"Offerings," of course, is the term in our version for sacrifices, whether of animals or of "unleavened wafers anointed with oil." The argument from a.n.a.logy was, I infer, that the Ma.s.s, with its wafer, was precisely such an "offering," such a survival in Catholic ritual, as in Jewish ritual St. Paul consented to, by the advice of the Church of Jerusalem; consequently Protestants in a Catholic country, under the existing circ.u.mstances, might attend the Ma.s.s. The Ma.s.s was not "idolatry." The a.n.a.logy halts, like all a.n.a.logies, but so, of course, and to fatal results, does Knox"s a.n.a.logy between the foreign worships of Israel and the Ma.s.s. "She thinks not _that_ idolatry, but good religion," said Lethington to Knox once, speaking of Queen Mary"s Ma.s.s.
"So thought they that offered their children unto Moloch," retorted the reformer. Manifestly the Ma.s.s is, of the two, much more on a level with the "offering" of St. Paul than with human sacrifices to Moloch! {66}
In his reply Knox, as he states his own argument, altogether overlooked the _offering_ of St. Paul, which, as far as we understand, was the essence of his opponents" contention. He said that "to pay _vows_ was never idolatry," but "the Ma.s.s from the original was and remained odious idolatry, therefore the facts were most unlike. Secondly, I greatly doubt whether either James"s commandment or Paul"s obedience proceeded from the Holy Ghost," about which Knox was, apparently, better informed than these Apostles and the Church of Jerusalem. Next, Paul was presently in danger from a mob, which had been falsely told that he took Greeks into the Temple. Hence it was manifest "that G.o.d approved not that means of reconciliation." Obviously the danger of an Apostle from a misinformed mob is no sort of evidence to divine approval or disapproval of his behaviour. {67} We shall later find that when Knox was urging on some English nonconformists the beauty of conformity (1568), he employed the very precedent of St. Paul"s conduct at Jerusalem, which he rejected when it was urged at Erskine"s supper party!
We have dwelt on this example of Knox"s logic, because it is crucial. The reform of the Church of Christ could not be achieved without cruel persecution on both parts, while Knox was informing Scotland that all members of the old Faith were as much idolaters as Israelites who sacrificed their children to a foreign G.o.d, while to extirpate idolaters was the duty of a Christian prince. Lethington, as he soon showed, was as clear-sighted in regard to Knox"s logical methods as any man of to- day, but he "concluded, saying, I see perfectly that our shifts will serve nothing before G.o.d, seeing that they stand us in so small stead before man." But either Lethington conformed and went to Ma.s.s, or Mary of Guise expected nothing of the sort from him, for he remained high in her favour, till he betrayed her in 1559.
Knox"s opinion being accepted--it obviously was a novelty to many of his hearers--the Reformers must either convert or persecute the Catholics even to extermination. Circ.u.mstances of mere worldly policy forbade the execution of this counsel of perfection, but persistent "idolaters,"
legally, lay after 1560 under sentence of death. There was to come a moment, we shall see, when even Knox shrank from the consequences of a theory ("a murderous syllogism," writes one of his recent biographers, Mr. Taylor Innes), which divided his countrymen into the G.o.dly, on one hand, and idolaters doomed to death by divine law, on the other. But he put his hesitation behind him as a suggestion of Satan.
Knox now a.s.sociated with Lord Erskine, then Governor of Edinburgh Castle, the central strength of Scotland; with Lord Lorne, soon to be Earl of Argyll (a "Christian," but not a remarkably consistent walker), with "Lord James," the natural brother of Queen Mary (whose conscience, as we saw, permitted him to draw the benefices of the Abbacy of St. Andrews, of Pittenweem, and of an abbey in France, without doing any duties), and with many redoubtable lairds of the Lothians, Ayrshire, and Forfarshire.
He also preached for ten days in the town house, at Edinburgh, of the Bishop of Dunkeld. On May 15, 1556, he was summoned to appear in the church of the Black Friars. As he was backed by Erskine of Dun, and other gentlemen, according to the Scottish custom when legal proceedings were afoot, no steps were taken against him, the clergy probably dreading Knox"s defenders, as Bothwell later, in similar circ.u.mstances, dreaded the a.s.semblage under the Earl of Moray; as Lennox shrank from facing the supporters of Bothwell, and Moray from encountering the spears of Lethington"s allies. It was usual to overawe the administrators of justice by these gatherings of supporters, perhaps a survival of the old "compurgators." This, in fact, was "part of the obligation of our Scottish kyndness," and the divided ecclesiastical and civil powers shrank from a conflict.
Glencairn and the Earl Marischal, in the circ.u.mstances, advised Knox to write a letter to Mary of Guise, "something that might move her to hear the Word of G.o.d," that is, to hear Knox preach. This letter, as it then stood, was printed in a little black-letter volume, probably of 1556.
Knox addresses the Regent and Queen Mother as "her humble subject." The doc.u.ment has an interest almost pathetic, and throws light on the whole character of the great Reformer. It appears that Knox had been reported to the Regent by some of the clergy, or by rumour, as a heretic and seducer of the people. But Knox had learned that the "dew of the heavenly grace" had quenched her displeasure, and he hoped that the Regent would be as clement to others in his case as to him. Therefore he returns to his att.i.tude in the letter to his Berwick congregation (1552).
He calls for no Jehu, he advises no armed opposition to the sovereign, but says of "G.o.d"s chosen children" (the Protestants), that "their victory standeth not in resisting but in suffering," "in quietness, silence, and hope," as the Prophet Isaiah recommends. The Isaiahs (however numerous modern criticism may reckon them) were late prophets, not of the school of Elijah, whom Knox followed in 1554 and 1558-59, not in 1552 or 1555, or on one occasion in 1558-59. "The Elect of G.o.d" do not "shed blood and murder," Knox remarks, though he approves of the Elect, of the brethren at all events, when they _do_ murder and shed blood.
Meanwhile Knox is more than willing to run the risks of the preacher of the truth, "partly because I would, with St. Paul, wish myself accursed from Christ, as touching earthly pleasures" (whatever that may mean), "for the salvation of my brethren and illumination of your Grace." He confesses that the Regent is probably not "so free as a public reformation perhaps would require," for that required the downcasting of altars and images, and prohibition to celebrate or attend Catholic rites.
Thus Knox would, apparently, be satisfied for the moment with toleration and immunity for his fellow-religionists. Nothing of the sort really contented him, of course, but at present he asked for no more.
Yet, a few days later, he writes, the Regent handed his letter to the Archbishop of Glasgow, saying, "Please you, my Lord, to read a pasquil,"
an offence which Knox never forgave and bitterly avenged in his "History."
It is possible that the Regent merely glanced at his letter. She would find herself alluded to in a biblical parallel with "the Egyptian midwives," with Nebuchadnezzar, and Rahab the harlot. Her acquaintance with these amiable idolaters may have been slight, but the comparison was odious, and far from tactful. Knox also reviled the creed in which she had been bred as "a poisoned cup," and threatened her, if she did not act on his counsel, with "torment and pain everlasting." Those who drink of the cup of her Church "drink therewith d.a.m.nation and death." As for her clergy, "proud prelates do Kings maintain to murder the souls for which the blood of Christ Jesus was shed."
These statements were dogmatic, and the reverse of conciliatory. One should not, in attempting to convert any person, begin by reviling his religion. Knox adopted the same method with Mary Stuart: the method is impossible. It is not to be marvelled at if the Regent did style the letter a "pasquil."
Knox took his revenge in his "History" by repeating a foolish report that Mary of Guise had designed to poison her late husband, James V. "Many whisper that of old his part was in the pot, and that the suspicion thereof caused him to be inhibited the Queen"s company, while the Cardinal got his secret business sped of that gracious lady either by day or night." {71a} He styled her, as we saw, "a wanton widow"; he hinted that she was the mistress of Cardinal Beaton; he made similar insinuations about her relations with d"Oysel (who was "a secretis mulierum"); he said, as we have seen, that she only waited her chance to cut the throats of all suspected Protestants; he threw doubt on the legitimacy of her daughter, Mary Stuart; and he constantly accuses her of treachery, as will appear, when the charge is either doubtful, or, as far as I can ascertain, absolutely false.
These are unfortunately examples of Knox"s Christianity. {71b} It is very easy for modern historians and biographers to speak with genial applause of the prophet"s manly bluffness. But if we put ourselves in the position of opponents whom he was trying to convert, of the two Marys for example, we cannot but perceive that his method was hopelessly mistaken. In attempting to evangelise an Euahlayi black fellow, we should not begin by threats of d.a.m.nation, and by railing accusations against his G.o.d, Baiame.
CHAPTER VIII: KNOX"S WRITINGS FROM ABROAD: BEGINNING OF THE SCOTTISH REVOLUTION, 1556-1558
Knox was about this time summoned to be one of the preachers to the English at Geneva. He sent in advance Mrs. Bowes and his wife, visited Argyll and Glenorchy (now Breadalbane), wrote (July 7) an epistle bidding the brethren be diligent in reading and discussing the Bible, and went abroad. His effigy was presently burned by the clergy, as he had not appeared in answer to a second summons, and he was outlawed in absence.
It is not apparent that Knox took any part in the English translation of the Bible, then being executed at Geneva. Greek and Hebrew were not his forte, though he had now some knowledge of both tongues, but he preached to the men who did the work. The perfections of Genevan Church discipline delighted him. "Manners and religion so sincerely reformed I have not yet seen in any other place." The genius of Calvin had made Geneva a kind of Protestant city state [Greek text]; a Calvinistic Utopia--everywhere the vigilant eyes of the preachers and magistrates were upon every detail of daily life. Monthly and weekly the magistrates and ministers met to point out each other"s little failings. Knox felt as if he were indeed in the City of G.o.d, and later he introduced into Scotland, and vehemently abjured England to adopt, the Genevan "discipline." England would none of it, and would not, even in the days of the Solemn League and Covenant, suffer the excommunication by preachers to pa.s.s without lay control.
It is unfortunate that the ecclesiastical polity and discipline of a small city state, like a Greek [Greek word polis], feasible in such a community as Geneva at a moment of spiritual excitement, was brought by Knox and his brethren into a nation like Scotland. The results were a hundred and twenty-nine years of unrest, civil war, and persecution.
Though happy in the affection of his wife and Mrs. Bowes, Knox, at this time, needed more of feminine society. On November 19, 1556, he wrote to his friend, Mrs. Locke, wife of a Cheapside merchant: "You write that your desire is earnest to see me. Dear sister, if I should express the thirst and languor which I have had for your presence, I should appear to pa.s.s measure. . . . Your presence is so dear to me that if the charge of this little flock . . . did not impede me, my presence should antic.i.p.ate my letter." Thus Knox was ready to brave the fires of Smithfield, or, perhaps, forgot them for the moment in his affection for Mrs. Locke. He writes to no other woman in this fervid strain. On May 8, 1557, Mrs.
Locke with her son and daughter (who died after her journey), joined Knox at Geneva. {73}
He was soon to be involved in Scottish affairs. After his departure from his country, omens and prodigies had ensued. A comet appeared in November-December 1556. Next year some corn-stacks were destroyed by lightning. Worse, a calf with two heads was born, and was exhibited as a warning to Mary of Guise by Robert Ormistoun. The idolatress merely sneered, and said "it was but a common thing." Such a woman was incorrigible. Mary of Guise is always blamed for endangering Scotland in the interests of her family, the Guises of the House of Lorraine. In fact, so far as she tried to make Scotland a province of France, she was serving the ambition of Henri II. It could not be foreseen, in 1555, that Henri II. would be slain in 1559, leaving the two kingdoms in the hands of Francis II. and Mary Stuart, who were so young, that they would inevitably be ruled by the Queen"s uncles of the House of Lorraine.
Shortly before Knox arrived in Scotland in 1555, the Duc de Guise had advised the Regent to "use sweetness and moderation," as better than "extremity and rigour"; advice which she acted on gladly.
Unluckily the war between France and Spain, in 1557, brought English troops into collision with French forces in the Low Countries (Philip II.
being king of England); this led to complications between Scotland, as ally of France, and the English on the Borders. Border raids began; d"Oysel fortified Eyemouth, as a counterpoise to Berwick, war was declared in November, and the discontented Scots, such as Chatelherault, Huntly, Ca.s.silis, and Argyll, mutinied and refused to cross Tweed. {74} Thus arose a breach between the Regent and some of her n.o.bles, who at last, in 1559, rebelled against her on the ground of religion. While the weak war languished on, in 1557-58, "the Evangel of Jesus Christ began wondrously to flourish," says Knox. Other evangelists of his pattern, Harlaw, Douglas, Willock, and a baker, Methuen (later a victim of the intolerably cruel "discipline" of the Kirk Triumphant), preached at Dundee, and Methuen started a reformed Kirk (though not without being declared rebels at the horn). When these persons preached, their hearers were apt to raise riots, wreck churches, and destroy works of sacred art.
No Government could for ever wink at such lawless actions, and it was because the pulpiteers, Methuen, Willock, Douglas, and the rest, were again "put at," after being often suffered to go free, that the final crash came, and the Reformation began in the wrack and ruin of monasteries and churches.
There was drawing on another thunder-cloud. The policy of Mary of Guise certainly tended to make Scotland a mere province of France, a province infested by French forces, slender, but ill-paid and predacious. Before marrying the Dauphin, in April 1558, Mary Stuart, urged it is said by the Guises, signed away the independence of her country, to which her husband, by these deeds, was to succeed if she died without issue. Young as she was, Mary was perfectly able to understand the infamy of the transaction, and probably was not so careless as to sign the deeds unread.
Even before this secret treaty was drafted, on March 10, 1557, Glencairn, Lorne, Erskine, and the Prior of St. Andrews--best known to us in after years as James Stewart, Earl of Moray--informed Knox that no "cruelty" by way of persecution was being practised; that his presence was desired, and that they were ready to jeopard their lives and goods for the cause.
The rest would be told to Knox by the bearer of the letter. Knox received the letter in May 1557, with verbal reports by the bearers, but was so far from hasty that he did not leave Geneva till the end of September, and did not reach Dieppe on his way to Scotland till October 24. Three days later he wrote to the n.o.bles who had summoned him seven months earlier. He had received, he said, at Dieppe two private letters of a discouraging sort; one correspondent said that the enterprise was to be reconsidered, the other that the boldness and constancy required "for such an enterprise" were lacking among the n.o.bles. Meanwhile Knox had spent his time, or some of it, in asking the most G.o.dly and the most learned of Europe, including Calvin, for opinions of such an adventure, for the a.s.surance of his own conscience and the consciences of the Lord James, Erskine, Lorne, and the rest. {76a} This indicates that Knox himself was not quite sure of the lawfulness of an armed rising, and perhaps explains his long delay. Knox a.s.sures us that Calvin and other G.o.dly ministers insisted on his going to Scotland. But it is quite certain that of an armed rising Calvin absolutely disapproved. On April 16, 1561, writing to Coligny, Calvin says that he was consulted several months before the tumult of Amboise (March 1560) and absolutely discouraged the appeal to arms. "Better that we all perish a hundred times than that the name of Christianity and the Gospel should come under such disgrace." {76b} If Calvin bade Knox go to Scotland, he must have supposed that no rebellion was intended. Knox tells his correspondents that they have betrayed themselves and their posterity ("in conscience I can except none that bear the name of n.o.bility"), they have made him and their own enterprise ridiculous, and they have put him to great trouble.
What is he to say when he returns to Geneva, and is asked why he did not carry out his purpose? He then encourages them to be resolute.
Knox "certainly made the most," says Professor Hume Brown, "of the two letters from correspondents unknown to us." He at once represented them as the cause of his failure to keep tryst; but, in April 1558, writing from Geneva to "the sisters," he said, "the cause of my stop to this day I do not clearly understand." He did not know why he left England before the Marian persecutions; and he did not know why he had not crossed over to Scotland in 1557. "It may be that G.o.d justly permitted Sathan to put in my mind such cogitations as these: I heard such troubles as appeared in that realm;"--troubles presently to be described.
Hearing, at Dieppe, then, in October 1557, of the troubles, and of the faint war with England, and moved, perhaps, he suggests, by Satan, {77a} Knox "began to dispute with himself, as followeth, "Shall Christ, the author of peace, concord, and quietness, be preached where war is proclaimed, and tumults appear to rise? What comfort canst thou have to see the one part of the people rise up against the other,"" and so forth.
These truly Christian reflections, as we may think them, "yet do trouble and move my wicked heart," says Knox. He adds, hypothetically, that perhaps the letters received at Dieppe "did somewhat discourage me."
{77b} He was only certain that the devil was at the bottom of the whole affair.
The "tumults that appear to arise" are probably the dissensions between the Regent and the mutinous n.o.bles who refused to invade England at her command. D"Oysel needed a bodyguard; and he feared that the Lords would seize and carry off the Regent. Arran, in 1564, speaks of a plot to capture her in Holyrood. Here were promises of tumults. There were also signs of a renewed feud between the house of Hamilton and the Stewart Earl of Lennox, the rival claimant of the crown. There seems, moreover, to have been some tumultuary image-breaking. {78}
Knox may have been merely timid: he is not certain, but his delay pa.s.sed in consulting the learned, for the satisfaction of his conscience, and his confessed doubts as to whether Christianity should be pushed by civil war, seem to indicate that he was not always the prophet patron of modern Jehus, that he did, occasionally, consult the Gospel as well as the records of pre-Christian Israel.
The general result was that, from October 1557 to March 1558, Knox stayed in Dieppe, preaching with great success, raising up a Protestant church, and writing.
His condition of mind was unenviable. He had been brought all the way across France, leaving his wife and family; he had, it seems, been met by no letters from his n.o.ble friends, who may well have ceased to expect him, so long was his delay. He was not at ease in his conscience, for, to be plain, he was not sure that he was not afraid to risk himself in Scotland, and he was not certain that his new scruples about the justifiableness of a rising for religion were not the excuses suggested by his own timidity. Perhaps they were just that, not whisperings either of conscience or of Satan. Yet in this condition Knox was extremely active. On December 1 and 17 he wrote, from Dieppe, a "Letter to His Brethren in Scotland," and another to "The Lords and Others Professing the Truth in Scotland." In the former he censures, as well he might, "the dissolute life of (some) such as have professed Christ"s holy Evangel." That is no argument, he says, against Protestantism. Many Turks are virtuous; many orthodox Hebrews, Saints, and Patriarchs occasionally slipped; the Corinthians, though of a "trew Kirk," were notoriously profligate. Meanwhile union and virtue are especially desirable; for Satan "fiercely stirreth his terrible tail." We do not know what back-slidings of the brethren prompted this letter.
The Lords, in the other letter, are reminded that they had resolved to hazard life, rank, and fortune for the delivery of the brethren: the first step must be to achieve a G.o.dly frame of mind. Knox hears rumours "that contradiction and rebellion is made by some to the Authority" in Scotland. He advises "that none do suddenly disobey or displease the established authority in things lawful," nor rebel from private motives.
By "things lawful" does he mean the command of the Regent to invade England, which the n.o.bles refused to do? They may "lawfully attempt the extremity," if Authority will not cease to persecute, and permit Protestant preaching and administration of the Sacraments (which usually ended in riot and church-wrecking). Above all, they are not to back the Hamiltons, whose chief, Chatelherault, had been a professor, had fallen back, and become a persecutor. "Flee all confederacy with that generation," the Hamiltons; with whom, after all, Knox was presently to be allied, though by no means fully believing in the "unfeigned and speedy repentance" of their chief. {80a}
All the movements of that time are not very clear. Apparently Lorne, Lord James, and the rest, in their letter of March 10, 1557, intended an armed rising: they were "ready to jeopardise lives and goods" for "the glory of G.o.d." If no more than an appeal to "the Authority" for tolerance was meant, why did Knox consult the learned so long, on the question of conscience? Yet, in December 1557, he bids his allies first of all seek the favour of "the Authority," for bare toleration of Protestantism.
From the scheme of March 10, of which the details, unknown to us, were _orally_ delivered by bearer, he appears to have expected civil war.
Again, just when Knox was writing to Scotland in December 1557, his allies there, he says, made "a common Band," a confederacy and covenant such as the Scots usually drew up before a murder, as of Riccio or Darnley, or for slaying Argyll and "the bonny Earl o" Murray," under James VI. These Bands were illegal. A Band, says Knox, was now signed by Argyll, Lorne, Glencairn, Morton, and Erskine of Dun, and many others unknown, on December 3, 1557. It is alleged that "Satan cruelly doth rage." Now, how was Satan raging in December 1557? Myln, the last martyr, was not pursued till April 1558, by Knox"s account.
The first G.o.dly Band being of December 1557, {80b} and drawn up, perhaps, on the impulse of Knox"s severe letter from Dieppe of October 27, in that year; just after they signed the Band, what were the demands of the Banders? They asked, apparently, that the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI. should be read in all parish churches, with the Lessons: _if the curates are able to read_: if not, then by any qualified parishioner.
Secondly, preaching must be permitted in private houses, "without great conventions of the people." {81a} Whether the Catholic service was to be concurrently permitted does not appear; it is not very probable, for that service is idolatrous, and the Band itself denounces the Church as "the Congregation of Satan." Dr. M"Crie thinks that the Banders, or Congregation of G.o.d, did not ask for the universal adoption of the English Prayer Book, but only requested that they themselves might bring it in "in places to which their authority and influence extended." They took that liberty, certainly, without waiting for leave, but their demand appears to apply to all parish churches. War, in fact, was denounced against Satan"s Congregation; {81b} if it troubles the Lords"
Congregation, there could therefore be little idea of tolerating their nefarious creed and ritual.
Probably Knox, at Dieppe in 1557 and early in 1558, did not know about the promising Band made in Scotland. He was composing his "First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women." In England and in Scotland were a Catholic Queen, a Catholic Queen Mother, and the Queen of Scotland was marrying the idolatrous Dauphin. It is not worth while to study Knox"s general denunciation of government by ladies: he allowed that (as Calvin suggested) miraculous exceptions to their inability might occur, as in the case of Deborah. As a rule, a Queen was an "idol," and that was enough. England deserved an idol, and an idolatrous idol, for Englishmen rejected Kirk discipline; "no man would have his life called in trial" by presbyter or preacher. A Queen regnant has, ex officio, committed treason against G.o.d: the Realm and Estates may have conspired with her, but her rule is unlawful. Naturally this skirl on the trumpet made Knox odious to Elizabeth, for to impeach her succession might cause a renewal of the wars of the Roses. Nothing less could have happened, if a large portion of the English people had believed in the Prophet of G.o.d, John Knox. He could predict vengeance on Mary Tudor, but could not see that, as Elizabeth would succeed, his Blast would bring inconvenience to his cause; or, seeing it, he stood to his guns.
He presently reprinted and added to his letter to Mary of Guise, arguing that civil magistrates have authority in religion, but, of course, he must mean only as far as they carry out his ideas, which are the truth.
In an "Appellation" against the condemnation of himself, in absence, by the Scottish clergy, he labours the same idea. Moreover, "no idolater can be exempted from punishment by G.o.d"s law." Now the Queen of Scotland happened to be an idolater, and every true believer, as a private individual, has a right to punish idolaters. That right and duty are not limited to the King, or to "the chief n.o.bility and Estates," whom Knox addresses. "I would your Honours should note for the first, that no idolater can be exempted from punishment by G.o.d"s Law. The second is, that the punishment of such crimes as are idolatry, blasphemy, and others, that touch the Majesty of G.o.d, doth not appertain to kings and chief rulers only" (as he had argued that they do, in 1554), "but also to the whole body of that people, and to every member of the same, according to the vocation of every man, and according to that possibility and occasion which G.o.d doth minister to revenge the injury done against His glory, what time that impiety is manifestly known. . . . _Who dare be so impudent as to deny this to be most reasonable and just_?" {83}
Knox"s method of argument for his doctrine is to take, among other texts, Deuteronomy xiii. 12-18, and apply the sanguinary precepts of Hebrew fanatics to the then existing state of affairs in the Church Christian.
Thus, in Deuteronomy, cities which serve "other G.o.ds," or welcome missionaries of other religions, are to be burned, and every living thing in them is to be destroyed. "To the carnal man, . . . " says Knox, "this may rather seem to be p.r.o.nounced in a rage than in wisdom." G.o.d wills, however, that "all creatures stoop, cover their faces, _and desist from reasoning_, when commandment is given to execute his judgement." Knox, then, desists from reasoning so far as to preach that every Protestant, with a call that way, has a right to punish any Catholic, if he gets a good opportunity. This doctrine he publishes to his own countrymen. Thus any fanatic who believed in the prophet Knox, and was conscious of a "vocation," might, and should, avenge G.o.d"s wrongs on Mary of Guise or Mary Stuart, "he had a fair opportunity, for both ladies were idolaters.
This is a plain inference from the pa.s.sage just cited.
Appealing to the Commonalty of Scotland, Knox next asked that he might come and justify his doctrine, and prove Popery "abominable before G.o.d."
Now, could any Government admit a man who published the tidings that any member of a State might avenge G.o.d on an idolater, the Queen being, according to him, an idolater? This doctrine of the right of the Protestant individual is merely monstrous. Knox has wandered far from his counsel of "pa.s.sive resistance" in his letter to his Berwick congregation; he has even pa.s.sed beyond his "Admonition," which merely prayed for a Phinehas or Jehu: he has now proclaimed the right and duty of the private Protestant a.s.sa.s.sin. The "Appellation" containing these ideas was published at Geneva in 1558, with the author"s, but without the printer"s name on the t.i.tle-page.
"The First Blast" had neither the author"s nor printer"s name, nor the name of the place of publication. Calvin soon found that it had given grave offence to Queen Elizabeth. He therefore wrote to Cecil that, though the work came from a press in his town, he had not been aware of its existence till a year after its publication. He now took no public steps against the book, not wishing to draw attention to its origin in Geneva, lest, "by reason of the reckless arrogance of one man" ("the ravings of others"), "the miserable crowd of exiles should have been driven away, not only from this city, but even from almost the whole world." {84} As far as I am aware, no one approached Calvin with remonstrance about the monstrosities of the "Appellation," nor are the pa.s.sages which I have cited alluded to by more than one biographer of Knox, to my knowledge. Professor Hume Brown, however, justly remarks that what the Kirk, immediately after Knox"s death, called "Erastianism"
(in ordinary parlance the doctrine that the Civil power may interfere in religion) could hardly "be approved in more set terms" than by Knox. He avers that "the ordering and reformation of religion . . . doth especially appertain to the Civil Magistrate . . . " "The King taketh upon him to command the Priests." {85} The opposite doctrine, that it appertains to the Church, is an invention of Satan. To that diabolical invention, Andrew Melville and the Kirk returned in the generation following, while James VI. held to Knox"s theory, as stated in the "Appellation."