When God used Jehoiada the priest to establish Jehoash on the throne of ancient Israel, the response of the wicked Queen Athaliah was entirely predictable. "When she looked, there was the king standing by a pillar according to custom; and the leaders and the trumpeters were by the king. All the people of the land were rejoicing and blowing trumpets. So Athaliah tore her clothes and cried out, "Treason, Treason!' (2 Kings 11:14)." Those who have sought only God's best for their respective nations, but have been accused of treachery and treason in return, fill the history of the church.
John Knox provides no exception to this general pattern, and he frequently had to explain himself. "Let a thing here be noted, that the prophet of God sometimes may teach treason against kings, and yet neither he nor such as obey the word, spoken in the Lord's name by him, offend God." What Jehoiadah did most certainly was treason as far as Athaliah was concerned, but this did not mean that it was sinfully treasonous in the eyes of God. "But hereof be assured, that all is now lawful nor just that is statute by civil laws; neither yet is everything sin before God, which ungodly persons allege to be treason." John Knox knew perfectly well the civil magistrate commonly resisted his doctrine.
However, this did not make him a revolutionary, in the modern sense of the word. He did not advance these doctrines out of a desire to be seditious, or to raise tumults. He saw, in case after case, that the spiritual obstinacy of princes was often the great bane of their peoples. He opposed those princes because God required the opposition, and he also opposed them because he loved the people of the common wealth, those threatened by the tyranny. "For a great difference there is betwix lawful obedience, and a fearful flattering of princes, or an unjust accomplishment of their desires in things which are required or devised for the destruction of the commonwealth."
Knox was one with the early Protestants in standing for the rule of law. No one, wether king or prince, could declare himself to be above the law through some monarchical fiat. Whenever anyone in authority defied the law of God, it was foolishness to submit to him. "True it is, God has commanded kings to be obeyed; but likewise true it is, that in things which they commit against his glory . . . . he has commanded no obedience, but rather he has approved ye, and greatly rewarded, such as have opposed themselves to their ungodly commandments and blind rage . . ." A fear of God drove this and so many other features of Knox's thinking. "I confess, indeed, that if our troubles come by man's tyranny, then the most sure and most easy way is to run to God for defence and aid. But let God appear to be our enemy, to be angry with us, and to have left us, how hard and difficult it is then to call for his grace . . . "
Despite many modern notions to the contrary, constitutional liberties were not invented in 1776. As seen in Knox, and in many other medieval and reformational political thinkers, the tradition of limited monarchical authority is a very old one indeed. A writer contemporary to Know, a French Huguenot writing anonymously, not only argues for limits on the power of the king, but does so through constant appeal to ancient constitutional liberties. Knowledge of liberties guaranteed by European constitutions saturates the book, Vindidiae Contra Tyrannos, and, through surprising to many, makes constant appeal to them.
Knox had been instructed at the university by John Major, who in turn had "imbibed the sentiments concerning ecclesiastical polity, maintained by John Gerson and Peter D'Ailly, who so ably defended the decrees of the Council of Constance, and the liberties of the Gallican Church, against the advocates for the uncontrollable authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. He taught that a General Council was superior to the pope, and might judge, rebuke, restrain, and even depose him from his dignity; denied the temporal supremacy of the bishop of Rome, and his right to inaugurate or dethrone princes . . ." This understanding of the polity of the Church transferred easily to the civil realm, and was no a new development or innovation.
Despite his view that the preacher should clearly and pointedly preach about those things in the civil realm which pertain to Christ's Church, Knox was clearly of the mind that, governmentally, church and state should be separate. This biblical separation of church and state is far removed from our modern notion, which takes it as the separation of biblical
morality and state. "He was of the opinion that the clergy ought not to be entangled, and diverted from the duties of their office, by holding civil places; that the bishops should lay aside their secular titles and dignities . . . " In other words, the civil government must be Christian, but it must not be run by clerics.
In all of this, Knox was not a dry academician or political theorist. He carried great love in his heart, not only for his native Scotland, but also for England where he had labored greatly for reformation. "But God I take to record in my conscience, that the troubles present (and appearing to be) in the realm of England are doubly more dolorous (sorrowful) unto my heart, than ever were the troubles of Scotland." In this he was a true patriot--one who loved his people, but loved the gospel and laws of Christ more.
Douglas Wilson and George Grant. For Kirk and Covenant: The Stalwart Courage of John Knox. (2000). Nashville, TN: Highland Books, p 145-148
