Chapter I: SHALL, in this note, add some particulars respecting the early (3)

It is evident that these outrageous and contradictory calumnies have been all grafted upon the convicted he mentioned in the preceding note, and on the malignant insinuation of Archibald Hamilton. The characters of the foreign reformers were traduced in the very same manner by the popish writers. Those who have seen Bolsec’s Lives of Calvin and Beza, or others written in the same spirit, must be sufficiently convinced of this. Will it be believed that, in the middle of the seventeenth century, a book should have been published under the name of Cardinal de Richlieu, in which it is asserted that “Calvin being condemned for acts of incontinency, which he had carried to the utmost extremity of vice, [ses {327} incontinences, qui le porterent jusques aux dernieres extremitez du vice,] retired from Noyon (his native city) and from the Roman church, at the same time?” And that this should have been published after the cardinal himself had examined the registers of Noyon, which stated facts totally inconsistent with the supposition of such a thing having ever been imputed to him? La Defence de Calvin, par Charles Drelincourt, p. 10, 11, 33. Geneve, 1667. Our countrymen of the popish persuasion were careful to retail all the calumnies against the foreign reformers, and they do so in a manner peculiar to themselves. Nicol Burne most seriously asserts that Luther was begotten of the devil, as to his carnal as well as his spiritual generation; and in order to prove that this was not impossible, he advances the most profane argument that ever proceeded from the mouth or pen of a Christian. Disputation, p. 141. The same thing is asserted by James Laing. De Vita Hæretic. fol. 1, b. In a pretended translation into Scots of a poem written by Beza in his youth, (which the Roman Catholics, after he left their communion, were careful to preserve from oblivion,) Burne has unblushingly inserted some scandalous and disgraceful lines, for which he had not the slightest warrant from the original. Disputation, p. 103, 104. John Hamilton says, that “Calvin did ane miracle to mak ane quik man ane deid, quhilk miracle was done in Geneve to ane Brulæus of Ostune, with whome he contractit for a piece of money to fenzie himself deid, and to ryse to lyfe at his prayers, when he sulde chope thryse upon his biere: bot the compagnion forget to ryse again, whilk come to Calvin’s schame.” Facile Traictise, p. 412. But the following narrative is still more marvellous, and lest his readers should doubt its truth, the author prays them to “suspend thair judgement, quhill they spere [until they enquire at] the maist affectionat Protestantis of Scotland quha has bene in Geneve. Surelie,” continues he, “I ressavit the treuth of this be honorable gentilmen of our countrie, quha confessit to me before gud vitnes, that the devil gangis familiarlie up and down the town, and speciallie cumis to pure and indigent men quha sellis thair saullis to him for ten sous, sum for mair or less. The money is verie plesant quhen they ressave it; bot putting hand to thair purse, quhen they vald by thair denner, thay find nathing but uther {328} stane or stick.” Hamilton’s Catholik and Facile Traictise, fol. 50, b. Paris, 1581. Laing, in his Life of Calvin, (of which Senebier has justly said “that it would be impossible to believe that such a libel had been written, if it were not to be seen in print,”) has raked together all the base aspersions which had been cast upon that reformer, and has spent a number of pages in endeavouring to show that he was guilty of stealing a sum of money. De Vita Hæret. fol. 76, b.‒79, b. Of Buchanan, whom he calls “homo sacrarum literarum imperitissimus, simulque impudentissimus,” he relates a number of impieties, of which this is the last, “plurimi etiam narrant illum miserrimum hominem quandam in sacro fonte, quo infantes aqua benedicta ablui solent, adsit reverentia dictis, oletum fecisse.” Ibid. fol. 40, a. One example more, and I have done. “Te admonerem de quodam impio hæretico sacerdote Davidson, quem audivi his jam multis annis publice cum quadam meretrice scortatum esse, quam fertur peperisse prima nocte, qua cum illa dormivit, quod hic doctores medici pro magno miraculo habent; cum vix mulieres ante nonum mensem, vel octavum parere soleant.” Ibid. fol. 36, b, 37, a.

Persons must have had their foreheads, as well as their consciences, “seared with a hot iron,” before they could publish such things to the world as facts. Yet Laing’s book was approved, and declared worthy of publication, by two doctors of the university of Paris. Its grossest slanders against the Scottish reformers were literally copied, and circulated through the continent as undoubted truths, by Reginaldus, Spondanus, Julius Breigerus, and many other foreign popish authors. Each of these added some fabrication of his own; and one of them is so ridiculously ignorant as to rail against our Reformer by the name of Noptz. Bayle, Dictionnaire, art. Knox, Note G. Archibald Hamilton’s two works had the same respectable recommendations with Laing’s book, and one of them is declared to be “very orthodox, and worthy of being ushered into the light for the profit of the church.” And John Hamilton was chosen tutor to two cardinals, appointed professor of philosophy in the Royal College of Navarre, elected, by the students of the German nation in Paris, to the cure of the parish of St Cosmus and Damian, presented to it by the university, and {329} confirmed in it by the parliament; and, in fine, was chosen rector of the university of Paris!!! So eager were foreigners to load with honours the most bigoted and fanatical of our popish refugees. Sketch of the Life of John Hamilton, p. 2, 3, written by Lord Hailes.

I know that it was common in that age for controversial writers of all descriptions to indulge themselves in a coarseness of invective against their antagonists, which would not be tolerated at present: but this is quite a different thing from what I have given examples of in this note. With respect to the complaints which protestant writers made of the profligacy of the popish clergy, the truth of these is incontestably established by the testimony of Roman Catholic authors, and by the public documents of their own church. Nor do I wish to insinuate that all the popish writers were of the same description with those whom I have quoted, or that there were not many Roman Catholics, even at that time, who disapproved of the use of these dishonourable and empoisoned weapons; but the great number of such publications, the wide circulation which they obtained, and the length of time during which they continued to issue from the popish presses, demonstrate the extent to which a spirit of lying and defamation was carried in the Roman church. Petty dabblers in antiquity, and flippant orators, who have read a general history of those times, or a modern Roman catholic pamphlet, must be allowed to repeat the trite maxim, of faults on both sides, and to conceal their ignorance under the veil of moderation, by representing these faults as equal; but I aver that no candid person, who is duly acquainted with the writings of that period, will pretend to account for the above‑mentioned calumnies, by imputing them to a spirit of asperity and prejudice common to both parties.

Note T, Footnote 124.

_Popish accounts of Knox’s second marriage._――“Heaving laid aside al feir of the panis of hel, and regarding na thing the honestie of the warld, as ane bund sklave of the Devil, being kendillit with an unquenshible lust and ambition, he durst be sua bauld to enterpryse {330} the sute of marriage with the maist honorabil ladie, my ladie Fleming, my lord duke’s eldest dochter, to the end that his seid, being of the blude royal, and gydit be thair father’s spirit, might have aspyrit to the croun. And because he receavit ane refusal, it is notoriouslie knawin how deidlie he haited the hail hous of the Hamiltonis.――And this maist honest refusal would nather stench his lust nor ambition; bot a lytel efter he did persew to have allyance with the honorabill hous of Ochiltrie of the kyng’s M. awin blude; Rydand thair with ane gret court, on ane trim gelding, nocht lyk ane prophet or ane auld decrepit priest, as he was, bot lyk as he had bene ane of the blude royal, with his bendes of taffetie feschnit with golden ringis, and precious stanes: And as is planelie reportit in the countrey, be sorcerie and witchcraft did sua allure that puir gentil woman, that scho could not leve without him; whilk appeiris to be of gret probabilitie, scho being ane damsel of nobel blud, and he ane auld decrepit creatur of maist bais degrie of onie that could be found in the countrey: Sua that sik ane nobil hous could not have degenerat sua far, except Johann kmnox had interposed the powar of his maister the Devil, quha as he transfiguris him self sumtymes in an angel of licht; sua he causit Johann kmnox appeir ane of the maist nobil and lustie men that could be found in the warld.” Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 143, 144. But the devil outwitted himself in his design of raising the progeny of the Reformer to the throne of Scotland, if we may believe another popish writer. “For as the common and constant brute of the people reported, as writeth Reginaldus [a most competent witness!] and others, it chanced not long after the marriage, that she [Knox’s wife] lying in her bed, and perceiving a blak, uglie, il‑favoured man busily talking with him in the same chamber, was sodainely amazed, that she took seikness and dyed;” [nor does the author want honourable witnesses to support this fact, for he immediately adds,] “as she revealed to two of her friends, being ladyes, come thither to visite her a little before her decease.” Father A. Baillie’s True Information, p. 41. It is unfortunate, however, for the credit of this “True Information,” that the Reformer’s wife not only lived to bear him several children, but survived {331} him many years. James owed the safety of his crown to another cause. See above, p. 274.

Note U, Footnote 161.

_Of Christopher Goodman._――From the intimate and long friendship which subsisted between him and our Reformer, this divine deserves more particular notice in this work. The Goodmans were a family of respectability in Chester, and repeatedly held the office of magistrates in that city. In a pedigree of the family, preserved in the British Museum, “Adam Goodman a marchant, and Selay Linge,” have a son “Christoph. prcher.” Harl. MSS. No. 2038. 32. f. 99. During the reign of Edward VI. he read lectures on divinity in Oxford. Strype’s Annals, i. 124. At the accession of queen Mary, he retired first to Strasburg, and afterwards to Frankfort. When he was at Strasburg, he joined in a common letter, advising the exiles of Frankfort to alter as little as possible in the English service; but he became afterwards so much convinced of the propriety of alterations, and was so much offended at the conduct of the Coxian party, that he removed from Frankfort to Geneva, along with those who were of the same sentiments with himself, and was chosen by them joint minister with Knox. Troubles at Franckford, p. 22, 23, 54, 55, 59.

In 1558, he published the book which afterwards created him a great deal of trouble. Its title is, “How superior powers ought to be obeyed: of their subjects and wherein they may lawfully by God’s worde be disobeyed and resisted. Wherein also is declared the cause of all this present miserie in England, and the onely way to remedy the same. By Christopher Goodman. Printed at Geneva, by John Crispin, MDLVIII.” In this book he subscribed to the opinion respecting female government, which his colleague had published a few months before. He maintained that the power of kings and magistrates was limited, and that they might lawfully be resisted, deposed, and punished by their subjects, if they became tyrannical and wicked. These principles he applied particularly to the government of the English Mary. A copy of verses by William {332} Kethe (who translated some of the Psalms into English metre) is added to the work, of which the following is a specimen:――

“Whom fury long fostered by suffrance and awe,
Have right rule subverted, and made will their law.
Whose pride how to temper, this truth will thee tell;
So as thou resist may’st, and yet not rebel.”

Goodman came to England in 1559, but he found queen Elizabeth so much displeased at his publication, that he kept himself private. Burnet, iii. Append. 274. On this account, and in compliance with the urgent request of our Reformer, he came to Scotland. When the lords of the congregation chose him one of the council for matters of religion, the earl of Arran endeavoured to appease the resentment which the English queen still entertained against him. Sadler, i. 510, 511, 532. In 1562, the earl of Warwick repeatedly interceded for him, and for his being recalled from Scotland; “of whom,” says he, “I have heard suche good commendation both of the lord James of Scotland and others, that it seemeth great pitie, that our countrye suld want so worthy and learned an instrument.” Forbes’s State Papers, ii. 235. Calvin urged Goodman not to leave Scotland until the Reformation was completely established. Epistolæ, p. 566. Hannoviæ, 1597. When he did return to his native country in 1565, it was with great difficulty that he was received into favour, notwithstanding the friends he had at court. He was obliged to make a recantation of the offensive doctrines in his publication. He protested and professed that “good and godly women may lawfully govern whole realms and nations;” but he qualified and explained, rather than recanted, what he had taught respecting the punishment of tyrants. Strype has inserted the document in his Annals, i. 126; but he has certainly placed it under the wrong year. Collier calls it “a lame recantation.” Eccl. Hist. ii. 440. In 1572, Goodman subscribed, in the presence of the queen’s ecclesiastical commissioners, a more ample protestation of his obedience to Elizabeth. Strype’s Annals, ii. 95, 96. He was also harassed on account of his non‑conformity to the English ceremonies. Life of Grindal, 170. Life of Parker, {333} 325, 326. Knox corresponded with him after he left Scotland; and Calderwood has preserved a letter which he wrote to him in 1571, in which he alludes to the troubles which he understood his friend was exposed to. MS. ii. 270. Goodman accompanied Sir Henry Sidney to Ireland when he was sent to subdue the popish rebels in that country. Troubles at Franckford, p. 196. In 1580, he resided at Chester, from which he sent his salutations to Buchanan. Buchanani Epistolæ, 30, 31. Oper. edit. Rud. He died at Chester, in 1601, according to verses to his memory in Supplement. Goodman’s book was quoted, but for very different purposes, by Bancroft, (Dangerous Positions, b. ii. chap. i.) and by Milton, (Tenure of Magistrates: Prose Works by Symmons, vol. iii. p. 196.)

Goodman was not the only person belonging to the English church who published free sentiments respecting civil government. About the same time with his book, there appeared another work on that subject, entitled, “A Short Treatise of Politique Pouuer, and of the True Obedience which Subjectes owe to Kynges.” Its author was Dr John Ponet, bishop, first of Rochester, and afterwards of Winchester, under Edward VI. Ames, iii. 1594. He discusses the questions respecting the origin of political authority, its absolute or limited nature, the limits of obedience, and the deposition and punishment of tyrants. “This book,” says Strype, “was not over favourable to princes. Their rigors and persecutions, and the arbitrary proceedings with their peaceable subjects in those times, put them upon examining the extent of their power, which some were willing to curtail and straiten as much as they could.――This book was printed again in the year 1642, to serve the turn of those times.” Memorials of the Reformation, iii. 328, 329. In the second edition of the work, it is said to have been originally published in 1556. Collier (who was a keen Tory) calls it “a most pestilent discourse.” He wished to believe that bishop Ponet was not the author, but it is evident from what he says, that he could see no reason for departing from the common opinion. History, ii. 363. Ponet was a superior scholar. He read the Greek Lecture in the university of Cambridge about 1525, and was among the first who adopted the new method of pronouncing that language introduced by Sir Thomas Smith. He also wrote several {334} books on mathematics and other subjects, which were greatly esteemed. Strype’s Life of Sir Thomas Smith, p. 26, 27. Ames, Typ. Antiq. i. 599. ii. 753, 1146. iii. 1587.

Note V, Footnote 190.

The proceedings of the committee appointed to prepare overtures to the parliament, Dec. 1567, are to be found in Robertson’s Records of the Parliament of Scotland, and Act. Parl. Scot. vol. iii. Almost the only ecclesiastical propositions of the committee which were not adopted by the parliament, were such as related to the patrimony of the church. I shall extract one or two respecting the commonwealth, which did not obtain a parliamentary sanction. “Als it is thocht expedient that in na tymes cuming ony women salbe admittit to the publict autoritie of the realme, or function in publict government within ye same.” On the margin, opposite to this, is written, “Fund gude;” which is expressive, as I understand it, of the committee’s approbation of the motion. As Knox, at a period subsequent to this, declared from the pulpit that he had never “entreated that argument in publict or in privat” since his last arrival in Scotland, (Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 117,) it appears that this motion had been made by some other member of the committee. The late misconduct of queen Mary must have had a great effect in inclining them to give this advice. The 23d article does great honour to the enlightened views of the movers. It proposes that all hereditary jurisdictions throughout the kingdom should be abolished. On the margin is written, “Apprevit,” and farther down, “Supercedis.” A long time elapsed, before this measure, so necessary to the salutary administration of justice, was adopted in Scotland. The 30th article also is of great importance, as intended to prevent delay of justice, by shortening processes. The following was a proposed sumptuary law: “Item, that it be lauchfull to na wemen to weir abone yair estait except howris.” On the margin of this is written, “This act is verray gude.” Act. Parl. Scot. vol. iii. p. 38‒40. Robertson’s Rec. of Parl. p. 795, 798.

The ministers appointed on this committee, were “Maister {335} Johne Spottiswood, Maister Johne Craig, Johne Knox, Maister Johne Row, and Maister David Lindsay.” It will be observed that our Reformer is the only one who has not “Maister” prefixed to his name. This title was expressive of an academical degree. It was commonly given in that age to Masters of Arts, as well as Doctors of Law, and in their subscriptions they put the letter M. or the word “Maister,” before their names.

Note W, Footnote 209.

_Remarks on Dr Robertson’s character of the Regent Murray._――I am not moved with the unfavourable representations which the partisans of Mary have given of Murray, nor am I surprised at the cold manner in which Mr Hume has spoken of him; but I confess that it pains me to think of the way in which Dr Robertson has drawn his character. The faint praise which he has bestowed on him, the doubt which he has thrown over his moral qualities, and the unqualified censures which he has pronounced upon some parts of his conduct, have, I am afraid, done more injury to the regent’s memory, than the exaggerated accounts of his adversaries. History of Scotland, vol. ii. 315, 316. Lond. 1809. Having said this much, it will be expected that I shall be more particular. In addition to those qualities which “even his enemies allow him to have possessed in an eminent degree,” Dr R. mentions his humanity, his distinguished patronage of learning, and impartial administration of justice. “Zealous for religion,” he adds, “to a degree which distinguished him even at a time when professions of that kind were not uncommon.” This is what every person must allow, but it certainly is far from doing justice to this part of the regent’s character. His professions of religion were uniformly supported in all the different situations in which he was placed; his strict regard to divine institutions was accompanied with the most correct and exemplary morals; his religious principle triumphed over a temptation which proved too powerful for almost all the protestant nobility. (See above, p. 290.) When there exist such proofs of sincerity, to withhold the tribute due to it is injurious not only to the individual, but to the general interests of religion. After bearing {336} a decided testimony to the “disinterested passion for the liberty of his country,” which prompted Murray to oppose the pernicious system of the princes of Lorrain, and the “zeal and affection” with which he served Mary on her return to Scotland, the historian adds:――“But, on the other hand, his ambition was immoderate; and events happened that opened to him vast projects, which allured his enterprising genius, and led him to actions inconsistent with the duty of a subject.” That his ambition was “immoderate” does not, I think, appear from any evidence which has been produced. Dr R. has defended him from the charge as brought against him at an earlier period of his life, and we have met with facts that serve to corroborate the defence. (See vol. i. p. 443.) The “vast projects” that opened to him must be limited to the attainment of the regency; for I do not think that Dr R. ever for a moment gave credit to the ridiculous tale, that he designed to set aside the young king, and seat himself upon the throne. His acceptance of the regency cannot be pronounced “inconsistent with the duty of a subject,” without determining the question, Whether the nation was warranted, by the misconduct and crimes of Mary, to remove her from the government, and to crown her son. “Her boldest advocates,” says Mr Laing, “will not venture to assert, that, on the supposition of the fact being fully proved, that she was notoriously guilty of her husband’s murder, she was entitled to be restored.” History of Scotland, i. 137, second edition. Murray was fully satisfied of her guilt before he accepted the regency. Never was any person raised to such a high station with less evidence of his having ambitiously courted the preferment. Instead of remaining in the country to turn the embroiled state of affairs to his personal advantage, he, within two months after the murder of the king, left Scotland, not clandestinely, but after having asked and obtained leave. And whither did he retire? Not into England, to concert measures with that court, or the more easily to carry on a correspondence with the friends whom he had left behind him; but into France, where his motions could be watched by the friends of Mary. Ibid. p. 59‒61. The association for revenging the king’s murder, and for preserving the young prince, the surrender of Mary, and her imprisonment in Lochleven, followed so unexpectedly and so {337} rapidly, that they could not have proceeded from his direction. Nay, there is positive evidence that the lords who had imprisoned Mary, so far from having acted in concert with Murray, were suspicious that he would counteract their designs. “As yet theys lordes wyll not suffer Mr Nycholas Elveston, sent from the L. of Murrey, to have access to the quene, nor to send my L. of Murrey’s letter unto her.” Throkmorton’s Letters to Cecil, and to Elizabeth, 16th July, 1567, apud Laing’s History of Scotland, ii. Append. No. 13, p. 121, 126. When he returned to Scotland, he found that the queen had executed formal deeds resigning the government, and appointing him regent during the minority of her son, and that the young prince was already crowned. Hume, vol. v. Note K.

“His treatment of the queen, to whose bounty he was so much indebted, was unbrotherly and ungrateful.” To the charge of ingratitude, I can only reply, by repeating what I have said in the text, that all the honours which she conferred on him were not too great a reward for the important services which he had rendered her. How often have persons been celebrated for sacrificing parental as well as brotherly affection to the public good! The probable reasons for Murray’s interview with the queen in Lochleven have been stated by Mr Laing. History, i. 119‒121. Were I to speak of what was incumbent on him as a _christian_ brother with the view of bringing her to a just sense of the iniquity of her conduct, I would use language which, I am afraid, would not be understood by many readers, and which many professed christians seem to forget, when they talk on this subject. Any exertions which were necessary to save his sister’s life were not wanting on the part of Murray. To restore her to the government, or even, as matters then stood, to restore her to liberty, he was not bound by any ties either of a public or private kind. Had he amused her with the hopes of this, he might have escaped the charge of harshness, but his conduct would have been more unbrotherly.

“But he deceived and betrayed Norfolk with a baseness unworthy of a man of honour.” To this harsh censure I oppose the opinion of Mr Hume, who will not be suspected of partiality to the regent. “Particularly,” says he, in a letter to Dr Robertson, written after the publication of his History of Scotland, “I could {338} almost undertake to convince you that the earl of Murray’s conduct with the duke of Norfolk was _no way_ dishonourable.” Stewart’s Life of Robertson: History, i. 158. See also, in confirmation of this, “Part of a letter from the earl of Murray to L. B.,” inserted in vol. ii. Append. No. xxxiii.

“His elevation to such unexpected dignity [the reader will observe that it was _unexpected_] inspired him with new passions, with haughtiness and reserve: and instead of his natural manner, which was blunt and open, he affected the arts of dissimulation and refinement. Fond, towards the end of his life, of flattery, and impatient of advice, his creatures, by soothing his vanity, led him astray, while his ancient friends stood at a distance, and predicted his approaching fall.” Certainly the facts stated by Dr Robertson in the preceding part of his narrative, do not prepare the mind of his reader for these charges. The severity of the regent’s virtues had, indeed, been mentioned, and it had been asserted that his deportment had become distant and haughty. The authority of Sir James Melvil was referred to in support of this statement; and I am satisfied that it was upon his testimony chiefly that the historian proceeded, when he gave the above account of Murray’s conduct during the latter part of his life. I submit to the reader the following remarks on the degree of credit due to the authority of Melvil.

In the first place, there is every reason to think, either that Melvil’s Memoirs have been unfaithfully published by the editor, or that the narrative which the author of them has given of affairs, from the queen’s marriage with Bothwell to the death of the earl of Murray, is incorrect and unfaithful. I shall not take it upon me to determine which of these is the most probable supposition, but am of opinion that either the one or the other must be admitted. The charge which was brought against queen Mary of participation in the murder of her husband, with all the proofs produced in support of it, is suppressed, and studiously kept out of view in the Memoirs. There is not one word in them respecting the celebrated letters to Bothwell, although they formed the grand vindication of the regent and his friends. The same inference may be drawn from the ridiculous account given of the appearance made by the regent {339} before the commissioners at York, when he presented the nameless accusation against Mary (Memoirs, 96, 97, Lond. 1683); an account which is completely discredited by the journals of both parties, and which neither Hume nor Robertson thought worthy of the slightest regard. It is observable, that Melvil could not be ignorant of the real transaction, as he was present at York; and that the design of this, as well as of the subsequent part of his narrative, is to represent the regent as weakly suffering himself to be duped and misled by designing and violent counsellors. Mr Laing has adverted to both of these things as discreditable to the Memoirs. History, ut supra, i. 118.――I shall produce only one other instance of the same kind. Speaking of the queen’s marriage with Bothwell, Melvil says: “I cannot tell how nor by what law he parted with his own wife, sister to the earl of Huntly.” Mem. 80. Is it credible, that one who was in the midst of the scene, and acquainted even with the secrets of state at that time, could be ignorant of that which was proclaimed to all the world? If it should be alleged that Melvil, writing in his old age, might have forgotten this glaring fact, (the excuse commonly made for his inaccuracies,) I am afraid that the apology will detract as much from the credibility of his Memoirs as the charge which it is brought to repel.

2. In estimating the degree of regard due to the censures which Melvil has passed on the regent’s conduct, we must keep in view the political course which he himself steered. Sir James appears to have been a man of amiable dispositions, whose mind was cultivated by the study of letters; but those who have carefully read his Memoirs must, I think, be convinced that his penetration was not great, and that his politics were undecided, temporizing, and inconsistent. He was always at court, and always tampering with those who were out of court. We find him exposing himself to danger by dissuading his mistress from marrying Bothwell, and yet countenancing the marriage by his presence; acting as an agent for those who had imprisoned the queen, and yet intriguing with those who wished to set her at liberty; carrying a common message from the king’s lords to the earl of Murray upon his return out of France, and yet secretly conveying another message tending to counteract the design of the former; supporting Murray in the regency, and {340} yet trafficking with those who wished to undermine his authority. I do not call in question the goodness of his intentions in all this: I am willing to believe that a desire for the peace of the country, or attachment to the queen, induced him to go between, and labour to reconcile, the contending parties. But when parties are discordant――when their interests, or the objects at which they shoot, are diametrically opposite, to persevere in such attempts is preposterous, and cannot fail to foster and increase confusions. Who believes that the Hamiltons were disposed to join with the king’s party? or that the latter, when unassured of the assistance of England, were averse to a junction with the former? Yet Melvil asserts both of these things. Mem. 85, 86, 90. Who thinks that there was the smallest feasibility in what he proposed to the regent as “a present remedy for his preservation?” or believes that Maitland would have consented to go into France, and Kircaldy to deliver up the castle of Edinburgh? The regent heard him patiently; he respected the goodness of the man; but he saw that he was the dupe of Maitland’s artifices, and he followed his own superior judgment. For rejecting such advices as this (and not the religious proverbs, and political aphorisms, which he quoted to him from Solomon, Augustine, Isocrates, Plutarch, and Theopompus) has Melvil charged him with refusing the counsel of his oldest and wisest friends. Mem. 102‒104.

3. What were the errors committed by the regent which precipitated his fall? There are two referred to by Melvil; the imprisonment of the duke and lord Herries, and the accusation of Maitland and Balfour. Mem. 100, 101. In vindication of the former step, I have only to appeal to the narrative which Dr Robertson has given of that affair. Vol. ii. p. 266‒299. With respect to the latter, Sir James Balfour was “the most corrupt man of that age,” (ibid. p. 367,) and Maitland was at that time deeply engaged in intrigues against the regent, ibid. p. 307. There is not a doubt that both of them were accessory to the murder of Darnley, (Laing, i. 28, 135, ii. 22); they were arrested and accused at this time at the instance of Lennox, and in consequence of the recent confession of one of Bothwell’s servants; and Maitland was preserved by the queen’s friends assembling in arms for his rescue, which compelled {341} the regent to adjourn his trial. Ibid. ii. 37. Appendix, No. 28, p. 298‒9.

4. Who were the unworthy favourites by whose flattery and evil counsel the regent was led astray? Dr Robertson mentions “captain Crawford, one of his _creatures_.” This is the same person whom he afterwards calls “captain Crawford of Jordanhill, a _gallant_ and enterprising officer,” who distinguished himself so much by the surprise of the castle of Dumbarton. History, ii. 307, 331, comp. Laing, ii. 297, 298; and Douglas’s Baronage of Scotland, 429. Morton, Lindsay, Wishart of Pittarow, Macgill of Rankeillor, Pitcairn abbot of Dunfermline, Balnaves of Hallhill, and Wood of Tilliedavy, were among the regent’s counsellors.

5. Who were his old friends who lost his favour? They could be no other than Balfour, Maitland, Kircaldy, and Melvil himself. Of the two former I need not say a word. Kircaldy of Grange was a brave man, and had long been the intimate friend of the regent; but he was already corrupted by Maitland, and had secretly entered into his schemes for restoring the queen. Robertson, ii. 307. Of Melvil I have already spoken; nay, he himself testifies that the regent continued to the last to listen to his good advices. “The most part of these sentences, (says he,) drawn out of the Bible, I used to rehearse to him at several occasions, and _he took better with these at my hands, who he knew had no by‑end, than if they had proceeded from the most learned philosopher_. Therefore _at his desire_ I promised to put them in writing, to give him them to keep in his pocket; but he was slain before I could meet with him.” Mem. 104. How this is to be reconciled with other assertions in the Memoirs, I leave others to determine. It required no great sagacity in the ancient friends of the regent to “predict his approaching fall,” when repeated attempts had already been made to assassinate him, and when some of them were privy to the conspiracy then forming against his life; and it says little for their ancient friendship, that they “stood at a distance,” and allowed it to be carried into execution.

There are three honourable testimonies to the excellence of the regent’s character, which must have weight with all candid persons. The first is that of the great historian De Thou. He not {342} only examined the histories which both parties had published of the transactions in Scotland, which made so much noise through Europe, but he carefully conversed with the most intelligent and candid Scotsmen, papists and protestants, whom he had the opportunity of seeing in France. When that part of his history which embraced these events was in the press, he applied to his friend Camden for advice, acquainting him that he was greatly embarrassed, and apprehensive of displeasing King James, who, he understood, was incensed against Buchanan’s History. “I do not wish (says he) to incur the charge of imprudence or malignity from a certain personage who has honoured me with his letters, and encouraged me to publish the rest of my history with the same candour, and regard for truth.” Camden, in reply, exhorted him to study moderation, and told him the story which he had received from his master, imputing the disturbances in Scotland chiefly to the ambition of Murray. Durand, Histoire du XVI. Siecle, tom. vii. contenant la Vie de Monsieur De Thou, p. 226‒231. But notwithstanding the respect which he entertained for Camden, and the desire which he felt to please James, De Thou found himself obliged, by a sacred regard to truth, to reject the above imputation, and to adopt in the main the narrative of Buchanan. I shall quote, from his answer to Camden, the character which he draws of Murray. Having mentioned the accusation brought against him, of ambitiously and wickedly aiming at the crown, he says: “This is constantly denied by all the credible Scotsmen with whom I have had opportunity to converse, _not even excepting those who otherwise were great enemies to Murray on a religious account_; for they affirm, that, religion apart, HE WAS A MAN WITHOUT AMBITION, WITHOUT AVARICE, INCAPABLE OF DOING AN INJURY TO ANY ONE, DISTINGUISHED BY HIS VIRTUE, AFFABILITY, BENEFICENCE, AND INNOCENCE OF LIFE; and that, had it not been for him, those who tear his memory since his death would never have attained that authority which they now enjoy.”――“Res ipsa loquitur: nam demus, quod ab diversa tradentibus jactatur, Moravium ambitione ardentem scelerate regnum appetisse, quod tamen constanter negant omnes fide digni Scoti, quoscunque mihi alloqui contigit, etiam ii quibus alioqui Moravius {343} ob religionis causam summe invisus erat; nam virum fuisse aiebant, extra religionis causam, ab omni ambitione, avaritia, et in quenquam injuria alienum, virtute, comitate, beneficentia, vitæ innocentia, præstantem; et qui nisi fuisset, eos, qui tantopere mortuum exagitant, hodie minime rerum potiturus fuisse.” Epistolæ de Nova Thuani Histor. Editione Paranda. p. 40, in tom. i. Thuani Histor. et tom. vii. cap. v. p. 5. Buckley, 1733.

A second testimony of a very strong kind in favour of the regent is that of archbishop Spotswood. He must have conversed with many who were personally acquainted with Murray; he knew the unfavourable sentiments which James entertained respecting him, which had been published in Camden’s Annals; and he had long enjoyed the favour of that monarch; yet, in his history, he has drawn the character of the regent in as flattering colours as Buchanan himself has done. The last testimony to which I shall appeal is the _Vox Populi_, strongly expressed by the title of _The Good Regent_, which it imposed on him, and by which his memory was handed down to posterity. Had he, elated by prosperity, become haughty and reserved, or, intoxicated with flattery, yielded himself up to unprincipled and avaricious favourites, the people must soon have felt the effects of the change, and would never have cherished his name with such enthusiastic gratitude and unmingled admiration.

Note X, Footnote 218.

_Inscription to the memory of the Regent Murray._――The regent’s monument is yet entire and in good order. It stands in that part of St Giles, now called the _Old Church_, (the former aisle having been taken into the body of the church when it was lately fitted up,) at the back of the pulpit, on the east side. At the top is the figure of an eagle, and below it “1570,” the date of the erection of the monument. In the middle is a brass plate, on which the following ornaments and inscriptions are engraved: The family arms, with the motto “Salus per Christum” (Salvation through Christ): On one side of the arms, a female figure with a cross and Bible, the word “Religio” above, and below “Pietas sine vindice luget” (Piety {344} mourns without a defender); on the other side, another female figure, in a mourning posture, with the head reclining on the hand, the word “Justicia” above, and below “Jus exarmatum est” (Justice is disarmed.) Underneath is the following inscription, composed by Buchanan:

23 JANVARII 1569.

JACOBO · STOVARTO · MORAVIÆ · COMITI · SCOTIÆ ·
PROREGI · VIRO · ÆTATIS · SVÆ · LONGE · OPTIMO ·
AB · INIMICIS · OMNIS · MEMORIÆ · DETERRIMIS ·
EX · INSIDIIS · EXTINCTO · CEV · PATRI ·
COMMVNI · PATRIA · MOERENS · POSVIT ·

The verses in which Buchanan celebrated the regent are accessible to every scholar. The following lines are less known:

JACOBUS STUARTUS.

Moraviæ Comes, Prorex pro Jacobo vi. rem Scoticam feliciter gessit, puræ Religionis assertor acerrimus. Ab æmulis Limnuchi ex insidiis glande trajectus, magno omnium desiderio moritur ad d. xxiii. Januarii, Anno Christi 1570.

Ter tua dicturus cum dicere singula conor,
Ter numeri, et numeros destituere soni.
Nobilitas, animus, probitas, sapientia, virtus,
Consilium, imperium, pectora sancta, fides,
Cuncta mihi simul hæc instant certamine magno:
Ut sibi, sic certant viribus ista meis;
Ipsi adeo Aonides cum vellent dicere, cedunt
Sponte sua numeris, hæc, Buchanane, tuis.

Johannis Jonstoni Heroes, p. 31, 32
Lugduni Batavorum, 1603.

Knox, among others, warned the regent of the designs which his enemies had formed against his life. “When the Mr of {345} Grahame (says Bannatyne) come and drew him to Dumbartane, he [Knox] plainlie said to the regent then, that it was onlie done for a trane be that meanis to cut him off, as it came to pas; also when he was in Stirveling, being returned from Dumbartane, he sent me to my ladie the regentis wyfe, tuo sundrie tymes, and desyrit her to signifie my lord her husband, that he suld not come to Lynlythgow. So that gif his counsall had bene followed, he had not died at that tyme. And my ladie the last tyme sent Mr Jhone Wood, to desyre him to avoid Lynlythgow. But God thought vs not worthy of sic a rewlare above vs, and also he wald thereby have the wickitnes of vthers knawin, whilk then was hid; and therefore did God then tak him fra us. But lat the Hamiltonis, the lard of Grange, with the rest of that factione, lay their compt and recken thair advantage and wining since.” Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 428, 429. The intrepidity of Murray prompted him to despise these prudential admonition, and defeated the precaution of his friends.

Mr Scott has, by a poetical license, introduced the Reformer as present at Linlithgow, to grace the regent’s fall.

From the wild border’s humbled side,
In haughty triumph marched he,
While Knox relax’d his bigot pride,
And smiled the traitorous pomp to see.
Ballads and Lyrical Pieces, p. 52. Edin. 1810.

Note Y, Footnote 251.

_Sentiments of Scottish Reformers on the difference between civil and ecclesiastical authority._――I may subjoin a few facts which ascertain the opinion of our reformers on this subject.――In common with other reformed churches, they allowed that civil rulers have a right to employ their authority for the reformation of religion within their dominions, especially when, as was universally the case under the papacy, religious abuses and corruptions affect the state as well as the church, and are interwoven with the civil constitution and administration; they allowed them a power of making {346} laws for the support and advancement of religion; and they held that, where a reformed church existed, there might be a co‑operation between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities about certain objects which came under the cognizance of both, each of them acting within its own line, and with a view to the proper ends of its institution. But, on the other hand, they maintained that civil and ecclesiastical authority were essentially distinct, and they refused that civil rulers had a supremacy over the church as such, or a right to model her government and worship, and to assume to themselves the internal management of her affairs.

The Scottish reformers never ascribed or allowed to civil rulers the same authority in ecclesiastical matters which the English did. In particular, they resisted from the beginning the claim of ecclesiastical supremacy granted to the English monarchs. On the 7th July, 1568, “It was delatit and fund that Thomas Bassinden, printer in Edinburgh, imprintit an buik, intitulat _The Fall of the Roman Kirk_, naming our King and Soverane _Supreme Head of the Primitive Kirk_――The haill assemblie ordaint the said Thomas to call in agane all the foirsaidis buikis yat he hes sauld, and keip the rest unsauld, until he alter the forsaid title. Attour, the assemblie appoyntit Mr Alex. Arburthnot to revise the rest of the forsaid tractat, and report to the kirk quhat doctrine he findis thairin.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 38, 39. The General Assembly were frequently occupied in settling the bounds between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and in March 1570 arranged the objects which pertained to the latter under six heads; including, among other things, the judgment of doctrine, administration of divine ordinances, the election, examination, admission, suspension, &c., of ministers, and all cases of discipline. The following is the concluding article: “And because the conjunction of marriages pertaineth to the ministrie, the causis of adherents and divorcements aucht also to perteine to thame, as naturallie annexit thairto.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 51. Actes of the General Assemblies, prefixed to the First and Second Booke of Discipline, printed in 1621, p. 3, 4.

On occasion of some encroachments made on the liberties of the church in 1571, John Erskine of Dun, superintendent of Angus {347} and Mearns, addressed two letters to the regent Mar. They are written in a clear, spirited, and forcible style, contain an accurate statement of the essential distinction between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and should be read by all who wish to know the early sentiments of the church of Scotland on this subject. See Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 279‒290.

It has always been a principle of the presbyterian church of Scotland, that the ministers of religion ought not to be distracted from the duties of their office by holding civil places. The first General Assembly (Dec. 1560) agreed to petition the Estates, to “remove ministers from civil offices, according to the canon law.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 2. At the request of the regent Mar, the assembly, or convention, which met at Leith in January 1571‒2, allowed Mr Robert Pont, on account of his great knowledge of the laws, to act as a Lord of Session. Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 54. But in March 1572‒3, the regent Morton having laid before them a proposal for appointing some ministers Lords of Session, the Assembly “votit throughout that naine was able nor apt to bear the saides twa charges.” They therefore prohibited any minister from accepting the place of a senator; from this inhibition they, however, excepted Pont. Ibid, p. 56. In 1584, Pont resigned his place as a Lord of Session, or rather was deprived of it, in consequence of the act of parliament passed that year, declaring that none of the ministers of God’s word and sacraments――“in time cuming sall in ony waies accept, use, or administrat ony place of judicature, in quhatsumever civil or criminal causes, nocht to be of the Colledge of Justice, Commissioners, Advocates, court Clerkes or Notaris in ony matteris (the making of testamentes onely excepted).” Skene’s Acts, fol. 59, b. Edinburgh, 1597. Lord Hailes’s Catalogue of the Lords of Session, p. 5, and note 34.

The name of Pont often occurs in the account of ecclesiastical transactions during the remainder of the sixteenth century. The writer of Additional Notes to Lord Hailes’s Catalogue of the Lords of Session, calls him by mistake, “the first presbyterian minister of the West Kirk,” p. 8. Edinburgh, 1798. William Harlaw preceded him in that situation, (Keith, 498,) and continued to hold it in August 1571. See Letter to him from the duke {348} and Huntly, in Bannatyne’s Journal, 217. Pont was also commissioner of Murray, and provost of Trinity College, Edinburgh. Upon the death of the earl of March, James VI. offered him the bishopric of Caithness, but he declined accepting it. Keith’s Scottish Bishops, 129. He was the author of several publications, besides the sermons against Sacrilege, repeatedly mentioned.

The time of his death, and his age, appear from the following inscription on his tombstone, in St Cuthbert’s churchyard:

ILLE EGO, ROBERTꝰ PONTA‑
Nꝰ IN HOC PROPE SACRO
CHRISTI QUI FUERA‾‾ PASTOR
GREGIS AUSPICE CHRISTO
ÆTERNÆ HIC RECUBANS EX‑
SPECTO RESURGERE VITÆ.
OBIIT DIE‾‾ ÆT 81, MEN‑
SIS 8 MAII, A. D. 1606.[355]

Note Z, Footnote 272.

_Particulars respecting Knox’s residence at St Andrews._――The following particulars are extracted from the MS. Diary of Mr James Melville. “Ther wer twa in St Androis wha war his aydant heirars, and wraitt his sermons, ane my condiscipule, Mr Andro Young, minister of Dumblane, who translated sum of them into Latin, and read thame in the hall of the collage insteid of his orations.” The other was a servant of Mr Robert Hamilton, but with what view he took notes Melville could not say. Diary, p. 28.――“Mr Knox wald sum tymes cum in, and repast him in our colleage yeard, and call ws schollars unto him and bliss ws, and exhort ws to knaw God, and his wark in our countrey, and stand be the guid caus, to use our tyme weill, and learn the guid instructiones and follow the guid example of our maisters. Our haill collag [St Leonard’s] maisters and schollars war sound and zelus for the {349} guid caus, the uther twa colleges not sa.” p. 23. “This yeir in the moneth of July, Mr Jhone Davidsone, an of our regents, maid a pley at the marriage of Mr Jhone Colvin, quhilk I saw playit in Mr Knox presence, wharin, according to Mr Knox doctrine, the castle of Edinburgh was besieged, takin, and the captin, with ane or twa with him, hangit in effigie.” p. 24. This seems to have been an exercise among the students at the university. The following extract shows that the fine arts were not then uncultivated, and that the professors and students attended to them in their recreations. “I lernit singing and pleying on instrumentis passing weill, and wald gladlie spend tyme, whar the exercise thairof was within the collag; for twa or thrie of our condisciples pleyed fellin weill on the virginals, and another on the lute and githorn. Our regent had also the pinalds in his chalmer, and lernit sum thing, and I efter him.” Melville adds, that his fondness for music was, at one period, in danger of drawing away his attention from more important studies, but that he overcame the temptation, p. 25.

I may add an extract from the same Diary, relating an incident in the life of one who entertained a high respect for Knox, and afterwards became a distinguished minister in the church. “The ordor of four kirks to a minister, then maid by the erle of Morton, now maid regent, against the quilk Mr Johne Davidsone, an of the regents of our collag, made a buik called _The Conference betwix the Clark and the Courtier_; for the quhilk he was summoned befor the Justice Air at Haddington this winter (1573) the lest of our course, and banished the countrey.” p. 24. This dialogue, which is in verse, contains the following lines:

Had gude John Knox not yit bene deid,
It had not cum unto this heid:
Had thay myndit till sic ane steir,
He had maid hevin and eirth to heir.

The General Assembly, in October 1577, presented a supplication to the regent Morton, requesting him to allow Mr Davidson to return home from England. Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 70. {350} The editor of Davidson’s Poetical Remains (lately printed) has furnished some interesting information concerning the author. I am indebted to him for correcting a mistake into which I had fallen in the Life of Melville. Davidson returned to Scotland during the lifetime of the regent, though not until his fall. Hume of Godscroft, in his account of Morton’s behaviour before his execution, says, “There he embraced Mr John Davidson, and said to him, you wrote a book, for which I was angry with you; but I never meant any ill to you,――forgive me. Mr Davidson was so moved herewith, that he could not refrain from weeping.” History of the House of Douglas and Angus, ii. 279, 12mo.

Note AA, Footnote 299.

_Verses to the memory of Knox._――Beza has inserted no verses to the memory of our Reformer, in his _Icones, id est, Veræ Imagines Virorum Doctrina simul et Pietate Illustrium_, published by him in Latin, anno 1580. But of this work, a French version was published under the title of _Les Vrais Pourtraits des Hommes Illustres en Pieté et Doctrine_. Geneve, 1581, 4to. In this translation are inserted original verses on Knox, &c. Irving’s Memoirs of Buchanan, 234. Having never seen this translation, I cannot say whether the verses which it contains coincide with those which I am about to quote.