home » Boilers » The story of "Mary Stuart" on a new art. Christian Online Encyclopedia John Knox in England, Switzerland and France

The story of "Mary Stuart" on a new art. Christian Online Encyclopedia John Knox in England, Switzerland and France

When John Knox was buried, someone said about him: “He feared God so much that he feared no man.”

Knox, John (1505-1572), preacher and historian of the Scottish Reformation, was born into a peasant family in Haddington (Scotland). The date of birth is extremely unreliable; there are arguments for three dates - 1505, 1513 and 1515.

Knox attended primary school in Haddington and later at the University of Glasgow or St Andrews (or both). He was preparing to take the priesthood, but after the death of George Wishart, burned at the stake (1546), he went over to the Protestant side and led the anti-Catholic party in Scotland. In July 1547 he was captured by the French after the fall of St. Andrews Castle and remained at hard labor until February 1549. No doubt, Edward VI and the Lord Protector, Duke of Somerset, contributed to his release and return to England after a short stay in Geneva. He was appointed royal chaplain (1551) and took part in the revision of the Book of Public Worship (1552). He refused to accept the rank of bishop in 1552 and actively opposed the use of Catholic forms of worship.

During almost the entire reign of Mary Tudor (1553-1558), Knox stayed in Switzerland, maintained contact with European reformers, served as a priest to the English Protestant emigrant communities in Frankfurt am Main and Geneva, and acted as an adviser to the Scottish “Lords of the Congregation.” (a group of Protestant lords united in the anti-Catholic Congregation). In 1559 he returned to Scotland.
His strict Calvinism, zealous defense of Puritan worship and behavior, love for the Presbyterian form of church structure turned out to be necessary components of the victory of the Protestants. In 1566 the foundations of Scottish Presbyterianism were laid: Knox then assisted in the invalidation of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, the establishment of the Scottish Confession in the Scottish Parliament, and the adoption of Knox's first Book of Church Organization and Liturgy by the first General Assembly of the newly established Presbyterian Church. Knox's works include Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, 1558, Treatise on Predestination, 1560, History of the Reformation in Scotland, published 1664 ).
During the seven years of the reign of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, Knox, with devout devotion to the new church, entered into battle with the Catholic empress. This struggle ended in triumph for the reformer when Mary abdicated in 1567. Knox died on November 24, 1572 in Edinburgh.

In Scotland, one of the os-no-va-te-leys of the pre-swi-te-ri-an-skaya Church of Scotland.

From a family of ungrateful nobles. In 1536 he became a Catholic priest. A few years later, he joined the parties to the Re-formation, which was a paradise in Scotland by that time was under-go-tov-le-na lyu-te-ran-skaya pro-po-ve-due P. Ga-mil-to-na (burned in 1528) and after-before- va-te-lem U. Tswing-li and J. Kal-vi-na - J. Ui-shar-tom (kaz-nyon in 1546).

Since 1547, D. Knox began a public proclamation about the Holy Scripture as the only author and use exactly the faith, about the justice of one faith, D. Knox said the mass, prayers for the dead and the doctrine of purgatory. In the same year, D. Knox was captured by the French who invaded the territory of Scotland and more years ago used to be a rower on the ha-le-rah. After the establishment in 1549, he continued to serve as a preacher in England, reaching the stage not a ko-ro-lion ka-pel-la-na under Eduard VI. With the re-emergence of Mary Tu-dor, the re-establishment of ka-to-li-cism in the country, D. Knox fled to Zhe-ne-vou , where he met Kal-vin. In 1554, D. Knox published his treatise “The Faithful Pre-do-s-t-re-same Pro-fes-so-rams of God’s Is-ti-ny in England” (“A faithful admonition to the professors of God’s truth in England”), which was perceived as an incitement to the Tsar-re-killing.

Upon returning to his birth in 1555, D. Knox continued to live the Re-formation, relying on the support of the part ari-sto-kra-tii and bur-ger-st-va. On his initiative, the first Scottish co-venant was concluded in 1557. He again left for Zhe-ne-vou (1556), where he wrote in 1558 the essay “The first trumpet voice against the monstrous rule” women" (“The first blast of the trumpet against the mon-strous regiment of women”), in which, cri-ti-forging the rule of Mary Tudor in England and Mary of Guise (see Guise) in Scotland, ut-ver-expected that all women’s rule “pro-ti-vo-re-chit-ro- de, it is os-corb-le-ni-em for God, ab-so-lut-but pro-ti-falsely of His Revelation and us-ta-nov-le-niyu.”

In 1559 he arrived in Scotland. The sermon of D. Knox in Perth against the “ido-lo-clon-st-va” became the beginning of the pro-tes-tant-re-vo-lu-tion in the country. With the conclusion of the Peace of Edinburgh in 1560 and the end of French influence in Scotland. par-la-ment, with the active participation of D. Knox, began to create a new Church. D. Knox and his co-rat-ni-ki you-ra-bo-ta-li “The Scots Confession” (“Scots Confession”, 1560; approx. -re-but par-la-men-tom in the same year). In 1560, he compiled the “Book of Discipline”; 2nd part from 1578), re-regulating the church forged system according to the cal-vi-ni-st pattern. In it, D. Knox acted as a ra-di-cal re-for-ma-tor, striving to merge the Church and the go-su-dar-st into one -in; in part, it was demanded that the state government be brought under the control of the Church for the activities of the state. In “The Book in a Row” there was also a plan for the wider development of education, including the creation -yes a network of state schools and universities. In 1561, “The Book in a Row” was dis-seen by par-la-men, who did not approve it as a whole, having accepted only individual statements. Thus, the newly created Church of Scotland is not entirely consistent with the representation of D. Knox [previously -svi-te-ri-an-st-vo (see Pre-svi-te-ria-ne) became the state re-li-gi-s of Scotland only in 1592]. Since 1560, D. Knox carried out church service in the Edinburgh cathedral of St. Aegis (St. Giles), for some time -va-yut “tser-ko-view-ma-te-ryu pre-svi-te-ri-an-st-va.”

D. Knox many times called for the return of the co-ro-le-vu Maria Stu-art to Scotland in 1561, convinced -a certain person, to get away from the “false re-li-gia”. In 1564, he stood up in par-la-men-te against the demand for the co-ro-le-you to serve the mass, but did not receive support. In the re-zul-ta-th about Maria and her new husband, Lord Darn-li, D. Knox in 1565 received a ban for pro-po-ve-do-va-nie. Po-se-li-sya in the distant region of Scotland, where he completed work on the 5th volume of “Is-to-ri-ey Re -formations" (1559-1566). Returning to Edinburgh in 1567, D. Knox became a witness of the overthrow of Mary Stu-art pro-tes-tan-ta-mi. In the same year, D. Knox spoke about the co-ro-nation of her son, James VI, sharply about the former co-ro-le- woo. However, the long-term political struggle in Scotland led to the fact that in 1571 all the enemies of Mary Stu-art were you from Edinburgh? D. Knox retired to Saint-An-d-Rus, where he continued to conduct his business. In 1572 he returned to Edinburgh and until the end of his life he served in the cathedral of St. Aegis.

Essays:

The works/Ed. D. Laing. Edinburgh, 1895. Vol. 1-6;

History of the Reformation in Scotland / Ed. W. C. Dickinson. Edinburgh; L., 1949. Vol. 1

G.), - the largest Scottish religious reformer of the 16th century, who laid the foundations of the Presbyterian Church.

Youth

John Knox was born into a family of modest means in the suburb of Haddington in Lothian. Knox apparently studied in his youth with the famous Scottish humanist John Major at the University of Glasgow. In the early 1540s. he was ordained a Catholic priest and began serving in one of the parish churches of Lothian.

Probably under the influence of George Wishart's sermons in Knox he converted to Protestantism. He became very close to Wishart and accompanied him on trips around the country. However, at the end Mr. Wishart was arrested by supporters of Cardinal Beaton and was soon executed. In revenge for Wishart's death, radical Protestants captured St Andrews Castle and executed the cardinal. Knox arrived in St. Andrews and here began his career as a Protestant preacher.

At the end of the city, St. Andrews Castle was stormed by the French expeditionary force, the organizers of the murder of the cardinal, and with him John Knox, were captured and sent to France to serve their sentences in the galleys. A year and a half of service in the galleys undermined the preacher’s health, but did not change his views. It is said that when the French asked Knox to kiss an image of the Virgin Mary, in an effort to force him to renounce Protestantism, he threw it into the sea with the words " let the Virgin Mary save herself, she is light enough and will learn to swim».

John Knox in England, Switzerland and France

In the city, Knox received his freedom and went to England, where at that time the Protestant reforms of King Edward VI, which laid the fundamental principles of the Anglican Church, were actively being implemented. Knox continued his work as a preacher, independent of the official church organization. At this time, he was no longer satisfied with the episcopal system preserved in Anglicanism; Knox leaned more and more towards radical Calvinism, which denied the special priesthood of bishops.

After the death of Edward VI, the Catholic Mary I Tudor ascended the English throne. This caused the emigration of English Protestants to the continent. Knox went to Switzerland, where he settled in Geneva, the European center of Calvinism. He also visited Scotland periodically. During these trips he succeeded in converting a large number of Scottish townspeople and nobles to Protestantism, as well as such influential aristocrats as the Earl of Argyll, Lord Lorne and Lord James Stewart. Moving ever further away from moderate Anglicanism, Knox, while living in Geneva, actively worked on the problem of predestination and published a pamphlet “ Trumpet against the monstrous rule of women"(English) The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women ), in which he came up with the idea of the harmfulness of female rulers of states (addressed primarily to the contemporary queens of England and Scotland).

Knox moved to Dieppe, France, where he met news of the death of Mary Tudor and the accession of Elizabeth I to the throne. Favorable opportunities for the development of Protestantism once again arose in England, but Queen Elizabeth I did not want to allow the author of the “Blow of the Trumpet” into her possessions. Upon learning of the Queen's refusal to grant him permission to return to England, Knox stated that " England, abandoning me, abandons a friend", and on May 2 arrived in Scotland.

Protestant Revolution

May 11, 1559 sermon by John Knox in the Church of St. John in Perth against Catholic idolatry and the illegality of the reign of the regent of Scotland, Mary of Guise, caused an uprising of the townspeople, which quickly spread to other areas of Scotland and soon developed into Protestant revolution. Major Scottish barons (Argyll, Lord James Stewart, and later Chatelero and Huntly) joined the rebels, and an army was formed that captured Edinburgh. On Knox's initiative, the rebels turned to England for help, and English troops were brought into the country. The war between the English and French armies in Scotland ended on July 6 with the Peace of Edinburgh and the evacuation of foreign troops from the country. The death of Marie de Guise on June 11, 1560 meant the victory of the revolution.

The Scottish Parliament, under the influence of John Knox, proclaimed at the end of 1560 the prohibition of Catholic doctrine and rituals, adopted the Protestant creed and approved the “Book of Discipline” on the order of Protestant worship. Thus Protestantism was established as the state religion of Scotland. The formation of a new church organization began, based on parish churches and a system of “supreintendents” designed to replace the episcopal structure (not fully implemented). It was during this period that Knox began work on his fundamental work " History of the Reformation", which, thanks to the reformatory passion invested in it, remained for several centuries one of the most influential works on Protestantism.

John Knox and Mary Stuart

Queen Mary Stuart's return to Scotland was met with hostility by John Knox. The radical Protestants grouping around him demanded the queen's marriage to one of their leaders, James Hamilton. Mary's refusal provoked an uprising of radical Protestants, which, however, was quickly suppressed by the government. Knox met with the queen several times, but never found a common language with her. Knox's radicalism alienated some of his former supporters from him, who were not ready to recognize the doctrine of the right of a nation to overthrow a legitimate monarch, proclaimed by the reformer.

-November 24) - the largest Scottish religious reformer of the 16th century, who laid the foundations of the Presbyterian Church.

Youth

John Knox was born into a family of modest means in the suburb of Haddington in Lothian. He also received his primary school education there. In 1522 he entered the University of Glasgow, and in 1531 he entered the University of St. Andrews, where he studied with the famous theologian John Major. In addition to his basic teaching, Knox became interested in studying the history of Scripture. He knew Greek and Hebrew, which helped him in the study of religious texts, and also studied the works of the first Christian philosophers: Augustine and Jerome. In the early 1540s. he was ordained a Catholic priest and began serving in one of the parish churches of Lothian.

Last period of life

John Knox returned to Scotland shortly before the overthrow of Mary Stuart in the city. It was he who was entrusted with the organization of worship during the coronation of the queen's son, one-year-old James VI. The new government of the regent Moray, although it proclaimed a course towards implementing Protestant reforms, however, did not need Knox’s radicalism. Therefore, the most influential Scottish reformer did not take his worthy place in the new system of power, remaining the parish priest of the Church of St. Gilles. In the year when Edinburgh was captured by supporters of the deposed Mary Stuart, John Knox was forced to move to St. Andrews. He returned to the capital only in the city, on the eve of his death.

John Knox, striking his contemporaries with his devout religious feeling and inability to compromise with conscience, became almost a prophet for the Scots. The Presbyterian Church finally took shape after the death of Knox, at the end of the 16th century, but it was he who became its founding father.

Knox's descendant was US President James Knox Polk.

Write a review of the article "Knox, John"

Literature

Laing, David, ed. (1895), The Works of John Knox, Edinburgh: James Thin, 55 South Bridge, .
Melville, James (1829), Diary of James Melville, Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, .
Guy, John (2004), My Heart is my Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots, London: Fourth Estate, ISBN 9781841157528.
Kingdon, Robert M. (1995), "Calvinism and resistance theory, 1550–1580", in Burns, J.H., The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521477727.
MacGregor, Geddes (1957), The Thundering Scot, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, OCLC.
Marshall, Rosalind (2000), John Knox, Edinburgh: Birlinn, ISBN 9781841580913.
Reid, W. Stanford (1974), Trumpeter of God, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, ISBN 0-684-13782-8.
Ridley, Jasper (1968), John Knox, Oxford: Clarendon Press, OCLC.
Warnicke, Retha. M. (2006), Mary Queen of Scots, New York: Routledge, ISBN 0-415-29183-6.

Notes

Passage characterizing Knox, John

The historical sea, not as before, was directed by gusts from one shore to another: it seethed in the depths. Historical figures, not as before, rushed in waves from one shore to another; now they seemed to be spinning in one place. Historical figures, who previously at the head of the troops reflected the movement of the masses with orders of wars, campaigns, battles, now reflected the seething movement with political and diplomatic considerations, laws, treatises...
Historians call this activity of historical figures reaction.
Describing the activities of these historical figures, who, in their opinion, were the cause of what they call the reaction, historians strictly condemn them. All famous people of that time, from Alexander and Napoleon to m me Stael, Photius, Schelling, Fichte, Chateaubriand, etc., are subject to their strict judgment and are acquitted or condemned, depending on whether they contributed to progress or reaction.
In Russia, according to their description, a reaction also took place during this period of time, and the main culprit of this reaction was Alexander I - the same Alexander I who, according to their descriptions, was the main culprit of the liberal initiatives of his reign and the salvation of Russia.
In real Russian literature, from a high school student to a learned historian, there is not a person who would not throw his own pebble at Alexander I for his wrong actions during this period of his reign.
“He should have done this and that. In this case he acted well, in this case he acted badly. He behaved well at the beginning of his reign and during the 12th year; but he acted badly by giving a constitution to Poland, making the Holy Alliance, giving power to Arakcheev, encouraging Golitsyn and mysticism, then encouraging Shishkov and Photius. He did something wrong by being involved in the front part of the army; he acted badly by distributing the Semyonovsky regiment, etc.”
It would be necessary to fill ten pages in order to list all the reproaches that historians make to him on the basis of the knowledge of the good of humanity that they possess.
What do these reproaches mean?
The very actions for which historians approve of Alexander I, such as: the liberal initiatives of his reign, the fight against Napoleon, the firmness he showed in the 12th year, and the campaign of the 13th year, do not stem from the same sources - the conditions of blood , education, life, which made Alexander’s personality what it was - from which flow those actions for which historians blame him, such as: the Holy Alliance, the restoration of Poland, the reaction of the 20s?
What is the essence of these reproaches?
The fact that such a historical person as Alexander I, a person who stood at the highest possible level of human power, is, as it were, in the focus of the blinding light of all the historical rays concentrated on him; a person subject to those strongest influences in the world of intrigue, deception, flattery, self-delusion, which are inseparable from power; a face that felt, every minute of its life, responsibility for everything that happened in Europe, and a face that is not fictitious, but living, like every person, with its own personal habits, passions, aspirations for goodness, beauty, truth - that this face , fifty years ago, not only was he not virtuous (historians do not blame him for this), but he did not have those views for the good of humanity that a professor now has, who has been engaged in science from a young age, that is, reading books, lectures and copying these books and lectures in one notebook.
But even if we assume that Alexander I fifty years ago was mistaken in his view of what is the good of peoples, we must involuntarily assume that the historian judging Alexander, in the same way, after some time will turn out to be unjust in his view of that , which is the good of humanity. This assumption is all the more natural and necessary because, following the development of history, we see that every year, with every new writer, the view of what is the good of humanity changes; so that what seemed good appears after ten years as evil; and vice versa. Moreover, at the same time we find in history completely opposite views on what was evil and what was good: some take credit for the constitution given to Poland and the Holy Alliance, others as a reproach to Alexander.
It cannot be said about the activities of Alexander and Napoleon that they were useful or harmful, because we cannot say for what they are useful and for what they are harmful. If someone does not like this activity, then he does not like it only because it does not coincide with his limited understanding of what is good. Does it seem good to me to preserve my father’s house in Moscow in 12, or the glory of the Russian troops, or the prosperity of St. Petersburg and other universities, or the freedom of Poland, or the power of Russia, or the balance of Europe, or a certain kind of European enlightenment - progress, I must admit that the activity of every historical figure had, in addition to these goals, other, more general goals that were inaccessible to me.
But let us assume that so-called science has the ability to reconcile all contradictions and has an unchanging measure of good and bad for historical persons and events.
Let's assume that Alexander could have done everything differently. Let us assume that he could, according to the instructions of those who accuse him, those who profess knowledge of the ultimate goal of the movement of mankind, order according to the program of nationality, freedom, equality and progress (there seems to be no other) that his current accusers would have given him. Let us assume that this program was possible and drawn up and that Alexander would act according to it. What would then happen to the activities of all those people who opposed the then direction of the government - with activities that, according to historians, were good and useful? This activity would not exist; there would be no life; nothing would have happened.
If we assume that human life can be controlled by reason, then the possibility of life will be destroyed.

If we assume, as historians do, that great people lead humanity to achieve certain goals, which consist either in the greatness of Russia or France, or in the balance of Europe, or in spreading the ideas of revolution, or in general progress, or whatever it may be, it is impossible to explain the phenomena of history without the concepts of chance and genius.
If the goal of the European wars at the beginning of this century was the greatness of Russia, then this goal could be achieved without all the previous wars and without an invasion. If the goal is the greatness of France, then this goal could be achieved without revolution and without empire. If the goal is the dissemination of ideas, then printing would accomplish this much better than soldiers. If the goal is the progress of civilization, then it is very easy to assume that, besides the extermination of people and their wealth, there are other more expedient ways for the spread of civilization.
Why did it happen this way and not otherwise?
Because that's how it happened. “Chance made the situation; genius took advantage of it,” says history.
But what is a case? What is a genius?
The words chance and genius do not mean anything that really exists and therefore cannot be defined. These words only denote a certain degree of understanding of phenomena. I don't know why this phenomenon happens; I don't think I can know; That’s why I don’t want to know and say: chance. I see a force producing an action disproportionate to universal human properties; I don’t understand why this happens, and I say: genius.
For a herd of rams, the ram that is driven every evening by the shepherd into a special stall to feed and becomes twice as thick as the others must seem like a genius. And the fact that every evening this very same ram ends up not in a common sheepfold, but in a special stall for oats, and that this very same ram, doused in fat, is killed for meat, should seem like an amazing combination of genius with a whole series of extraordinary accidents .
But the rams just have to stop thinking that everything that is done to them happens only to achieve their ram goals; it is worth admitting that the events happening to them may also have goals that are incomprehensible to them, and they will immediately see unity, consistency in what happens to the fattened ram. Even if they do not know for what purpose he was fattened, then at least they will know that everything that happened to the ram did not happen by accident, and they will no longer need the concept of either chance or genius.
Only by renouncing the knowledge of a close, understandable goal and recognizing that the final goal is inaccessible to us, will we see consistency and purposefulness in the lives of historical persons; the reason for the action they produce, disproportionate to universal human properties, will be revealed to us, and we will not need the words chance and genius.
One has only to admit that the purpose of the unrest of the European peoples is unknown to us, and only the facts are known, consisting of murders, first in France, then in Italy, in Africa, in Prussia, in Austria, in Spain, in Russia, and that movements from the West to the east and from east to west constitute the essence and purpose of these events, and not only will we not need to see exclusivity and genius in the characters of Napoleon and Alexander, but it will be impossible to imagine these persons otherwise than as the same people as everyone else; and not only will it not be necessary to explain by chance those small events that made these people what they were, but it will be clear that all these small events were necessary.
Having detached ourselves from knowledge of the ultimate goal, we will clearly understand that just as it is impossible for any plant to come up with other colors and seeds that are more appropriate to it than those that it produces, in the same way it is impossible to come up with two other people, with all their past, which would correspond to such an extent, to such the smallest details, to the purpose that they were to fulfill.

The main, essential meaning of European events at the beginning of this century is the militant movement of the masses of European peoples from West to East and then from East to West. The first instigator of this movement was the movement from west to east. In order for the peoples of the West to be able to make the warlike movement to Moscow that they made, it was necessary: 1) for them to form into a warlike group of such a size that would be able to withstand a clash with the warlike group of the East; 2) so that they renounce all established traditions and habits and 3) so that, when making their militant movement, they have at their head a person who, both for himself and for them, could justify the deceptions, robberies and murders that were accompanied this movement.
And since the French Revolution, the old group, not great enough, is destroyed; old habits and traditions are destroyed; a group of new sizes, new habits and traditions are developed, step by step, and the person who must stand at the head of the future movement and bear all the responsibility of what is to come is being prepared.
A man without convictions, without habits, without traditions, without a name, not even a Frenchman, by the most strange accidents, it seems, moves among all the parties that worry France and, without attaching himself to any of them, is brought to a prominent place.
The ignorance of his comrades, the weakness and insignificance of his opponents, the sincerity of the lie and the brilliant and self-confident narrow-mindedness of this man put him at the head of the army. The brilliant composition of the soldiers of the Italian army, the reluctance of his opponents to fight, his childish audacity and self-confidence gain him military glory. Countless so-called accidents accompany him everywhere. The disfavor into which he falls from the rulers of France serves to his advantage. His attempts to change the path destined for him fail: he is not accepted into the service in Russia, and he fails to be assigned to Turkey. During the wars in Italy, he is on the verge of death several times and is saved each time in an unexpected way. Russian troops, the very ones that could destroy his glory, for various diplomatic reasons, do not enter Europe as long as he is there.