First Do No Harm Turk A download

https://ebookbell.com/product/first-do-no-harm-turk-a-8153224

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

First Do No Harm A Chemists Guide To Molecular Design For Reduced

Hazard Predrag V Petrovi

https://ebookbell.com/product/first-do-no-harm-a-chemists-guide-to-
molecular-design-for-reduced-hazard-predrag-v-petrovi-49178478

First Do No Harm Medical Ethics In International Humanitarian Law 1st

Edition Sigrid Mehring

https://ebookbell.com/product/first-do-no-harm-medical-ethics-in-
international-humanitarian-law-1st-edition-sigrid-mehring-51318132

First Do No Harm Law Ethics And Healthcare Applied Legal Philosophy

Sheila A M Mclean

https://ebookbell.com/product/first-do-no-harm-law-ethics-and-
healthcare-applied-legal-philosophy-sheila-a-m-mclean-2185564

First Do No Harm The Paradoxical Encounters Of Psychoanalysis

Warmaking And Resistance 1st Edition Adrienne Harris

https://ebookbell.com/product/first-do-no-harm-the-paradoxical-
encounters-of-psychoanalysis-warmaking-and-resistance-1st-edition-
adrienne-harris-6807248
First Do No Harm Humanitarian Intervention And The Destruction Of
Yugoslavia David N Gibbs

https://ebookbell.com/product/first-do-no-harm-humanitarian-
intervention-and-the-destruction-of-yugoslavia-david-n-gibbs-1667438

The Ethics Of Educational Healthcare Placements In Low And Middle

Income Countries First Do No Harm 1st Edition Anya Ahmed

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-ethics-of-educational-healthcare-
placements-in-low-and-middle-income-countries-first-do-no-harm-1st-
edition-anya-ahmed-5881646

First Do No Harm Lisa Belkin

https://ebookbell.com/product/first-do-no-harm-lisa-belkin-33184342

First Do No Harm Karp Larry

https://ebookbell.com/product/first-do-no-harm-karp-larry-10061820

First Do No Harm Lisa Belkin

https://ebookbell.com/product/first-do-no-harm-lisa-belkin-50977520
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
“great city,” which, under all its revolutions, has so eminently proved
the nurse of the arts, and given encouragement to painters,
statuaries, and sculptors, to “harpers, and musicians, and pipers,
and trumpeters, and craftsmen of whatsoever craft,” who to this day
have not forgotten their obligations to it, nor ceased to bewail its
destruction. In any apology which I make for the reformers, I would
alleviate instead of aggravating the distress which is felt for the loss
of such valuable memorials of antiquity. It has been observed by
high authority, that there are certain commodities which derive their
principal value from their extreme rarity, and which, if found in great
quantities, would cease to be sought after or prized. A nobleman of
great literary reputation has, indeed, questioned the justness of this
observation, so far as respects precious stones and metals.404 But
I flatter myself, that the noble author and the learned critic, however
much they may differ as to public wealth, will agree that the
observation is perfectly just, as applied to those commodities which
constitute the wealth and engage the researches of the antiquary.
With him rarity is always an essential requisite and primary
recommendation. His property, like that of the possessor of the
famous Sibylline books, does not decrease in value by the reduction
of its quantity, but after the greater part has been destroyed,
becomes still more precious. If the matter be viewed in this light,
antiquarians have no reason to complain of the ravages of the
reformers, who have left them such valuable remains, and placed
them in that very state which awakens in their minds the most lively
sentiments of the sublime and beautiful, by reducing them to—ruins.

But, to speak seriously, I would not be thought so great an

enemy to any of the fine arts, as to rejoice at the wanton destruction
of their models, ancient or modern, or to vindicate those, who, from
ignorance and fanatical rage, may have excited the mob to such
violence. But I am satisfied, that the charges usually brought against
our reformers on this head are highly exaggerated, and in some
instances altogether groundless. The demolition of the monasteries
is, in fact, the only thing of which they can be fairly accused.
Cathedral and parochial churches, and, in several places, the chapels
attached to monasteries, were appropriated to the protestant
worship; and, in the orders issued for stripping them of images,
idolatrous pictures, and superstitious furniture, particular directions
were given to avoid whatever might injure the buildings, or deface
any of their ordinary decorations. It is true, that some churches
suffered from popular violence during the ferment of the
Reformation; and that others were dilapidated, in consequence of
their most valuable materials being sold to defray the expenses of
the war in which the protestants were involved; but the former will
not be matter of surprise to those who have attended to the conduct
of other nations in similar circumstances, and the latter will be
censured by such persons only as are incapable of entering into the
feelings of a people who were engaged in a struggle for their lives,
their liberties, and their religion. Of all the charges thrown out
against our reformers, the most ridiculous is, that, in their zeal
against popery, they waged war against literature, by destroying the
valuable books and records which had been deposited in the
monasteries. The state of learning among the monks, at the era of
the Reformation, was wretched, and their libraries poor; the only
persons who patronized or cultivated literature in Scotland were
protestants; and so far from sweeping away any literary monuments
which remained, the reformers were disposed to search for them
among the rubbish, and to preserve them with the utmost care. In
this respect we have no reason to deprecate a comparison between
our Reformation and that of England, notwithstanding the flattering
accounts which have been given of the orderly and temperate
manner in which the latter was conducted under the superintending
control of the supreme powers.405

But, even although the irregularities committed in the progress

of that work had been greater than have been represented, I must
still reprobate the spirit which disposes persons to dwell with
unceasing lamentation upon losses, which, in the view of an
enlightened and liberal mind, will sink and disappear in the
magnitude of the incalculable good which rose from the wreck of the
revolution. What! do we celebrate, with public rejoicings, victories
over the enemies of our country, in the gaining of which the lives of
thousands of our fellow‑creatures have been sacrificed? and shall
solemn masses and sad dirges, accompanied with direful
execrations, be everlastingly sung, for the mangled members of
statues, torn pictures, and ruined towers? Shall those who, by a
display of the horrors of war, would persuade their countrymen to
repent of a contest which had been distinguished with uncommon
feats of valour, and crowned with the most brilliant success, be
accused of a desire to tarnish the national glory? Shall the topics on
which they insist, however forcible in themselves—the effusion of
human blood, the sacking of cities, the devastation of fertile
provinces, the ruin of arts and manufactures, and the intolerable
burdens entailed even upon the victors themselves—be represented
as mere commonplace topics, employed as a cover to disloyalty? And
do not those who, at the distance of nearly three centuries, continue
to wail evils of a far inferior kind which attended the Reformation,
justly expose themselves to the suspicion of indifference and
disaffection to a cause, in comparison with which all contests
between rival kingdoms and sovereigns dwindle into insignificance?
I will go farther, and say, that I look upon the destruction of these
monuments as a piece of good policy, which contributed materially
to the overthrow of the Roman catholic religion, and the prevention
of its re‑establishment. It was chiefly by the magnificence of its
temples, and the splendid apparatus of its worship, that the popish
church fascinated the senses and imaginations of the people. A more
successful method of attacking it, therefore, could not be adopted
than the demolition of what contributed so much to uphold and
extend its influence. There is more wisdom than many seem to
perceive in the maxim which Knox is said to have inculcated, “that
the best way to keep the rooks from returning, was to pull down
their nests.” In demolishing, or rendering uninhabitable, all those
buildings which had served for the maintenance of the ancient
superstition, (except what were requisite for the protestant worship,)
the reformers only acted upon the principles of a prudent general,
who dismantles or razes the fortifications which he is unable to keep,
and which might afterwards be seized and employed against him by
the enemy. Had they been allowed to remain in their former
splendour, the popish clergy would not have ceased to indulge
hopes, and to make efforts to be restored to them; occasions would
have been taken to tamper with the credulous, and to inflame the
minds of the superstitious; and the reformers might soon have found
reason to repent their ill‑judged forbearance.406

Our Reformer was along with the forces of the Congregation

when they faced the army of the regent in Cupar‑moor;407 he
accompanied them on their expedition to Perth.408 and in the end of
June arrived with them at Edinburgh.409 On the same day he
preached in St Giles’s, and next day in the Abbey church. On the 7th
of July, the inhabitants of the metropolis met in the Tolbooth, and
made choice of him as their minister. With this choice, which was
approved of by his brethren, he judged it his duty to comply, and
immediately began his labours in the city.410

On their arrival at Edinburgh, the lords of the Congregation had

sent deputies to Dunbar, to assure the queen that they had no
intention of throwing off their allegiance, and to induce her to yield
to reasonable terms of accommodation. As a preliminary, she agreed
to release their ministers from the sentence of outlawry, and allow
them to preach to those who chose to hear them.411 Meanwhile, she
was busily employed in endeavours to disunite her opponents.
Having spun out the negotiations which they had opened with her,
until she understood that the greater part of their forces had left
them, she advanced suddenly with her army to Edinburgh. The
protestants took up a position on the east side of Craigingate,412 and
resolved to defend the capital, though against superior forces;413 but
Leith having opened its gates to her, and lord Erskine, who
commanded the castle, threatening to fire upon them, they were
forced to conclude a treaty, by which they agreed to leave
Edinburgh. They stipulated, however, that the inhabitants should be
left at liberty to use that form of worship which was most acceptable
to them.414 Knox would have remained with his congregation after
the regent took possession of the city; but the nobles, knowing the
value of his services, and the danger to which his life would be
exposed, insisted on his accompanying them.415 Willock, who was
less obnoxious to the hatred of the court and clergy, was therefore
substituted in his place; and the prudence and firmness which this
preacher displayed in that difficult situation proved that he was not
unworthy of the choice which had fallen on him. The regent was
extremely anxious to have the Roman catholic service re‑established
in the church of St Giles, and employed the earl of Huntly to
persuade the citizens to declare in favour of the measure; but
neither the authority of the queen, nor the entreaties which Huntly
employed, both in private and at a public meeting called with that
view, could prevail with them to swerve from their profession of the
reformed religion, or to relinquish the right which was secured to
them by the late treaty.416 Although the French soldiers who had
come to the regent’s assistance kept the city in alarm, and disturbed
the protestant service,417 Willock maintained his place; and in the
month of August he administered the sacrament of the supper after
the reformed manner in St Giles’s church.418 The celebration of the
popish worship was confined to the royal chapel and the church of
Holyroodhouse, during the time that the capital was in the
possession of the royal forces.419

In the month of August, a singular phenomenon was seen in the

Abbey church. The archbishop of St Andrews appeared in the pulpit,
and preached. If his grace did not acquit himself with great ability on
the occasion, he at least behaved with becoming modesty. After
discoursing for a short time, he requested the audience to excuse
the defects of his sermon, as he had not been accustomed to the
employment, and told them that he had provided a very skilful
preacher to succeed him; upon which he concluded, and gave way
to friar Black.420
 On retiring from Edinburgh, Knox undertook a tour of preaching
through the kingdom. The wide field which was before him, the
interesting situation in which he was placed, the dangers by which
he was surrounded, and the hopes which he cherished, increased
the ardour of his zeal, and stimulated him to extraordinary exertions
both of body and mind. Within less than two months, he travelled
over a great part of Scotland. He visited Kelso, and Jedburgh, and
Dumfries, and Ayr, and Stirling, and Perth, and Brechin, and
Montrose, and Dundee, and returned to St Andrews. This itinerancy
had great influence in diffusing the knowledge of the truth, and in
strengthening the protestant interest. The attention of the nation
was aroused; their eyes were opened to the errors by which they
had been deluded; and they panted for a continued and more
copious supply of the word of life, which they had once been
permitted to taste, and had felt so refreshing to their souls.421
I cannot better describe the emotions which this success excited in
Knox’s breast, than by quoting from the familiar letters which he
wrote at intervals snatched from his constant employment.

“Thus far hath God advanced the glory of his dear Son among
us,” says he, in a letter written from St Andrews, on the 23d of June.
“O! that my heart could be thankful for the superexcellent benefit of
my God. The long thirst of my wretched heart is satisfied in
abundance that is above my expectation; for now forty days and
more hath my God used my tongue, in my native country, to the
manifestation of his glory. Whatsoever now shall follow as touching
my own carcass, his holy name be praised. The thirst of the poor
people, as well as of the nobility, here, is wondrous great; which
putteth me in comfort, that Christ Jesus shall triumph here in the
north and extreme parts of the earth for a space.” In another letter,
dated the 2d of September, he says: “Time to me is so precious, that
with great difficulty can I steal one hour in eight days, either to
satisfy myself, or to gratify my friends. I have been in continual
travel since the day of appointment;422 and, notwithstanding the
fevers have vexed me, yet have I travelled through the most part of
this realm, where (all praise to His blessed Majesty!) men of all sorts
and conditions embrace the truth. Enemies we have many, by reason
of the Frenchmen who lately arrived, of whom our papists hope
golden hills. As we be not able to resist, we do nothing but go about
Jericho, blowing with trumpets, as God giveth strength, hoping
victory by his power alone.”423

Soon after his arrival in Scotland, he wrote for his wife and
family, whom he had left behind him at Geneva. On the 13th of
June, Mrs Knox and her mother were at Paris, and applied to
Sir Nicholas Throkmorton, the English ambassador, for a safe
conduct to pass into England. Throkmorton, who by this time had
penetrated the counsels of the French court, not only granted this
request, but wrote a letter to Elizabeth, in which he urged the
propriety of overlooking the offence which Knox had given by his
publication against female government, and of conciliating him by
the kind treatment of his wife; seeing he was in great credit with the
lords of the Congregation, had been the principal instrument in
producing the late change in Scotland, and was capable of doing
essential service to her majesty.424 Accordingly, Mrs Knox came into
England, and, being conveyed to the borders by the directions of the
court, reached her husband in safety, on the 20th of September.425
Mrs Bowes, after remaining a short time in her native country,
followed her daughter into Scotland, where she remained until her
death.426

The arrival of his family was the more gratifying to our

Reformer, that they were accompanied by Christopher Goodman, his
late colleague at Geneva. He had repeatedly written, in the most
pressing manner, for him to come to his assistance, and expressed
much uneasiness at the delay of his arrival.427 Goodman became
minister of Ayr, and was afterwards translated to St Andrews. The
settlement of protestant ministers began to take place at an earlier
period than is mentioned in our common histories. Previous to
September, 1559, eight towns were provided with pastors; and other
places remained unprovided owing to the scarcity of preachers.428

In the mean time, it became daily more apparent that the lords
of the Congregation would be unable, without foreign aid, to
maintain the struggle in which they were involved. Had the contest
been merely between them and the domestic party of the regent,
they would soon have brought it to a successful termination; but
they could not withstand the veteran troops which France had
already sent to her assistance, and was preparing to send in still
more formidable numbers.429 As far back as the middle of June, our
Reformer had renewed his exertions for obtaining assistance from
England, and persuaded William Kircaldy of Grange, first to write,
and afterwards to pay a visit, to Sir Henry Percy, who held a public
situation on the English marches. Percy immediately transmitted his
representations to London, and an answer was returned from
Secretary Cecil, encouraging the correspondence.430

Knox himself wrote to Cecil, requesting permission to visit

England,431 and inclosed a letter to queen Elizabeth, in which he
attempted to apologize for his rude attack upon female government.
When a man has been “overtaken in a fault,” it is his glory to confess
it; but those who have been so unfortunate as to incur the
resentment of princes, must, if they expect to appease them,
condescend to very ample and humiliating apologies. Luther involved
himself more than once by attempting this task, and, had not the
lustre of his talents protected him, his reputation must have suffered
materially from his ill success. He was prevailed on to write
submissive apologies to Leo X. and Henry VIII. for the freedom with
which he had treated them in his writings; but, in both instances, his
apologies were rejected with contempt, and he found himself under
the necessity of retracting his retractations.432 Knox was in no
danger of committing himself in this way. He was less violent in his
temper than the German reformer, but he was also less flexible and
accommodating. There was nothing at which he was more awkward
than apologies, condescensions, and civilities; and on the present
occasion he was placed in a very embarrassing predicament, as his
judgment would not permit him to retract the sentiment which had
given offence to the English queen. In his letter to Elizabeth, he
expresses deep distress at having incurred her displeasure, and
warm attachment to her government; but the grounds on which he
advises her to found her title to the crown, and indeed the whole
strain in which the letter is written, are such as must have
aggravated, instead of extenuating, his offence in the opinion of that
high‑minded princess.433 But, although his apology had been more
ample and humble than it was, it is not probable that he would have
succeeded better with Elizabeth than Luther did with her father.
Christopher Goodman, after his return to England, was obliged, at
two several periods, to subscribe a recantation of the opinion which
he had given against the lawfulness of female government, nor
could all his condescensions procure for him the favour of his
sovereign.434 In fact, Elizabeth was all along extremely tender on the
subject of her right to the throne; she never failed to resent every
attack that was made upon this, from whatever quarter it came;
and, although several historians have amused their readers with
accounts of her ambition to be thought more beautiful and
accomplished than the queen of Scots,435 I am persuaded that she
was always more jealous of Mary as a competitor for the crown,
than as a rival in personal charms.

It does not, however, appear, that Elizabeth ever saw Knox’s

letter, and I have little doubt that it was suppressed by the sagacious
secretary.436 Cecil was himself friendly to the measure of assisting
the Scottish Congregation, and exerted all his influence to bring over
the queen and her council to his opinion. Accordingly, Knox received
a message, desiring him to meet Sir Henry Percy at Alnwick, on the
2d of August, upon business which required the utmost secrecy and
dispatch; and Cecil himself came down to Stamford to hold an
interview with him.437 The confusion produced by the advance of the
regent’s army upon Edinburgh, retarded his journey; but no sooner
was this settled, than Knox sailed from Pittenweem to Holy Island.
Finding that Percy was recalled from the borders, he applied to
Sir James Croft, the governor of Berwick. Croft, who was not
unapprized of the design on which he came, dissuaded him from
proceeding farther into England, and undertook to despatch his
communications to London, and to procure a speedy return.
Alexander Whitlaw of Greenrig, who had been banished from
Scotland, having come to London on his way from France, was
intrusted by the English court with their answer to the letters of the
Congregation. Arriving at Berwick, he delivered the despatches to
Knox, who hastened with them to Stirling, where a meeting of the
protestant lords was to be held. He prudently returned by sea to
Fife; for the queen regent had come to the knowledge of his journey
to England, and Whitlaw, in travelling through East Lothian, being
mistaken for Knox, was hotly pursued, and made his escape with
great difficulty.438 The irresolution or the caution of Elizabeth’s
cabinet had led them to express themselves in such general and
unsatisfactory terms, that the lords of the Congregation, when the
letters were laid before them, were both disappointed and
displeased; and it was with some difficulty that our Reformer
obtained permission from them to write again to London in his own
name. The representation which he gave of the urgency of the case,
and the danger of further hesitation or delay, produced a speedy
reply, desiring them to send a confidential messenger to Berwick,
who would receive a sum of money to assist them in prosecuting the
war. About the same time, Sir Ralph Sadler was sent down to
Berwick, to act as an accredited but secret agent, and the
correspondence between the court of London and the lords of the
Congregation continued afterwards to be carried on through him and
Sir James Croft, until the English auxiliary army entered Scotland.439

If we reflect upon the connexion which the religious and civil

liberties of the nation had with the contest in which the protestants
were engaged, and upon our Reformer’s zeal in that cause, we shall
not be greatly surprised to find him at this time acting in the
character of a politician. Extraordinary cases cannot be measured by
ordinary rules. In a great emergency, when all that is valuable and
dear to a people is at stake, it becomes the duty of every individual
to step forward, and exert all his talents for the public good.
Learning was at this time rare among the nobility; and though there
were men of distinguished abilities among the protestant leaders,
few of them had been accustomed to transact public business.
Accordingly, the management of the correspondence with England
was for a time devolved chiefly on Knox and Balnaves. But our
Reformer submitted to the task merely from a sense of duty and
regard to the common cause; and when the younger Maitland
acceded to their party, he expressed the greatest satisfaction at the
prospect of being relieved from the burden.440

It was not without reason that he longed for this deliverance.

He now felt that it was as difficult to preserve integrity and Christian
simplicity amidst the crooked wiles of political intrigue, as he had
formerly found it to pursue truth through the perplexing mazes of
scholastic sophistry. In performing a task foreign to his habits, and
repugnant to his disposition, he met with a good deal of vexation,
and several unpleasant rubs. These were owing partly to his own
impetuosity, and partly to the grudge entertained against him by
Elizabeth, but chiefly to the particular line of policy which the English
cabinet had resolved to pursue. They were convinced of the danger
of allowing the Scottish protestants to be suppressed; but they
wished to confine themselves to pecuniary aid, believing that by
such assistance the lords of the Congregation would be able to expel
the French, and bring the contest to a successful issue, while, by the
secresy with which it could be conveyed, an open breach between
France and England would be prevented. This plan, which originated
in the personal disinclination of Elizabeth to the Scottish war,441
rather than in the judgment of her wisest counsellors, protracted the
contest, and gave occasion to some angry disputes between the
English agents and those of the Congregation. The former were
continually urging the associated lords to attack the forces of the
regent, before she received fresh succours from France, and blaming
their slow operations; they complained of the want of secresy in the
correspondence with England; and even insinuated that the money,
intended for the common cause, was partially applied to private
purposes. The latter were irritated by this insinuation, and urged the
necessity of military as well as pecuniary assistance.442
 In a letter to Sir James Croft, Knox represented the great
importance of their being speedily assisted with troops, without
which they would be in much hazard of miscarrying in an attack
upon the fortifications of Leith. The court of England, he said, ought
not to hesitate at offending France, of whose hostile intentions
against them they had the most satisfactory evidence. But “if ye list
to craft with thame,” continued he, “the sending of a thousand or
mo men to us can breake no league nor point of peace contracted
betwixt you and France: for it is free for your subjects to serve in
warr anie prince or nation for their wages; and if ye fear that such
excuses will not prevail, ye may declare thame rebelles to your
realme when ye shall be assured that thei be in our companye.” No
doubt such things have been often done; and such “political
casuistry” (as Keith not improperly styles it) is not unknown at
courts. But it must be confessed, that the measure recommended by
Knox (the morality of which must stand on the same grounds with
the assistance which the English were at that time affording) was
too glaring to be concealed by the excuses which he suggested.
Croft laid hold of this opportunity to check the impetuosity of his
correspondent, and wrote him, that he wondered how he, “being a
wise man,” would require from them such aid as they could not give
“without breach of treaty, and dishonour;” and that “the world was
not so blind but that it could soon espy” the “devices” by which he
proposed “to colour their doings.” Knox, in his reply, apologized for
his “unreasonable request;” but, at the same time, reminded Croft of
the common practice of courts in such matters, and the conduct of
the French court towards the English in a recent instance.443 He was
not ignorant, he said, of the inconveniences which might attend an
open declaration in their favour, but feared that they would have
cause to “repent the drift of time, when the remedy would not be so
easy.”444

This is the only instance in which I have found our Reformer

recommending dissimulation, which was very foreign to the
openness of his natural temper, and the blunt and rigid honesty that
marked his general conduct. His own opinion was, that the English
court ought from the first to have done what they found themselves
obliged to do at last—avow their resolution to support the
Congregation. Keith praises Croft’s “just reprimand on Mr Knox’s
double fac’d proposition,” and Cecil says, that his “audacite was well
tamed.” We must not, however, imagine, that these statesmen had
any scruple of conscience, or nice feeling of honour on this point.
For, on the very day on which Croft reprimanded Knox, he wrote to
Cecil that he thought the queen ought openly to take part with the
Congregation. And in the same letter in which Cecil speaks of Knox’s
audacity, he advises Croft to adopt in substance the very measure
which our Reformer had recommended, by sending five or six
officers, who should “steal from thence with appearance of
displeasure for lack of interteynment;” and in a subsequent letter, he
gives directions to send three or four, fit for being captains, who
should give out that they left Berwick, “as men desyrous to be
exercised in the warres, rather than to lye idely in that towne.”445

Notwithstanding the prejudice which existed in the English court

against our Reformer,446 on account of his “audacity” in attacking
female prerogative, they were too well acquainted with his integrity
and influence to decline his services. Cecil kept up a correspondence
with him; and in the directions sent from London for the
management of the subsidy, it was expressly provided, that he
should be one of the council for examining the receipts and
payments, to see that it was applied to “the common action,” and
not to any private use.447

In the mean time, his zeal and activity, in the cause of the
Congregation, exposed him to the deadly resentment of the queen
regent and the papists. A reward was publicly offered to any one
who should apprehend or kill him; and not a few, actuated by hatred
or avarice, lay in wait to seize his person. But this did not deter him
from appearing in public, nor from travelling through the country in
the discharge of his duty. His exertions at this period were incredibly
great. By day he was employed in preaching, by night in writing
letters on public business. He was the soul of the Congregation; was
always found at the post of danger; and by his presence, his public
discourses, and private advices, animated the whole body, and
defeated the schemes employed to corrupt or disunite them.448

The Congregation had lately received a considerable increase of

strength by the accession of the former regent, the duke of
Chastelherault. His eldest son, the earl of Arran, who commanded
the Scots guard in France, had embraced the principles of the
Reformation; understanding that the French court, which was
entirely under the direction of the princes of Lorrain, intended to
throw him into prison, he secretly retired to Geneva, from which he
was conveyed to London by the assistance of Elizabeth’s ministers.
In the month of August he came to his father at Hamilton. The
representations of his son, joined with those of the English cabinet,
and with his own jealousy of the designs of the queen regent, easily
gained over the vacillating duke, who met with the lords of the
Congregation, and subscribed their bond of confederation.449

Our Reformer was now called to take a share in a very delicate

and important measure. When they first had recourse to arms in
their own defence, the lords of the Congregation had no intention of
making any alteration in the government, or of assuming the
exercise of the supreme authority.450 Even after they had adopted a
more regular and permanent system of resistance to the measures
of the queen regent, they continued to recognise the station which
she held, presented petitions to her, and listened respectfully to the
proposals which she made for removing the grounds of variance. But
finding that she was fully bent upon the execution of her plan for
subverting the national liberties, and that her official situation gave
her great advantages in carrying on this design, they began to
deliberate upon the propriety of adopting a different line of conduct.
Their sovereigns were minors, in a foreign country, and under the
management of persons to whose influence the evils of which they
complained were principally to be ascribed. The queen dowager held
the regency by the authority of parliament; and might she not be
deprived of it by the same authority? In the present state of the
country, it was impossible for a free and regular parliament to meet;
but the majority of the nation had declared their dissatisfaction with
her administration; and was it not competent for them to provide for
the public safety, which was exposed to such imminent danger?
These were the questions which formed the topic of frequent
conversation at this time.

After much deliberation, a numerous assembly, consisting of

nobles, barons, and representatives of boroughs, met at Edinburgh,
on the 21st of October, 1559, to bring this important point to a
solemn issue. To this assembly Knox and Willock were called; and
the question being stated to them, they were required to deliver
their opinions as to the lawfulness of the proposed measure. Willock,
who then officiated as minister of Edinburgh, being first asked,
declared it to be his judgment, founded on reason and scripture,
that the power of rulers was limited; that they might be deprived of
it upon valid grounds; and that the queen regent having, by
fortifying Leith, and introducing foreign troops into the country,
evinced a fixed determination to oppress and enslave the kingdom,
might justly be divested of her authority, by the nobles and barons,
as native counsellors of the realm, whose petitions and
remonstrances she had repeatedly rejected. Knox assented to the
opinion delivered by his brother, and added, that the assembly
might, with safe consciences, act upon it, provided they attended to
the three following things: First, that they did not suffer the
misconduct of the queen regent to alienate their affections from due
allegiance to their sovereigns, Francis and Mary; second, that they
were not actuated in the measure by private hatred or envy of the
queen dowager, but by regard to the safety of the commonwealth;
and, third, that any sentence which they might at this time
pronounce, should not preclude her re‑admission to office, if she
afterwards discovered sorrow for her conduct, and a disposition to
submit to the advice of the estates of the nation. After this, the
whole assembly, having severally delivered their opinions, did, by a
solemn deed, suspend the queen dowager from her authority as
regent of the kingdom, until the meeting of a free parliament;451
and, at the same time, elected a council for the management of
public affairs during this interval.452 When the council had occasion
to treat of matters connected with religion, four of the ministers
were appointed to assist in their deliberations. These were Knox,
Willock, Goodman, and Alexander Gordon, bishop of Galloway, who
had embraced the Reformation.453

It has been alleged by some writers, that the question

respecting the suspension of the queen regent was altogether
incompetent for ministers of the gospel to determine, and that Knox
and Willock, by the advice which they gave on this occasion,
exposed themselves unnecessarily to odium.454 But it is not easy to
see how they could have been excused in refusing to deliver their
opinion, when required by those who had submitted to their
ministry, upon a measure which involved a case of conscience, as
well as a question of law and political right. The advice which was
actually given and followed is a matter of greater consequence, than
the quarter from which it came. As this rests upon principles very
different from those which produced resistance to princes, and
limitation on their authority, under feudal governments, and as our
Reformer has been the object of much animadversion for inculcating
these principles, I shall embrace the present opportunity to offer a
few remarks on this interesting subject.

Among the various causes which affected the general state of

society and government in Europe, during the middle ages, the
influence of religion cannot be overlooked. Debased by ignorance,
and fettered by superstition, the minds of men were prepared to
acquiesce without examination in the claims of authority, and tamely
to submit to every yoke. In whatever light we view popery, the
genius of that singular system of religion will be found to be adverse
to liberty. The court of Rome, while it aimed directly at the
establishment of a spiritual despotism in the hands of ecclesiastics,
contributed to rivet the chains of political servitude upon the people.
In return for the support which princes yielded to its arrogant claims,
it was content to invest them with an absolute authority over the
bodies of their subjects. By the priestly unction, performed at the
coronation of kings in the name of the holy see, a sacred character
was understood to be imparted, which raised them to a superiority
over their nobility which they did not possess according to feudal
ideas, rendered their persons inviolable, and their office divine.
Although the sovereign pontiffs claimed, and on different occasions
exercised, the power of dethroning kings, and of absolving subjects
from their allegiance; yet any attempt of this kind, when it
proceeded from the people themselves, was denounced as a crime
deserving the severest punishment in this world, and damnation in
the next. Hence sprung the doctrine of the divine right of kings to
rule independently of their people, and of passive obedience and
non‑resistance to their will; under the sanction of which they were
encouraged to sport with the lives and happiness of their subjects,
and to indulge in the most tyrannical and wanton acts of oppression,
without the dread of resistance, or of being called to an account by
any power on earth. Even in countries where the people were
understood to enjoy certain political privileges, transmitted from
remote ages, or wrested from their princes on some favourable
occasions, these principles were generally prevalent; and, availing
himself of them, it was easy for an ambitious and powerful monarch
to violate the rights of the people with impunity, and upon a
constitution, the forms of which were friendly to popular liberty, to
establish an administration completely arbitrary and despotic.

The contest between papal sovereignty and the authority of

general councils, which was carried on during the fifteenth century,
elicited some of the essential principles of liberty, which were
afterwards applied to political government. The revival of learning,
by unfolding the principles of legislation, and modes of government
in the republics of ancient Greece and Rome, gradually led to more
liberal notions on this subject. But these were confined to a few, and
had no influence upon the general state of society. The spirit infused
by philosophy and literature is too feeble and contracted to produce
a radical reform of established abuses; and learned men, proud of
their own superior illumination, and satisfied with the liberty of
indulging their speculations, have generally been too indifferent or
too timid to attempt the improvement of the multitude. It is to the
religious spirit excited during the sixteenth century, which spread
rapidly through Europe, and diffused itself among all classes of men,
that we are chiefly indebted for the propagation of the genuine
principles of rational liberty, and the consequent amelioration of
government.

Civil and ecclesiastical tyranny were so closely combined, that it

was impossible for men to emancipate themselves from the latter
without throwing off the former; and from arguments which
established their religious rights, the transition was easy, and almost
unavoidable, to disquisitions about their civil privileges. In those
kingdoms in which the rulers threw off the Roman yoke, and
introduced the Reformation by their authority, the influence was
more imperceptible and slow; and in some of them, as in England,
the power taken from the ecclesiastical was thrown into the regal
scale, which proved so far prejudicial to popular liberty. But where
the Reformation was embraced by the great body of a nation, while
the ruling powers continued to oppose it, the effect was visible and
immediate. The interested and obstinate support which rulers gave
to the old system of error and ecclesiastical tyranny, and their cruel
persecution of all who favoured the new opinions, drove their
subjects to enquire into the just limits of authority and obedience.
Their judgments once informed as to the rights to which they were
entitled, and their consciences satisfied respecting the means which
they might employ to acquire them, the immense importance of the
immediate object in view, their emancipation from religious
bondage, and the salvation of themselves and their posterity,
impelled them to make the attempt with an enthusiasm and
perseverance which the mere love of civil liberty could not have
inspired.
 In effecting that memorable revolution, which terminated in
favour of religious and political liberty in so many nations of Europe,
the public teachers of the protestant doctrine had a principal
influence. By their instructions and exhortations, they roused the
people to consider their rights and exert their power; they
stimulated timid and wary politicians; they encouraged and animated
princes, nobles, and confederated states, with their armies, against
the most formidable opposition, and under the most overwhelming
difficulties, until their exertions were ultimately crowned with
success. These facts are now admitted, and this honour has at last,
through the force of truth, been conceded to the religious leaders of
the protestant Reformation, by philosophical writers, who had too
long branded them as ignorant and fanatical.455

Our Reformer had caught a large portion of the spirit of civil

liberty. We have already adverted to the circumstance in his
education which directed his attention, at an early period, to some of
its principles.456 His subsequent studies introduced him to an
acquaintance with the maxims and modes of government in the free
states of antiquity; and it is reasonable to suppose that his
intercourse with the republics of Switzerland and Geneva had some
influence on his political creed. Having formed his sentiments
independently of the prejudices arising from established laws, long
usage, and commonly received opinions, his zeal and intrepidity
prompted him to avow and propagate them, when others, less
sanguine and resolute, would have been restrained by fear, or by
despair of success.457 Extensive observation had convinced him of
the glaring perversion of government in the European kingdoms; but
his principles led him to desire their reform, not their subversion. His
admiration of the polity of republics, ancient or modern, was not so
great or indiscriminate as to prevent him from separating the
essential principles of equity and freedom which they contained,
from others which were incompatible with monarchy. He was
perfectly sensible of the necessity of regular government to the
maintenance of justice and order, and aware of the danger of setting
men loose from its salutary control. And he uniformly inculcated a
conscientious obedience to the lawful commands of rulers, and
respect to their persons as well as to their authority, even when they
were chargeable with various mismanagements, so long as they did
not break through all the restraints of law and justice, and cease to
perform the great and fundamental duties of their office.

But he held that rulers, supreme as well as subordinate, were

invested with authority for the public good; that obedience was not
due to them in any thing contrary to the divine law, natural or
revealed; that, in every free and well‑constituted government, the
law of the land was superior to the will of the prince; that inferior
magistrates and subjects might restrain the supreme magistrate
from particular illegal acts, without throwing off their allegiance, or
being guilty of rebellion; that no class of men have an original,
inherent, and indefeasible right to rule over a people, independently
of their will and consent; that every nation is entitled to provide and
require that they shall be ruled by laws which are agreeable to the
divine law, and calculated to promote their welfare; that there is a
mutual compact, tacit and implied, if not formal and explicit,
between rulers and their subjects; and, if the former shall flagrantly
violate this, employ that power for the destruction of the
commonwealth which was committed to them for its preservation
and benefit, or, in one word, if they shall become habitual tyrants
and notorious oppressors, that the people are absolved from
allegiance, and have a right to resist them, formally to depose them
from their place, and to elect others in their room.

The real power of the Scottish kings was, indeed, always

limited, and there are in our history, previous to the era of the
Reformation, many instances of resistance to their authority. But,
though these were pleaded as precedents on this occasion, it must
be confessed that we cannot trace them to the principles of genuine
liberty. They were the effects of sudden resentment on account of
some extraordinary act of male‑administration, or of the ambition of
some powerful baron, or of the jealousy with which the feudal
aristocracy watched over the privileges of their own order. The
people who followed the standards of their chiefs had little interest
in the struggle, and derived no benefit from the limitations which
were imposed upon the sovereign. But, at this time, more just and
enlarged sentiments were diffused through the nation, and the idea
of a commonwealth, including the mass of the people as well as the
privileged orders, began to be entertained. Our Reformer, whose
notions of hereditary right, whether in kings or nobles, were not
exalted, studied to repress the insolence and oppression of the
nobility. He reminded them of the original equality of men, and the
ends for which some were raised above others; and he taught the
people that they had rights to preserve, as well as duties to perform.
With respect to female government, he never moved any question
among his countrymen, nor attempted to gain proselytes to his
opinion.458

Such, in substance, were the political sentiments which were

inculcated by our Reformer, and which were more than once acted
upon in Scotland during his lifetime. That in an age when the
principles of political liberty were only beginning to be understood,
such sentiments should have been regarded with a suspicious eye by
some of the learned who had not yet thrown off common prejudices,
and that they should have exposed those who maintained them to a
charge of treason from despotical rulers and their numerous
satellites, is far from being matter of wonder. But it must excite both
surprise and indignation, to find writers in the present enlightened
age, and under the sunshine of British liberty, (if our sun is not fast
going down,) expressing their abhorrence of these principles, and
exhausting upon their authors all the invective and virulence of the
former anti‑monarcho‑machi, and advocates of passive obedience.
They are essentially the principles upon which the free constitution
of Britain rests; and the most obnoxious of them were reduced to
practice at the memorable era of the Revolution, when the necessity
of employing them was not more urgent or unquestionable, than it
was at the suspension of the queen regent of Scotland, and the
subsequent deposition of her daughter.
 I have said essentially: for I would not be understood as
meaning to say, that every proposition advanced by Knox, on this
subject, is expressed in the most guarded and unexceptionable
manner, or that all the cases in which he was led to vindicate forcible
resistance to rulers, were such as rendered it necessary, and as may
be pleaded as precedents in modern times. The political doctrines
maintained at that period received a tincture from the spirit of the
age, and were accommodated to a state of society and government
comparatively rude and unsettled. The checks which have since
been introduced into the constitution, and the influence which public
opinion, expressed by the organ of a free press, has upon the
conduct of rulers, are sufficient, in ordinary cases, to restrain
dangerous encroachments, or to afford the means of correcting
them in a peaceable way; and have thus happily superseded the
necessity of having recourse to those desperate but decisive
remedies which were formerly applied by an oppressed and
indignant people. But if ever the time come when these principles
shall be generally abjured or forgotten, the extinction of the boasted
liberty of Britain will not be far off.

There are objections against our Reformer’s political principles

which demand consideration, from the authority to which they
appeal, and the influence which they may have on pious minds. “The
doctrine of resistance to civil rulers,” it is alleged, “is repugnant to
the express directions of the New Testament, which repeatedly
enjoin Christians to be subject to ‘the powers that be,’ and denounce
damnation against such as disobey or resist them on any pretext
whatever. With the literal and strict import of these precepts the
example of the primitive Christians agreed; for, even after they
became very numerous, so as to be capable of opposing the
government under which they lived, they never attempted to shake
off the authority of the Roman emperors, or to employ force to
protect themselves from the tyranny and persecutions to which they
were exposed. Besides, granting that it is lawful for subjects to
vindicate their civil rights and privileges by resisting arbitrary rulers,
to have recourse to forcible measures for promoting Christianity, is
diametrically opposite to the genius of that religion, which was
propagated at first, and is still to be defended, not by arms and
violence, but by teaching and suffering.”

These objections are more specious than solid. The directions

and precepts on this subject, which are contained in the New
Testament, must not be stretched beyond their evident scope and
proper import. They do not give greater power to magistrates than
they formerly possessed, nor do they supersede any of the rights or
privileges to which subjects were entitled, by the common law of
nature, or by the particular statutes of any country. The New
Testament does not give directions to communities respecting the
original formation or subsequent improvement of their civil
constitutions, nor prescribe the course which ought to be pursued in
certain extraordinary cases, when rulers abuse the power with which
they are invested, and convert their legitimate authority into an
engine of despotism and oppression.459 It supposes magistrates to
be acting within the proper line of their office, and discharging its
duties to the advantage of the society over which they are placed.
And it teaches Christians, that the liberty which Christ purchased,
and to the enjoyment of which they are called by the gospel, does
not exempt them from subjection and obedience to civil authority,
which is a divine ordinance for the good of mankind; that they are
bound to obey existing rulers, although they should be of a different
religion from themselves; and that Christianity, so far from setting
them free from obligations to this or any other relative duty,
strengthens these obligations, and requires them to discharge their
duties for conscience‑sake, with fidelity, cheerfulness, patience,
long‑suffering, and singleness of heart. Viewed in this light, nothing
can be more reasonable in its own nature, or more honourable to
the gospel, than the directions which it gives on this subject; and we
must perceive a peculiar propriety in the frequency and earnestness
with which they are urged, when we consider the danger in which
the primitive christians were of supposing, that they were liberated
from the ordinary restraints of the rest of mankind. But if we shall go
beyond this, and assert that the scriptures have prohibited
resistance to rulers in every case, and that the great body of a
nation consisting of christians, in attempting to curb the fury of their
rulers, or to deprive them of the power which they have grossly
abused, are guilty of that crime against which the apostle denounces
damnation, we represent the beneficent religion of Jesus as
sanctioning despotism, and entailing all the evils of political bondage
upon mankind; and we tread in the steps of those enemies to
christianity, who, under the colour of paying a compliment to its
pacific, submissive, tolerant, and self‑denying maxims, have
represented it as calculated to produce a passive, servile spirit, and
to extinguish courage, patriotism, the love of civil liberty, the desire
of self‑preservation, and every kind of disposition to repel injuries, or
to obtain the redress of the most intolerable grievances.

The example of the primitive christians is not binding upon

others any farther than it is conformable to the scriptures; and the
circumstances in which they were placed were totally different from
those of the protestants in Scotland, and in other countries, at the
time of the Reformation. The fathers often indulge in oratorical
exaggerations when speaking of the numbers of the christians; nor
is there any satisfactory evidence that they ever approached near to
a majority of the Roman empire, during the time that they were
exposed to persecution.

“If thou mayst be made free, use it rather,” says the Apostle; a
maxim which is applicable, by just analogy, to political as well as
domestic freedom. The christian religion natively tends to cherish
and diffuse a spirit favourable to civil liberty, and this, in its turn, has
the most happy influence upon christianity, which never flourished
extensively, and for a long period, in any country where despotism
prevailed. It must therefore be the duty of every christian to exert
himself for the acquisition and defence of this invaluable blessing.
Christianity ought not to be propagated by force of arms; but the
external liberty of professing it may be vindicated in that way both
against foreign invaders and against domestic tyrants. If the free
exercise of their religion, or their right to remove religious abuses,
enter into the grounds of the struggle which a nation maintains
against oppressive rulers, the cause becomes of vastly more
importance, its justice is more unquestionable, and it is still more
worthy, not only of their prayers and petitions, but of their blood and
treasure, than if it had been maintained solely for the purpose of
securing their fortunes, or of acquiring some mere worldly privilege.
And to those whose minds are not warped by prejudice, and who do
not labour under a confusion of ideas on the subject, it must surely
appear paradoxical to assert, that, while God has granted to subjects
a right to take the sword of just defence for securing objects of a
temporary and inferior nature, he has prohibited them from using
this remedy, and left them at the mercy of every lawless despot,
with respect to a concern the most important of all, whether it be
viewed as relating to his own honour, or to the welfare of mankind.

Those who judge of the propriety of any measure from the

success with which it is accompanied, will be disposed to condemn
the suspension of the queen regent. Soon after this step was taken,
the affairs of the Congregation began to wear a gloomy aspect. The
messenger whom they sent to Berwick to receive a remittance from
the English court, was intercepted on his return, and rifled of the
treasure; their soldiers mutinied for want of pay; they were repulsed
in a premature assault upon the fortifications of Leith, and worsted
in a skirmish with the French troops; the secret emissaries of the
regent were too successful among them; their numbers daily
decreased; and the remainder, disunited, dispirited and dismayed,
came to the resolution of abandoning Edinburgh on the evening of
the 5th of November, and retreated with precipitation and disgrace
to Stirling.

Amidst the universal dejection produced by these disasters, the

spirit of Knox remained unsubdued. On the day after their arrival at
Stirling, he mounted the pulpit, and delivered a discourse, which had
a wonderful effect in rekindling the zeal and courage of the
Congregation. Their faces (he said) were confounded, their enemies
triumphed, their hearts had quaked for fear, and still remained
oppressed with sorrow and shame. Why had God thus dejected
them? The situation of their affairs required plain language, and he
would use it. In the present distressed state of their minds, they
were in danger of attributing these misfortunes to a wrong cause,
and of imagining that they had offended in taking the sword of
self‑defence into their hands; just as the tribes of Israel did, when
twice discomfited in the war which they undertook, by divine
direction, against their brethren the Benjamites. Having divided the
Congregation into two classes, those who had been embarked in this
cause from the beginning, and those who had lately acceded to it,
he proceeded to point out what he considered as blameable in the
conduct of each. The former (he said) had laid aside that humility
and dependence upon divine providence which they had discovered
when their number was small; and, since they were joined by the
Hamiltons, had become elated, secure, and self‑confident. “But
wherein had my lord duke and his friends offended? I am uncertain
if my lord’s grace has unfeignedly repented of his assistance to these
murderers, unjustly pursuing us. Yea, I am uncertain if he has
repented of that innocent blood of Christ’s blessed martyrs, which
was shed in his default. But let it be that so he has done (as I hear
that he has confessed his fault before the lords and brethren of the
Congregation); yet I am assured that neither he, nor yet his friends,
did feel before this time the anguish and grief of heart which we felt,
when in their blind fury they pursued us. And therefore God hath
justly permitted both them and us to fall in this fearful confusion at
once,—us, for that we put our trust and confidence in man, and
them, because they should feel in their own hearts how bitter was
the cup which they made others drink before them.” After exhorting
all to amendment of life, to prayers, and works of charity, he
concluded with an animating address. “God,” he said, “often suffered
the wicked to triumph for a while, and exposed his chosen
congregation to mockery, dangers, and apparent destruction, in
order to abase their self‑confidence, and induce them to look to
himself for deliverance and victory. If they turned unfeignedly to the
Eternal, he no more doubted that their present distress would be
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com