of September, 1558. The following is the account of his conversion
from popery given by his son. Being in Cleish, the house of the
gentleman who had detected the imposture at Musselburgh, {293} (see
vol. i. p. 322,) the young man who was said to have been cured of
blindness, was brought into his presence, where he “played his pavie,”
by “flyping up the lid of his eyes, and casting up the white.” While
Row was confounded at this discovery, the gentleman addressed him very
seriously: “Weill, Mr John Row, ye are a great clergyman, and a great
linguist and lawyer, but I charge you, as you must answer to the great
God at the last day, that ye do not now hold out any light that God
offers you, but that ye will, as soon as ye come to your study, close
the door upon you, and take your Bible, and seriously pray to God that
ye may understand the scriptures.――Read the 2d ch. of the 2d epistle
to the Thessalonians; and if ye do not see your master, the pope,
to be the great antichrist who comes with lying wonders to deceive
the people of God, (as now he and his deceiving rabble of clergy in
Scotland have done lately at Musselburgh,) ye shall say Squire Meldrum
has no skill.” Row, Historie of the Kirk, p. 356; copy of the MS.
transcribed in 1726. After conference with several of the reformed
ministers, and particularly Knox, he made formal abjuration of popery.
“Ipse Nuncius,” says his grandson, “nassa evangelii irretitus, ejus
pura, pia, pathetica prædicatione inescatus, pontificiis syrtibus,
famigerati Knoxi opera, extractus est.” Hebreæ linguæ Institutiones, a
M. Joa. Row, epist. dedic. A 3, b. Glasguæ, 1644. In the beginning of
the year 1560 he was admitted minister of Kinneuchar in Fife, where
he married Margaret Beatoun, a daughter of the laird of Balfour. Row’s
Historie, ut supra. Before the end of that year he was translated
to Perth. Knox, 236. Keith, 498. His son informs us that he was
born at Row, a place situated between Stirling and Dumblane, and
which belonged to the family. That he was an author appears from the
testament of Thomas Bassinden, printer in Edinburgh, who died on the
18th of October, 1577, and the inventory of whose goods contains the
following lines:――“Item, ane M. Johne Rowis signes of the sacramentis,
price xijd.”
During his residence in Italy, Row had acquired the knowledge of
the Greek and Hebrew languages. The latter was at that time almost
entirely unknown in Scotland, and he immediately began, at the
recommendation of his brethren, to teach it. The grammar‑school of
Perth was then the most celebrated in the kingdom, and {294} noblemen
and gentlemen were accustomed to send their children thither for their
education. Many of these were boarded with Row, who instructed them
in Greek and Hebrew. As nothing but Latin was spoken by the boys in
the school and in the fields, so nothing was spoken in Row’s house but
French. The passages of scripture read in the family before and after
meals, if in the Old Testament, were read in Hebrew, Greek, Latin,
French, and English; if in the New Testament, they were read in Greek,
&c. His son John, when he was between four and five years old, was
taught the Hebrew characters, before he knew the English letters; and
at eight years of age he read the Hebrew chapter in the family. When
he went to the newly‑erected university of Edinburgh, his uncommon
acquaintance with the Hebrew language attracted the particular notice
of the learned and amiable principal Rollock. Row’s Historie, 372‒375.
Hebreæ Ling. Institut. ut supra. Row gave instructions to the master
of the grammar‑school in the Greek tongue, by which means it came
to be afterwards taught in Perth. And in 1637 his grandson John Row
became rector of that school, in which he taught Latin, Greek, and
Hebrew. This produced the following encomiastic verses by John Adamson,
principal of the college of Edinburgh.
Perthana quondam Latialis linguæ schola
Laude cluebat, fueratque unius labri;
Nunc est trilinguis, Latio jungens Græciam,
Et huic Palæstinam; omnium linguis loquens.
O ter beatam te nunc Perthanam scholam!
O ter beatum Rollum rectorem tuum!
Per quem juventus, barbariæ procul habitu,
Rudis et tenella primulis labellulis
Solymas, Athenas, et Romam scite sonat.
About the year 1567, James Lawson (afterwards Knox’s successor at
Edinburgh) returned from the continent, where he had studied Hebrew.
The professors of St Andrews prevailed on him to give lessons in that
language in their university. Life of Lawson, p. 2, in Wodrow’s MS.
Collections, vol. i. Bibl. Coll. Glas. As he was made sub‑principal in
the university of Aberdeen, in 1569, {295} it is to be presumed that
he would also teach that language there. Lawson, after his settlement
in Edinburgh, patronised the interests of literature in this city. It
was chiefly by his exertions that the buildings for the high‑school
were completed in 1578. His intentions were to have it erected into
an university, or at least to make it _schola illustris_, with classes
of logic and philosophy. The books destined for the library were kept
in his house, previous to the foundation of the college. Crawfurd’s
History of the University of Edinburgh, p. 19, 20. It is unnecessary
to say any thing here of the influence which Andrew Melville exerted
on the promotion of Oriental literature in this country. Thomas Smeton,
who succeeded Melville as principal of the university of Glasgow, was
a Hebrew scholar, as appears from his answer to Hamilton’s dialogue.
Those who held the situation of principal in the universities at that
time were accustomed to teach such branches of learning as were most
neglected.
Note D, Footnote 23.
_Of George Buchanan._――As every thing relating to this scholar must
be interesting to the learned, I shall add a few notices of him which
have been hitherto overlooked.
The following entries in the treasurer’s accounts refer to the period
during which he was tutor to James Stewart, abbot of Melrose and Kelso,
an illegitimate son of James V.
“Anno 1536. Item, the xvi day of februar, be the kingis gracis precept
and speciale cōmand, to Maister George Balquhanan and Andro Mylin,
seruandis to lord James, to be thame twa gownis, xi elnis pareis blak,
price of the elne xxxij{s}. Sum̅a, xvij{li} xij{s}, &c. &c.
“Aug{t} 1537. Item, to Maist{r} George Buchquhanan, at the king’s
command, xx{li}.
[July 1537.] “Item, for vi elnis paris blak to be Maister George
Balquhanan ane gown, price of the elne xxxvi{s}. Sum̅a, x{li} xvi{s}.”
[Compot. Thesaur.]
From the manuscript belonging to Thomas Thomson, Esq. quoted in
the preceding note, it appears that an absolution was procured at
Rome, for George Buchanan, by the regent Arran and the archbishop of
St Andrews; and that his brother Patrick was appointed {296} tutor to
the regent’s children at Paris. In an accompt entitled “The archden
of Sanctandros memo{le} of expenses in Rome,” (MS. p. 141,) is the
following article:――
[1553.] “Item, for M. George Balquhan̄anes absolution, crowns 9.”
In the papers of Gawen, commendator of Kilwinning, (MS. p. 204, 206,
235, 325,) are the following articles:――
“Item, given to M. Patric Balquhannan to ane gud compt, 24 July, 1554,
v{c} franks.
“And I haif left with M. Patric Balquhannan in ane steil box v{c}
crownis, 1 Rois nobilis, and xiiij Hary nobilis. Parisiis, 28 July,
1554.
“Memoir of the geir left with Maister Patrik Bawquhenan the xxvii day
of July, anno liiij{o}, at my departyng to Chattelleraut, &c.
“And to tak sikernes at M. Patric Balquhanan suld serve my lordis
bairnis, and quitclame his pension quhen he war benefitit 26. 1554.”
The following extracts from the treasurer’s accounts refer to the
year 1568, when Buchanan accompanied the regent Murray to England,
to justify the charges against Mary queen of Scots.
“Item, the said day [27 May] to ane boy passand of Stirriling, w{t}
clois writtings of my lord regent g. to the lard of Buchquhannane and
Maister George Buchquhannane, being baith in Sanctandr. iiij.
“June 26th. Item, the said day to ane boy passand of Edinburgh to
Sanctandrois w{t} ane clois writting of my lord regent g. to maister
George Buchquhannane, v{s}.
“Item, the said xxvij day of August, be my lord regentis grace
speciale command, to Maister George Buchquhannane, v elns ij quarteris
of fyne blak veluote, ye eln vij{li}. Sum̅a, xxxviij{li} x{s}.
“Item, to him ane sleik of chamlot of silk, xxij{li}.
“Item, ij elnis ij quarteris of Londoun claith, the eln iiij{li} x{s}.
Summa, xij{li} vij{s} vj{d}.” [Compot. Thesaur.]
As his imprisonment in Portugal, and his release from confinement,
have been imperfectly related, I shall here insert two accounts of
them, which have escaped the notice of his biographers. Principal
Smeton’s account, which was most probably derived from Buchanan
himself, is the following. “Vivit adhuc,” says he in his answer to
Hamilton, “te utinam diu vivat, orbis terrarum, {297} non Scotiæ
tantum, decus GEORGIUS BUCHANANUS; quem inepte facerem, si a rabidi
canis latratu defendere conarer, extra omnem ingenii aleam omnium
judicio constitutum. Quod de abjurata ab eo hæresi adscribis,
impudentissimum est mendacium, Hamiltoni. Duplici quidem de causa in
veræ religionis suspicionem in Lusitania venit; tum quod Seraphici
ordinis mysteria in Franciscano suo apertius reuelasset: tum quod
in priuato colloquio discipulis quibusdam dixisset, videri sibi
Augustinum transubstantiationis figmento non prorsus fauere. In
carcerem coniectus causam capitis perorauit. Franciscanum se regis
sui iussu scripsisse; nec quicquam in eo esse quod vllum fidei
Christianæ dogma conuellat. Versus quosdam memoriter pronuntiare
iussus (nam nemo ibi libellum habebat) memoriæ iacturam causatus
est. De transubstantione respondit; non alia se quam Augustini verba
recitasse, ex cap. 16. lib. 3. de Doctrina Christiana. Quæ sic habent.
‘Si præceptiua locutio est, aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, aut
vtilitatem aut beneficentiam iubens, non est figurata: Si autem
flagitium aut facinus videtur iubere, aut vtilitatem aut beneficentiam
vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaueritis, inquit, carnem filij
hominis et sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis: facinus
vel flagitium videtur iubere. Figura est ergo, præcipiens passioni
DOMINI esse communicandum, et suauiter atque vtiliter recondendum
in memoria, quod pro nobis caro eius crucifixa et vulnerata sit.’
Hæc, inquit, si hæresim sapiunt, prius Augustinum damnate; quod vt
feceritis, haud æquum tamen erit, vt ego alienæ culpæ pœnas luam. Ergo
cum nec ratione, nec testimonio cuiusquam conuinci posset, iudicum
calculis absolutus in Galliam redijt; tanto bonarum litterarum damno,
vt ipsemet postea Lusitaniæ Rex amantissimis eum scriptis reuocarit.
Sed frustra. Summo enim DEI beneficio ex crudelissimis inquisitorum
manibus liberatus, in discrimen se iterum conijcere noluit: cum
in Gallia præsertim, omnium quæ sub sole sunt regionum humanitate,
optimarum artium studijs et doctorum numero prima, opimæ illi, et
admodum honorificæ conditiones deferrentur. Sed BUCHANANUM singularis
animi candor, et in omni genere perspecta virtus satis per se
defendet.” Smetoni Responsio ad Virulentum Arch. Hamiltonii Dialogum,
Edinburgi, 1579. p. 89, 90.
I shall add the account which Archibald Hamilton gives of this {298}
affair, in his reply to Smeton, although the judicious reader will be
of opinion that no credit is due to such a writer, especially when his
testimony is flatly contradicted by that of Smeton, and of Buchanan
himself. “Tam illud quidem contra regis Scotorum integritatem, quam
hoc contra _Hyspanorum nunquam satis laudatam in examinandis hæreticis
severitatem_, malitiose confictum, et utrumque longe falsissimum est.
Nequo enim Jacobus Quintus, in tenenda atque asserenda fide Catholica
princeps nulli omnium secundus, tam impuro et procaci pasquillo,
auctorem se unquam dedisset: neq; theologorum gravissima censura,
tam impiam athei poetæ dicacitatem impune abire permisisset: et ut
prioris mendacii falsitas illustrium dominorum Askein et Levingston
publico testimonio evicta tunc fuit: quando legatione apud Gallos
functi, regis nomine hæreseos convictum Buchananum Hyspanorum legato
detulerunt: Ita ducentorum qui non disputationem sed supplicem
lachrymantis deprecationem audiverunt, sententiis, alterius illius
figmenti vanitas coargui potest. sin illæ non satis fortiter premunt
quod longe a nobis absint, et nostrorum hominum, quod rei gestæ non
interfuerunt narratio digna fide minus videatur: Publicè tamen urbis
commentarii, in quos res gestæ referri solent, auctoritate vacare non
debent, qui aperte adhuc testabuntur non Augustini testimonio. cap. 17.
libri tertii de doctrina Christiana, sed Psalmographi versum, psalmo
vigesimo quarto, subsidio ei tunc fuisse: dum ad Cardinalis pedes
provulutus, flebili voce, verba ista proferebat (delicta juventutis
meæ et ignorantias ne memineris Domine) eam recantationis formulam,
ab eo tunc temporis usurpatum, ad eum sane finem obiter attigi, ut
tandem Scotia intelligeret, quam gravem et constantem nunc patriarcham
in religione sequitur: dum levis poetæ et abjurati hæretici paradoxa
omnia pro certissimis spiritus sancti oraculis habet.” Calvinianæ
Confusionis Demonstratio.――per Archibaldum Hammiltonium, p. 252 b.
253 a. Parisiis, 1581.
Note E, Footnote 26.
_Of David Ferguson, and the cultivation of the Scottish Language._――I
have said in the text, that the reformers, while they exerted
themselves to revive the knowledge of the learned languages, did not
neglect the improvement of their native tongue; and that, among {299}
others, David Ferguson, minister of Dunfermline, distinguished himself
in this department. It appears, from a document already produced,
(vol. I., Note GG,) that he belonged originally to Dundee. Though
“not graduated in a college,” he was very far from being illiterate,
and was much admired for the quickness of his wit and good taste, as
well as for his piety――“elegantis ingenii et magnæ pietatis virum,”
says Smeton, Responsio ad Hamilt. Dialog. p. 92. Row’s Coronis to
his Historie, p. 314 of copy in Divinity Lib. Edin. The sermon which
he preached at Leith before the regent and nobility, and afterwards
published, (see above, p. 210,) is a proof of this; and had it not
been a sermon, would most probably have been republished before this
time, as a specimen of good Scottish composition. Extracts from it
may be seen in Note B. John Davidson, then one of the regents at
St Andrews, celebrated the success of the author in refining his
vernacular language, in the following Latin lines, which are prefixed
to the sermon:――
Græcia melifluo quantum det nestoris ori,
Aut Demostheneo debeat eloquio;
Ipsi facundo quantum (mihi crede) parenti
Attribuat linguæ turba togata suæ;
Nos tibi, Fergusi, tantum debere fatemur,
Scotanam linguam qui reparare studes.
Sermonem patriam ditas; inculta vetustas
Horret qua longe barbariemque fugas;
Adde etiam, neque abest facundis gratia dictis,
Respondet verbis materia apta tuis.
Quod satis ostendit nobis tua concio præsens,
Qua nihil in lucem doctius ire potest.
Besides this sermon, Ferguson was the author of a collection of
Scottish Proverbs, and of an Answer to the Rejoinder, which the Jesuit
Tyrie made to Knox. That abusive writer, James Laing, calls this last
work “a barbarous, and Scotican epistle,” and rails against its author
as an _ignorant sutor_ and _glover_, who knew neither Hebrew, nor
Greek, nor Latin. As for himself, although a Scotsman, Laing tells us,
that he thought it beneath him to write in a language which was fit
only for barbarians and heretics. “Tres {300} sunt linguæ elegantes et
ingenuæ, Hebraica, Græca, et Latina, quæ nobilibus principibus――sunt
dignæ: cæteras linguas, cum sint barbaræ, barbaris et hæreticis
tanquam propriis relinquo.” De Vita Hæreticorum, Dedic. p. ult. et
p. 31. Paris, 1581. Notwithstanding this writer’s boasting of his
literature, and the opportunities which he takes to display it, he
did not know the top from the bottom of a Hebrew letter, if we may
judge from his book, p. 94, b. Laing’s objection to the literature
of Ferguson may, however, be thought as solid as that which another
popish writer has brought against his morals, by accusing him of
_using pepper instead of salt to his beef_. “At hi quibus carnem
accendant irritentque, novas artes quotidie excogitant;” and on the
margin, he says, “Exemplo est David Ferguson ad macerandas carnes
bubulas pipere pro sale utens.” Hamilton. De Confus. Calvinianæ Sectæ,
p. 76. But to do justice to Hamilton, it is proper to mention, that
pepper was at that time so high priced as to be a morsel only for a
pope or a cardinal, and very unfit for the mouths of barbers, cobblers,
&c., of which rank he tells us the reformed preachers generally were.
Principal Smeton, after saying that Ferguson had reared a numerous
family on a very moderate stipend, adds:――“Undenam ergo illi, amabo
te, tantum piperis ad carnes quotannis macerandas quantum sexcentis
apud nos aureis nummis nemo unquam compararit?” Smetoni Responsio ad
Hamilt. p. 95. The truth is, there was too much salt and pepper in the
writings of Ferguson for the papists.
A number of Ferguson’s witty sayings are recorded by his son‑in‑law,
John Row. James VI. who resided frequently at Dunfermline, used to
take great delight in his conversation. “David,” said James to him one
day, “why may not I have bishops in Scotland as well as they have in
England?”――“Yea, Sir,” replied Ferguson, “ye may have bishops here;
but remember ye must make us all bishops, else will ye never content
us. For if ye set up ten or twelve lowns over honest men’s heads,
(honest men will not have your antichristian prelacies,) and give them
more thousands to debauch and mispend than honest men have hundreds
or scores, we wil never al be content. We ar Paul’s bishopis, Sir,
Christ’s bishopis; ha’d us as we are.”――“The d――l haid aills you,”
replied James, “but that ye would all be alike; ye cannot abide ony
to {301} be abone you.”――“Sir!” said the minister, “do not ban.”
Row’s Coronis to his Historie of the Kirk, p. 314. Ferguson seems to
have amused himself with some of those incidents which were generally
reckoned ominous. The king having once asked him, very seriously,
what he thought was the reason that the Master of Gray’s house shook
during the night, he answered, “Why should not the devil rock his awin
bairns?” Having met at St Andrews along with other commissioners of
the church, to protest against the inauguration of Patrick Adamson
as archbishop of that see, one came in and told them, that there was
a crow “crouping” on the roof of the church. “That’s a bad omen,”
said he, shaking his head, “for inauguration is from _avium garritu_,
the raven is omnimodo a black bird, and it cries _corrupt, corrupt,
corrupt_.” Row’s Historie, p. 40.
It may not be improper to insert here the inscription on the tomb of
John Row, the historian to whom I have so often been indebted, who
was third son of the learned minister of Perth, and married Grizzel,
daughter to David Ferguson of Dunfermline. It is on his monument in
the churchyard of Carnock.
“Hic jacet M. Jo. Row, Pastor hujus Ecclesiæ fidelissimus. Vixit
acerrimus veritatis et fœderis Scoticani assertor, Hierarchiæ
pseudo‑episcopalis, et Romanorum rituum, cordicitus osor, in frequenti
symmystarum apostasia cubi instar constantissimus.――Duxit Gricellidam
Fergusonam, cum qua annos 51 conjunctissime vixit. Huic ecclesiæ
annos 54 praefuit. Obiit Junij 26to, anno domini 1646. Ætatis 78.
Obiit et illa Januarij 30mo, 1659.”
Note F, Footnote 28.
_Order of Procedure at the first Meetings of the General
Assembly._――The first appointment of a moderator was in December 1563.
“It was proponit be the haill assemblie yat ane moderator suld be
appointit for avoyding confusioun in reasoning.” Buik of the Universal
Kirk, p. 8. The Assembly which met at Perth, August 1572, ordained,
as a perpetual law, that no person of whatever estate take in hand
to speak without license asked and given by the moderator, that
moderation should be kept in reasoning, and silence when commanded
by the moderator, under pain of removal from {302} the assembly, and
not to re‑enter during that convention. Ibid. p. 55. In July 1568,
to correct evils, “be reason of the pluralitie and confusion of
voices,” it was enacted, that none should have power to vote but
superintendents, commissioners appointed to visit kirks, ministers
“brought with yame, presented as habile to reasone, and having
knowledge to judge,” and commissioners of burghs, shires, and
universities. The ministers were to be chosen at the synodal
convention of the diocese, by consent of the rest of the ministry
and gentlemen that shall convene at the said synodal convention;
commissioners of burghs by “the counsell and kirk of their awn
townes.”――“None to be admitted without sufficient commission
or wreit.” And to prevent a monopoly of power, they were to be
changed from assembly to assembly. Ibid, p. 38. The assembly, March
1569/70, settled the following order of procedure. After sermon
and prayer by the former moderator, 1. A new moderator to be chosen.
2. Superintendents, commissioners, &c. to be tried. First, the
superintendents being removed, enquiry was made of the ministers and
commissioners of their bounds if they had any charges to lay against
them as to neglect of duty, &c. If any charge was brought, it was
examined, and sentence passed. The same order was observed in the
trial of the other members of assembly. 3. The case of penitents and
persons under censure to be considered. Lastly, The business left
undecided by last assembly, or brought before the present, to be
taken up. Ibid. p. 47.
Note G, Footnote 32.
_Epistolary Correspondence between Knox and Calvin._――In a letter,
dated 28th August, 1559, Knox requests Calvin’s opinion on the two
following questions. 1. Whether bastards, the children of idolaters
and excommunicated persons, should be admitted to baptism, before
their parents gave satisfaction to the church, or they themselves were
able to require it? 2. Whether monks and popish priests, who neither
serve the church, nor are capable of serving it, although they have
renounced their errors, ought to have the annual rents of the church
paid to them? Knox had maintained the negative on the last question.
The letter is said to be written _raptim_. “Plura scribere vetat
febris qua crucior, laborum moles qua premor, {303} et Gallorum
bombardæ, qui, ut nos opprimant, appulerunt.” (Comp. Historie,
p. 161.) Calvin, in a leter dated Nov. 8, 1559, answers, that it
was his opinion and that of his colleagues, on the first question,
That the sacrament of baptism was not to be administered to those who
were without the church, nor to any without proper sponsors; but the
promise (upon which the right was founded) was not confined to the
posterity in the first degree: and therefore those who were descended
from godly parents were to be viewed as belonging to the church,
although their parents or even grand‑parents had become apostates,
and such children were not to be refused baptism, provided persons
appeared as sponsors, engaging for their religious education. “Adde
quod alia est nunc renascentis ecclesiæ ratio, quam rite formatæ et
compositæ.” (Comp. Dunlop, ii. 573.) On the second question, he says,
That although those who performed no service in the church had not a
just claim to be supported by its funds, still, as the popish clergy
had brought themselves under engagements in times of ignorance, and
had consumed a part of their lives in idleness, it seemed harsh to
deprive them of all support. He therefore advises a middle course to
be adopted. Calvini Epistolæ et Responsa, p. 516‒520. Hanoviæ, 1597.
Ibid. p. 201, 202, in Oper. tom. ix. Amstælod. 1667.