Chapter XIV: Part 14

{437}
Note DD, Footnote 330.

_Of the Form of Prayer used in Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation._――It is natural to enquire here what is meant by the “buik of comon prayeris,” which the protestants, in 1557, agreed to use, or which was afterwards followed in their public worship. Was it the common prayer‑book of Edward VI., or was it a different one? This question was keenly canvassed, after the Revolution, by the Scottish episcopalians and presbyterians. Mr Sage, the most able champion of the episcopalians, insisted that it was the English liturgy, and endeavoured to prove that this was, during, “at least, seven years, in continued practice in Scotland,” _i.e._ from 1557 to 1564. Fundamental Charter of Presbytery Examined, p. 95‒101, 349. 2d edit. Lond. 1697. Mr Anderson, minister of Dumbarton, who was the most acute advocate of presbytery, answered this part of the Fundamental Charter, and adduced a number of arguments to prove that it was the liturgy, not of Edward VI., but of the English church at Geneva, of which Knox was minister, which was used in Scotland from the time that protestant congregations were formed in this country. The Countreyman’s Letter to the Curat, p. 65‒77, printed in 1711. I shall state a few facts, without entering into reasoning. Mr Anderson says, that he had in his possession a copy, in Latin, of the liturgy used in the English church at Frankfort, the preface of which bears date the 1st of September, 1554. He adds, that this had been translated from English into Latin; and that the prayers in it are exactly the same with those which are found in the Order of Geneva, afterwards adopted by the Scottish church; only there are some additional prayers in the latter accommodated to the circumstances of Scotland. Ibid. p. 64. This must have been the form of worship agreed on by the exiles immediately after their arrival at Frankfort. Troubles of Franckford, p. 7. Before the end of that year, the form of worship observed by the Genevan church was printed in English. Ibid. p. 27. In the beginning of the following year, the form afterwards used by the English church at Geneva was composed, which differed very little from that which {438} was first used at Frankfort. Ibid. p. 37. This was printed in the beginning of 1556. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 401. It is not unlikely that Knox, in his visit to Scotland, in 1555, would carry with him copies of the two former liturgies, and that he would send copies of the latter, on his return to Geneva. After all, I think it extremely probable, that copies of the liturgy of Edward VI. were still more numerous in Scotland at that time, and that they were used by some of the protestants at the beginning of the Reformation. This appears from a letter of Cecil to Throkmorton, 9th July, 1559. “The protestants be at Edynborough. They offer no violence, but dissolve religiose howsees; directyng the lands thereof to the crowne, and to ministery in the chirch. The parish churchees they delyver of altars and imagees, and have receved the service of the church of England, accordyng to King Edward’s Booke.” Forbes’s State Papers, i. 155. Another thing which inclines me to think that the English liturgy was in the eye of those who made the agreement in Dec. 1557 is, that they mention the reading of “the _lessonis_ of the New and Auld Testament, _conforme_ to the ordour of the Buik of Commoun‑Prayeris.” Anderson gives a quotation from the preface to the Frankfort liturgy, in which the compilers vindicate themselves against the objection, that they had omitted the reading of the gospels and epistles, by saying that they read in order not only these, but all the books of scripture. And he insists that by the “lessonis of the New and Auld Testament,” our reformers meant no more than the reading of the scriptures in general. This reply does not appear to me satisfactory.

But though the Scottish protestants, at that time, agreed to make use of the prayers and scripture‑lessons contained in the English liturgy, it cannot be inferred from this, that they approved of it without limitations, or that they meant to bind themselves to all its forms and ceremonies. The contrary is evident. It appoints lessons to be read from the apocrypha; but they expressly confined their reading to “the lessons of the New and Old Testament.” A great part of the English liturgy can be read by a priest only; but all that they proposed to use could be performed by “the most qualifeit in the parochin,” provided the curate refused, or was unqualified. I need scarcely add, that, if they had adopted that {439} liturgy without qualification, their invitation to Knox must have come with a very bad grace. It must have been to this purpose, (to use Mr Anderson’s words,) “Pray, good Mr Knox, come over and help us; and for your encouragement against you come, you shall find the English liturgy, against which you preached in Scotland, against which you declared before the counsel of England, for opposing which you were brought in danger of your neck at Francford; this English liturgy you shall find the authorized form of worship, and that by an ordinance of our making.” The Countreyman’s Letter, ut supra, p. 69.

We can trace back the use of the Book of Common Order, (or, Order of Geneva,) by the church of Scotland, from the year 1564. The General Assembly, Dec. 26, 1564, ordained “that everie minister, exhorter, and reader sall have one of the Psalme Bookes latelie printed in Edinburgh, and use the order contained therein in prayers, marriage, and ministration of the sacraments.” Keith, 538. This refers to the edition of the Geneva Order and Psalms, which had been printed during that year by Lepreuik. “In the generall assemblie convened at Edinr. in Dec{r} 1562, for printing of the psalmes, the kirk lent Rob. Lickprivick, printer, tva hundreth pounds, to help to buy irons, ink, and papper, and to fie craftesmen for printing.” Reasons for continuing the use of the old metrical Version of the Psalms, p. 232, of a MS. (written in 1632) belonging to Robert Græme, Esq. advocate. But although this was the first edition of the book printed in this country, it had been previously printed both at Geneva and in England; and was used in the church of Scotland. For in the assembly which met in Dec. 1562, it was concluded, “that an uniforme Order sould be keeped in ministration of the sacraments, solemnization of marriages, and burial of the dead, according to the Booke of Geneva.” Keith, 519. Petrie, part ii. p. 233. Nor was it then introduced for the first time; for the Abbot of Crossraguel, in a book set forth by him in 1561, mentions it as the established form of prayers at the time he wrote. “I will call to remembrance,” says he, “the sayings of quhilkis ar written to the redar, in _thair buke_ callit _the forme of prayeris_, as eftir followis, viz. ‘As for the wourdis of the Lordis supper, we rehers thaim nocht bicaus thai sulde change the {440} substance of the breid and wine, or that the repetitione tharof, with the entent of the sacrificear, sulde make the sacraments (as the papists falslie belevis).” Ane Oratioune be Master Quintine Kennedy, p. 15, Edin. 1812. The passage quoted by Kennedy is in the book of Common Order. Dunlop, ii. 454. The First Book of Discipline, framed in 1560, expressly approves of the Order of Geneva, which it calls “_our_ Book of Common Order,” and mentions its being “used in some of our churches,” previous to that period. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 520, 548, 583. From these facts it is evident that, although the scripture lessons and the prayers in the English liturgy were at first used by some of the Scottish protestants, yet they never received that book as a whole; that the Order of Geneva was introduced among them before the establishment of the Reformation; and that it became the universal form of worship as soon as a sufficient number of copies of it could be procured. If any other evidence of this were necessary, I might produce the testimony of Sir Francis Knollys, the English ambassador. When queen Mary fled into England, in 1568, she feigned her willingness to give up with the mass, and to adopt the English Common Prayer Book, provided Elizabeth would assist her in regaining her crown. Lord Herries having made this proposal in her name, Sir Francis replied, “that, yf he meant thereby to condempne the form and order of common prayer now used in Skotland, agreeable with divers well reformed churches,――or that he meant to expel all the learned preachers of Skotland, yff they would not return back to receave and wayr cornered capes and typpets, with surpless and coopes, which they have left by order contynually since their first receavyng of the gospel into that realme; then he myght so fyght for the shadow and image of religion that he myght bring the body and truth in danger.” Anderson’s Collections, vol. iv., part i., p. 110, 111.

As this subject has been introduced, I may make an observation or two respecting the form of prayers used in the church of Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation. What has been called Knox’s Liturgy, was the Book of Common Order, first used by the English church at Geneva. It contains forms of prayers for the different parts of public worship; and this is the only resemblance {441} which it hears to the English liturgy. But there is this important difference between the two: in the English, the minister is restricted to the repetition of the very words of the prayers; in the Scottish, he is left at liberty to vary from them, and to substitute prayers of his own in their room. The following quotations will exemplify the mode of the latter. “When the congregation is assembled at the houre appointed, the minister useth one of these two confessions, _or like in effect_.”――“The minister after the sermon useth this prayer following, _or such like_.” Similar declarations are prefixed to the prayers to be used at the celebration of baptism and of the Lord’s supper. And at the end of the account of the public service of the Sabbath this intimation is subjoined; “It shall not be necessarie for the minister daylie to repeat all these things before mentioned, but, beginning with some manner of confession, to proceed to the sermon, which ended, he either useth the prayer for all estates before mentioned, or else prayeth as the Spirit of God shall move his heart, framing the same according to the time and matter which he hath entreated of.” Knox’s Liturgy, p. 74, 83, 86, 120. Edin. 1611. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 417, 421, 426, 443, 450. And at the end of the Form of Excommunication, it is signified, “This order may be enlarged or contracted as the wisdome of the discreet minister shall think expedient; for we rather shew the way to the ignorant, than prescribe order to the learned that cannot be amended.” Dunlop, ii. 746. The Scottish prayers, therefore, were intended as a help to the ignorant, not as a restraint upon those who could pray without a set form. The readers and exhorters commonly used them; but even they were encouraged to perform the service in a different manner. Knox’s Liturgy, p. 189. Dunlop, ii. 694.

Note EE, Footnote 342.

_Of the Petitions presented by the Protestants to the Queen Regent. _――The petition which Sir James Sandilands presented, in the name of his brethren, contained five requests. 1. That, as by the laws of the land, they had, after long debate, obtained liberty to read the scriptures in their native language, it should also be lawful {442} for them to use, publicly or privately, “comoun prayaris in our vulgar toung.” 2. That if, in the course of reading the scriptures in their assemblies, any difficulty occurred, it should be lawful for any “qualifeit persone in knawledge” to explain it, subject to the judgment of “the maist godlie and maist learnit within the realme.” 3. “That the holy sacrament of baptisme may be used in the vulgar toung,” accompanied with instruction to the parties and to the church. 4. “That the sacrament of the Lordis supper, or of his most blessed body and blude, may likewise be ministrate in the vulgar toung, and in both kindis.” And _lastly_, “that the wicket, slanderous, and detestabill lyif of Prelatis, and of the stait ecclesiastical, may be so reformed that the pepill by thame have not occasioun, as of mony dayis they have had, to contempe their ministrie and the preiching, whairof they sould be messengers;” and to remove suspicion of interested motives in making this request, they add, “we ar content that not only the reulles and preceptis of the New Testament, but also the wryttings of the ancient Fatheris, and the godly approved lawis of Justiniane, decyde the controversie that is betwix us and thame.” Knox, Historie, p. 120, 121. Spotswood (p. 119) omits the article respecting baptism, and introduces another: “that the election of ministers should be according to the manner used in the primitive church.” See also Buchanani Oper. i. 311.

This petition discovers great moderation on the part of the protestants. Historians differ as to the precise time at which it was presented. Spotswood (p. 108) places his account of it after the martyrdom of Mill. And the writer of the Historie of the Estate of Scotland from 1559 to 1566 (p. 1) says that it was presented in July 1558. On the contrary, Knox (p. 120, 122) places it before the death of Mill. It is highly probable that the protestants petitioned the queen regent both before and after that event, and that on both occasions they employed Sir James Sandilands as their representative. In this light I have represented the matter in the text. But I am inclined, upon the whole, to consider Knox’s statement as the most correct. He had the best opportunity of ascertaining the fact. This was the part of his history which was first written by him, soon after his arrival in Scotland, when the transaction {443} must have been fresh in the recollection of all his associates. There is no reference in the petition to the illegal execution of Mill, which would scarcely have been omitted, if it had previously taken place. The objection urged by Keith, from the clause in the petition which supposes that the queen was married, does not appear to have great weight. The parliament, in December 1557, had agreed to the solemnization of the marriage; their commissioners had sailed for France, in February, to be present at the ceremony, which was appointed to take place on the 24th of April. In these circumstances the protestants might, without any impropriety, request that they should be allowed liberty to use the common prayers in the vulgar tongue, to the end that they might “be induced, in fervent and oft prayers, to commend unto God――the queen our soverane, hir honorabill and gracious husband,” &c. Keith is wrong when he says that Knox has fixed the execution of Mill “to the 8th of April, which was above two weeks before the queen’s marriage.” History, p. 80, note. Knox says he was put to death “the twentie aucht day of Aprylle,” which was four days after the marriage. Historie, p. 122.

After the martyrdom of Mill, the protestants renewed their application to the regent, with a warm remonstrance against the cruelty of the clergy. Knox, Historie, p. 122. As the parliament held in November 1558 was approaching, they delivered another petition to her, desiring that it should be laid before the meeting of the estates. In this they requested, that the laws, by which the clergy justified their severe and cruel proceedings against them, should be abrogated, or suspended until the present controversies in religion were regularly determined; or, if this could not be granted, that the clergy should not act as judges, but be obliged to sustain the character of accusers before a temporal judge, and that the same mode of defence should be granted to persons accused of heresy as in other criminal processes. Being persuaded by the promises of the regent to desist from laying this petition before that meeting of parliament, they substituted a protestation; in which they declared that, having waived urging their petitions from regard to the state of public affairs, they should not be liable to any penalties for using that liberty to which they had a just title, and for which they had {444} frequently petitioned, and that, if any tumult was excited by religious differences, or by violent attempts to reform those abuses in religion which were become intolerable, this should not be imputed to them, who had always requested an orderly reformation of these abuses, but to the persons who had resisted every attempt of this kind. Ibid. p. 122‒125. Spotswood, 119, 120.

Note FF, Footnote 360.

_Dissimulation of the Queen Regent._――I am sensible that my account of the conduct of the queen regent to the protestants differs from that which has been given by Dr Robertson. He imputes her change of measures entirely to the overruling influence of her brothers, and seems to acquit her of insincerity in the countenance which she had shown, and the promises which she had repeatedly made, to the protestant leaders. In any remarks which I shall make upon this account, I wish to be understood as not detracting in the slightest degree from the merit of his able, accurate, and luminous statement of the plans conceived by the princes of Lorrain. Having mentioned the first symptoms of the regent’s alienation from the reformers, Dr Robertson says: “In order to account for this, our historians do little more than produce the trite observation concerning the influence of prosperity to alter the character and corrupt the heart,” I do not know the particular historians to whom he may refer, but those of the protestant persuasion whom I have consulted, impute her change of conduct, not to the above cause, but to the circumstance of her having accomplished the great objects which she had in view, upon which she no longer stood in need of the assistance of the reformers. Accordingly, they charge her with duplicity in her former proceedings with them. Knox, 96, 110, 122, 125. Buchanan, i. 312. Spotswood, 117, 119, 120. I think they had good reasons for this charge. At a very early period, she gave a striking proof of her disposition and talent for the deepest dissimulation. I refer to her behaviour in the intercourse which she had with Sir Ralph Sadler, in 1543, on which occasion she acted a part not less important than cardinal Beatoun himself, threw the ambassador into the greatest perplexity, and {445} completely duped the English monarch. Sadler, i. 84‒88, 100, 111‒113, 249‒253. The governor wanted not reason to say, “as she is both subtle and wily, so she hath a vengeable engine and wit to work her purpose.” It is impossible to read the account of her smooth conduct to the reformers, without perceiving the art with which she acted. There is also reason for thinking that she was privy to the execution of Walter Mill, and had encouraged the archbishop of St Andrews to take that step. Indeed, in his letter to the Earl of Argyle, written a few weeks before that event, the archbishop expressly says, that she murmured heavily against him because he did not use severe measures to check the progress of heresy; and Argyle, in his answer, does not call this in question. Knox, 103, 108.

I do not doubt that the regent was precipitated into the most violent measures which she adopted by the counsels of her brothers; and that she remonstrated against the impolicy of these, is attested by Castelnau, to whom Dr Robertson refers as one of his authorities. But I think that she had altered her conduct to the protestants, and declared her resolution to abet the measures of the clergy against them, previous to the time that she is said to have received these strong representations from France. This appears even from the narrative of Castelnau, who has connected the advice given by the princes of Lorrain with the mission of La Brosse and the bishop of Amiens, who did not arrive in Scotland until September 1559, after the civil war was kindled. Jebb, ii. 246. Keith, 102. Sadler, i. 470. But it will be still more apparent from an examination of the testimony of Sir James Melvil, the other authority to whom Dr Robertson appeals. Melvil says that, after the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis was concluded, Bettancourt was sent into Scotland to procure the ratification of it by the queen regent; and that he was charged by the cardinal of Lorrain to inform her, that the popish princes had agreed to join in extirpating heresy, and to require that she should immediately take steps for suppressing the Scottish protestants. Melvil adds, that these instructions, mixed with some threatenings, having been received, the regent “determined to follow them. She therefore issued out a proclamation, _a little before Easter_, commanding every man, great and small, to observe the Roman {446} catholic religion.” Melvil’s Memoirs, p. 23, 24. Lond. 1683. The proclamation to observe Easter in the catholic manner is mentioned by all our historians as the decisive declaration of the queen’s change of measures. Now the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis was not concluded until the 2d of April, 1559. Forbes, i. 68, 81. But Easter fell that year on the 29th of March, six days before Bettancourt could undertake his journey to Scotland. The proclamation respecting the observance of that festival must therefore have been issued some weeks before Bettancourt’s arrival. Nay, we know from other evidence, that the breach between the queen regent and the protestants had taken place on the 6th of March; for this is the date from which the act of oblivion afterwards granted is reckoned. Keith, 141, 151. There is, therefore, a glaring anachronism in Melvil’s narrative; and whatever influence Bettancourt’s embassy had in instigating the regent to more violent measures, she had previously taken her side, and declared her determination to oppose the progress of the Reformation.

There are several other mistakes which Sir James Melvil has committed in his narrative of the transactions of this period. Even in the account of his own embassy into Scotland, in the reign of Henry II., and of the speech which the constable Montmorency made to him on that occasion, he has introduced the constable as mentioning, among his reasons, the shipwreck of the marquis D’Elbeuf, which did not happen till some months after, when the French king was dead. Memoirs, p. 31. Sadler, i. 417. In my humble opinion, all our historians have given too easy credit to Melvil, both in his statements of fact, and in his representations of character.

Note GG, Footnote 363.

_Trial of the Reformed Preachers._――July 7, 1558. Item, the said day, to David Lindsay, Rothesay herauld, passand of Edinburgh, with letteris, to summond George Luvell, David Fergusone, and certain utheris personis within the bur{t} of Dunde, to tak sourte of thame that thai sall compeir befoir the justice and his deputies in the tolbuith of Edinburgh, the xxviii day of Julii instant, {447} for thair wrongus using and wresting of the scripture, and disputting upoun erroneus opinions, and eiting of flesche in Lenterone and utheris forbidding tymes, contrair the actis of parliament, iij{li} v{s}. (Compot. Thesaur.)

Feb. 9, 1558‒9. Proclamation to St Andrews, Cowper, Dundee, Montrose, Aberdeen, charging all and sundrie o{r} soverane ladies liegis, that nane of thame tak upoun hand to commit, attempt, or do any injurie or violence, disturbe the service usit in the kirkis, strike manneis, or bost priestis, or to eit flesche in Lenterone, under the pane of deid.――Also to Linlithgow, Glasgow, Irvine, Ayr, with siclike letteris. (Compot. Thesaur.)

Curia Justiciarie S D N regis et regine, tenta et inchoata in
pretorio burgi de Striueling, x{o} die mensis Maij, anno, &c.
lix{o}, per Henricum Levingstoun, prepositum de Striueling,
Justiciarium deputatum.

Quo die, Georgius Luvell, burgen̄ de Dunde, per literas S D N regis et regine sepe voca{t} ad intrand. Paulum Methwen, Joannes Erskin de Dvne sepe voca{t} ad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun, Patricius Murray de Tibbermuir sepe voca{t} ad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw, et Robertus Campbell de Kinzeclen{t} sepe voca{t} ad intrand. Joannem Willok coram justiciario S D N regis et regine, ejusue deputatis, dictis die et loco ad subeund legem pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias ipso in ministrum euisdem minime legitime admisso existen̄ in festo Pasche, viz. xxvj{to} die mensis Martij vltimo elapso et quotidie per spatium trium dierum hujusmodi festum immediate preceden̄ atque abhinc continuo suo more sacramentum altaris pluribus S D N regis et regine subditis infra burgos de Dunde, Monthros, aliisque diversis partibus et locis infra vicecomitatus de Foirfare et Kynkardin, eisdem adjacen̄, a diuino et laudabili vsu fidelis ecclesie catholice longe diuerso et differente administrando, necnon pro conventione et congregatione hujusmodi subditorum infra burgos et bondas predic{t} temporibus suprascrip{t} ipso minime per locorum ordinarios admisso seu approbato etiam absque earundem licentia dictis subditis sermocinan̄ et predican̄ atque per suos sermones illos ad suas errabiles et seditiosas doctrinas et scismata {448} perswaden̄ et seducen̄ auctoritatem S D N regis et regine inde vsurpan̄ atque inter suos subditos antedict. seditiones et tumultus facien̄ contra tenorem literarum proclamationis de super confec{t} vt in hujusmodi literis criminalibus latius continetur. Et non comparen̄ amerciatus fuit dictus Georgius Luvell pro nonintroitu prefati Pauli Methwen in pena xj{li}. Et judicium redditum fuit quod ipse Paulus ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis vsubus applicabantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.

Eodem die, Joannes Erskin de Dvne, per literas S D N regis et regine sepe voca{t} ad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun coram dicto justiciario deputato ad subeund. legem, pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias, [&c. ut supra,] quod dictus frater Joannes ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur, &c.

Dicto die, Patricius Murray de Tibbermuir sepe voca{t} per literas S D N regis et regine ad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw coram dicto justitiario deputato ad subeund. legem pro criminibus immediate prescriptis. Et non comparen̄ amerciatus fuit dictus Patricius, pro non introitu dicti Willielmi Harlaw in pena xl{ta} lib. Et judicium redditum fuit quod ipse Willielmus ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur. Et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis usibus applicantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.

Prefato die, Robertus Campbell de Kinzecluch per literas S D N regis et regine sepe voc{t} ad intrand. Joannem Willok coram dicto justitiaro deputato, dictis die et loco ad subeund. legem pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias ipso io ministrum eiusdem minime legitime admisso existen̄ in festo Pasche, viz xxvjt{to} die mensis Martij ultimo elapso et quotidie per spatium trium dierum hujusmodi festum immediate preceden̄ &c. Et judicium redditum fuit quod dictus Joannes Willok ad cornu S D N regis et regine denun{r}. Et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis vsubus applicantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.

Eodem die, prefati Paulus Methwen, frater Joannes Cristesoun Willielmus Harlaw et Joannes Willok denunciati fuerunt rebelles {449} S D N regis et regine, et ad cornu eorundem positi fuerunt per publicam proclamationem apud crucem foralem burgi de Striueling, per Joannem Duncane, seriandum et officiarium dicte curie demandato prefati justitiarij deputati, coram his testibus, Roberto Forrester de Calzemuke, Alexandro Forrester alias Carrik signifero, Willielmo Smyth, et Joanne Grahame, notario publico, cum diuersis aliis. [Justiciary Records: Book extending from 14th February 1558 to 22d May 1559.]

Note HH, Footnote 401.

_Lamentation over the demolition of the Religious Houses._――“Truely, among all their deeds and devises, the casting doune of the churches was the most foolish and furious worke, the most shreud and execrable turne that ever _Hornok_ himself culd have done or devised. For out of al doubt that great grandfather of Calvine, and old enemie of mankind, not only inspired every one of those sacrelegious hellhounds with his flaming spirit of malice and blasphemie, as he did their forefathers Luther and Calvine: bot also was then present as maister of worke, busily beholding his servands and hirelings working his wil and bringing to pass his long desired contentment.――They changed the churches (which God himself called his house of prayer) into filthie and abominable houses of sensual men, yea, and of unreasonable beasts: when as they made stables in Halyrudhous, sheep‑houses of S. Antone, and S. Leonard’s chapels, tolbooths of S. Gillis, &c. which this day may be seene, to the great griefe and sorrow of al good Christians, to the shame and confusion of Edinburgh, and to the everlasting damnation of the doers thereof, the sedicious ministers, Knox and his complices.” After weeping over the ruins of “Abbirbroth,” the writer returns to St Giles, and represents our Saviour as lamenting its profanation by the setting up of “the abomination of desolation,” the courts of justice, within that holy ground. “How wold he say, if he were now entering in at S. Giles, and looking to bare wals, and pillars al cled with dust, sweepings and cobwebs, instead of painting and tapestrie; and on every side beholding the restless {450} resorting of people treating of their worldly affaires, some writing and making of obligations, contracts and discharges, others laying countes or telling over sowmes of money, and two and two walking and talking to and fro, some about merchandise or the lawes, and too many, alas! about drinking and courting of woeman, yea, and perhaps about worse nor I can imagine, as it is wont to be done al the day long in the common Exchanges of London and Amsterdam and other great cities? And turning him farther towards the west end of the church, which is divided in a high house for the Colledge of Justice, called the Session or Senat‑house, and a lower house called the low Tolbooth, where the balives of the town use to sit and judge common actions and pleas in the one end thereof, and a number of harlots and scolds for flyting and whoredom, inclosed in the other: And these, I mean, if our Saviour were present to behold such abominable desolation, that where altars were erected, and sacrifices, with continual praises and praiers, were wont to be offered up to the Lord, in remembrance of that bloody sacrifice of Christ on the crosse, there now are holes for whores, and cages for scolds, where nothing is hard bot banning and swearing, and every one upbraiding another: O what grieve and sorrow wold our Lord tak at the beholding of such profanation and sacrilege!” Father Alexander Baillie’s True Information of the unhallowed offspring, progress and impoison’d fruits of our Scottish‑Calvinian Gospel and Gospellers, p. 24, 25, 27, 28. Wirtsburg, 1628.

Note II, Footnote 405.

_Alleged Excesses of the Reformers._――It would be endless to enter into an examination of the exaggerated accounts which have been given of the “pitiful devastation” committed by the reformers. I shall content myself with stating a few facts, which may satisfy the candid and considerate that no such great blame is imputable to them. The demolition of the monasteries, with their dependencies, will be found to comprehend the sum of what they can be justly charged with. And yet again, I would ask those who are most disposed to blame them for this, What purpose could the allowing of these buildings to stand have served, if not to cherish the hopes {451} and excite the desires of the catholics, to regain possession of them? To what use could the reformers possibly have converted them? Is it to be supposed that they could form the idea of preserving them for the gratification of a race of antiquaries, who were to rise up in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Have these gentlemen, with all their zeal, ever testified their regard for these sacred monuments, by associations and subscriptions to preserve the mouldering remains from going to their original dust? The reformed ministers had enough to do, in exciting the nobility and gentry to keep the parish churches in decent repair, without undertaking the additional task of supporting huge and useless fabrics. But enough of this――Let not any distress themselves by supposing that the costly furniture of the monasteries and churches was all consumed by the flames. Fanatical as the reformers were, they “reservit the best part thairof unburnt,” and converted it into money, some of which went into the public purse, but the greater part into the private pockets of the nobles. Winzet, apud Keith, Append. 245. The idols and images were indeed committed to the flames without mercy; but considering the example that their adversaries had set them of consigning the living images of God to this fate, the retaliation was certainly moderate; and that these were the only sacrifices which they offered up, we have the testimony of a popish writer. Leslæus, de Reb. Gest. Scotorum, lib. x. p. 537, edit. 1675.

The act of privy council for demolishing idolatrous houses did not extend to cathedrals or to parish churches. Spotswood, p. 174, 175. In the First Book of Discipline, indeed, cathedral‑churches, if not used as parish‑churches, are mentioned among the places to be suppressed; but so far was this case from occurring, that it was found necessary to employ many of the chapels attached to monasteries, and collegiate churches, as places for the protestant worship. That, in the first effervescence of popular zeal, some of the cathedrals and other churches should have suffered, is not much to be wondered at. “What you speak of Mr Knox preaching for the pulling down of churches,” says Mr Baillie, in his answer to bishop Maxwell, “is like the rest of your lies. I have not heard that in all our land above three or foure churches were cast down.” Historical Vindication of the Government of the church of Scotland, {452} p. 40. Mr Baillie had the historical collections of Calderwood in his possession when he composed that work. This statement is confirmed by the testimony of Cecil in the letter quoted above, (p. 424.) The churches were merely to be stripped of monuments of idolatry and instruments of superstition; and in carrying this into effect, great care was ordered to be taken that the buildings should not be injured. Lord James Stewart (afterwards earl of Murray) was the person to whom the execution of the act in the northern part of the kingdom was committed; and we have an authentic document of the manner in which he proceeded, in an order issued by him, and written with his own hand, for purging the cathedral church of Dunkeld.[492] The following is an exact copy of that order:

“To our traist friendis, the Lairds of Arntilly and Kinvaid.

“Traist friendis, after maist harty commendacion, we pray yow faill not to pass incontinent to the kyrk of Dunkeld, and tak doun the haill images thereof, and bring furth to the kyrkzayrd, and burn thaym oppinly. And siclyk cast down the altaris, and purge the kyrk of all kynd of monuments of idolatrye. And this ze faill not to do, as ze will do us singular empleseur; and so committis you to the protection of God. From Edinburgh, the xii. of August, 1560.

“Faill not, bot ze tak guid (Signed) heyd that neither the dasks, “AR. ERGYLL. windocks, nor durris, be ony ways hurt or broken――――――――eyther “JAMES STEWART. glassin wark or iron wark.” “RUTHVEN.”

We may take it for granted that the same caution was used in the rest of the commissions. If it be asked, how it happened that the cathedrals, and many other churches, fell into such a ruined state, the following quotations may serve for an answer. They are taken from a scarce work written by Robert Pont, commissioner of Murray, and one of the lords of Session. “Yet, a great many, not onely of the raskall sorte, but sundry men of name and worldly reputation, joyned themselves with the congregation of the {453} reformers, not so much for zeale of religion, as to reape some earthly commoditie, and to be enriched by spoyle of the kirkes and abbey places. And when the preachers told them that such places of idolatrie should be pulled down, they accepted gladly the enterprise; and rudely passing to worke, pulled down all, both idoles and places where they were found. Not making difference betweene these places of idolatrie, and many parish kirks, where God’s word shuld have bin preached in many parts where they resorted, as in such tumultes and suddainties useth to come to passe; namelye, among such a nation as we are. Another thing fell out at that time, which may be excused by reason of necessitie; when as the lordes, and some of the nobilitie, principall enterprysers of the Reformation, having to do with the Frenchmen, and many their assisters of our owne nation, enemies to these proceedings, were forced, not onely to ingage their owne landes, and bestowe whatsoever they were able to furnishe of their own patrimonie, for maintenance of men of warre, and other charges, but also to take the lead and belles, with other jewelles and ornaments of kirkes, abbayes, and other places of superstition, to employ the same, and the prises thereof, to resist the enemies. The most parte of the realme beand in their contrarie. This, I say, cannot be altogether blamed.” Against Sacrilege, Three Sermons preached by Maister Robert Pont, an aged Pastour in the Kirk of God. B. 6, 7. Edinburgh, 1599. Comp. Keith, p. 468.

But what shall we say of the immense loss which literature sustained on that occasion? “Bibliothecks destroied, the volumes of the fathers, councells, and other books of humane learning, with the registers of the church, cast into the streets, afterwards gathered in heaps, and consumed with fire.” Spotswood’s MS. Keith, Historie, p. 508. Does not such conduct equal the fanaticism of the Mahometan chieftain who deprived the world of the invaluable Alexandrine library? As every one is apt to deplore the loss of that commodity upon which he sets the greatest value, I might feel more inclined to join in this lamentation, were I not convinced that the real loss was extremely trifling, and that it has been compensated ten thousand fold. Where and of what kind were these bibliothecks? _Omne ignotum magnificum._ The public was {454} long amused with the tale of a classical library at Iona, which promised a complete copy of Livy’s works, not to be found in all the world beside; a miracle which Mr Gibbon, in the abundance of his literary faith, seems to have been inclined to admit. Danes, and Reformers, and Republicans, were successively anathematized, and consigned to the shades of barbarism, for the destruction of what (for aught that appears) seems to have existed only in the brains of antiquarians. It has been common to say, that all the learning of the times was confined to monasteries. This was true at a certain period; but it had ceased to be the fact in the age in which the Reformation took place. Low as literature was in Scotland at the beginning of the 16th century, for the credit of my country, I trust that it was not in so poor a state in the universities as it was in the monasteries. Take the account of one who has bestowed much attention on the monastic antiquities of Scotland. “Monkish ambition terminated in acquiring skill in scholastic disputation. If any thing besides simple theology was read, it might consist of the legends of saints, who were pictured converting infidels, interceding for offenders, and overreaching fiends; or of romances, recording the valour of some hardy adventurer, continually occupied in wars with pagans, or in vanquishing giants, foiling necromancers, and combating dragons. Some were chroniclers; and books of the laws might be transcribed or deposited with monks. Some monks might be conversant in medicine and the occult sciences.” Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems, i. 17, 18.

But we are not left to conjecture, or to general inferences, concerning the state of the monastic libraries. We have the catalogues of two libraries, the one of a monastery, the other of a collegiate church; which may be deemed fair specimens of the condition of the remainder in the respective ages to which they belonged. The former is the catalogue of the library of the Culdean monastery at Lochleven in the 12th century. It consisted of only seventeen books, all of them necessarily in manuscript. Among these were a pastoral, graduale, and missale, books common to all monasteries, and without which their religious service could not be performed; the Text of the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles; an Exposition {455} of Genesis; a Collection of Sentences; and an Interpretation of Sayings. The rest seem to have consisted of some of the writings of Prosper, and perhaps of Origen and Jerom. Jamieson’s Historical account of the ancient Culdees, p. 376‒8. It may be granted that this collection of books was by no means despicable in that age; but certainly it contained nothing, the loss of which has been injurious to literature. I have no doubt that, if a copy of the Gospels, with the Lochleven seal or superscription, (whether authentic or fictitious,) were to occur, it would, with antiquarians, give as high a price as a Polyglot; without the smallest regard to its utility in settling the original text. From the 12th to the 16th century, the monastic libraries did not improve. The catalogue of the library at Stirling exhibits the true state of learning at the beginning of the last mentioned period. It contained, indeed, a copy of the gospels and epistles in manuscript, most probably in Latin; the remainder of its contents was purely monkish. There were four missals, two psalters, four antiphonies, three breviaries, two legends, four graduals, and ten processionals. Dalyell’s Fragments of Scottish History, p. 77.

I have occasionally met, in the course of my reading, with notices of volumes of the Fathers being in the possession of the Scottish monasteries, but nothing from which I could conclude that they had complete copies of any of their writings. The abbot of Crossraguel, indeed, speaks of his being in possession of a large stock of this kind, (Keith, Append. 193,) which some writers have been pleased to calculate at “a cart‑load.” It does not appear, however, that they belonged to the monastery over which he presided. But whatever books of this kind were to be found in them, the reformers would be anxious to preserve, not to destroy. The chartularies were the most valuable writings deposited in monasteries; and many of these have been transmitted to us. The reformers were not disposed to consume these records, and we find them making use of them in their writings. Knox, Historie, p. 1, 2, 3. The mass‑books were the most likely objects of their vengeance; and I have little doubt that a number of these were committed to the flames, in testimony of their abhorrence of the popish worship. Yet they were careful to preserve copies of {456} them, which they produced in their disputes with the Roman catholics. Ibid. p. 261.

But whatever literary ravages were committed, let them not be imputed exclusively to the tumultuary reformation of Scotland, to the fanaticism of our reformers, or the barbarous ignorance of our nobles. In England, the same proceedings took place to a far greater extent, and the loss must have been far greater. “Another misfortune,” says Collier, “consequent upon the suppression of the abbeys, was an ignorant destruction of a great many valuable books. The books, instead of being removed to royal libraries, to those of cathedrals, or the universities, were frequently thrown in to the grantees, as things of slender consideration. Their avarice was sometimes so mean, and their ignorance so undistinguishing, that when the covers were somewhat rich, and would yield a little, they pulled them off, threw away the books, or turned them to waste paper.”――“A number of them which purchased these superstitious mansions,” says bishop Bale, “reserved of those library books, some to serve their jacks, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots, and some they sold to the grocers and soap‑sellers, and some they sent over the sea to bookbinders, not in small numbers, but at times _whole ships full_. Yea, the universities are not clear in this detestable fact; but cursed is the belly which seeketh to be fed with so ungodly gains, and so deeply shameth his native country. I know a merchant man (which shall at this time be nameless) that bought the contents of two noble libraries for forty shillings price; a shame it is to be spoken. This stuff hath he occupied instead of grey paper by the space of more than these _ten years_, and _yet hath he store enough for as many years to come_.” Bale’s Declaration: Collier’s Eccles. Hist. ii. 166.

Note KK, Footnote 441.

_Aversion of Queen Elizabeth to the Scottish War._――The personal aversion of Elizabeth to engage in the war of the Scottish Reformation, has not, so far as I have observed, been noticed by any of our historians. It is, however, a fact well authenticated by state papers, whether it arose from extreme caution at the commencement {457} of her reign, from her known parsimony, or from her high notions respecting royal prerogative. Cecil mentions it repeatedly in his correspondence with Throkmorton. “God trieth us,” says he, “with may difficulties. The queen’s majestie never liketh this matter of Scotland; you knowe what hangeth thereuppon: weak‑hearted men and flatterers will follow that way.――I have had such a torment herin with the queen’s majestie, as an ague hath not in five fitts so much abated.” Forbes, i. 454, 455. In another letter he says, “What will follow of my going towardes Scotlande, I know not; but I feare the success, quia, the queen’s majestie is so evil disposed to the matter, which troubleth us all.” Ibid. 460. It was not until her council had presented a formal petition to her, that she gave her consent. Ibid. 390. Even after she had agreed to hostilities, she began to waver, and listen to the artful proposals of the French court, who endeavoured to amuse her until such time as they were able to convey more effectual aid to the queen regent of Scotland. Killigrew, in a letter to Throkmorton, after mentioning the repulse of the English army in an assault on the fortifications of Leith, says: “This, together with the bishopes [of Valance] relation unto the queen’s majestie, caused her to renew the opinion of Cassandra.” Ibid. 456. This was the principal cause of the suspension of hostilities, and the premature attempt to negotiate, in April 1560, which so justly alarmed the lords of the Congregation: an occurrence which is also passed over in our common histories. Sadler, i. 719, 721. The Scottish protestants were much indebted to Cecil and Throkmorton for the assistance which they obtained from England. A number of the counsellors, who had been in the cabinet of queen Mary, did all in their power to foster the disinclination of Elizabeth. Lord Gray, in one of his dispatches, complains of the influence of these ministers, whom he calls Phillipians, from their attachment to the interest of the king of Spain. Haynes, p. 295.

Note LL, Footnote 450.

_Loyalty of the Scottish Protestants._――The hostile advance of the regent against Perth, first drove the lords of the Congregation {458} to take arms in their own defence. Her reiterated infraction of treaties, and the gradual developement of her designs, by the introduction of French troops into the kingdom, rendered the prospect of an amicable and permanent adjustment of differences very improbable, and dictated the propriety of strengthening their confederation, that they might be prepared for a sudden and more formidable attack. These considerations are sufficient to justify the posture of defence in which they kept themselves during the summer of 1559, and the steps which they took to secure assistance from England. If their exact situation is not kept in view, an accurate judgment of their conduct cannot be formed, and their partial and temporary resistance to the measures of the regent will be regarded as an avowed rebellion against her authority. But whatever be the modern ideas on this subject, they did not consider the former as necessarily implying the latter, and they continued to profess not only their allegiance to their sovereign, but also their readiness to obey the queen regent in every thing not inconsistent with their security, and the liberties of the nation; nay, they actually yielded obedience to her, by paying taxes to the officers whom she appointed to receive them. Knox, p. 176. Private and confidential letters are justly considered as the most satisfactory evidence as to the intentions of men. Our Reformer, in a letter to Mrs Locke, written on the 25th of July, 1559, says, “The queen is retired unto Dunbar. The fine [end] is known unto God. We mean no tumult, no alteration of authority, but only the reformation of religion, and suppression of idolatry.” Cald. MS. i. 429. At an early period, indeed, she accused them of a design to throw off their allegiance. When the prior of St Andrews joined their party, she industriously circulated the report that he ambitiously aimed at the sovereignty, and that they intended to confer it upon him. Knox, 149. Forbes, i. 180. It was one of the special instructions given to Sir Ralph Sadler, when he was sent down to Berwick, that he should “explore the very trueth” as to this report. Sadler, i. 731. In all his confidential correspondence with his court, there is not the slightest insinuation that Sadler had discovered any evidence to induce him to credit that charge. This is a strong proof of the prior’s innocence, if it be taken in connexion with what I shall {459} immediately state; not to mention the testimony of Sir James Melvil. Memoirs, p. 27.

When the earl of Arran joined the Congregation, the queen regent circulated the same report respecting him. Knox, p. 174. So far as the Congregation were concerned, this accusation was equally unfounded as the former. Ibid. p. 176. But there are some circumstances connected with it, which deserve attention, as they set the loyalty of the Scottish protestants in a very clear light. The earl of Arran, and not the prior of St Andrews, was the favourite of the English court. Messengers were appointed by them to bring him from the continent, and he was conducted through England into Scotland, to be placed at the head of the Congregation. Forbes, i. 164, 166, 171, 216. Sadler, i. 417, 421, 437, 439. There is also good evidence that the ministers of Elizabeth wished him to be raised to the throne of Scotland, if not also that they had projected the uniting of the two crowns by a marriage between him and Elizabeth. “The way to perfait this assuredly,” says Throkmorton to Cecil, “is, that the erle of Arraine do as Edward the IV. did, when he landed at Ravenspurg: [he pretended to the duchy of York, and having that, he would not leave till he had the “diademe,”] for then of necessitie th’ erle of Arran must depend upon the devotion of England, to maintein and defend himself. I feare all other devises and handelings will prove like an apotecary his shop; and therefore I leave to your discretion to provyde by all meanes for this matter, both there and in Scotland.” And again: “Methinks, the lord of Grange, Ledington, Balnaves, and the chief doers of the Congregation, (which I wold wish specially to be done and procured by the prior of St Andrewes,) should be persuaded to set forward these purposes before: for there is no way for them to have any safety or surety, oneles thei make the earl of Arran king; and as it is their surety, so it is also ours. In this matter there must be used both wisdome, courage, and sped.” Forbes, i. 435, 436. Throkmorton, it is to be observed, was at this time the most confidential friend of Cecil, and, in his dispatches from France, pressed the adoption of those measures which the secretary had recommended to the queen and council. Had not the Congregation been decidedly averse to any change of {460} the government which would have set aside their queen, it seems highly probable that this plan would have been carried into execution. The report of an intended marriage between Elizabeth and Arran was general at that time; and whatever were the queen’s own intentions, it seems to have been seriously contemplated by her ministers. Forbes, 214, 215, 282, 288. This accounts for the recommendation of this measure by the Scottish Estates, after the conclusion of the civil war. Keith, 154.

Note MM, Footnote 458.

_Authorities for the statement of Knox’s Political Principles._――The following extracts from his writings relate to the principal points touched in the statement of his political sentiments:――