But those who thus took into their hands the shaping of the future for Michael Scot were soon to learn that the man they had to deal with was of another nature than their own; a very Scot in his scruples and the conscientiousness with which he gave effect to them. Incredible as it must then have seemed, remarkable as it would be even in our own day, Michael Scot refused Cashel,[234] and this for a reason which showed how high was the conception he had formed of the pastoral office. His _nolo episcopari_ proceeded on the ground that he was ignorant of the Irish language. He would not, it seems, be a chief pastor without the power to teach and feed the flock committed to his care. He would not consent to be intruded upon a people to whom he must have proved unacceptable, nor would he, in the too common fashion of the day, commit his duties in Ireland to a suffragan, while enjoying ample revenues and a lordly title in Italy. It is somewhat startling to find a principle not unheard of in the Scotland of our own century so clearly grasped and so conscientiously followed by this _non-intrusionist_ countryman of ours six hundred years ago. Yet Michael Scot did not stand alone in his sacrifice even in these slack times, as may be seen by the case of his namesake, John Scot, who was Bishop of Dunkeld during the pontificate of Clement III.[235] This earlier Prelate ruled a vast diocese which included the country of Argyll as well as the more eastern parts of central Scotland. His conscience became uneasy under the responsibility, and, unwilling to continue the spiritual overseer of those whom from his ignorance of their language he could not edify, he wrote to the Pope, desiring that Argyll might be disjoined from Dunkeld, and that Ewaldus his chaplain, who knew Erse, might have charge of the new diocese as its Bishop. This was actually done in 1200, and the good Bishop died in great peace two years later. ‘How can I give a comfortable account to the Judge of the world at the last day,’ so he had written to Clement, ‘if I pretend to teach those who cannot understand me? The revenues suffice for two Bishops, if we are content with a competency, and are not prodigal of the patrimony of Christ. It is better to lessen the charge and increase the number of labourers in the Lord’s Vineyard.’ In some such terms must Michael Scot too have declined Cashel. His case, as well as that of Dunkeld, is enough to show that ecclesiastical corruption, though widespread, was not, even in those days, universal. May no Cervantes of the Church ever arise in Scotland to laugh such sacred chivalry away!