Chapter V (1)

_Vaus_, John, rector of the school of Aberdeen.
i. 4, 5.

{485}
_Venable_, John.
Reformer of Dieppe, i. 203.

_Visitors_ of churches.
What, ii. 7.

W

_Wallace_, Adam.
His martyrdom, i. 162; ii. 292.

_Wannand_, Alexander.
Convicted of heresy, i. 357, 362.

_Wedderburn_, James.
Author of satires against the popish clergy, i. 376.
Verses on, ii. 457.

_Wedderburn_, Gilbert.
Convicted of heresy, i. 357, 362.

_Wedderburn_, John.
Convicted of heresy, i. 358‒9.

_Wedderburn_, John and Robert.
Authors of Psalms and Godly Ballads, i. 378.
Verses on, ii. 457.

_Welch_, John.
Marries one of Knox’s daughters, ii. 269.
Is found guilty of treason, ii. 270‒1.
Interview between Lewis XIII. and, ii. 272.
See _Knox_, Elizabeth.

_Whitlaw_, Alexander, of Greenrig.
i. 282, 287; ii. 394.

_Whittingham_, Dean of Durham.
Ordained at Geneva, i. 56.
A friend of Knox, i. 146, 153.
Successor to Knox at Geneva, i. 197.
Eulogium on him by the Earl of Warwick, i. 432‒3.

_Williams._
See _Guillaume_.

_Willock-, John.
Returns to Scotland, i. 170.
Preaches privately, i. 171, 173.
Leaves Scotland, i. 175.
Returns and joins the protestant preachers, i. 233.
Tried for heresy, i. 253, 257, 447‒8.
Officiates for Knox in Edinburgh, i. 279.
His advice respecting the suspension of the Queen Regent, i. 297.
Made a member of the extraordinary Privy Council, i. 298.
His stipend, i. 308, ii. 355.
Made superintendent of Glasgow, ii. 7.
Goes to England, ii. 177.
Calumny against, ib.
Pretended conversation between Knox and, ii. 316.
Verses on, ii. 459.

_Wingate_, (Winzet,) Ninian.
Knox’s controversy with, ii. 73.

_Winchester_ of Kinglassie, George.
Convicted of heresy, i. 162, 367.

_Winram_, John, Sub‑prior of St Andrews.
Connives at the reformed opinions, i. 30.
His cautious behaviour, i. 62.
Joins the reformers, i. 319.
Made superintendent of Fife, i. 424; ii. 7.
His Catechism, i. 424.
Verses on, ii. 460.

_Wishart_, George.
Banished for teaching the Greek New Testament, i. 47, 343.
Returns to Scotland, i. 41.
Knox attends, i. 42.
Is outlawed, i. 360.
Account of him by one of his scholars, i. 380.
Bears a fagot at Bristol, i. 383.
Translates the Swiss confession, i. 384.
Verses on, ii. 456.

_Wishart_, Sir John, of Pittarrow, brother to the former.
Knox writes to, i. 200.
Made comptroller, ii. 44, 96, 354.
Knox’s letter to, ii. 400.
Davidson’s dedication to, ii. 431.

_Wood_, John, Secretary to the Regent Murray.
Is assassinated, ii. 166.
Knox’s letters to, ii. 395, 397.

{486}
Z

_Zuinglius._
His influence with the senate of Zurich, ii. 13.
Comparison between Knox and, ii. 260.

THE END.

EDINBURGH:
PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY,
PAUL’S WORK, CANONGATE.

FOOTNOTES

—

1 – Knox, Historie, p. 236.

2 – “Ult. Mart. 1560. Margaret Aidnam askit God and the
Congregatioun forgiveness of the adultery committed be her
w{t} William Rantoun, publiclie in the paroche kirke of
this town: John Knox beand at that tyme minister.” Records
of the Kirk Session of St Andrews.

3 – Records of Town Council of Edinburgh, May 8, 1560.

4 – Knox, Historie, p. 238.

5 – Knox, Historie, p. 237.

6 – Beza, Vita Calvini. Melch. Adami Vitæ Exter. Theolog.
p. 70, 88. Persons unfriendly to the government of the
reformed churches, have represented the opposition made
to Calvin and his brethren, as arising from their attempts
to have their discipline established by human laws,
and supported by civil penalties. This is an unfair
representation of the case. “Neque enim consentaneum est,”
says Calvin, “ut qui monitionibus nostris obtemperare
noluerint, eos ad magistratum deferamus.” Institut. Christ.
Relig. p. 434. Ludg. Batav. 1654. The dispute between him
and his opponents turned on this question, Are ministers
obliged to administer the sacraments to those whom they
judge unworthy? Or, (which amounts to the same thing,) Are
the decisions of the church‑court in such matters to be
reviewed and reversed by the civil court? Melch. Adam. ut
supra. And this will be found to have been the true state
of the question in Scotland, in the greater part of the
dissensions between the court and the church, after the
establishment of the Reformation.

7 – Knox, Historie, p. 237, 256.

8 – The names of the ministers who composed the Confession of
Faith, and the Book of Discipline, were John Winram, John
Spotswood, John Douglas, John Row, and John Knox. Ibid.
p. 256.

9 – Row, MS. Historie of the Kirk, p.12, 16, 17. It is
probable that the meeting of assembly by which the Book
of Discipline was approved, was that which Knox calls a
convention, held on the 5th of January, 1561. Historie,
p. 261, 295. The first General Assembly appointed a meeting
to be held at that time. Buik of the Universall Kirk,
p. 3. MS. in Advocates’ Library. But there is no account
of its proceedings in that or in any other register which
I have had access to see. In the copy of the First Book of
Discipline, published (by Calderwood, I believe) in 1621,
p. 23, 70; and in Dunlop’s Confessions, vol. ii. p. 517,
605, it is said, that the order for compiling it was given
on the 29th of April, 1560, and that it was finished by
them on the 20th of May following. But, as the civil war
was not then concluded, I have followed the account given
by Knox, who says, that it was undertaken subsequently to
the meeting of parliament in August that year. Historie,
p. 256.

10 – In Dunlop’s Collect. of Confessions, ii. 436, the
approbation of it is styled an act of secret council,
25th January, 1560, _i.e._ 1561.

11 – Knox, Historie, p. 256, 257, 295, 296. Keith, 496, 497.
Dunlop, ii. 606‒608.

12 – The General Assembly had, at different times, under their
consideration the appointment of superintendents for
Jedburgh, Dumfries, Aberdeen, and Banff; but came to no
conclusion. Those actually appointed were, John Erskine
of Dun for Angus; John Winram for Fife; John Spotswood for
Lothian; John Willock for Glasgow; and John Carswell for
Argyle. Keith’s Hist. p. 511, 512, 518‒9. Carswell is not
mentioned, among the superintendents, in a curious document
recently printed; but it contains no list of the ministers
in Argyle. Register of Ministers, Exhorters, and Readers,
and of their Stipends, after the period of the Reformation,
p. 1, 2, Edinburgh, 1830.

13 – Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 524, 526, 545, 577, 638, 639.

14 – Dunlop, ii. 526. Imposition of hands was afterwards
appointed to be used by the Second Book of Discipline.
Ibid. 768‒9.

15 – Knox, Historie, p. 263‒266.

16 – For an illustration of some of these facts, see Note A.

17 – First Book of Discipline, chap. vii. Dunlop, ii. 547‒561.

18 – Knox mentions Lord Erskine, (afterwards Earl of Mar,) as
one of the chief noblemen who refused to subscribe the
discipline, and assigns two reasons for his refusal; first,
“he hes a very Jesabell to his wife,” and second, “if the
pure, the scullis, and the ministry of the kirk, had thair
awin, his kitcheing wald want twa partes and mair of that
quhilk he now injustly possesses.” Historie, p. 256. My
Lady Mar’s passion for money was well known at that time,
and is referred to in Lord Thirlstane’s “Admonitioun to my
Lord of Mar Regent,” published in Ancient Scottish Poems
from Maitland MS. p. 164. Lond. 1786:

“Nor, to content thy marrow’s covatice,
Put not thyself in perrell for to pereis.”

19 – Hess, Life of Zuingle, p. 201‒207. Gerdes. i. 309.

20 – See Note B.

21 – See vol. i. p. 321.

22 – Row’s MS. Historie, ut sup. p. 308, 356, 372. See also
Note C.

23 – See Note D.

24 – Hume, History of England, vol. v. chap. 38, p. 51.
Lond. 1807.

25 – Row’s MS. p. 372.

26 – See Note E.

27 – Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 2. MS. Adv. Lib. Keith, 498.

28 – See Note F.

29 – Knox, Historie, p. 260.

30 – Preface to a Letter, added to An Answer to a Letter of a
Jesuit, named Tyrie, he Johne Knox.――Sanctandrois――Anno
Do. 1572.

31 – Calvini Epistolæ, p. 150: Oper. tom. ix. “Viduitas tua
mihi, ut debet, tristis et acerba est. Uxorem nactus eras
cui non reperiuntur passim similes,” &c. In a letter to
Christopher Goodman, written at the same time, Calvin says,
“Fratrem nostrum Knoxum, etsi non parum doleo suavissima
uxore fuisse privatum, gaudeo tamen ejus morte non ita
fuisse afflictum, quin strenue operam suam Christo et
ecclesiæ impendat.” Ibid. Calvin had lost his own wife
in 1549. Epistolæ et Responsa, p. 212‒3, 225. Hanov. 1597.

32 – See Note G.

33 – Knox, 257, 258. Buchanan, i. 326, 327. Spotswood, 150, 151.
Keith, 154, 157.

34 – Knox, 260.

35 – Mr Hume’s letter, printed in the Life of Dr Robertson:
History of Scotland, vol. i. 25. Lond. 1809. Anderson’s
Collections, vol. iv. part i. p. 71, 72, 74, 79.

36 – “How sone that ever her French fillokes, fidlars, and
utheris of that band, gat the hous alone, thair mycht
be sene skipping not veray comelie for honest women.
Her comune talk was in secrete, that sche saw nothing
in Scotland but gravity, quhilk repugned altogidder to
her nature, for sche was brocht up in joyeusetie.” Knox,
Historie, p. 294.

37 – See Note H.

38 – Knox, Historie, p. 284‒287.

39 – See Note I.

40 – Knox, Historie, p. 341.

41 – Knox, Historie, p. 282, 283, 285, 287.

42 – Several of the above considerations, along with others, are
forcibly stated in a letter of Maitland to Cecil, written a
short time before Queen Mary’s arrival in Scotland. Keith,
App. 92‒95. That sagacious, but supple politician was among
the first to verify some of his own predictions. That such
fears were very general in the nation appears also from a
letter of Randolph. Robertson, Append. No. 5.

43 – Histoire du Calvinisme et celle du Papisme mises en
Parellele; ou Apologie pour les Reformateurs, pour la
Reformation, et pour les Reformez, tome i. p. 334. A
Rotterdam, 1683, 4to. The affirmation of this writer is
completely supported by the well‑known history of Henry IV.
of France, (not to mention other instances,) whose
recantation of Calvinism, although it smoothed his way to
the throne, could not efface the indelible stigma of his
former heresy, secure the affections of his Roman catholic
subjects, or avert from his breast the consecrated poniard
of the assassin.

44 – Randolph to Cecil, 9th Aug. 1561, apud Robertson’s
Scotland, Appendix, No. 5, and Keith, p. 190. A letter
of Maitland to Cecil, of the same date with the above,
seems to refer to the same design; and I shall take the
opportunity of correcting (what appears to me) an error
in the transcription of this letter. “I wish to God,” says
Maitland, “the first warre may be planely intended _against
them by Knox_, for so shold it be manifest that the
suppressing of religion was ment; but I fear more she will
proceed tharunto by indirect means. And nothing for us
so dangerouse as temporising.” Haynes, p. 367. This seems
altogether unintelligible; but if the words which I have
printed in Italics be transposed, and read thus, “by them
against Knox,” they will make sense, and correspond with
the strain of the letter, and with the fact mentioned by
Randolph, in his letter to Cecil written on the same day.
Maitland expresses his fears that Mary would have recourse
to crafty measures for undermining their cause, instead
of persevering in the design which she had avowed of
prosecuting Knox.

45 – Knox, Historie, p. 269.

46 – Ibid. p. 262.

47 – Keith, 188.

48 – Knox, Historie, p. 287‒292.

49 – Ibid. p. 292.

50 – Knox, Historie, p. 292. Keith, 197.

51 – Letter, Knox to Cecil, 7th October, 1561: Haynes, State
Papers, p. 372.

52 – Randolph’s letter, in Keith, 188. In this letter, the
ambassador states some circumstances as to the first
interview between the queen and the Reformer, which are
not mentioned in Knox’s History. He “knocked so hastily
upon her heart, that he made her to weep, as well you know
there be some of that sex that will do that as well for
anger as for grief; though in this the lord James will
disagree with me. He concluded so in the end with her, that
he hath liberty to speak his conscience, [and] to give unto
her such reverence as becometh the ministers of God unto
the superior powers.”

53 – Haynes, 372. An epistolary correspondence was at this time
maintained between secretary Cecil and our Reformer. Keith,
191, 192, 194. Robertson, Append. No. 5.

54 – Knox, Historie, p. 295‒6.

55 – Keith, App. 175‒179. Knox, 296‒300.

56 – The privy council appointed certain persons to fix the
sums which were to be appropriated to the court and to
the ministry, and also the particular salaries which were
to be allotted to individual ministers, according to the
circumstances in which they were placed. The officers
appointed for this purpose composed a board or court, under
the privy council, and was called the court of modification.

57 – “So busie,” says he, “and circumspect wer the modificators,
(because it was a new office, the terme must also be new,)
that the ministers should not be over‑wantoun, that an
hundred merks was sufficient to an single man, being
a commone minister: thre hundreth merks was the hiest
apoynted to any, except the superintendents and a few
utheris.” Historie, 301. “Mr Knox is not at all here
diminishing the sum,” says Keith; “for the original books
of assignation to the ministers, which now ly before me,
ascertain the truth of what he says,” p. 508. Wishart of
Pittarrow, who was comptroller of the modification, pinched
the ministers so much that it became a proverb――“The
gude laird of Petarro was an ernest professour of Christ,
bot the mekill devill receave the comptroller.” Sir John
Wishart of Pittarrow, was appointed comptroller on the 1st
of March, 1561. Reg. Sigil. Secr. lib. xxi. 5.

58 – Knox, Historie, p. 201‒2.

59 – See Extracts from the Records of the Town Council in Note K.

60 – Keith, p. 498.

61 – The form observed on that occasion, which was followed in
the admission or ordination of all the superintendents and
other ministers, is inserted at length in Knox’s Historie,
p. 263‒266; and in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 627‒636.

62 – Knox, Historie, p. 270.

63 – Ibid. p. 328‒9.

64 – See Note L.

65 – Keith, 215.

66 – Knox, Historie, 305‒308, and letter to Locke, 6th May,
1562, in Cald. MS. i. 755, 756. Spotswood, 184.

67 – Histoire des Martyrs, fol. 558, 559. Anno 1597.

68 – Knox, Historie, 308‒311.

69 – St Cuthberts, or the West Church, was at that time (as it
is at present) a distinct parish, of which William Harlow
was minister. There was also a minister in Canongate or
Holyroodhouse.

70 – Cald. MS. ii. 157.

71 – Records of Town Council, 26th October, 1561.

72 – Ibid. 10th April, 1562.

73 – The number of elders in the session of Edinburgh was
twelve, and of deacons sixteen. Dunlop’s Confessions,
ii. 638.

74 – Calderwood, apud Keith, 514.

75 – See Note M.

76 – Row, MS. Historie of the Kirk, p. 47. Spotswood, p. 463‒4.
I have chiefly followed Row’s narrative. By comparing it
with Spotswood’s, the reader will perceive that they differ
in a few unimportant circumstances. Row mentions that he
had his information from several persons who had heard
Craig himself relate the story, and particularly from his
widow, “dame Craig,” who survived her husband, and lived
in Edinburgh until 1630. Mr John Craig, minister, his wife,
Marion Small, and his eldest son, Mr William, are mentioned,
under the date 16th August, 1594, in Burgh Sas. ix. 60.

77 – Keith, p. 226.

78 – Knox, Historie, p. 302.

79 – Keith, 230. Knox, 321.

80 – Knox, 316‒318.

81 – The historian of the family of Gordon expressly says, that
“her majesty thought, by the earle of Huntlie his power
in the north, to get herselff fred from the hands of her
bastard brother, James, earle of Morray;” and that “the
earle of Huntlie (at the quein’s own desyre) did gather
some forces, to get her out of the earle of Murraye’s
power.” Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland,
by Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstoun, p. 140, 141.

82 – Spotswood, 185.

83 – Knox, Historie, p. 316, 318.

84 – The Reasoning betwixt Jo. Knox and the abbote of
Crossraguell, fol. 4. Edinburgh, 1563.

85 – Kennedy, Compendius Tractive, A, iiij.

86 – Ibid. D, vii.

87 – Keith, App. 195‒199. Kennedy, in a letter to the archbishop
of Glasgow, says, “Willock, and the rest of his counsell,
labourit earnestlie to sie gif I wald admitt the scripture
onlye juge, and, be that meines, to haif maid me contrarry
to my awin buke; bot thair labouris wes in waist.――I held
me evir fast at ane grounde.” And he triumphs, that he
“draif the lymmar――to refuse the interpretation of the
doctoris allegeit be him and all utheris, bot so far as he
thocht they war agreable with the worde of God, quhilk was
as rycht nocht.” Ibid. 193, 194.

88 – See Note N.

89 – Without farther plea.

90 – Crawford’s Peerage of Scotland, p. 75.

91 – “Augustus 22――Monasterio Crucis regalis obitus Beati
Quintini Kennedii abbatis, Comitis Cassilii fratris, qui
admiranda constantia sex annis totis, cum hæresi nascente,
et jam confirmata conflixit, ad extremum lento veneno
consumptus, corruptoque sanguine excessit.” Dempsteri
Menologium Scotorum, p. 20. Bononiæ, 1622.

92 – See Calendar, by “M. Adam King, profeseur of philosophie
and Mathimatikis at Paris,” prefixed to a Scottish
translation of Canisius’s Catechism, printed in 1587.

93 – Knox gives merely a general notice of this dispute in
his Historie, p. 318. Keith, who was very industrious in
collecting whatever referred to the ecclesiastical history
of that period, could not obtain a copy of the printed
disputation, and had heard of but one imperfect copy.
History, App. 255. The only copy known to exist at
present, is in the library of Alexander Boswell, Esq.
of Auchinleck.――Since the publication of the first edition
of this Life, Mr Boswell has printed a small impression of
this unique, being an exact _fac simile_ of the original
edition, for the gratification of the curious.

94 – Lesley, apud Keith, p. 501. App. 223. Lesley speaks of a
dispute between Knox and Wingate, but that historian is
often incorrect in his details. The dispute between the
doctors of Aberdeen and the ministers, which took place
in the beginning of 1561, is mentioned by Knox, Historie,
p. 261, 262. It would seem from a letter of Randolph, that
there was a dispute in the end of 1561, between some of
the ministers and a Parisian divine, who had accompanied
the queen. Keith, 208. Wingate published at Antwerp, his
“Buke of Fourscoir Three Questionis,” in 1563. Keith has
reprinted this, along with his “Tractatis,” originally
printed at Edinburgh. He calls them “very rare and much
noted pieces.” History, App. 203. In point of argument or
sentiment, they are certainly not noted; but they contain
a strong proof of the extreme corruption which prevailed
among the superior popish clergy, against which Wingate
inveighs as keenly as any reformer. His second book
concludes with this exclamation, “Och, for mair paper or
pennyis!” Wingate translated several works of the Fathers
into the Scottish language, some of which are mentioned
by him in his Tractatis. Keith, App. 226, 227. He was made
abbot of a Scottish monastery at Ratisbon. Mackenzie’s
Lives, vol. iii. p. 149.

95 – See Note O.

96 – Knox, Historie, p. 323, 324. Keith, 522.

97 – Keith, p. 538.

98 – Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 23. Keith, 559, 560.

99 – Knox, Historie, p. 398.

100 – See Note P.

101 – Comp. Knox, Historie, 327, with Keith, Append. 125.

102 – In Knox’s Historie, it is printed _Cathenis_, by mistake,
instead of _Athenis_. The person referred to is Alexander
Gordon, brother to George, earl of Huntly, who was slain
at Corrichie in 1562. Scarcely any Scottish prelate ever
occupied so many different sees, or occupied them for so
short a time. He was bishop of Caithness, archbishop of
Glasgow, bishop of the Isles, and bishop of Galloway.
When he was deprived of the see of Glasgow, the pope, as
a recompense, created him _titular_ archbishop of Athens.
Gordon’s Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland,
p. 111‒12, 137, 290. Keith’s Scottish Bishops, p. 128, 153,
166, 175.

103 – Knox, Historie, p. 326‒328.

104 – Knox, Historie, p. 327‒329.

105 – Ibid. p. 330‒334.

106 – Spotswood, 188. “We are very much obliged to the
information of archbishop Spotswood” for this, says
honest Keith. History, 240.

107 – Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 536‒8. Knox, 331. Keith, 240.

108 – I have not been able to ascertain the time at which the
acquaintance between the earl of Murray and the Reformer
commenced. It was probably soon after Knox came into
England, in the reign of Edward VI. A popish writer has
mentioned their meeting, and grafted upon it the calumny,
current among the party, that the earl had formed the
ambitious project of wresting the crown from his sister,
and placing it on his own head. “Johann Kmnox deceavit
him,” says he, “in S. Paules kirk in Londone, bringand him
in consait, that God had chosen him extraordinarilie as ane
Josias, to be king of Scotland, to rute out idolatrie, and
to plant the licht of the new evangel: quhair thay convenit
in this manner, That the prior of St Androis, erl of Murray,
sould mentene the new Elias againis the priestes of Baal,
(for sua blasphemouslie he namit the priestes of Christ
Jesus.) And the neu Elias sould fortifie the new Josias,
be procuring the favour of the people againis Iesabel,
blaspheming maist impudentlie the quenis M.” Nicol Burne’s
Disputation, p. 156. Knox was at least better acquainted
with scripture‑history than to make Josias contemporary
with Elias and Jesabel.

109 – Knox, Historie, p. 331.

110 – Referring to the critical circumstances in which the lords
of the Congregation had been situated at these places, when
the queen regent threatened to attack them with superior
forces. See vol. i. p. 260, 267, 277.

111 – See vol. i. p. 312‒3.

112 – Knox, Historie, p. 332‒334.

113 – These are the words of Mr Hume, who holds a distinguished
place among the writers who have excited prejudices against
our Reformer on the score of cruelty to Mary. The reader
will find some remarks on the statements of that able but
artful historian in Note Q.

114 – See Note R.

115 – See Note S.

116 – Spotswood gives a different account of this affair, which
has been adopted by several writers. He not only says that
the protestants “forced the gates; but that some [of the
papists] were taken and carried to prison, many escaped the
back way with the priest himself.” History, p. 188. But he
could not have the opportunity of being so well acquainted
with the circumstances as Knox, whose account is totally
irreconcilable with the archbishop’s. Knox expressly says,
that, besides entering the chapel, and addressing the
priest as above mentioned, “no farther was done or said.”
Historie, p. 335, 336. Had some of the papists been carried
to prison, he never could have given such an account as he
has done, not only in his history, but also in his circular
letter, which was produced at his trial, without any
allegation that it contained an unfair or partial statement
of facts.

117 – Knox, Historie, p. 336, 337.

118 – It has been doubted, whether this meeting acted as a court
of judicature in trying Knox, or was called to determine
whether he should be brought to a judicial trial. Dalyell’s
Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems, vol. i. p. 72.
The justice‑general, the lord advocate, and the other
law‑lords, were present; but they had seats in the privy
council. Upon the whole, I am inclined to think that this
was an extraordinary meeting of the privy council, to which
other noblemen, besides the counsellors, were called, to
give the proceedings greater weight with the public. The
object of the queen was, in the first place, to procure
the imprisonment of Knox, after which she might proceed
against him as she thought most prudent. Knox, Historie,
p. 339, 340. Spotswood, p. 188.

119 – Knox, Historie, p. 238‒343. Spotswood, p. 188. The account
of the trial given by Calderwood, in his MS., has been
compared with that of Knox, and exactly agrees with it.

120 – Keith, 248, 251.

121 – Sir Thomas Randolph, in a letter, dated 27th Feb. 1564,
mentions “some unkindness between Murray and the queen,
about Knox, whose parte he taketh.” Keith, 249.

122 – Keith, 527, 528. Knox, 344, 345.

123 – Randolph, in a letter to Cecil, 18th March, 1563/4,
says:――“Knox askt in church to be marryed to Margrett
Steward, the daughter of the Lord Ochiltre;” referring to
the proclamation of banns. Keith, 251. Lord Ochiltree was
descended from Robert, duke of Albany, second son of King
Robert II. His father exchanged the lands and title of
Evandale for those of Ochiltree. Douglas’s Peerage, 522.
Crawfurd’s Renfrew, and Royal House of Stewart, by Semple,
part i. p. 92‒94. The second son of lord Ochiltree, and
brother‑in‑law of the Reformer, was Sir James Stewart
of Bothwellmuir, afterwards the infamous favourite of
James VI. who created him Earl of Arran. Crawfurd, in his
Officers of State, (p. 488,) has published a protestation
which Arran made of his lineage, and title of priority
to the duke of Lennox, his rival in James’s favour. The
Reformer’s father‑in‑law was usually called _the good_ lord
Ochiltree; and was “a man rather borne to mak peace than to
brag upon the calsey.” Knox’s Historie, p. 304.

124 – See Note T.

125 – Robertson’s History of Scotland, vol. ii. 108. Lond. 1809.

126 – In a letter to the Council of Trent, dated 18th
March 1563/4, Mary laments “that the situation of her
affairs――hujus temporis tanta injuria,” did not permit her
to send some of her prelates to that council; and assures
them of her great and unalterable devotion to the Apostolic
see――“nostra perpetua mente ac voluntate, in ejusdem sedis
observantia et submissione.” In a letter, written Jan. 3d
of the same year, she entreats the cardinal of Lorrain
to assure the pope of her resolution to live and die
a catholic. And on the last day of the same month, she
writes to his holiness himself lamenting the damnable
errors――“damnabili errori,” in which she found her subjects
plunged, and informing him that her intention, from the
time she left France, had uniformly been to re‑establish
the ancient religion. MS. Letters, extracted from the
Barberini Library, in Advoc. Lib. A. 2. 11.

127 – Robertson, Hist. of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 109.

128 – During the reign of Mary of England, the manner in which
the protestants prayed for her, in their conventicles,
was declared high treason. Act. Parl. 1, and 2, Philip
and Mary, cap. 9. Nor did the psalms and prayers of the
primitive Christians escape punishment under the “tolerant”
emperor Julian. Works of the Reverend Samuel Johnston,
p. 20‒22. London, 1713.

129 – Men of no note.

130 – Servants of God, however.

131 – Craig, who was rather facile in his disposition, and apt
to be moulded by those who were about him, seems afterwards
to have recanted the principle which he maintained on
this occasion. For I suppose he is the person who preached
the sermon at Linlithgow, mentioned by Hume of Godscroft,
in his History of the House of Douglas and Angus,
ii. 383, 385. That historian has inserted some very
ingenious observations on the subject, by way of strictures
on the sermon.

132 – Knox, Historie, p. 348‒366.

133 – This was an opinion generally entertained among the
Reformers; and it was one ground (though not the only one,
as we have seen, p. 25) upon which they vindicated the
penal statutes against the mass and image worship. At the
same time, while they laboured to restrain these evils,
they discovered no disposition to proceed to capital
punishment, even when it was completely in their power.
I never read nor heard of an instance, in the time of our
Reformer, of a person being put to death for performing any
part of the Roman catholic worship. If the reason of this
disconformity between their opinion and their practice
be asked, I can only answer,――their aversion to blood.
“God,” says our Reformer, addressing the popish princes
who persecuted the protestants, “will not use his saintes
and chosen children to punish you. For with them is alwaies
mercie, yea, even althogh God have pronounced a curse and
malediction; as in the history of Josua is plaine. But
as ye have pronounced wrong and cruel judgment without
mercie, so will he punish you by such as in whom there is
no mercie.” Answer to the Cavillations of an Anabaptist,
p. 449.

134 – The magistrates of Edinburgh, understanding that
Mr Christopher Goodman was appointed to preach during the
absence of their own ministers, directed a committee of
their number to wait upon him, and to “offer him, in their
names, all honourabill intertenment, and cause the stewart
of Jhonne Knox house to keep table to him upoun the town’s
expensis.” Records of Town Council for 23d Aug. 1564.

135 – Keith, 535, 537, 540.

136 – Knox, Historie, p. 368.

137 – Keith, p. 278, note (a.)

138 – Knox, p. 373.

139 – Keith, 279. Knox, 374, 378.

140 – Keith, 329. Robertson, ii. 125.

141 – Knox, 372, 374. Robertson, ii. 114, 120.

142 – Knox, 372.

143 – Ibid. 379. Keith, 309, 310. Append. 108‒110.

144 – Knox, 368, 379, 386. Keith, 309, 310. Gordon’s Genealog.
Hist. of the earldom of Sutherland, 143‒4.

145 – Keith, 300, 304, 306.

146 – Robertson, ii. 131. Laing, History of Scotland.

147 – Knox, Historie, 382, 384, 386.

148 – Ibid. 388.

149 – Ibid. 373, 374.

150 – Knox, Historie, 377.

151 – Ibid. 376.

152 – Goodall says, that Knox was engaged with the Earl of Murray
in a plot for seizing Darnley; but he has produced no
evidence of his assertion. Life of Queen Mary, i. 207‒209.

153 – Keith, 301‒2.

154 – Sermon on Isa. xxvi. 13, 14: History of the Reformation,
Edin. 1644, 4to. Append. p. 120, 128. Spotswood says, that
Knox, in his sermon, (either doubting the king’s sincerity,
or favouring the faction of the noblemen,) “fell upon him
with a bitter reproof.” History, 191. But the archbishop
does not seem to have read the sermon, which contains
no reproof of the king, either bitter or mild. Indeed,
the preacher appears, on that occasion, to have used less
freedom than ordinary in the application. Strype, Annals,
i. 527, 23d August, 1565.

155 – Preface to the Sermon, ut supra.

156 – Ibid. Records of Town Council. Knox, Historie, p. 381.
Being called before the privy council, he wrote out the
sermon, as exactly according to what he had preached as
possible, and sent it to the press, to let the impartial
see “upon how small occasions great offence is now taken.”
At the end of it is this postscript:――“Lord, into thy hands
I commend my spirit; for the terrible roaring of gunnes,
and the noise of armour, do so pierce my heart, that
my soul thirsteth to depart.” On the margin are these
words:――“The castle of Edinburgh was shooting against
the exiled for Christ Jesus’ sake.” Then follows the
date at which the writing was finished. “The last day
of August 1565, at four of the clock in the afternoon,
written indigestly, but yet truly, so farre as memory would
serve, of those things that in publike I spake on Sunday,
August 19, for the which I was discharged to preach for
a time. Be mercifull to thy flock, O Lord, and at thy
pleasure put end to my misery. John Knox.”

157 – Spotswood, 191, 192. Keith, 546, 547. Keith calls in
question the archbishop’s narrative; because Knox, in his
history, does not say that the queen was present, and does
not mention the prediction, although “fond enough to catch
at and force such things upon his readers.” But Knox did
not write this part of the history; the fifth book having
been compiled after his death, and not being found in old
MSS. See Advertisement, prefixed to the edition of his
Historie, Edin. 1732. It must be confessed, however, that
Spotswood’s account of this affair is inaccurate in a
number of particulars. David Buchanan says, that the king
had “cast the psalme booke in the fire,” which was the
cause of Knox’s denunciation against him. Life of Knox,
prefixed to History of the Reformation.

158 – Records of Town Council, 23d August, 1565. Keith, 547.

159 – Knox, Historie, p. 381.

160 – Ibid. p. 389.

161 – See Note U.

162 – Keith, 562.

163 – Keith, 538.

164 – This appointment was laid upon him in June 1563.
Keith, 525. He does not seem to have executed it till
1567; which is the date subjoined to a prayer at the end
of the treatise. Then follows a postscript: “This booke
is thought necessary and profitable for the church, and
commanded to be printed by the Generall Assemblie.” The
order for printing it seems to have been first given by
the Assembly in 1568, and renewed in 1571. Psalmes in
meeter, &c. (commonly called Knox’s Liturgy), printed
by Andro Hart, A. 1611, p. 28, 67. Dunlop’s Confessions,
ii. 705, 747.

165 – Treatise of Fasting, in Knox’s Liturgy, p. 157‒160.
edit. 1611; and in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 661‒664.

166 – Robertson, Append. No. 14. Keith, Append. p. 165, 167.
Knox, 389‒391.

167 – The friars were so little esteemed, that they soon wearied
of preaching. They boasted that they would dispute with
the protestant ministers; but when the commissioners of the
General Assembly waited on their majesties, and requested
that this might be granted in their presence, the queen
replied, that “sche wald not jeopard her religioun upon
sick as were thare present; for sche knew weill enouch,
that the protestants wer more learned.” Knox, Historie,
p. 391.

168 – Keith, p. 326. Append. 167. Melvil’s Memoires, 63, 64.
Robertson, Append. No. 14.

169 – Knox, 392, 394. Keith, Append. 126. The queen’s letter to
the archbishop of Glasgow, apud Keith, 331. Goodall and
Blackwood, apud Robertson, ii. 145. Lond. 1809.

170 – The noblemen wished to bring Rizzio to a public trial; but
the king would not wait for this, and determined that he
should be seized in the queen’s presence, although she was
big with child, that he might upbraid her for the wrongs
which he had suffered. Keith, App. 121, 122. Robertson,
iii. 318. App. No. 15. Douglas of Lochleven, who was
engaged in the combination against Rizzio, says that it
was their purpose to have “punist him be order of justice;
bot men proponit and God disponit udir wais, be sic
extraordinar means, quhilk truly my aune hart aborit quhan
I saw him; for I never consentit that he suld haiff been
usit by [beside] justice, nather was it in ony nobellman
his mind.” Speaking of Rizzio’s influence, Douglas says,
“I causit offer to him, gif he wald stay the erle of
Murray’s forfaltour, he suld haiff v thowsand pundis
Scottis; his answer was, xx thowsand and that wer all alik;
it wald not be.” MS. papers of the laird of Lochleven.

171 – King James VI. having found great fault with Knox for
approving of the assassination of Rizzio, one of the
ministers said, that “the slaughter of David [Rizzio], so
far as it was the work of God, was allowed by Mr Knox, and
not otherwise.” Cald. MS. ad ann. 1591. Knox himself does
not, however, state this qualification, when he mentions
the subject incidentally. Historie, 86. Robertson,
ii. 161‒2.

172 – Knox, Historie, 395. Answer to Tyrie, A. iiij.

173 – Letter from archbishop Grindal to Bullinger, 17th August,
1566: Strype’s Grindal, Append. 20. Letter from bishop
Parkhurst, written in December 1566: Burnet’s Hist. of
Reform. iii. Append. No. 91. In the Assembly which met in
June this year, Craig desired that “John Carnes, who had
read prayers and exhorted four years and more in Edinburgh,
and had weill profited, might be joyned with him as
colleague in the kirk of Edinburgh, in respect he was
alone.” Keith, 560.

174 – Keith, 56.

175 – Ibid. 565, 566. Knox, 402, 403. Spotswood, 198, 199.
The letter was subscribed by “John Davidson, for James
Nicoldson, writer and clarke of the church of Edinborough.”
Strype’s Life of Archbishop Parker, Append. p. 88.

176 – Speaking of England, he says, “And yet is sche that now
rigneth over thame nether gude protestant, nor yet resolute
papist; let the warld juge quhilk is the third.” Historie,
p. 277. By comparing this with p. 269, it appears that
it was written by him in 1567, and consequently after his
return from England.

177 – Reg. Secr. Sig. lib. xxxv. f. 99. Laing’s History of
Scotland, vol. i. 75, 76. 2d edit. This historian has
refuted the charges of forgery which Whitaker had brought
against Knox and Calderwood on this head. Ibid. p. 78, 79.

178 – Keith, p. 561, 562. The occurrence which had taken place
helps to explain the coldness with which the Assembly
received the information of these acts in their favour.
Ibid. p. 563.

179 – Cald. MS. apud Keith, 566, 567.

180 – Ibid. 567‒8.

181 – Those who wish to see the proof of these assertions, may
consult Mr Hume’s History of the period, with the Notes;
Dr Robertson’s, with his Dissertation; and especially
Mr Laing’s Dissertation on the subject. This last writer
has examined the point with great calmness, accuracy, and
acuteness, has established the genuineness of the letters
to Bothwell, and cleared the whole evidence from the
objections and cavils of the fantastical Whitaker, a
late author, who has equalled any of his predecessors
in prejudice, and exceeded all of them in the illiberal
and virulent abuse with which he has treated the most
respectable of his opponents. The principal writers who
in modern times have undertaken the defence of Mary, are
Goodall, Tytler, Stuart, and Whitaker.

182 – Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 85, 87, 103. Anderson’s
Collections, ii. 278‒283. Knox, 405, 406. Spotswood,
202, 203. Craig gave in a narrative and defence of his
conduct to the General Assembly, 30th Dec. 1567; but it was
not until the 6th July, 1569, that the Assembly overtook
the formal consideration of that affair, when they declared
that “he had done the dewtie of a faithfull minister.”

183 – Keith, 574, 577. Knox, 410.

184 – Keith, 581‒583. Knox, 411. Spotswood, 209, 210.

185 – Knox, 412. Buchanan calls it _luculentam concionem_. Hist.
lib. xviii. Oper. tom. i. p. 366.

186 – Cald. MS. ii. 67, 68. Anderson’s Collections, ii. 249.
One author says that Knox was employed in putting the
crown on the king’s head. “Diadema Joannis Knoxii manibus
capiti regio impositum.” Archibaldus Simsonus, Annales
Eccles. Scotican. p. 9. MS. in the possession of Thomas
Thomson, Esq.

187 – Keith, 439. Keith expresses his surprise at Knox’s taking
instruments in the name of the estates, as he “could
properly belong to no estate at all.” Hist. p. 440. But the
record does not say that he took instruments in the name of
the estates. It is evident that he acted in the name of the
church, which was considered as having an interest in the
transaction, as by one clause of the coronation oath, the
king engaged to maintain the reformed religion, and the
privileges of the protestant church. Ibid. p. 438.

188 – Keith, 421, 422, 423. Throkmorton’s Letters, 14th and
18th July: Robertson, Append. No. 21. “The women,” says
the ambassador, “be most furious and impudent against the
queen, and yet the men be mad enough.”

189 – Cald. MS. ii. 73. Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 113.

190 – See Note V.

191 – Act. Parl. Scot. iii. p. 14‒25. Cald. MS. ad ann. 1567.

192 – Cald. ut supra. Keith, 585, 586.

193 – Dr Robertson says, that the regulation respecting the
thirds, made by the parliament in December 1567, did not
produce any considerable change in the situation of the
clergy, and speaks of them as still “groaning under extreme
poverty, unable to obtain any thing but fair words and
liberal promises.” History of Scotland, ii. 250, 312.
Lond. 1809. But the law which gave power to the collectors
appointed by the church to uplift the thirds, and to pay
the stipends, before any thing was allowed to the court,
was certainly a very considerable benefit. The church
herself viewed it in this light. Calderwood says, that “the
ministers were now refreshed with the allowance made by
the last parliament.” MS. ad ann. 1567. And the Assembly,
in their letter inviting Willock to return from England,
expressly say, “Our enemies, praised be God, are dashed;
religion established; sufficient provision made for
ministers,” &c. Keith, 590. The account which I have given
in the text is, I think, supported by the register of the
five general assemblies which were held during the regency
of Murray.

194 – Letter from the Regent to the General Assembly, ult.
June, 1569, in Appendix. Buik of Universal Kirk, p. 45‒47.

195 – Cald. MS. ii. 108.

196 – Letter to John Wood, 14th of February, 1568; Cald. MS.
ii. 91.

197 – Throkmorton to Elizabeth, 22d August, 1567; Keith, 450.

198 – Throkmorton’s letters of 14th, 16th, 18th, and 19th July,
1567: Robertson, Append. No. 21. Laing, ii. Append. No. 31,
p. 125. Keith, p. 423. The protestation taken, at the
coronation of James VI. by Arthur Hamilton of Meriton,
in the name of the duke, is confined to the point of
his succession to the crown, and does not allude in the
slightest degree to the right of the queen. Keith, 437. Of
the same strain was the protest which was intended to have
been made at the parliament held in December 1567; a copy
of which, and a minute of a conversation on the subject
between the regent and Arthur Hamilton, are preserved among
the Hamilton MSS.

199 – Buchanan. Oper. i. 346. Keith, 407.

200 – Spotswood, 216. Letter, Knox to Wood, 10th September, 1568,
published in the Appendix.

201 – The Hist. of King James the Sext, p. 48. Birrel’s Diary, 17,
in Dalyell’s Fragments of Scottish History. Laing, ii. 269.
See also Letter, Knox to Wood, 10th September, 1568, ut
supra.

202 – Hist. of King James the Sext, p. 43, 63.

203 – This story is related in very different ways. One account
makes the revenge to turn solely upon the treatment of
his wife, who, expecting to be allowed to remain in her
house of “Woodislie,” was “uncourtouslie and unmercifullie
put thairfra, all her gudis tane fra hir, and schoe left
stark naked. The gentilwoman, quhat for grief of mynd and
exceeding cald, that schoe had then contractit, conceaved
sic madness as was almost incredible.” Historie of King
James the Sext, p. 74. Spotswood’s account is different.
He says, that Bothwellhaugh had redeemed his life by
yielding up the lands of Woodhouselie, which were given
to the Justice Clerk, and he refusing to part with them,
Bothwellhaugh “made his quarrel to the regent, [_i.e._
revenged himself upon the regent,] who was most innocent,
and had restored him to life and liberty.” Spotsw. History,
p. 233. Crawfurd, in his Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland,
p. 140, 1st edit., says, that “Murray sent some officers
to take possession of the house, who not only turned the
gentlewoman out of doors, but,” &c. This is the authority
which has been relied upon by all those writers who have
charged the regent with cruelty in this transaction; yet it
is now discovered that the interpolation of Murray’s name
in this place is one of those forgeries by which that work
is disgraced from beginning to end. Hist. of King James the
Sext, preface, and p. 74.

204 – This is clear from many considerations. Within a few days
after the regent’s assassination, his secretary, Mr John
Wood, was murdered in Fife. Anderson’s Col. iii. 84. The
house in which Bothwellhaugh concealed himself, while
he committed the murder, belonged to the archbishop
of St Andrews, who acknowledged that he was privy and
accessory to the deed. Historie of King James the Sext,
p. 117. The horse on which the murderer escaped belonged
to John Hamilton, abbot of Arbroath, one of the duke’s sons.
Cald. ad ann. 1570. He rode immediately to Hamilton, where
he was “received with great applause.” Ibid. Nay, grounds
are not wanting for strong suspicion, that Maitland, and
even Kircaldy of Grange, who had long been the bosom friend
of the regent, were acquainted with the conspiracy against
his life. Ibid. Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 429. Buchan. i. 384.

205 – Cald. ut supra. Buchanani Oper. i. 385. Spotswood, 233.

206 – Bannatyne, p. 121. “To the thrid head” (his participation
in the murder of the regent) the archbishop “answerit thus:
That he not only knew thairof, and wald not stopp it, bot
rather furtherit the deed thairof, quhilk he repentit, and
askit God mercie for the same.” Hist. of James the Sext,
p. 117. “Jhon Hamilton, bishop of Sanctandros, enemie to
thy kirk and to the kingis autoritie, confessit at his
daith of the knawledge of the erle of Morray regent’s
murther, and that he myght haif stayit the same giff he
plesit.” MS. Papers of the Laird of Lochleven. Yet an
author, in the nineteenth century, can write of this deed
in the following terms:――“The heiress of Woodhouselie fell
a sacrifice to the corrupt tyranny of the regent Murray.
Her husband, Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, put the guilty
tyrant to death, as ‘base‑born Murray rode through old
Linlithgow’s crowded town.’” Chalmers’s Caledonia, ii. 571.

207 – Buchanan. Oper. i. 385.

208 – History, 234.

209 – See Note W.

210 – Smetoni Responsio ad Hamiltonii Dialogum, p. 116.

211 – “Upon the 22 of Maii, the sherife of Linlithgow, the laird
of Innerweek, James Hamilton of Bothelhaugh, and six others,
were put to an assyse; their hands bound; and pardoned
at the request of Mr Knox, whereof he sore repented; for
Bothwelhaugh killed the regent shortlie after.” Cald. MS.
ad ann. 1568.

212 – Cald. MS. ii. 150. He is said to have added this to his
usual prayers after dinner and supper. But in a volume
of Calderwood’s History, in the Advocates’ Library in
Edinburgh, (which has been transcribed more early than any
copy which I have seen,) these words are scored out; and it
is introduced as the prayer which he offered up in public,
on the day on which he was informed of the regent’s death.

213 – Great apprehensions of this were entertained by the
regent’s friends. Bannatyne, 428, 9.

214 – Cald. MS. ad ann. 1570.

215 – Ibid. ii. 151‒157.

216 – Spotswood, p. 234. Mackenzie labours to discredit the
archbishop’s narrative of this affair. Lives of Scottish
Writers, iii. 195, 196. But whatever opinion we may form
about the prediction, it cannot be doubted that Spotswood
had the best means of information respecting the facts
which he relates. Nor has Mackenzie any other authority
for what he says about the death of Maitland than the
archbishop’s.

217 – Cald. MS. ii. 157.

218 – The inscription, engraved on brass, is yet preserved; and
a copy of it will be found in Note X. But Buchanan has, in
his History, reared to the regent “a monument more durable
than brass,” which will preserve his memory as long as
the language in which it is written shall continue to
be understood, and as long as a picture taken from life
shall be preferred to the representations of fancy or of
prejudice. Nor has he neglected to celebrate him in his
verses. Epigram. lib. ii. 29. iii. 7, 9, 18.

219 – Spotswood, 235.

220 – Cald. ut supra.

221 – A late author has very wantonly attempted to load the
memory of this excellent man with a capital crime. He gives
the following extract from the paper office, 22d April,
1590: “Twa men, the ane namyt Johnne Gibsone, Scottishman,
preacher, and the other Johnne Willokis, now baith lying in
prison at Leicester, were convicted by a jury of robbery.”
The last of these convicts, says he, was “the reforming
coadjutor of Knox.” Chalmers’s Life of Ruddiman, p. 307.
What evidence has this author for saying so? Nothing but
the sameness of the name! Just as if a person, on reading
in the public papers of one George Chalmers who was
convicted of a robbery, (no unlikely thing,) should
immediately take it into his head that this was, and could
be, no other than the author of the Life of Ruddiman, and
Caledonia! It is evident that the second convict was no
preacher, else this designation would have been added to
his name, as well as to that of the first. It is probable
that Willock, who was a preacher as early as 1540, was
not alive in 1590: it is utterly incredible that he should
then have been in a condition to act as a robber.――But
it is paying too much regard to such a charge to bring
exculpatory proof.

222 – In the copy of Cald. MS. belonging to the church of
Scotland, the name is written _Winfrid_; but in the copy
in the Advocates’ Library, it is _Umfrede_. The person
meant is evidently Dr Laurence Humphrey (Umfredius),
Professor of divinity, and Head of one of the colleges,
in the University of Oxford. This learned man was a
puritan, but enjoyed the patronage of Secretary Cecil.
Strype’s Annals, i. 421, 430‒432.

223 – Smetoni Respons. ad Hamilt. p. 116.

224 – Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 54. Cald. MS. ii. 206. Bannatyne
says “the disorder was a kynd of apoplexia, called by the
phisitiones resolutione;” probably a more gentle stroke of
the disorder, attended with relaxation of the system.

225 – In 1556, Calvin was suddenly seized in the pulpit with
a fever, which confined him to his bed for a considerable
time, and from which it was not thought he would recover.
On hearing this, the popish clergy of Noyon, his native
city, met, and rather prematurely gave public thanks
to God for his death. Melch. Adam, Vitæ Exter. Theol.
p. 93.――“Plusieurs grands hommes (says Senebier) ont
partagé cet honneur avec Calvin, et ont eu, comme lui, la
satisfaction de connoitre la profonde estime qu’on avoit
concue pour eux.” Histoire Litteraire de Geneve, tom. i.
p. 228. Luther, having received in 1545 a copy of an
account of his own death, printed at Naples, caused it to
be reprinted, with this note:――“I, Doctor Martin Luther,
attest that I received this frantic fable on this 21st of
March, and am delighted beyond measure to understand that
the devil and his spawn, the pope and papists, hate me so
heartily.” Seckendorf, Hist. Lutheran. lib. iii. p. 581.

226 – Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 55.

227 – James Kircaldy of Grange was restored to his lands, &c.,
at the request and special desire of Henry II. of France,
by letters under the signet and privy seal of queen Mary,
dated at Paris, 26th February, 1556. William Kircaldy
of Grange, son and heir to the former, was restored by
letters dated the 13th of February, 1561. Reg. Secr. Sig.
Lib. xxxi. f. 16.

228 – See vol. i. p. 75.

229 – Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 67‒87.

230 – Crawford, in his Memoirs of Scotland, (p. 186, Edin.
Anno 1706,) among other things disgraceful to our
Reformers, says that they openly avowed, on this occasion,
“That to pray for, or forgive our real or reputed enemies,
was no part of a Christian’s duty.” It is sufficient to
say, that there is not one word of this in the “authentick
MS.” from which he professes that his Memoirs were
“faithfully published.” See Historie and Life of King
James the Sext, p. 113, 114. The public are under great
obligations to Mr Malcolm Laing, for exposing this literary
forgery, which had continued so long to impose upon our
most acute and industrious historians.

231 – The accusation and defence may be seen at full length in
Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 190‒210.

232 – Bannatyne, p. 77.

233 – Letter to the Laird of Lochleven, in the Appendix.

234 – The lively interest which he continued to take in
public affairs, is apparent from the letters of his
correspondents. Captain Crawford of Jordanhill sent him,
at his desire, a minute account of the taking of Dunbarton
castle, with an inventory of the arms, ammunition, and
provisions, which were found in it. Bannatyne, 123. There
are also two letters to him from Alexander Hay, clerk of
the privy council, informing him of the most important
transactions in England, and on the continent. Ibid.
294‒302.

235 – Bannatyne, 132‒3, 145.

236 – Cald. MS. ad ann. 1572. Life prefixed to History,
anno 1644.

237 – Bannatyne, 144‒146.

238 – Ibid. Historie of King James the Sext, p. 123.