I have been favoured with the following pedigree from Alexander Thomson, Esq. of Banchory, in Aberdeenshire. “John Knox, the celebrated Reformer, left three daughters, one of whom was married to a Mr Baillie of the Jerviswood family, and by him had a daughter, who was married to a Mr Kirkton of Edinburgh. By this marriage Mr Kirkton had a daughter, Margaret, who was married to Dr Andrew Skene in Aberdeen. Dr Skene left several children, the eldest of whom, Dr Andrew Skene, had by hiswife, Miss Lumsden of Cushnie, several sons and daughters. One of these, Mary, was married to Andrew Thomson of Banchory, who had issue by her, Margaret, Andrew, and Alexander. Andrew married Miss Hamilton, daughter of Dr Hamilton, of Marischall College, Aberdeen, and by her had issue, Alexander, born June 21, 1798, and present proprietor of Banchory.” It is not uncommon for persons who happen to be of the same name with an individual who has attained celebrity, to claim a family relation to him upon very slender grounds. But in the present instance, not to mention the particularity of detail in the genealogical table, there is no ground to suspect that the tradition could have such an origin; as the name of Knox occurs only at the earliest stage of the supposed connexion. Perhaps one of the Reformer’s daughters was twice married; or, which I think more probable, it was one of his grand‑daughters who married a Mr Baillie of Jerviswood. Among the pictures at Mellerstain (now the seat of the ancient family of Jerviswood) is a portrait of captain Kirkton, an officer of the Royal Navy. And we know from other authorities, that Robert Baillie of Jerviswood, who was executed at Edinburgh in 1684, was brother‑in‑law to Mr James Kirkton, minister first at Merton, and afterwards in Edinburgh. Burnet’s Hist. of his own Times, ii. 157. Wodrow, i. 422.
Mr Thomson of Banchory possesses from his ancestors an antique watch; and the tradition in the family is, that this watch belonged to the Reformer, and was presented to him by queen Mary, at a time when she was anxious to cajole him into an approbation of her measures. On the brass‑plate of the inner case are the words, N. Forfaict à Paris. Professor Leslie, whose extensive acquaintance with the history of inventions is well known, after examining an accurate description of this time‑piece by Dr Knight of Aberdeen, says, “that the watch in question might have been the property of John Knox, is possible, and the tradition is in this case not improbable. At the same time it must be admitted, that pocket watches were extremely rare at that period, and probably confined for the most part to princes and the more opulent nobility.” He adds, “I have had the opportunity of inspecting an antique watch, through the politeness of Mr J. Scot, late chemist in Edinburgh, the lineal descendant of a Frenchman of the name ofMassie, who, having attended queen Mary into Scotland, had received the relic from his mistress. It is a small round old watch, scarcely exceeding an inch in diameter, and made by Hubert in Rouen. It is precisely of the same structure, but without carving or other ornament, as the one with which that artful princess is said to have endeavoured to bribe our stern reformer.”
I have only to add, that no notice is taken of this relic and token of royal favour in the testament of John Knox, or in the inventory of his goods presented by his widow after his decease.
Of Knox’s History of the Reformation.—When they first formed themselves into an association to advance the reformation of religion, the protestants of Scotland, aware that their conduct would be misrepresented, appointed some of their number to commit their proceedings to writing. This laudable practice was continued by them, and the most important events connected with the progress of the Reformation were registered along with the resolutions adopted at their meetings. After they came to an open breach with the queen regent, and she had accused them of rebellious intentions both to their countrymen and to foreign nations, they resolved that a narrative of their proceedings should be drawn up from these records, and that it should be published to the world for their vindication. Preface to the Gentill Reidare, prefixed to Knox’s Historie, and Præfatio to the Secunde Booke of the Historie, p. 115, edit. 1732. The confusions produced by the civil war prevented them from executing this resolution at the time intended, and the object originally in view was in part answered by occasional proclamations which they had been obliged to make, and by answers which they had published to proclamations issued by the regent. The design was not, however, laid aside; and the person to whom the compilation was committed continued the narrative. The book which is placed second in the printed history was first composed. The third book was next composed, and contains a circumstantial account of the steps taken by the Congregation to obtain assistance from England, which it was judged imprudent to disclose when theformer book was drawn up. It brings down the history to queen Mary’s arrival in Scotland. The book which occupies the first place in the printed history was composed after these, and intended as an introduction to them, bringing down the history from the first dawn of the Reformation in Scotland to 1558. See preface to the Gentill Reidare, ut supra. The publication being still delayed, the fourth book was added, which contains the history of ecclesiastical transactions from the arrival of Mary to the end of 1564. The first and fourth books were composed during the years 1566, 1567, and 1568. Historie, p. 86, 108, 282. Some additions were made to the fourth book so late as 1571. Ibid. p. 338. The fifth book in the printed history is not found in any of the ancient MSS. It was added by David Buchanan, but whether he published it from an old MS. or compiled it himself, cannot now be ascertained.
The history was composed by one person, (Preface, ut supra,) and there is no reason for doubting that Knox was the author. In a letter which he wrote on the 23d of October, 1559, he mentions the design of publishing it. Keith, Append. p. 30. The English ambassador, Randolph, says, in a letter to Cecil, dated Edinburgh, 23d September, 1560, “I have tawlked at large with Mr Knox concernynge hys historie. As mykle as ys wrytten thereof shall be sent to your honour, at the comynge of the Lords embassadors by Mr John Woode: He hath wrytten only one booke. If yow lyke that, he shall contynue the same, or adde onie more. He sayethe, that he must have farther helpe than is to be had in this countrie, for more assured knouledge of thyngs passed, than he hath hymself, or can com bye here: yt is a worke not to be neglected, and greatly to be wyshed that yt sholde be well handled.” Life of the Author, p. xliii., prefixed to Knox’s Historie, edit. 1732. From a letter written by Knox to Mr John Wood, and dated Feb. 14, 1568, it appears that he had come to the resolution of withholding the history from the public during his life. See Appendix. The important light in which he considered the work, appears from the way in which he expressed himself in April 1571, when he found that the state of his health would not permit him to finish it. “Lord, provyde for thy flocks trew pastouris; rease thou up the spretis of some to observe thy notable workis, faythfullie to committhe same to writ, that the prosperities [posterities] to come may praise thy holie name, for the great graces plentyfullie powred foorth upon this vnthankfull generatione. Jhone Knox trusting end of trawell.” Bannatyne’s Journal, p. 129. He did not, however, desist altogether from the prosecution of the work. It appears from two letters of Alexander Hay, clerk to the privy council, written in December 1571, that the Reformer had applied to him for papers to assist him in the continuation of his history. The papers which Hay proposed to send him related to the years 1567–1571, a period which the printed history does not reach. Bannatyne, p. 294–302.
The following petition, presented by Bannatyne to the first General Assembly which met after our Reformer’s death, with the act of Assembly relating to it, gives the most satisfactory information respecting the history. “Unto your Wisdoms humbly means and shows, I, your servitor Richard Bannatyne, servant to your unquhill most dearest brother John Knox of worthy memory: That where it is not unknown to your wisdoms, that he left to the kirk and town of Edinburgh his history, containing in effect the beginning and progress of Christ’s true religion, now of God’s great mercy established in this realm; wherein he hath continued and perfectly ended at the year of God 1564. So that of things done sinsyne, nothing be him is put in that form and order that he has put the former. Yet not the less there are certain scrolls and papers, and minuts of things left to me by him, to use at my pleasure, whereof a part were written and subscribed by his own hand, and another be mine at his command, which, if they were collected and gathered together, would make a sufficient declaration of the principal things that have occurred since the ending of his former history, at the year foresaid; and so should serve for stuff and matter, to any of understanding and ability in that kinde of exercise, that would apply themselves to make a history, even unto the day of his death. But for so meikle as the said scrolls are so intacked and mixed together, that if they should come in any hands not used nor accustomed with the same, as I have been, they should altogether lose and perish: And seeing also I am not able, on my own costs and expenses, to apply myself and spend my time to putthem in order, which would consume a very long time; much less am I able to write them, and put them in register, as they require to be, without your wisdoms make some provision for the same: Wherefore I most humbly request your wisdoms, That I may have some reasonable pension appointed to me by your wisdoms discretion, that thereby I may be more able to await and attend upon the samine; lest these things, done by that servant of God dear to you all, should perish and decay, which they shall do indeed, if they be not put in register, which I will do willinglie, if your wisdoms would provide, as said is. And your wisdoms answer,” &c. To this supplication the Assembly gave the following answer:—“The Assembly accepted the said Richard’s offer, and request the kirk of Edinburgh, to provide and appoint some learned men, to support Richard Bannatyne, to put the said history, that is now in scrolls and papers, in good form, with aid of the said Richard. And because he is not able to await thereon, upon his own expences, appoints to him the sum of forty pounds, to be payed of the 1572 years crope, be the collectors under‑written, viz. the collector of Lothian, Fife, Angus, and the West, Galloway, and Murray, every one of them to pay six pound thirteen shillings four pennies of the said crope; and it shall be allowed to them in count, they bringing the said Richard’s acquittance thereupon.” Life of the Author, p. xliv. xlv. prefixed to Historie, edit. 1732. Book of Univ. Kirk, p. 56.
It is probable that the deficiency of the funds of the church prevented the publication of the history during Morton’s regency; and the change of politics after James assumed the reins of government into his own hands, precluded all hope of its being allowed to be printed in Scotland. An attempt was made to have it printed in England; but after the work had proceeded so far, the press was stopped. This appears from the following extract from Calderwood’s MSS. “February, 1586, Vaultrollier the printer took with him a copy of Mr Knox’s History to England, and printed twelve hundred of them; the stationers, at the archbishop’s command, seized them the 18 of February; it was thought that he would get leave to proceed again, because the council perceived that it would bring the queen of Scots in detestation.” Calderwood’s MS. apud Lifeof Knox, p. 45, prefixed to edition of Historie, Edinburgh, 1732. Bishop Bancroft also mentions it in the following terms, “If you ever meet with the History of the Church of Scotland penned by Mr Knox, and printed by Vaultrollier, read the pages quoted here in the margent.” Bancroft’s Survey, (originally printed in 1593,) republished in 1663, p. 37. Copies of this imperfect edition were allowed to go abroad, and are still to be met with. In 1644, David Buchanan published his edition of Knox’s History at London in folio, which was reprinted the same year at Edinburgh in quarto. The editor prefixed a preface concerning the antiquity of the Scots, and a Life of Knox, both of which were written by himself. He modernised the language of the history; but not satisfied with this, he also altered the narrative, by excluding some parts of it, and by making numerous interpolations. It appears from the passage formerly quoted from Milton, (see vol. i. [p. 464],) that attempts were made to suppress, or at least to mutilate, this edition; but the passage is so obscure that we cannot learn from what quarter these attempts were made. At last, a genuine and complete edition of the history was printed in 1732, from a manuscript belonging to the university of Glasgow, compared with several other manuscripts of undoubted antiquity. Those who wish to know the great difference between this edition and that of David Buchanan, may consult Mr Wodrow’s letter, inserted at large in the Life of the Author, p. xlvi–li. prefixed to the Historie, edit. 1732, and partially inserted in Nicolson’s Scottish Historical Library, p. 132–141. Lond. 1736. All the editions of the history lately published are mere copies of Buchanan’s spurious and interpolated one.
This deduction of facts may serve to clear the subject of the History from the difficulties in which it has been involved. That Knox was the author of the first four books, as they are printed in the edition 1732, is beyond all reasonable doubt. After the publication of that edition, it is mere perverseness to endeavour to discredit the authenticity or genuineness of the History, by insisting on the alterations and interpolations of David Buchanan. To infer that he was not the author of the History from the difference between its style and that of his undoubted works, is quite conjectural.The historical and the didactic styles are different in themselves; and when we consider the intervals at which the history was composed, the numerous avocations which distracted the author’s attention, and the multiplicity of facts which it was requisite for him to collect and investigate, we will not be surprised to find this work inferior, in point of language and arrangement, to those tracts which he composed on single topics, and which, having the sentiments at his command, he was left at liberty to arrange and to adorn. The facts which I have produced tend also to corroborate the credibility of the History, as they evince that, however negligent as to points of inferior consideration, the author was most active and laborious in searching for materials, and in procuring, when it was at all possible, original and authentic documents. And such was his character for integrity, that I am persuaded there are few, if any, who believe that he would insert as a fact any thing of whose truth he was not fully convinced.