diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:43:30 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:43:30 -0700 |
| commit | 3185f6557ab5001988ca44d66fc728a8363f2914 (patch) | |
| tree | d5958d4e2ad922975f0b102011d61e43a67c4244 /14016-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '14016-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/14016-h.htm | 8656 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/images/knox1b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 131961 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/images/knox1s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 35243 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/images/knox2b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 91206 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/images/knox2s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 22345 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/images/knox3b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 210381 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/images/knox3s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 8041 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/images/knox4b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 441749 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/images/knox4s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 8106 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/images/knox5b.jpg | bin | 0 -> 38970 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 14016-h/images/knox5s.jpg | bin | 0 -> 9958 bytes |
11 files changed, 8656 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/14016-h/14016-h.htm b/14016-h/14016-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ffd9750 --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/14016-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,8656 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>John Knox and the Reformation</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + H1, H2 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + H3, H4 { + text-align: left; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<h2> +<a href="#startoftext">John Knox and the Reformation, by Andrew Lang</a> +</h2> +<pre> +The Project Gutenberg eBook, John Knox and the Reformation, by Andrew Lang + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + + + + +Title: John Knox and the Reformation + +Author: Andrew Lang + +Release Date: November 10, 2004 [eBook #14016] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JOHN KNOX AND THE REFORMATION*** +</pre> +<p><a name="startoftext"></a></p> +<p>Transcribed from the 1905 Longmans, Green and Co. edition by David +Price, email ccx074@coventry.ac.uk</p> +<h1>John Knox and the Reformation</h1> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/knox1b.jpg"> +<img alt="John Knox. From a Posthumous Portrait. Beza’s Icones, 1850" src="images/knox1s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>To Maurice Hewlett</p> +<h2>PREFACE</h2> +<p>In this brief Life of Knox I have tried, as much as I may, to get +behind Tradition, which has so deeply affected even modern histories +of the Scottish Reformation, and even recent Biographies of the Reformer. +The tradition is based, to a great extent, on Knox’s own “History,” +which I am therefore obliged to criticise as carefully as I can. +In his valuable <i>John Knox</i>, <i>a Biography</i>, Professor Hume +Brown says that in the “History” “we have convincing +proof alike of the writer’s good faith, and of his perception +of the conditions of historic truth.” My reasons for dissenting +from this favourable view will be found in the following pages. +If I am right, if Knox, both as a politician and an historian, resembled +Charles I. in “sailing as near the wind” as he could, the +circumstance (as another of his biographers remarks) “only makes +him more human and interesting.”</p> +<p>Opinion about Knox and the religious Revolution in which he took +so great a part, has passed through several variations in the last century. +In the <i>Edinburgh Review</i> of 1816 (No. liii. pp. 163-180), is an +article with which the present biographer can agree. Several passages +from Knox’s works are cited, and the reader is expected to be +“shocked at their principles.” They are certainly +shocking, but they are not, as a rule, set before the public by biographers +of the Reformer.</p> +<p>Mr. Carlyle introduced a style of thinking about Knox which may be +called platonically Puritan. Sweet enthusiasts glide swiftly over +all in the Reformer that is specially distasteful to us. I find +myself more in harmony with the outspoken Hallam, Dr. Joseph Robertson, +David Hume, and the Edinburgh reviewer of 1816, than with several more +recent students of Knox.</p> +<p>“The Reformer’s violent counsels and intemperate speech +were remarkable,” writes Dr. Robertson, “even in his own +ruthless age,” and he gives fourteen examples. <a name="citation0a"></a><a href="#footnote0a">{0a}</a> +“Lord Hailes has shown,” he adds, “how little Knox’s +statements” (in his “History”) “are to be relied +on even in matters which were within the Reformer’s own knowledge.” +In Scotland there has always been the party of Cavalier and White Rose +sentimentalism. To this party Queen Mary is a saintly being, and +their admiration of Claverhouse goes far beyond that entertained by +Sir Walter Scott. On the other side, there is the party, equally +sentimental, which musters under the banner of the Covenant, and sees +scarcely a blemish in Knox. A pretty sample of the sentiment of +this party appears in a biography (1905) of the Reformer by a minister +of the Gospel. Knox summoned the organised brethren, in 1563, +to overawe justice, when some men were to be tried on a charge of invading +in arms the chapel of Holyrood. No proceeding could be more anarchic +than Knox’s, or more in accordance with the lovable customs of +my dear country, at that time. But the biographer of 1905, “a +placed minister,” writes that “the doing of it” (Knox’s +summons) “was only an assertion of the liberty of the Church, +and of the members of the Commonwealth as a whole, to assemble for purposes +which were clearly lawful”—the purposes being to overawe +justice in the course of a trial!</p> +<p>On sentiment, Cavalier or Puritan, reason is thrown away.</p> +<p>I have been surprised to find how completely a study of Knox’s +own works corroborates the views of Dr. Robertson and Lord Hailes. +That Knox ran so very far ahead of the Genevan pontiffs of his age in +violence; and that in his “History” he needs such careful +watching, was, to me, an unexpected discovery. He may have been +“an old Hebrew prophet,” as Mr. Carlyle says, but he had +also been a young Scottish notary! A Hebrew prophet is, at best, +a dangerous anachronism in a delicate crisis of the Church Christian; +and the notarial element is too conspicuous in some passages of Knox’s +“History.”</p> +<p>That Knox was a great man; a disinterested man; in his regard for +the poor a truly Christian man; as a shepherd of Calvinistic souls a +man fervent and considerate; of pure life; in friendship loyal; by jealousy +untainted; in private character genial and amiable, I am entirely convinced. +In public and political life he was much less admirable; and his “History,” +vivacious as it is, must be studied as the work of an old-fashioned +advocate rather than as the summing up of a judge. His favourite +adjectives are “bloody,” “beastly,” “rotten,” +and “stinking.”</p> +<p>Any inaccuracies of my own which may have escaped my correction will +be dwelt on, by enthusiasts for the Prophet, as if they are the main +elements of this book, and disqualify me as a critic of Knox’s +“History.” At least any such errors on my part are +involuntary and unconscious. In Knox’s defence we must remember +that he never saw his “History” in print. But he kept +it by him for many years, obviously re-reading, for he certainly retouched +it, as late as 1571.</p> +<p>In quoting Knox and his contemporaries, I have used modern spelling: +the letter from the State Papers printed on pp. 146, 147, shows what +the orthography of the period was really like. Consultation of +the original MSS. on doubtful points, proves that the printed Calendars, +though excellent guides, cannot be relied on as authorities.</p> +<p>The portrait of Knox, from Beza’s book of portraits of Reformers, +is posthumous, but is probably a good likeness drawn from memory, after +a description by Peter Young, who knew him, and a design, presumably +by “Adrianc Vaensoun,” a Fleming, resident in Edinburgh. +<a name="citation0b"></a><a href="#footnote0b">{0b}</a></p> +<p>There is an interesting portrait, possibly of Knox, in the National +Gallery of Portraits, but the work has no known authentic history.</p> +<p>The portrait of Queen Mary, at the age of thirty-six, and a prisoner, +is from the Earl of Morton’s original; it is greatly superior +to the “Sheffield” type of likenesses, of about 1578; and, +with Janet’s and other drawings (1558-1561), the Bridal medal +of 1558, and (in my opinion) the Earl of Leven and Melville’s +portrait, of about 1560-1565, is the best extant representation of the +Queen.</p> +<p>The Leven and Melville portrait of Mary, young and charming, and +wearing jewels which are found recorded in her Inventories, has hitherto +been overlooked. An admirable photogravure is given in Mr. J. +J. Foster’s “True Portraiture of Mary, Queen of Scots” +(1905), and I understand that a photograph was done in 1866 for the +South Kensington Museum.</p> +<p>A. LANG.</p> +<p>8 Gibson Place, St. Andrews.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER I: ANCESTRY, BIRTH, EDUCATION, ENVIRONMENT: 1513(?)-1546</h2> +<p>“<i>November</i> 24, 1572.</p> +<p>“John Knox, minister, deceased, who had, as was alleged, the +most part of the blame of all the sorrows of Scotland since the slaughter +of the late Cardinal.”</p> +<p>It is thus that the decent burgess who, in 1572, kept <i>The Diurnal</i> +of such daily events as he deemed important, cautiously records the +death of the great Scottish Reformer. The sorrows, the “cumber” +of which Knox was “alleged” to bear the blame, did not end +with his death. They persisted in the conspiracies and rebellions +of the earlier years of James VI.; they smouldered through the later +part of his time; they broke into far spreading flame at the touch of +the Covenant; they blazed at “dark Worcester and bloody Dunbar”; +at Preston fight, and the sack of Dundee by Monk; they included the +Cromwellian conquest of Scotland, and the shame and misery of the Restoration; +to trace them down to our own age would be invidious.</p> +<p>It is with the “alleged” author of the Sorrows, with +his life, works, and ideas that we are concerned.</p> +<p>John Knox, son of William Knox and of --- Sinclair, his wife, <a name="citation2a"></a><a href="#footnote2a">{2a}</a> +unlike most Scotsmen, unlike even Mr. Carlyle, had not “an ell +of pedigree.” The common scoff was that each Scot styled +himself “the King’s poor cousin.” But John Knox +declared, “I am a man of base estate and condition.” <a name="citation2b"></a><a href="#footnote2b">{2b}</a> +The genealogy of Mr. Carlyle has been traced to a date behind the Norman +Conquest, but of Knox’s ancestors nothing is known. He himself, +in 1562, when he “ruled the roast” in Scotland, told the +ruffian Earl of Bothwell, “my grandfather, my maternal grandfather, +and my father, have served your Lordship’s predecessors, and some +of them have died under their standards; and this” (namely goodwill +to the house of the feudal superior) “is a part of the obligation +of our Scottish kindness.” Knox, indeed, never writes very +harshly of Bothwell, partly for the reason he gives; partly, perhaps, +because Bothwell, though an infamous character, and a political opponent, +was not in 1562-67 “an idolater,” that is, a Catholic: if +ever he had been one; partly because his “History” ends +before Bothwell’s murder of Darnley in 1567.</p> +<p>Knox’s ancestors were, we may suppose, peasant farmers, like +the ancestors of Burns and Hogg; and Knox, though he married a maid +of the Queen’s kin, bore traces of his descent. “A +man ungrateful and unpleasable,” Northumberland styled him: he +was one who could not “smiling, put a question by”; if he +had to remonstrate even with a person whom it was desirable to conciliate, +he stated his case in the plainest and least flattering terms. +“Of nature I am churlish, and in conditions different from many,” +he wrote; but this side of his character he kept mainly for people of +high rank, accustomed to deference, and indifferent or hostile to his +aims. To others, especially to women whom he liked, he was considerate +and courteous, but any assertion of social superiority aroused his wakeful +independence. His countrymen of his own order had long displayed +these peculiarities of humour.</p> +<p>The small Scottish cultivators from whose ranks Knox rose, appear, +even before his age, in two strangely different lights. If they +were not technically “kindly tenants,” in which case their +conditions of existence and of tenure were comparatively comfortable +and secure, they were liable to eviction at the will of the lord, and, +to quote an account of their condition written in 1549, “were +in more servitude than the children of Israel in Egypt.” +Henderson, the writer of 1549 whom we have quoted, hopes that the agricultural +class may yet live “as substantial commoners, not miserable cottars, +charged daily to war and slay their neighbours <i>at their own expense</i>,” +as under the standards of the unruly Bothwell House. This Henderson +was one of the political observers who, before the Scottish Reformation, +hoped for a secure union between Scotland and England, in place of the +old and romantic league with France. That alliance had, indeed, +enabled both France and Scotland to maintain their national independence. +But, with the great revolution in religion, the interest of Scotland +was a permanent political league with England, which Knox did as much +as any man to forward, while, by resisting a religious union, he left +the seeds of many sorrows.</p> +<p>If the Lowland peasantry, from one point of view, were terribly oppressed, +we know that they were of independent manners. In 1515 the chaplain +of Margaret Tudor, the Queen Mother, writes to one Adam Williamson: +“You know the use of this country. Every man speaks what +he will without blame. The man hath more words than the master, +and will not be content unless he knows the master’s counsel. +There is no order among us.”</p> +<p>Thus, two hundred and fifty years before Burns, the Lowland Scot +was minded that “A man’s a man for a’ that!” +Knox was the true flower of this vigorous Lowland thistle. Throughout +life he not only “spoke what he would,” but uttered “the +Truth” in such a tone as to make it unlikely that his “message” +should be accepted by opponents. Like Carlyle, however, he had +a heart rich in affection, no breach in friendship, he says, ever began +on his side; while, as “a good hater,” Dr. Johnson might +have admired him. He carried into political and theological conflicts +the stubborn temper of the Border prickers, his fathers, who had ridden +under the Roses and the Lion of the Hepburns. So far Knox was +an example of the doctrine of heredity; that we know, however little +we learn in detail about his ancestors.</p> +<p>The birthplace of Knox was probably a house in a suburb of Haddington, +in a district on the path of English invasion. The year of his +birth has long been dated, on a late statement of little authority, +as 1505. <a name="citation4"></a><a href="#footnote4">{4}</a> +Seven years after his death, however, a man who knew him well, namely, +Peter Young, tutor and librarian of James VI., told Beza that Knox died +in his fifty-ninth year. Dr. Hay Fleming has pointed out that +his natal year was probably 1513-15, not 1505, and this reckoning, we +shall see, appears to fit in better with the deeds of the Reformer.</p> +<p>If Knox was born in 1513-15, he must have taken priest’s orders, +and adopted the profession of a notary, at nearly the earliest moment +which the canonical law permitted. No man ought to be in priest’s +orders before he was twenty-five; Knox, if born in 1515, was just twenty-five +in 1540, when he is styled “Sir John Knox” (one of “The +Pope’s Knights”) in legal documents, and appears as a notary. +<a name="citation5"></a><a href="#footnote5">{5}</a> He certainly +continued in orders and in the notarial profession as late as March +1543. The law of the Church did not, in fact, permit priests to +be notaries, but in an age when “notaires” were often professional +forgers, the additional security for character yielded by Holy Orders +must have been welcome to clients, and Bishops permitted priests to +practise this branch of the law.</p> +<p>Of Knox’s near kin no more is known than of his ancestors. +He had a brother, William, for whom, in 1552, he procured a licence +to trade in England as owner of a ship of 100 tons. Even as late +as 1656, there were not a dozen ships of this burden in Scotland, so +William Knox must have been relatively a prosperous man. In 1544-45, +there was a William Knox, a fowler or gamekeeper to the Earl of Westmoreland, +who acted as a secret agent between the Scots in English pay and their +paymasters. We much later (1559) find the Reformer’s brother, +William, engaged with him in a secret political mission to the Governor +of Berwick; probably this William knew shy Border paths, and he may +have learned them as the Lord Westmoreland’s fowler in earlier +years.</p> +<p>About John Knox’s early years and education nothing is known. +He certainly acquired such Latin (<i>satis humilis</i>, says a German +critic) as Scotland then had to teach; probably at the Burgh School +of Haddington. A certain John Knox matriculated at the University +of Glasgow in 1522, but he cannot have been the Reformer, if the Reformer +was not born till 1513-15. Beza, on the other hand (1580), had +learned, probably from the Reformer, whom he knew well, that Knox was +a St. Andrews man, and though his name does not occur in the University +Register, the Register was very ill kept. Supposing Knox, then, +to have been born in 1513-15, and to have been educated at St. Andrews, +we can see how he comes to know so much about the progress of the new +religious ideas at that University, between 1529 and 1535. “The +Well of St. Leonard’s College” was a notorious fountain +of heresies, under Gawain Logie, the Principal. Knox very probably +heard the sermons of the Dominicans and Franciscans “against the +pride and idle life of bishops,” and other abuses. He speaks +of a private conversation between Friar Airth and Major (about 1534), +and names some of the persons present at a sermon in the parish church +of St. Andrews, as if he had himself been in the congregation. +He gives the text and heads of the discourse, including “merry +tales” told by the Friar. <a name="citation6"></a><a href="#footnote6">{6}</a> +If Knox heard the sermons and stories of clerical scandals at St. Andrews, +they did not prevent him from taking orders. His Greek and Hebrew, +what there was of them, Knox must have acquired in later life, at least +we never learn that he was taught by the famous George Wishart, who, +about that time, gave Greek lectures at Montrose.</p> +<p>The Catholic opponents of Knox naturally told scandalous anecdotes +concerning his youth. These are destitute of evidence: about his +youth we know nothing. It is a characteristic trait in him, and +a fact much to his credit, that, though he is fond of expatiating about +himself, he never makes confessions as to his earlier adventures. +On his own years of the wild oat St. Augustine dilates in a style which +still has charm: but Knox, if he sowed wild oats, is silent as the tomb. +If he has anything to repent, it is not to the world that he confesses. +About the days when he was “one of Baal’s shaven sort,” +in his own phrase; when he was himself an “idolater,” and +a priest of the altar: about the details of his conversion, Knox is +mute. It is probable that, as a priest, he examined Lutheran books +which were brought in with other merchandise from Holland; read the +Bible for himself; and failed to find Purgatory, the Mass, the intercession +of Saints, pardons, pilgrimages, and other accessories of mediæval +religion in the Scriptures. <a name="citation7"></a><a href="#footnote7">{7}</a> +Knox had only to keep his eyes and ears open, to observe the clerical +ignorance and corruption which resulted in great part from the Scottish +habit of securing wealthy Church offices for ignorant, brutal, and licentious +younger sons and bastards of noble families. This practice in +Scotland was as odious to good Catholics, like Quentin Kennedy, Ninian +Winzet, and, rather earlier, to Ferrerius, as to Knox himself. +The prevalent anarchy caused by the long minorities of the Stuart kings, +and by the interminable wars with England, and the difficulty of communications +with Rome, had enabled the nobles thus to rob and deprave the Church, +and so to provide themselves with moral reasons good for robbing her +again; as a punishment for the iniquities which they had themselves +introduced!</p> +<p>The almost incredible ignorance and profligacy of the higher Scottish +clergy (with notable exceptions) in Knox’s youth, are not matter +of controversy. They are as frankly recognised by contemporary +Catholic as by Protestant authors. In the very year of the destruction +of the monasteries (1559) the abuses are officially stated, as will +be told later, by the last Scottish Provincial Council. Though +three of the four Scottish universities were founded by Catholics, and +the fourth, Edinburgh, had an endowment bequeathed by a Catholic, the +clerical ignorance, in Knox’s time, was such that many priests +could hardly read.</p> +<p>If more evidence is needed as to the debauched estate of the Scottish +clergy, we obtain it from Mary of Guise, widow of James V., the Regent +then governing Scotland for her child, Mary Stuart. The Queen, +in December 1555, begged Pius IV. to permit her to levy a tax on her +clergy, and to listen to what Cardinal Sermoneta would tell him about +their need of reformation. The Cardinal drew a terrible sketch +of the nefarious lives of “every kind of religious women” +in Scotland. They go about with their illegal families and dower +their daughters out of the revenues of the Church. The monks, +too, have bloated wealth, while churches are allowed to fall into decay. +“The only hope is in the Holy Father,” who should appoint +an episcopal commission of visitation. For about forty years prelates +have been alienating Church lands illegally, and churches and monasteries, +by the avarice of those placed in charge, are crumbling to decay. +Bishops are the chief dealers in cattle, fish, and hides, though we +have, in fact, good evidence that their dealings were very limited, +“sma’ sums.”</p> +<p>Not only the clergy, but the nobles and people were lawless. +“They are more difficult to manage than ever,” writes Mary +of Guise (Jan. 13, 1557). They are recalcitrant against law and +order; every attempt at introducing these is denounced as an attack +on their old laws: not that their laws are bad, but that they are badly +administered. <a name="citation9"></a><a href="#footnote9">{9}</a> +Scotland, in brief, had always been lawless, and for centuries had never +been godly. She was untouched by the first fervour of the Franciscan +and other religious revivals. Knox could not fail to see what +was so patent: many books of the German reformers may have come in his +way; no more was wanted than the preaching of George Wishart in 1543-45, +to make him an irreconcilable foe of the doctrine as well as the discipline +of his Church.</p> +<p>Knox had a sincerely religious nature, and a conviction that he was, +more than most men, though a sinner, in close touch with Him “in +whom we live and move and have our being.” We ask ourselves, +had Knox, as “a priest of the altar,” never known the deep +emotions, which tongue may not utter, that the ceremonies and services +of his Church so naturally awaken in the soul of the believer? +These emotions, if they were in his experience, he never remembered +tenderly, he flung them from him without regret; not regarding them +even as dreams, beautiful and dear, but misleading, that came through +the Ivory Gate. To Knox’s opponent in controversy, Quentin +Kennedy, the mass was “the blessed Sacrament of the Altar . . +. which is one of the chief Sacraments whereby our Saviour, for the +salvation of mankind, has appointed the fruit of His death and passion +to be daily renewed and applied.” In this traditional view +there is nothing unedifying, nothing injurious to the Christian life. +But to Knox the wafer is an idol, a god “of water and meal,” +“but a feeble and miserable god,” that can be destroyed +“by a bold and puissant mouse.” “Rats and mice +will desire no better dinner than white round gods enough.” <a name="citation10"></a><a href="#footnote10">{10}</a></p> +<p>The Reformer and the Catholic take up the question “by different +handles”; and the Catholic grounds his defence on a text about +Melchizedek! To Knox the mass is the symbol of all that he justly +detested in the degraded Church as she then was in Scotland, “that +horrible harlot with her filthiness.” To Kennedy it was +what we have seen.</p> +<p>Knox speaks of having been in “the puddle of papistry.” +He loathes what he has left behind him, and it is natural to guess that, +in his first years of priesthood, his religious nature slept; that he +became a priest and notary merely that he “might eat a morsel +of bread”; and that real “conviction” never was his +till his studies of Protestant controversialists, and also of St. Augustine +and the Bible, and the teaching of Wishart, raised him from a mundane +life. Then he awoke to a passionate horror and hatred of his old +routine of “mumbled masses,” of “rites of human invention,” +whereof he had never known the poetry and the mystic charm. Had +he known them, he could not have so denied and detested them. +On the other hand, when once he had embraced the new ideas, Knox’s +faith in them, or in his own form of them, was firm as the round world, +made so fast that it cannot be moved. He had now a <i>pou sto</i>, +whence he could, and did, move the world of human affairs. A faith +not to be shaken, and enormous energy were the essential attributes +of the Reformer. It is almost impossible to find an instance in +which Knox allows that he may have been mistaken: <i>d’avoir toujours +raison</i> was his claim. If he admits an error in details, it +is usually an error of insufficient severity. He did not attack +Northumberland or Mary Stuart with adequate violence; he did not disapprove +enough of our prayer book; he did not hand a heretic over to the magistrates.</p> +<p>While acting as a priest and notary, between 1540, at latest, and +1543, Knox was engaged as private tutor to a boy named Brounefield, +son of Brounefield of Greenlaw, and to other lads, spoken of as his +“bairns.” In this profession of tutor he continued +till 1547.</p> +<p>Knox’s personal aspect did not give signs of the uncommon strength +which his unceasing labours demanded, but, like many men of energy, +he had a perpetual youth of character and vigour. After his death, +Peter Young described him as he appeared in his later years. He +was somewhat below the “just” standard of height; his limbs +were well and elegantly shaped; his shoulders broad, his fingers rather +long, his head small, his hair black, his face somewhat swarthy, and +not unpleasant to behold. There was a certain geniality in a countenance +serious and stern, with a natural dignity and air of command; his eyebrows, +when he was in anger, were expressive. His forehead was rather +narrow, depressed above the eyebrows; his cheeks were full and ruddy, +so that the eyes seemed to retreat into their hollows: they were dark +grey, keen, and lively. The face was long, the nose also; the +mouth was large, the upper lip being the thicker. The beard was +long, rather thick and black, with a few grey hairs in his later years. +<a name="citation12"></a><a href="#footnote12">{12}</a> The nearest +approach to an authentic portrait of Knox is a woodcut, engraved after +a sketch from memory by Peter Young, and after another sketch of the +same kind by an artist in Edinburgh. Compared with the peevish +face of Calvin, also in Beza’s <i>Icones</i>, Knox looks a broad-minded +and genial character.</p> +<p>Despite the uncommon length to which Knox carried the contemporary +approval of persecution, then almost universal, except among the Anabaptists +(and any party out of power), he was not personally rancorous where +religion was not concerned. But concerned it usually was! +He was the subject of many anonymous pasquils and libels, we know, but +he entirely disregarded them. If he hated any mortal personally, +and beyond what true religion demands of a Christian, that mortal was +the mother of Mary Stuart, an amiable lady in an impossible position. +Of jealousy towards his brethren there is not a trace in Knox, and he +told Queen Mary that he could ill bear to correct his own boys, though +the age was as cruel to schoolboys as that of St. Augustine.</p> +<p>The faults of Knox arose not in his heart, but in his head; they +sprung from intellectual errors, and from the belief that he was always +right. He applied to his fellow-Christians—Catholics—the +commands which early Israel supposed to be divinely directed against +foreign worshippers of Chemosh and Moloch. He endeavoured to force +his own theory of what the discipline of the Primitive Apostolic Church +had been upon a modern nation, following the example of the little city +state of Geneva, under Calvin. He claimed for preachers chosen +by local congregations the privileges and powers of the apostolic companions +of Christ, and in place of “sweet reasonableness,” he applied +the methods, quite alien to the Founder of Christianity, of the “Sons +of Thunder.” All controversialists then relied on isolated +and inappropriate scriptural texts, and Biblical analogies which were +not analogous; but Knox employed these things, with perhaps unusual +inconsistency, in varying circumstances. His “History” +is not more scrupulous than that of other partisans in an exciting contest, +and examples of his taste for personal scandal are not scarce.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER II: KNOX, WISHART, AND THE MURDER OF BEATON: 1545-1546</h2> +<p>Our earliest knowledge of Knox, apart from mention of him in notarial +documents, is derived from his own <i>History of the Reformation</i>. +The portion of that work in which he first mentions himself was written +about 1561-66, some twenty years after the events recorded, and in reading +all this part of his Memoirs, and his account of the religious struggle, +allowance must be made for errors of memory, or for erroneous information. +We meet him first towards the end of “the holy days of Yule”—Christmas, +1545. Knox had then for some weeks been the constant companion +and armed bodyguard of George Wishart, who was calling himself “the +messenger of the Eternal God,” and preaching the new ideas in +Haddington to very small congregations. This Wishart, Knox’s +master in the faith, was a Forfarshire man; he is said to have taught +Greek at Montrose, to have been driven thence in 1538 by the Bishop +of Brechin, and to have recanted certain heresies in 1539. He +had denied the merits of Christ as the Redeemer, but afterwards dropped +that error, when persistence meant death at the stake. It was +in Bristol that he “burned his faggot,” in place of being +burned himself. There was really nothing humiliating in this recantation, +for, after his release, he did not resume his heresy; clearly he yielded, +not to fear, but to conviction of theological error. <a name="citation15a"></a><a href="#footnote15a">{15a}</a></p> +<p>He next travelled in Germany, where a Jew, on a Rhine boat, inspired +or increased his aversion to works of sacred art, as being “idolatrous.” +About 1542-43 he was reading with pupils at Cambridge, and was remarked +for the severity of his ascetic virtue, and for his great charity. +At some uncertain date he translated the Helvetic Confession of Faith, +and he was more of a Calvinist than a Lutheran. In July 1543 he +returned to Scotland; at least he returned with some “commissioners +to England,” who certainly came home in July 1543, as Knox mentions, +though later he gives the date of Wishart’s return in 1544, probably +by a slip of the pen.</p> +<p>Coming home in July 1543, Wishart would expect a fair chance of preaching +his novel ideas, as peace between Scotland and Protestant England now +seemed secure, and Arran, the Scottish Regent, the chief of the almost +Royal House of Hamilton, was, for the moment, himself a Protestant. +For five days (August 28-September 3, 1543) the great Cardinal Beaton, +the head of the party of the Church, was outlawed, and Wishart’s +preaching at Dundee, about that date, is supposed by some <a name="citation15b"></a><a href="#footnote15b">{15b}</a> +to have stimulated an attack then made on the monasteries in the town. +But Arran suddenly recanted, deserted the Protestants and the faction +attached to England, and joined forces with Cardinal Beaton, who, in +November 1543, visited Dundee, and imprisoned the ringleaders in the +riots. They are called “the honestest men in the town,” +by the treble traitor and rascal, Crichton, laird of Brunston in Lothian, +at this time a secret agent of Sadleir, the envoy of Henry VIII. (November +25, 1543).</p> +<p>By April 1544, Henry was preparing to invade Scotland, and the “earnest +professors” of Protestant doctrines in Scotland sent to him “a +Scottish man called Wysshert,” with a proposal for the kidnapping +or murder of Cardinal Beaton. Brunston and other Scottish lairds +of Wishart’s circle were agents of the plot, and in 1545-46 our +George Wishart is found companioning with them. When Cassilis +took up the threads of the plot against Beaton, it was to Cassilis’s +country in Ayrshire that Wishart went and there preached. Thence +he returned to Dundee, to fight the plague and comfort the citizens, +and, towards the end of 1545, moved to Lothian, expecting to be joined +there by his westland supporters, led by Cassilis—but entertaining +dark forebodings of his doom.</p> +<p>There were, however, other Wisharts, Protestants, in Scotland. +It is not possible to prove that this reformer, though the associate, +was the agent of the murderers, or was even conscious of their schemes. +Yet if he had been, there was no matter for marvel. Knox himself +approved of and applauded the murders of Cardinal Beaton and of Riccio, +and, in that age, too many men of all creeds and parties believed that +to kill an opponent of their religious cause was to imitate Phinehas, +Jael, Jehu, and other patriots of Hebrew history. Dr. M‘Crie +remarks that Knox “held the opinion, that persons who, according +to the law of God and the just laws of society, have forfeited their +lives by the commission of flagrant crimes, such as notorious murderers +and tyrants, may warrantably be put to death by private individuals, +provided all redress in the ordinary course of justice is rendered impossible, +in consequence of the offenders having usurped the executive authority, +or being systematically protected by oppressive rulers.” +The ideas of Knox, in fact, varied in varying circumstances and moods, +and, as we shall show, at times he preached notions far more truculent +than those attributed to him by his biographer; at times was all for +saint-like submission and mere “passive resistance.” <a name="citation17"></a><a href="#footnote17">{17}</a></p> +<p>The current ideas of both parties on “killing no murder” +were little better than those of modern anarchists. It was a prevalent +opinion that a king might have a subject assassinated, if to try him +publicly entailed political inconveniences. The Inquisition, in +Spain, vigorously repudiated this theory, but the Inquisition was in +advance of the age. Knox, as to the doctrine of “killing +no murder,” was, and Wishart may have been, a man of his time. +But Knox, in telling the story of a murder which he approves, unhappily +displays a glee unbecoming a reformer of the Church of Him who blamed +St. Peter for his recourse to the sword. The very essence of Christianity +is cast to the winds when Knox utters his laughter over the murders +or misfortunes of his opponents, yielding, as Dr. M‘Crie says, +“to the strong propensity which he felt to indulge his vein of +humour.” Other good men rejoiced in the murder of an enemy, +but Knox chuckled.</p> +<p>Nothing has injured Knox more in the eyes of posterity (when they +happen to be aware of the facts) than this “humour” of his.</p> +<p>Knox might be pardoned had he merely excused the murder of “the +devil’s own son,” Cardinal Beaton, who executed the law +on his friend and master, George Wishart. To Wishart Knox bore +a tender and enthusiastic affection, crediting him not only with the +virtues of charity and courage which he possessed, but also with supernormal +premonitions; “he was so clearly illuminated with the spirit of +prophecy.” These premonitions appear to have come to Wishart +by way of vision. Knox asserted some prophetic gift for himself, +but never hints anything as to the method, whether by dream, vision, +or the hearing of voices. He often alludes to himself as “the +prophet,” and claims certain privileges in that capacity. +For example the prophet may blamelessly preach what men call “treason,” +as we shall see. As to his actual predictions of events, he occasionally +writes as if they were mere deductions from Scripture. God will +punish the idolater; A or B is an idolater; therefore it is safe to +predict that God will punish him or her. “What man then +can cease to prophesy?” he asks; and there is, if we thus consider +the matter, no reason why anybody should ever leave off prophesying. +<a name="citation18a"></a><a href="#footnote18a">{18a}</a></p> +<p>But if the art of prophecy is common to all Bible-reading mankind, +all mankind, being prophets, may promulgate treason, which Knox perhaps +would not have admitted. He thought himself more specially a seer, +and in his prayer after the failure of his friends, the murderers of +Riccio, he congratulates himself on being favoured above the common +sort of his brethren, and privileged to “forespeak” things, +in an unique degree.</p> +<p>“I dare not deny . . . but that God hath revealed unto me secrets +unknown to the world,” he writes <a name="citation18b"></a><a href="#footnote18b">{18b}</a>; +and these claims soar high above mere deductions from Scripture. +His biographer, Dr. M‘Crie, doubts whether we can dismiss, as +necessarily baseless, all stories of “extraordinary premonitions +since the completion of the canon of inspiration.” <a name="citation19"></a><a href="#footnote19">{19}</a> +Indeed, there appears to be no reason why we should draw the line at +a given date, and “limit the operations of divine Providence.” +I would be the last to do so, but then Knox’s premonitions are +sometimes, or usually, without documentary and contemporary corroboration; +once he certainly prophesied after the event (as we shall see), and +he never troubles himself about his predictions which were unfulfilled, +as against Queen Elizabeth.</p> +<p>He supplied the Kirk with the tradition of supernormal premonitions +in preachers—second-sight and clairvoyance—as in the case +of Mr. Peden and other saints of the Covenant. But just as good +cases of clairvoyance as any of Mr. Peden’s are attributed to +Catherine de Medici, who was not a saint, by her daughter, La Reine +Margot, and others. In Knox, at all events, there is no trace +of visual or auditory hallucinations, so common in religious experiences, +whatever the creed of the percipient. He was not a visionary. +More than this we cannot safely say about his prophetic vein.</p> +<p>The enthusiasm which induced a priest, notary, and teacher like Knox +to carry a claymore in defence of a beloved teacher, Wishart, seems +more appropriate to a man of about thirty than a man of forty, and, +so far, supports the opinion that, in 1545, Knox was only thirty years +of age. In that case, his study of the debates between the Church +and the new opinions must have been relatively brief. Yet, in +1547, he already reckoned himself, not incorrectly, as a skilled disputant +in favour of ideas with which he cannot have been very long familiar.</p> +<p>Wishart was taken, was tried, was condemned; was strangled, and his +dead body was burned at St. Andrews on March 1, 1546. It is highly +improbable that Knox could venture, as a marked man, to be present at +the trial. He cites the account of it in his “History” +from the contemporary Scottish narrative used by Foxe in his “Martyrs,” +and Laing, Knox’s editor, thinks that Foxe “may possibly +have been indebted for some” of the Scottish accounts “to +the Scottish Reformer.” It seems, if there be anything in +evidence of tone and style, that what Knox quotes from Foxe in 1561-66 +is what Knox himself actually wrote about 1547-48. Mr. Hill Burton +observes in the tract “the mark of Knox’s vehement colouring,” +and adds, “it is needless to seek in the account for precise accuracy.” +In “precise accuracy” many historians are as sadly to seek +as Knox himself, but his peculiar “colouring” is all his +own, and is as marked in the pamphlet on Wishart’s trial, which +he cites, as in the “History” which he acknowledged.</p> +<p>There are said to be but few copies of the first edition of the black +letter tract on Wishart’s trial, published in London, with Lindsay’s +“Tragedy of the Cardinal,” by Day and Seres. I regard +it as the earliest printed work of John Knox. <a name="citation20"></a><a href="#footnote20">{20}</a> +The author, when he describes Lauder, Wishart’s official accuser, +as “a fed sow . . . his face running down with sweat, and frothing +at the mouth like ane bear,” who “spat at Maister George’s +face, . . . ” shows every mark of Knox’s vehement and pictorial +style. His editor, Laing, bids us observe “that all these +opprobrious terms are copied from Foxe, or rather from the black letter +tract.” But the black letter tract, I conceive, must be +Knox’s own. Its author, like Knox, “indulges his vein +of humour” by speaking of friars as “fiends”; like +Knox he calls Wishart “Maister George,” and “that +servand of God.”</p> +<p>The peculiarities of the tract, good and bad, the vivid familiar +manner, the vehemence, the pictorial quality, the violent invective, +are the notes of Knox’s “History.” Already, +by 1547, or not much later, he was the perfect master of his style; +his tone no more resembles that of his contemporary and fellow-historian, +Lesley, than the style of Mr. J. R. Green resembles that of Mr. S. R. +Gardiner.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER III: KNOX IN ST. ANDREWS CASTLE: THE GALLEYS: 1547-1549</h2> +<p>We now take up Knox where we left him: namely when Wishart was arrested +in January 1546. He was then tutor to the sons of the lairds of +Langniddrie and Ormiston, Protestants and of the English party. +Of his adventures we know nothing, till, on Beaton’s murder (May +29, 1546), the Cardinal’s successor, Archbishop Hamilton, drove +him “from place to place,” and, at Easter, 1547, he with +his pupils entered the Castle of St. Andrews, then held, with some English +aid, against the Regent Arran, by the murderers of Beaton and their +adherents. <a name="citation22"></a><a href="#footnote22">{22}</a> +Knox was not present, of course, at Beaton’s murder, about which +he writes so “merrily,” in his manner of mirth; nor at the +events of Arran’s siege of the castle, prior to April 1547. +He probably, as regards these matters, writes from recollection of what +Kirkcaldy of Grange, James Balfour, Balnaves, and the other murderers +or associates of the murderers of the Cardinal told him in 1547, or +later communicated to him as he wrote, about 1565-66. With his +unfortunate love of imputing personal motives, he attributes the attacks +by the rulers on the murderers mainly to the revengeful nature of Mary +of Guise; the Cardinal having been “the comfort to all gentlewomen, +<i>and especially to wanton widows</i>. His death must be revenged.” +<a name="citation23a"></a><a href="#footnote23a">{23a}</a></p> +<p>Knox avers that the besiegers of St. Andrews Castle, despairing of +their task, near the end of January 1547 made a fraudulent truce with +the assassins, hoping for the betrayal of the castle, or of some of +the leaders. <a name="citation23b"></a><a href="#footnote23b">{23b}</a> +In his narrative we find partisanship or very erroneous information. +The conditions were, he says, that (1) the murderers should hold the +castle till Arran could obtain for them, from the Pope, a sufficient +absolution; (2) that they should give hostages, as soon as the absolution +was delivered to them; (3) that they and their friends should not be +prosecuted, nor undergo any legal penalties for the murder of the Cardinal; +(4) that they should meanwhile keep the eldest son of Arran as hostage, +so long as their own hostages were kept. The Government, however, +says Knox, “never minded to keep word of them” (of these +conditions), “as the issue did declare.”</p> +<p>There is no proof of this accusation of treachery on the part of +Arran, or none known to me. The constant aim of Knox, his fixed +idea, as an historian, is to accuse his adversaries of the treachery +which often marked the negotiations of his friends.</p> +<p>From this point, the truce, dated by Knox late in January 1547, he +devotes eighteen pages to his own call to the ministry by the castle +people, and to his controversies and sermons in St. Andrews. He +then returns to history, and avers that, about June 21, 1547, the papal +absolution was presented to the garrison merely as a veil for a treasonable +attack, but was rejected, as it included the dubious phrase, <i>Remittimus +irremissibile</i>—“We remit the crime that cannot be remitted.” +Nine days later, June 29, he says, by “the treasonable mean” +of Arran, Archbishop Hamilton, and Mary of Guise, twenty-one French +galleys, and such an army as the Firth had never seen, hove into view, +and on June 30 summoned the castle to surrender. The siege of +St Andrews Castle, from the sea, by the French then began, but the garrison +and castle were unharmed, and many of the galley slaves and some French +soldiers were slain, and a ship was driven out of action. The +French “shot two days” only. On July 19 the siege +was renewed by land, guns were mounted on the spires of St. Salvator’s +College chapel and on the Cathedral, and did much scathe, though, during +the first three weeks of the siege, the garrison “had many prosperous +chances.” Meanwhile Knox prophesied the defeat of his associates, +because of “their corrupt life.” They had robbed and +ravished, and were probably demoralised by Knox’s prophecies. +On the last day of July the castle surrendered. <a name="citation24"></a><a href="#footnote24">{24}</a> +Knox adds that his friends would deal with France alone, as “Scottish +men had all traitorously betrayed them.”</p> +<p>Now much of this narrative is wrong; wrong in detail, in suggestion, +in omission. That a man of fifty, or sixty, could attribute the +attacks on Beaton’s murderers to mere revenge, specially to that +of a “wanton widow,” Mary of Guise (who had, we are to believe, +so much of the Cardinal’s attentions as his mistress, Mariotte +Ogilvy, could spare), is significant of the spirit in which Knox wrote +history. He had a strong taste for such scandals as this about +the “wanton widow.”</p> +<p>Wherever he touches on Mary of Guise (who once treated him in a spirit +of banter), he deals a stab at her name and fame. On all that +concerns her personal character and political conduct, he is unworthy +of credit when uncorroborated by better authority. Indeed Knox’s +spirit is so unworthy that for this, among other reasons, Archbishop +Spottiswoode declined to believe in his authorship of the “History.” +The actual facts were not those recorded by Knox.</p> +<p>As regards the “Appointment” or arrangement of the Scottish +Government with the Castilians, it was not made late in January 1547, +but was at least begun by December 17-19, 1546. <a name="citation25a"></a><a href="#footnote25a">{25a}</a> +On January 11, 1547, a spy of England, Stewart of Cardonald, reports +that the garrison have given pledges and await their absolution from +Rome. <a name="citation25b"></a><a href="#footnote25b">{25b}</a> +With regard to Knox’s other statements in this place, it was not +<i>after</i> this truce, first, but before it, on November 26, that +Arran invited French assistance, if England would not include Scotland +in a treaty of peace with France. An English invasion was expected +in February 1547, and Arran’s object in the “Appointment” +with the garrison was to prevent the English from becoming possessed +of the Castle of St. Andrews. Far from desiring a papal pardon—a +mere pretext to gain time for English relief—the garrison actually +asked Henry VIII. to request the Emperor, to implore the Pope, “to +stop and hinder their absolution.” <a name="citation25c"></a><a href="#footnote25c">{25c}</a> +Knox very probably knew nothing of all this, but his efforts to throw +the blame of treachery on his opponents are obviously futile.</p> +<p>As to the honesty of his associates—before the death of Henry +VIII. (January 28, 1547), the Castilians had promised him not to surrender +the place without his consent, and to put Arran’s son in his hands, +promises which they also made, on Henry’s death, to the English +Government; in February they repeated these promises, quite incompatible +with their vow to surrender if absolved. Knox represents them +as merely promising to Henry that they would return Arran’s son, +and support the plan of marrying Mary Stuart to Prince Edward of Wales! +<a name="citation26a"></a><a href="#footnote26a">{26a}</a> In +March 1547, English ships gathered at Holy Island, to relieve the castle. +Not on June 21, 1547, as Knox alleges, but before April 2, the papal +absolution for the murderers arrived. They mocked at it; and the +spy who reports the facts is told that they “would rather have +a boll of wheat than all the Pope’s remissions.” <a name="citation26b"></a><a href="#footnote26b">{26b}</a> +Whatever the terms of the papal remission, they had already, before +it arrived, bound themselves to England not to accept it save with English +concurrence; and England, then preparing to invade Scotland, could not +possibly concur. Such was the honesty of Knox’s party, and +we already see how far his “History” deserves to be accepted +as historical.</p> +<p>Next, what is most surprising, Knox’s account of the month +of ineffectual siege by the French, while he was actually in the castle, +rests on a strange error of his memory. The contemporary diary, +<i>Diurnal of Occurrences</i> dates the <i>sending</i> (the arrival +must be meant) of the French galleys, not on June 29, as Knox dates +their arrival, but on July 24. Professor Hume Brown says that +the <i>Diurnal</i> gives the date as <i>June</i> 24 (a slip of the pen), +“but Knox had surely the best opportunity of knowing both facts” +<a name="citation27a"></a><a href="#footnote27a">{27a}</a>—that +is, the number of the galleys, and the date of their coming. Despite +his unrivalled opportunities of knowledge, Knox did not know. +It is not quite correct to say that “Knox in his ‘History’ +shows throughout a conscientious regard to accuracy of statement.” +Whatever the number of the galleys (Knox says twenty-one; the <i>Diurnal</i> +says sixteen), on July 13-14, they are reported by Lord Eure, at Berwick, +as passing or having just passed Eyemouth. <a name="citation27b"></a><a href="#footnote27b">{27b}</a> +They did not therefore suffer for three weeks at the garrison’s +hands, or for three weeks desert the siege, but probably reached the +scene of action before the date in the <i>Diurnal</i> (July 24), as, +on July 23, the French Ambassador in England heard that they were investing +the castle. <a name="citation27c"></a><a href="#footnote27c">{27c}</a> +Allowing five or six days for transmission of news, they probably began +the attack from the sea about July 16 or 17, not, as Knox says, on June +30. Perhaps he is right in saying that the French galleys only +fired for two days and retreated, rather battered, to Dundee. +Land forces next attacked the hold, which surrendered on July 29 (as +was known in London on August 5), that is, on the first day that the +<i>land</i> battery was erected.</p> +<p>Knox gives a much more full account of his own controversies, in +April-June 1547, than of political events. He first, on arrival +at the castle, drew up a catechism for his pupils, and publicly catechised +them on its tenets, in the parish kirk in South Street. It is +unfortunate that we do not possess this catechism. At the time +when he wrote, Knox was possibly more of “Martin’s” +mind, as he familiarly terms Luther, both as to the Sacrament and as +to the Order of Bishops, than he was after his residence in Geneva. +Wishart, however, was well acquainted with Helvetic doctrine; he had, +as we saw, translated a Helvetic Confession of Faith, perhaps with the +view of introducing it into Scotland, and Knox may already have imbibed +Calvinism from him. He was not yet—he never was—a +full-blown Presbyterian, and, while thinking nothing of “orders,” +would not have rejected a bishop, if the bishop <i>preached</i> and +was of godly and frugal life. Already sermons were the most important +part of public worship in the mind of Knox.</p> +<p>In addition to public catechising he publicly expounded, and lectured +on the Fourth Gospel, in the chapel of the castle. He doubted +if he had “a lawful vocation” to <i>preach</i>. The +castle pulpit was then occupied by an ex-friar named Rough. This +divine, later burned in England, preached a sermon declaring a doctrine +accepted by Knox, namely, that any congregation could call on any man +in whom they “espied the gifts of God” to be their preacher; +he offered Knox the post, and all present agreed. Knox wept, and +for days his gloom declared his sense of his responsibility: such was +“his holy vocation.” The garrison was, confessedly, +brutal, licentious, and rapacious, but they “all” partook +of the holy Communion. <a name="citation28"></a><a href="#footnote28">{28}</a></p> +<p>In controversy, Knox declared the Church to be “the synagogue +of Satan,” and in the Pope he detected and denounced “the +Man of Sin.” On the following Sunday he proved, from Daniel, +that the Roman Church is “that last Beast.” The Church +is also anti-Christ, and “the Hoore of Babylon,” and Knox +dilated on the personal misconduct of Popes and “all shavelings +for the most part.” He contrasted Justification by Faith +with the customs of pardons and pilgrimages.</p> +<p>After these remarks, a controversy was held between Knox and the +sub-prior, Wynram, the Scottish Vicar of Bray, Knox being understood +to maintain that no bishop who did not preach was really a bishop; that +the Mass is “abominable idolatry”; that Purgatory does not +exist; and that the tithes are not necessarily the property of churchmen—a +doctrine very welcome to the hungry nobles of Scotland. Knox, +of course, easily overcame an ignorant opponent, a friar, who joined +in the fray. His own arguments he later found time to write out +fully in the French galleys, in which he was a prisoner, after the fall +of the castle. If he “wrate in the galleys,” as he +says, they cannot have been always such floating hells as they are usually +reckoned.</p> +<p>That Knox, and other captives from the castle, were placed in the +galleys after their surrender, was an abominable stretch of French power. +They were not subjects of France. The terms on which they surrendered +are not exactly known. Knox avers that they were to be free to +live in France, and that, if they wished to leave, they were to be conveyed, +at French expense, to any country except Scotland. Buchanan declares +that only the lives of the garrison and their friends were secured by +the terms of surrender. Lesley supports Knox, <a name="citation30a"></a><a href="#footnote30a">{30a}</a> +who is probably accurate.</p> +<p>To account for the French severity, Knox tells us that the Pope insisted +on it, appealing to both the Scottish and French Governments; and Scotland +sent an envoy to France to beg “that those of the castle should +be sharply handled.” Men of birth were imprisoned, the rest +went to the galleys. Knox’s life cannot have been so bad +as that of the Huguenot galley slaves under Louis XIV. He was +allowed to receive letters; he read and commented on a treatise written +in prison by Balnaves; and he even wrote a theological work, unless +this work was his commentary on Balnaves. These things can only +have been possible when the galleys were not on active service. +In a very manly spirit, he never dilated on his sufferings, and merely +alludes to “the torment I sustained in the galleys.” +He kept up his heart, always prophesying deliverance; and once (June, +1548?), when in view of St. Andrews, declared that he should preach +again in the kirk where his career began. Unluckily, the person +to whom he spoke, at a moment when he himself was dangerously ill, denied +that he had ever been in the galleys at all! <a name="citation30b"></a><a href="#footnote30b">{30b}</a> +He was Sir James Balfour, a notorious scoundrel, quite untrustworthy; +according to Knox, he had spoken of the prophecy, in Scotland, long +before its fulfilment.</p> +<p>Knox’s health was more or less undermined, while his spiritual +temper was not mollified by nineteen months of the galleys, mitigated +as they obviously were.</p> +<p>It is, doubtless, to his “torment” in the galleys that +Knox refers when he writes: “I know how hard the battle is between +the spirit and the flesh, under the heavy cross of affliction, where +no worldly defence, but present death, does appear. . . . Rests +only Faith, provoking us to call earnestly, and pray for assistance +of God’s spirit, wherein if we continue, our most desperate calamities +shall turn to gladness, and to a prosperous end. . . . With experience +I write this.”</p> +<p>In February or March, 1549, Knox was released; by April he was in +England, and, while Edward VI. lived, was in comparative safety.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER IV: KNOX IN ENGLAND: THE BLACK RUBRIC: EXILE: 1549-1554</h2> +<p>Knox at once appeared in England in a character revolting to the +later Presbyterian conscience, which he helped to educate. The +State permitted no cleric to preach without a Royal license, and Knox +was now a State licensed preacher at Berwick, one of many “State +officials with a specified mission.” He was an agent of +the English administration, then engaged in forcing a detested religion +on the majority of the English people. But he candidly took his +own line, indifferent to the compromises of the rulers in that chaos +of shifting opinions. For example, the Prayer Book of Edward VI. +at that time took for granted kneeling as the appropriate attitude for +communicants. Knox, at Berwick, on the other hand, bade his congregation +sit, as he conceived that to have been the usage at the first institution +of the rite. Possibly the Apostles, in fact, supped in a recumbent +attitude, as Cranmer justly remarked later (John xiii. 25), but Knox +supposed them to have sat. In a letter to his Berwick flock, he +reminds them of his practice on this point; but he would not dissent +from kneeling if “magistrates make known, as that they” +(would?) “have done if ministers were willing to do their duties, +that kneeling is not retained in the Lord’s Supper for maintenance +of any superstition,” much less as “adoration of the Lord’s +Supper.” This, “for a time,” would content him: +and this he obtained. <a name="citation33a"></a><a href="#footnote33a">{33a}</a> +Here Knox appears to make the civil authority—“the magistrates”—governors +of the Church, while at the same time he does not in practice obey them +unless they accept his conditions.</p> +<p>This letter to the Berwick flock must be prior to the autumn of 1552, +in which, as we shall see, Knox obtained his terms as to kneeling. +He went on, in his epistle to the Berwickians, to speak in “a +tone of moderation and modesty,” for which, says Dr. Lorimer, +not many readers will be prepared. <a name="citation33b"></a><a href="#footnote33b">{33b}</a> +In this modest passage, Knox says that, as to “the chief points +of religion,” he, with God’s help, “will give place +to neither man nor angel teaching the contrary” of his preaching. +Yet an angel might be supposed to be well informed on points of doctrine! +“But as to ceremonies or rites, things of smaller weight, I was +not minded to move contention. . . .” The one point which—“because +I am but one, having in my contrary magistrates, common order, and judgments, +and many learned”—he is prepared to yield, and that for +a time, is the practice of kneeling, but only on three conditions. +These being granted, “with patience will I bear that one thing, +daily thirsting and calling unto God for reformation of that and others.” +<a name="citation33c"></a><a href="#footnote33c">{33c}</a> But +he did not bear that one thing; he would <i>not</i> kneel even after +his terms were granted! This is the sum of Knox’s “moderation +and modesty”!</p> +<p>Though he is not averse from talking about himself, Knox, in his +“History,” spares but three lines to his five years’ +residence in England (1549-54). His first charge was Berwick (1549-51), +where we have seen he celebrated holy Communion by the Swiss rite, all +meekly sitting. The Second Prayer Book, of 1552, when Knox ministered +in Newcastle, bears marks of his hand. He opposed, as has been +said, the rubric bidding the communicants kneel; the attitude savoured +of “idolatry.”</p> +<p>The circumstances in which Knox carried his point on this question +are most curious. Just before October 12, 1552, a foreign Protestant, +Johannes Utenhovius, wrote to the Zurich Protestant, Bullinger, to the +effect that a certain <i>vir bonus</i>, <i>Scotus natione</i> (a good +man and a Scot), a preacher (<i>concionator</i>), of the Duke of Northumberland, +had delivered a sermon before the King and Council, “in which +he freely inveighed against the Anglican custom of kneeling at the Lord’s +Supper.” Many listeners were greatly moved, and Utenhovius +prayed that the sermon might be of blessed effect. Knox was certainly +in London at this date, and was almost certainly the excellent Scot +referred to by Utenhovius. The Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. +was then in such forwardness that Parliament had appointed it to be +used in churches, beginning on November 1. The book included the +command to kneel at the Lord’s Supper, and any agitation against +the practice might seem to be too late. Cranmer, the Primate, +was in favour of the rubric as it stood, and on October 7, 1552, addressed +the Privy Council in a letter which, without naming Knox, clearly shows +his opinion of our Reformer. The book, <i>as it stood</i>, said +Cranmer, had the assent of King and Parliament—now it was to be +altered, apparently, “without Parliament.” The Council +ought not to be thus influenced by “glorious and unquiet spirits.” +Cranmer calls Knox, as Throckmorton later called Queen Mary’s +Bothwell, “glorious” in the sense of the Latin <i>gloriosus</i>, +“swaggering,” or “arrogant.”</p> +<p>Cranmer goes on to denounce the “glorious and unquiet spirits, +which can like nothing but that is after their own fancy, and cease +not to make trouble and disquietude when things be most quiet and in +good order.” <a name="citation35"></a><a href="#footnote35">{35}</a> +Their argument (Knox’s favourite), that whatever is not commanded +in Scripture is unlawful and ungodly, “is a subversion of all +order as well in religion as in common policy.”</p> +<p>Cranmer ends with the amazing challenge: “I will set my foot +by his to be tried in the fire, that his doctrine is untrue, and not +only untrue but seditious, and perilous to be heard of any subjects, +as a thing breaking the bridle of obedience and loosing them from the +bond of all princes’ laws.”</p> +<p>Cranmer had a premonition of the troubled years of James VI. and +of the Covenant, when this question of kneeling was the first cause +of the Bishops’ wars. But Knox did not accept, as far as +we know, the mediæval ordeal by fire.</p> +<p>Other questions about practices enjoined in the Articles arose. +A “Confession,” in which Knox’s style may be traced, +was drawn up, and consequently that “Declaration on Kneeling” +was intercalated into the Prayer Book, wherein it is asserted that the +attitude does not imply adoration of the elements, or belief in the +Real Presence, “for that were idolatry.” Elizabeth +dropped, and Charles II. restored, this “Black Rubric” which +Anglicanism owes to the Scottish Reformer. <a name="citation36a"></a><a href="#footnote36a">{36a}</a> +He “once had a good opinion,” he says, of the Liturgy as +it now stood, but he soon found that it was full of idolatries.</p> +<p>The most important event in the private life of Knox, during his +stay at Berwick, was his acquaintance with a devout lady of tormented +conscience, Mrs. Bowes, wife of the Governor of Norham Castle on Tweed. +Mrs. Bowes’s tendency to the new ideas in religion was not shared +by her husband and his family; the results will presently be conspicuous. +In April 1550, Knox preached at Newcastle a sermon on his favourite +doctrine that the Mass is “Idolatry,” because it is “of +man’s invention,” an opinion not shared by Tunstall, then +Bishop of Durham. Knox used “idolatry” in a constructive +sense, as when we talk of “constructive treason.” +But, in practice, he regarded Catholics as “idolaters,” +in the same sense as Elijah regarded Hebrew worshippers of alien deities, +Chemosh or Moloch, and he later drew the inference that idolaters, as +in the Old Testament, must be put to death. Thus his was logically +a persecuting religion.</p> +<p>Knox was made a King’s chaplain and transferred to Newcastle. +He saw that the country was, by preference, Catholic; that the life +of Edward VI. hung on a thread; and that with the accession of his sister, +Mary Tudor, Protestant principles would be as unsafe as under “umquhile +the Cardinal.” Knox therefore, “from the foresight +of troubles to come” (so he writes to Mrs. Bowes, February 28, +1554), <a name="citation36b"></a><a href="#footnote36b">{36b}</a> declined +any post, a bishopric, or a living, which would in honour oblige him +to face the fire of persecution. At the same time he was even +then far at odds with the Church of England that he had sound reasons +for refusing benefices.</p> +<p>On Christmas day, 1552, <a name="citation37a"></a><a href="#footnote37a">{37a}</a> +he preached at Newcastle against Papists, as “thirsting nothing +more than the King’s death, which their iniquity would procure.” +In two brief years Knox was himself publicly expressing his own thirst +for the Queen’s death, and praying for a Jehu or a Phinehas, slayers +of idolaters, such as Mary Tudor. If any fanatic had taken this +hint, and the life of Mary Tudor, Catholics would have said that Knox’s +“iniquity procured” the murder, and they would have had +fair excuse for the assertion.</p> +<p>Meanwhile charges were brought against the Reformer, on the ground +of his Christmas sermon of peace and goodwill. Northumberland +(January 9, 1552-53) sends to Cecil “a letter of poor Knox, by +the which you may perceive what perplexity the poor soul remaineth in +at this present.” We have not Knox’s interesting letter, +but Northumberland pled his cause against a charge of treason. +In fact, however, the Court highly approved of his sermon. He +was presently again in what he believed to be imminent danger of life: +“I fear that I be not yet ripe, nor able to glorify Christ by +my faith,” he wrote to Mrs. Bowes, “but what lacketh now, +God shall perform in His own time.” <a name="citation37b"></a><a href="#footnote37b">{37b}</a> +We do not know what peril threatened the Reformer now (probably in March +1553), but he frequently, later, seems to have doubted his own “ripeness” +for martyrdom. His reluctance to suffer did not prevent him from +constant attendance to the tedious self-tormentings of Mrs. Bowes, and +of “three honest poor women” in London.</p> +<p>Knox, at all events, was not so “perplexed” that he feared +to speak his mind in the pulpit. In Lent, 1553, preaching before +the boy king, he denounced his ministers in trenchant historical parallels +between them and Achitophel, Shebna, and Judas. Later, young Mr. +Mackail, applying the same method to the ministers of Charles II., was +hanged. “What wonder is it then,” said Knox, “that +a young and innocent king be deceived by crafty, covetous, wicked, and +ungodly councillors? I am greatly afraid that Achitophel be councillor, +that Judas bear the purse, and that Shebna be scribe, comptroller, and +treasurer.” <a name="citation38a"></a><a href="#footnote38a">{38a}</a></p> +<p>This appears the extreme of audacity. Yet nothing worse came +to Knox than questions, by the Council, as to his refusal of a benefice, +and his declining, as he still did, to kneel at the Communion (April +14, 1553). His answers prove that he was out of harmony with the +fluctuating Anglicanism of the hour. Northumberland could not +then resent the audacities of pulpiteers, because the Protestants were +the only party who might stand by him in his approaching effort to crown +Lady Jane Grey. Now all the King’s preachers, obviously +by concerted action, “thundered” against Edward’s +Council, in the Lent or Easter of 1553. Manifestly, in the old +Scots phrase, “the Kirk had a back”; had some secular support, +namely that of their party, which Northumberland could not slight. +Meanwhile Knox was sent on a preaching tour in Buckinghamshire, and +there he was when Edward VI. died, in the first week of July 1553. <a name="citation38b"></a><a href="#footnote38b">{38b}</a></p> +<p>Knox’s official attachment to England expired with his preaching +license, on the death of Edward VI. and the accession of Mary Tudor. +He did not at once leave the country, but preached both in London and +on the English border, while the new queen was settling herself on the +throne. While within Mary’s reach, Knox did not encourage +resistance against that idolatress; he did not do so till he was safe +in France. Indeed, in his prayer used after the death of Edward +VI., before the fires of Oxford and Smithfield were lit, Knox wrote: +“Illuminate the heart of our Sovereign Lady, Queen Mary, with +pregnant gifts of the Holy Ghost. . . . Repress thou the pride +of those that would rebel. . . . Mitigate the hearts of those +that persecute us.”</p> +<p>In the autumn of 1553, Knox’s health was very bad; he had gravel, +and felt his bodily strength broken. Moreover, he was in the disagreeable +position of being betrothed to a very young lady, Marjorie Bowes, with +the approval of her devout mother, the wife of Richard Bowes, commander +of Norham Castle, near Berwick, but to the anger and disgust of the +Bowes family in general. They by no means shared Knox’s +ideas of religion, rather regarding him as a penniless unfrocked “Scot +runagate,” whose alliance was discreditable and distasteful, and +might be dangerous. “Maist unpleasing words” passed, +and it is no marvel that Knox, being persecuted in one city, fled to +another, leaving England for Dieppe early in March 1554. <a name="citation39"></a><a href="#footnote39">{39}</a></p> +<p>His conscience was not entirely at ease as to his flight. “Why +did I flee? Assuredly I cannot tell, but of one thing I am sure, +the fear of death was not the chief cause of my fleeing,” he wrote +to Mrs. Bowes from Dieppe. “Albeit that I have, in the beginning +of this battle, appeared to play the faint-hearted and feeble soldier +(the cause I remit to God), yet my prayer is that I may be restored +to the battle again.” <a name="citation40a"></a><a href="#footnote40a">{40a}</a> +Knox was, in fact, most valiant when he had armed men at his back; he +had no enthusiasm for taking part in the battle when unaided by the +arm of flesh. On later occasions this was very apparent, and he +has confessed, as we saw, that he did not choose to face “the +trouble to come” without means of retreat. His valour was +rather that of the general than of the lonely martyr. The popular +idea of Knox’s personal courage, said to have been expressed by +the Regent Morton in the words spoken at his funeral, “here lieth +a man who in his life never feared the face of man,” is entirely +erroneous. His learned and sympathetic editor, David Laing, truly +writes: “Knox cannot be said to have possessed the impetuous and +heroic boldness of a Luther when surrounded with danger. . . . +On more than one occasion Knox displayed a timidity or shrinking from +danger, scarcely to have been expected from one who boasted of his willingness +to endure the utmost torture, or suffer death in his Master’s +cause. Happily he was not put to the test. . . .” <a name="citation40b"></a><a href="#footnote40b">{40b}</a></p> +<p>Dr. Laing puts the case more strongly than I feel justified in doing, +for Knox, far from “boasting of his willingness to face the utmost +torture,” more than once doubts his own readiness for martyrdom. +We must remember that even Blessed Edmund Campion, who went gaily to +torture and death, had doubts as to the necessity of that journey. <a name="citation40c"></a><a href="#footnote40c">{40c}</a></p> +<p>Nor was there any reason why Knox should stay in England to be burned, +if he could escape—with less than ten groats in his pocket—as +he did. It is not for us moderns to throw the first stone at a +reluctant martyr, still less to applaud useless self-sacrifice, but +we do take leave to think that, having fled early, himself, from the +martyr’s crown, Knox showed bad taste in his harsh invectives +against Protestants who, staying in England, conformed to the State +religion under Mary Tudor.</p> +<p>It is not impossible that his very difficult position as the lover +of Marjorie Bowes—a position of which, while he remained in England, +the burden fell on the poor girl—may have been one reason for +Knox’s flight, while the entreaties of his friends that he would +seek safety must have had their influence.</p> +<p>On the whole it seems more probable that when he committed himself +to matrimony with a young girl, the fifth daughter of Mrs. Bowes, he +was approaching his fortieth rather than his fiftieth year. Older +than he are happy husbands made, sometimes, though Marjorie Bowes’s +choice may have been directed by her pious mother, whose soul could +find no rest in the old faith, and not much in the new.</p> +<p>At thirty-eight the Reformer, we must remember, must have been no +uncomely wooer. His conversation must have been remarkably vivid: +he had adventures enough to tell, by land and sea; while such a voice +as he raised withal in the pulpit, like Edward Irving, has always been +potent with women, as Sir Walter Scott remarks in Irving’s own +case. His expression, says Young, had a certain geniality; on +the whole we need not doubt that Knox could please when he chose, especially +when he was looked up to as a supreme authority. He despised women +in politics, but had many friends of the sex, and his letters to them +display a manly tenderness of affection without sentimentality.</p> +<p>Writing to Mrs. Bowes from London in 1553, Knox mentions, as one +of the sorrows of life, that “such as would most gladly remain +together, for mutual comfort, cannot be suffered so to do. Since +the first day that it pleased the providence of God to bring you and +me in familiarity, I have always delighted in your company.” +He then wanders into religious reflections, but we see that he liked +Mrs. Bowes, and Marjorie Bowes too, no doubt: he is careful to style +the elderly lady “Mother.” Knox’s letters to +Mrs. Bowes show the patience and courtesy with which the Reformer could +comfort and counsel a middle-aged lady in trouble about her innocent +soul. As she recited her infirmities, he reminds her, he “started +back, and that is my common consuetude when anything pierces or touches +my heart. Call to your mind what I did standing at the cupboard +at Alnwick; in very deed I thought that no creature had been tempted +as I was”—not by the charms of Mrs. Bowes, of course: he +found that Satan troubled the lady with “the very same words that +he troubles me with.” Mrs. Bowes, in truth, with premature +scepticism, was tempted to think that “the Scriptures of God are +but a tale, and no credit to be given to them.” The Devil, +she is reminded by Knox, has induced “some philosophers to affirm +that the world never had a beginning,” which he refutes by showing +that God predicted the pains of childbearing; and Mrs. Bowes, as the +mother of twelve, knows how true <i>this</i> is.</p> +<p>The circular argument may or may not have satisfied Mrs. Bowes. <a name="citation43"></a><a href="#footnote43">{43}</a></p> +<p>The young object of Knox’s passion, Marjorie Bowes, is only +alluded to as “she whom God hath offered unto me, and commanded +me to love as my own flesh,”—after her, Mrs. Bowes is the +dearest of mankind to Knox. No mortal was ever more long-suffering +with a spiritual hypochondriac, who avers that “the sins that +reigned in Sodom and Gomore reign in me, and I have small power or none +to resist!” Knox replies, with common sense, that Mrs. Bowes +is obviously ignorant of the nature of these offences.</p> +<p>Writing to his betrothed he says nothing personal: merely reiterates +his lessons of comfort to her mother. Meanwhile the lovers were +parted, Knox going abroad; and it is to be confessed that he was not +eager to come back.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER V: EXILE: APPEALS FOR A PHINEHAS, AND A JEHU: 1554</h2> +<p>No change of circumstances could be much more bitter than that which +exile brought to Knox. He had been a decently endowed official +of State, engaged in bringing a reluctant country into the ecclesiastical +fold which the State, for the hour, happened to prefer. His task +had been grateful, and his congregations, at least at Berwick and Newcastle, +had, as a rule, been heartily with him. Wherever he preached, +affectionate women had welcomed him and hung upon his words. The +King and his ministers had hearkened unto him—young Edward with +approval, Northumberland with such emotions as we may imagine—while +the Primate of England had challenged him to a competitive ordeal by +fire, and had been defeated, apparently without recourse to the fire-test.</p> +<p>But now all was changed; Knox was a lonely rover in a strange land, +supported probably by collections made among his English friends, and +by the hospitality of the learned. In his wanderings his heart +burned within him many a time, and he abruptly departed from his theory +of passive resistance. Now he eagerly desired to obtain, from +Protestant doctors and pontiffs, support for the utterly opposite doctrine +of armed resistance. Such support he did not get, or not in a +satisfactory measure, so he commenced prophet on his own lines, and +on his own responsibility.</p> +<p>When Knox’s heart burned within him, he sometimes seized the +pen and dashed off fiery tracts which occasionally caused inconvenience +to the brethren, and trouble to himself in later years. In cooler +moments, and when dubious or prosperous, he now and again displayed +a calm opportunism much at odds with the inspirations of his grief and +anger.</p> +<p>After his flight to Dieppe in March 1554, Knox was engaged, then, +with a problem of difficulty, one of the central problems of his career +and of the distracted age. In modern phrase, he wished to know +how far, and in what fashion, persons of one religion might resist another +religion, imposed upon them by the State of which they were subjects. +On this point we have now no doubt, but in the sixteenth century “Authority” +was held sacred, and martyrdom, according to Calvin, was to be preferred +to civil war. If men were Catholics, and if the State was Protestant, +they were liable, later, under Knox, to fines, exile, and death; but +power was not yet given to him. If they were Protestants under +a Catholic ruler, or Puritans under Anglican authority, Knox himself +had laid down the rule of their conduct in his letter to his Berwick +congregation. <a name="citation45"></a><a href="#footnote45">{45}</a> +“Remembering always, beloved brethren, that due obedience be given +to magistrates, rulers, and princes, without tumult, grudge, or sedition. +For, howsoever wicked themselves be in life, or howsoever ungodly their +precepts or commandments be, ye must obey them for conscience’ +sake; except in chief points of religion, and then ye ought rather to +obey God than man: <i>not to pretend to defend God’s truth or +religion</i>, <i>ye being subjects</i>, <i>by violence or sword</i>, +<i>but patiently suffering what God shall please be laid upon you for +constant confession of your faith and belief</i>.” Man or +angel who teaches contrary doctrine is corrupt of judgment, sent by +God to blind the unworthy. And Knox proceeded to teach contrary +doctrine!</p> +<p>His truly Christian ideas are of date 1552, with occasional revivals +as opportunity suggested. In exile he was now asking (1554), how +was a Protestant minority or majority to oppose the old faith, backed +by kings and princes, fire and sword? He answered the question +in direct contradiction of his Berwick programme: he was now all for +active resistance. Later, in addressing Mary of Guise, and on +another occasion, he recurred to his Berwick theory, and he always found +biblical texts to support his contradictory messages.</p> +<p>At this moment resistance seemed hopeless enough. In England +the Protestants of all shades were decidedly in a minority. They +had no chance if they openly rose in arms; their only hope was in the +death of Mary Tudor and the succession of Elizabeth—itself a poor +hope in the eyes of Knox, who detested the idea of a female monarch. +Might they “bow down in the House of Rimmon” by a feigned +conformity? Knox, in a letter to the Faithful, printed in 1554, +entirely rejected this compromise, to which Cecil stooped, thereby deserving +hell, as the relentless Knox (who had fled) later assured him.</p> +<p>In the end of March 1554, probably, Knox left Dieppe for Geneva, +where he could consult Calvin, not yet secure in his despotism, though +he had recently burned Servetus. Next he went to Zurich, and laid +certain questions before Bullinger, who gave answers in writing as to +Knox’s problems.</p> +<p>Could a woman rule a kingdom by divine right, and transfer the same +to her husband?—Mary Tudor to Philip of Spain, is, of course, +to be understood. Bullinger replied that it was a hazardous thing +for the godly to resist the laws of a country. Philip the eunuch, +though converted, did not drive Queen Candace out of Ethiopia. +If a tyrannous and ungodly Queen reign, godly persons “have example +and consolation in the case of Athaliah.” The transfer of +power to a husband is an affair of the laws of the country.</p> +<p>Again, must a ruler who enforces “idolatry” be obeyed? +May true believers, in command of garrisons, repel “this ungodly +violence”? Bullinger answered, in effect, that “it +is very difficult to pronounce upon every particular case.” +He had not the details before him. In short, nothing definite +was to be drawn out of Bullinger. <a name="citation47a"></a><a href="#footnote47a">{47a}</a></p> +<p>Dr. M‘Crie observes, indeed, that Knox submitted to the learned +of Switzerland “certain difficult questions, which were suggested +by the present condition of affairs in England, and about which his +mind had been greatly occupied. Their views with respect to these +coinciding with his own, he was confirmed in the judgment which he had +already formed for himself.” <a name="citation47b"></a><a href="#footnote47b">{47b}</a></p> +<p>In fact, Knox himself merely says that he had “reasoned with” +pastors and the learned; he does not say that they agreed with him, +and they certainly did not. Despite the reserve of Bullinger and +of Calvin, Knox was of his new opinions still. These divines never +backed his views.</p> +<p>By May, Knox had returned to Dieppe, and published an epistle to +the Faithful. The rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt had been put down, +a blow to true religion. We have no evidence that Knox stimulated +the rising, but he alludes once to his exertions in favour of the Princess +Elizabeth. The details are unknown.</p> +<p>In July, apparently, Knox printed his “Faithful Admonition +to the Professors of God’s Truth in England,” and two editions +of the tract were published in that country. The pamphlet is full +of violent language about “the bloody, butcherly brood” +of persecutors, and Knox spoke of what might have occurred had the Queen +“been sent to hell before these days.” The piece presents +nothing, perhaps, so plain spoken about the prophet’s right to +preach treason as a passage in the manuscript of an earlier Knoxian +epistle of May 1554 to the Faithful. “The prophets of God +sometimes may teach treason against kings, and yet neither he, nor such +as obey the word spoken in the Lord’s name by him, offends God.” +<a name="citation48"></a><a href="#footnote48">{48}</a> That sentence +contains doctrine not submitted to Bullinger by Knox. He could +not very well announce himself to Bullinger as a “prophet of God.” +But the sentence, which occurs in manuscript copies of the letter of +May 1554, does not appear in the black letter printed edition. +Either Knox or the publisher thought it too risky.</p> +<p>In the published “Admonition,” however, of July 1554, +we find Knox exclaiming: “God, for His great mercy’s sake, +stir up some Phineas, Helias, or Jehu, that the blood of abominable +idolaters may pacify God’s wrath, that it consume not the whole +multitude. Amen.” <a name="citation49a"></a><a href="#footnote49a">{49a}</a> +This is a direct appeal to the assassin. If anybody will play +the part of Phinehas against “idolaters”—that is the +Queen of England and Philip of Spain—God’s anger will be +pacified. “Delay not thy vengeance, O Lord, but let death +devour them in haste . . . For there is no hope of their amendment, +. . . He shall send Jehu to execute his just judgments against idolaters. +Jezebel herself shall not escape the vengeance and plagues that are +prepared for her portion.” <a name="citation49b"></a><a href="#footnote49b">{49b}</a> +These passages are essential. Professor Hume Brown expresses our +own sentiments when he remarks: “In casting such a pamphlet into +England at the time he did, Knox indulged his indignation, in itself +so natural under the circumstances, at no personal risk, while he seriously +compromised those who had the strongest claims on his most generous +consideration.” This is plain truth, and when some of Knox’s +English brethren later behaved to him in a manner which we must wholly +condemn, their conduct, they said, had for a motive the mischief done +to Protestants in England by his fiery “Admonition,” and +their desire to separate themselves from the author of such a pamphlet.</p> +<p>Knox did not, it will be observed, here call all or any of the faithful +to a general massacre of their Catholic fellow-subjects. He went +to that length later, as we shall show. In an epistle of 1554 +he only writes: “Some shall demand, ‘What then, shall we +go and slay all idolaters?’ <i>That</i> were the office, +dear brethren, of every civil magistrate within his realm. . . . +The slaying of idolaters appertains not to every particular man.” +<a name="citation49c"></a><a href="#footnote49c">{49c}</a></p> +<p>This means that every Protestant king should massacre all his inconvertible +Catholic subjects! This was indeed a counsel of perfection; but +it could never be executed, owing to the carnal policy of worldly men.</p> +<p>In writing about “the office of the civil magistrate,” +Knox, a Border Scot of the age of the blood feud, seems to have forgotten, +first, that the Old Testament prophets of the period were not unanimous +in their applause of Jehu’s massacre of the royal family; next, +that between the sixteenth century A.D. and Jehu, had intervened the +Christian revelation. Our Lord had given no word of warrant to +murder or massacre! No persecuted apostle had dealt in appeals +to the dagger. As for Jehu, a prophet had condemned <i>his</i> +conduct. Hosea writes that the Lord said unto him, “Yet +a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house +of Jehu,” but doubtless Knox would have argued that Hosea was +temporarily uninspired, as he argued about St. Paul and St. James later.</p> +<p>However this delicate point may be settled, the appeal for a Phinehas +is certainly unchristian. The idolaters, the unreformed, might +rejoice, with the Nuncio of 1583, that the Duc de Guise had a plan for +murdering Elizabeth, though it was not to be communicated to the Vicar +of God, who should have no such dealings against “that wicked +woman.” To some Catholics, Elizabeth: to Knox, Mary was +as Jezebel, and might laudably be assassinated. In idolaters nothing +can surprise us; when persecuted they, in their unchristian fashion, +may retort with the dagger or the bowl. But that Knox should have +frequently maintained the doctrine of death to religious opponents is +a strange and deplorable circumstance. In reforming the Church +of Christ he omitted some elements of Christianity.</p> +<p>Suppose, for a moment, that in deference to the teaching of the Gospel, +Knox had never called for a Jehu, but had ever denounced, by voice and +pen, those murderous deeds of his own party which he celebrates as “godly +facts,” he would have raised Protestantism to a moral pre-eminence. +Dark pages of Scottish history might never have been written: the consciences +of men might have been touched, and the cruelties of the religious conflict +might have been abated. Many of them sprang from the fear of assassination.</p> +<p>But Knox in some of his writings identified his cause with the palace +revolutions of an ancient Oriental people. Not that he was a man +of blood; when in France he dissuaded Kirkcaldy of Grange and others +from stabbing the gaolers in making their escape from prison. +Where idolaters in official position were concerned, and with a pen +in his hand, he had no such scruples. He was a child of the old +pre-Christian scriptures; of the earlier, not of the later prophets.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER VI: KNOX IN THE ENGLISH PURITAN TROUBLES AT FRANKFORT: 1554-1555</h2> +<p>The consequences of the “Admonition” came home to Knox +when English refugees in Frankfort, impeded by him and others in the +use of their Liturgy, accused him of high treason against Philip and +Mary, and the Emperor, whom he had compared to Nero as an enemy of Christ.</p> +<p>The affair of “The Troubles at Frankfort” brought into +view the great gulf for ever fixed between Puritanism and the Church +of England. It was made plain that Knox and the Anglican community +were of incompatible temperaments, ideas, and, we may almost say, instincts. +To Anglicans like Cranmer, Knox, from the first, was as antipathetic +as they were to him. “We can assure you,” wrote some +English exiles for religion’s sake to Calvin, “that that +outrageous pamphlet of Knox’s” (his “Admonition”) +“added much oil to the flame of persecution in England. +For before the publication of that book not one of our brethren had +suffered death; but as soon as it came forth we doubt not but you are +well aware of the number of excellent men who have perished in the flames; +to say nothing of how many other godly men have been exposed to the +risk of all their property, and even life itself, on the sole ground +of either having had this book in their possession or having read it.”</p> +<p>Such were the charges brought against Knox by these English Protestant +exiles, fleeing from the persecution that followed the “Admonition,” +and, they say, took fresh ferocity from that tract.</p> +<p>The quarrel between Knox and them definitely marks the beginning +of the rupture between the fathers of the Church of England and the +fathers of Puritanism, Scottish Presbyterianism, and Dissent. +The representatives of Puritans and of Anglicans were now alike exiled, +poor, homeless, without any abiding city. That they should instantly +quarrel with each other over their prayer book (that which Knox had +helped to correct) was, as Calvin told them, “extremely absurd.” +Each faction probably foresaw—certainly Knox’s party foresaw—that, +in the English congregation at Frankfort, a little flock barely tolerated, +was to be settled the character of Protestantism in England, if ever +England returned to Protestantism. “This evil” (the +acceptance of the English Second Book of Prayer of Edward VI.) “shall +in time be established . . . and never be redressed, neither shall there +for ever be an end of this controversy in England,” wrote Knox’s +party to the Senate of Frankfort. The religious disruption in +England was, in fact, incurable, but so it would have been had the Knoxians +prevailed in Frankfort. The difference between the Churchman and +the Dissenter goes to the root of the English character; no temporary +triumph of either side could have brought Peace and union. While +the world stands they will not be peaceful and united.</p> +<p>The trouble arose thus. At the end of June 1554, some English +exiles of the Puritan sort, men who objected to surplices, responses, +kneeling at the Communion, and other matters of equal moment, came to +Frankfort. They obtained leave to use the French Protestant Chapel, +provided that they “should not dissent from the Frenchmen in doctrine +or ceremonies, lest they should thereby minister occasions of offence.” +They had then to settle what Order of services they should use; “anything +they pleased,” said the magistrates of Frankfort, “as long +as they and the French kept the peace.” They decided to +adopt the English Order, barring responses, the Litany, the surplice, +“and many other things.” <a name="citation54"></a><a href="#footnote54">{54}</a> +The Litany was regarded by Knox as rather of the nature of magic than +of prayer, the surplice was a Romish rag, and there was some other objection +to the congregation’s taking part in the prayers by responses, +though they were not forbidden to mingle their voices in psalmody. +<i>Dissidium valde absurdum</i>—“a very absurd quarrel,” +among exiled fellow-countrymen, said Calvin, was the dispute which arose +on these points. The Puritans, however, decided to alter the service +to their taste, and enjoyed the use of the chapel. They had obtained +a service which they were not likely to have been allowed to enforce +in England had Edward VI. lived; but on this point they were of another +opinion.</p> +<p>This success was providential. They next invited English exiles +abroad to join them at Frankfort, saying nothing about their mutilations +of the service book. If these brethren came in, when they were +all restored to England, if ever they were restored, their example, +that of sufferers, would carry the day, and their service would for +ever be that of the Anglican Church. The other exiled brethren, +on receiving this invitation, had enough of the wisdom of the serpent +to ask, “Are we to be allowed to use our own prayer book?” +The answer of the godly of Frankfort evaded the question. At last +the Frankfort Puritans showed their hand: they disapproved of various +things in the Prayer Book. Knox, summoned from Geneva, a reluctant +visitor, was already one of their preachers. In November 1554 +came Grindal, later Archbishop of Canterbury, from Zurich, ready to +omit some ceremonies, so that he and his faction might have “the +substance” of the Prayer Book. Negotiations went on, and +it was proposed by the Puritans to use the Geneva service. But +Knox declined to do that, without the knowledge of the non-Puritan exiles +at Zurich and elsewhere, or to use the English book, and offered his +resignation. Nothing could be more fair and above-board.</p> +<p>There was an inchoate plan for a new Order. That failed; and +Knox, with others, consulted Calvin, giving him a sketch of the nature +of the English service. They drew his attention to the surplice; +the Litany, “devised by Pope Gregory,” whereby “we +use a certain conjuring of God”; the kneeling at the Communion; +the use of the cross in baptism, and of the ring in marriage, clearly +a thing of human, if not of diabolical invention, and the “imposition +of hands” in confirmation. The churching of women, they +said, is both Pagan and Jewish. “Other things not so much +shame itself as a certain kind of pity compelleth us to keep close.”</p> +<p>“The tone of the letter throughout was expressly calculated +to prejudice Calvin on the point submitted to him,” says Professor +Hume Brown. <a name="citation56"></a><a href="#footnote56">{56}</a> +Calvin replied that the quarrel might be all very well if the exiles +were happy and at ease in their circumstances, though in the Liturgy, +as described, there were “tolerable (endurable) follies.” +On the whole he sided with the Knoxian party. The English Liturgy +is not pure enough; and the English exiles, not at Frankfort, merely +like it because they are accustomed to it. Some are partial to +“popish dregs.”</p> +<p>To the extreme Reformers no break with the past could be too abrupt +and precipitous: the framers of the English Liturgy had rather adopted +the principle of evolution than of development by catastrophe, and had +wedded what was noblest in old Latin forms and prayers to music of the +choicest English speech. To this service, for which their fellow-religionists +in England were dying at the stake, the non-Frankfortian exiles were +attached. They were Englishmen; their service, they said, should +bear “an English face”: so Knox avers, who could as yet +have no patriotic love of any religious form as exclusively and essentially +Scottish.</p> +<p>A kind of truce was now proclaimed, to last till May 1, 1555; Knox +aiding in the confection of a service without responses, “some +part taken out of the English book, and other things put to,” +while Calvin, Bullinger, and three others were appointed as referees. +The Frankfort congregation had now a brief interval of provisional peace, +till, on March 13, 1555, Richard Cox, with a band of English refugees, +arrived. He had been tutor to Edward VI., the young Marcellus +of Protestantism, but for Frankfort he was not puritanic enough. +His company would give a large majority to the anti-Knoxian congregation. +He and his at once uttered the responses, and on Sunday one of them +read the Litany. This was an unruly infraction of the provisional +agreement. Cox and his party (April 5) represented to Calvin that +they had given up surplices, crosses, and other things, “not as +impure and papistical,” but as indifferent, and for the sake of +peace. This was after they had driven Knox from the place, as +they presently did; in the beginning it was distinctly their duty to +give up the Litany and responses, while the truce lasted, that is, till +the end of April. In the afternoon of the Sunday Knox preached, +denouncing the morning’s proceedings, the “impurity” +of the Prayer Book, of which “I once had a good opinion,” +and the absence, in England, of “discipline,” that is, interference +by preachers with private life. Pluralities also he denounced, +and some of the exiles had been pluralists.</p> +<p>For all this Knox was “very sharply reproved,” as soon +as he left the pulpit. Two days later, at a meeting, he insisted +that Cox’s people should have a vote in the congregation, thus +making the anti-puritans a majority; Knox’s conduct was here certainly +chivalrous: “I fear not your judgment,” he said. He +had never wished to go to Frankfort; in going he merely obeyed Calvin, +and probably he had no great desire to stay. He was forbidden +to preach by Cox and his majority; and a later conference with Cox led +to no compromise. It seems probable that Cox and the anti-puritans +already cherished a grudge against Knox for his tract, the “Admonition.” +He had a warning that they would use the pamphlet against him, and he +avers that “some devised how to have me cast into prison.” +The anti-puritans, admitting in a letter to Calvin that they brought +the “Admonition” before the magistrates of Frankfort as +“a book which would supply their enemies with just ground for +overturning the whole Church, and one which had added much oil to the +flame of persecution in England,” deny that they desired more +than that Knox might be ordered to quit the place. The passages +selected as treasonable in the “Admonition” do not include +the prayer for a Jehu. They were enough, however, to secure the +dismissal of Knox from Frankfort.</p> +<p>Cox had accepted the Order used by the French Protestant congregation, +probably because it committed him and his party to nothing in England; +however, Knox had no sooner departed than the anti-puritans obtained +leave to use, without surplice, cross, and some other matters, the Second +Prayer Book of Edward VI. In September the Puritans seceded, the +anti-puritans remained, squabbling with the Lutherans and among themselves.</p> +<p>In the whole affair Knox acted the most open and manly part; in his +“History” he declines to name the opponents who avenged +themselves, in a manner so dubious, on his “Admonition.” +If they believed their own account of the mischief that it wrought in +England, their denunciation of him to magistrates, who were not likely +to do more than dismiss him, is the less inexcusable. They did +not try to betray him to a body like the Inquisition, as Calvin did +in the case of Servetus. But their conduct was most unworthy and +unchivalrous. <a name="citation58"></a><a href="#footnote58">{58}</a></p> +<h2>CHAPTER VII: KNOX IN SCOTLAND: LETHINGTON: MARY OF GUISE: 1555-1556</h2> +<p>Meanwhile the Reformer returned to Geneva (April 1555), where Calvin +was now supreme. From Geneva, “the den of mine own ease, +the rest of quiet study,” Knox was dragged, “maist contrarious +to mine own judgement,” by a summons from Mrs. Bowes. He +did not like leaving his “den” to rejoin his betrothed; +the lover was not so fervent as the evangelist was cautious. Knox +had at that time probably little correspondence with Scotland. +He knew that there was no refuge for him in England under Mary Tudor, +“who nowise may abide the presence of God’s prophets.”</p> +<p>In Scotland, at this moment, the Government was in the hands of Mary +of Guise, a sister of the Duke of Guise and of the Cardinal. Mary +was now aged forty; she was born in 1515, as Knox probably was. +She was a tall and stately woman; her face was thin and refined; Henry +VIII., as being himself a large man, had sought her hand, which was +given to his nephew, James V. On the death of that king, Mary, +with Cardinal Beaton, kept Scotland true to the French alliance, and +her daughter, the fair Queen of Scots, was at this moment a child in +France, betrothed to the Dauphin. As a Catholic, of the House +of Lorraine, Mary could not but cleave to her faith and to the French +alliance. In 1554 she had managed to oust from the Regency the +Earl of Arran, the head of the all but royal Hamiltons, now gratified +with the French title of Duc de Chatelherault. To crown her was +as seemly a thing, says Knox, “if men had but eyes, as a saddle +upon the back of <i>ane unrewly kow</i>.” She practically +deposed Huntly, the most treacherous of men, from the Chancellorship, +substituting, with more or less reserve, a Frenchman, de Rubay; and +d’Oysel, the commander of the French troops in Scotland, was her +chief adviser.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/knox2b.jpg"> +<img alt="Picture of King James V and Mary of Guise" src="images/knox2s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>Writing after the death of Mary of Guise, Knox avers that she only +waited her chance “to cut the throats of all those in whom she +suspected the knowledge of God to be, within the realm of Scotland.” +<a name="citation60"></a><a href="#footnote60">{60}</a> As a matter +of fact, the Regent later refused a French suggestion that she should +peacefully call Protestants together, and then order a massacre after +the manner of the Bartholomew: itself still in the womb of the future. +“Mary of Guise,” says Knox’s biographer, Professor +Hume Brown, “had the instincts of a good ruler—the love +of order and justice, and the desire to stand well with the people.”</p> +<p>Knox, however, believed, or chose to say, that she wanted to cut +all Protestant throats, just as he believed that a Protestant king should +cut all Catholic throats. He attributed to her, quite erroneously +and uncharitably, his own unsparing fervour. As he held this view +of her character and purposes, it is not strange that a journey to Scotland +was “contrairious to his judgement.”</p> +<p>He did not understand the situation. Ferocious as had been +the English invasion of Scotland in 1547, the English party in Scotland, +many of them paid traitors, did not resent these “rebukes of a +friend,” so much as both the nobles and the people now began to +detest their French allies, and were jealous of the Queen Mother’s +promotion of Frenchmen.</p> +<p>There were not, to be sure, many Scots whom she, or any one, could +trust. Some were honestly Protestant: some held pensions from +England: others would sacrifice national interests to their personal +revenges and clan feuds. The Rev. the Lord James Stewart, Mary’s +bastard brother, Prior of St. Andrews and of Pittenweem, was still very +young. He had no interest in his clerical profession beyond drawing +his revenues as prior of two abbeys; and his nearness to the Crown caused +him to be suspected of ambition: moreover, he tended towards the new +ideas in religion. He had met Knox in London, apparently in 1552. +Morton was a mere wavering youth; Argyll was very old: Chatelherault +was a rival of the Regent, a competitor for the Crown and quite incompetent. +The Regent, in short, could scarcely have discovered a Scottish adviser +worthy of employment, and when she did trust one, he was the brilliant +“chamaeleon,” young Maitland of Lethington, who would rather +betray his master cleverly than run a straight course, and did betray +the Regent. Thus Mary, a Frenchwoman and a Catholic, governing +Scotland for her Catholic daughter, the Dauphiness, with the aid of +a few French troops who had just saved the independence of the country, +naturally employed French advisers. This made her unpopular; her +attempts to bring justice into Scottish courts were odious, and she +would not increase the odium by persecuting the Protestants. The +Duke’s bastard brother, again, the Archbishop, sharing his family +ambition, was in no mood for burning heretics. The Queen Mother +herself carried conciliation so far as to pardon and reinstate such +trebly dyed traitors as the notorious Crichton of Brunston, and she +employed Kirkcaldy of Grange, who intrigued against her while in her +employment. An Edinburgh tailor, Harlaw, who seems to have been +a deacon in English orders, was allowed to return to Scotland in 1554. +He became a very notable preacher. <a name="citation62a"></a><a href="#footnote62a">{62a}</a></p> +<p>Going from Mrs. Bowes’s house to Edinburgh, Knox found that +“the fervency” of the godly “did ravish him.” +At the house of one Syme “the trumpet blew the auld sound three +days thegither,” he informed Mrs. Bowes, and Knox himself was +the trumpeter. He found another lady, “who, by reason that +she had a troubled conscience, delighted much in the company of the +said John.” There were pleasant sisters in Edinburgh, who +later consulted Knox on the delicate subject of dress. He was +more tolerant in answering them than when he denounced “the stinking +pride of women” at Mary Stuart’s Court; admitting that “in +clothes, silks, velvets, gold, and other such, there is no uncleanness,” +yet “I cannot praise the common superfluity which women now use +in their apparel.” He was quite opposed, however, to what +he pleasingly calls “correcting natural beauty” (as by dyeing +the hair), and held that “farthingales cannot be justified.”</p> +<p>On the whole, he left the sisters fairly free to dress as they pleased. +His curious phrase, <a name="citation62b"></a><a href="#footnote62b">{62b}</a> +in a letter to a pair of sisters, “the prophets of God are often +impeded to pray for such as carnally they love unfeignedly,” is +difficult to understand. We leave it to the learned to explain +this singular limitation of the prophet, which Knox says that he had +not as yet experienced. He must have heard about it from other +prophets.</p> +<p>Knox found at this time a patron remarkable, says Dr. M‘Crie, +“for great respectability of character,” Erskine of Dun. +Born in 1508, about 1530 he slew a priest named Thomas Froster, in a +curiously selected place, the belfry tower of Montrose. Nobody +seems to have thought anything of it, nor should we know the fact, if +the record of the blood-price paid by Mr. Erskine to the priest’s +father did not testify to the fervent act. Six years later, according +to Knox, “God had marvellously illuminated” Erskine, and +the mildness of his nature is frequently applauded. He was, for +Scotland, a man of learning, and our first amateur of Greek. Why +did he kill a priest in a bell tower!</p> +<p>In the winter or autumn of 1555, Erskine gave a supper, where Knox +was to argue against crypto-protestantism. When once the Truth, +whether Anglican or Presbyterian, was firmly established, Catholics +were compelled, under very heavy fines, to attend services and sermons +which they believed to be at least erroneous, if not blasphemous. +I am not aware that, in 1555, the Catholic Church, in Scotland, thus +vigorously forced people of Protestant opinions to present themselves +at Mass, punishing nonconformity with ruin. I have not found any +complaints to this effect, at that time. But no doubt an appearance +of conformity might save much trouble, even in the lenient conditions +produced by the character of the Regent and by the political situation. +Knox, then, discovered that “divers who had a zeal to godliness +made small scruple to go to the Mass, or to communicate with the abused +sacraments in the Papistical manner.” He himself, therefore, +“began to show the impiety of the Mass, and how dangerous a thing +it was to communicate in any sort with idolatry.”</p> +<p>Now to many of his hearers this essential article of his faith—that +the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist and form of celebration were +“idolatry”—may have been quite a new idea. It +was already, however, a commonplace with Anglican Protestants. +Nothing of the sort was to be found in the <i>first</i> Prayer Book +of Edward VI.; broken lights of various ways of regarding the Sacrament +probably played, at this moment, over the ideas of Knox’s Scottish +disciples. Indeed, their consciences appear to have been at rest, +for it was <i>after</i> Knox’s declaration about the “idolatrous” +character of the Mass that “the matter began to be agitated from +man to man, the conscience of some being afraid.”</p> +<p>To us it may seem that the sudden denunciation of a Christian ceremony, +even what may be deemed a perverted Christian ceremony, as sheer “idolatry,” +equivalent to the worship of serpents, bulls, or of a foreign Baal in +ancient Israel—was a step calculated to confuse the real issues +and to provoke a religious war of massacre. Knox, we know, regarded +extermination of idolaters as a counsel of perfection, though in the +Christian scriptures not one word could be found to justify his position. +He relied on texts about massacring Amalekites and about Elijah’s +slaughter of the prophets of Baal. The Mass was idolatry, was +Baal worship; and Baal worshippers, if recalcitrant, must die.</p> +<p>These extreme unchristian ideas, then, were new in Scotland, even +to “divers who had a zeal to godliness.” For their +discussion, at Erskine of Dun’s party, were present, among others, +Willock, a Scots preacher returned from England, and young Maitland +of Lethington. We are not told what part Willock took in the conversation. +The arguments turned on biblical analogies, never really coincident +with the actual modern circumstances. The analogy produced in +discussion by those who did not go to all extremes with Knox did not, +however, lack appropriateness. Christianity, in fact, as they +seem to have argued, did arise out of Judaism; retaining the same God +and the same scriptures, but, in virtue of the sacrifice of its Founder, +abstaining from the sacrifices and ceremonial of the law. In the +same way Protestantism arose out of mediæval Catholicism, retaining +the same God and the same scriptures, but rejecting the mediæval +ceremonial and the mediæval theory of the sacrifice of the Mass. +It did not follow that the Mass was sheer “idolatry,” at +which no friend of the new ideas could be present.</p> +<p>As a proof that such presence or participation was not unlawful, +was not idolatry, in the existing state of affairs, was adduced the +conduct of St. Paul and the advice given to him by St. James and the +Church in Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 18-36). Paul was informed that +many thousands of Jews “believed,” yet remained zealous +for the law, the old order. They had learned that Paul advised +the Jews in Greece and elsewhere not to “walk after the customs.” +Paul should prove that “he also kept the law.” For +this purpose he, with four Christian Jews under a vow, was to purify +himself, and he went into the Temple, “until that an offering +should be offered for every one of them.”</p> +<p>“Offerings,” of course, is the term in our version for +sacrifices, whether of animals or of “unleavened wafers anointed +with oil.” The argument from analogy was, I infer, that +the Mass, with its wafer, was precisely such an “offering,” +such a survival in Catholic ritual, as in Jewish ritual St. Paul consented +to, by the advice of the Church of Jerusalem; consequently Protestants +in a Catholic country, under the existing circumstances, might attend +the Mass. The Mass was not “idolatry.” The analogy +halts, like all analogies, but so, of course, and to fatal results, +does Knox’s analogy between the foreign worships of Israel and +the Mass. “She thinks not <i>that</i> idolatry, but good +religion,” said Lethington to Knox once, speaking of Queen Mary’s +Mass. “So thought they that offered their children unto +Moloch,” retorted the reformer. Manifestly the Mass is, +of the two, much more on a level with the “offering” of +St. Paul than with human sacrifices to Moloch! <a name="citation66"></a><a href="#footnote66">{66}</a></p> +<p>In his reply Knox, as he states his own argument, altogether overlooked +the <i>offering</i> of St. Paul, which, as far as we understand, was +the essence of his opponents’ contention. He said that “to +pay <i>vows</i> was never idolatry,” but “the Mass from +the original was and remained odious idolatry, therefore the facts were +most unlike. Secondly, I greatly doubt whether either James’s +commandment or Paul’s obedience proceeded from the Holy Ghost,” +about which Knox was, apparently, better informed than these Apostles +and the Church of Jerusalem. Next, Paul was presently in danger +from a mob, which had been falsely told that he took Greeks into the +Temple. Hence it was manifest “that God approved not that +means of reconciliation.” Obviously the danger of an Apostle +from a misinformed mob is no sort of evidence to divine approval or +disapproval of his behaviour. <a name="citation67"></a><a href="#footnote67">{67}</a> +We shall later find that when Knox was urging on some English nonconformists +the beauty of conformity (1568), he employed the very precedent of St. +Paul’s conduct at Jerusalem, which he rejected when it was urged +at Erskine’s supper party!</p> +<p>We have dwelt on this example of Knox’s logic, because it is +crucial. The reform of the Church of Christ could not be achieved +without cruel persecution on both parts, while Knox was informing Scotland +that all members of the old Faith were as much idolaters as Israelites +who sacrificed their children to a foreign God, while to extirpate idolaters +was the duty of a Christian prince. Lethington, as he soon showed, +was as clear-sighted in regard to Knox’s logical methods as any +man of to-day, but he “concluded, saying, I see perfectly that +our shifts will serve nothing before God, seeing that they stand us +in so small stead before man.” But either Lethington conformed +and went to Mass, or Mary of Guise expected nothing of the sort from +him, for he remained high in her favour, till he betrayed her in 1559.</p> +<p>Knox’s opinion being accepted—it obviously was a novelty +to many of his hearers—the Reformers must either convert or persecute +the Catholics even to extermination. Circumstances of mere worldly +policy forbade the execution of this counsel of perfection, but persistent +“idolaters,” legally, lay after 1560 under sentence of death. +There was to come a moment, we shall see, when even Knox shrank from +the consequences of a theory (“a murderous syllogism,” writes +one of his recent biographers, Mr. Taylor Innes), which divided his +countrymen into the godly, on one hand, and idolaters doomed to death +by divine law, on the other. But he put his hesitation behind +him as a suggestion of Satan.</p> +<p>Knox now associated with Lord Erskine, then Governor of Edinburgh +Castle, the central strength of Scotland; with Lord Lorne, soon to be +Earl of Argyll (a “Christian,” but not a remarkably consistent +walker), with “Lord James,” the natural brother of Queen +Mary (whose conscience, as we saw, permitted him to draw the benefices +of the Abbacy of St. Andrews, of Pittenweem, and of an abbey in France, +without doing any duties), and with many redoubtable lairds of the Lothians, +Ayrshire, and Forfarshire. He also preached for ten days in the +town house, at Edinburgh, of the Bishop of Dunkeld. On May 15, +1556, he was summoned to appear in the church of the Black Friars. +As he was backed by Erskine of Dun, and other gentlemen, according to +the Scottish custom when legal proceedings were afoot, no steps were +taken against him, the clergy probably dreading Knox’s defenders, +as Bothwell later, in similar circumstances, dreaded the assemblage +under the Earl of Moray; as Lennox shrank from facing the supporters +of Bothwell, and Moray from encountering the spears of Lethington’s +allies. It was usual to overawe the administrators of justice +by these gatherings of supporters, perhaps a survival of the old “compurgators.” +This, in fact, was “part of the obligation of our Scottish kyndness,” +and the divided ecclesiastical and civil powers shrank from a conflict.</p> +<p>Glencairn and the Earl Marischal, in the circumstances, advised Knox +to write a letter to Mary of Guise, “something that might move +her to hear the Word of God,” that is, to hear Knox preach. +This letter, as it then stood, was printed in a little black-letter +volume, probably of 1556. Knox addresses the Regent and Queen +Mother as “her humble subject.” The document has an +interest almost pathetic, and throws light on the whole character of +the great Reformer. It appears that Knox had been reported to +the Regent by some of the clergy, or by rumour, as a heretic and seducer +of the people. But Knox had learned that the “dew of the +heavenly grace” had quenched her displeasure, and he hoped that +the Regent would be as clement to others in his case as to him. +Therefore he returns to his attitude in the letter to his Berwick congregation +(1552). He calls for no Jehu, he advises no armed opposition to +the sovereign, but says of “God’s chosen children” +(the Protestants), that “their victory standeth not in resisting +but in suffering,” “in quietness, silence, and hope,” +as the Prophet Isaiah recommends. The Isaiahs (however numerous +modern criticism may reckon them) were late prophets, not of the school +of Elijah, whom Knox followed in 1554 and 1558-59, not in 1552 or 1555, +or on one occasion in 1558-59. “The Elect of God” +do not “shed blood and murder,” Knox remarks, though he +approves of the Elect, of the brethren at all events, when they <i>do</i> +murder and shed blood.</p> +<p>Meanwhile Knox is more than willing to run the risks of the preacher +of the truth, “partly because I would, with St. Paul, wish myself +accursed from Christ, as touching earthly pleasures” (whatever +that may mean), “for the salvation of my brethren and illumination +of your Grace.” He confesses that the Regent is probably +not “so free as a public reformation perhaps would require,” +for that required the downcasting of altars and images, and prohibition +to celebrate or attend Catholic rites. Thus Knox would, apparently, +be satisfied for the moment with toleration and immunity for his fellow-religionists. +Nothing of the sort really contented him, of course, but at present +he asked for no more.</p> +<p>Yet, a few days later, he writes, the Regent handed his letter to +the Archbishop of Glasgow, saying, “Please you, my Lord, to read +a pasquil,” an offence which Knox never forgave and bitterly avenged +in his “History.”</p> +<p>It is possible that the Regent merely glanced at his letter. +She would find herself alluded to in a biblical parallel with “the +Egyptian midwives,” with Nebuchadnezzar, and Rahab the harlot. +Her acquaintance with these amiable idolaters may have been slight, +but the comparison was odious, and far from tactful. Knox also +reviled the creed in which she had been bred as “a poisoned cup,” +and threatened her, if she did not act on his counsel, with “torment +and pain everlasting.” Those who drink of the cup of her +Church “drink therewith damnation and death.” As for +her clergy, “proud prelates do Kings maintain to murder the souls +for which the blood of Christ Jesus was shed.”</p> +<p>These statements were dogmatic, and the reverse of conciliatory. +One should not, in attempting to convert any person, begin by reviling +his religion. Knox adopted the same method with Mary Stuart: the +method is impossible. It is not to be marvelled at if the Regent +did style the letter a “pasquil.”</p> +<p>Knox took his revenge in his “History” by repeating a +foolish report that Mary of Guise had designed to poison her late husband, +James V. “Many whisper that of old his part was in the pot, +and that the suspicion thereof caused him to be inhibited the Queen’s +company, while the Cardinal got his secret business sped of that gracious +lady either by day or night.” <a name="citation71a"></a><a href="#footnote71a">{71a}</a> +He styled her, as we saw, “a wanton widow”; he hinted that +she was the mistress of Cardinal Beaton; he made similar insinuations +about her relations with d’Oysel (who was “<i>a secretis +mulierum</i>”); he said, as we have seen, that she only waited +her chance to cut the throats of all suspected Protestants; he threw +doubt on the legitimacy of her daughter, Mary Stuart; and he constantly +accuses her of treachery, as will appear, when the charge is either +doubtful, or, as far as I can ascertain, absolutely false.</p> +<p>These are unfortunately examples of Knox’s Christianity. <a name="citation71b"></a><a href="#footnote71b">{71b}</a> +It is very easy for modern historians and biographers to speak with +genial applause of the prophet’s manly bluffness. But if +we put ourselves in the position of opponents whom he was trying to +convert, of the two Marys for example, we cannot but perceive that his +method was hopelessly mistaken. In attempting to evangelise an +Euahlayi black fellow, we should not begin by threats of damnation, +and by railing accusations against his god, Baiame.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER VIII: KNOX’S WRITINGS FROM ABROAD: BEGINNING OF THE +SCOTTISH REVOLUTION, 1556-1558</h2> +<p>Knox was about this time summoned to be one of the preachers to the +English at Geneva. He sent in advance Mrs. Bowes and his wife, +visited Argyll and Glenorchy (now Breadalbane), wrote (July 7) an epistle +bidding the brethren be diligent in reading and discussing the Bible, +and went abroad. His effigy was presently burned by the clergy, +as he had not appeared in answer to a second summons, and he was outlawed +in absence.</p> +<p>It is not apparent that Knox took any part in the English translation +of the Bible, then being executed at Geneva. Greek and Hebrew +were not his forte, though he had now some knowledge of both tongues, +but he preached to the men who did the work. The perfections of +Genevan Church discipline delighted him. “Manners and religion +so sincerely reformed I have not yet seen in any other place.” +The genius of Calvin had made Geneva a kind of Protestant city state +κατ' ευχην; a Calvinistic +Utopia—everywhere the vigilant eyes of the preachers and magistrates +were upon every detail of daily life. Monthly and weekly the magistrates +and ministers met to point out each other’s little failings. +Knox felt as if he were indeed in the City of God, and later he introduced +into Scotland, and vehemently abjured England to adopt, the Genevan +“discipline.” England would none of it, and would +not, even in the days of the Solemn League and Covenant, suffer the +excommunication by preachers to pass without lay control.</p> +<p>It is unfortunate that the ecclesiastical polity and discipline of +a small city state, like a Greek πολις, +feasible in such a community as Geneva at a moment of spiritual excitement, +was brought by Knox and his brethren into a nation like Scotland. +The results were a hundred and twenty-nine years of unrest, civil war, +and persecution.</p> +<p>Though happy in the affection of his wife and Mrs. Bowes, Knox, at +this time, needed more of feminine society. On November 19, 1556, +he wrote to his friend, Mrs. Locke, wife of a Cheapside merchant: “You +write that your desire is earnest to see me. Dear sister, if I +should express the thirst and languor which I have had for your presence, +I should appear to pass measure. . . . Your presence is so dear +to me that if the charge of this little flock . . . did not impede me, +my presence should anticipate my letter.” Thus Knox was +ready to brave the fires of Smithfield, or, perhaps, forgot them for +the moment in his affection for Mrs. Locke. He writes to no other +woman in this fervid strain. On May 8, 1557, Mrs. Locke with her +son and daughter (who died after her journey), joined Knox at Geneva. +<a name="citation73"></a><a href="#footnote73">{73}</a></p> +<p>He was soon to be involved in Scottish affairs. After his departure +from his country, omens and prodigies had ensued. A comet appeared +in November-December 1556. Next year some corn-stacks were destroyed +by lightning. Worse, a calf with two heads was born, and was exhibited +as a warning to Mary of Guise by Robert Ormistoun. The idolatress +merely sneered, and said “it was but a common thing.” +Such a woman was incorrigible. Mary of Guise is always blamed +for endangering Scotland in the interests of her family, the Guises +of the House of Lorraine. In fact, so far as she tried to make +Scotland a province of France, she was serving the ambition of Henri +II. It could not be foreseen, in 1555, that Henri II. would be +slain in 1559, leaving the two kingdoms in the hands of Francis II. +and Mary Stuart, who were so young, that they would inevitably be ruled +by the Queen’s uncles of the House of Lorraine. Shortly +before Knox arrived in Scotland in 1555, the Duc de Guise had advised +the Regent to “use sweetness and moderation,” as better +than “extremity and rigour”; advice which she acted on gladly.</p> +<p>Unluckily the war between France and Spain, in 1557, brought English +troops into collision with French forces in the Low Countries (Philip +II. being king of England); this led to complications between Scotland, +as ally of France, and the English on the Borders. Border raids +began; d’Oysel fortified Eyemouth, as a counterpoise to Berwick, +war was declared in November, and the discontented Scots, such as Chatelherault, +Huntly, Cassilis, and Argyll, mutinied and refused to cross Tweed. <a name="citation74"></a><a href="#footnote74">{74}</a> +Thus arose a breach between the Regent and some of her nobles, who at +last, in 1559, rebelled against her on the ground of religion. +While the weak war languished on, in 1557-58, “the Evangel of +Jesus Christ began wondrously to flourish,” says Knox. Other +evangelists of his pattern, Harlaw, Douglas, Willock, and a baker, Methuen +(later a victim of the intolerably cruel “discipline” of +the Kirk Triumphant), preached at Dundee, and Methuen started a reformed +Kirk (though not without being declared rebels at the horn). When +these persons preached, their hearers were apt to raise riots, wreck +churches, and destroy works of sacred art. No Government could +for ever wink at such lawless actions, and it was because the pulpiteers, +Methuen, Willock, Douglas, and the rest, were again “put at,” +after being often suffered to go free, that the final crash came, and +the Reformation began in the wrack and ruin of monasteries and churches.</p> +<p>There was drawing on another thunder-cloud. The policy of Mary +of Guise certainly tended to make Scotland a mere province of France, +a province infested by French forces, slender, but ill-paid and predacious. +Before marrying the Dauphin, in April 1558, Mary Stuart, urged it is +said by the Guises, signed away the independence of her country, to +which her husband, by these deeds, was to succeed if she died without +issue. Young as she was, Mary was perfectly able to understand +the infamy of the transaction, and probably was not so careless as to +sign the deeds unread.</p> +<p>Even before this secret treaty was drafted, on March 10, 1557, Glencairn, +Lorne, Erskine, and the Prior of St. Andrews—best known to us +in after years as James Stewart, Earl of Moray—informed Knox that +no “cruelty” by way of persecution was being practised; +that his presence was desired, and that they were ready to jeopard their +lives and goods for the cause. The rest would be told to Knox +by the bearer of the letter. Knox received the letter in May 1557, +with verbal reports by the bearers, but was so far from hasty that he +did not leave Geneva till the end of September, and did not reach Dieppe +on his way to Scotland till October 24. Three days later he wrote +to the nobles who had summoned him seven months earlier. He had +received, he said, at Dieppe two private letters of a discouraging sort; +one correspondent said that the enterprise was to be reconsidered, the +other that the boldness and constancy required “for such an enterprise” +were lacking among the nobles. Meanwhile Knox had spent his time, +or some of it, in asking the most godly and the most learned of Europe, +including Calvin, for opinions of such an adventure, for the assurance +of his own conscience and the consciences of the Lord James, Erskine, +Lorne, and the rest. <a name="citation76a"></a><a href="#footnote76a">{76a}</a> +This indicates that Knox himself was not quite sure of the lawfulness +of an armed rising, and perhaps explains his long delay. Knox +assures us that Calvin and other godly ministers insisted on his going +to Scotland. But it is quite certain that of an armed rising Calvin +absolutely disapproved. On April 16, 1561, writing to Coligny, +Calvin says that he was consulted several months before the tumult of +Amboise (March 1560) and absolutely discouraged the appeal to arms. +“Better that we all perish a hundred times than that the name +of Christianity and the Gospel should come under such disgrace.” +<a name="citation76b"></a><a href="#footnote76b">{76b}</a> If +Calvin bade Knox go to Scotland, he must have supposed that no rebellion +was intended. Knox tells his correspondents that they have betrayed +themselves and their posterity (“in conscience I can except none +that bear the name of nobility”), they have made him and their +own enterprise ridiculous, and they have put him to great trouble. +What is he to say when he returns to Geneva, and is asked why he did +not carry out his purpose? He then encourages them to be resolute.</p> +<p>Knox “certainly made the most,” says Professor Hume Brown, +“of the two letters from correspondents unknown to us.” +He at once represented them as the cause of his failure to keep tryst; +but, in April 1558, writing from Geneva to “the sisters,” +he said, “the cause of my stop to this day I do not clearly understand.” +He did not know why he left England before the Marian persecutions; +and he did not know why he had not crossed over to Scotland in 1557. +“It may be that God justly permitted Sathan to put in my mind +such cogitations as these: I heard such troubles as appeared in that +realm;”—troubles presently to be described.</p> +<p>Hearing, at Dieppe, then, in October 1557, of the troubles, and of +the faint war with England, and moved, perhaps, he suggests, by Satan, +<a name="citation77a"></a><a href="#footnote77a">{77a}</a> Knox “began +to dispute with himself, as followeth, ‘Shall Christ, the author +of peace, concord, and quietness, be preached where war is proclaimed, +and tumults appear to rise? What comfort canst thou have to see +the one part of the people rise up against the other,’” +and so forth. These truly Christian reflections, as we may think +them, “yet do trouble and move my wicked heart,” says Knox. +He adds, hypothetically, that perhaps the letters received at Dieppe +“did somewhat discourage me.” <a name="citation77b"></a><a href="#footnote77b">{77b}</a> +He was only certain that the devil was at the bottom of the whole affair.</p> +<p>The “tumults that appear to arise” are probably the dissensions +between the Regent and the mutinous nobles who refused to invade England +at her command. D’Oysel needed a bodyguard; and he feared +that the Lords would seize and carry off the Regent. Arran, in +1564, speaks of a plot to capture her in Holyrood. Here were promises +of tumults. There were also signs of a renewed feud between the +house of Hamilton and the Stewart Earl of Lennox, the rival claimant +of the crown. There seems, moreover, to have been some tumultuary +image-breaking. <a name="citation78"></a><a href="#footnote78">{78}</a></p> +<p>Knox may have been merely timid: he is not certain, but his delay +passed in consulting the learned, for the satisfaction of his conscience, +and his confessed doubts as to whether Christianity should be pushed +by civil war, seem to indicate that he was not always the prophet patron +of modern Jehus, that he did, occasionally, consult the Gospel as well +as the records of pre-Christian Israel.</p> +<p>The general result was that, from October 1557 to March 1558, Knox +stayed in Dieppe, preaching with great success, raising up a Protestant +church, and writing.</p> +<p>His condition of mind was unenviable. He had been brought all +the way across France, leaving his wife and family; he had, it seems, +been met by no letters from his noble friends, who may well have ceased +to expect him, so long was his delay. He was not at ease in his +conscience, for, to be plain, he was not sure that he was not afraid +to risk himself in Scotland, and he was not certain that his new scruples +about the justifiableness of a rising for religion were not the excuses +suggested by his own timidity. Perhaps they were just that, not +whisperings either of conscience or of Satan. Yet in this condition +Knox was extremely active. On December 1 and 17 he wrote, from +Dieppe, a “Letter to His Brethren in Scotland,” and another +to “The Lords and Others Professing the Truth in Scotland.” +In the former he censures, as well he might, “the dissolute life +of (some) such as have professed Christ’s holy Evangel.” +That is no argument, he says, against Protestantism. Many Turks +are virtuous; many orthodox Hebrews, Saints, and Patriarchs occasionally +slipped; the Corinthians, though of a “trew Kirk,” were +notoriously profligate. Meanwhile union and virtue are especially +desirable; for Satan “fiercely stirreth his terrible tail.” +We do not know what back-slidings of the brethren prompted this letter.</p> +<p>The Lords, in the other letter, are reminded that they had resolved +to hazard life, rank, and fortune for the delivery of the brethren: +the first step must be to achieve a godly frame of mind. Knox +hears rumours “that contradiction and rebellion is made by some +to the Authority” in Scotland. He advises “that none +do suddenly disobey or displease the established authority in things +lawful,” nor rebel from private motives. By “things +lawful” does he mean the command of the Regent to invade England, +which the nobles refused to do? They may “lawfully attempt +the extremity,” if Authority will not cease to persecute, and +permit Protestant preaching and administration of the Sacraments (which +usually ended in riot and church-wrecking). Above all, they are +not to back the Hamiltons, whose chief, Chatelherault, had been a professor, +had fallen back, and become a persecutor. “Flee all confederacy +with that generation,” the Hamiltons; with whom, after all, Knox +was presently to be allied, though by no means fully believing in the +“unfeigned and speedy repentance” of their chief. <a name="citation80a"></a><a href="#footnote80a">{80a}</a></p> +<p>All the movements of that time are not very clear. Apparently +Lorne, Lord James, and the rest, in their letter of March 10, 1557, +intended an armed rising: they were “ready to jeopardise lives +and goods” for “the glory of God.” If no more +than an appeal to “the Authority” for tolerance was meant, +why did Knox consult the learned so long, on the question of conscience? +Yet, in December 1557, he bids his allies first of all seek the favour +of “the Authority,” for bare toleration of Protestantism.</p> +<p>From the scheme of March 10, of which the details, unknown to us, +were <i>orally</i> delivered by bearer, he appears to have expected +civil war.</p> +<p>Again, just when Knox was writing to Scotland in December 1557, his +allies there, he says, made “a common Band,” a confederacy +and covenant such as the Scots usually drew up before a murder, as of +Riccio or Darnley, or for slaying Argyll and “the bonny Earl o’ +Murray,” under James VI. These Bands were illegal. +A Band, says Knox, was now signed by Argyll, Lorne, Glencairn, Morton, +and Erskine of Dun, and many others unknown, on December 3, 1557. +It is alleged that “Satan cruelly doth rage.” Now, +how was Satan raging in December 1557? Myln, the last martyr, +was not pursued till April 1558, by Knox’s account.</p> +<p>The first godly Band being of December 1557, <a name="citation80b"></a><a href="#footnote80b">{80b}</a> +and drawn up, perhaps, on the impulse of Knox’s severe letter +from Dieppe of October 27, in that year; just after they signed the +Band, what were the demands of the Banders? They asked, apparently, +that the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. should be read in all parish +churches, with the Lessons: <i>if the curates are able to read</i>: +if not, then by any qualified parishioner. Secondly, preaching +must be permitted in private houses, “without great conventions +of the people.” <a name="citation81a"></a><a href="#footnote81a">{81a}</a> +Whether the Catholic service was to be concurrently permitted does not +appear; it is not very probable, for that service is idolatrous, and +the Band itself denounces the Church as “the Congregation of Satan.” +Dr. M‘Crie thinks that the Banders, or Congregation of God, did +not ask for the universal adoption of the English Prayer Book, but only +requested that they themselves might bring it in “in places to +which their authority and influence extended.” They took +that liberty, certainly, without waiting for leave, but their demand +appears to apply to all parish churches. War, in fact, was denounced +against Satan’s Congregation; <a name="citation81b"></a><a href="#footnote81b">{81b}</a> +if it troubles the Lords’ Congregation, there could therefore +be little idea of tolerating their nefarious creed and ritual.</p> +<p>Probably Knox, at Dieppe in 1557 and early in 1558, did not know +about the promising Band made in Scotland. He was composing his +“First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of +Women.” In England and in Scotland were a Catholic Queen, +a Catholic Queen Mother, and the Queen of Scotland was marrying the +idolatrous Dauphin. It is not worth while to study Knox’s +general denunciation of government by ladies: he allowed that (as Calvin +suggested) miraculous exceptions to their inability might occur, as +in the case of Deborah. As a rule, a Queen was an “idol,” +and that was enough. England deserved an idol, and an idolatrous +idol, for Englishmen rejected Kirk discipline; “no man would have +his life called in trial” by presbyter or preacher. A Queen +regnant has, <i>ex officio</i>, committed treason against God: the Realm +and Estates may have conspired with her, but her rule is unlawful. +Naturally this skirl on the trumpet made Knox odious to Elizabeth, for +to impeach her succession might cause a renewal of the wars of the Roses. +Nothing less could have happened, if a large portion of the English +people had believed in the Prophet of God, John Knox. He could +predict vengeance on Mary Tudor, but could not see that, as Elizabeth +would succeed, his Blast would bring inconvenience to his cause; or, +seeing it, he stood to his guns.</p> +<p>He presently reprinted and added to his letter to Mary of Guise, +arguing that civil magistrates have authority in religion, but, of course, +he must mean only as far as they carry out his ideas, which are the +truth. In an “Appellation” against the condemnation +of himself, in absence, by the Scottish clergy, he labours the same +idea. Moreover, “no idolater can be exempted from punishment +by God’s law.” Now the Queen of Scotland happened +to be an idolater, and every true believer, as a private individual, +has a right to punish idolaters. That right and duty are not limited +to the King, or to “the chief Nobility and Estates,” whom +Knox addresses. “I would your Honours should note for the +first, that no idolater can be exempted from punishment by God’s +Law. The second is, that the punishment of such crimes as are +idolatry, blasphemy, and others, that touch the Majesty of God, doth +not appertain to kings and chief rulers only” (as he had argued +that they do, in 1554), “but also to the whole body of that people, +and to every member of the same, according to the vocation of every +man, and according to that possibility and occasion which God doth minister +to revenge the injury done against His glory, what time that impiety +is manifestly known. . . . <i>Who dare be so impudent as to deny +this to be most reasonable and just</i>?” <a name="citation83"></a><a href="#footnote83">{83}</a></p> +<p>Knox’s method of argument for his doctrine is to take, among +other texts, Deuteronomy xiii. 12-18, and apply the sanguinary precepts +of Hebrew fanatics to the then existing state of affairs in the Church +Christian. Thus, in Deuteronomy, cities which serve “other +gods,” or welcome missionaries of other religions, are to be burned, +and every living thing in them is to be destroyed. “To the +carnal man, . . . ” says Knox, “this may rather seem to +be pronounced in a rage than in wisdom.” God wills, however, +that “all creatures stoop, cover their faces, <i>and desist from +reasoning</i>, when commandment is given to execute his judgement.” +Knox, then, desists from reasoning so far as to preach that every Protestant, +with a call that way, has a right to punish any Catholic, if he gets +a good opportunity. This doctrine he publishes to his own countrymen. +Thus any fanatic who believed in the prophet Knox, and was conscious +of a “vocation,” might, and should, avenge God’s wrongs +on Mary of Guise or Mary Stuart, “he had a fair opportunity, for +both ladies were idolaters. This is a plain inference from the +passage just cited.</p> +<p>Appealing to the Commonalty of Scotland, Knox next asked that he +might come and justify his doctrine, and prove Popery “abominable +before God.” Now, could any Government admit a man who published +the tidings that any member of a State might avenge God on an idolater, +the Queen being, according to him, an idolater? This doctrine +of the right of the Protestant individual is merely monstrous. +Knox has wandered far from his counsel of “passive resistance” +in his letter to his Berwick congregation; he has even passed beyond +his “Admonition,” which merely prayed for a Phinehas or +Jehu: he has now proclaimed the right and duty of the private Protestant +assassin. The “Appellation” containing these ideas +was published at Geneva in 1558, with the author’s, but without +the printer’s name on the title-page.</p> +<p>“The First Blast” had neither the author’s nor +printer’s name, nor the name of the place of publication. +Calvin soon found that it had given grave offence to Queen Elizabeth. +He therefore wrote to Cecil that, though the work came from a press +in his town, he had not been aware of its existence till a year after +its publication. He now took no public steps against the book, +not wishing to draw attention to its origin in Geneva, lest, “by +reason of the reckless arrogance of one man” (‘the ravings +of others’), “the miserable crowd of exiles should have +been driven away, not only from this city, but even from almost the +whole world.” <a name="citation84"></a><a href="#footnote84">{84}</a> +As far as I am aware, no one approached Calvin with remonstrance about +the monstrosities of the “Appellation,” nor are the passages +which I have cited alluded to by more than one biographer of Knox, to +my knowledge. Professor Hume Brown, however, justly remarks that +what the Kirk, immediately after Knox’s death, called “Erastianism” +(in ordinary parlance the doctrine that the Civil power may interfere +in religion) could hardly “be approved in more set terms” +than by Knox. He avers that “the ordering and reformation +of religion . . . doth especially appertain to the Civil Magistrate +. . . ” “The King taketh upon him to command the Priests.” +<a name="citation85"></a><a href="#footnote85">{85}</a> The opposite +doctrine, that it appertains to the Church, is an invention of Satan. +To that diabolical invention, Andrew Melville and the Kirk returned +in the generation following, while James VI. held to Knox’s theory, +as stated in the “Appellation.”</p> +<p>The truth is that Knox contemplates a State in which the civil power +shall be entirely and absolutely of his own opinions; the King, as “Christ’s +silly vassal,” to quote Andrew Melville, being obedient to such +prophets as himself. The theories of Knox regarding the duty to +revenge God’s feud by the private citizen, and regarding religious +massacre by the civil power, ideas which would justify the Bartholomew +horrors, appear to be forgotten in modern times. His address to +the Commonalty, as citizens with a voice in the State, represents the +progressive and permanent element in his politics. We have shown, +however, that, before Knox’s time, the individual Scot was a thoroughly +independent character. “The man hath more words than the +master, and will not be content unless he knows the master’s counsel.”</p> +<p>By March 1558, Knox had returned from Dieppe to Geneva. In +Scotland, since the godly Band of December 1557, events were moving +in two directions. The Church was continuing in a belated and +futile attempt at reformation of manners (and wonderfully bad manners +they confessedly were), and of education from within. The Congregation, +the Protestants, on the other hand, were preparing openly to defend +themselves and their adherents from persecution, an honest, manly, and +laudable endeavour, so long as they did not persecute other Christians. +Their preachers—such as Harlaw, Methuen, and Douglas—were +publicly active. A moment of attempted suppression must arrive, +greatly against the personal wishes of Archbishop Hamilton, who dreaded +the conflict.</p> +<p>In March 1558, Hamilton courteously remonstrated with Argyll for +harbouring Douglas. He himself was “heavily murmured against” +for his slackness in the case of Argyll, by churchmen and other “well +given people,” and by Mary of Guise, whose daughter, by April +24, 1558, was married to the Dauphin of France. Argyll replied +that he knew how the Archbishop was urged on, but declined to abandon +Douglas.</p> +<p>“It is a far cry to Loch Awe”; Argyll, who died soon +after, was too powerful to be attacked. But, sometime in April +1558 apparently, a poor priest of Forfarshire, Walter Myln, who had +married and got into trouble under Cardinal Beaton, was tried for heresy, +and, without sentence of a secular judge, it is said, was burned at +St. Andrews, displaying serene courage, and hoping to be the last martyr +in Scotland. Naturally there was much indignation; if the Lords +and others were to keep their Band they must bestir themselves. +They did bestir themselves in defence of their favourite preachers—Willock, +Harlaw, Methuen; a <i>ci-devant</i> friar, Christison; and Douglas. +Some of these men were summoned several times throughout 1558, and Methuen +and Harlaw, at least, were “at the horn” (outlawed), but +were protected—Harlaw at Dumfries, Methuen at Dundee—by +powerful laymen. At Dundee, as we saw, by 1558, Methuen had erected +a church of reformed aspect; and “reformed” means that the +Kirk had already been purged of altars and images. Attempts to +bring the ringleaders of Protestant riots to law were made in 1558, +but the precise order of events, and of the protests of the Reformers, +appears to be dislocated in Knox’s narrative. He himself +was not present, and he seems never to have mastered the sequence of +occurrences. Fortunately there exists a fragment by a well-informed +writer, apparently a contemporary, the “Historie of the Estate +of Scotland” covering the events from July 1558 to 1560. <a name="citation87a"></a><a href="#footnote87a">{87a}</a> +There are also imperfect records of the Parliament of November-December +1558, and of the last Provincial Council of the Church, in March 1559.</p> +<p>For July 28 <a name="citation87b"></a><a href="#footnote87b">{87b}</a> +four or five of the brethren were summoned to “a day of law,” +in Edinburgh; their allies assembled to back them, and they were released +on bail to appear, if called on, within eight days. At this time +the “idol” of St. Giles, patron of the city, was stolen, +and a great riot occurred at the saint’s <i>fête</i>, September +3. <a name="citation87c"></a><a href="#footnote87c">{87c}</a></p> +<p>Knox describes the discomfiture of his foes in one of his merriest +passages, frequently cited by admirers of “his vein of humour.” +The event, we know, was at once reported to him in Geneva, by letter.</p> +<p>Some time after October, if we rightly construe Knox, <a name="citation88a"></a><a href="#footnote88a">{88a}</a> +a petition was delivered to the Regent, from the Reformers, by Sandilands +of Calder. <a name="citation88b"></a><a href="#footnote88b">{88b}</a> +They asserted that they should have defended the preachers, or testified +with them. The wisdom of the Regent herself sees the need of reform, +spiritual and temporal, and has exhorted the clergy and nobles to employ +care and diligence thereon, a fact corroborated by Mary of Guise herself, +in a paper, soon to be quoted, of July 1559. <a name="citation88c"></a><a href="#footnote88c">{88c}</a> +They ask, as they have the reading of the Scriptures in the vernacular, +for common prayers in the same. They wish for freedom to interpret +and discuss the Bible “in our conventions,” and that Baptism +and the Communion may be done in Scots, and they demand the reform of +the detestable lives of the prelates. <a name="citation88d"></a><a href="#footnote88d">{88d}</a></p> +<p>Knox’s account, in places, appears really to refer to the period +of the Provincial Council of March 1559, though it does not quite fit +that date either.</p> +<p>The Regent is said on the occasion of Calder’s petition, and +after the unsatisfactory replies of the clergy (apparently at the Provincial +Council, March 1559), to have made certain concessions, till Parliament +established uniform order. But the Parliament was of November-December +1558. <a name="citation89a"></a><a href="#footnote89a">{89a}</a> +Before that Parliament, at all events (which was mainly concerned with +procuring the “Crown Matrimonial” for the Dauphin, husband +of Mary Stuart), the brethren offered a petition, in the first place +shown to the Regent, asking for (1) the suspension of persecuting laws +till after a General Council has “decided all controversies in +religion”—that is, till the Greek Calends. (2) That +prelates shall not be judges in cases of heresy, but only accusers before +secular tribunals. (3) That all lawful defences be granted to +persons accused. (4) That the accused be permitted to explain +“his own mind and meaning.” (5) That “none be +condemned for heretics unless by the manifest Word of God they be convicted +to have erred from the faith which the Holy Spirit witnesses to be necessary +to salvation.” According to Knox this petition the Regent +put in her pocket, saying that the Churchmen would oppose it, and thwart +her plan for getting the “Crown Matrimonial” given to her +son-in-law, Francis II., and, in short, gave good words, and drove time. +<a name="citation89b"></a><a href="#footnote89b">{89b}</a></p> +<p>The Reformers then drew up a long Protestation, which was read in +the House, but not enrolled in its records. They say that they +have had to postpone a formal demand for Reformation, but protest that +“it be lawful to us to use ourselves in matters of religion and +conscience as we must answer to God,” and they are ready to prove +their case. They shall not be liable, meanwhile, to any penalties +for breach of the existing Acts against heresy, “nor for violating +such rites as man, without God’s commandment or word, hath commanded.” +They disclaim all responsibility for the ensuing tumults. <a name="citation90a"></a><a href="#footnote90a">{90a}</a> +In fact, they aver that they will not only worship in their own way, +but prevent other people from worshipping in the legal way, and that +the responsibility for the riots will lie on the side of those who worship +legally. And this was the chief occasion of the ensuing troubles. +The Regent promised to “put good order” in controverted +matters, and was praised by the brethren in a letter to Calvin, not +now to be found.</p> +<p>Another threat had been made by the brethren, in circumstances not +very obscure. As far as they are known they suggest that in January +1559 the zealots deliberately intended to provoke a conflict, and to +enlist “the rascal multitude” on their side, at Easter, +1559. The obscurity is caused by a bookbinder. He has, with +the fatal ingenuity of his trade, cut off the two top lines from a page +in one manuscript copy of Knox’s “History.” <a name="citation90b"></a><a href="#footnote90b">{90b}</a> +The text now runs thus (in its mutilated condition): “ . . . Zealous +Brether . . . upon the gates and posts of all the Friars’ places +within this realm, in the month of January 1558 (1559), preceding that +Whitsunday that they dislodged, which is this . . . ”</p> +<p>Then follows the Proclamation.</p> +<p>Probably we may supply the words: “. . . Zealous Brethren +caused a paper to be affixed upon the gates and posts,” and so +on. The paper so promulgated purported to be a warning from the +poor of Scotland that, before Whitsunday, “we, the lawful proprietors,” +will eject the Friars and residents on the property, unlawfully withheld +by the religious—“our patrimony.” This feat +will be performed, “with the help of God, <i>and assistance of +his Saints on earth</i>, <i>of whose ready support we doubt not</i>.”</p> +<p>As the Saints, in fact, were the “Zealous Brether . . .” +who affixed the written menace on “all the Friars’ places,” +they knew what they were talking about, and could prophesy safely. +To make so many copies of the document, and fix them on “all the +Friars’ places,” implies organisation, and a deliberate +plan—riots and revolution—before Whitsunday. The poor, +of course, only exchanged better for worse landlords, as they soon discovered. +The “Zealous Brethren”—as a rule small lairds, probably, +and burgesses—were the nucleus of the Revolution. When townsfolk +and yeomen in sufficient number had joined them in arms, then nobles +like Argyll, Lord James, Glencairn, Ruthven, and the rest, put themselves +at the head of the movement, and won the prizes which had been offered +to the “blind, crooked, widows, orphans, and all other poor.”</p> +<p>After Parliament was over, at the end of December 1558, the Archbishop +of St. Andrews again summoned the preachers, Willock, Douglas, Harlaw, +Methuen, and Friar John Christison to a “day of law” at +St. Andrews, on February 2, 1559. (This is the statement of the +“Historie.”) <a name="citation91"></a><a href="#footnote91">{91}</a> +The brethren then “caused inform the Queen Mother that the said +preachers would appear with such multitude of men professing their doctrine, +as was never seen before in such like cases in this country,” +and kept their promise. The system of overawing justice by such +gatherings was usual, as we have already seen; Knox, Bothwell, Lethington, +and the Lord James Stewart all profited by the practice on various occasions.</p> +<p>Mary of Guise, “fearing some uproar or sedition,” bade +the bishops put off the summons, and, in fact, the preachers never were +summoned, finally, for any offences prior to this date.</p> +<p>On February 9, 1559, the Regent issued proclamations against eating +flesh in Lent (this rule survived the Reformation by at least seventy +years) and against such disturbances of religious services as the Protest +just described declared to be imminent, all such deeds being denounced +under “pain of death”—as pain of death was used to +be threatened against poachers of deer and wild fowl. <a name="citation92a"></a><a href="#footnote92a">{92a}</a></p> +<p>Mary, however, had promised, as we saw, that she would summon the +nobles and Estates, “to advise for some reformation in religion” +(March 7, 1559), and the Archbishop called a Provincial Council to Edinburgh +for March. At this, or some other juncture, for Knox’s narrative +is bewildering, <a name="citation92b"></a><a href="#footnote92b">{92b}</a> +the clergy offered free discussion, but refused to allow exiles like +himself to be present, and insisted on the acceptance of the Mass, Purgatory, +the invocation of saints, with security for their ecclesiastical possessions. +In return they would grant prayers and baptism in English, if done privately +and not in open assembly. The terms, he says, were rejected; appeal +was made to Mary of Guise, and she gave toleration, except for public +assemblies in Edinburgh and Leith, pending the meeting of Parliament. +To the clergy, who, “some say,” bribed her, she promised +to “put order” to these matters. The Reformers were +deceived, and forbade Douglas to preach in Leith. So writes Knox.</p> +<p>Now the “Historie” dates all this, bribe and all, <i>after +the end of December</i> 1558. Knox, however, by some confusion, +places the facts, bribe and all, <i>before April</i> 28, 1558, Myln’s +martyrdom! <a name="citation93a"></a><a href="#footnote93a">{93a}</a> +Yet he had before him as he wrote the Chronicle of Bruce of Earlshall, +who states the bribe, Knox says, at £40,000; the “Historie” +says “within £15,000.” <a name="citation93b"></a><a href="#footnote93b">{93b}</a></p> +<p>In any case Knox, who never saw his book in print, has clearly dislocated +the sequence of events. At this date, namely March 1559, the preaching +agitators were at liberty, nor were they again put at for any of their +previous proceedings. But defiances had been exchanged. +The Reformers in their Protestation (December 1558) had claimed it as +lawful, we know, that they should enjoy their own services, and put +down those of the religion by law established, until such time as the +Catholic clergy “be able to prove themselves the true ministers +of Christ’s Church” and guiltless of all the crimes charged +against them by their adversaries. <a name="citation93c"></a><a href="#footnote93c">{93c}</a> +That was the challenge of the Reformers, backed by the menace affixed +to the doors of all the monasteries. The Regent in turn had thrown +down her glove by the proclamation of February 9, 1559, against disturbing +services and “bosting” (bullying) priests. How could +she possibly do less in the circumstances? If her proclamation +was disobeyed, could she do less than summon the disobedient to trial? +Her hand was forced.</p> +<p>It appears to myself, under correction, that all this part of the +history of the Reformation has been misunderstood by our older historians. +Almost without exception, they represent the Regent as dissembling with +the Reformers till, on conclusion of the peace of Cateau Cambresis (which +left France free to aid her efforts in Scotland), April 2, 1559, and +on the receipt of a message from the Guises, “she threw off the +mask,” and initiated an organised persecution. But there +is no evidence that any such message commanding her to persecute at +this time came from the Guises before the Regent had issued her proclamations +of February 9 and March 23, <a name="citation94a"></a><a href="#footnote94a">{94a}</a> +denouncing attacks on priests, disturbance of services, administering +of sacraments by lay preachers, and tumults at large. Now, Sir +James Melville of Halhill, the diplomatist, writing in old age, and +often erroneously, makes the Cardinal of Lorraine send de Bettencourt, +or Bethencourt, to the Regent with news of the peace of Cateau Cambresis +and an order to punish heretics with fire and sword, and says that, +though she was reluctant, she consequently published her proclamation +of March 23. Dates prove part of this to be impossible. <a name="citation94b"></a><a href="#footnote94b">{94b}</a></p> +<p>Obviously the Regent had issued her proclamations of February-March +1559 in anticipation of the tumults threatened by the Reformers in their +“Beggar’s Warning” and in their Protestation of December, +and arranged to occur with violence at Easter, as they did. The +three or four preachers (two of them apparently “at the horn” +in 1558) were to preach publicly, and riots were certain to ensue, as +the Reformers had threatened. Riots were part of the evangelical +programme. Of Paul Methuen, who first “reformed” the +Church in Dundee, Pitscottie writes that he “ministered the sacraments +of the communion at Dundee and Cupar, and caused the images thereof +to be cast down, and abolished the Pope’s religion so far as he +passed or preached.” For this sort of action he was now +summoned. <a name="citation95a"></a><a href="#footnote95a">{95a}</a></p> +<p>The Regent, therefore, warned in her proclamations men, often challenged +previously, and as often allowed, under fear of armed resistance, to +escape. All that followed was but a repetition of the feeble policy +of outlawing these four or five men. Finally, in May 1559, these +preachers had a strong armed backing, and seized a central strategic +point, so the Revolution blazed out on a question which had long been +smouldering and on an occasion that had been again and again deferred. +The Regent, far from having foreseen and hardened her heart to carry +out an organised persecution and “cut the throats” of all +Protestants in Scotland, was, in fact, intending to go to France, being +in the earlier stages of her fatal malady. This appears from a +letter of Sir Henry Percy, from Norham Castle, to Cecil and Parry (April +12, 1559) <a name="citation95b"></a><a href="#footnote95b">{95b}</a> +Percy says that the news in his latest letters (now lost) was erroneous. +The Regent, in fact, “is not as yet departed.” She +is very ill, and her life is despaired of. She is at Stirling, +where the nobles had assembled to discuss religious matters. Only +her French advisers were on the side of the Regent. “The +matter is pacified for the time,” and in case of the Regent’s +death, Chatelherault, d’Oysel, and de Rubay are to be a provisional +committee of Government, till the wishes of the King and Queen, Francis +and Mary, are known. Again, in her letter of May 16 to Henri II. +of France, she stated that she was in very bad health, <a name="citation96a"></a><a href="#footnote96a">{96a}</a> +and, at about the same date (May 18), the English ambassador in France +mentions her intention to visit that country at once. <a name="citation96b"></a><a href="#footnote96b">{96b}</a> +But the Revolution of May 11, breaking out in Perth, condemned her to +suffer and die in Scotland.</p> +<p>This, however, does not amount to proof that no plan of persecution +in Scotland was intended. Throckmorton writes, on May 18, that +the Marquis d’Elboeuf is to go thither. “He takes +with him both men of conduct and some of war; it is thought his stay +will not be long.” Again (May 23, 24), Throckmorton reports +that Henri II. means to persecute extremely in Poitou, Guienne, and +Scotland. “Cecil may take occasion to use the matter in +Scotland as may seem best to serve the turn.” <a name="citation96c"></a><a href="#footnote96c">{96c}</a> +This was before the Perth riot had been reported (May 26) by Cecil to +Throckmorton. Was d’Elboeuf intended to direct the persecution? +The theory has its attractions, but Henri, just emerged with maimed +forces from a ruinous war, knew that a persecution which served Cecil’s +“turn” did not serve <i>his</i>. To persecute in Scotland +would mean renewed war with England, and could not be contemplated. +If Sir James Melville can be trusted for once, the Constable, about +June 1, told him, in the presence of the French King, that if the Perth +revolt were only about religion, “we mon commit Scottismen’s +saules unto God.” <a name="citation97"></a><a href="#footnote97">{97}</a> +Melville was then despatched with promise of aid to the Regent—if +the rising was political, not religious.</p> +<p>It is quite certain that the Regent issued her proclamations without +any commands from France; and her health was inconsistent with an intention +to put Protestants to fire and sword.</p> +<p>In the records of the Provincial Council of March 1559, the foremost +place is given to “Articles” presented to the Regent by +“some temporal Lords and Barons,” and by her handed to the +clergy. They are the proposals of conservative reformers. +They ask for moral reformation of the lives of the clergy: for sermons +on Sundays and holy days: for due examination of the doctrine, life, +and learning of all who are permitted to preach. They demand that +no vicar or curate shall be appointed unless he can read the catechism +(of 1552) plainly and distinctly: that expositions of the sacraments +should be clearly pronounced in the vernacular: that common prayer should +be read in the vernacular: that certain exactions of gifts and dues +should be abolished. Again, no one should be allowed to dishonour +the sacraments, or the service of the Mass: no unqualified person should +administer the sacraments: Kirk rapine, destruction of religious buildings +and works of art, should not be permitted.</p> +<p>The Council passed thirty-four statutes on these points. The +clergy were to live cleanly, and not to keep their bastards at home. +They were implored, “in the bowels of Christ” to do their +duty in the services of the Church. No one in future was to be +admitted to a living without examination by the Ordinary. Ruined +churches were to be rebuilt or repaired. Breakers of ornaments +and violators or burners of churches were to be pursued. There +was to be preaching as often as the Ordinary thought fit: if the Rector +could not preach he must find a substitute who could. Plain expositions +of the sacraments were made out, were to be read aloud to the congregations, +and were published at twopence (“The Twopenny Faith”). +Administration of the Eucharist except by priests was to be punished +by excommunication. <a name="citation98a"></a><a href="#footnote98a">{98a}</a> +Knox himself desired <i>death</i> for others than true ministers who +celebrated the sacrament. <a name="citation98b"></a><a href="#footnote98b">{98b}</a> +His “true ministers,” about half-a-dozen of them at this +time, of course came under the penalty of the last statute.</p> +<p>He says, with the usual error, that <i>after</i> peace was made between +France and England, on April 2, 1559 (the treaty of Cateau Cambresis), +the Regent “began to spew forth and disclose the latent venom +of her double heart.” She looked “frowardly” +on Protestants, “commanded her household to use all abominations +at Easter,” she herself communicated, “and it is supposed +that after that day the devil took more violent and strong possession +in her than he had before . . . For incontinent she caused our +preachers to be summoned.”</p> +<p>But <i>why</i> did she summon the same set of preachers as before, +for no old offence? The Regent, says the “Historie,” +made proclamation, during the Council (as the moderate Reformers had +asked her to do), “that no manner of person should . . . preach +or minister the sacraments, except they were admitted by the Ordinary +or a Bishop on no less pain than death.” The Council, in +fact, made excommunication the penalty. Now it was for ministering +the sacrament after the proclamation of March 13, for preaching heresy, +and stirring up “seditions and tumults,” that Methuen, Brother +John Christison, William Harlaw, and John Willock were summoned to appear +at Stirling on May 10, 1559. <a name="citation99a"></a><a href="#footnote99a">{99a}</a></p> +<p>How could any governor of Scotland abstain from summoning them in +the circumstances? There seems to be no new suggestion of the +devil, no outbreak of Guisian fury. The Regent was in a situation +whence there was no “outgait”: she must submit to the seditions +and tumults threatened in the Protestation of the brethren, the disturbances +of services, the probable wrecking of churches, or she must use the +powers legally entrusted to her. She gave insolent answers to +remonstrances from the brethren, says Knox. She would banish the +preachers (not execute them), “albeit they preached as truly as +ever did St. Paul.” Being threatened, as before, with the +consequent “inconvenients,” she said “she would advise.” +However, summon the preachers she did, for breach of her proclamations, +“tumults and seditions.” <a name="citation99b"></a><a href="#footnote99b">{99b}</a></p> +<p>Knox himself was present at the Revolution which ensued, but we must +now return to his own doings in the autumn and winter of 1558-59. <a name="citation100"></a><a href="#footnote100">{100}</a></p> +<h2>CHAPTER IX: KNOX ON THE ANABAPTISTS: HIS APPEAL TO ENGLAND: 1558-1559</h2> +<p>While the inevitable Revolution was impending in Scotland, Knox was +living at Geneva. He may have been engaged on his “Answer” +to the “blasphemous cavillations” of an Anabaptist, his +treatise on Predestination. Laing thought that this work was “chiefly +written” at Dieppe, in February-April 1559, but as it contains +more than 450 pages it is probably a work of longer time than two months. +In November 1559 the English at Geneva asked leave to print the book, +which was granted, provided that the name of Geneva did not appear as +the place of printing; the authorities knowing of what Knox was capable +from the specimen given in his “First Blast.” There +seem to be several examples of the Genevan edition, published by Crispin +in 1560; the next edition, less rare, is of 1591 (London). <a name="citation101"></a><a href="#footnote101">{101}</a></p> +<p>The Anabaptist whom Knox is discussing had been personally known +to him, and had lucid intervals. “Your chief Apollos,” +he had said, addressing the Calvinists, “be persecutors, on whom +the blood of Servetus crieth a vengeance. . . . They have set +forth books affirming it to be lawful to persecute and put to death +such as dissent from them in controversies of religion. . . . +Notwithstanding they, before they came to authority, were of another +judgment, and did both say and write that no man ought to be persecuted +for his conscience’ sake. . . .” <a name="citation102a"></a><a href="#footnote102a">{102a}</a> +Knox replied that Servetus was a blasphemer, and that Moses had been +a more wholesale persecutor than the Edwardian burners of Joan of Kent, +and the Genevan Church which roasted Servetus <a name="citation102b"></a><a href="#footnote102b">{102b}</a> +(October 1553). He incidentally proves that he was better than +his doctrine. In England an Anabaptist, after asking for secrecy, +showed him a manuscript of his own full of blasphemies. “In +me I confess there was great negligence, that neither did retain his +book nor present him to the magistrate” to burn. Knox could +not have done that, for the author “earnestly required of me closeness +and fidelity,” which, probably, Knox promised. Indeed, one +fancies that his opinions and character would have been in conflict +if a chance of handing an idolater over to death had been offered to +him. <a name="citation102c"></a><a href="#footnote102c">{102c}</a></p> +<p>The death of Mary Tudor on November 17, 1558, does not appear to +have been anticipated by him. The tidings reached him before January +12, 1559, when he wrote from Geneva a singular “Brief Exhortation +to England for the Spedie Embrasing of Christ’s Gospel heretofore +by the Tyrannie of Marie Suppressed and Banished.”</p> +<p>The gospel to be embraced by England is, of course, not nearly so +much Christ’s as John Knox’s, in its most acute form and +with its most absolute, intolerant, and intolerable pretensions. +He begins by vehemently rebuking England for her “shameful defection” +and by threatening God’s “horrible vengeances which thy +monstrous unthankfulness hath long deserved,” if the country does +not become much more puritan than it had ever been, or is ever likely +to be. Knox “wraps you all in idolatry, all in murder, all +in one and the same iniquity,” except the actual Marian martyrs; +those who “abstained from idolatry;” and those who “avoided +the realm” or ran away. He had set one of the earliest examples +of running away: to do so was easier for him than for family men and +others who had “a stake in the country,” for which Knox +had no relish. He is hardly generous in blaming all the persons +who felt no more “ripe” for martyrdom than he did, yet stayed +in England, where the majority were, and continued to be, Catholics.</p> +<p>Having asserted his very contestable superiority and uttered pages +of biblical threatenings, Knox says that the repentance of England “requireth +two things,” first, the expulsion of “all dregs of Popery” +and the treading under foot of all “glistering beauty of vain +ceremonies.” Religious services must be reduced, in short, +to his own bare standard. Next, the Genevan and Knoxian “kirk +discipline” must be introduced. No “power or liberty +(must) be permitted to any, of what estate, degree, or authority they +be, either to live without the yoke of discipline by God’s word +commanded,” or “to alter . . . one jot in religion which +from God’s mouth thou hast received. . . . If prince, king, or +emperor would enterprise to change or disannul the same, that he be +of thee reputed enemy to God,” while a prince who erects idolatry +. . . “must be adjudged to death.”</p> +<p>Each bishopric is to be divided into ten. The Founder of the +Church and the Apostles “all command us to preach, to preach.” +A brief sketch of what The Book of Discipline later set forth for the +edification of Scotland is recommended to England, and is followed by +more threatenings in the familiar style.</p> +<p>England did not follow the advice of Knox: her whole population was +not puritan, many of her martyrs had died for the prayer book which +Knox would have destroyed. His tract cannot have added to the +affection which Elizabeth bore to the author of “The First Blast.” +In after years, as we shall see, Knox spoke in a tone much more moderate +in addressing the early English nonconformist secessionists (1568). +Indeed, it is as easy almost to prove, by isolated passages in Knox’s +writings, that he was a sensible, moderate man, loathing and condemning +active resistance in religion, as to prove him to be a senselessly violent +man. All depends on the occasion and opportunity. He speaks +with two voices. He was very impetuous; in the death of Mary Tudor +he suddenly saw the chance of bringing English religion up, or down, +to the Genevan level, and so he wrote this letter of vehement rebuke +and inopportune advice.</p> +<p>Knox must have given his biographers “medicines to make them +love him.” The learned Dr. Lorimer finds in this epistle, +one of the most fierce of his writings, “a programme of what this +Reformation reformed should be—a programme which was honourable +alike to Knox’s zeal and his moderation.” The “moderation” +apparently consists in not abolishing bishoprics, but substituting “ten +bishops of moderate income for one lordly prelate.” Despite +this moderation of the epistle, “its intolerance is extreme,” +says Dr. Lorimer, and Knox’s advice “cannot but excite astonishment.” +<a name="citation104"></a><a href="#footnote104">{104}</a> The +party which agreed with him in England was the minority of a minority; +the Catholics, it is usually supposed, though we have no statistics, +were the majority of the English nation. Yet the only chance, +according to Knox, that England has of escaping the vengeance of an +irritable Deity, is for the smaller minority to alter the prayer book, +resist the Queen, if she wishes to retain it unaltered, and force the +English people into the “discipline” of a Swiss Protestant +town.</p> +<p>Dr. Lorimer, a most industrious and judicious writer, adds that, +in these matters of “discipline,” and of intolerance, Knox +“went to a tragical extreme of opinion, of which none of the other +leading reformers had set an example;” also that what he demanded +was substantially demanded by the Puritans all through the reign of +Elizabeth. But Knox averred publicly, and in his “History,” +that for everything he affirmed in Scotland he had heard the judgments +“of the most godly and learned that be known in Europe . . . and +for my assurance I have the handwritings of many.” Now he +had affirmed frequently, in Scotland, the very doctrines of discipline +and persecution “of which none of the other leading Reformers +had set an example,” according to Dr. Lorimer. Therefore, +either they agreed with Knox, or what Knox told the Lords in June 1564 +was not strictly accurate. <a name="citation105"></a><a href="#footnote105">{105}</a> +In any case Knox gave to his country the most extreme of Reformations.</p> +<p>The death of Mary Tudor, and the course of events at home, were now +to afford our Reformer the opportunity of promulgating, in Scotland, +those ideas which we and his learned Presbyterian student alike regret +and condemn. These persecuting ideas “were only a mistaken +theory of Christian duty, and nothing worse,” says Dr. Lorimer. +Nothing could possibly be worse than a doctrine contrary in the highest +degree to the teaching of Our Lord, whether the doctrine was proclaimed +by Pope, Prelate, or Calvinist.</p> +<p>Here it must be observed that a most important fact in Knox’s +career, a most important element in his methods, has been little remarked +upon by his biographers. Ever since he failed, in 1554, to obtain +the adhesion of Bullinger and Calvin to his more extreme ideas, he had +been his own prophet, and had launched his decrees of the right of the +people, of part of the people, and of the individual, to avenge the +insulted majesty of God upon idolaters, not only without warrant from +the heads of the Calvinistic Church, but to their great annoyance and +disgust. Of this an example will now be given.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER X: KNOX AND THE SCOTTISH REVOLUTION, 1559</h2> +<p>Knox had learned from letters out of Scotland that Protestants there +now ran no risks; that “without a shadow of fear they might hear +prayers in the vernacular, and receive the sacraments in the right way, +the impure ceremonies of Antichrist being set aside.” The +image of St. Giles had been broken by a mob, and thrown into a sewer; +“the impure crowd of priests and monks” had fled, throwing +away the shafts of the crosses they bore, and “hiding the golden +heads in their robes.” Now the Regent thinks of reforming +religion, on a given day, at a convention of the whole realm. +So William Cole wrote to Bishop Bale, then at Basle, without date. +The riot was of the beginning of September 1558, and is humorously described +by Knox. <a name="citation107"></a><a href="#footnote107">{107}</a></p> +<p>This news, though regarded as “very certain,” was quite +erroneous except as to the riot. One may guess that it was given +to Knox in letters from the nobles, penned in October 1558, which he +received in November 1558; there was also a letter to Calvin from the +nobles, asking for Knox’s presence. It seemed that a visit +to Scotland was perfectly safe; Knox left Geneva in January, he arrived +in Dieppe in February, where he learned that Elizabeth would not allow +him to travel through England. He had much that was private to +say to Cecil, and was already desirous of procuring English aid to Scottish +reformers. The tidings of the Queen’s refusal to admit him +to England came through Cecil, and Knox told him that he was “worthy +of Hell” (for conformity with Mary Tudor); and that Turks actually +granted such safe conducts as were now refused to him. <a name="citation108a"></a><a href="#footnote108a">{108a}</a> +Perhaps he exaggerated the amenity of the Turks. His “First +Blast,” if acted on, disturbed the succession in England, and +might beget new wars, a matter which did not trouble the prophet. +He also asked leave to visit his flock at Berwick. This too was +refused.</p> +<p>Doubtless Knox, with his unparalleled activity, employed the period +of delay in preaching the Word at Dieppe. After his arrival in +Scotland, he wrote to his Dieppe congregation, upbraiding them for their +Laodicean laxity in permitting idolatry to co-exist with true religion +in their town. Why did they not drive out the idolatrous worship? +These epistles were intercepted by the Governor of Dieppe, and their +contents appear to have escaped the notice of the Reformer’s biographers. +A revolt followed in Dieppe. <a name="citation108b"></a><a href="#footnote108b">{108b}</a> +Meanwhile Knox’s doings at Dieppe had greatly exasperated François +Morel, the chief pastor of the Genevan congregation in Paris, and president +of the first Protestant Synod held in that town. The affairs of +the French Protestants were in a most precarious condition; persecution +broke into fury early in June 1559. A week earlier, Morel wrote +to Calvin, “Knox was for some time in Dieppe, waiting on a wind +for Scotland.” “He dared publicly to profess the worst +and most infamous of doctrines: ‘Women are unworthy to reign; +Christians may protect themselves by arms against tyrants!’” +The latter excellent doctrine was not then accepted by the Genevan learned. +“I fear that Knox may fill Scotland with his madness. He +is said to have a boon companion at Geneva, whom we hear that the people +of Dieppe have called to be their minister. If he be infected +with such opinions, for Christ’s sake pray that he be not sent; +or if he has already departed, warn the Dieppe people to beware of him.” +<a name="citation109a"></a><a href="#footnote109a">{109a}</a> +A French ex-capuchin, Jacques Trouillé, was appointed as Knox’s +successor at Dieppe. <a name="citation109b"></a><a href="#footnote109b">{109b}</a></p> +<p>Knox’s ideas, even the idea that Christians may bear the sword +against tyrants, were all his own, were anti-Genevan; and though Calvin +(1559-60) knew all about the conspiracy of Amboise to kill the Guises, +he ever maintained that he had discouraged and preached against it. +We must, therefore, credit Knox with originality, both in his ideas +and in his way of giving it to be understood that they had the approval +of the learned of Switzerland. The reverse was true.</p> +<p>By May 3, Knox was in Edinburgh, “come in the brunt of the +battle,” as the preachers’ summons to trial was for May +10. He was at once outlawed, “blown loud to the horn,” +but was not dismayed. On this occasion the battle would be a fair +fight, the gentry, under their Band, stood by the preachers, and, given +a chance in open field with the arm of the flesh to back him, Knox’s +courage was tenacious and indomitable. It was only for lonely +martyrdom that he never thought himself ready, and few historians have +a right to throw the first stone at him for his backwardness.</p> +<p>As for armed conflict, at this moment Mary of Guise could only reckon +surely on the small French garrison of Scotland, perhaps 1500 or 2000 +men. She could place no confidence in the feudal levies that gathered +when the royal standard was raised. The Hamiltons merely looked +to their own advancement; Lord James Stewart was bound to the Congregation; +Huntly was a double dealer and was remote; the minor <i>noblesse</i> +and the armed burghers, with Glencairn representing the south-west, +Lollard from of old, were attached to Knox’s doctrines, while +the mob would flock in to destroy and plunder.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/knox3b.jpg"> +<img alt="Bridal medal of Mary Stuart and the Dauphin, 1558" src="images/knox3s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>Meanwhile Mary of Guise was at Stirling, and a multitude of Protestants +were at Perth, where the Reformation had just made its entry, and had +secured a walled city, a thing unique in Scotland. The gentry +of Angus and the people of Dundee, at Perth, were now anxious to make +a “demonstration” (unarmed, says Knox) at Stirling, if the +preachers obeyed the summons to go thither, on May 10. Their strategy +was excellent, whether carefully premeditated or not.</p> +<p>The Regent, according to Knox, amused Erskine of Dun with promises +of “taking some better order” till the day of May 10 arrived, +when, the preachers and their backers having been deluded into remaining +at Perth instead of “demonstrating” at Stirling, she outlawed +the preachers and fined their sureties (“assisters”). +She did not outlaw the sureties. Her treachery (alleged only by +Knox and others who follow him) is examined in Appendix A. Meanwhile +it is certain that the preachers were put to the horn in absence, and +that the brethren, believing themselves (according to Knox) to have +been disgracefully betrayed, proceeded to revolutionary extremes, such +as Calvin energetically denounced.</p> +<p>If we ask who executed the task of wrecking the monasteries at Perth, +Knox provides two different answers.</p> +<p>In the “History” Knox says that after the news came of +the Regent’s perfidy, and after a sermon “vehement against +idolatry,” a priest began to celebrate, and “opened a glorious +tabernacle” on the high altar. “Certain godly men +and a young boy” were standing near; they all, or the boy alone +(the sentence may be read either way), cried that this was intolerable. +The priest struck the boy, who “took up a stone” and hit +the tabernacle, and “the whole multitude” wrecked the monuments +of idolatry. Neither the exhortation of the preacher nor the command +of the magistrate could stay them in their work of destruction. <a name="citation111"></a><a href="#footnote111">{111}</a> +Presently “the rascal multitude” convened, <i>without</i> +the gentry and “earnest professors,” and broke into the +Franciscan and Dominican monasteries. They wrecked as usual, and +the “common people” robbed, but the godly allowed Forman, +Prior of the Charter House, to bear away about as much gold and silver +as he was able to carry. We learn from Mary of Guise and Lesley’s +“History” that the very orchards were cut down.</p> +<p>If, thanks to the preachers, “no honest man was enriched the +value of a groat,” apparently dishonest men must have sacked the +gold and silver plate of the monasteries; nothing is said by Knox on +this head, except as to the Charter House.</p> +<p>Writing to Mrs. Locke, on the other hand, on June 23, Knox tells +her that “the brethren,” after “complaint and appeal +made” against the Regent, levelled with the ground the three monasteries, +burned all “monuments of idolatry” accessible, “and +priests were commanded under pain of death, to desist from their blasphemous +mass.” <a name="citation112"></a><a href="#footnote112">{112}</a> +Nothing is said about a spontaneous and uncontrollable popular movement. +The professional “brethren,” earnest professors of course, +reap the glory. Which is the true version?</p> +<p>If the version given to Mrs. Locke be accurate, Knox had sufficient +reasons for producing a different account in that portion of his “History” +(Book ii.) which is a tract written in autumn, 1559, and in purpose +meant for contemporary foreign as well as domestic readers. The +performances attributed to the brethren, in the letter to the London +merchant’s wife, were of a kind which Calvin severely rebuked. +Similar or worse violences were perpetrated by French brethren at Lyons, +on April 30, 1562. The booty of the church of St. Jean had been +sold at auction. There must be no more robbery and pillage, says +Calvin, writing on May 13, to the Lyons preachers. The ruffians +who rob ought rather to be abandoned, than associated with to the scandal +of the Gospel. “Already reckless zeal was shown in the ravages +committed in the churches” (altars and images had been overthrown), +“but those who fear God will not rigorously judge what was done +in hot blood, from devout emotion, but what can be said in defence of +looting?”</p> +<p>Calvin spoke even more distinctly to the “consistory” +of Nîmes, who suspended a preacher named Tartas for overthrowing +crosses, altars, and images in churches (July-August, 1561). The +zealot was even threatened with excommunication by his fellow religionists. +<a name="citation113a"></a><a href="#footnote113a">{113a}</a> +Calvin heard that this fanatic had not only consented to the outrages, +but had incited them, and had “the insupportable obstinacy” +to say that such conduct was, with him, “a matter of conscience.” +“But <i>we</i>” says Calvin, “know that the reverse +is the case, for God never commanded any one to overthrow idols, except +every man in his own house, and, in public, those whom he has armed +with authority. Let that fire-brand” (the preacher) “show +us by what title <i>he</i> is lord of the land where he has been burning +things.”</p> +<p>Knox must have been aware of Calvin’s opinion about such outrages +as those of Perth, which, in a private letter, he attributes to the +brethren: in his public “History” to the mob. At St. +Andrews, when similar acts were committed, he says that “the provost +and bailies . . . did agree to remove all monuments of idolatry,” +whether this would or would not have satisfied Calvin.</p> +<p>Opponents of my view urge that Knox, though he knew that the brethren +had nothing to do with the ruin at Perth, yet, in the enthusiasm of +six weeks later, claimed this honour for them, when writing to Mrs. +Locke. Still later, when cool, he told, in his “History,” +“the frozen truth,” the mob alone was guilty, despite his +exhortations and the commandment of the magistrate. Neither alternative +is very creditable to the prophet.</p> +<p>In the “Historie of the Estate of Scotland,” it is “the +brethren” who break, burn, and destroy. <a name="citation113b"></a><a href="#footnote113b">{113b}</a> +In Knox’s “History” no mention is made of the threat +of death against the priests. In the letter to Mrs. Locke he says, +apparently of the threat, perhaps of the whole affair, “which +thing did so enrage the venom of the serpent’s seed,” that +she decreed death against man, woman, and child in Perth, after the +fashion of Knox’s favourite texts in Deuteronomy and Chronicles. +This was “beastlie crueltie.” The “History” +gives the same account of the Regent’s threatening “words +which might escape her in choler” (of course we have no authority +for her speaking them at all), but, in the “History,” Knox +omits the threat by the brethren of death against the priests—a +threat which none of his biographers mentions!</p> +<p>If the menace against the priests and the ruin of monasteries were +not seditious, what is sedition? But Knox’s business, in +Book II. of his “History” (much of it written in September-October +1559), is to prove that the movement was <i>not</i> rebellious, was +purely religious, and all for “liberty of conscience”—for +Protestants. Therefore, in the “History,” he disclaims +the destruction by the brethren of the monasteries—the mob did +that; and he burkes the threat of death to priests: though he told the +truth, privately, to Mrs. Locke.</p> +<p>Mary did not move at once. The Hamiltons joined her, and she +had her French soldiers, perhaps 1500 men. On May 22 “The +Faithful Congregation of Christ Jesus in Scotland,” but a few +gentlemen being concerned, wrote from Perth, which they were fortifying, +to the Regent. If she proceeds in her “cruelty,” they +will take up the sword, and inform all Christian princes, and their +Queen in France, that they have revolted solely because of “this +cruel, unjust, and most tyrannical murder, intended against towns and +multitudes.” As if they had not revolted already! +Their pretext seems to mean that they do not want to alter the sovereign +authority, a quibble which they issued for several months, long after +it was obviously false. They also wrote to the nobles, to the +French officers in the Regent’s service, and to the clergy.</p> +<p>What really occurred was that many of the brethren left Perth, after +they had “made a day of it,” as they had threatened earlier: +that the Regent called her nobles to Council, concentrated her French +forces, and summoned the levies of Clydesdale and Stirlingshire. +Meanwhile the brethren flocked again into Perth, at that time, it is +said, the only wall-girt town in Scotland: they strengthened the works, +wrote everywhere for succour, and loudly maintained that they were not +rebellious or seditious.</p> +<p>Of these operations Knox was the life and soul. There is no +mistaking his hand in the letter to Mary of Guise, or in the epistle +to the Catholic clergy. That letter is courteously addressed “To +the Generation of Anti-Christ, the Pestilent Prelates and their Shavelings +within Scotland, the Congregation of Jesus within the same saith.”</p> +<p>The gentle Congregation saith that, if the clergy “proceed +in their cruelty,” they shall be “apprehended as murderers.” +“We shall begin that same war which God commanded Israel to execute +against the Canaanites . . .” This they promise in the names +of God, Christ, and the Gospel. Any one can recognise the style +of Knox in this composition. David Hume remarks: “With these +outrageous symptoms commenced in Scotland that hypocrisy and fanaticism +which long infested that kingdom, and which, though now mollified by +the lenity of the civil power, is still ready to break out on all occasions.” +Hume was wrong, there was no touch of hypocrisy in Knox; he believed +as firmly in the “message” which he delivered as in the +reality of the sensible universe.</p> +<p>A passage in the message to the nobility displays the intense ardour +of the convictions that were to be potent in the later history of the +Kirk. That priests, by the prescription of fifteen centuries, +should have persuaded themselves of their own power to damn men’s +souls to hell, cut them off from the Christian community, and hand them +over to the devil, is a painful circumstance. But Knox, from Perth, +asserts that the same awful privilege is vested in the six or seven +preachers of the nascent Kirk with the fire-new doctrine! Addressing +the signers of the godly Band and other sympathisers who have not yet +come in, he (if he wrote these fiery appeals) observes, that if they +do <i>not</i> come in, “ye shall be <i>excommunicated</i> from +our Society, and from all participation with us in the administration +of the Sacraments . . . Doubt we nothing but that our church, +<i>and the true ministers of the same</i>, have the power which our +Master, Jesus Christ, granted to His apostles in these words, ‘Whose +sins ye shall forgive, shall be forgiven, and whose sins ye shall retain, +shall be retained’ . . . ” Men were to be finally +judged by Omnipotence on the faith of what Willock, Knox, Harlaw, poor +Paul Methuen, and the apostate Friar Christison, “trew ministeris,” +thought good to decide! With such bugbears did Guthrie and his +companions think, a century later, to daunt “the clear spirit +of Montrose.”</p> +<p>While reading the passages just cited, we are enabled to understand +the true cause of the sorrows of Scotland for a hundred and thirty years. +The situation is that analysed by Thomas Lüber, a Professor of +Medicine at Heidelberg, well or ill known in Scottish ecclesiastical +disputes by his Graecised name, Erastus. He argued, about 1568, +that excommunication has no certain warrant in Holy Writ, under a Christian +prince. Erastus writes:—</p> +<p>“Some men were seized on by a certain excommunicatory fever, +which they did adorn with the name of ‘ecclesiastical discipline.’ +. . . They affirmed the manner of it to be this: that certain +presbyters should sit in the name of the whole Church, and should judge +who were worthy or unworthy to come to the Lord’s Supper. +I wonder that then they consulted about these matters, when we neither +had men to be excommunicated, nor fit excommunicators; for scarcely +a thirtieth part of the people did understand or approve of the reformed +religion.” <a name="citation117"></a><a href="#footnote117">{117}</a></p> +<p>“There was,” adds Erastus, “another fruit of the +same tree, that almost every one thought men had the power of opening +and shutting heaven to whomsoever they would.”</p> +<p>What men have this power in Scotland in 1559? Why, some five +or six persons who, being fluent preachers, have persuaded local sets +of Protestants to accept them as ministers. These preachers having +a “call”—it might be from a set of perfidious and +profligate murderers—are somehow gifted with the apostolic grace +of binding on earth what shall be bound in heaven. Their successors, +down to Mr. Cargill, who, of his own fantasy, excommunicated Charles +II., were an intolerable danger to civilised society. For their +edicts of “boycotting” they claimed the sanction of the +civil magistrate, and while these almost incredibly fantastic pretentions +lasted, there was not, and could not be, peace in Scotland.</p> +<p>The seed of this Upas tree was sown by Knox and his allies in May +1559. An Act of 1690 repealed civil penalties for the excommunicated.</p> +<p>To face the supernaturally gifted preachers the Regent had but a +slender force, composed in great part of sympathisers with Knox. +Croft, the English commander at Berwick, writing to the English Privy +Council, on May 22, anticipated that there would be no war. The +Hamiltons, numerically powerful, and strong in martial gentlemen of +the name, were with the Regent. But of the Hamiltons it might +always be said, as Charles I. was to remark of their chief, that “they +were very active for their own preservation,” and for no other +cause. For centuries but one or two lives stood between them and +the throne, the haven where they would be. They never produced +a great statesman, but their wealth, numbers, and almost royal rank +made them powerful.</p> +<p>At this moment the eldest son of the house, the Earl of Arran, was +in France. As a boy, he had been seized by the murderers of Cardinal +Beaton, and held as a hostage in the Castle of St. Andrews. Was +he there converted to the Reformers’ ideas by the eloquence of +Knox? We know not, but, as heir to his father’s French duchy +of Chatelherault, he had been some years in France, commanding the Scottish +Archer Guard. In France too, perhaps, he was more or less a pledge +for his father’s loyalty in Scotland. He was now a Protestant +in earnest, had retired from the French Court, had refused to return +thither when summoned, and fled from the troops who were sent to bring +him; lurking in woods and living on strawberries. Cecil despatched +Thomas Randolph to steer him across the frontier to Zurich. He +was a piece in the game much more valuable than his father, whose portrait +shows us a weak, feebly cunning, good-natured, and puzzled-looking old +nobleman.</p> +<p>Till Arran returned to Scotland, the Hamiltons, it was certain, would +be trusty allies of neither faith and of neither party. When the +Perth tumult broke out, Lord James rode with the Regent, as did Argyll. +But both had signed the godly Band of December 3, 1557, and could no +more be trusted by the Regent than the Hamiltons.</p> +<p>Meanwhile, the gentry of Fife and Forfarshire, with the town of Dundee, +joined Knox in the walled town of Perth, though Lord Ruthven, provost +of Perth, deserted, for the moment, to the Regent. On the other +hand, the courageous Glencairn, with a strong body of the zealots of +Renfrewshire and Ayrshire, was moving by forced marches to join the +brethren. On May 24, the Regent, instead of attacking, halted +at Auchterarder, fourteen miles away, and sent Argyll and Lord James +to parley. They were told that the brethren meant no rebellion +(as the Regent said and doubtless thought that they did), but only desired +security for their religion, and were ready to “be tried” +(by whom?) “in lawful judgment.” Argyll and Lord James +were satisfied. On May 25, Knox harangued the two lords in his +wonted way, but the Regent bade the brethren leave Perth on pain of +treason. By May 28, however, she heard of Glencairn’s approach +with Lord Ochiltree, a Stewart (later Knox’s father-in-law); Glencairn, +by cross roads, had arrived within six miles of Perth, with 1200 horse +and 1300 foot. The western Reformers were thus nearer Perth than +her own untrustworthy levies at Auchterarder. Not being aware +of this, the brethren proposed obedience, if the Regent would amnesty +the Perth men, let their faith “go forward,” and leave no +garrison of “French soldiers.” To Mrs. Locke Knox +adds that no idolatry should be erected, or alteration made within the +town. <a name="citation120"></a><a href="#footnote120">{120}</a> +The Regent was now sending Lord James, Argyll, and Mr. Gawain Hamilton +to treat, when Glencairn and his men marched into Perth. Argyll +and Lord James then promised to join the brethren, if the Regent broke +her agreement; Knox and Willock assured their hearers that break it +she would—and so the agreement was accepted (May 28).</p> +<p>It was thus necessary for the brethren to allege that the covenant +was broken; and it was not easy for Mary to secure order in Perth without +taking some step that could be seized on as a breach of her promise; +Argyll and Lord James could then desert her for the party of Knox. +The very Band which Argyll and Lord James signed with the Congregation +provided that the godly should go on committing the disorders which +it was the duty of the Regent to suppress, and they proceeded in that +holy course, “breaking down the altars and idols in all places +where they came.” <a name="citation121a"></a><a href="#footnote121a">{121a}</a> +“At their whole powers” the Congregations are “to +destroy and put away all that does dishonour to God’s name”; +that is, monasteries and works of sacred art. They are all to +defend each other against “any power whatsoever” that shall +trouble them in their pious work. Argyll and Lord James signed +this new Band, with Glencairn, Lord Boyd, and Ochiltree. The Queen’s +emissaries thus deserted her cause on the last day of May 1559, or earlier, +for the chronology is perplexing. <a name="citation121b"></a><a href="#footnote121b">{121b}</a></p> +<p>As to the terms of truce with the Regent, Knox gives no document, +but says that no Perth people should be troubled for their recent destruction +of idolatry “and for down casting the places of the same; that +she would suffer the religion begun to go forward, and leave the town +at her departing free from the garrisons of French soldiers.” +The “Historie” mentions no terms except that “she +should leave no men of war behind her.”</p> +<p>Thus, as it seems, the brethren by their Band were to go on wrecking +the homes of the Regent’s religion, while she was not to enjoy +her religious privileges in the desecrated churches of Perth, for to +do that was to prevent “the religion begun” from “going +forward.” On the Regent’s entry her men “discharged +their volley of hackbuts,” probably to clear their pieces, a method +of unloading which prevailed as late as Waterloo. But some aimed, +says Knox, at the house of Patrick Murray and hit a son of his, a boy +of ten or twelve, “who, being slain, was had to the Queen’s +presence.” She mocked, and wished it had been his father, +“but seeing that it so chanced, we cannot be against fortune.” +It is not very probable that Mary of Guise was “merry,” +in Knox’s manner of mirth, over the death of a child (to Mrs. +Locke Knox says “children”), who, for all we know, may have +been the victim of accident, like the Jacobite lady who was wounded +at a window as Prince Charles’s men discharged their pieces when +entering Edinburgh after the victory of Prestonpans. (This brave +lady said that it was fortunate she was not a Whig, or the accident +would have been ascribed to design.) This event at Perth was called +a breach of terms, so was the attendance at Mass, celebrated on any +chance table, as “the altars were not so easy to be repaired again.” +The soldiers were billeted on citizens, whose houses were “oppressed +by” the Frenchmen, and the provost, Ruthven (who had anew deserted +to the Congregation), and the bailies, were deposed.</p> +<p>These magistrates probably had been charged with the execution of +priests who dared to do their duty; at least in the following year, +on June 10, 1560, we find the provost, bailies, and town council of +Edinburgh decreeing death for the third offence against idolaters who +do not instantly profess their conversion. <a name="citation122"></a><a href="#footnote122">{122}</a> +The Edinburgh municipality did this before the abolition of Catholicism +by the Convention of Estates in August 1560. It does not appear +that any authority in Perth except that of the provost and bailies could +sentence priests to death; was their removal, then, a breach of truce? +At all events it seemed necessary in the circumstances, and Mary of +Guise when she departed left no <i>French</i> soldiers to protect the +threatened priests, but four companies of Scots who had been in French +service, under Stewart of Cardonell and Captain Cullen, the Captain +of Queen Mary’s guard after the murder of Riccio. The Regent +is said by Knox to have remarked that she was not bound to keep faith +with heretics, and that, with as fair an excuse, she would make little +scruple to take the lives and goods of “all that sort.” +We do not know Knox’s authority for these observations of the +Regent.</p> +<p>The Scots soldiers left by Mary of Guise may have been Protestants, +they certainly were not Frenchmen; and, in a town where death had just +been threatened to all priests who celebrated the Mass, Mary could not +abandon her clerics unprotected.</p> +<p>Taking advantage of what they called breach of treaty as regards +the soldiers left in Perth, Lord James and Argyll, with Ruthven, had +joined the brethren, accompanied by the Earl of Menteith and Murray +of Tullibardine, ancestor of the ducal house of Atholl. Argyll +and Lord James went to St. Andrews, summoning their allies thither for +June 3. Knox meanwhile preached in Crail and Anstruther, with +the usual results. On Sunday, June 11, <a name="citation123a"></a><a href="#footnote123a">{123a}</a> +and for three days more, despising the threats of the Archbishop, backed +by a hundred spears, and referring to his own prophecy made when he +was in the galleys, he thundered at St. Andrews. The poor ruins +of some sacred buildings “are alive to testify” to the consequences, +and a head of the Redeemer found in the latrines of the abbey is another +mute witness to the destruction of that day. <a name="citation123b"></a><a href="#footnote123b">{123b}</a></p> +<p>It is not my purpose to dilate on the universal destruction of so +much that was beautiful, and that to Scots, however godly, should have +been sacred. The tomb of the Bruce in Dunfermline, for example, +was wrecked by the mob, as the statue of Jeanne d’Arc on the bridge +of Orleans was battered to pieces by the Huguenots. Nor need we +ask what became of church treasures, perhaps of great value and antiquity. +In some known cases, the magistrates held and sold those of the town +churches. Some of the plate and vestments at Aberdeen were committed +to the charge of Huntly, but about 1900 ounces of plate were divided +among the Prebendaries, who seem to have appropriated them. <a name="citation124"></a><a href="#footnote124">{124}</a> +The Church treasures of Glasgow were apparently carried abroad by Archbishop +Beaton. If Lord James, as Prior, took possession of the gold and +silver of St. Andrews, he probably used the bullion (he spent some 13,000 +crowns) in his defence of the approaches to the town, against the French, +in December 1559. A silver mace of St. Salvator’s College +escaped the robbers.</p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/knox4b.jpg"> +<img alt="Head of Christ. St. Andrews. Excavated from the ruins of the Abbey by the late Marquis of Bute" src="images/knox4s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>There is no sign of the possession of much specie by the Congregation +in the months that followed the sack of so many treasuries of pious +offerings. Lesley says that they wanted to coin the plate in Edinburgh, +and for that purpose seized, as they certainly did, the dies of the +mint. In France, when the brethren sacked Tours, they took twelve +hundred thousand <i>livres d’or</i>; the country was enriched +for the moment. Not so Scotland. In fact the plate of Aberdeen +cathedral, as inventoried in the Register, is no great treasure. +Monasteries and cathedrals were certain to perish sooner or later, for +the lead of every such roof except Coldingham had been stripped and +sold by 1585, while tombs had been desecrated for their poor spoils, +and the fanes were afterwards used as quarries of hewn stone. +Lord James had a peculiar aversion to idolatrous books, and is known +to have ordered the burning of many manuscripts;—the loss to art +was probably greater than the injury to history or literature. +The fragments of things beautiful that the Reformers overlooked, were +destroyed by the Covenanters. An attempt has been made to prove +that the Border abbeys were not wrecked by Reformers, but by English +troops in the reign of Henry VIII., who certainly ravaged them. +Lesley, however, says that the abbeys of Kelso and Melrose were “by +them (the Reformers) broken down and wasted.” <a name="citation125a"></a><a href="#footnote125a">{125a}</a> +If there was nothing left to destroy on the Border, why did the brethren +march against Kelso, as Cecil reports, on July 9, 1559? <a name="citation125b"></a><a href="#footnote125b">{125b}</a></p> +<p>After the devastation the Regent meant to attack the destroyers, +intending to occupy Cupar, six miles, by Knox’s reckoning, from +St. Andrews. But, by June 13, the brethren had anticipated her +with a large force, rapidly recruited, including three thousand men +under the Lothian professors; Ruthven’s horse; the levies of the +Earl of Rothes (Leslie), and many burgesses. Next day the Regent’s +French horse found the brethren occupying a very strong post; their +numbers were dissembled, their guns commanded the plains, and the Eden +was in their front. A fog hung over the field; when it lifted, +the French commander, d’Oysel, saw that he was outnumbered and +outmanœuvred. He sent on an envoy to parley, “which +gladly of us being granted, the Queen offered a free remission for all +crimes past, so that they would no further proceed against friars and +abbeys, and that no more preaching should be used publicly,” for +<i>that</i> always meant kirk-wrecking. When Wishart preached +at Mauchline, long before, in 1545, it was deemed necessary to guard +the church, where there was a tempting tabernacle, “beutyfull +to the eie.”</p> +<p>The Lords and the whole brethren “refused such appointment” +. . . says Knox to Mrs. Locke; they would not “suffer idolatrie +to be maintained in the bounds committed to their charge.” <a name="citation126a"></a><a href="#footnote126a">{126a}</a> +To them liberty of conscience from the first meant liberty to control +the consciences and destroy the religion of all who differed from them. +An eight days’ truce was made for negotiations; during the truce +neither party was to “enterprize” anything. Knox in +his “History” does not mention an attack on the monastery +of Lindores during the truce. He says that his party expected +envoys from the Regent, as in the terms of truce, but perceived “her +craft and deceit.” <a name="citation126b"></a><a href="#footnote126b">{126b}</a></p> +<p>In fact, the brethren were the truce-breakers. Knox gives only +the assurances signed by the Regent’s envoys, the Duke of Chatelherault +and d’Oysel. They include a promise “not to invade, +trouble, or disquiet the Lords,” the reforming party. But, +though Knox omits the fact, the Reformers made a corresponding and equivalent +promise: “That the Congregation should enterprise nothing nor +make no invasion, for the space of six days following, for the Lords +and principals of the Congregation read the rest on another piece of +paper.” <a name="citation126c"></a><a href="#footnote126c">{126c}</a></p> +<p>The situation is clear. The two parties exchanged assurances. +Knox prints that of the Regent’s party, not that, “on another +piece of paper,” of the Congregation. They broke their word; +they “made invasion” at Lindores, during truce, as Knox +tells Mrs. Locke, but does not tell the readers of his “History.” +<a name="citation127a"></a><a href="#footnote127a">{127a}</a> +It is true that Knox was probably preaching at St. Andrews on June 13, +and was not present at Cupar Muir. But he could easily have ascertained +what assurances the Lords of the Congregation “read from another +piece of paper” on that historic waste. <a name="citation127b"></a><a href="#footnote127b">{127b}</a></p> +<h2>CHAPTER XI: KNOX’S INTRIGUES, AND HIS ACCOUNT OF THEM, 1559</h2> +<p>The Reformers, and Knox as their secretary and historian, had now +reached a very difficult and delicate point in their labours. +Their purpose was, not by any means to secure toleration and freedom +of conscience, but to extirpate the religion to which they were opposed. +It was the religion by law existing, the creed of “Authority,” +of the Regent and of the King and Queen whom she represented. +The position of the Congregation was therefore essentially that of rebels, +and, in the state of opinion at the period, to be rebels was to be self-condemned. +In the eyes of Calvin and the learned of the Genevan Church, kings were +the Lord’s appointed, and the Gospel must not be supported by +the sword. “Better that we all perish a hundred times,” +Calvin wrote to Coligny in 1561. Protestants, therefore, if they +would resist in arms, had to put themselves in order, and though Knox +had no doubt that to exterminate idolaters was thoroughly in order, +the leaders of his party were obliged to pay deference to European opinion.</p> +<p>By a singular coincidence they adopted precisely the same device +as the more militant French Protestants laid before Calvin in August +1559-March 1560. The Scots and the Protestant French represented +that they were illegally repressed by foreigners: in Scotland by Mary +of Guise with her French troops; in France by the Cardinal and Duc de +Guise, foreigners, who had possession of the persons and authority of +the “native prince” of Scotland, Mary, and the “native +prince” of France, Francis II., both being minors. The French +idea was that, if they secured the aid of a native Protestant prince +(Condé), they were in order, as against the foreign Guises, and +might kill these tyrants, seize the King, and call an assembly of the +Estates. Calvin was consulted by the chief of the conspiracy, +La Renaudie; he disapproved; the legality lent by one native prince +was insufficient; the details of the plot were “puerile,” +and Calvin waited to see how the country would take it. The plot +failed, at Amboise, in March 1560.</p> +<p>In Scotland, as in France, devices about a prince of the native blood +suggested themselves. The Regent, being of the house of Guise, +was a foreigner, like her brothers in France. The “native +princes” were Chatelherault and his eldest son, Arran. The +leaders, soon after Lord James and Argyll formally joined the zealous +brethren, saw that without foreign aid their enterprise was desperate. +Their levies must break up and go home to work; the Regent’s nucleus +of French troops could not be ousted from the sea fortress of Dunbar, +and would in all probability be joined by the army promised by Henri +II. His death, the Huguenot risings, the consequent impotence +of the Guises to aid the Regent, could not be foreseen. Scotland, +it seemed, would be reduced to a French province; the religion would +be overthrown.</p> +<p>There was thus no hope, except in aid from England. But by +the recent treaty of Cateau Cambresis (April 2, 1559), Elizabeth was +bound not to help the rebels of the French Dauphin, the husband of the +Queen of Scots. Moreover, Elizabeth had no stronger passion than +a hatred of rebels. If she was to be persuaded to help the Reformers, +they must produce some show of a legitimate “Authority” +with whom she could treat. This was as easy to find as it was +to the Huguenots in the case of Condé. Chatelherault and +Arran, native princes, next heirs to the crown while Mary was childless, +could be produced as legitimate “Authority.” But to +do this implied a change of “Authority,” an upsetting of +“Authority,” which was plain rebellion in the opinion of +the Genevan doctors. Knox was thus obliged, in sermons and in +the pamphlet (Book II. of his “History”), to maintain that +nothing more than freedom of conscience and religion was contemplated, +while, as a matter of fact, he was foremost in the intrigue for changing +the “Authority,” and even for depriving Mary Stuart of “entrance +and title” to her rights. He therefore, in Book II. (much +of which was written in August-October or September-October 1559, as +an apologetic contemporary tract), conceals the actual facts of the +case, and, while perpetually accusing the Regent of falsehood and perfidy, +displays an extreme “economy of truth,” and cannot hide +the pettifogging prevarications of his party. His wiser plan would +have been to cancel this Book, or much of it, when he set forth later +to write a history of the Reformation. His party being then triumphant, +he could have afforded to tell most of the truth, as in great part he +does in his Book III. But he could not bring himself to throw +over the narrative of his party pamphlet (Book II.), and it remains +much as it was originally written, though new touches were added.</p> +<p>The point to be made in public and in the apologetic tract was that +the Reformers contemplated no alteration of “Authority.” +This was untrue.</p> +<p>Writing later (probably in 1565-66) in his Third Book, Knox boasts +of his own initiation of the appeal to England, which included a scheme +for the marriage of the Earl of Arran, son of the Hamilton chief, Chatelherault, +to Queen Elizabeth. Failing issue of Queen Mary, Arran was heir +to the Scottish throne, and if he married the Queen of England, the +rightful Queen of Scotland would not be likely to wear her crown. +The contemplated match was apt to involve a change of dynasty. +The lure of the crown for his descendants was likely to bring Chatelherault, +and perhaps even his brother the Archbishop, over to the side of the +Congregation: in short it was an excellent plot. Probably the +idea occurred to the leaders of the Congregation at or shortly after +the time when Argyll and Lord James threw in their lot definitely with +the brethren on May 31. On June 14 Croft, from Berwick, writes +to Cecil that the leaders, “from what I hear, will likely seek +her Majesty’s” (Elizabeth’s) “assistance,” +and mean to bring Arran home. Some think that he is already at +Geneva, and he appears to have made the acquaintance of Calvin, with +whom later he corresponded. “They are likely to motion a +marriage you know where”; of Arran, that is, with Elizabeth. <a name="citation131"></a><a href="#footnote131">{131}</a> +Moreover, one Whitlaw was at this date in France, and by June 28, communicated +the plan to Throckmorton, the English Ambassador. Thus the scheme +was of an even earlier date than Knox claims for his own suggestion.</p> +<p>He tells us that at St. Andrews, after the truce of Cupar Muir (June +13), he “burstit forth,” in conversation with Kirkcaldy +of Grange, on the necessity of seeking support from England. Kirkcaldy +long ago had watched the secret exit from St. Andrews Castle, while +his friends butchered the Cardinal. He was taken in the castle +when Knox was taken; he was a prisoner in France; then he entered the +French service, acting, while so engaged, as an English spy. Before +and during the destruction of monasteries he was in the Regent’s +service, but she justly suspected him of intending to desert her at +this juncture. Kirkcaldy now wrote to Cecil, without date, but +probably on June 21, and with the signature “Zours as ye knaw.” +Being in the Regent’s party openly, he was secretly betraying +her; he therefore accuses her of treachery. (He left her publicly, +after a pension from England had been procured for him.) He says +that the Regent averred that “favourers of God’s word should +have liberty to live after their consciences,” “yet, in +the conclusion of the peace” (the eight days’ truce) “she +has uttered her deceitful mind, having now declared that she will be +enemy to all them that shall not live after her religion.” +<i>Consequently</i>, the Protestants are wrecking “all the friaries +within their bounds.” But Knox has told us that they declared +their intention of thus enjoying liberty of conscience <i>before</i> +“the conclusion of the peace,” and wrecked Lindores Abbey +during the peace! Kirkcaldy adds that the Regent already suspects +him.</p> +<p>Kirkcaldy, having made the orthodox charge of treachery against the +woman whom he was betraying, then asks Cecil whether Elizabeth will +accept their “friendship,” and adds, with an eye to Arran, +“I wish likewise her Majesty were not too hasty in her marriage.” +<a name="citation133a"></a><a href="#footnote133a">{133a}</a> +On June 23, writing from his house, Grange, and signing his name, Kirkcaldy +renews his proposals. In both letters he anticipates the march +of the Reformers to turn the Regent’s garrison out of Perth. +On June 25 he announces that the Lords are marching thither. They +had already the secret aid of Lethington, who remained, like the traitor +that he was, in the Regent’s service till the end of October. +<a name="citation133b"></a><a href="#footnote133b">{133b}</a> +Knox also writes at this time to Cecil from St. Andrews.</p> +<p>On June 1, Henri II. of France had written to the Regent promising +to send her strong reinforcements, <a name="citation133c"></a><a href="#footnote133c">{133c}</a> +but he was presently killed in a tourney by the broken lance shaft of +Montgomery.</p> +<p>The Reformers now made tryst at Perth for June 25, to restore “religion” +and expel the Scots in French service. The little garrison surrendered +(their opponents are reckoned by Kirkcaldy at 10,000 men), idolatry +was again suppressed, and Perth restored to her municipal constitution. +The ancient shrines of Scone were treated in the usual way, despite +the remonstrances of Knox, Lord James, and Argyll. They had threatened +Hepburn, Bishop of Moray, that if he did not join them “they neither +could spare nor save his place.” This was on June 20, on +the same day he promised to aid them and vote with them in Parliament. +<a name="citation133d"></a><a href="#footnote133d">{133d}</a> +Knox did his best, but the Dundee people began the work of wrecking; +and the Bishop, in anger, demanded and received the return of his written +promise of joining the Reformers. On the following day, irritated +by some show of resistance, the people of Dundee and Perth burned the +palace of Scone and the abbey, “whereat no small number of us +was offended.” An old woman said that “filthy beasts” +dwelt “in that den,” to her private knowledge, “at +whose words many were pacified.” The old woman is an excellent +authority. <a name="citation134"></a><a href="#footnote134">{134}</a></p> +<p>The pretext of perfect loyalty was still maintained by the Reformers; +their honesty we can appreciate. They did not wish, they said, +to overthrow “authority”; merely to be allowed to worship +in their own way (and to prevent other people from worshipping in theirs, +which was the order appointed by the State). That any set of men +may rebel and take their chances is now recognised, but the Reformers +wanted to combine the advantages of rebellion with the reputation of +loyal subjects. Persons who not only band against the sovereign, +but invoke foreign aid and seek a foreign alliance, are, however noble +their motives, rebels. There is no other word for them. +But that they were <i>not</i> rebels Knox urged in a sermon at Edinburgh, +which the Reformers, after devastating Stirling, reached by June 28-29 +(?), and the Second Book of his “History” labours mainly +to prove this point; no change of “authority” is intended.</p> +<p>What Knox wanted is very obvious. He wanted to prevent Mary +Stuart from enjoying her hereditary crown. She was a woman, as +such under the curse of “The First Blast of the Trumpet,” +and she was an idolatress. Presently, as we shall see, he shows +his hand to Cecil.</p> +<p>Before the Reformers entered Edinburgh Mary of Guise retired to the +castle of Dunbar, where she had safe access to the sea. In Edinburgh +Knox says that the poor sacked the monasteries “before our coming.” +The contemporary <i>Diurnal of Occurrents</i> attributes the feat to +Glencairn, Ruthven, Argyll, and the Lord James. <a name="citation135a"></a><a href="#footnote135a">{135a}</a></p> +<p>Knox was chosen minister of Edinburgh, and as soon as they arrived +the Lords, according to the “Historie of the Estate of Scotland,” +sent envoys to the Regent, offering obedience if she would “relax” +the preachers, summoned on May 10, “from the horn” and allow +them to preach. The Regent complied, but, of course, peace did +not ensue, for, according to Knox, in addition to a request “that +we might enjoy liberty of conscience,” a demand for the withdrawal +of all French forces out of Scotland was made. <a name="citation135b"></a><a href="#footnote135b">{135b}</a> +This could not be granted.</p> +<p>Presently Mary of Guise issued before July 2, in the name of the +King and Queen, Francis II. and Mary Stuart, certain charges against +the Reformers, which Knox in his “History” publishes. <a name="citation135c"></a><a href="#footnote135c">{135c}</a> +A remark that Mary Stuart lies like her mother, seems to be written +later than the period (September-October 1559) when this Book II. was +composed. The Regent says that the rising was only under pretence +of religion, and that she has offered a Parliament for January 1560. +“A manifest lie,” says Knox, “for she never thought +of it till we demanded it.” He does not give a date to the +Regent’s paper, but on June 25 Kirkcaldy wrote to Percy that the +Regent “is like to grant the other party” (the Reformers) +“all they desire, which in part she has offered already.” +<a name="citation136a"></a><a href="#footnote136a">{136a}</a></p> +<p>Knox seizes on the word “offered” as if it necessarily +meant “offered though unasked,” and so styles the Regent’s +remark “a manifest lie.” But Kirkcaldy, we see, uses +the words “has in part offered already” when he means that +the Regent has “offered” to grant some of the wishes of +his allies.</p> +<p>Meanwhile the Regent will allow freedom of conscience in the country, +and especially in Edinburgh. But the Reformers, her paper goes +on, desire to subvert the crown. To prove this she says that they +daily receive messengers from England and send their own; and they have +seized the stamps in the Mint (a capital point as regards the crown) +and the Palace of Holyrood, which Lesley says that they sacked. +Knox replies, “there is never a sentence in the narrative true,” +except that his party seized the stamps merely to prevent the issue +of base coin (not to coin the stolen plate of the churches and monasteries +for themselves, as Lesley says they did). But Knox’s own +letters, and those of Kirkcaldy of Grange and Sir Henry Percy, prove +that they <i>were</i> intriguing with England as early as June 23-25. +Their conduct, with the complicity of Percy, was perfectly well known +to the Regent’s party, and was denounced by d’Oysel to the +French ambassador in London in letters of July. <a name="citation136b"></a><a href="#footnote136b">{136b}</a> +Elizabeth, on August 7, answered the remonstrances of the Regent, promising +to punish her officials if guilty. Nobody lied more frankly than +“that imperial votaress.”</p> +<p>When Knox says “there is never a sentence in the narrative +true,” he is very bold. It was not true that the rising +was merely under pretext of religion. It may have been untrue +that messengers went <i>daily</i> to England, but five letters were +written between June 21 and June 28. To stand on the words of +the Regent—“<i>every day</i>”—would be a babyish +quibble. All the rest of her narrative was absolutely true.</p> +<p>Knox, on June 28, asked leave to enter England for secret discourse; +he had already written to the same effect from St. Andrews. <a name="citation137a"></a><a href="#footnote137a">{137a}</a> +If Henri sends French reinforcement, Knox “is uncertain what will +follow”; we may guess that authority would be in an ill way. +Cecil temporised; he wanted a better name than Kirkcaldy’s—a +man in the Regent’s service—to the negotiations (July 4). +“Anywise kindle the fire,” he writes to Croft (July 8). +Croft is to let the Reformers know that Arran has escaped out of France. +Such a chance will not again “come in our lives.” +We see what the chance is!</p> +<p>On July 19 Knox writes again to Cecil, enclosing what he means to +be an apology for his “Blast of the Trumpet,” to be given +to Elizabeth. He says, while admitting Elizabeth’s right +to reign, as “judged godly,” though a woman, that they “must +be careful not to make entrance and title to many, by whom not only +shall the truth be impugned, but also shall the country be brought to +bondage and slavery. God give you eyes to foresee and wisdom to +avoid the apparent danger.” <a name="citation137b"></a><a href="#footnote137b">{137b}</a></p> +<p>The “many” to whom “entrance and title” are +not to be given, manifestly are Mary Stuart, Queen of France and Scotland.</p> +<p>It is not very clear whether Knox, while thus working against a woman’s +“entrance and title” to the crown on the ground of her sex, +is thinking of Mary Stuart’s prospects of succession to the throne +of England or of her Scottish rights, or of both. His phrase is +cast in a vague way; “many” are spoken of, but it is not +hard to understand what particular female claimant is in his mind.</p> +<p>Thus Knox himself was intriguing with England against his Queen at +the very moment when in his “History” he denies that communications +were frequent between his party and England, or that any of the Regent’s +charges are true. As for opposing authority and being rebellious, +the manifest fundamental idea of the plot is to marry Elizabeth to Arran +and deny “entrance and title” to the rightful Queen. +It was an admirable scheme, and had Arran not become a lunatic, had +Elizabeth not been “that imperial votaress” vowed to eternal +maidenhood, their bridal, with the consequent loss of the Scottish throne +by Mary, would have been the most fortunate of all possible events. +The brethren had, in short, a perfect right to defend their creed in +arms; a perfect right to change the dynasty; a perfect right to intrigue +with England, and to resist a French landing, if they could. But +for a reformer of the Church to give a dead lady the lie in his “History” +when the economy of truth lay rather on his own side, as he knew, is +not so well. We shall see that Knox possibly had the facts in +his mind during the first interview with Mary Stuart. <a name="citation138"></a><a href="#footnote138">{138}</a></p> +<p>The Lords, July 2, replied to the proclamation of Mary of Guise, +saying that she accused them of a purpose “to invade her person.” +<a name="citation139a"></a><a href="#footnote139a">{139a}</a> +There is not a word of the kind in the Regent’s proclamation as +given by Knox himself. They denied what the Regent in her proclamation +had not asserted, and what she had asserted about their dealings with +England they did not venture to deny; “whereby,” says Spottiswoode +in his “History,” “it seemed there was some dealing +that way for expelling the Frenchmen, which they would not deny, and +thought not convenient as then openly to profess.” <a name="citation139b"></a><a href="#footnote139b">{139b}</a> +The task of giving the lie to the Regent when she spoke truth was left +to the pen of Knox.</p> +<p>Meanwhile, at Dunbar, Mary of Guise was in evil case. She had +sounded Erskine, the commander of the Castle, who, she hoped, would +stand by her. But she had no money to pay her French troops, who +were becoming mutinous, and d’Oysel “knew not to what Saint +to vow himself.” The Earl of Huntly, before he would serve +the Crown, <a name="citation139c"></a><a href="#footnote139c">{139c}</a> +insisted on a promise of the Earldom of Moray; this desire was to be +his ruin. Huntly was a double dealer; “the gay Gordons” +were ever brave, loyal, and bewildered by their chiefs. By July +22, the Scots heard of the fatal wound of Henri II., to their encouragement. +Both parties were in lack of money, and the forces of the Congregation +were slipping home by hundreds. Mary, according to Knox, was exciting +the Duke against Argyll and Lord James, by the charge that Lord James +was aiming at the crown, in which if he succeeded, he would deprive +not only her daughter of the sovereignty, but the Hamiltons of the succession. +Young and ambitious as Lord James then was, and heavily as he was suspected, +even in England, it is most improbable that he ever thought of being +king.</p> +<p>The Congregation refused to let Argyll and Lord James hold conference +with the Regent. Other discussions led to no result, except waste +of time, to the Regent’s advantage; and, on July 22, Mary, in +council with Lord Erskine, Huntly, and the Duke, resolved to march against +the Reformers at Edinburgh, who had no time to call in their scattered +levies in the West, Angus, and Fife. Logan of Restalrig, lately +an ally of the godly, surrendered Leith, over which he was the superior, +to d’Oysel; and the Congregation decided to accept a truce (July +23-24).</p> +<p>At this point Knox’s narrative becomes so embroiled that it +reminds one of nothing so much as of Claude Nau’s attempts to +glide past an awkward point in the history of his employer, Mary Stuart. +I have puzzled over Knox’s narrative again and again, and hope +that I have disentangled the knotted and slippery thread.</p> +<p>It is not wonderful that the brethren made terms, for the “Historie” +states that their force numbered but 1500 men, whereas d’Oysel +and the Duke led twice that number, horse and foot. They also +heard from Erskine, in the Castle, that, if they did not accept “such +appointment as they might have,” he “would declare himself +their enemy,” as he had promised the Regent. It seems that +she did not want war, for d’Oysel’s French alone should +have been able to rout the depleted ranks of the Congregation.</p> +<p>The question is, What were the terms of treaty? for it is Knox’s +endeavour to prove that the Regent broke them, and so justified the +later proceedings of the Reformers. The terms, in French, are +printed by Teulet. <a name="citation141"></a><a href="#footnote141">{141}</a> +They run thus:—</p> +<p>1. The Protestants, not being inhabitants of Edinburgh, shall +depart next day.</p> +<p>2. They shall deliver the stamps for coining to persons appointed +by the Regent, hand over Holyrood, and Ruthven and Pitarro shall be +pledges for performance.</p> +<p>3. They shall be dutiful subjects, except in matters of religion.</p> +<p>4. They shall not disturb the clergy in their persons or by +withholding their rents, &c., before January 10, 1560.</p> +<p>5. They shall not attack churches or monasteries before that +date.</p> +<p>6. The town of Edinburgh shall enjoy liberty of conscience, +and shall choose its form of religion as it pleases till that date.</p> +<p>7. The Regent shall not molest the preachers nor suffer the +clergy to molest them for cause of religion till that date.</p> +<p>8. Keith, Knox, and Spottiswoode, add that no garrisons, French +or Scots, shall occupy Edinburgh, but soldiers may repair thither from +their garrisons for lawful business.</p> +<p>The French soldiers are said to have swaggered in St. Giles’s, +but no complaint is made that they were garrisoned in Edinburgh. +In fact, they abode in the Canongate and Leith.</p> +<p>Now, these were the terms accepted by the Congregation. This +is certain, not only because historians, Knox excepted, are unanimous, +but because the terms were either actually observed, or were evaded, +on a stated point of construction.</p> +<p>1. The Congregation left Edinburgh.</p> +<p>2. They handed over the stamps of the Mint, Holyrood, and the +two pledges.</p> +<p>3. 4, 5. We do not hear that they attacked any clerics or monastery +before they broke off publicly from the treaty, and Knox (i. 381) admits +that Article 4 was accepted.</p> +<p>6. They would not permit the town of Edinburgh to choose its +religion by “voting of men.” On July 29, when Huntly, +Chatelherault, and Erskine, the neutral commander of the Castle, asked +for a <i>plébiscite</i>, as provided in the treaty of July 24, +the Truth, said the brethren, was not a matter of human votes, and, +as the brethren held St. Giles’s Church before the treaty, under +Article 7 they could not be dispossessed. <a name="citation142a"></a><a href="#footnote142a">{142a}</a> +The Regent, to avoid shadow of offence, yielded the point as to Article +6, and was accused of breach of treaty because, occupying Holyrood, +she had her Mass there. Had Edinburgh been polled, the brethren +knew that they would have been outvoted. <a name="citation142b"></a><a href="#footnote142b">{142b}</a></p> +<p>Now, Knox’s object, in that part of Book II. of his “History,” +which was written in September-October 1559 as a tract for contemporary +reading, is to prove that the Regent was the breaker of treaty. +His method is first to give “the heads drawn by us, which we desired +to be granted.” The heads are—</p> +<p>1. No member of the Congregation shall be troubled in any respect +by any authority for the recent “innovation” before the +Parliament of January 10, 1560, decides the controversies.</p> +<p>2. Idolatry shall not be restored where, on the day of treaty, +it has been suppressed.</p> +<p>3. Preachers may preach wherever they have preached and wherever +they may chance to come.</p> +<p>4. No soldiers shall be in garrison in Edinburgh.</p> +<p>5. The French shall be sent away on “a reasonable day” +and no more brought in without assent of the whole Nobility and Parliament. +<a name="citation143a"></a><a href="#footnote143a">{143a}</a></p> +<p>These articles make no provision for the safety of Catholic priests +and churches, and insist on suppression of idolatry where it has been +put down, and the entire withdrawal of French forces. Knox’s +party could not possibly denounce these terms which they demanded as +“things unreasonable and ungodly,” for they were the very +terms which they had been asking for, ever since the Regent went to +Dunbar. Yet, when the treaty was made, the preachers did say “our +case is not yet so desperate that we need to grant to things unreasonable +and ungodly.” <a name="citation143b"></a><a href="#footnote143b">{143b}</a> +Manifestly, therefore, the terms actually obtained, as being “unreasonable +and ungodly,” were <i>not</i> those for which the Reformers asked, +and which, <i>they publicly proclaimed</i>, had been conceded.</p> +<p>Knox writes, “These our articles were altered, and another +form disposeth.” And here he translates the terms as given +in the French, terms which provide for the safety of Catholics, the +surrender of Holyrood and the Mint, but say nothing about the withdrawal +of the French troops or the non-restoration of “idolatry” +where it has been suppressed.</p> +<p>He adds, “This alteration in words and order was made” +(so it actually <i>was</i> made) “without the knowledge and consent +of those whose counsel we had used in all cases before”—clearly +meaning the preachers, and also implying that the consent of the noble +negotiators for the Congregation <i>was</i> obtained to the French articles.</p> +<p>Next day the Congregation left Edinburgh, after making solemn proclamation +of the conditions of truce, in which they omitted all the terms of the +French version, except those in their own favour, and stated (in Knox’s +version) that all of their own terms, except the most important, namely, +the removal of the French, and the promise to bring in no more, had +been granted! It may be by accident, however, that the proclamation +of the Lords, as given by Knox, omits the article securing the departure +of the French. <a name="citation144a"></a><a href="#footnote144a">{144a}</a> +There exist two MS. copies of the proclamation, in which the Lords dare +to assert “that the Frenchmen should be sent away at a reasonable +date, and no more brought in except by assent of the whole nobility +and Parliament.” <a name="citation144b"></a><a href="#footnote144b">{144b}</a></p> +<p>Of the terms really settled, except as regards the immunity of their +own party, the Lords told the public not one word; they suppressed what +was true, and added what was false.</p> +<p>Against this formal, public, and impudent piece of mendacity, we +might expect Knox to protest in his “History”; to denounce +it as a cause of God’s wrath. On the other hand he states, +with no disapproval, the childish quibbles by which his party defended +their action.</p> +<p>On reading or hearing the Lords’ proclamation, the Catholics, +who knew the real terms of treaty, said that the Lords “in their +proclamation had made no mention of anything promised to <i>them</i>,” +and “had proclaimed more than was contained in the Appointment;” +among other things, doubtless, the promise to dismiss the French. <a name="citation145a"></a><a href="#footnote145a">{145a}</a></p> +<p>The brethren replied to these “calumnies of Papists” +(as Calderwood styles them), that they “proclaimed nothing that +was not <i>finally</i> agreed upon, <i>in word and promise</i>, betwixt +us and those with whom the Appointment was made, <i>whatsoever their +scribes had after written</i>, <a name="citation145b"></a><a href="#footnote145b">{145b}</a> +who, in very deed, had altered, both in words and sentences, our Articles, +<i>as they were first conceived</i>; and yet if their own writings were +diligently examined, the self same thing shall be found <i>in substance</i>.”</p> +<p>This is most complicated quibbling! Knox uses his ink like +the cuttle-fish, to conceal the facts. The “own writings” +of the Regent’s party are before us, and do not contain the terms +proclaimed by the Congregation. Next, in drawing up the terms +which the Congregation was compelled to accept, the “scribes” +of the Regent’s party necessarily, and with the consent of the +Protestant negotiators, altered the terms proposed by the brethren, +but not granted by the Regent’s negotiators. Thirdly, the +Congregation now asserted that “<i>finally</i>” an arrangement +in conformity with their proclamation was “agreed upon <i>in word +and promise</i>”; that is, verbally, which we never find them +again alleging. The game was to foist false terms on public belief, +and then to accuse the Regent of perfidy in not keeping them.</p> +<p>These false terms were not only publicly proclaimed by the Congregation +with sound of trumpets, but they were actually sent, by Knox or Kirkcaldy, +or both, to Croft at Berwick, for English reading, on July 24. +In a note I print the letter, signed by Kirkcaldy, but in the holograph +of Knox, according to Father Stevenson. <a name="citation146"></a><a href="#footnote146">{146}</a> +It will be remarked that the genuine articles forbidding attacks on +monasteries and ensuring priests in their revenues are here omitted, +while the false articles on suppression of idolatry, and expulsion of +the French forces are inserted, and nothing is said about Edinburgh’s +special liberty to choose her religion.</p> +<p>The sending of this false intelligence was not the result of a misunderstanding. +I have shown that the French terms were perfectly well understood, and +were observed, except Article 6, on which the Regent made a concession. +How then could men professionally godly venture to misreport the terms, +and so make them at once seem more favourable to themselves and less +discouraging to Cecil than they really were, while at the same time +(as the Regent could not keep terms which she had never granted) they +were used as a ground of accusation against her?</p> +<p>This is the point that has perplexed me, for Knox, no less than the +Congregation, seems to have deliberately said good-bye to truth and +honour, unless the Lords elaborately deceived their secretary and diplomatic +agent. The only way in which I can suppose that Knox and his friends +reconciled their consciences to their conduct is this:</p> +<p>Knox tells us that “when all points were communed and agreed +upon by mid-persons,” Chatelherault and Huntly had a private interview +with Argyll, Glencairn, and others of his party. They promised +that they would be enemies to the Regent if she broke any one jot of +the treaty. “As much promised the duke that <i>he</i> would +do, if in case that she would not remove her French at a reasonable +day . . . ” the duke being especially interested in their removal. +But Huntly is not said to have made <i>this</i> promise—the removal +of the French obviously not being part of the “Appointment.” +<a name="citation148a"></a><a href="#footnote148a">{148a}</a></p> +<p>Next, the brethren, in arguing with the Catholics about their own +mendacious proclamation of the terms, said that “we proclaimed +nothing which was not <i>finally</i> agreed upon, <i>in word and promise</i>, +betwixt us and those with whom the Appointment was made. . . . ” +<a name="citation148b"></a><a href="#footnote148b">{148b}</a></p> +<p>I can see no explanation of Knox’s conduct, except that he +and his friends pacified their consciences by persuading themselves +that non-official words of Huntly and Chatelherault (whatever these +words may have been), spoken after “all was agreed upon,” +cancelled the treaty with the Regent, became the real treaty, and were +binding on the Regent! Thus Knox or Kirkcaldy, or both, by letter; +and Knox later, orally in conversation with Croft, could announce false +terms of treaty. So great, if I am right, is a good man’s +power of self-persuasion! I shall welcome any more creditable +theory of the Reformer’s behaviour, but I can see no alternative, +unless the Lords lied to Knox.</p> +<p>That the French should be driven out was a great point with Cecil, +for he was always afraid that the Scots might slip back from the English +to the old French alliance. On July 28, after the treaty of July +24, but before he heard of it, he insisted on the necessity of expelling +the French, in a letter to the Reformers. <a name="citation149a"></a><a href="#footnote149a">{149a}</a> +He “marvels that they omit such an opportunity to help themselves.” +He sent a letter of vague generalities in answer to their petitions +for aid. When he received, as he did, a copy of the terms of the +treaty of July 24, in French, he would understand.</p> +<p>As further proof that Cecil was told what Knox and Kirkcaldy should +have known to be untrue, we note that on August 28 the Regent, weary +of the perpetual charges of perfidy anew brought against her, “ashamed +not,” writes Knox, to put forth a proclamation, in which she asserted +that nothing, in the terms of July 23-24, forbade her to bring in more +French troops, “as may clearly appear by inspection of the said +Appointment, which the bearer has presently to show.” <a name="citation149b"></a><a href="#footnote149b">{149b}</a></p> +<p>Why should the Regent have been “ashamed” to tell the +truth? If the bearer showed a false and forged treaty, the Congregation +must have denounced it, and produced the genuine document with the signatures. +Far from that, in a reply (from internal evidence written by Knox), +they admit, “neither do we <i>here</i> <a name="citation149c"></a><a href="#footnote149c">{149c}</a> +allege the breaking of the Appointment made at Leith (which, nevertheless, +has manifestly been done), but”—and here the writer wanders +into quite other questions. Moreover, Knox gives another reply +to the Regent, “by some men,” in which they write “we +dispute not so much whether the bringing in of more Frenchmen be violating +of the Appointment, which the Queen and her faction cannot deny to be +manifestly broken by them in more cases than one,” in no way connected +with the French. One of these cases will presently be stated—it +is comic enough to deserve record—but, beyond denial, the brethren +could not, and did not even attempt to make out their charge as to the +Regent’s breach of truce by bringing in new, or retaining old, +French forces.</p> +<p>Our historians, and the biographers of Knox, have not taken the trouble +to unravel this question of the treaty of July 24. But the behaviour +of the Lords and of Knox seems characteristic, and worthy of examination.</p> +<p>It is not argued that Mary of Guise was, or became, incapable of +worse than dissimulation (a case of forgery by her in the following +year is investigated in Appendix B). But her practices at this +time were such as Knox could not throw the first stone at. Her +French advisers were in fact “perplexed,” as Throckmorton +wrote to Elizabeth (August 8). They made preparations for sending +large reinforcements: they advised concession in religion: they waited +on events, and the Regent could only provide, at Leith (which was jealous +of Edinburgh and anxious to be made a free burgh), a place whither she +could fly in peril. Meantime she would vainly exert her woman’s +wit among many dangers.</p> +<p>Knox, too, was exerting his wit in his own way. Busied in preaching +and in acting as secretary and diplomatic agent to the Congregation +as he was, he must also have begun in or not much later than August +1559, the part of his “History” first written by him, namely +Book II. That book, as he wrote to a friend named Railton <a name="citation150"></a><a href="#footnote150">{150}</a> +on October 23, 1559 (when much of it was already penned), is meant as +a defence of his party against the charge of sedition, and was clearly +intended (we reiterate) for contemporary reading at home and abroad, +while the strife was still unsettled. This being so, Knox continues +his policy of blaming the Regent for breach of the misreported treaty +of July 24: for treachery, which would justify the brethren’s +attack on her before the period of truce (January 10, 1559) ran out.</p> +<p>One clause, we know, secured the Reformers from molestation before +that date. Despite this, Knox records a case of “oppressing” +a brother, “which had been sufficient to prove the Appointment +to be plainly violated.” Lord Seton, of the Catholic party, +<a name="citation151a"></a><a href="#footnote151a">{151a}</a> “broke +a chair on Alexander Whitelaw as he came from Preston (pans) accompanied +by William Knox . . . and this he did supposing that Alexander Whitelaw +had been John Knox.”</p> +<p>So much Knox states in his Book II., writing probably in September +or October 1559. But he does not here say what Alexander Whitelaw +and William Knox had been doing, or inform us how he himself was concerned +in the matter. He could not reveal the facts when writing in the +early autumn of 1559, because the brethren were then still taking the +line that they were loyal, and were suffering from the Regent’s +breaches of treaty, as in the matter of the broken chair.</p> +<p>The sole allusion here made by Knox to the English intrigues, before +they were manifest to all mankind in September, is this, “Because +England was of the same religion, and lay next to us, it was judged +expedient first to prove them, which we did by one or two messengers, +as hereafter, in its own place, more amply shall be declared.” +<a name="citation151b"></a><a href="#footnote151b">{151b}</a> +He later inserted in Book III. some account of the intrigues of July-August +1559, “in its own place,” namely, in a part of his work +occupied with the occurrences of January 1560. <a name="citation152a"></a><a href="#footnote152a">{152a}</a></p> +<p>Cecil, prior to the compact of July 24, had wished to meet Knox at +Stamford. On July 30 Knox received his instructions as negotiator +with England. <a name="citation152b"></a><a href="#footnote152b">{152b}</a> +His employers say that they hear that Huntly and Chatelherault have +promised to join the Reformers if the Regent breaks a jot of the treaty +of July 24, the terms of which Knox can declare. They ask money +to enable them to take Stirling Castle, and “strength by sea” +for the capture of Broughty Castle, on Tay. Yet they later complained +of the Regent when she fortified Leith. They actually <i>did</i> +take Broughty Castle, and then had the hardihood to aver that they only +set about this when they heard in mid-September of the fortification +of Leith by the Regent. They aimed at it six days after their +treaty of July 24. They asked for soldiers to lie in garrison, +for men, ships, and money for their Lords.</p> +<p>Bearing these instructions Knox sailed from Fife to Holy Island, +near Berwick, and there met Croft, the Governor of that town. +Croft kept him, not with sufficient secrecy, in Berwick, where he was +well known, while Whitelaw was coming from Cecil with his answers to +the petitions of the brethren. Meanwhile Croft held converse with +Knox, who, as he reports, says that, as to the change of “Authority” +(that is of sovereignty, temporary at least), the choice of the brethren +would be subject to Elizabeth’s wishes. Yet the brethren +contemplated no change of Authority! Arran ought to be kept secretly +in England “till wise men considered what was in him; if misliked +he put Lord James second.” As to what Knox told Croft about +the terms of treaty of July 24, it is best to state the case in Croft’s +own words. “He (Knox) excusys the Protestantes, for that +the French as commyng apon them at Edynbrogh when theyr popoll were +departed to make new provysyon of vytaylles, forcyd them to make composycyon +wyth the quene. Whereyn (sayeth he) the frenchmen ar apoynted +to departe out of Scotland by the xth of thys monthe, and they truste +verely by thys caus to be stronger, for that the Duke, apon breche of +promys on the quene’s part, wyll take playne parte withe the Protestantes.” +<a name="citation153"></a><a href="#footnote153">{153}</a></p> +<p>This is quite explicit. Knox, as envoy of the Lords, declares +that in the treaty it is “appointed” that the French force +shall leave Scotland on August 10. (The printed calendars are +not accurate.) No such matter occurred in the treaty “wyth +the quene.” Knox added, next day, that he himself “was +unfit to treat of so great matters,” and Croft appears to have +agreed with him, for, by the Reformer’s lack of caution, his doings +in Holy Island were “well known and published.” Consequently, +when Whitelaw returned to Knox with Cecil’s reply to the requests +of the brethren, the performances of Knox and Whitelaw were no secrets, +in outline at least, to the Regent’s party. For this reason, +Lord Seton, mistaking Whitelaw for Knox (who had set out on August 3 +to join the brethren at Stirling), pursued and broke a chair on the +harmless Brother Whitelaw. Such was the Regent’s treacherous +breach of treaty!</p> +<p>During this episode in his curious adventures as a diplomatist, Knox +recommended Balnaves, author of a treatise on “Justification by +Faith,” as a better agent in these courses, and with Balnaves +the new envoy of Elizabeth, Sadleir, a veteran diplomatist (wheedled +in 1543 by Mary of Guise), transacted business henceforth. Sadleir +was ordered to Berwick on August 6. Elizabeth infringed the treaty +of Cateau Cambresis, then only four months old, by giving Sadleir £3000 +in gold, or some such sum, for the brethren. “They were +tempting the Duke by all means possible,” <a name="citation154a"></a><a href="#footnote154a">{154a}</a> +but he will only promise neutrality if it comes to the push, and they, +Argyll and Lord James say (Glasgow, August 13), are not yet ready “to +discharge this authority,” that is, to depose the Regent. +Chatelherault’s promise was less vigorous than it had been reported!</p> +<p>Knox, who now acted as secretary for the Congregation, was not Sir +Henry Wotton’s ideal ambassador, “an honest man sent to +lie abroad for his country.” When he stooped to statements +which seem scarcely candid, to put it mildly, he did violence to his +nature. He forced himself to proclaim the loyalty of his party +from the pulpit, when he could not do so without some economy of truth. +<a name="citation154b"></a><a href="#footnote154b">{154b}</a> +He inserted things in his “History,” and spoke things to +Croft, which he should have known to be false. But he carried +his point. He did advance the “union of hearts” with +England, if in a blundering fashion, and we owe him eternal gratitude +for his interest in the match, though “we like not the manner +of the wooing.” The reluctant hand of Elizabeth was now +inextricably caught in the gear of that great machine which broke the +ancient league of France and Scotland, and saved Scotland from some +of the sorrows of France.</p> +<p>The papers of Sadleir, Elizabeth’s secret agent with the Scots, +show the godly pursuing their old plan of campaign. To make treaty +with the Regent; to predict from the pulpit that she would break it; +to make false statements about the terms of the treaty; to accuse her +of their infringement; to profess loyalty; to aim at setting up a new +sovereign power; to tell the populace that Mary of Guise’s scanty +French reinforcements—some 1500 men—came by virtue of a +broken treaty; to tell Sadleir that they were very glad that the French +<i>had</i> come, as they would excite popular hatred; to make out that +the fortification of Leith was breach of treaty;—such, in brief, +were the methods of the Reformers. <a name="citation155"></a><a href="#footnote155">{155}</a></p> +<p>They now took a new method of proving the Regent’s breach of +treaty, that she had “set up the Mass in Holyrood, which they +had before suppressed.” <i>They</i> were allowed to have +their sermons in St. Giles’s, but <i>she</i> was not to have her +rites in her own abbey. Balnaves still harped on the non-dismissal +of the French as a breach of treaty!</p> +<p>Arran, returning from Switzerland, had an interview with Elizabeth +in England, in mid-September, was smuggled across the Border with the +astute and unscrupulous Thomas Randolph in his train. With Arran +among them, Chatelherault might waver as he would. Meanwhile Knox +and Willock preached up and down the country, doubtless repeating to +the people their old charges against the Regent. Lethington, the +secretary of that lady, still betrayed her, telling Sadleir “that +he attended upon the Regent no longer than he might have a good occasion +to revolt unto the Protestants” (September 16).</p> +<p>Balnaves got some two to three thousand pounds in gold (the sum is +variously stated) from Sadleir. “He saith, whatever pretence +they make, the principal mark they shoot at is to make an alteration +of the State and authority.” This at least is explicit enough. +The Reformers were actually renewing the civil war on charges so stale +and so false. The Duke had possibly promised to desert her if +she broke the truce, and now he seized on the flimsy pretence, because +the Congregation, as the leaders said, had “tempted him” +sufficiently. They had come up to his price. Arran, the +hoped-for Hamilton king, the hoped-for husband of the Queen of England, +had arrived, and with Arran the Duke joined the Reformers. About +September 20 they forbade the Regent to fortify Leith.</p> +<p>The brethren say that they have given no “provocation.” +Six weeks earlier they had requested England to help them to seize and +hold Broughty Castle, though the Regent may not have known that detail.</p> +<p>The Regent replied as became her, and Glencairn, with Erskine of +Dun, wrecked the rich abbey of Paisley. The brethren now broke +the truce with a vengeance.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER XII: KNOX IN THE WAR OF THE CONGREGATION: THE REGENT ATTACKED: +HER DEATH: CATHOLICISM ABOLISHED, 1559-1560</h2> +<p>Though the Regent was now to be deposed and attacked by armed force, +Knox tells us that there were dissensions among her enemies. Some +held “that the Queen was heavily done to,” and that the +leaders “sought another end than religion.” Consequently, +when the Lords with their forces arrived at Edinburgh on October 16, +the local brethren showed a want of enthusiasm. The Congregation +nevertheless summoned the Regent to depart from Leith, and on October +21 met at the Tolbooth to discuss her formal deposition from office. +Willock moved that this might lawfully be done. Knox added, with +more reserve than usual, that their hearts must not be withdrawn from +their King and Queen, Mary and Francis. The Regent, too, ought +to be restored when she openly repented and submitted. Willock +dragged Jehu into his sermon, but Knox does not appear to have remarked +that Francis and Mary were Ahab and Jezebel, idolaters. He was +now in a position of less freedom and more responsibility than while +he was a wandering prophet at large.</p> +<p>On October 24 the Congregation summoned Leith, having deposed the +Regent <i>in the name of the King and Queen</i>, <i>Francis and Mary</i>, +and of themselves as Privy Council! They did more. They +caused one James Cocky, a gold worker, to forge the great seal of Francis +and Mary, “wherewith they sealed their pretended laws and ordinances, +tending to constrain the subjects of the kingdom to rebel and favour +their usurpations.” Their proclamations with the forged +seal they issued at St. Andrews, Glasgow, Linlithgow, Perth, and elsewhere; +using this seal in their letters to noblemen, who were ordered to obey +Arran. The gold worker, whose name is variously spelled in the +French record, says that the device for the coins which the Congregation +meant to issue and ordered him to execute was on one side a cross with +a crown of thorns, on the other the words VERBUM DEI. The artist, +Cocky, was dilatory, and when the brethren were driven out of Edinburgh +he gave the dies, unfinished, to John Achison, the chief official of +the Mint, who often executed coins of Queen Mary. <a name="citation158a"></a><a href="#footnote158a">{158a}</a> +As Professor Hume Brown says of the audacious statement of the brethren, +that they acted in the name of their King and Queen, their use of the +forged Royal seal, “as covering their action with an appearance +of law, served its purpose in their appeals to the people.” +Cocky and Kirkcaldy were hanged by Morton in 1573.</p> +<p>The idea of forging the great seal may have arisen in the fertile +brain of Lethington, who about October 25 had at last deserted the Regent, +and now took Knox’s place as secretary of the Congregation. +Henceforth their manifestoes say little about religion, and a great +deal about the French design to conquer Scotland. <a name="citation158b"></a><a href="#footnote158b">{158b}</a></p> +<p>To the wit of Lethington we may plausibly attribute a proposal which, +on October 25, Knox submitted to Croft. <a name="citation159"></a><a href="#footnote159">{159}</a> +It was that England should lend 1000 men for the attack on the Regent +in Leith. Peace with France need not be broken, for the men may +come as private adventurers, and England may denounce them as rebels. +Croft declined this proposal as dishonourable, and as too clearly a +breach of treaty. Knox replied that he had communicated Croft’s +letter “to such as partly induced me before to write” (October +29). Very probably Lethington suggested the idea, leaving the +burden of its proposal on Knox. Dr. M‘Crie says that it +is a solitary case of the Reformer’s recommending dissimulation; +but the proceeding was in keeping with Knox’s previous statements +about the nature of the terms made in July; with the protestations of +loyalty; with the lie given to Mary of Guise when she spoke, on the +whole, the plain truth; and generally with the entire conduct of the +prophet and of the Congregation. Dr. M‘Crie justly remarks +that Knox “found it difficult to preserve integrity and Christian +simplicity amidst the crooked wiles of political intrigue.”</p> +<p>On the behaviour of the godly heaven did not smile—for the +moment. Scaling-ladders had been constructed in St. Giles’s +church, “so that preaching was neglected.” “The +preachers spared not openly to say that they feared the success of that +enterprise should not be prosperous,” for this reason, “God +could not suffer such contempt of His word . . . long to be unpunished.” +The Duke lost heart; the waged soldiers mutinied for lack of pay; Morton +deserted the cause; Bothwell wounded Ormiston as he carried money from +Croft, and seized the cash <a name="citation160a"></a><a href="#footnote160a">{160a}</a>—behaving +treacherously, if it be true that he was under promise not to act against +the brethren. The French garrison of Leith made successful sorties; +and despite the valour of Arran and Lord James and the counsel of Lethington, +the godly fled from Edinburgh on November 5, under taunts and stones +cast by the people of the town.</p> +<p>The fugitives never stopped till they reached Stirling, when Knox +preached to them. He lectured at great length on discomfitures +of the godly in the Old Testament, and about the Benjamites, and the +Levite and his wife. Coming to practical politics, he reminded +his audience that after the accession of the Hamiltons to their party, +“there was nothing heard but This lord will bring these many hundred +spears . . . if this Earl be ours, no man in such a district will trouble +us.” The Duke ought to be ashamed of himself. Before +Knox came to Scotland we know he had warned the brethren against alliance +with the Hamiltons. The Duke had been on the Regent’s side, +“yet without his assistance they could not have compelled us to +appoint with the Queen upon such unequal conditions” in the treaty +of July. So the terms <i>were</i> in favour of the Regent, after +all is said and done! <a name="citation160b"></a><a href="#footnote160b">{160b}</a></p> +<p>God had let the brethren fall, Knox said, into their present condition +because they put their trust in man—in the Duke—a noble +whose repentance was very dubious.</p> +<p>Then Knox rose to the height of the occasion. “Yea, whatsoever +becomes of us and our mortal carcases, I doubt not but that this Cause +(in despite of Satan) shall prevail in the realm of Scotland. +For as it is the eternal truth of the eternal God, so shall it once +prevail . . .” Here we have the actual genius of Knox, his +tenacity, his courage in an uphill game, his faith which might move +mountains. He adjured all to amendment of life, prayer, and charity. +“The minds of men began to be wonderfully erected.” +In Arran and Lord James too, manifestly not jealous rivals, Randolph +found “more honour, stoutness, and courage than in all the rest” +(November 3).</p> +<p>Already, before the flight, Lethington was preparing to visit England. +The conduct of diplomacy with England was thus in capable hands, and +Lethington was a <i>persona grata</i> to the English Queen. Meanwhile +the victorious Regent behaved with her wonted moderation. “She +pursueth no man that hath showed himself against her at this time.” +She pardoned all burgesses of Edinburgh, and was ready to receive the +Congregation to her grace, if they would put away the traitor Lethington, +Balnaves, and some others. <a name="citation161a"></a><a href="#footnote161a">{161a}</a> +Knox, however, says that she gave the houses of the most honest men +to the French. The Regent was now very ill; <i>graviter aegrotat</i>, +say Francis and Mary (Dec. 4, 1559). <a name="citation161b"></a><a href="#footnote161b">{161b}</a></p> +<p>The truth is that the Cause of Knox, far from being desperate, as +for an hour it seemed to the faint-hearted, had never looked so well. +Cecil and the English Council saw that they were committed; their gift +of money was known, they must bestir themselves. While they had +“nourished the garboil” in Scotland, fanned the flame, they +professed to believe that France was aiming, through Scotland, at England. +They arranged for a large levy of forces at Berwick; they promised money +without stint: and Cecil drew up the paper adopted, as I conceive, by +the brethren in their Latin appeal to all Christian princes. The +Scots were to say that they originally took arms in defence of their +native dynasty (the Hamiltons), Mary Stuart having no heirs of her body, +and France intending to annex Scotland—which was true enough, +but was not the cause of the rising at Perth. That England is +also aimed at is proved by the fact that Mary and Francis, on the seal +of Scotland, quarter the arms of England. Knox himself had seen, +and had imparted the fact to Cecil, a jewel on which these fatal heraldic +pretensions were made. The Queen is governed by “the new +authority of the House of Guise.” In short, Elizabeth must +be asked to intervene for these political reasons, not in defence of +the Gospel, and large preparations for armed action in Scotland were +instantly made. Meanwhile Cecil’s sketch of the proper manifesto +for the Congregation to make, was embodied in Lethington’s instructions +(November 24) from the Congregation, as well as adapted in their Latin +appeal to Christian princes.</p> +<p>We may suppose that a man of Knox’s unbending honesty was glad +to have thrown off his functions as secretary to the brethren. +Far from disclaiming their idolatrous King and Queen (the ideal policy), +they were issuing proclamations headed “Francis and Mary,” +and bearing the forged signet. Examples with the seal were, as +late as 1652, in the possession of the Erskine of Dun of that day. +In them Francis and Mary denounce the Pope as Antichrist! Keith, +who wrote much later, styles these proclamations “pretty singular,” +and Knox must have been of the same opinion.</p> +<p>After Lethington took the office of secretary to the Congregation, +Knox had for some time no great public part in affairs. Fife was +invaded by “these bloody worms,” as he calls the French; +and he preached what he tells us was a “comfortable sermon” +to the brethren at Cupar. But Lethington had secured the English +alliance: Lord Grey was to lead 4000 foot and 2000 horse to the Border; +Lord Winter with fourteen ship set sail, and was incommoded by a storm, +in which vessels of d’Elboeuf, with French reinforcements for +the Regent, were, some lost, some driven back to harbour. As in +Jacobite times, French aid to the loyal party was always unfortunate, +and the arrival of Winter’s English fleet in the Forth caused +d’Oysel to retreat out of Fife back to Leith. He had nearly +reached St. Andrews, where Knox dwelt in great agony of spirit. +He had “great need of a good horse,” probably because, as +in October 1559, money was offered for his head. But private assassination +had no terrors for the Reformer. <a name="citation163"></a><a href="#footnote163">{163}</a></p> +<p>Knox, as he wrote to a friend on January 29, 1560, had forsaken all +public assemblies and retired to a life of study, because “I am +judged among ourselves too extreme.” When the Duke of Norfolk, +with the English army, was moving towards Berwick, where he was to make +a league with the Protestant nobles of Scotland, Knox summoned Chatelherault, +and the gentlemen of his party, then in Glasgow. They wished Norfolk +to come to them by Carlisle, a thing inconvenient to Lord James. +Knox chid them sharply for sloth, and want of wisdom and discretion, +praising highly the conduct of Lord James. They had “unreasonable +minds.” “Wise men do wonder what my Lord Duke’s +friends do mean, that are so slack and backward in this Cause.” +The Duke did not, however, write to France with an offer of submission. +That story, <i>ben trovato</i> but not <i>vero</i>, rests on a forgery +by the Regent! <a name="citation164"></a><a href="#footnote164">{164}</a> +The fact is that the Duke was not a true Protestant, his advisers, including +his brother the Archbishop, were Catholics, and the successes of d’Oysel +in winter had terrified him; but, seeing an English army at hand, he +assented to the league with England at Berwick, as “second person +of the realm of Scotland” (February 27, 1560). Elizabeth +“accepted the realm of Scotland”—Chatelherault being +recognised as heir-apparent to the throne thereof—for so long +as the marriage of Queen Mary and Francis I. endured, and a year later. +The Scots, however, remain dutiful subjects of Queen Mary, they say, +except so far as lawless attempts to make Scotland a province of France +are concerned. Chatelherault did not <i>sign</i> the league till +May 10, with Arran, Huntly, Morton (at last committed to the Cause), +and the usual leaders of the Congregation.</p> +<p>With the details of the siege of Leith, and with the attempts at +negotiation, we are not here concerned. France, in fact, was powerless +to aid the Regent. Since the arrival of Throckmorton in France, +as ambassador of England, in the previous summer (1559), the Huguenots +had been conspiring. They were in touch with Geneva, in the east; +on the north, in Brittany, they appear to have been stirred up by Tremaine, +a Cornish gentleman, and emissary of Cecil, who joined Throckmorton +at Blois, in March 1560. Stories were put about that the young +French King was a leper, and was kidnapping fair-haired children, in +whose blood he meant to bathe. The Huguenots had been conspiring +ever since September 1559, when they seem to have sent to Elizabeth +for aid in money. <a name="citation165a"></a><a href="#footnote165a">{165a}</a> +More recently they had held a kind of secret convention at Nantes, and +summoned bands who were to lurk in the woods, concentrate at Amboise, +attack the château, slay the Guises, and probably put the King +and Queen Mary under the Prince de Condé, who was by the plotters +expected to take the part which Arran played in Scotland. It is +far from certain that Condé had accepted the position. +In all this we may detect English intrigue and the gold of Elizabeth. +Calvin had been consulted; he disapproved of the method of the plot, +still more of the plot itself. But he knew all about it. +“All turns on killing Antonius,” he wrote, “Antonius” +being either the Cardinal or the Duc de Guise. <a name="citation165b"></a><a href="#footnote165b">{165b}</a></p> +<p>The conspiracy failed at Amboise, on March 17-19, 1560. Throckmorton +was present, and describes the panic and perplexity of the Court, while +he eagerly asks to be promptly and secretly recalled, as suspicion has +fallen on himself. He sent Tremaine home through Brittany, where +he gathered proposals for betraying French towns to Elizabeth, rather +prematurely. Surrounded by treachery, and destitute of funds, +the Guises could not aid the Regent, and Throckmorton kept advising +Cecil to “strike while the iron was hot,” and paralyse French +designs. The dying Regent of Scotland never lost heart in circumstances +so desperate.</p> +<p>Even before the outbreak at Perth, Mary of Guise had been in very +bad health. When the English crossed the Border to beleaguer Leith, +Lord Erskine, who had maintained neutrality in Edinburgh Castle, allowed +her to come there to die (April 1, 1560).</p> +<p>On April 29, from the Castle of Edinburgh, she wrote a letter to +d’Oysel, commanding in Leith. She told him that she was +suffering from dropsy; “one of her legs begins to swell. . . . +You know there are but three days for the dropsy in this country.” +The letter was intercepted by her enemies, and deciphered. <a name="citation166a"></a><a href="#footnote166a">{166a}</a> +On May 7, the English and Scots made an assault, and were beaten back +with loss of 1000 men. According to Knox, the French stripped +the fallen, and allowed the white carcases to lie under the wall, as +also happened in 1746, after the English defeat at Falkirk. The +Regent saw them, Knox says, from the Castle, and said they were “a +fair tapestry.” “Her words were heard of some,” +and carried to Knox, who, from the pulpit, predicted “that God +should revenge that contumely done to his image . . . even in such as +rejoiced thereat. And the very experience declared that he was +not deceived, for within few days thereafter (yea, some say that same +day) began her belly and loathsome legs to swell, and so continued, +till that God did execute his judgments upon her.” <a name="citation166b"></a><a href="#footnote166b">{166b}</a></p> +<p>Knox wrote thus on May 16, 1566. <a name="citation167a"></a><a href="#footnote167a">{167a}</a> +He was a little irritated at that time by Queen Mary’s triumph +over his friends, the murderers of Riccio, and his own hasty flight +from Edinburgh to Kyle. This may excuse the somewhat unusual and +even unbecoming nature of his language concerning the dying lady, but +his memory was quite wrong about his prophecy. The symptoms of +the Regent’s malady had begun more than a week before the Anglo-Scottish +defeat at Leith, and the nature of her complaint ought to have been +known to the prophet’s party, as her letter, describing her condition, +had been intercepted and deciphered. But the deciphering may have +been done in England, which would cause delay. We cannot, of course, +prove that Knox was informed as to the Regent’s malady before +he prophesied; if so, he had forgotten the fact before he wrote as he +did in 1566. But the circumstances fail to demonstrate that he +had a supernormal premonition, or drew a correct deduction from Scripture, +and make it certain that the Regent did not fall ill after his prophecy.</p> +<p>The Regent died on June 11, half-an-hour after the midnight of June +10. A report was written on June 13, from Edinburgh Castle, to +the Cardinal of Lorraine, by Captain James Cullen, who some twelve years +later was hanged by the Regent Morton. He says that since June +7, Lord James and Argyll, Marischal, and Glencairn, had assiduously +attended on the dying lady. Two hours before her death she spoke +apart for a whole hour with Lord James. Chatelherault had seen +her twice, and Arran once. <a name="citation167b"></a><a href="#footnote167b">{167b}</a> +Knox mentions the visits of these lords, and says that d’Oysel +was forbidden to speak with her, “belike she would have bidden +him farewell, for auld familiarity was great.”</p> +<p>According to Knox, the Regent admitted the errors of her policy, +attributing it to Huntly, who had deserted her, and to “the wicked +counsel of her friends,” that is, her brothers. At the request +of the Lords, she saw Willock, and said, as she naturally would, that +“there was no salvation but in and by the death of Jesus Christ.” +“She was compelled . . . to approve the chief head of our religion, +wherein we dissent from all papists and popery.” Knox had +strange ideas about the creed which he opposed. “Of any +virtue that ever was espied in King James V. (<i>whose daughter she</i>,” +Mary Stuart, “<i>is called</i>”), “to this hour (1566) +we have seen no sparkle to appear.” <a name="citation168"></a><a href="#footnote168">{168}</a></p> +<p>With this final fling at the chastity of Mary of Guise, the Reformer +takes leave of the woman whom he so bitterly hated. Yet, “Knox +was not given to the practice so common in his day, of assassinating +reputations by vile insinuations.” Posterity has not accepted, +contemporary English historians did not accept, Knox’s picture +of Mary of Guise as the wanton widow, the spawn of the serpent, who +desired to cut the throat of every Protestant in Scotland. She +was placed by circumstances in a position from which there was no issue. +The fatal French marriage of her daughter was a natural step, at a moment +when Scottish independence could only be maintained by help of France. +Had she left the Regency in the hands of Chatelherault, that is, of +Archbishop Hamilton, the prelate was not the man to put down Protestantism +by persecution, and so save the situation. If he had been, Mary +of Guise was not the woman to abet him in drastic violence. The +nobles would have revolted against the feeble Duke. <a name="citation169"></a><a href="#footnote169">{169}</a></p> +<p>On July 6, the treaty of Edinburgh was concluded by representatives +of England (Cecil was one) and of France. The Reformers carried +a point of essential importance, the very point which Knox told Croft +had been secured by the Appointment of July 1559. All French forces +were to be dismissed the country, except one hundred and twenty men +occupying Dunbar and Inchkeith, in the Firth of Forth. A clause +by which Cecil thought he had secured “the kernel” for England, +and left the shell to France, a clause recognising the “rightfulness” +of Elizabeth’s alliance with the rebels, afforded Mary Stuart +ground, or excuse, for never ratifying the treaty.</p> +<p>It is needless here to discuss the question—was the Convention +of Estates held after the treaty, in August, a lawful Parliament? +There was doubt enough, at least, to make Protestants feel uneasy about +the security of the religious settlement achieved by the Convention. +Randolph, the English resident, foresaw that the Acts might be rescinded.</p> +<p>Before the Convention of Estates met, a thanksgiving day was held +by the brethren in St. Giles’s, and Knox, if he was the author +of the address to the Deity, said with scientific precision, “Neither +in us, nor yet in our confederates was there any cause why thou shouldst +have given unto us so joyful and sudden a deliverance, for neither of +us both ceased to do wickedly, even in the midst of our greatest troubles.” +Elizabeth had lied throughout with all her natural and cultivated gift +of falsehood: of the veracity of the brethren several instances have +been furnished.</p> +<p>Ministers were next appointed to churches, Knox taking Edinburgh, +while Superintendents (who were by no means Bishops) were appointed, +one to each province. Erskine of Dun, a layman, was Superintendent +of Angus. A new anti-Catholic Kirk was thus set up on July 20, +before the Convention met and swept away Catholicism. <a name="citation170"></a><a href="#footnote170">{170}</a> +Knox preached vigorously on “the prophet Haggeus” meanwhile, +and “some” (namely Lethington, Speaker in the Convention) +“said in mockage, we must now forget ourselves, and bear the barrow +to build the houses of God.” The unawakened Lethington, +and the gentry at large, merely dilapidated the houses of God, so that +they became unsafe, as well as odiously squalid. That such fervent +piety should grudge repairs of church buildings (many of them in a wretched +state already) is a fact creditable rather to the thrift than to the +state of grace of the Reformers. After all their protestations, +full of texts, the lords and lairds starved their preachers, but provided, +by roofless aisles and unglazed windows, for the ventilation of the +kirks. These men so bubbling over with gospel fervour were, in +short, when it came to practice, traitors and hypocrites; nor did Knox +spare their unseemly avarice. The cause of the poor, and of the +preachers, lay near his heart, and no man was more insensible of the +temptations of wealth.</p> +<p>Lethington did not address the Parliament as Speaker till August +9. Never had such a Parliament met in Scotland. One hundred +and six barons, not of the higher order, assembled; in 1567, when Mary +was a prisoner and the Regent Moray held the assembly, not nearly so +many came together, nor on any later occasion at this period. +The newcomers claimed to sit “as of old custom”; it was +a custom long disused, and not now restored to vitality.</p> +<p>A supplication was presented by “the Barons, gentlemen, Burgesses, +and others” to “the nobility and Estates” (of whom +they do not seem to reckon themselves part, contrasting <i>themselves</i> +with “yourselves”). They reminded the Estates how +they had asked the Regent “for freedom and liberty of conscience +with a godly reformation of abuses.” They now, by way of +freedom of conscience, ask that Catholic doctrine “be abolished +by Act of this Parliament, and punishment appointed for the transgressors.” +The Man of Sin has been distributing the whole patrimony of the Church, +so that “the trew ministers,” the schools, and the poor +are kept out of their own. The actual clergy are all thieves and +murderers and “rebels to the lawful authority of Emperors, Kings, +and Princes.” Against these charges (murder, rebellion, +profligacy) they must answer now or be so reputed. In fact, it +was the nobles, rather than the Pope, who had been robbing the Kirk, +education, and the poor, which they continued to do, as Knox attests. +But as to doctrine, the barons and ministers were asked to lay a Confession +before the House. <a name="citation172"></a><a href="#footnote172">{172}</a></p> +<p>It will be observed that, in the petition, “Emperors, Kings, +and Princes” have “lawful authority” over the clergy. +But that doctrine assumes, tacitly, that such rulers are of Knox’s +own opinions: the Kirk later resolutely stood up against kings like +James VI., Charles I., and Charles II.</p> +<p>The Confession was drawn up, presented, and ratified in a very few +days: it was compiled in four. The Huguenots in Paris, in 1559, +“established a record” by drawing up a Confession containing +eighty articles in three days. Knox and his coadjutors were relatively +deliberate. They aver that all points of belief necessary for +salvation are contained in the canonical books of the Bible. Their +interpretation pertains to no man or Church, but solely to “the +spreit of God.” That “spreit” must have illuminated +the Kirk as it then existed in Scotland, “for we dare not receive +and admit any interpretation which directly repugns to any principal +point of our faith, to any other <i>plain</i> text of Scripture, or +yet unto the rule of charity.”</p> +<p>As we, the preachers of the Kirk then extant, were apostate monks +or priests or artisans, about a dozen of us, in Scotland, mankind could +not be expected to regard “our” interpretation, “our +faith” as infallible. The framers of the Confession did +not pretend that it was infallible. They request that, “if +any man will note in this our Confession any article or sentence repugning +to God’s Holy Word,” he will favour them with his criticism +in writing. As Knox had announced six years earlier, that, “as +touching the chief points of religion, I neither will give place to +man or angel . . . teaching the contrair to that which ye have heard,” +a controversialist who thought it worth while to criticise the Confession +must have deemed himself at least an archangel. Two years later, +written criticism was offered, as we shall see, with a demand for a +written reply. The critic escaped arrest by a lucky accident.</p> +<p>The Confession, with practically no criticism or opposition, was +passed <i>en bloc</i> on August 17. The Evangel is candidly stated +to be “death to the sons of perdition,” but the Confession +is offered hopefully to “weak and infirm brethren.” +Not to enter into the higher theology, we learn that the sacraments +can only be administered “by lawful ministers.” We +learn that <i>they</i> are “such as are appointed to the preaching +of the Word, or into whose mouth God has put some sermon of exhortation” +and who are “lawfully chosen thereto by some Kirk.” +Later, we find that rather more than this, and rather more than some +of the “trew ministeris” then had, is required.</p> +<p>As the document reaches us, it appears to have been “mitigated” +by Lethington and Wynram, the Vicar of Bray of the Reformation. +They altered, according to the English resident, Randolph, “many +words and sentences, which sounded to proceed rather of some evil conceived +opinion than of any sound judgment.” As Lethington certainly +was not “a lawful minister,” it is surprising if Knox yielded +to his criticism.</p> +<p>Lethington and Wynram also advised that the chapter on obedience +to the sovereign power should be omitted, as “an unfit matter +to be treated at this time,” when it was not very obvious who +the “magistrate” or authority might be. In this sense +Randolph, Arran’s English friend, wrote to Cecil. <a name="citation174a"></a><a href="#footnote174a">{174a}</a> +The chapter, however, was left standing. The sovereign, whether +in empire, kingdom, duke, prince, or in free cities, was accepted as +“of God’s holy ordinance. To him chiefly pertains +the reformation of the religion,” which includes “the suppression +of idolatry and superstition”; and Catholicism, we know, is idolatry. +Superstition is less easily defined, but we cannot doubt that, in Knox’s +mind, the English liturgy was superstitious. <a name="citation174b"></a><a href="#footnote174b">{174b}</a> +To resist the Supreme Power, “doing that which pertains to his +charge” (that is, suppressing Catholicism and superstition, among +other things), is to resist God. It thus appears that the sovereign +is not so supreme but that he must be disobeyed when his mandates clash +with the doctrine of the Kirk. Thus the “magistrate” +or “authority”—the State, in fact—is limited +by the conscience of the Kirk, which may, if it pleases, detect idolatry +or superstition in some act of secular policy. From this theory +of the Kirk arose more than a century of unrest.</p> +<p>On August 24, the practical consequences of the Confession were set +forth in an Act, by which all hearers or celebrants of the Mass are +doomed, for the first offence, to mere confiscation of all their goods +and to corporal punishment: exile rewards a repetition of the offence: +the third is punished by death. “Freedom from a persecuting +spirit is one of the noblest features of Knox’s character,” +says Laing; “neither led away by enthusiasm nor party feelings +nor success, to retaliate the oppressions and atrocities that disgraced +the adherents of popery.” <a name="citation174c"></a><a href="#footnote174c">{174c}</a> +This is an amazing remark! Though we do not know that Knox was +ever “accessory to the death of a single individual for his religious +opinions,” we do know that he had not the chance; the Government, +at most, and years later, put one priest to death. But Knox always +insisted, vainly, that idolaters “must die the death.”</p> +<p>To the carnal mind these rules appear to savour of harshness. +The carnal mind would not gather exactly what the new penal laws were, +if it confined its study to the learned Dr. M‘Crie’s <i>Life +of Knox</i>. This erudite man, a pillar of the early Free Kirk, +mildly remarks, “The Parliament . . . prohibited, under certain +penalties, the celebration of the Mass.” He leaves his readers +to discover, in the Acts of Parliament and in Knox, what the “certain +penalties” were. <a name="citation175"></a><a href="#footnote175">{175}</a> +The Act seems, as Knox says about the decrees of massacre in Deuteronomy, +“rather to be written in a rage” than in a spirit of wisdom. +The majority of the human beings then in Scotland probably never had +the dispute between the old and new faiths placed before them lucidly +and impartially. Very many of them had never heard the ideas of +Geneva stated at all. “So late as 1596,” writes Dr. +Hay Fleming, “there were above four hundred parishes, not reckoning +Argyll and the Isles, which still lacked ministers.” “The +rarity of learned and godly men” of his own persuasion, is regretted +by Knox in the Book of Discipline. Yet Catholics thus destitute +of opportunity to know and recognise the Truth, are threatened with +confiscation, exile, and death, if they cling to the only creed which +they have been taught—after August 17, 1560. The death penalty +was threatened often, by Scots Acts, for trifles. In this case +the graduated scale of punishment shows that the threat is serious.</p> +<p>This Act sounds insane, but the Convention was wise in its generation. +Had it merely abolished the persecuting laws of the Church, Scotland +might never have been Protestant. The old faith is infinitely +more attractive to mankind than the new Presbyterian verity. A +thing of slow and long evolution, the Church had assimilated and hallowed +the world-old festivals of the year’s changing seasons. +She provided for the human love of recreation. Her Sundays were +holidays, not composed of gloomy hours in stuffy or draughty kirks, +under the current voice of the preacher. Her confessional enabled +the burdened soul to lay down its weight in sacred privacy; her music, +her ceremonies, the dim religious light of her fanes, naturally awaken +religious emotion. While these things, with the native tendency +to resist authority of any kind, appealed to the multitude, the position +of the Church, in later years, recommended itself to many educated men +in Scotland as more logical than that of Knox; and convert after convert, +in the noble class, slipped over to Rome. The missionaries of +the counter-Reformation, but for the persecuting Act, would have arrived +in a Scotland which did not persecute, and the work of the Convention +of 1560 might all have been undone, had not the stringent Act been passed.</p> +<p>That Act apparently did not go so far as the preachers desired. +Thus Archbishop Hamilton, writing to Archbishop Beaton in Paris, the +day after the passing of the Act, says, “All these new preachers +openly persuade the nobility in the pulpit, to put violent hands, and +slay all churchmen that will not concur and adopt their opinion. +They only reproach my Lord Duke” (the Archbishop’s brother), +“that he will not begin first, and either cause me to do as they +do, or else to use rigour on me by slaughter, sword, or, at least, perpetual +prison.” <a name="citation177a"></a><a href="#footnote177a">{177a}</a> +It is probable that the Archbishop was well informed as to what the +bigots were saying, though he is not likely to have “sat under” +them; moreover, he would hear of their advice from his brother, the +Duke, with whom he had just held a long conference. <a name="citation177b"></a><a href="#footnote177b">{177b}</a> +Lesley, Bishop of Ross, in his “History,” praises the humanity +of the nobles, “for at this time few Catholics were banished, +fewer were imprisoned, and none were executed.” The nobles +interfering, the threatened capital punishment was not carried out. +Mob violence, oppression by Protestant landlords, Kirk censure, imprisonment, +fine, and exile, did their work in suppressing idolatry and promoting +hypocrisy.</p> +<p>No doubt this grinding ceaseless daily process of enforcing Truth, +did not go far enough for the great body of the brethren, especially +the godly burgesses of the towns; indeed, as early as June 10, 1560, +the Provost, Bailies, and Town Council of Edinburgh proclaimed that +idolaters must instantly and publicly profess their conversion before +the Ministers and Elders on the penalty of the pillory for the first +offence, banishment from the town for the second, and death for the +third. <a name="citation177c"></a><a href="#footnote177c">{177c}</a></p> +<p>It must always be remembered that the threat of the death penalty +often meant, in practice, very little. It was denounced, under +Mary of Guise (February 9, 1559), against men who bullied priests, disturbed +services, and ate meat in Lent. It was denounced against shooters +of wild fowl, and against those, of either religious party, who broke +the Proclamation of October 1561. Yet “nobody seemed one +penny the worse” as regards their lives, though the punishments +of fining and banishing were, on occasions, enforced against Catholics.</p> +<p>We may marvel that, in the beginning, Catholic martyrs did not present +themselves in crowds to the executioner. But even under the rule +of Rome it would not be easy to find thirty cases of martyrs burned +at the stake by “the bloudie Bishops,” between the fifteenth +century and the martyrdom of Myln. By 1560 the old Church was +in such a hideous decline—with ruffianly men of quality in high +spiritual places; with priests who did not attend Mass, and in many +cases could not read; with churches left to go to ruin; with license +so notable that, in one foundation, the priest is only forbidden to +keep a <i>constant</i> concubine—that faith had waxed cold, and +no Catholic felt “ripe” for martyrdom. The elements +of a League, as in France, did not exist. There was no fervently +Catholic town population like that of Paris; no popular noble warriors, +like the Ducs de Guise, to act as leaders. Thus Scotland, in this +age, ran little risk of a religious civil war. No organised and +armed faction existed to face the Congregation. When the counter-Reformation +set in, many Catholics endured fines and exile with constancy.</p> +<p>The theology of the Confession of Faith is, of course, Calvinistic. +No “works” are, technically, “good” which are +not the work of the Spirit of our Lord, dwelling in our hearts by faith. +“Idolaters,” and wicked people, not having that spirit, +can do no good works. The blasphemy that “men who live according +to equity and justice shall be saved, what religion soever they have +professed,” is to be abhorred. “The Kirk is invisible,” +consisting of the Elect, “who are known only to God.” +This gave much cause of controversy to Knox’s Catholic opponents. +“The notes of the true Church” are those of Calvin’s. +As to the Sacrament, though the elements be not the <i>natural</i> body +of Christ, yet “the faithful, in the right use of the Lord’s +Table, so do eat the body and drink the blood of the Lord Jesus that +He remains in them and they in Him . . . in such conjunction with Christ +Jesus as the natural man cannot comprehend.”</p> +<p>This is a highly sacramental and confessedly mystical doctrine, not +less unintelligible to “the natural man” than the Catholic +theory which Knox so strongly reprobated. Alas, that men called +Christian have shed seas of blood over the precise sense of that touching +command of our Lord, which, though admitted to be incomprehensible, +they have yet endeavoured to comprehend and define!</p> +<p>A serious task for Knox was to draw up, with others, a “Book +of the Policy and Discipline of the Kirk,” a task entrusted to +them in April 1560. In politics, till January 1561, the Lords +hoped that they might induce Elizabeth (then entangled with Leicester, +as Knox knew) to marry Arran, but whether “Glycerium” (as +Bishop Jewel calls her) had already detected in “the saucy youth” +“a half crazy fool,” as Mr. Froude says, or not, she firmly +refused. She much preferred Lord Robert Dudley, whose wife had +just then broken her neck. The unfortunate Arran had fought resolutely, +Knox tells us, by the side of Lord James, in the winter of 1559, but +he already, in 1560, showed strange moods, and later fell into sheer +lunacy. In December died “the young King of France, husband +to our Jezebel—unhappy Francis . . . he suddenly perished of a +rotten ear . . . in that deaf ear that never would hear the truth of +God” (December 5, 1560). We have little of Knox’s +poetry, but he probably composed a translation, in verse, of a Latin +poem indited by one of “the godly in France,” whence he +borrowed his phrase “a rotten ear” (<i>aure putrefacta corruit</i>).</p> +<blockquote><p>“Last Francis, that unhappy child,<br /> + His father’s footsteps following plain,<br /> +To Christ’s crying deaf ears did yield,<br /> + A rotten ear was then his bane.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>The version is wonderfully close to the original Latin.</p> +<p>Meanwhile, Francis was hardly cold before Arran wooed his idolatrous +widow, Queen Mary, “with a gay gold ring.” She did +not respond favourably, and “the Earl bare it heavily in his heart, +and more heavily than many would have wissed,” says Knox, with +whom Arran was on very confidential terms. Knox does not rebuke +his passion for Jezebel. He himself “was in no small heaviness +by reason of the late death of his dear bedfellow, Marjorie Bowes,” +of whom we know very little, except that she worked hard to lighten +the labours of Knox’s vast correspondence. He had, as he +says, “great intelligence both with the churches and some of the +Court of France,” and was the first to receive news of the perilous +illness of the young King. He carried the tidings to the Duke +and Lord James, at the Hamilton house near Kirk o’ Field, but +would not name his informant. Then came the news of the King’s +death from Lord Grey de Wilton, at Berwick, and a Convention of the +Nobles was proclaimed for January 15, 1561, to “peruse newly over +again” the Book of Discipline.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER XIII: KNOX AND THE BOOK OF DISCIPLINE</h2> +<p>This Book of Discipline, containing the model of the Kirk, had been +seen by Randolph in August 1560, and he observed that its framers would +not come into ecclesiastical conformity with England. They were +“severe in that they profess, and loth to remit anything of that +they have received.” As the difference between the Genevan +and Anglican models contributed so greatly to the Civil War under Charles +I., the results may be regretted; Anglicans, by 1643, were looked on +as “Baal worshippers” by the precise Scots.</p> +<p>In February 1561, Randolph still thought that the Book of Discipline +was rather in advance of what fallen human nature could endure. +Idolatry, of course, was to be removed universally; thus the Queen, +when she arrived, was constantly insulted about her religion. +The Lawful Calling of Ministers was explained; we have already seen +that a lawful minister is a preacher who can get a local set of men +to recognise him as such. Knox, however, before his return to +Scotland, had advised the brethren to be very careful in examining preachers +before accepting them. The people and “every several Congregation” +have a right to elect their minister, and, if they do not do so in six +weeks, the Superintendent (a migratory official, in some ways superior +to the clergy, but subject to periodical “trial” by the +Assembly, who very soon became extinct), with his council, presents +a man who is to be examined by persons of sound judgment, and next by +the ministers and elders of the Kirk. Nobody is to be “violently +intrused” on any congregation. Nothing is said about an +university training; moral character is closely scrutinised. On +the admission of a new minister, some other ministers should preach +“touching the obedience which the Kirk owe to their ministers. +. . . The people should be exhorted to reverence and honour their +chosen ministers as the servants and ambassadors of the Lord Jesus, +obeying the commandments which they speak from God’s mouth and +Book, even as they would obey God himself. . . .” <a name="citation182"></a><a href="#footnote182">{182}</a></p> +<p>The practical result of this claim on the part of the preachers to +implicit obedience was more than a century of turmoil, civil war, revolution, +and reaction. The ministers constantly preached political sermons, +and the State—the King and his advisers—was perpetually +arraigned by them. To “reject” them, “and despise +their ministry and exhortation” (as when Catholics were not put +to death on their instance), was to “reject and despise” +our Lord! If accused of libel, or treasonous libel, or “leasing +making,” in their sermons, they demanded to be judged by their +brethren. Their brethren acquitting them, where was there any +other judicature? These pretensions, with the right to inflict +excommunication (in later practice to be followed by actual outlawry), +were made, we saw, when there were not a dozen “true ministers” +in the nascent Kirk, and, of course, the claims became more exorbitant +when “true ministers” were reckoned by hundreds. No +State could submit to such a clerical tyranny.</p> +<p>People who only know modern Presbyterianism have no idea of the despotism +which the Fathers of the Kirk tried, for more than a century, to enforce. +The preachers sat in the seats of the Apostles; they had the gift of +the Keys, the power to bind and loose. Yet the Book of Discipline +permits no other ceremony, at the induction of these mystically gifted +men, than “the public approbation of the people, and declaration +of the chief minister”—later there was no “<i>chief</i> +minister,” there was “parity” of ministers. +Any other ceremony “we cannot approve”; “for albeit +the Apostles used the imposition of hands, yet seeing the miracle is +ceased, the using of the ceremony we judge it not necessary.” +The miracle had <i>not</i> ceased, if it was true that “the commandments” +issued in sermons—political sermons often—really deserved +to be obeyed, as men “would obey God himself.” <i>C’est +lá le miracle</i>! There could be no more amazing miracle +than the infallibility of preachers! “The imposition of +hands” was, twelve years later, restored; but as far as infallible +sermons were concerned, the State agreed with Knox that “the miracle +had ceased.”</p> +<p>The political sermons are sometimes justified by the analogy of modern +discussion in the press. But leading articles do not pretend to +be infallible, and editors do not assert a right to be obeyed by men, +“even as they would obey God himself.” The preachers +were often right, often wrong: their sermons were good, or were silly; +but what no State could endure was the claim of preachers to implicit +obedience.</p> +<p>The difficulty in finding really qualified ministers must be met +by fervent prayer, and by compulsion on the part of the Estates of Parliament.</p> +<p>Failing ministers, Readers, capable of reading the Common Prayers +(presently it was Knox’s book of these) and the Bible must be +found; they may later be promoted to the ministry.</p> +<p>Stationary ministers are to receive less sustenance than the migratory +Superintendents; the sons of the preachers must be educated, the daughters +“honestly dowered.” The payment is mainly in “bolls” +of meal and malt. The state of the poor, “fearful and horrible” +to say, is one of universal contempt. Provision must be made for +the aged and weak. Superintendents, after election, are to be +examined by all the ministers of the province, and by three or more +Superintendents. Other ceremonies “we cannot allow.” +In 1581, a Scottish Catholic, Burne, averred that Willock objected to +ceremonies of Ordination, because people would say, if these are necessary, +what minister ordained <i>you</i>? The query was hard to answer, +so ceremonies of Ordination could not be allowed. The story was +told to Burne, he says, by an eyewitness, who heard Willock.</p> +<p>Every church must have a schoolmaster, who ought to be able to teach +grammar and Latin. Education should be universal: poor children +of ability must be enabled to pass on to the universities, through secondary +schools. At St. Andrews the three colleges were to have separate +functions, not clashing, and culminating in Divinity.</p> +<p>Whence are the funds to be obtained? Here the authors bid “your +Honours” “have respect to your poor brethren, the labourers +of the ground, who by these cruel beasts, the papists, have been so +oppressed . . . ” They ought only to pay “reasonable +teinds, that they may feel some benefit of Christ Jesus, now preached +unto them. With grief of heart we hear that some gentlemen are +now as cruel over their tenants as ever were the papists, requiring +of them whatsoever they paid to the Church, so that the papistical tyranny +shall only be changed into the tyranny of the landlord or laird.” +Every man should have his own teinds, or tithes; whereas, in fact, the +great lay holders of tithes took them off other men’s lands, a +practice leading to many blood-feuds. The attempt of Charles I. +to let “every man have his own tithes,” and to provide the +preachers with a living wage, was one of the causes of the distrust +of the King which culminated in the great Civil War. But Knox +could not “recover for the Church her liberty and freedom, and +that only for relief of the poor.” “<i>We speak not +for ourselves</i>” the Book says, “but in favour of the +poor, and the labourers defrauded . . . The Church is only bound +to sustain and nourish her charges . . . to wit the Ministers of the +Kirk, the Poor, and the teachers of youth.” The funds must +be taken out of the tithes, the chantries, colleges, chaplainries, and +the temporalities of Bishops, Deans, and cathedrals generally.</p> +<p>The ministers are to have their manses, and glebes of six acres; +to this many of the Lords assented, except, oddly enough, those redoubtable +leaders of the Congregation, Glencairn and Morton, with Marischal. +All the part of the book which most commands our sympathy, the most +Christian part of the book, regulating the disposition of the revenues +of the fallen Church for the good of the poor, of education, and of +the Kirk, remained a dead letter. The Duke, Arran, Lord James, +and a few barons, including the ruffian Andrew Ker of Faldonside, with +Glencairn and Ochiltree, signed it, in token of approval, but little +came of it all. Lethington, probably, was the scoffer who styled +these provisions “devout imaginations.” The nobles +and lairds, many of them, were converted, in matter of doctrine; in +conduct they were the most avaricious, bloody, and treacherous of all +the generations which had banded, revelled, robbed, and betrayed in +Scotland.</p> +<p>There is a point in this matter of the Kirk’s claim to the +patrimony of the old Church which perhaps is generally misunderstood. +That point is luminous as regards the absolute disinterestedness of +Knox and his companions, both in respect to themselves and their fellow-preachers. +The Book of Discipline contains a sentence already quoted, conceived +in what we may justly style a chivalrous contempt of wealth. “Your +Honours may easily understand <i>that we speak not now for ourselves</i>, +but in favour of the Poor, and the labourers defrauded . . . ” +Not having observed a point which “their Honours” were not +the men to “understand easily,” Father Pollen writes, “the +new preachers were loudly <i>claiming for themselves</i> the property +of the rivals whom they had displaced.” <a name="citation186"></a><a href="#footnote186">{186}</a> +For themselves they were claiming a few merks, and a few bolls of meal, +a decent subsistence. Mr. Taylor Innes points out that when, just +before Darnley’s murder, Mary offered “a considerable sum +for the maintenance of the ministers,” Knox and others said that, +for their sustentation, they “craved of the auditors the things +that were necessary, as of duty the pastors might justly crave of their +flock. The General Assembly accepted the Queen’s gift, but +only of necessity; it was by their flock that they ought to be sustained. +To take from others contrary to their will, whom they serve not, they +judge it not their duty, nor yet reasonable.”</p> +<p>Among other things the preachers, who were left with a hard struggle +for bare existence, introduced a rule of honour scarcely known to the +barons and nobles, except to the bold Buccleuch who rejected an English +pension from Henry VIII., with a sympathetic explosion of strong language. +The preachers would not take gifts from England, even when offered by +the supporters of their own line of policy.</p> +<p>Knox’s failure in his admirable attempt to secure the wealth +of the old Church for national purposes was, as it happened, the secular +salvation of the Kirk. Neither Catholicism nor Anglicanism could +be fully introduced while the barons and nobles held the tithes and +lands of the ancient Church. Possessing the wealth necessary to +a Catholic or Anglican establishment, they were resolutely determined +to cling to it, and oppose any Church except that which they starved. +The bishops of James I., Charles I., and Charles II. were detested by +the nobles. Rarely from them came any lordly gifts to learning +and the Universities, while from the honourably poor ministers such +gifts could not come. The Universities were founded by prelates +of the old Church, doing their duty with their wealth.</p> +<p>The arrangements for discipline were of the drastic nature which +lingered into the days of Burns and later. The results may be +studied in the records of Kirk Sessions; we have no reason to suppose +that sexual morality was at all improved, on the whole, by “discipline,” +though it was easier to enforce “Sabbath observance.” +A graduated scale of admonitions led up to excommunication, if the subject +was refractory, and to boycotting with civil penalties. The processes +had no effect, or none that is visible, in checking lawlessness, robbery, +feuds, and manslayings; and, after the Reformation, witchcraft increased +to monstrous proportions, at least executions of people accused of witchcraft +became very numerous, in spite of provision for sermons thrice a week, +and for weekly discussions of the Word.</p> +<p>The Book of Discipline, modelled on the Genevan scheme, and on that +of A’Lasco for his London congregation, rather reminds us of the +“Laws” of Plato. It was a well meant but impracticable +ideal set before the country, and was least successful where it best +deserved success. It certainly secured a thoroughly moral clergy, +till, some twelve years later, the nobles again thrust licentious and +murderous cadets into the best livings and the bastard bishoprics, before +and during the Regency of Morton. Their example did not affect +the genuine ministers, frugal God-fearing men.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER XIV: KNOX AND QUEEN MARY, 1561</h2> +<p>In discussing the Book of Discipline, that great constructive effort +towards the remaking of Scotland, we left Knox at the time of the death +of his first wife. On December 20, 1560, he was one of some six +ministers who, with more numerous lay representatives of districts, +sat in the first General Assembly. They selected some new preachers, +and decided that the church of Restalrig should be destroyed as a monument +of idolatry. A fragment of it is standing yet, enclosing tombs +of the wild Logans of Restalrig.</p> +<p>The Assembly passed an Act against lawless love, and invited the +Estates and Privy Council to “use sharp punishment” against +some “idolaters,” including Eglintoun, Cassilis, and Quentin +Kennedy, Abbot of Crosraguel, who disputed later against Knox, the Laird +of Gala (a Scott) and others.</p> +<p>In January 1561 a Convention of nobles and lairds at Edinburgh perused +the Book of Discipline, and some signed it, platonically, while there +was a dispute between the preachers and certain Catholics, including +Lesley, later Bishop of Ross, an historian, but no better than a shifty +and dangerous partisan of Mary Stuart. The Lord James was selected +as an envoy to Mary, in France. He was bidden to refuse her even +the private performance of the rites of her faith, but declined to go +to that extremity; the question smouldered through five years. +Randolph expected “a mad world” on Mary’s return; +he was not disappointed.</p> +<p>Meanwhile the Catholic Earls of the North, of whom Huntly was the +fickle leader, with Bothwell, “come to work what mischief he can,” +are accused by Knox of a design to seize Edinburgh, before the Parliament +in May 1561. Nothing was done, but there was a very violent Robin +Hood riot; the magistrates were besieged and bullied, Knox declined +to ask for the pardon of the brawlers, and, after excursions and alarms, +“the whole multitude was excommunicate” until they appeased +the Kirk. They may have borne the spiritual censure very unconcernedly.</p> +<p>The Catholic Earls now sent Lesley to get Mary’s ear before +the Lord James could reach her. Lesley arrived on April 14, with +the offer to raise 20,000 men, if Mary would land in Huntly’s +region. They would restore the Mass in their bounds, and Mary +would be convoyed by Captain Cullen, a kinsman of Huntly, and already +mentioned as the Captain of the Guards after Riccio’s murder.</p> +<p>It is said by Lesley that Mary had received, from the Regent, her +mother, a description of the nobles of Scotland. If so, she knew +Huntly for the ambitious traitor he was, a man peculiarly perfidious +and self-seeking, with a son who might be thrust on her as a husband, +if once she were in Huntly’s hands. The Queen knew that +he had forsaken her mother’s cause; knew, perhaps, of his old +attempt to betray Scotland to England, and she was aware that no northern +Earl had raised his banner to defend the Church. She, therefore, +came to no agreement with Lesley, but confided more in the Lord James, +who arrived on the following day. Mary knew her brother’s +character fairly well, and, if Lesley says with truth that he now asked +for, and was promised, the earldom of Moray, the omen was evil for Huntly, +who practically held the lands. <a name="citation191a"></a><a href="#footnote191a">{191a}</a> +A bargain, on this showing, was initiated. Lord James was to have +the earldom, and he got it; Mary was to have his support.</p> +<p>Much has been said about Lord James’s betrayal to Throckmorton +of Mary’s intentions, as revealed by her to himself. But +what Lord James said to Throckmorton amounts to very little. I +am not certain that, both in Paris with Throckmorton, and in London +with Elizabeth and Cecil, he did not moot his plan for friendship between +Mary and Elizabeth, and Elizabeth’s recognition of Mary’s +rights as her heir. <a name="citation191b"></a><a href="#footnote191b">{191b}</a> +Lord James proposed all this to Elizabeth in a letter of August 6, 1561. +<a name="citation191c"></a><a href="#footnote191c">{191c}</a> +He had certainly discussed this admirable scheme with Lord Robert Dudley +at Court, in May 1561, on his return from France. <a name="citation191d"></a><a href="#footnote191d">{191d}</a> +Nothing could be more statesmanlike and less treacherous.</p> +<p>Meanwhile (May 27, 1561) the brethren presented a supplication to +the Parliament, with clauses, which, if conceded, would have secured +the stipends of the preachers. The prayers were granted, in promise, +and a great deal of church wrecking was conscientiously done; the Lord +James, on his return, paid particular attention to idolatry in his hoped +for earldom, but the preachers were not better paid.</p> +<p>Meanwhile the Protestants looked forward to the Queen’s arrival +with great searchings of heart. She had not ratified the treaty +of Leith, but already Cardinal Guise hoped that she and Elizabeth would +live in concord, and heard that Mary ceded all claims to the English +throne in return for Elizabeth’s promise to declare her the heir, +if she herself died childless (August 21). <a name="citation192"></a><a href="#footnote192">{192}</a></p> +<p>Knox, who had not loved Mary of Guise, was not likely to think well +of her daughter. Mary, again, knew Knox as the chief agitator +in the tumults that embittered her mother’s last year, and shortened +her life. In France she had threatened to deal with him severely, +ignorant of his power and her own weakness. She could not be aware +that Knox had suggested to Cecil opposition to her succession to the +throne on the ground of her sex. Knox uttered his forebodings +of the Queen’s future: they were as veracious as if he had really +been a prophet. But he was, to an extent which can only be guessed, +one of the causes of the fulfilment of his own predictions. To +attack publicly, from the pulpit, the creed and conduct of a girl of +spirit; to provoke cruel insults to her priests whom she could not defend; +was apt to cause, at last, in great measure that wild revolt of temper +which drove Mary to her doom. Her health suffered frequently from +the attempt to bear with a smiling face such insults as no European +princess, least of all Elizabeth, would have endured for an hour. +There is a limit to patience, and before Mary passed that limit, Randolph +and Lethington saw, and feebly deplored, the amenities of the preacher +whom men permitted to “rule the roast.” “Ten +thousand swords” do not leap from their scabbards to protect either +the girl Mary Stuart or the woman Marie Antoinette.</p> +<p>Not that natural indignation was dead, but it ended in words. +People said, “The Queen’s Mass and her priests will we maintain; +this hand and this rapier will fight in their defence.” +So men bragged, as Knox reports, <a name="citation193a"></a><a href="#footnote193a">{193a}</a> +but when after Mary’s arrival priests were beaten or pilloried, +not a hand stirred to defend them, not a rapier was drawn. The +Queen might be as safely as she was deeply insulted through her faith. +She was not at this time devoutly ardent in her creed, though she often +professed her resolution to abide in it. Gentleness might conceivably +have led her even to adopt the Anglican faith, or so it was deemed by +some observers, but insolence and outrage had another effect on her +temper.</p> +<p>Mary landed at Leith in a thick fog on August 19, 1561. She +was now in a country where she lay under sentence of death as an idolater. +Her continued existence was illegal. With her came Mary Seton, +Mary Beaton, Mary Livingstone, and Mary Fleming, the comrades of her +childhood; and her uncles, the Duc d’Aumale, Francis de Lorraine, +and the noisy Marquis d’Elboeuf. She was not very welcome. +As late as August 9, Randolph reports that her brother, Lord James, +Lethington, and Morton “wish, as you do, she might be stayed yet +for a space, and if it were not for their obedience sake, some of them +care not though they never see her face.” <a name="citation193b"></a><a href="#footnote193b">{193b}</a> +None the less, on June 8 Lord James tells Mary that he had given orders +for her palace to be prepared by the end of July. He informs her +that “many” hope that she will never come home. Nothing +is “so necessary . . . as your Majesty’s own presence”; +and he hopes she will arrive punctually. If she cannot come she +should send her commission to some of her Protestant advisers, by no +means including the Archbishop of St. Andrews (Hamilton), with whom +he will never work. It is not easy to see why Lord James should +have wished that Mary “might be stayed,” unless he merely +dreaded her arrival while Elizabeth was in a bad temper. His letter +to Elizabeth of August 6 is incompatible with treachery on his part. +“Mr. Knox is determined to abide the uttermost, and others will +not leave him till God have taken his life and theirs together.” +Of what were these heroes afraid? A “familiar,” a +witch, of Lady Huntly’s predicted that the Queen would never arrive. +“If false, I would she were burned for a witch,” adds honest +Randolph. Lethington deemed his “own danger not least.” +Two galleys full of ladies are not so alarming; did these men, practically +hinting that English ships should stop their Queen, think that the Catholics +in Scotland were too strong for them?</p> +<p>Not a noble was present to meet Mary when in the fog and filth of +Leith she touched Scottish soil, except her natural brother, Lord Robert. +<a name="citation194"></a><a href="#footnote194">{194}</a> The +rest soon gathered with faces of welcome. She met some Robin Hood +rioters who lay under the law, and pardoned these roisterers (with their +excommunication could she interfere?), because, says Knox, she was instructed +that they had acted “in despite of the religion.” +Their festival had been forbidden under the older religion, as it happens, +in 1555, and was again forbidden later by Mary herself.</p> +<p>All was mirth till Sunday, when the Queen’s French priest celebrated +Mass in her own chapel before herself, her three uncles, and Montrose. +The godly called for the priest’s blood, but Lord James kept the +door, and his brothers protected the priest. Disappointed of blood, +“the godly departed with great grief of heart,” collecting +in crowds round Holyrood in the afternoon. Next day the Council +proclaimed that, till the Estates assembled and deliberated, no innovation +should be made in the religion “publicly and universally standing.” +The Queen’s servants and others from France must not be molested—on +pain of death, the usual empty threat. They were assaulted, and +nobody was punished for the offence. Arran alone made a protest, +probably written by Knox. Who but Knox could have written that +the Mass is “much more abominable and odious in the sight of God” +than murder! Many an honest brother was conspicuously of the opinion +which Arran’s protest assigned to Omnipotence. Next Sunday +Knox “thundered,” and later regretted that “I did +not that I might have done” (caused an armed struggle?), . . . +“for God had given unto me credit with many, who would have put +into execution God’s judgments if I would only have consented +thereto.” Mary might have gone the way of Jezebel and Athaliah +but for the mistaken lenity of Knox, who later “asked God’s +mercy” for not being more vehement. In fact, he rather worked +“to slokin that fervency.” <a name="citation195"></a><a href="#footnote195">{195}</a> +Let us hope that he is forgiven, especially as Randolph reports him +extremely vehement in the pulpit. His repentance was publicly +expressed shortly before the murder of Riccio. (In December 1565, +probably, when the Kirk ordered the week’s fast that, as it chanced, +heralded Riccio’s doom.) Privately to Cecil, on October +7, 1561, he uttered his regret that he had been so deficient in zeal. +Cecil had been recommending moderation. <a name="citation196"></a><a href="#footnote196">{196}</a></p> +<p>On August 26, Randolph, after describing the intimidation of the +priest, says “John Knox thundereth out of the pulpit, so that +I fear nothing so much as that one day he will mar all. He ruleth +the roast, and of him all men stand in fear.” In public +at least he did not allay the wrath of the brethren.</p> +<p>On August 26, or on September 2, Knox had an interview with the Queen, +and made her weep. Randolph doubted whether this was from anger +or from grief. Knox gives Mary’s observations in the briefest +summary; his own at great length, so that it is not easy to know how +their reasoning really sped. Her charges were his authorship of +the “Monstrous Regiment of Women”; that he caused great +sedition and slaughter in England; and that he was accused of doing +what he did by necromancy. The rest is summed up in “&c.”</p> +<p>He stood to his guns about the “Monstrous Regiment,” +and generally took the line that he merely preached against “the +vanity of the papistical religion” and the deceit, pride, and +tyranny of “that Roman Antichrist.” If one wishes +to convert a young princess, bred in the Catholic faith, it is not judicious +to begin by abusing the Pope. This too much resembles the arbitrary +and violent method of Peter in <i>The Tale of a Tub</i> (by Dr. Jonathan +Swift); such, however, was the method of Knox.</p> +<p>Mary asking if he denied her “just authority,” Knox said +that he was as well content to live under her as Paul under Nero. +This, again, can hardly be called an agreeable historical parallel! +Knox hoped that he would not hurt her or her authority “so long +as ye defile not your hands with the blood of the saints of God,” +as if Mary was panting to distinguish herself in that way. His +hope was unfulfilled. No “saints” suffered, but he +ceased not to trouble.</p> +<p>Knox also said that if he had wanted “to trouble your estate +because you are a woman, I might have chosen a time more convenient +for that purpose than I can do now, when your own presence is in the +realm.” He <i>had</i>, in fact, chosen the convenient time +in his letter to Cecil, already quoted (July 19, 1559), but he had not +succeeded in his plan. He said that nobody could <i>prove</i> +that the question of discarding Mary, on the ground of her sex, “was +at any time moved in public or in secret.” Nobody could +<i>prove</i> it, for nobody could publish his letter to Cecil. +Probably he had this in his mind. He did not say that the thing +had not happened, only that “he was assured that neither Protestant +nor papist shall be able to prove that any such question was at any +time moved, either in public or in secret.” <a name="citation197"></a><a href="#footnote197">{197}</a></p> +<p>He denied that he had caused sedition in England, nor do we know +what Mary meant by this charge. His appeals, from abroad, to a +Phinehas or Jehu had not been answered. As to magic, he always +preached against the practice.</p> +<p>Mary then said that Knox persuaded the people to use religion not +allowed by their princes. He justified himself by biblical precedents, +to which she replied that Daniel and Abraham did not resort to the sword. +They had not the chance, he answered, adding that subjects might resist +a prince who exceeded his bounds, as sons may confine a maniac father.</p> +<p>The Queen was long silent, and then said, “I perceive my subjects +shall obey you and not me.” Knox said that all should be +subject unto God and His Church; and Mary frankly replied, “I +will defend the Church of Rome, for I think that it is the true Church +of God.” She could not defend it! Knox answered with +his wonted urbanity, that the Church of Rome was a harlot, addicted +to “all kinds of fornication.”</p> +<p>He was so accustomed to this sort of rhetoric that he did not deem +it out of place on this occasion. His admirers, familiar with +his style, forget its necessary effect on “a young princess unpersuaded,” +as Lethington put it. Mary said that her conscience was otherwise +minded, but Knox knew that all consciences of “man or angel” +were wrong which did not agree with his own. The Queen had to +confess that in argument as to the unscriptural character of the Mass, +he was “owre sair” for her. He said that he wished +she would “hear the matter reasoned to the end.” She +may have desired that very thing: “Ye may get that sooner than +ye believe,” she said; but Knox expressed his disbelief that he +would ever get it. Papists would never argue except when “they +were both judge and party.” Knox himself never answered +Ninian Winzet, who, while printing his polemic, was sought for by the +police of the period, and just managed to escape.</p> +<p>There was, however, a champion who, on November 19, challenged Knox +and the other preachers to a discussion, either orally or by interchange +of letters. This was Mary’s own chaplain, René Benoit. +Mary probably knew that he was about to offer to meet “the most +learned John Knox and other most erudite men, called ministers”; +it is thus that René addresses them in his “Epistle” +of November 19.</p> +<p>He implores them not to be led into heresy by love of popularity +or of wealth; neither of which advantages the preachers enjoyed, for +they were detested by loose livers, and were nearly starved. Benoit’s +little challenge, or rather request for discussion, is a model of courtesy. +Knox did not meet him in argument, as far as we are aware; but in 1562, +Fergusson, minister of Dunfermline, replied in a tract full of scurrility. +One quite unmentionable word occurs, and “impudent lie,” +“impudent and shameless shavelings,” “Baal’s +chaplains that eat at Jezebel’s table,” “pestilent +papistry,” “abominable mass,” “idol Bishops,” +“we Christians and you Papists,” and parallels between Benoit +and “an idolatrous priest of Bethel,” between Mary and Jezebel +are among the amenities of this meek servant of Christ in Dunfermline.</p> +<p>Benoit presently returned to France, and later was confessor to Henri +IV. The discussion which Mary anticipated never occurred, though +her champion was ready. Knox does not refer to this affair in +his “History,” as far as I am aware. <a name="citation199"></a><a href="#footnote199">{199}</a> +Was René the priest whom the brethren menaced and occasionally +assaulted?</p> +<p>Considering her chaplain’s offer, it seems not unlikely that +Mary was ready to listen to reasoning, but to call the Pope “Antichrist,” +and the Church “a harlot,” is not argument. Knox ended +his discourse by wishing the Queen as blessed in Scotland as Deborah +was in Israel. The mere fact that Mary spoke with him “makes +the Papists doubt what shall come of the world,” <a name="citation200a"></a><a href="#footnote200a">{200a}</a> +says Randolph; and indeed nobody knows what possibly might have come, +had Knox been sweetly reasonable. But he told his friends that, +if he was not mistaken, she had “a proud mind, a crafty wit, and +an indurate heart against God and His truth.” She showed +none of these qualities in the conversation as described by himself; +but her part in it is mainly that of a listener who returns not railing +with railing.</p> +<p>Knox was going about to destroy the scheme of <i>les politiques</i>, +Randolph, Lethington, and the Lord James. They desired peace and +amity with England, and the two Scots, at least, hoped to secure these +as the Cardinal Guise did, by Mary’s renouncing all present claim +to the English throne, in return for recognition as heir, if Elizabeth +died without issue. Elizabeth, as we know her, would never have +granted these terms, but Mary’s ministers, Lethington then in +England, Lord James at home, tried to hope. <a name="citation200b"></a><a href="#footnote200b">{200b}</a> +Lord James had heard Mary’s outburst to Knox about defending her +own insulted Church, but he was not nervously afraid that she would +take to dipping her hands in the blood of the saints. Neither +he nor Lethington could revert to the old faith; they had pecuniary +reasons, as well as convictions, which made that impossible.</p> +<p>Lethington, returned to Edinburgh (October 25), spoke his mind to +Cecil. “The Queen behaves herself . . . as reasonably as +we can require: if anything be amiss the fault is rather in ourselves. +You know the vehemency of Mr. Knox’s spirit which cannot be bridled, +and yet doth utter sometimes such sentences as cannot easily be digested +by a weak stomach. I would wish he should deal with her more gently, +being a young princess unpersuaded. . . . Surely in her comporting +with him she declares a wisdom far exceeding her age.” <a name="citation201a"></a><a href="#footnote201a">{201a}</a> +Vituperation is not argument, and gentleness is not unchristian. +St. Paul did not revile the gods of Felix and Festus.</p> +<p>But, prior to these utterances of October, the brethren had been +baiting Mary. On her public entry (which Knox misdates by a month) +her idolatry was rebuked by a pageant of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. +Huntly managed to stop a burning in effigy of a priest at the Mass. +They never could cease from insulting the Queen in the tenderest point. +The magistrates next coupled “mess-mongers” with notorious +drunkards and adulterers, “and such filthy persons,” in +a proclamation, so the Provost and Bailies were “warded” +(Knox says) in the Tolbooth. Knox blamed Lethington and Lord James, +in a letter to Cecil; <a name="citation201b"></a><a href="#footnote201b">{201b}</a> +in his “History” he says, “God be merciful to some +of our own.” <a name="citation201c"></a><a href="#footnote201c">{201c}</a></p> +<p>The Queen herself, as a Papist, was clearly insulted in the proclamation. +Moray and Lethington, the latter touched by her “readiness to +hear,” and her gentleness in the face of Protestant brutalities; +the former, perhaps, lured by the hope of obtaining, as the price of +his alliance, the earldom of Moray, were by the end of October still +attempting to secure amity between her and Elizabeth, and to hope for +the best, rather than drive the Queen wild by eternal taunts and menaces. +The preachers denounced her rites at Hallowmass (All Saints), and a +servant of her brother, Lord Robert, beat a priest; but men actually +doubted whether subjects might interfere between the Queen and her religion. +There was a discussion on this point between the preachers and the nobles, +and the Church in Geneva (Calvin) was to be consulted. Knox offered +to write, but Lethington said that he would write, as much stood on +the “information”; that is, on the manner of stating the +question. Lethington did not know, and Knox does not tell us in +his “History” that he had himself, a week earlier, put the +matter before Calvin in his own way. Even Lord James, he says +to Calvin, though the Abdiel of godliness, “is afraid to overthrow +that idol by violence”—<i>idolum illud missalicum</i>. <a name="citation202"></a><a href="#footnote202">{202}</a></p> +<p>Knox’s letter to Calvin represents the Queen as alleging that +he has already answered the question, declaring that Knox’s party +has no right to interfere with the Royal mass. This rumour Knox +disbelieves. He adds that Arran would have written, but was absent.</p> +<p>Apparently Arran did write to Calvin, anonymously, and dating from +London, November 18, 1561. The letter, really from Scotland, is +in French. The writer acknowledges the receipt, about August 20, +of an encouraging epistle from Calvin. He repeats Knox’s +statements, in the main, and presses for a speedy reply. He says +that he goes seldom to Court, both on account of “that idol,” +and because “sobriety and virtue” have been exiled. <a name="citation203a"></a><a href="#footnote203a">{203a}</a> +As Arran himself “is known to have had company of a good handsome +wench, a merchant’s daughter,” which led to a riot with +Bothwell, described by Randolph (December 27, 1561), his own “virtue +and sobriety” are not conspicuous. <a name="citation203b"></a><a href="#footnote203b">{203b}</a> +He was in Edinburgh on November 15-19, and the London date of his anonymous +letter is a blind. <a name="citation203c"></a><a href="#footnote203c">{203c}</a></p> +<p>It does not appear that Calvin replied to Knox, and to the anonymous +correspondent, in whom I venture to detect Arran; or, if he answered, +his letter was probably unfavourable to Knox, as we shall argue when +the subject later presents itself.</p> +<p>Finally—“the votes of the Lords prevailed against the +ministers”; the Queen was allowed her Mass, but Lethington, a +minister of the Queen, did not consult a foreigner as to the rights +of her subjects against her creed.</p> +<p>The lenity of Lord James was of sudden growth. At Stirling +he and Argyll had gallantly caused the priests to leave the choir “with +broken heads and bloody ears,” the Queen weeping. So Randolph +reported to Cecil (September 24).</p> +<p>Why her brother, foremost to insult Mary and her faith, unless Randolph +errs, in September, took her part in a few weeks, we do not know. +At Perth, Mary was again offended, and suffered in health by reason +of the pageants; “they did too plainly condemn the errors of the +world. . . . I hear she is troubled with such sudden passions +after any great unkindness or grief of mind,” says Randolph. +She was seldom free from such godly chastisements. At Perth, however, +some one gave her a cross of five diamonds with pendant pearls.</p> +<p>Meanwhile the statesmen did not obey the Ministers as men ought to +obey God: a claim not easily granted by carnal politicians.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER XV: KNOX AND QUEEN MARY (continued), 1561-1564</h2> +<p>Had Mary been a mere high-tempered and high-spirited girl, easily +harmed in health by insults to herself and her creed, she might now +have turned for support to Huntly, Cassilis, Montrose, and the other +Earls who were Catholic or “unpersuaded.” Her great-grandson, +Charles II., when as young as she now was, did make the “Start”—the +schoolboy attempt to run away from the Presbyterians to the loyalists +of the North. But Mary had more self-control.</p> +<p>The artful Randolph found himself as hardly put to it now, in diplomacy, +as the Cardinal’s murderers had done, in war, when they met the +scientific soldier, Strozzi. “The trade is now clean cut +off from me,” wrote Randolph (October 27); “I have to traffic +now with other merchants than before. They know the value of their +wares, and in all places how the market goeth. . . . Whatsoever +policy is in all the chief and best practised heads of France; whatsoever +craft, falsehood, or deceit is in all the subtle brains of Scotland,” +said the unscrupulous agent, “is either fresh in this woman’s +memory, or she can bring it out with a wet finger.” <a name="citation205"></a><a href="#footnote205">{205}</a></p> +<p>Mary, in fact, was in the hands of Lethington (a pensioner of Elizabeth) +and of Lord James: “subtle brains” enough. <i>She</i> +was the “merchandise,” and Lethington and Lord James wished +to make Elizabeth acknowledge the Scottish Queen as her successor, the +alternative being to seek her price as a wife for an European prince. +An “union of hearts” with England might conceivably mean +Mary’s acceptance of the Anglican faith. It is not a kind +thing to say about Mary, but I suspect that, if assured of the English +succession, she might have gone over to the Prayer Book. In the +first months of her English captivity (July 1568) Mary again dallied +with the idea of conversion, for the sake of freedom. She told +the Spanish Ambassador that “she would sooner be murdered,” +but if she could have struck her bargain with Elizabeth, I doubt that +she would have chosen the Prayer Book rather than the dagger or the +bowl. <a name="citation206a"></a><a href="#footnote206a">{206a}</a> +Her conversion would have been bitterness as of wormwood to Knox. +In his eyes Anglicanism was “a bastard religion,” “a +mingle-mangle now commanded in your kirks.” “Peculiar +services appointed for Saints’ days, diverse Collects as they +falsely call them in remembrance of this or that Saint . . . are in +my conscience no small portion of papistical superstition.” <a name="citation206b"></a><a href="#footnote206b">{206b}</a> +“Crossing in Baptism is a diabolical invention; kneeling at the +Lord’s table, mummelling,” (uttering the responses, apparently), +“or singing of the Litany.” All these practices are +“diabolical inventions,” in Knox’s candid opinion, +“with Mr. Parson’s pattering of his constrained prayers, +and with the mass-munging of Mr. Vicar, and of his wicked companions +. . .” (A blank in the MS.) “Your Ministers, +before for the most part, were none of Christ’s ministers, but +mass-mumming priests.” He appears to speak of the Anglican +Church as it was under Edward VI. (To Mrs. Locke, Dieppe, April +6, 1559.) <a name="citation207a"></a><a href="#footnote207a">{207a}</a> +As Elizabeth brought in “cross and candle,” her Church must +have been odious to our Reformer. Calvin had regarded the “silly +things” in our Prayer Book as “endurable,” not so +Knox. Before he came back to Scotland, the Reformers were content +with the English Prayer Book. By rejecting it, Knox and his allies +disunited Scotland and England.</p> +<p>Knox’s friend Arran was threatening to stir up the Congregation +for the purpose of securing him in the revenues of three abbeys, including +St. Andrews, of which Lord James was Prior. The extremists raised +the question, “whether the Queen, being an idolater, may be obeyed +in all civil and political actions.” <a name="citation207b"></a><a href="#footnote207b">{207b}</a></p> +<p>Knox later made Chatelherault promise this obedience; what his views +were in November 1561 we know not. Lord James was already distrusted +by his old godly friends; it was thought he would receive what he had +long desired, the Earldom of Moray (November 11, 1561), and the precise +professors meditated a fresh revolution. “It must yet come +to a new day,” they said. <a name="citation207c"></a><a href="#footnote207c">{207c}</a> +Those about Arran were discontented, and nobody was more in his confidence +than Knox, but at this time Arran was absent from Edinburgh; was at +St. Andrews.</p> +<p>Meanwhile, at Court, “the ladies are merry, dancing, lusty, +and fair,” wrote Randolph, who flirted with Mary Beaton (November +18); and long afterwards, in 1578, when she was Lady Boyne, spoke of +her as “a very dear friend.” Knox complains that the +girls danced when they “got the house alone”; not a public +offence! He had his intelligencers in the palace.</p> +<p>There was, on November 16, a panic in the unguarded palace: <a name="citation208a"></a><a href="#footnote208a">{208a}</a> +“the poor damsels were left alone,” while men hid in fear +of nobody knew what, except a rumour that Arran was coming, with his +congregational friends, “to take away the Queen.” +The story was perhaps a fable, but Arran had been uttering threats. +Mary, however, expected to be secured by an alliance with Elizabeth. +“The accord between the two Queens will quite overthrow them” +(the Bishops), “and they say plainly that she cannot return a +true Christian woman,” writes Randolph. <a name="citation208b"></a><a href="#footnote208b">{208b}</a></p> +<p>Lethington and Randolph both suspected that if Mary abandoned idolatry, +it would be after conference with Elizabeth, and rather as being converted +by that fair theologian than as compelled by her subjects. Unhappily +Elizabeth never would meet Mary, who, for all that we know, might at +this hour have adopted the Anglican <i>via media</i>, despite her protests +to Knox and to the Pope of her fidelity to Rome. Like Henri IV., +she may at this time have been capable of preferring a crown—that +of England—to a dogma. Her Mass, Randolph wrote, “is +rather for despite than devotion, for those that use it care not a straw +for it, and jest sometimes against it.” <a name="citation208c"></a><a href="#footnote208c">{208c}</a></p> +<p>Randolph, at this juncture, reminded Mary that advisers of the Catholic +party had prevented James V. from meeting Henry VIII. She answered, +“Something is reserved for us that was not then,” possibly +hinting at her conversion. Lord James shared the hopes of Lethington +and Randolph. “The Papists storm, thinking the meeting of +the queens will overthrow Mass and all.”</p> +<p>The Ministers of Mary, <i>les politiques</i>, indulged in dreams +equally distasteful to the Catholics and to the more precise of the +godly; dreams that came through the Ivory Gate; with pictures of the +island united, and free from the despotism of Giant Pope and Giant Presbyter. +<a name="citation209"></a><a href="#footnote209">{209}</a> A schism +between the brethren and their old leaders and advisers, Lord James +and Lethington, was the result. At the General Assembly of December +1561, the split was manifest. The parties exchanged recriminations, +and there was even question of the legality of such conventions as the +General Assembly. Lethington asked whether the Queen “allowed” +the gathering. Knox (apparently) replied, “Take from us +the freedom of Assemblies, and take from us the Evangel . . .” +He defended them as necessary for order among the preachers; but the +objection, of course, was to their political interferences. The +question was to be settled for Cromwell in his usual way, with a handful +of hussars. It was now determined that the Queen might send Commissioners +to the Assembly to represent her interests.</p> +<p>The plea of the godly that Mary should ratify the Book of Discipline +was countered by the scoffs of Lethington. He and his brothers +ever tormented Knox by <i>persiflage</i>. Still the preachers +must be supported, and to that end, by a singular compromise, the Crown +assumed dominion over the property of the old Church, a proceeding which +Mary, if a good Catholic, could not have sanctioned. The higher +clergy retained two-thirds of their benefices, and the other third was +to be divided between the preachers and the Queen. Vested rights, +those of the prelates, and the interests of the nobles to whom, in the +troubles, they had feued parts of their property, were thus secured; +while the preachers were put off with a humble portion. Among +the abbeys, that of St. Andrews, held by the good Lord James, was one +of the richest. He appears to have retained all the wealth, for, +as Bishop Keith says, “the grand gulf that swallowed up the whole +extent of the thirds were pensions given gratis by the Queen to those +about the Court . . . of which last the Earl of Moray was always sure +to obtain the thirds of his priories of St. Andrews and Pittenweem.” +In all, the whole reformed clergy received annually (but not in 1565-66) +£24,231, 17s. 7d. Scots, while Knox and four superintendents got +a few chalders of wheat and “bear.” In 1568, when +Mary had fallen, a gift of £333, 6s. 8d. was made to Knox from +the fund, about a seventh of the money revenue of the Abbey of St. Andrews. +<a name="citation210"></a><a href="#footnote210">{210}</a> Nobody +can accuse Knox of enriching himself by the Revolution. “In +the stool of Edinburgh,” he declared that two parts were being +given to the devil, “and the third must be divided between God +and the devil,” between the preachers and the Queen, and the Earl +of Moray, among others. The eminently godly Laird of Pitarro had +the office of paying the preachers, in which he was so niggardly that +the proverb ran, “The good Laird of Pitarro was an earnest professor +of Christ, but the great devil receive the Comptroller.”</p> +<p>It was argued that “many Lords have not so much to spend” +as the preachers; and this was not denied (if the preachers were paid), +but it was said the Lords had other industries whereby they might eke +out their revenues. Many preachers, then or later, were driven +also to other industries, such as keeping public-houses. <a name="citation211a"></a><a href="#footnote211a">{211a}</a> +Knox, at this period, gracefully writes of Mary, “we call her +not a hoore.” When she scattered his party after Riccio’s +murder, he went the full length of the expression, in his “History.”</p> +<p>“Simplicity,” says Thucydides, “is no small part +of a noble nature,” and Knox was now to show simplicity in conduct, +and in his narrative of a very curious adventure.</p> +<p>The Hamiltons had taken little but loss by joining the Congregation. +Arran could not recover his claims, on whatever they were founded, over +the wealth of St. Andrews and Dunfermline. Chatelherault feared +that Mary would deprive him of his place of refuge, the castle of Dumbarton, +to which he confessed that his right was “none,” beyond +a verbal promise of a nineteen years “farm” (when given +we know not), from Mary of Guise. <a name="citation211b"></a><a href="#footnote211b">{211b}</a> +Randolph began to believe that Arran really had contemplated a raid +on Mary at Holyrood, where she had no guards. <a name="citation211c"></a><a href="#footnote211c">{211c}</a> +“Why,” asked Arran, “was it not as easy to take her +out of the Abbey, as once it had been intended to do with her mother?”</p> +<p>Here were elements of trouble, and Knox adds that, according to the +servants of Chatelherault, Huntly and the Hamiltons devised to slay +Lord James, who in January received the Earldom of Moray, but bore the +title of Earl of Mar, which earldom he held for a brief space. <a name="citation212a"></a><a href="#footnote212a">{212a}</a> +Huntly had claims on Moray, and hence hated Lord James. Arran +was openly sending messengers to France; “his councils are too +patent.” Randolph at the same time found Knox and the preachers +“as wilfull as learned, which heartily I lament” (January +30). The rumour that Mary had been persuaded by the Cardinal to +turn Anglican “makes them run almost wild” (February 12). +<a name="citation212b"></a><a href="#footnote212b">{212b}</a> +If the Queen were an Anglican the new Kirk would be in an ill way. +Arran still sent retainers to France, and was reported to speak ill +of Mary (February 21), but the Duke tried to win Randolph to a marriage +between Arran and the Queen. The intended bridegroom lay abed +for a week, “tormented by imaginations,” but was contented, +not to be reconciled with Bothwell, but to pass his misdeeds in “oblivion,” +<a name="citation212c"></a><a href="#footnote212c">{212c}</a> as he +declared to the Privy Council (February 20).</p> +<p>In these threatening circumstances Bothwell made Knox’s friend, +Barron, a rich burgess who “financed” the Earl, introduce +him to our Reformer. The Earl explained that his feud with Arran +was very expensive; he had for his safety to keep “a number of +wicked and unprofitable men about him”—his “Lambs,” +the Ormistouns, <a name="citation213"></a><a href="#footnote213">{213}</a> +young Hay of Tala, probably, and the rest. He therefore repented, +and wished to be reconciled to Arran. Knox, pleased at being a +reconciler where nobler men had failed, and moved, after long refusal, +by the entreaties of the godly, as he tells Mrs. Locke, advised Bothwell +first to be reconciled to God. So Bothwell presently was, going +to sermon for that very purpose. Knox promised to approach Arran, +and Bothwell, with his usual impudence, chose that moment to seize an +old pupil of Knox’s, the young Laird of Ormiston (Cockburn). +The young laird, to be sure, had fired a pistol at his enemy. +However, Bothwell repented of this lapse, and at the Hamilton’s +great house of Kirk-of-Field, Knox made him and Arran friends. +Next day they went to sermon together; on the following day they visited +Chatelherault at Kinneil, some twelve miles from Edinburgh. But +on the ensuing day (March 26) came the wild end of the reconciliation.</p> +<p>Knox had delivered his daily sermon, and was engaged with his vast +correspondence, when Arran was announced, with an advocate and the town +clerk. Arran began a conference with tears, said that he was betrayed, +and told his tale. Bothwell had informed him that he would seize +the Queen, put her in Dumbarton, kill her misguiders, the “Earl +of Moray” (Mar, Lord James), Lethington, and others, “and +so shall he and I rule all.”</p> +<p>But Arran believed Bothwell really intended to accuse him of treason, +or knowledge of treason, so he meant to write to Mary and Mar. +Knox asked whether he had assented to the plot, and advised him to be +silent. Probably he saw that Arran was distraught, and did not +credit his story. But Arran said that Bothwell (as he had once +done before, in 1559) would challenge him to a judicial combat—such +challenges were still common, but never led to a fight. He then +walked off with his legal advisers, and wrote to Mary at Falkland. <a name="citation214a"></a><a href="#footnote214a">{214a}</a> +If Arran went mad, he went mad “with advice of counsel.” +There had come the chance of “a new day,” which the extremists +desired, but its dawn was inauspicious.</p> +<p>Arran rode to his father’s house of Kinneil, where, either +because he was insane, or because there really was a Bothwell-Hamilton +plot, he was locked up in a room high above the ground. He let +himself down from the window, reached Halyards (a place of Kirkcaldy +of Grange), and was thence taken by Mar (whom Knox appears to have warned) +to the Queen at Falkland. Bothwell and Gawain Hamilton were also +put in ward there. Randolph gives (March 31) a similar account, +but believed that there really was a plot, which Arran denied even before +he arrived at Falkland. Bothwell came to purge himself, but “was +found guilty on his own confession on some points.” <a name="citation214b"></a><a href="#footnote214b">{214b}</a></p> +<p>The Queen now went to St. Andrews, where the suspects were placed +in the Castle. Arran wavered, accusing Mar’s mother of witchcraft. +Mary was “not a little offended with Bothwell to whom she has +been so good.” Randolph (April 7) continued to think that +Arran should be decapitated. He and Bothwell were kept in ward, +and his father, the Duke, was advised to give up Dumbarton to the Crown, +which he did. <a name="citation215a"></a><a href="#footnote215a">{215a}</a> +This was about April 23. Knox makes a grievance of the surrender; +the Castle, he says, was by treaty to be in the Duke’s hands till +the Queen had lawful issue. <a name="citation215b"></a><a href="#footnote215b">{215b}</a> +Chatelherault himself, as we said, told Randolph that he had no right +in the place, beyond a verbal and undated promise of the late Regent.</p> +<p>Knox now again illustrates his own historical methods. Mary, +riding between Falkland and Lochleven, fell, was hurt, and when Randolph +wrote from Edinburgh on May 11, was not expected there for two or three +days. But Knox reports that, on her return from Fife to Edinburgh, +she danced excessively till after midnight, because she had received +letters “that persecution was begun again in France,” by +the Guises. <a name="citation215c"></a><a href="#footnote215c">{215c}</a> +Now as, according to Knox elsewhere, “Satan stirreth his terrible +tail,” so did one of Mary’s uncles, the Duc de Guise, “stir +his tail” against one of the towns appointed to pay Mary’s +jointure, namely Vassy, in Champagne. Here, on March 1, 1562, +a massacre of Huguenots, by the Guise’s retainers, began the war +of religion afresh. <a name="citation215d"></a><a href="#footnote215d">{215d}</a></p> +<p>Now, in the first place, this could not be joyful news to set Mary +dancing; as it was apt to prevent what she had most at heart, her personal +interview with Elizabeth. She understood this perfectly well, +and, in conversation with Randolph, after her return to Edinburgh, lamented +the deeds of her uncles, as calculated “to bring them in hate +and disdain of many princes,” and also to chill Elizabeth’s +amity for herself—on which her whole policy now depended (May +29). <a name="citation216a"></a><a href="#footnote216a">{216a}</a> +She wept when Randolph said that, in the state of France, Elizabeth +was not likely to move far from London for their interview. In +this mood how could Mary give a dance to celebrate an event which threatened +ruin to her hopes?</p> +<p>Moreover, if Knox, when he speaks of “persecution begun again,” +refers to the slaughter of Huguenots by Guise’s retinue, at Vassy, +that untoward event occurred on March 1, and Mary cannot have been celebrating +it by a ball at Holyrood as late as May 14, at earliest. <a name="citation216b"></a><a href="#footnote216b">{216b}</a> +Knox, however, preached against her dancing, if she danced “for +pleasure at the displeasure of God’s people”; so he states +the case. Her reward, in that case, would he “drink in hell.” +In his “History” he declares that Mary did dance for the +evil reason attributed to her, a reason which must have been mere matter +of inference on his part, and that inference wrong, judging by dates, +if the reference is to the affair of Vassy. In April both French +parties were committing brutalities, but these were all contrary to +Mary’s policy and hopes.</p> +<p>If Knox heard a rumour against any one, his business, according to +the “Book of Discipline,” was not to go and preach against +that person, even by way of insinuation. <a name="citation216c"></a><a href="#footnote216c">{216c}</a> +Mary’s offence, if any existed, was not “public,” +and was based on mere suspicion, or on tattle. Dr. M‘Crie, +indeed, says that on hearing of the affair of Vassy, the Queen “immediately +after gave a splendid ball to her foreign servants.” Ten +weeks after the Vassy affair is not “immediately”; and Knox +mentions neither foreign servants nor Vassy. <a name="citation216d"></a><a href="#footnote216d">{216d}</a></p> +<p>The Queen sent for Knox, and made “a long harangue,” +of which he does not report one word. He gives his own oration. +Mary then said that she could not expect him to like her uncles, as +they differed in religion. But if he heard anything of herself +that he disapproved of, “come to myself and tell me, and I shall +hear you.” He answered that he was not bound to come “to +every man in particular,” but she <i>could</i> come to his sermons! +If she would name a day and hour, he would give her a doctrinal lecture. +At this very moment he “was absent from his book”; his studies +were interrupted.</p> +<p>“You will not always be at your book,” she said, and +turned her back. To some papists in the antechamber he remarked, +“Why should the pleasing face of a gentlewoman affray me? +I have looked in the faces of many angry men, and yet have not been +afraid above measure.”</p> +<p>He was later to flee before that pleasing face.</p> +<p>Mary can hardly be said to have had the worse, as far as manners +and logic went, of this encounter, at which Morton, Mar, and Lethington +were present, and seem to have been silent. <a name="citation217a"></a><a href="#footnote217a">{217a}</a></p> +<p>Meanwhile, Randolph dates this affair, the dancing, the sermon, the +interview, not in May, but about December 13-15, 1562, <a name="citation217b"></a><a href="#footnote217b">{217b}</a> +and connects the dancing with no event in France, <a name="citation217c"></a><a href="#footnote217c">{217c}</a> +nor can I find any such event in late November which might make Mary +glad at heart. Knox, Randolph writes, mistrusts all that the Queen +does or says, “as if he were of God’s Privy Council, that +knew how he had determined of her in the beginning, or that he knew +the secrets of her heart so well that she neither did nor could have +one good thought of God or of his true religion.” His doings +could not increase her respect for his religion.</p> +<p>The affair of Arran had been a sensible sorrow to Knox. “God +hath further humbled me since that day which men call Good Friday,” +he wrote to Mrs. Locke (May 6), “than ever I have been in my life. +. . .” He had rejoiced in his task of peace-making, in which +the Privy Council had practically failed, and had shown great <i>naïveté</i> +in trusting Bothwell. The best he could say to Mrs. Locke was +that he felt no certainty about the fact that Bothwell had tempted Arran +to conspire. <a name="citation218"></a><a href="#footnote218">{218}</a></p> +<p>The probability is that the reckless and impoverished Bothwell did +intend to bring in the desirable “new day,” and to make +the Hamiltons his tools. Meanwhile he was kept out of mischief +and behind stone walls for a season. Knox had another source of +annoyance which was put down with a high hand.</p> +<p>The dominie of the school at Linlithgow, Ninian Winzet by name, had +lost his place for being an idolater. In February he had brought +to the notice of our Reformer and of the Queen the question, “Is +John Knox a lawful minister?” If he was called by God, where +were his miracles? If by men, by what manner of men? On +March 3, Winzet asked Knox for “your answer in writing.” +He kept launching letters at Knox in March; on March 24 he addressed +the general public; and, on March 31, issued an appeal to the magistrates, +who appear to have been molesting people who kept Easter. The +practice was forbidden in a proclamation by the Queen on May 31. <a name="citation219a"></a><a href="#footnote219a">{219a}</a> +“The pain is death,” writes Randolph. <a name="citation219b"></a><a href="#footnote219b">{219b}</a> +If Mary was ready to die for her faith, as she informed a nuncio who +now secretly visited her, she seems to have been equally resolved that +her subjects should not live in it.</p> +<p>Receiving no satisfactory <i>written</i> answer from Knox, Winzet +began to print his tract, and then he got his reply from “soldiers +and the magistrates,” for the book was seized, and he himself +narrowly escaped to the Continent. <a name="citation219c"></a><a href="#footnote219c">{219c}</a> +Knox was not to be brought to a written reply, save so far as he likened +his calling to that of Amos and John the Baptist. In September +he referred to his “Answer to Winzet’s Questions” +as forthcoming, but it never appeared. <a name="citation219d"></a><a href="#footnote219d">{219d}</a> +Winzet was Mary’s chaplain in her Sheffield prison in 1570-72; +she had him made Abbot of Ratisbon, and he is said, by Lethington’s +son, to have helped Lesley in writing his “History.”</p> +<p>On June 29 the General Assembly, through Knox probably, drew up the +address to the Queen, threatening her and the country with the wrath +of God on her Mass, which, she is assured, is peculiarly distasteful +to the Deity. The brethren are deeply disappointed that she does +not attend their sermons, and ventures to prefer “your ain preconceived +vain opinion.” They insist that adulterers must be punished +with death, and they return to their demands for the poor and the preachers. +A new rising is threatened if wicked men trouble the ministers and disobey +the Superintendents.</p> +<p>Lethington and Knox had one of their usual disputes over this manifesto; +the Secretary drew up another. “Here be many fair words,” +said the Queen on reading it; “I cannot tell what the hearts are.” +<a name="citation220a"></a><a href="#footnote220a">{220a}</a> +She later found out the nature of Lethington’s heart, a pretty +black one. The excesses of the Guises in France were now the excuse +or cause of the postponement of Elizabeth’s meeting with Mary. +The Queen therefore now undertook a northern progress, which had been +arranged for in January, about the time when Lord James was made Earl +of Moray. <a name="citation220b"></a><a href="#footnote220b">{220b}</a></p> +<p>He could not “brook” the Earldom of Moray before the +Earl of Huntly was put down, Huntly being a kind of petty king in the +east and north. There is every reason to suppose that Mary understood +and utterly distrusted Huntly, who, though the chief Catholic in the +country, had been a traitor whenever occasion served for many a year. +One of his sons, John, in July, wounded an Ogilvy in Edinburgh in a +quarrel over property. This affair was so managed as to drive +Huntly into open rebellion, neither Mary nor her brother being sorry +to take the opportunity.</p> +<p>The business of the ruin of Huntly has seemed more of a mystery to +historians than it was, though an attack by a Catholic princess on her +most powerful Catholic subject does need explanation. But Randolph +was with Mary during the whole expedition, and his despatches are better +evidence than the fables of Buchanan and the surmises of Knox and Mr. +Froude. Huntly had been out of favour ever since Lord James obtained +the coveted Earldom of Moray in January, and he was thought to be opposed +to Mary’s visit to Elizabeth. Since January, the Queen had +been bent on a northern progress. Probably the Archbishop of St. +Andrews, as reported by Knox, rightly guessed the motives. At +table he said, “The Queen has gone into the north, belike to seek +disobedience; she may perhaps find the thing that she seeks.” +<a name="citation221a"></a><a href="#footnote221a">{221a}</a> +She wanted a quarrel with Huntly, and a quarrel she found. Her +northward expedition, says Randolph, “is rather devised by herself +than greatly approved by her Council.” She would not visit +Huntly at Strathbogie, contrary to the advice of her Council; his son, +who wounded Ogilvy, had broken prison, and refused to enter himself +at Stirling Castle. Huntly then supported his sons in rebellion, +while Bothwell broke prison and fortified himself in Hermitage Castle. +Lord James’s Earldom of Moray was now publicly announced (September +18), and Huntly was accused of a desire to murder him and Lethington, +while his son John was to seize the Queen. <a name="citation221b"></a><a href="#footnote221b">{221b}</a> +Mary was “utterly determined to bring him to utter confusion.” +Huntly was put to the horn on October 18; his sons took up arms. +Huntly, old and corpulent, died during a defeat at Corrichie without +stroke of sword; his mischievous son John was taken and executed, Mary +being pleased with her success, and declaring that Huntly thought “to +have married her where he would,” <a name="citation221c"></a><a href="#footnote221c">{221c}</a> +and to have slain her brother. John Gordon confessed to the murder +plot. <a name="citation221d"></a><a href="#footnote221d">{221d}</a> +His eldest brother, Lord Gordon, who had tried to enlist Bothwell and +the Hamiltons, lay long in prison (his sister married Bothwell just +before Riccio’s murder). The Queen had punished the disobedience +which she “went to seek,” and Moray was safe in his rich +earldom, while a heavy blow was dealt at the Catholicism which Huntly +had protected. <a name="citation222a"></a><a href="#footnote222a">{222a}</a> +Cardinal Guise reports her success to de Rennes, in Austria, with triumph, +and refers to an autograph letter of hers, of which Lethington’s +draft has lately perished by fire, unread by historians. As the +Cardinal reports that she says she is trying to win her subjects back +to the Church, “in which she wishes to live and die” (January +30, 1562-63), Lethington cannot be the author of that part of her lost +letter. <a name="citation222b"></a><a href="#footnote222b">{222b}</a></p> +<p>Knox meanwhile, much puzzled by the news from the north, was in the +western counties. He induced the lairds of Ayrshire to sign a +Protestant band, and he had a controversy with the Abbot of Crosraguel. +In misapplication of texts the abbot was even more eccentric than Knox, +though he only followed St. Jerome. In his “History” +Knox “cannot certainly say whether there was any secret paction +and confederacy between the Queen herself and Huntly.” <a name="citation222c"></a><a href="#footnote222c">{222c}</a> +Knox decides that though Mary executed John Gordon and other rebels, +yet “it was the destruction of others that she sought,” +namely, of her brother, whom she hated “for his godliness and +upright plainness.” <a name="citation222d"></a><a href="#footnote222d">{222d}</a> +His upright simplicity had won him an earldom and the destruction of +his rival! He and Lethington may have exaggerated Huntly’s +iniquities in council with Mary, but the rumours reported against her +by Knox could only be inspired by the credulity of extreme ill-will. +He flattered himself that he kept the Hamiltons quiet, and, at a supper +with Randolph in November, made Chatelherault promise to be a good subject +in civil matters, and a good Protestant in religion.</p> +<p>Knox says that preaching was done with even unusual vehemence in +winter, when his sermon against the Queen’s dancing for joy over +some unknown Protestant misfortune was actually delivered, and the good +seed fell on ground not wholly barren. The Queen’s French +and Scots musicians would not play or sing at the Queen’s Christmas-day +Mass, whether pricked in heart by conscience, or afraid for their lives. +“Her poor soul is so troubled for the preservation of her silly +Mass that she knoweth not where to turn for defence of it,” says +Randolph. <a name="citation223a"></a><a href="#footnote223a">{223a}</a> +These persecutions may have gone far to embitter the character of the +victim.</p> +<p>Mr. Froude is certainly not an advocate of Mary Stuart, rather he +is conspicuously the reverse. But he remarks that when she determined +to marry Darnley, “divide Scotland,” and trust to her Catholic +party, she did so because she was “weary of the mask which she +had so long worn, and unable to endure any longer these wild insults +to her creed and herself.” <a name="citation223b"></a><a href="#footnote223b">{223b}</a> +She had, in fact, given the policy of submission to “wild insults” +rather more than a fair chance; she had, for a spirited girl, been almost +incredibly long-suffering, when “barbarously baited,” as +Charles I. described his own treatment by the preachers and the Covenanters.</p> +<h2>CHAPTER XVI: KNOX AND QUEEN MARY (continued): 1563-1564</h2> +<p>The new year, 1563, found Knox purging the Kirk from that fallen +brother, Paul Methuen. This preacher had borne the burden and +heat of the day in 1557-58, erecting, as we have seen, the first “reformed” +Kirk, that of the Holy Virgin, in Dundee, and suffering some inconvenience, +if no great danger, from the clergy of the religion whose sacred things +he overthrew. He does not appear to have been one of the more +furious of the new apostles. Contrasted with John Brabner, “a +vehement man inculcating the law and pain thereof,” Paul is described +as “a milder man, preaching the evangel of grace and remission +of sins in the blood of Christ.” <a name="citation224a"></a><a href="#footnote224a">{224a}</a></p> +<p>Paul was at this time minister of Jedburgh. He had “an +ancient matron” to wife, recommended, perhaps, by her property, +and she left him for two months with a servant maid. Paul fell, +but behaved not ill to the mother of his child, sending her “money +and clothes at various times.” Knox tried the case at Jedburgh; +Paul was excommunicated, and fled the realm, sinking so low, it seems, +as to take orders in the Church of England. Later he returned—probably +he was now penniless—“and prostrated himself before the +whole brethren with weeping and howling.” He was put to +such shameful and continued acts of public penance up and down the country +that any spirit which he had left awoke in him, and the Kirk knew him +no more. Thus “the world might see what difference there +is between darkness and light.” <a name="citation225a"></a><a href="#footnote225a">{225a}</a></p> +<p>Knox presently had to record a scandal in a higher place, the capture +and execution of the French minor poet, Chastelard, who, armed with +sword and dagger, hid under the Queen’s bed in Holyrood; and invaded +her room with great insolence at Burntisland as she was on her way to +St. Andrews. There he was tried, condemned, and executed in the +market-place. It seems fairly certain that Chastelard, who had +joined the Queen with despatches during the expedition against Huntly, +was a Huguenot. The Catholic version, and Lethington’s version, +of his adventure was that some intriguing Huguenot lady had set him +on to sully Queen Mary’s character; other tales ran that he was +to assassinate her, as part of a great Protestant conspiracy. <a name="citation225b"></a><a href="#footnote225b">{225b}</a></p> +<p>Randolph, who knew as much as any one, thought the Queen far too +familiar with the poet, but did not deem that her virtue was in fault. +<a name="citation225c"></a><a href="#footnote225c">{225c}</a> +Knox dilates on Mary’s familiarities, kisses given in a vulgar +dance, dear to the French society of the period, and concludes that +the fatuous poet “lacked his head, that his tongue should not +utter the secrets of our Queen.” <a name="citation225d"></a><a href="#footnote225d">{225d}</a></p> +<p>There had been a bad harvest, and a dearth, because the Queen’s +luxury “provoked God” (who is represented as very irritable) +“to strike the staff of bread,” and to “give His malediction +upon the fruits of the earth. But oh, alas, who looked, or yet +looks, to the very cause of all our calamities!” <a name="citation226a"></a><a href="#footnote226a">{226a}</a></p> +<p>Some savage peoples are said to sacrifice their kings when the weather +is unpropitious. Knox’s theology was of the same kind. +The preachers, says Randolph (February 28), “pray daily . . . +that God will either turn the Queen’s heart or grant her short +life. Of what charity or spirit this proceeds, I leave to be discussed +by great divines.” <a name="citation226b"></a><a href="#footnote226b">{226b}</a> +The prayers sound like encouragement to Jehus.</p> +<p>At this date Ruthven was placed, “by Lethington’s means +only,” on the Privy Council. Moray especially hated Ruthven +“for his sorcery”; the superstitious Moray affected the +Queen with this ill opinion of one of the elect—in the affair +of Riccio’s murder so useful to the cause of Knox. “There +is not an unworthier in Scotland” than Ruthven, writes Randolph. +<a name="citation226c"></a><a href="#footnote226c">{226c}</a> +Meanwhile Lethington was in England to negotiate for peace in France; +if he could, to keep an eye on Mary’s chances for the succession, +and (says Knox) to obtain leave for Lennox, the chief of the Stuarts +and the deadly foe of the Hamiltons, to visit Scotland, whence, in the +time of Henry VIII., he had been driven as a traitor. But Lethington +was at that time confuting Lennox’s argument that the Hamilton +chief, Chatelherault, was illegitimate. Knox is not positive, +he only reports rumours. <a name="citation226d"></a><a href="#footnote226d">{226d}</a> +Lethington’s serious business was to negotiate a marriage for +the Queen.</p> +<p>Despite the recent threats of death against priests who celebrated +Mass, the Archbishop Hamilton and Knox’s opponent, the Abbot of +Crossraguel, with many others, did so at Easter. The Ayrshire +brethren “determined to put to their own hands,” captured +some priests, and threatened others with “the punishment that +God has appointed to idolaters by His law.” <a name="citation227a"></a><a href="#footnote227a">{227a}</a> +The Queen commanded Knox to meet her at Lochleven in mid-April—Lochleven, +where she was later to be a prisoner. In that state lay the priests +of her religion, who had been ministering to the people, “some +in secret houses, some in barns, some in woods and hills,” writes +Randolph, “all are in prison.” <a name="citation227b"></a><a href="#footnote227b">{227b}</a></p> +<p>Mary, for two hours before supper, implored Knox to mediate with +the western fanatics. He replied, that if princes would not use +the sword against idolaters, there was the leading case of Samuel’s +slaughter of Agag; and he adduced another biblical instance, of a nature +not usually cited before young ladies. He was on safer ground +in quoting the Scots law as it stood. Judges within their bounds +were to seek out and punish “mass-mongers”—that was +his courteous term.</p> +<p>The Queen, rather hurt, went off to supper, but next morning did +her best to make friends with Knox over other matters. She complained +of Ruthven, who had given her a ring for some magical purpose, later +explained by Ruthven, who seems to have despised the superstition of +his age. The Queen, says Ruthven, was afraid of poison; he gave +her the ring, saying that it acted as an antidote. Moray was at +Lochleven with the Queen, and Moray believed, or pretended to believe, +in Ruthven’s “sossery,” as Randolph spells “sorcery.” +She, rather putting herself at our Reformer’s mercy, complained +that Lethington alone placed Ruthven in the Privy Council.</p> +<p>“That man is absent,” said Knox, “and therefore +I will speak nothing on that behalf.” Mary then warned him +against “the man who was at time most familiar with the said John, +in his house and at table,” the despicable Bishop of Galloway, +and Knox later found out that the warning was wise. Lastly, she +asked him to reconcile the Earl and Countess of Argyll—“do +this much for my sake”; and she promised to summon the offending +priests who had done their duty. <a name="citation228a"></a><a href="#footnote228a">{228a}</a></p> +<p>Knox, with his usual tact, wrote to Argyll thus: “Your behaviour +toward your wife is very offensive unto many godly.” He +added that, if all that was said of Argyll was true, and if he did not +look out, he would be damned.</p> +<p>“This bill was not well accepted of the said Earl,” but, +like the rest of them, he went on truckling to Knox, “most familiar +with the said John.” <a name="citation228b"></a><a href="#footnote228b">{228b}</a></p> +<p>Nearly fifty priests were tried, but no one was hanged. They +were put in ward; “the like of this was never heard within the +realm,” said pleased Protestants, not “smelling the craft.” +Neither the Queen nor her Council had the slightest desire to put priests +to death. Six other priests “as wicked as” the Archbishop +were imprisoned, and the Abbot of Crossraguel was put to the horn in +his absence, just as the preachers had been. The Catholic clergy +“know not where to hide their heads,” says Randolph. +Many fled to the more tender mercies of England; “it will be the +common refuge of papists that cannot live here . . .” <a name="citation228c"></a><a href="#footnote228c">{228c}</a> +The tassels on the trains of the ladies, it was declared by the preachers, +“would provoke God’s vengeance . . . against the whole realm +. . ” <a name="citation229a"></a><a href="#footnote229a">{229a}</a></p> +<p>The state of things led to a breach between Knox and Moray, which +lasted till the Earl found him likely to be useful, some eighteen months +later.</p> +<p>The Reformer relieved his mind in the pulpit at the end of May or +early in June, rebuking backsliders, and denouncing the Queen’s +rumoured marriage with any infidel, “and all Papists are infidels.” +Papists and Protestants were both offended. There was a scene +with Mary, in which she wept profusely, an infirmity of hers; we constantly +hear of her weeping in public. She wished the Lords of the Articles +to see whether Knox’s “manner of speaking” was not +punishable, but nothing could be done. Elizabeth would have found +out a way. <a name="citation229b"></a><a href="#footnote229b">{229b}</a></p> +<p>The fact that while Knox was conducting himself thus, nobody ventured +to put a dirk or a bullet into him—despite the obvious strength +of the temptation in many quarters—proves that he was by far the +most potent human being in Scotland. Darnley, Moray, Lennox were +all assassinated, when their day came, though the feeblest of the three, +Darnley, had a powerful clan to take up his feud. We cannot suppose +that any moral considerations prevented the many people whom Knox had +offended from doing unto him as the Elect did to Riccio. Manifestly, +nobody had the courage. No clan was so strong as the warlike brethren +who would have avenged the Reformer, and who probably would have been +backed by Elizabeth.</p> +<p>Again, though he was estranged from Moray, that leader was also, +in some degree, estranged from Lethington, who did not allow him to +know the details of his intrigues, in France and England, for the Queen’s +marriage. The marriage question was certain to reunite Moray and +Knox. When Knox told Mary that, as “a subject of this realm,” +he had a right to oppose her marriage with any infidel, he spoke the +modern constitutional truth. For Mary to wed a Royal Catholic +would certainly have meant peril for Protestantism, war with England, +and a tragic end. But what Protestant could she marry? If +a Scot, he would not long have escaped the daggers of the Hamiltons; +indeed, all the nobles would have borne the fiercest jealousy against +such an one as, say, Glencairn, who, we learn, could say anything to +Mary without offence. She admired a strong brave man, and Glencairn, +though an opponent, was gallant and resolute. England chose only +to offer the infamous and treacherous Leicester, whose character was +ruined by the mysterious death of his wife (Amy Robsart), and who had +offered to sell England and himself to idolatrous Spain. Mary’s +only faint chance of safety lay in perpetual widowhood, or in marrying +Knox, by far the most powerful of her subjects, and the best able to +protect her and himself.</p> +<p>This idea does not seem to have been entertained by the subtle brain +of Lethington. Between February and May 1563, the Cardinal of +Lorraine had reopened an old negotiation for wedding the Queen to the +Archduke, and Mary had given an evasive reply; she must consult Parliament. +In March, with the Spanish Ambassador in London, Lethington had proposed +for Don Carlos. Philip II., as usual, wavered, consented (in August), +considered, and reconsidered. Lethington, in France, had told +the Queen-Mother that the Spanish plan was only intended to wring concessions +from Elizabeth; and, on his return to England, had persuaded the Spanish +Ambassador that Charles IX. was anxious to succeed to his brother’s +widow. This moved Philip to be favourable to the Don Carlos marriage, +but he waited; there was no sign from France, and Philip withdrew, wavering +so much that both the Austrian and Spanish matches became impossible. +On October 6, Knox, who suspected more than he knew, told Cecil that +out of twelve Privy Councillors, nine would consent to a Catholic marriage. +The only hope was in Moray, and Knox “daily thirsted” for +death. <a name="citation231a"></a><a href="#footnote231a">{231a}</a> +He appealed to Leicester (about whose relations with Elizabeth he was, +of course, informed) as to a man who “may greatly advance the +purity of religion.” <a name="citation231b"></a><a href="#footnote231b">{231b}</a></p> +<p>These letters to Cecil and Leicester are deeply pious in tone, and +reveal a cruel anxiety. On June 20, three weeks after Knox’s +famous sermon, Lethington told de Quadra, the Spanish Ambassador, that +Elizabeth threatened to be Mary’s enemy if she married Don Carlos +or any of the house of Austria. <a name="citation231c"></a><a href="#footnote231c">{231c}</a> +On August 26, 1563, Randolph received instructions from Elizabeth, in +which the tone of menace was unconcealed. Elizabeth would offer +an English noble: “we and our country cannot think any mighty +prince a meet husband for her.” <a name="citation231d"></a><a href="#footnote231d">{231d}</a></p> +<p>Knox was now engaged in a contest wherein he was triumphant; an affair +which, in later years, was to have sequels of high importance. +During the summer vacation of 1563, while Mary was moving about the +country, Catholics in Edinburgh habitually attended at Mass in her chapel. +This was contrary to the arrangement which permitted no Mass in the +whole realm, except that of the Queen, when her priests were not terrorised. +The godly brawled in the Chapel Royal, and two of them were arrested, +two very dear brethren, named Cranstoun and Armstrong; they were to +be tried on October 24. Knox had a kind of Dictator’s commission +from the Congregation, “to see that the Kirk took no harm,” +and to the Congregation he appealed by letter. The accused brethren +had only “noted what persons repaired to the Mass,” but +they were charged with divers crimes, especially invading her Majesty’s +palace. Knox therefore convoked the Congregation to meet in Edinburgh +on the day of trial, in the good old way of overawing justice. <a name="citation232a"></a><a href="#footnote232a">{232a}</a> +Of course we do not know to what lengths the dear brethren went in their +pious indignation. The legal record mentions that they were armed +with pistols, in the town and Court suburb; and it was no very unusual +thing, later, for people to practise pistol shooting at each other even +in their own Kirk of St. Giles’s. <a name="citation232b"></a><a href="#footnote232b">{232b}</a></p> +<p>Still, pistols, if worn in the palace chapel have not a pacific air. +The brethren are also charged with assaulting some of the Queen’s +domestic servants. <a name="citation232c"></a><a href="#footnote232c">{232c}</a></p> +<p>Archbishop Spottiswoode, son of one of the Knoxian Superintendents, +says that the brethren “forced the gates, and that some of the +worshippers were taken and carried to prison. . . . ” <a name="citation232d"></a><a href="#footnote232d">{232d}</a> +Knox admits in his “History” that “some of the brethren +<i>burst in</i>” to the chapel. In his letter to stir up +the godly, he says that the brethren “passed” (in), “and +that <i>in most quiet manner</i>.”</p> +<p>On receiving Knox’s summons the Congregation prepared its levies +in every town and province. <a name="citation233a"></a><a href="#footnote233a">{233a}</a> +The Privy Council received a copy of Knox’s circular, and concluded +that it “imported treason.”</p> +<p>To ourselves it does seem that for a preacher to call levies out +of every town and province, to meet in the capital on a day when a trial +was to be held, is a thing that no Government can tolerate. The +administration of justice is impossible in the circumstances. +But it was the usual course in Scotland, and any member of the Privy +Council might, at any time, find it desirable to call a similar convocation +of his allies. Mary herself, fretted by the perfidies of Elizabeth, +had just been consoled by that symbolic jewel, a diamond shaped like +a rock, and by promises in which she fondly trusted when she at last +sought an asylum in England, and found a prison. For two months +she had often been in deep melancholy, weeping for no known cause, and +she was afflicted by the “pain in her side” which ever haunted +her (December 13-21). <a name="citation233b"></a><a href="#footnote233b">{233b}</a></p> +<p>Accused by the Master of Maxwell of unbecoming conduct, Knox said +that such things had been done before, and he had the warrant “of +God, speaking plainly in his Word.” The Master (later Lord +Herries), not taking this view of the case, was never friendly with +Knox again; the Reformer added this comment as late as December 1571. +<a name="citation233c"></a><a href="#footnote233c">{233c}</a></p> +<p>Lethington and Moray, like Maxwell, remonstrated vainly with our +Reformer. Randolph (December 21) reports that the Lords assembled +“to take order with Knox and his faction, who intended by a mutinous +assembly made by his letter before, to have rescued two of their brethren +from course of law. . . . ” <a name="citation234a"></a><a href="#footnote234a">{234a}</a> +Knox was accompanied to Holyrood by a force of brethren who crowded +“the inner close and all the stairs, even to the chamber door +where the Queen and Council sat.” <a name="citation234b"></a><a href="#footnote234b">{234b}</a> +Probably these “slashing communicants” had their effect +on the minds of the councillors. Not till after Riccio’s +murder was Mary permitted to have a strong guard.</p> +<p>According to Knox, Mary laughed a horse laugh when he entered, saying, +“Yon man gart me greit, and grat never tear himself. I will +see gif I can gar him greit.” Her Scots, textually reported, +was certainly idiomatic.</p> +<p>Knox acknowledged his letter to the Congregation, and Lethington +suggested that he might apologise. Ruthven said that Knox made +convocation of people daily to hear him preach; what harm was there +in his letter merely calling people to convocation. This was characteristic +pettifogging. Knox said that he convened the people to meet on +the day of trial according to the order “that the brethren has +appointed . . . at the commandment of the general Kirk of the Realm.”</p> +<p>Mary seems, strangely enough, to have thought that this was a valid +reply. Perhaps it was, and the Kirk’s action in that sense, +directed against the State, finally enabled Cromwell to conquer the +Kirk-ridden country. Mary appears to have admitted the Kirk’s +<i>imperium in imperio</i>, for she diverted the discussion from the +momentous point really at issue—the right of the Kirk to call +up an armed multitude to thwart justice. She now fell on Knox’s +employment of the word “cruelty.” He instantly started +on a harangue about “pestilent Papists,” when the Queen +once more introduced a personal question; he had caused her to weep, +and he recounted all their interview after he attacked her marriage +from the pulpit.</p> +<p>He was allowed to go home—it might not have been safe to arrest +him, and the Lords, unanimously, voted that he had done no offence. +They repeated their votes in the Queen’s presence, and thus a +precedent for “mutinous convocation” by Kirkmen was established, +till James VI. took order in 1596. We have no full narrative of +this affair except that of Knox. It is to be guessed that the +nobles wished to maintain the old habit of mutinous convocation which, +probably, saved the life of Lethington, and helped to secure Bothwell’s +acquittal from the guilt of Darnley’s murder. Perhaps, too, +the brethren who filled the whole inner Court and overflowed up the +stairs of the palace, may have had their influence.</p> +<p>This was a notable triumph of our Reformer, and of the Kirk; to which, +on his showing, the Queen contributed, by feebly wandering from the +real point at issue. She was no dialectician. Knox’s +conduct was, of course, approved of and sanctioned by the General Assembly. +<a name="citation235"></a><a href="#footnote235">{235}</a> He +had, in his circular, averred that Cranstoun and Armstrong were summoned +“that a door may be opened to execute cruelty upon a greater multitude.” +To put it mildly, the General Assembly sanctioned contempt of Court. +Unluckily for Scotland contempt of Court was, and long remained, universal, +the country being desperately lawless, and reeking with blood shed in +public and private quarrels. When a Prophet followed the secular +example of summoning crowds to overawe justice, the secular sinners +had warrant for thwarting the course of law.</p> +<p>As to the brethren and the idolaters who caused these troubles, we +know not what befell them. The penalty, both for the attendants +at Mass and for the disturbers thereof, should have been death! +The dear brethren, if they attacked the Queen’s servants, came +under the Proclamation of October 1561; so did the Catholics, for <i>they</i> +“openly made alteration and innovation of the state of religion. +. . . ” They ought “to be punished to the death with +all rigour.” Three were outlawed, and their sureties “unlawed.” +Twenty-one others were probably not hanged; the records are lost. +For the same reason we know not what became of the brethren Armstrong, +Cranstoun, and George Rynd, summoned with the other malefactors for +November 13. <a name="citation236"></a><a href="#footnote236">{236}</a></p> +<h2>CHAPTER XVII: KNOX AND QUEEN MARY (continued), 1564-1567</h2> +<p>During the session of the General Assembly in December 1563, Knox +was compelled to chronicle domestic enormities. The Lord Treasurer, +Richardson, having, like Captain Booth, “offended the law of Dian,” +had to do penance before the whole congregation, and the sermon (unfortunately +it is lost, probably it never was written out) was preached by Knox. +A French apothecary of the Queen’s, and his mistress, were hanged +on a charge of murdering their child. <a name="citation237a"></a><a href="#footnote237a">{237a}</a> +On January 9, 1564-65, Randolph noted that one of the Queen’s +Maries, Mary Livingstone, is to marry John Sempill, son of Robert, third +Lord Sempill, by an English wife. Knox assures us that “it +is well known that shame hastened marriage between John Sempill, called +‘the Dancer,’ and Mary Livingstone, surnamed ‘the +Lusty.’” The young people appear, however, to have +been in no pressing hurry, as Randolph, on January 9, did not expect +their marriage till the very end of February; they wished the Earl of +Bedford, who was coming on a diplomatic mission, to be present. <a name="citation237b"></a><a href="#footnote237b">{237b}</a> +Mary, on March 9, 1565, made them a grant of lands, since “it +has pleased God to move their hearts to join together in the state of +matrimony.” <a name="citation237c"></a><a href="#footnote237c">{237c}</a> +She had ever since January been making the bride presents of feminine +finery.</p> +<p>These proceedings indicating no precipitate haste, we may think that +Mary Livingstone, like Mary of Guise, is only a victim of the Reformer’s +taste for “society journalism.” Randolph, though an +egregious gossip, says of the Four Maries, “they are all good,” +but Knox writes that “the ballads of that age” did witness +to the “bruit” or reputation of these maidens. As +is well known the old ballad of “Mary Hamilton,” which exists +in more than a dozen very diverse variants, in some specimens confuses +one of the Maries, an imaginary “Mary Hamilton,” with the +French maid who was hanged at the end of 1563. The balladist is +thus responsible for a scandal against the fair sisterhood; there was +no “Mary Hamilton,” and no “Mary Carmichael,” +in their number—Beaton, Seton, Fleming, and Livingstone.</p> +<p>An offended Deity now sent frost in January 1564, and an aurora borealis +in February, Knox tells us, and “the threatenings of the preachers +were fearful,” in face of these unusual meteorological phenomena. +<a name="citation238"></a><a href="#footnote238">{238}</a></p> +<p>Vice rose to such a pitch that men doubted if the Mass really was +idolatry! Knox said, from the pulpit, that if the sceptics were +right, <i>he</i> was “miserably deceived.” “Believe +me, brethren, in the bowels of Christ, it is possible that you may be +mistaken,” Cromwell was to tell the Commissioners of the General +Assembly, on a day that still was in the womb of the future; the dawn +of common sense rose in the south.</p> +<p>On March 20, much to the indignation of the Queen, the banns were +read twice between Knox and a lady of the Royal blood and name, Margaret +Stewart, daughter of Lord Ochiltree, a girl not above sixteen, in January +1563, when Randolph first speaks of the wooing. <a name="citation239"></a><a href="#footnote239">{239}</a> +The good Dr. M‘Crie does not mention the age of the bride! +The lady was a very near kinswoman of Chatelherault. She had plenty +of time for reflection, and as nobody says that she was coerced into +the marriage, while Nicol Burne attributes her passion to sorcery, we +may suppose that she was in love with our Reformer. She bore him +several daughters, and it is to be presumed that the marriage, though +in every way <i>bizarre</i>, was happy. Burne says that Knox wished +to marry a Lady Fleming, akin to Chatelherault, but was declined; if +so, he soon consoled himself.</p> +<p>At this time Riccio—a <i>valet de chambre</i> of the Queen +in 1561-62—“began to grow great in Court,” becoming +French Secretary at the end of the year. By June 3, 1565, Randolph +is found styling Riccio “only governor” to Darnley. +His career might have rivalled that of the equally low-born Cardinal +Alberoni, but for the daggers of Moray’s party.</p> +<p>In the General Assembly of June 1564, Moray, Morton, Glencairn, Pitarro, +Lethington, and other Lords of the Congregation held aloof from the +brethren, but met the Superintendents and others to discuss the recent +conduct of our Reformer, who was present. He was invited, by Lethington, +to “moderate himself” in his references to the Queen, as +others might imitate him, “albeit not with the same modesty and +foresight,” for Lethington could not help bantering Knox. +Knox, of course, rushed to his doctrine of “idolatry” as +provocative of the wrath of God—we have heard of the bad harvest, +and the frost in January. It is not worth while to pursue in detail +the discourses, in which Knox said that the Queen rebelled against God +“in all the actions of her life.” Ahab and Jezebel +were again brought on the scene. It profited not Lethington to +say that all these old biblical “vengeances” were “singular +motions of the Spirit of God, and appertain nothing to our age.” +If Knox could have understood <i>that</i>, he would not have been Knox. +The point was intelligible; Lethington perceived it, but Knox never +chose to do so. He went on with his isolated texts, Lethington +vainly replying “the cases are nothing alike.” Knox +came to his old stand, “the idolater must die the death,” +and the executioners must be “the people of God.” +Lethington quoted many opinions against Knox’s, to no purpose, +opinions of Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, Musculus, and Calvin, but our +Reformer brought out the case of “Amasiath, King of Judah,” +and “The Apology of Magdeburg.” As to the opinion +of Calvin and the rest he drew a distinction. They had only spoken +of the godly who were suffering under oppression, not of the godly triumphant +in a commonwealth. He forgot, or did not choose to remember, a +previous decision of his own, as we shall see.</p> +<p>When the rest of the party were discussing the question, Makgill, +Clerk Register, reminded them of their previous debate in November 1561, +when <a name="citation240"></a><a href="#footnote240">{240}</a> Knox, +after secretly writing to Calvin, had proposed to write to him for his +opinion about the Queen’s Mass, and Lethington had promised to +do so himself. But Lethington now said that, on later reflection, +as Secretary of the Queen, he had scrupled, without her consent, to +ask a foreigner whether her subjects might prevent her from enjoying +the rites of her own religion—for that was what the “controversies” +between her Highness and her subjects really and confessedly meant. +<a name="citation241a"></a><a href="#footnote241a">{241a}</a></p> +<p>Knox was now requested to consult Calvin, “and the learned +in other Kirks, to know their judgment in that question.” +The question, judging from Makgill’s interpellation, was “whether +subjects might lawfully take her Mass from the Queen.” <a name="citation241b"></a><a href="#footnote241b">{241b}</a> +As we know, Knox had already put the question to Calvin by a letter +of October 24, 1561, and so had the anonymous writer of November 18, +1561, whom I identify with Arran. Knox now refused to write to +“Mr. Calvin, and the learned of other Kirks,” saying (I +must quote him textually, or be accused of misrepresentation), “I +myself am not only fully resolved in conscience, but also I have heard +the judgments in this, and all other things that I have affirmed in +this Realm, of the most godly and most learned that be known in Europe. +I come not to this Realm without their resolution; and for my assurance +I have the handwritings of many; and therefore if I should move the +same question again, what else should I do but either show my own ignorance +and forgetfulness, or else inconstancy?” <a name="citation241c"></a><a href="#footnote241c">{241c}</a> +He therefore said that his opponents might themselves “write and +complain upon him,” and so learn “the plain minds” +of the learned—but nobody took the trouble. Knox’s +defence was worded with the skill of a notary. He said that he +had “heard the judgments” of “the learned and godly”; +he did not say what these judgments were. Calvin, Morel, Bullinger, +and such men, we know, entirely differed from his extreme ideas. +He “came not without their resolution,” or approval, to +Scotland, but that was not the question at issue.</p> +<p>If Knox had received from Calvin favourable replies to his own letter, +and Arran’s, of October 24, November 18, 1561, can any one doubt +that he would now have produced them, unless he did not wish the brethren +to find out that he himself had written without their knowledge? +We know what manner of answers he received, in 1554, orally from Calvin, +in writing from Bullinger, to his questions about resistance to the +civil power. <a name="citation242a"></a><a href="#footnote242a">{242a}</a> +I am sceptical enough to suppose that, if Knox had now possessed letters +from Calvin, justifying the propositions which he was maintaining, such +as that “the people, yea, <i>or ane pairt of the people</i>, may +execute God’s jugementis against their King, being ane offender,” +<a name="citation242b"></a><a href="#footnote242b">{242b}</a> he would +have exhibited them. I do not believe that he had any such letters +from such men as Bullinger and Calvin. Indeed, we may ask whether +the question of the Queen’s Mass had arisen in any realm of Europe +except Scotland. Where was there a Catholic prince ruling over +a Calvinistic state? If nowhere, then the question would not be +raised, except by Knox in his letter to Calvin of October 24, 1561. +And where was Calvin’s answer, and to what effect?</p> +<p>Knox may have forgotten, and Lethington did not know, that, about +1558-59, in a tract, already noticed (pp. 101-103 <i>supra</i>), of +450 pages against the Anabaptists, Knox had expressed the reverse of +his present opinion about religious Regicide. He is addressing +the persecuting Catholic princes of Europe: “ . . . Ye shall perish, +both temporally and for ever. And by whom doth it most appear +that temporally ye shall be punished? By <i>us</i>, whom ye banish, +whom ye spoil and rob, whom cruelly ye persecute, and whose blood ye +daily shed? <a name="citation243a"></a><a href="#footnote243a">{243a}</a> +There is no doubt, but as the victory which overcometh the world is +our faith, so it behoveth us to possess our souls in our patience. +We neither privily nor openly deny the power of the Civil Magistrate. +. . . ”</p> +<p>The chosen saints and people of God, even when under oppression, +lift not the hand, but possess their souls in patience, says Knox, in +1558-59. But the idolatrous shall be temporally punished—by +other hands. “And what instruments can God find in this +life more apt to punish you than those” (the Anabaptists), “that +hate and detest all lawful powers? . . . God will not use his +saints and chosen people to punish you. <i>For with them there +is always mercy</i>, yea, even although God have pronounced a curse +and malediction, as in the history of Joshua is plain.” <a name="citation243b"></a><a href="#footnote243b">{243b}</a></p> +<p>In this passage Knox is speaking for the English exiles in Geneva. +He asserts that we “neither publicly nor privately deny the power +of the Civil Magistrate,” in face of his own published tracts +of appeal to a Jehu or a Phinehas, and of his own claim that the Prophet +may preach treason, and that his instruments may commit treason. +To be sure all the English in Geneva were not necessarily of Knox’s +mind.</p> +<p>It is altogether a curious passage. God’s people are +more merciful than God! Israel was bidden to exterminate all idolaters +in the Promised Land, but, as the Book of Joshua shows, they did not +always do it: “for with them is always mercy”; despite the +massacres, such as that of Agag, which Knox was wont to cite as examples +to the backward brethren! Yet, relying on another set of texts, +not in <i>Joshua</i>, Knox now informed Lethington that the executors +of death on idolatrous princes were “the people of God”—“the +people, or a part of the people.” <a name="citation244a"></a><a href="#footnote244a">{244a}</a></p> +<p>Mercy! Happily the policy of carnal men never allowed Knox’s +“people of God” to show whether, given a chance to destroy +idolaters, they would display the mercy on which he insists in his reply +to the Anabaptist.</p> +<p>It was always useless to argue with Knox; for whatever opinion happened +to suit him at the moment (and at different moments contradictory opinions +happened to suit him), he had ever a Bible text to back him. On +this occasion, if Lethington had been able to quote Knox’s own +statement, that with the people of God “there is always mercy” +(as in the case of Cardinal Beaton), he could hardly have escaped by +saying that there was always mercy, <i>when the people of God had not +the upper hand in the State</i>, <a name="citation244b"></a><a href="#footnote244b">{244b}</a> +when unto them God has <i>not</i> “given sufficient force.” +For in the chosen people of God “there is <i>always</i> mercy, +yea even although God have pronounced a curse and malediction.”</p> +<p>In writing against Anabaptists (1558-59), Knox wanted to make <i>them</i>, +not merciful Calvinists, the objects of the fear and revenge of Catholic +rulers. He even hazarded one of his unfulfilled prophecies: Anabaptists, +wicked men, will execute those divine judgments for which Protestants +of his species are too tender-hearted; though, somehow, they make exceptions +in the cases of Beaton and Riccio, and ought to do so in the case of +Mary Stuart!</p> +<p>Lethington did not use this passage of our Reformer’s works +against him, though it was published in 1560. Probably the secretary +had not worked his way through the long essay on Predestination. +But we have, in the book against the Anabaptists and in the controversy +with Lethington, an example of Knox’s fatal intellectual faults. +As an individual man, he would not have hurt a fly. As a prophet, +he deliberately tried to restore, by a pestilent anachronism, in a Christian +age and country, the ferocities attributed to ancient Israel. +This he did not even do consistently, and when he is inconsistent with +his prevailing mood, his biographers applaud his “moderation”! +If he saw a chance against an Anabaptist, or if he wanted to conciliate +Mary of Guise, he took up a Christian line, backing it by texts appropriate +to the occasion.</p> +<p>His influence lasted, and the massacre of Dunavertie (1647), and +the slaying of women in cold blood, months after the battle of Philiphaugh, +and the “rouping” of covenanted “ravens” for +the blood of cavaliers taken under quarter, are the direct result of +Knox’s intellectual error, of his appeals to Jehu, Phinehas, and +so forth.</p> +<p>At this point the Fourth Book of Knox’s “History” +ends with a remark on the total estrangement between himself and Moray. +The Reformer continued to revise and interpolate his work, up to 1571, +the year before his death, and made collections of materials, and notes +for the continuation. An uncertain hand has put these together +in Book V. But we now miss the frequent references to “John +Knox,” and his doings, which must have been vigorous during the +troubles of 1565, after the arrival in Scotland of Darnley (February +1565), and his courtship and marriage of the Queen. These events +brought together Moray, Chatelherault, and many of the Lords in the +armed party of the Congregation. They rebelled; they were driven +by Mary into England, by October 1565, and Bothwell came at her call +from France. The Queen had new advisers—Riccio, Balfour, +Bothwell, the eldest son of the late Huntly, and Lennox, till the wretched +Darnley in a few weeks proved his incapacity. Lethington, rather +neglected, hung about the Court, as he remained with Mary of Guise long +after he had intended to desert her.</p> +<p>Mary, whose only chance lay in outstaying Elizabeth in the policy +of celibacy, had been driven, or led, by her rival Queen into a marriage +which would have been the best possible, had Darnley been a man of character +and a Protestant. He was the typical “young fool,” +indolent, incapable, fierce, cowardly, and profligate. His religion +was dubious. After his arrival (on February 26, 1565) he went +with Moray to hear Knox preach, but he had been bred by a Catholic mother, +and, on occasion, posed as an ardent Catholic. <a name="citation246"></a><a href="#footnote246">{246}</a> +It is unfortunate that Randolph is silent about Knox during all the +period of the broils which preceded and followed Mary’s marriage.</p> +<p>On August 19, 1565, Darnley, now Mary’s husband, went to hear +Knox preach in St. Giles’s, on the text, “O Lord our God, +other lords than Thou have ruled over us.” “God,” +he said, “sets in that room (for the offences and ingratitude +of the people) boys and women.” Ahab also appeared, as usual. +Ahab “had not taken order with that harlot, Jezebel.” +So Book V. says, and “harlot” would be a hit at Mary’s +alleged misconduct with Riccio. A hint in a letter of Randolph’s +of August 24, may point to nascent scandal about the pair. But +the printed sermon, from Knox’s written copy, reads, not “harlot” +but “idolatrous wife.” At all events, Darnley was +so moved by this sermon that he would not dine. <a name="citation247a"></a><a href="#footnote247a">{247a}</a> +Knox was called “from his bed” to the Council chamber, where +were Atholl, Ruthven, Lethington, the Justice Clerk, and the Queen’s +Advocate. He was attended by a great crowd of notable citizens, +but Lethington forbade him to preach for a fortnight or three weeks. +He said that, “If the Church would command him to preach or abstain +he would obey, so far as the Word of God would permit him.”</p> +<p>It seems that he would only obey even the Church as far as he chose.</p> +<p>The Town Council protested against the deprivation, and we do not +know how long Knox desisted from preaching. Laing thinks that, +till Mary fell, he preached only “at occasional intervals.” +<a name="citation247b"></a><a href="#footnote247b">{247b}</a> +But we shall see that he did presently go on preaching, with Lethington +for a listener. He published his sermon, without name of place +or printer. The preacher informs his audience that “in the +Hebrew there is no conjunction copulative” in a certain sentence; +probably he knew more Hebrew than most of our pastors.</p> +<p>The sermon is very long, and, wanting the voice and gesture of the +preacher, is no great proof of eloquence; in fact, is tedious. +Probably Darnley was mainly vexed by the length, though he may have +had intelligence enough to see that he and Mary were subjects of allusions. +Knox wrote the piece from memory, on the last of August, in “the +terrible roaring of guns, and the noise of armour.” The +banded Lords, Moray and the rest, had entered Edinburgh, looking for +supporters, and finding none. Erskine, commanding the Castle, +fired six or seven shots as a protest, and the noise of these disturbed +the prophet at his task. As a marginal note says, “The Castle +of Edinburgh was shooting against the exiled for Christ Jesus’ +sake” <a name="citation248a"></a><a href="#footnote248a">{248a}</a>—namely, +at Moray and his company. Knox prayed for them in public, and +was accused of so doing, but Lethington testified that he had heard +“the sermons,” and found in them no ground of offence. <a name="citation248b"></a><a href="#footnote248b">{248b}</a></p> +<p style="text-align: center"> +<a href="images/knox5b.jpg"> +<img alt="Mary Stuart. From the portrait in the collection of the Earl of Morton" src="images/knox5s.jpg" /> +</a></p> +<p>Moray, Ochiltree, Pitarro, and many others being now exiles in England, +whose Queen had subsidised and repudiated them and their revolution, +things went hard with the preachers. For a whole year at least +(December 1565-66) their stipends were not paid, the treasury being +exhausted by military and other expenses, and Pitarro being absent. +At the end of December, Knox and his colleague, Craig, were ordered +by the General Assembly to draw up and print a service for a general +Fast, to endure from the last Sunday in February to the first in March, +1566. One cause alleged is that the Queen’s conversion had +been hoped for, but now she said that she would “maintain and +defend” <a name="citation248c"></a><a href="#footnote248c">{248c}</a> +her own faith. She had said no less to Knox at their first interview, +but now she had really written, when invited to abolish her Mass, that +her subjects may worship as they will, but that she will not desert +her religion. <a name="citation249a"></a><a href="#footnote249a">{249a}</a> +It was also alleged that the godly were to be destroyed all over Europe, +in accordance with decrees of the Council of Trent. Moreover, +vice, manslaughter, and oppression of the poor continued, prices of +commodities rose, and work was scamped. The date of the Fast was +fixed, not to coincide with Lent, but because it preceded an intended +meeting of Parliament, <a name="citation249b"></a><a href="#footnote249b">{249b}</a> +a Parliament interrupted by the murder of Riccio, and the capture of +the Queen. No games were to be played during the two Sundays of +the Fast, which looks as if they were still permitted on other Sundays. +The appointed lessons were from Judges, Esther, Chronicles, Isaiah, +and Esdras; the New Testament, apparently, supplied nothing appropriate. +It seldom did. The lay attendants of the Assembly of Christmas +Day which decreed the Fast, were Morton, Mar, Lindsay, Lethington, with +some lairds.</p> +<p>The Protestants must have been alarmed, in February 1566, by a report, +to which Randolph gave circulation, that Mary had joined a Catholic +League, with the Pope, the Emperor, the King of Spain, the Duke of Savoy, +and others. Lethington may have believed this; at all events he +saw no hope of pardon for Moray and his abettors—“no certain +way, unless we chop at the very root, you know where it lieth” +(February 9). <a name="citation249c"></a><a href="#footnote249c">{249c}</a> +Probably he means the murder of Riccio, not of the Queen. Bedford +said that Mary had not yet signed the League. <a name="citation249d"></a><a href="#footnote249d">{249d}</a> +We are aware of no proof that there was any League to sign, and though +Mary was begging money both from Spain and the Pope, she probably did +not expect to procure more than tolerance for her own religion. <a name="citation250a"></a><a href="#footnote250a">{250a}</a> +The rumours, however, must have had their effect in causing apprehension. +Moreover, Darnley, from personal jealousy; Morton, from fear of losing +the Seals; the Douglases, kinsmen of Morton and Darnley; and the friends +of the exiled nobles, seeing that they were likely to be forfeited, +conspired with Moray in England to be Darnley’s men, to slay Riccio, +and to make the Queen subordinate to Darnley, and “to fortify +and maintain” the Protestant faith. Mary, indeed, had meant +to reintroduce the Spiritual Estate into Parliament, as a means of assisting +her Church; so she writes to Archbishop Beaton in Paris. <a name="citation250b"></a><a href="#footnote250b">{250b}</a></p> +<p>Twelve wooden altars, to be erected in St. Giles’s, are said +by Knox’s continuator to have been found in Holyrood. <a name="citation250c"></a><a href="#footnote250c">{250c}</a></p> +<p>Mary’s schemes, whatever they extended to, were broken by the +murder of Riccio in the evening of March 9. He was seized in her +presence, and dirked by fifty daggers outside of her room. Ruthven, +who in June 1564 had come into Mary’s good graces, and Morton +were, with Darnley, the leaders of the Douglas feud, and of the brethren.</p> +<p>The nobles might easily have taken, tried, and hanged Riccio, but +they yielded to Darnley and to their own excited passions, when once +they had torn him from the Queen. The personal pleasure of dirking +the wretch could not be resisted, and the danger of causing the Queen’s +miscarriage and death may have entered into the plans of Darnley. +Knox does not tell the story himself; his “History” ends +in June 1564. But “in plain terms” he “lets +the world understand what we mean,” namely, that Riccio “was +justly punished,” and that “the act” (of the murderers) +was “most just and most worthy of <i>all</i> praise.” <a name="citation251a"></a><a href="#footnote251a">{251a}</a> +This Knox wrote just after the event, while the murderers were still +in exile in England, where Ruthven died—seeing a vision of angels! +Knox makes no drawback to the entirely and absolutely laudable character +of the deed. He goes out of his way to tell us “in plain +terms what we mean,” in a digression from his account of affairs +sixteen years earlier. Thus one fails to understand the remark, +that “of the manner in which the deed was done we may be certain +that Knox would disapprove as vehemently as any of his contemporaries.” +<a name="citation251b"></a><a href="#footnote251b">{251b}</a> +The words may be ironical, for vehement disapproval was not conspicuous +among Protestant contemporaries. Knox himself, after Mary scattered +the party of the murderers and recovered power, prayed that heaven would +“put it into the heart of a multitude” to treat Mary like +Athaliah.</p> +<p>Mary made her escape from Holyrood to Dunbar, to safety, in the night +of March 11. March 12 found Knox on his knees; the game was up, +the blood had been shed in vain. The Queen had not died, but was +well, and surrounded by friends; and the country was rather for her +than against her. The Reformer composed a prayer, repenting that +“in quiet I am negligent, in trouble impatient, tending to desperation,” +which shows insight. He speaks of his pride and ambition, also +of his covetousness and malice. That he was really covetous we +cannot believe, nor does he show malice except against idolaters. +He “does not doubt himself to be elected to eternal salvation,” +of which he has “assured signs.” He has “knowledge +above the common sort of my brethren” (pride has crept in again!), +and has been compelled to “forespeak,” or prophesy. +He implores mercy for his “desolate bedfellow,” for her +children, and for his sons by his first wife. “Now, Lord, +put end to my misery!” (Edinburgh, March 12, 1566). Knox +fled from Edinburgh, “with a great mourning of the godly of religion,” +says a Diarist, on the same day as the chief murderers took flight, +March 17; his place of refuge was Kyle in Ayrshire (March 21, 1566). +<a name="citation252a"></a><a href="#footnote252a">{252a}</a></p> +<p>In Randolph’s letter, recording the flight of these nobles, +he mentions eight of their accomplices, and another list is pinned to +the letter, giving names of men “all at the death of Davy and +privy thereunto.” This applies to about a dozen men, being +a marginal note opposite their names. A line lower is added, “John +Knox, John Craig, preachers.” <a name="citation252b"></a><a href="#footnote252b">{252b}</a> +There is no other evidence that Knox, who fled, or Craig, who stood +to his pulpit, were made privy to the plot. When idolaters thought +it best not to let the Pope into a scheme for slaying Elizabeth, it +is hardly probable that Protestants would apprise their leading preachers. +On the other hand, Calvin was consulted by the would-be assassins of +the Duc de Guise, in 1559-60, and he prevented the deed, as he assures +the Duchesse de Ferrare, the mother-in-law of the Duc, after that noble +was murdered in good earnest. <a name="citation252c"></a><a href="#footnote252c">{252c}</a> +Calvin, we have shown, knew beforehand of the conspiracy of Amboise, +which aimed at the death of “Antonius,” obviously Guise. +He disapproved of but did not reveal the plot. Knox, whether privy +to the murder or not, did not, when he ran away, take the best means +of disarming suspicion. Neither his name nor that of Craig occurs +in two lists containing those of between seventy and eighty persons +“delated,” and it is to be presumed that he fled because +he did not feel sure of protection against Mary’s frequently expressed +dislike.</p> +<p>In earlier days, with a strong backing, he had not feared “the +pleasing face of a gentlewoman,” as he said, but now he did fear +it. Kyle suited him well, because the Earl of Cassilis, who had +been an idolater, was converted by a faithful bride, in August. +Dr. M‘Crie <a name="citation253a"></a><a href="#footnote253a">{253a}</a> +says that Mary “wrote to a nobleman in the west country with whom +Knox resided, to banish him from his house.” The evidence +for this is a letter of Parkhurst to Bullinger, in December 1567. +Parkhurst tells Bullinger, among other novelties, that Riccio was a +necromancer, who happened to be dirked; by whom he does not say. +He adds that Mary commanded “a certain pious earl” not to +keep Knox in his house. <a name="citation253b"></a><a href="#footnote253b">{253b}</a></p> +<p>In Kyle Knox worked at his “History.” On September +4 he signed a letter sent from the General Assembly at St. Andrews to +Beza, approving of a Swiss confession of faith, except so far as the +keeping of Christmas, Easter, and other Christian festivals is concerned. +Knox himself wrote to Beza, about this time, an account of the condition +of Scotland. It would be invaluable, as the career of Mary was +rushing to the falls, but it is lost. <a name="citation253c"></a><a href="#footnote253c">{253c}</a></p> +<p>On December 24, Mary pardoned all the murderers of Riccio; and Knox +appears to have been present, though it is not certain, at the Christmas +General Assembly in Edinburgh. He received permission to visit +his sons in England, and he wrote two letters: one to the Protestant +nobles on Mary’s attempt to revive the consistorial jurisdiction +of the Primate; the other to the brethren. To England he carried +a remonstrance from the Kirk against the treatment of Puritans who had +conscientious objections to the apparel—“Romish rags”—of +the Church Anglican. Men ought to oppose themselves boldly to +Authority; that is, to Queen Elizabeth, if urged further than their +consciences can bear. <a name="citation254a"></a><a href="#footnote254a">{254a}</a></p> +<p>Being in England, Knox, of course, did not witness the events associated +with the Catholic baptism of the baby prince (James VI.); the murder +of Darnley, in February 1567; the abduction of Mary by Bothwell, and +her disgraceful marriage to her husband’s murderer, in May 1567. +If Knox excommunicated the Queen, it was probably about this date. +Long afterwards, on April 25, 1584, Mary was discussing the various +churches with Waad, an envoy of Cecil. Waad said that the Pope +stirred up peoples not to obey their sovereigns. “Yet,” +said the Queen, “a Pope shall excommunicate <i>you</i>, but <i>I</i> +was excommunicated by a pore minister, Knokes. In fayth I feare +nothinge else but that they will use my sonne as they have done the +mother.” <a name="citation254b"></a><a href="#footnote254b">{254b}</a></p> +<h2>CHAPTER XVIII: THE LAST YEARS OF KNOX: 1567-1572</h2> +<p>The Royal quarry, so long in the toils of Fate, was dragged down +at last, and the doom forespoken by the prophet was fulfilled. +A multitude had their opportunity with this fair Athaliah; and Mary +had ridden from Carberry Hill, a draggled prisoner, into her own town, +among the yells of “burn the harlot.” But one out +of all her friends was faithful to her. Mary Seton, to her immortal +honour, rode close by the side of her fallen mistress and friend.</p> +<p>For six years insulted and thwarted; her smiles and her tears alike +wasted on greedy, faithless courtiers and iron fanatics; perplexed and +driven desperate by the wiles of Cecil and Elizabeth; in bodily pain +and constant sorrow—the sorrow wrought by the miscreant whom she +had married; without one honest friend; Mary had wildly turned to the +man who, it is to be supposed, she thought could protect her, and her +passion had dragged her into unplumbed deeps of crime and shame.</p> +<p>The fall of Mary, the triumph of Protestantism, appear to have, in +some degree, rather diminished the prominence of Knox. He would +never make Mary weep again. He had lost the protagonist against +whom, for a while, he had stood almost alone, and soon we find him complaining +of neglect. He appeared at the General Assembly of June 25, 1567—a +scanty gathering. George Buchanan, a layman, was Moderator: the +Assembly was adjourned to July 21, and the brethren met in arms; wherefore +Argyll, who had signed the band for Darnley’s murder, declined +to come. <a name="citation256a"></a><a href="#footnote256a">{256a}</a> +The few nobles, the barons, and others present, vowed to punish the +murder of Darnley and to defend the child prince; and it was decided +that henceforth all Scottish princes should swear to “set forward +the true religion of Jesus Christ, as at present professed and established +in this realm”—as they are bound to do—“by Deuteronomy +and the second chapter of the Book of Kings,” which, in fact, +do not speak of establishing Calvinism.</p> +<p>Among those who sign are Morton, who had guilty foreknowledge of +the murder; while his kinsman, Archibald Douglas, was present at the +doing; Sir James Balfour, who was equally involved; Lethington, who +signed the murder covenant; and Douglas of Whittingham, and Ker of Faldonside, +two of Riccio’s assassins. Most of the nobles stood aloof.</p> +<p>Presently Throckmorton arrived, sent by Elizabeth with the pretence, +at least, of desiring to save Mary’s life, which, but for his +exertions, he thought would have been taken. He “feared +Knox’s austerity as much as any man’s” (July 14). +<a name="citation256b"></a><a href="#footnote256b">{256b}</a></p> +<p>On July 17 Knox arrived from the west, where he had been trying to +unite the Protestants. <a name="citation256c"></a><a href="#footnote256c">{256c}</a> +Throckmorton found Craig and Knox “very austere,” well provided +with arguments from the Bible, history, the laws of Scotland, and the +Coronation Oath. <a name="citation257a"></a><a href="#footnote257a">{257a}</a> +Knox in his sermons “threatened the great plague of God to this +whole nation and country if the Queen be spared from her condign punishment.” +<a name="citation257b"></a><a href="#footnote257b">{257b}</a></p> +<p>Murderers were in the habit of being lightly let off, in Scotland, +and, as to Mary, she could easily have been burned for husband-murder, +but not so easily convicted thereof with any show of justice. +The only direct evidence of her complicity lay in the Casket Letters, +and several of her lordly accusers were (if she were guilty) her accomplices. +Her prayer to be heard in self-defence at the ensuing Parliament of +December was refused, for excellent reasons; and her opponents had the +same good reasons for not bringing her to trial. Knox was perfectly +justified if he desired her to be tried, but several lay members of +the General Assembly could not have faced that ordeal, and Randolph +later accused Lethington, in a letter to him, of advising her assassination. +<a name="citation257c"></a><a href="#footnote257c">{257c}</a></p> +<p>On July 29 Knox preached at the Coronation of James VI. at Stirling, +protesting against the rite of anointing. True, it was Jewish, +but it had passed through the impure hands of Rome, as, by the way, +had Baptism. Knox also preached at the opening of Parliament, +on December 15. We know little of him at this time. He had +sent his sons to Cambridge, into danger of acquiring Anglican opinions, +which they did; but now he seems to have taken a less truculent view +of Anglicanism than in 1559-60. He had been drawing a prophetic +historical parallel between Chatelherault (more or less of the Queen’s +party) and Judas Iscariot, and was not loved by the Hamiltons. +The Duke was returning from France, “to restore Satan to his kingdom,” +with the assistance of the Guises. Knox mentions an attempt to +assassinate Moray, now Regent, which is obscure. “I live +as a man already dead from all civil things.” Thus he wrote +to Wood, Moray’s agent, then in England on the affair of the Casket +Letters (September 10, 1568).</p> +<p>He had already (February 14) declined to gratify Wood by publishing +his “History.” He would not permit it to appear during +his life, as “it will rather hurt me than profit them” (his +readers). He was, very naturally, grieved that the conduct of +men was not conformable to “the truth of God, now of some years +manifest.” He was not concerned to revenge his own injuries +“by word or writ,” and he foresaw schism in England over +questions of dress and rites. <a name="citation258a"></a><a href="#footnote258a">{258a}</a></p> +<p>He was neglected. “Have not thine oldest and stoutest +acquaintance” (Moray, or Kirkcaldy of Grange?) “buried thee +in present oblivion, and art thou not in that estate, by age, <a name="citation258b"></a><a href="#footnote258b">{258b}</a> +that nature itself calleth thee from the pleasure of things temporal?” +(August 19, 1569).</p> +<p>“<i>In trouble impatient</i>, <i>tending to desperation</i>,” +Knox had said of himself. He was still unhappy. “Foolish +Scotland” had “disobeyed God by sparing the Queen’s +life,” and now the proposed Norfolk marriage of Mary and her intended +restoration were needlessly dreaded. A month later, Lethington, +thrown back on Mary by his own peril for his share in Darnley’s +murder, writes to the Queen that some ministers are reconcilable, “but +Nox I think be inflexible.” <a name="citation259a"></a><a href="#footnote259a">{259a}</a></p> +<p>A year before Knox wrote his melancholy letter, just cited, he had +some curious dealings with the English Puritans. In 1566 many +of them had been ejected from their livings, and, like the Scottish +Catholics, they “assembled in woods and private houses to worship +God.” <a name="citation259b"></a><a href="#footnote259b">{259b}</a> +The edifying controversies between these precisians and Grindal, the +Bishop of London, are recorded by Strype. The bishop was no zealot +for surplices and the other momentous trifles which agitate the human +conscience, but Elizabeth insisted on them; and “Her Majesty’s +Government must be carried on.” The precisians had deserted +the English Liturgy for the Genevan Book of Common Order; both sides +were appealing to Beza, in Geneva, and were wrangling about the interpretation +of that Pontiff’s words. <a name="citation259c"></a><a href="#footnote259c">{259c}</a></p> +<p>Calvin had died in 1564, but the Genevan Church and Beza were still +umpires, whose decision was eagerly sought, quibbled over, and disputed. +The French Puritans, in fact, extremely detested the Anglican Book of +Common Prayer. Thus, in 1562, De la Vigne, a preacher at St. Lô, +consulted Calvin about the excesses of certain Flemish brethren, who +adhered to “a certain bobulary (<i>bobulaire</i>) of prayers, +compiled, or brewed, in the days of Edward VI.” The Calvinists +of St. Lô decided that these Flemings must not approach their +holy table, and called our communion service “a disguised Mass.” +The Synod (Calvinistic) of Poictiers decided that our Liturgy contains +“impieties,” and that Satan was the real author of the work! +There are saints’ days, “with epistles, lessons, or gospels, +as under the papacy.” They have heard that the Prayer Book +has been condemned by Geneva. <a name="citation260a"></a><a href="#footnote260a">{260a}</a></p> +<p>The English sufferers from our Satanic Prayer Book appealed to Geneva, +and were answered by Beza (October 24, 1567). He observed, “Who +are we to give any judgment of these things, which, as it seems to us, +can be healed only by prayers and patience.” Geneva has +not heard both sides, and does not pretend to judge. The English +brethren complain that ministers are appointed “without any lawful +consent of the Presbytery,” the English Church not being Presbyterian, +and not intending to be. Beza hopes that it will become Presbyterian. +He most dreads that any should “execute their ministry contrary +to the will of her Majesty and the Bishops,” which is exactly +what the seceders did. Beza then speaks out about the question +of costume, which ought not to be forced on the ministers. But +he does not think that the vestments justify schism. In other +points the brethren should, in the long run, “give way to manifest +violence,” and “live as private men.” “Other +defilements” (kneeling, &c.) Beza hopes that the Queen +and Bishops will remove. Men must “patiently bear with one +another, and heartily obey the Queen’s Majesty and all their Bishops.” +<a name="citation260b"></a><a href="#footnote260b">{260b}</a></p> +<p>As far as this epistle goes, Beza and his colleagues certainly do +not advise the Puritan seceders to secede.</p> +<p>Bullinger and Gualterus in particular were outworn by the pertinacious +English Puritans who visited them. One Sampson had, when in exile, +made the life of Peter Martyr a burden to him by his “clamours,” +doubts, and restless dissatisfaction. “England,” wrote +Bullinger to Beza (March 15, 1567), “has many characters of this +sort, who cannot be at rest, who can never be satisfied, and who have +always something or other to complain about.” Bullinger +and Gualterus “were unwilling to contend with these men like fencing-masters,” +tired of their argufying; unable to “withdraw our entire confidence +from the Bishops.” “If any others think of coming +hither, let them know that they will come to no purpose.” <a name="citation261a"></a><a href="#footnote261a">{261a}</a></p> +<p>Knox may have been less unsympathetic, but his advice agreed with +the advice of the Genevans. Some of the seceders were imprisoned; +Cecil and the Queen’s commissioners encouraged others “to +go and preach the Gospel in Scotland,” sending with them, as it +seems, letters commendatory to the ruling men there. They went, +but they were not long away. “They liked not that northern +climate, but in May returned again,” and fell to their old practices. +One of them reported that, at Dunbar, “he saw men going to the +church, on Good Friday, barefooted and bare-kneed, and creeping to the +cross!” “If this be so,” said Grindal, “the +Church of Scotland will not be pure enough for our men.” <a name="citation261b"></a><a href="#footnote261b">{261b}</a></p> +<p>These English brethren, when in Scotland, consulted Knox on the dispute +which they made a ground of schism. One brother, who was uncertain +in his mind, visited Knox in Scotland at this time. The result +appears in a letter to Knox from a seceder, written just after Queen +Mary escaped from Lochleven in May 1568. The dubiously seceding +brother “told the Bishop” (Grindal) “that you are +flat against and condemn all our doings . . . whereupon the Church” +(the seceders) “did excommunicate him”! He had reviled +“the Church,” and they at once caught “the excommunicatory +fever.” Meanwhile the earnestly seceding brother thought +that he had won Knox to <i>his</i> side. But a letter from our +Reformer proved his error, and the letter, as the brother writes, “is +not in all points liked.” They would not “go back +again to the wafer-cake and kneelings” (the Knoxian Black Rubric +had been deleted from Elizabeth’s prayer book), “and to +other knackles of Popery.”</p> +<p>In fact they obeyed Knox’s epistle to England of January 1559. +“Mingle-mangle ministry, Popish order, and Popish apparel,” +they will not bear. Knox’s arguments in favour of their +conforming, for the time at all events, are quoted and refuted: “And +also concerning Paul his purifying at Jerusalem.” The analogy +of Paul’s conformity had been rejected by Knox, at the supper +party with Lethington in 1556. He had “doubted whether either +James’s commandment or Paul’s obedience proceeded from the +Holy Ghost.” <a name="citation262a"></a><a href="#footnote262a">{262a}</a> +Yet now Knox had used the very same argument from Paul’s conformity +which, in 1556, he had scouted! The Mass was not in question in +1568; still, if Paul was wrong (and he did get into peril from a mob!), +how could Knox now bid the English brethren follow his example? <a name="citation262b"></a><a href="#footnote262b">{262b}</a> +(See pp. 65-67 <i>supra</i>.)</p> +<p>To be sure Mary was probably at large, when Knox wrote, with 4000 +spears at her back. The Reformer may have rightly thought it an +ill moment to irritate Elizabeth, or he may have grown milder than he +was in 1559, and come into harmony with Bullinger. In February +of the year of this correspondence he had written, “God comfort +that dispersed little flock,” apparently the Puritans of his old +Genevan congregation, now in England, and in trouble, “amongst +whom I would be content to end my days. . . . ” <a name="citation263a"></a><a href="#footnote263a">{263a}</a></p> +<p>In January 1570, Knox, “with his one foot in the grave,” +as he says, did not despair of seeing his desire upon his enemy. +Moray was asking Elizabeth to hand over to him Queen Mary, giving hostages +for the safety of her life. Moray sent his messenger to Cecil, +on January 2, 1570, and Knox added a brief note. “If ye +strike not at the root,” he said, “the branches that appear +to be broken will bud again. . . . More days than one would not +suffice to express what I think.” <a name="citation263b"></a><a href="#footnote263b">{263b}</a> +What he thought is obvious; “stone dead hath no fellow.” +But Mary’s day of doom had not yet come; Moray was not to receive +her as a prisoner, for the Regent was shot dead, in Linlithgow, on January +23, by Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, to the unconcealed delight of his +sister, for whom his death was opportune.</p> +<p>The assassin, Bothwellhaugh, in May 1568, had been pardoned for his +partisanship of Mary, at Knox’s intercession. “Thy +image, O Lord, did so clearly shine on that personage” (Moray)—he +said in his public prayer at the Regent’s funeral <a name="citation263c"></a><a href="#footnote263c">{263c}</a>—“that +the devil, and the people to whom he is Prince, could not abide it.” +We know too much of Moray to acquiesce, without reserve, in this eulogium.</p> +<p>Knox was sorely disturbed, at this time, by the publication of a +<i>jeu d’esprit</i>, in which the author professed to have been +hidden in a bed, in the cabinet of a room, while the late Regent held +a council of his friends. <a name="citation264a"></a><a href="#footnote264a">{264a}</a> +The tone and manner of Lindsay, Wood, Knox and others were admirably +imitated; in their various ways, and with appropriate arguments, some +of them urged Moray to take the crown for his life. By no people +but the Scots, perhaps, could this jape have been taken seriously, but, +with a gravity that would have delighted Charles Lamb, Knox denounced +the skit from the pulpit as a fabrication by the Father of Lies. +The author, the human penman, he said (according to Calderwood), was +fated to die friendless in a strange land. The galling shaft came +out of the Lethington quiver; it may have been composed by several of +the family, but Thomas Maitland, who later died in Italy, was regarded +as the author, <a name="citation264b"></a><a href="#footnote264b">{264b}</a> +perhaps because he did die alone in a strange country.</p> +<p>At this time the Castle of Edinburgh was held in the Queen’s +interest by Kirkcaldy of Grange, who seems to have been won over by +the guile of Lethington. That politician needed a shelter from +the danger of the Lennox feud, and the charge of having been guilty +of Darnley’s murder. To take the place was beyond the power +of the Protestant party, and it did not fall under the guns of their +English allies during the life of the Reformer.</p> +<p>He had a tedious quarrel with Kirkcaldy in December 1570-January +1571. A retainer of Kirkcaldy’s had helped to kill a man +whom his master only wanted to be beaten. The retainer was put +into the Tolbooth; Kirkcaldy set him free, and Knox preached against +Kirkcaldy. Hearing that Knox had styled him a murderer, Kirkcaldy +bade Craig read from the pulpit a note in which he denied the charge. +He prayed God to decide whether he or Knox “has been most desirous +of innocent blood.” Craig would not read the note: Kirkcaldy +appealed in a letter to the kirk-session. He explained the origin +of the trouble: the slain man had beaten his brother; he bade his agents +beat the insulter, who drew his sword, and got a stab. On this +Knox preached against him, he was told, as a cut-throat.</p> +<p>Next Sunday Knox reminded his hearers that he had not called Kirkcaldy +a murderer (though in the case of the Cardinal, he was), but had said +that the lawless proceedings shocked him more than if they had been +done by common cut-throats. Knox then wrote a letter to the kirk-session, +saying that Kirkcaldy’s defence proved him “to be a murderer +at heart,” for St. John says that “whoso loveth not his +brother is a man-slayer”; and Kirkcaldy did not love the man who +was killed. All this was apart from the question: had Knox called +Kirkcaldy a common cut-throat? Kirkcaldy then asked that Knox’s +explanation of what he said in the pulpit might be given in writing, +as his words had been misreported, and Knox, “creeping upon his +club,” went personally to the kirk-session, and requested the +Superintendent to admonish Kirkcaldy of his offences. Next Sunday +he preached about his eternal Ahab, and Kirkcaldy was offended by the +historical parallel. When he next was in church Knox went at him +again; it was believed that Kirkcaldy would avenge himself, but the +western brethren wrote to remind him of their “great care” +for Knox’s person. So the quarrel, which made sermons lively, +died out. <a name="citation266"></a><a href="#footnote266">{266}</a></p> +<p>There was little goodwill to Knox in the Queen’s party, and +as the conflict was plainly to be decided by the sword, Robert Melville, +from the Castle, advised that the prophet should leave the town, in +May 1571. The “Castilian” chiefs wished him no harm, +they would even shelter him in their hold, but they could not be responsible +for his “safety from the multitude and rascal,” in the town, +for the craftsmen preferred the party of Kirkcaldy. Knox had a +curious interview in the Castle with Lethington, now stricken by a mortal +malady. The two old foes met courteously, and parted even in merriment; +Lethington did not mock, and Knox did not threaten. They were +never again to see each other’s faces, though the dying Knox was +still to threaten, and the dying Lethington was still to mock.</p> +<p>July found Knox and his family at St. Andrews, in the New Hospice, +a pre-Reformation ecclesiastical building, west of the Cathedral, and +adjoining the gardens of St. Leonard’s College. At this +time James Melville, brother of the more celebrated scholar and divine, +Andrew Melville, was a golf-playing young student of St. Leonard’s +College. He tells us how Knox would walk about the College gardens, +exhorting the St. Leonard’s lads to be staunch Protestants; for +St. Salvator’s and St. Mary’s were not devoted to the Reformer +and his party. The smitten preacher (he had suffered a touch of +apoplexy) walked slowly, a fur tippet round his neck in summer, leaning +on his staff, and on the shoulder of his secretary, Bannatyne. +He returned, at St. Andrews, in his sermons, to the Book of Daniel with +which, nearly a quarter of a century ago, he began his pulpit career. +In preaching he was moderate—for half-an-hour; and then, warming +to his work, he made young Melville shudder and tremble, till he could +not hold his pen to write. No doubt the prophet was denouncing +“that last Beast,” the Pope, and his allies in Scotland, +as he had done these many years ago. Ere he had finished his sermon +“he was like to ding the pulpit to blads and fly out of it.” +He attended a play, written by Davidson, later a famous preacher, on +the siege and fall of the Castle, exhibiting the hanging of his old +ally, Kirkcaldy, “according to Mr. Knox’s doctrine,” +says Melville. This cheerful entertainment was presented at the +marriage of John Colville, destined to be a traitor, a double spy, and +a renegade from the Kirk to “the Synagogue of Satan.” <a name="citation267a"></a><a href="#footnote267a">{267a}</a></p> +<p>Knox now collected historical materials from Alexander Hay, Clerk +of the Privy Council, and heard of the publication of Buchanan’s +scurrilous “Detection” of Queen Mary, in December 1571. +<a name="citation267b"></a><a href="#footnote267b">{267b}</a></p> +<p>Knox had denounced the Hamiltons as murderers, so one of that name +accused our Reformer of having signed a band for the murder of Darnley—not +the murder at Kirk o’ Field, but a sketch for an attempt at Perth! +He had an interview with Knox, not of the most satisfactory, and there +was a quarrel with another Hamilton, who later became a Catholic and +published scurrilous falsehoods about Knox, in Latin. In fact +our Reformer had quarrels enough on his hands at St. Andrews, and to +one adversary he writes about what he would do, if he had his old strength +of body.</p> +<p>Not in the Regency, but mainly under the influence of Morton, bishops +were reintroduced, at a meeting of the Kirk held at Leith, in January +1572. The idea was that each bishop should hand over most of his +revenues to Morton, or some other person in power. Knox, of course, +objected; he preached at St. Andrews before Morton inducted a primate +of his clan, but he refused to “inaugurate” the new prelate. +The Superintendent of Fife did what was to be done, and a bishop (he +of Caithness) was among the men who imposed their hands on the head +of the new Archbishop of St. Andrews. Thus the imposition of hands, +which Knox had abolished in the Book of Discipline, crept back again, +and remains in Presbyterian usage. <a name="citation268a"></a><a href="#footnote268a">{268a}</a></p> +<p>Had Knox been in vigour he might have summoned the brethren in arms +to resist; but he was weak of body, and Morton was an ill man to deal +with. Knox did draw up articles intended to minimise the mischief +of these bastard and simoniacal bishoprics and abused patronages (August +1572). <a name="citation268b"></a><a href="#footnote268b">{268b}</a> +On May 26, 1572, he describes himself as “lying in St. Andrews, +half dead.” <a name="citation268c"></a><a href="#footnote268c">{268c}</a> +He was able, however, to preach at a witch, who was probably none the +better for his distinguished attentions.</p> +<p>On August 17, during a truce between the hostile parties, Knox left +St. Andrews for Edinburgh, “not without dolour and displeasure +of the few godly that were in the town, but to the great joy and pleasure +of the rest;” for, “half dead” as he was, Knox had +preached a political sermon every Sunday, and he was in the pulpit at +St. Giles’s on the last Sunday of August. <a name="citation269a"></a><a href="#footnote269a">{269a}</a> +As his colleague, Craig, had disgusted the brethren by his moderation +and pacific temper, a minister named Lawson was appointed as Knox’s +coadjutor.</p> +<p>Late in August came the news of the St. Bartholomew massacre (August +24). Knox rose to the occasion, and, preaching in the presence +of du Croc, the French ambassador, bade him tell his King that he was +a murderer, and that God’s vengeance should never depart from +him or his house. <a name="citation269b"></a><a href="#footnote269b">{269b}</a> +The prophecy was amply fulfilled. Du Croc remonstrated, “but +the Lords answered they could not stop the mouths of ministers to speak +against themselves.”</p> +<p>There was a convention of Protestants in Edinburgh on October 20, +but lords did not attend, and few lairds were present. The preachers +and other brethren in the Assembly proposed that all Catholics in the +realm should be compelled to recant publicly, to lose their whole property +and be banished if they were recalcitrant, and, if they remained in +the country, that all subjects should be permitted, lawfully, to put +them to death. (“To invade them, and every one of them, +to the death.”) <a name="citation269c"></a><a href="#footnote269c">{269c}</a> +This was the ideal, embodied in law, of the brethren in 1560. +Happily they were not permitted to disgrace Scotland by a Bartholomew +massacre of her own.</p> +<p>Mr. Hume Brown thinks that these detestable proposals “if not +actually penned by Knox, must have been directly inspired by him.” +He does not, however, mention the demand for massacre, except as “pains +and penalties for those who <i>preached</i> the old religion.” +<a name="citation269d"></a><a href="#footnote269d">{269d}</a> +“Without exception of persons, great or small,” <i>all</i> +were to be obliged to recant, or to be ruined and exiled, or to be massacred. +Dr. M‘Crie does not hint at the existence of these articles, “to +be given to the Regent and Council.” They included a very +proper demand for the reformation of vice at home. Certainly Knox +did not pen or dictate the Articles, for none of his favourite adjectives +occurs in the document.</p> +<p>At this time Elizabeth, Leicester, and Cecil desired to hand over +Queen Mary to Mar, the Regent, “to proceed with her by way of +justice,” a performance not to be deferred, “either for +Parliament or a great Session.” Very Petty Sessions indeed, +if any, were to suffice for the trial of the Queen. <a name="citation270"></a><a href="#footnote270">{270}</a> +There are to be no “temporising solemnities,” all are to +be “stout and resolute <i>in execution</i>,” Leicester thus +writes to an unknown correspondent on October 10. Killigrew, who +was to arrange the business with Mar, was in Scotland by September 19. +On October 6, Killigrew writes that Knox is very feeble but still preaching, +and that he says, if he is not a bishop, it is by no fault of Cecil’s. +“I trust to satisfy Morton,” says Killigrew, “and +as for John Knox, that thing, as you may see by my letter to Mr. Secretary, +is done and doing daily; the people in general well bent to England, +abhorring the fact in France, and fearing their tyranny.”</p> +<p>“That thing” is <i>not</i> the plan for murdering Mary +without trial; if Killigrew meant that he had obtained Knox’s +assent to <i>that</i>, he would not write “that thing is doing +daily.” Even Morton, more scrupulous than Elizabeth and +Cecil, said that “there must be some kind of process” (trial, +<i>procès</i>), attended secretly by the nobles and the ministers. +The trial would be in Mary’s absence, or would be brief indeed, +for the prisoner was not to live three hours after crossing the Border! +Others, unnamed, insisted on a trial; the Queen had never been found +guilty. Killigrew speaks of “two ministers” as eager +for the action, but nothing proves that Knox was one of them. +While Morton and Mar were haggling for the price of Mary’s blood, +Mar died, on October 28, and the whole plot fell through. <a name="citation271"></a><a href="#footnote271">{271}</a> +Anxious as Knox had declared himself to be to “strike at the root,” +he could not, surely, be less scrupulous about a trial than Morton, +though the decision of the Court was foredoomed. Sandys, the Bishop +of London, advised that Mary’s head should be chopped off!</p> +<p>On November 9, 1572, Knox inducted Mr. Lawson into his place as minister +at St. Giles’s. On the 13th he could not read the Bible +aloud, he paid his servants, and gave his man a present, the last, in +addition to his wages. On the 15th two friends came to see Knox +at noon, dinner time. He made an effort, and for the last time +sat at meat with them, ordering a fresh hogshead of wine to be drawn. +“He willed Archibald Stewart to send for the wine so long as it +lasted, for he would never tarry until it were drunken.” +On the 16th the Kirk came to him, by his desire; and he protested that +he had never hated any man personally, but only their errors, nor had +he made merchandise of the Word. He sent a message to Kirkcaldy +bidding him repent, or the threatenings should fall on him and the Castle. +His exertions increased his illness. There had been a final quarrel +with the dying Lethington, who complained that Knox, in sermons and +otherwise, charged him with saying there is “neither heaven nor +hell,” an atheistic position of which (see his eloquent prayer +before Corrichie fight, wherein Huntly died <a name="citation272a"></a><a href="#footnote272a">{272a}</a>) +he was incapable. On the 16th he told “the Kirk” that +Lethington’s conduct proved that he really did disbelieve in God, +and a future of rewards and punishments. That was not the question. +The question was—Did Knox, publicly and privately, as Lethington +complained, attribute to him words which he denied having spoken, asking +that the witnesses should be produced. We wish that Knox had either +produced good evidences, or explained why he could not produce them, +or had apologised, or had denied that he spoke in the terms reported +to Lethington.</p> +<p>James Melville says that the Rev. Mr. Lindsay, of Leith, told him +that Knox bade him carry a message to Kirkcaldy in the Castle. +After compliments, it ran: “He shall be disgracefully dragged +from his nest to punishment, and hung on a gallows before the face of +the sun, unless he speedily amend his life, and flee to the mercy of +God.” Knox added: “That man’s soul is dear to +me, and I would not have it perish, if I could save it.” +Kirkcaldy consulted Maitland, and returned with a reply which contained +Lethington’s last scoff at the prophet. However, Morton, +when he had the chance, did hang Kirkcaldy, as in the play acted before +Knox at St. Andrews, “according to Mr. Knox’s doctrine.” +“The preachers clamoured for blood to cleanse blood.” <a name="citation272b"></a><a href="#footnote272b">{272b}</a></p> +<p>As to a secret conference with Morton on the 17th, the Earl, before +his execution, confessed that the dying man asked him, “if he +knew anything of the King’s (Darnley’s) murder?” +“I answered, indeed, I knew nothing of it”—perhaps +a pardonable falsehood in the circumstances. Morton said that +the people who had suffered from Kirkcaldy and the preachers daily demanded +the soldier’s death.</p> +<p>Other sayings of the Reformer are reported. He repressed a +lady who, he thought, wished to flatter him: “Lady, lady, the +black ox has never trodden yet upon your foot!” “I +have been in heaven and have possession, and I have tasted of these +heavenly joys where presently I am,” he said, after long meditation, +beholding, as in Bunyan’s allegory, the hills of Beulah. +He said the Creed, which soon vanished from Scottish services; and in +saying “Our Father,” broke off to murmur, “Who can +pronounce so holy words?” On November 24 he rose and dressed, +but soon returned to bed. His wife read to him the text, “where +I cast my first anchor,” St. John’s Gospel, chapter xvii. +About half-past ten he said, “Now it is come!” and being +asked for a sign of his steadfast faith, he lifted up one hand, “and +so slept away without any pain.” <a name="citation273"></a><a href="#footnote273">{273}</a></p> +<p>Knox was buried on November 26 in the churchyard south of St. Giles. +A flat stone, inscribed J. K., beside the equestrian statue of Charles +II., is reported to mark his earthly resting-place. He died as +he had lived, a poor man; a little money was owed to him; all his debts +were paid. His widow, two years later, married Andrew Ker of Faldonside, +so notorious for levelling a pistol at the Queen on the occasion of +Riccio’s murder. Ker appears to have been intimate with +the Reformer. Bannatyne speaks of a story of Lady Atholl’s +witchcraft, told by a Mr. Lundie to Knox, at dinner, “at Falsyde.” +This was a way of spelling Faldonside, <a name="citation274"></a><a href="#footnote274">{274}</a> +the name of Ker’s place, hard by the Tweed, within a mile of Abbotsford. +Probably Ker and his wife sleep in the family burying-ground, the disused +kirkyard of Lindean, near a little burn that murmurs under the broad +burdock leaves on its way to join the Ettrick.</p> +<h2>APPENDIX A: ALLEGED PERFIDY OF MARY OF GUISE</h2> +<p>The Regent has usually been accused of precipitating, or causing +the Revolution of 1559, by breaking a pledge given to the Protestants +assembled at Perth (May 10-11, 1559). Knox’s “History” +and a letter of his are the sources of this charge, and it is difficult +to determine the amount of truth which it may contain.</p> +<p>Our earliest evidence on the matter is found in a letter to the English +Privy Council, from Sir James Croft, commanding at Berwick. The +letter, of May 19, is eight days later than the riots at Perth. +It is not always accurately informed; Croft corrects one or two statements +in later despatches, but the points corrected are not those with which +we are here concerned. <a name="citation275a"></a><a href="#footnote275a">{275a}</a> +Neither in this nor in other English advices do I note any charge of +ill faith brought against the Regent on this occasion. Croft says +that, on Knox’s arrival, many nobles and a multitude of others +repaired to Dundee to hear him and others preach. The Regent then +summoned these preachers before her to Stirling, <a name="citation275b"></a><a href="#footnote275b">{275b}</a> +but as they had a “train” of 5000 or 6000, she “dismissed +the appearance,” putting the preachers to the horn, and commanding +the nobility to appear before her in Edinburgh. The “companies” +then retired and wrecked monasteries at Perth. The Lords and they +had <i>previously</i> sent Erskine of Dun to the Regent, offering to +appear before her with only their household servants, to hear the preachers +dispute with the clergy, if she would permit. The Regent, “taking +displeasure with” Erskine of Dun, bade him begone out of her sight. +He rode off (to Perth), and she had him put to the horn (as a fact, +he was only fined in his recognisances as bail for one of the preachers). +The riots followed his arrival in Perth.</p> +<p>Such is our earliest account; there is no mention of a promise broken +by the Regent.</p> +<p>Knox himself wrote two separate and not always reconcilable accounts +of the first revolutionary explosion; one in a letter of June 23 to +Mrs. Locke, the other in a part of Book II. of his “History,” +composed at some date before October 23, 1559. That portion of +his “History” is an <i>apologia</i> for the proceedings +of his party, and was apparently intended for contemporary publication. +<a name="citation276a"></a><a href="#footnote276a">{276a}</a></p> +<p>This part of the “History,” therefore, as the work of +an advocate, needs to be checked, when possible, by other authorities. +We first examine Knox’s letter of June 23, 1559, to Mrs. Locke. +He says that he arrived in Edinburgh on May 2, and, after resting for +a day, went (on May 4) to the brethren assembled at Dundee. They +all marched to Perth, meaning thence to accompany the preachers to their +day of law at Stirling, May 10. But, lest the proceeding should +seem rebellious, they sent a baron (Erskine of Dun, in fact) to the +Regent, “with declaration of our minds.” The Regent +<i>and Council</i> in reply, bade the multitude “stay, and not +come to Stirling . . . and so should no extremity be used, but the summons +should be continued” (deferred) “till further advisement. +Which, being gladly granted of us, some of the brethren returned to +their dwelling-places. But the Queen <i>and her Council</i>, nothing +mindful of her and their promise, incontinent did call” (summon) +“the preachers, and for lack of their appearance, did exile and +put them and their assistants to the horn. . . . ” <a name="citation276b"></a><a href="#footnote276b">{276b}</a></p> +<p>It would be interesting to know who the Regent’s Council were +on this occasion. The Reformer errs when he tells Mrs. Locke that +the Regent outlawed “the assisters” of the preachers. +Dr. M‘Crie publishes an extract from the “Justiciary Records” +of May 10, in which Methuen, Christison, Harlaw, and Willock, and no +others, are put to the horn, or outlawed, in absence, for breach of +the Regent’s proclamations, and for causing “tumults and +seditions.” No one else is put to the horn, but the sureties +for the preachers’ appearance are fined. <a name="citation276c"></a><a href="#footnote276c">{276c}</a></p> +<p>In his “History,” Knox says that the Regent, when Erskine +of Dun arrived at Stirling as an emissary of the brethren, “began +to craft with him, soliciting him to stay the multitude, and the preachers +also, with promise that she would take some better order.” +Erskine wrote to the brethren, “to stay and not to come forward, +showing what promise and <i>hope</i> he had of the Queen’s Grace’s +favours.” Some urged that they should go forward till the +summons was actually “discharged,” otherwise the preachers +and their companions would be put to the horn. Others said that +the Regent’s promises were “not to be suspected . . . and +so did the whole multitude with their preachers stay. . . . The +Queen, perceiving that the preachers did not appear, began to utter +her malice, and notwithstanding any request made on the contrary, gave +command to put them to the horn. . . .” Erskine then prudently +withdrew, rode to Perth, and “did conceal nothing of the Queen’s +craft and falsehood.” <a name="citation277a"></a><a href="#footnote277a">{277a}</a></p> +<p>In this version the Regent bears all the blame, nothing is said of +the Council. “The whole multitude stay”—at Perth, +or it may perhaps be meant that they do not come forward towards Stirling. +The Regent’s promise is merely that she would “take some +better order.” She does not here promise to <i>postpone</i> +the summons, and refuses “any request made” to abstain from +putting them to the horn. The account, therefore, is somewhat +more vague than that in the letter to Mrs. Locke. Prof. Hume Brown +puts it that the Regent “in her understanding with Erskine of +Dun <i>had publicly cancelled</i> the summons of the preachers for the +10th of May,” which rather overstates the case perhaps. +That she should “publicly cancel” or “discharge” +the summons was what a part of the brethren desired, and did not get. +<a name="citation277b"></a><a href="#footnote277b">{277b}</a></p> +<p>We now turn to a fragmentary and anonymous “Historie of the +Estate of Scotland,” concerning which Prof. Hume Brown says, “Whoever +the author may have been, he writes as a contemporary, or from information +supplied by a contemporary . . . what inspires confidence in him is +that certain of his facts not recorded by other contemporary Scottish +historians are corroborated by the despatches of d’Oysel and others +in Teulet.” <a name="citation277c"></a><a href="#footnote277c">{277c}</a></p> +<p>I elsewhere <a name="citation277d"></a><a href="#footnote277d">{277d}</a> +give reasons for thinking that this “Historie” is perhaps +the chronicle of Bruce of Earl’s Hall, a contemporary gentleman +of Fife. I also try to show that he writes, on one occasion, as +an eye-witness.</p> +<p>This author, who is a strong partisan of the Reformers, says nothing +of the broken promise of the Regent and Council. He mentions the +intention to march to Stirling, and then writes: “And although +the Queen Regent was most earnestly requested and persuaded to continue”—that +is to defer the summons—“nevertheless she remained wilful +and obstinate, so that the counsel of God must needs take effect. +Shortly, the day being come, because they appeared not, their sureties +were outlawed, and the preachers ordered to be put to the horn. +The Laird of Dun, who was sent from Perth by the brethren, perceiving +her obstinacy, they” (who?) “turned from Stirling, and coming +to Perth, declared to the brethren the obstinacy they found in the Queen. +. . . ”</p> +<p>This sturdy Protestant’s version, which does not accuse the +Regent of breaking troth, is corroborated by a Catholic contemporary, +Lesley, Bishop of Ross. He says that Erskine of Dun was sent to +beg the Regent not to impose a penalty on the preachers in their absence. +But as soon as Dun returned and Knox learned from him that the Regent +would not grant their request, he preached the sermon which provoked +the devastation of the monasteries. <a name="citation278a"></a><a href="#footnote278a">{278a}</a> +Buchanan and Spottiswoode follow Knox, but they both use Knox’s +book, and are not independent witnesses.</p> +<p>The biographers of Knox do not quote “The Historie of the Estate +of Scotland,” where it touches on the beginning of the Revolution, +without disparaging the Regent’s honour. We have another +dubious witness, Sir James Melville, who arrived on a mission from France +to the Regent on June 13; he left Paris about June 1. This is +the date of a letter <a name="citation278b"></a><a href="#footnote278b">{278b}</a> +in which Henri II. offers the Regent every assistance in the warmest +terms. Melville writes, however, that in his verbal orders, delivered +by the Constable in the royal presence, the Constable said, “I +have intelligence that the Queen Regent has not kept all things promised +to them.” But Melville goes on to say that the Constable +quoted d’Elboeuf’s failure to reach Scotland with his fleet, +as a reason for not sending the troops which were promised by Henri. +As d’Elboeuf’s failure occurred long after the date of the +alleged conversation, the evidence of Melville is here incorrect. +He wrote his “Memoirs” much later, in old age, but Henri +may have written to the Regent in one sense, and given Melville orders +in another. <a name="citation279a"></a><a href="#footnote279a">{279a}</a></p> +<p>We find that Knox’s charge against the Regent is not made in +our earliest information, Croft’s letter of May 19: is not made +by the Protestant (and, we think, contemporary) author of the “Historie,” +and, of course, is not hinted at by Lesley, a Catholic. We have +seen throughout that Knox vilifies Mary of Guise in cases where she +is blameless. On the other hand, Knox is our only witness who +was at Perth at the time of the events, and it cannot be doubted that +what he told Mrs. Locke was what he believed, whether correctly or erroneously. +He could believe anything against Mary of Guise. Archbishop Spottiswoode +says, “The author of the story” (“History”) +“ascribed to John Knox in his whole discourse showeth a bitter +and hateful spite against the Regent, forging dishonest things which +were never so much as suspected by any, setting down his own conjectures +as certain truths, yea, the least syllable that did escape her in passion, +he maketh it an argument of her cruel and inhuman disposition . . . +” <a name="citation279b"></a><a href="#footnote279b">{279b}</a> +In the MS. used by Bishop Keith, <a name="citation279c"></a><a href="#footnote279c">{279c}</a> +Spottiswoode added, after praising the Regent, “these things I +have heard my father often affirm”; he had the like testimony +“from an honourable and religious lady, who had the honour to +wait near her person.” Spottiswoode was, therefore, persuaded +that the “History” “was none of Mr. Knox his writings.” +In spite of this opinion, Spottiswoode, writing about 1620-35, accepts +most of the hard things that Knox says of the Regent’s conduct +in 1559, and indeed exaggerates one or two of them; that is, as relates +to her political behaviour, for example, in the affair of the broken +promise of May 10. It may be urged that here Spottiswoode had +the support of the reminiscences of his father, a Superintendent in +the Knoxian church.</p> +<h2>APPENDIX B: FORGERY PROCURED BY MARY OF GUISE</h2> +<p>In the writer’s opinion several of Knox’s accusations +of perfidy against the Regent, in 1559, are not proved, and the attempts +to prove them are of a nature which need not be qualified. But +it is necessary to state the following facts as tending to show that +the Regent was capable of procuring a forgery against the Duke of Chatelherault. +A letter attributed to him exists in the French Archives, <a name="citation280a"></a><a href="#footnote280a">{280a}</a> +dated Glasgow, January 25, 1560, in which the Duke curries favour with +Francis II., and encloses his blank bond, <i>un blanc scellé</i>, +offering to send his children to France. <a name="citation280b"></a><a href="#footnote280b">{280b}</a> +<i>On January</i> 28, the Regent writes from Scotland to de Noailles, +then the French Ambassador to England, bidding him to mention this submission +to Elizabeth, and even show the Duke’s letter and blank bond, +that Elizabeth may see how little he is to be trusted. Now how +could the Regent, on January 28, have a letter sent by the Duke to France +on January 25? She must have intercepted it in Scotland. <a name="citation280c"></a><a href="#footnote280c">{280c}</a> +Next, on March 15, 1560, the Duke, writing to Norfolk, denies the letter +attributed to him by the French. <a name="citation280d"></a><a href="#footnote280d">{280d}</a> +He said that any one of a hundred Hamiltons would fight M. de Seurre +(the French Ambassador who, in February, succeeded de Noailles) on this +quarrel. <a name="citation280e"></a><a href="#footnote280e">{280e}</a></p> +<p>There exists a document, in the cipher of Throckmorton, English Ambassador +in France, purporting to be a copy of a letter from the Regent to the +Duc and Cardinal de Guise, dated Edinburgh, March 27, 1560. <a name="citation280f"></a><a href="#footnote280f">{280f}</a> +The Regent, at that date, was in Leith, not in Edinburgh Castle, where +she went on April 1. In that letter she is made to say that de +Seurre has “very evil misunderstood” the affair of the letter +attributed to Chatelherault. She had procured “blanks” +of his “by one of her servants here” (at Leith) “to +the late Bishop of Ross”; the Duke’s alleged letter and +submission of January 25 had been “filled up” on a “blank,” +the Duke knowing nothing of the matter.</p> +<p>This letter of the Regent, then, must also, if authentic, have been +somehow intercepted or procured by Throckmorton, in France. It +is certain that Throckmorton sometimes, by bribery, did obtain copies +of secret French papers, but I have not found him reporting to Cecil +or Queen Elizabeth this letter of the Regent’s. The reader +must estimate for himself the value of that document. I have stated +the case as fairly as I can, and though the evidence against the Regent, +as it stands, would scarcely satisfy a jury, I believe that, corrupted +by the evil example of the Congregation, the Regent, in January 1560, +did procure a forgery intended to bring suspicion on Chatelherault. +But how could she be surprised that de Seurre did not understand the +real state of the case? The Regent may have explained the true +nature of the affair to de Noailles, but it may have been unknown to +de Seurre, who succeeded that ambassador. Yet, how could she ask +any ambassador to produce a confessed forgery as genuine?</p> +<h2>Footnotes</h2> +<p><a name="footnote0a"></a><a href="#citation0a">{0a}</a> Inventories +of Mary, Queen of Scots, p. cxxii., note 7.</p> +<p><a name="footnote0b"></a><a href="#citation0b">{0b}</a> Hume +Brown, <i>John Knox</i>, ii. 320-324.</p> +<p><a name="footnote2a"></a><a href="#citation2a">{2a}</a> Probably +Mrs. Knox died in her son’s youth, and his father married again. +Catholic writers of the period are unanimous in declaring that Knox +had a stepmother.</p> +<p><a name="footnote2b"></a><a href="#citation2b">{2b}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +Laing’s edition, iv. 78.</p> +<p><a name="footnote4"></a><a href="#citation4">{4}</a> See Young’s +letter, first published by Professor Hume Brown, <i>John Knox</i>, vol. +ii. Appendix, 320-324.</p> +<p><a name="footnote5"></a><a href="#citation5">{5}</a> Laing, +in his <i>Knox</i>, vi. xxi. xxii.</p> +<p><a name="footnote6"></a><a href="#citation6">{6}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +i. 36-40. The facts are pointed out by Professor Cowan in <i>The +Athenæum</i>, December 3, 1904, and had been recognised by Dr. +Hay Fleming.</p> +<p><a name="footnote7"></a><a href="#citation7">{7}</a> Beza, +writing in 1580, says that study of St. Jerome and St. Augustine suggested +his doubts. <i>Icones Virorum Doctrina Simul ac Pietate Illustrium.</i></p> +<p><a name="footnote9"></a><a href="#citation9">{9}</a> Pollen, +<i>Papal Negotiations with Mary Stuart</i>, 428-430, 522, 524, 528.</p> +<p><a name="footnote10"></a><a href="#citation10">{10}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +vi. 172, 173.</p> +<p><a name="footnote12"></a><a href="#citation12">{12}</a> Letter +of Young to Beza. Hume Brown, <i>John Knox</i>, ii. 322-24.</p> +<p><a name="footnote15a"></a><a href="#citation15a">{15a}</a> +Cf. <i>Life of George Wishart</i>, by the Rev. Charles Rodger, 7-12 +(1876).</p> +<p><a name="footnote15b"></a><a href="#citation15b">{15b}</a> +Maxwell, <i>Old Dundee</i>, 83, 84.</p> +<p><a name="footnote17"></a><a href="#citation17">{17}</a> M‘Crie’s +<i>Knox</i>, 24 (1855).</p> +<p><a name="footnote18a"></a><a href="#citation18a">{18a}</a> +“Letter to the Faithful,” <i>cf</i>. M‘Crie, <i>Life +of John Knox</i>, 292.</p> +<p><a name="footnote18b"></a><a href="#citation18b">{18b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 229.</p> +<p><a name="footnote19"></a><a href="#citation19">{19}</a> M‘Crie, +292.</p> +<p><a name="footnote20"></a><a href="#citation20">{20}</a> Dr. +Hay Fleming has impugned this opinion, but I am convinced by the internal +evidence of tone and style in the tract; indeed, an earlier student +has anticipated my idea. The tract is described by Dr. M‘Crie +in his <i>Life of Knox</i>, 326-327 (1855).</p> +<p><a name="footnote22"></a><a href="#citation22">{22}</a> Most +of the gentry of Fife were in the murder or approved of it, and the +castle seems to have contained quite a pleasant country-house party. +They were cheered by the smiles of beauty, and in the treasurer’s +accounts we learn that Janet Monypenny of Pitmilly (an estate still +in the possession of her family), was “summoned for remaining +in the castle, and assisting” the murderers. Dr. M‘Crie +cites Janet in his list of “Scottish Martyrs and Prosecutions +for Heresy” (<i>Life of Knox</i>, 315). This martyr was +a cousin, once removed, of the murdered ecclesiastic.</p> +<p><a name="footnote23a"></a><a href="#citation23a">{23a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, Laing’s edition, i. 180.</p> +<p><a name="footnote23b"></a><a href="#citation23b">{23b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 182. “The siege continued to near the end +of January.” “The truce was of treacherous purpose,” +i. 183.</p> +<p><a name="footnote24"></a><a href="#citation24">{24}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +i. 203-205.</p> +<p><a name="footnote25a"></a><a href="#citation25a">{25a}</a> +Thorpe’s <i>Calendar</i>, i. 60; <i>Register Privy Council</i>, +i. 57, 58; Tytler, vi. 8 (1837).</p> +<p><a name="footnote25b"></a><a href="#citation25b">{25b}</a> +<i>State Papers</i>, Scotland, Thorpe, i. 61.</p> +<p><a name="footnote25c"></a><a href="#citation25c">{25c}</a> +Bain, <i>Calendar of Scottish Papers</i>, 1547-69, i. I; Tytler, iii. +51 (1864).</p> +<p><a name="footnote26a"></a><a href="#citation26a">{26a}</a> +Bain i. 2; <i>Knox</i>, i. 182, 183.</p> +<p><a name="footnote26b"></a><a href="#citation26b">{26b}</a> +For the offering of the papal remission to the garrison of the castle +before April 2, 1547, see Stewart of Cardonald’s letter of that +date to Wharton, in Bain’s <i>Calendar of Scottish Papers</i>, +1547-69, i. 4-5.</p> +<p><a name="footnote27a"></a><a href="#citation27a">{27a}</a> +<i>John Knox</i>, i. 80.</p> +<p><a name="footnote27b"></a><a href="#citation27b">{27b}</a> +<i>State Papers</i>, Domestic. Addenda, Edward VI., p. 327. +Lord Eure says there were twenty galleys.</p> +<p><a name="footnote27c"></a><a href="#citation27c">{27c}</a> +Odet De Selve, <i>Correspondence Politique</i>, pp. 170-178.</p> +<p><a name="footnote28"></a><a href="#citation28">{28}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +i. 201.</p> +<p><a name="footnote30a"></a><a href="#citation30a">{30a}</a> +<i>Leonti Strozzio</i>, <i>incolumitatem modo pacti</i>, <i>se dediderunt</i>, +writes Buchanan. Professor Hume Brown says that Buchanan evidently +confirms Knox; but <i>incolumitas</i> means security for bare life, +and nothing more. Lesley says that the terms <i>asked</i> were +life and fortune, <i>salvi cum fortunis</i>, but the terms <i>granted</i> +were but safety in life and limb, and, it seems, freedom to depart, +<i>ut soli homines integri discederent</i>. If Lesley, a Catholic +historian, is right, and if by <i>discederent</i> he means “go +freely away,” the French broke the terms of surrender.</p> +<p><a name="footnote30b"></a><a href="#citation30b">{30b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 206, 228.</p> +<p><a name="footnote33a"></a><a href="#citation33a">{33a}</a> +Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 261.</p> +<p><a name="footnote33b"></a><a href="#citation33b">{33b}</a> +Ibid., 158.</p> +<p><a name="footnote33c"></a><a href="#citation33c">{33c}</a> +Ibid., 156, 157.</p> +<p><a name="footnote35"></a><a href="#citation35">{35}</a> +Compare the preface, under the Restoration, to our existing prayer book.</p> +<p><a name="footnote36a"></a><a href="#citation36a">{36a}</a> +Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 98-136.</p> +<p><a name="footnote36b"></a><a href="#citation36b">{36b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, iii. 122.</p> +<p><a name="footnote37a"></a><a href="#citation37a">{37a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, iii. 297.</p> +<p><a name="footnote37b"></a><a href="#citation37b">{37b}</a> +Ibid., iii. 122.</p> +<p><a name="footnote38a"></a><a href="#citation38a">{38a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, iii. 280-282.</p> +<p><a name="footnote38b"></a><a href="#citation38b">{38b}</a> +Lorimer, i. 162-176.</p> +<p><a name="footnote39"></a><a href="#citation39">{39}</a> But, +for the date, <i>cf</i>. Hume Brown, <i>John Knox</i>, i. 148; and M‘Crie, +65, <i>note</i> 5; <i>Knox</i>, iii. 156.</p> +<p><a name="footnote40a"></a><a href="#citation40a">{40a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, iii. 120.</p> +<p><a name="footnote40b"></a><a href="#citation40b">{40b}</a> +Laing, <i>Knox</i>, vi. pp. lxxx., lxxxi.</p> +<p><a name="footnote40c"></a><a href="#citation40c">{40c}</a> +Pollen, <i>The Month</i>, September 1897.</p> +<p><a name="footnote43"></a><a href="#citation43">{43}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +iii. 366.</p> +<p><a name="footnote45"></a><a href="#citation45">{45}</a> Lorimer, +John Knox and the Church of England, 259.</p> +<p><a name="footnote47a"></a><a href="#citation47a">{47a}</a> +Original Letters, Parker Society, 745-747;<i> Knox</i>, iii. 221-226.</p> +<p><a name="footnote47b"></a><a href="#citation47b">{47b}</a> +M‘Crie, 65 (1855); <i>Knox</i>, iii. 235.</p> +<p><a name="footnote48"></a><a href="#citation48">{48}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +iii. 184.</p> +<p><a name="footnote49a"></a><a href="#citation49a">{49a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, iii. 309.</p> +<p><a name="footnote49b"></a><a href="#citation49b">{49b}</a> +Ibid., iii. 328, 329.</p> +<p><a name="footnote49c"></a><a href="#citation49c">{49c}</a> +Ibid., iii. 194.</p> +<p><a name="footnote54"></a><a href="#citation54">{54}</a> <i>cf</i>. +Hume Brown, ii. 299, for the terms.</p> +<p><a name="footnote56"></a><a href="#citation56">{56}</a> <i>John +Knox</i>, i. 174, 175; <i>Corp. Ref</i>., xliii. 337-344.</p> +<p><a name="footnote58"></a><a href="#citation58">{58}</a> For +the Frankfort affair, see Laing’s <i>Knox</i>, iv. 1-40, with +Knox’s own narrative, 41-49; the letters to and from Calvin, 51-68. +Calvin, in his letter to the Puritans at Frankfort, writes: “In +the Anglican Liturgy, <i>as you describe it</i>, I see many trifles +that may be put up with,” Prof. Hume Brown’s rendering of +<i>tolerabiles ineptias</i>. The author of the “Troubles +at Frankfort” (1575) leaves out “as you describe it,” +and renders “In the Liturgie of Englande I see that there were +manye tollerable foolishe thinges.” But Calvin, though he +boasts him “easy and flexible <i>in mediis rebus</i>, such as +external rites,” is decidedly in favour of the Puritans.</p> +<p><a name="footnote60"></a><a href="#citation60">{60}</a> <i>Knox</i> +i. 244.</p> +<p><a name="footnote62a"></a><a href="#citation62a">{62a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 245, <i>note</i> I.</p> +<p><a name="footnote62b"></a><a href="#citation62b">{62b}</a> +Ibid., iv. 245.</p> +<p><a name="footnote66"></a><a href="#citation66">{66}</a> I conceive +these to have been the arguments of the party of compromise, judging +from the biblical texts which they adduced.</p> +<p><a name="footnote67"></a><a href="#citation67">{67}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +i. 247-249.</p> +<p><a name="footnote71a"></a><a href="#citation71a">{71a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 92.</p> +<p><a name="footnote71b"></a><a href="#citation71b">{71b}</a> +Ibid., iv. 75-84.</p> +<p><a name="footnote73"></a><a href="#citation73">{73}</a> <i>Knox</i>; +iv. 238-240.</p> +<p><a name="footnote74"></a><a href="#citation74">{74}</a> We +shall see that reformers like Lord James and Glencairn seem, at this +moment, to have sided with Mary of Guise.</p> +<p><a name="footnote76a"></a><a href="#citation76a">{76a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 267-270.</p> +<p><a name="footnote76b"></a><a href="#citation76b">{76b}</a> +<i>Corpus Reformatorum</i>, xlvi. 426.</p> +<p><a name="footnote77a"></a><a href="#citation77a">{77a}</a> +More probably by Calvin’s opinion.</p> +<p><a name="footnote77b"></a><a href="#citation77b">{77b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, iv. 248-253; i. 267-273.</p> +<p><a name="footnote78"></a><a href="#citation78">{78}</a> Stevenson, +Selected MSS., pp. 69, 70 (1827); Bain, i. 585; Randolph to Cecil, January +2, 1561.</p> +<p><a name="footnote80a"></a><a href="#citation80a">{80a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, iv. 255-276.</p> +<p><a name="footnote80b"></a><a href="#citation80b">{80b}</a> +Ibid., i. 273, 274.</p> +<p><a name="footnote81a"></a><a href="#citation81a">{81a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 275, 276.</p> +<p><a name="footnote81b"></a><a href="#citation81b">{81b}</a> +Ibid., i. 273, 274.</p> +<p><a name="footnote83"></a><a href="#citation83">{83}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +iv. 501, 502.</p> +<p><a name="footnote84"></a><a href="#citation84">{84}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +iv. 358. <i>Zurich Letters</i>, 34-36.</p> +<p><a name="footnote85"></a><a href="#citation85">{85}</a> <i>Knox</i>, +iv. 486, 488.</p> +<p><a name="footnote87a"></a><a href="#citation87a">{87a}</a> +<i>Wodrow Miscellany</i>, vol. i.</p> +<p><a name="footnote87b"></a><a href="#citation87b">{87b}</a> +Here the “Historie of the Estate” is corroborated by the +Treasurer’s Accounts, recording payment to Rothesay Herald. +He is summoning George Lovell, David Ferguson (a preacher, later minister +of Dunfermline), and others unnamed to appear at Edinburgh on July 28, +to answer for “wrongous using and wresting of the Scriptures, +disputing upon erroneous opinions, and eating flesh in Lent,” +and at other times forbidden by Acts of Parliament (M‘Crie, 359, +<i>note</i> G). Nothing is here said about riotous iconoclasm, +but Lovell had been at the hanging of an image of St. Francis as early +as 1543, and in many such godly exercises, or was accused of these acts +of zeal.</p> +<p><a name="footnote87c"></a><a href="#citation87c">{87c}</a> +“Historie of the Estate of Scotland,” <i>Wodrow Miscellany</i>, +i. 53-55.</p> +<p><a name="footnote88a"></a><a href="#citation88a">{88a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 301.</p> +<p><a name="footnote88b"></a><a href="#citation88b">{88b}</a> +Knox appears (he is very vague) to date Calder’s petition <i>after</i> +Willock’s second visit, which the “Historie of the Estate +of Scotland” places in October 1558. Dr. M‘Crie accepts +that date, but finds that Knox places Calder’s petition before +the burning of Myln, in April 1559. Dr. M‘Crie suggests +that perhaps Calder petitioned twice, but deems Knox in the right. +As the Reformer contradicts himself, unless there were two Calder petitions +(i. 301, i. 307), he must have made an oversight.</p> +<p><a name="footnote88c"></a><a href="#citation88c">{88c}</a> +Hume Brown, <i>John Knox</i>, ii. Appendix, 301-303.</p> +<p><a name="footnote88d"></a><a href="#citation88d">{88d}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 301-306</p> +<p><a name="footnote89a"></a><a href="#citation89a">{89a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 294, 301-312. On p. 294 Knox dates the Parliament +in October.</p> +<p><a name="footnote89b"></a><a href="#citation89b">{89b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 309-312.</p> +<p><a name="footnote90a"></a><a href="#citation90a">{90a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 312-314.</p> +<p><a name="footnote90b"></a><a href="#citation90b">{90b}</a> +See Laing’s edition, i. 320, 321.</p> +<p><a name="footnote91"></a><a href="#citation91">{91}</a> Wodrow +Miscellany, i. 55.</p> +<p><a name="footnote92a"></a><a href="#citation92a">{92a}</a> +M‘Crie, <i>Knox</i>, 359, 360.</p> +<p><a name="footnote92b"></a><a href="#citation92b">{92b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 306, 307.</p> +<p><a name="footnote93a"></a><a href="#citation93a">{93a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 307.</p> +<p><a name="footnote93b"></a><a href="#citation93b">{93b}</a> +“Historie,” <i>Wodrow Miscellany</i>, i. 55, 56.</p> +<p><a name="footnote93c"></a><a href="#citation93c">{93c}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 312-314.</p> +<p><a name="footnote94a"></a><a href="#citation94a">{94a}</a> +“Historie,” <i>Wodrow Miscellany</i>, 56.</p> +<p><a name="footnote94b"></a><a href="#citation94b">{94b}</a> +Melville, 76, 77 (1827).</p> +<p>But Professor Hume Brown appears to be misled in saying that Bettencourt, +or Bethencourt, did not reach Scotland till June (<i>John Knox</i>, +i. 344i <i>note</i> i), citing Forbes, i. 141. Bethencourt “passed +Berwick on April 13” (<i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 1558-59, 214) to +negotiate the Scottish part in the peace, signed at Upsettlington (May +31). Bethencourt would be with the Regent by April 15, and he +may have confirmed her in summoning the preachers who defied her proclamations, +though, with or without his advice, she could do no less.</p> +<p><a name="footnote95a"></a><a href="#citation95a">{95a}</a> +Pitscottie, ii. 523.</p> +<p><a name="footnote95b"></a><a href="#citation95b">{95b}</a> +<i>State Papers</i>, Borders, vol. i. No. 421 MS.</p> +<p><a name="footnote96a"></a><a href="#citation96a">{96a}</a> +<i>Affaires Etrangéres, Angleterre</i>, vol. xv. MS.</p> +<p><a name="footnote96b"></a><a href="#citation96b">{96b}</a> +Forbes, 97; Throckmorton to Cecil, May 18.</p> +<p><a name="footnote96c"></a><a href="#citation96c">{96c}</a> +<i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 1558-59, 272.</p> +<p><a name="footnote97"></a><a href="#citation97">{97}</a> Melville, +80.</p> +<p><a name="footnote98a"></a><a href="#citation98a">{98a}</a> +<i>Statuta</i>, &c. Robertson, vol. i. clv-clxii.</p> +<p><a name="footnote98b"></a><a href="#citation98b">{98b}</a> +Book of Discipline. <i>Knox</i>, ii. 253, 254.</p> +<p><a name="footnote99a"></a><a href="#citation99a">{99a}</a> +M‘Crie, 360.</p> +<p><a name="footnote99b"></a><a href="#citation99b">{99b}</a> +The Regent’s account of the whole affair, as given by Francis +and Mary to the Pope, is vague and mistily apologetic. (Published +in French by Prof. Hume Brown, ii. 300-302.) The Regent wrote +from Dunbar, July 1559, that she had in vain implored the Pope to aid +her in reforming the lives of the clergy (as in 1556-57). Their +negligence had favoured, though she did not know it (and she says nothing +about it in 1556-57), the secret growth of heresy. Next, a public +preacher arose in one town (probably Paul Methuen in Dundee) introducing +the Genevan Church. The Regent next caused the bishops to assemble +the clergy, bidding them reform their lives, and then repress heresy. +She also called an assembly of the Estates, when most of the Lords, +<i>hors du conseil et à part</i>, demanded “a partial establishment +of the new religion.” This was refused, and the Provincial +Council (of March 1559) was called for reform of the clergy. Nothing +resulted but scandal and popular agitation. Public preachers arose +in the towns. The Regent assembled her forces, and the Lords and +Congregation began their career of violence.</p> +<p><a name="footnote100"></a><a href="#citation100">{100}</a> +As to Knox’s account of this reforming Provincial Council (<i>Knox</i>, +i. 291, 292), Lord Hailes calls it “exceedingly partial and erroneous +. . . no zeal can justify a man for misrepresenting an adversary.” +Bold language for a judge to use in 1769! <i>Cf</i>. Robertson, +<i>Statuta</i>, i. clxii, <i>note</i> I.</p> +<p><a name="footnote101"></a><a href="#citation101">{101}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, v. 15-17.</p> +<p><a name="footnote102a"></a><a href="#citation102a">{102a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, v. 207, 208.</p> +<p><a name="footnote102b"></a><a href="#citation102b">{102b}</a> +Ibid., v. 229.</p> +<p><a name="footnote102c"></a><a href="#citation102c">{102c}</a> +Ibid., v. 420, 421.</p> +<p> +Ibid., v. 495-523. [This footnote is provided in the original +book but isn’t referenced in the text. DP.]</p> +<p><a name="footnote104"></a><a href="#citation104">{104}</a> +John Knox and the Church of England, 215-218.</p> +<p><a name="footnote105"></a><a href="#citation105">{105}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 460, 461. We return to this point.</p> +<p><a name="footnote107"></a><a href="#citation107">{107}</a> +Bale, <i>Scriptorum Illustrium Majoris Brit. Catalogus Poster</i>., +p. 219 (1559). Knox, i. 258-261.</p> +<p><a name="footnote108a"></a><a href="#citation108a">{108a}</a> +Dieppe, April 10-April 22, 1559. <i>Knox</i>, vi. 15-21.</p> +<p><a name="footnote108b"></a><a href="#citation108b">{108b}</a> +Desmarquets, <i>Mem. Chronol. Jour. l’Hist, de Dieppe</i>, i. +210.</p> +<p><a name="footnote109a"></a><a href="#citation109a">{109a}</a> +<i>Corp. Ref</i>., xlv. (Calv., xvii.) 541.</p> +<p><a name="footnote109b"></a><a href="#citation109b">{109b}</a> +<i>Naissance de l’Hérésie à Dieppe</i>, Rouen, +1877, ed. Lesens.</p> +<p><a name="footnote111"></a><a href="#citation111">{111}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 321-323.</p> +<p><a name="footnote112"></a><a href="#citation112">{112}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 23.</p> +<p><a name="footnote113a"></a><a href="#citation113a">{113a}</a> +<i>Corpus Reformatorum</i>, xlvi. 609, xlvii. 409-411, August 13, 1561.</p> +<p><a name="footnote113b"></a><a href="#citation113b">{113b}</a> +The learned Dr. M‘Crie does not refer to this letter to Mrs. Locke, +but observes: “None of the gentry or sober part of the congregation +were concerned in this unpremeditated tumult; it was wholly confined +to the lowest of the inhabitants” (M‘Crie’s <i>Life +of Knox</i>, 127, 1855). Yet an authority dear to Dr. M‘Crie, +“The Historie of the Estate of Scotland,” gives the glory, +not to the lowest of the inhabitants, but to “the brethren.” +Professor Hume Brown blames “the Perth mob,” and says nothing +of the action of the “brethren,” as described to Mrs. Locke +by Knox. <i>John Knox</i>, ii. 8.</p> +<p><a name="footnote117"></a><a href="#citation117">{117}</a> +<i>Theses of Erastus</i>. Rev. Robert Lee. Edinburgh, 1844.</p> +<p><a name="footnote120"></a><a href="#citation120">{120}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 341,342; vi. 24. Did the brethren promise nothing +but the evacuation of Perth?</p> +<p><a name="footnote121a"></a><a href="#citation121a">{121a}</a> +“Historie,” <i>Wodrow Miscellany</i>, i. 58.</p> +<p><a name="footnote121b"></a><a href="#citation121b">{121b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 343, 344. The Congregation are said to have left +Perth on May 29. They assert their presence there on May 31, in +their Band.</p> +<p><a name="footnote122"></a><a href="#citation122">{122}</a> +Edinburgh Burgh Records.</p> +<p><a name="footnote123a"></a><a href="#citation123a">{123a}</a> +But see <i>Knox</i>, i. 347-349. Is a week (June 4 to June 11) +accidentally omitted?</p> +<p><a name="footnote123b"></a><a href="#citation123b">{123b}</a> +Writing on June 23, Knox dates the “Reformation” “June +14.” His dates, at this point, though recorded within three +weeks, are to me inexplicable. <i>Knox</i>, vi. 25.</p> +<p><a name="footnote124"></a><a href="#citation124">{124}</a> +Keith, i. 265, <i>note.</i></p> +<p><a name="footnote125a"></a><a href="#citation125a">{125a}</a> +Lesley, ii. 443, <i>Scottish Text Society.</i></p> +<p><a name="footnote125b"></a><a href="#citation125b">{125b}</a> +<i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 1558-59, 367.</p> +<p><a name="footnote126a"></a><a href="#citation126a">{126a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 26.</p> +<p><a name="footnote126b"></a><a href="#citation126b">{126b}</a> +Ibid., i. 355.</p> +<p><a name="footnote126c"></a><a href="#citation126c">{126c}</a> +Wodrow Miscellany, i. 60.</p> +<p><a name="footnote127a"></a><a href="#citation127a">{127a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 26.</p> +<p><a name="footnote127b"></a><a href="#citation127b">{127b}</a> +See <i>Scottish Historical Review</i>, January 1905, 121-122, 128-130.</p> +<p><a name="footnote131"></a><a href="#citation131">{131}</a> +Bain, i. 215.</p> +<p><a name="footnote133a"></a><a href="#citation133a">{133a}</a> +<i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 1558-59, 278. Erroneously dated “May +24” (?).</p> +<p><a name="footnote133b"></a><a href="#citation133b">{133b}</a> +Bain, i. 216-218; <i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., <i>ut supra</i>, 335, 336.</p> +<p><a name="footnote133c"></a><a href="#citation133c">{133c}</a> +<i>Archives Etrangéres, Angleterre</i>, vol. xv. MS.</p> +<p><a name="footnote133d"></a><a href="#citation133d">{133d}</a> +<i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 336; <i>Knox</i>, i. 359, 360.</p> +<p><a name="footnote134"></a><a href="#citation134">{134}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 360-362.</p> +<p><a name="footnote135a"></a><a href="#citation135a">{135a}</a> +Knox dates the entry of the Reformers into Edinburgh on June 29. +But he wrote to Mrs. Locke from Edinburgh on June 25, probably a misprint. +The date June 29 is given in the “Historie.” Knox +dates a letter to Cecil, “Edinburgh, June 28.” <i>The +Diurnal of Occurrents</i> dates the sack of monasteries in Edinburgh +June 28.</p> +<p><a name="footnote135b"></a><a href="#citation135b">{135b}</a> +<i>Wodrow Miscellany</i>, i. 62; <i>Knox</i>, i. 366, 367, 370.</p> +<p><a name="footnote135c"></a><a href="#citation135c">{135c}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 363; <i>cf</i>. Keith, i. 213, 214; Spottiswoode, i. +280, 281.</p> +<p><a name="footnote136a"></a><a href="#citation136a">{136a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 363-365; <i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 337.</p> +<p><a name="footnote136b"></a><a href="#citation136b">{136b}</a> +Teulet, i. 338-340.</p> +<p><a name="footnote137a"></a><a href="#citation137a">{137a}</a> +Bain, i. 218; <i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 1558-59, 339. 340.</p> +<p><a name="footnote137b"></a><a href="#citation137b">{137b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 45.</p> +<p><a name="footnote138"></a><a href="#citation138">{138}</a> +In Dr. Hay Fleming’s <i>The Scottish Reformation</i> (p. 57), +he dates the Regent’s proclamation July 1. He omits the +charge that, as proof of their disloyalty, “they daily receive +Englishmen with messages, and send the like into England” (<i>Knox</i>, +i. p. 364). “The narrative of the proclamation, Knox says, +is untrue,” Dr. Hay Fleming remarks; but as to the dealing with +England, the Reformer confessed to it in his “History,” +Book III., when he could do so with safety.</p> +<p><a name="footnote139a"></a><a href="#citation139a">{139a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 365.</p> +<p><a name="footnote139b"></a><a href="#citation139b">{139b}</a> +Spottiswoode, i. 282.</p> +<p><a name="footnote139c"></a><a href="#citation139c">{139c}</a> +Teulet, i. 331. The Regent’s instructions to Du Fresnoy.</p> +<p><a name="footnote141"></a><a href="#citation141">{141}</a> +Teulet, i. 334, 335, citing <i>Archives Etrangéres</i>, <i>Angleterre</i>, +xiv. (xv.?), f. 221 (see the English translation), <i>For. Cal. +Eliz</i>., 1558-59, 406, 407; Keith, i. 220, 221; Spottiswoode, i. 285, +286.</p> +<p><a name="footnote142a"></a><a href="#citation142a">{142a}</a> +Extracts from Edinburgh Town Council Records, July 29, 1559; Keith, +i. 487-489.</p> +<p><a name="footnote142b"></a><a href="#citation142b">{142b}</a> +<i>Cf</i>. Hume Brown, <i>John Knox</i>, ii. 30.</p> +<p><a name="footnote143a"></a><a href="#citation143a">{143a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 376-379. The italicised articles are not in the +other versions of the terms as finally settled; <i>cf</i>. “Historie,” +<i>Wodrow Miscellany</i>, i. 55-57.</p> +<p><a name="footnote143b"></a><a href="#citation143b">{143b}</a> +Ibid., i. 379.</p> +<p><a name="footnote144a"></a><a href="#citation144a">{144a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 380.</p> +<p><a name="footnote144b"></a><a href="#citation144b">{144b}</a> +Sloane MSS., British Museum, 4144, 177b, 4737f, 100b. <i>For. +Cal. Eliz</i>. 1558-59, 411.</p> +<p><a name="footnote145a"></a><a href="#citation145a">{145a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 381.</p> +<p><a name="footnote145b"></a><a href="#citation145b">{145b}</a> +My italics.</p> +<p><a name="footnote146"></a><a href="#citation146">{146}</a> +(Kyrkcaldy to Croft.)</p> +<p>“Theis salbe to certiffy you vpon monday the xxiii of Jully +the quene and the lordis of the congregation are agreit on this maner +as followeth. The armies beying boythe in Syghte betuix Eddingburght +and Lietht or partye adversaire send mediatoris desyring that we sall +agree and cease frome sheddinge of blude yf we wer men quhilkis wold +fulfill in deid that thing quhilk we proffessit, that is the preachyng +of godis worde and furth settyng of his glorye. Me lordis of the +congregation movet by thare offres wer content to here commonyng. +So fynallye after long talke, It is appointted on this maner. +That the Religion here begoon sall proceid and contenew in all places +wt owt impedement of the quenes authoretie, thare minesters sall neyther +be trubillit nor stopped and in <i>all places whare ydolletre is put +downe sall not be cett vp agane</i>. And whill the parlement be +haldin to consele vpon all materes wch is fixit the x day of Januarye +nixt, every man sall leive to his conscience not compellit be authoretye +to do any thyng in religion yt his conscience repugnes to. And +to this said parlement ther sall no man of or congregation be molested +or trobillit in thair bodeis landis goodis possessions what someevir. +<i>Further wt all dilligent spede ther frenche men here present salbe +send awaye. And sall no other cum in this Realme w owt consent +of the hole nobilite</i>. The towne of Eddingburght salbe keipit +fre by the inhabitantes thairof and no maner of garnission laid or keip +thair In, neyther of frenche nor scottis. For our part we sall +remove of Eddingburght to or awne houssis, yt the quene may come to +hir awne palyce, wch we tuke of before and hathe left it voyde to hir +G. We have delyvered the prentyng yrunes of the coyne agayne wch +we tuke becaus of the corruption of monye agaynst our laws and commonwealthe. +Off truthe we believe nevir worde to be keipit of thir promises of her +syde. And therfore hath tane me lord duke the erll of Huntlye +and the rest of the nobillitye beying vpon hir syde bound to the performance +hereof wt this condition yf sche brekkes any point heirof they sall +renunce hir obeysance and joyne them selfis wt vs. In this meane-tyme +we contenew or men of warr to gydder wt in or boundis of Fyfe, Angus, +Stretherin and Westland, in aduenture the appointtment be broken, and +dowtes not to mak vs daily stronger for by the furthe settying of religion +and haittred of the frenche men we gett the hartis of the hole commonalties. +Nowe to conclude yf it had not bene for some nobillmens causis who hes +promised to be owres we hade not appointted wt the quene at this tyme. +From hens forwardis send to the lard of Ormiston who will se all saifly +conveyed to me. Thvs I commit you to god from Eddingburght the +xxiiii of Jully</p> +<p>yoris at power</p> +<p>(W. KYRKCALDY).” <a name="citation147"></a><a href="#footnote147">{147}</a></p> +<p><a name="footnote147"></a><a href="#citation147">{147}</a> +MS. Record Office; cf. <i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 1558 59, 408, 409.</p> +<p><a name="footnote148a"></a><a href="#citation148a">{148a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 379, 380.</p> +<p><a name="footnote148b"></a><a href="#citation148b">{148b}</a> +Ibid., i. 381.</p> +<p><a name="footnote149a"></a><a href="#citation149a">{149a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 53.</p> +<p><a name="footnote149b"></a><a href="#citation149b">{149b}</a> +Ibid., i. 397-412. The Proclamation, and two Replies.</p> +<p><a name="footnote149c"></a><a href="#citation149c">{149c}</a> +My italics.</p> +<p><a name="footnote150"></a><a href="#citation150">{150}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. xxvi.; vi. 87.</p> +<p><a name="footnote151a"></a><a href="#citation151a">{151a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 392, 393.</p> +<p><a name="footnote151b"></a><a href="#citation151b">{151b}</a> +Ibid., i. 382.</p> +<p><a name="footnote152a"></a><a href="#citation152a">{152a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 15-38.</p> +<p><a name="footnote152b"></a><a href="#citation152b">{152b}</a> +Ibid., vi. 56-59.</p> +<p><a name="footnote153"></a><a href="#citation153">{153}</a> +<i>S. P. Scotland</i>, <i>Elizabeth</i>, MS. vol. i. No. 80; <i>cf</i>. +Bain, i. 236, 237. Croft to Cecil, Berwick, August 3, 1559.</p> +<p><a name="footnote154a"></a><a href="#citation154a">{154a}</a> +For. Cal. Eliz., 470.</p> +<p><a name="footnote154b"></a><a href="#citation154b">{154b}</a> +I assume that he was the preacher at Edinburgh in d’Oysel’s +letter of June 30-July 2, 1559. Teulet, i. 325.</p> +<p><a name="footnote155"></a><a href="#citation155">{155}</a> +Sadleir to Cecil, September 8, 1559. <i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 543, +1558-1559. The fortification, says Professor Hume Brown, “was +a distinct breach of the late agreement” (of July 24), “and +they weir not slow to remind her” (the Regent) “of her bad +faith.” The agreement of July 24 says nothing about fortifying. +The ingenious brethren argued that to fortify Leith entailed “oppression +of our poor brethren, indwellers of the same.” Now the agreement +forbade “oppression of any of the Congregation.” But +the people of Leith had “rendered themselves” to the Regent +on July 24, and the breach of treaty, if any, was “constructive.” +(<i>John Knox</i>, ii. 47; <i>Knox</i>, i. 413, 424-433.)</p> +<p><a name="footnote158a"></a><a href="#citation158a">{158a}</a> +The evidence as to these proceedings of the brethren is preserved in +the French archives, and consists of testimonies given on oath in answer +to inquiries made by Francis and Mary in November 1559.</p> +<p><a name="footnote158b"></a><a href="#citation158b">{158b}</a> +We have dated Lethington’s desertion of the Regent about October +25, because Knox says it was a “few days before our first defeat” +on the last day in October. M. Teulet dates in the beginning of +October a Latin manifesto by the Congregation to all the princes of +Christendom. This document is a long arraignment of the Regent’s +policy; her very concessions as to religion are declared to be tricks, +meant to bring the Protestant lords under the letter of the law. +The paper may be thought to show the hand of Lethington, not of Knox. +But, in point of fact, I incline to think that the real author of this +manifesto was Cecil. He sketches it in a letter sent from the +English Privy Council in November 15, 1559. This draft was to +be used by the rebels in an appeal to Elizabeth.</p> +<p><a name="footnote159"></a><a href="#citation159">{159}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi, 89, 90; M‘Crie, 143.</p> +<p><a name="footnote160a"></a><a href="#citation160a">{160a}</a> +Bothwell states the amount at 3000 <i>écus de soleil</i>. +French Archives MS.</p> +<p><a name="footnote160b"></a><a href="#citation160b">{160b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 472.</p> +<p><a name="footnote161a"></a><a href="#citation161a">{161a}</a> +Sadleir to Cecil, Nov. 15, 1559. <i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., +1559-60, 115.</p> +<p><a name="footnote161b"></a><a href="#citation161b">{161b}</a> +Labanoff, vii. 283.</p> +<p><a name="footnote163"></a><a href="#citation163">{163}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 105-107.</p> +<p><a name="footnote164"></a><a href="#citation164">{164}</a> +See Appendix B.</p> +<p><a name="footnote165a"></a><a href="#citation165a">{165a}</a> +<i>Corp. Ref</i>., xlv. 645 (3118, <i>note</i> I).</p> +<p><a name="footnote165b"></a><a href="#citation165b">{165b}</a> +Calvinus Sturmio, <i>Corp. Ref</i>., xlvi. 38, 39, March 23, 1560. +Sturmius Calvino, ibid., 53-56, April 15.</p> +<p><a name="footnote166a"></a><a href="#citation166a">{166a}</a> +Bain, i. 389, 390; <i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 1559-60, 604.</p> +<p><a name="footnote166b"></a><a href="#citation166b">{166b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 68; <i>cf</i>. the Regent’s letter. Bain, +i. 389.</p> +<p><a name="footnote167a"></a><a href="#citation167a">{167a}</a> +The date may be part of an interpolation.</p> +<p><a name="footnote167b"></a><a href="#citation167b">{167b}</a> +This account is from the French Archives MS., <i>Angleterre</i>, vol. +xv.</p> +<p><a name="footnote168"></a><a href="#citation168">{168}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 72.</p> +<p><a name="footnote169"></a><a href="#citation169">{169}</a> +It is an inexplicable fact that, less than a month before Glencairn +and Lord James signed the first godly Band (December 3, 1557), these +two, with Kirkcaldy of Grange, “were acting with the Queen-Dowager +against Huntly, Chatelherault, and Argyll,” who in December signed +with them the godly Band. The case is thus stated by Mr. Tytler, +perhaps too vigorously. It appears that, after the refusal of +the Lords to cross Tweed and attack England, in the autumn of 1557, +the Regent, with the concurrence of Glencairn, Lord James, and Kirkcaldy +of Grange, proposed to recall from exile in England the Earl of Lennox, +father of Darnley. He, like the chief of the Hamiltons, had a +claim to the crown of Scotland, failing heirs born of Mary Stuart. +Lennox, therefore, would be a counterpoise to Hamilton and his ally +in mutiny, Argyll. Thus Lord James and Glencairn, in November +1557; support the Regent against the Hamiltons and Argyll, but in December +Glencairn, reconciled to Argyll, signs with him the godly Band. +We descry the old Stewart <i>versus</i> Hamilton feud in these proceedings.</p> +<p><a name="footnote170"></a><a href="#citation170">{170}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 87, <i>note.</i></p> +<p><a name="footnote172"></a><a href="#citation172">{172}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 89-127.</p> +<p><a name="footnote174a"></a><a href="#citation174a">{174a}</a> +Randolph to Cecil, September 7; Bain, i. 477, 478.</p> +<p><a name="footnote174b"></a><a href="#citation174b">{174b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 83, 84.</p> +<p><a name="footnote174c"></a><a href="#citation174c">{174c}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. lxxxii.</p> +<p><a name="footnote175"></a><a href="#citation175">{175}</a> +M‘Crie, <i>Life of John Knox</i>, 162 (1855).</p> +<p><a name="footnote177a"></a><a href="#citation177a">{177a}</a> +Keith, iii. 4-7.</p> +<p><a name="footnote177b"></a><a href="#citation177b">{177b}</a> +Bain, i. 461.</p> +<p><a name="footnote177c"></a><a href="#citation177c">{177c}</a> +<i>Cf</i>. Edinburgh Burgh Records.</p> +<p><a name="footnote182"></a><a href="#citation182">{182}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 193.</p> +<p><a name="footnote186"></a><a href="#citation186">{186}</a> +Queen Mary’s Letter to Guise, p. xlii., <i>Scottish History Society</i>, +1904.</p> +<p><a name="footnote191a"></a><a href="#citation191a">{191a}</a> +Lesley, ii. 454 (1895).</p> +<p><a name="footnote191b"></a><a href="#citation191b">{191b}</a> +See Lord James to Throckmorton, London, May 20, a passage quoted by +Mr. Murray Rose, <i>Scot. Hist. Review</i>, No. 6, 154. Additional +MSS. Brit. Mus., 358, 30, f. 117, 121. Lord James to Throckmorton, +May 20-June 3, 1561.</p> +<p><a name="footnote191c"></a><a href="#citation191c">{191c}</a> +Bain, i. 540, 541.</p> +<p><a name="footnote191d"></a><a href="#citation191d">{191d}</a> +Lord James to Dudley, October 7, 1561, Bain, i. 557.</p> +<p><a name="footnote192"></a><a href="#citation192">{192}</a> +Pollen, <i>Papal Negotiations</i>, 62.</p> +<p><a name="footnote193a"></a><a href="#citation193a">{193a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii, 266.</p> +<p><a name="footnote193b"></a><a href="#citation193b">{193b}</a> +Bain, ii. 543.</p> +<p><a name="footnote194"></a><a href="#citation194">{194}</a> +Bain, ii. 547.</p> +<p><a name="footnote195"></a><a href="#citation195">{195}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 276, 277.</p> +<p><a name="footnote196"></a><a href="#citation196">{196}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 131.</p> +<p><a name="footnote197"></a><a href="#citation197">{197}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 279, 280.</p> +<p><a name="footnote199"></a><a href="#citation199">{199}</a> +Tracts by David Fergusson, Bannatyne Club, 1860.</p> +<p><a name="footnote200a"></a><a href="#citation200a">{200a}</a> +Bain, i. 551, 552.</p> +<p><a name="footnote200b"></a><a href="#citation200b">{200b}</a> +Lord James to Lord Robert Dudley, October 7, 1561. Bain, i. 557, +558. Lethington’s account of his reasonings with Elizabeth +is not very hopeful. Pollen, “Queen Mary’s Letter +to Guise,” <i>Scot. Hist. Soc</i>., 38-45.</p> +<p><a name="footnote201a"></a><a href="#citation201a">{201a}</a> +Bain, i. 565.</p> +<p><a name="footnote201b"></a><a href="#citation201b">{201b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 131, 132; ii. 289.</p> +<p><a name="footnote201c"></a><a href="#citation201c">{201c}</a> +The proclamation against “all monks, friars, priests, nuns, adulterers, +fornicators, and all such filthy persons,” was of October 2. +On October 5 the Queen bade the council and community of the town to +meet in the Tolbooth, depose the Provost and Bailies, and elect others. +On October 8 the order was carried out, and protests were put in. +A note from Lethington was received, containing three names, out of +which the Queen commanded that one must be Provost. The Council +“thought good to pass to her Grace,” show that they had +already made their election, and await her pleasure. “Jezebel’s +letter and wicked will is obeyed as law,” says Knox.—<i>Extracts +from Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh</i>, 126, 127.</p> +<p><a name="footnote202"></a><a href="#citation202">{202}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 133-135. <i>Corp. Refor</i>., xlvii. 74.</p> +<p><a name="footnote203a"></a><a href="#citation203a">{203a}</a> +<i>Corp. Refor</i>., xlvii. 114, 115.</p> +<p><a name="footnote203b"></a><a href="#citation203b">{203b}</a> +Bain, i. 582, 583.</p> +<p><a name="footnote203c"></a><a href="#citation203c">{203c}</a> +Ibid., i. 491. Randolph to Cecil.</p> +<p><a name="footnote205"></a><a href="#citation205">{205}</a> +Bain, i. 565, 566.</p> +<p><a name="footnote206a"></a><a href="#citation206a">{206a}</a> +Froude, iii. 265-270 (1866).</p> +<p><a name="footnote206b"></a><a href="#citation206b">{206b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 83.</p> +<p><a name="footnote207a"></a><a href="#citation207a">{207a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 11-14.</p> +<p><a name="footnote207b"></a><a href="#citation207b">{207b}</a> +Bain, i. 569. Randolph to Cecil, November 11.</p> +<p><a name="footnote207c"></a><a href="#citation207c">{207c}</a> +Ibid., i. 568-570.</p> +<p><a name="footnote208a"></a><a href="#citation208a">{208a}</a> +There was a small guard, but no powerful guard existed till after Riccio’s +murder.</p> +<p><a name="footnote208b"></a><a href="#citation208b">{208b}</a> +Bain, i. 575. Randolph to Cecil, December 7.</p> +<p><a name="footnote208c"></a><a href="#citation208c">{208c}</a> +Ibid., i. 571.</p> +<p><a name="footnote209"></a><a href="#citation209">{209}</a> +It is plain from Randolph (Bain, i. 575) that the precise feared that +Mary, if secured by the English alliance, would be severe with “true +professors of Christ.”</p> +<p><a name="footnote210"></a><a href="#citation210">{210}</a> +Keith, iii. 384, 385.</p> +<p><a name="footnote211a"></a><a href="#citation211a">{211a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 300-313. Pollen, “Mary’s Letter to +the Duc de Guise,” xli.-xlvii.</p> +<p><a name="footnote211b"></a><a href="#citation211b">{211b}</a> +Bain, i. 568, 569.</p> +<p><a name="footnote211c"></a><a href="#citation211c">{211c}</a> +Ibid., i. 585. Randolph to Cecil, January 2, 1562.</p> +<p><a name="footnote212a"></a><a href="#citation212a">{212a}</a> +There is an air of secrecy in these transactions. In the Register +of the Privy Seal, vol. xxxi. fol. 45 (MS.), is a “Precept for +a Charter under the Great Seal,” a charter to Lord James for the +Earldom of Moray. The date is January 31, 1560-61. On February +7, 1560-61, Lord James receives the Earldom of Mar, having to pay a +pair of gilded spurs on the feast of St. John (<i>Register of Privy +Seal</i>, vol. xxx. fol. 2). Lord James now bore the title of +Earl of Mar, not, as yet—not till Huntly was put at—of Moray.</p> +<p><a name="footnote212b"></a><a href="#citation212b">{212b}</a> +Dr. Hay Fleming quotes Randolph thus: “The Papists mistrust greatly +the meeting; the Protestants as greatly desire it. The preachers +are more vehement than discreet or learned.” (<i>Mary Queen +of Scots</i>, p. 292, <i>note</i> 35, citing <i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., +iv. 523.) The Calendar is at fault and gives the impression that +the ministers vehemently preached in favour of the meeting of the Queen. +This was not so, Randolph goes on, “which I heartily lament.” +He uses the whole phrase, more than is here given, not only on January +30, but on February 12. Now Randolph desired the meeting, so the +preachers must have “thundered” against it! They feared +that Mary would become a member of the Church of England, “of +which they both say and preach that it is little better than when it +was at the worst” (Bain, i. 603).</p> +<p><a name="footnote212c"></a><a href="#citation212c">{212c}</a> +Keith, ii. 139.</p> +<p><a name="footnote213"></a><a href="#citation213">{213}</a> +The Teviotdale Ormistouns of that ilk.</p> +<p><a name="footnote214a"></a><a href="#citation214a">{214a}</a> +In Pitcairn’s <i>Criminal Trials</i> is Arran’s report of +Bothwell’s very words, vol. i., part 2, pp. 462-465.</p> +<p><a name="footnote214b"></a><a href="#citation214b">{214b}</a> +Bain, i. 613, 614.</p> +<p><a name="footnote215a"></a><a href="#citation215a">{215a}</a> +Bain, i. 618, 619.</p> +<p><a name="footnote215b"></a><a href="#citation215b">{215b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 330.</p> +<p><a name="footnote215c"></a><a href="#citation215c">{215c}</a> +Ibid., ii. 330, 331.</p> +<p><a name="footnote215d"></a><a href="#citation215d">{215d}</a> +Cf. Baird, The Rise of the Huguenots, ii. 21 et seq.</p> +<p><a name="footnote216a"></a><a href="#citation216a">{216a}</a> +Bain, i. 627. Randolph to Cecil, May 29.</p> +<p><a name="footnote216b"></a><a href="#citation216b">{216b}</a> +<i>Cf</i>. Froude, vi. 547-565.</p> +<p><a name="footnote216c"></a><a href="#citation216c">{216c}</a> +“Book of Discipline,” <i>Knox</i>, ii. 228.</p> +<p><a name="footnote216d"></a><a href="#citation216d">{216d}</a> +M‘Crie, 187.</p> +<p><a name="footnote217a"></a><a href="#citation217a">{217a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 330-335.</p> +<p><a name="footnote217b"></a><a href="#citation217b">{217b}</a> +Bain, i. 673.</p> +<p><a name="footnote217c"></a><a href="#citation217c">{217c}</a> +Randolph mentions the joy of the Court over some Guisian successes against +the Huguenots, then up in arms, while Mary was on her expedition against +Huntly, in October 1562. On December 30 he says that there is +little dancing, less because of Knox’s sermons than on account +of bad news from France. Bain, i. 658, 674.</p> +<p>Dr. Hay Fleming dates the wicked dance in December 1562, but of course +that date was not the moment when “persecution was begun again +in France,” nor would Mary be skipping in December for joy over +letters of the previous March. <i>Mary Queen of Scots</i>, 275.</p> +<p><a name="footnote218"></a><a href="#citation218">{218}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 140, 141.</p> +<p><a name="footnote219a"></a><a href="#citation219a">{219a}</a> +Keith, iii. 50, 51.</p> +<p><a name="footnote219b"></a><a href="#citation219b">{219b}</a> +Bain, i. 630.</p> +<p><a name="footnote219c"></a><a href="#citation219c">{219c}</a> +Lesley, ii. 468.</p> +<p><a name="footnote219d"></a><a href="#citation219d">{219d}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 193.</p> +<p><a name="footnote220a"></a><a href="#citation220a">{220a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 337-345.</p> +<p><a name="footnote220b"></a><a href="#citation220b">{220b}</a> +Hay Fleming, <i>Mary Queen of Scots</i>, 301.</p> +<p><a name="footnote221a"></a><a href="#citation221a">{221a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 347.</p> +<p><a name="footnote221b"></a><a href="#citation221b">{221b}</a> +<i>Act Parl. Scot</i>., ii. 572.</p> +<p><a name="footnote221c"></a><a href="#citation221c">{221c}</a> +Bain, i. 665.</p> +<p><a name="footnote221d"></a><a href="#citation221d">{221d}</a> +Bain, i. 668.</p> +<p><a name="footnote222a"></a><a href="#citation222a">{222a}</a> +Chalmers, in his <i>Life of Queen Mary</i>, vol. i. 78-96 (1818), takes +the view of the Huntly affair which we adopt, but, observing the quietly +obtained title of Moray under the Privy Seal (January 30, 1561-62) and +the publicly assumed title of Mar, granted on February 7, 1561-62, Chalmers +(mistaking Huntly for a loyal man) denounces the treachery of Lord James +and the “credulity” of the Queen. To myself it appears +that brother and sister were equally deep in the scheme for exalting +Moray and destroying Huntly.</p> +<p><a name="footnote222b"></a><a href="#citation222b">{222b}</a> +<i>Cf</i>. Pollen, <i>Papal Negotiations</i>, 163, 164.</p> +<p><a name="footnote222c"></a><a href="#citation222c">{222c}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 346.</p> +<p><a name="footnote222d"></a><a href="#citation222d">{222d}</a> +Ibid., ii. 358.</p> +<p><a name="footnote223a"></a><a href="#citation223a">{223a}</a> +Bain, i. 675.</p> +<p><a name="footnote223b"></a><a href="#citation223b">{223b}</a> +Froude, ii. 144 (1863).</p> +<p><a name="footnote224a"></a><a href="#citation224a">{224a}</a> +<i>Registrum de Panmure</i>, i.-xxxii., cited by Maxwell; Old Dundee, +162. Book of the Universal Kirk, 26.</p> +<p><a name="footnote225a"></a><a href="#citation225a">{225a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 364-367; ii. 531, 532; Keith, iii. 140, 141.</p> +<p><a name="footnote225b"></a><a href="#citation225b">{225b}</a> +<i>Spanish Calendar</i>, i. 314.</p> +<p><a name="footnote225c"></a><a href="#citation225c">{225c}</a> +Bain, i. 684-686.</p> +<p><a name="footnote225d"></a><a href="#citation225d">{225d}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 367-369.</p> +<p><a name="footnote226a"></a><a href="#citation226a">{226a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii, 370.</p> +<p><a name="footnote226b"></a><a href="#citation226b">{226b}</a> +Bain, i. 686.</p> +<p><a name="footnote226c"></a><a href="#citation226c">{226c}</a> +Ibid., i. 687.</p> +<p><a name="footnote226d"></a><a href="#citation226d">{226d}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, li. 361; Bain, i. 693. Lethington’s argument +against Lennox’s claim, March 28, 1563.</p> +<p><a name="footnote227a"></a><a href="#citation227a">{227a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 371.</p> +<p><a name="footnote227b"></a><a href="#citation227b">{227b}</a> +Bain, ii. 7.</p> +<p><a name="footnote228a"></a><a href="#citation228a">{228a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 370-377.</p> +<p><a name="footnote228b"></a><a href="#citation228b">{228b}</a> +Ibid., ii. 377-379.</p> +<p><a name="footnote228c"></a><a href="#citation228c">{228c}</a> +Bain, ii. 9, 10.</p> +<p><a name="footnote229a"></a><a href="#citation229a">{229a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 381.</p> +<p><a name="footnote229b"></a><a href="#citation229b">{229b}</a> +Ibid., ii. 387-389.</p> +<p><a name="footnote231a"></a><a href="#citation231a">{231a}</a> +Bain, ii. 24.</p> +<p><a name="footnote231b"></a><a href="#citation231b">{231b}</a> +Ibid., ii. 25.</p> +<p><a name="footnote231c"></a><a href="#citation231c">{231c}</a> +<i>Spanish Calendar</i>, i. 338.</p> +<p><a name="footnote231d"></a><a href="#citation231d">{231d}</a> +Bain, ii. 19, 20.</p> +<p><a name="footnote232a"></a><a href="#citation232a">{232a}</a> +Bain, ii. 26; <i>Knox</i>, ii. 393, 394.</p> +<p><a name="footnote232b"></a><a href="#citation232b">{232b}</a> +Hume Brown, <i>Scotland under Queen Mary</i>, p. 99.</p> +<p><a name="footnote232c"></a><a href="#citation232c">{232c}</a> +Pitcairn, <i>Criminal Trials</i>, i. 434.</p> +<p><a name="footnote232d"></a><a href="#citation232d">{232d}</a> +Dr. M‘Crie accepts, like Keith, a story of Spottiswoode’s +not elsewhere found (M‘Crie, 204), but innocently remarks that, +as to the brawl in chapel, Spottiswoode could not know the facts so +well as Knox! (p. 210). Certainly twenty-two attendants on the +Mass were “impanelled” for trial for their religious misdemeanour. +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 394, <i>note</i> I.</p> +<p><a name="footnote233a"></a><a href="#citation233a">{233a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 397.</p> +<p><a name="footnote233b"></a><a href="#citation233b">{233b}</a> +Randolph to Cecil; Bain, ii. 28, 29.</p> +<p><a name="footnote233c"></a><a href="#citation233c">{233c}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 399-401.</p> +<p><a name="footnote234a"></a><a href="#citation234a">{234a}</a> +Keith, ii. 210. The version in Bain, ii. 30, is differently worded.</p> +<p><a name="footnote234b"></a><a href="#citation234b">{234b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 403.</p> +<p><a name="footnote235"></a><a href="#citation235">{235}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 399-415.</p> +<p><a name="footnote236"></a><a href="#citation236">{236}</a> +Pitcairn, <i>Criminal Trials</i>, i. 434, 435.</p> +<p><a name="footnote237a"></a><a href="#citation237a">{237a}</a> +Randolph, December 31; Bain, ii. 33; <i>Knox</i>, ii. 415.</p> +<p><a name="footnote237b"></a><a href="#citation237b">{237b}</a> +Randolph, February 19, 1564; Bain, i. 113, 125.</p> +<p><a name="footnote237c"></a><a href="#citation237c">{237c}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 415, <i>note</i> 3.</p> +<p><a name="footnote238"></a><a href="#citation238">{238}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 417-419.</p> +<p><a name="footnote239"></a><a href="#citation239">{239}</a> +Bain, i. 680; ii. 54.</p> +<p><a name="footnote240"></a><a href="#citation240">{240}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 291, 292.</p> +<p><a name="footnote241a"></a><a href="#citation241a">{241a}</a> +Lethington spoke merely of “controversies” (<i>Knox</i>, +ii. 460). I give the confessed meaning of the controversy.</p> +<p><a name="footnote241b"></a><a href="#citation241b">{241b}</a> +Compare <i>Knox</i>, ii. 291, as to the discussion at Makgill’s +house in November 1561.</p> +<p><a name="footnote241c"></a><a href="#citation241c">{241c}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 460, 461.</p> +<p><a name="footnote242a"></a><a href="#citation242a">{242a}</a> +<i>Original Letters</i>, <i>Parker Society</i>, Bullinger to Calvin, +March 26, 1554, pp. 744-747.</p> +<p><a name="footnote242b"></a><a href="#citation242b">{242b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 441, 442.</p> +<p><a name="footnote243a"></a><a href="#citation243a">{243a}</a> +The very programme of the General Assembly for the treatment of Catholics, +in November 1572. See p. 269 <i>infra.</i></p> +<p><a name="footnote243b"></a><a href="#citation243b">{243b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, v. 462-464.</p> +<p><a name="footnote244a"></a><a href="#citation244a">{244a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 441.</p> +<p><a name="footnote244b"></a><a href="#citation244b">{244b}</a> +Ibid., ii. 442, 443.</p> +<p><a name="footnote246"></a><a href="#citation246">{246}</a> +Randolph to Cecil, February 27, 1565; Bain, ii. 128.</p> +<p><a name="footnote247a"></a><a href="#citation247a">{247a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 497.</p> +<p><a name="footnote247b"></a><a href="#citation247b">{247b}</a> +Ibid., vi. 224, 225.</p> +<p><a name="footnote248a"></a><a href="#citation248a">{248a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 273; ii. 499.</p> +<p><a name="footnote248b"></a><a href="#citation248b">{248b}</a> +Ibid., ii. 514.</p> +<p><a name="footnote248c"></a><a href="#citation248c">{248c}</a> +Ibid., vi. 402.</p> +<p><a name="footnote249a"></a><a href="#citation249a">{249a}</a> +Book of the Universal Kirk, 34.</p> +<p><a name="footnote249b"></a><a href="#citation249b">{249b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 416.</p> +<p><a name="footnote249c"></a><a href="#citation249c">{249c}</a> +Bain, ii. 254, 255.</p> +<p><a name="footnote249d"></a><a href="#citation249d">{249d}</a> +Stevenson, <i>Selections</i>, 153-159.</p> +<p><a name="footnote250a"></a><a href="#citation250a">{250a}</a> +<i>Papal Negotiations</i>, xxxviii.-xliii.</p> +<p><a name="footnote250b"></a><a href="#citation250b">{250b}</a> +Keith, ii. 412-413.</p> +<p><a name="footnote250c"></a><a href="#citation250c">{250c}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 524.</p> +<p><a name="footnote251a"></a><a href="#citation251a">{251a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 235.</p> +<p><a name="footnote251b"></a><a href="#citation251b">{251b}</a> +Hume Brown, <i>John Knox</i>, ii. 231.</p> +<p><a name="footnote252a"></a><a href="#citation252a">{252a}</a> +Randolph to Cecil, March 21, 1566. Bain, ii. 269, 270. <i>Diurnal</i>, +March 17, 1566. Knox’s prayer, <i>Knox</i>, vi. 483, 484.</p> +<p><a name="footnote252b"></a><a href="#citation252b">{252b}</a> +Bain, ii. 269, 270.</p> +<p><a name="footnote252c"></a><a href="#citation252c">{252c}</a> +See Calvin’s letter of January 24 or April 1, 1564, <i>Corpus +Reformatorum</i>, xlviii. 244-249.</p> +<p><a name="footnote253a"></a><a href="#citation253a">{253a}</a> +<i>Life of Knox</i>, 235, <i>note</i> 3; cf. <i>Knox</i>, ii. 533.</p> +<p><a name="footnote253b"></a><a href="#citation253b">{253b}</a> +Burnet, <i>History of the Reformation</i>, iii. 360.</p> +<p><a name="footnote253c"></a><a href="#citation253c">{253c}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 544-560.</p> +<p><a name="footnote254a"></a><a href="#citation254a">{254a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 545-547.</p> +<p><a name="footnote254b"></a><a href="#citation254b">{254b}</a> +<i>State Papers</i>, Mary, Queen of Scots, vol. xiii., No. 20, MS.</p> +<p><a name="footnote256a"></a><a href="#citation256a">{256a}</a> +Book of the Universal Kirk, 61-67.</p> +<p><a name="footnote256b"></a><a href="#citation256b">{256b}</a> +Stevenson, Illustrations of the Reign of Queen Mary, 208.</p> +<p><a name="footnote256c"></a><a href="#citation256c">{256c}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 563.</p> +<p><a name="footnote257a"></a><a href="#citation257a">{257a}</a> +Stevenson, 221.</p> +<p><a name="footnote257b"></a><a href="#citation257b">{257b}</a> +Ibid., 240, July 21.</p> +<p><a name="footnote257c"></a><a href="#citation257c">{257c}</a> +Chalmers’s “Life of Mary,” ii. 487.</p> +<p><a name="footnote258a"></a><a href="#citation258a">{258a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 558-561.</p> +<p><a name="footnote258b"></a><a href="#citation258b">{258b}</a> +If born in 1513-15, he was only about fifty-three to fifty-five.</p> +<p><a name="footnote259a"></a><a href="#citation259a">{259a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 567.</p> +<p><a name="footnote259b"></a><a href="#citation259b">{259b}</a> +Knox and the Church of England, 230.</p> +<p><a name="footnote259c"></a><a href="#citation259c">{259c}</a> +Strype’s <i>Grindal</i>, 168-179 (1821).</p> +<p><a name="footnote260a"></a><a href="#citation260a">{260a}</a> +<i>Corp. Ref</i>., xlvii. 417, 418.</p> +<p><a name="footnote260b"></a><a href="#citation260b">{260b}</a> +Strype’s <i>Grindal</i>, 507-516.</p> +<p><a name="footnote261a"></a><a href="#citation261a">{261a}</a> +<i>Zurich Letters</i>. 1558-1602, pp. 152-155.</p> +<p><a name="footnote261b"></a><a href="#citation261b">{261b}</a> +Strype’s <i>Grindal</i>, 180. Also the letter of Grindal +in Ellis, iii. iii. 304</p> +<p><a name="footnote262a"></a><a href="#citation262a">{262a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 247-249.</p> +<p><a name="footnote262b"></a><a href="#citation262b">{262b}</a> +Knox and the Church of England, 298-301.</p> +<p><a name="footnote263a"></a><a href="#citation263a">{263a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 559.</p> +<p><a name="footnote263b"></a><a href="#citation263b">{263b}</a> +Ibid., vi. 568.</p> +<p><a name="footnote263c"></a><a href="#citation263c">{263c}</a> +M‘Crie, 248.</p> +<p><a name="footnote264a"></a><a href="#citation264a">{264a}</a> +Bannatyne’s <i>Memorials</i>, 5-13 (1836).</p> +<p><a name="footnote264b"></a><a href="#citation264b">{264b}</a> +Calderwood, ii. 515-525.</p> +<p><a name="footnote266"></a><a href="#citation266">{266}</a> +Bannatyne’s <i>Transactions</i>, 70-82. Bannatyne was Knox’s +secretary, and fragments dictated by the Reformer appear in his pages.</p> +<p><a name="footnote267a"></a><a href="#citation267a">{267a}</a> +Melville’s “Diary,” 20-26.</p> +<p><a name="footnote267b"></a><a href="#citation267b">{267b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 606-612.</p> +<p><a name="footnote268a"></a><a href="#citation268a">{268a}</a> +Bannatyne, 223, 224 (1836).</p> +<p><a name="footnote268b"></a><a href="#citation268b">{268b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 620-622.</p> +<p><a name="footnote268c"></a><a href="#citation268c">{268c}</a> +Ibid., 236</p> +<p><a name="footnote269a"></a><a href="#citation269a">{269a}</a> +Bannatyne, 268.</p> +<p><a name="footnote269b"></a><a href="#citation269b">{269b}</a> +Ibid., 273.</p> +<p><a name="footnote269c"></a><a href="#citation269c">{269c}</a> +Ibid., 278.</p> +<p><a name="footnote269d"></a><a href="#citation269d">{269d}</a> +<i>John Knox</i>, ii. 282, 283.</p> +<p><a name="footnote270"></a><a href="#citation270">{270}</a> +<i>Cf</i>. Leicester’s letter of October 10, 1574, in Tytler, +vii. chap, iv., and Appendix.</p> +<p><a name="footnote271"></a><a href="#citation271">{271}</a> +Tytler, vii. chap. iv.; Appendix xi, with letters.</p> +<p><a name="footnote272a"></a><a href="#citation272a">{272a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, ii. 356; Bannatyne, 281, 282.</p> +<p><a name="footnote272b"></a><a href="#citation272b">{272b}</a> +Morton to Killigrew, August 5, 1573.</p> +<p><a name="footnote273"></a><a href="#citation273">{273}</a> +Bannatyne, 283-290.</p> +<p><a name="footnote274"></a><a href="#citation274">{274}</a> +There was another Falsyde.</p> +<p><a name="footnote275a"></a><a href="#citation275a">{275a}</a> +See the letter in Maxwell’s <i>Old Dundee</i>, 399-401.</p> +<p><a name="footnote275b"></a><a href="#citation275b">{275b}</a> +Bain’s <i>Calendar</i> is misleading here (vol. i. 202). +Why Mr. Bain summarised wrongly in 1898, what Father Stevenson had done +correctly in 1863 (<i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>,, p. 263) is a mystery.</p> +<p><a name="footnote276a"></a><a href="#citation276a">{276a}</a> +See the “Prefatio,” <i>Knox</i>, i. 297, 298. In this +preface Knox represents the brethren as still being “unjustly +persecuted by France and their faction.” The book ends with +the distresses of the Protestants in November 1559, with the words, +“Look upon us, O Lord, in the multitude of Thy mercies; for we +are brought even to the deep of the dungeon.”—<i>Knox</i>, +i. 473.</p> +<p><a name="footnote276b"></a><a href="#citation276b">{276b}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, vi. 22, 23.</p> +<p><a name="footnote276c"></a><a href="#citation276c">{276c}</a> +M‘Crie’s <i>Knox</i>, 360.</p> +<p><a name="footnote277a"></a><a href="#citation277a">{277a}</a> +<i>Knox</i>, i. 317-319.</p> +<p><a name="footnote277b"></a><a href="#citation277b">{277b}</a> +Hume Brown, <i>John Knox</i>, ii. 6.</p> +<p><a name="footnote277c"></a><a href="#citation277c">{277c}</a> +<i>John Knox</i>, ii. 4.</p> +<p><a name="footnote277d"></a><a href="#citation277d">{277d}</a> +<i>Scot. Hist. Review</i>, January 1905.</p> +<p><a name="footnote278a"></a><a href="#citation278a">{278a}</a> +Lesley, ii. 40, <i>Scottish Text Society</i>, 1895.</p> +<p><a name="footnote278b"></a><a href="#citation278b">{278b}</a> +In the French Archives MS., <i>Angleterre</i>, vol. xv.</p> +<p><a name="footnote279a"></a><a href="#citation279a">{279a}</a> +Melville, 79 (1827).</p> +<p><a name="footnote279b"></a><a href="#citation279b">{279b}</a> +Spottiswoode, i. 320.</p> +<p><a name="footnote279c"></a><a href="#citation279c">{279c}</a> +Keith, i. 493, 494 (1835).</p> +<p><a name="footnote280a"></a><a href="#citation280a">{280a}</a> +<i>Angl. Reg</i>., xvi., fol. 346.</p> +<p><a name="footnote280b"></a><a href="#citation280b">{280b}</a> +Teulet, i. 407.</p> +<p><a name="footnote280c"></a><a href="#citation280c">{280c}</a> +Ibid., i. 410.</p> +<p><a name="footnote280d"></a><a href="#citation280d">{280d}</a> +<i>For. Cal. Eliz</i>., 1559-60, p. 453.</p> +<p><a name="footnote280e"></a><a href="#citation280e">{280e}</a> +Ibid., p. 469.</p> +<p><a name="footnote280f"></a><a href="#citation280f">{280f}</a> +Ibid., p. 480.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK JOHN KNOX AND THE REFORMATION***</p> +<pre> + + +***** This file should be named 14016-h.htm or 14016-h.zip****** + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +https://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/4/0/1/14016 + + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://www.gutenberg.org/about/contact + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: +https://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + +</pre></body> +</html> diff --git a/14016-h/images/knox1b.jpg b/14016-h/images/knox1b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..710375c --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/images/knox1b.jpg diff --git a/14016-h/images/knox1s.jpg b/14016-h/images/knox1s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..9218c8f --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/images/knox1s.jpg diff --git a/14016-h/images/knox2b.jpg b/14016-h/images/knox2b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..40407d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/images/knox2b.jpg diff --git a/14016-h/images/knox2s.jpg b/14016-h/images/knox2s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1c6989e --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/images/knox2s.jpg diff --git a/14016-h/images/knox3b.jpg b/14016-h/images/knox3b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..5563ac1 --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/images/knox3b.jpg diff --git a/14016-h/images/knox3s.jpg b/14016-h/images/knox3s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2eea5e3 --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/images/knox3s.jpg diff --git a/14016-h/images/knox4b.jpg b/14016-h/images/knox4b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..1b3b0e6 --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/images/knox4b.jpg diff --git a/14016-h/images/knox4s.jpg b/14016-h/images/knox4s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..efc9d72 --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/images/knox4s.jpg diff --git a/14016-h/images/knox5b.jpg b/14016-h/images/knox5b.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2b63b79 --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/images/knox5b.jpg diff --git a/14016-h/images/knox5s.jpg b/14016-h/images/knox5s.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..a5fb6a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/14016-h/images/knox5s.jpg |
