Part 22

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 and {345} Zuinglians, 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 foreign {346} seminaries, 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 the {347} custom 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, Footnote 16.

_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. {348} “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, Footnote 21.

_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 adeo SACERDOS 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. {349} 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 F, Footnote 30.

_Number of Scottish Monks._――We have no good _Monasticon_ of 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, this {350} would 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, Footnote 36.

_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 demand {351} of 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 my _uppermost‑cloth_ when 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 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, {352} 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 sustentation {353} effeirindlie.” 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 the _dead’s part_ (defuncti pars) [see Note 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 to _pasch‑offerings_, and _small 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 all {354} handlings 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 H, Footnote 47.

_Scottish Martyrs, and Prosecutions for Heresy._――We are indebted to John Fox, the industrious English martyrologist, for a great part of the facts respecting our countrymen who suffered for the reformed doctrine. John Davidson, minister of Prestonpans, composed, in Latin, an account of Scottish martyrs, which, if it had been preserved, would have furnished us with more full information respecting them. Calderwood, however, had the use of it, when he compiled his history. A late author has said, that “most of those martyred seem to have been weak illiterate men; nay, they appear even to have been deficient in intellect.” Cursory Remarks, prefixed to Scottish Poems of 16th century, i. 24. I must take it for granted, that this author had not in his eye Patrick Hamilton, whose vigorous understanding discovered truth in the midst of darkness worse than Cimmerian, who obtained the praises of Luther, Melanchthon, and Lambert of Avignon, and of whom a modern historian has said that he received “the eternal fame of being the proto‑martyr of the freedom of the human mind.” Nor George Wishart, whose learning, fortitude, and mild benevolence, have been celebrated by writers of every description. But even among those who suffered from Hamilton to Wishart, there was scarcely one who was not above the ordinary class, both as to talents and learning.

Henry Forrest, who suffered at St Andrews in 1530, for possessing a copy of the New Testament, and affirming that Patrick Hamilton was a true martyr, had been, though a young man, invested with the orders of Bennet and Colet. Fox, 895. Knox, 19. Spotswood, 65. David Straiton was a gentleman, and brother to the laird of Lauriston. He was instructed in the protestant principles by John Erskine of Dun, who had newly arrived from his travels. In 1534, he was committed to the flames at Greenside, in the neighbourhood of Edinburgh. His fellow‑sufferer, {355} Norman Gourlay, was in secular orders, and “a man of reasonabell eruditioun.” He had been abroad, and had married upon his return, which was the chief offence for which he suffered. “For,” says Pitscottie, “they would thole no priest to marry, but they would punish, and burn him to the dead; but if he had used then ten thousand whores, he had not been burnt.” History, p. 150, 152. Fox, 896. Knox, 21, 22. Spotswood, 66. In 1538, two young men of the most interesting characters suffered, with the greatest heroism, at Glasgow. The one was Jerom Russel, a cordelier friar, “a young man of a meek nature, quick spirit, and of good letteris;” the other was a young gentleman of the name of Kennedy, only eighteen years of age, and “of excellent ingyne for Scottische poetry.” Knox, 22. Spotsw. 67. Keith, 9. During the same year, five persons were burnt on the Castle‑hill of Edinburgh: Robert Forrester was a gentleman; Sir Duncan Simson was a secular priest; Beveridge and Kyllor were friars. The last of these had (according to the custom of the times) composed a tragedy on the crucifixion of Christ, in which he painted, in a very lively manner, the conduct of the popish clergy, under that of the Jewish priests. Ibid.