Footnotes

John Knox and the Reformation — Andrew Lang

{0a} Inventories of Mary, Queen of Scots, p. cxxii., note 7.

{0b} Hume Brown, John Knox, ii.320-324.

{2a} Probably Mrs. Knox died in her son's youth, and his father married again. Catholic writers of the period are unanimous in declaring that Knox had a stepmother.

{2b} Knox, Laing's edition, iv.78.

{4} See Young's letter, first published by Professor Hume Brown, John Knox, vol. ii. Appendix, 320-324.

{5} Laing, in his Knox, vi. xxi. xxii.

{6} Knox, i.36-40. The facts are pointed out by Professor Cowan in The Athenaeum, December 3, 1904, and had been recognised by Dr. Hay Fleming.

{7} Beza, writing in 1580, says that study of St. Jerome and St. Augustine suggested his doubts. Icones Virorum Doctrina Simul ac Pietate Illustrium.

{9} Pollen, Papal Negotiations with Mary Stuart, 428-430, 522, 524, 528.

{10} Knox, vi.172, 173.

{12} Letter of Young to Beza. Hume Brown, John Knox, ii.322-24.

{15a} Cf. Life of George Wishart, by the Rev. Charles Rodger, 7-12 (1876).

{15b} Maxwell, Old Dundee, 83, 84.

{17} M'Crie's Knox, 24 (1855).

{18a} "Letter to the Faithful," cf. M'Crie, Life of John Knox, 292.

{18b} Knox, vi.229.

{19} M'Crie, 292.

{20} Dr. Hay Fleming has impugned this opinion, but I am convinced by the internal evidence of tone and style in the tract; indeed, an earlier student has anticipated my idea. The tract is described by Dr. M'Crie in his Life of Knox, 326-327 (1855).

{22} Most of the gentry of Fife were in the murder or approved of it, and the castle seems to have contained quite a pleasant country-house party. They were cheered by the smiles of beauty, and in the treasurer's accounts we learn that Janet Monypenny of Pitmilly (an estate still in the possession of her family), was "summoned for remaining in the castle, and assisting" the murderers. Dr. M'Crie cites Janet in his list of "Scottish Martyrs and Prosecutions for Heresy" (Life of Knox, 315). This martyr was a cousin, once removed, of the murdered ecclesiastic.

{23a} Knox, Laing's edition, i.180.

{23b} Knox, i.182. "The siege continued to near the end of January." "The truce was of treacherous purpose," i.183.

{24} Knox, i.203-205.

{25a} Thorpe's Calendar, i.60; Register Privy Council, i.57, 58; Tytler, vi.8 (1837).

{25b} State Papers, Scotland, Thorpe, i.61.

{25c} Bain, Calendar of Scottish Papers, 1547-69, i. I; Tytler, iii.51 (1864).

{26a} Bain i.2; Knox, i.182, 183.

{26b} For the offering of the papal remission to the garrison of the castle before April 2, 1547, see Stewart of Cardonald's letter of that date to Wharton, in Bain's Calendar of Scottish Papers, 1547-69, i.4-5.

{27a} John Knox, i.80.

{27b} State Papers, Domestic. Addenda, Edward VI., p.327. Lord Eure says there were twenty galleys.

{27c} Odet De Selve, Correspondence Politique, pp.170-178.

{28} Knox, i.201.

{30a} Leonti Strozzio, incolumitatem modo pacti, se dediderunt, writes Buchanan. Professor Hume Brown says that Buchanan evidently confirms Knox; but incolumitas means security for bare life, and nothing more. Lesley says that the terms asked were life and fortune, salvi cum fortunis, but the terms granted were but safety in life and limb, and, it seems, freedom to depart, ut soli homines integri discederent. If Lesley, a Catholic historian, is right, and if by discederent he means "go freely away," the French broke the terms of surrender.

{30b} Knox, i.206, 228.

{33a} Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 261.

{33b} Ibid., 158.

{33c} Ibid., 156, 157.

{35} Compare the preface, under the Restoration, to our existing prayer book.

{36a} Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 98-136.

{36b} Knox, iii.122.

{37a} Knox, iii.297.

{37b} Ibid., iii.122.

{38a} Knox, iii.280-282.

{38b} Lorimer, i.162-176.

{39} But, for the date, cf. Hume Brown, John Knox, i.148; and M'Crie, 65, note 5; Knox, iii.156.

{40a} Knox, iii.120.

{40b} Laing, Knox, vi. pp. lxxx., lxxxi.

{40c} Pollen, The Month, September 1897.

{43} Knox, iii.366.

{45} Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, 259.

{47a} Original Letters, Parker Society, 745-747; Knox, iii.221-226.

{47b} M'Crie, 65 (1855); Knox, iii.235.

{48} Knox, iii.184.

{49a} Knox, iii.309.

{49b} Ibid., iii.328, 329.

{49c} Ibid., iii.194.

{54} cf. Hume Brown, ii.299, for the terms.

{56} John Knox, i.174, 175; Corp. Ref., xliii.337-344.

{58} For the Frankfort affair, see Laing's Knox, iv.1-40, with Knox's own narrative, 41-49; the letters to and from Calvin, 51-68. Calvin, in his letter to the Puritans at Frankfort, writes: "In the Anglican Liturgy, as you describe it, I see many trifles that may be put up with," Prof. Hume Brown's rendering of tolerabiles ineptias. The author of the "Troubles at Frankfort" (1575) leaves out "as you describe it," and renders "In the Liturgie of Englande I see that there were manye tollerable foolishe thinges." But Calvin, though he boasts him "easy and flexible in mediis rebus, such as external rites," is decidedly in favour of the Puritans.

{60} Knox i.244.

{62a} Knox, i.245, note I.

{62b} Ibid., iv.245.

{66} I conceive these to have been the arguments of the party of compromise, judging from the biblical texts which they adduced.

{67} Knox, i.247-249.

{71a} Knox, i.92.

{71b} Ibid., iv.75-84.

{73} Knox; iv.238-240.

{74} We shall see that reformers like Lord James and Glencairn seem, at this moment, to have sided with Mary of Guise.

{76a} Knox, i.267-270.

{76b} Corpus Reformatorum, xlvi.426.

{77a} More probably by Calvin's opinion.

{77b} Knox, iv.248-253; i.267-273.

{78} Stevenson, Selected MSS., pp.69, 70 (1827); Bain, i.585; Randolph to Cecil, January 2, 1561.

{80a} Knox, iv.255-276.

{80b} Ibid., i.273, 274.

{81a} Knox, i.275, 276.

{81b} Ibid., i.273, 274.

{83} Knox, iv.501, 502.

{84} Knox, iv.358. Zurich Letters, 34-36.

{85} Knox, iv.486, 488.

{87a} Wodrow Miscellany, vol. i.

{87b} Here the "Historie of the Estate" is corroborated by the Treasurer's Accounts, recording payment to Rothesay Herald. He is summoning George Lovell, David Ferguson (a preacher, later minister of Dunfermline), and others unnamed to appear at Edinburgh on July 28, to answer for "wrongous using and wresting of the Scriptures, disputing upon erroneous opinions, and eating flesh in Lent," and at other times forbidden by Acts of Parliament (M'Crie, 359, note G). Nothing is here said about riotous iconoclasm, but Lovell had been at the hanging of an image of St. Francis as early as 1543, and in many such godly exercises, or was accused of these acts of zeal.

{87c} "Historie of the Estate of Scotland," Wodrow Miscellany, i.53-55.

{88a} Knox, i.301.

{88b} Knox appears (he is very vague) to date Calder's petition after Willock's second visit, which the "Historie of the Estate of Scotland" places in October 1558. Dr. M'Crie accepts that date, but finds that Knox places Calder's petition before the burning of Myln, in April 1559. Dr. M'Crie suggests that perhaps Calder petitioned twice, but deems Knox in the right. As the Reformer contradicts himself, unless there were two Calder petitions (i.301, i.307), he must have made an oversight.

{88c} Hume Brown, John Knox, ii. Appendix, 301-303.

{88d} Knox, i.301-306

{89a} Knox, i.294, 301-312. On p.294 Knox dates the Parliament in October.

{89b} Knox, i.309-312.

{90a} Knox, i.312-314.

{90b} See Laing's edition, i.320, 321.

{91} Wodrow Miscellany, i.55.

{92a} M'Crie, Knox, 359, 360.

{92b} Knox, i.306, 307.

{93a} Knox, i.307.

{93b} "Historie," Wodrow Miscellany, i.55, 56.

{93c} Knox, i.312-314.

{94a} "Historie," Wodrow Miscellany, 56.

{94b} Melville, 76, 77 (1827).

But Professor Hume Brown appears to be misled in saying that Bettencourt, or Bethencourt, did not reach Scotland till June (John Knox, i.344i note i), citing Forbes, i.141. Bethencourt "passed Berwick on April 13" (For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 214) to negotiate the Scottish part in the peace, signed at Upsettlington (May 31). Bethencourt would be with the Regent by April 15, and he may have confirmed her in summoning the preachers who defied her proclamations, though, with or without his advice, she could do no less.

{95a} Pitscottie, ii.523.

{95b} State Papers, Borders, vol. i. No.421 MS.

{96a} Affaires Etrangeres, Angleterre, vol. xv. MS.

{96b} Forbes, 97; Throckmorton to Cecil, May 18.

{96c} For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 272.

{97} Melville, 80.

{98a} Statuta, &c. Robertson, vol. i. clv-clxii.

{98b} Book of Discipline. Knox, ii.253, 254.

{99a} M'Crie, 360.

{99b} The Regent's account of the whole affair, as given by Francis and Mary to the Pope, is vague and mistily apologetic. (Published in French by Prof. Hume Brown, ii.300-302.) The Regent wrote from Dunbar, July 1559, that she had in vain implored the Pope to aid her in reforming the lives of the clergy (as in 1556-57). Their negligence had favoured, though she did not know it (and she says nothing about it in 1556-57), the secret growth of heresy. Next, a public preacher arose in one town (probably Paul Methuen in Dundee) introducing the Genevan Church. The Regent next caused the bishops to assemble the clergy, bidding them reform their lives, and then repress heresy. She also called an assembly of the Estates, when most of the Lords, hors du conseil et a part, demanded "a partial establishment of the new religion." This was refused, and the Provincial Council (of March 1559) was called for reform of the clergy. Nothing resulted but scandal and popular agitation. Public preachers arose in the towns. The Regent assembled her forces, and the Lords and Congregation began their career of violence.

{100} As to Knox's account of this reforming Provincial Council (Knox, i.291, 292), Lord Hailes calls it "exceedingly partial and erroneous . . . no zeal can justify a man for misrepresenting an adversary." Bold language for a judge to use in 1769! Cf. Robertson, Statuta, i. clxii, note I.

{101} Knox, v.15-17.

{102a} Knox, v.207, 208.

{102b} Ibid., v.229.

{102c} Ibid., v.420, 421.

{102d} Ibid., v.495-523. [This footnote is provided in the original book but isn't referenced in the text. DP.]

{104} John Knox and the Church of England, 215-218.

{105} Knox, ii.460, 461. We return to this point.

{107} Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium Majoris Brit. Catalogus Poster., p.219 (1559). Knox, i.258-261.

{108a} Dieppe, April 10-April 22, 1559. Knox, vi.15-21.

{108b} Desmarquets, Mem. Chronol. Jour. l'Hist, de Dieppe, i.210.

{109a} Corp. Ref., xlv. (Calv., xvii.) 541.

{109b} Naissance de l'Heresie a Dieppe, Rouen, 1877, ed. Lesens.

{111} Knox, i.321-323.

{112} Knox, vi.23.

{113a} Corpus Reformatorum, xlvi.609, xlvii.409-411, August 13, 1561.

{113b} The learned Dr. M'Crie does not refer to this letter to Mrs. Locke, but observes: "None of the gentry or sober part of the congregation were concerned in this unpremeditated tumult; it was wholly confined to the lowest of the inhabitants" (M'Crie's Life of Knox, 127, 1855). Yet an authority dear to Dr. M'Crie, "The Historie of the Estate of Scotland," gives the glory, not to the lowest of the inhabitants, but to "the brethren." Professor Hume Brown blames "the Perth mob," and says nothing of the action of the "brethren," as described to Mrs. Locke by Knox. John Knox, ii.8.

{117} Theses of Erastus. Rev. Robert Lee. Edinburgh, 1844.

{120} Knox, i.341,342; vi.24. Did the brethren promise nothing but the evacuation of Perth?

{121a} "Historie," Wodrow Miscellany, i.58.

{121b} Knox, i.343, 344. The Congregation are said to have left Perth on May 29. They assert their presence there on May 31, in their Band.

{122} Edinburgh Burgh Records.

{123a} But see Knox, i.347-349. Is a week (June 4 to June 11) accidentally omitted?

{123b} Writing on June 23, Knox dates the "Reformation" "June 14." His dates, at this point, though recorded within three weeks, are to me inexplicable. Knox, vi.25.

{124} Keith, i.265, note.

{125a} Lesley, ii.443, Scottish Text Society.

{125b} For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 367.

{126a} Knox, vi.26.

{126b} Ibid., i.355.

{126c} Wodrow Miscellany, i.60.

{127a} Knox, vi.26.

{127b} See Scottish Historical Review, January 1905, 121-122, 128-130.

{131} Bain, i.215.

{133a} For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 278. Erroneously dated "May 24" (?).

{133b} Bain, i.216-218; For. Cal. Eliz., ut supra, 335, 336.

{133c} Archives Etrangeres, Angleterre, vol. xv. MS.

{133d} For. Cal. Eliz., 336; Knox, i.359, 360.

{134} Knox, i.360-362.

{135a} Knox dates the entry of the Reformers into Edinburgh on June 29. But he wrote to Mrs. Locke from Edinburgh on June 25, probably a misprint. The date June 29 is given in the "Historie." Knox dates a letter to Cecil, "Edinburgh, June 28." The Diurnal of Occurrents dates the sack of monasteries in Edinburgh June 28.

{135b} Wodrow Miscellany, i.62; Knox, i.366, 367, 370.

{135c} Knox, i.363; cf. Keith, i.213, 214; Spottiswoode, i.280, 281.

{136a} Knox, i.363-365; For. Cal. Eliz., 337.

{136b} Teulet, i.338-340.

{137a} Bain, i.218; For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 339.340.

{137b} Knox, vi.45.

{138} In Dr. Hay Fleming's The Scottish Reformation (p.57), he dates the Regent's proclamation July 1. He omits the charge that, as proof of their disloyalty, "they daily receive Englishmen with messages, and send the like into England" (Knox, i. p.364). "The narrative of the proclamation, Knox says, is untrue," Dr. Hay Fleming remarks; but as to the dealing with England, the Reformer confessed to it in his "History," Book III., when he could do so with safety.

{139a} Knox, i.365.

{139b} Spottiswoode, i.282.

{139c} Teulet, i.331. The Regent's instructions to Du Fresnoy.

{141} Teulet, i.334, 335, citing Archives Etrangeres, Angleterre, xiv. (xv.?), f.221 (see the English translation), For. Cal. Eliz., 1558-59, 406, 407; Keith, i.220, 221; Spottiswoode, i.285, 286.

{142a} Extracts from Edinburgh Town Council Records, July 29, 1559; Keith, i.487-489.

{142b} Cf. Hume Brown, John Knox, ii.30.

{143a} Knox, i.376-379. The italicised articles are not in the other versions of the terms as finally settled; cf. "Historie," Wodrow Miscellany, i.55-57.

{143b} Ibid., i.379.

{144a} Knox, i.380.

{144b} Sloane MSS., British Museum, 4144, 177b, 4737f, 100b. For. Cal. Eliz.1558-59, 411.

{145a} Knox, i.381.

{145b} My italics.

{146} (Kyrkcaldy to Croft.)

"Theis salbe to certiffy you vpon monday the xxiii of Jully the quene and the lordis of the congregation are agreit on this maner as followeth. The armies beying boythe in Syghte betuix Eddingburght and Lietht or partye adversaire send mediatoris desyring that we sall agree and cease frome sheddinge of blude yf we wer men quhilkis wold fulfill in deid that thing quhilk we proffessit, that is the preachyng of godis worde and furth settyng of his glorye. Me lordis of the congregation movet by thare offres wer content to here commonyng. So fynallye after long talke, It is appointted on this maner. That the Religion here begoon sall proceid and contenew in all places wt owt impedement of the quenes authoretie, thare minesters sall neyther be trubillit nor stopped and in all places whare ydolletre is put downe sall not be cett vp agane. And whill the parlement be haldin to consele vpon all materes wch is fixit the x day of Januarye nixt, every man sall leive to his conscience not compellit be authoretye to do any thyng in religion yt his conscience repugnes to. And to this said parlement ther sall no man of or congregation be molested or trobillit in thair bodeis landis goodis possessions what someevir. Further wt all dilligent spede ther frenche men here present salbe send awaye. And sall no other cum in this Realme w owt consent of the hole nobilite. The towne of Eddingburght salbe keipit fre by the inhabitantes thairof and no maner of garnission laid or keip thair In, neyther of frenche nor scottis. For our part we sall remove of Eddingburght to or awne houssis, yt the quene may come to hir awne palyce, wch we tuke of before and hathe left it voyde to hir G. We have delyvered the prentyng yrunes of the coyne agayne wch we tuke becaus of the corruption of monye agaynst our laws and commonwealthe. Off truthe we believe nevir worde to be keipit of thir promises of her syde. And therfore hath tane me lord duke the erll of Huntlye and the rest of the nobillitye beying vpon hir syde bound to the performance hereof wt this condition yf sche brekkes any point heirof they sall renunce hir obeysance and joyne them selfis wt vs. In this meane-tyme we contenew or men of warr to gydder wt in or boundis of Fyfe, Angus, Stretherin and Westland, in aduenture the appointtment be broken, and dowtes not to mak vs daily stronger for by the furthe settying of religion and haittred of the frenche men we gett the hartis of the hole commonalties. Nowe to conclude yf it had not bene for some nobillmens causis who hes promised to be owres we hade not appointted wt the quene at this tyme. From hens forwardis send to the lard of Ormiston who will se all saifly conveyed to me. Thvs I commit you to god from Eddingburght the xxiiii of Jully

yoris at power

(W. KYRKCALDY)." {147}

{147} MS. Record Office; cf. For. Cal. Eliz., 1558 59, 408, 409.

{148a} Knox, i.379, 380.

{148b} Ibid., i.381.

{149a} Knox, vi.53.

{149b} Ibid., i.397-412. The Proclamation, and two Replies.

{149c} My italics.

{150} Knox, i. xxvi.; vi.87.

{151a} Knox, i.392, 393.

{151b} Ibid., i.382.

{152a} Knox, ii.15-38.

{152b} Ibid., vi.56-59.

{153} S. P. Scotland, Elizabeth, MS. vol. i. No.80; cf. Bain, i.236, 237. Croft to Cecil, Berwick, August 3, 1559.

{154a} For. Cal. Eliz., 470.

{154b} I assume that he was the preacher at Edinburgh in d'Oysel's letter of June 30-July 2, 1559. Teulet, i.325.

{155} Sadleir to Cecil, September 8, 1559. For. Cal. Eliz., 543, 1558- 1559. The fortification, says Professor Hume Brown, "was a distinct breach of the late agreement" (of July 24), "and they weir not slow to remind her" (the Regent) "of her bad faith." The agreement of July 24 says nothing about fortifying. The ingenious brethren argued that to fortify Leith entailed "oppression of our poor brethren, indwellers of the same." Now the agreement forbade "oppression of any of the Congregation." But the people of Leith had "rendered themselves" to the Regent on July 24, and the breach of treaty, if any, was "constructive." (John Knox, ii.47; Knox, i.413, 424-433.)

{158a} The evidence as to these proceedings of the brethren is preserved in the French archives, and consists of testimonies given on oath in answer to inquiries made by Francis and Mary in November 1559.

{158b} We have dated Lethington's desertion of the Regent about October 25, because Knox says it was a "few days before our first defeat" on the last day in October. M. Teulet dates in the beginning of October a Latin manifesto by the Congregation to all the princes of Christendom. This document is a long arraignment of the Regent's policy; her very concessions as to religion are declared to be tricks, meant to bring the Protestant lords under the letter of the law. The paper may be thought to show the hand of Lethington, not of Knox. But, in point of fact, I incline to think that the real author of this manifesto was Cecil. He sketches it in a letter sent from the English Privy Council in November 15, 1559. This draft was to be used by the rebels in an appeal to Elizabeth.

{159} Knox, vi, 89, 90; M'Crie, 143.

{160a} Bothwell states the amount at 3000 ecus de soleil. French Archives MS.

{160b} Knox, i.472.

{161a} Sadleir to Cecil, Nov.15, 1559. For. Cal. Eliz., 1559-60, 115.

{161b} Labanoff, vii.283.

{163} Knox, vi.105-107.

{164} See Appendix B.

{165a} Corp. Ref., xlv.645 (3118, note I).

{165b} Calvinus Sturmio, Corp. Ref., xlvi.38, 39, March 23, 1560. Sturmius Calvino, ibid., 53-56, April 15.

{166a} Bain, i.389, 390; For. Cal. Eliz., 1559-60, 604.

{166b} Knox, ii.68; cf. the Regent's letter. Bain, i.389.

{167a} The date may be part of an interpolation.

{167b} This account is from the French Archives MS., Angleterre, vol. xv.

{168} Knox, ii.72.

{169} It is an inexplicable fact that, less than a month before Glencairn and Lord James signed the first godly Band (December 3, 1557), these two, with Kirkcaldy of Grange, "were acting with the Queen-Dowager against Huntly, Chatelherault, and Argyll," who in December signed with them the godly Band. The case is thus stated by Mr. Tytler, perhaps too vigorously. It appears that, after the refusal of the Lords to cross Tweed and attack England, in the autumn of 1557, the Regent, with the concurrence of Glencairn, Lord James, and Kirkcaldy of Grange, proposed to recall from exile in England the Earl of Lennox, father of Darnley. He, like the chief of the Hamiltons, had a claim to the crown of Scotland, failing heirs born of Mary Stuart. Lennox, therefore, would be a counterpoise to Hamilton and his ally in mutiny, Argyll. Thus Lord James and Glencairn, in November 1557; support the Regent against the Hamiltons and Argyll, but in December Glencairn, reconciled to Argyll, signs with him the godly Band. We descry the old Stewart versus Hamilton feud in these proceedings.

{170} Knox, ii.87, note.

{172} Knox, ii.89-127.

{174a} Randolph to Cecil, September 7; Bain, i.477, 478.

{174b} Knox, vi.83, 84.

{174c} Knox, vi. lxxxii.

{175} M'Crie, Life of John Knox, 162 (1855).

{177a} Keith, iii.4-7.

{177b} Bain, i.461.

{177c} Cf. Edinburgh Burgh Records.

{182} Knox, ii.193.

{186} Queen Mary's Letter to Guise, p. xlii., Scottish History Society, 1904.

{191a} Lesley, ii.454 (1895).

{191b} See Lord James to Throckmorton, London, May 20, a passage quoted by Mr. Murray Rose, Scot. Hist. Review, No.6, 154. Additional MSS. Brit. Mus., 358, 30, f.117, 121. Lord James to Throckmorton, May 20- June 3, 1561.

{191c} Bain, i.540, 541.

{191d} Lord James to Dudley, October 7, 1561, Bain, i.557.

{192} Pollen, Papal Negotiations, 62.

{193a} Knox, ii, 266.

{193b} Bain, ii.543.

{194} Bain, ii.547.

{195} Knox, ii.276, 277.

{196} Knox, vi.131.

{197} Knox, ii.279, 280.

{199} Tracts by David Fergusson, Bannatyne Club, 1860.

{200a} Bain, i.551, 552.

{200b} Lord James to Lord Robert Dudley, October 7, 1561. Bain, i.557, 558. Lethington's account of his reasonings with Elizabeth is not very hopeful. Pollen, "Queen Mary's Letter to Guise," Scot. Hist. Soc., 38- 45.

{201a} Bain, i.565.

{201b} Knox, vi.131, 132; ii.289.

{201c} The proclamation against "all monks, friars, priests, nuns, adulterers, fornicators, and all such filthy persons," was of October 2. On October 5 the Queen bade the council and community of the town to meet in the Tolbooth, depose the Provost and Bailies, and elect others. On October 8 the order was carried out, and protests were put in. A note from Lethington was received, containing three names, out of which the Queen commanded that one must be Provost. The Council "thought good to pass to her Grace," show that they had already made their election, and await her pleasure. "Jezebel's letter and wicked will is obeyed as law," says Knox. -- Extracts from Records of the Burgh of Edinburgh, 126, 127.

{202} Knox, vi.133-135. Corp. Refor., xlvii.74.

{203a} Corp. Refor., xlvii.114, 115.

{203b} Bain, i.582, 583.

{203c} Ibid., i.491. Randolph to Cecil.

{205} Bain, i.565, 566.

{206a} Froude, iii.265-270 (1866).

{206b} Knox, vi.83.

{207a} Knox, vi.11-14.

{207b} Bain, i.569. Randolph to Cecil, November 11.

{207c} Ibid., i.568-570.

{208a} There was a small guard, but no powerful guard existed till after Riccio's murder.

{208b} Bain, i.575. Randolph to Cecil, December 7.

{208c} Ibid., i.571.

{209} It is plain from Randolph (Bain, i.575) that the precise feared that Mary, if secured by the English alliance, would be severe with "true professors of Christ."

{210} Keith, iii.384, 385.

{211a} Knox, ii.300-313. Pollen, "Mary's Letter to the Duc de Guise," xli.-xlvii.

{211b} Bain, i.568, 569.

{211c} Ibid., i.585. Randolph to Cecil, January 2, 1562.

{212a} There is an air of secrecy in these transactions. In the Register of the Privy Seal, vol. xxxi. fol.45 (MS.), is a "Precept for a Charter under the Great Seal," a charter to Lord James for the Earldom of Moray. The date is January 31, 1560-61. On February 7, 1560-61, Lord James receives the Earldom of Mar, having to pay a pair of gilded spurs on the feast of St. John (Register of Privy Seal, vol. xxx. fol.2). Lord James now bore the title of Earl of Mar, not, as yet -- not till Huntly was put at -- of Moray.

{212b} Dr. Hay Fleming quotes Randolph thus: "The Papists mistrust greatly the meeting; the Protestants as greatly desire it. The preachers are more vehement than discreet or learned." (Mary Queen of Scots, p.292, note 35, citing For. Cal. Eliz., iv.523.) The Calendar is at fault and gives the impression that the ministers vehemently preached in favour of the meeting of the Queen. This was not so, Randolph goes on, "which I heartily lament." He uses the whole phrase, more than is here given, not only on January 30, but on February 12. Now Randolph desired the meeting, so the preachers must have "thundered" against it! They feared that Mary would become a member of the Church of England, "of which they both say and preach that it is little better than when it was at the worst" (Bain, i.603).

{212c} Keith, ii.139.

{213} The Teviotdale Ormistouns of that ilk.

{214a} In Pitcairn's Criminal Trials is Arran's report of Bothwell's very words, vol. i., part 2, pp.462-465.

{214b} Bain, i.613, 614.

{215a} Bain, i.618, 619.

{215b} Knox, ii.330.

{215c} Ibid., ii.330, 331.

{215d} Cf. Baird, The Rise of the Huguenots, ii.21 et seq.

{216a} Bain, i.627. Randolph to Cecil, May 29.

{216b} Cf. Froude, vi.547-565.

{216c} "Book of Discipline," Knox, ii.228.

{216d} M'Crie, 187.

{217a} Knox, ii.330-335.

{217b} Bain, i.673.

{217c} Randolph mentions the joy of the Court over some Guisian successes against the Huguenots, then up in arms, while Mary was on her expedition against Huntly, in October 1562. On December 30 he says that there is little dancing, less because of Knox's sermons than on account of bad news from France. Bain, i.658, 674.

Dr. Hay Fleming dates the wicked dance in December 1562, but of course that date was not the moment when "persecution was begun again in France," nor would Mary be skipping in December for joy over letters of the previous March. Mary Queen of Scots, 275.

{218} Knox, vi.140, 141.

{219a} Keith, iii.50, 51.

{219b} Bain, i.630.

{219c} Lesley, ii.468.

{219d} Knox, vi.193.

{220a} Knox, ii.337-345.

{220b} Hay Fleming, Mary Queen of Scots, 301.

{221a} Knox, ii.347.

{221b} Act Parl. Scot., ii.572.

{221c} Bain, i.665.

{221d} Bain, i.668.

{222a} Chalmers, in his Life of Queen Mary, vol. i.78-96 (1818), takes the view of the Huntly affair which we adopt, but, observing the quietly obtained title of Moray under the Privy Seal (January 30, 1561-62) and the publicly assumed title of Mar, granted on February 7, 1561-62, Chalmers (mistaking Huntly for a loyal man) denounces the treachery of Lord James and the "credulity" of the Queen. To myself it appears that brother and sister were equally deep in the scheme for exalting Moray and destroying Huntly.

{222b} Cf. Pollen, Papal Negotiations, 163, 164.

{222c} Knox, ii.346.

{222d} Ibid., ii.358.

{223a} Bain, i.675.

{223b} Froude, ii.144 (1863).

{224a} Registrum de Panmure, i.-xxxii., cited by Maxwell; Old Dundee, 162. Book of the Universal Kirk, 26.

{225a} Knox, ii.364-367; ii.531, 532; Keith, iii.140, 141.

{225b} Spanish Calendar, i.314.

{225c} Bain, i.684-686.

{225d} Knox, ii.367-369.

{226a} Knox, ii, 370.

{226b} Bain, i.686.

{226c} Ibid., i.687.

{226d} Knox, li.361; Bain, i.693. Lethington's argument against Lennox's claim, March 28, 1563.

{227a} Knox, ii.371.

{227b} Bain, ii.7.

{228a} Knox, ii.370-377.

{228b} Ibid., ii.377-379.

{228c} Bain, ii.9, 10.

{229a} Knox, ii.381.

{229b} Ibid., ii.387-389.

{231a} Bain, ii.24.

{231b} Ibid., ii.25.

{231c} Spanish Calendar, i.338.

{231d} Bain, ii.19, 20.

{232a} Bain, ii.26; Knox, ii.393, 394.

{232b} Hume Brown, Scotland under Queen Mary, p.99.

{232c} Pitcairn, Criminal Trials, i.434.

{232d} Dr. M'Crie accepts, like Keith, a story of Spottiswoode's not elsewhere found (M'Crie, 204), but innocently remarks that, as to the brawl in chapel, Spottiswoode could not know the facts so well as Knox! (p.210). Certainly twenty-two attendants on the Mass were "impanelled" for trial for their religious misdemeanour. Knox, ii.394, note I.

{233a} Knox, ii.397.

{233b} Randolph to Cecil; Bain, ii.28, 29.

{233c} Knox, ii.399-401.

{234a} Keith, ii.210. The version in Bain, ii.30, is differently worded.

{234b} Knox, ii.403.

{235} Knox, ii.399-415.

{236} Pitcairn, Criminal Trials, i.434, 435.

{237a} Randolph, December 31; Bain, ii.33; Knox, ii.415.

{237b} Randolph, February 19, 1564; Bain, i.113, 125.

{237c} Knox, ii.415, note 3.

{238} Knox, ii.417-419.

{239} Bain, i.680; ii.54.

{240} Knox, ii.291, 292.

{241a} Lethington spoke merely of "controversies" (Knox, ii.460). I give the confessed meaning of the controversy.

{241b} Compare Knox, ii.291, as to the discussion at Makgill's house in November 1561.

{241c} Knox, ii.460, 461.

{242a} Original Letters, Parker Society, Bullinger to Calvin, March 26, 1554, pp.744-747.

{242b} Knox, ii.441, 442.

{243a} The very programme of the General Assembly for the treatment of Catholics, in November 1572. See p.269 infra.

{243b} Knox, v.462-464.

{244a} Knox, ii.441.

{244b} Ibid., ii.442, 443.

{246} Randolph to Cecil, February 27, 1565; Bain, ii.128.

{247a} Knox, ii.497.

{247b} Ibid., vi.224, 225.

{248a} Knox, vi.273; ii.499.

{248b} Ibid., ii.514.

{248c} Ibid., vi.402.

{249a} Book of the Universal Kirk, 34.

{249b} Knox, vi.416.

{249c} Bain, ii.254, 255.

{249d} Stevenson, Selections, 153-159.

{250a} Papal Negotiations, xxxviii.-xliii.

{250b} Keith, ii.412-413.

{250c} Knox, ii.524.

{251a} Knox, i.235.

{251b} Hume Brown, John Knox, ii.231.

{252a} Randolph to Cecil, March 21, 1566. Bain, ii.269, 270. Diurnal, March 17, 1566. Knox's prayer, Knox, vi.483, 484.

{252b} Bain, ii.269, 270.

{252c} See Calvin's letter of January 24 or April 1, 1564, Corpus Reformatorum, xlviii.244-249.

{253a} Life of Knox, 235, note 3; cf. Knox, ii.533.

{253b} Burnet, History of the Reformation, iii.360.

{253c} Knox, ii.544-560.

{254a} Knox, vi.545-547.

{254b} State Papers, Mary, Queen of Scots, vol. xiii., No.20, MS.

{256a} Book of the Universal Kirk, 61-67.

{256b} Stevenson, Illustrations of the Reign of Queen Mary, 208.

{256c} Knox, ii.563.

{257a} Stevenson, 221.

{257b} Ibid., 240, July 21.

{257c} Chalmers's "Life of Mary," ii.487.

{258a} Knox, vi.558-561.

{258b} If born in 1513-15, he was only about fifty-three to fifty-five.

{259a} Knox, vi.567.

{259b} Knox and the Church of England, 230.

{259c} Strype's Grindal, 168-179 (1821).

{260a} Corp. Ref., xlvii.417, 418.

{260b} Strype's Grindal, 507-516.

{261a} Zurich Letters.1558-1602, pp.152-155.

{261b} Strype's Grindal, 180. Also the letter of Grindal in Ellis, iii. iii.304

{262a} Knox, ii.247-249.

{262b} Knox and the Church of England, 298-301.

{263a} Knox, vi.559.

{263b} Ibid., vi.568.

{263c} M'Crie, 248.

{264a} Bannatyne's Memorials, 5-13 (1836).

{264b} Calderwood, ii.515-525.

{266} Bannatyne's Transactions, 70-82. Bannatyne was Knox's secretary, and fragments dictated by the Reformer appear in his pages.

{267a} Melville's "Diary," 20-26.

{267b} Knox, vi.606-612.

{268a} Bannatyne, 223, 224 (1836).

{268b} Knox, vi.620-622.

{268c} Ibid., 236

{269a} Bannatyne, 268.

{269b} Ibid., 273.

{269c} Ibid., 278.

{269d} John Knox, ii.282, 283.

{270} Cf. Leicester's letter of October 10, 1574, in Tytler, vii. chap, iv., and Appendix.

{271} Tytler, vii. chap. iv.; Appendix xi, with letters.

{272a} Knox, ii.356; Bannatyne, 281, 282.

{272b} Morton to Killigrew, August 5, 1573.

{273} Bannatyne, 283-290.

{274} There was another Falsyde.

{275a} See the letter in Maxwell's Old Dundee, 399-401.

{275b} Bain's Calendar is misleading here (vol. i.202). Why Mr. Bain summarised wrongly in 1898, what Father Stevenson had done correctly in 1863 (For. Cal. Eliz,, p.263) is a mystery.

{276a} See the "Prefatio," Knox, i.297, 298. In this preface Knox represents the brethren as still being "unjustly persecuted by France and their faction." The book ends with the distresses of the Protestants in November 1559, with the words, "Look upon us, O Lord, in the multitude of Thy mercies; for we are brought even to the deep of the dungeon." -- Knox, i.473.

{276b} Knox, vi.22, 23.

{276c} M'Crie's Knox, 360.

{277a} Knox, i.317-319.

{277b} Hume Brown, John Knox, ii.6.

{277c} John Knox, ii.4.

{277d} Scot. Hist. Review, January 1905.

{278a} Lesley, ii.40, Scottish Text Society, 1895.

{278b} In the French Archives MS., Angleterre, vol. xv.

{279a} Melville, 79 (1827).

{279b} Spottiswoode, i.320.

{279c} Keith, i.493, 494 (1835).

{280a} Angl. Reg., xvi., fol.346.