HAPPY REFORMATION DAY 2008

Friends, with so much Luther and Calvin content being generated today, I decided to give you a different flavored gift this year:

A Brief Reformation Day Study on the Historical Background, Introduction, and Arguments Concerning the First Syllogism (of 2) of Reformer John Knox’s Defense of His View that the Roman Catholic Mass is Idolatry to the Bishop of Durham in 1550

(Quotes from John Knox are taken from Selected Writings of John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559).

Now, let’s go smack dab into the middle of the Reformation. Enjoy!

On 10 April 1547, in order to escape possible arrest as a heretic, Knox and his students entered the Castle of St. Andrews, where he continued his teaching duties. Within a few weeks of Knox’s arrival in the castle, the leaders of the rebel group, at the suggestion of their minister John Rough, invited Knox to be Rough’s associate.

On 31 July 1547, the garrison at the castle surrendered to the French, and Knox was condemned to the galleys. During his time as a galley slave, his masters attempted without success to force Knox and his fellow Scots to abandon the Reformed faith. Released from the galleys in 1549, Knox went to England, where he became rector of the parish at Berwick.

His sermons there reflected his growing antagonism toward the Roman Catholic Mass, and as a result of his preaching, Knox was summoned by the bishop of Durham to defend his views that the Roman Catholic Mass was idolatry.

On April 4, 1550, Knox said: “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.” Similar to the famous line from Martin Luther, Knox said, “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.”

Knox began with acknowledging the people’s perception of the Mass as great, holy, and honoring of God. But in his usual scathing way he likened the “great advantage” Demetrius gained in his move against Paul with the great gain the priests have had with the Mass. In an attempt to further awaken the audience of their idolatry, he pictured how shocked the Diana worshippers might have felt when they heard that her honor was in jeopardy when the gospel was preached in Ephesus. But prior to delivering his arguments, John Knox opened in prayer:

“O Lord eternal! move and govern my tongue to speak the verity, and the hearts of thy people to understand and obey the same.”

His defense was presented in two syllogisms, some additional arguments, and some final remarks. The first syllogism was:

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.

Knox began in his classic hard-hitting style saying, “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.”

He used the common knowledge of the Gentiles’ idolatrous sacrifices and placed the Mass greater in extent on the scale of abomination. He then moved to the example of Samuel calling Saul foolish, quoting Samuel from 1 Samuel 13 saying, “thou hast not observed the precepts of the Lord, which he commanded thee.”

Knox gives the illustration of Saul’s offense, pointing out that it was not a blatant, gross, heinous crime like adultery or murder, but that it was done in what would seem to be “good intent.” He shows how Saul offered burnt offerings to appease God because Samuel was not present to do so. Enemies were approaching, Samuel was not present, so Saul went ahead and offered burnt and peace offerings to God (although Samuel was the principal prophet and high priest). But since Saul was not of the tribe of Levi, and since only the tribe of Levi was told to make such sacrifices, Saul’s act was a “most high” abomination before God, “as the punishment appears.”

Knox said, “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.”

Remember, John Knox is defending his view that the Roman Catholic Mass is idolatry. Boldly, he uses this example of Saul (and another one) and says to them: “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.”

Knox uses another example of God’s furious wrath when sacrifices are made to him apart from what he has commanded. He uses Nadab and Abihu the sons of Aaron and their offering of “strange fire” as recorded in Leviticus 10:1-3. Knox explains that the strange fire “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.” Just as the audience is picturing God destroying these two men, John Knox shouts, “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.”

Knox uses this example to show that Nadab and Abihu the principle priests next to Aaron, their father, were “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.”

After a number of biblical arguments, Knox ends part one of his arguments saying, “…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.”

He then goes on to part two, which is, that the Mass is an invention of man. After discussing some objections that assert that the Mass comes from the Hebrew “Missa,” Knox goes on to dismiss them on the grounds that they lack evidence. He then attempts to prove that the Mass came from man, beginning with Pope Sixtus.

Pointing out that the Mass allows the eating of the bread but restricts the drinking of the cup to the clergy, Knox says, “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. 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.”

John Knox, apparently feeling like he’s beating a dead horse after several lengthy arguments closes part two of the first syllogism saying, “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.” He decides to move to the second syllogism from here wherein he aims to prove the Mass is an abomination before God.

If time permits I might do the second syllogism later this week. I chose this historical event in Reformed Theology because it is something many people will never read, but it is rich in biblical arguments. For the nerds out there, here is an edited version of the text.

This post has been submitted to Tim Challies’ Reformation Day Symposium 2008!