A DEFENSE OF THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF RESISTANCE TO WICKED
  AND TYRANNICAL CIVIL MAGISTRATES

  JOHN KNOX

An attack on John Knox by the queen's councilors on June 5, 1564,
in front of the National Assembly of Scotland.

Argument 1: We should be grateful to God for the queen and the
liberty she gave in religion (although she did not share it).
Also, how important it was that there should be no division in the
opinion of the queen's goodness by anyone, especially the
ministers.  To Knox specifically, that he should moderate his
praying and doctrine because others might abuse their liberty and
go even farther.

Knox: If God's people should rejoice when idolatry is maintained,
his servants despised, and wicked men placed in positions of
authority (present), and if God is to be praised when vice and
impiety overflow the nation, then God should be praised.  But if
these things offend God so that He strike realms and nations then
the godly in Scotland should mourn and prevent God's judgments,
especially that He not strike in His hot indignation at those who
think they offend not.

Argument 2: On that point we do not agree; how can you prove that
God ever struck or plagued a nation or people for the iniquity of
their prince, even if they were godly?

Knox: I wanted to wait to answer this, but I will now.  The
scripture of God teaches me that Jerusalem and Judah were punished
for the sin of Manasseh; and if you say that the people were
punished for their own sin, and not that of their own king, I
answer that the Holy Spirit expressly uses the words 'for the sin
of Manasseh' yet I certainly will not absolve the people, but say
that all of the people sinned and caused the plagues.  We will not
agree on what that sin is.  I do not doubt that the great multitude
followed him in his abominations.  Idolatry and false religion will
always please the vast majority of people.  But it would be wrong
to say that all were involved in this external idolatry, since a
reformation under Hezekiah had taken place just before this time.
But the text still says 'Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem to err.'  It is true; some followed willingly, others
were influenced by his authority, allowed him to defile Jerusalem,
the temple, and put abominations there; they were all guilty, some
by act and deed, the others by permission and inaction, even as
this day all Scotland is guilty of the queen's idolatry, you, my
lords, above all the rest.

Argument 3: Well, that is our chief disagreement. What will you say
about your influencing the people about the queen's authority and
the manner of prayer which you use?

 Knox: My lord, all know how I have earnestly moved the people and
my own self, both publicly and privately, to pray for her
conversion.  Also I have shown the people the dangerous estate in
which she stands, as well as the whole realm, due to her indurate
blindness, etc.

Argument 4: That is where we find the greatest fault.  Your
extremity against the mass passes measure.  You call her a slave to
Satan, you say that the vengeance of God hangs over the realm
because of her impiety, and why else would you do this except to
stir the people up against her majesty?

Knox: If the words of preachers will always be twisted then it will
be impossible to say anything which will please you.  The most
vehement prayer of mine that I use in public is this 'Lord, if thy
pleasure be, purge the heart of the queen's majesty from the venom
of idolatry, and deliver her from the bondage and thraldom of
Satan, in which she has been brought up and remains because of her
lack of true doctrine.  Also, let her see by the Holy Spirit that
there is no means to please you but through Jesus Christ and that
Jesus cannot be found but in your holy word and also cannot be
received but as it prescribes.  That she would renounce her
preconceived notions and worship you as you command.  That doing so
she would avoid eternal damnation which abides all the obstinate
and impenitent.  And that this poor realm would escape that plague
and vengeance which inevitably follows idolatry.  Now this is my
common prayer.  What in it is worthy of reprehension?

Argument 5: There are three things I never liked about this.  The
first is you pray for the queen's majesty with the condition saying
'illuminate her heart, if thy good pleasure be.'  It seems you
doubt her conversion.  Where do you find a form for this prayer?

Knox: Wherever the examples are I am assured of this rule 'if we
ask anything according to his will, He shall hear us;' and our
master, Christ Jesus, commanded us to pray unto our Father, 'Thy
will be done.'

Argument 6: But where do you find any of the prophets praying like
this?

Knox: It is enough that the master and teacher of both prophets and
apostles has taught me to pray this way.

Argument 7: But in doing this you make the people doubt her
salvation.

Knox: Not me, but her own rebellion causes more people than myself
to doubt her salvation.

Argument 8: How is she in rebellion against God?

 Knox: In all her actions, but especially in two ways. She will not
hear the preaching of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and that
she maintains that idol, the mass.

Argument 8: She does not believe that to be rebellion, but good
religion.

Knox: So did they which offered their children to Moloch, but the
Spirit of God affirms that they offered them to devils and not unto
God.  Also, today the turks think to have a better religion than
the papists have.  I don't think you will excuse either of them
from committing rebellion against God, unless you think God is
partial.

Argument 9: Why then do you not pray for her without causing doubt?

Knox: I have learned to pray in faith.  Faith depends on the words
of God, and so it is that the word teaches me that prayers benefit
the sons and daughters of God's election, if she is one I have just
cause to doubt.  That is why I pray God 'illuminate her heart, if
thy good pleasure be.'

Argument 10: But you haven't produced an example of anyone who
prayed this way yet!

Knox: This I've already answered.  But to develop the argument I
have a question, which is this: Do you think the apostles prayed
themselves as they commanded others to pray?

Argument 11: (all answering) who doubts that?

Knox: I know that Peter said these words to Simon Magus, 'Repent
therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray to God, that if it be
possible the thought of your heart may be forgiven thee'.  Clearly,
Peter joins a condition to the commandment, that Simon should
repent and pray, that it might be possible that his sin might be
forgiven.  Peter knew that some sins are unto the death.  And so
without all hope of repentance or remission.  And don't you think
that I can doubt the queen's salvation the same way?

Argument 12: I don't want to hear you or anyone else call that into
doubt.

Knox: What you want does not assure my conscience.  If I may speak
freely, you yourself might doubt her salvation.  More evident signs
of rebellion have appeared, and still do in her, than Peter outward
could have seen in Simon Magus.  Even though he had been a
sorcerer, he joined with the apostles, believed, and was baptized.
Even though the venom of avarice remained in his heart, when he
thought he could buy the Holy Ghost, when he heard the fearful
threatenings of God pronounced against him he trembled, asked the
apostles to pray for him, and humbled himself as much as man could
judge, like a true believer.  Yet Peter doubts his conversion.
Why, then, shouldn't all the godly doubt the conversion of a queen
who has used idolatry, which is no less odious in the sight of God,
and still does, and despite all threatenings refuses all godly
admonitions?

Argument 13: Why do you say she refuses instruction?  She will
gladly hear any man.

Knox: But what happens to all that is preached to her?  She doesn't
obey any of it!  Also, when shall she attend the public preaching?

Argument 14: I think never, so long as she is treated this way.

Knox: In the same way I will keep praying that His good will be
done, either in making her comfortable to his church or, if He has
appointed her to be a scourge to the same, that we may have
patience, and that she may be bridled.

Argument 15: Well, let's go to the second argument.  Where do you
find that the scripture calls anyone the bound slave of Satan, or
that the prophets speak so irreverently of kings and princes?

Knox: The scripture says that 'by nature we are all sons of wrath.'
Our master, Christ Jesus, agrees 'that such as do sin are servants
to sin.'  And that only the Son of God that sets men at freedom.
Now the difference between the sons of wrath and the servants of
sin, and the slaves to the devil I do not understand unless I be
taught; if this term seems to sharp for you and you be offended, I
didn't make up the term, but have learned it from the scriptures.
For these words I find spoken to Paul 'Behold, I send thee to the
gentiles, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to
light, and from the power of Satan unto God.'  Mark these words and
do not disagree with the words of the Holy Ghost.  The same apostle
writing to Timothy says 'Instruct with meekness those that are
contrary minded, that if God at any time will give them repentance,
that they may know the truth, and that they may come to amendment,
out of the snare of the devil, which are taken of him at his will.'
If you understand these sentences correctly, you will find not only
my words to be the words of the Holy Ghost, but also the conditions
which I am speaking have the assurance of the scriptures.

Argument 16: But they did not speak to kings specifically.  Your
continual cry is 'the queen's idolatry, the queen's mass, will
provoke God's vengeance'.

Knox: In the former sentences I did not hear kings and queens
excepted.  All the unfaithful are in one rank and in bondage to one
tyrant, the devil.  But you have little regard for the people, that
you would flatter the rulers and not reveal the true danger to the
poor people.

Argument 17: Where will you find that any of the prophets treated
kings, queens, rulers, or magistrates in this way?

 Knox: In more than one place.  Ahab was a king and Jezebel a queen,
and I don't think that you are ignorant of what Elijah told them?

Argument 18: But that was not said publicly to make them odious to
the people!

Knox: That Elijah said 'Dogs shall lick the blood of Ahab and eat
the flesh of Jezebel' the scriptures assure me.  But I don't read
that it was whispered in their ear or in a corner.  But the
contrary appears to me, that the people and the court understood
well enough what was said; for Jehu witnessed after that God's
vengeance had stricken Jezebel.

Argument 19: These were singular movements of God and have nothing
to do with the present age.

Knox: Then I am deceived by the scriptures, for Paul teaches me
that 'whatsoever is written within the Holy Scriptures, the same is
for our instruction' and my master said 'every learned and wise
scribe brings forth his treasure, both things old and things new.'
Jeremiah affirms that 'every realm and every city that likewise
offends as then did Jerusalem, should likewise be punished.'  Why
the facts of the prophets and the fearful judgements of God
executed before on the disobedient do not apply to this age I do
not understand.  But now to end this argument: My lord, the
prophets rebuked wicked kings both publicly and privately.  Elisha
wasn't afraid to say to King Jehoram 'what have I to do with thee?
Get thou to the prophets of thy father, and the prophets of thy
mother; for as the lord of hosts lives, in whose sight I stand, if
it were not that I regard the presence of Jehosaphat, the king of
Judah, I would not have looked toward thee, nor seen thee.'  It is
plain that the prophet was a common citizen, and yet we hear how
little reverence he gives to the king.  Jeremiah was commanded to
cry to the king and queen 'Behave yourselves lowly; execute justice
and judgement; or else your carcasses shall be cast to the heat of
the day, and unto the frost of the night'.  To Coniah, Shallum, and
Zedekiah he speaks to their conditions in his public sermons.  Why
do you think it strange that God's servants mark the vices of their
rulers, as well as others, and especially since their sins are more
damaging to the commonwealth than the sins of others.

Argument 20: I am tired of this.  Someone else argue the most
important point.

Knox: Brother, I know that you are a man of learning and modesty.
I hope that you are arguing from conscience as I am.  I don't want
it to look like we are two scholars of Pythagoras arguing over some
theory.  I am arguing today over conscience and I will no more
argue falsely than I would teach false doctrine publicly.  If you
are genuinely opposing me, fine.  But if you really believe as I do
but are play-acting, there will be great inconvenience.

Argument 21: I cannot oppose your doctrine because you know that I
have affirmed it myself.

Argument 22: You two are working together!  I remember when you
spoke before the queen.

Knox: Then let it not be said that we disagree in principal
doctrine.  (He was craftier than they were).

Argument 23: I am better prepared to argue this point than the
others.  Yesterday we heard you preach on Romans 13; we heard the
mind of the Apostle well opened; we heard the causes why God has
established powers upon the earth; we heard why it is necessary
that mankind have the same; we heard the duty of magistrates
declared sufficiently.  But there are two points at which I and the
Lords were offended.  The first, that you made difference between
the ordinance of God and the persons placed in authority.  You also
affirmed that men might disobey the persons and not offend against
God's ordinance.  This is the one; the other you had no time to
explain.  But I think you meant that subjects were not bound to
obey their princes if they commanded unlawful things, and that they
might resist them lawfully without fear.

Knox: You are right, that is exactly what I have long taught and
still do.

Argument 24: How can you approve your difference when the Apostle
says 'He that resists the power resists the ordinance of God'.

Knox: The words of the Apostle and the deeds of many approved of
God prove my point.  First, the Apostle says that the powers are
ordained of God for the preservation of quiet and peaceable men,
and for the punishment of malefactors, which makes it plain that
the ordinance of God and the power given to man are one thing, and
the person clad with that authority and power is another thing.
For God's ordinance is for the conservation of mankind, punishment
of vice, and maintaining of virtue.  These purposes are holy, just,
stable, and perpetual.  But the men clad with that authority are
commonly profane and unjust.  Indeed they are mutable and
transitory, subject to corruption, as God threatened them by David,
saying 'I have said ye are gods, and every one of you the sons of
the most highest; but ye shall die as men, and the princes shall
fall like others.'  Here I am assured that the body and soul of
wicked princes are threatened with death.  And now my lord it is
evident that the prince may be resisted and yet the ordinance of
God be not violated is evident.  For the people resisted Saul, when
he had sworn by the living God that Jonathan should die.  The
people swore in the contrary, and delivered Jonathan so that he was
not hurt.  Now Saul was the king, they were his subjects, yet they
so resisted him as to make him as one of them.

Argument 25: I doubt if in so doing the people did well.

Knox: The spirit of God does not condemn them, but praises them,
and damns the king, as much for his foolish vow as for his law made
without God as well as his cruel mind.  The same Saul commanded
Abimelech and the priests to be slain because they helped David.
His guard and servants would not obey him, but Doeg the flatterer
killed them.  I ask you, did the servants of the king, in not
obeying, resist God or not?  Did Doeg, in his murder, give
obedience to a just authority?  The Spirit of God says in the fifty
second Psalm that Doeg and Saul are both guilty of murder and
should be punished.  Therefore I conclude that they who disobeyed
him did not resist God.  Now my lord, I will answer the apostle who
affirms 'that such as resist the power resist the ordinance of
God'.  I say that the power is not the unjust commandments of men,
but the just power with which God has armed his magistrates to
punish sin and reward virtue.  If anyone should rescue an adulterer
or murderer, or other lawbreaker, who deserved death according to
God's law, from the magistrate, they would be resisting God's
ordinance, and deserved vengeance and damnation, because he stayed
God's sword of justice.  It is not so with those who in the fear of
God oppose the fury and blind rage of princes; they oppose not God
but the devil, who abuses the sword and authority of God.

Argument 26: I understand enough of what you mean and will not
oppose it myself.  But of one part I doubt; if the queen commanded
me to kill you I would not obey her.  But if she asked others to do
it or used the means of justice to do it, then I don't know if I
would defend you against them or not.

Knox: I don't want those listening to think that I am looking out
for myself, but if you are persuaded of my innocence and God had
given you the means to rescue me and you didn't, you would be
guilty of my blood and a criminal.

Argument 27: Prove this and you will win the argument!

Knox: Well, remember what you said and I will be short. The prophet
Jeremiah was taken by both the priests, prophets, and multitude of
the people.  He was sentenced like this: 'Thou shalt die the death,
for thou hast said 'this house shall be like Shiloh, and this city
shall be desolate without an inhabitant.''  There was an uproar and
Jeremiah was accused like this: 'This man is worthy to die, for he
has prophesied against this city, as your ears have heard.'
Jeremiah answered 'that whatsoever he had spoken proceeded from
God; and therefore (said he), as for me, I am in your hands: Do
with me as you think good and right; but know ye for certain, that
if you put me to death, ye shall surely bring innocent blood upon
your souls, and upon this city, and upon the habitations thereof.
For of truth, the Lord has sent me unto you, to speak all these
words.'  If the princes and people were held guilty of the
prophet's blood, how can you and others be innocent before God if
you will allow innocent blood to be shed, when you might save it?

Argument 28: The cases are not the same.

Knox: Show me how they are different.

 Argument 29: First, the king had not condemned him to death,
secondly, the false prophets, priests, and people accused him
without a cause.  Therefore they had to be guilty of his blood.

Knox: Neither of these fights my argument.  Although the king was
not there, his councilors were, and they represented his person and
authority.  Hearing the accusations against Jeremiah.  Therefore he
forewarns them of the danger, as I said, that the king, the
council, and all the people of Jerusalem were guilty of his blood.
If you think they were all criminal, you are wrong.  The text says
that some of the princes and people defended him.  Yet he boldly
says that they should all be guilty.  The prophet Ezekiel gives the
reason why 'because I sought one man amongst them that should stand
in the gap before me in the land, that I should not destroy it, but
I found none; therefore have I poured out my indignation upon
them.'  Here we see that God not only desires that a man do no
iniquity in his own person but that he oppose all iniquity, so far
as he is able.

Argument 30: So then, you will make subjects control their rulers?

Knox: And what harm would the commonwealth suffer if the corrupt
affections of ignorant rulers were moderated and bridled by the
wisdom and discretion of godly subjects that they should do wrong
nor violence to any man?

Argument 31: All this reasoning is as if the queen should become
such an enemy to our religion as to persecute it, and put innocent
men to death; which I am assured she has never thought, nor will
ever do.  If she would try such a thing I would be as forward as
you.  But that is not happening now.  The real question is, whether
we may and ought to suppress the queen's mass?  Or whether her
idolatry shall be laid to our charge?

Knox: What you may do by force I dispute not.  But what you may and
ought to do by God's express commandment, that I can tell.
Idolatry not only should be suppressed, but the idolater ought to
die the death, unless we will accuse God.

Argument 32: I know that the idolater is commanded to die the
death, but by whom?

Knox: By the people of God, for the commandment was given to
Israel, as you may read 'Hear Israel' says the Lord, the statutes
and the ordinances of the Lord thy God,' etc.. Yea, a commandment
was given, that if it be heard that idolatry was committed in a
city that it must be found out.  Then if it is true the whole body
of the people shall arise and destroy that city, sparing neither
man, woman, or child.

Argument 33: But no such commandment is given to the people to
punish their king if he be an idolater.

 Knox: I find no more privilege granted to kings by God more than
the people to offend God's majesty.

Argument 34: We agree on that, but the people may not be judges of
the king, even if he is an idolater.

Knox: God is the universal judge, king as well as people.  What is
to be punished in one is not to be absolved in the other.

Argument 35: We agree.  But the people may not execute God's
judgement, but must leave it to Himself, who will punish by death,
war, imprisonment, or some type of plague.

Knox: The last part of your reason is true.  But your first
argument that the people, even part of the people, may not execute
God's judgements against the king, comes from your own imagination
as well as those afraid to offend princes.

Argument 36: Why do you say that?  I have judgements of godly men
within Europe, even men that you will acknowledge to be godly.  And
with that he called a man to read with great gravity the judgements
of Luther, Melancthon, Bucer, Musculus, and Calvin.  Even the book
of Baruch was read to show how Christians should act under
persecution.

Knox: What a pity.  Your argument may suffer because of your
opinions, but mine will not be damaged.  Your first two witnesses
speak against the anabaptists, who say that Christians should not
be subject to magistrates, and that it is not lawful for a
Christian to be a magistrate.  These opinions I hate as much as you
and every man living does.  The others speak to Christians subject
to tyrants and infidels who are so dispersed and with so little
force that all they can do is sob to God for deliverance.  That
these should do more I cannot quickly say.  My argument is
different.  If God has gathered sufficient people together and
given them force not only to resist, but to suppress all kinds of
open idolatry, they are bound to keep their land clean and
unpolluted.  And if this seems strange to you, understand that God
required one thing of Abraham and his seed when they were strangers
and pilgrims in Egypt and Canaan, and another thing when they were
delivered from the bondage of Egypt, to possess Canaan.  They were
not commanded to destroy the idols of Canaan and Egypt.  But when
they gained possession of the land God gave this solemn
commandment: 'Beware that you make league or confederacy with the
inhabitants of this land; give not thy sons unto their daughters,
nor yet give thy daughters unto their sons.  But this shall ye do
unto them, cut down their groves, destroy their images, break down
their altars, and leave thou no kind of remembrance of those
abominations which the inhabitants of the land used before: For
thou art an holy people unto the lord thy God. Defile not thyself,
therefore, with their Gods.'  All of you in this realm are bound to
the same commandment.  For you have experienced no smaller miracle
than that of the seed of Abraham.  You were in bondage to a strange
nation.  Our poor brethren were given to the flames as a testimony
to the truth.  When there were only a few, it would be foolish to
talk of suppressing idolatry; it would only have exposed the true
believers.  But now, if you allow the land to be defiled after the
victory of the truth, you and your princess will both drink of the
cup of God's indignation.  She for abiding in manifest idolatry and
you for maintaining the same.

Argument 37: We will never agree on this point.  Where did any of
the prophets or apostles teach that the people should be plagued
for the idolatry of the prince, or that the subjects might suppress
the idolatry of the rulers, or punish them for the same?

Knox:  The commission given to the Apostles was to preach and plant
the evangel of Jesus Christ, where darkness before had dominion.
Therefore the light was let in before they should suppress
idolatry.  What they taught other than commanding all to flee from
idolatry I will not guess.  The two things which I know they did
was to assist their preachers, even against their rulers and
magistrates, also, that if God gave them the force, they suppressed
idolatry, even without asking leave of the Emperor or his deputies.
Read church history and you will find it to be true.  As to the
prophets, they interpreted God's law; they spoke to the king and
the people.  Sometimes neither listened to them.  That is why the
plagues came upon both of them.  But I don't read that they
flattered the kings more than the people.  God's laws pronounce
death without exception to idolaters.  The prophets rightly
interpreted the law in such a way that both kings and people
clearly understood their own idolatry.  I don't understand how the
prophets could teach God's law accurately without making these
things known to the people.  Indeed, we have enough facts of what
the prophets taught that it would be absurd to say that the facts
are against their doctrine.

Argument 38: I think you mean the history of Jehu.  What will you
prove by that?

Knox: The chief argument, which you deny, that the prophets never
taught that the people themselves could not punish their kings for
idolatry, which I affirm as true.  As you know, Elisha sent one of
the prophets to anoint Jehu, who was given the commandment to
destroy the house of Ahab for his idolatry and for the innocent
blood that Jezebel his wicked wife had shed.  He obeyed, and God
promised him stability of the kingdom to the fourth generation.
Now I have given you one prophet which proves that subjects were
commanded to execute judgements upon their king and prince.

Argument 39: There is enough here to answer; for Jehu was a king
before he executed anything and even more, that this is a one-time
event not to be repeated.

Knox: He was a subject, and no king, when the prophet's servant
came to him.  Even though at that point the trumpet was blown and
his fellow captains said 'Jehu is king,' Jezebel and others said
'He is a traitor.'  Your argument which alleges this an
extraordinary event is incorrect.  The grounds of the facts are
God's ordinary judgement, which commands the idolater to die the
death.  Again I yet confirm that this is to be imitated by all who
prefer the true honor, the true worship and glory of God to the
affections of the flesh and of wicked princes.

Argument 40: We are not bound to imitate extraordinary examples
unless we have the like commandment and assurance.

Knox: It is true, if the example is against God's law.  For
instance, no one could ask for gold, silver, raiment or other
necessities from their neighbor or and withhold the same, because
the Israelites did it to the Egyptians (they would be avaricious
and deceitful men). This would violate God's law 'thou shalt not
steal'.  But where the example does not violate God's law and is an
example of God's judgement of the same, I say that that example is
valid.  God's commandments don't change.  He ordered not only the
destruction of the kings, but also their entire posterity was cut
off, even their entire race.

Argument 41: Whatsoever they did was at God's commandment.

Knox: That fortifies my argument.

Argument 42: We don't have the same commandment.

Knox: That I deny, for the commandment 'the idolater shall die the
death' is perpetual, as you yourself have agreed.  You only doubted
who should carry out the sentence.  I said that the people of God
and have proved, I think, that God raised up the people and by his
prophet has anointed a king to take vengeance against the king and
against his posterity.  In fact, since God has not withdrawn this
principle, it remains a constant and clean commandment to God's
people to punish vice.  If the people had not God's commandment,
then we would have grounds to wonder.  But since God again executed
his law, no reasonable man can doubt it is God's will.  Or do we
doubt everything which God renews not from generation to generation
by miracles.  I am assured that the answer of Abraham unto the rich
man, who, being in hell, desired that someone be sent to his
brothers and friends so that they should not come to the place of
torment.  The answer given to him, I believe, is answer to all who
want more proof of this.  For Abraham said 'they have Moses and the
prophets, whom if they will not believe, though one of the dead
should arise.'  Even so, my lord, those who will not obey what is
given by the commandment of God will not believe or obey, even if
God should sent from heaven to instruct that doctrine.

Argument 43: You have only produced one example.

Knox: One is enough, but we have others, thank God.  All the people
conspired against Amaziah, king of Judah, after he had turned from
the Lord, followed him to Lachish and killed him, then they took
his son Uzziah and anointed him king in place of his father.  The
people had not forgotten the league and covenant which was made
between them and Joash, his father, at his inauguration.  The
covenant was this: 'That the king and the people should be the
people of the Lord,' and then should they be his faithful subjects.
>From that covenant both suffered the death penalty, Joash by his
own servants and Amaziah by the whole people.

Argument 44: I doubt that they did well.

Knox: You are free to doubt as you please.  But where I see
execution according to God's laws, and God himself not to accuse
the doers, I do not doubt the equity of their cause.  Even more, it
appears that God agreed with them because he gave them victory,
peace, and prosperity for 52 years after.

Argument 45: But prosperity doesn't always prove that God approves
of what men do.

Knox: Yes it does when the actions of men agree with God's law and
are rewarded with God's own promise expressed in his law.  The
prosperity after the fact is an infallible assurance of such
approval.  Now it is a fact that God has promised that when his
people exterminate and destroy all those that reject him, He will
bless them and increase them.  The facts are these: Amaziah turned
from God; the people killed him; and God blessed them.  Therefore
I conclude that God approved of their actions, in so far as it was
done according to his commandment, and was blessed according to his
promise.

Argument 46: Well, I don't think that I would base my conscience on
your conclusions.

Knox: I pray God that this is the worst ground that you would ever
need for the same work which God has already blessed.  I have only
one more example to use, as I am growing weary in standing.  My
last example is this: Uzziah the king, not content to be king,
criminally took on himself to enter within the temple of the Lord
to burn incense there.  'And Azariah the priest went in after him,
and with him fourscore priests of the lord, valiant men, and they
withstood Uzziah the king, and said to him, It pertaineth to thee
not, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the
sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to offer incense: Go forth of
the sanctuary, for thou hast transgressed, and you shall have no
honor of the Lord God'.  I conclude, my lord, that subjects not
only may, but ought to withstand and resist their princes whenever
they do anything that expressly is hateful to God, his law, or his
holy ordinance.

Argument 47: Those that withstood the king were not simple
subjects, but priests of the Lord and figures of Christ.  We don't
have such priests today to withstand kings if they do wrong.

Knox: That the high priest was a figure of Christ I do not deny.
But that he was not a subject, that I deny.  In his priesthood he
had no other prerogative than those that came before.  Aaron was
subject to Moses and called him lord.  Samuel, who was both prophet
and priest, subjected himself to Saul after his inauguration by the
people.  Zadok bowed before David, and Abiathar was deposed from
the priesthood by Solomon.  They all confessed themselves subject
to the kings, even though they were still figures of Christ.  Even
as you say we have no such priests today I would say we have no
such kings today as were anointed at God's commandment, sat upon
the seat of David, and were no less the figure of Jesus Christ in
their just administrations than were the priests in their appointed
office.  Such kings we do not have now more than such priests.  For
Christ Jesus, being anointed in our nature, king, priest, and
prophet, has put an end to all external anointing.  I don't believe
you would say that God has diminished his graces for those He
places between Himself and the people, as the same for kings and
princes.  That is the reason I say that the servants of Jesus
Christ may withstand kings and princes who this day offend God's
majesty as much as Uzziah did.  Unless, of course, you will say
that we, under the brightness of the gospel, are not as straightly
bound to regard God's glory or His commandments as were the fathers
that lived under the dark shadows of the law.

Argument 48: Well, I won't discuss that point any more.  But how
did the priests resist the king?  They only spoke unto him without
intending any further violence.

Knox: The text says that they withstood him.  I don't understand
how you can say that they only did this.  The text plainly says
that they caused him to depart hastily from the sanctuary, yea,
that he was compelled to depart.  This manner of speaking, I am
assured of in the Hebrew, means more than just exhorting or
commanding by word.

Argument 49: They did that after he was seen to be leprous.

Knox: They withstood him before, but even this last fact confirms
my proposition so evidently, that any who will oppose it oppose
God.  My assertion is that kings cannot offend God's majesty any
more than the common subjects, and that if they do they are no more
exempted from the law than any subject.  Also, that subjects may
not only lawfully oppose themselves to their kings, when they do
anything expressly that violates God's commandment, but that they
may execute judgement on them according to God's law.  So that if
the king be a murderer, adulterer, or idolater he should be
punished according to God's law not as a king, but as an offender.
For as soon as that the leprosy appeared in his forehead, he was
compelled not only to depart out of the sanctuary but also from all
public society and administration of the kingdom.  He was forced to
dwell in a house apart, as the law commanded.  In this he was given
no privileges greater than anyone else.  This was executed by all
the people, for more than the priests saw the leprosy.  No one
opposed themselves the sentence of God against the leprous.  Again
I say that the people ought to execute the law of God against their
princes, not only when their crimes deserve death but especially
when they might infect the rest of the multitude.  And now, my
lords, I will reason no more, for I have spoken more than I
intended.

Argument 50: And yet I cannot tell what can be concluded.

Knox: Although you cannot, yet I know what I have proven, namely:

1. That subjects have delivered an innocent from the hands of
   their king, and yet offended not God.

2. That subjects have refused to strike innocents when a king
   commanded, and in so doing denied no just obedience.

3. That such as struck at the commandment of the king, before
   God were reputed murderers.

4. That God has not only of a subject made a king, but also
   has armed natural subjects against their natural kings,
   and commanded them to take vengeance upon them according
   to God's law.

And last, that God's people have executed God's law against their
king, regarding him no more than the most simple subject in the
realm.  And therefore, although you say that nothing can be
concluded, I say that God's people not only may, but are bound to
do the same when like crimes are committed against God's law and
when God gives them the like power.

_________________________________________________________________
Archivist's Note:  Our thanks to Joseph L. Bell for permission
to archive this document at ICLnet.  The document was found by Ron 
Auvil, who teaches at Reformation Bible Institute (RBI) in Euclid, Ohio 
(216) 289-2553. They offer several very good correspondence courses at 
RBI: call (216) 289-2553 or write to Reformation Bible Institute, 35155 
Beachpark Drive, Eastlake,OH 44095 for a course listing.

"A Defense of the Biblical Doctrine of Resistance to Wicked and
Tyrannical Civil Magistrates" by John Knox, June 5, 1564,
given in response to attacks from the gueen's councilors in
front of the National Assembly of Scotland.

_________________________________________________________________

file: pub/resources/text/history/knox.defense.txt