Without intending to vindicate the latitude which was taken by particular preachers at that time, it may be said, in general, that a systematic attempt to restrain the liberty of speech in the pulpit, farther than the correction of occasional excesses might require, would have been a measure fraught with danger to the protestant interest. The reformed preachers were the most vigilant and incorrupt guardians of national liberty; an honourable distinction which their successors maintained during the remainder of that century. It is better to be awaked with rudeness, or even by a false alarm, than to be allowed to sleep on in the midst of dangers. Who would muzzle {112} the mouth of the wakeful animal which guards the house against thieves, because the inmates are sometimes disturbed by his nocturnal vociferation? or substitute in his place a “dumb dog, that cannot bark, sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber?” Knox, the freedom and sharpness of whose censures the courtiers felt most deeply, was the person whom they chiefly wished to restrain; but it was no easy matter either to overawe him by authority, or by reasoning to procure his acquiescence in their proposals. In the month of June, a conference was held between the principal statesmen and ministers of the church, when this subject was discussed; and in an elaborate debate with Maitland, Knox defended the leading points of his doctrine which had given offence to the court. This debate “admirably displays the talents and character of both the disputants; the acuteness of the former, embellished with learning, but prone to subtlety; the vigorous understanding of the latter, delighting in bold sentiments, and superior to all fear.”[127]