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.