This article first appeared in the October 15, 2000 issue of the Standard Bearer (vol.77, #2) and was penned by Rev. Dale H. Kuiper, minister of SE PRC in Grand Rapids, MI at the time.

John Knox, Reformer and Preacher

The man who in the estimation of friend and foe alike was the greatest man that Scotland ever produced was born in 1505 near the village of Haddington (some of his biographers place his birth as late as 1512). John Knox's education was at the Burgh School of Haddington, where the instructors were Roman Catholic and the instruction prepared young men for the clergy or holy orders. Latin was stressed at this school, so much so that the students were required to speak Latin at all times. Knox himself was an outstanding Latin scholar. He did not study Hebrew and Greek until after his fortieth year. He remained in the Haddington school until he was seventeen, at which time he faced the question of where to attend university. By choosing to remain in Scotland, Knox avoided the humanism that was rampant in the schools on the continent. He finally decided to attend the University of Glasgow, mainly because the most famous teacher in Scotland at that time, John Major, was on the faculty there. This university was a stronghold of Roman Catholic teaching. It sought to defend and advance Medieval theology and philosophy as well as the authority of the pope.

Knox was ordained into the priesthood shortly before 1540. He employed himself in giving private instruction to the sons of prominent Scottish families, rather than engaging in parochial duties. It is generally thought that Knox never renounced his priestly vows but considered his original ordination to suffice even as he took up the cause of the Reformation in Scotland.

Knox first professed the Protestant faith toward the end of 1545. Several influences were used by God to convert this peasant's son from the bondage of Rome into the freedom of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In his early manhood he read both Augustine and Jerome. Secondly, he attended the preaching of George Wishart for some time, became his personal friend, and even served as his bodyguard when Wishart's life was threatened. Knox embraced Wishart's Reformed preaching with enthusiasm. For this preaching, George Wishart was burned at the stake by Cardinal Beaton. Thirdly, a powerful influence in Knox's conversion was his correspondence with Calvin and Beza, and his residence in Geneva on several occasions. At first Knox was nearer to Luther than to Calvin in his views, but later he considered Lutheran a term of reproach, agreeing with Latimer that the German Reformation was only a partial receiving of the truth.1 Knox's views regarding the papacy, the mass, purgatory, and other outrages show clearly that he embraced the teachings of the Genevan reformers.

But along with these three influences we must add Knox's wholehearted commitment to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and as the only, final authority in matters of faith, worship, and life. Knox agrees with a certain Balnaves, whom he quotes, "They deceive you which say, The Scriptures are difficult, no man can understand them but great clerics. Verily, whom they call their clerics, know not what the Scriptures mean. Fear nor dread not to read the Scriptures as ye are taught here before; and seek nothing in them but your own salvation, and that which is necessary for you to know. And so the Holy Spirit, your teacher, shall not suffer you to err, nor go beside the right way, but lead you in all verity."2 Knox expounded the Word of God, Old Testament and New, with insight and power. He applied the Scriptures to the situation in Scotland, England, and Europe. He loved the Psalms and explained them at length to those in spiritual distress with great understanding of them and with compassion for the weak. One of his favorite passages wasDeuteronomy 4:2, "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought form it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." This passage was a faithful guide to him in all his difficult labors, as it was to Luther and Calvin. He embraced the great Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura!

The bold reformer's first charge was at St. Andrews. The first sermon he ever preached had for its text Daniel 7:24, 25. He called the Church of Rome the man of Sin, the Antichrist, the whore of Babylon. He laid down the marks by which the true church may be discerned from the false. Some said, "Others hewed the branches of the papistry, but he strikes at the root to destroy the whole." Others said, "Master George Wishart spake never so plainly, and yet he was burnt; even so will he be."3 

A short time later the castle of St. Andrews became a refuge for those of Reformed persuasion because politically and religiously Scotland sided with England against Roman Catholic France. In 1547 a French army invaded Scotland and took Knox and other refugees captive, forcing them to row in the galleys for seventeen months. As a galley slave Knox suffered many torments, and his health was permanently damaged. After his release in 1549 Knox served several churches in England: Berwick, Newcastle, and London. While in London he joined with other pastors in approving "The Articles Concerning an Uniformity of Religion," a document which became the basis of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.

The years 1554-59 found Knox in Europe. He served a congregation of English-speaking refugees in Dieppe, France, and a similar type of congregation in Hamburg, Germany, at Calvin's urging. This pastorate he resigned due to controversies over vestments, ceremonies, and the use of the English prayer book. He next became the pastor of an English refugee congregation in Geneva. During these years Knox did much writing, for this time in Europe was the most peaceful of his life. Although urged by Bullinger and Calvin to use caution regarding female magistrates, Knox published his First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. Because Anabaptism was growing in England and in Scotland, a request came from England to the exiles inGeneva that someone write against the attack being made by the Anabaptists against predestination. Knox was chosen to make this response. Understanding the importance of this issue for true religion he wrote, "But yet I say, that the doctrine of God's eternal predestination is so necessary to the Church of God, that, without the same, can Faith neither be truly taught, neither surely established: man can never be brought to true humility and knowledge of himself: neither yet can he be ravished in admiration of God's goodness, and so moved to praise him as appertaineth. And therefore we fear not to affirm, that so necessary as it is that true faith be established in our hearts, that we be brought to unfeigned humility, and that we be moved to praise him for his free grace received; so necessary also is the doctrine of God's eternal predestination .... Then only is our salvation in assurance, when we find the cause of the same in the bosom and counsel of God."4 

Knox's views in the area of ecclesiology are remarkably similar to our own in the Protestant Reformed Churches. He thundered against the claims of the papacy. He called the mass an abomination and an idolatry. He considered the preaching of the gospel to be the chief means of grace, and the sacraments as secondary to preaching as a sign and seal. Baptism was the sign of entrance into union with Christ, and thus was to be administered to a person but once. The Lord's Supper was continuous nourishment for believers who were in Christ. He stood for infant baptism and was dead set against any re-baptism; the Anabaptists were his foe not only in the matter of baptism but also because they tried to upset the entire social order. We find it interesting also that Knox considered Roman Catholic baptism valid, and no reason for re-baptism. While insisting that baptism used in the papistry is an adulteration and profanation of the baptism which Christ instituted, insisting that Romish baptism leads people to put their confidence in the bare ceremony, and insisting that God's children ought never to offer their children to papistical baptism for this is to offer them to Satan, Knox nevertheless answers the question, "Shall we be baptized again that in our infancy were polluted with that adulterated sign?" with an unqualified "No." His grounds for this position were: (1) "The fire of the Holy Ghost has burnt away whatsoever we received at their hands besides Christ Jesus' simple institution." (2) "And in very deed, the malice of the devil could never altogether abolish Christ's institution, for it was ministered to us in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (3) "I confess, for the time it did not profit us; but now, as it is said, the Spirit of Christ Jesus, illuminating our hearts, has purged the same by faith, and makes the effects of that sacrament to work in us without iteration of the external sign."5 

Knox held strenuously to the regulative principle of worship as we also know it and maintain it. Condemning the mass, he said, "And now, in a few words, to make plain that wherein you may seem to doubt: to wit, that God's word damns your ceremonies, it is evident; for the plain and strait commandment of God is, 'Not that thing which appears good in thy eyes shalt thou do to the Lord thy God, but what the Lord thy God has commanded thee; that do thou; add nothing to it; diminish nothing from it.' Now unless you are able to prove that God has commanded your ceremonies this his former commandment will damn both you and them."6 All religious ceremonies and institutions must have clear biblical warrant if they are to be considered valid expressions of worship. Always Knox's argument against false worship turns upon his defense of the regulative principle of worship.

Only in one respect did Knox differ from the Genevan theologians and us. He never really condemned the episcopacy. He was a man of his time and shared the views of his contemporaries in the matter of church government. His refusal of an English bishopric was for practical rather than principle reasons. He preferred pastoral work in a humble sphere, preaching the blessed evangel, rather than the arduous duties of a superintendent. He never held the opinion that bishops were an unscriptural institution; they could be tolerated. Beza, hearing of the discussions going on in Scotland on church government, wrote to Knox in April of 1572, "But of this, also, my Knox, which is now almost patent to our very eyes, I would remind yourself and the other brethren, that as Bishops brought forth the Papacy, so will false bishops (the relics of Popery) bring in Epicurism into the world. Let those who devise the safety of the church avoid this pestilence, and when in process of time you shall have subdued that plague in Scotland, do not, I pray you, ever admit it again, however it may flatter the pretense of preserving unity."7 It is thought that had he lived longer his attitude would have changed and come more in line with the Presbyterian form of church government.

As a theologian Knox was not equal to Calvin, or even Melanchthon; he lacked the constructive powers needed to build up a theological system that united all doctrines into a unified whole. Nevertheless, he was a formidable, skillful disputant. His preaching style was unyielding and at times harsh. His language could be rather violent. His five conferences with Queen Mary were characterized by language that was exceedingly blunt and was not designedto win her over but to show her how wrong she was. On the other hand, he was the gentle father of five children born to him to two wives, the second of which was much younger than he and served as his nurse in his declining years. He was loved by his students and parishioners, and was a good example to them in all godliness. Near the end of his life he was so weak that he had to be helped into the pulpit; once there he became so vigorous that he began to strike the pulpit as to destroy it. His appearance was grave and severe, although he possessed a natural graciousness and dignity. His love for the truth and boldness in declaring it drew believers to his preaching services. He spent much time and meditation on his sermons, either writing them out in full or using copious notes. His harshness in debate and in preaching was defended by his followers for the importance of the issues at stake; they required a plain-spoken prophet rather than a smooth-tongued orator.

The esteem in which Knox was held by the faithful in Scotland was expressed by his servant Richard Ballantyne thus: "Of this manner departeth this man of God, the light of Scotland, the comfort of the Kirke within the same, the mirror of Godliness, and patron and example to all true ministers, in purity of life, soundness in doctrine, and in boldness in reproving of wickedness, and one that careth not the favor of men (how great soever they were) to reprove their abuses and sins .... What dexterity in teaching, boldness in reproving, and hatred of wickedness was in him, my ignorant dullness is not able to declare."8 He died in October of 1572, full of faith and still ready for the conflict. He died with friends reading to him Isaiah 53 and John 17. He died quietly and in peace. He was buried in the graveyard near the church of St. Giles, where a flat stone still marks his grave.

Knox's importance for the cause of the church and gospel of Christ in Scotland, England, and Europe can hardly be over emphasized. He gave his entire life to the reformation of the church. His religion took full possession of him, as true religion ought. Just before he died he said of himself, "None have I corrupted; none have I defrauded; merchandise have I not made." Just after he died the Earl of Mortoun eulogized him thus: "Here lieth a man who in his life never feared the face of man: who hath been often threatened with dag and dagger, but yet hath ended his days in peace and honor. For he had God's providence watching over him in a special manner, when his very life was sought."9 

All Presbyterian and Reformed churches owe a great debt to John Knox, and thankfulness to God for what He wrought through this brave man of the hour. Where can men of his stature be found today in Scotland, England, Europe, and the United States? Where can there be found such holy hatred for Romish superstitions, false doctrine, and wickedness today, as could be found in Knox from the time of his conversion to the last day of his life? May God raise up such men in those places that require them, for the preservation and defense of the truths of the Reformation today!

1.F. Hume Brown, John Knox, A Biography, Adams and Charles Black, London, 1895, vol. I, p. 71.

2.Brown, vol. I, p. 97.

3.Kevin Reed, editor, Selected Writings of John Knox, Heritage Publications, Dallas, 1995, p. 7, and Brown, vol. I, p. 76.

4.Brown, vol. I, pp. 250, 251.

5.Reed, p. 317.

6.Reed, p. 16.

7.Brown, vol. II, pp. 278, 279.

8.Samuel Jackson et. al., The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, vol. VI, Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York and London, 1920, p. 265.

9.Brown, vol. II, p. 288.

Other Sources:

The Reformation in Scotland, John Knox, Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1898.

The Scottish Reformation, Gordon Donaldson, Cambridge University Press, London, 1960.

This article first appeared in the January 1, 1962 issue of the Standard Bearer (Vol.38, #7) and was written by the editor, Rev. Herman Hoeksema.

We must still prove and that, too, from the decrees of the Roman Church themselves as contained especially in the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent, that what the Heidelberg Catechism states about the Mass is true, namely? that it is a denial of the one sacrifice of Christ and an accursed idolatry. 

That Christ is really and daily offered by the priest in the Eucharist and in the Mass is inseparably connected with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as I have already said before. And by this doctrine of Transubstantiation the Roman Church teaches that, after the formula of consecration is expressed by the priest upon the signs of the Lord's Supper, the signs are no more mere bread and wine but are changed into the very body and blood of the Lord. This is clearly expressed in the "Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist." In chapter I of this decree we read: 

"In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes. that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly really and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant, that our Savior himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, and that, nevertheless, he be in many other places, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, he testified, in express and clear words, that he gave them his own very body, and his own blood, which, recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers, it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain, contentious and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested as satanical these inventions devised by impious men; she recognizing, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, the most excellent benefit of Christ."

I may note here that it is true, of course, that our Lord Jesus Christ can, after his exaltation, be present in many places at the same time. But when, at the last supper, He said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" He was still in the flesh. His body had not yet been broken and His blood had not yet been shed. Besides, the theory of transubstantiation teaches that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the substance of the body and blood of the Lord. And this is not true, not only because Jesus was still present when He said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" but also because even after His exaltation, thesubstance of His glorified body is not changed into any other substance. When, therefore, the Roman Church worships the signs of the Lord's Supper on the supposition that these signs are the very Christ Himself, the Heidelberg Catechism is quite correct when it characterizes this as "an accursed idolatry." 

There is, in this chapter of "The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent" a separate article on "Transubstantiation" which reads as follows: 

"And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which he offered under the species of bread to, be truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is, by the Holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation." 

The priest, therefore, has, by pronouncing the formula of consecration, the power to convert the signs into the substance of the body and blood of the Lord. Moreover, the Romish Church also teaches that the signs in the Lord's Supper must be worshiped. We read: 

"Wherefore, there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. For not therefore is it the less to be adored on this account, that it was instituted by Christ, the Lord, in order to be received; for we believe that same God to be present therein, of whom the eternal Father, when introducing him into the world, says: And let all the angels of God adore him; whom the magi, falling down, adored; who, in fine, as the Scripture testifies, was adored by the apostles in Galilee." 

Moreover, in the Canons that follow this Decree, the Romish Church curses or calls accursed anyone: 

1. That denies that in the Eucharist the signs are not really changed into the body and blood of Christ. 

2. That teaches that in the Lord's Supper "the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Lutheranism), and denies that the substance of the signs is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. 

3. That in the Lord's Supper Christ is not to be worshiped. 

4. That teaches that in the Lord's Supper Christ is eaten spiritually only and not really. 

Finally, we must still call attention to the mass as a daily sacrifice offered by the priests. For the Heidelberg Catechism teaches us in Lord's Day XXX that the mass is not only an accursed idolatry, but also in the mass Christ is daily offered and must be so offered for the remission of sins in the following words: "but the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests." 

That this is, indeed, the doctrine of the Roman Church is clearly evident from the "Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent" in the chapters on the "Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass." From this we quote the following: ". . . nevertheless, because that his priesthood was not to be extinguished by, his death, in the Last Supper, on the night in which he was betrayed, that he might leave, to his own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be represented, and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit . . . he offered up to God the Father his own body and blood under the species of bread and wine ; and, under the symbols of those same things, he delivered his own body and blood to be received by his apostles, whom he then constituted priests of the New Testament: and by those words, 'Do this in commemoration of me' he commanded them and their successors in the priesthood to offer them . . . ." 

And in chapter II under the same heading: 

"And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, the same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy . . . For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different . . . Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments and satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreeably to the tradition of the apostles." 

And in the Canons under this same chapter we read: 

"I. If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacrifices is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat: let him be anathema." And again: 

"II. If any one saith, that by these words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke XXII, 19) Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his own body and blood: let him be anathema." And once more: 

"III. If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or that it profits him only who received; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema." 

This is sufficient to prove that the Heidelberg Catechism is correct when it states that the mass is nothing but a denial of the one sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross and an accursed idolatry. 

It is also sufficient to show that the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century is not a relative matter but a radical return to the truth of Holy Scripture; and we should regard it as such, not only on Reformation Day, but always.

—H.H.

This article first appeared in the December 1, 1961 issue of the Standard Bearer (Vol.38, #5) and was written by the editor, Rev. Herman Hoeksema.

The Protestant Reformation (2)

At the close of my former article under the above heading, I asked the question whether the Heidelberg Catechism did not use too strong language when it called the popish mass an accursed idolatry. And my answer was that it did not. 

This I now wish to prove with a few quotations from the Confession which the Romish church formulated at the Council of Trent. 

But before I refer to the mass proper, I must call attention to the Romish doctrine that, at the Lord's Supper, it is not necessary that the partakers receive both bread and wine, but that it is quite sufficient to take and eat the bread alone. This in spite of the fact that the Lord, in the night when He was betrayed, instituted the Lord's Supper under both species. How, then, does the Romish Church argue to prove that the celebration of the Lord's Supper under one species, that of the bread alone, is quite proper and sufficient? Let us quote from the above mentioned Confession: 

"Wherefore, this holy Synod, instructed by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of godliness, and following the judgment and usage of the Church itself, declares and teaches, that laymen and clerics when not consecrating, are not obliged, by any divine precept, to receive the sacrament of the Eucharist under both species; and that neither can it by any means be doubted, without injury to faith, that communion under either species is sufficient for them unto salvation. For, although Christ, the Lord, in the Last Supper, instituted and delivered to the apostles, this venerable sacrament under the species of bread and wine; not therefore do that institution and delivery tend thereunto, that all the faithful of the Church be bound, by the institution of the Lord, to receive both species. But neither is it rightly gathered, from that discourse which is in the sixth of John however according to the various interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors it be understood, that the communion of both species was enjoined by the Lord: for he who said, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you (vs. 54), also said, He that eateth this bread shall live forever (vs. 59); and he who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life (vs. 55), also said, The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world (vs. 52); and, in fine, he who said, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I in him (vs. 57), said, nevertheless, He that eateth this bread shall live forever." 

Although, therefore, the "holy Fathers and Doctors" taught that the Lord's Supper must be celebrated under both the species of bread and wine, the "holy Fathers and Doctors" of the Council of Trent declared that this was not necessary. 

But the "holy Fathers and Doctors" of the past, nevertheless, were correct, and the "holy Fathers and Doctors" of the Council of Trent were mistaken. 

Why? 

In the first place, even if the Lord's Supper were indirectly referred to in John 6, the Lord, nevertheless, emphatically spoke of eating His flesh and of drinking His blood. That the Lord spoke of His flesh and His being the Bread of Life was because of the feeding of the five thousand on the preceding day. And, indeed, this miracle revealed that He is the bread of life. But He could never become the bread of life except by first shedding His lifeblood on the accursed tree. This is the reason why the Lord emphasizes in the same chapter that men, in order to have eternal life, must not only eat His flesh, but also must drink His blood. That is the reason why, when the Jews strove among themselves and asked the unbelieving question: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat," the Lord answers by pointing to the cross. "You ask the question," the Lord says as it were, "how, in what way, I can give you my flesh to eat? I will tell you how this is possible. Verily, verily, I say unto you. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. This, is my answer to your question how it is possible that I can give you my flesh to eat. Surely, you cannot eat my flesh unless you also drink my blood." And, therefore, if this may be applied to the Lord's Supper, it means that the Lord says to the Romish church: "If you give to your members only the bread, and not the wine, you deprive them of the blood of the cross; and I say unto you anathema, you are accursed." 

Secondly, as the "holy Fathers and Doctors" rightly emphasized, the very institution of the Lord's Supper teaches all that will understand (which the Romish church will not) that it must be celebrated under both species. For thus we read in Matt. 26:26-29: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Notice that the Lord not only gave the bread to His disciples, but He first broke it as a sign of His broken body. And His body could not be broken except through the shedding of His blood. Again I say that the Romish church deprives its members of the blood of the cross by giving them only the bread and not the wine. Notice, secondly, that the Lord emphatically says to His disciples and, therefore, to the whole Church and all its members: "Drink ye all of it." But, according to the Romish church, its members do not have to drink. It is sufficient that the priest drinks it and says "haec est pro omnibus," this is for you all! 

Thirdly, the apostle Paul received the knowledge of the institution of the Lord's Supper by a special revelation emphasizing the importance of this sacrament, and that, too, under both species. This is found in the well-known passage of I Cor. 11:23-29: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." Surely, also this passage of the Word of God very clearly and emphatically teaches that the Lord's Supper must be celebrated under both species, bread and wine. 

Yet, the Romish Church claims the authority and power to change the Lord's Supper into whatsoever form they consider best and proper, For, according to chapter II under the heading "Doctrine Concerning Communion," they decided: 

"It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places . . . Wherefore, holy Mother Church, knowing this her authority in the administration of the sacraments, although the use of both species has, from the beginning of the Christian religion, not been infrequent, yet, in progress of time, that custom has been already very widely changed, she, induced by weighty and just reasons, has approved of this custom of communicating under one species, and decreed that it was to be held as a law; which it is not lawful to reprobate, or to change at pleasure, without the authority of the Church itself." 

In other words, the Church is exalted above the clear testimony of Holy Writ! 

And, finally, in chapter III under the same heading, they state that, in spite of the fact that they admit that the Lord Jesus instituted this sacrament under both species, bread and wine, the Church has the authority to change this: 

"It moreover declares, that although, as has been already said, our Redeemer, in that last supper, instituted, and delivered to the apostles, this sacrament under two species, yet is to be acknowledged, that Christ whole and entire and a true sacrament are received under either species alone, and that, therefore, as regards the fruit thereof, they, who receive one species alone are not defrauded of any grace necessary unto salvation."

O, to be sure, the "Holy Mother Church" knows better than the Lord Jesus Himself! 

And the Romish Church does not hesitate to call anyone accursed that believes that the Lord's Supper must be celebrated under both species, bread and wine. For, thus the Council of Trent declared: 

"Canon I—If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist: let him be anathema." 

And, to make one more quotation: 

"Canon III—If any one denieth, that Christ whole and entire, the fountain and author of all graces, is received under one species of bread; because that as some falsely assert, he is not received, according to the institution of Christ himself, under both species: let him be anathema." 

The question is now: what has all this to do with the mass? 

My answer is that the doctrine of the mass is inseparably connected with both the error of transubstantiation and that of celebrating the Lord's Supper under one species. If these two errors were not accepted as the truth by the Romish Church, the mass could never exist. 

We must not forget, in the first place, that, according to the Romish Church, the table of communion is the altar on which Christ sacrifices Himself daily or as often as the mass is celebrated, for the remission of our sins, and that without that daily sacrifice of Christ by the officiating priest, our sins cannot be forgiven. The signs in the Lord's Supper, therefore, are changed into the very body and blood of the Lord. Moreover, seeing that the signs of the Lord's Supper are changed into the very body and blood of the Lord, the Christ, as He lies upon the altar, i.e., the table of communion, is also worshiped by the celebrating members of the Church. This is why the Romish Church invented the error of transubstantiation. And this is also the reason why the Heidelberg Catechism characterizes the mass as an accursed idolatry. 

For proof of this I must once more turn to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent.

—H.H.

This article first appeared in the November 1, 1961 issue of the Standard Bearer (Vol.38, #3) and was written by the editor, Rev. Herman Hoeksema.

Was the Protestant Reformation necessary? Was there, after all, only a relative and no principal difference between the churches of the Reformation and the Roman church? Could not the doctrinal differences between the church of Rome and the Reformers have been settled amicably? This, indeed, was impossible according to the answer of the Romish church itself. This answer was very elaborately and even in minutest detail given by the Council of Trent which met in 1546 and for several years after. 

Indeed, that Council, in its third session, February 1546, first offered a Confession of Faith to which even the Reformers and the churches of the Reformation would have to agree. I quote this Confession here: 

"I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made: who for us men, and for our salvation, came clown from the heavens, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered and was buried; and rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; and he ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and again he will come with glory to judge the living and the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end : and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and the giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified; who spoke by the prophets: and one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen." 

We may be sure, if this had been the Confession of the Roman Church at the time of the Reformation, and if the Council of Trent had faithfully adhered to this; if they faithfully developed the doctrine on the basis of this Confession, there would never have been the Reformation of the sixteenth century. 

But this the Council of Trent did not do. Instead they developed an erroneous doctrine of justification by faith only without works; of the sacraments, including the doctrine of the mass; the doctrine of purgatory; the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary; the doctrine of the worship of the deceased saints and the veneration and worship of images; and the doctrine of indulgences. To all these false doctrines was added that of the infallibility of the pope in 1870. 

Moreover, they express their anathema or curse upon all that do not agree with any or all these heresies. 

That this is true I expect to demonstrate by a few quotations from "The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent." 

As to the doctrine of justification by faith without works, the Roman church takes the Semi-Pelagian position. For it teaches a certain prevenient grace by which they are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by which they freely assent to and cooperate with that grace and which grace they may and can also reject. For thus we read in chapter V of the above mentioned Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: 

"The Synod furthermore declares, that, in adults, the beginning of said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God . . . that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through his quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly inactive while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch he can also reject it; yet he is not able by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in his sight" . . . 

And in Canon IV of the same chapter we read the following: 

"If any one saith, that man's free will, moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive: let him be anathema (accursed)." 

There you have it. 

There is a grace of God that is not irresistible, to which man can assent, with which he can co-operate unto justification, but which he also can refuse and reject. And this means, of course, that, ultimately, it is up to man and not up to God's sovereign grace whether a man shall be justified before God. 

In the seventh session of the Council it speaks of "the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice [righteousness, justification, H.H.] either begins or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired." 

It is well-known that the Romish church attaches more importance to the administration of the sacraments than to the preaching of the Word. With the Reformers and the Protestants that followed them, this is just the reverse. According to them, there are two means of grace: the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments. Moreover, the preaching of the Word is first and is the chief means of grace. In fact, the latter are dependent upon the former. One can be saved without the administration of the sacraments if need be, but not without the preaching of the Word. With the Roman church this is different as is already evident from the above mentioned quotation: by the administration of the sacraments the grace of justification is either begun, or increased, or being lost is repaired. 

Moreover, as is also well-known, the Romish church has seven sacraments while the Protestants have only two. The seven sacraments of the Romish church are the following: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony. And they, i.e., the Romans, according to the Council of Trent do not hesitate to pronounce the curse upon anyone that does not confess that all seven are truly sacraments. This is expressed in Canon I under the heading "On the Sacraments in General." And I quote: 

"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or that they were more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order and Matrimony; or even that any of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament: let him be anathema." That is: let him be accursed. 

There is more. 

In Canon IV under the same heading, we read: 

"If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification; though all the sacraments are not indeed necessary for every individual: let him be anathema." 

The last part of this Canon reveals clearly that the Council itself felt that the sacraments, not all of them, at least, were not necessary unto salvation. For how could that possibly be said, for instance, of matrimony? Nevertheless, the Council of Trent, and the whole Romish church maintain that the sacraments are necessary unto salvation. Faith alone is not sufficient unto justification and without justification salvation is impossible. 

This the Reformers and all the Protestants deny. 

And if we remember that the Roman church never changes and will change, because what the church officially and, since 1570, the pope express is infallible, it is very evident that the Reformation was strictly necessary. 

I will quote one more of these Canons under the same heading: 

"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are distinguished amongst men from unbelievers: let him be anathema." 

Also to this the Reformers would and could never agree, even though Luther insisted, while denying the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation, with regard to the Lord's Supper, that the body and blood of Christ was present in and under the signs of the bread and wine. For in the above quoted Canon it is literally stated the signs, particularly in baptism and the Lord's Supper, contain and confer the grace signified by the signs. To the Reformers and to the Protestant Churches the signs did not contain the grace signified, nor were they mere signs, but they were also seals whereby God confirmed to the believer the oath of the promise of the covenant. 

I will not enumerate all the heresies that are maintained by the Romish church as they are expressed in the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. This would require too much space. And this is also unnecessary for the purpose I have in mind, namely, to prove that the Reformation of the sixteenth century was strictly necessary and was not relative but concerned such fundamental errors on the part of what then called itself the church that it might well be called the false church. 

Nevertheless, I must surely call attention to the error of "Transubstantiation" and, in connection with this, to the popish mass. 

By the doctrine of transubstantiation, as we know, is meant the theory that the signs of the Lord's Supper are changed into the very body and blood and soul of Christ. 

The Heidelberg Catechism describes this error very fully and correctly in question and answer 80: 

"What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and the popish mass? 

"The Lord's Supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and that we by the Holy Ghost are engrafted into Christ, who according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven on the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us:—but the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry." 

As to the theory of transubstantiation, of this the Catechism also speaks in Lord's Day XXIX, which the reader may look up in his own Psalter. 

But is not the language of the Catechism too strong? 

Can it really be said that the mass is nothing else, at bottom, than an accursed idolatry? Do the Romish people really worship the signs of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper? 

The answer is: they do, according to their own Confession. 

But about this we will, the Lord willing, write in our next issue.