John Knox and the Reformation

90

See Laing’s edition, i. 320, 321.

91

Wodrow Miscellany, i. 55.

92

M‘Crie, Knox, 359, 360.

93

Knox, i. 306, 307.

94

Knox, i. 307.

95

“Historie,” Wodrow Miscellany, i. 55, 56.

96

Knox, i. 312-314.

97

“Historie,” Wodrow Miscellany, 56.

98

Melville, 76, 77 (1827).

But Professor Hume Brown appears to be misled in saying that Bettencourt, or Bethencourt, did not reach Scotland till June (John Knox, i. 344i note i), citing Forbes, i. 141. Bethencourt “passed Berwick on April 13” (For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 214) to negotiate the Scottish part in the peace, signed at Upsettlington (May 31). Bethencourt would be with the Regent by April 15, and he may have confirmed her in summoning the preachers who defied her proclamations, though, with or without his advice, she could do no less.

99

Pitscottie, ii. 523.

100

State Papers, Borders, vol. i. No. 421 MS.

101

Affaires Etrangéres, Angleterre, vol. xv. MS.

102

Forbes, 97; Throckmorton to Cecil, May 18.

103

For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 272.

104

Melville, 80.

105

Statuta, &c. Robertson, vol. i. clv-clxii.

106

Book of Discipline. Knox, ii. 253, 254.

107

M‘Crie, 360.

108

The Regent’s account of the whole affair, as given by Francis and Mary to the Pope, is vague and mistily apologetic. (Published in French by Prof. Hume Brown, ii. 300-302.) The Regent wrote from Dunbar, July 1559, that she had in vain implored the Pope to aid her in reforming the lives of the clergy (as in 1556-57). Their negligence had favoured, though she did not know it (and she says nothing about it in 1556-57), the secret growth of heresy. Next, a public preacher arose in one town (probably Paul Methuen in Dundee) introducing the Genevan Church. The Regent next caused the bishops to assemble the clergy, bidding them reform their lives, and then repress heresy. She also called an assembly of the Estates, when most of the Lords, hors du conseil et à part, demanded “a partial establishment of the new religion.” This was refused, and the Provincial Council (of March 1559) was called for reform of the clergy. Nothing resulted but scandal and popular agitation. Public preachers arose in the towns. The Regent assembled her forces, and the Lords and Congregation began their career of violence.

109

As to Knox’s account of this reforming Provincial Council (Knox, i. 291, 292), Lord Hailes calls it “exceedingly partial and erroneous.. no zeal can justify a man for misrepresenting an adversary.” Bold language for a judge to use in 1769! Cf. Robertson, Statuta, i. clxii, note I.

110

Knox, v. 15-17.

111

Knox, v. 207, 208.

112

Ibid., v. 229.

113

Ibid., v. 420, 421.

Ibid., v. 495-523. [This footnote is provided in the original book but isn’t referenced in the text. DP.]

114

John Knox and the Church of England, 215-218.

115

Knox, ii. 460, 461. We return to this point.

116

Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium Majoris Brit. Catalogus Poster., p. 219 (1559). Knox, i. 258-261.

117

Dieppe, April 10-April 22, 1559. Knox, vi. 15-21.

118

Desmarquets, Mem. Chronol. Jour. l’Hist, de Dieppe, i. 210.

119

Corp. Ref., xlv. (Calv., xvii.) 541.

120

Naissance de l’Hérésie à Dieppe, Rouen, 1877, ed. Lesens.

121

Knox, i. 321-323.

122

Knox, vi. 23.

123

Corpus Reformatorum, xlvi. 609, xlvii. 409-411, August 13, 1561.

124

The learned Dr. M‘Crie does not refer to this letter to Mrs. Locke, but observes: “None of the gentry or sober part of the congregation were concerned in this unpremeditated tumult; it was wholly confined to the lowest of the inhabitants” (M‘Crie’s Life of Knox, 127, 1855). Yet an authority dear to Dr. M‘Crie, “The Historie of the Estate of Scotland,” gives the glory, not to the lowest of the inhabitants, but to “the brethren.” Professor Hume Brown blames “the Perth mob,” and says nothing of the action of the “brethren,” as described to Mrs. Locke by Knox. John Knox, ii. 8.

125

Theses of Erastus. Rev. Robert Lee. Edinburgh, 1844.

126

Knox, i. 341,342; vi. 24. Did the brethren promise nothing but the evacuation of Perth?

127

“Historie,” Wodrow Miscellany, i. 58.

128

Knox, i. 343, 344. The Congregation are said to have left Perth on May 29. They assert their presence there on May 31, in their Band.

129

Edinburgh Burgh Records.

130

But see Knox, i. 347-349. Is a week (June 4 to June 11) accidentally omitted?

131

Writing on June 23, Knox dates the “Reformation” “June 14.” His dates, at this point, though recorded within three weeks, are to me inexplicable. Knox, vi. 25.

132

Keith, i. 265, note.

133

Lesley, ii. 443, Scottish Text Society.

134

For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 367.

135

Knox, vi. 26.

136

Ibid., i. 355.

137

Wodrow Miscellany, i. 60.

138

Knox, vi. 26.

139

See Scottish Historical Review, January 1905, 121-122, 128-130.

140

Bain, i. 215.

141

For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 278. Erroneously dated “May 24” (?).

142

Bain, i. 216-218; For. Cal. Eliz., ut supra, 335, 336.

143

Archives Etrangéres, Angleterre, vol. xv. MS.

144

For. Cal. Eliz., 336; Knox, i. 359, 360.

145

Knox, i. 360-362.

146

Knox dates the entry of the Reformers into Edinburgh on June 29. But he wrote to Mrs. Locke from Edinburgh on June 25, probably a misprint. The date June 29 is given in the “Historie.” Knox dates a letter to Cecil, “Edinburgh, June 28.” The Diurnal of Occurrents dates the sack of monasteries in Edinburgh June 28.

147

Wodrow Miscellany, i. 62; Knox, i. 366, 367, 370.

148

Knox, i. 363; cf. Keith, i. 213, 214; Spottiswoode, i. 280, 281.

149

Knox, i. 363-365; For. Cal. Eliz., 337.

150

Teulet, i. 338-340.

151

Bain, i. 218; For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 339. 340.

152

Knox, vi. 45.

153

In Dr. Hay Fleming’s The Scottish Reformation (p. 57), he dates the Regent’s proclamation July 1. He omits the charge that, as proof of their disloyalty, “they daily receive Englishmen with messages, and send the like into England” (Knox, i. p. 364). “The narrative of the proclamation, Knox says, is untrue,” Dr. Hay Fleming remarks; but as to the dealing with England, the Reformer confessed to it in his “History,” Book III., when he could do so with safety.

154

Knox, i. 365.

155

Spottiswoode, i. 282.

156

Teulet, i. 331. The Regent’s instructions to Du Fresnoy.

157

Teulet, i. 334, 335, citing Archives Etrangéres, Angleterre, xiv. (xv.?), f. 221 (see the English translation), For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 406, 407; Keith, i. 220, 221; Spottiswoode, i. 285, 286.

158

Extracts from Edinburgh Town Council Records, July 29, 1559; Keith, i. 487-489.

159

Cf. Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. 30.

160

Knox, i. 376-379. The italicised articles are not in the other versions of the terms as finally settled; cf. “Historie,” Wodrow Miscellany, i. 55-57.

161

Ibid., i. 379.

162

Knox, i. 380.

163

Sloane MSS., British Museum, 4144, 177b, 4737f, 100b. For. Cal. Eliz. 1558-59, 411.

164

Knox, i. 381.

165

My italics.

166

(Kyrkcaldy to Croft.)

“Theis salbe to certiffy you vpon monday the xxiii of Jully the quene and the lordis of the congregation are agreit on this maner as followeth. The armies beying boythe in Syghte betuix Eddingburght and Lietht or partye adversaire send mediatoris desyring that we sall agree and cease frome sheddinge of blude yf we wer men quhilkis wold fulfill in deid that thing quhilk we proffessit, that is the preachyng of godis worde and furth settyng of his glorye. Me lordis of the congregation movet by thare offres wer content to here commonyng. So fynallye after long talke, It is appointted on this maner. That the Religion here begoon sall proceid and contenew in all places wt owt impedement of the quenes authoretie, thare minesters sall neyther be trubillit nor stopped and in all places whare ydolletre is put downe sall not be cett vp agane. And whill the parlement be haldin to consele vpon all materes wch is fixit the x day of Januarye nixt, every man sall leive to his conscience not compellit be authoretye to do any thyng in religion yt his conscience repugnes to. And to this said parlement ther sall no man of or congregation be molested or trobillit in thair bodeis landis goodis possessions what someevir. Further wt all dilligent spede ther frenche men here present salbe send awaye. And sall no other cum in this Realme w owt consent of the hole nobilite. The towne of Eddingburght salbe keipit fre by the inhabitantes thairof and no maner of garnission laid or keip thair In, neyther of frenche nor scottis. For our part we sall remove of Eddingburght to or awne houssis, yt the quene may come to hir awne palyce, wch we tuke of before and hathe left it voyde to hir G. We have delyvered the prentyng yrunes of the coyne agayne wch we tuke becaus of the corruption of monye agaynst our laws and commonwealthe. Off truthe we believe nevir worde to be keipit of thir promises of her syde. And therfore hath tane me lord duke the erll of Huntlye and the rest of the nobillitye beying vpon hir syde bound to the performance hereof wt this condition yf sche brekkes any point heirof they sall renunce hir obeysance and joyne them selfis wt vs. In this meane-tyme we contenew or men of warr to gydder wt in or boundis of Fyfe, Angus, Stretherin and Westland, in aduenture the appointtment be broken, and dowtes not to mak vs daily stronger for by the furthe settying of religion and haittred of the frenche men we gett the hartis of the hole commonalties. Nowe to conclude yf it had not bene for some nobillmens causis who hes promised to be owres we hade not appointted wt the quene at this tyme. From hens forwardis send to the lard of Ormiston who will se all saifly conveyed to me. Thvs I commit you to god from Eddingburght the xxiiii of Jully yoris at power

(W. KYRKCALDY).” 405

167

Knox, i. 379, 380.

168

Ibid., i. 381.

169

Knox, vi. 53.

170

Ibid., i. 397-412. The Proclamation, and two Replies.

171

My italics.

172

Knox, i. xxvi.; vi. 87.

173

Knox, i. 392, 393.

174

Ibid., i. 382.

175

Knox, ii. 15-38.

176

Ibid., vi. 56-59.

177

S. P. Scotland, Elizabeth, MS. vol. i. No. 80; cf. Bain, i. 236, 237. Croft to Cecil, Berwick, August 3, 1559.

178

For. Cal. Eliz., 470.

179

I assume that he was the preacher at Edinburgh in d’Oysel’s letter of June 30-July 2, 1559. Teulet, i. 325.

180

Sadleir to Cecil, September 8, 1559. For. Cal. Eliz., 543, 1558-1559. The fortification, says Professor Hume Brown, “was a distinct breach of the late agreement” (of July 24), “and they weir not slow to remind her” (the Regent) “of her bad faith.” The agreement of July 24 says nothing about fortifying. The ingenious brethren argued that to fortify Leith entailed “oppression of our poor brethren, indwellers of the same.” Now the agreement forbade “oppression of any of the Congregation.” But the people of Leith had “rendered themselves” to the Regent on July 24, and the breach of treaty, if any, was “constructive.” (John Knox, ii. 47; Knox, i. 413, 424-433.)

181

The evidence as to these proceedings of the brethren is preserved in the French archives, and consists of testimonies given on oath in answer to inquiries made by Francis and Mary in November 1559.

182

We have dated Lethington’s desertion of the Regent about October 25, because Knox says it was a “few days before our first defeat” on the last day in October. M. Teulet dates in the beginning of October a Latin manifesto by the Congregation to all the princes of Christendom. This document is a long arraignment of the Regent’s policy; her very concessions as to religion are declared to be tricks, meant to bring the Protestant lords under the letter of the law. The paper may be thought to show the hand of Lethington, not of Knox. But, in point of fact, I incline to think that the real author of this manifesto was Cecil. He sketches it in a letter sent from the English Privy Council in November 15, 1559. This draft was to be used by the rebels in an appeal to Elizabeth.

183

Knox, vi, 89, 90; M‘Crie, 143.

184

Bothwell states the amount at 3000 écus de soleil. French Archives MS.

185

Knox, i. 472.

186

Sadleir to Cecil, Nov. 15, 1559. For. Cal. Eliz., 1559-60, 115.

187

Labanoff, vii. 283.

188

Knox, vi. 105-107.

189

See Appendix B.

190

Corp. Ref., xlv. 645 (3118, note I).

191

Calvinus Sturmio, Corp. Ref., xlvi. 38, 39, March 23, 1560. Sturmius Calvino, ibid., 53-56, April 15.

192

Bain, i. 389, 390; For. Cal. Eliz., 1559-60, 604.

193

Knox, ii. 68; cf. the Regent’s letter. Bain, i. 389.

194

The date may be part of an interpolation.

195

This account is from the French Archives MS., Angleterre, vol. xv.

196

Knox, ii. 72.

197

It is an inexplicable fact that, less than a month before Glencairn and Lord James signed the first godly Band (December 3, 1557), these two, with Kirkcaldy of Grange, “were acting with the Queen-Dowager against Huntly, Chatelherault, and Argyll,” who in December signed with them the godly Band. The case is thus stated by Mr. Tytler, perhaps too vigorously. It appears that, after the refusal of the Lords to cross Tweed and attack England, in the autumn of 1557, the Regent, with the concurrence of Glencairn, Lord James, and Kirkcaldy of Grange, proposed to recall from exile in England the Earl of Lennox, father of Darnley. He, like the chief of the Hamiltons, had a claim to the crown of Scotland, failing heirs born of Mary Stuart. Lennox, therefore, would be a counterpoise to Hamilton and his ally in mutiny, Argyll. Thus Lord James and Glencairn, in November 1557; support the Regent against the Hamiltons and Argyll, but in December Glencairn, reconciled to Argyll, signs with him the godly Band. We descry the old Stewart versus Hamilton feud in these proceedings.

198

Knox, ii. 87, note.

199

Knox, ii. 89-127.

200

Randolph to Cecil, September 7; Bain, i. 477, 478.

201

Knox, vi. 83, 84.

202

Knox, vi. lxxxii.

203

M‘Crie, Life of John Knox, 162 (1855).

204

Keith, iii. 4-7.

205

Bain, i. 461.

206

Cf. Edinburgh Burgh Records.

207

Knox, ii. 193.

208

Queen Mary’s Letter to Guise, p. xlii., Scottish History Society, 1904.

209

Lesley, ii. 454 (1895).

210

See Lord James to Throckmorton, London, May 20, a passage quoted by Mr. Murray Rose, Scot. Hist. Review, No. 6, 154. Additional MSS. Brit. Mus., 358, 30, f. 117, 121. Lord James to Throckmorton, May 20-June 3, 1561.

211

Bain, i. 540, 541.

212

Lord James to Dudley, October 7, 1561, Bain, i. 557.

213

Pollen, Papal Negotiations, 62.

214

Knox, ii, 266.

215

Bain, ii. 543.

216

Bain, ii. 547.

217

Knox, ii. 276, 277.

218

Knox, vi. 131.

219

Knox, ii. 279, 280.

220

Tracts by David Fergusson, Bannatyne Club, 1860.

221

Bain, i. 551, 552.

222

Lord James to Lord Robert Dudley, October 7, 1561. Bain, i. 557, 558. Lethington’s account of his reasonings with Elizabeth is not very hopeful. Pollen, “Queen Mary’s Letter to Guise,” Scot. Hist. Soc., 38-45.

223

Bain, i. 565.

224

Knox, vi. 131, 132; ii. 289.

225

The proclamation against “all monks, friars, priests, nuns, adulterers, fornicators, and all such filthy persons,” was of October 2. On October 5 the Queen bade the council and community of the town to meet in the Tolbooth, depose the Provost and Bailies, and elect others. On October 8 the order was carried out, and protests were put in. A note from Lethington was received, containing three names, out of which the Queen commanded that one must be Provost. The Council “thought good to pass to her Grace,” show that they had already made their election, and await her pleasure. “Jezebel’s letter and wicked will is obeyed as law,” says Knox. —Extracts from Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, 126, 127.

226

Knox, vi. 133-135. Corp. Refor., xlvii. 74.

227

Corp. Refor., xlvii. 114, 115.

228

Bain, i. 582, 583.

229

Ibid., i. 491. Randolph to Cecil.

230

Bain, i. 565, 566.

231

Froude, iii. 265-270 (1866).

232

Knox, vi. 83.

233

Knox, vi. 11-14.

234

Bain, i. 569. Randolph to Cecil, November 11.

235

Ibid., i. 568-570.

236

There was a small guard, but no powerful guard existed till after Riccio’s murder.

237

Bain, i. 575. Randolph to Cecil, December 7.

238

Ibid., i. 571.

239

It is plain from Randolph (Bain, i. 575) that the precise feared that Mary, if secured by the English alliance, would be severe with “true professors of Christ.”

240

Keith, iii. 384, 385.

241

Knox, ii. 300-313. Pollen, “Mary’s Letter to the Duc de Guise,” xli. – xlvii.

242

Bain, i. 568, 569.

243

Ibid., i. 585. Randolph to Cecil, January 2, 1562.

244

There is an air of secrecy in these transactions. In the Register of the Privy Seal, vol. xxxi. fol. 45 (MS.), is a “Precept for a Charter under the Great Seal,” a charter to Lord James for the Earldom of Moray. The date is January 31, 1560-61. On February 7, 1560-61, Lord James receives the Earldom of Mar, having to pay a pair of gilded spurs on the feast of St. John (Register of Privy Seal, vol. xxx. fol. 2). Lord James now bore the title of Earl of Mar, not, as yet – not till Huntly was put at – of Moray.

245

Dr. Hay Fleming quotes Randolph thus: “The Papists mistrust greatly the meeting; the Protestants as greatly desire it. The preachers are more vehement than discreet or learned.” (Mary Queen of Scots, p. 292, note 35, citing For. Cal. Eliz., iv. 523.) The Calendar is at fault and gives the impression that the ministers vehemently preached in favour of the meeting of the Queen. This was not so, Randolph goes on, “which I heartily lament.” He uses the whole phrase, more than is here given, not only on January 30, but on February 12. Now Randolph desired the meeting, so the preachers must have “thundered” against it! They feared that Mary would become a member of the Church of England, “of which they both say and preach that it is little better than when it was at the worst” (Bain, i. 603).

246

Keith, ii. 139.