into an examination of the exaggerated accounts which have been given
of the “pitiful devastation” committed by the reformers. I shall
content myself with stating a few facts, which may satisfy the candid
and considerate that no such great blame is imputable to them. The
demolition of the monasteries, with their dependencies, will be found
to comprehend the sum of what they can be justly charged with. And
yet again, I would ask those who are most disposed to blame them for
this, What purpose could the allowing of these buildings to stand have
served, if not to cherish the hopes {451} and excite the desires of
the catholics, to regain possession of them? To what use could the
reformers possibly have converted them? Is it to be supposed that
they could form the idea of preserving them for the gratification
of a race of antiquaries, who were to rise up in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries? Have these gentlemen, with all their zeal, ever
testified their regard for these sacred monuments, by associations and
subscriptions to preserve the mouldering remains from going to their
original dust? The reformed ministers had enough to do, in exciting
the nobility and gentry to keep the parish churches in decent repair,
without undertaking the additional task of supporting huge and useless
fabrics. But enough of this――Let not any distress themselves by
supposing that the costly furniture of the monasteries and churches
was all consumed by the flames. Fanatical as the reformers were, they
“reservit the best part thairof unburnt,” and converted it into money,
some of which went into the public purse, but the greater part into
the private pockets of the nobles. Winzet, apud Keith, Append. 245.
The idols and images were indeed committed to the flames without mercy;
but considering the example that their adversaries had set them of
consigning the living images of God to this fate, the retaliation was
certainly moderate; and that these were the only sacrifices which they
offered up, we have the testimony of a popish writer. Leslæus, de Reb.
Gest. Scotorum, lib. x. p. 537, edit. 1675.
The act of privy council for demolishing idolatrous houses did not
extend to cathedrals or to parish churches. Spotswood, p. 174, 175. In
the First Book of Discipline, indeed, cathedral‑churches, if not used
as parish‑churches, are mentioned among the places to be suppressed;
but so far was this case from occurring, that it was found necessary
to employ many of the chapels attached to monasteries, and collegiate
churches, as places for the protestant worship. That, in the first
effervescence of popular zeal, some of the cathedrals and other
churches should have suffered, is not much to be wondered at. “What
you speak of Mr Knox preaching for the pulling down of churches,”
says Mr Baillie, in his answer to bishop Maxwell, “is like the rest of
your lies. I have not heard that in all our land above three or foure
churches were cast down.” Historical Vindication of the Government
of the church of Scotland, {452} p. 40. Mr Baillie had the historical
collections of Calderwood in his possession when he composed that
work. This statement is confirmed by the testimony of Cecil in the
letter quoted above, (p. 424.) The churches were merely to be stripped
of monuments of idolatry and instruments of superstition; and in
carrying this into effect, great care was ordered to be taken that
the buildings should not be injured. Lord James Stewart (afterwards
earl of Murray) was the person to whom the execution of the act in the
northern part of the kingdom was committed; and we have an authentic
document of the manner in which he proceeded, in an order issued by
him, and written with his own hand, for purging the cathedral church
of Dunkeld.[492] The following is an exact copy of that order:
“To our traist friendis, the Lairds of Arntilly and Kinvaid.
“Traist friendis, after maist harty commendacion, we pray yow faill
not to pass incontinent to the kyrk of Dunkeld, and tak doun the
haill images thereof, and bring furth to the kyrkzayrd, and burn thaym
oppinly. And siclyk cast down the altaris, and purge the kyrk of all
kynd of monuments of idolatrye. And this ze faill not to do, as ze
will do us singular empleseur; and so committis you to the protection
of God. From Edinburgh, the xii. of August, 1560.
“Faill not, bot ze tak guid (Signed)
heyd that neither the dasks, “AR. ERGYLL.
windocks, nor durris, be ony
ways hurt or broken――――――――eyther “JAMES STEWART.
glassin wark or iron wark.”
“RUTHVEN.”
We may take it for granted that the same caution was used in the
rest of the commissions. If it be asked, how it happened that the
cathedrals, and many other churches, fell into such a ruined state,
the following quotations may serve for an answer. They are taken
from a scarce work written by Robert Pont, commissioner of Murray,
and one of the lords of Session. “Yet, a great many, not onely of the
raskall sorte, but sundry men of name and worldly reputation, joyned
themselves with the congregation of the {453} reformers, not so much
for zeale of religion, as to reape some earthly commoditie, and to
be enriched by spoyle of the kirkes and abbey places. And when the
preachers told them that such places of idolatrie should be pulled
down, they accepted gladly the enterprise; and rudely passing to worke,
pulled down all, both idoles and places where they were found. Not
making difference betweene these places of idolatrie, and many parish
kirks, where God’s word shuld have bin preached in many parts where
they resorted, as in such tumultes and suddainties useth to come to
passe; namelye, among such a nation as we are. Another thing fell out
at that time, which may be excused by reason of necessitie; when as
the lordes, and some of the nobilitie, principall enterprysers of the
Reformation, having to do with the Frenchmen, and many their assisters
of our owne nation, enemies to these proceedings, were forced, not
onely to ingage their owne landes, and bestowe whatsoever they were
able to furnishe of their own patrimonie, for maintenance of men of
warre, and other charges, but also to take the lead and belles, with
other jewelles and ornaments of kirkes, abbayes, and other places of
superstition, to employ the same, and the prises thereof, to resist
the enemies. The most parte of the realme beand in their contrarie.
This, I say, cannot be altogether blamed.” Against Sacrilege, Three
Sermons preached by Maister Robert Pont, an aged Pastour in the Kirk
of God. B. 6, 7. Edinburgh, 1599. Comp. Keith, p. 468.
But what shall we say of the immense loss which literature sustained
on that occasion? “Bibliothecks destroied, the volumes of the fathers,
councells, and other books of humane learning, with the registers of
the church, cast into the streets, afterwards gathered in heaps, and
consumed with fire.” Spotswood’s MS. Keith, Historie, p. 508. Does
not such conduct equal the fanaticism of the Mahometan chieftain who
deprived the world of the invaluable Alexandrine library? As every one
is apt to deplore the loss of that commodity upon which he sets the
greatest value, I might feel more inclined to join in this lamentation,
were I not convinced that the real loss was extremely trifling, and
that it has been compensated ten thousand fold. Where and of what kind
were these bibliothecks? _Omne ignotum magnificum._ The public was
{454} long amused with the tale of a classical library at Iona, which
promised a complete copy of Livy’s works, not to be found in all
the world beside; a miracle which Mr Gibbon, in the abundance of
his literary faith, seems to have been inclined to admit. Danes,
and Reformers, and Republicans, were successively anathematized, and
consigned to the shades of barbarism, for the destruction of what
(for aught that appears) seems to have existed only in the brains of
antiquarians. It has been common to say, that all the learning of the
times was confined to monasteries. This was true at a certain period;
but it had ceased to be the fact in the age in which the Reformation
took place. Low as literature was in Scotland at the beginning of the
16th century, for the credit of my country, I trust that it was not in
so poor a state in the universities as it was in the monasteries. Take
the account of one who has bestowed much attention on the monastic
antiquities of Scotland. “Monkish ambition terminated in acquiring
skill in scholastic disputation. If any thing besides simple theology
was read, it might consist of the legends of saints, who were pictured
converting infidels, interceding for offenders, and overreaching
fiends; or of romances, recording the valour of some hardy adventurer,
continually occupied in wars with pagans, or in vanquishing giants,
foiling necromancers, and combating dragons. Some were chroniclers;
and books of the laws might be transcribed or deposited with monks.
Some monks might be conversant in medicine and the occult sciences.”
Dalyell’s Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems, i. 17, 18.
But we are not left to conjecture, or to general inferences,
concerning the state of the monastic libraries. We have the catalogues
of two libraries, the one of a monastery, the other of a collegiate
church; which may be deemed fair specimens of the condition of the
remainder in the respective ages to which they belonged. The former
is the catalogue of the library of the Culdean monastery at Lochleven
in the 12th century. It consisted of only seventeen books, all of
them necessarily in manuscript. Among these were a pastoral, graduale,
and missale, books common to all monasteries, and without which their
religious service could not be performed; the Text of the Gospels, and
the Acts of the Apostles; an Exposition {455} of Genesis; a Collection
of Sentences; and an Interpretation of Sayings. The rest seem to have
consisted of some of the writings of Prosper, and perhaps of Origen
and Jerom. Jamieson’s Historical account of the ancient Culdees,
p. 376‒8. It may be granted that this collection of books was by no
means despicable in that age; but certainly it contained nothing, the
loss of which has been injurious to literature. I have no doubt that,
if a copy of the Gospels, with the Lochleven seal or superscription,
(whether authentic or fictitious,) were to occur, it would, with
antiquarians, give as high a price as a Polyglot; without the smallest
regard to its utility in settling the original text. From the 12th
to the 16th century, the monastic libraries did not improve. The
catalogue of the library at Stirling exhibits the true state of
learning at the beginning of the last mentioned period. It contained,
indeed, a copy of the gospels and epistles in manuscript, most
probably in Latin; the remainder of its contents was purely monkish.
There were four missals, two psalters, four antiphonies, three
breviaries, two legends, four graduals, and ten processionals.
Dalyell’s Fragments of Scottish History, p. 77.
I have occasionally met, in the course of my reading, with notices
of volumes of the Fathers being in the possession of the Scottish
monasteries, but nothing from which I could conclude that they had
complete copies of any of their writings. The abbot of Crossraguel,
indeed, speaks of his being in possession of a large stock of this
kind, (Keith, Append. 193,) which some writers have been pleased to
calculate at “a cart‑load.” It does not appear, however, that they
belonged to the monastery over which he presided. But whatever books
of this kind were to be found in them, the reformers would be anxious
to preserve, not to destroy. The chartularies were the most valuable
writings deposited in monasteries; and many of these have been
transmitted to us. The reformers were not disposed to consume these
records, and we find them making use of them in their writings. Knox,
Historie, p. 1, 2, 3. The mass‑books were the most likely objects of
their vengeance; and I have little doubt that a number of these were
committed to the flames, in testimony of their abhorrence of the
popish worship. Yet they were careful to preserve copies of {456}
them, which they produced in their disputes with the Roman catholics.
Ibid. p. 261.
But whatever literary ravages were committed, let them not be
imputed exclusively to the tumultuary reformation of Scotland, to
the fanaticism of our reformers, or the barbarous ignorance of our
nobles. In England, the same proceedings took place to a far greater
extent, and the loss must have been far greater. “Another misfortune,”
says Collier, “consequent upon the suppression of the abbeys, was
an ignorant destruction of a great many valuable books. The books,
instead of being removed to royal libraries, to those of cathedrals,
or the universities, were frequently thrown in to the grantees, as
things of slender consideration. Their avarice was sometimes so mean,
and their ignorance so undistinguishing, that when the covers were
somewhat rich, and would yield a little, they pulled them off, threw
away the books, or turned them to waste paper.”――“A number of them
which purchased these superstitious mansions,” says bishop Bale,
“reserved of those library books, some to serve their jacks, some to
scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots, and some they
sold to the grocers and soap‑sellers, and some they sent over the sea
to bookbinders, not in small numbers, but at times _whole ships full_.
Yea, the universities are not clear in this detestable fact; but
cursed is the belly which seeketh to be fed with so ungodly gains,
and so deeply shameth his native country. I know a merchant man (which
shall at this time be nameless) that bought the contents of two noble
libraries for forty shillings price; a shame it is to be spoken. This
stuff hath he occupied instead of grey paper by the space of more than
these _ten years_, and _yet hath he store enough for as many years to
come_.” Bale’s Declaration: Collier’s Eccles. Hist. ii. 166.
Note KK, Footnote 441.
_Aversion of Queen Elizabeth to the Scottish War._――The personal
aversion of Elizabeth to engage in the war of the Scottish Reformation,
has not, so far as I have observed, been noticed by any of our
historians. It is, however, a fact well authenticated by state papers,
whether it arose from extreme caution at the commencement {457} of her
reign, from her known parsimony, or from her high notions respecting
royal prerogative. Cecil mentions it repeatedly in his correspondence
with Throkmorton. “God trieth us,” says he, “with may difficulties.
The queen’s majestie never liketh this matter of Scotland; you knowe
what hangeth thereuppon: weak‑hearted men and flatterers will follow
that way.――I have had such a torment herin with the queen’s majestie,
as an ague hath not in five fitts so much abated.” Forbes, i. 454, 455.
In another letter he says, “What will follow of my going towardes
Scotlande, I know not; but I feare the success, quia, the queen’s
majestie is so evil disposed to the matter, which troubleth us
all.” Ibid. 460. It was not until her council had presented a formal
petition to her, that she gave her consent. Ibid. 390. Even after
she had agreed to hostilities, she began to waver, and listen to the
artful proposals of the French court, who endeavoured to amuse her
until such time as they were able to convey more effectual aid to
the queen regent of Scotland. Killigrew, in a letter to Throkmorton,
after mentioning the repulse of the English army in an assault on the
fortifications of Leith, says: “This, together with the bishopes [of
Valance] relation unto the queen’s majestie, caused her to renew the
opinion of Cassandra.” Ibid. 456. This was the principal cause of the
suspension of hostilities, and the premature attempt to negotiate, in
April 1560, which so justly alarmed the lords of the Congregation: an
occurrence which is also passed over in our common histories. Sadler,
i. 719, 721. The Scottish protestants were much indebted to Cecil and
Throkmorton for the assistance which they obtained from England. A
number of the counsellors, who had been in the cabinet of queen Mary,
did all in their power to foster the disinclination of Elizabeth. Lord
Gray, in one of his dispatches, complains of the influence of these
ministers, whom he calls Phillipians, from their attachment to the
interest of the king of Spain. Haynes, p. 295.
Note LL, Footnote 450.
_Loyalty of the Scottish Protestants._――The hostile advance of the
regent against Perth, first drove the lords of the Congregation
{458} to take arms in their own defence. Her reiterated infraction
of treaties, and the gradual developement of her designs, by the
introduction of French troops into the kingdom, rendered the prospect
of an amicable and permanent adjustment of differences very improbable,
and dictated the propriety of strengthening their confederation, that
they might be prepared for a sudden and more formidable attack. These
considerations are sufficient to justify the posture of defence in
which they kept themselves during the summer of 1559, and the steps
which they took to secure assistance from England. If their exact
situation is not kept in view, an accurate judgment of their conduct
cannot be formed, and their partial and temporary resistance to the
measures of the regent will be regarded as an avowed rebellion against
her authority. But whatever be the modern ideas on this subject, they
did not consider the former as necessarily implying the latter, and
they continued to profess not only their allegiance to their sovereign,
but also their readiness to obey the queen regent in every thing not
inconsistent with their security, and the liberties of the nation;
nay, they actually yielded obedience to her, by paying taxes to the
officers whom she appointed to receive them. Knox, p. 176. Private and
confidential letters are justly considered as the most satisfactory
evidence as to the intentions of men. Our Reformer, in a letter to Mrs
Locke, written on the 25th of July, 1559, says, “The queen is retired
unto Dunbar. The fine [end] is known unto God. We mean no tumult, no
alteration of authority, but only the reformation of religion, and
suppression of idolatry.” Cald. MS. i. 429. At an early period, indeed,
she accused them of a design to throw off their allegiance. When the
prior of St Andrews joined their party, she industriously circulated
the report that he ambitiously aimed at the sovereignty, and that they
intended to confer it upon him. Knox, 149. Forbes, i. 180. It was one
of the special instructions given to Sir Ralph Sadler, when he was
sent down to Berwick, that he should “explore the very trueth” as to
this report. Sadler, i. 731. In all his confidential correspondence
with his court, there is not the slightest insinuation that Sadler had
discovered any evidence to induce him to credit that charge. This is
a strong proof of the prior’s innocence, if it be taken in connexion
with what I shall {459} immediately state; not to mention the
testimony of Sir James Melvil. Memoirs, p. 27.
When the earl of Arran joined the Congregation, the queen regent
circulated the same report respecting him. Knox, p. 174. So far as the
Congregation were concerned, this accusation was equally unfounded as
the former. Ibid. p. 176. But there are some circumstances connected
with it, which deserve attention, as they set the loyalty of the
Scottish protestants in a very clear light. The earl of Arran, and
not the prior of St Andrews, was the favourite of the English court.
Messengers were appointed by them to bring him from the continent,
and he was conducted through England into Scotland, to be placed at
the head of the Congregation. Forbes, i. 164, 166, 171, 216. Sadler,
i. 417, 421, 437, 439. There is also good evidence that the ministers
of Elizabeth wished him to be raised to the throne of Scotland,
if not also that they had projected the uniting of the two crowns
by a marriage between him and Elizabeth. “The way to perfait this
assuredly,” says Throkmorton to Cecil, “is, that the erle of Arraine
do as Edward the IV. did, when he landed at Ravenspurg: [he pretended
to the duchy of York, and having that, he would not leave till he had
the “diademe,”] for then of necessitie th’ erle of Arran must depend
upon the devotion of England, to maintein and defend himself. I feare
all other devises and handelings will prove like an apotecary his shop;
and therefore I leave to your discretion to provyde by all meanes
for this matter, both there and in Scotland.” And again: “Methinks,
the lord of Grange, Ledington, Balnaves, and the chief doers of the
Congregation, (which I wold wish specially to be done and procured by
the prior of St Andrewes,) should be persuaded to set forward these
purposes before: for there is no way for them to have any safety or
surety, oneles thei make the earl of Arran king; and as it is their
surety, so it is also ours. In this matter there must be used both
wisdome, courage, and sped.” Forbes, i. 435, 436. Throkmorton, it is
to be observed, was at this time the most confidential friend of Cecil,
and, in his dispatches from France, pressed the adoption of those
measures which the secretary had recommended to the queen and council.
Had not the Congregation been decidedly averse to any change of {460}
the government which would have set aside their queen, it seems highly
probable that this plan would have been carried into execution. The
report of an intended marriage between Elizabeth and Arran was general
at that time; and whatever were the queen’s own intentions, it seems
to have been seriously contemplated by her ministers. Forbes, 214, 215,
282, 288. This accounts for the recommendation of this measure by the
Scottish Estates, after the conclusion of the civil war. Keith, 154.
Note MM, Footnote 458.
_Authorities for the statement of Knox’s Political Principles._――The
following extracts from his writings relate to the principal points
touched in the statement of his political sentiments:――
“In few wordis to speik my conscience; the regiment of princes is
this day cum to that heap of iniquitie, that no godlie man can bruke
office or autoritie under thame, but in so doing hie salbe compellit
not onlie aganis equitie and justice to oppress the pure, but also
expressedlie to fycht againis God and his ordinance, either in
maintenance of idolatrie, or ellis in persecuting Godis chosin
childrene. And what must follow heirof, but that ether princeis be
reformit and be compellit also to reform their wickit laws, or els
all gud men depart fra thair service and companie.” Additions to the
Apology of the Parisian Protestants: MS. Letters, p. 477. Dr Robertson
has ascribed to Knox and Buchanan an “excessive admiration of ancient
policy;” and he says, their “principles, authorities, and examples,
were all drawn from ancient writers,” and their political system
founded “not on the maxims of feudal, but of ancient republican
government.” History of Scotland, vol. i. b. ii. p. 391. Lond. 1809.
These assertions need some qualification. If republican government be
opposed to absolute monarchy, the principles of Knox and Buchanan may
be denominated republican; but if the term (as now commonly understood)
be used in contradistinction to monarchy itself, it cannot be shown
that they admired or recommended republicanism. They were the friends
of limited monarchy. It is the excellence of the government of Britain,
that the feudal maxims which once predominated {461} in it, have been
corrected, or their influence counteracted, by others borrowed from
republican constitutions. And it is not a little to the credit of
these great men, and evinces their good sense and moderation, that,
notwithstanding all their admiration of ancient models of legislation,
in comparison with the existing feudal monuments, they contented
themselves with recommending such principles as tended to restrain
the arbitrary power of kings, and secure the rights of the people.
Nor were all their authorities and examples drawn from ancient writers,
as may be seen in Buchanan’s dialogue, _De jure regni apud Scotos_.