The kingdom was now subjected to all the miseries of civil war and intestine faction. In almost every part of the country there were adherents to the king and to the queen, who exasperated each other by reciprocal reproaches and injuries. The regent fortified Leith, while the queen’s party kept possession of the castle and town of Edinburgh. As the two armies lay at a small distance from one another, and neither of them was sufficiently strong for undertaking to dispossess the other, they were daily engaged in petty skirmishes; and several acts of disgraceful retaliation, which rarely happen in the open field, were committed on both sides. The evidence which the queen’s friends gave of their personal antipathy to the Reformer, clearly showed that his lifewould have been in imminent danger, if he had remained among them. An inhabitant of Leith was assaulted and his body mutilated, because he was of the same name with him. A servant of John Craig, being met one day by a reconnoitring party, and asked who was his master, answered, in his trepidation, Mr Knox; upon which he was seized, and, although he immediately corrected his mistake, they desired him to “hold at his first master,” and dragged him to prison.Having fortified St Giles’s steeple to overawe the inhabitants, the soldiers baptized one of the cannons by the name of Knox, which they were so fond of firing, that it burst, killed two of the party, and wounded others.[241] They circulated the most ridiculous tales respecting his conduct at St Andrews. John Law, the letter‑carrier of that city, being in the castle of Edinburgh,“the ladie Home and utheris wald neidis thraip in his face, that” John Knox “was banist the said toune, becaus that in the yarde he had reasit sum sanctis, amongis whome thair came up the devill with hornis, which when his servant Richart sawe, [he] ran woode, and so died.”[242]
Although he was now free from personal danger, Knox did not find St Andrews that peaceful retreat which he had expected.The friends of Kircaldy, and of Sir James Balfour,[243] resided in the neighbourhood,and the Hamiltons had their relations and partisans both in the university and among the ministry. These were thorns in the Reformer’s side, and made his situation very uneasy, as long as he resided among them. Having left Edinburgh, because he could not be permitted to disburden his conscience, by testifying against the designs of persons whom he regarded as conspirators against the legal government of the country, and favourers of a faction who intended nothing less than the overthrow of the reformed religion, it was not to be expected that he would preserve silence on this subject at St Andrews. Accordingly, in the discourses which he preached on the eleventh chapter of Daniel’s prophecy, he frequently took occasion to advert to recent transactions, and to inveigh against the murder of the late king, and of the regent. This was very grating to the ears of the opposite faction, particularly to Robert and Archibald Hamilton, the former one of the ministers of the city, and the latter a professor in one of the colleges. Irritated by the censures which Knox pronounced against his kinsmen, Robert Hamilton attempted to injure his reputation, by circulating in private that it did not become him to exclaim so loudly against murderers; for he had seen his subscription, along with that of the earl of Murray, to a bond for assassinating Darnley at Perth. When this came to the Reformer’s ears, he immediately wrote a letter to Hamilton, desiring him to say, whether he was the author of the slanderous report. Not receiving a satisfactory answer, he communicatedthe matter to Douglas, rector of the university, and Rutherford, provost of St Salvator’s college; requesting them to converse with their colleague on the subject, and to inform him, that if he did not give satisfaction for the slander which he had propagated, a complaint would be lodged against him before the church.Upon this he came to Knox’s room, and denied that he had ever given any ground for such a scandalous surmise.[244]
Archibald Hamilton being complained of for withdrawing from Knox’s sermons, and for accusing him of intolerable railing, endeavoured to bring the matter under the cognizance of the masters of the university,among whom he possessed considerable influence.[245] Knox did not scruple to give an account of his conduct before the professors for their satisfaction;but he judged it necessary to enter a protest, that his appearance before them should not invalidate the liberty of the pulpit, nor the authority of the regular church‑courts, to which, and not to any university, the judgment of religious doctrine belonged.[246] This incident accounts for the zeal with which he expresses himself on this subject, in one of his letters to the General Assembly;in which he exhorts them, above all things, to preserve the church from the bondage of the universities, and not to exempt them from ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or allow them to become judges of the doctrine taught from the pulpit.[247]
The military operations during the civil war were chiefly distinguished by two enterprises, which claimour notice from the influence which they had upon the affairs of the church. The one was the taking of Dunbarton castle, which was surprised, on the 2d of April, 1571, by a small party of the regent’s forces, led by captain Crawford of Jordanhill. Archbishop Hamilton having fallen into the hands of the captors, was soon after condemned, and ended his life on the gibbet. The execution of prisoners, although chargeable with crimes which merit death, is ordinarily avoided in civil contests, because it produces reprisals from the opposite party; but in every other respect the fate of Hamilton is not a subject of regret or of censure.Of all the queen’s adherents, his motives for supporting her cause appear to have been the most unworthy; and his talents and rank in the church ought not to be pleaded in extenuation of the vices by which his private character was stained, or the crimes of which he had been guilty.[248] The deathof Hamilton gave occasion to a change in the ecclesiastical government, of which I shall speak immediately.
An enterprise equally bold with Crawford’s, but less successful, was planned by Kircaldy. While the regent Lennox was holding a parliament at Stirling, which was numerously attended, a party of soldiers suddenly entered the town early on the morning of September 3, 1571, seized the regent and the nobility who were along with him, and carried them away prisoners.The alarm having been given, the earl of Mar sallied from the castle, and with the assistance of the townsmen, dispersed the assailants, and rescued the noblemen.[249] But this was not accomplished without the loss of the regent, who was slain by the orders of lord Claud Hamilton, in revenge for the death of the archbishop of St Andrews. Lennox was succeeded in the regency by the earl of Mar, a nobleman of great moderation, who, during the short time that he held that office, exerted himself to restore peace to the kingdom, and brought the negotiations for this purpose very near to a successful termination.
During these transactions the courtiers were devising a scheme for securing to themselves the principal part of the ecclesiastical revenues, which led to an alteration of the polity of the church. We have repeatedly had occasion to notice the aversion of the nobility to the Book of Discipline, and the principal source from which this aversion sprung. While the earl of Murray administered the government, he prevented any new encroachments upon the rights of the church; but the succeeding regents were either less friendly to them, or less able to check the avarice of the more powerful nobles. Several of the richest benefices having become vacant by the death or by the forfeiture of the popish incumbents who had been permitted to retain them, it was necessary to determine in what manner they should be disposed of. The church had uniformly required that their revenues should be divided, and applied to the support of the religious and literary establishments; but with this demand the courtiers were as much indisposed to comply as ever. At the same time, the secularization of them was deemed too bold a step; nor could laymen, with any shadow of consistency, or by a valid title, hold benefices which the law declared to be ecclesiastical. The expedient resolved on was, that the bishoprics and other rich livings should be presented to certain ministers, who, previous to their admission, should make over the principal part of the revenues to such noblemen as had obtained the patronage of them from the court. This plan, which was concerted under the regency of Lennox, wascarried into execution during that of Mar, chiefly by the influence of the earl of Morton.
Morton having obtained from the court a gift of the archbishopric of St Andrews, vacant by the execution of Hamilton, entered into a private agreement respecting its revenues with John Douglas, rector of the university, whom he presented to that see. At the meeting of parliament in Stirling, August 1571, the commissioners of the General Assembly protested against this transaction; but through the interest of Morton, Douglas, though not yet elected, was admitted to a seat in parliament,and the new scheme for seizing on the ecclesiastical livings was confirmed, notwithstanding the warm remonstrances of the ministers of the church, and the strenuous opposition of the more zealous and disinterested barons.[250] Bishoprics and other great benefices were now openly conferred on noblemen, on persons totally unqualified for the ministry, and even on minors.Pluralities were multiplied; the ecclesiastical courts were hindered in the exercise of their jurisdiction;[251] and the collectors of the church were prohibited from gathering the thirds, until some new regulation was adopted for supplying the necessities of the court.[252]
These proceedings having created great dissatisfaction through the nation, the regent and council called an extraordinary assembly of superintendents and other ministers, to meet at Leith in January1572, to consult about an order which might prove more acceptable. Through the influence of the court, this convention consented that the titles of archbishop, and other ecclesiastical dignitaries, should be retained; that the bounds of the ancient dioceses should not be altered during the king’s minority; and that qualified parsons from among the ministers should be advanced to these dignities.They, however, allotted no greater power to archbishops and bishops than to superintendents, with whom they were to be equally subject to the assemblies of the church.[253] These regulations were submitted to the ensuing General Assembly at St Andrews, but as that meeting was thinly attended, it came to no determination respecting them. The Assembly held at Perth, in August 1572, resumed the subject, and came to the following resolution:—That the regulations contained certain titles, such as archbishop, dean, archdean, chancellor, and chapter, which savoured of popery, and were scandalous and offensive to their ears; and that the whole assembly, including the commissioners which had met at Leith, unanimously protested that they did not approve of these titles, that they submitted to the regulations merely as an interim arrangement,and that they would exert themselves to obtain a more perfect order from the regent andcouncil.[254] Such was the origin and nature of that species of episcopacy which was introduced into the reformed church of Scotland, during the minority of James VI. It was disapproved of by the ministers of the church; and on the part of the courtiers and nobility, it does not appear to have proceeded from predilection to hierarchical government, but from the desire which they felt to obtain possession of the revenues of the church.This was emphatically expressed by the name of tulchan bishops,[255] which was commonly applied to those who were at that time admitted to the office.
Knox did not fail from the beginning to oppose these encroachments on the rights and property of the church. Being unable to attend the General Assembly held at Stirling in August 1571, he addressed a letter to it, warning the members of the new contest which he foresaw they would have to maintain, and animating them to fidelity and courage. “And now, brethren,” says he, “because the daily decay of natural strength threateneth my certain and sudden departing from the misery of this life, of love and conscience I exhort you, yea, in the fear of God, I charge and command you, that ye take heed unto yourselves, and to the flock over which God hath placed you pastors. Unfaithful and traitorous to the flock shall ye be before the Lord Jesus Christ,if, with your consent directly, ye suffer unworthy men to be thrust into the ministry of the church, under whatever pretence it shall be. Remember and judge before whom we must make our account, and resist that tyranny as ye would avoid hell‑fire. This battle will be hard, but in the second point it will be harder; that is, that with the like uprightness and strength in God, ye gainstand the merciless devourers of the patrimony of the church. If men will spoil, let them do it to their own peril and condemnation, but communicate ye not with their sins, of whatsoever estate they be, by consent nor by silence; but with public proclamation make this known unto the world, that ye are innocent of robbery, whereof ye will seek redress of God and man.God give you wisdom and stout courage in so just a cause, and me an happy end.”[256] In a letter which he afterwards wrote to Wishart of Pitarrow, he also expresses himself in a strain of honest but keen indignation at the avarice of the nobility.[257]
It has been insinuated that Knox gave his approbation to the resolutions of the convention at Leith to restore the episcopal office; and the articles sent by him to the General Assembly, in August, 1572,have been appealed to as a proof of this. But all that can be fairly deduced from these articles is, that he desired the conditions and limitations agreed upon by that convention to be strictly observed in the election of bishops, in opposition to the granting of bishoprics to laymen,[258] and to the simoniacal pactions which the ministers made with the nobles on receiving presentations. Provided one of the propositions made by him to the Assembly had been enforced, and the bishops had been bound to give an account of the whole of their rents, and either to support ministers in the particular places from which they derived these, or else to pay into the funds of the church the sums requisite for this purpose, it is evident that the mercenary views both of patrons and presentees would have been defeated, and the church would have gained her object, the use of the episcopal revenues. The prospect of this induced some honest ministers to agree to the proposed regulations, at the convention held in Leith.But it required a greater portion of disinterested firmness than falls to most men, to act upon this principle;[259] and the nobles were able to find, even at that period, a sufficientnumber of pliant, needy, or covetous ministers, to be the partners or the dupes of their avarice.