Lord Maxwell, whom the folly of James V. had deprived of the command in the affair at Solway, was generally known as ‘a man of good intentions with respect to the Word of God.’ He had not openly professed the evangelical doctrine so long as the cardinal was in possession of the supreme power; but his sojourn in England, though short, had induced him to take a more decisive course. He rose and introduced a bill providing ‘that all the subjects of the kingdom might read the Holy Scriptures in their mother-tongue.’ The debate began immediately. Dunbar, archbishop of Glasgow, who since the imprisonment of the cardinal had become chancellor of the realm, declared that he would oppose the motion in his own name and in the name of all the prelates, at least until the period when a provincial council of all the clergy of Scotland should have decided the question. ‘Wherefore,’ answered the friends of the Scriptures, ‘should it not be lawful to men that understood no Latin, to use this word of their salvation in the tongue they understand, as it was for Latin men to have it in Latin, Grecians and Hebrews to have it in their tongues.’ ‘The kirk,’ replied the priests, ‘had forbidden all kind of tongues but these three.’ ‘When was that inhibition given?’ retorted the friends of the Gospel. ‘Christ has commanded his word to be preached to all nations. Now if it ought to be preached to all nations, it must be preached in the tongue they understand. Now if it be lawful to preach it in all tongues, why shall it not be lawful to read it and to hear it read in all tongues? To the end that the people may try the spirits according to the commandment of the apostle.’[283] [Sidenote: FREEDOM TO READ THE BIBLE.] The prelates finding themselves beaten admitted that the Holy Scripture might indeed be read in the vulgar tongue, provided that the translation were true. Some of the members of the assembly then handed to the priests some copies of the Holy Scriptures which they drew from their pockets, and begged them to point out any faults they could find in them. The prelates, in great embarrassment, began to make search, turned over the leaves of the book, opening it at the beginning, at the end, and in all parts, taking infinite pains to find some mistake. But nothing could be found. At last, ‘Here,’ said one of them, ‘here is a passage to be reprehended; love is put in the place of _charity_.’ ‘What difference is there,’ it was replied, ‘betwixt the one and the other? It seems you do not understand the Greek term ἀγάπη.’ Before the Greek word the priests stood dumb.[284]