NOTES TO VOLUME SECOND.
Reading edition
Sentiments of the Reformed Ministers respecting Tithes, and the Property of the Church.—These are laid down in the First Book of 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, 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, 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 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.
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 wt 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 wt M. Johne Row for the provestrie of Kirkfield, and caus M. Alexr Forres send his mandat to ratify the xxli 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 Edr 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 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, (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 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, 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.
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 xxxijs. Sum̅a, xvijli xijs, &c. &c.
“Augt 1537. Item, to Maistr George Buchquhanan, at the king’s command, xxli.
[July 1537.] “Item, for vi elnis paris blak to be Maister George Balquhanan ane gown, price of the elne xxxvis. Sum̅a, xli xvis.” [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 tutor to the regent’s children at Paris. In an accompt entitled “The archden of Sanctandros memole 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, vc franks.
“And I haif left with M. Patric Balquhannan in ane steil box vc 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 liiijo, 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 wt ane clois writting of my lord regent g. to maister George Buchquhannane, vs.
“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 vijli. Sum̅a, xxxviijli xs.
“Item, to him ane sleik of chamlot of silk, xxijli.
“Item, ij elnis ij quarteris of Londoun claith, the eln iiijli xs. Summa, xijli vijs vjd.” [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, 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 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.
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 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 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 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.”
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 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 15 69 ⁄ 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.
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, 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 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.
During his residence at Geneva, Knox became acquainted with Beza, who then acted as professor of Greek in the neighbouring city of Lausanne, from which he was translated to Geneva, upon the erection of the university there, the same year in which our Reformer returned to Scotland. An epistolary correspondence was afterwards maintained between them. Two letters of Beza to Knox, the one dated June 3, 1569, the other April 12, 1572, are inserted in Epistol. Theolog. Bezæ, p. 333‒336, 344‒346, of the first edition; and p. 304‒307, 314‒316, of the second edition, Genevæ, 1575. Both of them evince the writer’s ardent regard for our Reformer, and his high opinion of our reformation. The first letter is inscribed, “To John Knox, the Restorer of the Gospel of God in Scotland,” and begins with these words: “Gratiam et pacem tibi, mi frater, omnibusque vestris sanctis ecclesiis opto a Deo et Patre Domini nostri Jesu Christi, cui etiam gratias ago assidue, tum de tanta ipsius in vos beneficentia, tum de vestra singulari in asserendo ipsius cultu constantia et animi fortitudine.—Euge, mi frater, quam recte illud quod disciplinam simul cum doctrina conjungitis? Obsecro et obtestor ut ita pergatis, ne vobis idem quod tam multis eveniat, ut qui in limine impegerint, progredi non possint, imo etiam interdum ne velint quidem, quod longe misserrimum est.” The second letter, which behoved to be received by Knox only a few months before his death, could not fail to be gratifying to him, even although he had then taken a formal “farewell of the world.” It is addressed “To his dearest Brother and Colleague,” and begins in the following lofty strain of affection: “Etsi tanto terrarum et maris ipsius intervallo disjuncti corporibus sumus, mi Cnoxe, tamen minime dubito quin inter nos semper viguerit, et ad extremum vigeat, summa illa animorum conjunctio, unius ejusdemque spiritus fideique vinculo sancita.”
Evidence of Queen Mary’s design to restore the Roman Catholic Religion in Scotland.—The reader who doubts that this was her uniform object from the time that she left France, may consult the following authorities. Throkmorton’s Conference with Mary, in Knox, Historie, 275‒277. Keith, History, 164‒167. Life of bishop Lesley, in Anderson’s Collections, i. 4, iii. 9. The letters of the cardinal de St Croix, (ambassador from the pope to the court of France,) extracted from the Vatican library, afford a striking demonstration of the intentions of the queen. St Croix writes to cardinal Borromeo, that the grand prior of France (one of Mary’s uncles) and Mons. Danville had arrived from Scotland on the 17th November (1561,) and had brought information, that the queen was going on successfully in surmounting all opposition to her in that kingdom. Being informed one day that some heretics had extinguished the candles on her altar, she repaired to the chapel, and having ascertained the fact, commanded a baron, one of the most powerful and most addicted to Lutheranism, to re‑light the candles, and place them on the altar: in which she was instantly obeyed. After relating another instance of her spirited conduct against the magistrates of a certain borough who had banished the popish priests, the cardinal adds:—“by these means she has acquired greater authority and power, for enabling her to restore the ancient religion;” “con che acquesta tutta via maggior autorita et forze, per posser restituer en quel regno l’antica religione.” Aymon, Synodes Nationaux des Eglises Reformees de France, tom. i. p. 17, 18.
Sanguinary Spirit and Principles of Roman Catholics.—Bayle, Commentaire Philosophique, tome i. pref. xiv. part ii. chap. v. p. 343, 347, anno 1686, and his Critique Generale de l’Histoire du Caivinisme, p. 486, 501‒519. Hume’s Hist. of England, vol. vii. chap. i. p. 24. Lond. 1793, 12mo. Robertson’s History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 62, 143, 352. Lond. 1809.
“Les Papistes,” says Bayle, in a treatise in which he pleads for toleration on a very extensive basis—“Les Papistes eux‑memes sont les premiers en ce pais‑ci à crier qu’il n’y a rien de plus injuste que de vexer la conscience. Pensée ridicule en leur bouche! et non seulement ridicule, mais traitresse, &c. i.e. The papists themselves are the first in this country [Britain] to exclaim that there is nothing more unjust than to distress conscience. A sentiment ridiculous in their mouth! and not only ridiculous, but treacherous, and marked with that dishonesty which they have uniformly discovered for so many ages. For they would not fail, in three years, to burn and butcher all who refused to go to mass, if they acquired the power, and could avail themselves of the baseness of a sufficient number of court parasites, men of venal souls, and unworthy of the protestant name which they bear, to overturn the fundamental barriers which so salutarily restrain the royal power.” Commentaire Philosophique, pref. p. xiii. xiv.
The sentiments contained in the following passage are now become so antiquated and unintelligible, that I shall not risk my credit by venturing to translate it. “Les malheurs qui sont arrivez à nos freres de France tourneront, comme il y a apparence, à notre profit. Il nous out remis dans la necessaire defiance du Papisme, il nous out fait voir que cette fausse religion ne s’amende pas par le long age, qu’elle est toujours, comme au tems jadis, animée de l’esprit de fourbe et de cruauté, et que malgré la politesse, l’honneteté, la civilité, qui regne dans les manieres de ce siecle plus qu’en aucun autre, elle est toujours brutale et farouche. Chose etrange! tout ce qu’il y avoit de grossier dans les mœurs de nos ancestres s’est evanouit; à cet air rustique et sauvage des vieux tems a succedé par toute l’Europe Chretienne une douceur et une civilité extreme. Il n’y a que le Papisme qui ne se sent point du changement, et qui retient toujours son ancienne et habituelle ferocité. Nous nous imaginions nous autres Anglois, que c’etoit une bete apprivoisseé, un loup et un tigre qui avoit oublie son naturel sauvage; mais Dieu merci aux Convertisseurs de France, nous nous sommes desabusez, et nous savons à qui nous aurions à faire si notre sort etoit entre leurs mains. Pesans bien cela et considerons quel malheur nous pendroit sur la tete, si nous laissions croitre le Papisme dans ce bien heureux climats. Je ne veux pas que cela nous porte à faire aucunes represailles sur les papistes; non, je deteste ces imitations; je souhaite seulement qu’ils n’aquierent pas la force d’executer sur nous ce qu’ils savent faire.” Ibid. p. xv. xviii. xix.
The following extracts from the records of the town council of Edinburgh, show the attention which they paid to the support and accommodation of their minister.
May 8, 1560. The provost, bailies, and council ordain the treasurer to pay the sum of L.40 Scots for furnishing of the minister, John Knox, in his household; and because he had been furnished on David Forrester’s expenses since his coming to this town, for the space of 15 days, ordains to receive David’s accompts, and make payment.—“Penultimo Octobris 1560. The quhilk day, the provost, baillies, and counsaill ordainis James Barroun to pay to John Knox the soulme of sax scoir pounds of the reddiest money of the solmes being in his hands, and sicklyk the soulme of L.20.” This last sum seems to have been allotted for repairs on his house.—“12th Dec. 1560. The provost, baillies, and counsill ordanis James Barroun (dean of guild of last year) to pay and deliver to John Knox, minister, the soume of fiftie pound for supporting of his charges, and that incontinent after the sight heirof, and gif it beis funden that the said James be superexpendit, after the making of his accompt, precepts shall be given in maist strait forme, commanding the treasurer to mak him gud and thankfull payment of his haill superexpensis, within aught days nixt thairafter.” From the minutes of Dec. 22, 1560, April 5, and May 28, 1561, it appears that his fixed stipend was L.200 a‑year; for L.50 is ordered, each time, “for his quarter payment” or “dues.” On Dec. 14, 1560, it was agreed that his house rent should afterwards be “paid at the rate of 15 merks a‑year.”
“Penultimo Octobris [1561.] The samine day the provost, baillies, and counsail ordanis the dene of gyld, with all diligence, to mak ane warme stuydye of dailles to the minister, Johne Knox, within his hous, abone the hall of the same, with lyht and wyndokis thereunto, and all uther necessaris: and the expenciss disbursit be him salbe allowit to him in his accomptis.”—“January 1561 (i.e. 1562) the provost, baillies, and counsale, understanding that the minister, Jhone Knox, is requyrit be the hale kirk to passe in the partis of Anguss and Mearnys, for electing of ane superintendent thare, to the quhilk they themselfs hes grantit, thairfoir ordains Alexander Guthrie, dene of gild, to pass in companie with him, for furnishing of the said ministeris charges, and to deburse and pay the same of the readeast of the townis gudis in his handis, quhilk salbe allowit in his accomptis: And further haist the said minister hame, that the kirk hear be not desolait.”
To these extracts respecting Knox, I may add one from the same records respecting Willock, who officiated in his place as minister of Edinburgh during the civil war. “29 August, 1560. The counsail ordains their treasurer to deliver to John Willock 22 crownes of the sone for recompense of the great traveill sustenit be him this haill yiere bygane, in preching and administring the sacramentis within this burgh, and ordanis ane member of the counsall to thank him for his greit benevolence, and for the greit travaill forsaid.” Previous to this, they had remunerated John Cairns, with whom Willock had lodged.
In the text I have mentioned, that, after the arrangement made by the privy council respecting the thirds of benefices, Knox seems to have received part of his stipend from the common fund. The extracts which Keith has given from the books of assignation mention only two allowances made to him. “To John Knox, minister, wheat 2 c[halders], bear 6 c. meal o. oates 4 c.” Whether this was for the year 1563, or not, Keith does not say. He adds in a note, “For the year 1568, I see L.333, 6s. 8d. given to Mr Knox.” History, Appendix, 188. His stipend at the time of his death will be stated in Note BB. Keith has inserted, from the books of assignation, the prices of the principal articles of living at that time, from which an idea of the value of money may be formed. Ibid. 189. The following are a specimen. In Fyfe, Lothian, Merse, and Teviotdale, for 1573, wheat, L.26, 13s. 4d. the chalder; bear, L.21, 6s. 8d.; meal, L.16; oats, 20 merks. Or, according to another account, without expressing any county, wheat, L.1 the boll; bear, L.1, 13s. 4d.; meal the same; oats, 10s.; malt, L.2; rye, and pease and beans, the same; mairts of Aberdeen, L.2, 13s. 4d. the piece; sheep, 9s.; poultry, 4s. the dozen; geese, 1s. the piece; cheese, 6s. 8d. the stone.
Protocol—James Nicolson.
Pro Johanne Knox.
Knox’s Protest in the affairs of the Earl of Angus.—Vigesimo quarto die mensis Octobris, anno Domini millesimo quingentesimo sexagesimo primo, in presence of me notair, and witnesses vnderwrittin, Comperit Johnne Knox, minister of Edinburgh, and thair being requyrit be George Dowglas, sone naturall to vmquhile Archibald erle of Angus that last deceissit, to deliuer agane to him the letter of renunciatioun maid be the said George of the landis, lordschip, and baronie of Abirnethy, and regalite thairof, with the maner, places, mylnis, multuris, woddis, fischingis, tennentis, tennandriys, service of free tennentis, aduocatiounis, donationis, and rychtis of patronages of the kirkis, benefices, collegis, and prebendarys thairof, &c., in favouris of Archibald, now erle of Angus, of the daitt at Edinburgh, the xxiiij day of Junij the zeir of God Im vc threscoir ane zeiris; and consignit and putt be him in the handis of the said Johnne, in hoip of aggreance to haif bene dressit betuix him the said erle and his tutouris. Ansuerit, that he granted the resaving of the said lettir, vnder conditioun foirsaid; and that he had bestowit his faithfull laubouris besyde the travellis tane zairin be diuers noble men to haif had that mater aggreit. Be quham thair wes diuers reasonable offeris maid to the said George, quhilkis he hes refusit, and thairfoir protestit gif that his refuis turne heirefter to his awin damnage, that the said Johnne be innocent thairof. Testifiand to the said George, in his awin presence and ouris, and also befoir God, that the offer maid is mair reasonable nor he belevis the said George is able to haif ony proffett or gaynes vtherwyis thairbi. And thairupoun the said Johnne deliuerit to the said George his said lettir of renunciatioun, of the daitt foirsaid, vnder his seill and subscriptioun, quhilk the said George confessit and recognoscit to be the same quhilk he deliuerit, togidder also with his seill in lead, quhilkis the said George resavit and dischargit the said Johnne thairof. Quhairupoun the said Jon askit instrumentis. Done in maister James M‘gillis study, at vj houris at evin, or thairbi. Present thairat the said Maister James, clerk of reḡri; Maister George Hay, vicare of Eddilstoune; Adam Wauchop, and I James Nicolson.
J. Nicolson.
Minutes of the Town Council of Edinburgh respecting a second Minister.—“10th April, 1562.—The same day the counsale, understanding the tedious and havie labours sufferit be the minister, Jhone Knox, in preiching thrise in the oulk, and twise on the Sounday, ordains with ane consent to solist and persuade Maister Jhone Craig, presentlie minister of the Canongait, to accept upoun him the half chargis of the preaching of the said kirk of Edinburgh for sic gud deid as thai can aggre on.”—That this measure was not carried into effect for some time after, appears from the following act of council. “18th June, 1563.—After lang reasoning upon the necessities of ministers, finds that there salbe ane uther minister elected be the provost, baillies, and counsale, dekynes and elderis of this burgh, and addit to Johne Knox, minister.” From the same act and subsequent measures, it is evident that the want of necessary funds was the cause of the delay. For the council resolved, that “for susteaning of thame baith, togidder with Johne Cairns reider,” the deacons should meet with the trades and the merchants, to see what they would be willing to give. The reports made to the council bore that, if they would fix a particular stipend, the trades were willing to pay a fifth part of it, according to old custom. But although Craig had not been translated from the Canongate, he seems to have performed a part of the duty in Edinburgh; for, in the same month, I find the council appointing a number of persons “to go amang the faithfull who had communicate,” and make a collection for “Johnne Craig and Johnne Cairns, who had received nothing for a lang time.” This expedient they were obliged afterwards to repeat. On the 26th September, 1561, the council had agreed to give “to John Cairns, lector of morning prayeris, 100 merks a‑year, in tyme to cum.” Records of Town Council.
Writings of Quintin Kennedy and George Hay.—Keith has inserted a letter which Kennedy wrote to the archbishop of Glasgow, and the correspondence between him and Willock, in 1559. He has also given large extracts from his Compendious Tractive. History, Append. p. 193‒203. The following quotations may be added, for verifying the statement which I have made in the text. Having quoted John, v. 39, Kennedy says, “Marke (gud redare) the Scripture to occupy the place of ane wytnes, and not the place of ane juge.” A, iiij. In a subsequent part of the work, he endeavours to qualify what he had stated respecting the church being judge of all matters in religion. “We never say in all our lytil tractive, that the kirk is juge to the Scripture, bot yat the kirk is juge to discern quhilk is the trew Scripture of God, and to mak manifest to the congregation the trew understandyng of the samyn.” Ibid. H, v. This explication does not much mend the matter; for certainly he who has the power of calling what witnesses he pleases, and of putting what sense he pleases upon their testimony, is to all intents and purposes the judge of the witnesses, and of their evidence. Having mentioned that there were persons “swa religious and clean fyngerit, that thair wil na thyng perswade thaim without testimony of Scripture,” he adds, “All Christin men havand ane generale understanding of the articles of our faith (conforme to the understanding that the kirk hes teacheit ws); the ten commandements, the prayer of the Lord callit the Pater noster, it suffices to thame to quhame it does not appertene of thair office nor vocatioun, to occupy the place of the prechairis or techeairis in the congregatioun. As to the sacramentis, and all uther secretis of the Scripture, stand to the jugement of thy pasture, (without curious ressoning or cersing of the secretis of Godis word,) quha beiris thy burding in all materis doutsum abone thy knawledge, conforme to the saying of the apostle, ‘Obey unto your superioris,’ &c. And in cais they be negligent, ressave doctryne of the kirk, as the tyme teicheis ws. Be this way (quhilk is conforme to Godis word and all veritie) it sall be asie to all men, quhat place or estait in the congregatioun that ever he occupy, to beir his awin burding.” Ibid. D, vii.
Another work of Kennedy has lately been printed, from a MS. in the Auchinleck library, under the following title: “Ane Oratioune in fauouris of all thais of the Congregatione, exhortand thaim to aspy how wonderfullie thai ar abusit be thair dissaitful prechouris, set furth be master Quintine Kennedy, Commendatour of Corsraguell, ye zeir of Gode 1561.” Edinburgh, 1812. Perhaps this oration was printed in the year mentioned in the title, although no copy is now to be found, and was one of “his books,” referred to by the abbot in his dispute with Knox. I have already given extracts from this book, in vol. i. p. 398, 439. It concludes in the following manner: “Quharfor, with all my hart exhortis, prays, and but mercie appellis thar pestilent precheouris,” [on the margin, “Knox, Willock, Winrame, Gudmane, Dowglasse, Heriot, Spottiswoode, and all ye rest.”] “puffit vp with vane glore, quhilkis rackinnis thaimselfis of gretar knawlege nor Christis haill kirk, cumand but authoritie, subuertand, subornande, and circumuenande the simple peple, cersande thair pray like the deuillis rachis, barkcand bauldly like bardis, aganis the blissit sacrament of the altare, the sacrifice of the mess, and all vther godlie ordinance of Jhesus Christ and his kirk, to preiss their wittis and inginis, and to streik all thair pennis in my contrar, makande the congregatioun and all vtheris to vnderstande, gif I do propirly, truely, and godly, or nocht, invey aganis thair deuillische doctrine and doyingis. Failyeande thairof, recant, for schame, recant (ye famouse precheouris) and cum in obedience to the kirk of God, quhilk ye haue stubbornlie misknawin this lang time bypast, (and that nocht without grete dangere to your avne saulis and mony vtheris,) thairfor recant, in tyme recant, as ye lufe your saluation, and cry God mercie: To quham, with the Sone and Haly Gaist, be prayse, honour, and glore, for ever ande ever. Amen. Progenies viperarum fugite a ventura ira, nam securis ad radicem arboris posita est, penitentiam agite. Matth. iii.”
In his dispute with Knox, the abbot mentions his “books,” and he refers particularly to a book which he had published in 1561, on the sacrament of the mass. There is in the library of Alexander Boswell, Esq. of Auchinleck, a MS. by the abbot, entitled, “Ane familiar commune and ressoning anent the misterie of the sacrifice of the mess, betwixt twa brether, master Quintin Kennedy, comendator of Corsraguell, and James Kennedy of . In the yeir of God ane thousand, five hundred, three scoir ane yeir.” It was answered by George Hay, in a work entitled, “The Confutation of the Abbote of Crosraguels Masse, set furth by Maister George Hay. Imprinted at Edinburgh by Robert Lekpreuik, 1563.” The dedication is inscribed, “To the most noble, potent, and godlie Lord James Earle of Murray.” This is the book to which Winzet alludes on the margin of his Buke of Questionis, where he says, “Mr George Hay, fy haist zow to recant.” Keith, Append. p. 236, 246. I have been favoured with the sight of a copy of this rare tract, belonging to Richard Heber, Esq. It would seem that the abbot’s treatise was not printed, but that copies of it had been transcribed, and industriously circulated through the country in manuscript; for Hay repeatedly makes the supposition that there might be variations in the different copies, and on one occasion confesses that he could not read a passage in the copy which he used. “Followeth, another objection made by James. Alwayes,” sayes he, “all ze wha vses the Masse, dois not (this (not) is not in the text, that is come to my handes, but because the sentence requireth it, I haue added it) as Christe did in the latter supper,” &c. He gives another quotation from the abbot in the following manner: “Trewly, brother, and ze be sa scrupulus Scripturares, that ze will do nothing but (but is not in my text) as Christe did, towards the vse of the Sacramentes, ze will subuert our haile Faith, and commend our awin doinges,353 (so I ride it) (our owen doinges or commonly I can not tell which should be red, or if there be any other thing yet,) for quhair finde ze that Christe euer appointed ane man to be baptized,” &c. Fol. 36, b. 37, a, b.
The following account of the abbot’s talents and acquaintance with the Fathers may serve as a specimen of Hay’s style. “Trew it is, that before this boke of the abbote of Crosraguel’s wes set furth and published, sindrie and diuers were the opinions of men concerning it. For the sorte of them that be cōmonly tearmed Papistes, aduersaries to all trew religion, thoght in verie deid that they should receaue such a confort, yea, such a gun as no munition myght withstand, no strengthe resiste, nether yet any maner of force repel. They were encuraged by the brute and fame of the man, who onely wolde appeare in these tymes to haue dexteritie of ingyne, helped and auanced by long progres of tyme spent in good letters, yea, ād besydes the Scriptures of God, will also appeare to haue the conference, judgment, and authoritie of the ancient Fathers and councils, which it may seme to the reader that he feadeth (not unlyke the nyne Muses) in his bosome. I my self hauing hade some tymes credit and acquentence of the man, loked for some what that might haue troubled the cōsciences of waiklinges, and of such as stayed them selues vpon a glistering and semely ymagination of mans heart, rather then upon the written and reueiled treuth, by the spirite of God. For it wes not vnknawen to me how familiare he hath bene with the scolastike sophisters, their thornie questions, and scabrus conclusions, yea and some of the ancient doctors, whose writinges, what by ignorance of tyme seduced, what by affection carryed away, I thoght wel he should wreist to his vngodly opinion.” Fol. 3, a. Having pointed out a false quotation, which the abbot had made from Chrysostom, Hay adds, “Hereby it is easy to perceaue how vainely ye ascribe such reading of the ancientes vnto your self, as in your writinges ye take vpon you, that ye will seme in the eyes of the people, to be the onely he in this realme versed in antiquitie. And now to say my judgment frely, I truste ye haue no workes of such men as ye draw your authorities out of, but onely hath, I can not tell what lytle scabbed treaties of Eccius, Cochleus, Hosius, Stanislaus youre new start up Campion, and of such others of your factiō, and taketh out of them, such thinges as ye think may serue to your wicked and blasphemus purpose. What credite now, or what authoritie oght to be given to such places, as thou draweth out of the doctors, who belyke neuer hath sene there workes, nether yet knoweth to what purpose they speak, if they speak of their owne mynde, or of their aduersaries, whither they speak by an interrogation or conclusiuely, and determinatly, whither they speak ὑπερβολικως,354 that is excessiuely, to extoll the dignitie of the mater they haue in hand (which is not rare in this author) or simplie. Thus the text it self is to be considered, that it that preceadeth being conferred with it that followeth, the mynde and sentence of the author may be knowen perfytlie. Not that I will hereby damne yong men, who ether excluded by tyme, or els lacking bookes, muste giue credite to good authorities, but in this man who will seme to be an other Anacharses inter sordidos Scythas, it is intollerable, who is sequestrate frome the common societie of men, and trauell in the common wealth, hauing not els to do, but that he hath inioyned to him self, that is to ly by a pleasing bray, and cast in stones to trouble the faire and cleare rinning watter.” Fol. 18, b. 19, a.
Lepreuik, in an advertisement to the reader, apologizes for his want of Greek characters, which he was forced to have supplied by manuscript. Herbert’s edit. of Ames, p. 1487. This fact illustrates what I have mentioned in vol. i. 347. Herbert questions Ames’s statement, that they had no Hebrew or Greek types in Scotland in 1579, and he appeals to a book printed ‘at Edinburgh, be Leighe Mannenby, anno Domini 1578,’ in which Greek characters are found. Ibid. p. 1499, 1500. But this cannot overthrow Ames’s statement, which is correct; for the imprint of that book is undoubtedly fictitious, as no such Scottish printer as “Leighe Mannenby” seems to have ever existed.
Ordination of reformed Ministers.—In the prologue to the “Reasoning betwixt Jo. Knox and the abbot of Crossraguell,” Knox adverts to the cavils of the papists against the validity of the call of the reformed ministers, and intimates his intention of returning an answer to the questions on this head which had been proposed to him by Ninian Winget, the “Procutour for the Papists.” There are some general remarks on this subject in his answer to Tyrie’s Letter, but I do not think that he ever published any thing professedly on the point. There is a ridiculous tale told by a popish writer concerning a pretended convention held by the reformed ministers in Scotland to determine in what manner they should proceed in the admission of ministers. Willock proposed as a weighty difficulty, that if they used imposition of hands, or any other ceremony commonly practised in the church, they would be asked to show, that they themselves had been admitted by the same ceremonies, and thus the lawfulness of their vocation would be called in question. “Johann kmnox ansuerit maist resolutlie, ‘Buf, buf, man, we ar anes entered, let se quha dar put us out agane;’ meaning that thair was not sa monie gunnis and pistollis in the countrie to put him out as was to intrud him with violence. Sua Johann kmnox, to his awin confusion, entered not in the kirk be ordinar vocatione or imposition of handis, but be imposition of ‘bullatis and pouldir in culringis and lang gunnis;’ sua ye mister not to trubill you farder in seiking out of Johann kmnox vocatione.”—This story “I understude,” says the author, “of ane nobil and honourable man, quha can yit beir witnes gif I lea or not.” He took care, however, not to give the name of the nobleman. Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 129. Parise, 1581.
Strictness and impartiality of Discipline.—The form of satisfaction enjoined in the case of Methven, was appointed for all who should be excommunicated for murder, adultery, incest, or other aggravated crimes. The murderer was to bear in his hand “the same or lyke weapoun whairwith the murther was committed.” Buik of the Univ. Kirk, p. 38. Other rules observed in cases of discipline may be seen in Knox’s Liturgy, p. 55‒67, edit. 1611, and in Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 704‒756. Impartiality, as well as severity, distinguished the discipline of those times. “Gryt men offending in sick crymes as deserves seckclaith, they suld receave the same als weill as the pure.—Na superintendant nor commissioner, with advyce of any particular kirk of yair jurisdiction, may dispense with the extreamitie of sackcloth, prescrivit be the actes of the generall discipline, for any pecuniall sum or paine ad pios usus.” Buik of the Univ. Kirk, August, 1573. Dunlop, ii. 753. This was not a mere theoretic proposition. For, in 1563, we find the lord treasurer making public satisfaction, (Keith, 245, 529;) in 1567, the countess of Argyle, (Buik of the Univ. Kirk, p. 37,) and in 1568, the bishop of Orkney, (Anderson’s Collections, ii. 284.) Let not our modern fashionables and great ones be alarmed at hearing of such things. Those days are gone, and will not, it is likely, soon return.
The parliament, or the magistracy of particular burghs, enacted punishments of a corporal kind against certain crimes which were ordinarily tried in the church courts. Some of these existed before the Reformation, and some of them were posterior to it; but the infliction as well as the enacting of them, pertained to the civil magistrate. Knox, p. 269. In the minutes of several kirk‑sessions, however, the sentences inflicting them are found recorded along with censures properly ecclesiastical. The following extract accounts for this in part. “What you bring” (says Mr Baillie, in his answer to bishop Maxwell) “of pecuniary mulcts, imprisonments, banishments, jogges, cutting of haire, and such like, it becomes neither you to charge, nor us to be charged with, any such matters: No church assembly in Scotland assumes the least degree of power, to inflict the smallest civill punishment upon any person; the Generall Assembly it selfe hath no power to fine any creature so much as in one groat: It is true, the lawes of the land appoint pecuniary mulcts, imprisonment, joggs, pillories, and banishment for some odious crimes, and the power of putting these lawes in execution is placed by the parliament in the hands of the inferior magistrates in burroughs or shires, or of others to whom the counsel table gives a speciall commission for that end; ordinarily some of these civill persons are ruling elders, and sit with the eldership: So when the eldership have cognosced upon the scandall alone of criminall persons, and have used their spirituall censures only to bring the party to repentance, some of the ruling elders, by virtue of their civill office or commission, will impose a mulct, or send to prison or stocks, or banish out of the bounds of some little circuit, according as the act of parliament or counsell do appoint it. But that the eldership should imploy its ecclesiastick and spirituall power for any such end, none of us doe defend. That either in Scotland or any where else in the world the haire of any person is commanded to be cut by any church judicatory for disgrace and punishment, is (as I take it) but a foolish fable. That any person truely penitent is threatened in Scotland, with church censures for non‑payment of monies, is in the former category of calumnies.” Historical Vindication of the government of the Church of Scotland, p. 17, 18. Lond. 1646. I have in my possession (extracted from the records of a kirk session) a commission, granted in 1701, by the sheriff‑depute of Berwickshire, constituting one of the elders session‑bailie, for executing the laws against profaneness, agreeably to an act of parliament authorizing the appointment of such an officer in parishes within which no ordinary magistrate resided.
I may add the following quotation from another able and strenuous assertor of the presbyterian discipline and government. “Ubi originalis causa excommunicationis est delictum violans jura et libertates ecclesiæ, &c. When the original cause of excommunication is an offence violating the rights and liberties of the church, either in the way of loss being sustained or injury being done, I confess that the assistance of the secular arm may be implored, and the guilty person may be forced to repair the loss and to give civil satisfaction; or even if the person already excommunicated shall testify a disposition to disturb the religious service, or to violate the rights and liberties of the church. But where no loss or injury to the rights and liberties of the church arises from the offence or from the contumacy, but scandal alone is given, I know not whether any person is to be forced to what is called penitential satisfaction, by imploring the assistance of the secular arm. For as the church has no coactive power in herself, so neither ought she to use it indirectly to extort confessions which are constrained, and consequently counterfeit.” Calderwood, Altare Damascenum, p. 312‒3. edit. Lugd. Bat. 1708.
Mr Hume’s misrepresentations of the behaviour of the Reformers to Queen Mary.—The whole account which this historian has given of the conduct of the protestant clergy towards Mary, from her arrival in Scotland until her marriage with Darnley, is very remote from sober and genuine history. It is rather a satire against the Reformation, which he charges with rebellion; against the presbyterian church, whose genius he describes as essentially productive of fanaticism and vulgarity; and against his native country, the inhabitants of which, without exception, he represents as overrun with rusticity, strangers to the arts, to civility, and the pleasures of conversation. History, Reign of Eliz. chap. i. near the close. “Il n’est rien de plus facile quand on a beaucoup d’esprit, et beaucoup d’experience dans l’art de faire des livres, que de composer une Histoire satyrique, des meme faits qui ont servi à faire une Eloge. Deux lignes supprimée, ou pour ou contre, dans l’exposition d’un fait, sont capables de faire paroistre un homme ou fort innocent, ou fort coupable: et comme par la seule transposition de quelques mots, on peut faire d’un discours fort saint un discours impie; de meme par la seule transposition de quelques circonstances, l’on peut faire de l’action la plus criminelle, l’action la plus vertueuse.” Bayle, Critique Generale de l’Histoire du Calvinisme, p. 13, 2de edition, 1683. To this charge the historian of England has exposed himself on more than one occasion.
I cannot here expose all his misstatements in the passage to which I have referred. He keeps out of view the fixed resolution of the queen to re‑establish the Romish religion, with all the perils to which the protestants were exposed. He artfully introduces his narrative, by placing her proclamation against altering the protestant religion before the symptoms of popular discontent at her setting up of mass; whereas the proclamation was issued after these, and would never have appeared, had it not been found necessary to allay the apprehensions of the people. Knox, 285. Keith, 504, 505. As a proof that the preachers “took a pride in vilifying, even to her face, this amiable princess,” he gives extracts from an address to her by the General Assembly, without ever hinting that this was merely a draught or overture; that every offensive expression was erased from it before it was adopted by the assembly; and that, when the address was presented by the superintendents of Lothian and Fife, the queen said, “Here are many fair words; I cannot tell what the hearts are.” Knox, 315. Mr H. goes on to say: “The ringleader in all these insults on Majesty, was John Knox.—His usual appellation for the queen was Jezebel.” This is a mistake. Neither in his sermons, nor in his prayers, nor in conversation, did he give this appellation to Mary, so long as she was queen; but always honoured her before the people, as well as in her own presence, even when he lamented and condemned her errors. Afterwards, indeed, when for her crimes (of which no man was more convinced than Mr H.) she was removed from the government, and he no longer acknowledged her as his sovereign, he did apply this name to her. It is so far from being true, that “the whole life of Mary was, from the demeanour of these men, filled with bitterness and sorrow,” or that she “was curbed in all amusements by the absurd severity of these reformers,” that she retained her “gaiety and ease,” until, by her imprudent marriage with Darnley, she with her own hand planted thorns under her pillow; while the preachers were most free in their sermons, she enjoyed all manner of liberty; her mass was never taken from her; she was allowed to indulge her “feasting, finery, dancing, balls, and whoredom, their necessary attendant;” nor was she ever interrupted in these amusements, except when her own husband deprived her of her favourite Italian fiddler, a loss for which she afterwards took ample vengeance. It is difficult to conceive how one acquainted with the history of that period, and the character of the queen, could impute the “errors of her subsequent conduct” to the “harsh and preposterous usage which she met with” from the reformers. Nor can there be a greater satire upon the general character of Mary, (previous to her first marriage,) than to say, that “she found every moment reason to regret her leaving that country, from whose manners she had, in her early youth, received the first impressions.” It is well known that the court at which she received her education was most dissolute; and the supposition that she carried away the innocent polish and refinement of their manners, without contracting their criminal contagion, is not only incredible, but contradicted by the confessions of her friends. Memoires de Chastelnau, augmentez par J. le Laboureur, Prieur de Juvigné, tom. i. p. 528. A Bruxelles, 1731. I have no desire, however, to dip into this subject, or to drag to light facts unfavourable to that unhappy princess; although the unwarranted and persevering attacks which have been made upon worthy men, in order to reconcile the “future conduct” of Mary, with “the general tenor of her character,” would justify far greater freedoms than have been lately used in this way.
“We are too apt to figure to ourselves the reformers of that age, as persons of impolitic and inflexible austerity.” This is the remark of one who was much better acquainted with their history than Mr Hume. Lord Hailes, Historical Mem. of the Provincial Councils of the Scottish Clergy, p. 41. Comp. Knox, Historie, p. 310. See also Note Z.
Mr Hume’s object, in the passage on which I have animadverted, was to blacken the reformers, rather than to exalt the queen, of whose character he had at bottom no great opinion. “Tell Goodall,” says he, in a letter to Dr Robertson, “that if he can but give up queen Mary, I hope to satisfy him in every thing else; and he will have the pleasure of seeing John Knox, and the reformers, made very ridiculous.” Indeed, Mr Hume confessed to his confidential friends, that he had, in his history, drawn the character of that princess in too favourable colours. “I am afraid,” says he to the same correspondent, “that you, as well as myself, have drawn Mary’s character with too great softenings. She was undoubtedly a violent woman at all times.” Stewart’s Life of Robertson, p. 37, 38.
Proceedings of Town Council in a slander against Knox.—“18mo Junii, 1563.—The samyn day, in presence of the baillies and counsale, comperit Jhone Gray, scribe to the kirk, and presentit the supplicatione following, in name of the haill kirk, bering that it was laitlie cummen to thair knawledge bi the report of faythfull bretherins, that within thir few dayis Eufame Dundas, in the presence of ane multitude, had spokin divers injurious and sclandarous wordis baith of the doctrine and ministeris. And in especiall of Jhonne Knox, minister, sayand, that within few dayis past, the said Jhonne Knox was apprehendit and tane furth of ane killogye with ane commoun hure; and that he had bene ane commone harlot all his dayis. Quhairfore it was maist humblie desyrit that the said Eufame myt be callit and examinat upone the said supplicatione, and gif the wordis abone written, spokin bi hir, myt be knawin or tryit to be of veritie, that the said Jhonne Knox myt be punist with all rigour without favour: otherwyse to tak sic ordour with hir as myt stand with the glory of God, and that sclander myt be takin from the kirk. As at mair length is contenit in the said supplication. Quhilk beand red to the said Eufame, personallie present in judgement, scho denyit the samyn, and Fryday the 25 day of Junii instant assignit to hir to here and see witnes producit for preving of the allegiance abone expremit, and scho is warnyt apud acta.” Records of Town Council of Edinburgh, of the above date.
The minute of the 25th contains the account of the proof which Knox’s procurator led to show that Eufame Dundas had uttered the scandal which she now denied, and the appointment that the parties should be “warnit literatorie to hear sentence given in the said action.” I have not observed any thing more respecting the cause in the minutes, and it is probable, that the Reformer, having obtained the vindication of his character, prevailed on the judges not to inflict punishment on the accuser.
Calumnies of the Popish writers against Knox and other Reformers.—“C’est rendre sans doute,” says Bayle, “quelques service à la memoire de Jean Knox, que de fair voir les extravagances de ceux qui ont dechiré sa reputation.” And, having referred to the “gross and extravagant slanders” of one writer, he adds, “this alone is a sufficient prejudice against all which the Roman Catholic writers have published concerning the great Reformer of Scotland.” Dict. art. Knox. If Mons. Bayle could speak in this manner upon a quotation from one author, what conclusion shall we draw from the following quotations?
The first writer who attacked Knox’s character after his death, was Archibald Hamilton, whose hostility against him was inflamed by a personal quarrel, as well as by political and religious considerations. (See above, p. 194.) His book shows how much he was disposed to recommend himself to the papists, by throwing out whatever was most injurious to his former connexions. But there were too many alive at that time to refute any charge which might be brought against the Reformer’s moral character. Accordingly, when he aimed the most envenomed thrust at his reputation, Hamilton masked it under the name of an apprehension or surmise. Having said, that, on the death of Edward VI., “he fled to Geneva with a noble and rich lady,” (which, by the by, is also a falsehood,) he adds, in a parenthesis, “qua simul et filia matris pellice familiariter usus fuisse putabatur.” De Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ, p. 65, a. Parisiis, 1577.
In 1579, Principal Smeton published his answer to Hamilton’s book, in which he repelled the charges which he had brought against Knox, and pronounced the above mentioned surmise a malicious calumny, for which the accuser could not adduce the slightest proof, and which was refuted by the spotless character which the Reformer had maintained before the whole world. Smetoni Responsio ad Virulent. Dial. Hamiltonii, p. 95. Edinb. 1579. It now behoved Hamilton either to retract or to prove his injurious insinuation. But how did he act in his reply to Smeton? Under the pretence of repeating what he had said in his former book, he introduces a number of other slanders against Knox’s character, of which he had not given the most distant hint before; and (incredible to be told!) he absolutely avers, that he had formerly specified all these crimes, and condescended upon the places, times, and other circumstances of their commission; although, in his former publication, he had not said one word on the subject except the general surmise which I have quoted above!!! “Pueritiam prematura venere et polluto insuper patris thoro infamem notavi. Inde adolescentiam perpetuis assuetam adulteriis designavi. Post hanc maturioris ætatis apostasin, &c. descripsi: res ipsas ut gestæ erunt retuli: loca, tempora, et reliquas omnes circumstantias notavi.” Calvinianæ Confusionis Demonstratio, contra maledicam Ministrorum Scotiæ responsionem; per Archibaldum Hamiltonium, in Sancta Christi Ecclesia Presbyterum. p. 253. Parisiis, 1581. Than this what can be a stronger mark of one who has “made shipwreck of faith and a good conscience,” who “is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself?” After this we cannot wonder at his casting off all shame, and asserting: “Itane vero in maledictis ducitis, quæ impurus homucio non vno, aut paucis, sed multis, et fere dicam omnibus attestantibus, designavit? patris thorum infami incestu pollutum, et tot commissa adulteria, quot in ædibus, intra quas admittebatur, relicta vestigia etiamnū recitant Laudoniensis omnes nobiles, juxta et ignobiles.” Ut supra, p. 253, b.
We are not left to impute these slanders to personal malice, or to the miserable shifts of an unprincipled individual, who, having rashly committed himself by advancing a falsehood, attempts to maintain his credit by bold assertions and fresh calumnies. For, in the very same year in which Hamilton’s last work appeared, we find another popish author writing in the following terms: “Johne Kmnox your first apostel, quha caused ane young woman in my lord Ochiltreis place fal almaist dead, because sche saw his maister Satthan in ane black mannis likenese with him, throuche ane bore of the dure: quha was also ane manifest adulterare bringand furth of Ingland baith the mother and the dochter whom he persuadit that it was lesum to leve her housband, and adhere unto him, making ane fleshe of himself, the mother, and the dochter, as if he wald conjoyne in ane religione, the auld synagogue of the Jeuis with the new fundat kirk of the Gentiles.” In another place he introduces the account of his second marriage with these words: “That renegat and perjurit priest schir Johane Kmnox, quha efter the death of his first harlot, quhilk he mareit incurring eternal damnation be breking his vou and promise of chastitie, quhen his age requyrit rather that with tearis and lamentations he sould have chastised his flesh and bewailit the breaking of his vou, as also the horribil incest with his gudmother in ane killogie of Haddingtoun.” Burne’s Disputation concerning the Controversit Headdis of Religion, p. 102, 143. Parise, 1581. But Burne, and even Hamilton, were outstripped in calumny by that most impudent of all liars, James Laing, who published in Latin an account of the lives and manners of the heretics of his time. There are few pages of his book in which he does not abuse our Reformer; but in (what he calls) his Life, he has exceeded any thing which was ever dictated either by personal malice, or by religious rancour. “Statim,” says he, “ab initio suæ pueritiæ omni genere turpissimi facinoris infectus fuit. Vix excesserat jam ex ephebis, cum patris sui uxorem violarat, suam novercam vitiarat, et cum ea, cui reverentia potissimum adhibenda fuerat, nefarium stuprum fecerat.” His bishop having, forsooth, called him to account for these crimes, he straightway became inflamed with the utmost hatred to the catholic religion. “Deinde non modo cum profanis, sed etiam cum quibuscunque sceleratissimis, perditissimis, et potissimum omnium hæreticis est versatus, et quo quisque erat immanior, sceleratior, crudelior, eo ei carior et gratior fuit.—Ne unum quidem diem sceleratissimus hæreticus sine una et item altera meretrice traducere potuit.—Continuo cum tribus meretricibus, quæ videbantur posse sufficere uni sacerdoti, in Scotia convolat.—Ceterum hic lascivus caper, quem assidue sequebatur lasciva capella, partim perpetuis crapulis, partim vino, lustrisque ita confectus fuit, ut quotiescunq. conscendere suggestum ad maledicendum, velim precandum [vel imprecandum?] suis, opus erat illi duobus aut tribus viris, a quibus elevandus atq. sustendandus erat.” De Vita et Moribus atque Rebus Gestis Hæreticorum nostri temporis. Authore Jacobo Laingæo Scoto Doctore Sorbonico, fol. 113, b. 114, a, b. 115, a. Parisiis, 1581. Cum Privilegio. Nor were such accounts confined to that age. In the beginning of the following century, they were repeated by John Hamilton. Facile Traictise, contenand ane infallible reul to discern trew from fals religion, p. 60. Louvain, 1600. In 1623, an English writer refers to James Laing’s work for an authentic account of Knox’s private life. The Image of bothe Churches, Jherusalem and Babell, by P. D. M. p. 134. Tornay, 1623. And as late as 1628, we find Father Alexander Baillie retailing, in the English language, all the gross tales of his predecessors, with additions of his own, in which he shows a total disregard to the best‑known facts in the Reformer’s life. “Jhon Knox,” says he, “being chaplane to the laird of Balvurie, and accused for his vices and leecherie, was found so guiltie and culpable that to eschevie the just punishment prepared for him he presently fled away into Ingland.” He afterwards says, that Knox, after the death of his second wife, [that is, twenty years at least after his own death,] “shamefully fell in the abominable vice of incestuous adultery, as Archib. Hamilton and others doe witnesse;” and as a proof that Knox reckoned this vice no blot, Baillie puts into his mouth a gross defence of it, in the very words which Sanders, in his book against the Anglican Schism, had represented Sir Francis Brian as using in a conversation with Henry VIII. Baillie’s True Information of the Unhallowed Offspring, Progress, and Impoison’d Fruits of our Scottish‑Calvinian Gospel and Gospellers, p. 14, 41. Wirtsburgh, 1628.
It is evident that these outrageous and contradictory calumnies have been all grafted upon the convicted he mentioned in the preceding note, and on the malignant insinuation of Archibald Hamilton. The characters of the foreign reformers were traduced in the very same manner by the popish writers. Those who have seen Bolsec’s Lives of Calvin and Beza, or others written in the same spirit, must be sufficiently convinced of this. Will it be believed that, in the middle of the seventeenth century, a book should have been published under the name of Cardinal de Richlieu, in which it is asserted that “Calvin being condemned for acts of incontinency, which he had carried to the utmost extremity of vice, [ses incontinences, qui le porterent jusques aux dernieres extremitez du vice,] retired from Noyon (his native city) and from the Roman church, at the same time?” And that this should have been published after the cardinal himself had examined the registers of Noyon, which stated facts totally inconsistent with the supposition of such a thing having ever been imputed to him? La Defence de Calvin, par Charles Drelincourt, p. 10, 11, 33. Geneve, 1667. Our countrymen of the popish persuasion were careful to retail all the calumnies against the foreign reformers, and they do so in a manner peculiar to themselves. Nicol Burne most seriously asserts that Luther was begotten of the devil, as to his carnal as well as his spiritual generation; and in order to prove that this was not impossible, he advances the most profane argument that ever proceeded from the mouth or pen of a Christian. Disputation, p. 141. The same thing is asserted by James Laing. De Vita Hæretic. fol. 1, b. In a pretended translation into Scots of a poem written by Beza in his youth, (which the Roman Catholics, after he left their communion, were careful to preserve from oblivion,) Burne has unblushingly inserted some scandalous and disgraceful lines, for which he had not the slightest warrant from the original. Disputation, p. 103, 104. John Hamilton says, that “Calvin did ane miracle to mak ane quik man ane deid, quhilk miracle was done in Geneve to ane Brulæus of Ostune, with whome he contractit for a piece of money to fenzie himself deid, and to ryse to lyfe at his prayers, when he sulde chope thryse upon his biere: bot the compagnion forget to ryse again, whilk come to Calvin’s schame.” Facile Traictise, p. 412. But the following narrative is still more marvellous, and lest his readers should doubt its truth, the author prays them to “suspend thair judgement, quhill they spere [until they enquire at] the maist affectionat Protestantis of Scotland quha has bene in Geneve. Surelie,” continues he, “I ressavit the treuth of this be honorable gentilmen of our countrie, quha confessit to me before gud vitnes, that the devil gangis familiarlie up and down the town, and speciallie cumis to pure and indigent men quha sellis thair saullis to him for ten sous, sum for mair or less. The money is verie plesant quhen they ressave it; bot putting hand to thair purse, quhen they vald by thair denner, thay find nathing but uther stane or stick.” Hamilton’s Catholik and Facile Traictise, fol. 50, b. Paris, 1581. Laing, in his Life of Calvin, (of which Senebier has justly said “that it would be impossible to believe that such a libel had been written, if it were not to be seen in print,”) has raked together all the base aspersions which had been cast upon that reformer, and has spent a number of pages in endeavouring to show that he was guilty of stealing a sum of money. De Vita Hæret. fol. 76, b.‒79, b. Of Buchanan, whom he calls “homo sacrarum literarum imperitissimus, simulque impudentissimus,” he relates a number of impieties, of which this is the last, “plurimi etiam narrant illum miserrimum hominem quandam in sacro fonte, quo infantes aqua benedicta ablui solent, adsit reverentia dictis, oletum fecisse.” Ibid. fol. 40, a. One example more, and I have done. “Te admonerem de quodam impio hæretico sacerdote Davidson, quem audivi his jam multis annis publice cum quadam meretrice scortatum esse, quam fertur peperisse prima nocte, qua cum illa dormivit, quod hic doctores medici pro magno miraculo habent; cum vix mulieres ante nonum mensem, vel octavum parere soleant.” Ibid. fol. 36, b, 37, a.
Persons must have had their foreheads, as well as their consciences, “seared with a hot iron,” before they could publish such things to the world as facts. Yet Laing’s book was approved, and declared worthy of publication, by two doctors of the university of Paris. Its grossest slanders against the Scottish reformers were literally copied, and circulated through the continent as undoubted truths, by Reginaldus, Spondanus, Julius Breigerus, and many other foreign popish authors. Each of these added some fabrication of his own; and one of them is so ridiculously ignorant as to rail against our Reformer by the name of Noptz. Bayle, Dictionnaire, art. Knox, Note G. Archibald Hamilton’s two works had the same respectable recommendations with Laing’s book, and one of them is declared to be “very orthodox, and worthy of being ushered into the light for the profit of the church.” And John Hamilton was chosen tutor to two cardinals, appointed professor of philosophy in the Royal College of Navarre, elected, by the students of the German nation in Paris, to the cure of the parish of St Cosmus and Damian, presented to it by the university, and confirmed in it by the parliament; and, in fine, was chosen rector of the university of Paris!!! So eager were foreigners to load with honours the most bigoted and fanatical of our popish refugees. Sketch of the Life of John Hamilton, p. 2, 3, written by Lord Hailes.
I know that it was common in that age for controversial writers of all descriptions to indulge themselves in a coarseness of invective against their antagonists, which would not be tolerated at present: but this is quite a different thing from what I have given examples of in this note. With respect to the complaints which protestant writers made of the profligacy of the popish clergy, the truth of these is incontestably established by the testimony of Roman Catholic authors, and by the public documents of their own church. Nor do I wish to insinuate that all the popish writers were of the same description with those whom I have quoted, or that there were not many Roman Catholics, even at that time, who disapproved of the use of these dishonourable and empoisoned weapons; but the great number of such publications, the wide circulation which they obtained, and the length of time during which they continued to issue from the popish presses, demonstrate the extent to which a spirit of lying and defamation was carried in the Roman church. Petty dabblers in antiquity, and flippant orators, who have read a general history of those times, or a modern Roman catholic pamphlet, must be allowed to repeat the trite maxim, of faults on both sides, and to conceal their ignorance under the veil of moderation, by representing these faults as equal; but I aver that no candid person, who is duly acquainted with the writings of that period, will pretend to account for the above‑mentioned calumnies, by imputing them to a spirit of asperity and prejudice common to both parties.