CHAPTER III.
MINISTRY IN BERWICK-ON-TWEED, 1549-1550.
By what means Knox obtained his release from the galling servitude in which he had been held by the French, we have not been able to discover; but it is believed that he was indebted for it to the intercession of England, and it is certain that in the early part of the year 1549, he was employed by the Privy Council of that country as one of the ministers whom its members commissioned to preach the doctrines of the Reformation throughout the kingdom. The probability is that he arrived in London about the month of February, and it is conjectured that as Henry Balnaves was in that city as a commissioner from the besieged in St. Andrews, at the time of the death of Henry VIII., Knox, who had just then entered upon his ministry, may have been beholden to his friend for bringing his name to the favourable notice of the English Reformers. But however that may have been, we come upon authentic and reliable information, when we find in the register of the Privy Council, under date April 7th, 1549, an entry authorizing the payment of five pounds "to John Knox, preacher, by way of reward." Besides this, his name occurs as the sixty-fourth in a list of eighty who obtained licence to preach in England during the reign of Edward the Sixth. He himself informs us in his History, that "he was first appointed preacher to Berwick, then to Newcastle; last he was called to London and to the southern parts of England, where he remained till the death of Edward the Sixth." This is all that he has said directly in that work concerning his residence in England; but so much new light has been shed on this part of the Reformer's career by the painstaking and elaborate monogram of Dr. Lorimer, that we are now able to follow his steps with something like minuteness.
He was settled first at the border town of Berwick-on-Tweed, which in those days was "the focus of a long and bloody war between the two kingdoms, which had begun with the tremendous slaughter of the Scots at Pinkey in the autumn of 1547, and in which the Scots, having received large assistance from France, were still able to maintain so vigorous a defence that there was no near prospect of a return of peace."[1] Thus it happened that its garrison was larger than ordinary, and everything about the place was volcanic. Quarrels among the soldiers were common, and the civilians themselves were not over peaceful, so that the chronic state of the town was one of disorder. John Brende, "master of the musters," reports to the Protector Somerset concerning it: "There is better order among the Tartars than in this town; the whole picture of the place is one of social disorder and the worst police."[2] Besides all this, the great majority of the people were as yet probably papists, for the doctrines of the Reformation had made little progress thus far in the northern counties, and matters ecclesiastical were very unsettled. In March of that year the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI. was sanctioned by Parliament and published for the use of the Church. The new liturgy still retained much of the leaven of sacerdotalism and sacramentarianism, but it was decidedly in advance of anything which could have been issued in the days of Henry VIII. It was thoroughly approved by but a portion of the bishops, and there were several counties in the remoter parts of the kingdom where it was never introduced at all. Tunstall, then Bishop of Durham, who was no friend to the cause of reform, was in no haste to give effect to the new legislation; and the council of the north, to which was committed the care of public affairs in that then distant corner of the realm, probably thought it advisable to refrain from enforcing it upon the people, until they were prepared, by the instructions of some eminent preacher, for receiving and obeying it. Thus we account for the fact that, all the time he was in Berwick, Knox was left very much to his own discretion as to the doctrines which he preached, and the methods which he adopted for the conduct of Divine service and the administration of the sacraments.
Already in his preface to Balnaves's treatise on Justification, the first of his printed productions so far as can be traced, he had written a summary of his belief on that great central doctrine; and in his disputation with Arbuckle in St. Andrews, he had been truly charged with holding the following opinions—viz. first, man may neither make nor devise a religion that is acceptable to God, but is bound to observe and keep the religion that from God is received without chopping or changing thereof; second, the sacraments of the New Testament ought to be ministered as they were instituted by Christ Jesus and practised by the apostles, nothing ought to be added to them, nothing ought to be diminished from them; third, the mass is abominable idolatry, blasphemous to the death of Christ, and a profanation of the Lord's Supper. When therefore he began his labours at Berwick he set himself to the proclamation of the great truths which radiate from the priesthood of Christ; and in his dispensation of the supper he followed an order of his own, which was not improbably the same as he had adopted in the Castle of St. Andrews. This is put beyond dispute by his letter to the congregation of Berwick, written probably about the close of 1552, and the fragment entitled "The Practice of the Lord's Supper used in Berwick-upon-Tweed by John Knox, preacher to the congregation of the Church there," both of which are to be found in Dr. Lorimer's Appendix. The matter is of more than mere antiquarian interest, and we may therefore make one or two extracts from the more important of these documents.
In regard to his preaching he thus writes: "As for the variety and diversity of opinions touching the doctrine and chief points of religion which ye have received, God I take to witness, and the Lord Jesus Christ, before whom at once shall all flesh appear, that I never taught unto you, nor unto any others my auditory, that doctrine as necessary to be believed which I did not find written in God's holy law and testament. And, therefore, in that case with Paul I will say, 'If an angel from heaven shall teach unto you another gospel than ye have heard and externally received, let him be accursed.'" Then after stating in a positive form what he understands by the gospel he adds: "If in any of these chief and principal points any man vary from that doctrine which ye have professed, let him be accursed:[3] (1) as if any man teach any other cause moving God to elect and choose us than His own infinite goodness and mere mercy; (2) any other name in heaven or under the heaven wherein salvation stands, but only the name of Jesus; (3) any other means whereby we are justified and absolved from wrath and damnation that our sins deserve, than by faith only; (4) any other cause or end of good works than that first we are made good trees, and thereafter bring forth fruits accordingly, to witness that we are lively members of Christ's holy and most sanctified body, prepared vessels to the honour and praise of our Father's glory; (5) if any teach prayers to be made to other than God above; (6) if any Mediator betwixt God and man, but only our Lord Jesus; (7) if more or other sacraments be affirmed or required to be used than Christ Jesus left ordinary in His Church, to wit, Baptism and the Lord's Table, or mystical supper; (8) if any deny remission of sins, resurrection of the flesh and life everlasting to appertain to us in Christ's blood, which, sprinkled in our hearts by faith, doth purge us from all sin; so that we need no more nor other sacrifices than that oblation once offered for all, by the which God's elect be fully sanctified and made perfect; if any I say, require any other sacrifice to be made for sins than Christ's death, which once He suffered, or any other manner whereby Christ's death may be applied to man, than by faith only, which also is the gift of God, so that man hath no cause to glory in works; and yet, if any deny good works to be profitable as not necessary to a true Christian profession, let the affirmers, teachers, or maintainers of such a doctrine be accursed of you, as they are of God unless they repent." In these articles we are struck with the absence of all reference to the Holy Spirit and regeneration; but we have many allusions to these subjects elsewhere, some, indeed, in this very document, and we may suppose that as it was specifically the mediatorial work of Christ that was then in controversy, he designedly restricted himself to that. But from this summary, brief as it is, we learn that even at this early date, long before he had visited Geneva, or met Calvin, Knox had found his own way by the study of the Scriptures to those views of gospel truth which are now associated with the name of the great Frenchman; and that they formed the chief themes of his public discourse at Berwick is evident from the solemn words with which he has here introduced their enumeration.
Nor was his proclamation of them there in vain; for in his vindication of himself, at a later date before Queen Mary of Scotland, from the charge of causing great sedition and slaughter in England, and securing his ends by necromancy, he said among other things, "I shame not further to affirm that God so blessed my weak labours, that in Berwick, where commonly before there used to be slaughter by reason of quarrels that used to arise among the soldiers, there was as great quietness all the time that I remained there, as there is this day in Edinburgh."[4] Besides this, there is in the letter from which we have quoted abundant evidence that his biographer was not wrong when he affirmed that during his two years in Berwick numbers were converted and a visible reformation was produced upon the soldiers of the garrison who had been notorious for turbulence and licentiousness.
But his procedure in regard to the Lord's Supper was even more remarkable for its independence, than the tenour of his discourses was for its adherence to the Pauline theology. In the Book of Common Prayer issued by the joint authorization of Convocation and Parliament in 1549, the rubric for the Lord's Supper provided that bread "unleavened and round as it was afore" should be used. But in regard to that Knox took the bold course of ignoring the authoritative rubrics. He substituted common bread for the wafer, and he administered the "elements" to the people while they sat, according to the form still followed in the nonconforming churches of England, and the Presbyterian churches in all parts of the world. It may seem to some that this was a defiance of the law; and perhaps in strictest construction so it was; but it is to be remembered that, as yet, the law had not become operative in the district to which Berwick belonged, and that therefore it was open meanwhile for Knox to take the course which he believed to be best. Thus he writes:[5] "Kneeling at the Lord's Supper I have proved by doctrine (teaching) to be no convenient gesture for a table; (a gesture) which hath been given in that action to such a presence of Christ, as no place of God's Scripture doth teach unto us. And therefore, kneeling in that action, appearing to be joined with certain dangers, no less in maintaining superstition than in using Christ's holy institution with other gestures than either He used or commanded to be used, I thought good amongst you to avoid and to use sitting at the Lord's Table; which ye did not refuse, but with all reverence and thanksgiving to God for His truth knowing, as I suppose, ye confirmed the doctrine with your gestures and confession." The order which he observed[6] began with a sermon on the benefits given us by God through Jesus Christ; this was followed by prayer, after which was read the account of the institution of the ordinance from 1 Corinthians xi. 20-30. Then a declaration of "what persons be unworthy to be partakers" was made; after which "common prayer was offered in the form of confession." At the conclusion of this prayer, some notable passage in which God's mercy is most evidently declared was read from the gospel, and thereafter the minister pronounced absolution to such as unfeignedly repent and believe in Jesus Christ. After this came prayer for the congregation and for the sovereign.
At this point the fragment which we have been following breaks off, but there is every reason to believe that the remainder of the service was the same as that afterwards adopted in Scotland; and any one at all conversant with the ecclesiastical ritual of the Presbyterian churches in that country may see in the portion which we have given the origin of the "action" sermon, the "fencing of the tables;" and the frequent if not invariable use of the passage from first Corinthians as the "warrant" for the observance of the Supper, which characterize a communion "occasion" in that country. But the singular thing about the matter is that this Puritan and Presbyterian form of administering the ordinance of the Lord's Supper was observed in England by John Knox when he was labouring at Berwick as a recognised minister of the Church of England, and acting under the authority, or perhaps, to put it more correctly, with the permission, of the government. This was at a date anterior by ten years to the time when it was introduced into Scotland with the sanction of its Parliament.
But it deserves notice that although Knox was thus conscientiously opposed to kneeling at the Lord's Table, he was not so intolerant as to declare that the taking of that posture at that table was necessarily sinful. The reader of the letter addressed to the congregation at Berwick cannot fail to be struck with the broad Pauline spirit manifested by the Reformer in his treatment of this subject. He is advising his friends as to what they should do if, now that he had ceased to have the oversight of them, the practice of kneeling at the communion table should be insisted upon; and he affirms that he neither recants nor repents his former teaching, but still prefers sitting to any other posture; yet he adds[7] "because I am but one having in my contrair, magistrates, common order, and judgments of many learned, I am not minded for maintenance of that one thing to gainstand the magistrates in all and other chief points of religion agreeing with Christ, and His true doctrine, nor yet to break nor trouble common Order, thought meet to be kept for unity and peace in the congregations for a time. And least of all do I intend to condemn or lightly regard the grave judgments of such men as unfeignedly I fear (reverence), love and will obey, in all things judged expedient to promote God's glory, these subsequents granted to me." Then follow three conditions which may be summarized thus,—first, that the magistrates make known that kneeling is not required for any superstitious reasons or for any adoration of Christ's natural body believed to be there present, but only for the sake of uniform Order and that for a time; second, that kneeling is not imposed as a thing essential to the right observance of the ordinance, or required by Christ, but enjoined only as a ceremony thought seemly by men; and third, that the brethren shall have regard to his conscience, and not bring any uncharitable accusation against him, because he seeks to follow what Christ has commanded rather than what men have required. With these concessions granted, he declares that he would be satisfied; and that there may be no breach of charity, he recommends his former flock, should these conditions be complied with, to conform to the requirements of the Prayer-Book if those in authority should insist on their so doing. We have been the more particular in bringing out this fact at this particular time, because of its bearing on his conduct in connection with the issue of the revised Prayer-Book in 1552, of which we shall have to speak more particularly by-and-by.
So much for the Reformer's public work in Berwick; but before we accompany him to Newcastle, we must pause to mention that it was during his residence at this time in the border town that he made the acquaintance of and was engaged to the lady who afterwards became his wife. Her name was Marjory Bowes, and she was the daughter of Richard Bowes, youngest son of Sir Ralph Bowes, of Streatham. Her mother was Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Robert Aske, of Aske. The father, probably on account of Knox's religious opinions, was opposed to the marriage, and so the union was deferred for some years. But the mother was friendly to the Reformer, and with her he kept up a constant correspondence in which many of the softer traits of his character come beautifully out. Mrs. Bowes was subject to religious melancholy, and the tender manner in which he often seeks in his letters to bind up her bruised spirit shows that, when occasion needed, he could be a "son of consolation" as well as a "son of thunder." Sometimes too, as when his heart was stirred with solicitude for the spiritual interests of those among whom he had laboured, or when he was required to confront the possible issue of his uncompromising adherence to what he believed to be right, he rises to a strain of heroism which reminds us of the greatest of the apostles. One example of this occurs in his letter to his Berwick friends, and we may fitly close this chapter by reproducing it here. "If any man be offended with me that I, willing to avoid God's wrath and vengeance threatened against such as having no necessity despise His ordinances, do purpose and intend to obey God, embracing such as He has offered unto me (rather) than to please and flatter man that unjustly held the same from me; if any, I say, for this cause be offended and will seek my displeasure or trouble, let the same understand, that as I have a body, which only they may hurt, and not unless God so permit; so have they bodies and souls which both shall God punish in fire inextinguishably with the devil and his angels, unless suddenly they repent and cease to malign against God and His holy ordinance. With life and death, dear brethren, I am at point,—they before me in equal balances. Transitory life is not so sweet to me that for defence thereof I will jeopard to lose the life everlasting. Nor yet is corporeal death to me so fearful that albeit most certainly I understood the same shortly to follow my godly purpose, I would therefore depone myself to die in God's wrath and anger for ever and ever, which no doubt I should do, if for man's pleasure I refused God's perfect ordinance."[8] There is no mistaking the ring of such words as these; and lie who wrote them takes his place in the honourable company of the heroes of conscience to whom the world no less than the Church has owed so much.
[1] Lorimer, p. 17.
[2] Lorimer, p. 18
[3] Lorimer, pp. 257-8.
[4] Lorimer, p. 16.
[5] Lorimer, p. 261.
[6] Lorimer, p. 290.
[7] Lorimer, pp. 261-2.
[8] Lorimer, p. 260.
CHAPTER IV.
KNOX AND THE ENGLISH BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, 1551-1553.
From Berwick Knox was removed, in the early summer of 1551, to Newcastle-on-Tyne, where he laboured, with occasional absences, for nearly two years. Already, in the spring of 1550, he had made a public discourse of great importance there, and perhaps the impression produced by his words then, may have led to his being ultimately transferred thither. There is extant among his writings "A Vindication of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry," to which this note is prefixed: "The fourth of April, in the year 1550, was appointed to John Knox, preacher of the Holy Evangel of Jesus Christ, to give his confession why he affirmed the mass idolatry; which day, in presence of the Council, and congregation, amongst whom was also present the Bishop of Durham, in this manner he beginneth." This has been supposed by some to indicate that he was under accusation of heresy, and had been called to Newcastle to make his defence. But though it is not unlikely that his doctrine had been objected to by Tunstall, yet the Council of the North was not an ecclesiastical tribunal, and there is nothing in the whole address to imply that the speaker was upon his trial. The truth seems rather to have been that the members of the Council invited him to declare and enforce his opinions concerning the mass before an audience which filled the great church of St. Nicholas.
The argument of his discourse on this occasion was an amplification of the following syllogism: "all worshipping, honouring, or service, invented by the brain of man, in the religion of God, without His express commandment is idolatry: the mass is invented by the brain of man without any commandment of God; therefore, the mass is idolatry." The ground here taken was identical with that which he had defended against Arbuckle, and is distinctively different from the position which, in the very same year, was taken by Cranmer in his "Defence of the true Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament." The Anglican primate meant by idolatry the substitution of a false God for the true, as in the adoration of the host, for the real body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. But by the same term, as his major premise makes abundantly evident, Knox designated that which we should call now constructive idolatry, namely, "the invention of strange worshippings of God, introduced without any warrant from His word;" or what the Westminster divines meant, when in their Shorter Catechism in answer to the question, "What is forbidden in the second commandment?" they reply, "The worshipping of God by images, or any other way not appointed in His word." With Cranmer the word meant the worshipping as God of that which is no God; with Knox it denoted the worshipping of God in a manner invented by men and unauthorized by God. Cranmer was the father of the Anglican churchmen; Knox was the earliest, and by no means the least noteworthy, of the Puritans, for the principle which he advocated was one which he was as ready to apply to ceremonies in the reformed churches as to the idolatries of the Romish worship. The utterance of these sentiments by him at this time marks the beginning of that movement which has continued even until now, and which in its progress, among other less conspicuous results, called into existence the various nonconforming churches of England; inspired the covenanters of Scotland to begin and carry through their long and painful struggle with the second Charles; widened the civil liberties of Great Britain; and planted the seed from which the American Republic has grown into stateliness and strength.
Its more immediate personal effect, as we have conjectured, was the transference of Knox from Berwick to Newcastle, where he continued to administer word and sacraments in the same manner as he had been accustomed to follow. On the banks of the Tyne he was as faithful and fearless in his pulpit utterances, and as simple in his ritual observances, as he had been on the banks of the Tweed. "God is witness," said he in a letter to his Newcastle friends, written by him from the continent in 1558; "and I refuse not your own judgments, how simply and uprightly I conversed and walked among you, that neither for fear did I spare to speak the simple truth unto you; neither for hope of worldly promotion, dignity, or honour, did I wittingly adulterate any part of God's Scriptures, whether it were in exposition, in preaching, contention, or writing; but that simply and plainly, as it pleased the merciful goodness of my God to give unto me the utterance, understanding, and spirit, I did distribute the bread of life, as of Christ Jesus I had received it;"[1] and again, "How oft have ye assisted to baptism? How oft have ye been partakers of the Lord's Table prepared, and used, and ministered, in all simplicity, not as a man had devised, neither as the king's proceedings did allow, but as Christ Jesus did institute, and as it is evident that Saint Paul did practise?"[2] How it came that he was permitted to administer the sacrament in that manner does not appear; but the fact that he did so is incontrovertible, and that he did not stand quite alone in taking such a course is evident from these words in Becon's "Displaying of the Mass," written in the reign of Queen Mary: "How oft have I seen here, in England, people sitting at the Lord's Table!" It is well known also that the opinions of Hooper, on this subject, were in full accord with those of Knox; and though we have not been able to find any distinct statement that he had actually reduced them to practice, yet it is all but certain that he did so.
But in any case his nonconformity in the matter of kneeling did not keep Knox from attaining a prominent place among the leaders of his time, for in December, 1551, six months after he had been stationed at Newcastle, he was appointed one of King Edward the Sixth's chaplains, who were six in number, and all of whom were selected because they were "accounted the most zealous and ready preachers of that time." This preferment was a recognition of the ability which Knox had shown. It added much to his consideration and weight in the social scale, while it gave him an opportunity of making his influence felt in ecclesiastical affairs in a manner which has left its mark on the English Prayer-Book even until the present day. To understand how this came about, it is needful to bear in mind that the Second or Revised Book of Common Prayer was completed at the press in August, 1552, and had been appointed by the Parliament of that year to come into use in the churches on the first day of November. Into that book had been reintroduced from the "order of communion," published in 1548,[3] the injunction that the people should receive the bread and wine "kneeling." That had, indeed, been the accustomed posture before, but no instruction for its observance had been contained in the First Prayer-Book published in 1549. There the directions are thus given: "Then shall the priest first receive the communion in both kinds himself, and next deliver it to other ministers, if any be there present (that they may be ready to help the chief minister), and after to the people." But in the two years immediately following the publication of that First Prayer-Book, discussion on the posture at the Lord's Table had been brought up, and as Cranmer, Ridley, and the most of the other Reforming Bishops were opposed to the views and practices of Knox, Hooper, and others, they deemed it advisable to foreclose debate and put an end to diversity of order by an authoritative injunction. For this purpose, in the Prayer-Book in 1552 the rubric was made to read thus: "Then shall the minister first receive the communion in both kinds himself, and next deliver it to the other ministers, if any be there present (that they may help the chief minister), and after to the people, in their hands, kneeling." Thus it came about that what had been left undefined in the former book was expressly limited in the new one; and, therefore, though in other respects the latter was much more in harmony with the sentiments of Knox, it was in this less tolerant than the former. When, therefore, Knox was appointed to preach before the king in the autumn of that year, having probably seen one of the first-issued copies of the book, he took occasion to enter fully into the discussion of the mode of administering the communion, and his discourse was not without immediate effect, for in a letter of John Utenhovius to Henry Bullinger, dated October 12, 1552, the writer says:[4] "Some disputes have arisen among the bishops, within these few days, in consequence of a sermon by a pious preacher, chaplain to the Duke of Northumberland, preached by him, before the king and Council, in which he inveighed with great freedom against kneeling at the Lord's Supper, which is still retained here in England. This good man, however, a Scotsman by nation, has so wrought upon the minds of many that we may hope some good to the church will at length arise from it, which I earnestly implore the Lord to grant." Now there can be no doubt that the preacher here referred to was Knox, who as having been in contact with Northumberland as Warden-General of the border counties, might easily be mistaken by a foreigner for the chaplain of that nobleman. Other facts to be taken in connection with the information furnished by Utenhovius are the following:[5] In the Record of the Privy Council, under date 26th September, 1552, there is an order to Grafton, the printer, forbidding him to issue any copies of the new Prayer-Book; and commanding that if any had been already distributed to his fellow-publishers they should "not be put abroad until certain faults therein had been corrected." Clearly therefore, as copies of the book had been sold, it was possible for Knox to have obtained one, and as Lorimer says, "none would be more eager purchasers than those ministers of the Church who were most zealous for reform." Meetings of the Council were held on October 4th and 6th, at one or other of which objections to the rubric seem to have been made, probably as the result of Knox's sermon, and to have been referred to Cranmer for his review. On October 7th, Cranmer wrote to the Council in vindication of the rubric on kneeling, a letter which purports to be a reply to certain objections against it which had been forwarded to him by its members. On the agenda paper of the business to be transacted at the meeting of the Council on the 20th of October, and which still exists in the handwriting of Cecil, there is a line to this effect: "Mr. Knocks—b of Catrb—ye book in ye B of Durhm," and at that very meeting, as we learn from the Record, "a letter was directed to Messrs. Harley, Bill, Horn, Grindal, Pern, and Knox, to consider certain articles exhibited to the King's Majesty, to be subscribed by all such as shall be admitted to be preachers or ministers in any part of the realm, and to make report of their opinions touching the same." These articles, therefore, must have come at this time into Knox's hands, and, though many of them must have received his cordial endorsement, there was one of them which he could not have approved; that, namely, which contained this clause: "and as to the character of the ceremonies, they are repugnant in nothing to the wholesome liberty of the gospel, if they are judged from their own nature, but very well agree with it, and in very many respects further the same in a high degree." How could Knox, after his recent sermon on kneeling in the Lord's Supper, give his sanction to that article? Manifestly he would feel that he must protest against such an assertion as it contained; and then, as Lorimer says, "the thought would seem to have flashed upon him that he had now another and quite an unexpected opportunity of making a fresh appeal to the king and Council on that very question of the rubric on kneeling, which was still apparently in dependence. There was still time to make one more attempt. In addition to his judgment upon the articles at large, which need not go to the Council so quickly, what if he should single out this 38th Article and make it the subject of a separate representation, and distinguishing between the ceremony of kneeling and all the rest; what if he should confine the bulk of his representations to this single point, which was now the only one in which it was feasible to look for any immediate alteration?" That at least was done by the memorial, which by its authors is called their confession in regard to the 38th Article, and which Lorimer has printed for the first time in his appendix. No names are subscribed to the document, but the first portion of it bears strong internal evidence of having been the production of Knox; and though in other parts there are traces, as the painstaking editor thinks, of the hands of Thomas Becon and Roger Hutchinson, we agree with him in believing that every one who examines the whole statement with care will conclude "that whatever Englishman may have joined him in the memorial, and whatever they may have contributed to its substance of thought, it was Knox himself who held the pen." This memorial could have been of no use after the final action of the Council on the matter of "kneeling;" and it was evidently called forth by the reference of the articles to the royal chaplains, therefore it must have been prepared between the 20th and 27th October, and must have been presented to the meeting of the Council on the latter of these two dates, on which also, and we may conclude as the result of the arguments contained in the memorial, the "Declaration on Kneeling," which has all the marks of the style of Cranmer, and which therefore had probably been sent by him to the Council as a suggested compromise, was adopted, and ordered to be inserted in the forthcoming book. This accounts for the circumstance mentioned by the editor of "The Two Liturgies" in a note, that the paragraph in question "is printed on a separate leaf in some copies, and as is evident from the signatures, was added afterwards." In one copy, "the leaf is pasted in after the copy was bound, and several copies are without it." Now putting all these things together, the conclusion is not only legitimate but inevitable, that the insertion of the declaration on kneeling in the Prayer-Book was due to the agency of Knox, more probably than to that of any other man. As Lorimer writes (p. 121), "The compromise prevailed, but apparently there would not have been so much as a compromise obtained if the 'confession' had not been thrown into the scale at the very last moment.... His last blow had the effect of overcoming the resistance to all further change which a majority of the Council had hitherto maintained." Hence, though we may not approve of the spirit in which Weston uttered the words, or accept either his description of Knox or his designation of the doctrine on which he insisted, yet he was correct as to the matter of fact when he said, "a renegade Scot did take away the adoration and worshipping of Christ in the sacrament, by whose procurement that heresy was put into the last communion book; so much prevailed that one man's authority at that time."
The Declaration itself was in the following words:—"Although no order can be so perfectly devised, but it may be of some, either for their ignorance and infirmity, or else of malice and obstinacy, misconstrued, depraved, and interpreted in a wrong part: And yet, because brotherly charity willeth, that so much as conveniently may be, offences should be taken away; therefore we willing to do the same: Whereas it is ordained in the Book of Common Prayer, in the administration of the Lord's Supper, that the communicants kneeling should receive the Holy Communion: which thing being well meant, for a signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ, given unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation and disorder, which about the Holy Communion might else ensue: lest yet the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or to any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the sacramental bread and wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians. And as concerning the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ they are in heaven and not here. For it is against the truth of Christ's true natural body, to be in more places than in one at one time." Opinions will of course differ as to whether in this matter the influence of Knox was beneficial or the reverse. We are writing biography, not a treatise on theology, and what we have been seeking to show is the share that Knox had in the English Reformation. Sacramentarians generally will agree in styling the Declaration which we have quoted "the black rubric," but for ourselves we have no hesitation in avowing our agreement with Lorimer that "there is nothing in the whole English Liturgy which is, to say the least, more Protestant;" and it may be well, to give completeness to our reference to the subject, that we should add that author's very condensed summary of the subsequent history of this famous rubric. "At the accession of Elizabeth it was dropped out of the Prayer-Book, along with that portion of the 35th Article upon which it rested; and it remained outside the Liturgy for a hundred years. And why? Simply because its omission was judged as important by the Church's leaders then as its insertion had been at first. Elizabeth's church policy was a comprehensive policy, and neither James I. nor Charles I. had any wish to depart from it. She wished, and so did her council and first Parliament, to make it as easy as possible for the "Roman party to continue in the National Church, but she and they knew that such a comprehension was impossible as long as the "Declaration on Kneeling" remained in the Prayer-Book. Its insertion had taken place in order to "comprehend" the Puritan party, to the exclusion of the Romanists; and now its omission took place in order to comprehend the Romanists, at the risk of driving out the Puritans. But why do we now find the "Declaration" restored to its old place? What was the motive of so remarkable a rehabilitation in 1662? It is easy to discern it. The circle of church evolution and change had then returned into itself. In 1662 the old policy of conciliating and comprehending the Puritans instead of the Catholics was again in season—was again the key of the situation. To this policy the "Declaration on Kneeling" was again indispensable, and again, therefore, this most remarkable rubric was restored, in substantially the same form, to its vacant place. Nor has its history yet exhausted itself. It has retained its recovered place through all the changes of the last two centuries only to come forward into new significance and importance in our own day. The last chapter of its history was written only the other day in the long discussion and the fateful decision of the Bennett case. Its simple but trenchant language was often quoted in the pleadings, and passed into the body of the judgment itself: "As concerning the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ they are in heaven, not here: for it is against the truth of Christ's true natural body to be in more places than in one at one time."
But the memorial to the Privy Council, which we have traced to Knox, prevailed also so far as to secure a modification of the article on ceremonies, which, originally numbered as the 38th, came out owing to some minor condensations as the 35th, and took this ultimate shape—(we give Lorimer's translation from the Latin)—"The book which of very late time was given to the Church of England by the king's authority and the Parliament, containing the manner and form of praying and ministering the sacraments in the Church of England, likewise also the book of ordering ministers of the Church set forth by the foresaid authority, are godly, and in no point repugnant to the wholesome doctrine of the gospel, but agreeable thereunto, furthering and beautifying the same not a little; and therefore of all faithful members of the Church of England, and chiefly of the ministers of the Lord, they ought to be received and allowed with all readiness of mind and thanksgiving, and to be commended to the people of God."[6] When this is compared with the clause formerly given it will be seen that what before was said of the "ceremonies" is here restricted to the "doctrine," and that everything to which the memorial had taken exception is omitted.
But though the insertion of the Declaration on Kneeling into the Prayer-Book satisfied one of the conditions which, in his letter to his Berwick friends, Knox had laid down as essential to his conforming to "common Order": it did not meet the others, and so he steadily refused to accept a formal charge in the Church of England. At the very time when the Council was engaged in the discussions which we have just mentioned, the Duke of Northumberland wrote from Chelsea, under date October 27th, 1552, to Secretary Cecil, in these words:[7] "I would to God it might please the King's majesty to appoint Mr. Knox to the office of Rochester bishopric, which for three reasons would be very well. First: he would not only be a whetstone to quicken and sharp the Bishop of Canterbury, whereof he hath need, but also would be a great confounder of the Anabaptists lately sprung up in Kent. Secondly, he should not continue the ministration in the north, contrary to this set forth here" (meaning to the usual form prescribed at this time). "Thirdly, the family of the Scots now inhabiting in Newcastle, chiefly for his fellowship, would not continue there, wherein many resort to them out of Scotland, which is not requisite." These are certainly rather strange reasons why Knox should be promoted to a bishopric, but they prove not only that he had acted an independent part in Newcastle, but also that his fame had gone so widely over Scotland that multitudes of his fellow-countrymen were attracted to that place for the sake of enjoying his ministrations. But he would not be made a bishop, and he must have expressed his refusal with all his wonted plainness of speech, for a few weeks later, on the 7th December, Northumberland writes to the same correspondent: "Master Knox's being here to speak with me, saying he was so willed by you; I do return him again, because I love not to have to do with men which be neither grateful nor pleasable."[8] So his grace is minded to put the case; but with his former letter in our hands we can see that gratitude in his vocabulary meant falling in with his individual plans, and "pleasableness" was with him a synonym for "squeezeableness."
In the following February (1553) Knox was offered the Vicarage of All Hallows in Bread Street (London); but that also he declined, and we have from the pen of Calderwood an account of what occurred in connection with that.[9] "In a letter, dated the 14th of April, 1553, and written with his own hand, I find," says that author, "that he was called before the Council of England for kneeling, who demanded of him three questions. First, why he refused the benefice provided for him? secondly, whether he thought that no Christian might serve in the ecclesiastical ministration according to the rites and laws of the realm of England? thirdly, if kneeling at the Lord's Table was not indifferent? To the first he answered, that his conscience did witness that he might profit more in some other place than in London; and therefore had no pleasure to accept any office in the same. Howbeit, he might have answered otherwise, that he refused that parsonage because of my Lord of Northumberland's command. To the second, that many things were worthy of reformation in the ministry of England, without the reformation whereof no minister did discharge, or could discharge, his conscience before God; for no minister in England had authority to divide and separate the lepers from the whole, which was a chief point of his office; yet did he not refuse such office as might appear to promote God's glory in utterance of Christ's gospel in a mean degree, where more he might edify by preaching of the true word than hinder by sufferance of manifest iniquity, seeing that reformation of manners did not appertain to all ministers. To the third he answered, that Christ's action in itself was most perfect, and Christ's action was done without kneeling; that kneeling was man's addition or imagination; that it was most sure to follow the example of Christ, whose action was done sitting and not kneeling. In this last question there was great contention betwixt the whole table of the lords and him. There were present there the Bishops of Canterbury and Ely, my Lord Treasurer, the Marquis of Northampton, the Earl of Bedford, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Master Comptroller, my Lord Chamberlain, both the Secretaries, and other inferior lords. After long reasoning, it was said unto him that he was not called of any evil mind; that they were sorry to know him of a contrary mind to the common Order. He answered that he was more sorry that a common Order should be contrary to Christ's institution. With some gentle speeches he was dismissed, and willed to advise with himself if he would communicate after that Order." But, unlike Hooper, who, after a long controversy about vestments and a brief imprisonment for his refusal to wear them, accepted the bishopric of Gloucester, vestments and all, only however to suffer martyrdom at last under Queen Mary, Knox remained steadfast to the position which he had taken up; and, refusing a permanent charge, which would have required him to give his assent and consent to the Articles, and to conform to the common Order, he was sent in June, 1553, as one of the itinerary preachers into Buckinghamshire, where he laboured with great zeal and assiduity for some weeks.
In the interval between October, 1552, and March, 1553, we find that Knox had been back at Newcastle, where he was bitterly opposed by Sir Robert Brandling, the Mayor, whose zeal was checked, however, by the agency of Lord Wharton, then Lord Warden of the North, at the suggestion of Northumberland; and there are some interesting letters belonging to this portion of his life which give us delightful glimpses into his heart and habits. In one we see him "sitting at his book," and contemplating Matthew's Gospel by the help of "some most godly expositions, and among the rest Chrysostom." In another he writes, "This day ye know to be the day of my study and prayer to God." And in a third, written to Mrs. Bowes from London, whither he had been summoned in haste before the Privy Council, we have this record: "The very instant hour that your letters were presented unto me was I talking of you, by reason that three honest poor women were come to me, and were complaining their great infirmity, and were showing unto me the great assaults of the enemy, and I was opening the causes and commodities thereof, whereby all our eyes wept at once; and I was praying unto God that you and some others had been there with me for the space of two hours, and even at that instant came your letters to my hands, whereof the part I read unto them; and one of them said, 'Oh would to God I might speak with that person, for I perceive there be more tempted than I.'" Thus amid the multiplicity and weight of his public labours he did not neglect either the study or the closet; and the weeping Knox, seeking to comfort those that were cast down, is a picture that must seem strange to many who know little more about him than that his fortitude made Mary Stuart shed tears of wounded pride and disappointed ambition.
In April he preached in the Chapel Royal before the young king, and inveighed in the strongest terms against Northumberland and Paulet, finishing one of his scathing passages in this way: "Was David and Hezekiah, princes of great and godly gifts and experience, abused by crafty counsellors and dissembling hypocrites? What wonder is it, then, that a young and innocent king be deceived by crafty, covetous, wicked, and ungodly counsellors? I am greatly afraid that Ahithophel be councillor, that Judas bear the purse, and that Shebna be scribe, comptroller and treasurer." The pulpit in those days had to discharge the duties of public criticism on politics and morals, which are now much more appropriately performed by the press; and so, as Froude remarks, "since discipline could not be restored, Knox, and those who felt with him the enormities of the times, established, by their own authority, this second form of excommunication." It was then perhaps a necessity, but it is always, more or less, a dangerous thing for a minister to do; and it must be admitted that Knox was not always just in such philippics. But he was always conscientious, and he was always brave; and he well knew at the moment the risk which he was running. In the present case, if little good came out of it to the country, no harm resulted from it to himself; for, as we have seen, he was shortly afterwards engaged to preach in Buckinghamshire. And there he laboured on, like another Jeremiah, forecasting evils which none of his hearers would believe could happen, until at the death of Edward the Sixth, on the 6th of July, 1553, they were rudely awakened from their sleep of security.
Such was Knox's share in the working out of the English Reformation; and we have dwelt thus long upon it because the facts which we have stated have only recently been brought to light; and because we wished to set forth with as much clearness as condensation would allow the opinions which were held, and the mode of worship which was observed, by him, even at this early stage in his history. If Knox did something for England, England did much also for him. If he was instrumental in keeping the Church of that country from greater affinity with Romanism than it might otherwise have shown, there can be no doubt that the evil effects of compromise as witnessed by him there helped to make him more thorough in his later work in Scotland; while it is also most true that during his residence there his contact with the Christian people whom he met did something to soften and sweeten his piety, and to make it more inward and sympathising. Most of all, God was preparing him by it for the great work which he was afterwards to perform in his native land; and his years of service in England were blessed in securing for him the friendship and confidence of her ablest statesmen, without whose assistance, humanly speaking, Scotland might have been lost to Protestantism in the very crisis of her history.