NOTES TO VOLUME FIRST. (continued 3)

As all who question the infallible decisions of the church are pronounced guilty of a breach of the first commandment, the Roman Catholics are, with no less ease, exculpated from a breach of the second, by the insertion of a convenient parenthesis. The reader will observe, that, according to a division of the law first countenanced by Augustine, and of which the popish church is extremely fond, the first and second commandments are thrown into one, and, to make up the number, the tenth is split into two; although the compilers of the catechism found it impracticable to keep to this last division in their explication. The following is their enunciation of the first commandment: “I am ye Lord thi God, quhilk hais brocht ye fra the land of Egypt, fra the house of bondage. Thow sall haif no other goddis but me, thou sal nocht mak to thee (as gods) ony grauit ymage, nother ony similitude of ony thing that is in the heuin abone, or in ye erd beneth, nor of ony thing yat is in the watter under the erd. Thow sal nocht adorne yame, nor worschip yame (as goddis).” Fol. xii. a. It is fair, however, to hear the explication which the authors of the catechism give respecting images. “Ar ymages aganis the first command? Na, sa thai be weil usit. Quhat is the rycht use of ymagis? Imagis to be made na haly writ forbiddis (sais venerabil Bede) for the sycht of thame, specially of the crucifixe giffis greit compunction to thame quhilk behaldis it with faith in Christ, and to yame that are unletterat, it geffis a quik remembrance of ye passion of Christ. Salomon in tyme of his wisdome, nocht without the inspiration of God, made ymages in ye temple. Mosyes the excellent prophet and trew seruand of God, made and ereckit a brassin ymage of a serpent, (quhilk figurit the lyfting vp of our Salwiour Jesus Christ vpon the crosse,) and als, be the cōmand of God, causit mak the ymagis of twa angellis callit cherubinis, quhilk thing thir twa sa excellēt men in wisedome wald neuir haif done, gif the makin of ymagis war aganis ye cōmand of God. Bot utterly yis command forbiddis to mak ymagis to that effect, that thai suld be adornit and wirschippit as goddis, or with ony godlie honour, ye quhilk sentence is expremit by thir wordis: Non adorabis ea neq; coles. Thow sall nocht adore yame nor wirschip thame as goddis. Now we suld nocht gif goddis honour, or Christis honour to ony ymage, but to God allanerly, representit be ane ymage.” Fol. xxiii. b.

In the explication of the fifth article of the Creed, is a particular account of the four places in hell; infernus damnatorum, puerorum, purgandorum, et patrum. The following proof is given of our Saviour’s descent into hell, to deliver the saints who had been confined in the last mentioned place until the time of his death. “Also ye same deliuerāce was prophesit be the prophet Osee: Ero mors tua, o mors, ero morsus tuus o inferne. O dede (says our saluiour) I sal be thi dede—O hel I sal byte the. The man yat bytes ony thing, he takis part to him, and lattis part remaine behind. Sa our saluiour passand doune to hell, he fulfyllit this prophesie, takand part of saulis out fra hell with him, and leiffand part behind him. Quhom tuk he with him? bot thame that was haly and gud, quhilk was haldin thair as presonaris,” Fol. cviii.

Upon the whole, this catechism has been written with great care, and the style is by no means bad. It is singular that it should have been so little noticed by the writers of that age, and that it does not appear who was its compiler. The provincial council describe it merely as “a certain book written in the vulgar and Scottish dialect,—librum quendam vulgari et Scotico idiomate conscriptum;” and having examined and approved of it, they commit to the archbishop, as primate, the care of seeing it printed. As it was printed at his expense, and as his name appears on the title‑page and colophon, it has been usually called Archbishop Hamilton’s Catechism. But there is not the least reason for thinking that the primate would have taken the trouble to compose a book consisting of 411 pages quarto, even although he had been in other respects qualified for the task. Bale, in his account of Scottish writers, mentions “Joannes Wouram, vel Wyrem,” whom he calls “a canon regular in St Andrews;” and he ascribes to him “a catechism in his vernacular language, scripsit in vulgari sermone catechismum fidei.” Scriptores M. Brytanniæ Post. Pars, p. 224. I have little doubt that John Winram, sub‑prior of the abbey of St Andrew, and afterwards superintendent of Fife, is the person to whom Bale refers. Could he be the author of the catechism under consideration? Though early regarded as favourable to the reformed opinions, Winram did not leave the popish church until a very late period; and his conduct, during the intermediate struggle, was extremely ambiguous, and often contradictory. The clergy frequently availed themselves of his talents, and of his reputation with the people, to diminish the odium of their obnoxious measures, or to recommend their partial and inefficient plans of reform. He was employed to preach at the trial of Wishart, and was present at the trials of Wallace and Mill. Fox, 1155, 1158, 1161, edit. 1596. He was a member of the provincial council which met in 1549, and is styled, in the register, “ecclesiæ metrop. primitialis, S. Andreæ canonicus regularis, supprior, theologiæ doctor.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 46. That council employed him to draw up the canon intended to settle the ridiculous dispute, which had been warmly agitated among the clergy, whether the Pater Noster should be said to the saints, or to God alone. Comp. Fox, 1161, with Wilkins, 57, 58. And in the council which sat in 1559, he was nominated one of the six persons to whose examination and admonition the archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow submitted their private conduct. Wilkins, p. 209.489

Spotswood seems to have confounded this Catechism with a smaller treatise called by the people The twa‑penny Faith. History, p. 92. This last was set forth by the council which met in 1559. Knox, Historie, p. 109, 110. The following extracts from the proceedings of that council may, perhaps, throw some light on the history of this publication. The Roman Catholic Remonstrants, in their representations to the council, required, “yat yar be an godlie and fruitfull declaration set forth in Inglis toung, to be first shewin to the pepill at all times, quhen the sacrament of the blissit body and blud of Jesus Christ is exhibit and destribut, and sicklyke, when baptism and marriage are solemnizit, in face of halie kirk; and yat it be declarit to yaim, yat assist at the sacraments, quhat is the effect yarof, and yat it be spirit at yam be ye prist ministrant, gif yai be reddy to resave the samen; with sick utheris interogatories, as ar necessar for instructing of the poynts of mens salvation, and requires to be answerit unto be all yai, that wald be participant, etc. and yir things to be don before ye using of ye ceremony of haly kirk, etc.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 207, 208. The following canon of the council seems to contain the answer to this petition. “Insuper ut populus Christianus sacramentorum ecclesiæ verum effectum, vim ac usum facilius ac commodius intelligere valeat, statuit hoc præsens concilium quasdam catholicas exhortationes, easque succinctas declarationes sacramentorum baptismi, sacrosanctæ eucharistiæ, extremæ unctionis, matrimonii, auctoritate hujus concilii edendas, et inferius inserendas, quas singuli parochi, vel alii presbyteri eorundem sacramentorum legitimi ministri, ipsa sacramenta ministraturi, singulis suam propriam et debitam exhortationem præmittant, et publice et distincte recitent, et legant singuli curati et vicarii, dum sacræ missæ sacrificium diebus dominicis et aliis majoribus festis sunt celebraturi, infra scriptam exhortationem; et ejusdem sacrificii declarationem publice in ecclesia similiter legant, quo populus christianus majori pietatis effectu rebus divinis assistat, et intersit,” &c. Wilkins, ut supra, p. 213. These Exhortations and Declarations were not inserted in the MS. from which Wilkins copied. I am inclined to think that they were published, and that they formed what was called, in derision, The two‑penny Faith. Comp. Buchanani Oper. i. 312.

Note Z.

Knox’s Letter of Instruction to the Protestants of Scotland during his absence.—In the first edition, I printed this letter in the Appendix as an unpublished paper. I have since discovered a printed copy; but as it is exceedingly rare, and as the letter itself is so valuable, I shall insert it in this place.

“To his brethren in Scotland efter hie had bene quyet among thame. The comfort of the halie Gaist for salutatioun.

“Not sa mekill to instruct you as to leave with you, dearlie belovit brethren, sum testimony of my love, I have thought gud to communicate with you, in theis few lynis, my weak consall, how I wald ye suld behave yourselves in the middis of this wickit generatioun, tuiching the exercis of Godis maist halie and sacred word, without the whilk, nether sall knawledge incres, godlines apeir, nor fervencie continew amang yow. For as the word of God is the begyning of lyfe spirituall, without whilk all flesche is deid in Godis presence, and the lanterne to our feit, without the bryghtnes whairof all the posteritie of Adame doith walk in darknes, and as it is the fundament of faith, without the whilk na man understandeth the gud will of God, sa is it also the onlie organe and instrument whilk God useth to strenthin the weak, to comfort the afflictit, to reduce to mercie be repentance sic as have sliddin, and finallie to preserve and keip the verie lyfe of the saule in all assaltis and temptationis, and thairfoir yf that ye desyr your knawledge to be incressit, your faith to be confirmit, your consciencis to be quyetit and comfortit, or finallie your saule to be preservit in lyfe, lat your exercis be frequent in the law of your Lord God; despys not that precept whilk Moses, (who, be his awn experience had learnit what comfort lyeth within the word of God) gave to the isralitis in theis wordis: ‘Theis wordis whilk I command the this day salbe in thi hart, and thou sal exercis thi children in thame, thou sal talk of thame when thou art at home in thi hous, and as thou walkest be the way, and when thou lyis doun, and when thou rysis up, and thou sall bind thame for a signe upon thi hand, and thay salbe paperis of rememberance betwene thi eis, and thou sall wryt thame upon the postis of thi hous and upon thi gatis.’ And moses in another place commandis thame to ‘remember the law of the Lord God, to do it, that it may be weill unto thame, and with thair children in the land whilk the Lord sall gif thame;’ meanyng that, lyke as frequent memorie and repetitioun of Godis preceptis is the middis whairby the feir of God, whilk is the begynning of all wisdome and filicitie, is keipit recent in mynd, sa as negligence and oblivioun of Godis benefitis ressavit the first grie of defectioun fra God. Now yf the law, whilk be reasone of our weakness can wirk nathing but wraith and anger, was sa effectuall that, rememberit and rehersit of purpois to do, it brought to the pepill a corporall benedictioun, what sall we say that the glorious gospell of Chryst Jesus doith wirk, so that it be with reverence intreatit! St Paule calleth [it] the sueit odour of lyfe unto thois that suld resaif lyfe, borrowing his similitude fra odoriferous herbis or precious unguementis, whais nature is the mair thay be touchit or moveit to send furth thair odour mair pleasing and delectabill: even sic, deir brethren, is the blissit evangell of oure Lorde Jesus; for the mair that it be intreatit, the mair comfortable and mair plissant is it to sic as do heir, read, and exercis the sam. I am not ignorant that, as the isralitis lothit manna becaus that everie day thay saw and eat but ane thing, sa sum thair be now a dayis (wha will not be haldin of the worst sort) that efter anis reading sum parcellis of the scriptures do convert thame selves altogether to prophane autors and humane letteris, becaus that the varietie of matteris thairin conteaynit doith bring with it a daylie delectatioun, whair contrairwys within the simpill scriptures of God the perpetuall repititioun of a thing is fascheous and werisome. This temptatioun I confess may enter in Godis verie elect for a tyme, but impossibill is it that thairin thay continew to the end: for Godis electioun, besydis othir evident signis, hath this ever joynit with it that Godis elect ar callit from ignorance (I speik of thois that ar cumin to the yeiris of knawledge) to sum taist and feilling of Godis mercie, of whilk thay ar never satisfeit in this lyfe, but fray tyme to tyme thay hunger and thay thrist to eat the breid that descendit fra the heavin, and to drink the watter that springeth into lyfe everlasting, whilk thay can not do but be the meanis of faith, and faith luketh ever to the will of God revealit be his word, sa that faith hath baith her begynning and continewance be the word of God; and sa I say that impossibill it is that Godis chosin children can despys or reiect the word of their salvatioun be any lang continewance, nether yit loth of it to the end. Often it is that Godis elect ar haldin in sic bondage and thraldome that they can not have the breid of lyfe brokin unto thame, neither yit libertie to exercis thame selves in Godis halie word, but then doith not Godis deir children loth but maist gredilie do thay covet the fude of thair saulis; then do they accuse thair former negligence, then lament and bewaill thay the miserable afflictioun of thair brethren, and than cry and call thay in thair hartis (and opinlie whair thay dar) for frie passage to the gospell. This hungir and thrist doith argue and prufe the lyfe of thair saulis. But gif sic men as having libertie to reid and exercis thame selves in Godis halie scripture, and yet do begin to wearie because fra tyme to tyme thay reid but a [one] thing, I ask, why weirie thay not also everie day to drink wyne, to eat bread, everie day to behald the bryghtnes of the sone, and sa to use the rest of Godis creatures whilk everie day do keip thair awn substance, cours, and nature? Thay sall anser, I trust, because sic creatures have a strenth as oft as thay ar usit to expell hungir and quenche thrist, to restoir strenth, and to preserve the lyfe. O miserabill wreachis, wha dar attribut mair power and strenth to the corruptible creatures in nurisching and preserving the mortall karcass, than to the eternall word of God in nurissment of the saule whilk is immortal! To reasone with thair abominable unthankfulnes at this present it is not my purpois. But to yow, deir brethrene, I wryt my knawledge, and do speik my conscience, that sa necessarie as meit and drink is to the preservation of lyfe corporall, and so necessarie as the heit and bryghtnes of the sone is to the quicknyng of the herbis and to expell darknes, sa necessarie is also to lyfe everlasting, and to the illuminatioun and lyght of the saule, the perpetuall meditation, exercis, and use of Godis halie word.

“And thairfoir, deir brethrene, yf that you luke for a lyfe to cum, of necessitie it is that ye exercise yourselves in the buke of the Lord your God. Lat na day slip over without sum comfort ressavit fra the mouth of God. Opin your earis, and hie will speak evin pleasing thingis to your hart. Clois not your eis, but diligentlie let thame behald what portioun of substance is left to yow within your fatheris testament. Let your toungis learne to prais the gracious gudness of him wha of his meir mercie hath callit you fra darknes to lyght and fra deth to lyfe. Neither yit may ye do this sa quyetlie that ye will admit na witnessis; nay, brethren, ye are ordeynit of God to reule and governe your awn housis in his trew feir, and according to his halie word. Within your awn housis, I say, in sum cassis ye are bishopis and kingis, your wyffis, children, and familie ar your bishoprik and charge; of you it sal be requyrit how cairfullie and diligentlie ye have instructit thame in Godis trew knawledge, how that ye have studeit in thame to plant vertew and to repress vyce. And thairfoir, I say, ye must mak thame partakeris in reading, exhortation, and in making commoun prayeris, whilk I wald in everie hous wer usit anis a day at leist. But above all things, deir brethren, studie to practis in lyfe that whilk the Lord commandis, and then be ye assurit that ye sall never heir nor reid the same without frute: and this mekill for the exercises within your housis.

“Considdering that St Paul callis the congregatioun the bodie of Chryst, wheirof everie ane of us is a member, teaching ws thairby that na member is of sufficience to susteane and feide the self without the help and support of any uther, I think it necessarie that for the conferrence of scriptures, assemblies of brethren be had. The order thairin to be observit, is expressit be sanct paule, and thairfoir I neid not to use many wordis in that behalf: onlie willing that when ye convene, (whilk I wald wer anis a week,) that your begynning suld be fra confessing of your offences, and invocatioun of the spreit of the Lord Jesus to assist yow in all your godlie interprysis; and than lat sum place of scripture be planelie and distinctlie red, samekill as sal be thocht sufficient for a day or tyme, whilk endit, gif any brother have exhortation, interpretatioun, or dout, lat him not feir to speik and move the same, sa that he do it with moderatioun, either to edifie or be edifeit. And heirof I dout not but great profit sall schortlie ensew, for first be heiring, reiding, and conferring the scriptures in the assemblie, the haill bodie of the scriptures of God salbecum familiar, the judgement and spreitis of men salbe tryit, thair pacience and modestie salbe knawin, and finallie thair giftis and utterance sall appeir. Multiplicatioun of wordis, perplext interpretatioun, and wilfulnes in reasonyng is to be avoydit at all tymes and in all places, but chieflie in the congregatioun, whair nathing aucht to be respectit except the glorie of God, and comfort or edificatioun of our brethrene. Yf any thing occur within the text, or yit arys in reasonyng, whilk your judgementis can not resolve, or capacities aprehend, let the same be notit and put in wryt befoir ye depart the congregatioun, that when God sall offir unto yow any interpreter your doutis being notit and knawin, may have the mair expedit resolutioun, or els that when ye sall have occasion to wryt to sic as with whome ye wald communicat your judgementis, your letteris may signifie and declair your unfeaned desyre that ye haue of God and of his trew knawledge, and thay, I dout not, according to thair talentis, will indeuour and bestow thair faithfull labors, [to] satisfie your godlie petitionis. Of myself I will speak as I think, I will moir gladlie spend xv houris in communicatting my judgement with yow, in explainyng as God pleasis to oppin to me anyplace of scripture, than half ane hour in any other matter besyd.

“Farther, in reading the scripture I wald ye suld joyne sum bukis of the ald and sum of the new Testament together, as genesis and ane of the evangelistis, exodus with another, and sa furth, euer ending sic bukis as ye begyn, (as the tyme will suffer,) for it sall greitly comfort yow to heir that harmony and weiltunit sang of the halie spreit speiking in oure fatheris frome the begyning. It sall confirme yow in theis dangerous and perrellous dayis, to behald the face of Christ Jesus his loving spous and kirk, from Abell to him self, and frome him self to this day, in all ageis to be ane. Be frequent in the prophetis and in the epistillis of St Paul, for the multitude of matteris maist comfortable thairin conteanit requyreth exercis and gud memorie. Lyke as your assemblis aucht to begyn with confessioun and invocatioun of Godis halie spreit, sa wald I that thay wer never finissit without thanksgiving and commoun prayeris for princes, rulers, and maiestratis, for the libertie and frie passage of Chrystis evangell, for the comfort and delyverance of our afflictit brethrene in all places now persecutit, but maist cruellie now within the realme of France and Ingland, and for sic uther thingis, as the spreit of the Lord Jesus sal teache unto yow to be profitable ether to your selues, or yit to your brethren whairsoeuer thay be. If this, or better, dear brethrene, I sall heir that ye exercise your selues, then will I prais God for your great obedience, as for thame that not onlie haue ressavit the word of grace with gladnes, but that also with cair and diligence do keip the same as a treasure and jewell maist precious. And becaus that I can not expect that ye will do the contrarie, at this present I will vse na threatenyngis, for my gud hoip is, that ye sall walk as the sonis of lyght in the middis of this wickit generatioun, that ye salbe as starris in the nyght ceassone, wha yit ar not changeit into darknes, that ye salbe as wheit amangis the kokill, and yit that ye sall not change your nature whilk ye haue ressavit be grace, through the fellowschip and participatioun whilk we haue with the Lord Jesus in his bodie and blud. And finallie, that ye salbe of the novmber of the prvdent virginis, daylie renewing your lampis with oyle, as thai that pacientlie abyd the glorious aparitioun and cuming of the Lord Jesus, whais omnipotent spreit rule and instruct, illuminat and comfort your hartis and myndis in all assaltis, now and euer. Amen. The grace of the Lord Jesus rest with yow. Remember my weaknes in your daylie prayeris, the 7 of July 1557.

“Your brother vnfeaned Johnne Knox.”

MS. Letters, p. 352‒359.

Note AA.

William Whittingham, the successor of Knox at Geneva, was the son of William Whittingham, Esq. of Holmeside, in the county of Chester. He was born anno 1524, and educated at Oxford, where he was held in great reputation for his learning. On the accession of queen Mary, he went first to Frankfort, and afterwards to Geneva, where he married Catherine, the sister of John Calvin. He was one of the translators of the Geneva Bible, and composed several of the metrical psalms published at the same time, which have his initials prefixed to them. He fell under the displeasure of queen Elizabeth, on account of a commendatory preface which he wrote to Christopher Goodman’s book on Obedience to Superior Powers, in which, among other free sentiments, female government was condemned. But he enjoyed the protection of some of her principal courtiers. In 1560, he accompanied the earl of Bedford on an embassy to France, and, in 1562 and 1563, acted as chaplain to the earl of Warwick, during the defence of Havre de Grace. That brave nobleman was at a loss for words to express his high esteem of him. In a letter to Cecil, Nov. 20, 1562, Warwick writes: “I assure yow, we may all here thinck our selves happy in having soch a man amongest us as Mr Whyttingham is, not only for the greate vertues in him, but lykewise for the care he hath to serve our mistris besydes: wherfore, in my opynion, he doth well deserve grete thankes at her majesties handis.” And in a letter written by him, July 24, 1563, when he was in daily expectation of an assault by the French, he says to his brother, lord Robert Dudley, afterwards earl of Leicester; “My deare brother, for that I had, in my letter to the quene’s majesty, forgot my humblest thancks for the behalff of my deare frinde Mr Whittingam, for the great favour it hath pleased her to shew him for my sake: I besetch yow therefore do not forget to render them unto her majesty. Farewell, my deare and loving brother, a thousand tymes, and the Lord send you well to do.” Forbes, State Papers, ii. 207, 418, 487.

In 1563, Whittingham was made dean of Durham, which seems to have been the favour for which Warwick was so grateful to Elizabeth. I have already mentioned (p. 56) that an unsuccessful attempt was made to invalidate the ordination which he had received at Geneva. On that occasion, Dr Hutton, dean of York, told archbishop Sandys, that Whittingham “was ordained in a better manner than even the archbishop himself;” and the lord president said, he could not in conscience agree to “allow of the popish massing priests in our ministry, and to disallow of ministers made in a reformed church.” Whittingham never conformed fully to the English church, and died in 1579. Hutchinson’s History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, ii. 143‒152, 378.

Note BB.

Aylmer’s Sentiments respecting the English Constitution.—The view which Aylmer has given of the English constitution is very different from that which Mr Hume has laboured to establish, by dwelling upon some arbitrary measures of the house of Tudor. As his work is seldom consulted, I may be excused for inserting a few extracts from it on this subject. It will be seen that he carefully distinguishes between the principles of the constitution, and those proceedings which were at variance with them. “But if this be utterly taken from them [women] in this place, what maketh it against their government in a politike weale, where neither the woman nor the man ruleth (if there be no tyrants), but the laws. For, as Plato saith, Illi civitati paratum est exitium ubi magistratus legibus imperat, et non leges magistratui: That city is at the pit’s brinke, wherein the magistrate ruleth the lawes, and not the lawes the magistrate.” And a little afterwards: “Well; a woman may not reigne in Englande. Better in Englande, than any where, as it shall wel appere to him that, with out affection, will consider the kind of regimen. Whyle I confer ours with other (as it is in itselfe, and not mained by usurpacion), I can find none either so good or so indifferent. The regemente of Englande is not a mere monarchie, as some for lacke of consideracion thinke, nor a mere oligarchie nor democratie, but a rule mixed of all these, wherein ech one of these have or should have like authoritie. The image whereof, and not the image, but the thinge in dede, is to be sene in the parliament hous, wherein you shall find these 3 estats; the king or quene which representeth the monarche, the noblemen which be the aristocratie, and the burgesses and knights the democratcie.—If the parliament use their privileges, the king can ordain nothing without them: If he do, it is his fault in usurping it, and their fault in permitting it. Wherefore, in my judgment, those that in king Henry the VIII.’s daies would not grant him that his proclamations should have the force of a statute, were good fathers of the countrie, and worthy commendacion in defending their liberty. Wold God that that court of late daies had feared no more the farceness of a woman, than they did the displeasure of such a man. Then should they not have stouped, contrary to their othes and alledgeaunce to the crowne, against the privilege of that house, upon their marye bones to receive the devil’s blessenge brought unto them by Satan’s apostle, the cardinal. God forgeve him for the doing, and them for obeying! But to what purpose is all this? To declare that it is not in England so daungerous a matter to have a woman ruler, as men take it to be.—If, on thother part, the regement were such as all hanged upon the king’s or quene’s wil, and not upon the lawes written; if she might decre and make lawes alone, without her senate; if she judged offences according to her wisdom, and not by limitation of statutes and laws; if she might dispose alone of war and peace; if, to be short, she wer a mer monarch, and not a mixed ruler, you might peradventure make me to fear the matter the more, and the less to defend the cause.” Harborowe for Faithfull and Trew Subjects. H. 2 & 3.

Note CC.

Female Supremacy.—“Our countryman, John Knox, has been much censured for want of civility and politeness to the fair sex; and particularly for sounding a first and second ‘blast of the trumpet against the monstrous regiment of women.’ He was indeed no milksop courtier, who can sacrifice the public weal to the punctilios of politeness, or consider the interests of nations as a point of gallantry. His reasons for the abolition of all female government, if they are not entirely convincing, may be allowed at least to be specious; and might well be indulged as a harmless speculative opinion in one who was disposed as he was to make no bad use of it in practice, and to give all dutiful respect to whomsoever the will of God and the commonwealth had assigned the sovereign power. But though the point may be conceded in regard to secular government, in ordering of which the constitutions and customs and mere pleasure of communities may be allowed to establish what is not morally evil; it will not follow that the essential order and positive law of the spiritual kingdom may also be sported with, and subverted.—Let the English, if they please, admit a weak, fickle, freakish, bigoted, gallantish or imperious woman, to sway the sceptre of political dominion over millions of men, and even over her own husband in the crowd, to whom at the altar she had previously vowed obedience, they shall meet with no opposition from the presbyterians; provided they do not also authorize her to lord it, or lady it, over their faith and consciences, as well as over their bodies, goods, and chattels.

“By the laws of the Romish church, no female can be admitted to a participation of clerical power. Not so much as the ancient order of deaconesses now remains in her. Her casuists have examined and debated this thesis, Whether a woman may have the degree of doctor of divinity conferred upon her; and have determined it in the negative.490 But of the philosophical dignity they are not quite so jealous. Helen Lucrecia Piscopia Cornaca, of famous memory, once applied for her degree in divinity in an Italian university; but cardinal Barbarigo, bishop of Padua, was far from being disposed to grant it; so that this learned lady was obliged to content herself with a doctorate in philosophy, which, with universal applause, was actually conferred upon her, June 25, 1678.491 But the English climate savours nothing of this Italian jealousy; nor are the divines in it so niggardly of their honours. We do not hear indeed that they have formally matriculated any ladies, in the universities, or obliged them, by canon, or act of parliament, to take out degrees, either in law, in philosophy, or divinity, to qualify them for ecclesiastical preferment, (even the highest pinnacle of it;) though their laws hold males utterly unqualified for holding any lucrative place in the church, or in ecclesiastic courts, without these: Nor can a man be admitted to the lowest curacy, or be fellow or student in a university, until he have learned and digested all the articles, homilies, canons, rubrics, modes, and figures of the church of England, as he cannot even be sergeant or exciseman, till he understand perfectly the superior devotion of kneeling above sitting. But it is very possible, though they do not bear the learned titles, the ladies may know as much of learning and divinity, as those who do. And though they may not receive ordination on Ember‑week for the inferior orders, yet it is enacted and provided, that one of their number may be raised at once per saltum, not only above all the peers and peeresses, but over all the graduates, reverend dignitaries, and mitred heads in the kingdom. The solemn inaugurating unction once applied, then cedite Romani doctores, cedite graij. Henceforward, as the queen of Sheba came from the uttermost end of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and to have every enigma and hard question solved, so must every master, doctor, heads of universities, every diocesan and metropolitan, however wise, have recourse to their queen, by reference or appeal, with every difficult question, and every learned and deep controversy, and be responsible to her for their every decision. How flattering a constitution this to woman‑kind—if they be indeed so very fond of precedence and rule, as is commonly said! She must have an unreasonable and unbounded ambition indeed whom this will not content; though she should not be also further told in plain terms, that she is a goddess, and in her office superior to Christ; as some court‑clergymen have ventured to affirm of their visible head.”—A Historico‑Politico‑Ecclesiastical Dissertation on the Supremacy of Civil Powers in Matters of Religion, particularly the Ecclesiastical Supremacy annexed to the English Crown; by Archibald Bruce, Minister of the Gospel, p. 46‒50. Edinburgh, 1802.

Note DD.

Of the Form of Prayer used in Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation.—It is natural to enquire here what is meant by the “buik of comon prayeris,” which the protestants, in 1557, agreed to use, or which was afterwards followed in their public worship. Was it the common prayer‑book of Edward VI., or was it a different one? This question was keenly canvassed, after the Revolution, by the Scottish episcopalians and presbyterians. Mr Sage, the most able champion of the episcopalians, insisted that it was the English liturgy, and endeavoured to prove that this was, during, “at least, seven years, in continued practice in Scotland,” i.e. from 1557 to 1564. Fundamental Charter of Presbytery Examined, p. 95‒101, 349. 2d edit. Lond. 1697. Mr Anderson, minister of Dumbarton, who was the most acute advocate of presbytery, answered this part of the Fundamental Charter, and adduced a number of arguments to prove that it was the liturgy, not of Edward VI., but of the English church at Geneva, of which Knox was minister, which was used in Scotland from the time that protestant congregations were formed in this country. The Countreyman’s Letter to the Curat, p. 65‒77, printed in 1711. I shall state a few facts, without entering into reasoning. Mr Anderson says, that he had in his possession a copy, in Latin, of the liturgy used in the English church at Frankfort, the preface of which bears date the 1st of September, 1554. He adds, that this had been translated from English into Latin; and that the prayers in it are exactly the same with those which are found in the Order of Geneva, afterwards adopted by the Scottish church; only there are some additional prayers in the latter accommodated to the circumstances of Scotland. Ibid. p. 64. This must have been the form of worship agreed on by the exiles immediately after their arrival at Frankfort. Troubles of Franckford, p. 7. Before the end of that year, the form of worship observed by the Genevan church was printed in English. Ibid. p. 27. In the beginning of the following year, the form afterwards used by the English church at Geneva was composed, which differed very little from that which was first used at Frankfort. Ibid. p. 37. This was printed in the beginning of 1556. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 401. It is not unlikely that Knox, in his visit to Scotland, in 1555, would carry with him copies of the two former liturgies, and that he would send copies of the latter, on his return to Geneva. After all, I think it extremely probable, that copies of the liturgy of Edward VI. were still more numerous in Scotland at that time, and that they were used by some of the protestants at the beginning of the Reformation. This appears from a letter of Cecil to Throkmorton, 9th July, 1559. “The protestants be at Edynborough. They offer no violence, but dissolve religiose howsees; directyng the lands thereof to the crowne, and to ministery in the chirch. The parish churchees they delyver of altars and imagees, and have receved the service of the church of England, accordyng to King Edward’s Booke.” Forbes’s State Papers, i. 155. Another thing which inclines me to think that the English liturgy was in the eye of those who made the agreement in Dec. 1557 is, that they mention the reading of “the lessonis of the New and Auld Testament, conforme to the ordour of the Buik of Commoun‑Prayeris.” Anderson gives a quotation from the preface to the Frankfort liturgy, in which the compilers vindicate themselves against the objection, that they had omitted the reading of the gospels and epistles, by saying that they read in order not only these, but all the books of scripture. And he insists that by the “lessonis of the New and Auld Testament,” our reformers meant no more than the reading of the scriptures in general. This reply does not appear to me satisfactory.

But though the Scottish protestants, at that time, agreed to make use of the prayers and scripture‑lessons contained in the English liturgy, it cannot be inferred from this, that they approved of it without limitations, or that they meant to bind themselves to all its forms and ceremonies. The contrary is evident. It appoints lessons to be read from the apocrypha; but they expressly confined their reading to “the lessons of the New and Old Testament.” A great part of the English liturgy can be read by a priest only; but all that they proposed to use could be performed by “the most qualifeit in the parochin,” provided the curate refused, or was unqualified. I need scarcely add, that, if they had adopted that liturgy without qualification, their invitation to Knox must have come with a very bad grace. It must have been to this purpose, (to use Mr Anderson’s words,) “Pray, good Mr Knox, come over and help us; and for your encouragement against you come, you shall find the English liturgy, against which you preached in Scotland, against which you declared before the counsel of England, for opposing which you were brought in danger of your neck at Francford; this English liturgy you shall find the authorized form of worship, and that by an ordinance of our making.” The Countreyman’s Letter, ut supra, p. 69.

We can trace back the use of the Book of Common Order, (or, Order of Geneva,) by the church of Scotland, from the year 1564. The General Assembly, Dec. 26, 1564, ordained “that everie minister, exhorter, and reader sall have one of the Psalme Bookes latelie printed in Edinburgh, and use the order contained therein in prayers, marriage, and ministration of the sacraments.” Keith, 538. This refers to the edition of the Geneva Order and Psalms, which had been printed during that year by Lepreuik. “In the generall assemblie convened at Edinr. in Dec^r 1562, for printing of the psalmes, the kirk lent Rob. Lickprivick, printer, tva hundreth pounds, to help to buy irons, ink, and papper, and to fie craftesmen for printing.” Reasons for continuing the use of the old metrical Version of the Psalms, p. 232, of a MS. (written in 1632) belonging to Robert Græme, Esq. advocate. But although this was the first edition of the book printed in this country, it had been previously printed both at Geneva and in England; and was used in the church of Scotland. For in the assembly which met in Dec. 1562, it was concluded, “that an uniforme Order sould be keeped in ministration of the sacraments, solemnization of marriages, and burial of the dead, according to the Booke of Geneva.” Keith, 519. Petrie, part ii. p. 233. Nor was it then introduced for the first time; for the Abbot of Crossraguel, in a book set forth by him in 1561, mentions it as the established form of prayers at the time he wrote. “I will call to remembrance,” says he, “the sayings of quhilkis ar written to the redar, in thair buke callit the forme of prayeris, as eftir followis, viz. ‘As for the wourdis of the Lordis supper, we rehers thaim nocht bicaus thai sulde change the substance of the breid and wine, or that the repetitione tharof, with the entent of the sacrificear, sulde make the sacraments (as the papists falslie belevis).” Ane Oratioune be Master Quintine Kennedy, p. 15, Edin. 1812. The passage quoted by Kennedy is in the book of Common Order. Dunlop, ii. 454. The First Book of Discipline, framed in 1560, expressly approves of the Order of Geneva, which it calls “our Book of Common Order,” and mentions its being “used in some of our churches,” previous to that period. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 520, 548, 583. From these facts it is evident that, although the scripture lessons and the prayers in the English liturgy were at first used by some of the Scottish protestants, yet they never received that book as a whole; that the Order of Geneva was introduced among them before the establishment of the Reformation; and that it became the universal form of worship as soon as a sufficient number of copies of it could be procured. If any other evidence of this were necessary, I might produce the testimony of Sir Francis Knollys, the English ambassador. When queen Mary fled into England, in 1568, she feigned her willingness to give up with the mass, and to adopt the English Common Prayer Book, provided Elizabeth would assist her in regaining her crown. Lord Herries having made this proposal in her name, Sir Francis replied, “that, yf he meant thereby to condempne the form and order of common prayer now used in Skotland, agreeable with divers well reformed churches,—or that he meant to expel all the learned preachers of Skotland, yff they would not return back to receave and wayr cornered capes and typpets, with surpless and coopes, which they have left by order contynually since their first receavyng of the gospel into that realme; then he myght so fyght for the shadow and image of religion that he myght bring the body and truth in danger.” Anderson’s Collections, vol. iv., part i., p. 110, 111.

As this subject has been introduced, I may make an observation or two respecting the form of prayers used in the church of Scotland at the beginning of the Reformation. What has been called Knox’s Liturgy, was the Book of Common Order, first used by the English church at Geneva. It contains forms of prayers for the different parts of public worship; and this is the only resemblance which it hears to the English liturgy. But there is this important difference between the two: in the English, the minister is restricted to the repetition of the very words of the prayers; in the Scottish, he is left at liberty to vary from them, and to substitute prayers of his own in their room. The following quotations will exemplify the mode of the latter. “When the congregation is assembled at the houre appointed, the minister useth one of these two confessions, or like in effect.”—“The minister after the sermon useth this prayer following, or such like.” Similar declarations are prefixed to the prayers to be used at the celebration of baptism and of the Lord’s supper. And at the end of the account of the public service of the Sabbath this intimation is subjoined; “It shall not be necessarie for the minister daylie to repeat all these things before mentioned, but, beginning with some manner of confession, to proceed to the sermon, which ended, he either useth the prayer for all estates before mentioned, or else prayeth as the Spirit of God shall move his heart, framing the same according to the time and matter which he hath entreated of.” Knox’s Liturgy, p. 74, 83, 86, 120. Edin. 1611. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 417, 421, 426, 443, 450. And at the end of the Form of Excommunication, it is signified, “This order may be enlarged or contracted as the wisdome of the discreet minister shall think expedient; for we rather shew the way to the ignorant, than prescribe order to the learned that cannot be amended.” Dunlop, ii. 746. The Scottish prayers, therefore, were intended as a help to the ignorant, not as a restraint upon those who could pray without a set form. The readers and exhorters commonly used them; but even they were encouraged to perform the service in a different manner. Knox’s Liturgy, p. 189. Dunlop, ii. 694.

Note EE.

Of the Petitions presented by the Protestants to the Queen Regent.—The petition which Sir James Sandilands presented, in the name of his brethren, contained five requests. 1. That, as by the laws of the land, they had, after long debate, obtained liberty to read the scriptures in their native language, it should also be lawful for them to use, publicly or privately, “comoun prayaris in our vulgar toung.” 2. That if, in the course of reading the scriptures in their assemblies, any difficulty occurred, it should be lawful for any “qualifeit persone in knawledge” to explain it, subject to the judgment of “the maist godlie and maist learnit within the realme.” 3. “That the holy sacrament of baptisme may be used in the vulgar toung,” accompanied with instruction to the parties and to the church. 4. “That the sacrament of the Lordis supper, or of his most blessed body and blude, may likewise be ministrate in the vulgar toung, and in both kindis.” And lastly, “that the wicket, slanderous, and detestabill lyif of Prelatis, and of the stait ecclesiastical, may be so reformed that the pepill by thame have not occasioun, as of mony dayis they have had, to contempe their ministrie and the preiching, whairof they sould be messengers;” and to remove suspicion of interested motives in making this request, they add, “we ar content that not only the reulles and preceptis of the New Testament, but also the wryttings of the ancient Fatheris, and the godly approved lawis of Justiniane, decyde the controversie that is betwix us and thame.” Knox, Historie, p. 120, 121. Spotswood (p. 119) omits the article respecting baptism, and introduces another: “that the election of ministers should be according to the manner used in the primitive church.” See also Buchanani Oper. i. 311.

This petition discovers great moderation on the part of the protestants. Historians differ as to the precise time at which it was presented. Spotswood (p. 108) places his account of it after the martyrdom of Mill. And the writer of the Historie of the Estate of Scotland from 1559 to 1566 (p. 1) says that it was presented in July 1558. On the contrary, Knox (p. 120, 122) places it before the death of Mill. It is highly probable that the protestants petitioned the queen regent both before and after that event, and that on both occasions they employed Sir James Sandilands as their representative. In this light I have represented the matter in the text. But I am inclined, upon the whole, to consider Knox’s statement as the most correct. He had the best opportunity of ascertaining the fact. This was the part of his history which was first written by him, soon after his arrival in Scotland, when the transaction must have been fresh in the recollection of all his associates. There is no reference in the petition to the illegal execution of Mill, which would scarcely have been omitted, if it had previously taken place. The objection urged by Keith, from the clause in the petition which supposes that the queen was married, does not appear to have great weight. The parliament, in December 1557, had agreed to the solemnization of the marriage; their commissioners had sailed for France, in February, to be present at the ceremony, which was appointed to take place on the 24th of April. In these circumstances the protestants might, without any impropriety, request that they should be allowed liberty to use the common prayers in the vulgar tongue, to the end that they might “be induced, in fervent and oft prayers, to commend unto God—the queen our soverane, hir honorabill and gracious husband,” &c. Keith is wrong when he says that Knox has fixed the execution of Mill “to the 8th of April, which was above two weeks before the queen’s marriage.” History, p. 80, note. Knox says he was put to death “the twentie aucht day of Aprylle,” which was four days after the marriage. Historie, p. 122.

After the martyrdom of Mill, the protestants renewed their application to the regent, with a warm remonstrance against the cruelty of the clergy. Knox, Historie, p. 122. As the parliament held in November 1558 was approaching, they delivered another petition to her, desiring that it should be laid before the meeting of the estates. In this they requested, that the laws, by which the clergy justified their severe and cruel proceedings against them, should be abrogated, or suspended until the present controversies in religion were regularly determined; or, if this could not be granted, that the clergy should not act as judges, but be obliged to sustain the character of accusers before a temporal judge, and that the same mode of defence should be granted to persons accused of heresy as in other criminal processes. Being persuaded by the promises of the regent to desist from laying this petition before that meeting of parliament, they substituted a protestation; in which they declared that, having waived urging their petitions from regard to the state of public affairs, they should not be liable to any penalties for using that liberty to which they had a just title, and for which they had frequently petitioned, and that, if any tumult was excited by religious differences, or by violent attempts to reform those abuses in religion which were become intolerable, this should not be imputed to them, who had always requested an orderly reformation of these abuses, but to the persons who had resisted every attempt of this kind. Ibid. p. 122‒125. Spotswood, 119, 120.

Note FF.

Dissimulation of the Queen Regent.—I am sensible that my account of the conduct of the queen regent to the protestants differs from that which has been given by Dr Robertson. He imputes her change of measures entirely to the overruling influence of her brothers, and seems to acquit her of insincerity in the countenance which she had shown, and the promises which she had repeatedly made, to the protestant leaders. In any remarks which I shall make upon this account, I wish to be understood as not detracting in the slightest degree from the merit of his able, accurate, and luminous statement of the plans conceived by the princes of Lorrain. Having mentioned the first symptoms of the regent’s alienation from the reformers, Dr Robertson says: “In order to account for this, our historians do little more than produce the trite observation concerning the influence of prosperity to alter the character and corrupt the heart,” I do not know the particular historians to whom he may refer, but those of the protestant persuasion whom I have consulted, impute her change of conduct, not to the above cause, but to the circumstance of her having accomplished the great objects which she had in view, upon which she no longer stood in need of the assistance of the reformers. Accordingly, they charge her with duplicity in her former proceedings with them. Knox, 96, 110, 122, 125. Buchanan, i. 312. Spotswood, 117, 119, 120. I think they had good reasons for this charge. At a very early period, she gave a striking proof of her disposition and talent for the deepest dissimulation. I refer to her behaviour in the intercourse which she had with Sir Ralph Sadler, in 1543, on which occasion she acted a part not less important than cardinal Beatoun himself, threw the ambassador into the greatest perplexity, and completely duped the English monarch. Sadler, i. 84‒88, 100, 111‒113, 249‒253. The governor wanted not reason to say, “as she is both subtle and wily, so she hath a vengeable engine and wit to work her purpose.” It is impossible to read the account of her smooth conduct to the reformers, without perceiving the art with which she acted. There is also reason for thinking that she was privy to the execution of Walter Mill, and had encouraged the archbishop of St Andrews to take that step. Indeed, in his letter to the Earl of Argyle, written a few weeks before that event, the archbishop expressly says, that she murmured heavily against him because he did not use severe measures to check the progress of heresy; and Argyle, in his answer, does not call this in question. Knox, 103, 108.

I do not doubt that the regent was precipitated into the most violent measures which she adopted by the counsels of her brothers; and that she remonstrated against the impolicy of these, is attested by Castelnau, to whom Dr Robertson refers as one of his authorities. But I think that she had altered her conduct to the protestants, and declared her resolution to abet the measures of the clergy against them, previous to the time that she is said to have received these strong representations from France. This appears even from the narrative of Castelnau, who has connected the advice given by the princes of Lorrain with the mission of La Brosse and the bishop of Amiens, who did not arrive in Scotland until September 1559, after the civil war was kindled. Jebb, ii. 246. Keith, 102. Sadler, i. 470. But it will be still more apparent from an examination of the testimony of Sir James Melvil, the other authority to whom Dr Robertson appeals. Melvil says that, after the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis was concluded, Bettancourt was sent into Scotland to procure the ratification of it by the queen regent; and that he was charged by the cardinal of Lorrain to inform her, that the popish princes had agreed to join in extirpating heresy, and to require that she should immediately take steps for suppressing the Scottish protestants. Melvil adds, that these instructions, mixed with some threatenings, having been received, the regent “determined to follow them. She therefore issued out a proclamation, a little before Easter, commanding every man, great and small, to observe the Roman catholic religion.” Melvil’s Memoirs, p. 23, 24. Lond. 1683. The proclamation to observe Easter in the catholic manner is mentioned by all our historians as the decisive declaration of the queen’s change of measures. Now the treaty of Chateau‑Cambresis was not concluded until the 2d of April, 1559. Forbes, i. 68, 81. But Easter fell that year on the 29th of March, six days before Bettancourt could undertake his journey to Scotland. The proclamation respecting the observance of that festival must therefore have been issued some weeks before Bettancourt’s arrival. Nay, we know from other evidence, that the breach between the queen regent and the protestants had taken place on the 6th of March; for this is the date from which the act of oblivion afterwards granted is reckoned. Keith, 141, 151. There is, therefore, a glaring anachronism in Melvil’s narrative; and whatever influence Bettancourt’s embassy had in instigating the regent to more violent measures, she had previously taken her side, and declared her determination to oppose the progress of the Reformation.

There are several other mistakes which Sir James Melvil has committed in his narrative of the transactions of this period. Even in the account of his own embassy into Scotland, in the reign of Henry II., and of the speech which the constable Montmorency made to him on that occasion, he has introduced the constable as mentioning, among his reasons, the shipwreck of the marquis D’Elbeuf, which did not happen till some months after, when the French king was dead. Memoirs, p. 31. Sadler, i. 417. In my humble opinion, all our historians have given too easy credit to Melvil, both in his statements of fact, and in his representations of character.

Note GG.

Trial of the Reformed Preachers.—July 7, 1558. Item, the said day, to David Lindsay, Rothesay herauld, passand of Edinburgh, with letteris, to summond George Luvell, David Fergusone, and certain utheris personis within the bur^t of Dunde, to tak sourte of thame that thai sall compeir befoir the justice and his deputies in the tolbuith of Edinburgh, the xxviii day of Julii instant, for thair wrongus using and wresting of the scripture, and disputting upoun erroneus opinions, and eiting of flesche in Lenterone and utheris forbidding tymes, contrair the actis of parliament, iij^li v^s. (Compot. Thesaur.)

Feb. 9, 1558‒9. Proclamation to St Andrews, Cowper, Dundee, Montrose, Aberdeen, charging all and sundrie o^r soverane ladies liegis, that nane of thame tak upoun hand to commit, attempt, or do any injurie or violence, disturbe the service usit in the kirkis, strike manneis, or bost priestis, or to eit flesche in Lenterone, under the pane of deid.—Also to Linlithgow, Glasgow, Irvine, Ayr, with siclike letteris. (Compot. Thesaur.)

Curia Justiciarie S D N regis et regine, tenta et inchoata in pretorio burgi de Striueling, x^o die mensis Maij, anno, &c. lix^o, per Henricum Levingstoun, prepositum de Striueling, Justiciarium deputatum.

Quo die, Georgius Luvell, burgen̄ de Dunde, per literas S D N regis et regine sepe voca^t ad intrand. Paulum Methwen, Joannes Erskin de Dvne sepe voca^t ad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun, Patricius Murray de Tibbermuir sepe voca^t ad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw, et Robertus Campbell de Kinzeclen^t sepe voca^t ad intrand. Joannem Willok coram justiciario S D N regis et regine, ejusue deputatis, dictis die et loco ad subeund legem pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias ipso in ministrum euisdem minime legitime admisso existen̄ in festo Pasche, viz. xxvj^to die mensis Martij vltimo elapso et quotidie per spatium trium dierum hujusmodi festum immediate preceden̄ atque abhinc continuo suo more sacramentum altaris pluribus S D N regis et regine subditis infra burgos de Dunde, Monthros, aliisque diversis partibus et locis infra vicecomitatus de Foirfare et Kynkardin, eisdem adjacen̄, a diuino et laudabili vsu fidelis ecclesie catholice longe diuerso et differente administrando, necnon pro conventione et congregatione hujusmodi subditorum infra burgos et bondas predic^t temporibus suprascrip^t ipso minime per locorum ordinarios admisso seu approbato etiam absque earundem licentia dictis subditis sermocinan̄ et predican̄ atque per suos sermones illos ad suas errabiles et seditiosas doctrinas et scismata perswaden̄ et seducen̄ auctoritatem S D N regis et regine inde vsurpan̄ atque inter suos subditos antedict. seditiones et tumultus facien̄ contra tenorem literarum proclamationis de super confec^t vt in hujusmodi literis criminalibus latius continetur. Et non comparen̄ amerciatus fuit dictus Georgius Luvell pro nonintroitu prefati Pauli Methwen in pena xj^li. Et judicium redditum fuit quod ipse Paulus ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis vsubus applicabantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.

Eodem die, Joannes Erskin de Dvne, per literas S D N regis et regine sepe voca^t ad intrand. fratrem Joannem Cristesoun coram dicto justiciario deputato ad subeund. legem, pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias, [&c. ut supra,] quod dictus frater Joannes ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur, &c.

Dicto die, Patricius Murray de Tibbermuir sepe voca^t per literas S D N regis et regine ad intrand. Willielmum Harlaw coram dicto justitiario deputato ad subeund. legem pro criminibus immediate prescriptis. Et non comparen̄ amerciatus fuit dictus Patricius, pro non introitu dicti Willielmi Harlaw in pena xl^ta lib. Et judicium redditum fuit quod ipse Willielmus ad cornu S D N regis et regine denunciatur. Et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis usibus applicantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.

Prefato die, Robertus Campbell de Kinzecluch per literas S D N regis et regine sepe voc^t ad intrand. Joannem Willok coram dicto justitiaro deputato, dictis die et loco ad subeund. legem pro vsurpatione auctoritatis ministerij ecclesie ad manus suas proprias ipso io ministrum eiusdem minime legitime admisso existen̄ in festo Pasche, viz xxvjt^to die mensis Martij ultimo elapso et quotidie per spatium trium dierum hujusmodi festum immediate preceden̄ &c. Et judicium redditum fuit quod dictus Joannes Willok ad cornu S D N regis et regine denun^r. Et quod omnia bona sua mobilia suis vsubus applicantur tanquam fugitiuus a lege pro dictis criminibus.

Eodem die, prefati Paulus Methwen, frater Joannes Cristesoun Willielmus Harlaw et Joannes Willok denunciati fuerunt rebelles S D N regis et regine, et ad cornu eorundem positi fuerunt per publicam proclamationem apud crucem foralem burgi de Striueling, per Joannem Duncane, seriandum et officiarium dicte curie demandato prefati justitiarij deputati, coram his testibus, Roberto Forrester de Calzemuke, Alexandro Forrester alias Carrik signifero, Willielmo Smyth, et Joanne Grahame, notario publico, cum diuersis aliis. [Justiciary Records: Book extending from 14th February 1558 to 22d May 1559.]

Note HH.

Lamentation over the demolition of the Religious Houses.—“Truely, among all their deeds and devises, the casting doune of the churches was the most foolish and furious worke, the most shreud and execrable turne that ever Hornok himself culd have done or devised. For out of al doubt that great grandfather of Calvine, and old enemie of mankind, not only inspired every one of those sacrelegious hellhounds with his flaming spirit of malice and blasphemie, as he did their forefathers Luther and Calvine: bot also was then present as maister of worke, busily beholding his servands and hirelings working his wil and bringing to pass his long desired contentment.—They changed the churches (which God himself called his house of prayer) into filthie and abominable houses of sensual men, yea, and of unreasonable beasts: when as they made stables in Halyrudhous, sheep‑houses of S. Antone, and S. Leonard’s chapels, tolbooths of S. Gillis, &c. which this day may be seene, to the great griefe and sorrow of al good Christians, to the shame and confusion of Edinburgh, and to the everlasting damnation of the doers thereof, the sedicious ministers, Knox and his complices.” After weeping over the ruins of “Abbirbroth,” the writer returns to St Giles, and represents our Saviour as lamenting its profanation by the setting up of “the abomination of desolation,” the courts of justice, within that holy ground. “How wold he say, if he were now entering in at S. Giles, and looking to bare wals, and pillars al cled with dust, sweepings and cobwebs, instead of painting and tapestrie; and on every side beholding the restless resorting of people treating of their worldly affaires, some writing and making of obligations, contracts and discharges, others laying countes or telling over sowmes of money, and two and two walking and talking to and fro, some about merchandise or the lawes, and too many, alas! about drinking and courting of woeman, yea, and perhaps about worse nor I can imagine, as it is wont to be done al the day long in the common Exchanges of London and Amsterdam and other great cities? And turning him farther towards the west end of the church, which is divided in a high house for the Colledge of Justice, called the Session or Senat‑house, and a lower house called the low Tolbooth, where the balives of the town use to sit and judge common actions and pleas in the one end thereof, and a number of harlots and scolds for flyting and whoredom, inclosed in the other: And these, I mean, if our Saviour were present to behold such abominable desolation, that where altars were erected, and sacrifices, with continual praises and praiers, were wont to be offered up to the Lord, in remembrance of that bloody sacrifice of Christ on the crosse, there now are holes for whores, and cages for scolds, where nothing is hard bot banning and swearing, and every one upbraiding another: O what grieve and sorrow wold our Lord tak at the beholding of such profanation and sacrilege!” Father Alexander Baillie’s True Information of the unhallowed offspring, progress and impoison’d fruits of our Scottish‑Calvinian Gospel and Gospellers, p. 24, 25, 27, 28. Wirtsburg, 1628.

Note II.

Alleged Excesses of the Reformers.—It would be endless to enter into an examination of the exaggerated accounts which have been given of the “pitiful devastation” committed by the reformers. I shall content myself with stating a few facts, which may satisfy the candid and considerate that no such great blame is imputable to them. The demolition of the monasteries, with their dependencies, will be found to comprehend the sum of what they can be justly charged with. And yet again, I would ask those who are most disposed to blame them for this, What purpose could the allowing of these buildings to stand have served, if not to cherish the hopes and excite the desires of the catholics, to regain possession of them? To what use could the reformers possibly have converted them? Is it to be supposed that they could form the idea of preserving them for the gratification of a race of antiquaries, who were to rise up in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? Have these gentlemen, with all their zeal, ever testified their regard for these sacred monuments, by associations and subscriptions to preserve the mouldering remains from going to their original dust? The reformed ministers had enough to do, in exciting the nobility and gentry to keep the parish churches in decent repair, without undertaking the additional task of supporting huge and useless fabrics. But enough of this—Let not any distress themselves by supposing that the costly furniture of the monasteries and churches was all consumed by the flames. Fanatical as the reformers were, they “reservit the best part thairof unburnt,” and converted it into money, some of which went into the public purse, but the greater part into the private pockets of the nobles. Winzet, apud Keith, Append. 245. The idols and images were indeed committed to the flames without mercy; but considering the example that their adversaries had set them of consigning the living images of God to this fate, the retaliation was certainly moderate; and that these were the only sacrifices which they offered up, we have the testimony of a popish writer. Leslæus, de Reb. Gest. Scotorum, lib. x. p. 537, edit. 1675.

The act of privy council for demolishing idolatrous houses did not extend to cathedrals or to parish churches. Spotswood, p. 174, 175. In the First Book of Discipline, indeed, cathedral‑churches, if not used as parish‑churches, are mentioned among the places to be suppressed; but so far was this case from occurring, that it was found necessary to employ many of the chapels attached to monasteries, and collegiate churches, as places for the protestant worship. That, in the first effervescence of popular zeal, some of the cathedrals and other churches should have suffered, is not much to be wondered at. “What you speak of Mr Knox preaching for the pulling down of churches,” says Mr Baillie, in his answer to bishop Maxwell, “is like the rest of your lies. I have not heard that in all our land above three or foure churches were cast down.” Historical Vindication of the Government of the church of Scotland, p. 40. Mr Baillie had the historical collections of Calderwood in his possession when he composed that work. This statement is confirmed by the testimony of Cecil in the letter quoted above, (p. 424.) The churches were merely to be stripped of monuments of idolatry and instruments of superstition; and in carrying this into effect, great care was ordered to be taken that the buildings should not be injured. Lord James Stewart (afterwards earl of Murray) was the person to whom the execution of the act in the northern part of the kingdom was committed; and we have an authentic document of the manner in which he proceeded, in an order issued by him, and written with his own hand, for purging the cathedral church of Dunkeld.492 The following is an exact copy of that order:

“To our traist friendis, the Lairds of Arntilly and Kinvaid.

“Traist friendis, after maist harty commendacion, we pray yow faill not to pass incontinent to the kyrk of Dunkeld, and tak doun the haill images thereof, and bring furth to the kyrkzayrd, and burn thaym oppinly. And siclyk cast down the altaris, and purge the kyrk of all kynd of monuments of idolatrye. And this ze faill not to do, as ze will do us singular empleseur; and so committis you to the protection of God. From Edinburgh, the xii. of August, 1560.

(Signed)

“Ar. Ergyll.

“James Stewart.

“Ruthven.”

“Faill not, bot ze tak guid heyd that neither the dasks, windocks, nor durris, be ony ways hurt or broken――――eyther glassin wark or iron wark.”

We may take it for granted that the same caution was used in the rest of the commissions. If it be asked, how it happened that the cathedrals, and many other churches, fell into such a ruined state, the following quotations may serve for an answer. They are taken from a scarce work written by Robert Pont, commissioner of Murray, and one of the lords of Session. “Yet, a great many, not onely of the raskall sorte, but sundry men of name and worldly reputation, joyned themselves with the congregation of the reformers, not so much for zeale of religion, as to reape some earthly commoditie, and to be enriched by spoyle of the kirkes and abbey places. And when the preachers told them that such places of idolatrie should be pulled down, they accepted gladly the enterprise; and rudely passing to worke, pulled down all, both idoles and places where they were found. Not making difference betweene these places of idolatrie, and many parish kirks, where God’s word shuld have bin preached in many parts where they resorted, as in such tumultes and suddainties useth to come to passe; namelye, among such a nation as we are. Another thing fell out at that time, which may be excused by reason of necessitie; when as the lordes, and some of the nobilitie, principall enterprysers of the Reformation, having to do with the Frenchmen, and many their assisters of our owne nation, enemies to these proceedings, were forced, not onely to ingage their owne landes, and bestowe whatsoever they were able to furnishe of their own patrimonie, for maintenance of men of warre, and other charges, but also to take the lead and belles, with other jewelles and ornaments of kirkes, abbayes, and other places of superstition, to employ the same, and the prises thereof, to resist the enemies. The most parte of the realme beand in their contrarie. This, I say, cannot be altogether blamed.” Against Sacrilege, Three Sermons preached by Maister Robert Pont, an aged Pastour in the Kirk of God. B. 6, 7. Edinburgh, 1599. Comp. Keith, p. 468.

But what shall we say of the immense loss which literature sustained on that occasion? “Bibliothecks destroied, the volumes of the fathers, councells, and other books of humane learning, with the registers of the church, cast into the streets, afterwards gathered in heaps, and consumed with fire.” Spotswood’s MS. Keith, Historie, p. 508. Does not such conduct equal the fanaticism of the Mahometan chieftain who deprived the world of the invaluable Alexandrine library? As every one is apt to deplore the loss of that commodity upon which he sets the greatest value, I might feel more inclined to join in this lamentation, were I not convinced that the real loss was extremely trifling, and that it has been compensated ten thousand fold. Where and of what kind were these bibliothecks? Omne ignotum magnificum. The public was long amused with the tale of a classical library at Iona, which promised a complete copy of Livy’s works, not to be found in all the world beside; a miracle which Mr Gibbon, in the abundance of his literary faith, seems to have been inclined to admit. Danes, and Reformers, and Republicans, were successively anathematized, and consigned to the shades of barbarism, for the destruction of what (for aught that appears) seems to have existed only in the brains of antiquarians. It has been common to say, that all the learning of the times was confined to monasteries. This was true at a certain period; but it had ceased to be the fact in the age in which the Reformation took place. Low as literature was in Scotland at the beginning of the 16th century, for the credit of my country, I trust that it was not in so poor a state in the universities as it was in the monasteries. Take the account of one who has bestowed much attention on the monastic antiquities of Scotland. “Monkish ambition terminated in acquiring skill in scholastic disputation. If any thing besides simple theology was read, it might consist of the legends of saints, who were pictured converting infidels, interceding for offenders, and overreaching fiends; or of romances, recording the valour of some hardy adventurer, continually occupied in wars with pagans, or in vanquishing giants, foiling necromancers, and combating dragons. Some were chroniclers; and books of the laws might be transcribed or deposited with monks. Some monks might be conversant in medicine and the occult sciences.” Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems, i. 17, 18.

But we are not left to conjecture, or to general inferences, concerning the state of the monastic libraries. We have the catalogues of two libraries, the one of a monastery, the other of a collegiate church; which may be deemed fair specimens of the condition of the remainder in the respective ages to which they belonged. The former is the catalogue of the library of the Culdean monastery at Lochleven in the 12th century. It consisted of only seventeen books, all of them necessarily in manuscript. Among these were a pastoral, graduale, and missale, books common to all monasteries, and without which their religious service could not be performed; the Text of the Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles; an Exposition of Genesis; a Collection of Sentences; and an Interpretation of Sayings. The rest seem to have consisted of some of the writings of Prosper, and perhaps of Origen and Jerom. Jamieson’s Historical account of the ancient Culdees, p. 376‒8. It may be granted that this collection of books was by no means despicable in that age; but certainly it contained nothing, the loss of which has been injurious to literature. I have no doubt that, if a copy of the Gospels, with the Lochleven seal or superscription, (whether authentic or fictitious,) were to occur, it would, with antiquarians, give as high a price as a Polyglot; without the smallest regard to its utility in settling the original text. From the 12th to the 16th century, the monastic libraries did not improve. The catalogue of the library at Stirling exhibits the true state of learning at the beginning of the last mentioned period. It contained, indeed, a copy of the gospels and epistles in manuscript, most probably in Latin; the remainder of its contents was purely monkish. There were four missals, two psalters, four antiphonies, three breviaries, two legends, four graduals, and ten processionals. Dalyell’s Fragments of Scottish History, p. 77.

I have occasionally met, in the course of my reading, with notices of volumes of the Fathers being in the possession of the Scottish monasteries, but nothing from which I could conclude that they had complete copies of any of their writings. The abbot of Crossraguel, indeed, speaks of his being in possession of a large stock of this kind, (Keith, Append. 193,) which some writers have been pleased to calculate at “a cart‑load.” It does not appear, however, that they belonged to the monastery over which he presided. But whatever books of this kind were to be found in them, the reformers would be anxious to preserve, not to destroy. The chartularies were the most valuable writings deposited in monasteries; and many of these have been transmitted to us. The reformers were not disposed to consume these records, and we find them making use of them in their writings. Knox, Historie, p. 1, 2, 3. The mass‑books were the most likely objects of their vengeance; and I have little doubt that a number of these were committed to the flames, in testimony of their abhorrence of the popish worship. Yet they were careful to preserve copies of them, which they produced in their disputes with the Roman catholics. Ibid. p. 261.

But whatever literary ravages were committed, let them not be imputed exclusively to the tumultuary reformation of Scotland, to the fanaticism of our reformers, or the barbarous ignorance of our nobles. In England, the same proceedings took place to a far greater extent, and the loss must have been far greater. “Another misfortune,” says Collier, “consequent upon the suppression of the abbeys, was an ignorant destruction of a great many valuable books. The books, instead of being removed to royal libraries, to those of cathedrals, or the universities, were frequently thrown in to the grantees, as things of slender consideration. Their avarice was sometimes so mean, and their ignorance so undistinguishing, that when the covers were somewhat rich, and would yield a little, they pulled them off, threw away the books, or turned them to waste paper.”—“A number of them which purchased these superstitious mansions,” says bishop Bale, “reserved of those library books, some to serve their jacks, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots, and some they sold to the grocers and soap‑sellers, and some they sent over the sea to bookbinders, not in small numbers, but at times whole ships full. Yea, the universities are not clear in this detestable fact; but cursed is the belly which seeketh to be fed with so ungodly gains, and so deeply shameth his native country. I know a merchant man (which shall at this time be nameless) that bought the contents of two noble libraries for forty shillings price; a shame it is to be spoken. This stuff hath he occupied instead of grey paper by the space of more than these ten years, and yet hath he store enough for as many years to come.” Bale’s Declaration: Collier’s Eccles. Hist. ii. 166.

Note KK.

Aversion of Queen Elizabeth to the Scottish War.—The personal aversion of Elizabeth to engage in the war of the Scottish Reformation, has not, so far as I have observed, been noticed by any of our historians. It is, however, a fact well authenticated by state papers, whether it arose from extreme caution at the commencement of her reign, from her known parsimony, or from her high notions respecting royal prerogative. Cecil mentions it repeatedly in his correspondence with Throkmorton. “God trieth us,” says he, “with may difficulties. The queen’s majestie never liketh this matter of Scotland; you knowe what hangeth thereuppon: weak‑hearted men and flatterers will follow that way.—I have had such a torment herin with the queen’s majestie, as an ague hath not in five fitts so much abated.” Forbes, i. 454, 455. In another letter he says, “What will follow of my going towardes Scotlande, I know not; but I feare the success, quia, the queen’s majestie is so evil disposed to the matter, which troubleth us all.” Ibid. 460. It was not until her council had presented a formal petition to her, that she gave her consent. Ibid. 390. Even after she had agreed to hostilities, she began to waver, and listen to the artful proposals of the French court, who endeavoured to amuse her until such time as they were able to convey more effectual aid to the queen regent of Scotland. Killigrew, in a letter to Throkmorton, after mentioning the repulse of the English army in an assault on the fortifications of Leith, says: “This, together with the bishopes [of Valance] relation unto the queen’s majestie, caused her to renew the opinion of Cassandra.” Ibid. 456. This was the principal cause of the suspension of hostilities, and the premature attempt to negotiate, in April 1560, which so justly alarmed the lords of the Congregation: an occurrence which is also passed over in our common histories. Sadler, i. 719, 721. The Scottish protestants were much indebted to Cecil and Throkmorton for the assistance which they obtained from England. A number of the counsellors, who had been in the cabinet of queen Mary, did all in their power to foster the disinclination of Elizabeth. Lord Gray, in one of his dispatches, complains of the influence of these ministers, whom he calls Phillipians, from their attachment to the interest of the king of Spain. Haynes, p. 295.

Note LL.

Loyalty of the Scottish Protestants.—The hostile advance of the regent against Perth, first drove the lords of the Congregation to take arms in their own defence. Her reiterated infraction of treaties, and the gradual developement of her designs, by the introduction of French troops into the kingdom, rendered the prospect of an amicable and permanent adjustment of differences very improbable, and dictated the propriety of strengthening their confederation, that they might be prepared for a sudden and more formidable attack. These considerations are sufficient to justify the posture of defence in which they kept themselves during the summer of 1559, and the steps which they took to secure assistance from England. If their exact situation is not kept in view, an accurate judgment of their conduct cannot be formed, and their partial and temporary resistance to the measures of the regent will be regarded as an avowed rebellion against her authority. But whatever be the modern ideas on this subject, they did not consider the former as necessarily implying the latter, and they continued to profess not only their allegiance to their sovereign, but also their readiness to obey the queen regent in every thing not inconsistent with their security, and the liberties of the nation; nay, they actually yielded obedience to her, by paying taxes to the officers whom she appointed to receive them. Knox, p. 176. Private and confidential letters are justly considered as the most satisfactory evidence as to the intentions of men. Our Reformer, in a letter to Mrs Locke, written on the 25th of July, 1559, says, “The queen is retired unto Dunbar. The fine [end] is known unto God. We mean no tumult, no alteration of authority, but only the reformation of religion, and suppression of idolatry.” Cald. MS. i. 429. At an early period, indeed, she accused them of a design to throw off their allegiance. When the prior of St Andrews joined their party, she industriously circulated the report that he ambitiously aimed at the sovereignty, and that they intended to confer it upon him. Knox, 149. Forbes, i. 180. It was one of the special instructions given to Sir Ralph Sadler, when he was sent down to Berwick, that he should “explore the very trueth” as to this report. Sadler, i. 731. In all his confidential correspondence with his court, there is not the slightest insinuation that Sadler had discovered any evidence to induce him to credit that charge. This is a strong proof of the prior’s innocence, if it be taken in connexion with what I shall immediately state; not to mention the testimony of Sir James Melvil. Memoirs, p. 27.

When the earl of Arran joined the Congregation, the queen regent circulated the same report respecting him. Knox, p. 174. So far as the Congregation were concerned, this accusation was equally unfounded as the former. Ibid. p. 176. But there are some circumstances connected with it, which deserve attention, as they set the loyalty of the Scottish protestants in a very clear light. The earl of Arran, and not the prior of St Andrews, was the favourite of the English court. Messengers were appointed by them to bring him from the continent, and he was conducted through England into Scotland, to be placed at the head of the Congregation. Forbes, i. 164, 166, 171, 216. Sadler, i. 417, 421, 437, 439. There is also good evidence that the ministers of Elizabeth wished him to be raised to the throne of Scotland, if not also that they had projected the uniting of the two crowns by a marriage between him and Elizabeth. “The way to perfait this assuredly,” says Throkmorton to Cecil, “is, that the erle of Arraine do as Edward the IV. did, when he landed at Ravenspurg: [he pretended to the duchy of York, and having that, he would not leave till he had the “diademe,”] for then of necessitie th’ erle of Arran must depend upon the devotion of England, to maintein and defend himself. I feare all other devises and handelings will prove like an apotecary his shop; and therefore I leave to your discretion to provyde by all meanes for this matter, both there and in Scotland.” And again: “Methinks, the lord of Grange, Ledington, Balnaves, and the chief doers of the Congregation, (which I wold wish specially to be done and procured by the prior of St Andrewes,) should be persuaded to set forward these purposes before: for there is no way for them to have any safety or surety, oneles thei make the earl of Arran king; and as it is their surety, so it is also ours. In this matter there must be used both wisdome, courage, and sped.” Forbes, i. 435, 436. Throkmorton, it is to be observed, was at this time the most confidential friend of Cecil, and, in his dispatches from France, pressed the adoption of those measures which the secretary had recommended to the queen and council. Had not the Congregation been decidedly averse to any change of the government which would have set aside their queen, it seems highly probable that this plan would have been carried into execution. The report of an intended marriage between Elizabeth and Arran was general at that time; and whatever were the queen’s own intentions, it seems to have been seriously contemplated by her ministers. Forbes, 214, 215, 282, 288. This accounts for the recommendation of this measure by the Scottish Estates, after the conclusion of the civil war. Keith, 154.

Note MM.

Authorities for the statement of Knox’s Political Principles.—The following extracts from his writings relate to the principal points touched in the statement of his political sentiments:—

“In few wordis to speik my conscience; the regiment of princes is this day cum to that heap of iniquitie, that no godlie man can bruke office or autoritie under thame, but in so doing hie salbe compellit not onlie aganis equitie and justice to oppress the pure, but also expressedlie to fycht againis God and his ordinance, either in maintenance of idolatrie, or ellis in persecuting Godis chosin childrene. And what must follow heirof, but that ether princeis be reformit and be compellit also to reform their wickit laws, or els all gud men depart fra thair service and companie.” Additions to the Apology of the Parisian Protestants: MS. Letters, p. 477. Dr Robertson has ascribed to Knox and Buchanan an “excessive admiration of ancient policy;” and he says, their “principles, authorities, and examples, were all drawn from ancient writers,” and their political system founded “not on the maxims of feudal, but of ancient republican government.” History of Scotland, vol. i. b. ii. p. 391. Lond. 1809. These assertions need some qualification. If republican government be opposed to absolute monarchy, the principles of Knox and Buchanan may be denominated republican; but if the term (as now commonly understood) be used in contradistinction to monarchy itself, it cannot be shown that they admired or recommended republicanism. They were the friends of limited monarchy. It is the excellence of the government of Britain, that the feudal maxims which once predominated in it, have been corrected, or their influence counteracted, by others borrowed from republican constitutions. And it is not a little to the credit of these great men, and evinces their good sense and moderation, that, notwithstanding all their admiration of ancient models of legislation, in comparison with the existing feudal monuments, they contented themselves with recommending such principles as tended to restrain the arbitrary power of kings, and secure the rights of the people. Nor were all their authorities and examples drawn from ancient writers, as may be seen in Buchanan’s dialogue, De jure regni apud Scotos.

In a letter written by him to the queen dowager, a few days after her suspension from the regency, Knox says, “My toung did bothe perswade and obtein, that your authoritie and regiment suld be obeyed of us in all things lawfull, till ye declair yourself opin enemie to this comoun welthe; as now, allace! ye have done.” Historie, p. 180. This declaration is justified by the letters which he wrote to his brethren before his arrival in Scotland. The following extract from a letter addressed to the protestant nobility, December 17, 1557, is a specimen: “But now, no farder to trubill you at the present, I will onlie advertis you of sic bruit as I heir in thir partis, uncertainlie noysit, whilk is this, that contradictioun and rebellioun is maid to the autoritie be sum in that realme. In whilk poynt my conscience will not suffer me to keip back from you my consall, yea, my judgment and commandement, whilk I communicat with yow in Godis feir, and by the assurance of his trueth, whilk is this, that nane of you that seik to promot the glorie of Chryst do suddanlie disobey or displeas the establissit autoritie in things lawful, neither yet that ye assist or fortifie such as, for their awn particular caus and warldlie promotioun, wald trubill the same. But, in the bowallis of Chryst Jesus, I exhort yow, that, with all simplicitie and lawfull obedience, with boldness in God, and with opin confessioun of your faith, ye seek the favour of the autoritie, that by it (yf possible be) the cause in whilk ye labour may be promotit, or, at the leist, not persecutit: Whilk thing, efter all humill request, yf ye can not atteane, then, with oppin and solemp protestation of your obedience to be given to the autoritie in all thingis not planelie repugnying to God, ye lawfullie may attemp the extreamitie, whilk is, to provyd (whidder the autoritie will consent or no) that Chrystis evangell may be trewlie preachit, and his haly sacramentis rychtlie ministerit unto yow and to your brethren, the subjectis of that realme. And farder ye lawfullie may, yea, and thairto is bound, to defend your brethrene from persecutioun and tiranny, be it aganis princes or emprioris, to the uttermost of your power; provyding alwayis (as I have said) that nether your self deny lawfull obedience, nether yit that ye assist nor promot thois that seik autoritie and pre‑eminence of warldlie glorie.” MS. Letters, p. 434, 435.

In a conversation with queen Mary at Lochleven, we find him inculcating the doctrine of a mutual compact between rulers and subjects. “It sall be profitabill to your majesty to consider quhat is the thing your grace’s subjects luiks to receave of your majesty, and quhat it is that ye aucht to do unto thame by mutual contract. They ar bound to obey you, and that not bot in God; ye ar bound to keip lawes unto thame. Ye crave of thame service; they crave of you protectioun and defence against wicked doars. Now, madam, if you sall deny your dewty unto thame, (quhilk especialy craves that ye punish malefactors,) think ye to receave full obedience of thame?” Historie, p. 327. This sentiment was adopted by his countrymen. The committee appointed by the regent Murray, to prepare overtures for the parliament which met in December 1567, (of which committee our Reformer was a member,) agreed to this proposition: “The band and contract to be mutuale and reciprous in all tymes cuming betwixt the prince and God, and his faithful people, according to the word of God.” Robertson’s Records of Parliament, p. 796. This was also one of the articles subscribed at the General Assembly in July preceding; and their language is still more clear and express,—“mutual and reciproque in all tymes coming betwixt the prince and God, and also betwixt the prince and faithful people.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 34, Advocates’ Library. Keith, 582. See also the proclamation of the king’s authority, in Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 205. Keith, 441. The right of resistance was formally recognised in the inscription on a coin stamped soon after the coronation of James VI. On one of the sides is the figure of a sword with a crown upon it; and the words of Trajan circumscribed, Pro me; si mereor, in me; i.e. Use this sword for me; if I deserve it, against me. Cardonell’s Numismata Scotiæ, plate ix. p. 101. Our Reformer’s Appellation may be consulted for the proof of what has been asserted (p. 305, 306) as to his endeavours to repress aristocratical tyranny, and to awaken the mass of the people to a due sense of their rights. See also his Historie, p. 100. The effect of the Reformation in extending popular liberty was very visible in the parliament which met in August 1560, in which there were representatives from all the boroughs, and a hundred lesser barons, “with mony otheris baronis, fre‑halderis, and landit men.” Keith informs us that, during a space of no less than seventy‑seven years preceding, “scarcely had one of the inferior gentry appeared in parliament. And therefore,” adds he, “I know not but it may be deemed somewhat unusual, for a hundred of them to jump all at once into the parliament, especially in such a juncture as the present was.” History, p. 147, 148. The petition presented by the lesser barons, for liberty to sit and vote in the parliament, has this remarkable clause in it; “otherwise we think that whatsomever ordinances and statutes be made concerning us and our estate, we not being required and suffered to reason and vote at the making thereof, that the same should not oblige us to stand thereto.” Robertson’s History of Scotland, Append. No. 4.

Liberal principles respecting civil government accompanied the progress of the Reformation. Knox had the concurrence of English bishops in his doctrine concerning the limited authority of kings, and the lawfulness of resisting them. See above, Note BB, and vol. ii. Note U. And he had the express approbation of the principal divines in the foreign churches. Historie, 363, 366. In the 17th century, some of the French reformed divines, in their great loyalty to the Grand Monarque, disclaimed our Reformer’s political sentiments, and represented them as proceeding from the fervid and daring spirit of the Scottish nation, or adapted to the peculiar constitution of their government. Riveti Castig. in Balzacum, cap. xiii. § 14: Oper. tom. iii. p. 539. Quotations from other French authors are given by Bayle, Diet. Art. Knox, Note E. In the controversy occasioned by the execution of Charles I., our Reformer’s name and principles were introduced. Milton appealed to him, and quoted his writings, in defence of that deed. One of Milton’s opponents told him that he could produce in his support only a single Scot, “whom his own age could not suffer, and whom all the reformed, especially the French, condemned in this point.” Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Cœlum, p. 129. Hagæ‑Comit. 1625; written by Pierre du Moulin, the son. Milton, in his rejoinder, urges with truth, that Knox had asserted, that his opinions were approved of by Calvin, and other eminent divines of the reformed churches. Miltoni Defensio Secunda, p. 101.