20. In 155, political necessity compelled the government in Scotland to become more lenient towards the nobles favoring the Reformation, and Knox returned to Scotland, where his impassioned denunciations of the idolatry of the mass and of image-worship aroused the pent-up enthusiasm of the people. Indeed the people went far beyond what Knox intended; riots ensued, churches and monasteries were destroyed, and the whole country, already suffering the evils of civil war, was plunged into greater disorder. At last, through the assistance of Queen Elizabeth, of England, a truce was proclaimed, and a parliament chosen to settle the troubles. The parliament met in 1560, and its deliberations resulted in the overthrow of the old religion, and the establishment of the "Reformed church," based on the doctrines and church polity of Calvin. In the midst of the harshness which attended the overthrow of the old religion there was a singular instance of moderation which will be looked for in vain in other countries where the reformation succeeded. According to Hallam, it was agreed in the settlement made by the parliament of 1560, "that the Roman Catholic prelates, including the regulars, should enjoy two-thirds of their revenues as well as their rank and seats in parliament; the remaining third being given to the crown, out of which stipends should be allotted to the protestant clergy." [48] "Whatever violence may be imputed to the authors of the Scots reformation," continues Mr. Hallam, "this arrangement seems to display a moderation which we would vainly seek in our own" [49]--the English reformation. 21. Unfortunately, as in England, after the authority and {263} religion of the pope were overthrown in Scotland, the religious difficulties were far from settled. A controversy arose between the church and the crown on the subject of authority. It will be remembered that Calvin insisted that the church should be independent of the state,[50] and nowhere was it so strenuously insisted upon as in Scotland; not only did it demand of the secular authority freedom from interference, but assumed the right to reprove the king and his court, and that, too, in no guarded language. In 1854, Andrew Melville was summoned before the king's council, to give an account of some seditious language employed by him in the pulpit against the court. He declined the jurisdiction of the council on the ground that he was responsible only to the church for such language; and the king could not judge of the matter without violating the immunities of the church.[51]