in the great chain of order, virtue, progress, and civilisation.
It was the root from which the most complete social and political
organisations have sprung; and the nations which have recognised and
adopted this institution have had by far the happiest and most glorious
careers of national life. But celibacy, monasticism, and the modern
hospital establishments for the young, all discarded it, and proceeded
on a single line of characteristic isolation. To retire from the duties
of life and bury oneself in a monastery cannot contribute much to the
onward movement of society, though it may suit the peculiar mind and
circumstances of some individuals.
The evidence of history and psychology both point to the conclusion
that monasticism, celibacy, and the hospital system, all violate
and trench upon the fundamental principles of social development and
healthy society. These systems ignore the doctrine that teaches us
to cultivate and develop all our powers and feelings in harmonious
subordination to a life of activity and energy, of untiring struggle
and conflict with surrounding difficulties, of honest effort and
endeavour, of toil and thought. No one has a right to shrink from his
duties, and no one should be deprived of any of the enjoyments which
our country and age afford.
In connection with these matters, the social miscalculations and
economic errors, as formed and taught by the Socialists and Communists,
bears a rather close resemblance in some points to the monasticism of
the Middle Ages. The modern theories are not all equally impracticable;
but the ideas of absolute equality of right, community of goods
and property throughout a nation, must be characterised as utterly
visionary. In the history of Christianity from the fourth to the
fifteenth century there had been innumerable attempts to establish a
sort of Communism in societies unripe for its reception, which ended
in the results indicated in the preceding pages. All the theories of
modern Socialists for the immediate reconstruction of society are based
upon equally delusive notions; no theory can have a chance of practical
influence and realisation, unless it work through existing forms of
social life, and not by isolation from them. A higher moral standard,
a clearer idea of justice, and a far greater willingness to look at
both sides of a trade question must be attained, even before a great
development of simple co-operation can be effected.
Having indicated the external, the political, and social causes of
the Reformation, I proceed to consider what may be called the inner
or religious causes. They are more difficult to realise than the other
causes, and more important, because they are deeper and more intense.
The first class of causes were transient and rather selfish, and
when the aims which had stimulated their activity were gained, they
fluctuated, and shortly ceased to operate. But the purely religious
sentiment and aspiration were constant in their action, and persistent
in their manifestation in the face of fearful odds; until they attained
a complete triumph in the recognition of toleration and religious
freedom.
The religious feeling and idea, then, were the constant and the real
causes of the Reformation, though these contained immense social and
political issues which were hardly foreseen by the politicians of
that age. The political movements and combinations prompted by mixed
motives, and often by selfish ends, in some quarters accelerated,
and in others retarded, the religious upheaval, but all the political
powers in the world could neither have accomplished nor prevented
the final consummation of the principles of the Reformation. For no
external power can extinguish the internal operations of the human
mind. From the dawn of history, political power has been characterised
by duplicity and a lack of honest principle; diplomatic jugglery and
concealed falsehood, have reigned along the whole line of empires
and nations down almost to the present century. The proof of this may
be read in the records of every government that has existed, and in
the honest testimony of the historians of the world. In the sixteenth
century no political government had truth enough in its constitution
to bring about this great religious revolution; no government had
sufficient strength of moral purpose for so mighty a task; and at the
utmost governments could only directly hinder or hasten it. Though
the Reformation bore on its surface many marks of contact with the
political powers, it may be affirmed that the religious feeling and
the moral principle were the supreme influences of the movement; as
these were its heart and life, the internal and invisible springs of
its vigour, and the glorious features of its reality and truth.
There have been politicians who have laid down their lives in testimony
of their adherence to political ideas, but they are few in number
compared with the army of men and women who have cheerfully endured
the tortures of martyrdom for the sake of their religion. Here, then,
we have the grand influence and the motive power of this religious
movement――an aspiration and a moral sentiment, the inner craving of
the mind which ever seeks a Being worthy of its adoration.
In 1525, Parliament passed an Act prohibiting the importation of
Luther’s book, and the propagation of his opinions. The Act stated that
damnable opinions have been spread in several countries by the heretic
Luther and his disciples; but that Scotland and her people has always
firmly believed in the holy faith and never yet admitted any opinion
contrary to it. It then declared that no person arriving with ships
at the ports of the kingdom should bring any books of this heretic,
nor dispute, nor rehearse, his heresy unless it was to refute it. It
was reported that a translation of the New Testament in manuscript,
was used among the Scots in the reign of James IV. Tyndale’s version
in a printed form was brought into Scotland in 1526, and seems to
have been pretty freely circulated. The first heretical books of any
kind circulated in this country came chiefly from England. In 1535,
Parliament commanded all persons who had heretical books in their
possession, to deliver them up to the authorities within forty days,
under the penalty of confiscation and imprisonment.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 295,
349; Anderson’s _Annals of the English Bible_, pages 111‒112,
495‒501. 1862.
The first Scotsman who suffered for the profession of the reformed
opinions was Patrick Hamilton, the Abbot of Ferne. While sojourning
in Germany, he had received the proscribed doctrines from the lips
of Luther himself. He returned to Scotland in 1527, and began to
disseminate his opinions and doctrines. Early in the following year he
was taken and imprisoned in the Castle of St. Andrews, and there tried,
convicted, and condemned for heresy. On the 29th of February, 1528,
he was led to the stake and burned to death before the College of St.
Andrews.¹ It appears that he was married and had a daughter.² He left
a short treatise in Latin, which contained a summary of his leading
doctrines.
¹ Knox’s _Works_, Volume I., pages 14‒18, Laing’s edition.
² Lorimer’s _Life of Hamilton_, pages 123‒124.
This treatise was translated into English shortly after Hamilton’s
death by John Firth, an Englishman, who added a preface to the reader.
As a reward for his zeal he was burnt at Smithfield in 1533. The
book contains the ten commandments and eighteen propositions, mostly
quotations from the Scriptures, which are put into the form of
syllogisms. The doctrine of the Gospel is set forth and contrasted
with the law, the doctrine of faith――faith in Christ, free grace, or
justification by faith; good works are held neither to save nor to
condemn the sinner; a comparison is made between faith, hope, and
charity; and finally, “He that thinks to be saved by his works calleth
himself Christ, for he calleth himself a saviour, which appertains only
to Christ. What is a saviour but he that saveth? And thou sayest, I
save myself, which is as much to say as I am Christ, for Christ is the
only Saviour of the world.”¹
¹ Hunt’s _Religious Thought in England_, Volume I., page 4;
1870. A copy of Firth’s translation of Hamilton’s treatise
is inserted in Knox’s History. _Works_, Volume I., pages 20,
21‒35.
Three editions of Firth’s translation were published at London,
probably before 1540. John Firth was one of the earliest and most
consistent of the English Reformers. “He had embraced the rational
views of the sacraments that had been taught by ♦Zuinglius. He reasoned
that if the body of Christ ascended into heaven it could not be in
the Eucharist, for it was impossible for a body to be in more places
than one at one time.... Firth complained that the error prevailing
in his day was too much trust in the outward signs, as if by them was
accomplished what could only be done by faith. He denies that the sign
gives the Spirit of God or grace. Those that come rightly to baptism
have grace already. The ordinance is a witness that they are in a state
of grace. The life of a true Christian is a continual baptism. One
result of attaching so much importance to the outward sacrament was
the consigning of unbaptised infants to everlasting pain.”
♦ “Zwingle” replaced with “Zuinglius” for consistency
It was mostly among the lower orders of the clergy that the new
doctrines were embraced. The friars were the chief preachers of the day,
and they occasionally inveighed boldly against the prevailing abuses
of the priesthood. A friar named Erth preached a sermon in Dundee,
in which he touched upon the licentious lives of the bishops, and the
evils connected with excommunication and miracles. The armed followers
of the Bishop of Brechin immediately buffeted him and called him a
heretic. Naturally the friar was displeased at this treatment, and he
proceeded to St. Andrews to consult John Mair, the well-known doctor of
the Sorbonne and the author of numerous works, whose word at that time
was regarded as an oracle in matters of religion; and he assured the
friar that such a doctrine might well be defended, and that he would
defend it, for it was not heresy. The friar then intimated to all who
were offended with his sermon that he would again preach it in the
parish church of St. Andrews. On the appointed day all the regents and
masters of the University, and other notable persons, attended to hear
him. He ascended the pulpit, and took for his text the words, “Truth is
the strongest of all things.” He spoke of excommunication, how fearful
a thing it was when rightly applied, that it should not be rashly used
for every light cause, but only against open and incorrigible sinners.
“But now,” said he, “the avarice of priests and the ignorance of their
office has caused it to be altogether vilified; for the priest, whose
duty and office it is to pray for the people, stands up on Sunday
and cries: ‘One has tint a spurtle; there is a flail stolen from them
beyond the burn; the goodwife on the other side of the street has
tint a horn spoon; God’s malison and mine I give to them that knows of
this gear and returns it not.’” The people, he said, merely mocked at
such excommunication. This part of the friar’s sermon was confirmed by
acts of Parliament passed about the same date, in which it was stated,
“that the dishonesty and misrule of churchmen, both in wit, knowledge
and manners, was the reason and cause that the Church and clergy were
slighted and contemned; and also that the damnable persuasion of the
heretics and their perverse doctrines gave occasion to despise the
process of excommunication and other censures of the holy Church.”¹
¹ Knox’s _Works_, Volume I., pages 36‒40; _Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., page 341, 342, 370.
Friar Erth, however, did not renounce the Catholic faith, but his plain
preaching necessitated his flight to England, where he was imprisoned
by Henry VIII. for defending the authority of the Pope. In Scotland, as
in other countries, there was a number of earnest Roman Catholics who
wished to reform the existing abuses and discipline without destroying
the Church or forsaking their ancient faith, but things had come to
such a crisis that their efforts in this direction were overborne and
rendered futile; it was too late in the day, the time for compromises
had passed. John Mair, noticed above, was for sometime a regent in the
University of Glasgow, but in 1523 he became a regent in the University
of St. Andrews. In 1525 he left St. Andrews and went to Paris; but
in 1531 he returned to St. Andrews, and resumed his lectures. He
was appointed Provost of St. Salvator’s College in 1534, an office
which he held till his death in 1550. About the same time Gavin Logie
was principal of St. Leonard’s College. Under him many of the early
Scottish Reformers were educated at St. Andrews. In this connection
might be reckoned Alexander Myln, the Abbot of Cambuskenneth, who
was appointed the first President of the Court of Session in 1533; he
manifested commendable zeal in religion, and died in 1548. At the same
time John Winram was sub-prior of St. Andrews, and afterwards became
one of the chief Reformers; and Robert Richardson, a canon-regular
of Cambuskenneth, though an adherent of Catholicism, preached with
great energy against the scandalous and immoral lives of the higher
churchmen, and denounced the intemperate habits which prevailed amongst
the monks. Alexander Seton, a black friar, and confessor to the king,
preached during the time of Lent, with remarkable boldness against the
corruptions of the Church, and especially against the life and conduct
of the bishops. The favour of the King shielded him for a time from the
wrath of his brethren, but he was at last obliged to retire, and sought
refuge in England about the year 1536.¹
¹ Brunton and Haig’s _Senators of the College of Justice_,
pages 7, 8; Knox’s _Works_, Volume I., pages 36, 37, 45‒52,
150, 530‒533; Mair’s _History of the Scots_ (Scottish
History Society), edited, 1892.
For some years after the fall of the Earl of Angus, the anarchy on
the Borders, the disturbance in the Highlands, and the harassing
conflict between the Crown and the nobles, fully occupied the time and
attention of the leading churchmen of the day, so that heretics were
comparatively little disturbed. The king, as we have seen, had thrown
the government almost entirely into the hands of the clergy, who found
sufficient employment in watching the nobles. These, neglected by the
king and excluded from the offices of the State, were now manifesting a
still stronger inclination to listen to the new opinions. But great as
the power of the Church was during the reign of James V., it was not in
a position to accuse and try any one of the great nobles for heresy.
In justice to the character of the leading Catholic churchmen of the
age, it should be remembered, however, that their ideas and sentiments
were very different from those of the present day, and in relation
to the persecution of heresy this was specially noticeable. To take
the life of a single human being for holding certain opinions on any
subject whatever is a great and fearful crime; but in the sixteenth
century it was deemed the highest virtue to cut off the obstinate
heretic. This throughout Christendom was the common view. It is
therefore unjust to judge them by the ideas and sentiments of the
nineteenth century. The prevailing Roman Catholic creed seems to have
produced upon the character of its most ardent professors an almost
absolute indifference to the suffering of those outside the Church; and
amongst men of this frame of mind and feeling it was regarded as their
first duty to cut off the heretics, and to extinguish them root and
branch for the glory and honour of God, the purity of the faith, and
the good of society. These notions were so deeply ingrained into the
prevailing religious creed and feeling that it was hardly possible for
the Reformers to emancipate themselves from them; hence we find that
Calvin openly avowed and took credit to himself for his share in the
persecution and burning of Servetus. Calvin’s action in this matter
was applauded by all sections of Protestants, and warmly approved by
his most intimate contemporaries. Calvin, Beza, and others, wrote books
on the lawfulness of persecution;¹ so difficult was it for even the
greatest minds to disentangle themselves from the current trains of
thought and associated sentiments of their age. It is deserving of
remark, however, that the persecution in Scotland was not nearly so
severe as in some of the other countries of Europe.
¹ Tulloch’s _Leaders of the Reformation_, page 185; Hallam’s
_Introduction to the Literature of Europe_, Volume II.,
pages 101, 107‒116; Dyer’s _Life of Calvin_. Compare Lecky’s
_History of Rationalism_, Volume II., pages 35‒61. 1865.
King James continued attached to the Church, and countenanced the
persecution of the heretics. Henry Forest, a Benedictine monk, was
taken, tried, condemned for heresy, and burned at St. Andrews in 1532.
In 1534, the Bishop of Ross, under a commission issued by the primate,
held a court in the Abbey of Holyrood, and many suspected persons were
summoned to appear before it; and the king himself attended several
of the sittings clothed in scarlet. A number of the accused, both men
and women, “burned their faggots,” that is, renounced their erroneous
opinions; while some fled to England, and to other countries. On the
other hand Norman Gourlay, a priest, and David Straiton, a layman,
firmly adhered to their heresy, asserted their innocence, and
vindicated their faith to the last, and in consequence were both
condemned, and on the 27th of August suffered for their opinions, being
burned at Greenside in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh.¹ In the case of
Straiton there was a quarrel with the clergy about the tithe of fish.
He had a boat in which his servants went to sea and fished, and when
the collector insisted for the tithe of the fish, Straiton bade his
servants throw every tenth fish into the sea again, and let him seek
their tithe where he found the stock. Yet despite these executions the
new opinions continued to spread, and between the years 1534 and 1537
many persons were accused of heresy. Some of ♦the accused abjured their
opinions, while a considerable number of them fled out of the country.²
¹ _Diurnal of Occurrents_, from 1513 to 1575, pages 18‒19. “And
also there was sharp inquisition and punishment of heretics
in Edinburgh, the king himself assisted thereto. Master
Gourlay being adjured before, and Straiton obstinate in
his opinions, were burned. The Sheriff of Linlithgow, and
Captain James Borthwick, and divers others, fugitives from
the law, were convicted for heresy.”――Lesly’s _History Of
Scotland_, pages 149‒150; Knox, Volume I., pages 56‒60.
♦ missing word “the” inserted
² Knox, Volume I., pages 54‒57, 526‒531; M‘Crie’s _Life of
Knox_――Works, Volume I., pages 317‒323.
Henry VIII. was extremely anxious that the young king of Scotland
should imitate his example and shake off the authority of the Pope. In
1535, he sent ambassadors into Scotland with a proposal for a marriage
between his daughter and the Scottish king, and suggested that James
should meet him at York, where they could confer together and cement
the ties of friendship. Much showy flattery was used towards James to
induce him to follow out the proposals of his uncle; various presents
were sent to the king, consisting of horses, offers of the garter, and
a copy of a book entitled “The Doctrine of a Christian Man.” A specimen
of Henry’s efforts to convert James may be given from his instructions
to Bishop Barlow and Thomas Halcroft, his ambassadors at the Scottish
court in October, 1535: the following touches on the encroachment of
the Pope on kingly prerogatives and royal authority――“That within the
limits of your realm, such spiritual promotions and ecclesiastical
dignities as appertain to the collation of your prerogative royal, your
clergy have appropriated to the Bishop of Rome for to give and sell
them away by prevention, at his own pleasure, without your licence,
rather choosing to receive them of a foreign usurper, than of their
own natural prince, to the intent your grace should have no liberty in
their kingdom. And divers of them have encroached so large possessions,
that in richness and yearly revenue they seem able to compare with
you; and as for pre-eminent authority they far surpass your highness;
which in no condition should be suffered by so noble a prince as your
grace is, whom God has endued with prudent wisdom and discretion much
excelling many of your noble progenitors, so that nothing is to be
desired in you, save only a fervent love of God’s word, whereby without
difficulty ye shall know the office of a king, righteously how to rule
and not to be ruled of your subjects; which kingly office of God’s
ordinate institution most highly preferred, Scripture depaindeth from
the first creation hitherto. When God had created Adam and set him
in paradise, subduing to his obedient subjection all creatures, and
having no superior under God, without any restraint of free liberty
save only to obey God’s precept, what was it otherwise than a perfect
demonstration of a king’s majesty, to be in his realm as Adam was in
paradise, lord over all.” After citing various examples of kings from
Scripture, for the instruction of his nephew, which the ambassadors
were instructed to beat into his head with all their eloquence and
force; and then the practical application was presented to the young
king, thus:――“And therefore this good King Josias, only attended
to God’s word, the established foundation of princely governance,
without any contrary respect, delayed not his royal power, effectually
furthering a due reformation, whereby God’s pleasure accomplished, he
prosperously reigned over the people; exhibiting an evident example
unto your grace, both of courage and necessity, valiantly now in
the clear revelation of God’s word, to enterprise a like reformable
redress of your spiritual (so named) clergy, which as it shall be to
the glorifying of God’s honour, so must it needs be to the advancement
of your realm, also to such augmentation of inestimable riches and
unrestrained freedom of your royal liberty, as never none of your noble
progenitors hitherto could attain. How should not your treasure be
inestimably augmented, if unto your highness, as of duty ought to be,
were restored the title, jus, advowson, patronage, gifts and grants
of all spiritual promotions, with free interest in their goods, lands,
rents, revenues, and possessions, as rightfully belong to your regality,
whereof so long season they have injustely dispossessed you by their
subtle submission to the Bishop of Rome? What a kingly liberty were
it to have them subdued under your obedience and subjection, which by
unseemly sufferance are lords over you within your own dominion, whose
visured holyness is hypocrisy, and their flattering fidelity nothing
else save false dissimulation! If they feign humble submission of
allegiance, they show it for a facid intent, to be exalted above your
royalty. If they seem to motion you to justice, it shall be to revenge
their cruel quarrels. If they offer to assist you with their riches, it
is to maintain their extortionate causes. Finally, whatsoever purpose
they compass about, always the principal respect is their private
commodity, being a kingdom within themselves, confedered together
without any profitable consideration of your common public weal.”
James V. replied to Henry in these words――“As to the matter shown by
your said ambassadors, we may not of our conscience but first keep our
part toward God and our obedience to Holy Kirk, as all our forefathers
had done these thirteen hundred years by past.”¹
¹ Hamilton Papers, Volume I., pages 20, 22, _et seq._ 1890.
All the artful policy of Henry failed; the meeting between the
two kings was indefinitely postponed by the advice of the Scottish
clergy, and James remained firmly attached to the Roman hierarchy.
The agents of the English Government assert that James was completely
under the control of the clergy; and Barlow, the bishop of St. Asaph,
characterised them thus――“his spiritual unghostly councillors, who, I
dare boldly affirm that, if they might destroy us with a word, their
devilish endeavour should not long fail.... Also, I am sure that the
Council, which are only the clergy, would not willingly give such
advertisement to the king for due execution upon thieves and robbers;
for then ought he first of all to begin with them in the midst of
his realm, whose abominable abused fashion, so far out of frame, a
Christian heart abhorreth to behold. They show themselves to be in all
points the pope’s pestilent creatures, very limbs of the devil, whose
popish power violently to maintain their lying friars cease not in
their sermons, we being present, blasphemously to blatter against the
verity, with slanderous reproach of us, who have justly renounced his
wrong usurped papacy. Wherefore, in confutation of their detestable
lies, if I might obtain the king’s licence (otherwise shall I not be
suffered) to preach, I will not spare for no bodily peril, boldly to
publish the truth of God’s word among them. Whereat though the clergy
shall repine, yet many of the lay people will gladly give ear.”¹
¹ _State Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 1‒7, 10, 14,
19, _et seq._, and pages 36‒38. The _Diurnal of Occurrents_
says――“In the month of November there came an English
ambassador, with sixteen horse in his train, to infest this
realm with heresy, which was then in England among them, but
through the grace of God he came no speed but departed with
repulse” (page 19).
In 1537, Sir Ralph Sadler was sent into Scotland on a mission to the
Scottish court. He was instructed to make every endeavour to induce
James to resist the Pope and to join his uncle in common measures of
defence, and to persuade him to give no heed to the false rumours and
slanderous misrepresentations of the motives of his uncle which were
so industriously spread. He was also to propose that James should meet
with Henry, when they might have a personal interchange of views, from
which much mutual benefit was expected to result.¹ The influences which
controlled the policy of James V. were manifested in various directions.
He went to France in 1536 in search of a wife, and on the 1st of
January 1537, his marriage with Magdalene, daughter of the King of
France, was celebrated at the French court. The King and Queen landed
in Scotland on the 28th of May, amid great rejoicings; but the Queen
had a very delicate constitution, and she died on the 7th of July, the
same year, greatly lamented by the people. Shortly after an embassy was
sent to France, and Mary of Lorraine, a daughter of the Duke of Guise,
was conveyed to Scotland in 1538, and married to the King. She was a
woman of remarkable energy and talents, and played an active part in
the struggles of the Reformation in her adopted country. The house of
Guise, however, was one of the most aspiring and ambitious in France,
and its aims and policy were wholly devoted to the Roman Catholic
Church. The marriage of the King of Scots, therefore, was a plain
indication to Henry VIII. of the direction in which the policy of the
Scottish King would tend for at least some time to come. But it is only
rendering historical justice to state that James V., as compared with
his contemporary across the Border, was a liberal minded king; and when
he countenanced and permitted the execution of heretics he was merely
allowing the law of the kingdom to run its course. He was at variance
with the aristocracy as many of his ancestors had been before him; and
remembering the treatment which many of the occupants of the throne and
even himself had received at their hands, it is not surprising that he
pursued the line of policy naturally marked out for him. There is no
evidence that James was naturally cruel or inclined to push matters to
extremes. Henry VIII. on the other hand persecuted the devotees of the
Pope and the disciples of Luther with equal severity, and endeavoured
to hold the position of Pope and of King, to concentrate the power of
both in his own person, and reign above all law.
¹ _Ibid._, Volume V., pages 81‒90, 97.
In the autumn of ♦1539, James Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrews, died,
and was succeeded by his nephew, Cardinal Beaton. David Beaton, Abbot
of Arbroath in Scotland, and Bishop of Mirpoix in France, was assured
of the primacy in August 1538, and was installed in the See between the
13th and the 25th of February, 1539, six months before the death of his
uncle; a few days afterwards his natural son got a grant of lands in
Angus. Beaton was made a cardinal upon the 20th of December, 1538, and
was exceedingly anxious to obtain from the pope the office of legate a
latere. In December, 1539, he wrote to his agent at Rome to press his
suit for a commission as legate. James V. wrote to the Pope on the 16th
December, 1538, entreating that the office might be bestowed on Beaton,
and again in August, 1539, in June 1540, and in March 1541. In February,
1544, the Regent Arran also wrote to the Pope touching the same matter,
and a month after the coveted office was granted, and Beaton attained
to the summit of his power.¹
♦ “1239” replaced with “1539”
¹ _Statutes of the Scottish Church_, Volume I., pages 117,
129‒133; Sadler’s _State Papers_, Volume I., pages 15‒17;
_State Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 156, 443‒445.
Archbishop James Beaton, the cardinal’s predecessor, had
also aspired to a cardinal’s hat and the power of legate
a latere, but he failed to obtain it. David Beaton was the
only Scottish bishop on whom the dignity of a cardinal was
bestowed by the undivided Latin Church.
About the beginning of the year 1539, several persons, mostly of the
lower orders of the clergy, were accused and apprehended for heresy.
Thomas Forrest, a canon of Inchcolm and vicar of Dollar; two black
friars, named Beveridge and Killor; Duncan Simpson, a priest at
Stirling, and Robert Forrester, a layman, belonging to Stirling,
were tried before a council held by Cardinal Beaton and the Bishop of
Dunblane. They were all condemned, and were burned on the 1st day of
March, in the presence of the king, upon the Castle Hill of Edinburgh.
At the same time nine persons recanted, and many were banished. Amongst
the latter was George Buchanan, who escaped by the window of his
bed-chamber while his keepers were asleep.¹ The same year a friar of
the name of Russel was apprehended for heresy. He had been preaching at
Dumfries and other parts of the country; he was young and intelligent,
and therefore it was not likely that he would be suffered to spread
his heresies. Another youth of eighteen years, named Kennedy, was also
apprehended. Both were brought before the Archbishop of Glasgow, who,
it is said, was reluctant to condemn them. They were both, however,
sentenced to death and burned at Glasgow. Russel before his death is
reported to have spoken the following words:――“This is your hour and
the power of darkness; ye now sit as judges, whilst we stand before
you wrongfully accused and more wrongfully condemned, but the day shall
come when our innocence shall appear, and then ye shall see your own
blindness to your everlasting confusion. Go forward, and fulfil the
measure of your iniquity.”²
¹ _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 23; Knox, Volume I., pages
62‒63, 521‒522; Buchanan’s _History of Scotland_, Book XIV.,
chapter 55; _State Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume V., page 154.
² Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., page 216; Knox,
Volume I., pages 63‒66; _State Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume
V., page 141.
These executions were not followed by the results expected. Instead
of stamping out the heresy they only added more intensity to it,
and the proscribed opinions were more firmly held by those who had
embraced them. It has been maintained by some that if a persecution be
sufficiently severe and prolonged it must extinguish heresy. A great
deal depends, however, upon the state of civilisation the people have
reached among whom the heresy exists. If a nation be in a comparatively
low moral and social condition, and lives under a political or military
despotism, heresies or opinions obnoxious to the ruling powers might
be extinguished, or rather banished, from that particular quarter of
the earth. In such circumstances persecution might be carried to a
pitch which would crush the best of causes. But although the usual
means by which heresy is propagated be cut off, it cannot eradicate
what is believed to be the truth from the minds of those who have
cordially embraced it. Oppressive laws and a tyrannical and merciless
administration, if carried on long enough, will no doubt prevent
the expression of heresies, or of any opinion whatever; still it can
hardly be assumed that a heresy is extinguished because its expression
is legally and effectively suppressed, which is the utmost that the
severest persecution can effect. And it is just at this point where the
influences arise in which the human mind derives a peculiar enjoyment
from holding on to opinions that have been prohibited by Church and
State. For there is unquestionably a high degree of inward pleasure
in cherishing proscribed opinions which the judgment and the moral
sense believe to be true, and upon this some of the very strongest
self-sustaining and original elements of character have been developed.
The bond of sympathy that radiated in the hearts of the heretics was
not broken when one or two were burnt, indeed their memory and opinions
began then only to be thoroughly grasped, and were afterwards retained
with a vividness and a faith which their fellow believers alone could
fully realise. If it had been possible to burn the enthusiasm of the
heretic and of the martyr along with their bodies, truth and religion
and morality would long ago have been banished from the world, or
rather the higher characteristics of humanity could not have been
developed. Hence heresy may be cursed and condemned, heretics may be
tortured and consumed to ashes; and yet, as if to mock the limits of
the powers which have vainly assayed to crush them, again and again
heresies have risen up and shone with a lustre all its own, drawing
fresh energy from the manes of the departed.
A parliament met at Edinburgh in December, 1541, and at once proceeded
to deal with two measures which directly trenched upon the privileges
of the aristocracy. An act was passed confirming the revocation of
all grants of lands, lordships, customs, burgh rents, annual fishings,
donations, life rents, and gifts, which had been made during the king’s
minority. The variety and extent of the transactions which this act
covered must have appeared extremely alarming, especially to those who
had any hand in the Government within the period specified. Another act
declared the Western and the Orkney and Shetland Islands to be annexed
to the Crown, together with the lordships of Douglas, Bothwell, Preston,
Tantallon, Crawford Lindsay, Crawford John, Bonhill, Jedburgh Forest,
♦Glamis, Liddesdale, Evandale, and the superiority of the Earldom of
Angus, with all its forts, castles, and whatever else pertained to it.
Though these measures were within the legal limits of the constitution
of the kingdom, they were far too bold; but if the Crown had been able
to carry them into effect the results would have been beneficial, as
the disorderly state of the inhabitants in the annexed districts would
have been remedied, and peace and order introduced. The Government
was aware of the danger attending the path on which it had entered,
and attempted to appease the ruffled feelings of the nobles and chiefs
by proclaiming a general pardon for all crimes committed down to the
date of the act. This, however, lost much of its calming effect owing
to the clause which excluded the banished Earl of Angus and all his
adherents.¹ The nobles now became nervously apprehensive, and their
feeling soon manifested itself.
♦ “Glammis” replaced with “Glamis”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
357‒358, _et seq._
In a parliament held in March, 1541, new acts were passed against the
spread of heresy. To question the supreme authority of the Pope was
declared to be a capital crime, and even a suspicion of heresy was
deemed sufficient to disqualify any one for office in the Government or
elsewhere; all meetings for the discussion of religious doctrines were
strictly prohibited, and rewards were promised to those who revealed
to the authorities where such meetings were held. The Church was so
solicitous to preserve the purity of her doctrines that no Catholic was
permitted to converse with any one who had embraced a single heretical
opinion. Another statute was passed which tells that one special
feature of the Scottish Reformation had already begun to show itself;
as it was directed against those who broke and cast down the images of
the saints, or otherwise treated them with irreverence and dishonour.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 370‒371.
While these events were passing at home, Henry VIII. was assuming
a more dictatorial tone, and making demands which no Government of
Scotland could ever entertain. His project of a meeting at York was
again renewed, and James agreed to meet him there. The King, however,
on the advice of the clergy, in the end declined the meeting. Henry was
greatly disappointed, and instantly burst into an uncontrollable rage,
leaping in his fury and raving like a maniac. Nothing short of a war
of conquest against Scotland could appease him. King James’s advisers
would not let him go to York; and they had good reason for distrusting
his uncle’s professed intentions, as the State papers amply testify.¹
¹ _State Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 198‒205, 214.
In 1542, Henry resolved on war, in order to let the Scots feel his
power. The strife began on the Borders with all the old fury. James
mustered his army and marched southwards, but tidings soon came that
the English army had disbanded for want of provisions. The Scotch
nobles refused to follow their king. Their hour was come, and they
determined to show their power by mortifying the man, who had so
ruthlessly punished them, and who, according to their ideas, had
encroached upon the old rights of their class. Although forced to
disband his army, James was very loath to be baulked in his intention
of retaliating upon Henry, and very shortly after it was resolved that
a smaller force should make a raid across the Border――a body which was
said to have numbered ten thousand mustered. They had passed the Esk
and were approaching English ground when a strange fate befell them. It
was at this point that Oliver Sinclair, one of the king’s favourites,
began to read the commission which appointed him to the chief command.
The nobles present were enraged at this new encroachment upon their
hereditary rights, a storm of talk arose among them, and all discipline
and order was forgotten. Lord Dacre, the English leader, was hovering
near with a body of cavalry and a force of three thousand footmen.
When he saw the confusion of the Scots, he ordered his party to dash
in amongst them, and in a moment the Scottish army was scattered in
all directions. A number of the Scots were drowned in crossing the Esk,
many were slain in the pursuit by the English cavalry, and upwards of
a thousand prisoners, including nine nobles, fell into the hands of the
enemy. This severe disaster happened on the 24th of November, 1542, and
became known as the panic of Solway Moss.¹
¹ Lesly’s _History Of Scotland_, page 165; Knox, Volume I.,
pages 86‒88. In the fifth volume of the _State Papers_ of
the reign of Henry VIII., there is a list of the Scottish
prisoners taken at Solway Moss, in which the value of their
property and the names of their hostages are stated (pages
232‒235). See also the _Hamilton Papers_, Volume I.,
Appendix to Preface, page 98, pages 307, 311‒313. 1890.
The tidings of this disaster seems to have broken the spirit of the
king. He brooded over his disappointments and what he regarded as an
unbearable disgrace; and his mind became confused. He continued to
sink lower and lower, and died on the 14th December, 1542. Although
he was hard on the nobles, he was popular amongst the people. The line
of policy which circumstances naturally led him to pursue, cannot be
commended either for its wisdom or sagacity; yet, when everything is
taken into account, James V. appears as a ruler fully equal to the
average of his contemporaries.
The Crown then fell to an infant, Mary Stuart, born in the Palace
of Linlithgow seven days before the death of her father. She was
destined to become the most famous of the long line of Scottish
sovereigns. In her infancy and innocent childhood she was an object
of extremely fierce contention. Her youth and beauty, her talents and
accomplishments, her success and failure, the strength and weakness of
her character, her imprisonment and romantic escape, her flight into
England, her long captivity and tragic end――all concurred to fill the
story of her life with the most absorbing interest.
Immediately after the death of the king, Cardinal Beaton made an
attempt to obtain the chief position in the government of the kingdom.
He was to be the head of the Council and the guardian of the infant
princess, associated with the Earls of Arran, Huntly, Moray, and Argyle;
and a proclamation was issued at Edinburgh commanding the people to
obey the Cardinal and the above earls. But early in January, 1543,
the Earl of Arran was named as Governor of the kingdom, and recognised
as next heir to the throne; and his appointment was confirmed by
parliament in March the same year.
When Henry VIII. heard of the events in Scotland, he assumed that
Providence had given him a great opportunity, and at once formed the
idea of arranging for a marriage between the infant queen and his
son. Matrimonial projects were all-absorbing matters with him, and
if his exploits in this region of activity were not always attended
with honour and glory, he certainly never lost his relish for the
pursuit. His high sense of justice, his love of truth, no less than
the unspotted purity of his motives, suggested to him that the banished
Earl of Angus, and the Scottish nobles taken at Solway Moss might be
made useful agents for the accomplishment of his scheme in Scotland!
Henry proposed to the Earl of Angus and the captive nobles that they
should enter into an agreement with him, to do their utmost to promote
the marriage project, and to deliver the infant queen into his hands
to be kept in England. They agreed to this, and also to recognise Henry
as lord superior of Scotland; they promised to exert their influence
to procure for him the government of the kingdom, and to deliver all
the national fortresses into his hands. This bond between Henry and the
Scottish prisoners was drawn up with great formality and minuteness,
yet, with all his adroitness in taking advantage of the circumstances
in which the Scotch nobles were placed, he gained very little by it.¹
¹ Sadler’s _State Papers_, Volume ♦I., pages 69, 74‒75, 81, 97;
_State Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 239‒241.
♦ missing Volume number “I.” inserted
Arran was not a man of great talents, and yielded too much to the
promises and bullying of Henry VIII. The Solway prisoners, on being
released, had promised to do great service for Henry when they returned
to Scotland; and the banished Earl of Angus, and Sir George Douglas,
had undertaken to procure the government of the kingdom for him
and to place the Crown on his head. But the performances of these
Lords greatly disappointed the expectation of this ambitious and
vain-glorious king. In short, his despotic demands were unreasonable
and impracticable; for he demanded that the Cardinal should be seized
and delivered into his hands; that the infant Queen should be betrothed
to his son, and also delivered into his hands; and in truth he wanted
possession of the kingdom of Scotland, although the means which he used
to attain his end, were even more despicable than any which had been
employed by any of his predecessors. In order to secure the support and
confidence of the Governor Arran, in April 1543, Henry offered to give
his daughter, Elizabeth, in marriage to Arran’s son. This he imagined
would certainly secure the Governor to his interest. He said: “For
we have a daughter called Lady Elizabeth, endowed with virtue and
qualities agreeable with her status ... if we shall see him sincerely
to go through with us in all things, to condescend to a marriage to
be celebrated between his son and our daughter, if he shall think it
for his favour and advancement to desire the same, and thereby to take
his son conjoined with our daughter, as our son-in-law, being content
according to that status to bring up and nourish him in our court with
us.... And what honour, what reputation, what worldly glory, it shall
be to him otherwise, for his son to marry a King of England’s daughter,
and to be nourished up thereafter in a King of England’s Court,
we doubt not he can consider.” But the one important condition in
this proposal was that Arran’s son must live in England. Henry was
playing with Arran, for he had no intention of giving his daughter
in marriage to Arran’s son. He continued to clamour for the capture
and imprisonment of the Cardinal, and to scold the released prisoners
and the Earl of Angus that they had done next to nothing in advancing
his designs in Scotland. After much underhand dealing and corruption,
on the 6th of June, with difficulty the conditions of the treaty of
marriage between the infant Queen and Henry’s son, and the treaty
of peace, were agreed to by the Regent and a party of the nobles. In
this transaction the Earls of Huntly, Argyle, and Moray, had no part.
Shortly after, Henry proposed to give the Regent Arran the whole of
Scotland beyond the Tay, but the offer was coldly received. On the 25th
of August, the treaties were ratified at Holyrood by the Regent, in
name of the Queen and the three Estates, in presence of a portion of
the nobles, but the Cardinal and his party were absent. These treaties,
however, were never ratified by Henry himself; and it is evident that
he did not intend to carry his purpose into effect by treaty, but hoped
shortly to take possession of the young Queen and the best part of her
kingdom, unclogged by special conditions.
The general feeling of the Scots was decidedly opposed to the
interference and domineering spirit of Henry VIII. The Regent and a
section of the nobles lent their support to his schemes for a time, but
at last a coalition was formed against him, and then the Regent sailed
under the canvas of the Cardinal. While Henry professed a desire for
peace, he was actively preparing for an invasion of Scotland. The
course of events had turned against him, his friends were falling off;
and so keen was the feeling against his schemes amongst the citizens
of Edinburgh that they threatened to lay violent hands on Sadler, the
English Ambassador. Henry himself, in his bullying tone, addressed a
letter to them, in which he scolded them thus:――“We have thought good
to admonish you to beware and eschew that outrage, whereby ye might
provoke our extreme displeasure and indignation, and to forbear that
attempt, not only for the detestation of it in all men’s ears, but
also for fear of the revenge of our sword to extend to that town and
commonalty, and all such people as shall by any means come into our
hands, to the extermination of you to the third and fourth generation.”
The ambassador found refuge in Angus’ Castle of Tantallon. Parliament
met at Edinburgh, and on the 11th December 1543, the treaties of
marriage and peace between the two kingdoms were declared to have been
violated by the seizure and detention of Scottish ships by the English,
and were therefore annulled.¹
¹ Hamilton, _Papers_, Volumes I., II.; _Acts of the Parliaments
of Scotland_, Volume II., page 432.
Henry then prepared to invade Scotland. It was indeed hard that the
Scots could not see his many virtues; it was harder still that they
could not believe in his benign purposes, nor appreciate the many acts
of condescension which he had shown towards them; he had suffered them
long, but his forbearance was at last exhausted, and he must let them
feel the weight of his wrath. On the 10th of April, 1544, he issued
instructions through his Privy Council to the Earl of Hertford, the
leader of the inroads into Scotland; and these instructions were
marked by a ferocity of spirit, a fiendish malignity, and a barbarity
unmatched in the annals of Europe. Hertford was ordered in Henry’s name
to make an inroad into Scotland: “There to put all to fire and sword,
to burn Edinburgh town, to raze and destroy when you have sacked and
gotten what you can out of it, as there may remain for ever a perpetual
memory of the vengeance of God lighted upon it, for their falsehood
and disloyalty.... Sack Holyrood House, and as many towns and villages
about Edinburgh as ye conveniently can. Sack Leith, and burn and
subvert it, and all the rest, putting man, woman, and child to fire and
sword without exception where any resistance shall be made against you.
And this done, pass over to Fife land, and extend like extremities and
destructions in all towns and villages whereunto ye may conveniently
reach, not forgetting among all the rest, so to spoil and turn upside
down the Cardinal’s town of St. Andrews, as that the upper stone may
be the nether, and not one stick stand by another, sparing no creature
alive within the same, especially such as either in friendship or blood
are allied to the Cardinal; and the accomplishment of all this shall be
most acceptable to the majesty and honour of the King.”¹
¹ Hamilton, _Papers_, Volume II., pages 325‒327. Compare _State
Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 350‒352, 371‒374.
The Earl of Hertford followed out his instructions pretty fully, he led
two expeditions into Scotland, the great one in May 1544, and the other
in September, and both were marked by the mere wanton destruction of
life and property. Towns and villages one after another were sacked
and burned, and wherever the English forces marched, death, desolation,
and woe proclaimed the wrath of Henry VIII. The monasteries of Melrose,
Kelso, Holyrood, Jedburgh, Dryburgh, and other religious houses, were
committed to the flames and laid in ruins.¹
¹ _State Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 521‒525;
Morton’s _Monastic Annals of Teviotdale_, pages 36, 100, 243,
301; _Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries Scotland_,
Volume I., page 271, _et seq._
In the reports of the progress of the expedition of May, Hertford gave
detailed descriptions of the burning and sacking of Edinburgh, Holyrood,
Leith, and many other towns and villages. When the army was encamped
at Leith, he said, “The town of Leith we found to be of good substance
and riches, at the least of Xᵐᵉ li., as we suppose, whereof there was
a great store of grain of all kinds; finding also within the haven
two fair ships of the late Scottish King’s, called the ‘Salmon’ and
‘Unicorn,’ for which I, the lord admirall have taken such order, that
by the suffrance of God, the same shall arrive to your majesty with the
rest of your navy.” From the same place he wrote: “We have daily sent
forth both horsemen and footmen, as well by sea as by land, which have
devastated the country hereabout, and within six miles of Stirling,
in such sort as there shall not only remain a perpetual memory of
our being here, but also, we trust, I, the Earl of Hertford, have so
accomplished the charge committed to me by your highness in that behalf,
as the enemies shall neither be able to recover this damage while we
live, nor yet to assemble any power this year in these parts of the
realm, whatsoever aid be sent to them out of France or Denmark to annoy
your majesty’s subjects, or to make any invasion into your realm of
England.”¹
¹ Hamilton, _Papers_, Volume II., pages 360‒371.
Henry VIII. evidently had engendered in himself a remorseless enmity
against the Scots; and there was one man whom he detested more than the
rest, and pursued with a venomous malignity. This was Cardinal Beaton,
the most talented and strongest adherent of Catholicism in Scotland,
and a politician, according to the standard of the times, of consummate
ability. The Cardinal had worked hard against the policy of Henry,
and had defeated it. Since the death of James V. Henry had marked out
the Cardinal, and had employed every means to insnare and crush him,
but Beaton was well aware of his venomous designs against him. Henry
lent his influence to a plot against the Cardinal’s life, and at last
promised a reward to the other conspirators who were concocting a
scheme to murder him. As early as 1543 Henry had approved of the plot,
and in the event of its being successful, that is, if the Cardinal
was killed, and his murderers forced to flee to England, then he bound
himself to protect them from all the consequences of their act.¹ But
despite all the efforts of Henry and of those whom he employed the
Cardinal eluded the machinations of his mortal enemies for several
years.
¹ _State Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 242‒243,
377, 449‒458, 467, 470‒472, 512; _Statutes of the Scottish
Church_, Volume I., page 142. There is a pretty full account
of the plot against the cardinal in an appendix to the fifth
volume of Tytler’s _History of Scotland_, pages 453‒470.
While these events were passing and ruffling the surface of society,
the reformed opinions were gradually spreading amongst the people. The
contradictory and vacillating policy of the Regent was well adapted
to weaken the authority of the old religious creed. In March 1543,
Parliament passed an act authorising all men to have and to read the
Old and New Testament in the common speech of the country, English or
Scottish. This liberty, however, was only enjoyed for a short time, and
it is doubtful if any edition of the Scriptures was printed in Scotland
during the brief interval in which the act was allowed to remain in
force.¹ The Regent Arran, in a few months after the passing of this act,
dismissed the two reformed preachers whom he had retained in his family,
and the Cardinal soon obtained a complete ascendency. Those affected
by the new opinions began to manifest their feeling by attacking and
defacing the houses of the Black and Grey Friars in Dundee. About
the same time attempts were made to mar the building of the Black
Friars at Edinburgh, a movement which was repelled by the citizens; and
these outbursts of heretical feeling quickly received a sharp check. A
parliament which met at Edinburgh passed an act declaring――“How there
is great murmour because the heretics more and more rise and spread
within the realm, sowing their damnable opinions contrary to the faith
and laws of the holy Church and the acts and constitutions of the
kingdom.” Therefore all the prelates and ordinaries were exhorted, each
within their own diocese, to inquire after all such heretical persons,
and to proceed against them according to the laws of the Church, and
the Regent promised to be always ready to do everything therein that
belonged to his office.²
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 415,
425; Craufurd’s _Officers of State_, pages 77, 438.
² _Diurnal of Occurrents_, _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume II., page 443.
The year 1544 began very ominously for the so-called heretics. The
Cardinal was then master of the situation in Scotland, and he was not
the man to let his opportunity slip. About the end of January he held
a court at Perth, and many suspected persons were summoned before it
and accused of heresy. A number of them were banished, but four men,
James Hunter, a flesher, William Anderson, a maltman, James Randlson,
a skinner, Robert Lamb, a burgess of Perth, and his wife, were all
condemned. The four men were hanged, and the helpless woman, Lamb’s
wife, who had a child at her breast, was drowned; she gave her infant
to the attendants, her hands and feet were then bound, and she was
thrown into a deep pool of water where her sufferings were ended.¹
This was the only instance of a woman being put to death for religious
opinions in Scotland before the Reformation.
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 117‒118, 523‒527.
George Wishart returned to Scotland in the end of the year 1544. He
was a popular preacher, and was supported by the Earls of Cassillis and
Glencairn, the Lairds of Brunston, Ormiston, and Calder. These men were
deeply in the confidence of Henry VIII., and were plotting the murder
of Cardinal Beaton; but whether George Wishart was concerned in this
plot, is a disputed point. The evidence, however, on which it has
been attempted to show that he was implicated in the plots against the
Cardinal’s life, certainly does not approach to the requisite standard.
The only evidence connecting Wishart, the martyr, with the plot against
the Cardinal’s life rests on the fact that a Scotsman named Wishart
conveyed letters from Crichton of Brunston to Henry VIII., and it is
only conjectured that this individual was Wishart, the preacher of
the reformed doctrines. There are some presumptive circumstances which
seem to point to him, such as his known association with the Laird of
Brunston and others of the conspirators. But even if this conjecture
were true, it would not amount to much, as people in these days did not
view the murder of an enemy of their faith in the light in which we do,
on the contrary, they thought it was rendering a service to God to cut
off an able opposer of the truth.¹ Wishart preached in Montrose, Dundee,
Ayr, Perth, and in other parts of the country. He delivered his sermons
with much vehemence, boldly attacking the errors of the Church and
declaiming against the profligacy of the clergy. Knox first appears in
history in company with Wishart.²
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 125‒138, 534‒537.
² Buchanan, Book XV., chapter 32; Knox, Volume I., pages
125‒137.
In the beginning of the year 1546, Wishart was in Lothian, and
preached in Haddington, where John Knox accompanied him. On the 16th
of January he was apprehended at Ormiston, in East Lothian, by the Earl
of Bothwell, and conveyed first to Edinburgh, and shortly after to St.
Andrews. He was tried on the 28th of February, condemned, and executed
on the 11th of March. When the fire was prepared, he was led from
the castle to the stake imploring mercy of his Saviour and commending
his soul to Him. He then addressed the people, beseeching them not to
be offended with the word of God, for the profession of which he was
suffering. He said――“For the word’s sake, and the true gospel which was
given me by the grace of God, I suffer this day by men, not sorrowfully
but with a glad heart and mind. For this cause I was sent, that I
should suffer this fire for Christ’s sake. Consider and behold my
visage, ye shall not see me change my colour. This grim fire I fear not,
and so I pray you for to do if that any persecution come to you for the
word’s sake and not to fear them that slay the body and afterwards have
no power to slay the soul. Some have said of me that I taught that the
soul of man should sleep until the last day, but I know surely, and my
faith is such, that my soul shall sup with my Saviour this night ere
it be six hours, for whom I suffer this.” He then prayed for those who
had accused him, saying――“I beseech thee, Father of Heaven, to forgive
them that through ignorance or an evil mind have forged lies upon me;
I forgive them with all my heart; I beseech Christ to forgive those
who have condemned me to death this day.” And finally to the people he
said――“I beseech you, brethren and sisters, to exhort your bishops to
learn the word of God, that at least they may be ashamed to do evil and
learn to do good: and if they will not convert themselves and turn from
their wicked ways the wrath of God shall swiftly overtake them.” He was
then hanged, and his remains burned to ashes.¹
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 137‒171; Fox’s _Acts and Monuments_,
pages 632‒♦667; _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I.,
page 20. Wishart produced an English translation of the
Swiss Confession of Faith, which was printed after his death.
♦ “267” replaced with “667”
The burning of Wishart aroused a deep feeling in the popular mind, and
many began to say that they would not suffer the life of innocent men
to be taken away. As the Regent had declined to authorise the execution
of Wishart, all the odium of the deed rested upon the Cardinal, so that
his enemies increased in number and bitterness. Indeed Beaton had been
endeavouring to strengthen his position by the old custom of entering
into bonds of man-rent with many of the nobles; he was secure on the
side of France, and the faction of the Scottish nobles opposed to
his line of policy had been almost put out of reckoning. Soon after
the death of Wishart the Cardinal passed through Angus, and attended
the marriage of one of his natural daughters at Finhaven Castle. When
he was thus enjoying himself, news came that Henry VIII. was again
preparing to invade Scotland. He hurried back to St. Andrews to put his
castle into a state of defence, as he dreaded that it would be attacked.
At that moment his enemies in Scotland were maturing their scheme to
murder him, and the folds of the plot were fast closing around their
victim.¹
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 147‒174; Lord Lindsay’s _Lives of
the Lindsays_, Volume I., page 201; Tytler’s _History of
Scotland_, Volume V., pages 456‒470.
The Cardinal was living securely in his own Castle of St. Andrews,
which a number of workmen were engaged in repairing. Early on the
morning of the 29th May, 1546, Norman Lesley, the Master of Rothes,
and two others, slipped into the castle; these were followed by James
Melville and other three, who asked an interview with the Cardinal;
immediately after them the Laird of Grange came up with eight armed
men. The suspicion of the porter at the gate was now roused, but he was
instantly stabbed and thrown into the ditch. Thus in a few minutes the
party were within the walls of the castle; and with surprising alacrity
its few defenders, and the workmen on the ramparts were led out, and
all the gates guarded. The unusual noise had aroused the Cardinal from
his bed, and he was ascending the stair of the castle when his enemies
came upon him and ruthlessly murdered him. Meanwhile the alarm was
given in the city, the common bell was rung, and the citizens, with
their provost at their head, rushed in confusion to the castle, and
loudly called for the Cardinal; but they were too late, and to show
them that the work was done, the murderers exposed the body of the
Cardinal over the castle wall. The conspirators, only sixteen in number,
kept possession of the castle.¹
¹ _State Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 560‒561.
Spottiswood.
Thus perished Cardinal Beaton by the hands of a set of cruel and hired
assassins. The Cardinal was the ablest champion of Catholicism in
Scotland; and John Hamilton, a brother of the Regent, who succeeded to
the primacy, was much inferior in energy and talents to his predecessor.
According to the laws of the Church, Beaton’s moral character was
extremely defective; but then amongst the clerical dignitaries of the
period, the laws of purity and chastity were utterly disregarded, while
the morals of the Cardinal were just those of his day. He has been
often blamed for persecuting the adherents of the reformed opinions,
but when compared with his contemporaries, it appears that the number
of persons put to death by him was not great; and there is no evidence
that he was naturally cruel. That he was much respected and even loved
by many of the citizens of St. Andrews, seems evident. That the men who
put him to death were not actuated by religious motives has long ago
been clearly proved.¹ The feelings, sentiments, and ideas of those who
originated, sustained, and continued the Reformation, were of a very
different character from those which animated the mercenary and greedy
plotters who cut short the life of Cardinal Beaton.
¹ Hosack’s _Queen Mary_, Volume I., page 13. When the citizens
of St. Andrews came running to the castle, Knox says they
cried――“What have ye done with my Lord Cardinal? Where is
my Lord Cardinal? Have ye slain my Lord Cardinal? Let us see
my Lord Cardinal!” And when they were told that he was no
more, they cried more eagerly――“We shall never depart till
we see him!” Then his body was shown over the wall “to the
faithless multitude, who would not believe before it saw.”
Works, Volume I., page 178.
CHAPTER XIV.
_History of the Reformation to the
Overthrow of the Roman Catholic Church._
THE sixteen conspirators who had seized the Castle of St. Andrews
were soon joined by about one hundred and forty of their adherents,
who formed a garrison and defied all the force at the disposal of the
Regent. The Cardinal at the time of his death held the Regent’s son
James, Lord Hamilton, afterwards third Earl of Arran, as a hostage. He
was retained by the conspirators as a pledge for their own advantage;
as the Government were afraid he would be delivered to the English.
John Rough, a reformed preacher, entered the castle soon after the
Cardinal’s death, and began to preach to the garrison. The Regent
besieged the castle from the end of August to December without success.
In April 1547, John Knox had become wearied by wandering from place
to place to avoid persecution, and he felt inclined to visit the
schools of Germany; but having the charge of some gentlemen’s sons, he
entered the Castle of St. Andrews. During the intervals of the siege
a Protestant congregation had been formed in the town, and about the
end of May, Knox consented to assume the functions of their minister.
Rough had been unable to match the debating powers of John Annand, the
principal of St. Leonard’s College, and a firm adherent of Catholicism;
but Knox, according to his own narrative, refuted all the arguments of
the principal, and compelled him to retire behind the authority of the
Church, which had already condemned Lutherism and all other heresies.
After worsting the principal, Knox on the following Sunday preached
his first public sermon in the parish church of St. Andrews, where
were present John Mair, Winram, the sub-prior, many of the canons, and
some of the friars. In this sermon he showed to his own satisfaction
that the Roman Church was the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, and so on.
A discussion then ensued between Knox on the one side, and Winram and
a friar on the other; but neither party was convinced by the arguments
of the other. The Catholic clergy themselves then began to preach
regularly in the parish church every Sunday. Knox continued his sermons
on the week days, and the numbers of those who embraced the reformed
opinions increased. However, this episode in the history of the
Reformation was abruptly terminated.¹
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 181‒202; _Register of the Privy
Council_, Volume I., pages 26, 31, 33, 38, 39, 44, 47, 58;
_State Papers_, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 563‒564; _Acts
of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 478, 479.
Meanwhile, however, the new opinions were spreading. In the month of
June 1546, the Council issued a proclamation warning all persons not to
pillage or destroy monastic and church buildings. It stated that――“In
these troublous times it is dreaded and feared that evil disposed
persons will invade, destroy, cast down, and withhold abbeys, abbey
places, parish kirks, friars’ houses, nunneries, chapels, and other
spiritual men’s houses, against the law of God and man, and contrary
to the liberty and freedom of the holy Church and acts of parliament
made and observed in all bygone times.... All and sundry were charged
that none of them take upon hand any of these kirks, religious places,
or houses, or to withhold, intermot, or take the same at their own
hand by way of deed hereafter, or to spoil the jewels and ornament of
the church ordained for God’s service and dedicated to it, under the
penalty of forfeiture of life, lands, and goods.”¹ The bishops and the
priests were enraged at the proceedings in St. Andrews, and they ran to
the Regent, to the Queen, and the whole Council, with their complaints,
crying――“What are we doing? Shall we suffer this whole realm to be
infected with pernicious doctrine? Fy upon you, and upon us!”² The
Queen and the French ambassador then comforted them with the assurance
that matters would ere long be remedied. On the 19th of March 1547, the
bishops and clergy assembled at Edinburgh, and presented to the Regent
and Council a supplication, calling on them to enforce the laws against
the followers of the pestilent heresies of Luther, which had not only
spread in several quarters of the kingdom, but also in the Court, and
the Regent’s presence, and was sometimes preached openly; and it would
daily increase unless the arm of the civil power assisted the spiritual
authority to arrest its progress. The Regent and the Council acceded
to their request, and desired to be furnished with the names of the
heretics and the teachers of heresy; “and his Grace and the temporal
lords shall take them and cause the laws of the realm to be executed
against them, ay, as he is required thereto, according to the laws of
holy Church, and ordained this deliverance to be inserted in the books
of the Council.”³
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 28‒29.
² Knox, Volume I., pages 202‒203.
³ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., page 61, 63‒64.
But the resources at the command of the Regent were not sufficient
to reduce the Castle of St. Andrews, and there the heretics were
practising their own forms of religion. In the end of the month of
June 1547, however, a French force arrived in Scotland, and attacked
the castle by sea and land. After the guns were put into position, and
the batteries opened fire, the bold defenders of the castle were soon
brought to submission. The garrison had imagined that they would obtain
more favourable terms from the French commander and the King of France
than from the Regent Arran and the Council, and surrendered themselves
to the French commander.¹ But they were conveyed to France and treated
as criminals. They arrived at Fecamp, a seaport about midway between
Dieppe and Havre, then passed up the Seine and anchored before Rouen;
and the chief gentlemen who had expected to be liberated were put into
various prisons; while the rest were left in the galleys and hardly
treated, among whom were James Balfour, and his two brothers, and John
Knox. The Catholics both of Scotland and France rejoiced greatly at
the fate of the heretics and the enemies of the late Cardinal. Knox,
along with his fellow-prisoners, had to work on the galleys chained
as a slave. After an imprisonment of eighteen months he obtained his
liberty in 1549, upon the intercession, it was supposed, of the English
Government. Knox came to England, and soon after he was appointed to
preach in Berwick; but in 1550 he was removed to Newcastle, where he
continued his labours. In 1551, he was appointed one of King Edward’s
chaplains, and he remained in England till after the death of Edward VI.
Knox left England in the beginning of March, 1554, and passed to Geneva
to pursue his private studies. Soon after he was called to be minister
to the English exiles in Frankfort, entering on his duties there in
November 1554. But disputes arising in the congregation regarding the
Book of Common Prayer, and other ceremonies, he relinquished his charge,
and in March 1555, returned to Geneva.²
¹ _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 44; Buchanan, Book XV.; Knox,
Volume I., pages 203‒206.
² Knox, Volume I., pages 206, 225‒232; Volume III., pages 156,
215, 380. Lesly’s _History Of Scotland_, page 195.
On the 28th of January, 1547, Henry VIII. died, but the policy of
aggression towards Scotland was continued. The Duke of Somerset, the
new Governor, invaded the kingdom with a strong army and a naval force;
and on the 10th of September, 1547, the Scots risked a battle, but were
completely defeated. Many of the Scots were slain, while others were
taken prisoners in the flight. This disastrous defeat became known in
history as the Battle of Pinkie; subsequently the Scots were reduced
to great extremities. The English and Scots became much exasperated;
the war assumed a fierce and ruthless character, and acts of shocking
cruelty were frequently perpetrated. In 1548 a French army of seven
thousand men arrived to assist the Scots; while the same year the young
Queen was sent to France, and thus one cause of the war was removed.
After many severe struggles, the French and the Scots drove the English
out of the castles and recovered the southern districts of the kingdom.
Peace was at length concluded in April 1550.
When the pressure of external enemies was removed the nation breathed
more freely. But the internal political and religious conflict
proceeded; and, as the contest between the old and the new religious
views became closer and clearer, and the shadow of the revolution was
more distinctly seen approaching, the Church and the Government acutely
felt the gravity of the issues involved. When the heretics were few in
number burning might have kept them down or caused them to hide their
faces; but it was now perceived that if heresy was to be extinguished,
other means would have to be employed. The whole body of the clergy,
from the primate to the humblest monk and friar, must then betake
themselves to the proper functions of their calling, and discharge
their varied duties honestly and faithfully. Within the ten years
immediately preceding the Reformation there were four provincial
councils of the Church held in Scotland; and they enacted and adopted
one hundred and thirty-one canons, the greater part of which were
directed against the immoral lives of the clergy, their ignorance,
and the neglect of their essential duties.¹ The provincial council
of 1549 ordered a strict search to be made for heresy and heretical
books, especially poems and ballads; and to make the inquest effective
the inquisitors were supplied with a schedule of the chief points
of heresy. Thus the chief points of heresy enumerated in the canons
were――“Speaking against the rites and sacraments of the Church,
especially the sacrifice of the mass, the sacraments of baptism,
confirmation, extreme unction, and penance; contempt of the censures
of the Church; denial of the reign of the souls of saints with Christ
in glory; denial of the immortality of the soul; denial of purgatory;
denial of prayer and intercession of the saints; denial of the
lawfulness of images in Christian churches; denial of recompense for
works of faith and charity; denial of the authority of general councils
in controversies of faith; neglect of the fasts and festivals of the
Church. Heretical books, especially poems and ballads against the
Church or clergy, were to be diligently sought after and burned.”
¹ See under pages 40‒43. Also _Statutes of the Scottish Church_,
Volume II., pages 81‒176. A number of the canons enacted in
the provincial council of 1549 were adopted from the decrees
of the Council of Trent passed in June, 1546, and March,
1547; _Statutes of the Scottish Church_, Volume I., page 150.
The part which the popular poems and ballads played in the Reformation
struggle will be illustrated in the chapter on the literature of the
period. One of the canons of the Provincial Council of 1552 stated
that――“Even in the most populous parishes very few of the parishioners
came to mass or to sermon, that in the time of service jesting and
irreverence go on within the church, sports and secular business in
the porch and the churchyard. It therefore enacted that the name of
every person wilfully absenting himself from his parish church, shall
be taken down by the curate and reported to the Rural Dean, and that
all traffic in church porches, in churchyards, or in the immediate
neighbourhood, shall be forbidden on Sundays and other holidays during
divine worship.”
It was in the Provincial Council of 1552 that the publication of
the Catechism was sanctioned. At that time it was openly confessed
that――“The inferior clergy and the prelates for the most part are not
in the meanwhile sufficiently learned to instruct the people rightly
in the Catholic faith, in things necessary to salvation, or to reclaim
them from the path of error.... This work, since commonly known as
Archbishop Hamilton’s Catechism, was to be read to the people in church,
before high mass, when there was no sermon, as much as would occupy
half an hour, being read from the pulpit every Sunday and holiday
with a loud voice, clearly, distinctly, impressively, and solemnly by
the rector, vicar, or curate, in his surplice and stole. The clergy
were enjoined to exercise themselves daily in reading it, lest their
stammering or breaking down might move the jeers of the people; and
heavy penalties, fine and imprisonment, imposed on all who should fail
to observe any part of the canons regarding it.”¹
¹ _Statutes of the Scottish Church_, Volume I., pages 150, 151,
154; Volume II., pages 117‒120, 135‒139.
Thus the party within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church in
Scotland wished to redress gross abuses without demolishing the old
organisations. The Catechism which they produced in the vernacular
for the use of the clergy, was characterised by moderate statement
and graceful composition. But all the canons and the catechism were
of no avail; they were too late, as the fiat had gone forth; the
accumulated corruptions of many generations had resulted in a system
of institutions incapable of reformation from within; the features of
purity, the love of truth and justice had departed from their walls and
altars; the great ethical principles at the heart of all true religion
had waned dim, and there was no glowing rays to lighten up the darkness
which enveloped the Church.
In the summer of 1550, Adam Wallace, a layman from Ayrshire, a man of
humble rank, had been occasionally engaged in teaching the children of
Cockburn of Ormiston, was accused of heresy. He was seized and conveyed
to Edinburgh, and tried before the bishops, the Regent, the Earl of
Huntly, and others. Wallace was accused for having assumed to preach
without authority, and of reading the Scriptures. He denied having
preached in public, but admitted that he had read the Bible, and
sometimes added a word of exhortation. Then one of his accusers said,
“What shall we leave to the bishops and churchmen to do, if every man
shall be a babbler upon the Bible.” Wallace replied that it would befit
them better to speak more reverently about the Word of God. Questions
were put to him touching the sacraments, prayer for the dead, and other
points; and at last, the Earl of Huntly asked him what he thought of
the mass. Wallace replied that he could find no authority for it in
the Word of God, and therefore it was idolatry in the sight of God.
Then they all cried “Heresy! heresy!” He was condemned, and burned on
the Castle hill of Edinburgh, where he met his doom with firmness and
faith.¹
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 237‒241; Foxe, pages 627‒628.
When Paul III. ascended the papal throne in 1834, he signalised the
event by the elevation of several distinguished men to the College of
Cardinals without any other object than that of their personal merits.
Some of the new Cardinals held opinions which inclined to Protestantism;
and by the command of the Pope himself, they prepared a plan for the
reform of the Church. When this became known to the Protestants, they
rejected it because they had already passed beyond its most liberal
proposals. Various other attempts to effect a reconciliation were
equally unsuccessful.
In connection with the view of the Reformation, it is necessary to
touch briefly on the proceedings of the Council of Trent. As indicated
above, a certain number of thoughtful Catholics were willing to make
considerable concessions in the form of redressing prevalent abuses.
Still a line had to be drawn somewhere, and when it was drawn by the
Council of Trent, the Protestants found themselves beyond it. But
taking a view of the conditions and circumstances of the nations of
Europe, it appeared that the final decision and the conclusions of the
Council of Trent were greatly influenced by political interests. As
religion had been so long and so much mingled with the politics and
the secular affairs of the world, the great majority of the members
of the Council were unable to realise the necessity of such a measure
of disentanglement as the principles of the Reformation implied; while
the strong feeling naturally associated with an inherited belief, the
importance attached to tradition, and the efficacy ascribed to external
ceremonies in the Roman Catholic Church, were so powerful that they
overruled the deliberations of this memorable Council.¹
¹ Ranke’s _History of the Popes_, Volume I., pages 110‒113;
1847. Buckley’s _History of the Council of Trent_, pages
68‒76; 1852.
After many obstacles and circumstances unfavourable to the assembling
of the Council of Trent had been overcome, it was opened in December
1545. There was no representative from Scotland at the Council,
although a provincial council of the Scottish clergy which met at
St. Andrews in March 1546, and imposed a tax of two thousand and five
hundred pounds for the expenses of deputies from Scotland to Trent.
The tax appears to have been paid, but no Scottish delegate attended
the Council. The position of the Church in Scotland was so perilous
that Cardinal Beaton, though thrice summoned by the Pope to share
the deliberations of the Vatican, did not venture to leave Scotland.¹
When the opening ceremonials and various preliminary matters were
disposed of, they proceeded to discuss revelation and the sources from
which the knowledge of it was derived. At this stage, some proposals
were enunciated in favour of opinions tending towards Protestantism.
The Bishop of Chiogga insisted that nothing but Scripture should
be admitted; he maintained that the gospel contained all that was
necessary. Seripando, the general of the Augustines, also argued that
a distinction should be drawn between the canonical books of Scripture
and those not yet received as canonical, such as the Proverbs and
Books of Wisdom; and that the first class only be used for proving the
doctrines of belief. But they found few supporters, and there was an
overwhelming majority against these views. The Council at last adopted
the resolution that those unwritten traditions which had been received
from the mouth of Christ, or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved by
a continuous succession in the Catholic Church, were to be regarded
with the same veneration and of equal authority with the Scriptures.
The Vulgate was declared to be an authentic translation, and it was
enjoined that it should be printed with the greatest care as soon as
possible.² In the discussion touching the reception of the Vulgate
there was much diversity of opinion expressed in the Council; and
the following example of the line of argument taken by one party
of the Fathers has an interest of its own:――“That if the providence
of God hath given an authentical Scripture to the synagogue, and an
authentical New Testament to the Grecians, it cannot be said without
derogation that the Church of Rome, more beloved than the rest, hath
wanted this great benefit; and therefore that the same Holy Ghost who
did dictate the holy books hath dictated also that translation which
ought to be accepted by the Church of Rome.... And if any should make
dainty to give the Spirit of God to the interpreter, yet he cannot deny
it to the Council; and when the vulgar edition shall be approved, and
an anathema be thundered against whosoever will not receive it, this
will be without error, not by the spirit of him that wrote it, but of
the synod that hath received it for such.”³
¹ _Statutes of the Scottish Church_, Volume I., pages 145,
260‒269.
² _Decrees of the Council of Trent_, Session IV.
³ Sarpi, Book I., chapter 2, pages 159, _et seq._; Buckley’s
_History of the Council of Trent_, page 125; Pallavicino,
Book VI., chapter 15.
Upon the great subject of ♦justification there was much diversity of
opinion manifested in the ♠Council, and the discussions on it were
long and tedious. A section of the members held views nearly similar to
those of the Protestants. This party maintained that justification must
be ascribed to the merits of Christ and to faith alone; charity and
hope they affirmed to be the attendants, and works the proofs of faith,
but nothing more; thus the basis of justification was made to rest
on faith alone. But this primal doctrine of Protestantism had little
chance of even a fair hearing in the Council; it was in vain that
Cardinal Pole entreated them not to reject an opinion merely because
it was held by Luther. The debate waxed extremely hot: a bishop and a
Greek monk from words came to blows. The Council found that it could
not argue the questions raised to any purpose, and the discussions
were confined; still there were marked differences of opinion
expressed among the assembled fathers and divines. Towards the end of
the discussion on justification, Seripando advanced his opinion; he
contended that the doctrine of justification was twofold, or that there
was a twofold righteousness, “the one intrinsic, which he again divided
into two kinds; the first being that, whereby we become friends instead
of enemies of God, and that this is given us with the grace infused
by baptism; the second, whereby man is said to live righteously, which
results from the acts of virtue proceeding from the aforesaid grace.
The other kind of righteousness was outward, and consisted in the
righteousness and merits of Christ, imputed to us by the divine mercy
as if they were our own, not indeed wholly, but to such degree, and
for such effects, as seems good unto God. If it be asked which of
these justifications we must rely on――that indwelling, or that imparted
through Christ――the devout man will reply that we must confide in
the latter only. Our own righteousness is incomplete and ineffective,
marred by its deficiences――that of Christ alone is true and sufficient;
this only is entirely pleasing in the sight of God, and in virtue of
this alone may we trust to be justified before God.¹ These opinions
of Seripando met with little sympathy, only five of the assembled
theologians gave their assent to them; while his peculiar tenets on
justification were combated with great ability, force, and subtlety,
by Cardinal Caraffa,² and the two Jesuits, Salmeron and Laineg.³ The
influence of the Jesuits was strong in the Council, and their opinions
prevailing, the decision of the assembly was in accordance with their
views. There were many and long discussions on the errors of the
heretics in connection with the sacraments; debates respecting the
granting of the cup to the laity; debates touching the mass and
the abuses associated with it; debates concerning the institution
of the priesthood and its various orders; discussions on marriage;
discussions on pernicious and suspected books;⁴ and discussions on
many other matters. But the result of the whole was that after several
adjournments and reassemblings during a period of eighteen years, the
twenty-fifth and last session terminated the Council in December 1563;
the Protestant opinions were excluded from Catholicism, and all hope
of mediation or reunion was utterly abandoned. The seven sacraments as
heretofore were retained; and also purgatory, indulgences, auricular
confession, celibacy of the priesthood, and so on: the incubus of the
Middle Ages and the inherited accretions of the creed of the Roman
Church rested too heavily and firmly upon her to be shaken off; hence
she easily accepted tradition as of equal authority with Scripture; yet
she was still bold in assumption, strong in assertion, and vigorous in
her denunciations; she had always been kept free from error by special
grace; she alone was the true Church, and beyond her walls no religious
body could be acknowledged.⁵
♦ “jusification” replaced with “justification”
♠ “Conncil” replaced with “Council”
¹ Pallavicino, Book VIII., chapter 11; 1670. Ranke’s _History
of the Popes_, Volume I., pages 152‒153.
² Caraffa was elected Pope under the title of Paul IV. in
the year 1555; he was an ardent Romanist. Heresy had been
spreading in Italy as in other places, and it was deemed
desirable that the Inquisition should be reorganised at Rome.
The leading idea of this institution is well expressed in
these words:――“As St. Peter subdued the first Heresiarchs
in no other place than Rome, so must the successors of St.
Peter destroy all the heresies of the whole world in Rome.”
The Pope, by a bull in April 1543, founded at Rome the
Congregation of the Holy Office: six cardinals were deputed
as inquisitors-general of the faith, and their functions
were extended to embrace all Christian nations. They were
empowered to try all cases of heresy, to apprehend and
imprison all suspected persons and their abettors, of every
rank and order; they could nominate officers and appoint
inferior courts in all places, with the same or with limited
powers. One restriction only was imposed on the power of
this inquisition; they had full liberty to inflict all kinds
of punishment, but the right to pardon was reserved by the
Pope himself; they might condemn as many heretics as they
choose, but to absolve those once condemned was in the power
of the Pope alone. The inquisitors were commanded to go on
“enforcing and executing whatever might most effectively
suppress and uproot the errors that have found place in the
Christian community, and permitting no vestige of them to
remain.” Limborch’s _History of the Inquisition_, Volume I.,
pages 150‒152; Bromato’s _Life of Paul IV._, Book VII.,
Section 3; Ranke, Volume I., pages 157‒158.
At this time Cardinal Caraffa was the head and leading
spirit of the Inquisition. In this office he worked
vigorously; he appointed commissioners-general for the
different countries; and the rules which he drew up for
their guidance were the following:――“First, when the faith
is in question, there must be no delay, but at the slightest
suspicion rigorous means must be resorted to with all speed.
Secondly, no consideration to be shown to any prince or
prelate, however high his station. Thirdly, extreme severity
is rather to be exercised against those who attempt to
shield themselves under the protection of any potentate;
only he who makes plenary confession shall be treated with
gentleness and fatherly compassion. Fourthly, no man must
debase himself by showing toleration towards heretics of any
kind, above all towards Calvinists.” We are told in the Life
of Caraffa that “he held as a positive axiom this rule, that
in matters of faith one must in no way pause at all, but on
the first suspicion or intimation of this plague of heresy,
proceed by all force and violence to its utter extirpation.”
Ranke, Volume I., pages 158‒159. Such was the iron severity,
inflexible and remorseless, which characterised the Roman
Inquisition of the sixteenth century: can we wonder that
there was also intolerance among the Protestants of that
age? The Inquisition as a whole is the most complete system
of tyranny ever devised; and it is equally exhaustive in
detail, and merciless in the means by which it sought to
reach its end.
³ The Society of Jesus was originated by Ignatius Loyola,
a Spaniard, who was gifted with a fund of enthusiasm. The
new Order received the papal sanction in 1540, and they
soon rose to power, and spread over the world; they were
afterwards known by the name of Jesuits. The aims of the
Order may be roundly described to consist in a fixed and
absolute determination to enhance and extend the influence
and power of the Roman Church. Their first and chief
rule was unconditional obedience, total and unhesitating
subjection of their whole being and energies to the
will of their superiors. The Order was to the Jesuit the
representative of divine providence, and consequently
everything else must be sacrificed to its demands. The
society was placed under the guidance of a general, and
its organisation quickly attained a definiteness and a
completeness as yet unmatched.
The Order was ranked into several classes, each with their
special duties and work. They devoted themselves to the
department of teaching, and the confessional with peculiar
and unrivalled zeal. The Jesuits, in fact, became the
teachers in the colleges and schools in every Roman Catholic
country; and they founded a system of instruction, framed
upon a theological basis, which they impressed upon the
minds of the young with an effectiveness never before
attained. Their scheme of education was methodical and
uniform throughout; the schools were divided into classes,
and the strictest discipline in every branch was observed.
The success of the Order, not only in Roman Catholic
countries, but also in Germany and in other nations which
were partly Protestant, was surprisingly great. The first
Jesuits were an immense element of force to the Roman
Catholic Church; they exhibited in their whole proceedings
a reaction from the looseness both of morals and of creed
which had marked the recent condition of the Church; they
were pious, intensely earnest, and warmly attached to the
Church, because their minds were cast in the mould which
allowed them still to believe firmly in her pretensions.
While they had all the boldness, fervour, and energy of
the Protestant reformers, yet their reform took another
direction; instead of going back to the Bible and St.
Augustine, they chose St. Francis and the mediæval saints
as their models, and rested with unfaltering faith on
the authority of the Roman Church. To reform her by the
formation of a new monastic Order, which made an absolute
surrender of free inquiry and free thought, and absolute
obedience to ecclesiastical authority, was their leading
principle and idea; and before Loyola the founder died,
he had established more than a hundred Jesuit colleges or
houses for training new disciples, and a vast number of
educational establishments under their influence; he had
many thousands of Jesuits in the rank and file of his order.
He had divided the world into twelve Jesuit provinces, in
each of which he had his officer, while the general-in-chief
himself resided in Rome.
If we inquire why the Jesuits were so successful, the answer
will be found in the state of society and the circumstances
of the age when they began their work. They came into the
field at the very time that men’s minds were being agitated
to and fro, and the general pulsation of society was then
exceedingly accessible and susceptible to the influences
which they brought to bear upon it: the prevailing states
of feeling and emotion, the association of ideas, and the
current trains of half-formed thought, were all especially
amendable to the influences, the dogmatic forms, the
positive affirmations, and the compact creed, which the
Jesuits employed and held up.
The moral ideas of the Jesuits were entirely subordinated
to the notions of the Church, and they often had recourse to
the most tortuous casuistry. After the Council of Trent, it
was the members of this Order, in particular, who made the
defence of modern Roman Catholicism, both speculatively and
practically, the task of their lives. The Order has produced
many able writers; among others who wrote on doctrinal and
polemical points, may be mentioned Bellarmin and Petavius;
and among those who wrote on dogmatic theology――Canisius,
Salmeron, Maldonat, Suarez, Vasquez, Coster, Becanus, and
others. Some of the Jesuit writers justified and defended
tyrannicide; and a few of them have at times advanced
pretty liberal views. For fuller information of the Jesuits
consult Ranke’s _History of the Popes_; Hallam’s _History
of Literature_, Volume II., pages 196‒200, 1839; Baumgarten;
Michelet; Lecky’s _History of Rationalism_, Volume II.,
pages 161‒184; Dallas’s _History of the Jesuits_; De
Sarrion’s _History of the Jesuits_; Brühl’s _History of the
Jesuits_; Liskenne’s _History of the Jesuits_.
⁴ It was one of the functions of the Inquisition to look
for and to condemn all books which contained opinions and
sentiments displeasing to the Church. In 1543 it decreed
that no book, either new or old, of any kind should in
future be printed without its permission; and booksellers
were ordered to send in a catalogue of their stock, and to
sell nothing without the consent of the Inquisitors. The
officers of custom also were ordered to deliver no package,
either of printed books or manuscripts, to its address
without first laying them before the Inquisition. In this
way arose the Index of prohibited books; the first examples
appeared in Louvain and Paris, and other lists came out at
Florence in 1552, and in Milan, 1554. The first published
in the form henceforward adopted, appeared at Rome in 1559.
Even private persons were commanded on soul and conscience
to denounce all forbidden books, and to exert themselves
to the utmost to destroy them. The secular power was called
upon to assist the clergy in this matter; and many thousands
of books were confiscated and destroyed. There was a long
discussion on the best mode of dealing with prohibited and
suspected books in the Council of Trent, and much diversity
of opinion on the matter was expressed by the assembled
Fathers; but in the end it was left with the Pope to settle
it according to his judgment. Buckley’s _History of the
Council of Trent_, pages 278‒285; _Decrees of the Council_,
Session XVIII., Session XXV.; Limborch’s _History of the
Inquisition_, Volume II., pages 69‒72, 1731; Bromato’s _Life
of Paul IV._, Book VIII., section 9.
⁵ _Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent._ Touching the
history of doctrines the Sessions IV.‒VII., XIII., XIV.,
XXI.‒XXV., are of particular importance. The _Catechismus
Romanus_ was composed in conformity with a resolution of
the Council of Trent, Session XXV.; it was drawn up under
the superintendence of three Cardinals, and published
by authority of Pope Pius IV. in 1566. Several editions
and translations of it were published. There was another
Catechism composed by the Jesuit, P. Canisius, which first
appeared in 1554, and it acquired greater authority than
the other one, though it did not receive the sanction of
the pope.
Although the Council of Trent did not radically reform the creed of
the Roman Church, clerical abuses were corrected and decency enforced.
Provision was made for the education of priests and for their devotion
in future to active duties; the old laxity of morals was to be no
longer tolerated, nor on the other hand, the old diversity of doctrine.
Thus the revolt of the Protestants had at least contributed to bring
about a degree of moral reform within the Roman Church herself;¹ and
for this salutary benefit which the heretics so greatly assisted her
to obtain, the Roman Catholics have not as yet shown much gratitude.
Doubtless, the salvation of the soul and its eternal life is the
highest end of human aspiration; but it can never be permissible to
use immoral means even to obtain eternal life. This is the supreme
doctrine, the very cornerstone of heaven, and without it there can be
no real religion. But Catholics and Protestants alike have often acted
in the teeth of this moral law; and the decline of their authority
and influence must be attributed to the violation of moral ideas and
sentiments more than to aught else. That blind conservatism which
causes institutions to have a tendency to outlive the period of their
usefulness, has never been more forcibly illustrated than in the
history of the Papacy during the last four hundred years.
¹ _Decrees of the Council of Trent._
When we attempt to fix the exact date of the separation between the
Roman Catholics and the Protestants, we find that it was not strictly
coincident with the first appearance of the Reformers, as opinions
did not at once assume a fixed character; and for some time there
was hope that a compromise between the conflicting principles and
doctrines might be effected. But a little past the middle of the
century any prospect of this had utterly vanished; and the three forms
of Christianity in the West were irrevocably separated. Lutheranism
gradually assumed a severity and exclusiveness unknown to it in
its earlier stages. The Calvinists had departed from it in several
essential doctrines, though Calvin himself in his early days had
been considered a Lutheran. But in hostile contrast to both of them,
Catholicism firmly invested itself with those forms and ceremonies
which still distinguish it. Each of these dogmatic systems sought
eagerly to establish its position; each laboured intensely to displace
its rival and to subjugate the world. The struggle for many years was
desperate. Catholicism after the first shock rallied again, and with
renovated and concentrated resources and power it fought its opponent
with every available weapon, and with a determination and persistence
of purpose, which would have been more worthy of our admiration, if it
had been less cruel and merciless.
Having briefly indicated some of the varied agencies and the
conflicting influences of the great revolution abroad; I resume the
history of the movement as it manifested itself in Scotland. The
regency of Arran was approaching its close. His government throughout
had been weak and vacillating, and he had now fallen very low in the
public estimation. The Queen-mother aspired to the regency, and in
connection with her design she made preparations for visiting her
daughter in France. In September 1550, along with the Earls of Huntly,
Glencairn, Marischal, the king’s natural sons, and others of the barons
and clergy, she embarked at Leith, and landed in France on the 19th
of the month. The party at the head of affairs in France were eager to
promote her object. It was there agreed to press upon Arran’s notice,
that the revenues of the Crown had been dilapidated during his regency,
that he would be called upon to account when the Queen came of age, and
then it would be difficult for him to obtain an honourable discharge,
should he remain in office. No line of argument could have been more
effective with the weak-minded Regent; and as a compensation for the
demission of office he was offered the Dukedom of ♦Chatelherault. The
Queen-mother, after concluding her business in France, passed over to
the Court of England, and had an interview with Edward VI. She returned
to Scotland in the end of November 1551.¹
♦ “Chastelherault” replaced with “Chatelherault”
¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., page 108;
Lesly’s _History Of Scotland_, pages 238‒240; _Diurnal of
Occurrents_, page 50.
In 1552, the Queen-mother accompanied the Regent on a judicial circuit
through the country. She then reminded him that the time was come
when he had promised to demit his office; but he declined to resign
the government into her hands, and nearly a year was spent in party
recriminations. The Regent’s party, however, dwindled away till only
his brother, the primate, remained; accordingly he resigned in April
1554, and the Queen-mother was proclaimed Regent of Scotland amid
public rejoicings. Mary of Lorraine, as she was familiarly called,
was a woman of exceptional talents. She had acquired some knowledge
of the habits and character of the Scots; but she had many adverse
circumstances and influences to contend against. Being herself a
Catholic, she was most perplexed by the steadily growing strength of
the reformed party. On the whole, however, she ruled with remarkable
moderation, and exhibited sagacity and tact of a high order. As the
Protestants had not yet obtained toleration they gave her government
little trouble.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, pages 600‒603;
Buchanan, Book XVI., chapters 2, 3; Lesly’s _History Of
Scotland_, page 249.
Edward VI. died in July, 1553, and the throne of England was soon
after occupied by Mary, a daughter of Henry VIII. She was a stanch
Roman Catholic, and the wife of the King of Spain. During her brief
reign the Protestants in England were subjected to an extremely severe
persecution. Mary busied herself in restoring the ancient system and
faith to their pristine glory, inflicting enormous suffering upon the
English people, many of her subjects being mercilessly sacrificed.
A number of Scotsmen who had formerly fled across the Border, now
returned to their own country, where they were comparatively safe
under the mild government of the Queen-regent. Among those came William
Harlaw, who was born about the beginning of the century. He had been
originally a tailor in Edinburgh; but afterwards went to England, where
he had been ordained a deacon in the English Church, and was employed
as a preacher during the reign of Edward VI. Harlaw on his return began
to preach in Edinburgh, and in other quarters of the country. John
Willock was a native of Ayr, and at first belonged to the order of
the friars, but he cast off the monastic habit, and was employed as
a preacher in St. Catherine’s, London, and also as chaplain to the
Duke of Suffolk. He visited Scotland in 1555 concerning some matters
of trade, and took the opportunity of preaching to the people. Knox
himself arrived in Scotland about the end of September the same year,
and came to Edinburgh where he was warmly welcomed by the Protestants.
At this time some of the Protestants still continued to attend mass and
join in the worship of the Catholic Church, partly to allay suspicion
and to avoid giving unnecessary offence. Knox, however, was opposed to
this, and the point was debated at one of their meetings; the Reformer,
however, would listen to no compromise even for the sake of safety.¹
The time was not yet come for open manifestation of contempt for the
old worship, while possibly the disciples of the Reformer were not
as yet prepared to follow a course which might bring their lives and
estates into jeopardy.
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 244‒248; _Miscellany of the Wodrow
Society_, Volume I., pages 261‒263.
Knox at the request of John Erskine of Dun, passed to Forfarshire,
where he preached every day to many of the chief men of the county. He
then recrossed the Forth, and lived at Calder House in West Lothian;
while there some of the nobles came and listened to his teaching, and
among them the Prior of St. Andrews, afterwards the Regent Moray. In
the end of the year he preached mostly in Edinburgh; after Christmas
he went to Kyle, and preached in the houses of the local gentry,
and in the town of Ayr. Shortly after Easter, he went to the family
residence of the Earl of Glencairn, where he preached and administered
the communion, whence he again visited West Lothian, and preached to
the people. He once more went to the Laird of Dun, and proclaimed the
opinions of Protestantism with more freedom than before; and many of
the gentry of the Mearns embraced the reformed doctrines.¹ It should
be observed that it was chiefly among the nobles and the gentry that
Knox preached, and in their own houses; the reformed party were not
yet strong enough openly to announce their views; and probably it may
have been the perception that the movement was not ripe for open action
which induced Knox to leave Scotland. The Catholic clergy had become
thoroughly alarmed, and Knox was summoned to appear in the church of
the Blackfriars at Edinburgh on the 15th of May, 1556. He resolved
to appear, and Erskine of Dun and other barons who adhered to the
Protestant opinions met in Edinburgh; whether this was intended to
overawe the authorities, the reader must determine for himself. The
citation of Knox, however, was abandoned, and on the day that he
should have appeared in court, he preached in Edinburgh to a larger
audience than had ever attended to hear him. For ten days he preached
in Edinburgh twice a-day, and on this occasion his followers met in
the Bishop of Dunkeld’s lodgings. In the month of July 1556, Knox
left Scotland and proceeded to Geneva to take charge of the English
congregation in that city.²
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 249‒251.
² Knox, Volume I., pages 251‒254.
Immediately after Knox’s departure the bishops again summoned him, and
when he did not appear, sentence was passed against him, and his effigy
was burned at the cross of Edinburgh. But the reformed doctrines still
continued to spread. Besides the preachers mentioned in a preceding
page, John Douglas, a reformed friar, under the protection of the
Earl of Argyle, preached in Leith and Edinburgh; and Paul Methven,
originally a baker, preached in Dundee with great acceptance; and
others in various parts of the kingdom exhorted the people. They read
the Scriptures to those who assembled to hear them, using the English
Prayer Book of Edward VI. in their worship. A number of the landed
aristocracy――adherents of the Reformation movement for purposes of
their own――had come to an understanding with each other. They had cast
their longing eyes upon the property of the Roman Church, and this,
more than anything else, stimulated them to hasten on the revolution.
In the beginning of December 1557, they resorted to one of the familiar
expedients which they had been in the habit of adopting for centuries,
when they had any great enterprise on hand,――they entered into a bond
of man-rent to assist each other in forwarding the reformation of
religion. This was the first of the new religious covenants, and those
who subscribed it took to themselves the name of the Congregation.
Among the names attached to the document were those of the Earls of
Argyle, Glencairn, and Morton; the Lord of Lorne, and John Erskine of
Dun. It is an extremely vehement piece of writing, and it distinctly
proceeded on the ground that they were the true Congregation of Christ,
while of course the Romanists were the very limbs of Satan.¹ After
consulting together, the Lords of the Congregation agreed to two
resolutions for promoting the reformation of religion throughout the
country. (1) It was deemed requisite that in all the parish churches
the common prayers should be read on Sundays and on festival days,
with the lessons from the Old and New Testament, according to the order
of the Book of Common Prayer; (2) it was also agreed that doctrine,
preaching, and expounding of the Scriptures, should be used quietly
without convening great bodies of the people, until God move the prince
to grant public preaching by faithful and true ministers.²
¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 256, 273; Lesly’s _History Of
Scotland_
² Knox, Volume I., pages 275‒276. It is understood that the
Book of Common Prayer mentioned in the text was the liturgy
of Edward VI.
The Queen-regent acted with great calmness in the trying position in
which she then found herself placed, yet she manifested a disposition
not to push matters to extremes. But it was impossible to hold the
balance evenly between the Protestants and the Catholic clergy,
especially as the latter naturally became much alarmed and excited.
The stealing away of images and damaging of religious buildings in
Edinburgh had begun. The great image of St. Giles was first drowned
in the North Loch, and afterwards burned, incidents which raised an
unusual stir in the capital. The Protestant preachers were summoned,
and they resolved to appear accompanied by their adherents; but
when the authorities saw such a multitude as approached Edinburgh,
a proclamation was issued commanding all those who had come without
liberty to proceed at once to the Borders and remain there for fifteen
days. The gentry were not disposed to submit to this, and they forced
their way into the Queen-regent’s presence to remonstrate. James
Chalmer of Gadgirth addressed her in the following strain:――“Madam, we
know that this is the malice and device of that bastard (meaning the
Archbishop of St. Andrews) that stands by you. We vow to God we shall
make a day of it. They oppress us and our tenants for feeding their
idle bellies; they trouble our preachers, and would murder them and
us. Shall we suffer this any longer? No, Madam, it shall not be;” and
therewith every man put on his steel bonnet. There was nothing heard
on the Queen’s part but, “My joys, my hearts, what ails you? Me mean
no evil to you nor your preachers. The bishops shall do you no harm.
Ye are all my loving subjects. Me knew nothing of this proclamation.
The day of your preachers shall be discharged, and me will hear the
controversy that is between the bishops and you. They shall do you
no wrong.” “My Lords,” said she to the bishops, “I forbid you either
to trouble them or their preachers.” And to the gentlemen, who were
wondrously moved, she turned again and said――“O, my hearts! should ye
not love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind?
and should you not love your neighbour as yourselves?” With these and
the like fair words she restrained the bishops at that time.¹
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 256‒258; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_,
Volume II., pages 251‒252.
In the month of April 1558, Walter Mill, an old man over eighty years,
who in early life had been a priest, but had abandoned the Catholic
faith in the days of Cardinal Beaton, was apprehended at Dysart, and
carried to St. Andrews and imprisoned in the primate’s castle. He was
tried before the spiritual court, convicted of heresy, and sentenced
to death; on the 24th of April, he was burned at St. Andrews. This
was an act of great cruelty and extreme folly. The execution of an old
decrepit man for heresy was not at all likely to ♦enhance the respect
of the people for the Catholic clergy or the creed of the Church.
Indeed his execution strengthened the position of the Protestant party,
and they at once sent a remonstrance to the Queen-regent, charging
the Church with cruelty. They also demanded a reformation of abuses,
and the establishment of religion according to their own views. She
received their requests with the regard which the gravity of the
subject urgently required, and promised to tolerate their preachers,
if they would abstain from holding public meetings in Leith and
Edinburgh.¹ The moderation which she showed deserves the highest praise;
for according to the constitution and laws of the kingdom, the Lords
of the Congregation had put themselves into a state of open rebellion;
and however far we may sympathise with the cause of the reform party,
this should not blind us to their real attitude in relation to the
government of the time. It could hardly have been expected that
the Church and the Government would abdicate their functions at the
command of their enemies. Those who talk of the obstinacy of the Roman
Catholics should remember that the holders of power have always and
everywhere endeavoured to retain it to the last. In the end of November
1558, parliament met at Edinburgh, and the Lords of the Congregation
then tendered a protest to the effect, “that seeing they could not
obtain a reformation of religion according to God’s word, they asked
liberty to worship in their own form, until their adversaries proved
themselves to be the true ministers of Christ’s Church. They then gave
open warning that if any tumult should arise among the people owing to
difference of opinion about religion and if it should happen that the
abuses in the Church were reformed by violence, the responsibility of
this must rest upon the shoulders of those who now refused all reform,
and not upon those who are meanwhile struggling to reform all things
according to order; and, finally, they professed to be acting simply
from the promptings of their consciences, with no other aim but the
reformation of religion, and therefore they called upon the government
to protect them from the rage and oppression of their enemies.” This
protestation was read in parliament, but it was not inserted in the
record.² Thus the Reformers intimated to the authorities that force
was contemplated; and it seems probable that the leading men among them
already saw that if once the passions and feelings of the people were
fully aroused, it would be utterly impossible to restrain their riotous
excesses.
♦ “enchance” replaced with “enhance”
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 302, 312, 550‒555.
² _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II.;
Spottiswood, pages 119‒120; Knox, Volume I., pages 312‒314.
Meanwhile important events were passing in other countries which
affected the contending parties in Scotland. On the 11th of October,
1558, Mary of England died, and she was succeeded by Queen Elizabeth;
but for some time it seemed doubtful whether she would declare herself
on the Protestant side or not. One of Elizabeth’s first acts was to
notify her accession to the Pope, and there was negotiation touching
her marriage with the King of Spain. But the Pope, Paul IV., whom
we have before met under the title of Cardinal Caraffa, was by no
means well qualified for winning to his side a doubtful monarch like
Elizabeth. He was incapable of exercising moderation, and instead of
attempting to conciliate the Queen, he returned a contemptuous reply to
her ambassador; “first of all,” said he, “she must submit her claims to
the decision of our judgment.”¹ Now this would certainly have been the
last thing in the world to which the daughter of Henry VIII. would have
submitted. There were, however, various considerations which might have
weighed with the Pope. The French wished to prevent a marriage between
Elizabeth and Philip; while the Guises were especially interested in
this affair, since, if the claims of Elizabeth were rejected by the
Holy See, Mary Stuart, Dauphiness of France and Queen of Scotland,
would then possess the title to the English Crown. If her right could
only be established, the Guises might reign supreme in her name over
the three kingdoms. What a grand prospect for the imagination of a
pious pope and the grasping ambition of the house of Guise. At times
it seemed as if this dream were to be realised, and it was always kept
in view by the parties, and pursued even after it had become entirely
hopeless. But the force of circumstances more than her own disposition
led Elizabeth to take the side of Protestantism. Her own heresy, save
on one or two points, was not of a very decided character; yet it
was sufficient to complete the separation of England from Rome. Hence
Queen Elizabeth became an object at whom the Roman Catholic powers
were extremely anxious to strike a blow. Many schemes and conspiracies
were concocted for her destruction, but all failed, and England at last
emerged from the struggle victorious.
¹ Ranke’s _History of the Popes_, Volume I., pages 238‒239.
The influence of France was now brought to bear upon the Queen-regent.
She acted with more coldness towards the Lords of the Congregation than
formerly; and they began to see that they were losing her countenance.
Still attempts continued to be made to pacify the Protestants by
propositions for reforming the more flagrant abuses of the Catholic
clergy. Early in 1559 the Lords of the Congregation had begun to think
of an alliance with England.¹
¹ _Statutes of the Scottish Church_, Volume I., pages 159‒160;
Knox, Volume I., pages 314‒316.
Everything indicated that the crisis was at hand. The preachers were
intently engaged in spreading the new opinions; the old clergy were
frightened, and only making feeble efforts to outdo their rivals by
preaching and celebrating masses themselves. The Queen-regent had
informed some of the Lords of the Congregation that they must desert
their principles, as her line of policy was to be shaped according
to instructions which she had received from France. Four of the
chief Protestant preachers were cited to appear before the Court of
Justiciary at Stirling, on the 10th of May, 1559, for convening the
people and preaching erroneous doctrines to them, and inciting them
to seditions and tumults. The Lords of the Congregation resolved to
protect the preachers, and assembled their feudal followers at Perth.
John Knox had landed at Leith on the 2nd of May; he stayed two nights
in Edinburgh, and then proceeded to Dundee, where he joined his
brethren. He received a warm welcome and went to Perth with his friends.
In order to prevent a collision, Erskine of Dun passed forward to
Stirling and endeavoured to effect an agreement with the Queen-regent,
while the Lords of the Congregation and the preachers remained in
Perth. But he was unsuccessful, and when the accused preachers failed
to appear on the 10th, those who had become sureties for them were
fined, and the preachers were proclaimed rebels. The multitude had been
gradually becoming more and more excited, their feelings and passions
had risen to a pitch which neither the preachers nor the magistrates
could regulate, nor could they prevent them from wrecking the
monasteries.¹
¹ Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume I., pages 406‒407;
Knox, Volume I., pages 314‒319; _Woodrow Society_, Volume I.,
page 57.
On the 11th of May, Knox preached a vehement sermon against idolatry
in the parish church of Perth. He enlarged upon the abomination of
the mass and all the accompanying trumpery of the Roman Catholic
form of worship. His hearers had been much excited before, but their
passions and cupidity were now roused to a point far beyond the bounds
of control. Meantime a priest, utterly incapable, as it seemed, of
understanding the state of the people’s minds, uncovered the altar to
say mass. It was an exceedingly rich altar-piece, in which the history
of many of the saints was carved. A number of Protestants were present,
and a youth at the top of his voice, exclaimed,――“this is intolerable,
when God by His word hath plainly damned idolatry, that we should
stand by and see it used in dispute.” The priest gave him a blow on
the ear, and the youth in retaliation threw a stone at the priest, but
it struck the tabernacle and broke one of the images. Very soon the
whole multitude threw stones, and proceeded to tear down the altars
and destroy every vestige of the ornaments in the church. When it
became known in the town that such work was going on, an uproarious
mob assembled, which attacked the four monasteries of Perth, and for
two days the work of destruction proceeded till only the bare walls
remained.¹ The example shown in Perth was followed in the town of
Cupar-Fife. There the people destroyed all the altars and images
in the church. Shortly after the Abbey of Scone was burned; and the
monasteries throughout the country were in an incredibly short time
either defaced or demolished.²
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 320‒323; Buchanan, Book 16, chapter
28; Spottiswood.
² Knox, Volume I., page 361, _et seq._; Buchanan, Book 16,
chapter 33.
The Protestant reformers have been severely blamed for these excesses
and the destruction of religious buildings. Each party has striven
to lay the blame upon the other, and to exaggerate or extenuate these
excesses, according to their respective standpoints. But it should
be remembered that there never was a revolution without excesses,
the reason of which is not difficult to find. The amount of outrage
and the destruction of property which a revolution may entail mainly
depends on the strength and completeness of the organised moral force
in the country at the time of its occurrence. If the moral sentiments
and ideas of the nation are but imperfectly formed, the guiding and
restraining feelings and influences only partly developed through
the social organisation, and the intelligence of the people is very
limited and dim, and as it were, only awakening to a consciousness that
they have been long deluded, then, in such circumstances, a revolution
cannot be effected without anarchy and excess in various forms. The
same undeviating principle comes into play in this as in everything
else: when the moral organisation of a nation is sufficiently developed
and ripe, the desired and needful reform is gradually brought to pass
by peaceful means. But, from the information we now possess, to talk as
if a peaceful and harmless revolution had been possible in Scotland in
the middle of the sixteenth century, is only a sign of much ignorance.
It is well known, how easy it is to arouse the cupidity of a class,
and how eagerly any body of men pursue a line of action which promises
rapid and great profit; and how fierce the storm of wrath when the
result fails, as it almost always does, to answer the expectations
which had been raised.
When the Queen-regent heard of these proceedings she was naturally much
offended; and she threatened to inflict severe vengeance on the guilty
parties. But this was a difficult matter to accomplish, and she soon
discovered that her power was not commensurate with her wishes. The
Lords of the Congregation issued several manifestoes to the Regent,
to the French commanders, and to other persons in authority. These
documents were all pervaded by an absolute and dogmatic conviction of
the truth of their cause; and they breathed a spirit of uncompromising
resolution and defiance, and a determination to carry out their views
of reform at all hazards, while they were extremely vehement, and
even coarse and rude in expression. Many examples were drawn from
the Old Testament of how God and His people had punished unjust
and ungodly kings, and these were pressed home as applicable to the
existing circumstances of Scotland. One of their manifestoes concluded
thus――“Yea, we shall begin that same war which God commanded Israel to
execute against the Canaanites; that is, contract of peace shall never
be made, till ye desist from your open idolatry and cruel persecution
of God’s children. And this we signify unto you in the name of the
eternal God, and of His Son Christ Jesus, whose verity we profess,
and whose Gospel we will have preached, and holy sacraments rightly
ministered, so long as God will assist us to gainstand your idolatry.
Take this for ♦advertisement, and be not deceived.”¹
♦ “advertisment” replaced with “advertisement”
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 334‒336.
At this time the Lords of the Congregation had entrenched themselves
in Perth; while the Regent’s army, mostly composed of Frenchmen,
had approached within twenty miles of them. The Congregation had
a considerable force, but an arrangement was made with the Regent,
mainly through the influence of the Earl of Argyle and the prior of
St. Andrews. The agreement was to the effect that both armies were
to be disbanded, and the town of Perth left open to the Regent; that
none of the inhabitants were to be molested for the late alterations
in religion; that no Frenchman should enter the town, nor come within
three miles of it; and that when the Queen retired no French garrison
would be left in the town. All other controversies were postponed to
the next Parliament.¹ This arrangement was concluded on the 28th of
May, 1559; and the Lords of the Congregation then retired from Perth.
The Queen-regent entered Perth surrounded by a body of French troops
which she called her body-guard; but the Protestants regarded this as
a violation of the agreement.
¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 336‒341, _et seq._; Lesly’s
_History Of Scotland_
The Earl of Argyle and the prior of St. Andrews then left the Regent,
and joined the Congregation. Numbers of the people from various
quarters of the kingdom gathered round the Lords of the Congregation,
who went boldly on with their work. They invaded St. Andrews, where
the primate had thought of resisting them, but he was forced to flee.
On the 11th of June, Knox preached one of his scathing sermons in St.
Andrews, in which he entreated his hearers to eject the buyers and
sellers from the Temple, according to the Gospel of Matthew and John;
and with all the force of his nature, he applied his examples to the
surrounding circumstances. The altars and the images, the monuments
of idolatry, as they called them, were quickly destroyed in all the
churches of the city.¹ The Regent’s army approached but found the
Congregation too strong; and another arrangement was made between
the contending parties, which was again soon broken off. The Regent
was expecting more assistance from France to crush out the heresy
in Scotland. Meanwhile the heretics were increasing in numbers. One
division of the Congregation re-entered Perth on the 25th of June, and
another under the Earl of Argyle and the Prior of St. Andrews, took
possession of Edinburgh on the 29th of June, while the Regent retired
to Dunbar.² The Congregation demolished the monasteries of Edinburgh,
and seized the coining irons of the Mint. A sort of truce having
been concluded between the conflicting parties, the Regent returned
to Holyrood. Both parties issued proclamations and appeals to the
people. The Regent said she would grant liberty for the exercise of the
Protestant religion, provided that wherever she was dwelling preaching
should cease and the mass be maintained. This was the difficulty,
neither party could tolerate the worship of the other, unless at a
respectable distance; Knox and his followers upon no consideration
would tolerate manifest idolatry; his aim, as he expressed it, was
to “establish God’s eternal verity within the realm.” While these
absorbing matters filled the mind of the nation, the intelligence
came that Henry II. of France was dead, and that the husband of the
Queen of Scots had succeeded to the throne of that Kingdom. This event
foreboded severe opposition to the Congregation; and the reformed party
in Edinburgh were soon in great straits. They departed from the capital
on the 26th of July, and passed to Stirling, from whence on the 11th
of ♦August they issued a short manifesto in which they bound themselves
to stand true to each other. The Earls of Argyle, Glencairn, Lord Boyd,
and other barons, then marched to Glasgow, and “reformed” the city of
the West.³
¹ Knox, Volume I., 336‒350.
² _Diurnal of ♠Occurrents_, pages 53‒269; Knox, Volume I.,
pages 350, 359, 362.
♠ “Occurents” replaced with “Occurrents”
♦ “Angust” replaced with “August”
³ Knox, Volume I., pages 363‒384.
John Willock was left in Edinburgh to keep alive the Protestant
opinions, lest the idols might again raise their heads in the capital.
He continued to preach in the Church of St. Giles till the month of
November. In the end of August a thousand armed Frenchmen arrived and
disembarked at Leith, and with the army already there, they began to
fortify the position. On the 24th of September two thousand more French
troops arrived to assist the Queen-regent in the struggle to uphold
the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. The Frenchmen shortly made the
defences of Leith so strong that the Congregation could not hope to
take it.¹ But the leaders of the Congregation took a bold step, they
re-entered Edinburgh in October, and on the 21st of that month they
met in the Tolbooth to deliberate concerning the government of the
kingdom. Lord Ruthven introduced the business of the meeting by asking:
――“Whether she who so contemptuously refused the most humble Request
of the born councillors of the realm, being also but a Regent, whose
pretensions threatened the bondage of the whole community, ought to be
suffered so tyrannously to rule above them?” As this question had not
been debated before in an open assembly, it was deemed right that the
opinion of the preachers should be asked, and John Willock was called
upon to express his sentiments on the point. He said――“That though
magistrates were granted power and authority from God, yet this power
was limited by the word of God; as subjects were commanded to obey
their magistrates, so magistrates must discharge their duties to their
subjects, and the office of both is prescribed in the word of God.
Though God hath appointed magistrates on the earth and honoured them,
yet he never did establish any one who for just reasons might not have
been deprived. That in deposing princes, and those who had been in
authority, God did not always employ his immediate power, but sometimes
other means which His wisdom thought good and justice required.” And
therefore he concluded――“That since the Queen-regent denied her chief
duty to the subjects of this realm, which was to administer equal
justice to them, to preserve their liberty from the invasion of
strangers, and to suffer God’s word to be freely and openly preached
among them; seeing moreover that the Queen-regent was an open and
obstinate idolatress, and finally, that she utterly despised the
council and requirements of the nobility, he could see no reason why
they, the born councillors, nobility, and barons of the realm, might
not justly deprive her of regime and authority amongst them.” The
opinion of Knox was then asked, and he concurred with Willock, adding
that the iniquity of the Regent ought in no way to withdraw their
hearts, nor the hearts of other subjects from the obedience due to
their sovereign, and that when she was deposed, if she repented and
submitted, she might be restored to her former place and honour. Then
every one present was requested to express his opinion freely, and to
vote according to his conscience. A document was drawn up and agreed
to, deposing the Queen-regent of all authority within the kingdom,
proclamation of which was made at the Cross of Edinburgh.²
¹ Knox, pages 388‒399; Tytler’s _History of Scotland_ Volume
VI., pages 163‒167.
² Knox, Volume I., pages 437‒452; Spottiswood.
After this, skirmishing immediately began between the Frenchmen at
Leith and the Congregation. In these encounters the forces of the
Congregation were generally defeated; and they were again forced to
retire from Edinburgh on the 7th November 1559, when they retreated to
Stirling. The undisciplined followers of the Lords of the Congregation
were unable to cope with the efficient and well handled French troops;
so that the Protestant party were reduced to extreme difficulties. The
voice of Knox, however, never ceased to exhort and encourage them; he
called upon them to put their trust in “the Eternal God, the Lord of
Hosts,” and that in the end they would assuredly prevail; he pointed
out to them the examples in the Old Testament touching the sufferings
and the afflictions of God’s people for their sins. In concluding one
of his sermons at Stirling he said――“Whatever shall become of us and
our bodies, I doubt not but this cause, in spite of the devil, shall
prevail in the realm of Scotland. For as it is the eternal truth of the
eternal God, so shall it prevail, however for a time it may be impugned.
It may be that God shall plague some, because they delight not in the
truth, albeit for worldly considerations they seemed to pursue it. Yea,
God may take some of his dearest children away before their eyes see
greater troubles. But neither shall the one nor the other hinder this
action, but in the end it shall triumph.”¹
¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 452‒473; Sadler’s _State Papers_,
Volume I., page 554.