His Political Opinions

Only less important to his native land than his religious views were the Scottish Reformer’s political opinions. To himself, in all probability, the two appeared to be one; and, ever since, in the Scottish mind the waters of religious and y political conviction have been in close proximity, with a constant tendency to mingle. Substantially the same political ideas as his were propounded at the same time by George Buchanan in his work, De Jure Regni apud Scotos but the renowned Humanist wrote in a foreign tongue, whereas Knox conveyed his message in the vernacular; and, while Buchanan addressed himself to the learned few, Knox thundered his opinions into the ears of the multitude with the force and passion of an orator. In the generations which have intervened between his day and our own, his ideas have been working like a leaven in the mind of the Scottish people; and to him may in no small measure be ascribed the type of political conviction, robust in character yet tinged with reverence, which has been the prevailing one north of the Border.

As early as 1554 we find Knox in correspondence with Bullinger, the Reformer of Zurich, on the following questions, which show how much his mind was occupied with politics: i. Whether the son of a king, upon his father’s death, though unable by reason of his tender age to conduct the government of the kingdom, is nevertheless by right of inheritance to be regarded as a lawful magistrate and as such to be obeyed as of divine right? 2. Whether a female can preside over and rule a kingdom by divine right, and so transfer the right of sovereignty to her husband? 3. Whether obedience is to be rendered to a magistrate who enforces idolatry and condemns true religion, and whether those authorities that are still in military occupation of towns and fortresses are permitted to repel this ungodly violence from themselves and their friends? 4. To which party must godly persons attach themselves in the case of a religious nobility resisting an idolatrous sovereign? Ten years later, in a committee of the General Assembly, he debated topics of the same kind, at great length and in high spirits, with Works f iii. 221 ff.

Maitland of Lethington, the only man on the opposite side who was able to stand up to him in argument; and the decision with which he then summed up the debate proved that in the interval he had made up his own mind on nearly every point.^ The ripening process may be seen going on in such productions of his pen, between these two dates, as his Appellation to the Nobility and his Letter to the Commonalty of Scotland issued on the eve of his final return to his native land, and especially in a series of proclamations which he sent out, in the name of the Lords of the Congregation, during the progress of the civil war waged with Mary of Guise.

It cannot be considered a circumstance favourable to Knox’s political reputation that his best known contribution to political doctrine is The First Blast of tJu Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment op Women in which he maintains the thesis that to allow a woman to occupy a throne is contrary to both reason and Scripture. This treatise was published in the very year when the reign began which it has been usual to consider the most illustrious in British history, and this was the reign

1 History ii. 425 ff.

of a woman; and, if we read it now, it is with the memory fresh in our minds of the only other reign in our annals which can compete with that of Elizabeth — the glorious reign of Queen Victoria. Against such a refutation of facts no logic can successfully contend; and, therefore, it is scarcely worth while to recall the arguments of the author. Suffice it to say, that he unfolded no inconsiderable learning in the quotation of authorities, both classical and Christian, on his side, and that he wielded the argument from Scripture with his usual copiousness and ingenuity. Happily, he had left himself a loophole of escape, by allowing that there might be exceptions to the rule; but Queen Elizabeth was not likely to be much mollified by his offer to give her the benefit of this doubt, when it was conveyed in the following terms: —

“Nothing in my book contained is or can be prejudicial to your Grace’s just regiment, provided that you be not found ungrateful unto God. Ungrate you shall be proved in presence of His throne, howsoever the flatterers justify your acts, if you transfer the glory of that in which you now stand to any other thing than to the dispensation of His mercies, which only maketh that truthful to your Grace which nature and law denieth to all women. Neither would I that your Grace should fear that this your humiliation before God should, in any case, infirm and weaken your just and lawful authority before men. Nay, Madam, such unfeigned confession of God’s benefits received shall be the establishment of the same, not only to yourself but also to your seed and posterity; where, contrariwise, a proud conceit and elevation of yourself shall be the occasion that your reign shall be unstable, troublesome and short. God is witness that unfeignedly I both reverence and love your Grace; yea, I pray that your reign may be long, prosperous and quiet; and that for the quietness which Christ’s members, before persecuted, have received under you. Yet, if I should flatter your Grace, I were no friend, but a deceitful traitor; and, therefore, of conscience I am compelled to say, that neither the consent of people, process of time, nor multitude of men can establish a law which God shall approve; but, whatsoever He approveth by His eternal Word that shall be approved, and whatsoever He damneth that shall be condemned, though all men on earth should hazard the justification of the same. And therefore. Madam, the only way to retain and keep these benefits of God, abundantly poured out of late days upon you and your realm, is unfeignedly to render unto God’s mercy and undeserved grace the whole glory of this your exaltation. Forget your birth and all title which thereupon doth hang, and consider deeply how for fear of your life you did decline from God and bow in idolatry. Let it not appear a small offence in your eyes that you have declined from Christ Jesus in the day of His battle. Neither yet would I that you should esteem the mercy to be vulgar and common which you have received, to wit, that God hath covered your former offences, hath preserved you when you were most unthankful, and in the end hath exalted and raised you up not only from the dust but also from the ports of death to rule over His people for the comfort of His Kirk, It appertaineth to you, therefore, to ground the justness of your authority not upon that law which from year to year doth change, but upon the eternal providence of Him who, contrary to nature and without your deserving, hath thus exalted your head. If thus in God’s presence you humble yourself, as in my heart I glorify God for that rest granted to His afflicted flock within England under you, a weak instrument, so will I with tongue and pen justify your authority and regiment as the Holy Ghost hath justified the same in Deborah, that blessed mother in Israel. But, if these premises (as God forbid) be neglected, and you shall begin to brag of your birth and build your authority upon your law, flatter you whoso list, your felicity shall be short. Interpret my words in the best part, as written by him who is no enemy to your Grace.”

For government in the abstract Knox had the profoundest veneration. He abhorred anarchy, and, when he heard in Geneva that some of the adherents of the Reformation in Scotland were y thinking of revolution, he wrote an earnest letter of dissuasion, hinting to them that they were being made the dupes of political adventurers. But government must be good government — that is to say, it must be favourable to the happiness and the virtue of the subjects — this is the assumption lying at the back of all Knox’s political theories. He regarded government as a divine arrangement for preserving order in human affairs, and for making it easy to live righteously and difficult to live unrighteously, so that thereby the population should grow up healthy and wealthy, and the resources of the country be developed. For such a government there is requisite in princes and those who stand beside them at the head of affairs a serious mind, because a great trust is committed to them — the welfare of tens of thousands. They have to be parents and shepherds to the people, and their honour lies in the prosperity and improvement of those over whom they rule.

In our day such ideas are common property, and their justice will be generally admitted. In literature the king is represented to be

but as the hind To whom a space of land is given to plough, Who may not wander from the allotted field Before his work be done;

and in speculations about the vocation of the statesman he is always viewed as a servant of the public. In short, the maxim of our Lord in the Gospel is penetrating the general mind, that greatness is measured by service. But it requires slight knowledge of history to be aware how little this has been realised in the past, and especially how little favour it has found in courts. There greatness has generally been measured by a very different standard; the position of a prince being considered an opportunity for indulgence, and even the Decalogue being assumed to be relaxed in his favour. Not the duties of kings, but their prerogatives have been the favourite topics of court philosophers and court preachers. In the century after that of Knox the divine right of kings was the doctrine oftenest heard-of at the court of the Stuarts; and James the First of England was well aware that John Knox had been no friend of the supremacy to which he laid claim.^

But what was to happen if government should be bad — if, instead of promoting the welfare of the people, * it fastened on their necks a yoke of oppression, and if, instead of promoting religion and virtue, it fostered superstition and encouraged immorality? This was the question which Scotland had to face in the evil days of Mary of Guise, when the country was overrun with French soldiery, and in those of Mary Stuart, when French manners were introduced at court and the attempt was made to overturn the Protestant Reformation; and Scotland looked for the answer to John Knox.

To him it was axiomatic that there must be some remedy. It never occurred to him that a country should put up with bad government on account of the supposed rights of princes. To his mind the supreme right was that of the country to enjoy good order and to advance in the path of progress.

First, in such an event he would have recourse to the nobility, who, he maintained, held their places and honours for no other end than the benefit of the citizens in general. “My petition,” says he,” is, that ye, whom God hath appointed heads in your

See, a remarkable utterance of his quoted by Laing in Works, iv. 435.

mS IDEAS 175

commonwealth, with single eye do study to promote the glory of God; to provide that your subjects be rightly instructed in His true religion; that they may be defended from all oppression and tyranny; that true teachers may be maintained and such as blind and deceive the people, together with all idle bellies, which do rob and oppress the flock, may be removed and punished as God’s law prescribeth. And to the performance of every one of these do your offices and names, the honours and benefits which ye receive, the law of God universally given to all men, and the examples of most godly princes bind and oblige you.” “Be not deceived, my Lords,” he adds, “ye are placed in authority for another purpose than to flatter your king in his folly and blind rage: to wit, that, as with your strength, riches and wisdom ye are bound to assist and defend him in all things which by your advice he shall take in hand for God’s glory, so by your gravities, counsel and admonition ye are bound to correct and repress whatsoever ye know him to attempt expressly repugning to God’s Word, honour and glory, or what ye shall espy him to do, be it by ignorance or be it by malice, against his subjects great or small.”

But, if nobles as well as kings should turn out to be impracticable, there was still a resource in 1 Works, iv. 480, 493.

the people themselves; and to this body Knox did not hesitate to appeal in these terms: “Although ye be but subjects, ye may lawfully require of your superiors, be it of your king, be it of your lords, rulers and powers, that they provide for you true preachers, and that they expel such as, under the name of pastors, devour and destroy the flock, not feeding the same as Christ Jesus has commanded. And, if in this point your superiors be negligent, or yet pretend to maintain tyrants in their tyranny, most justly ye may provide true teachers for yourselves, be it in your cities, towns or villages. Them ye shall maintain and defend against all that shall persecute them and by that means shall labour to defraud you of that most comfortable food of your souls, Christ’s Evangel truly preached. Ye may, moreover, withhold the fruits and profits which your false bishops and clergy most unjustly receive of you, until such time as they be compelled faithfully to do their charge and duties, which is to preach unto you Christ Jesus truly, rightly to minister the sacraments according to His own institution, and so to watch for the salvation of your souls.”

In such words there are surely the seeds of things which, since then, have grown in Scotland and the world, although they have not even yet come to full maturity; as, indeed, in the Letter to the

Commonalty of Scotland, in which they occur, the author rises to the highest pitch of eloquence of which he is capable: “Neither would I,” says he,” that you should esteem the reformation and care of religion less to appertain to you, because you are no kings, judges, rulers, nobles, nor in authority. Beloved brethren, you are God’s creatures, created and formed in His own image and similitude, for whose redemption was shed the most precious blood of the only beloved Son of God, to whom He hath commanded His Gospel and glad tidings to be preached, and for whom He hath prepared the heavenly inheritance, so that you will not obstinately refuse and disdainfully condemn the means which He hath appointed to obtain the same: to wit. His blessed Evangel, which He now offereth to you to the end that you may be saved. For the Gospel and glad tidings of the kingdom truly preached is the power of God to the salvation of every believer, which to credit and receive you, the commonalty are no less bound than are your rulers and princes. For, albeit God hath put and ordained distinction and difference betwixt the king and subjects, betwixt the rulers and the common people, in the regiment and the administration of civil policies, yet in the hope of the life to come He hath made all equal. For as in Christ Jesus the Jew hath no greater prerogative

178 JOHJS! KNOX

than has the Gentile, the man than hath the woman, the learned than the unlearned, the lord than the servant, but all are one in Him, so is there but one way and means to attain to the participation of His benefits and spiritual graces, which is a lively faith working by charity. And, therefore, I say, that it doth no less appertain to you, beloved brethren, to be assured that your faith and religion be grounded and established upon the true and undoubted Word of God than to your princes or rulers.”

The constitutional idea embodied in the title of the treatise of Samuel Rutherford on Governme«t, which is one of the landmarks in the history of politics — Lex Rex — was not unknown in the days of Knox. At the meeting of the committee of the General Assembly already mentioned, it was propounded by John Craig, the colleague of Knox in Edinburgh, who said that, when attending the University of Bologna, he had heard it stated in a disputation in these terms —” that all rulers, be they supreme or be they inferior, may and ought to be reformed and deposed by them by whom they are chosen, confirmed or admitted to their office, as oft as they break that promise made by oath to their subjects; because that their prince is no Works, iv. 534, 526.

less bound by oath to the subjects than are the subjects to their princes; and, therefore, ought they to be kept and reformed equally, according to the law and condition of the oath that is made of either party “; and to this doctrine Craig signified his own adherence. In Knox’s mind regal authority was not based on a contract like this, assumed to subsist between rulers and subjects and liable to be dissolved in case the ruler proved untrue to it, but rather on a pledge assumed to be given by the prince to God, who withdraws His support, when the pledge is broken, and so lets the throne topple to the ground. By committing capital crimes — and it has to be remembered that in Knox’s estimation adultery and idolatry are to be numbered among these, and that in his eyes the Mass was idolatry — a king or queen was, just as much as a private person, rendered liable to capital punishment; and, in places where such crimes are perpetrated by princes, it is not only lawful to punish to the death those who are guilty of them,” but the magistrates and people are bound so to do, unless they will provoke the wrath of God against themselves.” “And, therefore,” he adds, “I fear not to affirm that it had been the duty of the nobility, judges, rulers and people of England, not only to have resisted and gainstanded Mary, that Jezebel, whom they call their Queen, but also to have punished her to the death, with all the sort of her idolatrous priests, together with all such as should have assisted her, what time that she and they openly began to suppress Christ’s Evangel, to shed the blood of the saints of God, and to erect that most devilish idolatry, the Pope’s abominations, and his usurped tyranny, that once most justly by common oath was banished from that realm.” And the same principles are explicitly stated in the following programme of what was to be The Second Blast of the Triunpet: —” I. It is not birth only, nor propinquity of blood, that maketh a king lawfully to reign above a people professing Christ Jesus and His eternal verity; but in his election must the ordinance, which God hath established in the election of inferior judges, be observed; 2. No manifest idolater nor notorious transgressor of God’s holy precepts ought to be promoted to any public regiment, honour or dignity in any realm, province or city that hath subjected themselves to Christ Jesus and to His blessed Evangel; 3. Neither can oath nor promise bind any such people to obey and maintain tyrants against God, and against His truth known; 4. But, if either rashly they have promoted any manifest wicked person or yet ignorantly have chosen such Works, iv. 509.

HIS IDEAS 18i

an one as after declareth himself unworthy of regiment above the people of God (and such be all idolaters and cruel persecutors), most justly may the same men j (3 depose and punish him that unadvisedly before they did nominate, appoint and elect.”

Not only did Knox hold these principles in theory, but he put them into practice. When he arrived in Scotland in 1559, he found the country, as we have seen, enveloped in the flames of civil war, and he did not hesitate to plunge into the revolution. On him fell the responsibility of justifying the procedure of those with whom he had identified himself; and, from the camp of the rebels, he issued manifesto after manifesto, expounding the situation to his fellow-countrymen and endeavouring to secure their co-operation in the struggle. The most vivid and condensed, however, of these productions of his pen at this crisis is one which does not appear to have been published with the authority of the Lords of the Congregation, perhaps because it was too strong even for their taste; but it is a document essential to those who wish to behold the very Knox as he really was; and, therefore, it shall be given in full: —

“If it be seditious to speak the truth in all sobriety, and to complain when they are wounded,

Works, iv. 537.

or to call for help against unjust tyranny before that their throats be cut, then can we not deny but we are criminal and guilty of tumult and sedition. For we have said that our commonwealth is oppressed, that we and our brethren are hurt by the tyranny of strangers, and that we fear bondage and slavery, seeing that multitudes of cruel murderers are daily brought in our country without our counsel, or knowledge and consent. We dispute not so much whether the bringing in of more Frenchmen be violating of the Appointment (which the Queen nor her faction cannot deny to be manifestly broken by them, in more cases than one) as that we would know, if the heaping of strangers upon strangers above us, without our counsel or consent, be a thing that may stand with the liberty of our realm and with the profit of our commonwealth. It is not unknown to all men of judgment, that the fruits of our country in the most common years are no more than sufficiently reasonable to nourish the born inhabitants of the same. But now, seeing that we have been vexed with wars, taken upon us at the pleasure of Ff-ance, by which the most fruitful portion of our country in corn has been wasted; what man is so blind but that he may see, that such bands of ungodly and idle soldiers can be nothing else but an occasion to famish our poor brethren? And in this point we refuse not (which is the chief) the judgment of all natural Scottish men.

“The Queen Regent alleged ’ that although there were a hundred Frenchmen for one in Scotland, yet she is not minded to trouble any in his just possession.’ Whereto we answer, that we dispute not what she intends (which, nevertheless, by probable conjectures, is to be suspected) but always we affirm, that such a multitude of Frenchmen is a burden, not only unprofitable but also intolerable to this poor realm; for the poor commons of this realm have sustained them with the sweat of their brows, since the contracting of the peace and somewhat before. What motherly affection she has declared to this realm and to the inhabitants of the same, her works have evidently declared ever since the first hour that she has borne authority; and, albeit men will not this day see what danger hangs over their heads, yet fear we, that ere it be long, experience shall teach some that we fear not without cause. The cruel murder and oppression used by them whom now she fosters is to us a sufficient argument, what is to be looked for, when her number is so multiplied that our force shall not be able to gainstand their tyranny.

“Where she complains of our preachers, afifirming

H.

that irreverently they speak of princes in general and of her in particular, inducing the people thereby to defection from their duty, etc., and, therefore, that such a thing cannot be suffered, because this occasion is had against God’s true ministers, we cannot but witness what tread and order of doctrine they have kept, and yet keep on that point. In public prayers they commend to God all princes in general and the magistrates of this our native realm in particular. In open audience they declare the authority of princes and magistrates to be of God; and therefore they affirm that they ought to be honoured, feared, obeyed, even for conscience’ sake; provided that they command nor require nothing expressly repugning to God’s commandment and plain will, revealed in His holy Word. Moreover, they affirm that, if wicked persons, abusing the authority established by God, command things manifestly wicked, that such as may and do bridle the inordinate appetites of princes cannot be accused as resisters of the authority which is God’s good ordinance. To bridle the fury and rage of princes in free kingdoms and realms, they affirm it appertains to the nobility, sworn and born counsellors of the same, and also to the barons and people, whose votes and consent are to be required in all great and weighty matters of the commonwealth.

Which if they do not, they declare themselves criminal with their princes, and so subject to the same vengeance of God, which they deserve for that they pollute the seat of justice and do, as it were, make God author of iniquity. They proclaim and they cry, that the same God who plagued Pharaoh, repulsed Sennacherib, struck Herod with worms, and made the bellies of dogs the grave and sepulchre of despiteful Jezebel, will not spare the cruel princes, murderers of Christ’s members in this our time. In this manner they speak of princes in general and of your Grace in particular.” This only we have heard one of our preachers say, rebuking the vain excuse of such as flatter themselves, by reason of the authority: ‘Many now-adays,’ said he, ’ will have no other religion or faith than the Queen and the authority had.’ But is it not possible, that the Queen be so far blinded that she will have no religion, nor no other faith, than may content the Cardinal of Lorraine? And may it not likewise be that the Cardinal be so corrupt that he will admit no religion which does not establish the Pope in his kingdom? But plain it is that the Pope is lieutenant to Satan and enemy to Christ Jesus and to His perfect religion. Let men, therefore, consider what danger they stand in, if their salvation shall depend upon the Queen’s faith and religion. Further we have never heard any of our preachers speak of the Queen Regent, neither pubhcly nor privately.

“Where her Grace declares it will not be suffered that our preachers meddle with policy, nor speak of her nor of other princes but with reverence, we answer that, as we will justify and defend nothing in our preachers which we find not God to have justified and allowed in His messengers before them, so dare we not forbid them openly to reprehend that which the Spirit of God, speaking in the prophets and apostles, has reprehended before them. Elijah did personally reprove Ahab and Jezebel of idolatry, of avarice, of murder; and, such like, Isaiah the prophet called the magistrates of Jerusalem in his times companions to thieves, princes of Sodom, bribe-takers and murderers. He complained that their silver was turned into dross, that their wine was mingled with water, and that justice was bought and sold. Jeremiah said that the bones of king Jehoiakim should wither with the sun. Christ Jesus called Herod a fox, and Paul called the High Priest a painted wall, and prayed unto God that He should strike him, because that against justice he commanded him to be smitten. Now, if the like or greater corruptions be in the world this day, who dare enterprise to put silence to the Spirit of God, which will not be subject to the appetites of wicked princes?”

It cannot be denied that the continual agitation >>,. of such fundamental questions would be dangerous to the tranquillity of any state. But the apology of Knox would be, that his was an exceptional time, and that the thorough discussion of the principles applicable to such a period of transition tended to prevent the recurrence of the evils against which extreme measures had to be taken.

To the rights of bad rulers Knox turned an ear as deaf as that of the adder; but, it being j / assumed that a ruler of the right stamp had been; secured, he would have entrusted him with very comprehensive powers indeed. Even to Mary of Lorraine, at a time when he still had hope of winning her to the Protestant side, he suffered himself to say: “You think, peradventure, that the care of religion is not committed to magistrates, but to the bishops and estate ecclesiastical, as they term it. No, no, the negligence of bishops shall no less be required of the hands of magistrates, because they foster and maintain them in tyranny, than shall the oppression of false judges, whom kings maintain and defend.” And, in a similar History, i. 409. 2 Works, iv. 69.

strain, he says to the Scottish nobility in the Appellation already quoted: “I am not ignorant that Satan of old time, for maintenance of his darkness, hath obtained of the blind world two chief points — former, he hath persuaded princes, rulers and magistrates that the feeding of Christ’s flock appertaineth nothing to their charge, but that it is devolved upon the bishops and estate ecclesiastical; and, secondarily, that the reformation of religion, be it ever so corrupt, and the punishment of such as be sworn soldiers in their kingdom, are exempted from all civil power and are reserved to themselves and to their own cognition. But that no offender can be justly exempted from punishment, and that the ordering and reformation of religion with the instruction of subjects doth especially appertain to the civil magistrate, shall God’s perfect ordinance. His plain Word, and the facts and examples of those that of God are highly praised, most evidently declare.”

So far was he prepared to go, on the assumption that the ruler was of the right character and on his own side, that he sanctioned persecution and spoke of toleration with scorn. Writing from Geneva, he does not scruple to associate himself with those who burnt Servetus, even saying that that heretic’s opinions deserved ten thousand deaths. He was not without warning; for the acute antagonist against whom he wrote his treatise on Predestination had shrewdly remarked of the Calvinists: “They put forth books, affirming it to be lawful to persecute and put to death such as dissent from them in controversies of religion, whom they call blasphemers of God. Notwithstanding they, afore they came to authority, were of another judgment, and did both say and write, that no man ought to be persecuted for conscience’ sake. Yet now they are not only become persecutors, but also they have given, as far as lieth in them, the sword into the hands of bloody tyrants.”

It is indeed surprising that the mind of Knox did not perceive this to be, in fact, the logical issue of his principles. But his eyes were holden. For such a man as he, it is not enough to plead that intolerance was the doctrine of the age, and even of generations after him; because he ought to have risen above his age. It would, indeed, V be unfair to blame him for not being able to! determine with accuracy at all points the relation I of Church and state; for this involves problems which have demanded the thought and experience of centuries, and are not perfectly solved yet; but by his own sufferings and those of his friends he ought to have been better instructed on the subject of Works, V. 208.

€ religious persecution; and it is a blot on his political memory that he did not judge more charitably. Still more must it be reckoned to him for unrighteousness, as an ecclesiastical statesman, that he approved of the barbarous actions by which the country got rid of Cardinal Beaton and David Rizzio.