Chapter 9

After much deliberation, a numerous assembly,consisting of nobles, barons, and representatives of boroughs, met at Edinburgh, on the 21st of October, 1559, to bring this important point to a solemn issue. To this assembly Knox and Willock were called; and the question being stated to them, they were required to deliver their opinions as to the lawfulness of the proposed measure. Willock, who then officiated as minister of Edinburgh, being first asked, declared it to be his judgment, founded on reason and scripture, that the power of rulers was limited; that they might be deprived of it upon valid grounds; and that the queen regent having, by fortifying Leith, and introducing foreign troops into the country, evinced a fixed determination to oppress and enslave the kingdom, might justly be divested of her authority, by the nobles and barons, as native counsellors of the realm, whose petitions and remonstrances she had repeatedly rejected. Knox assented to the opinion delivered by his brother, and added, that the assembly might, with safe consciences, act upon it, provided they attended to the three following things: First, that they did not suffer the misconduct of the queen regent to alienate their affections from due allegiance to their sovereigns, Francis and Mary; second, that they were not actuated in the measure by private hatred or envy of the queen dowager, but by regard to the safety of the commonwealth; and, third, that any sentence which they might at this time pronounce, should not preclude her re‑admission to office, if she afterwards discovered sorrow for her conduct, and a disposition tosubmit to the advice of the estates of the nation.After this, the whole assembly, having severally delivered their opinions, did, by a solemn deed, suspend the queen dowager from her authority as regent of the kingdom, until the meeting of a free parliament;451and, at the same time, elected a council for the management of public affairs during this interval.452When the council had occasion to treat of matters connected with religion, four of the ministers were appointed to assist in their deliberations.These were Knox, Willock, Goodman, and Alexander Gordon, bishop of Galloway, who had embraced the Reformation.453It has been alleged by some writers, that the question respecting the suspension of the queen regent was altogether incompetent for ministers of the gospel to determine, and that Knox and Willock, by the advice which they gave on this occasion, exposed themselves unnecessarily to odium.454But it is not easy to see how they could have been excused in refusingto deliver their opinion, when required by those who had submitted to their ministry, upon a measure which involved a case of conscience, as well as a question of law and political right. The advice which was actually given and followed is a matter of greater consequence, than the quarter from which it came. As this rests upon principles very different from those which produced resistance to princes, and limitation on their authority, under feudal governments, and as our Reformer has been the object of much animadversion for inculcating these principles, I shall embrace the present opportunity to offer a few remarks on this interesting subject.Among the various causes which affected the general state of society and government in Europe, during the middle ages, the influence of religion cannot be overlooked. Debased by ignorance, and fettered by superstition, the minds of men were prepared to acquiesce without examination in the claims of authority, and tamely to submit to every yoke. In whatever light we view popery, the genius of that singular system of religion will be found to be adverse to liberty. The court of Rome, while it aimed directly at the establishment of a spiritual despotism in the hands of ecclesiastics, contributed to rivet the chains of political servitude upon the people. In return for the support which princes yielded to its arrogant claims, it was content to invest them with an absolute authority over the bodies of their subjects. By the priestly unction, performed at the coronation of kings in thename of the holy see, a sacred character was understood to be imparted, which raised them to a superiority over their nobility which they did not possess according to feudal ideas, rendered their persons inviolable, and their office divine. Although the sovereign pontiffs claimed, and on different occasions exercised, the power of dethroning kings, and of absolving subjects from their allegiance; yet any attempt of this kind, when it proceeded from the people themselves, was denounced as a crime deserving the severest punishment in this world, and damnation in the next. Hence sprung the doctrine of the divine right of kings to rule independently of their people, and of passive obedience and non‑resistance to their will; under the sanction of which they were encouraged to sport with the lives and happiness of their subjects, and to indulge in the most tyrannical and wanton acts of oppression, without the dread of resistance, or of being called to an account by any power on earth. Even in countries where the people were understood to enjoy certain political privileges, transmitted from remote ages, or wrested from their princes on some favourable occasions, these principles were generally prevalent; and, availing himself of them, it was easy for an ambitious and powerful monarch to violate the rights of the people with impunity, and upon a constitution, the forms of which were friendly to popular liberty, to establish an administration completely arbitrary and despotic.The contest between papal sovereignty and the authority of general councils, which was carried onduring the fifteenth century, elicited some of the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards applied to political government. The revival of learning, by unfolding the principles of legislation, and modes of government in the republics of ancient Greece and Rome, gradually led to more liberal notions on this subject. But these were confined to a few, and had no influence upon the general state of society. The spirit infused by philosophy and literature is too feeble and contracted to produce a radical reform of established abuses; and learned men, proud of their own superior illumination, and satisfied with the liberty of indulging their speculations, have generally been too indifferent or too timid to attempt the improvement of the multitude. It is to the religious spirit excited during the sixteenth century, which spread rapidly through Europe, and diffused itself among all classes of men, that we are chiefly indebted for the propagation of the genuine principles of rational liberty, and the consequent amelioration of government.Civil and ecclesiastical tyranny were so closely combined, that it was impossible for men to emancipate themselves from the latter without throwing off the former; and from arguments which established their religious rights, the transition was easy, and almost unavoidable, to disquisitions about their civil privileges. In those kingdoms in which the rulers threw off the Roman yoke, and introduced the Reformation by their authority, the influence was more imperceptible and slow; and in some of them, as inEngland, the power taken from the ecclesiastical was thrown into the regal scale, which proved so far prejudicial to popular liberty. But where the Reformation was embraced by the great body of a nation, while the ruling powers continued to oppose it, the effect was visible and immediate. The interested and obstinate support which rulers gave to the old system of error and ecclesiastical tyranny, and their cruel persecution of all who favoured the new opinions, drove their subjects to enquire into the just limits of authority and obedience. Their judgments once informed as to the rights to which they were entitled, and their consciences satisfied respecting the means which they might employ to acquire them, the immense importance of the immediate object in view, their emancipation from religious bondage, and the salvation of themselves and their posterity, impelled them to make the attempt with an enthusiasm and perseverance which the mere love of civil liberty could not have inspired.In effecting that memorable revolution, which terminated in favour of religious and political liberty in so many nations of Europe, the public teachers of the protestant doctrine had a principal influence. By their instructions and exhortations, they roused the people to consider their rights and exert their power; they stimulated timid and wary politicians; they encouraged and animated princes, nobles, and confederated states, with their armies, against the most formidable opposition, and under the most overwhelming difficulties, until their exertions were ultimatelycrowned with success. These facts are now admitted, and this honour has at last, through the force of truth, been conceded to the religious leaders of the protestant Reformation, by philosophical writers, who had too long branded them as ignorant and fanatical.455Our Reformer had caught a large portion of the spirit of civil liberty.We have already adverted to the circumstance in his education which directed his attention, at an early period, to some of its principles.456His subsequent studies introduced him to an acquaintance with the maxims and modes of government in the free states of antiquity; and it is reasonable to suppose that his intercourse with the republics of Switzerland and Geneva had some influence on his political creed.Having formed his sentiments independently of the prejudices arising from established laws, long usage, and commonly received opinions, his zeal and intrepidity prompted him to avow and propagate them, when others, less sanguine and resolute, would have been restrained by fear, or by despair of success.457Extensive observation had convinced him of the glaring perversion of government in the European kingdoms; but his principles led himto desire their reform, not their subversion. His admiration of the polity of republics, ancient or modern, was not so great or indiscriminate as to prevent him from separating the essential principles of equity and freedom which they contained, from others which were incompatible with monarchy. He was perfectly sensible of the necessity of regular government to the maintenance of justice and order, and aware of the danger of setting men loose from its salutary control. And he uniformly inculcated a conscientious obedience to the lawful commands of rulers, and respect to their persons as well as to their authority, even when they were chargeable with various mismanagements, so long as they did not break through all the restraints of law and justice, and cease to perform the great and fundamental duties of their office.But he held that rulers, supreme as well as subordinate, were invested with authority for the public good; that obedience was not due to them in any thing contrary to the divine law, natural or revealed; that, in every free and well‑constituted government, the law of the land was superior to the will of the prince; that inferior magistrates and subjects might restrain the supreme magistrate from particular illegal acts, without throwing off their allegiance, or being guilty of rebellion; that no class of men have an original, inherent, and indefeasible right to rule over a people, independently of their will and consent; that every nation is entitled to provide and require that they shall be ruled by laws which are agreeable to the divine law, and calculated to promote theirwelfare; that there is a mutual compact, tacit and implied, if not formal and explicit, between rulers and their subjects; and, if the former shall flagrantly violate this, employ that power for the destruction of the commonwealth which was committed to them for its preservation and benefit, or, in one word, if they shall become habitual tyrants and notorious oppressors, that the people are absolved from allegiance, and have a right to resist them, formally to depose them from their place, and to elect others in their room.The real power of the Scottish kings was, indeed, always limited, and there are in our history, previous to the era of the Reformation, many instances of resistance to their authority. But, though these were pleaded as precedents on this occasion, it must be confessed that we cannot trace them to the principles of genuine liberty. They were the effects of sudden resentment on account of some extraordinary act of male‑administration, or of the ambition of some powerful baron, or of the jealousy with which the feudal aristocracy watched over the privileges of their own order. The people who followed the standards of their chiefs had little interest in the struggle, and derived no benefit from the limitations which were imposed upon the sovereign. But, at this time, more just and enlarged sentiments were diffused through the nation, and the idea of a commonwealth, including the mass of the people as well as the privileged orders, began to be entertained. Our Reformer, whose notions of hereditary right, whether in kings ornobles, were not exalted, studied to repress the insolence and oppression of the nobility.He reminded them of the original equality of men, and the ends for which some were raised above others; and he taught the people that they had rights to preserve, as well as duties to perform. With respect to female government, he never moved any question among his countrymen, nor attempted to gain proselytes to his opinion.458Such, in substance, were the political sentiments which were inculcated by our Reformer, and which were more than once acted upon in Scotland during his lifetime. That in an age when the principles of political liberty were only beginning to be understood, such sentiments should have been regarded with a suspicious eye by some of the learned who had not yet thrown off common prejudices, and that they should have exposed those who maintained them to a charge of treason from despotical rulers and their numerous satellites, is far from being matter of wonder. But it must excite both surprise and indignation, to find writers in the present enlightened age, and under the sunshine of British liberty, (if our sun is not fast going down,) expressing their abhorrence of these principles, and exhausting upon their authors all the invective and virulence of the former anti‑monarcho‑machi, and advocates of passive obedience. They are essentially the principles upon which thefree constitution of Britain rests; and the most obnoxious of them were reduced to practice at the memorable era of the Revolution, when the necessity of employing them was not more urgent or unquestionable, than it was at the suspension of the queen regent of Scotland, and the subsequent deposition of her daughter.I have saidessentially: for I would not be understood as meaning to say, that every proposition advanced by Knox, on this subject, is expressed in the most guarded and unexceptionable manner, or that all the cases in which he was led to vindicate forcible resistance to rulers, were such as rendered it necessary, and as may be pleaded as precedents in modern times. The political doctrines maintained at that period received a tincture from the spirit of the age, and were accommodated to a state of society and government comparatively rude and unsettled. The checks which have since been introduced into the constitution, and the influence which public opinion, expressed by the organ of a free press, has upon the conduct of rulers, are sufficient, in ordinary cases, to restrain dangerous encroachments, or to afford the means of correcting them in a peaceable way; and have thus happily superseded the necessity of having recourse to those desperate but decisive remedies which were formerly applied by an oppressed and indignant people. But if ever the time come when these principles shall be generally abjured or forgotten, the extinction of the boasted liberty of Britain will not be far off.There are objections against our Reformer’s political principles which demand consideration, from the authority to which they appeal, and the influence which they may have on pious minds. “The doctrine of resistance to civil rulers,” it is alleged, “is repugnant to the express directions of the New Testament, which repeatedly enjoin Christians to be subject to ‘the powers that be,’ and denounce damnation against such as disobey or resist them on any pretext whatever. With the literal and strict import of these precepts the example of the primitive Christians agreed; for, even after they became very numerous, so as to be capable of opposing the government under which they lived, they never attempted to shake off the authority of the Roman emperors, or to employ force to protect themselves from the tyranny and persecutions to which they were exposed. Besides, granting that it is lawful for subjects to vindicate their civil rights and privileges by resisting arbitrary rulers, to have recourse to forcible measures for promoting Christianity, is diametrically opposite to the genius of that religion, which was propagated at first, and is still to be defended, not by arms and violence, but by teaching and suffering.”These objections are more specious than solid. The directions and precepts on this subject, which are contained in the New Testament, must not be stretched beyond their evident scope and proper import. They do not give greater power to magistrates than they formerly possessed, nor do they supersede any of the rights or privileges to which subjects wereentitled, by the common law of nature, or by the particular statutes of any country.The New Testament does not give directions to communities respecting the original formation or subsequent improvement of their civil constitutions, nor prescribe the course which ought to be pursued in certain extraordinary cases, when rulers abuse the power with which they are invested, and convert their legitimate authority into an engine of despotism and oppression.459It supposes magistrates to be acting within the proper line of their office, and discharging its duties to the advantage of the society over which they are placed. And it teaches Christians, that the liberty which Christ purchased, and to the enjoyment of which they are called by the gospel, does not exempt them from subjection and obedience to civil authority, which is a divine ordinance for the good of mankind; that they are bound to obey existing rulers, although they should be of a different religion from themselves; and that Christianity, so far from setting them freefrom obligations to this or any other relative duty, strengthens these obligations, and requires them to discharge their duties for conscience‑sake, with fidelity, cheerfulness, patience, long‑suffering, and singleness of heart. Viewed in this light, nothing can be more reasonable in its own nature, or more honourable to the gospel, than the directions which it gives on this subject; and we must perceive a peculiar propriety in the frequency and earnestness with which they are urged, when we consider the danger in which the primitive christians were of supposing, that they were liberated from the ordinary restraints of the rest of mankind. But if we shall go beyond this, and assert that the scriptures have prohibited resistance to rulers in every case, and that the great body of a nation consisting of christians, in attempting to curb the fury of their rulers, or to deprive them of the power which they have grossly abused, are guilty of that crime against which the apostle denounces damnation, we represent the beneficent religion of Jesus as sanctioning despotism, and entailing all the evils of political bondage upon mankind; and we tread in the steps of those enemies to christianity, who, under the colour of paying a compliment to its pacific, submissive, tolerant, and self‑denying maxims, have represented it as calculated to produce a passive, servile spirit, and to extinguish courage, patriotism, the love of civil liberty, the desire of self‑preservation, and every kind of disposition to repel injuries, or to obtain the redress of the most intolerable grievances.The example of the primitive christians is not binding upon others any farther than it is conformable to the scriptures; and the circumstances in which they were placed were totally different from those of the protestants in Scotland, and in other countries, at the time of the Reformation. The fathers often indulge in oratorical exaggerations when speaking of the numbers of the christians; nor is there any satisfactory evidence that they ever approached near to a majority of the Roman empire, during the time that they were exposed to persecution.“If thou mayst be made free, use it rather,” says the Apostle; a maxim which is applicable, by just analogy, to political as well as domestic freedom. The christian religion natively tends to cherish and diffuse a spirit favourable to civil liberty, and this, in its turn, has the most happy influence upon christianity, which never flourished extensively, and for a long period, in any country where despotism prevailed. It must therefore be the duty of every christian to exert himself for the acquisition and defence of this invaluable blessing. Christianity ought not to be propagated by force of arms; but the external liberty of professing it may be vindicated in that way both against foreign invaders and against domestic tyrants. If the free exercise of their religion, or their right to remove religious abuses, enter into the grounds of the struggle which a nation maintains against oppressive rulers, the cause becomes of vastly more importance, its justice is more unquestionable, and it is still more worthy,not only of their prayers and petitions, but of their blood and treasure, than if it had been maintained solely for the purpose of securing their fortunes, or of acquiring some mere worldly privilege. And to those whose minds are not warped by prejudice, and who do not labour under a confusion of ideas on the subject, it must surely appear paradoxical to assert, that, while God has granted to subjects a right to take the sword of just defence for securing objects of a temporary and inferior nature, he has prohibited them from using this remedy, and left them at the mercy of every lawless despot, with respect to a concern the most important of all, whether it be viewed as relating to his own honour, or to the welfare of mankind.Those who judge of the propriety of any measure from the success with which it is accompanied, will be disposed to condemn the suspension of the queen regent. Soon after this step was taken, the affairs of the Congregation began to wear a gloomy aspect. The messenger whom they sent to Berwick to receive a remittance from the English court, was intercepted on his return, and rifled of the treasure; their soldiers mutinied for want of pay; they were repulsed in a premature assault upon the fortifications of Leith, and worsted in a skirmish with the French troops; the secret emissaries of the regent were too successful among them; their numbers daily decreased; and the remainder, disunited, dispirited and dismayed, came to the resolution of abandoning Edinburgh onthe evening of the 5th of November, and retreated with precipitation and disgrace to Stirling.Amidst the universal dejection produced by these disasters, the spirit of Knox remained unsubdued. On the day after their arrival at Stirling, he mounted the pulpit, and delivered a discourse, which had a wonderful effect in rekindling the zeal and courage of the Congregation. Their faces (he said) were confounded, their enemies triumphed, their hearts had quaked for fear, and still remained oppressed with sorrow and shame. Why had God thus dejected them? The situation of their affairs required plain language, and he would use it. In the present distressed state of their minds, they were in danger of attributing these misfortunes to a wrong cause, and of imagining that they had offended in taking the sword of self‑defence into their hands; just as the tribes of Israel did, when twice discomfited in the war which they undertook, by divine direction, against their brethren the Benjamites. Having divided the Congregation into two classes, those who had been embarked in this cause from the beginning, and those who had lately acceded to it, he proceeded to point out what he considered as blameable in the conduct of each. The former (he said) had laid aside that humility and dependence upon divine providence which they had discovered when their number was small; and, since they were joined by the Hamiltons, had become elated, secure, and self‑confident. “But wherein had my lord duke and his friends offended? I am uncertain if my lord’s grace has unfeignedlyrepented of his assistance to these murderers, unjustly pursuing us. Yea, I am uncertain if he has repented of that innocent blood of Christ’s blessed martyrs, which was shed in his default. But let it be that so he has done (as I hear that he has confessed his fault before the lords and brethren of the Congregation); yet I am assured that neither he, nor yet his friends, did feel before this time the anguish and grief of heart which we felt, when in their blind fury they pursued us. And therefore God hath justly permitted both them and us to fall in this fearful confusion at once,—us, for that we put our trust and confidence in man, and them, because they should feel in their own hearts how bitter was the cup which they made others drink before them.” After exhorting all to amendment of life, to prayers, and works of charity, he concluded with an animating address. “God,” he said, “often suffered the wicked to triumph for a while, and exposed his chosen congregation to mockery, dangers, and apparent destruction, in order to abase their self‑confidence, and induce them to look to himself for deliverance and victory. If they turned unfeignedly to the Eternal, he no more doubted that their present distress would be converted into joy, and followed by success, than he doubted that Israel was finally victorious over the Benjamites, after being twice repulsed with ignominy. The cause in which they were engaged would prevail in Scotland, in spite of all opposition.It was the eternal truth of the eternal God which they maintained;it might be oppressed for a time, but would ultimately triumph.”460The audience, who had entered the church in deep despondency, left it with renovated courage. In the afternoon the council met, and, after prayer by the Reformer, unanimously agreed to despatch William Maitland of Lethington to London, to supplicate more effectual assistance from Elizabeth. In the mean time, as they were unable to keep the field, it was agreed that they should divide, and that the one half of the council should remain at Glasgow, and the other at St Andrews. Knox was appointed to attend the latter in the double capacity of preacher and secretary.The French having, in the beginning of the year 1560, penetrated into Fife, he encouraged that small band, which, under the earl of Arran, and the prior of St Andrews, bravely resisted their progress, until the appearance of the English fleet compelled the enemy to retreat with precipitation.461The disaster which obliged the protestant army to raise the siege of Leith, and to evacuate Edinburgh, turned out eventually to the advantage of their cause. It induced the English court to abandon the line of cautious policy which they had hitherto pursued. Maitland’s embassy to London was successful; and, on the 27th of February, 1560, Elizabeth concluded a formal treaty with the lords of the Congregation,by which she engaged to send an army into Scotland, to assist them in expelling the French forces. Being informed of this treaty, the queen regent resolved to disperse the troops which were collected at Glasgow under the duke of Chastelherault, before the English army could arrive. On the 7th of March, the French, amounting to two thousand foot, and three hundred horse, issued from Leith, and, proceeding by Linlithgow and Kirkintilloch, suddenly appeared before Glasgow.Having reduced the episcopal castle, they were preparing to advance to Hamilton, when they received a message from the queen regent, informing them that the English army had begun its march into Scotland; upon which they relinquished their design, and returned to Leith, carrying along with them a number of prisoners and a considerable booty.462In the beginning of April, the English army joined the forces of the Congregation. The French shut themselves up within the fortifications of Leith, which was invested both by sea and land; and the queen regent, who had for some time been in a declining state of health, was received by lord Erskine into the castle of Edinburgh, where she died during the siege of Leith.These proceedings were viewed with deep interestby the court of France. Henry II., having died in July 1559, was succeeded by Francis II., the husband of the young queen of Scots; in consequence of which, the administration of affairs fell entirely into the hands of the duke of Guise and the cardinal of Lorrain. They employed every art of political intrigue to prevent the queen of England from giving assistance to the Scottish Congregation, and to prevail on her to desert them, after she had undertaken their protection. Nor were they altogether unsuccessful in their attempts. Elizabeth, partly from extreme caution and parsimony, and partly from the influence of some of her counsellors, was induced to listen to their plausible proposals; she delayed the march of her army into Scotland, and after the siege of Leith was commenced, suspended the military operations, and engaged in premature negotiations for peace. This last step justly alarmed the Congregation; and while they neglected no means to persuade the English court to perform the stipulations of the late treaty, they prepared for the worst, by renewing their covenant among themselves.Elizabeth at last listened to the advice of her ablest ministers, and resolved to prosecute the war with vigour. No sooner did she evince this determination than the French court yielded to all her demands. The armament which they had lately fitted out at great expense for Scotland had been dispersed by a storm; the frith of Forth was blocked up by an English fleet;and a confederacy had been formed among a number of the nobility in France, to removethe princes of Lorrain from the administration of public affairs, and to free the protestants in that kingdom from the severe persecutions to which they had hitherto been exposed.463Influenced by these circumstances,the French cabinet sent plenipotentiaries to Edinburgh, who concluded a treaty with England, by which the Scottish differences were also adjusted. By this treaty it was provided, that the French troops should immediately be removed from Scotland; that an amnesty should be granted to all who had been engaged in the late resistance to the queen regent; that the principal grievances of which they complained in the civil administration should be redressed; that a free parliament should be held to settle the other affairs of the kingdom; and that, during the absence of their sovereigns, the government should be administered by a council to be chosen partly by Francis and Mary, and partly by the estates of the nation.The treaty was signed on the 7th of July; on the 16th, the French army embarked at Leith, and the English troops began their march into their own country; and on the 19th, the Congregation assembled in St Giles’s church, to return solemn thanks to God for the restoration of peace, and the success which had crowned their exertions.464In thismanner terminated the civil war which attended the Scottish Reformation, after it had continued for twelve months, with less rancour and bloodshed than have distinguished any other contest of a similar kind.During the continuance of the war, the protestant preachers had been assiduous in disseminating knowledge through all parts of the kingdom, and their success was equal to their diligence. They had received a considerable accession to their number from the ranks of their opponents. While we venerate those men who enlisted under the banners of truth when her friends were few, and who boldly took the field in her defence when the victory was yet dubious and distant, and while we cheerfully award to them the highest meed of honour,—let us not load with heavy censure, or even deprive of all praise, such as, less enlightened, or less courageous, were tardy in appearing for the cause. He who “knew what is in man,” has taught us not to reject such disciples, in the dawn of light, and in perilous times. Nicodemus, who at first “came to Jesus by night,” and Joseph of Arimathea, who was his disciple, “but secretly for fear of the Jews,” afterwards avouched their faith in him, and obtained the honour of embalming and interring his body, when all his early followers had forsaken him and fled. Several of the Scottish clergy, who were favourable to the protestant doctrine, had contrived to retain their places in the church, by concealing their sentiments, or by securing the favour of some powerful patron. Of this class were John Winram, sub-prior of the abbey of St Andrews, AdamHerriot, a friar of that abbey, John Spottiswood, parson of Calder, and John Carsewell, rector of Kilmartine. In the gradual diffusion of knowledge through the nation, the minds of many who were attending the schools had been also enlightened; among whom were David Lindsay, Andrew Hay, Robert Montgomery, Patrick Adamson, and Robert and Archibald Hamilton. During the year 1559, these men came forward as auxiliaries to the first protestant preachers; and so successful were they in instructing the people, that the French would have found it extremely difficult to support the ancient superstition, though they had proved victorious in the military contest.On the other hand, the exertions of the popish clergy had been feeble in the extreme. Too corrupt to think of reforming their manners, too illiterate to be capable of defending their errors, they placed their forlorn hope on the success of the French arms, and looked forward to the issue of the war as involving the establishment or the ruin of their religion. The bishop of Amiens, who came to Scotland in the double capacity of ambassador from the French court and papal legate, was accompanied by three doctors of the Sorbonne, who gave out that they would confound the reformed ministers, and bring back the people whom they had misled to the bosom of the church, by the force of argument and persuasion. Lesley boasts of the success which attended their exertions;but there is good reason for thinking, that these foreign divines confined themselves to the easiertask of instructing the Scottish clergy to perform the religious service with greater solemnity, and to purify the churches, in a canonical manner, from the pollution which they had contracted by the profane worship of heretics.465One effort, however, was made by the popish clergy to support their sinking cause, which, if it had succeeded, would have done more to retrieve their reputation than all the arguments of the Sorbonists; and, as this was the last attempt of the kind that ever was made in Scotland, the reader may be gratified with the following account of it.In the neighbourhood of Musselburgh was a chapel dedicated to our Lady of Loretto, the sanctity of which was increased from its having been the favourite abode of the celebrated Thomas the Hermit.To this sacred place the inhabitants of Scotland, from time immemorial, had repaired in pilgrimage, to present their offerings to the Virgin, and to experience the efficacy of her prayers, and the healing virtue of the wonder‑working “Hermit of Lareit.”466In the course of the year 1559, public notice was given by the friars, that they intended to put the truth of their religion to the proof, by performing a miracle at this chapel upon a young man who had been born blind. On the dayappointed, a vast concourse of spectators assembled from all parts of Lothian. The young man, accompanied with a solemn procession of monks, was conducted to a scaffold, erected on the outside of the chapel, and was exhibited to the multitude. Many of them knew him to be the blind man whom they had often seen begging, and whose necessities they had relieved; all looked on him, and pronounced him stone blind. The friars then proceeded to their devotions with great fervency, invoking the assistance of the Virgin, at whose shrine they stood, and that of all the saints whom they honoured; and after some time spent in prayers and religious ceremonies, the blind man opened his eyes, to the astonishment of the spectators. Having returned thanks to the friars and their saintly patrons for this wonderful cure, he was allowed to go down from the scaffold to gratify the curiosity of the people, and to receive their alms.It happened that there was among the crowd a gentleman of Fife, Robert Colville of Cleish,467who, from his romantic bravery, was usually called Squire Meldrum, in allusion to a person of that name who had been celebrated by Sir David Lindsay. He was of protestant principles, but his wife was a Roman catholic, and, being pregnant at this time, had sent a servant with a present to the chapel of Loretto, to procure the assistance of the Virgin in her labour. The squire was too gallant to hurt his lady’s feelingsby prohibiting the present from being sent off, but he resolved to prevent the superstitious offering, and with that view had come to Musselburgh. He witnessed the miracle of curing the blind man with the distrust natural to a protestant, and determined, if possible, to detect the imposition before he left the place. Wherefore, having sought out the young man from the crowd, he put a piece of money into his hand, and persuaded him to accompany him to his lodgings in Edinburgh. Taking him into a private room, and locking the door, he told him plainly that he was convinced he had engaged in a wicked conspiracy with the friars to impose on the credulity of the people, and at last drew from him the secret of the story. When a boy, he had been employed to tend the cattle belonging to the nuns of Sciennes, in the vicinity of Edinburgh, and had attracted their attention by a peculiar faculty which he had of turning up the white of his eyes, and of keeping them in this position, so as to appear quite blind. Certain friars in the city, having come to the knowledge of this fact, conceived the design of making it subservient to their purposes; and, having prevailed on the sisters of Sciennes to part with the poor boy, lodged him in one of their cells. By daily practice he became an adept in the art of counterfeiting blindness; and after he had remained so long in concealment as not to be recognised by his former acquaintance, he was sent forth to beg as a blind pauper; the friars having previously bound him, by a solemn vow, not to reveal the secret. To confirm his narrative, he“played his pavie” before the squire, by “flypping up the lid of his eyes, and casting up the white,” so as to appear as blind as he did on the scaffold at Loretto. The gentleman laid before him the iniquity of his conduct, and told him that he must next day repeat the whole story publicly at the cross of Edinburgh; and, as this would expose him to the vengeance of the friars, he engaged to become his protector, and to retain him as a servant in his house. The young man complied with his directions, and Cleish, with his drawn sword in his hand, having stood by him till he had finished his confession, placed him on the same horse with himself, and carried him off to Fife. The detection of this imposture was quickly published through the country, and covered the friars with confusion.My author does not say whether it cured Lady Cleish of her superstition, but I shall afterwards have occasion to notice its influence in opening the eyes of one who became a distinguished promoter of the Reformation.468The treaty which put an end to the civil war in Scotland, made no particular settlement respecting the religious differences,469but it was, on that veryaccount, the more fatal to popery. The protestants were left in the possession of authority; and they were now by far the most powerful party in the nation, both as to rank and numbers. With the exception of those places which had been occupied by the queen regent and her foreign auxiliaries, the Roman catholic worship was almost universally deserted throughout the kingdom, and no provision was made in the treaty for its restoration. The firm hold which it once had on the opinions and affections of the people was completely loosened; it was supported by force alone; and the moment that the French troops embarked, that fabric which had stood for ages in Scotland fell to the ground. Its feeble and dismayed priests ceased of their own accord from the celebration of its rites; and the reformed service was peaceably set up, wherever ministers could be found to perform it.The parliament, when it entered upon the consideration of the state of religion, as one of the points, undecided by the commissioners, which had been left to them,470had little else to do but to sanction what the nation had previously done, bylegally abolishing the popish, and establishing the protestant religion.When the circumstances in which they were assembled, and the affairs on which they were called to deliberate, are taken into consideration, this must be regarded as the most important meeting of the estates of the kingdom that had ever been held in Scotland. It engrossed the attention of the nation, and the eyes of Europe were fixed on its proceedings. The parliament met on the 10th of July, but, agreeably to the terms of the treaty, it was prorogued, without entering on business, until the first day of August. Although a great concourse of people resorted to Edinburgh on that occasion, yet no tumult or disturbance of the public peace occurred. Many of the lords spiritual and temporal, who were attached to popery, absented themselves; but the chief patrons of the old religion, as the archbishop of St Andrews, and the bishops of Dumblane and Dunkeld, countenanced the assembly by their presence, and were allowed to act with freedom as lords of parliament. There is one fact in its constitution and proceedings which strikingly illustrates the influence of the Reformation upon political liberty. In the reign of James I. the lesser barons had been exempted from personal attendance on parliament, and permitted to elect representatives in their different shires.But a privilege which in modern times is so eagerly coveted, was then so little prized, that, except in a few instances, no representatives from the shires had appeared inparliament,471and the lesser barons had almost forfeited their right by neglecting to exercise it. At this time, however, they assembled at Edinburgh, and agreed upon a petition to the parliament, claiming to be restored to their ancient privilege.The petition was granted, and, in consequence of this, about a hundred gentlemen took their seats.472The business of religion was introduced by a petition presented by a number of protestants of different ranks, in which, after rehearsing their former endeavours to procure the removal of the corruptions which had infected the church, they requested parliament to use the power which providence had now put into their hands for effecting this great and urgent work. They craved three things in general,—that the anti‑christian doctrine maintained in the popish church should be discarded; that means should be used to restore purity of worship, and primitive discipline; and that the ecclesiastical revenues, which had been engrossed by a corrupt and indolent hierarchy, should be applied to the support of a pious and active ministry, to the promotion of learning, and to the relief of the poor.They declared, that they were ready to substantiate the justice of all their demands, and, inparticular, to prove, that those who arrogated to themselves the name of clergy were destitute of all right to be accounted ministers of religion, and that, from the tyranny which they had exercised, and their vassalage to the court of Rome, they could not be safely tolerated, and far less intrusted with power, in a reformed commonwealth.473In answer to the first demand, the parliament required the reformed ministers to lay before them a summary of doctrine which they could prove to be consonant with the scriptures, and which they desired to have established. The ministers were not unprepared for this task; and, in the course of four days, they presented a Confession of Faith, as the product of their joint labours, and an expression of their unanimous judgment. It agreed with the confessions which had been published by other reformed churches. Professing belief in the common articles of Christianity respecting the divine nature, the trinity, the creation of the world, the origin of evil, and the person of the Saviour, which were retained by the church of Rome, in opposition to the errors broached by ancient heretics, it condemned not only the idolatrous and superstitious tenets of that church, but also its gross depravation of the doctrine of scripture respecting the state of fallen man, and the method of his recovery. It declared that by “original sin was the image of God defacit in man, and he and hisposteritie of nature become enemies to God, slaifis to Sathan, and seruandis to sin:”—that “all our salvatioun springs fra the eternall and immutabill decree of God, wha of meir grace electit us in Christ Jesus, his Sone, before the foundatione of the warld was laid:”—that it behoves us “to apprehend Christ Jesus, with his justice and satisfactioun, wha is the end and accomplischement of the law, by whome we ar set at this libertie, that the curse and maledictioun of God fall not upon us:”—that “as God the Father creatit us whan we war not, as his Sone our Lord Jesus redemit us whan we were enemies to him, sa alswa the Haly Gaist dois sanctifie and regenerat us, without all respect of ony merite proceeding fra us, be it befoir or be it efter our regeneratioun,—to speik this ane thing yit in mair plaine wordis, as we willinglie spoyle ourselfis of all honour and gloir of our awin creatioun and redemptioun, sa do we alswa of our regeneratioun and sanctificatioun, for of our selfis we ar not sufficient to think ane gude thocht, bot he wha hes begun the wark in us is onlie he that continewis us in the same, to the praise and glorie of his undeservit grace:”—and, in fine, it declared that, although good works proceed “not from our fre‑will, but the Spirit of the Lord Jesus,” and although those that boast of the merit of their own works, “boist themselfis of that whilk is nocht,” yet “blasphemie it is to say, that Christ abydis in the hartis of sic as in whome thair is no spirite of sanctificatioun;and all wirkers of iniquitie have nouther trew faith, nouther ony portioun of the Spirite of the LordJesus, sa lang as obstinatlie they continew in thair wickitnes.”474The Confession was read first before the lords of Articles, and afterwards before the whole parliament. The protestant ministers attended in the house to defend it, if attacked, and to give satisfaction to the members respecting any point which might appear dubious. Those who had objections to it were formally required to state them.And the farther consideration of it was adjourned to a subsequent day, that none might pretend that an undue advantage had been taken of him, or that a matter of such importance had been concluded precipitately.On the 17th of August, the parliament resumed the subject, and, previous to the vote, the Confession was again read, article by article.475The earl of Athole, and lords Somerville and Borthwick, were the only persons of the temporal estate who voted in the negative, assigning this as their reason, “We will beleve as our forefatheris belevit.”476“The bischopis spak nothing.”477After the vote establishing the Confessionof faith, the earl Marischal rose, and declared, that the silence of the clergy had confirmed him in his belief of the protestant doctrine; and he protested, that if any of the ecclesiastical estate should afterwards oppose the doctrine which had just been received, they should be entitled to no credit;seeing, after full knowledge of it, and ample time for deliberation, they had allowed it to pass without the smallest opposition or contradiction.478On the 24th of August, the parliament abolished the papal jurisdiction, prohibited, under certain penalties, the celebration of mass, and rescinded all the laws formerly made in support of the Roman catholic church, and against the reformed faith.479Thus did the reformed religion advance in Scotland, from small beginnings, and amidst great opposition, until it attained a parliamentary establishment. Besides the influence of heaven secretly accompanying the labours of the preachers and confessors of the truth, the serious and inquisitive reader will trace the wise arrangements of providence in that concatenation of events which contributed to its rise, preservation, and increase,—by overruling the caprice, the ambition, the avarice, and the interested policy of princes and cabinets, many of whom had nothing less in view than to favour that cause, which they were so instrumental in promoting.The breach of Henry VIII. of England with theRoman see, awakened the attention of the inhabitants of the northern part of the island to a controversy which had formerly been carried on at too great a distance to interest them, and led not a few to desire a reformation more improved than the model which that monarch had held out to them. The premature death of James V. of Scotland saved the protestants from destruction. During the short period in which they received the countenance of civil authority, at the commencement of Arran’s administration, the seeds of the reformed doctrine were so widely spread, and took such deep root, as to be able to resist the violent measures which the regent, after his recantation, employed to extirpate them. Those who were driven from the country by persecution found an asylum in England, under the decidedly protestant government of Edward VI. After his death, the alliance of England with Spain, and of Scotland with France, the two great contending powers on the continent, prevented that concert between the two courts which might have proved fatal to the protestant religion in Britain. While the cruelties of the English queen drove protestant preachers into Scotland, the political schemes of the queen regent induced her to favour them, and to connive at the propagation of their opinions. At the critical moment when the latter had accomplished her favourite designs, and was preparing to crush the Reformation, Elizabeth ascended the throne of England, and was induced, by political no less than religious considerations, to support the Scottish reformers. The French court wasno less bent on suppressing them, and, having lately concluded peace with Spain, was left at liberty to direct its undivided attention to the accomplishment of that object; but at this critical moment, those intestine dissensions, which continued so long to desolate France, broke out, and forced its ministers to accede to that treaty, which put an end to French influence, and the papal religion, in Scotland.

After much deliberation, a numerous assembly,consisting of nobles, barons, and representatives of boroughs, met at Edinburgh, on the 21st of October, 1559, to bring this important point to a solemn issue. To this assembly Knox and Willock were called; and the question being stated to them, they were required to deliver their opinions as to the lawfulness of the proposed measure. Willock, who then officiated as minister of Edinburgh, being first asked, declared it to be his judgment, founded on reason and scripture, that the power of rulers was limited; that they might be deprived of it upon valid grounds; and that the queen regent having, by fortifying Leith, and introducing foreign troops into the country, evinced a fixed determination to oppress and enslave the kingdom, might justly be divested of her authority, by the nobles and barons, as native counsellors of the realm, whose petitions and remonstrances she had repeatedly rejected. Knox assented to the opinion delivered by his brother, and added, that the assembly might, with safe consciences, act upon it, provided they attended to the three following things: First, that they did not suffer the misconduct of the queen regent to alienate their affections from due allegiance to their sovereigns, Francis and Mary; second, that they were not actuated in the measure by private hatred or envy of the queen dowager, but by regard to the safety of the commonwealth; and, third, that any sentence which they might at this time pronounce, should not preclude her re‑admission to office, if she afterwards discovered sorrow for her conduct, and a disposition tosubmit to the advice of the estates of the nation.After this, the whole assembly, having severally delivered their opinions, did, by a solemn deed, suspend the queen dowager from her authority as regent of the kingdom, until the meeting of a free parliament;451and, at the same time, elected a council for the management of public affairs during this interval.452When the council had occasion to treat of matters connected with religion, four of the ministers were appointed to assist in their deliberations.These were Knox, Willock, Goodman, and Alexander Gordon, bishop of Galloway, who had embraced the Reformation.453

It has been alleged by some writers, that the question respecting the suspension of the queen regent was altogether incompetent for ministers of the gospel to determine, and that Knox and Willock, by the advice which they gave on this occasion, exposed themselves unnecessarily to odium.454But it is not easy to see how they could have been excused in refusingto deliver their opinion, when required by those who had submitted to their ministry, upon a measure which involved a case of conscience, as well as a question of law and political right. The advice which was actually given and followed is a matter of greater consequence, than the quarter from which it came. As this rests upon principles very different from those which produced resistance to princes, and limitation on their authority, under feudal governments, and as our Reformer has been the object of much animadversion for inculcating these principles, I shall embrace the present opportunity to offer a few remarks on this interesting subject.

Among the various causes which affected the general state of society and government in Europe, during the middle ages, the influence of religion cannot be overlooked. Debased by ignorance, and fettered by superstition, the minds of men were prepared to acquiesce without examination in the claims of authority, and tamely to submit to every yoke. In whatever light we view popery, the genius of that singular system of religion will be found to be adverse to liberty. The court of Rome, while it aimed directly at the establishment of a spiritual despotism in the hands of ecclesiastics, contributed to rivet the chains of political servitude upon the people. In return for the support which princes yielded to its arrogant claims, it was content to invest them with an absolute authority over the bodies of their subjects. By the priestly unction, performed at the coronation of kings in thename of the holy see, a sacred character was understood to be imparted, which raised them to a superiority over their nobility which they did not possess according to feudal ideas, rendered their persons inviolable, and their office divine. Although the sovereign pontiffs claimed, and on different occasions exercised, the power of dethroning kings, and of absolving subjects from their allegiance; yet any attempt of this kind, when it proceeded from the people themselves, was denounced as a crime deserving the severest punishment in this world, and damnation in the next. Hence sprung the doctrine of the divine right of kings to rule independently of their people, and of passive obedience and non‑resistance to their will; under the sanction of which they were encouraged to sport with the lives and happiness of their subjects, and to indulge in the most tyrannical and wanton acts of oppression, without the dread of resistance, or of being called to an account by any power on earth. Even in countries where the people were understood to enjoy certain political privileges, transmitted from remote ages, or wrested from their princes on some favourable occasions, these principles were generally prevalent; and, availing himself of them, it was easy for an ambitious and powerful monarch to violate the rights of the people with impunity, and upon a constitution, the forms of which were friendly to popular liberty, to establish an administration completely arbitrary and despotic.

The contest between papal sovereignty and the authority of general councils, which was carried onduring the fifteenth century, elicited some of the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards applied to political government. The revival of learning, by unfolding the principles of legislation, and modes of government in the republics of ancient Greece and Rome, gradually led to more liberal notions on this subject. But these were confined to a few, and had no influence upon the general state of society. The spirit infused by philosophy and literature is too feeble and contracted to produce a radical reform of established abuses; and learned men, proud of their own superior illumination, and satisfied with the liberty of indulging their speculations, have generally been too indifferent or too timid to attempt the improvement of the multitude. It is to the religious spirit excited during the sixteenth century, which spread rapidly through Europe, and diffused itself among all classes of men, that we are chiefly indebted for the propagation of the genuine principles of rational liberty, and the consequent amelioration of government.

Civil and ecclesiastical tyranny were so closely combined, that it was impossible for men to emancipate themselves from the latter without throwing off the former; and from arguments which established their religious rights, the transition was easy, and almost unavoidable, to disquisitions about their civil privileges. In those kingdoms in which the rulers threw off the Roman yoke, and introduced the Reformation by their authority, the influence was more imperceptible and slow; and in some of them, as inEngland, the power taken from the ecclesiastical was thrown into the regal scale, which proved so far prejudicial to popular liberty. But where the Reformation was embraced by the great body of a nation, while the ruling powers continued to oppose it, the effect was visible and immediate. The interested and obstinate support which rulers gave to the old system of error and ecclesiastical tyranny, and their cruel persecution of all who favoured the new opinions, drove their subjects to enquire into the just limits of authority and obedience. Their judgments once informed as to the rights to which they were entitled, and their consciences satisfied respecting the means which they might employ to acquire them, the immense importance of the immediate object in view, their emancipation from religious bondage, and the salvation of themselves and their posterity, impelled them to make the attempt with an enthusiasm and perseverance which the mere love of civil liberty could not have inspired.

In effecting that memorable revolution, which terminated in favour of religious and political liberty in so many nations of Europe, the public teachers of the protestant doctrine had a principal influence. By their instructions and exhortations, they roused the people to consider their rights and exert their power; they stimulated timid and wary politicians; they encouraged and animated princes, nobles, and confederated states, with their armies, against the most formidable opposition, and under the most overwhelming difficulties, until their exertions were ultimatelycrowned with success. These facts are now admitted, and this honour has at last, through the force of truth, been conceded to the religious leaders of the protestant Reformation, by philosophical writers, who had too long branded them as ignorant and fanatical.455

Our Reformer had caught a large portion of the spirit of civil liberty.We have already adverted to the circumstance in his education which directed his attention, at an early period, to some of its principles.456His subsequent studies introduced him to an acquaintance with the maxims and modes of government in the free states of antiquity; and it is reasonable to suppose that his intercourse with the republics of Switzerland and Geneva had some influence on his political creed.Having formed his sentiments independently of the prejudices arising from established laws, long usage, and commonly received opinions, his zeal and intrepidity prompted him to avow and propagate them, when others, less sanguine and resolute, would have been restrained by fear, or by despair of success.457Extensive observation had convinced him of the glaring perversion of government in the European kingdoms; but his principles led himto desire their reform, not their subversion. His admiration of the polity of republics, ancient or modern, was not so great or indiscriminate as to prevent him from separating the essential principles of equity and freedom which they contained, from others which were incompatible with monarchy. He was perfectly sensible of the necessity of regular government to the maintenance of justice and order, and aware of the danger of setting men loose from its salutary control. And he uniformly inculcated a conscientious obedience to the lawful commands of rulers, and respect to their persons as well as to their authority, even when they were chargeable with various mismanagements, so long as they did not break through all the restraints of law and justice, and cease to perform the great and fundamental duties of their office.

But he held that rulers, supreme as well as subordinate, were invested with authority for the public good; that obedience was not due to them in any thing contrary to the divine law, natural or revealed; that, in every free and well‑constituted government, the law of the land was superior to the will of the prince; that inferior magistrates and subjects might restrain the supreme magistrate from particular illegal acts, without throwing off their allegiance, or being guilty of rebellion; that no class of men have an original, inherent, and indefeasible right to rule over a people, independently of their will and consent; that every nation is entitled to provide and require that they shall be ruled by laws which are agreeable to the divine law, and calculated to promote theirwelfare; that there is a mutual compact, tacit and implied, if not formal and explicit, between rulers and their subjects; and, if the former shall flagrantly violate this, employ that power for the destruction of the commonwealth which was committed to them for its preservation and benefit, or, in one word, if they shall become habitual tyrants and notorious oppressors, that the people are absolved from allegiance, and have a right to resist them, formally to depose them from their place, and to elect others in their room.

The real power of the Scottish kings was, indeed, always limited, and there are in our history, previous to the era of the Reformation, many instances of resistance to their authority. But, though these were pleaded as precedents on this occasion, it must be confessed that we cannot trace them to the principles of genuine liberty. They were the effects of sudden resentment on account of some extraordinary act of male‑administration, or of the ambition of some powerful baron, or of the jealousy with which the feudal aristocracy watched over the privileges of their own order. The people who followed the standards of their chiefs had little interest in the struggle, and derived no benefit from the limitations which were imposed upon the sovereign. But, at this time, more just and enlarged sentiments were diffused through the nation, and the idea of a commonwealth, including the mass of the people as well as the privileged orders, began to be entertained. Our Reformer, whose notions of hereditary right, whether in kings ornobles, were not exalted, studied to repress the insolence and oppression of the nobility.He reminded them of the original equality of men, and the ends for which some were raised above others; and he taught the people that they had rights to preserve, as well as duties to perform. With respect to female government, he never moved any question among his countrymen, nor attempted to gain proselytes to his opinion.458

Such, in substance, were the political sentiments which were inculcated by our Reformer, and which were more than once acted upon in Scotland during his lifetime. That in an age when the principles of political liberty were only beginning to be understood, such sentiments should have been regarded with a suspicious eye by some of the learned who had not yet thrown off common prejudices, and that they should have exposed those who maintained them to a charge of treason from despotical rulers and their numerous satellites, is far from being matter of wonder. But it must excite both surprise and indignation, to find writers in the present enlightened age, and under the sunshine of British liberty, (if our sun is not fast going down,) expressing their abhorrence of these principles, and exhausting upon their authors all the invective and virulence of the former anti‑monarcho‑machi, and advocates of passive obedience. They are essentially the principles upon which thefree constitution of Britain rests; and the most obnoxious of them were reduced to practice at the memorable era of the Revolution, when the necessity of employing them was not more urgent or unquestionable, than it was at the suspension of the queen regent of Scotland, and the subsequent deposition of her daughter.

I have saidessentially: for I would not be understood as meaning to say, that every proposition advanced by Knox, on this subject, is expressed in the most guarded and unexceptionable manner, or that all the cases in which he was led to vindicate forcible resistance to rulers, were such as rendered it necessary, and as may be pleaded as precedents in modern times. The political doctrines maintained at that period received a tincture from the spirit of the age, and were accommodated to a state of society and government comparatively rude and unsettled. The checks which have since been introduced into the constitution, and the influence which public opinion, expressed by the organ of a free press, has upon the conduct of rulers, are sufficient, in ordinary cases, to restrain dangerous encroachments, or to afford the means of correcting them in a peaceable way; and have thus happily superseded the necessity of having recourse to those desperate but decisive remedies which were formerly applied by an oppressed and indignant people. But if ever the time come when these principles shall be generally abjured or forgotten, the extinction of the boasted liberty of Britain will not be far off.

There are objections against our Reformer’s political principles which demand consideration, from the authority to which they appeal, and the influence which they may have on pious minds. “The doctrine of resistance to civil rulers,” it is alleged, “is repugnant to the express directions of the New Testament, which repeatedly enjoin Christians to be subject to ‘the powers that be,’ and denounce damnation against such as disobey or resist them on any pretext whatever. With the literal and strict import of these precepts the example of the primitive Christians agreed; for, even after they became very numerous, so as to be capable of opposing the government under which they lived, they never attempted to shake off the authority of the Roman emperors, or to employ force to protect themselves from the tyranny and persecutions to which they were exposed. Besides, granting that it is lawful for subjects to vindicate their civil rights and privileges by resisting arbitrary rulers, to have recourse to forcible measures for promoting Christianity, is diametrically opposite to the genius of that religion, which was propagated at first, and is still to be defended, not by arms and violence, but by teaching and suffering.”

These objections are more specious than solid. The directions and precepts on this subject, which are contained in the New Testament, must not be stretched beyond their evident scope and proper import. They do not give greater power to magistrates than they formerly possessed, nor do they supersede any of the rights or privileges to which subjects wereentitled, by the common law of nature, or by the particular statutes of any country.The New Testament does not give directions to communities respecting the original formation or subsequent improvement of their civil constitutions, nor prescribe the course which ought to be pursued in certain extraordinary cases, when rulers abuse the power with which they are invested, and convert their legitimate authority into an engine of despotism and oppression.459It supposes magistrates to be acting within the proper line of their office, and discharging its duties to the advantage of the society over which they are placed. And it teaches Christians, that the liberty which Christ purchased, and to the enjoyment of which they are called by the gospel, does not exempt them from subjection and obedience to civil authority, which is a divine ordinance for the good of mankind; that they are bound to obey existing rulers, although they should be of a different religion from themselves; and that Christianity, so far from setting them freefrom obligations to this or any other relative duty, strengthens these obligations, and requires them to discharge their duties for conscience‑sake, with fidelity, cheerfulness, patience, long‑suffering, and singleness of heart. Viewed in this light, nothing can be more reasonable in its own nature, or more honourable to the gospel, than the directions which it gives on this subject; and we must perceive a peculiar propriety in the frequency and earnestness with which they are urged, when we consider the danger in which the primitive christians were of supposing, that they were liberated from the ordinary restraints of the rest of mankind. But if we shall go beyond this, and assert that the scriptures have prohibited resistance to rulers in every case, and that the great body of a nation consisting of christians, in attempting to curb the fury of their rulers, or to deprive them of the power which they have grossly abused, are guilty of that crime against which the apostle denounces damnation, we represent the beneficent religion of Jesus as sanctioning despotism, and entailing all the evils of political bondage upon mankind; and we tread in the steps of those enemies to christianity, who, under the colour of paying a compliment to its pacific, submissive, tolerant, and self‑denying maxims, have represented it as calculated to produce a passive, servile spirit, and to extinguish courage, patriotism, the love of civil liberty, the desire of self‑preservation, and every kind of disposition to repel injuries, or to obtain the redress of the most intolerable grievances.

The example of the primitive christians is not binding upon others any farther than it is conformable to the scriptures; and the circumstances in which they were placed were totally different from those of the protestants in Scotland, and in other countries, at the time of the Reformation. The fathers often indulge in oratorical exaggerations when speaking of the numbers of the christians; nor is there any satisfactory evidence that they ever approached near to a majority of the Roman empire, during the time that they were exposed to persecution.

“If thou mayst be made free, use it rather,” says the Apostle; a maxim which is applicable, by just analogy, to political as well as domestic freedom. The christian religion natively tends to cherish and diffuse a spirit favourable to civil liberty, and this, in its turn, has the most happy influence upon christianity, which never flourished extensively, and for a long period, in any country where despotism prevailed. It must therefore be the duty of every christian to exert himself for the acquisition and defence of this invaluable blessing. Christianity ought not to be propagated by force of arms; but the external liberty of professing it may be vindicated in that way both against foreign invaders and against domestic tyrants. If the free exercise of their religion, or their right to remove religious abuses, enter into the grounds of the struggle which a nation maintains against oppressive rulers, the cause becomes of vastly more importance, its justice is more unquestionable, and it is still more worthy,not only of their prayers and petitions, but of their blood and treasure, than if it had been maintained solely for the purpose of securing their fortunes, or of acquiring some mere worldly privilege. And to those whose minds are not warped by prejudice, and who do not labour under a confusion of ideas on the subject, it must surely appear paradoxical to assert, that, while God has granted to subjects a right to take the sword of just defence for securing objects of a temporary and inferior nature, he has prohibited them from using this remedy, and left them at the mercy of every lawless despot, with respect to a concern the most important of all, whether it be viewed as relating to his own honour, or to the welfare of mankind.

Those who judge of the propriety of any measure from the success with which it is accompanied, will be disposed to condemn the suspension of the queen regent. Soon after this step was taken, the affairs of the Congregation began to wear a gloomy aspect. The messenger whom they sent to Berwick to receive a remittance from the English court, was intercepted on his return, and rifled of the treasure; their soldiers mutinied for want of pay; they were repulsed in a premature assault upon the fortifications of Leith, and worsted in a skirmish with the French troops; the secret emissaries of the regent were too successful among them; their numbers daily decreased; and the remainder, disunited, dispirited and dismayed, came to the resolution of abandoning Edinburgh onthe evening of the 5th of November, and retreated with precipitation and disgrace to Stirling.

Amidst the universal dejection produced by these disasters, the spirit of Knox remained unsubdued. On the day after their arrival at Stirling, he mounted the pulpit, and delivered a discourse, which had a wonderful effect in rekindling the zeal and courage of the Congregation. Their faces (he said) were confounded, their enemies triumphed, their hearts had quaked for fear, and still remained oppressed with sorrow and shame. Why had God thus dejected them? The situation of their affairs required plain language, and he would use it. In the present distressed state of their minds, they were in danger of attributing these misfortunes to a wrong cause, and of imagining that they had offended in taking the sword of self‑defence into their hands; just as the tribes of Israel did, when twice discomfited in the war which they undertook, by divine direction, against their brethren the Benjamites. Having divided the Congregation into two classes, those who had been embarked in this cause from the beginning, and those who had lately acceded to it, he proceeded to point out what he considered as blameable in the conduct of each. The former (he said) had laid aside that humility and dependence upon divine providence which they had discovered when their number was small; and, since they were joined by the Hamiltons, had become elated, secure, and self‑confident. “But wherein had my lord duke and his friends offended? I am uncertain if my lord’s grace has unfeignedlyrepented of his assistance to these murderers, unjustly pursuing us. Yea, I am uncertain if he has repented of that innocent blood of Christ’s blessed martyrs, which was shed in his default. But let it be that so he has done (as I hear that he has confessed his fault before the lords and brethren of the Congregation); yet I am assured that neither he, nor yet his friends, did feel before this time the anguish and grief of heart which we felt, when in their blind fury they pursued us. And therefore God hath justly permitted both them and us to fall in this fearful confusion at once,—us, for that we put our trust and confidence in man, and them, because they should feel in their own hearts how bitter was the cup which they made others drink before them.” After exhorting all to amendment of life, to prayers, and works of charity, he concluded with an animating address. “God,” he said, “often suffered the wicked to triumph for a while, and exposed his chosen congregation to mockery, dangers, and apparent destruction, in order to abase their self‑confidence, and induce them to look to himself for deliverance and victory. If they turned unfeignedly to the Eternal, he no more doubted that their present distress would be converted into joy, and followed by success, than he doubted that Israel was finally victorious over the Benjamites, after being twice repulsed with ignominy. The cause in which they were engaged would prevail in Scotland, in spite of all opposition.It was the eternal truth of the eternal God which they maintained;it might be oppressed for a time, but would ultimately triumph.”460

The audience, who had entered the church in deep despondency, left it with renovated courage. In the afternoon the council met, and, after prayer by the Reformer, unanimously agreed to despatch William Maitland of Lethington to London, to supplicate more effectual assistance from Elizabeth. In the mean time, as they were unable to keep the field, it was agreed that they should divide, and that the one half of the council should remain at Glasgow, and the other at St Andrews. Knox was appointed to attend the latter in the double capacity of preacher and secretary.The French having, in the beginning of the year 1560, penetrated into Fife, he encouraged that small band, which, under the earl of Arran, and the prior of St Andrews, bravely resisted their progress, until the appearance of the English fleet compelled the enemy to retreat with precipitation.461

The disaster which obliged the protestant army to raise the siege of Leith, and to evacuate Edinburgh, turned out eventually to the advantage of their cause. It induced the English court to abandon the line of cautious policy which they had hitherto pursued. Maitland’s embassy to London was successful; and, on the 27th of February, 1560, Elizabeth concluded a formal treaty with the lords of the Congregation,by which she engaged to send an army into Scotland, to assist them in expelling the French forces. Being informed of this treaty, the queen regent resolved to disperse the troops which were collected at Glasgow under the duke of Chastelherault, before the English army could arrive. On the 7th of March, the French, amounting to two thousand foot, and three hundred horse, issued from Leith, and, proceeding by Linlithgow and Kirkintilloch, suddenly appeared before Glasgow.Having reduced the episcopal castle, they were preparing to advance to Hamilton, when they received a message from the queen regent, informing them that the English army had begun its march into Scotland; upon which they relinquished their design, and returned to Leith, carrying along with them a number of prisoners and a considerable booty.462In the beginning of April, the English army joined the forces of the Congregation. The French shut themselves up within the fortifications of Leith, which was invested both by sea and land; and the queen regent, who had for some time been in a declining state of health, was received by lord Erskine into the castle of Edinburgh, where she died during the siege of Leith.

These proceedings were viewed with deep interestby the court of France. Henry II., having died in July 1559, was succeeded by Francis II., the husband of the young queen of Scots; in consequence of which, the administration of affairs fell entirely into the hands of the duke of Guise and the cardinal of Lorrain. They employed every art of political intrigue to prevent the queen of England from giving assistance to the Scottish Congregation, and to prevail on her to desert them, after she had undertaken their protection. Nor were they altogether unsuccessful in their attempts. Elizabeth, partly from extreme caution and parsimony, and partly from the influence of some of her counsellors, was induced to listen to their plausible proposals; she delayed the march of her army into Scotland, and after the siege of Leith was commenced, suspended the military operations, and engaged in premature negotiations for peace. This last step justly alarmed the Congregation; and while they neglected no means to persuade the English court to perform the stipulations of the late treaty, they prepared for the worst, by renewing their covenant among themselves.

Elizabeth at last listened to the advice of her ablest ministers, and resolved to prosecute the war with vigour. No sooner did she evince this determination than the French court yielded to all her demands. The armament which they had lately fitted out at great expense for Scotland had been dispersed by a storm; the frith of Forth was blocked up by an English fleet;and a confederacy had been formed among a number of the nobility in France, to removethe princes of Lorrain from the administration of public affairs, and to free the protestants in that kingdom from the severe persecutions to which they had hitherto been exposed.463Influenced by these circumstances,the French cabinet sent plenipotentiaries to Edinburgh, who concluded a treaty with England, by which the Scottish differences were also adjusted. By this treaty it was provided, that the French troops should immediately be removed from Scotland; that an amnesty should be granted to all who had been engaged in the late resistance to the queen regent; that the principal grievances of which they complained in the civil administration should be redressed; that a free parliament should be held to settle the other affairs of the kingdom; and that, during the absence of their sovereigns, the government should be administered by a council to be chosen partly by Francis and Mary, and partly by the estates of the nation.The treaty was signed on the 7th of July; on the 16th, the French army embarked at Leith, and the English troops began their march into their own country; and on the 19th, the Congregation assembled in St Giles’s church, to return solemn thanks to God for the restoration of peace, and the success which had crowned their exertions.464In thismanner terminated the civil war which attended the Scottish Reformation, after it had continued for twelve months, with less rancour and bloodshed than have distinguished any other contest of a similar kind.

During the continuance of the war, the protestant preachers had been assiduous in disseminating knowledge through all parts of the kingdom, and their success was equal to their diligence. They had received a considerable accession to their number from the ranks of their opponents. While we venerate those men who enlisted under the banners of truth when her friends were few, and who boldly took the field in her defence when the victory was yet dubious and distant, and while we cheerfully award to them the highest meed of honour,—let us not load with heavy censure, or even deprive of all praise, such as, less enlightened, or less courageous, were tardy in appearing for the cause. He who “knew what is in man,” has taught us not to reject such disciples, in the dawn of light, and in perilous times. Nicodemus, who at first “came to Jesus by night,” and Joseph of Arimathea, who was his disciple, “but secretly for fear of the Jews,” afterwards avouched their faith in him, and obtained the honour of embalming and interring his body, when all his early followers had forsaken him and fled. Several of the Scottish clergy, who were favourable to the protestant doctrine, had contrived to retain their places in the church, by concealing their sentiments, or by securing the favour of some powerful patron. Of this class were John Winram, sub-prior of the abbey of St Andrews, AdamHerriot, a friar of that abbey, John Spottiswood, parson of Calder, and John Carsewell, rector of Kilmartine. In the gradual diffusion of knowledge through the nation, the minds of many who were attending the schools had been also enlightened; among whom were David Lindsay, Andrew Hay, Robert Montgomery, Patrick Adamson, and Robert and Archibald Hamilton. During the year 1559, these men came forward as auxiliaries to the first protestant preachers; and so successful were they in instructing the people, that the French would have found it extremely difficult to support the ancient superstition, though they had proved victorious in the military contest.

On the other hand, the exertions of the popish clergy had been feeble in the extreme. Too corrupt to think of reforming their manners, too illiterate to be capable of defending their errors, they placed their forlorn hope on the success of the French arms, and looked forward to the issue of the war as involving the establishment or the ruin of their religion. The bishop of Amiens, who came to Scotland in the double capacity of ambassador from the French court and papal legate, was accompanied by three doctors of the Sorbonne, who gave out that they would confound the reformed ministers, and bring back the people whom they had misled to the bosom of the church, by the force of argument and persuasion. Lesley boasts of the success which attended their exertions;but there is good reason for thinking, that these foreign divines confined themselves to the easiertask of instructing the Scottish clergy to perform the religious service with greater solemnity, and to purify the churches, in a canonical manner, from the pollution which they had contracted by the profane worship of heretics.465One effort, however, was made by the popish clergy to support their sinking cause, which, if it had succeeded, would have done more to retrieve their reputation than all the arguments of the Sorbonists; and, as this was the last attempt of the kind that ever was made in Scotland, the reader may be gratified with the following account of it.

In the neighbourhood of Musselburgh was a chapel dedicated to our Lady of Loretto, the sanctity of which was increased from its having been the favourite abode of the celebrated Thomas the Hermit.To this sacred place the inhabitants of Scotland, from time immemorial, had repaired in pilgrimage, to present their offerings to the Virgin, and to experience the efficacy of her prayers, and the healing virtue of the wonder‑working “Hermit of Lareit.”466In the course of the year 1559, public notice was given by the friars, that they intended to put the truth of their religion to the proof, by performing a miracle at this chapel upon a young man who had been born blind. On the dayappointed, a vast concourse of spectators assembled from all parts of Lothian. The young man, accompanied with a solemn procession of monks, was conducted to a scaffold, erected on the outside of the chapel, and was exhibited to the multitude. Many of them knew him to be the blind man whom they had often seen begging, and whose necessities they had relieved; all looked on him, and pronounced him stone blind. The friars then proceeded to their devotions with great fervency, invoking the assistance of the Virgin, at whose shrine they stood, and that of all the saints whom they honoured; and after some time spent in prayers and religious ceremonies, the blind man opened his eyes, to the astonishment of the spectators. Having returned thanks to the friars and their saintly patrons for this wonderful cure, he was allowed to go down from the scaffold to gratify the curiosity of the people, and to receive their alms.

It happened that there was among the crowd a gentleman of Fife, Robert Colville of Cleish,467who, from his romantic bravery, was usually called Squire Meldrum, in allusion to a person of that name who had been celebrated by Sir David Lindsay. He was of protestant principles, but his wife was a Roman catholic, and, being pregnant at this time, had sent a servant with a present to the chapel of Loretto, to procure the assistance of the Virgin in her labour. The squire was too gallant to hurt his lady’s feelingsby prohibiting the present from being sent off, but he resolved to prevent the superstitious offering, and with that view had come to Musselburgh. He witnessed the miracle of curing the blind man with the distrust natural to a protestant, and determined, if possible, to detect the imposition before he left the place. Wherefore, having sought out the young man from the crowd, he put a piece of money into his hand, and persuaded him to accompany him to his lodgings in Edinburgh. Taking him into a private room, and locking the door, he told him plainly that he was convinced he had engaged in a wicked conspiracy with the friars to impose on the credulity of the people, and at last drew from him the secret of the story. When a boy, he had been employed to tend the cattle belonging to the nuns of Sciennes, in the vicinity of Edinburgh, and had attracted their attention by a peculiar faculty which he had of turning up the white of his eyes, and of keeping them in this position, so as to appear quite blind. Certain friars in the city, having come to the knowledge of this fact, conceived the design of making it subservient to their purposes; and, having prevailed on the sisters of Sciennes to part with the poor boy, lodged him in one of their cells. By daily practice he became an adept in the art of counterfeiting blindness; and after he had remained so long in concealment as not to be recognised by his former acquaintance, he was sent forth to beg as a blind pauper; the friars having previously bound him, by a solemn vow, not to reveal the secret. To confirm his narrative, he“played his pavie” before the squire, by “flypping up the lid of his eyes, and casting up the white,” so as to appear as blind as he did on the scaffold at Loretto. The gentleman laid before him the iniquity of his conduct, and told him that he must next day repeat the whole story publicly at the cross of Edinburgh; and, as this would expose him to the vengeance of the friars, he engaged to become his protector, and to retain him as a servant in his house. The young man complied with his directions, and Cleish, with his drawn sword in his hand, having stood by him till he had finished his confession, placed him on the same horse with himself, and carried him off to Fife. The detection of this imposture was quickly published through the country, and covered the friars with confusion.My author does not say whether it cured Lady Cleish of her superstition, but I shall afterwards have occasion to notice its influence in opening the eyes of one who became a distinguished promoter of the Reformation.468

The treaty which put an end to the civil war in Scotland, made no particular settlement respecting the religious differences,469but it was, on that veryaccount, the more fatal to popery. The protestants were left in the possession of authority; and they were now by far the most powerful party in the nation, both as to rank and numbers. With the exception of those places which had been occupied by the queen regent and her foreign auxiliaries, the Roman catholic worship was almost universally deserted throughout the kingdom, and no provision was made in the treaty for its restoration. The firm hold which it once had on the opinions and affections of the people was completely loosened; it was supported by force alone; and the moment that the French troops embarked, that fabric which had stood for ages in Scotland fell to the ground. Its feeble and dismayed priests ceased of their own accord from the celebration of its rites; and the reformed service was peaceably set up, wherever ministers could be found to perform it.The parliament, when it entered upon the consideration of the state of religion, as one of the points, undecided by the commissioners, which had been left to them,470had little else to do but to sanction what the nation had previously done, bylegally abolishing the popish, and establishing the protestant religion.

When the circumstances in which they were assembled, and the affairs on which they were called to deliberate, are taken into consideration, this must be regarded as the most important meeting of the estates of the kingdom that had ever been held in Scotland. It engrossed the attention of the nation, and the eyes of Europe were fixed on its proceedings. The parliament met on the 10th of July, but, agreeably to the terms of the treaty, it was prorogued, without entering on business, until the first day of August. Although a great concourse of people resorted to Edinburgh on that occasion, yet no tumult or disturbance of the public peace occurred. Many of the lords spiritual and temporal, who were attached to popery, absented themselves; but the chief patrons of the old religion, as the archbishop of St Andrews, and the bishops of Dumblane and Dunkeld, countenanced the assembly by their presence, and were allowed to act with freedom as lords of parliament. There is one fact in its constitution and proceedings which strikingly illustrates the influence of the Reformation upon political liberty. In the reign of James I. the lesser barons had been exempted from personal attendance on parliament, and permitted to elect representatives in their different shires.But a privilege which in modern times is so eagerly coveted, was then so little prized, that, except in a few instances, no representatives from the shires had appeared inparliament,471and the lesser barons had almost forfeited their right by neglecting to exercise it. At this time, however, they assembled at Edinburgh, and agreed upon a petition to the parliament, claiming to be restored to their ancient privilege.The petition was granted, and, in consequence of this, about a hundred gentlemen took their seats.472

The business of religion was introduced by a petition presented by a number of protestants of different ranks, in which, after rehearsing their former endeavours to procure the removal of the corruptions which had infected the church, they requested parliament to use the power which providence had now put into their hands for effecting this great and urgent work. They craved three things in general,—that the anti‑christian doctrine maintained in the popish church should be discarded; that means should be used to restore purity of worship, and primitive discipline; and that the ecclesiastical revenues, which had been engrossed by a corrupt and indolent hierarchy, should be applied to the support of a pious and active ministry, to the promotion of learning, and to the relief of the poor.They declared, that they were ready to substantiate the justice of all their demands, and, inparticular, to prove, that those who arrogated to themselves the name of clergy were destitute of all right to be accounted ministers of religion, and that, from the tyranny which they had exercised, and their vassalage to the court of Rome, they could not be safely tolerated, and far less intrusted with power, in a reformed commonwealth.473

In answer to the first demand, the parliament required the reformed ministers to lay before them a summary of doctrine which they could prove to be consonant with the scriptures, and which they desired to have established. The ministers were not unprepared for this task; and, in the course of four days, they presented a Confession of Faith, as the product of their joint labours, and an expression of their unanimous judgment. It agreed with the confessions which had been published by other reformed churches. Professing belief in the common articles of Christianity respecting the divine nature, the trinity, the creation of the world, the origin of evil, and the person of the Saviour, which were retained by the church of Rome, in opposition to the errors broached by ancient heretics, it condemned not only the idolatrous and superstitious tenets of that church, but also its gross depravation of the doctrine of scripture respecting the state of fallen man, and the method of his recovery. It declared that by “original sin was the image of God defacit in man, and he and hisposteritie of nature become enemies to God, slaifis to Sathan, and seruandis to sin:”—that “all our salvatioun springs fra the eternall and immutabill decree of God, wha of meir grace electit us in Christ Jesus, his Sone, before the foundatione of the warld was laid:”—that it behoves us “to apprehend Christ Jesus, with his justice and satisfactioun, wha is the end and accomplischement of the law, by whome we ar set at this libertie, that the curse and maledictioun of God fall not upon us:”—that “as God the Father creatit us whan we war not, as his Sone our Lord Jesus redemit us whan we were enemies to him, sa alswa the Haly Gaist dois sanctifie and regenerat us, without all respect of ony merite proceeding fra us, be it befoir or be it efter our regeneratioun,—to speik this ane thing yit in mair plaine wordis, as we willinglie spoyle ourselfis of all honour and gloir of our awin creatioun and redemptioun, sa do we alswa of our regeneratioun and sanctificatioun, for of our selfis we ar not sufficient to think ane gude thocht, bot he wha hes begun the wark in us is onlie he that continewis us in the same, to the praise and glorie of his undeservit grace:”—and, in fine, it declared that, although good works proceed “not from our fre‑will, but the Spirit of the Lord Jesus,” and although those that boast of the merit of their own works, “boist themselfis of that whilk is nocht,” yet “blasphemie it is to say, that Christ abydis in the hartis of sic as in whome thair is no spirite of sanctificatioun;and all wirkers of iniquitie have nouther trew faith, nouther ony portioun of the Spirite of the LordJesus, sa lang as obstinatlie they continew in thair wickitnes.”474

The Confession was read first before the lords of Articles, and afterwards before the whole parliament. The protestant ministers attended in the house to defend it, if attacked, and to give satisfaction to the members respecting any point which might appear dubious. Those who had objections to it were formally required to state them.And the farther consideration of it was adjourned to a subsequent day, that none might pretend that an undue advantage had been taken of him, or that a matter of such importance had been concluded precipitately.On the 17th of August, the parliament resumed the subject, and, previous to the vote, the Confession was again read, article by article.475The earl of Athole, and lords Somerville and Borthwick, were the only persons of the temporal estate who voted in the negative, assigning this as their reason, “We will beleve as our forefatheris belevit.”476“The bischopis spak nothing.”477After the vote establishing the Confessionof faith, the earl Marischal rose, and declared, that the silence of the clergy had confirmed him in his belief of the protestant doctrine; and he protested, that if any of the ecclesiastical estate should afterwards oppose the doctrine which had just been received, they should be entitled to no credit;seeing, after full knowledge of it, and ample time for deliberation, they had allowed it to pass without the smallest opposition or contradiction.478On the 24th of August, the parliament abolished the papal jurisdiction, prohibited, under certain penalties, the celebration of mass, and rescinded all the laws formerly made in support of the Roman catholic church, and against the reformed faith.479

Thus did the reformed religion advance in Scotland, from small beginnings, and amidst great opposition, until it attained a parliamentary establishment. Besides the influence of heaven secretly accompanying the labours of the preachers and confessors of the truth, the serious and inquisitive reader will trace the wise arrangements of providence in that concatenation of events which contributed to its rise, preservation, and increase,—by overruling the caprice, the ambition, the avarice, and the interested policy of princes and cabinets, many of whom had nothing less in view than to favour that cause, which they were so instrumental in promoting.

The breach of Henry VIII. of England with theRoman see, awakened the attention of the inhabitants of the northern part of the island to a controversy which had formerly been carried on at too great a distance to interest them, and led not a few to desire a reformation more improved than the model which that monarch had held out to them. The premature death of James V. of Scotland saved the protestants from destruction. During the short period in which they received the countenance of civil authority, at the commencement of Arran’s administration, the seeds of the reformed doctrine were so widely spread, and took such deep root, as to be able to resist the violent measures which the regent, after his recantation, employed to extirpate them. Those who were driven from the country by persecution found an asylum in England, under the decidedly protestant government of Edward VI. After his death, the alliance of England with Spain, and of Scotland with France, the two great contending powers on the continent, prevented that concert between the two courts which might have proved fatal to the protestant religion in Britain. While the cruelties of the English queen drove protestant preachers into Scotland, the political schemes of the queen regent induced her to favour them, and to connive at the propagation of their opinions. At the critical moment when the latter had accomplished her favourite designs, and was preparing to crush the Reformation, Elizabeth ascended the throne of England, and was induced, by political no less than religious considerations, to support the Scottish reformers. The French court wasno less bent on suppressing them, and, having lately concluded peace with Spain, was left at liberty to direct its undivided attention to the accomplishment of that object; but at this critical moment, those intestine dissensions, which continued so long to desolate France, broke out, and forced its ministers to accede to that treaty, which put an end to French influence, and the papal religion, in Scotland.

Back to IndexNext