Chapter VI: Part 6

While he was thus employed in Scotland, he received letters from the English congregation at Geneva, stating that they had made choice of him as one of their pastors, and urging him to come and take the inspection of them.[277] He judged it his duty to comply with this invitation, and began immediately to prepare for the journey. His wife and mother‑in‑law had by this time joined him at Edinburgh; and Mrs Bowes, being now a widow, resolved to accompany Mrs Knox and her husband to Geneva. Having sent them before him in a vessel to Dieppe, Knox again visited and took his leave of the brethren in the different places where he had preached. He was conducted, by his friend Campbell of Kineancleuch, to the earl of Argyle, and preached for some days at {188} his seat of Castle Campbell.[278] That aged nobleman appears to have received durable impressions from the instructions of the Reformer. He resisted all the arts which the clergy afterwards employed to detach him from the protestant interest, and on his death‑bed laid a solemn charge upon his son to use his utmost influence for its preservation and advancement. Argyle, and Glenorchy, who was also a hearer of Knox, endeavoured to detain him in Scotland, but without success. “If God so blessed their small beginnings,” he said, “that they continued in godliness, whensoever they pleased to command him, they should find him obedient. But once he must needs visit that little flock, which the wickedness of men had compelled him to leave.” Accordingly, in the month of July 1556, he left Scotland, and having joined his family at Dieppe, proceeded along with them to Geneva.[279]

No sooner did the clergy understand that he had quitted the kingdom, than they, in a dastardly manner, renewed the summons against him which they had deserted during his presence, and, upon his failing to appear, passed sentence against him, adjudging his body to the flames, and his soul to damnation. As his person was out of their reach, they caused his effigy to be ignominiously burned at the cross of Edinburgh. Against this sentence he drew up his Appellation, which he afterwards published, with a {189} supplication and exhortation, directed to the nobility and commonalty of Scotland. It may not be improper here to subjoin the summary which he gave in this treatise of the doctrine taught by him during his late visit to Scotland, which the clergy pronounced so execrable, and deserving of such horrible punishment. He taught, that there is no other name by which men can be saved but that of Jesus, and that all reliance on the merits of others is vain and delusive; that the Saviour having by his one sacrifice sanctified and reconciled to God those who should inherit the promised kingdom, all other sacrifices which men pretend to offer for sin are blasphemous; that all men ought to hate sin, which is so odious before God that no sacrifice but the death of his Son could satisfy for it; that they ought to magnify their heavenly Father, who did not spare him who is the substance of his glory, but gave him up to suffer the ignominious and cruel death of the cross for us; and that those who have been washed from their former sins are bound to lead a new life, fighting against the lusts of the flesh, and studying to glorify God by good works. In conformity with the certification of his Master, that he would deny and be ashamed of those who should deny and be ashamed of him and his words before a wicked generation, he further taught, that it is incumbent on those who hope for life everlasting, to make an open profession of the doctrine of Christ, and to avoid idolatry, superstition, vain religion, and, in one word, every way of worship which is destitute of authority from the word of God. {190} This doctrine he did believe so conformable to God’s holy scriptures, that he thought no creature could have been so impudent as to deny any point or article of it; yet had the false bishops and ungodly clergy condemned him as a heretic, and his doctrine as heretical, and pronounced against him the sentence of death, in testimony of which they had burnt his effigy: from which sentence he appealed to a lawful and general council, to be held agreeably to ancient laws and canons; humbly requesting the nobility and commons of Scotland, to take him, and others who were accused and persecuted, under their protection, until such time as these controversies were decided, and to regard this his plain appellation as of no less effect, than if it had been made with the accustomed solemnity and ceremonies.[280]

The late visit of our Reformer was of vast consequence. By his labours on this occasion, he laid the foundations of that noble edifice which he was afterwards so instrumental in completing. The friends of the protestant doctrine were separated from the corrupt communion to which, in a certain degree, they had hitherto adhered; their information in scriptural truth was greatly improved; and they were brought together in different parts of the nation, and prepared for being organized into a regular church, as soon as providence should grant them external liberty, and furnish them with persons qualified for acting as overseers. Some may be apt to blame him {191} for abandoning with too great precipitation the undertaking which he had so auspiciously begun. But, without pretending to ascertain the train of reflections which occurred to his mind, we may trace, in his determination, the wise arrangements of that providence which watched over the infant Reformation, and guided the steps of the Reformer . His absence was now no less conducive to the preservation of the cause, than his presence and personal labours had lately been to its advancement. Matters were not yet ripened for a general reformation in Scotland; and the clergy would never have suffered so zealous and able a champion of the new doctrines to live in the country. By retiring at this time, he not only preserved his own life, and reserved his labours to a more fit opportunity, but he also averted the storm of persecution from the heads of his brethren. Deprived of teachers, they became objects of less jealousy to their adversaries; while in their private meetings, they continued to confirm one another in the doctrine which they had received, and the seed lately sown had sufficient time to take root and spread.

Before he took his departure, Knox gave his brethren such directions as he judged most necessary, and most useful to them, in their present circumstances. Not satisfied with communicating these orally, he committed them to writing in a common letter, which he either left behind him, or sent from Dieppe, to be circulated in the different quarters where he had preached. In this letter, he warmly recommends to every one the frequent and careful perusal of the {192} scriptures. He inculcates the duty of attending to religious instruction and worship in each family. He exhorts the brethren to meet together once every week, if practicable, and gives them directions for conducting their assemblies, in the manner best adapted to their mutual improvement, while destitute of public teachers. They ought to begin with confession of sins, and invocation of the divine blessing. A portion of the scriptures should then be read; and they would find it of great advantage to observe a regular course in their reading, and to join a chapter of the Old and of the New Testament together. After the reading of the scriptures, if an exhortation, interpretation, or doubt, occurred to any brother, he might speak; but he ought to do it with modesty, and a desire to edify or to be edified, carefully avoiding “multiplication of words, perplexed interpretation, and wilfulness in reasoning.” If, in the course of reading or conference, they met with any difficulties which they could not solve, he advised them to commit these to writing, before they separated, that they might submit them to the judgment of the learned; and he signified his own readiness to give them his advice by letter, whenever it should be required. Their assemblies ought always to be closed, as well as opened, by prayer.[281] There is every reason to conclude, that these directions were punctually complied with; this letter may therefore be viewed as an important document regarding the state of the {193} protestant church in Scotland, previous to the establishment of the Reformation, and shall be inserted at large in the notes.[282]

Among his subsequent letters are answers to questions which his countrymen had transmitted to him for advice. The questions are such as might be supposed to arise in the minds of pious persons lately made acquainted with scripture, puzzled with particular expressions, and at a loss how to apply some of its directions to their situation. They discover an inquisitive and conscientious disposition; and at the same time, illustrate the disadvantages under which ordinary Christians labour when deprived of the assistance of learned teachers.[283] Our Reformer’s answers display an intimate acquaintance with scripture, and dexterity in expounding it, with prudence in giving advice in cases of conscience, so as not to encourage a dangerous laxity on the one hand, or scrupulosity and excessive rigidness on the other.

{194}
PERIOD V.

FROM THE YEAR 1556, WHEN HE RETURNED TO GENEVA, AFTER VISITING
SCOTLAND, TO MAY 1559, WHEN HE RETURNED TO SCOTLAND
FOR THE LAST TIME.

KNOX reached Geneva before the end of harvest, and took upon him the charge of the English congregation there,[284] among whom he laboured during the two following years. This short period was the most quiet of his life. In the bosom of his own family, he experienced that soothing care to which he had hitherto been a stranger, and which his frequent bodily ailments now required. Two sons were borne to him in Geneva. The greatest affection to him, and cordiality among themselves, subsisted in the small flock under his charge. With his colleague, Christopher Goodman, he lived as a brother; and he was happy in the friendship of Calvin and the other pastors of Geneva. So much was he pleased with {195} the purity of religion established in that city, that he warmly recommended it to his religious acquaintances in England, as the best Christian asylum to which they could flee. “In my heart,” says he, in a letter to his friend Mr Locke, “I could have wished, yea, and cannot cease to wish, that it might please God to guide and conduct yourself to this place, where, I neither fear nor eshame to say, is the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the apostles. In other places I confess Christ to be truly preached; but manners and religion to be so sincerely reformed, I have not yet seen in any other place beside.”[285]

But neither the enjoyment of personal accommodations, nor the pleasures of literary society, nor the endearments of domestic happiness, could subdue Knox’s ruling passion, or unfix his determination to revisit Scotland, as soon as an opportunity should offer, for advancing the Reformation among his countrymen. In a letter written to some of his friends in Edinburgh, March 16, 1557, he expresses himself in the following manner: “My own motion and daily prayer is, not only that I may visit you, but also that with joy I may end my battle among you. And assure yourself of this, that whenever a greater number among you shall call upon me than now hath bound me to serve them, by his grace it shall not be the fear of punishment, neither yet of the death temporal, that shall impede my coming to {196} you.”[286] A certain heroic confidence, and assurance of ultimate success, have often been displayed by those whom providence has raised up to achieve great revolutions in the world; by which they have been borne up under discouragements which would have overwhelmed men of ordinary spirits, and emboldened to face dangers from which others would have shrunk appalled. Knox possessed no inconsiderable portion of that enthusiastic heroism which was so conspicuous in the German reformer. “Satan, I confess, rageth,” says he, in a letter written at this time; “but potent is he that promiseth to be with us, in all such enterprises as we take in hand at his commandment, for the glory of his name, and for maintenance of his true religion. And therefore the less fear we any contrary power; yea, in the boldness of our God, we altogether contemn them, be they kings, emperors, men, angels, or devils. For they shall be never able to prevail against the simple truth of God which we openly profess; by the permission of God they may appear to prevail against our bodies, but our cause shall triumph in despite of Satan.”[287]

Soon after the above letter had been written, two citizens of Edinburgh, James Syme and James Barron, arrived at Geneva with a letter and credentials, from the earl of Glencairn, and lords Lorn, Erskine, and James Stewart; informing him, that the professors of the reformed doctrine remained steadfast, that its adversaries were daily losing credit in the nation, {197} and that those who possessed the supreme authority, although they had not yet declared themselves friendly to it, continued to refrain from persecution; and inviting him, in their own name, and in that of their brethren, to return to Scotland, where he would find them all ready to receive him, and to spend their lives and fortunes in advancing the cause which they had espoused.[288]

Knox, at the same time that he laid this letter before his congregation, craved the advice of Calvin and the other ministers of Geneva. They gave it as their opinion, “that he could not refuse the call without showing himself rebellious to God, and unmerciful to his country.” His congregation agreed to sacrifice their particular interest to the greater good of the church; and his own family silently acquiesced. Upon this, he returned an answer to the letter of the nobility, signifying that he meant to visit them with all reasonable expedition. The congregation chose as his successor William Whittingham,[289] a learned Englishman, with whom he had been long united by the ties of friendship and congeniality of sentiment. Having settled his other affairs, he took an affectionate leave of his friends at Geneva, and went to Dieppe, in the month of October. But on his arrival there, he received letters from Scotland, written in a very different strain from the former. By these he was informed, that new consultations had been held among the protestants in that country; that some of them began {198} to repent of the invitation which they had given him to return; and that the greater part seemed irresolute and faint‑hearted.

This intelligence exceedingly disconcerted and embarrassed him. He instantly dispatched a letter to the nobility who had invited him, upbraiding them for their timidity and inconstancy. The information which he had just received, had (he said) confounded him, and pierced his heart with sorrow. After taking the advice of the most learned and godly in Europe, to satisfy his own conscience and theirs as to the propriety of this enterprise, the abandonment of it must reflect disgrace either on him or them――it argued either that he had been marvellously forward and vain, or that they had betrayed great imprudence and want of judgment in the invitation which they had given him. To some it might appear a small matter that he had left his poor family destitute of a head, and committed the care of his little but dearly‑beloved flock to another; but, for his part, he could not name the sum that would induce him to go through that scene a second time, and to behold so many grave men weeping at his departure. What answer could he give to those who enquired, why he did not prosecute his journey? He could take God to witness, that the personal inconveniences to which he had been subjected, and the mortification which he felt at the disappointment, were not the chief causes of his grief. He was alarmed at the awful consequences which would ensue――at the bondage and misery, spiritual and temporal, which they would entail on themselves {199} and their children, their subjects and their posterity, if they neglected the present opportunity of introducing the gospel into their native country. In his conscience, he could exempt none that bore the name of nobility in Scotland from blame in this affair. His words might perhaps appear sharp and indiscreet; but charity would construe them in the best sense, and wise men would consider that a true friend cannot flatter, especially in a matter which involves the salvation of the bodies and souls, not of a few persons, but of a whole realm. “What are the sobs, and what is the affliction, of my troubled heart, God shall one day declare. But this will I add to my former rigour and severity; to wit, if any persuade you, for fear or dangers to follow, to faint in your former purpose, be he esteemed never so wise and friendly, let him be judged of you both foolish and your mortal enemy.――I am not ignorant that fearful troubles shall ensue your enterprise, as in my former letters I did signify unto you. But, O! joyful and comfortable are those troubles and adversities which man sustaineth for accomplishment of God’s will revealed in his word. For how terrible soever they appear to the judgment of natural men, yet are they never able to devour nor utterly to consume the sufferers; for the invisible and invincible power of God sustaineth and preserveth, according to his promise, all such as with simplicity do obey him.――No less cause have ye to enter in your former enterprise, than Moses had to go to the presence of Pharaoh; for your subjects, yea, your brethren, are oppressed――their bodies and {200} souls holden in bondage; and God speaketh to your consciences (unless ye be dead with the blind world), that ye ought to hazard your own lives, be it against kings or emperors, for their deliverance. For only for that cause are ye called princes of the people, and receive honour, tribute, and homage at God’s commandment,――not by reason of your birth and progeny (as the most part of men falsely do suppose), but by reason of your office and duty; which is, to vindicate and deliver your subjects and brethren from all violence and oppression, to the uttermost of your power.”[290]

Having sent off this letter, with others written in the same strain, to Erskine of Dun, Wishart of Pitterow, and some other gentlemen of his acquaintance, he cherished the hope that he would soon receive more favourable accounts from Scotland, and resolved in the meantime to remain in France.[291] The reformed doctrine had been early introduced into that kingdom; it had been copiously watered with the blood of martyrs; and all the violence which had been employed by its enemies had not been able to extirpate it, or to prevent its spreading among all ranks. The Parisian protestants were at present smarting under the effects of one of those massacres, which so often disgraced the Roman catholic religion in that country, before as well as after the commencement of the {201} civil wars. Not satisfied with assaulting them when peaceably assembled for worship in a private house, and treating them with great barbarity, their adversaries, in imitation of their pagan predecessors, invented the most diabolical calumnies against them, and circulated the report that they were guilty of abominable practices in their religious assemblies.[292] The innocent sufferers had drawn up an apology, in which they vindicated themselves from the atrocious charge; and Knox, having got this translated into English, wrote a preface and additions to it, with the intention of publishing it for the use of his countrymen.[293]

{202} Having formed an acquaintance with many of the protestants of France, and being able to speak their language, he occasionally preached to them in passing through the country. It seems to have been on this occasion that he preached in the city of Rochelle, and having alluded to his native country in the course of his sermon, told his audience that he expected, within a few years, to preach in the church of St Giles, in Edinburgh.[294]

It does not appear that there were any protestants in Dieppe when Knox first visited it. But he had now the satisfaction of officiating in a reformed church, recently {203} planted in that town. In the course of the year 1557, a travelling merchant from Geneva, named John Venable, had come to Dieppe, and by his conversation and the circulation of books, imparted the knowledge of the protestant doctrine to some of the inhabitants. At his request, they were visited by Delajonché, pastor at Rouen, who applied to the ministers of Geneva to furnish them with a preacher. They sent André de Sequeran, sieur d’Amont, who, having removed in the course of a few months, was succeeded by Delaporte, one of the pastors of the church of Rouen. Knox having come to Dieppe at this time, was chosen colleague to Delaporte; and under their ministry the Reformation was embraced by some of the principal persons of the town, and among the rest by M. de Bagueville, a descendant of Charles Martel. A surprising change was soon observed on the morals of the inhabitants, which had formerly been very dissolute; and the church at Dieppe continued long in a flourishing condition.[295]

Being disappointed in his expectation of letters from Scotland, Knox determined to relinquish his journey, and return to Geneva. This resolution does {204} not accord with the usual firmness of our Reformer, and is not sufficiently accounted for in the common histories. The protestant nobles had not retracted their invitation; the discouraging letters which he had received, were written by individuals without any authority from the rest; and if their zeal and courage had begun to flag, his presence was the more necessary to recruit them. From the letters which he wrote to his familiar acquaintance, I am enabled to state the motives by which he was actuated in making this retrograde step. He was perfectly aware that a violent struggle must precede the establishment of the Reformation in his native country; he knew that his presence in Scotland would excite the rage of the clergy, who would make every effort to crush their adversaries, and to maintain the lucrative system of superstition; and he dreaded that civil discord, and tumult, and bloodshed, would ensue. The prospect of these things rushed into his mind, and (regardless of public tranquillity as some have pronounced him to be) staggered his resolution to prosecute an undertaking, which, in his judgment, was not only lawful, but laudable, and necessary. “When,” says he, “I heard such troubles as appeared in that realm, I began to dispute with myself as followeth: ‘Shall Christ, the author of peace, concord, and quietness, be preached where war is proclaimed, sedition engendered, and tumults appear to rise? Shall not his evangel be accused as the cause of all this calamity which is like to follow? What comfort canst thou have to see the {205} one half of the people rise up against the other, yea, to jeopard the one to murder and destroy the other? But, above all, what joy shall it be to thy heart, to behold with thy eyes thy native country betrayed into the hands of strangers, which to no man’s judgment can be avoided; because that those who ought to defend it, and the liberty thereof, are so blind, dull, and obstinate, that they will not see their own destruction?’”[296] To “these and more deep cogitations,” which continued to distract his mind for several months after he returned to Geneva, he principally imputed his abandonment of the journey to Scotland. At the same time, he was convinced that they were not sufficient to justify his desisting from an undertaking recommended by so many powerful considerations. “But, alas!” says he, “as the wounded man, be he never so expert in physick or surgery, cannot suddenly mitigate his own pain and dolour, no more can I the fear and grief of my heart, although I am not ignorant of what is to be done. It may also be, that the doubts and cold writing of some brethren did augment my dolour, and somewhat discourage me that before was more nor feeble. But nothing do I so much accuse as myself.” Whatever were the secondary causes of this step, I cannot help again directing the reader’s attention to the wisdom of providence, in throwing impediments in his way, by which his return to Scotland was protracted to a period, before which it might have been injurious, and at which it {206} was calculated to be in the highest degree beneficial, to the great cause that he meant to promote.

In judging of Knox’s influence in advancing the Reformation, we must take into view not only his personal labours, but also the epistolary correspondence which he maintained with his countrymen. By this he instructed them in his absence, communicated his own advice, and that of the learned among whom he resided, upon every difficult case which occurred, and animated them to constancy and perseverance. During his residence at Dieppe, he transmitted to Scotland two long letters, which deserve particular notice. The one, dated on the 1st of December, is directed to the protestants in general; the other, dated on the 17th of that month, is addressed to the nobility. In both of them he prudently avoids any reference to his late disappointment.

In the first letter he strongly inculcates purity of morals, and warns all who professed the reformed religion against those irregularities of life, which were employed to the disparagement of their cause, by two classes of persons;――by the papists, who, although the same vices prevailed in a far higher degree among themselves, represented them as the native fruits of the reformed doctrine;――and by a new sect, who were enemies to superstition, but who had deserted the reformed communion, and were become scarcely less hostile to it than the papists. The principal design of this letter was to put his countrymen on their guard against the arts of this last class of persons and to expose their leading errors.

{207} The persons to whom he referred went under the general name of anabaptists, a sect which sprung up soon after the commencement of the Reformation under Luther, and, breaking out into the greatest excesses, produced violent commotions in different parts of Germany. Being suppressed in the place of its birth, it spread through other countries, and secretly made converts by high pretensions to seriousness and Christian simplicity; the spirit of wild fanaticism, which at first characterised its disciples gradually subsiding after the first effervescence. Extravagancies of a similar kind have not unfrequently accompanied great revolutions; when the minds of men, released from the fetters of implicit obedience, and dazzled by a sudden illumination, have been disposed to fly to the extreme of anarchy and turbulence. Nothing proved more vexatious to the original reformers than this. It was urged by the defenders of the old system as a popular argument against all change. The extravagant opinions and disorderly practices of the new sect, though disowned and opposed by all sober protestants, were artfully imputed to them by their adversaries. And many who had declared themselves friendly to reform, alarmed, or pretending to be alarmed, at this hideous spectre, drew back, and sheltered themselves within the sacred pale of that church, which, notwithstanding her notorious dissensions, errors, and corruption, both in head and members, continued to arrogate to herself exclusively the properties of unity, universality, and perpetual infallibility.

{208} The radical error of this sect, according to the more improved system held by them at the time of which I write, was a fond conceit of a certain ideal spirituality and perfection, by which they considered the Christian church to be essentially distinguished from the Jewish, which was, in their opinion, a mere carnal, secular society. Entertaining this notion, they were naturally led to abridge the rule of faith and manners, by confining themselves almost entirely to the New Testament, and to adopt their other opinions concerning the unlawfulness of infant baptism, of civil magistracy, national churches, oaths, and defensive war. But besides these tenets, the anabaptists were, at this period, generally infected with the Pelagian heresy, and united with the papists in loading the doctrines which the reformers held respecting predestination and grace with the most odious charges.[297]

Our Reformer had occasion to meet with some of these sectaries both in England and on the continent, and had ascertained their extravagant and dangerous principles. In the year 1553, one of them came to {209} his lodging in London, and, after requiring secrecy, gave him a book, written by one of the party, which he pressed him to read. It contained the following proposition, “God made not the world, nor the wicked creatures in it; but these were made by the devil, who is therefore called the God of this world.” He immediately warned the man against such gross doctrine, and began to explain to him the sense in which the devil is called “the god of this world” in scripture. “Tush for your written word!” replied the enthusiast, “we have as good and as sure a word and veritie that teacheth us this doctrine, as ye have for you and your opinion.”[298] Being apprised that persons who had imbibed these opinions were creeping into Scotland, Knox was afraid that they might insidiously instil their poison into the minds of some of his brethren. He refuted their opinion respecting church‑communion, by showing that they required a purity which had never been found in the church, either before or since the completion of the canon of scripture. In opposition to their Pelagian tenets, he gave the following statement of his sentiments: “If there be any thing which God did not predestinate or appoint, then lacked he wisdom and free regimen; or, if any thing was ever done, or yet after shall be done, in heaven or in earth, which he might not have impeded, (if so had been his godly pleasure,) then he is not omnipotent; which three properties, to wit, wisdom, {210} free regimen, and power, denied to be in God, I pray you what rests in his godhead? The wisdom of our God we acknowledge to be such, that it compelleth the very malice of Satan, and the horrible iniquity of such as be drowned in sin, to serve to his glory and to the profit of his elect. His power we believe and confess to be infinite, and such as no creature in heaven or earth is able to resist. And his regimen we acknowledge to be so free, that none of his creatures dare present them in judgment, to reason or demand the question, why hast thou done this or that? But the fountain of this their damnable error, (which is, that in God they can acknowledge no justice except that which their foolish brain is able to comprehend,) at more opportunity, God willing, we shall intreat.”[299]

He assigns his reasons for warning them so particularly against the seduction of these erroneous teachers. Under the cloak of mortification, and the colour of a godly life, they “supplanted the dignity of Christ,” and “were become enemies to free justification by faith in his blood.” The malice of papists was now visible to all the world; the hypocrisy of mercenary teachers and ungodly professors would soon discover itself; and seldom had open tyranny been able to suppress the true religion, when it had once been earnestly embraced by the body of any nation or province. “But deceivable and false doctrine is a poison {211} and venom, which, once drunken and received, with great difficulty can afterward be purged.” Accordingly, he charged them to “try the spirits” which came to them, and to suffer no man to take the office of preacher upon him of his own accord and without trial, or to assemble the people in secret meetings; else Satan would soon have his emissaries among them, who would “destroy the plantation of our heavenly Father.”[300] His admonitions, on this head, were not without effect; and the protestants of Scotland, instead of being distracted with these opinions, remained united in their views, as to doctrine, worship, and discipline.

His letter to the protestant lords breathes an ardent and elevated spirit. Its object was to purify their minds from selfish and worldly principles――to raise, sanctify, and christianize their views, by exhibiting and recommending to them the examples of those great and good men whose characters were delineated, and whose deeds were recorded, in the sacred annals. The glory of God, the advancement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the salvation of themselves and their brethren, the emancipation of their country from spiritual and political bondage――these, and not their own honour and aggrandizement, or the revenging of their petty private feuds, were the objects which they ought to keep steadily and solely in view.

In this letter, he also communicates his advice on the delicate question of resistance to supreme rulers. {212} They had consulted him on this subject, and he had submitted it to the judgment of the most learned men on the continent. Soon after they had agreed to the marriage of their young queen to the dauphin of France, the Scots began to be jealous of the designs of the French court against their liberties and independence. Their jealousies increased after the regency was transferred to the queen dowager, who was wholly devoted to the interest of France, and had contrived, under different pretexts, to keep a body of French troops in the kingdom. It was not difficult to excite to resistance the independent and haughty barons of Scotland, accustomed to yield a very limited and precarious obedience even to their native princes. They had lately given a proof of this by their refusal to co‑operate in the war against England, which they considered as undertaken merely for French interests. And, encouraged by this circumstance, the duke of Chastelherault had begun, under the direction of his brother, the archbishop of St Andrews, to intrigue for regaining the authority which he had reluctantly resigned.

Our Reformer displayed his moderation, and the soundness of his principles, by the advice which he gave at this critical period. He did not attempt to inflame the irascible minds of the nobility by aggravating the male‑administration of the queen regent; far less did he advise them to join with the duke, and others who were discontented with the government, and to endeavour in this way to advance their cause. Instead of this, he informed them that it was {213} currently reported on the continent that a rebellion was intended in Scotland; and he solemnly charged all the professors of the protestant religion to avoid accession to it, and to beware of countenancing those who sought to promote their private and worldly ends by disturbing the government. “He did not mean,” he said, “to retract the principle which he had advanced in former letters, nor to deny the lawfulness of inferior magistrates, and the body of a nation, resisting the tyrannical measures of supreme rulers.” He still held, that there was “a great difference between lawful obedience, and a fearful flattering of princes, or an unjust accomplishment of their desires, in things which be required or devised for the destruction of a commonwealth.” The nobility were the hereditary guardians of the national liberties; and there were limits beyond which obedience was not due by subjects. But recourse ought not to be had to resistance, except when matters were tyrannically driven to an extreme. And it was peculiarly incumbent on the protestants of Scotland to be circumspect in all their proceedings, that they might give their adversaries no reason to allege that seditious and rebellious designs were concealed under the cloak of zeal for reforming religion. His advice and solemn charge to them therefore was, that they should continue to yield cheerful obedience to all the lawful commands of the regent, and endeavour, by humble and repeated requests, to procure her favour, and to prevail upon her, if not to promote their cause, at least to protect them from persecution. If she refused to take any steps for reforming religion, it was their duty to provide that the gospel should be preached, and the sacraments administered in purity, to themselves and their brethren. If, while they were endeavouring peaceably to accomplish this, attempts should be made to crush them by violence, he did not think, considering the station which they occupied, that they were bound to look on and see their innocent brethren murdered. On the contrary, it was lawful for them, nay, it was their incumbent duty, to stand up in their defence. But even in this case they ought to protest their readiness to obey the regent in every thing consistent with their fidelity to God, and to avoid all association with the ambitious, the factious, and the turbulent.[301]

This is a specimen of the correspondence which Knox maintained with the protestant nobility, by which he enlightened their views, aroused their zeal, and restrained their impetuosity, at this important juncture. I shall afterwards have occasion to call the attention of the reader more particularly to his political principles.

Knox returned to Geneva in the beginning of the year 1558. During that year, he was engaged, along with several learned men of his congregation, in making a new translation of the Bible into English; which, from the place where it was composed and first printed, has obtained the name of the Geneva {215} Bible.[302] It was at this time also that he published his Letter to the queen regent, and his Appellation and Exhortation; both of which were transmitted to Scotland, and contributed not a little to the spread of the reformed opinions. I have already given an account of the first of these tracts, which was chiefly intended for removing the prejudices of Roman catholics. The last was more immediately designed for instructing and animating the friends of the reformed religion. Addressing himself to the nobility and estates of the kingdom, he shows that the care and reformation of religion belonged to them as civil rulers, and constituted one of the primary duties of {216} their office. This was a dictate of nature as well as revelation; and he would not insist on it, lest he should seem to suppose them “lesse careful over God’s true religion, than were the ethnicks[303] over their idolatrie.” Inferior magistrates, within the sphere of their jurisdiction――the nobles and estates of a kingdom, as well as kings and princes, were bound to attend to this high duty. He then addresses himself to the commonalty of Scotland, and points out their duty and interest, with regard to the important controversy in agitation. They were rational creatures, formed after the image of God――they had souls to be saved――they were accountable for their conduct――they were bound to judge of the truth of religion, and to make profession of it, as well as kings, nobles, or bishops. If idolatry was maintained, if the gospel was suppressed, if the blood of the innocent was shed, and if, in these circumstances, they kept silence, and did not exert themselves to prevent such evils, how could they vindicate their conduct?[304]

But the most singular treatise published this year by Knox, and that which made the greatest noise, was, “The first Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment[305] of Women;” in which he attacked, with great vehemence, the practice of admitting females to the government of nations. There is some reason to think that his mind was struck with the incongruity of this practice as early as Mary’s accession {217} to the throne of England.[306] This was probably one of the points on which he had conferred with the Swiss divines in 1554.[307] That his sentiments respecting it were fixed in 1556, appears from an incidental reference to the subject in one of his familiar letters.[308] Influenced, however, by deference to the opinion of others, he refrained for a considerable time from publishing them to the world. But at last, provoked by the tyranny of the queen of England, and wearied out with her increasing cruelties, he applied the trumpet to his mouth, and uttered a terrible blast. “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire, above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, a thing most contrarious to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and, finally, it is a subversion of all equity and justice.” Such is the first sentence and principal proposition of the work. The arguments by which he endeavours to establish it are, that nature intended the female sex for subjection, not superiority, to the male, as appears from their infirmities, corporal and mental (excepting always such as God, “by singular privilege, and for certain causes, exempted from the common rank of women”); that the divine law, announced at the creation of the first pair, had expressly assigned to man the dominion over woman, and commanded her to be subject to him; that female government was not permitted among the Jews; that it is contrary to apostolical injunctions; and that it {218} leads to the perversion of government, and other pernicious consequences.

Knox’s theory on this subject was not novel. In support of his opinion, he could appeal to the constitutions of the free states of antiquity, and to the authority of their most celebrated legislators and philosophers.[309] In the kingdom of France, females were, by an express law, excluded from succeeding to the crown. Edward VI., some time before his death, had proposed to the privy council the adoption of this law in England; but the motion, not suiting the ambitious views of the duke of Northumberland, was overruled.[310] Though his opinion was sanctioned by such high authority, Knox was by no means sanguine in his expectations as to the reception of this performance. He tells us, in the preface, that he laid his account not only with the indignation of those who were interested in the support of the reprobated practice, but also with the disapprobation of such gentle spirits among the learned as would be alarmed at the boldness of the attack. He did not doubt, that he would be called “curious, despiteful, a sower of sedition, and one day perchance be attainted for treason;” but, in uttering a truth of which he was deeply convinced, he was determined {219} to “cover his eyes, and shut his ears,” from these dangers and obloquies. He was not mistaken in his anticipations. It exposed him to the resentment of two queens, during whose reign it was his lot to live; the one his native princess, and the other exerting a sway over Scotland scarcely inferior to that of any of its monarchs. Several of the English exiles approved of his opinion,[311] and few of them would have been displeased at seeing it reduced to practice, at the time that the Blast was published. But queen Mary dying soon after it appeared, and her sister Elizabeth succeeding her, they raised a great outcry against it. John Fox wrote a letter to the author, in which he expostulated with him, in a very friendly manner, as to the impropriety of the publication, and the severity of its language. Knox, in his reply, did not excuse his “rude vehemencie and inconsidered affirmations, which may appear rather to proceed from choler than of zeal and reason;” but signified, that he was still persuaded of the principal proposition which he had maintained.[312]

{220} His original intention was to blow his trumpet thrice, and to publish his name with the last blast, to prevent the odium from falling on any other person. But, finding that it gave offence to many of his brethren, and being desirous to strengthen rather than invalidate the authority of Elizabeth, he relinquished his design of prosecuting the discussion.[313] He retained his sentiments to the last, but abstained from any further declaration of them, and from replying to his opponents; although he was provoked by their censures and triumph, and sometimes hinted, in his private letters, that he would break silence, if they did not study greater moderation.

In the course of the following year, an answer to the Blast appeared, under the title of “An Harborow for Faithful Subjects.”[314] Though anonymous, like the book to which it was a reply, it was soon declared to be the production of John Aylmer, one of the English refugees on the continent, who had been archdeacon of Stowe, and tutor to Lady Jane Grey. It {221} was not undertaken until the accession of Elizabeth, and was written, as Aylmer’s biographer informs us, “upon a consultation holden among the exiles, the better to obtain the favour of the new queen, and to take off any jealousy she might conceive of them, and of the religion which they professed.”[315] Aylmer himself says, that, if the author of the Blast “had not swerved from the particular question to the general,” but had confined himself to the queen who filled the throne when he wrote, “he could have said nothing too much, nor in such wise as to have offended any indifferent man;” and he allows with Knox that Mary’s government was “unnatural, unreasonable, unjust, and unlawful.”[316] From these and some other considerations, Knox was induced to express a suspicion, that his opponent had accommodated his doctrine to the times, and courted the favour of the reigning princess, by flattering her vanity and love of power.[317] It is certain, that, if Knox is entitled to the praise of boldness and disinterestedness, Aylmer carried away the palm for prudence; the latter was advanced to the bishopric of London, the former could not, without great difficulty, obtain leave to set his foot again upon English ground. Knox’s Trumpet would never have sounded its alarm, had it not been for the tyranny of {222} Mary, and there is reason to think that Aylmer would never have opened his “Harborow for faithful subjects,” but for the auspicious succession of Elizabeth.

This, however, is independent of the merits of the question, which I do not feel inclined to examine minutely. The change which has taken place in the mode of administering government in modern times, renders it of less practical importance than it was formerly, when so much depended upon the personal talents and activity of the reigning prince. It may be added, that the evils incident to a female reign will be less felt under such a constitution as that of Britain, than under a pure and absolute monarchy. This last consideration is urged by Aylmer; and here his reasoning is most satisfactory.[318] The Blast bears the marks of hasty composition.[319] The Harborow has evidently been written with great care; it contains a good collection of historical facts bearing on the question; and, though more distinguished for rhetorical exaggeration than logical precision, the reasoning is ingeniously conducted, and occasionally enlivened by strokes of humour.[320] It is, upon the whole, a curious as well as rare work.

{223} After all, it is easier to vindicate the expediency of continuing the practice, where it has been established by law and usage, than to support the affirmative, when the question is propounded as a general thesis on government. It may fairly be questioned, if Aylmer has refuted the principal arguments of his opponent; and had Knox deemed it prudent to rejoin, he might have exposed the fallacy of his reasoning in different instances. In replying to the argument from the apostolical canon,[321] the archdeacon is not a little puzzled. Distrusting his distinction between the greater office, “the ecclesiastical function,” and the less, “extern policy,” he argues, that the apostle’s prohibition may be considered as temporary, and peculiarly applicable to the women of his own time; and he insists that his clients shall not, _in toto_, be excluded from teaching and ruling in the church, any more than in the state. “Me thinke,” says he, very seriously, “even in this poynte, we must use επιεικια, a certain moderacion, not absolutely, and in every wise to debar them herein (as it shall please God) to serve Christ. Are there not, in England, women, think you, that for their learninge and wisdom, could tell their householde and neighbouris as good a tale as the best Sir Jhone there?”[322] Beyond {224} all question. Who can doubt that the learned Lady Elizabeth, who on a certain time interrupted the dean of her chapel, and told him to “stick to his text,” was able to make as good a sermon as any of her clergy? or, that she was better qualified for other parts of the duty, when she composed a book of prayers for herself, while they were obliged to use one made to their hands? In fact, the view which the archdeacon gave of the text was necessary to vindicate the authority of his queen, who was head, or supreme governor, of the church, as well as of the state. She who, by law, had supreme authority over all the reverend and right reverend divines in the land, with power to superintend, suspend, and control them in all their ecclesiastical functions――who, by her injunctions, could direct the primate himself when to preach, and how to preach――and who could license and silence ministers at her pleasure, must have been bound very moderately indeed by the apostolical prohibition, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Reason would also say, that she had an equal right to assume the exercise of the office in her own person, if she chose to avail herself of that right; and had she issued a congé d’élire, accompanied with her royal recommendation to elect some learned sister to a vacant see, the archdeacon at least would not have felt so squeamish at complying with it, as the Italian university did at conferring the degree of Doctor in Divinity upon the learned Helen Lucrecia Piscopia Cornaca.[323]

{225} There are some things in the Harborow which might have been unpalatable to the queen, if the author had not sweetened them with that personal flattery, which was as agreeable to Elizabeth as to others of her sex and rank, and which he took care to administer in sufficient quantities before concluding his work. The ladies will be ready to excuse a slight slip of the pen in the good archdeacon, in consideration of the handsome manner in which he has defended their right to rule; but they will scarcely believe that the following description of the sex could proceed from him. “Some women,” says he, “be wiser, better learned, discreater, constanter, than a number of men;” but others (“the most part,” according to his biographer) he describes[324] as “fond, foolish, wanton, flibbergibs, tatlers, trifling, wavering, witles, without counsel, feable, carles, rashe, proud, daintie, nise, tale‑bearers, eves‑droppers, rumour‑raisers, evil‑tongued, worse‑minded, and, in every wise, doltified with the dregges of the devil’s doungehill!!!” The rude author of the monstrous Blast never spoke of the sex in terms half so disrespectful as these. One would suppose that Aylmer had already renounced the character of advocate of the fair sex, and recanted his principles on that head, as he did respecting the titles and revenues of bishops, which he inveighed against before his return from exile, but afterwards accepted with little scruple; and, when reminded of the language which he had formerly used, apologized for himself by saying, {226} “When I was a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things.”[325]――But it is time to return to the narrative.

Our Reformer’s letter to the protestant lords in Scotland produced its intended effect, in reanimating their drooping courage. At a consultative meeting, held at Edinburgh in December 1557, they unanimously resolved to adhere to one another, and exert themselves in advancing the Reformation. Having subscribed a solemn bond of mutual assurance, they renewed their invitation to Knox; and being afraid that he might hesitate on account of their former irresolution, they wrote to Calvin, to employ his influence to induce him to comply. Their letters did not reach Geneva until November 1558.[326] By the same conveyance, Knox received letters of a later date, communicating the most agreeable intelligence respecting the progress which the reformed cause had made, and the flourishing appearance which it continued to wear, in Scotland.