[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 is fifth June, not third, 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 been sanctioned by Parliament, so as to mark what 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 of their agreement and disagreement, 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’s printed History 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 History ascribed to 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 assume any thing in the printed Book as bearing Spottiswood’s personal testimony. But secondly, there is a prima facie presumption 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 individual testimony of 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.”