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.