he Lion appointed
his chaplain to the Bishopric of St. Andrews. An English monk was chosen
by the Chapter to the same office, and thus a complete deadlock was
brought about. What was to be done? The ecclesiastical authorities
appealed to the Pope, who was indignant when he learned that the authority
of the Church was being thus rudely trampled upon. He conferred legatine
powers on the Archbishop of York, and the Bishop of Durham, to "direct the
thunder of excommunication" against the King in the event of contumacy.
But notwithstanding the extreme gravity of the situation the King
stubbornly refused to yield. He not only set the papal authority at
defiance, but he banished from the country those who dared to yield to the
papal favourite.

This is not, by any means, an isolated instance of stubborn and successful
resistance to the authority of the Church. The same thing, in other
circumstances, occurred again and again, with the result that the terrors
of excommunication ceased to be dreaded.

This, of course, was especially the case during the decadent period of the
Catholic _regime_. There are numerous indications in the literature of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries of this weakening of the ecclesiastical
authority. The picture which Sir David Lindsay has drawn of the condition
of the Church at this period is no mere spiteful exaggeration, but may be
accepted as substantially accurate. Nothing could well more clearly
indicate how thoroughly the Church had failed to keep in touch with the
intellectual life of the nation, or guide and control its moral and
spiritual activities.

It was during this period of weakness, almost of total moral collapse,
that the Archbishop of Glasgow took it upon him to excommunicate the
Border thieves. Had the same vigorous measure been adopted at an earlier
period, the result might have been more favourable. As it was, the
launching of this ecclesiastical thunderbolt really created more
amusement than consternation. It was regarded simply as the growl of a
toothless lion. In no circumstances were the Border reivers easily
intimidated. Their calling had made them more or less indifferent to the
claims alike of Church and State. They had never had much affection for
the king, and they had, perhaps, still less for the priest. Having shaken
themselves free, to a large extent at least, from the control of the
State, they were not prepared to put their neck under the yoke of an
ecclesiast