i. 79.
_Tulchan_ Bishops.
ii. 200.
_Tyrie_, John.
Knox’s answer to, ii. 207‒9.
V
_Vaus_, John, rector of the school of Aberdeen.
i. 4, 5.
{485}
_Venable_, John.
Reformer of Dieppe, i. 203.
_Visitors_ of churches.
What, ii. 7.
W
_Wallace_, Adam.
His martyrdom, i. 162; ii. 292.
_Wannand_, Alexander.
Convicted of heresy, i. 357, 362.
_Wedderburn_, James.
Author of satires against the popish clergy, i. 376.
Verses on, ii. 457.
_Wedderburn_, Gilbert.
Convicted of heresy, i. 357, 362.
_Wedderburn_, John.
Convicted of heresy, i. 358‒9.
_Wedderburn_, John and Robert.
Authors of Psalms and Godly Ballads, i. 378.
Verses on, ii. 457.
_Welch_, John.
Marries one of Knox’s daughters, ii. 269.
Is found guilty of treason, ii. 270‒1.
Interview between Lewis XIII. and, ii. 272.
See _Knox_, Elizabeth.
_Whitlaw_, Alexander, of Greenrig.
i. 282, 287; ii. 394.
_Whittingham_, Dean of Durham.
Ordained at Geneva, i. 56.
A friend of Knox, i. 146, 153.
Successor to Knox at Geneva, i. 197.
Eulogium on him by the Earl of Warwick, i. 432‒3.
_Williams._
See _Guillaume_.
_Willock-, John.
Returns to Scotland, i. 170.
Preaches privately, i. 171, 173.
Leaves Scotland, i. 175.
Returns and joins the protestant preachers, i. 233.
Tried for heresy, i. 253, 257, 447‒8.
Officiates for Knox in Edinburgh, i. 279.
His advice respecting the suspension of the Queen Regent, i. 297.
Made a member of the extraordinary Privy Council, i. 298.
His stipend, i. 308, ii. 355.
Made superintendent of Glasgow, ii. 7.
Goes to England, ii. 177.
Calumny against, ib.
Pretended conversation between Knox and, ii. 316.
Verses on, ii. 459.
_Wingate_, (Winzet,) Ninian.
Knox’s controversy with, ii. 73.
_Winchester_ of Kinglassie, George.
Convicted of heresy, i. 162, 367.
_Winram_, John, Sub‑prior of St Andrews.
Connives at the reformed opinions, i. 30.
His cautious behaviour, i. 62.
Joins the reformers, i. 319.
Made superintendent of Fife, i. 424; ii. 7.
His Catechism, i. 424.
Verses on, ii. 460.
_Wishart_, George.
Banished for teaching the Greek New Testament, i. 47, 343.
Returns to Scotland, i. 41.
Knox attends, i. 42.
Is outlawed, i. 360.
Account of him by one of his scholars, i. 380.
Bears a fagot at Bristol, i. 383.
Translates the Swiss confession, i. 384.
Verses on, ii. 456.
_Wishart_, Sir John, of Pittarrow, brother to the former.
Knox writes to, i. 200.
Made comptroller, ii. 44, 96, 354.
Knox’s letter to, ii. 400.
Davidson’s dedication to, ii. 431.
_Wood_, John, Secretary to the Regent Murray.
Is assassinated, ii. 166.
Knox’s letters to, ii. 395, 397.
{486}
Z
_Zuinglius._
His influence with the senate of Zurich, ii. 13.
Comparison between Knox and, ii. 260.
THE END.
EDINBURGH:
PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY,
PAUL’S WORK, CANONGATE.
FOOTNOTES
—
1 – Knox, Historie, p. 236.
2 – “Ult. Mart. 1560. Margaret Aidnam askit God and the
Congregatioun forgiveness of the adultery committed be her
w{t} William Rantoun, publiclie in the paroche kirke of
this town: John Knox beand at that tyme minister.” Records
of the Kirk Session of St Andrews.
3 – Records of Town Council of Edinburgh, May 8, 1560.
4 – Knox, Historie, p. 238.
5 – Knox, Historie, p. 237.
6 – Beza, Vita Calvini. Melch. Adami Vitæ Exter. Theolog.
p. 70, 88. Persons unfriendly to the government of the
reformed churches, have represented the opposition made
to Calvin and his brethren, as arising from their attempts
to have their discipline established by human laws,
and supported by civil penalties. This is an unfair
representation of the case. “Neque enim consentaneum est,”
says Calvin, “ut qui monitionibus nostris obtemperare
noluerint, eos ad magistratum deferamus.” Institut. Christ.
Relig. p. 434. Ludg. Batav. 1654. The dispute between him
and his opponents turned on this question, Are ministers
obliged to administer the sacraments to those whom they
judge unworthy? Or, (which amounts to the same thing,) Are
the decisions of the church‑court in such matters to be
reviewed and reversed by the civil court? Melch. Adam. ut
supra. And this will be found to have been the true state
of the question in Scotland, in the greater part of the
dissensions between the court and the church, after the
establishment of the Reformation.
7 – Knox, Historie, p. 237, 256.
8 – The names of the ministers who composed the Confession of
Faith, and the Book of Discipline, were John Winram, John
Spotswood, John Douglas, John Row, and John Knox. Ibid.
p. 256.
9 – Row, MS. Historie of the Kirk, p.12, 16, 17. It is
probable that the meeting of assembly by which the Book
of Discipline was approved, was that which Knox calls a
convention, held on the 5th of January, 1561. Historie,
p. 261, 295. The first General Assembly appointed a meeting
to be held at that time. Buik of the Universall Kirk,
p. 3. MS. in Advocates’ Library. But there is no account
of its proceedings in that or in any other register which
I have had access to see. In the copy of the First Book of
Discipline, published (by Calderwood, I believe) in 1621,
p. 23, 70; and in Dunlop’s Confessions, vol. ii. p. 517,
605, it is said, that the order for compiling it was given
on the 29th of April, 1560, and that it was finished by
them on the 20th of May following. But, as the civil war
was not then concluded, I have followed the account given
by Knox, who says, that it was undertaken subsequently to
the meeting of parliament in August that year. Historie,
p. 256.
10 – In Dunlop’s Collect. of Confessions, ii. 436, the
approbation of it is styled an act of secret council,
25th January, 1560, _i.e._ 1561.
11 – Knox, Historie, p. 256, 257, 295, 296. Keith, 496, 497.
Dunlop, ii. 606‒608.
12 – The General Assembly had, at different times, under their
consideration the appointment of superintendents for
Jedburgh, Dumfries, Aberdeen, and Banff; but came to no
conclusion. Those actually appointed were, John Erskine
of Dun for Angus; John Winram for Fife; John Spotswood for
Lothian; John Willock for Glasgow; and John Carswell for
Argyle. Keith’s Hist. p. 511, 512, 518‒9. Carswell is not
mentioned, among the superintendents, in a curious document
recently printed; but it contains no list of the ministers
in Argyle. Register of Ministers, Exhorters, and Readers,
and of their Stipends, after the period of the Reformation,
p. 1, 2, Edinburgh, 1830.
13 – Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 524, 526, 545, 577, 638, 639.
14 – Dunlop, ii. 526. Imposition of hands was afterwards
appointed to be used by the Second Book of Discipline.
Ibid. 768‒9.
15 – Knox, Historie, p. 263‒266.
16 – For an illustration of some of these facts, see Note A.
17 – First Book of Discipline, chap. vii. Dunlop, ii. 547‒561.
18 – Knox mentions Lord Erskine, (afterwards Earl of Mar,) as
one of the chief noblemen who refused to subscribe the
discipline, and assigns two reasons for his refusal; first,
“he hes a very Jesabell to his wife,” and second, “if the
pure, the scullis, and the ministry of the kirk, had thair
awin, his kitcheing wald want twa partes and mair of that
quhilk he now injustly possesses.” Historie, p. 256. My
Lady Mar’s passion for money was well known at that time,
and is referred to in Lord Thirlstane’s “Admonitioun to my
Lord of Mar Regent,” published in Ancient Scottish Poems
from Maitland MS. p. 164. Lond. 1786:
“Nor, to content thy marrow’s covatice,
Put not thyself in perrell for to pereis.”
19 – Hess, Life of Zuingle, p. 201‒207. Gerdes. i. 309.
20 – See Note B.
21 – See vol. i. p. 321.
22 – Row’s MS. Historie, ut sup. p. 308, 356, 372. See also
Note C.
23 – See Note D.
24 – Hume, History of England, vol. v. chap. 38, p. 51.
Lond. 1807.
25 – Row’s MS. p. 372.
26 – See Note E.
27 – Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 2. MS. Adv. Lib. Keith, 498.
28 – See Note F.
29 – Knox, Historie, p. 260.
30 – Preface to a Letter, added to An Answer to a Letter of a
Jesuit, named Tyrie, he Johne Knox.――Sanctandrois――Anno
Do. 1572.
31 – Calvini Epistolæ, p. 150: Oper. tom. ix. “Viduitas tua
mihi, ut debet, tristis et acerba est. Uxorem nactus eras
cui non reperiuntur passim similes,” &c. In a letter to
Christopher Goodman, written at the same time, Calvin says,
“Fratrem nostrum Knoxum, etsi non parum doleo suavissima
uxore fuisse privatum, gaudeo tamen ejus morte non ita
fuisse afflictum, quin strenue operam suam Christo et
ecclesiæ impendat.” Ibid. Calvin had lost his own wife
in 1549. Epistolæ et Responsa, p. 212‒3, 225. Hanov. 1597.
32 – See Note G.
33 – Knox, 257, 258. Buchanan, i. 326, 327. Spotswood, 150, 151.
Keith, 154, 157.
34 – Knox, 260.
35 – Mr Hume’s letter, printed in the Life of Dr Robertson:
History of Scotland, vol. i. 25. Lond. 1809. Anderson’s
Collections, vol. iv. part i. p. 71, 72, 74, 79.
36 – “How sone that ever her French fillokes, fidlars, and
utheris of that band, gat the hous alone, thair mycht
be sene skipping not veray comelie for honest women.
Her comune talk was in secrete, that sche saw nothing
in Scotland but gravity, quhilk repugned altogidder to
her nature, for sche was brocht up in joyeusetie.” Knox,
Historie, p. 294.
37 – See Note H.
38 – Knox, Historie, p. 284‒287.
39 – See Note I.
40 – Knox, Historie, p. 341.
41 – Knox, Historie, p. 282, 283, 285, 287.
42 – Several of the above considerations, along with others, are
forcibly stated in a letter of Maitland to Cecil, written a
short time before Queen Mary’s arrival in Scotland. Keith,
App. 92‒95. That sagacious, but supple politician was among
the first to verify some of his own predictions. That such
fears were very general in the nation appears also from a
letter of Randolph. Robertson, Append. No. 5.
43 – Histoire du Calvinisme et celle du Papisme mises en
Parellele; ou Apologie pour les Reformateurs, pour la
Reformation, et pour les Reformez, tome i. p. 334. A
Rotterdam, 1683, 4to. The affirmation of this writer is
completely supported by the well‑known history of Henry IV.
of France, (not to mention other instances,) whose
recantation of Calvinism, although it smoothed his way to
the throne, could not efface the indelible stigma of his
former heresy, secure the affections of his Roman catholic
subjects, or avert from his breast the consecrated poniard
of the assassin.
44 – Randolph to Cecil, 9th Aug. 1561, apud Robertson’s
Scotland, Appendix, No. 5, and Keith, p. 190. A letter
of Maitland to Cecil, of the same date with the above,
seems to refer to the same design; and I shall take the
opportunity of correcting (what appears to me) an error
in the transcription of this letter. “I wish to God,” says
Maitland, “the first warre may be planely intended _against
them by Knox_, for so shold it be manifest that the
suppressing of religion was ment; but I fear more she will
proceed tharunto by indirect means. And nothing for us
so dangerouse as temporising.” Haynes, p. 367. This seems
altogether unintelligible; but if the words which I have
printed in Italics be transposed, and read thus, “by them
against Knox,” they will make sense, and correspond with
the strain of the letter, and with the fact mentioned by
Randolph, in his letter to Cecil written on the same day.
Maitland expresses his fears that Mary would have recourse
to crafty measures for undermining their cause, instead
of persevering in the design which she had avowed of
prosecuting Knox.
45 – Knox, Historie, p. 269.
46 – Ibid. p. 262.
47 – Keith, 188.
48 – Knox, Historie, p. 287‒292.
49 – Ibid. p. 292.
50 – Knox, Historie, p. 292. Keith, 197.
51 – Letter, Knox to Cecil, 7th October, 1561: Haynes, State
Papers, p. 372.
52 – Randolph’s letter, in Keith, 188. In this letter, the
ambassador states some circumstances as to the first
interview between the queen and the Reformer, which are
not mentioned in Knox’s History. He “knocked so hastily
upon her heart, that he made her to weep, as well you know
there be some of that sex that will do that as well for
anger as for grief; though in this the lord James will
disagree with me. He concluded so in the end with her, that
he hath liberty to speak his conscience, [and] to give unto
her such reverence as becometh the ministers of God unto
the superior powers.”
53 – Haynes, 372. An epistolary correspondence was at this time
maintained between secretary Cecil and our Reformer. Keith,
191, 192, 194. Robertson, Append. No. 5.
54 – Knox, Historie, p. 295‒6.
55 – Keith, App. 175‒179. Knox, 296‒300.
56 – The privy council appointed certain persons to fix the
sums which were to be appropriated to the court and to
the ministry, and also the particular salaries which were
to be allotted to individual ministers, according to the
circumstances in which they were placed. The officers
appointed for this purpose composed a board or court, under
the privy council, and was called the court of modification.
57 – “So busie,” says he, “and circumspect wer the modificators,
(because it was a new office, the terme must also be new,)
that the ministers should not be over‑wantoun, that an
hundred merks was sufficient to an single man, being
a commone minister: thre hundreth merks was the hiest
apoynted to any, except the superintendents and a few
utheris.” Historie, 301. “Mr Knox is not at all here
diminishing the sum,” says Keith; “for the original books
of assignation to the ministers, which now ly before me,
ascertain the truth of what he says,” p. 508. Wishart of
Pittarrow, who was comptroller of the modification, pinched
the ministers so much that it became a proverb――“The
gude laird of Petarro was an ernest professour of Christ,
bot the mekill devill receave the comptroller.” Sir John
Wishart of Pittarrow, was appointed comptroller on the 1st
of March, 1561. Reg. Sigil. Secr. lib. xxi. 5.
58 – Knox, Historie, p. 201‒2.
59 – See Extracts from the Records of the Town Council in Note K.
60 – Keith, p. 498.
61 – The form observed on that occasion, which was followed in
the admission or ordination of all the superintendents and
other ministers, is inserted at length in Knox’s Historie,
p. 263‒266; and in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 627‒636.
62 – Knox, Historie, p. 270.
63 – Ibid. p. 328‒9.
64 – See Note L.
65 – Keith, 215.
66 – Knox, Historie, 305‒308, and letter to Locke, 6th May,
1562, in Cald. MS. i. 755, 756. Spotswood, 184.
67 – Histoire des Martyrs, fol. 558, 559. Anno 1597.
68 – Knox, Historie, 308‒311.
69 – St Cuthberts, or the West Church, was at that time (as it
is at present) a distinct parish, of which William Harlow
was minister. There was also a minister in Canongate or
Holyroodhouse.
70 – Cald. MS. ii. 157.
71 – Records of Town Council, 26th October, 1561.
72 – Ibid. 10th April, 1562.
73 – The number of elders in the session of Edinburgh was
twelve, and of deacons sixteen. Dunlop’s Confessions,
ii. 638.
74 – Calderwood, apud Keith, 514.
75 – See Note M.
76 – Row, MS. Historie of the Kirk, p. 47. Spotswood, p. 463‒4.
I have chiefly followed Row’s narrative. By comparing it
with Spotswood’s, the reader will perceive that they differ
in a few unimportant circumstances. Row mentions that he
had his information from several persons who had heard
Craig himself relate the story, and particularly from his
widow, “dame Craig,” who survived her husband, and lived
in Edinburgh until 1630. Mr John Craig, minister, his wife,
Marion Small, and his eldest son, Mr William, are mentioned,
under the date 16th August, 1594, in Burgh Sas. ix. 60.
77 – Keith, p. 226.
78 – Knox, Historie, p. 302.
79 – Keith, 230. Knox, 321.
80 – Knox, 316‒318.
81 – The historian of the family of Gordon expressly says, that
“her majesty thought, by the earle of Huntlie his power
in the north, to get herselff fred from the hands of her
bastard brother, James, earle of Morray;” and that “the
earle of Huntlie (at the quein’s own desyre) did gather
some forces, to get her out of the earle of Murraye’s
power.” Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland,
by Sir Robert Gordon of Gordonstoun, p. 140, 141.
82 – Spotswood, 185.
83 – Knox, Historie, p. 316, 318.
84 – The Reasoning betwixt Jo. Knox and the abbote of
Crossraguell, fol. 4. Edinburgh, 1563.
85 – Kennedy, Compendius Tractive, A, iiij.
86 – Ibid. D, vii.
87 – Keith, App. 195‒199. Kennedy, in a letter to the archbishop
of Glasgow, says, “Willock, and the rest of his counsell,
labourit earnestlie to sie gif I wald admitt the scripture
onlye juge, and, be that meines, to haif maid me contrarry
to my awin buke; bot thair labouris wes in waist.――I held
me evir fast at ane grounde.” And he triumphs, that he
“draif the lymmar――to refuse the interpretation of the
doctoris allegeit be him and all utheris, bot so far as he
thocht they war agreable with the worde of God, quhilk was
as rycht nocht.” Ibid. 193, 194.
88 – See Note N.
89 – Without farther plea.
90 – Crawford’s Peerage of Scotland, p. 75.
91 – “Augustus 22――Monasterio Crucis regalis obitus Beati
Quintini Kennedii abbatis, Comitis Cassilii fratris, qui
admiranda constantia sex annis totis, cum hæresi nascente,
et jam confirmata conflixit, ad extremum lento veneno
consumptus, corruptoque sanguine excessit.” Dempsteri
Menologium Scotorum, p. 20. Bononiæ, 1622.
92 – See Calendar, by “M. Adam King, profeseur of philosophie
and Mathimatikis at Paris,” prefixed to a Scottish
translation of Canisius’s Catechism, printed in 1587.
93 – Knox gives merely a general notice of this dispute in
his Historie, p. 318. Keith, who was very industrious in
collecting whatever referred to the ecclesiastical history
of that period, could not obtain a copy of the printed
disputation, and had heard of but one imperfect copy.
History, App. 255. The only copy known to exist at
present, is in the library of Alexander Boswell, Esq.
of Auchinleck.――Since the publication of the first edition
of this Life, Mr Boswell has printed a small impression of
this unique, being an exact _fac simile_ of the original
edition, for the gratification of the curious.
94 – Lesley, apud Keith, p. 501. App. 223. Lesley speaks of a
dispute between Knox and Wingate, but that historian is
often incorrect in his details. The dispute between the
doctors of Aberdeen and the ministers, which took place
in the beginning of 1561, is mentioned by Knox, Historie,
p. 261, 262. It would seem from a letter of Randolph, that
there was a dispute in the end of 1561, between some of
the ministers and a Parisian divine, who had accompanied
the queen. Keith, 208. Wingate published at Antwerp, his
“Buke of Fourscoir Three Questionis,” in 1563. Keith has
reprinted this, along with his “Tractatis,” originally
printed at Edinburgh. He calls them “very rare and much
noted pieces.” History, App. 203. In point of argument or
sentiment, they are certainly not noted; but they contain
a strong proof of the extreme corruption which prevailed
among the superior popish clergy, against which Wingate
inveighs as keenly as any reformer. His second book
concludes with this exclamation, “Och, for mair paper or
pennyis!” Wingate translated several works of the Fathers
into the Scottish language, some of which are mentioned
by him in his Tractatis. Keith, App. 226, 227. He was made
abbot of a Scottish monastery at Ratisbon. Mackenzie’s
Lives, vol. iii. p. 149.
95 – See Note O.
96 – Knox, Historie, p. 323, 324. Keith, 522.
97 – Keith, p. 538.
98 – Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 23. Keith, 559, 560.
99 – Knox, Historie, p. 398.
100 – See Note P.
101 – Comp. Knox, Historie, 327, with Keith, Append. 125.
102 – In Knox’s Historie, it is printed _Cathenis_, by mistake,
instead of _Athenis_. The person referred to is Alexander
Gordon, brother to George, earl of Huntly, who was slain
at Corrichie in 1562. Scarcely any Scottish prelate ever
occupied so many different sees, or occupied them for so
short a time. He was bishop of Caithness, archbishop of
Glasgow, bishop of the Isles, and bishop of Galloway.
When he was deprived of the see of Glasgow, the pope, as
a recompense, created him _titular_ archbishop of Athens.
Gordon’s Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland,
p. 111‒12, 137, 290. Keith’s Scottish Bishops, p. 128, 153,
166, 175.
103 – Knox, Historie, p. 326‒328.
104 – Knox, Historie, p. 327‒329.
105 – Ibid. p. 330‒334.
106 – Spotswood, 188. “We are very much obliged to the
information of archbishop Spotswood” for this, says
honest Keith. History, 240.
107 – Act. Parl. Scot. ii. 536‒8. Knox, 331. Keith, 240.
108 – I have not been able to ascertain the time at which the
acquaintance between the earl of Murray and the Reformer
commenced. It was probably soon after Knox came into
England, in the reign of Edward VI. A popish writer has
mentioned their meeting, and grafted upon it the calumny,
current among the party, that the earl had formed the
ambitious project of wresting the crown from his sister,
and placing it on his own head. “Johann Kmnox deceavit
him,” says he, “in S. Paules kirk in Londone, bringand him
in consait, that God had chosen him extraordinarilie as ane
Josias, to be king of Scotland, to rute out idolatrie, and
to plant the licht of the new evangel: quhair thay convenit
in this manner, That the prior of St Androis, erl of Murray,
sould mentene the new Elias againis the priestes of Baal,
(for sua blasphemouslie he namit the priestes of Christ
Jesus.) And the neu Elias sould fortifie the new Josias,
be procuring the favour of the people againis Iesabel,
blaspheming maist impudentlie the quenis M.” Nicol Burne’s
Disputation, p. 156. Knox was at least better acquainted
with scripture‑history than to make Josias contemporary
with Elias and Jesabel.
109 – Knox, Historie, p. 331.
110 – Referring to the critical circumstances in which the lords
of the Congregation had been situated at these places, when
the queen regent threatened to attack them with superior
forces. See vol. i. p. 260, 267, 277.
111 – See vol. i. p. 312‒3.
112 – Knox, Historie, p. 332‒334.
113 – These are the words of Mr Hume, who holds a distinguished
place among the writers who have excited prejudices against
our Reformer on the score of cruelty to Mary. The reader
will find some remarks on the statements of that able but
artful historian in Note Q.
114 – See Note R.
115 – See Note S.
116 – Spotswood gives a different account of this affair, which
has been adopted by several writers. He not only says that
the protestants “forced the gates; but that some [of the
papists] were taken and carried to prison, many escaped the
back way with the priest himself.” History, p. 188. But he
could not have the opportunity of being so well acquainted
with the circumstances as Knox, whose account is totally
irreconcilable with the archbishop’s. Knox expressly says,
that, besides entering the chapel, and addressing the
priest as above mentioned, “no farther was done or said.”
Historie, p. 335, 336. Had some of the papists been carried
to prison, he never could have given such an account as he
has done, not only in his history, but also in his circular
letter, which was produced at his trial, without any
allegation that it contained an unfair or partial statement
of facts.
117 – Knox, Historie, p. 336, 337.
118 – It has been doubted, whether this meeting acted as a court
of judicature in trying Knox, or was called to determine
whether he should be brought to a judicial trial. Dalyell’s
Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems, vol. i. p. 72.
The justice‑general, the lord advocate, and the other
law‑lords, were present; but they had seats in the privy
council. Upon the whole, I am inclined to think that this
was an extraordinary meeting of the privy council, to which
other noblemen, besides the counsellors, were called, to
give the proceedings greater weight with the public. The
object of the queen was, in the first place, to procure
the imprisonment of Knox, after which she might proceed
against him as she thought most prudent. Knox, Historie,
p. 339, 340. Spotswood, p. 188.
119 – Knox, Historie, p. 238‒343. Spotswood, p. 188. The account
of the trial given by Calderwood, in his MS., has been
compared with that of Knox, and exactly agrees with it.
120 – Keith, 248, 251.
121 – Sir Thomas Randolph, in a letter, dated 27th Feb. 1564,
mentions “some unkindness between Murray and the queen,
about Knox, whose parte he taketh.” Keith, 249.
122 – Keith, 527, 528. Knox, 344, 345.