The minute of the 25th contains the account of the proof which Knox’s procurator led to show that Eufame Dundas had uttered the scandal which she now denied, and the appointment that the parties should be “warnit literatorie to hear sentence given in the said action.” I have not observed any thing more respecting the cause in the minutes, and it is probable, that the Reformer, havingobtained the vindication of his character, prevailed on the judges not to inflict punishment on the accuser.
Calumnies of the Popish writers against Knox and other Reformers.—“C’est rendre sans doute,” says Bayle, “quelques service à la memoire de Jean Knox, que de fair voir les extravagances de ceux qui ont dechiré sa reputation.” And, having referred to the “gross and extravagant slanders” of one writer, he adds, “this alone is a sufficient prejudice against all which the Roman Catholic writers have published concerning the great Reformer of Scotland.” Dict. art. Knox. If Mons. Bayle could speak in this manner upon a quotation from one author, what conclusion shall we draw from the following quotations?
The first writer who attacked Knox’s character after his death, was Archibald Hamilton, whose hostility against him was inflamed by a personal quarrel, as well as by political and religious considerations. (See above, [p. 194].) His book shows how much he was disposed to recommend himself to the papists, by throwing out whatever was most injurious to his former connexions. But there were too many alive at that time to refute any charge which might be brought against the Reformer’s moral character. Accordingly, when he aimed the most envenomed thrust at his reputation, Hamilton masked it under the name of an apprehension or surmise. Having said, that, on the death of Edward VI., “he fled to Geneva with a noble and rich lady,” (which, by the by, is also a falsehood,) he adds, in a parenthesis, “qua simul et filia matris pellice familiariter usus fuisse putabatur.” De Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ, p. 65, a. Parisiis, 1577.
In 1579, Principal Smeton published his answer to Hamilton’s book, in which he repelled the charges which he had brought against Knox, and pronounced the above mentioned surmise a malicious calumny, for which the accuser could not adduce the slightest proof, and which was refuted by the spotless character which the Reformer had maintained before the whole world. Smetoni Responsio ad Virulent. Dial. Hamiltonii, p. 95. Edinb. 1579. It now behovedHamilton either to retract or to prove his injurious insinuation. But how did he act in his reply to Smeton? Under the pretence of repeating what he had said in his former book, he introduces a number of other slanders against Knox’s character, of which he had not given the most distant hint before; and (incredible to be told!) he absolutely avers, that he had formerly specified all these crimes, and condescended upon the places, times, and other circumstances of their commission; although, in his former publication, he had not said one word on the subject except the general surmise which I have quoted above!!! “Pueritiam prematura venere et polluto insuper patris thoro infamem notavi. Inde adolescentiam perpetuis assuetam adulteriis designavi. Post hanc maturioris ætatis apostasin, &c. descripsi: res ipsas ut gestæ erunt retuli: loca, tempora, et reliquas omnes circumstantias notavi.” Calvinianæ Confusionis Demonstratio, contra maledicam Ministrorum Scotiæ responsionem; per Archibaldum Hamiltonium, in Sancta Christi Ecclesia Presbyterum. p. 253. Parisiis, 1581. Than this what can be a stronger mark of one who has “made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience,” who “is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself?” After this we cannot wonder at his casting off all shame, and asserting: “Itane vero in maledictis ducitis, quæ impurus homucio non vno, aut paucis, sed multis, et fere dicam omnibus attestantibus, designavit? patris thorum infami incestu pollutum, et tot commissa adulteria, quot in ædibus, intra quas admittebatur, relicta vestigia etiamnū recitant Laudoniensis omnes nobiles, juxta et ignobiles.” Ut supra, p. 253, b.
We are not left to impute these slanders to personal malice, or to the miserable shifts of an unprincipled individual, who, having rashly committed himself by advancing a falsehood, attempts to maintain his credit by bold assertions and fresh calumnies. For, in the very same year in which Hamilton’s last work appeared, we find another popish author writing in the following terms: “Johne Kmnox your first apostel, quha caused ane young woman in my lord Ochiltreis place fal almaist dead, because sche saw his maister Satthan in ane black mannis likenese with him, throuche ane bore of the dure: quha was also ane manifest adulterare bringand furth of Ingland baith the mother and the dochter whom he persuaditthat it was lesum to leve her housband, and adhere unto him, making ane fleshe of himself, the mother, and the dochter, as if he wald conjoyne in ane religione, the auld synagogue of the Jeuis with the new fundat kirk of the Gentiles.” In another place he introduces the account of his second marriage with these words: “That renegat and perjurit priest schir Johane Kmnox, quha efter the death of his first harlot, quhilk he mareit incurring eternal damnation be breking his vou and promise of chastitie, quhen his age requyrit rather that with tearis and lamentations he sould have chastised his flesh and bewailit the breaking of his vou, as also the horribil incest with his gudmother in ane killogie of Haddingtoun.” Burne’s Disputation concerning the Controversit Headdis of Religion, p. 102, 143. Parise, 1581. But Burne, and even Hamilton, were outstripped in calumny by that most impudent of all liars, James Laing, who published in Latin an account of the lives and manners of the heretics of his time. There are few pages of his book in which he does not abuse our Reformer; but in (what he calls) his Life, he has exceeded any thing which was ever dictated either by personal malice, or by religious rancour. “Statim,” says he, “ab initio suæ pueritiæ omni genere turpissimi facinoris infectus fuit. Vix excesserat jam ex ephebis, cum patris sui uxorem violarat, suam novercam vitiarat, et cum ea, cui reverentia potissimum adhibenda fuerat, nefarium stuprum fecerat.” His bishop having, forsooth, called him to account for these crimes, he straightway became inflamed with the utmost hatred to the catholic religion. “Deinde non modo cum profanis, sed etiam cum quibuscunque sceleratissimis, perditissimis, et potissimum omnium hæreticis est versatus, et quo quisque erat immanior, sceleratior, crudelior, eo ei carior et gratior fuit.—Ne unum quidem diem sceleratissimus hæreticus sine una et item altera meretrice traducere potuit.—Continuo cum tribus meretricibus, quæ videbantur posse sufficere uni sacerdoti, in Scotia convolat.—Ceterum hic lascivus caper, quem assidue sequebatur lasciva capella, partim perpetuis crapulis, partim vino, lustrisque ita confectus fuit, ut quotiescunq. conscendere suggestum ad maledicendum, velim precandum [vel imprecandum?] suis, opus erat illi duobus aut tribus viris, a quibus elevandus atq. sustendandus erat.” De Vita et Moribus atque Rebus Gestis Hæreticorumnostri temporis. Authore Jacobo Laingæo Scoto Doctore Sorbonico, fol. 113, b. 114, a, b. 115, a. Parisiis, 1581. Cum Privilegio. Nor were such accounts confined to that age. In the beginning of the following century, they were repeated by John Hamilton. Facile Traictise, contenand ane infallible reul to discern trew from fals religion, p. 60. Louvain, 1600. In 1623, an English writer refers to James Laing’s work for an authentic account of Knox’s private life. The Image of bothe Churches, Jherusalem and Babell, by P. D. M. p. 134. Tornay, 1623. And as late as 1628, we find Father Alexander Baillie retailing, in the English language, all the gross tales of his predecessors, with additions of his own, in which he shows a total disregard to the best‑known facts in the Reformer’s life. “Jhon Knox,” says he, “being chaplane to the laird of Balvurie, and accused for his vices and leecherie, was found so guiltie and culpable that to eschevie the just punishment prepared for him he presently fled away into Ingland.” He afterwards says, that Knox, after the death of his second wife, [that is, twenty years at least after his own death,] “shamefully fell in the abominable vice of incestuous adultery, as Archib. Hamilton and others doe witnesse;” and as a proof that Knox reckoned this vice no blot, Baillie puts into his mouth a gross defence of it, in the very words which Sanders, in his book against the Anglican Schism, had represented Sir Francis Brian as using in a conversation with Henry VIII. Baillie’s True Information of the Unhallowed Offspring, Progress, and Impoison’d Fruits of our Scottish‑Calvinian Gospel and Gospellers, p. 14, 41. Wirtsburgh, 1628.
It is evident that these outrageous and contradictory calumnies have been all grafted upon the convicted he mentioned in the preceding note, and on the malignant insinuation of Archibald Hamilton. The characters of the foreign reformers were traduced in the very same manner by the popish writers. Those who have seen Bolsec’s Lives of Calvin and Beza, or others written in the same spirit, must be sufficiently convinced of this. Will it be believed that, in the middle of the seventeenth century, a book should have been published under the name of Cardinal de Richlieu, in which it is asserted that “Calvin being condemned for acts of incontinency, which he had carried to the utmost extremity of vice, [sesincontinences, qui le porterent jusques aux dernieres extremitez du vice,] retired from Noyon (his native city) and from the Roman church, at the same time?” And that this should have been published after the cardinal himself had examined the registers of Noyon, which stated facts totally inconsistent with the supposition of such a thing having ever been imputed to him? La Defence de Calvin, par Charles Drelincourt, p. 10, 11, 33. Geneve, 1667. Our countrymen of the popish persuasion were careful to retail all the calumnies against the foreign reformers, and they do so in a manner peculiar to themselves. Nicol Burne most seriously asserts that Luther was begotten of the devil, as to his carnal as well as his spiritual generation; and in order to prove that this was not impossible, he advances the most profane argument that ever proceeded from the mouth or pen of a Christian. Disputation, p. 141. The same thing is asserted by James Laing. De Vita Hæretic. fol. 1, b. In a pretended translation into Scots of a poem written by Beza in his youth, (which the Roman Catholics, after he left their communion, were careful to preserve from oblivion,) Burne has unblushingly inserted some scandalous and disgraceful lines, for which he had not the slightest warrant from the original. Disputation, p. 103, 104. John Hamilton says, that “Calvin did ane miracle to mak ane quik man ane deid, quhilk miracle was done in Geneve to ane Brulæus of Ostune, with whome he contractit for a piece of money to fenzie himself deid, and to ryse to lyfe at his prayers, when he sulde chope thryse upon his biere: bot the compagnion forget to ryse again, whilk come to Calvin’s schame.” Facile Traictise, p. 412. But the following narrative is still more marvellous, and lest his readers should doubt its truth, the author prays them to “suspend thair judgement, quhill they spere [until they enquire at] the maist affectionat Protestantis of Scotland quha has bene in Geneve. Surelie,” continues he, “I ressavit the treuth of this be honorable gentilmen of our countrie, quha confessit to me before gud vitnes, that the devil gangis familiarlie up and down the town, and speciallie cumis to pure and indigent men quha sellis thair saullis to him for ten sous, sum for mair or less. The money is verie plesant quhen they ressave it; bot putting hand to thair purse, quhen they vald by thair denner, thay find nathing but utherstane or stick.” Hamilton’s Catholik and Facile Traictise, fol. 50, b. Paris, 1581. Laing, in his Life of Calvin, (of which Senebier has justly said “that it would be impossible to believe that such a libel had been written, if it were not to be seen in print,”) has raked together all the base aspersions which had been cast upon that reformer, and has spent a number of pages in endeavouring to show that he was guilty of stealing a sum of money. De Vita Hæret. fol. 76, b.–79, b. Of Buchanan, whom he calls “homo sacrarum literarum imperitissimus, simulque impudentissimus,” he relates a number of impieties, of which this is the last, “plurimi etiam narrant illum miserrimum hominem quandam in sacro fonte, quo infantes aqua benedicta ablui solent, adsit reverentia dictis, oletum fecisse.” Ibid. fol. 40, a. One example more, and I have done. “Te admonerem de quodam impio hæretico sacerdote Davidson, quem audivi his jam multis annis publice cum quadam meretrice scortatum esse, quam fertur peperisse prima nocte, qua cum illa dormivit, quod hic doctores medici pro magno miraculo habent; cum vix mulieres ante nonum mensem, vel octavum parere soleant.” Ibid. fol. 36, b, 37, a.
Persons must have had their foreheads, as well as their consciences, “seared with a hot iron,” before they could publish such things to the world as facts. Yet Laing’s book was approved, and declared worthy of publication, by two doctors of the university of Paris. Its grossest slanders against the Scottish reformers were literally copied, and circulated through the continent as undoubted truths, by Reginaldus, Spondanus, Julius Breigerus, and many other foreign popish authors. Each of these added some fabrication of his own; and one of them is so ridiculously ignorant as to rail against our Reformer by the name of Noptz. Bayle, Dictionnaire, art. Knox, Note G. Archibald Hamilton’s two works had the same respectable recommendations with Laing’s book, and one of them is declared to be “very orthodox, and worthy of being ushered into the light for the profit of the church.” And John Hamilton was chosen tutor to two cardinals, appointed professor of philosophy in the Royal College of Navarre, elected, by the students of the German nation in Paris, to the cure of the parish of St Cosmus and Damian, presented to it by the university, andconfirmed in it by the parliament; and, in fine, was chosen rector of the university of Paris!!! So eager were foreigners to load with honours the most bigoted and fanatical of our popish refugees. Sketch of the Life of John Hamilton, p. 2, 3, written by Lord Hailes.
I know that it was common in that age for controversial writers of all descriptions to indulge themselves in a coarseness of invective against their antagonists, which would not be tolerated at present: but this is quite a different thing from what I have given examples of in this note. With respect to the complaints which protestant writers made of the profligacy of the popish clergy, the truth of these is incontestably established by the testimony of Roman Catholic authors, and by the public documents of their own church. Nor do I wish to insinuate that all the popish writers were of the same description with those whom I have quoted, or that there were not many Roman Catholics, even at that time, who disapproved of the use of these dishonourable and empoisoned weapons; but the great number of such publications, the wide circulation which they obtained, and the length of time during which they continued to issue from the popish presses, demonstrate the extent to which a spirit of lying and defamation was carried in the Roman church. Petty dabblers in antiquity, and flippant orators, who have read a general history of those times, or a modern Roman catholic pamphlet, must be allowed to repeat the trite maxim, of faults on both sides, and to conceal their ignorance under the veil of moderation, by representing these faults as equal; but I aver that no candid person, who is duly acquainted with the writings of that period, will pretend to account for the above‑mentioned calumnies, by imputing them to a spirit of asperity and prejudice common to both parties.