William Whittingham, the successor of Knox at Geneva, was the son of William Whittingham, Esq. of Holmeside, in the county of Chester. He was born anno 1524, and educated at Oxford, where he was held in great reputation for his learning. On the accession of queen Mary, he went first to Frankfort, and afterwards to Geneva, where he married Catherine, the sister of John Calvin. He was one of the translators of the Geneva Bible, and composed several of the metrical psalms published at the same time, which have his initials prefixed to them. He fell under the displeasure of queen Elizabeth, on account of a commendatory preface which he wrote to Christopher Goodman’s book on Obedience to Superior Powers, in which, among other free sentiments, female government was condemned. But he enjoyed the protection of some of her principal courtiers. In 1560, he accompanied the earl of Bedford on an embassy to France, and, in 1562 and 1563, acted as chaplain to the earl of Warwick, during the defence of Havre de Grace. That brave nobleman was at a loss for words to express his high esteem of him. In a letter to Cecil, Nov. 20, 1562, Warwick writes: “I assure yow, we may all here thinck our selves happy in having soch a man amongest us as Mr Whyttingham is, not only for the greate vertues in him, but lykewise for the care he hath to serve our mistris besydes: wherfore, in my opynion, he doth well deserve grete thankes at her majesties handis.” And in a letter written by him, July 24, 1563, when he was in daily expectation of an assault by the French, he says to his brother, lord Robert Dudley, afterwards earl of Leicester; “My deare brother, for that I had, in my letter to the quene’s majesty, forgot my humblest thancks for the behalff of my deare frinde Mr Whittingam, for the great favour it hath pleased her to shew him for my sake: I besetch yow therefore do not forget to render them unto hermajesty. Farewell, my deare and loving brother, a thousand tymes, and the Lord send you well to do.” Forbes, State Papers, ii. 207, 418, 487.
In 1563, Whittingham was made dean of Durham, which seems to have been the favour for which Warwick was so grateful to Elizabeth. I have already mentioned (p. 56) that an unsuccessful attempt was made to invalidate the ordination which he had received at Geneva. On that occasion, Dr Hutton, dean of York, told archbishop Sandys, that Whittingham “was ordained in a better manner than even the archbishop himself;” and the lord president said, he could not in conscience agree to “allow of the popish massing priests in our ministry, and to disallow of ministers made in a reformed church.” Whittingham never conformed fully to the English church, and died in 1579. Hutchinson’s History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, ii. 143–152, 378.
Aylmer’s Sentiments respecting the English Constitution.—The view which Aylmer has given of the English constitution is very different from that which Mr Hume has laboured to establish, by dwelling upon some arbitrary measures of the house of Tudor. As his work is seldom consulted, I may be excused for inserting a few extracts from it on this subject. It will be seen that he carefully distinguishes between the principles of the constitution, and those proceedings which were at variance with them. “But if this be utterly taken from them [women] in this place, what maketh it against their government in a politike weale, where neither the woman nor the man ruleth (if there be no tyrants), but the laws. For, as Plato saith, Illi civitati paratum est exitium ubi magistratus legibus imperat, et non leges magistratui: That city is at the pit’s brinke, wherein the magistrate ruleth the lawes, and not the lawes the magistrate.” And a little afterwards: “Well; a woman may not reigne in Englande. Better in Englande, than any where, as it shall wel appere to him that, with out affection, will consider the kind of regimen. Whyle I confer ours with other (as it is in itselfe, and not mained by usurpacion), I can find none either so good orso indifferent. The regemente of Englande is not a mere monarchie, as some for lacke of consideracion thinke, nor a mere oligarchie nor democratie, but a rule mixed of all these, wherein ech one of these have or should have like authoritie. The image whereof, and not the image, but the thinge in dede, is to be sene in the parliament hous, wherein you shall find these 3 estats; the king or quene which representeth the monarche, the noblemen which be the aristocratie, and the burgesses and knights the democratcie.—If the parliament use their privileges, the king can ordain nothing without them: If he do, it is his fault in usurping it, and their fault in permitting it. Wherefore, in my judgment, those that in king Henry the VIII.’s daies would not grant him that his proclamations should have the force of a statute, were good fathers of the countrie, and worthy commendacion in defending their liberty. Wold God that that court of late daies had feared no more the farceness of a woman, than they did the displeasure of such a man. Then should they not have stouped, contrary to their othes and alledgeaunce to the crowne, against the privilege of that house, upon their marye bones to receive the devil’s blessenge brought unto them by Satan’s apostle, the cardinal. God forgeve him for the doing, and them for obeying! But to what purpose is all this? To declare that it is not in England so daungerous a matter to have a woman ruler, as men take it to be.—If, on thother part, the regement were such as all hanged upon the king’s or quene’s wil, and not upon the lawes written; if she might decre and make lawes alone, without her senate; if she judged offences according to her wisdom, and not by limitation of statutes and laws; if she might dispose alone of war and peace; if, to be short, she wer a mer monarch, and not a mixed ruler, you might peradventure make me to fear the matter the more, and the less to defend the cause.” Harborowe for Faithfull and Trew Subjects. H. 2 & 3.
Female Supremacy.—“Our countryman, John Knox, has been much censured for want of civility and politeness to the fair sex; and particularly for sounding a first and second ‘blast of the trumpetagainst the monstrous regiment of women.’ He was indeed no milksop courtier, who can sacrifice the public weal to the punctilios of politeness, or consider the interests of nations as a point of gallantry. His reasons for the abolition of all female government, if they are not entirely convincing, may be allowed at least to be specious; and might well be indulged as a harmless speculative opinion in one who was disposed as he was to make no bad use of it in practice, and to give all dutiful respect to whomsoever the will of God and the commonwealth had assigned the sovereign power. But though the point may be conceded in regard to secular government, in ordering of which the constitutions and customs and mere pleasure of communities may be allowed to establish what is not morally evil; it will not follow that the essential order and positive law of the spiritual kingdom may also be sported with, and subverted.—Let the English, if they please, admit a weak, fickle, freakish, bigoted, gallantish or imperious woman, to sway the sceptre of political dominion over millions of men, and even over her own husband in the crowd, to whom at the altar she had previously vowed obedience, they shall meet with no opposition from the presbyterians; provided they do not also authorize her to lord it, or lady it, over their faith and consciences, as well as over their bodies, goods, and chattels.