In the end of March 1554, probably, Knox left Dieppe for Geneva, where he could consult Calvin, not yet secure in his despotism, though he had recently burned Servetus.  Next he went to Zurich, and laid certain questions before Bullinger, who gave answers in writing as to Knox’s problems.

Could a woman rule a kingdom by divine right, and transfer the same to her husband?—­Mary Tudor to Philip of Spain, is, of course, to be understood.  Bullinger replied that it was a hazardous thing for the godly to resist the laws of a country.  Philip the eunuch, though converted, did not drive Queen Candace out of Ethiopia.  If a tyrannous and ungodly Queen reign, godly persons “have example and consolation in the case of Athaliah.”  The transfer of power to a husband is an affair of the laws of the country.

Again, must a ruler who enforces “idolatry” be obeyed?  May true believers, in command of garrisons, repel “this ungodly violence”?  Bullinger answered, in effect, that “it is very difficult to pronounce upon every particular case.”  He had not the details before him.  In short, nothing definite was to be drawn out of Bullinger. {47a}

Dr. M’Crie observes, indeed, that Knox submitted to the learned of Switzerland “certain difficult questions, which were suggested by the present condition of affairs in England, and about which his mind had been greatly occupied.  Their views with respect to these coinciding with his own, he was confirmed in the judgment which he had already formed for himself.” {47b}

In fact, Knox himself merely says that he had “reasoned with” pastors and the learned; he does not say that they agreed with him, and they certainly did not.  Despite the reserve of Bullinger and of Calvin, Knox was of his new opinions still.  These divines never backed his views.

By May, Knox had returned to Dieppe, and published an epistle to the Faithful.  The rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt had been put down, a blow to true religion.  We have no evidence that Knox stimulated the rising, but he alludes once to his exertions in favour of the Princess Elizabeth.  The details are unknown.

In July, apparently, Knox printed his “Faithful Admonition to the Professors of God’s Truth in England,” and two editions of the tract were published in that country.  The pamphlet is full of violent language about “the bloody, butcherly brood” of persecutors, and Knox spoke of what might have occurred had the Queen “been sent to hell before these days.”  The piece presents nothing, perhaps, so plain spoken about the prophet’s right to preach treason as a passage in the manuscript of an earlier Knoxian epistle of May 1554 to the Faithful.  “The prophets of God sometimes may teach treason against kings, and yet neither he, nor such as obey the word spoken in the Lord’s name by him, offends God.” {48} That sentence contains doctrine not submitted to Bullinger by Knox.  He could not very well announce himself to Bullinger as a “prophet of God.”  But the sentence, which occurs in manuscript copies of the letter of May 1554, does not appear in the black letter printed edition.  Either Knox or the publisher thought it too risky.