regent than this riot. By her recent conduct, she had forfeited the
confidence of the protestants, and even exposed herself in the eyes
of the sober and moderate of her own party. This occurrence afforded
her an opportunity of turning the public indignation from herself,
and directing it against the protestants. She did not fail to improve
it with her usual address. She magnified the accidental tumult into
a dangerous and designed rebellion. Having called the nobility to
Stirling, she, in her interviews with them, insisted upon such topics
as were best calculated to persuade the parties into which they
were divided. In conversing with the catholics, she dwelt upon the
sacrilegious overthrow of those venerable structures which their
ancestors had dedicated to the service of God. To the protestants
who had not joined their brethren at Perth, she complained of the
destruction of the Charter‑house, which was a {260} royal foundation;
and, protesting that she had no intention of offering violence to
their consciences, promised to protect them, provided they would
assist her in punishing those who had been guilty of this violation
of public order.[390] Having inflamed the minds of both parties, she
collected an army from the adjacent counties,[391] and advanced to
Perth, threatening to lay waste the town with fire and sword, and to
inflict the most exemplary vengeance on all who had been instrumental
in producing the riot.[392]
The protestants of the north were not insensible to their danger, and
did all in their power to avert the storm which threatened them. They
wrote to the queen regent, to the commander of the French troops, to
the popish nobles, and to those of their own persuasion: they solemnly
disclaimed all rebellious intentions; they protested their readiness
to yield due obedience to the government; they entreated all to
refrain from offering violence to peaceable subjects, who sought only
the liberty of their consciences, and the reformation of religion. But,
finding all their endeavours fruitless, they resolved not to suffer
themselves and their brethren to be massacred, and prepared {261}
for a defence of the town against an illegal and furious assault. And
so prompt and vigorous were they in the measures which they adopted,
that the regent, when she approached, deeming it imprudent to attack
them, proposed overtures of accommodation, to which they readily
acceded.[393]
While the two armies lay before Perth, and negotiations were going
on between them, our Reformer obtained an interview with the prior
of St Andrews and the young earl of Argyle, who adhered to the regent.
He reminded them of the solemn engagements which they had contracted,
and charged them with violating these, by abetting measures which
tended to suppress the reformed religion, and enslave their native
country. The noblemen replied, that they had been induced, by the
representations of the regent and the clergy, to believe that their
brethren intended to swerve from their former loyalty, and, although
they were now convinced that this charge was unfounded, they were
anxious to fulfil the promise {262} which they had made to the queen,
by bringing the present difference to an amicable termination; but,
if she should violate the proposed treaty, they would withdraw their
countenance from her, and openly take part with their brethren, to
whom they considered themselves as bound by the most sacred ties.
The regent was not long in affording them an opportunity of verifying
their promise. No sooner had she taken possession of Perth, and
perceived that the forces of the protestants were disbanded, than she
began to disregard the conditions to which she had agreed. Argyle and
the prior remonstrated against the infractions of a treaty which they
had concluded at her earnest request, but were answered in such an
unsatisfactory manner, that they deserted her court, and could never
afterwards be persuaded to place any confidence in her promises.[394]
From the time that the leading protestants discovered the hostile
intentions of the regent, they had used great industry to ascertain
the numbers of their friends, to establish means of correspondence
among them, and to have them united by the strictest bonds. For this
purpose, copies of their religious covenant were committed to persons
who procured subscriptions to it in the different districts where they
resided.[395] From the designation which they gave themselves in this
covenant, or from the union which subsisted among them, they began at
this time to be distinguished {263} by the name of The Congregation.
The nobles who had joined the association, were the earls of Argyle,
Glencairn, Monteith, and Rothes; lords Ochiltree, Boyd, Ruthven,
and the prior of St Andrews. The earl Marischal, and lord Erskine,
with some others who were friendly to the reformed religion, still
supported the regent, or remained neutral. A large proportion of the
lesser barons belonged to the Congregation; particularly those of
Mearns, Angus, Strathearn, Monteith, Fyfe, Cunningham, Kyle, Carrick,
and Galloway.[396]
In the beginning of June, the lords of the Congregation held a
consultation on the measures which they should adopt for their
own security, and for the advancement of the Reformation. They had
repeatedly applied to the clergy to rectify the abuses which prevailed
in the church, and to release them from those unjust and oppressive
laws by which their consciences had long been enslaved; but their
petitions had been treated with neglect and disdain. “To abandon
usurped power, to renounce lucrative error, are sacrifices which
the virtue of individuals has, on some occasions, offered to truth;
but from any society of men no such effort can be expected. The
corruptions of a society, recommended by common utility, and justified
by universal practice, are viewed by its members without shame or
horror; and reformation never proceeds from themselves, but is always
{264} forced upon them by some foreign hand.”[397] Convinced of this,
the protestant leaders had next addressed themselves to the regent,
and requested her to employ her authority to bring about a reformation,
which could not be much longer deferred, without interrupting the
peace of the kingdom. As long as they had any reason to think that
she was disposed to listen to their petitions, they had waited with
exemplary patience, and restrained the ardour of such of their friends
as were inclined, without further delay, to use the right which nature
and Christianity gave them; but the regent had disappointed their
expectations, and from being a professed friend was become a declared
enemy; they could no longer place the smallest dependence on her
promises; and they were satisfied that she had formed a systematic
plan for suppressing the Reformation, and enforcing the existing
ecclesiastical laws in all their rigour. It behoved them now either to
submit to have their chains riveted, or by a bold and vigorous effort
to shake them off altogether. They determined upon the latter. The
scandalous lives of the established clergy, their total neglect of the
religious instruction of the people, and the profanation of Christian
worship by gross idolatry, were the most glaring abuses. The lords of
the Congregation resolved to take immediate steps for removing these,
by abolishing the popish service, and setting up the reformed worship
in all those places to which their authority or influence {265}
extended, and in which the greater part of the inhabitants were
friendly to the design. This step is justified in part by the feudal
ideas respecting the jurisdiction of the nobility, which at that
time prevailed in Scotland; the urgent and extreme necessity of the
case, however, forms its best vindication. A great part of the nation
loudly demanded such a reformation, and, had not regular measures
been adopted for its introduction, the popular indignation would have
effected the work in a more exceptionable way.
St Andrews was the place fixed on for commencing these operations.
With this view, the earl of Argyle, and lord James Stewart, who was
prior of the abbey of St Andrews, made an appointment with Knox to
meet them, on a certain day, in that city. Travelling along the east
coast of Fife, he preached at Anstruther and Crail, and, on the 9th
of June, joined them at St Andrews. The archbishop, apprized of his
design to preach in his cathedral, assembled an armed force, and sent
information to him, that if he appeared in the pulpit, he would give
orders to the soldiers to fire upon him. The noblemen, having met to
consult what ought to be done, agreed that Knox should desist from
preaching at that time, and strongly urged upon him the reasons of
their opinion. Their retinue was very slender; they had not yet
ascertained the disposition of the inhabitants of the town; the queen
regent lay at a small distance with an army; and his appearance in the
pulpit might lead to the sacrifice of his own life, and the lives of
those who were determined to defend him from violence.
{266} There are occasions on which it is a proof of superior wisdom to
disregard the ordinary dictates of prudence; on which, to face danger
is to avoid it, to flee from it is to invite it. Had the reformers,
after announcing their intentions, suffered themselves to be
intimidated by the bravading attitude and language of the archbishop,
their cause would, at the very outset, have received a blow, from
which it would not easily have recovered. This was prevented by the
firmness and intrepidity of Knox. Fired with the recollection of
the part which he had formerly acted on that spot, and with the
near prospect of realizing the sanguine hopes which he had so long
cherished in his breast, he resisted all the importunities of his
friends. He could take God to witness, he said, that he never preached
in contempt of any man, nor with the design of hurting an earthly
creature; but to delay to preach next day, (unless forcibly hindered,)
he could not in conscience agree. In that town, and in that church,
had God first raised him to the dignity of a preacher, and from it
he had been “reft” by French tyranny, at the instigation of the Scots
bishops. The length of his imprisonment, and the tortures which he
had endured, he would not at present recite; but one thing he could
not conceal, that, in the hearing of many yet alive, he had expressed
his confident hope of again preaching in St Andrews. Now, therefore,
when providence, beyond all men’s expectation, had brought him to that
place, he besought them not to hinder him. “As for the fear of danger,
that may come to me,” continued he, “let no {267} man be solicitous;
for my life is in the custody of him whose glory I seek. I desire the
hand nor weapon of no man to defend me. I only crave audience; which,
if it be denied here unto me at this time, I must seek where I may
have it.”
This intrepid reply silenced all remonstrance; and next day, Knox
appeared in the pulpit, and preached to a numerous assembly, including
many of the clergy, without experiencing the slightest interruption.
He discoursed on the subject of our Saviour’s ejecting the profane
traffickers from the temple of Jerusalem, from which he took occasion
to expose the enormous corruptions which had been introduced into
the church under the papacy, and to point out what was incumbent upon
Christians, in their different spheres, for removing them. On the
three following days he preached in the same place; and such was the
influence of his doctrine, that the provost, bailies, and inhabitants,
harmoniously agreed to set up the reformed worship in the town; the
church was stripped of images and pictures, and the monasteries were
pulled down. This happened on the 14th of June, 1559.
Understanding that the lords at St Andrews were accompanied by a small
retinue, the queen regent, who lay at Falkland, attempted to surprise
them. But the protestants in Angus, having received information of
the critical situation of their brethren, came to their assistance
with such celerity and in such numbers, that they were able to face
the royal army at Cupar‑moor; and the regent, afraid to risk a battle,
consented to a truce, by which she engaged {268} to remove her French
troops from Fife, and to send commissioners to St Andrews for the
purpose of settling all differences between her and the Congregation.
The troops were removed, but no commissioners appeared; and the
lords of the Congregation, being apprized that the queen intended to
fortify the passage of the Forth at Stirling, and to cut off their
communication with the protestants in the south, proceeded to Perth,
and, having expelled the garrison from that town, by a rapid march
seized upon Stirling, and, advancing, took possession of the capital
of the kingdom; the regent, as they approached, retiring with her
forces to Dunbar.[398]
The example of St Andrews, in abolishing the popish worship, was
quickly followed in other parts of the kingdom; and, in the course
of a few weeks, at Crail, at Cupar, at Lindores, at Stirling, at
Linlithgow, at Edinburgh, and at Glasgow, the houses of the monks
were overthrown, and all the instruments of idolatry destroyed.[399]
These proceedings were celebrated in the singular lays, which were at
that time circulated among the reformers.
His cardinalles hes cause to mourne,
His bishops are borne a backe;
His abbots gat an uncouth turne,
When shavellinges went to sacke:
{269} With burges wifes they led their lives,
And fare better than wee.
Hay trix, trim goe trix, under the greene-wod tree.
His Carmelites and Jacobinis,
His Dominikes had great adoe;
His Cordeliers and Augustines,
Sanct Francis’s ordour to;
The sillie friers, mony yeiris
With babbling bleirit our ee.
Hay trix, &c.
Had not your self begun the weiris,
Your stepillis had been standand yit;
It was the flattering of your friers
That ever gart sanct Francis flit:
Ye grew sa superstitious
In wickednesse,
It gart us grow malicious
Contrair your messe.[400]
Scarcely any thing in the progress of the Scottish Reformation has
been more frequently or more loudly condemned than the demolition
of those edifices upon which superstition had lavished all the
ornaments of the chisel and the pencil. To the Roman catholics,
who anathematized all who were engaged in this work of inexpiable
sacrilege, and represented it as involving the complete overthrow
of religion,[401] have succeeded {270} another race of writers,
who, although they do not, in general, make high pretensions to
devotion, have not scrupled, at times, to borrow the language of their
predecessors, and have bewailed the wreck of these precious monuments
in as bitter strains as ever idolator did the loss of his gods. These
are the warm admirers of Gothic architecture, and other relics of
ancient art; some of whom, if we may judge from their language, would
welcome back the reign of superstition, with all its ignorance and
bigotry, if they could recover the objects of their adoration.[402]
Writers of this stamp depict the ravages and devastation which marked
the progress of the Reformation, in colours as dark as ever were
employed by the historian in describing the overthrow of ancient
learning, by the irruption of the barbarous Huns and Vandals. Our
Reformer cannot be mentioned by them but with symptoms of horror, and
in terms of detestation, as a barbarian, a savage, and a ring‑leader
of mobs, for overthrowing whatever was venerable {271} in antiquity,
or sacred in religion. It is unnecessary to produce instances.
Expectes eadem a summo minimoque poeta.
To remind such persons of the divine mandate to destroy all monuments
of idolatry in the land of Canaan would be altogether insufferable,
and might provoke, from some of them, a profane attack upon the
authority from which it proceeded. To plead the example of the early
Christians, in demolishing the temples and statues dedicated to pagan
polytheism, would only awaken the keen regrets that are felt for
the irreparable loss.[403] It would be still worse to refer to the
apocalyptic predictions, which some have been so fanatical as to think
were fulfilled in the miserable spoliation of that “great city,” which,
under all its revolutions, has so eminently proved the nurse of the
arts, and given encouragement to painters, statuaries, and sculptors,
to “harpers, and musicians, and pipers, and trumpeters, and craftsmen
of whatsoever craft,” who to this day have not forgotten their
obligations to it, nor ceased to bewail its destruction. In any
apology which I make for the {272} reformers, I would alleviate
instead of aggravating the distress which is felt for the loss of
such valuable memorials of antiquity. It has been observed by high
authority, that there are certain commodities which derive their
principal value from their extreme rarity, and which, if found in
great quantities, would cease to be sought after or prized. A nobleman
of great literary reputation has, indeed, questioned the justness of
this observation, so far as respects precious stones and metals.[404]
But I flatter myself, that the noble author and the learned critic,
however much they may differ as to public wealth, will agree that the
observation is perfectly just, as applied to those commodities which
constitute the wealth and engage the researches of the antiquary. With
him rarity is always an essential requisite and primary recommendation.
His property, like that of the possessor of the famous Sibylline books,
does not decrease in value by the reduction of its quantity, but after
the greater part has been destroyed, becomes still more precious.
If the matter be viewed in this light, antiquarians have no reason
to complain of the ravages of the reformers, who have left them such
valuable remains, and placed them in that very state which awakens in
their minds the most lively sentiments of the sublime and beautiful,
by reducing them to――ruins.
But, to speak seriously, I would not be thought so {273} great
an enemy to any of the fine arts, as to rejoice at the wanton
destruction of their models, ancient or modern, or to vindicate those,
who, from ignorance and fanatical rage, may have excited the mob to
such violence. But I am satisfied, that the charges usually brought
against our reformers on this head are highly exaggerated, and in some
instances altogether groundless. The demolition of the monasteries is,
in fact, the only thing of which they can be fairly accused. Cathedral
and parochial churches, and, in several places, the chapels attached
to monasteries, were appropriated to the protestant worship; and, in
the orders issued for stripping them of images, idolatrous pictures,
and superstitious furniture, particular directions were given to avoid
whatever might injure the buildings, or deface any of their ordinary
decorations. It is true, that some churches suffered from popular
violence during the ferment of the Reformation; and that others were
dilapidated, in consequence of their most valuable materials being
sold to defray the expenses of the war in which the protestants were
involved; but the former will not be matter of surprise to those who
have attended to the conduct of other nations in similar circumstances,
and the latter will be censured by such persons only as are incapable
of entering into the feelings of a people who were engaged in a
struggle for their lives, their liberties, and their religion. Of all
the charges thrown out against our reformers, the most ridiculous is,
that, in their zeal against popery, they waged war against literature,
by destroying the valuable {274} books and records which had been
deposited in the monasteries. The state of learning among the monks,
at the era of the Reformation, was wretched, and their libraries poor;
the only persons who patronized or cultivated literature in Scotland
were protestants; and so far from sweeping away any literary monuments
which remained, the reformers were disposed to search for them among
the rubbish, and to preserve them with the utmost care. In this
respect we have no reason to deprecate a comparison between our
Reformation and that of England, notwithstanding the flattering
accounts which have been given of the orderly and temperate manner
in which the latter was conducted under the superintending control
of the supreme powers.[405]
But, even although the irregularities committed in the progress of
that work had been greater than have been represented, I must still
reprobate the spirit which disposes persons to dwell with unceasing
lamentation upon losses, which, in the view of an enlightened
and liberal mind, will sink and disappear in the magnitude of the
incalculable good which rose from the wreck of the revolution. What!
do we celebrate, with public rejoicings, victories over the enemies
of our country, in the gaining of which the lives of thousands of our
fellow‑creatures have been sacrificed? and shall solemn masses and sad
dirges, accompanied with direful execrations, be everlastingly sung,
for the mangled members of statues, torn pictures, {275} and ruined
towers? Shall those who, by a display of the horrors of war, would
persuade their countrymen to repent of a contest which had been
distinguished with uncommon feats of valour, and crowned with the
most brilliant success, be accused of a desire to tarnish the national
glory? Shall the topics on which they insist, however forcible in
themselves――the effusion of human blood, the sacking of cities, the
devastation of fertile provinces, the ruin of arts and manufactures,
and the intolerable burdens entailed even upon the victors
themselves――be represented as mere commonplace topics, employed as a
cover to disloyalty? And do not those who, at the distance of nearly
three centuries, continue to wail evils of a far inferior kind which
attended the Reformation, justly expose themselves to the suspicion
of indifference and disaffection to a cause, in comparison with
which all contests between rival kingdoms and sovereigns dwindle
into insignificance? I will go farther, and say, that I look upon
the destruction of these monuments as a piece of good policy, which
contributed materially to the overthrow of the Roman catholic religion,
and the prevention of its re‑establishment. It was chiefly by the
magnificence of its temples, and the splendid apparatus of its worship,
that the popish church fascinated the senses and imaginations of the
people. A more successful method of attacking it, therefore, could
not be adopted than the demolition of what contributed so much to
uphold and extend its influence. There is more wisdom than many seem
to perceive in the maxim which {276} Knox is said to have inculcated,
“that the best way to keep the rooks from returning, was to pull
down their nests.” In demolishing, or rendering uninhabitable, all
those buildings which had served for the maintenance of the ancient
superstition, (except what were requisite for the protestant worship,)
the reformers only acted upon the principles of a prudent general, who
dismantles or razes the fortifications which he is unable to keep, and
which might afterwards be seized and employed against him by the enemy.
Had they been allowed to remain in their former splendour, the popish
clergy would not have ceased to indulge hopes, and to make efforts to
be restored to them; occasions would have been taken to tamper with
the credulous, and to inflame the minds of the superstitious; and
the reformers might soon have found reason to repent their ill‑judged
forbearance.[406]
* * * * *
Our Reformer was along with the forces of the Congregation when they
faced the army of the regent in {277} Cupar‑moor;[407] he accompanied
them on their expedition to Perth.[408] and in the end of June arrived
with them at Edinburgh.[409] On the same day he preached in St Giles’s,
and next day in the Abbey church. On the 7th of July, the inhabitants
of the metropolis met in the Tolbooth, and made choice of him as their
minister. With this choice, which was approved of by his brethren, he
judged it his duty to comply, and immediately began his labours in the
city.[410]