Chapter I: SHALL, in this note, add some particulars respecting the early (1)

practice of the reformed church of Scotland, under the following heads:

_Of Doctors._――The doctrine of the church of Scotland, and indeed of other reformed churches, on this head, has not been very uniform and decided. The first Book of Discipline does not mention doctors, but it seems to take for granted what has been stated respecting them in the Book of Common Order, where they are declared to be “a fourth kind of ministers left to the church of Christ,” although the English church at Geneva could not attain them. Knox’s Liturgy, p. 14. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 409, 410. In the second Book of Discipline, the office of doctor is expressly mentioned as “ane of the twa ordinar and perpetual functions that travel in the world,” and “different from the pastor, not only in name, but in diversity of gifts.” The doctor is to “assist the pastor in the government of the kirk, and concur with the elders his brethren in all assemblies,” but not “to minister the sacraments or celebrate marriage.” Dunlop, ii. 773, 774. The Book of Common Order and second Book of Discipline agree in comprehending, under the name and office of a doctor, “the order in schooles, colledges, and universities.” Ibid. The fact seems to be, that there never were any doctors in the church of Scotland, except the teachers of divinity in the universities. “Quamvis ecclesia nostra,” says Calderwood, “post primam reformationem, quatuor agnoscat ministrorum genera, pastorum, doctorum, presbyterorum, et diaconorum, tamen doctores alios nondum habuit quam scholarchas.” De Regimine Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ Brevis Relatio, {282} p. 1, 2. Anno, 1618. Some writers have asserted, that it was as doctors that Buchanan and Andrew Melville sat, and sometimes presided, in the church courts. The episcopalians having objected, that the church of Scotland admitted persons to act as moderators in her assemblies who were in no ecclesiastical office, and having appealed to the instances of the two persons above mentioned, Mr Baillie gives this answer: “Mr Melvil was a doctor of divinity, and so long as episcopal persecution permitted, did sit with great renowne in the prime chair we had of that faculty: George Buchanan had sometimes, as I have heard, been a preacher at St Andrews: after his long travells he was employed by our church and state to be a teacher to king James and his family: of his faithfulnesse in this charge he left, I believe, to the world good and satisfactory tokens: the eminency of this person was so great, that no society of men need be ashamed to have been moderated by his wisdome.” Historical Vindication, p. 21, 22. The report which Mr Baillie had heard of Buchanan having been a preacher, probably originated from the divinity lectures which Calderwood informs us he read with great applause in the university of St Andrews. “Buchanan and Mr Melvill were doctors of divinity,” says Rutherford, in his Lex Rex, pref. p. 5. Lond. 1644.

_Of Readers._――Those employed as readers appear to have often transgressed the bounds prescribed to them, and to have both solemnized marriage, and administered the sacraments. Different acts of Assembly were made to restrain these excesses. The General Assembly, in October 1576, prohibited all readers from ministering “the holie sacrament of the Lord, except such as hes the word of exhortation.” The Assembly which met in July 1579 inhibited them from celebrating marriage, unless they were found meet by “the commission, or synodal assembly.” At length, in April 1581, the order was suppressed. “Anent readers: Forsamekle as in assemblies preceding, the office thereof was concludit to be no ordinar office in the kirk of God, and the admission of them suspendit to the present assemblie, the kirk in ane voyce hes votit and concludit farder, that in na tymes coming any reider be admitted to the office of reider, be any having power within the kirk.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, in loc.

{283} _Of Superintendents.――The church of Scotland did not consider superintendents as ordinary or permanent office‑bearers in the church. They are not mentioned in the Book of Common Order. The first Book of Discipline explicitly declares, that their appointment was a matter of temporary expedience, for the plantation of the church, and on account of the paucity of ministers. Its words are, “Because we have appointed a larger stipend to them that shall be superintendents than to the rest of the ministers, we have thought good to signifie to your honours such reasons as moved us to make difference betwixt teachers at this time.” And again: “We consider that if the ministers whom God hath endowed with his singular graces amongst us should be appointed to several places, there to make their continual residence, that then the greatest part of the realme should be destitute of all doctrine; which should not onely be the occasion of great murmur, but also be dangerous to the salvation of many. And therefore we have thought it a thing most expedient at this time, that from the whole number of godly and learned men, now presently in this realm, be selected ten or twelve, (for in so many provinces we have divided the whole,) to whom charge and commandment should be given, to plant and erect kirkes, to set, order, and appoint ministers, as the former order prescribes, to the countries that shall be appointed to their care where none are now.” First and second Books of Discipline, p. 35, printed anno 1621. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 538, 539. Archbishop Spotswood has not acted faithfully, if his History has been printed, in this place, exactly according to his manuscript. He has omitted the passages above quoted, and has comprehended the whole of the two paragraphs from which they are extracted in a short sentence of his own, which is far from being a full expression of the meaning of the compilers. History, p. 158. Lond. 1677. This is the more inexcusable as he says, that for “the clearing of many questions which were afterwards agitated in the church,” he “thought meet word by word to insert the same [the First Book of Discipline] that the reader may see what were the grounds laid down at first for the government of the church.” Ibid. p. 152. He could not be ignorant that the grounds of the appointment of superintendents formed one of the principal questions agitated between {284} him and his anti‑episcopal opponents. I have examined the copy of the First Book of Discipline, inserted in an old MS. copy of Knox’s Historie, and find that it exactly agrees with the quotations which I have made from the editions published in 1621, and by Dunlop. Dr Robertson has been misled by the archbishop. “On the first introduction of his system,” says he, “Knox did not deem it expedient to depart altogether from the ancient form. Instead of bishops, he proposed to establish ten or twelve superintendents in different parts of the kingdom.” As his authority for this statement, he refers solely to the mutilated account in Spotswood. Hist. of Scotland, ii. 42, 43. Lond. 1809. Mr Laing, from an examination of the original documents, has given a more accurate account, and pronounced the appointment of superintendents to have been a “temporary expedient.” History of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 17, 18. Lond. 1804.

The superintendents were elected and admitted in the same manner as other pastors. Knox, 263. They were equally subject to rebuke, suspension, and deposition, as the rest of the ministers of the church. In the examination of those whom they admitted to the ministry, they were bound to associate with them the ministers of the neighbouring parishes. They could not exercise any spiritual jurisdiction without the consent of the provincial synods, over which they had no negative voice. They were accountable to the General Assembly for the whole of their conduct. The laborious task imposed upon them is what few bishops have ever submitted to. “They must be preachers themselves;” they are charged to “remain in no place above twenty daies in their visitation, till they are passed through their whole bounds.” They “must thrice everie week preach at the least.” When they return to their principal town of residence, “they must likewise be exercised in preaching;” and having remained in it “three or foure monthes at most, they shall be compelled (unless by sicknesse they be retained) to re‑enter in visitation.” Dunlop, ii. 542. De Regimine Eccles. Scotican. Brevis Relatio, p. 5, 6. Epistolæ Philadelphi Vindiciæ contra calumnias Spotswodi: Altare Damascenum, p. 724‒727. Lugd. Batav. 1708. In the last mentioned tract (of which Calderwood was the author) the difference between {285} the Scottish superintendents and Anglican bishops is drawn out under thirteen heads. Spotswood’s treatise is entitled, Refutatio Libelli de Regimine Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ. Lond. 1620.

The _visitors_ or _commissioners_ of provinces exercised the same power as the superintendents; the only difference between them was, that the former received their commission from one assembly to another. Altare Damascenum, p. 727. But these commissions appear sometimes to have been granted for a longer period; for one of Robert Pont’s titles was Commissioner of Murray. Perhaps, in this case, a commissioner differed from a superintendent, merely in not being obliged to have his stated residence within the bounds of the province committed to his inspection.

_Of the weekly Exercise or Prophesying._――This was an exercise on the scriptures, intended for the improvement of ministers, the trial of the gifts of those who might afterwards be employed in the service of the church, and the general instruction of the people. It was to be held in every town “where schools and repaire of learned men are.” For conducting the exercise, there was an association of the ministers, and other learned men, in the town and vicinity, called “the company of interpreters.” They alternately expounded a passage of scripture; and others who were present were encouraged to deliver their sentiments. After the exercise was finished, the constituent members of the association retired, and delivered their judgment on the discourses which had been delivered. Books of Discipline, ut supra, p. 60‒62. Dunlop, ii. 587‒591. After the erection of regular presbyteries, this exercise formed an important part of their employment; and at every meeting, two of the members by turns were accustomed to expound the scriptures. De Regimine Eccl. Scot. Brevis Relatio, p. 3. Until lately traces of this ancient practice remained, and there is reason to regret that it has generally gone into desuetude among presbyterian bodies. Associations of the same kind were formed in England. From 1571 to 1576, they spread through that kingdom, and were patronized by the bishops of London, Winton, Bath and Wells, Litchfield, Gloucester, Lincoln, Chichester, Exon, St David’s, by Sandys, archbishop of York, and by Grindal, archbishop of Canterbury. Several of the courtiers, as Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir Francis Knollys, {286} and Sir Thomas Smith, greatly approved of them; and, at a future period, they were recommended to king James by lord Bacon. But they were suppressed by an imperious mandate from Elizabeth. Some interesting particulars respecting their number, regulations, and suppression, may be seen in Strype’s Annals, ii. 90‒95, 219, 220, 318‒324, 486. Life of Grindal, p. 219‒227, 230, 299, 300. Life of Parker, 460‒462. They were formed on the model of the Scottish Exercises, and in their regulations, the very words of the First Book of Discipline are sometimes used. A species of ecclesiastical discipline was joined with them in some dioceses. I also observe a striking resemblance between the directions given by bishop Scambler for the celebration of the Lord’s supper, and the mode which was then used in Scotland, particularly as to the circumstances of two communions or ministrations on the same day, and the early hour of the service. Strype’s Annals, ii. 91, compared with Scott’s History of the Scottish Reformers, p. 192.

Keith has given a quotation from the MS. copy of Spotswood’s History, in which the archbishop signifies, that at the time of the compilation of the First Book of Discipline, several of the reformed ministers wished to retain the ancient polity, after removing the grosser corruptions and abuses, but that Knox overruled this motion. Keith, 492. But there is no trace, in the authentic documents of that period, of any diversity of opinion among the Scottish reformers on this head. The supposition is contradicted by Row, (see above, p. 4, 5,) and by their own language. Dunlop, iii. 518. Knox’s Historie, 282. It is probable that the archbishop’s story had its original at a later period, when the design of conforming the church of Scotland to the English model began to be entertained. I am not inclined to give much more credit to another tale of Spotswood, respecting a message which archbishop Hamilton is said to have sent to Knox by John Brand. History, 174. Keith, 495.

Note B, Footnote 20.

_Sentiments of the Reformed Ministers respecting Tithes, and the Property of the Church._――These are laid down in the First Book of {287} Discipline, chap. v. and viii. Dunlop, ii. 533‒538, 562‒568. Considerable light is also thrown upon them by the private writings of that period. The reformed ministers did not regard tithes as of divine right, nor think that it was sacrilegious in every case to apply to secular purposes those funds which had been originally set apart to a religious use. But they held that, by the Christian as well as the Jewish law, a competent subsistence was appointed to be made for the ministers of religion; that it is incumbent on a nation which has received the true religion to make public provision for the outward maintenance of its ordinances; that the appropriation of the tenth part of property for this purpose is at least recommended by primeval usage, by the sanction of divine wisdom in the Jewish constitution, and by the laws and practice of Christian empires and kingdoms; that property which had been set apart and given for religious ends could not justly, or without sacrilege, be alienated, as long as it was needed for these purposes; and that though many of the donors might have had the support of superstitious observances immediately in their eye, still it was with a view to religion that they made such gifts. In as far as it should appear that the ecclesiastical revenues were superabundant and unnecessary, they were willing that the surplus should be applied to the common service of the state. To illustrate their sentiments on this subject, and the manner in which they complained of the alienation of church‑property, I shall add a few extracts from some of their writings which are not commonly consulted.

My first extracts shall be from Ferguson’s sermon, to which our Reformer set his hand a little before his death. Having given an account of the law of Moses, the ordinance of the New Testament, and the practice of the primitive church, he adds, “Ye se, then, that the ministers of the primitive kirk (that levit befoir princes wer Christianes and nurishers of the kirk, as it was propheseit) wer na beggaris, suppois they wer no lordis that aboundit in superfluous welth, as the papis bischoppis did; bot had sufficient asweill for the necessitie of thair owin families, as for the help of uther Christianes that now and then, as occasiounes servit, repairit to thair housis.――Quhen the tyme come foirspokin bi David (Psal. lxviii. and cii.) that kingis and empereouris, and thair kingdomes, {288} suld serve the Lord, and bring giftes unto him,” they, “following his example that only is wyse, ordainit be thair authoritie, that the tiendis sulde serve to the same use in the tyme of the gospell.”――“Our youth aucht also to be nurischit and maintenit at the schuillis, and thairoutof efterward micht spring preicheris, counsellouris, physiciounis, and all other kinds of learnit men that we have neid of. For the scheulis are the seid of the kirk and common welth, and our childrene are the hope of the posteritie, quhilk being neglectit, thair can nathing be luikit for bot that barbarous ignorance sall overflow all. For suppois God has wonderfullie, at this time, steirit up priecheris amang us, even quhen darkness and ignorance had the upperhand, he will not do sa heirefter, seeing we have the ordinarie meane to provide them, quhilk gif we contempne, in vane sall we loke for extraordinary proviscioun. Israel was miraculusslie fed in the wildernes with manna, bot how soon thay did eit of the corne of the land of Canaan, the manna ceissit, nouther had they it ony moir, bot levit efterward on the frute of the ground, ordinarilie labourit with thair handis. I speik to prudent men that may understand and judge quhat I say.” After deploring the decayed state of the churches and schools, and the poverty of the ministers, he adds, “I am compellit to speik this, thocht I be als plane as pleasant, and appear to yow as the greatest fule of the rest to stand up heir to utter that quhilk other men thinkis. Weill; let me be countit a fule for speiking the treuth. I regard not; nouther may I spair to speik it, thocht I suld be judgeit in our awin cause to be carryit away with a particular affectioun; following heirin the exampil of our prophet Malachie.”――“Ye marvel, I doubt not, quhy ye have not prevailit aganis yone throtcutteris and unnaturall murtherers within the towne and castell of Edinburgh, specially ye heving a maist just actioun, being ma in number, and mair vailyeant men, and nathing inferiour to thame in wisdome, circumspectioun, or ony gud qualiteis, outher of body or mynd. Bot ceis to marvel; for the caus quhy that ye have not prevailit aganis thame long or now, amang mony uther your sinnis quhairwith ye are defylt, is this, that the spuilyie of the pure is in your housis; ye invaid that quhilk our forbearis gave of gude zeill to Goddis honour, and the commoun welth of the kirk; ye spuilye to your awn private usis, {289} without outher ryme or resoun, nouther will ye be controllit. This, this, I say, is the chief caus that nathing prosperis in your handis. I grant that our fatheris, of immoderate zeill, (besyde the teindis and necessarie rentis of the kirk,) gave thairunto superfluously, and mair nor aneuch. Quhat then is to be done? but that the preicheris of God’s word be reasonablie sustenit, seing thair is eneuch and over mekel to do it, the schullis and the pure be weill provydit, as thay aucht, and the tempellis honestly and reverently repairit, that the pepill, without injurie of wynd or wedder, may sit and heir Goddis word, and participat of his haly sacramentis. And gif thair restis ony thing unspendit quhen this is done (as na dout thair wil), in the name of God, let it be bestowit on the nixt necessarie affairis of the commoun welth, and not to any mannis private commoditie.” Ane Sermon preachit befoir the regent and nobilitie――be David Fergussone. B iv. v. C. Lepreuik, 1572.

The following extracts are taken from Sermons against Sacrilege by Robert Pont. “From the yeare of our Lorde 1560, unto this present time, the greatest study of all men of power of this land, hes bene, by all kinde of inventions, to spoyle the kirk of Christ of her patrimonie, by chopping and changing, diminishing of rentals, converting of victual in small sumes of money: setting of fewes within the availe, long tackes uppon tackes, with two or three liferentes, with many twentie yeares in an tack, annexationes, erectiones of kirk‑rents in temporall livings and heritage, pensiones, simple donationes, erecting of new patronages, union of teindes, making of new abattes, commendataries, priors, with other papistical titles, which ought to have no place in a reformed kirk and countrie; with an infinite of other corrupt and fraudfull waies, to the detriment and hurte of the kirke, the schooles, and the poore, without any stay or gaine‑calling.

“Treuth it is, parliaments have been conveened, and acts have bene made, for providing ministers of competent livinges; for reparaling of parish kirkes, for trayning up the youth in schooles of theologie. It hath bene also promised, and subscribed in writte, by a great parte of the nobilitie, that the poore labourers of the grounde, should have an ease and reliefe of the rigorous exacting of their teindes: and many other good thinges have been devised, tending to the advancement of the glorie of God, and establishing {290} of Christ his kingdome. Amongst us, namely, in time of the governemente of that good regente (whome for honoures cause I name) who, although he could not doe all that hee would have done, (having so manie hinderances and enemies,) yet his dooings might have been a perfite patterne of godlinesse to the reste of the nobilitie, to make thame bene content to live uppon their owne rentes, and to cease from robbing and spoyling the patrimonie of the kirke.” Having proposed the objection, that the Levitical law of Moses is abrogated, and that therefore his authorities from the Old Testament had no force under the gospel, he adds: “I aunswere concerning these lands or annual rentes, out of landes delated and given to the kirke, that although the Leviticall lawe, with the ceremonies thereof, concerning the outwarde observation, hath taken an ende, and is fulfilled in Christ; yet the substance of the policie, concerning interteinment of the service of God, and uphold of religion, still remaines. And it is no lesse necessarie, that the ministerie of God amongst us be mainteined; and that sufficient provision be made to serve other godlie uses, whereunto the kirke‑rentes ought to be applyed, nor it was that the priestes and levites shoulde bene upholden in the time of the olde law. And as to the holinesse or unholines of these landes and revenues: albeit in their owne nature (as I said in the former sermon) they be like other earthly possessiones; yet, in so far as they were applyed to an holy use, they may wel be called holy possessions and rents, as the kirk is holy, to whose use they are appointed.――I will not deny but the teindes might be possibly changed, in other meanes of sufficient provision for the kirke, if such godly zeale were now amongst men, as was of olde time. But in so farre as we see the plane contrarie, that men are now readier to take away, than ever our predecessors were to give; it were a foolish thing to loose the certaine for the uncertaine, and that which is never likely to come to passe.” Pont’s Sermons against Sacrilege. B, 8. C, 2. C, 8. E, 6. Waldegrave, 1599.

It appears from the following extract, that Pont undertook this work at the desire of the General Assembly.――“July 3, 1591. Mr Robert Pont is ordained to writ against sacrilege, and show his travells to the next assembly.” Matthew Crawfurd’s MS. History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 161.

{291}
Note C, Footnote 22.

_Of John Row, and the introduction of Hebrew Literature into Scotland. _――The following notices of Row’s employment at Rome are furnished by a very curious and valuable manuscript in the possession of Thomas Thomson, Esquire. Besides papal bulls relating to bishoprics and benefices in Scotland about the middle of the sixteenth century, it contains a number of important documents as to the correspondence between the Scottish primate and the Roman court, together with accounts of receipts and disbursements by the agent at Rome for the earl of Arran, governor of Scotland, John Hamilton, archbishop of St Andrews, and Gavin and Claud Hamilton. John Row was employed as their procurator. In “Ane Recollectioun of my lord of Sanct Andros missives to my lord of Kilwinning,” (MS. p. 324,) is the following article:――

“And is content M. Johne Row was put in charge of his l[ordship’s] affairs in Rome, xi Martii, 1554.”

In “Ane memoir of all things left w{t} M. Johne Row be Gavin, commendator of Kilwinning, at his departing of Rome, 20 mēssis Martii, 1555,” (MS. p. 240,) is the following:――

“Item, apointed w{t} M. Johne Row for the provestrie of Kirkfield, and caus M. Alex{r} Forres send his mandat to ratify the xx{li} pension reservit to the said M. Jhone.”

In a variety of letters to the pope, “concerning my lord duckis bairnis, my lord archbishope of Sanctandros, bischope Argile, my lord Kilwinning self, and uttheris thair frends,” to cardinal Sermonet, “regni Scotiæ promotori,” and to other members of the sacred college, from John, archbishop of St Andrews, Gavin, coadjutor to the archbishop, James earl of Arran, and Mary dowager queen and regent of the kingdom; written during the years 1555 and 1556, and inserted in the same manuscript, John Row is recognised and recommended as “procurator for the see of St Andrews.” At the close of the book is a table of ciphers, with an explanation, to which this title is prefixed, “Ciphre send be my l. of Sanct andros of Ed{r} xiij May, 1555, to M. Johne Row in Rome.”

One great object of the negotiation with Rome, in which Row was employed, was the obtaining of a confirmation and extension of {292} the powers formerly granted to the archbishop of St Andrews as primate and _legatus natus_ of Scotland, from which Gavin Dunbar, late archbishop of Glasgow, had procured an exemption. In support of his claim, the primate urges, that “there had always been a great number of heretics in the diocese of Glasgow;” that its proximity to England “gave easy ingress and egress to persons of bad manners and opinions;” that various scandals and enormities, such as “the burning of the images of God and the saints, the contempt of prelates, the beating of priests and monks, and the eating of forbidden meats,” were committed within its bounds, and that the archbishop could not suppress these evils in his diocese, and at the same time hindered the primate from exerting his power for this purpose. The following passage, in one of the informations presented to the court of Rome, throws light on the fate of two individuals whom we have already (vol. i. p. 162, 373) had occasion to mention. “Insuper cum magna pars dioc̄ Glasguen̄ nuper fuerat heresibus infecta, et tam durante vita dicti quondam Gavini vltimi archiepiscopi Glasguen̄ quam sede vacante, maxima scandala contra Catholicam fidem perpetrabantur. nec in potestate sedis Glasguen̄ et suorum suffraganeorum erat eorum potentie resistere. Sed D. Archiepiscopus Sancti andree modernus metropolitano ac jure prouinciali eandem diocesin visitavit, et repurgavit malis hominibus heresiarchis. In cuius testimonium ipse sua propria persona expugnavit locum de Ochiltre, et inde inuito domino ejusdem detrusit ad carceres et vincula _quendam apostatam nomine Macbraire_ heresiarcham, et eiusdem fautores gravibus penis mulctauit. Et similiter alterum _Vallasium_ nuncupatum in sua heresi perseuerantem in eadem diocesi Glasguen̄ natum hereticas opiniones profitentem publica omnium regni ordinum prelatorum conuentione _de heresi conuictum et condemnatum_ curie traditit seculari ad _comburendum_. Et ita curavit heresis pestem puniri quod sedes Glasguen̄ minime potuit facere. que res cum sic notissima probationi vlteriori non multum indigens que si esset necessaria omnibus Scotis Rome satis innotescit.” [MS. fol. 179, comp. fo. 185‒187.]

Row left Rome on the 20th of May, and arrived in Scotland on the 29th of September, 1558. The following is the account of his conversion from popery given by his son. Being in Cleish, the house of the gentleman who had detected the imposture at Musselburgh, {293} (see vol. i. p. 322,) the young man who was said to have been cured of blindness, was brought into his presence, where he “played his pavie,” by “flyping up the lid of his eyes, and casting up the white.” While Row was confounded at this discovery, the gentleman addressed him very seriously: “Weill, Mr John Row, ye are a great clergyman, and a great linguist and lawyer, but I charge you, as you must answer to the great God at the last day, that ye do not now hold out any light that God offers you, but that ye will, as soon as ye come to your study, close the door upon you, and take your Bible, and seriously pray to God that ye may understand the scriptures.――Read the 2d ch. of the 2d epistle to the Thessalonians; and if ye do not see your master, the pope, to be the great antichrist who comes with lying wonders to deceive the people of God, (as now he and his deceiving rabble of clergy in Scotland have done lately at Musselburgh,) ye shall say Squire Meldrum has no skill.” Row, Historie of the Kirk, p. 356; copy of the MS. transcribed in 1726. After conference with several of the reformed ministers, and particularly Knox, he made formal abjuration of popery. “Ipse Nuncius,” says his grandson, “nassa evangelii irretitus, ejus pura, pia, pathetica prædicatione inescatus, pontificiis syrtibus, famigerati Knoxi opera, extractus est.” Hebreæ linguæ Institutiones, a M. Joa. Row, epist. dedic. A 3, b. Glasguæ, 1644. In the beginning of the year 1560 he was admitted minister of Kinneuchar in Fife, where he married Margaret Beatoun, a daughter of the laird of Balfour. Row’s Historie, ut supra. Before the end of that year he was translated to Perth. Knox, 236. Keith, 498. His son informs us that he was born at Row, a place situated between Stirling and Dumblane, and which belonged to the family. That he was an author appears from the testament of Thomas Bassinden, printer in Edinburgh, who died on the 18th of October, 1577, and the inventory of whose goods contains the following lines:――“Item, ane M. Johne Rowis signes of the sacramentis, price xijd.”

During his residence in Italy, Row had acquired the knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages. The latter was at that time almost entirely unknown in Scotland, and he immediately began, at the recommendation of his brethren, to teach it. The grammar‑school of Perth was then the most celebrated in the kingdom, and {294} noblemen and gentlemen were accustomed to send their children thither for their education. Many of these were boarded with Row, who instructed them in Greek and Hebrew. As nothing but Latin was spoken by the boys in the school and in the fields, so nothing was spoken in Row’s house but French. The passages of scripture read in the family before and after meals, if in the Old Testament, were read in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, French, and English; if in the New Testament, they were read in Greek, &c. His son John, when he was between four and five years old, was taught the Hebrew characters, before he knew the English letters; and at eight years of age he read the Hebrew chapter in the family. When he went to the newly‑erected university of Edinburgh, his uncommon acquaintance with the Hebrew language attracted the particular notice of the learned and amiable principal Rollock. Row’s Historie, 372‒375. Hebreæ Ling. Institut. ut supra. Row gave instructions to the master of the grammar‑school in the Greek tongue, by which means it came to be afterwards taught in Perth. And in 1637 his grandson John Row became rector of that school, in which he taught Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. This produced the following encomiastic verses by John Adamson, principal of the college of Edinburgh.

Perthana quondam Latialis linguæ schola
Laude cluebat, fueratque unius labri;
Nunc est trilinguis, Latio jungens Græciam,
Et huic Palæstinam; omnium linguis loquens.
O ter beatam te nunc Perthanam scholam!
O ter beatum Rollum rectorem tuum!
Per quem juventus, barbariæ procul habitu,
Rudis et tenella primulis labellulis
Solymas, Athenas, et Romam scite sonat.

About the year 1567, James Lawson (afterwards Knox’s successor at Edinburgh) returned from the continent, where he had studied Hebrew. The professors of St Andrews prevailed on him to give lessons in that language in their university. Life of Lawson, p. 2, in Wodrow’s MS. Collections, vol. i. Bibl. Coll. Glas. As he was made sub‑principal in the university of Aberdeen, in 1569, {295} it is to be presumed that he would also teach that language there. Lawson, after his settlement in Edinburgh, patronised the interests of literature in this city. It was chiefly by his exertions that the buildings for the high‑school were completed in 1578. His intentions were to have it erected into an university, or at least to make it _schola illustris_, with classes of logic and philosophy. The books destined for the library were kept in his house, previous to the foundation of the college. Crawfurd’s History of the University of Edinburgh, p. 19, 20. It is unnecessary to say any thing here of the influence which Andrew Melville exerted on the promotion of Oriental literature in this country. Thomas Smeton, who succeeded Melville as principal of the university of Glasgow, was a Hebrew scholar, as appears from his answer to Hamilton’s dialogue. Those who held the situation of principal in the universities at that time were accustomed to teach such branches of learning as were most neglected.

Note D, Footnote 23.

_Of George Buchanan._――As every thing relating to this scholar must be interesting to the learned, I shall add a few notices of him which have been hitherto overlooked.

The following entries in the treasurer’s accounts refer to the period during which he was tutor to James Stewart, abbot of Melrose and Kelso, an illegitimate son of James V.

“Anno 1536. Item, the xvi day of februar, be the kingis gracis precept and speciale cōmand, to Maister George Balquhanan and Andro Mylin, seruandis to lord James, to be thame twa gownis, xi elnis pareis blak, price of the elne xxxij{s}. Sum̅a, xvij{li} xij{s}, &c. &c.

“Aug{t} 1537. Item, to Maist{r} George Buchquhanan, at the king’s command, xx{li}.

[July 1537.] “Item, for vi elnis paris blak to be Maister George Balquhanan ane gown, price of the elne xxxvi{s}. Sum̅a, x{li} xvi{s}.” [Compot. Thesaur.]

From the manuscript belonging to Thomas Thomson, Esq. quoted in the preceding note, it appears that an absolution was procured at Rome, for George Buchanan, by the regent Arran and the archbishop of St Andrews; and that his brother Patrick was appointed {296} tutor to the regent’s children at Paris. In an accompt entitled “The archden of Sanctandros memo{le} of expenses in Rome,” (MS. p. 141,) is the following article:――

[1553.] “Item, for M. George Balquhan̄anes absolution, crowns 9.”

In the papers of Gawen, commendator of Kilwinning, (MS. p. 204, 206, 235, 325,) are the following articles:――

“Item, given to M. Patric Balquhannan to ane gud compt, 24 July, 1554, v{c} franks.

“And I haif left with M. Patric Balquhannan in ane steil box v{c} crownis, 1 Rois nobilis, and xiiij Hary nobilis. Parisiis, 28 July, 1554.

“Memoir of the geir left with Maister Patrik Bawquhenan the xxvii day of July, anno liiij{o}, at my departyng to Chattelleraut, &c.

“And to tak sikernes at M. Patric Balquhanan suld serve my lordis bairnis, and quitclame his pension quhen he war benefitit 26. 1554.”

The following extracts from the treasurer’s accounts refer to the year 1568, when Buchanan accompanied the regent Murray to England, to justify the charges against Mary queen of Scots.

“Item, the said day [27 May] to ane boy passand of Stirriling, w{t} clois writtings of my lord regent g. to the lard of Buchquhannane and Maister George Buchquhannane, being baith in Sanctandr. iiij.

“June 26th. Item, the said day to ane boy passand of Edinburgh to Sanctandrois w{t} ane clois writting of my lord regent g. to maister George Buchquhannane, v{s}.

“Item, the said xxvij day of August, be my lord regentis grace speciale command, to Maister George Buchquhannane, v elns ij quarteris of fyne blak veluote, ye eln vij{li}. Sum̅a, xxxviij{li} x{s}.

“Item, to him ane sleik of chamlot of silk, xxij{li}.

“Item, ij elnis ij quarteris of Londoun claith, the eln iiij{li} x{s}. Summa, xij{li} vij{s} vj{d}.” [Compot. Thesaur.]

As his imprisonment in Portugal, and his release from confinement, have been imperfectly related, I shall here insert two accounts of them, which have escaped the notice of his biographers. Principal Smeton’s account, which was most probably derived from Buchanan himself, is the following. “Vivit adhuc,” says he in his answer to Hamilton, “te utinam diu vivat, orbis terrarum, {297} non Scotiæ tantum, decus GEORGIUS BUCHANANUS; quem inepte facerem, si a rabidi canis latratu defendere conarer, extra omnem ingenii aleam omnium judicio constitutum. Quod de abjurata ab eo hæresi adscribis, impudentissimum est mendacium, Hamiltoni. Duplici quidem de causa in veræ religionis suspicionem in Lusitania venit; tum quod Seraphici ordinis mysteria in Franciscano suo apertius reuelasset: tum quod in priuato colloquio discipulis quibusdam dixisset, videri sibi Augustinum transubstantiationis figmento non prorsus fauere. In carcerem coniectus causam capitis perorauit. Franciscanum se regis sui iussu scripsisse; nec quicquam in eo esse quod vllum fidei Christianæ dogma conuellat. Versus quosdam memoriter pronuntiare iussus (nam nemo ibi libellum habebat) memoriæ iacturam causatus est. De transubstantione respondit; non alia se quam Augustini verba recitasse, ex cap. 16. lib. 3. de Doctrina Christiana. Quæ sic habent. ‘Si præceptiua locutio est, aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, aut vtilitatem aut beneficentiam iubens, non est figurata: Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere, aut vtilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaueritis, inquit, carnem filij hominis et sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: facinus vel flagitium videtur iubere. Figura est ergo, præcipiens passioni DOMINI esse communicandum, et suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa et vulnerata sit.’ Hæc, inquit, si hæresim sapiunt, prius Augustinum damnate; quod vt feceritis, haud æquum tamen erit, vt ego alienæ culpæ pœnas luam. Ergo cum nec ratione, nec testimonio cuiusquam conuinci posset, iudicum calculis absolutus in Galliam redijt; tanto bonarum litterarum damno, vt ipsemet postea Lusitaniæ Rex amantissimis eum scriptis reuocarit. Sed frustra. Summo enim DEI beneficio ex crudelissimis inquisitorum manibus liberatus, in discrimen se iterum conijcere noluit: cum in Gallia præsertim, omnium quæ sub sole sunt regionum humanitate, optimarum artium studijs et doctorum numero prima, opimæ illi, et admodum honorificæ conditiones deferrentur. Sed BUCHANANUM singularis animi candor, et in omni genere perspecta virtus satis per se defendet.” Smetoni Responsio ad Virulentum Arch. Hamiltonii Dialogum, Edinburgi, 1579. p. 89, 90.

I shall add the account which Archibald Hamilton gives of this {298} affair, in his reply to Smeton, although the judicious reader will be of opinion that no credit is due to such a writer, especially when his testimony is flatly contradicted by that of Smeton, and of Buchanan himself. “Tam illud quidem contra regis Scotorum integritatem, quam hoc contra _Hyspanorum nunquam satis laudatam in examinandis hæreticis severitatem_, malitiose confictum, et utrumque longe falsissimum est. Nequo enim Jacobus Quintus, in tenenda atque asserenda fide Catholica princeps nulli omnium secundus, tam impuro et procaci pasquillo, auctorem se unquam dedisset: neq; theologorum gravissima censura, tam impiam athei poetæ dicacitatem impune abire permisisset: et ut prioris mendacii falsitas illustrium dominorum Askein et Levingston publico testimonio evicta tunc fuit: quando legatione apud Gallos functi, regis nomine hæreseos convictum Buchananum Hyspanorum legato detulerunt: Ita ducentorum qui non disputationem sed supplicem lachrymantis deprecationem audiverunt, sententiis, alterius illius figmenti vanitas coargui potest. sin illæ non satis fortiter premunt quod longe a nobis absint, et nostrorum hominum, quod rei gestæ non interfuerunt narratio digna fide minus videatur: Publicè tamen urbis commentarii, in quos res gestæ referri solent, auctoritate vacare non debent, qui aperte adhuc testabuntur non Augustini testimonio. cap. 17. libri tertii de doctrina Christiana, sed Psalmographi versum, psalmo vigesimo quarto, subsidio ei tunc fuisse: dum ad Cardinalis pedes provulutus, flebili voce, verba ista proferebat (delicta juventutis meæ et ignorantias ne memineris Domine) eam recantationis formulam, ab eo tunc temporis usurpatum, ad eum sane finem obiter attigi, ut tandem Scotia intelligeret, quam gravem et constantem nunc patriarcham in religione sequitur: dum levis poetæ et abjurati hæretici paradoxa omnia pro certissimis spiritus sancti oraculis habet.” Calvinianæ Confusionis Demonstratio.――per Archibaldum Hammiltonium, p. 252 b. 253 a. Parisiis, 1581.

Note E, Footnote 26.

_Of David Ferguson, and the cultivation of the Scottish Language._――I have said in the text, that the reformers, while they exerted themselves to revive the knowledge of the learned languages, did not neglect the improvement of their native tongue; and that, among {299} others, David Ferguson, minister of Dunfermline, distinguished himself in this department. It appears, from a document already produced, (vol. I., Note GG,) that he belonged originally to Dundee. Though “not graduated in a college,” he was very far from being illiterate, and was much admired for the quickness of his wit and good taste, as well as for his piety――“elegantis ingenii et magnæ pietatis virum,” says Smeton, Responsio ad Hamilt. Dialog. p. 92. Row’s Coronis to his Historie, p. 314 of copy in Divinity Lib. Edin. The sermon which he preached at Leith before the regent and nobility, and afterwards published, (see above, p. 210,) is a proof of this; and had it not been a sermon, would most probably have been republished before this time, as a specimen of good Scottish composition. Extracts from it may be seen in Note B. John Davidson, then one of the regents at St Andrews, celebrated the success of the author in refining his vernacular language, in the following Latin lines, which are prefixed to the sermon:――

Græcia melifluo quantum det nestoris ori,
Aut Demostheneo debeat eloquio;
Ipsi facundo quantum (mihi crede) parenti
Attribuat linguæ turba togata suæ;
Nos tibi, Fergusi, tantum debere fatemur,
Scotanam linguam qui reparare studes.
Sermonem patriam ditas; inculta vetustas
Horret qua longe barbariemque fugas;
Adde etiam, neque abest facundis gratia dictis,
Respondet verbis materia apta tuis.
Quod satis ostendit nobis tua concio præsens,
Qua nihil in lucem doctius ire potest.

Besides this sermon, Ferguson was the author of a collection of Scottish Proverbs, and of an Answer to the Rejoinder, which the Jesuit Tyrie made to Knox. That abusive writer, James Laing, calls this last work “a barbarous, and Scotican epistle,” and rails against its author as an _ignorant sutor_ and _glover_, who knew neither Hebrew, nor Greek, nor Latin. As for himself, although a Scotsman, Laing tells us, that he thought it beneath him to write in a language which was fit only for barbarians and heretics. “Tres {300} sunt linguæ elegantes et ingenuæ, Hebraica, Græca, et Latina, quæ nobilibus principibus――sunt dignæ: cæteras linguas, cum sint barbaræ, barbaris et hæreticis tanquam propriis relinquo.” De Vita Hæreticorum, Dedic. p. ult. et p. 31. Paris, 1581. Notwithstanding this writer’s boasting of his literature, and the opportunities which he takes to display it, he did not know the top from the bottom of a Hebrew letter, if we may judge from his book, p. 94, b. Laing’s objection to the literature of Ferguson may, however, be thought as solid as that which another popish writer has brought against his morals, by accusing him of _using pepper instead of salt to his beef_. “At hi quibus carnem accendant irritentque, novas artes quotidie excogitant;” and on the margin, he says, “Exemplo est David Ferguson ad macerandas carnes bubulas pipere pro sale utens.” Hamilton. De Confus. Calvinianæ Sectæ, p. 76. But to do justice to Hamilton, it is proper to mention, that pepper was at that time so high priced as to be a morsel only for a pope or a cardinal, and very unfit for the mouths of barbers, cobblers, &c., of which rank he tells us the reformed preachers generally were. Principal Smeton, after saying that Ferguson had reared a numerous family on a very moderate stipend, adds:――“Undenam ergo illi, amabo te, tantum piperis ad carnes quotannis macerandas quantum sexcentis apud nos aureis nummis nemo unquam compararit?” Smetoni Responsio ad Hamilt. p. 95. The truth is, there was too much salt and pepper in the writings of Ferguson for the papists.

A number of Ferguson’s witty sayings are recorded by his son‑in‑law, John Row. James VI. who resided frequently at Dunfermline, used to take great delight in his conversation. “David,” said James to him one day, “why may not I have bishops in Scotland as well as they have in England?”――“Yea, Sir,” replied Ferguson, “ye may have bishops here; but remember ye must make us all bishops, else will ye never content us. For if ye set up ten or twelve lowns over honest men’s heads, (honest men will not have your antichristian prelacies,) and give them more thousands to debauch and mispend than honest men have hundreds or scores, we wil never al be content. We ar Paul’s bishopis, Sir, Christ’s bishopis; ha’d us as we are.”――“The d――l haid aills you,” replied James, “but that ye would all be alike; ye cannot abide ony to {301} be abone you.”――“Sir!” said the minister, “do not ban.” Row’s Coronis to his Historie of the Kirk, p. 314. Ferguson seems to have amused himself with some of those incidents which were generally reckoned ominous. The king having once asked him, very seriously, what he thought was the reason that the Master of Gray’s house shook during the night, he answered, “Why should not the devil rock his awin bairns?” Having met at St Andrews along with other commissioners of the church, to protest against the inauguration of Patrick Adamson as archbishop of that see, one came in and told them, that there was a crow “crouping” on the roof of the church. “That’s a bad omen,” said he, shaking his head, “for inauguration is from _avium garritu_, the raven is omnimodo a black bird, and it cries _corrupt, corrupt, corrupt_.” Row’s Historie, p. 40.

It may not be improper to insert here the inscription on the tomb of John Row, the historian to whom I have so often been indebted, who was third son of the learned minister of Perth, and married Grizzel, daughter to David Ferguson of Dunfermline. It is on his monument in the churchyard of Carnock.

“Hic jacet M. Jo. Row, Pastor hujus Ecclesiæ fidelissimus. Vixit acerrimus veritatis et fœderis Scoticani assertor, Hierarchiæ pseudo‑episcopalis, et Romanorum rituum, cordicitus osor, in frequenti symmystarum apostasia cubi instar constantissimus.――Duxit Gricellidam Fergusonam, cum qua annos 51 conjunctissime vixit. Huic ecclesiæ annos 54 praefuit. Obiit Junij 26to, anno domini 1646. Ætatis 78. Obiit et illa Januarij 30mo, 1659.”

Note F, Footnote 28.

_Order of Procedure at the first Meetings of the General Assembly._――The first appointment of a moderator was in December 1563. “It was proponit be the haill assemblie yat ane moderator suld be appointit for avoyding confusioun in reasoning.” Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 8. The Assembly which met at Perth, August 1572, ordained, as a perpetual law, that no person of whatever estate take in hand to speak without license asked and given by the moderator, that moderation should be kept in reasoning, and silence when commanded by the moderator, under pain of removal from {302} the assembly, and not to re‑enter during that convention. Ibid. p. 55. In July 1568, to correct evils, “be reason of the pluralitie and confusion of voices,” it was enacted, that none should have power to vote but superintendents, commissioners appointed to visit kirks, ministers “brought with yame, presented as habile to reasone, and having knowledge to judge,” and commissioners of burghs, shires, and universities. The ministers were to be chosen at the synodal convention of the diocese, by consent of the rest of the ministry and gentlemen that shall convene at the said synodal convention; commissioners of burghs by “the counsell and kirk of their awn townes.”――“None to be admitted without sufficient commission or wreit.” And to prevent a monopoly of power, they were to be changed from assembly to assembly. Ibid, p. 38. The assembly, March 1569/70, settled the following order of procedure. After sermon and prayer by the former moderator, 1. A new moderator to be chosen. 2. Superintendents, commissioners, &c. to be tried. First, the superintendents being removed, enquiry was made of the ministers and commissioners of their bounds if they had any charges to lay against them as to neglect of duty, &c. If any charge was brought, it was examined, and sentence passed. The same order was observed in the trial of the other members of assembly. 3. The case of penitents and persons under censure to be considered. Lastly, The business left undecided by last assembly, or brought before the present, to be taken up. Ibid. p. 47.

Note G, Footnote 32.

_Epistolary Correspondence between Knox and Calvin._――In a letter, dated 28th August, 1559, Knox requests Calvin’s opinion on the two following questions. 1. Whether bastards, the children of idolaters and excommunicated persons, should be admitted to baptism, before their parents gave satisfaction to the church, or they themselves were able to require it? 2. Whether monks and popish priests, who neither serve the church, nor are capable of serving it, although they have renounced their errors, ought to have the annual rents of the church paid to them? Knox had maintained the negative on the last question. The letter is said to be written _raptim_. “Plura scribere vetat febris qua crucior, laborum moles qua premor, {303} et Gallorum bombardæ, qui, ut nos opprimant, appulerunt.” (Comp. Historie, p. 161.) Calvin, in a leter dated Nov. 8, 1559, answers, that it was his opinion and that of his colleagues, on the first question, That the sacrament of baptism was not to be administered to those who were without the church, nor to any without proper sponsors; but the promise (upon which the right was founded) was not confined to the posterity in the first degree: and therefore those who were descended from godly parents were to be viewed as belonging to the church, although their parents or even grand‑parents had become apostates, and such children were not to be refused baptism, provided persons appeared as sponsors, engaging for their religious education. “Adde quod alia est nunc renascentis ecclesiæ ratio, quam rite formatæ et compositæ.” (Comp. Dunlop, ii. 573.) On the second question, he says, That although those who performed no service in the church had not a just claim to be supported by its funds, still, as the popish clergy had brought themselves under engagements in times of ignorance, and had consumed a part of their lives in idleness, it seemed harsh to deprive them of all support. He therefore advises a middle course to be adopted. Calvini Epistolæ et Responsa, p. 516‒520. Hanoviæ, 1597. Ibid. p. 201, 202, in Oper. tom. ix. Amstælod. 1667.

From another letter of Calvin to Knox, dated April 23, 1561, it appears that the Genevese Reformer had been consulted by our countrymen on some other points of considerable difficulty,――most probably those questions on which the nobility and the ministers differed. He wrote them accordingly, but soon after was applied to a second time for his opinion on the same subject, as his first letter had miscarried. Knowing that his judgment was not altogether agreeable to some of his correspondents, he suspected that they wished to draw from him an answer more favourable to their own sentiments, and expressed his dissatisfaction at such conduct. Knox, who appears to have been employed in the correspondence, was grieved at this suspicion, and vindicated himself from the imputation. Calvin, in this letter, apologises for his severity, and assures him that he never entertained any suspicion of his integrity. “Te vero dolose quicquam egisse, neque dixi, neque suspicatus sum.――Ac mihi dolet, quod exciderat ex ore meo, sic in animum tuum penetrasse, ut putares malæ fidei aut astutiæ, a qua te remotum {304} esse judico, fuisse insimulatam. Facessat igitur metus ille vel cura.” In both letters, Calvin signifies his high satisfaction at the wonderful success of the Reformation in Scotland. The conclusion of the last is expressive of the unaffected piety of the writer, and his warm regard for his correspondent. “Hic versamur inter multa discrimina. Una tantum cælestis præsidii fiducia nos a trepidatione eximit: quanvis non simus metu vacui. Vale, eximie vir, et ex animo colende frater. Dominus tibi semper adsit, te gubernet, tueatur, ac sustentet sua virtute.” Ut supra, p. 564‒566, et in alter. edit. p. 150.

These are the only parts of the correspondence between Calvin and our Reformer which have been published; but Mons. Senebier, the librarian of Geneva, has informed us that there are a number of Knox’s letters to Calvin preserved in the public library of that city. Histoire Litteraire de Geneve, tom. i. p. 380.