They were dishonest in all sincerity.
Thus Labitte, in the introduction to a book (2) in which he
exposes the hypocritical democracy of the Catholics under the
League, steps aside for a moment to stigmatise the
hypocritical democracy of the Protestants. And nowhere was
this expediency in political questions more apparent than
about the question of female sovereignty. So much was this
the case that one James Thomasius, of Leipsic, wrote a little
paper (3) about the religious partialities of those who took
part in the controversy, in which some of these learned
disputants cut a very sorry figure.
(1) Gaberel's EGLIST DE GENEVE, i. 88.
(2) LA DEMOCRATIE CHEZ LES PREDICATEURS DE LA LIGUE.
(3) HISTORIA AFFECTUUM SE IMMISCENTIUM CONTROVERSIAE DE
GYNAECOCRATIA. It is in his collected prefaces, Leipsic,
1683.
Now Knox has been from the first a man well hated; and it is
somewhat characteristic of his luck that he figures here in
the very forefront of the list of partial scribes who trimmed
their doctrine with the wind in all good conscience, and were
political weathercocks out of conviction. Not only has
Thomasius mentioned him, but Bayle has taken the hint from
Thomasius, and dedicated a long note to the matter at the end
of his article on the Scotch Reformer. This is a little less
than fair. If any one among the evangelists of that period
showed more serious political sense than another, it was
assuredly Knox; and even in this very matter of female rule,
although I do not suppose any one nowadays will feel inclined
to endorse his sentiments, I confess I can make great
allowance for his conduct.
Pages:
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333