Extracted from: Selected Writings of
John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559
"When Knox was released from his
imprisonment on board the French gallies in 1549, he proceeded to England, and
was received by the Protestants with much joy. Cranmer and his associates in
promoting the Reformation, having stationed several pious and zealous preachers
to itinerate in different parts of the kingdom, sent Knox to Berwick, where he
laboured for nearly two years with much success. His preaching was very
disagreeable to the clergy of that country, who were almost entirely bigoted
Romanists, and were countenanced by Tonstall, bishop of Durham, a Papist in his
heart, and who opposed the Reformation as far as he could with safety, till he
was deprived of his see in 1553.
"A charge was brought by these
ecclesiastics against Knox for teaching that the service of the Mass was
idolatrous, and the reformer was summoned to appear before the council of the
North, which directed public affairs in that district. Bishop Tonstall and
several of his clergy were also present, not being suffered by the Protestant
counsellors to proceed against Knox according to the usual practice of the
church of Rome. Knox being permitted to declare his mind fully and freely, made
a most able and impressive defence, which completely silenced the Romish
prelate and his clergy. He was allowed to continue his labours; in the
following year he was stationed at Newcastle, and in December, 1551, received a
further mark of approval of the government, being appointed one of King
Edward's chaplains in ordinary." [Introductory note in the British
Reformers edition of Writings of John Knox (Philadelphia, 1842), p. 154.]
In exposing the idolatrous nature of the
Mass, Knox stresses that all religious ceremonies and institutions must have
clear biblical warrant, if they are to be admitted as valid expressions of
worship. All worship invented by man is idolatry. Knox demonstrates that the
Mass is a human invention; and, therefore, the Mass is idolatrous. The entire
discussion turns upon Knox's defence of the scriptural law of worship.
[INTRODUCTION]
The fourth of April, in the year 1550, was
appointed to John Knox,
preacher of the holy evangel of Jesus Christ, to give his confession why he
affirmed the Mass [to be] idolatry: which day, in [the] presence of the council
and congregation (amongst whom were also present the bishop of Durham and his
doctors), on this manner he began:
This day I do appear in your presence,
honourable audience, to give a reason why so constantly I do affirm the Mass to
be, and at all times to have been, idolatry and abomination before God. And
because men of great erudition in your audience affirmed the contrary, most
gladly would I that they were present here, either in person, or else by their
learned men, to ponder and weigh the causes moving me thereto. For unless I
evidently prove my intent by God's holy scriptures, I will recant it as wicked
doctrine, and confess myself most worthy of grievous punishment.
How difficult it is to pull forth of the
hearts of the people the thing wherein [their] opinion of holiness stands,
declares the great tumult and uproar moved against Paul by Demetrius and his
fellows, who, by idolatry, got great advantage, as our priests have done by the
Mass in time past. The people, I say, hearing that the honour of their great
goddess Diana stood in jeopardy, with furious voices cried, "Great is
Diana of the Ephesians" (Acts 19:23-41). As [if] they would say, "We
will not have the magnificence of our great goddess Diana (whom not only Asia
but the whole world worships) called into doubt, come into question or
controversy. Away with all men intending that impiety." And hereunto they
were moved by long custom and false opinion.
I know that in the Mass has not only been
esteemed great holiness and honouring of God, but also the ground and
foundation of our religion. So that, in the opinion of many, [if] the Mass [is]
taken away, there rests no true worshipping nor honouring of God in the earth.
The deeper it has pierced the hearts of men, it occupies the place of the last
and mystical Supper of our Lord Jesus. But if I shall, by plain and evident
scriptures, prove the Mass (in her most honest garment) to have been idolatry
before God, and blasphemous to the death and passion of Christ, and contrary to
the Supper of Jesus Christ; then good hope have I, honourable audience and
beloved brethren, that the fear, love, and obedience of God, who in his
scriptures has spoken all verity [truth] necessary for our salvation, will have you give place to the same.
"O Lord eternal! move and govern my
tongue to speak the verity, and the hearts of thy people to understand and obey
the same."
That you may better perceive and
understand the manner of my doctrine in this my confession: first, I will
collect and gather the sum thereof in a brief and short syllogism; and
hereafter explain the same more largely.
[THE FIRST SYLLOGISM]
The Mass is Idolatry. All worshipping,
honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God,
without his own express commandment, is idolatry. The Mass is invented by the
brain of man, without any commandment of God; therefore it is idolatry.
[Part One: All Worship
Invented by Man is Idolatry]
[I.] For probation of the first part, I
will adduce none of the Gentiles' sacrifices, in which, notwithstanding, was
less abomination than has been in the Mass; but of God's scriptures I will
bring forth the witnesses of my words. And first, let us hear Samuel speaking
unto Saul, after he had sacrificed unto the Lord upon Mt. Gilgal, what time his
enemies approached against him. "Thou art become foolish," says
Samuel, "thou hast not observed the precepts of the Lord, which he
commanded thee. Truly the Lord had prepared to have established this kingdom
above Israel for ever; but now thy kingdom shall not be sure" (1 Sam. 13).
Let us consider what was the offence
committed by Saul. His enemies approaching, and he considering that the people
declined from him, and that he had not consulted with the Lord, nor offered
sacrifice for pacification of the Lord's wrath by reason that Samuel (the principal prophet and high priest) was not
present [Saul] himself
offered burnt and peace offerings.
Here is the ground of all his iniquity,
and of this proceeds the cause of his dejection from the kingdom: that he would
honour God otherwise than was commanded by his express word. For he [Saul], being none of the tribe of Levi (appointed by
God's commandment to make sacrifice), usurps that office not due to him, which
was most high abomination before God, as by the punishment appears.
Consider well that no excuses are admitted
by God: [such] as that his enemies approached, and his own people departed from
him; he could not have a lawful minister, and gladly would have been reconciled
to God, and consulted with him of the end and chance of that journey; and
therefore he, the king, anointed by God's commandment, makes sacrifice. But
none of all these [excuses] were admitted by God; but Saul was pronounced
foolish and vain. For no honouring knows God, nor will [he] accept, without it
having the express commandment of his own word to be done in all points. And no
commandment was given unto the king to make or offer unto God any manner of
sacrifice: which, because he took upon him to do, he and his posterity were
deprived from all honours in Israel.
[2.] Neither availed his preeminence, the
necessity wherein he stood, nor yet his good intent. But let us hear more. When
commandment was given unto Saul by Samuel, in God's name, to destroy Amalek (1
Sam. 15), because that sometime they troubled the people of Israel passing up
from Egypt [cf. Ex. 17:8-16] (advert, you that presently persecute the people
of God; albeit your pains be deferred, yet they are already prepared of God),
this people Amalek were not immediately punished after the violence done
against Israel (Deut. 25:17-19). But long after, they were commanded to be
destroyed by Saul: man, woman, infant, suckling, oxen, cattle, camels, and
asses and finally, all that lived in
that land.
Terrible should be the remembrance hereof
to all such as trouble or molest such as would follow the commandment and
vocation [calling] of God,
leaving spiritual Egypt (the kingdom of Antichrist) and the abomination
thereof. But Saul saved the king (named Agag) and permitted the people to save
the best and fattest of the beasts, to the intent sacrifice should be made
thereof unto God. But let us hear how this is accepted. Samuel before
admonished [Saul] of his
disobedience; [and] coming unto Saul asked, what voice was it which he heard?
The king answers, "The people hath saved the fattest and best beasts
thereof to make sacrifice unto their God." Here [it] may be marked, that
Saul had no sure confidence in God; for he speaks as though God appertains
nothing unto him. Samuel answers, "Suffer and I shall declare unto thee
what the Lord hath spoken unto me this night." And shortly he rebuked him
most sharply that he had not obeyed the voice of the Lord.
But Saul, standing in [the] opinion that
he had not offended because he did all of good intent, says, "I have
obeyed the Lord's voice: I have destroyed the sinners of Amalek, and I have
saved only the king; and the people have reserved certain beasts to be offered
unto God." And so he defended his own work to be just and righteous. But
thereto answers Samuel, "Delighteth God in burnt offering, and not rather
that his voice be obeyed?" The sin of witchcraft is not to obey his voice,
and to be stubborn is the sin of idolatry. As [if] Samuel would say:
"There is nothing that God more requires of man than obedience to the
commandment; yea, he prefers obedience to the selfsame sacrifice ordained by
himself, and no sin is more odious in God's presence than to disobey his voice;
for God esteems that so odious that he does compare it to the two sins most
abominable, incantation and idolatry
so that disobedience to his voice is very idolatry."
Disobedience to God's voice is not only
when man does wickedly contrary to the precepts of God, but also when of good
zeal, or good intent (as we commonly speak), man does anything to the honour or
service of God not commanded by the express word of God, as in the matter
plainly may be espied. For Saul transgressed not wickedly in murder, adultery,
or like external sins, but saved one aged and impotent king (which thing who
would not call a good deed of mercy?); and permitted the people, as is said, to
save certain beasts to be offered unto the Lord think ing that God should therewith stand content and appeased,
because he and the people did it of good intent. [1]But
both these Samuel called idolatry: first, because they were done without any
commandment of God; and, secondly, because in doing thereof he thought himself
not to have offended. And that is principal idolatry when our own inventions we
defend to be righteous in the sight of God, because we think them good,
laudable, and pleasant. We may not think us so free nor wise, that we may do
unto God, and unto his honour, what we think expedient. No! the contrary is commanded
by God, saying, "Unto my word shall ye add nothing; nothing shall ye
diminish therefrom, that ye might observe the precepts of your Lord God"
(Deut. 4:2); which words are not to be understood of the Decalogue and moral
law only, but of statutes, rites, and ceremonies; for equal obedience of all
his laws requires God.
3. And in witness thereof, Nadab and Abihu
offered strange fire, whereof God had given unto them no charge, [and] were
instantly (as they offered) punished to death by fire (Lev. 10:1-3). Strange
fire which they offered unto God was a common fire, and not of that fire which
God had commanded to burn day and night upon the altar of burnt sacrifice,
which only ought to have been offered unto God.
O bishops! you should have kept this fire:
at morning and at evening ought you to have laid fagots thereupon; yourselves
ought to have cleansed and carried away the ashes; but God shall behold.
In punishment of these two aforesaid is to
be observed, that Nadab and Abihu were the principal priests next to Aaron,
their father; and that they were comprehended neither in adultery,
covetousness, nor desire of worldly honour, but of a good zeal and simple
intent were making sacrifice
desiring no profit of the people thereby, but to honour God and to mitigate his
wrath. And yet in the doing of this selfsame act and sacrifice were they
consumed away with fire. Whereof it is plain, that neither the preeminence of
the person or man that makes or sets up any religion, without the express
commandment of God, nor yet the intent whereof he does the same, is accepted
before God. For nothing in his religion will he [God] admit without his own word; but all that is added
thereto does he abhor, and punishes the inventors and doers thereof, as you
have heard in Nadab and Abihu; by Gideon and diverse other Israelites setting
up something to honour God (Judges 8:24-27), whereof they had no express
commandment.
4. A story, which is recited in the Pope's
Chronicles, will I recite, which
differs nothing from the punishment of Nadab,etc. Gregorius Magnus, in the time
of the most contagious pestilence wherewith God punished the iniquity of Rome
(for now was the wicked hour that Antichrist sprang up and sat in authority);
in this time, I say, Gregory the pope devised a new honouring of God, the
invocation of saints called the Litany,[2]
whereof in the scriptures neither is there authority nor commandment. Upon
which sacrilege and idolatry God declared his wrath, even as he did upon Nadab
and Abihu. For in the instant hour when first the Litany[3]
was recited in open procession (as they call it), four score of the principal
men that recited the same were stricken horribly with the plague of God to
death, all in one hour. The Papists attribute this to the contagious air and
vehemence of the plague;[4] but it was no other thing but a manifest
declaration of God's wrath for inventing and bringing into the church a false
and diabolical religion. For while we desire saints to make intercession and to
pray for us, [by] what other thing do we then esteem the advocacy of Jesus
Christ not to be sufficient for us? And what can be more devilish?
Of these precedents, it is plain that no
man in earth has power nor authority to statute anything to the honour of God
not commanded by his own word.
[5]5. It profits nothing to say the kirk has power to
set up, devise, or invent honouring of God, as it thinks most expedient for the
glory of God. This is the continual crying of the Papists, "The kirk, the
kirk has all power; it cannot err, for Christ says, 'I will be with you to the
end of the world.' 'Wheresoever are two or three gathered in my name, there am
I in the midst of them.'"Of this they falsely conclude the kirk may do all
that seems good for the glory of God; and whatsoever the church does, that God
accepts and approves.
6. I could evidently prove that which they
call the kirk, not to be the kirk and immaculate spouse of Jesus Christ, which
does not err. But presently I ask, if the kirk of God be bound to this
perpetual precept? "Not that thing which appeareth righteous in your own
eyes, that shall you do, but what God hath commanded, that observe and
keep" (cf. Deut. 12:8, 31-32). And if they will deny [this], I desire to
be certified [notified] who has abrogated and made the same of none effect?
In my judgment, Jesus Christ confirms the same, saying, "My sheep hear my
voice, and a stranger they will not hear, but flee from him" (John 10:5).
To hear his voice (which is also the voice of God the Father) is to understand
and obey the same; and to flee from a stranger is to admit none other doctrine,
worshipping, nor honouring of God than has proceeded forth of his own mouth as he himself testifies, saying, "All that
are of the verity [truth], hear
my voice" (John 18:37). And Paul says, "The kirk is founded upon the
foundation of the prophets and apostles" (Eph. 2:20): which foundation, no
doubt, is the law and the evangel. So that it [the church] may command nothing that is not contained in one
of the two; for if it does so, it is removed from the only foundation, and so
ceases to be the true kirk of Christ.
7. Secondly, I would ask if Jesus Christ
is not King and Head of his kirk? This will no man deny. If he is King, then he
must do the office of a king; which is not only to guide, rule, and defend his
subjects, but also to make and statute laws, which laws only are his subjects
bound to obey, and not the laws of any foreign princes. Then it becomes the
kirk of Jesus Christ to advert [heed] what he speaks, to receive and embrace his laws; and where he makes
end of speaking or law-giving, here to rest; so that all the power of the kirk
is subject to God's word. And that is most evident by the commandment given of
God unto Joshua, his chosen captain and leader of his people, in these words,
"Be strong and valiant that they may do according to the holy law, which
my servant Moses commanded unto thee. Decline not from it, neither to the right
hand nor to the left," etc. (Josh. 1:7-8). "Let not the book of the
law depart from thy mouth, but meditate in it both day and night that you may
keep and do, in all things, according to that which is written therein,"
etc. Here was it not permitted to Joshua to alter one jot, ceremony, or statute
in all the law of God, nor yet to add thereunto, but diligently to observe that
which was commanded. No less obedience requires God of us than he did of
Joshua, his servant. For he will have the religion ordained by his only Son,
Jesus Christ, most straightly observed, and not violated in any part.
8. For that I find given in charge to the
congregation of Thyatira in these words: "I say unto you, and unto the
rest that are in Thyatira, who hath not the doctrine (meaning of the diabolical
doctrine before rehearsed), and who that knoweth not the deepness of Satan; I
will put upon you none other burden but that which ye have. Hold till I
come" (Rev. 2:24-25). Mark well, the Spirit of God calls all which is
added to Christ's religion, the doctrine of the devil, and deep invention of
the the adversary Satan. As also Paul, writing to Timothy (1 Tim. 4:1-3). And
Jesus Christ says, "I will lay upon you none other burden than I have
already; and that which ye have, observe diligently" (Rev. 2:24-25).
"O God eternal! hast thou laid none
other burden upon our backs than Jesus Christ laid by his word? Then who hath
burdened us with all these ceremonies, prescribed fasting, compelled chastity,
unlawful vows, invocation of saints, and with the idolatry of the Mass?"
The devil! the devil! brethren, invented all these burdens to depress imprudent
men to perdition!
9. Paul, writing of the Lord's Supper,
says, Ego accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis: "I have received and learned of the Lord that
which I have taught to you" (1 Cor. 11:23). And consider if one ceremony
he added or permitted to be used, other than Christ did use himself; but
commanded them to use with reverence the Lord's institution until his returning
to judgment.
10. Albeit Moses was replenished with the
Spirit of wisdom, and was more familiar with God than ever was any mortal man;
yet was there not of all the ceremonies [any] referred to his wisdom one jot. But all was
commanded to him, to be made according to the similitude shown unto him (Ex.
25:9), and according as the word expresses. Of the which precedents I think it
is plain, that all which is added to the religion of God, without his own
express word, is idolatry.
[6]11. Yet I must answer to one objection, objected by
the Papists; for never may they abide to be subject unto God's word. The
apostles (say they), in the council held at Jerusalem, set up a religion, and
made laws whereof no jot was contained in God's word; therefore the kirk may do
the same.
That there was any religion (that is,
honouring of God, whereby they might merit, as you call it, anything before
God) invented in that council, you never are able to prove. [7]Precepts were given, but neither such, nor to that
intent that you allege. All precepts given in that council had the commandment
of God, as after shall be heard.
[8]First, let us hear the cause of the council. Paul
and Barnabas had taught amongst the Gentiles that only faith in Christ's blood
justifies; and a great multitude of Gentiles by their doctrine embraced Jesus
Christ, and by him truly worshipped God. Unto Antioch from Judea came certain
false teachers, affirming that unless they were circumcised according to Moses'
law, they could not be saved (Acts 15:1-35): as our Papists say this day, that
true faith in Christ's blood is not sufficient purgation for our sins, unless
also we buy their mumbled Masses.[9] This controversy
troubled the hearts and consciences of the brethren, insomuch that Paul and
Barnabas were compelled to go to Jerusalem unto Peter and James, and others, I
think, of the apostles; where, a convention had, the question was propounded:
whether the Gentiles should be subject to the observation of Moses' law or not?
That is, whether only faith in Jesus Christ did justify, or necessary was also
to justification the law observed.
After great contention, Peter expounded
how the house of [10]Cornelius, being all Gentiles, had, by his
preaching, received Jesus Christ, and were declared in his presence just and
righteous before God. For they did receive the Holy Ghost visibly, not only
without the observation of Moses' law, but also before they had received any
sacramental sign of Christ's religion. Peter concludes that to put a yoke upon
the brethren's necks, which yoke might none of the Jews bear themselves, was
nothing but to tempt God: that is, to prove if God would be pleased with such
laws and ordinances as they would lay upon the necks of men, without his own
word, which was most extreme impiety. [11]And
so he concluded that the Gentiles ought not to be burdened with the law.
Hereafter, Paul and Barnabas declared what
wondrous works God had shown by them amongst the Gentiles, who never observed
Moses' law. And last, James, who appears to me principal in that council (for
he collects the scriptures and pronounces the final sentence, as you shall hear
plainly), declares that the vocation [calling] of the Gentiles was prophesied before, and that
they should be accepted and accounted to be the people of God without
observation of Moses' law adding
that no man ought to inquire a cause of God's work. And so he pronounces the
sentence, that their liberty should not be diminished.
Advert now the cause, the process, and the
determination of this council. The cause was to inquire the verity [truth] of certain doctrine: that is, whether the
Gentiles should be charged with the observation of Moses' law, as was affirmed
and taught by some. In this matter they proceeded by example of God's works,
finding that his gracious Majesty had accepted the Gentiles, without any
thralldom or ceremony observed. Last, the scriptures are produced, declaring so
to be forespoken; and according to all that is concluded and defined, that the
Gentiles shall not be burdened with the law.
[12]What congruence, I pray you, has the Antichrist's
councils with this council of the apostles? The apostles gathered to consult
upon the verity. The papistical councils are gathered for private commodity,
setting up of idolatry, and all abomination, as their determinations manifestly
prove. The apostles proceeded in their council by consideration of God's works
and applying of them to the present cause, whereupon deliberation was to be
taken and determined as God's scriptures command. But the Papists, in their
councils, proceed according as their wisdom and foolish brain thinks good and
expedient; and concluding not only without authority of God's scriptures, but
also manifestly contrary to the same. And that I offer myself most clearly to
prove, if any would deny or allege that it is not so.
[13]But yet, they say, the apostles commanded the Gentiles
to abstain from certain things, whereof they had no commandment of God. Let us
hear the things inhibited: "Ye shall abstain (says the epistle sent to
Antioch) from fornication" (Acts 15:29). This is the commandment of God.
So, although the Gentiles esteemed it to be no sin, yet it is expressly
forbidden in God's law.
But it follows, "From things offered
unto idols, from [things] strangled, and from blood shall ye abstain." If
the causes moving the apostles to forbid these things be well considered, it shall
be found that they had the express commandment of Jesus Christ to do so. The
Spirit of truth and knowledge, working in the apostles with all abundance,
showed them that nothing was more profitable, and more might advance the glory
of God, and increase the kirk of Christ, than that the Jews and Gentiles should
use together in familiarity and daily conversation, that by mutual company,
love might increase. One thing was easy to be espied: the Jews could not
hastily be persuaded that the eating of meats forbidden in Moses' law was no
sin before God. For difficult it is to pull forth of the heart that which is
planted by God's own word; so the Jews would have abhorred the company of the
Gentiles if they had eaten in their presence such meat as was forbidden in the
law. The apostles considered that the abstaining from such things was nothing
prejudicial to the liberty of Christians; for with time, and as the Jews grew
more strong and were better instructed, they would not be offended for such
matters. And therefore they commanded the Gentiles to abstain for a time. For
that it was not a perpetual precept declares this day, when no man holds the
eating of such things sin.
But what precept had they to do so? The
last and new precept given by Jesus Christ to his disciples [is], "that
every one love one another, as he hath loved us" (John 15:12). May not
Christian love command that none of us do in the sight of others that which may
offend or trouble the conscience of the infirm and weak? So witnesses Paul,
affirming, "that if a man eat with offence he sinneth" (1 Cor.
10:32). And by virtue of this same precept, the apostles forbid that the
Gentiles shall eat things offered unto idols, etc., that bearing some part with
the infirmity of the Jews, they might grow together in mutual amity and
Christian love. And these are the traditions of the seniors [elders] which Paul commanded to be observed. I pray you,
what similitude have our papistical laws with this precept of the apostles?
[14]But greatly it is to be marvelled that men do not
advert that the book of God's law (that is, of all his ordinances, testament,
promises, and exhibition thereof) was sealed and confirmed in the days of the
apostles: the effect and contents thereof promulgated and published; so that
most extreme impiety it is to make any alteration therein. Yea, and the wrath
and fearful malediction of God is denounced to fall upon all them that dare
attempt to add or diminish anything in his religion, confirmed and proclaimed by
his own voice.
O Papists! where shall you hide from the
presence of the Lord? You have perverted his law; you have taken away his
ordinances; you have placed up your own statutes instead of his. Woe and
damnation abide you! Albeit that the apostles had made laws other than the
express word commanded, what appertains that to you? Have you the Spirit of
truth and knowledge in abundance as they had? Was the kirk of Christ left
imperfect after the apostles' days? Bring yourselves to mind, and be ashamed of
your vanity. For all men, whose eyes Satan has not blinded, may espy that
neither wisdom nor authority of man may change or set up anything in the
religion of God, without his own express commandment and word.
And thus, I think, the first part of my
argument sufficiently proved: which is, that all worshipping, honouring, or
service of God invented by the brain of man (in the religion of God), without
his own express commandment, is idolatry.
[Part Two: The Mass is an Invention of
Man]
But in vain, some will think, that all
this labour I have taken; for no man of whole judgment any part of this would
half deny. Nor yet does it prove anything of my intent; for the Mass is not the
invention of man, but the very ordinance of God. Then I descend to prove the Mass
to be the mere invention of man, set up without all commandment of God.
And first, of this name Missa, which we
call the Mass, I would ask at such as would defend that papistical abomination:
"Of what spirit is it invented that Missa shall signify a sacrifice for the sins of the
quick and the dead?" Of the Spirit of God? Or of the spirit of man? Or of
what origin is it descended?" Some will answer, from the Hebrew diction, Missah, which, after some, does signify an oblation or a
gift like as tribute which the
inferior offers or pays to the superior. In the Hebrew tongue I confess myself
ignorant, but have (as God knows) fervent thirst to have some entrance therein:
and so of the Hebrew diction cannot contend. But men of great judgment in the
same tongue say that nowhere in [the] scriptures [does] Missah betoken an oblation. But admitting that it did so,
what shall they be able to prove thereby? My question is, if the Spirit of God
has invented and pronounced this diction Missa to signify a sacrifice for the sins of the quick
and the dead. Which if they be not able to prove, then must they needs confess
that it is of man's invention, and not of God's imposition. I could give unto
them a more apparent cause and derivation of that diction, Missa; but of the name I am not greatly solicitous.
Secondly, I desire to be certified what
they call their Mass whether [it is]
the whole action, with all ceremonies used now of old, or a part thereof? It
will not satisfy the hearts of all [the] godly to say, "St. James and St.
Peter celebrated the first Mass in Jerusalem or Antioch." If it were so,
one of the two celebrated first, and the other after; but neither of the two
can be proved by scripture. Great marvel it is that so manifestly men shame not
to lie! Peter and James (say the Papists) celebrated the first Mass.
[15]But I shall prove that Pope Sixtus was the first
that did institute the altars. Felix, the first of that name, did consecrate
them and the temples both. Bonifacius commanded the altars to be covered with
clean cloths. Gregorius Magnus commanded the candles to be lighted at the
Evangel, and did institute certain clothes. Pontianus commanded Confiteor to be said.[16]
And wherefore should I trouble you and myself both, in reciting what every pope
added. You may for two pence[17] have the knowledge
[of] what every pope added, until at last was compact [put together] and set up the whole body of that blasphemous
idol. And yet shame they not to say, "St. Peter said the first Mass,"
although that many hundred years after him no such abominable ceremonies were
invented.
[18]But they say, "All these ceremonies are not
the substance of the Mass, but are added for good causes." What
commandment have they received to add anything to the ordinance of God, for any
cause appearing to them? But let them certify [to] me what is the Mass.
"The canon," they will answer, "with the words of
consecration."
Who is the author of the canon, can they
precisely tell? Be well advised before you answer, lest by neglecting yourself
you be proved liars. [19]Will you say that the apostles used your canon? So
you have affirmed in times past. If the canon descended from the apostles to
the popes, bold and malapert impiety it had been to have added anything
thereto; for a canon is a full and sufficient rule, which in all parts and
points is perfect. But I will prove diverse popes to have added their portions
to this holy canon. If they will deny, advise what Sergius added, and what Leo added,
and what the two Alexanders added; for I may not abide presently to recite all;
but if they doubt, their own law shall certify them.
Secondly, the remembrance of the names of
such men, who were not born [until] many hundred years after the days of the
apostles, declares the canon not to have been invented [for] many years after
the apostles. For who used to make mention of a man in his prayers before he is
born? And masteris memorie[20] is made in the canon
of such men and women whose holiness and godly life credible histories make
little mention [of], which is an evident testimony that your holy canon is vain
and of none effect. And if any will take upon him to defend the same, I will
prove that therein is indigestible, barbarous, foolish congestion of words,
imperfection of sentences, ungodly invocations, and diabolical conjurations.
All this is that holy canon whose authority excels all scripture. O! it was so
holy, it might not be spoken plainly as the rest, but secretly it behooved to
be whispered![21] That was not evil [poorly] devised, for if all men had heard it, men would
have espied the vanity thereof.
But to the words of consecration: by whom
have they that name, I desire to know? "By Jesus Christ," will they
say? But nowhere are they able to prove that the words which he pronounced at
his Last Supper called he, or any of his apostles after him, "words of
consecration." And so have they received the name by the authority of man.
Which are the words? Let us hear. Accipite
et manducate ex hoc omnes. Hoc est enim corpus meum. Similiter et calicem post
quam coenavit, dicens, etc. ["Take
and eat ye all of this, for this is my body. In like manner he took the cup
after supper, saying," etc.]
(Cf. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:23-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-24.) Let us
inquire if anything be here added to Christ's words, or if anything be changed
or altered therein. First, in which of the evangelists are these words, "ex
hoc omnes" [all of this], spoken of the bread? Jesus Christ did speak them
of the cup, but not of the bread.
[22]O Papists! you have made alteration, not so much in
words as in deed. And of the selfsame action commanded to be used by him, you
permitted all to eat of the bread, but of the cup you reserved to you clipped in the crowns [heads] and anointed upon the fingers.[23] And in pain of your anathema of your great cursing you forbade that any laity presume to drink
thereof. But tell me, Papists, were the apostles clipped and besmeared as you
are? Or will you say that the congregation of the Corinthians were Papist
priests? I think you will not. And yet they all drank of the cup, like as they
ate of the bread. Mark, brethren, that of Christ's own words they make
alteration.
But let us proceed. They say, Hoc est
enim corpus meum ["For
this is my body"]. I pray
them, show where they find enim.
Is this not their own invention, and added of their own brain? O! here make
they a great matter, and here lies a secret mystery and hidden operation. For
in five words the virgin Mary conceived, they say, when she conceived the Son
of God. What if she had spoken seven, ten, or twenty words? Or what if she had
not spoken three? Should thereby the determined counsel [have] been impeded?
But, O Papists! is God a juggler? Uses he [a] certain number of words in
performing his intent? But whereto are you ascended, to be exalted in knowledge
and wisdom above Jesus Christ? He says only, Hoc est corpus meum. But you, as though there lacked something
necessarily requisite, have added enim ["for"],
saying, Hoc est enim corpus meum.
So that your affirmation makes all perfect.
Consider, I exhort you, beloved brethren,
if they have not added here of their own invention to Christ's words. And as
they add, so steal they from them. Christ says, Hoc est corpus meum, quod
pro vobis datur, or frangitur. "This is my body which is given for you,"
or "which is broken for you." These last words, wherein stands our
whole comfort, they omit, and make no mention of them. And what can be judged
more bold or wicked than to alter Christ's words, to add unto them, and
diminish from them. Had it not been convenient, that after they had introduced
Jesus Christ speaking, that his own words had been recited, nothing
interchanged, added, or diminished; which, seeing they have not done, but have
done the express contrary, as before is proved.
[Conclusion of First Syllogism:
The Mass is Proven to be Idolatry]
I think it is in vain to labour further to
prove the rest of this abominable action to be invented and devised by the
foolish brain of man, and so it cannot be denied to be idolatry. It shall not
profit them to say, "The epistle and evangel are in the Mass; hereto is
nothing added." What shall they prove thereby? For the epistle and the
evangel, as themselves do confess, are not of the substance of the Mass. And
although they were, it did nothing excuse the rest of that idolatry. For the
devil may speak the words of God, and his false prophets also, and yet thereby
are they neither better nor more holy. The epistle and evangel are God's words,
I confess, but there they are spoken for no edification of the people, but for
to be a cloak unto the body of that mischievous idolatry. All the action is
abominable, because it is the invention of man; and so a few or certain good
words cannot sanctify that whole Mass and body of abomination.
But what if I shall admit to the Papists,
that the whole action of the Mass were the institution and very ordinance of
God, and never one jot of man's invention therein; [if] I admit it be the
ordinance of God (as it is not), yet will I prove it abomination before God.
THE SECOND SYLLOGISM
All honouring, or service of God,
whereunto is added a wicked opinion, is abomi nation. Unto the Mass is added a
wicked opinion. Therefore it is abomination.
[The First Part: All Service with a
Wicked Opinion is Abomination]
The first part, I think, no godly man will
deny. And if any would, I ask, "What made the selfsame sacrifice,
instituted and ordained to be used by God's express commandment, odious and
abominable in his sight?" As it is written, "Bring unto me no more
your vain sacrifices; your burnt offering is abomination; your new moons, sabbaths,
and conventions I may not abide; your solemn feasts, I hate them from the
heart" (Isa. 1:13-14). And also, "Who slayeth an ox in sacrifice,
killeth a man:" that is, doth me no less dishonour than if he killed a
man. "Who slayeth a sheep," says he, "choketh a dog: who brought
meat offerings unto me, doth offer swine's blood" (Isa. 66:3). These two
beasts, the dog and the swine, were abominable to be offered in sacrifice, the
one for the cruelty, the other for filthiness. But, O priests! your sacrifices
are mixed with the blood of dogs and swine; while that, on the one part, most
cruelly you do persecute the professors of Christ's word; upon the other part,
yourselves live most filthily.
The prophet proceeds, "Who maketh a
memorial of incense, praiseth a thing that is vain." Amos says, "I
hate and detest your solemn feasts. I will not accept your incense; your burnt
offerings and meat offerings are not thankful before me" (Amos 5:21-23).
And why all this? Because, says the prophet Isaiah, "They have chosen
these in their own ways, and their own hearts have delighted in their
abominations" (Isa. 66:3). And it is plain, that the aforesaid sacrifices
were commanded to be done by God, and were not invented no, not one jot thereof by man's wisdom. Read the books of Moses (Exodus
and Leviticus), and you shall perceive them to be very commandments of God. And
yet says the prophet, "They have chosen them in their own ways."
Whereby the prophet meant and understood, that they had added unto them an
opinion which made them to be abominable before God.
This opinion was, as in the same prophet
and diverse others may be espied, that by working of the external work, they
might purchase the favour of God, and make satisfaction for their sins by the
same sacrifices. And that I collect of Jeremiah saying, "Ye believe false
words which shall not profit you. For when you have stolen, murdered, committed
adultery, and perjury, etc., then ye come and stand before me in this house,
which hath my name given unto it; and ye say, 'We are delivered or absolved,
albeit we have done all these abominations' " (Jer. 7:8-10). They thought
and verily believed their sins to have been remitted by virtue of their
sacrifice offered. But Isaiah asks of them, "Why spend ye silver for that
which is not sure, and consume labour for that which does not satiate?"
(Isa. 55:2). "Ye do hide yourselves with lies (but they esteemed them to
have been verities) and ye make a band or covenant with death; but it shall not
stand, for when destruction cometh it shall overwhelm you" (Isa. 28:15,
18). Their false prophets had taught them to cry, "Peace, peace,"
when yet there was no peace in their consciences (Jer. 6:14; 8:11). For they
which did eat the sin of the people (as our priests have long done), for the
more wicked men were, the more desire they had of the Mass, thinking by virtue
thereof all was purged. The pestilent priests of Moses' law, as witness the
prophets, caused the people to believe that by oblation of the sacrifice, they
were just and innocent; and did desire, for such offerings, plague and the
wrath of God to be removed (Hos. 7; Jer. 2). But it is answered unto them by
the prophet Micah, "Shall I come in his presence with burnt offerings, and
yearling lambs? Or doth a thousand rams please him, or ten thousand boats [containers] of oil? Shall I give my first-born son for
expiation of mine iniquity; or the fruit of my womb a sin offering for my
soul?" (Micah 6:6-7). Here the prophet plainly witnesses that no external
work, how excellent ever it be, does purge or make satisfaction for sin. [24]And so of the precedents, it is plain that a wicked
opinion added to the very work, sacrifice, or ceremony commanded to be done and
used by God, makes it abomination and idolatry. For idolatry is not only to
worship that thing which is not God, but also to trust or lean unto that thing
which is not God, and has not in itself all sufficiency. And therefore Paul
calls covetous men idolaters (Col. 3:5), because their confidence and trust are
in their riches; much more would he call him an idolater whose heart believed
remission of sins [comes] by a vain work, done by himself or by any other in
his name.
[Part Two: Unto the Mass is
Joined a Wicked Opinion]
[25]But now let us hear if unto the Mass be joined a
wicked opinion. It has been held in common opinion; it plainly has been taught;
by law it is decreed; and in the words of the Mass it is expressed, that the
Mass is a sacrifice and oblation for the sins of the quick and the dead: so
that remission of sins undoubtedly was believed by that same action and work
presently done by the priest. Sufficient it were for me, by the plain words of
the aforesaid prophets, therefore to conclude it [an] abomination; seeing they
[the prophets] plainly show
that remission of sins comes only of the mere mercy of God, without all
deserving of us, or of our work proceeding of ourselves. As Isaiah writes,
saying, "I am he which removeth thine iniquity, and that for my own
sake."
But if I shall prove this aforesaid
opinion which has been held of the Mass to be false, deceitful, and vain and that it is no sacrifice for sin (Isa. 43:25) shall either consuetude [custom], long process of time, or multitude of papistical
patrons, defend that it is not abomination and idolatry?
And first I ask, "Who offers this
sacrifice, and what is offered?"
"The priest," say the Papists,
"offers Jesus Christ unto the Father."
Then I demand, if a man can offer unto God
a more precious thing than himself? And it appears not, for Paul commands that
"we offer unto God a holy, lively, and reasonable sacrifice," which
he calls our own bodies (Rom. 12:1). And Jesus Christ, having nothing more
precious than himself, did offer up himself. If Paul had known any other
sacrifice, after the death of Jesus Christ (that is, in all the times of the
New Testament), more acceptable unto God than the mortification of our own
bodies, would he not have advertised us thereof? If there was any other
sacrifice, and he did not know thereof, then the Spirit led him not into all
verity: which to say is blasphemy. If he knew it, and yet did not advertise us
thereof, then did he not the duty and office of a true preacher; and to affirm
that is like impiety. If any man might have offered Jesus Christ but himself
only, in vain had it been to him to have suffered so cruel torment in his own
person by oblation of himself. And so to affirm that mortal man may offer him
who is immortal God, in my opinion is malapert proudness.
But let us hear more. Paul says, "By
one oblation hath he made perfect forever them which are sanctified" (Heb.
10:14). And also, "Remission of sins once gotten, there resteth no more
sacrifice" (Heb. 10:18). They will not avoid Paul's words, although they
say Paul speaks of the Levitical sacrifice. No, Papists! he excludes all manner
of sacrifice, saying, Nulla amplius restat Oblatio, "No more sacrifice resteth." And thereto
testifies Jesus Christ himself upon the cross, saying, Consummatum est ["It is finished"] (John 19:30): that is, whatever is required for
pacifying my Father's wrath justly moved against sin; whatever is necessary for
reconciliation of mankind to the favour of my eternal Father; and whatever the
purgation of the sins of the whole world required, is now completed and ended,
so that no further sacrifice rests for sin.
Hear, you Papists! Two witnesses speak
against you. How can you deny the opinion of your Mass to be false and vain?
You say that it is a sacrifice for sin, but Jesus Christ and Paul say only the
death of Christ was sufficient for sin, and after it rests none other
sacrifice. Speak! or else you are likely to be condemned.
[27]I know you will say, it is no other sacrifice, but
the selfsame, save that it is iterated [repeated] and renewed. But the words of Paul bind you more
straightly than that so you may escape. [28]For
in his whole disputation, he contends not only that there is no other sacrifice
for sin, but also that the selfsame sacrifice, once offered, is sufficient, and
never may be offered again. [29]For otherwise of no
greater price, value, nor extenuation, should the death of Christ be, than the
death of those beasts which were offered under the law which are proved to be of none effect, nor
strength, because it behooved them often times to be iterated.
The apostle, by comparing Jesus Christ to
the Levitical priests, and his sacrifice unto theirs, makes the matter plain
that Christ might be offered but once. First, the Levitical priests were
mortal, and therefore it behooved them to have successors; but Christ is an
eternal priest, and therefore is alone, and needs no successor. The Levitical
priests offered the blood of beasts; but Jesus Christ offered his own body and
blood. The Levitical priests, for impotence of their sacrifice, did iterate the
same; but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, having in itself all perfection, needs
not to be iterated. Yea, to affirm that it ought (or may be) iterated, is
extreme blasphemy; for that were to impute imperfection thereupon, contrary to
the whole religion, and the plain words of Paul, saying, "Such is our High
Priest, holy, just, unpolluted, separate from sinners, and higher than the
heavens; to whom it is not necessary every day to offer, as did those priests
first offer for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for that
he hath done once, when he offered himself" (Heb. 7:26-27). What words can
be more plain? Here Paul shows all causes, wherefore it needs not Christ to be
offered again; and would conclude, that he may not be offered again.
[30]Yet, they say, it repugns nothing that we offer
Christ, so that he offer not himself. The text says plainly, as before is
shown, that Christ only might offer himself which sacrifice is sufficient, and never may be offered again.
"For if it had behooved him to have been oftener offered than once, he
should have suffered often times from the beginning of the world. But once hath
he appeared for the away taking of sin, offering himself" (Heb. 9:26):
that is, of his own body, once slain, now living, and may suffer death no more.
"For by his only one sacrifice hath he made us perfect, and sanctifieth
forever."
Here is answered to that objection, that
some object: "Men every day sin; therefore it is necessary that every day
be sacrifice made for sin." Paul says, "By one sacrifice hath he
consummated [completed] us
forever" (Heb. 10:14). For otherwise, his death is not the only and
sufficient sacrifice for our sins: which to affirm is blasphemy. And so there
rests of our whole redemption nothing but his second coming, which shall be to
judgment: where we, depending upon him, shall receive glory and honour; but his
enemies shall be made a footstool to his feet. Not that I mean that his death
ought not to be preached, and the remembrance thereof extolled and praised in
the right administration of his Supper; but none of this to be sacrifice for
sin. [31]What will you answer to this, which Paul produces
against your Mass? [32]He plainly says there is no sacrifice for sin, but
Christ's death only, etc.; and that neither may you offer him, nor yet may he
offer himself any more.
[33]You will say, "It is a memorial sacrifice,
under which Jesus Christ is offered unto the presence of God the Father by the
kirk, under the appearance of bread and wine, for remission of sins. I answer
with Paul, Apparet nunc in conspectu Dei pro nobis, "He appeareth now in the presence of God for
us" (Heb. 9:24). So that it is not requisite that any man offer or
represent him to the Father; for that he does himself, making continual
intercession for us.
But let us consider this doctrine more
deeply. The kirk, say they, offered Jesus Christ unto God the Father for a
memorial sacrifice, or in a memorial sacrifice. Is there any oblivion or
forgetfulness fallen upon God the Father? Has he forgotten the death and
passion of Jesus Christ, so that he needs to be brought in memory thereof by
any mortal man? Behold, brethren, how that impiety discloses and declares
itself! Can there be any greater blasphemy than to say, God the Father has
forgotten the benefits which he gave to mankind in his only Son Jesus! And
whoever will say that they offer any memorial sacrifice or remembrance thereof
unto God, does plainly say that God has forgotten them. For otherwise, what
needs a representation or remembrance?
Advert, Papists, and consider how Satan has
blinded you; you do manifestly lie, and do not espy the same. You do blaspheme
God at every word, and can you not repent?
[34]They say it is Sacrificium speaking here; for a memorial sacrifice it cannot
be. They say it is a Sacrificium applicatorium [an applicatory sacrifice], a sacrifice whereby they do and may apply the
merits of Christ's passion unto sinners. They will be layers-to of plasters![35] But I fear the wound be not well ripened, and therefore
that the plasters are unprofitable.
You say you may apply the merits of
Christ's passion to whom you list. This is proudly spoken. Then may you make
peace with God at your pleasure. But the contrary he speaks in these words,
"Who may make" (Isa. 27:5). Here God says, that as none may move his
wrath against his chosen (and hereof ought you to rejoice, brethren: the pope,
nor his priests, nor bishops whomsoever may not cause God to be angry against
you, albeit they curse you with cross, bell, and candle),[36]
so no man may compel him to love or receive in favour but whom it pleases his
infinite goodness. Moses, I confess, prayed for the people when God was
displeased with them (Ex. 32:11-14; 32:32). But he speaks not proudly as you
do, but either desired God to remit the offence of the people, or else destroy
him altogether with them. I fear that your love be not so fervent. He obtained
his petition of God.
But will you say, "So it was
determined before in the counsel of God?" Advise you well. The nature of
God is to be free, and thrall unto nothing. For although he is bound and
obliged to fulfill all that his word promises to faithful believers, yet is
that neither subjection nor thralldom; for freely he made his promises, and
freely he does fulfill the same. I desire to be certified where God made his
promises unto you Papist priests, that you should have power to apply (as you
speak) the merits of Christ's passion to all and sundry who told or numbered
money to you for that purpose? Takes God any part of the profit you receive?
Alas, I have compassion upon your vanity, but more upon the simple people that
have been deceived by you and your false doctrine.
Are you better heard with God than Samuel
was? He prayed for King Saul, and that most fervently, and yet obtained not his
petition, nor might not apply any merits or holiness unto him. And it is said
to Jeremiah, "Pray thou not for this people, for my heart is not towards
it; no, though Moses and Samuel should pray for them, yet would I not hear
them, for they love to go wrong, and do not abstain from iniquity. Albeit they
fast and cry, yet will I not hear them; and although they offer burnt
sacrifice, I take no pleasure in it. And therefore pray not for this people,
nor yet make any intercession for them, for I will not hear thee" (Jer.
14:11-12; cf. Jer. 15:1, Ezek. 14:14, 20).
What say you to these words, Papists? The
prophet is forbidden to pray, for God says he neither will hear him nor yet the
people. He will accept none of their sacrifices; and that because the people
manifestly rebelled against God, rejoiced in iniquity, committed idolatry and
abomination. And he manifestly shows that nothing may appease him but true
repentance and conversion again unto God. O priests! has there not as great
iniquity abounded in your days as ever did from the beginning? Have you not
been enticers and leaders of the people to all idolatry? Yea, has not the
mischievous example of your abominable lives provoked thousands unto iniquity?
And yet do you say, that you may apply the merits of Christ's passion to whom
you list! Hear you not that God never will accept prayers nor sacrifice whiles
[until] true repentance were
found? Of that you were dumb, and always kept silence. Your clamour and crying
was, "Come, come to the Mass; buy with money, substance, and possessions,
remission of your sins. We have the merits of Christ's passion. We may offer
Jesus Christ unto the Father, whom he must needs receive for an acceptable
sacrifice and satisfaction of all your sins." Think not, brethren that I
allege anything upon them which they themselves do not speak, as their own law
and Mass shall testify.
In the beginning of the canon,[37] the proud priest, lifting up his eyes, as that he
had God even always bound to his commandment, says, "We beseech thee, most
merciful Father, by Jesus Christ our Lord, that you receive and bless this
untasted sacrifice (unsavoury sacrifice, truly he might have said) which we
offer to thee for thine universal church."
O proud and perverse prelates and priests!
who gave you that authority? Is it not expressly forbidden by the apostle Paul
that any man should usurp the honour to make sacrifice, except he be called by
God, as was Aaron? Have you the same commandment which was given to Aaron (Heb.
5:4)? His sacrifices are abrogated by Christ. Let us hear where you are
commanded to make sacrifices. Search the scriptures, but search them with
judgment. It will not be, Hoc facite ["Do this"],
for that is spoken of eating, drinking, and thanksgiving, and not of sacrifice
making. Nor yet will the order of Melchizedek, nor the text of Malachi prove
you priests to make sacrifice. Advise with others that have more appearance to
prove your intent; for if this be well pondered, the weight of them will
depress the proudness of your papistical priesthood.
Now will I collect shortly, all that is
said for probation, that the Mass is no sacrifice for sin. Advert: the New
Testament is eternal, that is, once made, can never be dissolved (Isa. 9:6-7;
Jer. 7:31-37), and therefore the blood wherewith this Testament is confirmed is
eternal: for it is the blood of the eternal Son of God. Only the blood of Jesus
Christ takes away our sins; for it is he alone that takes away the sins of the
world, and who by his own blood has reconciled all (Col. 1:14, 19-20). [38] For if otherwise sin might have been taken away,
then Christ has died in vain. And if full remission stood not in him alone,
then they that ate him yet hungered, and they that drank him yet thirsted (John
6:35). And that were contrary to his own words. "The blood of Christ is
once offered," and is sufficient, for it is the eternal blood of the
eternal Son of God; and "by his own blood hath he once entered into the
holy place" (Heb. 9:12). Therefore, the blood of Christ once offered
remains forever, for purgation of all sins; and so rests there no sacrifice in
the Mass. Advert these reasons precedent,[39]
and give place to the verity. For while the scriptures of God shall be held of
authority, never are you able to resolve these arguments.
[Summary and Conclusion
of the Second Syllogism]
Consider now, brethren, if the opinion of
the Mass be not vain, false, and deceitful? Caused they not you to believe it
was a sacrifice, whereby remission of sins was obtained? And you may plainly
perceive that no sacrifice there is, nor at any time was, for sins, but the
death of Jesus Christ only. For the sacrifices of the old law were only figures
of that verity and true sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ. And in them was a
commemoration of sins made, but neither was remission of sins obtained, nor
purgation made by any such sacrifice.
What will you do, Papist priests? There
rests no sacrifice to be offered for sin by you, nor by any mortal man. These
are dolorous tidings unto your hearts. And no marvel. For by that vain opinion
that the Mass was a sacrifice for sin, have you so quietly rested into that
flood of Euphrates,[40] that is, in all worldly felicity, which flows unto
you as a continual flood. But the Mass known not only to be no sacrifice, but
also to be idolatry, the waters appear to dry up. And it is likely that you
lack some liquor to refresh your tongues, being excruciated [tormented] with drought and heat intolerable.
[Further Arguments
Against the Mass]
Would you then hear glad tidings? What if
I should permit unto you (as one willing to play the good fellow, and not to be
stiff-necked) that the Mass were a sacrifice for sin, and that you did offer
Jesus Christ for sin? Would you be content that this were permitted unto you? I
think you would, for therefore have you long contended. Then let us consider,
what should subsequently follow thereupon.
A sacrifice for sin was never perfect
until the beast offered was slain. If in your Mass you offer Jesus Christ for
sin, then necessarily in your Mass must you needs kill Jesus Christ. Do not
esteem, beloved brethren, these words shortly spoken, to be vain or of small
effect. They are collected of the very ground of scriptures, for they plainly
testify that Christ to be offered, Christ to suffer, and Christ to shed his
blood or die, are all one thing.
Paul, in the epistle to the Hebrews, says,
"He appeareth now in the presence of God for us, not to offer himself
often times for us, for otherwise it behooved him to have suffered often times,
from the beginning of the world" (Heb. 9:24-26). Mark well, that Paul
makes to offer and to suffer both one thing, and therefore he proves that
Christ made but one sacrifice, because he once did suffer the death. Jesus
Christ says, as it is written in Matthew, "This is my blood of the New
Testament, which shall be shed for you and for many, in remission of sins"
(Matt. 26:28). Mark, that remission of sins is attributed to the shedding of
Christ's blood. And Paul says, "Christ is dead for our sins" (1 Cor.
15:3). And in another place, "By one oblation or sacrifice hath he made us
perfect forever" (Heb. 10:14). Consider diligently that remission of sins
is attributed sometime to the shedding of Christ's blood, sometime to his
death, and sometime to the whole sacrifice which he made in suffering all pain.
And why is this? Whether if there be diverse manners to obtain remission of
sins? No, but because every one of these three necessarily follows [the]
others. Remission of sins is commonly ascribed to any of them, for wherever
Christ is offered, there is his blood shed, and his death subsequently follows.
And so Papists, if you offer Christ in
sacrifice for sin, you shed his blood, and thus newly slay him. Advert what
fine [end] your own desire
shall bring you even to be slayers
of Jesus Christ. You will say, you never pretended such abomination. I dispute
not what you intended, but I only show what absurdity does follow upon your own
doctrine. For necessarily if you do offer Christ for sin, as you confess, and
your law does teach, you cruelly shed his blood, and finally do slay him.
But now I will relieve you of this
anguish. Dolourous it were daily to commit manslaughter, and oftentimes to
crucify the King of Glory. Be not afraid; you do it not; for Jesus Christ may
suffer no more, shed his blood no more, nor die no more. For he has died he so died for sin and that once; and now he lives, and death may not prevail against
him. And so you do not slay Christ, for no power have you to do the same. Only
you have deceived the people, causing them [to] believe that you offered Jesus
Christ in sacrifice for sin in your Mass
which is frivolous and false, for Jesus Christ may not be offered, because he
may not die.
I most gently exhort all desiring to
object against these precedents, ripely to consider the ground thereof, which
stands not upon the opinion of man, but upon the infallible word of God; and to
resume [review] every part of
their arguments and lay them to the whole body of God's scriptures. And then, I
doubt not, but all men whose sense the Prince of Darkness and of this world has
not execated [blinded], shall
confess with me, that in the Mass can be no sacrifice for sin. And yet, to the
great blasphemy of Christ's death, and open denial of his passion, it has been
affirmed, taught, and believed, that the Mass was a sacrifice for the sins of
the quick and the dead: which opinion is most false, vain, and wicked. And so,
I think, the Mass to be abominable and idolatry no man of indifferent judgment
will deny.
[The Mass is Not the Lord's Supper]
Let no man intend to excuse the Mass with
the pretext of the Lord's Supper. For now will I prove that therewith it has no
congruence, but is expressly contrary to it; and has taken the remembrance of
the same out of mind. And further, it is blasphemous to the death of Jesus
Christ.
First, they are contrary in institution.
For the Lord's Supper was instituted to be a perpetual memory of those benefits
which we have received by Jesus Christ, and by his death. And first we should
call to mind in what estate we stood in the loins of Adam, when we all
blasphemed the majesty of God in his face.
Secondly, that his own incomprehensible
goodness moved him to love us most
wretched and miserable, yea, most wicked and blasphemous and love most perfect compelled him to show mercy.
And mercy pronounced the sentence, which was that his only Son should pay the
price of our redemption. Which thing being rightly called to memory in the
present action of the Supper, could not but move us to unfeigned thanksgiving
unto God the Father, and to his only Son Jesus, who has restored us again to
liberty and life. And this is it which Paul commands, saying, "As often as
ye shall eat of this bread, and drink of this cup, ye shall declare the Lord's
death till he come" (1 Cor. 11:26). That is, you shall laud, magnify, and
extol the liberal kindness of God the Father, and the infinite benefits which
you have received by Christ's death.
But the Mass is instituted, as the plain
words thereof and their own laws do witness, to be a sacrifice for the sins of
the quick and the dead: for doing of the which sacrifice, God is bound not only
to remit our sins, but also to give unto us whatever we will ask. And that
shall testify diverse Masses celebrated for diverse causes: some for peace in
time of war, some for rain, some for fair weather; yea, and (alas, my heart
abhors such abomination!) some for sickness of beasts. They will say, they
severally take prayers for obtaining such things. And that is all which I
desire they say; for the obtaining such vain trifles, they destinate [appoint] their whole purpose, and so profane the sacrament
of Christ's body and blood (if that were any sacrament which they abused so),
which should never be used but in memory of Christ's death. Then should it not
be used to pray that the toothache be taken away from us, that our oxen should
not take the lowing ill, our horse the spavin or farcy [diseases], and so of all manner of diseases for our cattle.
Yea, what was it wherefore you would not say Mass, perverse priests? But let us
hear more.
The Supper of the Lord is the gift of
Jesus Christ, in which we should laud the infinite mercy of God. The Mass is a
sacrifice which we offer unto God, for doing whereof we allege God should love
and commend us.
In the Supper of the Lord, we confess
ourselves redeemed from sin by the death and blood of Jesus Christ only. In the
Mass, we crave remission of sins
yea, and whatsoever thing we list by
working of that same work, which we presently do ourselves. And herein is the
Mass blasphemous unto Christ and his passion. For insofar as it offers or
permits remission of sins, it imputes imperfection upon Christ and his
sacrifice; affirming that all sins were not remitted by his death, but that a
great part are reserved to be purged by virtue and the value of the Mass. And
also it is injurious unto Christ Jesus, and not only speaking most falsely of
him, but also usurping to itself that which is proper to him alone. For he
affirms that he alone has, by his own death, purged the sins of the world; and
that no part rests to be changed by any other means. But the Mass sings another
song, which is, that every day, by that oblation offered by the priests, sin is
purged and remission obtained. Consider, Papists, what honour your Mass gives
unto Christ Jesus!
Last, in the Supper of the Lord, we grant
ourselves eternal debtors to God, and unable any way to make satisfaction for
his infinite benefits which we have received. But in the Mass, we allege God to
be a debtor unto us for oblation of that sacrifice which we there presently
offer, and dare affirm that we there make satisfaction by doing thereof, for
the sins of ourselves and of others.
If these precedents be not contrary, let
men judge with indifference [impartiality]. They differ in use; for in the Lord's Supper, the minister and the
congregation sat both at one table
no difference between them in preeminence nor habit, as witnesses Jesus Christ
with his disciples, and the practice of the apostles after his death. But in
the papistical Mass, the priests (so they will be styled) are placed by
themselves at one altar. [41]And I would ask of the authority thereof, and what
scripture commands so to be done. They must be clad in several habits,[42] whereof no mention is made in the New Testament.
It will not excuse them to say, Paul commanded all to be done with order and
decently (1 Cor. 14:40). Dare they be so bold as to affirm that the Supper of
Jesus Christ was done without order, and indecently, wherein were seen no such
disguised vestments? Or will they set up to us again the Levitical priesthood?
Should not all be taught by the plain word?
Prelates or priests, I ask one question:
You would be like the vestments of Aaron in all things. Aaron had affixed unto
his garments certain bells, which were commanded to ring, and to make sound, as
often as he was clad therein. But, priests, your bells want tongues; they ring
not; they sound of nothing but of the earth. The people understand nothing of
all your ceremonies. Fear you not the wrath of God? It was commanded Aaron that
the sound of bells should be heard, that he died not. Advise with this, for the
matter appertains to you.
In the Supper of the Lord all were equally
participants: the bread being broken, and the cup being distributed amongst
all, according to his holy commandment. In the papistical Mass, the
congregation gets nothing except the beholding of your jukings, noddings,
crossings, turning, uplifting, which all are nothing but a diabolical
profanation of Christ's Supper. Now, juke, cross, and nod as you list; they are
[nothing] but your own inventions. And finally, brethren, you got nothing, but
gazed and beheld while one did eat and drink all.
It shall not excuse you to say, the congregation
is participating spiritually. O, wicked Antichrists! says not Jesus Christ,
"Eat of this, and drink of this; all do this in remembrance of me?"
(Matt. 26:26-27). Christ commanded not that one should gaze upon it, bow, juke,
and beck [nod] thereto, but
that we should eat and drink thereof ourselves; and not that we should behold
others do the same; unless we would confess the death of Jesus Christ to
appertain nothing to us. For when I eat and drink at that table, I openly
confess the fruit and virtue of Christ's body, of his blood and passion, to
appertain to myself; and that I am a member of his mystical body; and that God
the Father is appeased with me, notwithstanding my first corruption and present
infirmities.
Judge, brethren, what comfort has this
taken from us, [by them] which will that the sight thereof shall be sufficient.
I would ask, first, if the sight of corporeal meat and drink does feed or
nourish the body? I think they will say, "Nay." And I affirm that no
more profit receives the soul in beholding another eat and drink the Lord's
very Supper (as for their idolatry it is always damnable), than the body does
in beholding another eat and drink, and though receiving no part thereof.
But now briefly, let this contradiction be
collected [examined].[43] In the Lord's Supper are offered thanks for the
benefits which we have received of God. In the Mass, the Papist will compel God
to grant all that he asks of him, by virtue of the sacrifice, and so alleges
that God should refer thanks unto him that does [the] Mass.
In the Supper of the Lord, the actors [partakers] humbly do confess themselves redeemed only by
Christ's blood, which once was shed. In the Mass, the priest vaunts himself to
make a sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead.
In the Lord's Supper, all the partakers at
that table grant and confess themselves debtors unto God, unable to refer
thanks for the benefits which we have received of his liberality. In the
papistical Mass, the priest alleges that God is a debtor to him, and unto all
them for whom he makes that sacrifice. For he does affirm remission of sins to
be obtained thereby; and in that the Mass is blasphemous to Christ's death.
In the Lord's Supper, all sit at one
table: no difference in habit or vestment between the minister and the
congregation. In the papistical Mass, the priests are placed by themselves at
one altar (as they call it), and are clad in disguised garments.
In the Lord's Supper, finally, all do eat
of one bread and drink of one cup. But in the mischievous Mass, one man did eat
and drink all.
[FINAL REMARKS]
Consider now, beloved brethren, what the
fruits of the Mass have been, even in her greatest purity. The Mass is nothing
but the invention of man, set up without all authority of God's word, for
honouring of God; and therefore it is idolatry. Unto it is added a vain, false,
deceitful, and most wicked opinion: that is, that by it is obtained remission
of sins; and therefore it is abomination before God. It is contrary unto the
Supper of Jesus Christ, and has taken away both the right use and remembrance
thereof, and therefore it is blasphemous to Christ's death. Maintain or defend
the papistical Mass who so list, this honour and service did all which used the
same. And here I speak not of the most abominable abuses, as of buying and
selling, used now of late by the mischievous priests; but of the Mass in her
most high degree, and most honest garment; yea, even of the great Gaudeamus[44] sung or said by Gregory the Great, as Papists do
call him.
Let no man think that, because I am in the
realm of England, therefore so boldly I speak against this abomination. Nay,
God has taken that suspicion from me, for this body lying in most painful bonds,
amongst the midst of cruel tyrants,[45]
his mercy and goodness provided that the hand should write, and bear witness to
the confession of the heart more abundantly than ever yet the tongue spoke.
And here I call my God to record that
neither profit to myself, hatred of any person or persons, nor affection or
favour that I bear towards any private man, causes me this day to speak as you
have heard; but only the obedience which I owe unto God in [the] ministry,
showing of his word, and the common love which I bear to the salvation of all
men. For so odious and abominable I know the Mass to be in God's presence, that
unless you decline from the same, to life can you never attain. And therefore,
brethren, flee from that idolatry, rather than from the present death.
Here would I have spoken of the diversity
of sacrifice, but neither does time nor the wickedness [frailty] of my own flesh permit that I do so. I will you
[to] observe, that where I say there rests no sacrifice, nor yet are there any
priests; that I mean, there rests no sacrifice to be offered for sin, nor yet
are there any priests having power to offer such oblations. Otherwise, I do
know that all true Christians are kings and priests, and do daily offer unto
God a sacrifice most acceptable: the mortification of their affections, as Paul
commanded in Romans. But hereof I may not remain to speak presently.
Such doctrine as was taught in your
audience, upon Sunday before noon, I will prove, as opportunity shall permit,
by God's scriptures, not only unprofitable, but also erroneous and deceitful.
But first, according to my promise, I will send unto the teacher the extract
thereof, to add or diminish as by his wisdom shall be thought most expedient.
For God knows my mind is not captiously to trap men in words, but my only
desire being that you, my audience, be instructed in the verity; wherefrom
dissents some doctrine taught [to] you (if truly I have collected) moves me to
speak against all that may have appearance of lies and superstition.
And pray with me, brethren, that the
Spirit may be ministered unto me in abun dance, to speak at all times as it
becomes a true messenger. And I will likewise pray that you may hear,
understand, and obey with all reverence, the good will of God, declared unto
the world by Jesus Christ, whose omnipotent Spirit remain with you forever.
Amen.
Give the glory to God alone.
Notes
1. Marginal note: Note
2. Knox here
refers to the Greater Litany of
the church of Rome, containing invocation to saints, and ascribed by that
church to Pope Gregory the First. Basnage, a divine of the reformed church, in
his Ecclesiastical History, has
noticed very fully the subject of the ancient litanies; and [he] states, that
the earliest litanies now extant, which contain addresses to saints, were not
written before the conclusion of the eighth or the beginning of the ninth
century. The litanies, when regularly celebrated, were recited in Ascension
week; persons walked in the processions barefooted and fasting. Such
invocations were added to the earlier litanies in more corrupt times; and the
names of saints to whom prayers for intercession were offered were frequently
changed at different periods. The variety of formularies used in the church of
Rome was a subject which came under the notice of the Council of Trent. The
revision of the service book was committed to Pope Pius V; and the Roman Litany
now contains direct invocations only to forty-three saints. [Note abridged from
the British Reformers, Writings of
John Knox (American edition;
Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1842), pp. 187-88.]
3. "Gregory, in the time of a common pestilence,
ordained this service, called Litany, which is a Greek word, as much in English
to say, as Supplication or Prayer." (The Primer in English, 1808, sign. i, ij.) In this edition, the Litany
contains eighty-three distinct invocations. [D.L.]
4. The historical event referred to by Knox is thus
related by the earliest biographers of Pope Gregory I. In 590, Rome suffered
very severely from an infectious distemper, when Gregory, not then installed in
the popedom, preached a sermon, earnestly calling upon the people to repent.
The conclusion is preserved in his works, and contains an exhortation to the
people to unite publicly in supplication to God, appointing that they should
meet at day-break in seven different companies, according to their several
ages, sex, and stations, and walk in seven processions, reciting litanies or
supplications, till they all met in one place. They did so, and proceeded
singing and uttering the words, "Kyrie eleison," or "Lord have mercy upon us." In the
space of one hour, while thus engaged, eighty persons fell to the ground, and
breathed their last. (Vit. Gregor. a Jo. Diacon. xlii. et. seq. See also Fleury, liv. 35, § 1. Baron. Annal. 590, p. 6.) Baronius relates that Gregory caused
an image of the virgin to be carried on this occasion. With regard to the
persons who died while thus engaged, we may remember that the plague then raged
fiercely, and doubtless many had assembled who were already infected by it.
[Part of a note from the British Reformers edition of the Writings of John
Knox, pp. 187-88.]
5. Marginal note: Objection
6. Marginal note: Objection
7. Marginal note: Precepts were given
8. Marginal note: The cause of the council of Jerusalem.
9. A reference to private Masses.
10. Marginal note: Cornelius
11. Marginal note: Conclusion of the council
12. Marginal note: Question
13. Marginal note: Objection
14. Marginal note: Note
15. Marginal note: Popes who instituted the Mass
16. That is, the general Confession in the Ordinary of
the Mass, beginning, Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, beatæ Mariæ semper virgini,
beato Michaeli archangelo, etc.
[D.L.]
17. The price of many of the smaller religious tracts
published at this time. [D.L.]
18. Marginal note: Evasion
19. Marginal note: Improbation of the canon
20. A reference to the commemoration of holy men in
the ritual of the Romish church.
21. That is, some parts of the Mass are repeated by
the priest in a tone inaudible to the people. [D.L.]
22. Marginal note: Note
23. The priests were shaved and consecrated according
to the Romish practices.
24. Marginal note: Note
25. Marginal note: Opinion held of the Mass
26. Marginal note: Note
27. Marginal note: Answer of the Papists
28. Marginal note: Contra
29. Marginal note: Note
30.. Marginal note: Papists anwer
31. Marginal note: Question
32. Marginal note: Papists advert
33. Marginal note: Evasion
34. Marginal note: Papists
35. That is, those who apply plaster or ointment to
heal a wound.
36. The Romish form of cursing. [D.L.]
37. The service of the Mass. [D.L.]
38. Marginal note: Note
39. That is, notice these reasons which have preceded.
40. The waters of Babylon. [D.L.]
41. Marginal note: Question
42. Knox here
refers to the dresses worn by the Romish priests while saying Mass, as they are
described in some of their works of devotion. The colours of the priestly
ornaments used in the Romish church service vary at different seasons; and to
each colour a mystical meaning is attached. [D.L.]
43. That is, let these contradictions be examined.
44. Gaudeamus omnes in Domino, etc., sung in the Mass on the festival of the
Assumption of the virgin.
45. This is an allusion to Knox's
imprisonment aboard the French gallies.
Go back to
"Introductory Essay" to True and False Worship by John Knox
Go to "Knox's
Call to the Ministry and First Public Debate"
Copyright © 1995 by Kevin Reed
Presbyterian Heritage Publications
P.O. Box 180922
Dallas, Texas 75218
This edition has been edited to reflect
contemporary spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Bracketed words are supplied
where needed to complete the sense of a sentence. Bracketed words in italics
are inserted following some
antiquated terms or phrases as a convenience to the modern reader. Therefore,
the words in brackets are not a part of the original text.
This publication has been provided in
electronic form for the personal convenience of our readers. No part of this
publication may be transmitted or distributed in any form, or by any means
(electronic, mechanical photocopying, or otherwise) without prior permission of
the publisher.
John Knox - Back to FREE BOOKS and MP3s by JOHN KNOX