Chapter VIII: Part 8

Had not your self begun the weiris,
Your stepillis had been standand yit;
It was the flattering of your friers
That ever gart sanct Francis flit:
Ye grew sa superstitious
In wickednesse,
It gart us grow malicious
Contrair your messe.[400]

Scarcely any thing in the progress of the Scottish Reformation has been more frequently or more loudly condemned than the demolition of those edifices upon which superstition had lavished all the ornaments of the chisel and the pencil. To the Roman catholics, who anathematized all who were engaged in this work of inexpiable sacrilege, and represented it as involving the complete overthrow of religion,[401] have succeeded {270} another race of writers, who, although they do not, in general, make high pretensions to devotion, have not scrupled, at times, to borrow the language of their predecessors, and have bewailed the wreck of these precious monuments in as bitter strains as ever idolator did the loss of his gods. These are the warm admirers of Gothic architecture, and other relics of ancient art; some of whom, if we may judge from their language, would welcome back the reign of superstition, with all its ignorance and bigotry, if they could recover the objects of their adoration.[402] Writers of this stamp depict the ravages and devastation which marked the progress of the Reformation, in colours as dark as ever were employed by the historian in describing the overthrow of ancient learning, by the irruption of the barbarous Huns and Vandals. Our Reformer cannot be mentioned by them but with symptoms of horror, and in terms of detestation, as a barbarian, a savage, and a ring‑leader of mobs, for overthrowing whatever was venerable {271} in antiquity, or sacred in religion. It is unnecessary to produce instances.

Expectes eadem a summo minimoque poeta.

To remind such persons of the divine mandate to destroy all monuments of idolatry in the land of Canaan would be altogether insufferable, and might provoke, from some of them, a profane attack upon the authority from which it proceeded. To plead the example of the early Christians, in demolishing the temples and statues dedicated to pagan polytheism, would only awaken the keen regrets that are felt for the irreparable loss.[403] It would be still worse to refer to the apocalyptic predictions, which some have been so fanatical as to think were fulfilled in the miserable spoliation of that “great city,” which, under all its revolutions, has so eminently proved the nurse of the arts, and given encouragement to painters, statuaries, and sculptors, to “harpers, and musicians, and pipers, and trumpeters, and craftsmen of whatsoever craft,” who to this day have not forgotten their obligations to it, nor ceased to bewail its destruction. In any apology which I make for the {272} reformers, I would alleviate instead of aggravating the distress which is felt for the loss of such valuable memorials of antiquity. It has been observed by high authority, that there are certain commodities which derive their principal value from their extreme rarity, and which, if found in great quantities, would cease to be sought after or prized. A nobleman of great literary reputation has, indeed, questioned the justness of this observation, so far as respects precious stones and metals.[404] But I flatter myself, that the noble author and the learned critic, however much they may differ as to public wealth, will agree that the observation is perfectly just, as applied to those commodities which constitute the wealth and engage the researches of the antiquary. With him rarity is always an essential requisite and primary recommendation. His property, like that of the possessor of the famous Sibylline books, does not decrease in value by the reduction of its quantity, but after the greater part has been destroyed, becomes still more precious. If the matter be viewed in this light, antiquarians have no reason to complain of the ravages of the reformers, who have left them such valuable remains, and placed them in that very state which awakens in their minds the most lively sentiments of the sublime and beautiful, by reducing them to――ruins.

But, to speak seriously, I would not be thought so {273} great an enemy to any of the fine arts, as to rejoice at the wanton destruction of their models, ancient or modern, or to vindicate those, who, from ignorance and fanatical rage, may have excited the mob to such violence. But I am satisfied, that the charges usually brought against our reformers on this head are highly exaggerated, and in some instances altogether groundless. The demolition of the monasteries is, in fact, the only thing of which they can be fairly accused. Cathedral and parochial churches, and, in several places, the chapels attached to monasteries, were appropriated to the protestant worship; and, in the orders issued for stripping them of images, idolatrous pictures, and superstitious furniture, particular directions were given to avoid whatever might injure the buildings, or deface any of their ordinary decorations. It is true, that some churches suffered from popular violence during the ferment of the Reformation; and that others were dilapidated, in consequence of their most valuable materials being sold to defray the expenses of the war in which the protestants were involved; but the former will not be matter of surprise to those who have attended to the conduct of other nations in similar circumstances, and the latter will be censured by such persons only as are incapable of entering into the feelings of a people who were engaged in a struggle for their lives, their liberties, and their religion. Of all the charges thrown out against our reformers, the most ridiculous is, that, in their zeal against popery, they waged war against literature, by destroying the valuable {274} books and records which had been deposited in the monasteries. The state of learning among the monks, at the era of the Reformation, was wretched, and their libraries poor; the only persons who patronized or cultivated literature in Scotland were protestants; and so far from sweeping away any literary monuments which remained, the reformers were disposed to search for them among the rubbish, and to preserve them with the utmost care. In this respect we have no reason to deprecate a comparison between our Reformation and that of England, notwithstanding the flattering accounts which have been given of the orderly and temperate manner in which the latter was conducted under the superintending control of the supreme powers.[405]

But, even although the irregularities committed in the progress of that work had been greater than have been represented, I must still reprobate the spirit which disposes persons to dwell with unceasing lamentation upon losses, which, in the view of an enlightened and liberal mind, will sink and disappear in the magnitude of the incalculable good which rose from the wreck of the revolution. What! do we celebrate, with public rejoicings, victories over the enemies of our country, in the gaining of which the lives of thousands of our fellow‑creatures have been sacrificed? and shall solemn masses and sad dirges, accompanied with direful execrations, be everlastingly sung, for the mangled members of statues, torn pictures, {275} and ruined towers? Shall those who, by a display of the horrors of war, would persuade their countrymen to repent of a contest which had been distinguished with uncommon feats of valour, and crowned with the most brilliant success, be accused of a desire to tarnish the national glory? Shall the topics on which they insist, however forcible in themselves――the effusion of human blood, the sacking of cities, the devastation of fertile provinces, the ruin of arts and manufactures, and the intolerable burdens entailed even upon the victors themselves――be represented as mere commonplace topics, employed as a cover to disloyalty? And do not those who, at the distance of nearly three centuries, continue to wail evils of a far inferior kind which attended the Reformation, justly expose themselves to the suspicion of indifference and disaffection to a cause, in comparison with which all contests between rival kingdoms and sovereigns dwindle into insignificance? I will go farther, and say, that I look upon the destruction of these monuments as a piece of good policy, which contributed materially to the overthrow of the Roman catholic religion, and the prevention of its re‑establishment. It was chiefly by the magnificence of its temples, and the splendid apparatus of its worship, that the popish church fascinated the senses and imaginations of the people. A more successful method of attacking it, therefore, could not be adopted than the demolition of what contributed so much to uphold and extend its influence. There is more wisdom than many seem to perceive in the maxim which {276} Knox is said to have inculcated, “that the best way to keep the rooks from returning, was to pull down their nests.” In demolishing, or rendering uninhabitable, all those buildings which had served for the maintenance of the ancient superstition, (except what were requisite for the protestant worship,) the reformers only acted upon the principles of a prudent general, who dismantles or razes the fortifications which he is unable to keep, and which might afterwards be seized and employed against him by the enemy. Had they been allowed to remain in their former splendour, the popish clergy would not have ceased to indulge hopes, and to make efforts to be restored to them; occasions would have been taken to tamper with the credulous, and to inflame the minds of the superstitious; and the reformers might soon have found reason to repent their ill‑judged forbearance.[406]

* * * * *

Our Reformer was along with the forces of the Congregation when they faced the army of the regent in {277} Cupar‑moor;[407] he accompanied them on their expedition to Perth.[408] and in the end of June arrived with them at Edinburgh.[409] On the same day he preached in St Giles’s, and next day in the Abbey church. On the 7th of July, the inhabitants of the metropolis met in the Tolbooth, and made choice of him as their minister. With this choice, which was approved of by his brethren, he judged it his duty to comply, and immediately began his labours in the city.[410]

On their arrival at Edinburgh, the lords of the Congregation had sent deputies to Dunbar, to assure the queen that they had no intention of throwing off their allegiance, and to induce her to yield to reasonable terms of accommodation. As a preliminary, she agreed to release their ministers from the sentence of outlawry, and allow them to preach to those who chose to hear them.[411] Meanwhile, she was busily employed in endeavours to disunite her opponents. Having spun out the negotiations which they had opened with her, until she understood that the greater part of their forces had left them, she advanced suddenly with her army to Edinburgh. The protestants took up a position on the east side of Craigingate,[412] and resolved to defend the capital, though against superior forces;[413] but Leith having opened its gates {278} to her, and lord Erskine, who commanded the castle, threatening to fire upon them, they were forced to conclude a treaty, by which they agreed to leave Edinburgh. They stipulated, however, that the inhabitants should be left at liberty to use that form of worship which was most acceptable to them.[414] Knox would have remained with his congregation after the regent took possession of the city; but the nobles, knowing the value of his services, and the danger to which his life would be exposed, insisted on his accompanying them.[415] Willock, who was less obnoxious to the hatred of the court and clergy, was therefore substituted in his place; and the prudence and firmness which this preacher displayed in that difficult situation proved that he was not unworthy of the choice which had fallen on him. The regent was extremely anxious to have the Roman catholic service re‑established in the church of St Giles, and employed the earl of Huntly to persuade the citizens to declare in favour of the measure; but neither the authority of the queen, nor the entreaties which Huntly employed, both in private and at a public meeting called with that view, could prevail with them to swerve from their profession of the reformed religion, or to relinquish the right which was secured to them by the late treaty.[416] Although the French {279} soldiers who had come to the regent’s assistance kept the city in alarm, and disturbed the protestant service,[417] Willock maintained his place; and in the month of August he administered the sacrament of the supper after the reformed manner in St Giles’s church.[418] The celebration of the popish worship was confined to the royal chapel and the church of Holyroodhouse, during the time that the capital was in the possession of the royal forces.[419]

In the month of August, a singular phenomenon was seen in the Abbey church. The archbishop of St Andrews appeared in the pulpit, and preached. If his grace did not acquit himself with great ability on the occasion, he at least behaved with becoming modesty. After discoursing for a short time, he requested the audience to excuse the defects of his sermon, as he had not been accustomed to the employment, and told them that he had provided a very skilful preacher to succeed him; upon which he concluded, and gave way to friar Black.[420]

On retiring from Edinburgh, Knox undertook a tour of preaching through the kingdom. The wide field which was before him, the interesting situation in which he was placed, the dangers by which he was surrounded, and the hopes which he cherished, increased the ardour of his zeal, and stimulated him to extraordinary exertions both of body and mind. Within less than two months, he travelled over a great {280} part of Scotland. He visited Kelso, and Jedburgh, and Dumfries, and Ayr, and Stirling, and Perth, and Brechin, and Montrose, and Dundee, and returned to St Andrews. This itinerancy had great influence in diffusing the knowledge of the truth, and in strengthening the protestant interest. The attention of the nation was aroused; their eyes were opened to the errors by which they had been deluded; and they panted for a continued and more copious supply of the word of life, which they had once been permitted to taste, and had felt so refreshing to their souls.[421] I cannot better describe the emotions which this success excited in Knox’s breast, than by quoting from the familiar letters which he wrote at intervals snatched from his constant employment.

“Thus far hath God advanced the glory of his dear Son among us,” says he, in a letter written from St Andrews, on the 23d of June. “O! that my heart could be thankful for the superexcellent benefit of my God. The long thirst of my wretched heart is satisfied in abundance that is above my expectation; for now forty days and more hath my God used my tongue, in my native country, to the manifestation of his glory. Whatsoever now shall follow as touching my own carcass, his holy name be praised. The thirst of the poor people, as well as of the nobility, here, is wondrous great; which putteth me in comfort, that Christ Jesus shall triumph here in the north and {281} extreme parts of the earth for a space.” In another letter, dated the 2d of September, he says: “Time to me is so precious, that with great difficulty can I steal one hour in eight days, either to satisfy myself, or to gratify my friends. I have been in continual travel since the day of appointment;[422] and, notwithstanding the fevers have vexed me, yet have I travelled through the most part of this realm, where (all praise to His blessed Majesty!) men of all sorts and conditions embrace the truth. Enemies we have many, by reason of the Frenchmen who lately arrived, of whom our papists hope golden hills. As we be not able to resist, we do nothing but go about Jericho, blowing with trumpets, as God giveth strength, hoping victory by his power alone.”[423]

Soon after his arrival in Scotland, he wrote for his wife and family, whom he had left behind him at Geneva. On the 13th of June, Mrs Knox and her mother were at Paris, and applied to Sir Nicholas Throkmorton, the English ambassador, for a safe conduct to pass into England. Throkmorton, who by this time had penetrated the counsels of the French court, not only granted this request, but wrote a letter to Elizabeth, in which he urged the propriety of overlooking the offence which Knox had given by his publication against female government, and of {282} conciliating him by the kind treatment of his wife; seeing he was in great credit with the lords of the Congregation, had been the principal instrument in producing the late change in Scotland, and was capable of doing essential service to her majesty.[424] Accordingly, Mrs Knox came into England, and, being conveyed to the borders by the directions of the court, reached her husband in safety, on the 20th of September.[425] Mrs Bowes, after remaining a short time in her native country, followed her daughter into Scotland, where she remained until her death.[426]

The arrival of his family was the more gratifying to our Reformer, that they were accompanied by Christopher Goodman, his late colleague at Geneva. He had repeatedly written, in the most pressing manner, {283} for him to come to his assistance, and expressed much uneasiness at the delay of his arrival.[427] Goodman became minister of Ayr, and was afterwards translated to St Andrews. The settlement of protestant ministers began to take place at an earlier period than is mentioned in our common histories. Previous to September, 1559, eight towns were provided with pastors; and other places remained unprovided owing to the scarcity of preachers.[428]

In the mean time, it became daily more apparent that the lords of the Congregation would be unable, without foreign aid, to maintain the struggle in which they were involved. Had the contest been merely between them and the domestic party of the regent, they would soon have brought it to a successful termination; but they could not withstand the veteran troops which France had already sent to her assistance, and was preparing to send in still more formidable numbers.[429] As far back as the middle of {284} June, our Reformer had renewed his exertions for obtaining assistance from England, and persuaded William Kircaldy of Grange, first to write, and afterwards to pay a visit, to Sir Henry Percy, who held a public situation on the English marches. Percy immediately transmitted his representations to London, and an answer was returned from Secretary Cecil, encouraging the correspondence.[430]

Knox himself wrote to Cecil, requesting permission to visit England,[431] and inclosed a letter to queen Elizabeth, in which he attempted to apologize for his rude attack upon female government. When a man has been “overtaken in a fault,” it is his glory to confess it; but those who have been so unfortunate as to incur the resentment of princes, must, if they expect to appease them, condescend to very ample and humiliating apologies. Luther involved himself more than once by attempting this task, and, had not the lustre of his talents protected him, his reputation must have suffered materially from his ill success. He was prevailed on to write submissive apologies to Leo X. and Henry VIII. for the freedom with which he had treated them in his writings; but, in both instances, his apologies were rejected with contempt, {285} and he found himself under the necessity of retracting his retractations.[432] Knox was in no danger of committing himself in this way. He was less violent in his temper than the German reformer, but he was also less flexible and accommodating. There was nothing at which he was more awkward than apologies, condescensions, and civilities; and on the present occasion he was placed in a very embarrassing predicament, as his judgment would not permit him to retract the sentiment which had given offence to the English queen. In his letter to Elizabeth, he expresses deep distress at having incurred her displeasure, and warm attachment to her government; but the grounds on which he advises her to found her title to the crown, and indeed the whole strain in which the letter is written, are such as must have aggravated, instead of extenuating, his offence in the opinion of that high‑minded princess.[433] But, although his apology had been more ample and humble than it was, it is not probable that he would have succeeded better with {286} Elizabeth than Luther did with her father. Christopher Goodman, after his return to England, was obliged, at two several periods, to subscribe a recantation of the opinion which he had given against the lawfulness of female government, nor could all his condescensions procure for him the favour of his sovereign.[434] In fact, Elizabeth was all along extremely tender on the subject of her right to the throne; she never failed to resent every attack that was made upon this, from whatever quarter it came; and, although several historians have amused their readers with accounts of her ambition to be thought more beautiful and accomplished than the queen of Scots,[435] I am persuaded that she was always more jealous of Mary as a competitor for the crown, than as a rival in personal charms.

It does not, however, appear, that Elizabeth ever saw Knox’s letter, and I have little doubt that it was suppressed by the sagacious secretary.[436] Cecil was himself friendly to the measure of assisting the Scottish {287} Congregation, and exerted all his influence to bring over the queen and her council to his opinion. Accordingly, Knox received a message, desiring him to meet Sir Henry Percy at Alnwick, on the 2d of August, upon business which required the utmost secrecy and dispatch; and Cecil himself came down to Stamford to hold an interview with him.[437] The confusion produced by the advance of the regent’s army upon Edinburgh, retarded his journey; but no sooner was this settled, than Knox sailed from Pittenweem to Holy Island. Finding that Percy was recalled from the borders, he applied to Sir James Croft, the governor of Berwick. Croft, who was not unapprized of the design on which he came, dissuaded him from proceeding farther into England, and undertook to despatch his communications to London, and to procure a speedy return. Alexander Whitlaw of Greenrig, who had been banished from Scotland, having come to London on his way from France, was intrusted by the English court with their answer to the letters of the Congregation. Arriving at Berwick, he delivered the despatches to Knox, who hastened with them to Stirling, where a meeting of the protestant lords was to be held. He prudently returned by sea to Fife; for the queen regent had come to the knowledge of his journey to England, and Whitlaw, in travelling through East Lothian, being mistaken for Knox, was hotly pursued, and made his escape with great difficulty.[438] The irresolution or {288} the caution of Elizabeth’s cabinet had led them to express themselves in such general and unsatisfactory terms, that the lords of the Congregation, when the letters were laid before them, were both disappointed and displeased; and it was with some difficulty that our Reformer obtained permission from them to write again to London in his own name. The representation which he gave of the urgency of the case, and the danger of further hesitation or delay, produced a speedy reply, desiring them to send a confidential messenger to Berwick, who would receive a sum of money to assist them in prosecuting the war. About the same time, Sir Ralph Sadler was sent down to Berwick, to act as an accredited but secret agent, and the correspondence between the court of London and the lords of the Congregation continued afterwards to be carried on through him and Sir James Croft, until the English auxiliary army entered Scotland.[439]

If we reflect upon the connexion which the religious and civil liberties of the nation had with the contest in which the protestants were engaged, and upon our Reformer’s zeal in that cause, we shall not be greatly surprised to find him at this time acting in the character of a politician. Extraordinary cases cannot be measured by ordinary rules. In a great {289} emergency, when all that is valuable and dear to a people is at stake, it becomes the duty of every individual to step forward, and exert all his talents for the public good. Learning was at this time rare among the nobility; and though there were men of distinguished abilities among the protestant leaders, few of them had been accustomed to transact public business. Accordingly, the management of the correspondence with England was for a time devolved chiefly on Knox and Balnaves. But our Reformer submitted to the task merely from a sense of duty and regard to the common cause; and when the younger Maitland acceded to their party, he expressed the greatest satisfaction at the prospect of being relieved from the burden.[440]

It was not without reason that he longed for this deliverance. He now felt that it was as difficult to preserve integrity and Christian simplicity amidst the crooked wiles of political intrigue, as he had formerly found it to pursue truth through the perplexing mazes of scholastic sophistry. In performing a task foreign to his habits, and repugnant to his disposition, he met with a good deal of vexation, and several unpleasant rubs. These were owing partly to his own impetuosity, and partly to the grudge entertained against him by Elizabeth, but chiefly to the particular line of policy which the English cabinet had resolved to pursue. They were convinced of the danger of allowing the Scottish protestants to be suppressed; {290} but they wished to confine themselves to pecuniary aid, believing that by such assistance the lords of the Congregation would be able to expel the French, and bring the contest to a successful issue, while, by the secresy with which it could be conveyed, an open breach between France and England would be prevented. This plan, which originated in the personal disinclination of Elizabeth to the Scottish war,[441] rather than in the judgment of her wisest counsellors, protracted the contest, and gave occasion to some angry disputes between the English agents and those of the Congregation. The former were continually urging the associated lords to attack the forces of the regent, before she received fresh succours from France, and blaming their slow operations; they complained of the want of secresy in the correspondence with England; and even insinuated that the money, intended for the common cause, was partially applied to private purposes. The latter were irritated by this insinuation, and urged the necessity of military as well as pecuniary assistance.[442]

{291} In a letter to Sir James Croft, Knox represented the great importance of their being speedily assisted with troops, without which they would be in much hazard of miscarrying in an attack upon the fortifications of Leith. The court of England, he said, ought not to hesitate at offending France, of whose hostile intentions against them they had the most satisfactory evidence. But “if ye list to craft with thame,” continued he, “the sending of a thousand or mo men to us can breake no league nor point of peace contracted betwixt you and France: for it is free for your subjects to serve in warr anie prince or nation for their wages; and if ye fear that such excuses will not prevail, ye may declare thame rebelles to your realme when ye shall be assured that thei be in our companye.” No doubt such things have been often done; and such “political casuistry” (as Keith not improperly styles it) is not unknown at courts. But it must be confessed, that the measure recommended by Knox (the morality of which must stand on the same grounds with the assistance which the English were at that time affording) was too glaring to be concealed by the excuses which he suggested. Croft laid hold of this opportunity to check the impetuosity of his correspondent, and wrote him, that he wondered how he, “being a wise man,” would require from them such aid as they could not give “without breach of treaty, and dishonour;” and that “the world was not so blind but that it could soon espy” the “devices” by which he proposed “to colour their doings.” Knox, in his reply, apologized for his {292} “unreasonable request;” but, at the same time, reminded Croft of the common practice of courts in such matters, and the conduct of the French court towards the English in a recent instance.[443] He was not ignorant, he said, of the inconveniences which might attend an open declaration in their favour, but feared that they would have cause to “repent the drift of time, when the remedy would not be so easy.”[444]

This is the only instance in which I have found our Reformer recommending dissimulation, which was very foreign to the openness of his natural temper, and the blunt and rigid honesty that marked his general conduct. His own opinion was, that the English court ought from the first to have done what they found themselves obliged to do at last――avow their resolution to support the Congregation. Keith praises Croft’s “just reprimand on Mr Knox’s double fac’d proposition,” and Cecil says, that his “audacite was well tamed.” We must not, however, imagine, that these statesmen had any scruple of conscience, or nice feeling of honour on this point. For, on the {293} very day on which Croft reprimanded Knox, he wrote to Cecil that he thought the queen ought openly to take part with the Congregation. And in the same letter in which Cecil speaks of Knox’s audacity, he advises Croft to adopt in substance the very measure which our Reformer had recommended, by sending five or six officers, who should “steal from thence with appearance of displeasure for lack of interteynment;” and in a subsequent letter, he gives directions to send three or four, fit for being captains, who should give out that they left Berwick, “as men desyrous to be exercised in the warres, rather than to lye idely in that towne.”[445]

Notwithstanding the prejudice which existed in the English court against our Reformer,[446] on account of his “audacity” in attacking female prerogative, they were too well acquainted with his integrity and influence to decline his services. Cecil kept up a correspondence with him; and in the directions sent {294} from London for the management of the subsidy, it was expressly provided, that he should be one of the council for examining the receipts and payments, to see that it was applied to “the common action,” and not to any private use.[447]

In the mean time, his zeal and activity, in the cause of the Congregation, exposed him to the deadly resentment of the queen regent and the papists. A reward was publicly offered to any one who should apprehend or kill him; and not a few, actuated by hatred or avarice, lay in wait to seize his person. But this did not deter him from appearing in public, nor from travelling through the country in the discharge of his duty. His exertions at this period were incredibly great. By day he was employed in preaching, by night in writing letters on public business. He was the soul of the Congregation; was always found at the post of danger; and by his presence, his public discourses, and private advices, animated the whole body, and defeated the schemes employed to corrupt or disunite them.[448]

{295} The Congregation had lately received a considerable increase of strength by the accession of the former regent, the duke of Chastelherault. His eldest son, the earl of Arran, who commanded the Scots guard in France, had embraced the principles of the Reformation; understanding that the French court, which was entirely under the direction of the princes of Lorrain, intended to throw him into prison, he secretly retired to Geneva, from which he was conveyed to London by the assistance of Elizabeth’s ministers. In the month of August he came to his father at Hamilton. The representations of his son, joined with those of the English cabinet, and with his own jealousy of the designs of the queen regent, easily gained over the vacillating duke, who met with the lords of the Congregation, and subscribed their bond of confederation.[449]

Our Reformer was now called to take a share in a very delicate and important measure. When they first had recourse to arms in their own defence, the {296} lords of the Congregation had no intention of making any alteration in the government, or of assuming the exercise of the supreme authority.[450] Even after they had adopted a more regular and permanent system of resistance to the measures of the queen regent, they continued to recognise the station which she held, presented petitions to her, and listened respectfully to the proposals which she made for removing the grounds of variance. But finding that she was fully bent upon the execution of her plan for subverting the national liberties, and that her official situation gave her great advantages in carrying on this design, they began to deliberate upon the propriety of adopting a different line of conduct. Their sovereigns were minors, in a foreign country, and under the management of persons to whose influence the evils of which they complained were principally to be ascribed. The queen dowager held the regency by the authority of parliament; and might she not be deprived of it by the same authority? In the present state of the country, it was impossible for a free and regular parliament to meet; but the majority of the nation had declared their dissatisfaction with her administration; and was it not competent for them to provide for the public safety, which was exposed to such imminent danger? These were the questions which formed the topic of frequent conversation at this time.

After much deliberation, a numerous assembly, {297} consisting of nobles, barons, and representatives of boroughs, met at Edinburgh, on the 21st of October, 1559, to bring this important point to a solemn issue. To this assembly Knox and Willock were called; and the question being stated to them, they were required to deliver their opinions as to the lawfulness of the proposed measure. Willock, who then officiated as minister of Edinburgh, being first asked, declared it to be his judgment, founded on reason and scripture, that the power of rulers was limited; that they might be deprived of it upon valid grounds; and that the queen regent having, by fortifying Leith, and introducing foreign troops into the country, evinced a fixed determination to oppress and enslave the kingdom, might justly be divested of her authority, by the nobles and barons, as native counsellors of the realm, whose petitions and remonstrances she had repeatedly rejected. Knox assented to the opinion delivered by his brother, and added, that the assembly might, with safe consciences, act upon it, provided they attended to the three following things: First, that they did not suffer the misconduct of the queen regent to alienate their affections from due allegiance to their sovereigns, Francis and Mary; second, that they were not actuated in the measure by private hatred or envy of the queen dowager, but by regard to the safety of the commonwealth; and, third, that any sentence which they might at this time pronounce, should not preclude her re‑admission to office, if she afterwards discovered sorrow for her conduct, and a disposition to {298} submit to the advice of the estates of the nation. After this, the whole assembly, having severally delivered their opinions, did, by a solemn deed, suspend the queen dowager from her authority as regent of the kingdom, until the meeting of a free parliament;[451] and, at the same time, elected a council for the management of public affairs during this interval.[452] When the council had occasion to treat of matters connected with religion, four of the ministers were appointed to assist in their deliberations. These were Knox, Willock, Goodman, and Alexander Gordon, bishop of Galloway, who had embraced the Reformation.[453]

It has been alleged by some writers, that the question respecting the suspension of the queen regent was altogether incompetent for ministers of the gospel to determine, and that Knox and Willock, by the advice which they gave on this occasion, exposed themselves unnecessarily to odium.[454] But it is not easy to see how they could have been excused in refusing {299} to deliver their opinion, when required by those who had submitted to their ministry, upon a measure which involved a case of conscience, as well as a question of law and political right. The advice which was actually given and followed is a matter of greater consequence, than the quarter from which it came. As this rests upon principles very different from those which produced resistance to princes, and limitation on their authority, under feudal governments, and as our Reformer has been the object of much animadversion for inculcating these principles, I shall embrace the present opportunity to offer a few remarks on this interesting subject.

* * * * *

Among the various causes which affected the general state of society and government in Europe, during the middle ages, the influence of religion cannot be overlooked. Debased by ignorance, and fettered by superstition, the minds of men were prepared to acquiesce without examination in the claims of authority, and tamely to submit to every yoke. In whatever light we view popery, the genius of that singular system of religion will be found to be adverse to liberty. The court of Rome, while it aimed directly at the establishment of a spiritual despotism in the hands of ecclesiastics, contributed to rivet the chains of political servitude upon the people. In return for the support which princes yielded to its arrogant claims, it was content to invest them with an absolute authority over the bodies of their subjects. By the priestly unction, performed at the coronation of kings in the {300} name of the holy see, a sacred character was understood to be imparted, which raised them to a superiority over their nobility which they did not possess according to feudal ideas, rendered their persons inviolable, and their office divine. Although the sovereign pontiffs claimed, and on different occasions exercised, the power of dethroning kings, and of absolving subjects from their allegiance; yet any attempt of this kind, when it proceeded from the people themselves, was denounced as a crime deserving the severest punishment in this world, and damnation in the next. Hence sprung the doctrine of the divine right of kings to rule independently of their people, and of passive obedience and non‑resistance to their will; under the sanction of which they were encouraged to sport with the lives and happiness of their subjects, and to indulge in the most tyrannical and wanton acts of oppression, without the dread of resistance, or of being called to an account by any power on earth. Even in countries where the people were understood to enjoy certain political privileges, transmitted from remote ages, or wrested from their princes on some favourable occasions, these principles were generally prevalent; and, availing himself of them, it was easy for an ambitious and powerful monarch to violate the rights of the people with impunity, and upon a constitution, the forms of which were friendly to popular liberty, to establish an administration completely arbitrary and despotic.

The contest between papal sovereignty and the authority of general councils, which was carried on {301} during the fifteenth century, elicited some of the essential principles of liberty, which were afterwards applied to political government. The revival of learning, by unfolding the principles of legislation, and modes of government in the republics of ancient Greece and Rome, gradually led to more liberal notions on this subject. But these were confined to a few, and had no influence upon the general state of society. The spirit infused by philosophy and literature is too feeble and contracted to produce a radical reform of established abuses; and learned men, proud of their own superior illumination, and satisfied with the liberty of indulging their speculations, have generally been too indifferent or too timid to attempt the improvement of the multitude. It is to the religious spirit excited during the sixteenth century, which spread rapidly through Europe, and diffused itself among all classes of men, that we are chiefly indebted for the propagation of the genuine principles of rational liberty, and the consequent amelioration of government.

Civil and ecclesiastical tyranny were so closely combined, that it was impossible for men to emancipate themselves from the latter without throwing off the former; and from arguments which established their religious rights, the transition was easy, and almost unavoidable, to disquisitions about their civil privileges. In those kingdoms in which the rulers threw off the Roman yoke, and introduced the Reformation by their authority, the influence was more imperceptible and slow; and in some of them, as in {302} England, the power taken from the ecclesiastical was thrown into the regal scale, which proved so far prejudicial to popular liberty. But where the Reformation was embraced by the great body of a nation, while the ruling powers continued to oppose it, the effect was visible and immediate. The interested and obstinate support which rulers gave to the old system of error and ecclesiastical tyranny, and their cruel persecution of all who favoured the new opinions, drove their subjects to enquire into the just limits of authority and obedience. Their judgments once informed as to the rights to which they were entitled, and their consciences satisfied respecting the means which they might employ to acquire them, the immense importance of the immediate object in view, their emancipation from religious bondage, and the salvation of themselves and their posterity, impelled them to make the attempt with an enthusiasm and perseverance which the mere love of civil liberty could not have inspired.

In effecting that memorable revolution, which terminated in favour of religious and political liberty in so many nations of Europe, the public teachers of the protestant doctrine had a principal influence. By their instructions and exhortations, they roused the people to consider their rights and exert their power; they stimulated timid and wary politicians; they encouraged and animated princes, nobles, and confederated states, with their armies, against the most formidable opposition, and under the most overwhelming difficulties, until their exertions were ultimately {303} crowned with success. These facts are now admitted, and this honour has at last, through the force of truth, been conceded to the religious leaders of the protestant Reformation, by philosophical writers, who had too long branded them as ignorant and fanatical.[455]

Our Reformer had caught a large portion of the spirit of civil liberty. We have already adverted to the circumstance in his education which directed his attention, at an early period, to some of its principles.[456] His subsequent studies introduced him to an acquaintance with the maxims and modes of government in the free states of antiquity; and it is reasonable to suppose that his intercourse with the republics of Switzerland and Geneva had some influence on his political creed. Having formed his sentiments independently of the prejudices arising from established laws, long usage, and commonly received opinions, his zeal and intrepidity prompted him to avow and propagate them, when others, less sanguine and resolute, would have been restrained by fear, or by despair of success.[457] Extensive observation had convinced him of the glaring perversion of government in the European kingdoms; but his principles led him {304} to desire their reform, not their subversion. His admiration of the polity of republics, ancient or modern, was not so great or indiscriminate as to prevent him from separating the essential principles of equity and freedom which they contained, from others which were incompatible with monarchy. He was perfectly sensible of the necessity of regular government to the maintenance of justice and order, and aware of the danger of setting men loose from its salutary control. And he uniformly inculcated a conscientious obedience to the lawful commands of rulers, and respect to their persons as well as to their authority, even when they were chargeable with various mismanagements, so long as they did not break through all the restraints of law and justice, and cease to perform the great and fundamental duties of their office.

But he held that rulers, supreme as well as subordinate, were invested with authority for the public good; that obedience was not due to them in any thing contrary to the divine law, natural or revealed; that, in every free and well‑constituted government, the law of the land was superior to the will of the prince; that inferior magistrates and subjects might restrain the supreme magistrate from particular illegal acts, without throwing off their allegiance, or being guilty of rebellion; that no class of men have an original, inherent, and indefeasible right to rule over a people, independently of their will and consent; that every nation is entitled to provide and require that they shall be ruled by laws which are agreeable to the divine law, and calculated to promote their {305} welfare; that there is a mutual compact, tacit and implied, if not formal and explicit, between rulers and their subjects; and, if the former shall flagrantly violate this, employ that power for the destruction of the commonwealth which was committed to them for its preservation and benefit, or, in one word, if they shall become habitual tyrants and notorious oppressors, that the people are absolved from allegiance, and have a right to resist them, formally to depose them from their place, and to elect others in their room.

The real power of the Scottish kings was, indeed, always limited, and there are in our history, previous to the era of the Reformation, many instances of resistance to their authority. But, though these were pleaded as precedents on this occasion, it must be confessed that we cannot trace them to the principles of genuine liberty. They were the effects of sudden resentment on account of some extraordinary act of male‑administration, or of the ambition of some powerful baron, or of the jealousy with which the feudal aristocracy watched over the privileges of their own order. The people who followed the standards of their chiefs had little interest in the struggle, and derived no benefit from the limitations which were imposed upon the sovereign. But, at this time, more just and enlarged sentiments were diffused through the nation, and the idea of a commonwealth, including the mass of the people as well as the privileged orders, began to be entertained. Our Reformer, whose notions of hereditary right, whether in kings or {306} nobles, were not exalted, studied to repress the insolence and oppression of the nobility. He reminded them of the original equality of men, and the ends for which some were raised above others; and he taught the people that they had rights to preserve, as well as duties to perform. With respect to female government, he never moved any question among his countrymen, nor attempted to gain proselytes to his opinion.[458]

Such, in substance, were the political sentiments which were inculcated by our Reformer, and which were more than once acted upon in Scotland during his lifetime. That in an age when the principles of political liberty were only beginning to be understood, such sentiments should have been regarded with a suspicious eye by some of the learned who had not yet thrown off common prejudices, and that they should have exposed those who maintained them to a charge of treason from despotical rulers and their numerous satellites, is far from being matter of wonder. But it must excite both surprise and indignation, to find writers in the present enlightened age, and under the sunshine of British liberty, (if our sun is not fast going down,) expressing their abhorrence of these principles, and exhausting upon their authors all the invective and virulence of the former anti‑monarcho‑machi, and advocates of passive obedience. They are essentially the principles upon which the {307} free constitution of Britain rests; and the most obnoxious of them were reduced to practice at the memorable era of the Revolution, when the necessity of employing them was not more urgent or unquestionable, than it was at the suspension of the queen regent of Scotland, and the subsequent deposition of her daughter.

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

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