the MS. copy of his Treatise on Prayer in my possession, preserving
the original language, which is altered in the printed edition. Those
who have access to the latter can compare the two.
“I mene not,” says he, “that any man, in extreamitie of trubill, can
be without a present dolour, and without a greater feir of trubill to
follow. Trubill and feir are the very spurris to prayer. For when man,
compassit about with vehement calamities, and vexit with continewall
solicitude, having by help of man no hope of deliverance, with soir
oppressit and punissit hart, feiring also greater punisment to follow,
from the deip pit of tribulation, doith call to God for comfort and
support, such prayer ascendeth into Godis presence, and returneth
not in vane.” Having illustrated this from the exercise of David,
as described in the viith psalm, he proceeds, “This is not written
for David onlie, but for all such as sall suffer tribulatioun to
the end of the world. For I, the wryter hereof, (lat this be said to
the laude and prais of God allone) in angusche of mynd, and vehement
tribulatioun and afflictioun, called to the Lord, when not only the
ungodlie, but evin my faithfull brether, ye and my awn self (that is,
all natural understanding) judgeit my cause to be irremedeable; and
yit in my greatest calamitie, and when my panis wer most cruell,
wold his eternall wisdome that my handis suld wryt far contrarie to
the judgement of carnall reasone, whilk his mercie hath pruved trew.
_Blessit be his halie name._[484] And therefore dar I be bold in the
veritie of Godis word, to promeis that, notwithstanding the vehemencie
of trubill, the long continewance thairof, the desperatioun of all
men, the feirfulness, danger, dolour, and angusche of oure awn hartis,
yit, yf we call constantlie to God, that, beyound expectatioun of all
men, hie sall {389} delyver.” p. 52‒54. After showing that prayers
for temporal deliverance ought always to be offered up with submission
to the divine will, that God often delays the deliverance of the body
while he mitigates the distress of the spirit, and sometimes permits
his saints “to drink, before the maturity of age, the bitter cupe of
corporall death, that thairby thay may receave medicine, and cure from
all infirmitie,” he adds: “Albeit we sie thairfoir no appeirand help
to our selves, nor yit to otheris afflictit, lat ws not ceis to call,
(thinking our prayeris to be vane;) for whatsoever cum of our bodeis,
God sall gif unspeakabill comfort to the spreit, and sall turne all
to our comodities beyound our awn expectatioun. The caus that I am
so lang and tedious in this matter is, for that I knaw how hard the
batell is between the spreit and the flesche, under the heavie cros
of afflictioun, whair no warldlie defence, but present death dois
appeir. I knaw the grudging and murmuring complaints of the flesche;
I knaw the anger, wrath, and indignatioun, whilk it consaveth aganis
God, calling all his promissis in dout, and being readie everie hour
utterlie to fall from God: aganis whilk restis onlie faith provoking
us to call ernistlie, and pray for assistance of Godis spreit, whairin
if we continew, our maist disperat calamiteis sall hie turn to gladnes,
and to a prosperous end.[485] To thee, O Lord, allone be prais; for
with experience I wryt this, and speak.” MS. Letters, p. 65, 66.
The edition was printed most probably in England, (_Rome_ is on the
title‑page,) during the persecution, from a MS. sent by Knox from
Dieppe, and so incorrectly, that it is often impossible to make sense
of it. The following are specimens: “Diffysed,” fol. 2, “difficil,”
MS.――“A pure word of God,” fol. 2, “a puritie allowit of God,”
MS.――“Consent,” fol. 3, “conceat,” MS.――“May any other Jesas Christ,
except I, in these wordes, make intercession for sinners?” fol. 11.
“May any other (Jesus Christ except) in these wordes mak intercession
for sinneris?” MS.; the transcriber having mistaken the concluding
mark of parenthesis for the pronoun.――“Carkese slepe,” fol. 16,
“carleslie slepeth,” MS. In quoting {390} Isa. lxiv. 5, the printed
edition has employed a word which I have not seen in any old version
of the Bible. “Thou art _crabbid_, O Lord, because we have sinned,”
fol. 4; and again in verse 9, “Be not _crabbid_, O Lord, remember not
our iniquities for ever.” In the MS. it is _angrie_, in both instances.
In fol. xvi. is a greater variation: “For with such as do aleage that
God may not chaunge his sentence, and our prayers therefore to be
vayne, can I no wyse agree.” Instead of this the MS. has, “whilk thing
if we do unfeanedlie, he will revoke his wrath, and in the middis of
his furie think upon mercie.”――There are similar variations between
the MS. and the printed copies of most of his other tracts. They show
that the MS. which I possess has not been transcribed from these
copies, according to a custom very common in that age.
Note O, Footnote 106.
_Extracts from Balnaves’s Confession of Faith, or Treatise on
Justification._――In reading the writings of the first reformers there
are two things which must strike our minds. The first, is the exact
conformity between the doctrine maintained by them respecting the
justification of sinners, and that of the apostles. The second, is
the surprising harmony which subsisted among them on this important
doctrine. On some questions respecting the sacraments, and the
external government and worship of the church, they differed; but upon
the article of free justification, Luther and Zuinglius, Melanchthon
and Calvin, Cranmer and Knox, spoke the very same language. This was
not owing to their having read each other’s writings, but because they
copied from the same divine original. The clearness with which they
understood and explained this great truth is also very observable.
More learned and able defences of it have since appeared; but I
question if it has ever been stated in more scriptural, unequivocal,
and decided language, than in the writings of the early reformers.
Some of their successors, by giving way to speculation, gradually
lost sight of this distinguishing badge of the Reformation, and landed
at last in Arminianism, which is nothing else but the popish doctrine
in a protestant dress. Knox has informed us, that his design, in
preparing for the press the treatise {391} written by Sir Henry
Balnaves, was to give, along with the author, his “confession of the
article of justification therein contained.” I cannot, therefore, lay
before the reader a more correct view of our Reformer’s sentiments
upon this fundamental article of faith, than by quoting from a book
which was revised and approved by him.
Having given the philosophical definition of justice or righteousness,
and explained what is meant by civil and ceremonial justice, the
author proceeds as follows:――“The justice of the lawe morall or
Moses’s lawe, which is the lawe of God, exceedeth and is far above
the other two justices. It is the perfite obedience required of
man, according to all the works and deeds of the same; not only in
externall and outward deeds, but also with the inward affections and
motions of the hart, conforme to the commandement of the same (saying),
Thou shalt love thy Lord God with all thy hart, with all thy mind,
with all thy power and strength, and thy neighbour as thyselfe. This
is no other thing but the lawe of nature, prented in the hart of man,
in the beginning; nowe made patent by the mouth of God to man, to
utter his sin, and make his corrupted nature more patent to himselfe.
And so is the lawe of nature and the lawe of Moses joyned together
in a knot; which is a doctrine teaching all men a perfite rule, to
know what he should do, and what he should leave undone, both to God
and his neighbour. The justice of the lawe, is to fulfill the lawe;
that is, to doo the perfite workes of the lawe as they are required,
from the bottome of the hart, and as they are declared and expounded
by Christ; and whosoever transgresseth the same, shall never be
pronounced just of the lawe. But there was never man that fulfilled
this lawe to the uttermost perfection thereof, except only Jesus
Christ. Therefore, in the lawe can we not find our justice, because
of the deedes of the lawe no flesh shall be made just before God.”
p. 57, 58.
“For transgression of the commandement of God, our forefather Adam was
exiled and banished forth of paradise, and spoiled of the integrity,
perfection, and all the excellent qualities, dignities, and godlie
vertues, with which he was endued by his creation, made rebell, and
disobedient to God in his owne default. And therefore he might not
fulfill the lawe to the perfection as the same required. {392} For
the lawe remaining in the owne perfection, just, holye, and good,
requireth and asketh the same of man, to be indeed fulfilled. But
all men proceeding from Adam, by natural propagation, have the same
imperfection that hee had; the which corruption of nature resisteth
the will and goodness of the lawe, which is the cause that wee fulfil
not the same, nor may not of our power and strength, through the
infirmitie and weakness of our flesh, which is enemie to the spirit,
as the apostle saith.” p. 79, 80.
“Notwithstanding, after the fall of man, remained with our first
parents some rest and footsteppes of this lawe, knowledge, and
vertues, in the which he was created, and of him descended in us; by
the which of our free will and power, we may do the outward deeds of
the lawe, as is before written. This knowledge deceaved and beguiled
the philosophers; for they looke but to the reason and judgement of
man, and could not perceave the inward corruption of nature, but ever
supponed man to bee clean and pure of nature, and might, of his own
free will and naturall reason, fulfill all perfection. And when they
perceaved the wickednes of man from his birth, they judged that to
be by reason of the planete under whom he was borne, or through evill
nourishing, upbringing, or other accidents, and could never consider
the corrupted nature of man, which is the cause of all our wickednes;
and therefore they erred, and were deceaved in their opinions and
judgements; but the perfite Christian man should looke first in his
corruption of nature, and consider what the law requireth of him, in
the which he findeth his imperfection and sinnes accused, (for that
is the office of the lawe, to utter sinne to man, and giveth him no
remedy,) then of necessitie is he compelled either to despaire or seek
Christ, by whom he shall get the justice that is of value before God,
which can not be gotten by any lawe or workes, because by the deedes
of the lawe no fleshe shall be justified before God.” p. 81‒83.
“This proposition of the holy spirite is so perfite, that it
excludeth (if ye will understande the same right) all the vaine
foolish arguments of sophistrie made by the justifiers of themselfes,
which perverte the words of S. Paule (as they doo the other scriptures
of God) to their perversed sence and mind; saying, that the apostle
excludeth by these wordes the workes of the law ceremonial, and {393}
not the deeds of the lawe of nature, and morall lawe of Moyses. The
which shameless sayings are expressly evacuat by the wordes of the
apostle, insomuch that no man of righteous judgement can deny, but
shall feel the same as it were in their hands, by this probation. The
lawe speaketh to all, that is, accuseth all men that are under the
lawe. All men are under the lawe of nature, or the lawe of Moyses,
therefore the apostle speaketh of the lawe of nature and Moyses,
and of all men which he comprehendeth under Jewe and Gentill, as he
proveth by his argumentes in the first and second chap. to the Romans,
and concludeth in the third chap. all men are sinners. If all men bee
sinners, none is just; if none bee just, none fulfill the lawe; if
none fulfill the lawe, the lawe can pronounce none just; therefore
concludeth he, that of the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be fonde
just before God. The same is proved by David in the 130 Psalme. Here
ye see by the words of the apostle, he intends to prove and declare
all men sinners; that is, to stoppe all men’s mouths, and to dryve
them to Christ by the accusation of the lawe. No lawe may make or
declare all men sinners, and subdue the whole world to God, but the
lawe of nature and Moyses; therefore, under that word (lawe) the
apostle comprehendeth the lawe morall, and not the lawe ceremonial
only.” p. 84, 85.
“But think not that I intende through these assertions to exclude
good workes; no, God forbid, for good workes are the gift of God, and
his good creatures, and ought and should be done of a Christian, as
shalbe showen hereafter at length in their place; but in this article
of justification, yee must either exclude all workes, or els exclude
Christ from you, and make your selfes just; the which is impossible
to do. Christ is the end of the lawe (unto righteousness) to all that
beleeve, that is, Christ is the consummation and fulfilling of the
lawe, and that justice whiche the law requireth; and all they which
beleeve in him, are just by imputation through faith, and for his sake
are repute and accepted as just. This is the justice of faith, of the
which the apostle speaketh, Rom. the 10 chapter: therefore, if ye
wilbee just, seeke Christ, and not the lawe, nor your invented workes,
which are lesse than the lawe. Christ shall have no mixtion with the
lawe, nor workes thereof, in {394} this article of justification;
because the lawe is as contrarie to the office of Christ, as darknes
to light, and is as farre different as heaven and earth. For the
office of the lawe is to accuse the wicked, feare them, and condemne
them, as transgressors of the same; the office of Christ is to preache
mercy, remission of sinnes, freely in his bloode through faith, give
consolation, and to save sinners: for hee came not into this world to
call them which ar just, or think themselves just, but to call sinners
to repentance.” p. 100, 126, 127, 128.
“This faith which only justifieth and giveth life, is not idle nor
remaineth alone; nevertheless, it alone justifieth, and then it works
by charitie; for unfained faith may no more abyde idle from working
in love, than the good tree may from bringing foorth her fruite in due
time; and yet the fruite is not the cause of the tree, nor maketh the
tree good, but the tree is the cause of the fruite; and the good tree
bringeth forth good fruite, by the which it is knowen goode: even so
it is of the faithfull man, the workes make him not faithfull nor just,
nor yet are the cause thereof; but the faithfull and just man bringeth
forth and maketh good workes, to the honour and glorie of God, and
profit of his neighbour, which beare witnesse of his inward faith,
and testify him to be just before man.” p. 131, 132. In the following
part of the treatise, the author shows at large, that the doctrine of
gratuitous justification does not release Christians from obligation
to perform good works, and inculcates the duties incumbent upon
them in the different spheres of life in which they may be placed.
_Confession of Faith; conteining how the troubled man should seeke
refuge at his God; compiled by M. Henry Balnaves of Halhill,[486] and
one of the Lords of Session of Scotland, being a prisoner within the
old pallaice of Roane, in the year 1548. T. Vautrollier, Edin. 1584._
{395}
Note P, Footnote 120.
_Extracts from Knox’s Defence before the Bishop of Durham._――Since
the publication of the first edition of this Life, I have seen a copy
of this Defence in print. Its title will be found in the catalogue of
Knox’s works, to be inserted in the last note of volume second. The
printed edition agrees more exactly with the MS. in my possession than
any of his other works which I have had the opportunity of comparing.
The extracts given in this note are continued in their original form,
to preserve the orthography of the MS., which constitutes almost the
only difference between it and the printed edition.
“The fourt of Apryle in the yeir 1550, was appoyntit to Johne Knox,
preacher of the halie evangell of Jesus Chryst, to gif his confessioun
why hie affirmed the mes idolatrie; whilk day, in presence of the
consale and congregatioun, amangis whome was also present the bischope
of Duram and his doctors, on this manner his beginneth.
“This day I do appeir in your presence, honourabill audience, to gif
a reasone why so constantlie I do affirme the mes to be, and at all
tymes to haif bene, idolatrie and abominatioun before God; and becaus
men of great eruditioun, in your audience, affirmed the contrarie,
most gladlie wold I that heir thay wer present, either in proper
persone, or els by thair learnit men, to ponder and wey the causis
moveing me thairto: for unles I evidentlie prufe myne intent be Goddis
halie scriptures, I will recant it as wickit doctrine, and confes
my self maist worthie of grevous punisment. How difficil it is to
pull furth of the hartis of the pepill the thing whairin opinioun
of holines standeth, declareth the great tumult and uprore moveit
aganis Paule by Demetrius and his fellowis, who by idolatrie gat
great vantage, as our priestis have done be the mes in tymes past.
The pepill, I say, heiring that the honor of thair great goddes Diana
stude in jeopardie, with furious voces cryit, ‘Great is Diana of the
Ephesians;’――and heirunto wer thay moveit be lang custom and fals
opinioun. I knaw, that in the mes bath not onlie bene estemit great
holines and honoring of God, but also the ground {396} and fundatioun
of our religioun: so that, in opinioun of many, the mes taken away,
thair resteth no trew wirschipping nor honoring of God in the erth.
The deiper hath it persit the hartis of men yat it occupyith the
place of the last and misticall supper of our Lord Jesus. But yf
I sal, be plane and evident scriptures, prove the mes, in hir mair
honest garment, to haif been idolatrie befoir God, and blasphemous
to the death and passioun of Chryst, and contrarie to the supper of
Jesus Chryst, than gude hope have I, honorable audience and belovit
brethrene, that the feir, love, and obedience of God, who in his
scriptures hath spokin all veritie necessarie for oure salvatioun,
sall move yow to gif place to the same. O Lord eternal! move and
governe my toung to speak the veritie, and the hartis of thir pepill
to understand and obey the same.” MS. Letters, p. 1, 2.
In proof of his position, he laid down and defended two syllogisms.
The first is thus stated: “All wirschipping, honoring, or service
inventit by the brane of man in the religioun of God, without his awn
expres commandement, is idolatrie: the mes is inventit by the brane
of man without any commandement of God: thairfoir it is idolatrie.”
The second syllogism is thus framed: “All honoring or service of God,
whairunto is addit a wickit opinioun, is abominatioun: unto the mes
is addit a wickit opinioun: thairfoir it is abominatioun.” p. 3, 21.
In support of the major proposition of his first syllogism, he argues
from 1 Sam. xiii. 11‒14. xv. 22, 23. Deut. iv. 2. xii. 8, 32. 1 Cor.
xi. 23. Take the following as a specimen:――“We may not think ws so
frie nor wyse that we may do unto God, and unto his honour, what we
think expedient. No: the contrarie is commandit by God, saying, ‘Unto
my word sall ye ad nothing, nothing sall ye deminische thairfrome,
that ye might observe the preceptis of your Lord God.’ Whilk wordis
ar not to be understand of the decalogue and law moral onlie, but of
statutis, rytes, and ceremonyis; for equall obedience of all his lawis
requyreth God. And in witnis thairof, Nadab and Abihu offiring strange
fyre, whairof God had geven unto thame na charge, wer instantlie,
as thay offirit, punissit to death by fyre.――In the punisment of
theis two afoirsaid is to be observit, that Nadab and Abihu wer the
principal priestis nixt to Aron thair father, and that they {397} were
comprehendit neither in adulterie, covetusnes, nor desyre of warldlie
honor, but of a gud zeall and simpill intent wer making sacrifice,
desyreing no profit of the pepill thairby, but to honor God, and to
metigat his wraith. And yit in the doing of this self same act and
sacrifice wer they consumit away with fyre; whairof it is plane, that
nether the preeminence of the persone or man that maketh or setteth
up any religioun without the express commandement of God, nor yet the
intent whairof hie doith the same, is acceptit befoir God: for nothing
in his religioun will hie admit without his awn word, but all that is
addit thairto doith hie abhor, and punisseth the inventoris and doeris
thairof, as ye haif hard in Nadab and Abihu.” p. 6, 7.
The following extracts will exemplify the irony with which he treated
the popish tenets: “Jesus Chryst sayeth, ‘I will lay upon yow none
other burdene than I haif alreadie;’ and, ‘that whilk ye haif observe
diligentlie.’ O God eternal! hast thow laid none uther burdene upon
our backis than Jesus Chryst laid be his word? Then who hath burdenit
ws with all theis ceremonyis? prescrybid fasting, compellit chastitie,
unlawfull vowis, invocatioun of sanctis, and with the idolatrie of the
mes? The divill, the divill, brethrene, inventit all theis burdenis to
depres imprudent men to perditioun.” p. 10. Speaking of the canon of
the mass, he says, “I will preve, that thairin is indigest, barbarous,
folische congestioun of wordis, imperfectioun of sentences, ungodlie
invocationis, and diabolicall conjurationis. And this is that holie
canon whois autoritie precelleth all scriptures! O! it was so holie
it might not be spoken planelie as the rest, but secreitlie it behoved
to be whisperit! That was not evil devysit; for yf all men had hard
it, sum wold have espyit the vanitie thairof.――Thay say, _Hoc est
enim corpus meum._ I pray thame schew, whair find thay _enim_? O! heir
mak thay a great matter; and heir lyeth a secreit misterie, and hid
operatioun! For in fyve wordis conceaved the virgin Marie, say thay,
when sche conceavit the Sone of God. What yf sche had spokin sevin,
ten, or twentie words? or what yf sche had not spoken in thrie? Suld
thairby the determinat consalle been impeidit? But, O papists! is God
a juglar? Useth he certane noumer of wordis in performing his intent?”
p. 18, 19.