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." {260b}
As far as this epistle goes, Beza and his colleagues certainly do not
advise the Puritan seceders to secede.
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." {261a}
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." {261b}
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 _his_ 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."
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." {262a} 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? {262b} (See pp. 65-67 supra.)
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. . . . "
{263a}
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." {263b} 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.
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 {263c}--"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.
Knox was sorely disturbed, at this time, by the publication of a jeu
d'esprit, 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. {264a} 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, {264b} perhaps because he did die alone in a strange country.
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.
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.
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. {266}
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.
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."
{267a}
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. {267b}
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.
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. {268a}
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).
{268b} On May 26, 1572, he describes himself as "lying in St. Andrews,
half dead." {268c} He was able, however, to preach at a witch, who was
probably none the better for his distinguished attentions.
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. {269a} As his colleague, Craig, had disgusted the brethren by
his moderation and pacific temper, a minister named Lawson was appointed
as Knox's coadjutor.
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. {269b}
The prophecy was amply fulfilled. Du Croc remonstrated, "but the Lords
answered they could not stop the mouths of ministers to speak against
themselves."
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.") {269c}
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.
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 _preached_ the old religion." {269d} "Without exception of
persons, great or small," _all_ 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.
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. {270} There are to be no "temporising solemnities,"
all are to be "stout and resolute _in execution_," 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."
"That thing" is _not_ the plan for murdering Mary without trial; if
Killigrew meant that he had obtained Knox's assent to _that_, 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, proces), 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. {271} 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!
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 {272a}) 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.
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." {272b}
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.
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." {273}
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, {274} 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.
APPENDIX A: ALLEGED PERFIDY OF MARY OF GUISE
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.
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. {275a} 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, {275b} 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 _previously_ 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.
Such is our earliest account; there is no mention of a promise broken by
the Regent.
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
apologia for the proceedings of his party, and was apparently intended
for contemporary publication. {276a}
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 _and Council_ 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 _and her Council_, 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. . . . " {276b}
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. {276c}
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
_hope_ 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." {277a}
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 _postpone_ 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
_had publicly cancelled_ 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. {277b}
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." {277c}
I elsewhere {277d} 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.
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. . . . "
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. {278a} Buchanan and Spottiswoode follow Knox, but they
both use Knox's book, and are not independent witnesses.
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 {278b}
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. {279a}
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 . . . " {279b} In the MS. used by Bishop Keith, {279c}
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.
APPENDIX B: FORGERY PROCURED BY MARY OF GUISE
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, {280a} dated Glasgow,
January 25, 1560, in which the Duke curries favour with Francis II., and
encloses his blank bond, un blanc scelle, offering to send his children
to France. {280b} _On January_ 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. {280c} Next,
on March 15, 1560, the Duke, writing to Norfolk, denies the letter
attributed to him by the French. {280d} 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. {280e}
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. {280f}
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.
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?
Footnotes
{0a} Inventories of Mary, Queen of Scots, p. cxxii., note 7.
{0b} Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 320-324.
{2a} 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.
{2b} Knox, Laing's edition, iv. 78.
{4} See Young's letter, first published by Professor Hume Brown, John
Knox, vol. ii. Appendix, 320-324.
{5} Laing, in his Knox, vi. xxi. xxii.
{6} Knox, i. 36-40. The facts are pointed out by Professor Cowan in The
Athenaeum, December 3, 1904, and had been recognised by Dr. Hay Fleming.
{7} Beza, writing in 1580, says that study of St. Jerome and St.
Augustine suggested his doubts. Icones Virorum Doctrina Simul ac Pietate
Illustrium.
{9} Pollen, Papal Negotiations with Mary Stuart, 428-430, 522, 524, 528.
{10} Knox, vi. 172, 173.
{12} Letter of Young to Beza. Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 322-24.
{15a} Cf. Life of George Wishart, by the Rev. Charles Rodger, 7-12
(1876).
{15b} Maxwell, Old Dundee, 83, 84.
{17} M'Crie's Knox, 24 (1855).
{18a} "Letter to the Faithful," cf. M'Crie, Life of John Knox, 292.
{18b} Knox, vi. 229.
{19} M'Crie, 292.
{20} 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 Life of Knox, 326-327 (1855).
{22} 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" (Life of Knox, 315). This
martyr was a cousin, once removed, of the murdered ecclesiastic.
{23a} Knox, Laing's edition, i. 180.
{23b} Knox, i. 182. "The siege continued to near the end of January."
"The truce was of treacherous purpose," i. 183.
{24} Knox, i. 203-205.
{25a} Thorpe's Calendar, i. 60; Register Privy Council, i. 57, 58;
Tytler, vi. 8 (1837).
{25b} State Papers, Scotland, Thorpe, i. 61.
{25c} Bain, Calendar of Scottish Papers, 1547-69, i. I; Tytler, iii. 51
(1864).
{26a} Bain i. 2; Knox, i. 182, 183.
{26b} 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 Calendar of Scottish Papers, 1547-69, i. 4-5.
{27a} John Knox, i. 80.
{27b} State Papers, Domestic. Addenda, Edward VI., p. 327. Lord Eure
says there were twenty galleys.
{27c} Odet De Selve, Correspondence Politique, pp. 170-178.
{28} Knox, i. 201.
{30a} Leonti Strozzio, incolumitatem modo pacti, se dediderunt, writes
Buchanan. Professor Hume Brown says that Buchanan evidently confirms
Knox; but incolumitas means security for bare life, and nothing more.
Lesley says that the terms _asked_ were life and fortune, salvi cum
fortunis, but the terms _granted_ were but safety in life and limb, and,
it seems, freedom to depart, ut soli homines integri discederent. If
Lesley, a Catholic historian, is right, and if by discederent he means
"go freely away," the French broke the terms of surrender.
{30b} Knox, i. 206, 228.
{33a} Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 261.
{33b} Ibid., 158.
{33c} Ibid., 156, 157.
{35} Compare the preface, under the Restoration, to our existing prayer
book.
{36a} Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 98-136.
{36b} Knox, iii. 122.
{37a} Knox, iii. 297.
{37b} Ibid., iii. 122.
{38a} Knox, iii. 280-282.
{38b} Lorimer, i. 162-176.
{39} But, for the date, cf. Hume Brown, John Knox, i. 148; and M'Crie,
65, note 5; Knox, iii. 156.
{40a} Knox, iii. 120.
{40b} Laing, Knox, vi. pp. lxxx., lxxxi.
{40c} Pollen, The Month, September 1897.
{43} Knox, iii. 366.
{45} Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 259.
{47a} Original Letters, Parker Society, 745-747; Knox, iii. 221-226.
{47b} M'Crie, 65 (1855); Knox, iii. 235.
{48} Knox, iii. 184.
{49a} Knox, iii. 309.
{49b} Ibid., iii. 328, 329.
{49c} Ibid., iii. 194.
{54} cf. Hume Brown, ii. 299, for the terms.
{56} John Knox, i. 174, 175; Corp. Ref., xliii. 337-344.
{58} For the Frankfort affair, see Laing's Knox, 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, _as you describe it_, I see many trifles that may be put up
with," Prof. Hume Brown's rendering of tolerabiles ineptias. 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 in mediis rebus, such as external rites," is decidedly in favour
of the Puritans.
{60} Knox i. 244.
{62a} Knox, i. 245, note I.
{62b} Ibid., iv. 245.
{66} I conceive these to have been the arguments of the party of
compromise, judging from the biblical texts which they adduced.
{67} Knox, i. 247-249.
{71a} Knox, i. 92.
{71b} Ibid., iv. 75-84.
{73} Knox; iv. 238-240.
{74} We shall see that reformers like Lord James and Glencairn seem, at
this moment, to have sided with Mary of Guise.
{76a} Knox, i. 267-270.
{76b} Corpus Reformatorum, xlvi. 426.
{77a} More probably by Calvin's opinion.
{77b} Knox, iv. 248-253; i. 267-273.
{78} Stevenson, Selected MSS., pp. 69, 70 (1827); Bain, i. 585; Randolph
to Cecil, January 2, 1561.
{80a} Knox, iv. 255-276.
{80b} Ibid., i. 273, 274.
{81a} Knox, i. 275, 276.
{81b} Ibid., i. 273, 274.
{83} Knox, iv. 501, 502.
{84} Knox, iv. 358. Zurich Letters, 34-36.
{85} Knox, iv. 486, 488.
{87a} Wodrow Miscellany, vol. i.
{87b} 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, note 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.
{87c} "Historie of the Estate of Scotland," Wodrow Miscellany, i. 53-55.
{88a} Knox, i. 301.
{88b} Knox appears (he is very vague) to date Calder's petition _after_
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.
{88c} Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. Appendix, 301-303.
{88d} Knox, i. 301-306
{89a} Knox, i. 294, 301-312. On p. 294 Knox dates the Parliament in
October.
{89b} Knox, i. 309-312.
{90a} Knox, i. 312-314.
{90b} See Laing's edition, i. 320, 321.
{91} Wodrow Miscellany, i. 55.
{92a} M'Crie, Knox, 359, 360.
{92b} Knox, i. 306, 307.
{93a} Knox, i. 307.
{93b} "Historie," Wodrow Miscellany, i. 55, 56.
{93c} Knox, i. 312-314.
{94a} "Historie," Wodrow Miscellany, 56.
{94b} Melville, 76, 77 (1827).
But Professor Hume Brown appears to be misled in saying that Bettencourt,
or Bethencourt, did not reach Scotland till June (John Knox, i. 344i note
i), citing Forbes, i. 141. Bethencourt "passed Berwick on April 13"
(For. Cal. Eliz., 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.
{95a} Pitscottie, ii. 523.
{95b} State Papers, Borders, vol. i. No. 421 MS.
{96a} Affaires Etrangeres, Angleterre, vol. xv. MS.
{96b} Forbes, 97; Throckmorton to Cecil, May 18.
{96c} For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 272.
{97} Melville, 80.
{98a} Statuta, &c. Robertson, vol. i. clv-clxii.
{98b} Book of Discipline. Knox, ii. 253, 254.
{99a} M'Crie, 360.
{99b} 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, hors du conseil et a part,
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.
{100} As to Knox's account of this reforming Provincial Council (Knox,
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! Cf. Robertson, Statuta, i. clxii,
note I.
{101} Knox, v. 15-17.
{102a} Knox, v. 207, 208.
{102b} Ibid., v. 229.
{102c} Ibid., v. 420, 421.
{102d} Ibid., v. 495-523. [This footnote is provided in the original
book but isn't referenced in the text. DP.]
{104} John Knox and the Church of England, 215-218.
{105} Knox, ii. 460, 461. We return to this point.
{107} Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium Majoris Brit. Catalogus Poster., p.
219 (1559). Knox, i. 258-261.
{108a} Dieppe, April 10-April 22, 1559. Knox, vi. 15-21.
{108b} Desmarquets, Mem. Chronol. Jour. l'Hist, de Dieppe, i. 210.
{109a} Corp. Ref., xlv. (Calv., xvii.) 541.
{109b} Naissance de l'Heresie a Dieppe, Rouen, 1877, ed. Lesens.
{111} Knox, i. 321-323.
{112} Knox, vi. 23.
{113a} Corpus Reformatorum, xlvi. 609, xlvii. 409-411, August 13, 1561.
{113b} 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 Life of Knox, 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. John Knox, ii. 8.
{117} Theses of Erastus. Rev. Robert Lee. Edinburgh, 1844.
{120} Knox, i. 341,342; vi. 24. Did the brethren promise nothing but
the evacuation of Perth?
{121a} "Historie," Wodrow Miscellany, i. 58.
{121b} Knox, 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.
{122} Edinburgh Burgh Records.
{123a} But see Knox, i. 347-349. Is a week (June 4 to June 11)
accidentally omitted?
{123b} Writing on June 23, Knox dates the "Reformation" "June 14." His
dates, at this point, though recorded within three weeks, are to me
inexplicable. Knox, vi. 25.
{124} Keith, i. 265, note.
{125a} Lesley, ii. 443, Scottish Text Society.
{125b} For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 367.
{126a} Knox, vi. 26.
{126b} Ibid., i. 355.
{126c} Wodrow Miscellany, i. 60.
{127a} Knox, vi. 26.
{127b} See Scottish Historical Review, January 1905, 121-122, 128-130.
{131} Bain, i. 215.
{133a} For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 278. Erroneously dated "May 24" (?).
{133b} Bain, i. 216-218; For. Cal. Eliz., ut supra, 335, 336.
{133c} Archives Etrangeres, Angleterre, vol. xv. MS.
{133d} For. Cal. Eliz., 336; Knox, i. 359, 360.
{134} Knox, i. 360-362.
{135a} 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." The Diurnal of Occurrents dates
the sack of monasteries in Edinburgh June 28.
{135b} Wodrow Miscellany, i. 62; Knox, i. 366, 367, 370.
{135c} Knox, i. 363; cf. Keith, i. 213, 214; Spottiswoode, i. 280, 281.
{136a} Knox, i. 363-365; For. Cal. Eliz., 337.
{136b} Teulet, i. 338-340.
{137a} Bain, i. 218; For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 339. 340.
{137b} Knox, vi. 45.
{138} In Dr. Hay Fleming's The Scottish Reformation (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" (Knox, 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.
{139a} Knox, i. 365.
{139b} Spottiswoode, i. 282.
{139c} Teulet, i. 331. The Regent's instructions to Du Fresnoy.
{141} Teulet, i. 334, 335, citing Archives Etrangeres, Angleterre, xiv.
(xv.?), f. 221 (see the English translation), For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59,
406, 407; Keith, i. 220, 221; Spottiswoode, i. 285, 286.
{142a} Extracts from Edinburgh Town Council Records, July 29, 1559;
Keith, i. 487-489.
{142b} Cf. Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 30.
{143a} Knox, i. 376-379. The italicised articles are not in the other
versions of the terms as finally settled; cf. "Historie," Wodrow
Miscellany, i. 55-57.
{143b} Ibid., i. 379.
{144a} Knox, i. 380.
{144b} Sloane MSS., British Museum, 4144, 177b, 4737f, 100b. For. Cal.
Eliz. 1558-59, 411.
{145a} Knox, i. 381.
{145b} My italics.
{146} (Kyrkcaldy to Croft.)
"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 all places
whare ydolletre is put downe sall not be cett vp agane. 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.
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. 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
yoris at power
(W. KYRKCALDY)." {147}
{147} MS. Record Office; cf. For. Cal. Eliz., 1558 59, 408, 409.
{148a} Knox, i. 379, 380.
{148b} Ibid., i. 381.
{149a} Knox, vi. 53.
{149b} Ibid., i. 397-412. The Proclamation, and two Replies.
{149c} My italics.
{150} Knox, i. xxvi.; vi. 87.
{151a} Knox, i. 392, 393.
{151b} Ibid., i. 382.
{152a} Knox, ii. 15-38.
{152b} Ibid., vi. 56-59.
{153} S. P. Scotland, Elizabeth, MS. vol. i. No. 80; cf. Bain, i. 236,
237. Croft to Cecil, Berwick, August 3, 1559.
{154a} For. Cal. Eliz., 470.
{154b} I assume that he was the preacher at Edinburgh in d'Oysel's
letter of June 30-July 2, 1559. Teulet, i. 325.
{155} Sadleir to Cecil, September 8, 1559. For. Cal. Eliz., 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."
(John Knox, ii. 47; Knox, i. 413, 424-433.)
{158a} 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.
{158b} 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.
{159} Knox, vi, 89, 90; M'Crie, 143.
{160a} Bothwell states the amount at 3000 ecus de soleil. French
Archives MS.
{160b} Knox, i. 472.
{161a} Sadleir to Cecil, Nov. 15, 1559. For. Cal. Eliz., 1559-60, 115.
{161b} Labanoff, vii. 283.
{163} Knox, vi. 105-107.
{164} See Appendix B.
{165a} Corp. Ref., xlv. 645 (3118, note I).
{165b} Calvinus Sturmio, Corp. Ref., xlvi. 38, 39, March 23, 1560.
Sturmius Calvino, ibid., 53-56, April 15.
{166a} Bain, i. 389, 390; For. Cal. Eliz., 1559-60, 604.
{166b} Knox, ii. 68; cf. the Regent's letter. Bain, i. 389.
{167a} The date may be part of an interpolation.
{167b} This account is from the French Archives MS., Angleterre, vol.
xv.
{168} Knox, ii. 72.
{169} 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 versus Hamilton
feud in these proceedings.
{170} Knox, ii. 87, note.
{172} Knox, ii. 89-127.
{174a} Randolph to Cecil, September 7; Bain, i. 477, 478.
{174b} Knox, vi. 83, 84.
{174c} Knox, vi. lxxxii.
{175} M'Crie, Life of John Knox, 162 (1855).
{177a} Keith, iii. 4-7.
{177b} Bain, i. 461.
{177c} Cf. Edinburgh Burgh Records.
{182} Knox, ii. 193.
{186} Queen Mary's Letter to Guise, p. xlii., Scottish History Society,
1904.
{191a} Lesley, ii. 454 (1895).
{191b} See Lord James to Throckmorton, London, May 20, a passage quoted
by Mr. Murray Rose, Scot. Hist. Review, No. 6, 154. Additional MSS.
Brit. Mus., 358, 30, f. 117, 121. Lord James to Throckmorton, May 20-
June 3, 1561.
{191c} Bain, i. 540, 541.
{191d} Lord James to Dudley, October 7, 1561, Bain, i. 557.
{192} Pollen, Papal Negotiations, 62.
{193a} Knox, ii, 266.
{193b} Bain, ii. 543.
{194} Bain, ii. 547.
{195} Knox, ii. 276, 277.
{196} Knox, vi. 131.
{197} Knox, ii. 279, 280.
{199} Tracts by David Fergusson, Bannatyne Club, 1860.
{200a} Bain, i. 551, 552.
{200b} 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," Scot. Hist. Soc., 38-
45.
{201a} Bain, i. 565.
{201b} Knox, vi. 131, 132; ii. 289.
{201c} 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.--Extracts from Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, 126, 127.
{202} Knox, vi. 133-135. Corp. Refor., xlvii. 74.
{203a} Corp. Refor., xlvii. 114, 115.
{203b} Bain, i. 582, 583.
{203c} Ibid., i. 491. Randolph to Cecil.
{205} Bain, i. 565, 566.
{206a} Froude, iii. 265-270 (1866).
{206b} Knox, vi. 83.
{207a} Knox, vi. 11-14.
{207b} Bain, i. 569. Randolph to Cecil, November 11.
{207c} Ibid., i. 568-570.
{208a} There was a small guard, but no powerful guard existed till after
Riccio's murder.
{208b} Bain, i. 575. Randolph to Cecil, December 7.
{208c} Ibid., i. 571.
{209} 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."
{210} Keith, iii. 384, 385.
{211a} Knox, ii. 300-313. Pollen, "Mary's Letter to the Duc de Guise,"
xli.-xlvii.
{211b} Bain, i. 568, 569.
{211c} Ibid., i. 585. Randolph to Cecil, January 2, 1562.
{212a} 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 (Register of Privy Seal, 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.
{212b} 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." (Mary Queen of Scots, p.
292, note 35, citing For. Cal. Eliz., 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).
{212c} Keith, ii. 139.
{213} The Teviotdale Ormistouns of that ilk.
{214a} In Pitcairn's Criminal Trials is Arran's report of Bothwell's
very words, vol. i., part 2, pp. 462-465.
{214b} Bain, i. 613, 614.
{215a} Bain, i. 618, 619.
{215b} Knox, ii. 330.
{215c} Ibid., ii. 330, 331.
{215d} Cf. Baird, The Rise of the Huguenots, ii. 21 et seq.
{216a} Bain, i. 627. Randolph to Cecil, May 29.
{216b} Cf. Froude, vi. 547-565.
{216c} "Book of Discipline," Knox, ii. 228.
{216d} M'Crie, 187.
{217a} Knox, ii. 330-335.
{217b} Bain, i. 673.
{217c} 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.
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. Mary Queen of Scots, 275.
{218} Knox, vi. 140, 141.
{219a} Keith, iii. 50, 51.
{219b} Bain, i. 630.
{219c} Lesley, ii. 468.
{219d} Knox, vi. 193.
{220a} Knox, ii. 337-345.
{220b} Hay Fleming, Mary Queen of Scots, 301.
{221a} Knox, ii. 347.
{221b} Act Parl. Scot., ii. 572.
{221c} Bain, i. 665.
{221d} Bain, i. 668.
{222a} Chalmers, in his Life of Queen Mary, 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.
{222b} Cf. Pollen, Papal Negotiations, 163, 164.
{222c} Knox, ii. 346.
{222d} Ibid., ii. 358.
{223a} Bain, i. 675.
{223b} Froude, ii. 144 (1863).
{224a} Registrum de Panmure, i.-xxxii., cited by Maxwell; Old Dundee,
162. Book of the Universal Kirk, 26.
{225a} Knox, ii. 364-367; ii. 531, 532; Keith, iii. 140, 141.
{225b} Spanish Calendar, i. 314.
{225c} Bain, i. 684-686.
{225d} Knox, ii. 367-369.
{226a} Knox, ii, 370.
{226b} Bain, i. 686.
{226c} Ibid., i. 687.
{226d} Knox, li. 361; Bain, i. 693. Lethington's argument against
Lennox's claim, March 28, 1563.
{227a} Knox, ii. 371.
{227b} Bain, ii. 7.
{228a} Knox, ii. 370-377.
{228b} Ibid., ii. 377-379.
{228c} Bain, ii. 9, 10.
{229a} Knox, ii. 381.
{229b} Ibid., ii. 387-389.
{231a} Bain, ii. 24.
{231b} Ibid., ii. 25.
{231c} Spanish Calendar, i. 338.
{231d} Bain, ii. 19, 20.
{232a} Bain, ii. 26; Knox, ii. 393, 394.
{232b} Hume Brown, Scotland under Queen Mary, p. 99.
{232c} Pitcairn, Criminal Trials, i. 434.
{232d} 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. Knox, ii. 394, note I.
{233a} Knox, ii. 397.
{233b} Randolph to Cecil; Bain, ii. 28, 29.
{233c} Knox, ii. 399-401.
{234a} Keith, ii. 210. The version in Bain, ii. 30, is differently
worded.
{234b} Knox, ii. 403.
{235} Knox, ii. 399-415.
{236} Pitcairn, Criminal Trials, i. 434, 435.
{237a} Randolph, December 31; Bain, ii. 33; Knox, ii. 415.
{237b} Randolph, February 19, 1564; Bain, i. 113, 125.
{237c} Knox, ii. 415, note 3.
{238} Knox, ii. 417-419.
{239} Bain, i. 680; ii. 54.
{240} Knox, ii. 291, 292.
{241a} Lethington spoke merely of "controversies" (Knox, ii. 460). I
give the confessed meaning of the controversy.
{241b} Compare Knox, ii. 291, as to the discussion at Makgill's house in
November 1561.
{241c} Knox, ii. 460, 461.
{242a} Original Letters, Parker Society, Bullinger to Calvin, March 26,
1554, pp. 744-747.
{242b} Knox, ii. 441, 442.
{243a} The very programme of the General Assembly for the treatment of
Catholics, in November 1572. See p. 269 infra.
{243b} Knox, v. 462-464.
{244a} Knox, ii. 441.
{244b} Ibid., ii. 442, 443.
{246} Randolph to Cecil, February 27, 1565; Bain, ii. 128.
{247a} Knox, ii. 497.
{247b} Ibid., vi. 224, 225.
{248a} Knox, vi. 273; ii. 499.
{248b} Ibid., ii. 514.
{248c} Ibid., vi. 402.
{249a} Book of the Universal Kirk, 34.
{249b} Knox, vi. 416.
{249c} Bain, ii. 254, 255.
{249d} Stevenson, Selections, 153-159.
{250a} Papal Negotiations, xxxviii.-xliii.
{250b} Keith, ii. 412-413.
{250c} Knox, ii. 524.
{251a} Knox, i. 235.
{251b} Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 231.
{252a} Randolph to Cecil, March 21, 1566. Bain, ii. 269, 270. Diurnal,
March 17, 1566. Knox's prayer, Knox, vi. 483, 484.
{252b} Bain, ii. 269, 270.
{252c} See Calvin's letter of January 24 or April 1, 1564, Corpus
Reformatorum, xlviii. 244-249.
{253a} Life of Knox, 235, note 3; cf. Knox, ii. 533.
{253b} Burnet, History of the Reformation, iii. 360.
{253c} Knox, ii. 544-560.
{254a} Knox, vi. 545-547.
{254b} State Papers, Mary, Queen of Scots, vol. xiii., No. 20, MS.
{256a} Book of the Universal Kirk, 61-67.
{256b} Stevenson, Illustrations of the Reign of Queen Mary, 208.
{256c} Knox, ii. 563.
{257a} Stevenson, 221.
{257b} Ibid., 240, July 21.
{257c} Chalmers's "Life of Mary," ii. 487.
{258a} Knox, vi. 558-561.
{258b} If born in 1513-15, he was only about fifty-three to fifty-five.
{259a} Knox, vi. 567.
{259b} Knox and the Church of England, 230.
{259c} Strype's Grindal, 168-179 (1821).
{260a} Corp. Ref., xlvii. 417, 418.
{260b} Strype's Grindal, 507-516.
{261a} Zurich Letters. 1558-1602, pp. 152-155.
{261b} Strype's Grindal, 180. Also the letter of Grindal in Ellis, iii.
iii. 304
{262a} Knox, ii. 247-249.
{262b} Knox and the Church of England, 298-301.
{263a} Knox, vi. 559.
{263b} Ibid., vi. 568.
{263c} M'Crie, 248.
{264a} Bannatyne's Memorials, 5-13 (1836).
{264b} Calderwood, ii. 515-525.
{266} Bannatyne's Transactions, 70-82. Bannatyne was Knox's secretary,
and fragments dictated by the Reformer appear in his pages.
{267a} Melville's "Diary," 20-26.
{267b} Knox, vi. 606-612.
{268a} Bannatyne, 223, 224 (1836).
{268b} Knox, vi. 620-622.
{268c} Ibid., 236
{269a} Bannatyne, 268.
{269b} Ibid., 273.
{269c} Ibid., 278.
{269d} John Knox, ii. 282, 283.
{270} Cf. Leicester's letter of October 10, 1574, in Tytler, vii. chap,
iv., and Appendix.
{271} Tytler, vii. chap. iv.; Appendix xi, with letters.
{272a} Knox, ii. 356; Bannatyne, 281, 282.
{272b} Morton to Killigrew, August 5, 1573.
{273} Bannatyne, 283-290.
{274} There was another Falsyde.
{275a} See the letter in Maxwell's Old Dundee, 399-401.
{275b} Bain's Calendar is misleading here (vol. i. 202). Why Mr. Bain
summarised wrongly in 1898, what Father Stevenson had done correctly in
1863 (For. Cal. Eliz,, p. 263) is a mystery.
{276a} See the "Prefatio," Knox, 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."--Knox,
i. 473.
{276b} Knox, vi. 22, 23.
{276c} M'Crie's Knox, 360.
{277a} Knox, i. 317-319.
{277b} Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 6.
{277c} John Knox, ii. 4.
{277d} Scot. Hist. Review, January 1905.
{278a} Lesley, ii. 40, Scottish Text Society, 1895.
{278b} In the French Archives MS., Angleterre, vol. xv.
{279a} Melville, 79 (1827).
{279b} Spottiswoode, i. 320.
{279c} Keith, i. 493, 494 (1835).
{280a} Angl. Reg., xvi., fol. 346.
{280b} Teulet, i. 407.
{280c} Ibid., i. 410.
{280d} For. Cal. Eliz., 1559-60, p. 453.
{280e} Ibid., p. 469.
{280f} Ibid., p. 480.