Chryst, wheirof everie ane of us is a member, teaching ws thairby
that na member is of sufficience to susteane and feide the self {430}
without the help and support of any uther, I think it necessarie that
for the conferrence of scriptures, assemblies of brethren be had.
The order thairin to be observit, is expressit be sanct paule, and
thairfoir I neid not to use many wordis in that behalf: onlie willing
that when ye convene, (whilk I wald wer anis a week,) that your
begynning suld be fra confessing of your offences, and invocatioun
of the spreit of the Lord Jesus to assist yow in all your godlie
interprysis; and than lat sum place of scripture be planelie and
distinctlie red, samekill as sal be thocht sufficient for a day or
tyme, whilk endit, gif any brother have exhortation, interpretatioun,
or dout, lat him not feir to speik and move the same, sa that he do
it with moderatioun, either to edifie or be edifeit. And heirof I
dout not but great profit sall schortlie ensew, for first be heiring,
reiding, and conferring the scriptures in the assemblie, the haill
bodie of the scriptures of God salbecum familiar, the judgement and
spreitis of men salbe tryit, thair pacience and modestie salbe knawin,
and finallie thair giftis and utterance sall appeir. Multiplicatioun
of wordis, perplext interpretatioun, and wilfulnes in reasonyng
is to be avoydit at all tymes and in all places, but chieflie in
the congregatioun, whair nathing aucht to be respectit except the
glorie of God, and comfort or edificatioun of our brethrene. Yf any
thing occur within the text, or yit arys in reasonyng, whilk your
judgementis can not resolve, or capacities aprehend, let the same be
notit and put in wryt befoir ye depart the congregatioun, that when
God sall offir unto yow any interpreter your doutis being notit and
knawin, may have the mair expedit resolutioun, or els that when ye
sall have occasion to wryt to sic as with whome ye wald communicat
your judgementis, your letteris may signifie and declair your unfeaned
desyre that ye haue of God and of his trew knawledge, and thay, I
dout not, according to thair talentis, will indeuour and bestow thair
faithfull labors, [to] satisfie your godlie petitionis. Of myself
I will speak as I think, I will moir gladlie spend xv houris in
communicatting my judgement with yow, in explainyng as God pleasis
to oppin to me anyplace of scripture, than half ane hour in any other
matter besyd.
“Farther, in reading the scripture I wald ye suld joyne sum {431}
bukis of the ald and sum of the new Testament together, as genesis
and ane of the evangelistis, exodus with another, and sa furth, euer
ending sic bukis as ye begyn, (as the tyme will suffer,) for it sall
greitly comfort yow to heir that harmony and weiltunit sang of the
halie spreit speiking in oure fatheris frome the begyning. It sall
confirme yow in theis dangerous and perrellous dayis, to behald the
face of Christ Jesus his loving spous and kirk, from Abell to him self,
and frome him self to this day, in all ageis to be ane. Be frequent
in the prophetis and in the epistillis of St Paul, for the multitude
of matteris maist comfortable thairin conteanit requyreth exercis and
gud memorie. Lyke as your assemblis aucht to begyn with confessioun
and invocatioun of Godis halie spreit, sa wald I that thay wer never
finissit without thanksgiving and commoun prayeris for princes,
rulers, and maiestratis, for the libertie and frie passage of Chrystis
evangell, for the comfort and delyverance of our afflictit brethrene
in all places now persecutit, but maist cruellie now within the realme
of France and Ingland, and for sic uther thingis, as the spreit of the
Lord Jesus sal teache unto yow to be profitable ether to your selues,
or yit to your brethren whairsoeuer thay be. If this, or better,
dear brethrene, I sall heir that ye exercise your selues, then will
I prais God for your great obedience, as for thame that not onlie haue
ressavit the word of grace with gladnes, but that also with cair and
diligence do keip the same as a treasure and jewell maist precious.
And becaus that I can not expect that ye will do the contrarie, at
this present I will vse na threatenyngis, for my gud hoip is, that
ye sall walk as the sonis of lyght in the middis of this wickit
generatioun, that ye salbe as starris in the nyght ceassone, wha
yit ar not changeit into darknes, that ye salbe as wheit amangis the
kokill, and yit that ye sall not change your nature whilk ye haue
ressavit be grace, through the fellowschip and participatioun whilk
we haue with the Lord Jesus in his bodie and blud. And finallie, that
ye salbe of the novmber of the prvdent virginis, daylie renewing your
lampis with oyle, as thai that pacientlie abyd the glorious aparitioun
and cuming of the Lord Jesus, whais omnipotent spreit rule and
instruct, illuminat and comfort your hartis and myndis in all assaltis,
now and euer. Amen. The grace of the {432} Lord Jesus rest with yow.
Remember my weaknes in your daylie prayeris, the 7 of July 1557.
“Your brother vnfeaned Johnne Knox.”
MS. Letters, p. 352‒359.
Note AA, Footnote 289.
_William Whittingham_, the successor of Knox at Geneva, was the son
of William Whittingham, Esq. of Holmeside, in the county of Chester.
He was born anno 1524, and educated at Oxford, where he was held in
great reputation for his learning. On the accession of queen Mary, he
went first to Frankfort, and afterwards to Geneva, where he married
Catherine, the sister of John Calvin. He was one of the translators
of the Geneva Bible, and composed several of the metrical psalms
published at the same time, which have his initials prefixed to them.
He fell under the displeasure of queen Elizabeth, on account of a
commendatory preface which he wrote to Christopher Goodman’s book on
Obedience to Superior Powers, in which, among other free sentiments,
female government was condemned. But he enjoyed the protection of
some of her principal courtiers. In 1560, he accompanied the earl
of Bedford on an embassy to France, and, in 1562 and 1563, acted as
chaplain to the earl of Warwick, during the defence of Havre de Grace.
That brave nobleman was at a loss for words to express his high esteem
of him. In a letter to Cecil, Nov. 20, 1562, Warwick writes: “I assure
yow, we may all here thinck our selves happy in having soch a man
amongest us as Mr Whyttingham is, not only for the greate vertues in
him, but lykewise for the care he hath to serve our mistris besydes:
wherfore, in my opynion, he doth well deserve grete thankes at her
majesties handis.” And in a letter written by him, July 24, 1563,
when he was in daily expectation of an assault by the French, he says
to his brother, lord Robert Dudley, afterwards earl of Leicester;
“My deare brother, for that I had, in my letter to the quene’s
majesty, forgot my humblest thancks for the behalff of my deare frinde
Mr Whittingam, for the great favour it hath pleased her to shew him
for my sake: I besetch yow therefore do not forget to render them unto
her {433} majesty. Farewell, my deare and loving brother, a thousand
tymes, and the Lord send you well to do.” Forbes, State Papers,
ii. 207, 418, 487.
In 1563, Whittingham was made dean of Durham, which seems to have
been the favour for which Warwick was so grateful to Elizabeth. I
have already mentioned (p. 56) that an unsuccessful attempt was made
to invalidate the ordination which he had received at Geneva. On
that occasion, Dr Hutton, dean of York, told archbishop Sandys, that
Whittingham “was ordained in a better manner than even the archbishop
himself;” and the lord president said, he could not in conscience
agree to “allow of the popish massing priests in our ministry, and
to disallow of ministers made in a reformed church.” Whittingham
never conformed fully to the English church, and died in 1579.
Hutchinson’s History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of
Durham, ii. 143‒152, 378.
Note BB, Footnote 318.
_Aylmer’s Sentiments respecting the English Constitution._――The view
which Aylmer has given of the English constitution is very different
from that which Mr Hume has laboured to establish, by dwelling upon
some arbitrary measures of the house of Tudor. As his work is seldom
consulted, I may be excused for inserting a few extracts from it on
this subject. It will be seen that he carefully distinguishes between
the principles of the constitution, and those proceedings which were
at variance with them. “But if this be utterly taken from them [women]
in this place, what maketh it against their government in a politike
weale, where neither the woman nor the man ruleth (if there be no
tyrants), but the laws. For, as Plato saith, _Illi civitati paratum
est exitium ubi magistratus legibus imperat, et non leges magistratui_:
That city is at the pit’s brinke, wherein the magistrate ruleth the
lawes, and not the lawes the magistrate.” And a little afterwards:
“Well; a woman may not reigne in Englande. Better in Englande, than
any where, as it shall wel appere to him that, with out affection,
will consider the kind of regimen. Whyle I confer ours with other
(as it is in itselfe, and not mained by usurpacion), I can find none
either so good or {434} so indifferent. The regemente of Englande is
not a mere monarchie, as some for lacke of consideracion thinke, nor a
mere oligarchie nor democratie, but a rule mixed of all these, wherein
ech one of these have or should have like authoritie. The image
whereof, and not the image, but the thinge in dede, is to be sene in
the parliament hous, wherein you shall find these 3 estats; the king
or quene which representeth the monarche, the noblemen which be the
aristocratie, and the burgesses and knights the democratcie.――If the
parliament use their privileges, the king can ordain nothing without
them: If he do, it is his fault in usurping it, and their fault in
permitting it. Wherefore, in my judgment, those that in king Henry the
VIII.’s daies would not grant him that his proclamations should have
the force of a statute, were good fathers of the countrie, and worthy
commendacion in defending their liberty. Wold God that that court
of late daies had feared no more the farceness of a woman, than they
did the displeasure of such a man. Then should they not have stouped,
contrary to their othes and alledgeaunce to the crowne, against the
privilege of that house, upon their marye bones to receive the devil’s
blessenge brought unto them by Satan’s apostle, the cardinal. God
forgeve him for the doing, and them for obeying! But to what purpose
is all this? To declare that it is not in England so daungerous a
matter to have a woman ruler, as men take it to be.――If, on thother
part, the regement were such as all hanged upon the king’s or quene’s
wil, and not upon the lawes written; if she might decre and make lawes
alone, without her senate; if she judged offences according to her
wisdom, and not by limitation of statutes and laws; if she might
dispose alone of war and peace; if, to be short, she wer a mer monarch,
and not a mixed ruler, you might peradventure make me to fear the
matter the more, and the less to defend the cause.” Harborowe for
Faithfull and Trew Subjects. H. 2 & 3.
Note CC, Footnote 323.
_Female Supremacy._――“Our countryman, John Knox, has been much
censured for want of civility and politeness to the fair sex; and
particularly for sounding a first and second ‘blast of the trumpet
{435} against the monstrous regiment of women.’ He was indeed no
milksop courtier, who can sacrifice the public weal to the punctilios
of politeness, or consider the interests of nations as a point of
gallantry. His reasons for the abolition of all female government,
if they are not entirely convincing, may be allowed at least to be
specious; and might well be indulged as a harmless speculative opinion
in one who was disposed as he was to make no bad use of it in practice,
and to give all dutiful respect to whomsoever the will of God and the
commonwealth had assigned the sovereign power. But though the point
may be conceded in regard to secular government, in ordering of which
the constitutions and customs and mere pleasure of communities may
be allowed to establish what is not morally evil; it will not follow
that the essential order and positive law of the spiritual kingdom may
also be sported with, and subverted.――Let the English, if they please,
admit a weak, fickle, freakish, bigoted, gallantish or imperious woman,
to sway the sceptre of political dominion over millions of men, and
even over her own husband in the crowd, to whom at the altar she had
previously vowed obedience, they shall meet with no opposition from
the presbyterians; provided they do not also authorize her to lord it,
or lady it, over their faith and consciences, as well as over their
bodies, goods, and chattels.
“By the laws of the Romish church, no female can be admitted to a
participation of clerical power. Not so much as the ancient order of
deaconesses now remains in her. Her casuists have examined and debated
this thesis, Whether a woman may have the degree of doctor of divinity
conferred upon her; and have determined it in the negative.[490] But
of the philosophical dignity they are not quite so jealous. Helen
Lucrecia Piscopia Cornaca, of famous memory, once applied for her
degree in divinity in an Italian university; but cardinal Barbarigo,
bishop of Padua, was far from being disposed to grant it; so that
this learned lady was obliged to content herself with a doctorate in
philosophy, which, with universal applause, was actually conferred
upon her, June 25, 1678.[491] But the English climate savours nothing
of this Italian {436} jealousy; nor are the divines in it so niggardly
of their honours. We do not hear indeed that they have formally
matriculated any ladies, in the universities, or obliged them, by
canon, or act of parliament, to take out degrees, either in law, in
philosophy, or divinity, to qualify them for ecclesiastical preferment,
(even the highest pinnacle of it;) though their laws hold males
utterly unqualified for holding any lucrative place in the church, or
in ecclesiastic courts, without these: Nor can a man be admitted to
the lowest curacy, or be fellow or student in a university, until he
have learned and digested all the articles, homilies, canons, rubrics,
modes, and figures of the church of England, as he cannot even be
sergeant or exciseman, till he understand perfectly the superior
devotion of kneeling above sitting. But it is very possible, though
they do not bear the learned titles, the ladies may know as much
of learning and divinity, as those who do. And though they may not
receive ordination on Ember‑week for the inferior orders, yet it is
enacted and provided, that one of their number may be raised at once
_per saltum_, not only above all the peers and peeresses, but over all
the graduates, reverend dignitaries, and mitred heads in the kingdom.
The solemn inaugurating unction once applied, then _cedite Romani
doctores, cedite graij_. Henceforward, as the queen of Sheba came from
the uttermost end of the earth, to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and
to have every enigma and hard question solved, so must every master,
doctor, heads of universities, every diocesan and metropolitan,
however wise, have recourse to their queen, by reference or appeal,
with every difficult question, and every learned and deep controversy,
and be responsible to her for their every decision. How flattering
a constitution this to woman‑kind――if they be indeed so very fond
of precedence and rule, as is commonly said! She must have an
unreasonable and unbounded ambition indeed whom this will not
content; though she should not be also further told in plain terms,
that she is a goddess, and in her office superior to Christ; as some
court‑clergymen have ventured to affirm of their visible head.”――A
Historico‑Politico‑Ecclesiastical Dissertation on the Supremacy of
Civil Powers in Matters of Religion, particularly the Ecclesiastical
Supremacy annexed to the English Crown; by Archibald Bruce, Minister
of the Gospel, p. 46‒50. Edinburgh, 1802.
{437}
Note DD, Footnote 330.
_Of the Form of Prayer used in Scotland at the beginning of the
Reformation._――It is natural to enquire here what is meant by the
“buik of comon prayeris,” which the protestants, in 1557, agreed to
use, or which was afterwards followed in their public worship. Was it
the common prayer‑book of Edward VI., or was it a different one? This
question was keenly canvassed, after the Revolution, by the Scottish
episcopalians and presbyterians. Mr Sage, the most able champion
of the episcopalians, insisted that it was the English liturgy, and
endeavoured to prove that this was, during, “at least, seven years, in
continued practice in Scotland,” _i.e._ from 1557 to 1564. Fundamental
Charter of Presbytery Examined, p. 95‒101, 349. 2d edit. Lond. 1697.
Mr Anderson, minister of Dumbarton, who was the most acute advocate of
presbytery, answered this part of the Fundamental Charter, and adduced
a number of arguments to prove that it was the liturgy, not of Edward
VI., but of the English church at Geneva, of which Knox was minister,
which was used in Scotland from the time that protestant congregations
were formed in this country. The Countreyman’s Letter to the Curat,
p. 65‒77, printed in 1711. I shall state a few facts, without entering
into reasoning. Mr Anderson says, that he had in his possession a copy,
in Latin, of the liturgy used in the English church at Frankfort, the
preface of which bears date the 1st of September, 1554. He adds, that
this had been translated from English into Latin; and that the prayers
in it are exactly the same with those which are found in the Order of
Geneva, afterwards adopted by the Scottish church; only there are some
additional prayers in the latter accommodated to the circumstances
of Scotland. Ibid. p. 64. This must have been the form of worship
agreed on by the exiles immediately after their arrival at Frankfort.
Troubles of Franckford, p. 7. Before the end of that year, the form of
worship observed by the Genevan church was printed in English. Ibid.
p. 27. In the beginning of the following year, the form afterwards
used by the English church at Geneva was composed, which differed very
little from that which {438} was first used at Frankfort. Ibid. p. 37.
This was printed in the beginning of 1556. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii.
401. It is not unlikely that Knox, in his visit to Scotland, in 1555,
would carry with him copies of the two former liturgies, and that he
would send copies of the latter, on his return to Geneva. After all,
I think it extremely probable, that copies of the liturgy of Edward VI.
were still more numerous in Scotland at that time, and that they were
used by some of the protestants at the beginning of the Reformation.
This appears from a letter of Cecil to Throkmorton, 9th July, 1559.
“The protestants be at Edynborough. They offer no violence, but
dissolve religiose howsees; directyng the lands thereof to the crowne,
and to ministery in the chirch. The parish churchees they delyver
of altars and imagees, and have receved the service of the church of
England, accordyng to King Edward’s Booke.” Forbes’s State Papers,
i. 155. Another thing which inclines me to think that the English
liturgy was in the eye of those who made the agreement in Dec. 1557 is,
that they mention the reading of “the _lessonis_ of the New and Auld
Testament, _conforme_ to the ordour of the Buik of Commoun‑Prayeris.”
Anderson gives a quotation from the preface to the Frankfort liturgy,
in which the compilers vindicate themselves against the objection,
that they had omitted the reading of the gospels and epistles, by
saying that they read in order not only these, but all the books of
scripture. And he insists that by the “lessonis of the New and Auld
Testament,” our reformers meant no more than the reading of the
scriptures in general. This reply does not appear to me satisfactory.
But though the Scottish protestants, at that time, agreed to make use
of the prayers and scripture‑lessons contained in the English liturgy,
it cannot be inferred from this, that they approved of it without
limitations, or that they meant to bind themselves to all its forms
and ceremonies. The contrary is evident. It appoints lessons to be
read from the apocrypha; but they expressly confined their reading
to “the lessons of the New and Old Testament.” A great part of the
English liturgy can be read by a priest only; but all that they
proposed to use could be performed by “the most qualifeit in the
parochin,” provided the curate refused, or was unqualified. I need
scarcely add, that, if they had adopted that {439} liturgy without
qualification, their invitation to Knox must have come with a very bad
grace. It must have been to this purpose, (to use Mr Anderson’s words,)
“Pray, good Mr Knox, come over and help us; and for your encouragement
against you come, you shall find the English liturgy, against which
you preached in Scotland, against which you declared before the
counsel of England, for opposing which you were brought in danger
of your neck at Francford; this English liturgy you shall find the
authorized form of worship, and that by an ordinance of our making.”
The Countreyman’s Letter, ut supra, p. 69.
We can trace back the use of the Book of Common Order, (or, Order of
Geneva,) by the church of Scotland, from the year 1564. The General
Assembly, Dec. 26, 1564, ordained “that everie minister, exhorter,
and reader sall have one of the Psalme Bookes latelie printed in
Edinburgh, and use the order contained therein in prayers, marriage,
and ministration of the sacraments.” Keith, 538. This refers to the
edition of the Geneva Order and Psalms, which had been printed during
that year by Lepreuik. “In the generall assemblie convened at Edinr.
in Dec{r} 1562, for printing of the psalmes, the kirk lent Rob.
Lickprivick, printer, tva hundreth pounds, to help to buy irons,
ink, and papper, and to fie craftesmen for printing.” Reasons for
continuing the use of the old metrical Version of the Psalms, p. 232,
of a MS. (written in 1632) belonging to Robert Græme, Esq. advocate.
But although this was the first edition of the book printed in this
country, it had been previously printed both at Geneva and in England;
and was used in the church of Scotland. For in the assembly which
met in Dec. 1562, it was concluded, “that an uniforme Order sould be
keeped in ministration of the sacraments, solemnization of marriages,
and burial of the dead, according to the Booke of Geneva.” Keith, 519.
Petrie, part ii. p. 233. Nor was it then introduced for the first
time; for the Abbot of Crossraguel, in a book set forth by him in 1561,
mentions it as the established form of prayers at the time he wrote.
“I will call to remembrance,” says he, “the sayings of quhilkis ar
written to the redar, in _thair buke_ callit _the forme of prayeris_,
as eftir followis, viz. ‘As for the wourdis of the Lordis supper, we
rehers thaim nocht bicaus thai sulde change the {440} substance of
the breid and wine, or that the repetitione tharof, with the entent
of the sacrificear, sulde make the sacraments (as the papists falslie
belevis).” Ane Oratioune be Master Quintine Kennedy, p. 15, Edin. 1812.
The passage quoted by Kennedy is in the book of Common Order. Dunlop,
ii. 454. The First Book of Discipline, framed in 1560, expressly
approves of the Order of Geneva, which it calls “_our_ Book of
Common Order,” and mentions its being “used in some of our churches,”
previous to that period. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 520, 548, 583.
From these facts it is evident that, although the scripture lessons
and the prayers in the English liturgy were at first used by some
of the Scottish protestants, yet they never received that book as a
whole; that the Order of Geneva was introduced among them before the
establishment of the Reformation; and that it became the universal
form of worship as soon as a sufficient number of copies of it
could be procured. If any other evidence of this were necessary,
I might produce the testimony of Sir Francis Knollys, the English
ambassador. When queen Mary fled into England, in 1568, she feigned
her willingness to give up with the mass, and to adopt the English
Common Prayer Book, provided Elizabeth would assist her in regaining
her crown. Lord Herries having made this proposal in her name, Sir
Francis replied, “that, yf he meant thereby to condempne the form and
order of common prayer now used in Skotland, agreeable with divers
well reformed churches,――or that he meant to expel all the learned
preachers of Skotland, yff they would not return back to receave and
wayr cornered capes and typpets, with surpless and coopes, which they
have left by order contynually since their first receavyng of the
gospel into that realme; then he myght so fyght for the shadow and
image of religion that he myght bring the body and truth in danger.”
Anderson’s Collections, vol. iv., part i., p. 110, 111.