NOTESTOVOLUME FIRST.

NOTESTOVOLUME FIRST.

Note A.Place of Knox’s Birth, and his Parentage.—Although the question respecting Knox’s birth‑place is not of very great importance, I shall state the authorities for the different opinions which are entertained on the subject.Beza, who was contemporary, and personally acquainted, with our Reformer, designs him “Joannes Cnoxus, Scotus, Giffordiensis,” evidently meaning that he was a native of the town of Gifford. Icones, seu Imagines Illustrium Virorum, Ee. iij. an. 1580. Spotswood, who was born in 1565, and could receive information from his father, and other persons intimately acquainted with Knox, says that he was “born in Gifford within Lothian.” History, p. 265, edit. 1677. David Buchanan, in his Memoir of Knox, prefixed to the edition of his History, and published in 1644, gives the same account; which has been followed in the Life written by Matthew Crawfurd, and prefixed to the edition of the History, 1732; and by Wodrow, in his MS. Collections, respecting the Scottish Reformers, in Bibl. Coll. Glas. In a Genealogical Account of the Knoxes, which is in the possession of the family of the late Mr James Knox, minister of Scoon, the Reformer’s father is said to have been a brother of the family of Ranferlie, and “proprietor of the estate of Gifford.” Scott’s History of the Scottish Reformers, p. 94.On the other hand, Archibald Hamilton, who was his countryman, as well as his contemporary and acquaintance, says that Knox was born in the town of Haddington: “Obscuris natus parentibus in Hadintona oppido in Laudonia.” De Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ apud Scotos Dialogus, fol. 64, a. Parisiis, 1577. AnotherScotsman, who wrote in that age, says that he was born near Haddington; “prope Haddintonam.” Laingæus De vita, et moribus, atque rebus gestis Hæreticorum nostri temporis, fol. 113, b. Parisiis, 1581. Dr Barclay, late minister of Haddington, advanced an opinion which reconciles the two last authorities, (although it is probable that he never saw either of them,) by asserting that our Reformer was born in one of the suburbs of Haddington, called the Giffordgate. Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland, p. 69, 70.The testimony of Archibald Hamilton is not altogether without weight; for, although he has retailed a number of gross falsehoods in the work referred to, there does not appear to be any reason for supposing that he would intentionally mislead his readers on such a circumstance as the birth‑place of the Reformer. But I consider Spotswood’s statement as going far to set aside Hamilton’s; for, as the archbishop could scarcely be ignorant of it, and as he fixes Knox’s birth at a different place, it is reasonable to suppose that he had good reasons for varying from a preceding authority. The grounds of Dr Barclay’s opinion are, that, according to the tradition of the place, the Reformer was a native of Haddington; that the house in which he was born is still pointed out in the Giffordgate; and that this house, with some adjoining acres of land, belonged for a number of generations to a family of the name of Knox, who claimed kindred with the Reformer, and who lately sold the property to the earl of Wemyss. I acknowledge that popular tradition may be allowed to determine a point of this nature, provided it is not contradicted by other evidence. In the present case, it is not altogether free from this objection. As the sons of the Reformer died without issue, there is no reason to think that the family which resided in the Giffordgate was lineally descended from him. Still, however, the property might have belonged to his elder brother, which is consistent with the supposition of his being born in the house which tradition has marked out. But I have lately been favoured with extracts from the title‑deeds of that property, now in the possession of the earl of Wemyss, extending from the year 1598 downwards, which are not favourable to that supposition. On the 18th of February, 1598, William Knox inMoreham, and Elizabeth Schortes his wife, were infeft in subjects in Nungate (of Haddington,) by virtue of a crown charter. This charter contains no statement of the warrants on which it proceeded, farther than that the lands formerly belonged to the Abbey of Haddington, and were annexed to the crown. Having communicated the names of the persons mentioned in the first charter and subsequent deeds to the Reverend Mr Scott of Perth, with a request to be informed, if any such names occur in the genealogy of the Knox family which belonged to the late Mr Knox, minister of Scoon, I was favoured with an answer, saying, that neither the name of William Knox at Moreham, nor that of any other person answering to the description in my letter, is to be found in that genealogy. But, farther, the charter expressly states, that the lands in question belonged to the Abbey of Haddington, and, as they must have been annexed to the crown subsequently to the Reformation, they could not be the property of the family at the time of our Reformer’s birth. The tradition of his having been born in the Giffordgate is therefore supported merely by the possibility that his parents might have resided in that house while it was the property of the Abbey. In opposition to this, we have the authorities already mentioned in support of the opinion that he was born in the village of Gifford.With respect to theparentageof our Reformer, David Buchanan says that his “father was a brother’s son of the house of Ranferlie.” Life, prefixed to History of the Reformation, edit. 1644. In a conversation with the earl of Bothwell, Knox gave the following account of his ancestors: “My lord,” said he, “my great grandfather, gudeschir, and father, have served your Lordchip’s predecessours, and some of them have dyed under their standards; and this is a pairt of the obligatioun of our Scottish kindness.” Historie of the Reformatioun, p. 306, edit. 1732. Matthew Crawfurd says, that “these words seem to import that Mr Knox’s predecessors were in some honourable station under the earls of Bothwell, at that time the most powerful family in East Lothian,” Life of the Author, p. ii. prefixed to Historie, edit. 1732. The only thing which I would infer from his words is, that his ancestors had settled in Lothian as early as the time of his great‑grandfather. I do not wish to representthe Reformer as either of noble or of gentle birth, and cannot place much dependence on the assertion in the preceding note, which makes his father “proprietor of the estate of Gifford.” John Davidson, in the poem written in commendation of him, says,“First he descendit bot of lineage small,As commonly God usis for to callThe sempill sort his summoundis til expres.”At the same time, the statement given by some authors of the meanness and poverty of his parents is not supported by good evidence, and can in part be disproved. Dr Mackenzie says, the Reformer was “the son of a poor countryman, as we are informed by those who knew him very well: his parents, though in a mean condition, put their son to the grammar‑school of Haddington; where, after he had learned his grammar, he served for some time the laird of Langniddrie’s children, who being sent by their parents to the university of St Andrews, he thereby had occasion of learning his philosophy.” Lives of Scottish Writers, vol. iii. p. 111. As his authorities for these assertions, the Doctor has printed on the margin, “Dr Hamilton, Dr Bailie, and many others;” popish writers, who, regardless of their own character, fabricated or retailed such stories as they thought most discreditable to the Reformer, many of which Mackenzie himself is obliged to pronounce “ridiculous stories, that are altogether improbable,” p. 132. “Dr Bailie” was Alexander Bailie, a Benedictine monk in the Scottish monastery of Wirtsburgh; and, as he published the work to which Mackenzie refers in the year 1628, it is ridiculous to talk of his being well acquainted with either the Reformer or his father. Hamilton, (the earliest authority,) instead of supporting Mackenzie’s assertions, informs us, as far as his language is intelligible, that Knox was in priest’s orders before he undertook the care of children: “quo victum sibi pararet magis quam ut deo serviret (Simonis illius magi huc usque sequutus vestigia) presbyter primum fieri de more, quamvis illiteratus, tum in privatis ædibus puerorum in vulgaribus literis formandorum curam capere coactus est.” De Confusione Calv. Sectæ, p. 64. The fact is, that Knox entered into the family ofLangniddrie as tutor,afterhe had finished his education at the university; and so late as 1547, he was employed in teaching the young men their grammar. Historie, p. 67.

Note A.

Place of Knox’s Birth, and his Parentage.—Although the question respecting Knox’s birth‑place is not of very great importance, I shall state the authorities for the different opinions which are entertained on the subject.

Beza, who was contemporary, and personally acquainted, with our Reformer, designs him “Joannes Cnoxus, Scotus, Giffordiensis,” evidently meaning that he was a native of the town of Gifford. Icones, seu Imagines Illustrium Virorum, Ee. iij. an. 1580. Spotswood, who was born in 1565, and could receive information from his father, and other persons intimately acquainted with Knox, says that he was “born in Gifford within Lothian.” History, p. 265, edit. 1677. David Buchanan, in his Memoir of Knox, prefixed to the edition of his History, and published in 1644, gives the same account; which has been followed in the Life written by Matthew Crawfurd, and prefixed to the edition of the History, 1732; and by Wodrow, in his MS. Collections, respecting the Scottish Reformers, in Bibl. Coll. Glas. In a Genealogical Account of the Knoxes, which is in the possession of the family of the late Mr James Knox, minister of Scoon, the Reformer’s father is said to have been a brother of the family of Ranferlie, and “proprietor of the estate of Gifford.” Scott’s History of the Scottish Reformers, p. 94.

On the other hand, Archibald Hamilton, who was his countryman, as well as his contemporary and acquaintance, says that Knox was born in the town of Haddington: “Obscuris natus parentibus in Hadintona oppido in Laudonia.” De Confusione Calvinianæ Sectæ apud Scotos Dialogus, fol. 64, a. Parisiis, 1577. AnotherScotsman, who wrote in that age, says that he was born near Haddington; “prope Haddintonam.” Laingæus De vita, et moribus, atque rebus gestis Hæreticorum nostri temporis, fol. 113, b. Parisiis, 1581. Dr Barclay, late minister of Haddington, advanced an opinion which reconciles the two last authorities, (although it is probable that he never saw either of them,) by asserting that our Reformer was born in one of the suburbs of Haddington, called the Giffordgate. Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries in Scotland, p. 69, 70.

The testimony of Archibald Hamilton is not altogether without weight; for, although he has retailed a number of gross falsehoods in the work referred to, there does not appear to be any reason for supposing that he would intentionally mislead his readers on such a circumstance as the birth‑place of the Reformer. But I consider Spotswood’s statement as going far to set aside Hamilton’s; for, as the archbishop could scarcely be ignorant of it, and as he fixes Knox’s birth at a different place, it is reasonable to suppose that he had good reasons for varying from a preceding authority. The grounds of Dr Barclay’s opinion are, that, according to the tradition of the place, the Reformer was a native of Haddington; that the house in which he was born is still pointed out in the Giffordgate; and that this house, with some adjoining acres of land, belonged for a number of generations to a family of the name of Knox, who claimed kindred with the Reformer, and who lately sold the property to the earl of Wemyss. I acknowledge that popular tradition may be allowed to determine a point of this nature, provided it is not contradicted by other evidence. In the present case, it is not altogether free from this objection. As the sons of the Reformer died without issue, there is no reason to think that the family which resided in the Giffordgate was lineally descended from him. Still, however, the property might have belonged to his elder brother, which is consistent with the supposition of his being born in the house which tradition has marked out. But I have lately been favoured with extracts from the title‑deeds of that property, now in the possession of the earl of Wemyss, extending from the year 1598 downwards, which are not favourable to that supposition. On the 18th of February, 1598, William Knox inMoreham, and Elizabeth Schortes his wife, were infeft in subjects in Nungate (of Haddington,) by virtue of a crown charter. This charter contains no statement of the warrants on which it proceeded, farther than that the lands formerly belonged to the Abbey of Haddington, and were annexed to the crown. Having communicated the names of the persons mentioned in the first charter and subsequent deeds to the Reverend Mr Scott of Perth, with a request to be informed, if any such names occur in the genealogy of the Knox family which belonged to the late Mr Knox, minister of Scoon, I was favoured with an answer, saying, that neither the name of William Knox at Moreham, nor that of any other person answering to the description in my letter, is to be found in that genealogy. But, farther, the charter expressly states, that the lands in question belonged to the Abbey of Haddington, and, as they must have been annexed to the crown subsequently to the Reformation, they could not be the property of the family at the time of our Reformer’s birth. The tradition of his having been born in the Giffordgate is therefore supported merely by the possibility that his parents might have resided in that house while it was the property of the Abbey. In opposition to this, we have the authorities already mentioned in support of the opinion that he was born in the village of Gifford.

With respect to theparentageof our Reformer, David Buchanan says that his “father was a brother’s son of the house of Ranferlie.” Life, prefixed to History of the Reformation, edit. 1644. In a conversation with the earl of Bothwell, Knox gave the following account of his ancestors: “My lord,” said he, “my great grandfather, gudeschir, and father, have served your Lordchip’s predecessours, and some of them have dyed under their standards; and this is a pairt of the obligatioun of our Scottish kindness.” Historie of the Reformatioun, p. 306, edit. 1732. Matthew Crawfurd says, that “these words seem to import that Mr Knox’s predecessors were in some honourable station under the earls of Bothwell, at that time the most powerful family in East Lothian,” Life of the Author, p. ii. prefixed to Historie, edit. 1732. The only thing which I would infer from his words is, that his ancestors had settled in Lothian as early as the time of his great‑grandfather. I do not wish to representthe Reformer as either of noble or of gentle birth, and cannot place much dependence on the assertion in the preceding note, which makes his father “proprietor of the estate of Gifford.” John Davidson, in the poem written in commendation of him, says,

“First he descendit bot of lineage small,As commonly God usis for to callThe sempill sort his summoundis til expres.”

“First he descendit bot of lineage small,As commonly God usis for to callThe sempill sort his summoundis til expres.”

“First he descendit bot of lineage small,

As commonly God usis for to call

The sempill sort his summoundis til expres.”

At the same time, the statement given by some authors of the meanness and poverty of his parents is not supported by good evidence, and can in part be disproved. Dr Mackenzie says, the Reformer was “the son of a poor countryman, as we are informed by those who knew him very well: his parents, though in a mean condition, put their son to the grammar‑school of Haddington; where, after he had learned his grammar, he served for some time the laird of Langniddrie’s children, who being sent by their parents to the university of St Andrews, he thereby had occasion of learning his philosophy.” Lives of Scottish Writers, vol. iii. p. 111. As his authorities for these assertions, the Doctor has printed on the margin, “Dr Hamilton, Dr Bailie, and many others;” popish writers, who, regardless of their own character, fabricated or retailed such stories as they thought most discreditable to the Reformer, many of which Mackenzie himself is obliged to pronounce “ridiculous stories, that are altogether improbable,” p. 132. “Dr Bailie” was Alexander Bailie, a Benedictine monk in the Scottish monastery of Wirtsburgh; and, as he published the work to which Mackenzie refers in the year 1628, it is ridiculous to talk of his being well acquainted with either the Reformer or his father. Hamilton, (the earliest authority,) instead of supporting Mackenzie’s assertions, informs us, as far as his language is intelligible, that Knox was in priest’s orders before he undertook the care of children: “quo victum sibi pararet magis quam ut deo serviret (Simonis illius magi huc usque sequutus vestigia) presbyter primum fieri de more, quamvis illiteratus, tum in privatis ædibus puerorum in vulgaribus literis formandorum curam capere coactus est.” De Confusione Calv. Sectæ, p. 64. The fact is, that Knox entered into the family ofLangniddrie as tutor,afterhe had finished his education at the university; and so late as 1547, he was employed in teaching the young men their grammar. Historie, p. 67.

Note B.Of Knox’s Academical Education.—I have been a good deal puzzled on the subject of the academical studies of our Reformer. Depending on the testimony of the earliest and most credible writers, I stated, in the former editions of this work, that he studied, and took the degree of Master of Arts, at St Andrews. After a minute examination, however, I was unable to find his name in the records of that university. Still I did not feel warranted to drop the account which I had given on such respectable authority, and contented myself with mentioning the unsuccessful result of my investigations. But when engaged in examining the records of the university of Glasgow with a view to another work, I accidentally met with evidence which convinces me that the common statement is erroneous. Knox was educated at the university, not of St Andrews, but of Glasgow.In the “Annales Universitatis Glasguensis,” the name “Johannes Knox” occurs among theIncorporati, or those who were matriculated, in the year 1522. In coming to the conclusion that this was our Reformer, I do not rest simply on his name occurring in the record. This opinion is confirmed by the two following circumstances. 1. The time answers to that at which he might be supposed to have entered the university; for in 1522, he was seventeen years of age. 2. John Major was at that time Principal of the university of Glasgow; and all the ancient accounts agree that Knox studied under that celebrated professor.—This circumstance may perhaps account for the mistake into which the old writers have fallen on this subject. They appear to have been ignorant of the fact that Major taught at that time in Glasgow; and being informed that Knox studied under him, they concluded that he did so at St Andrews, where that professor was known to have resided for many years.I take this opportunity of filling up a blank in the life of Major.Dempster, Dupin, and other writers, mention that, after being made Doctor of Divinity in 1505, he taught for some years at Glasgow, but that, owing to the confusions in his native country, he removed from it to Paris. I will not take upon me to say that this account is erroneous; but I have not been able to discover the name of Major in the records of the university of Glasgow at that period. Upon Major’s return from France, the above‑mentioned authors represent him as going directly to St Andrews. But from the subsequent extracts it will appear that he went first to Glasgow, and for several years held the situation of Principal and Professor of Divinity in the university of that city.In the old Register, entitled “Annales Universitatis Glasguensis,” are the following minutes relating to Major. The last of them contains the matriculation of Knox.“Electio Rectoris.“Congregatione generali alme Universitatis Glasguen. Citatione previa, &c. Die tertio mensis Novembris anno Dnimillesimo quingentesimo decimo octavo, &c.“Eodem die—Incorporati sub dicto DnoRectore, Egregius vir MagrJohannes Majoris Doctor Parisiensis ac principalis regens Collegie et pedagogii dicte Universitatis, Canonicusque Capelli regie, ac Vicarius de Dunlop, &c.” (43 names follow.)There is no further mention made of Major until 1521, when the following minute is found:“Electio Rectoris.“Congregatione generali, &c. In festo sanctorum Marthirum Crispini et Crispiniani, anno Domimillesimo quingentesimo vicesimo primo. Pro Electione novi Rectoris—In quaquidem Congregatione Electi fuerunt tres Intrantes, viz. MagrMattheus Steward Decanus facultatis, Johannes Majoris Theologie Professor, et nationis Albanie nullus interfuit, et WillmusCrechtoun Canonicus Glasguensis—Qui remoti, maturaque deliberatione prehabita, unanimi eorum consensu, Venerabilem et egregium Virum Jacobum Steward Prepositum ecclesie Collegiate de Dunbertane, absentem tanquampresentem, in Rectorem eligerunt et electum pronunciarunt. Qui postea inclinatus supplicationibus suppositorum hujus modi onus in se acceptavit. Insuper in eadem Congregatione electi fuerunt quatuor Deputati ad consulendum et assistendum dicto Dnorectori in omnibus et singulis causis per ipsum tractandis, viz. Mag̃ri Johannes Majoris predictus, Willm̃s Chrichtoun, Johannes Reid, Jacobus Neilsoun—Necnon Electus fuit in bursarium discretus vir MagrMattheus Reid, Magrschole gramaticalis. Et in promotorem MagrAndreas Smytht. Et in Procuratorem MagrNicholaus Witherspuyne.“Die xxiiij mensis Maij anno Dñi millesimo quingentesimo xxij.“Congregatione generali Universitatis Glasguen. facta loco Capitulari ecclesie metropolitane ejusdem die xxiiij mensis maij Anno Dñi Millesimo quingentesimo xxij, per Venerabilem Virum Mgr̃m Jacobum Steward Prepositum ecclie Collegiate de Dunbertane ac Rectorem dicte Universitatis, Presentibus Ibidem Honorabilibus Viris, Magistris Johanne Majore, theologie professore, thesaurario Capelle regie Stirlingensis, Vicarioque de Dunlop, ac Principali regente dicte Collegie, Johanne Doby Canonico Glasguensi ac prebendario de Ancrum, Jacobo Neilson Vicario de Colmanel, Johanne Spruele Vicario de Dundonald, Jacobo Lyndesay secundario regente, aliisque patribus, Magistris, Studentibus, ac suppositis, inibi Congregatis—In quaquidem Congregatione Idem Dñus Rector Exposuit et Declaravit, &c.“Electio Rectoris.“Congregatione generali alme Universitatis Glass. Citatione previa per edictum publicum in Valvis ecclesie metripolitane affixum, Celebrata loco Capitulari ejusdem, In festo Sanctorum Marthirum Crispini et Crispiniani, Anno Dñi Millesimo quingentesimo Vicesimo secundo, Pro electione novi Rectoris. In quaquidem Congregatione electi fuerunt tres Intrantes, eoquod nullus nationis albanie extunc interfuit, viz. MgrThomas leiss Canonicus Dunblanensis, Johannes Majoris Principalis regens, et Johannes Reid Vicarius de Campsy—Qui remoti, matura et digesta deliberatione prehabita,unanimi eorum Consensu, Venerabilem et egregium Virum Mgr̃m Jacobum Steward Prepositum Ecclesie Collegiate de Dunbertane, absentem tanquam presentem, in rectorem Continuarunt, eligerunt, et pronunciarunt—Qui postea supplicationebus magistrorum inclinatus hujus modi onus en se acceptavit. Insuper in eadem Congregatione electi fuerunt tres Deputati ad assistendum et consulendum dicto Dño Rectori in omnibus et singulis causis dicte Universitatis per eundem tractandis, viz. Prescripti magistri, Johannes Majoris, Johannes Reid, et Mg̃r Mattheus Steward Vicarius de Mayboile, Et Continuatus fuit in bursarium Mg̃r Mattheus Reid. Necnon electus fuit in procuratorem et promotorem Universitatis Mg̃r Nicholaus Vitherspuyne Vicarius de Straithawane—Incorporati sub dicto Dño Rectore,Andreas CottisJohannes hereotNigellus CampbalWillmusStewardJohannes HamyltounJohannes KnoxArchibaldus LangsydAlexrDikkeAdam KyngorneNigellus forguissoneJohannes huntarJacobus MosmanDñus Johannes Keyne presbiterPatricius letryg Civis Glass.”In the records of the university of Glasgow, Major is uniformly called Joannes Majoris. It appears from Dr Lee’s extracts, published in the second edition of Dr Irving’s Memoirs of Buchanan, (p. 373,) that Major was incorporated into the university of St Andrews, on the 9th of June 1523. He is there designed “Doctor Theologus Parisiensis, et ThesauriusCapellæ Regiæ;” and in an instrument of seisin, belonging to that seminary, he is styled “Vicarius de Dunloppie Glasg.”—Some may perhaps be inclined to suppose that Knox followed Major to St Andrews, and attended his lectures, though not formally incorporated into that university; and consequently that the old writers had some foundation for their statement on this head. But if this was the case, it is not very probable that the truth of it can be now ascertained. I have only to add, that I cannot perceive, from the records of Glasgow, thatKnox took any degree there, which confirms the doubt that I have already expressed on that subject.

Note B.

Of Knox’s Academical Education.—I have been a good deal puzzled on the subject of the academical studies of our Reformer. Depending on the testimony of the earliest and most credible writers, I stated, in the former editions of this work, that he studied, and took the degree of Master of Arts, at St Andrews. After a minute examination, however, I was unable to find his name in the records of that university. Still I did not feel warranted to drop the account which I had given on such respectable authority, and contented myself with mentioning the unsuccessful result of my investigations. But when engaged in examining the records of the university of Glasgow with a view to another work, I accidentally met with evidence which convinces me that the common statement is erroneous. Knox was educated at the university, not of St Andrews, but of Glasgow.

In the “Annales Universitatis Glasguensis,” the name “Johannes Knox” occurs among theIncorporati, or those who were matriculated, in the year 1522. In coming to the conclusion that this was our Reformer, I do not rest simply on his name occurring in the record. This opinion is confirmed by the two following circumstances. 1. The time answers to that at which he might be supposed to have entered the university; for in 1522, he was seventeen years of age. 2. John Major was at that time Principal of the university of Glasgow; and all the ancient accounts agree that Knox studied under that celebrated professor.—This circumstance may perhaps account for the mistake into which the old writers have fallen on this subject. They appear to have been ignorant of the fact that Major taught at that time in Glasgow; and being informed that Knox studied under him, they concluded that he did so at St Andrews, where that professor was known to have resided for many years.

I take this opportunity of filling up a blank in the life of Major.Dempster, Dupin, and other writers, mention that, after being made Doctor of Divinity in 1505, he taught for some years at Glasgow, but that, owing to the confusions in his native country, he removed from it to Paris. I will not take upon me to say that this account is erroneous; but I have not been able to discover the name of Major in the records of the university of Glasgow at that period. Upon Major’s return from France, the above‑mentioned authors represent him as going directly to St Andrews. But from the subsequent extracts it will appear that he went first to Glasgow, and for several years held the situation of Principal and Professor of Divinity in the university of that city.

In the old Register, entitled “Annales Universitatis Glasguensis,” are the following minutes relating to Major. The last of them contains the matriculation of Knox.

“Electio Rectoris.

“Congregatione generali alme Universitatis Glasguen. Citatione previa, &c. Die tertio mensis Novembris anno Dnimillesimo quingentesimo decimo octavo, &c.

“Eodem die—Incorporati sub dicto DnoRectore, Egregius vir MagrJohannes Majoris Doctor Parisiensis ac principalis regens Collegie et pedagogii dicte Universitatis, Canonicusque Capelli regie, ac Vicarius de Dunlop, &c.” (43 names follow.)

There is no further mention made of Major until 1521, when the following minute is found:

“Electio Rectoris.

“Congregatione generali, &c. In festo sanctorum Marthirum Crispini et Crispiniani, anno Domimillesimo quingentesimo vicesimo primo. Pro Electione novi Rectoris—In quaquidem Congregatione Electi fuerunt tres Intrantes, viz. MagrMattheus Steward Decanus facultatis, Johannes Majoris Theologie Professor, et nationis Albanie nullus interfuit, et WillmusCrechtoun Canonicus Glasguensis—Qui remoti, maturaque deliberatione prehabita, unanimi eorum consensu, Venerabilem et egregium Virum Jacobum Steward Prepositum ecclesie Collegiate de Dunbertane, absentem tanquampresentem, in Rectorem eligerunt et electum pronunciarunt. Qui postea inclinatus supplicationibus suppositorum hujus modi onus in se acceptavit. Insuper in eadem Congregatione electi fuerunt quatuor Deputati ad consulendum et assistendum dicto Dnorectori in omnibus et singulis causis per ipsum tractandis, viz. Mag̃ri Johannes Majoris predictus, Willm̃s Chrichtoun, Johannes Reid, Jacobus Neilsoun—Necnon Electus fuit in bursarium discretus vir MagrMattheus Reid, Magrschole gramaticalis. Et in promotorem MagrAndreas Smytht. Et in Procuratorem MagrNicholaus Witherspuyne.

“Die xxiiij mensis Maij anno Dñi millesimo quingentesimo xxij.

“Congregatione generali Universitatis Glasguen. facta loco Capitulari ecclesie metropolitane ejusdem die xxiiij mensis maij Anno Dñi Millesimo quingentesimo xxij, per Venerabilem Virum Mgr̃m Jacobum Steward Prepositum ecclie Collegiate de Dunbertane ac Rectorem dicte Universitatis, Presentibus Ibidem Honorabilibus Viris, Magistris Johanne Majore, theologie professore, thesaurario Capelle regie Stirlingensis, Vicarioque de Dunlop, ac Principali regente dicte Collegie, Johanne Doby Canonico Glasguensi ac prebendario de Ancrum, Jacobo Neilson Vicario de Colmanel, Johanne Spruele Vicario de Dundonald, Jacobo Lyndesay secundario regente, aliisque patribus, Magistris, Studentibus, ac suppositis, inibi Congregatis—In quaquidem Congregatione Idem Dñus Rector Exposuit et Declaravit, &c.

“Electio Rectoris.

“Congregatione generali alme Universitatis Glass. Citatione previa per edictum publicum in Valvis ecclesie metripolitane affixum, Celebrata loco Capitulari ejusdem, In festo Sanctorum Marthirum Crispini et Crispiniani, Anno Dñi Millesimo quingentesimo Vicesimo secundo, Pro electione novi Rectoris. In quaquidem Congregatione electi fuerunt tres Intrantes, eoquod nullus nationis albanie extunc interfuit, viz. MgrThomas leiss Canonicus Dunblanensis, Johannes Majoris Principalis regens, et Johannes Reid Vicarius de Campsy—Qui remoti, matura et digesta deliberatione prehabita,unanimi eorum Consensu, Venerabilem et egregium Virum Mgr̃m Jacobum Steward Prepositum Ecclesie Collegiate de Dunbertane, absentem tanquam presentem, in rectorem Continuarunt, eligerunt, et pronunciarunt—Qui postea supplicationebus magistrorum inclinatus hujus modi onus en se acceptavit. Insuper in eadem Congregatione electi fuerunt tres Deputati ad assistendum et consulendum dicto Dño Rectori in omnibus et singulis causis dicte Universitatis per eundem tractandis, viz. Prescripti magistri, Johannes Majoris, Johannes Reid, et Mg̃r Mattheus Steward Vicarius de Mayboile, Et Continuatus fuit in bursarium Mg̃r Mattheus Reid. Necnon electus fuit in procuratorem et promotorem Universitatis Mg̃r Nicholaus Vitherspuyne Vicarius de Straithawane—Incorporati sub dicto Dño Rectore,

Andreas CottisJohannes hereotNigellus CampbalWillmusStewardJohannes HamyltounJohannes KnoxArchibaldus LangsydAlexrDikkeAdam KyngorneNigellus forguissoneJohannes huntarJacobus MosmanDñus Johannes Keyne presbiterPatricius letryg Civis Glass.”

Andreas CottisJohannes hereotNigellus CampbalWillmusStewardJohannes HamyltounJohannes KnoxArchibaldus Langsyd

AlexrDikkeAdam KyngorneNigellus forguissoneJohannes huntarJacobus MosmanDñus Johannes Keyne presbiterPatricius letryg Civis Glass.”

In the records of the university of Glasgow, Major is uniformly called Joannes Majoris. It appears from Dr Lee’s extracts, published in the second edition of Dr Irving’s Memoirs of Buchanan, (p. 373,) that Major was incorporated into the university of St Andrews, on the 9th of June 1523. He is there designed “Doctor Theologus Parisiensis, et ThesauriusCapellæ Regiæ;” and in an instrument of seisin, belonging to that seminary, he is styled “Vicarius de Dunloppie Glasg.”—Some may perhaps be inclined to suppose that Knox followed Major to St Andrews, and attended his lectures, though not formally incorporated into that university; and consequently that the old writers had some foundation for their statement on this head. But if this was the case, it is not very probable that the truth of it can be now ascertained. I have only to add, that I cannot perceive, from the records of Glasgow, thatKnox took any degree there, which confirms the doubt that I have already expressed on that subject.

Note C.Of the Early State of Grecian Literature in Scotland.—In this note I shall throw together such facts as I have met with relating to the introduction of the Greek language into Scotland, and the progress which it made during the sixteenth century. They are scanty; but I trust they will not be altogether unacceptable to those who take an interest in the subject.In the year 1522, Boece mentions George Dundas as a good Greek scholar. He was master of the Knights of St John in Scotland, and had, most probably, acquired the knowledge of the language on the Continent. “Georgius Dundas grecas atq; latinas literas apprime doctus, equitum Hierosolymitanorum intra Scotorum regnum magistratum multo sudore (superatis emulis) postea adeptus.” Boetii Vitæ Episcop. Murth. et Aberdon. fol. xxvii. b. It is reasonable to suppose that some other individuals in the nation acquired it in the same way; but Boece makes no mention of Greek among the branches taught at the universities in his time, although he is minute in his details. Nor do I find any other reference to the subject previous to the year 1534, when Erskine of Dun brought a learned man from France, and employed him to teach Greek in Montrose, as mentioned in that part of the Life to which this note refers. At his school, George Wishart, the martyr, must have obtained the knowledge of the language, and he seems to have been assistant or successor to his master. The bishop of Brechin (William Chisholm), hearing that Wishart taught the Greek New Testament in Montrose, summoned him to appear before him on a charge of heresy, upon which he fled the kingdom. This was in 1538. Petrie, part ii. p. 182. It is likely that Knox was taught Greek by Wishart after the return of the latter from England. Buchanan seems to have acquired the language during his residence on the Continent. Epist. p. 25. Oper. edit. Rudd.Lesley says, that James V., during his progress through the kingdom in 1540, came to Aberdeen, and among other entertainmentswhich were given him, the students of the university “recited orations in the Greek and Latin tongue, composed with the greatest skill”—“Orationes in Greca Latinaque lingua, summo artificio instructæ.” Leslæus de rebus gestis Scotorum, lib. ix. p. 430. edit. 1675. When we consider the state of learning at that period in Scotland, there is reason for suspecting that the bishop’s description is highly coloured, yet as he entered that university a few years after, we may conclude from it that some attention was at that time paid to the study of Greek in Aberdeen. It might have been introduced by Hector Boece, the learned principal of that university. If the king was entertained with the great learning of the students of Aberdeen, the English ambassador was no less diverted, in the very same year, with the ignorance which our bishops discovered of the Greek tongue. The ambassador, who was a scholar as well as a statesman, had caused his men to wear on their sleeves the following Greek motto, ΜΟΝΩ ΑΝΑΚΤΙ ΔΟΥΛΕΥΩ, “I serve the king only.” This the Scottish bishops, whose knowledge did not extend beyond Latin, readMonachulus, “a little monk,” and thereupon circulated the report that the ambassador’s servants were monks, who had been taken out of the monasteries lately suppressed in England. To counteract this report, Sadler was obliged to furnish a translation of the inscription. “It appeareth (says he) they are no good Grecians. And now the effect of my words is known, and they be well laughed at for their learned interpretation.” Sadler’s Letters, i. 48, 49. Edinburgh, 1809. In a debate which occurred in the Parliament which met in 1543, individuals among the nobility and other lay members discovered more knowledge of Greek than all the ecclesiastical bench. Knox, Historie, 34.Foreign writers have been amused with the information, that many of the Scottish clergy affirmed, “that Martin Luther had lately composed a wicked book called the New Testament; but that they, for their part, would adhere to the Old Testament.” Perizonii Hist. Seculi xvi. p. 233. Gerdesii Histor. Reform. tom. iv. p. 314. Buchanani Oper. i. 291. Ignorant, however, as our clergy were, they were not more illiterate than many on the Continent. A foreign monk, declaiming one day in the pulpit against Lutherans andZuinglians, said to his audience: “A new language was invented some time ago, called Greek, which has been the mother of all these heresies. A book is printed in this language, called the New Testament, which contains many dangerous things. Another language is now forming, the Hebrew; whoever learns it immediately becomes a Jew.” No wonder, after this, that the commissioners of the senate of Lucern should have confiscated the works of Aristotle, Plato, and some of the Greek poets, which they found in the library of a friend of Zuinglius, concluding, that every book printed in that language must be infected with Lutheranism. J. von Mullers Schw. Gesch. Hess, Life of Ulrich Zuingle, p. 213.To return to the seminary at Montrose: it was kept up, by the public spirit of its patron, until the establishment of the Reformation. Some years before that event, the celebrated linguist, Andrew Melville, received his education at this school, under Pierre de Marsiliers, a Frenchman. And he had made such proficiency in Greek, when he entered the university of St Andrews, about the year 1559, that he was able to read Aristotle in the original language, “which even his masters themselves understood not.” Life of Andrew Melville, p. 2, in Wodrow’s MSS. Bibl. Coll. Glas. vol. i. and James Melville’s Diary, p. 32. For, although the logics, ethics, &c. of Aristotle, were then read in the colleges, it was in a Latin translation. “The regent of St Leonard’s,” says James Melville, “tauld me of my uncle Mr Andro Melvill, whom he knew, in the tyme of his cours in the new collag, to use the Greik logicks of Aristotle, quhilk was a wonder to them, he was so fyne a scholar, and of sic expectation.” MS. Diary, p. 25.By the First Book of Discipline, it was provided, that there should “be a reader of Greek” in one of the colleges of each university, who “shall compleat the grammar thereof in three months,” and “shall interpret some book of Plato, together with some places of the New Testament, and shall compleat his course the same year.” Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 553. The small number of learned men, the deficiency of funds, and the confusions in which the country was afterwards involved, prevented, in a great degree, the execution of this wise measure. Owing to the last of these circumstances, some learned Scotsmen devoted their talents to the service of foreignseminaries, instead of returning to their native country. Buchanani Epist. p. 7, 9, 10, 33. One of these was Henry Scrimger, celebrated for his Grecian literature. Some particulars respecting him may be seen in Senebier, Hist. Litter. de Geneve, tom. i. art. Scrimger. See also Teissier, Eloges. tom. iii. 383–385. Leide, 1715. On account of the scarcity of preachers, it was also found necessary to settle several of the learned men in towns which were not the seat of a university. Some of these undertook the instruction of youth, along with the pastoral inspection of their parishes. John Row taught the Greek tongue in Perth. See vol. ii.Note C. The venerable teacher, Andrew Simson, (see p.5,) does not appear to have been capable of this task; but he was careful that his son Patrick should not labour under the same defect. He was sent to the university of Cambridge, in which he made great proficiency; and after his return to Scotland, taught Greek at Spot, a village in East Lothian, where he was minister for some time. Row’s MS. p. 96 of a copy in the Divinity Lib. Edin. It is reasonable to suppose, that this branch of study would not be neglected at St Andrews during the time that Buchanan was principal of St Leonard’s college, from 1565 to 1570. Patrick Adamson, to whom he demitted this office, and whom he recommended for his “literature and sufficiency,” (Buch. Op. i. 10,) was not then in the kingdom; and the state of education languished for some time in that university. James Melville, who entered it in 1570, gives the following account. “Our regent begoud, and teacheth us the a, b, c, of the Greik, and the simple declinationis, but went no farder.” MS. Diary, p. 26.Græcum est, non legitur, was at this time an adage, even with persons who had received a university education. Row’s MS. ut supra.The return of Andrew Melville in 1574, gave a new impulse to literature in Scotland. That celebrated scholar had perfected himself in the knowledge of the languages during the nine years which he spent on the Continent, and had astonished the learned at Geneva by the fluency with which he read and spoke Greek. MS. Diary, ut sup. p. 33. He was first made Principal of the university of Glasgow, and afterwards removed to the university of St Andrews. Such was his celebrity, that he attracted students from England and foreign countries, whereas formerly it had been thecustom for the Scottish youth to go abroad for their education. Spotswood, with whom he was no favourite, and Calderwood, equally bear testimony to his profound knowledge of this language. Soon after Melville, Thomas Smeton, another Greek scholar, returned to Scotland, and was made Principal of the university of Glasgow.—I may mention here, although it belongs to the subject of typography, that there appear to have been neither Greek nor Hebrew types in this country in 1579, when Smeton’s Answer to Archibald Hamilton was printed; for blanks are left for all the phrases and quotations in these languages, which the author intended to introduce. In my copy of the book, a number of the blanks have been filled up with a pen by the author’s own hand.

Note C.

Of the Early State of Grecian Literature in Scotland.—In this note I shall throw together such facts as I have met with relating to the introduction of the Greek language into Scotland, and the progress which it made during the sixteenth century. They are scanty; but I trust they will not be altogether unacceptable to those who take an interest in the subject.

In the year 1522, Boece mentions George Dundas as a good Greek scholar. He was master of the Knights of St John in Scotland, and had, most probably, acquired the knowledge of the language on the Continent. “Georgius Dundas grecas atq; latinas literas apprime doctus, equitum Hierosolymitanorum intra Scotorum regnum magistratum multo sudore (superatis emulis) postea adeptus.” Boetii Vitæ Episcop. Murth. et Aberdon. fol. xxvii. b. It is reasonable to suppose that some other individuals in the nation acquired it in the same way; but Boece makes no mention of Greek among the branches taught at the universities in his time, although he is minute in his details. Nor do I find any other reference to the subject previous to the year 1534, when Erskine of Dun brought a learned man from France, and employed him to teach Greek in Montrose, as mentioned in that part of the Life to which this note refers. At his school, George Wishart, the martyr, must have obtained the knowledge of the language, and he seems to have been assistant or successor to his master. The bishop of Brechin (William Chisholm), hearing that Wishart taught the Greek New Testament in Montrose, summoned him to appear before him on a charge of heresy, upon which he fled the kingdom. This was in 1538. Petrie, part ii. p. 182. It is likely that Knox was taught Greek by Wishart after the return of the latter from England. Buchanan seems to have acquired the language during his residence on the Continent. Epist. p. 25. Oper. edit. Rudd.

Lesley says, that James V., during his progress through the kingdom in 1540, came to Aberdeen, and among other entertainmentswhich were given him, the students of the university “recited orations in the Greek and Latin tongue, composed with the greatest skill”—“Orationes in Greca Latinaque lingua, summo artificio instructæ.” Leslæus de rebus gestis Scotorum, lib. ix. p. 430. edit. 1675. When we consider the state of learning at that period in Scotland, there is reason for suspecting that the bishop’s description is highly coloured, yet as he entered that university a few years after, we may conclude from it that some attention was at that time paid to the study of Greek in Aberdeen. It might have been introduced by Hector Boece, the learned principal of that university. If the king was entertained with the great learning of the students of Aberdeen, the English ambassador was no less diverted, in the very same year, with the ignorance which our bishops discovered of the Greek tongue. The ambassador, who was a scholar as well as a statesman, had caused his men to wear on their sleeves the following Greek motto, ΜΟΝΩ ΑΝΑΚΤΙ ΔΟΥΛΕΥΩ, “I serve the king only.” This the Scottish bishops, whose knowledge did not extend beyond Latin, readMonachulus, “a little monk,” and thereupon circulated the report that the ambassador’s servants were monks, who had been taken out of the monasteries lately suppressed in England. To counteract this report, Sadler was obliged to furnish a translation of the inscription. “It appeareth (says he) they are no good Grecians. And now the effect of my words is known, and they be well laughed at for their learned interpretation.” Sadler’s Letters, i. 48, 49. Edinburgh, 1809. In a debate which occurred in the Parliament which met in 1543, individuals among the nobility and other lay members discovered more knowledge of Greek than all the ecclesiastical bench. Knox, Historie, 34.

Foreign writers have been amused with the information, that many of the Scottish clergy affirmed, “that Martin Luther had lately composed a wicked book called the New Testament; but that they, for their part, would adhere to the Old Testament.” Perizonii Hist. Seculi xvi. p. 233. Gerdesii Histor. Reform. tom. iv. p. 314. Buchanani Oper. i. 291. Ignorant, however, as our clergy were, they were not more illiterate than many on the Continent. A foreign monk, declaiming one day in the pulpit against Lutherans andZuinglians, said to his audience: “A new language was invented some time ago, called Greek, which has been the mother of all these heresies. A book is printed in this language, called the New Testament, which contains many dangerous things. Another language is now forming, the Hebrew; whoever learns it immediately becomes a Jew.” No wonder, after this, that the commissioners of the senate of Lucern should have confiscated the works of Aristotle, Plato, and some of the Greek poets, which they found in the library of a friend of Zuinglius, concluding, that every book printed in that language must be infected with Lutheranism. J. von Mullers Schw. Gesch. Hess, Life of Ulrich Zuingle, p. 213.

To return to the seminary at Montrose: it was kept up, by the public spirit of its patron, until the establishment of the Reformation. Some years before that event, the celebrated linguist, Andrew Melville, received his education at this school, under Pierre de Marsiliers, a Frenchman. And he had made such proficiency in Greek, when he entered the university of St Andrews, about the year 1559, that he was able to read Aristotle in the original language, “which even his masters themselves understood not.” Life of Andrew Melville, p. 2, in Wodrow’s MSS. Bibl. Coll. Glas. vol. i. and James Melville’s Diary, p. 32. For, although the logics, ethics, &c. of Aristotle, were then read in the colleges, it was in a Latin translation. “The regent of St Leonard’s,” says James Melville, “tauld me of my uncle Mr Andro Melvill, whom he knew, in the tyme of his cours in the new collag, to use the Greik logicks of Aristotle, quhilk was a wonder to them, he was so fyne a scholar, and of sic expectation.” MS. Diary, p. 25.

By the First Book of Discipline, it was provided, that there should “be a reader of Greek” in one of the colleges of each university, who “shall compleat the grammar thereof in three months,” and “shall interpret some book of Plato, together with some places of the New Testament, and shall compleat his course the same year.” Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 553. The small number of learned men, the deficiency of funds, and the confusions in which the country was afterwards involved, prevented, in a great degree, the execution of this wise measure. Owing to the last of these circumstances, some learned Scotsmen devoted their talents to the service of foreignseminaries, instead of returning to their native country. Buchanani Epist. p. 7, 9, 10, 33. One of these was Henry Scrimger, celebrated for his Grecian literature. Some particulars respecting him may be seen in Senebier, Hist. Litter. de Geneve, tom. i. art. Scrimger. See also Teissier, Eloges. tom. iii. 383–385. Leide, 1715. On account of the scarcity of preachers, it was also found necessary to settle several of the learned men in towns which were not the seat of a university. Some of these undertook the instruction of youth, along with the pastoral inspection of their parishes. John Row taught the Greek tongue in Perth. See vol. ii.Note C. The venerable teacher, Andrew Simson, (see p.5,) does not appear to have been capable of this task; but he was careful that his son Patrick should not labour under the same defect. He was sent to the university of Cambridge, in which he made great proficiency; and after his return to Scotland, taught Greek at Spot, a village in East Lothian, where he was minister for some time. Row’s MS. p. 96 of a copy in the Divinity Lib. Edin. It is reasonable to suppose, that this branch of study would not be neglected at St Andrews during the time that Buchanan was principal of St Leonard’s college, from 1565 to 1570. Patrick Adamson, to whom he demitted this office, and whom he recommended for his “literature and sufficiency,” (Buch. Op. i. 10,) was not then in the kingdom; and the state of education languished for some time in that university. James Melville, who entered it in 1570, gives the following account. “Our regent begoud, and teacheth us the a, b, c, of the Greik, and the simple declinationis, but went no farder.” MS. Diary, p. 26.Græcum est, non legitur, was at this time an adage, even with persons who had received a university education. Row’s MS. ut supra.

The return of Andrew Melville in 1574, gave a new impulse to literature in Scotland. That celebrated scholar had perfected himself in the knowledge of the languages during the nine years which he spent on the Continent, and had astonished the learned at Geneva by the fluency with which he read and spoke Greek. MS. Diary, ut sup. p. 33. He was first made Principal of the university of Glasgow, and afterwards removed to the university of St Andrews. Such was his celebrity, that he attracted students from England and foreign countries, whereas formerly it had been thecustom for the Scottish youth to go abroad for their education. Spotswood, with whom he was no favourite, and Calderwood, equally bear testimony to his profound knowledge of this language. Soon after Melville, Thomas Smeton, another Greek scholar, returned to Scotland, and was made Principal of the university of Glasgow.—I may mention here, although it belongs to the subject of typography, that there appear to have been neither Greek nor Hebrew types in this country in 1579, when Smeton’s Answer to Archibald Hamilton was printed; for blanks are left for all the phrases and quotations in these languages, which the author intended to introduce. In my copy of the book, a number of the blanks have been filled up with a pen by the author’s own hand.

Note D.Of Major’s Political Sentiments.—The following are some of the passages from which the account of these, given in the text, has been drawn. Similar sentiments occur in his History of Scotland; but as it has been insinuated that he, in that work, merely copied Boece, I shall quote from his other writings, which are more rarely consulted.“Ad policiam regalem non requiritur quod rex sit supra omnes sui regni tam regulariter quam casualiter—sed sat est quod rex sit supra unumquamlibet, et supra totum regnum regulariter, et regnum sit supra eum casualiter et in aliquo eventu.” Again, “Similiter in regno: et in toto populo libero est suprema fontalis potestas inabrogabilis; in rege vero potestas mysterialis [ministerialis?] honesto ministerio. Et sic aliquo modo sunt duo potestates; sed quia una ordinetur propter aliam, potest vocari una effectualiter, et casu quo regnum rex in tyrannidem convertat et etiam incorrigibilis, potest a populo deponi, tanquam a superiore potestate.” Expos. Matth. fol. 71, a. c. Paris. 1518. To the objection urged against this principle from the metaphorical designation of head given to a king, he answers: “Non est omnino simile inter caput verum et corpus verum, et inter caput mysticum et corpus mysticum. Caput verum est supra reliquam partem sui corporis, et tamen nego regem esse majoris potestatis quam reliquam partem sui regni,” &c. Ibid. fol. 62. b.“Rex utilitatem reipublicæ dissipans et evertens incorrigibilis, est deponendus a communitate cui præest. Rex non habet robur et auctoritatem nisi a regno cui libere præest,” Ibid. fol. 69. c. Speaking of the excision of a corrupt member from the human body, in illustration of the treatment of a tyrant, he says: “Cum licentia totius corporis veri tollitur hoc membrum; etiam facultate totius corporis mystici, tu, tamque minister com̃itatis, potes hunc tyrannum occidere, dum est licite condempnatus.” Tert. Sentent. fol. 139, c. d. Paris. 1517.

Note D.

Of Major’s Political Sentiments.—The following are some of the passages from which the account of these, given in the text, has been drawn. Similar sentiments occur in his History of Scotland; but as it has been insinuated that he, in that work, merely copied Boece, I shall quote from his other writings, which are more rarely consulted.

“Ad policiam regalem non requiritur quod rex sit supra omnes sui regni tam regulariter quam casualiter—sed sat est quod rex sit supra unumquamlibet, et supra totum regnum regulariter, et regnum sit supra eum casualiter et in aliquo eventu.” Again, “Similiter in regno: et in toto populo libero est suprema fontalis potestas inabrogabilis; in rege vero potestas mysterialis [ministerialis?] honesto ministerio. Et sic aliquo modo sunt duo potestates; sed quia una ordinetur propter aliam, potest vocari una effectualiter, et casu quo regnum rex in tyrannidem convertat et etiam incorrigibilis, potest a populo deponi, tanquam a superiore potestate.” Expos. Matth. fol. 71, a. c. Paris. 1518. To the objection urged against this principle from the metaphorical designation of head given to a king, he answers: “Non est omnino simile inter caput verum et corpus verum, et inter caput mysticum et corpus mysticum. Caput verum est supra reliquam partem sui corporis, et tamen nego regem esse majoris potestatis quam reliquam partem sui regni,” &c. Ibid. fol. 62. b.“Rex utilitatem reipublicæ dissipans et evertens incorrigibilis, est deponendus a communitate cui præest. Rex non habet robur et auctoritatem nisi a regno cui libere præest,” Ibid. fol. 69. c. Speaking of the excision of a corrupt member from the human body, in illustration of the treatment of a tyrant, he says: “Cum licentia totius corporis veri tollitur hoc membrum; etiam facultate totius corporis mystici, tu, tamque minister com̃itatis, potes hunc tyrannum occidere, dum est licite condempnatus.” Tert. Sentent. fol. 139, c. d. Paris. 1517.

Note E.Concerning the Popish Ordination of Knox.—Some have hesitated to admit that Knox was in priest’s orders in the church of Rome: I think it unquestionable. The fact is attested both by protestant and popish writers. Beza says, “Cnoxius, igitur, (ut manifeste appareat totum hoc admirabile Domini opus esse) ad Joannis illius Majoris, celeberrimi inter Sophistas nominis, veluti pedes in Sanctandreæ oppido educatus, atque adeoSacerdos factus, apertaque celebri schola, quum jam videretur illo suo præceptore nihil inferior Sophista futurus, lucem tamen in tenebris et sibi et aliis accendit.” Icones Illustr. Viror. Ee. iij. Comp. Spotswood’s History, p. 265. Lond. 1677. Ninian Winget, in certain letters sent by him to Knox in the year 1561, says, “Ye renunce and estemis that ordinatioun null or erar wikit, be the quhilk somtyme ye war callit Schir Johne.” And again: “We can persave, be your awin allegiance, na power that ever ye had, except it quhilk was gevin to you in the sacrament of ordination, be auctoritie of priesthed. Quhilk auctoritie give ye esteme as nochtis, be reasoun it was gevin to you (as ye speik) by ane Papist Bishope,” &c. Winzet’s Letteris and Tractatis: Keith, Append. p. 212, 213. Winget’s drift was to prove, that Knox had no lawful call to the ministry: consequently, he would not have mentioned his popish ordination, if the fact had not been well known and undeniable. Nicol Burne, arguing on the same point, allows that Knox had received the order of priesthood from the Romish church. Disputation concerning the Controversit Headdis of Religion, p. 128. Paris, 1581.And in a scurrilous poem against the ministers of Scotland, printed at the end of that book, he calls him,—————— that fals apostat priest,Enemie to Christ, and mannis salvatioun,Your maister Knox.The objection of the Roman Catholics to the legality of our Reformer’s vocation, was, that although he had received the power of order, he wanted that of jurisdiction; these two being distinct according to the canon law, “The powere of ordere is not sufficient to ane man to preache, bot he man have also jurisdictione over thame to whom he preaches. Johann Kmnox resavit never sic jurisdictione fra the Roman kirk to preache in the realme of Scotland: thairfoir suppoise he receavit from it the ordere of priestheade, yet he had na pouar to preache, nor to lauchfullie administrat the Sacramentes.” Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 128.

Note E.

Concerning the Popish Ordination of Knox.—Some have hesitated to admit that Knox was in priest’s orders in the church of Rome: I think it unquestionable. The fact is attested both by protestant and popish writers. Beza says, “Cnoxius, igitur, (ut manifeste appareat totum hoc admirabile Domini opus esse) ad Joannis illius Majoris, celeberrimi inter Sophistas nominis, veluti pedes in Sanctandreæ oppido educatus, atque adeoSacerdos factus, apertaque celebri schola, quum jam videretur illo suo præceptore nihil inferior Sophista futurus, lucem tamen in tenebris et sibi et aliis accendit.” Icones Illustr. Viror. Ee. iij. Comp. Spotswood’s History, p. 265. Lond. 1677. Ninian Winget, in certain letters sent by him to Knox in the year 1561, says, “Ye renunce and estemis that ordinatioun null or erar wikit, be the quhilk somtyme ye war callit Schir Johne.” And again: “We can persave, be your awin allegiance, na power that ever ye had, except it quhilk was gevin to you in the sacrament of ordination, be auctoritie of priesthed. Quhilk auctoritie give ye esteme as nochtis, be reasoun it was gevin to you (as ye speik) by ane Papist Bishope,” &c. Winzet’s Letteris and Tractatis: Keith, Append. p. 212, 213. Winget’s drift was to prove, that Knox had no lawful call to the ministry: consequently, he would not have mentioned his popish ordination, if the fact had not been well known and undeniable. Nicol Burne, arguing on the same point, allows that Knox had received the order of priesthood from the Romish church. Disputation concerning the Controversit Headdis of Religion, p. 128. Paris, 1581.And in a scurrilous poem against the ministers of Scotland, printed at the end of that book, he calls him,

—————— that fals apostat priest,Enemie to Christ, and mannis salvatioun,Your maister Knox.

—————— that fals apostat priest,Enemie to Christ, and mannis salvatioun,Your maister Knox.

—————— that fals apostat priest,

Enemie to Christ, and mannis salvatioun,

Your maister Knox.

The objection of the Roman Catholics to the legality of our Reformer’s vocation, was, that although he had received the power of order, he wanted that of jurisdiction; these two being distinct according to the canon law, “The powere of ordere is not sufficient to ane man to preache, bot he man have also jurisdictione over thame to whom he preaches. Johann Kmnox resavit never sic jurisdictione fra the Roman kirk to preache in the realme of Scotland: thairfoir suppoise he receavit from it the ordere of priestheade, yet he had na pouar to preache, nor to lauchfullie administrat the Sacramentes.” Nicol Burne’s Disputation, p. 128.

Note F.Number of Scottish Monks.—We have no goodMonasticonof Scotland; and it is now impossible to ascertain the exact number of regular clergy, or even religious houses, that were in this country. The best and most particular account of the introduction of the different monastic orders from England and the Continent is contained in the first volume of Mr Chalmers’s Caledonia. Dr Jamieson, in his history of the ancient Culdees, lately published, has traced, with much attention, the measures pursued for suppressing the ancient monks, to make way for the new orders which were immediately dependent upon Rome. In Spotswood’s Account, published at the end of Keith’s Catalogue of Bishops, 170 religious houses are enumerated; but his account is defective. Mr Dalyell, upon the authority of a MS., has stated the number of the monks and nuns in this country as amounting only to 1114, about the period of the Reformation. Cursory remarks prefixed to Scottish Poems of the 16th century, vol. i. p. 38, 39. Edin. 1801. Taking the number of monasteries according to Spotswood’s account, thiswould allow only seven persons to each house on an average, a number incredibly small. It will be still smaller, if we suppose that there were 260 religious houses, as stated by Mr Dalyell in another publication. Fragments of Scottish History, p. 11, 28. In the year 1542, there were 200 monks in Melrose alone. Ibid. The number in the abbey of Dunfermline seems to have varied from 30 to 50. Dalyell’s Tract on Monastic Antiquities, p. 13. And Paisley, Elgin, and Arbroath, were not inferior to it in their endowments.In general it may be observed, that the passion for the monastic life appears not to have been on the increase even in the early part of the 16th century. But if we would form an estimate of the number of the monks, we must allow for a great diminution from 1538 to 1559. During that period, many of them, and especially the younger ones, embraced the reformed opinions, and deserted the convents. Cald. MS. i. 97, 100, 151. When the monastery of the Greyfriars at Perth was destroyed in 1559, only eight monks belonged to it. Knox, Historie, p. 128.

Note F.

Number of Scottish Monks.—We have no goodMonasticonof Scotland; and it is now impossible to ascertain the exact number of regular clergy, or even religious houses, that were in this country. The best and most particular account of the introduction of the different monastic orders from England and the Continent is contained in the first volume of Mr Chalmers’s Caledonia. Dr Jamieson, in his history of the ancient Culdees, lately published, has traced, with much attention, the measures pursued for suppressing the ancient monks, to make way for the new orders which were immediately dependent upon Rome. In Spotswood’s Account, published at the end of Keith’s Catalogue of Bishops, 170 religious houses are enumerated; but his account is defective. Mr Dalyell, upon the authority of a MS., has stated the number of the monks and nuns in this country as amounting only to 1114, about the period of the Reformation. Cursory remarks prefixed to Scottish Poems of the 16th century, vol. i. p. 38, 39. Edin. 1801. Taking the number of monasteries according to Spotswood’s account, thiswould allow only seven persons to each house on an average, a number incredibly small. It will be still smaller, if we suppose that there were 260 religious houses, as stated by Mr Dalyell in another publication. Fragments of Scottish History, p. 11, 28. In the year 1542, there were 200 monks in Melrose alone. Ibid. The number in the abbey of Dunfermline seems to have varied from 30 to 50. Dalyell’s Tract on Monastic Antiquities, p. 13. And Paisley, Elgin, and Arbroath, were not inferior to it in their endowments.

In general it may be observed, that the passion for the monastic life appears not to have been on the increase even in the early part of the 16th century. But if we would form an estimate of the number of the monks, we must allow for a great diminution from 1538 to 1559. During that period, many of them, and especially the younger ones, embraced the reformed opinions, and deserted the convents. Cald. MS. i. 97, 100, 151. When the monastery of the Greyfriars at Perth was destroyed in 1559, only eight monks belonged to it. Knox, Historie, p. 128.

Note G.Of the Corpse‑present.—This was a forced benevolence, not due by any law, or canon of the church, at least in Scotland. It was demanded by the vicar, and seems to have been distinct from the ordinary dues exacted for the interment of the body, and deliverance of the soul from purgatory. This perquisite consisted, in country parishes, of the best cow which belonged to the deceased, and the uppermost cloth or covering of his bed, or the finest of his body‑clothes. It has been suggested, that it was exacted on pretext of dues which the person might have failed to pay during his lifetime. But whatever might afterwards be made the pretext, I think it most probable that the clergy borrowed the hint from the perquisites common in feudal times. The “cors‑presant kow” answers to the “hereyield horse,” which was paid to a landlord on the death of his tenant. The uppermost cloth seems to have been a perquisite belonging to persons occupying different offices. When Bishop Lesley was relieved from the Tower of London, a demandof this kind was made upon him. “The gentleman‑porter of the Tower (says he) retained my satin gown as due to him, because it was myuppermost‑clothwhen I entered in the Tower.” Negotiations, in Anderson’s Collections, iii. 247.The corpse‑present was not confined to Scotland. We find the English House of Commons complaining of it, in 1530. Fox, 907, edit. 1596. It was exacted with great rigour in Scotland; and if any vicar, more humane than the rest, passed from the demand, he gave an unpardonable offence to his brethren. Lindsay of Pitscottie’s Hist. p. 151, folio edit. Edin. 1728. Fox, 1153. It was felt as a very galling oppression, and is often mentioned with indignation in the writings of Sir David Lindsay.Schir, be quhat law, tell me quharefor, or why,That ane vickar suld tak fra me three ky?Ane for my father, and for my wyfe ane uther,And the third kow he tuke for Mald my mother.They haif na law, exceptand consuetude,Quhilk law to them is sufficient and gude.And als the vicar, as I trow,He will nocht faill to tak ane kowAnd upmaist claith, thocht babis thame ban,From ane pure selie husbandman;Quhen that he lyis for til de,Having small bairnis twa or thre,And hes thre ky withoutin mo,The vicar must have ane of tho,With the gray cloke that happis the bed,Howbeit that he be purelye cled;And gif the wyfe de on the morne,Thocht all the babis suld be forlorne,The uther kow he cliekis away,With hir pure cote of roplock gray;And gif, within twa days or thre,The eldest chyld hapinis to de,Of the third kow he will be sure.Quhen he hes all then under his cure,And father and mother baith ar deid,Beg mon the babis, without remeid.Chalmers’s Lindsay, ii. 7, 8, iii. 105.When the alarming progress of the new opinions threatened the overthrow of the whole establishment, the clergy professed their willingness to remit, or at least to moderate, this shameful tribute. But they did not make this concession until a remonstrance on the subject was presented by a number of persons who were attached to the Roman catholic faith. This remonstrance was laid before the Provincial Council in 1558–9, and contains the following article, which serves to corroborate the strong statement which the poet has given of the rigour of the clergy in extorting these benevolences. “Item, Because yat ye corps presentes, kow, and finest claith, and the silver commonlie callit the kirk richts, and Pasch offrands, quhilk is taken at Pasch fra men and women for distribution of ye sacraments of ye blessit body and blud of Jesus Christ, were at ye beginning but as offrands and gifts, at the discretion and benevolence of the givar only; and now be distance of tym, ye kirkmen usis to compell men to ye paying yarof be authority and jurisdiction, sua that yai will not only fulminat yar sentence of cursing, but als stop and debar men and women to cum to ye reddy using of ye sacraments of haly kirk, quhile yai be sattisfiet yarof with all rigor: quhilk thing has na ground of ye law of God, nor halie kirk, and als is veray sclandrous, and gives occasion to the puir to murmur gretymly againes ye state ecclesiastick for the doing of ye premissis; and therefore it is thocht expedient yat ane reformation be maid of ye premissis, and that sic things be na mair usit in tymes to cum within this realm, at ye least yat na man be compellit be authority of haly kirk to pay ye premissis; but yat it shall onlie remane in the free will of the giver to gif and offir sic things be way of almous, and for uphalding of ye priests and ministers of the halie kirk, as his conscience and charitie moves him to: and quhair ye curatis and ministers forsaids, has not eneuch of yar sustentation by the saids kirk richts, that ye ordinaries every man within his awin diocesie take order, that the persons and uplifters of ye uther deutys perteining to the kirk, contributs to yar sustentationeffeirindlie.” Wilkins, Concilia Magnæ Britanniæ, tom. iv. p. 208.Upon this, the council came to the following curious resolution on the subject: That to “take away the murmurs of those who spoke against mortuaries,” when any person died, his goods, after paying his debts, should be divided into due portions (debitas partes), and if thedead’s part(defuncti pars) [seeNote X] did not exceed ten pounds Scots, the vicar should compound for his mortuary and uppermost cloth by taking forty shillings; if it was under ten pounds, and not below twenty shillings, that he should compound according to the above proportion, (pro rata quadraginta solidorum de decem libris;) but if it was under twenty shillings, that the vicar should make no demand. With respect to barons and burgesses, and all persons whose portion exceeded ten pounds, the old custom was to remain in force; and the ordinary remedy was to be used against those who should make wrong inventories;i.e.they should be subjected to excommunication and its penalties.—With respect topasch‑offerings, andsmall tithes, the council decreed, that “for avoiding popular murmur, especially at the time of Easter,” the vicars should, a little before Lent, in the month of February, settle (or, make an agreement, rationem ineant) with their parishioners for their small tithes, both personal and mixed, and also for other offerings due to the church (aliis quoque oblationibus ecclesiæ debitis); and that there should be no exactions during Easter, although spontaneous oblations might still be received at that time. Can. Concil. 21. and 32: Wilkins, Concil. ut supra, p. 214, 216.It appears from this, how very cautious the clergy were in their plans of reform, and how eagerly they clung to the most illegal and invidious claims, at the very time when they were in the utmost danger of being deprived of all their usurped prerogatives and possessions. Lord Hailes’s words need explication, when he says that “the 32d canon [of this council] abolishes oblations at Easter.” Provincial Councils, p. 40.I need scarcely add, that all these exactions were abolished at the establishment of the Reformation. “The uppermost claith, corps‑present, clerk‑maile, the pasche‑offering, teind‑aile, and allhandlings upaland, can neither be required nor received of good conscience.” First Book of Discipline, p. 48. Printed Anno 1621. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 563.

Note G.

Of the Corpse‑present.—This was a forced benevolence, not due by any law, or canon of the church, at least in Scotland. It was demanded by the vicar, and seems to have been distinct from the ordinary dues exacted for the interment of the body, and deliverance of the soul from purgatory. This perquisite consisted, in country parishes, of the best cow which belonged to the deceased, and the uppermost cloth or covering of his bed, or the finest of his body‑clothes. It has been suggested, that it was exacted on pretext of dues which the person might have failed to pay during his lifetime. But whatever might afterwards be made the pretext, I think it most probable that the clergy borrowed the hint from the perquisites common in feudal times. The “cors‑presant kow” answers to the “hereyield horse,” which was paid to a landlord on the death of his tenant. The uppermost cloth seems to have been a perquisite belonging to persons occupying different offices. When Bishop Lesley was relieved from the Tower of London, a demandof this kind was made upon him. “The gentleman‑porter of the Tower (says he) retained my satin gown as due to him, because it was myuppermost‑clothwhen I entered in the Tower.” Negotiations, in Anderson’s Collections, iii. 247.

The corpse‑present was not confined to Scotland. We find the English House of Commons complaining of it, in 1530. Fox, 907, edit. 1596. It was exacted with great rigour in Scotland; and if any vicar, more humane than the rest, passed from the demand, he gave an unpardonable offence to his brethren. Lindsay of Pitscottie’s Hist. p. 151, folio edit. Edin. 1728. Fox, 1153. It was felt as a very galling oppression, and is often mentioned with indignation in the writings of Sir David Lindsay.

Schir, be quhat law, tell me quharefor, or why,That ane vickar suld tak fra me three ky?Ane for my father, and for my wyfe ane uther,And the third kow he tuke for Mald my mother.They haif na law, exceptand consuetude,Quhilk law to them is sufficient and gude.And als the vicar, as I trow,He will nocht faill to tak ane kowAnd upmaist claith, thocht babis thame ban,From ane pure selie husbandman;Quhen that he lyis for til de,Having small bairnis twa or thre,And hes thre ky withoutin mo,The vicar must have ane of tho,With the gray cloke that happis the bed,Howbeit that he be purelye cled;And gif the wyfe de on the morne,Thocht all the babis suld be forlorne,The uther kow he cliekis away,With hir pure cote of roplock gray;And gif, within twa days or thre,The eldest chyld hapinis to de,Of the third kow he will be sure.Quhen he hes all then under his cure,And father and mother baith ar deid,Beg mon the babis, without remeid.Chalmers’s Lindsay, ii. 7, 8, iii. 105.

Schir, be quhat law, tell me quharefor, or why,That ane vickar suld tak fra me three ky?Ane for my father, and for my wyfe ane uther,And the third kow he tuke for Mald my mother.They haif na law, exceptand consuetude,Quhilk law to them is sufficient and gude.And als the vicar, as I trow,He will nocht faill to tak ane kowAnd upmaist claith, thocht babis thame ban,From ane pure selie husbandman;Quhen that he lyis for til de,Having small bairnis twa or thre,And hes thre ky withoutin mo,The vicar must have ane of tho,With the gray cloke that happis the bed,Howbeit that he be purelye cled;And gif the wyfe de on the morne,Thocht all the babis suld be forlorne,The uther kow he cliekis away,With hir pure cote of roplock gray;And gif, within twa days or thre,The eldest chyld hapinis to de,Of the third kow he will be sure.Quhen he hes all then under his cure,And father and mother baith ar deid,Beg mon the babis, without remeid.Chalmers’s Lindsay, ii. 7, 8, iii. 105.

Schir, be quhat law, tell me quharefor, or why,

That ane vickar suld tak fra me three ky?

Ane for my father, and for my wyfe ane uther,

And the third kow he tuke for Mald my mother.

They haif na law, exceptand consuetude,

Quhilk law to them is sufficient and gude.

And als the vicar, as I trow,

He will nocht faill to tak ane kow

And upmaist claith, thocht babis thame ban,

From ane pure selie husbandman;

Quhen that he lyis for til de,

Having small bairnis twa or thre,

And hes thre ky withoutin mo,

The vicar must have ane of tho,

With the gray cloke that happis the bed,

Howbeit that he be purelye cled;

And gif the wyfe de on the morne,

Thocht all the babis suld be forlorne,

The uther kow he cliekis away,

With hir pure cote of roplock gray;

And gif, within twa days or thre,

The eldest chyld hapinis to de,

Of the third kow he will be sure.

Quhen he hes all then under his cure,

And father and mother baith ar deid,

Beg mon the babis, without remeid.

Chalmers’s Lindsay, ii. 7, 8, iii. 105.

When the alarming progress of the new opinions threatened the overthrow of the whole establishment, the clergy professed their willingness to remit, or at least to moderate, this shameful tribute. But they did not make this concession until a remonstrance on the subject was presented by a number of persons who were attached to the Roman catholic faith. This remonstrance was laid before the Provincial Council in 1558–9, and contains the following article, which serves to corroborate the strong statement which the poet has given of the rigour of the clergy in extorting these benevolences. “Item, Because yat ye corps presentes, kow, and finest claith, and the silver commonlie callit the kirk richts, and Pasch offrands, quhilk is taken at Pasch fra men and women for distribution of ye sacraments of ye blessit body and blud of Jesus Christ, were at ye beginning but as offrands and gifts, at the discretion and benevolence of the givar only; and now be distance of tym, ye kirkmen usis to compell men to ye paying yarof be authority and jurisdiction, sua that yai will not only fulminat yar sentence of cursing, but als stop and debar men and women to cum to ye reddy using of ye sacraments of haly kirk, quhile yai be sattisfiet yarof with all rigor: quhilk thing has na ground of ye law of God, nor halie kirk, and als is veray sclandrous, and gives occasion to the puir to murmur gretymly againes ye state ecclesiastick for the doing of ye premissis; and therefore it is thocht expedient yat ane reformation be maid of ye premissis, and that sic things be na mair usit in tymes to cum within this realm, at ye least yat na man be compellit be authority of haly kirk to pay ye premissis; but yat it shall onlie remane in the free will of the giver to gif and offir sic things be way of almous, and for uphalding of ye priests and ministers of the halie kirk, as his conscience and charitie moves him to: and quhair ye curatis and ministers forsaids, has not eneuch of yar sustentation by the saids kirk richts, that ye ordinaries every man within his awin diocesie take order, that the persons and uplifters of ye uther deutys perteining to the kirk, contributs to yar sustentationeffeirindlie.” Wilkins, Concilia Magnæ Britanniæ, tom. iv. p. 208.

Upon this, the council came to the following curious resolution on the subject: That to “take away the murmurs of those who spoke against mortuaries,” when any person died, his goods, after paying his debts, should be divided into due portions (debitas partes), and if thedead’s part(defuncti pars) [seeNote X] did not exceed ten pounds Scots, the vicar should compound for his mortuary and uppermost cloth by taking forty shillings; if it was under ten pounds, and not below twenty shillings, that he should compound according to the above proportion, (pro rata quadraginta solidorum de decem libris;) but if it was under twenty shillings, that the vicar should make no demand. With respect to barons and burgesses, and all persons whose portion exceeded ten pounds, the old custom was to remain in force; and the ordinary remedy was to be used against those who should make wrong inventories;i.e.they should be subjected to excommunication and its penalties.—With respect topasch‑offerings, andsmall tithes, the council decreed, that “for avoiding popular murmur, especially at the time of Easter,” the vicars should, a little before Lent, in the month of February, settle (or, make an agreement, rationem ineant) with their parishioners for their small tithes, both personal and mixed, and also for other offerings due to the church (aliis quoque oblationibus ecclesiæ debitis); and that there should be no exactions during Easter, although spontaneous oblations might still be received at that time. Can. Concil. 21. and 32: Wilkins, Concil. ut supra, p. 214, 216.

It appears from this, how very cautious the clergy were in their plans of reform, and how eagerly they clung to the most illegal and invidious claims, at the very time when they were in the utmost danger of being deprived of all their usurped prerogatives and possessions. Lord Hailes’s words need explication, when he says that “the 32d canon [of this council] abolishes oblations at Easter.” Provincial Councils, p. 40.

I need scarcely add, that all these exactions were abolished at the establishment of the Reformation. “The uppermost claith, corps‑present, clerk‑maile, the pasche‑offering, teind‑aile, and allhandlings upaland, can neither be required nor received of good conscience.” First Book of Discipline, p. 48. Printed Anno 1621. Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 563.

Back to IndexNext