Part 14

{208} The radical error of this sect, according to the more improved system held by them at the time of which I write, was a fond conceit of a certain ideal spirituality and perfection, by which they considered the Christian church to be essentially distinguished from the Jewish, which was, in their opinion, a mere carnal, secular society. Entertaining this notion, they were naturally led to abridge the rule of faith and manners, by confining themselves almost entirely to the New Testament, and to adopt their other opinions concerning the unlawfulness of infant baptism, of civil magistracy, national churches, oaths, and defensive war. But besides these tenets, the anabaptists were, at this period, generally infected with the Pelagian heresy, and united with the papists in loading the doctrines which the reformers held respecting predestination and grace with the most odious charges.[297]

Our Reformer had occasion to meet with some of these sectaries both in England and on the continent, and had ascertained their extravagant and dangerous principles. In the year 1553, one of them came to {209} his lodging in London, and, after requiring secrecy, gave him a book, written by one of the party, which he pressed him to read. It contained the following proposition, “God made not the world, nor the wicked creatures in it; but these were made by the devil, who is therefore called the God of this world.” He immediately warned the man against such gross doctrine, and began to explain to him the sense in which the devil is called “the god of this world” in scripture. “Tush for your written word!” replied the enthusiast, “we have as good and as sure a word and veritie that teacheth us this doctrine, as ye have for you and your opinion.”[298] Being apprised that persons who had imbibed these opinions were creeping into Scotland, Knox was afraid that they might insidiously instil their poison into the minds of some of his brethren. He refuted their opinion respecting church‑communion, by showing that they required a purity which had never been found in the church, either before or since the completion of the canon of scripture. In opposition to their Pelagian tenets, he gave the following statement of his sentiments: “If there be any thing which God did not predestinate or appoint, then lacked he wisdom and free regimen; or, if any thing was ever done, or yet after shall be done, in heaven or in earth, which he might not have impeded, (if so had been his godly pleasure,) then he is not omnipotent; which three properties, to wit, wisdom, {210} free regimen, and power, denied to be in God, I pray you what rests in his godhead? The wisdom of our God we acknowledge to be such, that it compelleth the very malice of Satan, and the horrible iniquity of such as be drowned in sin, to serve to his glory and to the profit of his elect. His power we believe and confess to be infinite, and such as no creature in heaven or earth is able to resist. And his regimen we acknowledge to be so free, that none of his creatures dare present them in judgment, to reason or demand the question, why hast thou done this or that? But the fountain of this their damnable error, (which is, that in God they can acknowledge no justice except that which their foolish brain is able to comprehend,) at more opportunity, God willing, we shall intreat.”[299]

He assigns his reasons for warning them so particularly against the seduction of these erroneous teachers. Under the cloak of mortification, and the colour of a godly life, they “supplanted the dignity of Christ,” and “were become enemies to free justification by faith in his blood.” The malice of papists was now visible to all the world; the hypocrisy of mercenary teachers and ungodly professors would soon discover itself; and seldom had open tyranny been able to suppress the true religion, when it had once been earnestly embraced by the body of any nation or province. “But deceivable and false doctrine is a poison {211} and venom, which, once drunken and received, with great difficulty can afterward be purged.” Accordingly, he charged them to “try the spirits” which came to them, and to suffer no man to take the office of preacher upon him of his own accord and without trial, or to assemble the people in secret meetings; else Satan would soon have his emissaries among them, who would “destroy the plantation of our heavenly Father.”[300] His admonitions, on this head, were not without effect; and the protestants of Scotland, instead of being distracted with these opinions, remained united in their views, as to doctrine, worship, and discipline.

His letter to the protestant lords breathes an ardent and elevated spirit. Its object was to purify their minds from selfish and worldly principles――to raise, sanctify, and christianize their views, by exhibiting and recommending to them the examples of those great and good men whose characters were delineated, and whose deeds were recorded, in the sacred annals. The glory of God, the advancement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the salvation of themselves and their brethren, the emancipation of their country from spiritual and political bondage――these, and not their own honour and aggrandizement, or the revenging of their petty private feuds, were the objects which they ought to keep steadily and solely in view.

In this letter, he also communicates his advice on the delicate question of resistance to supreme rulers. {212} They had consulted him on this subject, and he had submitted it to the judgment of the most learned men on the continent. Soon after they had agreed to the marriage of their young queen to the dauphin of France, the Scots began to be jealous of the designs of the French court against their liberties and independence. Their jealousies increased after the regency was transferred to the queen dowager, who was wholly devoted to the interest of France, and had contrived, under different pretexts, to keep a body of French troops in the kingdom. It was not difficult to excite to resistance the independent and haughty barons of Scotland, accustomed to yield a very limited and precarious obedience even to their native princes. They had lately given a proof of this by their refusal to co‑operate in the war against England, which they considered as undertaken merely for French interests. And, encouraged by this circumstance, the duke of Chastelherault had begun, under the direction of his brother, the archbishop of St Andrews, to intrigue for regaining the authority which he had reluctantly resigned.

Our Reformer displayed his moderation, and the soundness of his principles, by the advice which he gave at this critical period. He did not attempt to inflame the irascible minds of the nobility by aggravating the male‑administration of the queen regent; far less did he advise them to join with the duke, and others who were discontented with the government, and to endeavour in this way to advance their cause. Instead of this, he informed them that it was {213} currently reported on the continent that a rebellion was intended in Scotland; and he solemnly charged all the professors of the protestant religion to avoid accession to it, and to beware of countenancing those who sought to promote their private and worldly ends by disturbing the government. “He did not mean,” he said, “to retract the principle which he had advanced in former letters, nor to deny the lawfulness of inferior magistrates, and the body of a nation, resisting the tyrannical measures of supreme rulers.” He still held, that there was “a great difference between lawful obedience, and a fearful flattering of princes, or an unjust accomplishment of their desires, in things which be required or devised for the destruction of a commonwealth.” The nobility were the hereditary guardians of the national liberties; and there were limits beyond which obedience was not due by subjects. But recourse ought not to be had to resistance, except when matters were tyrannically driven to an extreme. And it was peculiarly incumbent on the protestants of Scotland to be circumspect in all their proceedings, that they might give their adversaries no reason to allege that seditious and rebellious designs were concealed under the cloak of zeal for reforming religion. His advice and solemn charge to them therefore was, that they should continue to yield cheerful obedience to all the lawful commands of the regent, and endeavour, by humble and repeated requests, to procure her favour, and to prevail upon her, if not to promote their cause, at least to protect them from persecution. If she refused to take any steps for reforming religion, it was their duty to provide that the gospel should be preached, and the sacraments administered in purity, to themselves and their brethren. If, while they were endeavouring peaceably to accomplish this, attempts should be made to crush them by violence, he did not think, considering the station which they occupied, that they were bound to look on and see their innocent brethren murdered. On the contrary, it was lawful for them, nay, it was their incumbent duty, to stand up in their defence. But even in this case they ought to protest their readiness to obey the regent in every thing consistent with their fidelity to God, and to avoid all association with the ambitious, the factious, and the turbulent.[301]

This is a specimen of the correspondence which Knox maintained with the protestant nobility, by which he enlightened their views, aroused their zeal, and restrained their impetuosity, at this important juncture. I shall afterwards have occasion to call the attention of the reader more particularly to his political principles.

Knox returned to Geneva in the beginning of the year 1558. During that year, he was engaged, along with several learned men of his congregation, in making a new translation of the Bible into English; which, from the place where it was composed and first printed, has obtained the name of the Geneva {215} Bible.[302] It was at this time also that he published his Letter to the queen regent, and his Appellation and Exhortation; both of which were transmitted to Scotland, and contributed not a little to the spread of the reformed opinions. I have already given an account of the first of these tracts, which was chiefly intended for removing the prejudices of Roman catholics. The last was more immediately designed for instructing and animating the friends of the reformed religion. Addressing himself to the nobility and estates of the kingdom, he shows that the care and reformation of religion belonged to them as civil rulers, and constituted one of the primary duties of {216} their office. This was a dictate of nature as well as revelation; and he would not insist on it, lest he should seem to suppose them “lesse careful over God’s true religion, than were the ethnicks[303] over their idolatrie.” Inferior magistrates, within the sphere of their jurisdiction――the nobles and estates of a kingdom, as well as kings and princes, were bound to attend to this high duty. He then addresses himself to the commonalty of Scotland, and points out their duty and interest, with regard to the important controversy in agitation. They were rational creatures, formed after the image of God――they had souls to be saved――they were accountable for their conduct――they were bound to judge of the truth of religion, and to make profession of it, as well as kings, nobles, or bishops. If idolatry was maintained, if the gospel was suppressed, if the blood of the innocent was shed, and if, in these circumstances, they kept silence, and did not exert themselves to prevent such evils, how could they vindicate their conduct?[304]

But the most singular treatise published this year by Knox, and that which made the greatest noise, was, “The first Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment[305] of Women;” in which he attacked, with great vehemence, the practice of admitting females to the government of nations. There is some reason to think that his mind was struck with the incongruity of this practice as early as Mary’s accession {217} to the throne of England.[306] This was probably one of the points on which he had conferred with the Swiss divines in 1554.[307] That his sentiments respecting it were fixed in 1556, appears from an incidental reference to the subject in one of his familiar letters.[308] Influenced, however, by deference to the opinion of others, he refrained for a considerable time from publishing them to the world. But at last, provoked by the tyranny of the queen of England, and wearied out with her increasing cruelties, he applied the trumpet to his mouth, and uttered a terrible blast. “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire, above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, a thing most contrarious to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and, finally, it is a subversion of all equity and justice.” Such is the first sentence and principal proposition of the work. The arguments by which he endeavours to establish it are, that nature intended the female sex for subjection, not superiority, to the male, as appears from their infirmities, corporal and mental (excepting always such as God, “by singular privilege, and for certain causes, exempted from the common rank of women”); that the divine law, announced at the creation of the first pair, had expressly assigned to man the dominion over woman, and commanded her to be subject to him; that female government was not permitted among the Jews; that it is contrary to apostolical injunctions; and that it {218} leads to the perversion of government, and other pernicious consequences.

Knox’s theory on this subject was not novel. In support of his opinion, he could appeal to the constitutions of the free states of antiquity, and to the authority of their most celebrated legislators and philosophers.[309] In the kingdom of France, females were, by an express law, excluded from succeeding to the crown. Edward VI., some time before his death, had proposed to the privy council the adoption of this law in England; but the motion, not suiting the ambitious views of the duke of Northumberland, was overruled.[310] Though his opinion was sanctioned by such high authority, Knox was by no means sanguine in his expectations as to the reception of this performance. He tells us, in the preface, that he laid his account not only with the indignation of those who were interested in the support of the reprobated practice, but also with the disapprobation of such gentle spirits among the learned as would be alarmed at the boldness of the attack. He did not doubt, that he would be called “curious, despiteful, a sower of sedition, and one day perchance be attainted for treason;” but, in uttering a truth of which he was deeply convinced, he was determined {219} to “cover his eyes, and shut his ears,” from these dangers and obloquies. He was not mistaken in his anticipations. It exposed him to the resentment of two queens, during whose reign it was his lot to live; the one his native princess, and the other exerting a sway over Scotland scarcely inferior to that of any of its monarchs. Several of the English exiles approved of his opinion,[311] and few of them would have been displeased at seeing it reduced to practice, at the time that the Blast was published. But queen Mary dying soon after it appeared, and her sister Elizabeth succeeding her, they raised a great outcry against it. John Fox wrote a letter to the author, in which he expostulated with him, in a very friendly manner, as to the impropriety of the publication, and the severity of its language. Knox, in his reply, did not excuse his “rude vehemencie and inconsidered affirmations, which may appear rather to proceed from choler than of zeal and reason;” but signified, that he was still persuaded of the principal proposition which he had maintained.[312]

{220} His original intention was to blow his trumpet thrice, and to publish his name with the last blast, to prevent the odium from falling on any other person. But, finding that it gave offence to many of his brethren, and being desirous to strengthen rather than invalidate the authority of Elizabeth, he relinquished his design of prosecuting the discussion.[313] He retained his sentiments to the last, but abstained from any further declaration of them, and from replying to his opponents; although he was provoked by their censures and triumph, and sometimes hinted, in his private letters, that he would break silence, if they did not study greater moderation.

In the course of the following year, an answer to the Blast appeared, under the title of “An Harborow for Faithful Subjects.”[314] Though anonymous, like the book to which it was a reply, it was soon declared to be the production of John Aylmer, one of the English refugees on the continent, who had been archdeacon of Stowe, and tutor to Lady Jane Grey. It {221} was not undertaken until the accession of Elizabeth, and was written, as Aylmer’s biographer informs us, “upon a consultation holden among the exiles, the better to obtain the favour of the new queen, and to take off any jealousy she might conceive of them, and of the religion which they professed.”[315] Aylmer himself says, that, if the author of the Blast “had not swerved from the particular question to the general,” but had confined himself to the queen who filled the throne when he wrote, “he could have said nothing too much, nor in such wise as to have offended any indifferent man;” and he allows with Knox that Mary’s government was “unnatural, unreasonable, unjust, and unlawful.”[316] From these and some other considerations, Knox was induced to express a suspicion, that his opponent had accommodated his doctrine to the times, and courted the favour of the reigning princess, by flattering her vanity and love of power.[317] It is certain, that, if Knox is entitled to the praise of boldness and disinterestedness, Aylmer carried away the palm for prudence; the latter was advanced to the bishopric of London, the former could not, without great difficulty, obtain leave to set his foot again upon English ground. Knox’s Trumpet would never have sounded its alarm, had it not been for the tyranny of {222} Mary, and there is reason to think that Aylmer would never have opened his “Harborow for faithful subjects,” but for the auspicious succession of Elizabeth.

This, however, is independent of the merits of the question, which I do not feel inclined to examine minutely. The change which has taken place in the mode of administering government in modern times, renders it of less practical importance than it was formerly, when so much depended upon the personal talents and activity of the reigning prince. It may be added, that the evils incident to a female reign will be less felt under such a constitution as that of Britain, than under a pure and absolute monarchy. This last consideration is urged by Aylmer; and here his reasoning is most satisfactory.[318] The Blast bears the marks of hasty composition.[319] The Harborow has evidently been written with great care; it contains a good collection of historical facts bearing on the question; and, though more distinguished for rhetorical exaggeration than logical precision, the reasoning is ingeniously conducted, and occasionally enlivened by strokes of humour.[320] It is, upon the whole, a curious as well as rare work.

{223} After all, it is easier to vindicate the expediency of continuing the practice, where it has been established by law and usage, than to support the affirmative, when the question is propounded as a general thesis on government. It may fairly be questioned, if Aylmer has refuted the principal arguments of his opponent; and had Knox deemed it prudent to rejoin, he might have exposed the fallacy of his reasoning in different instances. In replying to the argument from the apostolical canon,[321] the archdeacon is not a little puzzled. Distrusting his distinction between the greater office, “the ecclesiastical function,” and the less, “extern policy,” he argues, that the apostle’s prohibition may be considered as temporary, and peculiarly applicable to the women of his own time; and he insists that his clients shall not, _in toto_, be excluded from teaching and ruling in the church, any more than in the state. “Me thinke,” says he, very seriously, “even in this poynte, we must use επιεικια, a certain moderacion, not absolutely, and in every wise to debar them herein (as it shall please God) to serve Christ. Are there not, in England, women, think you, that for their learninge and wisdom, could tell their householde and neighbouris as good a tale as the best Sir Jhone there?”[322] Beyond {224} all question. Who can doubt that the learned Lady Elizabeth, who on a certain time interrupted the dean of her chapel, and told him to “stick to his text,” was able to make as good a sermon as any of her clergy? or, that she was better qualified for other parts of the duty, when she composed a book of prayers for herself, while they were obliged to use one made to their hands? In fact, the view which the archdeacon gave of the text was necessary to vindicate the authority of his queen, who was head, or supreme governor, of the church, as well as of the state. She who, by law, had supreme authority over all the reverend and right reverend divines in the land, with power to superintend, suspend, and control them in all their ecclesiastical functions――who, by her injunctions, could direct the primate himself when to preach, and how to preach――and who could license and silence ministers at her pleasure, must have been bound very moderately indeed by the apostolical prohibition, “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Reason would also say, that she had an equal right to assume the exercise of the office in her own person, if she chose to avail herself of that right; and had she issued a congé d’élire, accompanied with her royal recommendation to elect some learned sister to a vacant see, the archdeacon at least would not have felt so squeamish at complying with it, as the Italian university did at conferring the degree of Doctor in Divinity upon the learned Helen Lucrecia Piscopia Cornaca.[323]