understand that God required one thing of Abraham and of his seed,
when he and they were strangers and pilgrims in Egypt and Canaan;
and another thing when they were delivered from the bondage of
Egypt, and the possession of the land of Canaan was granted to them.
At the first, and during all the time of their bondage, God craved
no more than that Abraham should not defile himself with idolatry.
Neither was he nor his posterity commanded to destroy the idols that
were in Canaan or in Egypt. But when God gave them the possession
of the land, He gave them this strait commandment, "Beware lest ye
make league or confederacy with the inhabitants of this land: give
not thy sons unto their daughters, nor yet give thy daughters unto
their sons. But this shall ye do unto them, cut down their groves,
destroy their images, break down their altars, and leave thou no
kind of remembrance of those abominations, which the inhabitants of
the land used before: for thou art a people holy unto the Lord thy
God. Defile not thyself, therewith, with their gods."
Ye, my Lords, and all such as have professed the Lord Jesus within
this realm, are bound to this same commandment. God has wrought no
less miracle upon you, both spiritual and corporal, than He did upon
the carnal seed of Abraham. For you yourselves cannot be ignorant in
what estate your bodies and this poor realm were, not seven years
ago. You and it were both in bondage to a strange nation; and what
tyrants reigned over your conscience, God perchance may let you
feel, because ye do not rightly acknowledge the benefit received.
When our poor brethren before us gave their bodies to the flames
of fire for the testimony of the truth, and when scarcely ten that
rightly knew God could be found in a country-side, it would have
been foolishness to have craved the suppressing of idolatry, either
by the Nobility, or by the humble subjects. That would have done
nothing but expose the simple sheep as a prey to the wolves. But
since God has multiplied knowledge, and has given the victory to
His truth, even in the hands of His servants, if ye suffer the land
again to be defiled, ye and your Princess shall both drink the cup
of God's indignation--she for her obstinate abiding in manifest
idolatry in the great light of the Evangel of Jesus Christ, and ye
for your permitting and maintaining her in it.
_Lethington._ In that point we will never agree; and where find
ye, I pray you, that any of the Prophets or of the Apostles ever
taught such a doctrine as that the people should be plagued for the
idolatry of the prince; or that the subjects might suppress the
idolatry of their rulers, or punish them for the same?
_Knox._ My Lord, we know what was the commission given to the
Apostles. It was to preach and plant the Evangel of Jesus Christ
where darkness had dominion before; and therefore it behoved them,
first, to let them see the light before they should urge them to
put to their hands to suppress idolatry. I will not affirm what
precepts the Apostles gave to the faithful in particular, other
than that they commanded all to flee from idolatry. But I find two
things which the faithful did; the one was, they assisted their
preachers, even against the rulers and magistrates; the other was,
they suppressed idolatry wherever God gave them force, asking no
leave of the Emperor, or of his deputies. Read the Ecclesiastical
History, and ye shall find sufficient example. As to the doctrine
of the Prophets, we know they were interpreters of the law of God;
and we know they spake to the kings as well as to the people. I read
that neither would hear them; and therefore came the plague of God
upon both. But I cannot be persuaded that they flattered kings more
than the people.
As I have said, God's laws pronounce sentence of death upon
idolatry, without exception of any person. Idolatry is never alone;
ever does it corrupt religion, and bring with it a filthy and
corrupt life. How the Prophets could rightly interpret the law,
and show the causes of God's judgments, which they ever threatened
should follow idolatry, and the rest of abominations that accompany
it--how they could reprove the vices, and not show the people their
duty, I understand not. Therefore, I constantly believe that the
doctrine of the Prophets was so sensible that the kings understood
their own abominations, and the people understood what they ought
to have done in punishing and repressing them. But because the most
part of the people were no less rebellious to God than were their
princes, the one and the other convened against God and against
His servants. And yet, my Lord, the acts of some Prophets are so
evident, that we may collect from them what doctrine they taught;
for it were no small absurdity to affirm that their acts should
repugn to their doctrine.
_Lethington._ I think ye refer to the history of Jehu. What will ye
prove thereby?
_Knox._ The chief head that ye deny and I affirm--that the Prophets
never taught that it appertained to the people to punish the
idolatry of their kings. For the probation, I am ready to produce
the act of a Prophet. Ye know, my Lord, that Elisha sent one of the
children of the Prophets to anoint Jehu, who gave him commandment
to destroy the house of his master Ahab for the idolatry committed
by him, and for the innocent blood that Jezebel his wicked wife had
shed. He obeyed, and put this into full execution; and for this God
promised him the stability of the kingdom, to the fourth generation.
Here is the act of one Prophet that proves that subjects were
commanded to execute judgments upon their king and prince.
_Lethington._ There is enough to be answered thereto. Jehu was a
king before he put anything in execution; and besides, the act is
extraordinary, and not to be imitated.
_Knox._ My Lord, he was a mere subject and no king, when the
Prophet's servant came to him; yea, and albeit his fellow-captains,
hearing of the message, blew the trumpet, and said, "Jehu is king;"
I doubt not that Jezebel both thought and said he was a traitor. So
did many others that were in Israel and in Samaria. And as touching
what ye allege--that the act was extraordinary, and is not to be
imitated--I say that it had ground upon God's ordinary judgment,
which commands the idolater to die the death. Therefore, I yet again
affirm that it is to be imitated by all those that prefer the true
honour, the true worship, and the glory of God to the affections of
flesh, and of wicked princes.
_Lethington._ We are not bound to imitate extraordinary examples,
unless we have the like commandment and assurance.
_Knox._ I grant that, if the example repugn to the law, and if
an avaricious and deceitful man desired to borrow gold, silver,
raiment, or any other necessaries from his neighbour, and withhold
the same, he might allege that he might do so and not offend God,
because the Israelites did so to the Egyptians, at their departure
from Egypt. The example would serve no purpose unless the like
cause, and the like commandment to that which the Israelites had,
could be produced; because, their act repugned to this commandment
of God, "Thou shalt not steal." But where the example agrees with
the law, and is, as it were, the execution of God's judgments
expressed in it, I say that the example approved by God stands to
us in place of a commandment. God of His nature is constant, and
immutable; He cannot condemn in the subsequent ages that which He
has approved in His servants before us. In His servants before us,
by His own commandment, He has approved when subjects have not only
destroyed their kings for idolatry, but also rooted out their whole
posterity, so that none of that race were afterwards left to empire
over the people of God.
_Lethington._ Whatsoever they did was done at God's commandment.
_Knox._ That fortifies my argument. You admit that subjects punish
their princes by God's commandment for idolatry and wickedness
committed by them.
_Lethington._ We have not the like commandment.
_Knox._ That I deny. The commandment, "The idolater shall die the
death," is perpetual, as ye yourself have granted. You doubted only
who should be executors against the king; and I said the people of
God. I have sufficiently proven, I think, that God has raised up the
people, and by His Prophet has anointed a king to take vengeance
upon the king and upon his posterity. Since that time, God has
never retreated[237] that act; and, therefore, to me it remains
for a constant and clean commandment to all people professing God,
and having the power to punish vice, as to what they ought to do
in the like case. If the people had enterprised anything without
God's commandment, we might have doubted whether they had done well
or evil. But, seeing that God did bring the execution of His law
again into practice, after it had fallen into oblivion and contempt,
what reasonable man can now doubt of God's will, unless we are to
doubt of all things which God does not renew to us by miracles, as
it were, from age to age. I am assured that the answer of Abraham
to the rich man who, being in hell, desired that Lazarus or some of
the dead should be sent to his brethren and friends, to inform them
of his incredible pain and torments, and to warn them so to behave
themselves that they should not come to that place of torment--that
answer shall confound such as crave further approbation of God's
will than is already expressed within His holy Scriptures. Abraham
said, "They have Moses and the Prophets; if they will not believe
them, neither will they believe albeit one of the dead should
rise." Even so, my Lord, I say that such as will not be taught what
they ought to do, by commandment of God once given and once put in
practice, will not believe or obey, albeit God should send angels
from heaven to instruct that doctrine.
[237] Repudiated; withdrawn.
_Lethington._ Ye have but produced one example.
_Knox._ One sufficeth. But, God be praised, we do not lack others.
The whole people conspired against Amaziah, king of Judah, after
he had turned away from the Lord, followed him to Lachish and slew
him, and took Uzziah and anointed him king instead of his father.
The people had not altogether forgotten the league and covenant
made betwixt their king and them, at the inauguration of Joash, his
father, that the king and the people should be the people of the
Lord, and then should they be his faithful subjects. When first the
father, and afterwards the son, declined from that covenant, they
were both punished to the death, Joash by his own servants, and
Amaziah by the whole people.
_Lethington._ I doubt whether they did well or not.
_Knox._ It shall be free for you to doubt as ye please; but where
I find execution according to God's laws, and God Himself does not
accuse the doers, I dare not doubt of the equity of the cause.
Further, it appears to me that God gave sufficient approbation and
allowance to their act; for He blessed them with victory, peace, and
prosperity, for the space of fifty-two years thereafter.
_Lethington._ But prosperity does not always prove that God approves
the acts of men.
_Knox._ Yes; when the acts of men agree with the law of God, and are
rewarded according to God's own promise, expressed in His law, I say
that the prosperity succeeding the act is most infallible assurance
that God has approved that act. God has promised in His law that,
when His people shall exterminate and destroy such as decline from
Him, He will bless them, and multiply them, as He has promised
to their fathers. Amaziah turned from God; for so the text doth
witness; and it is plain that the people slew their king; and it is
as plain that God blessed them. Therefore, yet again I conclude that
God approved their act, and it, in so far as it was done according
to His commandment, was blessed according to His promise.
_Lethington._ Well, I think the ground is not so sure that I durst
build my conscience thereupon.
_Knox._ I pray God that your conscience have no worse ground than
this, whenever ye shall begin work like that which God, before your
own eyes, has already blessed. And now, my Lord, I have but one
example to produce, and then I will put an end to my reasoning,
because I weary of standing. (Commandment was given that he should
sit down; but he refused it, and said, "Melancholious reasons would
have some mirth intermixed.") My last example, my Lord, is this,
Uzziah the king, not content of his royal estate, malapertly took
upon him to enter within the temple of the Lord, to burn incense
upon the altar of incense; and Azariah the priest went in after
him, and with him fourscore priests of the Lord, valiant men. These
withstood Uzziah the king, and said to him, "It pertaineth thee not,
Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons
of Aaron, that are consecrated to offer incense. Go forth of the
sanctuary, for thou hast transgressed, and you shall have no honour
of the Lord God." From this, my Lord, I conclude that subjects not
only may, but ought to withstand and resist their princes, whenever
they do anything that expressly repugns to God's law or holy
ordinance.
_Lethington._ They that withstood the king were not simple subjects.
They were the priests of the Lord, and figures of Christ. We have
none such priests this day, to withstand kings if they do wrong.
_Knox._ I grant that the High Priest was the figure of Christ, but
I deny that he was not a subject. I am assured that he, in his
priesthood, had no prerogative above those that had gone before
him. Now, Aaron was subject unto Moses, and called him his lord.
Samuel, being both prophet and priest, subjected himself to Saul,
after he was inaugurated by the people. Zadok bowed before David;
and Abiathar was deposed from the priesthood by Solomon. These all
confessed themselves subjects to the kings, albeit therewith they
ceased not to be figures of Christ. Ye say that we have no such
priests this day, but I might answer that neither have we such kings
this day as then were anointed at God's commandment, and sat upon
the seat of David, and were no less the figure of Christ Jesus in
their just administration, than were the priests in their appointed
office. Such kings, I am assured, we have not now, more than have
we such priests. Christ Jesus, being anointed in our nature by God,
His Father, as King, Priest, and Prophet, has put an end to all
external unction. And yet, I think, ye will not say that God has now
diminished His graces for those whom He appoints ambassadors betwixt
Him and His people, more than He does from kings and princes.
Therefore, I see not why the servants of Jesus Christ may not also
justly withstand kings and princes that this day no less offend
God's Majesty than Uzziah did, unless ye will say that we, in the
brightness of the Evangel, are not straitly bound to regard God's
glory or His commandments, as were the fathers that lived under the
dark shadows of the law.
_Lethington._ Well, I will dip no further into that head. But how
resisted the priests the king? They only spake to him, without
further violence intended.
_Knox._ That they withstood him, the text assures me; but that they
did nothing but speak, I cannot understand. The plain text affirms
the contrary. They caused him hastily to depart from the sanctuary,
yea, he was compelled to depart. This manner of speaking, I am
assured, imports in the Hebrew tongue another thing than exhorting,
or commanding by word.
_Lethington._ They did that after he was espied to be leprous.
_Knox._ They withstood him before; but their last act confirms
my proposition so evidently, that such as will oppose themselves
to it must needs oppose themselves to God. My assertion is, that
kings have no privilege to offend God's Majesty more than had the
people; and that, if they do so, they are no more exempted from the
punishment of the law than is any subject; yea, and that subjects
may not only lawfully oppose themselves to their kings, whenever
they do anything that expressly repugns to God's commandment, but
also that they may execute judgment upon them according to God's
law. If the king be a murderer, adulterer, or idolater, he should
suffer according to God's law, not as a king, but as an offender,
and this history clearly proves that the people may put God's laws
into execution. As soon as the leprosy appeared in his forehead,
he was not only compelled to depart out of the sanctuary, but he
was also removed from all public society and administration of the
kingdom, and was compelled to dwell in a house apart, even as the
law commanded. He got no greater privilege in that case than any
other of the people should have done; and this was executed by the
people; for there is no doubt that more than the priests alone were
witnesses of his leprosy. We do not find that any oppose themselves
to the sentence of God pronounced in His law against the leprous;
and therefore, yet again say I that the people ought to execute
God's law even against their princes, when their open crimes deserve
death by God's law, but especially when they are such as may infect
the rest of the multitude. And now, my Lords, I will reason no
longer, for I have spoken more than I intended.
_Lethington._ And yet I cannot tell what can be concluded.
_Knox._ Albeit ye cannot, I am assured of what I have proven, to
wit:--1. That subjects have delivered an innocent from the hands
of their king, and therein offended not God. 2. That subjects have
refused to strike innocents when a king commanded, and in doing so
denied no just obedience. 3. That such as struck at the commandment
of the king before God were reputed murderers. 4. That God has not
only of one subject made a king, but also has armed subjects against
their natural kings, and commanded them to take vengeance upon them
according to His law. 5. That God's people have executed God's law
against their king, having no further regard to him in that behalf,
than if he had been the most simple subject within this realm.
Therefore, albeit ye will not understand what should be concluded,
I am assured not only that God's people may, but also that they are
bound to do the same where the like crimes are committed, and when
He gives unto them the like power.
_Lethington._ Well, I think ye shall not have many learned men of
your opinion.
_Knox._ My Lord, the truth ceases not to be the truth, howsoever men
either misknow it, or yet gainstand it. And yet, I praise my God
that I lack not the consent of God's servants in that head.
With that, John Knox presented to the Secretary the Apology of
Magdeburg; and willed him to read the names of the ministers who had
subscribed the defence of the town to be a most just one; adding,
that to resist a tyrant is not to resist God, or yet His ordinance.
When the Secretary had read this, he scripped and said, "_Homines
obscuri_."[238] The other answered, "_Dei tamen servi_."[239]
[238] "Men of no note."
[239] "Servants of God, however."
So Lethington arose and said, "My Lords, ye have heard the reasons
upon both sides: it becomes you now to decide, and to give an order
unto preachers, that they may be uniform in doctrine. May we, think
ye, take the Queen's Mass from her?"
While some began to give their votes, for some were appointed, as
it were, leaders to the rest, John Knox said, "My Lords, I suppose
that ye will not do contrary to your Lordships' promise, made
to the whole Assembly. This was that nothing should be voted in
secret, until all matters should first be debated in public, and
that then the votes of the whole Assembly should put an end to the
controversy. Now have I only sustained the argument, and shown my
conscience in most simple manner, rather than insisted upon the
force and vehemence of any one argument. Therefore I, for my part,
utterly dissent from all voting, until the whole Assembly have heard
the propositions and the reasons of both parties. For I unfeignedly
acknowledge that many in this company are more able to sustain the
argument than I am.
"Think ye it reasonable," said Lethington, "that such a multitude as
are now convened should reason and vote in these heads and matters
that concern the Queen's Majesty's own person and affairs."
"I think," said the other, "that, whosoever should bind, the
multitude should hear, unless they have resigned their power
to their commissioners. This they have not done, so far as I
understand; for my Lord Justice Clerk heard them say, with one
voice, that in nowise would they consent that anything should either
be voted or concluded here."
"I cannot tell," said Lethington, "if my Lords that be here present,
and that bear the burden of such matters, should be bound to their
will. What say ye, my Lords? Will ye vote in this matter, or will ye
not vote?"
After long reasoning, some that were made for the purpose said, "Why
may not the Lords vote, and then show unto the Kirk whatsoever is
done?"
"That appears to me," said John Knox, "not only a backward order,
but also a tyranny usurped upon the Kirk. For me, do as ye list, as
I reason, so I vote; yet I protest, as before, that I dissent from
all voting, until the whole Assembly understand the questions as
well as the reasonings."
"Well," said Lethington, "that cannot be done now, for the time is
spent; and therefore, my Lord Chancellor, said he, ask ye the votes,
and take by course every one of the ministers, and one of us."
[Sidenote: The Lords and Ministers discuss Lethington's Proposition
and Knox's Answer.]
The Rector of St. Andrews, first commanded to speak his conscience,
said, "I refer to the Superintendent of Fife, for I think we are
both of one judgment; and yet, if ye will that I speak first, my
conscience is this. If the Queen oppose herself to our religion,
which is the only true religion, the Nobility and Estates of
this realm, professors of the true doctrine, may justly oppose
themselves to her. But, as concerning her own Mass, albeit I know
it is idolatry, I am not yet resolved, whether or not we may take
it from her by violence." The Superintendent of Fife said, "That is
my conscience." So also affirmed some of the Nobility. But others
voted frankly, and said that, as the Mass was an abomination, it was
just and right that it should be suppressed; and that, in so doing,
men did no more wrong to the Queen's Majesty than would they that
should, by force, take from her a poisoned cup when she was going to
drink it.
[Sidenote: Mr John Craig's Judgment.]
At last, Mr. John Craig, fellow-minister with John Knox in the Kirk
of Edinburgh, was required to give his judgment and vote. "I will
gladly show to your Honours what I understand," he said; "but I
greatly doubt whether my knowledge and conscience shall satisfy you,
seeing that ye have heard so many reasons, and are so little moved
by them. But yet I shall not conceal from you my judgment, adhering
first to the protestation of my brother that our voting prejudge
not the liberty of the General Assembly. I was in the University
of Bologna in the year of God 1554, and there, in the place of
the Black Friars of the same town, I saw in the time of their
General Assembly this conclusion set forth. This I heard reasoned,
determined, and concluded:--'All rulers, be they supreme or be they
inferior, may be and ought to be reformed or deposed by them by whom
they are chosen, confirmed, or admitted to their office, as oft as
they break that promise made by the oath to their subjects. Princes
are no less bound by oath to the subjects, than are the subjects to
their princes, and therefore ought to be kept and reformed equally,
according to the law and condition of the oath that is made by
either party.'
"This conclusion, my Lords, I heard sustained and concluded, as I
have said, in a most notable auditory. The sustainer was a learned
man, Monsieur Thomas de Finola, the Rector of the University,
a man famous in that country. Magister Vincentius de Placentia
affirmed the conclusion to be most true and certain, agreeable
both with the law of God and man. The occasion of this disputation
and conclusion was a certain disorder and tyranny attempted by the
Pope's governors. These began to make innovations in the country
against the laws formerly established, alleging themselves not to be
subject to such laws, by reason that they were not institute[240]
by the people, but by the Pope, who was king of that country. They
claimed that they, having full commission and authority from the
Pope, might alter and change statutes and ordinances of the country,
without any consent of the people. Against this usurped tyranny, the
learned and the people opposed themselves openly. When all reasons
which the Pope's governors could allege were heard and confuted,
the Pope himself was fain to take up the matter, and to promise,
not only to keep the liberty of the people, but also that he should
neither abrogate any law or statute, nor make any new law without
their own consent. Therefore, my Lord, my vote and conscience is,
that the princes are not only bound to keep laws and promises to
their subjects, but also that, in case they fail, they may be
justly deposed; for the bond betwixt the prince and the people is
reciprocal."
[240] Placed in authority.