Chapter V: Part 5

Such an infraction of public order, as well as insult upon the whole body, could not be passed over in silence. It was Knox’s turn to preach on the afternoon of the Sabbath when this occurred. In his ordinary course of lecturing through the book of Genesis, he had occasion to discourse of the manner in which offences committed by professors of religion ought to be treated. Having mentioned that there were infirmities in their conduct over which a veil should be thrown, he proceeded to remark, that offences which openly dishonoured God and disturbed the peace of the church, ought to be disclosed and publicly rebuked. He then reminded them of the contention which had existed in the congregation, and of the happy manner in which, after long and painful labour, it had been ended, to the joy of all, by the solemn agreement which had that day been so flagrantly violated. This, he said, it became not the proudest of them to have attempted. Nothing which was destitute of a divine warrant ought to be obtruded upon any Christian church. In that book for which some entertained such an overweening fondness, he would undertake to prove publicly, that there were things {149} imperfect, impure, and superstitious; and if any should go about to burden a free congregation with such things, he would not fail, as often as he occupied that place, provided his text afforded occasion, to oppose their design. As he had been forced to enter upon that subject, he would say further, that, in his judgment, slackness in reforming religion, when time and opportunity were granted for this purpose, was one cause of the divine displeasure against England. He adverted also to the trouble which bishop Hooper had suffered for refusing to comply with some of the ceremonies, to the want of discipline, and to the well‑known fact, that three, four, or five benefices had been held by one man, to the depriving of the flock of Christ of their necessary food.

This free reprimand was highly resented by those against whom it was levelled, especially by such as had held pluralities in England, who insisted that the preacher should be called to account for slandering their mother church. A special meeting being held for the consideration of this affair, the friends of the liturgy, instead of prosecuting their complaints against Knox, began with requiring that Cox and his friends should be admitted to a vote in the discussion. This was resisted by the great majority, on the ground that these persons had not yet subscribed the discipline of the church, nor given satisfaction for their late disorderly conduct, and their sinful compliances in England. The behaviour of our Reformer, on this occasion, was more remarkable for magnanimity than prudence. Although aware of the hostility {150} of Cox’s adherents to himself, and that they sought admission chiefly to overpower him by numbers, he was so confident of the justice of his cause, and so anxious to remove prejudices, that he entreated and prevailed with the meeting to yield to their unreasonable request, and to admit them immediately to a vote. “I know,” said he, “that your earnest desire to be received at this instant within the number of the congregation, is, that, by the multitude of your voices, ye may overthrow my cause. Howbeit, the matter is so evident, that ye shall not be able to do it. I fear not your judgment; and therefore do require that ye may be admitted.”[214] This disinterestedness was thrown away on the opposite party; for no sooner were they admitted, and had obtained a majority of voices, than Cox, usurping an authority with which he had never been invested, discharged Knox from preaching, and from all interference in the congregational affairs.[215]

The great body of the congregation were indignant at these proceedings; and there was reason to fear that the mutual animosity would break out into a disgraceful tumult. To prevent this, some of the members made a representation of the case to the senate of Frankfort, who, after recommending in vain {151} a private accommodation, issued an order that the congregation should conform exactly to the mode of service used by the French church, as nothing but confusion had ensued since they departed from it; and threatened, if this was not complied with, to shut up their place of worship. To this peremptory injunction the Coxian faction pretended a cheerful submission, while they clandestinely concerted measures for obtaining its revocation, and enforcing their favourite liturgy upon a reclaiming congregation.

Perceiving the influence which our countryman had in the church, and despairing to carry their plan into execution so long as he was among them, they determined, in the first place, to rid themselves of his presence. To accomplish this object, they had recourse to one of the basest and most unchristian arts ever employed to ruin an adversary. Two of them, in concurrence with others, went privately to the magistrates, and accused Knox of high treason against the emperor of Germany, his son Philip, and queen Mary of England; putting into their hands at the same time a copy of a book which he had lately published, and in which the passages containing the grounds of charge were marked. “O Lord God!” says Knox, when relating this step, “open their hearts to see their wickedness, and forgive them for thy manifold mercies. And I forgive them, O Lord, from the bottom of mine heart. But that thy message sent by my mouth may not be slandered, I am compelled to declare the cause of my departing, and to utter their follies, to their amendment, I trust, and {152} the example of others, who, in the same banishment, can have so cruel hearts as to persecute their brethren.”[216] The book which the informers left with the magistrates was his Admonition to England; and the passage upon which they principally fixed, as substantiating the charge of treason against the emperor, was the following, originally spoken to the inhabitants of Amersham in Buckinghamshire,[217] on occasion of the rumoured marriage of queen Mary with Philip, the son and heir of Charles V., a match which was at that time dreaded by many of the English catholics. “O England, England, if thou obstinately wilt return into Egypt, that is, if thou contract marriage, confederacy, or league with such princes as do maintain and advance idolatry, such as the emperor, who is no less enemy to Christ than ever was Nero――if for the pleasure of such princes thou return to thy old abominations before used under papistry, then assuredly, O England, thou shalt be plagued and brought to desolation, by the means of those whose favour thou seekest!” The other passages {153} related to the cruelties of the English queen. Not to speak of the extravagance of the charge which they founded upon these passages, and of the unbrotherly spirit which they discovered, it was with little grace and consistency that the sticklers for the English forms availed themselves of the strong language which Knox had employed in the warmth of his zeal, in order to excite prejudices against him; and it would be no difficult task to extract from their writings declamations against their own queen, and against foreign princes, more intemperate than any thing that ever proceeded from his pen.[218]

In consequence of this accusation, the magistrates sent for Whittingham, a respectable member of the English congregation, and interrogated him concerning Knox’s character. He told them that he was “a learned, grave, and godly man.” They then acquainted him with the serious accusation which had been lodged against him by some of his countrymen, and giving him the book, charged him, _sub pœna pacis_, to bring them an exact Latin translation of the passages which were marked. This being done, they commanded Knox to desist from preaching until their pleasure should be known. To this command he peaceably submitted; “yet,” says he in his narrative, “being desirous to hear others, I went to the church next day, not thinking that my company would have offended any. But as soon as my accusers saw me, {154} they, with ―――― and others, departed from the sermon; some of them protesting with great vehemence, that they would not tarry where I was.”[219] The magistrates were extremely perplexed how to act in this delicate business. On the one hand, they were satisfied of the malice of Knox’s accusers; on the other, they were afraid that information of the charge would be conveyed to the emperor’s council, which then sat at Augsburg, and that they might be obliged to deliver up the accused to them, or to the queen of England. In this dilemma, they desired Whittingham to advise his friend privately to retire of his own accord from Frankfort. At the same time, they did not dissemble their detestation of the unnatural conduct of the informers, who, having waited upon them to know the result of their deliberations, were dismissed from their presence with evident marks of displeasure.

On the 25th of March, Knox delivered a most consolatory discourse to about fifty members of the congregation, who assembled at his lodgings in the evening. Next day they accompanied him some miles on his journey from Frankfort, and, with heavy hearts {155} and many tears, committed him to God, and took their leave.

No sooner was Knox gone, than Cox, who had privately concerted the plan with Glauberg, a civilian, and nephew of the chief magistrate, procured an order from the senate for the unlimited use of the English liturgy, by means of the false representation, that it was now universally acceptable to the congregation. The next step was the abrogation of the code of discipline, and then the appointment of a bishop, or superintendent over the pastors. Having accomplished these important improvements, they could now boast that they had “the face of an English church.” Yes, they could now raise their heads above all the reformed churches which had the honour of entertaining them, and which, though they might have all the office‑bearers and ordinances instituted by Christ, had neither bishop, nor litany, nor surplice! They could now lift up their faces in the presence of the church of Rome herself, and cherish the hope that she would not altogether disown them! But let me not forget, that the men of whom I write were at this time suffering exile for the protestant religion, and that they really detested the body of popery, though childishly and superstitiously attached to its attire, and gestures, and language.

The sequel of the transactions in the English congregation at Frankfort, does not properly belong to this memoir. I shall only add, that after some ineffectual attempts to obtain satisfaction for the breach of the church’s peace, and the injurious treatment of {156} their minister, a considerable number of the members left the city. Some of them, among whom was Fox, the celebrated martyrologist, repaired to Basle. The greater part went to Geneva, where they obtained a place of worship, and lived in great harmony and love, until the storm of persecution in England blew over at the death of queen Mary; while those who remained at Frankfort, as if to expiate their offence against Knox, continued a prey to endless contention. Cox and his learned colleagues, having accomplished their favourite object, soon left them to compose the strife which they had excited, and provided themselves elsewhere with a less expensive situation for carrying on their studies.[220]

{157} I have been the more minute in the detail of these transactions, not only on account of the share which the subject of this memoir had in them, but because they throw light upon the controversy between the conformists and non‑conformists, which runs through the succeeding period of the ecclesiastical history of England. “The troubles at Frankfort” present, in miniature, a striking picture of that contentious scene which was afterwards exhibited on a larger scale in the mother‑country. The issue of that affair augured ill as to the prospect of an amicable adjustment of the litigated points. It had been usual to urge conformity to the obnoxious ceremonies, from the respect due to the authority by which they were enjoined. But in this instance the civil authority, so far from enjoining, had rather discountenanced them. If they were urged with such intolerant importunity in a place where the laws and customs were repugnant to them, what was to be expected in England, where law and custom were on their side? The divines who received ecclesiastical preferment at the accession of Elizabeth, professed, that they desired the removal of these grounds of strife, but could not obtain it from the queen; and I am disposed to give many of them credit for the sincerity of their professions. But as they showed themselves so stiff and unyielding when the matter was wholly in their own power――as {158} some of them were so eager in wreathing a yoke about the consciences of their brethren as to urge reluctant magistrates to rivet it, is it any wonder that their applications for relief were cold and ineffectual, when made to rulers who were disposed to make the yoke still more severe, and to “chastise with scorpions those whom they had chastised with whips?” I repeat it; when I consider the transactions at Frankfort, I am not surprised at the defeat of every subsequent attempt to advance the Reformation in England, or to procure relief to those who scrupled to yield conformity to some of the ecclesiastical laws. I know it is pleaded, that the things complained of are matters of indifference, not prohibited in scripture, not imposed as essential to religion or necessary to salvation, matters that can affect no well‑informed conscience; and that such as refuse them, when enacted by authority, are influenced by unreasonable scrupulosity, conceited, pragmatical, opinionative. This has been the usual language of a ruling party, when imposing upon the consciences of the minority. But not to urge here the danger of allowing to any class of rulers, civil or ecclesiastical, a power of enjoining indifferent things in religion; nor the undeniable fact, that the burdensome system of ceremonial observances, by which religion was corrupted under the papacy, was gradually introduced under these and similar pretexts; nor that the things in question, when complexly and formally considered, are not really matters of indifference; not to insist at present upon these topics, the answer to the above {159} plea is short and decisive. These things appear matters of conscience and importance to the scruplers; you say they are matters of indifference. Why then violate the sacred peace of the church, and perpetuate division; why silence, deprive, harass, and starve men of acknowledged learning and piety, and drive from communion a sober and devout people; why torture their consciences, and endanger their souls, by the imposition of things, which, in your judgment, are indifferent, not necessary, and unworthy to become objects of contention?

Upon retiring from Frankfort, Knox went directly to Geneva. He was cordially welcomed back by Calvin. As his advice had great weight in disposing Knox to comply with the invitation from Frankfort, he felt much hurt at the treatment which had obliged him to leave it. In reply to an apologetic epistle which he received from Dr Cox, Calvin, although he prudently restrained himself from saying any thing which might revive or increase the flame, could not conceal his opinion, that Knox had been used in an unbrotherly and unchristian manner, and that it would have been better for his accuser to have remained at home, than to have come into a foreign country as a firebrand to inflame a peaceable society.[221]

It appeared from the event, that providence had disengaged Knox from his late charge, to employ him {160} on a more important service. From the time that he was carried prisoner into France, he had never lost sight of Scotland, nor relinquished the hope of again preaching in his native country. While he resided at Berwick and Newcastle, he had frequent opportunities of personal intercourse with his countrymen, and of learning the state of religion among them.[222] His unintermitted labours, during the five years which he spent in England, by occupying his time and attention, lessened the regret which he felt at seeing the object of his wishes apparently at as great a distance as ever. Upon leaving that kingdom, his thoughts were anxiously turned to Scotland. He found means to carry on an epistolary correspondence with some of his friends at home; one great object of his journeys to Dieppe was to receive their letters;[223] and he had the satisfaction, soon after his retreat from Frankfort, to obtain such information from them, as encouraged him to execute his design of paying a visit to his native country. To prepare the reader for the account of this journey, it will be necessary to take a view of the principal events which had occurred in that kingdom from the time that Knox was forced to leave it.

* * * * *

The surrender of the castle of St Andrews seemed to have given an irrecoverable blow to the reformed interest in Scotland. Among the prisoners conveyed to France were some of the most zealous and able {161} protestants in the kingdom; and the rest, seeing themselves at the mercy of their adversaries, were dispirited and intimidated. The clergy triumphed in the victory which they had obtained,[224] and flattered themselves that they would now be able with ease to stifle all opposition to their measures. The regent, being guided entirely by his brother, the archbishop of St Andrews, was ready to employ all the power of the state in support of the church, and for suppressing those who refused to submit to her decisions. During the confusions produced by the invasion of the kingdom under the duke of Somerset, and by the disastrous defeat of the Scots at Pinkie, in the year 1547, the regent found it his interest not to irritate the protestants; but no sooner was he freed from the alarm created by these events than be began to treat them with severity. Aware that it would be extremely invidious to prosecute the barons and gentry upon a charge of heresy, and perhaps convinced that such measures in the time of his predecessor, had proved injurious to the hierarchy, the crafty primate commenced his attack by bringing them to trial for crimes against the state.[225] Although they had conducted themselves in the most peaceable and loyal manner during the late invasion, and many of them {162} had died under the standard of the regent,[226] they were accused of being secretly favourable to the English, and of holding correspondence with them. Cockburn of Ormiston, and Crichton of Brunston, were banished, and their estates forfeited.[227] Sir John Melville of Raith, a gentleman of distinguished probity, and of untainted loyalty, was accused of a traitorous connexion with the enemy; and although the only evidence adduced in support of the charge was a letter written by him to one of his sons then in England, and although this letter contained nothing criminal, yet was he unjustly condemned and beheaded.[228] The signing of a treaty of peace with England, in 1550, was a signal for the clergy to proceed to acts of more undisguised persecution. Adam Wallace, who had lived for some time as tutor in the family of Ormiston, was apprehended, and being tried for heresy before a convention of clergy and nobility was committed {163} to the flames on the Castle‑hill of Edinburgh.[229] These prosecutions were not confined to persons in holy orders. George Winchester of Kinglassie was summoned before the archbishop and clergy at St Andrews, and, having made his escape, was condemned as a heretic, and his goods escheated.[230] In the following year, the parliament renewed the laws in support of the church, and added a new statute against the circulation of heretical ballads and tragedies.[231]

By these severe measures the clergy struck terror into the minds of the nation; but they were unable to conceal the glaring corruptions by which their own order was disgraced, and they could not remain strangers to the murmurs that these had excited throughout the whole kingdom. In the month of November 1549, a provincial council was held at Edinburgh “for the reformation of the church, and the extirpation of heresy.[232] This council acknowledged that “corruption and profane lewdness of life {164} as well as gross ignorance of arts and sciences, reigned among the clergy of almost every degree,”[233] and they enacted no fewer than fifty‑eight canons for correcting these evils. They agreed to carry into execution the decree of the general council of Basle, which ordained, that every clergyman who lived in concubinage should be deprived of the revenues of his benefice for three months, and that if, after due admonition, he did not dismiss his concubine, or if he took to himself another, he should be deprived of his benefices altogether.[234] They exhorted the prelates and inferior clergy not to retain in their own houses their bastard children, nor suffer them to be promoted directly or indirectly to their own benefices, nor employ the patrimony of the church for the purpose of marrying them to barons, or of erecting baronages for them.[235] That the distinction between clergy and laity might be visibly preserved, they appointed the ordinaries to charge the priests under their care to desist from the practice of preserving their beards, which had begun to prevail, and to see that the canonical tonsure was duly observed.[236] To remedy the neglect of public instruction, which was loudly complained of, they agreed to observe the act of the council of Trent, which ordained that every bishop, “according to the grace given to him,” should preach personally four times a year at least, unless lawfully hindered; and that such of them as were unfit for this duty, through want of practice, {165} should endeavour to qualify themselves, and for that end should entertain in their houses learned divines capable of instructing them. The same injunctions were laid on rectors.[237] They determined that a benefice should be set apart in each bishopric and monastery, for supporting a preacher who might supply the want of teaching within their bounds; that, where no such benefice was set apart, pensions should be allotted; and that, where neither of these was provided, the preacher should be entitled to demand from the rector forty shillings a‑year, provided he had preached four times in his parish within that period.[238] The council made a number of other regulations, concerning the dress and diet of the clergy, the course of study in cathedral churches and monasteries, union of benefices, pluralities, ordinations, dispensations, and the method of process in consistorial courts. But not trusting altogether to these remedies for the cure of heresy, they farther ordained that the bishop of each diocese, and the head of each monastery, should appoint “inquisitors of heretical pravity, men of piety, probity, learning, good fame, and great circumspection,” who should make the most diligent search after heresies, foreign opinions, condemned books, and particularly profane songs, intended to defame the clergy, or to detract from the authority of the ecclesiastical constitutions.[239]

Another provincial council, held in 1551 and 1552, besides ratifying the preceding canons,[240] adopted an {166} additional expedient for correcting the continued neglect of public instruction. After declaring that “the inferior clergy, and the prelates for the most part, were still unqualified for instructing the people in the catholic faith, and other things necessary to salvation, and for reclaiming the erroneous,” they proceeded to approve of a catechism which had been compiled in the Scottish language, ordered that it should be printed, and that copies of it should be sent to all rectors, vicars, and curates, who were enjoined to read a portion of it, instead of a sermon, to their parishioners, on every Sunday and holiday, when no person qualified for preaching was present. The rectors, vicars, and curates, were enjoined to practise daily in reading their catechism, lest, on ascending the pulpit, they should stammer and blunder, and thereby expose themselves to the laughter of the people. The archbishop was directed, after supplying the clergy with copies, to keep the remainder beside him “in firm custody;” and the inferior clergy were prohibited from indiscreetly communicating their copies to the people, without the permission of their bishops, who might allow this privilege to “certain honest, grave, trusty, and discreet laics, who appeared to desire it for the sake of instruction, and not of gratifying curiosity.”[241] If any of the hearers testified a disposition to call in question any part of the catechism, the clerical reader was prohibited, under the pain of deprivation, from entering into dispute with them on {167} the subject, and was instructed to delate them to the inquisitors.[242]

Many of the regulations enacted by these two councils were excellent;[243] but the execution of them was committed to the very persons who were interested in support of the evils against which they were directed. Accordingly, the canons of the Scottish clergy, like those of general councils called for the reformation of the church, instead of correcting, served only to proclaim the abuses which prevailed. We know from the declarations of subsequent provincial councils,[244] as well as from the complaints of the people, that the licentiousness of the clergy continued; and the catechism which they had sanctioned seems to have been but little used. I have not found it mentioned by any writer of that age, popish or protestant; and we know of its existence only from the canon of the assembly which authorized its use, and from a few copies of it which have descended to our time.[245]

The council which met in 1551, boasts that, through the singular favour of the government, and the vigilance of the prelates, heresy, which had formerly spread through the kingdom, was now repressed, and almost extinguished.[246] There were still, however, many protestants in the nation; but they were deprived of teachers, and they satisfied themselves with retaining their sentiments, without exposing their lives to inevitable destruction by avowing their creed, {168} or exciting the suspicions of the clergy by holding private conventicles. In this state they remained from 1551 to 1554.

While the Reformation was in this languishing condition, it experienced a sudden revival in Scotland, from two causes which appeared at first view to threaten its utter extinction in Britain. These were the elevation of the queen dowager to the regency of Scotland, and the accession of Mary to the throne of England.

The queen dowager of Scotland, who possessed a great portion of that ambition by which her brothers, the princes of Lorrain, were fired, had long formed the design of wresting the regency from the hands of Arran. After a series of political intrigue, in which she discovered the most consummate and persevering address, she at last succeeded; and, on the 10th of April, 1554, the regent resigned his office to her in the presence of parliament, and retired into private life with the title of duke of Chastelherault. The dowager had at an early period made her court to the protestants, whom Arran had alienated from him by persecution; and, to induce them to favour her pretensions, she promised to screen them from the violence of the clergy. Having received their cordial support, and finding it necessary still to use them as a check upon the clergy, who, under the influence of the primate, favoured the interest of her rival, the queen regent secretly countenanced them, and the protestants were emboldened again to avow their sentiments.

In the meantime, the queen of England was exerting {169} all her power to crush the Reformation; and had the court of Scotland acted in concert with her for this purpose, the protestants must, according to all human probability, have been exterminated in Britain. But the English queen having married Philip, king of Spain, while the queen regent was indissolubly attached to France, the rival of Spain, a coldness was produced between these two princesses, which was soon after succeeded by an open breach. Among the protestants who fled from the cruelty of Mary, some took refuge in Scotland, where they were suffered to remain undisturbed, and even to teach in private, through the connivance of the new regent, and in consequence of the security into which the clergy had been lulled by success. Travelling from place to place, they propagated instruction, and by their example and their exhortations fanned the latent zeal of those who had formerly received the knowledge of the truth.

William Harlow, whose zeal and acquaintance with the scriptures compensated for the defects of his education, was the first preacher who at this time came to Scotland. Let those who do not know, or who wish to forget, that the religion which they profess was first preached by fishermen and tentmakers, labour to conceal the occupations of some of those men whom providence raised up to spread the reformed gospel through their native country. Harlow had followed the trade of a tailor in Edinburgh;[247] {170} but having imbibed the protestant doctrine, he retired to England, where he was admitted to deacon’s orders, and employed as a preacher, during the reign of Edward VI.[248] Upon his return to Scotland, he remained for some time in Ayrshire, and continued to preach in different parts of the country, with great fervour and diligence, until the establishment of the Reformation, when he was admitted minister of St Cuthbert’s, in the vicinity of Edinburgh.[249]

Some time after him arrived John Willock. This reformer afterwards became the principal coadjutor of Knox, who never mentions him without expressions of affection and esteem. The cordiality which subsisted between them, the harmony of their sentiments, and the combination of the peculiar talents and qualities by which they were distinguished, conduced in no small degree to the advancement of the Reformation. Willock was not inferior to Knox in learning, and, though he did not equal him in eloquence and intrepidity, surpassed him in affability, in moderation, and in address:[250] qualities which enabled him sometimes to maintain his station and to accomplish his {171} purposes, when his colleague could not act with safety or with success. He was a native of Ayrshire, and had belonged to the order of Franciscan friars; but, having embraced the reformed opinions at an early period, he threw off the monastic habit, and fled to England. During the persecution for the Six Articles in 1541, he was thrown into the prison of the Fleet. He afterwards became chaplain to the duke of Suffolk, the father of lady Jane Grey;[251] and upon the accession of queen Mary, left England, and took up his residence at Embden. Having practised there as a physician, he was introduced to Anne, duchess of Friesland, who patronised the Reformation,[252] and whose opinion of his talents and integrity induced her to send him to Scotland, in the summer of 1555, with a commission to the queen regent, to make some arrangements respecting the trade carried on between the two countries. The public character with which he was invested gave Willock an opportunity of cultivating acquaintance with the leading protestants, and while he resided in Edinburgh, they met with him in private, and listened to his religious instructions.[253]

{172} Knox received the news of this favourable change in the situation of his brethren with heartfelt satisfaction. He did not know what it was to fear danger, and was little accustomed to consult his own ease, when he had the prospect of being useful in advancing the interests of truth; but he acknowledges that, on the present occasion, he was at first averse to a journey into Scotland, notwithstanding some encouraging circumstances in the intelligence which he had received from that quarter. He had been so much tossed about of late, that he felt a peculiar relish in the learned leisure which he at present enjoyed, and which he was desirous to prolong. His anxiety to see his wife, after an absence of nearly two years, and the importunity with which his mother‑in‑law, in her letters, urged him to visit them, determined him at last to undertake the journey.[254] Setting out from Geneva in the month of August 1555, he came to Dieppe, and, sailing from that port, landed on the east coast, near the boundaries between Scotland and England, about the end of harvest.[255] He repaired immediately to Berwick, where he had the satisfaction of finding his wife and her mother in comfortable circumstances, and enjoying the happiness of religious society with several individuals in that city, who, like themselves, had not “bowed the knee” to the established idolatry, nor consented to “receive the mark” of antichrist.[256]

{173} Having remained some time with them, he set out secretly to visit the protestants in Edinburgh; intending, after a short stay, to return to Berwick. But he found employment which detained him beyond his expectation. He lodged with James Syme, a respectable burgess of Edinburgh, in whose house the friends of the Reformation assembled, to attend the instructions of Knox, as soon as they were informed of his arrival. Few of the inhabitants of the metropolis had as yet embraced the reformed doctrines, but several persons had repaired to it at this time, from other parts of the country, to meet with Willock. Among these were John Erskine of Dun, whom we had formerly occasion to mention as an early favourer of the new opinions, and a distinguished patron of literature,[257] and whose great respectability of character, and approved loyalty and patriotism, had preserved him from the resentment of the clergy, and the jealousy of the government, during successive periods of persecution;[258] and William Maitland of Lethington, a young gentleman of the finest parts, improved by a superior education, but inclined to subtlety in reasoning, accommodating in his religious sentiments, and extremely versatile in his political conduct. Highly gratified with Knox’s discourses, which were greatly superior to any which they had heard either from popish or protestant preachers, they brought their acquaintances along with them to {174} hear him, and his audiences daily increased. Being confined to a private house, he was obliged to preach to successive assemblies; and was unremittingly employed, by night as well as by day, in communicating instruction to persons who demanded it with extraordinary avidity. The following letter, written by him to Mrs Bowes, to excuse himself for not returning so soon as he had purposed, will convey the best idea of his employment and feelings on this interesting occasion.

“The wayis of man are not in his awn power. Albeit my journey toward Scotland, belovit mother, was maist contrarious to my awn judgment, befoir I did interpryse the same; yet this day I prais God for thame wha was the cause externall of my resort to theis quarteris; that is, I prais God in yow and for yow, whom hie maid the instrument to draw me from the den of my awn eas, (you allane did draw me from the rest of quyet studie,) to contemplat and behald the fervent thirst of our brethrene, night and day sobbing and gronying for the breide of life. Gif I had not sene it with my eis, in my awn country, I culd not have beleveit it! I praisit God, when I was with you, perceaving that, in the middis of Sodome, God had mo Lottis than one, and mo faithful douchteris than tua. But the fervencie heir doith fer exceid all utheris that I have seen. And thairfor ye sall paciently bear, altho’ I spend heir yet sum dayis; for depart I cannot, unto sic tyme as God quenche thair thirst a litill. Yea, mother, thair fervencie doith sa ravische me, that I cannot but accus and condemp {175} my sleuthful coldnes. God grant thame thair hartis desyre; and I pray yow adverteis [me] of your estait, and of thingis that have occurit sense your last wrytting. Comfort yourself in Godis promissis, and be assureit that God steiris up mo friendis than we be war of. My commendation to all in your company. I commit you to the protectioun of the omnipotent. In great haist; the 4. of November, 1555. From Scotland. Your sone, Johne Knox.”[259]

Having executed his commission, Willock returned to Embden; and he quitted Scotland with the less regret, as he left behind him one who was so capable of promoting the cause which he had at heart. When he first arrived in Scotland, Knox found that the friends of the reformed doctrine continued, in general, to attend the popish worship, and even the celebration of mass; principally with the view of avoiding the scandal which they would otherwise incur. Highly disapproving of this practice, he laboured, in his conversation and sermons, to convince them of the great impiety of that part of the popish service, and the criminality of countenancing it by their presence. Doubts being still entertained on the subject by some, a meeting of the protestants in the city was held for the express purpose of discussing the question. Maitland defended the practice with all the ingenuity and learning for which he was distinguished; but his arguments were so satisfactorily answered by Knox, that he yielded the point as indefensible, and {176} agreed, with the rest of his brethren, to abstain for the future from such temporizing conduct. Thus was a formal separation made from the popish church in Scotland, which may be justly regarded as an important step in the Reformation.[260]

Erskine of Dun prevailed on Knox to accompany him to his family seat in the shire of Angus, where he continued a month, during which he preached every day. The principal persons in that neighbourhood attended his sermons. After his return to the south of the Forth, he resided at Calder‑house,[261] in West Lothian, the seat of Sir James Sandilands, commonly called Lord St John, because he was chief in Scotland of the religious order of military knights who went by the name of Hospitallers, or Knights of St John. This gentleman, who was now venerable for his grey hairs as well as for his valour, sagacity, and correct morals, had long been a sincere friend to the reformed cause, and had contributed to its preservation in that part of the country.[262] In 1548, he {177} had presented to the parsonage of Calder, John Spottiswood,[263] afterwards the reformed superintendent of Lothian, who had imbibed the protestant doctrines from archbishop Cranmer in England, and who instilled them into the minds of his parishioners, and of the nobility and gentry that frequented the house of his patron.[264] Among those who attended Knox’s sermons at Calder, were three young noblemen, who made a great figure in the public transactions which followed;――Archibald, lord Lorn, who, succeeding to the earldom of Argyle at the most critical period of the Reformation, promoted, with all the ardour of youthful zeal, that cause which his father had espoused in extreme old age;――John, lord Erskine, afterwards earl of Mar, who commanded the important fortress of Edinburgh castle, during the civil war which ensued between the queen‑regent and the protestants, and died regent of Scotland;――and lord James Stewart, an illegitimate son of James V., who was subsequently created earl of Murray, and was the first regent of the kingdom during the minority of James VI. Being designed for the church, the last named nobleman had been in his youth made prior of St Andrews――a title by which he is often mentioned in history; but, on arriving at manhood, he discovered no inclination to follow the clerical profession. He was at this time in the twenty‑second year of his age;[265] and although he had lived for the most part in {178} retirement from the court, had already given proofs of those superior talents which he had soon a more favourable opportunity of displaying. Knox had formerly met with him in London, and his sagacity led him, even at that time, to form the highest expectations from the talents and spirit of the youthful prior.[266] The three noblemen were much gratified with Knox’s doctrine, and his exhortations made an impression upon their minds, which remained during the succeeding part of their lives.

In the beginning of the year 1556, he was conducted by Lockhart of Bar, and Campbell of Kineancleugh, to Kyle, the ancient receptacle of the Scottish Lollards, where there were a number of adherents to the reformed doctrine. He preached in the houses of Bar, Kineancleugh, Carnell, Ochiltree, and Gadgirth, and in the town of Ayr. In several of these places he also dispensed the sacrament of our Lord’s supper. A little before Easter, he went to Finlayston, the baronial mansion of the noble family of Glencairn. William, earl of Glencairn, having been killed at the battle of Pinkie, had been succeeded by his son, Alexander, whose superior learning and ability did not escape the discerning eye of Sir Ralph Sadler, during his embassy in Scotland.[267] He was an ardent and steady friend to the reformed religion, and had carefully instructed his family in its principles. In his house, besides preaching, Knox dispensed the {179} sacrament of the supper; the earl himself, his countess, and two of their sons, with a number of their friends and acquaintance, participating of that sacred feast.[268]

From Finlayston he returned to Calder‑house, and soon after paid a second visit to Dun, during which he preached more openly than before. At this time the greater part of the gentlemen of Mearns made profession of the reformed religion, by sitting down at the Lord’s table; and entered into a solemn and mutual bond, in which they renounced the popish communion, and engaged to maintain and promote the pure preaching of the gospel, as providence should favour them with opportunities.[269]

This seems to have been the first of those religious bonds or covenants, by which the confederation of the protestants in Scotland was so frequently ratified. Although they have been condemned as unwarranted in a religious point of view, and dangerous in a {180} political, yet are they completely defensible upon the principles both of conscience and policy. A mutual agreement, compact, or covenant, is virtually implied in the constitution of every society, civil or religious; and the dictates of natural law conspire with the declarations of revelation in sanctioning the warrantableness and propriety of explicit engagements, about any lawful and important matter, and of ratifying these, if circumstances shall require it, by formal subscription, and by a solemn appeal to the searcher of hearts. By strengthening the motives to fidelity and constancy, and thus producing mutual confidence among those who are embarked in the same cause, they have proved eminently beneficial in the reformation of churches and nations, and in securing the religious and political privileges of men. The misapplication of them, when employed in a bad cause and for mischievous ends, can be no argument against their use in a legitimate way, and for laudable purposes. And the reasoning employed to prove that such covenants should not be entered into without the permission of rulers, would lead to the conclusion, that subjects ought never to profess a religion to which their superiors are hostile, nor make any attempts to obtain the reform of abuses, or the redress of grievances, without the consent and approbation of those who are interested in their support.

The dangers to which Knox and his friends had been accustomed, taught them to conduct matters with such secrecy, that he had preached for a considerable time, and in different quarters of the country, {181} before the clergy knew that he was in the kingdom. Concealment was, however, impracticable after his audiences became numerous. His preaching at Ayr was reported to the court, and formed the topic of conversation in the presence of the queen regent. Some one in the company having affirmed that the preacher was an Englishman, “a prelate, not of the least pride, said, ‘Nay; no Englishman, but it is Knox, that knave.’” This was Beatoun, archbishop of Glasgow. “It was my Lord’s pleasure,” says Knox, “so to baptize a poor man; the reason whereof, if it should be required, his rochet and mitre must stand for authority. What further liberty he used in defining things alike uncertain to him, to wit, of my learning and doctrine, at this present I omit. For what hath my life and conversation been, since it hath pleased God to call me from the puddle of papistry, let my very enemies speak; and what learning I have, they may prove when they please.”[270] Interest was at that time made by the bishops for his apprehension, but without success.[271]

After his last journey to Angus, the friars flocked from all quarters to the bishops, and instigated them to adopt speedy and decisive measures for checking the alarming effects of his preaching. In consequence of this, he was summoned to appear before a convention of the clergy, in the church of the Blackfriars at Edinburgh, on the 15th of May. This diet he resolved {182} to keep, and with that view came to Edinburgh, before the day appointed, accompanied by Erskine of Dun, and several other gentlemen. The clergy had never dreamed of his attendance. Being apprised of his determination, and afraid to bring matters to extremity, while unassured of the regent’s decided support, they met beforehand, set aside the summons under pretence of some informality, and deserted the diet against him. On the day on which he should have appeared as a culprit, Knox preached in the bishop of Dunkeld’s large lodging, to a far greater audience than had before attended him in Edinburgh. During the ten following days, he preached in the same place, forenoon and afternoon; none of the clergy making the smallest attempt to disturb him. It was in the midst of these labours, that he wrote the following hasty lines to Mrs Bowes.

“Belovit mother, with my maist hartlie commendation in the Lord Jesus, albeit I was fullie purpoisit to have visitit yow before this tyme, yet hath God laid impedimentis, whilk I culd not avoyd. Thay are suche as I dout not ar to his glorie, and to the comfort of many heir. The trumpet blew the ald sound thrie dayis together, till privat houssis of indifferent largenes culd not conteane the voce of it. God, for Christ his Sonis sake, grant me to be myndful, that the sobbis of my hart hath not been in vane, nor neglectit in the presence of his majestie. O! sweet war the death that suld follow sic fourtie dayis in Edinburgh, as heir I have had thrie. Rejose, mother; the tyme of our deliverance approacheth: for, as {183} Sathan rageth, sa dois the grace of the Halie Spreit abound, and daylie geveth new testymonyis of the everlasting love of oure mercifull Father. I can wryt na mair to you at this present. The grace of the Lord Jesus rest with you. In haste――this Monunday――your sone, John Knox.”[272]

About this time, the Earl Marischal was induced to attend an evening exhortation delivered by Knox. He was so much pleased with the discourse, that he joined with Glencairn in urging the preacher to write a letter to the queen regent, which, they thought, might have the effect of inclining her to protect the reformed preachers, if not also to lend a favourable ear to their doctrine. With this request he was induced to comply.[273]

As a specimen of the manner in which this letter was written, I shall give the following quotation, in the original language. “I dout not, that the rumouris, whilk haif cumin to your grace’s earis of me, haif bene such, that (yf all reportis wer trew) I wer unworthie to live in the earth. And wonder it is, that the voces of the multitude suld not so have inflamed your grace’s hart with just hatred of such a one as I am accuseit to be, that all acces to pitie suld have been schute up. I am traducit as ane heretick, accusit as a false teacher and seducer of the pepill, {184} besides other opprobries, whilk (affirmit by men of warldlie honour and estimation) may easelie kendill the wrath of majestratis, whair innocencie is not knawin. But blissit be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Chryst, who, by the dew of his heavenly grace, hath so quenchit the fyre of displeasure as yit in your grace’s hart, (whilk of lait dayis I have understood,) that Sathan is frustrat of his interpryse and purpois. Whilk is to my heart no small comfort; not so muche (God is witnes) for any benefit that I can resave in this miserable lyfe, by protectioun of any earthlie creature, (for the cupe whilk it behoveth me to drink is apoyntit by the wisdome of him whois consallis ar not changeable,) as that I am for that benefit whilk I am assurit your grace sall resave; yf that ye continew in like moderation and clemencie towardis utheris that maist unjustlie ar and sal be accusit, as that your grace hath begun towardis me, and my most desperate cause.” An orator (he continued) might justly require of her grace a motherly pity towards her subjects, the execution of justice upon murderers and oppressors, a heart free from avarice and partiality, a mind studious of the public welfare, with other virtues which heathen as well as inspired writers required of rulers. But, in his opinion, it was vain to crave reformation of manners, when religion was so much corrupted. He could not propose, in the present letter, to lay open the sources, progress, and extent of those errors and corruptions which had overspread and inundated the church; but, if her majesty would grant him opportunity and liberty of speech, he was ready to undertake {185} this task. In the meantime, he could not refrain from calling her attention to this important subject, and pointing out to her the fallacy of some general prejudices, by which she was in danger of being deluded. She ought to beware of thinking, that the care of religion did not belong to magistrates, but was devolved wholly on the clergy; that it was a thing incredible that religion should be so universally depraved; or that true religion was to be judged of by the majority of voices, by custom, by the laws and determinations of men, or by any thing but the infallible dictates of inspired scripture. He knew that innovations in religion were deemed hazardous; but the urgent necessity and immense magnitude of the object ought, in the present case, to swallow up the fear of danger. He was aware that a public reformation might be thought to exceed her authority as regent; but she could not be bound to maintain idolatry and manifest abuses, nor to suffer the clergy to murder innocent men, merely because they worshipped God according to his word.

Though Knox’s pen was not the most smooth nor delicate, and though he often irritated by the plainness and severity of his language, the letter to the queen regent is very far from being uncourtly or inelegant. It seems to have been written with great care, and in point of style may be compared with any composition of that period, for simplicity and forcible expression.[274] Its strain was well calculated for stimulating {186} the enquiries, and confirming the resolutions, of one who was impressed with a conviction of the reigning evils in the church, or who, though not resolved in judgment as to the matters in controversy, was determined to preserve moderation between the contending parties. Notwithstanding her imposing manners, the regent was not a person of this description. The earl of Glencairn delivered the letter into her hand; she glanced over it with a careless air, and gave it to the archbishop of Glasgow, saying, “Please you, my lord, to read a pasquil.”[275] The report of this induced Knox, after he retired from Scotland, to publish the letter, with additions. The style of the additions is more spirited and sharp than that of the original letter; but there is nothing even in them which is indecorous, or which will warrant the charge which has been brought against him of being accustomed to treat crowned heads with irreverence and disrespect. “As charitie,” says he, “persuadeth me to interpret thinges doubtfully spoken in the best sence, so my dutie to God (who hath commanded me to flatter no prince in the earth) compelleth me to say, that if no more ye esteme the admonition of God nor the cardinalles do the scoffing of pasquilles, then he shall schortly send you messagers, with whom ye shall not be able on that maner {187} to jest.――I did not speak unto you, madame, by my former lettre, nether yet do I now, as Pasquillus doth to the pope, in behalf of such as dare not utter their names; but I come, in the name of Jesus Christ, affirming that the religion which ye maintain is damnable idolatrie: the which I offre myselfe to prove by the most evident testimonies of Goddis scriptures. And, in this quarrelle, I present myself againste all the papistes within the realme, desireing none other armore but Goddis holie word, and the libertie of my tonge.”[276]