Volume 2 — PERIOD VIII. FROM DECEMBER 1563, WHEN HE WAS ACQUITTED FROM A CHARGE OF TREASON, TO THE YEAR 1570, WHEN HE WAS STRUCK WITH APOPLEXY.

The indignation of the queen at the Reformer’s escape from punishment did not soon abate;120 and the effects of it fell upon the courtiers who had voted for his exculpation, and upon those who had been unsuccessful in opposing it. The Earl of Murray was among the former,121 Maitland among the latter. In order to appease her wrath, they again attempted to persuade Knox to soothe her by some voluntary submission; and they engaged that, if he would only agree to go within the walls of the castle, he should be allowed to return immediately to his own house. To this he refused to yield, being convinced that by such a compliance he would throw discredit on the judgment of the nobility who had acquitted him, and confess himself to have been a mover of sedition. Disappointed in their object, they endeavoured to injure him by whispers and detraction; circulating that he had no authority from his brethren for what he had done, and that he arrogated a papal power over the Scottish church, by issuing his letters at pleasure, and exacting an implicit obedience to them. These charges were very groundless and unjust; for there never was, perhaps, an individual who possessed as much influence, and at the same time was so careful to avoid all appearance of assuming superiority over his brethren, or of acting by his own private authority, in matters of public and common concern.

At the meeting of the General Assembly, held in the close of this year, he declined taking any share in the deliberations; but after the public business had been disposed of, he requested liberty to speak on an affair which concerned himself. He stated what he had done in writing the late circular letter, the proceedings to which it had given rise, and the surmises which were still circulating to his prejudice; and he insisted that the church should now examine his conduct in that matter, and particularly that they should declare whether or not they had given him a commission to advertise the brethren, when he foresaw any danger threatening their religion, or any difficult case which required their advice. The courtiers strenuously opposed the discussion of this question; but it was taken up, and the assembly, by a great majority, found that he had been charged with such a commission, and that, in the advertisement which he had lately given, he had not exceeded his powers.122

Knox had remained a widower upwards of three years. But in March 1564, he contracted a second marriage with Margaret Stewart, daughter of lord Ochiltree, a nobleman of amiable dispositions, who had been long familiar with our Reformer, and had steadily adhered to him when he was deserted by his other friends.123 She continued to discharge the duties of a wife to him, with the most pious and affectionate assiduity, until the time of his death. The popish writers, who envied the honours of the Scottish Reformer, have represented this marriage as a proof of his great ambition, and, in the excess of their spleen, have ridiculously imputed to him the project of aiming to raise his progeny to the throne of Scotland; because the family of Ochiltree was of the blood royal! They are quite clear, too, that he gained the heart of the young lady by means of sorcery, and the assistance of the devil. But it seems, that, powerfully as he was seconded, he could not succeed in another attempt which he had previously made; for the same writers inform us, that he paid his addresses to lady Barbara Hamilton, eldest daughter of the duke of Chastelherault, and widow of Lord Fleming, by whom he was repulsed. The account of the appearance that he made at the time of his marriage, which shall be inserted in the notes, the reader will receive according to the degree of its probability, and the credit he may think due to the authorities upon which it rests.124

The country continued in a state of quietness during the year 1564; but the same jealousies still subsisted between the court and the church.125 Her majesty’s prejudices against the reformed religion were unabated, and she maintained a correspondence with its sworn enemies on the continent, which could not altogether escape the vigilance of her protestant subjects.126 The preachers, on their side, did not relax in their zealous warnings against popery, and as to the dangers which they apprehended; while they complained of the beggary to which the greater part of their own number was reduced, and of the growing lukewarmness of the protestant courtiers. The latter felt uneasy under these reproaches, and, in concert with the queen, were anxious to restrain the license of the pulpit. They began by addressing themselves privately to the more moderate and complying of the ministers, whom they gained over, by their persuasions, to a partial approbation of their measures; and having so far succeeded, they ventured to propose the matter in public, and to request the sanction of the leading members of the General Assembly.

Without intending to vindicate the latitude which was taken by particular preachers at that time, it may be said, in general, that a systematic attempt to restrain the liberty of speech in the pulpit, farther than the correction of occasional excesses might require, would have been a measure fraught with danger to the protestant interest. The reformed preachers were the most vigilant and incorrupt guardians of national liberty; an honourable distinction which their successors maintained during the remainder of that century. It is better to be awaked with rudeness, or even by a false alarm, than to be allowed to sleep on in the midst of dangers. Who would muzzle the mouth of the wakeful animal which guards the house against thieves, because the inmates are sometimes disturbed by his nocturnal vociferation? or substitute in his place a “dumb dog, that cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber?”

Knox, the freedom and sharpness of whose censures the courtiers felt most deeply, was the person whom they chiefly wished to restrain; but it was no easy matter either to overawe him by authority, or by reasoning to procure his acquiescence in their proposals. In the month of June, a conference was held between the principal statesmen and ministers of the church, when this subject was discussed; and in an elaborate debate with Maitland, Knox defended the leading points of his doctrine which had given offence to the court. This debate “admirably displays the talents and character of both the disputants; the acuteness of the former, embellished with learning, but prone to subtlety; the vigorous understanding of the latter, delighting in bold sentiments, and superior to all fear.”127

Maitland opened the conference with a plausible speech. He set forth the benefits which they had enjoyed under her Majesty’s government, and dwelt on the liberty which she had granted them in religious matters; he urged the great importance of the ministers of the church cultivating her friendship by every good office in their power, and endeavouring to inspire the people with a favourable opinion of her person and administration; and pointed out the hurtful effects of their being observed to disagree in their form of prayer for her, and in their doctrine concerning the duty of subjects. Addressing himself particularly to Knox, he told him, with much politeness and address, that it was the earnest wish of the council that he should study greater caution, when he had occasion to speak of her majesty from the pulpit: not that they were afraid of his saying any thing very improper, but because the liberty which he used would be taken by persons less modest and prudent. Knox replied to the secretary’s speech. He drew a very different picture of the state of affairs since the queen came to the country; stated the grievances under which the church laboured, and which were daily increasing, instead of being redressed; and added, that, in these circumstances, the courtiers ought not to be surprised at the complaints of the ministers, and the liberties which they took in rebuking sins, which were openly committed, and persisted in notwithstanding all due admonition. At the same time, he professed his readiness to account for any part of his own conduct which had given offence, and to listen to the objections which might be urged against it.

Maitland specified the mode in which the Reformer usually prayed for her majesty, as one thing which gave offence to him and his colleagues. Prayers and tears, it has often been alleged, are the only arms which Christians ought to employ against injuries. But those who have deprived them of other weapons, have usually envied them the use of these also; and if their prayers have not been smoothed down to the temper of their adversaries, so as to become mere compliments to princes under colour of an address to the Almighty, they have often been pronounced to be seditious and treasonable.128 Knox repeated his common form of prayer for the queen, and requested to be informed in what respects it was deserving of reprehension. “Ye pray for the queen’s majesty with a condition,” replied Maitland, “saying, ‘Illuminate her heart, if thy good pleasure be.’ Where have ye example of such prayer?”—“Wherever the examples are,” rejoined Knox, “I am assured of the rule, ‘If we shall ask any thing according to his will, he will hear us;’ and Christ commanded us to pray, ‘Thy will be done.’”—“But in so doing ye put a doubt in the people’s head of her conversion,” said Maitland.—“Not I, my lord; but her own obstinate rebellion causes more than me to doubt of her conversion.”—“Wherein rebels she against God?”—“In all the actions of her life, but in these two heads especially: that she will not hear the preaching of the blessed evangel of Jesus Christ, and that she maintains that idol the mass.”—“She thinks not that rebellion, but good religion.”—“So thought they who offered their children to Moloch, and yet the spirit of God affirms, that they offered them unto devils, and not unto God.”—“But yet ye can produce the example of none that has so prayed before you,” said the secretary, pressing his former objection. “Well then,” said Knox; “Peter said these words to Simon Magus, ‘Repent of this thy wickedness, and pray to God, that, if it be possible, the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.’ And think ye not, my lord secretary, that the same doubt may touch my heart as touching the queen’s conversion, that then touched the heart of the apostle?”—“I would never hear you or any other call that in doubt,” replied Maitland.—“But your will is no assurance to my conscience.”—“Why say ye that she refuses admonitions?” said Maitland; “she will gladly hear any man.”—“But what obedience ensues? Or, when shall she be seen to give her presence to the public preaching?”—“I think never, so long as she is thus entreated,” replied the secretary. “And so long,” rejoined the Reformer, “ye and all others must be content that I pray so as I may be assured to be heard of my God, either in making her comfortable to his church, or, if he has appointed her to be a scourge to the same, that we may have patience, and she may be bridled.”

“Well then,” said the secretary, “let us come to the second head. Where find ye that the scripture calls any ‘the bond slaves of Satan?’ or, that the prophets spake so irreverently of kings and princes?”—“If the sharpness of the term offend you,” replied the Reformer, “I have not invented that phrase of speaking, but have learned it out of God’s scriptures; for these words I find spoken unto Paul, ‘Behold, I send thee unto the Gentiles, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God.’ Mark thir words, my lord, and stur not at the speaking of the Holy Ghost.”

The secretary, who, during the greater part of the dispute, had leaned on the master of Maxwell’s breast, said that he was fatigued, and desired some other person to reason with Knox on the point which remained to be discussed, respecting the authority of magistrates and the duty of subjects. Chancellor Morton ordered George Hay to perform this part. Knox was aware, that the object of the court was, if possible, to divide the ministers, and that they would improve any appearance of diversity of opinion among them, to the prejudice of the common cause. He therefore told Hay, that he had no objections to reason with him, knowing him to be a man of learning and modesty; but he should be sorry to think that they opposed each other, like two scholars of Pythagoras, to show the quickness of their parts by supporting either side of a question; and as he, for his own part, protested that he durst no more support a proposition which he knew to be untrue, than he durst teach false doctrine in the pulpit, so he hoped that his brother would, on the present occasion, advance or maintain nothing but what he was persuaded of in his conscience. This caution had the desired effect, and Hay declared, before the whole assembly, that his judgment exactly coincided with Knox’s on the subject proposed for discussion. “Marry,” said the disappointed secretary, “ye are the well worst of the two; for I remember our reasoning when the queen was in Carrick.”

Perceiving that none of the company was disposed to enter the lists with the Reformer, Maitland again returned to the charge, and engaged to defend the uncontrollable authority of rulers. “Well,” said he, “I am somewhat better provided in this last head, than I was in the other two. Mr Knox, yesterday we heard your judgment upon the 13th to the Romans; we heard the mind of the apostle well opened; we heard the causes why God has established powers upon earth; we heard the necessity that mankind has of the same; and we heard the duty of magistrates sufficiently declared. But in two things I was offended, and I think some more of my lords that then were present: The one was, ye made difference betwixt the ordinance of God, and the persons that are placed in authority; and ye affirmed, that men might resist the persons, and yet not offend God’s ordinance: The other was, that subjects were not bound to obey their princes if they commanded unlawful things, but that they might resist their princes, and were not ever bound to suffer.” Knox said that the secretary had given a correct statement of his sentiments. “How will you prove your division and difference,” said Maitland, “and that the person placed in authority may be resisted, and God’s ordinance not transgressed, seeing that the apostle says, ‘He that resists the power, resists the ordinance of God?’” Knox replied, that the difference was evident from the words of the apostle, and that his affirmative was supported by approved examples. For the apostle asserts, that the powers ordained of God are for the preservation of quiet and peaceable men, and for the punishment of malefactors; whence it is plain, that God’s ordinance is wholly intended for the preservation of mankind, the punishment of vice, and the maintenance of virtue; but the persons placed in authority are often corrupt, unjust, and oppressive. Having referred to the conduct of the people of Israel in rescuing Jonathan from the hands of Saul, which is recorded with approbation, and to the conduct of Doeg, in putting to death the priests at the command of that monarch, which is recorded with disapprobation in scripture, he proceeded thus: “And now, my lord, in answer to the place of the apostle, I say, that ‘the power’ in that place is not to be understood of the unjust commandment of men, but of the just power wherewith God has armed his magistrates to punish sin and to maintain virtue. As if any man should enterprise to take from the hands of a lawful judge a murderer, an adulterer, or any other malefactor that by God’s law deserved the death, this same man resisted God’s ordinance, and procured to himself vengeance and damnation, because that he stayeth God’s sword to strike. But so it is not, if that men, in the fear of God, oppose themselves to the fury and blind rage of princes; for so they resist not God, but the devil, who abuses the sword and authority of God.”—“I understand sufficiently,” said Maitland, “what you mean; and unto the one part I will not oppose myself, but I doubt of the other. For if the queen would command me to slay John Knox, because she is offended at him, I would not obey her; but if she would command others to do it, or yet by a colour of justice take his life from him, I cannot tell if I be bound to defend him against the queen, and against her officers.”—“Under protestation,” replied the Reformer, “that the auditory think not that I speak in favour of myself, I say, my lord, that if ye be persuaded of my innocence, and if God hath given you such power or credit as might deliver me, and yet ye suffer me to perish, that in so doing ye should be criminal, and guilty of my blood.”—“Prove that, and win the plea,” said Maitland. “Well, my lord,” answered Knox, “remember your promise, and I shall be short in my probation.” He then produced the example of Jeremiah, who, when accused by the priests and false prophets, said to the princes, “Know ye for certain, that if ye put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon yourselves, and upon this city, and upon the inhabitants thereof.”—“The cases are not like,” said Maitland. “And I would learn,” said Knox, “wherein the dissimilitude stands.”—“First,” replied Maitland, “the king had not condemned him to death. And next, the false prophets, the priests, and the people, accused him without a cause, and therefore they could not but be guilty of his blood.”—“Neither of these fights with my argument,” said Knox; “for, albeit neither the king was present, nor yet had condemned him, yet were the princes and chief counsellors there sitting in judgment, who represented the king’s person and authority. And if ye think that they should all have been criminal only because they all accused him, the plain text witnesses the contrary; for the princes defended him, and so, no doubt, did a great part of the people, and yet he boldly affirms that they should be all guilty of his blood, if that he should be put to death.”—“Then will ye,” said the secretary, “make subjects to control their princes and rulers?”—“And what harm,” asked the Reformer, “should the commonwealth receive, if the corrupt affections of ignorant rulers were moderated, and so bridled, by the wisdom and discretion of godly subjects, that they should do wrong or violence to no man?”

The secretary, finding himself hard pushed, said that they had wandered from the argument; and he professed that if the queen should become a persecutor, he would be as ready as any within the realm to adopt the doctrine of the Reformer. “But our question,” said he, “is, whether that we may, and ought, suppress the queen’s mass. Or, whether that her idolatry should be laid to our charge.”—“Idolatry ought not only to be suppressed,” said Knox, “but the idolater ought to die the death.”—“I know,” answered Maitland, “that the idolater ought to die the death; but by whom?”—“By the people,” rejoined the Reformer; “for the commandment was made to Israel, as ye may read, ‘Hear, O Israel, saith the Lord, the statutes and commandments of the Lord thy God.’”—“But there is no commandment given to the people to punish their king, if he be an idolater.”—“I find no privilege granted unto kings,” said Knox, “more than unto the people, to offend God’s majesty.”—“I grant,” said the secretary; “but yet the people may not be judge unto their king, to punish him, albeit he be an idolater. The people may not execute God’s judgment, but must leave it unto himself, who will either punish it by death, by war, by imprisonment, or by some other kind of plagues.”—“I know,” replied Knox, “the last part of your reason to be true; but for the first I am assured ye have no other warrant except your own imagination, and the opinion of such as more fear to offend princes than God.”

“Why say you so?” said Maitland. “I have the judgments of the most famous men within Europe, and of such as ye yourself will confess both godly and learned.” Upon which he produced a bundle of papers, and read extracts from the writings of the principal reformed divines against resistance to rulers; adding, that he had bestowed more labour on the collection of these authorities than on the reading of commentaries for seven years. Knox replied, that it was a pity he had given himself so much labour, for none of the extracts which he had read bore upon the question under discussion; some of them being directed against the anabaptists, who denied that Christians should be subject to magistrates, or that it was lawful for them to hold the office of magistracy; and the rest referring to the case of a small number of Christians scattered through heathen and infidel countries, which was the situation of the primitive church. In this last case, he said, he perfectly agreed with the writers whom Maitland had quoted; but when the majority of a nation were professors of the true religion, the case was very different. While the posterity of Abraham were few in number, and while they sojourned in different countries, they were merely required to avoid all participation in the idolatrous rites of the heathen; but as soon as they “prospered into a kingdom,” and obtained possession of Canaan, they were strictly charged to suppress idolatry, and to destroy all its monuments and incentives. The same duty was now incumbent on the professors of the true religion in Scotland, whose release from bondage, temporal and spiritual, was no less wonderful than the redemption of the Israelites from Egypt. Formerly, when not more than ten persons in a country were enlightened, and when these were called to seal their testimony to the truth by giving their bodies to the flames, it would have been foolishness to have demanded of the nobility the suppression of idolatry. But now, when knowledge had increased, and God had given such a signal victory to the truth, that it had been publicly embraced by the realm, if they suffered the land to be again defiled, both they and their queen should drink of the cup of divine indignation—she, because, amidst the great light of the gospel, she continued obstinately addicted to idolatry, and they, because they tolerated, and even countenanced her in such conduct.

Maitland challenged his opponent to prove that the apostles or prophets ever taught that subjects might suppress the idolatry of their rulers. Knox appealed to the conduct of the prophet Elisha in anointing Jehu, and giving him a charge to punish the idolatry and bloodshed of the royal family of Ahab. “Jehu was a king before he put any thing in execution,” said the secretary.—“My lord, he was a mere subject, and no king, when the prophet’s servant came to him; yea, and albeit that his fellow captains, hearing of the message, blew the trumpet, and said ‘Jehu is king,’ yet I doubt not but Jezebel both thought and said he was a traitor, and so did many others in Israel and Samaria.”—“Besides this,” said Maitland, “the fact is extraordinary, and ought not to be imitated.”—“It had the ground of God’s ordinary judgment, which commands the idolater to die the death,” answered Knox. “We are not bound to imitate extraordinary examples,” rejoined Maitland, “unless we have like commandment and assurance.” Knox granted that this was true when the example was repugnant to the ordinary precept of the law, as in the case of the Israelites borrowing from the Egyptians without repayment. But when the example agreed with the law, he insisted that it was imitable; and of this kind was the instance to which he had appealed. But, said Maitland, “whatsoever they did, was done at God’s commandment.”—“That fortifies my argument,” retorted the Reformer; “for God, by his commandment, has approved that subjects punish their princes for idolatry and wickedness by them committed.”—“We have not the like commandment,” said the secretary.—“That I deny; for the commandment, that the idolater shall die the death, is perpetual, as ye yourself have granted; ye doubted only who should be the executioner, and I have sufficiently proven that God has raised up the people, and by his prophet has anointed a king, to take vengeance upon the king and his posterity, which fact God since that time has never retracted.”—“Ye have produced but one example,” said Maitland.—“One sufficeth; but yet, God be praised, we lack not others, for the whole people conspired against Amaziah, king of Judah, after he had turned away from the Lord.”—“I doubt whether they did well, or not,” said Maitland.—“God gave sufficient approbation of their fact, for he blessed them with victory, peace, and prosperity, the space of fifty‑two years after.”—“But prosperity does not always prove that God approves the facts of men.”—“Yes, when the facts of men agree with the law of God, and are rewarded according to his promise, I say that the prosperity succeeding the fact is a most infallible assurance that God has approved that fact. And now, my lord, I have but one example to produce, and then I will put an end to my reasoning, because I weary longer to stand.” The lords desired him to take a chair; but he declined it, saying, “that melancholic reasons needed some mirth to be intermixed with them.” After a short dispute on the resistance of the priests to Uzziah, the Reformer recapitulated the propositions which he thought had been established in the course of the debate. “Well,” said Maitland, “I think ye shall not have many learned men of your opinion.” Knox replied, that the truth ceased not to be the truth, because men misunderstood or opposed it, and yet he did not want the suffrages of learned men to his opinions. Upon which he presented a copy of the Apology of Magdeburgh, desiring the secretary to look at the names of the ministers who had approved of the defence of that city against the emperor, and subscribed the proposition, that to resist a tyrant is not to resist the ordinance of God. “Homines obscuri!”129 said Maitland, slightingly, after perusing the list. “Dei tamen servi!”130 replied the Reformer.

The secretary now insisted that the questions which they had discussed should be put to the vote, and that the determination of the meeting should fix a rule for uniformity of doctrine among the ministers. Knox protested against this motion, and reminded their lordships that the General Assembly had agreed to the present conference upon the express condition that nothing should be voted or decided at it. At last it was agreed, that the opinions of those who were present should be taken, but that they should not be considered as decisive. Winram, superintendent of Fife, and Douglas, rector of the university of St Andrew’s, were the principal persons among the ministers, who agreed in sentiment with the courtiers. Knox’s colleague, in delivering his opinion, took occasion to give an account of a public dispute at which he had been present in Bologna, upon the question, Whether subjects have a right to control and reform their rulers, when they have been guilty of violating their oaths of office. Thomas de Finola, rector of the University, and Vincentius de Placentia, persons celebrated for their learning, maintained the affirmative on this question, and their opinion was adopted after long discussion. “Ye tell us what was done in Bologna,” exclaimed one of the courtiers; “we are in a kingdom, and they are but a commonwealth.”—“My lord,” replied Craig, “my judgment is, that every kingdom is a commonwealth, or at least should be, albeit that every commonwealth is not a kingdom; and therefore I think that in a kingdom no less diligence ought to be taken that laws be not violated than in a commonwealth, because the tyranny of princes who continually reign in a kingdom, is more hurtful to the subjects than the misgovernment of those that from year to year are changed in free commonwealths.” He added, that the dispute to which he had referred was conducted on general principles, applicable equally to monarchies and republics; and that one of the conclusions adopted was, that, although laws contrary to the law of God, and to the true principles of government, had been introduced, through the negligence of the people or the tyranny of princes, yet the same people, or their posterity, had a right to demand that all things should be reformed according to the original institution of kings and commonwealths.131

The speech of Craig alarmed the courtiers as to the issue of the vote; and the clerk register took occasion to observe that, at a former conference, it had been agreed that Knox should write to Calvin to obtain his opinion on this question. Knox corrected this statement, by saying that the secretary had undertaken to consult that reformer, but although repeatedly reminded of his promise, had never fulfilled it. Maitland acknowledged this, and said that upon mature deliberation he durst not, considering his station, ask advice respecting any controversy between the queen and her subjects, without her majesty’s consent. It was now proposed that Knox should write to Calvin; but he refused to be employed in the business. Before he returned to the kingdom, he said, he had obtained the judgment of the most eminent foreign divines on that question, and he could not renew his application to them, without exposing himself to the charge of forgetfulness or inconsistency. The proper course was for them to write, complaining that he had taught such doctrines as he had now defended, and requesting Calvin to communicate his judgment respecting them. This proposal was thought reasonable, but none would undertake the task; and the conference broke up without any determinate resolution being adopted.132

The reader must be struck with the difference between this dispute, and that which Knox formerly maintained with the abbot of Crossraguel. Although long, it was kept up by the disputants with great spirit; nor did they take refuge under those ambiguities of speech, or those sophistical forms of argument, of which persons trained to wrangle in the schools were ever ready to avail themselves, to perplex an adversary, or to conceal their own defeat. Few secretaries of state in modern times would, it is presumed, be able to acquit themselves so well as Maitland did, on questions which were decided chiefly by an appeal to the scriptures. But learned and acute as he was, Knox was fully a match for him, and, on the greater part of the topics introduced into the debate, evidently had the advantage, according to the principles held, and the concessions made, by his opponent. For both parties maintained, that idolatry ought to be punished by death; a sentiment which they were led to adopt in consequence of their holding the untenable opinion, that Christian nations are bound to enact the same penalties against all breaches of the moral law, which were enjoined by the judicial laws of Moses.133 This being taken for granted, the dispute between them resolved itself entirely into a question respecting the prerogatives of princes and the rights and duties of subjects. It may be questioned, too, whether Knox’s reasoning from extraordinary examples, qualified as it was by him, is sufficiently guarded and correct; for the instances in which punishment was inflicted in an extraordinary way on criminals, although the punishment itself was merited and agreeable to law, cannot be pleaded as precedents in ordinary cases. But even when we cannot approve of his reasonings, we are compelled to admire the openness with which he avowed, and the boldness with which he defended, sentiments so opposite to those which were generally received in that age.

In the month of August, Knox went, by appointment of the General Assembly, as visitor of the churches, to Aberdeen and other parts of the north, where he remained six or seven weeks.134 At the subsequent meeting of Assembly, he received a similar appointment to Fife and Perthshire.135

Our Reformer’s predictions at the last meeting of parliament were now fully realized. Another parliament was held in the end of 1564, but nothing was done for securing the protestant religion.136 The queen’s marriage had long engaged the anxious attention of her ministers, and had been the subject of much negotiation with England and at foreign courts; but the various proposals which had been made with a view to it, and the political intrigues to which they gave rise, were all thwarted by the sudden and strong passion which Mary conceived for Henry, lord Darnley, the son of the earl of Lennox. As this young nobleman, so far as he had discovered any religious sentiments, was inclined to popery,137 the match could not be very agreeable to the great body of the nation, who had already testified the strongest jealousy at the queen’s attachment to that religion. It was, therefore, natural for the nobility, in the prospect of this event, to provide additional securities for the protestant church, and to insist that the royal sanction, hitherto withheld, should now be granted to its legal establishment. Upon this condition, they promised their consent to the marriage.138 The queen agreed to summon a parliament to settle this important affair, but she found some pretext for proroguing its meeting;139 and, having gained a number of the nobility by favours and promises, she proceeded, in July 1565, not only to solemnize the nuptials, but to proclaim her husband king, without the consent of the estates of the kingdom.

The dissatisfaction produced by these precipitate and illegal steps was heightened by the conduct of Darnley. Naturally vain, rash, and vindictive, his unexpected prosperity rendered him insolent and overbearing; and it required all the prudence of the queen to preserve him from falling into contempt, even before their marriage.140 Although he could not have come to Scotland, and his father could not have been restored to his honours and possessions, considering the opposition made by the house of Hamilton, without the concurrence and interest of the earl of Murray; yet, he no sooner found himself seated in the affections of Mary, than he exerted his influence to deprive that nobleman of her favour, represented the honours which she had conferred on him as excessive, and leagued with those who were hostile to him and to the reformed religion. Lennox, Athole, and David Rizzio, a low‑bred Italian, who had insinuated himself into the good graces of Mary, now ruled the court, to the exclusion of the most able counsellors.141 Murray had been urged in private to sign an approbation of the intended marriage, but refused to do it until the nobility were consulted.142 His refusal to gratify the queen, by forwarding a match on which she was passionately bent, obliterated the memory of all his past services, and drew upon him the furious resentment of Darnley. Having declined to attend a convention at Perth, from just apprehensions of personal danger, he was summoned to court by the queen. The summons was repeated three days after her marriage, and because he refused to intrust his person, on her safe conduct, to a court where the influence of his declared enemies prevailed, he was immediately proclaimed an outlaw.143 In the meantime, the persons who had discovered the greatest hostility to him were openly encouraged. Bothwell was invited to return; lord George Gordon was set at liberty, and the earldom of Huntly restored to him; and the earl of Sutherland was recalled from banishment.144 The lords who were dissatisfied with the late proceedings, assembled at Stirling, and, after agreeing to request the protection of Elizabeth, retired to their houses;145 but the queen taking the field with all the forces which she could collect, they were at last compelled to arm in their own defence.146 Even after they were driven to this extremity, they neglected no means of conciliation. They professed their steadfast loyalty to the queen. They declared that their sole desire was, that the reformed religion should be secured against the dangers to which it was exposed, and that the administration of public affairs should be put into the hands of those whom the nation could trust. And they offered to submit their own cause to be tried by the laws of their country.147 But the queen spurned all their offers of submission, refused to listen to any intercession in their favour, and advancing against them with an army, obliged them to take refuge in England.148

While her marriage with Darnley was in dependence, and she laboured to surmount the opposition made to it by the nobility, Mary had condescended to court the protestant ministers. Having sent for the superintendents of Lothian, Glasgow, and Fife, (for Knox could not now be admitted to her presence,) she amused them with fair words. She was not yet persuaded, she said, of the truth of their religion, but was willing to hear conference and reasoning on the subject; she was also content to attend the public sermons of some of them; and, “above all others, she would gladly hear the superintendent of Angus, for he was a mild and sweet‑natured man, with true honesty and uprightness, Sir John Erskine of Dun.”149 She even went so far as to be present at a sermon preached by one of the ministers in Callendar‑house, at the baptism of a child of lord Livingston.150 But as soon as her marriage was accomplished, she told the commissioners of the church, in very plain and determined language, “her majesty neither will, nor may, leave the religion wherein she has been nourished and brought up.”151 And there was no further proposal of attending either sermon or conference.

The friendship between the earl of Murray and the Reformer had been renewed in the beginning of 1565. Knox was placed in a very delicate predicament by the insurrection under Murray, and the other lords who opposed the queen’s marriage. His father‑in‑law was one of their number. They professed that the security of the protestant religion was the principal ground of their taking arms; and they came to Edinburgh to collect men to their standard. But whatever favour he might have for them, he kept himself clear from any engagement.152 If he had taken part in this unsuccessful revolt, we need not doubt that her majesty would have embraced the opportunity of punishing him for it, when his principal friends had fled the kingdom.

We find, in fact, that she immediately proceeded against him on a different, but far more slender ground. The young king, who could be either papist or protestant, as it suited him, went sometimes to mass with the queen, and sometimes attended the reformed sermons.153 To silence the suspicions of his alienation from the protestant religion, circulated by the insurgent lords, he, on the 19th of August, made a solemn appearance in St Giles’s church, sitting on a throne which had been prepared for his reception. Knox preached that day, and happened to prolong the service beyond his usual time. In one part of the sermon, he quoted these words of scripture, “I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them,—children are their oppressors, and women rule over them;” and in another part of it, he mentioned that God punished Ahab, because he did not correct his idolatrous wife, Jezabel.154 Though no particular application was made by the preacher, the king applied these passages to himself and the queen, and, returning to the palace in great wrath, refused to taste dinner. The papists, who had accompanied him to church, inflamed his resentment and that of the queen by their representations.

That very afternoon Knox was taken from bed,155 and carried before the privy council. Some respectable inhabitants of the city, understanding his citation, accompanied him to the palace. He was told that he had offended the king, and must desist from preaching as long as their majesties were in Edinburgh. He replied, that “he had spoken nothing but according to his text; and if the church should command him to speak or abstain, he would obey, so far as the word of God would permit him.”156 Spotswood says, that he not only stood to what he had said in the pulpit, but added, “That as the king, for the queen’s pleasure, had gone to mass, and dishonoured the Lord God, so should He in his justice make her the instrument of his overthrow. This speech,” continues the archbishop’s manuscript, “esteemed too bold at the time, came afterwards to be remembered, and was reckoned among other his prophetical sayings, which certainly were marvellous. The queen, enraged at this answer, burst forth into tears.”157

The report of the inhibition laid upon the Reformer created great agitation in the city. His colleague, who was appointed to supply his place during his suspension, threatened to desist entirely from preaching. The town council met, and appointed a deputation to wait on their majesties, and request the reversal of the sentence; and at a second meeting held on the same day, they came to a unanimous resolution that they would, “in no manner of way, consent or grant that his mouth be closed,” but that he should be desired, “at his pleasure, and as God should move his heart, to proceed forward to true doctrine as before, which doctrine they would approve and abide at to their life’s end.”158

It does not appear that he continued any time suspended from preaching. For the king and queen left Edinburgh before next Sabbath159 and the prohibition extended only to the time of their residence in the city. Upon their return, it is probable that they judged it advisable not to enforce an order which had already created much discontent, and might alienate the minds of the people still farther from the present administration. Accordingly, we find him exercising his ministry in Edinburgh with the same boldness as formerly. Complaints were made to the council of the manner in which he prayed for the exiled noblemen; but secretary Maitland, who had formerly found so much fault with his prayers, defended them on the present occasion, saying, that he had heard them, and they were such as nobody could blame.160

Christopher Goodman had officiated, with much approbation, as minister of St Andrew’s, since the year 1560; but he was prevailed on, by the solicitations of his friends in England, to return, about this time, to his native country.161 The commissioners from St Andrew’s were instructed to petition the General Assembly, which met in December this year, that Knox should be translated from Edinburgh to their city. They claimed a right to him, as he had commenced his ministry among them; and they might think, that the dissensions in which he was involved with the court would induce him to prefer a more retired situation. But their petition was refused.162

This Assembly imposed on him several important services. He was commissioned to visit the churches in the south of Scotland, and appointed to write “a comfortable letter,” to encourage the ministers, exhorters, and readers, throughout the kingdom, to persevere in the discharge of their functions, which many of them were threatening to abandon, on account of the non‑payment of their stipends; and to excite the people among whom they laboured to relieve their necessities.163 He had formerly received an appointment to draw up The Form of Excommunication and of Public Repentance.164 And he was now required to compose a Treatise of Fasting. The Assembly, having taken into consideration the troubles of the country, and the dangers which threatened the whole protestant interest, had appointed a general fast to be kept through the kingdom. The form and order to be observed on that occasion they left to be drawn out by Knox and his colleague; and as nothing had been hitherto published expressly on this subject, they were authorized to explain the duty, as well as to state the reasons which at that period called for this solemn exercise. This treatise does credit to the compilers, both as to matter and form. It is written in a perspicuous and nervous style. In the grounds assigned for fasting, the critical state of all the reformed churches, the late decree of the council of Trent for the extirpation of the protestant name, the combination of the popish princes for carrying it into execution, and the persecutions suffered by their brethren in different countries, are all held forth as a warning to the protestants of Scotland, and urged as calls to repentance and prayer.

The following may serve as a specimen:—“Supposing, we say, that wee had none of these foresaid causes to moove us, yet is there one which if it moove us not to humiliation, wee show ourselves more than insensible. For now is Satan so enlarged against Jesus Christ, and so odious is the light of his gospel unto the Romaine antichrist, that to suppresse it in one province, realme, or nation, he thinketh it nothing, unlesse that in all Europe the godly, and such as abhorre the papisticall impietie, be therewith also utterlie destroyed, and so rased from the face of the earth, that no memory of them shal after remaine. If any thinke that suche crueltie cannot fall into the hearts of men, we send them to be resolved of those fathers of the last councel of Trent, who, in one of their sessions, have thus concluded: All Lutherans, Calvinists, and such as are of the new religion, shall utterly be rooted out. The beginning shall be in France, by conducting of the catholike king, Philip of Spaine, and by some of the nobilitie of France; which matter (they say) put in execution, the whole power of both, together with the popes armie, and force of the duke of Savoy and Ferrar, shall assault Geneva, and shall not leave it till that they have put it to sacke, saving in it no living creature. And with the same mercie shall so many of France as have tasted of the new religion be served. From thence expedition shall be made against the Germanes, to reduce them to the obedience of the apostolike seate. And so shall they proceed to other realmes and nations, never ceasing till that all be rooted out that will not make homage to that Romane idoll. How fearefull a beginning this conclusion and determination had, France will remember moe ages then one. For how manie, above a hundreth thousand men, women, babes, virgines, matrones, and aged fathers suffered, some by sworde, some by water, some by fire, and other torments, the verie enemies themselves are compelled to acknowledge. And albeit that God of his mercie in part disappoynted their cruell enterprises, yet let us not thinke that their will is changed, or their malice asswaged. No; let us be assured, that they abide but opportunitie to finish the worke that cruellie against God, against his trueth, and the true professors of the same, they have begunne, the whisperings whereof are not secreete, neither yet the tokens obscure. For the traffike of that dragon now with the princes of the earth, his promises and flattering enticements, tende to none other ende, but to inflame them against Jesus Christ, and against the true professours of his gospel. For who can thinke that the pope, cardinals, and horned bishops, will offer the greatest portion of their rents, for sustaining of a warre, whereof no commoditie should redound (as they suppose) to themselves?” Having quoted that part of the decree of the council which relates to the assessment imposed on the clergy, for carrying on this holy war, the compilers of the treatise add: “But let us hear their conclusion: France and Germanie (say they) being by these meanes so chastised, abased, and brought to the obedience of the holy Romane church, the fathers doubt not but time shall provide both counsell and commoditie, that the rest of the realmes about may be reduced to one flocke, and one apostolike governour and pastour.—But some shall say, they are yet far from the end of their purpose, and therefore wee neede not be so fearefull, nor so troubled. We answere, the danger may be nearer than we beleeve, yea, perchance a part of it hath bene nearer to our neckes than we have considered. But how so ever it be, seeing that God of his mercie hath brought foorth to light their cruell and bloodie counsell, in which we neede not to doubt but still they continue, it becummeth us not to be negligent or slouthful.”165

Strong as their apprehensions were, the danger was nearer to them than they imagined. The most zealous and powerful of the protestant nobles being exiled, the queen determined to carry into execution the design of which she had never lost sight; and while she amused the nation with proclamations against altering the received religion, and tantalized the ministers with offers of more adequate support, was preparing for the speedy restoration of the Roman catholic worship. No means were left unattempted for gaining over the nobility to the ancient religion. The king openly professed himself a convert to it, and officiated in some of its most superstitious rites. The earls of Lennox, Cassilis, and Caithness, with lords Montgomery and Seton, followed his example.166 The friars were employed to preach at Holyroodhouse, and, to gain the favour of the people, endeavoured to imitate the popular method of the protestant preachers.167 In the beginning of February 1566, a messenger arrived from the cardinal of Lorrain, with a copy of the catholic league for extirpating the protestants, and instructions to obtain the queen’s subscription to it, and to urge the propriety of adopting the most rigorous measures against the exiled noblemen. Mary scrupled not to set her hand to the league.168 Previous to this, it is said that she was inclined to yield to the intercessions made in behalf of the exiles; but if ever she felt such a disposition, it is certain that, from the arrival of this embassy, the door of mercy was shut. Murray and his associates were immediately summoned to appear before the parliament which was to meet on the twelfth of March. The lords of the Articles were chosen according to the queen’s pleasure; the popish ecclesiastics were restored to their place in parliament; and the altars to be erected in St Giles’s church, for the celebration of the Roman catholic worship, were already prepared.169

But these measures, when ripe for execution, were blasted, in consequence of a secret engagement which the king had entered into with some of the protestant nobles. The first effect produced by this engagement was the well‑known assassination of Rizzio, the unworthy favourite of the queen, who was the principal instigator of the measures against the protestant religion and the banished lords, and had now incurred the jealousy of the king, as well as the contempt of the nobility and the hatred of the people. To have removed this minion from her majesty’s counsels and presence by legitimate means would have been meritorious; but the manner in which it was accomplished was equally inconsistent with law and humanity, and fixes a deep stigma on the characters of those who perpetrated the deed.170

A complete change on the state of the court succeeded this event. The popish counsellors fled from the palace; the exiled lords returned out of England; and the parliament was prorogued, without accomplishing any of the objects for which it had been assembled. But Mary soon persuaded the weak and uxorious king to desert the noblemen whom he had made the instruments of his revenge, to retire with her to Dunbar, and to issue a proclamation, disowning his consent to the late attempt; by which he exposed himself to the contempt of the nation, without regaining her affection. Having collected an army, she returned to Edinburgh, threatening to inflict the most exemplary vengeance on all who had been accessory to the murder of her secretary, and the indignity shown to her person. She found herself, however, unable to resume her former plans; and, while the conspirators against Rizzio were forced to flee to England, the earl of Murray, and the other lords who had opposed her marriage, were allowed to remain in the country, and soon after pardoned.

When the queen returned to Edinburgh, Knox left it, and retired to Kyle. There is no reason to think that he was privy to the conspiracy which proved fatal to Rizzio. But it is probable that he had expressed his satisfaction at an event which contributed to the safety of religion and the commonwealth, if not also his approbation of the object of the conspiracy.171 At any rate, he was sufficiently obnoxious to the queen on other grounds; and as her resentment, on the present occasion, was exceedingly inflamed, it was deemed prudent for him to withdraw.172

Having, at last, “got quit” of one who had so long been troublesome to her, Mary was determined to prevent his return to the capital. The town‑council and inhabitants, who had formerly refused to acquiesce in his suspension from preaching for a short time, exerted themselves to obtain his restoration; and powerful intercession was made in his behalf by many of the nobility and gentry. But the queen was deaf to all entreaties. She was even unwilling that he should find a refuge within the kingdom, and wrote to a nobleman in the west country, with whom he resided, to banish him from his house.173 It does not appear that he returned to Edinburgh, or, at least, that he resumed his ministry in it, until the queen was deprived of the government.

Being banished from his flock, he judged this a favourable opportunity for paying a visit to England. Parental affection increased the desire which he had long felt to accomplish this journey. His two sons had been lately sent by him into that kingdom, to reside with some of their mother’s relations, and to obtain their education in the English seminaries. Having procured the safe conduct of Elizabeth, he applied to the General Assembly, which met in December 1566, for their permission to remove. This was readily granted by them, upon condition of his returning against the time of their next meeting in June. The Assembly likewise gave him a most ample and honourable testimonial, in which they describe him as “a true and faithfull minister, in doctrine pure and sincere, in life and conversation in our sight inculpable,” and one who “has so fruitfully used that talent granted to him by the Eternal, to the advancement of the glory of his godly name, to the propagation of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and edifying of them who heard his preaching, that of duty we must heartily praise His godly name, for that so great a benefit granted unto him for our utility and profit.”174

Knox was charged with a letter from the General Assembly to the bishops and ministers of England, interceding for lenity to such of their brethren as scrupled to use the sacerdotal dress enjoined by the laws. The controversy on that subject was at this time carried on with great heat among the English clergy. It is not improbable, that the Assembly interfered in this business at the desire of Knox, to whom the composition of the letter was committed.175 He could not have forgotten the trouble which he had himself suffered on a similar ground, and he had a high regard for many of the scruplers. This interposition did not procure them any relief. Though the superior clergy had been more zealous to obtain it than they were, Elizabeth was inflexible, and would listen neither to the supplications of her bishops, nor to the advice of her counsellors. Knox’s good opinion of the English queen does not seem to have been improved by this visit.176

He performed one important piece of public service before undertaking this journey to England. On the 23d of December, the queen granted a commission, under the privy seal, to the archbishop of St Andrews, restoring him to his ancient jurisdiction, which had been abolished in 1560, by act of parliament.177 This step was taken, partly to prepare for the restoration of the popish religion, and partly to facilitate another dark design which was soon after disclosed. The protestants could not fail to be both alarmed and enraged at this daring measure. Moved by his own zeal no less than by the advice of his brethren, the Reformer addressed a circular letter to the principal protestants in the kingdom, requesting their immediate advice on the measures most proper to be adopted on this occasion, and enclosing a copy of a proposed supplication to the queen. This letter discovers all the ardour of the writer’s spirit, called forth by such an alarming occurrence. After mentioning the late acts for the provision of the ministry,178 by which the queen attempted to blind them, he says, “How that any such assignation, or any promise made thereof, can stand in any stable assurance, when that Roman antichrist, by just laws once banished from this realm, shall be intrusted above us, we can no ways understand. Yea, farther, we cannot see what assurance can any within this realm, that hath professed the Lord Jesus, have of life, or inheritance, if the head of that odious beast be cured among us. As from the beginning we have neither spared substance nor life, so mind we not to faint unto the end, to maintain the same, so long as we can find the concurrence of brethren; of whom (as God forbid) if we be destitute, yet we are determined never to be subject to the Roman antichrist, neither yet to his usurped tyranny; but when we can do no farther to suppress that odious beast, we mind to seal it with our blood to our posterity, that the bright knowledge of Jesus Christ hath banished that Man of Sin, and his venomous doctrine, from our hearts and consciences. Let this our letter and request bear witness before God, before his church, before the world, and before your own consciences.”179 The supplication of the General Assembly to the lords of the privy council, on the same subject, also bears marks of the Reformer’s pen.180

During the time that Knox was in England, that tragedy, so well known in Scottish history, was acted, which led to a complete revolution in the government of the kingdom, and, contrary to the designs of the principal actors, threw the power wholly into the hands of the protestants. Mary’s affection for her husband, which had cooled soon after their marriage, was, from the time of Rizzio’s assassination, converted into a fixed hatred, which she was at little pains to conceal. The birth of an heir to the crown produced no reconciliation between the royal parents; the king was not allowed to be present at the baptism of his own son, and was treated with such marked disrespect, even by the servants, that he abandoned the court, and shut himself up in his father’s house. In proportion as the queen’s mind was alienated from her husband, the unprincipled earl of Bothwell grew in her favour. He engrossed the whole management of public affairs, was loaded with honours, and treated by her majesty with every mark of personal regard and affection. In these circumstances, the neglected, unhappy king, was decoyed to Edinburgh, lodged in a solitary dwelling at the extremity of the city, and murdered on the morning of the 10th of February, 1567; the house in which he lay being blown up with gunpowder.

It would be unsuitable to the nature of the present work to enter into the controversy respecting the authors of this murder, which has been agitated with uncommon keenness from that day to the present time. The accusation of the earl of Murray as a party to the deed, is destitute of all proof, and utterly incredible. It was at first circulated with the evident design of turning away the public mind from the real perpetrators; it was insinuated, and afterwards directly brought forward, in the conferences at York and Westminster, as a retaliation upon him for the charge which he exhibited against the queen; and it is now kept up only by the most blind and bigoted of her partisans. That Bothwell was the prime contriver and agent in the murder, cannot admit of a doubt with any impartial and judicious enquirer. And that Mary was privy to the design, and accessory to its execution by permission and approbation, there is, I think, all the evidence, moral and legal, which could reasonably be expected in a case of this kind. The whole of her behaviour towards the king, from the time that she brought him from Glasgow till she left him on the fatal night; the remissness which she discovered in enquiring into the murder; the shameful manner in which she suffered the farce of Bothwell’s trial to be conducted; the glaring act (which struck the whole of Europe, and even her own friends, with horror) of taking to her bed, with indecent haste, the man who was stigmatized as the murderer of her husband; and the manner in which she refused to defend herself, and broke off the conference to which she had agreed, as soon as the charge of accession to the murder was brought against her,—afford the strongest presumptions of her guilt; and, when taken in connexion with the direct evidence arising from letters and depositions, would have been sufficient long ago to shut the mouths of any but the defenders of Mary queen of Scots.181

Knox was absent from Edinburgh at the time of the queen’s marriage with Bothwell; but his colleague ably supported the honour of his place and order on that occasion, when the whole nobility of Scotland preserved a passive and disgraceful silence. Being required by both the parties to publish the banns, Craig reluctantly complied, after taking the advice of his session; but, at the same time, he protested from the pulpit, on three several days, and took heaven and earth to witness, that he abhorred and detested the intended marriage as unlawful and scandalous, and solemnly charged the nobility to use their influence to prevent the queen from taking a step, which would inevitably cover her with infamy, and involve her in ruin. Being called before the council, and accused of having exceeded the bounds of his commission, he boldly replied, that the bounds of his commission were the word of God, good laws, and natural reason, to all of which the proposed marriage was contrary. And Bothwell being present, he charged him with the crime of adultery, the precipitancy with which the process of divorce had been carried through, and the suspicions entertained of collusion between him and his wife, of his having murdered the king, and ravished the queen, all of which would be confirmed if they carried their purpose into execution.182

The events which followed in rapid succession upon this infamous marriage—the confederation of the nobility for revenging the king’s death, and preserving the person of the infant prince; the flight of Bothwell; the surrender and imprisonment of Mary; her resignation of the government; the coronation of her son; and the appointment of the earl of Murray as regent during his minority, are all well known to the readers of Scottish history.

Knox seems to have returned to his charge at the time that the queen fled with Bothwell to Dunbar. He was present in the General Assembly which met at Edinburgh on the 25th of June, and was delegated by them to go to the west country, and endeavour to persuade the Hamiltons, and others who stood aloof from the confederated lords, to join with them in settling the distracted affairs of the country, and to attend a general convention of the delegates of the churches, to be held on the 20th of July following.183 In this negotiation he was unsuccessful. But the convention was held, and the nobles, barons, and commissioners of boroughs, who were present, subscribed a number of important articles, with reference to religion and the state of the nation.184

On the 29th of July, 1567, the Reformer preached the sermon at the coronation of James VI., in the parish church of Stirling.185 He objected to the ceremony of unction, as a Jewish rite abused under the papacy; but it was deemed inexpedient, on the present occasion, to depart from the accustomed ceremonial. It was therefore performed by the bishop of Orkney; the superintendents of Lothian and Angus assisting him to place the crown on the king’s head.186 After the coronation, Knox, along with some others, took instruments, and craved extracts of the proceedings.187

When the queen was confined by the lords in the castle of Lochleven, they had not resolved in what manner they should dispose of her person for the future. Some proposed that she should be allowed to leave the kingdom; some that she should be imprisoned during life; while others insisted that she ought to be capitally arraigned. Of this last opinion was Knox, with almost all the ministers, and the great body of the people. The chief ground upon which they insisted for this, was not her maladministration in the government, or the mere safety and peace of the commonwealth; which were the reasons upon which the parliament of England, in the following century, proceeded to the execution of her grandson. But they founded their opinion upon the personal crimes with which Mary was charged. Murder and adultery, they reasoned, were crimes to which the punishment of death was allotted by the law of God and of nations. From this penalty persons of no rank could plead exception. The ordinary forms of judicial procedure made no provision for the trial of a supreme magistrate, because the laws did not suppose that such enormous crimes could be committed by him; but extraordinary cases required extraordinary remedies, and new offences gave birth to new laws. There are examples in Scripture of the capital punishment of princes, nor are precedents of it wanting in the history of Scotland.188

Upon these grounds, Knox scrupled not publicly to maintain, that the estates of the kingdom ought to bring Mary to a trial; and, if she was found guilty of the murder of her husband, and an adulterous connexion with Bothwell, that she ought to be put to death. Throkmorton, the English ambassador, held a conference with him, with the view of mitigating the rigour of this judgment; but though he acquiesced in the resolution adopted by the nobility to detain her in prison, he retained his own sentiments, and, after the civil war was kindled by her escape from confinement, repeatedly said, that he considered the nation as suffering for their criminal lenity.189

Though the earl of Murray, after his return from banishment, had been pardoned, and re‑admitted to his place in the privy council, he did not regain the confidence of her majesty. Perceiving the ruinous tendency of the course on which she was bent, and despairing of being able to prevent it by his advice, he declined taking any active part in the management of public affairs, and appeared very seldom at court. Soon after the king was murdered, he obtained liberty to leave the kingdom, and retired to France, where he remained till recalled by a message from the confederated lords, after Mary had subscribed the instruments by which she resigned the crown, and appointed him regent during the minority of her son. Having arrived in Scotland, he was formally invested with the regency, on the 22d of August, 1567. No sooner was he confirmed in the government, than he exerted himself with great zeal and prudence to secure the peace of the kingdom, and settle the affairs of the church. A parliament being summoned to meet in the middle of December, he, with the advice of the privy council, previously nominated certain barons, and commissioners of boroughs, to consult upon and digest such overtures as were proper to be laid before that assembly. With these he joined Knox, and four other ministers, to assist in matters which related to the church. This committee met in the beginning of December, and sat until the opening of the parliament. The record of their proceedings, both as to civil and ecclesiastical affairs, has been preserved; and, as many of their propositions were not adopted by the parliament, it is valuable as a declaration of the sentiments of a number of the most able men in the kingdom.190

On the 15th of December, Knox preached at the opening of the parliament, and exhorted them to begin with the affairs of religion, in which case they would find better success in their other business. The parliament ratified all the acts which had been passed in 1560, in favour of the protestant religion and against popery. New statutes of a similar kind were added. It was provided, that no prince should afterwards be admitted to the exercise of authority in the kingdom, without taking an oath to maintain the protestant religion; and that none but protestants should be admitted to any office, with the exception of those that were hereditary or held for life. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction, exercised by the assemblies of the church, was formally ratified, and commissioners appointed to define more exactly the causes which came within the sphere of their judgment. The thirds of benefices were appointed to be paid at first hand to collectors nominated by the church, who, after paying the stipends of the ministers, were to account to the exchequer for the surplus. And the funds of provostries, prebendaries, and chaplainries were appropriated to maintain bursars in colleges.191

In the act ratifying the jurisdiction of the church, Knox was appointed one of the commissioners for drawing out the particular points which pertained to ecclesiastical judgment, to be presented to next meeting of parliament. The General Assembly, which met about the same time, gave him a commission, along with some others, to act for them in this matter, and, in general, to consult with the regent and council on such ecclesiastical questions as might occur after their dissolution. He was also appointed to assist the superintendent of Lothian in his visitation, and afterward to visit the churches in Kyle, Carrick, and Cunningham.192

During the regency of Murray there were no jars between the church and the court, nor any of those unpleasant complaints which had been made at every meeting of the General Assembly before that period, and which were renewed under the succeeding regents.193 All the grievances of which they complained were not, indeed, redressed; and the provision made by law was still inadequate for the support of such an ecclesiastical establishment as the nation required, including the seminaries of education. But the regent not only received the addresses of the general assemblies in a “manner very different from that to which they had been accustomed;” but showed a disposition to grant their petitions, whenever it was in his power. It was chiefly through his influence that the favourable arrangement concerning the thirds of benefices was made; and he endeavoured, though unsuccessfully, to obtain the consent of parliament to the dissolution of the prelacies, and the appropriation of their revenues to the common fund of the church.194

Our Reformer had now reached that point from which he could take a calm and deliberate view of the bustling scene through which he had passed, and of the arduous struggle which he had been so long engaged in, and had at length brought to a happy termination. Papal superstition and tyranny were suppressed and abolished by law; the protestant religion was established; the supreme government of the nation was in the hands of one in whose wisdom and integrity he had the greatest confidence; the church was freed from many of those grievances under which she had hitherto groaned, and enjoyed the prospect of obtaining the redress of such as still remained. The work on which his heart had been so ardently set for such a long period, and for the success of which he had so often trembled, had prospered beyond his utmost expectation. He now congratulated himself on the prospect of being released from all burden of public affairs, and of spending the remainder of his days in religious meditations, and in preparation for that event of whose near approach he was daily admonished by the increasing infirmities of his body.195 He even secretly cherished the wish of resigning his charge in Edinburgh, and of retiring to that privacy, from which he had been drawn at the commencement of the Scottish Reformation. Speaking of the congregation of which he had been pastor at Geneva, he says, in one of his confidential letters, “God comfort that dispersed little flock, among whom I lived with quietness of conscience and contentment of heart; and amongst whom I would be content to end my days, if so it might stand with God’s good pleasure. For, seeing it hath pleased his majesty, above all men’s expectations, to prosper the work for the performing whereof I left that company, I would even as gladly return to them, if they stood in need of my labours, as ever I was glad to be delivered from the rage of mine enemies. I can give you no reason that I should so desire, other than that my heart so thirsteth.”196

But “the way of man is not in himself.” Providence had allotted him farther trials of a public nature: he was yet to see the security of the reformed religion endangered, and the country involved in another civil war, even more distressing than the former, inasmuch as the principal persons on both sides were professed protestants.

From the time that the queen was imprisoned, and the government transferred to the young prince under the regency of Murray, a considerable number of the nobility had withheld their approbation of these proceedings. The popish party were decidedly attached to Mary, and inimical to a revolution, which crushed the hopes which they had all along cherished of accomplishing the restoration of the ancient religion. Others, though professed protestants, were induced by various motives to oppose the new government. Argyle was at this time alienated from Murray by a family quarrel.197 The house of Hamilton followed that line of narrow and interested policy which they had adopted on former occasions of a similar kind. They were jealous lest the late settlement of the crown should invalidate the right of their chief, the duke of Chastelherault, to the succession; and they were offended that the regency, which they considered as due to him, should have been conferred on Murray.198 No governor can gratify the expectations of all; and some of those who were early friends of the regent, or had contributed to his advancement, thought that they were not sufficiently rewarded. The very means which he found it necessary to employ, to restore tranquillity and order to the kingdom, created him enemies. During the late confusions, many parts of the country had fallen into a state of anarchy; and the northern counties and the borders presented nothing but scenes of rapine and bloodshed. It was impossible to repress these disorders without making severe examples of the most guilty; and the turbulent and licentious naturally sought the overthrow of a government by which they felt themselves overawed and restrained.199 But the abilities of the regent enabled him to overcome these difficulties; and he was daily receiving submissions from the most powerful of the opposite party, when, on the 2d of May, 1568, the queen escaped from her confinement in Lochleven. The discontented nobles immediately joined her standard, and, having mustered a large force, avowed their determination to restore her to the exercise of that authority which she had renounced by constraint. This formidable insurrection was defeated by the promptitude of the regent; and, in consequence of the battle of Langside, Mary was driven into England, and her party broken. Elizabeth having procured herself to be chosen umpire between the two parties, the conferences were protracted during so long a period, and the conduct of the English court was so equivocal and contradictory, that the friends of Mary were encouraged to renew their attempts to restore her by force of arms. But although the duke of Chastelherault returned from France with a large sum of money contributed by the popish princes, and came into Scotland in the character of lieutenant of the queen,200 the regent, by his vigilance, and his vigorous measures, prevented any insurrection, and preserved the kingdom in obedience to the young king’s authority.

Despairing to accomplish their darling object during his life, the partisans of Mary resolved to cut off Murray by private means. During the year 1568, two persons were employed to assassinate him; but the design was discovered and prevented.201 This did not hinder new machinations. Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, a nephew of the archbishop of St Andrews, undertook to perpetrate the deed. He was one of the prisoners taken at the battle of Langside; but, after being arraigned, condemned, and brought out to execution, he had his life given him by the regent, and was soon after set at liberty along with the other prisoners.202 It is said that he was actuated by revenge, on account of an injury which he had received, by detaining one of his forfeited estates, or by the cruel manner in which his wife had been dispossessed of it.203 Whether this was really the case, or whether it was afterwards alleged to diminish the odium of his crime, and turn it away from his party, cannot perhaps be now certainly determined. But it does not appear, that any part of the regent’s conduct towards him was such as to afford the slightest alleviation of a crime, in the commission of which he burst the ties of gratitude, as well as of humanity and justice. On the other hand, there is ample proof that he was incited to make the attempt by the political party with which he was connected.204 Having formed his resolution, he deliberately followed the regent in his progress to Glasgow, Stirling, and Linlithgow; and, finding an opportunity in the last of these places, shot him through the body with a musket‑ball. The wound proved mortal, and the regent died the same evening. While some of his friends, who stood round his bed, lamented the excessive lenity which he had shown to his enemies, and particularly to his murderer, he replied, with a noble and christian spirit, that nothing would ever make him repent of an act of clemency.205

The consternation which is usually produced by the fall of a distinguished leader, was absorbed in the deep distress which the tidings of the regent’s murder spread through the nation. The common people, who had experienced the beneficial effects of his short administration, to a degree altogether unprecedented in the country, felt as if each had lost a father, and loudly demanded vengeance upon the authors of the parricide. Many who had envied or hated him during his life, were now forward to do justice to his virtues. Those who had not been able to conceal their satisfaction on the first intelligence of his death, became ashamed of the indecent exultation which they had so imprudently expressed. The Hamiltons were anxious to clear themselves from the imputation of a crime which they saw to be universally detested. They dismissed the murderer, who was glad to escape from ignominy by condemning himself to perpetual banishment. The only one of his crimes for which the archbishop of St Andrews afterwards expressed contrition before his execution, was his accession to the murder of the regent.206 Nor were these feelings confined to Scotland; the sensation was general through England, and the expressions of grief and condolence from that country evinced the uncommon esteem in which he was held by all ranks.

It was the happiness of the regent, that, in his youth, he fell into the company of men, who cultivated his vigorous understanding, gave a proper direction to his activity, and instilled into his mind the principles of religion and virtue. His early adoption of the reformed sentiments, the steadiness with which he adhered to them, the uniform correctness of his morals, his integrity, sagacity, and enterprising but cool courage, soon placed him in the first rank among those who embarked in the struggle for the reformation of religion, and the maintenance of national liberties, and secured to him their cordial and unbounded confidence. The honours which Mary conferred on him were not too great for the services which he performed; and had she continued to act by his advice, those measures would have been avoided which brought on her ruin. He was repeatedly placed in a situation which would have tempted the ambition of persons possessed of far inferior abilities; yet he showed no disposition to grasp at the supreme authority. When he accepted the regency, it was in compliance with the decided and uncorrupted choice of the acting majority in the kingdom, pointing him out as the fittest person for occupying that high station; and his conduct, in one of the most delicate and embarrassing situations in which a governor was ever placed, showed that his countrymen were not mistaken in their choice. He united, in no ordinary degree, those qualities, which are rarely combined in the same individual, and which form the character of an accomplished prince. Excelling equally in the arts of war and peace, he reduced the country to obedience by his military skill and valour, and preserved it in a state of tranquillity and order by the wise and impartial administration of justice. Successful in all his warlike enterprises, he never once tarnished the laurels of victory by cruelty or unnecessary rigour to the vanquished. He knew how to maintain the authority of the laws, and to bridle the licentious, by salutary severity, and at the same time to temper the rigour of justice by the interposition of mercy. He used to sit personally in the courts of judicature, and exerted himself to obtain for all the subjects an easy and expeditious decision of litigated causes. His hospitality, his unostentatious charity, his uncommon liberality to the learned, and the anxiety he showed to confer his favours in the manner least calculated to hurt their feelings, have been celebrated by one who had the best opportunities of becoming acquainted with these amiable traits of his character.207 Nor has the breath of calumny, which has attempted in many ways to blast his reputation, ever insinuated that he oppressed or burdened the public, during his regency, in order to enrich himself or his family. Add to all these qualities, his exemplary piety, the only source of genuine and exalted virtue. His family was so regulated as to resemble a church rather than a court. Not a profane or lewd word was to be heard from any of his domestics. A chapter of the bible was always read at table after dinner and supper; and it was his custom, on such occasions, to require his chaplain, or some learned man present, to give his opinion upon the passage, for his own instruction and that of his family. “A man truly good,” says archbishop Spotswood, “and worthy to be ranked among the best governors that this kingdom hath enjoyed, and, therefore, to this day honoured with the title of The Good Regent.”208

This may perhaps be deemed, by some readers, an improper digression. But though it had been less connected with the subject of this work than it is, and though the familiarity and co‑operation between the regent and the Reformer had been less intimate and cordial than they really were, I could not have denied myself the satisfaction of paying a small tribute to the memory of one of the greatest men of his age, who has been traduced and vilified in a most unjustifiable manner, and whose character has been drawn with unfavourable, and, in my opinion, with unfair colours, by the most moderate and impartial of our historians. All that I have attempted, is to sketch the more prominent features of his character. That he was faultless, I am far from wishing to insinuate; but the principal charges which have been brought against him, I consider as either irrelevant, or unproved, or greatly exaggerated. That his exaltation to the highest dignity in the state which a subject could enjoy, produced no unfavourable change on his temper and behaviour, is what none can be prepared to affirm; but I have not seen the contrary established. The confidence which he reposed in his friends was great, and he was inclined to pay much deference to their advice; but that he became the dupe of worthless favourites, and fell by listening to their flattery, and refusing to hearken to wholesome advice, and not by the treachery of his friends and the malice of his enemies, are assertions which have been repeated upon the authority of a single witness, unsupported by facts, and capable of being disproved.209

The regent died on the evening of Saturday, the 23d of January, 1570; and the intelligence of his murder was conveyed early next morning to Edinburgh. It is impossible to describe the anguish which the Reformer felt on this occasion. The loss of a noble and endeared friend was the least evil which he had to deplore. Of all the Scottish nobility, he placed the greatest confidence in Murray’s attachment to religion; and his conduct after his elevation to the regency, had served to heighten the good opinion which he formerly entertained of him. He looked upon his death as the greatest calamity which could befall the nation, and as a forerunner of many evils.210 When the shock produced by the melancholy tidings had subsided, the first thought that rushed into his mind was, that he had himself been the instrument of obtaining, from his clemency, a pardon to the man who had become his murderer; a thought which naturally produced a very different impression on him from what it did on the mind of the dying regent.211

In his sermon that day, he introduced the melancholy subject; and after saying, that God in his great mercy raised up pious rulers, and took them away in his displeasure, on account of the sins of a nation, he thus poured out the sorrows of his heart: “O Lord, in what misery and confusion found he this realm! To what rest and quietness now by his labours, suddenly he brought the same, all estates, but especially the poor commons, can witness. Thy image, O Lord, did so clearly shine in that personage, that the devil, and the people to whom he is prince, could not abide it; and so to punish our sins and our ingratitude, (who did not rightly esteem so precious a gift,) thou hast permitted him to fall, to our great grief, in the hands of cruel and traitorous murderers. He is at rest, O Lord; we are left in extreme misery.”212

Only a few days before this, and after the plan of the murder was fully concerted, Gavin Hamilton, abbot of Kilwinning, applied to Knox to intercede with the regent in behalf of some of his kinsmen, who were confined for practising against the government. He signified his readiness to do all in his power for the relief of any of that family who were willing to own the authority of the king, but entreated the abbot not to abuse him by employing his services, if his relations intended to do any mischief to the regent;213 for “I protest,” said he, “before God, who is the only witness now betwixt us, that if there be any thing attempted, by any of that surname, against the person of that man, in that case I discharge myself to you and them for ever.” After the assassination, the abbot sent to desire another interview; but Knox refused to see him, and desired the messenger to say, “I have not now the regent to make suit unto for the Hamiltons.”214

At this time there was handed about a fabricated account of a pretended conference held by the late regent with lord Lindsay, Wishart of Pittarrow, the tutor of Pitcur, James Macgill, and Knox; in which they were represented as advising him to set aside the young king, and place the crown on his own head. To give it the greater air of credibility, the modes of expression peculiar to each of the persons were carefully imitated in the speeches put into their mouths. The evident design of circulating it at this time, was to lessen the odium of the murder, and the veneration of the people for the memory of Murray; but it was universally regarded as an impudent and gross forgery. The person who fabricated it was Thomas Maitland, a young man of talents, but corrupted by his brother, the secretary, who had previously engaged himself to the queen’s party, and was suspected of having had a deep hand in the plot for assassinating the regent.215

On the day on which the weekly conference was held in Edinburgh, the same person slipped into the pulpit a schedule, containing words to this effect: “Take up now the man whom you accounted another God, and consider the end to which his ambition hath brought him.” It was Knox’s turn to preach that day. On entering the pulpit he took up the paper, supposing it to be a note requesting the prayers of the congregation for a sick person, and having read it, laid it aside without any apparent emotion. But towards the conclusion of his sermon, after deploring the loss which the church and commonwealth had recently sustained, and declaring the account of the conference, which had been circulated, to be false and calumnious, he said that there were persons who rejoiced at the treasonable murder, and scrupled not to make it the subject of their merriment; and particularly, there was one present who had thrown into the pulpit a paper exulting over an event which was the cause of grief to all good men: “that wicked man, whosoever he be, shall not go unpunished, and shall die where there shall be none to lament him.” Maitland, after he went home, said to his sister, that the preacher was raving, when he spake in such a manner of a person who was unknown to him; but she, suspecting that her brother had written the line, reproved him, saying with tears, that none of that man’s denunciations were wont to prove idle. Spotswood (who had his information personally from the mouth of that lady) says, that Maitland died in Italy, “having no known person to attend him.”216

On Tuesday the 14th of February, the regent’s corpse was brought from the palace of Holyroodhouse, and interred in the south aisle of the collegiate church of St Giles. Before the funeral, Knox preached a sermon on these words, “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord.” Three thousand persons were dissolved in tears before him, while he described the virtues of the regent, and bewailed his loss.217 Buchanan paid a tribute to the memory of his deceased patron, by writing the inscription placed on his monument, with that expressive simplicity and brevity which are dictated by genuine grief.218 A convention of the nobility was held after the funeral, at which it was resolved to avenge his death; but different opinions were entertained as to the mode of doing this, and the commons complained loudly of the remissness with which the resolution was prosecuted. The General Assembly, at their first meeting, testified their detestation of the crime, by ordering the assassin to be publicly excommunicated in all the chief towns of the kingdom, and by appointing the same process to be used against all who should afterwards be convicted of accession to the murder.219

During the sitting of the convention, Knox received a number of letters from his acquaintances in England, expressive of their high regard for the character of the regent, and their sorrow at so grievous a loss.220 One of these was from Christopher Goodman, and another from John Willock, who either had not complied with the invitation of the General Assembly, or had again returned to England.221 The other letters were from Englishmen, who had no immediate connexion with Scotland. Dr Laurence Humphrey222 urged Knox to write a memoir of the deceased. Had he done this, his intimate acquaintance with the regent would, no doubt, have enabled him to communicate many particulars of which we must now be content to remain ignorant; but though he had been disposed to undertake this task, the state of his health would have prevented its execution.

The grief which he indulged on account of this mournful event, and the confusions which followed it, preyed upon his spirits, and injured his health.223 In the month of October, he had a stroke of apoplexy, which affected his speech to a considerable degree. On this occasion, his enemies exulted, and circulated the most exaggerated tales respecting his disorder. The report ran through Scotland and England, that John Knox would never preach or speak more,—that his face was turned into his neck,—that he was become the most deformed creature ever seen,—that he was actually dead.224 A most unequivocal proof of the high consideration in which he was held, which our Reformer received in common with other great men of his age!225