the leading reformers summoned for 4 June at St. Andrews to ‘concurre in the work of the reformation.’ He also signed the act of 23 Oct. 1559 suspending her from the regency, and he subscribed the instructions to the commissioners that went to Berwick in February 1560 to form a contract with Elizabeth. In July following he accepted an office which identified him for the rest of his life with the reformed church of Scotland as completely as if he had been an ecclesiastic. When the assembly decided to appoint superintendents for the different districts of Scotland, it followed almost as a matter of course that he, though a layman, should be appointed superintendent for Angus and Mearns (ib. ii. 363).
Erskine was the only person present at Knox's stormy interview with Queen Mary. Mary, exasperated beyond endurance by the terse denunciations of Knox, gave way to a paroxysm of passion. Erskine was never addicted to strong language, and probably recognised that Knox had blundered in his diplomacy as well as violated good manners. At any rate he attempted to take the sting out of Knox's remonstrances by ‘many pleasing wordis of hir beautie, of hir excellence, and how that all the princes of Europe wold be glaid to seak hir favouris’ (ib. ii. 388). Knox unconcernedly adds that the only ‘effect of this was to cast oil on the flaming fire,’ but at all events it diverted her anger from Erskine, and in all probability, but for his considerate persuasions when he remained with her in the cabinet after Knox was dismissed, she would have been content with nothing less than bringing the matter before the lords of the articles. Indeed, the compliments of the laird of Dun, when Mary's pride had been so ruthlessly wounded, seem really to have left a very favourable impression of him; for when at the conference held with the lords at Perth in May 1565, in reference to the marriage with Darnley, she expressed her willingness to hear public preaching ‘out of the mouth of such as pleased’ her, thereby plainly intending to exclude Knox, she mentioned that above all others ‘she would gladly hear the superintendent of Angus, for he was a mild and sweet-natured man, with true honesty and uprightness’ (ib. 482). Erskine's rare union of steadfastness to his convictions with a conciliatory manner gained him at this time a peculiar influence among the reforming party. Many of the nobility of the party were not primarily actuated by ecclesiastical or even religious motives, and Erskine formed in a great measure the bond of connection between them and the ‘congregation.’ It was probably chiefly on this account that, though a layman, he was chosen moderator of the general assembly which met at Edinburgh 25 Dec. 1564, and of the three assemblies succeeding the marriage of Mary with Darnley, viz. 25 Dec. 1565, 25 June 1566, and 25 Dec. 1566. In 1564 he was elected also provost of Montrose. After the murder of Darnley he aided in the coronation of the young prince James at Stirling, 29 July 1567, and along with the Earl of Morton took the oath on the prince's behalf to maintain the protestant religion (ib. vi. 556). In 1569, by command of the general assembly, he held a visitation at Aberdeen, and suspended the principal and several professors of King's College from their offices for adherence to popery (Calderwood, ii. 492). On account of certain letters proclaimed by the regent in St. Andrews in November 1571, dismissing the collectors of the thirds of the benefices, Erskine on the 10th wrote him a remonstrance in the form of a short dissertation on the respective provinces of the civil and ecclesiastical powers (printed in Calderwood, iii. 156–62; Bannatyne, Memoriales, 197–203; and Wodrow, Collections, i. 36–41). Four days later he wrote him, in reference to a proposed convention at Leith, asserting that he saw no reason why he and others should attend a convention where their counsel would not be received (Bannatyne, 203–4; Wodrow, 43–4). To these two letters the regent replied on the 15th (Calderwood, iii. 162–5; Bannatyne, 205–6; Wodrow, 44–6) in such a conciliatory manner, that Erskine was induced to use his influence in securing the attendance of the superintendents and others at the convention, which was finally fixed at Leith for 12 Jan. Wodrow asserts that Erskine agreed to the modified form of episcopacy then introduced, only under protestation until better times; but it is plain from his subsequent conduct that his objections to it were by no means so strong as those of the extreme presbyterians. At the general assembly convened in the Tolbooth of Perth on the 16th of the following August he was again chosen moderator (Calderwood, iii. 219), and his influence doubtless aided in preventing an open breach between the two parties. As a token of his consent to the introduction of episcopacy, he intimated his desire, after the appointment of a bishop to St. Andrews, to be relieved of his duties of superintendent within the diocese, to be followed also with their cessation within the diocese of Dunkeld as soon as a bishop should be appointed there (ib. iii. 273). The new policy, however, met with so much resistance that it was never fully carried into effect, and Erskine retained his office of superintendent
