The History of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland / With Which Are Included Knox's Confession and The Book of Discipline

by John Knox

At that assembly, Master Alexander Anderson, sub-principal of Aberdeen, a man more subtle and crafty than either learned or godly, was called on but refused to dispute in his faith, abusing a place of Tertullian to cloak his ignorance. It was answered to him, that Tertullian should not prejudge the authority of the Holy Ghost, who, by the mouth of Peter, commands us to give reason for our faith to every one that requires the same of us. It was further answered that we required neither him nor any man to dispute in any point concerning our faith, which was grounded upon God's Word, and fully expressed within His holy Scriptures; all that we believed without controversy. But we required of him, as of the rest of the Papists, that they would suffer their doctrine, constitutions, and ceremonies to come to trial; and principally, that the Mass, and the views thereof taught by them to the people, might be laid to the square rule of God's Word, and unto the right institution of Jesus Christ....

While the said Mr. Alexander denied that the priest took upon him Christ's office to offer for sin, as was alleged, a Mass book was produced, and in the beginning of the Canon were these words read: Suscipe, Sancta Trinitas, hanc oblationem, quam ego indignus peccator offero tibi vivo Deo et vero, pro peccatis meis, pro peccatis totius Ecclesiae vivorum et mortuorum, etc.[171] Now, said the reasoner, if to offer for the sins of the whole Kirk was not the office of Christ Jesus, yea, the office that to Him only might, and may appertain, let the Scripture judge. And if a vile knave, whom ye call the priest, proudly takes the same upon him, let your own book witness. The said Master Alexander answered, "Christ Jesus offered the propitiatory, and that could none do but He; but we offer the remembrance." It was answered, "We praise God, that ye have denied a sacrifice propitiatory to be in the Mass; and yet we offer to prove that, in more than a hundred places of your papistical Doctors, this proposition is affirmed, 'The Mass is a sacrifice propitiatory.' But, to the second part; where ye allege that ye offer Christ in remembrance, we ask, first, unto whom do ye offer Him? and next, by what authority are ye assured of well doing? With God the Father, there is no oblivion: and if ye will yet shift and say that ye offer it not as if God were forgetful, but as willing to apply Christ's merits to His Church, we demand of you, what power and commandment ye have so to do? We know that our Master, Christ Jesus, commanded His apostles to do that which He did in remembrance of Him; but plain it is, that Christ took bread, gave thanks, brake bread, and gave it to His disciples, saying, 'Take ye, eat ye; this is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me,' etc. Here ye find a commandment to take, to eat, to take and to drink; but to offer Christ's body either for remembrance or application, we find not: and therefore, we say, to take upon you an office which is not given unto you, is unjust usurpation, and no lawful power."

The said Master Alexander, being more than astonished, would have shifted; but the Lords called on him to answer directly. He answered that he was better seen in philosophy, than in theology. Master John Leslie, who then was parson of Une, and now is Lord Abbot of Lindores, was commanded to answer to the former argument: and he with great gravity began to answer, "If our Master have nothing to say to it, I have nothing; for I know nothing but the Canon Law: and the greatest reason that ever I could find there is Nolumus and Volumus." And yet we understand that now he is the only patron of the Mass.... The nobility hearing that neither the one nor the other would answer directly, said, "We have been miserably deceived heretofore; for if the Mass may not obtain remission of sins to the quick and to the dead, wherefore were all the abbeys so richly doted[172] with our temporal lands."

Thus much we have thought good to insert here, because some Papists are not ashamed nowadays to affirm that they with their reasons could never be heard; but that all that we did, we did by fine force; when the whole realm knows that we ever required them to speak their judgments freely, not only promising them protection and defence, but also that we should subscribe with them, if they by God's Scriptures could confute us, and by the same Word establish their assertions.

Lord James Stewart is sent to Queen Mary.

At this Assembly also, the Lord James was appointed to go to France to the Queen our Sovereign; and a Parliament was appointed to begin on the twentieth of May next following; for the return of the said Lord James was looked for at that time.... He was plainly premonished that, if ever he condescended that the Queen should have Mass publicly or privately within the realm of Scotland, he then betrayed the cause of God, and exposed religion to the uttermost danger that he could....

An Embassy from France.

While Lord James, we say, was in France, there came an ambassador from France, suborned, no doubt, with all craft that might trouble the Estate of the religion. His demands were—1. That the league betwixt us and England should be broken. 2. That the ancient league betwixt France and Scotland should be renewed. 3. That the bishops and kirkmen should be reponed in their former places, and be suffered to intromit with their livings. The Council delayed answer until the Parliament appointed in May. In the meantime, the Papists of Scotland practised with him....