Note EE.Of the Petitions presented by the Protestants to the Queen Regent.—The petition which Sir James Sandilands presented, in the name of his brethren, contained five requests. 1. That, as by the laws of the land, they had, after long debate, obtained liberty to read the scriptures in their native language, it should also be lawfulfor them to use, publicly or privately, “comoun prayaris in our vulgar toung.” 2. That if, in the course of reading the scriptures in their assemblies, any difficulty occurred, it should be lawful for any “qualifeit persone in knawledge” to explain it, subject to the judgment of “the maist godlie and maist learnit within the realme.” 3. “That the holy sacrament of baptisme may be used in the vulgar toung,” accompanied with instruction to the parties and to the church. 4. “That the sacrament of the Lordis supper, or of his most blessed body and blude, may likewise be ministrate in the vulgar toung, and in both kindis.” Andlastly, “that the wicket, slanderous, and detestabill lyif of Prelatis, and of the stait ecclesiastical, may be so reformed that the pepill by thame have not occasioun, as of mony dayis they have had, to contempe their ministrie and the preiching, whairof they sould be messengers;” and to remove suspicion of interested motives in making this request, they add, “we ar content that not only the reulles and preceptis of the New Testament, but also the wryttings of the ancient Fatheris, and the godly approved lawis of Justiniane, decyde the controversie that is betwix us and thame.” Knox, Historie, p. 120, 121. Spotswood (p. 119) omits the article respecting baptism, and introduces another: “that the election of ministers should be according to the manner used in the primitive church.” See also Buchanani Oper. i. 311.This petition discovers great moderation on the part of the protestants. Historians differ as to the precise time at which it was presented. Spotswood (p. 108) places his account of it after the martyrdom of Mill. And the writer of the Historie of the Estate of Scotland from 1559 to 1566 (p. 1) says that it was presented in July 1558. On the contrary, Knox (p. 120, 122) places it before the death of Mill. It is highly probable that the protestants petitioned the queen regent both before and after that event, and that on both occasions they employed Sir James Sandilands as their representative. In this light I have represented the matter in the text. But I am inclined, upon the whole, to consider Knox’s statement as the most correct. He had the best opportunity of ascertaining the fact. This was the part of his history which was first written by him, soon after his arrival in Scotland, when the transactionmust have been fresh in the recollection of all his associates. There is no reference in the petition to the illegal execution of Mill, which would scarcely have been omitted, if it had previously taken place. The objection urged by Keith, from the clause in the petition which supposes that the queen was married, does not appear to have great weight. The parliament, in December 1557, had agreed to the solemnization of the marriage; their commissioners had sailed for France, in February, to be present at the ceremony, which was appointed to take place on the 24th of April. In these circumstances the protestants might, without any impropriety, request that they should be allowed liberty to use the common prayers in the vulgar tongue, to the end that they might “be induced, in fervent and oft prayers, to commend unto God—the queen our soverane, hir honorabill and gracious husband,” &c. Keith is wrong when he says that Knox has fixed the execution of Mill “to the 8th of April, which was above two weeks before the queen’s marriage.” History, p. 80, note. Knox says he was put to death “the twentie aucht day of Aprylle,” which was four days after the marriage. Historie, p. 122.After the martyrdom of Mill, the protestants renewed their application to the regent, with a warm remonstrance against the cruelty of the clergy. Knox, Historie, p. 122. As the parliament held in November 1558 was approaching, they delivered another petition to her, desiring that it should be laid before the meeting of the estates. In this they requested, that the laws, by which the clergy justified their severe and cruel proceedings against them, should be abrogated, or suspended until the present controversies in religion were regularly determined; or, if this could not be granted, that the clergy should not act as judges, but be obliged to sustain the character of accusers before a temporal judge, and that the same mode of defence should be granted to persons accused of heresy as in other criminal processes. Being persuaded by the promises of the regent to desist from laying this petition before that meeting of parliament, they substituted a protestation; in which they declared that, having waived urging their petitions from regard to the state of public affairs, they should not be liable to any penalties for using that liberty to which they had a just title, and for which they hadfrequently petitioned, and that, if any tumult was excited by religious differences, or by violent attempts to reform those abuses in religion which were become intolerable, this should not be imputed to them, who had always requested an orderly reformation of these abuses, but to the persons who had resisted every attempt of this kind. Ibid. p. 122–125. Spotswood, 119, 120.
Note EE.
Of the Petitions presented by the Protestants to the Queen Regent.—The petition which Sir James Sandilands presented, in the name of his brethren, contained five requests. 1. That, as by the laws of the land, they had, after long debate, obtained liberty to read the scriptures in their native language, it should also be lawfulfor them to use, publicly or privately, “comoun prayaris in our vulgar toung.” 2. That if, in the course of reading the scriptures in their assemblies, any difficulty occurred, it should be lawful for any “qualifeit persone in knawledge” to explain it, subject to the judgment of “the maist godlie and maist learnit within the realme.” 3. “That the holy sacrament of baptisme may be used in the vulgar toung,” accompanied with instruction to the parties and to the church. 4. “That the sacrament of the Lordis supper, or of his most blessed body and blude, may likewise be ministrate in the vulgar toung, and in both kindis.” Andlastly, “that the wicket, slanderous, and detestabill lyif of Prelatis, and of the stait ecclesiastical, may be so reformed that the pepill by thame have not occasioun, as of mony dayis they have had, to contempe their ministrie and the preiching, whairof they sould be messengers;” and to remove suspicion of interested motives in making this request, they add, “we ar content that not only the reulles and preceptis of the New Testament, but also the wryttings of the ancient Fatheris, and the godly approved lawis of Justiniane, decyde the controversie that is betwix us and thame.” Knox, Historie, p. 120, 121. Spotswood (p. 119) omits the article respecting baptism, and introduces another: “that the election of ministers should be according to the manner used in the primitive church.” See also Buchanani Oper. i. 311.
This petition discovers great moderation on the part of the protestants. Historians differ as to the precise time at which it was presented. Spotswood (p. 108) places his account of it after the martyrdom of Mill. And the writer of the Historie of the Estate of Scotland from 1559 to 1566 (p. 1) says that it was presented in July 1558. On the contrary, Knox (p. 120, 122) places it before the death of Mill. It is highly probable that the protestants petitioned the queen regent both before and after that event, and that on both occasions they employed Sir James Sandilands as their representative. In this light I have represented the matter in the text. But I am inclined, upon the whole, to consider Knox’s statement as the most correct. He had the best opportunity of ascertaining the fact. This was the part of his history which was first written by him, soon after his arrival in Scotland, when the transactionmust have been fresh in the recollection of all his associates. There is no reference in the petition to the illegal execution of Mill, which would scarcely have been omitted, if it had previously taken place. The objection urged by Keith, from the clause in the petition which supposes that the queen was married, does not appear to have great weight. The parliament, in December 1557, had agreed to the solemnization of the marriage; their commissioners had sailed for France, in February, to be present at the ceremony, which was appointed to take place on the 24th of April. In these circumstances the protestants might, without any impropriety, request that they should be allowed liberty to use the common prayers in the vulgar tongue, to the end that they might “be induced, in fervent and oft prayers, to commend unto God—the queen our soverane, hir honorabill and gracious husband,” &c. Keith is wrong when he says that Knox has fixed the execution of Mill “to the 8th of April, which was above two weeks before the queen’s marriage.” History, p. 80, note. Knox says he was put to death “the twentie aucht day of Aprylle,” which was four days after the marriage. Historie, p. 122.
After the martyrdom of Mill, the protestants renewed their application to the regent, with a warm remonstrance against the cruelty of the clergy. Knox, Historie, p. 122. As the parliament held in November 1558 was approaching, they delivered another petition to her, desiring that it should be laid before the meeting of the estates. In this they requested, that the laws, by which the clergy justified their severe and cruel proceedings against them, should be abrogated, or suspended until the present controversies in religion were regularly determined; or, if this could not be granted, that the clergy should not act as judges, but be obliged to sustain the character of accusers before a temporal judge, and that the same mode of defence should be granted to persons accused of heresy as in other criminal processes. Being persuaded by the promises of the regent to desist from laying this petition before that meeting of parliament, they substituted a protestation; in which they declared that, having waived urging their petitions from regard to the state of public affairs, they should not be liable to any penalties for using that liberty to which they had a just title, and for which they hadfrequently petitioned, and that, if any tumult was excited by religious differences, or by violent attempts to reform those abuses in religion which were become intolerable, this should not be imputed to them, who had always requested an orderly reformation of these abuses, but to the persons who had resisted every attempt of this kind. Ibid. p. 122–125. Spotswood, 119, 120.
Note FF.Dissimulation of the Queen Regent.—I am sensible that my account of the conduct of the queen regent to the protestants differs from that which has been given by Dr Robertson. He imputes her change of measures entirely to the overruling influence of her brothers, and seems to acquit her of insincerity in the countenance which she had shown, and the promises which she had repeatedly made, to the protestant leaders. In any remarks which I shall make upon this account, I wish to be understood as not detracting in the slightest degree from the merit of his able, accurate, and luminous statement of the plans conceived by the princes of Lorrain. Having mentioned the first symptoms of the regent’s alienation from the reformers, Dr Robertson says: “In order to account for this, our historians do little more than produce the trite observation concerning the influence of prosperity to alter the character and corrupt the heart,” I do not know the particular historians to whom he may refer, but those of the protestant persuasion whom I have consulted, impute her change of conduct, not to the above cause, but to the circumstance of her having accomplished the great objects which she had in view, upon which she no longer stood in need of the assistance of the reformers. Accordingly, they charge her with duplicity in her former proceedings with them. Knox, 96, 110, 122, 125. Buchanan, i. 312. Spotswood, 117, 119, 120. I think they had good reasons for this charge. At a very early period, she gave a striking proof of her disposition and talent for the deepest dissimulation. I refer to her behaviour in the intercourse which she had with Sir Ralph Sadler, in 1543, on which occasion she acted a part not less important than cardinal Beatoun himself, threw the ambassador into the greatest perplexity, andcompletely duped the English monarch. Sadler, i. 84–88, 100, 111–113, 249–253. The governor wanted not reason to say, “as she is both subtle and wily, so she hath a vengeable engine and wit to work her purpose.” It is impossible to read the account of her smooth conduct to the reformers, without perceiving the art with which she acted. There is also reason for thinking that she was privy to the execution of Walter Mill, and had encouraged the archbishop of St Andrews to take that step. Indeed, in his letter to the Earl of Argyle, written a few weeks before that event, the archbishop expressly says, that she murmured heavily against him because he did not use severe measures to check the progress of heresy; and Argyle, in his answer, does not call this in question. Knox, 103, 108.I do not doubt that the regent was precipitated into the most violent measures which she adopted by the counsels of her brothers; and that she remonstrated against the impolicy of these, is attested by Castelnau, to whom Dr Robertson refers as one of his authorities. But I think that she had altered her conduct to the protestants, and declared her resolution to abet the measures of the clergy against them, previous to the time that she is said to have received these strong representations from France. This appears even from the narrative of Castelnau, who has connected the advice given by the princes of Lorrain with the mission of La Brosse and the bishop of Amiens, who did not arrive in Scotland until September 1559, after the civil war was kindled. Jebb, ii. 246. Keith, 102. Sadler, i. 470. But it will be still more apparent from an examination of the testimony of Sir James Melvil, the other authority to whom Dr Robertson appeals. Melvil says that, after the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis was concluded, Bettancourt was sent into Scotland to procure the ratification of it by the queen regent; and that he was charged by the cardinal of Lorrain to inform her, that the popish princes had agreed to join in extirpating heresy, and to require that she should immediately take steps for suppressing the Scottish protestants. Melvil adds, that these instructions, mixed with some threatenings, having been received, the regent “determined to follow them. She therefore issued out a proclamation,a little before Easter, commanding every man, great and small, to observe the Romancatholic religion.” Melvil’s Memoirs, p. 23, 24. Lond. 1683. The proclamation to observe Easter in the catholic manner is mentioned by all our historians as the decisive declaration of the queen’s change of measures. Now the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis was not concluded until the 2d of April, 1559. Forbes, i. 68, 81. But Easter fell that year on the 29th of March, six days before Bettancourt could undertake his journey to Scotland. The proclamation respecting the observance of that festival must therefore have been issued some weeks before Bettancourt’s arrival. Nay, we know from other evidence, that the breach between the queen regent and the protestants had taken place on the 6th of March; for this is the date from which the act of oblivion afterwards granted is reckoned. Keith, 141, 151. There is, therefore, a glaring anachronism in Melvil’s narrative; and whatever influence Bettancourt’s embassy had in instigating the regent to more violent measures, she had previously taken her side, and declared her determination to oppose the progress of the Reformation.There are several other mistakes which Sir James Melvil has committed in his narrative of the transactions of this period. Even in the account of his own embassy into Scotland, in the reign of Henry II., and of the speech which the constable Montmorency made to him on that occasion, he has introduced the constable as mentioning, among his reasons, the shipwreck of the marquis D’Elbeuf, which did not happen till some months after, when the French king was dead. Memoirs, p. 31. Sadler, i. 417. In my humble opinion, all our historians have given too easy credit to Melvil, both in his statements of fact, and in his representations of character.
Note FF.
Dissimulation of the Queen Regent.—I am sensible that my account of the conduct of the queen regent to the protestants differs from that which has been given by Dr Robertson. He imputes her change of measures entirely to the overruling influence of her brothers, and seems to acquit her of insincerity in the countenance which she had shown, and the promises which she had repeatedly made, to the protestant leaders. In any remarks which I shall make upon this account, I wish to be understood as not detracting in the slightest degree from the merit of his able, accurate, and luminous statement of the plans conceived by the princes of Lorrain. Having mentioned the first symptoms of the regent’s alienation from the reformers, Dr Robertson says: “In order to account for this, our historians do little more than produce the trite observation concerning the influence of prosperity to alter the character and corrupt the heart,” I do not know the particular historians to whom he may refer, but those of the protestant persuasion whom I have consulted, impute her change of conduct, not to the above cause, but to the circumstance of her having accomplished the great objects which she had in view, upon which she no longer stood in need of the assistance of the reformers. Accordingly, they charge her with duplicity in her former proceedings with them. Knox, 96, 110, 122, 125. Buchanan, i. 312. Spotswood, 117, 119, 120. I think they had good reasons for this charge. At a very early period, she gave a striking proof of her disposition and talent for the deepest dissimulation. I refer to her behaviour in the intercourse which she had with Sir Ralph Sadler, in 1543, on which occasion she acted a part not less important than cardinal Beatoun himself, threw the ambassador into the greatest perplexity, andcompletely duped the English monarch. Sadler, i. 84–88, 100, 111–113, 249–253. The governor wanted not reason to say, “as she is both subtle and wily, so she hath a vengeable engine and wit to work her purpose.” It is impossible to read the account of her smooth conduct to the reformers, without perceiving the art with which she acted. There is also reason for thinking that she was privy to the execution of Walter Mill, and had encouraged the archbishop of St Andrews to take that step. Indeed, in his letter to the Earl of Argyle, written a few weeks before that event, the archbishop expressly says, that she murmured heavily against him because he did not use severe measures to check the progress of heresy; and Argyle, in his answer, does not call this in question. Knox, 103, 108.
I do not doubt that the regent was precipitated into the most violent measures which she adopted by the counsels of her brothers; and that she remonstrated against the impolicy of these, is attested by Castelnau, to whom Dr Robertson refers as one of his authorities. But I think that she had altered her conduct to the protestants, and declared her resolution to abet the measures of the clergy against them, previous to the time that she is said to have received these strong representations from France. This appears even from the narrative of Castelnau, who has connected the advice given by the princes of Lorrain with the mission of La Brosse and the bishop of Amiens, who did not arrive in Scotland until September 1559, after the civil war was kindled. Jebb, ii. 246. Keith, 102. Sadler, i. 470. But it will be still more apparent from an examination of the testimony of Sir James Melvil, the other authority to whom Dr Robertson appeals. Melvil says that, after the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis was concluded, Bettancourt was sent into Scotland to procure the ratification of it by the queen regent; and that he was charged by the cardinal of Lorrain to inform her, that the popish princes had agreed to join in extirpating heresy, and to require that she should immediately take steps for suppressing the Scottish protestants. Melvil adds, that these instructions, mixed with some threatenings, having been received, the regent “determined to follow them. She therefore issued out a proclamation,a little before Easter, commanding every man, great and small, to observe the Romancatholic religion.” Melvil’s Memoirs, p. 23, 24. Lond. 1683. The proclamation to observe Easter in the catholic manner is mentioned by all our historians as the decisive declaration of the queen’s change of measures. Now the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis was not concluded until the 2d of April, 1559. Forbes, i. 68, 81. But Easter fell that year on the 29th of March, six days before Bettancourt could undertake his journey to Scotland. The proclamation respecting the observance of that festival must therefore have been issued some weeks before Bettancourt’s arrival. Nay, we know from other evidence, that the breach between the queen regent and the protestants had taken place on the 6th of March; for this is the date from which the act of oblivion afterwards granted is reckoned. Keith, 141, 151. There is, therefore, a glaring anachronism in Melvil’s narrative; and whatever influence Bettancourt’s embassy had in instigating the regent to more violent measures, she had previously taken her side, and declared her determination to oppose the progress of the Reformation.
There are several other mistakes which Sir James Melvil has committed in his narrative of the transactions of this period. Even in the account of his own embassy into Scotland, in the reign of Henry II., and of the speech which the constable Montmorency made to him on that occasion, he has introduced the constable as mentioning, among his reasons, the shipwreck of the marquis D’Elbeuf, which did not happen till some months after, when the French king was dead. Memoirs, p. 31. Sadler, i. 417. In my humble opinion, all our historians have given too easy credit to Melvil, both in his statements of fact, and in his representations of character.
Note GG.Trial of the Reformed Preachers.—July 7, 1558. Item, the said day, to David Lindsay, Rothesay herauld, passand of Edinburgh, with letteris, to summond George Luvell, David Fergusone, and certain utheris personis within the burtof Dunde, to tak sourte of thame that thai sall compeir befoir the justice and his deputies in the tolbuith of Edinburgh, the xxviii day of Julii instant,for thair wrongus using and wresting of the scripture, and disputting upoun erroneus opinions, and eiting of flesche in Lenterone and utheris forbidding tymes, contrair the actis of parliament, iijlivs. (Compot. Thesaur.)Feb. 9, 1558–9. Proclamation to St Andrews, Cowper, Dundee, Montrose, Aberdeen, charging all and sundrie orsoverane ladies liegis, that nane of thame tak upoun hand to commit, attempt, or do any injurie or violence, disturbe the service usit in the kirkis, strike manneis, or bost priestis, or to eit flesche in Lenterone, under the pane of deid.—Also to Linlithgow, Glasgow, Irvine, Ayr, with siclike letteris. (Compot. Thesaur.)Curia Justiciarie S D N regis et regine, tenta et inchoata in pretorio burgi de Striueling, xodie mensis Maij, anno, &c. lixo, per Henricum Levingstoun, prepositum de Striueling, Justiciarium deputatum.Quo die, Georgius Luvell, burgen̄ de Dunde, per literas S D N regis et regine sepe vocatad intrand. Paulum Methwen, Joannes Erskin de Dvne sepe vocatad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun, Patricius Murray de Tibbermuir sepe vocatad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw, et Robertus Campbell de Kinzeclentsepe vocatad intrand. Joannem Willok coram justiciario S D N regis et regine, ejusue deputatis, dictis die et loco ad subeund legem pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias ipso in ministrum euisdem minime legitime admisso existen̄ in festo Pasche, viz. xxvjtodie mensis Martij vltimo elapso et quotidie per spatium trium dierum hujusmodi festum immediate preceden̄ atque abhinc continuo suo more sacramentum altaris pluribus S D N regis et regine subditis infra burgos de Dunde, Monthros, aliisque diversis partibus et locis infra vicecomitatus de Foirfare et Kynkardin, eisdem adjacen̄, a diuino et laudabili vsu fidelis ecclesie catholice longe diuerso et differente administrando, necnon pro conventione et congregatione hujusmodi subditorum infra burgos et bondas predicttemporibus suprascriptipso minime per locorum ordinarios admisso seu approbato etiam absque earundem licentia dictis subditis sermocinan̄ et predican̄ atque per suos sermones illos ad suas errabiles et seditiosas doctrinas et scismataperswaden̄ et seducen̄ auctoritatem S D N regis et regine inde vsurpan̄ atque inter suos subditos antedict. seditiones et tumultus facien̄ contra tenorem literarum proclamationis de super confectvt in hujusmodi literis criminalibus latius continetur. Et non comparen̄ amerciatus fuit dictus Georgius Luvell pro nonintroitu prefati Pauli Methwen in pena xjli. Et judicium redditum fuit quod ipse Paulus ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis vsubus applicabantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.Eodem die, Joannes Erskin de Dvne, per literas S D N regis et regine sepe vocatad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun coram dicto justiciario deputato ad subeund. legem, pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias, [&c. ut supra,] quod dictus frater Joannes ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur, &c.Dicto die, Patricius Murray de Tibbermuir sepe vocatper literas S D N regis et regine ad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw coram dicto justitiario deputato ad subeund. legem pro criminibus immediate prescriptis. Et non comparen̄ amerciatus fuit dictus Patricius, pro non introitu dicti Willielmi Harlaw in pena xltalib. Et judicium redditum fuit quod ipse Willielmus ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur. Et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis usibus applicantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.Prefato die, Robertus Campbell de Kinzecluch per literas S D N regis et regine sepe voctad intrand. Joannem Willok coram dicto justitiaro deputato, dictis die et loco ad subeund. legem pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias ipso io ministrum eiusdem minime legitime admisso existen̄ in festo Pasche, viz xxvjttodie mensis Martij ultimo elapso et quotidie per spatium trium dierum hujusmodi festum immediate preceden̄ &c. Et judicium redditum fuit quod dictus Joannes Willok ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunr. Et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis vsubus applicantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.Eodem die, prefati Paulus Methwen, frater Joannes Cristesoun Willielmus Harlaw et Joannes Willok denunciati fuerunt rebellesS D N regis et regine, et ad cornu eorundem positi fuerunt per publicam proclamationem apud crucem foralem burgi de Striueling, per Joannem Duncane, seriandum et officiarium dicte curie demandato prefati justitiarij deputati, coram his testibus, Roberto Forrester de Calzemuke, Alexandro Forrester alias Carrik signifero, Willielmo Smyth, et Joanne Grahame, notario publico, cum diuersis aliis. [Justiciary Records: Book extending from 14th February 1558 to 22d May 1559.]
Note GG.
Trial of the Reformed Preachers.—July 7, 1558. Item, the said day, to David Lindsay, Rothesay herauld, passand of Edinburgh, with letteris, to summond George Luvell, David Fergusone, and certain utheris personis within the burtof Dunde, to tak sourte of thame that thai sall compeir befoir the justice and his deputies in the tolbuith of Edinburgh, the xxviii day of Julii instant,for thair wrongus using and wresting of the scripture, and disputting upoun erroneus opinions, and eiting of flesche in Lenterone and utheris forbidding tymes, contrair the actis of parliament, iijlivs. (Compot. Thesaur.)
Feb. 9, 1558–9. Proclamation to St Andrews, Cowper, Dundee, Montrose, Aberdeen, charging all and sundrie orsoverane ladies liegis, that nane of thame tak upoun hand to commit, attempt, or do any injurie or violence, disturbe the service usit in the kirkis, strike manneis, or bost priestis, or to eit flesche in Lenterone, under the pane of deid.—Also to Linlithgow, Glasgow, Irvine, Ayr, with siclike letteris. (Compot. Thesaur.)
Curia Justiciarie S D N regis et regine, tenta et inchoata in pretorio burgi de Striueling, xodie mensis Maij, anno, &c. lixo, per Henricum Levingstoun, prepositum de Striueling, Justiciarium deputatum.
Quo die, Georgius Luvell, burgen̄ de Dunde, per literas S D N regis et regine sepe vocatad intrand. Paulum Methwen, Joannes Erskin de Dvne sepe vocatad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun, Patricius Murray de Tibbermuir sepe vocatad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw, et Robertus Campbell de Kinzeclentsepe vocatad intrand. Joannem Willok coram justiciario S D N regis et regine, ejusue deputatis, dictis die et loco ad subeund legem pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias ipso in ministrum euisdem minime legitime admisso existen̄ in festo Pasche, viz. xxvjtodie mensis Martij vltimo elapso et quotidie per spatium trium dierum hujusmodi festum immediate preceden̄ atque abhinc continuo suo more sacramentum altaris pluribus S D N regis et regine subditis infra burgos de Dunde, Monthros, aliisque diversis partibus et locis infra vicecomitatus de Foirfare et Kynkardin, eisdem adjacen̄, a diuino et laudabili vsu fidelis ecclesie catholice longe diuerso et differente administrando, necnon pro conventione et congregatione hujusmodi subditorum infra burgos et bondas predicttemporibus suprascriptipso minime per locorum ordinarios admisso seu approbato etiam absque earundem licentia dictis subditis sermocinan̄ et predican̄ atque per suos sermones illos ad suas errabiles et seditiosas doctrinas et scismataperswaden̄ et seducen̄ auctoritatem S D N regis et regine inde vsurpan̄ atque inter suos subditos antedict. seditiones et tumultus facien̄ contra tenorem literarum proclamationis de super confectvt in hujusmodi literis criminalibus latius continetur. Et non comparen̄ amerciatus fuit dictus Georgius Luvell pro nonintroitu prefati Pauli Methwen in pena xjli. Et judicium redditum fuit quod ipse Paulus ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis vsubus applicabantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.
Eodem die, Joannes Erskin de Dvne, per literas S D N regis et regine sepe vocatad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun coram dicto justiciario deputato ad subeund. legem, pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias, [&c. ut supra,] quod dictus frater Joannes ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur, &c.
Dicto die, Patricius Murray de Tibbermuir sepe vocatper literas S D N regis et regine ad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw coram dicto justitiario deputato ad subeund. legem pro criminibus immediate prescriptis. Et non comparen̄ amerciatus fuit dictus Patricius, pro non introitu dicti Willielmi Harlaw in pena xltalib. Et judicium redditum fuit quod ipse Willielmus ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur. Et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis usibus applicantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.
Prefato die, Robertus Campbell de Kinzecluch per literas S D N regis et regine sepe voctad intrand. Joannem Willok coram dicto justitiaro deputato, dictis die et loco ad subeund. legem pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias ipso io ministrum eiusdem minime legitime admisso existen̄ in festo Pasche, viz xxvjttodie mensis Martij ultimo elapso et quotidie per spatium trium dierum hujusmodi festum immediate preceden̄ &c. Et judicium redditum fuit quod dictus Joannes Willok ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunr. Et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis vsubus applicantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.
Eodem die, prefati Paulus Methwen, frater Joannes Cristesoun Willielmus Harlaw et Joannes Willok denunciati fuerunt rebellesS D N regis et regine, et ad cornu eorundem positi fuerunt per publicam proclamationem apud crucem foralem burgi de Striueling, per Joannem Duncane, seriandum et officiarium dicte curie demandato prefati justitiarij deputati, coram his testibus, Roberto Forrester de Calzemuke, Alexandro Forrester alias Carrik signifero, Willielmo Smyth, et Joanne Grahame, notario publico, cum diuersis aliis. [Justiciary Records: Book extending from 14th February 1558 to 22d May 1559.]
Note HH.Lamentation over the demolition of the Religious Houses.—“Truely, among all their deeds and devises, the casting doune of the churches was the most foolish and furious worke, the most shreud and execrable turne that everHornokhimself culd have done or devised. For out of al doubt that great grandfather of Calvine, and old enemie of mankind, not only inspired every one of those sacrelegious hellhounds with his flaming spirit of malice and blasphemie, as he did their forefathers Luther and Calvine: bot also was then present as maister of worke, busily beholding his servands and hirelings working his wil and bringing to pass his long desired contentment.—They changed the churches (which God himself called his house of prayer) into filthie and abominable houses of sensual men, yea, and of unreasonable beasts: when as they made stables in Halyrudhous, sheep‑houses of S. Antone, and S. Leonard’s chapels, tolbooths of S. Gillis, &c. which this day may be seene, to the great griefe and sorrow of al good Christians, to the shame and confusion of Edinburgh, and to the everlasting damnation of the doers thereof, the sedicious ministers, Knox and his complices.” After weeping over the ruins of “Abbirbroth,” the writer returns to St Giles, and represents our Saviour as lamenting its profanation by the setting up of “the abomination of desolation,” the courts of justice, within that holy ground. “How wold he say, if he were now entering in at S. Giles, and looking to bare wals, and pillars al cled with dust, sweepings and cobwebs, instead of painting and tapestrie; and on every side beholding the restlessresorting of people treating of their worldly affaires, some writing and making of obligations, contracts and discharges, others laying countes or telling over sowmes of money, and two and two walking and talking to and fro, some about merchandise or the lawes, and too many, alas! about drinking and courting of woeman, yea, and perhaps about worse nor I can imagine, as it is wont to be done al the day long in the common Exchanges of London and Amsterdam and other great cities? And turning him farther towards the west end of the church, which is divided in a high house for the Colledge of Justice, called the Session or Senat‑house, and a lower house called the low Tolbooth, where the balives of the town use to sit and judge common actions and pleas in the one end thereof, and a number of harlots and scolds for flyting and whoredom, inclosed in the other: And these, I mean, if our Saviour were present to behold such abominable desolation, that where altars were erected, and sacrifices, with continual praises and praiers, were wont to be offered up to the Lord, in remembrance of that bloody sacrifice of Christ on the crosse, there now are holes for whores, and cages for scolds, where nothing is hard bot banning and swearing, and every one upbraiding another: O what grieve and sorrow wold our Lord tak at the beholding of such profanation and sacrilege!” Father Alexander Baillie’s True Information of the unhallowed offspring, progress and impoison’d fruits of our Scottish‑Calvinian Gospel and Gospellers, p. 24, 25, 27, 28. Wirtsburg, 1628.
Note HH.
Lamentation over the demolition of the Religious Houses.—“Truely, among all their deeds and devises, the casting doune of the churches was the most foolish and furious worke, the most shreud and execrable turne that everHornokhimself culd have done or devised. For out of al doubt that great grandfather of Calvine, and old enemie of mankind, not only inspired every one of those sacrelegious hellhounds with his flaming spirit of malice and blasphemie, as he did their forefathers Luther and Calvine: bot also was then present as maister of worke, busily beholding his servands and hirelings working his wil and bringing to pass his long desired contentment.—They changed the churches (which God himself called his house of prayer) into filthie and abominable houses of sensual men, yea, and of unreasonable beasts: when as they made stables in Halyrudhous, sheep‑houses of S. Antone, and S. Leonard’s chapels, tolbooths of S. Gillis, &c. which this day may be seene, to the great griefe and sorrow of al good Christians, to the shame and confusion of Edinburgh, and to the everlasting damnation of the doers thereof, the sedicious ministers, Knox and his complices.” After weeping over the ruins of “Abbirbroth,” the writer returns to St Giles, and represents our Saviour as lamenting its profanation by the setting up of “the abomination of desolation,” the courts of justice, within that holy ground. “How wold he say, if he were now entering in at S. Giles, and looking to bare wals, and pillars al cled with dust, sweepings and cobwebs, instead of painting and tapestrie; and on every side beholding the restlessresorting of people treating of their worldly affaires, some writing and making of obligations, contracts and discharges, others laying countes or telling over sowmes of money, and two and two walking and talking to and fro, some about merchandise or the lawes, and too many, alas! about drinking and courting of woeman, yea, and perhaps about worse nor I can imagine, as it is wont to be done al the day long in the common Exchanges of London and Amsterdam and other great cities? And turning him farther towards the west end of the church, which is divided in a high house for the Colledge of Justice, called the Session or Senat‑house, and a lower house called the low Tolbooth, where the balives of the town use to sit and judge common actions and pleas in the one end thereof, and a number of harlots and scolds for flyting and whoredom, inclosed in the other: And these, I mean, if our Saviour were present to behold such abominable desolation, that where altars were erected, and sacrifices, with continual praises and praiers, were wont to be offered up to the Lord, in remembrance of that bloody sacrifice of Christ on the crosse, there now are holes for whores, and cages for scolds, where nothing is hard bot banning and swearing, and every one upbraiding another: O what grieve and sorrow wold our Lord tak at the beholding of such profanation and sacrilege!” Father Alexander Baillie’s True Information of the unhallowed offspring, progress and impoison’d fruits of our Scottish‑Calvinian Gospel and Gospellers, p. 24, 25, 27, 28. Wirtsburg, 1628.
Note II.Alleged Excesses of the Reformers.—It would be endless to enter into an examination of the exaggerated accounts which have been given of the “pitiful devastation” committed by the reformers. I shall content myself with stating a few facts, which may satisfy the candid and considerate that no such great blame is imputable to them. The demolition of the monasteries, with their dependencies, will be found to comprehend the sum of what they can be justly charged with. And yet again, I would ask those who are most disposed to blame them for this, What purpose could the allowing of these buildings to stand have served, if not to cherish the hopesand excite the desires of the catholics, to regain possession of them? To what use could the reformers possibly have converted them? Is it to be supposed that they could form the idea of preserving them for the gratification of a race of antiquaries, who were to rise up in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Have these gentlemen, with all their zeal, ever testified their regard for these sacred monuments, by associations and subscriptions to preserve the mouldering remains from going to their original dust? The reformed ministers had enough to do, in exciting the nobility and gentry to keep the parish churches in decent repair, without undertaking the additional task of supporting huge and useless fabrics. But enough of this—Let not any distress themselves by supposing that the costly furniture of the monasteries and churches was all consumed by the flames. Fanatical as the reformers were, they “reservit the best part thairof unburnt,” and converted it into money, some of which went into the public purse, but the greater part into the private pockets of the nobles. Winzet, apud Keith, Append. 245. The idols and images were indeed committed to the flames without mercy; but considering the example that their adversaries had set them of consigning the living images of God to this fate, the retaliation was certainly moderate; and that these were the only sacrifices which they offered up, we have the testimony of a popish writer. Leslæus, de Reb. Gest. Scotorum, lib. x. p. 537, edit. 1675.The act of privy council for demolishing idolatrous houses did not extend to cathedrals or to parish churches. Spotswood, p. 174, 175. In the First Book of Discipline, indeed, cathedral‑churches, if not used as parish‑churches, are mentioned among the places to be suppressed; but so far was this case from occurring, that it was found necessary to employ many of the chapels attached to monasteries, and collegiate churches, as places for the protestant worship. That, in the first effervescence of popular zeal, some of the cathedrals and other churches should have suffered, is not much to be wondered at. “What you speak of Mr Knox preaching for the pulling down of churches,” says Mr Baillie, in his answer to bishop Maxwell, “is like the rest of your lies. I have not heard that in all our land above three or foure churches were cast down.” Historical Vindication of the Government of the church of Scotland,p. 40. Mr Baillie had the historical collections of Calderwood in his possession when he composed that work. This statement is confirmed by the testimony of Cecil in the letter quoted above, (p.424.) The churches were merely to be stripped of monuments of idolatry and instruments of superstition; and in carrying this into effect, great care was ordered to be taken that the buildings should not be injured. Lord James Stewart (afterwards earl of Murray) was the person to whom the execution of the act in the northern part of the kingdom was committed;and we have an authentic document of the manner in which he proceeded, in an order issued by him, and written with his own hand, for purging the cathedral church of Dunkeld.492The following is an exact copy of that order:“To our traist friendis, the Lairds of Arntilly and Kinvaid.“Traist friendis, after maist harty commendacion, we pray yow faill not to pass incontinent to the kyrk of Dunkeld, and tak doun the haill images thereof, and bring furth to the kyrkzayrd, and burn thaym oppinly. And siclyk cast down the altaris, and purge the kyrk of all kynd of monuments of idolatrye. And this ze faill not to do, as ze will do us singular empleseur; and so committis you to the protection of God. From Edinburgh, the xii. of August, 1560.(Signed)“Ar. Ergyll.“James Stewart.“Ruthven.”“Faill not, bot ze tak guid heyd that neither the dasks, windocks, nor durris, be ony ways hurt or broken————eyther glassin wark or iron wark.”We may take it for granted that the same caution was used in the rest of the commissions. If it be asked, how it happened that the cathedrals, and many other churches, fell into such a ruined state, the following quotations may serve for an answer. They are taken from a scarce work written by Robert Pont, commissioner of Murray, and one of the lords of Session. “Yet, a great many, not onely of the raskall sorte, but sundry men of name and worldly reputation, joyned themselves with the congregation of thereformers, not so much for zeale of religion, as to reape some earthly commoditie, and to be enriched by spoyle of the kirkes and abbey places. And when the preachers told them that such places of idolatrie should be pulled down, they accepted gladly the enterprise; and rudely passing to worke, pulled down all, both idoles and places where they were found. Not making difference betweene these places of idolatrie, and many parish kirks, where God’s word shuld have bin preached in many parts where they resorted, as in such tumultes and suddainties useth to come to passe; namelye, among such a nation as we are. Another thing fell out at that time, which may be excused by reason of necessitie; when as the lordes, and some of the nobilitie, principall enterprysers of the Reformation, having to do with the Frenchmen, and many their assisters of our owne nation, enemies to these proceedings, were forced, not onely to ingage their owne landes, and bestowe whatsoever they were able to furnishe of their own patrimonie, for maintenance of men of warre, and other charges, but also to take the lead and belles, with other jewelles and ornaments of kirkes, abbayes, and other places of superstition, to employ the same, and the prises thereof, to resist the enemies. The most parte of the realme beand in their contrarie. This, I say, cannot be altogether blamed.” Against Sacrilege, Three Sermons preached by Maister Robert Pont, an aged Pastour in the Kirk of God. B. 6, 7. Edinburgh, 1599. Comp. Keith, p. 468.But what shall we say of the immense loss which literature sustained on that occasion? “Bibliothecks destroied, the volumes of the fathers, councells, and other books of humane learning, with the registers of the church, cast into the streets, afterwards gathered in heaps, and consumed with fire.” Spotswood’s MS. Keith, Historie, p. 508. Does not such conduct equal the fanaticism of the Mahometan chieftain who deprived the world of the invaluable Alexandrine library? As every one is apt to deplore the loss of that commodity upon which he sets the greatest value, I might feel more inclined to join in this lamentation, were I not convinced that the real loss was extremely trifling, and that it has been compensated ten thousand fold. Where and of what kind were these bibliothecks?Omne ignotum magnificum.The public waslong amused with the tale of a classical library at Iona, which promised a complete copy of Livy’s works, not to be found in all the world beside; a miracle which Mr Gibbon, in the abundance of his literary faith, seems to have been inclined to admit. Danes, and Reformers, and Republicans, were successively anathematized, and consigned to the shades of barbarism, for the destruction of what (for aught that appears) seems to have existed only in the brains of antiquarians. It has been common to say, that all the learning of the times was confined to monasteries. This was true at a certain period; but it had ceased to be the fact in the age in which the Reformation took place. Low as literature was in Scotland at the beginning of the 16th century, for the credit of my country, I trust that it was not in so poor a state in the universities as it was in the monasteries. Take the account of one who has bestowed much attention on the monastic antiquities of Scotland. “Monkish ambition terminated in acquiring skill in scholastic disputation. If any thing besides simple theology was read, it might consist of the legends of saints, who were pictured converting infidels, interceding for offenders, and overreaching fiends; or of romances, recording the valour of some hardy adventurer, continually occupied in wars with pagans, or in vanquishing giants, foiling necromancers, and combating dragons. Some were chroniclers; and books of the laws might be transcribed or deposited with monks. Some monks might be conversant in medicine and the occult sciences.” Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems, i. 17, 18.But we are not left to conjecture, or to general inferences, concerning the state of the monastic libraries. We have the catalogues of two libraries, the one of a monastery, the other of a collegiate church; which may be deemed fair specimens of the condition of the remainder in the respective ages to which they belonged. The former is the catalogue of the library of the Culdean monastery at Lochleven in the 12th century. It consisted of only seventeen books, all of them necessarily in manuscript. Among these were a pastoral, graduale, and missale, books common to all monasteries, and without which their religious service could not be performed; the Text of the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles; an Expositionof Genesis; a Collection of Sentences; and an Interpretation of Sayings. The rest seem to have consisted of some of the writings of Prosper, and perhaps of Origen and Jerom. Jamieson’s Historical account of the ancient Culdees, p. 376–8. It may be granted that this collection of books was by no means despicable in that age; but certainly it contained nothing, the loss of which has been injurious to literature. I have no doubt that, if a copy of the Gospels, with the Lochleven seal or superscription, (whether authentic or fictitious,) were to occur, it would, with antiquarians, give as high a price as a Polyglot; without the smallest regard to its utility in settling the original text. From the 12th to the 16th century, the monastic libraries did not improve. The catalogue of the library at Stirling exhibits the true state of learning at the beginning of the last mentioned period. It contained, indeed, a copy of the gospels and epistles in manuscript, most probably in Latin; the remainder of its contents was purely monkish. There were four missals, two psalters, four antiphonies, three breviaries, two legends, four graduals, and ten processionals. Dalyell’s Fragments of Scottish History, p. 77.I have occasionally met, in the course of my reading, with notices of volumes of the Fathers being in the possession of the Scottish monasteries, but nothing from which I could conclude that they had complete copies of any of their writings. The abbot of Crossraguel, indeed, speaks of his being in possession of a large stock of this kind, (Keith, Append. 193,) which some writers have been pleased to calculate at “a cart‑load.” It does not appear, however, that they belonged to the monastery over which he presided. But whatever books of this kind were to be found in them, the reformers would be anxious to preserve, not to destroy. The chartularies were the most valuable writings deposited in monasteries; and many of these have been transmitted to us. The reformers were not disposed to consume these records, and we find them making use of them in their writings. Knox, Historie, p. 1, 2, 3. The mass‑books were the most likely objects of their vengeance; and I have little doubt that a number of these were committed to the flames, in testimony of their abhorrence of the popish worship. Yet they were careful to preserve copies ofthem, which they produced in their disputes with the Roman catholics. Ibid. p. 261.But whatever literary ravages were committed, let them not be imputed exclusively to the tumultuary reformation of Scotland, to the fanaticism of our reformers, or the barbarous ignorance of our nobles. In England, the same proceedings took place to a far greater extent, and the loss must have been far greater. “Another misfortune,” says Collier, “consequent upon the suppression of the abbeys, was an ignorant destruction of a great many valuable books. The books, instead of being removed to royal libraries, to those of cathedrals, or the universities, were frequently thrown in to the grantees, as things of slender consideration. Their avarice was sometimes so mean, and their ignorance so undistinguishing, that when the covers were somewhat rich, and would yield a little, they pulled them off, threw away the books, or turned them to waste paper.”—“A number of them which purchased these superstitious mansions,” says bishop Bale, “reserved of those library books, some to serve their jacks, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots, and some they sold to the grocers and soap‑sellers, and some they sent over the sea to bookbinders, not in small numbers, but at timeswhole ships full. Yea, the universities are not clear in this detestable fact; but cursed is the belly which seeketh to be fed with so ungodly gains, and so deeply shameth his native country. I know a merchant man (which shall at this time be nameless) that bought the contents of two noble libraries for forty shillings price; a shame it is to be spoken. This stuff hath he occupied instead of grey paper by the space of more than theseten years, andyet hath he store enough for as many years to come.” Bale’s Declaration: Collier’s Eccles. Hist. ii. 166.
Note II.
Alleged Excesses of the Reformers.—It would be endless to enter into an examination of the exaggerated accounts which have been given of the “pitiful devastation” committed by the reformers. I shall content myself with stating a few facts, which may satisfy the candid and considerate that no such great blame is imputable to them. The demolition of the monasteries, with their dependencies, will be found to comprehend the sum of what they can be justly charged with. And yet again, I would ask those who are most disposed to blame them for this, What purpose could the allowing of these buildings to stand have served, if not to cherish the hopesand excite the desires of the catholics, to regain possession of them? To what use could the reformers possibly have converted them? Is it to be supposed that they could form the idea of preserving them for the gratification of a race of antiquaries, who were to rise up in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Have these gentlemen, with all their zeal, ever testified their regard for these sacred monuments, by associations and subscriptions to preserve the mouldering remains from going to their original dust? The reformed ministers had enough to do, in exciting the nobility and gentry to keep the parish churches in decent repair, without undertaking the additional task of supporting huge and useless fabrics. But enough of this—Let not any distress themselves by supposing that the costly furniture of the monasteries and churches was all consumed by the flames. Fanatical as the reformers were, they “reservit the best part thairof unburnt,” and converted it into money, some of which went into the public purse, but the greater part into the private pockets of the nobles. Winzet, apud Keith, Append. 245. The idols and images were indeed committed to the flames without mercy; but considering the example that their adversaries had set them of consigning the living images of God to this fate, the retaliation was certainly moderate; and that these were the only sacrifices which they offered up, we have the testimony of a popish writer. Leslæus, de Reb. Gest. Scotorum, lib. x. p. 537, edit. 1675.
The act of privy council for demolishing idolatrous houses did not extend to cathedrals or to parish churches. Spotswood, p. 174, 175. In the First Book of Discipline, indeed, cathedral‑churches, if not used as parish‑churches, are mentioned among the places to be suppressed; but so far was this case from occurring, that it was found necessary to employ many of the chapels attached to monasteries, and collegiate churches, as places for the protestant worship. That, in the first effervescence of popular zeal, some of the cathedrals and other churches should have suffered, is not much to be wondered at. “What you speak of Mr Knox preaching for the pulling down of churches,” says Mr Baillie, in his answer to bishop Maxwell, “is like the rest of your lies. I have not heard that in all our land above three or foure churches were cast down.” Historical Vindication of the Government of the church of Scotland,p. 40. Mr Baillie had the historical collections of Calderwood in his possession when he composed that work. This statement is confirmed by the testimony of Cecil in the letter quoted above, (p.424.) The churches were merely to be stripped of monuments of idolatry and instruments of superstition; and in carrying this into effect, great care was ordered to be taken that the buildings should not be injured. Lord James Stewart (afterwards earl of Murray) was the person to whom the execution of the act in the northern part of the kingdom was committed;and we have an authentic document of the manner in which he proceeded, in an order issued by him, and written with his own hand, for purging the cathedral church of Dunkeld.492The following is an exact copy of that order:
“To our traist friendis, the Lairds of Arntilly and Kinvaid.
“Traist friendis, after maist harty commendacion, we pray yow faill not to pass incontinent to the kyrk of Dunkeld, and tak doun the haill images thereof, and bring furth to the kyrkzayrd, and burn thaym oppinly. And siclyk cast down the altaris, and purge the kyrk of all kynd of monuments of idolatrye. And this ze faill not to do, as ze will do us singular empleseur; and so committis you to the protection of God. From Edinburgh, the xii. of August, 1560.
(Signed)“Ar. Ergyll.“James Stewart.“Ruthven.”
(Signed)
“Ar. Ergyll.
“James Stewart.
“Ruthven.”
“Faill not, bot ze tak guid heyd that neither the dasks, windocks, nor durris, be ony ways hurt or broken————eyther glassin wark or iron wark.”
We may take it for granted that the same caution was used in the rest of the commissions. If it be asked, how it happened that the cathedrals, and many other churches, fell into such a ruined state, the following quotations may serve for an answer. They are taken from a scarce work written by Robert Pont, commissioner of Murray, and one of the lords of Session. “Yet, a great many, not onely of the raskall sorte, but sundry men of name and worldly reputation, joyned themselves with the congregation of thereformers, not so much for zeale of religion, as to reape some earthly commoditie, and to be enriched by spoyle of the kirkes and abbey places. And when the preachers told them that such places of idolatrie should be pulled down, they accepted gladly the enterprise; and rudely passing to worke, pulled down all, both idoles and places where they were found. Not making difference betweene these places of idolatrie, and many parish kirks, where God’s word shuld have bin preached in many parts where they resorted, as in such tumultes and suddainties useth to come to passe; namelye, among such a nation as we are. Another thing fell out at that time, which may be excused by reason of necessitie; when as the lordes, and some of the nobilitie, principall enterprysers of the Reformation, having to do with the Frenchmen, and many their assisters of our owne nation, enemies to these proceedings, were forced, not onely to ingage their owne landes, and bestowe whatsoever they were able to furnishe of their own patrimonie, for maintenance of men of warre, and other charges, but also to take the lead and belles, with other jewelles and ornaments of kirkes, abbayes, and other places of superstition, to employ the same, and the prises thereof, to resist the enemies. The most parte of the realme beand in their contrarie. This, I say, cannot be altogether blamed.” Against Sacrilege, Three Sermons preached by Maister Robert Pont, an aged Pastour in the Kirk of God. B. 6, 7. Edinburgh, 1599. Comp. Keith, p. 468.
But what shall we say of the immense loss which literature sustained on that occasion? “Bibliothecks destroied, the volumes of the fathers, councells, and other books of humane learning, with the registers of the church, cast into the streets, afterwards gathered in heaps, and consumed with fire.” Spotswood’s MS. Keith, Historie, p. 508. Does not such conduct equal the fanaticism of the Mahometan chieftain who deprived the world of the invaluable Alexandrine library? As every one is apt to deplore the loss of that commodity upon which he sets the greatest value, I might feel more inclined to join in this lamentation, were I not convinced that the real loss was extremely trifling, and that it has been compensated ten thousand fold. Where and of what kind were these bibliothecks?Omne ignotum magnificum.The public waslong amused with the tale of a classical library at Iona, which promised a complete copy of Livy’s works, not to be found in all the world beside; a miracle which Mr Gibbon, in the abundance of his literary faith, seems to have been inclined to admit. Danes, and Reformers, and Republicans, were successively anathematized, and consigned to the shades of barbarism, for the destruction of what (for aught that appears) seems to have existed only in the brains of antiquarians. It has been common to say, that all the learning of the times was confined to monasteries. This was true at a certain period; but it had ceased to be the fact in the age in which the Reformation took place. Low as literature was in Scotland at the beginning of the 16th century, for the credit of my country, I trust that it was not in so poor a state in the universities as it was in the monasteries. Take the account of one who has bestowed much attention on the monastic antiquities of Scotland. “Monkish ambition terminated in acquiring skill in scholastic disputation. If any thing besides simple theology was read, it might consist of the legends of saints, who were pictured converting infidels, interceding for offenders, and overreaching fiends; or of romances, recording the valour of some hardy adventurer, continually occupied in wars with pagans, or in vanquishing giants, foiling necromancers, and combating dragons. Some were chroniclers; and books of the laws might be transcribed or deposited with monks. Some monks might be conversant in medicine and the occult sciences.” Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems, i. 17, 18.
But we are not left to conjecture, or to general inferences, concerning the state of the monastic libraries. We have the catalogues of two libraries, the one of a monastery, the other of a collegiate church; which may be deemed fair specimens of the condition of the remainder in the respective ages to which they belonged. The former is the catalogue of the library of the Culdean monastery at Lochleven in the 12th century. It consisted of only seventeen books, all of them necessarily in manuscript. Among these were a pastoral, graduale, and missale, books common to all monasteries, and without which their religious service could not be performed; the Text of the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles; an Expositionof Genesis; a Collection of Sentences; and an Interpretation of Sayings. The rest seem to have consisted of some of the writings of Prosper, and perhaps of Origen and Jerom. Jamieson’s Historical account of the ancient Culdees, p. 376–8. It may be granted that this collection of books was by no means despicable in that age; but certainly it contained nothing, the loss of which has been injurious to literature. I have no doubt that, if a copy of the Gospels, with the Lochleven seal or superscription, (whether authentic or fictitious,) were to occur, it would, with antiquarians, give as high a price as a Polyglot; without the smallest regard to its utility in settling the original text. From the 12th to the 16th century, the monastic libraries did not improve. The catalogue of the library at Stirling exhibits the true state of learning at the beginning of the last mentioned period. It contained, indeed, a copy of the gospels and epistles in manuscript, most probably in Latin; the remainder of its contents was purely monkish. There were four missals, two psalters, four antiphonies, three breviaries, two legends, four graduals, and ten processionals. Dalyell’s Fragments of Scottish History, p. 77.
I have occasionally met, in the course of my reading, with notices of volumes of the Fathers being in the possession of the Scottish monasteries, but nothing from which I could conclude that they had complete copies of any of their writings. The abbot of Crossraguel, indeed, speaks of his being in possession of a large stock of this kind, (Keith, Append. 193,) which some writers have been pleased to calculate at “a cart‑load.” It does not appear, however, that they belonged to the monastery over which he presided. But whatever books of this kind were to be found in them, the reformers would be anxious to preserve, not to destroy. The chartularies were the most valuable writings deposited in monasteries; and many of these have been transmitted to us. The reformers were not disposed to consume these records, and we find them making use of them in their writings. Knox, Historie, p. 1, 2, 3. The mass‑books were the most likely objects of their vengeance; and I have little doubt that a number of these were committed to the flames, in testimony of their abhorrence of the popish worship. Yet they were careful to preserve copies ofthem, which they produced in their disputes with the Roman catholics. Ibid. p. 261.
But whatever literary ravages were committed, let them not be imputed exclusively to the tumultuary reformation of Scotland, to the fanaticism of our reformers, or the barbarous ignorance of our nobles. In England, the same proceedings took place to a far greater extent, and the loss must have been far greater. “Another misfortune,” says Collier, “consequent upon the suppression of the abbeys, was an ignorant destruction of a great many valuable books. The books, instead of being removed to royal libraries, to those of cathedrals, or the universities, were frequently thrown in to the grantees, as things of slender consideration. Their avarice was sometimes so mean, and their ignorance so undistinguishing, that when the covers were somewhat rich, and would yield a little, they pulled them off, threw away the books, or turned them to waste paper.”—“A number of them which purchased these superstitious mansions,” says bishop Bale, “reserved of those library books, some to serve their jacks, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots, and some they sold to the grocers and soap‑sellers, and some they sent over the sea to bookbinders, not in small numbers, but at timeswhole ships full. Yea, the universities are not clear in this detestable fact; but cursed is the belly which seeketh to be fed with so ungodly gains, and so deeply shameth his native country. I know a merchant man (which shall at this time be nameless) that bought the contents of two noble libraries for forty shillings price; a shame it is to be spoken. This stuff hath he occupied instead of grey paper by the space of more than theseten years, andyet hath he store enough for as many years to come.” Bale’s Declaration: Collier’s Eccles. Hist. ii. 166.
Note KK.Aversion of Queen Elizabeth to the Scottish War.—The personal aversion of Elizabeth to engage in the war of the Scottish Reformation, has not, so far as I have observed, been noticed by any of our historians. It is, however, a fact well authenticated by state papers, whether it arose from extreme caution at the commencementof her reign, from her known parsimony, or from her high notions respecting royal prerogative. Cecil mentions it repeatedly in his correspondence with Throkmorton. “God trieth us,” says he, “with may difficulties. The queen’s majestie never liketh this matter of Scotland; you knowe what hangeth thereuppon: weak‑hearted men and flatterers will follow that way.—I have had such a torment herin with the queen’s majestie, as an ague hath not in five fitts so much abated.” Forbes, i. 454, 455. In another letter he says, “What will follow of my going towardes Scotlande, I know not; but I feare the success, quia, the queen’s majestie is so evil disposed to the matter, which troubleth us all.” Ibid. 460. It was not until her council had presented a formal petition to her, that she gave her consent. Ibid. 390. Even after she had agreed to hostilities, she began to waver, and listen to the artful proposals of the French court, who endeavoured to amuse her until such time as they were able to convey more effectual aid to the queen regent of Scotland. Killigrew, in a letter to Throkmorton, after mentioning the repulse of the English army in an assault on the fortifications of Leith, says: “This, together with the bishopes [of Valance] relation unto the queen’s majestie, caused her to renew the opinion of Cassandra.” Ibid. 456. This was the principal cause of the suspension of hostilities, and the premature attempt to negotiate, in April 1560, which so justly alarmed the lords of the Congregation: an occurrence which is also passed over in our common histories. Sadler, i. 719, 721. The Scottish protestants were much indebted to Cecil and Throkmorton for the assistance which they obtained from England. A number of the counsellors, who had been in the cabinet of queen Mary, did all in their power to foster the disinclination of Elizabeth. Lord Gray, in one of his dispatches, complains of the influence of these ministers, whom he calls Phillipians, from their attachment to the interest of the king of Spain. Haynes, p. 295.
Note KK.
Aversion of Queen Elizabeth to the Scottish War.—The personal aversion of Elizabeth to engage in the war of the Scottish Reformation, has not, so far as I have observed, been noticed by any of our historians. It is, however, a fact well authenticated by state papers, whether it arose from extreme caution at the commencementof her reign, from her known parsimony, or from her high notions respecting royal prerogative. Cecil mentions it repeatedly in his correspondence with Throkmorton. “God trieth us,” says he, “with may difficulties. The queen’s majestie never liketh this matter of Scotland; you knowe what hangeth thereuppon: weak‑hearted men and flatterers will follow that way.—I have had such a torment herin with the queen’s majestie, as an ague hath not in five fitts so much abated.” Forbes, i. 454, 455. In another letter he says, “What will follow of my going towardes Scotlande, I know not; but I feare the success, quia, the queen’s majestie is so evil disposed to the matter, which troubleth us all.” Ibid. 460. It was not until her council had presented a formal petition to her, that she gave her consent. Ibid. 390. Even after she had agreed to hostilities, she began to waver, and listen to the artful proposals of the French court, who endeavoured to amuse her until such time as they were able to convey more effectual aid to the queen regent of Scotland. Killigrew, in a letter to Throkmorton, after mentioning the repulse of the English army in an assault on the fortifications of Leith, says: “This, together with the bishopes [of Valance] relation unto the queen’s majestie, caused her to renew the opinion of Cassandra.” Ibid. 456. This was the principal cause of the suspension of hostilities, and the premature attempt to negotiate, in April 1560, which so justly alarmed the lords of the Congregation: an occurrence which is also passed over in our common histories. Sadler, i. 719, 721. The Scottish protestants were much indebted to Cecil and Throkmorton for the assistance which they obtained from England. A number of the counsellors, who had been in the cabinet of queen Mary, did all in their power to foster the disinclination of Elizabeth. Lord Gray, in one of his dispatches, complains of the influence of these ministers, whom he calls Phillipians, from their attachment to the interest of the king of Spain. Haynes, p. 295.
Note LL.Loyalty of the Scottish Protestants.—The hostile advance of the regent against Perth, first drove the lords of the Congregationto take arms in their own defence. Her reiterated infraction of treaties, and the gradual developement of her designs, by the introduction of French troops into the kingdom, rendered the prospect of an amicable and permanent adjustment of differences very improbable, and dictated the propriety of strengthening their confederation, that they might be prepared for a sudden and more formidable attack. These considerations are sufficient to justify the posture of defence in which they kept themselves during the summer of 1559, and the steps which they took to secure assistance from England. If their exact situation is not kept in view, an accurate judgment of their conduct cannot be formed, and their partial and temporary resistance to the measures of the regent will be regarded as an avowed rebellion against her authority. But whatever be the modern ideas on this subject, they did not consider the former as necessarily implying the latter, and they continued to profess not only their allegiance to their sovereign, but also their readiness to obey the queen regent in every thing not inconsistent with their security, and the liberties of the nation; nay, they actually yielded obedience to her, by paying taxes to the officers whom she appointed to receive them. Knox, p. 176. Private and confidential letters are justly considered as the most satisfactory evidence as to the intentions of men. Our Reformer, in a letter to Mrs Locke, written on the 25th of July, 1559, says, “The queen is retired unto Dunbar. The fine [end] is known unto God. We mean no tumult, no alteration of authority, but only the reformation of religion, and suppression of idolatry.” Cald. MS. i. 429. At an early period, indeed, she accused them of a design to throw off their allegiance. When the prior of St Andrews joined their party, she industriously circulated the report that he ambitiously aimed at the sovereignty, and that they intended to confer it upon him. Knox, 149. Forbes, i. 180. It was one of the special instructions given to Sir Ralph Sadler, when he was sent down to Berwick, that he should “explore the very trueth” as to this report. Sadler, i. 731. In all his confidential correspondence with his court, there is not the slightest insinuation that Sadler had discovered any evidence to induce him to credit that charge. This is a strong proof of the prior’s innocence, if it be taken in connexion with what I shallimmediately state; not to mention the testimony of Sir James Melvil. Memoirs, p. 27.When the earl of Arran joined the Congregation, the queen regent circulated the same report respecting him. Knox, p. 174. So far as the Congregation were concerned, this accusation was equally unfounded as the former. Ibid. p. 176. But there are some circumstances connected with it, which deserve attention, as they set the loyalty of the Scottish protestants in a very clear light. The earl of Arran, and not the prior of St Andrews, was the favourite of the English court. Messengers were appointed by them to bring him from the continent, and he was conducted through England into Scotland, to be placed at the head of the Congregation. Forbes, i. 164, 166, 171, 216. Sadler, i. 417, 421, 437, 439. There is also good evidence that the ministers of Elizabeth wished him to be raised to the throne of Scotland, if not also that they had projected the uniting of the two crowns by a marriage between him and Elizabeth. “The way to perfait this assuredly,” says Throkmorton to Cecil, “is, that the erle of Arraine do as Edward the IV. did, when he landed at Ravenspurg: [he pretended to the duchy of York, and having that, he would not leave till he had the “diademe,”] for then of necessitie th’ erle of Arran must depend upon the devotion of England, to maintein and defend himself. I feare all other devises and handelings will prove like an apotecary his shop; and therefore I leave to your discretion to provyde by all meanes for this matter, both there and in Scotland.” And again: “Methinks, the lord of Grange, Ledington, Balnaves, and the chief doers of the Congregation, (which I wold wish specially to be done and procured by the prior of St Andrewes,) should be persuaded to set forward these purposes before: for there is no way for them to have any safety or surety, oneles thei make the earl of Arran king; and as it is their surety, so it is also ours. In this matter there must be used both wisdome, courage, and sped.” Forbes, i. 435, 436. Throkmorton, it is to be observed, was at this time the most confidential friend of Cecil, and, in his dispatches from France, pressed the adoption of those measures which the secretary had recommended to the queen and council. Had not the Congregation been decidedly averse to any change ofthe government which would have set aside their queen, it seems highly probable that this plan would have been carried into execution. The report of an intended marriage between Elizabeth and Arran was general at that time; and whatever were the queen’s own intentions, it seems to have been seriously contemplated by her ministers. Forbes, 214, 215, 282, 288. This accounts for the recommendation of this measure by the Scottish Estates, after the conclusion of the civil war. Keith, 154.
Note LL.
Loyalty of the Scottish Protestants.—The hostile advance of the regent against Perth, first drove the lords of the Congregationto take arms in their own defence. Her reiterated infraction of treaties, and the gradual developement of her designs, by the introduction of French troops into the kingdom, rendered the prospect of an amicable and permanent adjustment of differences very improbable, and dictated the propriety of strengthening their confederation, that they might be prepared for a sudden and more formidable attack. These considerations are sufficient to justify the posture of defence in which they kept themselves during the summer of 1559, and the steps which they took to secure assistance from England. If their exact situation is not kept in view, an accurate judgment of their conduct cannot be formed, and their partial and temporary resistance to the measures of the regent will be regarded as an avowed rebellion against her authority. But whatever be the modern ideas on this subject, they did not consider the former as necessarily implying the latter, and they continued to profess not only their allegiance to their sovereign, but also their readiness to obey the queen regent in every thing not inconsistent with their security, and the liberties of the nation; nay, they actually yielded obedience to her, by paying taxes to the officers whom she appointed to receive them. Knox, p. 176. Private and confidential letters are justly considered as the most satisfactory evidence as to the intentions of men. Our Reformer, in a letter to Mrs Locke, written on the 25th of July, 1559, says, “The queen is retired unto Dunbar. The fine [end] is known unto God. We mean no tumult, no alteration of authority, but only the reformation of religion, and suppression of idolatry.” Cald. MS. i. 429. At an early period, indeed, she accused them of a design to throw off their allegiance. When the prior of St Andrews joined their party, she industriously circulated the report that he ambitiously aimed at the sovereignty, and that they intended to confer it upon him. Knox, 149. Forbes, i. 180. It was one of the special instructions given to Sir Ralph Sadler, when he was sent down to Berwick, that he should “explore the very trueth” as to this report. Sadler, i. 731. In all his confidential correspondence with his court, there is not the slightest insinuation that Sadler had discovered any evidence to induce him to credit that charge. This is a strong proof of the prior’s innocence, if it be taken in connexion with what I shallimmediately state; not to mention the testimony of Sir James Melvil. Memoirs, p. 27.
When the earl of Arran joined the Congregation, the queen regent circulated the same report respecting him. Knox, p. 174. So far as the Congregation were concerned, this accusation was equally unfounded as the former. Ibid. p. 176. But there are some circumstances connected with it, which deserve attention, as they set the loyalty of the Scottish protestants in a very clear light. The earl of Arran, and not the prior of St Andrews, was the favourite of the English court. Messengers were appointed by them to bring him from the continent, and he was conducted through England into Scotland, to be placed at the head of the Congregation. Forbes, i. 164, 166, 171, 216. Sadler, i. 417, 421, 437, 439. There is also good evidence that the ministers of Elizabeth wished him to be raised to the throne of Scotland, if not also that they had projected the uniting of the two crowns by a marriage between him and Elizabeth. “The way to perfait this assuredly,” says Throkmorton to Cecil, “is, that the erle of Arraine do as Edward the IV. did, when he landed at Ravenspurg: [he pretended to the duchy of York, and having that, he would not leave till he had the “diademe,”] for then of necessitie th’ erle of Arran must depend upon the devotion of England, to maintein and defend himself. I feare all other devises and handelings will prove like an apotecary his shop; and therefore I leave to your discretion to provyde by all meanes for this matter, both there and in Scotland.” And again: “Methinks, the lord of Grange, Ledington, Balnaves, and the chief doers of the Congregation, (which I wold wish specially to be done and procured by the prior of St Andrewes,) should be persuaded to set forward these purposes before: for there is no way for them to have any safety or surety, oneles thei make the earl of Arran king; and as it is their surety, so it is also ours. In this matter there must be used both wisdome, courage, and sped.” Forbes, i. 435, 436. Throkmorton, it is to be observed, was at this time the most confidential friend of Cecil, and, in his dispatches from France, pressed the adoption of those measures which the secretary had recommended to the queen and council. Had not the Congregation been decidedly averse to any change ofthe government which would have set aside their queen, it seems highly probable that this plan would have been carried into execution. The report of an intended marriage between Elizabeth and Arran was general at that time; and whatever were the queen’s own intentions, it seems to have been seriously contemplated by her ministers. Forbes, 214, 215, 282, 288. This accounts for the recommendation of this measure by the Scottish Estates, after the conclusion of the civil war. Keith, 154.
Note MM.Authorities for the statement of Knox’s Political Principles.—The following extracts from his writings relate to the principal points touched in the statement of his political sentiments:—“In few wordis to speik my conscience; the regiment of princes is this day cum to that heap of iniquitie, that no godlie man can bruke office or autoritie under thame, but in so doing hie salbe compellit not onlie aganis equitie and justice to oppress the pure, but also expressedlie to fycht againis God and his ordinance, either in maintenance of idolatrie, or ellis in persecuting Godis chosin childrene. And what must follow heirof, but that ether princeis be reformit and be compellit also to reform their wickit laws, or els all gud men depart fra thair service and companie.” Additions to the Apology of the Parisian Protestants: MS. Letters, p. 477. Dr Robertson has ascribed to Knox and Buchanan an “excessive admiration of ancient policy;” and he says, their “principles, authorities, and examples, were all drawn from ancient writers,” and their political system founded “not on the maxims of feudal, but of ancient republican government.” History of Scotland, vol. i. b. ii. p. 391. Lond. 1809. These assertions need some qualification. If republican government be opposed to absolute monarchy, the principles of Knox and Buchanan may be denominated republican; but if the term (as now commonly understood) be used in contradistinction to monarchy itself, it cannot be shown that they admired or recommended republicanism. They were the friends of limited monarchy. It is the excellence of the government of Britain, that the feudal maxims which once predominatedin it, have been corrected, or their influence counteracted, by others borrowed from republican constitutions. And it is not a little to the credit of these great men, and evinces their good sense and moderation, that, notwithstanding all their admiration of ancient models of legislation, in comparison with the existing feudal monuments, they contented themselves with recommending such principles as tended to restrain the arbitrary power of kings, and secure the rights of the people. Nor were all their authorities and examples drawn from ancient writers, as may be seen in Buchanan’s dialogue,De jure regni apud Scotos.In a letter written by him to the queen dowager, a few days after her suspension from the regency, Knox says, “My toung did bothe perswade and obtein, that your authoritie and regiment suld be obeyed of us in all things lawfull, till ye declair yourself opin enemie to this comoun welthe; as now, allace! ye have done.” Historie, p. 180. This declaration is justified by the letters which he wrote to his brethren before his arrival in Scotland. The following extract from a letter addressed to the protestant nobility, December 17, 1557, is a specimen: “But now, no farder to trubill you at the present, I will onlie advertis you of sic bruit as I heir in thir partis, uncertainlie noysit, whilk is this, that contradictioun and rebellioun is maid to the autoritie be sum in that realme. In whilk poynt my conscience will not suffer me to keip back from you my consall, yea, my judgment and commandement, whilk I communicat with yow in Godis feir, and by the assurance of his trueth, whilk is this, that nane of you that seik to promot the glorie of Chryst do suddanlie disobey or displeas the establissit autoritie in things lawful, neither yet that ye assist or fortifie such as, for their awn particular caus and warldlie promotioun, wald trubill the same. But, in the bowallis of Chryst Jesus, I exhort yow, that, with all simplicitie and lawfull obedience, with boldness in God, and with opin confessioun of your faith, ye seek the favour of the autoritie, that by it (yf possible be) the cause in whilk ye labour may be promotit, or, at the leist, not persecutit: Whilk thing, efter all humill request, yf ye can not atteane, then, with oppin and solemp protestation of your obedience to be given to the autoritie in all thingis not planelie repugnying to God, ye lawfulliemay attemp the extreamitie, whilk is, to provyd (whidder the autoritie will consent or no) that Chrystis evangell may be trewlie preachit, and his haly sacramentis rychtlie ministerit unto yow and to your brethren, the subjectis of that realme. And farder ye lawfullie may, yea, and thairto is bound, to defend your brethrene from persecutioun and tiranny, be it aganis princes or emprioris, to the uttermost of your power; provyding alwayis (as I have said) that nether your self deny lawfull obedience, nether yit that ye assist nor promot thois that seik autoritie and pre‑eminence of warldlie glorie.” MS. Letters, p. 434, 435.In a conversation with queen Mary at Lochleven, we find him inculcating the doctrine of a mutual compact between rulers and subjects. “It sall be profitabill to your majesty to consider quhat is the thing your grace’s subjects luiks to receave of your majesty, and quhat it is that ye aucht to do unto thame by mutual contract. They ar bound to obey you, and that not bot in God; ye ar bound to keip lawes unto thame. Ye crave of thame service; they crave of you protectioun and defence against wicked doars. Now, madam, if you sall deny your dewty unto thame, (quhilk especialy craves that ye punish malefactors,) think ye to receave full obedience of thame?” Historie, p. 327. This sentiment was adopted by his countrymen. The committee appointed by the regent Murray, to prepare overtures for the parliament which met in December 1567, (of which committee our Reformer was a member,) agreed to this proposition: “The band and contract to be mutuale and reciprous in all tymes cuming betwixt the prince and God, and his faithful people, according to the word of God.” Robertson’s Records of Parliament, p. 796. This was also one of the articles subscribed at the General Assembly in July preceding; and their language is still more clear and express,—“mutual and reciproque in all tymes coming betwixt the prince and God, and also betwixt the prince and faithful people.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 34, Advocates’ Library. Keith, 582. See also the proclamation of the king’s authority, in Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 205. Keith, 441. The right of resistance was formally recognised in the inscription on a coin stamped soon after the coronation of James VI. On one of thesides is the figure of a sword with a crown upon it; and the words of Trajan circumscribed,Pro me; si mereor, in me;i.e.Use this sword for me; if I deserve it, against me. Cardonell’s Numismata Scotiæ, plate ix. p. 101. Our Reformer’s Appellation may be consulted for the proof of what has been asserted (p. 305, 306) as to his endeavours to repress aristocratical tyranny, and to awaken the mass of the people to a due sense of their rights. See also his Historie, p. 100. The effect of the Reformation in extending popular liberty was very visible in the parliament which met in August 1560, in which there were representatives from all the boroughs, and a hundred lesser barons, “with mony otheris baronis, fre‑halderis, and landit men.” Keith informs us that, during a space of no less than seventy‑seven years preceding, “scarcely had one of the inferior gentry appeared in parliament. And therefore,” adds he, “I know not but it may be deemed somewhat unusual, for a hundred of them to jump all at once into the parliament, especially in such a juncture as the present was.” History, p. 147, 148. The petition presented by the lesser barons, for liberty to sit and vote in the parliament, has this remarkable clause in it; “otherwise we think that whatsomever ordinances and statutes be made concerning us and our estate, we not being required and suffered to reason and vote at the making thereof, that the same should not oblige us to stand thereto.” Robertson’s History of Scotland, Append. No. 4.Liberal principles respecting civil government accompanied the progress of the Reformation. Knox had the concurrence of English bishops in his doctrine concerning the limited authority of kings, and the lawfulness of resisting them. See above,Note BB, and vol. ii.Note U. And he had the express approbation of the principal divines in the foreign churches. Historie, 363, 366. In the 17th century, some of the French reformed divines, in their great loyalty to theGrand Monarque, disclaimed our Reformer’s political sentiments, and represented them as proceeding from the fervid and daring spirit of the Scottish nation, or adapted to the peculiar constitution of their government. Riveti Castig. in Balzacum, cap. xiii. § 14: Oper. tom. iii. p. 539. Quotations from other French authors are given by Bayle, Diet. Art. Knox, Note E. In the controversy occasioned by the execution of Charles I., ourReformer’s name and principles were introduced. Milton appealed to him, and quoted his writings, in defence of that deed. One of Milton’s opponents told him that he could produce in his support only a single Scot, “whom his own age could not suffer, and whom all the reformed, especially the French, condemned in this point.” Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Cœlum, p. 129. Hagæ‑Comit. 1625; written by Pierre du Moulin, the son. Milton, in his rejoinder, urges with truth, that Knox had asserted, that his opinions were approved of by Calvin, and other eminent divines of the reformed churches. Miltoni Defensio Secunda, p. 101.Long before the controversy respecting the execution of Charles, Milton had expressed himself in terms of high praise concerning our Reformer. Arguing against the abuses committed by licensers of the press, he says, “Nay, which is more lamentable, if the work of any deceased author, though never so famous in his lifetime and even to this day, come to their hands for license to be printed or reprinted, if there be found in his book one sentence of a venturous edge, uttered in the height of zeal, (and who knows whether it might not be the dictate of a divine spirit?) yet, not suiting with every low decrepit humour of their own, though it wereKnoxhimself, the reformer of a kingdom, that spake it, they will not pardon him their dash: the sense of that great man shall to all posterity be lost for the fearfulness, or the presumptuous rashness of a prefunctory licenser. And to what an author this violence hath bin lately done, and in what book of greatest consequence to be faithfully publisht, I could now instance, but shall forbear till a more convenient season.” Prose Works, vol. i. p. 311. The tract from which this quotation is made, was first published in 1644, the year in which David Buchanan’s edition of Knox’s History appeared; and Milton evidently refers to that work.
Note MM.
Authorities for the statement of Knox’s Political Principles.—The following extracts from his writings relate to the principal points touched in the statement of his political sentiments:—
“In few wordis to speik my conscience; the regiment of princes is this day cum to that heap of iniquitie, that no godlie man can bruke office or autoritie under thame, but in so doing hie salbe compellit not onlie aganis equitie and justice to oppress the pure, but also expressedlie to fycht againis God and his ordinance, either in maintenance of idolatrie, or ellis in persecuting Godis chosin childrene. And what must follow heirof, but that ether princeis be reformit and be compellit also to reform their wickit laws, or els all gud men depart fra thair service and companie.” Additions to the Apology of the Parisian Protestants: MS. Letters, p. 477. Dr Robertson has ascribed to Knox and Buchanan an “excessive admiration of ancient policy;” and he says, their “principles, authorities, and examples, were all drawn from ancient writers,” and their political system founded “not on the maxims of feudal, but of ancient republican government.” History of Scotland, vol. i. b. ii. p. 391. Lond. 1809. These assertions need some qualification. If republican government be opposed to absolute monarchy, the principles of Knox and Buchanan may be denominated republican; but if the term (as now commonly understood) be used in contradistinction to monarchy itself, it cannot be shown that they admired or recommended republicanism. They were the friends of limited monarchy. It is the excellence of the government of Britain, that the feudal maxims which once predominatedin it, have been corrected, or their influence counteracted, by others borrowed from republican constitutions. And it is not a little to the credit of these great men, and evinces their good sense and moderation, that, notwithstanding all their admiration of ancient models of legislation, in comparison with the existing feudal monuments, they contented themselves with recommending such principles as tended to restrain the arbitrary power of kings, and secure the rights of the people. Nor were all their authorities and examples drawn from ancient writers, as may be seen in Buchanan’s dialogue,De jure regni apud Scotos.
In a letter written by him to the queen dowager, a few days after her suspension from the regency, Knox says, “My toung did bothe perswade and obtein, that your authoritie and regiment suld be obeyed of us in all things lawfull, till ye declair yourself opin enemie to this comoun welthe; as now, allace! ye have done.” Historie, p. 180. This declaration is justified by the letters which he wrote to his brethren before his arrival in Scotland. The following extract from a letter addressed to the protestant nobility, December 17, 1557, is a specimen: “But now, no farder to trubill you at the present, I will onlie advertis you of sic bruit as I heir in thir partis, uncertainlie noysit, whilk is this, that contradictioun and rebellioun is maid to the autoritie be sum in that realme. In whilk poynt my conscience will not suffer me to keip back from you my consall, yea, my judgment and commandement, whilk I communicat with yow in Godis feir, and by the assurance of his trueth, whilk is this, that nane of you that seik to promot the glorie of Chryst do suddanlie disobey or displeas the establissit autoritie in things lawful, neither yet that ye assist or fortifie such as, for their awn particular caus and warldlie promotioun, wald trubill the same. But, in the bowallis of Chryst Jesus, I exhort yow, that, with all simplicitie and lawfull obedience, with boldness in God, and with opin confessioun of your faith, ye seek the favour of the autoritie, that by it (yf possible be) the cause in whilk ye labour may be promotit, or, at the leist, not persecutit: Whilk thing, efter all humill request, yf ye can not atteane, then, with oppin and solemp protestation of your obedience to be given to the autoritie in all thingis not planelie repugnying to God, ye lawfulliemay attemp the extreamitie, whilk is, to provyd (whidder the autoritie will consent or no) that Chrystis evangell may be trewlie preachit, and his haly sacramentis rychtlie ministerit unto yow and to your brethren, the subjectis of that realme. And farder ye lawfullie may, yea, and thairto is bound, to defend your brethrene from persecutioun and tiranny, be it aganis princes or emprioris, to the uttermost of your power; provyding alwayis (as I have said) that nether your self deny lawfull obedience, nether yit that ye assist nor promot thois that seik autoritie and pre‑eminence of warldlie glorie.” MS. Letters, p. 434, 435.
In a conversation with queen Mary at Lochleven, we find him inculcating the doctrine of a mutual compact between rulers and subjects. “It sall be profitabill to your majesty to consider quhat is the thing your grace’s subjects luiks to receave of your majesty, and quhat it is that ye aucht to do unto thame by mutual contract. They ar bound to obey you, and that not bot in God; ye ar bound to keip lawes unto thame. Ye crave of thame service; they crave of you protectioun and defence against wicked doars. Now, madam, if you sall deny your dewty unto thame, (quhilk especialy craves that ye punish malefactors,) think ye to receave full obedience of thame?” Historie, p. 327. This sentiment was adopted by his countrymen. The committee appointed by the regent Murray, to prepare overtures for the parliament which met in December 1567, (of which committee our Reformer was a member,) agreed to this proposition: “The band and contract to be mutuale and reciprous in all tymes cuming betwixt the prince and God, and his faithful people, according to the word of God.” Robertson’s Records of Parliament, p. 796. This was also one of the articles subscribed at the General Assembly in July preceding; and their language is still more clear and express,—“mutual and reciproque in all tymes coming betwixt the prince and God, and also betwixt the prince and faithful people.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 34, Advocates’ Library. Keith, 582. See also the proclamation of the king’s authority, in Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 205. Keith, 441. The right of resistance was formally recognised in the inscription on a coin stamped soon after the coronation of James VI. On one of thesides is the figure of a sword with a crown upon it; and the words of Trajan circumscribed,Pro me; si mereor, in me;i.e.Use this sword for me; if I deserve it, against me. Cardonell’s Numismata Scotiæ, plate ix. p. 101. Our Reformer’s Appellation may be consulted for the proof of what has been asserted (p. 305, 306) as to his endeavours to repress aristocratical tyranny, and to awaken the mass of the people to a due sense of their rights. See also his Historie, p. 100. The effect of the Reformation in extending popular liberty was very visible in the parliament which met in August 1560, in which there were representatives from all the boroughs, and a hundred lesser barons, “with mony otheris baronis, fre‑halderis, and landit men.” Keith informs us that, during a space of no less than seventy‑seven years preceding, “scarcely had one of the inferior gentry appeared in parliament. And therefore,” adds he, “I know not but it may be deemed somewhat unusual, for a hundred of them to jump all at once into the parliament, especially in such a juncture as the present was.” History, p. 147, 148. The petition presented by the lesser barons, for liberty to sit and vote in the parliament, has this remarkable clause in it; “otherwise we think that whatsomever ordinances and statutes be made concerning us and our estate, we not being required and suffered to reason and vote at the making thereof, that the same should not oblige us to stand thereto.” Robertson’s History of Scotland, Append. No. 4.
Liberal principles respecting civil government accompanied the progress of the Reformation. Knox had the concurrence of English bishops in his doctrine concerning the limited authority of kings, and the lawfulness of resisting them. See above,Note BB, and vol. ii.Note U. And he had the express approbation of the principal divines in the foreign churches. Historie, 363, 366. In the 17th century, some of the French reformed divines, in their great loyalty to theGrand Monarque, disclaimed our Reformer’s political sentiments, and represented them as proceeding from the fervid and daring spirit of the Scottish nation, or adapted to the peculiar constitution of their government. Riveti Castig. in Balzacum, cap. xiii. § 14: Oper. tom. iii. p. 539. Quotations from other French authors are given by Bayle, Diet. Art. Knox, Note E. In the controversy occasioned by the execution of Charles I., ourReformer’s name and principles were introduced. Milton appealed to him, and quoted his writings, in defence of that deed. One of Milton’s opponents told him that he could produce in his support only a single Scot, “whom his own age could not suffer, and whom all the reformed, especially the French, condemned in this point.” Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Cœlum, p. 129. Hagæ‑Comit. 1625; written by Pierre du Moulin, the son. Milton, in his rejoinder, urges with truth, that Knox had asserted, that his opinions were approved of by Calvin, and other eminent divines of the reformed churches. Miltoni Defensio Secunda, p. 101.
Long before the controversy respecting the execution of Charles, Milton had expressed himself in terms of high praise concerning our Reformer. Arguing against the abuses committed by licensers of the press, he says, “Nay, which is more lamentable, if the work of any deceased author, though never so famous in his lifetime and even to this day, come to their hands for license to be printed or reprinted, if there be found in his book one sentence of a venturous edge, uttered in the height of zeal, (and who knows whether it might not be the dictate of a divine spirit?) yet, not suiting with every low decrepit humour of their own, though it wereKnoxhimself, the reformer of a kingdom, that spake it, they will not pardon him their dash: the sense of that great man shall to all posterity be lost for the fearfulness, or the presumptuous rashness of a prefunctory licenser. And to what an author this violence hath bin lately done, and in what book of greatest consequence to be faithfully publisht, I could now instance, but shall forbear till a more convenient season.” Prose Works, vol. i. p. 311. The tract from which this quotation is made, was first published in 1644, the year in which David Buchanan’s edition of Knox’s History appeared; and Milton evidently refers to that work.