A number of Ferguson’s witty sayings are recorded by his son‑in‑law, John Row. James VI. who resided frequently at Dunfermline, used to take great delight in his conversation. “David,” said James to him one day, “why may not I have bishops in Scotland as well as they have in England?”—“Yea, Sir,” replied Ferguson, “ye may have bishops here; but remember ye must make us all bishops, else will ye never content us. For if ye set up ten or twelve lowns over honest men’s heads, (honest men will not have your antichristian prelacies,) and give them more thousands to debauch and mispend than honest men have hundreds or scores, we wil never al be content. We ar Paul’s bishopis, Sir, Christ’s bishopis; ha’d us as we are.”—“The d—l haid aills you,” replied James, “but that ye would all be alike; ye cannot abide ony tobe abone you.”—“Sir!” said the minister, “do not ban.” Row’s Coronis to his Historie of the Kirk, p. 314. Ferguson seems to have amused himself with some of those incidents which were generally reckoned ominous. The king having once asked him, very seriously, what he thought was the reason that the Master of Gray’s house shook during the night, he answered, “Why should not the devil rock his awin bairns?” Having met at St Andrews along with other commissioners of the church, to protest against the inauguration of Patrick Adamson as archbishop of that see, one came in and told them, that there was a crow “crouping” on the roof of the church. “That’s a bad omen,” said he, shaking his head, “for inauguration is from avium garritu, the raven is omnimodo a black bird, and it cries corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.” Row’s Historie, p. 40.
It may not be improper to insert here the inscription on the tomb of John Row, the historian to whom I have so often been indebted, who was third son of the learned minister of Perth, and married Grizzel, daughter to David Ferguson of Dunfermline. It is on his monument in the churchyard of Carnock.
“Hic jacet M. Jo. Row, Pastor hujus Ecclesiæ fidelissimus. Vixit acerrimus veritatis et fœderis Scoticani assertor, Hierarchiæ pseudo‑episcopalis, et Romanorum rituum, cordicitus osor, in frequenti symmystarum apostasia cubi instar constantissimus.—Duxit Gricellidam Fergusonam, cum qua annos 51 conjunctissime vixit. Huic ecclesiæ annos 54 praefuit. Obiit Junij 26to, anno domini 1646. Ætatis 78. Obiit et illa Januarij 30mo, 1659.”
Order of Procedure at the first Meetings of the General Assembly.—The first appointment of a moderator was in December 1563. “It was proponit be the haill assemblie yat ane moderator suld be appointit for avoyding confusioun in reasoning.” Buik of the Universal Kirk, p. 8. The Assembly which met at Perth, August 1572, ordained, as a perpetual law, that no person of whatever estate take in hand to speak without license asked and given by the moderator, that moderation should be kept in reasoning, and silence when commanded by the moderator, under pain of removal fromthe assembly, and not to re‑enter during that convention. Ibid. p. 55. In July 1568, to correct evils, “be reason of the pluralitie and confusion of voices,” it was enacted, that none should have power to vote but superintendents, commissioners appointed to visit kirks, ministers “brought with yame, presented as habile to reasone, and having knowledge to judge,” and commissioners of burghs, shires, and universities. The ministers were to be chosen at the synodal convention of the diocese, by consent of the rest of the ministry and gentlemen that shall convene at the said synodal convention; commissioners of burghs by “the counsell and kirk of their awn townes.”—“None to be admitted without sufficient commission or wreit.” And to prevent a monopoly of power, they were to be changed from assembly to assembly. Ibid, p. 38. The assembly, March 15 69 ⁄ 70, settled the following order of procedure. After sermon and prayer by the former moderator, 1. A new moderator to be chosen. 2. Superintendents, commissioners, &c. to be tried. First, the superintendents being removed, enquiry was made of the ministers and commissioners of their bounds if they had any charges to lay against them as to neglect of duty, &c. If any charge was brought, it was examined, and sentence passed. The same order was observed in the trial of the other members of assembly. 3. The case of penitents and persons under censure to be considered. Lastly, The business left undecided by last assembly, or brought before the present, to be taken up. Ibid. p. 47.
Epistolary Correspondence between Knox and Calvin.—In a letter, dated 28th August, 1559, Knox requests Calvin’s opinion on the two following questions. 1. Whether bastards, the children of idolaters and excommunicated persons, should be admitted to baptism, before their parents gave satisfaction to the church, or they themselves were able to require it? 2. Whether monks and popish priests, who neither serve the church, nor are capable of serving it, although they have renounced their errors, ought to have the annual rents of the church paid to them? Knox had maintained the negative on the last question. The letter is said to be written raptim. “Plura scribere vetat febris qua crucior, laborum moles qua premor,et Gallorum bombardæ, qui, ut nos opprimant, appulerunt.” (Comp. Historie, p. 161.) Calvin, in a leter dated Nov. 8, 1559, answers, that it was his opinion and that of his colleagues, on the first question, That the sacrament of baptism was not to be administered to those who were without the church, nor to any without proper sponsors; but the promise (upon which the right was founded) was not confined to the posterity in the first degree: and therefore those who were descended from godly parents were to be viewed as belonging to the church, although their parents or even grand‑parents had become apostates, and such children were not to be refused baptism, provided persons appeared as sponsors, engaging for their religious education. “Adde quod alia est nunc renascentis ecclesiæ ratio, quam rite formatæ et compositæ.” (Comp. Dunlop, ii. 573.) On the second question, he says, That although those who performed no service in the church had not a just claim to be supported by its funds, still, as the popish clergy had brought themselves under engagements in times of ignorance, and had consumed a part of their lives in idleness, it seemed harsh to deprive them of all support. He therefore advises a middle course to be adopted. Calvini Epistolæ et Responsa, p. 516–520. Hanoviæ, 1597. Ibid. p. 201, 202, in Oper. tom. ix. Amstælod. 1667.
From another letter of Calvin to Knox, dated April 23, 1561, it appears that the Genevese Reformer had been consulted by our countrymen on some other points of considerable difficulty,—most probably those questions on which the nobility and the ministers differed. He wrote them accordingly, but soon after was applied to a second time for his opinion on the same subject, as his first letter had miscarried. Knowing that his judgment was not altogether agreeable to some of his correspondents, he suspected that they wished to draw from him an answer more favourable to their own sentiments, and expressed his dissatisfaction at such conduct. Knox, who appears to have been employed in the correspondence, was grieved at this suspicion, and vindicated himself from the imputation. Calvin, in this letter, apologises for his severity, and assures him that he never entertained any suspicion of his integrity. “Te vero dolose quicquam egisse, neque dixi, neque suspicatus sum.—Ac mihi dolet, quod exciderat ex ore meo, sic in animum tuum penetrasse, ut putares malæ fidei aut astutiæ, a qua te remotumesse judico, fuisse insimulatam. Facessat igitur metus ille vel cura.” In both letters, Calvin signifies his high satisfaction at the wonderful success of the Reformation in Scotland. The conclusion of the last is expressive of the unaffected piety of the writer, and his warm regard for his correspondent. “Hic versamur inter multa discrimina. Una tantum cælestis præsidii fiducia nos a trepidatione eximit: quanvis non simus metu vacui. Vale, eximie vir, et ex animo colende frater. Dominus tibi semper adsit, te gubernet, tueatur, ac sustentet sua virtute.” Ut supra, p. 564–566, et in alter. edit. p. 150.