of apprehension as to his personal safety. The queen was peculiarly
incensed against him on account of the active part which he had taken
in the late revolution; the popish clergy who left the kingdom had
represented him as the ringleader of her factious subjects; and she
had publicly declared, before she left France, that she was determined
he should be punished. His book against female government was most
probably the ostensible charge on which he was to be prosecuted;
and, accordingly, we find him making application, through the English
resident at Edinburgh, to secure the favour of Elizabeth; reasonably
suspecting that she might be induced to abet the proceedings against
him on this ground.[44] But whatever perils he apprehended, {31}
from the personal presence of the queen, either to the public or
to himself, he used not the smallest influence to prevent her being
invited home. On the contrary, he concurred with his brethren in this
measure, and also in using means to defeat a scheme which the duke
of Chastelherault, under the direction of the archbishop of St Andrew,
had formed to exclude her from the government.[45] But when the
prior of St Andrews was sent to France with the invitation, he urged
that her desisting from the celebration of mass should be one of the
conditions of her return; and when he found him and the rest of the
council disposed to grant her this liberty within her own chapel, he
predicted that “her liberty would be their thraldom.”[46]
In the beginning of September,[47] only a few days after her arrival
in Scotland, the queen sent for Knox to the palace, and held a long
conversation with him, in the presence of her brother, the prior
of St Andrews. Whether she did this of her own accord, or at the
suggestion of some of her counsellors, is uncertain; but she seems to
have expected to awe him into submission by her authority, if not to
confound him by her arguments. The bold freedom with which he replied
to all her charges, and vindicated his own conduct, convinced her
that the one expectation was not more vain than the other; and the
impression {32} which she wished to make on him was left on her own
mind.
She accused him of raising her subjects against her mother and
herself; of writing a book against her just authority, which, she
said, she would cause the most learned in Europe to refute; of being
the cause of sedition and bloodshed, when he was in England; and of
accomplishing his purposes by magical arts.
To these heavy charges Knox replied, that, if to teach the truth of
God in sincerity, to rebuke idolatry, and exhort a people to worship
God according to his word, were to excite subjects to rise against
their princes, then he stood convicted of that crime; for it had
pleased God to employ him, among many others, to disclose unto that
realm the vanity of the papistical religion, with the deceit, pride,
and tyranny of the Roman antichrist. But if the true knowledge of God
and his right worship were the most powerful inducements to subjects
cordially to obey their princes, (as they certainly were,) then was
he innocent. Her grace, he was persuaded, had at present as unfeigned
obedience from the protestants of Scotland, as ever her father, or
any of her ancestors, had from those called bishops. With respect to
what had been reported to her majesty concerning the fruits of his
preaching in England, he was glad that his enemies laid nothing to his
charge but what the world knew to be false. If they could prove, that
in any of the places where he had resided there was either sedition
or mutiny, he would confess himself to be a malefactor. But so far
from this being the case, he was not {33} ashamed to say, that in
Berwick, where bloodshed had formerly been common among the military,
God so blessed his weak labours, that there was as great quietness,
during the time he resided in that town, as there was at present
in Edinburgh. The slander of practising magic, (an art which he had
always condemned,) he could more easily bear, when he recollected
that his master, Jesus Christ, had been defamed as one in league with
Beelzebub. As to the book which seemed to have offended her majesty
so highly, he owned that he wrote it, and he was willing that all
the learned should judge of it. He understood that an Englishman had
written against it, but he had not read his work. If that author had
sufficiently confuted his arguments, and established the contrary
opinion, he would confess his error; but to that hour he continued to
think himself able to maintain the propositions affirmed in that book
against any ten in Europe.
“You think, then, I have no just authority?” said the queen. “Please
your majesty,” replied he, “learned men in all ages have had their
judgments free, and most commonly disagreeing from the common judgment
of the world; such also have they published both with pen and tongue;
notwithstanding, they themselves have lived in the common society with
others, and have borne patiently with the errors and imperfections
which they could not amend. Plato, the philosopher, wrote his book
on the commonwealth, in which he condemned many things that then were
maintained in the world, and required {34} many things to have been
reformed; and yet, notwithstanding, he lived under such policies as
then were universally received, without farther troubling of any state.
Even so, madam, am I content to do, in uprightness of heart, and with
a testimony of a good conscience.” He added, that his sentiments on
that subject should be confined to his own breast; and that, if she
refrained from persecution, her authority would not be hurt, either
by him or his book, “which was written most especially against that
wicked Jesabell of England.”
“But ye speak of women in general,” said the queen. “Most true it is,
madam; yet it appeareth to me, that wisdom should persuade your grace
never to raise trouble for that which to this day has not troubled
your majesty, neither in person nor in authority: for of late years
many things, which before were held stable, have been called in doubt;
yea they have been plainly impugned. But yet, madam, I am assured that
neither protestant nor papist shall be able to prove, that any such
question was at any time moved either in public or in secret. Now,
madam, if I had intended to have troubled your estate, because ye are
a woman, I would have chosen a time more convenient for that purpose
than I can do now, when your presence is within the realm.”
Changing the subject, she charged him with having taught the people
to receive a religion different from that which was allowed by their
princes; and she asked, if this was not contrary to the divine command,
{35} that subjects should obey their rulers. He replied, that true
religion derived its origin and authority not from princes, but
from God; that princes were often most ignorant on this point; and
that subjects were not bound to frame their religious sentiments and
practice according to the arbitrary will of their rulers, else the
Hebrews ought to have conformed to the religion of Pharaoh, Daniel and
his associates to that of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, and the primitive
Christians to that of the Roman emperors. “Yea,” replied the queen,
qualifying her assertion; “but none of these men raised the sword
against their princes.”――“Yet you cannot deny,” said he, “that they
resisted; for those who obey not the commandment given them do in some
sort resist.”――“But they resisted not with the sword,” rejoined the
queen, pressing home the argument. “God, madam, had not given unto
them the power and the means.”――“Think you,” said the queen, “that
subjects, having the power, may resist their princes?”――“If princes
exceed their bounds, madam, no doubt they may be resisted, even by
power. For no greater honour, or greater obedience, is to be given to
kings and princes, than God has commanded to be given to father and
mother. But the father may be struck with a frenzy, in which he would
slay his children. Now, madam, if the children arise, join together,
apprehend the father, take the sword from him, bind his hands, and
keep him in prison, till the frenzy be over, think you, madam, that
the children do any wrong? Even so, madam, is it with princes that
would murder {36} the children of God that are subject unto them.
Their blind zeal is nothing but a mad frenzy; therefore, to take the
sword from them, to bind their hands, and to cast them into prison,
till they be brought to a more sober mind, is no disobedience against
princes, but just obedience, because it agreeth with the will of God.”
Mary, who had hitherto maintained her courage in reasoning, was
completely overpowered by this bold answer; her countenance changed,
and she remained in a silent stupor. Her brother spoke to her,
and enquired the cause of her uneasiness; but she made no reply.
Recovering herself at length, she said, “Well, then, I perceive that
my subjects shall obey you, and not me, and will do what they please,
and not what I command; and so must I be subject to them, and not
they to me.”――“God forbid!” replied the Reformer, “that ever I take
upon me to command any to obey me, or to set subjects at liberty to
do whatever pleases them. But my travel is, that both princes and
subjects may obey God. And think not, madam, that wrong is done
you, when you are required to be subject unto God; for it is he who
subjects people under princes, and causes obedience to be given unto
them. He craves of kings that they be as foster‑fathers to his church,
and commands queens to be nurses to his people. And this subjection,
madam, unto God and his church, is the greatest dignity that flesh can
get upon the face of the earth; for it shall raise them to everlasting
glory.”
{37} “But you are not the church that I will nourish,” said the
queen; “I will defend the church of Rome; for it is, I think, the
true church of God.”――“Your _will_, madam, is no reason, neither doth
your _thought_ make the Roman harlot to be the true and immaculate
spouse of Jesus Christ. Wonder not, madam, that I call Rome an harlot,
for that church is altogether polluted with all kinds of spiritual
fornication, both in doctrine and manners.” He added, that he was
ready to prove that the Roman church had declined farther from the
purity of religion taught by the apostles, than the Jewish church
had degenerated from the ordinances which God gave them by Moses and
Aaron, at the time when they denied and crucified the Son of God. “My
conscience is not so,” said the queen.――“Conscience, madam, requires
knowledge; and I fear that right knowledge you have none.”――“But I
have both heard and read.”――“So, madam, did the Jews who crucified
Christ Jesus read the law and the prophets, and heard the same
interpreted after their manner. Have you heard any teach but such
as the pope and cardinals have allowed? and you may be assured, that
such will speak nothing to offend their own estate.”
“You interpret the scriptures in one way,” said the queen
evasively, “and they in another; whom shall I believe, and who shall
be judge?”――“You shall believe God, who plainly speaketh in his word,”
replied the Reformer; “and farther than the word teacheth you, you
shall believe neither the one nor the other. The word of God is plain
in itself; and {38} if there appear any obscurity in one place, the
Holy Ghost, who is never contrary to himself, explains the same more
clearly in other places, so that there can remain no doubt, but unto
such as are obstinately ignorant.” As an example, he selected one
of the articles in controversy between the church of Rome and the
protestants, and was proceeding to show, that the popish doctrine of
the sacrifice of the mass was destitute of all foundation in scripture;
but the queen, who was determined to avoid all discussion of the
articles of her creed, interrupted him, by saying, that she was unable
to contend with him in argument, but if she had those present whom
she had heard, they would answer him. “Madam,” replied the Reformer,
fervently, “would to God that the learnedest papist in Europe, and he
whom you would best believe, were present with your grace to sustain
the argument, and that you would wait patiently to hear the matter
reasoned to the end! For then, I doubt not, madam, but you would hear
the vanity of the papistical religion, and how little ground it hath
in the word of God.”――“Well,” said she, “you may perchance get that
sooner than you believe.”――“Assuredly, if ever I get that in my
life, I get it sooner than I believe; for the ignorant papist cannot
patiently reason, and the learned and crafty papist will never come,
in your audience, madam, to have the ground of their religion searched
out. When you shall let me see the contrary, I shall grant myself to
have been deceived in that point.”
The hour of dinner afforded an occasion for breaking {39} off this
singular conversation. At taking leave of her majesty, the Reformer
said, “I pray God, madam, that you may be as blessed within the
commonwealth of Scotland, as ever Deborah was in the commonwealth of
Israel.”[48]
I have been the more minute in the narrative of this curious
conference, because it affords the most satisfactory refutation of the
charge, that Knox treated Mary with rudeness and disrespect. For the
same reason I shall lay before the reader a circumstantial account of
the subsequent interviews between them, from which we shall perceive
that, though the Reformer addressed her with a plainness to which
crowned heads are seldom accustomed, he never lost sight of that
respect which was due to the person of his sovereign, nor of that
decorum which became his own character.
The interview between the queen and the Reformer excited great
speculation, and different conjectures were formed as to its probable
consequences. The catholics, whose hopes now depended solely on
the queen, were alarmed, lest Knox’s rhetoric should have shaken
her constancy. The protestants cherished the expectation that she
would be induced to attend the protestant sermons, and that her
religious prejudices would gradually abate.[49] Knox indulged no such
flattering expectations. He had made it his study, during the late
conference, to discover the real character of the queen; and when
some of his confidential {40} friends asked his opinion of her, he
told them that he was very much mistaken if she was not proud, crafty,
obstinately wedded to the popish church, and averse to all means
of instruction.[50] Writing to Cecil, he says, “The queen neyther
is, neyther shal be of our opinion; and, in very dead, her whole
proceedings do declair that the cardinalle’s lessons ar so deaplie
printed in her heart, that the substance and the qualitie are like to
perishe together. I wold be glad to be deceaved, but I fear I shal not.
In communication with her, I espyed such craft as I have not found in
such aige. Since, hath the court been dead to me and I to it.”[51]
He resolved, therefore, vigilantly to watch her proceedings, and to
give timely warning of any danger which might result from them to
the reformed interest; and the more that he perceived the zeal of the
protestant nobles to cool, and their jealousy to be laid asleep by the
winning arts of the queen, the more frequently and loudly did he sound
the alarm. Vehement and harsh as his expressions often were――violent,
seditious, and insufferable, as his sermons and prayers have been
pronounced to be, I have no hesitation in saying, that, as the
public peace was never disturbed by them, so they were useful to
the public safety, and a principal means of warding off for a time
those confusions in which the country was afterwards involved, and
which brought on the ultimate ruin {41} of the infatuated queen. His
uncourtly and rough manner was not, indeed, calculated to gain upon
her mind, (nor is there any reason to think that an opposite manner
would have had this effect,) and his admonitions often irritated her;
but they obliged her to act with greater reserve and moderation; and
they operated, to an indescribable degree, in arousing and keeping
awake the zeal and the fears of the nation, which, at that period,
were the two great safeguards of the protestant religion in Scotland.
We may form an idea of the effect produced by his pulpit‑orations,
from the account of the English ambassador, who was one of his
constant hearers. “Where your honour,” says he, in a letter to Cecil,
“exhorteth us to stoutness, I assure you the voice of one man is
able, in an hour, to put more life in us, than six hundred trumpets
continually blustering in our ears.”[52]
The Reformer was not ignorant that some of his friends thought him too
severe in his language, nor was he always disposed to vindicate the
expressions which he employed. Still, however, he was persuaded that
the times required the utmost plainness; and he {42} was afraid that
snares lurked under the smoothness which was recommended and practised
by courtiers. Cecil having given him an advice on this head in one
of his letters, Knox replied: “Men deliting to swym betwix two waters
have often compleaned upon my severitie. I do fear that that which
men terme lenitie and dulcenes, do bring upon themselves and others
more fearful destruction, than yit hath ensewed the vehemency of any
preacher within this realme.”[53]
That abatement of zeal which he had dreaded from “the holy water of
the court,” soon began to appear among the protestant leaders. The
general assemblies of the church were a great eye‑sore to the queen,
who was very desirous to have them put down. At the first General
Assembly held after her arrival, the courtiers, through her influence,
absented themselves, and when challenged for this, began to dispute
the propriety of such conventions without her majesty’s pleasure.
On this point, there was sharp reasoning between Knox and Maitland,
who was now made secretary of state. “Take from us the liberty of
assemblies, and take from us the gospel,” said the Reformer. “If the
liberty of the church must depend upon her allowance or disallowance,
we shall want not only assemblies, but also the preaching of the
gospel.” It was proposed that the Book of Discipline should be
ratified by the queen; but this was keenly opposed by the secretary.
“How many of those that {43} subscribed that book will be subject to
it?” said he, scoffingly. “All the godly,” it was answered. “Will the
duke?” said he. “If he will not,” replied lord Ochiltree, “I wish that
his name were scraped, not only out of that book, but also out of our
number and company; for to what end shall men subscribe, and never
mean to keep word of that which they promise?” Maitland said, that
many subscribed it, _in fide parentum_, implicitly. Knox replied,
that the scoff was as untrue as it was unbecoming; for the book was
publicly read, and its different heads discussed, for a number of
days, and no man was required to subscribe what he did not understand.
“Stand content,” said one of the courtiers; “that book will not be
obtained.”――“And let God require the injury which the commonwealth
shall sustain, at the hands of those who hinder it,” replied the
Reformer.[54]
He was still more indignant at their management in settling the
provision for the ministers of the church. Hitherto they had lived
chiefly on the benevolence of their hearers, and many of them had
scarcely the means of subsistence; but repeated complaints having
obliged the privy council to take up the affair, they came at last to
a determination, that the ecclesiastical revenues should be divided
into three parts; that two of these should be given to the ejected
popish clergy; and that the third part should be divided between the
court and the protestant ministry![55] The persons {44} appointed
to “modify the stipends,”[56] were disposed to gratify the queen,
and her demands were readily answered, while the sums allotted to
the ministers were as ill paid as they were paltry and inadequate.
“Weall!” exclaimed Knox, when he heard of this disgraceful arrangement,
“if the end of this ordour, pretendit to be takin for sustentatioun
of the ministers, be happie, my judgement failes me. I sie twa pairtis
freelie gevin to the devill, and the third mon be devyded betwix God
and the devill. Who wald have thocht, that when Joseph reulled in
Egypt, his brethren sould have travellit for victualles, and have
returned with emptie sackes unto thair families? O happie servands
of the devill, and miserabill servants of Jesus Christ, if efter this
lyf thair wer not hell and heavin!”[57] At a conference held on this
subject, {45} Maitland complained of the ingratitude of the ministers,
who did not acknowledge the queen’s liberality to them. “Assuredly,”
replied Knox, with a derisive smile, “such as receive any thing of
the queen are unthankful, if they acknowledge it not; but whether
the ministers be of that rank or not, I greatly doubt. Has the queen
better title to that which she usurps, be it in giving to others,
or in taking to herself, than such as crucified Christ had to divide
his garments among them? Let the papists who have the two parts, some
that have their thirds free, and some that have gotten abbacies and
feu‑lands, thank the queen; the poor preachers will not yet flatter
for feeding their bellies. To your dumb dogs, formerly ten thousand
was not enough; but to the servants of Christ, that painfully preach
his evangell, a thousand pound! how can that be sustained?”――“These
words,” he himself tells us, “were judged proud and intolerable, and
engendered no small displeasure to the speaker.”[58]
Knox gave vent to his feelings on this subject the more freely, as
his complaints could not be imputed to personal motives; for his
own stipend, though moderate, was liberal when compared with those
of the most of his brethren. From the time of his last return to
Scotland, until the conclusion of the war, he had been indebted to the
liberality of individuals for the support of his family. After that
period, he {46} lodged in the house of David Forrest, a burgess of
Edinburgh, from which he removed to the lodging which had belonged to
Durie, abbot of Dunfermline. As soon as he began to preach statedly
in the city, the town council assigned him an annual stipend of two
hundred pounds, which he was entitled to receive quarterly; and they
also paid his house‑rent, and his board, during the time that he
had resided with Forrest. Subsequent to the settlement made by the
privy council, it would seem that he received, at least, a part of
his income from the common fund allotted to the ministers of the
church; but the good town had still an opportunity of testifying
their generosity, by supplying the deficiencies of the legal allowance.
Indeed, the uniform attention of the town council to his external
support and accommodation, was honourable to them, and deserves to be
recorded to their commendation.[59]
In the beginning of the year 1562, he went to Angus to preside in the
election and admission of John Erskine of Dun, as superintendent of
Angus and Mearns. That respectable baron was one of those whom the
first General Assembly declared “apt and able to minister;”[60] and
having already contributed in different ways to the advancement of the
Reformation, he now devoted himself to the service of the church, in
a laborious employment, at a time when she stood eminently in need of
the assistance of all {47} the learned and pious. Knox had formerly
presided at the installation of John Spotswood, as superintendent of
Lothian.[61]