he kept the Bishops from
buffets at that time.'[72]

Her daughter Mary, the celebrated Queen of Scots, had been married in
April to Francis, the Dauphin of France, and the Regent, rejoicing in
this long hoped-for alliance, had one thing more at heart. The Scots
Parliament was to meet in November, and she hoped that it would confer
the crown 'Matrimonial' of Scotland upon her son-in-law, thus
consolidating the two kingdoms. In view of this meeting the Lords of the
Congregation prepared a petition, the leading prayer of which would have
practically freed Scotland from the intolerance of existing legislation
in the matter of religion--

'We most humbly desire that _all such Acts of Parliament_, as in
the time of darkness gave power to the churchmen to execute
their tyranny against us, by reason that we to them were delated
as heretics, may be _suspended and abrogated_.'[73]

Here again was a proposal which, if taken by itself, would have
satisfied the modern view of liberty of conscience. But the petitioners
went on to say that they did not object to a _temporal_ judge of heresy,
provided he judged according to the Word of God; and they looked forward
to a decision of 'all controversies in religion,' not however by
Parliament, but by a General Council. This proposal was first handed to
the Queen Regent, who 'spared not amiable looks and good words in
abundance, but always she kept our Bill close in her pocket.' Both
parties in Parliament being thus pleased, the Crown Matrimonial was
consented to, and before the Session closed, the Protestant Lords read
an important protest, repeating the positions which they had already
taken up.

1. 'We protest, that seeing we cannot obtain a just reformation,
according to God's word, that it be lawful to us _to use
ourselves_ in matters of religion and conscience, as we must
answer unto God.

2. 'That we shall incur no danger in life or lands, or other
political pains, for not observing such Acts as heretofore have
passed in favour of our adversaries.'

They added a protest that if any tumult should arise 'for the diversity
of religion,' and if any abuses should be 'violently reformed,' it
should not be imputed to them, who desired a reformation in matters of
religion by the Authority. From that Authority, however, they, in
closing--somewhat inconsistently but most rightfully--demanded once more
the 'indifferency' which becometh God