Chapter II (2)

With such a combination of parties, in a country where, there being no middle class, the people counted for nothing, but followed wherever they were led, it is evident that the success or failure of the Reformation in Scotland was simply a question of the success or failure of the nobles. They were bent on revenge. The only doubt was, as to their being strong enough to gratify it. Against them, they had the Crown and the Church. On their side they had the feudal traditions, the spirit of clanship, the devoted obedience of their innumerable retainers, and, what was equally important, that love of names, and of family associations, for which Scotland is still remarkable, but which, in the sixteenth century, possessed an influence difficult to exaggerate.

The moment for action was now at hand. In 1540, the government, completely under the control of the clergy, caused fresh laws to be enacted against the Protestants, whose interests were by this time identical with those of the nobles. By these statutes, no one, even suspected of heresy, could for the future hold any office; and all Catholics were forbidden to harbour, or to show favour to, persons who professed the new opinions.[148] The clergy, now flushed with conquest, and greedy for the destruction of their ancient rivals, proceeded to still farther extremities. So unrelenting was their malice, that, in that same year, they presented to James a list containing the names of upwards of three hundred members of the Scotch aristocracy, whom they formally accused as heretics, who ought to be put to death, and whose estates they recommended the king to confiscate.[149]

[148] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 370, 371. 'That
na mañ quhats[=u]euir stait or conditiouñ he be luge
ressauve cherish nor favor ony heretike.' ... 'And alswa that na
persouñ that hes bene suspectit of heresie howbeit thai be
ressauit to p[=e]nance and grace sall in this realme exers haif
nor brouk ony honest estait degre office nor judicato^r sp[=u]all
nor t[=e]porale in burgh nor w^tout nor na salbe admittit to be
of ou[/r] counsale.'

[149] Lindsay of Pitscottie (_Chronicles_, vol. ii. p. 383) says, that
they 'devysed to put ane discord and variance betwixt the lordis
and gentlmen with thair prince; for they delaited, and gave vp to
the king in writt, to the number of thrittie scoir of earles,
lordis, and barrones, gentlmen and craftismen, that is, as thei
alledgit, wer all heretickis, and leived not after the Pope's
lawis, and ordinance of the hollie kirk; quhilk his grace sould
esteme as ane capitall cryme, to ony man that did the same' ...
'all thair landis, rentes, guidis, and geir apperteanis propperlie
to your grace, for thair contempt of our hollie father the Pope,
and his lawis, and high contempt of your grace's authoritie.' This
document was found among the king's papers after his death, when
it appeared that, of the six hundred names on the list, more than
three hundred belonged to the principal nobility: 'Eum timorem
auxerunt codicilli post regis interitum reperti, e quibus supra
trecentorum è prima nobilitate nomina continebantur.' _Buchanan_,
_Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xv. p. 424. Compare _Sadler's
State Papers_, 1809, vol. i. p. 94; and _Watson's Historicall
Collections of Ecclesiastick Affairs in Scotland_, 1657, p. 22.
According to Watson, it 'was called the bloudy scroll.'

These hot and vindictive men little knew of the storm which they were evoking, and which was about to burst on their heads, and cover them and their Church with confusion. Not that we have reason to believe that a wiser conduct would have ultimately saved the Scotch hierarchy. On the contrary, the probability is, that their fate was sealed; for the general causes which governed the entire movement had been so long at work, that, at this period, it would have been hardly possible to have baffled them. But, even if we admit as certain, that the Scotch clergy were doomed, it is also certain that their violence made their fall more grievous, by exasperating the passions of their adversaries. The train, indeed, was laid; their enemies had supplied the materials, and all was ready to explode; but it was themselves who at last applied the match, and sprung the mine to their own destruction.

In 1542, the nobles, seeing that the Church and the Crown were bent on their ruin, took the most decisive step on which they had yet ventured, and peremptorily refused to obey James in making war upon the English. They knew that the war in which they were desired to participate had been fomented by the clergy, with the twofold object of stopping all communication with the exiles, and of checking the introduction of heretical opinions.[150] Both these intentions they resolved to frustrate, and, being assembled on the field, they declared with one voice that they would not invade England. Threats and persuasions were equally useless. James, stung with vexation, returned home, and ordered the army to be disbanded. Scarcely had he retired, when the clergy attempted to rally the troops, and to induce them to act against the enemy. A few of the peers, ashamed at what seemed a cowardly desertion of the king, appeared willing to march. The rest, however, refused; and, while they were in this state of doubt and confusion, the English, taking them unawares, suddenly fell upon their disorderly ranks, utterly routed them, and made a large number prisoners. In this disgraceful action, ten thousand Scotch troops fled before three hundred English cavalry.[151] The news being brought to James, while he was still smarting from the disobedience of the nobles, was too much for his proud and sensitive mind. He reeled under the double shock; a slow fever wasted his strength; he sunk into a long stupor; and, refusing all comfort, he died in December 1542, leaving the Crown to his infant daughter, Mary, during whose reign the great contest between the aristocracy and the Church was to be finally decided.[152]

[150] In the autumn of 1542, James 'was encouraged by the clergy to
engage in a war against King Henry, who both assured him of
victory, since he fought against an heretical prince, and advanced
an annuity of 50,000 crowns for prosecuting the war.' _Crawfurd's
History of the Shire of Renfrew_, 1782, 4to, part i. p. 48.
Compare, in _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 154, a
letter written, in 1539, by Norfolk to Cromwell: 'By diverse other
waies I am advertised that the clergie of Scotlande be in such
feare that their king shold do theire, as the kinges highnes hath
done in this realme, that they do their best to bring their master
to the warr; and by many waies I am advertised that a great parte
of the temporaltie there wold their king shold followe our
insample, wich I pray God yeve hym grace to come unto.' Even after
the battle of Solway, the policy of the clergy was notoriously the
same. 'And undoubtedlie, the kyrkemen labor, by all the meanes
they can, to empeche the unitie and establishment of thiese two
realmes; uppon what groundes ye can easelie conjecture.' Letter
from Sadler to Parr, dated Edinburgh, 27th March 1543, in _State
Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 271, 4to, 1836.

[151] 'Ten thousand Scottish troops fled at the sight of three hundred
English cavalry, with scarce a momentary resistance.' _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 264.

[152] The best account of these events will be found in _Tytler's
History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 260-267. I have also consulted
_Ridpath's Border History_, pp. 372, 373. _Hollinshead's Scottish
Chronicle_, vol. ii. pp. 207-209. _Lesley's History_, pp. 163-166.
_Lindsay of Pitscottie's Chronicles_, vol. ii. pp. 399-406.
_Calderwood's History of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. i. pp.
145-152. _Buchanan_, _Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xiv. pp.
420, 421.

The influence of the nobles was increased by the death of James V., and yet more by the bad repute into which the clergy fell for having instigated a war, of which the result was so disgraceful.[153] Their party was still further strengthened by the exiles, who, as soon as they heard the glad tidings, prepared to leave England.[154] Early in 1543, Angus and Douglas returned to Scotland,[155] and were soon followed by other nobles, most of whom professed to be Protestants, though, as the result clearly proved, their Protestantism was inspired by a love of plunder and of revenge. The late king had, in his will, appointed Cardinal Beaton to be guardian of the queen, and governor of the realm.[156] Beaton, though an unprincipled man, was very able, and was respected as the head of the national church; he being Archbishop of St. Andrews, and primate of Scotland. The nobles, however, at once arrested him,[157] deprived him of his regency, and put in his place the Earl of Arran, who, at this time, affected to be a zealous Protestant, though, on a fitting occasion, he afterwards changed his opinions.[158] Among the supporters of the new creed, the most powerful were the Earl of Angus and the Douglases. They were now freed from a prescription of fifteen years; their attainder was reversed, and their estates and honours were restored to them.[159] It was evident that not only the executive authority, but also the legislative, had passed from the Church to the aristocracy. And they, who had the power, were not sparing in the use of it. Lord Maxwell, one of the most active of their party, had, like most of them, in their zeal against the hierarchy, embraced the principles of the Reformation.[160] In the spring of 1543, he obtained the sanction of the Earl of Arran, the governor of Scotland, for a proposal which he made to the Lords of the Articles, whose business it was to digest the measures to be brought before Parliament. The proposal was, that the people should be allowed to read the Bible in a Scotch or English translation. The clergy arrayed all their force against what they rightly deemed a step full of danger to themselves, as conceding a fundamental principle of Protestantism. But all was in vain. The tide had set in, and was not to be turned. The proposition was adopted by the Lords of the Articles. On their authority, it was introduced into Parliament. It was passed. It received the assent of the government; and, amid the lamentations of the Church, it was proclaimed, with every formality, at the market-cross of Edinburgh.[161]

[153] 'This defeat being so very dishonourable, especially to the
clergy, who stirred up the king to that attempt, and promised him
great success from it; and there being such a visible evidence of
the anger of God, fighting by his providence against them, all men
were struck with fear and astonishment; the bishops were ashamed
to show their faces for a time.' _Stevenson's History of the
Church of Scotland_, reprinted, Edinburgh, 1840, p. 30.

[154] We may readily believe the assertion of an old chronicler, that
'the nobilitie did not greatlie take his death grievouslie,
because he had fined manie, imprisoned more, and caused no small
few (for avoiding his displeasure) to flie into England, and
rather to commit themselves to the enemie than to his anger.'
_Hollinshead's Scottish Chronicle_, vol. ii. p. 210.

[155] _Hume's History of the House of Douglas_, vol. ii. p. 111.

[156] It has been often said, that this will was forged; but for such an
assertion I cannot find the slightest evidence, except the
declaration of Arran (_Sadler's State Papers_, Edinburgh, 1809,
vol. i. p. 138), and the testimony, if testimony it can be called,
of Scotch historians, who do not profess to have examined the
handwriting, and who, being themselves Protestants, seem to
suppose that the fact of a man being a cardinal, qualifies him for
every crime. There is no doubt that Beaton was thoroughly
unprincipled, and therefore was capable of the forgery. Still, we
have no proof; and the will is such as we might have expected from
the king. In regard to Arran, his affirmation is not worth the
paper it is written on: for he hated Beaton; he was himself very
unscrupulous; and he succeeded to the post which Beaton had to
vacate on the ground that the will was forged. If such
circumstances do not disqualify a witness, some of the
best-established principles of evidence are false. The reader who
cares to look further into this subject, may compare, in favour of
the will being forged, _Buchanan_, _Rerum Scoticarum Historia_,
lib. xv. p. 422, Abredoniæ, 1762; _Knox's History of the
Reformation_, edit. Laing, Edinburgh, 1846, vol. i. pp. 91, 92;
_Irving's History of Dumbartonshire_, second edition, 4to, 1860,
p. 102; and, in favour of its being genuine, _Lyon's History of
St. Andrews_, Edinburgh, 1843, vol. i. pp. 304, 305. Some other
writers on the subject leave it doubtful: _Tytler's History of
Scotland_, 1845, vol. iv. p. 274; _Lawson's Roman Church in
Scotland_, 1836, p. 99; and a note in _Keith's Church and State in
Scotland_, 1844, vol. i. p. 63.

[157] On the 26th of January 1542-3, 'the said cardinall was put in
pressoune in Dalkeith.' _A Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 26. See
also, respecting his imprisonment, a letter written, on the 16th
of March, by Angus and Douglas, in _State Papers of Henry VIII._,
vol. v. p. 263. He was then in 'firmance.'

[158] His appointment was confirmed by Parliament on the 12th of March.
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 411: 'tuto^r
lau^tfull to the quenis grace and gounour of this realme.' He
excluded the clergy from power. On 20th March, in the same year,
Sir Ralph Sadler writes to Henry VIII., that Sir George Douglas
'brought me into the council-chamber, where I found a great number
of noblemen and others at a long board, and divers standing, but
_not one bishop nor priest among them_. At the upper end of the
board sat the governour.' _Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. p. 78.

[159] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 415, 419, 424,
423*; and _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 285.

[160] 'Had become a convert to its doctrines.' _Tytler's Hist. of
Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 286. But he, as well as the other nobles,
neither knew nor cared much about doctrines; and he was, moreover,
very venal. In April 1543, Sir Ralph Sadler writes to Henry VIII.:
'And the lord Maxwell told me apart, "That, indeed, he lacked
silver, and had no way of relief but to your majesty;" which he
prayed me to signify unto the same. I asked him what would relieve
him? and he said, 300_l._; "for the which," he said, "as your
majesty seemed, when he was with your grace, to have him in more
trust and credit than the rest of your majesty's prisoners, so he
trusted to do you as good service as any of them; and amongst them
they will do you such service, as, if the war succeed, ye shall
make an easy conquest of this realm; as _for his part he shall
deliver into your hands, at the entry of your army, the keys of
the same on the west marches, being all the strongholds there in
his custody_." I offered him presently to write to my lord of
Suffolk for 100_l._ for him if he would; but he said, "he would
stay till he heard again from your majesty in that behalf."'
_Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. p. 165.

[161] _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 415, 425.
_Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. p. 83. Knox, in his _History of
the Reformation_ (edit. Laing, vol. i p. 100), archly says, 'The
cleargy hearto long repugned; butt in the end, convicted by
reassonis, _and by multitud of votes in thare contrare_, thei also
condiscended; and so, by Act of Parliament, it was maid free to
all man and woman to reid the Scriptures in thair awin toung, or
in the Engliss toung; and so war all Actes maid in the contrair
abolished.'

Scarcely had the nobles thus attained the upper hand, when they began to quarrel among themselves. They were resolved to plunder the Church; but they could not agree as to how the spoil should be shared. Neither could they determine as to the best mode of proceeding; some being in favour of an open and immediate schism, while others wished to advance cautiously, and to temporize with their opponents, that they might weaken the hierarchy by degrees. The more active and zealous section of the nobles were known as the English party,[162] owing to their intimate connexion with Henry VIII., from whom many of them received supplies of money. But, in 1544, war broke out between the two countries, and the clergy, headed by Archbishop Beaton, roused, with such success, the old feelings of national hatred against the English, that the nobles were compelled for a moment to bend before the storm, and to advocate an alliance with France. Indeed, it seemed for a few months as if the Church and aristocracy had forgotten their old and inveterate hostility, and were about to unite their strength in one common cause.[163]

[162] Or, as Keith calls them, 'English Lords.' _History of the Affairs
of Church and State in Scotland_, vol. i. p. 80.

[163] In May 1544 the English attacked Scotland, _Tytler's History_,
vol. iv. p. 316; and in that same month, the 'Anglo-Scottish
party' consisted only of the Earls of Lennox and of Glencairn,
since even 'Angus, George Douglas, and their numerous and powerful
adherents, joined the cardinal.' p. 319. As to the part taken by
the Scotch clergy, see, in _Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. p.
173, a letter to Henry VIII., written on the 1st of May 1543: 'And
as to the kirk-men, I assure your majesty they seek the war by all
the means they can, and do daily entertain the noblemen with money
and rewards to sustain the wars, rather than there should be any
agreement with your majesty; thinking, verily, that if peace and
unity succeed, that they shall be reformed, and lose their glory,
which they had rather die, and put all this realm in hazard, than
they would forego.' See also p. 184, note.

This, however, was but a passing delusion. The antagonism between the two classes was irreconcilable.[164] In the spring of 1545, the leading Protestant nobles formed a conspiracy to assassinate Archbishop Beaton,[165] whom they hated more than any one else, partly because he was the head of the Church, and partly because he was the ablest and most unscrupulous of their opponents. A year, however, elapsed before their purpose could be effected; and it was not till May 1546, that Lesley, a young baron, accompanied by the Laird of Grange, and a few others, burst into Saint Andrews, and murdered the primate in his own castle.[166]

[164] Buchanan records a very curious conversation between the regent and
Douglas, which, as I do not remember to have met with elsewhere, I
shall transcribe. The exact date of it is not mentioned, but, from
the context, it evidently took place in 1544 or 1545. 'Ibi cum
Prorex suam deploraret solitudinem, et se a nobilitate derelictum
quereretur, Duglassius ostendit "id ipsius culpa fieri, non
nobilium, qui et fortunas omnes et vitam ad publicam salutem
tuendam conferrent, quorum consilio contempto ad sacrificulorum
nutum circumageretur, qui foris imbelles, domi seditiosi,
omniumque periculorum expertes alieni laboris fructu ad suas
voluptates abuterentur. Ex hoc fonte inter te et proceres facta
est suspitio, quæ (quòd neutri alteris fidatis) rebus gerendis
maxime est impedimento."' _Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xv. p.
435. Buchanan was, at this time, about thirty-eight years old; and
that some such conversation as that which he narrates actually
took place, is, I think, highly probable, though the historian may
have thrown in some touches of his own. At all events, he was too
great a rhetorician to invent what his contemporaries would deem
unlikely to happen; so that, from either point of view, the
passage is valuable as an evidence of the deep-rooted hostility
which the nobles bore towards the Church.

[165] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 337. 'The plot is
entirely unknown either to our Scottish or English historians; and
now, after the lapse of nearly three centuries, has been
discovered in the secret correspondence of the State-paper
Office.' The first suggestion of the murder was in April 1544. See
_State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 377, and the end of the
Preface to vol. iv. But Mr. Tytler and the editor of the _State
Papers_ appear to have overlooked a still earlier indication of
the coming crime, in _Sadler's Papers_. See, in that collection,
vol. i. p. 77, a conversation, held in March 1543, between Sir
Ralph Sadler and the Earl of Arran; Sadler being conducted by the
Earl of Glencairn. On that occasion, the Earl of Arran used an
expression concerning Beaton, the meaning of which Sir Ralph
evidently understood. '"By God," quoth he, "he shall never come
out of prison whilst I may have mine own will, _except it be to
his farther mischief_." I allowed the same well' (replied Sadler),
'and said, "It were pity, but he should receive such reward as his
merits did require."'

[166] _State Papers of Henry VIII._, vol. v. p. 560. _A Diurnal of
Occurrents_, p. 42. _Calderwood's History of the Kirk of
Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 221-223. Lindsay of Pitscottie
(_Chronicles_, vol. ii. p. 484) relates a circumstance respecting
the murder, which is too horrible to mention, and of which it is
enough to say, that it consisted of an obscene outrage committed
on the corpse of the victim. Though such facts cannot now be
published, they are so characteristic of the age, that they ought
not to be passed over in complete silence.

The horror with which the Church heard of this foul and barbarous deed,[167] maybe easily imagined. But the conspirators, nothing daunted, and relying on the support of a powerful party, justified their act, seized the castle of Saint Andrews, and prepared to defend it to the last. And in this resolution they were upheld by a most remarkable man, who now first appeared to public view, and who, being admirably suited to the age in which he lived, was destined to become the most conspicuous character of those troublous times.

[167] Respecting which, two Scotch Protestant historians have expressed
themselves in the following terms: 'God admonished men, by this
judgement, that he will in end be avenged upon tyranns for their
crueltie, howsoever they strenthen themselves.' _Calderwood's
History of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 224. And, whoever
considers all the circumstances, 'must acknowledge it was a
stupendous act of the judgment of the Lord, and that the whole was
overruled and guided by Divine Providence.' _Stevenson's History
of the Church and State of Scotland_, p. 38.

That man was John Knox. To say that he was fearless and incorruptible, that he advocated with unflinching zeal what he believed to be the truth, and that he devoted himself with untiring energy to what he deemed the highest of all objects, is only to render common justice to the many noble attributes which he undoubtedly possessed. But, on the other hand, he was stern, unrelenting, and frequently brutal; he was not only callous to human suffering, but he could turn it into a jest, and employ on it the resources of his coarse, though exuberant, humour;[168] and he loved power so inordinately, that, unable to brook the slightest opposition, he trampled on all who crossed his path, or stood even for a moment in the way of his ulterior designs.

[168] Even the editor of _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, Edinburgh, 1841,
p. xxxv., notices 'the ill-timed merriment he displays in relating
the foul deed' of Beaton's murder.

The influence of Knox in promoting the Reformation, has indeed been grossly exaggerated by historians, who are too apt to ascribe vast results to individual exertions; overlooking those large and general causes, in the absence of which the individual exertion would be fruitless. Still, he effected more than any single man;[169] although the really important period of his life, in regard to Scotland, was in and after 1559, when the triumph of Protestantism was already secure, and when he reaped the benefit of what had been effected during his long absence from his own country. His first effort was a complete failure, and, more than any one of his actions, has injured his reputation. This was the sanction which he gave to the cruel murder of Archbishop Beaton, in 1546. He repaired to the Castle of Saint Andrews; he shut himself up with the assassins; he prepared to share their fate; and, in a work which he afterwards wrote, openly justified what they had done.[170] For this, nothing can excuse him; and it is with a certain sense of satisfied justice that we learn, that, in 1547, the castle being taken by the French, Knox was treated with great severity, and was made to work at the galleys, from which he was not liberated till 1549.[171]

[169] Shortly before his death, he said, with honest and justifiable
pride, 'What I have bene to my countrie, albeit, this vnthankfull
aige will not knowe, yet the aiges to come wilbe compelled to bear
witnes to the treuth.' _Bannatyne's Journal_, Edinburgh, 1806. p.
119. Bannatyne was Knox's secretary. It is to be regretted that no
good life of Knox should have yet been published. That by M'Crie
is an undistinguishing and injudicious panegyric, which, by
provoking a reaction of opinion, has damaged the reputation of the
great reformer. On the other hand, the sect of Episcopalians in
Scotland are utterly blind to the real grandeur of the man, and
unable to discern his intense love of truth, and the noble
fearlessness of his nature.

[170] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. iv. pp. 374, 375. _M'Crie's
Life of Knox_, pp. 27, 28. _Lawson's Roman Catholic Church in
Scotland_, p. 154. _Presbytery Displayed_, 1663, 4to, p. 28.
_Shields' Hind let loose_, 1687, pp. 14, 39, 638. In his _History
of the Reformation_, edit. Laing, vol. i. pp. 177, 180, he calls
it a 'godly fact,' and says, 'These ar the workis of our God;'
which, in plain language, is terming the Deity an assassin. But,
bad as this is, I agree with M'Crie, that there is no trustworthy
evidence for deeming him privy to the murder. Compare, however, _A
Diurnal of Occurrents_ p. 42, with _Lyon's History of St.
Andrews_, vol. ii. p. 364.

[171] _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, pp. 38, 43, 350. _Argyll's Presbytery
Examined_, 1848, p. 19.

During the next five years, Knox remained in England, which he quitted in 1554, and arrived at Dieppe.[172] He then travelled abroad; and did not revisit Scotland till the autumn of 1555, when he was eagerly welcomed by the principal nobles and their adherents.[173] From some cause, however, which has not been sufficiently explained, but probably from an unwillingness to play a subordinate part among those proud chiefs, he, in July 1556, again left Scotland, and repaired to Geneva, where he had been invited to take charge of a congregation.[174] He stayed abroad till 1559, by which time the real struggle was almost over; so completely had the nobles succeeded in sapping the foundations of the Church.

[172] _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, pp. 44, 71.

[173] _Ibid._ p. 99. As to the nobles, who received him, and heard him
preach, see p. 102.

[174] 'Influenced by motives which have never been fully comprehended, he
departed to Geneva, where, for a time, he became pastor of a
Protestant congregation.' _Russell's History of the Church in
Scotland_, 1834, vol. i. p. 193. M'Crie, who sees no difficulty,
simply says, 'In the month of July 1556, he left Scotland, and,
having arrived at Dieppe, he proceeded with his family to Geneva.'
_Life of Knox_, p. 107.

For, the course of events having been long prepared, was now rapid indeed. In 1554, the queen dowager had succeeded Arran as regent.[175] She was that Mary of Guise whose marriage with James V. we have noticed as one of the indications of the policy then prevailing. If left alone, she would probably have done little harm;[176] but her powerful and intolerant family exhorted her to suppress the heretics, and, as a natural part of the same scheme, to put down the nobles. By the advice of her brothers, the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of Lorraine, she, in 1555, proposed to establish a standing army, to supply the place of the troops, which consisted of the feudal barons and their retainers. Such a force, being paid by the Crown, would have been entirely under its control; but the nobles saw the ulterior design, and compelled Mary to abandon it, on the ground that they and their vassals were able to defend Scotland, without further aid.[177] Her next attempt was to consolidate the interests of the Catholic party, which she effected, in 1558, by marrying her daughter to the dauphin. This increased the influence of the Guises,[178] whose niece, already queen of Scotland, would now, in the ordinary course of affairs, become queen of France. They urged their sister to extreme measures, and promised to assist her with French troops. On the other hand, the nobles remained firm, and prepared for the struggle. In December 1557, several of them had drawn up a covenant, agreeing to stand by each other, and to resist the tyranny with which they were threatened.[179] They now took the name of Lords of the Congregation, and sent forth their agents to secure the subscriptions of those who wished for a reformation of the Church.[180] They, moreover, wrote to Knox, whose style of preaching, being very popular, would, they thought, be useful in stirring up the people to rebellion.[181] He was then in Geneva, and did not arrive in Scotland till May 1559,[182] by which time the result of the impending contest was hardly doubtful, so successful had the nobles been in strengthening their party, and so much reason had they to expect the support of Elizabeth.

[175] Knox, in his savoury diction, likens her appointment to putting a
saddle on the back of a cow. 'She maid Regent in the year of God
1554; and a croune putt upone hir head, als seimlye a sight (yf
men had eis), as to putt a sadill upone the back of ane unrewly
kow.' I copy this passage from Mr. Laing's excellent edition of
_Knox's History of the Reformation_, vol. i. p. 242; but in
_Watson's Historicall Collections of Ecclesiastick Affairs in
Scotland_, 1657, p. 73, there is a slightly different version.
'"As seemly a sight," saith John Knox, in the new gospel language,
"as to put the saddle upon the back of an unruly _sow_."'

[176] The Duke of Argyll, in his _Presbytery Examined_, p. 9, calls her
'ambitious and intriguing.' Not only, however, is she praised by
Lesley (_History_, pp. 289, 290), which might have been expected,
but even Buchanan does justice to her, in a passage unusually
gracious for so Protestant and democratic a writer. 'Mors ejus
varie mentes hominum affecit. Nam et apud quosdam eorum, quibuscum
armis contendit, non mediocre sui desiderium reliquit. Erat enim
singulari ingenio prædita, et animo ad æquitatem admodum
propenso.' _Buchanan_, _Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xvi. p.
487.

[177] _History of Scotland_, book ii. p. 91, in Robertson's Works, 1831.
_Tytler's History_, vol. v. pp. 22, 23. It appears, from Lesley
(_History_, pp. 254, 255), that some of the nobles were in favour
of this scheme, hoping thereby to gain favour. 'Albeit sum of the
lordis of the nobilitie for pleasour of the quene seamed to aggre
thairto for the tyme, yit the barronis and gentill men was nathing
content thairwith' ... 'affirming that thair foirfatheris and
predicessouris had defendit the samyn' (_i.e._ the realm) 'mony
hundreth yeris, vailyeantlie with thair awin handis.'

[178] 'It completed the almost despotic power of the house of Guise.'
_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. v. p. 27.

[179] This covenant, which marks an important epoch in the history of
Scotland, is dated 3rd of December 1557. It is printed in
_Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_, p. 47; in
_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. i. pp. 326, 327; and in
_Knox's History of the Reformation_, vol. i. pp. 273, 274.

[180] In 1558, 'the lords of the congregation had sent agents through
the kingdom to solicit the subscriptions of those who were
friendly to a reformation.' _Stephen's History of the Church of
Scotland_, London, 1848, vol. i. p. 58.

[181] Keith (_Affairs of Church and State in Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 82)
calls him 'a trumpeter of rebellion,' which he undoubtedly was,
and very much to his credit too, though the courtly bishop imputes
it to him as a fault. The Scotch, if it had not been for their
rebellious spirit, would long since have lost their liberties.

[182] 'He sailed from Dieppe on the 22nd of April 1559, and landed
safely at Leith in the beginning of May.' _M'Crie's Life of Knox_,
p. 139. Knox himself says, 'the secound of Maij.' _History of the
Reformation_, edit. Laing, vol. i. p. 318. 'He was called home by
the noblemen that enterprised the Reformation.' _Spottiswoode's
History of the Church of Scotland_, edit. Russell, vol. ii.
p. 180.

Nine days after Knox entered Scotland, the first blow was struck. On the 11th of May 1559, he preached in Perth. After the sermon, a tumult arose, and the people plundered the churches and pulled down the monasteries.[183] The queen-regent, hastily assembling troops, marched towards the town. But the nobles were on the alert. The Earl of Glencairn joined the congregation with two thousand five hundred men; and a treaty was concluded, by which both sides agreed to disarm, on condition that no one should be punished for what had already happened.[184] Such, however, was the state of the public mind, that peace was impossible. In a few days, war again broke out; and this time the result was more decisive. The Lords of the Congregation mustered in great force. Perth, Stirling, and Linlithgow, fell into their hands. The queen-regent retreated before them. She evacuated Edinburgh; and, on the 29th of June, the Protestants entered the capital in triumph.[185]

[183] _Penny's Traditions of Perth_, p. 310. _Knox's History of the
Reformation_, vol. i. pp. 321-323. _Lyon's History of St.
Andrews_, vol. i. p. 329; and a spirited narrative in _Buchanan's
Rerum Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xvi. pp. 471, 472. Some
interesting circumstances are also preserved in _Lesley's
History_, pp. 271, 272; but, though Lesley was a contemporary, he
erroneously places the riot in 1558. He, moreover, ascribes to
Knox language more inflammatory than that which he really used.

[184] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. v. pp. 59, 62, 63. Of the
Earl of Glencairn, Chalmers (_Caledonia_, vol. iii. p. 485) says,
that he was a 'religious ruffian, who enjoyed pensions from Henry
VIII., for injuring the country of his birth, and benefits.' This,
besides being ungrammatical, is foolish. Glencairn, like the other
aristocratic leaders of the Reformation, was, no doubt, influenced
by sordid motives; but, so far from injuring his country, he
rendered it great service.

[185] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. v. pp. 64-73.

All this was done in seven weeks from the breaking out of the first riot. Both parties were now willing to negotiate, with the view of gaining time; the queen-regent expecting aid from France, the Lords expecting it from England.[186] But the proceedings of Elizabeth being tardy, the Protestants, after waiting for some months, determined to strike a decisive blow before the reinforcements arrived. In October, the principal peers, headed by the Duke of Chastelherault, the Earl of Arran, the Earl of Argyle, and the Earl of Glencairn, assembled at Edinburgh. A great meeting was held, of which Lord Ruthven was appointed president, and in which the queen-regent was solemnly suspended from the government, on the ground that she was opposed to 'the glory of God, to the liberty of the realm, and to the welfare of the nobles.'[187]

[186] It is stated of the queen-regent, that, in July 1559, 'shee had
sent alreadie to France for more men of warr.' See the curious
pamphlet entitled 'A Historie of the Estate of Scotland, from July
1558 to April 1560,' in _Miscellany of the Wodrow Society_, p. 63,
Edinburgh, 1844. All sorts of rumours were circulated; and a
letter, dated 12th October 1559, says, 'Summe thinke the regent
will departe secretlie. Summe that she will to Ynchkeith, for that
three shippes are a preparing. Summe saye that she is verie sicke.
Summe saye the devill cannot kill her.' _Sadler's State Papers_,
vol. i. p. 499.

[187] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. v. p. 104. This was on the
22nd of October 1559. Compare _Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. p.
512. 'This Mondaye, the 22 of October, was the douagier deprived
from her authoritie by commen consent of all lords and barons here
present.' On this occasion, 'Johne Willocke,' the preacher,
delivered himself of a discourse in favour of her deposition.
Among other arguments, he said, 'that in deposing of princes, and
these that have beene in authoritie, God did not alwayes use his
immediat power, but sometimes he used other meanes, which his
wisdome thought good, and justice approved. As by Asa, He removed
Maacha, his owne mother, from honour and authoritie, which before
she had used; by Jehu He destroyed Joram, and the whole posteritie
of Achab.' _Therefore_ 'he (the orator) could see no reasoun why
they, the borne counsellers, the nobilitie and barons of the
realme, might not justlie deprive her from all regiment.'
_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. i. pp. 540, 541; and
_Knox's History of the Reformation_, vol. i. pp. 442, 443.

In the winter, an English fleet sailed into the Frith, and anchored near Edinburgh.[188] In January 1560, the Duke of Norfolk arrived at Berwick, and concluded, on the part of Elizabeth, a treaty with the Lords of the Congregation, by virtue of which the English army entered Scotland on the 2nd of April.[189] Against this combination, the government could effect nothing, and in July, was glad to sign a peace, by which the French troops were to evacuate Scotland, and the whole power of administration was virtually consigned to the Protestant Lords.[190]

[188] The _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pp. 55, 272, says, that the fleet
arrived on 24th of January, 1559-60; 'aucht greit schippis of
Ingland in the raid of Leith.' And a letter (in _Sadler's State
Papers_, vol. i. p. 697) dated the 23rd of January, says, 'the
shippes arrived yesterdaye in the Frythe to the nomber of ix. or
x., as yet, and the remanent followith.' The date, therefore, of
the 10th of January, given in a note to _Keith's Church and State
in Scotland_, vol. i. p. 255, is evidently erroneous. Important as
the event was, its exact date is not mentioned either by Tytler
(_History of Scotland_, vol. v. pp. 114, 115), or by Chalmers
(_Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 631).

[189] _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 632. _Knox's History of the
Reformation_, vol. ii. p. 57. The Berwick treaty, in February, is
printed in _Keith's Church and State in Scotland_, vol. i. pp.
258-262. So great was the influence of the nobles, that the
English troops were well received by the people, in spite of the
old and bitter animosity between the two nations. 'Especially in
Fyfe they were thankfully receaved, and well entreated, with such
quietnes and gentle entertainement betwixt our nation and them, as
no man would have thought that ever there had beine any variance.'
_A Historie of the Estate of Scotland_, from 1558 to 1560, in
_Miscellany of the Wodrow Society_, p. 78.

[190] 'Vpoun the vi. day of Julij, it wes concludit and finallie endit
betuix the saids ambassatouris, tuitching all debaittis,
contraversies and materis concernyng the asseiging of Leith,
depairting of the Frenchemen thairfra, and randering of the same;
and the said peax daitit this said day.' _A Diurnal of
Occurrents_, pp. 277, 278. See also p. 60; and _Keith's Affairs of
Church and State in Scotland_, vol. i. p. 295.

The complete success of this great revolution, and the speed with which it was effected, are of themselves a decisive proof of the energy of those general causes by which the whole movement was controlled. For more than a hundred and fifty years, there had been a deadly struggle between the nobles and the Church: and the issue of that struggle, was the establishment of the Reformation, and the triumph of the aristocracy. They had, at last, carried their point. The hierarchy was overthrown, and replaced by new and untried men. All the old notions of apostolic succession, of the imposition of hands, and of the divine right of ordination, were suddenly discarded. The offices of the Church were performed by heretics, the majority of whom had not even been ordained.[191] Finally, and to crown the whole, in the summer of the same year, 1560, the Scotch parliament passed two laws, which utterly subverted the ancient scheme. By one of these laws, every statute which had ever been enacted in favour of the Church, was at once repealed.[192] By the other law, it was declared that whoever either said mass, or was present while it was said, should, for the first offence, lose his goods; for the second offence be exiled; and, for the third offence, be put to death.[193]

[191] 'That Knox himself was in priest's orders, is a fact which his
biographer, the late Dr. M'Crie, has placed beyond dispute; and
some of the other leaders were also priests; but the greater
number of the preachers, and all those who subsequently became
ministers, were totally without any orders whatever, not even such
as the superintendents could have given them; for their own
supposed call, the election of the people, and the _civil_
ceremony of induction to the living, was all that was then "judged
necessary."' _Stephen's History of the Church of Scotland_, 1848,
vol. i. pp. 145, 146. 'A new-fashioned sort of ministry, unknown
in the Christian Church for all preceding generations.' _Keith's
Church and State in Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 204. Compare _Argyll's
Presbytery Examined_, pp. 34-36.

[192] 'The thre estaitis of parliament hes [=a]nullit and declarit all
sik actes maid in tymes bipast not aggreing w^t goddis word and
now contrair to the confessiouñ of oure fay^t according to the
said word publist in this parliament. Tobe of nane avale force nor
effect. And decornis the said actis and every ane of thame tu haue
na effect nor strenth in tyme to cum.' _Acts of the Parliament of
Scotland_, 1814, folio, vol. ii. p. 535. This was on 24th August
1560.

[193] 'That na maner of person nor personis say mess nor zit heir mess
nor be pñt thairat vnder the pane of confiscatiouñ of all
thair gud movable and vnmovable and pvneissing of thair bodeis at
the discretiouñ of the magistrat within quhais jurisdictiouñ
sik personis happ[=y]nis to be apprehendit ffor the first falt:
Banissing of the Realme for the secund falt, and justifying to the
deid for the thrid falt.' _Ibid._, 24th August 1560, vol. ii. p.
525.

Thus it was, that an institution, which had borne the brunt of more than a thousand years, was shivered, and fell to pieces. And, from its fall, great things were augured. It was believed, that the people would be enlightened, that their eyes were opening to their former follies, and that the reign of superstition was about to end. But what was forgotten then, and what is too often forgotten now, is, that in these affairs there is an order and a natural sequence, which can never be reversed. This is, that every institution, as it actually exists, no matter what its name or pretences may be, is the effect of public opinion far more than the cause; and that it will avail nothing to attack the institution, unless you can first change the opinion. In Scotland, the Church was grossly superstitious; but it did not, therefore, follow, that to overthrow the establishment, would lessen the evil. They who think that superstition can be weakened in this way, do not know the vitality of that dark and ill-omened principle. Against it, there is only one weapon, and that weapon is knowledge. When men are ignorant, they must be superstitious; and wherever superstition exists, it is sure to organize itself into some kind of system, which it makes its home. If you drive it from that home, it will find another. The spirit transmigrates; it assumes a new form; but still it lives. How idle, then, is that warfare which reformers are too apt to wage, in which they slay the carcass, and spare the life! The husk, forsooth, they seek out and destroy; but within that husk is a seed of deadly poison, whose vitality they are unable to impair, and which, shifted from its place, bears fruit in another direction, and shoots up with a fresh, and often a more fatal, exuberance.

The truth is, that every institution, whether political or religious, represents, in its actual working, the form and pressure of the age. It may be very old; it may bear a venerated name; it may aim at the highest objects: but whoever carefully studies its history, will find that, in practice, it is successively modified by successive generations, and that, instead of controlling society, it is controlled by it. When the Protestant Reformation was effected, the Scotch were excessively ignorant, and, therefore, in spite of the Reformation, they remained excessively superstitious. How long that ignorance continued, and what its results were, we shall presently see; but before entering into that inquiry, it will be advisable to trace the immediate consequences of the Reformation itself, in connexion with the powerful class by whose authority it was established.

The nobles, having overthrown the Church, and stripped it of a large part of its wealth, thought that they were to reap the benefit of their own labour. They had slain the enemy, and they wished to divide the spoil.[194] But this did not suit the views of the Protestant preachers. In their opinion, it was impious to secularize ecclesiastical property, and turn it aside to profane purposes. They held, that it was right, indeed, for the lords to plunder the Church; but they took for granted that the proceeds of the robbery were to enrich themselves. They were the godly men; and it was the business of the ruling classes to endow them with benefices, from which the old and idolatrous clergy were to be expelled.[195]

[194] As Robertson says, in his measured, and somewhat feeble, style,
'Among the Scottish nobility, some hated the persons, and others
coveted the wealth, of the dignified clergy; and by abolishing
that order of men, the former indulged their resentment, and the
latter hoped to gratify their avarice.' _History of Scotland_,
book iii. p. 116, in _Robertson's Works_, edit. 1831. The
contemporary narrative, in _A Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 269,
sounds much more vigorous to my ear. 'In all this tyme' (1559),
'all kirkmennis goodis and geir wer spoulzeit and reft fra thame,
in euerie place quhair the samyne culd be apprehendit; for euerie
man for the maist pairt that culd get any thing pertenyng to any
kirkmen, thocht the same as wele won geir.'

[195] 'Knox never dreamed that the revenues of the Church were to be
secularized; but that he and his colleagues were simply to remove
the old incumbents, and then take possession of their benefices.'
_Stephen's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 106.
'The ecclesiastical revenues, which they never contemplated for a
moment were to be seized by the Protestant nobility.' _Lawson's
Roman Catholic Church in Scotland_, p. 233.

In accordance with these opinions, Knox and his colleagues, in August 1560, presented a petition to Parliament, calling on the nobles to restore the Church property which they had seized, and to have it properly applied to the support of the new ministers.[196] To this request, those powerful chiefs did not even vouchsafe a reply.[197] They were content with matters as they actually stood, and were, therefore, unwilling to disturb the existing arrangement. They had fought the fight; they had gained the victory, and shared the spoil. It was not to be supposed that they would peaceably relinquish what they had won with infinite difficulty. Nor was it likely that, after being engaged in an arduous struggle with the Church for a hundred and fifty years, and having at length conquered their inveterate enemy, they should forego the fruits of their triumph for the sake of a few preachers, whom they had but recently called to their aid; low-born and obscure men, who should rather deem it an honour that they were permitted to associate with their superiors in a common enterprise, but were not to presume on that circumstance, nor to suppose that they, who only entered the field at the eleventh hour, were to share the booty on anything approaching to terms of equality.[198]

[196] Compare _Knox's History of the Reformation_, vol. ii. pp. 89-92,
with _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, p. 179. Of this document, M'Crie
says, 'There can be no doubt that it received the sanction, if it
was not the composition, of the Reformer.' ... 'It called upon
them' (the nobles) 'to restore the patrimony of the Church, of
which they had unjustly possessed themselves.'

[197] 'Making no answer to the last point.' _Spottiswoode's History of
the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 327. 'Without taking any
notice.' _Keith's Affairs of Church and State_, vol. i. p. 321.

[198] 'They viewed the Protestant preachers as low-born individuals, not
far raised above the condition of mechanics or tradesmen, without
influence, authority, or importance.' _Lawson's Roman Catholic
Church in Scotland_, p. 251. 'None were more unmercifull to the
poore ministers than they that had the greatest share of the kirk
rents.' _Calderwood's History of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. ii.
p. 42.

But the aristocracy of Scotland little knew the men with whom they had to deal. Still less, did they understand the character of their own age. They did not see that, in the state of society in which they lived, superstition was inevitable, and that, therefore, the spiritual classes, though depressed for a moment, were sure speedily to rise again. The nobles had overturned the Church; but the principles on which Church authority is based, remained intact. All that was done, was to change the name and the form. A new hierarchy was quickly organized, which succeeded the old one in the affections of the people. Indeed, it did more. For, the Protestant clergy, neglected by the nobles, and unendowed by the state, had only a miserable pittance whereupon to live, and they necessarily threw themselves into the arms of the people, where alone they could find support and sympathy.[199] Hence, a closer and more intimate union than would otherwise have been possible. Hence, too, as we shall presently see, the Presbyterian clergy, smarting under the injustice with which they were treated, displayed that hatred of the upper classes, and that peculiar detestation of monarchical government, which they showed whenever they dared. In their pulpits, in their presbyteries, and in their General Assemblies, they encouraged a democratic and insubordinate tone, which eventually produced the happiest results, by keeping alive, at a critical moment, the spirit of liberty; but which, for that very reason, made the higher ranks rue the day, when, by their ill-timed and selfish parsimony, they roused the wrath of so powerful and implacable a class.

[199] In 1561, 'Notwithstanding the full establishment of the
Reformation, the Protestant ministers were in a state of extreme
poverty, and dependent upon the precarious assistance of their
flocks.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. v. p. 207. Compare a
letter, written by Knox, in 1566, 'on the extreame povertie
wherein our ministers are brought.' _Knox's History of the
Reformation_, vol. ii. p. 542.

The withdrawal of the French troops, in 1560, had left the nobles in possession of the government;[200] and it was for them to decide to what extent the Reformed clergy should be endowed. The first petition, presented by Knox and his brethren, was passed over in contemptuous silence. But the ministers were not so easily put aside. Their next step was, to present to the Privy Council what is known as the First Book of Discipline, in which they again urged their request.[201] To the tenets contained in this book, the council had no objection; but they refused to ratify it, because, by doing so, they would have sanctioned the principle that the new church had a right to the revenues of the old one.[202] A certain share, indeed, they were willing to concede. What the share should be, was a matter of serious dispute, and caused the greatest ill-will between the two parties. At length, the nobles broke silence, and, in December 1561, they declared that the Reformed clergy should only receive one-sixth of the property of the Church; the remaining five-sixths being divided between the government and the Catholic priesthood.[203] The meaning of this was easily understood, since the Catholics were now entirely dependent on the government, and the government was, in fact, the nobles themselves, who were, at that period, the monopolizers of political power.