So as thou resist may’st, and yet not rebel.”
Goodman came to England in 1559, but he found queen Elizabeth so much displeased at his publication, that he kept himself private. Burnet, iii. Append. 274. On this account, and in compliance with the urgent request of our Reformer, he came to Scotland. When the lords of the congregation chose him one of the council for matters of religion, the earl of Arran endeavoured to appease the resentment which the English queen still entertained against him. Sadler, i. 510, 511, 532. In 1562, the earl of Warwick repeatedly interceded for him, and for his being recalled from Scotland; “of whom,” says he, “I have heard suche good commendation both of the lord James of Scotland and others, that it seemeth great pitie, that our countrye suld want so worthy and learned an instrument.” Forbes’s State Papers, ii. 235. Calvin urged Goodman not to leave Scotland until the Reformation was completely established. Epistolæ, p. 566. Hannoviæ, 1597. When he did return to his native country in 1565, it was with great difficulty that he was received into favour, notwithstanding the friends he had at court. He was obliged to make a recantation of the offensive doctrines in his publication. He protested and professed that “good and godly women may lawfully govern whole realms and nations;” but he qualified and explained, rather than recanted, what he had taught respecting the punishment of tyrants. Strype has inserted the document in his Annals, i. 126; but he has certainly placed it under the wrong year. Collier calls it “a lame recantation.” Eccl. Hist. ii. 440. In 1572, Goodman subscribed, in the presence of the queen’s ecclesiastical commissioners, a more ample protestation of his obedience to Elizabeth. Strype’s Annals, ii. 95, 96. He was also harassed on account of his non‑conformity to the English ceremonies. Life of Grindal, 170. Life of Parker,325, 326. Knox corresponded with him after he left Scotland; and Calderwood has preserved a letter which he wrote to him in 1571, in which he alludes to the troubles which he understood his friend was exposed to. MS. ii. 270. Goodman accompanied Sir Henry Sidney to Ireland when he was sent to subdue the popish rebels in that country. Troubles at Franckford, p. 196. In 1580, he resided at Chester, from which he sent his salutations to Buchanan. Buchanani Epistolæ, 30, 31. Oper. edit. Rud. He died at Chester, in 1601, according to verses to his memory in Supplement. Goodman’s book was quoted, but for very different purposes, by Bancroft, (Dangerous Positions, b. ii. chap. i.) and by Milton, (Tenure of Magistrates: Prose Works by Symmons, vol. iii. p. 196.)
Goodman was not the only person belonging to the English church who published free sentiments respecting civil government. About the same time with his book, there appeared another work on that subject, entitled, “A Short Treatise of Politique Pouuer, and of the True Obedience which Subjectes owe to Kynges.” Its author was Dr John Ponet, bishop, first of Rochester, and afterwards of Winchester, under Edward VI. Ames, iii. 1594. He discusses the questions respecting the origin of political authority, its absolute or limited nature, the limits of obedience, and the deposition and punishment of tyrants. “This book,” says Strype, “was not over favourable to princes. Their rigors and persecutions, and the arbitrary proceedings with their peaceable subjects in those times, put them upon examining the extent of their power, which some were willing to curtail and straiten as much as they could.—This book was printed again in the year 1642, to serve the turn of those times.” Memorials of the Reformation, iii. 328, 329. In the second edition of the work, it is said to have been originally published in 1556. Collier (who was a keen Tory) calls it “a most pestilent discourse.” He wished to believe that bishop Ponet was not the author, but it is evident from what he says, that he could see no reason for departing from the common opinion. History, ii. 363. Ponet was a superior scholar. He read the Greek Lecture in the university of Cambridge about 1525, and was among the first who adopted the new method of pronouncing that language introduced by Sir Thomas Smith. He also wrote severalbooks on mathematics and other subjects, which were greatly esteemed. Strype’s Life of Sir Thomas Smith, p. 26, 27. Ames, Typ. Antiq. i. 599. ii. 753, 1146. iii. 1587.
The proceedings of the committee appointed to prepare overtures to the parliament, Dec. 1567, are to be found in Robertson’s Records of the Parliament of Scotland, and Act. Parl. Scot. vol. iii. Almost the only ecclesiastical propositions of the committee which were not adopted by the parliament, were such as related to the patrimony of the church. I shall extract one or two respecting the commonwealth, which did not obtain a parliamentary sanction. “Als it is thocht expedient that in na tymes cuming ony women salbe admittit to the publict autoritie of the realme, or function in publict government within ye same.” On the margin, opposite to this, is written, “Fund gude;” which is expressive, as I understand it, of the committee’s approbation of the motion. As Knox, at a period subsequent to this, declared from the pulpit that he had never “entreated that argument in publict or in privat” since his last arrival in Scotland, (Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 117,) it appears that this motion had been made by some other member of the committee. The late misconduct of queen Mary must have had a great effect in inclining them to give this advice. The 23d article does great honour to the enlightened views of the movers. It proposes that all hereditary jurisdictions throughout the kingdom should be abolished. On the margin is written, “Apprevit,” and farther down, “Supercedis.” A long time elapsed, before this measure, so necessary to the salutary administration of justice, was adopted in Scotland. The 30th article also is of great importance, as intended to prevent delay of justice, by shortening processes. The following was a proposed sumptuary law: “Item, that it be lauchfull to na wemen to weir abone yair estait except howris.” On the margin of this is written, “This act is verray gude.” Act. Parl. Scot. vol. iii. p. 38–40. Robertson’s Rec. of Parl. p. 795, 798.
The ministers appointed on this committee, were “MaisterJohne Spottiswood, Maister Johne Craig, Johne Knox, Maister Johne Row, and Maister David Lindsay.” It will be observed that our Reformer is the only one who has not “Maister” prefixed to his name. This title was expressive of an academical degree. It was commonly given in that age to Masters of Arts, as well as Doctors of Law, and in their subscriptions they put the letter M. or the word “Maister,” before their names.
Remarks on Dr Robertson’s character of the Regent Murray.—I am not moved with the unfavourable representations which the partisans of Mary have given of Murray, nor am I surprised at the cold manner in which Mr Hume has spoken of him; but I confess that it pains me to think of the way in which Dr Robertson has drawn his character. The faint praise which he has bestowed on him, the doubt which he has thrown over his moral qualities, and the unqualified censures which he has pronounced upon some parts of his conduct, have, I am afraid, done more injury to the regent’s memory, than the exaggerated accounts of his adversaries. History of Scotland, vol. ii. 315, 316. Lond. 1809. Having said this much, it will be expected that I shall be more particular. In addition to those qualities which “even his enemies allow him to have possessed in an eminent degree,” Dr R. mentions his humanity, his distinguished patronage of learning, and impartial administration of justice. “Zealous for religion,” he adds, “to a degree which distinguished him even at a time when professions of that kind were not uncommon.” This is what every person must allow, but it certainly is far from doing justice to this part of the regent’s character. His professions of religion were uniformly supported in all the different situations in which he was placed; his strict regard to divine institutions was accompanied with the most correct and exemplary morals; his religious principle triumphed over a temptation which proved too powerful for almost all the protestant nobility. (See above, [p. 290].) When there exist such proofs of sincerity, to withhold the tribute due to it is injurious not only to the individual, but to the general interests of religion. After bearinga decided testimony to the “disinterested passion for the liberty of his country,” which prompted Murray to oppose the pernicious system of the princes of Lorrain, and the “zeal and affection” with which he served Mary on her return to Scotland, the historian adds:—“But, on the other hand, his ambition was immoderate; and events happened that opened to him vast projects, which allured his enterprising genius, and led him to actions inconsistent with the duty of a subject.” That his ambition was “immoderate” does not, I think, appear from any evidence which has been produced. Dr R. has defended him from the charge as brought against him at an earlier period of his life, and we have met with facts that serve to corroborate the defence. (See vol. i. [p. 443].) The “vast projects” that opened to him must be limited to the attainment of the regency; for I do not think that Dr R. ever for a moment gave credit to the ridiculous tale, that he designed to set aside the young king, and seat himself upon the throne. His acceptance of the regency cannot be pronounced “inconsistent with the duty of a subject,” without determining the question, Whether the nation was warranted, by the misconduct and crimes of Mary, to remove her from the government, and to crown her son. “Her boldest advocates,” says Mr Laing, “will not venture to assert, that, on the supposition of the fact being fully proved, that she was notoriously guilty of her husband’s murder, she was entitled to be restored.” History of Scotland, i. 137, second edition. Murray was fully satisfied of her guilt before he accepted the regency. Never was any person raised to such a high station with less evidence of his having ambitiously courted the preferment. Instead of remaining in the country to turn the embroiled state of affairs to his personal advantage, he, within two months after the murder of the king, left Scotland, not clandestinely, but after having asked and obtained leave. And whither did he retire? Not into England, to concert measures with that court, or the more easily to carry on a correspondence with the friends whom he had left behind him; but into France, where his motions could be watched by the friends of Mary. Ibid. p. 59–61. The association for revenging the king’s murder, and for preserving the young prince, the surrender of Mary, and her imprisonment in Lochleven, followed so unexpectedly and sorapidly, that they could not have proceeded from his direction. Nay, there is positive evidence that the lords who had imprisoned Mary, so far from having acted in concert with Murray, were suspicious that he would counteract their designs. “As yet theys lordes wyll not suffer Mr Nycholas Elveston, sent from the L. of Murrey, to have access to the quene, nor to send my L. of Murrey’s letter unto her.” Throkmorton’s Letters to Cecil, and to Elizabeth, 16th July, 1567, apud Laing’s History of Scotland, ii. Append. No. 13, p. 121, 126. When he returned to Scotland, he found that the queen had executed formal deeds resigning the government, and appointing him regent during the minority of her son, and that the young prince was already crowned. Hume, vol. v. Note K.