Chapter XIV…

Chapter XIV

_History of the Reformation to the Overthrow of the Roman Catholic Church._

THE sixteen conspirators who had seized the Castle of St. Andrews were soon joined by about one hundred and forty of their adherents, who formed a garrison and defied all the force at the disposal of the Regent. The Cardinal at the time of his death held the Regent’s son James, Lord Hamilton, afterwards third Earl of Arran, as a hostage. He was retained by the conspirators as a pledge for their own advantage; as the Government were afraid he would be delivered to the English. John Rough, a reformed preacher, entered the castle soon after the Cardinal’s death, and began to preach to the garrison. The Regent besieged the castle from the end of August to December without success. In April 1547, John Knox had become wearied by wandering from place to place to avoid persecution, and he felt inclined to visit the schools of Germany; but having the charge of some gentlemen’s sons, he entered the Castle of St. Andrews. During the intervals of the siege a Protestant congregation had been formed in the town, and about the end of May, Knox consented to assume the functions of their minister. Rough had been unable to match the debating powers of John Annand, the principal of St. Leonard’s College, and a firm adherent of Catholicism; but Knox, according to his own narrative, refuted all the arguments of the principal, and compelled him to retire behind the authority of the Church, which had already condemned Lutherism and all other heresies. After worsting the principal, Knox on the following Sunday preached his first public sermon in the parish church of St. Andrews, where were present John Mair, Winram, the sub-prior, many of the canons, and some of the friars. In this sermon he showed to his own satisfaction that the Roman Church was the Antichrist, the Man of Sin, and so on. A discussion then ensued between Knox on the one side, and Winram and a friar on the other; but neither party was convinced by the arguments of the other. The Catholic clergy themselves then began to preach regularly in the parish church every Sunday. Knox continued his sermons on the week days, and the numbers of those who embraced the reformed opinions increased. However, this episode in the history of the Reformation was abruptly terminated.¹

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 181‒202; _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume I., pages 26, 31, 33, 38, 39, 44, 47, 58; State Papers, Henry VIII., Volume V., pages 563‒564; _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume II., pages 478, 479.

Meanwhile, however, the new opinions were spreading. In the month of June 1546, the Council issued a proclamation warning all persons not to pillage or destroy monastic and church buildings. It stated that――“In these troublous times it is dreaded and feared that evil disposed persons will invade, destroy, cast down, and withhold abbeys, abbey places, parish kirks, friars’ houses, nunneries, chapels, and other spiritual men’s houses, against the law of God and man, and contrary to the liberty and freedom of the holy Church and acts of parliament made and observed in all bygone times.... All and sundry were charged that none of them take upon hand any of these kirks, religious places, or houses, or to withhold, intermot, or take the same at their own hand by way of deed hereafter, or to spoil the jewels and ornament of the church ordained for God’s service and dedicated to it, under the penalty of forfeiture of life, lands, and goods.”¹ The bishops and the priests were enraged at the proceedings in St. Andrews, and they ran to the Regent, to the Queen, and the whole Council, with their complaints, crying――“What are we doing? Shall we suffer this whole realm to be infected with pernicious doctrine? Fy upon you, and upon us!”² The Queen and the French ambassador then comforted them with the assurance that matters would ere long be remedied. On the 19th of March 1547, the bishops and clergy assembled at Edinburgh, and presented to the Regent and Council a supplication, calling on them to enforce the laws against the followers of the pestilent heresies of Luther, which had not only spread in several quarters of the kingdom, but also in the Court, and the Regent’s presence, and was sometimes preached openly; and it would daily increase unless the arm of the civil power assisted the spiritual authority to arrest its progress. The Regent and the Council acceded to their request, and desired to be furnished with the names of the heretics and the teachers of heresy; “and his Grace and the temporal lords shall take them and cause the laws of the realm to be executed against them, ay, as he is required thereto, according to the laws of holy Church, and ordained this deliverance to be inserted in the books of the Council.”³

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 28‒29.

² Knox, Volume I., pages 202‒203.

³ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., page 61, 63‒64.

But the resources at the command of the Regent were not sufficient to reduce the Castle of St. Andrews, and there the heretics were practising their own forms of religion. In the end of the month of June 1547, however, a French force arrived in Scotland, and attacked the castle by sea and land. After the guns were put into position, and the batteries opened fire, the bold defenders of the castle were soon brought to submission. The garrison had imagined that they would obtain more favourable terms from the French commander and the King of France than from the Regent Arran and the Council, and surrendered themselves to the French commander.¹ But they were conveyed to France and treated as criminals. They arrived at Fecamp, a seaport about midway between Dieppe and Havre, then passed up the Seine and anchored before Rouen; and the chief gentlemen who had expected to be liberated were put into various prisons; while the rest were left in the galleys and hardly treated, among whom were James Balfour, and his two brothers, and John Knox. The Catholics both of Scotland and France rejoiced greatly at the fate of the heretics and the enemies of the late Cardinal. Knox, along with his fellow-prisoners, had to work on the galleys chained as a slave. After an imprisonment of eighteen months he obtained his liberty in 1549, upon the intercession, it was supposed, of the English Government. Knox came to England, and soon after he was appointed to preach in Berwick; but in 1550 he was removed to Newcastle, where he continued his labours. In 1551, he was appointed one of King Edward’s chaplains, and he remained in England till after the death of Edward VI. Knox left England in the beginning of March, 1554, and passed to Geneva to pursue his private studies. Soon after he was called to be minister to the English exiles in Frankfort, entering on his duties there in November 1554. But disputes arising in the congregation regarding the Book of Common Prayer, and other ceremonies, he relinquished his charge, and in March 1555, returned to Geneva.²

¹ Diurnal of Occurrents, page 44; Buchanan, Book XV.; Knox, Volume I., pages 203‒206.

² Knox, Volume I., pages 206, 225‒232; Volume III., pages 156, 215, 380. Lesly’s History Of Scotland, page 195.

On the 28th of January, 1547, Henry VIII. died, but the policy of aggression towards Scotland was continued. The Duke of Somerset, the new Governor, invaded the kingdom with a strong army and a naval force; and on the 10th of September, 1547, the Scots risked a battle, but were completely defeated. Many of the Scots were slain, while others were taken prisoners in the flight. This disastrous defeat became known in history as the Battle of Pinkie; subsequently the Scots were reduced to great extremities. The English and Scots became much exasperated; the war assumed a fierce and ruthless character, and acts of shocking cruelty were frequently perpetrated. In 1548 a French army of seven thousand men arrived to assist the Scots; while the same year the young Queen was sent to France, and thus one cause of the war was removed. After many severe struggles, the French and the Scots drove the English out of the castles and recovered the southern districts of the kingdom. Peace was at length concluded in April 1550.

When the pressure of external enemies was removed the nation breathed more freely. But the internal political and religious conflict proceeded; and, as the contest between the old and the new religious views became closer and clearer, and the shadow of the revolution was more distinctly seen approaching, the Church and the Government acutely felt the gravity of the issues involved. When the heretics were few in number burning might have kept them down or caused them to hide their faces; but it was now perceived that if heresy was to be extinguished, other means would have to be employed. The whole body of the clergy, from the primate to the humblest monk and friar, must then betake themselves to the proper functions of their calling, and discharge their varied duties honestly and faithfully. Within the ten years immediately preceding the Reformation there were four provincial councils of the Church held in Scotland; and they enacted and adopted one hundred and thirty-one canons, the greater part of which were directed against the immoral lives of the clergy, their ignorance, and the neglect of their essential duties.¹ The provincial council of 1549 ordered a strict search to be made for heresy and heretical books, especially poems and ballads; and to make the inquest effective the inquisitors were supplied with a schedule of the chief points of heresy. Thus the chief points of heresy enumerated in the canons were――“Speaking against the rites and sacraments of the Church, especially the sacrifice of the mass, the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, extreme unction, and penance; contempt of the censures of the Church; denial of the reign of the souls of saints with Christ in glory; denial of the immortality of the soul; denial of purgatory; denial of prayer and intercession of the saints; denial of the lawfulness of images in Christian churches; denial of recompense for works of faith and charity; denial of the authority of general councils in controversies of faith; neglect of the fasts and festivals of the Church. Heretical books, especially poems and ballads against the Church or clergy, were to be diligently sought after and burned.”

¹ See under pages 40‒43. Also Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume II., pages 81‒176. A number of the canons enacted in the provincial council of 1549 were adopted from the decrees of the Council of Trent passed in June, 1546, and March, 1547; Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume I., page 150.

The part which the popular poems and ballads played in the Reformation struggle will be illustrated in the chapter on the literature of the period. One of the canons of the Provincial Council of 1552 stated that――“Even in the most populous parishes very few of the parishioners came to mass or to sermon, that in the time of service jesting and irreverence go on within the church, sports and secular business in the porch and the churchyard. It therefore enacted that the name of every person wilfully absenting himself from his parish church, shall be taken down by the curate and reported to the Rural Dean, and that all traffic in church porches, in churchyards, or in the immediate neighbourhood, shall be forbidden on Sundays and other holidays during divine worship.”

It was in the Provincial Council of 1552 that the publication of the Catechism was sanctioned. At that time it was openly confessed that――“The inferior clergy and the prelates for the most part are not in the meanwhile sufficiently learned to instruct the people rightly in the Catholic faith, in things necessary to salvation, or to reclaim them from the path of error.... This work, since commonly known as Archbishop Hamilton’s Catechism, was to be read to the people in church, before high mass, when there was no sermon, as much as would occupy half an hour, being read from the pulpit every Sunday and holiday with a loud voice, clearly, distinctly, impressively, and solemnly by the rector, vicar, or curate, in his surplice and stole. The clergy were enjoined to exercise themselves daily in reading it, lest their stammering or breaking down might move the jeers of the people; and heavy penalties, fine and imprisonment, imposed on all who should fail to observe any part of the canons regarding it.”¹

¹ Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume I., pages 150, 151, 154; Volume II., pages 117‒120, 135‒139.

Thus the party within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland wished to redress gross abuses without demolishing the old organisations. The Catechism which they produced in the vernacular for the use of the clergy, was characterised by moderate statement and graceful composition. But all the canons and the catechism were of no avail; they were too late, as the fiat had gone forth; the accumulated corruptions of many generations had resulted in a system of institutions incapable of reformation from within; the features of purity, the love of truth and justice had departed from their walls and altars; the great ethical principles at the heart of all true religion had waned dim, and there was no glowing rays to lighten up the darkness which enveloped the Church.

In the summer of 1550, Adam Wallace, a layman from Ayrshire, a man of humble rank, had been occasionally engaged in teaching the children of Cockburn of Ormiston, was accused of heresy. He was seized and conveyed to Edinburgh, and tried before the bishops, the Regent, the Earl of Huntly, and others. Wallace was accused for having assumed to preach without authority, and of reading the Scriptures. He denied having preached in public, but admitted that he had read the Bible, and sometimes added a word of exhortation. Then one of his accusers said, “What shall we leave to the bishops and churchmen to do, if every man shall be a babbler upon the Bible.” Wallace replied that it would befit them better to speak more reverently about the Word of God. Questions were put to him touching the sacraments, prayer for the dead, and other points; and at last, the Earl of Huntly asked him what he thought of the mass. Wallace replied that he could find no authority for it in the Word of God, and therefore it was idolatry in the sight of God. Then they all cried “Heresy! heresy!” He was condemned, and burned on the Castle hill of Edinburgh, where he met his doom with firmness and faith.¹

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 237‒241; Foxe, pages 627‒628.

When Paul III. ascended the papal throne in 1834, he signalised the event by the elevation of several distinguished men to the College of Cardinals without any other object than that of their personal merits. Some of the new Cardinals held opinions which inclined to Protestantism; and by the command of the Pope himself, they prepared a plan for the reform of the Church. When this became known to the Protestants, they rejected it because they had already passed beyond its most liberal proposals. Various other attempts to effect a reconciliation were equally unsuccessful.

In connection with the view of the Reformation, it is necessary to touch briefly on the proceedings of the Council of Trent. As indicated above, a certain number of thoughtful Catholics were willing to make considerable concessions in the form of redressing prevalent abuses. Still a line had to be drawn somewhere, and when it was drawn by the Council of Trent, the Protestants found themselves beyond it. But taking a view of the conditions and circumstances of the nations of Europe, it appeared that the final decision and the conclusions of the Council of Trent were greatly influenced by political interests. As religion had been so long and so much mingled with the politics and the secular affairs of the world, the great majority of the members of the Council were unable to realise the necessity of such a measure of disentanglement as the principles of the Reformation implied; while the strong feeling naturally associated with an inherited belief, the importance attached to tradition, and the efficacy ascribed to external ceremonies in the Roman Catholic Church, were so powerful that they overruled the deliberations of this memorable Council.¹

¹ Ranke’s History of the Popes, Volume I., pages 110‒113; 1847. Buckley’s History of the Council of Trent, pages 68‒76; 1852.

After many obstacles and circumstances unfavourable to the assembling of the Council of Trent had been overcome, it was opened in December 1545. There was no representative from Scotland at the Council, although a provincial council of the Scottish clergy which met at St. Andrews in March 1546, and imposed a tax of two thousand and five hundred pounds for the expenses of deputies from Scotland to Trent. The tax appears to have been paid, but no Scottish delegate attended the Council. The position of the Church in Scotland was so perilous that Cardinal Beaton, though thrice summoned by the Pope to share the deliberations of the Vatican, did not venture to leave Scotland.¹ When the opening ceremonials and various preliminary matters were disposed of, they proceeded to discuss revelation and the sources from which the knowledge of it was derived. At this stage, some proposals were enunciated in favour of opinions tending towards Protestantism. The Bishop of Chiogga insisted that nothing but Scripture should be admitted; he maintained that the gospel contained all that was necessary. Seripando, the general of the Augustines, also argued that a distinction should be drawn between the canonical books of Scripture and those not yet received as canonical, such as the Proverbs and Books of Wisdom; and that the first class only be used for proving the doctrines of belief. But they found few supporters, and there was an overwhelming majority against these views. The Council at last adopted the resolution that those unwritten traditions which had been received from the mouth of Christ, or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved by a continuous succession in the Catholic Church, were to be regarded with the same veneration and of equal authority with the Scriptures. The Vulgate was declared to be an authentic translation, and it was enjoined that it should be printed with the greatest care as soon as possible.² In the discussion touching the reception of the Vulgate there was much diversity of opinion expressed in the Council; and the following example of the line of argument taken by one party of the Fathers has an interest of its own:――“That if the providence of God hath given an authentical Scripture to the synagogue, and an authentical New Testament to the Grecians, it cannot be said without derogation that the Church of Rome, more beloved than the rest, hath wanted this great benefit; and therefore that the same Holy Ghost who did dictate the holy books hath dictated also that translation which ought to be accepted by the Church of Rome.... And if any should make dainty to give the Spirit of God to the interpreter, yet he cannot deny it to the Council; and when the vulgar edition shall be approved, and an anathema be thundered against whosoever will not receive it, this will be without error, not by the spirit of him that wrote it, but of the synod that hath received it for such.”³

¹ Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume I., pages 145, 260‒269.

² Decrees of the Council of Trent, Session IV.

³ Sarpi, Book I., chapter 2, pages 159, et seq.; Buckley’s History of the Council of Trent, page 125; Pallavicino, Book VI., chapter 15.

Upon the great subject of ♦justification there was much diversity of opinion manifested in the ♠Council, and the discussions on it were long and tedious. A section of the members held views nearly similar to those of the Protestants. This party maintained that justification must be ascribed to the merits of Christ and to faith alone; charity and hope they affirmed to be the attendants, and works the proofs of faith, but nothing more; thus the basis of justification was made to rest on faith alone. But this primal doctrine of Protestantism had little chance of even a fair hearing in the Council; it was in vain that Cardinal Pole entreated them not to reject an opinion merely because it was held by Luther. The debate waxed extremely hot: a bishop and a Greek monk from words came to blows. The Council found that it could not argue the questions raised to any purpose, and the discussions were confined; still there were marked differences of opinion expressed among the assembled fathers and divines. Towards the end of the discussion on justification, Seripando advanced his opinion; he contended that the doctrine of justification was twofold, or that there was a twofold righteousness, “the one intrinsic, which he again divided into two kinds; the first being that, whereby we become friends instead of enemies of God, and that this is given us with the grace infused by baptism; the second, whereby man is said to live righteously, which results from the acts of virtue proceeding from the aforesaid grace. The other kind of righteousness was outward, and consisted in the righteousness and merits of Christ, imputed to us by the divine mercy as if they were our own, not indeed wholly, but to such degree, and for such effects, as seems good unto God. If it be asked which of these justifications we must rely on――that indwelling, or that imparted through Christ――the devout man will reply that we must confide in the latter only. Our own righteousness is incomplete and ineffective, marred by its deficiences――that of Christ alone is true and sufficient; this only is entirely pleasing in the sight of God, and in virtue of this alone may we trust to be justified before God.¹ These opinions of Seripando met with little sympathy, only five of the assembled theologians gave their assent to them; while his peculiar tenets on justification were combated with great ability, force, and subtlety, by Cardinal Caraffa,² and the two Jesuits, Salmeron and Laineg.³ The influence of the Jesuits was strong in the Council, and their opinions prevailing, the decision of the assembly was in accordance with their views. There were many and long discussions on the errors of the heretics in connection with the sacraments; debates respecting the granting of the cup to the laity; debates touching the mass and the abuses associated with it; debates concerning the institution of the priesthood and its various orders; discussions on marriage; discussions on pernicious and suspected books;⁴ and discussions on many other matters. But the result of the whole was that after several adjournments and reassemblings during a period of eighteen years, the twenty-fifth and last session terminated the Council in December 1563; the Protestant opinions were excluded from Catholicism, and all hope of mediation or reunion was utterly abandoned. The seven sacraments as heretofore were retained; and also purgatory, indulgences, auricular confession, celibacy of the priesthood, and so on: the incubus of the Middle Ages and the inherited accretions of the creed of the Roman Church rested too heavily and firmly upon her to be shaken off; hence she easily accepted tradition as of equal authority with Scripture; yet she was still bold in assumption, strong in assertion, and vigorous in her denunciations; she had always been kept free from error by special grace; she alone was the true Church, and beyond her walls no religious body could be acknowledged.⁵

♦ “jusification” replaced with “justification”

♠ “Conncil” replaced with “Council”

¹ Pallavicino, Book VIII., chapter 11; 1670. Ranke’s _History of the Popes_, Volume I., pages 152‒153.

² Caraffa was elected Pope under the title of Paul IV. in the year 1555; he was an ardent Romanist. Heresy had been spreading in Italy as in other places, and it was deemed desirable that the Inquisition should be reorganised at Rome. The leading idea of this institution is well expressed in these words:――“As St. Peter subdued the first Heresiarchs in no other place than Rome, so must the successors of St. Peter destroy all the heresies of the whole world in Rome.” The Pope, by a bull in April 1543, founded at Rome the Congregation of the Holy Office: six cardinals were deputed as inquisitors-general of the faith, and their functions were extended to embrace all Christian nations. They were empowered to try all cases of heresy, to apprehend and imprison all suspected persons and their abettors, of every rank and order; they could nominate officers and appoint inferior courts in all places, with the same or with limited powers. One restriction only was imposed on the power of this inquisition; they had full liberty to inflict all kinds of punishment, but the right to pardon was reserved by the Pope himself; they might condemn as many heretics as they choose, but to absolve those once condemned was in the power of the Pope alone. The inquisitors were commanded to go on “enforcing and executing whatever might most effectively suppress and uproot the errors that have found place in the Christian community, and permitting no vestige of them to remain.” Limborch’s History of the Inquisition, Volume I., pages 150‒152; Bromato’s Life of Paul IV., Book VII., Section 3; Ranke, Volume I., pages 157‒158.

At this time Cardinal Caraffa was the head and leading spirit of the Inquisition. In this office he worked vigorously; he appointed commissioners-general for the different countries; and the rules which he drew up for their guidance were the following:――“First, when the faith is in question, there must be no delay, but at the slightest suspicion rigorous means must be resorted to with all speed. Secondly, no consideration to be shown to any prince or prelate, however high his station. Thirdly, extreme severity is rather to be exercised against those who attempt to shield themselves under the protection of any potentate; only he who makes plenary confession shall be treated with gentleness and fatherly compassion. Fourthly, no man must debase himself by showing toleration towards heretics of any kind, above all towards Calvinists.” We are told in the Life of Caraffa that “he held as a positive axiom this rule, that in matters of faith one must in no way pause at all, but on the first suspicion or intimation of this plague of heresy, proceed by all force and violence to its utter extirpation.” Ranke, Volume I., pages 158‒159. Such was the iron severity, inflexible and remorseless, which characterised the Roman Inquisition of the sixteenth century: can we wonder that there was also intolerance among the Protestants of that age? The Inquisition as a whole is the most complete system of tyranny ever devised; and it is equally exhaustive in detail, and merciless in the means by which it sought to reach its end.

³ The Society of Jesus was originated by Ignatius Loyola, a Spaniard, who was gifted with a fund of enthusiasm. The new Order received the papal sanction in 1540, and they soon rose to power, and spread over the world; they were afterwards known by the name of Jesuits. The aims of the Order may be roundly described to consist in a fixed and absolute determination to enhance and extend the influence and power of the Roman Church. Their first and chief rule was unconditional obedience, total and unhesitating subjection of their whole being and energies to the will of their superiors. The Order was to the Jesuit the representative of divine providence, and consequently everything else must be sacrificed to its demands. The society was placed under the guidance of a general, and its organisation quickly attained a definiteness and a completeness as yet unmatched.

The Order was ranked into several classes, each with their special duties and work. They devoted themselves to the department of teaching, and the confessional with peculiar and unrivalled zeal. The Jesuits, in fact, became the teachers in the colleges and schools in every Roman Catholic country; and they founded a system of instruction, framed upon a theological basis, which they impressed upon the minds of the young with an effectiveness never before attained. Their scheme of education was methodical and uniform throughout; the schools were divided into classes, and the strictest discipline in every branch was observed. The success of the Order, not only in Roman Catholic countries, but also in Germany and in other nations which were partly Protestant, was surprisingly great. The first Jesuits were an immense element of force to the Roman Catholic Church; they exhibited in their whole proceedings a reaction from the looseness both of morals and of creed which had marked the recent condition of the Church; they were pious, intensely earnest, and warmly attached to the Church, because their minds were cast in the mould which allowed them still to believe firmly in her pretensions. While they had all the boldness, fervour, and energy of the Protestant reformers, yet their reform took another direction; instead of going back to the Bible and St. Augustine, they chose St. Francis and the mediæval saints as their models, and rested with unfaltering faith on the authority of the Roman Church. To reform her by the formation of a new monastic Order, which made an absolute surrender of free inquiry and free thought, and absolute obedience to ecclesiastical authority, was their leading principle and idea; and before Loyola the founder died, he had established more than a hundred Jesuit colleges or houses for training new disciples, and a vast number of educational establishments under their influence; he had many thousands of Jesuits in the rank and file of his order. He had divided the world into twelve Jesuit provinces, in each of which he had his officer, while the general-in-chief himself resided in Rome.

If we inquire why the Jesuits were so successful, the answer will be found in the state of society and the circumstances of the age when they began their work. They came into the field at the very time that men’s minds were being agitated to and fro, and the general pulsation of society was then exceedingly accessible and susceptible to the influences which they brought to bear upon it: the prevailing states of feeling and emotion, the association of ideas, and the current trains of half-formed thought, were all especially amendable to the influences, the dogmatic forms, the positive affirmations, and the compact creed, which the Jesuits employed and held up.

The moral ideas of the Jesuits were entirely subordinated to the notions of the Church, and they often had recourse to the most tortuous casuistry. After the Council of Trent, it was the members of this Order, in particular, who made the defence of modern Roman Catholicism, both speculatively and practically, the task of their lives. The Order has produced many able writers; among others who wrote on doctrinal and polemical points, may be mentioned Bellarmin and Petavius; and among those who wrote on dogmatic theology――Canisius, Salmeron, Maldonat, Suarez, Vasquez, Coster, Becanus, and others. Some of the Jesuit writers justified and defended tyrannicide; and a few of them have at times advanced pretty liberal views. For fuller information of the Jesuits consult Ranke’s History of the Popes; Hallam’s History of Literature, Volume II., pages 196‒200, 1839; Baumgarten; Michelet; Lecky’s History of Rationalism, Volume II., pages 161‒184; Dallas’s History of the Jesuits; De Sarrion’s History of the Jesuits; Brühl’s History of the Jesuits; Liskenne’s History of the Jesuits.

⁴ It was one of the functions of the Inquisition to look for and to condemn all books which contained opinions and sentiments displeasing to the Church. In 1543 it decreed that no book, either new or old, of any kind should in future be printed without its permission; and booksellers were ordered to send in a catalogue of their stock, and to sell nothing without the consent of the Inquisitors. The officers of custom also were ordered to deliver no package, either of printed books or manuscripts, to its address without first laying them before the Inquisition. In this way arose the Index of prohibited books; the first examples appeared in Louvain and Paris, and other lists came out at Florence in 1552, and in Milan, 1554. The first published in the form henceforward adopted, appeared at Rome in 1559. Even private persons were commanded on soul and conscience to denounce all forbidden books, and to exert themselves to the utmost to destroy them. The secular power was called upon to assist the clergy in this matter; and many thousands of books were confiscated and destroyed. There was a long discussion on the best mode of dealing with prohibited and suspected books in the Council of Trent, and much diversity of opinion on the matter was expressed by the assembled Fathers; but in the end it was left with the Pope to settle it according to his judgment. Buckley’s _History of the Council of Trent_, pages 278‒285; Decrees of the Council, Session XVIII., Session XXV.; Limborch’s _History of the Inquisition_, Volume II., pages 69‒72, 1731; Bromato’s _Life of Paul IV._, Book VIII., section 9.

⁵ Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Touching the history of doctrines the Sessions IV.‒VII., XIII., XIV., XXI.‒XXV., are of particular importance. The _Catechismus Romanus_ was composed in conformity with a resolution of the Council of Trent, Session XXV.; it was drawn up under the superintendence of three Cardinals, and published by authority of Pope Pius IV. in 1566. Several editions and translations of it were published. There was another Catechism composed by the Jesuit, P. Canisius, which first appeared in 1554, and it acquired greater authority than the other one, though it did not receive the sanction of the pope.

Although the Council of Trent did not radically reform the creed of the Roman Church, clerical abuses were corrected and decency enforced. Provision was made for the education of priests and for their devotion in future to active duties; the old laxity of morals was to be no longer tolerated, nor on the other hand, the old diversity of doctrine. Thus the revolt of the Protestants had at least contributed to bring about a degree of moral reform within the Roman Church herself;¹ and for this salutary benefit which the heretics so greatly assisted her to obtain, the Roman Catholics have not as yet shown much gratitude. Doubtless, the salvation of the soul and its eternal life is the highest end of human aspiration; but it can never be permissible to use immoral means even to obtain eternal life. This is the supreme doctrine, the very cornerstone of heaven, and without it there can be no real religion. But Catholics and Protestants alike have often acted in the teeth of this moral law; and the decline of their authority and influence must be attributed to the violation of moral ideas and sentiments more than to aught else. That blind conservatism which causes institutions to have a tendency to outlive the period of their usefulness, has never been more forcibly illustrated than in the history of the Papacy during the last four hundred years.

¹ Decrees of the Council of Trent.

When we attempt to fix the exact date of the separation between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, we find that it was not strictly coincident with the first appearance of the Reformers, as opinions did not at once assume a fixed character; and for some time there was hope that a compromise between the conflicting principles and doctrines might be effected. But a little past the middle of the century any prospect of this had utterly vanished; and the three forms of Christianity in the West were irrevocably separated. Lutheranism gradually assumed a severity and exclusiveness unknown to it in its earlier stages. The Calvinists had departed from it in several essential doctrines, though Calvin himself in his early days had been considered a Lutheran. But in hostile contrast to both of them, Catholicism firmly invested itself with those forms and ceremonies which still distinguish it. Each of these dogmatic systems sought eagerly to establish its position; each laboured intensely to displace its rival and to subjugate the world. The struggle for many years was desperate. Catholicism after the first shock rallied again, and with renovated and concentrated resources and power it fought its opponent with every available weapon, and with a determination and persistence of purpose, which would have been more worthy of our admiration, if it had been less cruel and merciless.

Having briefly indicated some of the varied agencies and the conflicting influences of the great revolution abroad; I resume the history of the movement as it manifested itself in Scotland. The regency of Arran was approaching its close. His government throughout had been weak and vacillating, and he had now fallen very low in the public estimation. The Queen-mother aspired to the regency, and in connection with her design she made preparations for visiting her daughter in France. In September 1550, along with the Earls of Huntly, Glencairn, Marischal, the king’s natural sons, and others of the barons and clergy, she embarked at Leith, and landed in France on the 19th of the month. The party at the head of affairs in France were eager to promote her object. It was there agreed to press upon Arran’s notice, that the revenues of the Crown had been dilapidated during his regency, that he would be called upon to account when the Queen came of age, and then it would be difficult for him to obtain an honourable discharge, should he remain in office. No line of argument could have been more effective with the weak-minded Regent; and as a compensation for the demission of office he was offered the Dukedom of ♦Chatelherault. The Queen-mother, after concluding her business in France, passed over to the Court of England, and had an interview with Edward VI. She returned to Scotland in the end of November 1551.¹

♦ “Chastelherault” replaced with “Chatelherault”

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., page 108; Lesly’s History Of Scotland, pages 238‒240; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 50.

In 1552, the Queen-mother accompanied the Regent on a judicial circuit through the country. She then reminded him that the time was come when he had promised to demit his office; but he declined to resign the government into her hands, and nearly a year was spent in party recriminations. The Regent’s party, however, dwindled away till only his brother, the primate, remained; accordingly he resigned in April 1554, and the Queen-mother was proclaimed Regent of Scotland amid public rejoicings. Mary of Lorraine, as she was familiarly called, was a woman of exceptional talents. She had acquired some knowledge of the habits and character of the Scots; but she had many adverse circumstances and influences to contend against. Being herself a Catholic, she was most perplexed by the steadily growing strength of the reformed party. On the whole, however, she ruled with remarkable moderation, and exhibited sagacity and tact of a high order. As the Protestants had not yet obtained toleration they gave her government little trouble.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, pages 600‒603; Buchanan, Book XVI., chapters 2, 3; Lesly’s _History Of Scotland_, page 249.

Edward VI. died in July, 1553, and the throne of England was soon after occupied by Mary, a daughter of Henry VIII. She was a stanch Roman Catholic, and the wife of the King of Spain. During her brief reign the Protestants in England were subjected to an extremely severe persecution. Mary busied herself in restoring the ancient system and faith to their pristine glory, inflicting enormous suffering upon the English people, many of her subjects being mercilessly sacrificed. A number of Scotsmen who had formerly fled across the Border, now returned to their own country, where they were comparatively safe under the mild government of the Queen-regent. Among those came William Harlaw, who was born about the beginning of the century. He had been originally a tailor in Edinburgh; but afterwards went to England, where he had been ordained a deacon in the English Church, and was employed as a preacher during the reign of Edward VI. Harlaw on his return began to preach in Edinburgh, and in other quarters of the country. John Willock was a native of Ayr, and at first belonged to the order of the friars, but he cast off the monastic habit, and was employed as a preacher in St. Catherine’s, London, and also as chaplain to the Duke of Suffolk. He visited Scotland in 1555 concerning some matters of trade, and took the opportunity of preaching to the people. Knox himself arrived in Scotland about the end of September the same year, and came to Edinburgh where he was warmly welcomed by the Protestants. At this time some of the Protestants still continued to attend mass and join in the worship of the Catholic Church, partly to allay suspicion and to avoid giving unnecessary offence. Knox, however, was opposed to this, and the point was debated at one of their meetings; the Reformer, however, would listen to no compromise even for the sake of safety.¹ The time was not yet come for open manifestation of contempt for the old worship, while possibly the disciples of the Reformer were not as yet prepared to follow a course which might bring their lives and estates into jeopardy.

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 244‒248; Miscellany of the Wodrow Society, Volume I., pages 261‒263.

Knox at the request of John Erskine of Dun, passed to Forfarshire, where he preached every day to many of the chief men of the county. He then recrossed the Forth, and lived at Calder House in West Lothian; while there some of the nobles came and listened to his teaching, and among them the Prior of St. Andrews, afterwards the Regent Moray. In the end of the year he preached mostly in Edinburgh; after Christmas he went to Kyle, and preached in the houses of the local gentry, and in the town of Ayr. Shortly after Easter, he went to the family residence of the Earl of Glencairn, where he preached and administered the communion, whence he again visited West Lothian, and preached to the people. He once more went to the Laird of Dun, and proclaimed the opinions of Protestantism with more freedom than before; and many of the gentry of the Mearns embraced the reformed doctrines.¹ It should be observed that it was chiefly among the nobles and the gentry that Knox preached, and in their own houses; the reformed party were not yet strong enough openly to announce their views; and probably it may have been the perception that the movement was not ripe for open action which induced Knox to leave Scotland. The Catholic clergy had become thoroughly alarmed, and Knox was summoned to appear in the church of the Blackfriars at Edinburgh on the 15th of May, 1556. He resolved to appear, and Erskine of Dun and other barons who adhered to the Protestant opinions met in Edinburgh; whether this was intended to overawe the authorities, the reader must determine for himself. The citation of Knox, however, was abandoned, and on the day that he should have appeared in court, he preached in Edinburgh to a larger audience than had ever attended to hear him. For ten days he preached in Edinburgh twice a-day, and on this occasion his followers met in the Bishop of Dunkeld’s lodgings. In the month of July 1556, Knox left Scotland and proceeded to Geneva to take charge of the English congregation in that city.²

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 249‒251.

² Knox, Volume I., pages 251‒254.

Immediately after Knox’s departure the bishops again summoned him, and when he did not appear, sentence was passed against him, and his effigy was burned at the cross of Edinburgh. But the reformed doctrines still continued to spread. Besides the preachers mentioned in a preceding page, John Douglas, a reformed friar, under the protection of the Earl of Argyle, preached in Leith and Edinburgh; and Paul Methven, originally a baker, preached in Dundee with great acceptance; and others in various parts of the kingdom exhorted the people. They read the Scriptures to those who assembled to hear them, using the English Prayer Book of Edward VI. in their worship. A number of the landed aristocracy――adherents of the Reformation movement for purposes of their own――had come to an understanding with each other. They had cast their longing eyes upon the property of the Roman Church, and this, more than anything else, stimulated them to hasten on the revolution. In the beginning of December 1557, they resorted to one of the familiar expedients which they had been in the habit of adopting for centuries, when they had any great enterprise on hand,――they entered into a bond of man-rent to assist each other in forwarding the reformation of religion. This was the first of the new religious covenants, and those who subscribed it took to themselves the name of the Congregation. Among the names attached to the document were those of the Earls of Argyle, Glencairn, and Morton; the Lord of Lorne, and John Erskine of Dun. It is an extremely vehement piece of writing, and it distinctly proceeded on the ground that they were the true Congregation of Christ, while of course the Romanists were the very limbs of Satan.¹ After consulting together, the Lords of the Congregation agreed to two resolutions for promoting the reformation of religion throughout the country. (1) It was deemed requisite that in all the parish churches the common prayers should be read on Sundays and on festival days, with the lessons from the Old and New Testament, according to the order of the Book of Common Prayer; (2) it was also agreed that doctrine, preaching, and expounding of the Scriptures, should be used quietly without convening great bodies of the people, until God move the prince to grant public preaching by faithful and true ministers.²

¹ Ibid., Volume I., pages 256, 273; Lesly’s _History Of Scotland_

² Knox, Volume I., pages 275‒276. It is understood that the Book of Common Prayer mentioned in the text was the liturgy of Edward VI.

The Queen-regent acted with great calmness in the trying position in which she then found herself placed, yet she manifested a disposition not to push matters to extremes. But it was impossible to hold the balance evenly between the Protestants and the Catholic clergy, especially as the latter naturally became much alarmed and excited. The stealing away of images and damaging of religious buildings in Edinburgh had begun. The great image of St. Giles was first drowned in the North Loch, and afterwards burned, incidents which raised an unusual stir in the capital. The Protestant preachers were summoned, and they resolved to appear accompanied by their adherents; but when the authorities saw such a multitude as approached Edinburgh, a proclamation was issued commanding all those who had come without liberty to proceed at once to the Borders and remain there for fifteen days. The gentry were not disposed to submit to this, and they forced their way into the Queen-regent’s presence to remonstrate. James Chalmer of Gadgirth addressed her in the following strain:――“Madam, we know that this is the malice and device of that bastard (meaning the Archbishop of St. Andrews) that stands by you. We vow to God we shall make a day of it. They oppress us and our tenants for feeding their idle bellies; they trouble our preachers, and would murder them and us. Shall we suffer this any longer? No, Madam, it shall not be;” and therewith every man put on his steel bonnet. There was nothing heard on the Queen’s part but, “My joys, my hearts, what ails you? Me mean no evil to you nor your preachers. The bishops shall do you no harm. Ye are all my loving subjects. Me knew nothing of this proclamation. The day of your preachers shall be discharged, and me will hear the controversy that is between the bishops and you. They shall do you no wrong.” “My Lords,” said she to the bishops, “I forbid you either to trouble them or their preachers.” And to the gentlemen, who were wondrously moved, she turned again and said――“O, my hearts! should ye not love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind? and should you not love your neighbour as yourselves?” With these and the like fair words she restrained the bishops at that time.¹

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 256‒258; Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume II., pages 251‒252.

In the month of April 1558, Walter Mill, an old man over eighty years, who in early life had been a priest, but had abandoned the Catholic faith in the days of Cardinal Beaton, was apprehended at Dysart, and carried to St. Andrews and imprisoned in the primate’s castle. He was tried before the spiritual court, convicted of heresy, and sentenced to death; on the 24th of April, he was burned at St. Andrews. This was an act of great cruelty and extreme folly. The execution of an old decrepit man for heresy was not at all likely to ♦enhance the respect of the people for the Catholic clergy or the creed of the Church. Indeed his execution strengthened the position of the Protestant party, and they at once sent a remonstrance to the Queen-regent, charging the Church with cruelty. They also demanded a reformation of abuses, and the establishment of religion according to their own views. She received their requests with the regard which the gravity of the subject urgently required, and promised to tolerate their preachers, if they would abstain from holding public meetings in Leith and Edinburgh.¹ The moderation which she showed deserves the highest praise; for according to the constitution and laws of the kingdom, the Lords of the Congregation had put themselves into a state of open rebellion; and however far we may sympathise with the cause of the reform party, this should not blind us to their real attitude in relation to the government of the time. It could hardly have been expected that the Church and the Government would abdicate their functions at the command of their enemies. Those who talk of the obstinacy of the Roman Catholics should remember that the holders of power have always and everywhere endeavoured to retain it to the last. In the end of November 1558, parliament met at Edinburgh, and the Lords of the Congregation then tendered a protest to the effect, “that seeing they could not obtain a reformation of religion according to God’s word, they asked liberty to worship in their own form, until their adversaries proved themselves to be the true ministers of Christ’s Church. They then gave open warning that if any tumult should arise among the people owing to difference of opinion about religion and if it should happen that the abuses in the Church were reformed by violence, the responsibility of this must rest upon the shoulders of those who now refused all reform, and not upon those who are meanwhile struggling to reform all things according to order; and, finally, they professed to be acting simply from the promptings of their consciences, with no other aim but the reformation of religion, and therefore they called upon the government to protect them from the rage and oppression of their enemies.” This protestation was read in parliament, but it was not inserted in the record.² Thus the Reformers intimated to the authorities that force was contemplated; and it seems probable that the leading men among them already saw that if once the passions and feelings of the people were fully aroused, it would be utterly impossible to restrain their riotous excesses.

♦ “enchance” replaced with “enhance”

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 302, 312, 550‒555.

² Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II.; Spottiswood, pages 119‒120; Knox, Volume I., pages 312‒314.

Meanwhile important events were passing in other countries which affected the contending parties in Scotland. On the 11th of October, 1558, Mary of England died, and she was succeeded by Queen Elizabeth; but for some time it seemed doubtful whether she would declare herself on the Protestant side or not. One of Elizabeth’s first acts was to notify her accession to the Pope, and there was negotiation touching her marriage with the King of Spain. But the Pope, Paul IV., whom we have before met under the title of Cardinal Caraffa, was by no means well qualified for winning to his side a doubtful monarch like Elizabeth. He was incapable of exercising moderation, and instead of attempting to conciliate the Queen, he returned a contemptuous reply to her ambassador; “first of all,” said he, “she must submit her claims to the decision of our judgment.”¹ Now this would certainly have been the last thing in the world to which the daughter of Henry VIII. would have submitted. There were, however, various considerations which might have weighed with the Pope. The French wished to prevent a marriage between Elizabeth and Philip; while the Guises were especially interested in this affair, since, if the claims of Elizabeth were rejected by the Holy See, Mary Stuart, Dauphiness of France and Queen of Scotland, would then possess the title to the English Crown. If her right could only be established, the Guises might reign supreme in her name over the three kingdoms. What a grand prospect for the imagination of a pious pope and the grasping ambition of the house of Guise. At times it seemed as if this dream were to be realised, and it was always kept in view by the parties, and pursued even after it had become entirely hopeless. But the force of circumstances more than her own disposition led Elizabeth to take the side of Protestantism. Her own heresy, save on one or two points, was not of a very decided character; yet it was sufficient to complete the separation of England from Rome. Hence Queen Elizabeth became an object at whom the Roman Catholic powers were extremely anxious to strike a blow. Many schemes and conspiracies were concocted for her destruction, but all failed, and England at last emerged from the struggle victorious.

¹ Ranke’s History of the Popes, Volume I., pages 238‒239.

The influence of France was now brought to bear upon the Queen-regent. She acted with more coldness towards the Lords of the Congregation than formerly; and they began to see that they were losing her countenance. Still attempts continued to be made to pacify the Protestants by propositions for reforming the more flagrant abuses of the Catholic clergy. Early in 1559 the Lords of the Congregation had begun to think of an alliance with England.¹

¹ Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume I., pages 159‒160; Knox, Volume I., pages 314‒316.

Everything indicated that the crisis was at hand. The preachers were intently engaged in spreading the new opinions; the old clergy were frightened, and only making feeble efforts to outdo their rivals by preaching and celebrating masses themselves. The Queen-regent had informed some of the Lords of the Congregation that they must desert their principles, as her line of policy was to be shaped according to instructions which she had received from France. Four of the chief Protestant preachers were cited to appear before the Court of Justiciary at Stirling, on the 10th of May, 1559, for convening the people and preaching erroneous doctrines to them, and inciting them to seditions and tumults. The Lords of the Congregation resolved to protect the preachers, and assembled their feudal followers at Perth. John Knox had landed at Leith on the 2nd of May; he stayed two nights in Edinburgh, and then proceeded to Dundee, where he joined his brethren. He received a warm welcome and went to Perth with his friends. In order to prevent a collision, Erskine of Dun passed forward to Stirling and endeavoured to effect an agreement with the Queen-regent, while the Lords of the Congregation and the preachers remained in Perth. But he was unsuccessful, and when the accused preachers failed to appear on the 10th, those who had become sureties for them were fined, and the preachers were proclaimed rebels. The multitude had been gradually becoming more and more excited, their feelings and passions had risen to a pitch which neither the preachers nor the magistrates could regulate, nor could they prevent them from wrecking the monasteries.¹

¹ Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials, Volume I., pages 406‒407; Knox, Volume I., pages 314‒319; Woodrow Society, Volume I., page 57.

On the 11th of May, Knox preached a vehement sermon against idolatry in the parish church of Perth. He enlarged upon the abomination of the mass and all the accompanying trumpery of the Roman Catholic form of worship. His hearers had been much excited before, but their passions and cupidity were now roused to a point far beyond the bounds of control. Meantime a priest, utterly incapable, as it seemed, of understanding the state of the people’s minds, uncovered the altar to say mass. It was an exceedingly rich altar-piece, in which the history of many of the saints was carved. A number of Protestants were present, and a youth at the top of his voice, exclaimed,――“this is intolerable, when God by His word hath plainly damned idolatry, that we should stand by and see it used in dispute.” The priest gave him a blow on the ear, and the youth in retaliation threw a stone at the priest, but it struck the tabernacle and broke one of the images. Very soon the whole multitude threw stones, and proceeded to tear down the altars and destroy every vestige of the ornaments in the church. When it became known in the town that such work was going on, an uproarious mob assembled, which attacked the four monasteries of Perth, and for two days the work of destruction proceeded till only the bare walls remained.¹ The example shown in Perth was followed in the town of Cupar-Fife. There the people destroyed all the altars and images in the church. Shortly after the Abbey of Scone was burned; and the monasteries throughout the country were in an incredibly short time either defaced or demolished.²

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 320‒323; Buchanan, Book 16, chapter 28; Spottiswood.

² Knox, Volume I., page 361, et seq.; Buchanan, Book 16, chapter 33.

The Protestant reformers have been severely blamed for these excesses and the destruction of religious buildings. Each party has striven to lay the blame upon the other, and to exaggerate or extenuate these excesses, according to their respective standpoints. But it should be remembered that there never was a revolution without excesses, the reason of which is not difficult to find. The amount of outrage and the destruction of property which a revolution may entail mainly depends on the strength and completeness of the organised moral force in the country at the time of its occurrence. If the moral sentiments and ideas of the nation are but imperfectly formed, the guiding and restraining feelings and influences only partly developed through the social organisation, and the intelligence of the people is very limited and dim, and as it were, only awakening to a consciousness that they have been long deluded, then, in such circumstances, a revolution cannot be effected without anarchy and excess in various forms. The same undeviating principle comes into play in this as in everything else: when the moral organisation of a nation is sufficiently developed and ripe, the desired and needful reform is gradually brought to pass by peaceful means. But, from the information we now possess, to talk as if a peaceful and harmless revolution had been possible in Scotland in the middle of the sixteenth century, is only a sign of much ignorance. It is well known, how easy it is to arouse the cupidity of a class, and how eagerly any body of men pursue a line of action which promises rapid and great profit; and how fierce the storm of wrath when the result fails, as it almost always does, to answer the expectations which had been raised.

When the Queen-regent heard of these proceedings she was naturally much offended; and she threatened to inflict severe vengeance on the guilty parties. But this was a difficult matter to accomplish, and she soon discovered that her power was not commensurate with her wishes. The Lords of the Congregation issued several manifestoes to the Regent, to the French commanders, and to other persons in authority. These documents were all pervaded by an absolute and dogmatic conviction of the truth of their cause; and they breathed a spirit of uncompromising resolution and defiance, and a determination to carry out their views of reform at all hazards, while they were extremely vehement, and even coarse and rude in expression. Many examples were drawn from the Old Testament of how God and His people had punished unjust and ungodly kings, and these were pressed home as applicable to the existing circumstances of Scotland. One of their manifestoes concluded thus――“Yea, we shall begin that same war which God commanded Israel to execute against the Canaanites; that is, contract of peace shall never be made, till ye desist from your open idolatry and cruel persecution of God’s children. And this we signify unto you in the name of the eternal God, and of His Son Christ Jesus, whose verity we profess, and whose Gospel we will have preached, and holy sacraments rightly ministered, so long as God will assist us to gainstand your idolatry. Take this for ♦advertisement, and be not deceived.”¹

♦ “advertisment” replaced with “advertisement”

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 334‒336.

At this time the Lords of the Congregation had entrenched themselves in Perth; while the Regent’s army, mostly composed of Frenchmen, had approached within twenty miles of them. The Congregation had a considerable force, but an arrangement was made with the Regent, mainly through the influence of the Earl of Argyle and the prior of St. Andrews. The agreement was to the effect that both armies were to be disbanded, and the town of Perth left open to the Regent; that none of the inhabitants were to be molested for the late alterations in religion; that no Frenchman should enter the town, nor come within three miles of it; and that when the Queen retired no French garrison would be left in the town. All other controversies were postponed to the next Parliament.¹ This arrangement was concluded on the 28th of May, 1559; and the Lords of the Congregation then retired from Perth. The Queen-regent entered Perth surrounded by a body of French troops which she called her body-guard; but the Protestants regarded this as a violation of the agreement.

¹ Ibid., Volume I., pages 336‒341, et seq.; Lesly’s History Of Scotland

The Earl of Argyle and the prior of St. Andrews then left the Regent, and joined the Congregation. Numbers of the people from various quarters of the kingdom gathered round the Lords of the Congregation, who went boldly on with their work. They invaded St. Andrews, where the primate had thought of resisting them, but he was forced to flee. On the 11th of June, Knox preached one of his scathing sermons in St. Andrews, in which he entreated his hearers to eject the buyers and sellers from the Temple, according to the Gospel of Matthew and John; and with all the force of his nature, he applied his examples to the surrounding circumstances. The altars and the images, the monuments of idolatry, as they called them, were quickly destroyed in all the churches of the city.¹ The Regent’s army approached but found the Congregation too strong; and another arrangement was made between the contending parties, which was again soon broken off. The Regent was expecting more assistance from France to crush out the heresy in Scotland. Meanwhile the heretics were increasing in numbers. One division of the Congregation re-entered Perth on the 25th of June, and another under the Earl of Argyle and the Prior of St. Andrews, took possession of Edinburgh on the 29th of June, while the Regent retired to Dunbar.² The Congregation demolished the monasteries of Edinburgh, and seized the coining irons of the Mint. A sort of truce having been concluded between the conflicting parties, the Regent returned to Holyrood. Both parties issued proclamations and appeals to the people. The Regent said she would grant liberty for the exercise of the Protestant religion, provided that wherever she was dwelling preaching should cease and the mass be maintained. This was the difficulty, neither party could tolerate the worship of the other, unless at a respectable distance; Knox and his followers upon no consideration would tolerate manifest idolatry; his aim, as he expressed it, was to “establish God’s eternal verity within the realm.” While these absorbing matters filled the mind of the nation, the intelligence came that Henry II. of France was dead, and that the husband of the Queen of Scots had succeeded to the throne of that Kingdom. This event foreboded severe opposition to the Congregation; and the reformed party in Edinburgh were soon in great straits. They departed from the capital on the 26th of July, and passed to Stirling, from whence on the 11th of ♦August they issued a short manifesto in which they bound themselves to stand true to each other. The Earls of Argyle, Glencairn, Lord Boyd, and other barons, then marched to Glasgow, and “reformed” the city of the West.³

¹ Knox, Volume I., 336‒350.

² Diurnal of ♠Occurrents, pages 53‒269; Knox, Volume I., pages 350, 359, 362.

♠ “Occurents” replaced with “Occurrents”

♦ “Angust” replaced with “August”

³ Knox, Volume I., pages 363‒384.

John Willock was left in Edinburgh to keep alive the Protestant opinions, lest the idols might again raise their heads in the capital. He continued to preach in the Church of St. Giles till the month of November. In the end of August a thousand armed Frenchmen arrived and disembarked at Leith, and with the army already there, they began to fortify the position. On the 24th of September two thousand more French troops arrived to assist the Queen-regent in the struggle to uphold the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. The Frenchmen shortly made the defences of Leith so strong that the Congregation could not hope to take it.¹ But the leaders of the Congregation took a bold step, they re-entered Edinburgh in October, and on the 21st of that month they met in the Tolbooth to deliberate concerning the government of the kingdom. Lord Ruthven introduced the business of the meeting by asking: ――“Whether she who so contemptuously refused the most humble Request of the born councillors of the realm, being also but a Regent, whose pretensions threatened the bondage of the whole community, ought to be suffered so tyrannously to rule above them?” As this question had not been debated before in an open assembly, it was deemed right that the opinion of the preachers should be asked, and John Willock was called upon to express his sentiments on the point. He said――“That though magistrates were granted power and authority from God, yet this power was limited by the word of God; as subjects were commanded to obey their magistrates, so magistrates must discharge their duties to their subjects, and the office of both is prescribed in the word of God. Though God hath appointed magistrates on the earth and honoured them, yet he never did establish any one who for just reasons might not have been deprived. That in deposing princes, and those who had been in authority, God did not always employ his immediate power, but sometimes other means which His wisdom thought good and justice required.” And therefore he concluded――“That since the Queen-regent denied her chief duty to the subjects of this realm, which was to administer equal justice to them, to preserve their liberty from the invasion of strangers, and to suffer God’s word to be freely and openly preached among them; seeing moreover that the Queen-regent was an open and obstinate idolatress, and finally, that she utterly despised the council and requirements of the nobility, he could see no reason why they, the born councillors, nobility, and barons of the realm, might not justly deprive her of regime and authority amongst them.” The opinion of Knox was then asked, and he concurred with Willock, adding that the iniquity of the Regent ought in no way to withdraw their hearts, nor the hearts of other subjects from the obedience due to their sovereign, and that when she was deposed, if she repented and submitted, she might be restored to her former place and honour. Then every one present was requested to express his opinion freely, and to vote according to his conscience. A document was drawn up and agreed to, deposing the Queen-regent of all authority within the kingdom, proclamation of which was made at the Cross of Edinburgh.²

¹ Knox, pages 388‒399; Tytler’s History of Scotland Volume VI., pages 163‒167.

² Knox, Volume I., pages 437‒452; Spottiswood.

After this, skirmishing immediately began between the Frenchmen at Leith and the Congregation. In these encounters the forces of the Congregation were generally defeated; and they were again forced to retire from Edinburgh on the 7th November 1559, when they retreated to Stirling. The undisciplined followers of the Lords of the Congregation were unable to cope with the efficient and well handled French troops; so that the Protestant party were reduced to extreme difficulties. The voice of Knox, however, never ceased to exhort and encourage them; he called upon them to put their trust in “the Eternal God, the Lord of Hosts,” and that in the end they would assuredly prevail; he pointed out to them the examples in the Old Testament touching the sufferings and the afflictions of God’s people for their sins. In concluding one of his sermons at Stirling he said――“Whatever shall become of us and our bodies, I doubt not but this cause, in spite of the devil, shall prevail in the realm of Scotland. For as it is the eternal truth of the eternal God, so shall it prevail, however for a time it may be impugned. It may be that God shall plague some, because they delight not in the truth, albeit for worldly considerations they seemed to pursue it. Yea, God may take some of his dearest children away before their eyes see greater troubles. But neither shall the one nor the other hinder this action, but in the end it shall triumph.”¹

¹ Knox, Volume I., pages 452‒473; Sadler’s State Papers, Volume I., page 554.

The Protestant party found it absolutely necessary to make more urgent requests to the English Government for assistance. They had long been in communication with the leading men in England, but something effective was urgently needed; and they therefore sent William Maitland of Lethington to London, with instructions to explain their condition to Queen Elizabeth and her Council. Long before this time Knox himself had been in constant communication with the chief ministers of Elizabeth, and had very earnestly urged upon them the wisdom of rendering support to the Protestant party in Scotland, in order to enable them to overcome the schemes of the Roman Catholic powers.¹ The negotiations with the English Government proceeded favourably, notwithstanding the natural reluctance of Elizabeth to lend assistance to rebellious subjects. The chief men of England were well aware of the relative position and state of parties in Europe at this momentous and critical period, and hence they were extremely anxious and determined to come to an understanding with the Protestants in Scotland. Knox exerted himself to the utmost to secure their aid, and Lethington had an eloquent and diplomatic tongue. On the 23rd of January the English fleet appeared off the coast of Fife, and rendered effective aid to the Congregation. After much diplomatic talk the treaty of Berwick was concluded on the 27th of February, 1560, between the English Government and the Lords of the Congregation; its avowed purpose was to expel the French from Scotland. This was as much calculated to secure the safety of England itself as the liberties of the former kingdom.²

¹ Knox, Volume VI., pages 15‒21, 28‒♦29, 31‒32, 35‒36, 40‒43, 35‒49, 63, 63‒71, 74, ♠79, 81, 89, 91, 92, 98, 101, 189; Sadler’s State Papers, Volume I., pages 601, 684.

♦ “28” replaced with “29”

♠ “69” replaced with “79”

² Fœdera, Volume XV., page 569; Calderwood’s History, Volume I., pages 574‒578; Knox, Volume II., pages 13, 38‒45.

An English army, six thousand strong, entered Scotland in the end of March 1560, and they were soon joined by the Scots who adhered to the Lords of the Congregation. The united forces proceeded to besiege Leith, and skirmishing ensued between them and the French. The French had made their defences very strong, and the attacks of the allied forces were repeatedly driven back with great loss. The Frenchmen exhibited more skill than the besiegers; months passed, and still little progress was made towards the reduction of Leith. But the current of events was working changes in other quarters, and the critical condition of France itself soon began to tell upon the course of affairs in Scotland. Negotiations were commenced to bring the war to an end, but the circumstances being of a peculiar character, the preliminaries required much discussion and deliberation.¹

¹ Hayne’s State Papers, Volume I., pages 272‒273; Buchanan, Book XVI., Chapters 55, 57, 58; Knox, Volume II., pages 66‒72.

The negotiations resulted in the conclusion of the treaty of Edinburgh on the 6th of July, 1560. This treaty dealt with a variety of matters touching France and England, some of which were never ratified. The articles more immediately affecting the cause of the Congregation were mainly these――that the French troops should return home; that no foreigners hereafter should be employed in Scotland without the sanction of Parliament; that an act of oblivion should be passed for all injurious deeds committed against the laws of the kingdom from the 6th of March, 1559, till the 11th of August, 1560; that a general peace should be made amongst the lords and all the subjects of the kingdom, so that those who were of the Congregation, and those who were not, should have no cause of quarrel with each other for the things done since the above date. That a Parliament should be held on the 10th of July, and adjourned to the 11th of August; and that this parliament should be as valid as if it had been expressly summoned by their majesties the King and Queen, provided that nothing be treated before the 1st of August.¹ Peace was proclaimed on the 8th of July, and a few days afterwards the French and English troops departed from Scotland.

¹ Fœdera, Volume XV., page 593, et seq.; Keith, Volume I., pages 298‒306.

The Queen-Regent had removed into the castle of Edinburgh on the approach of the English army. She was wearied with the responsibilities of her position, and, worn out, she died on the 10th of July, 1560. On her death-bed she showed a nobleness of feeling and a magnanimity of soul which moved the minds of the hardest reformers; she called for Willock, the reformed preacher, and freely and cheerfully heard such exhortations as he deemed suitable for the occasion;¹ and thus she gave an example of religious humility and liberality unmatched in that fierce intolerant age. The important place which she naturally assumed in Scotland at this crisis, and the attitude which various associations and influences led her to take up, have often been overlooked in the heat of controversy; and she has been blamed for not acting in a way which her position, and the circumstances of her connections precluded her from attempting, even apart from her hereditary tendencies and her domestic feelings and sentiments. She had often said that, if she had been permitted to act according to her own wishes and judgment, she would have ended the dissensions and settled the kingdom in peace.

¹ Sir James Melville’s Memoirs, page 29; Buchanan, Book XVI., Chapter 61; Knox, Volume II., page 71.

The reformed preachers, most of whom were in Edinburgh, were actively engaged preparing matters for the parliament. They met in St. Giles’s church on the 19th of July, and offered up solemn prayers for their deliverance.¹ About the 20th of July, the first appointment of ministers and superintendents to the chief towns and districts of the country was made.

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 84‒87.

The parliament met at Edinburgh in the beginning of August 1560. All had been summoned who had a right by law or custom to be present, and there was an unusually large attendance. Some time was spent in discussing whether it was a legal meeting of the Estates. The leaders of the Reformation had prepared a document containing what they deemed necessary for reforming the Church. This they placed in the form of a petition before the parliament. It was a rather sweeping production, and extremely vehement in expression. One part of it referred to the patrimony of the Church, but the parliament waived this important and practical question of dealing with the revenues of the hierarchy; and then requested the Reformers to lay before the House a summary of the doctrines which they proposed to establish. The party selected for this task proceeded rapidly with their work; and in four days they produced a Confession of Faith which touched upon many subjects, and delivered opinions upon some of the most difficult and speculative points which have ever tasked the powers of the human mind. It was, however, only a body of doctrine, and when on the 17th of August this Confession of Faith was read in parliament, it was adopted without hesitation “as wholesome and sound, and grounded upon the infallible truth of God’s word.” Only three Earls voted against it, on the ground that they would believe as their fathers believed before them, and no otherwise. The spiritual estate, the bishops and the clergy, said nothing;¹ and there is some reason to think that they had not formed any adequate conception of the immense issues of the revolution which was being enacted before their eyes――the rending the foundations of the Roman Catholic Church.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 525‒534; Knox, Volume II., pages 89‒92, 220‒222. A far greater number than usual of the lesser barons attended this parliament; and their names were inserted in the roll after the commissioners of the burghs. The Roman Catholic clergy were represented in it by twenty-eight names, among whom there were six bishops. A contemporary chronicler makes the following mention of the Confession: “And upon the 20th day of the said month, the whole Lords passed to the Tolbooth, and there, after long reasoning of sundry matters concerning the commonweal of this realm, the ministers presented in the same a tractate called the Confession of our Faith, which being read was received and admitted therein.”――_Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 279‒280.

This parliament passed an act against the mass, and another abolishing the authority of the Pope in Scotland. By the first act, any person who said mass or attended to hear it was liable to have all their moveable goods confiscated, and to be otherwise punished at the discretion of the magistrate; for a second fault, banishment; and for the third, the punishment of death. It was declared that in future the Bishop of Rome, called the Pope, should have no jurisdiction in Scotland, nor should any bishop or persons whom he might appoint, dare to act, under the penalty of proscription and banishment from the kingdom.¹ The Scottish nobles had now done their work. They had at last laid the Church of their fathers in the dust; hereafter we shall see what was the real depth of their religious feelings and convictions, and how true and faithful they were to the religion which they had professed to fight so hard to establish.

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 534‒535.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Chapter XV

The Creed and Organisation of the Reformed Church.

THE Confession of Faith, ratified by the Parliament of August 1560, was composed by John Knox, John Winram, John Spottiswood, John Willock, John Row, and John Douglas. It comprised twenty-five very short chapters; and a brief preface, which stated that the Scottish Reformers had long desired to proclaim to the world the sum of the doctrine which they professed, and for which they had faced danger and infamy. In the preface it is announced:――“If any man will note in our Confession any article or sentence repugnant to God’s holy word, we humbly request him to admonish us of the same, in writing, and on our honour we faithfully promise him satisfaction from the Scriptures, or else reformation of what is proved to be amiss.” This is an indication of fairness and reasonableness; but it must be regretted that the Reformers seldom acted in the spirit of the rule which they here recognised. The preface concluded thus:――“And therefore by the assistance of the mighty Spirit, our Lord Jesus, we firmly purpose to abide to the end by this Confession of our Faith.”¹

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 95‒96; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume III., pages 14‒22.

The Confession opened with the belief in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God is eternal, infinite, unmeasureable, incomprehensible, omnipotent, and invisible; one in substance, and yet divided into three persons. It treated concisely of the creation of man, his fall, and original sin; the promise of a Saviour, and the continuation of the faithful from Adam to the coming of the Messiah. As to the Incarnation, Christ is declared to be truly God and truly man, having two perfect natures united in one person. On this doctrine they condemned――“The damnable and pestilent heresies of Arius, Marcion, Eutyches, Nestorius, and all others who deny the eternity of His Godhead, or the verity of His human nature, or confound them, or divide them.” This wonderful conjunction of the persons of the Godhead, “did proceed from the eternal and immutable decree of God, whence also our salvation springs and depends. For God, the Father, of His mere mercy had elected us in Christ Jesus, before the foundation of the world was laid, and appointed Him to be our Head. So we confess and undoubtedly believe in His Passion, Death, and Burial; his Resurrection and Ascension, His session at the right hand of God, whence He shall visibly return at the day of judgment.”

There are chapters on the Holy Ghost, the cause of good works, on what these consist, the perfection of the law and the imperfection of man; on the true Church, the power and the authority of the Scriptures; on the immortality of the soul, the sacraments and their right administration, the gifts freely given to the Church; and on the civil magistrate.

The Confession recognised empires, kingdoms, and cities, to be distinct realities and ordained by God. Emperors, kings, dukes, and magistrates of cities, each in their proper rank and place, are to be regarded as the holy ordinance of God, established for the manifestations of His own glory, and the good of mankind. So those who go about to destroy the existing constitution of the State, or to confound the government of a kingdom, are not only the enemies of mankind, but they also wickedly fight against the expressed will of God. Such persons therefore as are placed in authority, should be loved, honoured, feared, and held in the most reverent estimation. But then it is the duty of kings and magistrates to reform and purge religion, and to suppress all idolatry and superstition, according to the examples of the Old Testament, as in the case of David, Ezechias, Josias, Josaphat, and others, most worthy of being imitated.

“Arise, O Lord, and let thy enemies be confounded: Let them flee from thy presence that hate thy godly name: give thy servants strength to speak thy word in boldness: and let all nations attain to thy true knowledge. Amen.”¹

¹ Knox, Volume II., page 120.

The six men who drafted the Confession of Faith, also composed the First Book of Discipline; but it never received the sanction of the government. It was divided into nine heads, and treated of doctrine, polity, discipline and education.¹ It is a production embodying views on various important points that penetrate deeply into the strata of society, and wield a far-reaching influence over its destiny.

¹ The First Book of Discipline is printed in the second volume of Knox’s Works, pages 183‒257: and it is also included in the Collection of Confessions, published in 1722.

The first head announced that the Gospel should be freely and openly preached in every church and assembly of the kingdom; and that all doctrine repugnant to this should be utterly suppressed, “as damnable to man’s salvation;” that the books of the Old and New Testament contained all things necessary for the instruction of the Church, and for perfecting of the man of God: all laws and constitutions imposed upon the consciences of men, without the expressed command of God’s word, such as vows of chastity, celibacy, superstitious observance of fasting days, keeping of saints’ days, prayer for the dead, and other feasts, were therefore declared to be abolished in Scotland, and that obstinate maintainers of these abominations ought not to escape the punishment of the civil magistrate.

The second head asserted that there are only two sacraments, Baptism¹ and the Lord’s Supper, that the people should be instructed in the language which they understood before participating in the sacraments, and that in Baptism the element of water only should be used, oil, salt, wax, conjuration, crossing, and all inventions of men were forbidden. At the Lord’s Supper, sitting at a table was declared to be the most suitable posture, because our Lord Himself sat with His disciples. It was further directed that the people should partake both of the bread and of the wine, that the officiating minister should break the bread, and distribute it to those next to him, commanding the rest, every one with reverence and sobriety, to break with each other, and that during this action, some comforting passages of Scripture should be read, which brought to mind the death of Christ Jesus, and the never-ending benefit flowing from it to mankind.

¹ The Canons of the Roman Scottish Church on Baptism may be seen in the Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume II., pages 174‒175, 307‒309.

The third head required the abolition of idolatry with all its monuments, such as abbeys, monasteries, friaries, nunneries, chapels, chantries, cathedral kirks, canonries, and colleges, excepting those used as parish churches and schools, and all the mansions and dwelling places attached thereto, with the gardens and orchards. It should be observed that it was only the monastic system, and the extinction of its pertinents, which was really a consequence of the establishment of Protestantism; not at all the mere wanton destruction of the buildings: in the circumstances it was necessary to remove the ornaments and the internal furniture of the Roman Catholic churches and establishments of every description, as these were all intimately connected with the worship of the system. It is always easy for people to be wise after the event, but if those who now blame the Reformers had been upon the scene at the time, their wisdom would in all probability have proved of little avail. Under idolatry was included the mass, invocation of saints, adoration of images; and finally, all honouring of God not authorised in His holy word.

The fourth head dealt with the ministers and their lawful election. In a reformed Church, it was said, no one ought to preach or to administer the sacraments, till he be called. The ordinary vocation of a minister was said to consist in election, examination, and admission. It pertained to the people and to each congregation to elect their own minister. Examinations must be in public, by the ministers and elders of the Church: the applicant should be examined openly in the presence of the people on all points of controversy between the Protestants and the Catholics, Anabaptists, Arians, and other enemies of the Christian religion, that all may hear and understand. After he has given evidence of his soundness in doctrine, and evinced his ability to convince the gainsayers, he must then appear before the congregation whom he is intended to serve, and in the presence of his flock should deliver several sermons, touching the articles of faith, jurisdiction, the office of Christ Jesus, the number, the effect, and the use of the sacraments, and finally, explain the whole Protestant conception of religion. But great care should always be taken not to thrust any man upon a congregation, if they were not satisfied with him; this point was repeatedly stated in the First Book of Discipline.

Touching the form of admission of members to their charge, a sermon should be preached by some specific member concerning the duties of the office; and an exhortation should be given both to the minister to be admitted and to his congregation. Any other ceremony was deemed unnecessary, only the approbation of the people, and the declaration of the presiding minister that the person then presented was appointed to serve his particular church. Although the apostles used the imposition of hands, yet seeing that the miracle ceased, this ceremony was unnecessary.

The Scottish Reformers experienced much difficulty in the work of organising their Church, from the paucity of qualified ministers then in Scotland; to overcome this, they adopted the only expedient of employing other two classes of persons in the work of religious instruction, called exhorters and readers. In churches where no ministers could be had, readers were to be appointed, persons who could read distinctly the common prayers and the Scriptures; and afterwards, some of these, if found qualified, might be advanced to the position of ministers. The exhorters were a class between the readers and the minister. As the name imports, they gave some explanation or application of the parts of Scripture which they read to the congregation.

The fifth and sixth heads are very important, and related to the distribution of the possessions, rents, and patrimony of the church, and provision for the ministers. It was exactly in these matters that the strength and weakness of the reformation spirit in Scotland would be tested; it is necessary therefore to indicate the scheme proposed by the leading men among the Protestant clergy. It is very obvious from what has already been stated, that some of the expedients which they adopted were merely intended to meet the exigencies of the circumstances, and to bridge over the great difficulties springing out of the revolutionary changes of the religious movement. Owing to the scarcity of qualified ministers the Reformers had recourse to the expedient of selecting a number of persons with power to plant and erect churches, and to appoint ministers within the bounds of their respective provinces. To effect this they divided the country into five districts, each of which was placed under a superintendent.¹ These men were not to live idly as the bishops had often done; they had to preach themselves three times every week, to labour incessantly and to travel from place to place, till all the churches within their district were provided with ministers, or at least with readers. Till they had gone over their district, they were not to remain longer in one place than thirty days. They were to examine into the life and diligence of the ministers and readers, the order of their churches, the manners of the people, the state of the poor, and the instruction of the young.

¹ The names of the persons chosen were John Carswell, for Argyle and the Isles; John Erskine of Dun, for Angus and Mearns; John Spottiswood, for Lothian and Tweeddale; John Willock, for Glasgow and the West; and John Winram for Fife――five in all. As this number of superintendents was never increased, the General Assembly from time to time appointed commissioners or visitors for special districts. Their duties were of a very arduous nature, and their stipends were not great. They had no superiority over their brethren, and like other members they were entirely subject to the General Assembly. Their special office was to plant churches, and assist in the great labour of organisation. At this time three or four churches were sometimes grouped together, having a minister in one and readers in the others, under the superintendent; and this continued for many years, till a sufficient number of qualified ministers could be obtained.

It was proposed to regulate the scale of stipend according to the condition and circumstances of the ministers. The superintendents were to get more than the ordinary minister of a parish, a minister more than an exhorter, and the reader less than an exhorter. Proposals were made for securing a provision for the wives and families of the ministers; burghal privileges were demanded for their children, and a special preference to be accorded to their sons in the schools and colleges, with regard to the presentation of bursaries. Thus far, touching the personal wants of the new clergy and their families.

It was proposed that a portion of the property of the Church should be applied to national education. “Seeing that all men came into the world ignorant, and God had ceased to illuminate them miraculously, a system of education for the whole people was therefore a necessity.” A school was to be attached to every church, and when a schoolmaster could not be got, the minister or the reader was to teach the children and the young people of the parish, and instruct them in the rudiments of education, especially in the Catechism as translated in the Book of Common Order, called the Order of Geneva.¹ They further proposed that those who were unable to keep their children at school, should be assisted out of the funds of the Church, especially the people in the landward parts of the country.

¹ The reference here is to the translation of Calvin’s Catechism. In another part of the First Book of Discipline it is called the most perfect catechism that ever was used in the Church. It was approved and adopted by the Reformed Church of Scotland, and commonly printed with the Book of Common Order. A translation of this catechism was reprinted at Edinburgh in 1564, and it was long and widely used among the Protestants of Scotland. There is a notice of early editions in the sixth volume of Dr. Laing’s collected edition of Knox’s works, page 341. Calvin’s Catechism was divided into fifty-five parts, one for every Sunday, so that the whole of it was gone through in little more than a year. It contains three hundred and seventy-three questions and answers.

The Palatine Catechism used by the reformed Churches of Germany, and taught in the schools, was translated into English, and printed in 1591 by public authority for the use of Scotland; and it was sometimes printed with the Book of Common Order and the Psalm Book. This catechism had three chief headings――“1. Of Man’s Misery; 2. Of Man’s Deliverance; 3. Of Man’s Thankfulness.” It was divided into fifty-two parts, one for each Sunday of the year, and contains one hundred and twenty-nine questions and answers. It was printed in the Collection of Confessions, published at Edinburgh in 1722, Volume II. pages 273‒352.

There was a little catechism in Latin which was used in the grammar schools. It embraced forty-one questions and answers. In 1592, the General Assembly authorised a Catechism, which was drawn up by John Craig, with the assistance of Robert Pont, Thomas Buchanan, and Andrew Melville; its title is――“A form of Examination before the Communion.” The Assembly ordered it to be used in families and to be taught in schools. Book of the Universal Kirk, pages 574, 784, 788. It is known by the name of Craig’s Catechism. It has twelve headings, and contains ninety-six questions and answers. The eighty-sixth question is this――“What is the office of the Christian magistrate in the Church? A. He should defend the true religion and discipline, and punish all troublers and contemners of the same.”――Collection of Confessions. Volume II., pages 363‒377. A new edition of Craig’s Catechism was prepared and issued some years ago by W. T. G. Law of the Signet Library, Edinburgh.

The state of the poor labourers of the ground was noticed, with the remark that they had been long oppressed. The Reformers were grieved to see that some of the barons were so cruel to their tenants, and extorted from them as much, and even more, than the priesthood had done; and they argued earnestly that this class should now be relieved of a part of the burdens which had so long pressed upon them. It was also firmly maintained in the First Book of Discipline, that the poor and the helpless ought to be supported and sustained from the property of the Church.

The seventh head treated of ecclesiastical discipline. A distinction was drawn between crimes which should be punished and put down by the State, and those which fell under the discipline of the Church. All capital crimes ought to be punished by the civil power; but drunkenness, excess in eating, oppression of the poor by cruel exactions, or cheating in buying and selling, properly appertained to the Church to punish as God’s word commanded. Owing, however, to the confusion introduced by the Roman Catholic system: “The Church of God is compelled to draw the sword against such open and manifest offenders, cursing and excommunicating all such, as well as those whom the civil sword ought to punish as the others, from all participation with her in prayers and sacraments, till open repentance manifestly appears in them. As the form of proceeding in excommunication ought to be grave and slow, so when once it is pronounced against any person, whatever their rank and condition may be, it must be kept with all severity. For laws made and not kept engender contempt of virtue, and bring in confusion and liberty to sin.” The same sharp and inflexible rules of discipline were to be applied to all ranks in the kingdom, to the rulers as well as to the ruled, and even to the preachers themselves as well as to the humblest in the nation. Here at least there was a thorough recognition of equal justice and no respect of persons.

The eighth head related to the election of elders and deacons. The most intelligent, faithful, and honest men that could be found within the Church should be nominated for election, and their names publicly announced by the minister to the whole congregation. Regarding the form of voting, so that every man might give his vote with freedom, each congregation was left to adopt such rules as seemed most likely to attain the end. They were to be elected yearly, but those in office the preceding year might be re-elected. The elders were to assist the minister in all the public affairs of the church, in judging causes, and in admonishing the licentious; for by the gravity of the elders, the levity and unbridled life of the immoral should be corrected and restrained. They were to observe the life, diligence, and study of the minister himself, to admonish and correct him, and when necessary, with the consent of the congregation and the superintendent, they might depose him. The office of the deacon was to receive the rents and gather the alms of the church, and to keep and distribute them as should be appointed. They were also to assist the minister and elders in deciding causes, and they might be admitted to read publicly, if required, and found fit to perform that duty. The deacons personally should be sober, humble, lovers of concord and peace, and examples of godliness to all. The elders and deacons were to receive no stipend, because they held office only from year to year, and because their services to the Church did not prevent them from attending to their private business.

The ninth head referred to the polity of the Church, which embraced those things that might bring the rude and ignorant to knowledge, inflame the learned to greater fervency and to retain the Church in good order. It was then stated that there were two kinds of polity, the one necessary, the other merely expedient and amenable to circumstances. The first required that the word should be truly preached, the sacraments rightly administered, and the common prayers publicly offered; that children and rude and ignorant persons should be instructed in the chief points of religion, and offenders punished, as without these there was not the face of a visible Church. The second touched upon such matters as that psalms should be sung, that certain portions of Scripture should be read when there was no sermon, and that on this or the next day of the week, few or many, the congregation should meet for worship. Regarding points of this character each congregation was permitted within limits to frame rules suitable to its circumstances. It was required, however, that in all the chief towns there should either be a sermon or common prayers every day, with some exercise of reading the Scriptures. In every notable town it was also required that there should be sermon and prayers on one day of the week, besides Sunday; and during the time of this service both masters and servants should cease from their business and labour. In all places the Sunday was to be regularly kept: in the forenoon the Word was to be preached, the sacraments administered, and marriage solemnised; and in the afternoon the children should be taught in their catechism and examined in the presence of the people, as thereby the old as well as the young might be better enabled to understand the questions and answers propounded, and the doctrines of Christianity. To promote this great end every church should have an English Bible, and the people were commanded to convene at befitting times to hear it read and interpreted, and thus by degrees to dispel the grovelling ignorance and thick darkness which had so long enslaved their bodies and minds.

Concerning marriage, it was found that the existing relations of the different sex were of the most lax and immoral character. Under the Roman Catholic system, the practice of divorce, of dissolving marriage by granting dispensations on various grounds, tended to foster immorality and to encourage crimes of the most atrocious description, more especially among the upper classes.¹ The Reformers, therefore, endeavoured to frame regulations calculated to remedy this class of social evils. Henceforth marriage must be publicly celebrated in the face of the Church; and to avoid all suspicion, the banns should be proclaimed on three successive Sundays. On no consideration should secret marriages be permitted; the ceremony should be solemnised publicly.

¹ Statutes of the Scottish Church, Volume II., pages 130‒131, 297.

Touching burial it was stated:――“In all ages it has been held to signify that the same body that was committed to the earth should not utterly perish, but should rise again.” From what immediately followed, it is pretty clear that the Reformers were reluctant to abolish all the forms and ceremonies which till then had been associated with the burial of the dead. This is not surprising, as veneration for the memory of the departed is one of the strongest and deepest sentiments of human nature; it touches those tender strings of the heart which are at once the source of the purest emotions and the noblest feelings of our common humanity. In Scotland, as elsewhere, from the earliest period there is ample evidence of this respect for the memory of the deceased, and it was keenly felt by the Reformers themselves. At the same time they were more strongly impressed by the baneful results which superstitious notions and practices had produced; and thus without much discrimination they put a ban on the expression of one of the most affectionate features of human character, when, to avoid all superstition, they enjoined――“that the dead should be conveyed to the place of interment with some honest company of the Church, without either singing or reading; yea, without any kind of ceremony hitherto used, other than that the dead be committed to the grave, with such gravity and sobriety as those that be present may seem to fear the judgment of God, and to hate sin, which is the cause of death.”

The First Book of Discipline concluded with an article concerning the punishment of those who profane the sacraments and contemn the Word of God. It suggested that very severe measures should be adopted for the repression of all such abuses within the kingdom. This Book of Discipline was not sanctioned by parliament, but it was approved by an act of the Privy Council in January, 1561, and about thirty of the nobles and gentry subscribed it. The Reformers failed to obtain any settled provision or adequate allowance for the new clergy out of the confiscated lands of the Church; and none of the Acts of the Parliament which abolished the Roman Catholic religion were ever sanctioned by Queen Mary.

The Book of Common Order, mentioned in the First Book of Discipline, was a kind of directory of public worship.¹ It contained a form of prayer for the ordinary meeting of the congregation. At that time extempore prayer was not common in Scotland, nor anywhere else among the reformed clergy. The book also gave directions for the administration of the sacraments; a form of marriage; a prayer to be said at the visitation of the sick; and instructions on the order of ecclesiastical discipline.² There were also two treatises, the one on fasting, and the other on excommunication. These, however, were written and adopted by the Church a few years later, and will fall to be noticed in connection with other influences which affected the people.

¹ It was an adaptation of the Order of Geneva――the forms of worship which had been received by the English congregation in that city. Of this congregation Knox was for some time pastor, hence it was sometimes called the Order of Geneva. The Geneva edition of 1558 was reprinted at Edinburgh in 1562, and again in 1564, and it was approved and sanctioned by the General Assembly; the subsequent editions were numerous, and commonly printed with the old metrical version of the psalms. Book of the Universal Kirk, pages 30, 54. In Dr. Laing’s edition of Knox’s Works, accurate and minute details on these points will be found.

² Collection of Confessions, Volume II., pages 372, 468; 1722. Knox’s Works, Volume VI., pages 275‒333.

The system of doctrine and polity of the Reformed Church of Scotland as presented in the Confession, the First Book of Discipline, the Catechism, and the Book of Common Order was pretty distinct, although on several points rather crude and imperfectly developed. The doctrines of Calvin were adopted by the Scottish Reformers with little modification, and it was at this time that Calvinism seized the minds of men with irresistible power.¹ The Calvinistic modes of belief and thought were decidedly more opposed to the Roman Catholic tenets than the doctrines of Luther. Of this fact, the Catholics themselves were well aware, and hence the intense bitterness that eventually prevailed everywhere, when Calvinists and Romanists came into conflict with each other. In Scotland amongst the Protestants heresy was for a long time quite unknown; the disputes which arose within the Reformed Church in this country were always about points of polity or external forms, or the limits of the liberty and power of the Church. The first brunt of the battle was directed against the Roman Catholic system; and it is vain and untrue to deny that the Protestants persecuted the Catholics. The moral ideas and sentiments of the sixteenth century were comparatively narrow and imperfectly developed, and Knox and his associates would most assuredly not have taken it as a compliment, if they had been told that they tolerated the Catholics. The Reformers distinctly, emphatically, and constantly, proclaimed that it was the duty of the State and the Church to punish and extinguish the confessors of the mass and other forms of idolatry. The proceedings of the General Assemblies, the Acts of Parliament, and other national records, contain endless evidence of this. What else could have been expected? A nation does not spring up to an elevated moral position in a day or in a few years; and the ultimate results of a great revolution cannot justly be measured by its immediate effects. On the contrary, the movement must be followed century after century ere its truth and glory can be fully apprehended.

¹ On the re-establishment of Protestantism in England at the accession of Queen Elizabeth, the English bishops would have gladly dispensed with Episcopacy, and the ceremonies which the Queen imposed were barely tolerated. In regard to the great question of the real presence the majority of the bishops agreed with the Swiss Reformers. Hunt’s _Religious Thought in England_, Volume I. pages 39‒41. For further evidence of the influence exerted by Calvin on the Reformed Church, see Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines, Volume II., 178‒183, and Ranke’s History of the Popes. Blunt, Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology

The first General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 20th of December, 1560. There were only a few ministers present, but a number of lay commissioners attended. The Assembly enumerated and recorded the names of those who were deemed best qualified for preaching the word and administrating the sacraments, and reading the common prayers in all the churches. The ministers and readers together did not exceed sixty in number; and it can easily be seen that the difficulties and obstacles which the leaders of the Protestant revolution had to overcome, were something enormous; but they boldly proceeded to meet the necessities of the circumstances, in the way already indicated, by placing a man over a district to organise and appoint readers and exhorters to the churches where ministers could not be obtained.¹

¹ Book of the Universal Kirk, pages 3‒6.

Another General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 26th of May, 1561. It passed an act for the suppression of the Catholic worship throughout the kingdom; and measures were proposed for strengthening the hands of the superintendents. A supplication was sent to the government calling on them to take order――“With the pestilent generation of that Roman Antichrist within the realm, who was again threatening to erect their idolatry.” The Privy Council acceded to their request and passed an act thereon; and the Protestants went forward with their work of suppression and reorganisation.¹

¹ Ibid., pages 8‒10.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

Chapter XVI

Reign of Queen Mary.

WHILE the Protestants were still uneasy and somewhat alarmed by the intelligence that France had firmly refused to confirm the Treaty of Edinburgh, or to ratify any part of the proceedings of the last Parliament, the welcome tidings reached Scotland that Francis II. had died on the 6th of December, 1560. As this event broke and limited the sway of that scheming and ambitious house of Guise, the death of the young king was hailed with undisguised satisfaction by the leaders of the Protestants. The work of the Reformation in Scotland proceeded without serious interruption from any quarter; and the nation began to look for the early return of their Queen without misgiving.

A considerable section of the people still professed to adhere to the old religion, and they were headed by the Earl of Huntly. This noble was then almost the supreme ruler in the north and north-west of Scotland; and he put himself forward as the representative of the Roman Catholics. John Lesly, the parson of Oyne, and afterwards bishop of Ross, was deputed in April 1561, to proceed to France and represent the views of the Catholic party to Queen Mary. He suggested that she should land at Aberdeen, where twenty thousand troops would be ready at her command; and with these a blow might be struck against the Protestants. This plan was not followed by the Queen; but it had some connection with events which happened shortly after her return to Scotland.¹

¹ Lesly’s History Of Scotland, page 294; Dr. Burton’s History of Scotland, Volume IV., page 166.

The prior of St. Andrews, Lord James Stuart, the Queen’s natural brother, passed through England on his way to France, as the deputy of the Protestant Lords; and was warmly received by the Queen. After many interviews with her brother, concerning the state of Scotland, Mary informed him that she intended to return to the home of her ancestors. She embarked at Calais on the 14th of August, 1561, and landed at Leith on the 19th of the month. Her arrival was announced by the sound of cannon; and all ranks of the people hastened to meet her and to welcome her home. The loyal citizens of Edinburgh endeavoured to enliven her first night at Holyrood by a musical performance, in which fiddles with three strings were the leading instruments. This serenade seems to have grated on the ears of her French attendants; and indeed the whole people and their surroundings must have presented a strange contrast to the luxury, the external polish, and the enchanting pleasures, which had encircled Mary during the palmy days of her life in France. Many of the citizens of the capital, however, were anxious to show their goodwill towards her, and on the 2nd of September they presented to her a cupboard which cost two hundred marks. The expense of the town in connection with the banquet, the triumph, and gift to the Queen on the occasion amounted to four thousand marks.¹

¹ Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume III., pages 119‒122; Diurnal of Occurrents, pages 67‒69; Knox, Volume II., pages 269‒270.

The exceeding interest of the events crowded into the history of the succeeding seven years, the tragic, and often dark character which they assumed, and the vital importance of the main issue involved, have induced me to attempt a concise explanation of the causes which controlled the current of events, and ultimately led to the flight of Queen Mary into England. This part of our history has often been ably treated in the narrative form, and with every point of detail, especially in reference to the character of Queen Mary herself; but in nearly all the writings on this period there is rather much of the partisan spirit, and too keen a tendency to rest the issue of the momentous revolutionary movement on points of merely secondary weight and import. The questions as to whether there is evidence that Mary was implicated in the plot to murder her husband, whether this or that noble was concerned in the plot to murder Riccio and Darnley, whether Mary’s marriage with Bothwell was voluntary, or forced by violence; how this King or Queen struggled to outwit and befoul another; or how this statesman and that confounded each other, by framing misrepresentations――such are the questions and matters which mostly fill the literature on the reign of Queen Mary. But without by any means ignoring the relative value of the literature, the chief aim of this chapter will be to reach the underlying ideas, not of the literature itself, but of the Reformation movement.

It is quite unnecessary to dwell on the charming beauty, the varied accomplishments, and the unquestionable talents of Mary Stuart, Queen of France and Scotland. But once for all it must be stated that I am not a hard and fast apologist of Mary throughout her chequered career; although on the other hand, I have been unable to discover that she was so deceitful, immoral, and wicked, as she has often been painted. If she be measured by the standard of morality common amongst her contemporaries of the sixteenth century, she will not suffer by a comparison with the best of them. The cupidity and faithlessness of the royal families and many of their counsellors, who were then trying to sway the destinies of Europe, had reached a height of enormity which would be incredible, if it were not attested by piles of unimpeachable evidence. Everywhere the suffering of the lower classes had became almost unbearable; and this was a time of destruction, of revolution, and of renovation. In these circumstances it is unjust, and historically false to single out Queen Mary because she was unfortunate, as baser and worse than her compeers.

The Scottish nobles had long been accustomed to fight against the Crown; and they had at last laid one of the strongest arms of the throne in the dust. They had abolished the old Church and seized its landed property; and what they had thus taken, they intended to retain, while they eagerly looked for more. Most of them had joined with the Reformers for no higher aim than the enlargement of their estates; and the whole of their subsequent proceedings were quite consistent with the origin of their reforming spirit. John Knox was smarting under the sting of blasted hopes and defeated schemes. He at least acted from honest intention and firm conviction. He believed that he was following out the will of God, and delivering His message to Scotland. His whole heart and soul was in his work, and he struggled with all his energy to enforce what he deemed to be “the eternal truth of God.” Yet like other men, he was intolerant, overbearing, and greedy of power. The party who faithfully adhered to him were naturally suspicious, and dreaded that a reaction might be attempted; and for the protection of their own lives, and the safety of the reformed faith, they were always on the outlook and ready to frustrate the machinations of those who were opposed to it. That the utmost vigilance was necessary for the success of their cause, they were well aware. Their scheme of life was narrow, and many of their ideas extremely crude. But the Reformation on the other hand embraced the elements of a social and religious revolution. It went to the roots of evil, stirred the inmost thoughts of men, and aimed at the elevation of society, from the humble tiller of the ground to the occupant of the throne. Underneath all the rudeness of the reformed preachers, there was the moving, invisible flow of the moral principle――the consciousness of a God before and above all, and the conviction of the justice of their cause. They believed that the decrees of the Almighty were irresistible in their sweep. It was chiefly in the “eternal decree” that the intensity of Calvinism rested; and this absolute dogma was the secret of the influence which Calvin so long wielded over the minds of men. So long as there was no question touching the power of the mind to discover this decree, its influence had full swing, and remained unimpaired.

The nobles and barons had gathered from all quarters to welcome Queen Mary; but the trying circumstances in which she was placed, soon became apparent. Though her personal talent for government was conspicuous, she never had a fair chance as a Queen in Scotland. On Sunday, four days after her arrival, when the preparations began to be made for the celebration of mass in the royal chapel, the Reformers were greatly offended. The more zealous of them openly asked whether this idol should be again suffered, even in the Queen’s chapel. When it appeared that there would be an attack upon the priest, the Queen’s brother, the Lord James, guarded the chapel door during the service. After it was over, John and Robert Stuart, other two natural brothers of the Queen, took the priest between them and conducted him safely to his chamber.¹

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 270‒271.

The following day a proclamation was issued, announcing that the Queen was to make no alteration in the form of religion which she had found existing when she returned to her kingdom, without the consent of parliament. The people were enjoined to make no attempts either publicly or privately to change the form of religion; but at the same time the proclamation commanded that no one should molest any of the Queen’s French followers or servants, for any cause whatever, under the penalty of death.¹ On the following Sunday Knox inveighed against idolatry, and declared what terrible plagues God had sent upon the nations who indulged in this false worship. He had a special hatred at the service of the mass, and dreaded the effects of allowing the Queen to engage in the exercise of the Roman Catholic worship. In the circumstances there was reasonable ground for his apprehension.²

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 266‒267; 1877.

² Knox, Volume II., pages 296‒277, Anderson’s Collections.

Queen Mary was naturally extremely annoyed at the outspoken proceedings of the preachers, and resolved to try the effect of her wit upon Knox himself. The Reformer had a long dialogue with the Queen which is reported in his history. The Queen tackled him on a variety of points, chiefly political; and even according to Knox’s report, clearly held her own in the argument, showing at every turn a quickness of perception and a dialectic tact which brought out the unyielding and intolerant features of Knox’s character.¹

¹ Knox, Volume II., 277‒286.

Mary’s government, notwithstanding the alarm of the Protestants, was for some years conducted with unusual success. Her brother, Lord James, was placed at the head of affairs; and Maitland of Lethington, a man of ability, was Secretary of State, and played an active part in the Government. In September Mary made a progress to Linlithgow, Stirling, Perth, Dundee, and St. Andrews, and was everywhere well received by the citizens. She returned to Edinburgh in the end of September; but Knox complained that she had polluted the places she had visited with idolatry. Means were taken to punish the lawless Borderers and to restore order amongst them, but with little success.¹

¹ Diurnal of Occurrents, page 69; Volume II., page 287; Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 163‒165, 167, 168, 184.

As yet the Reformed Church was merely on sufferance; the head of the State was a confirmed Roman Catholic; and there was no provision made for the Protestant preachers. Knox and other ardent reformers had been much mistaken when they supposed that the Lords of the Congregation who had so actively assisted in pulling down the Roman hierarchy, would also be ready to transfer its property to the new Church. The preachers had rather foolishly imagined that the nobles, who at first had stuck so close to the good cause, were really actuated by pure religious motives and honest convictions. When the practical proposals for the disposal of the lands and the wealth of the old establishment came under their consideration their eyes were opened. The reformed clergy desired the Parliament and Queen to ratify the First Book of Discipline, but the reforming lords now asked in jeering tones――“How many of those who subscribed that book would be subject to it?” Maitland of Lethington said――“Many subscribed it in fide parentum, as the bairns are baptized.” In the face of the remonstrances of Knox himself, another of the lords said――“Stand content, that book will not be obtained.” Then said Knox, “Let God require the lack which this poor commonwealth shall sustain of the things therein contained from the hands of such as stop the same.”¹

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 295‒298.

By an Act of the Privy Council, 22nd of December, 1561, it was proposed to appropriate a third of the revenue of all the benefices in the kingdom to the Crown. The Catholic bishops and clergy who were still in possession, were to retain the rents and proceeds of their benefices, except the third which was to be applied to the purposes of the Queen and the government of the country, and to making a reasonable provision for the Protestant ministry. The rentals of all the benefices in the kingdom were ordered to be given in at a specified time, that the amount of the thirds might be ascertained and the arrangements carried out. A Royal Commission was appointed with power to carry the Act into effect, but those who were in possession of the benefices seem to have paid little or no heed to it. On the 12th of February, 1562, the Council complained, “That the Queen’s Majesty and the Council, and others appointed by her for receiving the said rentals, have continually since the said 24th of January awaited upon the receiving thereof; yet only a very small number of them have produced their rentals, contemning thereby not only Her Grace’s ordinance and proclamation, but also herself and her authority, like as if they were princes and not subjects, expressly against reason, equity, and justice.” Her Majesty and the Council therefore resolved to appoint factors to intromit, gather, uplift, and receive the rentals in all cases where they had not been given in according to the ordinance.¹ The reformed clergy were extremely displeased with this arrangement, and Knox expressed his opinion on its defects as usual with great freedom: “Well, if the end of this order pretended to be taken for the sustentation of the ministers be happy, my judgment faileth me; for I am assured that the Spirit of God is not the author of it; for, first, I see two parts freely given to the devil, and the third part must be divided between God and the devil. Well, be witness to me, that this day I say it, or it be long, the devil shall have three parts of the third; and judge you then what God’s portion shall be.” Many were offended at this language, and some were not ashamed to affirm that, “After the ministers were sustained the Queen will not get at the end of the year as much as to buy her a pair of new shoes.”² Knox was pretty near the truth, for by grants of lands, long leases, alienations, pensions, actual seizure by force, and other means, the nobles and gentry swallowed up the greater part of the property and revenue of the Roman Church.³

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 192‒194, 196, 199, 201‒203, 204‒206. Among the public records there are several volumes of accounts of the collectors of the thirds of benefices, beginning in 1562.

² Knox, Volume II., page 310.

³ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 287‒288, 412‒413, 477‒479, 487‒488, 573‒575, et seq.

The stipends granted to the reformed ministers were not large. The sum fixed for the ordinary ministers was to range from one hundred marks to three hundred. But from various causes even this small sum was very irregularly paid, and the ministers were constantly complaining in the General Assembly. Some persons had the audacity to tell them that many of the barons had not so much to spend as they had; but this comparison was deemed unfair and inapt, as a baron might augment his rent by engaging in other business, while a minister had no other source of income but his stipend, and required books and quietness in order to study and work to edify the Church of Christ. When the clergy put these reasons before the authorities and complained of their poverty, they were told that the Queen could not spare greater sums. The preachers, however, often sounded into their ears――“O, happy servants of the devil, and miserable servants of Jesus Christ, if after this life there was not a hell and a heaven! For to the servants of the devil, to your dumb dogs, and horned bishops, to one of these idle bellies, ten thousand a-year was not enough; but to the servants of Christ who laboriously preach the Gospel, a thousand pounds; how can that be sustained?” Lethington, the Queen’s secretary of state, said that the ministers were paid so much every year by the Queen, and he asked, “Was there ever a minister that gave thanks to God for her Majesty’s liberality towards them.” Then “one smiled and answered, Assuredly, I think that such as receive anything gratis of the Queen, are unthankful if they acknowledge it not, both in heart and speech; but whether the ministers be of that rank or not I greatly doubt. Gratis, I am assured, they receive nothing, and whether they receive anything at all from the Queen wise men may dispute. I am assured that neither the third nor two parts ever appertained to her predecessors within the realm these thousand years bypast; neither has the Queen a better title to that which she usurps, be it given to others, or taken to herself, than such as crucified Christ Jesus had to divide his garments among them. And if the truth may be spoken, she has not so good a title as they had; for such spoil used to be the reward of such men, and in that point these soldiers were more gentle than the Queen and her flatterers, for they parted not the garments of our Master till that he himself was hung upon the cross; but she and her flatterers part the spoil while poor Christ is yet preached amongst you.... Let the Catholics, who have the two parts, some that have their thirds free, and some that have gotten abbacies and feu lands, thank the Queen, and sing Placebo Dominæ. The poor preachers will not yet flatter for feeding their belly.”¹

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 311‒313; _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 16, 17, 23, 30, 47, 48.

But dissatisfied as the Protestant ministers were with Mary, her proceedings were probably much more displeasing to the magnate of the north, the Earl of Huntly. The Earldom of Moray was detached from Huntly’s possessions and conferred on Lord James, who was henceforth known as the Earl of Moray. Huntly had not changed his religion, but throughout the religious struggle his chief aim had apparently been to retain his vast territories and his influence in the north. Various incidents and circumstances indicated that Moray had resolved to crush him. The house of Huntly had long ruled supreme over the smaller chiefs in the northern Highlands, and had sometimes committed acts of oppression and injustice amongst them. In August, 1562, the Queen and Moray moved northwards; Huntly suspected that mischief was brewing against him, and sent his wife to Aberdeen to meet the royal party and to ascertain their purpose. The Countess invited the Queen to ♦Strathbogie Castle, but Mary declined, and proceeded by Rothiemay, and onward to Inverness. The gates of the Castle of Inverness were closed against the Queen, but it was besieged, and taken, and the garrison hanged. Some of the clans, including the Clan Chattan, the Camerons, and the Monros who had been under Huntly, now that they had an opportunity, deserted his standard and joined the Queen. When the royal party were returning to Aberdeen, Huntly with a body of his retainers followed them, marching well up along the heights to the Hill of Fare, in Midmar, where the battle of Corrichie was fought on the 28th of October, 1562. The royal troops under Moray were victorious, and the Earl of Huntly himself was slain, his followers scattered, and two of his sons captured. Two days after the battle, five gentlemen of the Gordon clan were hanged on the Castlegate of Aberdeen; and three days later, Huntly’s son, Sir John Gordon, was executed at the same place, “greatly pitied, for he was a manly youth, exceedingly handsome, and just in the opening bloom of life.” George Gordon, the late Earl’s eldest son, was seized and imprisoned in the Castle of Dunbar. Strathbogie Castle was then rifled. Many of its rich furnishings and ornaments were taken to Holyrood House; others of them were carried by Moray to the Castle of Darnaway to fit up his newly acquired residence in this ancient Earldom, which was once held by James Stuart, a natural son of James IV. George Gordon was tried for treason, convicted, and sentenced to be executed. But in 1565 he was pardoned by the Queen, and restored to his titles and lands as fifth Earl of Huntly. Thus Moray managed to crush and humble the great house of Huntly only for a time. Early in November, 1562, the Queen proceeded from Aberdeen southward by Dundee, Perth, Stirling, and reached Edinburgh on the 21st of the month.¹

♦ “Stratbogie” replaced with “Strathbogie”

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 218, 219, 220, 222; Diurnal of Occurrents, pages 73, 74; Buchanan, Book XVII., chapter 36, 37.

The Court stayed in Edinburgh during the winter. The gaiety of the Queen and her courtiers gave much offence to Knox and the reformed preachers; and they were extremely outspoken touching the excessive banqueting and dancing of the Court. It was said that some of the dances then fashionable in the Queen’s Court were indecorous and immoral, and that it was against these that Knox declaimed. It is evident, however, that from the first the reformed clergy of Scotland went too far in limiting and in denouncing almost every form of amusement. But Knox had also a suspicion that Queen Mary’s dancing was the expression of her heterodoxy and malignancy. As, “among other things, he was assured,” he said in a sermon, “that the Queen had danced excessively till after midnight, because she had received letters that persecution was begun in France, and that her uncles were beginning to stir their tails, and to trouble the whole realm of France.” When the Queen heard of this sermon, she sent for Knox, and accused him of having spoken irreverently of the Queen, of endeavouring to make her an object of hatred and contempt amongst her people, and of having exceeded the limits of his text. In self-defence, the Reformer proposed to rehearse from memory what he had said in the pulpit; and proceeded to deliver one of the most plain and vehement harangues ever uttered in the presence of a monarch. “The complaint of Solomon is this day most true, to wit: That violence and oppression do occupy the throne of God here in this earth: for, while murderers, blood-thirsty men, oppressors, and malefactors dare be bold to present themselves before kings and princes, and the poor saints of God are banished and exiled, what shall we say? But that the devil has taken possession in the throne of God, which ought to be fearful to all wicked doers, and a refuge to the innocent and oppressed. And how can it be otherwise? For princes will not understand; they will not be learned as God commands them. But God’s law they despise, His statutes and holy ordinances they will not understand; for in fiddling and flinging they are more exercised than in reading and hearing God’s most blessed word; and fiddlers and flatterers are more precious in their eyes than men of wisdom and gravity, who by wholesome admonition might beat down into them some part of that vanity and pride whereinto all are born, but in princes it takes deep root and strength by wicked education. And dancing, Madam, I said, that albeit in Scripture I find no praise of it, and in profane writings, that it is termed the gesture rather of them that are mad and in phrensy than of sober men: yet I do not utterly condemn it, provided ♦two vices be avoided; the former, that the principal vocation of those who use that exercise be not neglected for the pleasure of dancing, and secondly, that they dance not, as the Philistines their fathers, for the pleasure that they take in the displeasure of God’s people.” The Queen looked around and said――“Your words are sharp enough as you have spoken them; but yet they were told to me in another manner. I know that my uncles and you are not of one religion, and therefore I cannot blame you, albeit you have no good opinion of them.”¹

♦ “too” replaced with “two”

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 330‒335.

The idea of religious toleration was adopted by the Protestants in practice, no more than it was by the Roman Catholics. The only difference between them was, that the first had introduced a principle which would ultimately develop a spirit of toleration; whereas on this point the principle of Romanism never changes, however circumstances may modify its practical operation. As might naturally be expected there was still a considerable section of the people unconverted to the Protestant opinions, especially in the north, where the power of the local Catholic ruler was only newly broken. In several other quarters of the kingdom, where the influence of the local chief was on the side of the old religion, the Catholic worship still prevailed. The Protestant clergy insisted that the laws against the Romanists should be enforced; but the government was negligent, and the preachers threatened to take the matter into their own hands; as they firmly believed themselves to be justified according to the command of God to extinguish all idolatry. They apprehended some priests in the west, and intimated to others that punishment awaited them. The Queen again sent for Knox and once more tried her wit and policy upon him; and this time she managed him far better than usual, and the two parted on good terms. She promised to summon the offending Catholics, and to show the Reformer that she would administer justice; and he blessed her and departed.¹ The Catholics were accordingly summoned to appear at Edinburgh before the Justiciary Court on the 19th of May, 1563. There were about forty-eight persons brought before the court, and amongst them the Archbishop of St. Andrews. They were accused of celebrating and attending mass. Most of them were imprisoned in Edinburgh and Dumbarton, and some in other places; but none of them was executed.² It need hardly be said that the Queen was unwilling to punish the professors of her own religion, but she yielded to the clamour of the Protestants thus far, for the sake of other advantages.

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 370‒376; Diurnal of Occurrents, pages 75‒76.

² Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials, Volume I., page 472; Diurnal, page 75; Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume III., pages 160‒161.

Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 26th of May, 1563, but it did little to strengthen the walls of the reformed Church. Articles were presented for moderating the excess of dress, and for the reformation of other enormities; but they were all shuffled aside. The Acts of 1560 which abolished Catholicism were not even mentioned. But an Act was passed which gave full protection to all who had been connected with the rebellious proceedings between the 6th of March, 1558, and the 1st of September, 1561. This Act afforded much satisfaction to many of the nobles, as it in a measure secured to them the lands on which they had laid hands during the period of conflict and confusion: but the preachers were not pleased with it, nor with any of the acts of this parliament. Other enactments were passed touching the punishment of witchcraft, adultery, and the restitution of the glebes and manses to the ministers of the Church;¹ yet this did little to appease the wrath of Knox. Before parliament dissolved, he preached a sermon in the presence of the nobles, and spoke very plainly. “The Queen, say ye, will not agree with us: Ask ye of her that which by God’s word ye may justly require, and if she will not agree with you in God, ye are not bound to agree with her in the devil. Let her plainly understand so far of your minds, and steal not from your former stoutness in God, and ye shall prosper in your enterprises. But I can see nothing but such a recoiling from Christ Jesus, as the man that first and most speedily fleeth Christ’s banner, holds himself most happy. Yea, I hear that some say, that we have nothing of our religion established either by law or parliament. Albeit that the malicious words of such can neither hurt the truth of God, nor yet us who thereupon depend, yet the speaker for his treason committed against God, and against this poor commonwealth, deserves the gallows. For our religion being commanded, and so established by God, was accepted within this realm in public parliament; and if they will say that was no parliament, we must, and will say, and also prove, that that parliament was as lawful as ever any that passed before it within the realm.... And now, my Lords, to put an end to all, I hear of the Queen’s marriage: dukes, brethren, to emperors and kings, strive all for the best game; but this, my Lords, will I say (note the day, and bear witness after) whensoever the nobility of Scotland professing the Lord Jesus, consents that an infidel (and all papists are infidels), shall be head to our sovereign, ye do so far as in ye lieth to banish Christ Jesus from this realm; ye bring God’s vengeance upon the country, a plague upon yourselves, and perchance ye shall do small comfort to your sovereign.”²

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 536‒538.

² Knox, Volume II., pages 382‒386.

This came rather near an assumption of the gift of prophecy. There is an element of supreme boldness, intense earnestness, and not a little arrogance in it. But Knox had unquestionably a clearer view of the real difficulty and danger which was then menacing the reformed Church, than any other man in Scotland. That his language was strong, seething, and sometimes rebellious, must be admitted; yet underneath it all he had an unbending, unswerving, and true moral conviction, which he followed with an unflinching resoluteness of will rarely equalled. He was well aware that Catholicism in other countries was beginning to show unmistakable signs of fresh activity and power; it had reorganised its armies, and was rapidly recovering from the effects of the first shock of the Reformation; in many things indeed Catholicism had reformed itself. Though the fascinating smiles and enchantments of Queen Mary had failed to cast their spell over Knox, they had won for her the hearts of many. Day by day the prospects of the Protestants in Scotland were becoming darker; and Knox adopted a special form of prayer for the conversion of the Queen, the good of the kingdom, and the preservation of the light of the word of God.¹ The prayer for the Queen was couched in an extreme strain of phraseology, and it is not surprising that it offended her. The current of events in Scotland seemed likely soon to engulf the Protestant party and their Church in a sea of trouble. The Queen was meditating and preparing for her marriage with a branch of the Lennox family. The Earl of Lennox, after twenty years of banishment, arrived at Edinburgh on the 23rd of September, 1564. Parliament met in December and restored to him the family estates and titles. In the end of the year the General Assembly met at Edinburgh, and petitioned the Queen to put the laws in execution against the sayers and hearers of mass, who were then so numerous throughout the kingdom.²

¹ Knox, Volume II., pages 387‒392, 428.

² Diurnal of Occurrents, page 77; Keith, Volume II., page 228; 1845. Book of the Universal Kirk, page 53.

Henry, Lord Darnley, the eldest son of the Earl of Lennox, came to Edinburgh on the 12th of February, 1565. A few days after, he visited the Queen at Wemyss Castle in Fife; and soon found himself at a height of fortune far too dazzling for his poorly gifted nature. He was quite a youth, blooming and handsome, vain and full of ambition, but utterly void of ability and moral character; and before he had been many weeks at the Scottish court, he had made the Protestant lords his enemies. The Earls of Moray, Morton, and Glencairn disliked him; and Moray, who had been at the head of affairs since the return of the Queen from France, soon began to feel that his influence and power were slipping away. Darnley was a Roman Catholic, which further intensified the complications throughout the nation. Moray at length began to concert measures to prevent his marriage with the Queen.¹ A special meeting of the nobles and chief officers of State was held at Stirling in May 1565; and Mary announced to it her intention to marry Darnley. The Protestants became greatly alarmed. They seemed to think that a reaction was impending, and that at any moment the Queen might proclaim the restoration of Catholicism. The Queen had intended to hold a parliament at Perth to sanction her marriage; but the attitude which Moray and his party assumed, rendered the step unsafe.²

¹ Keith, Volume II., pages 263‒265, 268‒275.

² Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 334‒336; Knox, Volume II., pages 478‒482.

The General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 23rd of June, 1565, and at once proceeded to adopt measures for the suppression of the mass and other Catholic practices. They demanded that all popery, idolatry, and jurisdiction of the Pope should be utterly extinguished throughout the kingdom, not only among the people but also in the Queen’s own person and household, without any exception. Mary’s answer to this demand was very candid. She said, that she did not believe in the Protestant religion, nor that there was anything wrong in the mass, that she believed the Catholic religion to be well grounded; and she therefore desired her subjects not to press her to receive any religion against her conscience; as she had never pressed them, they should not press her. She also stated that if she changed her religion, she would lose the friendship of the King of France and other great princes, who were her firm allies, to whom she could look for support in all her necessities and difficulties; and that she would be indeed extremely reluctant to hazard the loss of all these advantages in an instant.¹

¹ Book of the Universal Kirk, pages 59, 67.

Meanwhile the Earl of Moray had broken off from the court, and meditated a rebellion. On the 15th of July, he and his party met at Stirling to consult upon their project. The same day the Queen issued a proclamation at Edinburgh, announcing that she intended to make no change in religion, and intimating to all her loyal subjects to prepare themselves to attend her for fifteen days in the field, and to be ready to appear the instant they were charged. The Queen and her adherents were too active and numerous on this occasion for Moray and his party. Seven days later a general muster of the Crown vassals was ordered. Offers were made to Moray to appear before the council and obtain satisfaction; but in vain. Mary ordered her intended marriage to be publicly proclaimed; and on the 29th of July she and Darnley were joined in wedlock amid rejoicing at Holyrood.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 339, 343, 345, 346; Diurnal of Occurrents, pages 79‒80.

Various rumours were afloat as to the conflict between the Queen and her nobles. Some said that it had its origin in envy, ambition, and hatred, rather than in religion. The newly married pair, however, began their reign by adopting vigorous measures. Moray and the Protestant nobles who had joined him, were declared rebels: and to crush them swiftly, the feudal vassals of the Crown were at short intervals summoned anew to muster and rally round their King and Queen. Their majesties also raised considerable sums of money from the citizens and burgesses for licenses to absent themselves from the army. The disloyal nobles, the Duke of Chatelherault, the Earls of Moray, Glencairn, Argyle, Rothes, and other barons, had mustered about a thousand of their followers. They soon found that the Queen and her party were too strong for them. Mary at this time was exceedingly well served, and the action of her government was prompt and decisive.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 347, 348, 349, 350, 353‒363; Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume III., pages 198, 200, 201, 202‒203. This old feudal mode of raising an army then began to be felt a severe burden, and ♦people in business were glad to pay a sum of money to be allowed to remain at home. But those who remained away from the army without license, were brought before the courts and fined; and it appears that a number of persons had not answered the Queen’s calls to join the host. _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 80‒81; Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials, Volume I.

♦ “pesple” replaced with “people”

The provost of Edinburgh was an adherent of the Protestant Lords, and the Queen at once commanded the town council to discharge him from his office, and named another to be elected in his place. About the same time the court had ordered the magistrates of the capital to suspend Knox from preaching, but this the council firmly refused to do; and several of the citizens fled to the banished Lords. On the other hand, Lord George Gordon was restored to honour and to the Lordship of Gordon, by royal proclamation at Edinburgh. The Queen now recalled Bothwell, whom Moray hated, and had contrived to keep out of Scotland for several years. He was then residing in France, and landed at Eyemouth on the 17th of September. He immediately proceeded to the court, and was there graciously received by Mary, who restored him to all his hereditary titles and offices. Along with the Earl of Lennox, he was appointed commander-in-chief of the army, which the Queen and Darnley personally accompanied. The rebellious lords after various moves and efforts found themselves unable to face the royal army in the field. They retired to Dumfries, and there issued a manifesto on the 8th of September, 1565, calling upon the Protestants to rally round them. But few joined their standard. They had rashly calculated on receiving assistance from England, but none came; and on the approach of the Queen’s army, led by Bothwell, they disbanded their followers, and retired beyond the Border.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 369, 372, 379, 384; Diurnal of Occurrents, pages 80‒84. In regard to Knox the town council of Edinburgh came to this conclusion ――“On the 23rd of August, 1565, the bailies, council, and deacons, being convened in the council-house, after long reasoning upon the discharge of John Knox, minister, to forbare preaching, during the stay of the king and queen in this town, all in one voice concluded and delivers that they will in no manner of way consent or grant that his mouth be closed or he discharged from preaching the true word, and therefore willed him at his pleasure, as God should move his heart, to proceed forward in true doctrine as he had done before, which doctrine they would approve and abide at to their life’s end.”――Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume III., pages 199‒200.

The Queen and her government were now victorious, and many of the Protestants dreaded that the Reformation would soon be extinguished in Scotland. At the time there were many schemes and plots on hand among the Roman Catholic States of Europe, and more in the fountain head――the Curia of Rome――for the total overthrow of heresy and all its works. Spain was deeply interested in the recovery of Britain to the Holy See;¹ but the stream of events swept away this dream.

¹ Ranke’s History of the Popes, Volume I., page 406, et seq.

The marriage of the Queen with Darnley turned out to be extremely unfortunate. She discovered when too late that her husband was a vicious, vain, and childish fool, utterly unfitted to be her companion and guide. Their domestic quarrels soon became notorious. The Queen had several foreigners in her service. One of them named Riccio acted as her foreign secretary. He seems to have enjoyed her confidence, and was occasionally consulted by her on important matters. Darnley, however, began to think that Riccio was his enemy, and fancied that he had prevented the Queen from granting to him the Crown matrimonial. He ran from one silly thought to another, until he came to the conclusion that Riccio had frustrated his aim.¹ This is characteristic of all weak-minded and naturally vain persons. They fancy that some one has set himself purposely to defeat them; while all the time the cause of their defeat is in their own defects. The Scottish nobles at once saw Darnley’s weakness, and seeking a way to restore the rebel lords, they fixed upon him as their tool, and on Riccio as their victim.

¹ Sir James Melville’s Memoirs, pages 132‒134, 136‒140; 1827.

A parliament was summoned to meet at Edinburgh on the 4th of March, 1566, to confiscate the lands of the banished lords. They had many friends in Scotland and even in the government; but, although they had made incessant efforts to obtain pardon and to be restored, the Queen still held out against them. The Scottish nobles have never been deficient in devising bold plots for the overthrow of their enemies and the attainment of their ends. Accordingly Morton the Chancellor, Lord Ruthven, Lord Lindsay of the Byres, and others, now entered into a bond with Darnley for the murder of Riccio and the restoration of the banished Lords, Moray and his associates, and pledged themselves in return to procure for him the Crown matrimonial, on which he set so much store.¹ It is plain, however, that Darnley was a mere tool in the hands of the nobles. They had no intention of elevating him to the throne. Their chief aim was to prevent the meeting of parliament, and thus preserve intact the estates of the rebel lords. Probably they foresaw that Darnley would prove false, and thus throw himself outside the bond.

¹ Ibid., page 148; Keith, Volume III., pages 260‒263.

The plot was exceedingly well matured and everything was prepared for its realisation. On the 7th March, 1566, parliament was opened by the Queen in person. Darnley, instead of accompanying her, rode off to Leith to enjoy himself among his companions. The first business of the parliament was to summon the exiled nobles to appear before it on the 12th of March; but they were already moving towards Edinburgh.

The evening of the 9th of March was fixed by the conspirators for the consummation of their dismal deed. The Earl of Morton commanded a body of one hundred and sixty armed men, and took possession of the inner court of the palace and secured all the gates; a party of these men took up their position in the royal audience chamber on the ground floor; thence Darnley ascended to the Queen’s apartments and Lord Ruthven followed him. They found their victim sitting with his cap on his head in her Majesty’s presence, along with a small social party in the Queen’s supping-room. Some parley and sharp talk passed between the Queen and Ruthven; but suddenly more of the conspirators rushed in, instantly the tables and chairs were overturned in the scuffle, and David Riccio was seized and dragged to an outer room, and there stabbed to death. A guard was placed over the Queen; but in spite of their vigilance several gentlemen escaped, and warned the citizens of Edinburgh. The common bell was wrung, and the people rushed to the palace with torch lights. They demanded the instant deliverance of the Queen; but she was not permitted to speak to them: Darnley appeared and assured the citizens that the Queen was quite safe, and commanded them to go home. Darnley and Ruthven then prepared two proclamations to be issued next day in the name of the King, the one ordering the citizens of Edinburgh to keep order in the streets, and the other dissolving the parliament, and commanding all the members to leave the city within three hours, except those whom the King might request to remain. Lord Ruthven placed men to watch the gates and all the private passages; but in spite of the utmost vigilance of the conspirators, the Earls of Bothwell and Huntly managed to escape during the night.¹

¹ Sir James Melville’s Memoirs, page 149; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pages 89‒90; Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume III., page 214; Keith, Volume II., pages 414‒418.

The following day, Sunday, the banished lords arrived in the evening, and were ready to make the most of the peculiar circumstances. They took possession of Edinburgh, and frustrated the proceedings of parliament. But Mary soon disengaged her husband from the nobles, who had murdered her favourite, and there can be no doubt that he was duped by the Queen as well as by the nobles. He had neither the ability, the resolution, nor even the recognised rough honesty of his day, to carry him through such a plot. Mary and he slipped out a little past midnight on Tuesday morning, and rode to Seton House, whence they were escorted to Dunbar Castle.¹

¹ Diurnal of Occurrents, pages 92‒98; Sir James Melville’s Memoirs, page 151.

When the confederate nobles rose that morning they found that they had been completely outwitted, and that they were in imminent danger. A large force quickly rallied round the Queen, who at once advanced upon Edinburgh. The opposing party of nobles were unprepared to meet her army, and immediately dispersed; Morton and Ruthven fled to England, others fled to the Highlands, and some of them went home to their estates. After a short time the Queen pardoned Moray, and some of his associates; but on those directly concerned in the murder of Riccio, she seemed determined to be revenged. Darnley exhibited the baseness of his nature by loudly denouncing his fellow-murderers. His treachery he hoped would win back the esteem and regain for him the love of his wife. In reality it only made him loathsome to her, while the nobles regarded him as an object of hatred and utter contempt.¹ When the Queen returned to the capital, Knox left it and went to Kyle. Many persons were apprehended in Edinburgh and accused of being concerned in the murder of Riccio, but only two men were executed――Thomas Scott, Sheriff-Depute of Perth, and Henry Yair.² On the 8th of June, 1566, the Council passed an act commanding the people not to receive or entertain the Earl of Morton, Lord Lindsay, the Master of Ruthven, and other thirty persons named, because they were implicated in the vile and treasonable slaughter of David Riccio, her Majesty’s French Secretary. All these and some more of their accomplices were denounced as rebels and outlaws, for not appearing before the Council and answering to the charges against them.³

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 446‒437, 456‒457.

² Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials, Volume I., pages 480, 481.

³ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 462‒464.

The Queen retired into the castle of Edinburgh, and on the 19th of June, 1566, James VI. of Scotland and I. of England, was born. After this event the Queen showed a disposition to listen to the suggestions for reconciliation with the nobles who had rebelled against her. Moray, Argyle, Glencairn, and others of the Protestant party, were re-admitted to a share in the administration, although Bothwell and Huntly were at the head of the government. Mary rewarded Bothwell for his very important service by appointing him Keeper of Dunbar Castle.¹

¹ Ibid., Volume I., pages 374, 464, 468; Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume III., page 219.

The series of events leading up to the murder of Darnley, the ♦marriage of the Queen with Bothwell, and her subsequent imprisonment, have often been detailed at great length. All that can be attempted here is to indicate the motives of the chief actors and the circumstances which controlled the form of the drama. On the one hand, we have the Queen and her husband; Mary was a good Catholic and really wished to stand well in the eyes of the Pope and the other Catholic rulers of Europe. She was a woman of great energy and remarkable talents. Up to the time of the birth of her son, she may be said, when everything is taken into account, to have acted in the government of the country with surprising moderation and fairness. But her feelings were extremely keen, her sentiments tender and kindly, her emotions and passions strong; withal she was a woman of exceptional polish and commanding presence. On the other hand, Darnley had acted in a very singular way towards his wife. He had exhibited so much folly, falsehood, depravity, and such utter stupidity, that he must have completely alienated the Queen from him; while on the other side, he had unpardonably offended the pride and aroused the hatred of a party of the nobles, whose revenge was deep and never slumbered. His doom was therefore settled. Indeed, the aristocracy had long been following a line of policy which tended directly to depress the authority of the Crown, and they were not likely to let the opportunity slip, which a concurrence of circumstances was now offering, without turning it to their own advantage.

♦ “marrriage” replaced with “marriage”

The plot for the murder of Darnley, which seems to have originated with Lethington, was soon concocted. According to custom a bond was drawn up by Sir James Balfour, an experienced lawyer, and a firm friend of Bothwell. This bond declared that Darnley――“was a young fool and tyrant, and unworthy to rule over them.” They therefore bound themselves to remove him by some means or another, and each engaged to stand true to the other in this deadly enterprise. The bond was subscribed by the Earls of Argyle, Huntly, and Bothwell, Lethington the Secretary of State, Sir James Balfour, and others who joined in the conspiracy. Their victim had become sick, and was visited by the Queen at Glasgow, whence he was conveyed to Edinburgh on the last day of January 1567. He was put into a house close to the city wall, called Kirk-of-Field, and here the Queen was very attentive to him and for several nights before the murder slept in the room immediately below him. At last everything seems to have been prepared, and the evening of Sunday the 9th of February, was fixed for his murder. When the day arrived everything at the court was going on in the most natural and joyful fashion; the Earl of Moray had left to join his wife at St. Andrews; and on the evening fixed for the murder a marriage was to be celebrated between two of the Queen’s servants. Meanwhile the servants of Bothwell and the Earl himself were intently engaged in making the final preparations for the horrible deed. The conspirators had resolved to blow up the house with powder. After dark they placed a large quantity of that destructive element in the room below the king, Bothwell himself superintending the operations. About ten o’clock in the evening the Queen arrived from Holyrood to join her husband, and passing the door of her own bedroom, entered the apartment of the king. Some agreeable conversation passed between them; and then the Queen recollected that she had promised to attend the ball to be held that night in honour of her two servants’ marriage. She bade the King farewell and departed, with Bothwell and Huntly and her attendants to Holyrood; and apparently only two of the conspirators remained behind at the King’s lodgings. In spite of all the care that had been taken by the contrivers of this dolesome plot, there appears to have been a hitch in their proceedings. It is pretty evident that Darnley and his servant had discovered their danger and attempted to escape, and had got some distance away when they were caught in the garden and strangled. Bothwell with a company of his followers returned from the palace about midnight, and joined the two conspirators, who had already lighted the train. The explosion shook the earth for miles around, and all the inhabitants of Edinburgh were aroused from their sleep. The murderers had to escape swiftly. Bothwell ran to his apartments in the palace and immediately went to bed, only to be awakened as if from slumber half an hour afterwards, by a message informing him of the tragedy. He then, like an innocent man, shouted “Treason! treason!” and along with the Earl of Huntly called on the Queen to tell her what had happened.¹

¹ Sir James Melville’s Memoirs, pages 173, 174; Keith, Volume II., pages 501‒507; Diurnal of Occurrents, pages 105, 106; Pitcairn’s Criminal Trials, Volume I.; Chalmers’s Life of Queen Mary, Volume I. And a very full account of all the proceedings in the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of Hosack’s Mary Queen of Scots, 1870.

It was well known at the time that the chief actor in this great crime was Bothwell, but at the moment no one would have been safe to accuse him. Many of the nobles were directly, and others indirectly, implicated in it. The confused state of feeling and belief, and the traditional policy of the nobles introduced a variety of motives into the breasts of these desperate men.¹ The murder caused great excitement among the people, owing more to the unusual way in which it was committed, than to any feelings of compassion or humanity. Voices were heard at night in the streets of Edinburgh denouncing the murderers. On the 12th of February, a statement emanated from the Privy Council which announced “that two hours after midnight, the house where the late King’s grace was lodged, was in an instant blown in the air, while he was sleeping in his bed, with such force and vehemence that the whole lodging was destroyed and driven to dross to the very ground stone; and not long thereafter the bodies of his grace and of a servant were found dead within a short space of the same lodging.” A reward of two thousand pounds and a grant of lands was offered to any one who should discover the murderers of the King; but no one ventured to claim the reward by an open accusation, although a bill was fixed to the door of the parliament house, naming Bothwell, Balfour, Chambers, and John Spense, as the guilty parties; and another placard named others of the inferior actors in the tragedy. On the 14th of the month the remains of the King were privately interred in the Chapel of Holyrood. The following day the Queen, with Huntly, Argyle, Bothwell, and the Archbishop of St. Andrews, removed to the house of Lord Seton; and it was observed at the time that more inquiry was made for the authors of the placards than for the murderers of the King. Bothwell himself, surrounded by fifty armed men on horseback, rode from Seton to Edinburgh, paraded the streets, and, with hideous oaths and furious gestures, openly declared “that if he knew who were the authors of the bills, he would wash his hands in their blood.”²

¹ “The conduct of the leading nobility of Scotland in the reign of Mary Stuart has no parallel in the history even of that turbulent country. We have seen that during her residence in France, they assumed the right of disposing of her Crown. We find them afterwards rising in rebellion against her because she married Darnley; and yet a few months later, we find the very same men conspiring to dethrone her and to bestow the Crown upon her husband. Failing in this, they next resolved to murder him; and after they effect their purpose, they first recommend their chief accomplice as a new husband for their Queen; and they then combine to punish him for the murder. But it is easy to perceive that the conduct of the great nobles, which at first sight appears so inconsistent, and even inexplicable, was guided throughout by a fixed determination to depress the authority of the Crown.... James V. had, during his brief reign, struggled manfully against the common oppressors of the people and the Crown, but he perished in the unequal struggle. The duty of reducing the nobles to obedience next devolved upon his daughter; and although possessing many qualities for the task, she too found at last that it was beyond her strength. So long as she suffered the dominant faction to exercise the whole powers of the government, she was allowed to reign in peace; but as soon as she adopted an independent course by determining to marry, they turned against her, under the pretence that their religion was in danger; and we find them engaged in one desperate conspiracy after another, until they finally succeeded in depriving her of her Crown. We have no example, in ancient or modern times, of men so utterly unscrupulous as those by whom this revolution was accomplished. Combining as they did all the energy of the North with more than the perfidy of the South, courted at the crisis of the Reformation as well by England as by France, they were equally ready to clutch the bribes and betray the interests of both. At home the circumstance of two minorities following in succession had greatly aided their power, and they now had every prospect of a third. It was only necessary to destroy the reputation of the Queen in order to secure the triumph of the ruling faction for many years.”――Hosack’s Mary Queen of Scots, Volume I., pages 331‒332.

² Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 498, 500; Diurnal of Occurrents, page 106; Tytler’s History of Scotland, Volume VII., page 90.

Touching the never-ending question of the guilt of the Queen in connection with the murder of Darnley, it must be admitted that while many of her enemies in Scotland were prepossessed against her, and others of them were eager to assume that she was guilty, there is evidence that she was informed of a proposal which had been under the consideration of a party of the nobles for removing the King out of the way; but no direct evidence has been found that she gave any encouragement to the plot or in any way sanctioned it. The point has been often fully argued on both sides; but much of the whole evidence which has from time to time been adduced, is utterly worthless and irrelevant. After a careful examination of the case I am compelled to state that the circumstantial evidence is strong on the count that Mary knew something about the plot; but that she encouraged or sanctioned it seems to me improbable. In that direction there is no real evidence against her. Indeed, she had too much judgment to commit herself to anything of this character; and a mere silent acquiescence in what was to be done, was in all probability the relation in which Mary stood to the murderers of her husband. But even this was sufficient to compromise her, while immediately succeeding events, and her relations with the chief actor in the tragedy, tended to stain her character.

Rumours immediately began to arise that the Queen was about to marry Bothwell, and that she was not innocent of the King’s death. A correspondence was opened between her and the Earl of Lennox, who naturally insisted that the parties who had murdered his son, should be brought to justice, and distinctly called upon the Queen to take steps to effect that end. At last, Lennox himself was charged to attend the trial of Bothwell, as a party to the action; and on the 28th of March, 1567, the Queen consulted the Council concerning the application of Lennox, as to the trial of Bothwell and others for the murder of the King. The Council ordered them to be tried by a jury; and accordingly the trial of Bothwell was fixed for the 12th of April.¹ The trial, however, was a mere farce. The court sat in Edinburgh, and Bothwell had three thousand of his armed retainers on the streets of the capital. Certain forms of law were gone through, but no witnesses appeared against him, and he was of course acquitted. He then published a challenge, boldly offering single combat to any one, noble or commoner, rich or poor, who dared to affirm that he was guilty of the murder of the king. This had at least a touch of rather grim humour about it; and as no one responded to his challenge, he could then aver that he had satisfied the law and the ancient custom of his country.²

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., page 404; Sir James Melville’s Memoirs, page 175.

² Keith, Volume II., page 563; Diurnal of Occurrents, pages 107‒108.

Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 14th April, two days after the trial of Bothwell, and he bore the crown and sceptre before the Queen when she rode to the parliament house. A number of acts were passed, chiefly relating to ratifications of grants of land. John Erskine got a ratification of the earldom of Mar, the regality of the Garioch, and other lordships. There were also ratifications of lands to the Earls of Huntly, Moray, Crawford, Morton, Rothes, and other barons, and formal reductions of the forfeitures against the Earls of Huntly and Sutherland, and a number of gentlemen of the name of Gordon, were gone through. Bothwell got a grant of lands with the castle of Dunbar; and an act was passed against the makers and up-setters of the placards and bills which had given Mary and Bothwell so much annoyance. An act was also passed which purported to recognise religious toleration.¹

¹ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume II., pages 545‒590.

The relations of the Queen and Bothwell quickly developed. On the day after parliament rose, Bothwell invited the nobility to a banquet at an hotel in Edinburgh; and a large party of the nobles responded to his hospitable call. After the red wine had been freely quaffed which warmed all their hearts and quickened the circulation of their blood till their faces smirked with joy, he placed before them a bond and kindly requested them to subscribe it. This document stated that some of Bothwell’s ill-willers and private enemies had malignantly slandered and accused him of being art and part in the heinous murder of the late king; but now that he was acquitted, and had also according to ancient custom offered to prove his innocence by single combat, and having a due regard to the nobleness of his house, and the good and honourable service rendered by his predecessors, and more especially by himself to her Majesty the Queen, “in the defence of her realm against the enemies thereof;” considering moreover that it was ruinous to the kingdom for the Queen to remain a widow, the bond then went on to recommend Bothwell, a married man, as the most suitable match she could obtain amongst her own subjects. All the nobles present, except the Earl of Eglinton, who managed to slip away, signed the bond. They undertook upon their honour and faith――“to promote, further, advance, and set forward the marriage to be solemnised and completed between her Highness and the said noble lord, with our votes, counsel, strength, and assistance in word and deed, at such time as it should please her Majesty to fix, and as soon as the law shall allow it to be done.” They thus bound themselves to risk their lands and lives against all who might oppose the marriage.¹

¹ Keith, Volume II., pages 562‒565; Hosack’s _Mary Queen of Scots_, Volume I., pages 301‒304.

On the 21st of April the Queen went to Stirling to visit her son, and remained two days. When returning to Edinburgh on the 24th, she was met by Bothwell at the head of a company of his own retainers, and conveyed to the castle of Dunbar. Whether the Queen was taken by Bothwell against her will and forcibly detained, is a point which has long been vehemently contested. Both sides have argued their special views at great length, but with little decisive results.¹ Without venturing to pronounce any dogmatic opinion upon the matter, it should be remembered that in those days there was hardly anything too daring for a Scottish noble to undertake if there was a chance of success and the object interesting and important, and that obstacles which would now be deemed insurmountable, were then often disregarded, and the main aim pursued with a recklessness of consequences almost incredible. A little attention to this feature in the character of the aristocracy of the period might tend to clear the capture of Mary of some of its difficulties; we should be prepared to see that neither honesty nor consistency were essential features of the aristocratic character of the age, and allowance should be made for the play and action of this throughout the whole of the revolutionary movement. But when all the circumstances are taken into account, and every corollary duly weighed, it is rather difficult to believe that Mary was not aware of the intention of Bothwell to lead her to Dunbar. If she had not been so, there was no necessity for her yielding to him at the Bridge of Almond; and even when in the castle of Dunbar, a woman of her mental resource and energy could easily have found means of discarding him, without leaving any disgrace upon her brow. Although Bothwell was a profligate and unscrupulous man, it is not likely that he would have murdered the Queen if she had resisted his advances.

¹ Diurnal of Occurrents, page 109; Sir James Melville’s Memoirs, page 177; Birrel’s Diary.

But according to the Queen’s own account, it was against her will that Bothwell conveyed her to Dunbar castle. The Earl of Huntly, the Chancellor, Lethington the Secretary, and Sir James Melville, were in attendance upon her when she was carried to Dunbar. Melville said that Bothwell boasted that he would marry her, “who would or who would not; yea, whether she would herself or not;” and he also said that the Queen could not help marrying Bothwell, after he had publicly carried her off and dishonoured her. Mary was kept for a week a close prisoner in Dunbar castle. Although the exact character of the acts and proceedings which occurred between Mary and Bothwell during these seven days, can never be accurately known, yet there is evidence that Bothwell was permitted and even encouraged by many of the nobles――to shamefully handle the Queen.

Whether Mary was passionately in love with Bothwell before the murder of Darnley, seems a difficult question to settle. At a later stage, an attempt was made to prove that she was by “The Casket Letters,” and thus directly to connect her with the murder of Darnley, as a partner of Bothwell’s guilt in the deed. Much has been written about these letters, and great ingenuity has been shown both by the defenders of Mary, and by her assailants. The one party have maintained that these letters were forgeries――fabricated by the accusers of the Queen; while another party have maintained with more or less confidence that they were genuine letters of Mary’s addressed to Bothwell, or which passed between her and him. Some of them are harmless, others are incriminating. But the latest authority who has carefully examined them and the related circumstances, Mr. Henderson, seems to have some doubts about their genuineness; although he attaches much importance to Morton’s recently discovered declaration concerning them. My own view is that they are not genuine letters of Queen Mary to Bothwell, though some parts of letters of hers may have been infused into them.

Bothwell conducted the Queen to the castle of Edinburgh on the 29th of April, and preparations for their union were rapidly pushed forward. He obtained a divorce from his own wife on the 7th of May, 1567, upon the ground of consanguinity, and for adultery on his part. The banns of marriage were proclaimed on the 12th of May; and on the 15th of the month the marriage was celebrated in the palace of Holyrood.¹

¹ Sir James Melville’s Memoirs, pages 178, 179; _Diurnal of Occurrents_, page 111. Schiern’s _Life of James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell_, pages 237‒242. For full accounts of the divorce between the Earl of Bothwell and his wife, see Anderson’s Collections; Keith, Volume II., pages 571‒575; and Riddel’s Peer, and Consistorial Law of Scotland, Volume I., pages 392‒394, 433, 434, 437.

But unfortunately the stream of events soon began to disturb the happiness of the newly wedded pair. It was surely a cruel destiny that so swiftly overtook them, and led to their final separation. For three weeks after their marriage, they remained at Holyrood, and on the 4th of June the Privy Council passed an act in the form of a declaration from the Queen, upon the groundlessness of the rumours and fears of the people. “Her Majesty, considering and thinking upon her own state, and the government of her realm, over which Almighty God has placed her supreme head and lawful inheritor, and moreover, recalling what great alterations and strange accidents have from time to time occurred during her Majesty’s reign; but especially since her highness entered this realm and took the management and government of the affairs thereof on her own person, which, all praise be to God, were happy and quietly settled down by her Majesty: And God so prospered the work in her hands, as well to her own honour as the satisfaction and contentment of all her good subjects, that all the time of her Majesty’s personal reign, they have never felt the force of foreign enemies, but lived in good peace ... so that they may justly compare their state during her Majesty’s reign to the most happy time that has occurred within the memory of man. But as envy is the enemy of virtue, and that seditious and unquiet spirits for ever seek occasion to stir up trouble and strife; so however sincerely and uprightly, or however perfectly her Majesty direct her doings, instead of thankful hearts and good obedience, her Highness’ clemency is commonly abused and recompensed with thwartness and ingratitude; and when she is thinking least of any innovation, always some clamour is raised that alterations are to be introduced, and the people persuaded to believe it; as if her Highness’ care of the nation were lost, that she meant to subvert the laws, to reject the counsel and assistance of her nobility, and to handle all things without discretion, and contrary to the ancient customs. But last, it is most grevious and offensive of all, when it is said, that the health, preservation, sure custody, and guardianship of her most dear and only son the prince, now in his infancy, has been neglected by her Highness.”¹ Most people will be ready to exonerate the Queen from the foolish slanders that she ever intended any harm to her infant.

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 514‒516.

This declaration plainly shows that troubles had been gathering round the unhappy Queen. She had ordered the feudal array to assemble at Melrose on the 15th of June, for an attack upon the insolent and disorderly borderers; but there was no appearance of the order being obeyed. In fact, the ball was taking another turn. A party of the nobles, including the Earls of Morton, Mar, Athole, and Glencairn, Lords Lindsay, Hume, the Laird of Grange, and others, were then uniting for a struggle against Bothwell, and, as the issue showed, also against the Queen herself. The Queen and Bothwell left Edinburgh on the 7th of June, and passed to Borthwick Castle, a place of great strength about ten miles south of the capital. Two of the confederate leaders, the Earl of Morton and Lord Hume, with a considerable force immediately appeared before the castle, and Bothwell and the Queen with difficulty escaped to Dunbar. The pair were now much alarmed. They issued a proclamation commanding the Crown vassals of the district to muster immediately. The confederates took possession of Edinburgh, and proceeded to make themselves secure; and having managed to come to an understanding with Sir James Balfour, the governor of the Castle, they at once assumed all the functions of the government. On the 11th of June, they issued a proclamation from the Canongate, touching the crisis of affairs and ordering the people of all ranks, but especially the burgesses and inhabitants of Edinburgh, to muster and assist in rescuing the Queen from thraldom, “to preserve the prince’s most gracious person from all such as would invade him, and to try and purge the kingdom of the most cruel and abominable murder of his late father,” by bringing the guilty parties to punishment.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 516, 517, 519, 520; Diurnal of Occurrents, page 114; _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_, Volume III., page 231.

Meanwhile the Queen and Bothwell had mustered between two and three thousand men, and advanced on Edinburgh. The confederate lords resolved to meet them, and marching from the capital, the two parties came in sight of each other near Musselburgh. Bothwell had posted his men on Carberry Hill. After a day’s manœuvering and treating, the Queen surrendered herself to the nobles, and Bothwell was allowed to ride off in the direction of Dunbar. The Queen was taken to Edinburgh, and when she at last saw herself a prisoner in the hands of a party of the nobles, she was extremely displeased. She surrendered on the 15th of June, and on the 17th was conveyed a captive to Lochleven, on the alleged ground that she had refused to abandon Bothwell.¹

¹ Teulet, Volume II., page 313; Tytler’s History of Scotland, Volume VII., pages 135‒137.

The confederate nobles soon developed their scheme, which was in harmony with their traditions and previous history. It consisted in taking the rights of the Crown into their own hands. They ordered all the members of the Court of Session to resume their business; they issued proclamations against Bothwell, and demanded the surrender of the Castle of Dunbar; they gave instructions that those who were suspected of being concerned in the King’s murder should be seized and tortured; and all this was done by the very men who were themselves more or less implicated in the murder of the King, and many of whom had sanctioned the marriage of the Queen with Bothwell. They issued a proclamation also against the inhabitants of Crail for abetting Bothwell and furnishing him with boats; and the Bishop of Moray they punished for harbouring him in the Castle of Spynie.¹ Yet, it may be doubted if the confederate nobles really desired to take Bothwell; he would have been a very dangerous prisoner in their hands. Probably they merely wanted to drive him out of the country, and in this they succeeded.

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 523‒525, 526‒528, 530, 531.

The plans which the party then at the head of affairs had determined upon, rendered it necessary to treat the Queen with great severity. They had resolved to depose her, to place the crown on her infant son, and to appoint the Earl of Moray regent during the prince’s minority. In the Island of Lochleven on the 23rd of July they presented two documents to the Queen, which they requested her to subscribe; the one was a renunciation of her crown, and the other appointed Moray to the regency. These were hard terms for a young high-spirited princess; but such pressure was put upon Mary that she yielded and signed the two deeds, which were then ratified by parliament. When Queen Elizabeth heard of the treatment which the Queen of Scots had received at the hands of her rebellious subjects, she was extremely wroth and threatened to inflict condign punishment upon them, but her boasting ended in nothing. For some time after her imprisonment in Lochleven Mary was very strictly guarded, and hardly any one was admitted to visit her.¹

¹ Register of the Privy Council, pages 531‒534, 537‒541; Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, Volume III., page 11, et seq.; Lord Lindsay’s Lives of the Lindsays, Volume I., pages 285‒287.

In the summer of 1567, the General Assembly held two meetings, and the reformed clergy threw the whole weight of their influence on the side of the confederate nobles. They first met at Edinburgh on the 25th of June, George Buchanan being chosen moderator. Knox, who had been for some time absent from the chief centre of activity, then returned to Edinburgh; and the members of the Assembly resolved to meet again on the 20th of July, and meantime to send letters to all the earls, lords, barons, and other brethren, to attend upon that day. The letters sent out to the nobles indicated the matters which it was intended to discuss at the ensuing Assembly. The Assembly met at the appointed time. John Row, minister of Perth, was elected moderator. The Earl of Argyle sent in a letter to the Assembly, stating that as he had not joined the confederate lords, who were then surrounded with an army in Edinburgh, he could not attend the meeting of the Church; and for the same reason Lord Boyd and the commendators of the abbacies of Arbroath and Kilwinning refused to attend the Assembly. In the list of the nobility present were the names of the Earls of Morton, Mar, and Glencairn; Lord Hume, Lord Ruthven, Lord Lindsay, Lord Graham, Lord Innermaith, Lord Ochiltree, Sir James Balfour, James M‘Gill, Tulliebardie, and a large number of the smaller barons and lairds; but the body of the higher nobles had as yet stood aloof from the proceedings against the Queen. A number of articles were laid before the lords and barons who were present, and they subscribed them. The articles were then recorded in the Register of the Privy Council. These articles embraced a variety of matters touching religion: the thirds of benefices, the distribution of the patrimony of the Church, and the social state of the people. They bore that at the first lawful Parliament the nobles and barons should exert themselves to the utmost to establish and promote the reformed religion within the kingdom; that Parliament must do something to relieve and lighten the extreme burdens of the poor labourers of the ground; that all vice, crimes, and offences against God’s law should be severely punished according to the Scriptures; that the horrible murder of the King, which was odious in the sight of God and the whole world, should not be hushed up, and that the Signatories bound themselves to punish all persons who should be found guilty of that crime. The articles concluded――“The nobility, barons, and others of the Church under-subscribed, in the presence of God have faithfully promised to convene their power and forces, and then to root out, destroy, and utterly subvert all the monuments of idolatry, namely, the odious and blasphemous mass, and thereafter to go forward throughout the whole kingdom, to all and sundry places wheresoever idolatry is fostered, haunted, or maintained, and chiefly where mass is said, to execute the reformation aforesaid, without exception of place or person; and shall to the uttermost of their power remove all idolaters and others that are not admitted to the ministry of the Church from all function thereof, as well private as public, that they hinder not the ministry in any manner of way in their vocation. And in the place of the premises shall set up and establish the true religion of Jesus Christ throughout this whole realm by planting churches, superintendents, ministers, and other needful members of the Church, then the rest of the lords shall pass through the whole country to this effect, and also shall proceed to the punishment of idolaters according to the laws thereupon pronounced; and in like manner they shall punish and cause to be punished all other vices that presently abound within this realm, which God’s law and the civil laws of the kingdom command to be punished, and chiefly the murder of the King lately committed. And likewise faithfully promise to reform the schools, colleges, and the universities, and to expel and remove the idolaters that have charge thereof, and others who as yet have not joined themselves to the true Church of Christ, and plant faithful instructors in their places, to the end that the youth be not infected by poisoned doctrine at the beginning which after cannot be well removed away.”¹

¹ Book of the Universal Kirk, pages 93‒97, 100‒103, 106‒110; Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 534‒537.

It is in these proceedings that we see the real spirit which animated the reformed clergy, who had a great influence with the people; and it was this that gave the confederate nobles success against the Queen. Her own conduct again, was such that it was often turned against her. But after all it is very questionable whether she would have been able to remain upon the throne of Scotland much longer, even though her conduct had been far more exemplary.

Her reign was characterised by many and great difficulties. There were not merely political matters demanding wise management, but also difficult and pressing religious and social questions, springing from the Reformation movement. With the latter, Mary, when she came to the throne, was not in a position to deal satisfactorily; being a Catholic herself, to have attempted to deal with them would have been contrary to her belief, her education, her ideas of authority, and to the aims of the Pope, and all her Roman Catholic allies. Thus it is not surprising that she failed to hold the reins of government in Scotland. Many of the nobles opposed her for their own ends, and exerted themselves to the utmost to destroy whatever influence she had among the people; and their success was complete.

Having imprisoned and deposed the Queen, the Lords next proceeded according to custom to place her son upon the throne. The infant King was crowned in the parish church of Stirling on the 29th of July, 1567. The two deeds which Mary had signed at Lochleven were publicly read, and the Earl of Morton took the Coronation oath for the prince and Steward of Scotland, whom the bishop of Caithness then anointed “the most excellent Prince and King of this realm.” The proceedings were wound up by John Knox with a sermon which he delivered in his most vigorous style.¹ The following day the King’s authority was proclaimed; and the reign of Queen Mary in fact and law terminated.

¹ Register of the Privy Council, Volume I., pages 537‒543; Diurnal of Occurrents, pages 118‒119; Burgh Records of Edinburgh, Volume III., page 238.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us