In his dispute with Knox, the abbot mentions his “books,” and he refers particularly to a book which he had published in 1561, on the sacrament of the mass. There is in the library of Alexander Boswell, Esq. of Auchinleck, a MS. by the abbot, entitled, “Ane familiar commune and ressoning anent the misterie of the sacrifice of the mess, betwixt twa brether, master Quintin Kennedy, comendator of Corsraguell, and James Kennedy of . In the yeir of God ane thousand, five hundred, three scoir ane yeir.” It was answered by George Hay, in a work entitled, “The Confutation of the Abbote of Crosraguels Masse, set furth by Maister George Hay. Imprinted at Edinburgh by Robert Lekpreuik, 1563.” The dedication is inscribed, “To the most noble, potent, and godlie Lord James Earle of Murray.” This is the book to which Winzet alludes on the margin of his Buke of Questionis, where he says, “Mr George Hay, fy haist zow to recant.” Keith, Append. p. 236, 246. I have been favoured with the sight of a copy of this rare tract, belonging to Richard Heber, Esq. It would seem that the abbot’s treatise was not printed, but that copies of it had been transcribed, and industriously circulated through the country in manuscript; for Hay repeatedly makes the supposition that there might be variations in the different copies, and on one occasion confesses that he could not read a passage in the copy which he used. “Followeth, another objection made by James. Alwayes,” sayes he, “all ze wha vses the Masse, dois not (this (not) is not in the text, that is come to my handes, but because the sentence requireth it,I haue added it) as Christe did in the latter supper,” &c. He gives another quotation from the abbot in the following manner: “Trewly, brother, and ze be sa scrupulus Scripturares, that ze will do nothing but (but is not in my text) as Christe did, towards the vse of the Sacramentes,ze will subuert our haile Faith, and commend our awin doinges,[353] (so I ride it) (our owen doinges or commonly I can not tell which should be red, or if there be any other thing yet,) for quhair finde ze that Christe euer appointed ane man to be baptized,” &c. Fol. 36, b. 37, a, b.
The following account of the abbot’s talents and acquaintance with the Fathers may serve as a specimen of Hay’s style. “Trew it is, that before this boke of the abbote of Crosraguel’s wes set furth and published, sindrie and diuers were the opinions of men concerning it. For the sorte of them that be cōmonly tearmed Papistes, aduersaries to all trew religion, thoght in verie deid that they should receaue such a confort, yea, such a gun as no munition myght withstand, no strengthe resiste, nether yet any maner of force repel. They were encuraged by the brute and fame of the man, who onely wolde appeare in these tymes to haue dexteritie of ingyne, helped and auanced by long progres of tyme spent in good letters, yea, ād besydes the Scriptures of God, will also appeare to haue the conference, judgment, and authoritie of the ancient Fathers and councils, which it may seme to the reader that he feadeth (not unlyke the nyne Muses) in his bosome. I my self hauing hade some tymes credit and acquentence of the man, loked for some what that might haue troubled the cōsciences of waiklinges, and of such as stayed them selues vpon a glistering and semely ymagination of mans heart, rather then upon the written and reueiled treuth, by the spirite of God. For it wes not vnknawen to me how familiare he hath bene with the scolastike sophisters, their thornie questions, and scabrus conclusions, yea and some of the ancient doctors, whose writinges, what by ignorance of tyme seduced, what by affection carryed away, I thoght wel he should wreist to his vngodly opinion.” Fol. 3, a. Having pointed out afalse quotation, which the abbot had made from Chrysostom, Hay adds, “Hereby it is easy to perceaue how vainely ye ascribe such reading of the ancientes vnto your self, as in your writinges ye take vpon you, that ye will seme in the eyes of the people, to be the onely he in this realme versed in antiquitie. And now to say my judgment frely, I truste ye haue no workes of such men as ye draw your authorities out of, but onely hath, I can not tell what lytle scabbed treaties of Eccius, Cochleus, Hosius, Stanislaus youre new start up Campion, and of such others of your factiō, and taketh out of them, such thinges as ye think may serue to your wicked and blasphemus purpose. What credite now, or what authoritie oght to be given to such places, as thou draweth out of the doctors, who belyke neuer hath sene there workes, nether yet knoweth to what purpose they speak, if they speak of their owne mynde, or of their aduersaries, whither they speak by an interrogation or conclusiuely, and determinatly,whither they speak ὑπερβολικως,[354] that is excessiuely, to extoll the dignitie of the mater they haue in hand (which is not rare in this author) or simplie. Thus the text it self is to be considered, that it that preceadeth being conferred with it that followeth, the mynde and sentence of the author may be knowen perfytlie. Not that I will hereby damne yong men, who ether excluded by tyme, or els lacking bookes, muste giue credite to good authorities, but in this man who will seme to be an other Anacharses inter sordidos Scythas, it is intollerable, who is sequestrate frome the common societie of men, and trauell in the common wealth, hauing not els to do, but that he hath inioyned to him self, that is to ly by a pleasing bray, and cast in stones to trouble the faire and cleare rinning watter.” Fol. 18, b. 19, a.
Lepreuik, in an advertisement to the reader, apologizes for his want of Greek characters, which he was forced to have supplied by manuscript. Herbert’s edit. of Ames, p. 1487. This fact illustrates what I have mentioned in vol. i. 347. Herbert questions Ames’s statement, that they had no Hebrew or Greek types in Scotland in 1579, and he appeals to a book printed ‘at Edinburgh, be Leighe Mannenby, anno Domini 1578,’ in which Greek charactersare found. Ibid. p. 1499, 1500. But this cannot overthrow Ames’s statement, which is correct; for the imprint of that book is undoubtedly fictitious, as no such Scottish printer as “Leighe Mannenby” seems to have ever existed.
Ordination of reformed Ministers.—In the prologue to the “Reasoning betwixt Jo. Knox and the abbot of Crossraguell,” Knox adverts to the cavils of the papists against the validity of the call of the reformed ministers, and intimates his intention of returning an answer to the questions on this head which had been proposed to him by Ninian Winget, the “Procutour for the Papists.” There are some general remarks on this subject in his answer to Tyrie’s Letter, but I do not think that he ever published any thing professedly on the point. There is a ridiculous tale told by a popish writer concerning a pretended convention held by the reformed ministers in Scotland to determine in what manner they should proceed in the admission of ministers. Willock proposed as a weighty difficulty, that if they used imposition of hands, or any other ceremony commonly practised in the church, they would be asked to show, that they themselves had been admitted by the same ceremonies, and thus the lawfulness of their vocation would be called in question. “Johann kmnox ansuerit maist resolutlie, ‘Buf, buf, man, we ar anes entered, let se quha dar put us out agane;’ meaning that thair was not sa monie gunnis and pistollis in the countrie to put him out as was to intrud him with violence. Sua Johann kmnox, to his awin confusion, entered not in the kirk be ordinar vocatione or imposition of handis, but be imposition of ‘bullatis and pouldir in culringis and lang gunnis;’ sua ye mister not to trubill you farder in seiking out of Johann kmnox vocatione.”—This story “I understude,” says the author, “of ane nobil and honourable man, quha can yit beir witnes gif I lea or not.” He took care, however, not to give the name of the nobleman. Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 129. Parise, 1581.
Strictness and impartiality of Discipline.—The form of satisfaction enjoined in the case of Methven, was appointed for all who should be excommunicated for murder, adultery, incest, or other aggravated crimes. The murderer was to bear in his hand “the same or lyke weapoun whairwith the murther was committed.” Buik of the Univ. Kirk, p. 38. Other rules observed in cases of discipline may be seen in Knox’s Liturgy, p. 55–67, edit. 1611, and in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 704–756. Impartiality, as well as severity, distinguished the discipline of those times. “Gryt men offending in sick crymes as deserves seckclaith, they suld receave the same als weill as the pure.—Na superintendant nor commissioner, with advyce of any particular kirk of yair jurisdiction, may dispense with the extreamitie of sackcloth, prescrivit be the actes of the generall discipline, for any pecuniall sum or paine ad pios usus.” Buik of the Univ. Kirk, August, 1573. Dunlop, ii. 753. This was not a mere theoretic proposition. For, in 1563, we find the lord treasurer making public satisfaction, (Keith, 245, 529;) in 1567, the countess of Argyle, (Buik of the Univ. Kirk, p. 37,) and in 1568, the bishop of Orkney, (Anderson’s Collections, ii. 284.) Let not our modern fashionables and great ones be alarmed at hearing of such things. Those days are gone, and will not, it is likely, soon return.
The parliament, or the magistracy of particular burghs, enacted punishments of a corporal kind against certain crimes which were ordinarily tried in the church courts. Some of these existed before the Reformation, and some of them were posterior to it; but the infliction as well as the enacting of them, pertained to the civil magistrate. Knox, p. 269. In the minutes of several kirk‑sessions, however, the sentences inflicting them are found recorded along with censures properly ecclesiastical. The following extract accounts for this in part. “What you bring” (says Mr Baillie, in his answer to bishop Maxwell) “of pecuniary mulcts, imprisonments, banishments, jogges, cutting of haire, and such like, it becomes neither you to charge, nor us to be charged with, any such matters:No church assembly in Scotland assumes the least degree of power, to inflict the smallest civill punishment upon any person; the Generall Assembly it selfe hath no power to fine any creature so much as in one groat: It is true, the lawes of the land appoint pecuniary mulcts, imprisonment, joggs, pillories, and banishment for some odious crimes, and the power of putting these lawes in execution is placed by the parliament in the hands of the inferior magistrates in burroughs or shires, or of others to whom the counsel table gives a speciall commission for that end; ordinarily some of these civill persons are ruling elders, and sit with the eldership: So when the eldership have cognosced upon the scandall alone of criminall persons, and have used their spirituall censures only to bring the party to repentance, some of the ruling elders, by virtue of their civill office or commission, will impose a mulct, or send to prison or stocks, or banish out of the bounds of some little circuit, according as the act of parliament or counsell do appoint it. But that the eldership should imploy its ecclesiastick and spirituall power for any such end, none of us doe defend. That either in Scotland or any where else in the world the haire of any person is commanded to be cut by any church judicatory for disgrace and punishment, is (as I take it) but a foolish fable. That any person truely penitent is threatened in Scotland, with church censures for non‑payment of monies, is in the former category of calumnies.” Historical Vindication of the government of the Church of Scotland, p. 17, 18. Lond. 1646. I have in my possession (extracted from the records of a kirk session) a commission, granted in 1701, by the sheriff‑depute of Berwickshire, constituting one of the elders session‑bailie, for executing the laws against profaneness, agreeably to an act of parliament authorizing the appointment of such an officer in parishes within which no ordinary magistrate resided.