Knox’s Attitude to the English Reformation

By W. Stanford Reid

McGill University, Montreal

Was John Knox at heart an Anglican? Did he favour the form which the Reformation took in England under Edward VI and Elizabeth? These questions have interested both English and Scottish Protestants for some four centuries, and to them historians have given a number of different answers. Today, however, they have gained a new and crucial importance owing to talks of union between the established churches of the two countries and, also, because recently a number of books have appeared dealing with this problem.

From the days of the sixteenth century one school of thought, beginning with Andrew Melville and continuing through David Calderwood and Hume of Godscroft down into the nineteenth century with its Thomas M’Crie, Peter Lorimer and into the twentieth with P. Hume Brown, A. M. Renwick and others, has taught that Knox was no Anglican. The members of this school have held that he favoured the establishment in Scotland of a thoroughly Calvinistic and Presbyterian church which went far beyond the English Reformation. Indeed for Lorimer and some others Knox really laid the basis for English Puritanism.[1] Dissatisfied with the lack of thorough Reformation in England, he also wished to make sure that Scotland stopped at no halfway house.

Another school of interpretation which appeared very early had a much less sympathetic attitude to the Scottish reformer. Archbishop Parker in 1559 expressed the hope that England might escape a visitation such as Knox had brought upon Scotland,[2] and some three hundred years later Andrew Lang in his John Knox and the Reformation (London, 1905) pictured him as “the fons et origo mali” in modern Scottish development, including Presbyterianism.[3]

In more recent years, those who have not favoured the interpretation of the Calvinistic school have also turned away from Parker’s and Lang’s interpretation of Knox. Dr. C. L. Warr, formerly minister of St. Giles Church, Edinburgh, in his work on The Presbyterian Tradition (London, 1933) while showing no love for Knox feels that he did have a true appreciation of the idea of “the succession” of the ministry, and in fact accepted the idea of episcopacy.[4] Similarly a more recent writer, Dr. Gordon Donaldson of Edinburgh University, has set forth, from the Episcopalian camp, the same interpretation which he has endeavoured to support in a number of works of detailed and careful historical analysis.[5]

Anyone who reads the arguments set forth by both sides must soon agree that the interpretation of Knox is very complex for he was a complicated individual living in a chaotic era. Thus neither Knox’s advising of some London separatists to conform to the Elizabethan establishment nor his basic theological agreement with Grindal indicates his acceptance of the English Reformation, any more than some of his criticisms of the Book of Common Prayer, voiced to Mrs. Locke and others, prove his total rejection of it. To understand his point of view one must endeavour to look at the problem as a whole, in order to see how his actions, as well as his words, indicated his reaction to the Reformation as it came from the hands of both Edward VI and Elizabeth.

One thing upon which most interpreters of Knox generally see eye to eye is that he was in agreement with the leaders of the English reform movement on fundamental beliefs. Even when he and Cox disagreed in Frankfurt over matters of church worship, he recognized that theologically they stood on much the same ground. The reason for this does not require much investigation. Knox, along with the English Reformers, accepted as his foundation what have come to be known as “reformed principles”. For this reason, as Lorimer points out, Knox could assent with few reservations to the doctrinal statements set forth by Cranmer and his supporters.[6]

At one time it looked as though the Reformation in England would follow the German Lutheran pattern, for as one might expect all the early reforming influences came from that direction. As the Germans, ignoring countries such as England and Scotland, concentrated on their own work and problems, however, other influences began to gain the ascendency in Protestant thinking.[7] The most important of these influences came from Zurich where Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s son-in-law, dominated the scene. Both John à Lasco and Guillaume Poullain, who came to England with European Protestant congregations in search of freedom to practice their religion, had accepted many of his teachings. Equally strong in his adherence to the Swiss point of view, and even more influential because he was English, was John Hooper who had studied under Bullinger, married a Swiss wife, and returned to England in 1548 as a staunch advocate of radical Protestant ideas. Opposed to the somewhat parochial views of Ridley and at times even Cranmer, he soon found himself in trouble because of his scornful attitude to the first Book of Common Prayer and his flat rejection of the ceremonies involved in episcopal ordination. Although he eventually agreed to become Bishop of Gloucester, he concentrated much of his effort on the implementation in England of the program already laid down by the continental reformers.[8]

When in 1549 Bullinger reached agreement with Calvin on the subject of the Lord’s Supper in the Consensus Tigurinus, those who had adopted the Genevan reformer’s viewpoint found that their beliefs accorded with those who claimed Bullinger’s support. Thus Cranmer and many others by 1550 were giving their support to the generally accepted Swiss Reformed point of view.[9]

The chief Protestant opponents, within the Church of England, to this Reformed position usually were those ecclesiastics who had never travelled on the Continent and who had a somewhat limited outlook. Of this group Bishop Ridley of London provides the most outstanding example. On the other hand, those who had studied abroad or who later went to the Continent during Mary’s reign for their own health, usually sat somewhat more loosely to their Anglican position. Grindal, Jewel, Sampson and even the redoubtable Dr. Cox, Knox’s antagonist at Frankfort, all heartily agreed with Calvin’s doctrinal position and also favoured a much less rigid attitude to the Book of Common Prayer than that demanded by Queen Elizabeth. The ultimate expression of their doctrinal views appears in the Thirty-Nine Articles which showed strong Reformed influence.[10]

In this same tradition John Knox had received his training. The man who apparently brought about his conversion to the Protestant faith was George Wishart, who himself had drunk deeply at the fountains of Swiss theology. Consequently, one can hardly experience surprise when one finds that Knox, from the beginning of his ministry in St. Andrews Castle, displayed an approach to matters theological and ecclesiastical strongly tinged with the influences of both Zurich and Geneva; and his convictions became even stronger as a result of his residence in Geneva during the Marian Exile. Thus when he returned to Scotland in 1559 he sought a thoroughly Calvinistic reformation of the Scottish church, and with this many of his Anglican friends heartily agreed.[11]

The foundation of this agreement between Knox and a number of the leading Anglicans was the belief that since the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were the Word of God, in all matters of Christian faith and practice they possessed final authority. As Knox himself expressed it:

In religioun thair is na middis: either it is the religioun of God, and that in everie thing that is done it must have the assurance of his awn Word, and than is his Majestie trewlie honourit, or els it is the religioun of the Divill, whilk is, when men will erect and set up to God sic religioun as pleaseth thame….[12]

This position a good many of the Anglican reformers accepted fully, as one may gather from statements contained both in the Forty-Two Articles of 1553 and the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563. Knox’s adherence to this principle led him to object to Article 38 of the Forty-five Articles prepared in 1552 and which formed the basis of the Forty-Two adopted by the government the following year. The article stated that the second Book of Common Prayer was thoroughly biblical, while Knox held that its requirement of kneeling at Communion showed otherwise. As a result of his argument he succeeded in persuading the Privy Council and Cranmer to modify the Communion Service by inserting a declaratory statement later known as “The Black Rubric”. The adoption of this modification by the English authorities shows the basic agreement which existed between Knox and the Anglican reformers.[13]

One must accept the view of Dr. Donaldson and others, therefore, that on matters of fundamental principle Knox and the ecclesiastical leaders in England were in substantial accord. The Scot accepted the Reformed confessions produced on the Continent along with the Forty-Two Articles and even went so far as to warn his former congregation in Berwick not to provoke the magistrates by refusing to use the second Prayer Book, “seeing that in principles we agree”.[14] Because of this agreement, also, he accepted the position of a royal chaplain which enabled him to influence the course of the English Reformation.

Yet while granting Knox’s agreement with the Anglican leaders on the fundamentals of theology, one must also recognize that there seemed to be some difference between them on the practical application of their principles. Dr. Warr, and even more Dr. Donaldson, imply, if they do not actually state, that Knox was really an Anglican. But if this were the case, why did the Scottish Reformed Church insist upon being different from the Church of England? Dr. Donaldson has pointed out that a considerable number of the Scottish nobles seemed to favour an Anglican type of establishment, so why did Knox not simply accept the Anglican episcopal government, the Anglican statement of doctrine, and the Anglican Book of Common Prayer in its 1552 form? If he agreed with these Anglican views and practices, it would have been the simplest thing to say so, since, according to Dr. Donaldson, they were already in common use in Scotland and moreover such a move would immediately have won Elizabeth’s favour.[15]

Dr. Donaldson has spent one book and part of another endeavouring to prove that this is exactly what Knox did, but his need to spend so much time proving his case would seem to indicate that the Kirk under Knox’s leadership by no means manifested wholehearted agreement with the Anglican reformation. Shortly after parliament had banned papal authority from Scotland, Knox and his colleagues presented to that body both a confession of faith and a Book of Discipline which were very definitely new and Scottish. Moreover, in 1564 the church adopted as its directory of worship, the “Form of Prayers” prepared in Geneva by the English congregation of which Knox had been the minister. If Knox had really favoured acceptance of the Anglican orders, confession and liturgy one wonders why the Scots bothered preparing their own—but they did.

The reason for the Scots’ devising of a different form of government, statement of faith and type of public worship would seem to be that while agreeing with the English reformers’ theology, they could not accept their application of it. In all probability Knox as a Scot and as one who had a wide acquaintance with the continental reformers, felt that the Anglican approach tended to manifest a rather narrow and insular “English” attitude.[16] He and his supporters felt that the Church of England simply had not carried its reform to its logical conclusion. Moreover, when the Scots would object to the Second Helvetic Confession’s use of special days such as Christmas and Easter, it would seem obvious that they could hardly regard the English Reformation as complete. They would probably have agreed with Calderwood’s comment that the English would not accept this confession “because of the manie corruptions maintained by them which are condemned in it”.[17] When one examines Knox’s history prior to 1560 one cannot but feel that this statement clearly expressed his point of view. As Randolph reported in 1560 after discussing church union with them: “I fynde them so severe in that that thei professe, so lothe to remytte aniething of that that thei have recaived, that I see lytle hope thereof”.[18] The Scottish reformers, and among them Knox, viewed Anglicanism as only a half-way house.

On the other hand, one must never think in terms of the situation as it exists today after the development of both the Anglican and Presbyterian traditions over the past four hundred years. In the 1550’s and 1560’s the reformers in both countries were in the process of establishing “reformed” churches. Knox had spent some time in England before his opportunity came in Scotland so that he undoubtedly had arrived at definite conclusions both for and against English practices. But covenanting days lay still a century in the future, and since the Reformation both in England and Scotland might well be only temporary, clear-cut divisions and conflicts could not take place at this stage of development. On the other hand, after the Treaty of Edinburgh (1560), which in fact left the Scots free to determine their religion, Knox found himself in a situation very different from that of the English reformers. He had more liberty than did they to put his views concerning reform into effect. Thus, even though many of the English ecclesiastical leaders might wish to follow his example, Queen Elizabeth’s opposition blocked the way which meant that full reform tarried in England, while Knox and his successors carried it through to what they believed was completion. Knox himself indicated this by stating that the Scottish Church was more fully reformed than any other.[19]

As one studies the development of the Scottish reformation and the writings concerning it, one discovers that differences between it and the English movement had three focal points: government, discipline and worship. Since that time others have appeared, but at the beginning these would seem to provide the principal areas of contention. Drs. Warr and Donaldson, along with some others, have endeavoured to prove that even on these points differences really did not exist, but for the moment let us say that one can find certain hints of difference in that the Scots set up their own form of organization, discipline and worship rather than adopting that of the Church of England. A further examination of the facts may show that the two churches did diverge widely in their views in these areas of thought and action.

In considering the first focal point of discussion, government, one finds that on more than one occasion it has been stated that Knox favoured episcopacy. Dr. Donaldson, for instance holds very strongly that the first Book of Discipline outlined a system of organization: superintendent, minister and reader which paralleled that of the Anglican bishop, priest and deacon. He quite off-handedly ignores the ruling elder as being an anti-clerical element not really germaine to the true pattern of organization.[20] A large section of The Scottish Reformation he devotes to proving that Knox intended to establish an episcopal rather than a presbyterian Church. This latter aberration was apparently the work of Andrew Melville.

In order to understand Knox’s concept of church government, and from this his view of Anglican episcopacy, one must realize that one of his chief objects of attack in the medieval church was the priesthood. In the early part of History of the Reformation in Scotland he has various uncomplimentary things to say about the old clergy in Scotland, and in other writings he indicates a great dislike for those who held that office because of their failure to meet the people’s spiritual needs.[21] Laying great stress upon the proclamation of the Gospel as the central work of the church, he held that only those who expounded God’s Word fulfilled their duties, for even the dispensing of the sacraments he held subordinate to the work of preaching.[22]

In his statement that Knox held a very “high” view of the ministry, Dr. Donaldson is absolutely correct.[23] But the highness of his view rested upon the fact that the minister spoke as the messenger of God, and not upon any concept of “succession” nor upon any idea of sacramental grace.[24] Knox’s view of the ministry’s responsibility appears in his reply to Mary, Queen of Scots, when she asked him by what right he made comments on her proposed marriage to Philip of Spain. He replied that God had set him as a watchman within the nation to warn men against evil ways.[25] Thus the minister’s authority in enforcing discipline, dispensing the sacraments and above all in preaching had in Knox’s thinking a very different character from that of any concept of priesthood.

This interpretation of the ministry comes out very clearly in the first Book of Discipline for which Knox was largely responsible. The congregational election of the minister was the essential element in his appointment. Only if the vacant congregation had shown dilatoriness in seeking a minister could one be imposed upon it. The man chosen by the congregation has to stand examination by the local ministry, in order that his learning and piety might be approved. When he had passed these requirements, he was to be admitted to the pastorate of the congregation without the laying on of hands, for “albeit the Apostles used the imposition of hands, yet seeing the miracle is ceased, the using of the ceremony we judge is not necessary”.[26] Thus neither succession, episcopal authority nor civil patronage, but only congregational agreement normally determined one’s induction into the ministry of the church.[27] This hardly provided an “order” of ministers, a fact which Dr. Donaldson admits.[28]

Furthermore, the minister entered his office primarily because of his ability and readiness to preach. Neither his dispensing of the sacraments nor his ability to administer ecclesiastical affairs and discipline was sufficient, for both these came from his call to preach. As the Book of Discipline puts it:

For we cannot judge him a dispensator of God’s mysteries that in no wise can break the bread of life to the fainting and hungry souls, neither judge we that the Sacraments can be rightly administered by him, in whose mouth God has put no sermon of exhortation.[29]

The minister’s central position in the church’s organization thus depended only on his preaching of the Gospel.

This raises the question of the reader as he appears in the Book of Discipline and, presumably, in the thinking of Knox. As one may well imagine, the need for qualified men to fill even a minimum number of pulpits was overwhelming. Consequently, the authors of the Book of Discipline advocated the appointment of “readers” who could read “common prayers” and sermons to the congregations. According to the original plan the employment of readers was a temporary measure whereby the church could make use of men lacking the education and even the gifts necessary for the ministry, although the hope was expressed that the readers might eventually develop themselves so that they could become ministers.[30]

Later on, readers developed into part-time assistants to the minister in a number of cases, but one finds no indication of this being the intention in 1560.[31] Thus there is no sign that the reader held a position similar to that of the Anglican order of deacon as suggested by Dr. Donaldson. Neither did the Scots directory of worship recognize readers as an “order” nor did it provide for the employment of readers except for services where no minister was available.

This brings us to the question of superintendents about whose office many arguments have taken place since the sixteenth century. Were they or were they not really bishops? Dr. Warr seems to incline to the view that Knox held episcopalian views and Dr. Donaldson has no doubts on the matter. Yet, while they both hold that Knox saw the superintendent in the Reformed Church as a bishop, at the same time they also insist he believed him to be a reformed bishop in accordance with Anglican thinking. To test this thesis one must study carefully the Book of Discipline’s description of the superintendent’s office and his work.

Dr. Donaldson’s works presenting the fullest study of the matter offer the most thorough exposition of the episcopalian interpretation. He hints, although he does not assert dogmatically, that the views of the Book of Discipline on superintendents are the same as those set forth in Ordinatio Ecclesiastica prepared by Bugenhagen for the Danish (Lutheran) church. He points to the close economic, social and political ties of the two countries, which would make such correspondence of church organization natural.[32] He also maintains, without overmuch documentation, that when the Reformed church was taking shape in Scotland there was “a remarkable agreement” among all the reformers on the characteristics of a Reformed episcopate, so that the Book of Discipline did not bother to outline the superintendents’ powers since everybody knew them. He does not seem to think that this argument sounds a little strange when he is discussing the drawing up of a constitution, especially in the light of the fact that the other ecclesiastical offices received very careful treatment.

His position, therefore, is partially based on an argument from silence. He also asserts that the reformers intended the superintendents to be permanent, presumably reaching this conclusion on the ground of his own assertion that Knox and his supporters did not believe in parity of ministers and that “superintendents were as much an order as ministers”, although he has already admitted that the ministry did not form an “order”. Finally, he points to the fact that Erskine of Dun and John à Lasco both held very high views of the office of superintendent. For these reasons, and because of the development of the office by 1572, Dr. Donaldson holds that the Church of Scotland as Knox and his supporters originally planned it, was truly episcopalian.[33]

A study of Knox’s history prior to 1560, however, makes one wonder that he had changed so much since returning to Scotland. That he had no love for the old fashioned bishop is so obvious that it needs no argument. All one has to do is read either his history or some of his polemical pamphlets to realize how opposed he was to the whole order. Furthermore, when offered a bishopric in England by Northumberland he refused it.[34] He may have turned it down for various reasons other than the fact that it was a bishopric, but his references in a sermon at Frankfurt (March 1555) to the troubles of Hooper in connection with his ordination as a bishop, would seem to indicate that even Cranmer’s idea of a bishop did not meet with his entire approval.[35]

This raises the question of how he regarded any form of episcopacy. Since, on Dr. Donaldson’s own showing, he did not regard the ministry as an “order” he could hardly maintain the concept of an “episcopal order”. In support of this we notice that when Miles Coverdale, who was a bishop in the Edwardian church, joined the English Genevan congregation he held only the office of elder.[36] Moreover, if Knox truly did believe in an “order” of bishops on the Anglican pattern, one cannot but wonder that he ignored the episcopacy so completely in his organization in Geneva. Even if he equated superintendents with bishops obviously he did not regard them as of the esse of the church, nor even as of its bene esse but simply as administrative officers to be appointed if needed. This, of course, changes the whole concept of a bishop or superintendent: a minister temporarily appointed to carry out certain organizational and administrative functions. One might answer the question: When is a bishop not a bishop? by saying, When he is a superintendent.

This brings us to the superintendency in the first Book of Discipline. With all due deference to Dr. Donaldson’s opinion that the Scottish reformers did not believe in an equality of ministers, the whole pattern seems to point in the opposite direction. In the first place, the book refers to the men chosen to the superintendent’s office as already possessing the necessary gifts, which would rule out any idea of “apostolic succession”, or “historic episcopate”. Indeed, they were only inaugurated in, and not ordained to, their superintendencies. Again, despite Dr. Donaldson, the superintendent’s powers and duties are set forth clearly as long as one understands that the office was established temporarily to meet a specific need, i.e., the establishment of Reformed congregations and the appointment of ministers to them. Only if one assumes that the office was intended as an episcopacy, can one accept Dr. Donaldson’s statement that the Book of Discipline makes no elaboration of its powers and duties. With only a very few ministers available for the main centers, the superintendents performed the work of modern extension secretaries and travelling evangelists.[37] At the same time they remained subject to the censure of the ministers and elders of the chief town and of the whole province who had already elected them.[38] Moreover, although not actually stated, it looks as though the framers of the Book of Discipline felt that the normal term for a superintendency would be three years.[39] When one adds to this the fact that the provinces of the superintendents were not identical with the old bishoprics, one has the feeling that the Book of Discipline did not try to establish a “reformed episcopacy”.[40]

To demonstrate this fact even further, one only needs to turn to the powers and authority of the superintendents to see how they differed from bishops. Dr. Donaldson endeavours to prove by an argument from silence that they had episcopal powers. But when one examines the positive statements made, the idea of a monarchical bishop seems far away. True they could present a man to a congregation, not to the patron, if it did not nominate a minister within forty days. They also had the right in the more remote areas to act as examiners of those nominated as pastors of congregations, but they possessed no authority of themselves to “intrude” some nominee into a church.[41] Furthermore, they clearly did not have power of “ordination” in any sense, since “the admission of Ministers to their offices must consist in consent of the people and Kirk whereto they shall be appointed, and in approbation of the learned Ministers appointed for their examination”.[42] Finally, they possessed no civil power similar to that of a bishop, whether Anglican or Roman Catholic. Thus the superintendents were extremely anaemic types of bishops, if that is supposed to have been their office.

In practice, it is true, at some points the difference between bishops and superintendents does not seem quite clear, and Dr. Donaldson points out that two bishops continued to act in northern Scotland. This does not appear to mean too much, however, since the church was only just coming into existence, the men professed to be Reformed in their teaching, and the areas in which they operated were difficult of access.[43] The case of a third bishop, Gordon of Galloway, proves even less of a support to Dr. Donaldson’s thesis. In connection with this third example, one must note that the first superintendents were elected by the church, presumably on the nomination of the Lords of Council, in March 1561. Knox, according to Randolph, refused a superintendency because he felt he could do more as minister in Edinburgh.[44] Dr. Donaldson takes it for granted that Bishop Gordon of Galloway automatically carried on as superintendent-bishop, but the General Assembly in June 1562 refused to accept him since he had never been properly nominated or elected. They did, however, add that they would assist him “if the Kirks of Galloway suit [request] and the Lords present”. And to make absolutely sure that he was the right man, they decided to send letters to Galloway “to learn whether they required any superintendent or not, and whom they required”.[45] This hardly reflects a proper episcopalian attitude to bishops.

An even less episcopalian attitude appears as one studies The Book of the Universal Kirk. Obviously the original Scots reformers had no interest in maintaining any sort of “succession”, as they did not believe in it. In practice, also, they manifested little inclination to treat superintendents as of a superior order, for the General Assembly had usually much to say in criticism of them, often, as it turned out, because they seem to have been aping the old bishops.[46] Consequently, it strikes one as hardly surprising that the General Assembly of 1566 should heartily affirm its agreement with the Second Helvetic Confession which denies any “superiorite of ministers above ministers” as “an human appointment”.[47] The General Assembly had taken care to reject the Confession’s “special days” and if it had desired to maintain different orders of ministers it would doubtless have said so.

As one looks back over the development which took place prior to 1567, one may perhaps suspect that the superintendents, aided and abetted by nobles such as the Earl of Morton, were tending to take on the hues of the old bishops. As Dr. Donaldson has stated, by that date they had moved rather far from the original plan of the Book of Discipline.[48] Yet they could not move too far lest a division between the Protestant aristocracy and the Protestant commons should give Queen Mary an opportunity to destroy both groups. The year 1567, which brought about Mary’s deposition, saw the triumph of the Reformed Church and the establishment under Moray’s leadership of a new government which gave its full support to the Reformed Church. At the same time, however, the immediate result seems to have been that the aristocracy now gained control, and their ambition was that the church should conform even more fully to the old episcopal pattern. Thus 1567 saw something of a change in the constitutional development of the church.[49]

The desire of some of the nobles for an episcopally organized church may be understood when one remembers that in the days before 1560, by means of the bishops, both provisions to lucrative benefices and grants from church revenues usually found their ways into the nobles’ hands. Moreover, many of the leading nobles probably felt that they, rather than a group of inexperienced ministers and elders, should control the church, the means for this being a politically appointed episcopacy. Some of those already occupying the office of superintendent might well approve such a plan, not merely because of a desire of power but in order that they might the better fulfill their functions. Added to this, Scotland had for centuries known only an episcopally governed church, so that the idea had become almost second-nature. Consequently, with the whole Protestant element in Scotland facing a continual threat from the Roman Catholic forces both at home and abroad, once the nobles gained control of the government, as they did under the regents, the principal opponents of the establishment of bishops would be only some ministers and their followers.

Yet, even then, some of those who accepted the superintendent bishop idea were far from favoring an Anglican episcopacy, as a letter of Erskine of Dun, Superintendent of Angus and Mearns, written November 10th, 1571, to the Regent indicates. He agreed that bishops and superintendents held the same office—a mistake, says Calderwood, which he acknowledged on the appearance of the second Book of Discipline—but he objected strenuously to the appointment of such officials by the civil authorities. Only those chosen by the church had a proper claim to the office. Parliament, therefore, could not properly create bishops, provide them to sees, or give them a vote in its deliberations.[50] Erskine’s letter must have represented much of the church’s thinking, for in January of the following year a convention of superintendents, ministers and commissioners from towns and churches met in Leith to negotiate with the representatives of the Secret Council concerning these matters. There they finally agreed that archbishops and bishops should continue, but should be elected by the ministers connected with their cathedrals, should have no more authority than that of the superintendents, and should be subject to the Kirk and General Assembly in all matters spiritual while also subject to the king in matters pertaining to their temporalities.[51] Although bishops in name, these men were still not truly bishops in any Anglican or Roman Catholic sense. It would seem rather that the church accepted a compromise position which it could not avoid. The Regent Morton needed, for the government, revenues which the church alone could supply, and at the same time he had to do something to indicate to Queen Elizabeth that he was bringing the Scottish Church into line with her establishment. Similarly the church needed the civil and financial support which this arrangement seemed to promise. Therefore, the alternative the church faced was “no bishop—no revenues”, and considering the poverty of most of the ministers this became the conclusive argument.[52]

What reaction did Knox have to the 1572 agreement? In attempting to answer this question one must remember that Knox, now an old man weak in body, had more than once declared that he would no longer bother himself with the things of this world. Consequently, when faced with the decision of the representatives of the church he would find it somewhat difficult to lead an opposition. Dr. Donaldson holds the view that Knox agreed wholeheartedly with the decision, opposing episcopacy only on matters of detail and because of the threat of abuse.[53] The matter would not seen to he quite that simple, however, for while we have one letter from Knox in which he seems to have acquiesced in the appointment of bishops, some of his contemporaries have indicated that he by no means concurred.

When, in February 1572, pursuant to the meeting at Leith, John Douglas, Rector of St. Andrews, was chosen through Morton’s influence to the position of archbishop, according to Richard Bannatyne, Knox’s servant, Knox opposed this action. Some have held, among them Dr. Donaldson, that Knox did so not on grounds of principle, but because he felt Douglas unsuitable, or because he, himself, was growing senile. The senility argument one could equally apply to his acceptance of bishops, so that the real point to decide is the reason for his opposition. Bannatyne states that he declared “the Kirke of Scotland suld not be subject to that ordore which then was used, considering the Lords of Scotland had subscryvit, and also confirmed in Parliament, the ordore alreadie and long ago appointed, in the Buike of Discipline”. Knox, according to this statement, believed episcopacy contrary to the church’s constitution of 1560. Furthermore, Bannatyne pointed out that while Knox preached at Douglas’ inauguration, he refused to take any other part in it, although only the form of service used for the inauguration of superintendents was employed and Douglas promised to exercise no more power than that given him by the Council or the General Assembly. It would thus seem that Knox’s support of the new arrangement was by no means enthusiastic, and in this he was supported by a good many of the ministers.[54] That Knox three or four months later acquiesced in the Leith agreement may indicate that he knew that he was drawing near the end and could do little about it, while, at the same time, he realized both the desperate financial plight of many of the ministers who would now receive aid, and also that Morton’s “tulchan bishops” still did not have truly episcopal powers in the English sense despite their possession of the former bishops’ ecclesiastical estates.

Did Knox then accept episcopacy as established by Elizabeth in England? Drs. Donaldson and Warr as well as some others contend that he did. Yet when one looks at Knox’s record prior to his return to Scotland in 1559, and at the provisions of the Book of Discipline of 1560, one cannot but doubt that he did. Throughout the period 1560–1572, and particularly during the last five years, the superintendents gradually acquired more and more authority, so that they began to approach the position of the old bishop. To this the General Assembly objected, apparently without effect, until finally the episcopacy once again appeared in the church, but even then it was an episcopacy shorn of much of its former power and authority. By this time Knox was past fighting the trend and although he raised his voice at St. Andrews against it, apparently feeling that the battle was beyond his strength, he gave in.

That this interpretation has much in its favour seems to receive confirmation in the office of the eldership. Dr. Donaldson, as stated above, endeavours to make little of it by saying that it simply represented an element of anticlericalism in the church.[55] This might be true if the Scots desired to create the threefold order of superintendent, minister and reader, parallel to the Anglican bishop, priest and deacon. But he seems to offer little evidence in support of this idea, especially since at no time did the Scottish reformers ever consider the superintendency or the ministry to be “an order”. Ministers simply did not possess that clerical character which clung to to the idea of a priest with his sacramental duties. Moreover, the reader, whom Dr. Donaldson makes into an Anglican deacon, received no form of ordination and while he might help with the services of public worship in a few of the larger churches, he had no ministerial responsibilities or authority such as preaching, dispensing of the sacraments or taking part in the church courts.[56]

The idea of the eldership undoubtedly came from Geneva where the English church under Knox, as pointed out above, had even such men as Miles Coverdale, an Edwardian bishop, filling that office.[57] From this fact one can hardly infer that the eldership had an anti-clerical character. Rather it arose out of the reformers’ insistence that all believers were priests, and that the Spirit of God worked through the “laity” as he does through the “clergy”. While men might not receive gifts of utterance as preachers, they could well take part in the government of the church and of the supervision of the members. This point of view Knox brought back to Scotland to incorporate in the Book of Discipline. In the consistory or session and also in “the weekly exercises” elders, therefore, took their place and helped, as well as keeping a sharp eye on, the minister. Indeed in some circumstances, with the approval of neighboring churches or the superintendent, they might even depose him. Moreover, they also participated in the General Assembly where they had the right to criticize the superintendents—a privilege hardly consonant with episcopalian theory.[58] Thus Knox’s use of the elders and the position which he gave them seem to indicate that he had no desire to set up an episcopalian form of church.

At this point one meets Dr. Donaldson’s contention that the “rise of the Presbyterian movement” was a reversal of the trend of the development of the Scottish church which down to 1573 was coming into line with the English pattern.[59] In one sense this would seem to be correct for the movement arose out of opposition to the tendency to wean the church away from the structure laid down in the Book of Discipline. Knox did not set forth on his return to Scotland a full-blown presbyterial system, for he had not seen one abroad which he could follow. But he did endeavour to establish the consistory with its “weekly exercise” as he knew it in Geneva, and in this he prepared the ground for the presbytery. As one studies the minutes of the ConfÉrence des Pasteurs de GenÈve, one cannot but quickly conclude that here, in all but name, the Genevan church had a presbytery, an institution which Knox knew only too well.[60] Thus as the superintendents extended their authority, increased their wealth and assumed more and more the old prerogatives of the episcopacy, the tendency among the Scottish clergy, as among the English Puritans a little later, would be to look to the weekly meetings for dealing with ecclesiastical matters without benefit of superintendent. The superintendent’s enlargement would thus lead directly to a demand for a presbyterial organization similar to that which had recently appeared in France. Episcopacy with all its abuses was appearing on the horizon and many of the Scots feared the consequences.[61]

The General Assembly also, according to Dr. Donaldson, had no proper place in the polity of the Scottish Reformed Church, but probably developed from the idea of the Great Council of the realm.[62] One might point out, however, that the Scottish church already had a tradition of national church assemblies, two of which had taken place in the 1550’s. But probably even more influential would be the meetings of the Lords of the Congregation prior to 1560. The General Assembly from its composition would seem to have been simply a continuation of this body, since it was in essence “the congregation of Jesus Christ” in Scotland. Added to this, the French church had held its first general assembly in 1559, providing another example for Knox and his followers. Consequently, one can hardly feel surprise that the General Assembly grey up quite naturally and wielded great authority even in the very early days of the Reformation. In fact, Knox maintained to Lethington that if freedom to assemble in this way disappeared, true Christianity would likewise fall by the wayside.[63] Of equal importance is the fact that Knox seems to have believed that the Assembly provided a sure defence against both the encroachments of the hostile Marian government and against internal deterioration. An attempt to rule it out of the picture as alien to the Scottish church can come only from the assumption that Knox and his followers were inconsistent and misled episcopalians. By “use and wont” it very quickly became a cornerstone of the church’s administration.

In the creation and organization of the new Scottish church Knox bore a large part. Because of the freedom which he and his followers enjoyed in 1560, they established a church according to their own plan without slavishly following any other; but that he envisaged an organization modeled on episcopalian lines seems very doubtful. He began with few examples to follow so that he may have indulged in some experimentation. Yet it would seem clear that he did not look for the establishment of an episcopal church, but in reality laid the foundation for Presbyterianism.

The second focal point at which Knox’s disagreement with the Church of England appears is that of discipline. During the last years of Edward VI’s reign John à Lasco in London had occasioned considerable discussion and conflict by setting up Reformed discipline in his congregation, an action to which Hooper and Ridley took exception. Supported by the king, however, à Lasco carried on, and in so doing encouraged Guillaume Poullain to issue for his congregation of Walloons in Gloucester a service book which followed Calvin’s work written in Strasbourg. To their insistence on discipline Knox gave his whole-hearted support, complaining to the authorities that the English minister had no authority to discipline his congregation.[64] Discipline was absolutely necessary for the proper governance of the church.

When the English refugee congregation in Frankfurt in 1554 sent out an appeal to the other English Protestants to join them, one of the points which they made was that they could now “execute Discipline truly”, and when the controversy arose over the Book of Common Prayer Knox took the stand that one of the reasons for the need for further reform of the Church of England lay in its lack of discipline.[65] This lack he endeavoured to remedy when he found it necessary to move to Geneva, for in The Form of Prayers and Ministry of the Sacraments (1556) of the Genevan congregation he made full provision even for excommunication. The ministers and elders had first the responsibility of disciplining each other and then of giving proper oversight to the flock, in order that vicious men might not be received as Christians, that Christians might be protected from their influence and that sinners might be brought to repentance. Excommunication, the ultimate in discipline, was a congregational matter for which all the church members gave their approval before it was inflicted.[66]

One finds it hardly strange, therefore, that Knox on his return to Scotland laid down the proper exercise of discipline as one of the three marks of the church in the Scots’ Confession and provided machinery for enforcing it.[67] Yet, as in Geneva, discipline did not possess a merely clerical character, but was the discipline of the whole church by both consistory and congregation. Such a point of view indicated direct conflict with the position of the Church of England whose discipline in both the reigns of Edward VI and of Elizabeth, to Knox’s way of thinking, left much to be desired. Moreover, what discipline it did exercise came from the hands of the crown or the bishops, without reference to the ministers or an eldership. The discipline of the English church also seems to have been directed more against non-conformity in such peripheral matters as vestments and the like than against more serious matters. This, Knox apparently felt, constituted one of the weakest aspects of the fabric of the English church.[68]

The third point upon which Knox differed from the English reformation was that of worship. When one reads the accounts of Knox’s views on worship as set forth by Donaldson, Warr, McMillan, Maxwell and others[69] one receives the impression that Knox really favoured the use of a prayer book, if not actually the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer itself. If the matter were as simple as this, one cannot but wonder why Knox and his confrÈres ever bothered to produce, either in Geneva or in Scotland, a service book which differed from that of the accepted English order. This question becomes particularly relevant when one remembers that the reformers in their own days did not unnecessarily draw lines which made sharp distinctions between Protestant groups, so that the Scots’ production of a service book of their own seems to indicate clearly that they felt unable to accept the English form of service.

This becomes very clear when one goes back to investigate Knox’s attitude to the Book of Common Prayer throughout the reign of Edward VI. During the period of the use of the first Edwardian prayer book, Knox was ministering to the congregation of Berwick, whose form of worship he determined without reference to the royal commands to conform. In fact this was one of the reasons for the Duke of Northumberland’s plan to have him removed from the north by providing him to the see of Rochester.[70] In the spring of 1553 the second book came forth, and Knox advised his congregation, from which he had been called to London, to conform, albeit on certain conditions. Since the magistrates were truly Christians and the times were difficult and dangerous they should submit for the sake of peace. They should, however, also make it perfectly clear that they did not like this new order, that they knelt at the communion only because the magistrates commanded them to do so, while at the same time praying that the Almighty would correct the authorities’ erroneous views, and that they protested against their being forced to participate with those who accepted transubstantiation. At the same time Knox asserted bluntly that his old way of conducting worship, and particularly of administering the Lord’s Supper, agreed much more with New Testament practice than did the official form of service.[71] This attitude hardly indicates, as Dr. Donaldson seems to suggest, a basic agreement with Cranmer’s new liturgy.[72]

Knox’s disagreement with the second Prayer Book came to a focus over the question of kneeling to receive the communion elements. Although Cranmer and most of his fellow bishops accepted Bullinger’s and Calvin’s point of view on the communion, they insisted on kneeling. Knox, on the other hand, had administered the communion in Berwick to his congregation seated. Although the second Prayer Book, already off the press, was ready for distribution, Knox made such an attack upon kneeling before the court that “The Black Rubric”, rejecting any idea of worship of the elements was added to clarify the doctrine.[73] In his objection Knox enjoyed the support not only of some of the foreign refugees, but also of Englishmen such as John Hooper.[74] And even after the explanatory statement had appeared, Knox did not accept the book with joy, as shown by his comments on it to his old Berwick congregation.[75]

When the government’s pressure on behalf of the second Prayer Book ceased with the accession of Mary and the flight of the Protestants to the Continent, one could see rather more clearly Knox’s attitude to Cranmer’s liturgy. During “the troubles at Frankfort”, it soon became clear that Knox did not wish to use the Anglican liturgy, since he believed it unscriptural and in some respects superstitious. His plea to the ministers of Geneva to have them persuade Calvin to write against it, indicates this quite clearly.[76] yet Knox never attempted to force upon the congregation a complete Genevan pattern of service for he agreed to a compromise on the matter, a compromise which would have continued until the end had not a group of convinced Anglicans under the leadership of Richard Coxe arrived and, because he would not accept the Book of Common Prayer, forced him and his supporters to leave.[77] Then, after they had rid themselves of what they considered a disloyal group, this Anglican body proceeded to treat the Book of Common Prayer in a very cavalier fashion, omitting whatever they did not consider correct.[78]

Meanwhile the more radical element had left and gone to Geneva. Yet at this point some writers such as Dr. Donaldson insist that in the new form of service which they drew up there, they really attempted to follow the Prayer Book. All one can ask in reply to this is: Why then did they leave Frankfurt? The truth seems to be as Martin has pointed out that they desired not a prayer book, nor a hard and fast liturgy to which they had to conform, but a directory of worship which they believed to be of a simple and biblical form.[79] Repeatedly the authors of The Form of Prayers rejected any compulsory, humanly devised ceremonies which a congregation must follow. Certain similarities to the English Book of Common Prayer may appear in that, in some matters, they had a common concept of public divine worship, but to try to link the early part of the service with the English ante-communion service and matins seems to require a considerable stretch of the imagination.[80] Any copying of the English service would appear to have been entirely unconscious, hardly indicating a change in heart on the part of the Genevan congregation.

When one turns from Geneva to Scotland one finds that Protestants had held services of worship for a good many years prior to the establishment in 1560 of the Reformed Church. In a good many cases these services in the so-called “privy kirks” are referred to as “common prayers”. Dr. McMillan without any adequate proof contends that this means that they used the Anglican prayer book.[81] Dr. Donaldson, on the other hand, while acknowledging that Knox advised these kirks in their services to use a form of service similar to that employed in Geneva, adds that this order of service must have circulated in manuscript only “for the Genevan service-book was published merely for the use of a very small congregation in a distant land”.[82] He concludes from this assumption that the second Edwardian liturgy was probably in common use. But if, as some have contended, the Genevan congregation hoped eventually to have their pattern of church worship adopted in the British Isles, surely the printing of their service book had as its objective its widespread use in both England and Scotland. Moreover, their ability to send other books across from the continent meant that the Form of Prayers could easily reach Scotland for use by the Protestants in that land.[83] But even more conclusively, as one reads Knox’s letters of counsel concerning “common prayers”, one finds it a little difficult to believe that, while in Geneva, he was advocating the use of the book because of which he had left Frankfurt. Even Kirkcaldy of Grange’s obviously political reference to the use of the Prayer Book in Scotland in 1559, does not suffice to change the impression that the term “common prayers” was simply a term synonymous with “public worship’, as outlined in the Genevan Form of Prayers.[84]

Both Drs. Donaldson and McMillan claim that the evidence for the use of the second Book of Common Prayer during the period 1557–60 is overwhelming. The vicar of Lintrahen’s reading of common prayers and homilies to his congregation, the reforming party’s program which included lessons from the Old and New Testaments in conformity with the “book of common prayers” although the Genevan book had no lectionary, the fact that many of the supporters of Knox had lived for some time in England are some of the reasons they adduce in support of their contention.[85] To this one may simply reply that undoubtedly some individuals employed the second Book of Common Prayer in their services and probably felt that both the lectionary and the homilies provided useful guides and helps, but this did not mean that they felt that they should employ the prayer book in the same manner as did the English church. It was a matter of freedom whether they used it or not.

In all of this, what was Knox’s attitude? Dr. Donaldson endeavours to solve the problem by saying that Knox and the English bishops agreed, but that Elizabeth forced on the bishops a policy more conservative than they desired. This he seems to feel proves that Knox favoured the prayer book, rather than the fact that even the English bishops opposed its use, but eventually submitted.[86] Dr. Donaldson’s argument at this point seems a little strange, particularly in the light of Knox’s direct statements condemning the Prayer Book of 1552. In his “Brief Exhortation to England” (1559) he said:

it is not nor wil not be, the chanting or mumbling over of certeyne Psalms, the reading of chapiters for Mattens and Even-song, or of Homelies onely, be they never so godly, that fede the soules of the hungrie shepe.[87]

Then in the following year, in two letters to Mrs. Anna Locke, one of April 6th and the other of October 15th, he stated his position very clearly. After asserting in the first letter that preaching holds a more important place than the sacraments, he further declares that “what lawes and common consent…hath established and commanded” come from “carnal wisdom and worldlie wisdom,” and “are mother to all mischiefe, and nourse most favourable to superstition”. To clarify matters even more, when Mrs. Locke asked him if she should attend service, he then replied, “we ought not to justifie with our presence such a mingle mangle as now is commaunded in your Kirkis”. As for the new communion service of 1559, he said that he had not seen it, indicating that his criticisms referred to the second Edwardian book.[88] What he would have said concerning the new book whose compromise with Roman Catholicism Elizabeth had made clear by the removal of the rubric on kneeling and other changes, one may well imagine. Dr. Donaldson’s dismissal of his remarks as those of “an irresponsible rebel embittered by Elizabeth’s attitude towards him”, hardly meets the case when one considers Knox’s previous consistent opposition to the prayer book.[89]

After the establishmcnt of Protestantism in Scotland the same attitude seemed to prevail not only in Knox’s mind but also in those of his supporters. Fundamentally they adhered to the position of Calvin, who in 1561 advised Knox that the reformers should purge the church of all defilements of error and superstition that “the mysteries of God be not polluted by absurd or unmeaning mixtures”, but that with this safeguard some things not necessarily approved might be tolerated.[90] That this meant accepting the liturgy of the Church of England Knox did not believe, for he and his cohorts held that even if Queen Mary became an Anglican this would be “little better than when it was at the warst”, and at the same time he “gave the Crosse and the Candle such a wype…”.[91]

Thus it would seem that despite a willingness to tolerate the use of the English homilies and other parts of the liturgy, he and his supporters by no means accepted the prayer book in its entirety.

What apparently also stuck in the Scots’ throats was the prayer book’s compulsory character. True the Book of Discipline instructed all readers to “read” the common prayers, but then they were only readers with relatively little training.[92] The book said nothing about such a requirement for the ministers. Moreover, while the Assembly prescribed the Genevan book for the celebration of the sacraments and the solemnization of marriage and burial in 1562, it did not lay down any rule concerning regular services until 1564. When it did require its use, plenty of latitude still remained within the Genevan order and the authorities made no attempt to prevent the use of the prayer book if a minister desired.[93] One seems to find little evidence, however, for the general possession of the prayer book by the congregations, so that responses and the like could hardly have been used. This desire for freedom and liberty found expression in Knox’s letter on behalf of the Scottish church to the English bishops asking for charity and tolerance to those who did not wish to wear the vestments prescribed in the prayer book.[94] In such matters as this Knox and the other Scottish reformers proved much more easy on tender consciences than did their English confrÈres.

Yet despite his dislike of the Book of Common Prayer, Knox would have conformed if he were living in England, or at least so Dr. Donaldson concludes. As his evidence for this he refers to the letter which Knox wrote to some early Puritans who had left the Church of England because of the “rags of popery” still remaining. In this communication Knox apparently advised these people to conform, in the hope that Bishop Grindal and others who basically agreed with him would bring about a further reform of the church.[95] Similarly he had earlier advised his Berwick congregation to use the second Prayer Book for the sake of peace but at the same time under protest. In 1552 he had looked for further reform under a “godly magistrate”, and he still had hopes, but whether he would have submitted to the sceptical Elizabeth as a “godly magistrate” is a question that Knox, himself, probably could not have answered.

Thus despite the effort to prove that Knox’s concept of public worship differed in only a few respects, such as the use of vestments, from the Anglican pattern, the evidence in truth does not seem to bear this out. Despite all the shifts of the advocates of this position, the Scottish Book of Common Order differed radically from the Book of Common Prayer. Its stress lay upon a Reformed concept of the authority of the Bible over public worship, the need for simplicity, and the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit. And this interpretation of it receives strong support from the history of Knox’s consistent, almost actively hostile, attitude towards the prayer book.

What then was Knox’s attitude to the English Reformation? It would seem that while he rejoiced in what took place in England during the reign of Edward VI, he felt that the reforms instituted did not go far enough. The English tended to hold on to the pattern of the old church’s government and worship, or at times attempted to avoid taking any strong and clear-cut stand. Consequently, when he had within his power the establishment of a Reformed Church in Scotland, he endeavoured to apply the principles which he believed originated in New Testament teaching. He recognized that churches might vary from place to place and from time to time, but he felt that the Reformation should go much farther than it had in England in government, discipline and worship.

Knox’s views, however, did not always receive the whole-hearted support of his own countrymen and adherents. A good many who had spent some time in England may well have harbored an admiration for the English church with its bishops, its all-inclusiveness and its liturgy. Moreover, elements at home, such as the nobles, no doubt looked back with some nostalgia to the time when they more or less controlled areas of the church for their own profit. Consequently, they might well favor the re-establishment, in the persons of the new superintendents, of bishops, but new bishops without quite so much spiritual power.

As Knox grew older he no doubt found it increasingly difficult to prevent changes in the church with the result that his position at times seems to have been somewhat ambiguous. Others, however, younger and perhaps more self-conscious, saw matters clearly and were prepared to do battle, particularly as they could discern under the regents an attempt to re-establish an episcopacy which the crown could dominate. The result was the rise of a presbyterian party, which following the principles laid down in the first Book of Discipline, developed them according to what they believed to be their needs, and so produced a thoroughly self-conscious presbyterian system. In this way they carried through to their logical application the principles which Knox had set forth earlier in his criticisms of the English Reformation.

Notes

1. P. Lorimer, John Knox and the Church of England, London, 1875, chap. I, pp. 160ff.
2. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1547–80, R. Lemon, ed., London, 1856, p. 142.
3. A. F. Pollard’s review of Lang’s book in The English Historical Review, 1906, XXI, 163f.
4. C. L. Warr, The Presbyterian Tradition, London, 1933, pp. 279ff, 286ff, 297ff.
5. Dr. Donaldson’s principal writings on this topic are: “The Example of Denmark in the Scottish Reformation”, The Scottish Historical Review, 1948, XXVII, 57ff; The Making of the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, Edinburgh, 1954, chap. I; The Scottish Reformation, Cambridge, 1960.
6. Lorimer, op. cit., p. 128; cf. also P. E. Hughes, “The Inspiration of Scripture in the English Reformers illuminated by John Calvin,” Westminster Theological Journal, XXIII (1961), 129ff.
7. M. M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, Chicago, 1939, p. 78.
8. Lorimer, op. cit., p. 14; John Foxe, Acts and Monuments of the Christian Martyrs, J. Pratt, ed., 4th ed., London, VI, 636.
9. Ibid., pp. 45ff, deals with this in great detail.
10. P. E. Hughes, loc. cit.; Knappen, op. cit., p. 148.
11. Lorimer, op. cit., p. 5; P. H. Brown, The Life of John Knox, Edinburgh, 1893, II, 113ff.
12. Works of John Knox, D. Laing, ed., Wodrow Society, Edinburgh, 1855, IV, 232, 261ff.
13. Lorimer, op. cit., pp. 108ff.
14. Ibid., pp. 159, 263.
15. The Anglican misgivings concerning the course of the Scottish Reformation find expression not only in Archbishop Parker’s doubts, but also in Kirkcaldy of Grange’s letter to Sir Henry Percy (July 1, 1559) in which he assures Percy that the Protestants are acting quite legally concerning church property and are only seeking reform of religion as is indicated by their use of the second Edwardian prayer book. One cannot but feel in this context that Kirkcaldy made reference to the Book of Common Prayer in order to placate the English and especially Elizabeth (Knox, Works, V1, 33f).
16. Cf. Knappen, op. cit., pp. 78, 127.
17. D. Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, T. Thomson, ed., Wodrow Society, Edinburgh, 1842, II, 331f.
18. Knox, op. cit., VI, 119.
19. J. Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, W. C. Dickinson, ed., Edinburgh, 1949, II, 3.
20. Scot. Ref., chaps. V and VII.
21. Knox, op. cit., I, 16ff.
22. Works, VI, 11.
23. Scot. Prayer Bk., p. 17.
24. Cf. Warr’s view on this, op. cit., p. 292.
25. History, II, 82ff.
26. Ibid., II, 286ff.
27. Cf. Erskine of Dun’s protest to the regent in November 1571 against the civil government’s interference with ecclesiastical appointments. Calderwood, op. cit., III, 156.
28. Scot. Ref., p. 117.
29. Knox, History, II, 286.
30. Ibid., II, 287.
31. Cf. Donaldson, Scot. Ref., pp. 83f.
32. “Example of Denmark”, Scot. Hist. Rev., XXVII, 57ff.
33. Scot. Ref., pp. 110ff.
34. Lorimer, op. cit., pp. 149ff.
35. Fore, op. cit., VI, 642; Knox, Works, IV, 33.
36. C. Martin, Les Protestants Anglaises RefugiÉs à GenÈve au temps de Calvin, 1555–1560, GenÈve, 1915, pp. 98, 335. Cf. also, Donaldson, Scot. Ref., pp. 104ff. Of course a good many writers on Presbyterian polity would hold that in so doing he filled an episcopal office, but this would hardly fit in with an episcopal view. Cf. Warr, op. cit., pp. 286ff.
37. Donaldson, op. cit., p. 116; Knox, History, II, 292ff. A parallel situation developed in 1925 when the Presbyterian Church in Canada divided on the issue of union with the Methodist and Congregationalist Churches. The congregations remaining in the Presbyterian Church in Canada suffered from a crippling shortage of ministers, and at that time the need, as in 1560 in Scotland, was for men to fulfill the function of superintendents. Those appointed performed much the same duties as those earlier in Scotland, but as the church has grown stronger, the need for them has decreased, and in some areas the office has fallen into abeyance.
38. Ibid., II, 294. This provision referring to the ministers of the chief town would seem to cast doubt upon the interpretation of Dr. Donaldson that, when the minister of the chief town admitted a minister to a charge, he did so as the superintendent’s deputy.
39. Ibid., II, 291ff. The phrase “When, therefore, after three years any Superintendent shall depart or chance to be deposed…” (itals. ours) seems to indicate that Knox and his co-authors contemplated this as the normal term of office. In support of this interpretation one finds that superintendents frequently ask to be relieved of their duties, one even stating that he “had undertaken [them] onlie for a time” (Book of the Universal Kirk, Maitland Club, Edinburgh, 1839, I, 39).
40. Knox, op. cit., II, 292. While some of the bishoprics remained intact as convenient administrative areas, others of the old bishoprics such as St. Andrews and Glasgow were dismembered, while again others such as Elgin and Galloway disappeared altogether. The archbishoprics the reformers ignored completely.
41. Ibid., II, 284.
42. Ibid., II, 286.
43. Scot. Ref., p. 59.
44. Calendar of Scottish Papers, J. Bain, ed., Edinburgh, 1898, I, 523.
45. Bk. of Univ. Kirk, I, 15.
46. Donaldson, op. cit., pp. 124ff; Bk. of Univ. Kirk, I, 25, 39, 53, 77.
47. Calderwood, op. cit., II, 331.
48. Op. cit., p. 152.
49. Cf. ibid., p. 158.
50. Calderwood, op. cit., III, 160.
51. Ibid., III, 168ff.
52. Cf. Brown, op. cit., II, 270.
53. Op. cit., p. 170.
54. Knox, Works, VI, 625; Calderwood, op. cit., III, 206.
55. Op, cit., pp. 84ff.
56. Knox, History, II, 287f.
57. Martin, op. cit., pp. 98, 335.
58. Knox, Works, IV, 176ff; History, II, 293, 310ff. Cf. also Caldcrwood, op. cit., II, 183ff.
59. Op. cit., pp. 183ff.
60. ConfÉrence des Pasteurs, Papiers, 1–3, Ms. BibliothÈque Publique et Universitaire de GenÈve. Microfilm, Redpath Library, McGill University, Montreal.
61. Calderwood, op. cit., II, 393f, 424, 490, 535; Knox, History, II, 315. Cf. Donaldson’s description of the superintendents’ development (op. cit., chap. V).
62. He devotes the whole of chapter VI to this topic.
63. Knox, History, II, 26.
64. Knappen, op. cit., pp. 90ff; Lorimer, op. cit., pp. 171ff, 174ff.
65. Works, IV, 19, 33.
66. Ibid., IV, 174, 203, 205; Martin, op. cit., pp. 98ff.
67. Scots Confession, cap. XVIII; Book of Discipline, seventh head; Knox, History, II.
68. Ibid., II, 199ff.
69. Wm. McMillan, The Worship of the Scottish Reformed Church, 1550–1638, London, 1931; W. D. Maxwell, John Knox’s Genevan Service Book, London, 1931.
70. Lorimer, op. cit., pp. 29, 77.
71. Ibid., pp. 156ff, 259ff; “In ceremonies and rites which I used in ministratioun of Christe’s sacraments, as I did observe the preceptes and practice of Christ and his apostilles so nye as the Holye Gost did oppin unto me, so this day do I nothing repent of my interprise and of your obedience; beseeching God….that what the impyre of Godd’s most sacrate words did worke in your harts…. be not now hindred and pulled aback againe by rigour of a law” (p. 259).
72. Scot. P. Bk., p. 10.
73. Lorimer, op. cit., pp. 100ff.
74. Ibid., pp. 30ff; Knappen, op. cit., pp. 96f; Original Letters Relating to the English Reformation, M. Robinson, ed., Parker Society, Cambridge, 1847, II, no. 273.
75. Lorimer, op. cit., p. 174.
76. Knox, Works, IV, 26ff; Brown, op. cit., pp. 174ff; Knappen, op. cit., p. 124.
77. Knox, op. cit., IV, 30ff.
78. Donaldson, op. cit., pp. 3ff; Knappen, op. cit., p. 148.
79. Martin, op. cit., pp. 87ff, 100f; cf. also the Preface to The Form of Prayers, Knox, Works, IV, 160ff.
80. Donaldson, Scot. Ref., p. 83; Scot. P. Bk., pp. 144ff.
81. Op. cit., pp. 22ff.
82. Ibid., p. 6.
83. Knappen, op. cit., pp. 9, 136f; A Compendious Book of Godly and Spiritual Songs, A. F. Mitchell, ed., Edinburgh, 1597, pp. xxv f; J. Gau, The Right Way to the Kingdom of Heaven, A. F. Mitchell, ed., Edinburgh, 1888, pp. xxi f.
84. Knox, Works, IV, 192f; VI, 33. As P. H. Brown (op. cit., I, 203) points out, the Genevan congregation was made up of the most strenuous nonconformists who rejected the Elizabethan settlement, and of whom Knox and Goodman were the mouthpieces. Cf. Thos. McCrie’s discussion of this in his Life of John Knox.
85. Donaldson, Scot. P. Bk., pp. 4ff, 17; McMillan, op. cit., pp. 22ff.
86. Donaldson, op. cit., pp. 8f; Scot. Ref., pp. 179f.
87. Works, V, 519.
88. Ibid., VI, 11f, 85f.
89. Scot. P. Bk., p. 9.
90. Knox, Works, VI, 123f.
91. Ibid., VI, 137f.
92. Dr. Donaldson (op. cit., p. 14) seems to feel that the instructions to the “readers” imply that the Book of Common Order was regarded as a prayer book for all, but the statement that the readers were to use it “till they grow to greater perfection”, would seem to indicate that this close adherence to the book applied to readers only (Knox, History, II, 287). Dr. Donaldson’s attempt to prove that “reading of prayers” was the usual practice in all services from a passing remark of the Privy Council’s reference to the fact that the ordinances of religion had in some places fallen into neglect because of the disrepair of church buildings seems a little strange (Register of the Privy Council of Scotland, 1545-69, J. H. Burton, ed., Edinburgh, 1877, ser. I, I). Contrary to Dr. Donaldson’s view, the document quoted gives no indication that the statement was in any way intended to be a formal definition of public worship, and even if it were, one cannot but doubt whether Knox and his confrÈres would have accepted the definition drawn up by the civil government.
93. McMillan, op. cit., pp. 42f; Donaldson, op. cit., p. 21; Calderwood, op. cit., II, 209, 284.
94. Knox, op. cit., II, 199f.
95. Lorimer, op. cit., pp. 298ff; Donaldson, op. cit., p. 11.