“Prentit at Sanct Androus, be the command and expēsis of the maist reuerend father in God, Johne Archbischop of sanct Androus, and primat of ye hail kirk of Scotland, the xxix day of August, the zeir of our Lord M.D. lii.”
The archbishop’s epistle addressed to “Personis, Vicars, and Curattis,” prefixed to the catechism, informs us of its design and use. “First to your awin erudition.—Secundly, According to the decreit maid in our prouincial counsale, our will is that ye reid ye samyn catechisme diligently, distinctly, and plainly, ilk ane of yow to your awin parochianaris, for thair cōmon instructioun and spiritual edificatioun in the word of God, necessarie of thame to be knawin.” The canon of the council provides that it be read “omnibus dominicis et festivis,” which is thus explained in the close of the archbishop’s epistle: “Euerilk Sonday and principal halydaie, quhen yair cummis na precheour to thame to schaw thame the word of God, to haue yis catechisme usit and reid to yame in steid of preching, quhil [until] God of his gudnes prouide ane sufficient nowmer of catholyk and abil precheouris, quhilk sal be within few yeiris as we traist in God.”
As it is entitled a catechism, was printed in the vulgar language, is said to be designed for the instruction of the people, and no prohibition of its use is mentioned in the book itself, we might be apt to conclude, that it was intended to be circulated among the people, and to be promiscuously read; and accordingly several writers have represented the matter in this light. But that this was very far from being the design of those who approved and set it forth, is placed beyond all doubt by the directions which the council gave respecting it, both to the archbishop and to the clergy. “Cujus quidem libri exemplaria omnia, ubi excussa fuerint, præsentari ipse reverendismo mandat et ordinat præsens concilium, ut ipse singulas tam suis ecclesiasticis, quam aliis singulis locorum ordinariis, quot cuique diocesi pro rectorum, vicariorum, ac curatorum numero et multitudine sufficere videntur, eis tribuat; reliqua vero apud ipsum reverendissimum remaneant, et firma custodia serventur, prout tempus et necessitas postulaverint, dispertienda.Caveant vero ipsi rectores, vicarii, et curati, ne sua exemplaria secularibus quibusque indiscrete communicent, nisi ex judicio, concilio, et discretione sui ordinarii; quibus ordinariis licebit nonnullis probis, gravibus, bonæ fidei, ac discretis viris laicis, ejusdem catechisme exemplaria communicare, et iis pottisimum, qui videbuntur potius suæ instructionis causa, quam curiositatis cujuscunque eadem expetere.” Wilkins,Concilia, iv. 72. Lord Hailes had therefore reason for saying (in opposition to Mackenzie’s tale of the archbishop allowing “the pedlars to take two pennies for their pains in hawking it abroad”) that the council “uses as many precautions to prevent it from coming into the hands of the laity, as if it had been a book replete with the most pestilent heresy.” Provincial Councils, p. 36. It would have been imprudent to insert the prohibition in the book itself, copies of which, notwithstanding all their precautions, would come into the hands of improper persons; but the canon of the council remained the rule for regulating the clergy in the use of it. Nor is there any thing in the catechism which is inconsistent with the canon, or which implies that it was to come into the hands of the people. It is all along supposed that they were to be instructed by hearing, not by reading it. This is particularly evident from the concluding address. “O christin pepil, we exhort yow with all diligence, heir, understand, and keip in your remembrance, the haly wordis of God, quhilk in this present catechisme ar trewly and catholykly exponit to your spiritual edification.” And again: “Gif ye persaif be frequent heiring heirof your self spiritually instruckit mair than ye haue bein in tymes bygane, geue the thankis thairof only to God.”
If any of the hearers presumed to move any controversy respecting the passage read from the catechism, they were to be delivered over to the inquisitors, and no clergyman was allowed to answer their questions, or to enter into any dispute with them on the subject, unless he had a written license for this from his bishop. “Hoc tamen proviso, ut non liceat cuiquam auditorum super lectis, aut modo quo supra recitatis, controversiam ipsi rectori seu vicario seu curato movere.Et si aliquis id attentare præsumpserit deferatur inquisitoribus hæreticæ pravitatis; nec vicissim licebit ulli rectori, vicario, seu curato, nisi ad hoc ipsum (specialiter habita consideratione ipsius qualificationis) fuerit ab ordinario loci ei facultas concessa in scriptis, ullis controversias et quæstiones hujusmodi moventibus desuper respondere, aut disputationes ingredi, sed mox respondeatur, se hujusmodi disputationis resolutiones ad ipsos ordinarios remittere, et hoc sub pœna privationis ab hujusmodi officio seu beneficio.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 73.
The catechism consists of an explication of the ten commandments, the apostles’ creed, the seven sacraments, the Lord’s prayer, and the Ave Maria. Lord Hailes has animadverted on Keith for saying that the author shows “his wisdom and moderation in handsomely eviting to enter upon the controverted points;” and he has given extracts from it asserting the doctrine of transubstantiation, the propriety of withholding the cup from the laity, and of prayers to the saints. Prov. Councils, p. 35, 36. I may add, that the use of images in worship, purgatory, prayers for the dead, the removal of original sin by baptism, the sinlessness of concupiscence after baptism, the mystical signification of the ceremonies practised in that ordinance,—the exorcism, or blowing upon the child at the church door, and making the sign of the cross on its brow and breast, putting salt into its mouth, anointing its nostrils and ears with spittle, and its breast and back with oil, with the application of chrism to the forehead, the clothing of it with the cude or white linen cloth, and putting a lighted torch or candle into its hand; these, with other doctrines and ceremonies of the popish church, are all taught and vindicated. At the same time, while the opinions peculiar to popery are stated and defended, there is an evident design of turning away the attention of the people from these controversies, by reminding them of their duty to “belief as the haly catholic kirk beliefis;” and a great part of the book is occupied in declaring duties and general doctrines about which there was no dispute between papists and protestants. Considerable art is also used in introducing some of the most exceptionable articles of popery under the cover of unquestionable truths. Thus on the question, “Quhat things suld move us to belief the word of God?” The first reason which is given is, “Ye eternal and infallible veritie of God, fra quhome na lesing may procede, na mair than myrknes may cum fra the cleir schenand sonne.” But how gradually and artfully are the people led away from the scriptures in what follows! “The secund thing that suld moue us to belief the word of God, and to knaw quhilk is the worde of God, quhilk are the haly bukis quharin the word of God is contenit, and quhat is the trew sense of the same bukis, is ye consent and authoritie of our mother the haly kirk, fra the apostils tyme hitherto, and specially quhen it islawfully gadderit be the haly spirit in ane general counsel, quhairof sainct Augustine sais thus:—‘I wald nocht gif credence to the euangel, except that the universal kirk warnis me sa to do.’ And tharfor lair thir twa lessonis. The ane is, quhatsaeuir the haly spirit reuelis and schawis to us, other in the bukis of haly scripture, or in ye determinatiouns and definitiouns of general counsellis, lawfully gadderit for the corroboracion and maintenans of our faith, we suld beleif ye same to be trew word of God, and thairto gyf ferme credence as to the verite that is infallible. The second lesson, ye that ar simple and unleirnit men and wemen suld expressly belief al the artickils of your Crede, as for all uthir hie misteries and matteris of the scripture ye aucht to belief generally as the kirk of God beleiffis. And this faith is sufficient to yow, for the perfectioun of that faith quhilk ye ar bund to haif.” Fol. xiiii. b. xv. a. A specimen of the same kind occurs on the question, How is the true sense of the scripture to be discerned? where, after being gravely taught the usefulness of collating one place with another, and attending to the connexion of the passage, the people are told that this belongs to such as have the gift called interpretatio sermonum, and are then devoutly set down at the feet of the doctors of the church, and taught implicitly to receive the decisions of councils. “Quharfor, he that will nocht heir, resaif, and obey ye diffinitionis and determinationis of lauchful general counsellis concerning materis of our faith, he is nocht to be accountit a trew christin man, according to the wordis of our salviour,—‘Gif he will nocht heir the kirk, lat him be to the as ane infidele, unchristinit, and ane publican.’ Thus ye haif quha is ane herityk, and how he brekis the first command.” Fol. xviii. b. xix. b.
As all who question the infallible decisions of the church are pronounced guilty of a breach of the first commandment, the Roman Catholics are, with no less ease, exculpated from a breach of the second, by the insertion of a convenient parenthesis. The reader will observe, that, according to a division of the law first countenanced by Augustine, and of which the popish church is extremely fond, the first and second commandments are thrown into one, and, to make up the number, the tenth is split into two; although the compilers of the catechism found it impracticable tokeep to this last division in their explication. The following is their enunciation of the first commandment: “I am ye Lord thi God, quhilk hais brocht ye fra the land of Egypt, fra the house of bondage. Thow sall haif no other goddis but me, thou sal nocht mak to thee (as gods) ony grauit ymage, nother ony similitude of ony thing that is in the heuin abone, or in ye erd beneth, nor of ony thing yat is in the watter under the erd. Thow sal nocht adorne yame, nor worschip yame (as goddis).” Fol. xii. a. It is fair, however, to hear the explication which the authors of the catechism give respecting images. “Ar ymages aganis the first command? Na, sa thai be weil usit. Quhat is the rycht use of ymagis? Imagis to be made na haly writ forbiddis (sais venerabil Bede) for the sycht of thame, specially of the crucifixe giffis greit compunction to thame quhilk behaldis it with faith in Christ, and to yame that are unletterat, it geffis a quik remembrance of ye passion of Christ. Salomon in tyme of his wisdome, nocht without the inspiration of God, made ymages in ye temple. Mosyes the excellent prophet and trew seruand of God, made and ereckit a brassin ymage of a serpent, (quhilk figurit the lyfting vp of our Salwiour Jesus Christ vpon the crosse,) and als, be the cōmand of God, causit mak the ymagis of twa angellis callit cherubinis, quhilk thing thir twa sa excellēt men in wisedome wald neuir haif done, gif the makin of ymagis war aganis ye cōmand of God. Bot utterly yis command forbiddis to mak ymagis to that effect, that thai suld be adornit and wirschippit as goddis, or with ony godlie honour, ye quhilk sentence is expremit by thir wordis: Non adorabis ea neq; coles. Thow sall nocht adore yame nor wirschip thame as goddis. Now we suld nocht gif goddis honour, or Christis honour to ony ymage, but to God allanerly, representit be ane ymage.” Fol. xxiii. b.
In the explication of the fifth article of the Creed, is a particular account of the four places in hell; infernus damnatorum, puerorum, purgandorum, et patrum. The following proof is given of our Saviour’s descent into hell, to deliver the saints who had been confined in the last mentioned place until the time of his death. “Also ye same deliuerāce was prophesit be the prophet Osee: Ero mors tua, o mors, ero morsus tuus o inferne. O dede (says our saluiour)I sal be thi dede—O hel I sal byte the. The man yat bytes ony thing, he takis part to him, and lattis part remaine behind. Sa our saluiour passand doune to hell, he fulfyllit this prophesie, takand part of saulis out fra hell with him, and leiffand part behind him. Quhom tuk he with him? bot thame that was haly and gud, quhilk was haldin thair as presonaris,” Fol. cviii.
Upon the whole, this catechism has been written with great care, and the style is by no means bad. It is singular that it should have been so little noticed by the writers of that age, and that it does not appear who was its compiler. The provincial council describe it merely as “a certain book written in the vulgar and Scottish dialect,—librum quendam vulgari et Scotico idiomate conscriptum;” and having examined and approved of it, they commit to the archbishop, as primate, the care of seeing it printed. As it was printed at his expense, and as his name appears on the title‑page and colophon, it has been usually called Archbishop Hamilton’s Catechism. But there is not the least reason for thinking that the primate would have taken the trouble to compose a book consisting of 411 pages quarto, even although he had been in other respects qualified for the task. Bale, in his account of Scottish writers, mentions “Joannes Wouram, vel Wyrem,” whom he calls “a canon regular in St Andrews;” and he ascribes to him “a catechism in his vernacular language, scripsit in vulgari sermone catechismum fidei.” Scriptores M. Brytanniæ Post. Pars, p. 224. I have little doubt that John Winram, sub‑prior of the abbey of St Andrew, and afterwards superintendent of Fife, is the person to whom Bale refers. Could he be the author of the catechism under consideration? Though early regarded as favourable to the reformed opinions, Winram did not leave the popish church until a very late period; and his conduct, during the intermediate struggle, was extremely ambiguous, and often contradictory. The clergy frequently availed themselves of his talents, and of his reputation with the people, to diminish the odium of their obnoxious measures, or to recommend their partial and inefficient plans of reform. He was employed to preach at the trial of Wishart, and was present at the trials of Wallace and Mill. Fox, 1155, 1158, 1161, edit. 1596. He was a member of the provincial council which met in 1549,and is styled, in the register, “ecclesiæ metrop. primitialis, S. Andreæ canonicus regularis, supprior, theologiæ doctor.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 46. That council employed him to draw up the canon intended to settle the ridiculous dispute, which had been warmly agitated among the clergy, whether the Pater Noster should be said to the saints, or to God alone. Comp. Fox, 1161, with Wilkins, 57, 58.And in the council which sat in 1559, he was nominated one of the six persons to whose examination and admonition the archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow submitted their private conduct. Wilkins, p. 209.[489]
Spotswood seems to have confounded this Catechism with a smaller treatise called by the people The twa‑penny Faith. History, p. 92. This last was set forth by the council which met in 1559. Knox, Historie, p. 109, 110. The following extracts from the proceedings of that council may, perhaps, throw some light on the history of this publication. The Roman Catholic Remonstrants, in their representations to the council, required, “yat yar be an godlie and fruitfull declaration set forth in Inglis toung, to be first shewin to the pepill at all times, quhen the sacrament of the blissit body and blud of Jesus Christ is exhibit and destribut, and sicklyke, when baptism and marriage are solemnizit, in face of halie kirk; and yat it be declarit to yaim, yat assist at the sacraments, quhat is the effect yarof, and yat it be spirit at yam be ye prist ministrant, gif yai be reddy to resave the samen; with sick utheris interogatories, as ar necessar for instructing of the poynts of mens salvation, and requires to be answerit unto be all yai, that wald be participant, etc. and yir things to be don before ye using of ye ceremony of haly kirk, etc.” Wilkins, ut supra, p. 207, 208. The following canon of the council seems to contain the answer to this petition. “Insuper ut populus Christianus sacramentorum ecclesiæ verum effectum, vim ac usum facilius ac commodius intelligere valeat, statuit hoc præsens concilium quasdam catholicas exhortationes, easque succinctas declarationes sacramentorum baptismi, sacrosanctæ eucharistiæ, extremæ unctionis, matrimonii, auctoritatehujus concilii edendas, et inferius inserendas, quas singuli parochi, vel alii presbyteri eorundem sacramentorum legitimi ministri, ipsa sacramenta ministraturi, singulis suam propriam et debitam exhortationem præmittant, et publice et distincte recitent, et legant singuli curati et vicarii, dum sacræ missæ sacrificium diebus dominicis et aliis majoribus festis sunt celebraturi, infra scriptam exhortationem; et ejusdem sacrificii declarationem publice in ecclesia similiter legant, quo populus christianus majori pietatis effectu rebus divinis assistat, et intersit,” &c. Wilkins, ut supra, p. 213. These Exhortations and Declarations were not inserted in the MS. from which Wilkins copied. I am inclined to think that they were published, and that they formed what was called, in derision, The two‑penny Faith. Comp. Buchanani Oper. i. 312.