Knox and Mary Queen of Scots

Who was John Knox and what was his role in the Scottish Reformation?

John Knox (c.1514–1572) was a leading Scottish reformer and central figure in the Scottish Reformation. Influenced by Calvinist ideas during his exile in Geneva (with Goodman), Knox returned to Scotland and became the chief architect of the Presbyterian Church. He opposed Catholic monarchy, especially female rule, and advocated for the right to resist ungodly rulers.

What is the nature and context of Knox’s conversation with Mary Queen of Scots in 1561?

Published in 1561 by John Knox, this text purports to recount the theological and political debate that ensued between John Knox and Mary QoS upon her return to Scotland following the death of her husband in 1561; having returned, Mary called this meeting with Knox due to his central position in the religious hostility that had ensued in her absence.

How does Knox defend himself against Mary’s accusations of sedition and rebellion?

• Knox reframes her accusations: He states that he has simply taught the people to worship God “according to His Word,” and that if his teachings have prompted a reaction from Mary’s subjects, then he is indeed guilty of inciting rebellion—but only in doing what is godly. This shifts blame to the Queen for opposing the divine truth.

• Propheticism: He further asserts that God has appointed him “one” of those called to “disclose unto the realm” the vanity of Catholicism—implicitly casting himself in the role of a prophet delivering a divine mandate.

Why were prophets significant to Knox, and how does this significance fit into wider Protestant political thought?

Prophets could interpret the intentions of God and thus enact his will with his “power and the means” of the Lord by their side. Theologians like Luther, Goodman and Calvin all viewed the power of prophecy as the gift of being able to interpret Scripture and reveal the secret will of God to mankind. Indeed, in Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corinthians, he describes prophecy as such but he also claims that prophecy is still around “in traces.”

• Rejection of Church hierarchy: Unlike Catholics, Protestants rejected the authority of the Pope and Church tradition. This created space for prophetic figures—often outside formal church structures—to act as divine messengers and spiritual reformers.

How does Knox use rhetorical humility to legitimise his argument against Mary’s authority?

Knox portrays himself as a mere writer offering opinions—like Plato—not someone actively undermining authority. He claims it's up to the “realm” to decide what inconveniences them. This downplays his role while emphasising the popularity of his ideas, suggesting that their widespread acceptance, not his status, gives them weight.

How does Knox present his intentions in writing The First Blast, and why?

Knox claims his tract was chiefly aimed at the “wicked Jezebel of England,” suggesting it was not meant to attack Mary personally. When Mary insists the argument was general, Knox concedes this but explains he wrote it in response to recent upheavals where “many things which before were stable have been called into doubt.” By doing so, Knox attempts to frame himself as a concerned observer, not a threat—positioning his intervention as reactive rather than subversive, and distancing himself from accusations of personal malice or sedition.

How does Knox respond to Mary’s claim that preaching against the religion of princes goes against God’s command to obey rulers?

Knox argues that true religion comes from God alone, not from princes, and thus subjects are not bound to “frame their religion according to the appetites of their princes.” He uses biblical examples, especially Daniel, who disobeyed his king’s order to worship false gods and instead “prayed publicly unto his God.” This shows Knox’s support for active, even public, disobedience in matters of faith. However, Knox also claims that subjects are still “commanded to give them [princes] obedience,” suggesting a degree of incoherence in this argument.

How does Knox defend the idea that subjects can resist their princes?

In response to Mary’s objection that biblical figures never “raised the sword against their princes,” Knox replies that they lacked the power to do so. He argues that if subjects are given “power and the means by God”, and their prince “exceed their bounds”, then resistance is lawful. He compares princes to fathers, asking whether children should not resist a father who enters a “frenzy” and tries to kill them. If it is just to restrain such a father, “so is it to resist princes who murder the children of God.” For Knox, such resistance is not disobedience, but “just obedience”—because it aligns with God’s will, not man’s. This reflects the radical prioritisation of divine law over royal authority.

Who can resist according to Knox?

Knox does not make it clear the channels through which resistance may take place, however, his presentation of himself as a prophet and the fact that he claims that only men who have been given “the power and the means” by God suggests that he might view prophets like himself as capable of calling for resistance. Indeed, in his Apellation (1558), Knox is hesitant to give the power of resistance to all and his constant juxtaposition between himself and the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekial show he is trying to portray himself as such.

How does Knox respond to Mary’s claim that the Church of Rome is the true Church of God?

Mary states her allegiance to the Roman Church, calling it “the true kirk of God.” Knox rejects this, asserting that the Church of Rome is “altogether polluted” and that its teachings have deviated from the “purity of that religion which the Apostles taught.” He frames Rome’s corruption as the result of a 500-year decline, positioning his Reformed Church as the true continuation of apostolic Christianity.

How does Knox defend his theological position against Mary’s Catholicism?

Knox invokes sola scriptura, asserting that only the Word of God holds true authority. He challenges Catholic beliefs like transubstantiation, demanding scriptural proof: “Let them show the place where the mass is commanded.” For Knox, doctrines not found in Scripture are invalid. This reliance on sola scriptura renders Catholic arguments powerless in his framework.

How does Knox depict Mary and how does this depiction contrast against his own?

Knox crafts a pointed contrast between Mary and himself, portraying her as emotionally volatile, irrational, and unlearned—while presenting himself as calm, rational, and knowledgeable:

• Uninformed VS Informed: Throughout the text, Mary is occasionally presented as uninformed, with her argumentation often relying upon external sources like Catholic representatives—”Who shall I believe?” and that if she had a representative, they would be able to “answer” Knox. In contrast, Knox’s argument is constantly grounded in Scripture, rather than individuals.

• Irrational VS Rational: Mary’s arguments are also portrayed as irrational because they are rooted in little knowledge. When disagreeing with Knox, she states that it because her “conscience says it is not so.” Knox responds by stating that “conscience requires knowledge.” Whilst he is reportedly “open” to admitting fault—he claims that he “shall confess” his error if the critique of his The First Blast is rooted in fact—she is intransigent and for no good reason.

• Volatile VS Calm: Knox recounts that Mary sat in silence for fifteen minutes upon hearing his position, with her countenance becoming increasingly hostile. She does not address his argument, instead jumping to an unwarranted conclusion on how we wants her subjects to obey him. In contrast, Knox remains calm, defending his arguments concisely and without passion.

Through these contrasts, Knox frames himself as the voice of reason and authority, and Mary as confused and reactive.

How does Knox’s text compare to other texts?

• Shared theological foundation with Goodman: Like Christopher Goodman in How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed, Knox prioritises obedience to God over obedience to earthly rulers. Both argue that resisting ungodly authority is not rebellion but true obedience to God’s will.

• Shared Hermeneutic with Goodman: Similarly, both authors shared a belief in the hermeneutic which saw hidden positive and negative implications in all of God’s commands: When commands are given against God, subjects must resist by doing the complete opposite of the command.

• Shared belief in the power of prophets: Like Goodman, who believed prophets were responsible for selecting rulers, Knox also implicitly affirms this position.