Part 17

From the time that the leading protestants discovered the hostile intentions of the regent, they had used great industry to ascertain the numbers of their friends, to establish means of correspondence among them, and to have them united by the strictest bonds. For this purpose, copies of their religious covenant were committed to persons who procured subscriptions to it in the different districts where they resided.[395] From the designation which they gave themselves in this covenant, or from the union which subsisted among them, they began at this time to be distinguished {263} by the name of The Congregation. The nobles who had joined the association, were the earls of Argyle, Glencairn, Monteith, and Rothes; lords Ochiltree, Boyd, Ruthven, and the prior of St Andrews. The earl Marischal, and lord Erskine, with some others who were friendly to the reformed religion, still supported the regent, or remained neutral. A large proportion of the lesser barons belonged to the Congregation; particularly those of Mearns, Angus, Strathearn, Monteith, Fyfe, Cunningham, Kyle, Carrick, and Galloway.[396]

In the beginning of June, the lords of the Congregation held a consultation on the measures which they should adopt for their own security, and for the advancement of the Reformation. They had repeatedly applied to the clergy to rectify the abuses which prevailed in the church, and to release them from those unjust and oppressive laws by which their consciences had long been enslaved; but their petitions had been treated with neglect and disdain. “To abandon usurped power, to renounce lucrative error, are sacrifices which the virtue of individuals has, on some occasions, offered to truth; but from any society of men no such effort can be expected. The corruptions of a society, recommended by common utility, and justified by universal practice, are viewed by its members without shame or horror; and reformation never proceeds from themselves, but is always {264} forced upon them by some foreign hand.”[397] Convinced of this, the protestant leaders had next addressed themselves to the regent, and requested her to employ her authority to bring about a reformation, which could not be much longer deferred, without interrupting the peace of the kingdom. As long as they had any reason to think that she was disposed to listen to their petitions, they had waited with exemplary patience, and restrained the ardour of such of their friends as were inclined, without further delay, to use the right which nature and Christianity gave them; but the regent had disappointed their expectations, and from being a professed friend was become a declared enemy; they could no longer place the smallest dependence on her promises; and they were satisfied that she had formed a systematic plan for suppressing the Reformation, and enforcing the existing ecclesiastical laws in all their rigour. It behoved them now either to submit to have their chains riveted, or by a bold and vigorous effort to shake them off altogether. They determined upon the latter. The scandalous lives of the established clergy, their total neglect of the religious instruction of the people, and the profanation of Christian worship by gross idolatry, were the most glaring abuses. The lords of the Congregation resolved to take immediate steps for removing these, by abolishing the popish service, and setting up the reformed worship in all those places to which their authority or influence {265} extended, and in which the greater part of the inhabitants were friendly to the design. This step is justified in part by the feudal ideas respecting the jurisdiction of the nobility, which at that time prevailed in Scotland; the urgent and extreme necessity of the case, however, forms its best vindication. A great part of the nation loudly demanded such a reformation, and, had not regular measures been adopted for its introduction, the popular indignation would have effected the work in a more exceptionable way.

St Andrews was the place fixed on for commencing these operations. With this view, the earl of Argyle, and lord James Stewart, who was prior of the abbey of St Andrews, made an appointment with Knox to meet them, on a certain day, in that city. Travelling along the east coast of Fife, he preached at Anstruther and Crail, and, on the 9th of June, joined them at St Andrews. The archbishop, apprized of his design to preach in his cathedral, assembled an armed force, and sent information to him, that if he appeared in the pulpit, he would give orders to the soldiers to fire upon him. The noblemen, having met to consult what ought to be done, agreed that Knox should desist from preaching at that time, and strongly urged upon him the reasons of their opinion. Their retinue was very slender; they had not yet ascertained the disposition of the inhabitants of the town; the queen regent lay at a small distance with an army; and his appearance in the pulpit might lead to the sacrifice of his own life, and the lives of those who were determined to defend him from violence.

{266} There are occasions on which it is a proof of superior wisdom to disregard the ordinary dictates of prudence; on which, to face danger is to avoid it, to flee from it is to invite it. Had the reformers, after announcing their intentions, suffered themselves to be intimidated by the bravading attitude and language of the archbishop, their cause would, at the very outset, have received a blow, from which it would not easily have recovered. This was prevented by the firmness and intrepidity of Knox. Fired with the recollection of the part which he had formerly acted on that spot, and with the near prospect of realizing the sanguine hopes which he had so long cherished in his breast, he resisted all the importunities of his friends. He could take God to witness, he said, that he never preached in contempt of any man, nor with the design of hurting an earthly creature; but to delay to preach next day, (unless forcibly hindered,) he could not in conscience agree. In that town, and in that church, had God first raised him to the dignity of a preacher, and from it he had been “reft” by French tyranny, at the instigation of the Scots bishops. The length of his imprisonment, and the tortures which he had endured, he would not at present recite; but one thing he could not conceal, that, in the hearing of many yet alive, he had expressed his confident hope of again preaching in St Andrews. Now, therefore, when providence, beyond all men’s expectation, had brought him to that place, he besought them not to hinder him. “As for the fear of danger, that may come to me,” continued he, “let no {267} man be solicitous; for my life is in the custody of him whose glory I seek. I desire the hand nor weapon of no man to defend me. I only crave audience; which, if it be denied here unto me at this time, I must seek where I may have it.”

This intrepid reply silenced all remonstrance; and next day, Knox appeared in the pulpit, and preached to a numerous assembly, including many of the clergy, without experiencing the slightest interruption. He discoursed on the subject of our Saviour’s ejecting the profane traffickers from the temple of Jerusalem, from which he took occasion to expose the enormous corruptions which had been introduced into the church under the papacy, and to point out what was incumbent upon Christians, in their different spheres, for removing them. On the three following days he preached in the same place; and such was the influence of his doctrine, that the provost, bailies, and inhabitants, harmoniously agreed to set up the reformed worship in the town; the church was stripped of images and pictures, and the monasteries were pulled down. This happened on the 14th of June, 1559.

Understanding that the lords at St Andrews were accompanied by a small retinue, the queen regent, who lay at Falkland, attempted to surprise them. But the protestants in Angus, having received information of the critical situation of their brethren, came to their assistance with such celerity and in such numbers, that they were able to face the royal army at Cupar‑moor; and the regent, afraid to risk a battle, consented to a truce, by which she engaged {268} to remove her French troops from Fife, and to send commissioners to St Andrews for the purpose of settling all differences between her and the Congregation. The troops were removed, but no commissioners appeared; and the lords of the Congregation, being apprized that the queen intended to fortify the passage of the Forth at Stirling, and to cut off their communication with the protestants in the south, proceeded to Perth, and, having expelled the garrison from that town, by a rapid march seized upon Stirling, and, advancing, took possession of the capital of the kingdom; the regent, as they approached, retiring with her forces to Dunbar.[398]

The example of St Andrews, in abolishing the popish worship, was quickly followed in other parts of the kingdom; and, in the course of a few weeks, at Crail, at Cupar, at Lindores, at Stirling, at Linlithgow, at Edinburgh, and at Glasgow, the houses of the monks were overthrown, and all the instruments of idolatry destroyed.[399]

These proceedings were celebrated in the singular lays, which were at that time circulated among the reformers.

His cardinalles hes cause to mourne, His bishops are borne a backe; His abbots gat an uncouth turne, When shavellinges went to sacke: {269} With burges wifes they led their lives, And fare better than wee. Hay trix, trim goe trix, under the greene-wod tree.

His Carmelites and Jacobinis, His Dominikes had great adoe; His Cordeliers and Augustines, Sanct Francis’s ordour to; The sillie friers, mony yeiris With babbling bleirit our ee. Hay trix, &c.

Had not your self begun the weiris, Your stepillis had been standand yit; It was the flattering of your friers That ever gart sanct Francis flit: Ye grew sa superstitious In wickednesse, It gart us grow malicious Contrair your messe.[400]

Scarcely any thing in the progress of the Scottish Reformation has been more frequently or more loudly condemned than the demolition of those edifices upon which superstition had lavished all the ornaments of the chisel and the pencil. To the Roman catholics, who anathematized all who were engaged in this work of inexpiable sacrilege, and represented it as involving the complete overthrow of religion,[401] have succeeded {270} another race of writers, who, although they do not, in general, make high pretensions to devotion, have not scrupled, at times, to borrow the language of their predecessors, and have bewailed the wreck of these precious monuments in as bitter strains as ever idolator did the loss of his gods. These are the warm admirers of Gothic architecture, and other relics of ancient art; some of whom, if we may judge from their language, would welcome back the reign of superstition, with all its ignorance and bigotry, if they could recover the objects of their adoration.[402] Writers of this stamp depict the ravages and devastation which marked the progress of the Reformation, in colours as dark as ever were employed by the historian in describing the overthrow of ancient learning, by the irruption of the barbarous Huns and Vandals. Our Reformer cannot be mentioned by them but with symptoms of horror, and in terms of detestation, as a barbarian, a savage, and a ring‑leader of mobs, for overthrowing whatever was venerable {271} in antiquity, or sacred in religion. It is unnecessary to produce instances.

Expectes eadem a summo minimoque poeta.

To remind such persons of the divine mandate to destroy all monuments of idolatry in the land of Canaan would be altogether insufferable, and might provoke, from some of them, a profane attack upon the authority from which it proceeded. To plead the example of the early Christians, in demolishing the temples and statues dedicated to pagan polytheism, would only awaken the keen regrets that are felt for the irreparable loss.[403] It would be still worse to refer to the apocalyptic predictions, which some have been so fanatical as to think were fulfilled in the miserable spoliation of that “great city,” which, under all its revolutions, has so eminently proved the nurse of the arts, and given encouragement to painters, statuaries, and sculptors, to “harpers, and musicians, and pipers, and trumpeters, and craftsmen of whatsoever craft,” who to this day have not forgotten their obligations to it, nor ceased to bewail its destruction. In any apology which I make for the {272} reformers, I would alleviate instead of aggravating the distress which is felt for the loss of such valuable memorials of antiquity. It has been observed by high authority, that there are certain commodities which derive their principal value from their extreme rarity, and which, if found in great quantities, would cease to be sought after or prized. A nobleman of great literary reputation has, indeed, questioned the justness of this observation, so far as respects precious stones and metals.[404] But I flatter myself, that the noble author and the learned critic, however much they may differ as to public wealth, will agree that the observation is perfectly just, as applied to those commodities which constitute the wealth and engage the researches of the antiquary. With him rarity is always an essential requisite and primary recommendation. His property, like that of the possessor of the famous Sibylline books, does not decrease in value by the reduction of its quantity, but after the greater part has been destroyed, becomes still more precious. If the matter be viewed in this light, antiquarians have no reason to complain of the ravages of the reformers, who have left them such valuable remains, and placed them in that very state which awakens in their minds the most lively sentiments of the sublime and beautiful, by reducing them to――ruins.

But, to speak seriously, I would not be thought so {273} great an enemy to any of the fine arts, as to rejoice at the wanton destruction of their models, ancient or modern, or to vindicate those, who, from ignorance and fanatical rage, may have excited the mob to such violence. But I am satisfied, that the charges usually brought against our reformers on this head are highly exaggerated, and in some instances altogether groundless. The demolition of the monasteries is, in fact, the only thing of which they can be fairly accused. Cathedral and parochial churches, and, in several places, the chapels attached to monasteries, were appropriated to the protestant worship; and, in the orders issued for stripping them of images, idolatrous pictures, and superstitious furniture, particular directions were given to avoid whatever might injure the buildings, or deface any of their ordinary decorations. It is true, that some churches suffered from popular violence during the ferment of the Reformation; and that others were dilapidated, in consequence of their most valuable materials being sold to defray the expenses of the war in which the protestants were involved; but the former will not be matter of surprise to those who have attended to the conduct of other nations in similar circumstances, and the latter will be censured by such persons only as are incapable of entering into the feelings of a people who were engaged in a struggle for their lives, their liberties, and their religion. Of all the charges thrown out against our reformers, the most ridiculous is, that, in their zeal against popery, they waged war against literature, by destroying the valuable {274} books and records which had been deposited in the monasteries. The state of learning among the monks, at the era of the Reformation, was wretched, and their libraries poor; the only persons who patronized or cultivated literature in Scotland were protestants; and so far from sweeping away any literary monuments which remained, the reformers were disposed to search for them among the rubbish, and to preserve them with the utmost care. In this respect we have no reason to deprecate a comparison between our Reformation and that of England, notwithstanding the flattering accounts which have been given of the orderly and temperate manner in which the latter was conducted under the superintending control of the supreme powers.[405]

But, even although the irregularities committed in the progress of that work had been greater than have been represented, I must still reprobate the spirit which disposes persons to dwell with unceasing lamentation upon losses, which, in the view of an enlightened and liberal mind, will sink and disappear in the magnitude of the incalculable good which rose from the wreck of the revolution. What! do we celebrate, with public rejoicings, victories over the enemies of our country, in the gaining of which the lives of thousands of our fellow‑creatures have been sacrificed? and shall solemn masses and sad dirges, accompanied with direful execrations, be everlastingly sung, for the mangled members of statues, torn pictures, {275} and ruined towers? Shall those who, by a display of the horrors of war, would persuade their countrymen to repent of a contest which had been distinguished with uncommon feats of valour, and crowned with the most brilliant success, be accused of a desire to tarnish the national glory? Shall the topics on which they insist, however forcible in themselves――the effusion of human blood, the sacking of cities, the devastation of fertile provinces, the ruin of arts and manufactures, and the intolerable burdens entailed even upon the victors themselves――be represented as mere commonplace topics, employed as a cover to disloyalty? And do not those who, at the distance of nearly three centuries, continue to wail evils of a far inferior kind which attended the Reformation, justly expose themselves to the suspicion of indifference and disaffection to a cause, in comparison with which all contests between rival kingdoms and sovereigns dwindle into insignificance? I will go farther, and say, that I look upon the destruction of these monuments as a piece of good policy, which contributed materially to the overthrow of the Roman catholic religion, and the prevention of its re‑establishment. It was chiefly by the magnificence of its temples, and the splendid apparatus of its worship, that the popish church fascinated the senses and imaginations of the people. A more successful method of attacking it, therefore, could not be adopted than the demolition of what contributed so much to uphold and extend its influence. There is more wisdom than many seem to perceive in the maxim which {276} Knox is said to have inculcated, “that the best way to keep the rooks from returning, was to pull down their nests.” In demolishing, or rendering uninhabitable, all those buildings which had served for the maintenance of the ancient superstition, (except what were requisite for the protestant worship,) the reformers only acted upon the principles of a prudent general, who dismantles or razes the fortifications which he is unable to keep, and which might afterwards be seized and employed against him by the enemy. Had they been allowed to remain in their former splendour, the popish clergy would not have ceased to indulge hopes, and to make efforts to be restored to them; occasions would have been taken to tamper with the credulous, and to inflame the minds of the superstitious; and the reformers might soon have found reason to repent their ill‑judged forbearance.[406]

* * * * *

Our Reformer was along with the forces of the Congregation when they faced the army of the regent in {277} Cupar‑moor;[407] he accompanied them on their expedition to Perth.[408] and in the end of June arrived with them at Edinburgh.[409] On the same day he preached in St Giles’s, and next day in the Abbey church. On the 7th of July, the inhabitants of the metropolis met in the Tolbooth, and made choice of him as their minister. With this choice, which was approved of by his brethren, he judged it his duty to comply, and immediately began his labours in the city.[410]

On their arrival at Edinburgh, the lords of the Congregation had sent deputies to Dunbar, to assure the queen that they had no intention of throwing off their allegiance, and to induce her to yield to reasonable terms of accommodation. As a preliminary, she agreed to release their ministers from the sentence of outlawry, and allow them to preach to those who chose to hear them.[411] Meanwhile, she was busily employed in endeavours to disunite her opponents. Having spun out the negotiations which they had opened with her, until she understood that the greater part of their forces had left them, she advanced suddenly with her army to Edinburgh. The protestants took up a position on the east side of Craigingate,[412] and resolved to defend the capital, though against superior forces;[413] but Leith having opened its gates {278} to her, and lord Erskine, who commanded the castle, threatening to fire upon them, they were forced to conclude a treaty, by which they agreed to leave Edinburgh. They stipulated, however, that the inhabitants should be left at liberty to use that form of worship which was most acceptable to them.[414] Knox would have remained with his congregation after the regent took possession of the city; but the nobles, knowing the value of his services, and the danger to which his life would be exposed, insisted on his accompanying them.[415] Willock, who was less obnoxious to the hatred of the court and clergy, was therefore substituted in his place; and the prudence and firmness which this preacher displayed in that difficult situation proved that he was not unworthy of the choice which had fallen on him. The regent was extremely anxious to have the Roman catholic service re‑established in the church of St Giles, and employed the earl of Huntly to persuade the citizens to declare in favour of the measure; but neither the authority of the queen, nor the entreaties which Huntly employed, both in private and at a public meeting called with that view, could prevail with them to swerve from their profession of the reformed religion, or to relinquish the right which was secured to them by the late treaty.[416] Although the French {279} soldiers who had come to the regent’s assistance kept the city in alarm, and disturbed the protestant service,[417] Willock maintained his place; and in the month of August he administered the sacrament of the supper after the reformed manner in St Giles’s church.[418] The celebration of the popish worship was confined to the royal chapel and the church of Holyroodhouse, during the time that the capital was in the possession of the royal forces.[419]

In the month of August, a singular phenomenon was seen in the Abbey church. The archbishop of St Andrews appeared in the pulpit, and preached. If his grace did not acquit himself with great ability on the occasion, he at least behaved with becoming modesty. After discoursing for a short time, he requested the audience to excuse the defects of his sermon, as he had not been accustomed to the employment, and told them that he had provided a very skilful preacher to succeed him; upon which he concluded, and gave way to friar Black.[420]