Part 16

ON his arrival, Knox found matters in the most critical state in Scotland. The queen regent had thrown off the mask which she had long worn, and avowed her determination forcibly to suppress the Reformation. As long as she stood in need of the assistance of the protestants, to support her authority against the Hamiltons, and to procure the matrimonial crown for her son‑in‑law, the dauphin of France, she courted their friendship, listened to their plans of reform, professed her dissatisfaction with the ecclesiastical order, and her desire of correcting its corruption and tyranny as soon as a fit opportunity offered, and flattered them, if not with the hopes of her joining their party, at least with assurances that she would shield them from the fury of the clergy. So completely were they duped by her consummate address and dissimulation, that they complied with all her requests, restrained their preachers from teaching in public, and desisted from presenting to the parliament a petition which they had prepared; nor {246} would they believe her to be insincere, even after different parts of her conduct had afforded strong grounds for suspicion. But, having accomplished the great objects which she had in view, she at last adopted measures which completely undeceived them, and discovered the gulf into which they were about to be precipitated.

As this discovery of the regent’s duplicity produced consequences of the greatest importance; as it completely alienated from her the minds of the reformers, and aroused that spirit of determined and united opposition to her insidious policy, and her violent measures, which ultimately led to the establishment of the Reformation; and as the facts connected with it have not been accurately or fully stated in our common histories,[360] the reader may not be displeased at having the following more circumstantial detail laid before him.

A mutual jealousy had long subsisted between the queen regent and that able but unprincipled prelate, archbishop Hamilton, whose zeal for the church was uniformly subordinated to personal ambition, and the desire of aggrandizing his family. While he exerted the influence which his station gave him over the clergy to embarrass the administration of the regent, she employed the protestants as a counter‑balance to his power. But amidst the jarring excited by rival interests, both parties beheld the rapid progress {247} of the reformed sentiments with equal concern; and intelligent persons early foresaw, that their differences would finally be compromised, and a coalition formed between them to accomplish the ruin of the protestants.[361] It does not appear that the primate ever entertained the slightest suspicion that the regent was friendly to the cause of the reformers. Independently of her own sentiments, he was well acquainted with the influence which her brothers possessed over her, and with their devoted attachment to the Roman catholic church. Had he not had good reasons for presuming upon her connivance and secret approbation, his known prudence would not have allowed him to venture upon the invidious measure of putting Mill to death. As early as July 1558, she had held consultations with him on the course which should be adopted for checking the Reformation.[362] In consequence of these, steps were taken to bring to trial certain individuals who had given great offence to the clergy by expounding the scriptures in private meetings, and contemning the laws of the church.[363] And immediately after the meeting of parliament in November, at which the regent obtained, by the assistance of the protestants, all the objects which she wished to carry, the primate received positive assurances of her support in his exertions for maintaining the authority of the church. Accordingly, in the end of December, he summoned the reformed {248} preachers to appear before him in St Andrews, on the 2d of February following, to answer for their conduct in usurping the sacred office, and disseminating heretical doctrines.[364]

Upon this, a deputation of the protestants waited on the regent, and informed her, that, after what had recently taken place in the instance of Mill, they were determined to attend and see justice done to their preachers; and that, if the prosecution went forward, there would be a greater convocation at St Andrews than had been seen at any trial in Scotland for a long period. Dreading the consequences of a concourse of people in a place adjacent to counties in which the protestants were numerous, the queen wrote to the archbishop to prorogue the trial. She, at the same time, summoned a convention of the nobility, to be held at Edinburgh on the 7th of March, to advise upon the most proper measures for settling the religious differences which had so long agitated the nation.[365] And the primate, at her request, called a provincial council of the clergy to meet in the same place on the first of March.[366]

When our Saviour was condemned to be crucified, it was observed, that, “on the same day, Pilate and Herod were made friends together, for before they were at enmity between themselves.” The determination which was at this time formed to crush the protestant interest in Scotland, seems to have brought {249} about the reconciliation of more than the queen regent and the primate. A rivalship had long subsisted between those who occupied the two Scottish archbishoprics; the bishops of Glasgow insisting on the independence of their see, and boasting of the priority of its erection, while the bishops of St Andrews claimed an authoritative primacy over all the clergy in the kingdom, as belonging to that see from the time of its foundation.[367] Hamilton, in the mandate issued for assembling this council, had asserted his primacy in very formal terms, founding upon it, as well as upon the authority with which he was invested as papal legate, his right to convocate the clergy.[368] Beatoun, archbishop of Glasgow, seems to have resented this claim of superiority, and declined for some time to countenance the council by his presence, or to cite his suffragans and the clergy of his diocese to attend. This dissension, which might have proved highly injurious to the Roman church at this critical period, was got accommodated, and Beatoun, with the western clergy, at length joined the council.[369]

{250} In the mean time, the protestants, having assembled at Edinburgh, appointed commissioners to lay their representations before the convention of the nobility, and the council of the clergy.[370] The commissioners gave in to the latter certain preliminary articles of reformation, in which they craved, that the religious service should be performed in the vulgar tongue; that such as were unfit for the pastoral office should be removed from their benefices; that, in time coming, bishops should be admitted with the assent of the barons of the diocese, and parish‑priests with the assent of the parishioners; and that measures should be adopted for preventing immoral and ignorant persons from being employed in ecclesiastical functions.[371] But there was another paper laid before the council, which, it is probable, gave them more uneasiness than the representation of the protestants. This was a remonstrance by certain persons attached to the Roman catholic faith, “craving redress of several grievances complained of in the ecclesiastical administration of Scotland.” It consisted of thirteen articles, in which, among other points of reformation, they required that the exacting of corpse‑presents and Easter offerings should be abolished; that, for the more effectual instruction of those who partake of the sacraments, “there should be an {251} godlie and faithful declaration set forth in Inglis toung, to be first shewin to the pepil at all times,” when any of the sacraments are administered; and that the common prayers and litanies should also be read in the vulgar language. At the same time, they desired that none should be permitted to speak irreverently of the mass, make innovations upon the ceremonies of the church, or administer divine ordinances without authority from the bishops.[372]

The council were not disposed to agree to the proposals either of the protestant or the popish reformers. After making certain partial regulations relating to some of the grievances complained of by the latter,[373] and renewing the canons of former councils respecting the lives of the clergy and public instruction,[374] they refused to allow any part of the public service to be performed in the vulgar language;[375] they ratified in the strongest terms all the popish doctrines which were controverted by the protestants;[376] and they ordained, that strict inquisition should be made after such as absented themselves from the celebration {252} of mass,[377] and that excommunications should be fulminated against those who administered or received the sacraments after the protestant forms, and against parents and sponsors who had presented children for baptism to the reformed preachers, and did not bring them to the priests to be re‑baptized.[378]

The council were emboldened to take these decisive steps in consequence of a secret treaty which they had concluded with the regent, and in which they had stipulated to raise a large sum of money to enable her to suppress the reformers.[379] This arrangement could not be long concealed from the protestant deputies, who, perceiving that they were mocked by the clergy, and abandoned by the court, broke off the fruitless negotiations in which they had been engaged, and left Edinburgh. They were no sooner gone than a proclamation was made at the market cross, by order of the regent, prohibiting any person from preaching or administering the sacraments without {253} authority from the bishops, and commanding all the subjects to prepare to celebrate the ensuing feast of Easter, according to the rites of the catholic church. Understanding that her proclamation was disregarded, she determined on taking decisive steps to enforce obedience, by bringing the preachers to justice.[380] Accordingly, Paul Methven, John Christison, William Harlow, and John Willock, were summoned to stand trial before the justiciary court at Stirling, on the 10th of May, for usurping the ministerial office, for administering, without the consent of their ordinaries, the sacrament of the altar in a manner different from that of the catholic church, during three several days of the late feast of Easter, in the burghs and boundaries of Dundee, Montrose, and various other places in the sheriffdoms of Forfar and Kincardine, and for convening the subjects in these places, preaching to them, seducing them to their erroneous doctrines, and exciting seditions and tumults. As the preachers were resolved to make their appearance, George Lovell, burgess of Dundee, became surety for Methven, John Erskine of Dun for Christison, Patrick Murray of Tibbermuir for Harlaw, and Robert Campbell of Kinyeancleugh for Willock.[381]

To prevent matters from coming to extremity, the earl of Glencairn, and Sir Hugh Campbell of Loudon, sheriff of Ayr, waited on the queen, and remonstrated against these proceedings; but she told them haughtily, {254} that, “in spite of them, all their preachers should be banished from Scotland.” They reminded her of the promises she had repeatedly made to protect them; upon which she unblushingly replied, that “it became not subjects to burden their princes with promises, farther than they pleased to keep them.” Surprised, but not intimidated, at this language, Glencairn and Loudon told her, that, if she violated the engagements which she had come under to her subjects, they would consider themselves as absolved from their allegiance to her. After they had remonstrated with her very freely, and pointed out the dangerous consequences that might result from adopting such a line of conduct, she began to speak in a milder tone, and promised to suspend the trial of the preachers, and take the whole affair into serious consideration[382] But receiving intelligence soon after that peace was concluded between France and Spain, by a treaty in which these two powers had agreed to unite their endeavours for the extirpation of heresy, and being irritated by the introduction of the reformed worship into the town of Perth, she ordered the process against the preachers to go on, and summoned them peremptorily to stand their trial at Stirling on the appointed day.[383]

The state of our Reformer’s mind, upon receiving this information, will appear from the following letter, hastily written by him on the day after he landed in Scotland.

{255} “The perpetual comfort of the Holy Ghost for salutation. These few lines are to signify unto you, dear sister, that it hath pleased the merciful providence of my heavenly father to conduct me to Edinburgh, where I arrived the 2d of May: uncertain as yet what God shall further work in this country, except that I see the battle shall be great. For Satan rageth even to the uttermost, and I am come, I praise my God, even in the brunt of the battle. For my fellow preachers have a day appointed to answer before the queen regent, the 10th of this instant, when I intend (if God impede not) also to be present; by life, by death, or else by both, to glorify his godly name, who thus mercifully hath heard my long cries. Assist me, sister, with your prayers, that now I shrink not, when the battle approacheth. Other things I have to communicate with you, but travel after travel doth so occupy me, that no time is granted me to write. Advertise my brother, Mr Goodman, of my estate; as, in my other letter sent unto you from Dieppe, I willed you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ rest with you. From Edinburgh, in haste, the 3d of May.”[384]

His arrival in Scotland was not long concealed from the clergy. On the morning after he landed at Leith, one came to the monastery of the Greyfriars, where the provincial council was still sitting,[385] and {256} informed them that John Knox was come from France, and had slept last night in Edinburgh. The clergy were panic‑struck with the intelligence, and foreboding the ruin of all the plans which they had formed with so much care, they dismissed the council in great haste and confusion. A messenger was instantly dispatched by them with the information to the queen regent, who was at Glasgow; and within a few days Knox was proclaimed an outlaw and a rebel, in virtue of the sentence formerly pronounced against him by the clergy.[386]

Although his own cause was prejudged, and he knew that he was liable to be apprehended as a condemned heretic, he did not hesitate a moment in resolving to present himself voluntarily at Stirling, to assist his brethren in their defence, and share their danger. Having remained only a single day at Edinburgh, he hurried to Dundee, where he found the principal protestants in Angus and Mearns already assembled, and determined to attend their ministers to the place of trial, and avow their adherence to the doctrines for which they were accused. The providential arrival of such an able champion of the cause, at this crisis, must have been very encouraging to the assembly; and the liberty of accompanying them, which he requested, was readily granted.

{257} Lest the unexpected approach of such a multitude, though unarmed, should alarm or offend the regent, the assembled protestants agreed to stop at Perth, and sent Erskine of Dun before them to Stirling, to acquaint her with the peaceable object and manner of their coming. Apprehensive that their presence would disconcert her measures, the regent had again recourse to dissimulation. She persuaded Erskine to write to his brethren to desist from their intended journey, and authorized him to promise, in her name, that she would put a stop to the trial. The protestants testified their pacific intentions by a cheerful compliance with this request, and the greater part, confiding in the royal promise, returned to their homes. But when the day of trial came, the summons was called by the orders of the queen, the preachers were outlawed for not appearing, and all persons were prohibited, under the pain of rebellion, from harbouring or assisting them.[387] At the same time, the gentlemen who had given security for their appearance, were fined.[388]

Escaping from Stirling, Erskine brought to Perth the intelligence of this disgraceful transaction, which could not fail to incense the protestants. It happened that, on the same day on which the news came, Knox, who remained at Perth, preached a sermon, in which he exposed the idolatry of the mass, and of image‑worship. The audience had quietly dismissed, {258} and a few idle persons only loitered in the church, when an imprudent priest, wishing to try the disposition of the people, or to show his contempt of the doctrine which had just been delivered, uncovered a rich altar‑piece, decorated with images, and prepared to celebrate mass. A boy, having uttered some expressions of disapprobation, was struck by the priest. He retaliated by throwing a stone at the aggressor, which, falling on the altar, broke one of the images. This operated as a signal upon the people present, who had sympathized with the boy; and, in the course of a few minutes, the altar, images, and all the ornaments of the church, were torn down, and trampled under foot. The noise soon collected a mob, which, finding no employment in the church, flew, by a sudden and irresistible impulse, upon the monasteries; and although the magistrates of the town and the preachers assembled as soon as they heard of the riot, yet neither the persuasions of the one, nor the authority of the other, could restrain the fury of the people, until the houses of the grey and black friars, with the costly edifice of the Carthusian monks, were laid in ruins. None of the gentlemen or sober part of the congregation were concerned in this unpremeditated tumult; it was wholly confined to the lowest of the inhabitants, or, as Knox designs them, “the rascal multitude.”[389]

The demolition of the monasteries having been represented as the first‑fruits of our Reformer’s labours on this occasion, it was necessary to give this minute {259} account of the causes which produced that event. Whatever his sentiments were as to the destruction of the instruments and monuments of idolatry, he did not wish the work to be accomplished in an irregular manner; he was sensible that tumultuary proceedings, especially in present circumstances, were prejudicial to the cause of the reformers; and, instead of instigating, he exerted himself in putting a stop to, the ravages of the mob. If this disorderly conduct must be traced to a remote cause, we can impute it only to the wanton and dishonourable perfidy of the queen regent.

In fact, nothing could be more favourable to the designs of the regent than this riot. By her recent conduct, she had forfeited the confidence of the protestants, and even exposed herself in the eyes of the sober and moderate of her own party. This occurrence afforded her an opportunity of turning the public indignation from herself, and directing it against the protestants. She did not fail to improve it with her usual address. She magnified the accidental tumult into a dangerous and designed rebellion. Having called the nobility to Stirling, she, in her interviews with them, insisted upon such topics as were best calculated to persuade the parties into which they were divided. In conversing with the catholics, she dwelt upon the sacrilegious overthrow of those venerable structures which their ancestors had dedicated to the service of God. To the protestants who had not joined their brethren at Perth, she complained of the destruction of the Charter‑house, which was a {260} royal foundation; and, protesting that she had no intention of offering violence to their consciences, promised to protect them, provided they would assist her in punishing those who had been guilty of this violation of public order.[390] Having inflamed the minds of both parties, she collected an army from the adjacent counties,[391] and advanced to Perth, threatening to lay waste the town with fire and sword, and to inflict the most exemplary vengeance on all who had been instrumental in producing the riot.[392]

The protestants of the north were not insensible to their danger, and did all in their power to avert the storm which threatened them. They wrote to the queen regent, to the commander of the French troops, to the popish nobles, and to those of their own persuasion: they solemnly disclaimed all rebellious intentions; they protested their readiness to yield due obedience to the government; they entreated all to refrain from offering violence to peaceable subjects, who sought only the liberty of their consciences, and the reformation of religion. But, finding all their endeavours fruitless, they resolved not to suffer themselves and their brethren to be massacred, and prepared {261} for a defence of the town against an illegal and furious assault. And so prompt and vigorous were they in the measures which they adopted, that the regent, when she approached, deeming it imprudent to attack them, proposed overtures of accommodation, to which they readily acceded.[393]

While the two armies lay before Perth, and negotiations were going on between them, our Reformer obtained an interview with the prior of St Andrews and the young earl of Argyle, who adhered to the regent. He reminded them of the solemn engagements which they had contracted, and charged them with violating these, by abetting measures which tended to suppress the reformed religion, and enslave their native country. The noblemen replied, that they had been induced, by the representations of the regent and the clergy, to believe that their brethren intended to swerve from their former loyalty, and, although they were now convinced that this charge was unfounded, they were anxious to fulfil the promise {262} which they had made to the queen, by bringing the present difference to an amicable termination; but, if she should violate the proposed treaty, they would withdraw their countenance from her, and openly take part with their brethren, to whom they considered themselves as bound by the most sacred ties. The regent was not long in affording them an opportunity of verifying their promise. No sooner had she taken possession of Perth, and perceived that the forces of the protestants were disbanded, than she began to disregard the conditions to which she had agreed. Argyle and the prior remonstrated against the infractions of a treaty which they had concluded at her earnest request, but were answered in such an unsatisfactory manner, that they deserted her court, and could never afterwards be persuaded to place any confidence in her promises.[394]