I may add the following quotation from another able and strenuous assertor of the presbyterian discipline and government. “Ubi originalis causa excommunicationis est delictum violans jura et libertates ecclesiæ, &c. When the original cause of excommunication is an offence violating the rights and liberties of the church, either in the way of loss being sustained or injury being done, I confess that the assistance of the secular arm may be implored,and the guilty person may be forced to repair the loss and to give civil satisfaction; or even if the person already excommunicated shall testify a disposition to disturb the religious service, or to violate the rights and liberties of the church. But where no loss or injury to the rights and liberties of the church arises from the offence or from the contumacy, but scandal alone is given, I know not whether any person is to be forced to what is called penitential satisfaction, by imploring the assistance of the secular arm. For as the church has no coactive power in herself, so neither ought she to use it indirectly to extort confessions which are constrained, and consequently counterfeit.” Calderwood, Altare Damascenum, p. 312–3. edit. Lugd. Bat. 1708.
Mr Hume’s misrepresentations of the behaviour of the Reformers to Queen Mary.—The whole account which this historian has given of the conduct of the protestant clergy towards Mary, from her arrival in Scotland until her marriage with Darnley, is very remote from sober and genuine history. It is rather a satire against the Reformation, which he charges with rebellion; against the presbyterian church, whose genius he describes as essentially productive of fanaticism and vulgarity; and against his native country, the inhabitants of which, without exception, he represents as overrun with rusticity, strangers to the arts, to civility, and the pleasures of conversation. History, Reign of Eliz. chap. i. near the close. “Il n’est rien de plus facile quand on a beaucoup d’esprit, et beaucoup d’experience dans l’art de faire des livres, que de composer une Histoire satyrique, des meme faits qui ont servi à faire une Eloge. Deux lignes supprimée, ou pour ou contre, dans l’exposition d’un fait, sont capables de faire paroistre un homme ou fort innocent, ou fort coupable: et comme par la seule transposition de quelques mots, on peut faire d’un discours fort saint un discours impie; de meme par la seule transposition de quelques circonstances, l’on peut faire de l’action la plus criminelle, l’action la plus vertueuse.” Bayle, Critique Generale de l’Histoire du Calvinisme,p. 13, 2de edition, 1683. To this charge the historian of England has exposed himself on more than one occasion.
I cannot here expose all his misstatements in the passage to which I have referred. He keeps out of view the fixed resolution of the queen to re‑establish the Romish religion, with all the perils to which the protestants were exposed. He artfully introduces his narrative, by placing her proclamation against altering the protestant religion before the symptoms of popular discontent at her setting up of mass; whereas the proclamation was issued after these, and would never have appeared, had it not been found necessary to allay the apprehensions of the people. Knox, 285. Keith, 504, 505. As a proof that the preachers “took a pride in vilifying, even to her face, this amiable princess,” he gives extracts from an address to her by the General Assembly, without ever hinting that this was merely a draught or overture; that every offensive expression was erased from it before it was adopted by the assembly; and that, when the address was presented by the superintendents of Lothian and Fife, the queen said, “Here are many fair words; I cannot tell what the hearts are.” Knox, 315. Mr H. goes on to say: “The ringleader in all these insults on Majesty, was John Knox.—His usual appellation for the queen was Jezebel.” This is a mistake. Neither in his sermons, nor in his prayers, nor in conversation, did he give this appellation to Mary, so long as she was queen; but always honoured her before the people, as well as in her own presence, even when he lamented and condemned her errors. Afterwards, indeed, when for her crimes (of which no man was more convinced than Mr H.) she was removed from the government, and he no longer acknowledged her as his sovereign, he did apply this name to her. It is so far from being true, that “the whole life of Mary was, from the demeanour of these men, filled with bitterness and sorrow,” or that she “was curbed in all amusements by the absurd severity of these reformers,” that she retained her “gaiety and ease,” until, by her imprudent marriage with Darnley, she with her own hand planted thorns under her pillow; while the preachers were most free in their sermons, she enjoyed all manner of liberty; her mass was never taken from her; she was allowed to indulge her “feasting, finery, dancing, balls, and whoredom, theirnecessary attendant;” nor was she ever interrupted in these amusements, except when her own husband deprived her of her favourite Italian fiddler, a loss for which she afterwards took ample vengeance. It is difficult to conceive how one acquainted with the history of that period, and the character of the queen, could impute the “errors of her subsequent conduct” to the “harsh and preposterous usage which she met with” from the reformers. Nor can there be a greater satire upon the general character of Mary, (previous to her first marriage,) than to say, that “she found every moment reason to regret her leaving that country, from whose manners she had, in her early youth, received the first impressions.” It is well known that the court at which she received her education was most dissolute; and the supposition that she carried away the innocent polish and refinement of their manners, without contracting their criminal contagion, is not only incredible, but contradicted by the confessions of her friends. Memoires de Chastelnau, augmentez par J. le Laboureur, Prieur de Juvigné, tom. i. p. 528. A Bruxelles, 1731. I have no desire, however, to dip into this subject, or to drag to light facts unfavourable to that unhappy princess; although the unwarranted and persevering attacks which have been made upon worthy men, in order to reconcile the “future conduct” of Mary, with “the general tenor of her character,” would justify far greater freedoms than have been lately used in this way.
“We are too apt to figure to ourselves the reformers of that age, as persons of impolitic and inflexible austerity.” This is the remark of one who was much better acquainted with their history than Mr Hume. Lord Hailes, Historical Mem. of the Provincial Councils of the Scottish Clergy, p. 41. Comp. Knox, Historie, p. 310. See also [Note Z].
Mr Hume’s object, in the passage on which I have animadverted, was to blacken the reformers, rather than to exalt the queen, of whose character he had at bottom no great opinion. “Tell Goodall,” says he, in a letter to Dr Robertson, “that if he can but give up queen Mary, I hope to satisfy him in every thing else; and he will have the pleasure of seeing John Knox, and the reformers, made very ridiculous.” Indeed, Mr Hume confessed to his confidential friends, that he had, in his history, drawn the character of thatprincess in too favourable colours. “I am afraid,” says he to the same correspondent, “that you, as well as myself, have drawn Mary’s character with too great softenings. She was undoubtedly a violent woman at all times.” Stewart’s Life of Robertson, p. 37, 38.
Proceedings of Town Council in a slander against Knox.—“18mo Junii, 1563.—The samyn day, in presence of the baillies and counsale, comperit Jhone Gray, scribe to the kirk, and presentit the supplicatione following, in name of the haill kirk, bering that it was laitlie cummen to thair knawledge bi the report of faythfull bretherins, that within thir few dayis Eufame Dundas, in the presence of ane multitude, had spokin divers injurious and sclandarous wordis baith of the doctrine and ministeris. And in especiall of Jhonne Knox, minister, sayand, that within few dayis past, the said Jhonne Knox was apprehendit and tane furth of ane killogye with ane commoun hure; and that he had bene ane commone harlot all his dayis. Quhairfore it was maist humblie desyrit that the said Eufame myt be callit and examinat upone the said supplicatione, and gif the wordis abone written, spokin bi hir, myt be knawin or tryit to be of veritie, that the said Jhonne Knox myt be punist with all rigour without favour: otherwyse to tak sic ordour with hir as myt stand with the glory of God, and that sclander myt be takin from the kirk. As at mair length is contenit in the said supplication. Quhilk beand red to the said Eufame, personallie present in judgement, scho denyit the samyn, and Fryday the 25 day of Junii instant assignit to hir to here and see witnes producit for preving of the allegiance abone expremit, and scho is warnyt apud acta.” Records of Town Council of Edinburgh, of the above date.