Chapter XIV

History of the Reformation to the Overthrow of the Roman Catholic Church.

THE sixteen conspirators who had seized the Castle of St. Andrews were soon joined by about one hundred and forty of their adherents, who formed a garrison and defied all the force at the disposal of the Regent. The Cardinal at the time of his death held the Regent’s son James, Lord Hamilton, afterwards third Earl of Arran, as a hostage. He was retained by the conspirators as a pledge for their own advantage; as the Government were afraid he would be delivered to the English. John Rough, a reformed preacher, entered the castle soon after the Cardinal’s death, and began to preach to the garrison. The Regent besieged the castle from the end of August to December without success. In April 1547, John Knox had become wearied by wandering from place to place to avoid persecution, and he felt inclined to visit the schools of Germany; but having the charge of some gentlemen’s sons, he entered the Castle of St. Andrews. During the intervals of the siege a Protestant congregation had been formed in the town, and about the end of May, Knox consented to assume the functions of their minister. Rough had been unable to match the debating powers of John Annand, the principal of St. Leonard’s College, and a firm adherent of Catholicism; but Knox, according to his own narrative, refuted all the arguments of the principal, and compelled him to retire behind the authority of the Church, which had already condemned Lutherism and all other heresies. After worsting the principal, Knox on the following Sunday preached his first public sermon in the parish church of St. Andrews, where were present John Mair, Winram, the sub-prior, many of the canons, and some of the friars. In this sermon he showed to his own satisfaction that the Roman Church was the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, and so on. A discussion then ensued between Knox on the one side, and Winram and a friar on the other; but neither party was convinced by the arguments of the other. The Catholic clergy themselves then began to preach regularly in the parish church every Sunday. Knox continued his sermons on the week days, and the numbers of those who embraced the reformed opinions increased. However, this episode in the history of the Reformation was abruptly terminated.¹

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 181‒202; Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 26, 31, 33, 38, 39, 44, 47, 58; State Papers, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 563‒564; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 478, 479.

Meanwhile, however, the new opinions were spreading. In the month of June 1546, the Council issued a proclamation warning all persons not to pillage or destroy monastic and church buildings. It stated that​—“In these troublous times it is dreaded and feared that evil disposed persons will invade, destroy, cast down, and withhold abbeys, abbey places, parish kirks, friars’ houses, nunneries, chapels, and other spiritual men’s houses, against the law of God and man, and contrary to the liberty and freedom of the holy Church and acts of parliament made and observed in all bygone times.... All and sundry were charged that none of them take upon hand any of these kirks, religious places, or houses, or to withhold, intermot, or take the same at their own hand by way of deed hereafter, or to spoil the jewels and ornament of the church ordained for God’s service and dedicated to it, under the penalty of forfeiture of life, lands, and goods.”¹ The bishops and the priests were enraged at the proceedings in St. Andrews, and they ran to the Regent, to the Queen, and the whole Council, with their complaints, crying​—“What are we doing? Shall we suffer this whole realm to be infected with pernicious doctrine? Fy upon you, and upon us!”² The Queen and the French ambassador then comforted them with the assurance that matters would ere long be remedied. On the 19th of March 1547, the bishops and clergy assembled at Edinburgh, and presented to the Regent and Council a supplication, calling on them to enforce the laws against the followers of the pestilent heresies of Luther, which had not only spread in several quarters of the kingdom, but also in the Court, and the Regent’s presence, and was sometimes preached openly; and it would daily increase unless the arm of the civil power assisted the spiritual authority to arrest its progress. The Regent and the Council acceded to their request, and desired to be furnished with the names of the heretics and the teachers of heresy; “and his Grace and the temporal lords shall take them and cause the laws of the realm to be executed against them, ay, as he is required thereto, according to the laws of holy Church, and ordained this deliverance to be inserted in the books of the Council.”³

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 28‒29.

² Knox, Volume I., pages 202‒203.

³ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., page 61, 63‒64.

But the resources at the command of the Regent were not sufficient to reduce the Castle of St. Andrews, and there the heretics were practising their own forms of religion. In the end of the month of June 1547, however, a French force arrived in Scotland, and attacked the castle by sea and land. After the guns were put into position, and the batteries opened fire, the bold defenders of the castle were soon brought to submission. The garrison had imagined that they would obtain more favourable terms from the French commander and the King of France than from the Regent Arran and the Council, and surrendered themselves to the French commander.¹ But they were conveyed to France and treated as criminals. They arrived at Fecamp, a seaport about midway between Dieppe and Havre, then passed up the Seine and anchored before Rouen; and the chief gentlemen who had expected to be liberated were put into various prisons; while the rest were left in the galleys and hardly treated, among whom were James Balfour, and his two brothers, and John Knox. The Catholics both of Scotland and France rejoiced greatly at the fate of the heretics and the enemies of the late Cardinal. Knox, along with his fellow-prisoners, had to work on the galleys chained as a slave. After an imprisonment of eighteen months he obtained his liberty in 1549, upon the intercession, it was supposed, of the English Government. Knox came to England, and soon after he was appointed to preach in Berwick; but in 1550 he was removed to Newcastle, where he continued his labours. In 1551, he was appointed one of King Edward’s chaplains, and he remained in England till after the death of Edward VI. Knox left England in the beginning of March, 1554, and passed to Geneva to pursue his private studies. Soon after he was called to be minister to the English exiles in Frankfort, entering on his duties there in November 1554. But disputes arising in the congregation regarding the Book of Common Prayer, and other ceremonies, he relinquished his charge, and in March 1555, returned to Geneva.²

¹ Diurnal of Occurrents, page 44; Buchanan, Book XV.; Knox, Volume I., pages 203‒206.

² Knox, Volume I., pages 206, 225‒232; Volume III., pages 156, 215, 380. Lesly’s History Of Scotland, page 195.

On the 28th of January, 1547, Henry VIII. died, but the policy of aggression towards Scotland was continued. The Duke of Somerset, the new Governor, invaded the kingdom with a strong army and a naval force; and on the 10th of September, 1547, the Scots risked a battle, but were completely defeated. Many of the Scots were slain, while others were taken prisoners in the flight. This disastrous defeat became known in history as the Battle of Pinkie; subsequently the Scots were reduced to great extremities. The English and Scots became much exasperated; the war assumed a fierce and ruthless character, and acts of shocking cruelty were frequently perpetrated. In 1548 a French army of seven thousand men arrived to assist the Scots; while the same year the young Queen was sent to France, and thus one cause of the war was removed. After many severe struggles, the French and the Scots drove the English out of the castles and recovered the southern districts of the kingdom. Peace was at length concluded in April 1550.

When the pressure of external enemies was removed the nation breathed more freely. But the internal political and religious conflict proceeded; and, as the contest between the old and the new religious views became closer and clearer, and the shadow of the revolution was more distinctly seen approaching, the Church and the Government acutely felt the gravity of the issues involved. When the heretics were few in number burning might have kept them down or caused them to hide their faces; but it was now perceived that if heresy was to be extinguished, other means would have to be employed. The whole body of the clergy, from the primate to the humblest monk and friar, must then betake themselves to the proper functions of their calling, and discharge their varied duties honestly and faithfully. Within the ten years immediately preceding the Reformation there were four provincial councils of the Church held in Scotland; and they enacted and adopted one hundred and thirty-one canons, the greater part of which were directed against the immoral lives of the clergy, their ignorance, and the neglect of their essential duties.¹ The provincial council of 1549 ordered a strict search to be made for heresy and heretical books, especially poems and ballads; and to make the inquest effective the inquisitors were supplied with a schedule of the chief points of heresy. Thus the chief points of heresy enumerated in the canons were​—“Speaking against the rites and sacraments of the Church, especially the sacrifice of the mass, the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, and penance; contempt of the censures of the Church; denial of the reign of the souls of saints with Christ in glory; denial of the immortality of the soul; denial of purgatory; denial of prayer and intercession of the saints; denial of the lawfulness of images in Christian churches; denial of recompense for works of faith and charity; denial of the authority of general councils in controversies of faith; neglect of the fasts and festivals of the Church. Heretical books, especially poems and ballads against the Church or clergy, were to be diligently sought after and burned.”

¹ See under pages 40‒43. Also Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume II., pages 81‒176. A number of the canons enacted in the provincial council of 1549 were adopted from the decrees of the Council of Trent passed in June, 1546, and March, 1547; Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume I., page 150.

The part which the popular poems and ballads played in the Reformation struggle will be illustrated in the chapter on the literature of the period. One of the canons of the Provincial Council of 1552 stated that​—“Even in the most populous parishes very few of the parishioners came to mass or to sermon, that in the time of service jesting and irreverence go on within the church, sports and secular business in the porch and the churchyard. It therefore enacted that the name of every person wilfully absenting himself from his parish church, shall be taken down by the curate and reported to the Rural Dean, and that all traffic in church porches, in churchyards, or in the immediate neighbourhood, shall be forbidden on Sundays and other holidays during divine worship.”

It was in the Provincial Council of 1552 that the publication of the Catechism was sanctioned. At that time it was openly confessed that​—“The inferior clergy and the prelates for the most part are not in the meanwhile sufficiently learned to instruct the people rightly in the Catholic faith, in things necessary to salvation, or to reclaim them from the path of error.... This work, since commonly known as Archbishop Hamilton’s Catechism, was to be read to the people in church, before high mass, when there was no sermon, as much as would occupy half an hour, being read from the pulpit every Sunday and holiday with a loud voice, clearly, distinctly, impressively, and solemnly by the rector, vicar, or curate, in his surplice and stole. The clergy were enjoined to exercise themselves daily in reading it, lest their stammering or breaking down might move the jeers of the people; and heavy penalties, fine and imprisonment, imposed on all who should fail to observe any part of the canons regarding it.”¹

¹ Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume I., pages 150, 151, 154; Volume II., pages 117‒120, 135‒139.

Thus the party within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland wished to redress gross abuses without demolishing the old organisations. The Catechism which they produced in the vernacular for the use of the clergy, was characterised by moderate statement and graceful composition. But all the canons and the catechism were of no avail; they were too late, as the fiat had gone forth; the accumulated corruptions of many generations had resulted in a system of institutions incapable of reformation from within; the features of purity, the love of truth and justice had departed from their walls and altars; the great ethical principles at the heart of all true religion had waned dim, and there was no glowing rays to lighten up the darkness which enveloped the Church.

In the summer of 1550, Adam Wallace, a layman from Ayrshire, a man of humble rank, had been occasionally engaged in teaching the children of Cockburn of Ormiston, was accused of heresy. He was seized and conveyed to Edinburgh, and tried before the bishops, the Regent, the Earl of Huntly, and others. Wallace was accused for having assumed to preach without authority, and of reading the Scriptures. He denied having preached in public, but admitted that he had read the Bible, and sometimes added a word of exhortation. Then one of his accusers said, “What shall we leave to the bishops and churchmen to do, if every man shall be a babbler upon the Bible.” Wallace replied that it would befit them better to speak more reverently about the Word of God. Questions were put to him touching the sacraments, prayer for the dead, and other points; and at last, the Earl of Huntly asked him what he thought of the mass. Wallace replied that he could find no authority for it in the Word of God, and therefore it was idolatry in the sight of God. Then they all cried “Heresy! heresy!” He was condemned, and burned on the Castle hill of Edinburgh, where he met his doom with firmness and faith.¹

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 237‒241; Foxe, pages 627‒628.

When Paul III. ascended the papal throne in 1834, he signalised the event by the elevation of several distinguished men to the College of Cardinals without any other object than that of their personal merits. Some of the new Cardinals held opinions which inclined to Protestantism; and by the command of the Pope himself, they prepared a plan for the reform of the Church. When this became known to the Protestants, they rejected it because they had already passed beyond its most liberal proposals. Various other attempts to effect a reconciliation were equally unsuccessful.

In connection with the view of the Reformation, it is necessary to touch briefly on the proceedings of the Council of Trent. As indicated above, a certain number of thoughtful Catholics were willing to make considerable concessions in the form of redressing prevalent abuses. Still a line had to be drawn somewhere, and when it was drawn by the Council of Trent, the Protestants found themselves beyond it. But taking a view of the conditions and circumstances of the nations of Europe, it appeared that the final decision and the conclusions of the Council of Trent were greatly influenced by political interests. As religion had been so long and so much mingled with the politics and the secular affairs of the world, the great majority of the members of the Council were unable to realise the necessity of such a measure of disentanglement as the principles of the Reformation implied; while the strong feeling naturally associated with an inherited belief, the importance attached to tradition, and the efficacy ascribed to external ceremonies in the Roman Catholic Church, were so powerful that they overruled the deliberations of this memorable Council.¹

¹ Ranke’s History of the Popes, Volume I., pages 110‒113; 1847. Buckley’s History of the Council of Trent, pages 68‒76; 1852.

After many obstacles and circumstances unfavourable to the assembling of the Council of Trent had been overcome, it was opened in December 1545. There was no representative from Scotland at the Council, although a provincial council of the Scottish clergy which met at St. Andrews in March 1546, and imposed a tax of two thousand and five hundred pounds for the expenses of deputies from Scotland to Trent. The tax appears to have been paid, but no Scottish delegate attended the Council. The position of the Church in Scotland was so perilous that Cardinal Beaton, though thrice summoned by the Pope to share the deliberations of the Vatican, did not venture to leave Scotland.¹ When the opening ceremonials and various preliminary matters were disposed of, they proceeded to discuss revelation and the sources from which the knowledge of it was derived. At this stage, some proposals were enunciated in favour of opinions tending towards Protestantism. The Bishop of Chiogga insisted that nothing but Scripture should be admitted; he maintained that the gospel contained all that was necessary. Seripando, the general of the Augustines, also argued that a distinction should be drawn between the canonical books of Scripture and those not yet received as canonical, such as the Proverbs and Books of Wisdom; and that the first class only be used for proving the doctrines of belief. But they found few supporters, and there was an overwhelming majority against these views. The Council at last adopted the resolution that those unwritten traditions which had been received from the mouth of Christ, or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved by a continuous succession in the Catholic Church, were to be regarded with the same veneration and of equal authority with the Scriptures. The Vulgate was declared to be an authentic translation, and it was enjoined that it should be printed with the greatest care as soon as possible.² In the discussion touching the reception of the Vulgate there was much diversity of opinion expressed in the Council; and the following example of the line of argument taken by one party of the Fathers has an interest of its own:​—“That if the providence of God hath given an authentical Scripture to the synagogue, and an authentical New Testament to the Grecians, it cannot be said without derogation that the Church of Rome, more beloved than the rest, hath wanted this great benefit; and therefore that the same Holy Ghost who did dictate the holy books hath dictated also that translation which ought to be accepted by the Church of Rome.... And if any should make dainty to give the Spirit of God to the interpreter, yet he cannot deny it to the Council; and when the vulgar edition shall be approved, and an anathema be thundered against whosoever will not receive it, this will be without error, not by the spirit of him that wrote it, but of the synod that hath received it for such.”³

¹ Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume I., pages 145, 260‒269.

² Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session IV.

³ Sarpi, Book I., chapter 2, pages 159, et seq.; Buckley’s History of the Council of Trent, page 125; Pallavicino, Book VI., chapter 15.

Upon the great subject of ♦justification there was much diversity of opinion manifested in the ♠Council, and the discussions on it were long and tedious. A section of the members held views nearly similar to those of the Protestants. This party maintained that justification must be ascribed to the merits of Christ and to faith alone; charity and hope they affirmed to be the attendants, and works the proofs of faith, but nothing more; thus the basis of justification was made to rest on faith alone. But this primal doctrine of Protestantism had little chance of even a fair hearing in the Council; it was in vain that Cardinal Pole entreated them not to reject an opinion merely because it was held by Luther. The debate waxed extremely hot: a bishop and a Greek monk from words came to blows. The Council found that it could not argue the questions raised to any purpose, and the discussions were confined; still there were marked differences of opinion expressed among the assembled fathers and divines. Towards the end of the discussion on justification, Seripando advanced his opinion; he contended that the doctrine of justification was twofold, or that there was a twofold righteousness, “the one intrinsic, which he again divided into two kinds; the first being that, whereby we become friends instead of enemies of God, and that this is given us with the grace infused by baptism; the second, whereby man is said to live righteously, which results from the acts of virtue proceeding from the aforesaid grace. The other kind of righteousness was outward, and consisted in the righteousness and merits of Christ, imputed to us by the divine mercy as if they were our own, not indeed wholly, but to such degree, and for such effects, as seems good unto God. If it be asked which of these justifications we must rely on​—that indwelling, or that imparted through Christ​—the devout man will reply that we must confide in the latter only. Our own righteousness is incomplete and ineffective, marred by its deficiences​—that of Christ alone is true and sufficient; this only is entirely pleasing in the sight of God, and in virtue of this alone may we trust to be justified before God.¹ These opinions of Seripando met with little sympathy, only five of the assembled theologians gave their assent to them; while his peculiar tenets on justification were combated with great ability, force, and subtlety, by Cardinal Caraffa,² and the two Jesuits, Salmeron and Laineg.³ The influence of the Jesuits was strong in the Council, and their opinions prevailing, the decision of the assembly was in accordance with their views. There were many and long discussions on the errors of the heretics in connection with the sacraments; debates respecting the granting of the cup to the laity; debates touching the mass and the abuses associated with it; debates concerning the institution of the priesthood and its various orders; discussions on marriage; discussions on pernicious and suspected books;⁴ and discussions on many other matters. But the result of the whole was that after several adjournments and reassemblings during a period of eighteen years, the twenty-fifth and last session terminated the Council in December 1563; the Protestant opinions were excluded from Catholicism, and all hope of mediation or reunion was utterly abandoned. The seven sacraments as heretofore were retained; and also purgatory, indulgences, auricular confession, celibacy of the priesthood, and so on: the incubus of the Middle Ages and the inherited accretions of the creed of the Roman Church rested too heavily and firmly upon her to be shaken off; hence she easily accepted tradition as of equal authority with Scripture; yet she was still bold in assumption, strong in assertion, and vigorous in her denunciations; she had always been kept free from error by special grace; she alone was the true Church, and beyond her walls no religious body could be acknowledged.⁵

¹ Pallavicino, Book VIII., chapter 11; 1670. Ranke’s History of the Popes, Volume I., pages 152‒153.

² Caraffa was elected Pope under the title of Paul IV. in the year 1555; he was an ardent Romanist. Heresy had been spreading in Italy as in other places, and it was deemed desirable that the Inquisition should be reorganised at Rome. The leading idea of this institution is well expressed in these words:​—“As St. Peter subdued the first Heresiarchs in no other place than Rome, so must the successors of St. Peter destroy all the heresies of the whole world in Rome.” The Pope, by a bull in April 1543, founded at Rome the Congregation of the Holy Office: six cardinals were deputed as inquisitors-general of the faith, and their functions were extended to embrace all Christian nations. They were empowered to try all cases of heresy, to apprehend and imprison all suspected persons and their abettors, of every rank and order; they could nominate officers and appoint inferior courts in all places, with the same or with limited powers. One restriction only was imposed on the power of this inquisition; they had full liberty to inflict all kinds of punishment, but the right to pardon was reserved by the Pope himself; they might condemn as many heretics as they choose, but to absolve those once condemned was in the power of the Pope alone. The inquisitors were commanded to go on “enforcing and executing whatever might most effectively suppress and uproot the errors that have found place in the Christian community, and permitting no vestige of them to remain.” Limborch’s History of the Inquisition, Volume I., pages 150‒152; Bromato’s Life of Paul IV., Book VII., Section 3; Ranke, Volume I., pages 157‒158.

At this time Cardinal Caraffa was the head and leading spirit of the Inquisition. In this office he worked vigorously; he appointed commissioners-general for the different countries; and the rules which he drew up for their guidance were the following:​—“First, when the faith is in question, there must be no delay, but at the slightest suspicion rigorous means must be resorted to with all speed. Secondly, no consideration to be shown to any prince or prelate, however high his station. Thirdly, extreme severity is rather to be exercised against those who attempt to shield themselves under the protection of any potentate; only he who makes plenary confession shall be treated with gentleness and fatherly compassion. Fourthly, no man must debase himself by showing toleration towards heretics of any kind, above all towards Calvinists.” We are told in the Life of Caraffa that “he held as a positive axiom this rule, that in matters of faith one must in no way pause at all, but on the first suspicion or intimation of this plague of heresy, proceed by all force and violence to its utter extirpation.” Ranke, Volume I., pages 158‒159. Such was the iron severity, inflexible and remorseless, which characterised the Roman Inquisition of the sixteenth century: can we wonder that there was also intolerance among the Protestants of that age? The Inquisition as a whole is the most complete system of tyranny ever devised; and it is equally exhaustive in detail, and merciless in the means by which it sought to reach its end.

³ The Society of Jesus was originated by Ignatius Loyola, a Spaniard, who was gifted with a fund of enthusiasm. The new Order received the papal sanction in 1540, and they soon rose to power, and spread over the world; they were afterwards known by the name of Jesuits. The aims of the Order may be roundly described to consist in a fixed and absolute determination to enhance and extend the influence and power of the Roman Church. Their first and chief rule was unconditional obedience, total and unhesitating subjection of their whole being and energies to the will of their superiors. The Order was to the Jesuit the representative of divine providence, and consequently everything else must be sacrificed to its demands. The society was placed under the guidance of a general, and its organisation quickly attained a definiteness and a completeness as yet unmatched.

The Order was ranked into several classes, each with their special duties and work. They devoted themselves to the department of teaching, and the confessional with peculiar and unrivalled zeal. The Jesuits, in fact, became the teachers in the colleges and schools in every Roman Catholic country; and they founded a system of instruction, framed upon a theological basis, which they impressed upon the minds of the young with an effectiveness never before attained. Their scheme of education was methodical and uniform throughout; the schools were divided into classes, and the strictest discipline in every branch was observed. The success of the Order, not only in Roman Catholic countries, but also in Germany and in other nations which were partly Protestant, was surprisingly great. The first Jesuits were an immense element of force to the Roman Catholic Church; they exhibited in their whole proceedings a reaction from the looseness both of morals and of creed which had marked the recent condition of the Church; they were pious, intensely earnest, and warmly attached to the Church, because their minds were cast in the mould which allowed them still to believe firmly in her pretensions. While they had all the boldness, fervour, and energy of the Protestant reformers, yet their reform took another direction; instead of going back to the Bible and St. Augustine, they chose St. Francis and the mediæval saints as their models, and rested with unfaltering faith on the authority of the Roman Church. To reform her by the formation of a new monastic Order, which made an absolute surrender of free inquiry and free thought, and absolute obedience to ecclesiastical authority, was their leading principle and idea; and before Loyola the founder died, he had established more than a hundred Jesuit colleges or houses for training new disciples, and a vast number of educational establishments under their influence; he had many thousands of Jesuits in the rank and file of his order. He had divided the world into twelve Jesuit provinces, in each of which he had his officer, while the general-in-chief himself resided in Rome.

If we inquire why the Jesuits were so successful, the answer will be found in the state of society and the circumstances of the age when they began their work. They came into the field at the very time that men’s minds were being agitated to and fro, and the general pulsation of society was then exceedingly accessible and susceptible to the influences which they brought to bear upon it: the prevailing states of feeling and emotion, the association of ideas, and the current trains of half-formed thought, were all especially amendable to the influences, the dogmatic forms, the positive affirmations, and the compact creed, which the Jesuits employed and held up.

The moral ideas of the Jesuits were entirely subordinated to the notions of the Church, and they often had recourse to the most tortuous casuistry. After the Council of Trent, it was the members of this Order, in particular, who made the defence of modern Roman Catholicism, both speculatively and practically, the task of their lives. The Order has produced many able writers; among others who wrote on doctrinal and polemical points, may be mentioned Bellarmin and Petavius; and among those who wrote on dogmatic theology​—Canisius, Salmeron, Maldonat, Suarez, Vasquez, Coster, Becanus, and others. Some of the Jesuit writers justified and defended tyrannicide; and a few of them have at times advanced pretty liberal views. For fuller information of the Jesuits consult Ranke’s History of the Popes; Hallam’s History of Literature, Volume II., pages 196‒200, 1839; Baumgarten; Michelet; Lecky’s History of Rationalism, Volume II., pages 161‒184; Dallas’s History of the Jesuits; De Sarrion’s History of the Jesuits; Brühl’s History of the Jesuits; Liskenne’s History of the Jesuits.

⁴ It was one of the functions of the Inquisition to look for and to condemn all books which contained opinions and sentiments displeasing to the Church. In 1543 it decreed that no book, either new or old, of any kind should in future be printed without its permission; and booksellers were ordered to send in a catalogue of their stock, and to sell nothing without the consent of the Inquisitors. The officers of custom also were ordered to deliver no package, either of printed books or manuscripts, to its address without first laying them before the Inquisition. In this way arose the Index of prohibited books; the first examples appeared in Louvain and Paris, and other lists came out at Florence in 1552, and in Milan, 1554. The first published in the form henceforward adopted, appeared at Rome in 1559. Even private persons were commanded on soul and conscience to denounce all forbidden books, and to exert themselves to the utmost to destroy them. The secular power was called upon to assist the clergy in this matter; and many thousands of books were confiscated and destroyed. There was a long discussion on the best mode of dealing with prohibited and suspected books in the Council of Trent, and much diversity of opinion on the matter was expressed by the assembled Fathers; but in the end it was left with the Pope to settle it according to his judgment. Buckley’s History of the Council of Trent, pages 278‒285; Decrees of the Council, Session XVIII., Session XXV.; Limborch’s History of the Inquisition, Volume II., pages 69‒72, 1731; Bromato’s Life of Paul IV., Book VIII., section 9.

⁵ Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Touching the history of doctrines the Sessions IV.‒VII., XIII., XIV., XXI.‒XXV., are of particular importance. The Catechismus Romanus was composed in conformity with a resolution of the Council of Trent, Session XXV.; it was drawn up under the superintendence of three Cardinals, and published by authority of Pope Pius IV. in 1566. Several editions and translations of it were published. There was another Catechism composed by the Jesuit, P. Canisius, which first appeared in 1554, and it acquired greater authority than the other one, though it did not receive the sanction of the pope.

Although the Council of Trent did not radically reform the creed of the Roman Church, clerical abuses were corrected and decency enforced. Provision was made for the education of priests and for their devotion in future to active duties; the old laxity of morals was to be no longer tolerated, nor on the other hand, the old diversity of doctrine. Thus the revolt of the Protestants had at least contributed to bring about a degree of moral reform within the Roman Church herself;¹ and for this salutary benefit which the heretics so greatly assisted her to obtain, the Roman Catholics have not as yet shown much gratitude. Doubtless, the salvation of the soul and its eternal life is the highest end of human aspiration; but it can never be permissible to use immoral means even to obtain eternal life. This is the supreme doctrine, the very cornerstone of heaven, and without it there can be no real religion. But Catholics and Protestants alike have often acted in the teeth of this moral law; and the decline of their authority and influence must be attributed to the violation of moral ideas and sentiments more than to aught else. That blind conservatism which causes institutions to have a tendency to outlive the period of their usefulness, has never been more forcibly illustrated than in the history of the Papacy during the last four hundred years.

¹ Decrees of the Council of Trent.

When we attempt to fix the exact date of the separation between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, we find that it was not strictly coincident with the first appearance of the Reformers, as opinions did not at once assume a fixed character; and for some time there was hope that a compromise between the conflicting principles and doctrines might be effected. But a little past the middle of the century any prospect of this had utterly vanished; and the three forms of Christianity in the West were irrevocably separated. Lutheranism gradually assumed a severity and exclusiveness unknown to it in its earlier stages. The Calvinists had departed from it in several essential doctrines, though Calvin himself in his early days had been considered a Lutheran. But in hostile contrast to both of them, Catholicism firmly invested itself with those forms and ceremonies which still distinguish it. Each of these dogmatic systems sought eagerly to establish its position; each laboured intensely to displace its rival and to subjugate the world. The struggle for many years was desperate. Catholicism after the first shock rallied again, and with renovated and concentrated resources and power it fought its opponent with every available weapon, and with a determination and persistence of purpose, which would have been more worthy of our admiration, if it had been less cruel and merciless.

Having briefly indicated some of the varied agencies and the conflicting influences of the great revolution abroad; I resume the history of the movement as it manifested itself in Scotland. The regency of Arran was approaching its close. His government throughout had been weak and vacillating, and he had now fallen very low in the public estimation. The Queen-mother aspired to the regency, and in connection with her design she made preparations for visiting her daughter in France. In September 1550, along with the Earls of Huntly, Glencairn, Marischal, the king’s natural sons, and others of the barons and clergy, she embarked at Leith, and landed in France on the 19th of the month. The party at the head of affairs in France were eager to promote her object. It was there agreed to press upon Arran’s notice, that the revenues of the Crown had been dilapidated during his regency, that he would be called upon to account when the Queen came of age, and then it would be difficult for him to obtain an honourable discharge, should he remain in office. No line of argument could have been more effective with the weak-minded Regent; and as a compensation for the demission of office he was offered the Dukedom of ♦Chatelherault. The Queen-mother, after concluding her business in France, passed over to the Court of England, and had an interview with Edward VI. She returned to Scotland in the end of November 1551.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., page 108; Lesly’s History Of Scotland, pages 238‒240; Diurnal of Occurrents, page 50.

In 1552, the Queen-mother accompanied the Regent on a judicial circuit through the country. She then reminded him that the time was come when he had promised to demit his office; but he declined to resign the government into her hands, and nearly a year was spent in party recriminations. The Regent’s party, however, dwindled away till only his brother, the primate, remained; accordingly he resigned in April 1554, and the Queen-mother was proclaimed Regent of Scotland amid public rejoicings. Mary of Lorraine, as she was familiarly called, was a woman of exceptional talents. She had acquired some knowledge of the habits and character of the Scots; but she had many adverse circumstances and influences to contend against. Being herself a Catholic, she was most perplexed by the steadily growing strength of the reformed party. On the whole, however, she ruled with remarkable moderation, and exhibited sagacity and tact of a high order. As the Protestants had not yet obtained toleration they gave her government little trouble.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, pages 600‒603; Buchanan, Book XVI., chapters 2, 3; Lesly’s History Of Scotland, page 249.

Edward VI. died in July, 1553, and the throne of England was soon after occupied by Mary, a daughter of Henry VIII. She was a stanch Roman Catholic, and the wife of the King of Spain. During her brief reign the Protestants in England were subjected to an extremely severe persecution. Mary busied herself in restoring the ancient system and faith to their pristine glory, inflicting enormous suffering upon the English people, many of her subjects being mercilessly sacrificed. A number of Scotsmen who had formerly fled across the Border, now returned to their own country, where they were comparatively safe under the mild government of the Queen-regent. Among those came William Harlaw, who was born about the beginning of the century. He had been originally a tailor in Edinburgh; but afterwards went to England, where he had been ordained a deacon in the English Church, and was employed as a preacher during the reign of Edward VI. Harlaw on his return began to preach in Edinburgh, and in other quarters of the country. John Willock was a native of Ayr, and at first belonged to the order of the friars, but he cast off the monastic habit, and was employed as a preacher in St. Catherine’s, London, and also as chaplain to the Duke of Suffolk. He visited Scotland in 1555 concerning some matters of trade, and took the opportunity of preaching to the people. Knox himself arrived in Scotland about the end of September the same year, and came to Edinburgh where he was warmly welcomed by the Protestants. At this time some of the Protestants still continued to attend mass and join in the worship of the Catholic Church, partly to allay suspicion and to avoid giving unnecessary offence. Knox, however, was opposed to this, and the point was debated at one of their meetings; the Reformer, however, would listen to no compromise even for the sake of safety.¹ The time was not yet come for open manifestation of contempt for the old worship, while possibly the disciples of the Reformer were not as yet prepared to follow a course which might bring their lives and estates into jeopardy.

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 244‒248; Miscellany of the Wodrow Society, Volume I., pages 261‒263.

Knox at the request of John Erskine of Dun, passed to Forfarshire, where he preached every day to many of the chief men of the county. He then recrossed the Forth, and lived at Calder House in West Lothian; while there some of the nobles came and listened to his teaching, and among them the Prior of St. Andrews, afterwards the Regent Moray. In the end of the year he preached mostly in Edinburgh; after Christmas he went to Kyle, and preached in the houses of the local gentry, and in the town of Ayr. Shortly after Easter, he went to the family residence of the Earl of Glencairn, where he preached and administered the communion, whence he again visited West Lothian, and preached to the people. He once more went to the Laird of Dun, and proclaimed the opinions of Protestantism with more freedom than before; and many of the gentry of the Mearns embraced the reformed doctrines.¹ It should be observed that it was chiefly among the nobles and the gentry that Knox preached, and in their own houses; the reformed party were not yet strong enough openly to announce their views; and probably it may have been the perception that the movement was not ripe for open action which induced Knox to leave Scotland. The Catholic clergy had become thoroughly alarmed, and Knox was summoned to appear in the church of the Blackfriars at Edinburgh on the 15th of May, 1556. He resolved to appear, and Erskine of Dun and other barons who adhered to the Protestant opinions met in Edinburgh; whether this was intended to overawe the authorities, the reader must determine for himself. The citation of Knox, however, was abandoned, and on the day that he should have appeared in court, he preached in Edinburgh to a larger audience than had ever attended to hear him. For ten days he preached in Edinburgh twice a-day, and on this occasion his followers met in the Bishop of Dunkeld’s lodgings. In the month of July 1556, Knox left Scotland and proceeded to Geneva to take charge of the English congregation in that city.²

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 249‒251.

² Knox, Volume I., pages 251‒254.

Immediately after Knox’s departure the bishops again summoned him, and when he did not appear, sentence was passed against him, and his effigy was burned at the cross of Edinburgh. But the reformed doctrines still continued to spread. Besides the preachers mentioned in a preceding page, John Douglas, a reformed friar, under the protection of the Earl of Argyle, preached in Leith and Edinburgh; and Paul Methven, originally a baker, preached in Dundee with great acceptance; and others in various parts of the kingdom exhorted the people. They read the Scriptures to those who assembled to hear them, using the English Prayer Book of Edward VI. in their worship. A number of the landed aristocracy​—adherents of the Reformation movement for purposes of their own​—had come to an understanding with each other. They had cast their longing eyes upon the property of the Roman Church, and this, more than anything else, stimulated them to hasten on the revolution. In the beginning of December 1557, they resorted to one of the familiar expedients which they had been in the habit of adopting for centuries, when they had any great enterprise on hand,​—they entered into a bond of man-rent to assist each other in forwarding the reformation of religion. This was the first of the new religious covenants, and those who subscribed it took to themselves the name of the Congregation. Among the names attached to the document were those of the Earls of Argyle, Glencairn, and Morton; the Lord of Lorne, and John Erskine of Dun. It is an extremely vehement piece of writing, and it distinctly proceeded on the ground that they were the true Congregation of Christ, while of course the Romanists were the very limbs of Satan.¹ After consulting together, the Lords of the Congregation agreed to two resolutions for promoting the reformation of religion throughout the country. (1) It was deemed requisite that in all the parish churches the common prayers should be read on Sundays and on festival days, with the lessons from the Old and New Testament, according to the order of the Book of Common Prayer; (2) it was also agreed that doctrine, preaching, and expounding of the Scriptures, should be used quietly without convening great bodies of the people, until God move the prince to grant public preaching by faithful and true ministers.²

¹ Ibid., Volume I., pages 256, 273; Lesly’s History Of Scotland

² Knox, Volume I., pages 275‒276. It is understood that the Book of Common Prayer mentioned in the text was the liturgy of Edward VI.

The Queen-regent acted with great calmness in the trying position in which she then found herself placed, yet she manifested a disposition not to push matters to extremes. But it was impossible to hold the balance evenly between the Protestants and the Catholic clergy, especially as the latter naturally became much alarmed and excited. The stealing away of images and damaging of religious buildings in Edinburgh had begun. The great image of St. Giles was first drowned in the North Loch, and afterwards burned, incidents which raised an unusual stir in the capital. The Protestant preachers were summoned, and they resolved to appear accompanied by their adherents; but when the authorities saw such a multitude as approached Edinburgh, a proclamation was issued commanding all those who had come without liberty to proceed at once to the Borders and remain there for fifteen days. The gentry were not disposed to submit to this, and they forced their way into the Queen-regent’s presence to remonstrate. James Chalmer of Gadgirth addressed her in the following strain:​—“Madam, we know that this is the malice and device of that bastard (meaning the Archbishop of St. Andrews) that stands by you. We vow to God we shall make a day of it. They oppress us and our tenants for feeding their idle bellies; they trouble our preachers, and would murder them and us. Shall we suffer this any longer? No, Madam, it shall not be;” and therewith every man put on his steel bonnet. There was nothing heard on the Queen’s part but, “My joys, my hearts, what ails you? Me mean no evil to you nor your preachers. The bishops shall do you no harm. Ye are all my loving subjects. Me knew nothing of this proclamation. The day of your preachers shall be discharged, and me will hear the controversy that is between the bishops and you. They shall do you no wrong.” “My Lords,” said she to the bishops, “I forbid you either to trouble them or their preachers.” And to the gentlemen, who were wondrously moved, she turned again and said​—“O, my hearts! should ye not love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind? and should you not love your neighbour as yourselves?” With these and the like fair words she restrained the bishops at that time.¹

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 256‒258; Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume II., pages 251‒252.

In the month of April 1558, Walter Mill, an old man over eighty years, who in early life had been a priest, but had abandoned the Catholic faith in the days of Cardinal Beaton, was apprehended at Dysart, and carried to St. Andrews and imprisoned in the primate’s castle. He was tried before the spiritual court, convicted of heresy, and sentenced to death; on the 24th of April, he was burned at St. Andrews. This was an act of great cruelty and extreme folly. The execution of an old decrepit man for heresy was not at all likely to ♦enhance the respect of the people for the Catholic clergy or the creed of the Church. Indeed his execution strengthened the position of the Protestant party, and they at once sent a remonstrance to the Queen-regent, charging the Church with cruelty. They also demanded a reformation of abuses, and the establishment of religion according to their own views. She received their requests with the regard which the gravity of the subject urgently required, and promised to tolerate their preachers, if they would abstain from holding public meetings in Leith and Edinburgh.¹ The moderation which she showed deserves the highest praise; for according to the constitution and laws of the kingdom, the Lords of the Congregation had put themselves into a state of open rebellion; and however far we may sympathise with the cause of the reform party, this should not blind us to their real attitude in relation to the government of the time. It could hardly have been expected that the Church and the Government would abdicate their functions at the command of their enemies. Those who talk of the obstinacy of the Roman Catholics should remember that the holders of power have always and everywhere endeavoured to retain it to the last. In the end of November 1558, parliament met at Edinburgh, and the Lords of the Congregation then tendered a protest to the effect, “that seeing they could not obtain a reformation of religion according to God’s word, they asked liberty to worship in their own form, until their adversaries proved themselves to be the true ministers of Christ’s Church. They then gave open warning that if any tumult should arise among the people owing to difference of opinion about religion and if it should happen that the abuses in the Church were reformed by violence, the responsibility of this must rest upon the shoulders of those who now refused all reform, and not upon those who are meanwhile struggling to reform all things according to order; and, finally, they professed to be acting simply from the promptings of their consciences, with no other aim but the reformation of religion, and therefore they called upon the government to protect them from the rage and oppression of their enemies.” This protestation was read in parliament, but it was not inserted in the record.² Thus the Reformers intimated to the authorities that force was contemplated; and it seems probable that the leading men among them already saw that if once the passions and feelings of the people were fully aroused, it would be utterly impossible to restrain their riotous excesses.

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 302, 312, 550‒555.

² Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II.; Spottiswood, pages 119‒120; Knox, Volume I., pages 312‒314.

Meanwhile important events were passing in other countries which affected the contending parties in Scotland. On the 11th of October, 1558, Mary of England died, and she was succeeded by Queen Elizabeth; but for some time it seemed doubtful whether she would declare herself on the Protestant side or not. One of Elizabeth’s first acts was to notify her accession to the Pope, and there was negotiation touching her marriage with the King of Spain. But the Pope, Paul IV., whom we have before met under the title of Cardinal Caraffa, was by no means well qualified for winning to his side a doubtful monarch like Elizabeth. He was incapable of exercising moderation, and instead of attempting to conciliate the Queen, he returned a contemptuous reply to her ambassador; “first of all,” said he, “she must submit her claims to the decision of our judgment.”¹ Now this would certainly have been the last thing in the world to which the daughter of Henry VIII. would have submitted. There were, however, various considerations which might have weighed with the Pope. The French wished to prevent a marriage between Elizabeth and Philip; while the Guises were especially interested in this affair, since, if the claims of Elizabeth were rejected by the Holy See, Mary Stuart, Dauphiness of France and Queen of Scotland, would then possess the title to the English Crown. If her right could only be established, the Guises might reign supreme in her name over the three kingdoms. What a grand prospect for the imagination of a pious pope and the grasping ambition of the house of Guise. At times it seemed as if this dream were to be realised, and it was always kept in view by the parties, and pursued even after it had become entirely hopeless. But the force of circumstances more than her own disposition led Elizabeth to take the side of Protestantism. Her own heresy, save on one or two points, was not of a very decided character; yet it was sufficient to complete the separation of England from Rome. Hence Queen Elizabeth became an object at whom the Roman Catholic powers were extremely anxious to strike a blow. Many schemes and conspiracies were concocted for her destruction, but all failed, and England at last emerged from the struggle victorious.

¹ Ranke’s History of the Popes, Volume I., pages 238‒239.

The influence of France was now brought to bear upon the Queen-regent. She acted with more coldness towards the Lords of the Congregation than formerly; and they began to see that they were losing her countenance. Still attempts continued to be made to pacify the Protestants by propositions for reforming the more flagrant abuses of the Catholic clergy. Early in 1559 the Lords of the Congregation had begun to think of an alliance with England.¹

¹ Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume I., pages 159‒160; Knox, Volume I., pages 314‒316.

Everything indicated that the crisis was at hand. The preachers were intently engaged in spreading the new opinions; the old clergy were frightened, and only making feeble efforts to outdo their rivals by preaching and celebrating masses themselves. The Queen-regent had informed some of the Lords of the Congregation that they must desert their principles, as her line of policy was to be shaped according to instructions which she had received from France. Four of the chief Protestant preachers were cited to appear before the Court of Justiciary at Stirling, on the 10th of May, 1559, for convening the people and preaching erroneous doctrines to them, and inciting them to seditions and tumults. The Lords of the Congregation resolved to protect the preachers, and assembled their feudal followers at Perth. John Knox had landed at Leith on the 2nd of May; he stayed two nights in Edinburgh, and then proceeded to Dundee, where he joined his brethren. He received a warm welcome and went to Perth with his friends. In order to prevent a collision, Erskine of Dun passed forward to Stirling and endeavoured to effect an agreement with the Queen-regent, while the Lords of the Congregation and the preachers remained in Perth. But he was unsuccessful, and when the accused preachers failed to appear on the 10th, those who had become sureties for them were fined, and the preachers were proclaimed rebels. The multitude had been gradually becoming more and more excited, their feelings and passions had risen to a pitch which neither the preachers nor the magistrates could regulate, nor could they prevent them from wrecking the monasteries.¹

¹ Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials, Volume I., pages 406‒407; Knox, Volume I., pages 314‒319; Woodrow Society, Volume I., page 57.

On the 11th of May, Knox preached a vehement sermon against idolatry in the parish church of Perth. He enlarged upon the abomination of the mass and all the accompanying trumpery of the Roman Catholic form of worship. His hearers had been much excited before, but their passions and cupidity were now roused to a point far beyond the bounds of control. Meantime a priest, utterly incapable, as it seemed, of understanding the state of the people’s minds, uncovered the altar to say mass. It was an exceedingly rich altar-piece, in which the history of many of the saints was carved. A number of Protestants were present, and a youth at the top of his voice, exclaimed,​—“this is intolerable, when God by His word hath plainly damned idolatry, that we should stand by and see it used in dispute.” The priest gave him a blow on the ear, and the youth in retaliation threw a stone at the priest, but it struck the tabernacle and broke one of the images. Very soon the whole multitude threw stones, and proceeded to tear down the altars and destroy every vestige of the ornaments in the church. When it became known in the town that such work was going on, an uproarious mob assembled, which attacked the four monasteries of Perth, and for two days the work of destruction proceeded till only the bare walls remained.¹ The example shown in Perth was followed in the town of Cupar-Fife. There the people destroyed all the altars and images in the church. Shortly after the Abbey of Scone was burned; and the monasteries throughout the country were in an incredibly short time either defaced or demolished.²

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 320‒323; Buchanan, Book 16, chapter 28; Spottiswood.

² Knox, Volume I., page 361, et seq.; Buchanan, Book 16, chapter 33.

The Protestant reformers have been severely blamed for these excesses and the destruction of religious buildings. Each party has striven to lay the blame upon the other, and to exaggerate or extenuate these excesses, according to their respective standpoints. But it should be remembered that there never was a revolution without excesses, the reason of which is not difficult to find. The amount of outrage and the destruction of property which a revolution may entail mainly depends on the strength and completeness of the organised moral force in the country at the time of its occurrence. If the moral sentiments and ideas of the nation are but imperfectly formed, the guiding and restraining feelings and influences only partly developed through the social organisation, and the intelligence of the people is very limited and dim, and as it were, only awakening to a consciousness that they have been long deluded, then, in such circumstances, a revolution cannot be effected without anarchy and excess in various forms. The same undeviating principle comes into play in this as in everything else: when the moral organisation of a nation is sufficiently developed and ripe, the desired and needful reform is gradually brought to pass by peaceful means. But, from the information we now possess, to talk as if a peaceful and harmless revolution had been possible in Scotland in the middle of the sixteenth century, is only a sign of much ignorance. It is well known, how easy it is to arouse the cupidity of a class, and how eagerly any body of men pursue a line of action which promises rapid and great profit; and how fierce the storm of wrath when the result fails, as it almost always does, to answer the expectations which had been raised.

When the Queen-regent heard of these proceedings she was naturally much offended; and she threatened to inflict severe vengeance on the guilty parties. But this was a difficult matter to accomplish, and she soon discovered that her power was not commensurate with her wishes. The Lords of the Congregation issued several manifestoes to the Regent, to the French commanders, and to other persons in authority. These documents were all pervaded by an absolute and dogmatic conviction of the truth of their cause; and they breathed a spirit of uncompromising resolution and defiance, and a determination to carry out their views of reform at all hazards, while they were extremely vehement, and even coarse and rude in expression. Many examples were drawn from the Old Testament of how God and His people had punished unjust and ungodly kings, and these were pressed home as applicable to the existing circumstances of Scotland. One of their manifestoes concluded thus​—“Yea, we shall begin that same war which God commanded Israel to execute against the Canaanites; that is, contract of peace shall never be made, till ye desist from your open idolatry and cruel persecution of God’s children. And this we signify unto you in the name of the eternal God, and of His Son Christ Jesus, whose verity we profess, and whose Gospel we will have preached, and holy sacraments rightly ministered, so long as God will assist us to gainstand your idolatry. Take this for ♦advertisement, and be not deceived.”¹

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 334‒336.

At this time the Lords of the Congregation had entrenched themselves in Perth; while the Regent’s army, mostly composed of Frenchmen, had approached within twenty miles of them. The Congregation had a considerable force, but an arrangement was made with the Regent, mainly through the influence of the Earl of Argyle and the prior of St. Andrews. The agreement was to the effect that both armies were to be disbanded, and the town of Perth left open to the Regent; that none of the inhabitants were to be molested for the late alterations in religion; that no Frenchman should enter the town, nor come within three miles of it; and that when the Queen retired no French garrison would be left in the town. All other controversies were postponed to the next Parliament.¹ This arrangement was concluded on the 28th of May, 1559; and the Lords of the Congregation then retired from Perth. The Queen-regent entered Perth surrounded by a body of French troops which she called her body-guard; but the Protestants regarded this as a violation of the agreement.

¹ Ibid., Volume I., pages 336‒341, et seq.; Lesly’s History Of Scotland

The Earl of Argyle and the prior of St. Andrews then left the Regent, and joined the Congregation. Numbers of the people from various quarters of the kingdom gathered round the Lords of the Congregation, who went boldly on with their work. They invaded St. Andrews, where the primate had thought of resisting them, but he was forced to flee. On the 11th of June, Knox preached one of his scathing sermons in St. Andrews, in which he entreated his hearers to eject the buyers and sellers from the Temple, according to the Gospel of Matthew and John; and with all the force of his nature, he applied his examples to the surrounding circumstances. The altars and the images, the monuments of idolatry, as they called them, were quickly destroyed in all the churches of the city.¹ The Regent’s army approached but found the Congregation too strong; and another arrangement was made between the contending parties, which was again soon broken off. The Regent was expecting more assistance from France to crush out the heresy in Scotland. Meanwhile the heretics were increasing in numbers. One division of the Congregation re-entered Perth on the 25th of June, and another under the Earl of Argyle and the Prior of St. Andrews, took possession of Edinburgh on the 29th of June, while the Regent retired to Dunbar.² The Congregation demolished the monasteries of Edinburgh, and seized the coining irons of the Mint. A sort of truce having been concluded between the conflicting parties, the Regent returned to Holyrood. Both parties issued proclamations and appeals to the people. The Regent said she would grant liberty for the exercise of the Protestant religion, provided that wherever she was dwelling preaching should cease and the mass be maintained. This was the difficulty, neither party could tolerate the worship of the other, unless at a respectable distance; Knox and his followers upon no consideration would tolerate manifest idolatry; his aim, as he expressed it, was to “establish God’s eternal verity within the realm.” While these absorbing matters filled the mind of the nation, the intelligence came that Henry II. of France was dead, and that the husband of the Queen of Scots had succeeded to the throne of that Kingdom. This event foreboded severe opposition to the Congregation; and the reformed party in Edinburgh were soon in great straits. They departed from the capital on the 26th of July, and passed to Stirling, from whence on the 11th of ♦August they issued a short manifesto in which they bound themselves to stand true to each other. The Earls of Argyle, Glencairn, Lord Boyd, and other barons, then marched to Glasgow, and “reformed” the city of the West.³

¹ Knox, Volume I., 336‒350.

² Diurnal of ♠Occurrents, pages 53‒269; Knox, Volume I., pages 350, 359, 362.

³ Knox, Volume I., pages 363‒384.

John Willock was left in Edinburgh to keep alive the Protestant opinions, lest the idols might again raise their heads in the capital. He continued to preach in the Church of St. Giles till the month of November. In the end of August a thousand armed Frenchmen arrived and disembarked at Leith, and with the army already there, they began to fortify the position. On the 24th of September two thousand more French troops arrived to assist the Queen-regent in the struggle to uphold the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. The Frenchmen shortly made the defences of Leith so strong that the Congregation could not hope to take it.¹ But the leaders of the Congregation took a bold step, they re-entered Edinburgh in October, and on the 21st of that month they met in the Tolbooth to deliberate concerning the government of the kingdom. Lord Ruthven introduced the business of the meeting by asking:​—“Whether she who so contemptuously refused the most humble Request of the born councillors of the realm, being also but a Regent, whose pretensions threatened the bondage of the whole community, ought to be suffered so tyrannously to rule above them?” As this question had not been debated before in an open assembly, it was deemed right that the opinion of the preachers should be asked, and John Willock was called upon to express his sentiments on the point. He said​—“That though magistrates were granted power and authority from God, yet this power was limited by the word of God; as subjects were commanded to obey their magistrates, so magistrates must discharge their duties to their subjects, and the office of both is prescribed in the word of God. Though God hath appointed magistrates on the earth and honoured them, yet he never did establish any one who for just reasons might not have been deprived. That in deposing princes, and those who had been in authority, God did not always employ his immediate power, but sometimes other means which His wisdom thought good and justice required.” And therefore he concluded​—“That since the Queen-regent denied her chief duty to the subjects of this realm, which was to administer equal justice to them, to preserve their liberty from the invasion of strangers, and to suffer God’s word to be freely and openly preached among them; seeing moreover that the Queen-regent was an open and obstinate idolatress, and finally, that she utterly despised the council and requirements of the nobility, he could see no reason why they, the born councillors, nobility, and barons of the realm, might not justly deprive her of regime and authority amongst them.” The opinion of Knox was then asked, and he concurred with Willock, adding that the iniquity of the Regent ought in no way to withdraw their hearts, nor the hearts of other subjects from the obedience due to their sovereign, and that when she was deposed, if she repented and submitted, she might be restored to her former place and honour. Then every one present was requested to express his opinion freely, and to vote according to his conscience. A document was drawn up and agreed to, deposing the Queen-regent of all authority within the kingdom, proclamation of which was made at the Cross of Edinburgh.²

¹ Knox, pages 388‒399; Tytler’s History of Scotland Volume VI., pages 163‒167.

² Knox, Volume I., pages 437‒452; Spottiswood.

After this, skirmishing immediately began between the Frenchmen at Leith and the Congregation. In these encounters the forces of the Congregation were generally defeated; and they were again forced to retire from Edinburgh on the 7th November 1559, when they retreated to Stirling. The undisciplined followers of the Lords of the Congregation were unable to cope with the efficient and well handled French troops; so that the Protestant party were reduced to extreme difficulties. The voice of Knox, however, never ceased to exhort and encourage them; he called upon them to put their trust in “the Eternal God, the Lord of Hosts,” and that in the end they would assuredly prevail; he pointed out to them the examples in the Old Testament touching the sufferings and the afflictions of God’s people for their sins. In concluding one of his sermons at Stirling he said​—“Whatever shall become of us and our bodies, I doubt not but this cause, in spite of the devil, shall prevail in the realm of Scotland. For as it is the eternal truth of the eternal God, so shall it prevail, however for a time it may be impugned. It may be that God shall plague some, because they delight not in the truth, albeit for worldly considerations they seemed to pursue it. Yea, God may take some of his dearest children away before their eyes see greater troubles. But neither shall the one nor the other hinder this action, but in the end it shall triumph.”¹

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 452‒473; Sadler’s State Papers, Volume I., page 554.

The Protestant party found it absolutely necessary to make more urgent requests to the English Government for assistance. They had long been in communication with the leading men in England, but something effective was urgently needed; and they therefore sent William Maitland of Lethington to London, with instructions to explain their condition to Queen Elizabeth and her Council. Long before this time Knox himself had been in constant communication with the chief ministers of Elizabeth, and had very earnestly urged upon them the wisdom of rendering support to the Protestant party in Scotland, in order to enable them to overcome the schemes of the Roman Catholic powers.¹ The negotiations with the English Government proceeded favourably, notwithstanding the natural reluctance of Elizabeth to lend assistance to rebellious subjects. The chief men of England were well aware of the relative position and state of parties in Europe at this momentous and critical period, and hence they were extremely anxious and determined to come to an understanding with the Protestants in Scotland. Knox exerted himself to the utmost to secure their aid, and Lethington had an eloquent and diplomatic tongue. On the 23rd of January the English fleet appeared off the coast of Fife, and rendered effective aid to the Congregation. After much diplomatic talk the treaty of Berwick was concluded on the 27th of February, 1560, between the English Government and the Lords of the Congregation; its avowed purpose was to expel the French from Scotland. This was as much calculated to secure the safety of England itself as the liberties of the former kingdom.²

¹ Knox, Volume VI., pages 15‒21, 28‒♦29, 31‒32, 35‒36, 40‒43, 35‒49, 63, 63‒71, 74, ♠79, 81, 89, 91, 92, 98, 101, 189; Sadler’s State Papers, Volume I., pages 601, 684.

² Fœdera, Volume XV., page 569; Calderwood’s History, Volume I., pages 574‒578; Knox, Volume II., pages 13, 38‒45.

An English army, six thousand strong, entered Scotland in the end of March 1560, and they were soon joined by the Scots who adhered to the Lords of the Congregation. The united forces proceeded to besiege Leith, and skirmishing ensued between them and the French. The French had made their defences very strong, and the attacks of the allied forces were repeatedly driven back with great loss. The Frenchmen exhibited more skill than the besiegers; months passed, and still little progress was made towards the reduction of Leith. But the current of events was working changes in other quarters, and the critical condition of France itself soon began to tell upon the course of affairs in Scotland. Negotiations were commenced to bring the war to an end, but the circumstances being of a peculiar character, the preliminaries required much discussion and deliberation.¹

¹ Hayne’s State Papers, Volume I., pages 272‒273; Buchanan, Book XVI., Chapters 55, 57, 58; Knox, Volume II., pages 66‒72.

The negotiations resulted in the conclusion of the treaty of Edinburgh on the 6th of July, 1560. This treaty dealt with a variety of matters touching France and England, some of which were never ratified. The articles more immediately affecting the cause of the Congregation were mainly these​—that the French troops should return home; that no foreigners hereafter should be employed in Scotland without the sanction of Parliament; that an act of oblivion should be passed for all injurious deeds committed against the laws of the kingdom from the 6th of March, 1559, till the 11th of August, 1560; that a general peace should be made amongst the lords and all the subjects of the kingdom, so that those who were of the Congregation, and those who were not, should have no cause of quarrel with each other for the things done since the above date. That a Parliament should be held on the 10th of July, and adjourned to the 11th of August; and that this parliament should be as valid as if it had been expressly summoned by their majesties the King and Queen, provided that nothing be treated before the 1st of August.¹ Peace was proclaimed on the 8th of July, and a few days afterwards the French and English troops departed from Scotland.

¹ Fœdera, Volume XV., page 593, et seq.; Keith, Volume I., pages 298‒306.

The Queen-Regent had removed into the castle of Edinburgh on the approach of the English army. She was wearied with the responsibilities of her position, and, worn out, she died on the 10th of July, 1560. On her death-bed she showed a nobleness of feeling and a magnanimity of soul which moved the minds of the hardest reformers; she called for Willock, the reformed preacher, and freely and cheerfully heard such exhortations as he deemed suitable for the occasion;¹ and thus she gave an example of religious humility and liberality unmatched in that fierce intolerant age. The important place which she naturally assumed in Scotland at this crisis, and the attitude which various associations and influences led her to take up, have often been overlooked in the heat of controversy; and she has been blamed for not acting in a way which her position, and the circumstances of her connections precluded her from attempting, even apart from her hereditary tendencies and her domestic feelings and sentiments. She had often said that, if she had been permitted to act according to her own wishes and judgment, she would have ended the dissensions and settled the kingdom in peace.

¹ Sir James Melville’s Memoirs, page 29; Buchanan, Book XVI., Chapter 61; Knox, Volume II., page 71.

The reformed preachers, most of whom were in Edinburgh, were actively engaged preparing matters for the parliament. They met in St. Giles’s church on the 19th of July, and offered up solemn prayers for their deliverance.¹ About the 20th of July, the first appointment of ministers and superintendents to the chief towns and districts of the country was made.

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 84‒87.

The parliament met at Edinburgh in the beginning of August 1560. All had been summoned who had a right by law or custom to be present, and there was an unusually large attendance. Some time was spent in discussing whether it was a legal meeting of the Estates. The leaders of the Reformation had prepared a document containing what they deemed necessary for reforming the Church. This they placed in the form of a petition before the parliament. It was a rather sweeping production, and extremely vehement in expression. One part of it referred to the patrimony of the Church, but the parliament waived this important and practical question of dealing with the revenues of the hierarchy; and then requested the Reformers to lay before the House a summary of the doctrines which they proposed to establish. The party selected for this task proceeded rapidly with their work; and in four days they produced a Confession of Faith which touched upon many subjects, and delivered opinions upon some of the most difficult and speculative points which have ever tasked the powers of the human mind. It was, however, only a body of doctrine, and when on the 17th of August this Confession of Faith was read in parliament, it was adopted without hesitation “as wholesome and sound, and grounded upon the infallible truth of God’s word.” Only three Earls voted against it, on the ground that they would believe as their fathers believed before them, and no otherwise. The spiritual estate, the bishops and the clergy, said nothing;¹ and there is some reason to think that they had not formed any adequate conception of the immense issues of the revolution which was being enacted before their eyes​—the rending the foundations of the Roman Catholic Church.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 525‒534; Knox, Volume II., pages 89‒92, 220‒222. A far greater number than usual of the lesser barons attended this parliament; and their names were inserted in the roll after the commissioners of the burghs. The Roman Catholic clergy were represented in it by twenty-eight names, among whom there were six bishops. A contemporary chronicler makes the following mention of the Confession: “And upon the 20th day of the said month, the whole Lords passed to the Tolbooth, and there, after long reasoning of sundry matters concerning the commonweal of this realm, the ministers presented in the same a tractate called the Confession of our Faith, which being read was received and admitted therein.”​—Diurnal of Occurrents, pages 279‒280.

This parliament passed an act against the mass, and another abolishing the authority of the Pope in Scotland. By the first act, any person who said mass or attended to hear it was liable to have all their moveable goods confiscated, and to be otherwise punished at the discretion of the magistrate; for a second fault, banishment; and for the third, the punishment of death. It was declared that in future the Bishop of Rome, called the Pope, should have no jurisdiction in Scotland, nor should any bishop or persons whom he might appoint, dare to act, under the penalty of proscription and banishment from the kingdom.¹ The Scottish nobles had now done their work. They had at last laid the Church of their fathers in the dust; hereafter we shall see what was the real depth of their religious feelings and convictions, and how true and faithful they were to the religion which they had professed to fight so hard to establish.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 534‒535.