_The Conflict from the Restoration to the Revolution._
THIS chapter covers a period of twenty-eight years; but the exposition
of the movement and of the principles of the contending parties will
not be unnecessarily burdened with minute details.¹
¹ To narrate the events and explain the series of causes which
issued in the Revolution with the fulness which they well
deserve, is a task that any man might be proud to achieve;
and I may be permitted to express the hope that some historian
of the future, with the requisite qualifications, may be
induced by the interest of the period, by the ampleness of the
materials, and by the vast importance of the subject, to devote
the energies of his mind to produce a full history of the
three kingdoms during the seventeenth century. [Since the hope
expressed in the preceding sentence of the original edition was
written, I have much pleasure in stating that Dr. Gardiner has
produced an excellent History of the first half of this period.
The Restoration in both divisions of the Island was a reactionary
movement. This arose partly from the inherited sentiments of the
people; whilst amongst the nobility, the traditionary feelings and
ideas associated with the social organisation and constitution of the
monarchy, were interwoven with their personal interests and privileges
of wealth, rank, and power. Under the Commonwealth, the hereditary
nobles in England and in Scotland had suffered enormously. They had
been deprived of power and influence, harassed, imprisoned, banished,
and many of them ruined. With the hope of escaping from this state of
depression, the Lords and Commons of England, in the light of their
recent experience, and the knowledge of the claims of the head of
the royal family to absolute powers, again committed themselves
and the people of the Island entirely to the discretion of Charles
II. Intoxicated with a fit of loyal enthusiasm, the English forgot
the state of matters which had caused the late Rebellion, and thus
unwittingly supported the reintroduction of a kind of government
which had already produced much suffering in the land. But what had
happened could not be completely reversed, nor the recollection of
it extinguished, and at last, in 1688, it assumed the character of
a Revolution.
But Scotland suffered far more from the Restoration than England,
owing to various distinct causes. As already stated, the Reformation
in England and in Scotland was accomplished by different agencies: In
the former kingdom it was introduced and enforced by the King and his
government, the English people themselves not being consulted; while in
the latter it was embraced and sustained throughout by the people. Thus
from the beginning of the Reformation in the middle of the sixteenth
century, onwards, the contrast between the two nations was striking,
and though somewhat modified, this original difference still remained
at the Restoration. It was a comparatively easy matter to turn the
English Church into her original groove. But the task which the
government of Charles II. undertook in Scotland was more difficult; it
was an attempt to change the current of religious thought and sentiment
which had sprung from the Reformation of 1560. The attempt failed,
though it was made with deliberation and persistence, every effort
being made to crush the spirit of the people and to deprive them of
their liberty.
At this crisis of the nation’s history, a number of the leading
ministers met, among others, Mr. Robert Douglas and Mr. David Dickson,
and commissioned Mr. James Sharp, in the month of February, 1660,
to proceed to London and watch over the interests of the Church of
Scotland. He received definite instructions, and much confidence was
placed in his ability and honesty of purpose by the leaders of the
Resolutioners, who employed him. He was directed to use his efforts
so that the Church of Scotland should, without encroachment, enjoy her
freedom and privileges as established by the laws of the land; and by
all lawful means to represent the offensiveness of the lax toleration
then permitted, in order that it might be remedied. He was to endeavour
to secure the right application of the ministers’ stipends, and to
procure for those regularly admitted by the presbyteries the benefit
of the act abolishing patronage.
The correspondence between Sharp and his constituents began on
the 14th of February, the date of his first letter from London, Mr.
Douglas being the chief conductor of the correspondence from Edinburgh.
Sharp’s account of his own proceedings, and of the state of parties in
England touching religious matters, is minute and seemingly correct.
He soon began to impress upon the Scottish ministers in Edinburgh,
that Episcopacy would be re-established in England, and that it was
useless to think of a Covenanted uniformity between the two nations.
He repeatedly expressed the hope that the existing polity of the Church
of Scotland would not be changed, and in his letters to Mr. Douglas
he frequently made solemn averments of his devotion and attachment
to Presbyterianism. Sharp returned to Scotland in the end of August,
1660, and on the 3rd of September, a letter which he brought from the
King was communicated to the presbytery of Edinburgh. In it the King
declared:――“We do also resolve to protect and preserve the government
of the Church of Scotland, as it is settled by law, without violation;
and to countenance, in the due exercise of their functions, all such
ministers who shall behave themselves dutifully and peaceably as
becomes men of their calling.” This and other reassuring statements
in the letter were ordered to be intimated to all the presbyteries in
the kingdom, and the letter was considered satisfactory by the leading
ministers of the moderate party. A committee was appointed to prepare
an address expressing their humble thanks to his Majesty.¹ Thus it
appears that the intention of the court had been carefully concealed
from the Scottish clergy, and that Sharp, who was already virtually
Archbishop of St. Andrews and Primate of Scotland, had acted his part
with great craft and duplicity.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 5‒54, 80‒81.
When the King returned, many of the Scotch nobles and gentry flocked
to London, all eager to present their claims for posts in the new
government of the kingdom. The civil war and the subsequent subjection
of the nation under Cromwell had rendered the Scotch nobles extremely
poor and demoralised. As they had never been scrupulous about the
means of attaining their ends, so they were now more than ever on the
alert for everything that seemed likely to enhance their importance,
or to advance their interest. This partly explains their subsequent
proceedings, and their readiness to support the measures of the King
and his advisers. In past struggles, many of them had joined with the
people against the Crown and the government, but recently that line of
action had been a losing and ruinous one, and there was no prospect of
any personal advantage to be gained by it; accordingly, they elected
to follow the King and the court in whatever might be proposed, as the
most direct and safe way of promoting their own interests. Sentiments
and principles were cast to the winds with scorn and contempt;
religious convictions, covenants, equity, and justice, might all go
to the wall, but Charles II. must be upheld in his rights and absolute
prerogatives.
The Earl of Rothes was appointed President of the Council; Glencairn,
Chancellor; Crawford, Treasurer; Sir Archibald Primrose, Clerk Register;
and Sir John Fletcher, Lord-Advocate. Meetings of all the Scotchmen
in London were held by the King’s authority, and they agreed that the
committee of the parliament held at Stirling in 1650, should manage
the affairs of Scotland till a new parliament should be assembled.
The resumption of office by the Committee of Estates was signalised
at Edinburgh by a royal proclamation, on the 23rd of August, 1660.
The same day they manifested their authority by dispersing a meeting
of the protesting ministers. This section of the Presbyterians was
in great danger, as their brethren, the Resolutioners, had placed too
much confidence in Sharp and the King’s letter, had become cold and
unyielding towards the Protestors, and even proceeded to depose some
of them. The Protestors justly suspected that some design was hatching
against Presbyterianism, and wished to join with the Resolutioners
in an effort to frustrate it; but at the time the latter were so
far deceived that they rejected this proposal, and only discovered
their mistake when it was beyond remedy. Thus it was, when the
real intentions of the government became known in Scotland, the
Presbyterians were not in a position to offer effective opposition to
the new scheme. The Committee of Estates immediately passed an act for
the apprehension of Mr. James Guthrie, one of the venerable leaders
of the Protestors, and other ministers of this party, and they were
imprisoned in Edinburgh Castle. The committee waxed bold, and on the
24th of August issued a proclamation prohibiting all public meetings
unless authorised by the King, and suppressing all seditious petitions.
Another proclamation on the 19th of September condemned two books, one
entitled _Lex Rex_, and the other _The Causes of God’s Wrath_. As these
books were full of rebellious principles, calculated to turn the hearts
of the people against “the King’s Majesty’s person, his royal authority
and the peace of this kingdom,” therefore they ought not to be read nor
kept by any of his Majesty’s subjects, and must be delivered up to one
of his Majesty’s solicitors before the 16th of October. Accordingly
on the 17th of the month, these books were burned by the hands of the
common hangman at the cross of Edinburgh. Yet another proclamation was
issued, forbidding the circulation of lies and slanders against his
Majesty, or making speeches, uttering in sermons, in declarations, or
by letters, libels, rhymes, and other writings, implying reproach of
his Majesty’s person or his government, under severe penalties. The
ministers were specially warned to be careful of their language in
their sermons, in their prayers, and in their private discourses.¹ The
new government was aware of the power of the human voice, and at the
outset endeavoured to stifle it.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 65‒77.
On the 8th of July, 1660, the Marquis of Argyle was seized in London
and lodged in the Tower; while orders were sent from the court to
Scotland to arrest Johnston of Warriston and several other gentlemen.
In autumn a number of the ministers were brought before the Committee
of Estates, and some of them imprisoned. Already it was felt that a
great change was impending.
The Earl of Middleton, as Royal Commissioner, arrived in Scotland
the last day of December, and on the 1st of January, 1661, the new
parliament met. The house immediately proceeded to business, and passed
many acts for settling the affairs of the nation according to the new
plot. The first act was a parliamentary oath of allegiance, to be taken
by all the members of the house. By it they testified their faithful
obedience to “Charles, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland,
defender of the faith, and do affirm, testify, and declare, by this
my solemn oath, that I acknowledge my said sovereign, only supreme
governor of this kingdom, over all persons and in all causes ... and
shall at my utmost power defend, assist, and maintain his Majesty’s
jurisdiction, against all deadly, and never decline his Majesty’s
jurisdiction, as I shall answer to God.” In other acts of this
parliament it was stated to be his Majesty’s prerogative by divine
right to choose all Officers of State, Councillors, and Lords of
Sessions, as also the calling, proroguing, and dissolving of all
parliaments; and that all meetings without his special authority were
null; while in the preamble to one of the acts it was declared that
“the happiness of the people depended upon the maintenance of the
King’s prerogative.” Leagues and bonds without the King’s sanction were
denounced and prohibited; and it was asserted that the King had the
sole right of making peace and war. The swearing or renewing the League
and Covenant, or any covenant or oath, was prohibited, without the
King’s warrant. An act was passed in very strong terms “for taking the
oath of allegiance, and asserting the royal prerogative.”¹ This act was
afterwards used for annoying and punishing people; it became a test of
loyalty, and when any suspected person was brought before the Council
or any of the courts, it was tendered to him; if he signed it he was
usually dismissed, but if he refused, the refusal was immediately
turned into a libel against him and no mercy was shown.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages 3,
7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 44‒45.
But the greatest achievement of the session was the Rescissory
Act, which rescinded all the Acts of Parliament since 1633 to
the Restoration. After some debate it was passed, and so the
entire legislation of the Covenanting period was swept away, and
Presbyterianism ceased to be the form of government in the Established
Church of Scotland, while the old laws in favour of Episcopacy were
again brought into force. This act was directly followed by “an act
concerning religion and Church government,” in which the King thanked
God for preserving him through so many troubles and perils, and
miraculously restoring him to his just rights and to the government
of his kingdoms; and he was therefore desirous to do something for
the glory and the honour of God. So he declared it to be “his firm
resolution to maintain the true Reformed Protestant religion, in its
purity of doctrine and worship, as it was established within this
kingdom, during the reigns of his royal father and grandfather of
blessed memory.... As to the government of the Church, his Majesty
will make it his care to settle and secure it in such a frame as shall
be most agreeable to the word of God, most suitable to monarchical
government, and most conducive to the public peace of the kingdom.”
Meanwhile he allowed the existing administrations by sessions,
presbyteries, and synods.¹ Thus parliament left the definite settlement
of the question of Church government in the hands of the King himself.
¹ _Ibid._, Volume VII., pages 86‒88.
When it became known that parliament was passing acts for subverting
the established form of Church government, the ministers of Edinburgh
and others exerted themselves to prevent it. Some of the presbyteries
and synods openly declared against the reintroduction of Episcopacy,
but their efforts were unavailing. In some instances the synods were
dissolved, in others the party on the side of the government ordered
the meeting to be purged of rebels――of the opposition ministers――and
by such means the opposition was completely stifled.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 109‒130.
The new government deemed it necessary to sacrifice a few victims as a
warning to others. On the 13th of February, 1661, the Marquis of Argyle
was brought to the bar of parliament, and accused of high treason.
After a long and tedious trial, he was found guilty, condemned, and
executed at Edinburgh on the 27th of May. Mr. James Guthrie, minister
of Stirling, was summoned before parliament on the 20th of February,
and charged with high treason. The chief points of his indictment were
that he contrived, consented to, and presented to the Committee of
Estates, the document called “The Western Remonstrance”; and that
he composed and published the pamphlet called “The Causes of God’s
Wrath”; and that he framed and subscribed the paper called “The Humble
Petition,” of the 23rd of August, 1660, when he was apprehended; that
he had convened meetings without the King’s authority; that he had
uttered treasonable expressions in a meeting in 1650; and that he had
declined his Majesty’s jurisdiction. But at this time such charges,
with a little variation, might easily have been brought against many
persons. Guthrie was, however, condemned, and executed at Edinburgh
on the 1st of June, 1661. Several other ministers were accused before
parliament, and sentenced to undergo various punishments. Johnston
of Warriston was another of the selected victims. He had been a very
active man throughout the Covenanting period, and he had also been
employed by Cromwell, which in the estimation of the government was
a great crime. At this time he escaped to the Continent, but was
condemned in his absence. He was afterwards taken in France, and sent
to Edinburgh for execution. It has been reported that he received the
sentence to be hanged with courage, and passed his last moments like a
Christian man.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages 26,
29; Appendix, pages 13, 34‒59, 64‒70, 71, 73‒75; Wodrow’s
_History_, Volume I., pages 131‒217.
This session of parliament closed on the 12th of July, 1661; and the
following day the new Privy Council met. It was reconstructed and
invested with greater powers than the old Privy Council, as it was
to continue the functions of the Estates in the intervals between the
sessions, and thus to exercise judicial, legislative, and political
power. Throughout the following period of persecution it wielded its
authority in a high-handed manner. The greater part of the higher
nobles were in the new Privy Council, and the chief officers of State
were also members; while the courts of session and justiciary were
reconstituted, in place of the courts which Cromwell had introduced.
Thus the new government, being fully constituted, proceeded with
business.
On the last day of August, 1661, the Earls of Glencairn, Rothes, and
Sharp, the future Primate, returned from London with a letter from
the King, which was brought before the Privy Council on the 5th of
September. In this paper, the King referred to his letter of the
preceding year to the presbytery of Edinburgh, in which he had stated
his intention to maintain the government of the Church of Scotland as
settled by law; but the acts of the last parliament had rescinded all
the legislation of the kingdom since 1633, as it was not in accordance
with the monarchy and the “divine rights” of his Majesty. The King’s
inference was therefore plain, the Church was now exactly in the
same relation to the State as she had been in 1633; and by his royal
authority he resolved to restore the “Church to its government by
bishops, as it was by law before the late troubles, during the reigns
of our father and grandfather of blessed memory, and as it now stands
settled by law.” The Privy Council directly passed an act in harmony
with the royal letter, and proclaimed it at the Cross of Edinburgh.¹
Thus Episcopacy was again established in Scotland.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 230‒231.
The scramble for the bishoprics immediately began. The men whom the
court selected for this dignity, with one or two exceptions, were
characters of meagre ability, poorly qualified for commanding the
respect or the reverence of the people. Sharp had secured for himself
the primacy, but many evil wishes followed him, and it is very doubtful
if the post answered his expectations. The new bishops had again to
receive consecration from England. The King and his Scotch government
did all that they could to enhance the importance of the bishops, and
to secure for them the respect of the people. He instructed the Privy
Council to “take special care that all due deference and respect be
given by all our subjects to the archbishops and bishops of that Church;
and that they have all countenance, assistance, and encouragement, from
the nobility, the gentry, and the burghs, in the discharge of their
office and services to us in the Church; and that severe and exemplary
notice be taken of all and every one who shall presume to reflect, or
express any disrespect to their persons, or the authority with which
they are entrusted.” The Council carried out these commands to the
utmost of their power.¹
¹ _Ibid._, pages 235‒236, 248‒253; Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical
History of Scotland_, Volume III., pages 191‒198, 215, 242.
On the 8th of May 1662, the second session of parliament was opened by
a sermon from the Bishop of Dunkeld; and Middleton again took his seat
on the throne as royal Commissioner. The third statute passed was, “An
act for the restitution and re-establishment of the ancient government
of the Church by archbishops and bishops.” This act repealed all the
laws in favour of the presbyterian polity, especially the act of 1592.
While bishops were restored to all the rights and privileges which
they enjoyed in 1637, and they were empowered to take upon themselves
the whole government of the Church, with the assistance of any of the
clergy who might be suitable for their purpose, untrammeled by any
court, and responsible for their proceedings to the King alone. “And
further, it is hereby declared that whatever shall be determined by his
Majesty, with advice of the archbishops and bishops, and such of the
clergy as shall be nominated by his Majesty, in the external government
and policy of the Church, shall be valid and effectual.” It also
reinstated the bishops in all the claims, rights, patronages, rents,
possessions, and lands which were possessed by their predecessors
in the year 1637, notwithstanding any gifts or alienations of these
possessions since that date. When this act was passed, the bishops
immediately resumed their seats in parliament.¹ Thus, as the servants
of the Crown, the bishops were entrusted with ample powers.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
368, 372‒374.
The business of parliament was rapidly pushed on, and many acts were
passed to secure the new order and the ends of the government. A
statute was framed and passed for the preservation of his Majesty’s
person, authority, and government. In this act it was asserted that
the people were under great obligation to show all possible care for
the preservation of the King’s person, as “in his honour and happiness
consists the good and welfare of his people.” The evils of rebellion
were expounded, and the National Covenant and the Solemn League
and Covenant were declared unlawful, and henceforth null and void.
Hereafter, if any person plotted the death of the King, or intended any
harm to his person tending to death, or put any restraint upon him, or
deposed or suspended him from the style and the honour of the kingly
and imperial Crown of the kingdom, or by writing, printing, preaching,
or maliciously speaking――expressed their treasonable intentions, all
those found guilty of such crimes incurred the penalties of treason,
and forfeited their lives, lands, and goods. Further, all who by
writing, printing, praying, preaching, remonstrating, or speaking, may
express “any words or sentences to stir up the people to the hatred or
dislike of his Majesty’s royal prerogative and supremacy in all causes
ecclesiastical, or of the government of the Church by archbishops
and bishops, as it is now settled by law ... and being legally
convicted thereof, are hereby declared incapable of holding any place
or employment, civil, ecclesiastical, or military, within this Church
and Kingdom, and shall be liable to such further penalties as the law
demands.”¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
376‒377, 379.
To render the new order more complete, patronage was restored. All
the ministers who had entered on their charges since 1649 were
deprived of the right to their livings, unless each of them received
a presentation from his patron and institution from his bishop; and
patrons were requested to give presentations to the incumbents who
applied within a limited time. Another act was passed touching the
professors and masters of the universities, ministers, private meetings,
and conventicles. This act affirmed that it was necessary for the
advancement of religion and learning, the good of the Church and the
peace of the kingdom, that all the principals, professors, regents, and
masters of the colleges, should be loyal to the King, and well-affected
to the established government in Church and State; and it was therefore
enacted that none of these should be permitted to remain in their
offices, except they submitted to and owned the government of the
Church by archbishops and bishops, after having given satisfaction
on all points to the bishops, and in their presence taken the oath
of allegiance. In the same act the ministers were enjoined to be
careful in attending the bishops’ visitations, the diocesan synods,
and assisting in all the acts of discipline which the bishops required;
and if they refused to comply in these particulars, they were to be
deprived of their benefices. Another clause of the act prohibited
meetings or conventicles for religious exercises, because they were
“the nurseries of sedition,” even though held in private families;
and therefore all private meetings under the pretence of religious
exercises, which tended to damage the public worship in the churches,
to alienate the people from their lawful pastors, and their obedience
to the Church and to the State, were henceforth forbidden. In future
no one should be permitted to preach in public or in private anywhere,
or to teach in any public school, or among the children of the nobles,
without a licence from the ordinary of the diocese.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., page 379.
Another act touching the declaration to be signed by all persons in
public employment was passed. As this declaration was made the ground
of much of the oppression which ensued, it may be quoted here:――“I,
―――― do sincerely affirm and declare, that I judge it unlawful to
subjects upon any pretext of reformation, or other pretext whatever,
to enter into leagues and covenants, or to take up arms against the
King, or those commissioned by him; and that all those gatherings,
convocations, petitions, protestations, and erecting or keeping of
council tables that was used in the beginning, and for carrying on of
the late troubles, were unlawful and seditious; and particularly, that
these oaths, the one called the National Covenant, as it was sworn and
explained in the year 1638, and thereafter, and the other, entitled a
Solemn League and Covenant, were and are in themselves unlawful oaths,
and were taken by, and imposed upon the subjects of this kingdom,
against the fundamental laws and liberties of the same; and that
there lies no obligation upon me or any of the subjects, from the said
oaths or either of them, to endeavour any change or alteration of the
government, either in Church or State, as it is now established by
the laws of the kingdom.”¹ Besides this declaration, which might be
tendered to anyone, there were the oath of allegiance, and the act
declaratory of the royal prerogative and supremacy. And, as it was easy
to entangle the people with legal documents of this description, these
acts and oaths became the instruments of oppression and persecution.
¹ _Ibid._, pages 405‒406.
The new hierarchy thus thrust upon the nation was a curious
establishment. It had no liturgy; the whole discipline of the Church
was placed in the hands of the bishops; and the bishops themselves were
entirely dependent upon the King, who was made pope and despot by the
parliament of Scotland.
Towards the end of the session, parliament entered on the consideration
of the long-delayed indemnity. A list of names was framed, containing
of upwards of eight hundred persons, who were commanded to pay fines
before they receive such protection as the law then afforded. Middleton,
the royal Commissioner, also obtained the King’s warrant for excluding
from offices of public trust any twelve persons whom parliament might
name by ballot; but this balloting act, though carried by Middleton,
was shortly afterwards annulled, and the royal Commissioner himself
stripped of his position and power.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
415‒416, 420‒429; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages
270‒279.
Parliament was adjourned on the 9th of September, 1662. The next day
the Privy Council met, and ordered the diocesan synods to be held in
October. These synods accordingly met as commanded. In the north they
were pretty well attended, but in the south and in the west many of
the ministers absented themselves. In the diocese of Glasgow alone,
out of two hundred and forty ministers, only thirty-two were present at
the synod;¹ while in the diocese of Galloway and Argyle none attended,
except the newly appointed deans.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 280‒281; Dr. Grub’s
_Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume III., page 201.
About the end of September, the royal commissioner and other members
of the Privy Council went on a tour to the west, with the object of
enforcing obedience to the bishops and to the new laws. At Glasgow,
the archbishop complained to them that though the time appointed by the
law was past, very few of the ministers of his diocese had presented
themselves for institution; and it was reported that he urged them to
enforce the provisions of the act. On the 1st of October, 1662, the
Privy Council met in Glasgow, and passed an act announcing that all
the ministers who had not complied with the law should forfeit their
livings; also interdicting them from preaching, and ordering them to
remove from their manses and parishes before the 1st of November, and
not to reside within the bounds of their respective presbyteries. The
Council had imagined that only a few of the ministers would refuse to
comply; but when the date came, about three hundred of the ministers
left their manses and their parishes, rather than subject themselves to
episcopacy and to political bondage. In the northern and eastern parts
of the kingdom many of the ministers submitted to the bishops, but in
the west and in the south only one here and there. This was a serious
blow to the new polity, and the Privy Council became alarmed at the
result of its own proceedings. Sharp, the primate, disclaimed all
responsibility in connection with the Glasgow act; and Middleton,
incapable of understanding the sentiments of the refractory ministers,
raged at the obstinacy of the men who persisted in ruining themselves
for the sake of presbyterianism. Many of the people encouraged their
ministers to resist the bishops, and rejoiced to see them manifest
their honesty and constancy. The Council saw their mistake, and passed
another act on the 23rd of December, allowing the ministers ejected
under the Glasgow act liberty to apply for presentation and collation
before the 1st of February, 1663. This however, induced only a few to
resume their functions; and when the 1st of February came, many of the
ministers relinquished their livings and left their parishes.¹
¹ _Kirkton_, pages 148‒154, 1817; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume
I., pages 281‒286.
Meanwhile a number of ministers were under legal process on various
grounds; the presbyterian ministers and all who openly adhered to them
were severely treated. In September, 1662, the Privy Council announced
that many persons disaffected to the King had resorted to Edinburgh;
and, therefore, commanded the magistrates to furnish reports of the
numbers of such persons in the city every evening. The ministers of the
capital, who refused to conform to the new order of the Church, were
commanded to depart from the city, while several were banished out of
the King’s dominions, not to return under the penalty of death, and
others under lesser penalties.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 297‒318.
In the winter of 1663, a contest arose between Middleton and the Earl
of Lauderdale (the latter then secretary), for the chief place in
the management of the government of Scotland. In spite of all that
Middleton had done for the King in the Scotch parliament, Lauderdale
prevailed on the King to dismiss him; and in March his commission was
recalled, and shortly after he was deprived of all his other offices.
The Earl of Rothes was appointed royal commissioner; but Lauderdale
obtained, and long held the ascendancy in the government of Scotland,
mainly by his pandering to the King.¹
¹ Sir George Mackenzie’s _Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland_,
pages 78‒114, 1821.
Rothes and Lauderdale arrived in Edinburgh in June, 1663; and
Parliament reassembled on the 18th of the month. The lords of the
articles were changed, and re-elected in the following mode:――The
bishops elected eight of the nobles, the nobles then elected eight of
the bishops; and these together elected eight from the county members,
and eight from the burgh members. Thus the committee of the articles
was certain to be on the side of the court. The acts of the two last
sessions of parliament were explicit on the powers of the King, and
on the functions of the bishops of the Church; but to suppress and
subdue the opposition to the new clergy which had been manifesting
itself, another oppressive act was passed, and its aim was to prevent
separation from the established worship, and disobedience to the
episcopal authorities. It again asserted that the King had determined
to maintain the government of the Church by archbishops and bishops,
“and not to endure nor give in to any variation therein in the least.”
The ejected ministers were prohibited from preaching or assuming any
of their functions, under the penalty of sedition. All persons were
commanded to attend the ordinary meetings of public worship in their
own parish churches on Sunday; and if they absented themselves, they
incurred the following fines:――each noble, gentleman, or proprietor of
land, the sum of one-fourth of his yearly rental――each tenant, a fourth
part of his moveable goods,――each burgess, a fourth of his moveable
goods, with the forfeiture of his freedom of trading and all privileges
within the burgh. The Privy Council were ordered to enforce this act
vigorously, and having called all persons before them, whom the curates
and two witnesses had reported, to inflict on the offenders the above
penalties, and any corporal punishment which they thought fit.¹ This
act was excessively oppressive, and the people called it in derision
“the bishops’ dragnet.”
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
446‒449, 455‒456.
This parliament generously offered the King a force of twenty thousand
foot and two thousand horsemen, who might serve him in any part of
Scotland, England, or Ireland. The Estates adjourned on the 9th of
October, and no more parliaments were assembled in Scotland for six
years.¹
¹ _Ibid._, page 480; Mackenzie’s _Memoirs of the Affairs of
Scotland_, pages 132‒133.
Some of the ejected ministers still resided in their parishes, and
naturally continued to preach. The people in many places flocked to
hear them; while the new incumbents often found their churches deserted,
which was extremely displeasing to the government. Thus the religious
meetings arose which the authorities called “conventicles,” and which
parliament had already attempted to extinguish by compelling the people
to attend the parish churches. In June, 1663, the archbishops of St.
Andrews and of Glasgow were appointed Privy Councillors. On the 13th of
August, the council passed an act, by which all the ministers appointed
before 1649, who had not received presentation and collation, were
commanded to remove from their parishes, with their families, within
three weeks, and not to reside within twenty miles of their former
parishes, or within six miles of Edinburgh, or any cathedral church,
or three miles of any royal burgh, under the penalty of sedition. All
landholders and householders in the kingdom were strictly forbidden
to give any countenance to these ministers. On the 17th of September,
the Privy Council issued a proclamation against persons who presumed
to withdraw from the ordinary meetings of public worship, in parishes
where curates were already planted; and not only commanded all the
nobles, the sheriffs, the magistrates, and justices of peace, but
also all the officers in the standing army, to assist the curates in
compelling the people to attend their parish churches. The officers of
the army were empowered to exact fines from all who absented themselves
from the churches on Sunday; thus the course of persecution was begun
and vigorously continued.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 340‒346.
In October, 1663, different detachments of troops were sent to the
south, to the west, and to the south-west, but the greatest suffering
was inflicted in the south-west, and to this region Sir James Turner
was despatched. He had served in foreign wars, and was a fit instrument
for the work assigned to him. He was ordered to put the law into
execution against all who withdrew from hearing the curates; and to
impose a fine of twenty shillings Scots for every time that a person
was absent. The process of fining was very summary: the curate accused
whom he pleased to any one of the officers of the army, who acted
as judge; no witnesses were required; the soldiers also executed the
sentence; while very often the fine extorted far exceeded what the law
allowed, and frequently went into the officers’ own pockets.¹ These
proceedings were extremely galling to the people of the west, who
were firmly attached to presbyterian principles. But some of the new
curates adopted the device of calling a roll of the parishioners at the
close of the service, and then handed the list of the absentees to the
officer commanding in the district. If a tenant or the head of a family
was unwilling or unable to pay the fines, the soldiers were sent to
quarter upon him; and in this way many poor families were ruined, as
their goods were distrained and sold. In executing these proceedings,
the soldiers were often insolent, rude, and cruel; they mocked at
family worship, and disturbed and annoyed the people when engaged in it;
many of them were cruelly beaten, and driven to church and to prison
with equal violence. Thus all the humble ranks of the people were
treated; but the names of defaulting landed proprietors were directly
forwarded to the Privy Council, and it speedily disposed of their cases.
The military executed another form of oppression at the churches of the
old presbyterian ministers, some of whom had remained in their parishes
and had large congregations, which seems to have greatly offended the
bishops. The soldiers were ordered to go to these churches and inspect
the congregations. The mode of proceeding in such instances was this:
――A party of soldiers came to the church door and guarded it, then
ordered the people to pass out one by one, and interrogated them upon
oath, if they belonged to the parish; and if they could not answer that
they were parishioners, the soldiers immediately fined them, and any
money which they had on their person, was taken from them; but if they
had no money, or not so much as was required, then their bibles, the
men’s coats, and the women’s plaids, were taken from them. Instances
have been recorded where companies of soldiers entered the presbyterian
churches and interrupted the worship; while some were placed at each
door, others drove the people out, and forced them to swear whether
they belonged to this church or not, and according to the answers
received, they were allowed to go or were conveyed to prison. There
were yet other modes of compelling the people to attend the new curates,
for some of the bishops even employed spies, who went to conventicles
in disguise, and then informed upon those who were present.²
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, page 99; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I.,
pages 373‒374.
² Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., page 375; Kirkton’s _History_,
pages 200‒201.
The government still deemed the means of coercion insufficient; and the
King on the 16th January, 1664, authorised the erection of a Court of
High Commission, to attend especially to ecclesiastical matters. This
court was solely constituted by the royal prerogative. Its members
consisted of the two archbishops, seven other bishops, and thirty-five
laymen, including the chief officers of State; and any five of them,
one being a bishop, were to form a quorum. The court was invested
with plenary powers, and no one was exempted from its jurisdiction;
the least suspicion that a person was disaffected to the established
episcopacy might be construed into a crime; and it could cite ministers,
censure, fine, depose, imprison, or banish, all who refused to submit
to episcopacy. All the officers of the army, the sheriffs, the bailies
of regalities, justices of peace, and the magistrates, were ordered to
apprehend all such offenders and place them in the hands of the court;
and the governors of the King’s castles, and the keepers of prisons
were commanded to receive and to detain in close custody all such
persons as the commissioners of the court committed to them. Then the
fines imposed by this court were enforced by letters of horning; in
short, it was calculated to be an effective engine of oppression and
persecution. The record of its proceedings is lost, but contemporary
accounts describe it in terms of unmitigated condemnation. Before the
end of two years its powers were withdrawn, probably because the Privy
Council thought that it encroached upon its own authority.¹
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, pages 201‒203, 205‒207; Wodrow’s
_History_, Volume I., pages 384‒395.
The persecution was continued and increased in severity. On the
7th of December, 1665, the Privy Council passed an act against the
nonconforming ministers, and ordered that the former acts should be
rigorously enforced. At the same time the Council issued a proclamation
against conventicles, and again commanded all those in authority and
office to execute the law against every one attending these meetings.
The soldiers in Galloway and in the west oppressed the inhabitants by
quartering upon them; and they were authorised by the government to
collect the fines from those excluded from the King’s indemnity, as
well as the fines for nonconformity; and many acts of gross injustice
and cruelty were perpetrated. The people manifested a determination to
meet occasionally to hear their favourite preachers, in spite of all
the efforts of the government to prevent them. At last, driven past
the limits of human endurance and goaded to desperation, they turned
upon their oppressors. Their first act of open resistance occurred in
the vicinity of the small village of Dalry in Galloway, in November
1666, when four countrymen rescued an old man whom the soldiers were
maltreating to extort his church fines. They were soon joined by others,
and disarmed the small detachment of soldiers quartered in the district.
Having committed themselves, they resolved to surprise Sir James Turner,
and marched on Dumfries, where he had his head-quarters. They entered
the town on the morning of the 15th of November, and took Sir James a
prisoner, and disarmed his men. They then proceeded to the market cross
and publicly drank the King’s health, and prosperity to his government.
The rising was ill-concerted, however, and the insurgents hardly knew
what next to attempt.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume I., pages 428‒430; Volume II.,
pages 8‒13; Kirkton’s _History_, pages 229‒232.
They proceeded to Ayrshire, where they expected many persons would join
them. But some of the leading men of the county were already in prison,
so that few joined their standard, and the enterprise seemed hopeless.
The insurgents then marched into Lanark, and in that county their
numbers reached about two thousand; but they had no organisation or
discipline. There they renewed the covenant, and issued a manifesto.
Meanwhile the Privy Council had ordered Dalziel to march against the
insurgents, who had advanced to the neighbourhood of Edinburgh, but
were unable to take it, and retired southwards to the Pentland Hills.
On the 28th of November, Dalziel with the royal army came upon the
insurgents; and after a slight encounter, completely defeated them.
About fifty of the insurgents were killed, and one hundred taken
prisoners.¹
¹ Learmont’s _Chronicle_; Blackadder’s _Memoirs_.
The prisoners were brought to Edinburgh to be tried. Much care had
been taken to magnify the rising as the result of some great conspiracy
against the government; and the authorities resolved to try if torture
would elicit a confession. Hugh McKail, a preacher, and John Neilson of
Corsack, were both tortured, their legs being encased in that fearful
instrument, the boot, and crushed unmercifully to extort a confession,
but they had nothing to confess. Yet it never seems to have occurred
to the authorities that their own oppressive treatment of these poor
people was an all-sufficient explanation of the rising. McKail was
executed, and the dismal work proceeded; nineteen were hanged in
Edinburgh, and about the same number in Glasgow, Ayr, Irvine, and
Dumfries; altogether forty persons were executed.¹
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, pages 247‒255; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume II., pages 39‒55.
Military execution directly followed, Dalziel and Drummond were
despatched westward to crush out the spirit of rebellion, and compel
the people to embrace episcopacy. The army acted with more rapacity
than if they had been in an enemy’s country. Wherever they went
they took free quarters. On the roads and in the fields robbery and
murder were frequently committed with impunity; while complaints
only occasioned more suffering. Suspicion was accepted as evidence of
guilt, no proof of innocence was allowed, or mitigating circumstance
considered. Many acts of extreme cruelty and outrage have been recorded,
but I refrain from detailing these sickening scenes.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 62‒80.
Much of the odium of this persecution was attributed to Archbishop
Sharp. Whether rightly or wrongly, it was certainly believed that he
had insisted on strong measures of repression. Some men of influence
began to think that there had been enough of violence, and a rather
milder mode of administration was attempted, though no change was made
in the principles of the government itself. In August, 1667, the army
was ordered to be disbanded; and in October, an indemnity was offered
to all who had been engaged in the late rising, excepting a few who
were especially obnoxious, on the condition that they appeared before
the authorities and signed the bond of peace. This was to the effect
that the persons who signed it, promised to keep the public peace and
not rebel against the King’s authority. Thereupon the people enjoyed a
short breathing time, and began to hope that they might again be placed
under the protection of the common law of the kingdom.¹
¹ _Ibid._, Volume II., pages 80‒100.
In 1668 the government seemed to show some leniency to the
presbyterians, but, on the 11th of July, an extremely untoward event
happened in Edinburgh. James Mitchell, a young man who had been
concerned in the recent rising, and one of those specially excluded
from the indemnity, attempted to assassinate Archbishop Sharp. The
primate was coming from his lodging, and had just stepped into his
coach with the Bishop of Orkney, when a pistol shot was discharged
at him, which missed him, but shattered the Bishop of Orkney’s
arm. Mitchell crossed the street and instantly disappeared amid
the confusion; and he was not taken till six years afterwards. The
government naturally raised a great clamour about this dastardly
attempt, and offered a reward of two thousand merks to any person who
should discover the assassin, and three thousand to any one who should
apprehend him. It was reported that Sharp was much touched by the
attack on his life, and retained in his mind a vivid impression of the
figure of the assassin.¹ The King in his letters to the Privy Council
for some time after the attempt on Sharp’s life, warmly recommended the
bishops and the loyal clergy to the care of the Council. He enjoined
the Council to inquire minutely into all affronts and assaults upon
them. In the south and in the west, the bishops and the curates
required all the protection which the government could afford them;
for they were odious and hateful to the majority of the people in
these regions. The outcry was now renewed against the presbyterians
and their conventicles, and the Privy Council took steps to enforce
the acts against the nonconforming ministers and those who attended
conventicles, or had their children baptised by persons unauthorised by
the Established Church. Although many of the churches were vacant, the
bishops complained bitterly of the conduct of the ejected ministers who
officiated in their own houses and at conventicles. In consequence of
these complaints many of them were brought before the Council.²
¹ Kirkton’s _History_, 277‒279. Kirkton calls Mitchell “a weak
scholar, who had been in arms with the Whigs;” Wodrow says
“he was a preacher of the gospel, and a youth of much zeal
and piety” (Volume II., page 115). Sir James Turner called
him “a preacher, but not an actual minister” (_Account of the
Pentland Insurrection_). There is no evidence that he was a
licensed minister.
² Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 120‒129.
In the month of June, 1669, by authority of the King, a temporising
measure on a small scale was tried. The Privy Council was authorised
to appoint as many of the ejected ministers as they thought fit to the
vacant churches. Those who consented to take collation from the bishops
were to receive their stipends; and those who did not were only to have
the use of the manse and the glebe, with permission to exercise their
functions, and to receive annually such a sum of money as the Council
thought fit. All the ministers who accepted this offer bound themselves
to attend the meetings of the presbyteries and the synods, and not to
administer the communion to any one save their own parishioners, or
baptise children, or marry parties from neighbouring parishes, without
the permission of the minister of the parish to which they belonged;
they were besides to discourage the people of other parishes from
attending their preaching. As the government thought that these orders
had removed all pretence for holding conventicles, the Privy Council
was commanded to proceed with the utmost severity against all who
preached without authority and those who listened to them. Upwards of
forty ministers were re-admitted to parishes under the above conditions.
But it soon became manifest that this compromise was unsatisfactory to
all concerned. The true blue presbyterians asserted that it was merely
an attempt to blind them; and those not included in the indulgence
railed against the ministers who had accepted it. The episcopal party
were equally displeased with it; and in a short time the Council
refused to grant any more indulgences to the ejected ministers.¹
¹ Sir George Mackenzie’s _Memoirs_, pages 261‒262; Wodrow’s
_History_, Volume II., pages 129‒136.
The second parliament of this reign was opened at Edinburgh on the 19th
of October, 1669, with the Earl of Lauderdale officiating as a royal
commissioner. The King in his letter to the Estates proposed a union
of the two kingdoms, but the proposal came to no practical result. The
Archbishop of St. Andrews preached a sermon before parliament, in which
he stated that there were three pretenders to supremacy――the Pope, the
King, and the General Assembly of the presbyterians, all whose claims
he maintained were untenable. The Lords of the Council were inclined
to resent this, and an act was introduced and passed in parliament
containing a full and definite statement of the King’s supremacy.
This act is not long, and as it presents an indication of the principle
on which the government of the Church of Scotland was then founded, it
may be quoted. “The Estates of parliament having seriously considered
how necessary it is, for the good and peace of the Church and the State,
that his Majesty’s power and authority in relation to matters and
persons ecclesiastical be more clearly asserted by an act of parliament;
having therefore thought fit it be enacted, asserted and declared;
so his Majesty, with advice and consent of his Estates of parliament,
does hereby enact, assert and declare, that his Majesty has the
supreme authority and supremacy over all persons and in all causes
ecclesiastical within this kingdom: and that by virtue thereof, the
ordering and disposal of the external government and polity of the
Church does properly belong to his Majesty and to his successors, as
an inherent right of the Crown: and that his Majesty and his successors
may settle, enact, and emit such constitutions, acts, and orders,
concerning the administration of the external government of the
Church, and the persons employed in the same; and concerning all
ecclesiastical meetings and matters to be proposed and determined
therein, as they in their royal wisdom shall think fit: which acts,
orders, and constitutions, being recorded in the books of Council
and duly published, are to be obeyed by all his Majesty’s subjects,
notwithstanding any law, act, or custom to the contrary: likewise his
Majesty with advice and consent aforesaid, does rescind and annul all
laws, acts, and clauses thereof, and all customs and constitutions,
civil and ecclesiastical, which are contrary to, or inconsistent with
his Majesty’s supremacy, as it is hereby asserted, and declares the
same void and null in all time coming.”¹ This act invested the Privy
Council with full legislative power, and reasserted the position of
Charles as King and Pope.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., pages
551, 554; Sir George Mackenzie’s _Memoirs_, pages 159‒160.
The Estates passed an act for the protection of the episcopal clergy
from the violence of disaffected and disloyal persons, and ratified all
the former acts and proclamations of the Privy Council on this point,
and all previous acts of parliament. Land-owners, life-renters, and
others were commanded to protect, to defend, and to secure the persons,
families, and goods of their ministers; guarding them not merely in the
exercise of their functions, but in their houses and elsewhere, from
all injuries and affronts at the hands of disaffected persons;¹ while
an act was passed for facilitating the payment of disputed parts of the
bishops’ and curates’ stipends and rents.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VII., page 556.
The presbyterians had frequently met in private houses, but now they
began to assemble in the fields; the men sometimes attending the
conventicles armed, in case of being surprised by the soldiers who were
always scouring the country. On the 13th of January, 1670, additional
orders were given to the troops; and on the 3rd of February, a
proclamation concerning conventicles was issued, by which the soldiers
were commanded to seize the persons of landlords, ejected ministers,
tenants, and others, who attended the conventicles, to compel them to
find bail, and if they refused it, then to send them to the Council,
with a list of the witnesses against them. This year many field
meetings were held, three of them attracting particular notice owing
to the crowds assembled. One met at Beithhill, in the parish of
Dunfermline, in the middle of June; another at Livingseat, in the
parish of Carnwath, about the same date; and the third at the Torwood,
in Stirlingshire, in the beginning of July. One of the ministers
who preached at the first of these meetings, has himself given an
interesting account of it. The people began to gather on Saturday
afternoon, and many lay all night upon the hill-side. The ministers who
officiated were Mr. John Dickson and Mr. John Blackadder, the latter
having come from Edinburgh on Saturday night. It was resolved to hold
the meeting on the summit of the hill, for greater security; and a
fitting spot having been chosen, they pitched their tent. Mr. Dickson
conducted the service in the forenoon; and while this was going on, Mr.
Blackadder placed himself at the outskirts of the crowd, with the men
appointed to watch. During the time of the service some ill-affected
people were observed to come in among them, and amongst others the two
sons of the curate, with fourteen strong fellows at their back. Mr.
Blackadder permitted them to come and hear, but not to depart, lest
they should give the alarm, and the watch kept their eyes on them. The
morning preaching, which began at eight, was peaceably concluded about
eleven.
Mr. Blackadder preached in the afternoon; but before going to the tent,
when revolving his sermon in his mind, he heard a noise, and found
that it proceeded from a party bringing back the curate’s two sons,
with some violence, for which he rebuked them, and ordered the men to
let the youths come back without hurting them. After he had begun his
sermon, the lieutenant of the militia stationed in the district, with
a few others, arrived; he gave his horse to a man to hold, and passed
in among the people and listened to the preaching for a time. He then
returned to his horse and prepared to remount, when some of the guard
interfered and requested him to stay, lest his abrupt departure should
offend and disturb the meeting; but he refused to remain, and began
to threaten by drawing his staff. The guards then seized him as he
was putting his foot in the stirrup, and presented pistols at him.
The minister fearing that they might kill him, stopped his sermon,
and persuaded the people to allow the lieutenant to depart, and thus
to manifest their peaceable intentions. After settling this stir,
which lasted about half-an-hour, the minister returned to his tent
and resumed his sermon, and brought the meeting to a close. But this
interference with the King’s servant was afterwards made the occasion
of several severe prosecutions, so intent and determined was the
government on extinguishing conventicles.¹
¹ Blackadder’s _Memoirs_, pages 144‒148; Wodrow’s _History_,
Volume II., pages 154‒159.
These meetings greatly irritated the government, and it was resolved to
adopt more severe measures of repression. Parliament met at Edinburgh
on the 28th of July, 1670, and passed a number of acts against all who
disagreed with the Established Church. One act concerning the giving
of evidence, commanded that every person in the kingdom when asked,
should declare upon oath whatever they knew about conventicles and
the individuals present at them. This oath to reveal what they knew
might be administered by anyone authorised by the King; and refusal
to take it was followed by fines, imprisonment, or banishment to the
plantations in the Indies, “or elsewhere, as his Majesty’s Council
shall think fit.” Another act touching field conventicles was still
more severe. After stating the fines and punishments imposed for
attending religious meetings in private houses, it was enunciated,
“that field meetings are the rendezvous of rebellion, and tend in a
high degree to the disturbance of the public peace; therefore it is
statuted and declared, that whosoever, without licence or authority,
shall preach, expound scripture, or pray, at any of these meetings in
the fields, or in any house where there are more persons than the house
contains, so that some of them be standing without doors, which is
hereby declared to be a field conventicle, shall be punished by death
and confiscation of goods. And it is hereby offered and assured, that
if any of his Majesty’s subjects shall seize and secure the persons of
any who shall either preach or pray at these field meetings, or convene
any persons thereto, they shall for each person so secured have five
hundred merks paid to them for reward, out of his Majesty’s treasury,
by the commissioners, who are hereby authorised to pay the same; and
the said seizers and their assistants are hereby indemnified from any
slaughter that may be committed in the apprehending and securing of
such persons.” A more mischievous act it would be difficult to conceive;
and that its operation would drive a portion of the people into
rebellion might have been expected. The act enforcing attendance at
public worship in the parish churches was re-enacted under a different
title; while another act was passed to punish those who offered their
children to be baptised by any other minister than their own parish
one, “or else by such as are authorised by the present established
government of the Church, or licensed by his Majesty’s Council.” The
aim of this was to prevent the ejected ministers from baptising; but
one act of exclusive legislation usually demands another of a similar
character. So parliament, in 1672, passed an act against those who
were unwilling to have their children baptised in an orderly form; and
enacting that these persons who failed to have their children baptised
by their parish ministers, within thirty days after birth, rendered
themselves liable to heavy fines. Thus, “every proprietor of land and
life-renter shall be fined a fourth part of his valued yearly rent;
every person above the rank of a tenant, having a personal but no
real estate, in a fine of one hundred pounds Scots; every considerable
merchant a fine of one hundred pounds Scots; every inferior merchant or
considerable tradesman, and every tenant labouring land, fifty pounds;
every meaner burgess, inhabitant of a burgh, and every cottar, twenty
pounds; and every servant half a year’s fee.”¹ This act has the merit
of definiteness and minuteness; but the enormous fines meant ruin to
the offending parties.
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII. pages 7,
8‒10, 11, 72‒73.
In spite of this severity, the people in some districts continued to
meet in the fields; and every fresh attempt to enforce uniformity only
drove them into stronger dissent. Efforts of a more peaceful character
were tried by Bishop Leighton to win over the ejected ministers and
the nonconforming people of the west; but he met with little success.
He selected six persons, among whom were Bishop Burnet and Lawrence
Charteris, to preach to the people in the vacant churches throughout
the western counties. Their sermons were attended by numbers of the
people, but few of them were convinced or moved to change their views
by the arguments of the episcopal preachers. Burnet himself says, “The
people of the country came generally to hear us, though not in great
crowds. We were indeed amazed to see a poor commonalty so capable of
arguing upon points of government, and on the bounds to be set to the
power of princes in matters of religion. Upon all these topics they
had texts of scripture at hand; and were ready with their answers to
anything that was said to them. This measure of knowledge was spread
even among the meanest of them, their cottagers and their servants.
They were, indeed, vain of their knowledge, much conceited of
themselves, and were full of a most entangling scrupulosity; so that
they found or made difficulties in everything that could be laid before
them. We stayed about three months in the country, and in that time
there was a stand in the frequency of conventicles, but as soon as we
were gone, a set of these hot preachers went round all the places in
which we had been, to defeat all the good we could hope to do. They
told them the devil was never so formidable as when he was transformed
into an angel of light.”¹
¹ _History of His Own Time._ “The harvest they reapt was scorn
and contempt; a congregation they could never gather; they
never pretended to have made a proselyte.”――Kirkton’s
_History_, page 294.
Parliament met at Edinburgh in June, 1672, Lauderdale being again
royal commissioner; and excepting a short session in the following
year, there were no more meetings of parliament for nine years. An
act was passed renewing the former acts against conventicles; and
the act specially commanding the observance of the 29th of May, in
commemoration of his Majesty’s restoration to the kingdoms of his
ancestors: this act was repeatedly passed, and all the people commanded
to celebrate the event on the appointed day, by the ringing of bells,
bonfires at night, and other manifestations of joy; while all the
ministers were ordered to preach on this day, “that they, with the
whole people, may give thanks to God Almighty for His so signal
goodness to these kingdoms.” Those who failed to obey were to be
severely punished. Along with other acts this one afforded ground for
oppression.¹
¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume VIII., pages
73, 89.
In September, 1672, the Privy Council granted another indulgence to the
ejected ministers. They were enjoined to repair to certain parishes,
which were named, in the dioceses of Galloway, Glasgow, Edinburgh and
Argyle, and two and sometimes three ministers were appointed for each
parish. They were permitted to preach and exercise their functions
within the limits assigned to them, a portion of the stipend being
allowed for their support. But this indulgence was disliked by many of
the presbyterian ministers; and those who accepted it were hampered by
many difficulties, while it gave little satisfaction to any.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 201‒211.
On the 7th of March, 1673, the Privy Council ordered all the ejected
ministers in Edinburgh to remove from it to a distance of five miles,
unless they bound themselves to hold no conventicles. In April, the
Council issued a proclamation announcing more severe penalties against
conventicles; and some of the indulged ministers were punished for not
confining themselves to the limits prescribed to them.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, pages 211‒233.
But the conventicles became more and more common, and in March
the government proclaimed an indemnity and pardon for past fines
and offences incurred through the contravention of the penal acts,
excepting the penalties already imposed, and all sentences of
banishment and imprisonment. This indemnity extended to the penalties
against conventicles, irregular baptisms, and marriages, up to the
date of its publication. But the people looked upon it rather as an
encouragement for the future than as a remission for past offences;
and from this time conventicles of all kinds increased still faster, in
houses, in churches, and in the fields. In the south, in the west, and
in Fife, the people fixed upon positions in fields, on moors, and on
the hills, where multitudes assembled every Sunday, till the defeat at
Bothwell Bridge. “Then the conversation up and down Scotland was the
quality and success of the last Sunday’s conventicle, who the preachers
were, what the number of the people was, what doctrine the minister
preached, what change was among the people; how sometimes the soldiers
assaulted them, and sometimes killed some of them; sometimes the
soldiers were beaten, and some of them killed. And this was the
exercise of the people of Scotland for a period of six years.” In the
summer of 1674, it was recorded that――“Because men durst not, the women
of Edinburgh would needs appear in a petition to the Council, wherein
they desired that a gospel ministry might be provided for the starving
congregations of Scotland. Fifteen of them, mostly ministers’ widows,
engaged to present so many copies to the principal Lords of Council,
and upon the 4th of June filled the whole Parliament Close. When the
Chancellor came up, Sharp kept close to his back, fearing, it may be,
bodily harm, which he then escaped. Only some of them reproached him,
calling him Judas and traitor, and one of them laid her hand upon his
neck, and told him that neck must pay for it ere all was done, and in
that guessed right; but this was all he suffered at that time. Mr. John
Livingston’s widow undertook to present her copy to the Chancellor,
which she did. He received it, and civilly pulled off his hat. When
she began to speak, and took hold of his sleeve, he bowed his head and
listened to her, even till he came to the Council chamber door. She who
presented her copy to Stair found no such kind reception, for he threw
it upon the ground, which made one tell him he did not so with the
remonstrance which he helped to write. But when the Council met, the
petition was turned into a seditious libel by the vote of the Court.
The provost and guard were sent for, but none of these were very cruel;
only they threatened, and the women dissolved. Thereafter, for an
example, some of them were cited, and some denounced rebels. Three
women they imprisoned also for a time――James Clelland’s wife, Miss
Campbell, and a daughter of Johnston of Warriston――and this was the
end of that brush.”――Sir George Mackenzie gives this account of the
affair;――“And petitions for able ministers were given in to the Council,
by many hundreds of women, who filled the Parliament Close, threatened
the Archbishop of St. Andrews, who passed along with the Chancellor,
for whose coming he had waited in his own chamber; and some of them
had conspired to set upon him, when a woman, who I shun to name, should
raise her hand on high as a signal: to prevent which, the Chancellor,
by entertaining the woman with insinuating speeches all the time as he
passed to the Council, did divert that bloody design.”¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 266‒267; Kirkton’s
_History_, pages 342‒346; _Memoirs_, page 273.
The government taxed its ingenuity to the utmost in devising means
to prohibit conventicles, and to crush the spirit of the people. In
June, 1674, the heads of families were made liable for their wives and
children, and their servants; and the proprietors of land for their
tenants and servants. They were obliged to subscribe a bond that they
would obey this, under severe penalties. The bond is in these terms:
“I――bind and oblige me, that I, my wife, or any of my children in
family with me, my cottars, or servants, shall not keep or be present
at conventicles, either in houses or in the fields, as the same is
defined by the 5th Act of the second session of his Majesty’s second
parliament, under the fines therein contained.... And for the more
security, I am content, and consent that these presents be inserted
in the books of the Privy Council, books of Council and Session, or
any other competent judges’ books, that letters and execution may pass
thereupon.... God save the King.” Proclamations and orders were issued
for apprehending the ministers who preached at conventicles, and the
people who attended them, while the promise of rewards to persons who
seized them was renewed. Indeed, every one in the kingdom was in some
way obliged or encouraged to inform upon another, and every man to ruin
his neighbour. On the 16th of July, 1674, thirty-nine of the ejected
ministers, having been shortly before summoned to appear before the
Council, and having failed to comply, were proclaimed rebels, and put
to the horn; amongst the list of ministers thus denounced some were
dead, and others had been indulged, but all were indiscriminately
proscribed. Donald Cargill, the noted field preacher, and James Kirkton,
the author of a history of the Church of Scotland, and other notable
Covenanters, were included in this sentence. These ministers, along
with others before denounced, then formed themselves into a body
completely separated from the bishops and the curates; and a number
of gentlemen and many of the people joined them. Having been outlawed,
they were forced to betake themselves to hiding-places, to the fields,
and to the hills. Being exposed to the attacks of the soldiers at their
meetings, these parties usually carried arms.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 234‒248; Kirkton’s
_History_, pages 348‒352.
Nevertheless the rigorous laws of the government failed to prevent
preaching in private houses and in the fields. In 1675, garrisons were
placed in private mansions, where the nonconformists were most numerous;
while letters of intercommuning were issued against upwards of a
hundred persons, of whom eighteen were ministers. Thus the dissenters
were not only outlawed but also deprived of all intercourse with their
fellow men; all who held any intercourse with them became implicated
in their crimes, and rendered themselves liable to the same punishment.
In the terms of the law then proclaimed――“We command and charge all
our subjects, that they, nor none of them, presume to reset, supply,
or intercommune with any of the aforesaid persons or rebels, for the
causes foresaid, nor furnish them with meat, drink, house, harbour,
victuals, or any other thing useful or comfortable to them, nor have
any intelligence with them by word, writing, message, or any other way,
under the penalty of being reputed and esteemed art and part with them
in their crimes, and pursued therefore with all rigour to the terror of
others.”¹ These modes of persecution forced many to leave their homes,
and wander from place to place in want and weariness, shunned, spurned,
and hunted by the authorities, sustained by nothing but by the glow and
strength of their faith.
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 286‒288.
In March, 1676, the government issued a fresh proclamation against
conventicles, commanding the authorities, under severe penalties, to
seize all intercommunicated persons, and to put the penal laws in force
against all offenders and rebels. The Council granted commissions to
form and appoint committees, to put the laws against conventicles and
dissenters into execution; one was ordered to sit in Edinburgh, one in
Glasgow, one for Stirling and Fife, and one for Aberdeenshire, Moray,
and Ross.¹
¹ Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II., pages 318‒323.
A large meeting of the presbyterian ministers was held in Edinburgh
in the beginning of the year 1677. A considerable section of the
people had now openly disowned and separated from the episcopal clergy
and Church; and indeed the presbyterians were too numerous for the
effective operation of the penal laws against them; but the government
still attempted to put down conventicles. Sir George Mackenzie was
appointed Lord-Advocate in August, 1677, and ever after he was an open
enemy to the presbyterians, or “the fanatics,” as he called them. He
expressed his views thus:――“These fanatics finding all their hopes
disappointed, resolved to try by force what they could not obtain from
favour; and knowing that they might expect the connivance, at least, of
the party in opposition to Lauderdale, and that party having blown up
their expectations, by assuring them that the Parliament of England was,
by many late elections, become more fanatical, they hounded out all
their ministers to keep field conventicles in such numbers and so well
armed, and to threaten so all the orthodox clergy, and to usurp their
pulpits, that the Council was much troubled at the clouds which they
saw so fast gathering; and Lauderdale was the more envenomed, that all
these disorders were charged upon the late offers made by him of an
indemnity and indulgence, and the news that was industriously spread,
both in London and Edinburgh, of great sums of money promised to his
duchess by the fanatics. Notwithstanding of all which, Sir George
Mackenzie being lately admitted to be his Majesty’s Advocate, did
prevail with the Council to prevent, by the ensuing articles, all
the fanatics’ just exceptions against the forms formerly used against
them. 1. That his Majesty’s Advocate be special as to time and place in
libelling against conventicles and others pursued; but as he may libel
any day within four weeks, or any place within such a parish, or near
to the said parish, for else conventicles may be held upon the confines
of parishes, merely to disappoint his way of libelling. 2. When any
person is convened upon a libel, that in that case, he be only examined
upon his own guilt and accession; seeing nothing can be referred to a
defender’s oath but what concerns himself during the dependence of a
process. 3. That if any person who is cited be ready to depone, or pay
his fines, he be not troubled with taking bonds, or other engagements;
seeing that the constant punishment of such as do transgress will
supply the necessity of the bonds, and the law itself is the strongest
bond that can be exacted of any man.”¹ Those who were cited never
appeared, as they knew that imprisonment in the Bass awaited them,
where at this time all were sent who could be seized.
¹ _Memoirs_, pages 322‒323; Wodrow’s _History_, Volume II.,
pages 346‒347.
In August, the government emitted a proclamation against those who
withdrew from public worship, and attended conventicles――“which we have
so often declared to be the nurseries of schism, and the rendezvous of
rebellion; tending to detach our subjects from that reverence due to
religion, and that obedience they owe to our authority.” To this was
annexed a bond for compelling the people to attend their own parish
churches, under the penalties of the former acts.¹