parent evasion (of which Knox, indeed, had already availed himself); it was not treason, he contended, "for he makes convocation of the people to hear prayer and sermon almost daily, and whatever your Grace may think thereof, we think it not treason." Mary tore the cobweb to pieces. “I say nothing," she retorted, "against your religion or against your convening to your sermons. But what authority have you to convocate my subjects when ye will, without my commandment?" Knox's reply was to the effect that he had acted on the commandment of the Kirk; but the greater part of his defence was devoted to a violent invective against the "pestilent Papists, who, being the sons of the devill, maun obey the desires of their father, who has been ane liar and ane murderer from the beginning."

Knox asserts that Lethington was eager for a conviction, and that the lords were offended by his importunity. "What! shall the Laird of Lethington have power to controul us? or shall the presence of a woman cause us to offend God by condemning the innocent against our conscience?" It rather appears, however, that the prudential considerations (a conviction might possibly have led to a riot) which induced the lords to discharge him did not imply any approval of his conduct; for it is from the time of

his appearance before the Council that the division between the Court party and the Church party becomes most marked. The Master of Maxwell "gave unto the said John a discharge of the familiaritie which before was great between them;" and even Moray was thereafter for many months divided from the man to whom he had been bound by the closest ties. "In all that time the Earl of Moray was so fremmit to John Knox that neither by word nor write was there any communication betwixt them.”

An unsuccessful attempt to bring the two parties together was made during the sitting of the Assembly which met at Edinburgh in June 1564. Lethington presided, Knox was in attendance, and the conference ultimately resolved into an animated discussion between the preacher and the politician. The report comes from Knox, and we may fairly conclude that he does no injustice to his own argument; yet the reasonableness of Maitland's position, the fairness of his judgment, and the felicity of his language, are conspicuous throughout. The figures of the representative leaders stand out boldly, and the hopelessness of any compromise between the men is nowhere else more distinctly brought home to us. Knox belonged, heart and soul, to the Church militant of the sixteenth century; whereas Maitland, in his manner of speech and

A

habit of thought, was essentially modern. brief résumé of this dramatic dialogue will interest the reader.1

It must be premised, however, that a conference had been held soon after Mary's return, at which the question, "Whether subjects might put to their hand to suppress the idolatry of their prince?" had been keenly debated. The preachers were prepared to insist on conformity, the lords were in favour of liberty, "and the votes of the lords prevailed against the ministers." It was resolved, however, that the judgment of the Church of Geneva, the mother Church of the more rigid Protestantism, should be obtained. Knox offered to correspond with Calvin; but on the plea (it was only "a shift to gain time," we are told) that "there stood meikle in the information," the Secretary undertook to prepare and forward the memorial.

The conference was held in the "Inner Counsel House." Besides the Duke, Moray, Argyll, Morton, Glencairn, Marischal, Rothes-all those who had been hitherto the steadiest friends of the Church, but who were now dismayed by

1 As the report of the conference occupies forty pages of Knox's narrative in Laing's edition (ii. 421-461), my summary of the debate is necessarily of the slightest. I have

endeavoured rather to preserve the tone and temper, the characteristic peculiarities of the speakers, than to follow the argument closely.

Knox's violence-were present on behalf of the lords; Erskine of Dun, Spottiswoode, Craig, and others represented the ministers. The debate was opened by Lethington, who, insisting upon the immense importance of a friendly understanding between the sovereign and her people, pointed out that the goodwill which had hitherto been preserved was in danger of being interrupted by the indecent invective and virulent hostility of the preachers. Knox replied that any truce between wicked rulers and the people of God was not to be desired, and that God, in His hot indignation, would strike the people who winked at the idolatry of their prince.

Lethington. That is a head, Mr Knox, whereupon you and I have never agreed. How are you able to prove that God has plagued or stricken a people for the idolatry of their prince, if they themselves led godly lives?

Knox. The Scripture of God teaches me that Jerusalem and Juda were punished for the sin of Manasses. It is true that the king was not wholly to blame, for idolatry and false religion have ever been and ever will be pleasing to the most part of men; and a great number, no doubt, followed him in his abominations, and suffered him to file Jerusalem and the temple of God; for which sin the whole nation was justly responsible; even as the whole of Scotland is

guilty this day of the Queen's idolatry, and you, my lords, specially above all others.

Lethington. Therein we shall never agree; but of that we shall speak more at large hereafter. Now, as regards the form of prayer which you use for the Queen?

Knox. God knows that publicly and privately I have prayed for her conversion, showing the people the danger in which they stand by reason of her indurit blindness-1

Lethington. That is it wherein we find the greatest fault. You call her the slave of Satan; you affirm that God's vengeance hangs over the realm by reason of her impiety,-what is this but to rouse the heart of the people against her Majesty?

Knox. It sufficeth me, my lord, that the Master and Teacher of baith prophets and apostles has taught me so to pray.

Lethington. Wherein rebels she against God? Knox. In all the actions of her life, but especially that she will not hear the blessed Evangel

1 This had been the form adopted by Knox since the Queen's return. At least as early as October 29, 1561. Randolph wrote to Cecil: "Mr Knox's prayer is daily for her, "That God will turn her obsti

nate heart against God and His truth; or if the Holy Will be otherwise, to strengthen the hands and hearts of His chosen and elect stoutly to withstand the rage of all tyrants,' in words terrible enough."