Died, ‘Mr William Cowper, Bishop of Galloway, a very holy and good
[man], if he had not been corrupted with superior powers and warldly
cares of a bishopric and other such things. He was buried at the south
door of the new kirk callit the South Kirk, in the Greyfriars’ Yard, or
common burial-place of Edinburgh, whilk kirk was newly completed, and
at the funeral sermon consecrated by Mr John Spottiswoode, archbishop
of Sanctandrews.’--_Jo. H._
[Sidenote: 1619.]
Cowper was an eloquent and able man, and had been conspicuous for
his zeal against bishops, ‘appearing to all men to hate very much
that lordly dignity in a kirkman, comparing them and their godless
followers to snuffs of candles, whilk not only is destitute of light,
but also casts out a filthy flewrish stink in man’s noses.’ To a former
friend, who had accepted a bishopric, he wrote a despiteful letter,
telling him he had fallen away and apostatised, and while he still
loved himself, he hated his way. Afterwards, ‘perceiving the courses
of the bishops daily going forward, and being a proud ambitious man,
glorying in his gifts, he began first privately to be social and homely
with the bishops, and then, after the Golden Assembly at Glasgow in
1610, perceiving that the bishops had gotten all their intent, he also
embraced a bishopric, and (1612) was created Bishop of Galloway.’
Peeling that his conduct had been inconsistent, Cowper wrote an
apology, which mainly came to this, that he had got more light than
he had before. ‘One answered merrily: “It is true; for now he has
upon his table two great candles, whereas before he had but one small
candle--other more light I know none.”’
In the end, he announced from the pulpit, he would give full
satisfaction to all who would come and confer with him. ‘Upon whilk
invitation, so many came to him, both in the fields and in his own
house, that he was wearied with them.’ [According to the Chronicle
of Perth--‘The wives of Edinburgh came in to him, and shewed to him
his awn books against friers’ books.’] One person went so far as to
charge him with apostasy, and call upon him to prepare an answer
shortly to the Judge of all the world. It would appear from what
followed that the bishop was by this time out of health. ‘Within a day
or two after, being at his pastime [golf?] in the Links of Leith, he
was terrified with a vision, or an apprehension; for he said to his
playfellows, after he had in an affrighted and commoved way cast away
his play-instruments: “I vow to be about with these two men, who have
now come upon me with drawn swords!” When his playfellows replied: “My
lord, it is a dream: we saw no such thing,” he was silent, went home
trembling, took bed instantly, and died.’--_Row._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAR. 23.]
It had been a custom of the congregations in Edinburgh to hold a
meeting on the Tuesday before the administration of the communion.
‘If anything was amiss in the lives, doctrines, or any part of the
office of their pastors, every man had liberty to shew wherein they
were offended; and if anything was found amiss, the pastors promised
to amend it. If they had anything likewise to object against the
congregation, it was likewise heard, and amendment was promised. If
there was any variance among neighbours, pains were taken to make
reconciliation, that so both pastors and people might communicate in
love at the banquet of love.’ On the present occasion, the affair
had much the character of a modern public meeting, and the people
stood boldly up to their pastors, arguing against the innovations
of worship now about to be introduced, particularly kneeling at the
sacrament.--_Cal._
[Sidenote: 1619.]
‘At various times in the year 1621, there were private meetings of
ministers and other good Christians in Edinburgh, setting apart days
for fasting, praying, and humiliation, crying to God for help in such
a needful time; whilk exercises, joined with handling of Scripture,
resolving of questions, clearing doubts, and tossing of cases of
conscience, were very comfortable.... Thir meetings the bishops and
their followers, enemies still to the power of godliness and life
of religion, hated to the death; and sundry ministers of Edinburgh
inveighed against them, under the name of unlawful conventicles,
candle-light congregations (because sometimes they continued their
exercises for a great part of the night), persecuting them with odious
names of Puritans, Separatists, Brownists, &c.’--_Row._
One of the Edinburgh clergy ‘sent to Nicolas Balfour, daughter of
umwhile Mr James Balfour, minister of Edinburgh, to advertise her that
she was to be banished the town, for entertaining such meetings in
her house; and reviled her despitefully, when she came to confer with
him.’--_Cal._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: MAR. 28.]
This day, being Easter Sunday, the communion was administered in the
Edinburgh churches for the first time after it had been arranged that
the people should kneel on receiving the elements. There being a
general disrelish for this new form, the people left the town in great
numbers to communicate at country churches where the order was not yet
appointed. Of those who attended in town, few willingly knelt besides
government officials and pauper dependents on the church contributions.
‘Some were dashed and kneeled, but with shedding of tears for grief.’
In some churches throughout the country, certain persons told the
ministers: ‘The dangers, if any be, light upon your soul, not on ours!’
Some departed, ‘beseeking God to judge between them and the minister.’
‘It is not to be passed over, how that when John Lauder, minister at
Cockburnspath, was reaching the bread to one kneeling, a black dog
started up to snatch it out of his hand.’--_Cal._
On next Easter Sunday, the like disinclination to kneeling was shewn.
In the College Kirk, where sixteen hundred people communicated, only
about twenty kneeled, and it was thought that none would have done so,
‘if they had not brought the poor out of the hospital, to begin, and
give a good example.’ These, ‘being aged, poor, and ignorant persons,
durst not refuse;’ yet even of them, some, ‘when they were kneeling,
knocked on their breasts and lifted up their hands and eyes.’
While the officers of the government and many others joined cordially
in the new arrangements, the bulk of the people revolted from them.
Whenever they heard of a church in the country where they might be
allowed to communicate sitting, they resorted to it in great numbers;
‘whereupon the auditory of the kirks of Edinburgh became rare and thin.’
[Sidenote: 1619.]
On Easter Sunday, 1622, at the communion in the Old Kirk, Edinburgh,
‘among all the two hundred and fifty [communicants] there was not a
man of honest countenance but the President, Sir William Oliphant,
the Advocate, Sir Henry Wardlaw, the Provost, the Dean of Guild, Dame
Dick, the Master of Works’ wife, and two bailies, who communicate not:
plaids, gray cloaks, and blue bonnets made the greatest show.’
At the same time, ‘many of the profaner sort were drawn out upon the
sixth of May, to May-games in Gilmerton and Roslin; so profanity began
to accompany superstition and idolatry, as it had done in former times.
Upon the first of May, the weavers in Paul’s Work, English and Dutch,
set up a high May-pole, with their garlands and bells hanging at them,
whereat was great concourse of people.’--_Cal._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: APR. 2.]
John Maxwell of Garrarie--‘ane landed gentleman, in the rank of ane
baron, worth three thousand merks of yearly rent, and above’--was, with
his son, George Maxwell, tried for the crime of treason. Garrarie had,
in a crafty manner, possessed himself of the estate and whole worldly
means of John M‘Kie of Glashock, who thus became a miserable dependent
upon him, almost constantly living in his house. At length, tiring of
the company, and probably also of the complaints of the unfortunate
Glashock, Garrarie and his son resolved to be rid of him. On the 8th of
July 1618, when Glashock was coming by night to the place of Garrarie,
the two Maxwells, attended by an armed band of servants, fell upon
him, tied his hands and feet, strangled him, and flung his body into a
peat-moss.
The accused protested their innocence, and it was necessary twice to
postpone proceedings against them, apparently for lack of evidence.
Another remarkable circumstance was, that no fewer than seventeen
gentlemen of the district incurred fines by failing to appear as
jury-men. Notwithstanding these and other impediments, justice asserted
its claims, and Garrarie and his son had their heads stricken off at
the Cross of Edinburgh, with forfeiture of lands and goods.--_Pit._
* * * * *
[Sidenote: 1619.