NOTES TO VOLUME FIRST. (continued 2)
Reading edition
A quoy bon tant de raison, dans un bel aage.
Un autre sur ce vaudeville impudent:
Allés vous . . . . .
Un galant tout nouveau, &c.
Dés le temps de Henri II. parce que toute la Cour chantoit les Pseaumes de Marot, le Cardinal de Lorraine jugea que, pour arrester un si grand desordre, il seroit très edifiant de faire tourner des odes d’Horace en rime Françoise, pour nourrir la pieté de cette cour si devote.” Apologie pour les Reformateurs, &c. tom. i. 129, 4to. A Rotterdam, 1683.
Of George Wishart.—The following graphic description of this interesting martyr is contained in a letter written by a person who had been one of his pupils at Cambridge, and transmitted by him to John Fox, who inserted it in his work, p. 1155. edit. 1596.
“About the yeare of our Lord, a thousand, five hundreth, fortie and three, there was, in the universitie of Cambridge, one Maister George Wischart, commonly called Maister George of Bennet’s Colledge, who was a man of tall stature, polde headed, and on the same a round French cap of the best. Judged of melancholye complexion by his phsiognomie, black haired, long bearded, comely of personage, well spoken after his country of Scotland, courteous, lowly, lovely, glad to teach, desirous to learne, and was well traulled, hauing on him for his habit or clothing, neuer but a mantell frise gowne to the shoes, a blacke Millian fustain dublet, and plaine blacke hosen, course new canuasse for his shirtes, and white falling bandes and cuffes at the hands. All the which apparell, he gaue to the poore, some weekly, some monethly, some quarterly as hee liked, sauing his Frenche cappe, which hee kept the whole yeere of my beeing with him. Hee was a man modest, temperate, fearing God, hating couetousnesse: for his charitie had neuer ende, night, noone, nor daye: hee forbare one meale in three, one day in foure for the most part, except something to comfort nature. [When accused, at his trial, of contemning fasting, he replied, ‘My Lordis, I find that fasting is commendit in the scriptur.—And not so only; bot I have leirnit by experience, that fasting is gude for the healthe and conservation of the body.’ Knox, 60.] Hee lay hard upon a pouffe of straw: course new canuasse sheetes, which, when he changed, he gaue away. Hee had commonly by his bedside, a tubbe of water, in the which (his people being in bed, the candle put out, and all quiet) hee used to bathe himselfe, as I being very yong, being assured offen, heard him, and in one light night discerned him. Hee loved me tenderly, and I him, for my age, as effectually. Hee taught with great modestie and grauitie, so that some of his people thought him seuere, and would haue slain him, but the Lord was his defence. And hee, after due correction for their malice, by good exhortation amended them, and hee went his way. O that the Lord had left him to mee his poore boy, that hee might haue finished that hee had begunne! For in his Religion hee was as you see heere in the rest of his life, when he went into Scotland with diuers of the Nobilitie, that came for a treaty to king Henry the eight. His learning was no less sufficient than his desire, alwayes prest and readie to do good in that hee was able, both in the house priuately, and in the schoole publickely, professing and reading divors authours.
“If I should declare his loue to mee and all men, his charitie to the poore, in giuing, relieuing, caring, helping, prouiding, yea infinitely studying how to do good unto all, and hurt to none, I should sooner want words than just cause to commend him.
“All this I testifie, with my whole heart and trueth, of this godly man. Hee that made all, gouerneth all, and shall iudge all, knoweth I speake the throth, that the simple may be satisfied, the arrogant confounded, the hypocrite disclosed.
τέλος Emery Tylney.”
A particular account of Wishart’s trial and execution was published in England, apparently soon after the assassination of Beatoun. This very rare little book does not appear to have been seen by any of the writers who have mentioned it. The following account is taken from a copy, belonging to Richard Heber, Esq., who communicated it to me with that liberality for which he is so eminently distinguished. The general title is: “The tragical death of Dauid Beatō Bishoppe of sainct Andrewes in Scotland; Wherunto is ioyned the martyrdom of maister George Wyseharte gentleman, for whose sake the aforesayed bishoppe was not longe after slayne. Wherein thou maist learne what a burnynge charitie they shewed not only towardes him: but vnto al suche as come to their hādes for the blessed Gospels sake.” On the next leaf begins, “Roberte Burrant to the reader,” being a preface extending to 12 leaves, ending on B. iiiii. After this is the following title of the Tragedy or poem: “Here followeth the Tragedy of the late moste reuerende father Dauid, by the mercie of God Cardinall and archbishoppe of sainct Andrews. And of the whole realme of Scotland primate, legate and chaunceler. And administrator of the bishoprich of Merapois in Fraunce. And cōmendator perpetuall of the abbay of Aberbrothoke, compiled by sir Dauid Lindsaye of the mounte Knyghte. Alias, Lione, kyng of armes. Anno M.D. xlvi. Ultimo Maii. The wordes of Dauid Beaton the cardinall aforesaied at his death. Alas alas, slaye me not, I am a priest.” The poem begins on the reverse, and ends on the first page of C. vii. On the back of that leaf is,—“The accusation of maister George Wysehart gentlemā, who suffered martrydome for the faith of Christ Jesu, at S. Andrewes in Scotlād the first day of Marche. In the yere of our Lorde, M.D. xlvi. wyth the articles which he was accused of, and his swete answeres to the same, wherunto are ioyned his godly oratiōs and praiers.—With most tendre affection and unfeyned herte, considere,” &c. The narrative ends on the first page of F. vi, with these words, “complayning of thys innocent lābes slaughter.”—“Imprinted at London, by John Day, and William Seres, dwellynge in Sepulchres parish at the signe of the Resurrection, a little aboue Holbourne conduiet. Cum gracia et priuilegio ad imprimendum solum.” In eights. The tragedy of Beatoun is printed in small, and the account of Wishart’s trial in large black letter. The date of printing is not mentioned. Those who have fixed on the year 1546 have been influenced by the occurring of this date on the title of the tragedy, which evidently refers to the time of Beatoun’s death. It is probable, however, from some expressions in the preface, as well as from other considerations, that it was printed soon after that event. Fox has embodied the whole account of Wishart’s trial in his Acts and Monuments, p. 1154‒1158, “Ex. Histor. Impressa.” Knox has transcribed it from Fox. Historie, p. 72.
Wishart had travelled on the continent. Knox, 56. Lesly, p. 458. Buchanan calls him Sophocardius, supposing his name to be Wiseheart, a mistake which has been corrected by an intelligent foreign historian, who says that the original name was Guiscard, a name common in France, from which country the Wischards (for so Knox writes it) originally came to Scotland. Gerdesii Hist. Reformat. tom. iv. p. 314. See also Ruddiman’s Propriorum nominum Interpretatio, subjoined to Buchanan’s History.
The following extract from the records of the city of Bristol has been obligingly sent me by Theodore Laurance, Esq.
“30 Henry viij. That this yere the 15 May a Scot named George Wysard sett furth his lecture in St Nicholas Church of Bristowe the most blasphemous heresy that ever was herd, openly declarying that Christs mother hath not nor coulde merite for him nor yett for us, wich heresy brought many of the commons of this towne into a greate error and dyvers of theym were persuaded by that hereticall lecture to heresy. Wherupon the said stiff necked Scot was accused by Mr John Kerne deane of the sd diocese and soon aftr he was sent to the moost reverend father in God the archebishop of Canterbury bifore whom and others, that is to signifie, the bishops of Bathe Norwhiche and Chichester, with others, as doctors and he bifore theym was examyned convicted and condemned in and upon the detestable heresy above mentioned, whereupon he was injoyned to bere a fagott in St Nicholas church aforsaid and the parishe of the same the 13 July and in Christe church the 20 July abovesaid follg, which was duely executed in the time aforsaid:”
This is extracted from the “Mayor’s Kalendar,” a vellum manuscript book of great antiquity, which is usually produced at the swearing in of the mayor, as it has a drawing of that ceremony, and refers to some old customs observed on the occasion. I have no doubt that the person referred to is George Wishart, the Scottish martyr. The facts related happened on the year after he left Scotland. In the course of that year John Lambert suffered martyrdom for denying transubstantiation, and Henry VIII. was using the severest measures against the protestants. The circumstance of George Wysard having recanted what he had taught respecting the Virgin, is not sufficient to discredit this supposition. Whether his recantation proceeded from fear, or from his being entangled by the sophistry of his judges, any stain which it affixed to his character was completely effaced by the fortitude and constancy with which he afterwards suffered.
The following is the title of a very rare book, which appears to have been written by George Wishart during his travels on the continent, and printed after his death:
“The Confescion of the fayth of the Sweserlādes.
“This Confescion was fyrste wrytten and set out by the ministers of the churche and congregacion of Sweuerland, where all godlyness is receyued, and the word hadde in most reuerence, and from thence was sent vnto the Emperours maiestie, then holdynge a gryat counsell or parliament in the yeare of our Lord God M. V. C. XXXVII. in the moneth of February.
“Translated out of Laten by George Vsher, a Scotchman, who was burned in Scotland, the yeare of oure Lorde M. V. C. XLVI.”
Of Knox’s Language respecting the Assassination of Cardinal Beatoun.—Mr Hume has, not very philosophically, inferred the savageness of Knox’s temper from the evident satisfaction with which he wrote of Cardinal Beatoun’s assassination; and in this judgment he has been followed by several writers. If to express satisfaction at cutting off one who was regarded as a public enemy be viewed as an infallible mark of cruelty, we must pronounce this verdict upon many who were never before suspected of such a disposition. The manner in which the Christian fathers expressed themselves, respecting the death of the persecutors of the church, is not unknown. See Julian the apostate, chap. vii. viii. in Works of the Rev. Samuel Johnston, p. 22‒24. Bayle, Critique General de l’Histoire du Calvinisme, p. 295. Even the mild and philosophic Erasmus could not refrain from declaring his joy at the violent death of two of the most learned and eminent reformers. “Bene habet (says he) quod duo Coriphæi perierunt, Zuinglius in acie, Oecolampadius paulo post febri et apostemate. Quod si illis favisset Ενυαλιος, actum est de nobis.” Epist. 1205: Jortin’s Life of Erasmus, ii. 28. Sir Walter Scott, in his Cadyow Castle, (See Lyrical Pieces,) has lately exerted all his poetic powers to invest Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh with the character of a hero, in assassinating the regent Murray, a person who is no more to be compared to cardinal Beatoun, than “Hyperion to a Satyr.” I know the apology that will be made for the poet (although I think he might have found, in this, and in some other instances, a subject more worthy of his muse); but what shall we say of the historian who narrates the action of Bothwellhaugh “approvingly,” celebrates the “happy pencil of the poet” in describing it, and insults over the fall of Murray, by quoting a sarcastic line from the poem, in the very act of relating his death! Chalmers’s Caledonia, ii. 571. Yet this same writer is highly displeased that Sir David Lindsay, in his Tragedy of Beatoun, has “no burst of indignation” at the cardinal’s murder; and twice in the same work he has related with triumph, that, on the margin of one edition of Knox’s history, the part which James Melvin acted in that scene is called a “godly fact.” And he pronounces the assassination of Beatoun to be “the foulest crime which ever stained a country, except perhaps the similar murder of archbishop Sharpe, within the same shire, in the subsequent century, by similar miscreants.” Chalmers’s Works of Lyndsay, vol. i. 34, 35, ii. 231. How marvellously does prejudice distort the judgment even of learned men! And how surprising to find the assassination of two sanguinary persecutors represented as more criminal than the murder of the generous Henry IV., the patriotic Prince of Orange, and the brave and pious Coligni! There are not a few persons who can read in cold blood of thousands of innocent persons being murdered under the consecrated cloak of authority, but who “burst into indignation” at the mention of the rare fact (ocurring once in a century) of a person, who, goaded by oppression and reduced to despair, has been driven to the extremity of taking vengeance on the proud and tyrannical author of his own and his country’s wrongs.—I mention these things to show the need which certain writers have to look at home, and to judge of characters and actions with a little more impartiality, or at least consistency.
Honest Keith, whose personal feelings do not appear to have been violent, has expressed with much simplicity the feelings of his party, in the reflections which be makes on the cardinal’s assassination. “What might have proved (says he) to be the issue of such procedure [Beatoun’s severe measures against the reformers], had he enjoyed his life for any considerable time, I shall not pretend to judge: Only this seems to be certain, that by his death the reins of the government were much loosened; and some persons came to be considerable soon after, who probably, if he had lived, had never got the opportunity to perpetrate such villanies, under the cloak of religion, as ’tis certain they did; he being at least no less a statesman than a clergyman.” History, p. 45. This language needs no commentary; and the callousness to the interests of (I say not the Reformation, for that is entirely out of the question, but) humanity, implied in the prospect that Keith takes of the cruelties which the protestants must have suffered from the cardinal, if his life had been spared, is far more reprehensible than any satisfaction which Knox expressed at his death.
“It is very horrid,” says Hume, “but at the same time somewhat amusing, to consider the joy, alacrity, and pleasure which that historian [Knox] discovers in his narrative of this assassination.” History of England, vol. vi. chap. iv. Mr Hume makes a partial apology for Knox by the description which he gives of his own feelings; while he allows that what, in the main, excites horror, may produce some amusement. It is well known that there are writers who can treat the most sacred subjects with a levity bordering upon profaneness. Must we at once pronounce them profane? And is nothing to be set down to the score of natural temper inclining them to wit and humour? The Reformer rejoiced at the death of Beatoun; and even those who could not approve of the act of the conspirators, were happy that he was taken away:
“As for the Cardinal, we grant,
He was a man we weell might want,
And we’ll forget him sone:
And yet I think, the sooth to say,
Although the lown is weell away,
The deed was foully done.”
The pleasantry which Knox has mingled with the narrative of his death and burial is unseasonable and unbecoming. But it is to be imputed, not to any pleasure which he took in describing a bloody scene, but to the strong propensity which he felt to indulge his vein of humour. Those who have read his history with attention, must have perceived that he is not able to check this, even on very serious occasions. I shall at present refer to one instance only. None will doubt that his mind was deeply affected in relating the trial and execution of his esteemed friend, and revered instructor, George Wishart. Yet, even in the midst of his narrative of this event, he could not abstain from inserting the truly ludicrous description of a quarrel which arose on that occasion between the archbishops of St Andrew’s and Glasgow; for which he apologizes thus:—“Gif we interlace merrines with ernest matters, pardone us, gude reidare, for the fact is sa notable that it deserves lang memorie.” Historie, p. 51.
Knox in the French Galleys.—The following curious notice as to this event in our Reformer’s life, will form an appropriate introduction to the extracts referred to in the text. It has been preserved by the learned Dr Fulke, and is given as an answer to a popish writer, who had said, in the way of detraction, “Knokes was a galley slave three yeares.”—“The more wicked,” replies Fulke, “those papistes which betrayed him into the galley. The master whereof was glad to be rid of him, because he never had good successe, so long as he kept that holy man in slaverie, whome also in danger of tempest, though an errant papiste, he would desire to commend him and his galley to God in his praiers.” T. Stapleton and Martiall (two popish heretics) confuted. By D. Fulke, master of Pembroke‑hall, in Cambridge, p. 116. Lond. 1580.
I shall give Knox’s own account of his feelings on that occasion, from the MS. copy of his Treatise on Prayer in my possession, preserving the original language, which is altered in the printed edition. Those who have access to the latter can compare the two.
“I mene not,” says he, “that any man, in extreamitie of trubill, can be without a present dolour, and without a greater feir of trubill to follow. Trubill and feir are the very spurris to prayer. For when man, compassit about with vehement calamities, and vexit with continewall solicitude, having by help of man no hope of deliverance, with soir oppressit and punissit hart, feiring also greater punisment to follow, from the deip pit of tribulation, doith call to God for comfort and support, such prayer ascendeth into Godis presence, and returneth not in vane.” Having illustrated this from the exercise of David, as described in the viith psalm, he proceeds, “This is not written for David onlie, but for all such as sall suffer tribulatioun to the end of the world. For I, the wryter hereof, (lat this be said to the laude and prais of God allone) in angusche of mynd, and vehement tribulatioun and afflictioun, called to the Lord, when not only the ungodlie, but evin my faithfull brether, ye and my awn self (that is, all natural understanding) judgeit my cause to be irremedeable; and yit in my greatest calamitie, and when my panis wer most cruell, wold his eternall wisdome that my handis suld wryt far contrarie to the judgement of carnall reasone, whilk his mercie hath pruved trew. Blessit be his halie name.484 And therefore dar I be bold in the veritie of Godis word, to promeis that, notwithstanding the vehemencie of trubill, the long continewance thairof, the desperatioun of all men, the feirfulness, danger, dolour, and angusche of oure awn hartis, yit, yf we call constantlie to God, that, beyound expectatioun of all men, hie sall delyver.” p. 52‒54. After showing that prayers for temporal deliverance ought always to be offered up with submission to the divine will, that God often delays the deliverance of the body while he mitigates the distress of the spirit, and sometimes permits his saints “to drink, before the maturity of age, the bitter cupe of corporall death, that thairby thay may receave medicine, and cure from all infirmitie,” he adds: “Albeit we sie thairfoir no appeirand help to our selves, nor yit to otheris afflictit, lat ws not ceis to call, (thinking our prayeris to be vane;) for whatsoever cum of our bodeis, God sall gif unspeakabill comfort to the spreit, and sall turne all to our comodities beyound our awn expectatioun. The caus that I am so lang and tedious in this matter is, for that I knaw how hard the batell is between the spreit and the flesche, under the heavie cros of afflictioun, whair no warldlie defence, but present death dois appeir. I knaw the grudging and murmuring complaints of the flesche; I knaw the anger, wrath, and indignatioun, whilk it consaveth aganis God, calling all his promissis in dout, and being readie everie hour utterlie to fall from God: aganis whilk restis onlie faith provoking us to call ernistlie, and pray for assistance of Godis spreit, whairin if we continew, our maist disperat calamiteis sall hie turn to gladnes, and to a prosperous end.485 To thee, O Lord, allone be prais; for with experience I wryt this, and speak.” MS. Letters, p. 65, 66.
The edition was printed most probably in England, (Rome is on the title‑page,) during the persecution, from a MS. sent by Knox from Dieppe, and so incorrectly, that it is often impossible to make sense of it. The following are specimens: “Diffysed,” fol. 2, “difficil,” MS.—“A pure word of God,” fol. 2, “a puritie allowit of God,” MS.—“Consent,” fol. 3, “conceat,” MS.—“May any other Jesas Christ, except I, in these wordes, make intercession for sinners?” fol. 11. “May any other (Jesus Christ except) in these wordes mak intercession for sinneris?” MS.; the transcriber having mistaken the concluding mark of parenthesis for the pronoun.—“Carkese slepe,” fol. 16, “carleslie slepeth,” MS. In quoting Isa. lxiv. 5, the printed edition has employed a word which I have not seen in any old version of the Bible. “Thou art crabbid, O Lord, because we have sinned,” fol. 4; and again in verse 9, “Be not crabbid, O Lord, remember not our iniquities for ever.” In the MS. it is angrie, in both instances. In fol. xvi. is a greater variation: “For with such as do aleage that God may not chaunge his sentence, and our prayers therefore to be vayne, can I no wyse agree.” Instead of this the MS. has, “whilk thing if we do unfeanedlie, he will revoke his wrath, and in the middis of his furie think upon mercie.”—There are similar variations between the MS. and the printed copies of most of his other tracts. They show that the MS. which I possess has not been transcribed from these copies, according to a custom very common in that age.
Extracts from Balnaves’s Confession of Faith, or Treatise on Justification.—In reading the writings of the first reformers there are two things which must strike our minds. The first, is the exact conformity between the doctrine maintained by them respecting the justification of sinners, and that of the apostles. The second, is the surprising harmony which subsisted among them on this important doctrine. On some questions respecting the sacraments, and the external government and worship of the church, they differed; but upon the article of free justification, Luther and Zuinglius, Melanchthon and Calvin, Cranmer and Knox, spoke the very same language. This was not owing to their having read each other’s writings, but because they copied from the same divine original. The clearness with which they understood and explained this great truth is also very observable. More learned and able defences of it have since appeared; but I question if it has ever been stated in more scriptural, unequivocal, and decided language, than in the writings of the early reformers. Some of their successors, by giving way to speculation, gradually lost sight of this distinguishing badge of the Reformation, and landed at last in Arminianism, which is nothing else but the popish doctrine in a protestant dress. Knox has informed us, that his design, in preparing for the press the treatise written by Sir Henry Balnaves, was to give, along with the author, his “confession of the article of justification therein contained.” I cannot, therefore, lay before the reader a more correct view of our Reformer’s sentiments upon this fundamental article of faith, than by quoting from a book which was revised and approved by him.
Having given the philosophical definition of justice or righteousness, and explained what is meant by civil and ceremonial justice, the author proceeds as follows:—“The justice of the lawe morall or Moses’s lawe, which is the lawe of God, exceedeth and is far above the other two justices. It is the perfite obedience required of man, according to all the works and deeds of the same; not only in externall and outward deeds, but also with the inward affections and motions of the hart, conforme to the commandement of the same (saying), Thou shalt love thy Lord God with all thy hart, with all thy mind, with all thy power and strength, and thy neighbour as thyselfe. This is no other thing but the lawe of nature, prented in the hart of man, in the beginning; nowe made patent by the mouth of God to man, to utter his sin, and make his corrupted nature more patent to himselfe. And so is the lawe of nature and the lawe of Moses joyned together in a knot; which is a doctrine teaching all men a perfite rule, to know what he should do, and what he should leave undone, both to God and his neighbour. The justice of the lawe, is to fulfill the lawe; that is, to doo the perfite workes of the lawe as they are required, from the bottome of the hart, and as they are declared and expounded by Christ; and whosoever transgresseth the same, shall never be pronounced just of the lawe. But there was never man that fulfilled this lawe to the uttermost perfection thereof, except only Jesus Christ. Therefore, in the lawe can we not find our justice, because of the deedes of the lawe no flesh shall be made just before God.” p. 57, 58.
“For transgression of the commandement of God, our forefather Adam was exiled and banished forth of paradise, and spoiled of the integrity, perfection, and all the excellent qualities, dignities, and godlie vertues, with which he was endued by his creation, made rebell, and disobedient to God in his owne default. And therefore he might not fulfill the lawe to the perfection as the same required. For the lawe remaining in the owne perfection, just, holye, and good, requireth and asketh the same of man, to be indeed fulfilled. But all men proceeding from Adam, by natural propagation, have the same imperfection that hee had; the which corruption of nature resisteth the will and goodness of the lawe, which is the cause that wee fulfil not the same, nor may not of our power and strength, through the infirmitie and weakness of our flesh, which is enemie to the spirit, as the apostle saith.” p. 79, 80.
“Notwithstanding, after the fall of man, remained with our first parents some rest and footsteppes of this lawe, knowledge, and vertues, in the which he was created, and of him descended in us; by the which of our free will and power, we may do the outward deeds of the lawe, as is before written. This knowledge deceaved and beguiled the philosophers; for they looke but to the reason and judgement of man, and could not perceave the inward corruption of nature, but ever supponed man to bee clean and pure of nature, and might, of his own free will and naturall reason, fulfill all perfection. And when they perceaved the wickednes of man from his birth, they judged that to be by reason of the planete under whom he was borne, or through evill nourishing, upbringing, or other accidents, and could never consider the corrupted nature of man, which is the cause of all our wickednes; and therefore they erred, and were deceaved in their opinions and judgements; but the perfite Christian man should looke first in his corruption of nature, and consider what the law requireth of him, in the which he findeth his imperfection and sinnes accused, (for that is the office of the lawe, to utter sinne to man, and giveth him no remedy,) then of necessitie is he compelled either to despaire or seek Christ, by whom he shall get the justice that is of value before God, which can not be gotten by any lawe or workes, because by the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be justified before God.” p. 81‒83.
“This proposition of the holy spirite is so perfite, that it excludeth (if ye will understande the same right) all the vaine foolish arguments of sophistrie made by the justifiers of themselfes, which perverte the words of S. Paule (as they doo the other scriptures of God) to their perversed sence and mind; saying, that the apostle excludeth by these wordes the workes of the law ceremonial, and not the deeds of the lawe of nature, and morall lawe of Moyses. The which shameless sayings are expressly evacuat by the wordes of the apostle, insomuch that no man of righteous judgement can deny, but shall feel the same as it were in their hands, by this probation. The lawe speaketh to all, that is, accuseth all men that are under the lawe. All men are under the lawe of nature, or the lawe of Moyses, therefore the apostle speaketh of the lawe of nature and Moyses, and of all men which he comprehendeth under Jewe and Gentill, as he proveth by his argumentes in the first and second chap. to the Romans, and concludeth in the third chap. all men are sinners. If all men bee sinners, none is just; if none bee just, none fulfill the lawe; if none fulfill the lawe, the lawe can pronounce none just; therefore concludeth he, that of the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be fonde just before God. The same is proved by David in the 130 Psalme. Here ye see by the words of the apostle, he intends to prove and declare all men sinners; that is, to stoppe all men’s mouths, and to dryve them to Christ by the accusation of the lawe. No lawe may make or declare all men sinners, and subdue the whole world to God, but the lawe of nature and Moyses; therefore, under that word (lawe) the apostle comprehendeth the lawe morall, and not the lawe ceremonial only.” p. 84, 85.
“But think not that I intende through these assertions to exclude good workes; no, God forbid, for good workes are the gift of God, and his good creatures, and ought and should be done of a Christian, as shalbe showen hereafter at length in their place; but in this article of justification, yee must either exclude all workes, or els exclude Christ from you, and make your selfes just; the which is impossible to do. Christ is the end of the lawe (unto righteousness) to all that beleeve, that is, Christ is the consummation and fulfilling of the lawe, and that justice whiche the law requireth; and all they which beleeve in him, are just by imputation through faith, and for his sake are repute and accepted as just. This is the justice of faith, of the which the apostle speaketh, Rom. the 10 chapter: therefore, if ye wilbee just, seeke Christ, and not the lawe, nor your invented workes, which are lesse than the lawe. Christ shall have no mixtion with the lawe, nor workes thereof, in this article of justification; because the lawe is as contrarie to the office of Christ, as darknes to light, and is as farre different as heaven and earth. For the office of the lawe is to accuse the wicked, feare them, and condemne them, as transgressors of the same; the office of Christ is to preache mercy, remission of sinnes, freely in his bloode through faith, give consolation, and to save sinners: for hee came not into this world to call them which ar just, or think themselves just, but to call sinners to repentance.” p. 100, 126, 127, 128.
“This faith which only justifieth and giveth life, is not idle nor remaineth alone; nevertheless, it alone justifieth, and then it works by charitie; for unfained faith may no more abyde idle from working in love, than the good tree may from bringing foorth her fruite in due time; and yet the fruite is not the cause of the tree, nor maketh the tree good, but the tree is the cause of the fruite; and the good tree bringeth forth good fruite, by the which it is knowen goode: even so it is of the faithfull man, the workes make him not faithfull nor just, nor yet are the cause thereof; but the faithfull and just man bringeth forth and maketh good workes, to the honour and glorie of God, and profit of his neighbour, which beare witnesse of his inward faith, and testify him to be just before man.” p. 131, 132. In the following part of the treatise, the author shows at large, that the doctrine of gratuitous justification does not release Christians from obligation to perform good works, and inculcates the duties incumbent upon them in the different spheres of life in which they may be placed. Confession of Faith; conteining how the troubled man should seeke refuge at his God; compiled by M. Henry Balnaves of Halhill,486 and one of the Lords of Session of Scotland, being a prisoner within the old pallaice of Roane, in the year 1548. T. Vautrollier, Edin. 1584.
Extracts from Knox’s Defence before the Bishop of Durham.—Since the publication of the first edition of this Life, I have seen a copy of this Defence in print. Its title will be found in the catalogue of Knox’s works, to be inserted in the last note of volume second. The printed edition agrees more exactly with the MS. in my possession than any of his other works which I have had the opportunity of comparing. The extracts given in this note are continued in their original form, to preserve the orthography of the MS., which constitutes almost the only difference between it and the printed edition.
“The fourt of Apryle in the yeir 1550, was appoyntit to Johne Knox, preacher of the halie evangell of Jesus Chryst, to gif his confessioun why hie affirmed the mes idolatrie; whilk day, in presence of the consale and congregatioun, amangis whome was also present the bischope of Duram and his doctors, on this manner his beginneth.
“This day I do appeir in your presence, honourabill audience, to gif a reasone why so constantlie I do affirme the mes to be, and at all tymes to haif bene, idolatrie and abominatioun before God; and becaus men of great eruditioun, in your audience, affirmed the contrarie, most gladlie wold I that heir thay wer present, either in proper persone, or els by thair learnit men, to ponder and wey the causis moveing me thairto: for unles I evidentlie prufe myne intent be Goddis halie scriptures, I will recant it as wickit doctrine, and confes my self maist worthie of grevous punisment. How difficil it is to pull furth of the hartis of the pepill the thing whairin opinioun of holines standeth, declareth the great tumult and uprore moveit aganis Paule by Demetrius and his fellowis, who by idolatrie gat great vantage, as our priestis have done be the mes in tymes past. The pepill, I say, heiring that the honor of thair great goddes Diana stude in jeopardie, with furious voces cryit, ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians;’—and heirunto wer thay moveit be lang custom and fals opinioun. I knaw, that in the mes bath not onlie bene estemit great holines and honoring of God, but also the ground and fundatioun of our religioun: so that, in opinioun of many, the mes taken away, thair resteth no trew wirschipping nor honoring of God in the erth. The deiper hath it persit the hartis of men yat it occupyith the place of the last and misticall supper of our Lord Jesus. But yf I sal, be plane and evident scriptures, prove the mes, in hir mair honest garment, to haif been idolatrie befoir God, and blasphemous to the death and passioun of Chryst, and contrarie to the supper of Jesus Chryst, than gude hope have I, honorable audience and belovit brethrene, that the feir, love, and obedience of God, who in his scriptures hath spokin all veritie necessarie for oure salvatioun, sall move yow to gif place to the same. O Lord eternal! move and governe my toung to speak the veritie, and the hartis of thir pepill to understand and obey the same.” MS. Letters, p. 1, 2.
In proof of his position, he laid down and defended two syllogisms. The first is thus stated: “All wirschipping, honoring, or service inventit by the brane of man in the religioun of God, without his awn expres commandement, is idolatrie: the mes is inventit by the brane of man without any commandement of God: thairfoir it is idolatrie.” The second syllogism is thus framed: “All honoring or service of God, whairunto is addit a wickit opinioun, is abominatioun: unto the mes is addit a wickit opinioun: thairfoir it is abominatioun.” p. 3, 21. In support of the major proposition of his first syllogism, he argues from 1 Sam. xiii. 11‒14. xv. 22, 23. Deut. iv. 2. xii. 8, 32. 1 Cor. xi. 23. Take the following as a specimen:—“We may not think ws so frie nor wyse that we may do unto God, and unto his honour, what we think expedient. No: the contrarie is commandit by God, saying, ‘Unto my word sall ye ad nothing, nothing sall ye deminische thairfrome, that ye might observe the preceptis of your Lord God.’ Whilk wordis ar not to be understand of the decalogue and law moral onlie, but of statutis, rytes, and ceremonyis; for equall obedience of all his lawis requyreth God. And in witnis thairof, Nadab and Abihu offiring strange fyre, whairof God had geven unto thame na charge, wer instantlie, as thay offirit, punissit to death by fyre.—In the punisment of theis two afoirsaid is to be observit, that Nadab and Abihu wer the principal priestis nixt to Aron thair father, and that they were comprehendit neither in adulterie, covetusnes, nor desyre of warldlie honor, but of a gud zeall and simpill intent wer making sacrifice, desyreing no profit of the pepill thairby, but to honor God, and to metigat his wraith. And yit in the doing of this self same act and sacrifice wer they consumit away with fyre; whairof it is plane, that nether the preeminence of the persone or man that maketh or setteth up any religioun without the express commandement of God, nor yet the intent whairof hie doith the same, is acceptit befoir God: for nothing in his religioun will hie admit without his awn word, but all that is addit thairto doith hie abhor, and punisseth the inventoris and doeris thairof, as ye haif hard in Nadab and Abihu.” p. 6, 7.
The following extracts will exemplify the irony with which he treated the popish tenets: “Jesus Chryst sayeth, ‘I will lay upon yow none other burdene than I haif alreadie;’ and, ‘that whilk ye haif observe diligentlie.’ O God eternal! hast thow laid none uther burdene upon our backis than Jesus Chryst laid be his word? Then who hath burdenit ws with all theis ceremonyis? prescrybid fasting, compellit chastitie, unlawfull vowis, invocatioun of sanctis, and with the idolatrie of the mes? The divill, the divill, brethrene, inventit all theis burdenis to depres imprudent men to perditioun.” p. 10. Speaking of the canon of the mass, he says, “I will preve, that thairin is indigest, barbarous, folische congestioun of wordis, imperfectioun of sentences, ungodlie invocationis, and diabolicall conjurationis. And this is that holie canon whois autoritie precelleth all scriptures! O! it was so holie it might not be spoken planelie as the rest, but secreitlie it behoved to be whisperit! That was not evil devysit; for yf all men had hard it, sum wold have espyit the vanitie thairof.—Thay say, Hoc est enim corpus meum. I pray thame schew, whair find thay enim? O! heir mak thay a great matter; and heir lyeth a secreit misterie, and hid operatioun! For in fyve wordis conceaved the virgin Marie, say thay, when sche conceavit the Sone of God. What yf sche had spokin sevin, ten, or twentie words? or what yf sche had not spoken in thrie? Suld thairby the determinat consalle been impeidit? But, O papists! is God a juglar? Useth he certane noumer of wordis in performing his intent?” p. 18, 19.
Quintin Kennedy, abbot of Crossraguel, in an Oration, composed by him in 1561, made some remarks on Knox’s book against the Mass. “Shortly,” says he, “will we call to remembrance ane notable syllogisme (or argument) sett furth be ane famouss preachour, callit John Knox, in his sermon againis the mess, in manner as efter followis.” And having quoted the first syllogism, as already expressed in this note, he answers: “As to the first part of his syllogisme, quhar he dois affirme all worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne without expres command of God to be ydolatrie, it is als falss as Goddis wourd is trew; for quhy? did not Abel, Abraham, Noe, and diuerse vtheris of the aulde fatheris, inuent meanis and ways to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, and wes acceptable to the Lord God, as the Aulde Testament techis ws? Did not Cornelius centurio in likewise inuent meanis and ways to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, quhilk wes acceptable to God, as the New Testament plainly teachis ws? Thus ma we clearlie persaue that this wickit syllogisme aboue rehersit is express aganis the scripture of Almychtie God, bayth Aulde Testament and New. Secundlie, to preve his fals and wicket syllogisme, impropirlie callis he to remembrance the scripture of Almychti God, quhare mentione is maid how king Saule made sacrifice onto God of his owne brayne, and wes nocht acceptable to the Lorde God. Mark this place of the scripture, and it salbe easely persavit that it is all wayis impropirlie appliit; for quhy, his syllogisme makis mentione of the worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, without expres commande of God; and this place of scripture testifeis plainly of the worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, express contrar to the commande of God. And sua may we clearlie vnderstand that this first part of his syllogisme differis far fra the testimonie of scripture, adducit be him for confirmatione of the samin; bicaus thair is ane grete difference betuix the worschipping of God inuentit be manne, without expres commande of God, and the worschipping of God inuentit be manne, express contrar to the commande of God; the ane may neuer stand with the scripture; the vther aggreis with the scripture, bayth Aulde Testament and New, as I haif all reddy declarit.” In fine, the abbot insists that Saul “committit na ydolatrie,” for “albeit the scripture dois affirme that stubborness is as the wicketnes of ydolatrie, nochttheles stubbornes is nocht ydolatrie.” Ane Oratioune set furth be Master Quintine Kennedy, Commendatour of Corsraguell, ye zeir of Gode 1561, p. 5‒8. Edinburgh, 1812.
Changes on the English Liturgy.—In the Communion‑Book, as set forth in 1548, the words pronounced by the minister at delivering the bread were, “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life;” and at the delivery of the cup, “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve,” &c. As altered in the corrected Prayer Book of Edward VI. the words pronounced were, ‘Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee; and feed on him in thy heart by faith—Drink this in remembrance Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.” A rubric was also added, to be read at the celebration of the communion, declaring, that, although the posture of kneeling was retained to signify our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ, and to prevent profanation and disorder; yet “no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either to the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood; for the bread and wine retained their natural substances, and Christ’s natural body was in heaven, and could not be in more places than one at the same time.” Collier, ii. 310: Records, No. 70.
In the settlement of religion, at the commencement of Elizabeth’s reign, the old form of words at delivering the elements was super‑induced upon the new, which, like the patching of old and new cloth in a garment, marred the whole, and pleased neither protestants nor papists; and the rubric, explanatory of kneeling, was thrown out. At the restoration of Charles II., “the church thought fit (says Collier) to condescend so far as to restore the rubric of King Edward’s reign,” to please “some people either of weak judgments or contentious humours.” A piece of condescension, with which the historian pretty plainly intimates his dissatisfaction. In the liturgy which was attempted to be imposed upon the Scottish church in 1637, all the qualifications and explications in the last prayer‑book of Edward VI. were completely excluded, and various expressions, postures, and gestures, favourable to the popish notions and superstition, were unblushingly borrowed from the mass‑book. But the rulers of the church in the three kingdoms were then posting fast to Rome, when they were overturned in their mad career.
Sentiments of English Reformers respecting the government and worship of the Church.—I shall endeavour to compress the body of evidence which can be produced for the conformity between the private sentiments of the English reformers respecting worship and church‑government, and those of Knox, along with the reformers of Switzerland and Geneva. Hooper, in a letter dated Feb. 8, 1550, informs Bullinger that “the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Rochester, Ely, St David’s, Lincoln, and Bath, were sincerely bent on advancing the purity of doctrine, agreeing IN ALL THINGS with the Helvetic churches.” Burnet, iii. 201. Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, in a letter to Gualter, Feb. 4, 1573, fervently exclaims, “O! would to God, would to God, once at last, all the English people would in good earnest propound to themselves to follow the church of Zurich as the most absolute pattern.” Strype’s Annals, ii. 286, 342.
Cranmer expressed his opinion formally in writing, that “the bishops and priests were at one time, and were no two things, but both ONE OFFICE in the beginning of Christ’s religion.”—“The bishop of St David’s, my lord elect of Westminster, Dr Cox, Dr Redman, say that at the beginning they were all ONE.” Collier, ii. Records, No. 49. Burnet, i. Append. p. 223‒225. Thirteen bishops, with a great number of other ecclesiastics, subscribed this proposition, “that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishops.” Burnet, ut supra, p. 324. Cranmer says, “In the New Testament he that is appointed a bishop or a priest needed not consecration, by the scripture, for election or appointment thereto is sufficient.” And of the same judgment was the bishop of St David’s. Ibid. 228, 230. Latimer and Hooper maintained the identity of bishops and presbyters, by divine institution. Voetii Polit. Eccles. tom. ii. p. 837. This was also the opinion of Pilkington, bishop of Durham. Treatise on the burning of St Paul’s, apud Cald. Altare Damascenum, p. 204. Bishop Jewel assents to it in his Answer to Harding, p. 121. And on the accession of Elizabeth, he expressed his hope, that “the bishops would become pastors, labourers, and watchmen, and that the great riches of bishoprics would be diminished and reduced to mediocrity, that, being delivered from regal and courtly pomp, they might take care of the flock of Christ.” Burnet, iii. 288. In the same year, Dr Aylmer addressed the right reverend bench in these terms: “Come of, you bishops, away with your superfluities, yield up your thousands, be content with hundreds, as they be in other reformed churches, where there be as great learned men as you are. Let your portion be priestlike and not princelike. Let the queen have the rest of your temporalities and other lands to maintain these warres which you procured, and your mistresse left her; and with the reste builde and found scholes thorow out the realme: that every parishe church may have his preacher, every city his superintendent, to live honestly and not pompously; which will never be onles your landes be dispersed and bestowed upon many which now feedeth and fatteth but one.—I would our countryman Wicliefe’s boke which he wrote, De Ecclesia, were in print, and there should you see that your wrinches and cavillations be nothing worthie. It was my chaunce to happen of it in ones hand that brought it out of Bohemia.” An Harborowe for Faithful and Trew Subjects, sig. O, 4. Cranmer expressed himself in a similar strain respecting the “glorious titles, styles, and pomps,” which were come into the church through the working of the spirit of Diotrephes, and professed his readiness to lay them aside. Strype’s Cranmer, Append. p. 20. Burnet, iii. 105. Append. p. 88. In fact, the title of bishop was very generally disused in common speech during the reign of Edward VI., and that of superintendent substituted in its place. And this change of style was vindicated by Ponet, bishop of Winchester, in an answer which he published to a popish writer. Strype’s Memorials of the Reformation, ii. 444, 445.
It was proposed by Cranmer to erect courts similar to the kirk‑sessions and provincial synods afterwards introduced into the Scottish church. Burnet, iii. 214. Reformatio Leg. Eccles. cap. 8, 10. He ardently wished the suppression of prebendaries, “an estate,” he said, “which St Paule, reckoning up the degrees and estates allowed in his time, could not find in the church of Christ.” Burnet, iii. Append. p. 157, 158. All the protestant bishops and divines in the reign of Edward VI. were anxious for the introduction of ecclesiastical discipline. Dr Cox (Oct. 5, 1552,) complains bitterly of the opposition of the courtiers to this measure, and says, that, if it was not adopted, “the kingdom of God would be taken away from them.” Latimer’s Sermons, fol. cix. b. Lond. 1570. Strype’s Memor. of the Reform. ii. 366. Repository of Orig. p. 150.
Cranmer and his colleagues were far from being satisfied with the purity of the last common‑prayer book of Edward; and the primate had drawn up one which is said to have been “an hundred times more perfect.” Troubles at Franckfort, p. 50. He and Ridley intended to procure an act for abolishing the sacerdotal habits; “for they only defended their lawfulness, but not their fitness.” Burnet’s Letters respecting Switzerland, &c. p. 52. Rotterdam, 1686. When Grindal was appointed to the bishopric of London, he “remained under some scruples of conscience about some things, especially the habits and certain ceremonies required to be used of such as were bishops. For the reformed in these times (says Strype) generally went upon the ground, that, in order to the complete freeing of the church of Christ from the errors and corruptions of Rome, every usage and custom practised by that apostate and idolatrous church should be abolished,—and that the service of God should be most simple, stript of all that show, pomp, and appearance that had been customarily used before, esteeming all that to be no better than superstitious and anti‑christian.” Life of Grindal, p. 28. Horn and others had the same views and scruples. “By the letters,” says Bishop Burnet, “of which I read the originals, [in the archives of Zurich,] it appears that the bishops preserved the habits rather in compliance with the queen’s inclinations than out of any liking they had to them; so far were they from liking, that they plainly expressed their dislike of them.” Burnet’s Letters, ut supra, p. 51. Before they accepted the office, they endeavoured to obtain the abrogation of the ceremonies; and when the act enjoining them passed, they were induced to comply chiefly by their fears that Papists or Lutherans would be put into their places. Strype’s Annals, i. 175, Burnet, ii. 376, and his Sermon on Psal. cxlv. 15, preached before the House of Commons, Jan. 1688. Cox writes to Bullinger, 5th May 1551, “I think all things in the church ought to be pure and simple, removed at the greatest distance from the pomps and elements of the world. But in this our church what can I do in so low a station?” Strype’s Memor. of the Reform. ii. 305. Burnet, iii. 202. Jewel, in a letter to Martyr, Nov. 5, 1559, calls the clerical habits “a stage‑dress” (vestis scenica), to which those alone were attached who “had nothing else to recommend them to the people, but a comical dress,”—“stipites sine ingenio, sine doctrina, sine moribus, veste saltem comica volebant populo commendari.” He engages that no exertions of his should be wanting to banish utterly these ridiculous trifles, “ludicris ineptiis,” and relics of the Amorites, as his correspondent (he says) had well designed them. And, at a period still later, (Feb. 8, 1566), he writes to Bullinger, that he “wished that the very slightest footsteps of popery might be removed out of the church and minds of men; but the queen would at that time suffer no change in religion.” Burnet, iii. Append. p. 291. ii. Append. p. 351. Strype’s Annals, i. 174. Grindal and Horn wrote to Zurich, that they did not approve of, but merely suffered, kneeling in the eucharist, and singing with the cross in baptism, with some other ceremonies, hoping that they would speedily obtain their abrogation. Burnet, ii. 310, 314. As to Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich, Pilkington of Durham, and Sands of Worcester, the non‑conformists bear testimony, that these prelates discovered the greatest zeal in endeavouring to procure their abrogation. Ibid. iii. 316. The most respectable of the clergy in the lower house were of the same sentiments with the bishops on this subject. In the year 1562, the abrogation of the most offensive ceremonies was, after long reasoning, put to the vote in the convocation, and carried by a majority of those present, but, when the proxies were included, there was found a majority of ONE for retaining them. The arguments used, by archbishop Parker’s chaplains, to prevail upon the house to agree to this, derived their chief force from their being understood to be the sentiments of the queen. Burnet, ii. Append. p. 319, 320. Strype’s Annals, i. 298‒300.
From these facts, (and a collection much more ample could easily be made,) the reader will see who were the first puritans, and how very different the sentiments of the English reformers were from those of their successors. Those good men who had the direction of ecclesiastical affairs in the reign of Edward VI. thought it most prudent to proceed gradually and slowly, in removing the abuses, and correcting the evils, which had overspread the church; and to indulge the people for a season with those external forms to which they had been habituated, that they might draw them more easily from their superstitious notions and practices, and in due time perfect the reformation to the satisfaction of all. The plan was plausible; but its issue was very different from what was intended by those who proposed it. Nor was this unforeseen by persons who wished well to the church of England. After the bishops had resolved to rest satisfied with the establishment which they obtained, and felt themselves disturbed by the complaints of the puritans, (as they were afterwards called,) they endeavoured to engage the foreign divines on their side; and having, by partial representations, and through the respect entertained for the government of England, obtained letters from them somewhat favourable to their views, they employed these to bear down such as pleaded for a more pure reformation. Whitgift made great use of this weapon in his controversy with Cartwright. Bishop Parkhurst wrote to Gualter, a celebrated Swiss divine, cautioning him on this head, adding, that he had refused to communicate some of Gualter’s letters to Whitgift; because, “if any thing made for the ceremonies, he presently clapped it into his book and printed it.” Strype’s Annals, ii. 286, 287. But these divines had formerly delivered their unbiassed judgment, disapproving of such temporizing measures. Cranmer having signified to the Genevese Reformer, that he “could do nothing more profitable to the church, than to write often to the king,” Calvin wrote a letter to the archbishop in 1551, in which he lamented the procrastination used, and expressed his fears, that “a long winter would succeed to so many harvests spent in deliberation.” Epist. p. 62: Oper. tom. ix. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 413. Peter Martyr, in June 1550, gave it as his opinion, that “the innumerable corruptions, infinite abuses, and immense superstition, could be reformed only by a simple recurrence to the pure fountain, and unadulterated original principles.” And the prudential advice, that as few changes as possible should be made, he called “a device of Satan, to render the regress to popery more easy.” Burnet, iii. Append, p. 200. Gualter, in a letter dated Jan. 16, 1559, says, that such advices, though “according to a carnal judgment full of modesty, and apparently conducive to the maintenance of concord,” were to be ascribed to “the public enemy of man’s salvation;” and he prophetically warns those who suffered abuses to remain and strengthen themselves in England, that “afterwards they would scarcely be able to eradicate them by all their efforts and struggles.” Ibid. iii. 273. Append, p. 265.
Fuller says, that the English Reformers “permitted ignorant people to retain some fond customs, that they might remove the most dangerous and destructive superstitions; as mothers, to get children to part with knives, are content to let them play with rattles.” Very good: but if children are suffered to play too long with rattles, they are in great danger of not parting with them all their days.
Plan of Edward VI. for advancing the Reformation of the Church of England.—A plan of improvements in the English church, which Edward VI. drew with his own hand, may be seen in Strype’s Memorials of the Reformation, ii. 341‒343. He was desirous of the establishment of ecclesiastical discipline, but sensible that the incumbent bishops were in general of such a description as to be unfit for its exercise. “Some for papistry,” says he, “some for ignorance, some for their ill‑name, some for all these, are men unable to execute discipline.” Accordingly, he adds, “as for discipline, I would wish no authority given generally to all bishops; but that commission be given to those of the best sort of them to exercise it in their dioceses.” King Edward’s Remains: Burnet, ii. Records, p. 69.
Omitting other proofs of his intentions, I shall produce the decisive one of his conduct towards the foreign churches settled in London under the inspection of John A Lasco. A Lasco was a Polish nobleman, who had forsaken his native country from love to the reformed religion. In his youth, he enjoyed the friendship of Erasmus, who, in one of his letters, passes a high encomium on him. “Senex, juvenis convictu, factus sum melior; ac sobrietatem, temperantiam, verecundiam, linguæ moderationem, modestiam, prudentiam, integritatem, quam juvenis a sene discere debuerat, a juvene senex didici.” Erasmi Epist. lib. 28, ep. 3. He was offered two bishoprics, one in his native country, and another in Hungary; but he rejected both, and retiring into Friesland, became pastor of a protestant congregation at Embden. Gerdes. Hist. Reform, iii. 145‒150. The protestant churches in the Low Countries being dissipated in consequence of the troubles produced by the Interim, he came to England at the pressing invitation of Cranmer, and was chosen superintendent of the German, French, and Italian congregations erected in London, which consisted of between 3000 and 4000 persons. Strype’s Cranmer, p. 234‒241. Gerdes. ut sup. p. 150, 235.
A Lasco afterwards published an account of the form of government and worship used in these congregations, which greatly resembled that which was introduced into Scotland at the establishment of the Reformation. The affairs of each congregation were managed by a minister, ruling elders, and deacons; and each of these offices was considered as of divine institution. Ut infra, fol. i. 6, b. 11. The inspection of the different congregations was committed to a superintendent, “who was greater only in respect of his greater trouble and care, not having more authority than the other elders, either as to the ministry of the word and sacraments, or as to the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline, to which he was subject equally with the rest.”—“Cestuy est appellé, au preuilege du Roy, Superintendant, lequel est plus grand que les autres, seulement en ce qu’il a plus de peine et de soing que tous les autres, non seulement au gouuernement de toute l’Eglise, mais aussy a la defendre cōtre les effortz de tous ses aduersaires, et a retenir vn consentement vnanime de tous, aux differens de la doctrine. D’avantage il n’a point plus d’autorité que les autres Anciēs, au Ministere de la parolle, et des sacremens, et en l’usage de la discipline de l’Eglise, a la quelle il est subiect cōme tous les autres. Et comme il a soing des autres au cause de son Ministere, pareillement il se soubmet au soing des autres, en l’obeissance de la parolle de Dieu, et obseruation de la discipline.” Ut infra, fol. i. b. It is proper, however, to mention that A Lasco, although he allows no superiority of office or authority to superintendents, considers that they were of divine appointment, and that Peter held this rank among the apostles. “Premierement que la Ministere de Superintendant, ou Inspecteur, est vne ordonnance diuine en l’Eglise de Christ, instituée du Seigneur Iesus Christ ētre les Apostres mesmes: quād il commanda a Pierre specialement, de confirmer ses autres freres en la foy. Et non pas qu’il luy ait donné autorité sus les autres Apostres: comme le Pape de Rome songe: mais qu’il failloit retenir en l’Eglise vne puissance egalle de tous les Apostres, auec Pierre per vng certain ordre d’une solicitude, des vns pour les autres: ainsy que tres bien l’enseigne sainct Ciprian martyr. Et aussy nous voyons manifestement, qu’un mesme Ministere est egalement attribué a tous les Anciens de l’Eglise, qui sont nommez Inspecteurs, et en Grec Euesques. Nous entendons aussy Iean et Iaques auoir tel honneur que Pierre en l’Eglise de Ierusalem. Mais a fin qu’il y ait quelque ordre, en vn mesme gouuernement Ecclesiastique, entre tous les Anciens, et que tout soit faict par ordre et honnestement, il le faut commencer a vn. Or pour ce qu’il y a bien a faire de quelz, on doit cōmencer lé gouuernement en toute l’Eglise; ores que tous les Anciens ayent vne mesme puissance.” Toute la forme et maniere de Ministere Ecclesiastique en l’Eglise des estrāgers, dresseé a Londres en Angleterre. Par M. Jean a Lasco, Baron de Polonie. Traduit de Latin en Francois et imprimé par Giles Ctematius. 1556, fol. 8, b. 9, a. Imposition of hands was used in the ordination of superintendents, ministers, ruling elders, and deacons. Ibid. fol. 27, 31, 35. The communicants sat at the Lord’s table, and A Lasco spends a number of pages in proving that this posture is preferable to kneeling. Fol. 80‒88. In fine, he says, “We have laid aside all the relics of popery, with its mummeries, and we have studied the greatest possible simplicity in ceremonies.” Ibid. fol. 79, b.
Notwithstanding these sentiments, and these pieces of disconformity to the practice of the church of England, A Lasco was held in the greatest esteem, and warmly patronized, not only by Cranmer, but also by the young king, who granted him letters patent, erecting him and the other ministers of the foreign congregations into a body corporate. The patent runs in these terms: “Edward, &c. We being specially induced, by great and weighty considerations, and particularly considering how much it becomes Christian princes to be animated with love and care of the sacred gospel of God, and apostolical religion, begun, instituted, and delivered by Christ himself, without which policy and civil government can neither subsist long, nor maintain their reputation, unless princes and illustrious persons whom God hath appointed for the government of kingdoms do first of all take care that pure and uncorrupted religion be diffused through the whole body of the commonwealth, and that a church instituted in truly Christian and apostolical doctrines and rites—be preserved, &c, with this intent and purpose, that there may be an uncorrupted interpretation of the holy gospel, and administration of the sacraments, according to the word of God, and apostolical observance, by the ministers of the church of the Germans, &c. we command and strictly charge the mayor, &c. that they permit the said superintendent and ministers, freely and quietly to enjoy, use, and exercise their own peculiar ecclesiastical discipline, notwithstanding that they do not agree with the rites and ceremonies used in our kingdom,” &c. The patent may be seen at large in Burnet, ii. Records, p. 202.
But the ulterior design which the king intended to accomplish by the incorporation of this church, is what I have particularly in view. This is explicitly stated by A Lasco, in a book which he published in 1555. In his dedication of it to Sigismund, king of Poland, he says, “When I was called by that king, [Edward VI.] and when certain laws of the country stood in the way, so that the public rites of divine worship used under popery could not immediately be purged out (which the king himself desired;) and when I was earnest for the foreign churches, it was at length his pleasure, that the public rites of the English churches should be reformed by degrees, as far as could be got done by the laws of the country; but that strangers, who were not strictly bound to these laws in this matter, should have churches granted unto them, in which they should freely regulate all things wholly according to apostolical doctrine and practice, without any regard to the rites of the country; that by this means the English churches also might be excited to embrace the apostolical purity, by the unanimous consent of all the estates of the kingdom. Of this project, the king himself, from his great piety, was both the chief author and the defender. For, although it was almost universally acceptable to the king’s council, and the archbishop of Canterbury promoted it with all his might, there were not wanting some who took it ill, and would have opposed it, had not his Majesty checked them by his authority, and the reasons which he adduced for the design.” Again, in the Appendix to the same book, p. 649, he says, “The care of our church was committed to us chiefly with this view, that in the ministration thereof, we should follow the rule of the divine word and apostolical observance, rather than any rites of other churches. In fine, we were admonished both by the king himself, and his chief nobility, to use this great liberty granted to us in our ministry, rightly and faithfully, not to please men but for the glory of God, by promoting the reformation of his worship.” The following are the original words of the author: “Cum ego quoque per Regem illum vocatus essem: et leges quædam patriæ obstarent, quominus publici potissimum cultus divini ritus sub papismo usurpati (pro eo ac rex ipse cupiebat) repurgari protinus possunt. Ego vero peregrinorum ecclesiis sedulo instarem, ita demum placuit, ut ritus publici in Anglicis Ecclesiis per gradus quosdam (quantum per leges patrias omnino liceret) repurgarentur: Peregrinis vero hominibus (qui patriis hac alioqui in parte legibus non usque adeo tenerentur) ecclesiæ concederentur in quibus omnia libere, et nulla rituum patriorum habita ratione (juxta doctrinam duntaxit atque observationem apostolicam) instituerentur, ita enim fore, ut Anglicæ quoque ecclesiæ ad puritatem apostolicam amplectendam unanimi omnium regni ordinum consensu excitarentur. Ejus vero consilii rex ipsemet (pro sua pietate) præcipuus non autor tantum, sed etiam propugnator fuit. Etsi enim id in senatu regio omnibus propemodum placeret, ipseque Cantuariensis archiepiscopus rem omnibus modis promoveret; non deerant tamen qui id moleste ferrent, adeoque et reluctaturi fuerint huic instituto regio, nisi rex ipse, non tantum authoritate sua restitisset: sed productus etiam instituti hujus rationibus conatus eorum repressisset.” De Ordinatione Ecclesiarum peregrinarum in Anglia. Epist. Dedic. et p. 649. Larger extracts from this work may be seen in Voetii Politica Ecclesiastica, tom. i. 420‒422.
Had Mr Gilpin been acquainted with these facts, he would have spoken with a little more moderation and respect concerning this accomplished reformer, than he has done in the following passage. “By the favour of Edward VI. he was allowed to open a church for the use of his own persuasion. But he made only a bad use of this indulgence; interfering very impertinently in the controversies then on foot.” Gilpin’s Lives of Latimer and Gilpin, p. 243. Lond. 1780. Writers who, like Gilpin, deal in abridgements, should be very cautious and sparing in the reflections which they make on characters, as they are apt to mislead their readers, without furnishing them with the facts which would serve to correct their mistakes.
Chaplains of Edward VI.—The following account of the freedom used by the chaplains of Edward VI. in reproving the vices of the courtiers, is given by Knox, in his “Letters to the Faithful in London,” &c. I quote from the MS.
“How boldlie thair synis wer rebukeit, even in thair faces, suche as wer present can witnes with me. Almost thair wes none that occupyit the place [pulpit] but he did prophesie, and planelie speake, the plaguis that ar begun, and assuredlie sall end. Mr Grindal planelie spak the deth of the kingis maieste, complayning on his houshald servandis and officeris, who nether eschameit nor feirit to raill aganis Godis trew word, and aganis the preacheris of the same. The godlie and fervent man, maister Lever, planelie spak the desolatioun of the commoun weill, and the plaguis whilk suld follow schortlie. Maister Bradfurde (whome God, for Chrystis his Sonis sake, comfort to the end) spared not the proudest, but boldie declareit that Godis vengence suld schortlie stryke thame that than wer in autoritie, becaus thay abhorrit and lothed the trew word of the everlasting God. And amangis many uther willit thame to tak exempill be the lait duck of Somerset, who became so cald in hering Godis word, that the yeir befoir his last apprehensioun, hie wald ga visit his masonis, and wald not dingyie487 himself to ga from his gallerie to his hall for hering of a sermone. God punnissit him (said the godlie preacher), and that suddanlie; and sall hie spair you that be dowbill mair wickit? No: hie sall not.488 Will ye, or will ye not, ye shall drink the cupe of the Lordis wrath. Judicium domini! judicium domini! the judgment of the Lord! the judgment of the Lord! lamentabillie cryit hie, with weipping teiris. Maister Hadden most learnedlie opinit the causis of the bypast plagis, affirmyng that the wors were to follow, unless repentance suld schortlie be found. Thir things, and mekill mair I hard planelie spokin, efter that the haill counsale had said, thay wald heir no mo of thair sermonis; they wer but indifferent fellowis; ye, and sum of thame eschameit not to call them pratting knaves. But now will I not speik all that I knaw, for yf God continew my lyfe in this trubill, I intend to prepair ane dische for suche as than led the ring in the gospell: but now thay haif bene at the scule of Placebo, and amangis laddis [ladies] hes learnit to dance, as the devill list to pype!” P. 120, 121.
With Knox’s representation exactly agrees the affecting “Lamentation for the change of religion in England,” composed in prison by bishop Ridley, in which he names our countryman, along with Latimer, Lever, and Bradford, as distinguishing themselves by the faithfulness and boldness with which they censured the vices which reigned at court. I would willingly make extracts from it, but must refer the reader to the paper itself, which he will find inserted at large, in the account of the bishop’s trial and martyrdom, by Fox, p. 1614‒1620. Edit. anno 1596.
Grindal was an exile during the reign of Mary, and, under Elizabeth, was made successively bishop of London, archbishop of York, and archbishop of Canterbury. Thomas Lever was a very learned man, and Master of St John’s College, Cambridge. He was Knox’s colleague at Frankfort. Upon the accession of Elizabeth, he was admitted to a prebend in the cathedral of Durham, but was afterwards deprived of it on account of non‑conformity. He seems to have been allowed to preach through the country, and, in 1577, died Master of Sherburn Hospital. Some of his sermons are in print. Troubles of Franckfort, p. 13‒28. Strype’s Parker, p. 212. App. 77. Grindal, 170. Annals, iii. 512‒514. Hutchinson’s Durham, ii. 594. John Bradford was in prison when Knox wrote the above account of him, and was soon after committed to the flames. James Haddon had been chaplain to the Duke of Suffolk, and went to Strasburg at the death of Edward VI. He was chosen, along with Knox, to be one of the ministers of the English church at Franckfort, but declined accepting the office. Troubles of Franckfort, 13, 16, 23. Strype’s Annals, ii. Append. p. 46.
The Confession or Prayer, composed and used by Knox, after the death of Edward VI. and the accession of Mary, shows the state of his mind at that crisis, and refutes the unfounded charges of the popish, and of some episcopal writers, that he was guilty of stirring up rebellion against the queen. I extract it from his treatise on Prayer, printed in 1554, which is now exceedingly rare.
“Omnipotent and everlasting God, father of our Lorde Jesus Chryste, who be thy eternal providence, disposeth kingdoms as best seameth to thy wisdom, we acknowledge and confesse thy judgementis to be righteous, in that thou hast taken from us, for our ingratitude, and for abusinge of thy most holy word, our native king, and earthly comforter. Justly may thou poure forth upon us the uttermoste of thy plagues; for that we have not knowen the dayes and tymes of our merciful visitacion. We have contempned thy worde, and despised thy mercies. We have transgressed thy lawes: for deceitfully have we wrought everie man with our neighbours; oppression and violence we have not abhorred; charitie hath not apeared among us, as our profession requireth. We have little regarded the voices of thy prophets; thy threatnings we have esteemed vanitie and wynd: so that in us, as of ourselfis, restis nothing worthy of thy mercies. For all are found frutless, even the princes with the prophetes, as withered trees apt and mete toe be burnt in the fyre of thy eternal displeasure. But, O Lord, behold thy own mercy and goodness, that thou may purdge and remove the most filthy burden of oure most horrible offences. Let thy love overcome the severitie of thy judgmentis, even as it did in geving to the world thy onely Sonne Jesus when all mankynde was lost, and no obedience was lefte in Adam nor in his sede. Regenerate our hartes, O Lord, by the strength of the Holy Ghost. Convert thou us, and we shall be converted. Work thou in us unfeigned repentance, and move thou our hartes too obey thy holy lawes. Behold our trobles and apparent destruction; and stay the sword of thy vengeaunce, before it devoure us. Place above us, O Lord, for thy great mercies sake, such a head, with such rulers and magistrates, as feareth thy name, and willeth the glory of Christ Jesus to spred. Take not from us the light of thy euangely, and suffer thou no papistrie to prevail in this realme. Illuminate the harte of our soveraigne ladye, quene Marie, with prignant gifts of thy Holy Ghoste. And inflame the hartes of her counsayl with thy trew fear and love. Represse thou the pryde of those that wolde rebelle. And remove from all hartes the contempte of the worde. Let not our enemies rejoyce at our destruction; but loke thou too the honor of thy own name, O Lorde, and let thy gospell be preached with boldenes in this realme. If thy justice must punish, then punish our bodies with the rodde of thy mercy. But, O Lord, let us never revolte nor turne backe to idolatrie agayne. Mytigate the hartes of those that persecute us, and let us not faynte under the crosse of our Saviour; but assist us with the Holy Ghoste, even to the end.”
Call and Invitation to Knox from the English Congregation at Franchfort.—“We haue receiued letters from oure brethren off Strausbrough, but not in suche sorte and ample wise as we looked for, wheruppon we assembled together in the H. Goaste we hope, and haue with one voice and consent chosen yow so particulerly to be one off the ministers off our congregation here, to preache vnto vs the most liuely worde off God, accordinge to the gift that God hathe giuen yow, for as much as we haue here throughe the merciful goodnes off God a churche to be congregated together in the name off Christe, and be all of one body, and also beinge of one natiō, tonge, and countrie. And at this presente, hauing neede off suche a one as yow, we do desier yow, and also require yow in the name off God not to deny vs, nor to refuse theis oure requests, but that yow will aide, helpe, and assiste vs with your presence in this our good and godlie enterprise, which we haue take in hand to the glorie off God and the profit off his congregation and the poore sheepe off Christ dispersed abroad, who withe your and like presences, woulde come hither and be of one folde, where as nowe they wander abroad as loste sheepe without anie gide. We mistruste not that yow will ioifullie accepte this callinge. Fare ye well from Franckford this 24. off September.
“Your louinge brethern,
Iohn Bale
Edmond Sutton
Iohn Makebraie.
VVilliam VVhittingham Thomas Cole VVilliam VVilliams George Chidley VVilliam Hammon Thomas Steward
Thomas wood Iohn Stanton VVilliam VValton Jasper swyft Iohn Geofrie Iohn Graie
Mighell Gill Iohn Samford Iohn VVood Thomas Sorby Anthony Cariar Hugh Alforde.”
A Brieff Discours off the Troubles begonne at Franckford in Germany Anno Domini 1554. Abowte the Booke off Common prayer and Ceremonies. Pag. xix. xx. Printed M.D.LXXV.
Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes?
Knox was accused by the English exiles of High Treason, because he charged queen Mary with cruelty, and said that the emperor was as great an enemy to Christ as Nero. But his accusers, it might easily be shown, used stronger language on this subject than ever he did. Mr Strype informs us that the protestants who felt and outlived the persecution of Mary, used the very worst epithets in speaking of her character. Memorials of the Reform, iii. 472. We need no other proof of this than the Oration composed by John Hales, and pronounced by a nobleman before queen Elizabeth, at her entrance upon the government. Speaking of the late persecution under Mary, the orator exclaims, “O cruelty! cruelty! far exceeding all crueltys committed by those ancient and famous tyrants, and cruel murderers, Pharaoh, Herod, Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Maximine, Dioclesian, Decius; whose names, for their cruel persecution of the people of God, and their own tyranny practised on the people, have been, be, and ever shall be in perpetual hatred, and their souls in continual torments in hell.” The late Queen he calls “Athalia, malicious Mary, unnatural woman; no, no woman, but a monster, and the Devil of hell, covered with the shape of a woman.” See Works of the Rev. Samuel Johnston, p. 144.
Nor did they speak in more civil terms of foreign princes. Take, for an example, the invective of Aylmer against the French king, Henry II. “Is he a king or a devil, a Christian, or a Lucifer, that bi his cursed confederacie so encourageth the Turke? Oh! wicked catife and fierebrand of hell, which, for th’ increasing of his pompe and vayn glory, (which he shall not long enjoy,) wil betray Christ and his cross, to his mortal enemy. Oh, foolish Germains! which see not their own undoing, which conspire not together with the rest of Christian princes to pull such a traytour to God, and his kingdom, by the eares out of France, and hang him against the sonne a drying. The devill hath none other of his sede nowe but him, to maintaine both the spiritual and the temporall antichryste, the Pope and the Turke. Wherefore seeing he hath forsaken God, lyke an apostata, and sold himself to the devil, let us not doubte but God will be with us against him, whensoever he shall seek to wrong us; and I trust he will now, in the latter age of the worlde, shew his myght in cuttynge of this proude Holofernes’ head by the handes of our Judith. Oh! blessed is that man that loseth his lyfe against such a Termagaunt! Yea, more blessed shall they be that spend their lyves against him than against his great maister, the Turke: for the Turke never understode the crosse of Christ; but this Turkish apostata is named a devellis name, Christianissimus, and is in the very heart of Christendome, and lyke a traiterous Saracene, is Christ’s enemy.” Harborowe for Faithfull Subjects, Q. 1. Strasborowe, 1559.
I do not find Collier, nor other high‑church historians, quoting or commenting upon such language. On the contrary, Aylmer is praised by them for “his handsome pen,” while every opportunity is taken to inveigh against the virulence of our Reformer. We may safely challenge them to prove that he ever indulged in language so intemperate, or so disrespectful to princes, as that which I have just quoted.
Canons of Scottish Councils.—“When a house is in flames,” says Lord Hailes, “it is vain to draw up regulations for the bridling of joists or the sweeping of chimneys.” Such was the situation of the popish church in Scotland, when the clergy began to speak of reforming abuses. The 21st canon of the council which met in 1549, ordains that there should be a reader of theology in each cathedral church, whose lectures should be attended by the bishop and canons, “si voluntas fuerit;” and also a lecturer on canon law. The 22d canon decrees that there should be a lecturer on theology in each monastery. Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 52. The 26th canon enjoins the rectors of universities to see that the students are well instructed in Latin grammar and in logic. The 28th appoints the ordinaries to call all the curates within their bounds before them, to examine them anew, and to reject those who are found insufficient for their office. The last eight canons were intended to regulate the consistorial courts. Ibid. p. 53, 58, 59. To the 14th canon of the council which sat in 1551‒2, we owe the establishment of our parochial registers of proclamation of banns and baptisms. After renewing former statutes against clandestine marriages, and in favour of proclamation of banns of marriage, the canon goes on to enact, “Ut singuli curati deinceps habeant registrum, in quo nomina infantum baptizatorum inscribantur, una cum nominibus personarum, quæ talium baptizatorum parentes communiter habenter et reputantur, nec non compatrum et commatrum, cum die, anno, mense, adscriptis etiam duobus testibus notent; quod etiam ipsum in bannorum proclamationibus servetur, quas præsens conventio in ecclesiis parochialibus tam viri quam mulieris respective, si diversarum fuerint parochiarum, fieri mandat; quæ equidem registra inter pretiosissima ecclesiæ jocalia conservari vult et præcipit, quodque decani in suis visitationibus, desuper diligentem indaginem faciant, et defficientes ad commissarios referant, ut graviter in eosdem animadvertatur.” Wilkins, ut sup. p. 71, 72.
The 6th canon enacts regulations respecting testaments. On this subject, the following quotation, from the proceedings of a council in 1420, will serve to explain the canon which modified the exaction of mortuaries, mentioned in p. 351. The clergy of each diocese reported on oath to the council, “That the practice was first to pay the debts of the deceased, and then to divide his effects into three equal portions, whereof one was given to his widow, and one to his children: That the executors bestowed the remaining third in payment of legacies, and for the soul of the deceased (pro exequiis et anima defuncti): That of this third or dead’s part (defuncti pars) the executors were wont to pay, or to compound with the ordinary, at the rate of five per cent for the expense of confirmation.” Chartulary of Moray, apud Lord Hailes’s Prov. Councils, p. 23. Besides the five per cent claimed by the bishop, we have already seen that the vicar had twenty per cent, even according to the mitigated arrangement, before any legacy was paid. No mention is made of the case of a person leaving neither wife nor children; and there it was,” says Lord Hailes, “that the clergy reaped their harvest.” He might have added the case of persons dying intestate, to whom the bishops had the power of naming executors. That was the golden age of the clergy, when they were under no necessity of instituting processes for augmentation from unexhausted teinds, or of count and reckoning to recover the use of funds destined to their support!
Of the Catechism commonly called Archbishop Hamilton’s.—Very different and discordant accounts have been given of this book. My account is taken from the catechism itself, compared with the canon of the council which authorized its use. The title is as follows:—
“The Catechisme, That is to say, ane cōmone and catholik instructioun of the christin people in materis of our catholic faith and religioun, quhilk na gud christin man or woman suld misknaw: set furth be ye maist reuerend father in God Johne Archbischop of sanct Androus Legatnait and primat of ye kirk of Scotland, in his prouincial counsale haldin at Edinburgh the xxvi. day of Januarie, the zeir of our Lord 1551, with the aduise and counsale of the bischoippis and other prelatis, with doctours of Theologie and Canon law of the said realme of Scotland present for the tyme.—S. Aug. libro 4 de trinitate. cap. 6.—Contra rationem nemo sobrius, contra scripturam nemo christianus, contra ecclesiam nemo pacificus senserit.—Agane reasone na sober man, agane scripture na christin man, agane the kirk na peaceabil or quiet man will iudge, or hald opinioun.” On the back of title are two copies of Latin verses, “Ad. Pivm Lectorem.” The title, preface by the archbishop, and “table of materis,” are on thirteen leaves. The catechism begins on folio i, and ends on folio ccvi, after which there are three pages of errata, on the last of which is the following colophon. “Prentit at Sanct Androus, be the command and expēsis of the maist reuerend father in God, Johne Archbischop of sanct Androus, and primat of ye hail kirk of Scotland, the xxix day of August, the zeir of our Lord M.D. lii.”
The archbishop’s epistle addressed to “Personis, Vicars, and Curattis,” prefixed to the catechism, informs us of its design and use. “First to your awin erudition.—Secundly, According to the decreit maid in our prouincial counsale, our will is that ye reid ye samyn catechisme diligently, distinctly, and plainly, ilk ane of yow to your awin parochianaris, for thair cōmon instructioun and spiritual edificatioun in the word of God, necessarie of thame to be knawin.” The canon of the council provides that it be read “omnibus dominicis et festivis,” which is thus explained in the close of the archbishop’s epistle: “Euerilk Sonday and principal halydaie, quhen yair cummis na precheour to thame to schaw thame the word of God, to haue yis catechisme usit and reid to yame in steid of preching, quhil [until] God of his gudnes prouide ane sufficient nowmer of catholyk and abil precheouris, quhilk sal be within few yeiris as we traist in God.”
As it is entitled a catechism, was printed in the vulgar language, is said to be designed for the instruction of the people, and no prohibition of its use is mentioned in the book itself, we might be apt to conclude, that it was intended to be circulated among the people, and to be promiscuously read; and accordingly several writers have represented the matter in this light. But that this was very far from being the design of those who approved and set it forth, is placed beyond all doubt by the directions which the council gave respecting it, both to the archbishop and to the clergy. “Cujus quidem libri exemplaria omnia, ubi excussa fuerint, præsentari ipse reverendismo mandat et ordinat præsens concilium, ut ipse singulas tam suis ecclesiasticis, quam aliis singulis locorum ordinariis, quot cuique diocesi pro rectorum, vicariorum, ac curatorum numero et multitudine sufficere videntur, eis tribuat; reliqua vero apud ipsum reverendissimum remaneant, et firma custodia serventur, prout tempus et necessitas postulaverint, dispertienda. Caveant vero ipsi rectores, vicarii, et curati, ne sua exemplaria secularibus quibusque indiscrete communicent, nisi ex judicio, concilio, et discretione sui ordinarii; quibus ordinariis licebit nonnullis probis, gravibus, bonæ fidei, ac discretis viris laicis, ejusdem catechisme exemplaria communicare, et iis pottisimum, qui videbuntur potius suæ instructionis causa, quam curiositatis cujuscunque eadem expetere.” Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 72. Lord Hailes had therefore reason for saying (in opposition to Mackenzie’s tale of the archbishop allowing “the pedlars to take two pennies for their pains in hawking it abroad”) that the council “uses as many precautions to prevent it from coming into the hands of the laity, as if it had been a book replete with the most pestilent heresy.” Provincial Councils, p. 36. It would have been imprudent to insert the prohibition in the book itself, copies of which, notwithstanding all their precautions, would come into the hands of improper persons; but the canon of the council remained the rule for regulating the clergy in the use of it. Nor is there any thing in the catechism which is inconsistent with the canon, or which implies that it was to come into the hands of the people. It is all along supposed that they were to be instructed by hearing, not by reading it. This is particularly evident from the concluding address. “O christin pepil, we exhort yow with all diligence, heir, understand, and keip in your remembrance, the haly wordis of God, quhilk in this present catechisme ar trewly and catholykly exponit to your spiritual edification.” And again: “Gif ye persaif be frequent heiring heirof your self spiritually instruckit mair than ye haue bein in tymes bygane, geue the thankis thairof only to God.”
If any of the hearers presumed to move any controversy respecting the passage read from the catechism, they were to be delivered over to the inquisitors, and no clergyman was allowed to answer their questions, or to enter into any dispute with them on the subject, unless he had a written license for this from his bishop. “Hoc tamen proviso, ut non liceat cuiquam auditorum super lectis, aut modo quo supra recitatis, controversiam ipsi rectori seu vicario seu curato movere. Et si aliquis id attentare præsumpserit deferatur inquisitoribus hæreticæ pravitatis; nec vicissim licebit ulli rectori, vicario, seu curato, nisi ad hoc ipsum (specialiter habita consideratione ipsius qualificationis) fuerit ab ordinario loci ei facultas concessa in scriptis, ullis controversias et quæstiones hujusmodi moventibus desuper respondere, aut disputationes ingredi, sed mox respondeatur, se hujusmodi disputationis resolutiones ad ipsos ordinarios remittere, et hoc sub pœna privationis ab hujusmodi officio seu beneficio.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 73.
The catechism consists of an explication of the ten commandments, the apostles’ creed, the seven sacraments, the Lord’s prayer, and the Ave Maria. Lord Hailes has animadverted on Keith for saying that the author shows “his wisdom and moderation in handsomely eviting to enter upon the controverted points;” and he has given extracts from it asserting the doctrine of transubstantiation, the propriety of withholding the cup from the laity, and of prayers to the saints. Prov. Councils, p. 35, 36. I may add, that the use of images in worship, purgatory, prayers for the dead, the removal of original sin by baptism, the sinlessness of concupiscence after baptism, the mystical signification of the ceremonies practised in that ordinance,—the exorcism, or blowing upon the child at the church door, and making the sign of the cross on its brow and breast, putting salt into its mouth, anointing its nostrils and ears with spittle, and its breast and back with oil, with the application of chrism to the forehead, the clothing of it with the cude or white linen cloth, and putting a lighted torch or candle into its hand; these, with other doctrines and ceremonies of the popish church, are all taught and vindicated. At the same time, while the opinions peculiar to popery are stated and defended, there is an evident design of turning away the attention of the people from these controversies, by reminding them of their duty to “belief as the haly catholic kirk beliefis;” and a great part of the book is occupied in declaring duties and general doctrines about which there was no dispute between papists and protestants. Considerable art is also used in introducing some of the most exceptionable articles of popery under the cover of unquestionable truths. Thus on the question, “Quhat things suld move us to belief the word of God?” The first reason which is given is, “Ye eternal and infallible veritie of God, fra quhome na lesing may procede, na mair than myrknes may cum fra the cleir schenand sonne.” But how gradually and artfully are the people led away from the scriptures in what follows! “The secund thing that suld moue us to belief the word of God, and to knaw quhilk is the worde of God, quhilk are the haly bukis quharin the word of God is contenit, and quhat is the trew sense of the same bukis, is ye consent and authoritie of our mother the haly kirk, fra the apostils tyme hitherto, and specially quhen it is lawfully gadderit be the haly spirit in ane general counsel, quhairof sainct Augustine sais thus:—‘I wald nocht gif credence to the euangel, except that the universal kirk warnis me sa to do.’ And tharfor lair thir twa lessonis. The ane is, quhatsaeuir the haly spirit reuelis and schawis to us, other in the bukis of haly scripture, or in ye determinatiouns and definitiouns of general counsellis, lawfully gadderit for the corroboracion and maintenans of our faith, we suld beleif ye same to be trew word of God, and thairto gyf ferme credence as to the verite that is infallible. The second lesson, ye that ar simple and unleirnit men and wemen suld expressly belief al the artickils of your Crede, as for all uthir hie misteries and matteris of the scripture ye aucht to belief generally as the kirk of God beleiffis. And this faith is sufficient to yow, for the perfectioun of that faith quhilk ye ar bund to haif.” Fol. xiiii. b. xv. a. A specimen of the same kind occurs on the question, How is the true sense of the scripture to be discerned? where, after being gravely taught the usefulness of collating one place with another, and attending to the connexion of the passage, the people are told that this belongs to such as have the gift called interpretatio sermonum, and are then devoutly set down at the feet of the doctors of the church, and taught implicitly to receive the decisions of councils. “Quharfor, he that will nocht heir, resaif, and obey ye diffinitionis and determinationis of lauchful general counsellis concerning materis of our faith, he is nocht to be accountit a trew christin man, according to the wordis of our salviour,—‘Gif he will nocht heir the kirk, lat him be to the as ane infidele, unchristinit, and ane publican.’ Thus ye haif quha is ane herityk, and how he brekis the first command.” Fol. xviii. b. xix. b.