DECEMBER, A.D. 1662-1664.
State of the West and South—Bishops—Curates—Their reception—Tumult
at Irongray—Commission sent to Kirkcudbright and
Dumfries—Field-preaching—Rothes and Lauderdale arrive in
Scotland—Parliament—Warriston’s arrest and execution—Principal
Wood of St Andrews and other ministers silenced and
scattered—Troops ordered to enforce the Acts of Parliament—Their
outrages—Sir James Turner—High Commission Court—Its
atrocities—Privy Council—Its exactions—Prohibits private
prayer-meetings or contributing money for the relief of the
sufferers—William Guthrie of Fenwick laid aside—Donaldson of
Dalgetty’s case—Death of Glencairn—Political changes.
While these struggles were going forward at court, the affairs of
Scotland were in a state of the most woful confusion. Almost the whole
parishes in the west and south had been deprived of their ministers; and
as their own churches remained vacant, the people in crowds flocked to
those where the few old Presbyterian ministers were yet allowed to
officiate. These assemblies having been denounced by the council’s
proclamation, attracted the attention of the soldiers; and numerous
parties patrolled the country to disturb the meetings and levy the fines
to which offenders were liable.
When the vacant charges came to be filled, (1663,) new sources of
disturbance arose. No preparation had been made for such an exigence as
bad now arisen. The regular candidates for the ministry were too few;
and of these but a small proportion were willing to pursue their studies
under the direction of the bishops, or accept of Episcopal ordination.
The north was therefore ransacked, and a great number of ignorant,
uneducated young men, not more deficient in talents and acquirements
than in decent common moral conduct,[31] were hastily brought forward to
supply the places of the ejected ministers, who in general were both
pious, learned, and of respectable abilities; many of them eminently so,
and all laborious in the discharge of their duties, exemplary in their
lives, and dear to their people. These presentees, who were
contemptuously styled by the people “bishops’ curates,” when intruded
upon them without any regard to their wishes or choice, were received in
many places with the most determined opposition; in some, they were
compelled to retire; and, in others, obliged to enter by the windows,
the doors being built up; and thus literally to display the scriptural
characteristic of spiritual thieves and robbers. The Presbyterian
ministers had uniformly classed prelacy and popery together; and, at the
settlement of the new clergy, the prelates justified the charge by
employing the military to enforce their ecclesiastical appointments, and
ordaining their parsons at the point of the sword. The patrons, in most
cases, had allowed their rights to devolve upon the bishops; and thus
the whole undivided obloquy rested on their consecrated heads, which was
not lessened when some of the careless or profane heritors, to
ingratiate themselves with the rulers, feasted the clergy at their
settlements, and, aping the loyalty of their superiors, conducted their
entertainments with an equally jovial disregard of decency and
temperance.
Footnote 31:
Bishop Burnet, himself an Episcopalian, thus characterizes them:—“They
were the worst preachers I ever heard. They were ignorant to a
reproach; and many of them were openly vicious. They were a disgrace
to their order and the sacred function, and were indeed the dregs and
refuse of the northern parts. Those of them who were above contempt or
scandal, were men of such violent tempers, that they were as much
hated as the others were despised.”
But there was also an opposition of a more solemn and impressive nature
offered by the serious part of the people in different parishes, who
received the intruders when they came among them with tears, and
entreated them earnestly to be gone, nor ruin the poor congregations and
their own souls. Neither of these methods, however, had any effect; the
thoughtless wretches entered upon that awful charge—the care of souls—as
if they had been taking forcible possession of an heritable estate to
which they had a legal right.[32]
Footnote 32:
The following appears to have been the clerical mode of infeftment:—At
the admission of Mr John Ramsay to the parish of Sconie, in Fife, “Mr
Jossia Meldrum, minister of Kingorne, after sermon ended, he tooke his
promise to be faithfull in his charge of that flock: and ther was
delivered to him the bibell, the keys of the church doore, and the
bell-tou.” _Lamont’s Diary_, p. 192.
As the south had been favoured with remarkably faithful pastors, the
strongest resistance appeared there. Irongray was the first settlement
where open “tumultuating” took place. The curate not being able to
obtain peaceable admission, returned with a party of soldiers to force
an entrance, when a band of women, led on by a Margaret Smith, attacked
the guard with stones, and triumphantly beat them off the field.
Margaret, the fair heroine, was brought to Edinburgh, and sentenced to
slavery in Barbadoes; but she “told her tale so innocently,” that the
managers, not yet steeled to compassion, permitted her to return home.
The parish was not, however, allowed to escape with impunity. Upon
hearing of this disturbance, and a similar one at Kirkcudbright, the
privy council, as if the country had been in an actual state of
rebellion, appointed the Earls of Linlithgow, Galloway, and Annandale,
with Lord Drumlanrig and Sir John Wauchope of Niddry, to proceed on a
commission of inquiry to that district, attended by an hundred horse and
two hundred foot of the king’s guard, with power to suppress all
meetings or insurrections of the people, if any should happen.
At Kirkcudbright, the commission held several diets, and examined a
number of witnesses. Of about thirty-two women whom they apprehended,
five were sent to Edinburgh; and Bessie Laurie, with thirteen others,
were bound over to keep the peace. Lord Kirkcudbright—who had declared
if the minister came there he should come over his body, and that he
would lose his fortune before he should be preacher there; but at the
same time admitted, that, if the minister had come in by his
presentation, he could have raised as many men as would have prevented a
tumult—was transmitted under a guard to Edinburgh. James Carson of
Fenwick, the late provost, although not in power, and John Ewart, who
had refused to accept the office, because they had declined interfering
upon the occasion, were also sent prisoners to the capital, where they
were kept in confinement several months;[33] besides, in addition, being
severely fined. The five women were sentenced to stand at the cross of
Kirkcudbright two hours on two market days, with labels on their
foreheads denoting their crimes, and thereafter to find bail to keep the
peace. New magistrates were appointed for the burgh, who, on accepting
the nomination, signed a bond in their own name and that of the haill
inhabitants of the place, binding and obliging them, and ilk one of
them, during their public trust, and all the inhabitants, to behave
themselves loyally, and in all things conform to his majesty’s laws,
made and to be made, both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs! and
besides, to protect the Lord Bishop of Galloway, the minister of the
burgh, and any other ministers that were or should be established by
authority.
Footnote 33:
The following singular order was issued by the council on this
occasion; and it deserves to be noted, that it was issued the very
first meeting after the archbishops had taken their seats as
members:—“June 23d. The lords of council being informed that ministers
and other persons visit the prisoners for the riot at Kirkcudbright,
now in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, and not only exhort but pray for the
said persons to persist in their wicked practices, affirming that they
are suffering for righteousness’ sake, and assure them that God will
give them an outgate—recommend it to the keeper to notice who visits
them, and what their discourse and carnage is when with them.”
_Wodrow_, vol. i. p. 188.
At Dumfries, the commission also examined witnesses, but the mighty
insurrection dwindled into a “great convocation and tumult of women;”
yet the whole party, horse and foot, were quartered upon the parish, and
a bonus levied for remunerating the clerks. The whole heritors were
likewise compelled to sign a bond of passive obedience to laws known and
unknown, in terms similar to that of the magistrates of
Kirkcudbright.[34]
Footnote 34:
The council ordered to be advanced for this expedition, the sum of
£500 to the soldiers as part of their pay, £120 to the Earl of
Linlithgow, and £50 to the Laird of Niddry for their expenses; so that
probably these petty squabbles would cost the two parishes not much
under one thousand pounds sterling, equivalent to nearly five in later
times.
Instead of reconciling the people, or terrifying them back to the
churches, these severities exasperated them; nor was it to be expected
that they would willingly attend the ministrations of men, whose
preaching they despised, and who were thus ushered in. Outrageous
expressions of dislike were not, however, approved of by the godly and
judicious Presbyterians, they mourned in private over the desolation of
the church, and sought, by attending the family exercises of the younger
ministers who were “outted,”[35] but sojourned among them, to receive
that instruction, and enjoy that social worship, of which they were so
tyrannically deprived! Sometimes the numbers who assembled to enjoy this
privilege were so great, that a house could not contain them, and the
minister was constrained to officiate without doors; till at length they
increased so much that they were under the necessity of betaking
themselves to the open fields; and, like him whose servants they were,
beneath the wide canopy of heaven, preached the gospel of the kingdom to
multitudes upon the mountain’s side. Mr John Welsh and Mr Gabriel Semple
began the practice of field-preaching, which quickly increased, and, to
the great alarm of the bishops, had pervaded almost every quarter of the
country, when the political arrangements being completed, Rothes arrived
as commissioner to open the parliament.
Footnote 35:
“Outted,” turned out of their churches.
Lauderdale accompanied the Earl to Scotland, professedly to inquire into
the origin of that conspiracy against his majesty’s royal
prerogative—the balloting act;—in reality to secure his own ascendancy
in Scotland, and, by pushing to the utmost the advantage he had gained
over the Middleton faction, to prevent any attempt being made against
him from that quarter for the future. The Chancellor made some feeble
show of opposition, but the universal spirit of submission to the will
of the crown which pervaded the higher classes, and their selfish
eagerness to obtain a share in the spoils of their unhappy country, not
only blighted every appearance of patriotism, but precluded every plan
of association among the aristocracy themselves for maintaining their
own rank and station independent of the minions of the court. The
Presbyterians who rejoiced in Middleton’s fall, soon found that they had
gained very little by the change. At the first diet of council, (June
15, 1663,) the two archbishops were admitted, with Mr Charles Maitland,
Lord Hatton, Lauderdale’s brother; but Crawford having refused the
declaration, was deprived of the treasurership, and Rothes, the
commissioner, that same day was appointed to succeed him in the office.
On the 18th, parliament met, and, by an alteration in the method of
appointing the Lords of the Articles—allowing the spiritual lords first
to name eight temporal lords, then the temporal lords to choose eight
spiritual; and these sixteen, or such of them as were present, to elect
the representatives of the barons and burghs—they virtually gave up the
privilege of nominating this important committee, to the servants of the
crown, and surrendered the last check they had upon the prerogative. The
tyranny of the council was next legalized, and a practice introduced
which continued till the Revolution:—the most oppressive acts of the
former sessions, together with the acts of council, enlarging and
explaining their vindictive clauses, were approved of by a retrospective
declaratory enactment; and every mode of persecution which had been
adopted upon trial since last session, was incorporated into the statute
law of the kingdom. Thus an act against separation and disobedience of
ecclesiastical authority—introduced early in the session—besides
recapitulating all the penalties to which the non-conforming ministers
had been previously subjected, ordained those who still dared to preach
in contempt of law, or did not attend the diocesan meetings, to be
punished as seditious persons, and despisers of the royal authority.
Absence from church on Sundays—a finable offence—was now denounced as
sedition; and whoever wilfully should withdraw from the ministrations of
the parish priest, however incapable he might be, were, if noblemen,
gentlemen, or heritors, to lose the fourth part of their yearly
income—if yeomen, tenants, or farmers, such proportion of their
moveables, after payment of their rents, as the council should think
fit, not exceeding a fourth part—but if a burgess, his freedom, along
with the fourth of his moveables, and, in addition, the council was
authorized to inflict such corporeal punishment as they should see
proper. The declaration was ordered by another act to be taken by all
who exercised any public trust; and persons chosen to be councillors or
magistrates of burghs, if they declined to subscribe, were declared for
ever incapable of holding any office, or exercising any occupation,
trade, or merchandise. To complete the organization of the hierarchy, an
act was passed for the establishment and constitution of a National
Synod, bearing the same resemblance to the estates of Scotland that the
Houses of Convocation did to the English parliament: both emanated from
his majesty’s supremacy, and consisted of the bishops and their
satellites, only the Scottish assembly was to meet in one place, and was
even more servilely abject than their elder Episcopalian sister, and
could not be constituted without the presence of the king or his
commissioner. The balloting act was, after long investigation, rescinded
with every mark of detestation, the parliament declaring they had never
consented to any such thing! and, that it might not appear in judgment
against them, was ordered to be erased from their minutes. Sensible that
the measures now pursued in Scotland must necessarily lead to
insurrection, and that a military force would be requisite to carry them
into effect, Lauderdale procured from this servile crew the offer of an
army of twenty thousand foot and two thousand horse, to be raised for
his majesty’s service when required, under the ridiculous pretence of
preserving Christendom against the Turks!! This number never was
demanded; and it was alleged that the secretary had carried the measure
to ingratiate himself with the king, and to show him what assistance he
might derive from Scotland in any attempt to destroy the liberties of
England. From the beginning, the Scots had been harassed by the king’s
guard, but from this date the troopers were more unsparingly employed to
enforce clerical obedience, while the act hung _in terrorem_ over the
hands of the dissatisfied Presbyterians, and afterwards became the
foundation of the militia.
[Illustration:
_Arrest of Lord Warriston anno 1662._
_Vide page 103_
Edin^r. Hugh Paton, Carver & Gilder to the Queen, 1842
]
Middleton’s first session set in blood; Rothes closed under as deep a
stain. Sir Archibald Johnston, Lord Warriston, had been forfeited and
condemned by parliament when Argyle and Guthrie were arraigned, but
escaping to the Continent, had remained concealed in Holland and
Germany, chiefly at Hamburgh, till most unadvisedly, in the latter end
of 1662, he ventured to France. Notice of this having been carried to
London, the king, who bore him a personal hatred for his free
admonitions when in Scotland,[36] sent over secretly a confidential spy,
known by the name of “Crooked Murray,” to trace him out and bring him to
Britain. By watching Lady Warriston, Murray soon discovered her lord’s
retreat at Rouen in Normandy, and had him seized while engaged in the
act of secret prayer. He then applied to the magistrates, and, showing
them the king’s commission, desired that they would allow him to carry
his victim a prisoner to England. The magistrates, uncertain how to act,
committed Warriston to close custody, and sent to the French king for
instructions. When the question was debated in council, the greater part
were for respecting the rights of hospitality, and not giving up his
lordship till some better reasons were shown than had yet been given;
but Louis, who was extremely desirous to oblige Charles, and sympathized
cordially in his antipathies against the Protestant religion and
liberty, ordered him to be delivered to the messenger, who carried him
to London and lodged him in the tower in the month of January 1663.
While the parliament was sitting in June, he was sent to Scotland with a
letter from the king, ordering him “to be proceeded against according to
law and justice,” and landed at Leith on the 8th, whence, next day, he
was brought bareheaded to the tolbooth of Edinburgh. Neither his wife,
children, nor any other friend, were permitted to see him, except in
presence of the keeper or guard, and that only for an hour, or at
farthest two at a time, betwixt eight o’clock in the morning and eight
at night. Here he was detained till July 8th, when, no more trial being
deemed necessary, he was brought before parliament to receive judgment.
His appearance on this occasion was humiliating to the pride of human
genius, debilitated through excessive blood-letting and the deleterious
drugs that had been administered to him by his physicians,[37] the
faculties of his soul partook of the imbecility of his body, and, on the
spot where his eloquence had in former days commanded breathless
attention, he could scarcely now utter one coherent sentence. The
prelates basely derided his mental aberrations, but many of the other
members compassionated the intellectual ruin of one who had shone among
the foremost in the brightest days of Scotland’s parliamentary annals.
When the question was put, whether the time of his execution should be
then fixed or delayed? a majority seemed inclined to spare his life,
which Lauderdale observing, rose, and, contrary to all usage or
propriety, in a furious speech, insisted upon the sentence being carried
into immediate effect; the submissive legislators acquiesced, and he was
doomed to be hanged at the cross of Edinburgh on the 22d of the same
month, and his head fixed upon the Nether Bow Port, beside Mr Guthrie’s.
Footnote 36:
“The real cause of his (Warriston’s) death, was not his activity in
public business, but our king’s personal hatred, because when the king
was in Scotland he thought it his duty to admonish him because of his
very wicked, debauched life, not only in whoredom and adultery, but he
violently forced a young gentle-woman of quality. This the king could
never forgive, and told the Earle of Bristol so much when he was
speaking for Warriston.” _Kirkton’s Hist. of the Church of Scot._ p.
173.
Footnote 37:
“Through excessive blood-letting and other detestable means used by
his wicked physician, Doctor Bates, who they say was hired either to
poison or distract him, and partly through melancholy, he had in a
manner wholly lost his memory.” _Kirkton’s Hist._ p. 170. Mr C. K.
Sharpe, the editor, thinks his mental imbecility was occasioned in
some measure by fear, and quotes a passage from one of Lord
Middleton’s letters to Primrose. “He pretends to have lost his
memory,” &c. “He is the most timorous person ever I did see in my
life,” &c. _Note._ But it was not to be expected that Middleton would
allude in the most distant manner to any thing that could be supposed
to countenance in the least the then general belief.
Mr James Kirkton, author of the “History of the Church of Scotland,” who
visited him, says—“I spake with him in prison, and though he was
sometimes under great heaviness, yet he told me he could never doubt his
own salvation, he had so often seen God’s face in the house of prayer.”
As he approached his end, he grew more composed; and, on the night
previous to his execution, having been favoured with a few hours’
profound and refreshing sleep, he awoke in the full possession of his
vigorous powers, his memory returned, and he experienced in an
extraordinary degree the strong consolations of the gospel, expressing
his assurance of being clothed with a white robe, and having a new song
of praise put into his lips, even salvation to our God, which sitteth
upon the throne, and to the Lamb!
Before noon, he dined with great cheerfulness, hoping to sup in heaven,
and drink of the blood of the vine fresh and new in his father’s
kingdom. After spending some time in secret prayer, he left the prison
about two o’clock, attended by his friends in mourning, full of holy
confidence and courage, but perfectly composed and serene. As he
proceeded to the cross, where a high gibbet was erected, he repeatedly
requested the prayers of the people; and there being some disturbance on
the street when he ascended the scaffold, he said with great
composure—“I entreat you, quiet yourselves a little, till this dying man
deliver his last words among you,” and requested them not to be offended
that he used a paper to refresh his memory, being so much wasted by long
sickness and the malice of physicians. He then read audibly, first from
the one side and then from the other, a short speech that he had
hurriedly written—what he had composed at length and intended for his
testimony having been taken from him. It commenced with a general
confession of his sins and shortcomings in prosecuting the best pieces
of work and service to the Lord and to his generation, and that through
temptation he had been carried to so great a length, in compliance with
the late usurpers, after having so seriously and frequently made
professions of aversion to their way; “for all which,” he added, “as I
seek God’s mercy in Christ Jesus, so I desire that the Lord’s people
may, from my example, be the more stirred up to watch and pray that they
enter not into temptation.”
He then bare record to the glory of God’s free grace and of his
reconciled mercy through Christ Jesus—left “an honest testimony to the
whole covenanted work of reformation”—and expressed his lively
expectation of God’s gracious and wonderful renewing and reviving all
his former great interests in these nations, particularly Scotland—yea,
dear Scotland! He recommended his poor afflicted wife and children to
the choicest blessings of God and the prayers and favours of his
servants—prayed for repentance and forgiveness to his enemies—for the
king, and blessings upon him and his posterity, that they might be
surrounded with good and faithful councillors, and follow holy and wise
councils to the glory of God and the welfare of the people. He concluded
by committing himself, soul and body, his relations, friends, the
sympathizing and suffering witnesses of the Lord, to his choice mercies
and service in earth and heaven, in time and through eternity:—“All
which suits, with all others which he hath at any time by his spirit
moved and assisted me to make, and put up according to his will, I leave
before the throne, and upon the Father’s merciful bowels, the Son’s
mediating merits, and the Holy Spirit’s compassionating groans, for now
and for ever!”
After he had finished reading, he prayed with the greatest fervour and
humility, thus beginning his supplication—“Abba! Abba! Father, Father,
accept this thy poor sinful servant, coming unto thee through the merits
of Jesus Christ.” Then he took leave of his friends, and again, at the
foot of the ladder, prayed in a perfect rapture, being now near the end
of that sweet work he had been so much employed about, and felt so much
sweetness in through life. No ministers were allowed to be with him, but
his God abundantly supplied his every want. On account of his weakness,
he required help to ascend the ladder. Having reached the top, he cried
with a loud voice—“I beseech you all who are the people of God not to
scorn at suffering for the interest of Christ, or stumble at any thing
of this kind falling out in these days. Be encouraged to suffer for him,
for I assure you, in the name of the Lord, he will bear your charges!”
This he repeated again while the rope was putting about his neck,
forcibly adding—“The Lord hath graciously comforted me.” Then asking the
executioner if he was ready to do his office, and being answered that he
was, he gave the signal, and was turned off, crying—“Pray! pray! praise!
praise!” His death was almost without a struggle.
Sir Archibald Johnston, Lord Warriston, was an early, zealous, and
distinguished covenanter, and bore a conspicuous part in all the
remarkable transactions of the times, from 1638 till the Restoration.
The only blemish which his enemies could affix to his character was,
what he himself lamented, his accepting office under the usurpers, after
having previously so violently opposed this in others, when yet every
prospect of restoring the Stuart family seemed hopeless, and when
numbers of his countrymen and of his judges themselves had submitted to
a tolerant commonwealth, that did not burden the conscience with
unnecessary oaths, or require any compliances which might not, in the
circumstances of the case, have been considered venial, if not
justifiable. His talents for business were of the first order. His
eloquence was ready, and his judgment clear. He was prompt and intrepid
in action, and adhered steadily to his Presbyterian principles,
notwithstanding his officiating under a liberal government of a
different persuasion—conduct we now allow to be not incompatible with
integrity. His piety was ardent, and, amid a life of incessant activity,
he managed to spare a larger portion of time for private devotion than
many of more sequestered habits. He habitually lived near to God, and
died in the full assurance of hope.
Parliament having sat upwards of three months, rose on the 9th of
October. Even during its sitting, the council never intermitted their
oppressive acts; and, so far was this branch of the legislature from
interfering to check their immoderate abuse of power, that they had
shown themselves upon every occasion the willing instruments of their
oppression, ready when called upon to legitimate without a murmur their
foulest usurpations. On the other hand, the executive acted as the
humble tools of the prelates, ready to support their most arrogant
assumptions or gratify their cowardly and cruel revenge. St Andrews, the
primate’s seat, first required to be thoroughly cleansed; and all who
would not countenance the archbishop in his treachery, were of necessity
removed as unwelcome remembrancers of his former profession. Mr James
Wood, principal of the Old College, pious, learned, and assiduous in his
duty, who had been an intimate friend and companion of Sharpe’s, and one
of the many excellent men who had been his dupes, was, on the 23d of
July, summoned before the council and required to show by what authority
he came to be principal. Without being suffered to offer any remarks,
when he acknowledged “that he was called by the Faculty of the College
at the recommendation of the usurpers,” the place was declared vacant,
and he was commanded to confine himself within the city of Edinburgh
till further orders.
Yet such was the estimation in which he was held, that his enemy, though
by falsehood, endeavoured to shelter his apostacy under the shadow of
his name. Not long after this, when Mr Wood was on his deathbed, March
1664, and greatly weakened by disease, Sharpe called once or twice upon
him; and he having said, as a dying man in the immediate view of
eternity, that he was taken up about greater business than forms of
church government, and that he was far more concerned about his personal
interest in Christ than about any external ordinance, Sharpe took
occasion to spread a report that he had said Presbyterian government was
a matter of no consequence, and no man should trouble himself about it,
which coming to the sufferer’s ears, he emitted a declaration before
witnesses of his unshaken attachment to Presbytery as an ordinance of
God, and so precious that a true Christian is obliged to lay down his
life for the profession thereof, if the Lord should see meet to put him
to his trial.
Along with Mr Wood, a great number of ministers from every quarter of
the country, were removed from their charges, some confined to
Edinburgh, others banished beyond the river Ness—all forbid to preach
the gospel under the threatening of severer penalties. Heavy were the
complaints of the clergy; the ministers refused to attend their synods,
and the people persisted in neglecting their sermons. The council,
therefore, appointed “the Lords Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow,
the Marquis of Montrose, the Lord Secretary and Register, to wait on the
Lord Commissioner, his Grace, to think on a general course what shall be
done, as well anent those ministers that were admitted before 1649, and
carry themselves disobediently to the laws of the kingdom, as those who
were admitted since.” While the committee were deliberating, the evil
increased; and, on the 30th of the same month, six of the west country
ministers were before the council to answer the heavy charge of
“convocating great multitudes of his majesty’s subjects for hearing
their factious and seditious sermons, to the great scandal of religion
and prejudice of the government of the church.” To shorten their
labours, however, and probably upon a report of the archbishops and
their assistants, a most harassing and contradictory act was passed,
commanding all “outted” ministers, under pain of sedition, _i.e._ being
processed criminally, to remove themselves and their families twenty
miles from the bounds of their own parishes, six miles from every
cathedral, and three miles from every royal burgh, thus depriving them
of any means of support they might have derived from their own industry
or that of their families, in the only places of trade or traffic, and
scattering them among strangers, far from the bounty or assistance of
their friends. But as one “outted” minister only could reside in one
parish, the act, besides, involved an alternative of death or apostacy;
for the whole of Scotland could not have accommodated the sufferers, and
no relaxation could be obtained but from the privy council or the bishop
of the diocese. The older ministers, who still continued to preach, but
withdrew from the synods, were now to be treated as contemners of his
majesty’s authority.
To enforce their acts, the privy council ordered the Earl of Linlithgow
to send as many troops to Kirkcudbright as, with those already there,
would make up the number of eightscore footmen with their officers in
that district. Sir Robert Fleming was directed to march two squads of
his majesty’s life-guards to the west, and to station one in Paisley and
the other in Kilmarnock. The object of these military missionaries was
to episcopalize the refractory south and west, by collecting the fines
and compelling subjection to the bishops and their curates. Sir James
Turner, who had signalized himself by his zeal in fighting for the
covenant, was singled out to superintend the pious service in the south,
which he performed so much to the satisfaction of his employers, that,
on the 24th of November, a letter of thanks was recommended to be
written him “for his care and pains taken in seeing the laws anent
church government receive due obedience.” The excesses which were
committed under sanction of these orders and commendations, were never
attempted to be justified, though the parties afterwards mutually
endeavoured to shift the blame from themselves. When it was deemed
necessary to make the General the scape-goat, it was asserted that he
had exceeded his instructions; but he averred, and with greater
probability of truth, that he had not even acted up to their tenor.[38]
The exactions were enormous; and, as the fines for non-attendance were
generally appropriated by the soldiers, they were summarily levied, and
not unfrequently to far more than the legal amount. The process against
non-conformists, in places where there were Episcopalian incumbents, was
short. The curates were the accusers—the officers of the army, or
sometimes even private sentinels, the judges—no proof was required—and
no excuse was received, except money. If a tenant or householder were
unwilling or unable to pay, a party was quartered upon him, till ten
times the value of the fine was taken, and he was ruined, or, as they
termed it, “eaten up;”[39] then, after every thing else was gone, the
household furniture and clothes of the poor defaulters were distrained
and sold for a trifle.
Footnote 38:
“Sometimes not exceeding a sixth part, seldom a halfe.” _Turner’s
Memoirs_, p. 114.
Footnote 39:
To understand the meaning of this phrase, it is necessary to recollect
the situation of the rural tenantry in Scotland about this time. They
lived almost entirely upon the produce of the lands they rented, and
kept usually a small stock of oatmeal, cheese, and salted provisions,
as public markets were almost wholly unknown.
The soldiery employed in this execrable work, were the lowest and most
abandoned characters, who readily copied the example of their
officers—measured their loyalty by their licentiousness, and considered
that they served the king in proportion as they annoyed the Whigs.
Religion was the object of their ridicule. In the pious hamlets where
they quartered, family worship was interrupted by mockery or violence;
and “The Cottar’s Saturday Night,” not only treated with derision, but
punished as a violation of the laws of the land! Upon the Sabbath, the
day peculiarly devoted by the covenanters to holy rest, and the quiet
performance of their sacred duties—for the covenanters made conscience
of the moral obligation of the Sabbath—a scene of dismay and distress
hitherto unknown was commonly exhibited; and the day to which they had
in other times looked forward as the glory of the week, was now dreaded
as the signal of their renewed torments. Multitudes were brutally driven
to church, or dragged as felons to prison; and hesitation or
remonstrance provoked only additional insult or blows. Lists of the
parishioners were no longer kept for assisting the minister in his
labours of love, but were handed over to the troopers, with directions
for them to visit the families, and to catechise them upon their
principles of loyalty and their practice of obedience to their parsons.
After sermon, the roll was called by the curate, when all absent without
leave were delivered up as deserters to the mercy of the military. At
churches where the old Presbyterian ministers were yet allowed to
remain—for a few still continued to preach at their peril, or through
the interest of some influential person—the outrage and confusion were
indescribable. As they were generally crowded, the forsaken bishops and
their underlings were enraged, and the soldiers were instigated to
additional violence. Their custom was to allow a congregation peaceably
to assemble, while they sat carousing in some alehouse nigh at hand,
till public worship was nearly over; then they sallied forth inflamed
with liquor, and, taking possession of the church-doors or
churchyard-gates, obliged the people, whom they only suffered to pass
out one at a time, to answer upon oath whether they belonged to the
parish; if they did not, although their own parish had no minister of
any kind, they were instantly fined at the pleasure of the soldiers; and
if they had no money, or not so much as would satisfy them, their Bibles
were seized, and they were stripped of their coats if men, or their
plaids if women; so that a party returning from such an expedition,
appeared like a parcel of villanous camp-followers, after an engagement,
returning from a battle-field, laden with the spoils of the wounded and
slain.
To such an extent had these plunderings been carried, that even the
privy council found it necessary to interfere. Towards the end of the
year, they issued an explanation of their former acts, and restricted
the exactions of the soldiery, “allenarly to the penalty of twenty
shillings Scots, from every person who staid from their parish churches
on the Sabbath days.”[40]
Footnote 40:
Three of the prelates died in course of the past year. Bishop Mitchell
of Aberdeen, who was succeeded by Burnet; Sydeserf, who was succeeded
in the bishopric of Orkney by Mr Andrew Honeyman, formerly minister of
St Andrews; and Archbishop Fairfoul of Glasgow, who was succeeded in
the arch-episcopate by Bishop Burnet of Aberdeen, Dr Scougall being
appointed to that see.
[1664.] Even this symptom, small as it was, of moderation, was not at
all agreeable to the prelates. Like all upstarts, suddenly raised beyond
their expectations, their arrogance became insupportable, and could
brook no opposition. Glencairn, in particular, who had been so
instrumental in their rise, began to feel the truth of what he had been
repeatedly told—“that the bishops would never rest content with being
second in the state, and that moderate Episcopacy was all a jest.” He
had said to Rothes that “it was the noblemen’s interest to repress the
growing power of bishops, otherwise they would be treated by them now as
they had been before 1638.” This remark being carried to Sharpe, he
treated the Chancellor with great _hauteur_, and publicly threatened to
destroy his interest at court—an affront that Glencairn could never
forget, and which is said to have preyed upon his spirits to his dying
day.
Fearing a relaxation of “the wholesome severities,” the primate hastened
to London with heavy complaints against many of the noblemen, for their
backwardness in executing the laws made in favour of the church; and,
through the influence of the English bishops and high churchmen,
prevailed upon the king to re-establish in Scotland the most detested of
all the arbitrary courts that had been abolished—the High Commission
Court.
His majesty, by virtue of his royal prerogative in all causes and over
all persons, as well ecclesiastic as civil, granted the most exorbitant
powers to that antitype of the Inquisition. It consisted of thirty-five
lay members,[41] and of all the prelates, except Leighton, who had the
honour to be excluded from the nomination; and any five constituted a
quorum, provided always an archbishop or bishop was of the number. Under
pretext of seeing all the acts of parliament and council in favour of
Episcopacy put in vigorous execution, they were authorized to suspend or
depose, fine, and imprison all ministers who dared to exercise any of
their sacred functions without the license of a bishop—who should preach
in private houses or elsewhere—who should keep meetings for fasts or for
the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper not approven by
authority: to summon, call before them, and punish all who should speak,
preach, write, or print to the scandal, reproach, or detriment of the
government of the church or kingdom as now established—and all who
should express any dissatisfaction at his majesty’s authority. The
commanders of the forces and militia, the magistrates of every
description, were required to apprehend and incarcerate delinquents upon
their warrants, and the privy council to direct letters of horning for
payment of the fines—one half of which was appropriated to defray the
expenses of the court, and the other to be employed for such pious uses
as his majesty should appoint. And by a final comprehensive clause, the
High Commission, or their quorum, were authorized to do and execute
whatever they should find necessary and convenient for his majesty’s
service—for preventing and suppressing of schism and separation—for
planting of vacant churches—and for procuring of reverence, submission,
and obedience to the ecclesiastical government established by law.
Footnote 41:
The following were the lay members:—The Chancellor, Treasurer, Duke of
Hamilton, Marquis of Montrose, Earls of Argyle, Atholl, Eglinton,
Linlithgow, Home, Galloway, Annandale, Tweeddale, Leven, Moray; Lords
Drumlanrig, Pitsligo, Fraser, Cochrane, Halkerton, Bellenden, the
President of the Session, the Register, the Advocate, Justice-Clerk;
Charles Maitland, the Laird of Philorth, Sir Andrew Ramsay, Sir
William Thomson; the Provosts of St Andrews, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Ayr,
and Dumfries, Sir James Turner, and the Dean of Guild of Edinburgh.
From among these, the primate, who managed the whole, could easily
pick out a quorum to suit his purposes; and thus he got rid of all the
members of the privy council who had either the spirit or the policy
to resist his unbounded presumption—a presumption heightened by his
being now ordered to take precedence of the Chancellor, the nobility,
and all the officers of state.
By this instrument the whole kingdom was laid at the feet of the
prelates; for no quorum of the Commission could be complete without a
bishop, while five bishops could form a quorum without a layman. The
practice was agreeable to the constitution of the court, and such as may
always be expected where churchmen are intrusted with civil authority.
True ministers of Christ would never in their ministerial capacity
accept it, and worldlings who have assumed that sacred office to serve
purposes of ambition, have ever been the greatest curse of Christendom.
The records have been mislaid or lost, but the cases that remain, amply
justify the epithets bestowed upon this nefarious tribunal by all who
have mentioned it.
James Hamilton of Aikenhead, near Glasgow, was among the first brought
before them, accused of not hearing Mr David Hay, curate of the
parish—Cathcart—-in which his estate was situate. His defence was, the
unclerical and ungentleman-like conduct of the clergyman. In collecting
his stipend, which he did rigorously, Mr Hay had borne particularly hard
upon some of Mr Hamilton’s tenants, and, in consequence, a quarrel had
ensued, in which the curate had descended to very intemperate and
abusive language, and in return had been not less roughly answered. Mr
Blair, the “outted” minister, happening accidentally to be upon the
spot, interfered, and rescued Hay from the hands of his furious
parishioners. When the affray was over, Mr Blair spoke seriously to the
curate, and represented how opposite it was to his own interest for him
to turn informer against his people. Hay, in return, thanked him for his
kindness and advice, and gave him his solemn promise that he would
follow it; yet within a very short time, he went to Glasgow and
“delated” (_i. e._ denounced) them to the archbishop, who immediately
dispatched Sir James Turner, then in the west, with a party of soldiers,
to seize the delinquents. When Mr Hamilton came to be informed of the
circumstances of the affair, he considered the low prevaricating conduct
of Hay as so base, that he would never again enter the church door, and
he kept his promise; for this he was fined a fourth part of his yearly
rent. When he had paid the fine, the court was so fully sensible of the
misconduct of Hay, that the Archbishop of Glasgow came forward and
promised that he would be removed, but insisted that Mr Hamilton should
come under an obligation to hear and acknowledge the minister he meant
to place in his room; and, upon refusing to do any such thing till he
knew who that person should be, he was mulcted another fourth of his
income, and remitted to the archbishop to give him satisfaction as to
his loyal and peaceable behaviour. The prelate, however, not being
satisfied, he was again summoned before the court, upon some vexatious
charges of keeping up the church utensils and session-books from the
curate. Offering to swear he knew nothing at all about them, he was
accused of not assisting the curate in the session when called upon, and
suffering some of his family to absent themselves from church! Whether
he might have been able to acquit himself of these heinous crimes is
uncertain, for Rothes cut the business short, by telling him he had seen
him in some courts before, but never for any thing loyal, and therefore
tendered him the oath of allegiance. He had no objections, he replied,
to take the oath of allegiance, were it not mixed up with the oath of
supremacy. Sharpe, interrupting him, said “that was the common cant, but
it would not do.” Then he requested to be allowed to explain, but was
politely answered by the president—“he deserved to be hanged!” and, upon
refusing to become bound for all his tenants’ good behaviour, he was
fined three hundred pounds sterling, and sent to confinement in
Inverness, to remain during pleasure!
John Porterfield of Douchal, an excellent person, singled out for more
than common oppression, was summoned also for not hearing. He alleged
the unfounded calumnies the curate had spread against him as the reason
why he could not wait upon his ministry. The reason was allowed to be
cogent, and, at his own desire, he was permitted to prove it. His first
witness bore him out in all that he advanced, and his vindication would
have been complete; but he was too much respected and esteemed in the
neighbourhood, and his acquittal might have encouraged others. His proof
was therefore stopped, and he was required to take the oath of
allegiance. As had been expected, he stuck at the supremacy, and offered
an explanation. The natural consequence followed—the curate was sent
home to enjoy his incumbency, and Porterfield, for daring to offer a
defence, was sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred pounds sterling,
his estate sequestrated till it should be paid, and himself confined to
the town of Elgin, where he continued for four years.
Mr Alexander Smith, who had been turned out of his parish of Cowend,
Dumfries-shire, by the Glasgow act, had since then resided at Leith; but
having been guilty of preaching or expounding the Scriptures privately
in his own house, was called before the court to be examined. In
answering some of the queries Sharpe had put to him, he omitted the
primate’s titles, and only styled him, Sir, which Rothes observing,
meanly truckling to the priest, asked him, “if he knew to whom he was
speaking?” “Yes, my lords, I do,” answered the prisoner firmly; “I speak
to Mr James Sharpe, once a fellow-minister with myself.” For this high
misdemeanour, the worthy man was immediately laid in irons and cast into
the filthiest corner of the prison—the thieves’ hole. He was afterwards
banished to one of the desolate Shetland Isles.
At the settlement of Ancrum parish, where a James Scott, who had been
presbyterially excommunicated, was appointed to fill the place of Mr
Livingston, a country woman of the name of Turnbull, with more zeal than
prudence, attempted, as he was going to be inducted, to dissuade him
from undertaking the pastoral charge of so unwilling a people; and when
he would not stop to listen to her reasoning, seized him by the cloak.
Impatient at this detention, he turned in wrath upon the female
remonstrant, and beat her unmercifully; which unmanly conduct provoking
some youths present, they threw a few stones, but none of them touched
Scott or any other person. This pitiful affair was instantly magnified
into a seditious tumult, and the ringleaders were apprehended by the
Sheriff and thrown into jail—a punishment certainly more than adequate
to the offence, but it was no sufficient atonement for the indignity
done to the clergy, and the business was brought before the High
Commission; there these ministers of mercy sentenced the woman to be
whipped through Jedburgh—her two brothers, married men with families,
they banished to Virginia—and four boys, who confessed that they had
each thrown a stone, were first scourged through the city of Edinburgh,
then burnt in the face with a hot iron, and, finally, sold as slaves,
and sent to the island of Barbadoes, which severe punishment they
endured with a patient constancy that excited much admiration.
Bad as were the other courts in Scotland at this time, there was at
least a probability that even a Presbyterian might by accident escape if
accused, but before the High Commission no such thing was known. If
proof was wanting, the declaration and the oath of allegiance were
always at hand; and as the conscientious adherents of that persuasion
were well known when brought before them, their trial was as short as
their fate was certain. The exorbitant assumptions of the prelates were
for some time supported by Rothes, but at length so disgusted the
nobility, and brought such odium upon the court, that few of them would
countenance its proceedings. While the uniform and flagrant injustice of
their sentences rendered men desperate, who, rather than answer their
summons, suffered themselves to be outlawed, or withdrew into voluntary
exile in Ireland; till, in little more than a year and a half, the
detested Crail court, as it was commonly called,[42] sank first into
contempt and then into disuse.
Footnote 42:
It was so called, because Sharpe, who was the author of the court, and
took precedence of all its members, had been minister of Crail.
Presbyterians in the north of Ireland being at this time also subject to
persecution from the bishops, the ministers pursued in one country
sought occasionally refuge in the other. John Cruickshanks and Michael
Bruce who had fled to Scotland this year, and were preaching with much
success to the conventicles in the west, were in consequence denounced
as rebels, (June 23,) and power given to the officers and the commanders
of the forces to seize them.
While the High Commission was in its vigour, the privy council was
thrown into the background; yet in its temporary shade it was not
unmarked by streaks of persecution, equally vivid with any of the
lineaments of its co-tyrannous judicatories. The declaration was forced
by them upon all who held places of public trust; and their exertions
were stimulated by a letter from the king, commanding that “upon no
terms was any explication or declaration to be admitted upon the
subscription of any;” yet some few of the royal burghs refused, and
several of the shires hesitated; but a peremptory proclamation produced
a very general compliance—for the conscientious demitted their offices,
and the privy council supplied their places with successors who were
less scrupulous. Nor did any of the burghs evince the smallest
inclination to assert their rights or privileges, or persist in any
election that was disagreeable to the managers.
His majesty likewise called their attention early this year to the fines
imposed by Middleton’s act, which the Presbyterians were beginning to
think had been forgotten, and for which leniency Lauderdale had received
much unmerited credit. After several communications and delays, it was
finally intimated, in the month of November, by proclamation, that the
iniquitous imposition would be exigible—the first moiety at Candlemas,
and the other at Whitsunday 1665.
Prohibited from preaching, several of the “outted” ministers who resided
in Edinburgh, with others of those who feared the Lord, and that thought
upon his name, were in the habit of meeting together in those days of
sad calamity for social prayer in private houses. This, also, was a
nuisance that required to be removed; and information having been given
by the prelates or their underlings, the council issued a warrant to the
magistrates of the city, “to cause search to be made anent the keeping
of any such meetings, and that they acquaint the Lord Chancellor with
what they discover, and the persons names, that order may be taken about
the same.” This was followed by a mandate for all such ministers as had
hitherto been allowed to remain by suffrance in Edinburgh, or any burgh,
instantly to remove to the distances required by their former act, under
the severest penalties of law. But the most nefarious of their acts, and
one opposed to every good or amiable feeling of the human heart, was
that of April 29, forbidding any contribution to be made, or money
collected, for the relief of those who had been ejected from their
livings, banished from their friends, and prohibited from settling in
places where themselves or their families might have earned an honest
subsistence. The proclamation bears strong marks that its authors were
ashamed of so gross a violation of the dictates of common humanity. It
is worded in such an ambiguous manner as to be capable of the most
severe application, yet so as to be explained away when requisite. For
jesuitical falsehood, and heartless tyranny, the production is
matchless:—“The lords of his majesty’s privy council being informed
that, without any public warrant or authority, some disaffected persons
to the present establishment, presume and take upon them to require
contributions from such persons as they please, and do collect sums of
money, which are, or may be, employed for carrying on of their private
designs, prejudicial to the peace of the kingdom and his majesty’s
authority; and considering that such courses and underhand dealing may
strengthen seditious persons in their practices and designs, to disturb
the peace, if they be not timeously prevented: Therefore, in his
majesty’s name, they do prohibit and discharge all persons whatsomever,
to seek or demand any contributions or supply, or to receive any sums of
money. As likewise discharge all persons to grant or deliver any
contributions to any persons whosoever shall require the same, unless it
be upon occasions as have been publicly allowed and known, and
heretofore practised; and that they have a special warrant and allowance
of the lords of the privy council, or lords of the clergy within whose
dioceses these collections are to be made. With certification, that if
they contravene, they shall be proceeded against as persons disaffected
to the present government, and movers of sedition.”[43]
Footnote 43:
Too much liberality in Christians towards their brethren, or even
pastors, suffering in the cause of Christ, is a fault of very rare
occurrence. There they often withhold more than is meet, and find in
their experience that it tendeth to penury; for the Lord has many ways
of taking from his people the money they think they can employ better
than by lending to him; and perhaps many of the excellent persons who
in this reign suffered the spoiling of their goods, might have to
regret that they had not more freely contributed to supply the wants
of their more needy fellow-christians. But no man knoweth either love
or hatred from outward dispensations; and it is impossible for others
to say, whether as a rebuke or a trial, the persecutors were permitted
to plunder the devoted south and west.
Shortly before the Restoration, and within the few years that had
elapsed since it had pleased God to remove a great number of his most
eminent servants, who had sustained the heat and burden of the day,
during the troublous times of civil dissension, others had been honoured
to suffer death, imprisonment, or exile for the word of God, and for the
testimony of Jesus Christ; and of those who remained, the prelates were
extremely anxious to get rid. Among them, William Guthrie of Fenwick was
too conspicuous to escape. He had, through the interposition of the Earl
of Eglinton and the Chancellor, been allowed to continue so long, but
the crowds who were attracted to his church from the neighbouring and
even distant parishes, and the blessing of God which in a remarkable
manner followed his preaching, provoked the jealousy of the prelates,
particularly Archbishop Burnet, who, when requested by Glencairn to
overlook him, displayed his inveteracy by replying—“That shall not be
done; it cannot be; he is a ringleader and keeper up of schism in my
diocese;” and Glencairn was not long dead before he was suspended by his
Grace. Such, however, was the respect in which Mr Guthrie was held, that
it was with difficulty he could find a curate to pronounce his sentence,
and not till he had procured him a guard of soldiers and bribed him with
the sum of five pounds. But Mr Guthrie strictly forbade any opposition,
and rather called them to fasting and prayer. Early on the Sabbath on
which his church was declared vacant, he preached, as usual, two sermons
from the latter part of that text, Hosea xiii. 9, “O Israel, thou hast
destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help”—only had the whole service
over before nine o’clock.
Shortly after, the curate with a party of soldiers arrived, and, leaving
the privates outside, entered the manse with the officers. Rudely
accosting Mr Guthrie, he told him that the bishop and committee, after
much lenity shown to him for a long time, were constrained to pass the
sentence of suspension against him for not keeping presbyteries and
synods with his brethren, and for his unpeaceableness in the church, of
which sentence he was appointed to make public intimation unto him, and
for which he had a commission under the Archbishop of Glasgow’s hand. Mr
Guthrie answered—“I judge it not convenient to say much in answer to
what you have spoken; only whereas you allege there hath been much
lenity shown toward me—be it known unto you, that I take the Lord for a
party in that, and thank him for it; yea, I look upon it as a door which
God opened to me for preaching this gospel, which neither you nor any
man else was able to shut, till it was given you of God. And as to that
sentence passed against me, I declare before these gentlemen—the
officers of the party—that I lay no weight upon it, as it comes from you
or those who sent you: though I do respect the civil authority who, by
their law, laid the ground for this sentence; and were it not for the
reverence I owe to the civil magistrate, I would not surcease my
preaching for all that sentence. And as to the crimes I am charged with,
I did keep presbyteries and synods with my brethren; but I do not judge
those who now sit in these to be my brethren, but men who have made
defection from the truth and cause of God: nor do I judge those to be
free or lawful courts of Christ that are now sitting.
“And as to my unpeaceableness, I know I am bidden follow peace with all
men, but I know also I am bidden follow it with holiness; and since I
could not obtain peace without prejudice to holiness, I thought myself
obliged to let it go. And as for your commission, to intimate this
sentence, Sir, I here declare I think myself called by the Lord to the
work of the ministry, and did forsake my nearest relations in the world,
and give up myself to the service of the gospel in this place, having
received an unanimous call from the parish, and been tried and ordained
by the presbytery; and I bless the Lord he hath given me some success,
and a seal of my ministry upon the souls and consciences of not a few
that are gone to heaven, and of some that are yet on their way to it.
And now, Sir, if you will take it upon you to interrupt my work among
this people, as I shall wish the Lord may forgive you the guilt of it,
so I cannot but leave all the bad consequences that follow upon it,
betwixt God and your own conscience. And here I do further declare
before these gentlemen, that I am suspended from my ministry for
adhering to the covenant and work of God, from which you and others have
apostatized.”
At this the curate interrupting him said, that the Lord had a work
before that covenant had a being, and that he judged them apostates who
adhered to that covenant; and that he wished that not only the Lord
would forgive him (Mr Guthrie,) but if it were lawful to pray for the
dead—at which expression the officers and soldiers burst into
laughter—that the Lord would forgive the sin of this church these
hundred years bygone. “It is true,” answered Mr Guthrie, “the Lord had a
work before the covenant had a beginning, but it is as true that it hath
been more glorious since that covenant; and it is a small thing for us
to be judged of you in adhering to that covenant, who have so deeply
corrupted your ways, and seem to reflect on the whole work of
reformation from popery these hundred years bygone, by intimating that
the church had need of pardon for the same.” Then directing himself to
the soldiers—“As for you, gentlemen, I wish the Lord may pardon you for
countenancing of this man in this business.” “I wish we may never do a
greater fault,” answered one of them scoffing. “A little sin may damn a
man’s soul,” Mr Guthrie gravely replied. He then called for a glass of
ale, and, after craving a blessing, drank to the officers, who, having
been civilly entertained, quietly left the house and went to the church,
where the curate executed his office without disturbance, except from a
few boys, whom the soldiers easily chased away.[44]
Footnote 44:
This account of Mr Guthrie’s deposition is translated from a paper
drawn up at the time by himself, and preserved by Wodrow; and it
exemplifies a conduct in all respects becoming a Christian minister.
Mr Blackadder’s is of a similar description; and, had we equally
authentic and particular relations of the proceedings in other cases,
I have no doubt a majority would be found not less worthy of our
cordial approbation. Obedience to lawful authority, where it did not
interfere with duty to God, was both inculcated and exemplified by the
covenanters. Frequently the violent and outrageous conduct of the
soldiers caused tumults, and sometimes the natural and honest feelings
of the people got the better of their prudence, but all was charged
upon the covenanters; and when provoked past human endurance, if they
expressed only a just resentment, they were seditious despisers of
lawful authority! as if it had been impossible for lawful authority
ever to become tyrannical, and so tyrannical, as to release men from
their obligations to obey.
Another instance was, Andrew Donaldson of Dalgetty, described “as
singular for a heavenly and spiritual temper,” and one who had also been
much blessed in his ministry. Through the interest of the Earl of
Dunfermline, Lord Privy Seal, he had been allowed to continue in his
parish till this year, when the Earl being called to London, Archbishop
Sharpe urged the Bishop of Dunkeld to depose him. He accordingly
summoned Mr Donaldson to attend his clerical duty under pain of
suspension; but, for reasons similar to those of Mr Guthrie, he declined
attending the presbyteries or owning the bishop’s authority, and was in
consequence (October 4th) formally deposed, “in the name, and by the
authority of Jesus Christ, and with the consent of all his (_i. e._ the
bishop’s) brethren, not only from his charge at Dalgetty, but from all
the parts of the ministerial function within any diocese of the kirk of
Scotland.” By his prudence, Mr Donaldson prevented any disturbance—for
his affectionate people were sufficiently disposed to have made
resistance—and even prevailed upon the military deputation, who came
with the curate to displace him, to suffer him to preach and take
farewell of his weeping congregation who had assembled. Dunfermline,
upon being apprised of the whole before he left London, applied
personally to the king, and procured his warrant to present Mr Donaldson
to Dalgetty during life, which he brought to Scotland with him; and,
showing it to the primate, complained that he had taken advantage of his
absence to deprive him of a minister for whom he had so high a value.
Sharpe, dissembling his anger, apologized, and, with many professions of
regard for the Earl, promised obedience to his majesty’s commands, only
requesting, as a favour, that the Earl would do nothing in it for three
weeks, till he got the young man now settled at Dalgetty provided for.
To this his lordship consented, supposing, as a matter of course, that
Mr Donaldson would then be restored. But the archbishop in the interim,
by his interest at court, got an order under the royal sign manual,
forbidding all “outted” ministers to return to their charges, sent down
express, long before the three weeks expired. Dunfermline felt
sufficiently fretted at the cheat, but there was no remedy.
Field-preaching continuing on the increase in the west, in the south,
and in Fife, several of the ministers, at the instigation of Archbishop
Burnet, whose province they chiefly invaded, had been summoned before
the council and endured vexatious and expensive prosecutions; others,
who were more active and conspicuous, who knew that no defence they
could offer would prove availing, chose rather to allow sentence to pass
in absence than willingly to desist from proclaiming the gospel; and
being determined in this to obey God rather than man, they persisted at
their peril, in spite of acts of parliament and council, to exercise
their ministry wherever they could find opportunity. Deprived of their
livings and driven from their homes, they could furnish little spoil to
the persecutor, but they were most affectionately received into the
houses of their friends, who carefully provided for their safety; and
their sermons, of which intelligence was easily communicated, were
attended by numerous and attentive congregations. That they should thus
elude the grasp of their persecutors, and be followed by the most
respectable of the country population, was irritating to the managers
and galling to the prelates. But many of those who protected them were
possessed of property; and as they were now made liable by law for
hearing the gospel, the council began to turn their attention to this
lucrative branch of oppression.
William Gordon of Earlston soon attracted their attention. Descended
from an ancient family, distinguished in the annals of the Reformation,
he, from his childhood, had attached himself to the people of God, and
in early life enjoyed the friendship of Rutherford, but does not appear
to have courted notice till persecution dragged him into view. When the
commission was sent to Galloway to inquire into the disturbances at
Irongray, they wrote to him requiring him to take an active part in the
settlement of a curate, presented by the Bishop of Galloway, to the
church of Dalry. This he respectfully declined, because he could not do
it with a good conscience, as what did not tend to God’s glory and the
edification of his scattered people; and, also, because he, as patron of
the parish, had legally, and with the consent of the people, appointed
already a truly worthy and qualified person and an actual minister to
that charge. For this “seditious carriage” he was called before the
council, but they do not appear to have found that his conduct amounted
to a punishable crime, and therefore, on the 24th November 1663, he was
summoned upon the more comprehensive accusation of keeping conventicles
and private meetings in his house; and, on the 1st of March this year,
he was found guilty, upon his own confession, of having been one at
three several conventicles, when Mr Gabriel Semple, a deposed minister,
preached—one in Corsack wood, and two in the wood of Airds; of hearing
Mr Robert Paton, likewise a deposed minister, expound a text of
Scripture, and perform divers acts of worship in his mother’s house; and
of allowing Mr Thomas Thomson, another of the same kind, to lecture in
his own house to his family on a Sabbath day—for these offences, and
because he would not engage never to repeat them, he was banished forth
of the kingdom, not to return under pain of death! Besides all these
various methods of harassing the Presbyterians, Sir James Turner, during
this year, continued his missionary exertions with uniform persevering
diligence, only increasing in severity, as an unlicensed, unresisted
soldiery ever do.
Several political changes took place in the course of the year that
require to be noticed, although they had no influence in stopping or
altering the tide of persecution, which, being directed by the prelates,
particularly the two archbishops, continued to roll on with accumulating
violence. The Earl of Glencairn died on the anniversary of the king’s
restoration. He was carried off rapidly by a fever, believed to have
been produced or exasperated by the treatment he received from Sharpe,
and which he could find no opportunity to resent. In his last moments,
he earnestly desired the assistance of some Presbyterian ministers; but
before one could be procured, he was incapable of deriving any benefit
or comfort from their spiritual instructions or devotional exercises—a
circumstance neither uncommon among the noblemen of that time nor
strange; for, when men who had been religiously educated, and had, for
the sake of worldly ambition or licentious pleasure, apostatized from
their early profession, came to encounter the solemnities of a deathbed,
if the conscience has not been altogether seared—a still more awful
state—the partial knowledge they had acquired would often awaken remorse
for having forsaken the guides of their youth, and lead them, when
perhaps too late, to seek those consolations they had despised, amid the
hurry of business or in high-day of pleasure and of health. Rothes,
about the end of the year, was made keeper of the great seal, which
Sharpe, according to Burnet, had solicited. Sir John Fletcher was
removed from the office of lord advocate, and Sir John Nisbet appointed
in his room. In the month of August, Sharpe and Rothes went to court,
whence they returned in October—Rothes loaded with civil appointments,
and in addition named commissioner for holding the national synod—a
council which the primate, who could bear no rival near the throne,
continued effectually to prevent being ever assembled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------