quarter of the country “to seik disputation,” which he was so far from
refusing that he “earnestlie and effectuouslie covated the samin,”
and with that view should meet him next Sunday in any house in Maybole
that he choosed, provided not more than twenty persons on each side
were allowed to be present. The Reformer replied, that he had come
to that quarter for the purpose of preaching the gospel, and not of
disputing; that he was under a previous engagement to be in Dumfries
on the day mentioned by the abbot, but that he would return with all
convenient speed, and fix a time for meeting him. To this letter the
abbot sent an answer, to which Knox merely returned a verbal message
at the {64} time; but when he afterwards published the correspondence,
affixed short notes to it by way of reply. The abbot proposed that
they should have “familear, formall, and gentill ressoning.”――“With
my whole hart I accept the condition,” replies the Reformer; “for
assuredlie, my lord, (so I stile you by reason of blood, and not of
office,) chiding and brawling I utterlie abhor.” To Knox’s declaration
that he had come to “preach Jesus Christ crucified to be the only
Saviour of the world,” the abbot answers, “Praise be to God, that was
na newings in this countrie, or ye war borne.”――“I greatlie dout,”
replies the Reformer, “if ever Christ Jesus wes truelie preached by
a papistical prelat or monk.” As an excuse for his not preaching at
Kirkoswald on the day he had promised, the abbot says, that Knox had
come to the place convoyed by five or six score strangers. “I lay the
night before,” says Knox, “in Mayboil, accompanied with fewer than
twentie.” The abbot boasted, that Willock, at a former period, and Hay,
more lately, had refused to dispute with him, until they consulted
the council and their brethren. “Maister George Hay offered unto you
disputation, but ye fled the barrass.” Knox wished the dispute to
be conducted publicly in St John’s church, Ayr; for, says he, “I
wonder with what conscience ye can require privat conference of those
artikles that ye have publicklie proponed. Ye have infected the ears
of the simple, ye have wounded the hartes of the godlie, and ye have
spoken blasphemie in oppen audience. Let your owne conscience now be
judge, if we be bound to answer you in the {65} audience of twenty
or forty, of whom the one half are alreadie persuaded in the treuth,
and the other perchance so addicted to your error, that they will not
be content that light be called light, and darknes, darknes.”――“Ye
said ane lytill afore,” answers the abbot, “ye did abhor all chiding
and railing, bot nature passis nurtor with yow.”――“I will neither
interchange nature nor nurtor with yow, for all the proffets of
Crosraguell.”――“Gif the victorie consist in clamor or crying out,”
says the abbot, objecting to a public meeting, “I wil quite you the
cause but farder pley;[89] and yet, praise be to God, I may whisper in
sic manner as I will be hard sufficientlie in the largest house in all
Carrick.”――“The larger the house, the better for the auditor and me,”
replied the Reformer.
The earl of Cassilis wrote to Knox, expressing his disapprobation
of the proposed dispute, as unlikely to do any good, and calculated
to endanger the public peace; to which the Reformer replied, by
signifying, that his relation had given the challenge, which he was
resolved not to decline, and that his lordship ought to encourage
him to keep the appointment, from which no bad effects were to be
dreaded. Upon this the abbot wrote a letter to Knox, charging him with
having procured Cassilis’s letter, to bring him into disgrace, and to
advance his own honour; and saying, that he would have “rancountered”
him the last time he was in that country, had it not been for the
interposition of his nephew. “Ye sal be assured,” {66} adds he, “I
sal keip day and place in Mayboill, according to my writing, an I haif
my life, and my feit louse;” and in another letter to Knox and the
bailies of Ayr, he says, “keip your promes, and pretex na joukrie, by
my lorde of Cassilis writing.”――“To nether of these,” says Knox, “did
I answer otherwise than by appointing the day, and promising to keap
the same. For I can pacientlie suffer wantone men to speak wantonlie,
considering that I had sufficientlie answered my lord of Cassilis in
that behalf.”
The conditions of the combat were now speedily settled. They agreed to
meet on the 28th of September, at eight o’clock in the morning, in the
house of the provost of Maybole. Forty persons on each side were to be
admitted as witnesses of the dispute, with “as many mo as the house
might goodly hold, at the sight of my lord of Cassilis.” And notaries,
or scribes, were chosen on each side to record the papers which might
be given in by the parties, and the arguments which they advanced in
the course of reasoning, to prevent unnecessary repetition, or a false
report of the proceedings. These conditions were formally drawn out,
and subscribed by the Abbot and the Reformer, on the day preceding the
meeting.
When they met, “Johne Knox addressed him to make publict prayer,
whereat the abbot wes soir offended at the first, but whil the
said John wold in nowise be stayed, he and his gave audience;
which being ended, the abbote said, ‘Be my faith, it is weill
said.’” The reasoning commenced by reading a paper presented by the
abbot, in which, after rehearsing the {67} occasion of his present
appearance, and protesting, that his entering into dispute was not to
be understood as implying that the points in question were disputable
or dubious, being already determined by lawful general councils, he
declared his readiness to defend the articles which he had exhibited,
beginning with that concerning the sacrifice of the mass. To this
paper Knox gave in a written answer in the course of the disputation;
and, in the meantime, after stating his opinion respecting general
councils, he proceeded to the article in dispute. It was requisite, he
said, to state clearly and distinctly the subject in controversy; and
he thought the mass contained the four following things: the name, the
form and action, the opinion entertained of it, and the actor, with
the authority which he had to do what he pretended to do; all of which
he was prepared to show, were destitute of any foundation in scripture.
The abbot was aware of the difficulty of managing the point on such
broad ground, and he had taken up ground of his own, which he thought
he could maintain against his antagonist. “As to the masse that he
will impung,” said he, “or any mannes masse, yea, an it war the paipes
awin masse, I will mantein na thing but Jesus Christes masse, conforme
to my article, as it is written, and diffinition contened in my buik,
whilk he hes tane on hand to impung.”
Knox expressed his delight at hearing the abbot say, that he would
defend nothing but the mass of Christ, for if he adhered to this,
they were “on the verray point of an christiane agrement,” as he was
{68} ready to allow whatever could be shown to have been instituted
by Christ. As to his lordship’s book, he confessed he had not read it,
and (without excusing his negligence) requested the definition to be
read to him from it. The abbot qualified his assertion by saying, that
he meant to defend no other mass, except that which in its “substance,
institution, and effect,” was appointed by Christ; and he defined the
mass, in its substance and effect, to be the sacrifice and oblation of
the Lord’s body and blood, given and offered by him in the last supper;
and for the first confirmation of this, he rested upon the oblation of
bread and wine by Melchizedec. His argument was, that the scripture
declared Christ to be a priest after the order of Melchizedec:
Melchizedec offered bread and wine to God: therefore Christ offered or
made oblation of his body and blood in the last supper, which was the
only instance in which the priesthood of Christ and Melchizedec could
agree.
Knox said, that the ceremonies of the mass, and the opinion
entertained of it, (as procuring remission of sins to the quick and
the dead,) were viewed as important parts of it, and, having a strong
hold of the consciences of the people, ought to be taken into the
argument; but as the abbot declared himself willing to defend these
afterwards, he would proceed to the substance, and proposed, in the
first place, to fix the sense in which the word sacrifice or oblation
was used in this question. There were sacrifices _propitiatoriæ_, for
expiation, and _eucharisticæ_, for thanksgiving; in which last sense
the mortification of the body, prayer, {69} and almsgiving were called
sacrifices in scripture. He wished, therefore, to know whether the
abbot understood the word in the first or second of these senses in
this dispute. The abbot said, that he would not at present enquire
what his opponent meant by a sacrifice _propitiatorium_; but he held
the sacrifice on the cross to be the only sacrifice of redemption, and
that of the mass to be the sacrifice of commemoration of the death and
passion of Christ. Knox replied, that the chief head which he intended
to impugn, seemed to be yielded by the abbot; and he, for his part,
cheerfully granted, that there was a commemoration of Christ’s death
in the right use of the ordinance of the supper.
The abbot insisted that Knox should proceed to impugn the warrant
which he had taken from scripture for his article. “Protesting,” said
the Reformer, “that this mekle is win, that the sacrifice of the messe
being denied by me to be a sacrifice propitiatorie for the sins of the
quick and the dead (according to the opinion thereof before conceaved),
hath no patron at the present, I am content to procede.”――“I protest
he hes win nothing of me as yit, and referres it to black and white
contened in our writing.”――“I have openlie denied the masse to be an
sacrifice propitiatorie for the quick, &c., and the defence thereof
is denied. And, therefore, I referre me unto the same judges that
my lord hath clamed.”――“Ye may denie what ye pleis; for all that ye
denie I tak not presentlie to impung; but whair I began, there will
I end, that is, to defend the messe conform to my artickle.”――“Your
lordship’s ground,” said Knox, after some altercation, “is, that {70}
Melchizedeck is the figure of Christe in that he did offer unto God
bread and wine, and that it behoved Jesus Christ to offer, in his
latter supper, his body and blude under the forms of bread and wine.
I answer to your ground yet againe, that Melchizedeck offered neither
bread nor wine unto God; and, therefore, it that ye would thereupon
conclude hath no assurance of your ground.”――“Preve that,” said the
abbot. Knox replied, that according to the rules of just reasoning, he
could not be bound to prove a negative; that it was incumbent on his
opponent to bring forward some proof for his affirmation, concerning
which, the text was altogether silent; and that until the abbot did
this, it was sufficient for him simply to deny. But the abbot said, he
“stuck to his text,” and insisted that his antagonist should show for
what purpose Melchizedec brought out the bread and the wine, if it was
not to offer them to God. After protesting that the abbot’s position
remained destitute of support, and that he was not bound, in point of
argument, to show what became of the bread and wine, or what use was
made of them, Knox consented to state his opinion, that they were
intended by Melchizedec to refresh Abraham and his company. The abbot
had now gained what he wished; and he had a number of objections ready
to start against this view of the words, by which he was able at least
to protract and involve the dispute. And thus ended the first day’s
contest.
When the company convened on the following day, the abbot proceeded
to impugn the view which his {71} opponent had given of the text.
He urged, first, that Abraham and his company had a sufficiency of
provision in the spoils which they had taken from the enemy in their
late victory, and did not need Melchizedec’s bread and wine; and,
secondly, that the text said that Melchizedec brought them forth, and
it was improbable that one man, and he a king, should carry as much
as would refresh three hundred and eighteen men. To these objections
Knox made such replies as will occur to any person who thinks on the
subject. And in this manner did the second day pass.
When they met on the third day, the abbot presented a paper, in which
he stated another objection to Knox’s view of the text. After some
more altercation on this subject, Knox desired his opponent to proceed,
according to his promise, to establish the argument upon which he had
rested his cause. But the abbot, being indisposed, rose up, and put
into Knox’s hand a book to which he referred him for the proof. By
this time, the noblemen and gentlemen present were completely wearied
out. For, besides the tedious and uninteresting mode in which the
disputation had been managed, they could find entertainment neither
for themselves nor for their retinue in Maybole; so that if any person
had brought in bread and wine among them, it is presumable that they
would not have debated long upon the purpose for which it was brought.
Knox proposed that they should adjourn to Ayr and finish the dispute,
which was refused by the abbot, who said he would come to Edinburgh
for that purpose, provided he could {72} obtain the queen’s permission.
Upon this the company dismissed.
The dispute was never resumed, though Knox says that he applied to
the privy council for liberty to the abbot to come to Edinburgh for
this purpose. Kennedy died in August 1564. It has been said that he
was canonized as a saint after his death,[90] and Dempster makes him
both a saint and a martyr.[91] I have not seen his name in the Romish
calendar, but I find (what is of as great consequence) that the grand
argument upon which he insisted in his disputation with the Reformer
has been canonized. For in the calendar, at “March 25,” it is written,
“Melchezedec sacrifeit breid and wyne in figure of ye bodie and bloud
of our lord, whilk is offerit in ye messe.”[92] Doubtless, those who
knew the very month and day on which this happened, must have been
better acquainted with the design of Melchizedec, than either Moses
or Paul.
The abbot, and his friends, having circulated the report that he had
the advantage in the disputation, Knox, in 1563, published the account
of it from the {73} records of the notaries, to which he added a
prologue and short marginal notes. The prologue and his answer to the
abbot’s first paper, especially the latter, are pieces of good writing.
I have been the more minute in the narrative of this dispute than its
merits deserve, because no account of it has hitherto appeared, the
tract itself being so exceedingly rare, as to have been seen by few
for a long period.[93]
Another priest who defended the Roman catholic cause at this time was
Ninian Wingate. He had been schoolmaster of Linlithgow, from which
situation he was removed by Spotswood, superintendent of Lothian,
on account of his devoted attachment to popery. In the month of
February 1562, he sent to Knox a writing, consisting of eighty‑three
questions upon the principal topics of dispute between the papists
and protestants, which he had drawn up in the name of the inferior
clergy, and laity, of the catholic persuasion in Scotland. To some
of these, particularly the questions which related to the call of the
protestant ministers, the Reformer returned an answer from the pulpit,
and Wingate addressed {74} several letters to him, complaining that
his answers were not satisfactory. These letters, with addresses to
the queen, nobility, bishops, and magistrates of Edinburgh, Wingate
committed to the press, but the impression being seized in the
printer’s house, (according to bishop Lesley,) the author made his
escape, and went to the continent.[94] Knox intended to publish an
answer to Wingate’s questions, and to defend the validity of the
protestant ministry; but it does not appear that he carried his design
into execution.[95]
In the beginning of 1563, Knox went to Jedburgh, by appointment
of the General Assembly, to investigate a scandal which had
broken out against Paul {75} Methven, the minister of that place,
who was suspected of adultery. Methven was found guilty, and
excommunicated.[96] Having fled to England, he sent a letter to
the General Assembly, professing his willingness to submit to the
discipline of the church, but requesting that the account of his
process should be deleted from the records of the church. The Assembly
declared that he might return with safety to his native country,
and that he should be admitted to public repentance, but refused to
erase the process from their minutes. [97] He afterwards returned to
Scotland; and a severe and humiliating penance was prescribed to him.
He was enjoined to appear at the church‑door of Edinburgh, when the
second bell rang for public worship, clad in sackcloth, bareheaded,
and barefooted; to stand there until the prayer and psalms were
finished, when he was to be brought into the church to hear sermon,
during which he was to be “placeit in the public spectakell above
the peiple.” This appearance he was to make on three several
preaching‑days, and on the last of them, being a Sabbath, he was, at
the close of the sermon, to profess his sorrow before the congregation,
and to request their forgiveness; upon which he was again to be “clad
in his awin apparell,” and received into the communion of the church.
He was to repeat this course at Dundee and at Jedburgh, where he had
officiated as minister.[98] Methven went through {76} a part of this
humbling scene, with professions of deep sorrow; but being overwhelmed
with shame, and despairing to regain his lost reputation, he stopped
in the midst of it, and again retired to England.[99] Prudential
considerations were not wanting to induce the reformed church of
Scotland to stifle this affair, and to screen from public ignominy
a man who had acted a distinguished part in the late reformation of
religion. But they refused to listen to these; and by instituting a
strict scrutiny into the fact, and inflicting an exemplary punishment
upon the criminal, they “approved themselves to be clear in this
matter,” and effectually shut the mouths of their popish adversaries.
The mode of public repentance enjoined on this occasion was appointed
to be afterwards used in all cases of aggravated immorality.[100]
There was nothing in which the Scottish reformers approached nearer
to the primitive church than in the rigorous and impartial exercise of
ecclesiastical discipline, the relaxation of which, under the papacy,
they justly regarded as one great cause of the universal corruption
of religion. While they rejected many of the ceremonies which were
introduced into the worship of the christian church during the
three first centuries, they, from detestation of vice, and a desire
to restrain it, did not scruple to conform to a number of their
penitential regulations. In some instances they might carry their
rigour against offenders to an {77} extreme; but it was a virtuous
extreme, compared with the dangerous laxity, or rather total disuse
of discipline, which has gradually crept into almost all the churches
which retain the name of reformed: even as the scrupulous delicacy
with which our forefathers shunned the society of those who had
transgressed the rules of morality, is to be preferred to modern
manners, by which the vicious obtain easy admission into the company
of the virtuous.
“’Twas hard, perhaps, on here and there a waif,
Desirous to return, and not received:
But was an wholesome rigour in the main,
And taught the unblemish’d to preserve with care
That purity, whose loss was loss of all.
――――――――――――――But now――yes, now,
We are become so candid and so fair,
So liberal in construction, and so rich
In christian charity, (good‑natured age!)
That they are safe, sinners of either sex,
Transgress what laws they may.”
In the month of May, the queen sent for Knox to Lochleven. The popish
priests, presuming upon her avowed partiality to them, and her secret
promises of protection, had of late become more bold; and, during
the late Easter, masses had been openly celebrated in different
parts of the kingdom. Repeated proclamations had been issued against
this practice by the queen in council, but none of them were carried
into execution. The gentlemen of the west country, who were the most
zealous protestants, perceiving that the laws were eluded, came to
the resolution {78} of executing them, without making any application
to the court, and apprehended some of the offenders by way of example.
These decided proceedings, which were calculated to defeat the scheme
of policy which she had formed, gave great offence to her majesty; but
finding that the signification of her displeasure had not the effect
of stopping them, she wished to avail herself of the Reformer’s
influence for accomplishing her purpose.
She dealt with him very earnestly, for two hours before supper, to
persuade the western gentlemen to desist from all interruption of the
catholic worship. He told her majesty, that if she would exert her
authority in executing the laws of the land, he could promise for the
peaceable behaviour of the protestants; but if she thought to elude
them, he feared there were some who would let the papists understand
that they should not offend with impunity. “Will ye allow, that they
shall take _my_ sword in their hands?” said the queen. “The sword of
justice is _God’s_,” replied the Reformer with equal firmness, “and
is given to princes and rulers for one end, which, if they transgress,
sparing the wicked and oppressing the innocent, they who, in the
fear of God, execute judgment where God has commanded, offend not
God, although kings do it not.” Having produced some examples from
scripture to show that criminals might be punished by persons who did
not occupy the place of supreme rulers, he added, that the gentlemen
of the West were acting strictly according to law; for the act of
parliament gave {79} power to all judges within their bounds, to
search for and punish those who should transgress its enactments.
He concluded with inculcating a doctrine which has seldom been very
pleasing to princes. “It shall be profitable to your majesty to
consider what is the thing your grace’s subjects look to receive of
your majesty, and what it is that ye ought to do unto them by mutual
contract. They are bound to obey you, and that not but in God: ye
are bound to keep laws to them. Ye crave of them service: they crave
of you protection and defence against wicked doers. Now, madam, if
you shall deny your duty unto them, (which especially craves that ye
punish malefactors,) think ye to receive full obedience of them? I
fear, madam, ye shall not.” The queen broke off the conversation with
evident marks of displeasure.
Having imparted the substance of what had passed between them to the
earl of Murray, Knox meant to return to Edinburgh next day without
waiting for any further communications with the queen. But a message
was delivered to him at an early hour in the morning, desiring him not
to depart until he had again spoken with her majesty. He accordingly
met her at a place in the neighbourhood of Kinross, where she took the
amusement of hawking. This interview was very different from that of
the preceding evening. Waiving entirely the subject on which they had
differed, she conversed with him upon a variety of topics, with the
greatest familiarity and apparent confidence. Lord Ruthven (she said)
had offered her {80} a ring; but she could not love that nobleman. She
knew that he used enchantment;[101] yet he had been made a member of
her privy council; and she blamed secretary Lethington for procuring
his admission into that body. Knox excused himself from saying any
thing of the secretary in his absence. “I understand,” said she,
introducing another subject of discourse, “that ye are appointed to
go to Dumfries, for the election of a superintendent to be established
in these countries.” He answered in the affirmative. “But I understand
the bishop of Athens[102] would be superintendent.”――“He is one, madam,
that is put in election.”――“If you knew him as well as I do, you would
not promote him to that office, nor yet to any other within your kirk.”
Knox said that the bishop deceived many, if he did not fear God. “Well,
do as you will; but that man is a dangerous man.”