Knox and the Catholic Nature of the Church

James Tyrie, a Scottish Jesuit, writes a letter in the 1560s, to his oldest brother, David, who had converted to Protestantism. This letter is then given to John Knox to reply to. Knox would pen a quick reply without much thought, and would be distracted away from the letter until a time of solitude, when reflection was available; a time when he would retire to St. Andrews to avoid persecution of him, and the Christians in Edinburgh. And though he was evading the enemy to preserve his life, he was found contending for the true Faith and the true Religion of the true Kirk (Church) universal.

Knox responds in full to Tyrie's letter, putting the title "Catholic" back into its biblical and historical context. My essays will be reflective, engaging Knox's defense with my own thinking.

Being raised Roman Catholic, I can vaguely recall certain doctrines that I had learned: the virgin birth, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, the rituals of communion and confession, praying to saints, etc. However, I do not recall ever hearing anyone defend the "Catholic" or Universal nature of the Church, and I certainly do not remember anyone saying that the Protestant Churches were not true Churches. Of course I lived in a post-Vatican II world.

Tyrie, along with his Papal head down to his Jesuit brothers, all asserted that the Roman Catholic Church was the Only True Church, and that there was no salvation outside of Her. He quotes Isaiah 60:12 which states, "For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish;" by which text he propagates the doctrine:

"...that before a thousand years in all the world was their people [the Catholic Church of Scotland- SA] that believed as they do who defend the contrary, which no man but he that would show his impudence and his ignorance together dare deny: and of the Kirk whereof the Prophet speaks, it is said by him, in the second chapter, that it shall be manifest and visible through all the world. Wherefore, if ye can not show what place of the world afore three hundred years your Kirk was in, it follows of necessity, that it is no Kirk."

I find Knox's logical rebuttal in general is a great read, and I would encourage it to all. Particularly, I would like to comment on his dealings with the title of "Catholic" or Universal.

The Western or Roman Church, in Knox's day, made broad and sweeping claims to the title "Catholic" that was attached to their tradition. They touted a virtuous quality to their Church, as if to say, "Whatever is Universal must be good."

Knox points out that not all things Universal must necessarily be good. For example, Sin was universal in the Fall of our first parents, Adam and Eve; another example was the universal idolatry that the Gentiles practiced. Further he adds that Mahomet (Islam) was exceeding broad in their day (possibly almost as broad as the Western Church was) and yet very few would deduce that these things are good.

I appreciate that Knox does not only show the error of this fallacy, but also delivers the positive alternative to all who would see the error of their doctrine. In saying that "we must have a better assurance of that Kirk, to which we ought to join ourselves, than that it is Catholic or universal," he introduces the confession made in Apostle's Creed.

We do not say that we believe the Church universal, but, "I believe the holy Kirk universal, the communion of saints." Therefore the virtuous quality that the Church is to have is “Holiness”. It is to profess a true or holy faith, and exercise a true or holy religion to be the true or holy (small-c) catholic Church.

And this is such a blow to the Romish Church and her teachers because they view the Creed as authoritative as the Scriptures. Knox is saying that even your own Confession of Faith states the quality to judge. He knows that Tyrie will seek to define "Holy" according to his own constructions, and so puts questions to Tyrie to maintain the topic at hand.

Q: Define the holiness of the Church.

Q: Wherein does it consist?

Q: From Whom does it flow?

Q: What is the effect of this holiness upon the Church?

Q: Can you prove that the Church of Rome alone has been and is the only holy Church?

Historically, these questions are answered in the Scottish Confession of Faith [1560], which work Knox participated in 13 years prior to this tract; many Formularies of the Protestant Reformation also have similar summary answers.

Chapter 16 – Of the Kirk

As we believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; so do we most constantly believe that from the beginning there has been, now is, and to the end of the world shall be, a Kirk: that is to say, a company and multitude of men chosen of God, who rightly worship and embrace him, by true faith in Christ Jesus, who is the only Head of the same Kirk, which also is the body and spouse of Christ Jesus; which Kirk is Catholic ­ that is, universal ­ because it contains the elect of all ages, all realms, nations, and tongues, be they of the Jews, or be they of the Gentiles; who have communion and society with God the Father, and with his Son Christ Jesus, through the sanctification of his Holy Spirit;

and therefore it is called the communion, not of profane persons, but of saints, who, as citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, have the fruition of the most inestimable benefits: to wit, of one God, one Lord Jesus, one faith, and of one baptism; out of the which Kirk there is neither life, nor eternal felicity.

And therefore we utterly abhor the blasphemy of them that affirm that men which live according to equity and justice shall be saved, what religion that ever they have professed. For as without Christ Jesus there is neither life nor salvation, so shall there none be participant thereof, but such as the Father has given unto his Son Christ Jesus, and those [that] in time come unto him, avow his doctrine, and believe into him (we comprehend the children with the faithful parents).

This Kirk is invisible, known only to God, who alone knows whom he has chosen, and comprehends as well (as said is) the elect that are departed (commonly called the Kirk triumphant), as those that yet live and fight against sin and Satan as shall live hereafter.

But also we see that this is not a new argument, but is found even in Biblical times. When the unfaithful Jews railed against the Apostolic Church for not maintaining the faith and practice of Israel, the Apostle Paul responds with that faithful testimony of the nature of
the true Jew, when he says in Romans:

Rom 2:25-29
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

He is the true Jew that has true Faith, and practices the true Religion, and so is the Nature of the Church throughout the world. We look for the holy Church and that houses holy citizens.