to surmount the opposition made to it by the nobility, Mary had
condescended to court the protestant ministers. Having sent for the
superintendents of Lothian, Glasgow, and Fife, (for Knox could not now
be admitted to her presence,) she amused them with fair words. She was
not yet persuaded, she said, of the truth of their religion, but was
willing to hear conference and reasoning on the subject; she was also
content to attend the public sermons of some of them; and, “above all
others, she would gladly hear the superintendent of Angus, for he was
a mild and sweet‑natured man, with true honesty and uprightness, Sir
John Erskine of Dun.”[149] {134} She even went so far as to be present
at a sermon preached by one of the ministers in Callendar‑house, at
the baptism of a child of lord Livingston.[150] But as soon as her
marriage was accomplished, she told the commissioners of the church,
in very plain and determined language, “her majesty neither will, nor
may, leave the religion wherein she has been nourished and brought
up.”[151] And there was no further proposal of attending either sermon
or conference.
The friendship between the earl of Murray and the Reformer had been
renewed in the beginning of 1565. Knox was placed in a very delicate
predicament by the insurrection under Murray, and the other lords
who opposed the queen’s marriage. His father‑in‑law was one of their
number. They professed that the security of the protestant religion
was the principal ground of their taking arms; and they came to
Edinburgh to collect men to their standard. But whatever favour he
might have for them, he kept himself clear from any engagement.[152]
If he had taken part in this unsuccessful revolt, we need not doubt
that her majesty would have embraced the opportunity of punishing him
for it, when his principal friends had fled the kingdom.
We find, in fact, that she immediately proceeded against him on a
different, but far more slender ground. The young king, who could be
either papist {135} or protestant, as it suited him, went sometimes to
mass with the queen, and sometimes attended the reformed sermons.[153]
To silence the suspicions of his alienation from the protestant
religion, circulated by the insurgent lords, he, on the 19th of August,
made a solemn appearance in St Giles’s church, sitting on a throne
which had been prepared for his reception. Knox preached that day, and
happened to prolong the service beyond his usual time. In one part of
the sermon, he quoted these words of scripture, “I will give children
to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them,――children are
their oppressors, and women rule over them;” and in another part of it,
he mentioned that God punished Ahab, because he did not correct his
idolatrous wife, Jezabel.[154] Though no particular application was
made by the preacher, the king applied these passages to himself and
the queen, and, returning to the palace in great wrath, refused to
taste dinner. The papists, who had accompanied him to church, inflamed
his resentment and that of the queen by their representations.
{136} That very afternoon Knox was taken from bed,[155] and carried
before the privy council. Some respectable inhabitants of the city,
understanding his citation, accompanied him to the palace. He was told
that he had offended the king, and must desist from preaching as long
as their majesties were in Edinburgh. He replied, that “he had spoken
nothing but according to his text; and if the church should command
him to speak or abstain, he would obey, so far as the word of God
would permit him.”[156] Spotswood says, that he not only stood to
what he had said in the pulpit, but added, “That as the king, for
the queen’s pleasure, had gone to mass, and dishonoured the Lord God,
so should He in his justice make her the instrument of his overthrow.
This speech,” continues the archbishop’s manuscript, “esteemed {137}
too bold at the time, came afterwards to be remembered, and was
reckoned among other his prophetical sayings, which certainly were
marvellous. The queen, enraged at this answer, burst forth into
tears.”[157]
The report of the inhibition laid upon the Reformer created great
agitation in the city. His colleague, who was appointed to supply
his place during his suspension, threatened to desist entirely from
preaching. The town council met, and appointed a deputation to wait
on their majesties, and request the reversal of the sentence; and
at a second meeting held on the same day, they came to a unanimous
resolution that they would, “in no manner of way, consent or grant
that his mouth be closed,” but that he should be desired, “at his
pleasure, and as God should move his heart, to proceed forward to
true doctrine as before, which doctrine they would approve and abide
at to their life’s end.”[158]
It does not appear that he continued any time suspended from preaching.
For the king and queen {138} left Edinburgh before next Sabbath[159]
and the prohibition extended only to the time of their residence
in the city. Upon their return, it is probable that they judged it
advisable not to enforce an order which had already created much
discontent, and might alienate the minds of the people still farther
from the present administration. Accordingly, we find him exercising
his ministry in Edinburgh with the same boldness as formerly.
Complaints were made to the council of the manner in which he prayed
for the exiled noblemen; but secretary Maitland, who had formerly
found so much fault with his prayers, defended them on the present
occasion, saying, that he had heard them, and they were such as nobody
could blame.[160]
Christopher Goodman had officiated, with much approbation, as minister
of St Andrew’s, since the year 1560; but he was prevailed on, by the
solicitations of his friends in England, to return, about this time,
to his native country.[161] The commissioners from St Andrew’s were
instructed to petition the General Assembly, which met in December
this year, that Knox should be translated from Edinburgh to their
city. They claimed a right to him, as he had commenced his ministry
among them; and they might think, that the dissensions in which he
was involved with the court would induce him to prefer a more retired
situation. But their petition was refused.[162]
This Assembly imposed on him several important {139} services. He
was commissioned to visit the churches in the south of Scotland, and
appointed to write “a comfortable letter,” to encourage the ministers,
exhorters, and readers, throughout the kingdom, to persevere in the
discharge of their functions, which many of them were threatening
to abandon, on account of the non‑payment of their stipends; and
to excite the people among whom they laboured to relieve their
necessities.[163] He had formerly received an appointment to draw
up The Form of Excommunication and of Public Repentance.[164] And
he was now required to compose a Treatise of Fasting. The Assembly,
having taken into consideration the troubles of the country, and the
dangers which threatened the whole protestant interest, had appointed
a general fast to be kept through the kingdom. The form and order to
be observed on that occasion they left to be drawn out by Knox and
his colleague; and as nothing had been hitherto published expressly on
this subject, they were authorized to explain the duty, as well as to
state the reasons which at that period called for this solemn exercise.
This treatise does credit to the compilers, {140} both as to matter
and form. It is written in a perspicuous and nervous style. In the
grounds assigned for fasting, the critical state of all the reformed
churches, the late decree of the council of Trent for the extirpation
of the protestant name, the combination of the popish princes for
carrying it into execution, and the persecutions suffered by their
brethren in different countries, are all held forth as a warning to
the protestants of Scotland, and urged as calls to repentance and
prayer.
The following may serve as a specimen:――“Supposing, we say, that
wee had none of these foresaid causes to moove us, yet is there one
which if it moove us not to humiliation, wee show ourselves more than
insensible. For now is Satan so enlarged against Jesus Christ, and so
odious is the light of his gospel unto the Romaine antichrist, that
to suppresse it in one province, realme, or nation, he thinketh it
nothing, unlesse that in all Europe the godly, and such as abhorre
the papisticall impietie, be therewith also utterlie destroyed, and
so rased from the face of the earth, that no memory of them shal after
remaine. If any thinke that suche crueltie cannot fall into the hearts
of men, we send them to be resolved of those fathers of the last
councel of Trent, who, in one of their sessions, have thus concluded:
All Lutherans, Calvinists, and such as are of the new religion, shall
utterly be rooted out. The beginning shall be in France, by conducting
of the catholike king, Philip of Spaine, and by some of the nobilitie
of France; which matter (they say) put in execution, the whole {141}
power of both, together with the popes armie, and force of the duke
of Savoy and Ferrar, shall assault Geneva, and shall not leave it till
that they have put it to sacke, saving in it no living creature. And
with the same mercie shall so many of France as have tasted of the new
religion be served. From thence expedition shall be made against the
Germanes, to reduce them to the obedience of the apostolike seate.
And so shall they proceed to other realmes and nations, never ceasing
till that all be rooted out that will not make homage to that Romane
idoll. How fearefull a beginning this conclusion and determination
had, France will remember moe ages then one. For how manie, above
a hundreth thousand men, women, babes, virgines, matrones, and
aged fathers suffered, some by sworde, some by water, some by fire,
and other torments, the verie enemies themselves are compelled to
acknowledge. And albeit that God of his mercie in part disappoynted
their cruell enterprises, yet let us not thinke that their will is
changed, or their malice asswaged. No; let us be assured, that they
abide but opportunitie to finish the worke that cruellie against God,
against his trueth, and the true professors of the same, they have
begunne, the whisperings whereof are not secreete, neither yet the
tokens obscure. For the traffike of that dragon now with the princes
of the earth, his promises and flattering enticements, tende to none
other ende, but to inflame them against Jesus Christ, and against
the true professours of his gospel. For who can thinke that the pope,
cardinals, and horned {142} bishops, will offer the greatest portion
of their rents, for sustaining of a warre, whereof no commoditie
should redound (as they suppose) to themselves?” Having quoted that
part of the decree of the council which relates to the assessment
imposed on the clergy, for carrying on this holy war, the compilers
of the treatise add: “But let us hear their conclusion: France and
Germanie (say they) being by these meanes so chastised, abased, and
brought to the obedience of the holy Romane church, the fathers doubt
not but time shall provide both counsell and commoditie, that the rest
of the realmes about may be reduced to one flocke, and one apostolike
governour and pastour.――But some shall say, they are yet far from the
end of their purpose, and therefore wee neede not be so fearefull, nor
so troubled. We answere, the danger may be nearer than we beleeve, yea,
perchance a part of it hath bene nearer to our neckes than we have
considered. But how so ever it be, seeing that God of his mercie hath
brought foorth to light their cruell and bloodie counsell, in which we
neede not to doubt but still they continue, it becummeth us not to be
negligent or slouthful.”[165]
Strong as their apprehensions were, the danger was nearer to them than
they imagined. The most zealous and powerful of the protestant nobles
being exiled, the queen determined to carry into execution the design
of which she had never lost sight; and while she amused the nation
with proclamations {143} against altering the received religion, and
tantalized the ministers with offers of more adequate support, was
preparing for the speedy restoration of the Roman catholic worship.
No means were left unattempted for gaining over the nobility to the
ancient religion. The king openly professed himself a convert to it,
and officiated in some of its most superstitious rites. The earls
of Lennox, Cassilis, and Caithness, with lords Montgomery and Seton,
followed his example.[166] The friars were employed to preach at
Holyroodhouse, and, to gain the favour of the people, endeavoured to
imitate the popular method of the protestant preachers.[167] In the
beginning of February 1566, a messenger arrived from the cardinal
of Lorrain, with a copy of the catholic league for extirpating the
protestants, and instructions to obtain the queen’s subscription to
it, and to urge the propriety of adopting the most rigorous measures
against the exiled noblemen. Mary scrupled not to set her hand to the
league.[168] Previous to this, it is said that she was inclined to
yield to the intercessions {144} made in behalf of the exiles; but if
ever she felt such a disposition, it is certain that, from the arrival
of this embassy, the door of mercy was shut. Murray and his associates
were immediately summoned to appear before the parliament which was to
meet on the twelfth of March. The lords of the Articles were chosen
according to the queen’s pleasure; the popish ecclesiastics were
restored to their place in parliament; and the altars to be erected in
St Giles’s church, for the celebration of the Roman catholic worship,
were already prepared.[169]
But these measures, when ripe for execution, were blasted, in
consequence of a secret engagement which the king had entered into
with some of the protestant nobles. The first effect produced by this
engagement was the well‑known assassination of Rizzio, the unworthy
favourite of the queen, who was the principal instigator of the
measures against the protestant religion and the banished lords, and
had now incurred the jealousy of the king, as well as the contempt of
the nobility and the hatred of the people. To have removed this minion
from her majesty’s counsels and presence by legitimate means would
have been meritorious; but the manner in which it was accomplished was
equally inconsistent with law and humanity, and fixes a deep stigma on
the characters of those who perpetrated the deed.[170]
{145} A complete change on the state of the court succeeded this
event. The popish counsellors fled from the palace; the exiled lords
returned out of England; and the parliament was prorogued, without
accomplishing any of the objects for which it had been assembled. But
Mary soon persuaded the weak and uxorious king to desert the noblemen
whom he had made the instruments of his revenge, to retire with her
to Dunbar, and to issue a proclamation, disowning his consent to
the late attempt; by which he exposed himself to the contempt of the
nation, without regaining her affection. Having collected an army,
she returned to Edinburgh, threatening to inflict the most exemplary
vengeance on all who had been accessory to the murder of her secretary,
and the indignity shown to her person. She found herself, however,
unable to resume her former plans; and, while the conspirators against
Rizzio were forced to flee to England, the earl of Murray, and the
other lords who {146} had opposed her marriage, were allowed to remain
in the country, and soon after pardoned.
When the queen returned to Edinburgh, Knox left it, and retired to
Kyle. There is no reason to think that he was privy to the conspiracy
which proved fatal to Rizzio. But it is probable that he had expressed
his satisfaction at an event which contributed to the safety of
religion and the commonwealth, if not also his approbation of the
object of the conspiracy.[171] At any rate, he was sufficiently
obnoxious to the queen on other grounds; and as her resentment, on
the present occasion, was exceedingly inflamed, it was deemed prudent
for him to withdraw.[172]
Having, at last, “got quit” of one who had so long been troublesome
to her, Mary was determined to prevent his return to the capital. The
town‑council and inhabitants, who had formerly refused to acquiesce
in his suspension from preaching for a short time, exerted themselves
to obtain his restoration; and powerful intercession was made in his
behalf by many of the nobility and gentry. But the queen was deaf to
all entreaties. She was even unwilling that he should find a refuge
within the kingdom, and wrote {147} to a nobleman in the west country,
with whom he resided, to banish him from his house.[173] It does not
appear that he returned to Edinburgh, or, at least, that he resumed
his ministry in it, until the queen was deprived of the government.
Being banished from his flock, he judged this a favourable opportunity
for paying a visit to England. Parental affection increased the
desire which he had long felt to accomplish this journey. His two
sons had been lately sent by him into that kingdom, to reside with
some of their mother’s relations, and to obtain their education in the
English seminaries. Having procured the safe conduct of Elizabeth, he
applied to the General Assembly, which met in December 1566, for their
permission to remove. This was readily granted by them, upon condition
of his returning against the time of their next meeting in June. The
Assembly likewise gave him a most ample and honourable testimonial, in
which they describe him as “a true and faithfull minister, in doctrine
pure and sincere, in life and conversation in our sight inculpable,”
and one who “has so fruitfully used that talent granted to him by the
Eternal, to the advancement of the glory of his godly name, to the
propagation {148} of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and edifying of
them who heard his preaching, that of duty we must heartily praise
His godly name, for that so great a benefit granted unto him for our
utility and profit.”[174]
Knox was charged with a letter from the General Assembly to the
bishops and ministers of England, interceding for lenity to such of
their brethren as scrupled to use the sacerdotal dress enjoined by
the laws. The controversy on that subject was at this time carried on
with great heat among the English clergy. It is not improbable, that
the Assembly interfered in this business at the desire of Knox, to
whom the composition of the letter was committed.[175] He could not
have forgotten the trouble which he had himself suffered on a similar
ground, and he had a high regard for many of the scruplers. This
interposition did not procure them any relief. Though the superior
clergy had been more zealous to obtain it than they were, Elizabeth
was inflexible, and would listen neither to the supplications of her
bishops, nor to the advice of her counsellors. Knox’s good opinion
of the English queen does not seem to have been improved by this
visit.[176]
{149} He performed one important piece of public service before
undertaking this journey to England. On the 23d of December, the
queen granted a commission, under the privy seal, to the archbishop
of St Andrews, restoring him to his ancient jurisdiction, which had
been abolished in 1560, by act of parliament.[177] This step was
taken, partly to prepare for the restoration of the popish religion,
and partly to facilitate another dark design which was soon after
disclosed. The protestants could not fail to be both alarmed and
enraged at this daring measure. Moved by his own zeal no less than
by the advice of his brethren, the Reformer addressed a circular
letter to the principal protestants in the kingdom, requesting their
immediate advice on the measures most proper to be adopted on this
occasion, and enclosing a copy of a proposed supplication to the queen.
This letter discovers all the ardour of the writer’s spirit, called
forth by such an alarming occurrence. After mentioning the late acts
for the provision of the ministry,[178] by which the queen attempted
to blind them, he says, “How that any such assignation, or any promise
made thereof, can stand in any stable assurance, when that Roman
antichrist, by just laws once banished from this realm, shall be
intrusted {150} above us, we can no ways understand. Yea, farther,
we cannot see what assurance can any within this realm, that hath
professed the Lord Jesus, have of life, or inheritance, if the head
of that odious beast be cured among us. As from the beginning we have
neither spared substance nor life, so mind we not to faint unto the
end, to maintain the same, so long as we can find the concurrence
of brethren; of whom (as God forbid) if we be destitute, yet we are
determined never to be subject to the Roman antichrist, neither yet
to his usurped tyranny; but when we can do no farther to suppress
that odious beast, we mind to seal it with our blood to our posterity,
that the bright knowledge of Jesus Christ hath banished that Man
of Sin, and his venomous doctrine, from our hearts and consciences.
Let this our letter and request bear witness before God, before his
church, before the world, and before your own consciences.”[179] The
supplication of the General Assembly to the lords of the privy council,
on the same subject, also bears marks of the Reformer’s pen.[180]
During the time that Knox was in England, that tragedy, so well known
in Scottish history, was acted, which led to a complete revolution
in the government of the kingdom, and, contrary to the designs of
the principal actors, threw the power wholly into the hands of the
protestants. Mary’s affection for her husband, which had cooled
soon after their marriage, {151} was, from the time of Rizzio’s
assassination, converted into a fixed hatred, which she was at little
pains to conceal. The birth of an heir to the crown produced no
reconciliation between the royal parents; the king was not allowed
to be present at the baptism of his own son, and was treated with
such marked disrespect, even by the servants, that he abandoned the
court, and shut himself up in his father’s house. In proportion as
the queen’s mind was alienated from her husband, the unprincipled
earl of Bothwell grew in her favour. He engrossed the whole management
of public affairs, was loaded with honours, and treated by her
majesty with every mark of personal regard and affection. In these
circumstances, the neglected, unhappy king, was decoyed to Edinburgh,
lodged in a solitary dwelling at the extremity of the city, and
murdered on the morning of the 10th of February, 1567; the house in
which he lay being blown up with gunpowder.
It would be unsuitable to the nature of the present work to enter into
the controversy respecting the authors of this murder, which has been
agitated with uncommon keenness from that day to the present time. The
accusation of the earl of Murray as a party to the deed, is destitute
of all proof, and utterly incredible. It was at first circulated
with the evident design of turning away the public mind from the
real perpetrators; it was insinuated, and afterwards directly brought
forward, in the conferences at York and Westminster, as a retaliation
upon him for the charge which he exhibited against the queen; {152}
and it is now kept up only by the most blind and bigoted of her
partisans. That Bothwell was the prime contriver and agent in the
murder, cannot admit of a doubt with any impartial and judicious
enquirer. And that Mary was privy to the design, and accessory to its
execution by permission and approbation, there is, I think, all the
evidence, moral and legal, which could reasonably be expected in a
case of this kind. The whole of her behaviour towards the king, from
the time that she brought him from Glasgow till she left him on the
fatal night; the remissness which she discovered in enquiring into
the murder; the shameful manner in which she suffered the farce of
Bothwell’s trial to be conducted; the glaring act (which struck the
whole of Europe, and even her own friends, with horror) of taking
to her bed, with indecent haste, the man who was stigmatized as the
murderer of her husband; and the manner in which she refused to defend
herself, and broke off the conference to which she had agreed, as
soon as the charge of accession to the murder was brought against
her,――afford the strongest presumptions of her guilt; and, when
taken in connexion with the direct evidence arising from letters and
depositions, would have been sufficient long ago to shut the mouths
of any but the defenders of Mary queen of Scots.[181]