[2] The ornamented border in the original is very rudely cut: here it is given only in outline. A French translation of Beza's volume appeared in 1581, with several additional portraits; but it is somewhat remarkable that a totally different portrait should have been substituted in place of that of Knox. This, I think, may be explained, from the circumstance of the original cut having been either injured or lost; and not from the other exhibiting a more correct likeness of the Scotish Reformer. From its marked resemblance, I am convinced, that the portrait substituted was intended for William Tyndale.—When the engraved pseudo-portraits of Knox are brought together, it is quite ludicrous to compare the diversity of character which they exhibit. Besides the ordinary likeness, with the long flowing beard, copied from bad engravings to worse, we have the Holyrood one, not unworthy of Holbein, of a mathematician, with a pair of compasses; the head at Hamilton Palace, which might serve for the Hermit of Copmanhurst; and others that would be no unsuitable illustrations to any account of the fools and jesters entertained at the Scotish Court.
[3] I state this from having lent him Verheiden's work, for the purpose of his copying Knox's portrait. Perhaps the fine arts sustained by the death of this eminent Painter, no greater loss than in his leaving unfinished the most exquisite design of "Knox dispensing the Sacrament," which, in its half-finished state, has fortunately been secured by the Royal Scotish Academy. His previous painting of "Knox preaching to the Lords of the Congregation," is sadly disfigured by the extravagant action and expression of the Reformer.
[4] This MS. when rebound, at some early time, was unfortunately too much cut in the edges. Its present ragged state suggested a minute examination, which shows that the volume consists of seventeen sets or quires, each of them, with two exceptions, having twenty-two or twenty-four leaves. Six of those quires, judging from the hand-writing and the colour of the ink, were apparently written somewhat later than the rest:—viz., the 7th set, fol. 137-158; the 9th and 10th, fol. 181-228; the 12th, fol. 253-272; the 14th, fol. 295-309; and the last set, fol. 359 to the end. What renders this the more evident is, that while the first page of each set runs on continuously from the previous page, as if there was no interruption, the catchword on the last page of these rewritten sets or quires, often stops in the middle of the page, or the beginning of a line, leaving the rest blank, owing to the style of writing, or the matter contained in these sets having varied from those which they had replaced.
[5] The following is the title of a work on the Harmony of the Gospels, with a fac-simile of the signature referred to: "In nomine dnj. Nostrj Jesu Chrj Anno Salutis humanæ 1581. Contextus historiæ Euangelicæ Secundum tres Euangelistas Mat. Mar. et Lucam.—Septembris 4."
[6] App. No. VI. pp. 358-363. Lond. 1702, 8vo. Nicolson, in giving some account of the History, considers the question of the Authorship, which was then reckoned doubtful, and referring particularly to the Glasgow Manuscript, he says, it "was lately presented to the College by Mr. Robert Fleming, a late preacher at Rotterdam, now at London, Mr. Knox's great-grandchild; who having several of his said ancestor's papers in his hand, pretends to assure them, that this very Book is penn'd by the person whose name it commonly bears. For the better proof of this matter he sends them the preface of another book, written in the same hand, wherein are these words:—'In nomine Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, &c., Septembris 4o, M. Jo. Knox, August 18, Ao 1581.' There might indeed have been some strength in this evidence, were we not assur'd that the famed Knox dy'd in 1572; so that nothing could be written by him in 1581. There was one Mr. John Knox, who was Moderator of the Synod of Merse in 1586; who perhaps is Mr. Fleming's true ancestor, as well as the transcriber of this book, and might be one of the assistants in the revising of it."—(Ib. p. 192.) These remarks gave considerable offence to Fleming, who answers them, at some length, but without throwing any new light on the subject, in the preface to his "Practical Discourse on the Death of King William III. &c.," p. xii; Lond. 1702, 8vo. Fleming was not a descendant of Knox. It is indeed true that his grandfather married Knox's daughter; but his father was the issue of a subsequent marriage. These facts are plainly stated in a letter from R. Fleming to Wodrow, dated at London, on the 6th of June 1702.
[7] In the foot-notes, the errors and mistakes in Vautrollier's edition are occasionally pointed out. A sample of them may here be brought together:—
[8] See "Areopagitica; a Speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicens'd Printing," addressed to the Parliament of England, London, 1644, 4to. In arguing against the abuses committed by licensers of the Press, he says, "Nay, which is more lamentable, if the work of any deceased Author, though never so famous in his lifetime, and even to this day, come to their hands for license to be printed or reprinted, if there be found in his book one sentence of a venturous edge, uttered in the height of zeal, (and who knows whether it might not be the dictate of a divine Spirit,) yet, not suiting with every low decrepit humour of their own, though it were Knox himself, the Reformer of a Kingdom, that spake it, they will not pardon him their dash: the sense of that great man shall to all posterity be lost for the fearfulness, or the presumptuous rashnesse of a prefunctory licenser. And to what an Author this violence hath bin lately done, and in what book of greatest consequence to be faithfully publisht, I could now instance, but shall forbear till a more convenient season."—(page 22.)
[9] In following the MS. of 1566, I have discarded all contractions, and generally avoided the old form of using u and w for v, or v for u; i for j. In order to avoid distracting the attention of an ordinary reader, such words in the MS. as hie for he, on for one, cane for can, don for done, are printed in the usual form; but indeed the orthography of the MS. is very irregular, and might have justified much greater innovations.
[10] This Preface is not contained in either of the editions by David Buchanan of the History printed in 1644.
[11] In MS. G, "cloude."