of ye co‑heirs of S{r} Roger Aske of Aske
K{t} & by hir had issue S{r} George Bowes ye Knight Marshall & at
length heire maile of the whole family of Bowes: Robert Bowes 2{d}
sonne: and ten daughters: viz. 1. Bridgit married to Thomas Hussey
Esq{r}. ye next heire maile to ye Lord Hussey. 2. Eliz. mar{d} John
Bainbrigge of Snotterton Esq. 3. Anne mar{d} 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
{408} 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.

{409}
                    Radulphus Bowes ╤ Margeria filia et coheres
                 Miles (4th son but │ Richardi Conyers Militis
                 at last heir) made │
              his will 1482, 8 Jul. │
  ────┬──────────────────────┬──────┴────────────┬───────┐
  Radulphus ╤ Eliz.        Robert ╤ Alicia     John   Richard ╤ Eliz.
      Bowes │ filia         Bowes │ filia      s.p.     Bowes │ fil. &
      Miles │ Domini        Miles │ Jacobi           4 filias │ una her.
            │ Clifford   Magister │ Medcalfi                  │ Roger
            │           Rotulorum │ Militis                   │ Aske de
            │       ──────────────┴──────────                 │ Aske.
            │       4 filii omnes obier. s.p.                 │
            │                                                 │
  ────┬─────┘                                                 │
  Georgius ╤ Muriella                                         │
  Bowes de │ filia                                            │
  Stretlam │ Willimi                                          │
     Miles │ Domini                                           │
           │ Eure                                             │
     ┌─────┴────┬────────────┬─────────┐      ┌────────────┬──┴──────┐
  Radulphs  Eliz. Uxor    Dorothea   Anna ╤ Robert   2. Georgius     │
     ob.    Johannis      Uxor            │ Bowes       Bowes de     │
   juvenis  Blaxton de    Cuthberti       │ 5 fil.      Stretlam     │
            Blaxton arm.  Collingwood     │             Miles &      │
                             ─────────────┘             heres        │
                             Rads Bowes de              masculus     │
                             Barnes arm.                totius       │
                             Com. Pal 1615              nominis      │
                                   ⫛                    Miles        │
                                                        Marescallus  │
                                                        &c. &c.      │
                                                                     │
               ┌─────────────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────┘
            Anna uxor               Brigetta uxor       1 Ralph
            Marmad. Vincent.        Tho. Hussey Arm.    5 Francis
            Murrella ux.                                4 Christops.
            Joh. Jackson.                                 obier.
            Eliz. ux.                                     infant.
            Georgii Bainbrigg.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{410}
                  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 i{m} v{c} 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 w{t} 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 Ja{rii} 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 hundē{t} pundes.
Item his buikis alsweill vpoun the Scriptures as vyer ꝓphane authors
wor{t} vi{xx} and x li. Item in vtensile & domicile the airschip being
deducit to the avail of xxx li.

Sūma Inventarii.――――ii{c} 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 W{m} 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 {411} 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 res{ive}
underspecifeit viz. of the crope and zeir of god i{m} v{c} 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 i{m} v{c} 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 y{r}of 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, i{m} v{c} 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 i{m} v{c} lxxii zeiris.
In the first be Williame m̅chingstoun in Inneresk thre bollis tua
firlottis tua peckis quheit. Be {412} 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 fo{r} 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 W{m} Boswall hir sone tuelf bollis beir. W{m} 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 viz{t} 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 i{m} v{c} 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 kny{t}, for
the vy{r} 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, {413} neyer for his males
of the lands of Pinkie for the t̃mes of Witsonday and m̅tymes In the
said zeir of god i{m} v{c} 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 i{m} v{c} 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 i{m} v{c} 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 y{r}of 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 W{m} m̅chinston thair for his few maill
xxvii s. x d.

  Summa of the detis abone writtin } viii{c} xxx li. xix s. vi d.
    awing to ye deid               }

  Na detis awing be the deid

  Summa of ye Inventare w{t} ye    } i{m} v{c} xxvi li. xix s. vi d.
    detis awing to the deid        }

  To be Diuidit in thre ꝓtis ye    } iii{c} lxxv li. xiii s. ii d.
    deidis pairt y{r}of extends to }

                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 w{t}
dyuers ꝓsonages of the mīistrie q{r}unto god of his m̅cie erectit me
w{t} 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 {414} 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 y{r} rebellioun aganis God, according as God in his law
gevis to me zit testimonie, & raising vp the ǫsciences trublit with
the knawledge of y{r} 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 y{r} 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 Edinbur{t}, 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 o{r} lord Jesus, bot I luik to this
sentence, that quhasaeuir scheddis Innocent bluid defyles the land
and provoikis Godis wrath aganis {415} 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
my{t} or may spair to mak out the said sowme, for I ressavit of y{r}is
bot ane hundre{t} merkis sterling, qlk I of my povirtie extendit to
fyve hundre{t} 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 w{t} E. B. N. And in
like mnner ye toyir w{t} ye same m̅k and lēres, The wecht of ye saidis
tua cuipis contenand xxii vnce, or y{r}by, Tua salt fattis of sylver
and xviii sylver spvnes, weyand xxxiiii z. and ane q{r} 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 {416} 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 hundre{t} punds
w{t} ye syluer cuips spvnes saltfattis and buikis to return agane as
eftir followis, That is to say, ye ane equale half y{r}of 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 hundre{t} 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 Kinzeanclew{t} & 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 y{r} 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

Ro{t} Watsoun witness

Johne Johnesstoun witness

Quotta gratis.

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

                  *       *       *       *       *


{417}
                 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 I{m}vj{c} 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,
viz{t} the Insycht of the hous in vtincillis and domicillis with the
abuilzement of the defunctis bodie estimat to iij{c} lxxx{li}.

    Summa of the Inuentar                             iij{c} lxxx{li}


                           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 ij{m} iij{c} xxxiij{li}
vj{s} viij{d}. Be Johnne Stewart burges yair vj{c} lxvj{li} xiij{m}
iiij{d}. Be the Lady Cesnokis and hir sone the laird of Cesnok, vj{c}
lxvj{li} xiij{s} iiij{d}. Be Archibald Dumbar, j{c} xxxiij{li} vj{s}
viij{d}. Be Vchtred M{c}Dowgall of Mondork lxvj{li} xiij{s} iiij{d}.
Be Johnne Stewart j{c} xxxiij{li} vj{s} viij{d}.

    Summa of the debtis in,                   iiij{m li}

    Summa of the inuentar and debtis,         iiij{m} iij{c} lxxx{li}


                          Debtis awand out.

Item, thair was awand be the defunct, the tyme foirsaid, the {418}
sowmes of money following:――To the persones eftir specifeit, viz. To
Jonet Kennedy of fie, xx{li}; to Bessie Ingrahame of fie, x{li}; to
Allan Cathcart, hir servand, of fie, xxx{li}.

    Summa of the debtis out,                                   lx{li}

    Restis frie geir, debtis deducit,           iiij{m} iij{c} xx{li}

                            Na diuisioune.

    Quota be compositioune,                         ij{c} xix merkis.


                               Legacie.

At Air, the aucht day of Januar, the zeir of God I{m} vj{c} tuentie
fyve zeiris, I, Elizabeth, relict of vmq{le} 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 Jo{nn} 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 {419}
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 I{m} vj{c} 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 {420} 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 <DW7> 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
advancem{t} of his glory notwithstanding the multitude of their
enemies. At the same meeting ther wer certen {421} 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 <DW7>s 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 {422} 15000_l._
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 <DW7>s
were agreed by reasone of the said summe promised by them to her, they
departed, leaving the <DW7>s 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 Ed{r} 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 <DW7>s
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 {423}
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, {424} 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
Ed{r}. {425} 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 {426} 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 {427} 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
kny{t}, 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 w{t}in 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 o{r} 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 w{t}in the sayde diocesy of Aberdene, that hes sic
bukys, or fauorys sic arorys of the said luthyr, and that ze confisk
y{r} gudes and inbring ye samyn to our wss and profict, efter the
forme of the said act, as ze will ansuer y{r}upoun, ye quhilk to do,
we commyt to you coniunctlie and seu{r}lie oure full power be thyr
oure {428} 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.




{429}
                             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 {430} 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.


{431}
                            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.


{432}
              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 {433} 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 {434} 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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{435}
                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,
  Maist strang and stark to rin to in distres,            12, 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
  {436} 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.
  Zit was he poysonit, as sum dois express,               10.
  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.
  {437} 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          1 Sam. 17. 18.
        fair,[374]                                        19. 20. 21.
  For quha sa list of Dauid for to reid,                  22. 29. 33.
  May se quhat enemies he had alquhair,
  And zit how surely he did ay proceid;                 2. Sam. 2. 3.
  Becaus he walkit vprichtly in deid.                     5. 8. 15. 16.
  He was mair sure from Saulis cruelnes,                  18. 20.
  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,
  {438} 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.

  {439}  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.

  {440}  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.

  {441}  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.                   Vide Sleidanum.
  And now in France that schame is for to schaw.
  Iames our gude Regent rakkin in that raw,[388]
  Quha had rung zit wer not his richteousnes.
  {442} 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.
  {443} 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,
  {444} 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;
  {445} 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,
  {446} 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.
  {447} 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,
  {448} 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,
  {449} 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.

  {450}   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,
  {451} 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.

  {452}   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:
  {453} 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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{454}
                         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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{455}
                       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.
  {456}   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.
  {457}   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.
  {458}   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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{459}
                       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.

                  *       *       *       *       *


{460}
                       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.
  {461}   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.
  {461}   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.

{463}
{464}




{465}
                                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.

{466}
    _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.

{467}
    _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.

{468}
    _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.

{469}
    _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 {470} 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 {471} 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 <DW7>, 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.

{472}
    _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 <DW7>s, 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 {473} 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.
      {474} 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, {475} 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.

{476}
    _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.

{477}

    _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.


{478}
                                  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.

{479}
    _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.
      {480} 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.

{481}
    _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.

{482}
    _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.

{483}
    _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.

{484}
    _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.

{485}
    _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.


{486}
                                  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
        w{t} 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
        <DW7>s] 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 <DW7>s 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
        <DW7>; 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 <DW7>s, 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 <DW7>s. 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, GOD.

  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:

  Page 66:
    Sentence starting: “Ye sal be assured,”....
    – ‘add she’ replaced with ‘adds he’
      (be assured,” adds he, “I sal)

  Page 390:
    Sentence starting: Lest that the rumours of....
    – ‘Leat’ replaced with ‘Lest’
      (Lest that the rumours of)

  Page 471:
    Item: _Davidson_, John.
    – ‘anwers’ replaced with ‘answers’
      (His answers to Bancroft, ii. 241.)

  Page 482:
    Item: _Protestant_ Preachers.
    – ‘ii. 428’ replaced with ‘i. 277’
      (Released, i. 277.)

  Page 484:
    Item: _Stewart_, Lord James,...
    – ‘sermous’ replaced with ‘sermons’
      (Attends Knox’s sermons, i. 177.)

  Footnote 75:
    – ‘Note L’ replaced with ‘Note M’
      (See Note M.)





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Life of John Knox, Fifth Edition, Vol.
2 of 2, by Thomas M'Crie

*** 