Part 26

Honest Keith, whose personal feelings do not appear to have been violent, has expressed with much simplicity the feelings of his party, in the reflections which be makes on the cardinal’s assassination. “What might have proved (says he) to be the issue of such procedure [Beatoun’s severe measures against the reformers], had he enjoyed his life for any considerable time, I shall not pretend to judge: Only this seems to be certain, that by his death the reins of the government were much loosened; and some persons came to be considerable soon after, who probably, if he had lived, had never got the opportunity to perpetrate such villanies, under the cloak of religion, as ’tis certain they did; he being at least no less a statesman than a clergyman.” History, p. 45. This language needs no commentary; and the callousness to the interests of (I say not the Reformation, for that is entirely out of the question, but) humanity, implied in the prospect that Keith takes of the cruelties which the protestants must have suffered from the cardinal, if his life had been spared, is far more reprehensible than any satisfaction which Knox expressed at his death.

“It is very horrid,” says Hume, “but at the same time somewhat amusing, to consider the joy, alacrity, and pleasure which that historian [Knox] discovers in his narrative of this assassination.” History of England, vol. vi. chap. iv. Mr Hume makes a partial apology for Knox by the description which he gives of his own feelings; while he allows that what, in the main, excites horror, may produce some amusement. It is well known that there are writers who can treat the most sacred subjects with a levity bordering upon profaneness. Must we at once pronounce them profane? And is nothing to be set down to the score of natural temper inclining {387} them to wit and humour? The Reformer rejoiced at the death of Beatoun; and even those who could not approve of the act of the conspirators, were happy that he was taken away:

“As for the Cardinal, we grant, He was a man we weell might want, And we’ll forget him sone: And yet I think, the sooth to say, Although the lown is weell away, The deed was foully done.”

The pleasantry which Knox has mingled with the narrative of his death and burial is unseasonable and unbecoming. But it is to be imputed, not to any pleasure which he took in describing a bloody scene, but to the strong propensity which he felt to indulge his vein of humour. Those who have read his history with attention, must have perceived that he is not able to check this, even on very serious occasions. I shall at present refer to one instance only. None will doubt that his mind was deeply affected in relating the trial and execution of his esteemed friend, and revered instructor, George Wishart. Yet, even in the midst of his narrative of this event, he could not abstain from inserting the truly ludicrous description of a quarrel which arose on that occasion between the archbishops of St Andrew’s and Glasgow; for which he apologizes thus:――“Gif we interlace merrines with ernest matters, pardone us, gude reidare, for the fact is sa notable that it deserves lang memorie.” Historie, p. 51.

Note N, Footnote 97.

_Knox in the French Galleys._――The following curious notice as to this event in our Reformer’s life, will form an appropriate introduction to the extracts referred to in the text. It has been preserved by the learned Dr Fulke, and is given as an answer to a popish writer, who had said, in the way of detraction, “Knokes was a galley slave three yeares.”――“The more wicked,” replies Fulke, “those papistes which betrayed him into the galley. The master {388} whereof was glad to be rid of him, because he never had good successe, so long as he kept that holy man in slaverie, whome also in danger of tempest, though an errant papiste, he would desire to commend him and his galley to God in his praiers.” T. Stapleton and Martiall (two popish heretics) confuted. By D. Fulke, master of Pembroke‑hall, in Cambridge, p. 116. Lond. 1580.

I shall give Knox’s own account of his feelings on that occasion, from the MS. copy of his Treatise on Prayer in my possession, preserving the original language, which is altered in the printed edition. Those who have access to the latter can compare the two.

“I mene not,” says he, “that any man, in extreamitie of trubill, can be without a present dolour, and without a greater feir of trubill to follow. Trubill and feir are the very spurris to prayer. For when man, compassit about with vehement calamities, and vexit with continewall solicitude, having by help of man no hope of deliverance, with soir oppressit and punissit hart, feiring also greater punisment to follow, from the deip pit of tribulation, doith call to God for comfort and support, such prayer ascendeth into Godis presence, and returneth not in vane.” Having illustrated this from the exercise of David, as described in the viith psalm, he proceeds, “This is not written for David onlie, but for all such as sall suffer tribulatioun to the end of the world. For I, the wryter hereof, (lat this be said to the laude and prais of God allone) in angusche of mynd, and vehement tribulatioun and afflictioun, called to the Lord, when not only the ungodlie, but evin my faithfull brether, ye and my awn self (that is, all natural understanding) judgeit my cause to be irremedeable; and yit in my greatest calamitie, and when my panis wer most cruell, wold his eternall wisdome that my handis suld wryt far contrarie to the judgement of carnall reasone, whilk his mercie hath pruved trew. _Blessit be his halie name._[484] And therefore dar I be bold in the veritie of Godis word, to promeis that, notwithstanding the vehemencie of trubill, the long continewance thairof, the desperatioun of all men, the feirfulness, danger, dolour, and angusche of oure awn hartis, yit, yf we call constantlie to God, that, beyound expectatioun of all men, hie sall {389} delyver.” p. 52‒54. After showing that prayers for temporal deliverance ought always to be offered up with submission to the divine will, that God often delays the deliverance of the body while he mitigates the distress of the spirit, and sometimes permits his saints “to drink, before the maturity of age, the bitter cupe of corporall death, that thairby thay may receave medicine, and cure from all infirmitie,” he adds: “Albeit we sie thairfoir no appeirand help to our selves, nor yit to otheris afflictit, lat ws not ceis to call, (thinking our prayeris to be vane;) for whatsoever cum of our bodeis, God sall gif unspeakabill comfort to the spreit, and sall turne all to our comodities beyound our awn expectatioun. The caus that I am so lang and tedious in this matter is, for that I knaw how hard the batell is between the spreit and the flesche, under the heavie cros of afflictioun, whair no warldlie defence, but present death dois appeir. I knaw the grudging and murmuring complaints of the flesche; I knaw the anger, wrath, and indignatioun, whilk it consaveth aganis God, calling all his promissis in dout, and being readie everie hour utterlie to fall from God: aganis whilk restis onlie faith provoking us to call ernistlie, and pray for assistance of Godis spreit, whairin if we continew, our maist disperat calamiteis sall hie turn to gladnes, and to a prosperous end.[485] To thee, O Lord, allone be prais; for with experience I wryt this, and speak.” MS. Letters, p. 65, 66.

The edition was printed most probably in England, (_Rome_ is on the title‑page,) during the persecution, from a MS. sent by Knox from Dieppe, and so incorrectly, that it is often impossible to make sense of it. The following are specimens: “Diffysed,” fol. 2, “difficil,” MS.――“A pure word of God,” fol. 2, “a puritie allowit of God,” MS.――“Consent,” fol. 3, “conceat,” MS.――“May any other Jesas Christ, except I, in these wordes, make intercession for sinners?” fol. 11. “May any other (Jesus Christ except) in these wordes mak intercession for sinneris?” MS.; the transcriber having mistaken the concluding mark of parenthesis for the pronoun.――“Carkese slepe,” fol. 16, “carleslie slepeth,” MS. In quoting {390} Isa. lxiv. 5, the printed edition has employed a word which I have not seen in any old version of the Bible. “Thou art _crabbid_, O Lord, because we have sinned,” fol. 4; and again in verse 9, “Be not _crabbid_, O Lord, remember not our iniquities for ever.” In the MS. it is _angrie_, in both instances. In fol. xvi. is a greater variation: “For with such as do aleage that God may not chaunge his sentence, and our prayers therefore to be vayne, can I no wyse agree.” Instead of this the MS. has, “whilk thing if we do unfeanedlie, he will revoke his wrath, and in the middis of his furie think upon mercie.”――There are similar variations between the MS. and the printed copies of most of his other tracts. They show that the MS. which I possess has not been transcribed from these copies, according to a custom very common in that age.

Note O, Footnote 106.

_Extracts from Balnaves’s Confession of Faith, or Treatise on Justification._――In reading the writings of the first reformers there are two things which must strike our minds. The first, is the exact conformity between the doctrine maintained by them respecting the justification of sinners, and that of the apostles. The second, is the surprising harmony which subsisted among them on this important doctrine. On some questions respecting the sacraments, and the external government and worship of the church, they differed; but upon the article of free justification, Luther and Zuinglius, Melanchthon and Calvin, Cranmer and Knox, spoke the very same language. This was not owing to their having read each other’s writings, but because they copied from the same divine original. The clearness with which they understood and explained this great truth is also very observable. More learned and able defences of it have since appeared; but I question if it has ever been stated in more scriptural, unequivocal, and decided language, than in the writings of the early reformers. Some of their successors, by giving way to speculation, gradually lost sight of this distinguishing badge of the Reformation, and landed at last in Arminianism, which is nothing else but the popish doctrine in a protestant dress. Knox has informed us, that his design, in preparing for the press the treatise {391} written by Sir Henry Balnaves, was to give, along with the author, his “confession of the article of justification therein contained.” I cannot, therefore, lay before the reader a more correct view of our Reformer’s sentiments upon this fundamental article of faith, than by quoting from a book which was revised and approved by him.

Having given the philosophical definition of justice or righteousness, and explained what is meant by civil and ceremonial justice, the author proceeds as follows:――“The justice of the lawe morall or Moses’s lawe, which is the lawe of God, exceedeth and is far above the other two justices. It is the perfite obedience required of man, according to all the works and deeds of the same; not only in externall and outward deeds, but also with the inward affections and motions of the hart, conforme to the commandement of the same (saying), Thou shalt love thy Lord God with all thy hart, with all thy mind, with all thy power and strength, and thy neighbour as thyselfe. This is no other thing but the lawe of nature, prented in the hart of man, in the beginning; nowe made patent by the mouth of God to man, to utter his sin, and make his corrupted nature more patent to himselfe. And so is the lawe of nature and the lawe of Moses joyned together in a knot; which is a doctrine teaching all men a perfite rule, to know what he should do, and what he should leave undone, both to God and his neighbour. The justice of the lawe, is to fulfill the lawe; that is, to doo the perfite workes of the lawe as they are required, from the bottome of the hart, and as they are declared and expounded by Christ; and whosoever transgresseth the same, shall never be pronounced just of the lawe. But there was never man that fulfilled this lawe to the uttermost perfection thereof, except only Jesus Christ. Therefore, in the lawe can we not find our justice, because of the deedes of the lawe no flesh shall be made just before God.” p. 57, 58.

“For transgression of the commandement of God, our forefather Adam was exiled and banished forth of paradise, and spoiled of the integrity, perfection, and all the excellent qualities, dignities, and godlie vertues, with which he was endued by his creation, made rebell, and disobedient to God in his owne default. And therefore he might not fulfill the lawe to the perfection as the same required. {392} For the lawe remaining in the owne perfection, just, holye, and good, requireth and asketh the same of man, to be indeed fulfilled. But all men proceeding from Adam, by natural propagation, have the same imperfection that hee had; the which corruption of nature resisteth the will and goodness of the lawe, which is the cause that wee fulfil not the same, nor may not of our power and strength, through the infirmitie and weakness of our flesh, which is enemie to the spirit, as the apostle saith.” p. 79, 80.

“Notwithstanding, after the fall of man, remained with our first parents some rest and footsteppes of this lawe, knowledge, and vertues, in the which he was created, and of him descended in us; by the which of our free will and power, we may do the outward deeds of the lawe, as is before written. This knowledge deceaved and beguiled the philosophers; for they looke but to the reason and judgement of man, and could not perceave the inward corruption of nature, but ever supponed man to bee clean and pure of nature, and might, of his own free will and naturall reason, fulfill all perfection. And when they perceaved the wickednes of man from his birth, they judged that to be by reason of the planete under whom he was borne, or through evill nourishing, upbringing, or other accidents, and could never consider the corrupted nature of man, which is the cause of all our wickednes; and therefore they erred, and were deceaved in their opinions and judgements; but the perfite Christian man should looke first in his corruption of nature, and consider what the law requireth of him, in the which he findeth his imperfection and sinnes accused, (for that is the office of the lawe, to utter sinne to man, and giveth him no remedy,) then of necessitie is he compelled either to despaire or seek Christ, by whom he shall get the justice that is of value before God, which can not be gotten by any lawe or workes, because by the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be justified before God.” p. 81‒83.

“This proposition of the holy spirite is so perfite, that it excludeth (if ye will understande the same right) all the vaine foolish arguments of sophistrie made by the justifiers of themselfes, which perverte the words of S. Paule (as they doo the other scriptures of God) to their perversed sence and mind; saying, that the apostle excludeth by these wordes the workes of the law ceremonial, and {393} not the deeds of the lawe of nature, and morall lawe of Moyses. The which shameless sayings are expressly evacuat by the wordes of the apostle, insomuch that no man of righteous judgement can deny, but shall feel the same as it were in their hands, by this probation. The lawe speaketh to all, that is, accuseth all men that are under the lawe. All men are under the lawe of nature, or the lawe of Moyses, therefore the apostle speaketh of the lawe of nature and Moyses, and of all men which he comprehendeth under Jewe and Gentill, as he proveth by his argumentes in the first and second chap. to the Romans, and concludeth in the third chap. all men are sinners. If all men bee sinners, none is just; if none bee just, none fulfill the lawe; if none fulfill the lawe, the lawe can pronounce none just; therefore concludeth he, that of the deedes of the lawe no fleshe shall be fonde just before God. The same is proved by David in the 130 Psalme. Here ye see by the words of the apostle, he intends to prove and declare all men sinners; that is, to stoppe all men’s mouths, and to dryve them to Christ by the accusation of the lawe. No lawe may make or declare all men sinners, and subdue the whole world to God, but the lawe of nature and Moyses; therefore, under that word (lawe) the apostle comprehendeth the lawe morall, and not the lawe ceremonial only.” p. 84, 85.

“But think not that I intende through these assertions to exclude good workes; no, God forbid, for good workes are the gift of God, and his good creatures, and ought and should be done of a Christian, as shalbe showen hereafter at length in their place; but in this article of justification, yee must either exclude all workes, or els exclude Christ from you, and make your selfes just; the which is impossible to do. Christ is the end of the lawe (unto righteousness) to all that beleeve, that is, Christ is the consummation and fulfilling of the lawe, and that justice whiche the law requireth; and all they which beleeve in him, are just by imputation through faith, and for his sake are repute and accepted as just. This is the justice of faith, of the which the apostle speaketh, Rom. the 10 chapter: therefore, if ye wilbee just, seeke Christ, and not the lawe, nor your invented workes, which are lesse than the lawe. Christ shall have no mixtion with the lawe, nor workes thereof, in {394} this article of justification; because the lawe is as contrarie to the office of Christ, as darknes to light, and is as farre different as heaven and earth. For the office of the lawe is to accuse the wicked, feare them, and condemne them, as transgressors of the same; the office of Christ is to preache mercy, remission of sinnes, freely in his bloode through faith, give consolation, and to save sinners: for hee came not into this world to call them which ar just, or think themselves just, but to call sinners to repentance.” p. 100, 126, 127, 128.

“This faith which only justifieth and giveth life, is not idle nor remaineth alone; nevertheless, it alone justifieth, and then it works by charitie; for unfained faith may no more abyde idle from working in love, than the good tree may from bringing foorth her fruite in due time; and yet the fruite is not the cause of the tree, nor maketh the tree good, but the tree is the cause of the fruite; and the good tree bringeth forth good fruite, by the which it is knowen goode: even so it is of the faithfull man, the workes make him not faithfull nor just, nor yet are the cause thereof; but the faithfull and just man bringeth forth and maketh good workes, to the honour and glorie of God, and profit of his neighbour, which beare witnesse of his inward faith, and testify him to be just before man.” p. 131, 132. In the following part of the treatise, the author shows at large, that the doctrine of gratuitous justification does not release Christians from obligation to perform good works, and inculcates the duties incumbent upon them in the different spheres of life in which they may be placed. _Confession of Faith; conteining how the troubled man should seeke refuge at his God; compiled by M. Henry Balnaves of Halhill,[486] and one of the Lords of Session of Scotland, being a prisoner within the old pallaice of Roane, in the year 1548. T. Vautrollier, Edin. 1584._

{395} Note P, Footnote 120.

_Extracts from Knox’s Defence before the Bishop of Durham._――Since the publication of the first edition of this Life, I have seen a copy of this Defence in print. Its title will be found in the catalogue of Knox’s works, to be inserted in the last note of volume second. The printed edition agrees more exactly with the MS. in my possession than any of his other works which I have had the opportunity of comparing. The extracts given in this note are continued in their original form, to preserve the orthography of the MS., which constitutes almost the only difference between it and the printed edition.

“The fourt of Apryle in the yeir 1550, was appoyntit to Johne Knox, preacher of the halie evangell of Jesus Chryst, to gif his confessioun why hie affirmed the mes idolatrie; whilk day, in presence of the consale and congregatioun, amangis whome was also present the bischope of Duram and his doctors, on this manner his beginneth.

“This day I do appeir in your presence, honourabill audience, to gif a reasone why so constantlie I do affirme the mes to be, and at all tymes to haif bene, idolatrie and abominatioun before God; and becaus men of great eruditioun, in your audience, affirmed the contrarie, most gladlie wold I that heir thay wer present, either in proper persone, or els by thair learnit men, to ponder and wey the causis moveing me thairto: for unles I evidentlie prufe myne intent be Goddis halie scriptures, I will recant it as wickit doctrine, and confes my self maist worthie of grevous punisment. How difficil it is to pull furth of the hartis of the pepill the thing whairin opinioun of holines standeth, declareth the great tumult and uprore moveit aganis Paule by Demetrius and his fellowis, who by idolatrie gat great vantage, as our priestis have done be the mes in tymes past. The pepill, I say, heiring that the honor of thair great goddes Diana stude in jeopardie, with furious voces cryit, ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians;’――and heirunto wer thay moveit be lang custom and fals opinioun. I knaw, that in the mes bath not onlie bene estemit great holines and honoring of God, but also the ground {396} and fundatioun of our religioun: so that, in opinioun of many, the mes taken away, thair resteth no trew wirschipping nor honoring of God in the erth. The deiper hath it persit the hartis of men yat it occupyith the place of the last and misticall supper of our Lord Jesus. But yf I sal, be plane and evident scriptures, prove the mes, in hir mair honest garment, to haif been idolatrie befoir God, and blasphemous to the death and passioun of Chryst, and contrarie to the supper of Jesus Chryst, than gude hope have I, honorable audience and belovit brethrene, that the feir, love, and obedience of God, who in his scriptures hath spokin all veritie necessarie for oure salvatioun, sall move yow to gif place to the same. O Lord eternal! move and governe my toung to speak the veritie, and the hartis of thir pepill to understand and obey the same.” MS. Letters, p. 1, 2.