Chapter VII: Part 7

Through the exertions of our Reformer, during his residence among them in the year 1556, and in pursuance of the instructions which he left behind him, the protestants had formed themselves into congregations, which met in different parts of the country with greater or less privacy, according to the opportunities which they enjoyed. Having come to the resolution of withdrawing from the popish worship, they provided for their religious instruction and {227} mutual edification in the best manner that their circumstances would permit. As there were no ministers among them, they continued for some time to be deprived of the dispensation of the sacraments;[327] but certain intelligent and pious men of their number were chosen to read the scriptures, to exhort, and offer up prayers in their assemblies. Convinced of the necessity of order and discipline in their societies, and desirous to have them organized, as far as was in their power, agreeably to the institution of Christ, they next proceeded to choose elders for the inspection of their manners, to whom they promised subjection, and deacons for the collection and distribution of alms to the poor.[328] Edinburgh was the first place in which this order was established: Dundee the first town in which a reformed church was completely organized, {228} provided with a regular minister, and favoured with the dispensation of the sacraments.

During the war with England, which began in autumn 1556, and continued through the following year, the protestants enjoyed considerable liberty; and they improved it with great zeal and success. The clergy were not indifferent to the progress which the reformed opinions were daily making, and they prevailed with the regent to summon such as had presumed to preach without their authority; but she was obliged to abandon the process against them, in consequence of the arrival of certain gentlemen from the west country, who demanded their release in a tone which declared that they were resolved not to be refused.[329]

At a meeting of the nobles and barons attached to the Reformation, held at Edinburgh in December 1557, two resolutions were adopted for regulating their conduct in the present delicate juncture. It was agreed, in the first place, that they should rest satisfied for the present with requiring that prayers, and the lessons of the Old and New Testament, should be read in English, according to the book of Common Prayer,[330] in every parish, on Sundays and festival days, by the curates of the respective parishes, or, if they were unable or unwilling, by such persons within the bounds as were best qualified. And, secondly, that the reformed preachers should teach in private houses only, till the government should allow them {229} to preach in public.[331] The first resolution has been represented as an unwarrantable assumption of authority by this reforming assembly, and as implying that they had a right to dictate to the whole nation, by setting aside the established worship, and imposing a new form. This construction is, however, irreconcilable with the situation in which they were then placed, and with the moderate and submissive tone in which they continued to urge their claims at a subsequent period. It is rather to be viewed as expressing the opinion of that meeting respecting the degree of reformation which individuals of their body might introduce, in places to which their authority and influence extended. And, accordingly, it was reduced to practice in many parishes where protestant barons resided, and where the people were disposed to imitate their example.[332]

In pursuance of the second resolution agreed on at the general meeting, the earl of Argyle undertook the protection of John Douglas, a carmelite friar, who had embraced the reformed sentiments;[333] and the rest of the preachers were received into the houses of other barons, and employed to preach as their chaplains. This measure alarmed the clergy no less than the former practice of itinerant preaching had done. They saw that it would be vain to commence prosecutions against preachers who were entertained in the families of the principal men in the kingdom; and they resolved to exert all their influence to deprive them of {230} such powerful patronage. Presuming upon the easy temper of the aged earl of Argyle, and upon the friendship which had long subsisted between his family and the Hamiltons, the archbishop of St Andrews wrote a letter to that nobleman in a very insinuating strain, and at the same time sent a relation of his own, Sir David Hamilton, with instructions to represent the danger to which he exposed his noble house by countenancing Douglas, and to intreat him, in the most earnest manner, to withdraw his protection from such a pestilent heretic. Argyle’s reply was temperate and respectful, but at the same time firm and spirited: he not only vindicated the doctrine taught by his chaplain, and refused to dismiss him, but made several shrewd and pointed remarks which the archbishop could not fail to apply to himself. The bishop having written that he felt himself bound “in honour and conscience” to enquire into the heresies of which Douglas was accused, the earl replies: “He preiches against idolatrie, I remit to your lordschip’s conscience gif it be heresie or not; he preiches against adulterie and fornicatioun, I referre that to your lordschip’s conscience;[334] he preiches against hypocrisie, I referre that to your lordschip’s conscience; he preiches against all maner of abuses and corruptioun of Christis sincere religioun, I referre that to your lordschip’s conscience. My lord, I exhort yow, in Christis name, to wey all {231} thir affairis in your conscience, and considder if it be your dewtie also not onlie to thole[335] this, bot in like maner to do the same. This is all, my lord, that I varie in my age, and na uther thing bot that I knew not befoir these offences to be abhominable to God, and now, knawing his will by manifestatioun of his word, abhorres thame.” Referring to the bishop’s offer to send him a learned and catholic teacher, the earl replies, “God Almichtie send us mony of that sorte, that will preiche trewlie, and nathing but ane catholic universall christian fayth; and we Hieland rude pepill hes mister[336] of thame. And if your lordschip wald get and provyde me sic a man, I sould provyde him a corporal leving as to my self, with grit thanks to your lordschip; for trewlie, I and many ma hes grit mister of sic men. And becaus I am abill to sustain ma nor ane of thame, I will requeist your lordschip earnestlie to provyde me sic a man as ye wrait; for the harvest is grit, and thair ar few labouraris.”[337]

Foiled in his attempts to prevail on the nobility to withdraw their protection from the preachers, the archbishop determined to wreak his vengeance upon such of them as were still within his power, and proceeded to revive those cruel measures which had been suspended for several years, by the political circumstances of the country rather than by the clemency and moderation of the clergy. Walter Mill, parish‑priest of Lunan in Angus, having been condemned as a {232} heretic in the time of cardinal Beatoun, had escaped from execution, and continued to preach, sometimes in private, and at other times openly, in different quarters of the kingdom. Being lately discovered by one of the archbishop’s spies, he was brought to trial at St Andrews. He appeared before the court so worn out with age, and the hardships which he had endured, that it was not expected he would be able to answer the questions which might be put to him; but, to the surprise of all, he conducted his defence with great spirit. Such was the compassion excited by his appearance, and the horror which was now felt at the punishment to which he was doomed, that the clergy, after pronouncing him guilty, could not procure a secular judge to pass sentence of death upon him, and the archbishop was at last obliged to employ a worthless servant of his own to perform the odious task. On the 28th of August 1558, Mill expired amidst the flames, uttering these words: “As for me, I am fourscore and two years old, and cannot live long by course of nature; but a hundred better shall rise out of the ashes of my bones. I trust in God, I shall be the last that shall suffer death in Scotland for this cause!”[338]

This barbarous and illegal execution produced effects of the greatest importance. It raised the horror of the nation to an incredible pitch; and as it was believed, at that time, that the regent was not accessory {233} to the deed, their indignation was directed wholly against the clergy. Throwing aside all fear, and disregarding those restraints which prudence, or respect for established order, had hitherto imposed on them, the people now assembled openly to join in the reformed worship, and avowed their determination to adhere to it at all hazards. Harlow, Douglas, Paul Methven, and some others, were emboldened to break through the regulations to which they had submitted, and began to preach, and administer the sacraments, with greater publicity than formerly.[339] In the month of October,[340] they were joined by John Willock, who returned a second time from Embden.

Meanwhile, the protestant barons, having assembled at Edinburgh in the month of July,[341] had resolved to lay their complaints in a formal manner before the regent. They renewed the request which they had formerly made, that she would, by her authority, and in concurrence with the parliament, restrain the {234} violence of the clergy, correct the flagrant and insufferable abuses which prevailed in the church, and grant to them and their brethren the liberty of religious instruction and worship, at least according to a restricted plan which they laid before her, and to which they were willing to submit, till their grievances should be deliberately examined and legally redressed.[342] Their petition was presented to the regent, in the palace of Holyroodhouse, by Sir James Sandilands of Calder, in the presence of a number of the nobility and bishops. Her reply was such as to persuade them that she was friendly to their proposals; she promised, that she would take measures for carrying them legally into effect, as soon as it was in her power, and assured them, that, in the meantime, they might depend on her protection.[343]

It did not require many arguments to persuade Knox to comply with an invitation, which was accompanied with such gratifying intelligence; and he began immediately to prepare for his journey to Scotland. {235} The future settlement of the congregation under his charge, occupied him for some time. Information being received of the death of Mary, queen of England,[344] and the accession of Elizabeth, the protestant refugees hastened to return to their native country. The congregation at Geneva, having met to return thanks to God for this deliverance, agreed to send one of their number with letters to their brethren in different places of the continent, and particularly in Frankfort, congratulating them on the late happy change, and requesting a confirmation of the mutual reconciliation which had already been effected, the burial of all past offences, and a brotherly co‑operation, in endeavouring to obtain such a settlement of religion in England as would be agreeable to all the sincere well‑wishers of the Reformation. A favourable return to their letters being obtained,[345] they took leave of the hospitable city, and set out for their native country. By them Knox sent letters to some of his former acquaintances, who were now in the court of Elizabeth, requesting permission to travel through England on his way to Scotland.

In the month of January 1559, our Reformer took his leave of Geneva for the last time.[346] In addition to former marks of respect, the republic, before his {236} departure, conferred on him the freedom of the city.[347] He left his wife and family behind him, until he should ascertain that they could live with safety in Scotland. Upon his arrival at Dieppe, in the middle of March, he received information that the English government had refused to grant him liberty to pass through their dominions. The request had appeared so reasonable to his own mind, considering the station which he had held in that country, and the object of his present journey, that he once thought of proceeding to London without waiting for a formal permission; yet it was with some difficulty that those who presented his letters escaped imprisonment.[348]

This impolitic severity was occasioned by the informations of some of the exiles, who had not forgotten {237} the old quarrel at Frankfort, and had accused of disloyalty and disaffection to the queen, not only Knox, but all those who had been under his charge at Geneva, whom they represented as proselytes to the opinion which he had published against female government.[349] There was not an individual who could believe that Knox had the most distant eye to Elizabeth in publishing the obnoxious book; nor a person of judgment who could seriously think that her government was exposed to the slightest danger from him or his associates, who felt no less joy at her auspicious accession than their brethren.[350] If he had been imprudent in that publication, if he had {238} “swerved from the particular question to the general,” his error (to use the words of his respondent) “rose not of malice, but of zeal, and by looking more to the present cruelty, than to the inconveniences that after might follow;” and it was the part of generosity and of good policy to overlook the fault. Instead of this, Elizabeth and her counsellors took up the charge in a serious light; and the accused were treated with such harshness and disdain, that they repented of leaving their late asylum to return to their native country. One cannot help feeling indignant at this weak revenge, when it is considered that Elizabeth had admitted to favour, and retained at court, persons who had endeavoured to prevent her succession, and who had thirsted for her blood;[351] and that those who, under the preceding reign, had advised and practised the greatest severities against the protestants, were now treated with the utmost lenity. Even the infamous Bonner was allowed to appear at court, and, although the queen shuddered at the thought of a man who was polluted with so much blood kissing her hand, yet was he at this time going about London without the smallest molestation.[352] In the {239} first parliament of Elizabeth, one Dr Story made a speech, in which he had the effrontery to justify the cruelties of Mary, to boast of his own activity in carrying her orders into execution, and to regret that measures still more violent and effectual had not been adopted for the utter extirpation of heresy.[353] Nor does it appear that this speech was resented either by the house or by the queen.

De nobis, post hæc, tristis sententia fertur:
Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas.

The refusal of his request, and the harsh treatment of his flock, touched to the quick the irritable temper of our Reformer; and it was with some difficulty that he suppressed the desire which he felt rising in his breast, to prosecute a controversy which he had resolved to abandon. “My first Blast,” says he, in a letter, dated Dieppe, 6th April 1559, “hath blown from me all my friends in England. My conscience bears record, that yet I seek the favour of my God; and so I am in the less fear. The second Blast, I fear, {240} shall sound somewhat more sharp, except that men be more moderate than I hear they are.――England hath refused me; but because, before, it did refuse Christ Jesus, the less do I regard the loss of this familiarity. And yet have I been a secret and assured friend to thee, O England, in cases which thyself could not have remedied.”[354] But greater designs occupied his mind, and engrossed his attention. It was not for the sake of personal safety, nor from the vanity of appearing at court, that he desired to pass through England. He felt the natural wish to visit his old acquaintance in that country, and was anxious for an opportunity of once more addressing those to whom he had preached, especially at Newcastle and Berwick. But there was another object which he had still more at heart, and in which the welfare of both England and Scotland were concerned.

Notwithstanding the flattering accounts which he had received of the favourable disposition of the queen regent towards the protestants, and the directions which he sent them to cultivate this, he appears to have always entertained suspicions of the sincerity of her professions. Since he left Geneva, these suspicions had been confirmed; and the information which he had procured, in travelling through France, conspired with intelligence which he had lately received from Scotland, to convince him, that the immediate suppression of the Reformation in his native country, and its consequent suppression in the neighbouring {241} kingdom, were intended. The plan projected by the gigantic ambition of the princes of Lorrain, brothers of the queen regent of Scotland, has been developed, and described with great accuracy and ability, by a celebrated modern historian.[355] Suffice it to say here, that their counsels had determined the French court to set up the claim of the young queen of Scots to the crown of England; to attack Elizabeth, and wrest the sceptre from her hands, under the pretext that she was a bastard and a heretic; and to commence their operations by suppressing the Reformation, and establishing the French influence, in Scotland, as the best preparative to an attack upon the dominions of the English queen. In the course of his journeys through France, Knox had formed an acquaintance with certain persons about the court, and, by their means, had gained some knowledge of this plan.[356] He was convinced that the Scottish reformers {242} were unable to resist the power which France might bring against them; and that it was no less the interest than the duty of the English court to afford them the most effectual support. But he was afraid that a selfish and narrow policy might prevent them from doing this until it was too late, and was therefore anxious to call their attention to the subject at an early period, and to put them in possession of the facts that had come to his knowledge. The assistance which Elizabeth granted to the Scottish protestants in the year 1560, was dictated by the soundest policy. It baffled and defeated the designs of her enemies at the very outset; it gave her an influence over Scotland, which all her predecessors could not obtain by the terror of their arms, nor the influence of their money; and it secured the stability of her government, by extending and strengthening the protestant interest, the principal pillar on which it rested. And it reflects not a little credit on our Reformer’s sagacity, that he had conceived this plan at so early a period, was the first person who proposed it, and persisted, in spite of great discouragements, to urge its adoption, until his endeavours were ultimately crowned with success.

Deeply impressed with these considerations, he resolved, although he had already been twice repulsed, to brook the mortification, and make another attempt to obtain an interview with some confidential agent {243} of the English government. With this view, he, on the 10th of April, wrote a letter to secretary Cecil, with whom he had been personally acquainted during his residence in London. Adverting to the treatment of the exiles who had returned from Geneva, he exculpated them from all responsibility as to the offensive book which he had published, and assured him that he had not consulted with any of them previous to its publication. As for himself, he did not mean to deny that he was the author, nor was he yet prepared to retract the leading sentiment which it contained. But he was not, on that account, less friendly to the person and government of Elizabeth, in whose exaltation he cordially rejoiced; although he rested the defence of her authority upon grounds different from the common. This was the third time that he had craved liberty to pass through England. He had no desire to visit the court, nor to remain long in the country; but he was anxious to communicate to him, or some other trusty person, matters of great importance, which it was not prudent to commit to writing, or intrust to an ordinary messenger. If his request was refused, it would turn out to the disadvantage of England.[357]

The situation in which he stood at this time with the court of England was so well known, that it was not without great difficulty that he could find a messenger to carry his letter;[358] and, either despairing of {244} the success of his application, or urged by intelligence received from Scotland, he sailed from Dieppe on the 22d of April, and landed safely at Leith on the 2d of May, 1559.[359]

{245}
PERIOD VI.

FROM MAY 1559, WHEN HE FINALLY RETURNED TO SCOTLAND,
TO AUGUST 1560, WHEN HE WAS SETTLED AS MINISTER OF EDINBURGH,
AT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE REFORMATION.

ON his arrival, Knox found matters in the most critical state in Scotland. The queen regent had thrown off the mask which she had long worn, and avowed her determination forcibly to suppress the Reformation. As long as she stood in need of the assistance of the protestants, to support her authority against the Hamiltons, and to procure the matrimonial crown for her son‑in‑law, the dauphin of France, she courted their friendship, listened to their plans of reform, professed her dissatisfaction with the ecclesiastical order, and her desire of correcting its corruption and tyranny as soon as a fit opportunity offered, and flattered them, if not with the hopes of her joining their party, at least with assurances that she would shield them from the fury of the clergy. So completely were they duped by her consummate address and dissimulation, that they complied with all her requests, restrained their preachers from teaching in public, and desisted from presenting to the parliament a petition which they had prepared; nor {246} would they believe her to be insincere, even after different parts of her conduct had afforded strong grounds for suspicion. But, having accomplished the great objects which she had in view, she at last adopted measures which completely undeceived them, and discovered the gulf into which they were about to be precipitated.

As this discovery of the regent’s duplicity produced consequences of the greatest importance; as it completely alienated from her the minds of the reformers, and aroused that spirit of determined and united opposition to her insidious policy, and her violent measures, which ultimately led to the establishment of the Reformation; and as the facts connected with it have not been accurately or fully stated in our common histories,[360] the reader may not be displeased at having the following more circumstantial detail laid before him.

A mutual jealousy had long subsisted between the queen regent and that able but unprincipled prelate, archbishop Hamilton, whose zeal for the church was uniformly subordinated to personal ambition, and the desire of aggrandizing his family. While he exerted the influence which his station gave him over the clergy to embarrass the administration of the regent, she employed the protestants as a counter‑balance to his power. But amidst the jarring excited by rival interests, both parties beheld the rapid progress {247} of the reformed sentiments with equal concern; and intelligent persons early foresaw, that their differences would finally be compromised, and a coalition formed between them to accomplish the ruin of the protestants.[361] It does not appear that the primate ever entertained the slightest suspicion that the regent was friendly to the cause of the reformers. Independently of her own sentiments, he was well acquainted with the influence which her brothers possessed over her, and with their devoted attachment to the Roman catholic church. Had he not had good reasons for presuming upon her connivance and secret approbation, his known prudence would not have allowed him to venture upon the invidious measure of putting Mill to death. As early as July 1558, she had held consultations with him on the course which should be adopted for checking the Reformation.[362] In consequence of these, steps were taken to bring to trial certain individuals who had given great offence to the clergy by expounding the scriptures in private meetings, and contemning the laws of the church.[363] And immediately after the meeting of parliament in November, at which the regent obtained, by the assistance of the protestants, all the objects which she wished to carry, the primate received positive assurances of her support in his exertions for maintaining the authority of the church. Accordingly, in the end of December, he summoned the reformed {248} preachers to appear before him in St Andrews, on the 2d of February following, to answer for their conduct in usurping the sacred office, and disseminating heretical doctrines.[364]

Upon this, a deputation of the protestants waited on the regent, and informed her, that, after what had recently taken place in the instance of Mill, they were determined to attend and see justice done to their preachers; and that, if the prosecution went forward, there would be a greater convocation at St Andrews than had been seen at any trial in Scotland for a long period. Dreading the consequences of a concourse of people in a place adjacent to counties in which the protestants were numerous, the queen wrote to the archbishop to prorogue the trial. She, at the same time, summoned a convention of the nobility, to be held at Edinburgh on the 7th of March, to advise upon the most proper measures for settling the religious differences which had so long agitated the nation.[365] And the primate, at her request, called a provincial council of the clergy to meet in the same place on the first of March.[366]

When our Saviour was condemned to be crucified, it was observed, that, “on the same day, Pilate and Herod were made friends together, for before they were at enmity between themselves.” The determination which was at this time formed to crush the protestant interest in Scotland, seems to have brought {249} about the reconciliation of more than the queen regent and the primate. A rivalship had long subsisted between those who occupied the two Scottish archbishoprics; the bishops of Glasgow insisting on the independence of their see, and boasting of the priority of its erection, while the bishops of St Andrews claimed an authoritative primacy over all the clergy in the kingdom, as belonging to that see from the time of its foundation.[367] Hamilton, in the mandate issued for assembling this council, had asserted his primacy in very formal terms, founding upon it, as well as upon the authority with which he was invested as papal legate, his right to convocate the clergy.[368] Beatoun, archbishop of Glasgow, seems to have resented this claim of superiority, and declined for some time to countenance the council by his presence, or to cite his suffragans and the clergy of his diocese to attend. This dissension, which might have proved highly injurious to the Roman church at this critical period, was got accommodated, and Beatoun, with the western clergy, at length joined the council.[369]

{250} In the mean time, the protestants, having assembled at Edinburgh, appointed commissioners to lay their representations before the convention of the nobility, and the council of the clergy.[370] The commissioners gave in to the latter certain preliminary articles of reformation, in which they craved, that the religious service should be performed in the vulgar tongue; that such as were unfit for the pastoral office should be removed from their benefices; that, in time coming, bishops should be admitted with the assent of the barons of the diocese, and parish‑priests with the assent of the parishioners; and that measures should be adopted for preventing immoral and ignorant persons from being employed in ecclesiastical functions.[371] But there was another paper laid before the council, which, it is probable, gave them more uneasiness than the representation of the protestants. This was a remonstrance by certain persons attached to the Roman catholic faith, “craving redress of several grievances complained of in the ecclesiastical administration of Scotland.” It consisted of thirteen articles, in which, among other points of reformation, they required that the exacting of corpse‑presents and Easter offerings should be abolished; that, for the more effectual instruction of those who partake of the sacraments, “there should be an {251} godlie and faithful declaration set forth in Inglis toung, to be first shewin to the pepil at all times,” when any of the sacraments are administered; and that the common prayers and litanies should also be read in the vulgar language. At the same time, they desired that none should be permitted to speak irreverently of the mass, make innovations upon the ceremonies of the church, or administer divine ordinances without authority from the bishops.[372]

The council were not disposed to agree to the proposals either of the protestant or the popish reformers. After making certain partial regulations relating to some of the grievances complained of by the latter,[373] and renewing the canons of former councils respecting the lives of the clergy and public instruction,[374] they refused to allow any part of the public service to be performed in the vulgar language;[375] they ratified in the strongest terms all the popish doctrines which were controverted by the protestants;[376] and they ordained, that strict inquisition should be made after such as absented themselves from the celebration {252} of mass,[377] and that excommunications should be fulminated against those who administered or received the sacraments after the protestant forms, and against parents and sponsors who had presented children for baptism to the reformed preachers, and did not bring them to the priests to be re‑baptized.[378]

The council were emboldened to take these decisive steps in consequence of a secret treaty which they had concluded with the regent, and in which they had stipulated to raise a large sum of money to enable her to suppress the reformers.[379] This arrangement could not be long concealed from the protestant deputies, who, perceiving that they were mocked by the clergy, and abandoned by the court, broke off the fruitless negotiations in which they had been engaged, and left Edinburgh. They were no sooner gone than a proclamation was made at the market cross, by order of the regent, prohibiting any person from preaching or administering the sacraments without {253} authority from the bishops, and commanding all the subjects to prepare to celebrate the ensuing feast of Easter, according to the rites of the catholic church. Understanding that her proclamation was disregarded, she determined on taking decisive steps to enforce obedience, by bringing the preachers to justice.[380] Accordingly, Paul Methven, John Christison, William Harlow, and John Willock, were summoned to stand trial before the justiciary court at Stirling, on the 10th of May, for usurping the ministerial office, for administering, without the consent of their ordinaries, the sacrament of the altar in a manner different from that of the catholic church, during three several days of the late feast of Easter, in the burghs and boundaries of Dundee, Montrose, and various other places in the sheriffdoms of Forfar and Kincardine, and for convening the subjects in these places, preaching to them, seducing them to their erroneous doctrines, and exciting seditions and tumults. As the preachers were resolved to make their appearance, George Lovell, burgess of Dundee, became surety for Methven, John Erskine of Dun for Christison, Patrick Murray of Tibbermuir for Harlaw, and Robert Campbell of Kinyeancleugh for Willock.[381]

To prevent matters from coming to extremity, the earl of Glencairn, and Sir Hugh Campbell of Loudon, sheriff of Ayr, waited on the queen, and remonstrated against these proceedings; but she told them haughtily, {254} that, “in spite of them, all their preachers should be banished from Scotland.” They reminded her of the promises she had repeatedly made to protect them; upon which she unblushingly replied, that “it became not subjects to burden their princes with promises, farther than they pleased to keep them.” Surprised, but not intimidated, at this language, Glencairn and Loudon told her, that, if she violated the engagements which she had come under to her subjects, they would consider themselves as absolved from their allegiance to her. After they had remonstrated with her very freely, and pointed out the dangerous consequences that might result from adopting such a line of conduct, she began to speak in a milder tone, and promised to suspend the trial of the preachers, and take the whole affair into serious consideration[382] But receiving intelligence soon after that peace was concluded between France and Spain, by a treaty in which these two powers had agreed to unite their endeavours for the extirpation of heresy, and being irritated by the introduction of the reformed worship into the town of Perth, she ordered the process against the preachers to go on, and summoned them peremptorily to stand their trial at Stirling on the appointed day.[383]

The state of our Reformer’s mind, upon receiving this information, will appear from the following letter, hastily written by him on the day after he landed in Scotland.

{255} “The perpetual comfort of the Holy Ghost for salutation. These few lines are to signify unto you, dear sister, that it hath pleased the merciful providence of my heavenly father to conduct me to Edinburgh, where I arrived the 2d of May: uncertain as yet what God shall further work in this country, except that I see the battle shall be great. For Satan rageth even to the uttermost, and I am come, I praise my God, even in the brunt of the battle. For my fellow preachers have a day appointed to answer before the queen regent, the 10th of this instant, when I intend (if God impede not) also to be present; by life, by death, or else by both, to glorify his godly name, who thus mercifully hath heard my long cries. Assist me, sister, with your prayers, that now I shrink not, when the battle approacheth. Other things I have to communicate with you, but travel after travel doth so occupy me, that no time is granted me to write. Advertise my brother, Mr Goodman, of my estate; as, in my other letter sent unto you from Dieppe, I willed you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ rest with you. From Edinburgh, in haste, the 3d of May.”[384]

His arrival in Scotland was not long concealed from the clergy. On the morning after he landed at Leith, one came to the monastery of the Greyfriars, where the provincial council was still sitting,[385] and {256} informed them that John Knox was come from France, and had slept last night in Edinburgh. The clergy were panic‑struck with the intelligence, and foreboding the ruin of all the plans which they had formed with so much care, they dismissed the council in great haste and confusion. A messenger was instantly dispatched by them with the information to the queen regent, who was at Glasgow; and within a few days Knox was proclaimed an outlaw and a rebel, in virtue of the sentence formerly pronounced against him by the clergy.[386]

Although his own cause was prejudged, and he knew that he was liable to be apprehended as a condemned heretic, he did not hesitate a moment in resolving to present himself voluntarily at Stirling, to assist his brethren in their defence, and share their danger. Having remained only a single day at Edinburgh, he hurried to Dundee, where he found the principal protestants in Angus and Mearns already assembled, and determined to attend their ministers to the place of trial, and avow their adherence to the doctrines for which they were accused. The providential arrival of such an able champion of the cause, at this crisis, must have been very encouraging to the assembly; and the liberty of accompanying them, which he requested, was readily granted.

{257} Lest the unexpected approach of such a multitude, though unarmed, should alarm or offend the regent, the assembled protestants agreed to stop at Perth, and sent Erskine of Dun before them to Stirling, to acquaint her with the peaceable object and manner of their coming. Apprehensive that their presence would disconcert her measures, the regent had again recourse to dissimulation. She persuaded Erskine to write to his brethren to desist from their intended journey, and authorized him to promise, in her name, that she would put a stop to the trial. The protestants testified their pacific intentions by a cheerful compliance with this request, and the greater part, confiding in the royal promise, returned to their homes. But when the day of trial came, the summons was called by the orders of the queen, the preachers were outlawed for not appearing, and all persons were prohibited, under the pain of rebellion, from harbouring or assisting them.[387] At the same time, the gentlemen who had given security for their appearance, were fined.[388]

Escaping from Stirling, Erskine brought to Perth the intelligence of this disgraceful transaction, which could not fail to incense the protestants. It happened that, on the same day on which the news came, Knox, who remained at Perth, preached a sermon, in which he exposed the idolatry of the mass, and of image‑worship. The audience had quietly dismissed, {258} and a few idle persons only loitered in the church, when an imprudent priest, wishing to try the disposition of the people, or to show his contempt of the doctrine which had just been delivered, uncovered a rich altar‑piece, decorated with images, and prepared to celebrate mass. A boy, having uttered some expressions of disapprobation, was struck by the priest. He retaliated by throwing a stone at the aggressor, which, falling on the altar, broke one of the images. This operated as a signal upon the people present, who had sympathized with the boy; and, in the course of a few minutes, the altar, images, and all the ornaments of the church, were torn down, and trampled under foot. The noise soon collected a mob, which, finding no employment in the church, flew, by a sudden and irresistible impulse, upon the monasteries; and although the magistrates of the town and the preachers assembled as soon as they heard of the riot, yet neither the persuasions of the one, nor the authority of the other, could restrain the fury of the people, until the houses of the grey and black friars, with the costly edifice of the Carthusian monks, were laid in ruins. None of the gentlemen or sober part of the congregation were concerned in this unpremeditated tumult; it was wholly confined to the lowest of the inhabitants, or, as Knox designs them, “the rascal multitude.”[389]

The demolition of the monasteries having been represented as the first‑fruits of our Reformer’s labours on this occasion, it was necessary to give this minute {259} account of the causes which produced that event. Whatever his sentiments were as to the destruction of the instruments and monuments of idolatry, he did not wish the work to be accomplished in an irregular manner; he was sensible that tumultuary proceedings, especially in present circumstances, were prejudicial to the cause of the reformers; and, instead of instigating, he exerted himself in putting a stop to, the ravages of the mob. If this disorderly conduct must be traced to a remote cause, we can impute it only to the wanton and dishonourable perfidy of the queen regent.

In fact, nothing could be more favourable to the designs of the regent than this riot. By her recent conduct, she had forfeited the confidence of the protestants, and even exposed herself in the eyes of the sober and moderate of her own party. This occurrence afforded her an opportunity of turning the public indignation from herself, and directing it against the protestants. She did not fail to improve it with her usual address. She magnified the accidental tumult into a dangerous and designed rebellion. Having called the nobility to Stirling, she, in her interviews with them, insisted upon such topics as were best calculated to persuade the parties into which they were divided. In conversing with the catholics, she dwelt upon the sacrilegious overthrow of those venerable structures which their ancestors had dedicated to the service of God. To the protestants who had not joined their brethren at Perth, she complained of the destruction of the Charter‑house, which was a {260} royal foundation; and, protesting that she had no intention of offering violence to their consciences, promised to protect them, provided they would assist her in punishing those who had been guilty of this violation of public order.[390] Having inflamed the minds of both parties, she collected an army from the adjacent counties,[391] and advanced to Perth, threatening to lay waste the town with fire and sword, and to inflict the most exemplary vengeance on all who had been instrumental in producing the riot.[392]

The protestants of the north were not insensible to their danger, and did all in their power to avert the storm which threatened them. They wrote to the queen regent, to the commander of the French troops, to the popish nobles, and to those of their own persuasion: they solemnly disclaimed all rebellious intentions; they protested their readiness to yield due obedience to the government; they entreated all to refrain from offering violence to peaceable subjects, who sought only the liberty of their consciences, and the reformation of religion. But, finding all their endeavours fruitless, they resolved not to suffer themselves and their brethren to be massacred, and prepared {261} for a defence of the town against an illegal and furious assault. And so prompt and vigorous were they in the measures which they adopted, that the regent, when she approached, deeming it imprudent to attack them, proposed overtures of accommodation, to which they readily acceded.[393]

While the two armies lay before Perth, and negotiations were going on between them, our Reformer obtained an interview with the prior of St Andrews and the young earl of Argyle, who adhered to the regent. He reminded them of the solemn engagements which they had contracted, and charged them with violating these, by abetting measures which tended to suppress the reformed religion, and enslave their native country. The noblemen replied, that they had been induced, by the representations of the regent and the clergy, to believe that their brethren intended to swerve from their former loyalty, and, although they were now convinced that this charge was unfounded, they were anxious to fulfil the promise {262} which they had made to the queen, by bringing the present difference to an amicable termination; but, if she should violate the proposed treaty, they would withdraw their countenance from her, and openly take part with their brethren, to whom they considered themselves as bound by the most sacred ties. The regent was not long in affording them an opportunity of verifying their promise. No sooner had she taken possession of Perth, and perceived that the forces of the protestants were disbanded, than she began to disregard the conditions to which she had agreed. Argyle and the prior remonstrated against the infractions of a treaty which they had concluded at her earnest request, but were answered in such an unsatisfactory manner, that they deserted her court, and could never afterwards be persuaded to place any confidence in her promises.[394]

From the time that the leading protestants discovered the hostile intentions of the regent, they had used great industry to ascertain the numbers of their friends, to establish means of correspondence among them, and to have them united by the strictest bonds. For this purpose, copies of their religious covenant were committed to persons who procured subscriptions to it in the different districts where they resided.[395] From the designation which they gave themselves in this covenant, or from the union which subsisted among them, they began at this time to be distinguished {263} by the name of The Congregation. The nobles who had joined the association, were the earls of Argyle, Glencairn, Monteith, and Rothes; lords Ochiltree, Boyd, Ruthven, and the prior of St Andrews. The earl Marischal, and lord Erskine, with some others who were friendly to the reformed religion, still supported the regent, or remained neutral. A large proportion of the lesser barons belonged to the Congregation; particularly those of Mearns, Angus, Strathearn, Monteith, Fyfe, Cunningham, Kyle, Carrick, and Galloway.[396]

In the beginning of June, the lords of the Congregation held a consultation on the measures which they should adopt for their own security, and for the advancement of the Reformation. They had repeatedly applied to the clergy to rectify the abuses which prevailed in the church, and to release them from those unjust and oppressive laws by which their consciences had long been enslaved; but their petitions had been treated with neglect and disdain. “To abandon usurped power, to renounce lucrative error, are sacrifices which the virtue of individuals has, on some occasions, offered to truth; but from any society of men no such effort can be expected. The corruptions of a society, recommended by common utility, and justified by universal practice, are viewed by its members without shame or horror; and reformation never proceeds from themselves, but is always {264} forced upon them by some foreign hand.”[397] Convinced of this, the protestant leaders had next addressed themselves to the regent, and requested her to employ her authority to bring about a reformation, which could not be much longer deferred, without interrupting the peace of the kingdom. As long as they had any reason to think that she was disposed to listen to their petitions, they had waited with exemplary patience, and restrained the ardour of such of their friends as were inclined, without further delay, to use the right which nature and Christianity gave them; but the regent had disappointed their expectations, and from being a professed friend was become a declared enemy; they could no longer place the smallest dependence on her promises; and they were satisfied that she had formed a systematic plan for suppressing the Reformation, and enforcing the existing ecclesiastical laws in all their rigour. It behoved them now either to submit to have their chains riveted, or by a bold and vigorous effort to shake them off altogether. They determined upon the latter. The scandalous lives of the established clergy, their total neglect of the religious instruction of the people, and the profanation of Christian worship by gross idolatry, were the most glaring abuses. The lords of the Congregation resolved to take immediate steps for removing these, by abolishing the popish service, and setting up the reformed worship in all those places to which their authority or influence {265} extended, and in which the greater part of the inhabitants were friendly to the design. This step is justified in part by the feudal ideas respecting the jurisdiction of the nobility, which at that time prevailed in Scotland; the urgent and extreme necessity of the case, however, forms its best vindication. A great part of the nation loudly demanded such a reformation, and, had not regular measures been adopted for its introduction, the popular indignation would have effected the work in a more exceptionable way.

St Andrews was the place fixed on for commencing these operations. With this view, the earl of Argyle, and lord James Stewart, who was prior of the abbey of St Andrews, made an appointment with Knox to meet them, on a certain day, in that city. Travelling along the east coast of Fife, he preached at Anstruther and Crail, and, on the 9th of June, joined them at St Andrews. The archbishop, apprized of his design to preach in his cathedral, assembled an armed force, and sent information to him, that if he appeared in the pulpit, he would give orders to the soldiers to fire upon him. The noblemen, having met to consult what ought to be done, agreed that Knox should desist from preaching at that time, and strongly urged upon him the reasons of their opinion. Their retinue was very slender; they had not yet ascertained the disposition of the inhabitants of the town; the queen regent lay at a small distance with an army; and his appearance in the pulpit might lead to the sacrifice of his own life, and the lives of those who were determined to defend him from violence.

{266} There are occasions on which it is a proof of superior wisdom to disregard the ordinary dictates of prudence; on which, to face danger is to avoid it, to flee from it is to invite it. Had the reformers, after announcing their intentions, suffered themselves to be intimidated by the bravading attitude and language of the archbishop, their cause would, at the very outset, have received a blow, from which it would not easily have recovered. This was prevented by the firmness and intrepidity of Knox. Fired with the recollection of the part which he had formerly acted on that spot, and with the near prospect of realizing the sanguine hopes which he had so long cherished in his breast, he resisted all the importunities of his friends. He could take God to witness, he said, that he never preached in contempt of any man, nor with the design of hurting an earthly creature; but to delay to preach next day, (unless forcibly hindered,) he could not in conscience agree. In that town, and in that church, had God first raised him to the dignity of a preacher, and from it he had been “reft” by French tyranny, at the instigation of the Scots bishops. The length of his imprisonment, and the tortures which he had endured, he would not at present recite; but one thing he could not conceal, that, in the hearing of many yet alive, he had expressed his confident hope of again preaching in St Andrews. Now, therefore, when providence, beyond all men’s expectation, had brought him to that place, he besought them not to hinder him. “As for the fear of danger, that may come to me,” continued he, “let no {267} man be solicitous; for my life is in the custody of him whose glory I seek. I desire the hand nor weapon of no man to defend me. I only crave audience; which, if it be denied here unto me at this time, I must seek where I may have it.”

This intrepid reply silenced all remonstrance; and next day, Knox appeared in the pulpit, and preached to a numerous assembly, including many of the clergy, without experiencing the slightest interruption. He discoursed on the subject of our Saviour’s ejecting the profane traffickers from the temple of Jerusalem, from which he took occasion to expose the enormous corruptions which had been introduced into the church under the papacy, and to point out what was incumbent upon Christians, in their different spheres, for removing them. On the three following days he preached in the same place; and such was the influence of his doctrine, that the provost, bailies, and inhabitants, harmoniously agreed to set up the reformed worship in the town; the church was stripped of images and pictures, and the monasteries were pulled down. This happened on the 14th of June, 1559.

Understanding that the lords at St Andrews were accompanied by a small retinue, the queen regent, who lay at Falkland, attempted to surprise them. But the protestants in Angus, having received information of the critical situation of their brethren, came to their assistance with such celerity and in such numbers, that they were able to face the royal army at Cupar‑moor; and the regent, afraid to risk a battle, consented to a truce, by which she engaged {268} to remove her French troops from Fife, and to send commissioners to St Andrews for the purpose of settling all differences between her and the Congregation. The troops were removed, but no commissioners appeared; and the lords of the Congregation, being apprized that the queen intended to fortify the passage of the Forth at Stirling, and to cut off their communication with the protestants in the south, proceeded to Perth, and, having expelled the garrison from that town, by a rapid march seized upon Stirling, and, advancing, took possession of the capital of the kingdom; the regent, as they approached, retiring with her forces to Dunbar.[398]

The example of St Andrews, in abolishing the popish worship, was quickly followed in other parts of the kingdom; and, in the course of a few weeks, at Crail, at Cupar, at Lindores, at Stirling, at Linlithgow, at Edinburgh, and at Glasgow, the houses of the monks were overthrown, and all the instruments of idolatry destroyed.[399]

These proceedings were celebrated in the singular lays, which were at that time circulated among the reformers.

His cardinalles hes cause to mourne,
His bishops are borne a backe;
His abbots gat an uncouth turne,
When shavellinges went to sacke:
{269} With burges wifes they led their lives,
And fare better than wee.
Hay trix, trim goe trix, under the greene-wod tree.

His Carmelites and Jacobinis,
His Dominikes had great adoe;
His Cordeliers and Augustines,
Sanct Francis’s ordour to;
The sillie friers, mony yeiris
With babbling bleirit our ee.
Hay trix, &c.