Gift Form - St Catharine'S College: Fill & Download for Free

While this will likely surprise some, US-style televangelism is already a deeply established thing in those countries. And it’s very much getting more popular each year. Indeed in most countries it’s the only part of Christendom still growing today.Three big ideas here:It’s easy to underestimate how popular a thing is locally when we index on our own non-representative social groups (e.g., imagine older white Americans guessing at how popular k-pop or esports are in the US)Some signs of popularity are more immediately obvious than others (i.e., we know who we see on mainstream TV, but might not pay attention to who is booking a stadium down the street where all the marketing for that event is being targeted to people who aren’t us)Televangelism has many faces, each of which is tailored to do a bit better with a specific cultural group (e.g., white Texans are more likely to know Osteen, white Californians are more likely to know Rick Warren, Black southerners are more likely to know TD Jakes, etc.)That in mind, I’m going to sketch out a brief history of how US-style televangelism has conquered the world, and how it’s still doing far better in the countries listed than even many locals would know (which is somewhat by design!).PrefaceTo make sense of anything that follows, we have to start with the fact that Christianity is notoriously confusing at an organizational level (which is also somewhat by design). You can do actual PhDs in unpacking it all. Hence why most people, including most Christians, having only a vague sense of the map.To illustrate:Imagine Christianity as a large circleThis circle contains a number of smaller circles labelled Protestant, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, etcEach of those circles is then composed of even smaller circles (Protestantism has Methodists and Baptists and the like; Catholicism has like a hundred different rites and orders, etc)But then there are also a dozen different types of Baptists (or far more depending what level of resolution you want to get to, as captured in the classic Baptists on Bridge joke)Making it even more complicated, we then have groupings that only loosely relate to denominational structures:Maybe half of Protestant churches classify themselves as Evangelical. But half don’t. And some smaller set of Catholic and Anglican churches would say “us too”. But if you asked their members whether they were Evangelical (or what the term meant), you’d get a lot of different answers!Likewise we have terms like Pentecostal and Charismatic:The former refers to new churches that were formed in the 20th century around the idea that “the gifts of the holy spirit” were still present tense — i.e., that modern Christians ought to be prophesying, speaking in tongues, and healing the sick. (An idea that mutated from even earlier movements like Keswickianism and Holiness Methodism.)Charismatics agreed, but opted to remain in their existing churches to push reform there instead of jumping to a new structure. (While most of those churches were Protestant, there were Charismatic movements within Catholicism and Anglicism too.)Lots use the terms interchangeably, else add to the confusion with others like “third-wave Pentecostal” or “Neo-Charismatic”. It’s a mess! (To simplify here, I’m going to use just Pentecostal. It’s wrong, but the differences aren’t important for our purposes.)There’s also an endless trend of crises and splitting and reinvention, which has led more and more churches to be intentionally vague in their labelling (sort of hiding all the ugly history), where you need a bit of insider knowledge to decrypt their coding and locate them on the map.So there’s just some irreducible complexity here. But what matters for what follows is that modern televangelism is designed for audiences who believe in the sorts of things associated with historical Pentecostal movements. And this part of Christendom is very much still booming — not only in places like Brazil (where it’s overtaking traditional Catholicism), but in global cities like Sydney and London.Source of KnowledgeBefore I get into more meat, a quick bit of biography here to clarify standing:My elementary school in Canada was housed in a Pentecostal megachurch run by televangelist Peter Youngren. The same building also hosted a bible college and a TV studio. We were often conscripted into helping with odds and ends, and were free to ask loads of questions.I served in a bunch of pastoral roles in various churches through my 20s. While none of said churches were Pentecostal, I did a lot of interfacing with those that were (e.g., the bible camp I ran rented out to two of them, and I often collaborated with others on events and various panels).I’ve travelled across Canada quite a bit, including visiting a lot of camps and churches. I’d say I’ve done a decent sampling of what they teach, who they align with, which ministries they support, etc.(Also note that Pentecostalism has always been as much a product of Canada as the US. Just look up Albert Benjamin Simpson or Aimee Semple McPherson or the Hebden mission or “the latter rain revival” or “the Toronto blessing”. Canadians have long been shaping both the ideology and its public transmission. When people say televangelism isn’t popular here, what they really mean is that they don’t see it on channels they watch. And they wouldn’t! But it’s here all the same.)Genre GenesisAmerican televangelism began in the 1950s, being essentially co-developed simultaneously by two outsized figuresFor context, the history of Christianity is just the history of various fanatics going around banging on singlemindedly about some “awakening” or another (i.e., “Christendom has fallen asleep and desperately needs to get back to x founding principle”).The two great fanatics of the time were Billy Graham and Oral Roberts, each of whom represented a different xFor Graham, his TV work was an extension of his Evangelical crusadesThe Evangelical x was that the church had lost sight of the need for all to be “born again” (where we admit to Jesus that we suck, and accept his offer to regenerate us from the inside — which, as with vampires, apparently requires an explicit “come on in”).The key to Graham’s Evangelicalism was spending half an hour recounting all the ways in which people are broken (thus getting his audience to think about their own worst transgressions, thus priming them for a desire to “get right”). He was good at it, and his crusades grew popular, eventually filling large stadiums for multiple nights.But even stadiums can only fit so many. And Graham, very much not like Jesus, could only be in one place at a time. So he turned to the newly emerging power of television to scale his message.For Roberts, TV was an enhancement of his healing crusadesWhile also an Evangelical, Roberts was hella Pentecostal. And their x was “if the first Christians were able to do miracles on demand, the only reason we can’t now is lack of faith”. Thus his programming was more in the vein of a slick miracle and inspiration show culminating in “this could be you if you prove your faith by sending in $50”.This message worked, and wasn’t really a huge stretch from what Graham and the non-Pentecostal Evangelicals were saying. Both suggested that to give joyfully with faith in some good result was to further the great work in the way any true believer should want to do. And both did some observably good things with donations.The difference was who kept what money. For Roberts and the Pentecostals, living the good life was a big part of their theology. “No one wants to buy religion from a stressed fella in a shabby coat, and anyway god wants us to be blessed, so you blessing me is just you proving that you’re ready to be blessed yourself!”(While Graham was too obsessed with maintaining an “above-all-suspicion” brand to engage in his own luxury consumption, he was happy to ally himself with Roberts et al. And this sort of back-end alliance has remained true between clean-faced Evangelicalism and the self-benefiting types. Same product, different flavour.)Anyway, a bunch of other Pentecostals observed this whole TV thing with interest, and figured there was more they could do with itPat Robertson and others realized they ought to be building out their own TV infrastructure and dedicated programming (as opposed to just buying airtime to broadcast sermons on network TV, which was expensive and came with lots of restrictions)(Incidentally, Oral Roberts hired a chauffeur in 1967 who asked good questions and took good notes: Kenneth Copeland)GrowthThough all early televangelism was by constrained by media neutrality laws, those constraints were unequal across countries. While the history of workarounds and legal challenges here is expansive, the gist is that it was easier and more profitable to solve for this in US markets that boasted a mix of low carriage costs and high population densities.It was also easier to grow TV audiences and local attendance in tandem. So if you look at the overlap of TV market size + cheap real estate (including parking) + strong car commuter culture, you start to see why so many of the early megachurches began in developing areas just outside metros like LA, DFW, Atlanta, and Orlando.Just so, the Canadian equivalents cropped up in the outskirts of Toronto and Calgary. But winter driving sucks, and our government made single-faith TV broadcasting much harder for much longer, and we don’t have quite the same commuting culture. So most of our megachurches capped at ~3,000, where growth past that point was just way easier to migrate to additional services and locations.Using Peter Youngren as an example, his flagship church (slash my school) was in St. Catharines, a commuter city of 130k. He did two AM services there, then drove up to Toronto, then back for one more. Our location had translation booths and a full production crew, which let him reach a five-digit total audience every Sunday. And this was in the 90s when multi-site was still in its infancy!Speaking of multi-site, said churches were early adopters of satellite/internet streaming, which allowed simulcasting to a large number of smaller locations (and thus deeper neighbourhood-level penetration). But the scale of these efforts isn’t easily understood from the outside. You notice when someone fills a basketball arena. You have no reason to notice churches with constellations of satellite locations, where total weekly viewership is a significant multiple of physical attendance at their flagship site. But there are lots of them!A thing about TV is that syndication is cheap, as are brand extensionsSetting up a high-quality production environment is expensive. Recording and distributing content is cheap. And as the market only has so much space for major brands, this meant a big early-winner advantage. For Canada, this meant (a) there would never be many Canadian televangelists for mainstream Canadians to hear about, (b) all Canadian Pentecostals would know the same US stars.Hence why Osteen has done the Air Canada Centre in Toronto at least twice, and why he keeps a local office here. Canada has loads of Pentecostals, and lots of them like him! (He’s also headlined at the O2 Arena in London and keynoted at the Super Dome in Sydney.)As for Copeland, his real legacy is in his affiliate programs. Through his TV brand he’s sold many thousands of churches and pastors on his curricula and conferences. (His Canadian office does something like $6m a year in local revenue, and his European arm lists no fewer than 30 affiliated churches in London alone.)VariationLike any successful product, Pentecostal televangelism developed various flavours for various palatesFor millennials that don’t vibe with Copeland or Osteen, they have alternatives like Hillsong’s Brian Houston. While his message is the same, he delivers it in skinny jeans and an Aussie accent. And the music at his church is culturally cool (Justin Bieber covered one of their songs, after being baptized by one of their pastors).How popular is Hillsong in Australia? They just dropped $23m on a music hall in Melbourne. They pull in 43k attendees every Sunday (mostly Sydney). And elsewhere? They’re over 150k total. Kevin Durant got baptized in an NYC location. Kylie and Kendall Jenner show up sometimes. Nick Jonas has been photographed at a service.Hillsong also does a Christmas event in Wembley Arena in London that usually fills it up for three consecutive shows. They also do a big conference in Sydney every year that draws some 30,000 (which none other than Joel Osteen has keynoted at least twice).Again, it’s not that Hillsong is offering a different product. Houston is a Trump supporter. He put out a statement against Australia’s 2017 gay marriage vote. He believes in all the same things as Copeland. Hillsong very much does healing services. It’s generic Pentecostalism.(While recent sex scandals have cost Hillsong some shine, this hasn’t changed much. The hot celeb churches in the US now are Churchome and Zoe. Bieber and Russell Wilson go to the former, Chris Pratt to the latter. But they’re just Hillsong with a different logo. Their leaders all believe in conservative Pentecostal things.)Wrapping UpAnyway, I could go on. US-style televangelism is still thriving, both in the US and elsewhere. (I didn’t even touch on how exported and copycat versions have dominated in places like Nigeria, Brazil, and South Korea.) Osteen is going to keep playing arenas across the globe. And Copeland is going to maintain his offices in Europe, not because of good will, but because it’s very profitable for him.But again, the real takeaway here isn’t just that televangelism isn’t dead, or that it was never some narrow US phenomenon. It’s that media-savvy Pentecostalism is in many places the only part of Christendom that’s still winning. If this is news to us, that’s because the folks behind it have learned that some publicity is in fact very bad publicity. They know how to target their primary audience locally and relationally. They know how to not put out clips that will get dunked on by John Oliver. And they know that the future of TV is YouTube and Instagram, not cable.Basically the business of public Pentecostalism has never been better.

The Scottish Reformation, c.1525-1560IntroductionHere we explore the history of the Scottish reformation, how the Reformation Rebellion of 1559-60 came about, and the nature of the reformation as both event and process. The Scottish reformation was remarkable for the fact that despite some underground engagement with Protestantism in Scotland by small groups of radicals and individual outspoken preachers from shortly after the period when Luther started writing (around 1520), there is no compelling evidence that Scotland was on its way to becoming as complete a Protestant nation as it did, almost overnight, in 1560. Prior to this, it had been a fairly typical, and very devout, Catholic country.That Protestantism became Scotland’s main religion was in part due to committed preachers like George Wishart and John Knox, who actively recruited and enthused the most influential and powerful sections of Scottish society to the Protestant cause. It was also down to a failure of the Catholic Church to see the threat that Protestantism posed in Scotland, and to recognise its own shortcomings and internal problems. It was equally a political rebellion as much as a spiritual one, and the nobility who led the rebellion against Mary of Guise, Queen Mary’s mother and regent of Scotland in the late 1550s, were keen to move Scotland’s diplomatic axis away from Scotland’s age-old relationship with Catholic France. By the 1550s, this relationship was threatening to annex Scotland through the young queen (who was herself descended from the French aristocratic household of Guise-Lorraine and who was married to the Crown Prince of France, Francois) and move it towards Protestant England.Political context, 1503-1560Between 1503 and 1560, a dramatic change took place in Scotland’s traditional foreign policy. From the outset of the Wars of Independence in the thirteenth century, Scotland had enjoyed a close friendship with France – known as the ‘auld alliance’ – and had been a bitter enemy of England, with frequent periods of warfare between the two neighbouring states. In 1503 King James IV of Scotland (1488-1513) married Margaret Tudor, the daughter of King Henry VII of England and the sister of the future Henry VIII. This marriage established a dynastic link between the ruling houses of the two nations that would ultimately lead to James’ great-grandson, James VI, becoming king of both realms in 1603. James IV was succeeded by the infant James V when he was killed by the English at Flodden in 1513. In the 1530s James V married directly into the French royal family – he managed to do this because Henry VIII’s new religious position made James increasingly valuable on the European stage.When the Pope failed to grant Henry VIII a divorce from his wife Catharine of Arragon in favour of Anne Boleyn, Henry effectively created his own church with himself at the head. He launched the Act in Restraint of Appeals to Rome in 1533, forbidding his subjects from asking Rome to arbitrate on legal disputes like marriage or legitimacy. This was followed by an Act of Royal Supremacy over the church in 1534, where Henry proclaimed himself head of both the spiritual and temporal realm in England.James V, situated at Henry’s northern border, thus controlled a gateway by which England could be invaded by European Catholic forces, especially after his marriages to the French princess Madeleine and then Marie de Guise strengthened his ties to France. The birth of James’ daughter, Mary, in 1542 marked a drastic change in dynastic and religious policy, not just for Anglo-Scottish relations but also for the wider European scene. Mary made a nice dynastic prize for England or France as she had, through her grandfather, a strong claim to the English and Scottish thrones. Whoever married her could permanently secure the Scottish throne to their heirs. After the death of James V, Henry thus shifted his policy from diplomatic accordance with an equal monarch to aggressive and arbitrary courting of Mary through both open warfare on Scotland – a series of attacks known as the ‘rough wooings’ – and the cultivation of a pro-English faction at court.Early reform movement, c.1520-c.1545During the 1520s a number of cultural developments began to appear that would inform the political shape of things to come. The first was the circulation of Martin Luther’s reform ideas in printed and manuscript form, which had begun to appear in Scotland, particularly in the east coast ports, via merchants and trading vessels from the Low Countries and the Baltic states. There must have been a noticeable reading of these texts, as the parliament of 1525 passed an ‘Act anent heresy’ banning their importation and reading on pain of forfeiture (loss of property and goods).The first Protestant martyr to die as a result of disseminating the reformed message was the student and university master Patrick Hamilton, who had come back to St Andrews in 1527 (after a brief spell in Germany) espousing a number of Lutheran beliefs. He was burnt outside the gates of St Salvator’s College on 29 February 1528. Hamilton’s fellow student Henry Forrest, tried and executed by the Archbishop of St Andrews, James Beaton in October 1533, had also studied at St Leonard’s, entering the college in 1526. There were instances of desecration of Catholic churches in Ayrshire between 1528 and 1532, further martyrdoms in St Andrews for heresy in 1538-9, and another small group of craftsmen executed for Protestant beliefs in Perth in 1543. However, these were all small isolated instances of Protestant belief, not evidence of a general trend.The Protestant message in Scotland arguably only fully crystallised when the charismatic preacher George Wishart, the first Scot to come back to Scotland with the religious message being preached by Swiss reformers (including John Calvin) rather than the German ones, began to preach around Scotland in 1545. His death at a trial presided over by Cardinal David Beaton on 1 March 1546 actually made his message stronger – Wishart went willingly to be burnt alive before St Andrews castle, and kissed and embraced his executioner in forgiveness.Treaties of Greenwich and Treaty of Haddington, 1543-1548The death of King James V in 1542 and the accession of the infant Queen Mary allowed a period of breathing-space in Scotland without a strong Catholic monarch for those who had tendencies towards Protestantism to explore these ideas without serious fear of reprisal or loss of favour. At the same time, this Protestantism became bound up (for many nobles, at any rate) with increasing amity towards England, which had seceded from the Catholic faith under King Henry VIII in the early 1530s. In December 1542, a regency council of Cardinal David Beaton and James Hamilton earl of Arran, and the earls of Moray, Argyll and Huntly was proclaimed. However, early the following year Arran had Beaton imprisoned, seized power for himself, and wrote to Henry VIII, promising reformation.In the parliament of March 1543 Arran authorised the reading of vernacular bibles which were then brought up ‘by the cartload’ to disseminate Protestantism among those who could read. At the same time a number of Anglo-Scottish ‘assured lords’ brokered a peace treaty between Scotland and England known as the Treaties of Greenwich, which would marry the young Queen Mary to Henry VIII’s heir, Prince Edward. This was ratified by Arran on 25 August but the earl subsequently lost power in late 1543 to a counter-coup by Beaton. Cardinal Beaton swiftly repudiated the Greenwich treaties but by then the Protestant genie was out of the bottle – the government had briefly legitimated Protestantism.Mary of Guise and the French interlude, 1548-1559After the young queen had been sent to France, her mother, Mary of Guise, was made regent of Scotland. Mary was an effective ruler – she rewarded her adherents with gifts of land and money, and bribed those who were liable to waver. She tried to restore firm central government and deal with the administration of justice and regulation of trade. However, the Scottish nobility became increasingly suspicious of her. Her effort to introduce a form of valuation tax in 1556, although sensibly withdrawn, led to considerable mistrust between her and the Scottish nobility. The following year Mary also tried to engineer a war against England but when the army reached the Border on 17 October 1557 the principal Scots noblemen refused to fight. Notably, these included the Duke of Châtelherault and the Earls of Morton and Argyll, who all would be active on the Protestant side during the Reformation Rebellion.Religion in Scotland, 1546-1559Mary failed to address the issue of religious reform seriously. The murder of Cardinal Beaton in 1546 meant that there was no leadership in the church, and although John Hamilton did take his place, it was two years before he had sufficient authority to act as Archbishop of St Andrews. This had allowed Protestantism to grow quietly – there was a move from small underground meetings of individuals in secret ‘conventicles’ to more public ‘privy kirks’. Despite the growth of Protestantism, with the resumption of French influence it looked as if the Catholic religion could be fully restored in Scotland. Indeed, although there was a sizable community of Scottish religious exiles in Geneva and abroad led by John Knox and his friend Christopher Goodman, with the resumption in England of a Catholic state under Mary Tudor in 1553 they had nowhere to hide in the British mainland.Path to rebellionOn 1 January 1559 ‘The Beggars’ Summons’ was posted on the doors of all monasteries, abbeys and friaries, and threatened violent dispossession of friars. Addressed in the name of the ‘blind, crooked, bed-ridden, widows, orphans and poor of Scotland’, it read as follows:‘Ye your selfes ar not ignorant (and thocht ye wald be) it is now (thankes to God) knawen to the haill warlde…that the benignitie or almes of all Christian people perteynis to us allanerly; quhilk ye, being hale of bodye, stark, sturdye, and abill to wyrk…hes thire many yeiris…maist falslie stowin fra us…[we] warne yow, in the name of the grit God, be this publyck wryting, affixt on your yettis quhair ye now dwell, that ye remove fourth of our saidis Hospitales, betuix this and the Feist of Witsunday next, sua that we…may enter and tak posessioun of our said patrimony, and eject yow utterlie fourth of the same.’ (Knox, ii, 255-6).The rebellion, May 1559-July 15602,500 men from Ayrshire, under the earl of Glencairn, arrived to defend Perth against the Regent. After negotiation Glencairn’s forces ceded control of Perth to Guise on 30 May, who immediately tried to enforce Catholicism in the town via martial law. This was highly unpopular, and her troops shot dead a boy during the reoccupation. These events pushed Lord James Stewart, queen Mary’s half-brother, and the earl of Argyll to declare for the reformers, and become leaders of party known as the ‘Lords of the Congregation.’ The Congregation ransacked Fife and ‘reformed’ St Andrews in mid-June, and by the end of the month they had taken Edinburgh. They put out feelers to England for support, and in the meantime consolidated their control over their heartlands in Angus and the Mearns, Fife, and the south-west.The Reformation Parliament, August 1560Without royal sanction or authorisation, the Lords of the Congregation and their supporters ushered in the religious revolution that not only would permanently transform Scotland’s church, but would also affect its cultural and intellectual life at every level, and permanently alter Scottish national identity. This meeting, known as the Reformation Parliament, outlawed the practice of Catholic worship in Scotland and denied that the Pope had any spiritual authority over Scotland or power to adjudicate on legal matters such as marriage and divorce, ending at a stroke a relationship between Scotland and the Catholic Church that had existed for centuries.Scotland’s First Reformed PolityTo support this confession a group of Protestant ministers and intellectuals – known, unfortunately, as the ‘six Johns’, because they all shared the same first name, but which included John Knox – created a polity ‘touching the reform of religion in Scotland’. This blueprint for what would become the Church, or Kirk, of Scotland, later known as the First Book of Discipline, was accepted in an act of secret council in January 1561, and aimed to bring about sweeping changes to the Scottish parish system. Churches were to be stripped of their idolatrous religious art and decoration and whitewashed, so that only God and Christ would be worshipped, and not their images, or images of the saints (prohibited, along with all manner of intercessory prayer, as a feature of the Catholic faith).Key FiguresJohn Knox (c. 1514-1572)A Protestant preacher and firebrand, Knox started life as a parish priest and notary public. Inspired by the preaching of the Protestant martyr George Wishart, Knox joined a band of early Protestants who seized St Andrews castle in 1546 and murdered Cardinal Beaton. When the castle was captured by the French, Knox spent two years as a galley slave before becoming involved in the Protestant church in England and on the Continent. Knox played a key role in the Protestant rebellion of 1559-60 and the events leading up to it. He was also a skilled polemicist, writing many tracts on man’s right to resist his ruler on grounds of religion. His masterwork was his massive History of the Reformation in Scotland, which provided an account of the events of the rebellion from the viewpoint of the reformers and attempted to legitimise the actions of the Lords of the Congregation. His extreme radicalism ultimately made him an embarrassment to the moderate Protestant party that took root at Queen Mary’s court and he was marginalised politically. He died at St Andrews in 1572.James Hamilton, second earl of Arran and Duke of Châtelherault (c. 1519-1575)Hamilton was the grandson of James Hamilton, first Lord Hamilton, and Mary Stewart, sister of James III. His lineage meant he was heir presumptive after Mary Stewart between 1542 and 1566, although there were questions about his legitimacy owing to his father’s divorce from his first wife, Lady Elizabeth Home. Hamilton’s proximity to the throne guided much of his policy; he was also known for being highly fickle and changeable, which goes some way towards explaining his inconsistent shifting between various factions in the reformation struggle. Becoming governor on the death of James V in December 1542, over the course of 1543 Arran negotiated an alliance with Henry VIII that agreed the marriage of Mary Queen of Scots and the young Prince Edward and authorised the reading of the bible in the vernacular. The return from France in late 1543 of his staunchly Catholic brother John Hamilton, Abbot of Paisley (and from 1549 Archbishop of St Andrews) and from England of Matthew Stewart,fourth earl of Lennox (who had a strong claim to the Scottish throne from another branch of the Stewart family), along with the widespread socio-economic disruption caused by anti-clerical riots, prompted Hamilton to quickly reverse his pro-Protestant pro-English policy. He negotiated the Treaty of Haddington with Henri II of France in 1548, for which he was rewarded with the duchy of Châtelherault in Poitou (worth around £5000 Scots a year). He remained regent until 1554 when Mary of Guise replaced him. In 1559 he became one of the Lords of the Congregation, but supported Mary Stewart after her enforced abdication as one of the ‘Queen’s Men’ between 1567 and 1573; his shifting from one side to another over the course of these two events was likely motivated by his desire to protect his status as heir presumptive.Cardinal David Beaton (1494?-c. 1547)Beaton studied at St Andrews and Orleans, and began his rise to prominence under the patronage of John Stewart, fourth duke of Albany and governor of Scotland between 1515 and 1524. In 1524 he helped negotiate a French marriage for James V in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Rouen (1517), and was appointed to the commendatorship of Arbroath. He made a name for himself as an administrator in Scottish central government and as a diplomatic agent to the French court between 1524 and 1543, spending four and a half of the ten years after 1533 in France. He led the negotiations relating to James V’s French marriages, first to Princess Madeleine, daughter of François I (1537), and then Mary of Guise (1538). In 1537 Francis I nominated him to the French bishopric of Mirepoix, to which he acceded on 5 December. In December of the following year he was made one of five new cardinals created by the pope. On 14 February 1539 he succeded his uncle, James Hamilton, as archbishop of St Andrews. Following the death of the king in late 1542, Beaton clashed with the earl of Arran on the regency council and was initially imprisoned by him in the first half of 1543. Following Hamilton’s volte-face against his own English policy Beaton eventually outmaneuevered him and led the faction that repudiated the Treaty of Greenwich in late 1543. Beaton was an active prosecutor of heresy as archbishop, and in spring 1544 he was made legate a latere, which gave him broad powers to act on behalf of the pope in the affairs of the Scottish church. Beaton was blamed for the military assaults against Scotland by Henry VIII between 1544 and 1546 following the repudiation of the English alliance, and his trial and execution of the protestant preacher George Wishart on 1 March 1546 sparked outrage among the Protestant Anglophile faction. He was assassinated by a small group of Fife lairds during a dawn raid on St Andrews Castle on 29 May, and his body preserved in a casket of salt and subjected to ritual humiliation.Mary of Guise (1515-1560)Mary was a member of the powerful French house of Guise, who had close links to the ruling Valois dynasty. She was queen of Scots and consort of James V from 1537 until 1542, and adopted a pro-French, pro-Catholic stance (along with Cardinal David Beaton) in the struggles for control of the Scottish government after James’ death with the pro-English Hamilton family (led by James Hamilton, the earl of Arran). Mary succeeded Arran as regent in Scotland in April 1554, and her policy centred on shoring up French influence in Scotland and ensuring that her daughter Mary’s inheritance was protected. Although Mary initially fought a strong military campaign against the Lords of the Congregation, the intervention of English forces early in 1560 made quashing the rebellion increasingly difficult, compounded by Mary’s growing ill-health (she likely suffered from dropsy). She died in the early hours of 11 June 1560.The Lords of the CongregationThe Lords of the Congregation (act. 1557–1560) were the group of Scottish nobles who mounted a successful rebellion against Mary of Guise. The formation of the group is dated to the ‘first band’ of 3 December 1557, the signing of a largely medieval style agreement of mutual protection and association, in this case to press for reform of the church along protestant lines. The ‘first band’ was signed by Archibald Campbell, fourth earl of Argyll, Alexander Cunningham, fourth earl of Glencairn, James Douglas, fourth earl of Morton, Archibald Campbell, Lord Lorne (fifth earl of Argyll from 1558), and Lord John Erskine, later seventeenth or first earl of Mar. With the exception of Erskine, these men emerged two years later at the head of the congregation. A much larger group lay behind them, although their signatures have not survived or were not explicitly appended to the band. Together they represented the core of the underground protestant movement of the late 1550s, the geographical strength of which lay above all in Ayrshire, Angus and the Mearns, Fife, and the Lothians. The leadership and composition of the lords of the congregation altered and expanded at different stages during the wars, and expanded to include those who supMary Stewart (1542-1587)Mary Stewart, daughter of James V and Mary of Guise, became Queen while an infant, following her father’s death at the Battle of Solway Moss. In 1548 Mary was betrothed to the Dauphin (crown prince) of France, the future Francis II, and was sent to be raised in France, a staunchly Catholic country. Mary and Francis became king and queen of France in July 1559, but on 5 December 1560 Francis died, and she returned to Scotland in August 1561 to take up rule of a country that had ushered in a Protestant revolution in her absence.