BOOK VIII.

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 circumstancesof 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]

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 thegovernment 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 alittle 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.

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, couldcome 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 affirmedthat, 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]

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 whohad 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.

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.

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 lorddeliver 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 peoplewere 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 havingheard 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, theydivided 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 comingto 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 firstwho 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.

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 thelenity 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 mostviolent 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 distincttoto genereboth 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 afourth 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 politicalcontentions, 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 thelaird; 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.

Back to Index Next