BOOK III.

AUGUST, A.D. 1661-1662.

Lord High Commissioner sets out for Court—His reception—Deliberations of

the Council—Episcopacy resolved upon as the National Religion of

Scotland—Glencairn, Rothes, and Sharpe appointed to carry the tidings

to Edinburgh—King’s letter—Privy Council announce the overthrow of

Presbytery—Forbid the election of Presbyterian Magistrates in

Burghs—Prosecute Tweeddale—Ministers summoned to London to be

episcopally ordained—Their characters—Their consecration—Grief of the

Presbyterians—Re-introduction of Episcopacy—Restrictions on the

press—Witchcraft—Synods discharged and Bishops ordered to be honoured

by royal patent—Their consecration—Parliament restores their

rank—Asserts the King’s supremacy—The Covenants declared unlawful—Act

of fines—Defeated—Lord Lorn—Blair and other ministers deprived—King’s

birth-day—Middleton’s visit to the West and South—Case of Mr

Wylie—Brown of Wamphrey—Livingston, &c.—Middleton removed and

Lauderdale appointed.

Leaving the government in the hands of the privy council,[20] Middleton,

after parliament adjourned, set out for court, where he was received by

the Earl of Clarendon, Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Ormond, and all the

cavalier party, with the greatest congratulations for having quenched

the fanatic zeal of Scotland, and carried his majesty’s prerogative

beyond what any preceding monarch, when present, had ever claimed.

Footnote 20:

The chief members of which were—The Earl of Glencairn, chancellor;

Crawford, treasurer; Rothes, president; Lauderdale, secretary.

Members—Dukes of Lennox and Hamilton; Marquis of Montrose; Earls of

Errol, Marischal, Mar, Atholl, Morton, Cassils, Linlithgow, Perth,

Dunfermline, Wigton, Callender, Dundee, &c. &c. _Wodrow_, p. 87.

At a council held upon his arrival, Charles, who utterly detested

Presbytery, expressed himself highly gratified at the report of what he

had done; but his councillors were divided. Lauderdale and some others,

who knew perfectly that the established religion was deeply rooted in

the affections of Scottishmen, were unwilling to hazard a change; and

even some who wished an Episcopacy were yet averse to its being too

rashly introduced.[21] Middleton, however, who had been previously

tutored, immediately addressed the king—“May it please your sacred

majesty: You may perceive by the account I have now given of your

affairs in Scotland, that there is no present government as yet

established in that church. Presbytery is, after a long usurpation, now

at last rescinded—the covenant, whereby men thought they were obliged to

it, is now declared to have been unlawful—and the acts of parliament,

whereby it was fenced, are now removed; so that it is arbitrary to your

majesty to choose what government you will fix there; for to your

majesty this is by the last act of supremacy declared to belong. But if

your majesty do not interpose, then Episcopacy, which was unjustly

invaded at once with your royal power, will return to its former

vigour.”

Footnote 21:

When the lords went first up to welcome the king, the question was

debated what form of government should be established in the Scottish

church. “Middleton and Glencairn were resolute for bishops,

pronouncing they would both compose the church and manadge it to the

king’s mind; Lauderdale opposed it stiffely, affirming the king should

thereby lose the affectiones of the people of Scotland, and that the

bishops should be so far from enlargeing the king’s power, that they

would prove a burdine too heavy for him to bear; and therein he proved

als true a prophet, as he was a faithful friend to the king. Within

some few days, Glencairn came to visit Lauderdale, and told him he was

only for a sober sort of bishops, such as they were in the primitive

times, not lordly prelats. Lauderdale answered him with ane oath, that

since they hade chosen bishops, they should have them higher than any

that ever were in Scotland, and that he should find.” _Kirkton_, p.

134.

Glencairn followed, and affirmed that the insolence of the Presbyterian

ministers had so disgusted all loyal subjects, that six for one longed

for the Episcopalian government, which had ever inculcated obedience and

supported the royal interest; whereas, Calvinism and Presbytery had

never been introduced into any country without blood and rebellion, and

instanced, with the most preposterous absurdity, the struggles for

freedom at the Reformation—in France, during the civil war—in Holland,

when they revolted from Spain—and now twice in Scotland; once by the

Regent Murray, when Queen Mary was banished, and lastly in 1637. Rothes

added, although he had not seen the rise of the innovations, yet he had

witnessed the ruin of the engagement and the treatment of the king by

that persuasion. Lauderdale contended that the proposition was of too

great importance to be slightly determined, and required much thought

and much information; for, upon their resolution, depended the quiet of

the Scots—a people very unmanageable in matters of religion—and advised

that either a General Assembly should be called, the provincial synods

consulted, which, as composed of ministers and laymen, would acquaint

his majesty with the inclinations of his subjects—or, he might call the

ablest divines on both sides, and learn their sentiments, if neither of

the other proposals were approved of. Middleton replied that all these

methods would only tend to continue Presbytery; for it was probable the

power of the ministers, which had been so irresistible of late, would

preponderate in all. They would easily procure ruling elders of their

own cast to be chosen, and both would be unwilling to resign the power

they possessed; at all events, the leading men whom the inferior clergy

must follow, durst not quarrel the resolutions of their rabbis, who

would adhere to the oaths they had taken, and stoutly defend their own

supremacy; besides, to call General Assemblies or synods, were to

restore them, and thus to infringe the act rescissory.

The Earl of Crawford, whose treasurer’s rod was a desirable object for

Middleton, had declined mingling in the debate, which the Chancellor of

England observing, requested his majesty that he might be desired to

give his opinion, in order that he might either disclaim Presbytery or

displease the king, and thus put his principles or his place in

jeopardy; for it appeared to be a settled rule among the courtiers of

Charles, that whatever Scottishmen were allowed to interfere in the

public affairs of their native country, should sacrifice either their

conscience or their interest.

Crawford perceived the Chancellor’s aim, and vehemently urged that

provincial synods might be consulted, assuring his majesty, the king,

that six for one in Scotland were in favours of Presbytery. “The

offences of the reformers,” he warmly contended, “were not to be charged

upon the Reformation: the best innovations were ever attended with much

irregularity, and therefore it was better to continue that government

which had now past all these hazards—at first unavoidable—than risk

another, which, at its outset, must be unhappy in the same

inconveniences. Nor did the act rescissory cut off Presbytery, for it

was secured by acts of General Assemblies, which had been countenanced

by his majesty’s father’s commissioners, and were yet unrepealed.”

The Duke of Hamilton supported him, and affirmed that the reason why the

act rescissory had so easily passed, was, because his majesty had

promised to continue Presbytery in his letter addressed to the ministers

of Edinburgh. Clarendon closed the debate, by observing, that Crawford

had owned all that ever was done in Scotland in their rebellion; “and

God preserve me,” said he, “from living in a country where religion is

independent of the state, and clergy may subsist by their own acts; for

there all churchmen may be kings.” The king then told them that he

perceived a majority were for Episcopacy, and therefore he resolved to

settle it without any farther delay.

Immediately after, Glencairn and Rothes were dispatched to Edinburgh,

accompanied by Mr Sharpe, to convey his majesty’s determination to the

council. Were it not that, in humble life, we see men equally base and

shameless where their own self-interest is concerned, we might wonder at

the unblushing effrontery of the royal communication; yet the pitiful

evasion and vile duplicity in which it was couched, render the king’s

letter at once an object of detestation and contempt. That the reader

may compare it with his former to the ministers of Edinburgh, I give it

at full length:—

“Charles R. Right trusty and well-beloved cousins and councillors, We

greet you well. Whereas, in the month of August 1660, We did, by our

letters to the presbytery of Edinburgh, declare our purpose to maintain

the government of the church of Scotland as settled by law; and our

parliament having since that time not only rescinded all the acts since

the troubles began, but also declared all these pretended parliaments

null and void, and left to us the settling and securing of church

government: Therefore, in compliance with that act rescissory, according

to our late proclamation, dated at Whitehall the 10th of June, and in

contemplation of the inconveniences from the church government, as it

hath been exercised these twenty-three years past—of the unsuitableness

thereof to our monarchical state—of the sadly experienced confusions

which have been caused during the late troubles, by the violences done

to our royal prerogative, and to the government, civil and

ecclesiastical, settled by unquestionable authority, We, from respect to

the glory of God and the good and interest of the Protestant religion;

from our pious care and princely zeal for the order, unity, peace, and

stability of that church, and its better harmony with the government of

the churches of England and Ireland, have, after mature deliberation,

declared to those of our council here our firm resolution to interpose

our royal authority for restoring of that church to its right government

by bishops, as it was before the late troubles, during the reigns of our

royal father and grandfather, of blessed memory, and as it now stands

settled by law. Of this our royal pleasure concerning church government

you are to take notice, and to make intimation thereof in such a way and

manner as you shall judge most expedient and effectual. And we require

you, and every one of you, and do expect, according to the trust and

confidence we have in your affections and duty to our service, that you

will be careful to use your best endeavours for curing the distempers

contracted during those late evil times—for uniting our good subjects

among themselves, and bringing them all to a cheerful acquiescing and

obedience to our sovereign authority, which we will employ, by the help

of God, for the maintaining and defending the true reformed religion,

increase of piety, and the settlement and security of that church in her

rights and liberties, according to law and ancient custom. And, in order

thereto, our will is, that you forthwith take such course with the rents

belonging to the several bishopricks and deaneries that they may be

restored and made useful to the church, and that according to justice

and the standing law. And, moreover, you are to inhibit the assembling

of ministers in their several synodical meetings through the kingdoms

until our further pleasure, and to keep a watchful eye over all who,

upon any pretext whatever, shall, by discoursing, preaching, reviling,

or any irregular or unlawful way, endeavour to alienate the affections

of our people, or dispose them to an ill opinion of us and our

government to the disturbance of the peace of the kingdom. So, expecting

your cheerful obedience and a speedy account of your proceedings herein,

We bid you heartily farewell. Given at our court, at Whitehall, August

14, 1661, and of our reign the thirteenth year, by his majesty’s

command.” (Signed) “LAUDERDALE.”

The privy council received with all due humility this intimation of the

royal pleasure; and, on the 6th of September, an act was drawn up and

published, announcing to the people of Scotland the overthrow of their

beloved Presbytery, under whose shade they had reposed with so much

tranquility during the few last years of the much abused and

unreasonably hated protectorate, and the re-establishment of that system

against which their fathers had ever contended. A proclamation

overturning the freedom of elections, accompanied the act for

overturning the constitution of the church—so naturally and nearly are

civil and ecclesiastical tyranny connected. The royal burghs were

commanded, under the highest penalties, to elect none for their

magistrates who were fanatically—an epithet which it now became

fashionable to apply to the conscientious Presbyterians—inclined; and

such and so sudden had been the change wrought by the transfer of power,

that this illegal dictation was universally obeyed. Nor did their

conduct towards one of their own number evince a greater regard for

their own privileges or the rights of parliament, than their ready

servility had done for the religion and liberty of their country.

Tweeddale and Kincardine had pressed the council to request the king

that he would consult provincial synods, who would declare the sense of

the country; and, at all events, relieve his majesty from obloquy

whatever might be the ultimate decision. This proposition, however,

would have shown too much deference to men whom it was intended to bring

to unconditional subjection, and was refused accordingly; but Charles

was informed of Tweeddale’s hesitation, and an order was procured for

his imprisonment, not indeed ostensibly for his opinion delivered in

council, but for what was or ought to have been still more sacred, for

his judgment and voice in parliament, because he had spoken in

vindication of Mr James Guthrie, and had not voted him guilty of death!

It was to no purpose that he pled the freedom allowed in parliament,

where he was a councillor upon oath and expressly indemnified by law for

what was spoken there; and the danger which every member would thus

incur who voted any person accused of treason innocent, if a majority

should happen to find him guilty. He was sent prisoner to the Castle,

and was only, upon his submission and petition, permitted to confine

himself to Yester and three miles round, finding caution to the amount

of one hundred thousand merks to answer when called for! Eight months

after, when it was thought his discipline had taught him obedience, he

was, through the mediation of the council, relieved; and, when his

relation Lauderdale came into power, he joined his government.

Although his majesty could establish Episcopacy by proclamation, the

peculiar holiness which was supposed necessarily to belong to the office

of a bishop, it was beyond his power to confer. This essential attribute

of a prelate, which had passed, as was believed, untainted from the

apostles, through all the corruption, vileness, and abomination of the

church of Rome, had, by hands crimsoned in the blood of the saints, and

defiled with all the pollutions of their brethren, been communicated to

the dignitaries of the English hierarchy, upon whom it still rested in

all its imaginary purity and vigour. But the feeble portion of the

sacred virus that had reached Scotland upon a former occasion, when

James VI. procured the innoculation of his hierarchate, was now confined

to one aged and almost superannuated subject, Mr Thomas Sydeserf,

formerly bishop of Galloway; and he had been excommunicated by a General

Assembly. It was therefore resolved that a select number of the Scottish

ministers should be consecrated by priests who had never been polluted

by any unhallowed contact with Presbyterians; and Messrs Sharpe,

Fairfoul, and Hamilton were summoned to London to receive the holy

unction.

James Sharpe, designed for the primacy, was already the object of

detestation to every one who had the smallest regard for the

Presbyterian profession, or for consistency of principle. Andrew

Fairfoul, promoted to the archbishoprick of Glasgow, possessed

considerable learning, better skilled, however, in physic than in

theology—a pleasant, facetious companion, but never esteemed a serious

divine. He had taken the covenant and was first minister in Leith, then

in Dunse. Mr James Hamilton, brother to Lord Belhaven, created bishop of

Galloway, was also a covenanter, and minister of Cambusnethan. His

abilities were not above mediocrity, and his cunning was more remarkable

than his piety. They were, however, joined at London by Mr Robert

Leighton, a man of a very different description, whose meek and gentle

spirit, unfitted for the stormy region of political polemics, delighted

more in communion with God than in contending with his fellows, and who,

counting himself a stranger and a pilgrim upon earth, was only anxious

to diffuse the gospel of the kingdom, and shed around him the charities

of life. He was educated during the reign of pseudo-episcopacy, and

never was a thorough Presbyterian. His character and views may be

estimated from a circumstance which occurred during that period of his

life when he was minister of Newbattle. Some of his zealous

co-presbyters urging on him the duty of “preaching to the times,” (by no

means an unnecessary one, however, in its proper place,) he mildly

replied—“When so many of my brethren are preaching to the times, they

may spare one poor minister to preach for eternity.” He had retired to

London to enjoy the privacy he loved, and was unwillingly dragged

forward to assist in carrying Episcopacy to Scotland.[22]

Footnote 22:

There is just one point in Leighton’s character that appears

unaccountable, that is, after he had solemnly sworn the covenants, and

enforced them upon others, how he could ever turn an Episcopalian.

A commission, under the great seal of England, was directed to the

bishops of London and Worcester, and some other suffragans of the

diocese of Canterbury, to officiate upon this important occasion; but an

unexpected difficulty occurred by Dr Sheldon proposing to set aside the

Presbyterian ordination altogether and commence _de novo_. Sharpe quoted

the case of Bishop Spottiswood, whose Presbyterian ordination had been

sustained when he was consecrated, and for a while resisted the

proposal; but the other was peremptory, and would not hear of the

validity of any other than prelatic imposition of hands; and Sharpe, who

had now gone too far to recede for a trifle, submitted to enter his new

profession by the lowest step, that he might attain the wretched object

of his ambition—to him a woful eminence. In the month of December, they

were with great pomp, and before a splendid assemblage of nobility at

Westminster, passed and raised through the various degrees of the craft,

from preaching-deacons to mitred bishops, in one day, which was

concluded by a magnificent entertainment given by the new-made prelates

to their English brethren and a select party of Scottish and English

nobles.

Convinced at length of their error, the honest Presbyterians, of all

parties, lamented that their intestine divisions should have been

allowed to divert them from attempting the security of their religion,

and that they should have indulged in bitterness of spirit against each

other about matters of comparatively lesser moment, while the common

enemy was making such rapid, though covert, advances against their

establishment. Uncertain how long they might enjoy that liberty, they

now throughout Scotland directed the attention of their hearers to the

principles of their church, and the points in dispute between them and

the Episcopalians[23]—they held congregational fasts in every corner of

the land to lament over the misimprovement of their privileges and

deprecate the impending wrath of God—and they continued their parochial

duties among a mourning people who, with a general sadness, anticipated

the lamentable change. Their synods had been forbid; but they met with

little interruption in their presbyterial duties till the bishops were

installed, when they were informed that their power of ordination had

ceased. This intimation was first made by the council to the presbytery

of Peebles, when, in the month of December, they were proceeding to

induct Mr John Hay to the kirk of Manner; and from thenceforth all

presentations to benefices were ordered to be directed to the

archbishops or bishops within whose diocese the vacant church might lie.

Footnote 23:

The points in dispute between the Presbyterians and Episcopalians were

of much more vital importance than modern Presbyterians seem to be

aware of. They comprehended doctrinal points—the form of church

government, the ceremonies, the festivals, and the forcible intrusion

of the whole system upon the nation, in virtue of the king’s spiritual

supremacy. The very essence of Christianity was at stake. The grand

fundamental doctrine which Luther asserted at the Reformation, was,

justification by faith, in opposition to justification by works; and a

more clear statement of this essential article of Christian belief

will nowhere be found than in his exposition of the Epistle to the

Galatians—to this all was subsidiary. He found that attacking the

rites, ceremonies, and fooleries of Rome was wasting shot against

pitiful outworks, the fall of which was of no importance, while the

main rampart and the citadel frowned defiance. It was the same with

all the reformers; and it was now a revival of the old question. The

Episcopalians were in general Arminians, and the Presbyterians

contended for “the faith” once delivered to the fathers; and this

faith was the doctrinal creed embodied in the covenants. This should

always be kept in view. The other points were not of little moment;

but this was the foundation.

The re-introduction of Episcopacy into Scotland was accompanied by a

restoration of all the most severe restrictions upon the liberty of the

press and a revival of the absurd and flagitious proceedings against

poor, old, and friendless creatures, ignorantly or maliciously accused

of witchcraft. The council, upon an information that George Swinton and

James Glen, booksellers in Edinburgh, had printed and sold the speeches

of the Marquis of Argyle and Mr James Guthrie, with other seditious and

scandalous publications, such as the “Covenanter’s Plea,” ordered the

Lord Advocate and Lord Provost of Edinburgh, to seize upon such books

and papers, and prohibit them and the rest of the printers from printing

any other books or pamphlets without a warrant from the king,

parliament, or council; and, “for preventing false intelligence,” they

granted liberty to a creature of their own, Robert Mein, keeper of the

letter-office, Edinburgh, to print the Diurnal, then the only newspaper

in the kingdom. Commissions for the trial of witches were at the same

time issued to gentlemen in almost every shire, and great numbers of

unfortunate creatures, chiefly poor decrepit old women, were tortured

and murdered upon the most contradictory, ridiculous, and incredible

absurdities, which were alleged against them; or upon the incoherent

ravings which, after being kept for nights without sleep, and tormented

without intermission in the height of a delirium, they uttered as their

confessions. And yet such convictions stand upon record as being in

consequence of “clear probation” or voluntary confessions! But it is

deserving of especial notice, that these trials took place chiefly in

the north and the east—the districts least infected with

“fanaticism.”[24]

Footnote 24:

The Dunbar witches were famous in East, as the Borrowstounness witches

were in West, Lothian. It is, however, among the melancholy and

unaccountable problems in the history of the human mind, that persons

of excellent understanding were implicated in these and similar horrid

transactions. In England, even Judge Hale condemned two. Had the

witches, or wizards, been tried for operating upon the fears and the

superstitions of their country folk, as the Africans in the West

Indies and on their own coasts operate on the fears and superstitions

of each other by the _obi_, _bitter water_, and other really noxious

practices, their persecution might have been proper, and their

punishment just; but, dancing reels with Satan, and flying through the

air upon broomsticks, were accusations so truly ridiculous, that, how

they came to be ever gravely listened to, is passing strange. Dr

Hutchinson says, “the word _witch_, in old English, according to Dr

More, signifies _a wise woman_; in the vulgar Latin, it is _venefica_,

_a poisoner_.” _Hist. Essay on Witchcraft_, p. 183.

This eventful year was closed by a letter from the king, December 28,

ordering the council to discharge by proclamation all ecclesiastical

meetings in synods, presbyteries, and sessions, until authorized by the

archbishops or bishops upon their entering upon the government of their

respective sees; and requiring that all due deference and respect should

be given by the lieges to these dignitaries, or, to use the words of the

king, “that they have all countenance, assistance, and encouragement

from the nobility, gentry, and burghs, in the discharge of their office

and service 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

intrusted”—an ominous and unholy introduction to a Christian ministry,

which sufficiently marked the nature of the proposed establishment; bore

witness to the known dislike of the people towards such a priesthood,

and the strong probability that pastors created by royal patent, and

sanctified by prelatic palmistry, would be received with any thing but

respect or affection by the flock over whom they were to have the

oversight.

The new year, 1662, was ushered in by a proclamation, January 9, from

the privy council, announcing, in terms of the king’s letter, the final

extinction of Presbytery. Formerly, such a decree would have encountered

at any rate a formidable show of opposition from the denounced

ecclesiastical judicatories; nor would they have separated without at

least bearing testimony against this unwarrantable invasion of their

legal right. But the blind confidence that the Presbyterians had so

unaccountably reposed in the king, produced a species of fatuity; nor

would they believe till they experienced the truth of the

prognostications of the more discerning, who saw from the first the

ill-dissembled hatred Charles bore to Presbyterianism as well as to

piety. They were like men amazed at the greatness of the calamity; and

although some few of them attempted to draw up petitions to the council,

no united effort was made to vindicate the oppressed church.

An obsequious crowd of nobility, clergy, and gentry, awaited the arrival

of the new bishops, and obeyed to the letter the orders of the king.

From Cockburnspath to the capital, their numbers increased; and, as the

procession rolled on, it assumed more the splendour of some earthly

potentate marching to take possession of a newly-acquired conquest, than

that of spiritual guides entering upon the humble duties of a gospel

ministry. They were greeted on their approach to Edinburgh with martial

music, and received at the gates by the magistrates in their robes,[25]

and spent several successive days in sumptuous entertainments. The

primate, vieing with the chief nobility in the elegance of his equipage

as well as the magnificence of his banquets, displayed upon the occasion

a handsome London-built chariot, and was attended by lackeys in purple

liveries. Shortly afterwards, in great pomp, he took possession of his

see;[26] then, returning to Edinburgh on the 7th of May, consecrated

other six bishops in the Abbey of Holyrood-house.

Footnote 25:

Lamont gives the following account of Sharpe’s visit on this

occasion:—“As for Mr Sharpe, he came to Fiffe, Apryl 15th, and dyned

that day at Abetsaa, Sr. Andrew Ramsays, formerly provest of

Edenboroughe, his house, and that night came to Lesly, being attended

by divers both of the nobilitie and gentrie. The nixt day being

Weddensday, the 16th Apr., he went to St Androws from Lesly, attended

from the Earle of Rothes his house, with about 60 horse; bot by the

way divers persons and corporations (being wretten for in particular

by the said Earle of Rothes a day or two before) mett him, some at ane

place and some at ane other, viz. some from Fawkland, Achtermowghtie,

Cuper, Craill, and about 120 horsemen from St Androws and elsewhere;

so that once they were estimat to be about 7 or 8 hundred horse. The

nobilitie ther were, Earle of Rothes, Earle of Kelley, Earle of Leven,

and the Lord Newarke; of gentrie, Ardrosse, Lundy, Rires, Dury,

Skaddowory, Doctor Martin of Strandry, and divers others. All the way

the said Archbishope rode thus, viz. betwixt two nobelmen, namely,

Rothes on his right, and Kelley on his left hand. No ministers were

present ther safe Mr William Barclay, formerly deposed out of

Fawkland, and Mr William Comry, minister of St Leonards Colledge, that

came foorth with the Bishope his sone out of St Androws to meit his

father. (He dwells in the Abbey in Mr George Weyms house, that

formerly belonged to B. Spotswoode, Archb. of St Androws.) That night

ther supped with the said Bishope, the Earles of Rothes, Kelley,

Newarke; Ardrosse, Lundy, Strandry, and divers others; and divers of

this dined with him the nixt day. As for Rothes and Ardrosse, they

lodged with him all night. On the Sabbath after, he preached in the

towne church in the forenoone, and a velvet cushion in the pulpitt

before him. His text, 1 Cor. ii. 2. ‘For I determined to knowe nothing

amonge you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.’ His sermon did not

run mutch on the words, bot in a discourse of vindicating himselfe and

of pressing of episcopacie and the utilitie of it; shewing, since it

was wanting, that ther hath beine nothing bot trowbels and

disturbancies both in church and state. Apryl 30, 1662, he tooke

journey for Edenboroughe, being accompanied with about 50 horse, most

of them of the citie of St Androws; and, in his way, he gave the Ladys

at Lundy a visit at Lundy: he cam with only 5 or 6 horse, and himselfe

staid a short whille, toke a drink (bot did not dine), and was gone

againe.” _Diary_, p. 183-4.

Footnote 26:

Leighton alone declined all public show. When he understood the manner

in which it was proposed to receive them, he left the cavalcade at

Morpeth, and came privately to Edinburgh. Afterwards, he told Dr

Burnet, “he believed they were weary of him, for he was very weary of

them.”

This ceremony, which had been deferred till the arrival of the

Commissioner, was conducted in the grandest and most imposing style. His

Grace, with all the nobles and gentlemen who had come to town to attend

parliament, together with the magistrates of the city, were present; and

none were admitted but by tickets. The two archbishops who officiated

were in their full canonicals—black satin gowns, white surplices, lawn

sleeves, copes, and all the long desecrated garments, known to the

Presbyterians of that day by the contemptuous epithet of their

forefathers—“Rags of Rome.” The others wore black satin gowns. The

passage leading from the pews, where the bishops elect sat, to the

altar, and the space before the altar, were covered with rich carpets.

Mr James Gordon, one of the northern ministers, preached the

consecration sermon from 1 Cor. iv. 1. “Let a man so account of us as of

the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God;” in

which, pointing out the errors of the former, he exhorted the new

prelates to beware of encroaching on the nobles, nor exceed the bounds

of their sacred function. They were then led from their places by the

archbishop of Glasgow, and by him presented to the primate who presided,

and set them apart according to the ritual of the church of England, and

to whom they vowed clerical obedience during all the days of their

lives. The bishops this day consecrated were—_Dunkeld_, George

Halyburton, late minister of Perth; _Ross_, George Patterson, minister

of Aberdeen; _Moray_, Murdoch Mackenzie, minister of Elgin; _Brechin_,

David Strachan, minister of Fettercairn; _Argyle_, David Fletcher,

minister of Melrose; _The Isles_, Robert Wallace, minister of Barnwell,

Ayrshire;[27] none of whom were men either of distinguished talents or

exemplary piety, and all had appeared zealots in the cause of the

covenant. Common report attributed to them a private dissoluteness of

character which might be exaggerated; but for their apostacy from a

cause which they had urged with more than ordinary heat, no apology was

ever attempted. Conviction could not be alleged, and as self-interest

appeared the only ostensible reason, they sunk in the estimation of the

people in proportion to the respect in which they had been previously

held; while they returned the contempt with which they were deservedly

treated by hatred and persecution—a consequent usual with renegades, who

ever remorselessly pursue to degradation and death the steadfast members

of the religion they have betrayed, whose unshaken integrity is a

standing reproof of their temporizing baseness.

Footnote 27:

George Wiseheart, chaplain to Montrose, and author of the elegant

Latin romance which goes under the name of his memoirs, was

consecrated bishop of Edinburgh at St Andrews, on the 3d of June, and

Mr David Mitchell, minister of Edinburgh, bishop of Aberdeen. Sydeserf

had Orkney.

Next day, May 9, the parliament met; and their first act was to restore

the bishops to the exercise of their episcopal function, precedence in

the church, power of ordination, inflicting of censures, and all other

acts of church discipline; and this their office they were to exercise

only with “the advice and assistance of such of the clergy as they

should find to be of known loyalty and prudence.” Without entering into

any of the puzzling questions respecting the divine right of any form of

church government, they at once founded their Prelacy upon a principle

most repugnant to Presbytery—the spiritual supremacy of the

king—“Forasmuch as the ordering and disposal of the external government

and policy of the church doth properly belong unto his majesty as an

inherent right of the crown, by virtue of his royal prerogative and

supremacy in causes ecclesiastical.” In the preamble were narrated as

the causes of its re-establishment, the disorders and exorbitancies that

had been in the church, the encroachments upon the prerogative and

rights of the crown, the usurpations upon the authority of parliaments,

and the prejudice inflicted on the liberty of the subject ever since the

invasion made upon the bishops and episcopal order—a form of church

government pronounced most agreeable to the word of God, most convenient

and effectual for the preservation of truth, regularity, and unity, most

suitable to monarchy, and the peace and quiet of the state: “THEREFORE

his majesty and his estates did redintegrate the state of bishops to

their ancient places and undoubted privileges in parliament and all

their other accustomed dignities.” Nor was it among the least strange

enactments of this extraordinary act, that whatever his majesty, with

the archbishops and bishops, should determine respecting the external

order of the church, were “previously” declared valid and effectual.

Immediately upon this act being passed, a deputation of six members, two

noblemen, two barons, and two burgesses, was sent to the prelates, who

were waiting in the primate’s lodgings to invite them to take their

seats. They were accordingly conducted in state to the House—the two

archbishops first, walking between two noblemen, the Earls of Kellie and

Wemyss, and the bishops following, attended by the barons, gentlemen,

and the magistrates in their robes. When they entered, a congratulatory

speech was made them from the throne, the act restoring them was read,

and the parliament adjourned on purpose that the spiritual lords might

have the pleasure of dining with his Grace, the Commissioner, who, to do

them the greater honour, walked on foot with them in procession to the

Palace. They were preceded by six macers with their maces, next three

gentlemen-ushers, then the purse-bearer uncovered. The Commissioner and

Chancellor followed, with two noblemen on their right and the two

archbishops on their left. A select party of noblemen and members of

parliament, with the bishops, made up the goodly company, who, “at four

of the clock, sat down to ane sumptuous entertainment, and remained at

table till eight.”

The bishops, as now thrust upon the Scottish church, differed widely

from those intruded by James VI. They pled no scriptural authority, but

an act of parliament, as the source of their power, and acknowledged, in

its fullest sense, a temporal prince as the supreme head of the church.

The old bishops were only a set of constant moderators in the synods and

presbyteries, possessing merely a sort of negative voice, and were

nominally at least responsible to the General Assembly; but the whole

form of Presbytery was now swept away, and the prelates were amenable to

no church courts; nor could any assembly of ministers meet, but under

their sanction, or by their permission.

Having subverted the religion of the country, the next and most natural

step was to eradicate, if possible, the principles of civil liberty. The

sycophantish estates, therefore, proceeded to declare rebellious and

treasonable those positions for which their fathers had contended unto

blood, and which their children asserted at the point of the sword:—That

it is lawful in subjects, upon pretence of reformation, or any other

pretence whatsoever, to enter into leagues or covenants, or to take up

arms against the king: or that it is lawful for subjects, pretending his

majesty’s authority, to take up arms against his person or those

commissionated by him, or to suspend him from the exercise of his royal

government, or to put limitations on their due obedience and allegiance.

As, notwithstanding the acts of the former session, the Presbyterians

did not conceive themselves loosened from what they considered the oaths

of God—ratified by the highest ecclesiastical and civil authorities of

the land—the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant,

these were now declared unlawful oaths; the subjects were relieved from

their obligations; the acts of Assembly respecting them, which had

received the sanction both of the parliament and of the king, but had

hitherto escaped notice, were annulled; and all ratifications, by

whatsoever authority, cassed and made void. At the same time, it was

enacted, that if any person should, by writing, printing, praying,

preaching, or remonstrating, express any thing calculated to create or

cherish dislike in the people towards the king’s supremacy in causes

ecclesiastic, or of the government of the church by archbishops and

bishops, as now settled, they were to be declared incapable of enjoying

any place or employment, civil, ecclesiastical, or military, and liable

to such farther pains as the law directs; that is, liable to the pains

of that detestable statute against leasing-making, of whose extent a

notable specimen was speedily given in the case of Argyle. This was

followed by an act obliging all persons in public trust to subscribe a

declaration in which the whole of the transactions, since the

commencement of the troubles, were affirmed to have been illegal and

seditious, and the covenants unlawful oaths, unwarrantably imposed

against the fundamental laws and liberties of the kingdom, and not

obligatory either on themselves or others.

By another retrospective act, repeating the restoration of patronage, it

was ordained that all the ministers who had entered to parishes since

the year 1649, had no right to their stipends; and their charges were

pronounced vacant, until they should procure presentations anew from the

lawful patrons and collocation from the bishop of the diocese which he

was enjoined to give to the present incumbents, upon application, before

the 20th of September following, failing which, the presentation was to

fall to the bishop _jure devoluto_; and, to conclude the series of

enactments intended to establish Episcopacy upon a firm and immovable

foundation, amid the ruins of Presbytery, all professors and teachers in

universities and colleges were required to take the oath of allegiance

on pain of deprivation—all ministers were ordered to attend the diocesan

synods and pay all clerical obedience to their superiors under the like

penalty—and all meetings in private houses, for religious exercises,

which might tend to alienate this people from their lawful pastors, were

strictly forbidden. Nor were any persons to be permitted to preach in

public or private, to teach any school, or act as tutor in the family of

any person of quality, without the license of the ordinary of the

diocese.

Ecclesiastical matters being thus arranged, and the session apparently

drawing to a termination, Lauderdale so strongly pressed a bill of

indemnity, that Middleton could no longer get it avoided; but he

introduced, as an accompaniment, the act of fines, which in numerous

instances rendered it nugatory.

Last year a complaint had been made to parliament of the losses

sustained by the Earl of Queensberry from the forces under Colonels

Strachan and Kerr in 1650, estimated at two thousand pounds sterling,

when a committee, consisting of the Earl of Eglinton, Lord Cochrane, the

Sheriff-depute of Nithsdale, and some others, was appointed to meet at

Cumnock, to inquire who had served in that army, and to proportion the

same upon such of the guilty as were able to pay, which was accordingly

done; and a number of gentlemen who were opposed to the measures of the

present government, were assessed to make good the damage alleged to

have been suffered by his lordship. This easy but arbitrary method of

rewarding his supporters, and punishing or silencing his opponents,

having excited no murmurs among the pusillanimous legislators, the plan

was now followed out by the Commissioner, and a secret committee

appointed to inquire who had been the most eminent compliers under the

usurpers, in order that their estates might be taxed to raise a sum

sufficient to compensate the king’s friends for what they had suffered

as malignants during the time of the late troubles. Their report

included nearly nine hundred noblemen, gentlemen, and tenants; and the

money to be produced from their fines amounted to about eighty-five

thousand pounds sterling—an enormous sum at that time, to be arbitrarily

and vexatiously levied by political adversaries without any check, there

being neither accusation nor trial, nor any crime alleged, of which

those who now assumed the name of the king’s friends, had not, in

general, been far more guilty than they.

The act of fines, iniquitous and unjust in principle, was rendered still

more so by the manner in which the list was made up. It included the

names of many who were dead, absent from the country, or infants at the

breast at the time! They were represented as favouring the usurpers.

Others were inserted from private revenge; and several were named who

were living upon the parish. But the chief weight of the imposition was

intended to fall upon such as had been distinguished for eminent piety

and a consistent Christian walk in their different stations, who were

deemed singular in a time of general profession, when religion was the

fashion, but who were destined to show the power of the gospel in a day

of general apostacy, when religion was persecuted and a profession

ridiculed.

Lauderdale, who saw that the produce of these fines was intended to

strengthen the Commissioner’s party, strenuously, though ineffectually,

endeavoured to thwart the measure; and Middleton, justly supposing that

such conduct would cool the king’s affection for his secretary,

dispatched Tarbet to London to complete his ruin. The ostensible purpose

of his mission was to submit the act of indemnity to the king, and to

obtain his sanction to a clause for excepting twelve persons, to be

named by the parliament, from the benefit of the act, as incapable of

holding any place of public trust. Lauderdale knew that he was aimed at,

and exerted his every art and influence to prevent the exception as

unjust, but the Duke of York and the English Chancellor, who were

jealous of his influence, supported the clause; and the king gave his

consent to the proposed exception.

An incident which he could not have foreseen—so capricious is the fate

of royal favourites—prevented his fall, and gave him the ascendancy his

enemies were seeking to destroy. Middleton, who wished to procure for

himself Argyle’s estates, when disappointed by their gift to his son,

harassed the young Earl by every means in his power, and procured that

they should be burdened with an immense debt, which so irritated his

lordship, that he expressed himself very freely in a confidential letter

to Lord Duffus, saying, “he hoped that he would procure the friendship

of Clarendon,” and, in reference to the proceedings in parliament, used

these words—“then the king will see their tricks.” This letter being

intercepted at the post-office, a capital charge of lying between the

king and parliament was founded upon it, and a letter written to the

king, requesting that Argyle might be sent down prisoner to stand trial.

At Lauderdale’s earnest entreaty, he was sent down not a prisoner, and

with express instructions that no sentence should be executed till his

majesty saw and approved it. Lorn, when brought to trial, convinced that

any defence before such a tribunal would be vain, made none, but threw

himself on the royal mercy, declaring the innocence of his intentions,

and noticing gently the provocation he had received. He was pronounced

guilty of death by parliament, but the king shortly after remitted his

punishment.

During these discussions, Tarbet had been gradually undermining

Lauderdale’s influence, and, by his insinuating manners, had so far

gained on Charles, that the fall of the favourite seemed on very distant

or doubtful event, when the indiscretion of Middleton or his friends

blighted all their flattering prospects. Afraid openly to attack the

present ministers, an act was brought into parliament for incapacitating

twelve persons by ballot, and lists were so formed that Lauderdale and

Crawford were included in the number; and so anxious was Middleton to

insure their dismissal, that, as soon as the act passed, he ratified it

without ever communicating it to the king. Lauderdale, who had been

apprised of the whole proceedings by the vigilant gratitude of Argyle

before the official intelligence reached court, seized the opportunity

of representing the affront offered to his majesty in such glaring

colours, that, when the act arrived, he refused it his sanction, with a

sarcastic remark, that the proceedings of his Scottish ministers were

like those of madmen, or of men that were perpetually drunk.

Knowing the aversion of the Presbyterian ministers to the proposed

changes, the privy council, before the bishops returned from court,

endeavoured to overawe them and prevent opposition. They began with Mr

Robert Blair, an eminent and aged minister, that it was necessary to

remove from his charge at St Andrews to make room for Sharpe, to whom he

was particularly obnoxious on account of his having the preceding year,

by order of the presbytery, faithfully reproved him for his deceitful

dealings at court and his proudly grasping after the archbishoprick.

Although at an advanced age and in delicate health, the venerable saint

was summoned before the council at Edinburgh, and examined as to his

steadfastness in the principles he had professed through a long and

honourable life: when it was found that he held fast his integrity, he

was first sequestered from his parish, and confined successively to

Musselburgh, Kirkaldy, and Couston; and then, in his last sickness,

forced to send in his presentation to the council, to prevent his being

dragged to Edinburgh while labouring under a mortal disease.

Upon the bishops’ arrival, it was deemed necessary to make an example of

some of the most steadfast and distinguished Presbyterians in the west,

as that part of the country had ever been remarkable for attachment to

their profession. The Chancellor was, in consequence, directed to

require the attendance of such ministers as he thought fit; and, by the

suggestion of the prelates, wrote to Messrs John Carstair, Glasgow;

James Nasmyth, Hamilton; Matthew Mowat and James Rowat, Kilmarnock;

Alexander Blair, Galston; James Veitch, Mauchline; William Adair and

William Fullarton, at St Quivox, as if he had merely wished the

assistance of their advice. Upon their arrival, however, in Edinburgh,

they were charged with holding disloyal principles, and particularly

with some expressions they had used in their sermons. From the charge of

disloyalty, they easily vindicated themselves, and desired that the

particular passages in the offensive sermons might be pointed out; but

these the Chancellor was unable to produce, and they were dismissed from

their first interview, with a hint that the easiest way to get rid of

further trouble, would be to comply with the king’s pleasure and

acknowledge his bishops. When they would not consent to this, they were

detained in town till the parliament met. No valid charges, however,

being found against them, they were carried before the Lords of the

Articles, and commanded, as a test of their loyalty, to subscribe the

oath of allegiance.

As they were the first Presbyterian ministers to whom this oath had been

tendered, they required a few days to consider—for they deemed it an

object of high importance that they should be fully satisfied in their

own minds as to their line of duty—lest, on the one hand, they should

wound their consciences by the sin of denying the supreme kingship of

Christ in his church, or incur the charge of disloyalty by refusing

obedience to him whom they considered their rightful sovereign. They

therefore set apart some time for solemn prayer to ask of the Lord light

and direction. Then, after serious deliberation, they gave in their

explication of the oath—which contained a brief but distinct statement

of the principles upon which they and all the succeeding consistent

Presbyterians refused to subscribe—what continued afterwards always to

be pressed upon them under the false and insidious name of the oath of

allegiance, while in fact and verity it was an explicit oath of

supremacy. “They heartily and cheerfully acknowledged his majesty as the

only lawful supreme governor under God within the kingdom, and that his

sovereignty reached all persons and all causes, as well ecclesiastic as

civil, having them both for its object; albeit it be in its own nature

only civil, and extrinsic as to causes ecclesiastical; and, therefore,

they utterly renounced all foreign jurisdictions, powers, and

authorities, and promised with their utmost power to defend, assist, and

maintain his majesty’s jurisdiction aforesaid.” For this explanation six

of the ministers—Messrs Adair and Fullarton having through favour been

passed over—were committed close prisoners to the public jail, where

they were confined for several weeks; and the paper being laid before

parliament, it was put to the vote—“whether process them criminally or

banish them?”—when it was carried to banish them. Upon a representation

to the commissioner by Mr Robert Dougal, that the sentiments of the

explication were sound and orthodox, and such as would be approved by

the whole reformed churches abroad, the sentence of banishment was

changed into deprivation. But their churches were declared vacant, and

they were ordained to remove their families and leave the possession of

their manses and glebes at Martinmas next, their stipends for the

current year were seized, and themselves forbid to reside within the

presbyteries where their churches lie, or within the cities of Glasgow

or Edinburgh.

Conscientious ministers were not only entrapped by these tyrannical yet

pitiful devices, but likewise harassed by the rigorous enforcement of

the act for celebrating the king’s birth-day as an “holyday.” A

proclamation was issued ordering its observance by the ministers, under

pain of deprivation; and numbers were deprived of their year’s stipend

for non-observance.[28] But such had been the retrograde progress from

the sobriety of their former profession, that within little more than

one short year, the return of this holyday had become throughout the

land the signal of universal riot and drunken uproar, particularly in

these towns that had the misfortune to be burghs. On this occasion,

Linlithgow signalized itself, not only by its outrageous loyalty, but by

its shameless and profane contempt for the bonds their fathers had held

so sacred, and they themselves had solemnly sworn to observe. After the

farce of church-going which occupied the forenoon, bonfires were kindled

in every corner of the streets in the afternoon. The magistrates,

accompanied by the Earl of Linlithgow, assembled in the open area before

the council-house, around a table covered with comfits, the beautiful

gothic fountain all the while spouting from its many mouths French and

Spanish wines, when the curate opened the evening service by singing a

psalm and repeating what was either a long blessing or a short prayer.

The company then tasted the confections and scattered the rest among the

crowd. An irreverent pageant closed this part of the performance.

Footnote 28:

The same day had already been set apart as a day of thanksgiving for

his restoration!

At the cross, an arch was erected upon four pillars, on the one side of

which stood the statue of an old hag, having the covenant in her hand,

with this superscription—“A glorious Reformation;” on the other, the

figure of a Whig, with “the remonstrance in his hand, inscribed “no

association with malignants;” while the devil, in the form of an angel

of light, surmounted the keystone, having a label issuing from his

mouth—“Stand to the cause.” On the pillar, beneath the covenant, were

painted rocks, (distaffs,) reels, and repenting-stools. The other, under

the remonstrance, was adorned with brechams, (horse collars,) cogs,

(wooden dishes,) and spoons. Within the arch, on the right, was drawn “a

committee of estates,” with this legend—“Act for delivering up the

King.” Opposite was placed “a commission of the kirk,” and, in prominent

characters, “Act of the West Kirk.” In the middle of the arch hung a

tablet with this litany—

From covenanters, with uplifted hands;

From remonstrators, with associate bands;

From such committees as governed this nation;

From kirk commissions and their protestation;

Good Lord deliver us.

Upon the back of the arch, Rebellion was depicted under the guise of

Religion, in a devout attitude, with eyes turned up to heaven, holding

Rutherford’s “Lex Rex” in her right hand, and in her left, “The Causes

of God’s Wrath.” Around her were scattered acts of parliament, of

committees of estates, General Assemblies, and commissions of the kirk,

with all their protestations and declarations for the last twenty years;

and above was written “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.” At

drinking the king’s health, a lighted torch set the fabric in a blaze;

and a number of concealed fireworks exploding, the whole was instantly

reduced to ashes, whence arose two angels, bearing a tablet with the

following lines:—

Great Britain’s monarch on this day was born,

And to his kingdom happily restored—

The queen’s arrived—the mitre now is worn—

Let us rejoice this day is from the Lord.

Fly hence all traitors, who did mar our peace—

Fly hence schismatics, who our church did rent—

Fly covenanting, remonstrating race—

Let us rejoice that God this day hath sent.

The magistrates, with the Earl, then withdrew to the Palace, where a

large bonfire was lighted in its noble court; and the king, queen, with

other loyal toasts, were drunk; after which the festivities of the

semi-sacred carnival were concluded by the magistrates and a number of

the inhabitants walking in procession through the town and “saluting

every person of account.”

Parliament rose on the 9th of September, and the privy council entered

upon the full exercise of their tyrannical powers, which had been

acknowledged and vowed to by the obsequious legislature, who thus paved

the way for their own lower degradation. By an act of the 10th, the

diocesan meetings which had been deferred on account of the lords,

archbishops, and bishops being engaged in attending their parliamentary

duty, were appointed to be held within all dioceses of the south upon

the second Tuesday of October, excepting that of Galloway, which,

together with Aberdeen and some in the Highlands, Islands, and the

north, were to keep the third Tuesday of the same month, at which all

parsons, vicars, (uncouth titles in Presbyterian ears,) and ministers

were required to be present, under pain of being considered contemners

of his majesty’s authority. Every step taken to thrust Episcopacy

forcibly upon an unwilling people, was accompanied by some new act of

injustice and oppression to their respected ministers. It was requisite

that those of the capital should set an example of obedience; and

therefore, unless they also would apostatize and violate their oaths and

their consciences by acknowledging the present Episcopacy, and

concurring in their discipline, before the 1st of October, they were to

be deprived of their office and banished the city—an arbitrary

punishment, for which the oppressors had not even the authority of their

own iniquitous parliament.

The western brethren being the most refractory, Middleton determined to

proceed thither with a quorum of the council to enforce in person the

obnoxious decrees. Accordingly, about the latter end of September,

accompanied by Earls Morton, Linlithgow, Callender, and Lord Newburgh,

with the king’s lifeguard,[29] the clerk of the council, and a great

retinue of attendants, he set out upon his progress, preceded by macers

and military music. Burghs and nobles regaled the party as they passed,

evincing their affection for the hierarchy by prodigal hospitality,

while their guests, conformably to the manners of the English court,

displayed their loyalty by pushing it to the most disgusting and

loathsome excess. In districts remarkable for the strict soberness of

their manners, scenes of revelry and profane riot were exhibited by the

Commissioner and his Episcopalian propaganda that astonished the decent,

while it afflicted the pious, portion of the inhabitants. Their streets

were disturbed by midnight inebriety; and men who had conscientious

scruples about drinking healths at all, heard with sensations

approaching to horror, that in some of these debauches the devil himself

had had his health drunk! Ecclesiastical matters do not seem to have

much disturbed the thoughtless “joyeosity” of this outrageous crew till

they came to Glasgow, when Fairfoul entered a grievous complaint to

Middleton, that, notwithstanding the acts of parliament and the time

that had elapsed, not one of the younger ministers who had entered the

church since 1649, had acknowledged him as archbishop—that he had

incurred all the hatred attached to his office without obtaining any of

the power; and, unless his Grace could devise some method for securing

obedience, a bishop would be merely a cipher in the state. Middleton, a

rough mercenary, requested the bishop’s directions. The archbishop, like

a true son of a temporal priesthood, knew of no better remedy than

force. He proposed that all the ministers who had entered since the year

1649, and who would not submit to receive collation and admission from

the bishop before the 1st of November, should be peremptorily banished

from their houses, parishes, and the bounds of their presbyteries; and

he assured the Commissioner that, if this were rigorously enforced, he

did not believe there were ten in the whole of his diocese who would

choose to lose their stipends.

Footnote 29:

The king’s guard was chiefly composed of those who had, during the

civil wars, been attached to the royal party, and who had expected

mountains of gold at the Restoration; but, as the whole revenues of

the kingdom could not have satisfied their claims and their cupidity,

and “the merry monarch” and his higher satellites could spare nothing

from their own licentious expenses, they, who had been unaccustomed to

honest industry, had no other resource left but to enter the army.

A council was summoned, upon his Grace’s representation, to meet in the

front hall of Glasgow College; but when the worthies assembled, the

whole, except one or perhaps two, were in a high state of excitation,

or, as Wodrow phrases it, flustered with drink.[30] Sir James Lockhart

of Lee, the only sober member present, attempted to reason the matter.

He affirmed that, so far from accomplishing its object, such an act

would have a diametrically opposite effect—that the young ministers

would suffer more than the loss of their stipends before they would

acknowledge the bishops, and the inevitable consequences would be

desolation in the country and discontent among the people. But reasoning

was altogether out of the question. An act according to the archbishop’s

wish was agreed to without dispute, although it was not quite so easily

drawn up—“whether,” adds the honest historian, “for want of a fresh man

to dictate or write, I know not.” It was, however, sufficiently severe;

not only did the non-conforming ministers forfeit their current year’s

stipend and incur the penalty of banishment, but their parishioners who

should repair to their sermons were subjected to the same punishment as

the frequenters of private conventicles. Besides this desolating act,

the council passed two of a more private nature, incapacitating

individuals—Mr Donald Cargill, minister of the barony parish, Glasgow,

(with whom we shall frequently meet in the course of the Annals,) and Mr

Thomas Wylie, minister at Kirkcudbright. This latter was a distinguished

member of a distinguished presbytery, which had not one conformist in

their bounds, and was among the very few that presented petitions

against their illegal discontinuance, nor desisted from fulfilling their

ministerial functions till compelled by force.

Footnote 30:

“There was never a man among them,” says Kirkton, “but he was drunk at

the time, except only Lee.” _Hist. Church of Scot._ p. 149.

He early foresaw the approaching blackness that was about to overspread

the land, and, anticipating for himself and his people a share in the

general calamity, he was earnestly desirous to dispense the sacrament of

the Lord’s Supper before the cloud came on. A general seriousness seems

also to have pervaded the country side; for, on the Sabbath appointed

for its administration, June 8, the number of communicants who offered

was so great, that they could not all join in one day, and he intimated

that on the Sabbath following, he would again dispense the ordinance,

when those who had not participated might come forward. On Monday after

sermon, he received a letter informing him that the presbytery had been

summoned to Edinburgh for holding their meetings after the council had

prohibited them. But he determined to proceed in his work, leaving the

consequences to Providence, and he was favoured to conclude the

solemnity without farther interruption. On the Monday, however, certain

news arriving that a party was to be in the town that night to apprehend

him, he withdrew, and next day they searched his house narrowly for him;

but the bird for this time had escaped the snare of the fowler. He

continued under hiding, till, through the exertions of his wife and the

friendship of Lord Kenmure, he was allowed to return to his parish on

the 10th of September. Now, without any new accusation, he was included

in the same sentence with Donald Cargill, and ordered to be banished

beyond the Tay.

England, on the 24th of August preceding, had exhibited the sublime and

heart-stirring spectacle of upwards of two thousand of the ablest, most

upright, and most devout ministers in the land, surrendering without

hesitation their livings rather than violate their consciences by

conforming to the restored national church. Yet, with this instance

before his eyes, of obedience to God in preference to subjection to men,

the Commissioner could not understand how persons with large families

would voluntarily throw themselves upon the world, and leave their homes

without any certain dwelling-place, rather than submit to a change which

the prelates and he had found so easy; but they feared to sin; and now

that a century has rolled by, and they and their oppressors rest in the

grave together, who would not say that they did not act the wisest part,

who preferred a good conscience, and trusted to the faithfulness of him

who has promised never to leave, never, never, to forsake his servants,

rather than to place their confidence in princes, and their trust in the

sons of men? Of what value are the mitres now, for which the prelates in

Scotland destroyed their usefulness, and which sat so uneasily for a few

troubled years upon their heads? At the time, the case was dreadfully

trying. When a man’s temporal interest comes in competition with his

profession, then will appear the strength of his religious principle.

Nearly four hundred ministers of the church of Scotland stood this

severest of all tests. Turned from their houses in the midst of winter,

and deprived of their stipends, they went out not knowing whither they

went. Never did Scotland witness such a Sabbath as that on which they

took leave of their parishioners; and the mourning and lamentation that

filled the south and the west, was only equalled by the hatred and

detestation excited against those who were the authors of so much

sorrow, who, for their own ambitious and worldly schemes, ruptured ties

so sacred and so dear as those that had subsisted between the

Presbyterian ministers and their affectionate congregations.

It was questioned at the time, and even since, whether the Presbyterian

ministers did not act improperly in all at once throwing up their

charges? That they acted scripturally, is plain. They continued to

exercise their calling as long as they could. When illegally forbid,

they continued to preach, acting upon the apostolic precept of obeying

God rather than man; but when a tyrannical power, under the form of

parliamentary or council enactments, was ready to use force in ejecting

them, then, as ministers of the gospel, they had no other resource left

than to shake off the dust off their feet and go to another city—they

bore testimony against their persecutors and retired. Following the

advice of James v. 10., they took the prophets, who had spoken in the

name of the Lord, for an example of suffering and of patience.

That they acted, even in a political view, in the very best manner that

their circumstances admitted, is, I think, demonstrable. They showed to

the people that it was not the fleece but the flock that had been the

object of their care, and imprinted upon their minds a sense of the

worth of the truth for which they were contending, beyond what they

could have done in any other manner; and that truth was one written as

with a sunbeam throughout the whole New Testament—that Christ is the

king and head of his church, and that whatever form of church government

does not acknowledge this, is essentially antichristian. It is not less

evident, that the prelatists, as well as the papists, gave that dignity

and power to another; and the solemn and universal testimony which so

many godly men lifted up at once against acknowledging such unholy

usurpation, has not lost its effect even unto this day—an effect it

never could have had, had the ministers resisted and allowed themselves

to have been thrust out one by one.

From Glasgow, Middleton and his Episcopalian reformadoes pursued their

route, confirming their churches in the south, through Galloway as far

as Wigton; and, upon the last day of October, returned to

Holyrood-house.

On his arrival, the Commissioner was assailed by what was to him

unexpected intelligence, that the whole south and west were thrown into

confusion; and, enraged to find that both the archbishop and himself had

so entirely miscalculated, he expressed his astonishment at the

unaccountable conduct of the “madmen” with a volley of oaths and

execrations—the now fashionable dialect of the court—and, on the first

meeting of council, caused letters be sent off express to his lordship

and the primate, requesting their presence and advice. Meanwhile, they

proceeded in the usual course of endeavouring to intimidate the humbler

refractory by their rigour to the more eminent. Mr Hugh M’Kail, chaplain

to Sir James Stewart of Kirkfield, a youth of high promise, was forced

into voluntary exile because he had defended in a sermon what he

considered the scriptural mode of church government. Mr John Brown of

Wamphrey, well known by his historical, controversial, and practical

writings, not less respected for his piety than for his learning, having

reproved some ministers for attending the Archbishop of Glasgow’s

diocesan synod, styling them perjured, was banished to Holland—at that

time the asylum of the persecuted; there he remained for many years,

and, by his seasonable publications, strengthened the hands of the

sufferers in his native land, and proved a thorn in the side of their

tyrannical government.

Mr John Livingston, more honoured of God as the means of converting

sinners to Christ than almost any minister of the church of Scotland

since the Reformation, then minister at Ancrum, because he would not

promise to observe the 29th of May as an holyday, nor take the oath of

allegiance without any explanation, was subjected to a like punishment,

as were Messrs Robert Traill of Edinburgh, Neave of Newmills, and

Gardner of Saddle. Mr Livingston, in the true spirit of a Christian

patriot, after sentence was pronounced, thus replied—“Well! although it

be not permitted me to breathe my native air, yet into whatsoever part

of the world I may go, I shall not cease to pray for a blessing to these

lands, to his majesty, the government, and the inferior magistrates

thereof; but especially for the land of my nativity!” In the same

excellent spirit, having been denied the privilege of paying a farewell

visit to his wife, children, and people, he addressed a pastoral letter

to the flock of Jesus Christ in Ancrum. Their sins and his own, he told

them, had drawn down this severe stroke; and, while it was their part to

search out and mourn for them, “it is not needful,” he adds, “to look

much to instruments, I have from my heart forgiven them all, and would

wish you to do the like, and pray for them that it be not laid to their

charge. For my part, I bless his name I have great peace in the matter

of my sufferings. I need not repeat, you know my testimony of the things

in controversy:—Jesus Christ is a king, and only hath power to appoint

the officers and government of his house. It is a fearful thing to

violate the oath of God, and fall into the hands of the living God. It

could not well be expected,” he proceeds to remark, and the remark is

applicable in all similar cases when religion has been in repute among a

people—“there having been so fair and so general a profession throughout

the land, but that the Lord would put men to it; and it is like it shall

come to every man’s door, that, when every one according to their

inclination, may have acted their part—and he seems to stand by—He may

come at last and act his part, and vindicate his glory and truth. I have

often showed you that it is the greatest difficulty under heaven to

believe that there is a God and a life after this; and have often told

you that, for my part, I could never make it a chief part of my work to

insist upon the particular debates of the time, as being assured that if

a man drink in the knowledge and the main foundations of the Christian

religion, and have the work of God’s spirit in his heart to make him

walk with God, and make conscience of his ways, such an one shall not

readily mistake Christ’s quarrel, to join either with a profane atheist

party or a fanatic party. There may be diversity of judgment, and

sometimes sharp debates among them that are going to heaven; but,

certainly, a spirit guides the seed of the woman, and another spirit the

seed of the serpent.”

Several of lesser note were treated with not much less harshness, being

ordered to confinement in distant places of the country, without the

means of subsistence, and debarred from preaching in the rugged and

barren districts to which they were banished.

Such, however, was the outcry the wide desolation of the church had

occasioned, that the council were convinced they had acted with unwise

precipitation, and endeavoured in some measure to retrace their steps.

The author of the mischief, Fairfoul, though repeatedly called upon,

does not appear to have assisted their deliberations, which were

protracted, till the month of December, when a proclamation was issued,

extending the time allowed ministers for procuring presentations and

collocation to the 1st of February, but ordering those who neglected to

do so to remove from their parishes and presbyteries; and such of them

as belonged to the dioceses of St Andrews and Edinburgh, to go into

banishment beyond the Tay. The older ministers, who had not been touched

by the Glasgow act, and had hitherto remained exercising their parochial

duties among their people, because they had not attended the diocesan

meetings, were confined to their parishes. The people who left the

hirelings intruded upon them, travelling sometimes twenty miles to hear

the gospel, were now ordered to attend their parish churches, under a

penalty of twenty shillings for every day’s absence; and because in

those places where the ministers, in view of separation from their

flocks, had celebrated the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to multitudes

assembled from the surrounding districts—and much of the divine presence

had appeared among them—these were stigmatized as unlicentiate

confluences of the people; and the discourses delivered under such

circumstances, with more than ordinary fervour, and accompanied with

more than ordinary power, abused as the extravagant sermons of some

ministers of unquiet and factious spirits—special engines to debauch

people from their duty, and lead them to disobedience, schism, and

rebellion: therefore every incumbent was prohibited from employing more

than one or two of his neighbours at a communion without a license from

the bishop, or admitting the people of any other parish to participate

of the sacrament without a certificate from his curate.

This was the last of Middleton’s acts in Scotland. His rival,

Lauderdale, had so well employed the access he had to the king to

undermine his influence, that he was called to court to answer charges

of having encroached upon the royal prerogative by the balloting act,

and defrauded the royal treasury by appropriating the fines. While the

affair was under discussion, Lauderdale procured an order to delay

levying the fines due the first term and dismiss the collector.

Middleton, who saw that this was a deadly blow at his interest in

Scotland, countermanded the royal letter upon alleged verbal authority,

which Charles either never gave, or found it convenient to disown; and

this completed his ruin. His rashness and inconsideration were too

palpable to be denied; but, by the interest of his friends, Clarendon

and the Bishop of London, his fall was softened, and he was sent into a

kind of honourable banishment as governor of Tangiers. There he

continued to indulge his habits of intemperance, and, falling down a

stair in a fit of intoxication, broke his right arm so severely, that

the bone protruded through the flesh, and, penetrating his side, a

mortification ensued, which terminated his life.

Middleton, who never appears to have had any serious religion, was the

friend of Lord Clarendon—a statesman bigoted to Episcopacy, rather on

account of its political than its spiritual advantages—and employed by

him for rearing in Scotland, upon the ruins of Presbytery, which he

detested, an establishment more in accordance with those high notions of

the prerogative which, notwithstanding the melancholy example of the

first Charles, were adopted and cherished by the court of his son. Well

calculated for carrying through the most despotic measures by force, he

must be acquitted of the mean duplicity of Charles’s letter to the

ministers of Edinburgh, the obloquy of which rests upon the crafty

politics of Sharpe. When first shown it, he considered it as opposed to

Episcopacy, and expressed his regret; but when told that, upon

rescinding all the laws in favour of Presbytery, then Episcopacy

remained the church government settled by law, he observed, “that might

be done; but for his part he was not fond of making his majesty’s first

appearance in Scotland to be in the character of a cheat.” Once,

however, fairly embarked, he never hesitated, and concurred with the

bishops in their every project, however treacherous or oppressive. He

first overturned the Presbyterian church government, which had been

settled under as solemn sanctions, and as strong legal guarantees, as

can ever possibly be devised to secure any religious establishment, and

then sent to the scaffold, from motives of avarice and revenge, the

noblest ornaments of that religion, whose only crime was, adhering to a

profession he himself had, with uplifted hand, sworn to support.

In council, he unwarrantably extended the tyrannical acts of his servile

parliament, and wantonly laid waste hundreds of peaceable and

flourishing congregations. With a cunning worthy the priesthood of Rome,

he invited numbers of unsuspecting ministers from distant parts of the

country to Edinburgh, as if to consult them on the affairs of the

church, then ensnared them by insidious questions, and punished their

unsuspecting simplicity with deprivation, imprisonment, and exile.

Without any shadow of law, and without the form of a trial, he turned

ministers from their congregations—prohibited them from preaching,

praying, or expounding the Scriptures, and sent them to the most distant

corners of the land, or forced them to seek an asylum in foreign

countries—then intruded on the desolated parishes worthless and

incapable hirelings—and concluded his career by commanding the people to

attend upon their ministrations under a severe and oppressive penalty.

His own expatriation to the barren coast of Africa was looked upon by

the sufferers as a righteous retribution, and his melancholy end as an

evident mark of divine displeasure; nor could the coincidence between

his own rash imprecation and the manner of his death fail to strike the

most careless. Like many other political hypocrites, with a zeal as

furious as false, he had sworn and subscribed the covenants when it was

the fashion of the time to do so; and, on retiring from the place where

he had taken these vows upon him, he said to some of those who were with

him, “that that was the pleasantest day he had ever seen; and if ever he

should do any thing against that blessed work, he had been engaging in,”

holding up his right arm, “he wished that it might be his death!” The

enormous fines he imposed, he never was empowered to exact; and, in

return for impoverishing his country, he died an exile and a beggar.

Lauderdale having succeeded in removing his formidable antagonist, from

thenceforth for a number of years almost solely directed Scottish

affairs. The Presbyterians, who believed that he was secretly attached

to their cause, anticipated better days under his protection; but

ambition was his master-passion, and to it he was prepared to sacrifice

all his early attachments and principles. While religion appeared the

only road to power in the state, he had been foremost in the ranks of

the covenanters; and, by the warmth of his professions, and the

consistency of his conduct, had gained the confidence of those who were

sincerely devoted to the cause; but when the path of preferment on

Charles’s restoration struck off in an opposite direction, he deserted

to the prelates, and evinced the sincerity of his change by at once

forsaking his sobriety of manners, and apostatizing from his form of

religion; and, as he understood well the principles he betrayed, and at

one time certainly had strong convictions of their truth, his opposition

was proportionably inveterate, and he became outrageously furious at

whatever tended to remind him of his former “fanaticism.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------