The first collision between them occurred a few days after her landing.
Naturally enough, as some may think, she gave orders for the
celebration of a solemn mass in the chapel of Holyrood on the first
Sabbath after her arrival. She knew of the law passed by the
Parliament in 1560; she had probably heard from Lord James Stuart the
warning which had been given to him when he went to France, and
therefore this act on her {160} part was a virtual throwing down of the
gauge of battle at the feet of the Protestants. And thus they
themselves interpreted it. Some may imagine that they attached undue
importance to it; yet as Protestantism is still insisted on as a _sine
quâ non_ to succession to the British throne, those who approve the
continuance of the Revolution settlement cannot consistently condemn
them. Moreover, it is not to be forgotten that to the Reformers the
mass was more than even an idolatrous service. It was a sign of many
other things: thumbscrews, racks, galley chains, gibbets and the like,
which were inseparably connected with papal supremacy, and in truth, as
one has said, "A man sent to row in French galleys and such like for
teaching the truth in his own land, cannot always be in the mildest
humour." When therefore her purpose became known, great excitement was
created among the Protestants, and some spoke of preventing her by
force from carrying it out; but Knox used his influence in private,
against such a proposal. On the following Sunday, however, from his
pulpit he showed his sense of the gravity of the crisis, when, after
exposing the idolatry that was in the mass, he alleged that "one mass
was more fearful unto him than if ten thousand armed enemies were
landed in any part of our realm of purpose to suppress the whole
religion." Hearing of this outburst Mary sent for him to the palace,
whether of her own motive or at the suggestion of others is not known,
and he had then, in the presence of Lord James Stuart, the first of
{161} those interviews which have been so harped upon by his
vituperators. We must refer our readers for the details to Knox's own
account in his "History," which has been little more than simply
modernised by McCrie, and must content ourselves with a mere summary of
what occurred. She began by attacking him for the writing of the
"First Blast," and after he had vindicated himself as best he could for
that, she charged him with having taught the people to receive a
religion different from that which was allowed by their princes. This
brought out his views as to the limits of obedience to civil rulers,
and on her interpreting his words to mean that her subjects should obey
him and not her, he vehemently repudiated that misapprehension, and
alleged that both rulers and subjects should obey God, and that kings
should be foster-fathers, and queens nursing-mothers to His Church.
That elicited the question from her which is the Church of God? and for
answer thereto he referred her to the Scriptures.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account