nd-writing,
there is every reason to believe that the most considerable part of the
volume was written in the year 1566, although it is not improbable that
in the Second and Third Books a portion of the original MS. of 1559 may
have been retained. The marginal notes, which specify particular dates,
chiefly refer to the years 1566, or 1567, and they leave no doubt in
regard to the actual period when the bulk of the MS. was written, as
those bearing the date 1567 are clearly posterior to the transcription
of the pages where they occur. Some of these notes, as well as a number
of minute corrections, are evidently in Knox's own hand; but the latter
part of Book Fourth could not have been transcribed until the close of
the year 1571. This is proved by the circumstance that the words, "BOT
WNTO THIS DAY, THE 17. OF DECEMBER 1571," form an integral part of the
text, near the foot of fol. 359, in "The Ressonyng betuix the Maister of
Maxwell and John Knox." The whole of this section indeed is written
somewhat hastily, like a scroll-copy, probably by Richard Bannatyne, his
Secretary, from dictation; but whether it was merely rewritten in 1571,
or first added in that year to complete Book Fourth, must be left to
conjecture.

I.--MANUSCRIPT OF 1566.--IN THE EDITOR'S POSSESSION.

The accompanying leaf exhibits an accurate fac-simile of part of the
first page of the MS; and it is worthy of notice, that in the Wodrow
Miscellany, vol. i. p. 287, a fac-simile of a paper entitled "The Kirkis
Testimonial, &c.," dated 26th December 1565, is evidently by the same
hand.[4] It has the signatures of three of the Superintendents, Erskine
of Dun, John Spottiswood, and John Wynram, as well as that of John Knox.
As this was a public document, and was no doubt written by the Clerk of
the General Assembly, we may infer that Knox's amanuensis, in 1566, was
either John Gray, who was Scribe or Clerk to the Assembly from 1560 till
his death in 1574, or one of the other Scribes whom Knox mentions, in
his interview with Queen Mary, in 1563, as having implicit confidence in
their fidelity. But this is no very important point to determine, since
the Manuscript itself bears such unequivocal proofs of having passed
through the Author's hands. Two short extracts, (corresponding with
pages 109 and 115 of this volume,) are also selected on account of the
marginal notes, both of which I think are in Knox's own hand. Further
specimens of such notes or co