Introductory Notice to Book Fifth IN the previous volume it has been shewn that the Four Books of THE HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND were written by Knox, between the years 1559 and 1566; and that these Books have reached us, as completed by himself, without being either mutilated or interpolated, except in the common printed editions of the work. But of the Fifth Book, no manuscript copy has been discovered; and although there may be sufficient reason to prevent us from ascribing its composition to the Scotish Reformer, there can be no doubt of the propriety of annexing it as a Supplement or Continuation of his History.
This Fifth Book relates to the progress of affairs in Scotland, from September 1564 to August 1567, when Queen Mary having been forced to abdicate the throne, the Earl of Murray was appointed Regent. It was first published in folio, in the year 1644, by DAVID BUCHANAN, a person of literary distinction, of whom some account will be given in the Appendix to the present volume. The volume has this title:— “THE HISTORIE OF THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND; Containing five Books: Together with some TREATISES conducing to the History. Published by Authority. (Jerem. 5. 1.-2 Cor. 13. 8.) LONDON, Printed by John Raworth, for George Thomason and Octavian Pullen, and are to be sold at the Signe of the Rose in Paul’s Church-yard.
MDCXLIV.”
In the course of the same year, another edition, in quarto, appeared under a similar title:—“THE HISTORIE, &c. Printed at LONDON for G. T. and O. P. And Re-Printed at EDINBURGH by ROBERT BRYSON, and are to be sold at his Shop at the Signe of JONA. 1644.”
It is a mistake to suppose that this Edinburgh edition was a literal reprint. The greater portion of the volume is in fact so, insomuch that the words and letters in most of the lines correspond in the two editions; still there are some changes which it is not improbable were introduced under Buchanan’s immediate inspection. The Preface “To the Reader,” in which the Editor “D. B.” says, “I have thought fit in this place to point at some main occurrences from that time (1567) till now,” remains unaltered. But “The Life of John Knox,” which fills eight pages in the folio edition, is extended as “The Life and Death of John Knox,” in the quarto, to twenty-two pages, including “An Acrostick” (8 lines), and 16 lines in the shape of an altar, “To the pretious memorie of John Knox, that worthie Primitive-Reformer in the Church of Scotland,” signed “J. L.” The historical “Preface,” relating to the earlier people and religion of Scotland, filling thirty leaves in the folio, and thirty-two leaves in the quarto edition, contains no alterations. Neither are there any of importance, until we reach the close of Book Fourth, where four paragraphs are added, two of them being transposed from the commencement of Book Fifth. Other additions occur towards the latter part of Book Fifth. And in the subjoined Treatises, there is added Knox’s “Brief Exhortation,” dated from Geneva, 12th January 1557.
The passage in Buchanan’s Life of John Knox, in which he speaks of the HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION, is worthy of notice. After mentioning Knox’s education and earnest study of the Holy Scriptures, he refers to his sufferings, and says, “For the cause of the truth, he suffered very much by sea and land, in minde and body; among forraigners, and amongst his own countreymen, as ye may see in this History of the Church, which now here we present unto you: Which History, namely so much of it, I mean, as formerly was published, hath gone commonly under his name, because he is the man of whom most is spoken thorowout the whole History, as being a most earnest and diligent agent in the businesse of the Reformation in the Church: Next, because he hath penned with his own hand, or spoken by word of mouth, the most part of the most remarkable and most usefull things for Posterity in the History. Thirdly, the whole History is gathered out of his Papers and Manuscripts: And so ye see why it is generally received to be of JOHN KNOX. But to return to his Life,” &c.
In the Edinburgh edition, this reference to the History is altered as follows:—after mentioning that Knox “was honoured to be one of the prime publike actors in that worthy worke of our Primitive Reformation,” Buchanan says, “And because some singular fruit, more then ordinare, is expected from him who hes some singular enduements, more then ordinar: Therefore, to shew to the world how farre his thoughts were bussied upon the good of Posteritie, and how little he did live to himselfe, he brought out of the intrals of actions many choise and worthie secrets, as the laudable travels of his pious and judicious minde, the truth whereof is evidentlie apparent throughout the whole progresse of this Church-Historie, which may justly bee published and sent abroad under his name, because the most part thereof hath either been penned with his owne hand, or spoken and uttered by the word of his mouth, or gathered and collected out of his Papers and Manuscripts. His Historicall relations are without partialitie. Hee hated no man’s person, no not the enemie but his sin. And therefore I hope his unpartiall expressions shall be unseasonable to no good man, be hee never so great. Wearie not then in reading, but adventure your patience as he hes done his paines, and I doubt not, but in each particular, you shall get such a full and satisfactorie information of the truth, that you shall not afterward need to strike fire, and light your candle at another man’s Torch. But to returne to his Life,” &c.
In regard to the authorship of this Fifth Book, the minute statement of facts, the occasional modes of expression, and the above declaration by the Editor, that “the whole History is gathered out of Knox’s Papers and Manuscripts,” are quite opposed to the general notion that it was written or even compiled by David Buchanan. Neither can we attribute it to Knox’s Secretary, Richard Bannatyne, as the style is altogether unlike that of the “Journal of Transactions” from 1570 to 1573, which has been published under his name; and from which portions at least ought to be included in a collection of the Reformer’s Works. This will form part of the concluding volume. On this subject the Editor of 1732, after remarking, “It is not easy to give any tolerable account of the Fifth Book,” says, “It seems probable that Mr. David Buchanan himself is the author of it: perhaps he was beholden to Mr. Knox’s scrolls, but I wish he had carefully distinguished Mr. Knox’s composure from his own, and forborn his interpolations in the body of the History, which is a liberty no person ought to take with any Author… The Editors, (it is added;) have given the Fifth Book as Mr. Buchanan has published it, and leave it to the Reader to value it as he finds cause.” But these Editors have taken an unusual liberty, which they have not specified, in altering the language to correspond to the more antiquated orthography of the Glasgow MS. of the Four Books. In the present edition, the text is given from that of London, 1644.
Although persuaded that the Fifth Book has been chiefly derived from Knox’s papers by some unknown hand, yet, as it has no well-founded claims to be regarded as A WORK OF ORIGINAL AUTHORITY, like the previous Books, I have not thought it necessary to devote much time to its elucidation by encumbering the pages with foot-notes; and the more so, as the period of three years which it embraces, has been so fruitful in controversy, and has obtained a much larger share of literary investigation than perhaps any other period of our National History.
[Sidenote: There be two Epigrams extant, written by George Buchanan, of a rich diamond sent from Queen Mary to Queen Elizabeth.[1056] [1056] The marginal notes in this Book are evidently added by the original editor, David Buchanan.
IN the next moneth, which was July, the Queen went into Athole to the hunting; and from thence she made her progress into Murray, and returned to Fyfe in September.[1057] All this while there was appearance of love and tender friendship betwixt the two Queens; for there was many letters full of civility and complements sent from either of them to the other in signe of amity; besides costly presents for tokens. And in the meantime the Earl of Lenox[1058] laboured to come home forth of England; and in the moneth of October he arrived at Halyrud-House, where he was graciously received by the Queen’s Majestie; namely, when he had presented the Queen of England her letters, written in his favour: And because he could not be restored to his lands without Act of Parliament, therefore there was a Parliament procured to be holden at Edinburgh, the 13. day of December:[1059] But before the Queen would cause to proclaim a Parliament, she desired the Earle of Murray, by whose means chiefly the said Earle of Lenox came into Scotland, That there should no word be spoken, or at least concluded, that concerned Religion in the Parliament. But he answered, That he could not promise it. In the mean time, the Hamiltons and the Earle of Lenox were agreed.[1060] [1057] On the 25th or 26th September 1564: see note 4, page 420. [1058] Matthew Stewart, fourth Earl of Lennox. He arrived at Edinburgh on the 23d September. A letter, addressed by Queen Mary to Queen Elizabeth, on the 28th of that month, mentions, that he had presented the letters of Elizabeth, at Holyrood-House, on the previous day. (Tytler’s Hist., vol. vi. p. 297; Keith’s Hist., vol. ii. p. 233.) [1059] The proceedings of this Parliament are not preserved, and the day of meeting in variously stated. Some Acts passed on the 15th December are recorded. (Acta Parl. Scot. vol. ii. p. 545.) In an abstract of a letter from Randolph to Cecil, marked 3d December 1564, (an evident error in the date for the 23d,) we read, “Lennox restored by Parliament called only for that purpose. The Queen made an Oration in the Parliament, shewing the reason of restoring Lennox; and the rather, because it was at the request and suit of her sister of England.” (Keith’s Hist., vol. ii. p. 259.) On the 15th, Lennox’s restoration was proclaimed with great solemnity at the Cross of Edinburgh.
[1060] In Buchanan’s republication of Knox’s History, at Edinburgh, 1644, this and the next paragraph are transposed to the end of Book Fourth, with two additional paragraphs, for the purpose evidently of bringing the History down to the close of the year 1564. The first of these, as follows, occurs nearly verbatim in Calderwood’s History, vol. ii. p. 280: see also the Book of the Kirk, vol. i. p. 47.—
“Articles and Petitions
“It was thought good by the Church Assembly immediately preceding [viz. in June 1564,] and conforme to the Acts made before the Queen’s arrivall, and approven since, that Christ’s true Religion bee de novo, established, ratified, and approven throughout the whole Realme; And that all Idolatry, especially the Masse, he abolished every where, so that no other face of Religion be suffered to be erected within this Realme. And for this effect, that the Ministrie be sufficiently provided with maintenance, and sure appointment where they shall take up thair stipends. In like manner, to desire that the transgressors of the said Laws bee punished, specially in Aberdeen, the Karse of Gowry, Seyfield, and other places which shall be specified. These Articles were appointed to bee presented to the Lords of the Secret Councel. The Earls of Murray, Argyle, Glencairne, and the Secretary being present, and sent by the Queene to observe what things were propounded in the Assembly, thought not good that the Articles should be propounded after this manner, but drew out two heads; First, they would declare the good mind and obedience of the Assembly; Next, they would labour at her G[race’s] hands for settling of Religion according to the order established before her arrivall. They promised also to deal with her for set stipends. Lethington returned a gracious answer to these Heads. It was appointed that a request should be presented to the Queen for obtaining the gift of the Frier’s Kirk of Kirkcudbright, to be holden hereafter the Parish Kirk of Kirkcudbright.”
The second paragraph is entitled,
“An Answer to Paul Methven’s Supplication
“The General Assembly of the Church conveened at Edinburgh the 25. of December, the exhortation and invocation of the name of God being made by John Knox. John Ærskin of Dun, Superintendent of Angus and Mearnes, was chosen Moderator. In this Assembly Paul Methven’s supplication anent his receiving to repentance, &c., was read and considered. The Brethren were content to receive him, providing he presented himself personally before them, and shew evident signes of unfained repentance, and willingness to obey such a forme of repentance as they should enjoyne. As for deleting the processe out of their Books, they could no wayes condescend, neither thought they such a Petition could proceed of the Holy Spirit, seeing David, a notable servant of God, was not ashamed to leave in register his offence, to God’s glory and his own confusion. Anent his admission and re-entrie to the Ministrie within this Realme, it was ansuered, That could not be granted till the memorie of his former offence were more deeply buried, and some particular Kirks within the Realme made request for him. And, further, That his entrie in the Ministrie of England, hee being excommunicated and unreconciled to the Kirk, hath grievously offended them.” This paragraph is copied nearly verbatim from the Acts of Assembly, 27th December 1564. (Book of the Kirk, vol. i. p. 55.)
At the day appointed, the Parliament was held at Edinburgh, where the said Earle of Lenox was restored, after two and twenty years exile: He was banished, and forfeited by the Hamiltons, when they had the rule. There were some Articles given in by the Church, especially for the abolishing of the Masse universally, and for punishment of vice; but there was little thing granted, save that it was Statute, That scandalous livers should be punished first by prison, and then publikely shewen unto the people with ignominy; but the same was not put in execution.
In the end of this moneth of December, the Generall Assembly of the Church was held at Edinburgh:[1061] many things were ordained for setling of the affairs of the Church.
[1061] The General Assembly met on the 25th December 1564.
In the end of January the Queen past to Fyfe,[1062] and visiting the Gentlemen’s houses, was magnificently banquetted every where, so that such superfluity was never seen before within this Realme; which caused the wilde fowl to be so dear, that partridges were sold for a crown a piece. At this time was granted by an Act of Parliament, the confirmation of the feues of Church Lands, at the desire of divers Lords, whereof the Earle of Murray was chief. During the Queen’s absence, the Papists of Edinburgh went down to the Chappell to hear Masse; and seeing there was no punishment, they waxed more bold: some of them thinking thereby to please the Queen, upon a certain Sunday in February, they made an Even-song of their own, setting two Priests on the one side of the quire, and one or two on the other side, with Sandy Stevin, Menstrall, (baptizing their children, and making marriages,) who, within eight days after, convinced of blasphemy, alleadging, That he would give no more credit to the New Testament than to a tale of Robin Hood,[1063] except it were confirmed by the Doctors of the Church. The said superstitious Even-song was the occasion of a great slander, for many were offended with it; which being by the Brethren declared to the Lords of the Privy Councell, especially to the Earle of Murray, who lamented the cause to the Queen’s Majestie, shewing her what inconveniency should come if such things were suffered unpunished: And, after sharp reasoning, it was promised, That the like should not be done hereafter: The Queen also alleadged, That they were a great number; and that she could not trouble their conscience.
[1062] The Queen left Edinburgh on the 19th January 1564-5. Randolph, who followed soon after, transmitted to England an interesting account of his interviews with her at St. Andrews. (Chalmers’ Life of Queen Mary, vol. i. p. 123-127. Keith’s Hist., vol. ii. p. 261.) She afterwards visited Wemyss Castle. where she received Darnley’s first visit, on the 16th February, and returned to the Palace of Holyrood on the 24th of that month.
[1063] Randolph, in a letter to Cecil, dated 20th March 1564-5, refers to the excesses of both parties at this time; and in particular, that “one of the Queen’s chappel, a singing man, said, that he believed as well a tale of Robin Hood as any word is written in the Old Testament or New.” He further adds, the Queen’s “own Mass, and the resort into it; such blasphemies as there unpunished; her will to continue Papistry, and her desire to have all men live as they list, so offendeth the godly men’s consciences, and so many besides that desire alteration, that it is continually feared that these matters will shortly break out to some greater mischief.”
About the 20. of this moneth, arrived at Edinburgh, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley;[1064] from thence he passed to Fyffe: And in the place of Weemes he was admitted to kisse the Queen’s hand; whom she liked so well, that she preferred him before all others, as shall hereafter, God willing, be declared. Soon after, in the moneth of March, the Earle Bothwell arrived out of France; whereat the Earle of Murray was highly offended, because of the evil report made to him of the Lord Bothwell; and passing immediately to the Queen’s Majestie, demanded of her, If it was her will, or by her advice, that he was come home; and seeing he was his deadly enemy, either he or the other should leave the countrey, and therefore desired that he might have justice. Her answer was, That seeing the Earle Bothwell was a nobleman, and had done her service, she could not hate him: Nevertheless she would do nothing that might be prejudiciall to the Erle of Murray, but desired that the matter might be taken away. Within few days she caused summon the Earle Bothwell to answer to the course of law the 2d of May, for the conspiracy which the Earle of Arrane had alledged two years before, and for the breaking of the ward of the Castle. In the meanwhile there was nothing in the Court but banquetting, balling, and dancing, and other such pleasures as were meet to provoke the disordered appetite; and all for the entertainment of the Queen’s cousin from England, the Lord Darnley, to whom she did shew all the expressions imaginable of love and kindenesse.[1065] [1064] Henry Lord Darnley, then in the twentieth year of his age, arrived in Edinburgh, on the 13th February 1564-5. After visiting the Queen at Wemyss Castle, in Fife, on the 16th, he proceeded to Dunkeld, where his father the Earl of Lennox was residing; but he hastened back to Edinburgh to wait the Queen’s arrival at Holyrood.—In both edit. 1644, his name is always printed “Darley.”
[1065] Within a month of Darnley’s arrival in Scotland, Queen Mary had fixed her affections on him, as her proposed husband, and to communicate this to Queen Elizabeth, was the main object of Lethington’s mission to the English Court. He had arrived there on the 18th April, and had returned to Edinburgh on the 13th May 1565. (Chalmers’s Life of Queen Mary, vol. iii p. 551.)
Within few days, the Queen being at Sterlin, order was given to Secretary Lethington to pass to the Queen of England. The chief point of his message was, to declare to the Queen of England, That the Queen was minded to marry her cousin the Lord Darnley; and the rather, because he was so near of blood to both Queens: for by his mother, he was cousin-german to the Queen of Scotland, also of near kindred, and of the same name by his father: His mother was cousin-german to the Queen of England. Here mark God’s providence: King James the Fifth having lost his two sons, did declare his resolution to make the Earle of Lenox his heir of the Crown; but he prevented by sudden death, that design ceased. Then came the Earle of Lenox from France, with intention to marry King James his widow; but that failed also: He marries Mary[1066] Dowglas, and his son marrieth Mary, King James the Fifth his daughter. And so the King’s desire is fulfilled, to wit, The Crown continueth in the name and in the family. The Queen of England, nevertheless, shewed her self nothing pleased therewith, but rather declared, That she would in no wise suffer her subjects to make such contracts or alliance that might be prejudiciall to her; and for the same purpose sent a post to the Queen with letters, wherein she complained greatly of the mind of our Mistris, seeing the great affection she bare to her, intending to declare her heretrix of her Realme of England, providing only that she would use her counsell in marriage; but she could not approve her Marriage with the Lord Darnley, although he was their near cousin by birth, since he was below the rank of the Queen by condition, being but a private subject. At the same time she wrote to the Earle of Lenox, and to his son, commanding them to repair both into England. Some write, That all this was but counterfeit by the Queen of England, and from her heart she was glad of the marriage, for by that means the Succession of the Crown of England was secured, the Lord Darnley being the right heir after the Queen of Scotland: and Queen Elizabeth was not angry to see her married to one of inferior rank, for by that means she thought the Scots Queen would be less proud.
[1066] An error in both edit. 1644 for Lady Margaret Douglas: see page 336, note 2.
[Sidenote: At this time an Italian named Davie, entered in great familiarity with the Queen so that there was nothing done without him.]
During this time there were certain letters directed to the Brethren of Edinburgh, to Dundie, Fyfe, Angus, and Mernes, and other places, from the Brethren of Kyle, and other places in the West Countrey, desiring the professors of the Evangel in all places, to remember what the Eternall God had wrought, and how potently he had abolished all kind of idolatry and superstition, and placed his word in this Realm, so that no man could say otherwise but it was the work of God, who also had delivered this countrey from the bondage and tyranny of strangers: Nevertheless by our slothfulness, we have suffered that idol the Masse not only to be planted again, but to increase so, that the maintainers thereof are like, by all appearance, to get the upper hand, which would be the occasion of our destruction: And for that the Papists purposed to set up their idol at Easter following, in all places, which was to be imputed to the slothfulness and want of godly zeal of the professors. Therefore they admonished the Brethren to strive to avert the evil in time, and not to suffer such wickedness to continue and encrease, lest God’s heavy wrath come upon us unawares like a consuming fire. By these letters many Brethren were animated, and their spirits wakened, minding to provide as God should give them grace. And first of all, by the advice of the most learned in Edinburgh, there was a Supplication made, and given to the Queen’s Majestie by the Superintendent of Lowthian, containing, in effect, That the Church in generall of the Realme, had divers times most humbly craved of her Majesty, That committers of adultery should be punished according to the law of God and the Acts of Parliament, nevertheless they continued in their wickednes; and the Papists, of obstinate malice, pretended nothing else but to erect and set up their idolatry and superstition; and at Easter day following, they intended to put the same in practice, which the Brethren and Professors of the Evangel could not suffer; therefore wished her Majestie to take heed of the matter.
This Supplication the Secretary received of the hands of the Superintendents of Lowthian and Glasgow, and told them, in the Queen’s name, That there should be such provision made as should serve to their contentment: And for the same purpose, the Queen’s Majestie writ to all such places as were suspected, especially to the Bishop of Saint Andrewes and Aberdeine, (as was said,) not to use any Masse, and that they should not do any such thing as was feared by the Protestants, or convene any Councell, and thereto commanded them. Now the Communion was administred in Edinburgh, the 1st day of April 1565: At which time, because it was near Easter, the Papists used to meet at their Masse; and as some of the Brethren were diligent to search such things, they having with them one of the Bayliffs, took one Sir James Carvet, riding hard, as he had now ended the saying of the Masse, and conveyed him, together with the master of the house, and one or two more of the assistants, to the Tolbuith, and immediately revested him with all his garments upon him, and so carried him to the Market-Crosse, where they set him on high, binding the chalice in his hand, and himself fast tyed to the said Crosse, where he tarried the space of one hour; during which time the boyes served him with his Easter eggs. The next day following, the said Carvet, with his assistants, were accused and convinced by an assize, according to the Act of Parliament: And albeit for the same offence he deserved death, yet for all punishment, he was set upon the Market-Crosse for the space of three or four hours, the hangman standing by, and keeping him, the boyes and others were busie with eggs casting; and some Papists there were that stopped as far as they could: And as the presse of people encreased about the Crosse, there appeared to have been some tumult. The Provost, Archibald Dowglas, came with some Halberdiers, and carried the Priest safe againe to the Tolbuith. The Queen being advertised, and having received sinister information that the Priest was dead, suddenly thought to have used and inflicted some extreme punishment; for she thought that all this was done in contempt of her, and of her Religion; and it was affirmed, That the Towne should have been sacked, and a great number executed to death: she sent to such as she pleassed, commanding them to come to her at Edinburgh suddenly with their whole forces; and in the mean time she sent her Advocate, Master Spence of Condie, to Edinburgh, to take a sure triall of the matter. The Provost and Councell wrote to the Queen the truth of the matter as it was, desiring her Majestie to take the same in good part, and not to give credit to false reports, and therewith sent to her Majestie the processe and enrolment of the Court of the Priest convict. Thus the Queen’s Majestie being informed of the truth by her said Advocate, sent againe, and stayed the said meeting of men, and sent to the Town a grave Letter, whereof the copie followeth:— The Queen’s Letter to the Provest, Bailiffe, and Councell of Edinburgh. “PROVEST, Bayliffe, and Councell of our Citie of Edinburgh, We received your letter from our Advocate, and understand by this report what diligence you took to stay the tumult in the late disorder attempted at Edinburgh; wherein, as you did your duty in suppressing the tumult, so can We not take in good part, nor think our self satisfied of so notorious a thing, without certain seditious persons, who were pleased to do justice perforce and without the Magistrates authoritie, be condignly and really punished for their rashnesse and misbehaviour; for if all private persons should usurpe to take vengeance at their own hands, what lies in ours? And to what purpose hath good laws and statutes been established? Since, therefore, We have never been obstinate to the due punishment of any offenders, prescribed by the lawes, but have alwayes maintained justice in that case without respect of persons, it is our will, and We command you, as you will answer to us upon your obedience and allegiance, that you will take before you certane of the most responsall persons which are declared authors of the said sedition, and usurpers of our authority, and to administer justice upon them, in such sort as We may know a sinceritie on your parts, and our authority no wayes slighted. But if you faile, perswade your selves, (and that shortly,) We will not oversee it, but will account this contempt not only to be in the committers thereof, but in yourselves, who ought to punish it, and relieve us on our part, remitting the rest to your diligence and execution, which We look for so soon as reason will permit.
“Subscribed with our hand at Sterlin, this 24. of April, Anno 1565.”
By this manner of writing and high threatning, may be perceived how grievously the Queen’s Majestie would have been offended if the said Tarbot[1067] and Messe-monger had been handled according to his demerite, being not only a Papist idolater, but a manifest whoremaster, and a common fighter and blasphemer; nevertheless, within few dayes the Queen charged the Provest and Bailiffs to set him at libertie, commanding them further, that no man should trouble nor molest him in any sort for whatsoever cause, and soon after rewarded him with a benefice, and likewise his assisters, John Low and John Kennedie, set at libertie in the same manner. At this Easter-tyde, in Sterlin, the Queen made her domestick servants use Papisticall rites and ceremonies, and more, she perswaded others by faire means to do the same, and threatned those that were most constant at the Earle of Cassels house.
[1067] So in both edit. 1644; but at page 476 the name is “Carvet.” Upon the second day of May 1565, conveened at Edinburgh, the Earl of Murray with his friends in great numbers, to keepe the day of law against the Earle of Bothwell; who being called, appeared not, only the Laird of Rickerton protested, That the personall absence of the Earle Bothwell should not be prejudiciall to him, by reason, that for just fear, which might happen in the heart of any man, since he had so potent an enemy as the Lord of Murray, who, next the Queen’s Majesty, was of greatest estimation and authority of any man within this Realm, to whom assisted at this present day of law, seven or eight hundred men, which force he could not resist, and therefore had absented himself; which protestation being made, those that had been sureties for his appearance, were outlawed. The said Earle Bothwell, a few dayes after, past into France, after he had been in Liddesdale, where, suspecting almost every man, he was not in great assurance of his life, notwithstanding he was not put to the horne; for the Queen continually bore a great favour towards him, and kept him to be a souldier, as appeared within lesse than half a year; for she would not suffer the Lord Morton, nor my Lord Ariskin, my Lord of Murray’s great friends, to keep the day. There assisted my Lord of Murray, the Earles of Argyle, Glenearne, and Crawford, with great numbers, and many Lords and Barons, who for the most part conveened the same afternoon to treat and consult for the maintaining of Religion; where some articles were devised, and delivered to the Lord of Murray to be presented to the Queen’s Majestie and Privie Councell; which articles were enlarged at the Generall Assembly following, as shall be declared.
In the meane time, as they were informed in Court of this great Assembly of people in Edinburgh, they were affraid, for naturally the Queen hated and suspected all such Conventions as were not in her own presence, and devised by her self. The chief Counsellors in the Court were the Earls of Lenox and Athole. The Queen writ incontinent for all the Lords to come to Sterlin, so soone as she was advertised that they had treated in Edinburgh of Religion; she writ likewise for the Superintendants and other learned men who went thither, and being there, they caused to keep the ports or gates, and make good watch about the towne. The speciall cause of this Convention was to give to the Lord Darnley title of honour, openly and solemnly, with consent of the Nobles, before the marriage.
The fourth day of May the Earle of Murray came to Sterlin, where he was well received by the Queen’s Majestie, as appeared; and immediately, as he past with her to my Lord Darnley’s chamber, they presented to him a contract, containing in effect, That forasmuch, as, or since, the Queen had contracted marriage with the Lord Darnley, and that therefore sundry Lords of the Nobilitie had under-written, ratified, and approved the same, and obliged themselves to grant unto him in full Parliament the Crowne Matrimoniall, (by a new Court solecisme in policie, the Crowne for the second time is surnamed Matrimoniall; before, when the Queen was first married, it was so called also,) to serve and obey him and her as their lawfull Soveraignes. The Queen desired my Lord Murray to subscribe, as many others had done before; which hee refused to do, “Because, (said he,) it is required necessarily that the whole Nobility be present, at least the principall, and such as he himself was posteriour unto, before that so grave a matter should be advised and concluded.” The Queen’s Majesty no wayes content with this answer, insisted still upon him, saying, The greatest part of the Nobilitie were there present and content with the matter, wished him to be so much a Stewart, as to consent to the keeping of the Crown in the family, and the surname, according to their Father’s will and desire, as was said of him a little before his death: But he still refused for the causes above written.
Now as the Lords were assembled, an Ambassadour from England, named Sir Nicholas Throckmorton,[1068] arrived at Sterlin, and in his company the Laird of Lethington; the Ambassador was at the Castle gate or ever they were aware; and as he stood there in the entry, he was desired to passe to his lodgings. The next day he had audience of the Queen, and was graciously received according to the dignity of his message. The whole summe of this his message was, to shew and declare to the Queen, how highly the Queen his mistris was offended with this precipitated marriage, and wondered what had moved her to take a man of inferiour rank and condition to her selfe: and therefore disswaded her therefrom. And specially desiring her most earnestly to send home her subjects, the Earle of Lennox and the Lord Darnley: but all in vaine; for the matter was well farre proceeded. In her heart Queen Elizabeth was not angry at this marriage; first, because if Queen Mary had married a foraign Prince, it had been an accesse to her greatnesse, and consequently she had been more redoubted by the other; next, both Harry and Mary were alike and in equall degree of consanguinitie unto her, the father of Mary and the mother of Harry being children to her Father’s sister.
[1068] Throckmorton, in his letter to the Queen of England, on the 20th May 1565, mentions that he reached Edinburgh on the 13th, and Stirling on the morning of 15th May; when, he says, “At my arrival at the Castle, the gates were shut against me, whether it proceeded from fear, or of some other passion, I know not. I thus remaining some time before the gate, there came unto me the Master of Arskine and the Justice-Clerk, who desired me, in the Queen their Mistress’s behalf, to retire unto my lodging which was appointed in the town, saying, that after I had reposed myself, the Queen did mind to give me audience.” (Keith’s History, vol. ii. p. 279.)
With many fair words the Queen let the Ambassadour depart, promising to do all she could to satisfie the Queen of England; and for the same purpose she would send an Ambassador to her.
[Sidenote: The Earl of Murray seeing the other Nobles consent gave his, which before he refused.]
In the meane time the Queen’s marriage with the Lord Darnley was prepared and propounded in Councell, and the chief of the Nobilitie, such as the Duke, the Earles of Argyle, Murray, Glenearne, with the rest, granted freely to the same, providing that they might have the Religion established in Parliament, by the Queene, and the idolatrous Masse and Superstition abolished; shortly it was concluded, that they should convene again to Saint Johnstoun, where the Queen promised to take a finall order for Religion. The day was appointed, to wit, the last of May, at Perth: my Lord of Argile came too late. The Queen’s Majestie communed with the Lords, who were very plain with her, saying, Except the Masse were abolished, there should be no quietnesse in the countrey. The twelfth day of May the Lord Darnley was belted, (that is, created) Earle of Rosse, with great solemnity, a belt or girdle being tyed about his waist or middle; and albeit all kinde of provision was made to make him Duke of Rothesay, yet at that time it came not to effect, albeit the crown and robe-royall were prepared to him for the same. For the entertainment of this triumph there were many Knights made, to the number of fourteen.[1069] The next day, which was the thirteenth of May, the Queen called for the Superintendants, by name John Willock, John Winram, and John Spotswood, whom she cherished with faire words, assuring them, that she desired nothing more earnestly than the glory of God, and satisfying of men’s consciences, and the good of the Commonwealth; and albeit she was not perswaded in any Religion but in that wherein she was brought up, yet she promised to them that she would hear conference and disputation in the Scriptures: And likewise she would be content to hear publike preaching, but alwayes out of the mouth of such as pleased her Majestie; and above all others, she said, she would gladly hear the Superintendant of Angus, (for he was a mild and sweet natured man,) with true honesty and uprightnesse, John Ariskin[1070] of Dun.
[1069] According to a memorial transmitted by Sir Nicholas Throckmorton to Queen Elizabeth, this ceremony took place at Stirling on the 15th May; and he enumerates the names and titles of the fourteen Knights. (Keith’s History, vol. ii. p. 289.)
[1070] In the Lond. edit. 1644, “Sir Ariskin;” in the Edinb. edit. “Sir Ærskin.”
Soon after the Queen past to Saint Johnston, after that she had directed Master John Hay,[1071] Prior of Monimusk, to passe to England, who sped at the Queen of England’s hand, even as Sir Nicholas Throckmorton did in Scotland.
[1071] Mr. John Hay was Master of Requests, a Privy Counsellor, and Commendator of Balmerinoch. He died on the 3d December 1573. (Register of Confirmed Testaments.)
Before the day which was appointed for the meeting at Saint Johnston, my Lord of Murray, most carefull of the maintenance of Religion, sent to all the principall Churches, advertising them of the matter, and desiring them to advise, and send the most able men in learning and reputation, to keep the day; but their craft and dissimulation appeared, for the Dean of Restalrigge who lately arrived out of France,[1072] with others, such as Mr. John Lesley, Parson of Oyne,[1073] afterward Bishop of Rosse, caused the Queen to understand that thing whereof she was easily perswaded, to wit, That there ought to be given to all men libertie of conscience, and for this purpose to shun or put off the first day appointed. The Queen writ to the Nobility, That because she was informed that there was great meetings out of every shire and town in great number; and then the other partie, (so termed she the Papists,) were minded to gether to the said Convention, which should apparently make trouble or sedition, rather than any other thing; therefore she thought it expedient, and willed them to stay the said meetings, and to deferre the same till such a day that she should appoint with advice of her Councell. At this time there was a Parliament proclaimed to be held at Edinburgh the twentieth day of July. By this Letter, some of the Protestants having best judgement, thought themselves sufficiently warned of the inconveniences and troubles to come. Now her Councell at this time was only the Earles of Lenox and Athole, the Lord Ruthven, but chiefely David Rizio the Italian ruled all; yet the Earle of Rosse[1074] [was] already in greatest credit and familiarity.
[1072] Queen Mary applied for a safe conduct to “Maister John Sinclair, Deane of Restalrig, being from the partes of France, and willing to returne hameward,” 18th September 1561. (Labanoff, Recueil, vol. i. p. 227) [1073] In both edit. 1644, Lesley is called “Parson of Vune,” an error for Une, or Oyne, in Aberdeenshire: see the Appendix to this volume. [1074] Henry Lord Darnley: see page 495.
These Letters were sent out to the Lords about the eight and twentieth day of May; and within twelve dayes thereafter, she directed new missives to the chief of the Nobility, desiring, or commanding them, to come to Saint Johnston the three and twentieth day of June following, to consult upon such things as concerned Religion, and other things, as her Majesty should propose; Which day was even the day before that the Generall Assembly should have been held in Edinburgh. This last Letter uttered the effect of the former; so that the Protestants thought themselves sufficiently warned. Always as the Earle of Murray was passing to Saint Johnston to have kept the said day, he chanced to fall sick of the fluxes in Lochleven, where he remained till the Queen came forth of Saint Johnston to Edinburgh, where the Generall Assembly of the whole Church of Scotland was held the four and twentieth day of July.[1075] The Earles of Argyle and Glencarne assisted the Church, with a great company of Lods, Barons, and others: It was there ordered and concluded, That certain Gentlemen, as Commissioners from the Church National, should passe to the Queen’s Majestie, with certain Articles, to the number of six, desiring her most humbly to ratifie and approve the same in Parliament.
[1075] The General Assembly met at Edinburgh, on the 25th June 1565. And because the said ARTICLES are of great weight, and worthy of memory, I thought good to insert the same word by word.[1076] [1076] The Articles here inserted were drawn up by John Erskine of Dun, John Willock, Christopher Goodman, and John Row; and, on the following day, they received the Assembly’s approbation.
Imprimis, That the Papisticall and blasphemous Masse, with all Papisticall idolatry, and Papall jurisdiction, be universally supprest and abolisht thorowout this Realme, not only in the subjects, but also in the Queen’s own person, with punishment against all persons that should be deprehended to transgresse and offend in the same: And that the sincere word of God, and Christ’s true Religion, now at this present received, be established, approved, and ratified, thorowout the whole Realme, as well in the Queen’s own person as in the subjects: And that the people be [astricted] to resort upon the Sundays at the least, to the prayers and preaching of God’s word, even as they were before to the idolatrous Masse: And these Heads to be provided by Act of Parliament, and ratified by the Queen’s Majesty.
Secondly, That [sure] provision be made for sustentation of the Ministry, as well for the time present, as the time to come: And that such persons as are presently admitted to the Ministry, may have their livings assigned unto them, in places where they travell in their calling, or at least next adjacent thereto: And that the Benefices now vacant, or hath been vacant since the month of March 1558, or that hereafter shall happen to be vacant, be disponed to qualified and learned persons, able to preach God’s Word, and discharge the vocation concerning the Ministry, by tryall and admission of the Superintendents and Overseers: And that no Benefice or Living, having many Churches annexed thereunto, be disponed altogether in any time to come, to any [one] man, but at the least the Churches thereof be severally disponed, and that to severall persons; so that every man having charge may serve at his own church according to his vocation: And to that effect, likewise the Gleebs and the Manses be given to the Ministers, that they may make residency at their Churches, whereby they may discharge their consciences according to their vocation; and also, that the Kirks may be repaired accordingly; and that a law be made and established hereupon by Act of Parliament, as said is.
Thirdly, That none be permitted to have charge of Souls, [Schools,] Colledges, or Universities, neither privately or publickly to teach and instruct the youth, but such as shall be tried by the Superintendents or Visitors of churches, and found sound and able in doctrine, and admitted by them to their charges.
Fourthly, For the Sustentation of the Poor, That all lands founded for hospitality of old be restored again to the same use; and that all lands, annual-rents, or any other emoluments, pertaining any ways sometimes to the Friers, of whatsoever Order they had been of; as likewise the annuities, alterages, obits, and other duties pertaining to Priests, to be applied to the sustentation of the poor, and uphold of the town-schools in towns, and other places where they lie.
Fifthly, That such horrible crimes as now abound within this Realme, without any correction, to the great contempt of God and his Word; such as Idolatry, blasphemie of God’s name, manifest breaking of the Sabbath-day, witchcraft, sorcery, inchantment, adultery, manifest whoredome, maintenance of bordals, murther, slaughter, oppression, with many other detestable crimes, may be severely punished; and Judges appointed in every province and diocesse, for execution thereof, with power to do the same, and that by Act of Parliament.
Lastly, That some order be devised and established for ease of the poor labourers of the ground, concerning the [un]reasonable payment of the tythes, who are oppressed by the leasers of the tythes set over their heads, without their own consent and advice.
The persons who were appointed by the Church to carry these Articles, and present them to the Queen’s Majestie, were the Lairds of Cunninghamhead, Lundie, Spot, and Grange of Angus, and James Baron for the Broughs:[1077] These five past from Edinburgh to Saint Johnston, where they presented the said Articles to the Queen’s Majestie, desiring and requiring her Highnesse most humbly to advise therewith, and to give them answer. The next day, ere they were aware, the Queen departed to Dunkeld, and immediately they followed; and after they had gotten audience, they desired the Queen’s Majestie most humbly to give their dispatch. She answered, That her Councell was not there present, but she intended to be in Edinburgh within eight dayes, and there they should receive their answer.
[1077] These five Commissioners were, Walter Lundie of Lundie, in Fife; William Cunningham of Cunninghamhead, in Ayrshire; William Durham of Grange, in Forfarshire; George Hume of Spot, in Berwickshire, and James Barron, merchant-burgess of Edinburgh.
At the same time, as the Generall Assembly was holden in Edinburgh, the Brethren perceiving the Papists to brag, and trouble like to be, they assembled themselves at Saint Leonard’s Craig,[1078] where they concluded they would defend themselves; and for the same purpose, elected eight persons of the most able, two of every quarter, to see that the Brethren should be ready armed.
[1078] The district of St. Leonard’s is now included in the suburbs of Edinburgh. It is on the south side of the city, immediately in front of Salisbury Crags.
And when the five Commissioners above named had waited upon the Court four or five days after her Majesties coming to Edinburgh, there the matter was proposed in Councell: And after long and earnest reasoning upon these Articles, at length it was answered to the Commissioners by the Secretary, That the Queen’s Majesties command was, That the matter should be reasoned in her presence; which for the gravitie of the same, there could nothing be concluded at that time, albeit the Queen’s Majestie had heard more in that matter then ever she did before: But within eight days thereafter, she understood that a great part of the Nobilitie should be present in Edinburgh, where they should have a final answer.
At length, the one and twentieth of August, they received the answer in writing in her presence, according to the tenour hereof, as followeth:—
The Queen’s Majesties Answer to the Articles Presented To
Her Highnesse, by Certain Gentlemen, in the Name of The
Whole Assemblie of the Church
To the first, Desiring the Masse to be suppressed and abolished, as well in the head as in the members, with punishment against the contraveners; as also, the Religion professed to be Established by Act of Parliament: It was answered first, for her Majesties part, That her Highness is no way yet perswaded in the said Religion, nor yet that any impiety is in the Masse; and therefore believeth, that her loving subjects will not press her to receive any Religion against her conscience, which should be unto her a continuall trouble by remorse of conscience, and therewith a perpetuall unquietness. And to deal plainly with her subjects, her Majesty neither will nor may leave the Religion wherein she hath been nourished and brought up, and believeth the same to be well-grounded; knowing, besides the grudge of conscience that she should receive, upon the change of her own Religion, that she should lose the friendship of the King of France, the married Allia of this Realme, and of other great Princes her friends and confederates, who would take the same in evil part, and of whom she may look for their great support in all her necessities. And having no assured consideration that may countervail the same, she will be loth to put in hazard all her friends at an instant; praying all her loving subjects, seeing they have had experience of her goodness, that she hath neither in times past, not yet intends hereafter, to press the conscience of any [man,] but that they may worship God in such sort, as they are preswaded in their conscience to be best, that they will also not presse her conscience.
As to the establishing of Religion in the body of the Realme, they themselves know, as appears by their Articles, that the same cannot be done only by consent of her Majestie, but requires necessarily the consent of the [three] States in Parliament; and therefore so soon as the Parliament holds, those things which the [three] States agree upon amongst themselves, her Majestie shall consent unto the same; and in the mean time shall make sure, that no man be troubled for using [themselves in] religion according to conscience; so that no man shall have cause to doubt, that for religion’s sake men’s lives and heritage shall be in any hazard.
To the second Article, it is answered, That her Majestie thinks it no wayes reasonable, that she should defraud her self of so great a part of the patrimony of the Crowne, as to put the Patronage of Benefices forth of her own hands; for her owne necessity in bearing of her port and common charges will require the retention thereof, and that in a good part, in her owne hands: Neverthelesse her Majestie is well pleased, that consideration being bad of her owne necessity, and what may be sufficient for [her, and for] the reasonable sustentation of the Ministers, a speciall assignation he made to them in places most commodious and meet: with which her Majesty shall not meddle, but suffer the same to come to them.
To the third Article, it is answered, That her Majestie shall do therein as shall be agreed by the States in Parliament.
To the fourth Article, Her Majesties liberality towards the poore shall alwayes be so far extended, as can be reasonably required at her hands.
To the fifth and sixth Articles, Her Majesty will refer the taking order therein unto the States assembled in Parliament.[1079] [1079] The Queen’s Answers to the Articles were presented by the Commissioners at the next meeting of the General Assembly, on the 25th December 1565. They were declared to be unsatisfactory to the Kirk, and Mr. John Row was directed “to put in wryte, Answers to the Answers.” These Answers are inserted in the Book of the Universall Kirk, vol. i. p. 69; and also the Supplication, which the Assembly on the 26th December prepared “to be presented to the Queen and Counsell, by the Lord Lindesay, and David Murray, brother to the Laird of Balvaird.” (Book of the Univ. Kirk, vol. i. p. 71.)
As the Queen’s Majestie came from Saint Johnston, over Forth to the Callender, she was conveyed to the water side of Forth with two hundred spears: For at that time it was bruted, that there was some