Chapter 12

Note K.Influence of Poetry in promoting the Reformation.—As theinfluence which the poets and satirists of the age had upon the Reformation, is a subject curious in itself, and to which little attention has been paid, the following illustrations of what has been generally stated in the text, may not be unacceptable to some readers. Dante, Petrarch, Boccacio, and other Italian writers, by descanting on the ambition, luxury, and scandalous manners of the clergy, had contributed greatly to lessen the veneration in which they had been long held, and to produce in the minds of men a conviction of the necessity of a reformation. “There was,” says John Gerson, chancellor of the university of Paris, “one called Johannes Meldinensis, who wrote a book called the Romaunt of the Rose, which book, if I only had, and that there were no more in the world, I would rather burn it than take five hundred pounds for the same; and if I thought the author thereof did not repent of that book before he died, I would no more pray for him, than I would for Judas that betrayed Christ.” Catal. MSS. in Adv. Lib. The writings of Chaucer, and especially those of Langland, had the same effect in England, When the religious struggle had actually commenced, and become hot, a diversion, by no means inconsiderable, was made in favour of the reformers by the satirists and poets of the age. A pantomime, intended to degrade the court of Rome and the clergy, was acted before Charles V. at the Augsburg assembly. Lud. Fabricius de Ludis Scenicis, p. 231. Gerdesii Historia Evangel. Renovat. tom. ii. Docum. No. vii. p. 48. In 1524, a tragedy was acted at Paris, in the presence of Francis I., in which the success of Luther was represented, and the pope and cardinals were ridiculed, by kindling a fire, which all their efforts could not extinguish. Jacob. Burchard. de Vita Ulrici Hutteni, pars ii. 293, pars iii. p. 296. Gerdes. Hist. iv. 315. As late as 1561, the pope’s ambassador complained to the queen mother of France, that the young king, Charles IX., had assisted at a show, in which he had counterfeited a friar. Letters of the cardinal de St Croix, prefixed to Aymons, Synodes Nationaux de France, tom. i. p. 7–11. In Switzerland, Nic. Manuel wrote certain comedies of this description in the year 1522, which were published under the title of Fastnachts Spielen, at Berne, in 1525. Gerdes. ii. 451. There were similar compositions in Holland. Brand’s Hist. of the Reformation, i. 127, 128.Lond. 1720. And also in England. Burnet’s Hist. of the Reform. i. 318. Nasmith, Catal. Libr. Manuscr. Colleg. Corporis Christi, p. 93.In Scotland, the same weapons were employed in attacking the church. The first protestant books circulated in Scotland came chiefly from England. Mr Chalmers has mentioned “the very first reforming treatise which was, probably, written in Scotland,” compiled by “Johne Gau,” and printed at Malmoe in Sweden, anno 1533. We would have been still more obliged to the learned author, if he had given us some idea of its contents, instead of dismissing it with the flourish, “Had all been like this!” which, whether he meant to apply to the elegance of the printing, or the orthodoxy of the sentiments, it is difficult to say. Caledonia, ii. 616. Calderwood seems to say that books against popery began to be printed in this country in 1543. MS. ad h. ann. But, previously to that period, the reformed sentiments were diffused by metrical and dramatic writings. The satire of Buchanan against the Franciscan friars, for which he was thrown into prison, was elegant and pungent, but, being written in Latin, it could be felt only by the learned. The same may be said as to his “Baptistes.” But a passion for Scottish poetry had been lately produced in the nation by the compositions of some of our ingenious countrymen, and this now began to be improved by the friends of the Reformation. Kennedy and Kyllor distinguished themselves in this line. See above, p.354.Kyllor’s Scripture‑drama was exhibited before James V. at Stirling, about the year 1535; and the most simple perceived the resemblance between the Jewish priests and the Scottish clergy, in opposing the truth, and persecuting its friends. Knox, 22. Soon after this, Alexander, Lord Kilmaurs, wrote his Epistle from the Hermit of Lareit to the greyfriars. Ibid. 24, 25. James Stewart, son of Lord Methven, composed poems and ballads in a similar strain, after the death of the vicar of Dollar; and Robert Alexander, advocate, published the earl of Errol’s “Testament,” in Scottish metre, which was printed at Edinburgh, Cald. MS. i. 103. James Wedderburn, son of a merchant in Dundee, converted the history of the beheading of John the Baptist into a dramatic form, and also the history of the tyrant Dionysius, which were acted atDundee. In both of these, the popish religion was attacked. Cald. MS. ad an. 1540. Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, p. 31.But the poet who had the greatest influence in promoting the Reformation was Sir David Lindsay. His “Satyre on the three Estates,” and his “Monarchies,” had this for their principal object. The former was acted at Cupar in Fife, in the year 1535; at Linlithgow, before the king and queen, the court, and country, in 1540; and at Edinburgh, before the queen regent, a great part of the nobility, and a vast number of people, in 1554. Chalmers’s Lindsay, i. 60, 61. Row says, that it was also acted “in the amphitheatre of St Johnstoun.” MS. History of the Kirk, p. 3. It exposed the avarice, luxury, and profligacy, of the religious orders; the temporal power and opulence of the bishops, with their total neglect of preaching; the prohibition of the reading of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue; the extolling of pardons, relics, &c. In his “Monarchies,” composed by him at a subsequent period, he traced the rise and progress of the papacy, and has discovered a knowledge of history, and of the causes that produced the corruption of Christianity, which would not disgrace any modern author. The poems of Lindsay were read by “every man, woman, and child.” Row has preserved an anecdote, which serves to illustrate their influence, and the manner in which the reformed sentiments were propagated at that period. Some time between 1550 and 1558, a friar was preaching at Perth in the church where the scholars of Andrew Simson attended public worship. In the course of his sermon, after relating some of the miracles wrought at the shrines of the saints, he began to inveigh bitterly against the Lutheran preachers who were going about the country, and endeavouring to withdraw the people from the Catholic faith. When he was in the midst of his invective, a loud hissing arose in that part of the church where the boys, to the number of three hundred, were seated, so that the friar, abashed and affrighted, broke off his discourse, and fled from the pulpit. A complaint having been made to the master, he instituted an enquiry into the cause of the disturbance, and to his astonishment found that it originated with the son of a craftsman in the town, who had a copy of Lindsay’s “Monarchies,” which he had read at intervals to his schoolfellows.When the master was about to administer severe chastisement to him, for the tumult which he had occasioned, and also for retaining in his possession such a heretical book, the boy very spiritedly replied, that the book was not heretical, requested his master to read it, and professed his readiness to submit to punishment, provided any heresy was found in it. This proposal appeared so reasonable to Simson that he perused the work, which he had not formerly seen, and was convinced of the truth of the boy’s statement. He accordingly made the best excuse which he could to the magistrates for the behaviour of his scholars, and advised the friar to abstain in future from extolling miracles, and from abusing the protestant preachers. From that time Simson was friendly to the Reformation. MS. Historie of the Kirk, p. 3, 4.In every protestant country, a metrical version of the Psalms, in the vernacular language, appeared at a very early period. The French version begun by Clement Marot, and completed by Beza, contributed much to the spread of the Reformation in France. The Psalms were sung by Francis I. and Henry II. and by their courtiers. The catholics flocked for a time to the assemblies of the protestants to listen to their psalmody. Bayle, Dictionnaire, art. Marot, Notes N, O, P. At a later period, cardinal Chastillon proposed to the papal ambassador, as the best method for checking the progress of heresy, that his holiness should authorize some “good and godly” songs to be sung by the French, “cantar alcune cose in lingua Francese, le quali pero fossero parole buono et sante, et prima approvate de sua Beatitudine.” Lettres de St Croix: Aymons, ut supra, tom. i. p. 7, 9, 11. It has been said, that there was a Scottish version of the Psalms at a very early period. Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, p. 35. It is more certain, that before the year 1546, a number of the Psalms were translated in metre; for George Wishart sung one of them in the house of Ormiston, on the night in which he was apprehended. Knox, Historie, p. 49. The two lines quoted by Knox answer to the beginning of the second stanza of the 51st Psalm, inserted in Scottish Poems of the 16th Century, p. 111. They were commonly sung in the assemblies of the protestants, in the year 1556. Knox, 96. John and Robert Wedderburn, brothers to the poet of that name mentioned above, appearto have been the principal translators of them. Cald. MS. i. 108, 109. The version was not completed; and at the establishment of the Reformation, it was supplanted in the churches, by the version begun by Sternhold and Hopkins, and finished by the English exiles at Geneva.But the most singular measure adopted for circulating the reformed opinions in Scotland was the composition of “Gude and godly ballates, changed out of prophaine sanges, for avoyding of sinne and harlotrie.” John and Robert Wedderburn were the chief authors of this work also. Cald. ut supra. Row’s Hist. of the Kirk, p. 4. The title sufficiently indicates their nature and design. The air, the measure, the initial line, or the chorus of the ballads most commonly sung by the people at that time, were transferred to hymns of devotion. Unnatural, indelicate, and gross as this association appears to us, these spiritual songs edified multitudes in that age. We must not think that this originated in any peculiar depravation of taste in our reforming countrymen. Spiritual songs constructed upon the same principle were common in Italy. Roscoe’s Lorenzo de Medici, i. 309. 4to. At the beginning of the Reformation, the very same practice was adopted in Holland as in Scotland. “The protestants first sung in their families, and private assemblies, the psalms of the noble lord of Nievelte, which he published in 1540, ut homines ab amatoriis, haud raro obscœnis, aliisque vanis canticis, quibus omnia in urbibus et vicis personabant, avocaret. Sed quia modulationes vanarum cantionum (alias enim homines non tenebant) adhibuerat,” &c. Gisberti Voetii Politica Ecclesiastica, tom. i. p. 534. Amstælod. 1663, 4to. Florimond de Remond objected to the psalms of Marot, that the airs of some of them were borrowed from vulgar ballads. A Roman Catholic version of the Psalms in Flemish verse, printed at Antwerp by Simon Cock, in 1540, has the first line of a ballad printed at the head of every psalm. Bayle, Dict. art. Marot. Note N. The spiritual songs of Colletet, although composed a century after our “Godly Ballates,” were constructed on still more exceptionable models. “Et moy, Monsieur,” says Mons. Jurieu, “je vous feray voir, quand il vous plaira, les cantiques spirituels de Colletet imprimés à Paris, chés Antoine de Raflé, avec privilege du Roy,de l’an 1660. Livre curieux, où vous trouverés des Noëls sur le chant de ce vaudeville infame qui commence,Il faut chanter une histoire de la femme d’un manant, &c. le reste est un conte scandeleux autant qu’il y en ait dans le Satyricon de Petrone. Vous en trouverés un autre sur l’air de ces paroles libertines d’une chanson de l’opera:A quoy bon tant de raison, dans un bel aage.Un autre sur ce vaudeville impudent:Allés vous . . . . .Un galant tout nouveau, &c.Dés le temps de Henri II. parce que toute la Cour chantoit les Pseaumes de Marot, le Cardinal de Lorraine jugea que, pour arrester un si grand desordre, il seroit très edifiant de faire tourner des odes d’Horace en rime Françoise, pour nourrir la pieté de cette cour si devote.” Apologie pour les Reformateurs, &c. tom. i. 129, 4to. A Rotterdam, 1683.

Note K.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Un autre sur ce vaudeville impudent:

Allés vous . . . . .

Un galant tout nouveau, &c.

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

Note L.Of George Wishart.—The following graphic description of this interesting martyr is contained in a letter written by a person who had been one of his pupils at Cambridge, and transmitted by him to John Fox, who inserted it in his work, p. 1155. edit. 1596.“About the yeare of our Lord, a thousand, five hundreth, fortie and three, there was, in the universitie of Cambridge, one Maister George Wischart, commonly called Maister George of Bennet’s Colledge, who was a man of tall stature, polde headed, and on the same a round French cap of the best. Judged of melancholye complexion by his phsiognomie, black haired, long bearded, comely of personage, well spoken after his country of Scotland, courteous, lowly, lovely, glad to teach, desirous to learne, and was well traulled, hauing on him for his habit or clothing, neuer but a mantell frise gowne to the shoes, a blacke Millian fustain dublet, and plaine blacke hosen, course new canuasse for his shirtes, and white falling bandes and cuffes at the hands. All the which apparell, he gaueto the poore, some weekly, some monethly, some quarterly as hee liked, sauing his Frenche cappe, which hee kept the whole yeere of my beeing with him. Hee was a man modest, temperate, fearing God, hating couetousnesse: for his charitie had neuer ende, night, noone, nor daye: hee forbare one meale in three, one day in foure for the most part, except something to comfort nature. [When accused, at his trial, of contemning fasting, he replied, ‘My Lordis, I find that fasting is commendit in the scriptur.—And not so only; bot I have leirnit by experience, that fasting is gude for the healthe and conservation of the body.’ Knox, 60.] Hee lay hard upon a pouffe of straw: course new canuasse sheetes, which, when he changed, he gaue away. Hee had commonly by his bedside, a tubbe of water, in the which (his people being in bed, the candle put out, and all quiet) hee used to bathe himselfe, as I being very yong, being assured offen, heard him, and in one light night discerned him. Hee loved me tenderly, and I him, for my age, as effectually. Hee taught with great modestie and grauitie, so that some of his people thought him seuere, and would haue slain him, but the Lord was his defence. And hee, after due correction for their malice, by good exhortation amended them, and hee went his way. O that the Lord had left him to mee his poore boy, that hee might haue finished that hee had begunne! For in his Religion hee was as you see heere in the rest of his life, when he went into Scotland with diuers of the Nobilitie, that came for a treaty to king Henry the eight. His learning was no less sufficient than his desire, alwayes prest and readie to do good in that hee was able, both in the house priuately, and in the schoole publickely, professing and reading divors authours.“If I should declare his loue to mee and all men, his charitie to the poore, in giuing, relieuing, caring, helping, prouiding, yea infinitely studying how to do good unto all, and hurt to none, I should sooner want words than just cause to commend him.“All this I testifie, with my whole heart and trueth, of this godly man. Hee that made all, gouerneth all, and shall iudge all, knoweth I speake the throth, that the simple may be satisfied, the arrogant confounded, the hypocrite disclosed.τέλοςEmery Tylney.”A particular account of Wishart’s trial and execution was published in England, apparently soon after the assassination of Beatoun. This very rare little book does not appear to have been seen by any of the writers who have mentioned it. The following account is taken from a copy, belonging to Richard Heber, Esq., who communicated it to me with that liberality for which he is so eminently distinguished. The general title is: “The tragical death of Dauid Beatō Bishoppe of sainct Andrewes in Scotland; Wherunto is ioyned the martyrdom of maister George Wyseharte gentleman, for whose sake the aforesayed bishoppe was not longe after slayne. Wherein thou maist learne what a burnynge charitie they shewed not only towardes him: but vnto al suche as come to their hādes for the blessed Gospels sake.” On the next leaf begins, “Roberte Burrant to the reader,” being a preface extending to 12 leaves, ending on B. iiiii. After this is the following title of the Tragedy or poem: “Here followeth the Tragedy of the late moste reuerende father Dauid, by the mercie of God Cardinall and archbishoppe of sainct Andrews. And of the whole realme of Scotland primate, legate and chaunceler. And administrator of the bishoprich of Merapois in Fraunce. And cōmendator perpetuall of the abbay of Aberbrothoke, compiled by sir Dauid Lindsaye of the mounte Knyghte. Alias, Lione, kyng of armes. Anno M.D. xlvi. Ultimo Maii. The wordes of Dauid Beaton the cardinall aforesaied at his death. Alas alas, slaye me not, I am a priest.” The poem begins on the reverse, and ends on the first page of C. vii. On the back of that leaf is,—“The accusation of maister George Wysehart gentlemā, who suffered martrydome for the faith of Christ Jesu, at S. Andrewes in Scotlād the first day of Marche. In the yere of our Lorde, M.D. xlvi. wyth the articles which he was accused of, and his swete answeres to the same, wherunto are ioyned his godly oratiōs and praiers.—With most tendre affection and unfeyned herte, considere,” &c. The narrative ends on the first page of F. vi, with these words, “complayning of thys innocent lābes slaughter.”—“Imprinted at London, by John Day, and William Seres, dwellynge in Sepulchres parish at the signe of the Resurrection, a little aboue Holbourne conduiet. Cum gracia et priuilegio ad imprimendum solum.” In eights. The tragedy of Beatoun is printed in small,and the account of Wishart’s trial in large black letter. The date of printing is not mentioned. Those who have fixed on the year 1546 have been influenced by the occurring of this date on the title of the tragedy, which evidently refers to the time of Beatoun’s death. It is probable, however, from some expressions in the preface, as well as from other considerations, that it was printed soon after that event. Fox has embodied the whole account of Wishart’s trial in his Acts and Monuments, p. 1154–1158, “Ex. Histor. Impressa.” Knox has transcribed it from Fox. Historie, p. 72.Wishart had travelled on the continent. Knox, 56. Lesly, p. 458. Buchanan calls himSophocardius, supposing his name to beWiseheart, a mistake which has been corrected by an intelligent foreign historian, who says that the original name wasGuiscard, a name common in France, from which country theWischards(for so Knox writes it) originally came to Scotland. Gerdesii Hist. Reformat. tom. iv. p. 314. See also Ruddiman’sPropriorum nominum Interpretatio, subjoined to Buchanan’s History.The following extract from the records of the city of Bristol has been obligingly sent me by Theodore Laurance, Esq.“30 Henry viij. That this yere the 15 May a Scot named George Wysard sett furth his lecture in StNicholas Church of Bristowe the most blasphemous heresy that ever was herd, openly declarying that Christs mother hath not nor coulde merite for him nor yett for us, wich heresy brought many of the commons of this towne into a greate errorand dyvers of theym were persuaded by that hereticall lecture to heresy. Wherupon the said stiff necked Scot was accused by Mr John Kerne deane of the sddiocese and soon aftrhe was sent to the moost reverend father in God the archebishop of Canterbury bifore whom and others, that is to signifie, the bishops of Bathe Norwhiche and Chichester, with others, as doctors and he bifore theym was examyned convicted and condemned in and upon the detestable heresy above mentioned, whereupon he was injoyned to bere a fagott in StNicholas church aforsaid and the parishe of the same the 13 July and in Christe church the 20 July abovesaid follg, which was duely executed in the time aforsaid:”This is extracted from the “Mayor’s Kalendar,” a vellum manuscriptbook of great antiquity, which is usually produced at the swearing in of the mayor, as it has a drawing of that ceremony, and refers to some old customs observed on the occasion. I have no doubt that the person referred to is George Wishart, the Scottish martyr. The facts related happened on the year after he left Scotland. In the course of that year John Lambert suffered martyrdom for denying transubstantiation, and Henry VIII. was using the severest measures against the protestants. The circumstance of George Wysard having recanted what he had taught respecting the Virgin, is not sufficient to discredit this supposition. Whether his recantation proceeded from fear, or from his being entangled by the sophistry of his judges, any stain which it affixed to his character was completely effaced by the fortitude and constancy with which he afterwards suffered.The following is the title of a very rare book, which appears to have been written by George Wishart during his travels on the continent, and printed after his death:“The Confescion of the fayth of the Sweserlādes.“This Confescion was fyrste wrytten and set out by the ministers of the churche and congregacion of Sweuerland, where all godlyness is receyued, and the word hadde in most reuerence, and from thence was sent vnto the Emperours maiestie, then holdynge a gryat counsell or parliament in the yeare of our Lord God M.V.C.XXXVII. in the moneth of February.“Translated out of Laten by George Vsher, a Scotchman, who was burned in Scotland, the yeare of oure Lorde M.V.C.XLVI.”

Note L.

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

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

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

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

τέλοςEmery Tylney.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The Confescion of the fayth of the Sweserlādes.

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

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

Note M.Of Knox’s Language respecting the Assassination of Cardinal Beatoun.—Mr Hume has, not very philosophically, inferred the savageness of Knox’s temper from the evident satisfaction with which he wrote of Cardinal Beatoun’s assassination; and in this judgment he has been followed by several writers. If to express satisfaction at cutting off one who was regarded as a public enemy be viewed as an infallible mark of cruelty, we must pronounce this verdict upon many who were never before suspected of such adisposition. The manner in which the Christian fathers expressed themselves, respecting the death of the persecutors of the church, is not unknown. See Julian the apostate, chap. vii. viii. in Works of the Rev. Samuel Johnston, p. 22–24. Bayle, Critique General de l’Histoire du Calvinisme, p. 295. Even the mild and philosophic Erasmus could not refrain from declaring his joy at the violent death of two of the most learned and eminent reformers. “Bene habet (says he) quod duo Coriphæi perierunt, Zuinglius in acie, Oecolampadius paulo post febri et apostemate. Quod si illis favisset Ενυαλιος, actum est de nobis.” Epist. 1205: Jortin’s Life of Erasmus, ii. 28. Sir Walter Scott, in his Cadyow Castle, (See Lyrical Pieces,) has lately exerted all his poetic powers to invest Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh with the character of a hero, in assassinating the regent Murray, a person who is no more to be compared to cardinal Beatoun, than “Hyperion to a Satyr.” I know the apology that will be made for the poet (although I think he might have found, in this, and in some other instances, a subject more worthy of his muse); but what shall we say of the historian who narrates the action of Bothwellhaugh “approvingly,” celebrates the “happy pencil of the poet” in describing it, and insults over the fall of Murray, by quoting a sarcastic line from the poem, in the very act of relating his death! Chalmers’s Caledonia, ii. 571. Yet this same writer is highly displeased that Sir David Lindsay, in his Tragedy of Beatoun, has “no burst of indignation” at the cardinal’s murder; and twice in the same work he has related with triumph, that, on the margin of one edition of Knox’s history, the part which James Melvin acted in that scene is called a “godly fact.” And he pronounces the assassination of Beatoun to be “thefoulestcrime which ever stained a country, except perhaps the similar murder of archbishop Sharpe, within the same shire, in the subsequent century, by similar miscreants.” Chalmers’s Works of Lyndsay, vol. i. 34, 35, ii. 231. How marvellously does prejudice distort the judgment even of learned men! And how surprising to find the assassination of two sanguinary persecutors represented as more criminal than the murder of the generous Henry IV., the patriotic Prince of Orange, and the brave and pious Coligni! There are not a few persons who can read in cold blood of thousands ofinnocent persons being murdered under the consecrated cloak of authority, but who “burst into indignation” at the mention of the rare fact (ocurring once in a century) of a person, who, goaded by oppression and reduced to despair, has been driven to the extremity of taking vengeance on the proud and tyrannical author of his own and his country’s wrongs.—I mention these things to show the need which certain writers have to look at home, and to judge of characters and actions with a little more impartiality, or at least consistency.Honest Keith, whose personal feelings do not appear to have been violent, has expressed with much simplicity the feelings of his party, in the reflections which be makes on the cardinal’s assassination. “What might have proved (says he) to be the issue of such procedure [Beatoun’s severe measures against the reformers], had he enjoyed his life for any considerable time, I shall not pretend to judge: Only this seems to be certain, that by his death the reins of the government were much loosened; and some persons came to be considerable soon after, who probably, if he had lived, had never got the opportunity to perpetrate such villanies, under the cloak of religion, as ’tis certain they did; he being at least no less a statesman than a clergyman.” History, p. 45. This language needs no commentary; and the callousness to the interests of (I say not the Reformation, for that is entirely out of the question, but) humanity, implied in the prospect that Keith takes of the cruelties which the protestants must have suffered from the cardinal, if his life had been spared, is far more reprehensible than any satisfaction which Knox expressed at his death.“It is very horrid,” says Hume, “but at the same time somewhat amusing, to consider the joy, alacrity, and pleasure which that historian [Knox] discovers in his narrative of this assassination.” History of England, vol. vi. chap. iv. Mr Hume makes a partial apology for Knox by the description which he gives of his own feelings; while he allows that what, in the main, excites horror, may produce some amusement. It is well known that there are writers who can treat the most sacred subjects with a levity bordering upon profaneness. Must we at once pronounce them profane? And is nothing to be set down to the score of natural temper incliningthem to wit and humour? The Reformer rejoiced at the death of Beatoun; and even those who could not approve of the act of the conspirators, were happy that he was taken away:“As for the Cardinal, we grant,He was a man we weell might want,And we’ll forget him sone:And yet I think, the sooth to say,Although the lown is weell away,The deed was foully done.”The pleasantry which Knox has mingled with the narrative of his death and burial is unseasonable and unbecoming. But it is to be imputed, not to any pleasure which he took in describing a bloody scene, but to the strong propensity which he felt to indulge his vein of humour. Those who have read his history with attention, must have perceived that he is not able to check this, even on very serious occasions. I shall at present refer to one instance only. None will doubt that his mind was deeply affected in relating the trial and execution of his esteemed friend, and revered instructor, George Wishart. Yet, even in the midst of his narrative of this event, he could not abstain from inserting the truly ludicrous description of a quarrel which arose on that occasion between the archbishops of St Andrew’s and Glasgow; for which he apologizes thus:—“Gif we interlace merrines with ernest matters, pardone us, gude reidare, for the fact is sa notable that it deserves lang memorie.” Historie, p. 51.

Note M.

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

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

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

“As for the Cardinal, we grant,He was a man we weell might want,And we’ll forget him sone:And yet I think, the sooth to say,Although the lown is weell away,The deed was foully done.”

“As for the Cardinal, we grant,

He was a man we weell might want,

And we’ll forget him sone:

And yet I think, the sooth to say,

Although the lown is weell away,

The deed was foully done.”

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

Note N.Knox in the French Galleys.—The following curious notice as to this event in our Reformer’s life, will form an appropriate introduction to the extracts referred to in the text. It has been preserved by the learned Dr Fulke, and is given as an answer to a popish writer, who had said, in the way of detraction, “Knokes was a galley slave three yeares.”—“The more wicked,” replies Fulke, “those papistes which betrayed him into the galley. The masterwhereof was glad to be rid of him, because he never had good successe, so long as he kept that holy man in slaverie, whome also in danger of tempest, though an errant papiste, he would desire to commend him and his galley to God in his praiers.” T. Stapleton and Martiall (two popish heretics) confuted. By D. Fulke, master of Pembroke‑hall, in Cambridge, p. 116. Lond. 1580.I shall give Knox’s own account of his feelings on that occasion, from the MS. copy of his Treatise on Prayer in my possession, preserving the original language, which is altered in the printed edition. Those who have access to the latter can compare the two.“I mene not,” says he, “that any man, in extreamitie of trubill, can be without a present dolour, and without a greater feir of trubill to follow. Trubill and feir are the very spurris to prayer. For when man, compassit about with vehement calamities, and vexit with continewall solicitude, having by help of man no hope of deliverance, with soir oppressit and punissit hart, feiring also greater punisment to follow, from the deip pit of tribulation, doith call to God for comfort and support, such prayer ascendeth into Godis presence, and returneth not in vane.” Having illustrated this from the exercise of David, as described in the viith psalm, he proceeds, “This is not written for David onlie, but for all such as sall suffer tribulatioun to the end of the world. For I, the wryter hereof, (lat this be said to the laude and prais of God allone) in angusche of mynd, and vehement tribulatioun and afflictioun, called to the Lord, when not only the ungodlie, but evin my faithfull brether, ye and my awn self (that is, all natural understanding) judgeit my cause to be irremedeable; and yit in my greatest calamitie, and when my panis wer most cruell, wold his eternall wisdome that my handis suld wryt far contrarie to the judgement of carnall reasone, whilk his mercie hath pruved trew.Blessit be his halie name.484And therefore dar I be bold in the veritie of Godis word, to promeis that, notwithstanding the vehemencie of trubill, the long continewance thairof, the desperatioun of all men, the feirfulness, danger, dolour, and angusche of oure awn hartis, yit, yf we call constantlie to God, that, beyound expectatioun of all men, hie salldelyver.” p. 52–54. After showing that prayers for temporal deliverance ought always to be offered up with submission to the divine will, that God often delays the deliverance of the body while he mitigates the distress of the spirit, and sometimes permits his saints “to drink, before the maturity of age, the bitter cupe of corporall death, that thairby thay may receave medicine, and cure from all infirmitie,” he adds: “Albeit we sie thairfoir no appeirand help to our selves, nor yit to otheris afflictit, lat ws not ceis to call, (thinking our prayeris to be vane;) for whatsoever cum of our bodeis, God sall gif unspeakabill comfort to the spreit, and sall turne all to our comodities beyound our awn expectatioun. The caus that I am so lang and tedious in this matter is, for that I knaw how hard the batell is between the spreit and the flesche, under the heavie cros of afflictioun, whair no warldlie defence, but present death dois appeir. I knaw the grudging and murmuring complaints of the flesche; I knaw the anger, wrath, and indignatioun, whilk it consaveth aganis God, calling all his promissis in dout, and being readie everie hour utterlie to fall from God:aganis whilk restis onlie faith provoking us to call ernistlie, and pray for assistance of Godis spreit, whairin if we continew, our maist disperat calamiteis sall hie turn to gladnes, and to a prosperous end.485To thee, O Lord, allone be prais; for with experience I wryt this, and speak.” MS. Letters, p. 65, 66.The edition was printed most probably in England, (Romeis on the title‑page,) during the persecution, from a MS. sent by Knox from Dieppe, and so incorrectly, that it is often impossible to make sense of it. The following are specimens: “Diffysed,” fol. 2, “difficil,” MS.—“A pure word of God,” fol. 2, “a puritie allowit of God,” MS.—“Consent,” fol. 3, “conceat,” MS.—“May any other Jesas Christ, except I, in these wordes, make intercession for sinners?” fol. 11. “May any other (Jesus Christ except) in these wordes mak intercession for sinneris?” MS.; the transcriber having mistaken the concluding mark of parenthesis for the pronoun.—“Carkese slepe,” fol. 16, “carleslie slepeth,” MS. In quotingIsa. lxiv. 5, the printed edition has employed a word which I have not seen in any old version of the Bible. “Thou artcrabbid, O Lord, because we have sinned,” fol. 4; and again in verse 9, “Be notcrabbid, O Lord, remember not our iniquities for ever.” In the MS. it isangrie, in both instances. In fol. xvi. is a greater variation: “For with such as do aleage that God may not chaunge his sentence, and our prayers therefore to be vayne, can I no wyse agree.” Instead of this the MS. has, “whilk thing if we do unfeanedlie, he will revoke his wrath, and in the middis of his furie think upon mercie.”—There are similar variations between the MS. and the printed copies of most of his other tracts. They show that the MS. which I possess has not been transcribed from these copies, according to a custom very common in that age.

Note N.

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

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

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

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

Note O.Extracts from Balnaves’s Confession of Faith, or Treatise on Justification.—In reading the writings of the first reformers there are two things which must strike our minds. The first, is the exact conformity between the doctrine maintained by them respecting the justification of sinners, and that of the apostles. The second, is the surprising harmony which subsisted among them on this important doctrine. On some questions respecting the sacraments, and the external government and worship of the church, they differed; but upon the article of free justification, Luther and Zuinglius, Melanchthon and Calvin, Cranmer and Knox, spoke the very same language. This was not owing to their having read each other’s writings, but because they copied from the same divine original. The clearness with which they understood and explained this great truth is also very observable. More learned and able defences of it have since appeared; but I question if it has ever been stated in more scriptural, unequivocal, and decided language, than in the writings of the early reformers. Some of their successors, by giving way to speculation, gradually lost sight of this distinguishing badge of the Reformation, and landed at last in Arminianism, which is nothing else but the popish doctrine in a protestant dress. Knox has informed us, that his design, in preparing for the press the treatisewritten by Sir Henry Balnaves, was to give, along with the author, his “confession of the article of justification therein contained.” I cannot, therefore, lay before the reader a more correct view of our Reformer’s sentiments upon this fundamental article of faith, than by quoting from a book which was revised and approved by him.Having given the philosophical definition of justice or righteousness, and explained what is meant by civil and ceremonial justice, the author proceeds as follows:—“The justice of the lawe morall or Moses’s lawe, which is the lawe of God, exceedeth and is far above the other two justices. It is the perfite obedience required of man, according to all the works and deeds of the same; not only in externall and outward deeds, but also with the inward affections and motions of the hart, conforme to the commandement of the same (saying), Thou shalt love thy Lord God with all thy hart, with all thy mind, with all thy power and strength, and thy neighbour as thyselfe. This is no other thing but the lawe of nature, prented in the hart of man, in the beginning; nowe made patent by the mouth of God to man, to utter his sin, and make his corrupted nature more patent to himselfe. And so is the lawe of nature and the lawe of Moses joyned together in a knot; which is a doctrine teaching all men a perfite rule, to know what he should do, and what he should leave undone, both to God and his neighbour. The justice of the lawe, is to fulfill the lawe; that is, to doo the perfite workes of the lawe as they are required, from the bottome of the hart, and as they are declared and expounded by Christ; and whosoever transgresseth the same, shall never be pronounced just of the lawe. But there was never man that fulfilled this lawe to the uttermost perfection thereof, except only Jesus Christ. Therefore, in the lawe can we not find our justice, because of the deedes of the lawe no flesh shall be made just before God.” p. 57, 58.“For transgression of the commandement of God, our forefather Adam was exiled and banished forth of paradise, and spoiled of the integrity, perfection, and all the excellent qualities, dignities, and godlie vertues, with which he was endued by his creation, made rebell, and disobedient to God in his owne default. And therefore he might not fulfill the lawe to the perfection as the same required.For the lawe remaining in the owne perfection, just, holye, and good, requireth and asketh the same of man, to be indeed fulfilled. But all men proceeding from Adam, by natural propagation, have the same imperfection that hee had; the which corruption of nature resisteth the will and goodness of the lawe, which is the cause that wee fulfil not the same, nor may not of our power and strength, through the infirmitie and weakness of our flesh, which is enemie to the spirit, as the apostle saith.” p. 79, 80.“Notwithstanding, after the fall of man, remained with our first parents some rest and footsteppes of this lawe, knowledge, and vertues, in the which he was created, and of him descended in us; by the which of our free will and power, we may do the outward deeds of the lawe, as is before written. This knowledge deceaved and beguiled the philosophers; for they looke but to the reason and judgement of man, and could not perceave the inward corruption of nature, but ever supponed man to bee clean and pure of nature, and might, of his own free will and naturall reason, fulfill all perfection. And when they perceaved the wickednes of man from his birth, they judged that to be by reason of the planete under whom he was borne, or through evill nourishing, upbringing, or other accidents, and could never consider the corrupted nature of man, which is the cause of all our wickednes; and therefore they erred, and were deceaved in their opinions and judgements; but the perfite Christian man should looke first in his corruption of nature, and consider what the law requireth of him, in the which he findeth his imperfection and sinnes accused, (for that is the office of the lawe, to utter sinne to man, and giveth him no remedy,) then of necessitie is he compelled either to despaire or seek Christ, by whom he shall get the justice that is of value before God, which can not be gotten by any lawe or workes, because by the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be justified before God.” p. 81–83.“This proposition of the holy spirite is so perfite, that it excludeth (if ye will understande the same right) all the vaine foolish arguments of sophistrie made by the justifiers of themselfes, which perverte the words of S. Paule (as they doo the other scriptures of God) to their perversed sence and mind; saying, that the apostle excludeth by these wordes the workes of the law ceremonial, andnot the deeds of the lawe of nature, and morall lawe of Moyses. The which shameless sayings are expressly evacuat by the wordes of the apostle, insomuch that no man of righteous judgement can deny, but shall feel the same as it were in their hands, by this probation. The lawe speaketh to all, that is, accuseth all men that are under the lawe. All men are under the lawe of nature, or the lawe of Moyses, therefore the apostle speaketh of the lawe of nature and Moyses, and of all men which he comprehendeth under Jewe and Gentill, as he proveth by his argumentes in the first and second chap. to the Romans, and concludeth in the third chap. all men are sinners. If all men bee sinners, none is just; if none bee just, none fulfill the lawe; if none fulfill the lawe, the lawe can pronounce none just; therefore concludeth he, that of the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be fonde just before God. The same is proved by David in the 130 Psalme. Here ye see by the words of the apostle, he intends to prove and declare all men sinners; that is, to stoppe all men’s mouths, and to dryve them to Christ by the accusation of the lawe. No lawe may make or declare all men sinners, and subdue the whole world to God, but the lawe of nature and Moyses; therefore, under that word (lawe) the apostle comprehendeth the lawe morall, and not the lawe ceremonial only.” p. 84, 85.“But think not that I intende through these assertions to exclude good workes; no, God forbid, for good workes are the gift of God, and his good creatures, and ought and should be done of a Christian, as shalbe showen hereafter at length in their place; but in this article of justification, yee must either exclude all workes, or els exclude Christ from you, and make your selfes just; the which is impossible to do. Christ is the end of the lawe (unto righteousness) to all that beleeve, that is, Christ is the consummation and fulfilling of the lawe, and that justice whiche the law requireth; and all they which beleeve in him, are just by imputation through faith, and for his sake are repute and accepted as just. This is the justice of faith, of the which the apostle speaketh, Rom. the 10 chapter: therefore, if ye wilbee just, seeke Christ, and not the lawe, nor your invented workes, which are lesse than the lawe. Christ shall have no mixtion with the lawe, nor workes thereof, inthis article of justification; because the lawe is as contrarie to the office of Christ, as darknes to light, and is as farre different as heaven and earth. For the office of the lawe is to accuse the wicked, feare them, and condemne them, as transgressors of the same; the office of Christ is to preache mercy, remission of sinnes, freely in his bloode through faith, give consolation, and to save sinners: for hee came not into this world to call them which ar just, or think themselves just, but to call sinners to repentance.” p. 100, 126, 127, 128.“This faith which only justifieth and giveth life, is not idle nor remaineth alone; nevertheless, it alone justifieth, and then it works by charitie; for unfained faith may no more abyde idle from working in love, than the good tree may from bringing foorth her fruite in due time; and yet the fruite is not the cause of the tree, nor maketh the tree good, but the tree is the cause of the fruite; and the good tree bringeth forth good fruite, by the which it is knowen goode: even so it is of the faithfull man, the workes make him not faithfull nor just, nor yet are the cause thereof; but the faithfull and just man bringeth forth and maketh good workes, to the honour and glorie of God, and profit of his neighbour, which beare witnesse of his inward faith, and testify him to be just before man.” p. 131, 132. In the following part of the treatise, the author shows at large, that the doctrine of gratuitous justification does not release Christians from obligation to perform good works, and inculcates the duties incumbent upon them in the different spheres of life in which they may be placed.Confession of Faith; conteining how the troubled man should seeke refuge at his God; compiled by M. Henry Balnaves of Halhill,486and one of the Lords of Session of Scotland, being a prisoner within the old pallaice of Roane, in the year 1548. T. Vautrollier, Edin. 1584.

Note O.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note P.Extracts from Knox’s Defence before the Bishop of Durham.—Since the publication of the first edition of this Life, I have seen a copy of this Defence in print. Its title will be found in the catalogue of Knox’s works, to be inserted in the last note of volume second. The printed edition agrees more exactly with the MS. in my possession than any of his other works which I have had the opportunity of comparing. The extracts given in this note are continued in their original form, to preserve the orthography of the MS., which constitutes almost the only difference between it and the printed edition.“The fourt of Apryle in the yeir 1550, was appoyntit to Johne Knox, preacher of the halie evangell of Jesus Chryst, to gif his confessioun why hie affirmed the mes idolatrie; whilk day, in presence of the consale and congregatioun, amangis whome was also present the bischope of Duram and his doctors, on this manner his beginneth.“This day I do appeir in your presence, honourabill audience, to gif a reasone why so constantlie I do affirme the mes to be, and at all tymes to haif bene, idolatrie and abominatioun before God; and becaus men of great eruditioun, in your audience, affirmed the contrarie, most gladlie wold I that heir thay wer present, either in proper persone, or els by thair learnit men, to ponder and wey the causis moveing me thairto: for unles I evidentlie prufe myne intent be Goddis halie scriptures, I will recant it as wickit doctrine, and confes my self maist worthie of grevous punisment. How difficil it is to pull furth of the hartis of the pepill the thing whairin opinioun of holines standeth, declareth the great tumult and uprore moveit aganis Paule by Demetrius and his fellowis, who by idolatrie gat great vantage, as our priestis have done be the mes in tymes past. The pepill, I say, heiring that the honor of thair great goddes Diana stude in jeopardie, with furious voces cryit, ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians;’—and heirunto wer thay moveit be lang custom and fals opinioun. I knaw, that in the mes bath not onlie bene estemit great holines and honoring of God, but also the groundand fundatioun of our religioun: so that, in opinioun of many, the mes taken away, thair resteth no trew wirschipping nor honoring of God in the erth. The deiper hath it persit the hartis of men yat it occupyith the place of the last and misticall supper of our Lord Jesus. But yf I sal, be plane and evident scriptures, prove the mes, in hir mair honest garment, to haif been idolatrie befoir God, and blasphemous to the death and passioun of Chryst, and contrarie to the supper of Jesus Chryst, than gude hope have I, honorable audience and belovit brethrene, that the feir, love, and obedience of God, who in his scriptures hath spokin all veritie necessarie for oure salvatioun, sall move yow to gif place to the same. O Lord eternal! move and governe my toung to speak the veritie, and the hartis of thir pepill to understand and obey the same.” MS. Letters, p. 1, 2.In proof of his position, he laid down and defended two syllogisms. The first is thus stated: “All wirschipping, honoring, or service inventit by the brane of man in the religioun of God, without his awn expres commandement, is idolatrie: the mes is inventit by the brane of man without any commandement of God: thairfoir it is idolatrie.” The second syllogism is thus framed: “All honoring or service of God, whairunto is addit a wickit opinioun, is abominatioun: unto the mes is addit a wickit opinioun: thairfoir it is abominatioun.” p. 3, 21. In support of the major proposition of his first syllogism, he argues from 1 Sam. xiii. 11–14. xv. 22, 23. Deut. iv. 2. xii. 8, 32. 1 Cor. xi. 23. Take the following as a specimen:—“We may not think ws so frie nor wyse that we may do unto God, and unto his honour, what we think expedient. No: the contrarie is commandit by God, saying, ‘Unto my word sall ye ad nothing, nothing sall ye deminische thairfrome, that ye might observe the preceptis of your Lord God.’ Whilk wordis ar not to be understand of the decalogue and law moral onlie, but of statutis, rytes, and ceremonyis; for equall obedience of all his lawis requyreth God. And in witnis thairof, Nadab and Abihu offiring strange fyre, whairof God had geven unto thame na charge, wer instantlie, as thay offirit, punissit to death by fyre.—In the punisment of theis two afoirsaid is to be observit, that Nadab and Abihu wer the principal priestis nixt to Aron thair father, and that theywere comprehendit neither in adulterie, covetusnes, nor desyre of warldlie honor, but of a gud zeall and simpill intent wer making sacrifice, desyreing no profit of the pepill thairby, but to honor God, and to metigat his wraith. And yit in the doing of this self same act and sacrifice wer they consumit away with fyre; whairof it is plane, that nether the preeminence of the persone or man that maketh or setteth up any religioun without the express commandement of God, nor yet the intent whairof hie doith the same, is acceptit befoir God: for nothing in his religioun will hie admit without his awn word, but all that is addit thairto doith hie abhor, and punisseth the inventoris and doeris thairof, as ye haif hard in Nadab and Abihu.” p. 6, 7.The following extracts will exemplify the irony with which he treated the popish tenets: “Jesus Chryst sayeth, ‘I will lay upon yow none other burdene than I haif alreadie;’ and, ‘that whilk ye haif observe diligentlie.’ O God eternal! hast thow laid none uther burdene upon our backis than Jesus Chryst laid be his word? Then who hath burdenit ws with all theis ceremonyis? prescrybid fasting, compellit chastitie, unlawfull vowis, invocatioun of sanctis, and with the idolatrie of the mes? The divill, the divill, brethrene, inventit all theis burdenis to depres imprudent men to perditioun.” p. 10. Speaking of the canon of the mass, he says, “I will preve, that thairin is indigest, barbarous, folische congestioun of wordis, imperfectioun of sentences, ungodlie invocationis, and diabolicall conjurationis. And this is that holie canon whois autoritie precelleth all scriptures! O! it was so holie it might not be spoken planelie as the rest, but secreitlie it behoved to be whisperit! That was not evil devysit; for yf all men had hard it, sum wold have espyit the vanitie thairof.—Thay say,Hoc est enim corpus meum.I pray thame schew, whair find thayenim? O! heir mak thay a great matter; and heir lyeth a secreit misterie, and hid operatioun! For in fyve wordis conceaved the virgin Marie, say thay, when sche conceavit the Sone of God. What yf sche had spokin sevin, ten, or twentie words? or what yf sche had not spoken in thrie? Suld thairby the determinat consalle been impeidit? But, O papists! is God a juglar? Useth he certane noumer of wordis in performing his intent?” p. 18, 19.Quintin Kennedy, abbot of Crossraguel, in an Oration, composed by him in 1561, made some remarks on Knox’s book against the Mass. “Shortly,” says he, “will we call to remembrance ane notable syllogisme (or argument) sett furth be ane famouss preachour, callit John Knox, in his sermon againis the mess, in manner as efter followis.” And having quoted the first syllogism, as already expressed in this note, he answers: “As to the first part of his syllogisme, quhar he dois affirme all worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne without expres command of God to be ydolatrie, it is als falss as Goddis wourd is trew; for quhy? did not Abel, Abraham, Noe, and diuerse vtheris of the aulde fatheris, inuent meanis and ways to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, and wes acceptable to the Lord God, as the Aulde Testament techis ws? Did not Cornelius centurio in likewise inuent meanis and ways to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, quhilk wes acceptable to God, as the New Testament plainly teachis ws? Thus ma we clearlie persaue that this wickit syllogisme aboue rehersit is express aganis the scripture of Almychtie God, bayth Aulde Testament and New. Secundlie, to preve his fals and wicket syllogisme, impropirlie callis he to remembrance the scripture of Almychti God, quhare mentione is maid how king Saule made sacrifice onto God of his owne brayne, and wes nocht acceptable to the Lorde God. Mark this place of the scripture, and it salbe easely persavit that it is all wayis impropirlie appliit; for quhy, his syllogisme makis mentione of the worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, without expres commande of God; and this place of scripture testifeis plainly of the worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, express contrar to the commande of God. And sua may we clearlie vnderstand that this first part of his syllogisme differis far fra the testimonie of scripture, adducit be him for confirmatione of the samin; bicaus thair is ane grete difference betuix the worschipping of God inuentit be manne, without expres commande of God, and the worschipping of God inuentit be manne, express contrar to the commande of God; the ane may neuer stand with the scripture; the vther aggreis with the scripture, bayth Aulde Testament and New, as I haif all reddy declarit.” In fine, the abbot insists that Saul“committit na ydolatrie,” for “albeit the scripture dois affirme that stubborness is as the wicketnes of ydolatrie, nochttheles stubbornes is nocht ydolatrie.” Ane Oratioune set furth be Master Quintine Kennedy, Commendatour of Corsraguell, ye zeir of Gode 1561, p. 5–8. Edinburgh, 1812.

Note P.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Index Next