The tidings of this murder were speedily spread over all the land, and, while some angrily denounced it, others welcomed it as an event which restored their country to liberty. There were indeed some who, like James Melville, reckoned it a lawful act. But even among the enemies of the cardinal there were men wise and moderate, who looked on the murder with horror. It is remarked by one historian that of those who took part in it few escaped the judgment of God, who punishes transgressors by smiting them with the same stroke with which they have smitten others.[368]
The Lesleys and their friends remained masters of the castle, and they kept with them James, Lord Hamilton, afterwards earl of Arran, the regent’s eldest son, whom Beatoun had detained as his hostage, and who now became theirs. One of the conspirators, who believed that in delivering Scotland from the tyrant they had done a praiseworthy deed, William Kirkaldy, went to London. He obtained from Henry VIII., who considered the taking of the castle and the events which had accompanied it to be a lawful revolution, a declaration that he was prepared to take the party under his protection, on condition, however, that the marriage contract between Edward and Mary should be carried out. As communication by sea was easy between the castle and London, English ships conveyed thither all supplies that were needful.
OPINIONS ON THE MURDER.
Hamilton, a bastard brother of the regent, was named by him archbishop of St. Andrews, and was confirmed by Pope Paul III. This energetic prelate immediately pressed on his brother the duty of besieging the castle and of punishing all those who had taken it. He was strongly supported by others. On August 23, 1546, the main body of the army set out from Edinburgh to form the siege; but at the end of July, 1547,[369] the capture of the fortress being evidently hopeless, terms were made with the besieged advantageous to them, but which neither side had any intention of observing. This period forms an important epoch, and we must suspend for a while the course of our narrative.
We have now traced the history of the ministry and the martyrdom of Patrick Hamilton and George Wishart. We shall have by-and-by to trace, Deo adjuvante, the mighty action of the third and greatest of the Scottish reformers, John Knox.
The period, the history of which we have just gone over, was one of active persecution. It remains for us to recount the events of the contest with the papacy, into which the Scottish nobility energetically entered, and the victory of the Reformation. Without entering at present upon the narrative of facts, we shall cast a glance forward in order to point out what was to give the victory to evangelical Christianity. Assuredly it was not such actions as the capture of the castle and the violent death of the persecutor. Such things are more likely to ruin a cause than to save it. The Christian life and death of Wishart contributed far more powerfully than the death of Beatoun to the advancement of the kingdom of God. The history of the Scottish Reformation serves to show the untruth of one assertion frequently made by the enemies of the Reform.
According to them, the Reform could triumph only in those countries in which it had the protection of princes. This is a serious error. It was not the bloodthirsty Philip II. who established the Reformation in the United Provinces of the Netherlands. It was neither the feeble James V. nor the popish Mary Stuart who secured its triumph in Scotland. That worthy niece of the Guises sought only to crush it. A stronger arm than theirs fought against those mighty ones and gave the victory to the weak. The enemies of the Reformation made use in Scotland of the very weapons which in Italy, in Spain, and elsewhere arrested the movement of regeneration. The reformers were burnt also in Scotland, but the Reform arose out of their ashes. It was neither to their character nor to their strength that the Scots attributed the triumph. They knew that Jesus is the king of the Church, and that it is he who saves it. This is the feature which more than any other, as we shall see, characterized the Scottish Reformation. Andrew Melville said to James VI., ‘Sire, there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is King James, the head of the state, and there is Jesus Christ who is head of the Church.’[370] To the king enthroned at Rome, the Scottish Reformation opposed the king enthroned in heaven, and to him it attributed the victory.
PRIEST AND PASTOR.
But in proclaiming this supreme authority, the reformation in Scotland also established the duties and the rights of Christians. The charge of leading the Church in conformity with the law of God was there intrusted to general assemblies elected by the free choice of a Christian people.[371] The clergy had ruled in Scotland throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and during the first part of the sixteenth. The Reformation rescued the country from that clerical domination, and gave to it the first of all liberties, the freedom of faith. For centuries three powers had existed there,—the king, the nobles, and the priests, and the last had kept the upper hand. After the Reformation, two of these still remained, the king and the nobles; but the people took the place of the clergy. It was under a popular form, that of Presbyterianism, that the Church of Scotland constituted itself. The feudal castles had for some time still a marked influence on the destinies of the country; but the tide of national and Christian life was steadily rising all round their walls and soon overflowed the ancient battlements which crowned the summits of those old fortresses. Laymen, the deputies of the people, obtained a voice in the presbytery, in the synod, and in the general assembly. Thus, by successive steps, the voice of the people became, through the influence of Reform, the expression of the main force of the country.