“The fourt of Apryle in the yeir 1550, was appoyntit to Johne Knox, preacher of the halie evangell of Jesus Chryst, to gif his confessioun why hie affirmed the mes idolatrie; whilk day, in presence of the consale and congregatioun, amangis whome was also present the bischope of Duram and his doctors, on this manner his beginneth.
“This day I do appeir in your presence, honourabill audience, to gif a reasone why so constantlie I do affirme the mes to be, and at all tymes to haif bene, idolatrie and abominatioun before God; and becaus men of great eruditioun, in your audience, affirmed the contrarie, most gladlie wold I that heir thay wer present, either in proper persone, or els by thair learnit men, to ponder and wey the causis moveing me thairto: for unles I evidentlie prufe myne intent be Goddis halie scriptures, I will recant it as wickit doctrine, and confes my self maist worthie of grevous punisment. How difficil it is to pull furth of the hartis of the pepill the thing whairin opinioun of holines standeth, declareth the great tumult and uprore moveit aganis Paule by Demetrius and his fellowis, who by idolatrie gat great vantage, as our priestis have done be the mes in tymes past. The pepill, I say, heiring that the honor of thair great goddes Diana stude in jeopardie, with furious voces cryit, ‘Great is Diana of the Ephesians;’—and heirunto wer thay moveit be lang custom and fals opinioun. I knaw, that in the mes bath not onlie bene estemit great holines and honoring of God, but also the groundand fundatioun of our religioun: so that, in opinioun of many, the mes taken away, thair resteth no trew wirschipping nor honoring of God in the erth. The deiper hath it persit the hartis of men yat it occupyith the place of the last and misticall supper of our Lord Jesus. But yf I sal, be plane and evident scriptures, prove the mes, in hir mair honest garment, to haif been idolatrie befoir God, and blasphemous to the death and passioun of Chryst, and contrarie to the supper of Jesus Chryst, than gude hope have I, honorable audience and belovit brethrene, that the feir, love, and obedience of God, who in his scriptures hath spokin all veritie necessarie for oure salvatioun, sall move yow to gif place to the same. O Lord eternal! move and governe my toung to speak the veritie, and the hartis of thir pepill to understand and obey the same.” MS. Letters, p. 1, 2.
In proof of his position, he laid down and defended two syllogisms. The first is thus stated: “All wirschipping, honoring, or service inventit by the brane of man in the religioun of God, without his awn expres commandement, is idolatrie: the mes is inventit by the brane of man without any commandement of God: thairfoir it is idolatrie.” The second syllogism is thus framed: “All honoring or service of God, whairunto is addit a wickit opinioun, is abominatioun: unto the mes is addit a wickit opinioun: thairfoir it is abominatioun.” p. 3, 21. In support of the major proposition of his first syllogism, he argues from 1 Sam. xiii. 11–14. xv. 22, 23. Deut. iv. 2. xii. 8, 32. 1 Cor. xi. 23. Take the following as a specimen:—“We may not think ws so frie nor wyse that we may do unto God, and unto his honour, what we think expedient. No: the contrarie is commandit by God, saying, ‘Unto my word sall ye ad nothing, nothing sall ye deminische thairfrome, that ye might observe the preceptis of your Lord God.’ Whilk wordis ar not to be understand of the decalogue and law moral onlie, but of statutis, rytes, and ceremonyis; for equall obedience of all his lawis requyreth God. And in witnis thairof, Nadab and Abihu offiring strange fyre, whairof God had geven unto thame na charge, wer instantlie, as thay offirit, punissit to death by fyre.—In the punisment of theis two afoirsaid is to be observit, that Nadab and Abihu wer the principal priestis nixt to Aron thair father, and that theywere comprehendit neither in adulterie, covetusnes, nor desyre of warldlie honor, but of a gud zeall and simpill intent wer making sacrifice, desyreing no profit of the pepill thairby, but to honor God, and to metigat his wraith. And yit in the doing of this self same act and sacrifice wer they consumit away with fyre; whairof it is plane, that nether the preeminence of the persone or man that maketh or setteth up any religioun without the express commandement of God, nor yet the intent whairof hie doith the same, is acceptit befoir God: for nothing in his religioun will hie admit without his awn word, but all that is addit thairto doith hie abhor, and punisseth the inventoris and doeris thairof, as ye haif hard in Nadab and Abihu.” p. 6, 7.
The following extracts will exemplify the irony with which he treated the popish tenets: “Jesus Chryst sayeth, ‘I will lay upon yow none other burdene than I haif alreadie;’ and, ‘that whilk ye haif observe diligentlie.’ O God eternal! hast thow laid none uther burdene upon our backis than Jesus Chryst laid be his word? Then who hath burdenit ws with all theis ceremonyis? prescrybid fasting, compellit chastitie, unlawfull vowis, invocatioun of sanctis, and with the idolatrie of the mes? The divill, the divill, brethrene, inventit all theis burdenis to depres imprudent men to perditioun.” p. 10. Speaking of the canon of the mass, he says, “I will preve, that thairin is indigest, barbarous, folische congestioun of wordis, imperfectioun of sentences, ungodlie invocationis, and diabolicall conjurationis. And this is that holie canon whois autoritie precelleth all scriptures! O! it was so holie it might not be spoken planelie as the rest, but secreitlie it behoved to be whisperit! That was not evil devysit; for yf all men had hard it, sum wold have espyit the vanitie thairof.—Thay say, Hoc est enim corpus meum. I pray thame schew, whair find thay enim? O! heir mak thay a great matter; and heir lyeth a secreit misterie, and hid operatioun! For in fyve wordis conceaved the virgin Marie, say thay, when sche conceavit the Sone of God. What yf sche had spokin sevin, ten, or twentie words? or what yf sche had not spoken in thrie? Suld thairby the determinat consalle been impeidit? But, O papists! is God a juglar? Useth he certane noumer of wordis in performing his intent?” p. 18, 19.
Quintin Kennedy, abbot of Crossraguel, in an Oration, composed by him in 1561, made some remarks on Knox’s book against the Mass. “Shortly,” says he, “will we call to remembrance ane notable syllogisme (or argument) sett furth be ane famouss preachour, callit John Knox, in his sermon againis the mess, in manner as efter followis.” And having quoted the first syllogism, as already expressed in this note, he answers: “As to the first part of his syllogisme, quhar he dois affirme all worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne without expres command of God to be ydolatrie, it is als falss as Goddis wourd is trew; for quhy? did not Abel, Abraham, Noe, and diuerse vtheris of the aulde fatheris, inuent meanis and ways to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, and wes acceptable to the Lord God, as the Aulde Testament techis ws? Did not Cornelius centurio in likewise inuent meanis and ways to the worschipping of God, without expres commande of God, quhilk wes acceptable to God, as the New Testament plainly teachis ws? Thus ma we clearlie persaue that this wickit syllogisme aboue rehersit is express aganis the scripture of Almychtie God, bayth Aulde Testament and New. Secundlie, to preve his fals and wicket syllogisme, impropirlie callis he to remembrance the scripture of Almychti God, quhare mentione is maid how king Saule made sacrifice onto God of his owne brayne, and wes nocht acceptable to the Lorde God. Mark this place of the scripture, and it salbe easely persavit that it is all wayis impropirlie appliit; for quhy, his syllogisme makis mentione of the worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, without expres commande of God; and this place of scripture testifeis plainly of the worschipping of God inuentit be the brayne of manne, express contrar to the commande of God. And sua may we clearlie vnderstand that this first part of his syllogisme differis far fra the testimonie of scripture, adducit be him for confirmatione of the samin; bicaus thair is ane grete difference betuix the worschipping of God inuentit be manne, without expres commande of God, and the worschipping of God inuentit be manne, express contrar to the commande of God; the ane may neuer stand with the scripture; the vther aggreis with the scripture, bayth Aulde Testament and New, as I haif all reddy declarit.” In fine, the abbot insists that Saul“committit na ydolatrie,” for “albeit the scripture dois affirme that stubborness is as the wicketnes of ydolatrie, nochttheles stubbornes is nocht ydolatrie.” Ane Oratioune set furth be Master Quintine Kennedy, Commendatour of Corsraguell, ye zeir of Gode 1561, p. 5–8. Edinburgh, 1812.
Changes on the English Liturgy.—In the Communion‑Book, as set forth in 1548, the words pronounced by the minister at delivering the bread were, “The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life;” and at the delivery of the cup, “The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve,” &c. As altered in the corrected Prayer Book of Edward VI. the words pronounced were, ‘Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee; and feed on him in thy heart by faith—Drink this in remembrance Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.” A rubric was also added, to be read at the celebration of the communion, declaring, that, although the posture of kneeling was retained to signify our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ, and to prevent profanation and disorder; yet “no adoration is intended or ought to be done, either to the sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood; for the bread and wine retained their natural substances, and Christ’s natural body was in heaven, and could not be in more places than one at the same time.” Collier, ii. 310: Records, No. 70.
In the settlement of religion, at the commencement of Elizabeth’s reign, the old form of words at delivering the elements was super‑induced upon the new, which, like the patching of old and new cloth in a garment, marred the whole, and pleased neither protestants nor papists; and the rubric, explanatory of kneeling, was thrown out. At the restoration of Charles II., “the church thought fit (says Collier) to condescend so far as to restore the rubric of King Edward’s reign,” to please “some people either of weak judgments or contentious humours.” A piece of condescension,with which the historian pretty plainly intimates his dissatisfaction. In the liturgy which was attempted to be imposed upon the Scottish church in 1637, all the qualifications and explications in the last prayer‑book of Edward VI. were completely excluded, and various expressions, postures, and gestures, favourable to the popish notions and superstition, were unblushingly borrowed from the mass‑book. But the rulers of the church in the three kingdoms were then posting fast to Rome, when they were overturned in their mad career.