says:――“Knox askt in church to be marryed to Margrett
Steward, the daughter of the Lord Ochiltre;” referring to
the proclamation of banns. Keith, 251. Lord Ochiltree was
descended from Robert, duke of Albany, second son of King
Robert II. His father exchanged the lands and title of
Evandale for those of Ochiltree. Douglas’s Peerage, 522.
Crawfurd’s Renfrew, and Royal House of Stewart, by Semple,
part i. p. 92‒94. The second son of lord Ochiltree, and
brother‑in‑law of the Reformer, was Sir James Stewart
of Bothwellmuir, afterwards the infamous favourite of
James VI. who created him Earl of Arran. Crawfurd, in his
Officers of State, (p. 488,) has published a protestation
which Arran made of his lineage, and title of priority
to the duke of Lennox, his rival in James’s favour. The
Reformer’s father‑in‑law was usually called _the good_ lord
Ochiltree; and was “a man rather borne to mak peace than to
brag upon the calsey.” Knox’s Historie, p. 304.
124 – See Note T.
125 – Robertson’s History of Scotland, vol. ii. 108. Lond. 1809.
126 – In a letter to the Council of Trent, dated 18th
March 1563/4, Mary laments “that the situation of her
affairs――hujus temporis tanta injuria,” did not permit her
to send some of her prelates to that council; and assures
them of her great and unalterable devotion to the Apostolic
see――“nostra perpetua mente ac voluntate, in ejusdem sedis
observantia et submissione.” In a letter, written Jan. 3d
of the same year, she entreats the cardinal of Lorrain
to assure the pope of her resolution to live and die
a catholic. And on the last day of the same month, she
writes to his holiness himself lamenting the damnable
errors――“damnabili errori,” in which she found her subjects
plunged, and informing him that her intention, from the
time she left France, had uniformly been to re‑establish
the ancient religion. MS. Letters, extracted from the
Barberini Library, in Advoc. Lib. A. 2. 11.
127 – Robertson, Hist. of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 109.
128 – During the reign of Mary of England, the manner in which
the protestants prayed for her, in their conventicles,
was declared high treason. Act. Parl. 1, and 2, Philip
and Mary, cap. 9. Nor did the psalms and prayers of the
primitive Christians escape punishment under the “tolerant”
emperor Julian. Works of the Reverend Samuel Johnston,
p. 20‒22. London, 1713.
129 – Men of no note.
130 – Servants of God, however.
131 – Craig, who was rather facile in his disposition, and apt
to be moulded by those who were about him, seems afterwards
to have recanted the principle which he maintained on
this occasion. For I suppose he is the person who preached
the sermon at Linlithgow, mentioned by Hume of Godscroft,
in his History of the House of Douglas and Angus,
ii. 383, 385. That historian has inserted some very
ingenious observations on the subject, by way of strictures
on the sermon.
132 – Knox, Historie, p. 348‒366.
133 – This was an opinion generally entertained among the
Reformers; and it was one ground (though not the only one,
as we have seen, p. 25) upon which they vindicated the
penal statutes against the mass and image worship. At the
same time, while they laboured to restrain these evils,
they discovered no disposition to proceed to capital
punishment, even when it was completely in their power.
I never read nor heard of an instance, in the time of our
Reformer, of a person being put to death for performing any
part of the Roman catholic worship. If the reason of this
disconformity between their opinion and their practice
be asked, I can only answer,――their aversion to blood.
“God,” says our Reformer, addressing the popish princes
who persecuted the protestants, “will not use his saintes
and chosen children to punish you. For with them is alwaies
mercie, yea, even althogh God have pronounced a curse and
malediction; as in the history of Josua is plaine. But
as ye have pronounced wrong and cruel judgment without
mercie, so will he punish you by such as in whom there is
no mercie.” Answer to the Cavillations of an Anabaptist,
p. 449.
134 – The magistrates of Edinburgh, understanding that
Mr Christopher Goodman was appointed to preach during the
absence of their own ministers, directed a committee of
their number to wait upon him, and to “offer him, in their
names, all honourabill intertenment, and cause the stewart
of Jhonne Knox house to keep table to him upoun the town’s
expensis.” Records of Town Council for 23d Aug. 1564.
135 – Keith, 535, 537, 540.
136 – Knox, Historie, p. 368.
137 – Keith, p. 278, note (a.)
138 – Knox, p. 373.
139 – Keith, 279. Knox, 374, 378.
140 – Keith, 329. Robertson, ii. 125.
141 – Knox, 372, 374. Robertson, ii. 114, 120.
142 – Knox, 372.
143 – Ibid. 379. Keith, 309, 310. Append. 108‒110.
144 – Knox, 368, 379, 386. Keith, 309, 310. Gordon’s Genealog.
Hist. of the earldom of Sutherland, 143‒4.
145 – Keith, 300, 304, 306.
146 – Robertson, ii. 131. Laing, History of Scotland.
147 – Knox, Historie, 382, 384, 386.
148 – Ibid. 388.
149 – Ibid. 373, 374.
150 – Knox, Historie, 377.
151 – Ibid. 376.
152 – Goodall says, that Knox was engaged with the Earl of Murray
in a plot for seizing Darnley; but he has produced no
evidence of his assertion. Life of Queen Mary, i. 207‒209.
153 – Keith, 301‒2.
154 – Sermon on Isa. xxvi. 13, 14: History of the Reformation,
Edin. 1644, 4to. Append. p. 120, 128. Spotswood says, that
Knox, in his sermon, (either doubting the king’s sincerity,
or favouring the faction of the noblemen,) “fell upon him
with a bitter reproof.” History, 191. But the archbishop
does not seem to have read the sermon, which contains
no reproof of the king, either bitter or mild. Indeed,
the preacher appears, on that occasion, to have used less
freedom than ordinary in the application. Strype, Annals,
i. 527, 23d August, 1565.
155 – Preface to the Sermon, ut supra.
156 – Ibid. Records of Town Council. Knox, Historie, p. 381.
Being called before the privy council, he wrote out the
sermon, as exactly according to what he had preached as
possible, and sent it to the press, to let the impartial
see “upon how small occasions great offence is now taken.”
At the end of it is this postscript:――“Lord, into thy hands
I commend my spirit; for the terrible roaring of gunnes,
and the noise of armour, do so pierce my heart, that
my soul thirsteth to depart.” On the margin are these
words:――“The castle of Edinburgh was shooting against
the exiled for Christ Jesus’ sake.” Then follows the
date at which the writing was finished. “The last day
of August 1565, at four of the clock in the afternoon,
written indigestly, but yet truly, so farre as memory would
serve, of those things that in publike I spake on Sunday,
August 19, for the which I was discharged to preach for
a time. Be mercifull to thy flock, O Lord, and at thy
pleasure put end to my misery. John Knox.”
157 – Spotswood, 191, 192. Keith, 546, 547. Keith calls in
question the archbishop’s narrative; because Knox, in his
history, does not say that the queen was present, and does
not mention the prediction, although “fond enough to catch
at and force such things upon his readers.” But Knox did
not write this part of the history; the fifth book having
been compiled after his death, and not being found in old
MSS. See Advertisement, prefixed to the edition of his
Historie, Edin. 1732. It must be confessed, however, that
Spotswood’s account of this affair is inaccurate in a
number of particulars. David Buchanan says, that the king
had “cast the psalme booke in the fire,” which was the
cause of Knox’s denunciation against him. Life of Knox,
prefixed to History of the Reformation.
158 – Records of Town Council, 23d August, 1565. Keith, 547.
159 – Knox, Historie, p. 381.
160 – Ibid. p. 389.
161 – See Note U.
162 – Keith, 562.
163 – Keith, 538.
164 – This appointment was laid upon him in June 1563.
Keith, 525. He does not seem to have executed it till
1567; which is the date subjoined to a prayer at the end
of the treatise. Then follows a postscript: “This booke
is thought necessary and profitable for the church, and
commanded to be printed by the Generall Assemblie.” The
order for printing it seems to have been first given by
the Assembly in 1568, and renewed in 1571. Psalmes in
meeter, &c. (commonly called Knox’s Liturgy), printed
by Andro Hart, A. 1611, p. 28, 67. Dunlop’s Confessions,
ii. 705, 747.
165 – Treatise of Fasting, in Knox’s Liturgy, p. 157‒160.
edit. 1611; and in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 661‒664.
166 – Robertson, Append. No. 14. Keith, Append. p. 165, 167.
Knox, 389‒391.
167 – The friars were so little esteemed, that they soon wearied
of preaching. They boasted that they would dispute with
the protestant ministers; but when the commissioners of the
General Assembly waited on their majesties, and requested
that this might be granted in their presence, the queen
replied, that “sche wald not jeopard her religioun upon
sick as were thare present; for sche knew weill enouch,
that the protestants wer more learned.” Knox, Historie,
p. 391.
168 – Keith, p. 326. Append. 167. Melvil’s Memoires, 63, 64.
Robertson, Append. No. 14.
169 – Knox, 392, 394. Keith, Append. 126. The queen’s letter to
the archbishop of Glasgow, apud Keith, 331. Goodall and
Blackwood, apud Robertson, ii. 145. Lond. 1809.
170 – The noblemen wished to bring Rizzio to a public trial; but
the king would not wait for this, and determined that he
should be seized in the queen’s presence, although she was
big with child, that he might upbraid her for the wrongs
which he had suffered. Keith, App. 121, 122. Robertson,
iii. 318. App. No. 15. Douglas of Lochleven, who was
engaged in the combination against Rizzio, says that it
was their purpose to have “punist him be order of justice;
bot men proponit and God disponit udir wais, be sic
extraordinar means, quhilk truly my aune hart aborit quhan
I saw him; for I never consentit that he suld haiff been
usit by [beside] justice, nather was it in ony nobellman
his mind.” Speaking of Rizzio’s influence, Douglas says,
“I causit offer to him, gif he wald stay the erle of
Murray’s forfaltour, he suld haiff v thowsand pundis
Scottis; his answer was, xx thowsand and that wer all alik;
it wald not be.” MS. papers of the laird of Lochleven.
171 – King James VI. having found great fault with Knox for
approving of the assassination of Rizzio, one of the
ministers said, that “the slaughter of David [Rizzio], so
far as it was the work of God, was allowed by Mr Knox, and
not otherwise.” Cald. MS. ad ann. 1591. Knox himself does
not, however, state this qualification, when he mentions
the subject incidentally. Historie, 86. Robertson,
ii. 161‒2.
172 – Knox, Historie, 395. Answer to Tyrie, A. iiij.
173 – Letter from archbishop Grindal to Bullinger, 17th August,
1566: Strype’s Grindal, Append. 20. Letter from bishop
Parkhurst, written in December 1566: Burnet’s Hist. of
Reform. iii. Append. No. 91. In the Assembly which met in
June this year, Craig desired that “John Carnes, who had
read prayers and exhorted four years and more in Edinburgh,
and had weill profited, might be joyned with him as
colleague in the kirk of Edinburgh, in respect he was
alone.” Keith, 560.
174 – Keith, 56.
175 – Ibid. 565, 566. Knox, 402, 403. Spotswood, 198, 199.
The letter was subscribed by “John Davidson, for James
Nicoldson, writer and clarke of the church of Edinborough.”
Strype’s Life of Archbishop Parker, Append. p. 88.
176 – Speaking of England, he says, “And yet is sche that now
rigneth over thame nether gude protestant, nor yet resolute
papist; let the warld juge quhilk is the third.” Historie,
p. 277. By comparing this with p. 269, it appears that
it was written by him in 1567, and consequently after his
return from England.
177 – Reg. Secr. Sig. lib. xxxv. f. 99. Laing’s History of
Scotland, vol. i. 75, 76. 2d edit. This historian has
refuted the charges of forgery which Whitaker had brought
against Knox and Calderwood on this head. Ibid. p. 78, 79.
178 – Keith, p. 561, 562. The occurrence which had taken place
helps to explain the coldness with which the Assembly
received the information of these acts in their favour.
Ibid. p. 563.
179 – Cald. MS. apud Keith, 566, 567.
180 – Ibid. 567‒8.
181 – Those who wish to see the proof of these assertions, may
consult Mr Hume’s History of the period, with the Notes;
Dr Robertson’s, with his Dissertation; and especially
Mr Laing’s Dissertation on the subject. This last writer
has examined the point with great calmness, accuracy, and
acuteness, has established the genuineness of the letters
to Bothwell, and cleared the whole evidence from the
objections and cavils of the fantastical Whitaker, a
late author, who has equalled any of his predecessors
in prejudice, and exceeded all of them in the illiberal
and virulent abuse with which he has treated the most
respectable of his opponents. The principal writers who
in modern times have undertaken the defence of Mary, are
Goodall, Tytler, Stuart, and Whitaker.
182 – Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 85, 87, 103. Anderson’s
Collections, ii. 278‒283. Knox, 405, 406. Spotswood,
202, 203. Craig gave in a narrative and defence of his
conduct to the General Assembly, 30th Dec. 1567; but it was
not until the 6th July, 1569, that the Assembly overtook
the formal consideration of that affair, when they declared
that “he had done the dewtie of a faithfull minister.”
183 – Keith, 574, 577. Knox, 410.
184 – Keith, 581‒583. Knox, 411. Spotswood, 209, 210.
185 – Knox, 412. Buchanan calls it _luculentam concionem_. Hist.
lib. xviii. Oper. tom. i. p. 366.
186 – Cald. MS. ii. 67, 68. Anderson’s Collections, ii. 249.
One author says that Knox was employed in putting the
crown on the king’s head. “Diadema Joannis Knoxii manibus
capiti regio impositum.” Archibaldus Simsonus, Annales
Eccles. Scotican. p. 9. MS. in the possession of Thomas
Thomson, Esq.
187 – Keith, 439. Keith expresses his surprise at Knox’s taking
instruments in the name of the estates, as he “could
properly belong to no estate at all.” Hist. p. 440. But the
record does not say that he took instruments in the name of
the estates. It is evident that he acted in the name of the
church, which was considered as having an interest in the
transaction, as by one clause of the coronation oath, the
king engaged to maintain the reformed religion, and the
privileges of the protestant church. Ibid. p. 438.
188 – Keith, 421, 422, 423. Throkmorton’s Letters, 14th and
18th July: Robertson, Append. No. 21. “The women,” says
the ambassador, “be most furious and impudent against the
queen, and yet the men be mad enough.”
189 – Cald. MS. ii. 73. Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 113.
190 – See Note V.
191 – Act. Parl. Scot. iii. p. 14‒25. Cald. MS. ad ann. 1567.
192 – Cald. ut supra. Keith, 585, 586.
193 – Dr Robertson says, that the regulation respecting the
thirds, made by the parliament in December 1567, did not
produce any considerable change in the situation of the
clergy, and speaks of them as still “groaning under extreme
poverty, unable to obtain any thing but fair words and
liberal promises.” History of Scotland, ii. 250, 312.
Lond. 1809. But the law which gave power to the collectors
appointed by the church to uplift the thirds, and to pay
the stipends, before any thing was allowed to the court,
was certainly a very considerable benefit. The church
herself viewed it in this light. Calderwood says, that “the
ministers were now refreshed with the allowance made by
the last parliament.” MS. ad ann. 1567. And the Assembly,
in their letter inviting Willock to return from England,
expressly say, “Our enemies, praised be God, are dashed;
religion established; sufficient provision made for
ministers,” &c. Keith, 590. The account which I have given
in the text is, I think, supported by the register of the
five general assemblies which were held during the regency
of Murray.
194 – Letter from the Regent to the General Assembly, ult.
June, 1569, in Appendix. Buik of Universal Kirk, p. 45‒47.
195 – Cald. MS. ii. 108.
196 – Letter to John Wood, 14th of February, 1568; Cald. MS.
ii. 91.
197 – Throkmorton to Elizabeth, 22d August, 1567; Keith, 450.
198 – Throkmorton’s letters of 14th, 16th, 18th, and 19th July,
1567: Robertson, Append. No. 21. Laing, ii. Append. No. 31,
p. 125. Keith, p. 423. The protestation taken, at the
coronation of James VI. by Arthur Hamilton of Meriton,
in the name of the duke, is confined to the point of
his succession to the crown, and does not allude in the
slightest degree to the right of the queen. Keith, 437. Of
the same strain was the protest which was intended to have
been made at the parliament held in December 1567; a copy
of which, and a minute of a conversation on the subject
between the regent and Arthur Hamilton, are preserved among
the Hamilton MSS.
199 – Buchanan. Oper. i. 346. Keith, 407.
200 – Spotswood, 216. Letter, Knox to Wood, 10th September, 1568,
published in the Appendix.
201 – The Hist. of King James the Sext, p. 48. Birrel’s Diary, 17,
in Dalyell’s Fragments of Scottish History. Laing, ii. 269.
See also Letter, Knox to Wood, 10th September, 1568, ut
supra.
202 – Hist. of King James the Sext, p. 43, 63.
203 – This story is related in very different ways. One account
makes the revenge to turn solely upon the treatment of
his wife, who, expecting to be allowed to remain in her
house of “Woodislie,” was “uncourtouslie and unmercifullie
put thairfra, all her gudis tane fra hir, and schoe left
stark naked. The gentilwoman, quhat for grief of mynd and
exceeding cald, that schoe had then contractit, conceaved
sic madness as was almost incredible.” Historie of King
James the Sext, p. 74. Spotswood’s account is different.
He says, that Bothwellhaugh had redeemed his life by
yielding up the lands of Woodhouselie, which were given
to the Justice Clerk, and he refusing to part with them,
Bothwellhaugh “made his quarrel to the regent, [_i.e._
revenged himself upon the regent,] who was most innocent,
and had restored him to life and liberty.” Spotsw. History,
p. 233. Crawfurd, in his Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland,
p. 140, 1st edit., says, that “Murray sent some officers
to take possession of the house, who not only turned the
gentlewoman out of doors, but,” &c. This is the authority
which has been relied upon by all those writers who have
charged the regent with cruelty in this transaction; yet it
is now discovered that the interpolation of Murray’s name
in this place is one of those forgeries by which that work
is disgraced from beginning to end. Hist. of King James the
Sext, preface, and p. 74.
204 – This is clear from many considerations. Within a few days
after the regent’s assassination, his secretary, Mr John
Wood, was murdered in Fife. Anderson’s Col. iii. 84. The
house in which Bothwellhaugh concealed himself, while
he committed the murder, belonged to the archbishop
of St Andrews, who acknowledged that he was privy and
accessory to the deed. Historie of King James the Sext,
p. 117. The horse on which the murderer escaped belonged
to John Hamilton, abbot of Arbroath, one of the duke’s sons.
Cald. ad ann. 1570. He rode immediately to Hamilton, where
he was “received with great applause.” Ibid. Nay, grounds
are not wanting for strong suspicion, that Maitland, and
even Kircaldy of Grange, who had long been the bosom friend
of the regent, were acquainted with the conspiracy against
his life. Ibid. Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 429. Buchan. i. 384.
205 – Cald. ut supra. Buchanani Oper. i. 385. Spotswood, 233.
206 – Bannatyne, p. 121. “To the thrid head” (his participation
in the murder of the regent) the archbishop “answerit thus:
That he not only knew thairof, and wald not stopp it, bot
rather furtherit the deed thairof, quhilk he repentit, and
askit God mercie for the same.” Hist. of James the Sext,
p. 117. “Jhon Hamilton, bishop of Sanctandros, enemie to
thy kirk and to the kingis autoritie, confessit at his
daith of the knawledge of the erle of Morray regent’s
murther, and that he myght haif stayit the same giff he
plesit.” MS. Papers of the Laird of Lochleven. Yet an
author, in the nineteenth century, can write of this deed
in the following terms:――“The heiress of Woodhouselie fell
a sacrifice to the corrupt tyranny of the regent Murray.
Her husband, Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh, put the guilty
tyrant to death, as ‘base‑born Murray rode through old
Linlithgow’s crowded town.’” Chalmers’s Caledonia, ii. 571.
207 – Buchanan. Oper. i. 385.
208 – History, 234.
209 – See Note W.
210 – Smetoni Responsio ad Hamiltonii Dialogum, p. 116.
211 – “Upon the 22 of Maii, the sherife of Linlithgow, the laird
of Innerweek, James Hamilton of Bothelhaugh, and six others,
were put to an assyse; their hands bound; and pardoned
at the request of Mr Knox, whereof he sore repented; for
Bothwelhaugh killed the regent shortlie after.” Cald. MS.
ad ann. 1568.
212 – Cald. MS. ii. 150. He is said to have added this to his
usual prayers after dinner and supper. But in a volume
of Calderwood’s History, in the Advocates’ Library in
Edinburgh, (which has been transcribed more early than any
copy which I have seen,) these words are scored out; and it
is introduced as the prayer which he offered up in public,
on the day on which he was informed of the regent’s death.
213 – Great apprehensions of this were entertained by the
regent’s friends. Bannatyne, 428, 9.
214 – Cald. MS. ad ann. 1570.
215 – Ibid. ii. 151‒157.
216 – Spotswood, p. 234. Mackenzie labours to discredit the
archbishop’s narrative of this affair. Lives of Scottish
Writers, iii. 195, 196. But whatever opinion we may form
about the prediction, it cannot be doubted that Spotswood
had the best means of information respecting the facts
which he relates. Nor has Mackenzie any other authority
for what he says about the death of Maitland than the
archbishop’s.
217 – Cald. MS. ii. 157.
218 – The inscription, engraved on brass, is yet preserved; and
a copy of it will be found in Note X. But Buchanan has, in
his History, reared to the regent “a monument more durable
than brass,” which will preserve his memory as long as
the language in which it is written shall continue to
be understood, and as long as a picture taken from life
shall be preferred to the representations of fancy or of
prejudice. Nor has he neglected to celebrate him in his
verses. Epigram. lib. ii. 29. iii. 7, 9, 18.
219 – Spotswood, 235.
220 – Cald. ut supra.
221 – A late author has very wantonly attempted to load the
memory of this excellent man with a capital crime. He gives
the following extract from the paper office, 22d April,
1590: “Twa men, the ane namyt Johnne Gibsone, Scottishman,
preacher, and the other Johnne Willokis, now baith lying in
prison at Leicester, were convicted by a jury of robbery.”
The last of these convicts, says he, was “the reforming
coadjutor of Knox.” Chalmers’s Life of Ruddiman, p. 307.
What evidence has this author for saying so? Nothing but
the sameness of the name! Just as if a person, on reading
in the public papers of one George Chalmers who was
convicted of a robbery, (no unlikely thing,) should
immediately take it into his head that this was, and could
be, no other than the author of the Life of Ruddiman, and
Caledonia! It is evident that the second convict was no
preacher, else this designation would have been added to
his name, as well as to that of the first. It is probable
that Willock, who was a preacher as early as 1540, was
not alive in 1590: it is utterly incredible that he should
then have been in a condition to act as a robber.――But
it is paying too much regard to such a charge to bring
exculpatory proof.
222 – In the copy of Cald. MS. belonging to the church of
Scotland, the name is written _Winfrid_; but in the copy
in the Advocates’ Library, it is _Umfrede_. The person
meant is evidently Dr Laurence Humphrey (Umfredius),
Professor of divinity, and Head of one of the colleges,
in the University of Oxford. This learned man was a
puritan, but enjoyed the patronage of Secretary Cecil.
Strype’s Annals, i. 421, 430‒432.
223 – Smetoni Respons. ad Hamilt. p. 116.