the Fathers may serve as a specimen of Hay’s style. “Trew it is,
that before this boke of the abbote of Crosraguel’s wes set furth and
published, sindrie and diuers were the opinions of men concerning it.
For the sorte of them that be cōmonly tearmed Papistes, aduersaries
to all trew religion, thoght in verie deid that they should receaue
such a confort, yea, such a gun as no munition myght withstand, no
strengthe resiste, nether yet any maner of force repel. They were
encuraged by the brute and fame of the man, who onely wolde appeare in
these tymes to haue dexteritie of ingyne, helped and auanced by long
progres of tyme spent in good letters, yea, ād besydes the Scriptures
of God, will also appeare to haue the conference, judgment, and
authoritie of the ancient Fathers and councils, which it may seme
to the reader that he feadeth (not unlyke the nyne Muses) in his
bosome. I my self hauing hade some tymes credit and acquentence of
the man, loked for some what that might haue troubled the cōsciences
of waiklinges, and of such as stayed them selues vpon a glistering
and semely ymagination of mans heart, rather then upon the written
and reueiled treuth, by the spirite of God. For it wes not vnknawen
to me how familiare he hath bene with the scolastike sophisters,
their thornie questions, and scabrus conclusions, yea and some of the
ancient doctors, whose writinges, what by ignorance of tyme seduced,
what by affection carryed away, I thoght wel he should wreist to
his vngodly opinion.” Fol. 3, a. Having pointed out a {315} false
quotation, which the abbot had made from Chrysostom, Hay adds, “Hereby
it is easy to perceaue how vainely ye ascribe such reading of the
ancientes vnto your self, as in your writinges ye take vpon you,
that ye will seme in the eyes of the people, to be the onely he in
this realme versed in antiquitie. And now to say my judgment frely,
I truste ye haue no workes of such men as ye draw your authorities
out of, but onely hath, I can not tell what lytle scabbed treaties of
Eccius, Cochleus, Hosius, Stanislaus youre new start up Campion, and
of such others of your factiō, and taketh out of them, such thinges as
ye think may serue to your wicked and blasphemus purpose. What credite
now, or what authoritie oght to be given to such places, as thou
draweth out of the doctors, who belyke neuer hath sene there workes,
nether yet knoweth to what purpose they speak, if they speak of
their owne mynde, or of their aduersaries, whither they speak by an
interrogation or conclusiuely, and determinatly, whither they speak
ὑπερβολικως,[354] that is excessiuely, to extoll the dignitie of the
mater they haue in hand (which is not rare in this author) or simplie.
Thus the text it self is to be considered, that it that preceadeth
being conferred with it that followeth, the mynde and sentence of
the author may be knowen perfytlie. Not that I will hereby damne yong
men, who ether excluded by tyme, or els lacking bookes, muste giue
credite to good authorities, but in this man who will seme to be
an other Anacharses inter sordidos Scythas, it is intollerable, who
is sequestrate frome the common societie of men, and trauell in the
common wealth, hauing not els to do, but that he hath inioyned to him
self, that is to ly by a pleasing bray, and cast in stones to trouble
the faire and cleare rinning watter.” Fol. 18, b. 19, a.
Lepreuik, in an advertisement to the reader, apologizes for his
want of Greek characters, which he was forced to have supplied by
manuscript. Herbert’s edit. of Ames, p. 1487. This fact illustrates
what I have mentioned in vol. i. 347. Herbert questions Ames’s
statement, that they had no Hebrew or Greek types in Scotland in 1579,
and he appeals to a book printed ‘at Edinburgh, be Leighe Mannenby,
anno Domini 1578,’ in which Greek characters {316} are found. Ibid.
p. 1499, 1500. But this cannot overthrow Ames’s statement, which is
correct; for the imprint of that book is undoubtedly fictitious, as no
such Scottish printer as “Leighe Mannenby” seems to have ever existed.
Note O, Footnote 95.
_Ordination of reformed Ministers._――In the prologue to the “Reasoning
betwixt Jo. Knox and the abbot of Crossraguell,” Knox adverts to the
cavils of the papists against the validity of the call of the reformed
ministers, and intimates his intention of returning an answer to the
questions on this head which had been proposed to him by Ninian Winget,
the “_Procutour for the Papists_.” There are some general remarks
on this subject in his answer to Tyrie’s Letter, but I do not think
that he ever published any thing professedly on the point. There
is a ridiculous tale told by a popish writer concerning a pretended
convention held by the reformed ministers in Scotland to determine in
what manner they should proceed in the admission of ministers. Willock
proposed as a weighty difficulty, that if they used imposition of
hands, or any other ceremony commonly practised in the church, they
would be asked to show, that they themselves had been admitted by the
same ceremonies, and thus the lawfulness of their vocation would be
called in question. “Johann kmnox ansuerit maist resolutlie, ‘Buf, buf,
man, we ar anes entered, let se quha dar put us out agane;’ meaning
that thair was not sa monie gunnis and pistollis in the countrie to
put him out as was to intrud him with violence. Sua Johann kmnox, to
his awin confusion, entered not in the kirk be ordinar vocatione or
imposition of handis, but be imposition of ‘bullatis and pouldir in
culringis and lang gunnis;’ sua ye mister not to trubill you farder
in seiking out of Johann kmnox vocatione.”――This story “I understude,”
says the author, “of ane nobil and honourable man, quha can yit beir
witnes gif I lea or not.” He took care, however, not to give the name
of the nobleman. Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 129. Parise, 1581.
{317}
Note P, Footnote 100.
_Strictness and impartiality of Discipline._――The form of satisfaction
enjoined in the case of Methven, was appointed for all who should
be excommunicated for murder, adultery, incest, or other aggravated
crimes. The murderer was to bear in his hand “the same or lyke
weapoun whairwith the murther was committed.” Buik of the Univ. Kirk,
p. 38. Other rules observed in cases of discipline may be seen in
Knox’s Liturgy, p. 55‒67, edit. 1611, and in Dunlop’s Confessions,
ii. 704‒756. Impartiality, as well as severity, distinguished the
discipline of those times. “_Gryt_ men offending in sick crymes
as deserves seckclaith, they suld receave the same als weill as
the _pure_.――Na superintendant nor commissioner, with advyce of
any particular kirk of yair jurisdiction, may dispense with the
extreamitie of sackcloth, prescrivit be the actes of the generall
discipline, for any pecuniall sum or paine _ad pios usus_.” Buik of
the Univ. Kirk, August, 1573. Dunlop, ii. 753. This was not a mere
theoretic proposition. For, in 1563, we find the lord treasurer
making public satisfaction, (Keith, 245, 529;) in 1567, the countess
of Argyle, (Buik of the Univ. Kirk, p. 37,) and in 1568, the bishop
of Orkney, (Anderson’s Collections, ii. 284.) Let not our modern
fashionables and great ones be alarmed at hearing of such things.
Those days are gone, and will not, it is likely, soon return.
The parliament, or the magistracy of particular burghs, enacted
punishments of a corporal kind against certain crimes which were
ordinarily tried in the church courts. Some of these existed before
the Reformation, and some of them were posterior to it; but the
infliction as well as the enacting of them, pertained to the civil
magistrate. Knox, p. 269. In the minutes of several kirk‑sessions,
however, the sentences inflicting them are found recorded along with
censures properly ecclesiastical. The following extract accounts
for this in part. “What you bring” (says Mr Baillie, in his answer
to bishop Maxwell) “of pecuniary mulcts, imprisonments, banishments,
jogges, cutting of haire, and such like, it becomes neither you to
charge, nor us to be charged with, any such matters: {318} No church
assembly in Scotland assumes the least degree of power, to inflict the
smallest civill punishment upon any person; the Generall Assembly it
selfe hath no power to fine any creature so much as in one groat: It
is true, the lawes of the land appoint pecuniary mulcts, imprisonment,
joggs, pillories, and banishment for some odious crimes, and the power
of putting these lawes in execution is placed by the parliament in the
hands of the inferior magistrates in burroughs or shires, or of others
to whom the counsel table gives a speciall commission for that end;
ordinarily some of these civill persons are ruling elders, and sit
with the eldership: So when the eldership have cognosced upon the
scandall alone of criminall persons, and have used their spirituall
censures only to bring the party to repentance, some of the ruling
elders, by virtue of their civill office or commission, will impose
a mulct, or send to prison or stocks, or banish out of the bounds of
some little circuit, according as the act of parliament or counsell do
appoint it. But that the eldership should imploy its ecclesiastick and
spirituall power for any such end, none of us doe defend. That either
in Scotland or any where else in the world the haire of any person
is commanded to be cut by any church judicatory for disgrace and
punishment, is (as I take it) but a foolish fable. That any person
truely penitent is threatened in Scotland, with church censures
for non‑payment of monies, is in the former category of calumnies.”
Historical Vindication of the government of the Church of Scotland,
p. 17, 18. Lond. 1646. I have in my possession (extracted from
the records of a kirk session) a commission, granted in 1701, by
the sheriff‑depute of Berwickshire, constituting one of the elders
session‑bailie, for executing the laws against profaneness, agreeably
to an act of parliament authorizing the appointment of such an officer
in parishes within which no ordinary magistrate resided.
I may add the following quotation from another able and strenuous
assertor of the presbyterian discipline and government. “Ubi
originalis causa excommunicationis est delictum violans jura et
libertates ecclesiæ, &c. When the original cause of excommunication
is an offence violating the rights and liberties of the church, either
in the way of loss being sustained or injury being done, I confess
that the assistance of the secular arm may be implored, {319} and
the guilty person may be forced to repair the loss and to give civil
satisfaction; or even if the person already excommunicated shall
testify a disposition to disturb the religious service, or to violate
the rights and liberties of the church. But where no loss or injury
to the rights and liberties of the church arises from the offence or
from the contumacy, but scandal alone is given, I know not whether any
person is to be forced to what is called penitential satisfaction, by
imploring the assistance of the secular arm. For as the church has no
coactive power in herself, so neither ought she to use it indirectly
to extort confessions which are constrained, and consequently
counterfeit.” Calderwood, Altare Damascenum, p. 312‒3. edit. Lugd.
Bat. 1708.
Note Q, Footnote 113.
_Mr Hume’s misrepresentations of the behaviour of the Reformers to
Queen Mary._――The whole account which this historian has given of the
conduct of the protestant clergy towards Mary, from her arrival in
Scotland until her marriage with Darnley, is very remote from sober
and genuine history. It is rather a satire against the Reformation,
which he charges with rebellion; against the presbyterian church,
whose genius he describes as essentially productive of fanaticism and
vulgarity; and against his native country, the inhabitants of which,
without exception, he represents as overrun with rusticity, strangers
to the arts, to civility, and the pleasures of conversation. History,
Reign of Eliz. chap. i. near the close. “Il n’est rien de plus facile
quand on a beaucoup d’esprit, et beaucoup d’experience dans l’art
de faire des livres, que de composer une Histoire satyrique, des
meme faits qui ont servi à faire une Eloge. Deux lignes supprimée,
ou _pour_ ou _contre_, dans l’exposition d’un fait, sont capables
de faire paroistre un homme ou fort innocent, ou fort coupable: et
comme par la seule transposition de quelques mots, on peut faire
d’un discours fort saint un discours impie; de meme par la seule
transposition de quelques circonstances, l’on peut faire de l’action
la plus criminelle, l’action la plus vertueuse.” Bayle, Critique
Generale de l’Histoire du Calvinisme, {320} p. 13, 2de edition, 1683.
To this charge the historian of England has exposed himself on more
than one occasion.
I cannot here expose all his misstatements in the passage to which I
have referred. He keeps out of view the fixed resolution of the queen
to re‑establish the Romish religion, with all the perils to which
the protestants were exposed. He artfully introduces his narrative,
by placing her proclamation against altering the protestant religion
before the symptoms of popular discontent at her setting up of mass;
whereas the proclamation was issued after these, and would never have
appeared, had it not been found necessary to allay the apprehensions
of the people. Knox, 285. Keith, 504, 505. As a proof that the
preachers “took a pride in vilifying, even to her face, this amiable
princess,” he gives extracts from an address to her by the General
Assembly, without ever hinting that this was merely a draught or
overture; that every offensive expression was erased from it before it
was adopted by the assembly; and that, when the address was presented
by the superintendents of Lothian and Fife, the queen said, “Here are
many fair words; I cannot tell what the hearts are.” Knox, 315. Mr H.
goes on to say: “The ringleader in all these insults on Majesty,
was John Knox.――His usual appellation for the queen was _Jezebel_.”
This is a mistake. Neither in his sermons, nor in his prayers, nor
in conversation, did he give this appellation to Mary, so long as
she was queen; but always honoured her before the people, as well as
in her own presence, even when he lamented and condemned her errors.
Afterwards, indeed, when for her crimes (of which no man was more
convinced than Mr H.) she was removed from the government, and he no
longer acknowledged her as his sovereign, he did apply this name to
her. It is so far from being true, that “the whole life of Mary was,
from the demeanour of these men, filled with bitterness and sorrow,”
or that she “was curbed in all amusements by the absurd severity of
these reformers,” that she retained her “gaiety and ease,” until, by
her imprudent marriage with Darnley, she with her own hand planted
thorns under her pillow; while the preachers were most free in their
sermons, she enjoyed all manner of liberty; her mass was never taken
from her; she was allowed to indulge her “feasting, finery, dancing,
balls, and whoredom, their {321} necessary attendant;” nor was she
ever interrupted in these amusements, except when her own husband
deprived her of her favourite Italian fiddler, a loss for which she
afterwards took ample vengeance. It is difficult to conceive how one
acquainted with the history of that period, and the character of the
queen, could impute the “errors of her subsequent conduct” to the
“harsh and preposterous usage which she met with” from the reformers.
Nor can there be a greater satire upon the general character of Mary,
(previous to her first marriage,) than to say, that “she found every
moment reason to regret her leaving that country, from whose manners
she had, in her early youth, received the first impressions.” It is
well known that the court at which she received her education was
most dissolute; and the supposition that she carried away the innocent
polish and refinement of their manners, without contracting their
criminal contagion, is not only incredible, but contradicted by the
confessions of her friends. Memoires de Chastelnau, augmentez par
J. le Laboureur, Prieur de Juvigné, tom. i. p. 528. A Bruxelles,
1731. I have no desire, however, to dip into this subject, or to drag
to light facts unfavourable to that unhappy princess; although the
unwarranted and persevering attacks which have been made upon worthy
men, in order to reconcile the “future conduct” of Mary, with “the
general tenor of her character,” would justify far greater freedoms
than have been lately used in this way.
“We are too apt to figure to ourselves the reformers of that age,
as persons of impolitic and inflexible austerity.” This is the remark
of one who was much better acquainted with their history than Mr Hume.
Lord Hailes, Historical Mem. of the Provincial Councils of the
Scottish Clergy, p. 41. Comp. Knox, Historie, p. 310. See also Note Z.
Mr Hume’s object, in the passage on which I have animadverted, was
to blacken the reformers, rather than to exalt the queen, of whose
character he had at bottom no great opinion. “Tell Goodall,” says he,
in a letter to Dr Robertson, “that if he can but give up queen Mary, I
hope to satisfy him in every thing else; and he will have the pleasure
of seeing John Knox, and the reformers, made very ridiculous.” Indeed,
Mr Hume confessed to his confidential friends, that he had, in his
history, drawn the character of that {322} princess in too favourable
colours. “I am afraid,” says he to the same correspondent, “that
you, as well as myself, have drawn Mary’s character with too great
softenings. She was undoubtedly a violent woman _at all times_.”
Stewart’s Life of Robertson, p. 37, 38.
Note R, Footnote 114.
_Proceedings of Town Council in a slander against Knox._――“18mo
Junii, 1563.――The samyn day, in presence of the baillies and
counsale, comperit Jhone Gray, scribe to the kirk, and presentit
the supplicatione following, in name of the haill kirk, bering that
it was laitlie cummen to thair knawledge bi the report of faythfull
bretherins, that within thir few dayis Eufame Dundas, in the presence
of ane multitude, had spokin divers injurious and sclandarous wordis
baith of the doctrine and ministeris. And in especiall of Jhonne Knox,
minister, sayand, that within few dayis past, the said Jhonne Knox was
apprehendit and tane furth of ane killogye with ane commoun hure; and
that he had bene ane commone harlot all his dayis. Quhairfore it was
maist humblie desyrit that the said Eufame myt be callit and examinat
upone the said supplicatione, and gif the wordis abone written, spokin
bi hir, myt be knawin or tryit to be of veritie, that the said Jhonne
Knox myt be punist with all rigour without favour: otherwyse to tak
sic ordour with hir as myt stand with the glory of God, and that
sclander myt be takin from the kirk. As at mair length is contenit
in the said supplication. Quhilk beand red to the said Eufame,
personallie present in judgement, scho denyit the samyn, and Fryday
the 25 day of Junii instant assignit to hir to here and see witnes
producit for preving of the allegiance abone expremit, and scho is
warnyt apud acta.” Records of Town Council of Edinburgh, of the above
date.
The minute of the 25th contains the account of the proof which Knox’s
procurator led to show that Eufame Dundas had uttered the scandal
which she now denied, and the appointment that the parties should be
“warnit _literatorie_ to hear sentence given in the said action.” I
have not observed any thing more respecting the cause in the minutes,
and it is probable, that the Reformer, having {323} obtained the
vindication of his character, prevailed on the judges not to inflict
punishment on the accuser.
Note S, Footnote 115.
_Calumnies of the Popish writers against Knox and other
Reformers._――“C’est rendre sans doute,” says Bayle, “quelques service
à la memoire de Jean Knox, que de fair voir les extravagances de ceux
qui ont dechiré sa reputation.” And, having referred to the “gross
and extravagant slanders” of one writer, he adds, “this alone is a
sufficient prejudice against all which the Roman Catholic writers have
published concerning the great Reformer of Scotland.” Dict. art. Knox.
If Mons. Bayle could speak in this manner upon a quotation from one
author, what conclusion shall we draw from the following quotations?
The first writer who attacked Knox’s character after his death, was
Archibald Hamilton, whose hostility against him was inflamed by a
personal quarrel, as well as by political and religious considerations.
(See above, p. 194.) His book shows how much he was disposed to
recommend himself to the papists, by throwing out whatever was most
injurious to his former connexions. But there were too many alive
at that time to refute any charge which might be brought against
the Reformer’s moral character. Accordingly, when he aimed the most
envenomed thrust at his reputation, Hamilton masked it under the name
of an apprehension or surmise. Having said, that, on the death of
Edward VI., “he fled to Geneva with a noble and rich lady,” (which,
by the by, is also a falsehood,) he adds, in a parenthesis, “qua simul
et filia matris pellice familiariter usus fuisse _putabatur_.” De
Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ, p. 65, a. Parisiis, 1577.
In 1579, Principal Smeton published his answer to Hamilton’s book,
in which he repelled the charges which he had brought against Knox,
and pronounced the above mentioned surmise a malicious calumny, for
which the accuser could not adduce the slightest proof, and which was
refuted by the spotless character which the Reformer had maintained
before the whole world. Smetoni Responsio ad Virulent. Dial.
Hamiltonii, p. 95. Edinb. 1579. It now behoved (324) Hamilton either
to retract or to prove his injurious insinuation. But how did he act
in his reply to Smeton? Under the pretence of repeating what he had
said in his former book, he introduces a number of other slanders
against Knox’s character, of which he had not given the most distant
hint before; and (incredible to be told!) he absolutely avers, that
he had formerly specified all these crimes, and condescended upon the
places, times, and other circumstances of their commission; although,
in his former publication, he had not said one word on the subject
except the general surmise which I have quoted above!!! “Pueritiam
prematura venere et polluto insuper patris thoro infamem _notavi_.
Inde adolescentiam perpetuis assuetam adulteriis _designavi_. Post
hanc maturioris ætatis apostasin, &c. descripsi: res ipsas ut gestæ
erunt _retuli_: loca, tempora, et reliquas omnes circumstantias
_notavi_.” Calvinianæ Confusionis Demonstratio, contra maledicam
Ministrorum Scotiæ responsionem; per Archibaldum Hamiltonium, in
Sancta Christi Ecclesia Presbyterum. p. 253. Parisiis, 1581. Than this
what can be a stronger mark of one who has “made shipwreck of faith
and a good conscience,” who “is subverted and sinneth, being condemned
of himself?” After this we cannot wonder at his casting off all shame,
and asserting: “Itane vero in maledictis ducitis, quæ impurus homucio
non vno, aut paucis, sed multis, et fere dicam _omnibus attestantibus_,
designavit? patris thorum infami incestu pollutum, et tot commissa
adulteria, quot in ædibus, intra quas admittebatur, relicta vestigia
etiamnū _recitant Laudoniensis omnes nobiles, juxta et ignobiles_.”
Ut supra, p. 253, b.