Chapter I: SHALL, in this note, add some particulars respecting the early (2)

During his residence at Geneva, Knox became acquainted with Beza, who then acted as professor of Greek in the neighbouring city of Lausanne, from which he was translated to Geneva, upon the erection of the university there, the same year in which our Reformer returned to Scotland. An epistolary correspondence was afterwards maintained between them. Two letters of Beza to Knox, the one dated June 3, 1569, the other April 12, 1572, are inserted in Epistol. Theolog. Bezæ, p. 333‒336, 344‒346, of the first edition; and p. 304‒307, 314‒316, of the second edition, Genevæ, 1575. Both of them evince the writer’s ardent regard for our Reformer, and his high opinion of our reformation. The first letter is inscribed, “To John Knox, the Restorer of the Gospel of God in Scotland,” and begins with these words: “Gratiam et pacem tibi, mi frater, omnibusque vestris sanctis ecclesiis opto a Deo et Patre Domini nostri Jesu Christi, cui etiam gratias ago assidue, tum de tanta ipsius in vos beneficentia, tum de vestra singulari in asserendo ipsius cultu constantia et animi fortitudine.――Euge, mi frater, quam recte illud quod disciplinam simul cum doctrina conjungitis? Obsecro et obtestor ut ita pergatis, ne vobis idem quod tam multis eveniat, ut qui in limine impegerint, progredi non possint, imo etiam interdum ne velint quidem, quod longe misserrimum est.” The second letter, which behoved to be received by Knox only a few months before his death, could not fail to {305} be gratifying to him, even although he had then taken a formal “farewell of the world.” It is addressed “To his dearest Brother and Colleague,” and begins in the following lofty strain of affection: “Etsi tanto terrarum et maris ipsius intervallo disjuncti corporibus sumus, mi Cnoxe, tamen minime dubito quin inter nos semper viguerit, et ad extremum vigeat, summa illa animorum conjunctio, unius ejusdemque spiritus fideique vinculo sancita.”

Note H, Footnote 37.

_Evidence of Queen Mary’s design to restore the Roman Catholic Religion in Scotland._――The reader who doubts that this was her uniform object from the time that she left France, may consult the following authorities. Throkmorton’s Conference with Mary, in Knox, Historie, 275‒277. Keith, History, 164‒167. Life of bishop Lesley, in Anderson’s Collections, i. 4, iii. 9. The letters of the cardinal de St Croix, (ambassador from the pope to the court of France,) extracted from the Vatican library, afford a striking demonstration of the intentions of the queen. St Croix writes to cardinal Borromeo, that the grand prior of France (one of Mary’s uncles) and Mons. Danville had arrived from Scotland on the 17th November (1561,) and had brought information, that the queen was going on successfully in surmounting all opposition to her in that kingdom. Being informed one day that some heretics had extinguished the candles on her altar, she repaired to the chapel, and having ascertained the fact, commanded a baron, one of the most powerful and most addicted to Lutheranism, to re‑light the candles, and place them on the altar: in which she was instantly obeyed. After relating another instance of her spirited conduct against the magistrates of a certain borough who had banished the popish priests, the cardinal adds:――“by these means she has acquired greater authority and power, for enabling her to restore the ancient religion;” “con che acquesta tutta via maggior autorita et forze, per posser restituer en quel regno l’antica religione.” Aymon, Synodes Nationaux des Eglises Reformees de France, tom. i. p. 17, 18.

{306}
Note I, Footnote 39.

_Sanguinary Spirit and Principles of Roman Catholics._――Bayle, Commentaire Philosophique, tome i. pref. xiv. part ii. chap. v. p. 343, 347, anno 1686, and his Critique Generale de l’Histoire du Caivinisme, p. 486, 501‒519. Hume’s Hist. of England, vol. vii. chap. i. p. 24. Lond. 1793, 12mo. Robertson’s History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 62, 143, 352. Lond. 1809.

“Les Papistes,” says Bayle, in a treatise in which he pleads for toleration on a very extensive basis――“Les Papistes eux‑memes sont les premiers en ce pais‑ci à crier qu’il n’y a rien de plus injuste que de vexer la conscience. Pensée ridicule en leur bouche! et non seulement ridicule, mais traitresse, &c. _i.e._ The papists themselves are the first in this country [Britain] to exclaim that there is nothing more unjust than to distress conscience. A sentiment ridiculous in their mouth! and not only ridiculous, but treacherous, and marked with that dishonesty which they have uniformly discovered for so many ages. For they would not fail, in three years, to burn and butcher all who refused to go to mass, if they acquired the power, and could avail themselves of the baseness of a sufficient number of court parasites, men of venal souls, and unworthy of the protestant name which they bear, to overturn the fundamental barriers which so salutarily restrain the royal power.” Commentaire Philosophique, pref. p. xiii. xiv.

The sentiments contained in the following passage are now become so antiquated and unintelligible, that I shall not risk my credit by venturing to translate it. “Les malheurs qui sont arrivez à nos freres de France tourneront, comme il y a apparence, à notre profit. Il nous out remis dans la necessaire defiance du Papisme, il nous out fait voir que cette fausse religion ne s’amende pas par le long age, qu’elle est toujours, comme au tems jadis, animée de l’esprit de fourbe et de cruauté, et que malgré la politesse, l’honneteté, la civilité, qui regne dans les manieres de ce siecle plus qu’en aucun autre, elle est toujours brutale et farouche. Chose etrange! tout ce qu’il y avoit de grossier dans les mœurs de nos ancestres s’est evanouit; à cet air rustique et sauvage des vieux {307} tems a succedé par toute l’Europe Chretienne une douceur et une civilité extreme. Il n’y a que le Papisme qui ne se sent point du changement, et qui retient toujours son ancienne et habituelle ferocité. Nous nous imaginions nous autres Anglois, que c’etoit une bete apprivoisseé, un loup et un tigre qui avoit oublie son naturel sauvage; mais Dieu merci aux Convertisseurs de France, nous nous sommes desabusez, et nous savons à qui nous aurions à faire si notre sort etoit entre leurs mains. Pesans bien cela et considerons quel malheur nous pendroit sur la tete, si nous laissions croitre le Papisme dans ce bien heureux climats. Je ne veux pas que cela nous porte à faire aucunes represailles sur les papistes; non, je deteste ces imitations; je souhaite seulement qu’ils n’aquierent pas la force d’executer sur nous ce qu’ils savent faire.” Ibid. p. xv. xviii. xix.

Note K, Footnote 59.

The following extracts from the records of the town council of Edinburgh, show the attention which they paid to the support and accommodation of their minister.

May 8, 1560. The provost, bailies, and council ordain the treasurer to pay the sum of L.40 Scots for furnishing of the minister, John Knox, in his household; and because he had been furnished on David Forrester’s expenses since his coming to this town, for the space of 15 days, ordains to receive David’s accompts, and make payment.――“Penultimo Octobris 1560. The quhilk day, the provost, baillies, and counsaill ordainis James Barroun to pay to John Knox the soulme of sax scoir pounds of the reddiest money of the solmes being in his hands, and sicklyk the soulme of L.20.” This last sum seems to have been allotted for repairs on his house.――“12th Dec. 1560. The provost, baillies, and counsill ordanis James Barroun (dean of guild of last year) to pay and deliver to John Knox, minister, the soume of fiftie pound for supporting of his charges, and that incontinent after the sight heirof, and gif it beis funden that the said James be superexpendit, after the making of his accompt, precepts shall be given in maist strait forme, commanding the treasurer to mak him gud and thankfull payment of his haill superexpensis, within aught days nixt thairafter.” {308} From the minutes of Dec. 22, 1560, April 5, and May 28, 1561, it appears that his fixed stipend was L.200 a‑year; for L.50 is ordered, each time, “for his quarter payment” or “dues.” On Dec. 14, 1560, it was agreed that his house rent should afterwards be “paid at the rate of 15 merks a‑year.”

“Penultimo Octobris [1561.] The samine day the provost, baillies, and counsail ordanis the dene of gyld, with all diligence, to mak ane warme stuydye of dailles to the minister, Johne Knox, within his hous, abone the hall of the same, with lyht and wyndokis thereunto, and all uther necessaris: and the expenciss disbursit be him salbe allowit to him in his accomptis.”――“January 1561 (_i.e._ 1562) the provost, baillies, and counsale, understanding that the minister, Jhone Knox, is requyrit be the hale kirk to passe in the partis of Anguss and Mearnys, for electing of ane superintendent thare, to the quhilk they themselfs hes grantit, thairfoir ordains Alexander Guthrie, dene of gild, to pass in companie with him, for furnishing of the said ministeris charges, and to deburse and pay the same of the readeast of the townis gudis in his handis, quhilk salbe allowit in his accomptis: And further haist the said minister hame, that the kirk hear be not desolait.”

To these extracts respecting Knox, I may add one from the same records respecting Willock, who officiated in his place as minister of Edinburgh during the civil war. “29 August, 1560. The counsail ordains their treasurer to deliver to John Willock 22 crownes of the sone for recompense of the great traveill sustenit be him this haill yiere bygane, in preching and administring the sacramentis within this burgh, and ordanis ane member of the counsall to thank him for his greit benevolence, and for the greit travaill forsaid.” Previous to this, they had remunerated John Cairns, with whom Willock had lodged.

In the text I have mentioned, that, after the arrangement made by the privy council respecting the thirds of benefices, Knox seems to have received part of his stipend from the common fund. The extracts which Keith has given from the books of assignation mention only two allowances made to him. “To John Knox, minister, wheat 2 c[halders], bear 6 c. meal o. oates 4 c.” Whether this was for the year 1563, or not, Keith does not say. He adds {309} in a note, “For the year 1568, I see L.333, 6s. 8d. given to Mr Knox.” History, Appendix, 188. His stipend at the time of his death will be stated in Note BB. Keith has inserted, from the books of assignation, the prices of the principal articles of living at that time, from which an idea of the value of money may be formed. Ibid. 189. The following are a specimen. In Fyfe, Lothian, Merse, and Teviotdale, for 1573, wheat, L.26, 13s. 4d. the chalder; bear, L.21, 6s. 8d.; meal, L.16; oats, 20 merks. Or, according to another account, without expressing any county, wheat, L.1 the boll; bear, L.1, 13s. 4d.; meal the same; oats, 10s.; malt, L.2; rye, and pease and beans, the same; mairts of Aberdeen, L.2, 13s. 4d. the piece; sheep, 9s.; poultry, 4s. the dozen; geese, 1s. the piece; cheese, 6s. 8d. the stone.

Note L, Footnote 64.

Protocol――James Nicolson.

Pro Johanne Knox.

_Knox’s Protest in the affairs of the Earl of Angus._――Vigesimo quarto die mensis Octobris, anno Domini millesimo quingentesimo sexagesimo primo, in presence of me notair, and witnesses vnderwrittin, Comperit Johnne Knox, minister of Edinburgh, and thair being requyrit be George Dowglas, sone naturall to vmquhile Archibald erle of Angus that last deceissit, to deliuer agane to him the letter of renunciatioun maid be the said George of the landis, lordschip, and baronie of Abirnethy, and regalite thairof, with the maner, places, mylnis, multuris, woddis, fischingis, tennentis, tennandriys, service of free tennentis, aduocatiounis, donationis, and rychtis of patronages of the kirkis, benefices, collegis, and prebendarys thairof, &c., in favouris of Archibald, now erle of Angus, of the daitt at Edinburgh, the xxiiij day of Junij the zeir of God I{m} v{c} threscoir ane zeiris; and consignit and putt be him in the handis of the said Johnne, in hoip of aggreance to haif bene dressit betuix him the said erle and his tutouris. Ansuerit, that he granted the resaving of the said lettir, vnder conditioun foirsaid; and that he had bestowit his faithfull laubouris besyde the travellis tane zairin be diuers noble men {310} to haif had that mater aggreit. Be quham thair wes diuers reasonable offeris maid to the said George, quhilkis he hes refusit, and thairfoir protestit gif that his refuis turne heirefter to his awin damnage, that the said Johnne be innocent thairof. Testifiand to the said George, in his awin presence and ouris, and also befoir God, that the offer maid is mair reasonable nor he belevis the said George is able to haif ony proffett or gaynes vtherwyis thairbi. And thairupoun the said Johnne deliuerit to the said George his said lettir of renunciatioun, of the daitt foirsaid, vnder his seill and subscriptioun, quhilk the said George confessit and recognoscit to be the same quhilk he deliuerit, togidder also with his seill in lead, quhilkis the said George resavit and dischargit the said Johnne thairof. Quhairupoun the said Jo{n} askit instrumentis. Done in maister James M‘gillis study, at vj houris at evin, or thairbi. Present thairat the said Maister James, clerk of reḡri; Maister George Hay, vicare of Eddilstoune; Adam Wauchop, and I James Nicolson.

J. NICOLSON.

Note M, Footnote 75.[352]

_Minutes of the Town Council of Edinburgh respecting a second Minister._――“10th April, 1562.――The same day the counsale, understanding the tedious and havie labours sufferit be the minister, Jhone Knox, in preiching thrise in the oulk, and twise on the Sounday, ordains with ane consent to solist and persuade Maister Jhone Craig, presentlie minister of the Canongait, to accept upoun him the half chargis of the preaching of the said kirk of Edinburgh for sic gud deid as thai can aggre on.”――That this measure was not carried into effect for some time after, appears from the following act of council. “18th June, 1563.――After lang reasoning upon the necessities of ministers, finds that there salbe ane uther minister elected be the provost, baillies, and counsale, dekynes and elderis of this burgh, and addit to Johne Knox, minister.” From the same act and subsequent measures, it is evident that the want of necessary funds was the cause of the delay. For the council resolved, {311} that “for susteaning of thame baith, togidder with Johne Cairns reider,” the deacons should meet with the trades and the merchants, to see what they would be willing to give. The reports made to the council bore that, if they would fix a particular stipend, the trades were willing to pay a fifth part of it, according to old custom. But although Craig had not been translated from the Canongate, he seems to have performed a part of the duty in Edinburgh; for, in the same month, I find the council appointing a number of persons “to go amang the faithfull who had communicate,” and make a collection for “Johnne Craig and Johnne Cairns, who had received nothing for a lang time.” This expedient they were obliged afterwards to repeat. On the 26th September, 1561, the council had agreed to give “to John Cairns, lector of morning prayeris, 100 merks a‑year, in tyme to cum.” Records of Town Council.

Note N, Footnote 88.

_Writings of Quintin Kennedy and George Hay._――Keith has inserted a letter which Kennedy wrote to the archbishop of Glasgow, and the correspondence between him and Willock, in 1559. He has also given large extracts from his Compendious Tractive. History, Append. p. 193‒203. The following quotations may be added, for verifying the statement which I have made in the text. Having quoted John, v. 39, Kennedy says, “Marke (gud redare) the Scripture to occupy the place of ane wytnes, and not the place of ane juge.” A, iiij. In a subsequent part of the work, he endeavours to qualify what he had stated respecting the church being judge of all matters in religion. “We never say in all our lytil tractive, that the kirk is juge to the Scripture, bot yat the kirk is juge to discern quhilk is the trew Scripture of God, and to mak manifest to the congregation the trew understandyng of the samyn.” Ibid. H, v. This explication does not much mend the matter; for certainly he who has the power of calling what witnesses he pleases, and of putting what sense he pleases upon their testimony, is to all intents and purposes the judge of the witnesses, and of their evidence. Having mentioned that there were persons “swa religious {312} and clean fyngerit, that thair wil na thyng perswade thaim without testimony of Scripture,” he adds, “All Christin men havand ane generale understanding of the articles of our faith (conforme to the understanding that the kirk hes teacheit ws); the ten commandements, the prayer of the Lord callit the Pater noster, it suffices to thame to quhame it does not appertene of thair office nor vocatioun, to occupy the place of the prechairis or techeairis in the congregatioun. As to the sacramentis, and all uther secretis of the Scripture, stand to the jugement of thy pasture, (without curious ressoning or cersing of the secretis of Godis word,) quha beiris thy burding in all materis doutsum abone thy knawledge, conforme to the saying of the apostle, ‘Obey unto your superioris,’ &c. And in cais they be negligent, ressave doctryne of the kirk, as the tyme teicheis ws. Be this way (quhilk is conforme to Godis word and all veritie) it sall be asie to all men, quhat place or estait in the congregatioun that ever he occupy, to beir his awin burding.” Ibid. D, vii.

Another work of Kennedy has lately been printed, from a MS. in the Auchinleck library, under the following title: “Ane Oratioune in fauouris of all thais of the Congregatione, exhortand thaim to aspy how wonderfullie thai ar abusit be thair dissaitful prechouris, set furth be master Quintine Kennedy, Commendatour of Corsraguell, ye zeir of Gode 1561.” Edinburgh, 1812. Perhaps this oration was printed in the year mentioned in the title, although no copy is now to be found, and was one of “his books,” referred to by the abbot in his dispute with Knox. I have already given extracts from this book, in vol. i. p. 398, 439. It concludes in the following manner: “Quharfor, with all my hart exhortis, prays, and but mercie appellis thar pestilent precheouris,” [on the margin, “Knox, Willock, Winrame, Gudmane, Dowglasse, Heriot, Spottiswoode, and all ye rest.”] “puffit vp with vane glore, quhilkis rackinnis thaimselfis of gretar knawlege nor Christis haill kirk, cumand but authoritie, subuertand, subornande, and circumuenande the simple peple, cersande thair pray like the deuillis rachis, barkcand bauldly like bardis, aganis the blissit sacrament of the altare, the sacrifice of the mess, and all vther godlie ordinance of Jhesus Christ and his kirk, to preiss their wittis and inginis, and to streik {313} all thair pennis in my contrar, makande the congregatioun and all vtheris to vnderstande, gif I do propirly, truely, and godly, or nocht, invey aganis thair deuillische doctrine and doyingis. Failyeande thairof, recant, for schame, recant (ye famouse precheouris) and cum in obedience to the kirk of God, quhilk ye haue stubbornlie misknawin this lang time bypast, (and that nocht without grete dangere to your avne saulis and mony vtheris,) thairfor recant, in tyme recant, as ye lufe your saluation, and cry God mercie: To quham, with the Sone and Haly Gaist, be prayse, honour, and glore, for ever ande ever. Amen. Progenies viperarum fugite a ventura ira, nam securis ad radicem arboris posita est, penitentiam agite. Matth. iii.”

In his dispute with Knox, the abbot mentions his “books,” and he refers particularly to a book which he had published in 1561, on the sacrament of the mass. There is in the library of Alexander Boswell, Esq. of Auchinleck, a MS. by the abbot, entitled, “Ane familiar commune and ressoning anent the misterie of the sacrifice of the mess, betwixt twa brether, master Quintin Kennedy, comendator of Corsraguell, and James Kennedy of . In the yeir of God ane thousand, five hundred, three scoir ane yeir.” It was answered by George Hay, in a work entitled, “The Confutation of the Abbote of Crosraguels Masse, set furth by Maister George Hay. Imprinted at Edinburgh by Robert Lekpreuik, 1563.” The dedication is inscribed, “To the most noble, potent, and godlie Lord James Earle of Murray.” This is the book to which Winzet alludes on the margin of his Buke of Questionis, where he says, “Mr George Hay, fy haist zow to recant.” Keith, Append. p. 236, 246. I have been favoured with the sight of a copy of this rare tract, belonging to Richard Heber, Esq. It would seem that the abbot’s treatise was not printed, but that copies of it had been transcribed, and industriously circulated through the country in manuscript; for Hay repeatedly makes the supposition that there might be variations in the different copies, and on one occasion confesses that he could not read a passage in the copy which he used. “Followeth, another objection made by James. Alwayes,” sayes he, “all ze wha vses the Masse, dois not (this (not) is not in the text, that is come to my handes, but because the sentence requireth it, {314} I haue added it) as Christe did in the latter supper,” &c. He gives another quotation from the abbot in the following manner: “Trewly, brother, and ze be sa scrupulus Scripturares, that ze will do nothing but (but is not in my text) as Christe did, towards the vse of the Sacramentes, ze will subuert our haile Faith, and commend our awin doinges,[353] (so I ride it) (our owen doinges or commonly I can not tell which should be red, or if there be any other thing yet,) for quhair finde ze that Christe euer appointed ane man to be baptized,” &c. Fol. 36, b. 37, a, b.

The following account of the abbot’s talents and acquaintance with the Fathers may serve as a specimen of Hay’s style. “Trew it is, that before this boke of the abbote of Crosraguel’s wes set furth and published, sindrie and diuers were the opinions of men concerning it. For the sorte of them that be cōmonly tearmed Papistes, aduersaries to all trew religion, thoght in verie deid that they should receaue such a confort, yea, such a gun as no munition myght withstand, no strengthe resiste, nether yet any maner of force repel. They were encuraged by the brute and fame of the man, who onely wolde appeare in these tymes to haue dexteritie of ingyne, helped and auanced by long progres of tyme spent in good letters, yea, ād besydes the Scriptures of God, will also appeare to haue the conference, judgment, and authoritie of the ancient Fathers and councils, which it may seme to the reader that he feadeth (not unlyke the nyne Muses) in his bosome. I my self hauing hade some tymes credit and acquentence of the man, loked for some what that might haue troubled the cōsciences of waiklinges, and of such as stayed them selues vpon a glistering and semely ymagination of mans heart, rather then upon the written and reueiled treuth, by the spirite of God. For it wes not vnknawen to me how familiare he hath bene with the scolastike sophisters, their thornie questions, and scabrus conclusions, yea and some of the ancient doctors, whose writinges, what by ignorance of tyme seduced, what by affection carryed away, I thoght wel he should wreist to his vngodly opinion.” Fol. 3, a. Having pointed out a {315} false quotation, which the abbot had made from Chrysostom, Hay adds, “Hereby it is easy to perceaue how vainely ye ascribe such reading of the ancientes vnto your self, as in your writinges ye take vpon you, that ye will seme in the eyes of the people, to be the onely he in this realme versed in antiquitie. And now to say my judgment frely, I truste ye haue no workes of such men as ye draw your authorities out of, but onely hath, I can not tell what lytle scabbed treaties of Eccius, Cochleus, Hosius, Stanislaus youre new start up Campion, and of such others of your factiō, and taketh out of them, such thinges as ye think may serue to your wicked and blasphemus purpose. What credite now, or what authoritie oght to be given to such places, as thou draweth out of the doctors, who belyke neuer hath sene there workes, nether yet knoweth to what purpose they speak, if they speak of their owne mynde, or of their aduersaries, whither they speak by an interrogation or conclusiuely, and determinatly, whither they speak ὑπερβολικως,[354] that is excessiuely, to extoll the dignitie of the mater they haue in hand (which is not rare in this author) or simplie. Thus the text it self is to be considered, that it that preceadeth being conferred with it that followeth, the mynde and sentence of the author may be knowen perfytlie. Not that I will hereby damne yong men, who ether excluded by tyme, or els lacking bookes, muste giue credite to good authorities, but in this man who will seme to be an other Anacharses inter sordidos Scythas, it is intollerable, who is sequestrate frome the common societie of men, and trauell in the common wealth, hauing not els to do, but that he hath inioyned to him self, that is to ly by a pleasing bray, and cast in stones to trouble the faire and cleare rinning watter.” Fol. 18, b. 19, a.

Lepreuik, in an advertisement to the reader, apologizes for his want of Greek characters, which he was forced to have supplied by manuscript. Herbert’s edit. of Ames, p. 1487. This fact illustrates what I have mentioned in vol. i. 347. Herbert questions Ames’s statement, that they had no Hebrew or Greek types in Scotland in 1579, and he appeals to a book printed ‘at Edinburgh, be Leighe Mannenby, anno Domini 1578,’ in which Greek characters {316} are found. Ibid. p. 1499, 1500. But this cannot overthrow Ames’s statement, which is correct; for the imprint of that book is undoubtedly fictitious, as no such Scottish printer as “Leighe Mannenby” seems to have ever existed.

Note O, Footnote 95.

_Ordination of reformed Ministers._――In the prologue to the “Reasoning betwixt Jo. Knox and the abbot of Crossraguell,” Knox adverts to the cavils of the papists against the validity of the call of the reformed ministers, and intimates his intention of returning an answer to the questions on this head which had been proposed to him by Ninian Winget, the “_Procutour for the Papists_.” There are some general remarks on this subject in his answer to Tyrie’s Letter, but I do not think that he ever published any thing professedly on the point. There is a ridiculous tale told by a popish writer concerning a pretended convention held by the reformed ministers in Scotland to determine in what manner they should proceed in the admission of ministers. Willock proposed as a weighty difficulty, that if they used imposition of hands, or any other ceremony commonly practised in the church, they would be asked to show, that they themselves had been admitted by the same ceremonies, and thus the lawfulness of their vocation would be called in question. “Johann kmnox ansuerit maist resolutlie, ‘Buf, buf, man, we ar anes entered, let se quha dar put us out agane;’ meaning that thair was not sa monie gunnis and pistollis in the countrie to put him out as was to intrud him with violence. Sua Johann kmnox, to his awin confusion, entered not in the kirk be ordinar vocatione or imposition of handis, but be imposition of ‘bullatis and pouldir in culringis and lang gunnis;’ sua ye mister not to trubill you farder in seiking out of Johann kmnox vocatione.”――This story “I understude,” says the author, “of ane nobil and honourable man, quha can yit beir witnes gif I lea or not.” He took care, however, not to give the name of the nobleman. Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 129. Parise, 1581.

{317}
Note P, Footnote 100.

_Strictness and impartiality of Discipline._――The form of satisfaction enjoined in the case of Methven, was appointed for all who should be excommunicated for murder, adultery, incest, or other aggravated crimes. The murderer was to bear in his hand “the same or lyke weapoun whairwith the murther was committed.” Buik of the Univ. Kirk, p. 38. Other rules observed in cases of discipline may be seen in Knox’s Liturgy, p. 55‒67, edit. 1611, and in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 704‒756. Impartiality, as well as severity, distinguished the discipline of those times. “_Gryt_ men offending in sick crymes as deserves seckclaith, they suld receave the same als weill as the _pure_.――Na superintendant nor commissioner, with advyce of any particular kirk of yair jurisdiction, may dispense with the extreamitie of sackcloth, prescrivit be the actes of the generall discipline, for any pecuniall sum or paine _ad pios usus_.” Buik of the Univ. Kirk, August, 1573. Dunlop, ii. 753. This was not a mere theoretic proposition. For, in 1563, we find the lord treasurer making public satisfaction, (Keith, 245, 529;) in 1567, the countess of Argyle, (Buik of the Univ. Kirk, p. 37,) and in 1568, the bishop of Orkney, (Anderson’s Collections, ii. 284.) Let not our modern fashionables and great ones be alarmed at hearing of such things. Those days are gone, and will not, it is likely, soon return.

The parliament, or the magistracy of particular burghs, enacted punishments of a corporal kind against certain crimes which were ordinarily tried in the church courts. Some of these existed before the Reformation, and some of them were posterior to it; but the infliction as well as the enacting of them, pertained to the civil magistrate. Knox, p. 269. In the minutes of several kirk‑sessions, however, the sentences inflicting them are found recorded along with censures properly ecclesiastical. The following extract accounts for this in part. “What you bring” (says Mr Baillie, in his answer to bishop Maxwell) “of pecuniary mulcts, imprisonments, banishments, jogges, cutting of haire, and such like, it becomes neither you to charge, nor us to be charged with, any such matters: {318} No church assembly in Scotland assumes the least degree of power, to inflict the smallest civill punishment upon any person; the Generall Assembly it selfe hath no power to fine any creature so much as in one groat: It is true, the lawes of the land appoint pecuniary mulcts, imprisonment, joggs, pillories, and banishment for some odious crimes, and the power of putting these lawes in execution is placed by the parliament in the hands of the inferior magistrates in burroughs or shires, or of others to whom the counsel table gives a speciall commission for that end; ordinarily some of these civill persons are ruling elders, and sit with the eldership: So when the eldership have cognosced upon the scandall alone of criminall persons, and have used their spirituall censures only to bring the party to repentance, some of the ruling elders, by virtue of their civill office or commission, will impose a mulct, or send to prison or stocks, or banish out of the bounds of some little circuit, according as the act of parliament or counsell do appoint it. But that the eldership should imploy its ecclesiastick and spirituall power for any such end, none of us doe defend. That either in Scotland or any where else in the world the haire of any person is commanded to be cut by any church judicatory for disgrace and punishment, is (as I take it) but a foolish fable. That any person truely penitent is threatened in Scotland, with church censures for non‑payment of monies, is in the former category of calumnies.” Historical Vindication of the government of the Church of Scotland, p. 17, 18. Lond. 1646. I have in my possession (extracted from the records of a kirk session) a commission, granted in 1701, by the sheriff‑depute of Berwickshire, constituting one of the elders session‑bailie, for executing the laws against profaneness, agreeably to an act of parliament authorizing the appointment of such an officer in parishes within which no ordinary magistrate resided.

I may add the following quotation from another able and strenuous assertor of the presbyterian discipline and government. “Ubi originalis causa excommunicationis est delictum violans jura et libertates ecclesiæ, &c. When the original cause of excommunication is an offence violating the rights and liberties of the church, either in the way of loss being sustained or injury being done, I confess that the assistance of the secular arm may be implored, {319} and the guilty person may be forced to repair the loss and to give civil satisfaction; or even if the person already excommunicated shall testify a disposition to disturb the religious service, or to violate the rights and liberties of the church. But where no loss or injury to the rights and liberties of the church arises from the offence or from the contumacy, but scandal alone is given, I know not whether any person is to be forced to what is called penitential satisfaction, by imploring the assistance of the secular arm. For as the church has no coactive power in herself, so neither ought she to use it indirectly to extort confessions which are constrained, and consequently counterfeit.” Calderwood, Altare Damascenum, p. 312‒3. edit. Lugd. Bat. 1708.

Note Q, Footnote 113.

_Mr Hume’s misrepresentations of the behaviour of the Reformers to Queen Mary._――The whole account which this historian has given of the conduct of the protestant clergy towards Mary, from her arrival in Scotland until her marriage with Darnley, is very remote from sober and genuine history. It is rather a satire against the Reformation, which he charges with rebellion; against the presbyterian church, whose genius he describes as essentially productive of fanaticism and vulgarity; and against his native country, the inhabitants of which, without exception, he represents as overrun with rusticity, strangers to the arts, to civility, and the pleasures of conversation. History, Reign of Eliz. chap. i. near the close. “Il n’est rien de plus facile quand on a beaucoup d’esprit, et beaucoup d’experience dans l’art de faire des livres, que de composer une Histoire satyrique, des meme faits qui ont servi à faire une Eloge. Deux lignes supprimée, ou _pour_ ou _contre_, dans l’exposition d’un fait, sont capables de faire paroistre un homme ou fort innocent, ou fort coupable: et comme par la seule transposition de quelques mots, on peut faire d’un discours fort saint un discours impie; de meme par la seule transposition de quelques circonstances, l’on peut faire de l’action la plus criminelle, l’action la plus vertueuse.” Bayle, Critique Generale de l’Histoire du Calvinisme, {320} p. 13, 2de edition, 1683. To this charge the historian of England has exposed himself on more than one occasion.

I cannot here expose all his misstatements in the passage to which I have referred. He keeps out of view the fixed resolution of the queen to re‑establish the Romish religion, with all the perils to which the protestants were exposed. He artfully introduces his narrative, by placing her proclamation against altering the protestant religion before the symptoms of popular discontent at her setting up of mass; whereas the proclamation was issued after these, and would never have appeared, had it not been found necessary to allay the apprehensions of the people. Knox, 285. Keith, 504, 505. As a proof that the preachers “took a pride in vilifying, even to her face, this amiable princess,” he gives extracts from an address to her by the General Assembly, without ever hinting that this was merely a draught or overture; that every offensive expression was erased from it before it was adopted by the assembly; and that, when the address was presented by the superintendents of Lothian and Fife, the queen said, “Here are many fair words; I cannot tell what the hearts are.” Knox, 315. Mr H. goes on to say: “The ringleader in all these insults on Majesty, was John Knox.――His usual appellation for the queen was _Jezebel_.” This is a mistake. Neither in his sermons, nor in his prayers, nor in conversation, did he give this appellation to Mary, so long as she was queen; but always honoured her before the people, as well as in her own presence, even when he lamented and condemned her errors. Afterwards, indeed, when for her crimes (of which no man was more convinced than Mr H.) she was removed from the government, and he no longer acknowledged her as his sovereign, he did apply this name to her. It is so far from being true, that “the whole life of Mary was, from the demeanour of these men, filled with bitterness and sorrow,” or that she “was curbed in all amusements by the absurd severity of these reformers,” that she retained her “gaiety and ease,” until, by her imprudent marriage with Darnley, she with her own hand planted thorns under her pillow; while the preachers were most free in their sermons, she enjoyed all manner of liberty; her mass was never taken from her; she was allowed to indulge her “feasting, finery, dancing, balls, and whoredom, their {321} necessary attendant;” nor was she ever interrupted in these amusements, except when her own husband deprived her of her favourite Italian fiddler, a loss for which she afterwards took ample vengeance. It is difficult to conceive how one acquainted with the history of that period, and the character of the queen, could impute the “errors of her subsequent conduct” to the “harsh and preposterous usage which she met with” from the reformers. Nor can there be a greater satire upon the general character of Mary, (previous to her first marriage,) than to say, that “she found every moment reason to regret her leaving that country, from whose manners she had, in her early youth, received the first impressions.” It is well known that the court at which she received her education was most dissolute; and the supposition that she carried away the innocent polish and refinement of their manners, without contracting their criminal contagion, is not only incredible, but contradicted by the confessions of her friends. Memoires de Chastelnau, augmentez par J. le Laboureur, Prieur de Juvigné, tom. i. p. 528. A Bruxelles, 1731. I have no desire, however, to dip into this subject, or to drag to light facts unfavourable to that unhappy princess; although the unwarranted and persevering attacks which have been made upon worthy men, in order to reconcile the “future conduct” of Mary, with “the general tenor of her character,” would justify far greater freedoms than have been lately used in this way.

“We are too apt to figure to ourselves the reformers of that age, as persons of impolitic and inflexible austerity.” This is the remark of one who was much better acquainted with their history than Mr Hume. Lord Hailes, Historical Mem. of the Provincial Councils of the Scottish Clergy, p. 41. Comp. Knox, Historie, p. 310. See also Note Z.

Mr Hume’s object, in the passage on which I have animadverted, was to blacken the reformers, rather than to exalt the queen, of whose character he had at bottom no great opinion. “Tell Goodall,” says he, in a letter to Dr Robertson, “that if he can but give up queen Mary, I hope to satisfy him in every thing else; and he will have the pleasure of seeing John Knox, and the reformers, made very ridiculous.” Indeed, Mr Hume confessed to his confidential friends, that he had, in his history, drawn the character of that {322} princess in too favourable colours. “I am afraid,” says he to the same correspondent, “that you, as well as myself, have drawn Mary’s character with too great softenings. She was undoubtedly a violent woman _at all times_.” Stewart’s Life of Robertson, p. 37, 38.

Note R, Footnote 114.

_Proceedings of Town Council in a slander against Knox._――“18mo Junii, 1563.――The samyn day, in presence of the baillies and counsale, comperit Jhone Gray, scribe to the kirk, and presentit the supplicatione following, in name of the haill kirk, bering that it was laitlie cummen to thair knawledge bi the report of faythfull bretherins, that within thir few dayis Eufame Dundas, in the presence of ane multitude, had spokin divers injurious and sclandarous wordis baith of the doctrine and ministeris. And in especiall of Jhonne Knox, minister, sayand, that within few dayis past, the said Jhonne Knox was apprehendit and tane furth of ane killogye with ane commoun hure; and that he had bene ane commone harlot all his dayis. Quhairfore it was maist humblie desyrit that the said Eufame myt be callit and examinat upone the said supplicatione, and gif the wordis abone written, spokin bi hir, myt be knawin or tryit to be of veritie, that the said Jhonne Knox myt be punist with all rigour without favour: otherwyse to tak sic ordour with hir as myt stand with the glory of God, and that sclander myt be takin from the kirk. As at mair length is contenit in the said supplication. Quhilk beand red to the said Eufame, personallie present in judgement, scho denyit the samyn, and Fryday the 25 day of Junii instant assignit to hir to here and see witnes producit for preving of the allegiance abone expremit, and scho is warnyt apud acta.” Records of Town Council of Edinburgh, of the above date.

The minute of the 25th contains the account of the proof which Knox’s procurator led to show that Eufame Dundas had uttered the scandal which she now denied, and the appointment that the parties should be “warnit _literatorie_ to hear sentence given in the said action.” I have not observed any thing more respecting the cause in the minutes, and it is probable, that the Reformer, having {323} obtained the vindication of his character, prevailed on the judges not to inflict punishment on the accuser.

Note S, Footnote 115.

_Calumnies of the Popish writers against Knox and other Reformers._――“C’est rendre sans doute,” says Bayle, “quelques service à la memoire de Jean Knox, que de fair voir les extravagances de ceux qui ont dechiré sa reputation.” And, having referred to the “gross and extravagant slanders” of one writer, he adds, “this alone is a sufficient prejudice against all which the Roman Catholic writers have published concerning the great Reformer of Scotland.” Dict. art. Knox. If Mons. Bayle could speak in this manner upon a quotation from one author, what conclusion shall we draw from the following quotations?

The first writer who attacked Knox’s character after his death, was Archibald Hamilton, whose hostility against him was inflamed by a personal quarrel, as well as by political and religious considerations. (See above, p. 194.) His book shows how much he was disposed to recommend himself to the papists, by throwing out whatever was most injurious to his former connexions. But there were too many alive at that time to refute any charge which might be brought against the Reformer’s moral character. Accordingly, when he aimed the most envenomed thrust at his reputation, Hamilton masked it under the name of an apprehension or surmise. Having said, that, on the death of Edward VI., “he fled to Geneva with a noble and rich lady,” (which, by the by, is also a falsehood,) he adds, in a parenthesis, “qua simul et filia matris pellice familiariter usus fuisse _putabatur_.” De Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ, p. 65, a. Parisiis, 1577.

In 1579, Principal Smeton published his answer to Hamilton’s book, in which he repelled the charges which he had brought against Knox, and pronounced the above mentioned surmise a malicious calumny, for which the accuser could not adduce the slightest proof, and which was refuted by the spotless character which the Reformer had maintained before the whole world. Smetoni Responsio ad Virulent. Dial. Hamiltonii, p. 95. Edinb. 1579. It now behoved (324) Hamilton either to retract or to prove his injurious insinuation. But how did he act in his reply to Smeton? Under the pretence of repeating what he had said in his former book, he introduces a number of other slanders against Knox’s character, of which he had not given the most distant hint before; and (incredible to be told!) he absolutely avers, that he had formerly specified all these crimes, and condescended upon the places, times, and other circumstances of their commission; although, in his former publication, he had not said one word on the subject except the general surmise which I have quoted above!!! “Pueritiam prematura venere et polluto insuper patris thoro infamem _notavi_. Inde adolescentiam perpetuis assuetam adulteriis _designavi_. Post hanc maturioris ætatis apostasin, &c. descripsi: res ipsas ut gestæ erunt _retuli_: loca, tempora, et reliquas omnes circumstantias _notavi_.” Calvinianæ Confusionis Demonstratio, contra maledicam Ministrorum Scotiæ responsionem; per Archibaldum Hamiltonium, in Sancta Christi Ecclesia Presbyterum. p. 253. Parisiis, 1581. Than this what can be a stronger mark of one who has “made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience,” who “is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself?” After this we cannot wonder at his casting off all shame, and asserting: “Itane vero in maledictis ducitis, quæ impurus homucio non vno, aut paucis, sed multis, et fere dicam _omnibus attestantibus_, designavit? patris thorum infami incestu pollutum, et tot commissa adulteria, quot in ædibus, intra quas admittebatur, relicta vestigia etiamnū _recitant Laudoniensis omnes nobiles, juxta et ignobiles_.” Ut supra, p. 253, b.

We are not left to impute these slanders to personal malice, or to the miserable shifts of an unprincipled individual, who, having rashly committed himself by advancing a falsehood, attempts to maintain his credit by bold assertions and fresh calumnies. For, in the very same year in which Hamilton’s last work appeared, we find another popish author writing in the following terms: “Johne Kmnox your first apostel, quha caused ane young woman in my lord Ochiltreis place fal almaist dead, because sche saw his maister Satthan in ane black mannis likenese with him, throuche ane bore of the dure: quha was also ane manifest adulterare bringand furth of Ingland baith the mother and the dochter whom he persuadit {325} that it was lesum to leve her housband, and adhere unto him, making ane fleshe of himself, the mother, and the dochter, as if he wald conjoyne in ane religione, the auld synagogue of the Jeuis with the new fundat kirk of the Gentiles.” In another place he introduces the account of his second marriage with these words: “That renegat and perjurit priest schir Johane Kmnox, quha efter the death of his first harlot, quhilk he mareit incurring eternal damnation be breking his vou and promise of chastitie, quhen his age requyrit rather that with tearis and lamentations he sould have chastised his flesh and bewailit the breaking of his vou, as also the horribil incest with his gudmother in ane killogie of Haddingtoun.” Burne’s Disputation concerning the Controversit Headdis of Religion, p. 102, 143. Parise, 1581. But Burne, and even Hamilton, were outstripped in calumny by that most impudent of all liars, James Laing, who published in Latin an account of the lives and manners of the heretics of his time. There are few pages of his book in which he does not abuse our Reformer; but in (what he calls) his Life, he has exceeded any thing which was ever dictated either by personal malice, or by religious rancour. “Statim,” says he, “ab initio suæ pueritiæ omni genere turpissimi facinoris infectus fuit. Vix excesserat jam ex ephebis, cum patris sui uxorem violarat, suam novercam vitiarat, et cum ea, cui reverentia potissimum adhibenda fuerat, nefarium stuprum fecerat.” His bishop having, forsooth, called him to account for these crimes, he straightway became inflamed with the utmost hatred to the catholic religion. “Deinde non modo cum profanis, sed etiam cum quibuscunque sceleratissimis, perditissimis, et potissimum omnium hæreticis est versatus, et quo quisque erat immanior, sceleratior, crudelior, eo ei carior et gratior fuit.――Ne unum quidem diem sceleratissimus hæreticus sine una et item altera meretrice traducere potuit.――Continuo cum tribus meretricibus, quæ videbantur posse sufficere uni sacerdoti, in Scotia convolat.――Ceterum hic lascivus caper, quem assidue sequebatur lasciva capella, partim perpetuis crapulis, partim vino, lustrisque ita confectus fuit, ut quotiescunq. conscendere suggestum ad maledicendum, velim precandum [vel imprecandum?] suis, opus erat illi duobus aut tribus viris, a quibus elevandus atq. sustendandus erat.” De Vita et Moribus atque Rebus Gestis Hæreticorum {326} nostri temporis. Authore Jacobo Laingæo Scoto Doctore Sorbonico, fol. 113, b. 114, a, b. 115, a. Parisiis, 1581. Cum Privilegio. Nor were such accounts confined to that age. In the beginning of the following century, they were repeated by John Hamilton. Facile Traictise, contenand ane infallible reul to discern trew from fals religion, p. 60. Louvain, 1600. In 1623, an English writer refers to James Laing’s work for an authentic account of Knox’s private life. The Image of bothe Churches, Jherusalem and Babell, by P. D. M. p. 134. Tornay, 1623. And as late as 1628, we find Father Alexander Baillie retailing, in the English language, all the gross tales of his predecessors, with additions of his own, in which he shows a total disregard to the best‑known facts in the Reformer’s life. “Jhon Knox,” says he, “being chaplane to the laird of Balvurie, and accused for his vices and leecherie, was found so guiltie and culpable that to eschevie the just punishment prepared for him he presently fled away into Ingland.” He afterwards says, that Knox, after the death of his second wife, [that is, twenty years at least after his own death,] “shamefully fell in the abominable vice of incestuous adultery, as Archib. Hamilton and others doe witnesse;” and as a proof that Knox reckoned this vice no blot, Baillie puts into his mouth a gross defence of it, in the very words which Sanders, in his book against the Anglican Schism, had represented Sir Francis Brian as using in a conversation with Henry VIII. Baillie’s True Information of the Unhallowed Offspring, Progress, and Impoison’d Fruits of our Scottish‑Calvinian Gospel and Gospellers, p. 14, 41. Wirtsburgh, 1628.