days. Knox and his coadjutors were relatively deliberate. They aver
that all points of belief necessary for salvation are contained in the
canonical books of the Bible. Their interpretation pertains to no man or
Church, but solely to "the spreit of God." That "spreit" must have
illuminated the Kirk as it then existed in Scotland, "for we dare not
receive and admit any interpretation which directly repugns to any
principal point of our faith, to any other _plain_ text of Scripture, or
yet unto the rule of charity."

As we, the preachers of the Kirk then extant, were apostate monks or
priests or artisans, about a dozen of us, in Scotland, mankind could not
be expected to regard "our" interpretation, "our faith" as infallible.
The framers of the Confession did not pretend that it was infallible.
They request that, "if any man will note in this our Confession any
article or sentence repugning to God's Holy Word," he will favour them
with his criticism in writing. As Knox had announced six years earlier,
that, "as touching the chief points of religion, I neither will give
place to man or angel . . . teaching the contrair to that which ye have
heard," a controversialist who thought it worth while to criticise the
Confession must have deemed himself at least an archangel. Two years
later, written criticism was offered, as we shall see, with a demand for
a written reply. The critic escaped arrest by a lucky accident.

The Confession, with practically no criticism or opposition, was passed
en bloc on August 17. The Evangel is candidly stated to be "death to the
sons of perdition," but the Confession is offered hopefully to "weak and
infirm brethren." Not to enter into the higher theology, we learn that
the sacraments can only be administered "by lawful ministers." We learn
that _they_ are "such as are appointed to the preaching of the Word, or
into whose mouth God has put some sermon of exhortation" and who are