The first writer who attacked Knox’s character after his death, was Archibald Hamilton, whose hostility against him was inflamed by a personal quarrel, as well as by political and religious considerations. (See above, p. 194.) His book shows how much he was disposed to recommend himself to the papists, by throwing out whatever was most injurious to his former connexions. But there were too many alive at that time to refute any charge which might be brought against the Reformer’s moral character. Accordingly, when he aimed the most envenomed thrust at his reputation, Hamilton masked it under the name of an apprehension or surmise. Having said, that, on the death of Edward VI., “he fled to Geneva with a noble and rich lady,” (which, by the by, is also a falsehood,) he adds, in a parenthesis, “qua simul et filia matris pellice familiariter usus fuisse _putabatur_.” De Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ, p. 65, a. Parisiis, 1577. In 1579, Principal Smeton published his answer to Hamilton’s book, in which he repelled the charges which he had brought against Knox, and pronounced the above mentioned surmise a malicious calumny, for which the accuser could not adduce the slightest proof, and which was refuted by the spotless character which the Reformer had maintained before the whole world. Smetoni Responsio ad Virulent. Dial. Hamiltonii, p. 95. Edinb. 1579. It now behoved (324) Hamilton either to retract or to prove his injurious insinuation. But how did he act in his reply to Smeton? Under the pretence of repeating what he had said in his former book, he introduces a number of other slanders against Knox’s character, of which he had not given the most distant hint before; and (incredible to be told!) he absolutely avers, that he had formerly specified all these crimes, and condescended upon the places, times, and other circumstances of their commission; although, in his former publication, he had not said one word on the subject except the general surmise which I have quoted above!!! “Pueritiam prematura venere et polluto insuper patris thoro infamem _notavi_. Inde adolescentiam perpetuis assuetam adulteriis _designavi_. Post hanc maturioris ætatis apostasin, &c. descripsi: res ipsas ut gestæ erunt _retuli_: loca, tempora, et reliquas omnes circumstantias _notavi_.” Calvinianæ Confusionis Demonstratio, contra maledicam Ministrorum Scotiæ responsionem; per Archibaldum Hamiltonium, in Sancta Christi Ecclesia Presbyterum. p. 253. Parisiis, 1581. Than this what can be a stronger mark of one who has “made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience,” who “is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself?” After this we cannot wonder at his casting off all shame, and asserting: “Itane vero in maledictis ducitis, quæ impurus homucio non vno, aut paucis, sed multis, et fere dicam _omnibus attestantibus_, designavit? patris thorum infami incestu pollutum, et tot commissa adulteria, quot in ædibus, intra quas admittebatur, relicta vestigia