Incessant rains had drench’d the floating ground,

And clouds o’ercast the firmament around;

White shone the hills involv’d in silver snow,

But brown and barren were the vales below:

On firm foundations of eternal stone,

High rugged rocks in frosty splendour shone;

The hoary fields no vivid verdure wore,

Frost wrapt the world, and beauty was no more,

Wide-wasting winds that chill’d the dreary day,

And seemed to threaten nature with decay,

Reminded man, at every baleful breath,

Of wintry age, and all-subduing death.”¹

These lines have something of the genuine classic roll and swell, and

are fairly natural. To compensate for the dreary prospect outside, the

poet warmed himself at the fire, and resolved to resume his task of

translation.

¹ _Works_, Volume I., pages 151‒152. Introduction, also Volume

III., pages 74‒75.

Douglas’s prologue to the twelfth book contains a picture of May, which

has been much and justly admired. The following lines are taken from a

modernised copy:――

“All gentle hearts confess the quickening spring,

For May invigorates every living thing.

Hark! how the merry minstrels of the grove

Devote the day to melody and love;

The ousel shrill, that haunts the thorny dale,

The mellow thrush, the love-lorn nightingale,

Their little breasts with emulation swell

And sweetly strive in singing to excel.

In the thick forest feeds the cooing dove;

The starling whistles various notes of love;

The sparrow chirps the clefted walls among:

To the sweet wildness of the linnets’ song,

To the harsh cuckoo, and the twittering quail

Resounds the wood, the river, and the vale;

And tender twigs, all trembling on the trees,

Dance to the murmuring music of the bees.”¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., page 155. Introduction, Volume IV., page

84.

Douglas concluded his translation of Virgil by intimating his belief

in the continuance of his fame――“On Virgil’s post I fix for ever more;”

and he then bids farewell to his poetical studies.¹ Several editions

of his works were published in the sixteenth century at London and

Edinburgh, and they were comparatively popular.²

¹ _Ibid._, Volume IV., page 223.

² _Ibid._, Volume I., pages 67‒172. Mr. Small’s edition of

Douglas’s writings is very complete; he has done all that

careful research and scholarship could to present a correct

text, and to illustrate his author. The value of Douglas’s

writings for philological comparison and illustration has

long been fully recognised. See Volume I. Introduction,

pages 162‒166; and also Dr. J. A. Murray’s _Dialects of the

Southern Counties of Scotland_; 1873.

Dunbar and Douglas both belonged to the old form of religion and

society; and there are a few other writers of the same class who have

to be noticed ere we enter the heat of the Reformation era. The method

followed is intended to indicate the lines on which the historical

tendencies were running. While it will appear that the adherents of

Roman Catholicism were not all equally blind to the evils around them;

it will also appear that it has always been an object of the policy

of Romanism to hold the people in leading-strings, though this should

entail the utmost oppression and cruelty.

John Mair, already mentioned in connection with the Universities

of Glasgow and St. Andrews, was born in 1470, at Gleghornie, in the

parish of North-Berwick. It seems that he received the rudiments of

his education at the Grammar School of Haddington, a school which

had attained some note, even in the fourteenth century. In 1493, he

studied one session at the University of Cambridge, and the same year

he crossed the channel, and entered on his studies at the University of

Paris. Mair was an eager and diligent student, and he graduated Master

of Arts in 1496. He continued at the University of Paris, and taught

classes in Logic and Philosophy. In 1505 he graduated as Doctor

of Theology, and became one of the most famous scholastics of his

day, in the character of a Professor and a writer. Mair taught Logic

and Theology in the University of Paris from 1496 till 1518, and

in the latter year he returned to Scotland. On the 25th of June he

was installed as Principal Regent of the College of Glasgow, and he

taught in this College for five years. On the 9th of June 1523, he was

appointed a Regent or Professor in the University of St. Andrews, where

he taught Logic and Philosophy for some time. In 1525 Mair returned to

the University of Paris, where he remained till 1531, and then returned

to St. Andrews and lectured on Theology. In 1533 he was appointed

Provost of St. Salvator’s College, holding this office till his death,

which occurred in 1550. He is the author of a History of Britain in

Latin, a work of considerable value. He wrote also commentaries on

the Book of the Master of Sentences (Peter Lombard); an exposition of

the four Gospels; an Introduction to Aristotle’s Dialectics, and many

other writings. He wrote in Latin, and his style is harsh and uncouth.

But he held some comparatively liberal opinions touching the Church

and civil government. He denied the supremacy of the Pope, and showed

a disposition to limit the power of the censures of the Church; he held

that tithes were merely a human appointment; censured the avarice, the

ambition, and the secular pomp of the Episcopal order; and advised the

reduction of monasteries and holydays.¹ His views of government were

to the effect that kings and princes originally derived their authority

from the people; and that therefore the people were superior to the

King, if considered in their corporate character: that when kings

are tyrannical, or employed their power for the destruction of their

subjects, they may lawfully be controlled by them, and if incorrigible,

might be deposed and even punished by the community. The connection of

these principles with the political opinions afterwards avowed by Knox,

and clearly expounded by Buchanan, is too striking to need further

illustration. Yet, though these liberal and rational sentiments are

embodied in the writings of John Mair, it requires some attention to

disentangle them from the mass of trifling questions and discussions

which fill the pages of his works. The Scottish History Society have

just issued a translation of Mair’s History of Britain. The translation

was executed by Mr. Archibald Constable, who has added many interesting

notes to the work; while a Life of the Author, written by Sheriff

Mackay, is prefixed to it; and also a careful Bibliography of John Mair

and his Disciples, compiled by Mr. T. G. Law, the learned Librarian of

the Signet Library.

¹ Most of Mair’s writings were originally published at Paris;

Watt’s _Bibliotheca_, and Law’s _Bibliography of John Mair_,

appended to the newly issued edition of his _History of

Britain_.

The writings of Boece, the Principal of King’s College, Aberdeen,

are better known than Mair’s. Boece was a good Latinist, and has

an eloquent and charming style. His chief works are the Lives of

♦the Bishops of Mortlach and Aberdeen, and the History of Scotland.

Notwithstanding his learning he was extremely credulous; and in his

history he allowed his fancy a pretty long rein; but the character

of this work is so well known that it is unnecessary to dwell on its

peculiarities. It was published at Paris in 1526, and was afterwards

translated into the Scottish dialect by Bellenden.¹

♦ duplicate word “the” removed

¹ Herbert’s _Typographical Antiquities_, Volume III., pages 14,

71.

John Bellenden was a Catholic churchman, and attained to the rank of

Archdeacon of Moray. Before he was promoted to that position, he had

translated Boece’s History of Scotland into the vernacular, for the

use of James V. He was engaged on this task in 1530 and the three

following years; and at intervals he received from the Treasurer small

sums of money as the reward of his labours. His translation of Boece

is reported to have been printed in 1536, but it is more likely that it

was printed about 1540 by Thomas Davidson, the King’s printer; there is

no date on the book itself. Bellenden’s translation of the first five

books of Livy’s history, which was also produced for the instruction

of the King, was not printed till 1822. About 1537 he was promoted to

the archdeaconry of Moray, and shortly after obtained a prebend in the

cathedral of Ross.¹

¹ _Treasurers’ Accounts_; the Works of J. Bellenden, Volume I.,

pages 39‒41; Introduction, 1822. There is a fine copy of

Bellenden’s translation of Boece’s history in the library of

the University of Edinburgh, printed upon vellum. But “this

valuable volume seems to have been heedlessly committed to

the hands of a tasteless bookbinder, and has, in consequence,

suffered much from those operations known by the name of

cobbling.” Another copy was preserved in the library of the

Duke of Hamilton: “and a more splendid specimen of early

typography, and of antique binding, cannot well be imagined.

The vellum upon which it is printed is stainless――and the

breadth of the margin would satisfy the most fastidious and

princely collector. The boards bear the following inscription,

JACOBUS QUINTUS REX SCOTORUM――and on the title page, the

Initials J. Rx., appear in manuscript. They are in all

probability, in the handwriting of that monarch, to whom the

volume seems to have belonged.” At the sale of the Duke of

Hamilton’s Library in 1884, this fine copy was purchased by

Mr. Bernard Quaritch for £800. Works of Bellenden, Volume I.,

pages 7‒8; Introduction.

Bellenden’s translations are the longest prose compositions in the

Scottish dialect prior to the Reformation that have come down to

our times. His powers of expression were conspicuous, his style is

remarkably fluent and easy, and it often surprises the reader by

touches of vivacity and force. In his version of Boece’s history,

however, he does not adhere closely to his author, and frequently takes

the liberty of curtailing as well as amplifying; but, on the whole

he has improved the original, and rendered it more interesting. To

his translation of Boece’s history he has subjoined an epistle to the

King, which is written with manly freedom, and a few sentences of it

may be quoted as a specimen of the language of the period. “In every

history that men redis, apperis, evidently, the same maneris with the

pepil, which are usit by the King. And sen na thing is, that the pepil

followis with mair imitation, nor kepis in mair recent memory, than

werkis of nobil men; of reason, their besines suld be mair respondent

to virtew, than of any other estatis.... For these reasons, I that hes

bene your humil servitour sen your first infance, hes translatit the

History of Scotland, sen the first beginning thereof, in your vulgar

langage; that your Hienes may know the vailyeant and nobil dedis done

be your progenitouris; and have cognasance how this realm hes bene

governit these one thousand and eight hundred years bygane: which

was nevir subdewit to uncouth empire, but only to the native princis

thereof; howbeit the same hes sustenit gret truble, be weris of Romanis,

Inglismen, and Danis, with sindry chancis of fortoun. Here, may your

hienes understand how your realm suld be governit in justice, and what

persons are maist abil to beir authority or office thairintil.... The

truth is, that kingis and tyrannis hes mony handis, mony ene, and mony

more membris. A tyranne settis him to be dred; a king, to be loved. A

tyrane rejoices to make his pepil poor; a king, to make them rich. A

tyrane draws his pepil to sindry factions, discord, and hatred: a king

makis peace, tranquilite, and concord; knowing nathing sa dammagious as

division amang his subdittis. A tyrane confoundis all divine and humane

lawis; a king observes them, and rejoices in equite and justice....

What is he that will not rejoice to heir the knichtly affaris of thay

forcy compionis, King Robert Bruce, and William Wallace?”¹

¹ _Works_ of J. Bellenden, Volume II., pages 513‒516.

In common with John Mair and a few others of his contemporaries,

Bellenden held liberal political sentiments; although he was not

prepared for any radical change in the national religion, he was well

aware of the vicious lives of many of the clergy. In his proem or

preface to the translation of Boece, he states that the large incomes

of the churches had made the priests more slothful than fervent in

their proper work; and that the wealth of the bishops afforded them

occasion to lead vicious lives. The honest archdean was opposed to

the Reformation movement, but did not live to see it established in

Scotland. He went to Rome, where he died in 1550.¹

¹ _Ibid._, Volume I., page 110, and Introduction, page 42.

The _Complaynt of Scotland_, a very remarkable production, now falls

to be examined. Its authorship has not been exactly ascertained, but

it has been brought within the limit of two or three individuals who

lived in the first half of the sixteenth century. It is, however,

pretty clear that the author of this remarkable book was a Scotchman, a

churchman, and firmly attached to the Roman Catholic faith, and a warm

adherent of the French side in the struggle then raging in Scotland.¹

The work was called forth by the exigencies of the kingdom at the

time of its composition, and this greatly enhances its value. To

the historian it is a book of exceeding importance for the numerous

illustrations of the state of society which it affords, and for the

opinions of the author himself on a variety of matters. He introduces

an extremely multitudinous mass of subjects besides the treatment of

the main theme, and these digressions are very interesting.

¹ Introduction to the _Complaynt_, pages 106‒108, 116. Dr.

Leyden, in his learned and very valuable edition of the

_Complaynt_, has attributed its authorship to Sir David

Lyndsay. But this opinion upon reasonable grounds has been

set aside as untenable. Dr. Laing, in his preface to _The

Gude and Godlie Ballads_, came to the conclusion that

Robert Wedderburn, Vicar of Dundee, was the author of the

_Complaynt_. The question of its authorship, and also the

place of its publication, has since been discussed at great

length by Dr. Murray in his introduction to the edition of

the _Complaynt_ published for the Early English Text Society,

1872. It had been usually stated that the _Complaynt_ was

printed at St. Andrews in 1549; but Dr. Murray, from various

considerations, such as the spelling of certain words and

the absence of the letter W., and the style of type, being

Roman instead of the black letter, in which the old Scottish

books were commonly printed; from these circumstances,

and the fact that the typography of the _Complaynt_ bore

a striking likeness to that of many of the French books of

the sixteenth century, he was led to the conclusion that

the first edition of this book was printed in France. He

also states that the experts in typography at the British

Museum had independently arrived at the conclusion that the

_Complaynt_ was printed in France.

Dr. Murray’s opinion on the authorship is thus stated:――“Sir

David Lyndsay is peremptorily excluded from consideration;

no less so, I think, is Wedderburn, Vicar of Dundee. In

lack of further evidence, the claims of Sir James Inglis

of Cambuskenneth, and some unknown priest of the name of

Wedderburn, are equally balanced, though, if the part of

_Mackenzie’s Life_ which calls Inglis a man of Fyfe belongs

to this Inglis, the evidence of dialect would be against

him.” Touching the question of authorship as thus indicated,

compare Professor Veitch’s view, in the _History and Poetry

of the Scottish Borders_, pages 339‒342.

The _Complaynt of Scotland_ consists of two chief parts, the author’s

discourse concerning the wretched state of his country, and his dream

of Dame Scotia and her complaint against her three sons. But in the

sixth chapter he makes a digression and introduces what he knew of

cosmogony, botany, naval architecture, native songs, dances, and

popular tales. As this part of the book is interesting in connection

with the history of the national ballads and music, after describing

the chief part of the treatise, I will return and touch upon the points

embraced in it, and then conclude the account of the pre-reformation

literature, so far as it was unaffected by the new influences of the

revolutionary movement.

The writer begins his work with an epistle to the Queen mother, Mary of

Lorraine, and, rising to the height of the occasion, extols her virtue

and wisdom. He thinks that her counsel will do something to stave off

the subjection of the nation to their old enemies, the English. He then

proceeds to indicate the causes of their affliction, but soon returns

to the praise of the Queen and her noble ancestors, and continues

in this strain through six pages. To this illustrious person he had

resolved, he says, to dedicate the first work of his pen, and had

experienced some difficulty in deciding what to write about; but after

searching the library of his understanding, he deemed it most meet to

rehearse the miseries of Scotland and their causes. The epistle to the

Queen is followed by a prologue to the reader. He quotes with approval

the ancient laws against idleness; and sets himself to show that the

labour of the pen is no pastime, whatever it may seem. Having a talent

for study and writing, he desires to assist the public-weal by his

pen; as the pen had done more for the Romans than the sword, though

each craft was necessary in a well organised state, and every honest

occupation was equally honourable. He thinks it necessary to make an

apology for writing in the vulgar Scottish dialect; and he states that

several writers before him had mixed their language with uncouth terms,

derived from Latin, and measured their eloquence by the length of their

words;¹ but he, repudiating all such conceits, means to use his natural

Scottish tongue alone. In spite, however, of this declaration, his

work is encumbered with more foreign words than that of any Scottish

writer.² He requests the reader to look favourably upon his intentions,

and thus encourage him to make greater efforts in his next work.

¹ He gives instances of these long words――“gaudet

honorificabilitudinitatibus.” He holds “that all such terms

proceeds from fantastic and glorious conceits.”――_Complaynt

of Scotland_, pages 1‒17.

² The language of the _Complaynt_ has been admirably explained

by Dr. Murray in his Introduction. See pages 96‒106.

The _Complaynt_ extends to twenty chapters, some of which are very

short. The first five chapters are filled with the author’s opinions

upon the fortunes of nations, and the causes of the distress and

suffering which then afflicted Scotland. He avers that rulers are set

up and overturned by Divine Providence; and he supports this view by

instances from Scripture and from profane history, citing the fate

of Troy, Thebes, Sparta, Athens, Rome, and other powers, which had at

one time held empire in the world. He translates several passages from

the Vulgate, which he thinks applicable to the state of Scotland; and

concludes this part of his subject with a hit at the sceptical readers,

who might malignantly say that the threatenings of Moses referred not

to Scotland but to Israel.

He digresses to discuss various opinions concerning the world, its

duration and nature. Many believe, he says, that nothing is lasting

but the world, and are thus led to value temporal good more than

eternal well-being. People speak of the world, and know not what it

is. The ancient philosophers had spent much time in speculating on this

question; and he proceeds to state their opinions about the world. Too

many, he goes on to say, still believed that it would last 37,000 years,

as Socrates had taught, but will that make human life one day longer?

He quotes John Carion’s account of the prophecy of Elijah, to show

that the world will endure only 6000 years; and then states that as

1548 of the last two thousand were already past, there remain but 452

years till the final consummation of all things. Even this period was

to be shortened for the sake of the elect people, though the exact

date is not fixed, and thus the end of the world may be close at

hand. Therefore, as it is so near its end, “it should be held in

detestation,” he argues, “and our thoughts concentrated on the future

eternal happiness that God has promised to all those that hold it in

abomination.”¹

¹ Pages 31‒36.

“The Vision of Dame Scotia” opens in the seventh chapter, and occupies

the rest of the book. In somewhat figurative language he describes the

nobles, the clergy, and the people, all of whom were in a most wretched

state. He begins the eighth chapter by making more direct charges of

degeneracy, selfishness, and want of patriotism amongst all classes

of the Scots. Next, he draws a very natural picture of the condition

of the kingdom, reproaches the men who had sacrificed their country

for their own private interest, and refers to the feuds of the Scots

among themselves, and affirming that some of them had yielded to the

English and become vile slaves.¹ Having expressed his indignation, he

proceeds in the ninth chapter to urge the Scots to pray to God and help

themselves, to repent and prosper, and recited for their encouragement

the examples of several countries whose struggle for independence had

been successful. Next he briefly notices some of the wars of the Jews

as recorded in the Bible; recounts Darius’ invasion of Greece, and

his discomfiture by Miltiades; and how the great host of Xerxes, the

King of Persia, was bravely encountered by the Greeks, and ultimately

compelled to beat a retreat. He recalls to the mind of his countrymen

and bids them consider how the English were driven out of France. But

now it is manifest, he says, that the English have violently usurped

all Scotland, in the east, in the west, and in the north, where they

are dwelling peaceably under their own laws. In the days of Edward I.

they had done the same thing; though, with the aid of God, Robert

Bruce had driven them out of the kingdom. “Therefore I hope in God

that within a short time the Protector of England and his cruel

council shall be put in the chronicles in as abominable a style as was

Philaris, Dionysius, Nero, Callugala, or Domician, the which came to a

mischievous end, for the violent invasion of other princes’ countries

without any just cause.”

¹ After the battle of Pinkie, in September, 1547, the Duke

of Somerset received the homage of many of the chiefs and

gentry of the Eastern Borders; and the English warden of

the West Marches brought most of the clans of the west under

assurance. Their submission, however, lasted only till the

arrival of the French auxiliaries in 1549. But when the

_Complaynt_ was written the whole inhabitants of the border

counties were living under the English. Dr. Murray’s

Introduction, page 37.

The tenth chapter begins with an attack upon a book, set forth by the

English orators and their Protector, in which, though the grounds of

the claim were frivolous, the English wished to show to foreign princes

that they had a just title to make war upon Scotland; but our author

remarks that realms are not conquered by books, but with blood.¹

Englishmen, he said, gave more credence to the prophecies of Merlin

than to the Gospel, “because that their old prophet prophesied that

England and Scotland should be both under one prince.” The author

himself believed that this would come to pass, but not in his day, nor

in the way that the English expected; since they were to be conquered

by the Scots: “And from that time forth, England and Scotland shall be

but one monarchy, and shall live under one prince; and so Englishmen

shall get their prophecy fulfilled to their own mischief.”

¹ The particular book meant by the author has not been

ascertained, but four English pamphlets have come down to

us, which answer to his description, and were evidently in

the author’s mind here and in other parts of the Complaynt:

these pamphlets are printed as an appendix to Dr. Murray’s

edition, see pages 191‒256.

At the beginning of the eleventh chapter he introduces a rather

sweeping mode of treating the English claim; and yet it had a strain of

historic truth. He proposes to examine their title to England and what

they were themselves, and comes to the conclusion that they were the

descendants of Sergest and Hengest, the two Saxons who came to assist

the King of Britain in his wars, and after a short time, treacherously

dispossessed him. Ever since, this false race have possessed the

country by violence and tyranny; and most of the English kings have

murdered their predecessors. Henry I. was banished from the throne;

Henry III. was driven from it by his second son, Richard; King John was

a murderer; Edward II. and Richard II., perished miserably; Henry VI.

was murdered; Richard III. slew the children of Edward IV., and Henry

VII. obtained the crown of England by the support of the King of France;

so that not one of them had a just title to the throne of England, much

less to Scotland. “All this if well considered, should inflame your

hearts with courage to resist their cruel assaults, and to maintain by

valour the just defence of your native country. Ye know how they and

their forefathers have been your old mortal enemies for twelve hundred

years, making cruel war against your ancestors by fire and sword,

daily destroying your fields, villages, and burghs, with a firm purpose

to strip Scotland from your generation ... constantly lying in wait

against you, and taking advantage of your dissensions.” He exhorts his

countrymen to remove the causes of discord among themselves; and asks

what castle could be kept against besiegers, if mortal strife raged

within it among the defenders? He calls on them to remember the valour

of their forefathers, and to take an example from the noble deeds of

those, who in bygone ages had often been harder pressed than they were.

He tells the Scots that their enemies would not have troubled them,

if their own discord had not opened the way; and implores them to

make a final effort before their wives and daughters were ravished,

their property seized; their ruin complete, and the nation for ever

enslaved. After reminding them of the treatment to which the English

had subjected Ireland and Wales, he warns them to expect nothing better

at the hands of their old enemies. The King of England was of Welsh

descent, yet the Welsh were subjected to all kinds of oppression. So

likewise the English have oppressed Ireland, for the chief men of that

country have been beheaded, and the people enslaved, excepting the few

who had fled and found a refuge in the wilds. But a still harder yoke,

he argues, will be put on the necks of the Scots who help England to

subdue their native land――“As King Edward in the black parliament at

the barns of Ayr hanged sixteen score of his Scottish adherents; so

in 1547 the Protector Somerset intended to repeat this feat ... for

the invader had brought to Scotland two barrels full of halters, each

with a loop ready-made to receive its victim.... Though the English

King patronises the renegade Scots, he would be well pleased if every

Scotsman had another in his stomach; as he merely uses them for his own

ends, he loved the treason that suited his purpose, but not the traitor

that committed it.”

In the thirteenth chapter the author discusses the familiarity between

the English and the Scots, and its evil effects. This familiarity arose

from the intercourse of the people on the borders, and was contrary to

the laws both of England and Scotland. No two nations, he asserts, were

more unlike each other than the English and the Scots, though they were

neighbours and spoke the same language. “For Englishmen are subtle,

and Scotsmen are facile. Englishmen are ambitious in prosperity, and

Scotsmen are humane in prosperity. Englishmen are humble when they are

subjected by force and violence, and Scotsmen are furious when they

are violently subjected. Englishmen are cruel when they get victory,

and Scotsmen are merciful when they get victory.... Their natures and

conditions are as different as is the natures of sheep and wolves.”

He came to the conclusion that there should be no familiarity between

them; as familiarity between enemies is sure to beget treason, and the

King of England had tampered with several Scottish gentlemen. There

were also some traitors who revealed the secret plans of the Scottish

Council to the King of England; so when the Lords of Council resolved

on any matter, within twenty-four hours a full account of it was in

Berwick, and three days after the Berwick post presented it in London:

thus the English were ready to thwart the purpose of the Scots, even

before it was entered upon. He regretted that there were Scotsmen who

would reveal every secret of their country rather than burn a finger

of their gloves. But, lest persuasion and invective should both fail

to arrest the Scottish traitors, he quoted various classical and

Scriptural instances to show that traitors and conspirators were always

punished even by those who have profited most by their treason.¹ He

devoted the whole of the fourteenth chapter to the illustration of the

subject.

¹ The authorities cited by the author of the _Complaynt_

are the following:――Aristotle, Politics; St. Augustine,

Boccaccio, Bœthius, Carion’s Chronicle; Cato, Cicero,

De Officiis, Parody, De Finibus, Epistolæ; Diodorus,

Josephus, Justin, Juvenal, Lactantius, Livy, Mimus Publianus,

Persius, Philiremo Fregoso, Plutarch, Priest of Peebles,

Sallust, Seneca the Tragedian, Thucydides, Valerius Maximus,

Vincentius, besides many references to the Civil and Canon

Law, to the Annals of Rome, and to the Old and New Testament,

the Vulgate version. The author of the _Complaynt_ was

familiar with Lydgate’s translation of Boccaccio, and

frequently used it. Dr. Murray observes, “That in no case

does the original of any Greek author appear to be quoted in

the _Complaynt_: Greek was only struggling for recognition

at Oxford and Cambridge; and it was not till after the

Reformation that it became an ordinary acquirement of the

scholar.” _Introduction_, pages 30‒31, 67‒68.

In the fifteenth chapter he enters on another side of the state of

Scotland――the commons and the people state their grievances against the

nobles and the clergy. I referred to this chapter before, and will now

give a summary of its contents, as it is one of the most valuable parts

of the book. The industrious husbandmen and the labourers pour forth

their lamentations against the oppressive exactions of the landlords

and the clergy. The people are, like dull asses, kicked and goaded, and

made the butt of every dart. They are compelled to labour night and day

to feed lazy and useless men, who, in return, oppress them and fleece

them even to beggary. The nobles and the clergy are described as more

cruel to them than the English invaders. Their corn and cattle are

daily reft from them, and they themselves turned out of their holdings.

“They were forced to lend to the tyrants above them, and when they

asked for the debt, they were cuffed or killed. There was a cry for

war against England, but the brunt of it really fell upon the poor

labourers; and there was no help for them in Scotland, except to pray

to God that He would take vengeance upon their oppressors. For it is to

be presumed that the lamentable voice and cries of the afflicted people

complaining to heaven, will move to pity the clemency of the most

merciful and puissant divine Creator, who, through His eternal justice,

will crush in confusion all violent usurpers that perpetrate such cruel

iniquities upon the desolate and poor people. Therefore, oh! my country,

since I am in danger of death, and despairing of my life, necessity

drives and constrains me to call on God, and to desire vengeance

on them that persecute me, in hope that He will relieve me, or else

take me out of this miserable life, for the ingratitude of the nobles

and the clergy.” He goes on to say that they had misgoverned the

kingdom, and brought the people into this dire extremity, yet they were

displeased because the people murmured, though they did not desist from

wrongdoing. These proud men, it is said, would fain have it believed

that they were the progeny of angels and archangels, instead of the

common sons of Adam. How baseless is the boast of blood! “Let it be

tested. The stock of the first genealogy of all the nobles that has

been since the world began has been poor labourers and mechanical

craftsmen; and God grant that these arrogant ones may have grace to

know themselves. For in the past all conspiracies have been originated

and fomented by the great, as treason is impossible among the poor.”

No one can read this chapter without perceiving that the author has

felt keenly for the hard lot of the common people; albeit, in the next

chapter he looks at the other side of the shield, and he is equally

severe on the faults of the people themselves. The commonalty are

described as deserving punishment as much as their betters, and are not

fit for liberty; if they had the opportunity, they would be worse than

the others. Their meetings were usually scenes of uproar; “where they

scolded and barked without rhyme or reason all the day long.” They

follow the most blatant prater like sheep, were fickle in their minds,

and the counsel of ten prudent men was better than all the wisdom of

the commons. Their judgment is worthless, as they jump to conclusions

at first sight, and are worse than the brute beasts. They are

intemperate, lustful, and steady only when forced. When any of them

rise in the world, they were much worse than the higher classes, and

their children are ignorant, vain, prodigal and arrogant. The chapter

closes with an old piece of advice to the commons, that they should

correct themselves before they accuse the nobles and the clergy.

In the seventeenth chapter he turns again to the vices of the nobles,

and begins by saying that the faults of the people should not make

the nobles glory. He shortly shows that they have no ground for

glorification, and he declares that they have scarcely a spark of

nobleness or gentleness in them. To make this quite clear, he discusses

the origin of gentlemen, speaks of the golden age, when habits were

simple and men’s tastes natural; when the people drank no wine nor

beer, nor yet disordered their appetites with spices, herbs, drugs,

gums, or sugar, brought from distant lands. There was no difference

of conditions, and all being equal, they all lay together in a corner

without any shame or offence. But, since the iron age, which now

reigns, was ushered in, everything has been perverted, and though

many expedients have been tried to mitigate suffering, there has been

comparatively little success.

True nobility is not hereditary, and when the descendants of nobles

cease to perform worthy deeds, they deserve to be degraded from their

privileged position. It is far better to be virtuous one’s self than

to attempt to draw one’s lineage from the virtuous; even the son of

a prince if he lacks virtue is not a gentleman. Some gentlemen are

ashamed that their ancestors were plebeians. But how vain is the boast

of high ancestry, as the longest line must begin in mud and clay. Men

therefore should have as their armorial bearings dust, ashes, and earth.

“As they must all return to their common and general mother the earth,

and she makes no acceptation of persons nor differences of qualities

between gentlemen and mechanics, but receives them all indifferently in

her domicile and receptacle. Then when the corrupted flesh is consumed

from the bones, no man can distinguish a prince from a beggar.”

He becomes very serious on the character of the nobles, but from other

sources of information it seems that his description of them is not

much overdrawn. “It appears that when your noble predecessors died,

they took their virtue and gentility with them to their sepultures, and

they left nothing with you but the title of their gentle rank.... For I

see nothing among gentlemen but vice. For honesty is spotted, ignorance

is praised, prudence is scorned, and chastity is banished; the nights

are too short to gentlemen to commit their lecheries, and the days

are too short to them to commit extortions upon the poor people. Their

blasphemy of the name of God corrupts the ear. The prodigal pride that

reigns among them is detestable, not only in costly dress above their

state, but also in the prodigal expenses that they incur on horses and

dogs, above their rents or riches. A man is not reputed for a gentleman

in Scotland unless he expends more on his horses and his dogs than he

does on his wife and children.... There are too many horses in Scotland,

like Diomede’s horse, that eats the poor people; and there are too many

dogs in Scotland that worries their master, as Actæon was worried.”

The nineteenth chapter treats of the shortcomings of the clergy, but

the treatment of them is not so severe as that of the nobles and the

people. The author makes general charges against the spiritual estate,

and speaks of abuses prevailing among them; but his reproof of the

priesthood is not so distinctly put or thrust home as his complaints

against the other classes. From this it has been inferred that the

author was himself an ecclesiastic.¹ Probably he was a member of the

spiritual class; at least, be was firmly attached to the Roman Catholic

faith, and a hater of schism; though his sagacity enabled him to see

the folly of burning heretics.

¹ Dr. Murray’s Introduction, pages 60‒63.

The abuses of the clergy had caused dissension between them and the

temporal estate. “For the clergy and the nobles lived like cats and

dogs barking at each other, therefore there is not one of you better

than another.... Doubtless thy abuse, and the sinister ministration

of thy office, is the special cause of the schism and of the diverse

sects that troubles all Christendom. Howbeit, though the root of these

schisms and sects are in Germany, Denmark, and England, nevertheless

the branches of them are spread athwart all Christian realms in such

a way that they have more adherents nor adversaries, for diverse men

desire a part of the temporal patrimony of the kirk, because of the

abuse and evil example of the churchmen. And this plague of schism

can never be reformed by any statutes, laws, punishments, banishings,

burning, forfeiting, nor torment that can be devised till the time

that the clergy reform themselves. Therefore, if the clergy were as

solicitous to reform and correct their own malversation as they are

solicitous to punish those that detract and murmur at their obstinate

abuses, certainly the example of their good conversation would

extinguish and supplant more hastily all perverted opinions and schism,

than all the punishment that Christendom can execute. While the clergy

remain in their present state, the punishment which they execute upon

schismatics may be fitly compared to a man that casts oil on a burning

fire in hope to extinguish it and to drown it out, the which oil

makes the fire more bold than it was before. The evidence of this is

manifest; for as soon as there is a person slain, burnt, or banished

for holding perverted opinions, immediately there rises up three in his

place; therefore such punishment may be compared to a serpent called

hydra, which had seven heads.” He tells the clergy to unite together

and reform their scandalous lives and the abuses that reign amongst

themselves.

The author of the _Complaynt_ shows sound judgment in his remarks on

the burning of heretics. He informs his brethren that they have more to

fear from England than from the laity; and proceeds to show that Henry

VIII. hated the English clergy, and that those of Scotland need expect

no more mercy at his hands. He therefore counsels the clergy, at least

all who were able-bodied, to cast aside their cowls and long robes

and buckle themselves with steel jackets and coats of mail, and go

boldly into the battle against the English army of vile heretics and

excommunicated infidels.¹

¹ The author said that all classes were bound by every law,

human and divine, to fight for their country――“Then why

should priests or friars allege exemptions, saying that

their profession obliges them to sing and say, to preach

and pray, and not to fight in battle,” pages 161‒164.

He begins the twentieth and last chapter by stating that the intestine

strife which was raging in Scotland had done her more injury than all

the armies of England; and he concludes his work with a general address

to the various ranks of the Scots, in which he illustrates his views by

historical examples at great length; and ends by telling them that God

will help them, if they help themselves.

The author of the _Complaynt_ displays much knowledge of the world,

and considerable learning for his age and country. His style of remark

is shrewd and striking, and his illustrations are often apposite,

and sometimes exceedingly happy. He exhibits a very keen relish for

invective, and occasionally he makes telling hits. His phraseology is

not nearly so coarse as that of many of his contemporaries.

It has been inferred that the sixth chapter, as it now stands, is

mainly an addition made by the author when his work was passing

through the press, and inserted as a piece of attractive reading.

This chapter opens with the description of a walk which he took among

the green fields. He passed to the foot of a hill where there was a

stream teeming with fishes, and overhung by a wooded bank, amid which

the melodious songs of birds charmed his ear. He then entered a forest,

and listened to the cries of the animals and the fowls of the air. From

this scene he passed to the seashore, and there he saw a naval conflict

between a galley and another ship. His description of the scene is very

minute and animated. He repeats the sea cries then in use, and gives

a list of the artillery and firearms known in Scotland in the early

part of the sixteenth century. Leaving the two vessels enveloped in

the smoke of powder, he returns to the fresh fields. He then proceeds

to relate the current opinions of the age about the universe, the

motions of the sun, the moon, the fixed stars, and the planets; and

astrology as well as astronomy engaged his attention. After discoursing

learnedly on these exalted subjects, he concludes this part of his

work in the following words:――“All these things before rehearsed, of

the circles of the sphere, and of the heavens and planets, is said

to cause you to consider that mankind is subject to the planets and

their influences; therefore we should prepare and provide to resist

these evil constellations. For, howbeit, that they are the instruments

of God, yet, nevertheless, He of his goodness resists their evil

influences from the time that we become obedient to his command.”

The latter half of this chapter is very valuable, as he introduces

into it a list of the popular tales, songs, ballads, and dances,

then popular among the Scots. The names, or titles, of forty-eight

tales were recorded, the names of thirty-seven songs, or ballads, and

the names of about thirty dance-tunes. Altogether the list contains

one hundred and sixteen titles of distinct things of the character

indicated.¹ These lists are important in connection with the history of

our popular literature, as they afford the earliest date for many tales,

ballads, and tunes; although a tale or a ballad is only mentioned in

the briefest terms, still it is evidence that they existed, at least,

in the first half of the sixteenth century.

¹ The lists were analysed by Dr. Leyden in his introduction to

the _Complaynt_, and by Mr. Furnivall in his introduction to

_Captain Cox, his Ballads and Books_, edited by him for the

Ballad Society, 1871; and Dr. Murray has given a very useful

summary of the list, chiefly drawn from the above sources.

See Introduction to the _Complaynt_, pages 73‒96. Sir David

Lyndsay mentions several of the tales enumerated in the

_Complaynt_. Those who wish to become familiar with this

interesting department of early British literature will

now have little difficulty of finding ample materials,

which have been rendered accessible in a printed form by

the various book clubs and societies both of England and

Scotland.

CHAPTER XXI.

_The Literature of the Reformation,

and the latter part of the Sixteenth Century._

IN the preceding pages an account was given of the pre-reformation

literature of Scotland; in this chapter the class of writings more

immediately associated with the revolution will be treated. In this

connection, the writings of Sir David Lyndsay had more influence among

the people in hastening on the Reformation than those of any other man

of the age in Scotland. It is a singular and notable fact that Lyndsay

was not interfered with, nor accused of heresy in the Church, though he

made many bold attacks upon the priesthood and the corrupted doctrine

of the Roman Church: probably it was his rank and position that saved

him from the heresy hunters of the times. Whether he ever actually

renounced his general adherence to the Roman Catholic faith is

uncertain. His name, however, is always reckoned among those of the

early adherents of the Scottish Reformation. His death took place

before the reformed party in Scotland had assumed a distinct attitude

toward the government of the kingdom, or had even formed themselves

into an open congregation; but, if he cannot be exactly counted as one

of the Protestant Reformers, we must at least regard him as a great

power in preparing the national mind for the reception of the radical

revolution, which triumphed in Scotland within a few years after his

death.¹ In fact, Lyndsay was a real and worthy Reformer. He openly

and bravely stood up and exposed the abuses of the government of his

country, and held up to scorn the corruptions of the Church; he was

not afraid to denounce the host of traditions, of puerile fancies, and

inherited prejudices, which had been venerated for centuries; he felt

keenly for the hard lot of the toiling mass of his countrymen, and the

whole force of his nature and power over the language was thrown into

his writings, with the aim of mitigating the suffering of the people.

Having honestly faced the storm, he has had his reward in the grateful

remembrance of succeeding generations.

¹ _Poetical Works_ of Sir D. Lyndsay, edited by Dr. Laing,

2 Volumes, 1871, _Memoir_, Volume I., pages 45‒50. “Had

Lyndsay survived for a few years beyond the actual term

of his life, we need scarcely doubt he would have joined

himself to the Lords of the Congregation in the abjuration

of Popery; but it cannot be said that, at any period of

his life, he had actually renounced his general adherence

to the Romish Faith.” Compare Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of Knox_,

pages 17, 25, 324; 1855. “His poems were very famous among

his countrymen; but they were admired not so much for their

poetical charms as for their powerful help to the good

cause of the Reformation.”――Minto’s _Characteristics of the

English Poets_, pages 143‒144.

Little is known about the early days of Sir David Lyndsay of the Mount;

but it appears that he was employed at the court of Scotland during the

greater part of his life. For a period of nearly fifty years, excepting

the short time that the Earl of Angus held James V. in captivity,

Lyndsay seems to have been constantly engaged in various offices in the

royal household. About the year 1529, he was appointed chief Herald,

or Lyon King of Arms, as it is called, and he held this office till his

death. In the latter part of the reign of James V. he was occasionally

sent on foreign embassies in the service of the government. He died

about the year 1555.¹

¹ Dr. Laing’s _Memoir_, pages 12‒22, 29, Chalmers’s Edition of

the Poetical Works of Sir D. Lyndsay, Volume I., pages 11‒14,

17, 36; 1806.

Lyndsay was not a great poet nor a man of very remarkable genius;

all his works had practical aims, and were intended to produce moral

results. He was well informed, familiar with the history of his own and

other countries, and his writings are interspersed with many historical

allusions. He had a fund of genuine humour, and his satire is often

pungent and stinging; but his taste was rather coarse, which, however,

was partly the fault of his age, and sprang out of the state of society.

If his style had been pitched on a higher key, it is certain that his

writings would not have been so popular, and that his influence as

a reformer must have been greatly circumscribed. Some of Lyndsay’s

productions were printed in his own lifetime, but it is uncertain if

any of the existing early impressions had the advantage of his own

revision when passing through the press.¹ The earliest collection of

his writings extant is the edition which was published in France in

1558. From this date to the year 1614 there was no fewer than fourteen

editions of his works published, including the two French and the three

English ones. His writings were not only very popular among all ranks

of the Scots; they were also well received in England and France, and

were printed in Holland and in Ireland. It is reported that his poems

were read by the children in the schools,² but there is little evidence

of this; though for three or four generations his writings were to be

found in almost every household throughout the kingdom.

¹ “Some of his works were undoubtedly circulated during

his own life in a printed form, but of the existing early

impressions, it cannot positively be asserted that any one

of them had the advantage of his own superintendence.” Dr.

Laing’s edition, Preface. Volume I., page 1.

² Chalmers said that Lyndsay’s poetical works were read in

the schools. _Works_ of Sir David Lyndsay, Volume I., pages

83‒91.

In the days of Lyndsay the orthography of the vernacular language was

not definitely fixed, and the spelling of the same word is often varied

in his writings. He sometimes makes violent changes in words to suit

the necessity of his rhyme, and occasionally carries this so far as to

obscure the sense. But he had a copious command of words, and used a

great variety of all sorts of terms. His chief object was to instruct

and to make himself intelligible to the common people; in his own

words――

“Howbeit that divers devote cunning clerks

In Latine tongue has written sundrie books,

Our unlearned knows little of their works,

More than they do the ravying of the rooks.

Wherefore to colliers, carters, and to cooks,

To Jok and Thome my rhyme sall be directed,

With cunning men howbeit it will be lacked.”¹

¹ _Poetical Works_, Volume I., page 248, Dr. Laing’s edition;

see also pages 65‒66, 231. In those days it was common to

make apologetic prefaces for composing works in the vulgar

tongue; the great Chaucer deemed it needful to do this, also

Lydgate, Gavin Douglas, and the author of the _Complaynt

of Scotland_, as already mentioned; even in the reign of

Charles I., Abacue Bysett, in the preface to the _Rolment

of Courtes_, apologised for “using my awin natural Scottish

language.”

He went on to state that when the Romans held universal sway, “the

ornate Latin was their proper lingo;” but if St. Jerome, who translated

the Scriptures into Latin, had been born in Argyle, he assuredly

would have written his books in Gaelic. He argues that all the books

necessary for the commonweal and our salvation should be translated

into the language of the people. His works are full of moral sentences

and proverbial phrases, but many of his words are obsolete, and others

which he freely used are regarded as profane slang; in fact, some of

his expressions can only be characterised as swearing at large; on the

whole, his language gives a sad impression of the state of society in

pre-reformation times.

Lyndsay’s first poem, “The Dreme,” in which he began his attack

upon the clergy and the Church, was written in 1528. It contains a

deplorable picture of the religious orders. Pride had usurped the

place of humility amongst them, sensual pleasure had banished chastity;

the lords of religion were more absorbed in counting their money than

in observing their rule and attending to their duty, as ambition had

so utterly blinded them. In his _Complaynt_, written in 1529, and

addressed to the King, Lindsay warns his royal master to keep his

eyes upon the clergy, to cause them to perform their functions, to

preach and to administer the sacraments according to the injunctions

of Christ, to put aside their vain traditions by which the silly people

were deluded, as in praying to graven images, and making superstitious

pilgrimages, expressly against the Lord’s command. He recalls the

examples of the kings of Israel, who were punished for assenting to

idolatry, and then instances David and Solomon, who suffered no images

to stand in the Temple, and their reward was heavenly bliss, which

should also be granted to the King of Scotland if he followed in their

footsteps.¹

¹ _Poetical Works_, Volume I., pages 39, 59‒60. All the

references are to Dr. Laing’s edition, unless otherwise

noted.

Lyndsay’s next production, “The Testament and Complaynt of the King’s

Papyngo,” that is, the king’s parrot, was written in 1530. He brings

out this bird to laugh at clerical persons and the attendants of the

court, and uses his satirical faculty with much effect, ridiculing in

turn the courtiers, flatterers, and clergy. One of the latter is made

to reply in these words:――

“No marvell is, though we religious men

Degenerated be, and in our life confused:

But sing, and drink, none other craft we ken,

Our spiritual Fathers has us so abused:

Against our will, these swindlers been intrusted.

* * * * *

Great pleasure were to hear a bishop preach,

A Deane, or Doctor in Divinity,

An Abbot who could well his convent teach,

A Parson flowing in philosophy:

I tine my time, to wish what will not be;

Were not the preaching of the Begging Friars

Tint were the faith among the Seculars.

As for their preaching, said the parrot,

I them excuse, for why, they been so thrall

To Property, and her worthy daughters two,

Dame Riches, and fair lady Sensuall,

That may not use no pastime spirituall;

And in their habits, they take such delite,

They have renounced russat and raploch¹ white.”²

¹ A coarse woollen cloth.

² _Poetical Works_, Volume I., pages 99, 101. “The first

edition of this poem, and indeed of any of Lyndsay’s poems,

is that printed at London by John Byddell in the year 1538.”

Dr. Laing.

The “Supplication to the King, in Contemplation of Side Tails,” is an

extremely curious commentary on the dress of the period. Lyndsay here

directs his satire against the long trains and veiled faces of the

ladies; but rarely lets slip an opportunity of having a fling at the

clergy and the monastic orders, as the following lines bear witness:――

“But, I think most abuse,

To see men of religion,

Gar beir their tails throw the street,

That folks may behold their feet,

I trow Sanct Bernard nor Sanct Blais,

Gart never man beir up thair clais;

Peter, nor Paul, nor Sanct Andrew,

Gart nevir beir up thair tails, I trow,

But, I laugh best to see a Nun,

Gar beir her tails abone her bun,

For nothing else as I suppose,

But for to show her lily white hose:

In all thair rules they will not find,

Who should beir up their tails behind.”

To show the power of fashion, he asserts that even moorland Meg, who

milked the ewes, will immediately counterfeit the queen’s dress, and

have her kirtle with its tail wherever she goes. In summer when the

streets are dry, the long tails of the ladies’ dresses raise such a

dust, he says, that no one can walk near them without covering their

mouth and nose and eyes, and many other rather comical effects of

wearing long tails are noticed.¹

¹ _Poetical Works_, Volume I., pages 130‒135.

In the short poem “Kitteis Confession,” Lindsay directed his satire

against auricular confession, and exposes this source of priestly

influence with much pungency and some happy touches of humour. He

pursued a similar end in “the Tragedie of the Cardinal,” but with less

spirit and energy. To a rather general account of Cardinal Beaton’s

life, and his end in the castle of St. Andrews, he adds an admonition

and a warning to the bishops, and another to princes; the latter

concludes with the following:――

“Wherefore I counsel every Christian king,

Within his realm to make reformation,

And suffer no more rogues to reign

Abuse Christ’s true congregation:

Failing thereof, I make narration,

That ye princes, and prelates, all at once,

Shall burnt be in hell, soul, blood, and bones.”¹

¹ _Poetical Works_, pages 136‒140, 157. The tragedy of “The

Cardinal” was printed at London in 1547. In the prologue

to this composition, Lyndsay referred to a work on

Boccaccio――“The Fall of Princes,” which was translated into

English by Lydgate, and published at London in 1494, and

again in 1527.

The most remarkable of all Lyndsay’s works is his play, “The Satire of

the Three Estates.” It is a curious production, and in the history of

dramatic literature comes under the class of what is called moralities

or moral plays.¹ In its construction a number of real and allegorical

characters are brought upon the scene, such as king humanitas,

diligence, wantonness, good counsel, the bishop, the abbot, and the

parson; the shoemaker and his wife, the tailor and his wife, the cottar

and his wife, the old man, common theft, oppression, and many other

mixed characters. Much ingenuity in the marshalling of these various

characters is displayed in order to suit the action of the play;

though it is hardly possible for such a multitudinous rally to exhibit

a natural succession of incidents throughout so long a performance.

The action of the play, however, is sustained with wonderful spirit,

and occasionally with comic effect. The characters sometimes express

themselves in very coarse and obscene language, and there is much of

what would be called swearing, and would not be tolerated on the stage

of the present day or anywhere else; yet, there is not the slightest

reason to doubt that the “Satire of the Three Estates” is a pretty

faithful representation of the state of society in Scotland in

pre-reformation times.

¹ The full title is――“Ane Pleasant Satire of the Three Estates,

in Commendation of Virtue and Vituperation of Vice.”

The play, as its title imported, is a satire on the chief ranks of the

kingdom. But, as usual with Lyndsay, the burden of his rhyme and the

force of his lash falls upon the religious orders. He proceeds from

point to point, and charges them with a catalogue of immoralities which

is appalling. The bishops, with their lordly riches and immoral modes

of life, are represented in the most glaring colours, as are also the

abuses of their courts and the oppressions of the poor people. The

pardoner and his ways of extorting money are handled with boldness and

effect. It is forcibly shown that the priesthood had entirely neglected

to instruct the people in the religion of Christ; and that most of the

clergy were utterly ignorant of the Scriptures. It must be added that

the language itself which imparts this information affords evidence of

the fearful corruption of the nation: the profane swearing, the obscene

words and phrases, the extreme licentiousness, and the lack of delicacy,

which pervades the performance, all shows that there was great need for

a reformation.

In the course of the play the abbot is called upon to tell how he has

performed the duties of his office, and he replies in these words:

“Touching my office, I say to you plainly,

My monks and I, we live richt easily;

There is no monks, from Carrick to Crail,

That fairs better, and drinks more helsum ale.

My prior is a man of great devotion:

Therefore, daily, he gets a double portion.”

Next, the abbot is asked how he has kept his three vows, and returns

this answer:――

“Indeed, richt well, till I got home my bulls,

In my abbey, when I was sure professor;

Then did I live, as did my predecessor.

My parmours are both as fat and fair,

As any wench intill the town of Ayr.

I send my sons to Paris to the schools,

I trust in God that they shall be no fools.

And all my daughters I have well provided.

Now judge ye if my office be well guided.”¹

¹ _Works_, Volume II., pages 263, 264. For evidence that the

monks lived luxuriously and drank large quantities of ale

and wine, see Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in

Scotland_, Volume I., pages 431, 433. New Ed., 1892.

On being asked whether he can preach, the Parson replies:――

“Though I preach not, I play at the caiche:¹

I wait there is not one among you all,

More fairly can play at the football;

And for the carts, the tables, and the dice,

Above all parsons, I may bear the prize.

Our round bonnets, we make them now four-nuicked,

Of richt fine stuff, if you list, come and luke it.

Of my office I have declared to thee;

Speir what ye please, ye get no more of me.”²

¹ A game of hand-ball.

² Lyndsay’s _Works_, Volume II., pages 264, 265.

There was no theatre at the time in Scotland, and the satire of the

“Three Estates” was acted in the open air, upon the green. It was first

played at Linlithgow, on the 6th of January, 1540, in the presence of

the King and Queen, the ladies of the court, the bishops, and a great

assemblage of the people. It was again acted at Cupar Fife, on the

playfield, about the year 1552; and at Edinburgh in 1554, before the

Queen Regent, the nobles, and a large gathering of the people. On

the latter occasion the performance of the play began at nine in the

morning and continued till six at night; but it appears from the play

itself that there were short intervals, when the chief auditory retired

for refreshments.¹

¹ _Works_, Volume I., pages 33‒35, Preface. Volume II., pages

346‒348, and Chalmers’s edition, Volume I., pages 356‒358.

Dr. Laing holds that there is no evidence that Lyndsay’s

play was acted at Cupar in 1535, as had been supposed by

Chalmers and others.

Some information respecting dramatic exhibitions of the period may be

obtained from the records of Edinburgh. According to these, in June,

1554, the provost and council ordered the treasurer to pay the workmen,

the merchants, the carters, and others, who furnished the gear to the

convoy of the moirs to the abbey, and for the play which was acted

the same day, the sum of thirty-seven pounds, sixteen shillings, and

fourpence, “provided always that the master of work deliver to the dean

of guild the hand-scene and canvass, to be kept to the behoof of the

town.” On the 27th of the same month the treasurer was ordered to pay

the sum of twenty-four pounds for the making of the playing place.

On the 20th of July the town council ordered the payment of forty-two

pounds, thirteen shillings, and fourpence, to complete the playfield

“now building in the Greenside.” On the 18th of August the council

directed that the twelve minstrels who passed before the convoy and the

players on Sunday last should be paid forty shillings. The play-gear

it seems belonged to the town, as the council ordered the treasurer

to pay Walter Binning the sum of five pounds for making the play-gear,

painting the hand-scene and the players’ faces, “provided always that

the said Walter make the play-gear underwritten, forthcoming to the

town, when required, and which he has now received――eight play-hats, a

king’s crown, a mitre, a fool’s hood, a sceptre, a pair of angel-wings,

two angel-hair, and a chaplet of triumph.”¹ On the occasion of Queen

Mary’s marriage with the Dauphin of France in 1558, the magistrates

of Edinburgh voted various sums of money for plays and triumphs;² and

there are many indications that the people delighted in rude plays and

pageants.

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume II., pages 193, 195,

196, 197, 198, 199.

² _Ibid._, Volume III., pages 26, 28. So different was the

progress of the drama in England and Scotland, that before

the year 1633 nineteen playhouses had been opened in London,

while on our side of the Border there was hardly one worth

the name of a theatre.――Percy’s _Essay on the Origin of the

English Stage_, page 151.

Sir David Lyndsay’s other works are “Squire Meldrum,” and “The

Monarchy” or “A Dialogue between Experience and a Courtier of the

miserable Estate of the World.” The first is a kind of rhymed tale of

chivalry, though the hero of the story lived at the time, and Lyndsay

reported that he received some of his information from the lips of the

champion himself; and thus by a mixture of fact and romance, he has

woven a long and pretty animated poem. The many exploits of the heroic

squire are narrated with much energy throughout a performance extending

to nearly two thousand lines.¹ In 1553 Lyndsay finished his longest

work, the Monarchy, which extends to 6333 lines. In this work, his

chief object seems to have been, to make use of the great events

recorded in history for the purpose of illustrating general positions.

After a review of the most notable events narrated by Moses, and of the

four great ancient monarchies――Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans,

of whose history he evinces some knowledge, he proceeds to handle the

spiritual monarchy of the Pope. In this he was more in his element,

and soon shows that none of the rulers of the ancient monarchies ever

had such powerful armies to uphold their authority throughout their

dominions, as the Pope of Rome actually commanded. He illustrated his

view by referring to the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, and the

vast legions of priests, vicars, monks, friars, and nuns――all holding

under the Pope, and mentioned the enormous privileges and powers which

this army had obtained in every Christian kingdom. He then goes on to

show that the Popes had abused their power, by corrupting religion,

by enslaving and oppressing the people without mercy; and he lashes

the occupant of the chair of St. Peter and all his hosts down to the

begging friars on the street, and the pardoners that hawked the country

selling salvation. Waxing bolder, he predicts the downfall of the

temporal power of the Pope, and fixes the day of God’s judgment of the

world to be――“in four hundred and forty-seven years” from the date when

he wrote. This remarkable work concluded with these words:――

“And speed me home, with heart sighing full sore,

And entered in my Oritore.

I took paper, and there began to write

This misery, as ye have heard afore.

All gentle readers heartily I implore

For to excuse my rural rude indite,

Though Phareseis will have at me despite,

Who would not that their craftiness were kend:

Let God be Judge! And so I make an end.”²

¹ Much information about Squire Meldrum will be found in

Chalmers’s Notes to Lyndsay’s _Poems_, and in Dr. Laing’s

Notes, also in Pinkerton’s _Ancient Scottish Poems_, 1786,

and in his _Scottish Poems_, reprinted from scarce editions,

1792. The rhymed story itself was probably composed about

the year 1543.

² _Works_, Volume II., pages 104‒105. The three-volume Library

edition containing a complete text of Lyndsay’s works,

published about eighteen years ago, was enriched with the

curious information and the careful research of the late

Dr. Laing. Another work of a different character, may be

noticed――“The Register of Arms of the Scottish Nobility

and Gentry,” executed in the year 1542, under Lyndsay’s

direction, as Lyon Herald. The arms are carefully drawn, and

properly blazoned; indeed they are among the most creditable

products of Scottish art which now remain of that period. It

contains the arms of the Royal Family of Scotland; and the

arms in full blazonry of many of the ancient nobles, and the

shields and quarterings of 194 of the principal families in

the country. The original volume has been preserved in the

Advocates’ Library since 1698, having been acquired with

Balfour’s Manuscript Collections. A limited impression of

an exact facsimile of the original Register was published

at Edinburgh in 1821, by W. and D. Laing. In 1879, another

impression limited to 250 copies, was published by Mr.

Paterson, at Edinburgh, which was also edited by the late Dr.

Laing. There is a pretty full account of Sir David Lindsay,

in the first volume of the _Lives of the Lindsays_, by Lord

Lindsay; in Tytler’s _Lives of Scottish Worthies_, and other

sources easily accessible. In short, students that wish

to understand the state of Society in Scotland immediately

before the Reformation, must make themselves familiar with

the writings of Sir David Lyndsay of the Mount.

There were other writers of rhymes in Scotland, who attacked the abuses

of Catholicism, though their names are not so well known as Sir David

Lyndsay’s. Killor, a friar, who was burnt for heresy, is reported to

have composed a tragedy on the crucifixion of Christ, in which the

Catholic clergy was attacked. About the same time James Stewart, son of

Lord Methven, wrote short poems and ballads satirising the priesthood.

James Wedderburn, a poet of some note, the son of a merchant, was

born in Dundee about the beginning of the sixteenth century. According

to the Bannatyne manuscript, he was the author of three short poems,

commencing respectively with the following lines:――“My love was ♦fals

and full of flatterie,” “I think thir men are very fals and vain,” “O

man, transformit and unnaturall.” It is also reported that he composed

two dramatic pieces, which were acted at Dundee about the year 1540;

in both of which the Catholic clergy were attacked, but these are

now lost.¹ James Wedderburn and his brother Robert are the reputed

authors of another and a very important production of the Reformation

period. This is the curious collection known by the title of “The

Gude and Godlie Ballads.”² It is true that this singular book may

appear to modern taste as “only a tissue of blasphemy and absurdity;”

but it is equally true that these rhymed parodies and ballads had

a real influence upon the mind of the people in connection with the

Reformation movement; and the historian is not at liberty to ignore

anything which was conducive to that revolution, on the ground of its

being unpleasant to existing notions of taste. The mixture of sacred

and profane subjects was quite common in Catholic places of worship,

both in Scotland and in other countries long before the Reformation.

♦ “falss” replaced with “fals”

¹ Calderwood, Volume I.; Dalzell’s _Cursory Remarks_, page 31;

Sibbald’s _Chronicle of Scottish Poetry_.

² The references are to the edition of 1868 edited by Dr.

Laing, unless otherwise noted. The original title of the

collection is――“A compendious Book of Psalms and Spiritual

Songs.” The earliest printed edition of it, yet discovered,

is that of 1578, but it appears from the title page that

there were earlier printed editions: it passed through

several editions in the later years of the sixteenth century

and the beginning of the seventeenth, but very few copies

of these early impressions are now known to exist. See Dr.

Laing’s Preface, pages 6‒7; Notes, pages 211‒215.

The collection naturally falls into three divisions: the first

doctrinal, embracing a short Catechism, the Creed, and the Lord’s

Prayer, which are repeated both in prose and in metre. The second part

contains versions of twenty-two psalms, and a number of hymns mostly

translations from the German. The third comprises secular songs, but

they are parodied, or mixed up with religious opinions. During the

Reformation era the practice of adopting rude popular songs along

with their airs to sacred subjects was common in several countries. In

Scotland, the initial line or the chorus of the ballads then popular

among the people were transferred to hymns of devotion; this as may

be seen in the collection of “Godly Ballads,” often resulted in an odd

kind of parody.¹ Though the association of the coarsely profane and the

sacred appears to be ridiculously out of character, it is, nevertheless,

certain that compositions of this description had a powerful effect in

contributing to the change of the religious opinions. From allusions

which occur in them to the Queen Regent, the Pope, and the Priesthood,

it is evident that some of them were written during the heat of the

Reformation; and that ballads touching the Roman Catholic religion,

were circulated among the people, appears from the national records.²

Though these ballads were popular among the common people, who could

easily appreciate words sung to popular airs, it is not probable,

however, that many of the pieces in the collection had been printed in

Scotland before the Reformation. It is hardly necessary to say, that

the book was never authorised by the General Assembly, nor known to

have been used in the public service of the Church.³

¹ The source of the song and the tune is seen in the well-known

lines――“Hay now, the day dawns,” which stands as the opening

words of one of the godly ballads. To give it a religious

turn it is put into the following connection:――

“Hay now, the day dawns,

Now Christ on us calls,

Now gladness on our waves,

Appears anone.

Now the word of God reigns,

Who is King of all Kings,

Now Christ’s flock sings

The night is near gone.”

The refrain “The night is near gone,” closes each stanza to

the end of the ballad. “Dunbar and Gavin Douglas, in the

reign of James IV., mention the tune, ‘now the day dawns,’

and ‘the jolly day now dawns,’ as one that was well known to

the common minstrels.” There are several versions of early

ballads which begin with the words, ‘the day dawns,’ and

close each stanza with――‘the night is near gone.’ Alexander

Montgomery, who wrote in the reign of James VI., composed

a short lyric poem which opened with, ‘haw the day dawns,’

and adopted the refrain――‘the night is near gone.’ The fine

plaintive air called ‘Hey tuttie tuitie,’ was from a very

early period sung with the foregoing words; but it is best

known from Burns’s address, ‘Scots wha hae wi’ Wallace

bled.’ Dr. Laing, Notes, page 256, page 168. Poems of A.

Montgomery, pages 219‒221, 314; 1821.

² See under pages 77, _et seq._; Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of Knox_,

pages 323, 325; 1855.

³ _Godly Ballads_, Preface, pages 8‒9, 43, 47.

Touching the authorship of the “Godly Ballads” in the form that we now

have them, little can be said with certainty. As indicated above, it

has sometimes been attributed to James Wedderburn, while other early

authorities attribute the collection to two brothers of his, John and

Robert Wedderburn; all the three flourished in the second quarter of

the century. The earliest reference to the book is by James Melville,

in the year 1570 when speaking of his own education; he says that, at

that time he first saw Wedderburn’s songs, and learned several of them

by heart, with a great diversity of tunes. Melville does not mention

Wedderburn’s Christian name; and although the Wedderburns may have

translated some of the psalms, recast or composed some of the songs

in this collection, there is no available information for distinctly

assigning the contents of the book to the respective translators

and authors. A number of the psalms were versified, printed, and

circulated in England and in Scotland before the Reformation. In the

former country Coverdale compiled a book of psalms and spiritual songs

which was printed about the year 1539; and four of the psalms in this

collection are almost verbatim with four of those in the book of “Godly

Ballads;” and the presumption seems reasonable that they had been taken

from Coverdale’s collection. The chief source of modern hymnology,

however, is Germany. The Hussites in the fifteenth century had their

devotional songs; Luther’s collection of hymns was published in 1524,

and it was enlarged from time to time by himself and others. As these

hymns were written in the vernacular tongue and many of them set to

popular airs, they were admirably suited for private instruction as

well as for public worship.¹ These hymns accompanied with the music

which the people understood and loved, formed one of the strong points

of the German Reformation. The poetic inspiration that glowed in the

heart and stirred the soul of the German Reformer, joined with his

sublime confidence, rang out in many of his popular hymns.²

¹ Dr. Laing’s Preface, pages 8‒25, 33‒39. Regarding the

variety and extent of German hymns, Dr. Laing in his preface

and notes to the “Godly Ballads,” gives a good deal of

information. He notices the collections of Dr. Wackerangel

and the Chevalier Bunsen; Miss C. Winkworth’s “Lyra

Germanica,” first and second series, 1859. As to more recent

works on German hymnology, he mentions “Hymns translated or

imitated from the German, by the Rev. George Walker,” 1860.

A Lecture by Professor Mitchell of St. Andrews, entitled,

“The Wedderburns, and their work on the Sacred Poetry of

the Scottish Reformation, in its historical relation to that

of Germany,” 1867. “The Scottish Reformation; a historical

sketch by Professor Lorimer,” see pages 27‒29, 60.

² In 1521 Charles the Fifth issued the first of a series of

enactments for extinguishing heresy in the Netherlands; and

in 1522 two monks were burned at the stake in Brussels. This

execution moved Luther to write a stirring hymn, of which

the following is one of the stanzas:――

“Quiet their ashes will not lie:

But scattered far and near,

Stream, dungeon, bolt, and grave defy,

Their foeman’s shame and fear.

Those whom alive the tyrant’s wrongs

To silence could subdue,

He must, when dead, let sing the songs

Which in all languages and tongues,

Resound the wide world through.”

Quoted by G. P. Fisher in his work, _The Reformation_, page

287; 1873.

A number of the spiritual songs in the collection of “Godly Ballads”

are derived or founded upon German hymns of the Reformation period:

others are merely modifications of the original songs current among

the Scots at the time; while others are entirely of a satirical turn,

directed against Roman Catholicism, and naturally sprang out of the

struggle of the Reformation in Scotland. It is the two latter that are

of most importance in connection with the subject in hand. In one of

the spiritual songs the burden of a very old ballad is retained――“The

wind blaws cauld.” It is found in the following connection:――

“The wind blaws cauld, furious and bauld,

This lang and mony a day――

But Christ’s mercy we man all die,

Or keep the cauld wind away.

* * * * *

Then be not wo, see that ye pray

To Peter, James, nor John,

Nor yet to Paul, to save your soul,

For power have they none.

Save Christ only, that died on tree,

He may both loose and bind:

In others more, if ye trust so,

On you blaws cauld the wind.”¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 165, 166‒168, 158‒161, 184.

Another satirical ballad refers to events when the Protestants, under

the name of “the Congregation,” had taken matters into their own hands,

in the year 1559, and it retains the following refrain:――“Hay trix,

tryme go trix, under the green-wood tree.” The drift of the effusion is

directed against the Pope and all the religious orders, the cardinals,

bishops, priests, abbots, and monks and nuns are each in turn severely

handled, and charged with obscene immoralities.¹ The doctrines of

Catholicism are also boldly, fearlessly, and effectively attacked in

these rude ballads. Not a tenet of Romanism is spared. All are treated

with scorn and contempt. Of the fire of purgatory, it is said, there

is not left a spunk; and the reek, that was sold so dear, is said to

have fallen into utter disrepute. The monks having long neglected to

pray for the souls of the founders of the monasteries――“their souls

were left to burn and biss” as they might. Touching the worship of

saints, it is said:――“I wat St. Peter, nor St. Paul, nor yet any saint,

can save your soul, though many lies make many brawl.” Relics, the

adoration of images, indulgence, the mass, and other doctrines of

Catholicism, are treated with sharp and bitter derision.² It is easy

to understand the effect of this upon the mind of the people; and in

connection with other influences the tone and spirit of these ballads

and rhymes tended to intensify the Protestantism of the Scots.

¹ _Gude and Godly Ballads_, pages 166‒168. “‘The wind blaws

cauld.’ This is the burden of an English song in praise

of Christmas, entitled ‘A pleasant country ditty,’ merrily

showing how to drive the cold winter away.”――Dr. Laing,

Notes, page 255.

² _Ibid._, pages 163‒165, 167, 169‒173, 175‒177, 183‒186.

John Knox was more remarkable as a reformer and a preacher than as a

writer and a thinker. He was aware of this himself, for he said that,

“considering myself rather called of my God to instruct the ignorant,

comfort the sorrowful, confirm the weak, and rebuke the proud, by

tongue and living voice, in these most corrupt days, than to compose

books for the age to come.” That he did his duty to his country and to

society, as thus conceived by himself, is matter of history. Looking

to his life and the important work which he so actively contributed to

effect, the writings that he produced are surprising. His compositions

it must be remembered were hastily prepared, under the pressure of

many disquieting influences, or amid constant and exciting occupation.¹

Neither great elaboration nor the finer graces of style can be expected

from him; yet, for all the unpropitious circumstances under which he

laboured, his writings in the language of the people will compare

favourably with those of any of his contemporaries in Britain. He had

a good command of his mother tongue: his style is equally remarkable

for strength, clearness, and vehemence. He never leaves any doubt about

his meaning; as he held his opinions firmly, so he expressed them with

all the force of his nature; his thoughts and judgments are thrown out,

with a rapidity and animation which is striking and effective. He had

a keen vein of humour in his constitution, and frequently adopted a

strain of remark and expression of a grotesque and humorous character;

and sometimes touches of sarcasm and bitter scorn occur in his

compositions. His humour is often coarse and even vulgar; but this was

partly the fault of his age, and partly a result of the kind of work

that fell to him.

¹ _The Works of John Knox_, collected and edited by Dr. Laing,

Volume VI., page 229. Preface, pages 85, 89. This edition of

our national reformer’s writings in six volumes is a great

literary monument to his memory. It has placed his life

and work in a clearer and juster light. The learned editor

bestowed much and unusual care on the execution of his task;

and he deserves our warmest gratitude for his research, his

unwearying industry, and his devotion to the accomplishment

of a worthy object. Dr. Laing did his work in a manner that

cannot fail to command the respect of his countrymen, while

the principle of Protestantism retains a hold upon their

minds.

Knox’s works may be described as mostly admonitory and historical.

In the department of theology itself he produced nothing, except a

treatise on predestination. As a writer, he is best known by his

History of the Reformation in Scotland. He began it in 1559, and

finished the fourth book, bringing the narrative down to 1564, in 1566.

He left a few marginal notes and materials for a continuation of the

history, which were used by others after his death in compiling the

fifth book, and also the volume of memorials published under the name

of Richard Bannatyne. Many references have been made to his history in

the preceding chapters of this work, and quotations given, which render

any lengthy account of its contents and character unnecessary. Its

historical value and general accuracy have now been fully recognised.

When narrating events which happened under his own eyes, it could

hardly be expected that he should always be able to refrain from bitter

reflections on his opponents; but his humour for abusing them he has

often carried to an extreme length. The only excuse for the coarse

expressions and hard epithets which he hurls at their heads must be

sought in the corrupt and immoral state of society, and the inflamed

and enraged feelings of the people around him.

Knox’s admonitory writings consist of his public letters, such as

the “Admonition to the Faithful in England,” “to the Godly,” “to

the Professors of the Faith,” his “Letter to the Queen Regent,” “The

First Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous Regime of Women,” and

others of a similar description. In this department he was particularly

strong; he had a special faculty for scolding, and employed it with

much effect. Many examples of this might be quoted from his writings.

In his “Faithful Admonition to the Professors of God’s Truth in

England,” which was printed and circulated in 1554, there are some

passages touching Queen Mary and those at the head of the government

of England, which are extremely vehement. “And, now, does she not

manifestly show herself to be an open traitress to the imperial Crown

of England, contrary to the just laws of the realm, to bring in a

stranger, and make a proud Spaniard king? to the shame, dishonour, and

the destruction of the nobility; to the spoil from them and theirs of

their honours, lands, possessions, chief offices, and promotions; to

the utter decay of the treasure, commodities, navy, and fortifications

of the realm; to the abasing of the yeomanry, to the slavery of the

commons, to the overthrow of Christianity, and God’s true religion, and,

finally, to the utter subversion of the whole estate and commonwealth

of England.”¹

¹ _Works_, Volume III., page 294, _et seq._

After the death of Queen Mary, Knox wrote, in 1559, “A brief

Exhortation to England for the speedy embracing of the Gospel.” In

this tract, which was printed at Geneva, he at once strikes the keynote

and states what should be done: “Touching reformation of religion, you

must at once so purge and expel all dregs of papistry, superstition,

and idolatry, that thou, O England, must judge and hold execrable

whatsoever God hath not sanctified unto thee by his word, or by the

action of our master Christ Jesus. The glistening beauty of vain

ceremonies, the keeping of things pertaining nothing to edification, by

whomsoever they were invented, justified, or maintained, ought at once

to be removed, and so trodden under the obedience of God’s word, that

continually this sentence of thy God be present in thy heart and ready

in thy mouth:――‘Not that which appears good in thy eyes, shalt thou

do to the Lord thy God, but what the Lord thy God hath commanded thee,

that shalt thou do: add nothing to it, diminish nothing from it.’”¹

He then proceeds at length to admonish and counsel them to embrace the

gospel, and to cast aside the devices of men, and to rest only on the

word of God.

¹ _Works_, Volume V., page 515, _et seq._

In the Reformer’s letter to the Queen Regent of Scotland in 1558,

which was printed the same year, there are also some characteristic

and important passages. The following is one:――“As Satan by craft

hath corrupted the most holy ordinance of God’s precepts, I mean

of the first table, in the place of the spiritual honouring of

God, introducing men’s dreams, inventions, fantasies; so hath he,

abusing the weakness of man, corrupted this precept of the second

table, touching the honour which is due to parents, under whom are

comprehended princes and teachers; for the devil hath so blinded the

senses of many, that they cannot, or at the least, will not, learn what

appertains to God, and what to Cæsar. But, because the Spirit of God

hath said, ‘Honour the king,’ therefore whatsoever they command, be it

right or wrong, must be obeyed. But heavy shall the judgment be which

apprehends such blasphemers of God’s majesty, who dare be so hold as

to affirm that God hath commanded any creature to be obeyed against

himself. Against God it is, that for the commandment of any prince, be

he never so potent, men shall commit idolatry, embrace a religion which

God hath not approved by his word, or confirm by their silence wicked

and blasphemous laws made against the honour of His Majesty. Men, I say,

that do so, give no true obedience; but as they are apostates from God,

so are they traitors to their princes, whom by flattery they confirm

in rebelling against God.” After citing several examples from the Old

Testament, he continues: “But, Madame, more profitable it is that the

pestilent tumours be expelled with pain, than that they be nourished

to the destruction of the body. The papistical religion is a moral

pestilence, which shall assuredly bring to death eternal the bodies

and souls from the which it is not purged in this life. And therefore

take heed betimes, God calls upon you, beware that ye shut not yourself

up.... I come to you in the name of the eternal God, and of Christ

Jesus his Son, to whom the Father hath committed all power, whom he

hath established Sovereign Judge over all flesh, before whose throne

ye must make account with what reverence ye hear such as he sends.

It shall not excuse you to say or to think, that ye doubt whether I

be sent of God or not. I cry unto you, that the religion which the

princes and the blinded papists maintain with fire and sword, is not

the religion of Christ; that your proud prelates are none of Christ’s

bishops. I admonish you that Christ’s flock is oppressed by them; and

therefore I require, and that yet again, in the name of the Lord Jesus,

that with impartiality I may be heard to preach, to reason, and to

dispute, in that cause, which ye deny; ye declare yourself to bear no

reverence to Christ, nor love to his true religion.”¹

¹ _Works_, Volume IV., pages 440‒443.

The Roman Catholic clergy did not show much energy in their writings,

nor in their arguments in defence of their religion in England and

Scotland; no very memorable effort of eloquence or argument was put

forth within the Island during the progress of the Reformation. Those

who desired to maintain the ancient worship unimpaired, staked the

issue more upon the fire and sword principle than on reasoning and

discussion; and they were wise in their generation, for when it came to

this, the palmy days of a conservative priesthood were well-nigh past.

There were a few, however, from the humbler ranks of the Roman Catholic

clergy, that came forward and wrote in defence of their faith. Quintin

Kennedy, the abbot of Crossraguel, ♦Ninian Winzet, a schoolmaster, and

James Tyrie, a Scottish Jesuit, were the only controversialists on the

Catholic side in Scotland, whose writings have been preserved.

♦ “Ninan” replaced with “Ninian”

Ninian Winzet was born in 1518, in the burgh of Renfrew. He received a

liberal education, and was appointed schoolmaster of the Grammar School

of Linlithgow about the year 1551. Winzet himself said, in 1562, that

his happiest days were “spent in teaching of the Grammar School of

Linlithgow about the space of ten years;” but, at the command of Dene

Patrik Kinloquhy, preacher in Linlithgow, and of his superintendent,

“when I, for denying only to subscribe their phantasy and factioun

of faith, was expelled and shut out of that, my kindly town, and from

my tender friends there, whose perpetual kindness I hoped that I had

conquest.” The superintendent mentioned was John Spotiswoode, whose

jurisdiction extended from Dunbar to Stirling; and it appears that

Winzet then made a severe attack upon the creed of the Reformers.

He was a priest as well as a schoolmaster, and he was one of the

ablest and boldest defenders of Catholicism in Scotland. He held

out vigorously, and addressed questions to Knox and other reformed

preachers; as he had asked and received the permission of Queen Mary

to address the Protestant leaders touching certain doctrines, order,

and forms, approved by them. In the end of February, 1562, Winzet, as

a first instalment, specially addressed three questions to John Knox

and the reformed preachers of Scotland touching their vocation, which

were stated thus:――“1. Is John Knox a lawful minister? Since we read,

that none should take the honour of ministration of God’s Word and

sacraments on him, except he be lawfully called thereto, either by God

immediately, or by a man having power to promote thereto. 2. If John

Knox be not a lawful bishop, how can they be lawfully ordained by him?

If he cannot show himself a lawful bishop, how can ye superintendents

or other inferior preachers, elected and ordained by him, not having

power thereto, judge yourselves to be lawful ministers in the Church of

God? 3. If John Knox and ye affirm yourselves lawful by reason of your

science, and that ye are permitted always, if ye be not admitted by

these Churches, whom ye serve, why have ye preached manifestly a great

error and schism in your congregation, contending with tooth and nail,

some lords and gentlemen to have greatly failed, administering your

communion in bypast times to their own households and tenants, since

the lords and gentlemen were men of science; by their own judgment,

in that case, was permitted by their said servants to that office,

who affirm themselves to be a Church of God?” Knox referred to these

questions in his sermons, but he never sent a written rejoinder

to Winzet. Three tractates of Winzet’s were published at Edinburgh

on the 21st of May, 1562, in which the position of Knox was boldly

assailed. He said:――“I exhort ye cause your prophet, John Knox, and

your superintendent, John Spotiswoode, to impeach saints Hierome and

Augustine as leading witnesses in the premises; and cause them deliver

their answer in write, for these holy Fathers books are patent to us

and them. And some of our faithful brethren have written several times

to them both, and got no answer in write, but waste wind again. But

peradventure, albeit, these two, your champions, dare not for shame

answer in this matter, ye will appeal to the rest of your learned

theologians of a great number in Scotland and Geneva. But to them we

oppose all the Christian Catholics in Africa, Asia, and Europe.”

It seems that Winzet had some influence in the court of Queen Mary, and

he continued his attacks on the leaders of the Protestants. His “Last

Blast of the Trumpet of God’s Word,” printed at Edinburgh, 31st July,

1562, was directed “against the usurped authority of John Knox and his

Calvinistic brethren, intruded preachers, etc.” Only a fragment of five

leaves of the original edition is known to be extant. As mentioned in

a preceding chapter, the printer of the book was seized and imprisoned,

and Winzet narrowly escaped. He gained a ship bound for Flanders, and

reached Antwerp on the 13th of September, and immediately proceeded to

Louvain. His _Book of Four Score and Three Questions_ was published at

Antwerp in 1563, to which he added a postscript personally addressed to

John Knox. For some time he was connected with the University of Paris;

and in 1577 Winzet was appointed Abbot of the Benedictine Monastery

of St. James, at Ratisbon, by a bull of Pope Gregory XIII. At Ratisbon

Winzet continued to labour industriously till his death, which occurred

on the 21st of September, 1592, in the seventy-fifth year of his age.

His writings consists of certain tracts, already mentioned, and _The

Book of Four Score and Three Questions_, proposed to the Calvinistic

preachers in Scotland, and written in the vernacular: these were

reprinted in a volume issued by the Maitland Club in 1835. He also

translated into Scots the once well-known work on dogmatics, entitled,

_Commonitorium pro Catholicæ fidei antiquate et univeritate, adversus

profanas omnium Hæreseon nouationes_, written in the fifth century

by Vincentius, Abbot of the monastery of Lerinum; and Winzet, in

the title page to his translation, called it “a right goldin buke,

written in Latin about eleven hundred years past,” and he prefaced

it with an address to Mary Queen of Scots. He was further credited

with making translations of Optatus, Tertullian, and other fathers,

which are not now known to exist. But two of his Latin treatises

have been preserved――one entitled _Flagellum Sectariorum_, and the

other _Velitatio adversus Georgium Buchananum_. The first treated the

question whether obedience should be shown to kings or ministers; he

handled this subject because the teaching of the Calvinists tended to

unsettle all legitimate authority, and in his treatment of the subject

he showed considerable research; it also dealt with the subject of

the Vocation of the Calvinistic ministers. The second was a political

pamphlet of one hundred and thirty-three pages――an answer to Buchanan’s

_Dialogue De Jure Regni apud Scotos_――and it was published in 1582.

Winzet’s argument against Buchanan was that kings must be paramount,

and that the people had no right to rebel against them, until the

Church declared a king unfit to rule.

The Scottish Text Society issued an excellent edition of Winzet’s

works in 1888‒90, which contains his writings and translations in the

Scottish language, and also a useful glossary, valuable introductions,

and notes.

Kennedy was the fourth son of Gilbert, the second Earl of ♦Cassillis,

and was appointed abbot in 1548. He attended the Provincial Council of

the clergy held in Edinburgh in 1549, and had the reputation of being

a learned man. His treatise entitled, “A Compendious Tractive, conform

to the Scriptures of Almighty God, Reason and Authority,” etc., was

published in 1558. It was praised by his friends, and in latter times

by Bishop Keith, and others. It is hardly necessary to say, that the

Abbot’s chief and final argument was whatever the Church of Rome said

must be true and right. Kennedy’s “Tractive” was answered by John

Davidson, principal of the University of Glasgow, in a book printed

at Edinburgh in 1563.¹ The Abbot’s next work was an “Oration,” printed

in the year 1561, mainly intended to demolish a position held “by a

famous preacher called John Knox.” After some correspondence had passed

between Kennedy and Knox, a public discussion took place between them,

on the subject of the Mass, at Maybole, in September, 1562, when the

discussion lasted three days, and ended as disputes of the kind usually

end, without either of the parties convincing the other. In 1563, Knox

published a curious and rather interesting narrative of this three

days’ talk. The following are the concluding sentences:――“And therefore,

must I say, the Mass standeth groundless, and the greatest patron

thereof, for all his sicker riding, hath once lost his stirrups, yea,

is altogether, set beside his saddle. And yet the common brute goes,

that you, my Lord, your flatterers and collaterals, brag greatly of

your victory obtained in disputation against John Knox; but I will not

believe you to be so vain, unless I shall know the certainty by your

hand writ. Let all men now judge upon what ground the sacrifice of the

Mass stands. The heavenly Father hath not planted within his Scriptures

such a doctrine; it follows, therefore, that it ought to be routed out

of all godly men’s hearts.”²

♦ “Cassilis” replaced with “Cassillis”

¹ _Knox’s Works_, Volume VI., pages 153‒155. The Writings of

Kennedy were printed in the first volume of the Wodrow

Miscellany, together with some correspondence that passed

between him and John Willock. Davidson’s answer to Kennedy’s

book is also printed in this Miscellany.

“Among the persons who accompanied Queen Mary from France

was her preacher and confessor, Réni Benoist. He was

a divine of some note, and produced two or three small

treatises, in a vain endeavour to conciliate differences

of opinion in matters of religious faith and practice.

One of these was a Latin epistle, addressed to the most

learned John Knox and other Protestant ministers, dated

from Holyrood House, the 10th of November, 1561. It was

translated by a certain friar, and was ‘greatly boasted of’

or commended. At the urgent request of some of his brethren,

David Ferguson, minister of Dunfermline, wrote an answer,

passage by passage, to what he calls ‘this pithless Epistle.’

This answer, including the Epistle itself, was printed

soon after, but it is of such rarity that only one single

copy has been discovered; but having recently been reprinted;

it is now beyond the chance of destruction.” _Knox’s Works_,

Volume VI., pages 151‒152. It was reprinted by the Bannatyne

Club, 1860.

² _Works_, Volume VI., pages 219‒221.

The latest of Knox’s writings was a tract published in vindication

of the reformed religion, in answer to a letter of Tyrie, a Jesuit.¹

It was composed in 1568, and printed at St. Andrews ♦in 1572. Knox

gives a portion of Tyrie’s letter in separate paragraphs, then his own

comments follow, and thus each in turn succeed the other to the end of

the discussion. The Jesuit began by asking――“What words, if any, would

apply to those new formed Kirks, and especially of your invisible Kirk

of Scotland, not yet eight years old, he is convicted.... Wherefore if

ye cannot show what place of the world afore three hundred years your

Kirk was into, it follows of necessity, that it is not a kirk.” The

argument is the very old one, namely, that there is but one Church――the

Roman Church. Knox answers this point at great length, and closes with

these words:――“We say yet again, that whensoever the Church of Rome

shall be reduced to the state in which the Apostles left her, we are

assured that she shall vote in our favour, against all such as shall

deny us to be a Church, if God continue us in the simplicity which

this day is mocked of the world.”² The other points which the Jesuit

advances touching the Reformed Church, are forms of the arguments

always used by the Roman Catholic writers. Such as, that the Protestant

Church had no succession from Christ; that there is a continual

succession of doctrine which has never varied in the Catholic Church,

but has prevailed in all ages. With more truth and reason, he refers

to the differences of the Protestants among themselves, and specially

notes the contrast between some of the congregations of Germany and

those of Scotland. Immediately after Knox’s answer, Tyrie prepared a

refutation, which was published at Paris in 1573, but ere this Knox was

dead. In March, 1574, the General Assembly had under consideration an

answer to James Tyrie’s book, composed by John Duncanson, minister of

the King’s household.³

¹ James Tyrie was born near Perth in 1543, and it is supposed

that he spent some time at the University of St. Andrews.

Early in the year 1563 he left Scotland with Father Edmund

Hay, the Jesuit, to follow his theological studies at the

University of Louvain. In August of that year he visited

Rome, and there joined the society of Jesus. He was

afterwards appointed professor of philosophy and theology

in the Jesuit College of Clermont, at Paris. His elder

brother, David Tyrie of Drumkilbo, embraced the reformed

faith, and the Jesuit was naturally anxious to reclaim him

to the mother Church, and addressed to him several letters,

including the one submitted to Knox. Tyrie in 1590 became

Provincial of the Jesuits in France; he was in Rome in

1591; and two years later he was appointed assistant to

the General of the Jesuits for the provinces of France and

Germany. He died at Rome in March, 1597, leaving behind him

for publication several manuscripts to the library of the

professed house “Il Geni.” Knox’s _Works_, Volume VI., pages

475‒478.

♦ duplicate word “in” removed

² Knox’s _Works_, Volume VI., pages 486‒497.

³ _Ibid._, pages 497‒511, 475‒476; _Book of the Universal

Kirk_, pages 289, 361.

The longest of Knox’s polemical works is his treatise on predestination,

published at Geneva in 1560. It was directed against an anonymous

adversary, and its full title was, “An Answer to a great number of

blasphemous cavillations written by an Anabaptist and an adversary

to God’s eternal predestination; and confuted by John Knox, minister

of God’s word in Scotland; wherein the author so discovers the craft

and falsehood of that sect, that the godly, knowing that error, may

be confirmed in the truth by the evident word of God.”¹ At that time

the doctrine of predestination itself, as well as other tenets of the

Anabaptists, had evoked much controversy. But, before saying anything

about Knox’s contribution to the mass of this class of theological

literature, it is necessary to refer briefly to the writings of Calvin

himself, and to those of some of his predecessors and contemporaries.

¹ Knox’s _Works_, Volume V. “And, that it was prepared for the

press before his final return to Scotland is sufficiently

clear, when we consider how fully his time was afterwards

occupied, and this renders it probable that it may have been

chiefly written at Dieppe in 1559, during the interval of

his application for permission, which was denied him, to

pass through England on his way to his native country. That

the author had no opportunity of correcting the sheets while

at press seems also evident.... This task of revising the

work at press seems to have been done by William Whittingham,

an Englishman.” Dr. Laing, pages 15‒17. Knox’s treatise on

predestination was reprinted in 1591.

At an early stage in the history of Christian doctrine the idea of

an eternal decree of God began to arise. The notion of predestination

was held with varying degrees of definiteness, and it early became

associated with the freedom of the will. But the crude psychology of

the Fathers was entirely subordinated to the assumed necessities of the

conditions of salvation.¹ About the end of the fourth and the beginning

of the fifth centuries conflicting doctrines touching sin, grace,

and liberty, were advanced and maintained. Original sin was supposed

to have entailed utter ruin upon the human race; but Celestius and

Pelagius both denied the natural depravity of man; and it was out of

these controversies that the doctrine of predestination, or the eternal

decree sprang. When St. Augustine carried the notion of original sin to

its logical consequences, he arrived at the following statement of his

doctrine:――“As all men have sinned in Adam, they are justly exposed to

the vengeance of God, because of this hereditary sin and guilt of sin.”

He could see nothing in the natural power of man to choose between

good and evil, but only a liberty to do evil, since the regenerated man

alone can will aright. In short, Augustine held that all mankind were

in a state of depravity; that those alone will be saved to whom the

grace of God is imparted: in this way he led up to the eternal decree.²

¹ Several theories of the mind, or the soul, and the relation

between the soul and the body, were held during the early

centuries of Christianity. Some considered the soul as

forming the medium between the purely spiritual in man,

the ideal principle of reason, and the merely animal or

the grosser and sensual elements of his nature. They also

fancied that this threefold notion of the organ of the

human mind was supported by Scripture. Several of the

early Fathers, especially those of the Alexandrian school,

adopted the triple division of the mind; while others, like

Tertullian, adhered to the old opinion that man consists of

soul and body only. A few of the Gnostic sects carried the

triple notion so far as to divide men themselves into three

classes, according as the one or the other of the three

constituents prevailed to the apparent exclusion of the

others. “Accordingly, it is not every man who is composed

of three parts, but he only who has received the gift of the

Holy Spirit, as the third part.”――Hagenbach’s _History of

Doctrines_, Volume I., pages 141‒143, 180, 183, 184; 1846;

also Baur.

This is not the place to enter into a full exposition of the

curious theories of the mind which prevailed in the early

centuries of the Christian era. It may be stated, however,

that the anthropology of the Fathers was very different from

that of the present time; although the problems demanding

explanation were much the same, the modern conceptions

of mind and matter have little or no resemblance to the

ideas of Origen, Tertullian, Augustine, and the rest of

the Fathers. Touching the origin of the soul itself, there

were three principal theories:――1, The pre-existence of all

souls; 2, The continual creation of souls by divine agency;

3, The traduction of souls by natural procreation. Of these

in their order: The first theory taught that all the souls

and finite spirits in the universe were formed simultaneously

at the beginning, and prior to the creation of matter: the

intellectual universe thus preceded the sensible universe.

The souls of men, therefore, existed before the creation

of Adam. This theory is allied to the Pythagorean and

Platonic speculations. The second theory maintained that God

immediately created a new soul in every instance that a new

human being was born. The body, however, was not created in

this manner, it was naturally propagated. The third theory

held that both the soul and the body of the human individual

are propagated. But the last view fell into disrepute;

and in the Middle Ages, the notion of the special and the

continual creation of new souls generally prevailed.

² Hagenbach’s _History of Doctrines_, Volume I., pages 297,

300‒302, 304. “According to Augustine, not only was physical

death a punishment inflicted upon Adam and all his posterity,

but he looked upon original sin itself as being in some

sense a punishment of the first transgression, though it

was also a real sin, and can therefore be imputed to every

individual. But it is on this point, viz., the imputation

of original sin, that his views differed from all former

opinions, however strict they were. He endeavoured to clear

himself from the charge of Manichæism (in opposition to

Julian) by designating sin not a substance, but a vitium,

a languor; he even charged his opponent with Manichæism.”

――_Ibid._, page 302. See also Wiggers.

Pelagius and Celestius, on the other hand, held, along with other

heresies, that every human being is a moral agent, and must be

accountable for himself; hence it naturally followed that sin was

a voluntary act of the individual. According to this ethical view,

every infant is in the same state as Adam was before the fall; so that

neither sin nor virtue is innate, but the one as well as the other

develops itself when man comes to exercise his liberty, for which he

alone is responsible. Touching liberty and grace, however, Pelagius

admitted that man in his moral efforts had need of the Divine aid;

the grace of God assisted man in various ways, although he thought

that it is something external, merely added to a man’s own efforts. In

short, Pelagius’s theory assumed that man had it in his power to choose

between good and evil. These opinions were condemned at Carthage in

412; again, in a synod of the North-African bishops at the same place,

in 418. The controversy was hot, and the Emperor Honorius put a check

to his external manifestation.¹

¹ Hagenbach’s _History of Doctrines_, Volume ♦I., pages 200,

300, 302. The chief tenets of Pelagius, the heresiarch of

the fifth century, have been summarised as follows:――“1.

Adam was created mortal, so that he would have died whether

he had sinned or not. 2. Adam’s sin has only affected

himself, and not the human race. 3. New-born infants are in

the same condition in which Adam was before the fall. 4. The

whole human race dies neither in consequence of Adam’s death,

nor of his transgression; nor does it rise from the dead

in consequence of Christ’s resurrection. 5. Infants obtain

eternal life, though they should not be baptized. 6. The

Law is as good a means of grace as the gospel. 7. There were

some men, even before the appearance of Christ, who did not

commit sin.”――Wiggers, Volume I., page 60. Gieseler, section

87. Some of Pelagius’s writings are preserved, among others,

a treatise on “Free Will.” Many works were written against

the Pelagians.

♦ volume number added by transcriber.

Still the peculiar views of Augustine were not recognised in the east;

even in the west his notion of predestination never became universally

popular in the Roman Catholic Church. As we approach the Reformation

period it is evident that the doctrines of Augustine did not prevail.

Instead of free grace through the mercy of God and the merits of Christ,

the supererogatory works of the saints formed a ladder by which the

greatest sinner might easily mount to heaven, provided he paid enough

for the privilege, or left his lands to the Church. It was therefore

natural that the Reformers should look back to the belief of the

primitive Church, and receive with gladness some of the tenets of St.

Augustine.

Calvin’s _Institutes of the Christian Religion_ was first published

in 1536. Although in subsequent editions it was greatly enlarged, the

principles which he then enunciated were pretty consistently maintained

to the end of his days.¹ Knox followed Calvin, with little deviation,

in dogma and doctrine. In 1559 he was very anxious “to read Calvin

upon Isaie, and his _Institutes_ revised,” but the common troubles at

that time were forcing him to forego such important things.² Calvin

in his _Institutes_ gives four chapters of the third book, 21‒24,

to the treatment of election and predestination. He was aware of

the difficulties of the subject, and discussed it with a sobriety of

judgment, a sense of responsibility, and a power of intellect, rarely

matched in theological literature. But the line of argument that he

followed, the definite issue that he arrived at, and the evidence from

Scripture which he adduced to confirm the doctrine of predestination,

are not satisfactory.³ After he had expounded, illustrated, and

repelled objections to the doctrine of predestination, exhibiting

much power, logical skill, and ingenuity, the eternal decree is still

hard to reconcile with the moral attributes of a just and beneficent

God of the universe.⁴ On a pure moral principle the doctrine of the

eternal decree as stated by Calvin cannot be consistently maintained.

He asserts that the will of God is the supreme rule of right, and

that the mere fact of his willing anything makes it to be right.

Indeed, Calvin seems to have been controlled in the treatment of

predestination by practical religious considerations. His point of view

is unphilosophical, and moral truth and consistency were subordinated

in his mind to the assumed necessities of the conditions of salvation.

That God should voluntarily and knowingly condemn myriads of his

creatures to endless torture, merely because He so willed it, is

certainly not an elevated conception. On the other side, the doctrine

of predestination afforded to all who adopted it, ample scope for

insisting on the duty of submission to the will of God; and for

inveighing against the pride and self-conceit of those who might

pretend that their own merits entitled them to claim a right to heaven,

instead of being absolutely indebted for it to God’s pleasure, grace,

and benignity.

¹ The first edition of his _Institutes_, printed at Basle, is

now extremely rare, not more than half a dozen copies are

known to exist. It is a small octavo volume of 514 pages,

with five pages more of index placed at the end. The whole

work is described as one book, divided into six chapters. A

second edition appeared at Strasburg in 1539. It contained

seventeen chapters, the original matter being about doubled.

This edition is also very scarce. The other editions are

those of 1543, 1545, 1550, 1553, 1554, and an entirely

new edition in 1559, containing his last revisal, and from

it all the subsequent editions were printed. An English

translation was published at London in 1561.

Dyer, in his _Life of Calvin_, says that passages

favourable to a mild and tolerant treatment of heretics

which appeared in the earlier editions were expunged or

made more intolerant in the latter ones.――pages 357, 358.

Calvin’s final conclusions on the punishment of heretics

and allied matters are given in the fourth book of the

_Institutes_, chapter 12, section 1‒13.

² Knox’s _Works_, Volume VI., page 101.

³ When answering the objection, that predestination was a

stumbling-block, Calvin said, “I admit that profane men lay

hold on the subject of predestination to carp, or snare,

or cavil, or scoff. But if their petulance frightens us,

it will be necessary to conceal all the principal articles

of faith, because they and their fellows scarcely leave one

of them unassailed with blasphemy. A rebellious spirit will

display itself no less insolently when it hears that there

are three persons in the Divine essence, than when it hears

that God, when he created man, foresaw everything that was

to happen to him. Nor will they abstain from their jeers

when told that little more than five thousand years have

elapsed since the creation of the world; for they will ask,

Why did the power of God slumber so long in idleness? In

short, nothing can be stated that they will not assail with

derision. To quell their blasphemies, must we say nothing

concerning the divinity of the Son and the Spirit? Must the

creation of the world be passed over in silence! No. The

truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to

dread the slanders of the ungodly.”――Chapter 21, section 4.

⁴ “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by

which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to

happen with regard to every man. All are not created on

equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life,

others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has

been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he

has been predestinated to life, or to death.” “The will of

God is the supreme rule of righteousness, so that everything

which He wills must be held to be righteous, by the mere

fact of His willing it. Therefore, when it is asked why the

Lord did so, we must answer, Because He pleased. But if you

proceed further to ask why He pleased, you ask for something

greater than the will of God, and nothing such can be found.

Let human temerity then be quiet, and cease to inquire after

what exists not, lest, perhaps, it fails to find what does

exist.”――Chapter 21, section 5.――Chapter 23, section 2.

The doctrines of Calvin were opposed in his own lifetime by Jerome

Bolsec, Sebastia Castellio, and others. Bolsec openly impugned the

doctrine of the eternal decree of predestination, and fought over

the points involved with Calvin himself. He had little difficulty in

showing that the human mind was unable to cope with the eternal and

unalterable counsel of God, or to lay down dogmatically what its issue

must be in relation to mankind. Castellio vehemently attacked the

Calvinistic doctrines, and especially assailed the tenet of election

by grace, with the weapons of acute thought and satire. Both maintained

that the eternal decree tended to fatalism, and made God the author

of sin, as everything happened according to an inexorable purpose.

Calvin answered both opponents, and prepared a public declaration of

the doctrine of predestination, which was approved by the consistory of

Geneva. The controversy, however, went on; but Calvin boldly faced all

his enemies, and fought with an energy and a resoluteness which at last

commanded a large measure of success.¹

¹ Dyer’s _Life of Calvin_, pages 168‒172, 265‒283, 388; Henry’s

_Life of Calvin_, Volume I., page 289.

In Geneva Calvin had many difficulties to contend against. There

were anabaptists in the city who sometimes caused disturbance, and

anti-Unitarian doctrines had also sprung up. After the burning of

Servetus, his disciples published several libels and attacks upon

Calvin. These parties were bitterly opposed to various points of his

system of theology, and one of their onslaughts was written in the

following strain:――“Moreover, though you affirm yours to be the true

doctrine, they say that they cannot believe you. For since your God

very often says one thing, and thinks and wills another, it is to be

feared that you may imitate him, and deceive men in like manner. I

myself was once taken with your doctrine; and though I did not quite

understand it, I defended it, because I so much esteemed your authority,

that it seemed to me forbidden even to think differently from you. But

now, when I hear the objections of your adversaries, I know not what to

reply.” He concludes with the request to Calvin, “If you have any good

arguments let me know them.”¹ The anabaptists were annoying, and though

often persecuted, not only in Switzerland, but also in Germany, England,

and other countries, they continued to spread and multiply.

¹ Dyer’s _Life of Calvin_, pages 66, 366‒367, 446, _et seq._;

Knox’s _Works_, Volume V., pages 12‒15; Dorner’s _History

of Protestant Theology_, Volume I.; Hagenbach’s _History of

Doctrines_, Volume II., pages 200‒206.

As already mentioned, it was against one of the anabaptist class that

Knox composed his book on predestination. Many of this unknown writer’s

objections to the Calvinistic tenets he states with much force; and,

although he insists throughout that his opponent’s inferences are

not deducible from their doctrines, this is not always the case.¹ In

the sixth section of his book “the adversary” advanced the following

statements on the Calvinistic conception of God:――“Of all sorts and

sects of men, I have judged them to be the most abhorred who are called

Atheists, that is to say, such as deny that there is a God. But now,

methinks these careless men are much more to be abhorred; my reason

is because they be more injurious to God than the Atheists; for it

is less injurious to a man to believe that he is not, than to call

him a cruel man, a tyrant, and an unjust person; so are they less

injurious to God who believe that he is not, than they that say he is

unmerciful, cruel, and an oppressor. Now what greater cruelty, tyranny,

and oppression, can be, than to create the most part of the human race

to everlasting damnation? so that by no manner of way they can escape

and avoid the cruel decree and sentence against them. Seeing that the

philosopher Plato judged them unworthy to live and to be suffered in

any commonwealth who spoke evil of God, what ought the judgment to be

of such men who have so wicked an opinion of God? Whatever our judgment

be of them, and whatsoever their deserving be, let us labour rather to

win them than to lose them. But, forasmuch as he that touches pitch is

in danger of being defiled therewith, therefore ought we to walk warily

with such men that we be not defiled and infected of them; seeing that

now-a-days this horrible doctrine does fester even as the disease of a

canker, which infects from one member to another until it has occupied

the whole body, unless it be cut away; even so this error hath already

infected from one member to another a great number. The Lord grant them

the true meaning and understanding of His word, whereby they may be

healed and the sickness cut off, the member being saved.”

¹ Dr. Laing thought that the author of this book, which

Knox set himself to refute, was Robert Cooke, one of the

gentlemen of Queen Elizabeth’s Chapel. Knox’s _Works_,

Volume V., page 16.

Knox answers this reasoning in a carping way. He does not attempt to

grapple with the real difficulty; the inconsistency of the decree of

predestination and special election of only a small number of the human

race to everlasting happiness; while the great majority is inevitably

doomed to endless suffering. He merely says――“Because that in all this

your long discourse, ye more show your malice, which unjustly against

us ye have conceived, than that either you expunge our belief, either

yet promote your false opinion. I will not spend time to recompense

your dispute. Only this I will offer in the name of all my brethren:

that if you will be able, in the presence of a lawful judge and

magistrate, evidently to convict us that either we speak evil of God,

either yet that by our writings, preaching, or reasoning, it justly

can be proved that our opinion is evil of His eternal majesty, power,

and wisdom, and goodness, that then we refuse not to suffer the same

punishment which by the authority of Plato ye judge us worthy of....

What is your study to win us, and whether our doctrine be a horrible

error or not, I do not now dispute. Thus you reason:――

“‘God created man a very good thing; and dare you say that God ordained

a very good thing to destruction? thus God delights in the destruction

of that which is good. Man at his creation was a just and innocent

creature, for before the transgression there was no evil neither in

Adam nor in us; and think you that God ordained his just and innocent

creatures to condemnation? What greater tyranny and unrighteousness

can the most wicked man in the world, yea, the devil himself, do, than

to condemn the innocent and just person? Hereby may we see that these

careless men are more abominable than the Atheists who believe that

there is no God. But these affirm God to be as bad as the devil, yea,

and worse; forasmuch as the devil can only tempt a man to death, but he

can compel none to fall into condemnation; but God may not only tempt,

but also compel by his eternal decree the most part of the race to

destruction, and has so done, as they say, so that of necessity, and

only because it was his pleasure and will――then must God be worse than

the devil; for the devil only tempted man to fall, but God compelled

them to fall by his immutable decree. Oh, horrible blasphemy!’”¹

¹ Knox’s _Works_, Volume V., pages 88‒90.

To these questions Knox has given no satisfactory answer, nor has

anyone else. They have engaged the minds of many writers, but so far as

theological exposition is concerned, they remain in much the same state

at the present day; though few cultivated preachers would now attribute

the wrathful and avenging character to God, which it was common to do

in the sixteenth century. The statement of the theory of the eternal

decree in any form is extremely difficult, if not impossible, in

connection with the doctrine of the conditional and limited salvation

of the human race, especially when it is deemed right to employ all

the examples of what is called the pouring out of God’s wrath upon the

enemies of the Jews, and upon the Jews themselves, when their turn came.

From one standpoint this is the weak side of Calvinism; yet to many

it has been, and is now, exceedingly fascinating to imagine that they

know the eternal counsel of God, and are able to formulate His will and

intention.

One other quotation and then I will leave this subject. “If God

reprobated man before the foundation of the world, then God reprobated

man before he had offended; and if God reprobated and damned man before

he offended, then is death the reward of God’s ordinance before the

world, and not the reward of sin. But the apostle teaches us, that by

sin death entered into the world, and also that death is the reward of

sin. I pray you, does either God’s law, or man’s law, condemn any man

before he has offended? I am certain ye are not able to prove it to be

so; then ought you to be ashamed to burden God with such unrighteous

judgment. Does not God rather forgive the offence already committed?

Let him be your God who condemns the innocent before he offended;

but he shall be my God who pardons and forgives the offence already

committed, who in his very wrath thinks upon mercy. And so with Job

will I conclude,――‘The great God casts away no man.’” Knox’s answer

to this is as follows:――“How ignorantly and how impudently ye confound

the eternal purpose of God’s reprobation with the just execution of

his judgments I have before declared, and therefore here it only rests

to admonish the reader that most unjustly ye accuse us in that ye say,

that we hold and teach that God damned man before he offended. This

ye be never able to show in any of our writings; for constantly, in

word and writing, we affirm that man willingly fell from God, and made

himself a slave to Satan before that death was inflicted upon him; and

so neither make we death to be the reward of God’s ordinance, neither

do we burden Him with unrighteous judgments.”¹ This reasoning is not to

the point; the adversary’s objections are deductions from the theory of

the eternal decree of predestination, election, and reprobation, which

were all fixed before the foundation of the world. It is no refutation

to say that his opponent cannot find the words which he used in

their writings. How could man “have willingly fallen from God,” when,

according to their theory, God had it all inexorably settled before

the creation? These are questions which the human mind cannot settle

dogmatically; they are immeasurably beyond its powers. But when men

assume that they can form definite ideas and pronounce true judgments

upon these mysterious and in a sense inscrutable matters, and enforce

people to profess their belief in them, suffering and persecution

often ensued, and men are tortured and put to death for not believing

what they are unable to understand; not only so, but for not believing

things which no human being has ever yet been able fully to comprehend.

The arrogance of those that presume to fix what the eternal counsel

of the Godhead is and must be, can hardly be expected to manifest much

respect for the people who do not think and believe as they do. We need

not be surprised, therefore, that intolerance was a characteristic of

men that professed to know the eternal counsel and will of the Supreme

Being. Seeing that they were thoroughly convinced and firm in their

faith, they deemed it their highest duty to compel others to adopt

their creed, that they too might have a chance of entering into the

glories of heaven, and of escaping the torments of hell. It is easy

for us now, with more varied, wider, and more minute knowledge of

nature and mankind, to point out the weak side of the great men of the

sixteenth century; but we are bound, at the same time, to recognise

the noble and unfaltering spirit which the leaders of the Reformation

displayed, however much we may deplore the use of coercive means which

they were far too eager to wield.

¹ Knox’s _Works_, Volume V., pages 110, 111.