St Andrews that peaceful retreat which he had expected. The friends of
Kircaldy, and of Sir James Balfour,[243] resided in the neighbourhood,
{192} and the Hamiltons had their relations and partisans both in the
university and among the ministry. These were thorns in the Reformer’s
side, and made his situation very uneasy, as long as he resided among
them. Having left Edinburgh, because he could not be permitted to
disburden his conscience, by testifying against the designs of persons
whom he regarded as conspirators against the legal government of the
country, and favourers of a faction who intended nothing less than the
overthrow of the reformed religion, it was not to be expected that he
would preserve silence on this subject at St Andrews. Accordingly, in
the discourses which he preached on the eleventh chapter of Daniel’s
prophecy, he frequently took occasion to advert to recent transactions,
and to inveigh against the murder of the late king, and of the
regent. This was very grating to the ears of the opposite faction,
particularly to Robert and Archibald Hamilton, the former one of
the ministers of the city, and the latter a professor in one of the
colleges. Irritated by the censures which Knox pronounced against
his kinsmen, Robert Hamilton attempted to injure his reputation,
by circulating in private that it did not become him to exclaim so
loudly against murderers; for he had seen his subscription, along
with that of the earl of Murray, to a bond for assassinating Darnley
at Perth. When this came to the Reformer’s ears, he immediately wrote
a letter to Hamilton, desiring him to say, whether he was the author
of the slanderous report. Not receiving a satisfactory answer, he
communicated {193} the matter to Douglas, rector of the university,
and Rutherford, provost of St Salvator’s college; requesting them
to converse with their colleague on the subject, and to inform him,
that if he did not give satisfaction for the slander which he had
propagated, a complaint would be lodged against him before the church.
Upon this he came to Knox’s room, and denied that he had ever given
any ground for such a scandalous surmise.[244]
Archibald Hamilton being complained of for withdrawing from Knox’s
sermons, and for accusing him of intolerable railing, endeavoured to
bring the matter under the cognizance of the masters of the university,
{194} among whom he possessed considerable influence.[245] Knox did
not scruple to give an account of his conduct before the professors
for their satisfaction; but he judged it necessary to enter a protest,
that his appearance before them should not invalidate the liberty
of the pulpit, nor the authority of the regular church‑courts, to
which, and not to any university, the judgment of religious doctrine
belonged.[246] This incident accounts for the zeal with which he
expresses himself on this subject, in one of his letters to the
General Assembly; in which he exhorts them, above all things, to
preserve the church from the bondage of the universities, and not to
exempt them from ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or allow them to become
judges of the doctrine taught from the pulpit.[247]
The military operations during the civil war were chiefly
distinguished by two enterprises, which claim {195} our notice from
the influence which they had upon the affairs of the church. The one
was the taking of Dunbarton castle, which was surprised, on the 2d of
April, 1571, by a small party of the regent’s forces, led by captain
Crawford of Jordanhill. Archbishop Hamilton having fallen into the
hands of the captors, was soon after condemned, and ended his life
on the gibbet. The execution of prisoners, although chargeable with
crimes which merit death, is ordinarily avoided in civil contests,
because it produces reprisals from the opposite party; but in every
other respect the fate of Hamilton is not a subject of regret or of
censure. Of all the queen’s adherents, his motives for supporting her
cause appear to have been the most unworthy; and his talents and rank
in the church ought not to be pleaded in extenuation of the vices by
which his private character was stained, or the crimes of which he
had been guilty.[248] The death {196} of Hamilton gave occasion to
a change in the ecclesiastical government, of which I shall speak
immediately.
An enterprise equally bold with Crawford’s, but less successful, was
planned by Kircaldy. While the regent Lennox was holding a parliament
at Stirling, which was numerously attended, a party of soldiers
suddenly entered the town early on the morning of September 3, 1571,
seized the regent and the nobility who were along with him, and
carried them away prisoners. The alarm having been given, the earl of
Mar sallied from the castle, and with the assistance of the townsmen,
dispersed the assailants, and rescued the noblemen.[249] But this
was not accomplished without the loss of the regent, who was slain
by the orders of lord Claud Hamilton, in revenge for the death of the
archbishop of St Andrews. Lennox was succeeded in the regency by the
earl of Mar, a nobleman of great moderation, who, during the short
time that he held that office, exerted himself to restore peace to the
kingdom, and brought the negotiations for this purpose very near to a
successful termination.
{197} During these transactions the courtiers were devising a scheme
for securing to themselves the principal part of the ecclesiastical
revenues, which led to an alteration of the polity of the church. We
have repeatedly had occasion to notice the aversion of the nobility
to the Book of Discipline, and the principal source from which this
aversion sprung. While the earl of Murray administered the government,
he prevented any new encroachments upon the rights of the church;
but the succeeding regents were either less friendly to them, or
less able to check the avarice of the more powerful nobles. Several
of the richest benefices having become vacant by the death or by the
forfeiture of the popish incumbents who had been permitted to retain
them, it was necessary to determine in what manner they should be
disposed of. The church had uniformly required that their revenues
should be divided, and applied to the support of the religious
and literary establishments; but with this demand the courtiers
were as much indisposed to comply as ever. At the same time, the
secularization of them was deemed too bold a step; nor could laymen,
with any shadow of consistency, or by a valid title, hold benefices
which the law declared to be ecclesiastical. The expedient resolved on
was, that the bishoprics and other rich livings should be presented to
certain ministers, who, previous to their admission, should make over
the principal part of the revenues to such noblemen as had obtained
the patronage of them from the court. This plan, which was concerted
under the regency of Lennox, was {198} carried into execution during
that of Mar, chiefly by the influence of the earl of Morton.
Morton having obtained from the court a gift of the archbishopric
of St Andrews, vacant by the execution of Hamilton, entered into a
private agreement respecting its revenues with John Douglas, rector
of the university, whom he presented to that see. At the meeting of
parliament in Stirling, August 1571, the commissioners of the General
Assembly protested against this transaction; but through the interest
of Morton, Douglas, though not yet elected, was admitted to a seat
in parliament, and the new scheme for seizing on the ecclesiastical
livings was confirmed, notwithstanding the warm remonstrances of the
ministers of the church, and the strenuous opposition of the more
zealous and disinterested barons.[250] Bishoprics and other great
benefices were now openly conferred on noblemen, on persons totally
unqualified for the ministry, and even on minors. Pluralities were
multiplied; the ecclesiastical courts were hindered in the exercise
of their jurisdiction;[251] and the collectors of the church were
prohibited from gathering the thirds, until some new regulation was
adopted for supplying the necessities of the court.[252]
These proceedings having created great dissatisfaction through the
nation, the regent and council called an extraordinary assembly of
superintendents and other ministers, to meet at Leith in January {199}
1572, to consult about an order which might prove more acceptable.
Through the influence of the court, this convention consented that
the titles of archbishop, and other ecclesiastical dignitaries,
should be retained; that the bounds of the ancient dioceses should
not be altered during the king’s minority; and that qualified parsons
from among the ministers should be advanced to these dignities. They,
however, allotted no greater power to archbishops and bishops than
to superintendents, with whom they were to be equally subject to the
assemblies of the church.[253] These regulations were submitted to the
ensuing General Assembly at St Andrews, but as that meeting was thinly
attended, it came to no determination respecting them. The Assembly
held at Perth, in August 1572, resumed the subject, and came to the
following resolution:――That the regulations contained certain titles,
such as archbishop, dean, archdean, chancellor, and chapter, which
savoured of popery, and were scandalous and offensive to their ears;
and that the whole assembly, including the commissioners which had
met at Leith, unanimously protested that they did not approve of these
titles, that they submitted to the regulations merely as an interim
arrangement, and that they would exert themselves to obtain a more
perfect order from the regent and {200} council.[254] Such was the
origin and nature of that species of episcopacy which was introduced
into the reformed church of Scotland, during the minority of James VI.
It was disapproved of by the ministers of the church; and on the part
of the courtiers and nobility, it does not appear to have proceeded
from predilection to hierarchical government, but from the desire
which they felt to obtain possession of the revenues of the church.
This was emphatically expressed by the name of tulchan bishops,[255]
which was commonly applied to those who were at that time admitted to
the office.
Knox did not fail from the beginning to oppose these encroachments
on the rights and property of the church. Being unable to attend
the General Assembly held at Stirling in August 1571, he addressed a
letter to it, warning the members of the new contest which he foresaw
they would have to maintain, and animating them to fidelity and
courage. “And now, brethren,” says he, “because the daily decay of
natural strength threateneth my certain and sudden departing from
the misery of this life, of love and conscience I exhort you, yea,
in the fear of God, I charge and command you, that ye take heed unto
yourselves, and to the flock over which God hath placed you pastors.
Unfaithful and traitorous to the flock shall ye be before the Lord
Jesus Christ, {201} if, with your consent directly, ye suffer unworthy
men to be thrust into the ministry of the church, under whatever
pretence it shall be. Remember and judge before whom we must make our
account, and resist that tyranny as ye would avoid hell‑fire. This
battle will be hard, but in the second point it will be harder; that
is, that with the like uprightness and strength in God, ye gainstand
the merciless devourers of the patrimony of the church. If men
will spoil, let them do it to their own peril and condemnation, but
communicate ye not with their sins, of whatsoever estate they be, by
consent nor by silence; but with public proclamation make this known
unto the world, that ye are innocent of robbery, whereof ye will
seek redress of God and man. God give you wisdom and stout courage
in so just a cause, and me an happy end.”[256] In a letter which he
afterwards wrote to Wishart of Pitarrow, he also expresses himself
in a strain of honest but keen indignation at the avarice of the
nobility.[257]
It has been insinuated that Knox gave his approbation to the
resolutions of the convention at Leith to restore the episcopal office;
and the articles sent by him to the General Assembly, in August, 1572,
{202} have been appealed to as a proof of this. But all that can be
fairly deduced from these articles is, that he desired the conditions
and limitations agreed upon by that convention to be strictly
observed in the election of bishops, in opposition to the granting of
bishoprics to laymen,[258] and to the simoniacal pactions which the
ministers made with the nobles on receiving presentations. Provided
one of the propositions made by him to the Assembly had been enforced,
and the bishops had been bound to give an account of the whole of
their rents, and either to support ministers in the particular places
from which they derived these, or else to pay into the funds of
the church the sums requisite for this purpose, it is evident that
the mercenary views both of patrons and presentees would have been
defeated, and the church would have gained her object, the use of the
episcopal revenues. The prospect of this induced some honest ministers
to agree to the proposed regulations, at the convention held in Leith.
But it required a greater portion of disinterested firmness than falls
to most men, to act upon this principle;[259] and the nobles were
able to find, even at that period, a sufficient {203} number of pliant,
needy, or covetous ministers, to be the partners or the dupes of their
avarice.
Though our Reformer was of opinion, that, in certain circumstances of
the church, a power might be delegated to some ministers to inspect
the congregations within a particular district, and accordingly
recommended the appointment of superintendents at the first
establishment of the Reformation in Scotland, yet he did not allow of
any class of office‑bearers in the church, under whatever name, who
were superior either in office or in order to ministers or presbyters.
His sentiments were not more favourable to diocesan episcopacy in
his latter than they had been in his earlier days. Writing to a
correspondent in England, in the year 1568, he says, “I would most
gladly pass through the course that God hath appointed to my labours,
giving thanks to his holy name, for that it hath pleased his mercy
to make me not a lord bishop, but a painful preacher of his blessed
evangel.”[260] In his correspondence with Beza, he had informed him
of the government established in the Scottish church; and at this very
time he received a letter from that reformer, congratulating him that
he had banished the order of bishops, and admonishing him and his
colleagues to beware of suffering it to re‑enter under the deceitful
pretext of preserving unity.[261] He had an opportunity of {204}
publicly declaring his sentiments on this subject, at the installation
of Douglas as archbishop of St Andrews. Having preached as usual
on Sabbath, February 13, 1572, the earl of Morton, who was present,
desired him to inaugurate Douglas; but he positively refused, and
pronounced an anathema against both the donor and the receiver of
the bishopric. The provost of St Salvator’s college having said that
Knox’s conduct proceeded from disappointment, because the bishopric
had not been conferred on himself, he, on the following Sabbath,
repelled this invidious charge. He had refused, he said, a greater
bishopric than that of St Andrews, which he might have had by the
favour of greater men than Douglas had his:[262] what he had spoken
was for the exoneration of his conscience, that the church of Scotland
might not be subject to that order, especially after a very different
one had been settled in the Book of Discipline, subscribed by the
nobility, and ratified by parliament. He lamented also that a burden
should have been laid upon an old man, which twenty men of the
greatest ability could not sustain.[263] In the General Assembly
held {205} at St Andrews in the following month, he not only entered
a protest against the election of Douglas,[264] but also “opponed
himself directly to the making of bishops.”[265]
While he was engaged in these contests, his bodily strength was every
day sensibly decaying. Yet he continued to preach, although unable
to walk to the pulpit without assistance; and, when warmed with his
subject, he forgot his weakness, and electrified the audience with his
eloquence. James Melville, afterwards minister of Anstruther, was then
a student at the college, and one of his constant hearers. The account
which he has given of his appearance is exceedingly striking; and, as
any translation would enfeeble it, I shall give it in his own words.
“Of all the benefits I had that year [1571], was the coming of that
maist notable profet and apostle of our nation, Mr Johne Knox, to St
Andrews, who, be the faction of the queen occupeing the castell and
town of Edinburgh, was compellit to remove therefra, with a number of
the best, and chusit to come to St Andrews. I heard him teache there
the prophecies of Daniel, that simmer and the wintar following. I
had my pen and my little buike, and tuke away sic things as I could
comprehend. In the opening up of his text, he was moderat the space of
an half houre; but when he entered to application, he made me so {206}
to grew[266] and tremble, that I could not hald a pen to wryt.――He
was very weik. I saw him, everie day of his doctrine, go hulie and
fear,[267] with a furring of marticks about his neck, a staffe in the
ane hand, and gude, godlie Richart Ballanden, his servand, halden up
the uther oxter,[268] from the abbey to the parish kirk, and, by the
said Richart, and another servand, lifted up to the pulpit, whar he
behovit to lean at his first entrie; bot, er he haid done with his
sermone, he was sa active and vigorous, that he was lyk to ding the
pulpit in blads,[269] and flie out of it.”[270]
The persons with whom the Reformer was most familiar at St Andrews,
were the professors of St Leonard’s college, who often visited him
at his lodging {207} in the abbey. This college was distinguished by
its warm attachment to the doctrines of the Reformation, which it had
embraced at a very early period;[271] while the two other colleges
were disaffected to the authority of the king, and several of their
teachers suspected of leaning to popery. The Reformer was accustomed
to amuse himself by walking in St Leonard’s Yard, and to look with
peculiar complacency on the students, whom he regarded as the rising
hope of the church. He would sometimes call them to him, and bless
them, and exhort them to be diligent in their studies, to attend to
the instructions of their teachers, and imitate the good example which
they set before them, to acquaint themselves with God, and with the
great work which he had lately performed in their native country, and
to cleave to the good cause. These familiar advices, from a person so
venerable, made a deep impression on the minds of the young men. He
even condescended to be present at a college‑exercise performed by
them at the marriage of one of their regents, in which the siege and
taking of Edinburgh castle was dramatically represented.[272]
During his stay at St Andrews, he published a vindication of the
reformed religion, in answer to a letter written by Tyrie, a Scottish
Jesuit. The argumentative part of the work was finished by him in 1568;
but he sent it abroad at this time, with additions, as a farewell
address to the world, and a {208} dying testimony to the truth which
he had long taught and defended.[273] Along with it he published
one of the religious letters which he had formerly written to his
mother‑in‑law, Mrs Bowes; and, in an advertisement prefixed to this,
he informs us that she had lately departed this life, and that he
could not allow the opportunity to slip of acquainting the public, by
means of this letter, with the intimate Christian friendship which had
so long subsisted between them.
The ardent desire which he felt to be released by death from the
troubles of the present life, appears in all that he wrote about this
time. “Weary of the world,” and “thirsting to depart,” are expressions
frequently used by him. The dedication of the above‑mentioned work is
thus inscribed:――“John Knox, the servant of Jesus Christ, now wearie
of the world, and daylie luiking for the resolution of this my earthly
tabernakle, to the faithful that God of his mercie shall appoint to
fight after me.” In the conclusion of it, he says, “Call for me, deir
brethren, that God, in his mercy, will pleis to put end to my long
and panefull battell. For now being unable to {209} fight, as God
sumtymes gave strength, I thirst an end befoir I be more troublesum
to the faithfull. And yet, Lord, let my desyre be moderate be thy
holy spirit.” In a prayer subjoined to the dedication, are these
words:――“To thee, O Lord, I commend my spirit. For I thirst to be
resolved from this body of sin, and am assured that I shall rise
agane in glorie; howsoever it be that the wicked for a tyme sall trode
me and others, thy servandes, under their feit. Be merciful, O Lord,
unto the kirk within this realme; continew with it the light of thy
evangell; augment the number of true preicheris. And let thy mercifull
providence luke upon my desolate bedfellow, the fruit of hir bosome,
and my two deir children, Nathanael and Eleazar.[274] Now, Lord, put
end to my miserie.” The advertisement “to the faithful reader,” dated
at St Andrews, 12th July 1571, concludes in the following manner:――“I
hartly salute and take my good night of all the faithful of both
realmes, earnestly desyring the assistance of their prayers, that,
without any notable {210} slander to the evangel of Jesus Christ, I
may end my battel; for, as the worlde is wearie of me, so am I of it.”
The General Assembly being appointed to meet at Perth on the 6th of
August, he took his leave of them in a letter, along with which he
transmitted certain articles and questions which he recommended to
their consideration. The Assembly returned him an answer, declaring
their approbation of his propositions, and their earnest desires for
his preservation and comfort.[275] The last piece of public service
which he performed at their request, was to examine and approve of
a sermon which had been lately preached by David Ferguson, minister
of Dunfermline. His subscription to this sermon, like every thing
which proceeded from his mouth or pen about this time, is uncommonly
striking. “John Knox, with my dead hand, but glaid heart, praising
God, that of his mercy he levis such light to his kirk in this
desolation.”[276]
From the rapid decline of his health, in the spring of 1572, there
was every appearance of his ending his days at St Andrews; but it
pleased God that he {211} should be restored once more to his flock,
and allowed to die peaceably among them. In consequence of a cessation
of arms agreed to, in the end of July, between the regent and the
adherents of the queen, the city of Edinburgh was abandoned by the
forces of the latter, and secured from the annoyance of the garrison
in the castle. As soon as the banished citizens returned to their
houses,[277] they sent a deputation to St Andrews, with a letter to
Knox, expressive of their earnest desire “that once again his voice
might be heard among them,” and entreating him immediately to come to
Edinburgh, if his health would at all permit; for, said they, “loath
we are to disease or hurt your person any ways, but far loather to
want you.”[278] After reading the letter, and conversing with the
commissioners, he expressed his willingness to return, but under
the express condition, that he should not be urged to preserve
silence respecting the conduct of those who held the castle; “whose
treasonable and tyrannical deeds he would {212} cry out against, as
long as he was able to speak.” He, therefore, desired them to acquaint
their constituents with this, lest they should afterwards repent of
his austerity, and be apprehensive of ill‑treatment on his account.
The commissioners assured him, that they did not mean to put a bridle
in his mouth, but wished him to discharge his duty as he had been
accustomed to do. He repeated this intimation, after his arrival at
Edinburgh, to the principal persons of his congregation, and received
the same assurance from them, before he would resume preaching.[279]