Because many are offended at the First Blast of the Trumpet, in which I affirm that to promote a woman to bear rule or empire above any realm, nation or city is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, and a thing most contrarious to His revealed and approved ordinance; and because also that some hath promised (as I understand) a confutation of the same, I have delayed the Second Blast till such time as their reasons appear, by the which I either may be reformed in opinion or else shall have further occasion more simply and plainly to utter my judgement. Yet in the meantime, for the discharge of my conscience, and for avoiding suspicion which might be engendered by reason of my silence, I could not cease to notify these subsequent propositions, which by God's grace I purpose to entreat in the Second Blast promised.

1. It is not birth only nor propinquity of blood that maketh a king lawfully to reign above a people professing Christ Jesus and His eternal verity, but in his election must the ordinance which God hath established in the election of inferior judges be observed.

2. No manifest idolater nor notorious transgressor of God's holy precepts ought to be promoted to any public regiment, honour or dignity in any realm, province or city that hath subjected the self to Christ Jesus and to His blessed Evangel.

3. […]

There was little in John Knox's background to suggest that as a self-styled instrument of God he was destined to wield considerable influence over the course of the Reformation in Britain. Of his early life, in fact, very little is known. Even the date of his birth – c. 1514 – is conjectural, though we can say that he was born of humble parentage in the Scottish burgh of Haddington in East Lothian and was probably educated at the local grammar school before attending St Andrews University. There is no record of his graduating from St Andrews, but he did take holy orders in the later 1530s and, unable to obtain a benefice, eked out a living as a notary apostolic (a minor legal official) and a tutor to the children of the gentry. The date of his conversion to Protestantism is similarly obscure, but it must have occurred in the early 1540s as Knox was closely involved with the ministry of George Wishart who returned to Scotland in 1543 after five years of exile in England and on the continent. Wishart's return appears to have been prompted by the Protestant and anglophile policies pursued by the Regent Arran following the death of James V in 1542 and the accession to the Scottish throne of the infant Mary Stewart. If so, it proved a fatal miscalculation.

[The meeting of the General Assembly in June 1564 brought the dispute over the legitimacy of the queen's mass to a head. While the majority of the Protestant nobility were unwilling to alienate the queen by forbidding her to worship as a Catholic, the more radical ministers were adamant in their opposition to what they construed as idolatry. On the first day of the Assembly, the ‘courtiers’ (as Knox calls the politique noblemen) invited a small group of ministers to confer with them in order to avoid a full public debate of the matter. Reluctantly, the ministers agreed, though only on condition that nothing should be voted upon or concluded without the knowledge and advice of the Assembly as a whole. The following extract from Knox's History (Laing MS, fos. 370r–387r Laing, vol. II, pp. 425–61; Dickinson, vol. II, pp. 108–34) gives a detailed account of the ensuing debate – primarily between Knox and the queen's secretary, William Maitland of Lethington – over Knox's uncompromising attitude to the mass, and, more broadly, over the general principle of resistance to ungodly rulers.]

What I have required of the queen regent, estates and nobility, as of the chief heads (for this present) of the realm, I cannot cease to require of you, dearly beloved Brethren, which be the commonalty and body of the same. To wit, that it (notwithstanding that false and cruel sentence which your disguised bishops have pronounced against me) would please you to be so favourable unto me as to be indifferent auditors of my just purgation. Which to do, if God earnestly move your hearts, as I nothing doubt but that your enterprise shall redound to the praise of His holy name, so am I assured that ye and your posterity shall by that means receive most singular comfort, edification and profit. For when ye shall hear the matter debated, ye shall easily perceive and understand upon what ground and foundation is builded that religion which amongst you is this day defended by fire and sword.

As for my own conscience, I am most assuredly persuaded that whatsoever is used in the papistical church is altogether repugning to Christ's blessed ordinance and is nothing but mortal venom, of which whosoever drinketh I am assuredly persuaded that therewith he drinketh death and damnation, except by true conversion unto God he be purged from the same.

[Shortly after his final return to Scotland on 2 May 1559, there was an outbreak of iconoclastic rioting in the town of Perth (St Johnston) inspired by Knox's preaching against idolatry. As a result Mary of Guise began to concentrate troops around the town to suppress the Protestant rebels. The following extract from Knox's History (Laing MS, fos. 113v–118r; Laing, vol. I, pp. 325–36; Dickinson, vol. I, pp. 164–72) shows the Congregation preparing their ideological defences in the form of letters to the regent and the nobility. It is not certain that Knox wrote them, but the style and content make it extremely likely.]

The certainty hereof coming to our knowledge, some of us repaired to the town again, about the 22 day of May, and there did abide for the comfort of our brethren. Where, after invocation of the name of God, we began to put the town and ourselves in such strength as we thought might best [serve] for our just defence. And because we were not utterly despaired of the queen's favours, we caused to form a letter to her grace, as followeth:

To the Queen's Grace Regent, all humble obedience and duty premised.

[Although the rebellion – and civil war – may be said to have begun in May 1559, neither side was in a position to force a decisive engagement that might resolve the issue. Instead, having fortified the port of Leith, the regent sought further military support from France, while the Congregation appealed for the intervention of England. The result was a temporary truce – the Appointment of Leith of 24 July 1559 – the terms of which became an immediate focus of dispute. The following extract from Knox's History (Laing MS, fos. 143r–149v; Laing, vol. I, pp. 397–412; Dickinson, vol. I, pp. 217–28) begins with a proclamation of the regent defending the arrival of French reinforcements and continues with the Congregation's response to the regent's arguments. Again, it is not clear that Knox himself was the author of the latter document, but the ‘supplement’ to the public letter, essentially a defence of the Protestant preachers’ attitude to the ‘authority’, bears distinctive Knoxian hallmarks.]

A proclamation set out by the queen regent to blind the vulgar people.

Letter I.

Things of the first importance – principles influencing all the transactions of a country – principles involving the weal or woe of nations, are very generally taken for granted by society. When a certain line of conduct, however questionable may be its policy – however momentous may be its good or evil results, has been followed by our ancestors, it usually happens that the great masses of mankind continue the same course of action, without ever putting to themselves the question – Is it right? Custom has the enviable power, of coming to conclusions upon most debatable points, without a moment's consideration – of propositions of a very doubtful character into axioms – and of setting aside almost self-evident truths as unworthy of consideration.

Of all subjects thus cavalierly treated, the fundamental principles of legislation, are perhaps the most important. Politicians – all members of the community who have the welfare of their fellow-men at heart, have their hopes, opinions, and wishes, centred in the actions of government. It therefore behoves them fully to understand the nature, the intention, the proper sphere of action of a government. Before forming opinions upon the best measures to be adopted by a legislative body, it is necessary that well defined views of the power of that body should be formed; that it be understood how far it can go consistently with its constitution; that it be decided what it may do and what it may not do.

SIR – In the last number of the Bath Magazine, I see an article from you, advocating the late system of Poor Laws. Being one of those who think that the “Poor Laws are bad in principle, and that they have in their effects operated most injuriously,” I am desirous of making a few observations on your letter. – You say that the poor have a right to a maintenance out of the land. Who gave them that right? and where does nature declare, that “the earth was made productive for the support of all its inhabitants,” without those inhabitants using the proper means for obtaining the produce? But, waiving the question of right, there is that natural tendency in human nature to lean upon any support that may be afforded, and that tendency in such support to corrupt and unhinge the mind, that even on this account alone, the Poor Laws ought to be considered as injurious. Your supposition that one person might “amass in his own possession all the means of subsistence that the earth has produced in that part of the country where he dwells,” to the starvation of the rest, is an impossibility, since every person who has accumulated much property, must employ and pay labourers and shop-keepers, who therefore cannot starve. The whole tenor of your argument implies, also, that a person is not to be allowed to raise himself by his own exertions.

Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression and by aggression. In small undeveloped societies where for ages complete peace has continued, there exists nothing like what we call Government: no coercive agency, but mere honorary headship, if any headship at all. In these exceptional communities, unaggressive and from special causes unaggressed upon, there is so little deviation from the virtues of truthfulness, honesty, justice, and generosity, that nothing beyond an occasional expression of public opinion by informally-assembled elders is needful. Conversely, we find proofs that, at first recognized but temporarily during leadership in war, the authority of a chief is permanently established by continuity of war; and grows strong where successful aggression ends in subjection of neighbouring tribes. And thence onwards, examples furnished by all races put beyond doubt the truth, that the coercive power of the chief, developing into king, and king of kings (a frequent title in the ancient East), becomes great in proportion as conquest becomes habitual and the union of subdued nations extensive. Comparisons disclose a further truth which should be ever present to us – the truth that the aggressiveness of the ruling power inside a society increases with its aggressiveness outside the society. As, to make an efficient army, the soldiers in their several grades must be subordinate to the commander; so, to make an efficient fighting community, must the citizens be subordinate to the ruling power.

The Proper Sphere of Government was Spencer's first attempt to determine what relationships there should be between government and the individual, while The Man versus The State was the more famous sequel. In the intervening years his publications ranged far beyond the boundaries of political theory. The Manchester Guardian judged Spencer on his death England's one contemporary philosopher of world-wide reputation and ranked him ‘among the two or three most influential writers of the last half-century’. Arnold Bennett conjures up a magnificent picture of what Spencer's unorthodox thoughts could unleash when the young Carlotta discovers The Study of Sociology in Sacred and Profane Love:

It was imperative that a book so exhilarating, toppling conventional wisdom on every page, had to be concealed from her hidebound aunt: Carlotta tore from their binding the pages of The Old Helmet, ‘probably the silliest novel in the world’, and inserted her treasure in their place. Spencer's impact survived subsequent reflection undiminished: ‘he taught me intellectual courage; he taught me that nothing is sacred that will not bear inspection; and I adore his memory’.