to be expected from interference
in such a spirit. Whenever a minister found himself galled or hindered,
he would be inclined to suppose some contravention of the Bible.
Whenever Christian liberty was restrained (and Christian liberty for
each individual would be about co-extensive with what he wished to do),
it was obvious that the State was Antichristian. The great thing, and
the one thing, was to push the Gospel and the Reformer's own
interpretation of it. Whatever helped was good; whatever hindered was
evil; and if this simple classification proved inapplicable over the
whole field, it was no business of his to stop and reconcile
incongruities. He had more pressing concerns on hand; he had to save
souls; he had to be about his Father's business. This short-sighted view
resulted in a doctrine that was actually Jesuitical in application. They
had no serious ideas upon politics, and they were ready, nay, they
seemed almost bound, to adopt and support whichever ensured for the
moment the greatest benefit to the souls of their fellow-men. They were
dishonest in all sincerity. Thus Labitte, in the introduction to a
book[61] in which he exposes the hypocritical democracy of the Catholics
under the League, steps aside for a moment to stigmatise the
hypocritical democracy of the Protestants. And nowhere was this
expediency in political questions more apparent than about the question
of female sovereignty. So much was this the case that one James
Thomasius, of Leipsic, wrote a little paper[62] about the religious
partialities of those who took part in the controversy, in which some
of these learned disputants cut a very sorry figure.

Now Knox has been from the first a man well hated; and it is somewhat
characteristic of his luck that he figures here in the very forefront of
the list of partial scribes who trimmed their doctrine with the wind in
all good conscience, and were political weathercocks out of conviction.
Not only has Thomasius mentioned him, but Bayle has taken the hint from
Thomasius, and dedicated a long note to the matter at the end of his
article on the Scottish Reformer. This is a little less than fair. If
any one among the evangelists of that period showed more serious
political sense than another, it was assuredly Knox; and even in this
very matter of female rule, although I do not suppose anyone nowadays
will feel inclined to endorse his sentiments, I confess I can make great
allowance for his conduct. Th