Chapter III: Part 3

From Rouen they sailed to Nantes, and lay upon the Loire during the following winter. Solicitations, threatenings, and violence, were all employed to induce the prisoners to change their religion, or at least to countenance the popish worship. But so great was their abhorrence of that system, that not a single individual of the whole company, on land or water, could be induced to symbolize in the smallest degree with idolaters. While the prison‑ships lay on the Loire, mass was frequently said, and _salve regina_ sung, on board, or on the shore within their hearing. On these occasions they were brought out and threatened with the torture, if they did not give the usual signs of reverence; but instead of complying, they covered their heads as soon as the service began. Knox has preserved, in his history, a humorous incident which took place on one of these occasions; and although he has not said so, it is highly probable that he himself was the person concerned in the affair. One day a fine painted image of the Virgin was brought into one of the galleys, and a Scottish prisoner was desired to give it the kiss of adoration. He refused, saying that such idols were accursed, and he would not touch it. “But you shall,” replied one of the officers roughly, at the same time forcing {69} it towards his mouth. Upon this the prisoner seized the image, and throwing it into the river, said, “Lat our Ladie now save hirself; sche is lycht enoughe, lat hir leirne to swyme.” The officers with difficulty saved their goddess from the waves; and the prisoners were relieved for the future from such troublesome importunities.[92]

In summer 1548, as nearly as I can collect, the galleys in which they were confined returned to Scotland, and continued for a considerable time on the east coast, watching for English vessels. Knox’s health was now greatly impaired by the severity of his confinement, and he was seized with a fever, during which his life was despaired of by all in the ship.[93] But even in this state, his fortitude of mind remained unsubdued,[94] and he comforted his fellow‑prisoners with hopes of release. To their anxious desponding inquiries (natural to men in their situation), “if he thought they would ever obtain their liberty,” his uniform answer was, “God will deliver us to his glory, even in this life.” While they lay on the coast between Dundee and St Andrews, Mr (afterwards Sir) James Balfour, who was confined in the same ship with him, pointed to the spires of St Andrews, and asked him if he knew the place. “Yes,” {70} replied the sickly and emaciated captive, “I know it well; for I see the steeple of that place where God first opened my mouth in public to his glory; and I am fully persuaded, how weak soever I now appear, that I shall not depart this life, till that my tongue shall glorify his godly name in the same place.” This striking reply Sir James repeated, in the presence of a number of witnesses, many years before Knox returned to Scotland, and when there was very little prospect of his words being verified.[95]

We must not, however, think that he possessed this tranquillity and elevation of mind, during the whole period of his imprisonment. When first thrown into fetters, insulted by his enemies, and deprived of all prospect of release, he was not a stranger to the anguish of despondency, so pathetically described by the royal psalmist of Israel.[96] He felt that conflict in his spirit, with which all good men are acquainted, and which becomes peculiarly sharp when aggravated by corporal affliction. But, having had recourse to prayer, the never‑failing refuge of the oppressed, he was relieved from all his fears, and, reposing upon the promise and the providence of the God whom he served, he attained to “the confidence and rejoicing of hope.” Those who wish for a more particular account of the state of his mind at this time, will find it in the notes, extracted from a rare work which he composed on prayer, and the chief materials of which were suggested by his own experience.[97]

{71} When free from fever, he relieved the tedious hours of captivity, by committing to writing a confession of his faith, containing the substance of what he had taught at St Andrews, with a particular account of the disputation which he had maintained in St Leonard’s Yards. This he found means to convey to his religious acquaintances in Scotland, accompanied with an earnest exhortation to persevere in the faith which they had professed, whatever persecutions they might suffer for its sake.[98] To this confession I find him referring, in the defence which he afterwards made before the bishop of Durham. “Let no man think, that because I am in the realm of England, therefore so boldly I speak. No: God hath taken that suspicion from me. For the body lying in most painful bands, in the midst of cruel tyrants, his mercy and goodness provided that the hand should write and bear witness to the confession of the heart, more abundantly than ever yet the tongue spake.”[99]

Notwithstanding the rigour of their confinement, the prisoners who were separated found opportunities of occasionally corresponding with one another. Henry Balnaves of Hallhill had composed, in his prison, a treatise on Justification and the Works and Conversation of a Justified Man. This having been conveyed to Knox, probably after his return from the coast of Scotland, he was so much pleased with the work, that he divided it into chapters, and added some marginal notes, and a concise epitome of its contents; {72} to the whole he prefixed a recommendatory dedication, intending that it should be published for the use of his brethren in Scotland, as soon as an opportunity offered.[100] The reader will not, I am persuaded, be displeased to have some extracts from this dedication, which represent, more forcibly than any description of mine can do, the pious and heroic spirit which animated the Reformer, when “his feet lay in irons;” and I shall quote more freely, as the book is rare.

It is thus inscribed:[101] “John Knox, the bound servant of Jesus Christ, unto his best beloved brethren of the congregation of the castle of St Andrews, and to all professors of Christ’s true evangel, desireth {73} grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, with perpetual consolation of the Holy Spirit.” After mentioning a number of instances in which the name of God had been magnified, and the interests of religion advanced, by the exile of those who were driven from their native countries by tyranny, as in the examples of Joseph, Moses, Daniel, and the primitive Christians, he goes on thus: “Which thing shall openly declare this godly work subsequent. The counsel of Satan in the persecution[102] of us, first, was to stop the wholesome wind of Christ’s evangel to blow upon the parts where we converse and dwell; and, secondly, so to oppress ourselves by corporal affliction and worldly calamities, that no place should we find to godly study. But by the great mercy and infinite goodness of God our Father, shall these his counsels be frustrate and vain. For, in despite of him and all his wicked members, shall yet that same word (O Lord! this I speak, confiding in thy holy promise) openly be proclaimed in that same country. And how that our merciful Father, amongst these tempestuous storms, by[103] all men’s expectation, hath provided some rest for us, this present work shall testify, which was sent to me in Roane, lying in irons, and sore troubled by corporal infirmity, in a galley named Nostre Dame, by an honourable brother, Mr Henry Balnaves of Hallhill, for the present holden as prisoner, (though unjustly) in the old palace of Roane.[104] {74} Which work after I had once again read, to the great comfort and consolation of my spirit, by counsel and advice of the foresaid noble and faithful man, author of the said work, I thought expedient it should be digested in chapters, &c. Which thing I have done as imbecility of ingine[105] and incommodity of place would permit; not so much to illustrate the work (which in the self is godly and perfect) as, together with the foresaid nobleman and faithful brother, to give my confession of the article of justification therein contained.[106] And I beseech you, beloved brethren, earnestly to consider, if we deny any thing presently, (or yet conceal and hide,) which any time before we professed in that article. And now we have not the castle of St Andrews to be our defence, as some of our enemies falsely accused us, saying, If we wanted our walls, we would not speak so boldly. But blessed be that Lord whose infinite goodness and wisdom hath taken from us the occasion of that slander, and hath shown unto us, that the serpent hath power only to sting the heel, that is, to molest and trouble the flesh, but not to move the spirit from constant adhering to Christ Jesus, nor public professing of his true word. O blessed be thou, Eternal Father! which, by thy only mercy, hast preserved us to this day, and provided that the confession of our faith (which ever we desired all men to have known) should, by this treatise, come plainly to light. Continue, O Lord! and grant unto us, that, as now with pen and ink, so shortly we may confess with voice and tongue the same before {75} thy congregation; upon whom look, O Lord God! with the eyes of thy mercy, and suffer no more darkness to prevail. I pray you pardon me, beloved brethren, that on this manner I digress: vehemency of spirit (the Lord knoweth I lie not) compelleth me thereto.”

The prisoners in Mont St Michel consulted Knox, as to the lawfulness of attempting to escape by breaking their prison, which was opposed by some of them, lest their escape should subject their brethren who remained in confinement to more severe treatment. He returned for answer, that such fears were not a sufficient reason for relinquishing the design, and that they might, with a safe conscience, effect their escape, provided it could be done “without the blood of any shed or spilt; but to shed any man’s blood for their freedom, he would never consent.”[107] The attempt was accordingly made by them, and successfully executed, “without harm done to the person of any, and without touching any thing that appertained to the king, the captain, or the house.”[108]

At length, after enduring a tedious and severe imprisonment of nineteen months, Knox obtained his liberty. This happened in the month of February, 1549, according to the modern computation.[109] By what means his liberation was procured I cannot certainly {76} determine. One account says, that the galley in which he was confined was taken in the Channel by the English.[110] According to another account, he was liberated by order of the king of France, because it appeared, on examination, that he was not concerned in the murder of cardinal Beatoun, nor accessory to other crimes committed by those who held the castle of St Andrews.[111] In the opinion of others, his liberty was purchased by his acquaintances, who fondly cherished the hope that he was destined to accomplish some great achievements, and were anxious, by their interposition in his behalf, to be instrumental in promoting the designs of providence.[112] It is more probable, however, that he owed his deliverance to the comparative indifference with which he and his {77} brethren were now regarded by the French court, who, having procured the consent of the parliament of Scotland to the marriage of queen Mary to the dauphin, and obtained possession of her person, felt no longer any inclination to revenge the quarrels of the Scottish clergy.

{78}
PERIOD III.

FROM THE YEAR 1549, WHEN HE WAS RELEASED FROM THE FRENCH
GALLEYS, TO THE YEAR 1554, WHEN HE FLED FROM ENGLAND.

UPON regaining his liberty, Knox immediately repaired to England. The objections which he had formerly entertained against a residence in that kingdom were now in a great measure removed. Henry VIII. had died in the year 1547; and archbishop Cranmer, released from the severe restraint under which he had been held by his tyrannical and capricious master, now exerted himself with much zeal in advancing the Reformation. In this he was cordially supported by those who governed the kingdom during the minority of Edward VI. But the undertaking was extensive and difficult; and, in carrying it on, he found a great deficiency of ecclesiastical coadjutors. Although the most of the bishops had externally complied with the alterations introduced by authority, they remained attached to the old religion, and secretly thwarted, instead of seconding, the measures of the primate. The inferior clergy were, in general, as unable as they were unwilling to undertake the instruction of the people,[113] whose ignorance of religion {79} was in many parts of the country extreme, and whose superstitious habits had become quite inveterate. This evil, which prevailed universally throughout the popish church, instead of being corrected, was considerably aggravated by a ruinous measure adopted at the commencement of the English reformation. When Henry suppressed the monasteries, and seized their revenues, he allotted pensions to the monks during life; but to relieve the royal treasury of this burden, small benefices in the gift of the crown were afterwards substituted in the place of pensions. The example of the monarch was imitated by the nobles who had procured monastic lands. By this means a great part of the inferior livings were held by ignorant and superstitious monks, who were a dead weight upon the English church, and a principal cause of the nation’s sudden relapse to popery, at the subsequent accession of queen Mary.[114]

Cranmer had already adopted measures for remedying this alarming evil. With the concurrence of the protector and privy council, he had invited a number of learned protestants from Germany into England, and had placed Peter Martyr, Martin Bucer, Paul {80} Fagius, and Emanuel Tremellius, as professors in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. This was a wise measure, which secured a future supply of useful preachers, trained up by these able masters; but the necessity was urgent, and demanded immediate provision. For this purpose, instead of fixing a number of orthodox and popular preachers in particular charges, it was judged most expedient to employ them in itinerating through different parts of the kingdom, where the clergy were most illiterate or disaffected to the Reformation, and where the inhabitants were most addicted to superstition.

In these circumstances, our zealous countryman did not remain long unemployed. The reputation which he had gained by his preaching at St Andrews,[115] and his late sufferings, recommended him to the English council; and soon after his arrival in England, he was sent down from London to preach in Berwick.[116]

The council had every reason to be pleased with {81} the choice which they had made of a northern preacher. He had long thirsted for the opportunity which he now enjoyed. His love for the truth, and his zeal against popery, had been inflamed during his captivity, and he spared neither time nor labour in the instruction of those to whom he was sent. Regarding the worship of the Romish church as idolatrous, and its doctrines as damnable, he attacked both with the utmost fervour, and exerted himself in drawing his hearers from the belief of the one, and from the observance of the other, with as much eagerness as if he had been saving their lives from a devouring flame or flood. Nor were his efforts fruitless. During the two years that he continued in Berwick, numbers were converted by his ministry from ignorance and the errors of popery; and a visible reformation of manners was produced upon the soldiers of the garrison, who had formerly been noted for licentiousness and turbulence.[117]

The popularity and success of a protestant preacher were very galling to the clergy in that quarter, who were, almost to a man, bigoted papists, and enjoyed the patronage of the bishop of the diocese. Tonstal, bishop of Durham, like his friend Sir Thomas More, was one of those men of whom it is extremely difficult to give a correct idea, qualities of an opposite kind being mixed and blended in his character. Surpassing all his brethren in polite learning, he was the patron of bigotry and superstition. Displaying, in {82} private life, that moderation and suavity of manners which liberal studies usually inspire,[118] he was accessory to the public measures of a reign disgraced throughout by the most shocking barbarities. Claiming our praise for honesty by opposing in parliament innovations which his judgment condemned, he forfeited it by the most tame acquiescence and ample conformity; thereby maintaining his station amidst all the revolutions of religion during three successive reigns. He had paid little attention to the science immediately connected with his profession, and most probably was indifferent to the controversies then agitated; but, living in an age in which it was necessary for every man to choose his side, he adhered to those opinions which had been long established, and which were friendly to the power and splendour of the ecclesiastical order. As if anxious to atone for his fault, in having been instrumental in producing a breach between England and the Roman see, he opposed in parliament all the subsequent changes. Opposition awakened his zeal; he became at last a strenuous advocate for the popish tenets; and wrote a book in defence of transubstantiation, of which, says bishop Burnet, “the Latin style is better than the divinity.”

The labours of one who exerted himself to overthrow what the bishop wished to support, could not {83} fail to be very disagreeable to Tonstal. As Knox acted under the authority of the protector and council, he durst not inhibit him; but he was disposed to listen to the informations which were lodged against him by the clergy. Although the town of Berwick was Knox’s principal station during the years 1549 and 1550, it is probable that he was appointed to preach occasionally in the adjacent country. Whether, in the course of his itinerancy, he had preached in Newcastle, or whether he was called up to it in consequence of complaints against the sermons which he had delivered at Berwick, it is difficult to ascertain. It is, however, certain, that a charge was exhibited against him before the bishop, for teaching that the sacrifice of the mass was idolatrous, and that a day was appointed for him publicly to assign his reasons for this opinion.

Accordingly, on the 4th of April, 1550, a large assembly being convened in Newcastle, among whom were the members of the council,[119] the bishop of Durham, and the learned men of his cathedral, Knox delivered in their presence an ample defence of his doctrine. After an appropriate exordium, in which he stated to the audience the occasion and design of his appearance, and cautioned them against the powerful {84} prejudices of education and custom in favour of erroneous opinions and corrupt practices in religion, he proceeded to establish the doctrine which he had taught. The manner in which he treated the subject was well adapted to his auditory, which was composed both of the learned and the illiterate. He proposed his arguments in the syllogistic form, according to the practice of the schools, but illustrated them with a plainness level to the meanest capacity among his hearers. The propositions on which he rested his defence are very descriptive of his characteristic boldness of thinking and acting. A more cautious and timid disputant would have satisfied himself with attacking the grosser notions which were generally entertained by the people on this subject, and exposing the glaring abuses of which the priests were guilty in the lucrative sale of masses. Knox scorned to occupy himself in demolishing these feeble and falling outworks, and proceeded directly to establish a principle which overthrew the whole fabric of superstition. He engaged to prove that the mass, “even in her most high degree,” and when stripped of the meretricious dress in which she now appeared, was an idol struck from the inventive brain of superstition, which had supplanted the sacrament of the supper, and engrossed the honour due to the person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. “Spare no arrows,” was Knox’s motto; the authority of scripture, and the force of reasoning, grave reproof, and pointed irony, were weapons which he alternately employed. In the course of this defence, he did not restrain those sallies of raillery, {85} which the fooleries of the popish superstition irresistibly provoke, even from such as are deeply impressed with its pernicious tendency. Before concluding his discourse, he adverted to certain doctrines which he had heard in that place on the preceding sabbath, the falsehood of which he engaged to demonstrate; but, in the first place, he said, he would submit the notes of the sermon, which he had taken down, to the preacher, that he might correct them as he saw proper; for his object was not to misrepresent, or captiously entrap a speaker, by catching at words unadvisedly uttered, but to defend the truth, and warn his hearers against errors destructive to their souls. The defence, as drawn up by Knox himself, is now before me in manuscript, and the reader who wishes a more particular account of its contents, will find it in the notes.[120]

This defence had the effect of extending Knox’s fame through the north of England, while it completely silenced the bishop and his learned assistants.[121] {86} He continued to preach at Berwick during the remaining part of this year, and in the following was removed to Newcastle, and placed in a sphere of greater usefulness. In December 1551, the privy council conferred on him a mark of their approbation, by appointing him one of king Edward’s chaplains in ordinary. “It was appointed,” says his majesty, in a journal of important transactions which he wrote with his own hand, “that I should have six chaplains ordinary, of which two ever to be present, and four absent in preaching; one year, two in Wales, two in Lancashire and Derby; next year, two in the marches of Scotland, and two in Yorkshire; the third year, two in Norfolk and Essex, and two in Kent and Sussex. These six to be Bill, Harle,[122] Perne, Grindal, Bradford, and ――――.”[123] The name of the sixth has been dashed out of the journal, but the industrious Strype has shown that it was Knox.[124] “These, it seems, were the most zealous and readiest preachers, who were sent about as itinerants, to supply the defects of the greatest part of the clergy, who were generally very faulty.”[125] An annual salary of forty pounds was allotted to each of the chaplains.[126]

{87} In the course of this year, Knox was consulted about the Book of Common Prayer, which was undergoing a revisal. On that occasion, it is probable that he was called up for a short time to London. Although the persons who had the chief direction of ecclesiastical affairs were not disposed, or did not deem it as yet expedient, to introduce that thorough reform which he judged necessary, in order to reduce the worship of the English church to the scripture‑model, his representations on this head were not altogether disregarded. He had influence to procure an important change in the communion‑office, completely excluding the notion of the corporal presence of Christ in the sacrament, and guarding against the adoration of the elements, which was too much countenanced by the practice still continued, of kneeling at their reception.[127] In his Admonition to the Professors of the Truth in England, Knox speaks of these amendments with great satisfaction. “Also God gave boldness and knowledge to the court of parliament to take {88} away the round clipped god, wherein standeth all the holiness of the papists, and to command common bread to be used at the Lord’s table, and also to take away the most part of superstitions (kneeling at the Lord’s table excepted) which before profaned Christ’s true religion.” These alterations gave great offence to the papists. In a disputation with Latimer, after the accession of queen Mary, the prolocutor, Dr Weston, complained of our countryman’s influence in procuring them. “A runnagate Scot did take away the adoration or worshipping of Christ in the sacrament, by whose procurement that heresy was put into the last communion‑book; so much prevailed that one man’s authority at that time.”[128] In the following year, he was employed in revising the Articles of Religion, previous to their ratification by parliament.[129]

During his residence at Berwick, he had formed an acquaintance with Marjory Bowes, a young lady {89} who afterwards became his wife. Her father, Richard Bowes, was the youngest son of Sir Ralph Bowes of Streatlam; her mother was Elizabeth, the daughter and one of the co‑heirs of Sir Roger Aske of Aske.[130] Before he left Berwick, Knox had paid his addresses to this young lady, and met with a favourable reception. Her mother also was friendly to the match; but, owing to some reason, most probably the presumed aversion of her father, it was deemed prudent to delay solemnizing the union. But having come under a formal promise to her, he considered himself, from that time, as sacredly bound, and in his letters to Mrs Bowes always addressed that lady by the name of mother.[131]

Without derogating from the praise justly due to those worthy men who were at this time employed in disseminating religious truth through England, I may say, that our countryman was not behind the first of them, in the unwearied assiduity with which he laboured in the stations assigned to him. From an early period his mind seems to have presaged, that the golden opportunity now enjoyed would not {90} be of long duration. He was eager to “redeem the time,” and indefatigable both in his studies and in teaching. In addition to his ordinary services on sabbath, he preached regularly on week‑days, frequently on every day of the week.[132] Besides the portion of time which he allotted to study, he was often employed in conversing with persons who applied to him for advice on religious subjects.[133] The council were not insensible to the value of his services, and conferred on him several marks of their approbation. They wrote different letters to the governors and principal inhabitants of the places where he preached, recommending him to their notice and protection.[134] They secured him in the regular payment of his salary until he should be provided with a benefice.[135] And out of respect to him, they, in September 1552, granted a patent to his brother, William Knox, a merchant, giving him liberty, for a limited time, to trade to any port of England, in a vessel of a hundred tons burden.[136]

{91} But the things which recommended Knox to the council, drew upon him the hatred of a numerous and powerful party in the northern counties, who remained addicted to popery. Irritated by his boldness and success in attacking their superstition, and sensible that it would be vain, and even dangerous, to prefer an accusation against him on that ground, they watched for an opportunity of catching at something in his discourses or behaviour, which they might improve to his disadvantage. He had long observed, with great anxiety, the impatience with which the papists submitted to the present government, and their eager desires for any change which might lead to the overthrow of the protestant religion,――desires which were expressed by them in the north, without that reserve which prudence dictated in places adjacent to the seat of authority. He had witnessed the joy with which they received the news of the protector’s fall, and was {92} no stranger to the satisfaction with which they circulated prognostications as to the speedy demise of the king. In a sermon preached by him about Christmas 1552, he gave vent to his feelings on this subject; and, lamenting the obstinacy of the papists, asserted, that such as were enemies to the gospel then preached in England, were secret traitors to the crown and commonwealth, thirsted for nothing more than his majesty’s death, and cared not who should reign over them, provided they got their idolatry again erected. The freedom of this speech was immediately laid hold of by his enemies, and transmitted, with many aggravations, to some great men about court, secretly in their interest, who thereupon accused him of high misdemeanours before the privy council.[137]

In taking this step, they were not a little encouraged by their knowledge of the sentiments of the duke of Northumberland, who had lately come down to his charge as warden‑general of the northern marches.[138] This ambitious and unprincipled nobleman had affected much zeal for the reformed religion, that he might the more easily attain the highest preferment in the state, which he had recently secured by the ruin of the duke of Somerset, the protector of the kingdom. Knox had offended him by publicly {93} lamenting the fall of Somerset as dangerous to the reformation, of which this nobleman had always shown himself a zealous friend, however blameable his conduct might have been in other respects.[139] Nor could the freedom which the preacher used in reproving from the pulpit the vices of great as well as small, fail to be displeasing to a man of Northumberland’s character. On these accounts, the duke was desirous to have Knox removed from that quarter, and had actually applied for this, by a letter to the council, previous to the occurrence just mentioned, alleging, as a pretext for this, that great numbers of Scotsmen resorted to him; as if any real danger was to be apprehended from this intercourse with a man, of whose fidelity the existing government had so many strong pledges, and who uniformly employed all his influence to remove the prejudices of his countrymen against England.[140]

In consequence of the charge exhibited against him to the council, he was summoned to repair immediately to London, and answer for his conduct. The following extract of a letter, written by him to Miss Bowes,[141] will show the state of his mind on receiving {94} this citation. “Urgent necessity will not suffer that I testify my mind unto you. My lord of Westmoreland[142] has written unto me this Wednesday, at six of the clock at night, immediately thereafter to repair unto him, as I will answer at my peril. I could not obtain license to remain the time of the sermon upon the morrow. Blessed be God who does ratify and confirm the truth of his word from time to time, as our weakness shall require! Your adversary, sister, doth labour that you should doubt whether this be the word of God or not. If there had never been testimonial of the undoubted truth thereof before these our ages, may not such things as we see daily come to pass prove the verity thereof? Doth it not affirm, that it shall be preached, and yet contemned and lightly regarded by many; that the true professors thereof shall be hated by father, mother, and others of the contrary religion; that the most faithful shall be persecuted? And cometh not all these {95} things to pass in ourselves? Rejoice, sister, for the same word that forspeaketh trouble doth certify us of the glory consequent. As for myself, albeit the extremity should now apprehend me, it is not come unlooked for. But, alas! I fear that yet I be not ripe nor able to glorify Christ by my death; but what lacketh now, God shall perform in his own time.――Be sure I will not forget you and your company, so long as mortal man may remember any earthly creature.”[143]

Upon reaching London, he found that his enemies had been uncommonly industrious in their endeavours to excite prejudices against him. But the council, after hearing his defence, were convinced of the malice of his accusers, and gave him an honourable acquittal. He was employed to preach before the court, and his sermons gave great satisfaction to his majesty, who contracted a favour for him, and was anxious to have him promoted in the church.[144] The council resolved that he should preach in London and the southern counties during the following year; but they allowed him to return for a short time to Newcastle, either that he might settle his affairs in the north, or that a public testimony might be borne to his innocence in the place where it had been attacked. In a letter to his sister, dated Newcastle, 23d March, 1553, we find him writing as follows. “Look farther of this matter in the other letter,[145] written unto you {96} at such time as many thought I should never write after to man. Heinous were the delations laid against me, and many are the lies that are made to the council. But God one day shall destroy all lying tongues, and shall deliver his servants from calamity. I look but one day or other to fall in their hands; for more and more rageth the members of the devil against me. This assault of Satan has been to his confusion, and to the glory of God. And therefore, sister, cease not to praise God, and to call for my comfort; for great is the multitude of enemies, whom every one the Lord shall confound. I intend not to depart from Newcastle before Easter.”

His confinement in the French galleys, together with his labours in England, had considerably impaired the vigour of his constitution, and brought on the gravel. In the course of the year 1553, he endured several violent attacks of this acute disorder, accompanied with severe pain in his head and stomach. “My daily labours must now increase,” says he, in the letter last quoted, “and therefore spare me as much as you may. My old malady troubles me sore, and nothing is more contrarious to my health than writing. Think not that I weary to visit you; but unless my pain shall cease, I will altogether become unprofitable. Work, O Lord, even as pleaseth thy infinite goodness, and relax the troubles, at thy own pleasure, of such as seeketh thy glory to shine. Amen!”[146] In another letter to the same correspondent, he writes: “The pain of my head and stomach {97} troubles me greatly. Daily I find my body decay; but the providence of my God shall not be frustrate. I am charged to be at Widdrington upon Sunday, where I think I shall also remain Monday. The spirit of the Lord Jesus rest with you. Desire such faithful with whom ye communicate your mind, to pray that, at the pleasure of our good God, my dolour both of body and spirit may be relieved somewhat; for presently it is very bitter. Never found I the spirit, I praise my God, so abundant, where God’s glory ought to be declared; and therefore I am sure there abides something that yet we see not.”[147] “Your messenger,” says he in another letter, “found me in bed, after a sore trouble and most dolorous night; and so dolour may complain to dolour when we two meet. But the infinite goodness of God, who never despiseth the petitions of a sore troubled heart, shall, at his good pleasure, put end to these pains that we presently suffer, and, in place thereof, shall crown us with glory and immortality for ever. But, dear sister, I am even of mind with faithful Job, yet most sore tormented, that my pain shall have no end in this life. The power of God may, against the purpose of my heart, alter such things as appear not to be altered, as he did unto Job; but dolour and pain, with sore anguish, cries the contrary. And this is more plain than ever I spake, to let you know ye have a fellow and companion in trouble. And thus rest in Christ; for the head of the serpent is already broken down, and he is stinging us upon the heel.”[148]

{98} About the beginning of April 1553, he returned to London. In the month of February preceding, archbishop Cranmer had been directed by the council to present him to the vacant living of All‑Hallows, in the city.[149] This proposal, which originated in the personal favour of the young king, was very disagreeable to Northumberland, who exerted himself privately to hinder the appointment. But the interference of this nobleman was unnecessary; for Knox declined the living when it was offered to him, and, being questioned as to his reasons, readily acknowledged that he had not freedom in his mind to accept of a fixed charge in the present state of the English church. His refusal, with the reasons which he had assigned for it, gave offence, and, on the 14th of April, he was called before the privy council. There were present the archbishop of Canterbury, Goodrick, bishop of Ely and lord chancellor, the earls of Bedford, Northampton, and Shrewsbury, the lords treasurer and chamberlain, and the two secretaries of state. They asked him, why he had refused the benefice provided for him in London. He answered, that he was fully satisfied that he could be more useful to the church in another situation. Being interrogated, if it was his opinion, that no person could lawfully serve in ecclesiastical ministrations according to the present laws of that realm, he frankly replied, that there were many things in the English church which needed reformation, and that unless they were reformed, ministers could not, in his opinion, discharge {99} their office conscientiously in the sight of God: for no minister had authority, according to the existing laws, to prevent the unworthy from participating of the sacraments, which was “a chief point of his office.” Being asked, if kneeling at the Lord’s table was not a matter of indifference, he replied, that Christ’s action at the communion was most perfect, and in it no such posture was used; that it was most safe to follow his example; and that kneeling was an addition and invention of men. On this article, there was a smart dispute between him and some of the members of the council. After long reasoning, he was told that they had not sent for him with any bad design, but were sorry to understand that he was of a judgment contrary to the common order. He said he was sorry that the common order was contrary to Christ’s institution. The council dismissed him with soft words, advising him to use all means for removing the dislike which he had conceived to some of the forms of their church, and to reconcile his mind, if possible, to the idea of communicating according to the established rites.[150]

Scruples which had resisted the force of authority and argument, have often been found to yield to the more powerful influence of lucrative and honourable situations. But whether, with some, we shall consider Knox’s conduct on this occasion as indicating {100} the poverty of his spirit,[151] or shall regard it as a proof of true independence of mind, the prospect of elevation to the episcopal bench could not overcome the repugnance which he felt to a closer connexion with the church of England. Edward VI., with the concurrence of his privy council, offered him a bishopric. But he rejected it; and in the reasons which he gave for his refusal, declared the episcopal office to be destitute of divine authority in itself, and its exercise in the English church to be inconsistent with the ecclesiastical canons. This is attested by Beza, a contemporary author.[152] Knox himself, in one of his treatises, speaks of the “high promotions” offered him by Edward;[153] and we shall find him, at a later period of his life, expressly asserting that he had refused a bishopric. Tonstal having been sequestered upon a charge of misprision of treason, the council came to a resolution, about this time, to divide his extensive diocese into two bishoprics, the seat of one of which was to be at Durham, and of the other at Newcastle. Ridley, bishop of London, was to be translated to the former, and it is highly probable {101} that Knox was intended for the latter. “He was offered a bishopric,” says Brand, “probably the new founded one at Newcastle, which he refused――_revera noluit episcopari_.”[154]

It may be proper, in this place, to give a more particular account of Knox’s sentiments respecting the English church. The reformation of religion, it is well known, was conducted on very different principles in England and in Scotland, both as to worship and ecclesiastical polity. In England, the papal supremacy was transferred to the prince, the hierarchy, being subjected to the civil power, was suffered to remain, and, the grosser superstitions having been removed, the principal forms of the ancient worship were retained; whereas, in Scotland, all of these were discarded, as destitute of divine authority, unprofitable, burdensome, or savouring of popery, and the worship and government of the church were reduced to the primitive standard of scriptural simplicity. The influence of Knox in recommending this establishment to his countrymen, is universally allowed; but, as he officiated for a considerable time in the church of England, and on this account was supposed to have been pleased with its constitution, it has been usually said, that he afterwards contracted a dislike to it during his exile on the continent, and having imbibed the sentiments of Calvin, brought them along with him to his native country, and organized the Scottish church after the Genevan model. {102} This statement is inaccurate. His objections to the English liturgy were increased and strengthened during his residence on the continent, but they existed before that time. His judgment respecting ecclesiastical government and discipline was matured during that period, but his radical sentiments on these heads were formed long before he saw Calvin, or had any intercourse with the foreign reformers. At Geneva he saw a church, which, upon the whole, corresponded with his idea of the divinely authorized pattern; but he did not indiscriminately approve, nor servilely imitate, either that or any other existing establishment.[155]

As early as the year 1547, he taught, in his first sermons at St Andrews, that no mortal man could be head of the church; that there were no true bishops, but such as preached personally without a substitute; that in religion men were bound to regulate themselves by divine laws; and that the sacraments ought to be administered exactly according to the institution and example of Christ. We have seen that, in a solemn disputation in the same place, he maintained that the church has no authority, on pretext of decorating divine service, to devise religious ceremonies, {103} and impose upon them arbitrary significations.[156] This position he also defended in the year 1550, at Newcastle, and on his subsequent appearance before the privy council at London. It was impossible that the English church, in any of the shapes which it assumed, could stand the test of these principles. The ecclesiastical supremacy, the various orders and dependencies of the hierarchy, crossing in baptism, and kneeling in the eucharist, with other ceremonies――the theatrical dress, the mimical gestures, the vain repetitions used in religious service, were all condemned and repudiated by the cardinal principle to which he steadily adhered, that, in the church of Christ, and especially in the acts of worship, every thing ought to be arranged and conducted, not by the pleasure and appointment of men, but according to the dictates of inspired wisdom and authority.

He rejoiced that liberty and encouragement were given to preach the pure word of God throughout the extensive realm of England; that idolatry and gross superstition were suppressed; and that the rulers were disposed to support the Reformation, and even to carry it farther than had yet been done. Considering the character of the greater part of the clergy, the extreme paucity of useful preachers, and other hinderances to the introduction of the primitive order and discipline of the church, he acquiesced in the authority exercised by a part of the bishops, under the direction of the privy council, and endeavoured {104} to strengthen their hands, in the advancement of the common cause, by painful preaching in the stations which were assigned to him. But he could not be induced to contradict or to conceal his fixed sentiments, and he cautiously avoided coming under engagements, by which he must have assented to what, in his decided judgment, was either in its own nature unlawful, or injurious in its tendency to the interests of religion. Upon these principles, he never submitted to the unlimited use of the liturgy, during the time that he was in England,[157] and refused to become a bishop, or to accept a parochial charge. When he perceived that the progress of the Reformation was arrested, by the influence of a popish faction, and the dictates of a temporizing policy; that abuses, which had formerly been acknowledged, began to be openly vindicated and stiffly maintained; above all, when he saw, after the accession of Elizabeth, that a retrograde course was taken, and a yoke of ceremonies, more grievous than that which the most sincere protestants {105} had formerly complained of, was imposed and enforced by arbitrary statutes, he judged it necessary to speak in a tone of more decided and severe reprehension.

Among other things which he censured in the English ecclesiastical establishment, were the continuing to employ a great number of ignorant and insufficient priests, who had been accustomed to nothing but saying mass and singing the litany; the general substitution of the reading of homilies, the mumbling of prayers, or the chanting of matins and even‑song, in the place of preaching; the formal celebration of the sacraments, unaccompanied with instruction to the people; the scandalous prevalence of pluralities; and the total want of ecclesiastical discipline. He was of opinion, that the clergy ought not to be entangled, and diverted from the duties of their office, by holding civil places; that the bishops should lay aside their secular titles and dignities; that the bishoprics should be divided, so that in every city or large town there might be placed a godly and learned man, with others joined with him, for the management of ecclesiastical matters; and that schools for the education of youth should be universally erected through the nation.[158]

Nor did the principal persons who were active in effecting the English reformation differ widely from Knox in these sentiments, although they might not {106} have the same conviction of their importance, and of the expediency of reducing them to practice. We should mistake exceedingly, if we supposed that they were men of the same principles and temper with many who succeeded to their places, or that they were satisfied with the pitch to which they had carried the reformation of the English church, and regarded it as a paragon and perfect pattern to other churches. They were strangers to those extravagant and illiberal notions which were afterwards adopted by the fond admirers of the hierarchy and liturgy. They would have laughed at the man who seriously asserted, that the ecclesiastical ceremonies constituted any part of “the beauty of holiness,” or that the imposition of the hands of a bishop was essential to the validity of ordination; and they would not have owned that person as a protestant who would have ventured to insinuate, that where these were wanting, there was no Christian ministry, no ordinances, no church, and perhaps――no salvation. Many things which their successors have applauded, they barely tolerated; and they would have been happy if the circumstances of their time would have permitted them to introduce alterations, which have since been cried down as puritanical innovations. Strange as it may appear to some, I am not afraid of exceeding the truth when I say, that if the English reformers, including the protestant bishops, had been left to their own choice,――if they had not been held back and retarded by a large mass of popishly affected clergy in the reign of Edward, and restrained by the supreme civil authority {107} on the accession of Elizabeth, they would have brought the government and worship of the church of England nearly to the pattern of other reformed churches. If the reader doubts this, he may consult the evidence produced in the notes.[159]

Such, in particular, was the earnest wish of his majesty Edward VI., a prince who, besides his other rare qualities, had an unfeigned reverence for the word of God, and a disposition to comply with its precepts in preference to custom and established usages; and who showed himself uniformly inclined to give relief to his conscientious subjects, and sincerely bent on promoting the union of all the friends of the reformed religion at home and abroad. Of his intention on this head, there remain the most unquestionable and satisfactory documents.[160] Had his life been spared, there is every reason to think that he would have accomplished the correction or removal of those evils in the English church, which the most steady and enlightened protestants have lamented. Had his sister Elizabeth been of the same spirit with him, and prosecuted the plan which he laid down, the consequences would have been most happy both for herself and for her people, for the government and for the church. She would have united all the friends of the Reformation, who were the great support of her authority. She would have weakened the interest of the Roman catholics, whom all her accommodating measures could not gain, nor prevent from {108} repeatedly conspiring against her life and crown. She would have put an end to those dissensions among her protestant subjects, which continued during the whole of her reign, which she bequeathed as a legacy to her successors, and which, being fomented and exasperated by the severities employed for their suppression, burst forth at length, to the temporary overthrow of the monarchy, as well as of the hierarchy, whose exorbitancies it had patronised and whose corruptions it had sanctioned and maintained;――dissensions, which subsist to this day; which, though softened by the partial lenitive of a toleration, have gradually alienated from the communion of that church a large proportion of the people, and which, if a timely and suitable remedy be not applied, may ultimately undermine the foundations of the English establishment.

During the time that Knox was in London, he had full opportunity for observing the state of the court; and the observations which he made filled his mind with the most anxious forebodings. Of the piety and sincerity of the young king he entertained not the smallest doubt. Personal acquaintance heightened the idea which he had conceived of his character from report, and enabled him to add his testimony to the tribute of praise, which all who knew that prince had so cheerfully paid to his uncommon virtues and endowments.[161] But the principal courtiers, by whom {109} he was at that time surrounded, were persons of a very different description, and gave proofs, too unequivocal to be mistaken, of indifference to all religion, and of a readiness to acquiesce, and even to assist, in the re‑establishment of the ancient superstition, whenever a change of rulers should render this measure practicable and expedient. The health of Edward, which had long been declining, growing gradually worse, so that no hope of his recovery remained, they were eager only about the aggrandizing of their families, and providing for the security of their places and fortunes.

The royal chaplains were men of a very different character from those who have usually occupied that place in the courts of princes. They were no time‑serving, supple, smooth‑tongued parasites; they were not afraid of forfeiting their pensions, or of alarming the consciences, and wounding the delicate ears, of their royal and noble auditors, by denouncing the vices which they committed, and the judgments of Heaven to which they exposed themselves. The freedom used by the venerable Latimer is well known from his printed sermons, which, for their homely honesty, artless simplicity, native humour, and genuine pictures of the manners of the age, continue still to be read with interest. Grindal, Lever, and Bradford, who were superior to Latimer in learning, evinced the same fidelity and courage. They censured {110} the ambition, avarice, luxury, oppression, and irreligion which reigned in the court. As long as their sovereign was able to give personal attendance on the sermons, the preachers were treated with exterior decency and respect; but after he was confined to his chamber by a consumptive cough, the resentment of the courtiers vented itself openly in the most contumelious speeches and insolent behaviour.[162]