JULY, A.D. 1670-1674.
Parliament—Act against conventicles—Bond—Leighton’s efforts
to reform the Episcopate—Council appoint a committee—Leighton
attempts an accommodation—Conference—Rigid treatment
of indulged ministers—Conventicles increase—Implacability
of the Prelates—Lady Dysart—Ascendancy of
Lauderdale—Parliament—Finings—Indulgence—Dissensions of the
ministers—Sufferings of the indulged—Mr Forrester and Mr Burnet
abandon Prelacy—Their testimony—Proceedings at the meeting of
estates—Mr Blackadder’s tour in Fife—Ministers’ widows’ petition—Its
consequences-Sharpe’s troubles.
Parliament commenced a short session, July 28, ostensibly for the
purpose of forwarding an union between the two kingdoms; and their first
bill empowered the king to name commissioners for this purpose, but the
scheme, if ever seriously entertained, proved abortive. Their other
proceedings were of more deplorable efficacy. Men of principle, who were
accustomed to attend upon the preaching of the gospel, or the worship of
God in unauthorized places, and who seldom or never refused to
acknowledge their own participation in such misdemeanours, yet, as they
considered it a crime to discover the minister or their
fellow-worshippers, they uniformly refused to turn informers; and this
which, in any other case, would have been extolled as an high and
honourable feeling, was in them to be treated as a felony. An act was
therefore introduced against “such who should refuse to depone against
delinquents,” ordaining that all of what degree, sex, or quality soever,
who should refuse to declare upon oath their knowledge of any unlawful
meetings, the several circumstances of the persons present, and things
done therein, to any having authority from his majesty, or who should
conceal or reset any who were or might be declared rebels—should be
punished by fining, imprisonment, or transportation as slaves to the
plantations. To ensure the safety of the orthodox clergy, any attempt
upon their houses or persons was declared punishable by death and
confiscation of goods; and a reward of five hundred merks was offered to
any person who should discover and seize such “robbers or attempters;”
or, if one should inform, and another seize, the first was to have two,
and the other three hundred merks of the same.
The most atrocious measure, however, of this assembly, was their “act
against conventicles,” by which it was statute and commanded that the
“outted” ministers, who were not licensed by the council, and no other
persons not authorized nor tolerated by the bishop of the diocese,
should presume to preach, expound Scripture, or pray in any meeting,
except in their own houses, and to those of their own family, “under
pain of imprisonment till they should find security to the amount of
five thousand merks never again to trespass in a similar manner, or to
remove out of the kingdom and never to return without his majesty’s
license; every person present was to be fined—an heritor, a fourth part
of his yearly rent—a tenant, twenty-five pounds Scots—a cottar, twelve
pounds—and each servant, a fourth part of his yearly fee; and if
accompanied by wives or children, half the sum for each. The master or
mistress of the house to pay double. Besides which, the magistrates of
any burgh where a conventicle was kept, were rendered liable to a fine
at the pleasure of the privy council, they having recourse upon the
persons present, who were thus subjected to be twice mulcted for the
same crime; and in addition, punished with imprisonment as long as the
council should see fit.”
Field-conventicles, denominated “rendezvouses of rebellion,” but
explained to be meetings for hearing the Scriptures expounded, or for
prayer, were punishable—the minister by death and confiscation—the
attenders by double penalties to those of house conventicles; and every
meeting was declared to be a field conventicle, although held in a
house, if there were any persons standing without at the door or at the
windows. The execution of this act was intrusted to the sheriffs,
stewards, lords of regalities, and their deputies, who were to account
to the privy council for the fines of the heritors; but all others, to
stimulate their activity, they were allowed to retain. Persons having
their children baptized by any minister except their own parish priest,
were rendered liable to additional fines, to be levied in the same
manner, and, to complete the tyranny with the most cruel insult, by
enforcing a principle which Lauderdale well knew the Presbyterians
acknowledged—the king’s right to regulate the externals of religion.[70]
Footnote 70:
In religion, as in every thing else, what may be right in the
abstract, may be essentially wrong in its practical application. The
power of the magistrate to enforce attendance upon divine worship may
he very plausibly defended as a principle, but, supposing that the
whole Episcopalians in Scotland had been as godly men, and as
excellent preachers as Archbishop Leighton, to have obliged these
conscientious sufferers to have attended their ministrations, would
have been no less persecution than forcing them to attend the
worthless curates who neither understood nor preached the gospel.
His majesty conceiving himself bound in conscience and duty to interpose
his authority, that the public exercises of God’s worship be
countenanced by all his good subjects, and that such as upon any pretext
do disorderly withdraw, be by the censures of the law made sensible of
their miscarriage, and by the authority of the law drawn to a dutiful
obedience of it—with advice and consent of his estates in parliament,
ordained and commanded all his good subjects of the reformed religion,
to attend and frequent the ordinary meetings for divine worship in their
own parish churches; and whoever should absent themselves three Lord’s
days, without a reasonable excuse for every time, were to be fined—an
heritor an eighth of his yearly rent—a tenant six pounds Scots—a cottar
or servant forty shillings. So sensible, however, did the framers of the
act appear to be, that such care for the religious improvement of the
people, instead of being likely to produce reformation, was more likely
to produce rebellion, that they ordained if any person, after being
fined, should persist in still absenting himself from the means of
instruction which the government had so kindly provided, he should be
required to sign a bond to the following purport:—“I, ——, oblige myself
that I shall not upon any pretext or colour whatsoever, rise in arms
against the king’s majesty, or any having his authority or commission;
nor shall assist nor countenance any who shall rise in arms.” And if any
person refused, he was to be imprisoned or banished, and his single
escheat or life-rent escheat was to fall to his majesty.
Acts so immeasurably rigorous, which passed without one dissenting voice
except that of the young Earl of Cassils, so vile was that crouching
assembly, grieved the soul of the amiable Leighton—whose first coldness
towards the Presbyterian profession had arisen from what he conceived to
be a persecuting spirit in the manner they forced the covenants to be
sworn—and he declared he would never consent to propagate Christianity
itself by such means, far less a form of church government.[71]
Tweeddale told him they were never intended to be put in execution, but
were merely hung out, _in terrorem_, to induce the Presbyterians to
comply with the advances of government, and meet them on a plan of
equitable moderation. Duped by these false and hollow professions, he
strenuously set himself to endeavour accomplishing so desirable an end;
and, as a first step, immediately on his entry into the archiepiscopal
office, he made an effort to rid his district of the incapable and
scandalous underlings who degraded their function and rendered it
contemptible in the eyes of the people. He appointed a committee to
inquire into the complaints made against the curates, of whose
proceedings we have no authentic record. From the testimony, however, of
the Presbyterian writers, it appears that several had been removed; that
others who feared a similar sentence, compounded with their parishes for
a little money, and voluntarily went back to the north and east, whence
they had come; and that the archbishop, at least in one instance, had
personally interposed, where his committee were inclined to be partial,
and dismissed the noted curate of Maybole, against whom the crimes of
swearing, fighting, and drunkenness, were proved. But I apprehend his
exertions in this had been cramped by the interference of the civil
power; for “the council, upon being informed that the synod of Glasgow
had appointed a committee of their number to hear and take trial of such
complaints as should be given in to them against scandalous ministers;
and considering it expedient that they should have all encouragement,
appointed Sir John Cochran of Ochiltree, Sir Thomas Wallace, Sir John
Cunninghame, Sir John Harper, and the provosts of Glasgow and Ayr, to
meet with them and assist them.” The nature of all such assistance is
sufficiently plain; and if less was accomplished than expected, the
cause of the failure may be easily accounted for without any fault on
the part of the bishop.
Footnote 71:
The conduct of Leighton has always appeared to me inexplicable; and,
although I willingly give him credit for the best of motives, yet I
have never met with any very satisfactory apology for his accepting a
then bishopric. It must not, however, be forgotten, that he repeatedly
tendered his resignation to the king, who personally urged him to
retain it; and that he did so upon the faith of the royal promise that
milder measures would be pursued, and that when he found himself
deceived, he left the archiepiscopate.
Another scheme which he tried at the same time to elevate the
Episcopalian character, proved even still more abortive. He employed
several of the most learned and decorous of their preachers, who were
also reckoned pious, Dr Gilbert Burnet, Mr James Nairn, Mr Laurence
Charteris, men of superior abilities and unblameable lives, with some
others of more obscure name, as missionaries to preach in the west. They
were received by the people with scorn, and contemptuously styled the
bishop’s evangelists; few could be persuaded to hear them, and of those
who did, they do not appear to have made many converts. Burnet himself
gives this candid account—“The people of the country came generally to
hear us, though not in great crowds. We were indeed amazed to see a poor
commonalty so capable to argue upon points of government, and on the
bounds to be set to the power of princes in matters of religion. Upon
all these topics they had texts of Scripture at hand, and were ready
with their answers to any thing that was said to them. This measure of
knowledge was spread even among the meanest of them, their cottagers and
their servants.”
Neither did the grand object to which these were preliminary, succeed
any better. After several conferences, the accommodation was given up.
The first was held at Holyrood-house before Lauderdale, Rothes,
Tweeddale, and Kincardine, in the month of August, between Messrs G.
Hutchison, A. Wedderburn, John Baird, and John Gemble—indulged ministers
who had been invited to Edinburgh by Lauderdale—and Bishop Leighton and
Professor Gilbert Burnet. Sharpe would not be present. Lauderdale opened
the business by an eulogium on the king’s condescension and clemency—his
wishes for a complete unity and harmony—and recommended an agreement
upon joint measures which might tend to the peace of the church.
Leighton followed. He deplored the mischief their divisions had
occasioned, the many souls that had been lost, and the many more that
were in danger, while they were wasting their strength in contention,
and exhorted every one to do what he could to heal a breach that had let
in so many evils. For his own part, he said, he was persuaded that
Episcopacy, as an order distinct from Presbytery, had existed in the
church ever since the days of the apostles; that the world had every
where received the Christian religion from bishops; and that a parity
among clergymen was never thought of in the church before the middle of
the last century, and was then set up rather by accident than design;
still, how much soever he was persuaded of this, as they were of a
different judgment, he had a proposal to make by which they might both
preserve their opinions, and yet unite in carrying on the preaching of
the gospel and the end of their ministry; and that was, merely to
recognize the bishops as the presidents of their synods and
presbyteries, with liberty to dissent from any measure they did not
approve of.
The ministers made no reply; but next day, in the bishop’s chamber, Mr
Hutchison, in name of the rest, answered his observations respecting
Episcopacy:—Parity among the ministers of the gospel, he affirmed to be
the original apostolic institution, that a perpetual presidency had made
way for a lordly dominion in the church; and that however inconsiderable
the thing might seem to be in itself, it both had been and would be of
great and mischievous consequence. Those present however, he said, could
come to no agreement without consulting their brethren, and therefore
desired that the project might be submitted to them, which was
accordingly done in the following form:—“Presbyteries being set up by
law, as they were established before the year 1638, and the bishop
passing from his negative voice, and we having liberty to protest and
declare against any remainder of prelatic power, retained or that may
happen at any time to be exercised by him, for a salvo for our
consciences from homologation thereof—your opinion is required, as to
whether we can with safety to our principles join in these presbyteries?
or what else is it that we will desire to do for peace in the church and
an accommodation—Episcopacy being always preserved?”
Upon these queries, the ministers in the south and west had a very
numerous meeting, when, after long reasoning, it was unanimously agreed,
that to sit in ecclesiastical courts called by bishops, whose only right
emanated from the supremacy of the crown, was virtually acknowledging
that supremacy—a thing very different from meeting in the presbyteries
which were indicted, a.d. 1638, by the intrinsic power of the church,
and therefore could not be complied with; and as to the salvo of a
protest, it would be a protestation contrary to the fact, and so no
salvo to an honest man’s conscience. For the sake of peace, they had no
objection to join in public worship with a bishop, or such as were
ordained by him; but as to acknowledging their office, by sitting in
courts with them, they could not see how that could at all be reconciled
with their principles.
Several conferences took place between Leighton and Mr Hutchison’s small
party; but the utmost the latter could be brought to concede, was, to
consent to the appointment of the bishops as perpetual presidents or
constant moderators in their synods and presbyteries, which being no
divine institution, it was thought the king might be allowed to appoint,
but they required the resumption of assemblies and the legal recognition
of all the essential parts of Presbyterian church government—a proposal
which met the approbation of no party. The prelates saw in the loss of
their negative voice in the courts, a relinquishing of a main pillar of
Episcopacy; while the more consistent Presbyterians affirmed that, to
allow the royal nomination of a perpetual president, was laying a
foundation for again rearing, when times should prove more propitious,
the prelatic power.
Thus the conferences broke up; and, as usual in all such cases, the
ineffectual endeavours to procure peace, tended greatly to imbitter the
war. Some, however, refused to conform to the present establishment upon
higher and more scriptural grounds. They had observed that popery and
profanity always increased where conformity prevailed, and that the Lord
had stamped this mark of his displeasure upon prelacy, that under it
truth and godliness had ever sensibly decayed. They therefore rejected
all fellowship with it, as a plant which man, and not God, had planted;
and they refused to hold communion in church government with those who,
by their carelessness and negligence, were the destroyers of his holy
mountain, and laid his vineyard waste—who had been thrust into the
oversight of charges whence many had been cast out, whom the Lord had
made polished shafts in his own right hand for gaining souls to
Christ.[72]
Footnote 72:
Mr Menzies, minister of Carlaverock, who had conformed, withdrew this
year from the bishop’s presbytery of Dumfries, and gave in a testimony
to this effect.
[1671.] Where the fundamental principles of parties in religion are
opposite, it is vain to expect that public disputation will reconcile
them. The Presbyterians have ever held that Jesus Christ is the supreme
Head, King, and Lawgiver of his church, with whose statutes, ordinances,
and appointments no earthly power has a right to interfere; and however
this principle may have been obscured by circumstances, or how much
soever it may have been misrepresented by enemies, or misunderstood by
ill-informed friends, it was the principle for which these excellent
men, who were now accounted too rigid, earnestly contended, and which,
when they came to die, they were anxious should be fully cleared as the
ground of their sufferings. The Scottish Episcopalians owned the
supremacy of the king, their whole system was based upon his
prerogative, and they acknowledged his power to model the government of
the house of God according to his pleasure.
Leighton had attempted a compromise between these two abhorrent
opinions, and, had not their self-interest opposed, it is evident the
latter could offer no argument for non-compliance with a royal mandate
for conciliation; while the former, without violating their conscience,
could not advance a step upon such ground. When they separated, however,
upon this distinct, palpable, and, so long as each retained their
principles, irremediable cause of difference, the Presbyterians were
represented as obstinate, unreasonable men, full of an entangled
scrupulosity; and the privy council, immediately ordered their act
requiring all the indulged ministers to attend the bishops’ presbyterial
meetings, under the penalty of being straitly confined within the limits
of the parishes where they preached, to be strictly enforced; nor dared
they visit a dying parent, although not a mile distant, without special
leave asked and granted from that arbitrary court. To add to the
hardship of this imprisonment, their salaries were very irregularly
paid, and their applications so violently opposed by the primate, that
it was with difficulty, and after in some cases a twelvemonth’s delay,
an order could be obtained upon the collector of the vacant stipends.
The observation of the anniversary of the king’s birth-day was anew
rigidly enjoined, and the sheriffs required to see that the council’s
act forbidding lecturing was obeyed, and that the names of such as
contravened should be sent to them. A committee, at the head of which
stood the Archbishop of St Andrews, was next appointed, to consider what
further could be done to suppress conventicles, and to see that the
militia did not neglect their duty in preventing or dispersing these
hated assemblies, or in apprehending and bringing to condign punishment
all who should countenance such atrocities! In order to render offenders
still more inexcusable, the patrons in the west were recommended to use
all diligence to get their churches planted with able and godly
ministers, but they were either unable or unwilling to comply; and, in
the month of July, the affair was turned over to the bishops, who
provided incumbents, which inflamed the evil; for, instead of
decreasing, the obnoxious meetings multiplied.
Linlithgowshire, Fife, and the Lothians were especially infected; and,
during the present year, the most remarkable conventicles appear to have
been held immediately in the vicinity of the primate’s dwelling, not far
distant from Linlithgow Palace, and in the muirs of Livingstone,
Bathgate, Calder, and Torphichen. The Duke of Hamilton’s factor at
Kinniel, who acted likewise as baron-bailie, was favourable, and by his
connivance Mr Blackadder frequently visited the seaport town of
Borrowstownness or its vicinity, where, many years after, the effects of
his and his brethrens’ preaching were felt.
Implacably bent against the “outted” ministers, the prelates would
neither allow them to obey their consciences actively nor passively. If
they preached, prayed, or exhorted, beyond the bounds of their own
families, they were persecuted as the most obnoxious pests of society.
If they remained at home and refrained from these duties, if they did
not attend the parish church regularly with their families, they were
complained of as disobedient, and the sheriffs were ordered by the
council to commit them to prison. Yet, notwithstanding, “at that time,”
Mr Fraser of Brae remarks, “the church of Christ had great rest and
liberty from persecution, through variance among the statesmen;” so
highly was a short respite from actual suffering then esteemed, though
loaded with heavy, and what would now be reckoned intolerable, burdens.
The variance referred to was a quarrel between Lauderdale and those who
had assisted him in overturning his former opponents, whom he now
rewarded with the usual gratitude of politicians, by procuring their
dismissal from office as soon as he found them stand in the way of his
own advancement. When he sacrificed his religion upon the altar of
ambition, he threw his morality into the same fire; and, according to
the fashion of the court, lived in open adultery. Lady Dysart, the
prostitute with whom he cohabited, and, upon the death of his lady, soon
after [1672] married, was remarkable in her day for personal beauty and
fascinating manners, joined to unfeeling rapacity and cruel
extravagance; and her influence completed a dreadful revolution in his
character, already depraved by his prosperous career as a courtier. She
caused him to separate from the only portion of his confidential friends
who had the courage to oppose his violence, or the virtue to attempt it;
and when Sir Robert Murray and Tweeddale were now removed from the
direction of public affairs, all decency and moderation soon followed.
Together with a few of his devoted creatures, he engrossed every place
of importance in the country. In his own person, he held the offices of
Commissioner, President of the Council, a Lord of the Treasury and of
the Session, Agent at Court for the royal burghs, Captain of the Castle,
and Captain of the Bass[73]—a high insulated rock at the mouth of the
Firth of Forth, now converted into a state prison. His brother, Hatton,
was Treasurer, Depute-General of the Mint, and Lord of Session; Atholl,
Justice-General and Privy Seal; Kincardine, Admiral of Scotland; Sir
James Dalrymple of Stair, President of the Court of Session; and
Lockhart of Lee, Lord Justice-Clerk.
Footnote 73:
“åThe Bass is a very high rock in the sea, two miles distant from the
nearest point of the land which is south of it; covered it is with
grass on the uppermost parts thereof, where is a garden where herbs
grow, with some cherrytrees, of the fruit of which I several times
tasted, below which garden there is a chapel for divine service; but,
in regard no minister was allowed for it, the ammunition of the
garrison was kept therein. Landing here is very difficult and
dangerous; for, if any storm blow, ye cannot enter because of the
violence of the swelling waves, which beat with a wonderful noise upon
the rock, and sometimes in such a violent manner, that the broken
waves reverberating on the rock with a mighty force, have come up over
the walls of the garrison on the court before the prisoners’ chambers,
which is above twenty cubits height. And with a full sea must you
land; or, if it be ebb, you must be either craned up, or climb with
hands and feet up some steps artificially made on the rock, and must
have helps besides of these who are on the top of the rock, who pull
you up by the hand. Nor is there any place of landing but one about
the whole rock, which is of circumference some three quarters of a
mile; here you may land in a fair day and full sea without great
hazard, the rest of it on every side being so high and steep. Only on
the south side thereof, the rock falls a little level, where you
ascend several steps till you come to the Governor’s house, and from
that some steps higher you ascend to a level court, where a house for
prisoners and soldiers is; whence likewise, by windings cut out of the
rock, there is a path which leads you to the top of the rock, whose
height doth bear off all north, east, and west storms, lying open only
to the south; and on the uppermost parts of the rock there is grass
sufficient to feed twenty or twenty-four sheep, who are there very fat
and good. In these uppermost parts of the rock were sundry walks of
some threescore feet length, and some very solitary, where we
sometimes entertained ourselves. The accessible places were defended
with several walls and cannon placed on them, which compassed only the
south parts. The rest of the rock is defended by nature, by the huge
height and steepness of the rock, being some forty cubits high in the
lowest place. It was a part of a country gentleman’s inheritance,
which falling from hand to hand, and changing many masters, it was at
last bought by the king, who repaired the old houses and walls, and
built some new houses for prisoners; and a garrison of twenty or
twenty-four soldiers therein are sufficient, if couragious, to defend
it from millions of men, and only expugnable by hunger. ’tis commanded
by a Lieutenant, who does reap thereby some considerable profit,
which, besides his pay, may be one hundred pounds a year and better.
There is no fountain-water therein, and they are only served with rain
that falls out of the clouds, and is preserved in some hollow caverns
digged out of the rock. Their drink and provisions are carried from
the other side by a boat, which only waits on the garrison, and hath a
salary of six pounds yearly for keeping up the same, besides what they
get of these persons that come either to see the prisoners, or are
curious to see the garrison. Here fowls of every sort are to be found,
who build in the clifts of the rock, the most considerable of which is
the solan goose, whose young, well fledged, ready to fly, are taken,
and yield near one hundred pounds yearly, and might be much more, were
they carefully improved.” _Mem. of Fraser of Brea_, pp. 298-300.
Influenced by French councils, Charles, in the beginning of the year,
suddenly commenced against the Dutch the most unprovoked hostilities, by
a piratical but unsuccessful attack upon their Smyrna fleet, which was
followed by a declaration of war, founded upon pretexts either false or
ridiculous.[74] The whole line of his policy went to destroy liberty and
religion at home and abroad—to fetter his people, though at the expense
of being himself as much the despicable pensioner of France, as he was
the degraded slave of his own licentious passions. Lauderdale aptly
ministered to all his iniquity; and his management of Scotland was in
unison with the traitorous band of conspirators, of whom he was one,
against English freedom, known by the name of the “Cabal,” and in entire
subservience to the king’s designs against his subjects. Being created a
Duke, he came down to his vice-royalty with his Duchess, in great pomp,
and made a tour with her Grace throughout the country, the nobles vieing
with each other in the magnificence of their entertainments to the noble
pair.
Footnote 74:
One of the reasons for involving the nation in blood, was, that the
Dutch had insulted the king by allowing a caricature to be sold, in
which he was exhibited as receiving a quantity of money in a
“discrowned” hat, which fell as fast into the lap of his mistress!
Parliament met in June, and was opened in great state by the
Commissioner, whose lady, seated within the bar, heard her lord deliver
his speech—a mark of honour none even of the kings of Scotland had ever
bestowed upon their queens, and which the very doubtful character of the
Duchess did not in public opinion seem to merit. All the severe acts
against conventicles were confirmed and extended. To shut every avenue
to power or place against Presbyterians, none but those well affected to
the religion and government of the church as established, were to be
appointed officers of the militia; and both officers and men were
ordered to take the oath of allegiance and the declaration, under pain
of banishment; and to prevent the continuance of that detested religion,
the whole of those who professed it were forbid to license or ordain any
person to the ministerial office; all ordinations since 1661 were
declared null and void, the ordainers and ordained subjected to
banishment, and their goods to confiscation; persons married by
non-conformists forfeited their legal matrimonial rights; and those who
did not bring their children to the parish minister to be baptized
within thirty days after their birth, were to be punished by
fining—heritors in a fourth part of their rent, and merchants by a
pecuniary mulct.
Good laws are too often dead letters in the statute-book; but it is
seldom that cruel, persecuting enactments are allowed to slumber; and if
these enactments are rendered sources of gain to the wretches who are to
enforce them, wo to the subjects their fangs can reach. Believe their
pretences and preambles, never was a kingdom blessed as was Scotland at
this time with excellent legislative measures, passed for the
preservation of religion, for ensuring attendance on the ordinances, the
protection of an orthodox ministry, the prevention of schism, and the
promotion of Christianity in a regular orderly manner. There were, also,
admirable laws for suppressing profanity and all manner of immorality.
These stand enrolled among our records; and were we to judge from the
preambles of the printed acts of parliament, no nation was ever so happy
in an establishment for the furtherance of the gospel—that so
strenuously watched over its interest by seeing all the churches filled
by able pastors, and these pastors properly supported by legal
contributions. In fine, judge from the profession of her rulers,
representatives, and clergy, the people were too happy in a pious,
beneficent, and fatherly government, but did not know their own mercies.
Now look at the fact. The churches were deserted because the clergy were
incapable, and the gospel was banished to the wilds of the country, and
even there persecuted. I subjoin an instance.
“At or near Bathgate a great multitude had assembled to hear the word of
God preached by Mr Riddell. This being known, a party of dragoons,
commanded by one Lieutenant Inglis, who kept garrison in Mid Calder,
made search for them on the muirs. The meeting had notice of this; but
hearing they were at a distance, and, as some reported, returning to
their quarters again, they were the more secure and continued their
worship; but within a little, they appeared in sight and that near, ere
they knew. Upon which the most part got over a bog and that hard by,
where horse and foot could not follow, but many stood on the other side,
thinking themselves safe. Mean time, the dragoons came up and
apprehended several on the spot; among others, Sandilands, Lady
Helderston’s brother. Then they approached to the side of the bog, and
shot on among the people, as they usually basely did on such occasions
to shoot bullets among such a promiscuous multitude of men, women, and
children, though they found them without arms. One of their shot lighted
on ane honest man, an heritor in Bathgate parish, and killed him dead on
the spot. They carried their prisoners to the garrison at Calder, with a
great booty of cloaks, plaids, bibles, and what else they could lay
their hands on, spoiling the poor people, as they had got the victory
over a foreign enemy.”
Fining was too fertile a source of emolument to be relinquished by an
administration so extravagant as the Duke of Lauderdale’s. Exorbitant
sums were thus extorted from the most respectable gentlemen and
substantial tenants, which were lavished upon the retainers of
government or the private friends of the Commissioner. It would be idle
to attempt even guessing the amount of money raised this year by small
exactions, but some of the larger may be mentioned. Hay of Balhousie, or
Boussi, as Kirkton styles him, afterwards Earl of Kinnoull, then a very
young man, but newly left school, was fined one thousand pounds sterling
for having heard his own chaplain officiate in situations that brought
him under the penalties of the conventicle act. Drummond of Meggins,
because his wife had been guilty of attending some field-preaching, was
tabled for five hundred; and their convictions were aggravated by the
insulting raillery of Lauderdale, who told them when their bonds were
signed—“Gentlemen, now ye know the rate of a conventicle, and shame fall
them first fails.” A house conventicle cost Ann Countess Dowager of
Wigton, four thousand merks. A Mr James Duncan at Duplin got off for
half the sum. The general rate for those of lower rank seems to have
been five hundred each.
Yet, while thus actively urging this lucrative persecution, his Grace
had brought with him powers for granting a new and more comprehensive
indulgence. It was not, however, till the month of August that any thing
was done in the matter, when about twenty of the “outted” ministers met
at Edinburgh, and deputed two of their number, Mr James Kirkton and
Gabriel Cunningham, to wait upon Sir James Dalrymple of Stair, to learn
the certainty of the report and entreat his good offices. These he
readily promised, but, from whatever reason, they proved ineffectual;
and on the 3d September, Lord’s day, an act of council was agreed to,
that was in fact rather an act of confinement than one of indulgence. By
it the Presbyterian ministers, “outted” since 1662, were ordered to
repair to certain parishes, there to remain—some two together, some
three—and to exercise their functions, nor pass their limits, without a
license from the bishop of the diocese. They were not to preach any
where but in the parish church—to administer the Lord’s Supper on the
same day in all the parishes—and to admit no person from a neighbouring
parish to any church privilege without a line from their minister,
unless the parish kirk were vacant. And all ministers not mentioned by
name in this act, if they presumed to exercise any part of the
ministerial duty, were to be punished according to the pleasure of the
council.
An indulgence so miserably clogged did not, and perhaps was not,
intended to meet the views of any of the Presbyterians; but whilst they
almost unanimously disapproved of the act, they divided as to the
propriety of accepting the offer of government under protest; or, in
other language, of entering upon the office of the ministry under any
restriction, after presenting to the council an enumeration of their
grievances, and praying for a relaxation. This mode of procedure some
thought would exonerate their consciences, and be a testimony against
the Erastian proceedings of government. The more consistent agreed that
the testimony would be right providing they acted up to it by refusing
to accept the indulgence, else it would only be affording an excuse for
ministers who wished one, to accept what they otherwise were not in
their minds clear about accepting.
The dispute ran high; and, at this distance of time, and living as we do
untried by the perilous assailments to which these good men were
exposed, it would ill become us to pronounce harshly upon the conduct of
either party; yet it is impossible not to approve, and that highly, of
the noble, intrepid, and disinterested proceedings of the latter, who
chose rather to suffer for a good conscience, than accept of deliverance
under such circumstances. The proposal for emitting a testimony was
accordingly dropped, and a number of the ministers accepted of parishes
without further dispute. A few, on entering upon their charges,
disavowed from their pulpits giving countenance to Erastianism, making a
wretched compromise with their professions and consciences, which
neither gained them credit with the people nor secured them from
molestation by their rulers. Those who could not comply were in
consequence exposed to the increased fury of the persecutor; but that
was a small matter compared to the heart-burnings and melancholy
divisions these debates caused among the brethren. The exiles in
Holland, who were suffering for their consistency, published against it;
and the common people, who entered keenly into every question, began to
doubt of the propriety of hearing ministers who departed from the purity
of Presbyterian principle and practice, and became cold even to the
ministers who, though they had not accepted of the indulgence
themselves, did not in their public discourses bear testimony against
it; and a spirit of distrust arose which afterwards led to most unhappy
consequences.
[1673.] Early next year, upon the Duke of Hamilton’s coming to
Edinburgh, a council was held to learn the success of the indulgence in
the west, when he gave it as his opinion, that, had the whole of the
Presbyterian ministers accepted, the country might have been quiet; but,
as so many refused themselves and dissuaded their brethren, he believed
the schism, as he termed it, would still continue to distract the church
and disturb the land. He complained chiefly of five who were exceedingly
active in their meetings, James Kirkton, author of the History of the
Church of Scotland; Alexander Moncrief; Robert Lockhart; George
Campbell; and Robert Fleeming.
Some of these residing in Edinburgh, the council determined that they
should either be silent or proceed to the parishes allotted as their
places of confinement. By an order of the 7th March, all “outted”
ministers were enjoined to remove to a distance of five miles from the
city, unless they gave bond to keep no conventicles; and on the 12th,
those of the indulged who had not entered upon their parishes, were
called before them, and peremptorily commanded to show their obedience
before the 1st of June. Kirkton thanked them for allowing him so much
time to consider, and said “he should desire to advise with the Lord and
his conscience;” and was dismissed till then, together with Mr Matthew
M’Kail, Robert Lockhart, James Donaldson, and some others.
These injunctions were shortly after followed by another fierce
proclamation against conventicles, requiring all heritors and others to
give prompt information respecting such meetings to the council under
pain of being fined at least in a fourth part of their rents. Still the
activity of the respectable part of the population not meeting the
wishes of the council, the higher ranks, Hamilton, Eglinton, and
Cassilis, were ordered to undertake the hated office of hunting out
conventicles and report to Edinburgh. The reason alleged was, that the
king being at war with the Dutch, the latter designed to raise troubles
in Scotland, and the conventicles behoved to be dispersed as holding
communication with the enemy. The council now also commenced sending
ministers to that horrible prison, the Bass; and Mr Robert Gillespie,
for conducting the worship of God in a house at Falkland, was the first
who had that honour, because he would not consent to inform upon those
who were present, and whose fines might have been more profitable than
his imprisonment. He was followed in the month of June by Alexander
Peden, an eminent servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose character has
suffered little less from the credulity of his admirers, than from the
ridicule of his enemies. He appears to have sprung from persons in
humble life, and, previously to being licensed, had been schoolmaster,
precentor, and session-clerk to Mr John Guthrie, at Tarbolton.[75] He
was three years minister at New Glenluce, in Galloway, whence he was
ejected soon after the Restoration, and was among the first of the
field-preachers. In the beginning of 1666, he was denounced by
proclamation, and next year declared a rebel and forfeited both in life
and fortune. He continued from that time wandering and exercising his
ministry to great numbers, and with much success, alternately in
Scotland and Ireland, till June this year, when he was seized by Major
Cockburn in the house of Hugh Ferguson of Knockdow, in Carrick, and sent
together with his landlord to Edinburgh. On the 26th he was examined
before the council and committed to the Bass. Mr Ferguson was fined a
thousand merks for affording him a night’s lodgings. And so highly did
the managers estimate the capture, that they ordered fifty pounds
sterling to be paid to the Major—twenty-five to be distributed among the
soldiers, to stimulate to new service.
Footnote 75:
Wodrow says Fenwick, evidently a mistake, for William Guthrie, author
of the well known excellent treatise, the “Trial of a Saving Interest
in Christ,” was minister at Fenwick.
All proving ineffectual, Lauderdale sent down a letter, May 31, in his
arrogant style of rude bantering jocularity, telling the council that if
any of the indulged were still unwilling to accept of that favour upon
the terms upon which it was granted, that they should not at all press
them to it; but instead of that, require sufficient assurance of their
forbearing conventicles, going regularly to church, and behaving orderly
in the places where they resided, adding, “because some of them are
displeased, forsooth! with the late indulgence, you shall secure them
from the fear of any more of that kind! and let them know that if after
all the lenity used toward them, they still continue refractory and
untractable, the whole of the royal power shall be employed for securing
the peace of the church and kingdom from their seditious practices.”
Money and blood are the fundamental principles of all false religions;
and love of the world is not a more absolute criterion by which to judge
of an individual’s Christianity, than a sure and certain rule by which
to judge whether a church be a church of Christ or no. Attachment to the
temporalities of an ecclesiastical establishment is as clear and
distinct a feature of antichrist, wherever it is found, as any given in
the word of God, by whatever name that establishment be called, whether
a Protestant Episcopacy or the Hierarchy of Rome. These were prominent
features of the prelacy of Scotland. I subjoin an example of their
extortion. The whole succeeding years will bear evidence to their lust
of blood. In Renfrew alone the following sums were awarded against
eleven gentlemen, and only not levied to their full extent because a
compromise could be readily procured by the ecclesiastical robbers,
while it might have been doubtful whether, if the whole had been sued
for, they might not have been forced to share the produce with the legal
ruffians:—Sir George Maxwell of Newark, for three years’ absence from
church, 31,200 pounds Scots; for weekly conventicles, 62,400; and for
disorderly baptisms, 1200, making a total of 94,800 pounds Scots, or
£7800. 1s. 6d. sterling—the Laird of Douchal, afterwards Porterfield,
84,400, Scots, or £7032 sterling—Sir George Maxwell, Netherpollock, in
93,600, Scots, or £7500 sterling—Cunningham of Carncurran, 15,833. 6s.
8d., Scots—John Maxwell of Dargarvel, 18,900, Scots—Walkinshaw of
Walkinshaw, 12,600, Scots—and five others in different sums, making a
total of 368,031. 3s. 4d., Scots.
Partial compliances did not secure the indulged from trouble, nor were
they less the objects of the bishops’ hatred than their more resolute
brethren. When the anniversary of the king’s birth-day returned, they
were summoned to appear before the council to give an account of the
manner in which they celebrated it; and the “reverend fathers in God”
appeared as their most violent accusers. As upon former occasions, their
answers were respecting their past practice. When required to promise
obedience for the future, the majority answered they could not keep any
day holy but the Sabbath, and were fined in the one half of their
stipends, which does not appear, however, to have been rigorously
exacted. Unfortunately, however, some excused themselves by not having
seen the council’s instructions; immediately the instructions were
tendered them, but Mr Alexander Blair, minister in Galston, told them
that though in politeness he would not refuse receiving the paper, yet
he could accept of no instructions from them for regulating his
ministry, otherwise he should be their ambassador, not Christ’s. For his
insolence, as they termed it, he was cast into prison, where he remained
till December, when he was allowed, on account of sickness, to be
carried to a private house, till death unloosed his fetters. In the
month of January, he departed in much joy and in full assurance of
faith.
This incident tended to increase the coolness between the people and the
indulged; for they did not think the other ministers had been
sufficiently explicit in their testimony; and when they returned to
their parishes, “they were to their great grief,” says Kirkton, “treated
with no less reproach than the nickname of Council Curates.” “Outted”
ministers who had no particular parishes allowed them, were required to
repair to such as the council should name; but as they could not see it
consistent with any moral or Christian duty to present themselves for
the purpose of being punished without a crime, Robert Fleeming, Thomas
Hogg, John Lidderdale, and Alexander Hutchison, were ordered to be
apprehended and brought before the council, wherever they could be
found. Instead of reconciling the Presbyterians to the domination of
bishops, such proceedings added to the number of recusants, and these
always from the most conscientious. Mr Forrester, minister at Alva, and
Mr John Burnet, indulged at Kilbride, both abandoned prelacy towards the
end of this year, and both bore explicit testimony against the civil
power of the magistrate in the church of God. Mr Forrester, in a letter
to the prelatical presbytery of Stirling, disclaimed their jurisdiction,
“because it was fountained in, derived from, or referrible to, the
magistrates,” which says he, “I judge to be contrary to the word of God,
the confession of reformed churches, and our own church’s government;
for the two powers, civil and ecclesiastic, are distinct _toto genere_
both as to the original, the subject matter, the manner of working, and
the end designed, distinct limits being put betwixt them, both in the
Old and New Testament. Under the law, a standing priesthood were to
meddle with matters of the Lord distinct from matters of the king. The
judgments on Saul and Uzziah, shows the Lord’s displeasure at
magistrates intermeddling with spiritual matters. Under the New
Testament, the Lord Jesus, the King, Head, and Lawgiver of his church,
hath a visible kingdom which he exerciseth in and over the church
visible by its spiritual office-bearers, given to it as a church, and
therefore distinct from, and independent upon, the civil power—the keys
of the kingdom of heaven being by him committed, not to the magistrates,
but to the apostles’ successors in the work of the ministry.” He
therefore quitted the Established Church, betook himself to the fields,
and shared in the labours and obloquy of the persecuted. Mr Burnet was
prevented by sickness from personally bearing witness to the same high
prerogatives of Christ; but he left his reasons for refusing to submit
to any temporal supremacy in writing, and died rejoicing in the hope of
the glory of God. His last words were—“Glory! glory! glory!”
It deserves to be remarked, that he and several other distinguished
ministers, although they had no liberty to accept of the indulgence
themselves, yet they did not deem it a reason why they should withdraw
their affection from those who had, or throw any obstacles in the way of
those they considered messengers of the gospel; for these worthies
thought preaching salvation to sinners so paramount a duty, that they
would have ventured upon every thing but sin to have achieved it
themselves or promoted it by others.
Charles and his advisers in attempting to introduce despotism, had as
little consulted their own peace as that of his kingdom. He was harassed
by his English parliament; and Lauderdale having been voted a public
grievance, was glad to seek refuge in Scotland, where, in the month of
December, he came down to hold a fourth session of the parliament.
Suspecting no opposition, if he secured the support of the clergy, he
told the estates that the most effectual course would be taken for
curbing and suppressing the insolent field conventicles, and other
seditious practices, which had so much abounded—that if fairness would
not, force must compel the refractory to be peaceable and to obey the
laws. But instead of his declarations being met with the submissive
adulation they were wont, the Duke of Hamilton, supported by a strong
party, presented their grievances; and when the Commissioner with his
usual haughty roughness interposed to silence complaint, Sir Patrick
Home of Polwart demanded to know, whether it was not a free parliament?
And after a short tumultuous session, in which, amid the dissensions of
the statesmen, the Presbyterians escaped for the time any severer
enactment, the meeting was adjourned, and the parties sought each to
justify the strife to the king. Hamilton repaired to London and laid a
statement of the enormous abuses before his majesty, but only received
fair promises that were never performed, and incurred a resentment that
never was appeased. Lauderdale retained his situation, and rather
increased in favour with the king.
[1674.] It is a melancholy and an appalling consideration for those who
stand forward as reformers and patriots, that, in struggles for
religion, for liberty, or for any good principle, those who sincerely
strive to gain such objects are usually found in a minority at last; and
when they have been the means of conferring the most essential benefits
upon the country, they are generally left losers themselves. Amid the
conflicts of the statesmen, and their loud complaints about the
oppression and ruin of the country, no mention had been made of the
primary and most palpable of all its distresses, the religious
grievances of the Presbyterians:—those which in fact had been the origin
of all the calamities of Scotland, and the triumph of which was to
secure the cause of freedom, were utterly lost sight of in their
miserable squabbling about the monopoly of salt and the smuggling of
brandy.
Both Hamilton and Lauderdale were supposed friendly to the persecuted;
and while the nation was convulsed with their political contentions, and
their attention was sufficiently employed elsewhere, the pious,
resolute, and consistent part of the persecuted ministers improved the
respite for proclaiming peace upon the mountains, bringing good tidings
of good, publishing salvation, and saying to Zion, “Thy God reigneth!”
Conventicles increased both in number and frequency. They began early in
the year, and the indefatigable Mr Blackadder beat up the primate’s
quarters upon the 2d day of January.[76] On that day he collected at
Kinkel, within a mile of St Andrews, a large auditory, which filled the
long gallery and two chambers, besides a great number standing without
doors. He lectured on the second Psalm, a portion of Scripture
remarkably applicable, and preached from Jer. xiii. 18. The primate’s
wife hearing of the assembly, sent for the militia, who were fully
prepared in warlike array, under a Lieutenant Doig, accompanied by a
great number of the rascality, with many of the worst set of scholars
from the college and some noblemen’s sons. They drew up at a distance
from the gate, before which stood the laird, his brother, and the
minister’s eldest son; but they caused no interruption till the lecture
was finished and the psalm sung, when some people called out that there
was an alarm; on which the service stopped and the men ranged outside
the gate with the laird. Meanwhile, some of the rabble had got into the
stable and were carrying off the laird’s horse, which he observing,
aimed a blow at the fellow who had him; but some of the “ill-set
schollars” laying hold on his cane, a struggle ensued, and the laird
fell. Mr Welsh, who was also there, and Kinkel’s brother, instantly
drew; and the Lieutenant and his men seeing them so resolute, and
supposing that they were well supported, fell back, nor dared approach
sufficiently near the gate to discover their error. Mrs Murray then went
up to the Lieutenant and asked him why he came in that hostile manner to
trouble their house on the Lord’s day? He said he had an order, which
she requesting to see, he told her he would show it to the laird; and,
attended by a sergeant, was drawing near the gate, when Mr Murray
called, as he approached—“How is it, Lieutenant, that you come to
disturb us on the Sabbath day?” In great trepidation he delivered the
laird an order which had been subscribed by the Chancellor about a year
before for apprehending him and his brother. When Kinkel had read it, “I
see,” said he, “you have an old order from the Chancellor to that
effect, which was extorted from him by the prelate. If you mind to
execute it now, you may, but you shall see the faces of men.” The
Lieutenant, grievously alarmed, cursed himself if he had a mind to
execute it. After which, the lady caused bring forth some ale for the
Lieutenant and his men; but one of them, whose companion had been a
little hurt, said he would drink none of her drink; he would rather
drink her heart’s blood. The rest partook of the refreshments and went
away. Composure being restored, the minister proceeded with his sermon,
and the whole closed in peace.
Footnote 76:
About the same time, the precise date is uncertain, Crail, where
Sharpe had been a Presbyterian minister, was visited by Mr John
Dickson; and the unhappy apostate was tormented by the sound of the
gospel on his right hand and on his left, while he vainly strove by
military force to destroy the faith which once he preached.
Some time after this, Mr Blackadder had another meeting at Kinkel, where
vast numbers from St Andrews attended as hearers, and even some of the
militia. Sharpe, who was that Sabbath day at home, hearing of it, sent
for the provost and commanded him to order out the military, disperse
the conventicle, and apprehend the minister. “My lord,” replied the
provost, to the prelate’s dismay, “the militia are gone there already to
hear the preaching, and we have none to send.” And among them was the
soldier that had refused drink from Lady Kinkel, who was especially
marked to be moved and wept beyond the rest; so wonderfully did the Lord
countenance the persecuted gospel, even bloody enemies being overcome
with conviction.
Exasperated at the multiplication of these meetings, the Episcopalian
clergy added the foulest and the falsest calumnies to their other modes
of opposition, and the synod of Glasgow, October 22, had the unblushing
effrontery to charge these assemblies with crimes of which they
themselves could never have believed them guilty—“incest, bestiality,
murder of children, besides frequent adulteries, and other acts of
wickedness after which, it is little that they should have been accused
of fanaticism, disloyalty, and cursing the king. Towards the end of
March, before Lauderdale left Scotland, he published an indemnity,
although like many others with which the nation was insulted during this
reign, almost only so in name, was received by the people as a license
for frequenting conventicles, which continued to multiply in
consequence, and especially as a report was assiduously circulated of
his having secretly promised that an ample liberty would be granted to
Presbyterian ministers soon after his arrival at court. Few were held in
the west where the indulged ministers were settled, but on the borders,
in the Merse, Lothians, Stirlingshire, and Fife, they greatly abounded,
in houses, fields, and vacant churches. The more private worshippers in
houses were overlooked, the vast assemblages in the mountains, and
mosses, and muirs chiefly attracting the attention of government; and
“at these great meetings,” says Kirkton, “many a soul was converted to
Jesus Christ, but far more turned from the bishops to profess themselves
Presbyterians.”
Mr Welsh was among the most diligent and successful of the labourers,
particularly in Fife, where many thousands were wont to assemble. His
preaching was attended with a visible blessing in the conversion of many
to the Lord; and among them were some in the higher ranks, especially
ladies; for it is somewhat remarkable that in these days of peril and
danger, the weaker sex were distinguished for their intrepid zeal; and
there is reason to believe that not a few, conspicuous for their piety,
were brought to the obedience of faith at these assemblies. The Countess
of Crawford, daughter of the Earl of Annandale, was one of the number,
and dated her first impressions from a sermon preached by him at
Duraquhair, near Cupar, where about eight thousand persons were present,
and the power of God was manifested to the checking of the conscience
and the awakening of the hearts of many. On the same Sabbath three other
conventicles were held, and it was computed not less than sixteen
thousand persons heard the gospel plainly and earnestly preached by Mr
Robert Lockhart at Path-head, near Kirkcaldy; Mr Blackadder, near
Dunfermline; and Mr Welwood on the Lomond Hills. This last meeting was
fired upon by the soldiers, but although their bullets lighted among a
crowd of men, women, and children, and brake the ground beside them, not
one was wounded. They, however, took about eighteen prisoners, and then
marched for Duraquhair to attack Mr Welsh; but the people got notice and
hurried him away, a great body escorting him as far as Largo, where they
procured a boat, and he and his wife, with some others, crossed the
frith under night safely, and landed at Aberlady Bay, whence he got
undiscovered to Edinburgh. Even the capital itself and the neighbourhood
were sorely infested with these noxious meetings. Kirkton had long had
regular house-preaching in the city, but this year, emboldened like
others by the expectation of favour, he, along with Mr Johnston, again
ventured upon sacred ground, and Cramond Kirk being vacant, they bad
both been repeatedly guilty of declaring the truth from that pulpit to
large and attentive auditories.
Against these there were many grievous complaints by the prelates, of
which Lauderdale took advantage to lower the credit of the Duke of
Hamilton and his party with the king, and in this he was so successful,
that, about the end of May, the privy council was re-modelled, and those
only who were entirely devoted to his interest permitted to remain. On
the 4th of June, when they first assembled, they were assailed in rather
an unusual manner.
Reports of increased severities being about to be resorted to against
conventicles having reached Edinburgh, as men durst not appear with any
petition under pain of being fined or imprisoned, fifteen women, chiefly
ministers widows, resolved to present as many copies of “a humble
supplication for liberty to the honest ministers throughout the land to
exercise their holy function without molestation,” to fifteen of the
principal lords of council. Attended by a crowd of females, who filled
the Parliament Close, they awaited the arrival of the councillors.
Sharpe came along with the Chancellor, and when he saw the ladies, in
great bodily fear he kept close by his lordship, who seemed to enjoy the
primate’s terrors, and complacently allowed Mr John Livingstone’s widow
to accompany him to the Council-Chamber door, conversing as they went
along, while others very unceremoniously saluted Sharpe with the
epithets of Judas and traitor; and one of them more forward than the
rest, laid her hand upon his neck, and told him “that neck behoved to
pay for it before all was done.” The whole of the lords to whom the
papers were presented, received them civilly, except Stair, who threw
his scornfully upon the ground, which drew upon him a sarcastic
remark—“that he had not so treated the remonstrance against the king
which he helped to pen.” When the council met, the petition was voted a
libel, and about a dozen of the subscribers were called and examined.
They declared severally that no man had had any hand in the matter, and
that their sole motive was a sense of their perishing condition for want
of the gospel, having no preachers except ignorant and profane persons
whom they could not hear; upon which they were ordered into confinement,
and the Lord Provost and the guard sent to disperse the ladies at the
door; but they refused to depart without their representatives, who were
in consequence politely liberated, and the tumult ended. Next day,
however, they were again summoned, when three were sent to
prison—Margaret, a daughter of Lord Warriston’s; a Mrs Cleland; and a
Lilias Campbell. The former, with Lady Mersington and some others, were
banished the town and liberties of Edinburgh; and so ended this affair.
The fears of the ladies were not unfounded. A letter from the king to
the council was read at the same meeting, requiring them “to use their
utmost endeavours for apprehending preachers at field conventicles,
invaders of pulpits, and ringleading heritors, and to make use of the
militia and standing force for that end, leaving the punishment of the
other transgressors to the ordinary magistrates according to law.” In
obedience to which, a committee was appointed with full powers to meet
when and where they should think convenient, to make the necessary
inquiries, apprehend whom they should think proper, and the standing
force and militia were placed under their immediate direction. At the
head was the Archbishop of St Andrews, the Lord Chancellor, and other
servants of the crown, assisted by the Earls of Argyle, Linlithgow,
Kinghorn, Wigton, and Dundonald. The Duke of Hamilton was named; but in
present circumstances possessed little power, and seldom attended.
Orders were at the same time issued for apprehending the following
ministers:—John Welsh, Gabriel Semple, Robert Ross, Samuel Arnot,
Gabriel Cunningham, Archibald Riddel, John Mosman, John Blackadder,
William Wiseheart, David Hume, John Dickson, John Rae, Henry Forsyth,
Thomas Hogg, Robert Law, George Johnstone, Thomas Forrester, Fraser of
Brea, John Law, Robert Gillespie. And to encourage the parties sent out
on this duty, for the two first, as the most notorious offenders, a
reward of four hundred pounds sterling each was offered; for the others,
one thousand merks; and the soldiers and others who might assist in
their seizure, were previously pardoned for any bloodshed that might
occur—such was the inveteracy the rulers of Scotland betrayed against
men whose only crime was preaching the gospel. They then proceeded to
show nearly equal abhorrence for those who heard it, by punishing with
fines or imprisonment the most obstinate of the heritors. The town of
Edinburgh was amerced in one hundred pounds sterling for conventicles in
the Magdalene Chapel, to be exacted from the chief citizens present; Mr
John Inglis of Cramond, for hearing sermon six times in his parish
church, a thousand and thirty-six pounds Scots; a gentleman in Fife, for
allowing Mr Welsh to lodge in his house one night, was fined two
thousand merks; and eleven heritors, upwards of five thousand five
hundred for attending field-preachings—all which monies were ordered to
be summarily levied, and the offenders kept in prison till the same
should be paid. Nor were persons, even of high rank, and against whom no
charges of very intrusive piety are known to have existed, exempt from
being harassed by any vile, petty, clerical informer. Lord Balmerino and
Sir John Young of Leny, neither of whom had been present at any such
preaching, were brought before the council; and when they denied the
fact, were insultingly tendered the oath of allegiance, which both must
have already repeatedly sworn, before they were dismissed.
Two rigorous proclamations followed. By the first, all masters were
required to prevent their servants from being present at any house or
field conventicle, and to retain none in their employment for whose
conduct they would not be answerable; heritors were ordered to require
their tenants to subscribe a bond, obliging themselves, wives, cottars,
or servants, to abstain from all such meetings, which, if they refused,
they were to be put to the horn, and their escheat given to their
landlords; but masters and landlords were responsible for the conduct of
their inferiors to the extent of the fines their disobedience might
incur; and all magistrates were empowered to oblige such as they chose
to suspect, to give bond for their good behaviour. The second was
directed against ministers, in terms of the orders already issued for
their apprehension. Still further to stimulate the magistrates, another
letter was procured from the king, informing them that his majesty had
heard of the alarming increase of conventicles, for repressing which,
together with the other seditious movements in Scotland, he had ordered
his troops in Ireland and at Berwick to hold themselves in readiness, to
march on the first alarm; and, in the mean time, required them to bring
to punishment the authors of these insolent and seditious practices. But
the difficulty of obtaining proof forming some small impediment in the
way of conviction, the council therefore proposed that, when a suspected
person was apprehended, against whom they had not sufficient evidence,
he should be interrogated to answer upon oath, and if he refused to
answer, he should be held as confessed, and proceeded against
accordingly, only the punishment should be restricted to fining,
imprisonment, exile, or the loss of a limb—most merciful judges!—to
which his majesty was graciously pleased to consent, and the council
proceeded to act.
They summoned a number of the “outted” ministers to appear, not in the
usual mode by leaving written copies at their dwelling-places, but at
the market-crosses of Edinburgh, Lanark, Stirling, and Perth, and that
within such a time, that, had they been willing, they could not have
complied. As the latter knew, however, that if they appeared, they were
certain of being sent either to the Bass or into banishment, they
declined, and were in consequence denounced as rebels.[77] When the
council rose, on the last day of July, they reported to the secretary,
that forty “outted” ministers had been cited before them, none of whom
having appeared, they were all ordered to be denounced; and that eighty
persons, for hearing sermon in the fields of Fife, had also been
delated, of whom all that answered had been found guilty and imprisoned,
the remainder declared fugitives, and their escheats appointed to be
taken for his majesty’s use.[78] The magistrates of Glasgow, also, had
been fined one hundred pounds sterling; and the magistrates of burghs,
south of the Tay, had been ordered to press upon the citizens the bond
against keeping conventicles.
Footnote 77:
The names of these worthies who deserve, and who will, be had in
everlasting remembrance, when those of their persecutors must rot, are
thus given by one of themselves:—Alexander Lennox, David Williamsone,
Alexander Moncrieff, John Rae, David Hume, Edward Jamieson, James
Fraser, William Wisehcart, Thomas Hogg in Ross, Robert Lockhart, John
Wilkie, George Johnstone, Patrick Gillespie, James Kirkton, John Weir,
Nathaniel Martin, Andrew Morton, Andrew Donaldsone, John Crichton,
William Row, Thomas Urquhart, Thomas Hogg in Larbert, William Arskine,
James Donaldson, Robert Gillespie, John Gray, James Wedderburn, John
Wardlaw, Thomas Douglas, George Campbell, Francis Irvine, John
Wallace, Andrew Anderson, John Munniman, George Hamilton, Donald
Cargill, Alexander Bertram, James Wilson, Robert Maxwell—in all 39.
These were the stock of the preaching church that was driven into the
wilderness—their ministry was a sort of outlawry—and, by the bishop’s
activity, these, with the ministers formerly forfaulted, and those who
afterwards joined that body of people, who first caused the separation
from bishops and their curates, thereafter overthrew their party, and
wrought the Reformation.
Footnote 78:
“One day a paper was fixt upon the Parliament House door, containing
upwards of one hundred persons, whose escheats were to be sold to any
who would purchase them.” _Wodrow_, vol. i. p. 384.
While the primate was urging the persecution of these excellent men, he
was not without trouble from his own underlings. In the beginning of the
year, some of the bishops, as well as curates, began to complain of the
arbitrary measures of Sharpe, who managed all ecclesiastical affairs
without consulting them upon any occasion, and had even the audacity to
stamp upon him the opprobrious epithet of Pope. His friends repelled the
accusations as the unfounded aspersions of the Hamilton or country
party, who, having failed to overturn the Duke of Lauderdale by means of
the Presbyterians, now wished to do it by means of the Episcopalians.
The others declared they only wished what the act of Parliament allowed,
to assemble in a National Synod, and regulate what they considered wrong
in the church—the best method of securing its stability. But Sharpe,
who, of all things, dreaded the least interference with his power, wrote
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, entreating him—in a most impious
appropriation of Scripture language—to interfere and assist him against
those who wished “to break his bands, and cast his cords from them;” and
his application was so successful, that the most active of the
suffragans were silenced, and Ramsay, bishop of Dunblane, was removed to
the Isles—a kind of honourable banishment, which effectually put an end
to all attempts for the future at interfering with the supremacy of his
Grace of St Andrews. The only other bishop (Leighton) who had ever given
him real vexation, but against whom his wiles had been useless,
voluntarily withdrawing from the scene of contention, Burnet was
restored to Glasgow, and henceforth was content to play second to
Sharpe, only rivalling his oppression within the boundaries of his own
archiepiscopal territories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------