FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[1]These MS. copies are sometimes referred to asAbstractsorAbridgments. Neither of these characters, however, strictly speaking, is attributable to them; andExcerptsorAbbreviatesare the more appropriate designation: for although in some instances there are chasms occasioned by mutilation of the original Record whence they were copied, and although they do not contain all the proceedings at every sederunt, there is the strongest presumption, arising both from internal and from authentic collateral evidence, that so far as these excerpts extend, they are substantially and truly fair transcripts from the original Record. This, however, is not the place to discuss this point.[2]Vide pages203,207,314,315.[3]See printed Acts of Assembly, 1638, 1639, and “Records of Kirk of Scotland,” pp. 22, 23, and 205.[4]Vide Acts of Assembly, 1638, and “Records of the Kirk of Scotland,” Acts, Sessio 7, Nov. 28, p. 22; Sessio 16, Dec. 8, p. 28; Sessio 23, 24, Dec. 17, 18, p. 34, &c.[5]Pp. 500, 507, 513, 523, 534, 558, 560, 562, 567, 572, 574, 589, 598, 668.[6]Report of Committee on Church Patronage—Scotland, pp. 355-375, 450, 451.[7]Acts of Parl. vol. ii. p. 526.[8]Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 535. (Mr Thomson’s Edit.)[9]Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 535. (Mr Thomson’s edit.)[10]That is, theMountor Highlands; probably the Grampian range.[11]Acts, vol. ii. p. 606.[12]Vide Acts,vol. ii. p. 548.[13]Acts of Parl. vol. iii. p. 35.[14]The several passages enclosed in brackets were originally in the minutes, but are marked as delete in the printed Acts, conformably to the record.[15]Acts, vol. iii. p. 23, renewed as passed in 1560.[16]Calderwood and Crawford make this Assembly inApril1577.[17]Note in an old hand on the copy transcribed,—“Here in ane old folio MS. I find yrar two leaves and a page blank, qchI suppose is pairt of that which was torn out by Adamson, B. of St Andrews. I mark the after blanks as I find them.”[18]“In an old folio MS. I find 2 leaves here blank.” Note on copy, in an old handwriting.[19]“In the old folio MSS. there is here a leafe blank.” Note on copy.[20]“Here in the foresaid MSS. there is a leafe blank. Calderwood remarks here as followis, p. 92:—‘There wanteth here in this Register, if my copy be conform, a part of the third Session—the whole 4, 5, 6, and part of the 7, riven out as the rest of the minuts by the sacrilegiouse hand in the year 1584, qrthe submissions of the Bischops of Glasgow, St Andrews, and the Isles, were set down; yet I find in Mr James Carmichael his Observations, who was present as Commissioner to this Assembly, that they agried,’ &c. Vide Print.”—Note on copy of Book transcribed.[21]“Here Cromarty’s Copy, and the originall, wants three or four leaves.” Note on MS. copy.[22]“Here in the MSS. there is a blank of a leafe, and on the margine this—‘Condemnation of Bishops reiterat.’” Note on copy.[23]Notes on Copy transcribed.—“Calderwood here inserts—Matters to be treated in Provinciall Assembles, p. 208, and afterwards to be tryed in the Presbytry, p. 209.” “Cromarty’s copy here hath—Matters to be handled in yeProvincialls.”[24]Sic in MSS.[25]Notes on copytranscribed:—“In the MS. Minutes forcited, there are Minutes of two Assemblies, June 17, 1589, and March 3, 1589.“In the foresaid MSS. Fol. after this there followes thus in titulo:—17 Junii 1589, and 3 March 1590, and then a blank of four leaves.—N.B. That Calderwood passes the Assembly, June 17, 1589, altogether, and gives the Minutes of the Assembly, March 1590, p. 254.—Vide print. Mr Crawford has some accompt of the Assembly, June 17, 1589, distinct from the MS. Minutes, and passes Calderwood, Assembly, March 1590.”[26]The MSS. Minutes before cited add—“Here beginns the Fyfth Book.”[27]Acts, (Mr Thomson’s edit.) vol. iii. p. 58.[28]Acts, vol. iii. p. 89. A Commission to a similar effect appointed, 15th July 1578.—Acts, vol. iii. p. 105.[29]Acts, vol. iii. p. 95.[30]Acts, vol. iii. p. 137.[31]Acts, vol. iii. p. 137.[32]Acts, vol. iii. p. 211.[33]Acts, vol. iii. p. 210.[34]Acts, vol. iii. p. 212.[35]Acts, vol. iii. p. 292.[36]Ibid. p. 293.[37]Acts, vol. iii. p. 292.[38]Acts, vol. iii. p. 293.[39]Acts, vol. iii. p. 293.[40]Acts, vol. iii. p. 541.[41]Acts, vol. iii. p. 542.[42]Calderwood MS. vol. iv. p. 310.[43]Probably a clerical error.[44]“Calderwood and Crawford have 1596.” “In the MSS. this is 1595.” “This holds in the Fol. MSS.” [Notes in MS. copied.]There is some ambiguity as to the date of this Assembly, both as to year and month. In several sederunts “March” is interlined above “May,” which latter month is inconsistent with that in the first sederunt. It was evidently the first after the Assembly 1595.—Ed.[45]This Assembly ante-dated by the King.—Calderwood, p. 446. Letter from James Melvill and Howison.—Ibid.[46]Calderwood and Mr Crawford have it November. This Assembly postponed by proclamation.—Calderwood, p. 459.[47]Vide Acts of Assembly 1638—(4th Dec.)—Records of the Kirk of Scotland, p. 24.[48]Ibidem—Records, p. 205.[49]On the margin of each of the sections in this chapter, marked with asterisks, (viz. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31,) there is a reference written in precisely the same words: “Jac. 6, p. 12, c. 114, 3 Junie 1592.” This is in a handwriting, and in ink, evidently different from those in the text—and must have been superinduced subsequently to the act of Parliament 1592, to which these references plainly allude. The date and chapter, however, cited, do not coincide with those of the charter of the Presbyterian Kirk. In the common 12mo old edition of the Acts, the date isfifthJune, notthird, and the chapter is 116, not 114, as noted in these marginal references. But notwithstanding these discrepancies, it is extremely probable that the Presbytery of Haddington having, in obedience to the act of Assembly of Aug. 1590, subscribed the Book of Policie, in Sept. 1591, (the year before the act of 1592 was passed,) the Official Custodier of their copy had engrossed these marginal jottings upon it, soon after the passing of the act of Parliament 1592, for the purpose of pointing out those articles in the Book of Policie, which had beensanctioned by Parliament, so as tomarkwhat had been adopted, and to distinguish such articles from those which had not been acceded to. That this was the case may be inferred from a comparison of the terms of these articles, and of the act 1592.It may not be deemed much out of place to remark here, that we were not a little surprised to see in the pleadings from the bar in the Auchterarder case, and in the opinion of one of the Judges, an argument maintained, seemingly with much confidence, rested on certain marginal memoranda, said to be found in Spottiswood’s History, with reference to a conference held at Stirling, in 1578, betwixt Commissioners of the Estates and Commissioners of the Kirk; the ground of confidence in these memoranda being, that Spottiswood had “set down the form of policy as it was presented, with the notes oftheir agreementanddisagreement, as they stand in the original, which (says the Book)I have by me.”—(Spottiswood’s Hist. p. 289.)Now, all the argument alluded to is grounded on the hypothesis, that Spottiswood’sprintedHistory is an authentic and credible authority. But this is by no means the case: and without going into any lengthened statement, we shall suggest two objections which appear to render the Historyascribedto Archbishop Spottiswood, unworthy of credit. In the first place, the only MS. of the Archbishop’s work (reputed to be either the original or a revised copy) is in the Advocates’ Library, and in that MS. not one word of the passage quoted—of the Book of Policy—or of the marginal notes, is to be found; nor (so far as we can discover) any reference to these. And independently of this, the whole MS. is so much mangled and interpolated, and large additions made to it, that it is impossible, without strong collateral evidence, to assumeany thingin theprintedBook as bearing Spottiswood’s personal testimony. Butsecondly, there is aprima faciepresumption against the authenticity of that printed history, independently of its being destitute of any proper voucher. The Archbishop died in the end of the year 1639. In the publisher’s preface to the first edition of it, which was published in 1655, that is, sixteen years after the Archbishop’s death, we are told that “a copy of it lighted into ingenuous and noble hands;”—and in the close of the Life prefixed, we are told that it “was like an infant of the Israelites in an ark of reeds.” This is the whole amount of information given with respect to the history generally ascribed to Spottiswood! That the unfortunate Prelate left a MS. history, or fragments, we have no doubt; but we have never seen any evidence to show, that the published book corresponds with what he had written; and therefore we conclude that that work, as we now have it, is altogether spurious, and that it cannot safely be relied on as an authority, much less as a record of the individualtestimonyof the Archbishop, whatever be its complexion, on any one point in the transactions of those times. There are various minute particulars in regard to the copy of the Book of Policie, and Notes in that work, which we may hereafter have occasion to notice, but which would be unsuitable in this place.[50]On the margin of the Haddington copy of the Book of Policy, opposite to this section, there is a note written, but not in the same handwriting as the Book itself. It seems to have been added as a scriptural authority for the provision in this article, and is in the following terms: “Tim. 5, 17. The eldars that rule wel are worthie of double honour, speciallie they which labour in word and doctrine.” And interjected and interlined with sections 26 and 27, are some lines, containing an extract from Beza’s translation of the New Testament, which, however, it is unnecessary to insert here.[51]In the other copy it is “according to the custome of his longanimitie.”[52]“Aberdeen.”[53]This transcript of the minutes of the Assembly 1606 is taken from the more ancient copy of the two in the Advocates’ Library, and this is the last Assembly the proceedings of which are contained in that copy. The acts of this Assembly are omitted at the proper place in the more modern copy which we have used, but interjected at a subsequent part of the volume among various miscellaneous documents not referable to that period. The more ancient copy, however, is now preferred.[54]The acts of this Assembly were ratified by act of the Parliament in 1612, a copy of which is inserted in the MS. of the Booke; but instead of including it here, it is annexed in the subjoined Appendix of contemporary documents.[55]There must be some mistake here. The 2d Session of this Assembly was on the 14th of August,—and if the 15th Session was on the 15th, the Assembly must have had thirteen sederunts in the course of one night. But the number is given as we have it in the MS.[56]None of the documents marked with an asterisk referred to in these minutes are to be found in either of the copies of theBooketo which we have had access. But the tenor will be supplied in the proper place, from the most authentic sources of information, if we can discover them.[57]The Confession here alluded to is not inserted in the MS. copied; but it will be given among the documentary illustrations in theNotes.

[1]These MS. copies are sometimes referred to asAbstractsorAbridgments. Neither of these characters, however, strictly speaking, is attributable to them; andExcerptsorAbbreviatesare the more appropriate designation: for although in some instances there are chasms occasioned by mutilation of the original Record whence they were copied, and although they do not contain all the proceedings at every sederunt, there is the strongest presumption, arising both from internal and from authentic collateral evidence, that so far as these excerpts extend, they are substantially and truly fair transcripts from the original Record. This, however, is not the place to discuss this point.

[2]Vide pages203,207,314,315.

[3]See printed Acts of Assembly, 1638, 1639, and “Records of Kirk of Scotland,” pp. 22, 23, and 205.

[4]Vide Acts of Assembly, 1638, and “Records of the Kirk of Scotland,” Acts, Sessio 7, Nov. 28, p. 22; Sessio 16, Dec. 8, p. 28; Sessio 23, 24, Dec. 17, 18, p. 34, &c.

[5]Pp. 500, 507, 513, 523, 534, 558, 560, 562, 567, 572, 574, 589, 598, 668.

[6]Report of Committee on Church Patronage—Scotland, pp. 355-375, 450, 451.

[7]Acts of Parl. vol. ii. p. 526.

[8]Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 535. (Mr Thomson’s Edit.)

[9]Acts of the Parliament of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 535. (Mr Thomson’s edit.)

[10]That is, theMountor Highlands; probably the Grampian range.

[11]Acts, vol. ii. p. 606.

[12]Vide Acts,vol. ii. p. 548.

[13]Acts of Parl. vol. iii. p. 35.

[14]The several passages enclosed in brackets were originally in the minutes, but are marked as delete in the printed Acts, conformably to the record.

[15]Acts, vol. iii. p. 23, renewed as passed in 1560.

[16]Calderwood and Crawford make this Assembly inApril1577.

[17]Note in an old hand on the copy transcribed,—“Here in ane old folio MS. I find yrar two leaves and a page blank, qchI suppose is pairt of that which was torn out by Adamson, B. of St Andrews. I mark the after blanks as I find them.”

[18]“In an old folio MS. I find 2 leaves here blank.” Note on copy, in an old handwriting.

[19]“In the old folio MSS. there is here a leafe blank.” Note on copy.

[20]“Here in the foresaid MSS. there is a leafe blank. Calderwood remarks here as followis, p. 92:—‘There wanteth here in this Register, if my copy be conform, a part of the third Session—the whole 4, 5, 6, and part of the 7, riven out as the rest of the minuts by the sacrilegiouse hand in the year 1584, qrthe submissions of the Bischops of Glasgow, St Andrews, and the Isles, were set down; yet I find in Mr James Carmichael his Observations, who was present as Commissioner to this Assembly, that they agried,’ &c. Vide Print.”—Note on copy of Book transcribed.

[21]“Here Cromarty’s Copy, and the originall, wants three or four leaves.” Note on MS. copy.

[22]“Here in the MSS. there is a blank of a leafe, and on the margine this—‘Condemnation of Bishops reiterat.’” Note on copy.

[23]Notes on Copy transcribed.—“Calderwood here inserts—Matters to be treated in Provinciall Assembles, p. 208, and afterwards to be tryed in the Presbytry, p. 209.” “Cromarty’s copy here hath—Matters to be handled in yeProvincialls.”

[24]Sic in MSS.

[25]Notes on copytranscribed:—“In the MS. Minutes forcited, there are Minutes of two Assemblies, June 17, 1589, and March 3, 1589.“In the foresaid MSS. Fol. after this there followes thus in titulo:—17 Junii 1589, and 3 March 1590, and then a blank of four leaves.—N.B. That Calderwood passes the Assembly, June 17, 1589, altogether, and gives the Minutes of the Assembly, March 1590, p. 254.—Vide print. Mr Crawford has some accompt of the Assembly, June 17, 1589, distinct from the MS. Minutes, and passes Calderwood, Assembly, March 1590.”

[25]Notes on copytranscribed:—

“In the MS. Minutes forcited, there are Minutes of two Assemblies, June 17, 1589, and March 3, 1589.

“In the foresaid MSS. Fol. after this there followes thus in titulo:—17 Junii 1589, and 3 March 1590, and then a blank of four leaves.—N.B. That Calderwood passes the Assembly, June 17, 1589, altogether, and gives the Minutes of the Assembly, March 1590, p. 254.—Vide print. Mr Crawford has some accompt of the Assembly, June 17, 1589, distinct from the MS. Minutes, and passes Calderwood, Assembly, March 1590.”

[26]The MSS. Minutes before cited add—“Here beginns the Fyfth Book.”

[27]Acts, (Mr Thomson’s edit.) vol. iii. p. 58.

[28]Acts, vol. iii. p. 89. A Commission to a similar effect appointed, 15th July 1578.—Acts, vol. iii. p. 105.

[29]Acts, vol. iii. p. 95.

[30]Acts, vol. iii. p. 137.

[31]Acts, vol. iii. p. 137.

[32]Acts, vol. iii. p. 211.

[33]Acts, vol. iii. p. 210.

[34]Acts, vol. iii. p. 212.

[35]Acts, vol. iii. p. 292.

[36]Ibid. p. 293.

[37]Acts, vol. iii. p. 292.

[38]Acts, vol. iii. p. 293.

[39]Acts, vol. iii. p. 293.

[40]Acts, vol. iii. p. 541.

[41]Acts, vol. iii. p. 542.

[42]Calderwood MS. vol. iv. p. 310.

[43]Probably a clerical error.

[44]“Calderwood and Crawford have 1596.” “In the MSS. this is 1595.” “This holds in the Fol. MSS.” [Notes in MS. copied.]There is some ambiguity as to the date of this Assembly, both as to year and month. In several sederunts “March” is interlined above “May,” which latter month is inconsistent with that in the first sederunt. It was evidently the first after the Assembly 1595.—Ed.

[44]“Calderwood and Crawford have 1596.” “In the MSS. this is 1595.” “This holds in the Fol. MSS.” [Notes in MS. copied.]

There is some ambiguity as to the date of this Assembly, both as to year and month. In several sederunts “March” is interlined above “May,” which latter month is inconsistent with that in the first sederunt. It was evidently the first after the Assembly 1595.—Ed.

[45]This Assembly ante-dated by the King.—Calderwood, p. 446. Letter from James Melvill and Howison.—Ibid.

[46]Calderwood and Mr Crawford have it November. This Assembly postponed by proclamation.—Calderwood, p. 459.

[47]Vide Acts of Assembly 1638—(4th Dec.)—Records of the Kirk of Scotland, p. 24.

[48]Ibidem—Records, p. 205.

[49]On the margin of each of the sections in this chapter, marked with asterisks, (viz. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31,) there is a reference written in precisely the same words: “Jac. 6, p. 12, c. 114, 3 Junie 1592.” This is in a handwriting, and in ink, evidently different from those in the text—and must have been superinduced subsequently to the act of Parliament 1592, to which these references plainly allude. The date and chapter, however, cited, do not coincide with those of the charter of the Presbyterian Kirk. In the common 12mo old edition of the Acts, the date isfifthJune, notthird, and the chapter is 116, not 114, as noted in these marginal references. But notwithstanding these discrepancies, it is extremely probable that the Presbytery of Haddington having, in obedience to the act of Assembly of Aug. 1590, subscribed the Book of Policie, in Sept. 1591, (the year before the act of 1592 was passed,) the Official Custodier of their copy had engrossed these marginal jottings upon it, soon after the passing of the act of Parliament 1592, for the purpose of pointing out those articles in the Book of Policie, which had beensanctioned by Parliament, so as tomarkwhat had been adopted, and to distinguish such articles from those which had not been acceded to. That this was the case may be inferred from a comparison of the terms of these articles, and of the act 1592.It may not be deemed much out of place to remark here, that we were not a little surprised to see in the pleadings from the bar in the Auchterarder case, and in the opinion of one of the Judges, an argument maintained, seemingly with much confidence, rested on certain marginal memoranda, said to be found in Spottiswood’s History, with reference to a conference held at Stirling, in 1578, betwixt Commissioners of the Estates and Commissioners of the Kirk; the ground of confidence in these memoranda being, that Spottiswood had “set down the form of policy as it was presented, with the notes oftheir agreementanddisagreement, as they stand in the original, which (says the Book)I have by me.”—(Spottiswood’s Hist. p. 289.)Now, all the argument alluded to is grounded on the hypothesis, that Spottiswood’sprintedHistory is an authentic and credible authority. But this is by no means the case: and without going into any lengthened statement, we shall suggest two objections which appear to render the Historyascribedto Archbishop Spottiswood, unworthy of credit. In the first place, the only MS. of the Archbishop’s work (reputed to be either the original or a revised copy) is in the Advocates’ Library, and in that MS. not one word of the passage quoted—of the Book of Policy—or of the marginal notes, is to be found; nor (so far as we can discover) any reference to these. And independently of this, the whole MS. is so much mangled and interpolated, and large additions made to it, that it is impossible, without strong collateral evidence, to assumeany thingin theprintedBook as bearing Spottiswood’s personal testimony. Butsecondly, there is aprima faciepresumption against the authenticity of that printed history, independently of its being destitute of any proper voucher. The Archbishop died in the end of the year 1639. In the publisher’s preface to the first edition of it, which was published in 1655, that is, sixteen years after the Archbishop’s death, we are told that “a copy of it lighted into ingenuous and noble hands;”—and in the close of the Life prefixed, we are told that it “was like an infant of the Israelites in an ark of reeds.” This is the whole amount of information given with respect to the history generally ascribed to Spottiswood! That the unfortunate Prelate left a MS. history, or fragments, we have no doubt; but we have never seen any evidence to show, that the published book corresponds with what he had written; and therefore we conclude that that work, as we now have it, is altogether spurious, and that it cannot safely be relied on as an authority, much less as a record of the individualtestimonyof the Archbishop, whatever be its complexion, on any one point in the transactions of those times. There are various minute particulars in regard to the copy of the Book of Policie, and Notes in that work, which we may hereafter have occasion to notice, but which would be unsuitable in this place.

It may not be deemed much out of place to remark here, that we were not a little surprised to see in the pleadings from the bar in the Auchterarder case, and in the opinion of one of the Judges, an argument maintained, seemingly with much confidence, rested on certain marginal memoranda, said to be found in Spottiswood’s History, with reference to a conference held at Stirling, in 1578, betwixt Commissioners of the Estates and Commissioners of the Kirk; the ground of confidence in these memoranda being, that Spottiswood had “set down the form of policy as it was presented, with the notes oftheir agreementanddisagreement, as they stand in the original, which (says the Book)I have by me.”—(Spottiswood’s Hist. p. 289.)

Now, all the argument alluded to is grounded on the hypothesis, that Spottiswood’sprintedHistory is an authentic and credible authority. But this is by no means the case: and without going into any lengthened statement, we shall suggest two objections which appear to render the Historyascribedto Archbishop Spottiswood, unworthy of credit. In the first place, the only MS. of the Archbishop’s work (reputed to be either the original or a revised copy) is in the Advocates’ Library, and in that MS. not one word of the passage quoted—of the Book of Policy—or of the marginal notes, is to be found; nor (so far as we can discover) any reference to these. And independently of this, the whole MS. is so much mangled and interpolated, and large additions made to it, that it is impossible, without strong collateral evidence, to assumeany thingin theprintedBook as bearing Spottiswood’s personal testimony. Butsecondly, there is aprima faciepresumption against the authenticity of that printed history, independently of its being destitute of any proper voucher. The Archbishop died in the end of the year 1639. In the publisher’s preface to the first edition of it, which was published in 1655, that is, sixteen years after the Archbishop’s death, we are told that “a copy of it lighted into ingenuous and noble hands;”—and in the close of the Life prefixed, we are told that it “was like an infant of the Israelites in an ark of reeds.” This is the whole amount of information given with respect to the history generally ascribed to Spottiswood! That the unfortunate Prelate left a MS. history, or fragments, we have no doubt; but we have never seen any evidence to show, that the published book corresponds with what he had written; and therefore we conclude that that work, as we now have it, is altogether spurious, and that it cannot safely be relied on as an authority, much less as a record of the individualtestimonyof the Archbishop, whatever be its complexion, on any one point in the transactions of those times. There are various minute particulars in regard to the copy of the Book of Policie, and Notes in that work, which we may hereafter have occasion to notice, but which would be unsuitable in this place.

[50]On the margin of the Haddington copy of the Book of Policy, opposite to this section, there is a note written, but not in the same handwriting as the Book itself. It seems to have been added as a scriptural authority for the provision in this article, and is in the following terms: “Tim. 5, 17. The eldars that rule wel are worthie of double honour, speciallie they which labour in word and doctrine.” And interjected and interlined with sections 26 and 27, are some lines, containing an extract from Beza’s translation of the New Testament, which, however, it is unnecessary to insert here.

[51]In the other copy it is “according to the custome of his longanimitie.”

[52]“Aberdeen.”

[53]This transcript of the minutes of the Assembly 1606 is taken from the more ancient copy of the two in the Advocates’ Library, and this is the last Assembly the proceedings of which are contained in that copy. The acts of this Assembly are omitted at the proper place in the more modern copy which we have used, but interjected at a subsequent part of the volume among various miscellaneous documents not referable to that period. The more ancient copy, however, is now preferred.

[54]The acts of this Assembly were ratified by act of the Parliament in 1612, a copy of which is inserted in the MS. of the Booke; but instead of including it here, it is annexed in the subjoined Appendix of contemporary documents.

[55]There must be some mistake here. The 2d Session of this Assembly was on the 14th of August,—and if the 15th Session was on the 15th, the Assembly must have had thirteen sederunts in the course of one night. But the number is given as we have it in the MS.

[56]None of the documents marked with an asterisk referred to in these minutes are to be found in either of the copies of theBooketo which we have had access. But the tenor will be supplied in the proper place, from the most authentic sources of information, if we can discover them.

[57]The Confession here alluded to is not inserted in the MS. copied; but it will be given among the documentary illustrations in theNotes.

Back to Index Next