Chapter IX: Part 9

These objections are more specious than solid. The directions and precepts on this subject, which are contained in the New Testament, must not be stretched beyond their evident scope and proper import. They do not give greater power to magistrates than they formerly possessed, nor do they supersede any of the rights or privileges to which subjects were {309} entitled, by the common law of nature, or by the particular statutes of any country. The New Testament does not give directions to communities respecting the original formation or subsequent improvement of their civil constitutions, nor prescribe the course which ought to be pursued in certain extraordinary cases, when rulers abuse the power with which they are invested, and convert their legitimate authority into an engine of despotism and oppression.[459] It supposes magistrates to be acting within the proper line of their office, and discharging its duties to the advantage of the society over which they are placed. And it teaches Christians, that the liberty which Christ purchased, and to the enjoyment of which they are called by the gospel, does not exempt them from subjection and obedience to civil authority, which is a divine ordinance for the good of mankind; that they are bound to obey existing rulers, although they should be of a different religion from themselves; and that Christianity, so far from setting them free {310} from obligations to this or any other relative duty, strengthens these obligations, and requires them to discharge their duties for conscience‑sake, with fidelity, cheerfulness, patience, long‑suffering, and singleness of heart. Viewed in this light, nothing can be more reasonable in its own nature, or more honourable to the gospel, than the directions which it gives on this subject; and we must perceive a peculiar propriety in the frequency and earnestness with which they are urged, when we consider the danger in which the primitive christians were of supposing, that they were liberated from the ordinary restraints of the rest of mankind. But if we shall go beyond this, and assert that the scriptures have prohibited resistance to rulers in every case, and that the great body of a nation consisting of christians, in attempting to curb the fury of their rulers, or to deprive them of the power which they have grossly abused, are guilty of that crime against which the apostle denounces damnation, we represent the beneficent religion of Jesus as sanctioning despotism, and entailing all the evils of political bondage upon mankind; and we tread in the steps of those enemies to christianity, who, under the colour of paying a compliment to its pacific, submissive, tolerant, and self‑denying maxims, have represented it as calculated to produce a passive, servile spirit, and to extinguish courage, patriotism, the love of civil liberty, the desire of self‑preservation, and every kind of disposition to repel injuries, or to obtain the redress of the most intolerable grievances.

{311} The example of the primitive christians is not binding upon others any farther than it is conformable to the scriptures; and the circumstances in which they were placed were totally different from those of the protestants in Scotland, and in other countries, at the time of the Reformation. The fathers often indulge in oratorical exaggerations when speaking of the numbers of the christians; nor is there any satisfactory evidence that they ever approached near to a majority of the Roman empire, during the time that they were exposed to persecution.

“If thou mayst be made free, use it rather,” says the Apostle; a maxim which is applicable, by just analogy, to political as well as domestic freedom. The christian religion natively tends to cherish and diffuse a spirit favourable to civil liberty, and this, in its turn, has the most happy influence upon christianity, which never flourished extensively, and for a long period, in any country where despotism prevailed. It must therefore be the duty of every christian to exert himself for the acquisition and defence of this invaluable blessing. Christianity ought not to be propagated by force of arms; but the external liberty of professing it may be vindicated in that way both against foreign invaders and against domestic tyrants. If the free exercise of their religion, or their right to remove religious abuses, enter into the grounds of the struggle which a nation maintains against oppressive rulers, the cause becomes of vastly more importance, its justice is more unquestionable, and it is still more worthy, {312} not only of their prayers and petitions, but of their blood and treasure, than if it had been maintained solely for the purpose of securing their fortunes, or of acquiring some mere worldly privilege. And to those whose minds are not warped by prejudice, and who do not labour under a confusion of ideas on the subject, it must surely appear paradoxical to assert, that, while God has granted to subjects a right to take the sword of just defence for securing objects of a temporary and inferior nature, he has prohibited them from using this remedy, and left them at the mercy of every lawless despot, with respect to a concern the most important of all, whether it be viewed as relating to his own honour, or to the welfare of mankind.

* * * * *

Those who judge of the propriety of any measure from the success with which it is accompanied, will be disposed to condemn the suspension of the queen regent. Soon after this step was taken, the affairs of the Congregation began to wear a gloomy aspect. The messenger whom they sent to Berwick to receive a remittance from the English court, was intercepted on his return, and rifled of the treasure; their soldiers mutinied for want of pay; they were repulsed in a premature assault upon the fortifications of Leith, and worsted in a skirmish with the French troops; the secret emissaries of the regent were too successful among them; their numbers daily decreased; and the remainder, disunited, dispirited and dismayed, came to the resolution of abandoning Edinburgh on {313} the evening of the 5th of November, and retreated with precipitation and disgrace to Stirling.

Amidst the universal dejection produced by these disasters, the spirit of Knox remained unsubdued. On the day after their arrival at Stirling, he mounted the pulpit, and delivered a discourse, which had a wonderful effect in rekindling the zeal and courage of the Congregation. Their faces (he said) were confounded, their enemies triumphed, their hearts had quaked for fear, and still remained oppressed with sorrow and shame. Why had God thus dejected them? The situation of their affairs required plain language, and he would use it. In the present distressed state of their minds, they were in danger of attributing these misfortunes to a wrong cause, and of imagining that they had offended in taking the sword of self‑defence into their hands; just as the tribes of Israel did, when twice discomfited in the war which they undertook, by divine direction, against their brethren the Benjamites. Having divided the Congregation into two classes, those who had been embarked in this cause from the beginning, and those who had lately acceded to it, he proceeded to point out what he considered as blameable in the conduct of each. The former (he said) had laid aside that humility and dependence upon divine providence which they had discovered when their number was small; and, since they were joined by the Hamiltons, had become elated, secure, and self‑confident. “But wherein had my lord duke and his friends offended? I am uncertain if my lord’s grace has unfeignedly {314} repented of his assistance to these murderers, unjustly pursuing us. Yea, I am uncertain if he has repented of that innocent blood of Christ’s blessed martyrs, which was shed in his default. But let it be that so he has done (as I hear that he has confessed his fault before the lords and brethren of the Congregation); yet I am assured that neither he, nor yet his friends, did feel before this time the anguish and grief of heart which we felt, when in their blind fury they pursued us. And therefore God hath justly permitted both them and us to fall in this fearful confusion at once,――us, for that we put our trust and confidence in man, and them, because they should feel in their own hearts how bitter was the cup which they made others drink before them.” After exhorting all to amendment of life, to prayers, and works of charity, he concluded with an animating address. “God,” he said, “often suffered the wicked to triumph for a while, and exposed his chosen congregation to mockery, dangers, and apparent destruction, in order to abase their self‑confidence, and induce them to look to himself for deliverance and victory. If they turned unfeignedly to the Eternal, he no more doubted that their present distress would be converted into joy, and followed by success, than he doubted that Israel was finally victorious over the Benjamites, after being twice repulsed with ignominy. The cause in which they were engaged would prevail in Scotland, in spite of all opposition. It was the eternal truth of the eternal God which they maintained; {315} it might be oppressed for a time, but would ultimately triumph.”[460]

The audience, who had entered the church in deep despondency, left it with renovated courage. In the afternoon the council met, and, after prayer by the Reformer, unanimously agreed to despatch William Maitland of Lethington to London, to supplicate more effectual assistance from Elizabeth. In the mean time, as they were unable to keep the field, it was agreed that they should divide, and that the one half of the council should remain at Glasgow, and the other at St Andrews. Knox was appointed to attend the latter in the double capacity of preacher and secretary. The French having, in the beginning of the year 1560, penetrated into Fife, he encouraged that small band, which, under the earl of Arran, and the prior of St Andrews, bravely resisted their progress, until the appearance of the English fleet compelled the enemy to retreat with precipitation.[461]

The disaster which obliged the protestant army to raise the siege of Leith, and to evacuate Edinburgh, turned out eventually to the advantage of their cause. It induced the English court to abandon the line of cautious policy which they had hitherto pursued. Maitland’s embassy to London was successful; and, on the 27th of February, 1560, Elizabeth concluded a formal treaty with the lords of the Congregation, {316} by which she engaged to send an army into Scotland, to assist them in expelling the French forces. Being informed of this treaty, the queen regent resolved to disperse the troops which were collected at Glasgow under the duke of Chastelherault, before the English army could arrive. On the 7th of March, the French, amounting to two thousand foot, and three hundred horse, issued from Leith, and, proceeding by Linlithgow and Kirkintilloch, suddenly appeared before Glasgow. Having reduced the episcopal castle, they were preparing to advance to Hamilton, when they received a message from the queen regent, informing them that the English army had begun its march into Scotland; upon which they relinquished their design, and returned to Leith, carrying along with them a number of prisoners and a considerable booty.[462] In the beginning of April, the English army joined the forces of the Congregation. The French shut themselves up within the fortifications of Leith, which was invested both by sea and land; and the queen regent, who had for some time been in a declining state of health, was received by lord Erskine into the castle of Edinburgh, where she died during the siege of Leith.

These proceedings were viewed with deep interest {317} by the court of France. Henry II., having died in July 1559, was succeeded by Francis II., the husband of the young queen of Scots; in consequence of which, the administration of affairs fell entirely into the hands of the duke of Guise and the cardinal of Lorrain. They employed every art of political intrigue to prevent the queen of England from giving assistance to the Scottish Congregation, and to prevail on her to desert them, after she had undertaken their protection. Nor were they altogether unsuccessful in their attempts. Elizabeth, partly from extreme caution and parsimony, and partly from the influence of some of her counsellors, was induced to listen to their plausible proposals; she delayed the march of her army into Scotland, and after the siege of Leith was commenced, suspended the military operations, and engaged in premature negotiations for peace. This last step justly alarmed the Congregation; and while they neglected no means to persuade the English court to perform the stipulations of the late treaty, they prepared for the worst, by renewing their covenant among themselves.

Elizabeth at last listened to the advice of her ablest ministers, and resolved to prosecute the war with vigour. No sooner did she evince this determination than the French court yielded to all her demands. The armament which they had lately fitted out at great expense for Scotland had been dispersed by a storm; the frith of Forth was blocked up by an English fleet; and a confederacy had been formed among a number of the nobility in France, to remove {318} the princes of Lorrain from the administration of public affairs, and to free the protestants in that kingdom from the severe persecutions to which they had hitherto been exposed.[463] Influenced by these circumstances, the French cabinet sent plenipotentiaries to Edinburgh, who concluded a treaty with England, by which the Scottish differences were also adjusted. By this treaty it was provided, that the French troops should immediately be removed from Scotland; that an amnesty should be granted to all who had been engaged in the late resistance to the queen regent; that the principal grievances of which they complained in the civil administration should be redressed; that a free parliament should be held to settle the other affairs of the kingdom; and that, during the absence of their sovereigns, the government should be administered by a council to be chosen partly by Francis and Mary, and partly by the estates of the nation. The treaty was signed on the 7th of July; on the 16th, the French army embarked at Leith, and the English troops began their march into their own country; and on the 19th, the Congregation assembled in St Giles’s church, to return solemn thanks to God for the restoration of peace, and the success which had crowned their exertions.[464] In this {319} manner terminated the civil war which attended the Scottish Reformation, after it had continued for twelve months, with less rancour and bloodshed than have distinguished any other contest of a similar kind.

During the continuance of the war, the protestant preachers had been assiduous in disseminating knowledge through all parts of the kingdom, and their success was equal to their diligence. They had received a considerable accession to their number from the ranks of their opponents. While we venerate those men who enlisted under the banners of truth when her friends were few, and who boldly took the field in her defence when the victory was yet dubious and distant, and while we cheerfully award to them the highest meed of honour,――let us not load with heavy censure, or even deprive of all praise, such as, less enlightened, or less courageous, were tardy in appearing for the cause. He who “knew what is in man,” has taught us not to reject such disciples, in the dawn of light, and in perilous times. Nicodemus, who at first “came to Jesus by night,” and Joseph of Arimathea, who was his disciple, “but secretly for fear of the Jews,” afterwards avouched their faith in him, and obtained the honour of embalming and interring his body, when all his early followers had forsaken him and fled. Several of the Scottish clergy, who were favourable to the protestant doctrine, had contrived to retain their places in the church, by concealing their sentiments, or by securing the favour of some powerful patron. Of this class were John Winram, sub-prior of the abbey of St Andrews, Adam {320} Herriot, a friar of that abbey, John Spottiswood, parson of Calder, and John Carsewell, rector of Kilmartine. In the gradual diffusion of knowledge through the nation, the minds of many who were attending the schools had been also enlightened; among whom were David Lindsay, Andrew Hay, Robert Montgomery, Patrick Adamson, and Robert and Archibald Hamilton. During the year 1559, these men came forward as auxiliaries to the first protestant preachers; and so successful were they in instructing the people, that the French would have found it extremely difficult to support the ancient superstition, though they had proved victorious in the military contest.

On the other hand, the exertions of the popish clergy had been feeble in the extreme. Too corrupt to think of reforming their manners, too illiterate to be capable of defending their errors, they placed their forlorn hope on the success of the French arms, and looked forward to the issue of the war as involving the establishment or the ruin of their religion. The bishop of Amiens, who came to Scotland in the double capacity of ambassador from the French court and papal legate, was accompanied by three doctors of the Sorbonne, who gave out that they would confound the reformed ministers, and bring back the people whom they had misled to the bosom of the church, by the force of argument and persuasion. Lesley boasts of the success which attended their exertions; but there is good reason for thinking, that these foreign divines confined themselves to the easier {321} task of instructing the Scottish clergy to perform the religious service with greater solemnity, and to purify the churches, in a canonical manner, from the pollution which they had contracted by the profane worship of heretics.[465] One effort, however, was made by the popish clergy to support their sinking cause, which, if it had succeeded, would have done more to retrieve their reputation than all the arguments of the Sorbonists; and, as this was the last attempt of the kind that ever was made in Scotland, the reader may be gratified with the following account of it.

In the neighbourhood of Musselburgh was a chapel dedicated to our Lady of Loretto, the sanctity of which was increased from its having been the favourite abode of the celebrated Thomas the Hermit. To this sacred place the inhabitants of Scotland, from time immemorial, had repaired in pilgrimage, to present their offerings to the Virgin, and to experience the efficacy of her prayers, and the healing virtue of the wonder‑working “Hermit of Lareit.”[466] In the course of the year 1559, public notice was given by the friars, that they intended to put the truth of their religion to the proof, by performing a miracle at this chapel upon a young man who had been born blind. On the day {322} appointed, a vast concourse of spectators assembled from all parts of Lothian. The young man, accompanied with a solemn procession of monks, was conducted to a scaffold, erected on the outside of the chapel, and was exhibited to the multitude. Many of them knew him to be the blind man whom they had often seen begging, and whose necessities they had relieved; all looked on him, and pronounced him stone blind. The friars then proceeded to their devotions with great fervency, invoking the assistance of the Virgin, at whose shrine they stood, and that of all the saints whom they honoured; and after some time spent in prayers and religious ceremonies, the blind man opened his eyes, to the astonishment of the spectators. Having returned thanks to the friars and their saintly patrons for this wonderful cure, he was allowed to go down from the scaffold to gratify the curiosity of the people, and to receive their alms.

It happened that there was among the crowd a gentleman of Fife, Robert Colville of Cleish,[467] who, from his romantic bravery, was usually called Squire Meldrum, in allusion to a person of that name who had been celebrated by Sir David Lindsay. He was of protestant principles, but his wife was a Roman catholic, and, being pregnant at this time, had sent a servant with a present to the chapel of Loretto, to procure the assistance of the Virgin in her labour. The squire was too gallant to hurt his lady’s feelings {323} by prohibiting the present from being sent off, but he resolved to prevent the superstitious offering, and with that view had come to Musselburgh. He witnessed the miracle of curing the blind man with the distrust natural to a protestant, and determined, if possible, to detect the imposition before he left the place. Wherefore, having sought out the young man from the crowd, he put a piece of money into his hand, and persuaded him to accompany him to his lodgings in Edinburgh. Taking him into a private room, and locking the door, he told him plainly that he was convinced he had engaged in a wicked conspiracy with the friars to impose on the credulity of the people, and at last drew from him the secret of the story. When a boy, he had been employed to tend the cattle belonging to the nuns of Sciennes, in the vicinity of Edinburgh, and had attracted their attention by a peculiar faculty which he had of turning up the white of his eyes, and of keeping them in this position, so as to appear quite blind. Certain friars in the city, having come to the knowledge of this fact, conceived the design of making it subservient to their purposes; and, having prevailed on the sisters of Sciennes to part with the poor boy, lodged him in one of their cells. By daily practice he became an adept in the art of counterfeiting blindness; and after he had remained so long in concealment as not to be recognised by his former acquaintance, he was sent forth to beg as a blind pauper; the friars having previously bound him, by a solemn vow, not to reveal the secret. To confirm his narrative, he {324} “played his pavie” before the squire, by “flypping up the lid of his eyes, and casting up the white,” so as to appear as blind as he did on the scaffold at Loretto. The gentleman laid before him the iniquity of his conduct, and told him that he must next day repeat the whole story publicly at the cross of Edinburgh; and, as this would expose him to the vengeance of the friars, he engaged to become his protector, and to retain him as a servant in his house. The young man complied with his directions, and Cleish, with his drawn sword in his hand, having stood by him till he had finished his confession, placed him on the same horse with himself, and carried him off to Fife. The detection of this imposture was quickly published through the country, and covered the friars with confusion. My author does not say whether it cured Lady Cleish of her superstition, but I shall afterwards have occasion to notice its influence in opening the eyes of one who became a distinguished promoter of the Reformation.[468]

The treaty which put an end to the civil war in Scotland, made no particular settlement respecting the religious differences,[469] but it was, on that very {325} account, the more fatal to popery. The protestants were left in the possession of authority; and they were now by far the most powerful party in the nation, both as to rank and numbers. With the exception of those places which had been occupied by the queen regent and her foreign auxiliaries, the Roman catholic worship was almost universally deserted throughout the kingdom, and no provision was made in the treaty for its restoration. The firm hold which it once had on the opinions and affections of the people was completely loosened; it was supported by force alone; and the moment that the French troops embarked, that fabric which had stood for ages in Scotland fell to the ground. Its feeble and dismayed priests ceased of their own accord from the celebration of its rites; and the reformed service was peaceably set up, wherever ministers could be found to perform it. The parliament, when it entered upon the consideration of the state of religion, as one of the points, undecided by the commissioners, which had been left to them,[470] had little else to do but to sanction what the nation had previously done, by {326} legally abolishing the popish, and establishing the protestant religion.

When the circumstances in which they were assembled, and the affairs on which they were called to deliberate, are taken into consideration, this must be regarded as the most important meeting of the estates of the kingdom that had ever been held in Scotland. It engrossed the attention of the nation, and the eyes of Europe were fixed on its proceedings. The parliament met on the 10th of July, but, agreeably to the terms of the treaty, it was prorogued, without entering on business, until the first day of August. Although a great concourse of people resorted to Edinburgh on that occasion, yet no tumult or disturbance of the public peace occurred. Many of the lords spiritual and temporal, who were attached to popery, absented themselves; but the chief patrons of the old religion, as the archbishop of St Andrews, and the bishops of Dumblane and Dunkeld, countenanced the assembly by their presence, and were allowed to act with freedom as lords of parliament. There is one fact in its constitution and proceedings which strikingly illustrates the influence of the Reformation upon political liberty. In the reign of James I. the lesser barons had been exempted from personal attendance on parliament, and permitted to elect representatives in their different shires. But a privilege which in modern times is so eagerly coveted, was then so little prized, that, except in a few instances, no representatives from the shires had appeared in {327} parliament,[471] and the lesser barons had almost forfeited their right by neglecting to exercise it. At this time, however, they assembled at Edinburgh, and agreed upon a petition to the parliament, claiming to be restored to their ancient privilege. The petition was granted, and, in consequence of this, about a hundred gentlemen took their seats.[472]

The business of religion was introduced by a petition presented by a number of protestants of different ranks, in which, after rehearsing their former endeavours to procure the removal of the corruptions which had infected the church, they requested parliament to use the power which providence had now put into their hands for effecting this great and urgent work. They craved three things in general,――that the anti‑christian doctrine maintained in the popish church should be discarded; that means should be used to restore purity of worship, and primitive discipline; and that the ecclesiastical revenues, which had been engrossed by a corrupt and indolent hierarchy, should be applied to the support of a pious and active ministry, to the promotion of learning, and to the relief of the poor. They declared, that they were ready to substantiate the justice of all their demands, and, in {328} particular, to prove, that those who arrogated to themselves the name of clergy were destitute of all right to be accounted ministers of religion, and that, from the tyranny which they had exercised, and their vassalage to the court of Rome, they could not be safely tolerated, and far less intrusted with power, in a reformed commonwealth.[473]

In answer to the first demand, the parliament required the reformed ministers to lay before them a summary of doctrine which they could prove to be consonant with the scriptures, and which they desired to have established. The ministers were not unprepared for this task; and, in the course of four days, they presented a Confession of Faith, as the product of their joint labours, and an expression of their unanimous judgment. It agreed with the confessions which had been published by other reformed churches. Professing belief in the common articles of Christianity respecting the divine nature, the trinity, the creation of the world, the origin of evil, and the person of the Saviour, which were retained by the church of Rome, in opposition to the errors broached by ancient heretics, it condemned not only the idolatrous and superstitious tenets of that church, but also its gross depravation of the doctrine of scripture respecting the state of fallen man, and the method of his recovery. It declared that by “original sin was the image of God defacit in man, and he and his {329} posteritie of nature become enemies to God, slaifis to Sathan, and seruandis to sin:”――that “all our salvatioun springs fra the eternall and immutabill decree of God, wha of meir grace electit us in Christ Jesus, his Sone, before the foundatione of the warld was laid:”――that it behoves us “to apprehend Christ Jesus, with his justice and satisfactioun, wha is the end and accomplischement of the law, by whome we ar set at this libertie, that the curse and maledictioun of God fall not upon us:”――that “as God the Father creatit us whan we war not, as his Sone our Lord Jesus redemit us whan we were enemies to him, sa alswa the Haly Gaist dois sanctifie and regenerat us, without all respect of ony merite proceeding fra us, be it befoir or be it efter our regeneratioun,――to speik this ane thing yit in mair plaine wordis, as we willinglie spoyle ourselfis of all honour and gloir of our awin creatioun and redemptioun, sa do we alswa of our regeneratioun and sanctificatioun, for of our selfis we ar not sufficient to think ane gude thocht, bot he wha hes begun the wark in us is onlie he that continewis us in the same, to the praise and glorie of his undeservit grace:”――and, in fine, it declared that, although good works proceed “not from our fre‑will, but the Spirit of the Lord Jesus,” and although those that boast of the merit of their own works, “boist themselfis of that whilk is nocht,” yet “blasphemie it is to say, that Christ abydis in the hartis of sic as in whome thair is no spirite of sanctificatioun; and all wirkers of iniquitie have nouther trew faith, nouther ony portioun of the Spirite of the Lord {330} Jesus, sa lang as obstinatlie they continew in thair wickitnes.”[474]

The Confession was read first before the lords of Articles, and afterwards before the whole parliament. The protestant ministers attended in the house to defend it, if attacked, and to give satisfaction to the members respecting any point which might appear dubious. Those who had objections to it were formally required to state them. And the farther consideration of it was adjourned to a subsequent day, that none might pretend that an undue advantage had been taken of him, or that a matter of such importance had been concluded precipitately. On the 17th of August, the parliament resumed the subject, and, previous to the vote, the Confession was again read, article by article.[475] The earl of Athole, and lords Somerville and Borthwick, were the only persons of the temporal estate who voted in the negative, assigning this as their reason, “We will beleve as our forefatheris belevit.”[476] “The bischopis spak nothing.”[477] After the vote establishing the Confession {331} of faith, the earl Marischal rose, and declared, that the silence of the clergy had confirmed him in his belief of the protestant doctrine; and he protested, that if any of the ecclesiastical estate should afterwards oppose the doctrine which had just been received, they should be entitled to no credit; seeing, after full knowledge of it, and ample time for deliberation, they had allowed it to pass without the smallest opposition or contradiction.[478] On the 24th of August, the parliament abolished the papal jurisdiction, prohibited, under certain penalties, the celebration of mass, and rescinded all the laws formerly made in support of the Roman catholic church, and against the reformed faith.[479]

Thus did the reformed religion advance in Scotland, from small beginnings, and amidst great opposition, until it attained a parliamentary establishment. Besides the influence of heaven secretly accompanying the labours of the preachers and confessors of the truth, the serious and inquisitive reader will trace the wise arrangements of providence in that concatenation of events which contributed to its rise, preservation, and increase,――by overruling the caprice, the ambition, the avarice, and the interested policy of princes and cabinets, many of whom had nothing less in view than to favour that cause, which they were so instrumental in promoting.

The breach of Henry VIII. of England with the {332} Roman see, awakened the attention of the inhabitants of the northern part of the island to a controversy which had formerly been carried on at too great a distance to interest them, and led not a few to desire a reformation more improved than the model which that monarch had held out to them. The premature death of James V. of Scotland saved the protestants from destruction. During the short period in which they received the countenance of civil authority, at the commencement of Arran’s administration, the seeds of the reformed doctrine were so widely spread, and took such deep root, as to be able to resist the violent measures which the regent, after his recantation, employed to extirpate them. Those who were driven from the country by persecution found an asylum in England, under the decidedly protestant government of Edward VI. After his death, the alliance of England with Spain, and of Scotland with France, the two great contending powers on the continent, prevented that concert between the two courts which might have proved fatal to the protestant religion in Britain. While the cruelties of the English queen drove protestant preachers into Scotland, the political schemes of the queen regent induced her to favour them, and to connive at the propagation of their opinions. At the critical moment when the latter had accomplished her favourite designs, and was preparing to crush the Reformation, Elizabeth ascended the throne of England, and was induced, by political no less than religious considerations, to support the Scottish reformers. The French court was {333} no less bent on suppressing them, and, having lately concluded peace with Spain, was left at liberty to direct its undivided attention to the accomplishment of that object; but at this critical moment, those intestine dissensions, which continued so long to desolate France, broke out, and forced its ministers to accede to that treaty, which put an end to French influence, and the papal religion, in Scotland. {334}

{335}
NOTES
TO
VOLUME FIRST.

Note A, Footnote 2.

_Place of Knox’s Birth, and his Parentage._――Although the question respecting Knox’s birth‑place is not of very great importance, I shall state the authorities for the different opinions which are entertained on the subject.

Beza, who was contemporary, and personally acquainted, with our Reformer, designs him “Joannes Cnoxus, Scotus, Giffordiensis,” evidently meaning that he was a native of the town of Gifford. Icones, seu Imagines Illustrium Virorum, Ee. iij. an. 1580. Spotswood, who was born in 1565, and could receive information from his father, and other persons intimately acquainted with Knox, says that he was “born in Gifford within Lothian.” History, p. 265, edit. 1677. David Buchanan, in his Memoir of Knox, prefixed to the edition of his History, and published in 1644, gives the same account; which has been followed in the Life written by Matthew Crawfurd, and prefixed to the edition of the History, 1732; and by Wodrow, in his MS. Collections, respecting the Scottish Reformers, in Bibl. Coll. Glas. In a Genealogical Account of the Knoxes, which is in the possession of the family of the late Mr James Knox, minister of Scoon, the Reformer’s father is said to have been a brother of the family of Ranferlie, and “proprietor of the estate of Gifford.” Scott’s History of the Scottish Reformers, p. 94.

On the other hand, Archibald Hamilton, who was his countryman, as well as his contemporary and acquaintance, says that Knox was born in the town of Haddington: “Obscuris natus parentibus in Hadintona oppido in Laudonia.” De Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ apud Scotos Dialogus, fol. 64, a. Parisiis, 1577. Another {336} Scotsman, who wrote in that age, says that he was born near Haddington; “prope Haddintonam.” Laingæus De vita, et moribus, atque rebus gestis Hæreticorum nostri temporis, fol. 113, b. Parisiis, 1581. Dr Barclay, late minister of Haddington, advanced an opinion which reconciles the two last authorities, (although it is probable that he never saw either of them,) by asserting that our Reformer was born in one of the suburbs of Haddington, called the Giffordgate. Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland, p. 69, 70.

The testimony of Archibald Hamilton is not altogether without weight; for, although he has retailed a number of gross falsehoods in the work referred to, there does not appear to be any reason for supposing that he would intentionally mislead his readers on such a circumstance as the birth‑place of the Reformer. But I consider Spotswood’s statement as going far to set aside Hamilton’s; for, as the archbishop could scarcely be ignorant of it, and as he fixes Knox’s birth at a different place, it is reasonable to suppose that he had good reasons for varying from a preceding authority. The grounds of Dr Barclay’s opinion are, that, according to the tradition of the place, the Reformer was a native of Haddington; that the house in which he was born is still pointed out in the Giffordgate; and that this house, with some adjoining acres of land, belonged for a number of generations to a family of the name of Knox, who claimed kindred with the Reformer, and who lately sold the property to the earl of Wemyss. I acknowledge that popular tradition may be allowed to determine a point of this nature, provided it is not contradicted by other evidence. In the present case, it is not altogether free from this objection. As the sons of the Reformer died without issue, there is no reason to think that the family which resided in the Giffordgate was lineally descended from him. Still, however, the property might have belonged to his elder brother, which is consistent with the supposition of his being born in the house which tradition has marked out. But I have lately been favoured with extracts from the title‑deeds of that property, now in the possession of the earl of Wemyss, extending from the year 1598 downwards, which are not favourable to that supposition. On the 18th of February, 1598, William Knox in {337} Moreham, and Elizabeth Schortes his wife, were infeft in subjects in Nungate (of Haddington,) by virtue of a crown charter. This charter contains no statement of the warrants on which it proceeded, farther than that the lands formerly belonged to the Abbey of Haddington, and were annexed to the crown. Having communicated the names of the persons mentioned in the first charter and subsequent deeds to the Reverend Mr Scott of Perth, with a request to be informed, if any such names occur in the genealogy of the Knox family which belonged to the late Mr Knox, minister of Scoon, I was favoured with an answer, saying, that neither the name of William Knox at Moreham, nor that of any other person answering to the description in my letter, is to be found in that genealogy. But, farther, the charter expressly states, that the lands in question belonged to the Abbey of Haddington, and, as they must have been annexed to the crown subsequently to the Reformation, they could not be the property of the family at the time of our Reformer’s birth. The tradition of his having been born in the Giffordgate is therefore supported merely by the possibility that his parents might have resided in that house while it was the property of the Abbey. In opposition to this, we have the authorities already mentioned in support of the opinion that he was born in the village of Gifford.

With respect to the _parentage_ of our Reformer, David Buchanan says that his “father was a brother’s son of the house of Ranferlie.” Life, prefixed to History of the Reformation, edit. 1644. In a conversation with the earl of Bothwell, Knox gave the following account of his ancestors: “My lord,” said he, “my great grandfather, gudeschir, and father, have served your Lordchip’s predecessours, and some of them have dyed under their standards; and this is a pairt of the obligatioun of our Scottish kindness.” Historie of the Reformatioun, p. 306, edit. 1732. Matthew Crawfurd says, that “these words seem to import that Mr Knox’s predecessors were in some honourable station under the earls of Bothwell, at that time the most powerful family in East Lothian,” Life of the Author, p. ii. prefixed to Historie, edit. 1732. The only thing which I would infer from his words is, that his ancestors had settled in Lothian as early as the time of his great‑grandfather. I do not wish to represent {338} the Reformer as either of noble or of gentle birth, and cannot place much dependence on the assertion in the preceding note, which makes his father “proprietor of the estate of Gifford.” John Davidson, in the poem written in commendation of him, says,

“First he descendit bot of lineage small,
As commonly God usis for to call
The sempill sort his summoundis til expres.”

At the same time, the statement given by some authors of the meanness and poverty of his parents is not supported by good evidence, and can in part be disproved. Dr Mackenzie says, the Reformer was “the son of a poor countryman, as we are informed by those who knew him very well: his parents, though in a mean condition, put their son to the grammar‑school of Haddington; where, after he had learned his grammar, he served for some time the laird of Langniddrie’s children, who being sent by their parents to the university of St Andrews, he thereby had occasion of learning his philosophy.” Lives of Scottish Writers, vol. iii. p. 111. As his authorities for these assertions, the Doctor has printed on the margin, “Dr Hamilton, Dr Bailie, and many others;” popish writers, who, regardless of their own character, fabricated or retailed such stories as they thought most discreditable to the Reformer, many of which Mackenzie himself is obliged to pronounce “ridiculous stories, that are altogether improbable,” p. 132. “Dr Bailie” was Alexander Bailie, a Benedictine monk in the Scottish monastery of Wirtsburgh; and, as he published the work to which Mackenzie refers in the year 1628, it is ridiculous to talk of his being well acquainted with either the Reformer or his father. Hamilton, (the earliest authority,) instead of supporting Mackenzie’s assertions, informs us, as far as his language is intelligible, that Knox was in priest’s orders before he undertook the care of children: “quo victum sibi pararet magis quam ut deo serviret (Simonis illius magi huc usque sequutus vestigia) presbyter primum fieri de more, quamvis illiteratus, tum in privatis ædibus puerorum in vulgaribus literis formandorum curam capere coactus est.” De Confusione Calv. Sectæ, p. 64. The fact is, that Knox entered into the family of {339} Langniddrie as tutor, _after_ he had finished his education at the university; and so late as 1547, he was employed in teaching the young men their grammar. Historie, p. 67.

Note B, Footnote 6.

_Of Knox’s Academical Education._――I have been a good deal puzzled on the subject of the academical studies of our Reformer. Depending on the testimony of the earliest and most credible writers, I stated, in the former editions of this work, that he studied, and took the degree of Master of Arts, at St Andrews. After a minute examination, however, I was unable to find his name in the records of that university. Still I did not feel warranted to drop the account which I had given on such respectable authority, and contented myself with mentioning the unsuccessful result of my investigations. But when engaged in examining the records of the university of Glasgow with a view to another work, I accidentally met with evidence which convinces me that the common statement is erroneous. Knox was educated at the university, not of St Andrews, but of Glasgow.

In the “Annales Universitatis Glasguensis,” the name “Johannes Knox” occurs among the _Incorporati_, or those who were matriculated, in the year 1522. In coming to the conclusion that this was our Reformer, I do not rest simply on his name occurring in the record. This opinion is confirmed by the two following circumstances. 1. The time answers to that at which he might be supposed to have entered the university; for in 1522, he was seventeen years of age. 2. John Major was at that time Principal of the university of Glasgow; and all the ancient accounts agree that Knox studied under that celebrated professor.――This circumstance may perhaps account for the mistake into which the old writers have fallen on this subject. They appear to have been ignorant of the fact that Major taught at that time in Glasgow; and being informed that Knox studied under him, they concluded that he did so at St Andrews, where that professor was known to have resided for many years.

I take this opportunity of filling up a blank in the life of Major. {340} Dempster, Dupin, and other writers, mention that, after being made Doctor of Divinity in 1505, he taught for some years at Glasgow, but that, owing to the confusions in his native country, he removed from it to Paris. I will not take upon me to say that this account is erroneous; but I have not been able to discover the name of Major in the records of the university of Glasgow at that period. Upon Major’s return from France, the above‑mentioned authors represent him as going directly to St Andrews. But from the subsequent extracts it will appear that he went first to Glasgow, and for several years held the situation of Principal and Professor of Divinity in the university of that city.

In the old Register, entitled “Annales Universitatis Glasguensis,” are the following minutes relating to Major. The last of them contains the matriculation of Knox.

“ELECTIO RECTORIS.

“Congregatione generali alme Universitatis Glasguen. Citatione previa, &c. Die tertio mensis Novembris anno D{ni} millesimo quingentesimo decimo octavo, &c.

“Eodem die――Incorporati sub dicto D{no} Rectore, Egregius vir Mag{r} Johannes Majoris Doctor Parisiensis ac principalis regens Collegie et pedagogii dicte Universitatis, Canonicusque Capelli regie, ac Vicarius de Dunlop, &c.” (43 names follow.)

There is no further mention made of Major until 1521, when the following minute is found:

“ELECTIO RECTORIS.

“Congregatione generali, &c. In festo sanctorum Marthirum Crispini et Crispiniani, anno Dom{i} millesimo quingentesimo vicesimo primo. Pro Electione novi Rectoris――In quaquidem Congregatione Electi fuerunt tres Intrantes, viz. Mag{r} Mattheus Steward Decanus facultatis, Johannes Majoris Theologie Professor, et nationis Albanie nullus interfuit, et Will{mus} Crechtoun Canonicus Glasguensis――Qui remoti, maturaque deliberatione prehabita, unanimi eorum consensu, Venerabilem et egregium Virum Jacobum Steward Prepositum ecclesie Collegiate de Dunbertane, absentem tanquam {341} presentem, in Rectorem eligerunt et electum pronunciarunt. Qui postea inclinatus supplicationibus suppositorum hujus modi onus in se acceptavit. Insuper in eadem Congregatione electi fuerunt quatuor Deputati ad consulendum et assistendum dicto D{no} rectori in omnibus et singulis causis per ipsum tractandis, viz. Mag̃ri Johannes Majoris predictus, Willm̃s Chrichtoun, Johannes Reid, Jacobus Neilsoun――Necnon Electus fuit in bursarium discretus vir Mag{r} Mattheus Reid, Mag{r} schole gramaticalis. Et in promotorem Mag{r} Andreas Smytht. Et in Procuratorem Mag{r} Nicholaus Witherspuyne.

“Die xxiiij mensis Maij anno Dñi millesimo quingentesimo xxij.

“Congregatione generali Universitatis Glasguen. facta loco Capitulari ecclesie metropolitane ejusdem die xxiiij mensis maij Anno Dñi Millesimo quingentesimo xxij, per Venerabilem Virum Mgr̃m Jacobum Steward Prepositum ecclie Collegiate de Dunbertane ac Rectorem dicte Universitatis, Presentibus Ibidem Honorabilibus Viris, Magistris Johanne Majore, theologie professore, thesaurario Capelle regie Stirlingensis, Vicarioque de Dunlop, ac Principali regente dicte Collegie, Johanne Doby Canonico Glasguensi ac prebendario de Ancrum, Jacobo Neilson Vicario de Colmanel, Johanne Spruele Vicario de Dundonald, Jacobo Lyndesay secundario regente, aliisque patribus, Magistris, Studentibus, ac suppositis, inibi Congregatis――In quaquidem Congregatione Idem Dñus Rector Exposuit et Declaravit, &c.

“ELECTIO RECTORIS.

“Congregatione generali alme Universitatis Glass. Citatione previa per edictum publicum in Valvis ecclesie metripolitane affixum, Celebrata loco Capitulari ejusdem, In festo Sanctorum Marthirum Crispini et Crispiniani, Anno Dñi Millesimo quingentesimo Vicesimo secundo, Pro electione novi Rectoris. In quaquidem Congregatione electi fuerunt tres Intrantes, eoquod nullus nationis albanie extunc interfuit, viz. Mg{r} Thomas leiss Canonicus Dunblanensis, Johannes Majoris Principalis regens, et Johannes Reid Vicarius de Campsy――Qui remoti, matura et digesta deliberatione prehabita, {342} unanimi eorum Consensu, Venerabilem et egregium Virum Mgr̃m Jacobum Steward Prepositum Ecclesie Collegiate de Dunbertane, absentem tanquam presentem, in rectorem Continuarunt, eligerunt, et pronunciarunt――Qui postea supplicationebus magistrorum inclinatus hujus modi onus en se acceptavit. Insuper in eadem Congregatione electi fuerunt tres Deputati ad assistendum et consulendum dicto Dño Rectori in omnibus et singulis causis dicte Universitatis per eundem tractandis, viz. Prescripti magistri, Johannes Majoris, Johannes Reid, et Mg̃r Mattheus Steward Vicarius de Mayboile, Et Continuatus fuit in bursarium Mg̃r Mattheus Reid. Necnon electus fuit in procuratorem et promotorem Universitatis Mg̃r Nicholaus Vitherspuyne Vicarius de Straithawane――Incorporati sub dicto Dño Rectore,

Andreas Cottis Alex{r} Dikke
Johannes hereot Adam Kyngorne
Nigellus Campbal Nigellus forguissone
Will{mus} Steward Johannes huntar
Johannes Hamyltoun Jacobus Mosman
Johannes Knox Dñus Johannes Keyne presbiter
Archibaldus Langsyd Patricius letryg Civis Glass.”

In the records of the university of Glasgow, Major is uniformly called Joannes Majoris. It appears from Dr Lee’s extracts, published in the second edition of Dr Irving’s Memoirs of Buchanan, (p. 373,) that Major was incorporated into the university of St Andrews, on the 9th of June 1523. He is there designed “Doctor Theologus Parisiensis, et Thesaur{ius} Capellæ Regiæ;” and in an instrument of seisin, belonging to that seminary, he is styled “Vicarius de Dunloppie Glasg.”――Some may perhaps be inclined to suppose that Knox followed Major to St Andrews, and attended his lectures, though not formally incorporated into that university; and consequently that the old writers had some foundation for their statement on this head. But if this was the case, it is not very probable that the truth of it can be now ascertained. I have only to add, that I cannot perceive, from the records of Glasgow, that {343} Knox took any degree there, which confirms the doubt that I have already expressed on that subject.

Note C, Footnote 12.

_Of the Early State of Grecian Literature in Scotland._――In this note I shall throw together such facts as I have met with relating to the introduction of the Greek language into Scotland, and the progress which it made during the sixteenth century. They are scanty; but I trust they will not be altogether unacceptable to those who take an interest in the subject.

In the year 1522, Boece mentions George Dundas as a good Greek scholar. He was master of the Knights of St John in Scotland, and had, most probably, acquired the knowledge of the language on the Continent. “Georgius Dundas grecas atq; latinas literas apprime doctus, equitum Hierosolymitanorum intra Scotorum regnum magistratum multo sudore (superatis emulis) postea adeptus.” Boetii Vitæ Episcop. Murth. et Aberdon. fol. xxvii. b. It is reasonable to suppose that some other individuals in the nation acquired it in the same way; but Boece makes no mention of Greek among the branches taught at the universities in his time, although he is minute in his details. Nor do I find any other reference to the subject previous to the year 1534, when Erskine of Dun brought a learned man from France, and employed him to teach Greek in Montrose, as mentioned in that part of the Life to which this note refers. At his school, George Wishart, the martyr, must have obtained the knowledge of the language, and he seems to have been assistant or successor to his master. The bishop of Brechin (William Chisholm), hearing that Wishart taught the Greek New Testament in Montrose, summoned him to appear before him on a charge of heresy, upon which he fled the kingdom. This was in 1538. Petrie, part ii. p. 182. It is likely that Knox was taught Greek by Wishart after the return of the latter from England. Buchanan seems to have acquired the language during his residence on the Continent. Epist. p. 25. Oper. edit. Rudd.