BOOK XXII.

A.D. 1686-1688.

Conduct of the soldiers—A riot—Recantation of Sibbald—Alexander Peden—Proceedings of the society-men—Synod of Edinburgh—Parliament—Disputes among the persecuted—Indulgence—Thanksgiving for the Queen’s pregnancy—Seizure and death of Mr Renwick—Dr Hardy’s trial and acquittal—Rescue of David Houston—Murder of George Wood—Arrival of the Prince of Orange.

[A.D.1686.] The entrance of the new year was signalized by an exploit worthy of the heroes of the day. A party of their marauders came to the parish of Stonehouse, in Lanarkshire, and carried off eight men and two women who had infants at the breast, for alleged hearing an ejected minister; while another no less heroic band, under Skene of Hallyards, plundered the house of a widow, in the neighbouring parish of Glassford, and destroyed what they could not carry off, because they chose to allege her son had been at Bothwell.

Intent upon forcing his favourite object, the king had ordered his chapel of Holyrood-house to be repaired[164]for the use of the royal servants who had embraced the royal religion; and the paraphernalia necessary for conducting its Romish rites with becoming splendour, being openly brought to Leith, this, with theostentatious celebration of mass in the popish meetings, roused such indignation in the Edinburgh populace, that “a great rabble of prentices” rose, who threatened to pull down the mass-house. They insulted the Chancellor’s lady and her company coming from chapel, assailing them with opprobrious language, and throwing dirt at them, but doing no further damage. For this riot several were apprehended, and one “baxter lad” sentenced to be whipped; but when the hangman was about to perform his duty, the mob rose, rescued their associate out of his hands, and gave himself a sound drubbing. The confusion, however, continuing, the troops in the Castle and Canongate were called out to assist the town-guard, when a woman and an apprentice of one Robert Mein, were killed. Next day, a women and two youths were scourged, guarded by soldiers; and one Moubray, an embroiderer, was indicted for his life. At the place of execution, he told Mr Malcolm, a minister who attended him, that he was offered a pardon if he would accuse the Duke of Queensberry of having excited the tumult; but he would not save his life by so foul a calumny.

164.He also erected a seminary in the Abbey—the Royal College; and in order to allure youth and induce Protestant parents to send their children, the scholars were to be taught gratis; and no particular system of religion was to be inculcated by the Jesuits!—crede.

This was not the only ominous circumstance which preceded the meeting of parliament. Another took place at the same time, which bore more immediately upon the grand question that was to come under their consideration, and for which they had especially been called together—the recantation of Sir Robert Sibbald, M.D. This celebrated antiquarian, who lived in a course of philosophical virtue, but in great doubts of revealed religion, had been prevailed upon by the Earl of Perth to turn papist, in order to find that certainty which he could not find upon his own principles. But he was ashamed of his conduct almost as soon as he had made his compliance, went to London, and for some months retired from all company. There, after close application to study, he came to be so convinced of the errors of popery, that he returned to Scotland some weeks before the parliament met, and could not be easy in his own mind till he made a public recantation. The Bishop of Edinburgh was so much a courtier, that, apprehending many might go to hear it, and that it might be offensive to the court, he sent him to do it in a church in thecountry; but the recantation of so learned a man, after so much studious inquiry, had a powerful effect.

Fining, that lucrative branch of persecution, though still a favourite, began now to descend to the humbler classes of consistent Presbyterians; for the chief gentlemen and heritors among them were either dead, forfeited, or in exile; yet the gleanings were by no means despicable, and far from being so regarded by some of the under-hirelings of government. In the parish of Calder, John Donaldson, portioner, was fined £200 for a prayer-meeting held at his house on a Lord’s day; John Baxter, £40; Walter Donaldson, for his wife being present, £36; with several others in smaller sums, making in all £816. 16s. Scots. William Stirling, bailie-depute of the regality of Glasgow, who imposed these fines, received a gift of them for his zeal and exertions.[165]

165.While the rulers were plundering the best in the land, solely because they were the best, they were no less anxious to protect those who were at least not the most worthy; but they were their own minions. The universal profligacy of manners which had been introduced at the Restoration, appears to have been followed by its natural consequence, an almost universal bankruptcy; for, when those who had wasted their substance in riotous living could no longer supply their waste by the plunder of the persecuted Presbyterians, they supported themselves for a while by the scarcely less dishonourable shift of living upon their creditors; then failing, and throwing themselves upon the crown. Fountainhall notices some such circumstances as mere matters of course:—“Provost George Drummond,” says he, “turnes bankrupt, as alsoe George Drummond, town-treasurer, [and] Drummond of Carlourie; and the Chancellor gets protections to them all, and to Skene of Hallyards in Louthian, and John Johnstoun of Poltoun;” and he adds, in the same business-like style, “William Seaton, in the life-guards, gets a gift of 5000 merks he had discovered resting to Argyle.”

On the 4th of January, at the criminal court, Sir Duncan Campbell of Auchinbreck and thirty-two more Argyleshire heritors, were forfeited for joining with the Earl, and their estates were gifted chiefly to those of the same family who had joined the royal party during the invasion, although, as usual, the prelates and their relatives came in for a share of the spoil, Campbell of Otter’s estate being gifted to Commissary M’Lean, son to the Bishop of Argyle. Fountainhall adds, “there were sundry apparent heirs amongst the forfeited, whose second brothers were on the king’sside with Atholl. It were but charity to encourage them, to make them donators to their brothers’ forfeitures.” On the same day, the Earl of Lothian, brother-in-law to Argyle, was admitted a privy councillor, with a pension of £300 per annum, given, it was said, in reward of the great courage he displayed in the Dutch war, when fighting under the king, then Duke of York; but rather, as the same author hints, to engage his interest in the ensuing parliament. Protestant heritors who had not taken the test were also ordered by his majesty to be pursued and fined; but within a few days a letter came, postponing the time for taking the test, and shortly after another dispensing with it altogether in their favour during the king’s pleasure.

About this time, Mr Alexander Peden died (January 26th), full of assurance of faith, and was privately interred in the churchyard of Auchinleck. He was certainly an extraordinary man, whose memory was long cherished in the south and west of Scotland with fond affection, and where he had laboured long and faithfully and with much success. A little before the Restoration, he was settled as minister at New Luce, in Galloway, where he remained about three years, till he was thrust out by the tyranny of the times. When about to depart, he lectured upon Acts xx. from the 7th verse to the end, and preached in the forenoon from these words—“Therefore, watch and remember, that for the space of three years I ceased not to warn every man,” &c., asserting that he had declared unto them the whole counsel of God, and professing he was free from the blood of all men. In the afternoon, he preached from the 32d verse; “And, now, brethren, I commend you to the word of his grace,” &c.—a sermon which occasioned a great weeping in the church. Many times he requested them to be silent; but they sorrowed most of all when he told them they should never see his face in that pulpit again. He continued till night; and when he closed the pulpit door, he knocked three times on it with his Bible, saying each time—“I arrest thee in my master’s name, that none ever enter thee but such as come in by the door, as I have done.” And it is somewhat remarkable that neither curate nor indulged entered that pulpit, which remained shut till it was opened by a Presbyterianpreacher at the Revolution. Yet it may be doubted whether he would have thought that any one entering by that settlement, did so exactly in the manner that he did. Some time before his death, through the misrepresentations which were brought him, he had been much alienated from James Renwick, and had spoken bitterly against him; but when on his deathbed he sent for Mr Renwick, and asked if he was that Mr Renwick there was so much noise about. “Father,” he replied, “my name is James Renwick; but I have given the world no ground to make any noise about me, for I have espoused no new doctrine.” He then gave him such an account of his conversion and call to the ministry—of his principles and the grounds of his contending against tyranny and defection—that Mr Peden was satisfied, and expressed his sorrow for having given credit to the reports that were spread against him.[166]

166.Ker of Kersland, in his memoirs, speaking of Mr Peden, says—“Abundance of this good man’s predictions are well known to be already come to pass. When he was sick unto death in the year 1686, he told his friends that he should die in a few days; ‘but having,’ said be, ‘foretold many things which will require some time before they be verified, I will give you a sign which will confirm your expectation, that they will as surely come to pass as those you have already seen accomplished before your eyes. I shall be decently buried by you; but if my body be suffered to rest in the grave where you shall lay it, then I have been a deceiver, and the Lord hath not spoken by me: whereas, if the enemy come a little afterwards to take it up and carry it away to bury it in an ignominious place, then I hope you will believe that God Almighty hath spoken by me, and consequently there shall not one word fall to the ground.’ Accordingly, about 40 days after his interment, a troop of dragoons came, lifted his corpse, carried them two miles to Cumnock, and buried them under the gallows.”—Crookshanks, vol. ii. p. 320.—James Nisbet, in his memoirs, states the same fact, p. 134.

The unflinching confessors of the truth in this day, like those in primitive times, were often in perils among false brethren, and often persecuted with the scourge of the tongue, even by some who were suffering in the same cause. They were accused “of overturning the Presbyterian government in the church, and substituting a loose kind of independency, by committing the trial and censure of offences to persons who were not office-bearers—of usurping the magistrates’ place in the state, by constituting themselves a convention of estates, and managing the civil affairsof their community by their edicts—and of disowning, as silent and unfaithful, all ministers who cannot preach upon their terms, there being not now, according to them, one minister in Scotland, England, or Ireland, save one Mr James Renwick, who, by his own confession in a letter to a friend in Ireland, is not one either.”

To this Mr Renwick, at the desire of the societies, replied—“That they never committed the trial of ‘scandals’ to the people in a judicial way, but only allowed them, when there were no church judicatories, to withdraw privately from associating with those who erred, that they might not partake of other men’s sins, but by this be a means of reclaiming offending brethren; which certainly was not overturning Presbyterian government, any more than their declining the authority of tyrants was thrusting themselves into the magistrates’ room.” He added, personally—“As to that, that by my own confession I am not a minister of the church, I altogether deny. I said I am a minister wherever I have a call from the people and do embrace it.—O! that all those who shall agree together in heaven, were agreeing upon earth, I think if my blood could be a mean to procure that, I could willingly offer it.”

A change having taken place in the cabinet about the end of the year, the administration was now intrusted only to papists, chiefly to Perth the chancellor, and his brother Melford, who had gained the king’s entire confidence by embracing his religion, and the Earl of Murray, another proselyte, who was appointed Commissioner to open the parliament, from which was expected a repeal of those penal statutes his ancestor, “the good regent,” had procured to be enacted against papists.

Preparatory to the sitting of parliament, the synod of Edinburgh met, when its usual tranquil submissiveness was interrupted by a contrariety of sentiment respecting the test; some contending for it, and others urging toleration to all who differed in judgment, insinuating a charitable accommodation with the papists. Paterson, bishop of Edinburgh, who had lately returned from London, gratified by a pension of £200 sterling, told them that the king would defend their religion, and only craved the exerciseof his own for those of his persuasion in private, which he said could not be denied him, because he might take it by his prerogative of church supremacy, asserted by parliament 1669. He further told them that the Archbishop of St Andrews (Ross) and himself had got ample power to suspend and deprive any that preached sedition,i. e.impugned the king’s religion, even though they should be bishops. Mr George Shiels, minister at Prestonhaugh, was sharply reproved “for that he declaimed rudely against popery in the Abbey church on the preceding Sunday, having said the Pope was as little infallible as the Bishop of the Isles”—who was one of the silliest in the world—“and that he would believe the moon to be made of green cheese, and swallow it, as soon as he would believe in transubstantiation.”

Parliament met, April 29th. In his letter, the king was perfectly explicit. After hanging out the lure of a free trade with England, and an indemnity for his greatest enemies themselves,i. e.the consistent Presbyterians, he came to the point:—“Whilst we show these acts of mercy to the enemies of our person, crown, and royal dignity,Wecannot be unmindful of others, our innocent subjects, those of the Roman Catholic religion, who have, with the hazard of their lives and fortunes, been always assistant to the crown in the worst of rebellions and usurpations, though they lay under discouragements hardly to be named: Them we do heartily recommend to your care, that they may have the protection of our laws, and that security under our government, which others of our subjects have, not suffering them to lie under obligations which their religion cannot admit of.”

The Commissioner enforced this communication by what he must have thought an irresistible argument. He informed the house that he was instructed to give the royal assent to any acts prohibiting the importation of Irish cattle, horses, and victual, or any measures which might prevent smuggling these articles into Scotland to the prejudice of the landholders of the country! and likewise promised to authorise such regulations as should secure exact payment to the tenantry from all his officers and soldiers in their quarters, both local and transient, for the future. In return, he expected that they would show themselves the bestand most affectionate subjects, to the best, the most incomparable, and most heroic prince in the world!

The dutiful parliament humbly thanked the king for his care of the trade of his ancient kingdom, and expressed their astonishment at his clemency, testified in the offer of an indemnity to these desperate rebels, who could have expected pardon from no monarch on earth but his sacred majesty! and sincerely and heartily offered their lives and fortunes for suppressing all such as should, upon any account or pretext whatsoever, attempt either by private contrivance or open rebellion, to disquiet his glorious reign. As to that part of the royal letter relating to his subjects of the Roman Catholic religion, they promised, in obedience to his majesty’s commands, to go as great lengths as their consciences would allow, not doubting that his majesty would be careful to secure the Protestant religion established by law. “This,” says honest Wodrow, “is the first time since the Restoration I remember that the parliament speak of their conscience.”

Their answer, however, was so little satisfactory at court, that although the custom always had been to print these official documents, it was not allowed to be printed; and within a few days the royal displeasure was expressed against such as had opposed the Commissioner in this affair. Sir George Mackenzie, lord advocate—who with rat-like sagacity, when he perceived the vessel was sinking, had already shown a disposition to leave her—was laid aside from an office he might curse the day he ever was appointed to fill. Lord Pitmedden was removed from the bench, and the Earl of Glencairn and Sir William Bruce from the privy council. Glencairn was besides deprived of his pension, as was also the Bishop of Dunkeld.—“Thir warning shots,” observes Sir John Lauder, “were to terrify and divert other members of parliament from their opposition.”

Could any inconsistency or tergiversation in unprincipled politicians astonish us, we might well be amazed at the shamelessness of the parties on this occasion. When a bill for repealing the penal statutes was brought in, the papists—or Roman Catholics, as they were styled by their foster-brethren the Scottish bishops,in compliment to the king—were now strong advocates for liberty of conscience, contending that nothing can bind the conscience as a divine law, which neither directly nor by clear consequence is founded on the doctrine or practice of Christ or his apostles, or of the primitive church; that no oath whatsoever can bind or oblige to that which is sinful or unlawful to be done; and that for a Christian magistrate to take away the life or estate of a subject who is not guilty of sedition or rebellion, nor of injuring his neighbour, but is quiet, and peaceable, and contents himself in the private exercise of his own religion, merely for difference of opinion, is neither founded on the doctrine or practice of our Saviour or his apostles, nor of the church in the following ages, who never urged their kings or emperors, when the empire became Christian, to take away the lives and fortunes of open infidels and heathens who did worship stocks and stones, although these idolatrous heathen, when they had power, did execute all manner of cruelty against the Christians.

The Episcopalians, taking up the arguments of some of the first reformers, asserted “that by the doctrine of the New as well as of the Old Testament, the magistrate beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Idolaters are ranked among the very chief of evil-doers; and John foretells it as that which God requires of, and approves in, the king’s of the earth, in times of reformation, that they shall hate the Babylonish whore, and make her desolate and naked, and shall burn her with fire—a just punishment upon her who made and cruelly executed laws for burning to death the innocent saints of God! But the penal laws were enacted merely for the safety of the religion of the country against papists, who are not the meek lambs they pretend to be—as witness the Irish massacre and the murderous conduct at present in France, towards persons who were guilty of no rebellion, and who only sought to worship God according to their conscience!”—It is impossible not to pause here and ask, whether those who urged these reasons for keeping papists out of power, had no sense of shame, or no memory—whether they did not recollect, that, for more than twenty-five years, they had been pursuing exactly thesame course towards their own Protestant brethren in Scotland?

During the first month of the session, the Commissioner was incessant in his attention to the nobles and leading men, and liberal both of his promises and threatenings, but all he could prevail upon them to consent to, was a bill for allowing Roman Catholics “the exercise of their religion in private houses—all public worship being excluded—without the danger of incurring sanguinary or other punishments contained in any laws or acts of parliament against the same.” But as such a restricted liberty would not satisfy the king, it was dropped; and an act in favour of the heir of Argyle, who had been prevailed upon to profess the royal religion, closed the session.

Several of the bishops had strenuously opposed the repeal, clearly perceiving that their craft was in danger, because, had the papists obtained power, they would not long have retained their livings without apostatizing from their religion; others were prepared to go every length to please the king and keep their places. Nor is it perhaps judging too harshly, to say, that if the alternative of allowing liberty to Presbyterians, or themselves turning papists, had been offered them, they would have chosen the latter, such appeared to be their hatred at what they called the fanatical rigidity of the former.[167]

167.The methods of solicitation to obtain consent to this act were very strange and extraordinary. The laying aside of men from their places, who could have no interest but serving their consciences—commanding Mar, Ross, Kilsyth, Sir John Dalziel, &c. to their charges, but they offered to give up their commissions—the imprisoning my two servants, I being a member of parliament—the importunities used by Sir William Paterson and others in concussing members of parliament—their dealing with members not clear to stay away or go home, and then prolonging the meeting to weary out the poorer sort, who had exhausted both their money and credit—and lastly, the letters were one post all broken up and searched, to see if any correspondence or intelligence could be discovered between Scotland and England.—Fountainhall’s Decis. vol. i. p. 419.—The burrows, because they were obstinate against the court party, could justly expect no favour. They never were so unanimous in any parliament as in this, but formerly depending on noblemen: and therefore some called this an independent parliament.—Ib. p. 418.

Defeated in parliament, contrary to all expectation, James determinedto carry through his favourite project by the power of his prerogative. First, he re-modelled his privy council, turning out the most stubborn opponents, as the Earls of Mar, Lothian, and Dumfries, with other decided Protestants, and introducing the Duke of Gordon, the Earls of Traquair and Seaforth, and other papists in their room, dispensing, by his own absolute authority, with their taking the test. To them he most undisguisedly communicated his royal intentions in the plainest language of tyrannical assumption:—“It was not any doubtWehad of our power in putting a stop to the unreasonable severities of the acts of parliament against those of the Roman Catholic religion, that made us bring inOurdesigns to our parliament, but to give our loyal subjects a new opportunity of showing their duty toUs, in which we promised ourselves their hearty and dutiful concurrence, as what was founded on that solid justice we are resolved to distribute to all, and consequently to our Catholic subjects. And to the end the Catholic worship may, with the more decency and security, be exercised in Edinburgh, we have thought fit to establish our chapel within our palace of Holyrood-house, and to appoint a number of chaplains and others whom we require you to have in your special protection and care. You are likewise to take care that there be no preachers nor others suffered to insinuate to the people any fears or jealousies, as if we intended to make any violent alteration; and if any shall be so bold, you are to punish them accordingly; for it is far from our thoughts to use any violence in matters of conscience, consistent with our authority and the peace of our ancient kingdom.”

Still Mr Renwick was the Mordecai in the gate. He kept the fields, and continued to pursue his course steadfastly, notwithstanding the calumnies to which he was exposed, and the opposition he met with from several of the other persecuted ministers, and the dissensions among some who attended his ministry. About the end of the year, as he was preaching through Galloway, a protestation was presented to him by William M’Hutchison, in the name of all the professors between the rivers Dee and Cree, lamenting the woful effects of their divisions, and the adherence of so many to him without the consent and approbation of theremnant of godly and faithful ministers, and referring and submitting themselves in all these to an assembly of faithful ministers and elders. He retorted, “The divisions had arisen from those Presbyterian ministers who changed their commission and exercised their ministry under this abjured antichristian prelacy: from others, who took a new holding of their ministry from an arrogated headship over the church, by accepting indulgences, warrants, and restrictions from the usurper of their Master’s crown: from others, who have been unfaithful in not applying their doctrine against the prevailing sins of our day: from others, who have satisfied themselves to lie by from the exercise of their ministry, and desisted from the work of the Lord, and that when his vineyard stood most in need: and, he adds, from others, who have carried on or countenanced hotch-potch confederacies with malignants, and sectaries, and temporizing compilers.”[168]But he was strengthened and comforted by the accession of two efficient coadjutors in his work—Mr David Houston from Ireland, and Alexander Shiels, who had escaped from the Bass, where he had been a considerable time confined. On the 9th of December, a proclamation was issued, offering a reward of £100 sterling to any who should bring him in dead or alive. In the end of the month, David Steil, in the parish of Lesmahago, was surprised in the fields by Lieutenant Crichton; and after he had surrendered upon promise of safety, was barbarously shot.

168.This last accusation seems rather strained, as at this time there were no sectaries visible in Scotland, except Quakers or Gibbites, with neither of whom did the indulged confederate. In England and upon the borders, it is true, the good persecuted ministers united together, without much regard to church government, which the state of the times did not permit being very strictly observed among the sufferers, who appear to have practically adopted the general principle of the people judging of the character and qualifications of the ministers they heard, and of the consistent conduct of those with whom they held communion.—videMemoirs of Veitch and Brysson.

[1687.] James’s precipitation in forcing popery upon his people appeared so impolitic, that even a jesuit missionary thought he made too great haste; but he told him he would either convert England or die a martyr; and, when one of his popish lords gently remonstrated with him, replied—“I am growing old, andmust take large steps, else, if I should happen to die, I might perhaps leave you in a worse condition than I found you.” Yet with a strange inconsistency, he allowed both his daughters to be educated in the Protestant faith; and when he was asked why he was so little concerned about their conversion, replied—“God will take care of that!” But he had introduced shoals of seminary priests and jesuits for the instruction of his other subjects; and, while he interdicted the Presbyterian ministers from preaching or publishing any thing against his religion, under pain of treason, he employed these emissaries of Rome in every quarter; and having appointed Watson, a papist, his printer, assiduously caused publications in favour of popery to be widely disseminated. His most powerful argument, however, was, bestowing the chief places upon papists, especially converts, which induced many of the nobility and gentry to apostatize; and, like all apostates, they became the bitterest persecutors of the faith they had forsaken.

Mr Renwick and his hearers continued to be the objects of unmitigated hatred, in proportion as they continued to hold fast their integrity and preach the gospel. Two persons returning from hearing him, James Cunningham, merchant, and John Buchanan, cooper in Glasgow, were seized, sent prisoners to Edinburgh, and banished to Barbadoes;[169]and, on the 17th of February, the council received a letter from the king, in which heexpressed his highest indignation against these enemies of Christianity, as well as government and human society, the field-conventiclers, whom he recommended to the council to root out with all the severity of the laws, and the most vigorous prosecution of the forces, it being equally his and his people’s concern to be rid of them. At the same time, he sent a royal proclamation, allowing, “byOursovereign authority, prerogative, royal and absolute power,” moderate Presbyterians and quakers to meet in their private houses, but to hear such ministers only as have accepted or are willing to accept the toleration without explanation; and in like manner, by the same absolute power, he suspended all laws and acts of parliament, and other proceedings, against Roman Catholics, so that they should in all time coming, not only be as free as Protestants to exercise their religion, but to enjoy all offices, benefices, &c., which he should think proper to bestow, upon their taking an oath acknowledging him as rightful king and supreme governor of Scotland, England, France, and Ireland, and over all persons therein, and that they would never resist his power or authority; at the same time, he declared he would never suffer violence to be offered to any man’s conscience, nor use force or invincible necessity against any man on account of his persuasion. This, which was termed the first indulgence, did not pass the council unanimously. The Duke of Hamilton, and the Earls of Panmure and Dundonald, refused to sanction it; for which the Duke was reprimanded and the two Earls dismissed the board; and as a practical exposition of its real meaning, sixteen men and five women were shortly after, in the month of April, banished to America, because they would not own the present authority to be according to the word of God, nor engage never to hear Mr Renwick preach.

169.Perhaps it does not belong exactly toreligiouspersecution, but as it is a curious trait of the times, I quote the following:—“Reid the mountebank pursues Scot of Harden and his lady for stealing away from him a little girl, called the tumblin-lassie, that danced upon his stage; and he claimed damages and produced a contract, whereby he bought her from her mother for £30 Scots. But we have no slaves in Scotland, and mothers cannot sell their bairns; and physicians attested the employment of tumblin would kill her; and her joints were now grown stiff, and she declined to return; though she was at least a prentice, and so could not run away from her master: yet some cited Moses’ law, that if a servant shelter himself with thee against his master’s cruelty, thou shalt surely not deliver him up. The lordsrenitente cancellario, in opposition to the Chancellor, assoilzied Harden.”—Fountainhall’s Decis. vol. i. p. 440. A few days after, his lordship adds, “Reid the mountebank is received into the popish church, and one of his blackamores was persuaded to accept of baptism from the popish priests, and to turn christian papist, which was a great trophy. He was called James, after the king, the chancellor, and the Apostle James.”—Ibid. p. 441.

None of these indulgences satisfied fully the Presbyterian ministers, while they were decidedly testified against by the denounced wanderers. Another was therefore issued, July 5th, to palliate the former, giving them leave to meet and serve God after their own way, be it in private houses, chapels, or places purposely built or set apart for that use; while it again denounced the full vigour of the law and of the army against such as shouldbe guilty of field-conventicles; “for which, after this our royal grace and favour—which surpasses the hopes and equals the very wishes of the most zealously concerned—there is not the least shadow of excuse left!”

On the 20th, the Presbyterian ministers from various parts of the country met at Edinburgh, and agreed to accept the benefit of the new toleration; but an address of thanks to the king, “for granting them the liberty of the public and peaceable exercise of their ministerial functions without any hazard,” was not carried without considerable opposition. Upon this, many of the exiles returned from Holland, and among them Mr Patrick Warner, to whom the Prince of Orange, at parting, gave the following significant advice:—“I understand you are called home upon the liberty granted there; but I can assure you that liberty is not granted from any favour or kindness to you or your party, but from favour to papists and to divide you among yourselves; yet I think you may be so wise as to take the good of it and prevent the evil designed, and, instead of dividing, come to a better harmony among yourselves, when you have liberty to see one another and meet freely together.”

The wanderers, as they were excepted, so they disregarded the toleration. Persecution had made them cling closer to their principles. They refused to accept as a favour what they believed themselves entitled to claim as a right—the liberty of worshipping God according to their conscience—and they published their reasons:—They could not have any transactions with a person whose principles bound him to keep no faith with heretics, and whose dissimulation they had already detected. They considered accepting toleration from him as bargaining with an apostate, excommunicated, bigoted papist, and as such under the Mediator’s malediction, “yea, heir to his own grandfather’s [James VI.] imprecations, who wished the curse of God to fall upon such of his posterity as should at any time turn papists. They renounced him as a magistrate, because he had not taken the oath constitutionally required; and to accept this toleration flowing from his absolute power, would be acknowledging a power inconsistent with the law of God and the liberties of mankind; for, though nothingcan be more desirable than when true liberty is established by the government, nothing can be more vile than when true religion is tolerated under the notion of a crime, and its exercise only allowed under certain restrictions.” As to the address of thanks by the ministers, they considered it “a train of fulsome flatteries, dishonourable to God, the reproach of his cause, the betraying of the church, the detriment of the nation, and the exposing of themselves to contempt.”

The conduct of the government, amid all their professions of toleration, fully warranted the worst suspicions of the persecuted. On the 25th July, John Anderson, younger of Wastertown, was indicted before the court of justiciary, for having in a tavern, over a glass of wine, argued in favour of using defensive arms against tyrants, and, by an execrable majority of that degraded tribunal, condemned to die. He was not executed, but the stain of the sentence remains upon the memories of the servile senators who pronounced it. And this was followed on the 5th October by a proclamation, not only forbidding all field-conventicles, under the usual penalty, but even indulged ministers, from preaching in houses, unless they observed the prescribed directions; that is, unless they abstained from exposing or in any way reflecting upon the king’s religion,i. e.the errors of popery; and on the 18th, by another, all officers, civil and military, were ordered to apprehend James Renwick, and assured of the sum of £100 sterling for taking him dead or alive—a high price! but so cautious had he been, that he had eluded fifteen desperate searches made after him within five months since the first toleration, which exasperated the rulers beyond measure.

The yearOne Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-Eight—a year greatly to be remembered as the last in the annals of the persecution in Scotland—was ushered in by a circumstance which threatened to rivet their chains upon the Presbyterians, but which in the good providence of God was the means of accelerating their deliverance. On the 2d of January, the Queen’s pregnancy was announced; and the 29th was ordered to be observed as a day of thanksgiving in the diocese of Edinburgh, where the clergy were commanded to pray, after this form, for “Our gracious QueenMary:—Good Lord, strengthen her, we beseech thee, and perfect what thou hast begun. Command thy holy angels to watch over her continually, and defend her from all dangers and evil accidents, that what she has conceived may be happily brought forth to the joy of our sovereign lord the king, the further establishment of his crown, the happiness and welfare of the whole kingdom, and the glory of thy great name!” The papists, who pronounced the conception miraculous in answer to a vow the Queen had made to the lady of Loretto, prophecied that the promised birth would be a son. The Protestants sighed in secret, and began to whisper their suspicions of a fraud.

On the 17th, Mr Renwick published a testimony against the toleration and in vindication of field-meetings, the convening of which he contended was a testimony for the headship, honour, and princely prerogative of Jesus—“Since in these meetings there is a particular declaration of our holding our ministry and the exercise thereof from Christ alone, without any dependence on, subordination to, or license from, his usurping enemies;” and this testimony he was shortly after called upon to seal with his blood. From Edinburgh he went to Fife and preached several Sabbaths, then re-crossed the Firth, and upon the 29th of January, preached his last sermon at Borrowstounness; thence he returned to the capital, where he arrived on the 31st, under cloud of night. Having gone to a friend’s house on the Castle-hill, who dealt in English wares, a custom-house officer, Thomas Justice, was informed by one of his spies that a stranger had arrived; and early next morning he came with some others on pretence of searching for prohibited goods. Mr Renwick hearing the noise, came out of his room, when the officer standing at the door exclaimed—“My life for it, this is Mr Renwick!” on which Mr Renwick went to another door, and finding it also beset, fired a pistol to terrify his pursuers, and was attempting his escape, when he received a severe blow on the breast, that stunned him; and he fell several times as he was running, and was taken. He was carried directly to the guard-house, and from thence to a committee of the privy council, who ordered him immediately to be laid in irons.

Previously to his being indicted, he was examined in Viscount Tarbet’s chamber, when he undauntedly maintained his principles, disclaiming the idea that lineal descent alone gave a right to the crown, and disowning especially the authority of James as a papist, who had never taken the Scottish coronation oath, and therefore could not legally reign; justifying the non-payment of cess, as it was an impost levied for suppressing the gospel; and asserting the right of carrying arms at field-meetings as necessary self-defence. On every point about which he was questioned, he answered with an openness which greatly softened his inquisitors, and saved him the torture. He received his indictment on the 3d of February, charging him with having cast off the fear of God and all regard to his majesty’s laws; of having entered into the society of rebels of most damnable and pernicious principles, and become so desperate a villain, as openly to preach in the fields these his treasonable doctrines. On the 8th he was brought to the bar of the justiciary.[170]When asked whether he pled guilty or not guilty to his libel, he answered that he acknowledged all “except where it is said, I have cast off all fear of God; that I deny: for it is because I fear to offend God, and violate his law, that I am here standing ready to be condemned.” Being asked if he had any objections to the jury, he made none, but protested “that none might sit on his assize that professed Protestant or Presbyterian principles, or an adherence to the covenanted work of reformation.” He was found guilty on his own confession, and sentenced to be executed on the 10th. Lord Linlithgow, justice-general, asked if he desired longer time. He answered, it was all one to him; if it was protracted, it was welcome; if it was shortened, it was welcome: his master’s time was the best.

170.The following note is appended to his life in the last edition of the Scots Worthies, Glas. 1827. p. 541:—“It is to be remarked, that many of the jury were professors and eminent in the tolerated meetings; while others, even of the malignants, chose rather to run the hazard of the penalty;—as the Laird of Torrance, who compeared not, and Sommerville, chamberlain of Douglas, who, though he appeared, yet when he saw Mr Renwick turn about and direct his speech to them, ran away, saying—‘He trembled to think to take away the life of such a pious-like man, though they should take his whole estate.’”

Many efforts were made to induce the youthful suffer to comply. He was reprieved to the 17th. Paterson, bishop of Edinburgh, appears to have interested himself much on his behalf. He often visited him, and applied for another reprieve, which would have been readily granted, provided Mr Renwick would only have petitioned. “Will you kill yourself with your own hands?” asked the bishop, “when you may have your life upon so easy terms.” He replied, he acted not rashly but deliberately, and was fully convinced that the truths for which he suffered were sufficient points to suffer for. The bishop took his leave, expressing his sorrow for his being so tenacious, and afterwards offered to serve him to the utmost of his power. Mr Renwick thanked him for his civility, but knew nothing he could do, or that he could desire. Mr Macnaught, a curate, visited him, robed in his canonicals—an insult which Mr Renwick appeared to feel, but took it calmly. When asked his opinion respecting the toleration and those that accepted it, he declared he was against it; but as for those that embraced it, he judged them godly men. He was also visited by some popish priests who essayed his conversion, but he peremptorily ordered them to be gone.

On the morning of his execution, the goodman of the tolbooth,i. e.head jailer, begged that on the scaffold he would not mention the cause of his death, and forbear all reflections. Mr Renwick told him that what God gave him to speak, that he would speak, and nothing else, and nothing less. The jailer said he might still have his life, if he would but sign that petition which he offered him. Mr Renwick replied, that he had never read in Scripture or history of martyrs petitioning for their lives when called to suffer for the truth; and in present circumstances, he judged it would be found a receding from the truth and declining a testimony for Christ. His mother and sisters, who had been kept away, at length obtained liberty to see him. He exhorted them much to prepare for death, expressing his own joyful assurance of endless glory. Observing his mother weep, he exhorted her to remember that they who loved any thing better than Christ were not worthy of him. If ye love me, rejoice that I am going to my Father, to obtain the enjoyment of what eye hath not seen,ear hath not heard, nor hath it entered into the mind of man to conceive. When the signal drum beat, he joyfully exclaimed—“Yonder the welcome warning to my marriage; the Bridegroom is coming—I am ready—I am ready.”

Then, after taking an affectionate leave of his mother and sisters, he was carried to the low council-house. Here he was offered any minister he chose to be with him, but he preferred being attended by a friend then in company, and proceeded cheerfully to the Grassmarket, surrounded by an immense multitude, which was the greater, that executions had not been so frequent of late. On the scaffold, he sang the 103d Psalm and read Revelations, chap. xix. Then he prayed, commending his soul to the Lord through the Redeemer, and his cause to be vindicated in his own good time. He blessed the Lord for the honour of the crown of martyrdom—an honour the angels are not capable of! Being disturbed in his devotions, he regretted the circumstance, but continued with ennobling anticipation. “By and by I shall be above these clouds, and enjoy, and worship, and glorify thee without interruption or intermission for ever.” After he had finished, he addressed the people, and stated the heads of his testimony, in terms similar to what he had used before the council, adding—“Ye that are the people of God, do not weary in maintaining the testimony of the day in your stations and places; and whatever you do, make sure an interest in Christ, for there is a storm coming which will try your foundations. And you that are strangers to God, break off your sins by repentance, else I will be a sad witness against you in the day of the Lord.” Here he was ordered to stop and go up the ladder. There he prayed again, and was heard to say—“Lord, I die in the faith that thou wilt not leave Scotland, but that thou wilt make the blood of thy witnesses to be the seed of thy church, and return again and be glorious in this land.” When the napkin was tying over his head, he said to his friend—“Farewell, be diligent in duty, make your peace with God through Christ. There is a great trial coming to the remnant I leave. I have committed them to God. Tell them from me not to weary nor be discouraged in maintaining the testimony. Let them not quit nor forego one of these despisedtruths. Keep your ground, and the Lord will provide you teachers and ministers; and when he comes he will make all these despised truths glorious upon the earth.” He was turned over the ladder with these words upon his lips—“Lord, into thy hands I commit my spirit; for thou hast redeemed me, O God of truth!”

Thus fell a standard-bearer in the Scottish Zion, at the early age of twenty-six—the last legal murder during this black period. Cut off in the prime of life and in the midst of usefulness, the death of this faithful witness appeared a dark dispensation; but as he himself had anticipated, it did more service to the good cause than his preaching might have done, even had his life been prolonged many years; because, being perpetrated by a government which made strong professions of liberality, the question naturally arose, How far can we trust specious profession in political men, without not only legal butbona fidesecurity for our rights? The principles for which he died were the principles which the Revolution sanctioned and settled; and wo to the country should they ever be despised or forgotten; and those principles which by the “conform ministers” were deemed “heights,” have since been declared the only bases upon which the best and the most thoroughly tried practical system of national and personal freedom can stand:—the obligation of the original compact [i. e.the coronation vow] between a king and a people, and the accountability of both the contracting parties. The less, however, such subjects are theoretically agitated the better—nor will they ever be violently urged, except when they are practically forgotten—but it was to the unshaken assertion of these principles, invigorated and chastened by principles of religion, that we owe the liberty we now enjoy—a liberty far beyond what any of the famed republics of old ever possessed, and which will only perish when these foundations are destroyed.

After the death of Mr Renwick, Mr Alexander Shiels, author of “The Hind let Loose,” continued to preach in the fields to the indomitable wanderers, who, immoveably attached to the covenanted work of reformation, refused to be ensnared by any precarious liberty which they rightly judged was only intended topave the way for the introduction of popery; or receive any favour from a papistical usurper, who, by the fundamental laws of the country, was constitutionally excluded from the throne; and their conduct was more than justified by the treatment their compliant brethren received. There now, however, began to appear some streaks in the sky—some dawnings of the coming day.

The Rev. John Hardy, M.D., minister at Gordon,[171]had in a sermon, last year, used some such expression as the following:—“They thanked his majesty for the toleration; but if they behoved to take away the laws against popery, sectarianism, &c., it were better to want it, and that any that consented to it, Zechariah’s flying roll of curses would enter the house and eat the stones and timber.” He was dealt with, says Fountainhall, to retract, which not finding liberty to do, he was continued [i. e.his case was delayed] with a reprimand. But, on the 22d November, a letter came from the king “ordaining him to be panelled criminally before the justices for his preaching,” on which he was imprisoned, as “he would not fly, though he had leisure and advertisement.” On February 13, this year, an indictment was raised against him, for using seditious expressions and leasing-making, endeavouring to alienate the affections of the people from the king. He replied, “that upon Presbyterian principles, idolatry, even under the gospel, is punishable by death, and that popery is such. That the expressions had no sedition in them, seeing that he might regret that Socinians and others had liberty to vent their doctrine against Christ’s deity, &c.;” and the criminal lords, who appear to have had some prognostications of the coming change, “took the courage to find the expressions libelled not relevant to infer sedition,” therefore assoilzied him from thecrimes libelled, and liberated him from prison. One Bold was indicted for having acted as precentor to Mr Renwick, and condemned to be hanged, but was reprieved; and Gilbert Elliot, who had been forfeited for engaging with Argyle, was not only pardoned, but admitted as an advocate.

Back to Index Next