Part 33

I have occasionally met, in the course of my reading, with notices of volumes of the Fathers being in the possession of the Scottish monasteries, but nothing from which I could conclude that they had complete copies of any of their writings. The abbot of Crossraguel, indeed, speaks of his being in possession of a large stock of this kind, (Keith, Append. 193,) which some writers have been pleased to calculate at “a cart‑load.” It does not appear, however, that they belonged to the monastery over which he presided. But whatever books of this kind were to be found in them, the reformers would be anxious to preserve, not to destroy. The chartularies were the most valuable writings deposited in monasteries; and many of these have been transmitted to us. The reformers were not disposed to consume these records, and we find them making use of them in their writings. Knox, Historie, p. 1, 2, 3. The mass‑books were the most likely objects of their vengeance; and I have little doubt that a number of these were committed to the flames, in testimony of their abhorrence of the popish worship. Yet they were careful to preserve copies of {456} them, which they produced in their disputes with the Roman catholics. Ibid. p. 261.

But whatever literary ravages were committed, let them not be imputed exclusively to the tumultuary reformation of Scotland, to the fanaticism of our reformers, or the barbarous ignorance of our nobles. In England, the same proceedings took place to a far greater extent, and the loss must have been far greater. “Another misfortune,” says Collier, “consequent upon the suppression of the abbeys, was an ignorant destruction of a great many valuable books. The books, instead of being removed to royal libraries, to those of cathedrals, or the universities, were frequently thrown in to the grantees, as things of slender consideration. Their avarice was sometimes so mean, and their ignorance so undistinguishing, that when the covers were somewhat rich, and would yield a little, they pulled them off, threw away the books, or turned them to waste paper.”――“A number of them which purchased these superstitious mansions,” says bishop Bale, “reserved of those library books, some to serve their jacks, some to scour their candlesticks, and some to rub their boots, and some they sold to the grocers and soap‑sellers, and some they sent over the sea to bookbinders, not in small numbers, but at times _whole ships full_. Yea, the universities are not clear in this detestable fact; but cursed is the belly which seeketh to be fed with so ungodly gains, and so deeply shameth his native country. I know a merchant man (which shall at this time be nameless) that bought the contents of two noble libraries for forty shillings price; a shame it is to be spoken. This stuff hath he occupied instead of grey paper by the space of more than these _ten years_, and _yet hath he store enough for as many years to come_.” Bale’s Declaration: Collier’s Eccles. Hist. ii. 166.

Note KK, Footnote 441.

_Aversion of Queen Elizabeth to the Scottish War._――The personal aversion of Elizabeth to engage in the war of the Scottish Reformation, has not, so far as I have observed, been noticed by any of our historians. It is, however, a fact well authenticated by state papers, whether it arose from extreme caution at the commencement {457} of her reign, from her known parsimony, or from her high notions respecting royal prerogative. Cecil mentions it repeatedly in his correspondence with Throkmorton. “God trieth us,” says he, “with may difficulties. The queen’s majestie never liketh this matter of Scotland; you knowe what hangeth thereuppon: weak‑hearted men and flatterers will follow that way.――I have had such a torment herin with the queen’s majestie, as an ague hath not in five fitts so much abated.” Forbes, i. 454, 455. In another letter he says, “What will follow of my going towardes Scotlande, I know not; but I feare the success, quia, the queen’s majestie is so evil disposed to the matter, which troubleth us all.” Ibid. 460. It was not until her council had presented a formal petition to her, that she gave her consent. Ibid. 390. Even after she had agreed to hostilities, she began to waver, and listen to the artful proposals of the French court, who endeavoured to amuse her until such time as they were able to convey more effectual aid to the queen regent of Scotland. Killigrew, in a letter to Throkmorton, after mentioning the repulse of the English army in an assault on the fortifications of Leith, says: “This, together with the bishopes [of Valance] relation unto the queen’s majestie, caused her to renew the opinion of Cassandra.” Ibid. 456. This was the principal cause of the suspension of hostilities, and the premature attempt to negotiate, in April 1560, which so justly alarmed the lords of the Congregation: an occurrence which is also passed over in our common histories. Sadler, i. 719, 721. The Scottish protestants were much indebted to Cecil and Throkmorton for the assistance which they obtained from England. A number of the counsellors, who had been in the cabinet of queen Mary, did all in their power to foster the disinclination of Elizabeth. Lord Gray, in one of his dispatches, complains of the influence of these ministers, whom he calls Phillipians, from their attachment to the interest of the king of Spain. Haynes, p. 295.

Note LL, Footnote 450.

_Loyalty of the Scottish Protestants._――The hostile advance of the regent against Perth, first drove the lords of the Congregation {458} to take arms in their own defence. Her reiterated infraction of treaties, and the gradual developement of her designs, by the introduction of French troops into the kingdom, rendered the prospect of an amicable and permanent adjustment of differences very improbable, and dictated the propriety of strengthening their confederation, that they might be prepared for a sudden and more formidable attack. These considerations are sufficient to justify the posture of defence in which they kept themselves during the summer of 1559, and the steps which they took to secure assistance from England. If their exact situation is not kept in view, an accurate judgment of their conduct cannot be formed, and their partial and temporary resistance to the measures of the regent will be regarded as an avowed rebellion against her authority. But whatever be the modern ideas on this subject, they did not consider the former as necessarily implying the latter, and they continued to profess not only their allegiance to their sovereign, but also their readiness to obey the queen regent in every thing not inconsistent with their security, and the liberties of the nation; nay, they actually yielded obedience to her, by paying taxes to the officers whom she appointed to receive them. Knox, p. 176. Private and confidential letters are justly considered as the most satisfactory evidence as to the intentions of men. Our Reformer, in a letter to Mrs Locke, written on the 25th of July, 1559, says, “The queen is retired unto Dunbar. The fine [end] is known unto God. We mean no tumult, no alteration of authority, but only the reformation of religion, and suppression of idolatry.” Cald. MS. i. 429. At an early period, indeed, she accused them of a design to throw off their allegiance. When the prior of St Andrews joined their party, she industriously circulated the report that he ambitiously aimed at the sovereignty, and that they intended to confer it upon him. Knox, 149. Forbes, i. 180. It was one of the special instructions given to Sir Ralph Sadler, when he was sent down to Berwick, that he should “explore the very trueth” as to this report. Sadler, i. 731. In all his confidential correspondence with his court, there is not the slightest insinuation that Sadler had discovered any evidence to induce him to credit that charge. This is a strong proof of the prior’s innocence, if it be taken in connexion with what I shall {459} immediately state; not to mention the testimony of Sir James Melvil. Memoirs, p. 27.

When the earl of Arran joined the Congregation, the queen regent circulated the same report respecting him. Knox, p. 174. So far as the Congregation were concerned, this accusation was equally unfounded as the former. Ibid. p. 176. But there are some circumstances connected with it, which deserve attention, as they set the loyalty of the Scottish protestants in a very clear light. The earl of Arran, and not the prior of St Andrews, was the favourite of the English court. Messengers were appointed by them to bring him from the continent, and he was conducted through England into Scotland, to be placed at the head of the Congregation. Forbes, i. 164, 166, 171, 216. Sadler, i. 417, 421, 437, 439. There is also good evidence that the ministers of Elizabeth wished him to be raised to the throne of Scotland, if not also that they had projected the uniting of the two crowns by a marriage between him and Elizabeth. “The way to perfait this assuredly,” says Throkmorton to Cecil, “is, that the erle of Arraine do as Edward the IV. did, when he landed at Ravenspurg: [he pretended to the duchy of York, and having that, he would not leave till he had the “diademe,”] for then of necessitie th’ erle of Arran must depend upon the devotion of England, to maintein and defend himself. I feare all other devises and handelings will prove like an apotecary his shop; and therefore I leave to your discretion to provyde by all meanes for this matter, both there and in Scotland.” And again: “Methinks, the lord of Grange, Ledington, Balnaves, and the chief doers of the Congregation, (which I wold wish specially to be done and procured by the prior of St Andrewes,) should be persuaded to set forward these purposes before: for there is no way for them to have any safety or surety, oneles thei make the earl of Arran king; and as it is their surety, so it is also ours. In this matter there must be used both wisdome, courage, and sped.” Forbes, i. 435, 436. Throkmorton, it is to be observed, was at this time the most confidential friend of Cecil, and, in his dispatches from France, pressed the adoption of those measures which the secretary had recommended to the queen and council. Had not the Congregation been decidedly averse to any change of {460} the government which would have set aside their queen, it seems highly probable that this plan would have been carried into execution. The report of an intended marriage between Elizabeth and Arran was general at that time; and whatever were the queen’s own intentions, it seems to have been seriously contemplated by her ministers. Forbes, 214, 215, 282, 288. This accounts for the recommendation of this measure by the Scottish Estates, after the conclusion of the civil war. Keith, 154.

Note MM, Footnote 458.

_Authorities for the statement of Knox’s Political Principles._――The following extracts from his writings relate to the principal points touched in the statement of his political sentiments:――

“In few wordis to speik my conscience; the regiment of princes is this day cum to that heap of iniquitie, that no godlie man can bruke office or autoritie under thame, but in so doing hie salbe compellit not onlie aganis equitie and justice to oppress the pure, but also expressedlie to fycht againis God and his ordinance, either in maintenance of idolatrie, or ellis in persecuting Godis chosin childrene. And what must follow heirof, but that ether princeis be reformit and be compellit also to reform their wickit laws, or els all gud men depart fra thair service and companie.” Additions to the Apology of the Parisian Protestants: MS. Letters, p. 477. Dr Robertson has ascribed to Knox and Buchanan an “excessive admiration of ancient policy;” and he says, their “principles, authorities, and examples, were all drawn from ancient writers,” and their political system founded “not on the maxims of feudal, but of ancient republican government.” History of Scotland, vol. i. b. ii. p. 391. Lond. 1809. These assertions need some qualification. If republican government be opposed to absolute monarchy, the principles of Knox and Buchanan may be denominated republican; but if the term (as now commonly understood) be used in contradistinction to monarchy itself, it cannot be shown that they admired or recommended republicanism. They were the friends of limited monarchy. It is the excellence of the government of Britain, that the feudal maxims which once predominated {461} in it, have been corrected, or their influence counteracted, by others borrowed from republican constitutions. And it is not a little to the credit of these great men, and evinces their good sense and moderation, that, notwithstanding all their admiration of ancient models of legislation, in comparison with the existing feudal monuments, they contented themselves with recommending such principles as tended to restrain the arbitrary power of kings, and secure the rights of the people. Nor were all their authorities and examples drawn from ancient writers, as may be seen in Buchanan’s dialogue, _De jure regni apud Scotos_.

In a letter written by him to the queen dowager, a few days after her suspension from the regency, Knox says, “My toung did bothe perswade and obtein, that your authoritie and regiment suld be obeyed of us in all things lawfull, till ye declair yourself opin enemie to this comoun welthe; as now, allace! ye have done.” Historie, p. 180. This declaration is justified by the letters which he wrote to his brethren before his arrival in Scotland. The following extract from a letter addressed to the protestant nobility, December 17, 1557, is a specimen: “But now, no farder to trubill you at the present, I will onlie advertis you of sic bruit as I heir in thir partis, uncertainlie noysit, whilk is this, that contradictioun and rebellioun is maid to the autoritie be sum in that realme. In whilk poynt my conscience will not suffer me to keip back from you my consall, yea, my judgment and commandement, whilk I communicat with yow in Godis feir, and by the assurance of his trueth, whilk is this, that nane of you that seik to promot the glorie of Chryst do suddanlie disobey or displeas the establissit autoritie in things lawful, neither yet that ye assist or fortifie such as, for their awn particular caus and warldlie promotioun, wald trubill the same. But, in the bowallis of Chryst Jesus, I exhort yow, that, with all simplicitie and lawfull obedience, with boldness in God, and with opin confessioun of your faith, ye seek the favour of the autoritie, that by it (yf possible be) the cause in whilk ye labour may be promotit, or, at the leist, not persecutit: Whilk thing, efter all humill request, yf ye can not atteane, then, with oppin and solemp protestation of your obedience to be given to the autoritie in all thingis not planelie repugnying to God, ye lawfullie {462} may attemp the extreamitie, whilk is, to provyd (whidder the autoritie will consent or no) that Chrystis evangell may be trewlie preachit, and his haly sacramentis rychtlie ministerit unto yow and to your brethren, the subjectis of that realme. And farder ye lawfullie may, yea, and thairto is bound, to defend your brethrene from persecutioun and tiranny, be it aganis princes or emprioris, to the uttermost of your power; provyding alwayis (as I have said) that nether your self deny lawfull obedience, nether yit that ye assist nor promot thois that seik autoritie and pre‑eminence of warldlie glorie.” MS. Letters, p. 434, 435.

In a conversation with queen Mary at Lochleven, we find him inculcating the doctrine of a mutual compact between rulers and subjects. “It sall be profitabill to your majesty to consider quhat is the thing your grace’s subjects luiks to receave of your majesty, and quhat it is that ye aucht to do unto thame by mutual contract. They ar bound to obey you, and that not bot in God; ye ar bound to keip lawes unto thame. Ye crave of thame service; they crave of you protectioun and defence against wicked doars. Now, madam, if you sall deny your dewty unto thame, (quhilk especialy craves that ye punish malefactors,) think ye to receave full obedience of thame?” Historie, p. 327. This sentiment was adopted by his countrymen. The committee appointed by the regent Murray, to prepare overtures for the parliament which met in December 1567, (of which committee our Reformer was a member,) agreed to this proposition: “The band and contract to be mutuale and reciprous in all tymes cuming betwixt the prince and God, and his faithful people, according to the word of God.” Robertson’s Records of Parliament, p. 796. This was also one of the articles subscribed at the General Assembly in July preceding; and their language is still more clear and express,――“mutual and reciproque in all tymes coming betwixt the prince and God, and also betwixt the prince and faithful people.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, p. 34, Advocates’ Library. Keith, 582. See also the proclamation of the king’s authority, in Anderson’s Collections, vol. ii. p. 205. Keith, 441. The right of resistance was formally recognised in the inscription on a coin stamped soon after the coronation of James VI. On one of the {463} sides is the figure of a sword with a crown upon it; and the words of Trajan circumscribed, _Pro me; si mereor, in me_; _i.e._ Use this sword for me; if I deserve it, against me. Cardonell’s Numismata Scotiæ, plate ix. p. 101. Our Reformer’s Appellation may be consulted for the proof of what has been asserted (p. 305, 306) as to his endeavours to repress aristocratical tyranny, and to awaken the mass of the people to a due sense of their rights. See also his Historie, p. 100. The effect of the Reformation in extending popular liberty was very visible in the parliament which met in August 1560, in which there were representatives from all the boroughs, and a hundred lesser barons, “with mony otheris baronis, fre‑halderis, and landit men.” Keith informs us that, during a space of no less than seventy‑seven years preceding, “scarcely had one of the inferior gentry appeared in parliament. And therefore,” adds he, “I know not but it may be deemed somewhat unusual, for a hundred of them to jump all at once into the parliament, especially in such a juncture as the present was.” History, p. 147, 148. The petition presented by the lesser barons, for liberty to sit and vote in the parliament, has this remarkable clause in it; “otherwise we think that whatsomever ordinances and statutes be made concerning us and our estate, we not being required and suffered to reason and vote at the making thereof, that the same should not oblige us to stand thereto.” Robertson’s History of Scotland, Append. No. 4.

Liberal principles respecting civil government accompanied the progress of the Reformation. Knox had the concurrence of English bishops in his doctrine concerning the limited authority of kings, and the lawfulness of resisting them. See above, Note BB, and vol. ii. Note U. And he had the express approbation of the principal divines in the foreign churches. Historie, 363, 366. In the 17th century, some of the French reformed divines, in their great loyalty to the _Grand Monarque_, disclaimed our Reformer’s political sentiments, and represented them as proceeding from the fervid and daring spirit of the Scottish nation, or adapted to the peculiar constitution of their government. Riveti Castig. in Balzacum, cap. xiii. § 14: Oper. tom. iii. p. 539. Quotations from other French authors are given by Bayle, Diet. Art. Knox, Note E. In the controversy occasioned by the execution of Charles I., our {464} Reformer’s name and principles were introduced. Milton appealed to him, and quoted his writings, in defence of that deed. One of Milton’s opponents told him that he could produce in his support only a single Scot, “whom his own age could not suffer, and whom all the reformed, especially the French, condemned in this point.” Regii Sanguinis Clamor ad Cœlum, p. 129. Hagæ‑Comit. 1625; written by Pierre du Moulin, the son. Milton, in his rejoinder, urges with truth, that Knox had asserted, that his opinions were approved of by Calvin, and other eminent divines of the reformed churches. Miltoni Defensio Secunda, p. 101.

Long before the controversy respecting the execution of Charles, Milton had expressed himself in terms of high praise concerning our Reformer. Arguing against the abuses committed by licensers of the press, he says, “Nay, which is more lamentable, if the work of any deceased author, though never so famous in his lifetime and even to this day, come to their hands for license to be printed or reprinted, if there be found in his book one sentence of a venturous edge, uttered in the height of zeal, (and who knows whether it might not be the dictate of a divine spirit?) yet, not suiting with every low decrepit humour of their own, though it were KNOX himself, the reformer of a kingdom, that spake it, they will not pardon him their dash: the sense of that great man shall to all posterity be lost for the fearfulness, or the presumptuous rashness of a prefunctory licenser. And to what an author this violence hath bin lately done, and in what book of greatest consequence to be faithfully publisht, I could now instance, but shall forbear till a more convenient season.” Prose Works, vol. i. p. 311. The tract from which this quotation is made, was first published in 1644, the year in which David Buchanan’s edition of Knox’s History appeared; and Milton evidently refers to that work.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE & COMPANY, PAUL’S WORK, CANONGATE.

FOOTNOTES

1 ― See an account of this MS. in vol. ii. p. 367.

2 ― See Note A.

3 ― Nisbet’s Heraldry, p. 180. Crawfurd’s Renfrew, by Semple, Part II, p. 30, 139. Account of Knox, prefixed to his Historie, anno 1732, page ii. Keith’s Scottish Bishops, p. 177.

4 ― In times of persecution or war, when there was a risk of his letters being intercepted, the Reformer was accustomed to subscribe, “John Sinclair.” Under this signature at one of them, in the collection of his letters in my possession, is the following note: “Yis was his mother’s surname, wlk he wrait in time of trubill.” MS. Letters, p. 346.

5 ― See Note A.

6 ― See Note B. Beza (Icones Virorum Illustrium, Ee. iij. anno 1580) and Verheiden (Effigies et Elogia Præstant. Theolog. p. 92. Hagæcomit. 1602) say that Knox was educated at the university of St Andrews.

7 ― Boetii Vitæ Episcopor. Murthlac. et Aberdon. fol. xxix. coll. cum fol. xxvi‒xxviii. Impress. anno 1522. This little work is of great value, and contains almost the only authentic notices which we possess, as to the state of learning in Scotland, about the beginning of the sixteenth century. Mackenzie, the copier of the fabulous Dempster, (who gives an account of learned men who never existed, and of books that no man ever saw or could see,) talks of almost every writer whom he mentions, as finishing “the course of his studies in the Belles Lettres and Philosophy,” in one of the Scots universities. These are merely words of course. The Aristotelian rules concerning rhetoric were taught by the professors of scholastic philosophy; but it does not appear that stated lectures of this kind were read, until the time of the Reformation, when they were appointed to be regularly delivered in the colleges. First Book of Discipline, p. 40, 42, edit. anno 1621.