KNOX AND THE ENGLISH BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, 1551-1553.
From Berwick Knox was removed, in the early summer of 1551, to
Newcastle-on-Tyne, where he laboured, with occasional absences, for
nearly two years. Already, in the spring of 1550, he had made a public
discourse of great importance there, and perhaps the impression
produced by his words then, may have led to his being ultimately
transferred thither. There is extant among his writings "A Vindication
of the Doctrine that the Sacrifice of the Mass is Idolatry," to which
this note is prefixed: "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 idolatry; which day, in
presence of the Council, and congregation, amongst whom was also
present the Bishop of Durham, in this manner he beginneth." This has
been supposed by some to indicate that he was under accusation of
heresy, and had been called to Newcastle to make his defence. But
though it is not unlikely that his {43} doctrine had been objected to
by Tunstall, yet the Council of the North was not an ecclesiastical
tribunal, and there is nothing in the whole address to imply that the
speaker was upon his trial. The truth seems rather to have been that
the members of the Council invited him to declare and enforce his
opinions concerning the mass before an audience which filled the great
church of St. Nicholas.
The argument of his discourse on this occasion was an amplification of
the following syllogism: "all worshipping, honouring, or service,
invented by the brain of man, in the religion of God, without His
express commandment is idolatry: the mass is invented by the brain of
man without any commandment of God; therefore, the mass is idolatry."
The ground here taken was identical with that which he had defended
against Arbuckle, and is distinctively different from the position
which, in the very same year, was taken by Cranmer in his "Defence of
the true Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament." The Anglican primate
meant by idolatry the substitution of a false God for the true, as in
the adoration of the host, for the real body, blood, soul and divinity
of the Lord Jesus Christ. But by the same term, as his major premise
makes abundantly evident, Knox designated that which we should call now
constructive idolatry, namely, "the invention of strange worshippings
of God, introduced without any warrant from His word;" or what the
Westminster divines meant, when in their Shorter Catechism in answer to
the {44} question, "What is forbidden in the second commandment?" they
reply, "The worshipping of God by images, _or any other way not
appointed in His word_." With Cranmer the word meant the worshipping
as God of that which is no God; with Knox it denoted the worshipping of
God in a manner invented by men and unauthorized by God. Cranmer was
the father of the Anglican churchmen; Knox was the earliest, and by no
means the least noteworthy, of the Puritans, for the principle which he
advocated was one which he was as ready to apply to ceremonies in the
reformed churches as to the idolatries of the Romish worship. The
utterance of these sentiments by him at this time marks the beginning
of that movement which has continued even until now, and which in its
progress, among other less conspicuous results, called into existence
the various nonconforming churches of England; inspired the covenanters
of Scotland to begin and carry through their long and painful struggle
with the second Charles; widened the civil liberties of Great Britain;
and planted the seed from which the American Republic has grown into
stateliness and strength.
Its more immediate personal effect, as we have conjectured, was the
transference of Knox from Berwick to Newcastle, where he continued to
administer word and sacraments in the same manner as he had been
accustomed to follow. On the banks of the Tyne he was as faithful and
fearless in his pulpit utterances, and as simple in his ritual
observances, as he had been on the {45} banks of the Tweed. "God is
witness," said he in a letter to his Newcastle friends, written by him
from the continent in 1558; "and I refuse not your own judgments, how
simply and uprightly I conversed and walked among you, that neither for
fear did I spare to speak the simple truth unto you; neither for hope
of worldly promotion, dignity, or honour, did I wittingly adulterate
any part of God's Scriptures, whether it were in exposition, in
preaching, contention, or writing; but that simply and plainly, as it
pleased the merciful goodness of my God to give unto me the utterance,
understanding, and spirit, I did distribute the bread of life, as of
Christ Jesus I had received it;"[1] and again, "How oft have ye
assisted to baptism? How oft have ye been partakers of the Lord's
Table prepared, and used, and ministered, in all simplicity, not as a
man had devised, neither as the king's proceedings did allow, but as
Christ Jesus did institute, and as it is evident that Saint Paul did
practise?"[2] How it came that he was permitted to administer the
sacrament in that manner does not appear; but the fact that he did so
is incontrovertible, and that he did not stand quite alone in taking
such a course is evident from these words in Becon's "Displaying of the
Mass," written in the reign of Queen Mary: "How oft have I seen here,
in England, people sitting at the Lord's Table!" It is well known also
that the opinions of Hooper, on this subject, were in full accord with
those of Knox; and though we have not been able {46} to find any
distinct statement that he had actually reduced them to practice, yet
it is all but certain that he did so.
But in any case his nonconformity in the matter of kneeling did not
keep Knox from attaining a prominent place among the leaders of his
time, for in December, 1551, six months after he had been stationed at
Newcastle, he was appointed one of King Edward the Sixth's chaplains,
who were six in number, and all of whom were selected because they were
"accounted the most zealous and ready preachers of that time." This
preferment was a recognition of the ability which Knox had shown. It
added much to his consideration and weight in the social scale, while
it gave him an opportunity of making his influence felt in
ecclesiastical affairs in a manner which has left its mark on the
English Prayer-Book even until the present day. To understand how this
came about, it is needful to bear in mind that the Second or Revised
Book of Common Prayer was completed at the press in August, 1552, and
had been appointed by the Parliament of that year to come into use in
the churches on the first day of November. Into that book had been
reintroduced from the "order of communion," published in 1548,[3] {47}
the injunction that the people should receive the bread and wine
"kneeling." That had, indeed, been the accustomed posture before, but
no instruction for its observance had been contained in the First
Prayer-Book published in 1549. There the directions are thus given:
"Then shall the priest first receive the communion in both kinds
himself, and next deliver it to other ministers, if any be there
present (that they may be ready to help the chief minister), and after
to the people." But in the two years immediately following the
publication of that First Prayer-Book, discussion on the posture at the
Lord's Table had been brought up, and as Cranmer, Ridley, and the most
of the other Reforming Bishops were opposed to the views and practices
of Knox, Hooper, and others, they deemed it advisable to foreclose
debate and put an end to diversity of order by an authoritative
injunction. For this purpose, in the Prayer-Book in 1552 the rubric
was made to read thus: "Then shall the minister first receive the
communion in both kinds himself, and next deliver it to the other {48}
ministers, if any be there present (that they may help the chief
minister), and after to the people, in their hands, kneeling." Thus it
came about that what had been left undefined in the former book was
expressly limited in the new one; and, therefore, though in other
respects the latter was much more in harmony with the sentiments of
Knox, it was in this less tolerant than the former. When, therefore,
Knox was appointed to preach before the king in the autumn of that
year, having probably seen one of the first-issued copies of the book,
he took occasion to enter fully into the discussion of the mode of
administering the communion, and his discourse was not without
immediate effect, for in a letter of John Utenhovius to Henry
Bullinger, dated October 12, 1552, the writer says:[4] "Some disputes
have arisen among the bishops, within these few days, in consequence of
a sermon by a pious preacher, chaplain to the Duke of Northumberland,
preached by him, before the king and Council, in which he inveighed
with great freedom against kneeling at the Lord's Supper, which is
still retained here in England. This good man, however, a Scotsman by
nation, has so wrought upon the minds of many that we may hope some
good to the church will at length arise from it, which I earnestly
implore the Lord to grant." Now there can be no doubt that the
preacher here referred to was Knox, who as having been in contact with
Northumberland as Warden-General of the border counties, might easily
be {49} mistaken by a foreigner for the chaplain of that nobleman.
Other facts to be taken in connection with the information furnished by
Utenhovius are the following:[5] In the Record of the Privy Council,
under date 26th September, 1552, there is an order to Grafton, the
printer, forbidding him to issue any copies of the new Prayer-Book; and
commanding that if any had been already distributed to his
fellow-publishers they should "not be put abroad until certain faults
therein had been corrected." Clearly therefore, as copies of the book
had been sold, it was possible for Knox to have obtained one, and as
Lorimer says, "none would be more eager purchasers than those ministers
of the Church who were most zealous for reform." Meetings of the
Council were held on October 4th and 6th, at one or other of which
objections to the rubric seem to have been made, probably as the result
of Knox's sermon, and to have been referred to Cranmer for his review.
On October 7th, Cranmer wrote to the Council in vindication of the
rubric on kneeling, a letter which purports to be a reply to certain
objections against it which had been forwarded to him by its members.
On the _agenda_ paper of the business to be transacted at the meeting
of the Council on the 20th of October, and which still exists in the
handwriting of Cecil, there is a line to this effect: "Mr. Knocks--b of
Cat|rb|--ye book in ye B of Durh|m|," and at that very meeting, as we
learn from the Record, "a letter was directed to Messrs. Harley, Bill,
Horn, {50} Grindal, Pern, and Knox, to consider certain articles
exhibited to the King's Majesty, to be subscribed by all such as shall
be admitted to be preachers or ministers in any part of the realm, and
to make report of their opinions touching the same." These articles,
therefore, must have come at this time into Knox's hands, and, though
many of them must have received his cordial endorsement, there was one
of them which he could not have approved; that, namely, which contained
this clause: "and as to the character of the ceremonies, they are
repugnant in nothing to the wholesome liberty of the gospel, if they
are judged from their own nature, but very well agree with it, and in
very many respects further the same in a high degree." How could Knox,
after his recent sermon on kneeling in the Lord's Supper, give his
sanction to that article? Manifestly he would feel that he must
protest against such an assertion as it contained; and then, as Lorimer
says, "the thought would seem to have flashed upon him that he had now
another and quite an unexpected opportunity of making a fresh appeal to
the king and Council on that very question of the rubric on kneeling,
which was still apparently in dependence. There was still time to make
one more attempt. In addition to his judgment upon the articles at
large, which need not go to the Council so quickly, what if he should
single out this 38th Article and make it the subject of a separate
representation, and distinguishing between the ceremony of kneeling and
all the rest; what if he should confine the bulk {51} of his
representations to this single point, which was now the only one in
which it was feasible to look for any immediate alteration?" That at
least was done by the memorial, which by its authors is called their
confession in regard to the 38th Article, and which Lorimer has printed
for the first time in his appendix. No names are subscribed to the
document, but the first portion of it bears strong internal evidence of
having been the production of Knox; and though in other parts there are
traces, as the painstaking editor thinks, of the hands of Thomas Becon
and Roger Hutchinson, we agree with him in believing that every one who
examines the whole statement with care will conclude "that whatever
Englishman may have joined him in the memorial, and whatever they may
have contributed to its substance of thought, it was Knox himself who
held the pen." This memorial could have been of no use after the final
action of the Council on the matter of "kneeling;" and it was evidently
called forth by the reference of the articles to the royal chaplains,
therefore it must have been prepared between the 20th and 27th October,
and must have been presented to the meeting of the Council on the
latter of these two dates, on which also, and we may conclude as the
result of the arguments contained in the memorial, the "Declaration on
Kneeling," which has all the marks of the style of Cranmer, and which
therefore had probably been sent by him to the Council as a suggested
compromise, was adopted, and ordered to be {52} inserted in the
forthcoming book. This accounts for the circumstance mentioned by the
editor of "The Two Liturgies" in a note, that the paragraph in question
"is printed on a separate leaf in some copies, and as is evident from
the signatures, was added afterwards." In one copy, "the leaf is
pasted in after the copy was bound, and several copies are without it."
Now putting all these things together, the conclusion is not only
legitimate but inevitable, that the insertion of the declaration on
kneeling in the Prayer-Book was due to the agency of Knox, more
probably than to that of any other man. As Lorimer writes (p. 121),
"The compromise prevailed, but apparently there would not have been so
much as a compromise obtained if the 'confession' had not been thrown
into the scale at the very last moment.... His last blow had the
effect of overcoming the resistance to all further change which a
majority of the Council had hitherto maintained." Hence, though we may
not approve of the spirit in which Weston uttered the words, or accept
either his description of Knox or his designation of the doctrine on
which he insisted, yet he was correct as to the matter of fact when he
said, "a renegade Scot did take away the adoration and worshipping of
Christ in the sacrament, by whose procurement that heresy was put into
the last communion book; so much prevailed that one man's authority at
that time."
The Declaration itself was in the following words:--"Although no order
can be so perfectly devised, but it {53} may be of some, either for
their ignorance and infirmity, or else of malice and obstinacy,
misconstrued, depraved, and interpreted in a wrong part: And yet,
because brotherly charity willeth, that so much as conveniently may be,
offences should be taken away; therefore we willing to do the same:
Whereas it is ordained in the Book of Common Prayer, in the
administration of the Lord's Supper, that the communicants kneeling
should receive the Holy Communion: which thing being well meant, for a
signification of the humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits
of Christ, given unto the worthy receiver, and to avoid the profanation
and disorder, which about the Holy Communion might else ensue: lest yet
the same kneeling might be thought or taken otherwise, we do declare
that it is not meant thereby, that any adoration is done, or ought to
be done, either unto the sacramental bread and wine there bodily
received, or to any real and essential presence there being of Christ's
natural flesh and blood. For as concerning the sacramental bread and
wine, they remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore
may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all
faithful Christians. And as concerning the natural body and blood of
our Saviour Christ they are in heaven and not here. For it is against
the truth of Christ's true natural body, to be in more places than in
one at one time." Opinions will of course differ as to whether in this
matter the influence of Knox was beneficial or the reverse. We are
writing biography, not a treatise on {54} theology, and what we have
been seeking to show is the share that Knox had in the English
Reformation. Sacramentarians generally will agree in styling the
Declaration which we have quoted "the black rubric," but for ourselves
we have no hesitation in avowing our agreement with Lorimer that "there
is nothing in the whole English Liturgy which is, to say the least,
more Protestant;" and it may be well, to give completeness to our
reference to the subject, that we should add that author's very
condensed summary of the subsequent history of this famous rubric. "At
the accession of Elizabeth it was dropped out of the Prayer-Book, along
with that portion of the 35th Article upon which it rested; and it
remained outside the Liturgy for a hundred years. And why? Simply
because its omission was judged as important by the Church's leaders
then as its insertion had been at first. Elizabeth's church policy was
a comprehensive policy, and neither James I. nor Charles I. had any
wish to depart from it. She wished, and so did her council and first
Parliament, to make it as easy as possible for the "Roman party to
continue in the National Church, but she and they knew that such a
comprehension was impossible as long as the "Declaration on Kneeling"
remained in the Prayer-Book. Its insertion had taken place in order to
"comprehend" the Puritan party, to the exclusion of the Romanists; and
now its omission took place in order to comprehend the Romanists, at
the risk of driving out the Puritans. But why do we now {55} find the
"Declaration" restored to its old place? What was the motive of so
remarkable a rehabilitation in 1662? It is easy to discern it. The
circle of church evolution and change had then returned into itself.
In 1662 the old policy of conciliating and comprehending the Puritans
instead of the Catholics was again in season--was again the key of the
situation. To this policy the "Declaration on Kneeling" was again
indispensable, and again, therefore, this most remarkable rubric was
restored, in substantially the same form, to its vacant place. Nor has
its history yet exhausted itself. It has retained its recovered place
through all the changes of the last two centuries only to come forward
into new significance and importance in our own day. The last chapter
of its history was written only the other day in the long discussion
and the fateful decision of the Bennett case. Its simple but trenchant
language was often quoted in the pleadings, and passed into the body of
the judgment itself: "As concerning the natural body and blood of our
Saviour Christ they are in heaven, not here: for it is against the
truth of Christ's true natural body to be in more places than in one at
one time."
But the memorial to the Privy Council, which we have traced to Knox,
prevailed also so far as to secure a modification of the article on
ceremonies, which, originally numbered as the 38th, came out owing to
some minor condensations as the 35th, and took this ultimate shape--(we
give Lorimer's translation from {56} the Latin)--"The book which of
very late time was given to the Church of England by the king's
authority and the Parliament, containing the manner and form of praying
and ministering the sacraments in the Church of England, likewise also
the book of ordering ministers of the Church set forth by the foresaid
authority, are godly, and in no point repugnant to the wholesome
doctrine of the gospel, but agreeable thereunto, furthering and
beautifying the same not a little; and therefore of all faithful
members of the Church of England, and chiefly of the ministers of the
Lord, they ought to be received and allowed with all readiness of mind
and thanksgiving, and to be commended to the people of God."[6] When
this is compared with the clause formerly given it will be seen that
what before was said of the "ceremonies" is here restricted to the
"doctrine," and that everything to which the memorial had taken
exception is omitted.
But though the insertion of the Declaration on Kneeling into the
Prayer-Book satisfied one of the conditions which, in his letter to his
Berwick friends, Knox had laid down as essential to his conforming to
"common Order": it did not meet the others, and so he steadily refused
to accept a formal charge in the Church of England. At the very time
when the Council was {57} engaged in the discussions which we have just
mentioned, the Duke of Northumberland wrote from Chelsea, under date
October 27th, 1552, to Secretary Cecil, in these words:[7] "I would to
God it might please the King's majesty to appoint Mr. Knox to the
office of Rochester bishopric, which for three reasons would be very
well. First: he would not only be a whetstone to quicken and sharp the
Bishop of Canterbury, whereof he hath need, but also would be a great
confounder of the Anabaptists lately sprung up in Kent. Secondly, he
should not continue the ministration in the north, contrary to this set
forth here" (meaning to the usual form prescribed at this time).
"Thirdly, the family of the Scots now inhabiting in Newcastle, chiefly
for his fellowship, would not continue there, wherein many resort to
them out of Scotland, which is not requisite." These are certainly
rather strange reasons why Knox should be promoted to a bishopric, but
they prove not only that he had acted an independent part in Newcastle,
but also that his fame had gone so widely over Scotland that multitudes
of his fellow-countrymen were attracted to that place for the sake of
enjoying his ministrations. But he would not be made a bishop, and he
must have expressed his refusal with all his wonted plainness of
speech, for a few weeks later, on the 7th December, Northumberland
writes to the same correspondent: "Master Knox's being here to speak
with me, saying he was so willed by you; I do return him again, {58}
because I love not to have to do with men which be neither grateful nor
pleasable."[8] So his grace is minded to put the case; but with his
former letter in our hands we can see that gratitude in his vocabulary
meant falling in with his individual plans, and "pleasableness" was
with him a synonym for "squeezeableness."
In the following February (1553) Knox was offered the Vicarage of All
Hallows in Bread Street (London); but that also he declined, and we
have from the pen of Calderwood an account of what occurred in
connection with that.[9] "In a letter, dated the 14th of April, 1553,
and written with his own hand, I find," says that author, "that he was
called before the Council of England for kneeling, who demanded of him
three questions. First, why he refused the benefice provided for him?
secondly, whether he thought that no Christian might serve in the
ecclesiastical ministration according to the rites and laws of the
realm of England? thirdly, if kneeling at the Lord's Table was not
indifferent? To the first he answered, that his conscience did witness
that he might profit more in some other place than in London; and
therefore had no pleasure to accept any office in the same. Howbeit,
he might have answered otherwise, that he refused that parsonage
because of my Lord of Northumberland's command. To the second, that
many things were worthy of reformation in the ministry of England,
without the reformation whereof no minister {59} did discharge, or
could discharge, his conscience before God; for no minister in England
had authority to divide and separate the lepers from the whole, which
was a chief point of his office; yet did he not refuse such office as
might appear to promote God's glory in utterance of Christ's gospel in
a mean degree, where more he might edify by preaching of the true word
than hinder by sufferance of manifest iniquity, seeing that reformation
of manners did not appertain to all ministers. To the third he
answered, that Christ's action in itself was most perfect, and Christ's
action was done without kneeling; that kneeling was man's addition or
imagination; that it was most sure to follow the example of Christ,
whose action was done sitting and not kneeling. In this last question
there was great contention betwixt the whole table of the lords and
him. There were present there the Bishops of Canterbury and Ely, my
Lord Treasurer, the Marquis of Northampton, the Earl of Bedford, the
Earl of Shrewsbury, Master Comptroller, my Lord Chamberlain, both the
Secretaries, and other inferior lords. After long reasoning, it was
said unto him that he was not called of any evil mind; that they were
sorry to know him of a contrary mind to the common Order. He answered
that he was more sorry that a common Order should be contrary to
Christ's institution. With some gentle speeches he was dismissed, and
willed to advise with himself if he would communicate after that
Order." But, unlike Hooper, who, after a long controversy about
vestments and a brief {60} imprisonment for his refusal to wear them,
accepted the bishopric of Gloucester, vestments and all, only however
to suffer martyrdom at last under Queen Mary, Knox remained steadfast
to the position which he had taken up; and, refusing a permanent
charge, which would have required him to give his assent and consent to
the Articles, and to conform to the common Order, he was sent in June,
1553, as one of the itinerary preachers into Buckinghamshire, where he
laboured with great zeal and assiduity for some weeks.
In the interval between October, 1552, and March, 1553, we find that
Knox had been back at Newcastle, where he was bitterly opposed by Sir
Robert Brandling, the Mayor, whose zeal was checked, however, by the
agency of Lord Wharton, then Lord Warden of the North, at the
suggestion of Northumberland; and there are some interesting letters
belonging to this portion of his life which give us delightful glimpses
into his heart and habits. In one we see him "sitting at his book,"
and contemplating Matthew's Gospel by the help of "some most godly
expositions, and among the rest Chrysostom." In another he writes,
"This day ye know to be the day of my study and prayer to God." And in
a third, written to Mrs. Bowes from London, whither he had been
summoned in haste before the Privy Council, we have this record: "The
very instant hour that your letters were presented unto me was I
talking of you, by reason that three honest poor women were come to me,
and were complaining their great infirmity, and were {61} showing unto
me the great assaults of the enemy, and I was opening the causes and
commodities thereof, whereby all our eyes wept at once; and I was
praying unto God that you and some others had been there with me for
the space of two hours, and even at that instant came your letters to
my hands, whereof the part I read unto them; and one of them said, 'Oh
would to God I might speak with that person, for I perceive there be
more tempted than I.'" Thus amid the multiplicity and weight of his
public labours he did not neglect either the study or the closet; and
the weeping Knox, seeking to comfort those that were cast down, is a
picture that must seem strange to many who know little more about him
than that his fortitude made Mary Stuart shed tears of wounded pride
and disappointed ambition.
In April he preached in the Chapel Royal before the young king, and
inveighed in the strongest terms against Northumberland and Paulet,
finishing one of his scathing passages in this way: "Was David and
Hezekiah, princes of great and godly gifts and experience, abused by
crafty counsellors and dissembling hypocrites? What wonder is it,
then, that a young and innocent king be deceived by crafty, covetous,
wicked, and ungodly counsellors? I am greatly afraid that Ahithophel
be councillor, that Judas bear the purse, and that Shebna be scribe,
comptroller and treasurer." The pulpit in those days had to discharge
the duties of public criticism on politics and morals, which are now
much more appropriately performed by the press; and so, as Froude {62}
remarks, "since discipline could not be restored, Knox, and those who
felt with him the enormities of the times, established, by their own
authority, this second form of excommunication." It was then perhaps a
necessity, but it is always, more or less, a dangerous thing for a
minister to do; and it must be admitted that Knox was not always just
in such philippics. But he was always conscientious, and he was always
brave; and he well knew at the moment the risk which he was running.
In the present case, if little good came out of it to the country, no
harm resulted from it to himself; for, as we have seen, he was shortly
afterwards engaged to preach in Buckinghamshire. And there he laboured
on, like another Jeremiah, forecasting evils which none of his hearers
would believe could happen, until at the death of Edward the Sixth, on
the 6th of July, 1553, they were rudely awakened from their sleep of
security.
Such was Knox's share in the working out of the English Reformation;
and we have dwelt thus long upon it because the facts which we have
stated have only recently been brought to light; and because we wished
to set forth with as much clearness as condensation would allow the
opinions which were held, and the mode of worship which was observed,
by him, even at this early stage in his history. If Knox did something
for England, England did much also for him. If he was instrumental in
keeping the Church of that country from greater affinity with Romanism
than it might otherwise have shown, there can be no doubt that the evil
effects {63} of compromise as witnessed by him there helped to make him
more thorough in his later work in Scotland; while it is also most true
that during his residence there his contact with the Christian people
whom he met did something to soften and sweeten his piety, and to make
it more inward and sympathising. Most of all, God was preparing him by
it for the great work which he was afterwards to perform in his native
land; and his years of service in England were blessed in securing for
him the friendship and confidence of her ablest statesmen, without
whose assistance, humanly speaking, Scotland might have been lost to
Protestantism in the very crisis of her history.
[1] Lorimer, p. 73.
[2] Ibid., p. 74.
[3] Dr. Lorimer has said (p. 31) that "in both the formularies recently
set forth," the Order of Communion in 1548 and the "Book of Common
Prayer" in 1549, the practice of kneeling in the Lord's Supper had been
retained; and on a subsequent page (112) that "in the Second
Prayer-Book of King Edward VI. a rubric had _for the first time_ been
inserted appointing the Lord's Supper to be administered to the
communicants in a kneeling posture." But these statements are not made
with that author's usual accuracy. For the "Order of Communion" reads
thus: "Then shall the priest rise, the people still reverently
kneeling, and the priest shall deliver the communion, first to the
ministers, if any be there present, that they may help the chief
minister, and after to the others." But in the "Book" of 1549, the
rubric is as we give it in the text. What the motive was for the
omission of kneeling in the Book of 1549 it is not easy to say, but the
fact of its omission is undoubted. (See "The Two Liturgies," by Rev.
Joseph Kelley, p. 92.)
[4] Lorimer, p. 98.
[5] Lorimer, p. 109.
[6] For the full discussion of this subject we refer to Dr. Lorimer's
monograph, "John Knox and the Church of England," a most valuable and
original contribution to English Ecclesiastical history, though the
absence of an index makes it less serviceable to the student than such
a work should be.
[7] Lorimer, pp. 149-150.
[8] Lorimer, p. 151.
[9] See Laing: "Knox's Works," vol. iii. pp. 86-7.
{64}