Mary, however, had promised, as we saw, that she would summon the nobles and Estates, “to advise for some reformation in religion” (March 7, 1559), and the Archbishop called a Provincial Council to Edinburgh for March.  At this, or some other juncture, for Knox’s narrative is bewildering, {92b} the clergy offered free discussion, but refused to allow exiles like himself to be present, and insisted on the acceptance of the Mass, Purgatory, the invocation of saints, with security for their ecclesiastical possessions.  In return they would grant prayers and baptism in English, if done privately and not in open assembly.  The terms, he says, were rejected; appeal was made to Mary of Guise, and she gave toleration, except for public assemblies in Edinburgh and Leith, pending the meeting of Parliament.  To the clergy, who, “some say,” bribed her, she promised to “put order” to these matters.  The Reformers were deceived, and forbade Douglas to preach in Leith.  So writes Knox.

Now the “Historie” dates all this, bribe and all, after the end of December 1558.  Knox, however, by some confusion, places the facts, bribe and all, before April 28, 1558, Myln’s martyrdom! {93a} Yet he had before him as he wrote the Chronicle of Bruce of Earlshall, who states the bribe, Knox says, at 40,000 pounds; the “Historie” says “within 15,000 pounds.” {93b}

In any case Knox, who never saw his book in print, has clearly dislocated the sequence of events.  At this date, namely March 1559, the preaching agitators were at liberty, nor were they again put at for any of their previous proceedings.  But defiances had been exchanged.  The Reformers in their Protestation (December 1558) had claimed it as lawful, we know, that they should enjoy their own services, and put down those of the religion by law established, until such time as the Catholic clergy “be able to prove themselves the true ministers of Christ’s Church” and guiltless of all the crimes charged against them by their adversaries. {93c} That was the challenge of the Reformers, backed by the menace affixed to the doors of all the monasteries.  The Regent in turn had thrown down her glove by the proclamation of February 9, 1559, against disturbing services and “bosting” (bullying) priests.  How could she possibly do less in the circumstances?  If her proclamation was disobeyed, could she do less than summon the disobedient to trial?  Her hand was forced.

It appears to myself, under correction, that all this part of the history of the Reformation has been misunderstood by our older historians.  Almost without exception, they represent the Regent as dissembling with the Reformers till, on conclusion of the peace of Cateau Cambresis (which left France free to aid her efforts in Scotland), April 2, 1559, and on the receipt of a message from the Guises, “she threw off the mask,” and initiated an organised persecution.  But there is no evidence that any such message commanding