was levelled, especially by such as had held pluralities in England,
who insisted that the preacher should be called to account for
slandering their mother church. A special meeting being held for the
consideration of this affair, the friends of the liturgy, instead of
prosecuting their complaints against Knox, began with requiring that
Cox and his friends should be admitted to a vote in the discussion.
This was resisted by the great majority, on the ground that these
persons had not yet subscribed the discipline of the church, nor
given satisfaction for their late disorderly conduct, and their
sinful compliances in England. The behaviour of our Reformer, on this
occasion, was more remarkable for magnanimity than prudence. Although
aware of the hostility {150} of Cox’s adherents to himself, and that
they sought admission chiefly to overpower him by numbers, he was
so confident of the justice of his cause, and so anxious to remove
prejudices, that he entreated and prevailed with the meeting to yield
to their unreasonable request, and to admit them immediately to a
vote. “I know,” said he, “that your earnest desire to be received
at this instant within the number of the congregation, is, that, by
the multitude of your voices, ye may overthrow my cause. Howbeit, the
matter is so evident, that ye shall not be able to do it. I fear not
your judgment; and therefore do require that ye may be admitted.”[214]
This disinterestedness was thrown away on the opposite party; for
no sooner were they admitted, and had obtained a majority of voices,
than Cox, usurping an authority with which he had never been invested,
discharged Knox from preaching, and from all interference in the
congregational affairs.[215]
The great body of the congregation were indignant at these proceedings;
and there was reason to fear that the mutual animosity would break out
into a disgraceful tumult. To prevent this, some of the members made
a representation of the case to the senate of Frankfort, who, after
recommending in vain {151} a private accommodation, issued an order
that the congregation should conform exactly to the mode of service
used by the French church, as nothing but confusion had ensued since
they departed from it; and threatened, if this was not complied with,
to shut up their place of worship. To this peremptory injunction
the Coxian faction pretended a cheerful submission, while they
clandestinely concerted measures for obtaining its revocation, and
enforcing their favourite liturgy upon a reclaiming congregation.
Perceiving the influence which our countryman had in the church, and
despairing to carry their plan into execution so long as he was among
them, they determined, in the first place, to rid themselves of his
presence. To accomplish this object, they had recourse to one of the
basest and most unchristian arts ever employed to ruin an adversary.
Two of them, in concurrence with others, went privately to the
magistrates, and accused Knox of high treason against the emperor of
Germany, his son Philip, and queen Mary of England; putting into their
hands at the same time a copy of a book which he had lately published,
and in which the passages containing the grounds of charge were marked.
“O Lord God!” says Knox, when relating this step, “open their hearts
to see their wickedness, and forgive them for thy manifold mercies.
And I forgive them, O Lord, from the bottom of mine heart. But that
thy message sent by my mouth may not be slandered, I am compelled
to declare the cause of my departing, and to utter their follies, to
their amendment, I trust, and {152} the example of others, who, in
the same banishment, can have so cruel hearts as to persecute their
brethren.”[216] The book which the informers left with the magistrates
was his Admonition to England; and the passage upon which they
principally fixed, as substantiating the charge of treason against the
emperor, was the following, originally spoken to the inhabitants of
Amersham in Buckinghamshire,[217] on occasion of the rumoured marriage
of queen Mary with Philip, the son and heir of Charles V., a match
which was at that time dreaded by many of the English catholics. “O
England, England, if thou obstinately wilt return into Egypt, that is,
if thou contract marriage, confederacy, or league with such princes
as do maintain and advance idolatry, such as the emperor, who is
no less enemy to Christ than ever was Nero――if for the pleasure of
such princes thou return to thy old abominations before used under
papistry, then assuredly, O England, thou shalt be plagued and brought
to desolation, by the means of those whose favour thou seekest!” The
other passages {153} related to the cruelties of the English queen.
Not to speak of the extravagance of the charge which they founded upon
these passages, and of the unbrotherly spirit which they discovered,
it was with little grace and consistency that the sticklers for the
English forms availed themselves of the strong language which Knox
had employed in the warmth of his zeal, in order to excite prejudices
against him; and it would be no difficult task to extract from their
writings declamations against their own queen, and against foreign
princes, more intemperate than any thing that ever proceeded from his
pen.[218]
In consequence of this accusation, the magistrates sent for
Whittingham, a respectable member of the English congregation, and
interrogated him concerning Knox’s character. He told them that he was
“a learned, grave, and godly man.” They then acquainted him with the
serious accusation which had been lodged against him by some of his
countrymen, and giving him the book, charged him, _sub pœna pacis_,
to bring them an exact Latin translation of the passages which were
marked. This being done, they commanded Knox to desist from preaching
until their pleasure should be known. To this command he peaceably
submitted; “yet,” says he in his narrative, “being desirous to hear
others, I went to the church next day, not thinking that my company
would have offended any. But as soon as my accusers saw me, {154}
they, with ―――― and others, departed from the sermon; some of them
protesting with great vehemence, that they would not tarry where I
was.”[219] The magistrates were extremely perplexed how to act in this
delicate business. On the one hand, they were satisfied of the malice
of Knox’s accusers; on the other, they were afraid that information of
the charge would be conveyed to the emperor’s council, which then sat
at Augsburg, and that they might be obliged to deliver up the accused
to them, or to the queen of England. In this dilemma, they desired
Whittingham to advise his friend privately to retire of his own
accord from Frankfort. At the same time, they did not dissemble their
detestation of the unnatural conduct of the informers, who, having
waited upon them to know the result of their deliberations, were
dismissed from their presence with evident marks of displeasure.
On the 25th of March, Knox delivered a most consolatory discourse to
about fifty members of the congregation, who assembled at his lodgings
in the evening. Next day they accompanied him some miles on his
journey from Frankfort, and, with heavy hearts {155} and many tears,
committed him to God, and took their leave.
No sooner was Knox gone, than Cox, who had privately concerted the
plan with Glauberg, a civilian, and nephew of the chief magistrate,
procured an order from the senate for the unlimited use of the
English liturgy, by means of the false representation, that it was
now universally acceptable to the congregation. The next step was the
abrogation of the code of discipline, and then the appointment of a
bishop, or superintendent over the pastors. Having accomplished these
important improvements, they could now boast that they had “the face
of an English church.” Yes, they could now raise their heads above all
the reformed churches which had the honour of entertaining them, and
which, though they might have all the office‑bearers and ordinances
instituted by Christ, had neither bishop, nor litany, nor surplice!
They could now lift up their faces in the presence of the church
of Rome herself, and cherish the hope that she would not altogether
disown them! But let me not forget, that the men of whom I write
were at this time suffering exile for the protestant religion, and
that they really detested the body of popery, though childishly and
superstitiously attached to its attire, and gestures, and language.
The sequel of the transactions in the English congregation at
Frankfort, does not properly belong to this memoir. I shall only
add, that after some ineffectual attempts to obtain satisfaction
for the breach of the church’s peace, and the injurious treatment of
{156} their minister, a considerable number of the members left the
city. Some of them, among whom was Fox, the celebrated martyrologist,
repaired to Basle. The greater part went to Geneva, where they
obtained a place of worship, and lived in great harmony and love,
until the storm of persecution in England blew over at the death of
queen Mary; while those who remained at Frankfort, as if to expiate
their offence against Knox, continued a prey to endless contention.
Cox and his learned colleagues, having accomplished their favourite
object, soon left them to compose the strife which they had excited,
and provided themselves elsewhere with a less expensive situation for
carrying on their studies.[220]
{157} I have been the more minute in the detail of these transactions,
not only on account of the share which the subject of this memoir had
in them, but because they throw light upon the controversy between
the conformists and non‑conformists, which runs through the succeeding
period of the ecclesiastical history of England. “The troubles
at Frankfort” present, in miniature, a striking picture of that
contentious scene which was afterwards exhibited on a larger scale
in the mother‑country. The issue of that affair augured ill as to
the prospect of an amicable adjustment of the litigated points. It
had been usual to urge conformity to the obnoxious ceremonies, from
the respect due to the authority by which they were enjoined. But
in this instance the civil authority, so far from enjoining, had
rather discountenanced them. If they were urged with such intolerant
importunity in a place where the laws and customs were repugnant to
them, what was to be expected in England, where law and custom were on
their side? The divines who received ecclesiastical preferment at the
accession of Elizabeth, professed, that they desired the removal of
these grounds of strife, but could not obtain it from the queen; and
I am disposed to give many of them credit for the sincerity of their
professions. But as they showed themselves so stiff and unyielding
when the matter was wholly in their own power――as {158} some of them
were so eager in wreathing a yoke about the consciences of their
brethren as to urge reluctant magistrates to rivet it, is it any
wonder that their applications for relief were cold and ineffectual,
when made to rulers who were disposed to make the yoke still more
severe, and to “chastise with scorpions those whom they had chastised
with whips?” I repeat it; when I consider the transactions at
Frankfort, I am not surprised at the defeat of every subsequent
attempt to advance the Reformation in England, or to procure relief to
those who scrupled to yield conformity to some of the ecclesiastical
laws. I know it is pleaded, that the things complained of are matters
of indifference, not prohibited in scripture, not imposed as essential
to religion or necessary to salvation, matters that can affect no
well‑informed conscience; and that such as refuse them, when enacted
by authority, are influenced by unreasonable scrupulosity, conceited,
pragmatical, opinionative. This has been the usual language of a
ruling party, when imposing upon the consciences of the minority. But
not to urge here the danger of allowing to any class of rulers, civil
or ecclesiastical, a power of enjoining indifferent things in religion;
nor the undeniable fact, that the burdensome system of ceremonial
observances, by which religion was corrupted under the papacy, was
gradually introduced under these and similar pretexts; nor that the
things in question, when complexly and formally considered, are not
really matters of indifference; not to insist at present upon these
topics, the answer to the above {159} plea is short and decisive.
These things appear matters of conscience and importance to the
scruplers; you say they are matters of indifference. Why then violate
the sacred peace of the church, and perpetuate division; why silence,
deprive, harass, and starve men of acknowledged learning and piety,
and drive from communion a sober and devout people; why torture their
consciences, and endanger their souls, by the imposition of things,
which, in your judgment, are indifferent, not necessary, and unworthy
to become objects of contention?
Upon retiring from Frankfort, Knox went directly to Geneva. He was
cordially welcomed back by Calvin. As his advice had great weight in
disposing Knox to comply with the invitation from Frankfort, he felt
much hurt at the treatment which had obliged him to leave it. In
reply to an apologetic epistle which he received from Dr Cox, Calvin,
although he prudently restrained himself from saying any thing which
might revive or increase the flame, could not conceal his opinion,
that Knox had been used in an unbrotherly and unchristian manner,
and that it would have been better for his accuser to have remained
at home, than to have come into a foreign country as a firebrand to
inflame a peaceable society.[221]
It appeared from the event, that providence had disengaged Knox from
his late charge, to employ him {160} on a more important service.
From the time that he was carried prisoner into France, he had never
lost sight of Scotland, nor relinquished the hope of again preaching
in his native country. While he resided at Berwick and Newcastle,
he had frequent opportunities of personal intercourse with his
countrymen, and of learning the state of religion among them.[222] His
unintermitted labours, during the five years which he spent in England,
by occupying his time and attention, lessened the regret which he felt
at seeing the object of his wishes apparently at as great a distance
as ever. Upon leaving that kingdom, his thoughts were anxiously turned
to Scotland. He found means to carry on an epistolary correspondence
with some of his friends at home; one great object of his journeys to
Dieppe was to receive their letters;[223] and he had the satisfaction,
soon after his retreat from Frankfort, to obtain such information from
them, as encouraged him to execute his design of paying a visit to his
native country. To prepare the reader for the account of this journey,
it will be necessary to take a view of the principal events which had
occurred in that kingdom from the time that Knox was forced to leave
it.
* * * * *
The surrender of the castle of St Andrews seemed to have given an
irrecoverable blow to the reformed interest in Scotland. Among the
prisoners conveyed to France were some of the most zealous and able
{161} protestants in the kingdom; and the rest, seeing themselves at
the mercy of their adversaries, were dispirited and intimidated. The
clergy triumphed in the victory which they had obtained,[224] and
flattered themselves that they would now be able with ease to stifle
all opposition to their measures. The regent, being guided entirely by
his brother, the archbishop of St Andrews, was ready to employ all the
power of the state in support of the church, and for suppressing those
who refused to submit to her decisions. During the confusions produced
by the invasion of the kingdom under the duke of Somerset, and by the
disastrous defeat of the Scots at Pinkie, in the year 1547, the regent
found it his interest not to irritate the protestants; but no sooner
was he freed from the alarm created by these events than be began to
treat them with severity. Aware that it would be extremely invidious
to prosecute the barons and gentry upon a charge of heresy, and
perhaps convinced that such measures in the time of his predecessor,
had proved injurious to the hierarchy, the crafty primate commenced
his attack by bringing them to trial for crimes against the state.[225]
Although they had conducted themselves in the most peaceable and
loyal manner during the late invasion, and many of them {162} had
died under the standard of the regent,[226] they were accused of being
secretly favourable to the English, and of holding correspondence
with them. Cockburn of Ormiston, and Crichton of Brunston, were
banished, and their estates forfeited.[227] Sir John Melville of
Raith, a gentleman of distinguished probity, and of untainted loyalty,
was accused of a traitorous connexion with the enemy; and although
the only evidence adduced in support of the charge was a letter
written by him to one of his sons then in England, and although this
letter contained nothing criminal, yet was he unjustly condemned and
beheaded.[228] The signing of a treaty of peace with England, in 1550,
was a signal for the clergy to proceed to acts of more undisguised
persecution. Adam Wallace, who had lived for some time as tutor in the
family of Ormiston, was apprehended, and being tried for heresy before
a convention of clergy and nobility was committed {163} to the flames
on the Castle‑hill of Edinburgh.[229] These prosecutions were not
confined to persons in holy orders. George Winchester of Kinglassie
was summoned before the archbishop and clergy at St Andrews, and,
having made his escape, was condemned as a heretic, and his goods
escheated.[230] In the following year, the parliament renewed the
laws in support of the church, and added a new statute against the
circulation of heretical ballads and tragedies.[231]
By these severe measures the clergy struck terror into the minds of
the nation; but they were unable to conceal the glaring corruptions
by which their own order was disgraced, and they could not remain
strangers to the murmurs that these had excited throughout the whole
kingdom. In the month of November 1549, a provincial council was held
at Edinburgh “for the reformation of the church, and the extirpation
of heresy.[232] This council acknowledged that “corruption and
profane lewdness of life {164} as well as gross ignorance of arts and
sciences, reigned among the clergy of almost every degree,”[233] and
they enacted no fewer than fifty‑eight canons for correcting these
evils. They agreed to carry into execution the decree of the general
council of Basle, which ordained, that every clergyman who lived in
concubinage should be deprived of the revenues of his benefice for
three months, and that if, after due admonition, he did not dismiss
his concubine, or if he took to himself another, he should be deprived
of his benefices altogether.[234] They exhorted the prelates and
inferior clergy not to retain in their own houses their bastard
children, nor suffer them to be promoted directly or indirectly to
their own benefices, nor employ the patrimony of the church for the
purpose of marrying them to barons, or of erecting baronages for
them.[235] That the distinction between clergy and laity might be
visibly preserved, they appointed the ordinaries to charge the priests
under their care to desist from the practice of preserving their
beards, which had begun to prevail, and to see that the canonical
tonsure was duly observed.[236] To remedy the neglect of public
instruction, which was loudly complained of, they agreed to observe
the act of the council of Trent, which ordained that every bishop,
“according to the grace given to him,” should preach personally four
times a year at least, unless lawfully hindered; and that such of them
as were unfit for this duty, through want of practice, {165} should
endeavour to qualify themselves, and for that end should entertain
in their houses learned divines capable of instructing them. The same
injunctions were laid on rectors.[237] They determined that a benefice
should be set apart in each bishopric and monastery, for supporting
a preacher who might supply the want of teaching within their
bounds; that, where no such benefice was set apart, pensions should
be allotted; and that, where neither of these was provided, the
preacher should be entitled to demand from the rector forty shillings
a‑year, provided he had preached four times in his parish within
that period.[238] The council made a number of other regulations,
concerning the dress and diet of the clergy, the course of study in
cathedral churches and monasteries, union of benefices, pluralities,
ordinations, dispensations, and the method of process in consistorial
courts. But not trusting altogether to these remedies for the cure
of heresy, they farther ordained that the bishop of each diocese, and
the head of each monastery, should appoint “inquisitors of heretical
pravity, men of piety, probity, learning, good fame, and great
circumspection,” who should make the most diligent search after
heresies, foreign opinions, condemned books, and particularly profane
songs, intended to defame the clergy, or to detract from the authority
of the ecclesiastical constitutions.[239]
Another provincial council, held in 1551 and 1552, besides ratifying
the preceding canons,[240] adopted an {166} additional expedient
for correcting the continued neglect of public instruction. After
declaring that “the inferior clergy, and the prelates for the most
part, were still unqualified for instructing the people in the
catholic faith, and other things necessary to salvation, and for
reclaiming the erroneous,” they proceeded to approve of a catechism
which had been compiled in the Scottish language, ordered that
it should be printed, and that copies of it should be sent to all
rectors, vicars, and curates, who were enjoined to read a portion
of it, instead of a sermon, to their parishioners, on every Sunday
and holiday, when no person qualified for preaching was present.
The rectors, vicars, and curates, were enjoined to practise daily in
reading their catechism, lest, on ascending the pulpit, they should
stammer and blunder, and thereby expose themselves to the laughter of
the people. The archbishop was directed, after supplying the clergy
with copies, to keep the remainder beside him “in firm custody;” and
the inferior clergy were prohibited from indiscreetly communicating
their copies to the people, without the permission of their bishops,
who might allow this privilege to “certain honest, grave, trusty, and
discreet laics, who appeared to desire it for the sake of instruction,
and not of gratifying curiosity.”[241] If any of the hearers testified
a disposition to call in question any part of the catechism, the
clerical reader was prohibited, under the pain of deprivation, from
entering into dispute with them on {167} the subject, and was
instructed to delate them to the inquisitors.[242]
Many of the regulations enacted by these two councils were
excellent;[243] but the execution of them was committed to the very
persons who were interested in support of the evils against which
they were directed. Accordingly, the canons of the Scottish clergy,
like those of general councils called for the reformation of the
church, instead of correcting, served only to proclaim the abuses
which prevailed. We know from the declarations of subsequent
provincial councils,[244] as well as from the complaints of the people,
that the licentiousness of the clergy continued; and the catechism
which they had sanctioned seems to have been but little used. I have
not found it mentioned by any writer of that age, popish or protestant;
and we know of its existence only from the canon of the assembly which
authorized its use, and from a few copies of it which have descended
to our time.[245]
The council which met in 1551, boasts that, through the singular
favour of the government, and the vigilance of the prelates, heresy,
which had formerly spread through the kingdom, was now repressed, and
almost extinguished.[246] There were still, however, many protestants
in the nation; but they were deprived of teachers, and they satisfied
themselves with retaining their sentiments, without exposing their
lives to inevitable destruction by avowing their creed, {168} or
exciting the suspicions of the clergy by holding private conventicles.
In this state they remained from 1551 to 1554.
While the Reformation was in this languishing condition, it
experienced a sudden revival in Scotland, from two causes which
appeared at first view to threaten its utter extinction in Britain.
These were the elevation of the queen dowager to the regency of
Scotland, and the accession of Mary to the throne of England.