The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part D.: From Elizabeth to James I. — David Hume — John Shaqi
The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part D.: From Elizabeth to James I.
David Hume · en
Thus Europe saw, in the first transaction of this reign, the genius and
capacity of the queen and her ministers. She discerned at a distance
the danger which threatened her; and instantly took vigorous measures
to prevent it. Making all possible advantages of her situation, she
proceeded with celerity to a decision; and was not diverted by any
offers, negotiations, or remonstrances of the French court. She stopped
not till she had brought the matter to a final issue; and had converted
that very power, to which her enemies trusted for her destruction, into
her firmest support and security. By exacting no improper conditions
from the Scottish malecontents, even during their greatest distresses,
she established an entire confidence with them; and having cemented
the union by all the ties of gratitude, interest, and religion, she now
possessed an influence over them beyond what remained even with their
native sovereign. The regard which she acquired by this dexterous and
spirited conduct, gave her every where, abroad as well as at home, more
authority than had attended her sister, though supported by all the
power of the Spanish monarchy.[*]
The subsequent measures of the Scottish reformers tended still more
to cement their union with England. Being now entirely masters of the
kingdom, they made no further ceremony or scruple in fully effecting
their purpose. In the treaty of Edinburgh, it had been agreed, that a
parliament or convention should soon be assembled; and the leaders of
the congregation, not waiting till the queen of Scots should ratify
that treaty, thought themselves fully entitled, without the sovereign’s
authority, immediately to summon a parliament. The reformers presented
a petition to this assembly, in which they were not contented with
desiring the establishment of their doctrine, they also applied for
the punishment of the Catholics, whom they called vassals to the Roman
harlot; and they asserted, that among all the rabble of the clergy--such
is their expression--there was not one lawful minister; but that they
were all of them thieves and murderers; yea, rebels and traitors to
civil authority, and therefore unworthy to be suffered in any reformed
commonwealth.[**] The parliament seem to have been actuated by the same
spirit of rage and persecution. After ratifying a confession of faith
agreeable to the new doctrines, they passed a statute against the mass,
and not only abolished it in all the churches, but enacted, that whoever
any where either officiated in it, or was present at it, should be
chastised, for the first offence, with confiscation of goods and
corporal punishment, at the discretion of the magistrate; for the
second, with banishment; and for the third, with loss of life.[***]
* Forbes, vol. i. p. 354, 372. Jebb, vol. ii. p. 452.
** Knox, p. 237. 238.
*** Knox, p. 254.