[Illustration:

  _A. Ritchie, Del^t._ —— _W. Douglas, Sr._

  _Execution of the Marquis of Argyle, anno 1661._

  _Vide page 40._

  Edin^r. Pub^d. by Hugh Paton, Carver & Gilder to the Queen, 1841.
]

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                 ANNALS

                                 OF THE

                        PERSECUTION IN SCOTLAND,

                                FROM THE

                     RESTORATION TO THE REVOLUTION.




                         BY JAMES AIKMAN, ESQ.,

                AUTHOR OF “THE HISTORY OF SCOTLAND,” &c.




                  EDINBURGH: HUGH PATON, ADAM SQUARE.

                              M.DCCC.XLII.


------------------------------------------------------------------------








                      ----------------------------

             EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY HUGH PATON, ADAM SQUARE.


------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               CONTENTS.

                                -------


  INTRODUCTION                                                  P. ix


                        BOOK I. A.D. 1604.-1660.

  Presbytery, the favourite form of religion in Scotland with       1
    the people, opposed by James VI.—At first opposed,
    afterwards sanctioned, by Charles I.—Solemn League and
    Covenant—Confession of Faith—Defeat of the Duke of
    Hamilton and death of Charles—State of the Church—Charles
    II. crowned—Divisions amongst the
    Presbyterians—Resolutioners—Remonstrators—Protectorate of
    Cromwell—State of religion during that
    period—Restoration—Sharpe sent to London—Religious parties
    in Scotland—Sharpe’s double dealing—Sudden change of
    manners—Rejoicings—Fears of the Remonstrators—Difference
    with the Resolutioners—First measures of the King—Promotes
    the enemies and persecutes the friends of the
    Covenant—Proceedings of the Committee of Estates, urged on
    by Sharpe—King’s letter to the Edinburgh
    ministers—Exultation of the Resolutioners—Persecute their
    brethren—Committee of Estates order Lex Rex, &c. to be
    burned—Proclamation against the Remonstrants—Interference
    with regard to elections—Proclamation for a meeting of
    Parliament


               BOOK II. DECEMBER 1660 to 12th JULY 1661.

  Lord High Commissioner arrives in Edinburgh—Parliament—Its       21
    composition—Act of indemnity withheld—Lord Chancellor
    restored to the Presidentship—Oath of
    allegiance—Retrogression in reformation-work—Divine right
    of Kings asserted—Solemn League and Covenant
    repealed—Engagement approved,
    &c.—Declaration—Resolutioners  begin to perceive their
    error—Middleton amuses the ministers of Edinburgh—Manner
    of concocting the Act rescissory and of getting it
    passed—Middleton’s interview with D. Dickson and part of
    the Edinburgh presbytery—Distress of the
    ministers—Dispersion of the synods—Concluding acts—Trial
    of Argyle—his behaviour before and at the place of
    execution—Trial of James Guthrie—his behaviour and
    execution—Captain Govan —Prosecutions of Mr Traill of
    Edinburgh—Mr Moncrief of Scone—Intrepid reply of his
    wife—Mr Robert Macwaird of Glasgow—his striking picture of
    the effects of the Restoration—his
    accusation—defence—banishment—Swinton of Swinton—Sir John
    Chiesly and Mr P. Gillespie’s escape—Parliament
    rises—Samuel Rutherford


                   BOOK III. AUGUST, A.D. 1661-1662.

  Lord High Commissioner sets out for Court—his                    61
    reception—Deliberations of the Council—Episcopacy resolved
    upon as the National Religion of Scotland—Glencairn,
    Rothes, and Sharpe appointed to carry the tidings to
    Edinburgh—King’s letter—Privy Council announce the
    overthrow of Presbytery—forbid the election of
    Presbyterian magistrates in burghs—prosecute
    Tweeddale—Ministers summoned to London to be episcopally
    ordained—their characters—their consecration—Grief of the
    Presbyterians—Re-introduction of Episcopacy—Restrictions
    on the press—Witchcraft—Synods discharged and bishops
    ordered to be honoured by royal patent—their
    consecration—Parliament restores their rank—asserts the
    King’s supremacy—The Covenants declared unlawful—Act of
    fines—defeated—Lord Lorn—Blair and other ministers
    deprived—King’s birth-day—Middleton’s visit to the West
    and South—Case of Mr Wylie—Brown of Wamphray—Livingston,
    &c.—Middleton removed and Lauderdale appointed


                   BOOK IV. DECEMBER, A.D. 1662-1664.

  State of the West and South—Bishops’ curates—their               96
    reception—Tumult at Irongray—Commission sent to
    Kirkcudbright and Dumfries—Field-preaching—Rothes and
    Lauderdale arrive in Scotland—Parliament—Warriston’s
    arrest and execution—Principal Wood of St Andrews and
    other ministers silenced and scattered—Troops ordered to
    enforce the Acts of Parliament—their outrages—Sir James
    Turner—High Commission Court—its atrocities—Privy
    Council—its exactions—prohibits private prayer-meetings or
    contributing money for the relief of the sufferers—William
    Guthrie of Fenwick laid aside—Donaldson of Dalgetty’s
    case—Death of Glencairn—Political changes


                    BOOK V. JANUARY, A.D. 1665-1666.


  Partial moderation of the King—Sir James Turner’s campaign      127
    through Kirkcudbright and Galloway—Unpaid fines
    levied—Students’ oaths—All meetings for religious purposes
    forbid—Quietude of the country—Proclamation of the
    council—Apologetical Relation—Sir James Turner’s third
    campaign extended to Nithsdale—visits Mr Blackadder at
    Troqueer—More troops raised—Rigorous acts more rigorously
    enforced—Rising of the persecuted—they gather
    strength—their operations—Defeated at Pentland—Prelatic
    revenge—Testimony of the sufferers—Torture
    introduced—Nielson of Corsack—Hugh M’Kail—Executions in
    Edinburgh and the west country—William
    Sutherland—Executions at Ayr


                   BOOK VI. JANUARY, A.D. 1667-1669.

  Dalziel sent to the South and West—his cruelty, and that of     169
    the inferior officers—Sir Mungo Murray—Sir William
    Bannatyne—Arrival of the Dutch fleet—Crusade
    abates—Forfeitures increase—Standing army
    proposed—Convention of estates—Cess—King’s letter—West
    country disarmed—Sir Robert Murray sent to Scotland—Army
    partially disbanded—Political changes—Bond of peace—Trials
    of Sir James Turner and Sir William
    Bannatyne—Field-preaching proscribed—Michael Bruce—John
    Blackadder—Attempt upon Sharpe’s life—Search for the
    assassin—Remarkable escape of Maxwell of Monreith—Case of
    Mr Robert Gray, merchant—Mrs Kelso and Mrs Duncan—Death of
    Mr Gillon, minister of Cavers—Field-preaching and
    family-worship punished—Mr Fullarton of Quivox before the
    Council—Mr Blackadder patrols his “diocese” untouched
    safely—Mr Hamilton, minister of Blantyre


                    BOOK VII. JULY, A.D. 1669-1670.


  An indulgence proposed—partially accepted by the                187
    ministers—Mr Hutchison’s address—Proclamation against
    those who refused it—Archbishop of Glasgow’s
    remonstrance—Parliament asserts the king’s supremacy—vote
    the militia, and a security for orthodox
    ministers—Field-meeting in Fife—Difference between
    Presbyterians and prelatists in doctrine and
    teaching—Curates disturbed—Lecturing forbid—Compromising
    ministers—Success of the gospel—Remarkable meeting at the
    Hill of Beath, &c.—Rage of the Primate—Strange escape of
    four prisoners


                    BOOK VIII. JULY, A.D. 1670-1674.

  Parliament—Act against conventicles—Bond—Leighton’s efforts     207
    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—Ascendency 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


                        BOOK IX. A.D. 1674-1676.

  Divisions among the ministers respecting the church and         238
    self-defence—Armed meetings—Severities increase—Lord
    Cardross—Religious revivals in the North—Mr
    M’Gilligan—Civil oppression—Home of Polwart—Finings—Durham
    of Largo—Magistrates of Edinburgh—Sufferers sent to France
    as recruits—Proclamation to expel the families of
    gospel-hearers from the Burghs, and enforce the
    conventicle act—Instructions for the indulged—Progress of
    the gospel—Rage of the prelates—Mitchell tortured


                        BOOK X. A.D. 1676-1677.

  Remarkable sacramental solemnities occasion harsher             256
    measures—Council new-modelled—Committee for public
    affairs—Kerr of Kersland—Kirkton—The expatriated pursued
    to Holland—Colonel Wallace


                          BOOK XI. A.D. 1677.

  Meeting of the ministers in Edinburgh—Prosecutions for not      265
    attending the kirk—Lord Cardross—Conventicle at
    Culross—Bond—Lauderdale comes to Scotland—Pretended
    moderation—Alarm of the bishops—Carstairs attacks John
    Balfour’s house—Council’s design of raising a standing
    force—Resolutions of the West country
    gentlemen—Conventicles increase—Communion at East
    Nisbet—Common field-meeting—King authorizes calling in the
    Highland clans


                          BOOK XII. A.D. 1678.

  Privy Council forbids emigration—Mitchell’s trial and           286
    execution—Highland host—Committee of the council arrive at
    Glasgow—Deputation from Ayr sent to the Commissioner—Bond
    refused—Committee proceed to Ayr—Earl of
    Cassilis—Law-burrows—Case of Lord Cochrane—Ravages of “the
    Highland Host”—their return home—Earl of Cassilis goes to
    court—Duke of Hamilton follows—Complaints dismissed—State
    of the country


                 BOOK XIII. JANUARY TO MAY, A.D. 1679.

  Public teachers and students required to take the oath of       336
    supremacy—A boy imprisoned for refusing—Husbands punished
    for their wives’ contumacy—landlords for their
    tenants’—Overture of the council—Country put under
    military law—Reprisals—Outrages of the commissioners of
    shires—Death of Sharpe—Escape of Veitch—Murder of
    Inchdairney


                 BOOK XIV. MAY TO DECEMBER, A.D. 1679.

  Outrages of the soldiery—Dissensions among the                  359
    persecuted—Commotions in the West—Rutherglen
    declaration—Rising of the Presbyterians—Skirmish at
    Drumclog—Royal troops retire to Edinburgh—Divisions among
    the Presbyterians—Arrival of Monmouth—Battle of Bothwell
    Bridge


                          BOOK XV. A.D. 1680.

  Perplexity of the moderate ministers—Murder of Mr               397
    Hall—Queensferry paper—Cargill joins Cameron—Sanquhar
    declaration—Council’s proclamation in
    reply—Reflections—Bond—Fresh plunderings by
    Dalziel—Skirmish at Airs-moss—Death of Cameron—of
    Rathillet—Cargill—Torwood excommunication—York arrives in
    Edinburgh—Spreul tortured—Skene, Stewart, and Potter
    executed—Effigy of the Pope burnt


                          BOOK XVI. A.D. 1681.

  Edinburgh College shut—Isobel Alison and Marion Harvy           414
    executed—Other executions—Search for covenanters—Thomas
    Kennoway’s exploits—Mock courts held by Cornet Graham and
    Grierson of Lag—Mr Spreul tried—acquitted—sent to the
    Bass—John Blackadder, Gabriel Semple, and Donald Cargill
    seized—Walter Smith, William Cuthil, and others
    apprehended, tried, and executed


                         BOOK XVII. A.D. 1681.

  Parliament—Act for securing the Protestant                      437
    religion—asserting the divine right and lineal succession
    of their kings—for securing the peace of the country—Lord
    Bargeny’s case—THE TEST—debate upon
    it—Belhaven—Argyle—objections to its imposition—Argyle
    takes it with an explanation—his trial—escapes from the
    Castle—forfeited—Fraser of Brea—fined—banished



                      BOOK XVIII. A.D. 1681-1682.

  Society-men—their first general meeting—State of the            452
    country—Ure of Shargarton—Wavering of the
    Episcopalians—Lanark declaration—burned at
    Edinburgh—Harvey hanged—Mr P. Warner—York recalled to
    court—New government—Robert Gray executed—Dalziel sent to
    the west—Meeting at Priest-hill—at Tala-linn—Major White
    and the Laird of Meldrum—their proceedings—Hume of Hume
    executed—Lauderdale’s death


                       BOOK XIX. A.D. 1682-1683.

  Persecution instigated by the curates in the South and          465
    West—Noble conduct of a boy—Rapacity of the
    military—Instructions of the council—exploits of
    Claverhouse, Meldrum, &c.—Retributive justice—Justiciary
    court—Lawrie of Blackwood—Circuit courts—Rye-house
    plot—Scottishmen implicated—Various instances of
    oppression


                        BOOK XX. A.D. 1684-1685.

  Persecutions increase—“Killing Time”—Proscription and           481
    plundering—Husbands fined for their wives’ non-attendance
    at church—Torture—Executions—Campbell of Cessnock—Paton of
    Meadowhead, &c.—Females sold for
    slaves—Spence—Carstairs—Baillie of Jarvieswood—Circuit
    courts—Porterfield of Douchal—Finings—Proceedings of the
    society-men—Review of the state of the country during this
    period—Death of Charles


                          BOOK XXI. A.D. 1685.

  Accession of James VII.—Proceedings of the privy                510
    council—Field murders—Northern
    commission—Indemnity—Outrages in the south—Two women
    drowned—John Brown, “the Christian
    Carrier”—Parliament—Argyle’s expedition—Suspected persons
    sent to Dunotter—Argyle defeated—taken—executed—Colonel
    Rumbold—Nisbet of Hardhill and other sufferers


                       BOOK XXII. A.D. 1686-1688.

  Conduct of the soldiers—A riot—Recantation of                   533
    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


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                             INTRODUCTION.


The first annunciation of the gospel in Eden to fallen man, was
accompanied with an assurance of persecution:—“I will put enmity between
thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise
thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” And the same was explicitly
renewed under the New Testament dispensation, where it is declared with
peculiar emphasis—“Yea, all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall
suffer persecution.” But, like “the primal curse, ’tis softened into
mercy;” nay more, it is transformed into a blessing—“Blessed are ye when
men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil
against you falsely for my sake: rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for
great is your reward in heaven.” That these promises have been made
good, the history of the Church in all ages bears testimony; and there
is no testimony stronger than that of the Church in Scotland, whether we
consider the fiery trials she has gone through, or the noble records her
martyrs have left to the truth and faithfulness of God.

Christianity appears to have been introduced at a very early period, and
never to have been wholly extinguished by the idolatries of Rome, in the
south-western districts, where the Lollards of Kyle arose as harbingers
of the Reformation, some time towards the end of the fourteenth century.
In the year 1407, James Resby, an English presbyter, and a disciple of
Wickliffe, was burned for Lollardism in Scotland, especially for
interspersing these most dangerous dogmas in his sermons, “that a Pope
was not in fact the vicar of Christ; nor could any Pope be so, unless he
was holy;” besides forty other similar or worse conclusions, and his
tenets spread widely. He was followed, 1431, by Paul Craw,
“deprehendit,” says Knox, “in the Universitie of Sanct Androis, and
accusit of Heresie before suche as wer called Doctors of Theologie,” and
sent to expiate his errors in the flames. At his execution, they put
“ane ball of bras in his mouthe to the end that he sould not gif
confession of his faythe to the pepill, neyther yit that thai sould
understand the defence which he hade agains thair unjust accusation and
condemnation.”

The political anarchy and confusion which prevailed in Scotland at this
time, and in which the priests took an active share, seem to have
diverted their attention for a while from prosecuting their schemes
against the new obnoxious opinions; but when Luther shook the papacy,
and his doctrines gaining ground on every side, had stirred up their
slumbering hatred, the renovated warfare was announced by the martyrdom
of Mr Patrick Hamilton and of “the Scottish John Baptist,” as Mr George
Wishart has been styled. But the prelates, who had shut their eyes to
the signs of the times, grievously miscalculated. The ministry of these
two eminent men had produced on the already prepared population, a
disposition not only to profess the truth themselves, but also to
endeavour a national reformation; and their martyrdom hastened the
crisis. Instead of terrifying, it enraged the people against the
superstition which could require for its support the perpetration of
such deadly crime.

During the nominal reign of the unfortunate Mary, but more especially
after her flight into England, the cause rapidly progressed; and the
Regents, however different in character, were obliged by the
circumstances of the times in which they were placed, to aid in its
furtherance. The absurd constitution of Scotland, that allowed a child
unfit for governing himself to assume the power of governing a nation,
occasioned various changes. After the accession of James VI., till
previously to his marriage, he acquiesced in the presbyterial
government, which, upon his return from Denmark with his queen, he
declared in presence of the General Assembly to be “the purest kirk upon
earth,” and promised to defend it “against all deadly”—a promise he soon
forgot, and forced upon his reluctant subjects a mongrel Episcopacy.
This was followed up by his son Charles, who, after some preliminary
encroachments, sent down a liturgy with an order to adopt it.

July 23, 1637, was the remarkable day on which the Bishop of Edinburgh,
robed in his canonicals, attempted to introduce it in the High Church;
but no sooner had he opened the service-book, than an old woman, Janet
Geddes by name, threw her stool at his head, which was quickly followed
by a number of others, the whole congregation meanwhile crying out—“A
Pope! a Pope!” and both the bishop and dean were forced out of the
church, and driven home amid a shower of stones, hardly escaping with
their lives. Commotions followed, till a free General Assembly met at
Glasgow, November 21, 1638, where the Presbyterian form of church
government was declared and acted upon as the government of the church,
most agreeable to the gospel and the law of the land, which was
acknowledged by the king at the treaty of Dunselaw, June 18, 1639.

When the civil war broke out, the English parliament convened an
Assembly of Divines at Westminster, to which the General Assembly of the
Kirk of Scotland sent four of their chief ministers, not less
distinguished for their talents, than revered for their piety—Alexander
Henderson, Samuel Rutherfurd, George Gillespie, and Robert Baillie,
accompanied by Lord Maitland, afterwards Duke of Lauderdale, “a man of
excellent parts had they been blessed and improven; but as then his
reputation was entire.” The Confession of Faith, Catechisms, and
Directory for Worship, which were here agreed upon, were received and
sanctioned in their session 1648, and ratified by the Scottish
parliament. For defending these, the persecutions narrated in the
following pages were endured.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                       ANNALS OF THE PERSECUTION.



                                -------



                                BOOK I.


                         A.D. 1604.-A.D. 1660.


Presbytery, the favourite form of religion in Scotland with the people,
   opposed by James VI.—At first opposed afterwards sanctioned
   by Charles I.—Solemn League and Covenant—Confession of
   Faith—Defeat of the Duke of Hamilton and death of Charles—State
   of the Church—Charles II. crowned—Divisions among the
   Presbyterians—Resolutioners—Remonstrators—Protectorate of
   Cromwell—State of religion during that period—Restoration—Sharpe sent
   to London—Religious parties in Scotland—Sharpe’s double
   dealing—Sudden change of manners—Rejoicings—Fears of the
   Remonstrators—Difference with the Resolutioners—First measures of the
   King—Promotes the enemies and persecutes the friends of the
   Covenant—Proceedings of the Committee of Estates, urged on by
   Sharpe—King’s letter to the Edinburgh ministers—Exultation of the
   Resolutioners—Persecute their brethren—Committee of Estates
   order Lex Rex, &c. to be burned—Proclamation against the
   Remonstrants—Interference with regard to elections—Proclamation for a
   meeting of Parliament.


Ever since the days of the Reformation, Scotland has been distinguished
by the attachment of her inhabitants to simplicity in the forms of their
religious worship, and a dislike to pomp or lordly power in their
ministers. Presbytery, of which these are the prominent features, has in
consequence always been the favoured mode of ecclesiastical polity with
the people; unfortunately her monarchs, previous to the Revolution of
1688, were as decidedly averse to it; and their tyrannical attempts to
substitute a hated hierarchy in its place, involved the country, for
three generations, in contention and bloodshed, persecution and
distress, till the struggle issued in the final expulsion of the Stuarts
from the throne.

James VI., after having given the Presbyterian church the royal
sanction, and paid it the highest encomiums as the “purest kirk upon
earth,” and having repeatedly promised and vowed “to support it against
all deadly,” spent the greater part of his life in endeavours to
overturn it. He succeeded in forcing upon an unwilling people a kind of
mongrel prelacy, and left to his son the hazardous task of finishing his
designed uniformity in religious worship between the two kingdoms.

Charles proceeded with more violence; and, by attempting to obtrude a
detested liturgy, he destroyed the fabric it had cost his father so much
king-craft to rear, and led to the remarkable renewing of the NATIONAL
COVENANT, which, early in the year 1638, was subscribed with
enthusiastic fervour by all ranks throughout the land. A free General
Assembly, convened at Glasgow in that year, November 21, accomplished
what has usually been termed the second glorious Reformation, by
restoring Presbytery to its primitive simplicity, and sweeping away all
the innovations against which they had so long struggled. The
proceedings of this assembly were afterwards solemnly confirmed by the
estates; and Scotland for a short period enjoyed a hollow peace, while
the king was contesting with his English parliament. Afraid, however, if
the king overcame in the contest, that they would hold their own
liberties by a very feeble tenure, they entered into a solemn league and
covenant with the parliament for the mutual preservation of their
religion and liberty, for promoting uniformity in worship and doctrine
between the two nations, and for exterminating popery, prelacy, and
schism: their weight decided the fate of the war.

When the English hierarchy had fallen, and the king’s power was reduced,
an assembly of the most learned divines that perhaps ever met in
Britain, was called by authority of the English parliament. Assisted by
commissioners from Scotland, they drew up the admirable Confession of
Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, still the standards of
our national church; but they differed on the Directory for Worship,
against which some of the most learned of the Independents dissented—a
prelude to more serious differences.

After Charles had been beaten out of the field, and was intriguing in a
variety of ways with the army and with the English parliament, a
majority in the Scottish estates, headed by the Duke of Hamilton, rashly
“engaged” by a secret treaty to attempt his rescue. The church opposed
war with England, as Charles would give only an equivocal pledge for
supporting the establishment of Presbytery in that country; and they
feared his duplicity in case he regained unrestricted power; and the
minority in the estates also “protested” against it. The engagers being
defeated at Preston, the protesters, whose leader was the Marquis of
Argyle, came into power, and Scotland separated into two parties.
Shortly after the defeat of the Scots, the king was brought to trial and
executed, in spite of their remonstrances, which, now that they were
divided among themselves and had no army to back them, were little
regarded.

At this time the church of Scotland reached her greatest pitch of
splendour. “For though,” says a contemporary historian, “alwayes since
the assembly at Glasgow the work of the gospel hade prospered,
judicatories being reformed, godly ministers entered, and holy
constitutions and rules daily brought into the church; yet now, after
Duke Hamilton’s defeat, and in the interval betwixt the two kings,
religion advanced the greatest step it had made for many years: now the
ministrie was notably purified, the magistracy altered, and the people
strangly refined. It is true, at this time hardly the fifth part of the
lords of Scotland were admitted to sit in parliament; but those that did
sitt were esteemed truly godly men; so were all the rest of the
commissioners in parliament elected of the most pious of every
corporation. Also godly men were employed in all offices, both civil and
military; and about this time the General Assembly, by sending abroad
visiters into the country, made almost ane entire change upon the
ministry in several places of the nation, purgeing out the scandalous
and insufficient, and planting in their place a sort of godly young men,
whose ministry the Lord sealed with ane eminent blessing of success, as
they themselves sealed it with a seal of heavy sufferings; but so they
made full proof of their ministry.

“Scotland hath been even by emulous foreigners called Philadelphia; and
now she seemed to be in her flower. Every minister was to be tried five
times a-year, both for his personal and ministerial behaviour; every
congregation was to be visited by the presbytery, that they might see
how the vine flowrished and the pomegranate budded. And there was no
case nor question in the meanest family in Scotland but it might become
the object of the deliberation of the General Assembly; for the
congregational session’s book was tried by the presbytery, the
presbytery’s by the synod, and the synod’s by the General Assembly.
Likeways, as the bands of the Scottish church were strong, so her beauty
was bright; no error so much as named; the people were not only sound in
the faith, but innocently ignorant of unsound doctrine; no scandalous
person could live; no scandal could be concealed in all Scotland, so
strict a correspondence there was between ministers and congregations.
The General Assembly seemed to be the priest with Urim and Thumim; and
there were not ane hundreth persons in all Scotland to oppose their
conclusions: all submitted, all learned, all prayed; most part were
really godly, or at least counterfeited themselves Jews. Than was
Scotland a heap of wheat set about with lillies, uniform, or a palace of
silver beautifully proportioned; and this seems to me to have been
Scotland’s high noon. The only complaint of profane people was, that the
government was so strict they hade not liberty enough to sin.

“But this season lasted not long.” The Presbyterians, who were averse to
the ruling party in England, as sectarians in religion and republicans
in politics, immediately proclaimed Charles II.; and commissioners were
sent to the Hague, where he was subsisting on the bounty of his sister,
to invite him upon conditions to assume the government. During the
negotiations, while the terms were discussing, he authorized Montrose,
already too well known for his cruelties, to attempt his unconditional
restoration by force; and it was not till he heard of his failure, that
he consented to take the oaths and become the covenanted king of
Scotland.

His arrival, however, instead of uniting, occasioned deep and
irreconcilable dissensions among the Scots—between those who distrusted,
and those who affected to believe, his professions; yet as the church
continued to maintain the ascendancy, they were kept within bounds till
after the fatal battle of Dunbar. But when it became necessary to supply
the loss occasioned by that disaster, they became apparent. The king
required that all those who had hitherto been excluded as malignants,
who had favoured the engagement, and were understood to be friendly to
his unlimited power, should be restored to offices of trust both in the
army and state: this was resisted by the strictest and most devout of
the Presbyterians, who, considering them as enemies to the church,
dreaded their admission into the king’s councils, while he himself was
suspected. The virtues of the king, and his inimitable improvement in
adversity, were deemed sufficient answer, and resolutions favourable to
their claims having been obtained by surprise from the major part of the
commission, a schism took place by the minority protesting against the
concession.

From this date the Presbyterians separated into two parties, who
distracted the country for several years by their violent contentions;
those who arrogated to themselves the praise of liberality and
loyalty—their superior regard for the decrees of the church and the
letter of the covenant—ranging under the name of resolutioners; while
those esteemed the most holy, indefatigable, and laborious ministers,
who preferred the spirit to the form of their religious constitution,
were numbered among the protesters. They were likewise called
remonstrators, from having followed up their protest by a remonstrance.
Meanwhile Charles was crowned at Scone with great solemnity, the Marquis
of Argyle, who was attached to the resolutioners, putting the crown upon
his head; but the divisions continued till Cromwell obtained the supreme
power, who granted free toleration to all sects, and liberty to the
Presbyterians in every thing, except permitting the General Assembly to
meet, which some of the more pious considered no bad service.

This period, down to the Restoration, has ever been considered as that
in the Scottish church most remarkably distinguished for the prevalence
of real personal religion; and it was evident that God was preparing a
people in this land for a day of hot and fiery trial. “I verily
believe,” says Kirkton, “there were more souls converted to Christ in
that short period of time than in any season since the Reformation,
though of treeple its duration. Nor was there ever greater purity and
plenty of the means of grace than was in their time. Ministers were
painful, people were diligent; and if a man hade seen one of their
solemn communions, where many congregations mett in great
multitudes—some dozens of ministers used to preach, and the people
continued as it were in a sort of trance (so serious were they in
spiritual exercises) for three dayes at least—he would have thought it a
solemnity unknown to the rest of the world. Besides, the ministers,
after some years, began to look at the questions about which they had
divided, as inconsiderable: also it was found error made no great
progress, the genius of the people being neither very curious nor easily
changed.”

The numbers who stood the test and suffered to the death, bear witness
that the religious state of the country at the Restoration, as given by
him, must be substantially true; as the numbers who apostatized make it
evident that many must have dissembled. “There be in all Scotland some
nine hundred paroches.”[1] “At the king’s return every paroch had a
minister, every village had a school, every family almost had a Bible;
yea, in most of the country, all the children of age could read the
Scriptures, and were provided of Bibles either by the parents or their
ministers. Every minister was a very full professor of the reformed
religion, according to the large Confession of Faith, framed at
Westminster by the divines of both nations. Every minister was obliged
to preach thrice a-week, to lecture and catechise once, besides other
private duties, wherein they abounded according to their proportion of
faithfulness and abilities. None of them might be scandalous in their
conversation or negligent in their office, so long as a presbyterie
stood; and among them were many holy in conversation and eminent in
gifts. The dispensation of the ministry being fallen from the noise of
waters and sound of trumpets, to the melody of harpers, which is alace
the last messe in the banquet. Nor did a minister satisfy himself except
his ministry had the seal of a divine approbation, as might witness him
to be really sent from God.”

Footnote 1:

  These were divided into sixty-eight presbyteries, which were again
  cantoned into fourteen synods, out of all which, by a solemn legation
  of commissioners from every presbytery, they used to constitute a
  national assembly.

“Indeed, in many places the spirit seemed to be poured out with the
word, both by the multitudes of sincere converts, and also by the common
work of reformation upon many who never came the length of a communion;
there were no fewer than sixty aged people, men and women, who went to
school, that even then they might be able to read the Scriptures with
their own eyes. I have lived many years in a paroch where I never heard
an oath; and you might have ridde many miles before you heard any: also,
you could not for a great part of the country have lodged in a family
where the Lord was not worshipped by reading, singing, and public
prayer. Nobody complained more of our church-government than our
taverners, whose ordinary lamentation was, their trade was broke, people
were become so sober.”[2]

Footnote 2:

  Kirkton mentions that the English often offered the protesters the
  government of the nation, which they refused, till Cromwell, “weary
  with their scrupolosity, and being highly caressed by Mr (afterwards
  Archbishop) Sharpe, his large proffers in behalf of the resolutioners,
  was forced to allow them equal liberty, and so they continued in a
  balance till after his death.—_Hist. of the Church of Scotland_, pp.
  48-56.—Law, in his Memorials, has a similar statement. “It is not to
  be forgotten, that from the year 1652 to the year 1660, there was
  great good done by the preaching of the gospel in the west of
  Scotland, more than was observed to have been for twenty or thirty
  years before; a great many brought into Christ Jesus by a saving work
  of conversion, which was occasioned through ministers preaching
  nothing all that tyme but the gospell, and had left off to preach up
  parliaments, armies, leagues, resolutions, and remonstrance, which was
  much in use before, from the year 1638 till that time 52, which
  occasioned a great number of hypocrytes in the church, who, out of
  hope of preferment, honour, riches, and worldly credit, tooke on the
  form of godliness but wanted the power of it.” P. 7.

Such was the delightful picture drawn by an eyewitness; and to render it
perfect and permanent, the Presbyterians longed with desire for the
restoration of their king, whose presence alone they believed would
remove the only spots that in their eyes dimmed its lustre—the
suspension of their General Assemblies, and the late sinful toleration.
As soon as there was the least prospect of the desirable event, several
ministers in Edinburgh—resolutioners—dispatched Mr James Sharpe to
London, with instructions to watch over the interests of the church,
particularly of their own party; and as they knew that the king had a
strong antipathy against the remonstrants, who, during his stay in
Scotland, had been assiduous in their upright though ungrateful
endeavours for his conversion, and incurred his displeasure and that of
his confidants by their uncourtly reproofs and uncompromising adherence
to their principles, they were anxious to separate themselves from this
the honestest portion of their brethren, and directed their agent
carefully to remind his majesty of the difference between them and their
more uncomplying opponents.

During the protectorate, as no persecution had been allowed on account
of religious opinions, a few in Scotland seem to have adopted the
tolerant maxims of the decried usurper; and although sectaries never
flourished in that soil, they seem to have been sufficiently numerous to
have excited the fears of the resolutioners, who, insensible to the
benefits they enjoyed under the toleration of Cromwell, and eager to
secure the liberties of their own kirk from the oppression of the
prelatists, were equally anxious to guard against any freedom being
allowed to those whom they termed fanatics.[3]

Footnote 3:

  Mr Robert Douglas writes to Mr Sharpe, May 8, 1660:—“Your great errand
  will be for this kirk. I am confident the king will not wrong our
  liberties whereunto he himself is engaged. He needs not declare any
  liberty to tender consciences here, because the generality of the
  people and whole ministry have embraced the established religion by
  law with his majesty’s consent. It is known that in all the times of
  the prevailing of the late party in England, none here petitioned for
  toleration, except some inconsiderable naughty men.” And the ministers
  of Edinburgh, _i. e._ resolutioners, in a letter, May 10, to the Earl
  of Rothes, who was going to meet the king at Breda, use the following
  remarkable expressions: “He [the king] knows likewise how much the
  people adhere to the establishment of the church; so that there is no
  pretext for an indulgence to such as shall recede from it, but many
  inconveniences would ensue upon the granting it.” Correspondence
  between Messrs Douglas, Dickson, &c. with Sharpe. _Wodrow’s Introd._

There was, besides, a third party, who, although previously discernible
to those who understood the signs of the times, sprang up at once upon
the afflicted vision of the resolutioners, when the rays of royalty
again beamed above the horizon—a new race, who, having never been
acquainted with the work of reformation, nor with the just proceedings
of the nation, but weary of Presbyterian strictness, were ready to
condemn the covenant and all the loyal and honest acting of the
covenanters. These, consisting chiefly of young men of rank, were
prepared for any change, and were supposed, in general, to be rather
favourable to Episcopacy. A knowledge of this circumstance, and the
frequent representations of the alarming fact by his correspondents,
seem early to have influenced Sharpe to desert his employers and go over
to the enemy.

In May, he went upon an embassage to Charles at Breda, and there was
confirmed in the treachery which he completed shortly after the king’s
landing in England. His villanous hypocrisy in managing the overturn of
the polity he was dispatched to support, was consummate; yet now, when
we know the part he played, it is not difficult to perceive, in his most
specious letters, an overacting which must have betrayed him to men less
confiding than his employers.[4] Besides preventing all access to the
king, and representing the chief leaders in Scotland as favourable to
prelacy, he dissuaded his friends from addressing against it, and
cruelly widened the breach between them and the protesters. His ambition
was stimulated by his revenge; he wished to gratify his private
resentment against the most eminent of the latter—Samuel Rutherford,
James Guthrie, and Lord Warriston. Yet, however much we may detest the
traitor, it is matter of high gratulation that his mission failed; for,
had he acted faithfully and succeeded, he would have procured for
Scotland an iron yoke of political presbytery, which might indeed have
preserved the beloved polity secured by acts of parliament, by
prohibitions, and by every civil pain and penalty by which churchmen
support their power; but he would have destroyed religious liberty, and
delivered the nation over to a thraldom which would have been worse, as
it would probably have been more permanent, than the prelacy that
ensued—it would, it is likely, have been more moral, but it might not
have been less oppressively severe.[5]

Footnote 4:

  “I profess,” says Mr Douglas, “I did not suspect Mr Sharpe in
  reference to prelacy more than I did myself, nor more than the
  apostles did Judas before his treachery was discovered.” _Wodrow’s
  Introd._

Footnote 5:

  There is much retribution in this world, although it be not the place
  of final account. Here especially God punishes his own people. The
  wicked may prosper in their wickedness—“he sees their day is
  coming”—but the Lord will never suffer his children to sin with
  impunity. This was remarkably exemplified in the case of these good
  men, who were now so anxious to prevent their brethren from enjoying
  liberty of conscience, in order that they themselves might engross the
  royal favour and the chief places in the church; their own agent
  betrayed them; and the very means they were using to accomplish their
  improper and selfish aims, were turned against them, and became the
  instruments of their correction.

When Charles was at last restored to the wishes and prayers of his
people, as if some enchanter’s wand had touched the frame of society,
the whole kingdom in an instant changed, and, from a state of grave
seriousness and exemplary decency, burst out into one disorderly scene
of riot and revelry; and the day of thanksgiving for this happy event
was celebrated in Edinburgh in a manner that had been very unusual in
that capital for at least a quarter of a century. After sermon, the
magistrates proceeded to the cross, on which was a table covered with
sweatmeats, and the well ran with wine; there, amid the flourishing of
trumpets and the beating of drums, the royal healths were drank, and
three hundred dozen of glasses broken in honour of the day! On the
Castle Hill, fireworks were exhibited, the principal figures in which
were Cromwell and the Devil, who, after diverting the multitude with a
flight and pursuit, exploded and disappeared amid shouts of applause.

The considerate part of the community viewed the unconditional recall of
the king with very different sensations; but these, in that frantic
hour, were few in number, and chiefly consisted of the remonstrators,
whose dark forebodings were deemed the offspring of their own guilty
consciences accusing them of their former disloyalty. In vain did they
ask for evidence of his being changed from what he was, before they
could trust their liberties into his hands without security. They had
all along been jealous of Sharpe, and their suspicions had been
heightened by some surmises of his transactions at London; but all their
advances towards their brethren had been repulsed by the resolutioners,
who put the most unbounded confidence in that traitor’s assurances of
the king’s friendly countenance towards themselves, and his intended
vengeance upon them. The first measures of Charles, however, put an end
to the differences of the truly pious among both parties, who were soon
undeceived, and sent to the furnace to be refined together.

All the high offices of Scotland were disposed of to men either of no
religion, or of that very accommodating kind which is always found on
the side of interest and power. Middleton, a soldier of fortune, created
an Earl, was appointed commissioner to hold the next parliament; the
Earls Glencairn had the chancellorship—Crawford, the treasury—Rothes,
president of the council—and Lauderdale, secretary of state, and one of
the gentlemen of the bedchamber, (the only Scottishman admitted to this
honour;) Sir Archibald Primson was clerk-register; and Sir John
Fletcher, king’s advocate. Meanwhile, those who were esteemed the
leaders of the covenanters, although they had ever sturdily maintained
their loyalty, after the greater part of the others had yielded, were
thrown into prison and threatened with prosecutions for treason. The
Marquis of Argyle was seized at London, whether he had gone to
congratulate the king, and sent to the tower; and orders were forwarded
to Scotland, to Major-General Morgan, commander-in-chief, to secure Sir
James Stewart, provost of Edinburgh; Sir Archibald Johnstoun, Lord
Warriston; and Sir John Christy of Carswell. Warriston escaped for the
time; but the other two were arrested in a somewhat ludicrous manner.
The General having heard that Christy was in town upon private business,
waited upon the Provost, and required him, in virtue of his office, to
apprehend Sir John and carry him to the Castle, which his lordship
having done, when he was about to take leave, with many expressions of
regret, he was informed “that it behooved him to bear his friend
company;” nor did he obtain a release till about ten years after.

Until the meeting of a new parliament, the administration of Scottish
affairs was intrusted to the surviving members of the committee of
estates, nominated by the last Scottish parliament; and as they had all
concurred with the king in swearing the National and Solemn League and
Covenant, it was expected that they would at least be favourable to the
established religion of the land; but it very soon appeared how little
confidence can be placed in the professions or even oaths of public men,
when the stream runs in an opposite direction. Their first meeting, at
which the chancellor presided, was held in Edinburgh, August 23, and
their first act was a proper prelude to the tyranny about to be
inflicted on their country.

On that day, a few of the protesters, who had in vain endeavoured to
convince their brethren of the critical situation in which the
Presbyterian church stood, met at Edinburgh to draw up a humble address
and supplication to the king, suited to the emergency. They were in all
nine ministers, of whom the chief were Mr James Guthrie of Stirling, and
Messrs Traill, and John Stirling of Edinburgh, with two ruling elders.
As the meeting and its object were no secrets, the chancellor and
committee dispatched messengers, who seized their papers, containing a
scroll of their supplication, with copies of some letters to their
brethren in Glasgow, requesting a full meeting for considering the
subject; and immediately after issued a warrant for imprisoning in
Edinburgh Castle the whole of those who had been present at the unlawful
conventicle—terms about to become of frequent use and of fearful import.

The scroll consisted of declarations of their abhorrence of the murder
of his majesty’s royal father, and the actings of the late usurping
power—of thankfulness for the Lord’s preservation of his own sacred
person, and for his quiet restoration without the effusion of Christian
blood—professions of zeal for the glory of God, the good of the church,
and faithful and loyal tenders of all the duties of honour, subjection,
and obedience, due from humble and loving subjects to their native and
lawful sovereign; but they expressed their fears of the popish
prelatical and malignant party, of their attempting the overthrow of the
pure religion as established, and the re-introduction of all the
corruptions which were formerly cast out;[6] and they reminded his
majesty of his and their solemn engagements to God, of the Lord’s mercy
to him and them, and their mutual obligations to faithfulness in the
performance of their vows.

Footnote 6:

  These excellent men, for such undoubtedly they were, who had enjoyed
  undisturbed liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship
  under Cromwell, thus adverted to that period, and thus would have
  requited their protectors.—“Neither are we less apprehensive of the
  endeavours of the spirit of error that possesseth sectaries in these
  nations, which, as it did at first promote the practice of a vast
  toleration in things religious, and afterwards proceeded unto the
  framing of the mischief thereof into a law, so we doubt not but it
  will still be active unto the promoting and procuring the same under
  the specious pretence of _Liberty for tender consciences_. The effects
  whereof have, in a few years past, been so dreadful, that we cannot
  think of the continuing of it, but with much trembling and fear.” Then
  follows a text upon which the whole annals of the persecution will
  form a most striking and instructive commentary. “Therefore, knowing
  that to kings, princes, rulers, and magistrates appertains the
  conservation and purgation of religion, and that unity and peace be
  preserved in the church, and that the truth of God be kept pure and
  entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all
  corruptions or abuses in discipline and worship prevented or reformed,
  and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and
  observed, We, your majesty’s most humble subjects, do, with bowed
  knees and bended affections, humbly supplicate your majesty that you
  would employ your royal power unto the preservation of the reformed
  religion in the church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline,
  and government, and unto the carrying on of the work of uniformity in
  religion in the churches of God in the three kingdoms, in one
  confession of faith, form of church-government, directory for worship,
  and catechizing; and to the extirpation of popery, prelacy,
  superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatever shall be found
  contrary to sound doctrine,” &c.

They were therefore charged with proceedings expressly derogatory to his
majesty’s royal prerogative, and tending to the disturbance of the
present peace of his majesty’s dominions; and next day the committee of
estates prohibited, by proclamation, all unlawful and unwarrantable
meetings and conventicles in any place within the kingdom of Scotland
without his majesty’s special authority; and likewise all seditious
petitions and remonstrances under what pretext soever which might tend
to the disturbance of the peace of the kingdom, or alienating or
diminishing the affections of his majesty’s subjects from their due
obedience to his majesty’s lawful authority, and that under the highest
pains. Sheriffs and magistrates of burghs were ordered to be careful
within their respective bounds, that no such pernicious or dangerous
meetings should be permitted, but that they should be prevented,
hindered, and made known to the executive. These proceedings were
ostensibly directed against the remonstrants alone, but were intended to
answer the double purpose of overawing the elections for the ensuing
parliament, and paving the way for the complete overturn of freedom in
the state and presbytery in the church.

Mr Sharpe, on his arrival from London, gave a keener edge to the
proceedings of the committee, and, by his duplicity, prevented the good
men among the resolutioners from taking any steps, either for their own
security or the relief of their oppressed brethren. In answer to an
epistle from his employers to the king, entreating his favour and
countenance for their church, he brought the following, addressed to Mr
Robert Douglas, minister, Edinburgh, to be by him communicated to the
presbytery:—

“Charles R., trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. By the letters
you sent to us with this bearer, Mr James Sharpe, and by the account he
gave of the state of _our church_ there, we have received full
information of your sense of our sufferings and of your constant
affection and loyalty to our person and authority: And therefore we will
detain him here no longer—of whose good services we are very
sensible—nor will we delay to let you know by him our gracious
acceptance of your address, and how well we are satisfied with your
carriage and with the generality of the ministers of Scotland in this
time of trial, whilst some, under specious pretences, swerved from that
duty and allegiance they owed to us. And because such, who by the
countenance of usurpers have disturbed the peace of that our church, may
also labour to create jealousies in the minds of well-meaning people, we
have thought fit by this to assure you, that, by the grace of God, we
resolve to discountenance profanity and all contemners and opposers of
the ordinances of the gospel. We do also resolve to protect and preserve
the government of the church of Scotland as it is settled by law,
without violation, and to countenance in the due exercise of their
functions all such ministers who shall behave themselves dutifully and
peaceably as becomes men of their calling. We will also take care that
the authority and acts of the General Assembly at St Andrew’s and
Dundee, 1651,[7] be owned and stand in force until we shall call another
General Assembly, which we purpose to do as soon as our affairs will
permit. And we do intend to send for Mr Robert Douglas, and some other
ministers, that we may speak with them in what may further concern the
affairs of that church. And as we are very well satisfied with your
resolution not to meddle without your sphere, so we do expect that
church judicatories in Scotland and ministers there will keep within the
compass of their station, meddling only with matters ecclesiastick, and
promoting our authority and interest with our subjects against all
opposers: and that they will take special notice of such who, by
preaching, or private conventicles, or any other way, transgress the
limits of their calling by endeavouring to corrupt the people, or sow
seeds of disaffection to us or our government. This you shall make known
to the several presbyteries within that our kingdom. And as we do give
assurance of our favour and encouragement to you, and to all honest,
deserving ministers there, so we earnestly recommend it to you that you
be earnest in your prayers, publick and private, to Almighty God, who is
our Rock and our Deliverer, both for us and for our government, that we
may have fresh and constant supplies of his grace, and the right
improvement of all his mercies and deliverances to the honour of his
great name, and the peace, safety, and benefit of all our kingdoms; and
so we bid you heartily farewell.”

Footnote 7:

  The acts of these Assemblies were almost entirely levelled against the
  remonstrators.

Delighted with this most gracious epistle, the Edinburgh presbytery
printed and caused it to be transmitted to all the presbyteries in
Scotland, praised it from their pulpits, and procured a silver box to
preserve the precious original. It was not to be supposed that, under
language so explicitly guaranteeing the government of the church of
Scotland, as settled by law, that, by any lurking inuendo, Episcopacy
could be meant, the resolutioners therefore considered the day as their
own, and, with premature speed, hasted to chant their victory. They
warmly thanked his majesty for his letter, which they told him in their
address they had received upon a day formerly devoted by them to
mourning, September 3,[8] which had revived their spirits, and excited
them to bless the Lord who had put such a purpose in his royal heart to
preserve and protect the government of the church without violation; nor
was the “choice of such an able and faithful person,” as Lauderdale,
“for the weighty employment of secretary less an object of gratulation!”
But while we look back with pity upon the speedy dissipation of all the
good men’s hopes and anticipations, it is impossible not to feel that
they in some measure merited them for the facility with which they
allowed themselves to become the dupes and the tools, in persecuting
their own brethren, of these very men by whom they themselves were
afterwards persecuted.

Footnote 8:

  The anniversary of the battles of Dunbar and Worcester—an ominous
  coincidence as it turned out. Another was remarked at the time. “It
  was a sad observation, that that very day of the month being the 23d
  of August, on which the protesters were apprehended, was the very same
  day whereon 100 years before the popish religion had been abolished,
  and the true religion established in parliament; and some feared this
  might be the turning of the tide backwards.” _Kirkton_, p. 73.

Sharpe, whose composition the letter was, followed out his plan of
dividing the ministers. He was well aware that the remonstrators were
the most acute and least liable to be imposed upon of the Presbyterians;
he knew also that they suspected him, and he hated them; he therefore,
by an insinuation in it, pointed them out as persons who, under specious
pretences, had swerved from their duty during the usurpation; and the
church judicatories hastened to inflict punishment upon them for this
indefinite crime—“Our synods after this,” says Kirkton, “doing little
other thing than censuring and laying aside those of that way. And
though the preceding harvest before the king’s return all the synods of
Scotland hade agreed to bury by-past differences, yet, upon the receipt
of this blessed letter, the old wounds opened; and wherever the public
resolution-men were the plurality, the protesters were censured upon the
burried differences. In the synod of Merse, they laid aside five
ministers; in Lothian, many were laid aside both in Lithgow and Biggar
presbyteries; so it was in Perth and in the north: and the truth is, had
not the course of synods been interrupted by the introduction of
bishops, few had keeped their places who were afterwards ejected by that
infamous proclamation at Glasgow in the year 1662.”

Nor was the committee idle; Mr Patrick Gillespie, principal of Glasgow
College, was brought prisoner to Edinburgh Castle, and Mr Robert Row,
minister of Abercorn, and W. Wiseheart of Kinniel, were confined to
their chambers in the town. Having forbid any meetings for petitioning,
they proceeded to display their antipathy to those principles of
freedom, for which their fathers had contended, by emitting a
proclamation against Rutherford’s Lex Rex—a work which was held in high
estimation by the covenanters, as it advocated the cause of liberty and
the legitimate limitations on power, with an energy and clearness the
enemies of freedom could not bear; and another work, supposed to be
written by Mr James Guthrie, entitled “The Causes of God’s Wrath against
Scotland,” which enumerated the sins of the land, princes, priests, and
people, with a faithfulness that was intolerable. They declared these
two books to be full of seditious and treasonable matter, animating his
majesty’s good subjects to rise up in rebellion against their lawful
prince and sovereign, and poisoning their hearts with many seditious and
rebellious principles, prejudicial to his royal person and authority,
and to the peace of the kingdom. All, therefore, possessed of copies of
the obnoxious publications were required to deliver them up to the
king’s solicitor within a certain time, under pain of being considered
enemies to his majesty’s authority, and liable to be punished
accordingly. They were both burnt at the cross—a favourite, if not a
very convincing, mode of answering such like productions. With revolting
meanness, they at the same time caused the inscriptions to be effaced
from the tombs of Alexander Henderson in Edinburgh, and George Gillespie
at Kirkaldy—men who needed not the frail remembrance of a monumental
stone to make their memories live in the recollection of their country,
and whose services have more lasting record than a graving-iron could
bestow.

Some few days after, they made a still more explicit disclosure of their
aversion to the “good old cause”—a sneering form of expression become
fashionable among the courtiers—by another proclamation directed against
the remonstrants and their adherents, not only forbidding meetings for
consultation, which were still legal, but likewise any adverting, in
their sermons or otherwise, to the state of the church, or the danger to
be apprehended from the introduction of the exploded and hated
prelatical offices and forms; and, as they knew the effect of popular
preaching, they appear to have been most anxious at once to suppress all
pulpit opposition to the course they were about to pursue.

Of the watchmen upon the Scottish Zion, the remonstrants had been the
most wakeful and most jealous of encroachments upon the established
covenanted constitution of the church and state, and the committee were
assured, that when they apprehended danger, they would not be silent;
they therefore expressly commanded that none, in sermons, preachings,
declamations, or speeches, should presume to reflect on the conduct of
his majesty or his progenitors, misconstrue his proceedings, or meddle
in his affairs or estate, present, bygone, or in time coming, under the
highest penalties; and if any who heard what could be construed into
slander against the king did not reveal it, they were to be liable to
the same punishment as principals. This proclamation, the anti-type of
so many furious attacks upon the liberty of the lieges, was calculated
to ensnare those who, being accustomed openly to speak their sentiments,
were not prepared at once to renounce all mention of public affairs in
common conversation or public discourses, whether ministers, elders, or
private gentlemen; and numbers of each description were immediately made
to feel its oppressive weight.

Had a free election been allowed, notwithstanding the loyal phrenzy of
many, and the hypocritical pretensions of more, there might some
troublesome members have procured admission to the estates; but those
whose influence and opposition were most dreaded, being by this
proclamation placed in very delicate circumstances—as evidence of
unguarded expressions might easily have been procured—were happy to
escape censure, and did not stand forward at the only time when they
could have done so with some probability of success, in support of the
constitution, freedom, and religion of their country. The committee,
however, did not rest here: with the most unblushing effrontery,
although conscious themselves of having to a man complied with the
English, they hung out a threat of prosecution for this common and
inevitable fault, which damped all who seemed inclined to assert the
independence of a Scottish parliament, or the privileges they had
obtained from the crown during the late struggle.[9]

Footnote 9:

  Of the nature of these prosecutions, the reader may form some idea
  from the following:—“Mr James Nasmyth, minister of the gospel at
  Hamilton, was sisted before the committee for words alleged to have
  been spoken by him many years ago. About the year 1650, when Lambert
  was in the church, it was alleged he pressed his hearers to employ
  their power for God, and not in opposition to the gospel, otherwise
  they might expect to be brought down by the judgement of God as those
  who went before were!” _Wodrow_, vol. i. p. 12.

Besides to pinion the country gentlemen more effectually, they tendered
a bond to all of whom they were suspicious, which they obliged them to
sign, with a sufficient cautioner, each binding themselves—besides
disowning the remonstrance—that they should not in any way or manner,
directly or indirectly, plot, contrive, speak, or do any thing tending,
or what might tend, to the hurt, prejudice, or derogation of his
majesty’s royal person or any of that royal family—that they should not
do any thing, directly or indirectly, tending, or that might tend, to
the breach or disturbance of the public peace, nor connive or concur
with any person whatsoever who should contrive any such thing; but, to
the utmost of their power, stop and let any such plot and doing, and
appear personally before the committee, sub-committee, or parliament,
upon a lawful citation; and, in case of failure, the parties bound
themselves to pay a high fine, besides whatever other punishment might
be inflicted.

For a justification of proceedings so unwarrantable, we must look to the
sequel; it was not because the parties accused were inimical either to
kingly government or to the person or right of Charles, but because the
plan was already formed for sweeping from the face of the country, had
it been possible, whatever was lovely or of good report—whatever in the
institutions of the state or the polity of the church was calculated to
present any obstruction to the tide of obscene licentiousness and
faithless despotism that was now fast flowing upon them. Their stretches
of power against the liberties of the country, do not, however, seem to
have occasioned any remonstrance; and the synod of Lothian was amused
with a proclamation for calling a General Assembly, which Mr William
Sharpe had submitted for their amendment; but the last acts of the
committee, levying a cess, excited some remark as to the legality of the
tax or their power to exact it.

On the 1st of November, a proclamation announced the meeting of
parliament; and the same day another, that the king had committed to
them the consideration and judging of the conduct of all his subjects
during the late troubles, from whom alone he would receive any
applications, and promising, after his honour and ancient royal
prerogative were vindicated, he would grant a free, full pardon and
indemnity—a promise which, although conveyed in very specious language,
and accompanied by an assurance that there was nothing his royal bosom
was more desirous of than that his people should be blessed with
abundance of happiness, peace, and plenty, was received with suspicion,
and, like almost all the other acts of grace, afforded little relief to
the unfortunate, while it secured the persons and plunder of those who
had pillaged and oppressed them.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                BOOK II.


                    DECEMBER 1660 TO 12TH JULY 1661.


Lord High Commissioner arrives in Edinburgh—Parliament—Its
   composition—Act of indemnity withheld—Lord Chancellor restored to
   the Presidentship—Oath of allegiance—Retrogression in
   reformation-work—Divine right of Kings asserted—Solemn League and
   Covenant repealed—Engagement approved, &c.—Declaration—Resolutioners
   begin to perceive their error—Middleton amuses the ministers of
   Edinburgh—Manner of concocting the Act rescissory and of getting it
   passed—Middleton’s interview with D. Dickson and part of the
   Edinburgh presbytery—Distress of the ministers—Dispersion of the
   synods—Concluding acts—Trial of Argyle—His behaviour before and at
   the place of execution—Trial of James Guthrie—His behaviour and
   execution—Captain Govan—Prosecutions of Mr Traill of Edinburgh—Mr
   Moncrief of Scone—Intrepid reply of his wife—Mr Robert Macwaird of
   Glasgow—His striking picture of the effects of the Restoration—His
   accusation—Defence—Banishment—Swinton of Swinton—Sir John Christy and
   Mr P. Gillespie’s escape—Parliament rises—Samuel Rutherford.


The Earl of Middleton, Lord High Commissioner, arrived at the ancient
Palace of Holyrood on the last day of December 1660. He entered upon his
office with great pomp; and, being allowed a princely salary for the
support of his establishment, he vied with royalty itself in the
profusion of his expenditure. Every preparation had been made for his
reception: he was met and conducted to his residence by a large
concourse of the nobility and the magistrates of the capital; and the
venerable cathedral of St Giles had been elegantly fitted up with a
throne for his Grace and lofts for the parliament.

That parliament which met on the first day of the new year, was one
entirely suited for promoting the schemes of the Scottish rulers. The
old nobles, who had been active in the cause of the covenant, had almost
all died out, their estates had been wasted, and of the new race too
many, neglected in their education, were now dependant in their
circumstances. When the king arrived, they had flocked to London to put
in their claims upon his justice or generosity for their sufferings in
the royal cause, and had been received with specious condescension, and
sent home with empty pockets and magnificent expectations. But they had
learned at court to laugh at sobriety, to ridicule religion, and to
consider even common decency a mark of disloyalty, while they looked to
a rich harvest of fines and confiscations from the estates of the
remonstrators, as a reward for their sacrificing their principles and
profession at the shrine of prerogative. The commissioners for counties
and burghs were chosen entirely from among those who were considered
devoted to the court and averse to the strict Presbyterians. In some
cases, when persons of an opposite description had been returned, the
ruling party interfered and procured others to be substituted; and to
prevent such as were distinguished for their attachment to the cause of
religious freedom from offering themselves as candidates, they got them
accused of complying with the usurpers, and summoned as criminals.[10]

Footnote 10:

  Were it not that mankind have a strange propensity to reward with
  injury favours they feel too great to repay, and to heap injustice
  upon their benefactors in order to conceal their ingratitude, we would
  be astonished at the conduct of Charles; but having often, in private
  life, seen that to raise a wretch from penury, was to incur his
  hatred, if we did not, at the same time, rise in proportion. We
  confess that the ingratitude of princes to those who have succoured
  them in distress, ceases to excite those strong feelings of
  reprobation, which we have often heard men in humbler life, who were
  themselves guilty of grosser injustice, express against crimes, whose
  highest aggravation was, that they were committed by persons of rank.

From a parliament so constituted, the most servile compliance might have
been anticipated; but, to ensure their submission, an act of indemnity
had been withheld from Scotland; and, while every one dreaded his
individual safety, the whole assisted in destroying that public liberty
which might have afforded a better chance for security than the will of
a prince or the favour of a parasite. The regalia, always carried before
the commissioner at the opening of a session, were borne—the crown by
the Earl of Crawford, the sceptre by Sutherland, and the sword by Mar.
The Duke of Hamilton and the Marquis of Montrose rode immediately
behind. Mr Robert Douglas, who had preached the coronation sermon before
Charles when he was inaugurated at Scone, delivered upon this occasion a
faithful and appropriate discourse from 2 Chron. xix. 6.—“Take heed what
you do; for you judge not for man but for the Lord, who is with you in
the judgment.”

The Earl of Middleton’s commission was then presented, and, as had been
previously agreed upon, an act was brought forward to restore to the
Lord Chancellor the Presidentship of parliament. This act, which struck
at the root of the whole reformation in Scotland, deserves particular
notice. By several acts of the estates, passed during the troublous
times, particularly one of the last, held in 1651, at which the king
himself had presided, it was enacted, that, before entering upon
business, every member should swear and subscribe the covenant, without
which the constitution of parliament would become null and void. To have
set aside these statutes openly and at once, was thought too flagrant;
but it had also been enacted during the late struggle, that the
President of the parliament should be elected by parliament, instead of
the Chancellor nominated by the king; and it was therefore proposed to
abolish this privilege, as trenching upon the royal prerogative. In this
act, however, brought forward for that purpose, was inserted an oath of
allegiance, which went to annul all preceding oaths, and covertly to
revive the abhorred supremacy of the king. It was insidiously worded, in
order that those who wished to have an excuse for compliance might take
it without appearing undisguisedly to violate their former engagements,
yet sufficiently plain to justify a refusal by men who were not
altogether prepared to surrender their principles to their interest.

By it the sovereign was acknowledged only supreme governor in the
kingdom over all persons and in all causes; and it was declared that no
foreign prince, power, or state, nor person, civil nor ecclesiastic, had
any jurisdiction, power, or superiority over the same; “and therefore,”
it was added, “I utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions,
powers, and authorities, and shall, at my utmost power, defend, assist,
and maintain his majesty’s jurisdiction aforesaid against all deadly,
and never decline his majesty’s power and jurisdiction.” The consistent
and stricter part of the Presbyterians were not imposed upon. They
considered, and correctly as it afterwards appeared, that this was a
complete acknowledgment of the king’s ecclesiastical supremacy, and
conferred upon him the power to alter or innovate at his pleasure upon
the religion of the country. In parliament, however, almost the whole
took the oath without remark, except the Earls of Cassils and Melville
of the nobles, and the Laird of Kilburnie of the commissioners, who
would not subscribe it unless allowed to limit the king’s supremacy to
civil matters—an explanation which Middleton was disposed to admit of
verbally, but, knowing the extent to which allegiance was to be
required, he refused to permit this explanation to be recorded.

Having thus dispensed with the obligation of the covenant as a
parliament-oath, and reinstated his majesty in his ecclesiastical power,
they proceeded to restore to him a less questionable part of the
prerogative—the nomination of the officers of state, privy councillors,
and Lords of Session, the right of convoking and dissolving parliament,
of commanding the militia, and of making peace and war. These powers,
which are now deemed necessary for the support of the crown in regular
ordinary times, had been assumed by the estates of Scotland (1649) on
account of their abuse by the English ministers and favourites, at a
period when our country, from being the poorest of the two united
kingdoms, and the most distant from the immediate presence of the king,
was peculiarly liable to be oppressed by those who obtained possession
of the royal ear:—and the whole of the succeeding melancholy period,
evince but too clearly how well founded was the jealousy entertained of
the power intrusted to a monarch who was a non-resident. But what then
particularly disgusted the friends of freedom, was, to observe in their
re-enactment, the express unqualified avowal of the slavish tenets of
the divine rights of kings, and their accountability to God alone, the
assertion of which had occasioned all the troubles of the land, had
brought Charles I. to the block, and which was eventually to forfeit for
the Stuarts the throne of their fathers.

Sudden and astonishing as had been the revolution that had taken place
in the public feelings and morals, and outrageously violent as the
shoutings of newfangled loyalty had been against the treasons and
insults of the remonstrators, still the covenants were esteemed sacred
bonds by an imposing number of the worthiest part of the community, whom
it might not have been adviseable to shock too abruptly. These revered
engagements were therefore first attacked obliquely in an act which
purported merely to assert a constitutional truth respecting “his
majesty’s royal prerogative in making of leagues and the convention of
the subjects,” which, after narrating some enactments forbidding
councils, conventions, or assemblies, for determining matters of state,
civil or ecclesiastic, without his majesty’s command or license,
declared that any explanation or glosse that, during these troubles, had
been put upon these acts—“as, ‘that they are not to be extended against
any leagues, councils, conventions, assemblies, or meetings, made,
holden, or kept by the subjects for preservation of the king’s majesty,
the religion, laws, or liberties of the kingdom, or for the public good
either of kirk or kingdom,’ are false and disloyal.” No opposition
having been made to this act, a more decisive followed, annulling the
“pretended” convention of estates kept in 1643, which had entered into
the Solemn League and Covenant, but which, not having been convoked by
the king, although afterwards approved, afforded at least some pretext
for disallowing it. Next came an act “concerning the League and
Covenant, declaring that there was no obligation on the kingdom by
covenant to endeavour, by arms, a reformation of religion in the kingdom
of England; or to meddle in any seditious way in any thing concerning
the religion and government of the churches of England and Ireland.”
With this, perhaps, there was little quarrel. The attempts to obtain
uniformity in religion, and to procure a hollow profession of the form,
where the reality was notoriously wanting, was a political sin, for
which the covenanters had suffered severely already, and the repetition
of which it might be laudable to prevent; yet, as the Solemn League and
Covenant had been formally, fully, and repeatedly sanctioned by all the
members of the state in subsequent parliaments, and was by many good men
considered irreversible, it might have been more decorous to have
allowed it to remain a dead letter, especially as it had been renounced
by the English, and could not in such circumstances be acted upon by the
Scots. Considerable reluctance was expressed respecting this measure;
and, to silence opposition, the commissioner informed the House that he
had no orders from his royal master to encroach upon the National
Covenant or upon the consciences of the people; but as to leagues with
other nations, he conceived they could not now subsist with the laws of
the king. One honest man, however, had the courage publicly to avow that
he could do nothing against his lawful oath and covenant; and numbers
who could not approve of the act, silently withdrew. To make the
annulling of the covenant more palatable, the managers sweetened the
draught by an act against papists, priests, and jesuits, whose numbers
they asserted more abounded of late, and insinuated as if the covenants
had been the cause of the increase!

Preparatory to the bloody tragedy with which they were to conclude, an
act was passed approving of the engagement, and vilifying in the most
bitter terms all who opposed that expedition, ruinous equally to the
king and to the country; and another, condemning the transactions
respecting the delivering up of Charles I. at Newcastle, and declaring
the approval of them by the parliament, 1647, to have been the deed of a
few factious, disloyal persons, and not the deed of the nation. All the
acts which had been voted were embodied into a declaration, entitled an
acknowledgment of his majesty’s prerogative, which, together with the
oath of allegiance, every person holding a place of public trust was
required to subscribe, and all other persons who should be required by
his majesty’s privy council, or any having authority from them, should
be required to take and swear; and whoever should refuse or delay to
take them, were not only to be rendered incapable of any office of
public trust, but be looked upon as persons disaffected to his majesty’s
authority and government.

Hitherto, a majority of the Presbyterian ministers—the remonstrators
excepted—had remained silent, while those who, after Mr Douglas, were
employed to preach before parliament, shamefully flattered the
proceedings of the day, by declaiming against seditious bands and the
irregularity of the times, and inculcating the courtly doctrine of
gratitude for their gracious deliverance from tyranny and usurpation,
and for the miraculous restoration of the king—the duty of unlimited
confidence on the best of princes; and some went so far as to recommend
Episcopacy as that form of church-government that suited best with
monarchy; but when the plans of the managers began to be developed, even
the resolutioners were painfully constrained to suspect that they had
been duped, and that their brethren who wished at first to make an
explicit declaration of their fears, and to supplicate against
encroachment, acted the wiser and more reputable part. When too late,
they saw the folly of admitting to power men of bad principles, and
trusting either to their professions of repentance or the smallness of
their number. The ministers of Edinburgh now attempted to stem the
torrent; they had frequent interviews with the Earl of Middleton, who,
during the progress of the measures, treated them with respect and fair
promises. They entreated that, in the oath of allegiance, the supremacy
of the king might be restricted to his right as supreme governor in
civil affairs, and in ecclesiastical, as defined in the Confession of
Faith, ch. 23: that it might be declared by parliament that they did not
intend to make void the oath of God: and that an act might be passed
ratifying anew the Confession of Faith and Directory of Worship. His
Grace politely promised to transmit their desires to the king, and
requested that they would draw out an act of ratification, such as they
would consider satisfactory, and he would attend to it, which they
accordingly did.

But, while he was amusing them in this manner, a measure was in
progress—the wildest and most extravagant ever tried in any legislative
body—for which, however, the Scottish parliament, by a peculiarity in
its constitution, afforded every facility. That peculiarity consisted in
having a committee, called the Lords of the Articles, composed of from
eight to twelve persons of each estate, who prepared all the bills
brought before the House; so that when they were presented the members
had little else to do but to vote. This committee, at all times under
the influence of the crown, was, in the present instance, completely
devoted to the king’s pleasure, and ready to approve and propose
whatever he desired. Every thing had been so arranged by them, that the
parliament was only required to meet in the afternoon of two days in the
week,[11] where the important acts already noticed, together with others
of a civil nature, of scarcely less consequence, had passed
precipitately almost without discussion. Even this method, however,
seemed too slow for accomplishing the total overthrow of the work of
reformation, and an idea was now revived, which had been originally
suggested in a meeting at London by Sir George M’Kenzie of Tarbet, for
disannulling at one sweep the whole of the parliaments whose proceedings
were disagreeable to the present rulers, or presented any obstacle to
the establishment of unlimited despotism.

Footnote 11:

  Before this, it had been the custom for parliament to meet at nine
  o’clock, A.M. and sometimes earlier, while their committees met about
  seven to prepare the business.

Middleton had brought to Scotland, not only the high monarchical
principles, but the shameless manners of the English court, rendered
still more disgraceful by the regardless habits of a rough mercenary.
Short as were the sessions of parliament, and late in the day as they
met, he and his companions occasionally reeled to the House in such a
state, that an immediate adjournment became necessary. Their sederunts
at the Palace were more protracted; and the most important affairs were
settled on these occasions, when all difficulties were got rid of, with
a facility far beyond the reach of forenoon-disputants, engaging each
other in a dry debate. At some such carousal, a jocular remark of
Primrose’s is said to have decided the commissioner; and the draught of
a bill, rescinding all the parliaments which had met since 1640 as
illegal and rebellious, was framed and attempted to be hurried through
parliament with the same rapidity as the rest. An unexpected opposition
delayed its passage. As “that incomparable king,” Charles I., had freely
presided at one, and the king himself at two others, some of the best
affected to the court did not approve of an act, which they said went to
throw a slur upon the memory of the blessed martyr, and was highly
disrespectful to his present majesty. What staggered, however, even that
assemblage, base and servile as it was, was the danger of destroying all
the legal foundations of security for private property. If parliaments,
regularly constituted in the royal presence, could be thus easily set
aside, another parliament following the precedent might make this void,
and render the tenures of their rights and possessions as unstable as
they would be under the firman of an eastern sultan. To satisfy these,
it was expressly provided, that all acts, rights, and securities passed
in any of the pretended meetings, or by virtue thereof, in favour of any
particular persons for their civil and private interests, should stand
good and valid unto them, excepting only such as should be questioned
before the act of indemnity; and notwithstanding the efforts of the Earl
of Loudon, and a few others, a majority agreed to undo all that had been
done in favour of religion and liberty for the preceding twenty years,
and to wreath around their necks the yoke that had galled their fathers
for other twenty before.

Some indistinct rumours of the recissory act having reached the
ministers of Edinburgh, the presbytery assembled to draw up a
supplication, praying that their church-government might be preserved to
them amid this general wreck, and that some new civil sanction might be
granted in place of the statutes about to be repealed; and three of the
most complaisant were deputed to the commissioner, to show it before
presenting to parliament. His Grace prevailed upon them to delay doing
any thing in the business, and they, who appear to have been very
willing to oblige, acceded, and the bill passed, like all the rest,
without any representation by the ministers against it. Next day, when
they learned it had been voted by a large majority, a deputation of a
different stamp, with Mr David Dickson at their head, waited upon
Middleton to remonstrate; but he had attained his object, and they found
him in a very different mood. He received their paper in a very
discourteous manner, and told them they were mistaken if they thought to
terrify him with their papers—he was no coward. Dickson pointedly
replied—“He knew well his Grace was no coward, ever since the Bridge of
Dee”—a sarcasm the Earl seemed to feel, as he had there distinguished
himself, fighting in the cause of the covenant against the king’s army.
Nor did his chagrin abate when he was reminded of the vows he had made
to serve the Lord and his interest, in 1645, when under serious
impressions in the prospect of death; but turning round pettishly,
asked, “What do you talk to me for about a fit of the colic?” and
entirely refused to have any thing to do with their supplication.

An evasive deceitful act followed, allowing presbyteries and synods to
meet, but promising to make it his majesty’s care to settle the
government of the church in such a frame as should be most agreeable to
the word of God, most suitable to monarchical government, and most
complying with the public peace and quiet of the kingdom. It did not
tend to allay the fears of the ministers, who wrote an urgent letter to
Lauderdale, reminding him of their sufferings for the king, of the
steadiness of their loyalty, and their opposition to the heats of some
during the times of distraction; and entreating him, by his zeal for his
majesty’s service, and his love for his mother church, to interpose with
his majesty to prevent any prejudice to her established government, and
procure the calling of a General Assembly as the king had promised.
Public fasts were now kept in various parishes throughout the country,
and the synods met to prepare supplications for some confirmatory act to
set the people at rest with regard to their religion. No attention was
paid by the secretary to their application, and visiters were sent to
the different synods to prevent their taking any disagreeable steps, or
dissolve them if they proved refractory. Accordingly, the synod of
Dumfries was dissolved by Queensberry and Hartfield, who were both
exceedingly drunk at the time, and appear to have dispersed the
ministers with very little ceremony, and without any resistance. Fife
was equally quietly dismissed by the Earl of Rothes, who entered while
they were in the midst of their business; and, ordering them to dismiss
in the king’s name, they obeyed:[12] in their respective presbyteries,
they afterwards approved of a petition, and declared their adherence to
the principles of the church of Scotland. Glasgow and Ayr being the most
obnoxious, was discharged by proclamation, after they had drawn up a
supplication, which was delayed being presented through the manœuvres of
a few among themselves who afterwards became prelatic dignitaries. The
synod of Lothian split, and, at the desire of the Earl of Callendar,
suspended five of their most pious members, and removed two from their
charges before they were themselves forcibly turned off. The northern
judicatures were little disturbed, their majorities generally “falling
in with the times.”

Footnote 12:

  Lamont, in his usual _naive_ manner, thus narrates the
  transaction:—“1661, Apryll 2. The Provincial Assembly of Fyfe sat at
  St Andrew’s, where Mr David Forrest, minister of Kilconquhar, was
  moderator. After they had sitten a day, and condescended upon a peaper
  to be sent to his majestie, wishing he might be as good as his word,
  etc. [This, in reference, he had sent doune to the presbetry of
  Edinboroughe, Sept. 3, 1660.] As also speaking of another peaper to be
  intimat in the severall parish churches, to put peopell in mynde of
  ther oath to God in covenant, in caise that episcopacy sould againe he
  established in this land: as also speaking against something done by
  the present parliament, in cancelling the league and covenant with
  England, etc. The nixt day, in the afternoon, they were raised by the
  Earle of Rothes and the Laird of Ardrosse, two members of parliament,
  (young Balfour Beton being present with them for the tyme,) and
  desyred them, under the paine of treason, presently to repaire to
  their several charges, which they accordingly did. In the meane
  whille, the moderator offered to speake; and Rothes answered, Sir,
  wither doe ye speake as a private man, or as the mouth of this
  meeting? If you speake as the mouth of this meeting, you speake high
  treason and rebellion. After that, Mr David Forrest followed Rothes to
  his chamber, and spoke to him; and amonge other things, speaking of
  the covenant, he said, that few or none of ther meeting bot had
  ministered the covenant to hundreds, bot for himsef he had tendered it
  to thousands; and if he sould be silent at this time, and speake
  nothing of it, bot betray the peopell, he said he wist not what he
  deserved—hanging were too little for him. Rothes professed to this
  judicatory that it was sore against his will that he came to that
  employment. However, many of the ministrie blames Mr James Sharpe,
  minister of Craill, for the present chaplaine to his majesties
  commissioner, Earle of Middleton, for ther scattering; for he wrat
  over to some of them some dayes before, that a storme was like to
  breake; and the said Mr David Forrest said of him that he was the
  greatest knave that ever was in the kirke of Scotlande.”

The remaining acts of this parliament, respecting ecclesiastical
affairs, and which became instruments of cruelty and grounds of
persecution, were, the seventeenth, enjoining the 29th of May—the
anniversary of the Restoration, also the king’s birth-day—to be set
apart as a day holy unto the Lord for ever, to be part employed in
public prayers, thanksgiving, preaching, and praises to God for so
transcendent mercies, and the remaining part spent in lawful diversions
suited to so solemn an occasion; and the thirty-sixth, restoring “the
unreasonable and unchristian burden of patrons and presentations” upon
the church.

Having virtually subverted Presbytery, restored every abolished abuse,
and obtained in the preambles of several of their acts repeated
expressions of the parliament’s detestation and abhorrence of all that
was done in the “rebellious and distracted times,” it was requisite that
those who had been the most strenuous assertors of the civil and
religious rights of their country, and who had been the chief
instruments of the late Reformation, should be punished for their
temerity. Accordingly, the most noble the Marquis of Argyle, who stood
first on the list, was, on the 13th of February, brought to trial. He
had been sent down from London by sea, along with Swinton of that ilk,
in the latter end of 1660, and had encountered that storm in which the
records of Scotland were lost;[13] since when he had lain in the Castle;
but the first hurry being over, his case was proceeded in—the
commissioner anticipating a reward for his services from the
confiscation of his estates.

Footnote 13:

  These had been seized and sent to London by the English during the
  civil war, and, upon the Restoration, were ordered to be returned to
  Scotland; but, as it was supposed the original Covenant which Charles
  had signed was among them, they were detained on purpose to search for
  it, in order to destroy it, till late in the season, when the weather
  became tempestuous, and the vessel that carried them was lost.

His activity in the cause of religion, and the great power he had long
enjoyed, had created him many enemies, and gave rise to many calumnies,
which made even his friends dread the investigation. But the most
painful endeavours could establish nothing against him, except his
compelled submission to the English, after every county in Scotland had
acknowledged their superiority. His indictment consisted of fourteen
distinct charges, narrating almost all the public acts of the nation in
which he had had any share, since his first joining the covenanters,
till the final protectorate of Richard Cromwell, and attributing to him
as treasonable acts, his concurrence with the different parliaments, or
his obedience to their orders, and his submission to the usurper’s
government, and sitting and voting in his parliament, together with
having positively advised Cromwell and Ireton, in a conference in 1648,
to take away the late king’s life, without which they could not be safe,
or at least knew and concealed the horrid design. The last charge, which
the Marquis strenuously denied, was not insisted on; nor does there
appear to have been any foundation for it.

In his reply, he enumerated all the favours he had received from the
former and the reigning sovereign, and desired the parliament to
consider how unlikely it was that he should have entertained any design
to the hurt or dishonour of either. He could say with Paul in another
case, the things alleged against him could not be proven; but this he
would confess, that, in the way allowed by solemn oaths and covenants,
he served his God, his king, and country: he besought those who were
capable of understanding, when those things for which he was challenged
were acted, to recollect what was the conduct of the whole kingdom at
the time, and how both themselves and others were led on in these
actions without any rebellious inclination; and entreated those who were
then young to be charitable to their predecessors, and to censure
sparingly these actions, with all the circumstances of which they were
unacquainted; for often the smallest circumstance altered entirely the
nature of an action. In all popular and universal insurrections
_communis error facit jus: et consuetudo peccandi minuit crimen et
pænam_. As to what he had done before the year 1651, he pled his
majesty’s indemnity granted in the parliament at Perth; and for what he
had done since, under the usurpers, they were but common compliances,
wherein all the kingdom did share equally, and for doing which many had
express allowance from his majesty, who declared he thought it prudence,
and not rebellion, for honest men to preserve themselves from ruin, and
thereby reserve themselves till God should show some probable way for
his return. Besides, among all those who complied passively, none was
less favoured by the usurpers than himself—what he did was but
self-defence, and, being the effect of force, could not amount to a
crime.

When he had finished, his advocates, Messrs Sinclair, Cunningham, and
M’Kenzie, afterwards Sir George, protested, that, seeing they stood
there by order of parliament, whatever should escape them in pleading
for the life, honour, and estate of their client, might not thereafter
be brought against them as treasonable—a common form and usually
sustained; but on this occasion the parliament would not admit the
protestation, lest they might allow themselves upon that pretext the
liberty of speaking things prejudicial to his majesty’s government, and
therefore desired them to speak at their peril. His advocates being
strangers to his cause, as the ones he wished were afraid to appear, he
requested a short delay to prepare his defence fully; but this being
referred to the Lords of the Articles, they cruelly denied his
reasonable request; upon which he gave in a supplication and submission,
throwing himself entirely upon the king’s mercy, and entreating the
intercession of the parliament on his behalf. This, also, they refused
to listen to.

After which, his lordship gave in a bill, desiring to be remitted for
trial before the justice court, as the intricacy of his case would
require learned judges. Nor was it to be supposed that every gentleman
or burgess could understand points of law; neither were they his peers;
and a nobleman should be judged by his peers. His prosecutors, bent upon
his ruin, construed this application into a declining the jurisdiction
of parliament, and required him to own it, or inform them who had
written the petition. The Marquis, perceiving that every possible
advantage would be taken against him, was extremely perplexed; but his
advisers avowed the paper, and, after a warm debate, the petition was
rejected, but the advocates were excused. He then requested to be
allowed the benefit of exculpatory proof, and to bring forward
witnesses, who could either attest his innocence or give such
explanations as would alleviate his guilt; even this, the last privilege
of the lowest criminal, he could not obtain, and was commanded
immediately to proceed to his defence—likewise an unusual and oppressive
mode of procedure, as it had been customary to discuss first the
relevancy of the indictment; that is, whether the facts charged actually
constituted the crimes alleged, and thus to give the accused a chance of
escape from a cumulative treason, or from any legal informality that
might occur.

All the Marquis’s reasonable requests and objections being thus disposed
of, his defences, with the Lord Advocate’s replies, duplies, and
triplies—papers of enormous length—were fully read before parliament, as
tiresome, tedious, and unfair a mode of conducting a trial before a
court, consisting of some hundred individuals, as could possibly have
been contrived. When ended, a debate ensued, and the Lord Advocate
restricted his charge to the acts committed after 1651, a letter having
been procured from the king forbidding any person to be prosecuted for
any deed antecedent to the indemnity of that year. This letter, which
was understood to have been procured by Lauderdale and Lorn—who had
staid at London to attend to his father’s interest—somewhat disconcerted
the managers, who were now persuaded that the secretary had espoused
Argyle’s cause; and therefore, to counteract this influence, dispatched
Glencairn and Rothes to court, with a letter from parliament approving
of the whole proceedings, accompanied by Mr James Sharpe, to inform his
majesty respecting the state of the church.

Glencairn actively stirred up the vindictive feelings of the treacherous
Monk and the bigoted Hyde, while Rothes reminded Lauderdale of the
former treatment he had received from the Marquis, how dangerous a
competitor he might yet be if he escaped, and hinted at the imprudence
of committing himself too far with a declining faction. Their arguments
prevailed; and, from the date of their arrival, repeated expresses were
sent down to Scotland, urging forward the trial.

The relevancy having been sustained, proof was led with regard to his
compliance with the usurpers; but the evidence was by no means
satisfactory, especially to judges almost all of whom had been ten times
more deeply implicated than he, and the issue was doubtful; when, after
the debate and examination were closed, and parliament was proceeding to
consider the whole matter, an express from London knocked violently at
the door. Upon being admitted, he presented a packet to the
commissioner, which was believed to be a pardon or some warrant in
favour of the Marquis, especially as the bearer was a Campbell, but,
upon its being opened, it was found to contain a great many letters
addressed by Argyle to Monk when commanding in Scotland, which he had
perfidiously reserved, to produce, if absolutely necessary, for the
conviction of his former friend; and, on being informed by the
commissioner’s agents of the “scantiness of probation,” had transmitted
them by post to supply the deficiency. There was now no room for
hesitation; the parliament were perfectly satisfied that the rebel
English General had received the reluctant submission and forced
co-operation of the last royalist nobleman in Scotland who yielded to
the fortune of the victorious republicans, and therefore Argyle was
guilty of a treason which Monk had obliged him to commit! The proof of
his compliance was complete; and next day he was condemned and
forfeited. The manner of his execution was put to the vote, “hang or
behead,” when it was carried that he should be beheaded, and his head
placed on the same spike, on the top of the tolbooth, whence Montrose’s
had been but lately removed.

During the whole of his protracted trial, which lasted from the 13th of
February till the 25th of May, his behaviour was meek and composed,
although attacked with the most virulent abuse by the reptiles who
crouched before him in the hour of his prosperity. When in his own
defence he asked, how could I suppose that I was acting criminally, when
the learned gentleman, his majesty’s advocate, took the same oaths to
the Commonwealth with myself? Sir John Fletcher replied to a question he
could not answer, by calling him an impudent villain. The Marquis mildly
said, he had learned in his affliction to endure reproach. After his
case appeared desperate, his friends planned an escape, partly by force,
and partly by stratagem, and a number of resolute gentlemen had engaged
in it; but, after he had consented, and had even put on a female dress,
in which he was to be carried out of the Castle, he changed his mind,
threw aside his disguise, and declared he was determined not to disown
the cause he had so long appeared for, but was resolved to suffer to the
utmost.

When brought to receive sentence, there were but few, and these the most
determined time-serving sycophants, in the House, shame or compassion
preventing a number who had decided his fate from hearing it announced;
yet even they could not help moralizing on the mutability of human
glory, though, when he requested a delay of only ten days that the king
might be acquainted with the result of his trial, they refused that
short interval, and prevented his last chance of mercy!

He heard his sentence with equanimity. The Earl of Crawford, who
pronounced it in absence of the Chancellor, told him he must receive it
kneeling, and he immediately knelt, saying, “That I will with all
humility.” When rising, he remarked, “I had the honour to put the crown
upon the king’s head, may God bestow on him a crown of glory. Now he
hastens me to a better crown than his own.”[14] Then addressing the
commissioner and parliament, “you have the indemnity of an earthly
king,” said he, “among your hands, and have denied me a share in that;
but you cannot hinder me from the indemnity of the King of kings; and
shortly you must be before his tribunal. I pray he may not mete out such
measure to you as you have done to me, when you are called to account
for all your actings, and this among the rest.”

Footnote 14:

  Kirkton, p. 103, _et seq._

After sentence, he was conducted to the common jail, where his lady was
waiting for him. “They have given me,” said he as he entered, “till
Monday, my dear, to be with you; let us improve it.” As she embraced
him, she sobbed out—“The Lord will require it! The Lord will require
it!” and wept bitterly. Nor could the officer who attended him, nor any
who were present, avoid shedding tears at the scene. The Marquis, too,
was at first considerably affected, but becoming composed, “Forbear!”
said he affectionately to the Marchioness, “forbear! truly I pity
them—they know not what they are doing. They may shut me in where they
please, they cannot shut out God from me; for my part, I am as content
to be here as in the Castle. I was as content in the Castle as in the
Tower of London; and as content there as when at liberty; and I hope to
be as content on the scaffold as in any of them all.” He then added, “he
remembered a text that had been cited to him by an honest minister—‘When
Ziglag was taken and burnt, the people spake of stoning David; but he
encouraged himself in the Lord.’”

The solemn interval he spent in exercises befitting a dying Christian;
and though rather of a timid disposition, yet during the short space
that now separated him from eternity, and with the immediate prospect of
a violent death, his mind was elevated above his natural temper, and he
desired those about him to observe “that the Lord had heard his prayers,
and removed all fear from him.” To some ministers permitted to attend
him, he said, “that they would shortly envy him who had got before,”
adding, “mind I tell it you; my skill fails me if you who are ministers
will not either suffer much or sin much; for though you go along with
these men in part, if you do it not in all things, you are but where you
were, and so must suffer; and if you go not at all with them you can but
suffer.” Mr Robert Douglas and Mr George Hutchison preached in the
tolbooth, at his desire, on the Lord’s day; and at night his lady, at
his particular request, took leave. Mr David Dickson spent the last
night with him that he spent on earth, which passed delightfully in
prayer, praise, and spiritual conversation, except a few hours he
enjoyed of calm and tranquil repose. On Monday, he rose early, and was
much occupied in settling his worldly affairs; but, while signing some
conveyances, his spiritual joy was such, that he exclaimed with rapture
before the company, “I thought to have concealed the Lord’s goodness,
but it will not do. I am now ordering my affairs, and God is sealing my
charter to a better inheritance, saying, ‘Son, be of good cheer; thy
sins are forgiven thee.’” He wrote a letter to the king, expressing his
satisfaction that nothing had been proved against him but his being
forced to submit to the unlawful power of usurping rebels—the epidemic
and fault of the time—praying his majesty’s princely goodness and favour
to his wife and family after his decease, and requesting that his just
debts might be allowed to be paid out of his estate. He dined with a
number of friends at twelve o’clock; after which he retired a little,
and returned from his private devotions in a holy rapture. A sense of
the forgiveness of his sins made the tears of joy run from his eyes;
and, turning to Mr Hutchison, “I think,” said he, “His kindness
overcomes me, but God is good to me; he lets not out too much of it
here, for he knows I could not bear it;” and, thinking the time was
expired, added, “Get me my cloak—let us go;” but being told that the
clock had been put back, he answered they were far in the wrong, and
kneeled down and prayed. As he ended, notice was sent that the bailies
waited him, upon which he called for a glass of wine, and asked a
blessing. Then he declared his readiness—“Now let us go, and God go with
us.” When leaving the room, he said to those who remained, “I could die
like a Roman, but choose rather to die as a Christian. Come away,
gentlemen; he that goes first goes cleanliest.” Calling Mr Guthrie as he
went down, he embraced him and took farewell. Mr Guthrie’s parting
benediction was—“My lord, God hath been with you, he is with you, and He
will be with you; and such is my respect for your lordship, that, if I
were not under the sentence of death myself, I could cheerfully die for
your lordship.”

The Marquis was accompanied to the place of execution by several
noblemen and gentlemen in mourning. He walked steadily down the street,
and, with the greatest serenity, mounted the scaffold, which was filled
with his friends, of whom he had given in a list, and whose names were
contained in a warrant subscribed by the commissioner. After Mr
Hutchison had prayed, his lordship addressed the spectators. He did not
attempt any explanation of his conduct. “I came not here,” were his
humble expressions, “to justify myself but the Lord, who is holy in all
his ways and righteous in all his works; holy and blessed is his name.
Neither came I to condemn others. I know many will expect that I should
speak against the hardness of the sentence pronounced against me, but I
will say nothing of it. I bless the Lord, I pardon all men, as I desire
to be pardoned of the Lord myself: let the will of the Lord be done.” He
then, as in the presence of God, disclaimed having entered upon the work
of reformation from any motive of self-interest or personal
dissatisfaction with the government. He had ever been cordial in his
desires to bring the king home, and in his endeavours for him when he
was at home; nor had he ever corresponded with his enemies during the
time he was in the country. “I confess,” he continued, “many look on my
condition as a suffering condition; but I bless God, He who hath gone
before, hath trode the wine-press of the Father’s wrath, by whose
sufferings I hope my sufferings shall not be eternal. I shall not speak
much to those things for which I am condemned, lest I seem to condemn
others. I wish the Lord to pardon them. I say no more.”

Then changing the subject, he continued—“There are some, and those not
openly profane, who, if their private interest go well, they care not
whether religion or the church of God sink or swim. But, whatever they
think, God hath laid engagements on Scotland. We are tyed by covenants
to religion and reformation, and it passeth the power of all magistrates
under heaven to absolve a man from the oath of God. It is the duty of
every Christian to be loyal; but God must have his as well as Cæsar.
Religion must not be secondary. They are the best subjects who are the
best Christians. These times are like to prove very sinning times or
very suffering times; and let Christians make their choice; and truely
he that would choose the better part would choose to suffer. Others that
will choose to sin will not escape suffering. Yet I cannot say of mine
own condition, but that the Lord in his providence hath mind of mercy to
me even in this world; for if I had been more favourably dealt with, I
fear I might have been overcome with temptations, as many others are,
and many more I fear will be; yea, blessed be his name, I am kept from
present evil and evil to come! I have no more to say but to beg the
Lord, since I go away, he would bless them who stay behind.”[15]

Footnote 15:

  Sir George M’Kenzie, an unquestionable evidence, says—“At his death he
  showed much stayedness, as appeared by all his gestures, but
  especially by his speaking to the people, without any commotion, and
  with his ordinary gestures.” _History_, p. 47.

Having again spent some time in devotion, he distributed some last
tokens of remembrance to the friends who were with him. To the Earl of
Caithness, his son-in-law, he gave his watch, saying, with a smile, it
was fit for men to pay their debts; and having promised him that watch,
he now performed it. After his doublet was off, and immediately before
he laid his head upon the block, he addressed those near him—“Gentlemen,
I desire you and all that hear me, again to take notice and remember,
that, now when I am entering into eternity and to appear before my
Judge, and as I desire salvation and expect eternal happiness from him,
I am free from any accession, by knowledge, contriving, counsel, or any
other ways, to his late majesty’s death; and I pray the Lord to preserve
our present king his majesty, and to pour his best blessings upon his
person and government; and the Lord give him good and faithful
councillors.” Mr Hutchison, his attendant minister, on bidding him
finally adieu, used a Scottish phrase, peculiarly emphatic—“My lord, now
hold your grip sicker.” The appropriate force of the expression was felt
by the sufferer. “You know, Mr Hutchison, what I said to you in the
chamber, I am not afraid to be surprised with fear;” and the Laird of
Skelmorlie, who took him by the hand at this awful moment, felt that no
tremour in his veins belied the assertion. He then knelt, offered up his
last prayer, and upon dropping his hands, the appointed signal, the axe
of the maiden fell, and his spirit fled to his God and Saviour. His body
was carried to Dunoon, and buried in Kilmun church.

Argyle has ever, by the unanimous verdict of his Presbyterian
countrymen, been considered a martyr, not for the form, but for the
reality of their religion. The form, perhaps, he might have consented to
modify—the essence he never durst think of forsaking. There was a
consistency in his adherence to his principles that claims our
admiration, especially as he sealed his testimony by his blood. He may
have given, as many of the excellent men of his day did, an undue
importance to points of inferior moment, but the fundamental truths of
the gospel were his hope, as, in so far as we can trust the testimony of
his friends, its precepts had been the rule of his life. It is
refreshing to know that his persecutors did not share his spoil. Through
the intercession of Lauderdale, Lorn procured from the king all his
father’s estates and titles, except that of Marquis.

Mr James Guthrie, minister at Stirling, remarkable for his piety, zeal,
and consistency in the cause of reformation-principles, followed his
friend to trial and judgment.[16] He was peculiarly obnoxious to
Middleton, having pronounced sentence of excommunication upon him, and
was considered the chief of the remonstrators, who had uniformly
resisted communion with the malignants; but he was no less distinguished
for his intrepid opposition to the government of Cromwell, whom he had
boldly stigmatized as an usurper, at the time when all those who now
made such flaming professions of loyalty had crouched before him.
Revered and popular among the lower ranks, he was not less respected
among the worthy of the higher; for, although constrained by terror to
condemn, no political victim was ever sacrificed with more reluctance by
the subordinate ranks of the priesthood of mammon, than was James
Guthrie; and even the Moloch at whose shrine he was immolated, expressed
his regret, and bore testimony to his worth—“Had I known,” said the
callous-hearted Charles, when he heard of Mr Gillespie being suffered to
live, “that they would have spared Gillespie, I would have saved
Guthrie!”—a noble testimony, but happily too late to deprive that holy
man of the honour his Lord had provided for him with them who were slain
for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. He was
arraigned before a court, of which the director and the president were
his personal enemies, and of which a majority had already prejudged his
case. His pursuers were men who had yielded to the blast that he had
braved, who had deserted their prince in the hour of his extremity, had
flattered the very powers that he had withstood, yet now came forward
with a flagrant effrontery to charge him with favouring an usurpation to
which they had done homage, but which he had suffered for withstanding.

Footnote 16:

  “He was the son of the Laird of Guthrie, and so a gentleman. When he
  was regent in St Andrew’s, he was very episcopal, and was with
  difficulty persuaded to take the covenant. There goes a story, that,
  when he first yielded to join with the covenanters in Mr Samuel
  Rutherford’s chamber, as he came out at his door, he mett the
  executioner in the way, which troubled him; and the next visit he made
  thither, he mett him in the same manner again, which made him
  apprehend he might be a sufferer for the covenant, as indeed he was.”
  _Kirkton’s Hist._ p. 109.

On the 20th of February, he received his indictment, the general charges
of which were—his accession to the remonstrance—his writing and
publishing that abominable pamphlet, “The Causes of God’s Wrath”[17]—his
contriving, and writing, and subscribing “The humble Supplication of 23d
August last”—but, chiefly, his declining, in the year 1650, his
majesty’s power in matters purely ecclesiastical, which branch of the
royal prerogative the present managers were determined to assert, as
they traced, and justly, the chief, if not the whole, of the misery the
nation had endured under the king’s father and grandfather, to the
opposition made by the ministry to this anti-scriptural jurisdiction,
or, in the language of Sir George M’Kenzie, “because this principle had
not only vexed King James, but was the occasion of much rebellion.” The
indictment, framed upon certain obsolete or repealed acts in favour of
popery, prelacy, or the kingly power, passed before the last full
establishment of Presbytery, charged him with convoking the lieges
without warrant or authority to the disturbance of the state and church.
After it had been read, he addressed the Lord Chancellor—

Footnote 17:

  “The Causes of God’s Wrath,” printed after the fatal defeat at
  Worcester, which ruined the hopes of the Presbyterians and their
  covenanted king, contained a faithful and pungent enumeration of the
  sins of all ranks, public and personal, in which the misconduct of the
  royal family and of the nobles—their defections from duty and the
  oaths of the covenant in public, and the immorality and ungodliness of
  their conduct in private—were treated with great plainness and
  particularity, accompanied with strong exhortations to repentance as
  the only way to avert the judgments of an offended God. Nor were the
  sins of the ministry or the people slightly passed over; it was an
  earnest, deep call upon the nation to consider their ways at a time of
  great public suffering, when the land had been scourged by the
  presence of two armies, of which their own had not been the least
  oppressive, and when a threatened famine and an actual scarcity was
  afflicting them. Its truth was its treason—it had the honour of being
  burned.

“He was glad,” he said, for he pled his own cause, “that the law of God
was named first as being indeed the only supreme law, to which all other
laws ought to be subordinate; and there being an act of the first
parliament of James VI., by which all clauses of laws or acts of
parliament repugnant to the word of God were repealed, he hoped their
lordships would give most respect to this, that he might be judged by
the law of God especially, and by other laws in subordination thereto.
As to the acts of parliament upon which he was arraigned, he asserted
the legal maxim, that where any difference between acts occurs, the last
is that only which is to be considered obligatory; and he farther
affirmed, what almost all his judges had previously, repeatedly, and
upon oath allowed, that it must also be granted that laws and acts of
parliament were to be understood and expounded by those solemn public
vows and covenants contracted with God by his majesty and subjects,
which were not only declared by the laws of the land to have the
strength of acts of parliament, but, both by the law of God and common
law and light of all the nations in the world, are more binding and
indispensable than any municipal law and statute whatever.”

The general charge of abetting Cromwell, he defied all the world to
prove if he had justice allowed him; nor was it attempted. His approval
of the remonstrance he did not deny, but this he only did in a legal
manner, as a member of a legal assembly. His participation in the
authorship of “The Causes of God’s Wrath,” he avowed and defended. But
in this he said he acted merely and singly from a constraining power of
conscience to be found faithful as a minister of the gospel, in the
discovering of sin and guiltiness, that it being acknowledged and
repented of, wrath might be taken away from the house of the king and
from these kingdoms. “Your lordship knows,” continued he, “what charge
is laid upon ministers of the gospel, to give faithful warning to all
sorts of persons, and how they expose their own souls to the hazard of
eternal damnation, and the guilt of the blood of those with whom they
have to do, if they do not this. And you do also know, that the prophets
and apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ himself did faithfully warn all
men, though it was their lot, because of the same, to be reckoned
traitors and seditious persons. My lord, I wish it seriously to be
pondered, that nothing is asserted in these “Causes” as matter of sin
and duty, but what hath been the common received doctrine of the church
of Scotland, the truth of which is confirmed from the word of God; and
as to matters of fact, as far as regards the royal family, they are no
other than are mentioned in the solemn public causes of humiliation
condescended upon and kept by the whole church jointly, and his majesty
and family, with the commission of the General Assembly and committee of
estates, before his coronation at Perth.”

He also avowed the “Supplication” at Edinburgh, which he vindicated as
containing nothing more than a humble petition concerning those things
to which his majesty and all his subjects were engaged by the solemn
irreversible oath of the covenant, with a serious representation of the
dangers threatening religion, and the duties of that sacred obligation,
and did only put his majesty in remembrance of holding fast the oaths of
the covenant. The meeting was presbyterial, and therefore legal; and
was, besides, a quiet, orderly convocation, without tumult, and
requiring no particular warrant.

Respecting his declining the king’s authority in things sacred, he
unhesitatingly acknowledged that he did decline the civil magistrate as
a competent judge of ministers’ doctrine in the first instance.[18] His
authority in all things civil, he said he did with all his heart allow;
but such declinations were agreeable to the word of God, which clearly
holds forth that Christ hath a visible kingdom, which he exercises in or
over his visible members by his spiritual officers, which is wholly
distinct from the civil power and government of the world—to the
Confession of Faith and doctrine of the church of Scotland, which
acknowledge no head over the church of Christ but himself, nor any
judgment or power in or over his church, but that which he hath
committed to the spiritual office-bearers thereof under him, and had
been the ordinary practice of that kirk since the time of the
reformation from Popery; and were also agreeable to, and founded on, the
National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant, by which the king’s
majesty himself, and all the subjects of that kingdom, were bound to
maintain the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of that
church, with solemn vows and public oaths of God. “Upon these grounds,
therefore,” said he, “it is that I gave in and do assert that
declination for vindicating the cause, dignity, and royal prerogative of
Jesus Christ, who is King of kings and Lord of lords, but with all due
respect to his majesty, his greatness, and authority.” Then, after
discussing the several acts of parliament that had been quoted, he thus
concluded an able and argumentative speech:—

Footnote 18:

  The error of these good men was, in allowing the civil magistrate the
  right of judging of a minister’s doctrine in any case whatever, so
  long as he kept within the proper bounds of his pastoral duty, and
  inculcated only religious tenets, and did not meddle with seditious or
  treasonable matters.

“That I did never purpose or intend to speak or act any thing disloyal,
seditious, or treasonable against his majesty’s person, authority, or
government, God is my witness; and that what I have written, spoken, or
acted, in any of those things wherewith I am charged, hath been merely
and singly from a principle of conscience; that, according to the weak
measure of light given me of God, I might do my duty in my station and
calling as a minister of the gospel. But because the plea of conscience
alone, although it may extenuate, cannot wholly excuse, I do assert that
I have founded my speeches, writings, and actings, in these matters, on
the word of God, and on the doctrine, Confession of Faith, and laws of
this church and kingdom—upon the National Covenant of Scotland, and the
Solemn League and Covenant between these three kingdoms. If these
foundations fall, I must fall with them; but if these sustain and stand
in judgment, as I hope they will, I cannot acknowledge myself, neither I
hope will his majesty’s commissioner and the honourable court of
parliament judge me, guilty either of sedition or treason.”

This trial lasted from the 20th of February till the 15th of April; and
the most strenuous efforts were made to induce Mr Guthrie to submit and
plead for mercy. He was even offered a bishopric; but he deemed the
object for which he contended too important to be yielded up for any
consideration of temporal aggrandizement. When the protracted
proceedings were drawing to a close, on the 11th of April, after his
defences, which were very elaborate, had been read, he finished his
pleading by a pointed and solemn appeal, which was heard with the most
profound attention, and induced a number to withdraw, declaring, in the
language of Scripture, “They would have nothing to do with the blood of
that righteous man.”

Addressing the Chancellor, “My lord,” said the intrepid minister in
conclusion, “I shall, in the last place, humbly beg—having brought such
pregnant and clear evidence from the word of God, so much divine reason
and human law, and so much of the common practice of the kirk and
kingdom in my own defence; and being already cast out of my ministry,
driven from my dwelling, and deprived of my maintenance, myself and my
family thrown upon the charity of others; and having now suffered eight
months’ imprisonment—that your lordships would put no farther burden
upon me. But, in the words of the prophet, ‘Behold! I am in your hands,
do to me what seemeth good to you.’ I know for certain that the Lord
hath commanded me to speak all these things, and that if you put me to
death you shall bring innocent blood upon yourself and upon the
inhabitants of this city. My lord! my conscience I cannot submit; but
this old crazy body and mortal flesh I do submit to do with whatever you
will, whether by death, by banishment, or imprisonment, or any thing
else, only I beseech you ponder well what profit there is in my blood;
it is not extinguishing me or many others that will extinguish the
covenant and the work of reformation since 1638. No! my bondage,
banishment, or blood, will contribute more for their extension than my
life or liberty could, were I to live many years. I wish to my Lord
Commissioner, his Grace, and to all your lordships, the spirit of
judgment, wisdom, and understanding, and the fear of the Lord, that you
may judge righteous judgment, in which God may have glory, the king
honour and happiness, and yourselves peace in the great day of
accounts.” But all was of no avail; his life was determined on as an
example to the ministers, and he was found guilty, upon his own
confession, of the charges brought against him. Sentence was delayed
till the 28th of May, when the doom of a traitor was pronounced by the
Earl of Crawford, in absence of the Chancellor. As he arose from his
knees—for he had been ordered to kneel—“My lords,” said he, “may never
this sentence more affect you than it does me; and let never my blood be
required of the king’s family!” He had assisted in managing his defence
with an eloquence, acuteness, and legal knowledge, that drew forth the
admiration of the professional gentlemen who were his advocates.

When his case was decided, and he was removed to wait till his sentence
was written out, while he remained amid the soldiers, and officers, and
servants of the court, he afterwards declared he never felt more of the
sensible presence of God, of the sweet intimations of peace, and the
real manifestations of divine love and favour, than when surrounded with
all their bustle and confusion. From that time till he went to the
scaffold, he remained in a serene, tranquil frame of mind. On the day of
his execution, June 1, several of his friends dined with him, when not
only his cheerfulness, but even his pleasantry, did not forsake him.
After dinner, he jocularly called for a little cheese, of which he was
very fond, but had been forbid by his physicians to eat on account of a
gravelish complaint, saying, “I hope I am now beyond reach of the
gravel.”

He delivered his last speech from the ladder with the same composed
earnestness with which he was wont to deliver his sermons. “He thanked
God that he suffered willingly, having had it in his power to have made
his escape, or by compliance to have obtained favour, but he durst not
redeem his life with the loss of his integrity.” “I bless God,” he
proceeded, “that I die not as a fool, not that I have any thing wherein
to glory in myself. But I do believe that Jesus Christ came into the
world to save sinners, whereof I am chief; through faith in his
righteousness and blood, I have obtained mercy, and through him and him
alone have I the blessed hope of a blessed conquest over sin and Satan,
death and hell, and that I shall attain unto the resurrection of the
just, and be made partaker of eternal life. I know in whom I have
believed, and that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him
unto that day. I have preached salvation through his name; and as I have
preached, so do I believe, and do recommend the riches of his free grace
and faith in his name unto you all, as the only way whereby ye can be
saved.”

“And,” continued he, “as I bless the Lord I die not as a fool, so also
that I die not for evil-doing. God is my record, that in these things
for which sentence of death is passed against me, I have a good
conscience. My heart is conscious of no disloyalty. The matters for
which I am condemned, are matters belonging to my calling and function
as a minister of the gospel; such as discovering and reproving of sin,
the pressing and holding fast of the oath of God in the covenant, and
preserving and carrying on the work of reformation according thereto,
and denying to acknowledge the civil magistrate as the proper,
competent, immediate judge in causes ecclesiastical.” He then warned his
hearers that the wrath of God was hanging over the land for that deluge
of profanity that was overflowing it; for their perjury and breach of
covenant—“Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this! shall he break the
covenant and prosper? shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with
God, which frameth mischief by a law?” for their ingratitude; for their
dreadful idolatry and sacrificing to the creature—a corruptible man, in
whom many had placed almost all their salvation and all their desire;
for a generation of carnal, time-serving ministers, men who minded
earthly things, enemies to the cross of Christ, who pushed with the side
and shoulder, who strengthen the hands of evil-doers, and make
themselves transgressors by studying to build again what they did
formerly warrantably destroy.

Next, he earnestly exhorted the profane, the lukewarm, and the
indifferent, to repentance, and the godly to confidence and zeal,
expressing his belief that God would neither desert his people nor cause
in Scotland. “There is yet,” exclaimed he, “a holy seed, a precious
remnant, whom God will preserve and bring forth; but how long or dark
our night may be, I do not know; the Lord shorten it for the sake of his
chosen. In the mean while, be patient, steadfast, and immovable, always
abounding in the work of the Lord. Beware of snares, decline not the
cross, and account the reproach of Christ greater riches than all the
treasure of the world. Let my death grieve none of you. I forgive all
men the guilt of it, and I desire you to do so also. Pray for them that
persecute you; bless them that curse you; bless, I say, and curse not!”
After bearing testimony to the faith of the gospel, the doctrine and
discipline of the church of Scotland, the protestation, and against the
course of backsliding then afoot in the land,

He ended in this strain of triumphant exultation, well becoming a martyr
for the truth—“Jesus Christ is my light and my life, my righteousness,
my strength, and my salvation, and all my desire. Him! O him! do I with
the strength of all my soul commend unto you; blessed are they that are
not offended in him. Bless him, O my soul! from henceforth even for
ever. Rejoice, rejoice all ye that love him; be patient and rejoice in
tribulation. Blessed are you, and blessed shall you be for ever and
ever. Everlasting righteousness and eternal salvation is yours; all is
yours; and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s!” His last words
were—“Remember me, O Lord, with the favour thou bearest to thy people. O
visit me with thy salvation, that I may see the good of thy chosen; that
I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation; that I may glory with thine
inheritance. Now let thy servant depart in peace, since my eyes have
seen thy salvation!”

An obscure individual, named William, sometimes Captain, Govan, was
executed along with Mr Guthrie. He met death with the same joyful
confidence, resting on the same sure foundation. For what specific
charges he suffered, is uncertain. In his speech which he left, he says
it was for laying down his arms at Hamilton, as all the company did. Sir
George M’Kenzie alleges it was for joining in the English army in 1651.
“But so inconsiderable a person,” he adds, “had not died if he had not
been suspected to have been upon the scaffold when King Charles the
First was murdered, though he purged himself of this when he died; and
his guilt was, that he brought to Scotland the first news of it, and
seem’d to be well satisfied with it.” His chief crime, however, appears
to have been that he was a pious, consistent, and zealous Presbyterian.
Mr Guthrie was turned off first; and his behaviour must have tended
greatly to strengthen his fellow-sufferer, who, in his last speech,
after exhorting the licentious and the lukewarm to repent, remarked—“As
for myself, it pleased the Lord, in the fourteenth year of my age, to
manifest his love to me; and now it is about twenty-four years since,
all which time I professed the truth which I suffer for and bear
testimony to at this day, and am not afraid of the cross upon that
account. It is sweet! it is sweet! otherwise how durst I look on the
corpse of him who hangs there with courage, and smile upon that gibbet
as the gate of heaven?” When he had ended, he took a ring from off his
finger, and gave to a friend, desiring him to take it to his wife and
tell her—he died in humble confidence, and found the cross of Christ
sweet. Christ, he added, had done all for him; and it was by him alone
he was justified. Being desired to look up to that Christ, he
replied—“He looketh down and smileth upon me;” and mounting the
ladder—“Dear friends,” said he to those around him, “pledge this cup of
suffering before you sin, as I have now done; for sin and suffering have
been presented to me, and I have chosen the suffering part.” When the
rope was put about his neck, he observed—“Middleton and I went out to
the field together upon the same errand; now I am promoted to a cord and
he to be Lord High Commissioner; yet for a thousand worlds would I not
change situations with him! Praise and glory be to Christ for ever!”

Besides those who suffered unto death at this time, many others were
prosecuted and punished, by removal from their office, imprisonment, or
exile. Among these, the most conspicuous were, Mr Robert Traill,
minister of the Greyfriar’s church, Edinburgh. He had been in the Castle
while it held out against Cromwell, had encouraged the governor and
garrison to be faithful to their trust, and had received a severe wound
during the siege; yet he was now charged with disloyalty and a
participation in all the obnoxious transactions for which Mr Guthrie
laid down his life. His indictment had been drawn up, as all the libels
of that time were, with great acrimony and peculiar virulence of
expression, to exaggerate the crime of disloyalty, which formed the
prominent feature of the accusation. In replying, Mr Traill averred he
durst appeal to the Lord Advocate’s own conscience, whether he believed
him to be such an one as he had represented him, and complained of
bitter and injurious words, but abstained from any angry retort. “I have
not,” was his meek answer, “so learned Christ; yea, I have learned of
him not to render evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but
contrariwise blessing; and therefore I do from my heart pray for the
honourable drawer up of the libel, as I would do for myself, that the
Lord would bless him with his best blessings, and would give him to find
mercy in the day of the Lord Jesus!” When the remonstrance was
presented, he was confined in the garrison; but, with respect to the
other charges, his replies were similar to Mr Guthrie’s, although not
perhaps quite so strongly expressed assertions of the legality,
propriety, and the imperative necessity of ministers being faithful in
the discharge of their duty. He had been seven months confined before
being brought to trial; and to that he alludes in the following solemn
conclusion of his defence:—

“Now, my lord, I must in all humility beg leave to entreat your lordship
that you would seriously consider what you do with poor ministers, who
have been so long kept, not only from their liberty of preaching the
gospel, but of hearing it—that so many congregations are laid desolate
for so long a time, and many poor souls have put up their regrets on
their deathbed for their being deprived of a word of comfort from their
ministers in the hour of their greatest need! The Lord give you wisdom
in all things, and pour out upon you the spirit of your high and weighty
employment, of understanding and the fear of the Lord, that your
government may be blessed for this land and kirk—that you may live long
and happily—that your memory may be sweet and fragrant when you are
gone—that you may leave your name for a blessing to the Lord’s
people—and that your houses and families may stand long and flourish to
the years of many generations! Above all, that you have solid peace and
heart-joy in the hour of the breaking of your heart-strings, when pale
death shall sit on your eyelids—when man must go to his long home and
the mourners go about the streets: for what man is he that liveth and
shall not see death? or who can deliver himself from the power of the
grave? Even those to whom he saith, ye are gods, must die as men; for it
is appointed to all men once to die, and after death the judgment, and
after judgment an endless eternity! Let me therefore exhort your
lordship, in the words of a great king, a great warrior, and a holy
prophet—Be wise, be taught, ye rulers of the earth; serve the Lord with
fear, and rejoice before him with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be
angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but for a
little. Then blessed will all those, and those only, be who put their
trust in him. Now the Lord give you, in this your day, to consider the
things that belong to your eternal peace, and to remember your latter
end, that it may be well with you world without end!”

An address such as this, from a prisoner at the bar to his judges, who
had his life and death in their hands, could not fail but to have been
productive of a powerful effect upon the minds of such as were not
altogether hardened against every impression, and presents the sufferer
for truth and a good conscience upon a commanding elevation,
unattainable in any other cause, fearless of personal safety, and
anxious only that, while he be found faithful in the service of his
master, his persecutors may enjoy the same privilege. How forcibly does
it recall the Apostle’s address to Agrippa—“I would to God, that not
only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost and
altogether such as I am, except these bonds.” Mr Traill was remitted to
prison, where he lay for some time, and was afterwards banished to
Holland. While uncertain of his fate, he thus wrote to another minister
from his prison—“Your imprisoned and confined brethren are kindly dealt
with by our kind Lord, for we have large allowance from him could we
take it. We know it fares the better with us. You and such as you, mind
us at the throne. We are waiting from day to day not knowing what man
will do with us. We are expecting banishment at the best; but our
sentence must proceed from the Lord, and whatsoever it be, it shall be
good as from him, and whithersoever he send us, he shall be with us; for
the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof!”

A remarkable trait in all these proceedings is, that the men now
persecuted for alleged disloyalty were the men who, when the throne was
prostrate, and when these their persecutors had in general deserted the
cause as desperate, rallied round the standard of royalty, refused to
bow to the invaders, and had suffered for their attachment to the
legitimate prince! and it seemed as if the measure of ingratitude meted
out to them, was to be in proportion to the steadfastness with which
they had adhered to the fortunes of that family in their lowest
depression.

Mr Alexander Moncrief, minister of the gospel at Sconie, in Fife, had
particularly distinguished himself by his loyalty during the usurpation
and domination of the English—and had subjected himself to imprisonment
by boldly praying for the king; and so far had he been from joining with
the sectaries, that he presented a petition to Monk against their
toleration; but he had approved of the remonstrance, and had assisted in
drawing up “The Causes of God’s Wrath;” and he was therefore a proper
object for persecution. Highly esteemed in the country where he lived,
the greatest interest was made to procure his life; and two ladies of
the first rank presented a handsome service of plate to the Lord
Advocate’s wife—a practice, it seems, not uncommon in these times!—to
procure his interference; but the plate was returned, and they were told
that nothing could be done to save him. The Earl of Atholl, likewise,
and several members of parliament, were anxious to protect him, but were
informed that he could expect no mercy, unless he would consent to
change his principles. When this was told to his wife, her reply showed
her to have been a woman of a similar spirit. “Ye know that I am happy
in a good husband, to whom I have ever borne a great affection, and have
had many children; but I know him to be so steadfast to his principles,
where conscience is concerned, that nobody need speak to him upon that
head; and, for my part, before I would contribute any thing that would
break his peace with his master, I would rather choose to receive his
head at the cross!” Yet the numerous applications in his favour from
persons of influence—without his knowledge—procured a mitigation of his
punishment; and, after a tedious confinement, he was only rendered
incapable of all civil or ecclesiastical employment, deprived of his
living, and forbid to enter his parish.

Mr Robert Macwaird, minister, Glasgow, who had likewise maintained his
loyalty to his king in the face of his enemies, was included in the
noble band of sufferers; but the accusation against him differed
somewhat from the others. When he perceived the general and awful course
of defection from the very profession of religion, and the design to
overturn the whole covenanted work of reformation, he commenced a series
of sermons, in his week-day exercise, from that striking text, Amos iii.
2. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I
will punish you for all your iniquities.” In these, he first addressed
himself to his hearers, and pressed upon their consciences their
personal sins—for these worthies, who stood in the front of the battle
while contending earnestly for the national religion, never failed to
inculcate the inutility and danger of a public profession without
personal holiness—from personal, he ascended to general and national
sins; and, adverting to the open profligacy and backsliding which
pervaded a nation once so high in profession, and so favoured in
privilege, he pathetically asked, “Alas! may not God expostulate with
us, and say, ye are backslidden with a perpetual backsliding, and what
iniquity have you found in him? We are backslidden in zeal and love. The
glory of a begun reformation in manners is eclipsed, and an inundation
of profanity come in. Many who once loved to walk abroad in the garment
of godliness, now persecute it. The faithful servants of Christ are
become enemies, because they tell the truth. The upright seekers of God
are the marks of the great men’s malice.” And, interjecting this most
remarkable prayer—“May it never be said of faithful ministers and
Christians in Scotland, ‘We have a law, and by this law they must
die’”—he continued, “Backsliding is got up to the very head and corrupts
the fountains; and wickedness goeth forth already from some of the
prophets through the whole land! Are these the pastors and rulers that
bound themselves so solemnly and acknowledged their former breaches? How
hath the faithful city turned an harlot?”

These expressions, and many others of a like import, excited the enmity
of those whom they convicted, and to whom the exhortations to repent and
to return were addressed in vain; and some of the apostate tribe
transmitted to the managers information against the preacher, as having
been guilty of treason. The following passage was that upon which the
charge chiefly rested. After entreating his audience to mourn, consider,
repent, and return—to wrestle, pray, and pour out their souls before the
Lord, he encouraged them, by remarking, that “God would look upon these
duties as their DISSENT from what was done prejudicial to his work and
interest, and mark them among the mourners in Zion.” Then came the
treason! “As for my own part, as a poor member of the church of
Scotland, and an unworthy minister in it, I do this day call upon you
who are the people of God to witness, that I humbly offer my _dissent_
to all acts which are or shall be passed against the covenants or work
of reformation in Scotland. And, secondly, protest, that I am desirous
to be free of the guilt thereof, and pray that God may put it upon
record in heaven.” For this discourse he was arrested; and, on the
Thursday following Mr Guthrie’s execution, was brought before the
parliament.

Expecting nothing else than to follow that great man to heaven from the
scaffold, he was equally courageous and unhesitating in his behaviour;
and, when called upon to reply, June 6th, thus honestly avowed his
sentiments:—“My lord, I cannot, I dare not, dissemble, that, having
spoken nothing but what I hope will be the truth of God when brought to
the touchstone, and such a truth as, without being guilty of
lese-majesty against God, I could not conceal while I spoke to the text,
I conceive myself obliged to own and adhere to it. So far from
committing treason in this, I am persuaded that it was the highest part
of loyalty towards my prince, the greatest note of respect I could put
upon my superiors, the most real and unquestionable evidence of a true
and tender affection to my countrymen and the congregation over whom the
Holy Ghost made me, though most unworthy, an overseer, to give
seasonable warning of the heavy judgment which the sin of Scotland’s
backsliding will bring on, that so we may be instructed at length to
search and try our ways and turn to the Lord, lest his soul be separated
from us; for wo unto us if our glory depart! No man will or ought to
doubt whether it be a minister’s duty to preach this doctrine in season
and out of season, which yet is never unseasonable, and to avow that the
backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways; and if any man
draw back, his soul shall have no pleasure in him. And if so, what evil
have I done, or whose enemy am I become for telling the truth?

“But in order to remove any thing that may seem to give offence in my
practice, I humbly desire it may be considered that a ministerial
protestation against, or a dissent from, any act or acts which a
minister knows and is convinced to be contrary to the word of God, is
not a legal impugnation of that or these acts, much less of the
authority enacting them, which it doth rather presuppose than deny; it
is just a solemn and serious attested declaration, witness, or
testimony, against the evil and iniquity of these things, which, by the
word of God, is a warrantable practice, as is clear from Samuel, where
the prophet was directed by the Lord himself to obey the voice of the
people, howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner
of the king that shall reign over them; also Jeremiah xi. 7. There is no
act of parliament declaring that it shall be treason for a minister to
protest, in the Scripture sense, against such acts as are contrary to
the covenant and the work of reformation; nay more, there were acts by
which the covenants and vows made to God for reformation in this church,
according to his will revealed in his word, received civil confirmation;
and I, as his unworthy servant, was authorized to protest that these
rights be not invaded—that these vows be not broken!

“Nor may I conceal, that, when I reflect upon and remember what I have
said and sworn to God in the day when, with an uplifted hand to the most
high, I bound my soul with the bond of the covenant, and engaged
solemnly, as I should answer to the great God, the searcher of hearts,
in that day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed, never to
break these bonds, nor cast away these cords from me, nor to suffer
myself, either directly or indirectly, by terror or persuasion, to be
withdrawn from owning them—when I recollect that, had they been even
things indifferent, I durst not have shaken them off when I had sworn to
God, and consider that, instead of this, they were duties of
indispensable obligation antecedently to all oaths, and remain
unalterably binding independently of them—and when I considered my duty
as a minister, to give warning, to declare, testify, and bear witness
against the sin of violating these covenants, in order to avoid the
wrath that shall follow, and that under no less a threatening than
banishment from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power—I
had no choice.

“Now I humbly beseech I may not be looked upon as a disloyal person,
either as to my principles or practice; and so clear am I that there was
neither iniquity in my heart, nor wickedness in my hands, against his
majesty, that I only wish the informer’s conduct, be he who he may, in
the place where I live, were compared with mine, and the issue of my
trial depended on this—whether he or I had shown most loyalty during the
prevalence and usurpation of the enemy; but I suspect he has rather a
little more prudence than to agree to such a test. But as for me, my
lord, while I wait the coming forth of my sentence from his presence,
whose eyes behold the things that are equal, I declare, that however I
cannot submit my conscience to men, yet I humbly, as becometh, submit my
person.”

This case appears to have been ably managed; and the parliament delayed
proceeding to any immediate decision. In the interval, he presented a
supplication withdrawing the words “protest and dissent,” as too legal
and forensic, substituting the words “declaring and bearing witness.”
The reasons which he assigned for so doing are satisfactory, and show
that the witnesses of this period did not stand with obstinacy upon any
irrational punctilio, or foolishly rush upon suffering for the sake of
unmeaning distinctions or of favourite phrases. “I am brought,” are his
expressions, “to offer this alteration, not so much, if my heart deceive
me not, for the fear of prejudice to my person—though being but a weak
man, I am easily reached by such discomposing passions—as from an
earnest desire to remove out of the way any, the least, or remotest,
occasion of stumbling, that there may be the more ready and easy access,
without prejudice of words, to ponder and give judgment of the matter;
and that, likewise, if the Lord shall think fit to call me forth to
suffer hard things on this account, it may not be said that it was for
wilful and peremptory stickling to such expressions; whereas, I might,
by using others, without prejudice to the matter, and no less
significant, have escaped the danger; and lest I should seem to
insinuate that a minister of the gospel could not have sufficiently
exonered his conscience without such formal and legal terms.” But it was
necessary to get rid of men whose abilities were dreaded by their
apostate brethren, and whose consistent piety would have been a standing
reproach to the new prelates. He was therefore, before parliament rose,
sentenced to banishment, though, by an uncommon stretch of moderation,
he was allowed to remain six months in Scotland—one of them in Glasgow
to arrange his affairs—and empowered to receive his next year’s stipend.

What rendered these rigorous proceedings towards the ablest, the most
pious, and most conscientious loyalists, more flagrantly unjust, was,
the lenity shown to others who had been deeply implicated in active
compliances with the usurpers, not only after their power became
irresistible, but even while Charles was in the country and at the head
of an army. The Laird of Swinton had been suspected, in the year 1650,
of corresponding with Cromwell, and being summoned to answer before the
parliament at Perth, was forfeited for failing to appear, on which he
joined the English, and was appointed a judge; but having now turned a
quaker, he was pardoned, and went to the north, where he succeeded in
making a few proselytes. Sir John Chiesly, also, who had acted cordially
with the English, and been forfeited by the same parliament, was passed
over; but his safety was attributed to the influence of money; for
rapacity and venality characterized almost every member of government,
and every court of justice, from the Restoration to the Revolution.

The escape of Mr Patrick Gillespie was more surprising, as he was
personally disagreeable to the king, who had repeatedly refused to
listen to any solicitations on his behalf. Gillespie was a minister in
Glasgow, and afterwards principal of the College. He had been the most
conspicuous of the remonstrators—had approved of “The Causes of God’s
Wrath,” and had been appointed principal by the English commissioners,
or sequestrators as they were called[19]—had been a great favourite with
Cromwell—had preached before him—prayed for him as chief magistrate—and
had received from him several valuable gifts—all which were now brought
forward as charges against him. But he had many friends in the House,
and was induced to profess civil guilt and throw himself upon the king’s
mercy. His concessions, it is alleged, were strained beyond what he
intended, and represented as of great importance at the time, as he had
been eminent among his brethren; and it was supposed his example would
have a mighty influence in inducing the more scrupulous to give way.
They were, however, grievous to the Presbyterians and not satisfactory
to his majesty; but they procured a mitigation of his punishment, which
was commuted to deprivation of his office, and confinement to Ormiston
and six miles round.

Footnote 19:

  At the time when the English ruled, the church of Scotland was divided
  and subdivided into a variety of sections. The remonstrators
  themselves divided; some of them, among whom were, Messrs P.
  Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford, James Durham, William Guthrie of
  Fenwick, Robert Traill, and other eminently pious men, complied with
  the ruling powers on the Christian principle of obedience to the
  powers that be, and the absolute necessity of the case; but they were
  still more obnoxious to the resolutioners, because they so far agreed
  with the sectaries, in only considering as members of the church
  persons who gave proof of practical godliness, and opposed the
  principle of promiscuous communion and general membership. Against
  this schism, Principal Baillie was very violent. “This formed schism,”
  says he, in a letter to Mr W. Spang, “is very bitter to us, but
  remediless, except on intolerable conditions, which our wise orthodox
  divines will advise us to accept:—We must embrace, without
  contradiction, and let grow, the principles of the remonstrants, which
  all reformed divines, and all states in the world, abhor. We must
  permit a few heady men to waste our church with our consent or
  connivance. We must let them frame our people to the sectarian model—a
  few more forward ones among themselves, by privy meetings, to be the
  godly party; and the congregation, the rest, to be the rascally
  malignant multitude; so that the body of our people are to be cast out
  of all churches; and the few who are countenanced, are fitted, as
  sundry of them already have done, to embrace the errors of the time
  for their destruction.” _Letters_, vol. ii. p. 375. The other section
  of the remonstrants refused to acknowledge in any manner the power of
  the usurper, lamented the toleration of sectaries, and maintained,
  with the resolutioners, the legitimate principles of a national
  church—that all who attended were to be considered members of that
  church, unless excommunicated for openly immoral conduct or
  disobedience to the order and discipline of the church. At the head of
  this section were, Mr James Guthrie, Warriston, and many others, who
  bore testimony by their blood to the sincerity of their profession. It
  is worthy of remark, that the first class were chiefly the older, the
  second the younger, race of the Presbyterians.

On the 12th of July, the parliament rose; and, on the last day of that
month, their public acts were proclaimed, with the usual formalities,
from the cross of Edinburgh—a ceremony that employed the heralds and
other functionaries from ten o’clock in the forenoon till six at night.

About the same time, Samuel Rutherford was relieved by death.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               BOOK III.


                        AUGUST, A.D. 1661-1662.


Lord High Commissioner sets out for Court—His reception—Deliberations of
   the Council—Episcopacy resolved upon as the National Religion of
   Scotland—Glencairn, Rothes, and Sharpe appointed to carry the tidings
   to Edinburgh—King’s letter—Privy Council announce the overthrow of
   Presbytery—Forbid the election of Presbyterian Magistrates in
   Burghs—Prosecute Tweeddale—Ministers summoned to London to be
   episcopally ordained—Their characters—Their consecration—Grief of the
   Presbyterians—Re-introduction of Episcopacy—Restrictions on the
   press—Witchcraft—Synods discharged and Bishops ordered to be honoured
   by royal patent—Their consecration—Parliament restores their
   rank—Asserts the King’s supremacy—The Covenants declared unlawful—Act
   of fines—Defeated—Lord Lorn—Blair and other ministers deprived—King’s
   birth-day—Middleton’s visit to the West and South—Case of Mr
   Wylie—Brown of Wamphrey—Livingston, &c.—Middleton removed and
   Lauderdale appointed.


Leaving the government in the hands of the privy council,[20] Middleton,
after parliament adjourned, set out for court, where he was received by
the Earl of Clarendon, Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Ormond, and all the
cavalier party, with the greatest congratulations for having quenched
the fanatic zeal of Scotland, and carried his majesty’s prerogative
beyond what any preceding monarch, when present, had ever claimed.

Footnote 20:

  The chief members of which were—The Earl of Glencairn, chancellor;
  Crawford, treasurer; Rothes, president; Lauderdale, secretary.
  Members—Dukes of Lennox and Hamilton; Marquis of Montrose; Earls of
  Errol, Marischal, Mar, Atholl, Morton, Cassils, Linlithgow, Perth,
  Dunfermline, Wigton, Callender, Dundee, &c. &c. _Wodrow_, p. 87.

At a council held upon his arrival, Charles, who utterly detested
Presbytery, expressed himself highly gratified at the report of what he
had done; but his councillors were divided. Lauderdale and some others,
who knew perfectly that the established religion was deeply rooted in
the affections of Scottishmen, were unwilling to hazard a change; and
even some who wished an Episcopacy were yet averse to its being too
rashly introduced.[21] Middleton, however, who had been previously
tutored, immediately addressed the king—“May it please your sacred
majesty: You may perceive by the account I have now given of your
affairs in Scotland, that there is no present government as yet
established in that church. Presbytery is, after a long usurpation, now
at last rescinded—the covenant, whereby men thought they were obliged to
it, is now declared to have been unlawful—and the acts of parliament,
whereby it was fenced, are now removed; so that it is arbitrary to your
majesty to choose what government you will fix there; for to your
majesty this is by the last act of supremacy declared to belong. But if
your majesty do not interpose, then Episcopacy, which was unjustly
invaded at once with your royal power, will return to its former
vigour.”

Footnote 21:

  When the lords went first up to welcome the king, the question was
  debated what form of government should be established in the Scottish
  church. “Middleton and Glencairn were resolute for bishops,
  pronouncing they would both compose the church and manadge it to the
  king’s mind; Lauderdale opposed it stiffely, affirming the king should
  thereby lose the affectiones of the people of Scotland, and that the
  bishops should be so far from enlargeing the king’s power, that they
  would prove a burdine too heavy for him to bear; and therein he proved
  als true a prophet, as he was a faithful friend to the king. Within
  some few days, Glencairn came to visit Lauderdale, and told him he was
  only for a sober sort of bishops, such as they were in the primitive
  times, not lordly prelats. Lauderdale answered him with ane oath, that
  since they hade chosen bishops, they should have them higher than any
  that ever were in Scotland, and that he should find.” _Kirkton_, p.
  134.

Glencairn followed, and affirmed that the insolence of the Presbyterian
ministers had so disgusted all loyal subjects, that six for one longed
for the Episcopalian government, which had ever inculcated obedience and
supported the royal interest; whereas, Calvinism and Presbytery had
never been introduced into any country without blood and rebellion, and
instanced, with the most preposterous absurdity, the struggles for
freedom at the Reformation—in France, during the civil war—in Holland,
when they revolted from Spain—and now twice in Scotland; once by the
Regent Murray, when Queen Mary was banished, and lastly in 1637. Rothes
added, although he had not seen the rise of the innovations, yet he had
witnessed the ruin of the engagement and the treatment of the king by
that persuasion. Lauderdale contended that the proposition was of too
great importance to be slightly determined, and required much thought
and much information; for, upon their resolution, depended the quiet of
the Scots—a people very unmanageable in matters of religion—and advised
that either a General Assembly should be called, the provincial synods
consulted, which, as composed of ministers and laymen, would acquaint
his majesty with the inclinations of his subjects—or, he might call the
ablest divines on both sides, and learn their sentiments, if neither of
the other proposals were approved of. Middleton replied that all these
methods would only tend to continue Presbytery; for it was probable the
power of the ministers, which had been so irresistible of late, would
preponderate in all. They would easily procure ruling elders of their
own cast to be chosen, and both would be unwilling to resign the power
they possessed; at all events, the leading men whom the inferior clergy
must follow, durst not quarrel the resolutions of their rabbis, who
would adhere to the oaths they had taken, and stoutly defend their own
supremacy; besides, to call General Assemblies or synods, were to
restore them, and thus to infringe the act rescissory.

The Earl of Crawford, whose treasurer’s rod was a desirable object for
Middleton, had declined mingling in the debate, which the Chancellor of
England observing, requested his majesty that he might be desired to
give his opinion, in order that he might either disclaim Presbytery or
displease the king, and thus put his principles or his place in
jeopardy; for it appeared to be a settled rule among the courtiers of
Charles, that whatever Scottishmen were allowed to interfere in the
public affairs of their native country, should sacrifice either their
conscience or their interest.

Crawford perceived the Chancellor’s aim, and vehemently urged that
provincial synods might be consulted, assuring his majesty, the king,
that six for one in Scotland were in favours of Presbytery. “The
offences of the reformers,” he warmly contended, “were not to be charged
upon the Reformation: the best innovations were ever attended with much
irregularity, and therefore it was better to continue that government
which had now past all these hazards—at first unavoidable—than risk
another, which, at its outset, must be unhappy in the same
inconveniences. Nor did the act rescissory cut off Presbytery, for it
was secured by acts of General Assemblies, which had been countenanced
by his majesty’s father’s commissioners, and were yet unrepealed.”

The Duke of Hamilton supported him, and affirmed that the reason why the
act rescissory had so easily passed, was, because his majesty had
promised to continue Presbytery in his letter addressed to the ministers
of Edinburgh. Clarendon closed the debate, by observing, that Crawford
had owned all that ever was done in Scotland in their rebellion; “and
God preserve me,” said he, “from living in a country where religion is
independent of the state, and clergy may subsist by their own acts; for
there all churchmen may be kings.” The king then told them that he
perceived a majority were for Episcopacy, and therefore he resolved to
settle it without any farther delay.

Immediately after, Glencairn and Rothes were dispatched to Edinburgh,
accompanied by Mr Sharpe, to convey his majesty’s determination to the
council. Were it not that, in humble life, we see men equally base and
shameless where their own self-interest is concerned, we might wonder at
the unblushing effrontery of the royal communication; yet the pitiful
evasion and vile duplicity in which it was couched, render the king’s
letter at once an object of detestation and contempt. That the reader
may compare it with his former to the ministers of Edinburgh, I give it
at full length:—

“Charles R. Right trusty and well-beloved cousins and councillors, We
greet you well. Whereas, in the month of August 1660, We did, by our
letters to the presbytery of Edinburgh, declare our purpose to maintain
the government of the church of Scotland as settled by law; and our
parliament having since that time not only rescinded all the acts since
the troubles began, but also declared all these pretended parliaments
null and void, and left to us the settling and securing of church
government: Therefore, in compliance with that act rescissory, according
to our late proclamation, dated at Whitehall the 10th of June, and in
contemplation of the inconveniences from the church government, as it
hath been exercised these twenty-three years past—of the unsuitableness
thereof to our monarchical state—of the sadly experienced confusions
which have been caused during the late troubles, by the violences done
to our royal prerogative, and to the government, civil and
ecclesiastical, settled by unquestionable authority, We, from respect to
the glory of God and the good and interest of the Protestant religion;
from our pious care and princely zeal for the order, unity, peace, and
stability of that church, and its better harmony with the government of
the churches of England and Ireland, have, after mature deliberation,
declared to those of our council here our firm resolution to interpose
our royal authority for restoring of that church to its right government
by bishops, as it was before the late troubles, during the reigns of our
royal father and grandfather, of blessed memory, and as it now stands
settled by law. Of this our royal pleasure concerning church government
you are to take notice, and to make intimation thereof in such a way and
manner as you shall judge most expedient and effectual. And we require
you, and every one of you, and do expect, according to the trust and
confidence we have in your affections and duty to our service, that you
will be careful to use your best endeavours for curing the distempers
contracted during those late evil times—for uniting our good subjects
among themselves, and bringing them all to a cheerful acquiescing and
obedience to our sovereign authority, which we will employ, by the help
of God, for the maintaining and defending the true reformed religion,
increase of piety, and the settlement and security of that church in her
rights and liberties, according to law and ancient custom. And, in order
thereto, our will is, that you forthwith take such course with the rents
belonging to the several bishopricks and deaneries that they may be
restored and made useful to the church, and that according to justice
and the standing law. And, moreover, you are to inhibit the assembling
of ministers in their several synodical meetings through the kingdoms
until our further pleasure, and to keep a watchful eye over all who,
upon any pretext whatever, shall, by discoursing, preaching, reviling,
or any irregular or unlawful way, endeavour to alienate the affections
of our people, or dispose them to an ill opinion of us and our
government to the disturbance of the peace of the kingdom. So, expecting
your cheerful obedience and a speedy account of your proceedings herein,
We bid you heartily farewell. Given at our court, at Whitehall, August
14, 1661, and of our reign the thirteenth year, by his majesty’s
command.” (Signed) “LAUDERDALE.”

The privy council received with all due humility this intimation of the
royal pleasure; and, on the 6th of September, an act was drawn up and
published, announcing to the people of Scotland the overthrow of their
beloved Presbytery, under whose shade they had reposed with so much
tranquility during the few last years of the much abused and
unreasonably hated protectorate, and the re-establishment of that system
against which their fathers had ever contended. A proclamation
overturning the freedom of elections, accompanied the act for
overturning the constitution of the church—so naturally and nearly are
civil and ecclesiastical tyranny connected. The royal burghs were
commanded, under the highest penalties, to elect none for their
magistrates who were fanatically—an epithet which it now became
fashionable to apply to the conscientious Presbyterians—inclined; and
such and so sudden had been the change wrought by the transfer of power,
that this illegal dictation was universally obeyed. Nor did their
conduct towards one of their own number evince a greater regard for
their own privileges or the rights of parliament, than their ready
servility had done for the religion and liberty of their country.
Tweeddale and Kincardine had pressed the council to request the king
that he would consult provincial synods, who would declare the sense of
the country; and, at all events, relieve his majesty from obloquy
whatever might be the ultimate decision. This proposition, however,
would have shown too much deference to men whom it was intended to bring
to unconditional subjection, and was refused accordingly; but Charles
was informed of Tweeddale’s hesitation, and an order was procured for
his imprisonment, not indeed ostensibly for his opinion delivered in
council, but for what was or ought to have been still more sacred, for
his judgment and voice in parliament, because he had spoken in
vindication of Mr James Guthrie, and had not voted him guilty of death!
It was to no purpose that he pled the freedom allowed in parliament,
where he was a councillor upon oath and expressly indemnified by law for
what was spoken there; and the danger which every member would thus
incur who voted any person accused of treason innocent, if a majority
should happen to find him guilty. He was sent prisoner to the Castle,
and was only, upon his submission and petition, permitted to confine
himself to Yester and three miles round, finding caution to the amount
of one hundred thousand merks to answer when called for! Eight months
after, when it was thought his discipline had taught him obedience, he
was, through the mediation of the council, relieved; and, when his
relation Lauderdale came into power, he joined his government.

Although his majesty could establish Episcopacy by proclamation, the
peculiar holiness which was supposed necessarily to belong to the office
of a bishop, it was beyond his power to confer. This essential attribute
of a prelate, which had passed, as was believed, untainted from the
apostles, through all the corruption, vileness, and abomination of the
church of Rome, had, by hands crimsoned in the blood of the saints, and
defiled with all the pollutions of their brethren, been communicated to
the dignitaries of the English hierarchy, upon whom it still rested in
all its imaginary purity and vigour. But the feeble portion of the
sacred virus that had reached Scotland upon a former occasion, when
James VI. procured the innoculation of his hierarchate, was now confined
to one aged and almost superannuated subject, Mr Thomas Sydeserf,
formerly bishop of Galloway; and he had been excommunicated by a General
Assembly. It was therefore resolved that a select number of the Scottish
ministers should be consecrated by priests who had never been polluted
by any unhallowed contact with Presbyterians; and Messrs Sharpe,
Fairfoul, and Hamilton were summoned to London to receive the holy
unction.

James Sharpe, designed for the primacy, was already the object of
detestation to every one who had the smallest regard for the
Presbyterian profession, or for consistency of principle. Andrew
Fairfoul, promoted to the archbishoprick of Glasgow, possessed
considerable learning, better skilled, however, in physic than in
theology—a pleasant, facetious companion, but never esteemed a serious
divine. He had taken the covenant and was first minister in Leith, then
in Dunse. Mr James Hamilton, brother to Lord Belhaven, created bishop of
Galloway, was also a covenanter, and minister of Cambusnethan. His
abilities were not above mediocrity, and his cunning was more remarkable
than his piety. They were, however, joined at London by Mr Robert
Leighton, a man of a very different description, whose meek and gentle
spirit, unfitted for the stormy region of political polemics, delighted
more in communion with God than in contending with his fellows, and who,
counting himself a stranger and a pilgrim upon earth, was only anxious
to diffuse the gospel of the kingdom, and shed around him the charities
of life. He was educated during the reign of pseudo-episcopacy, and
never was a thorough Presbyterian. His character and views may be
estimated from a circumstance which occurred during that period of his
life when he was minister of Newbattle. Some of his zealous
co-presbyters urging on him the duty of “preaching to the times,” (by no
means an unnecessary one, however, in its proper place,) he mildly
replied—“When so many of my brethren are preaching to the times, they
may spare one poor minister to preach for eternity.” He had retired to
London to enjoy the privacy he loved, and was unwillingly dragged
forward to assist in carrying Episcopacy to Scotland.[22]

Footnote 22:

  There is just one point in Leighton’s character that appears
  unaccountable, that is, after he had solemnly sworn the covenants, and
  enforced them upon others, how he could ever turn an Episcopalian.

A commission, under the great seal of England, was directed to the
bishops of London and Worcester, and some other suffragans of the
diocese of Canterbury, to officiate upon this important occasion; but an
unexpected difficulty occurred by Dr Sheldon proposing to set aside the
Presbyterian ordination altogether and commence _de novo_. Sharpe quoted
the case of Bishop Spottiswood, whose Presbyterian ordination had been
sustained when he was consecrated, and for a while resisted the
proposal; but the other was peremptory, and would not hear of the
validity of any other than prelatic imposition of hands; and Sharpe, who
had now gone too far to recede for a trifle, submitted to enter his new
profession by the lowest step, that he might attain the wretched object
of his ambition—to him a woful eminence. In the month of December, they
were with great pomp, and before a splendid assemblage of nobility at
Westminster, passed and raised through the various degrees of the craft,
from preaching-deacons to mitred bishops, in one day, which was
concluded by a magnificent entertainment given by the new-made prelates
to their English brethren and a select party of Scottish and English
nobles.

Convinced at length of their error, the honest Presbyterians, of all
parties, lamented that their intestine divisions should have been
allowed to divert them from attempting the security of their religion,
and that they should have indulged in bitterness of spirit against each
other about matters of comparatively lesser moment, while the common
enemy was making such rapid, though covert, advances against their
establishment. Uncertain how long they might enjoy that liberty, they
now throughout Scotland directed the attention of their hearers to the
principles of their church, and the points in dispute between them and
the Episcopalians[23]—they held congregational fasts in every corner of
the land to lament over the misimprovement of their privileges and
deprecate the impending wrath of God—and they continued their parochial
duties among a mourning people who, with a general sadness, anticipated
the lamentable change. Their synods had been forbid; but they met with
little interruption in their presbyterial duties till the bishops were
installed, when they were informed that their power of ordination had
ceased. This intimation was first made by the council to the presbytery
of Peebles, when, in the month of December, they were proceeding to
induct Mr John Hay to the kirk of Manner; and from thenceforth all
presentations to benefices were ordered to be directed to the
archbishops or bishops within whose diocese the vacant church might lie.

Footnote 23:

  The points in dispute between the Presbyterians and Episcopalians were
  of much more vital importance than modern Presbyterians seem to be
  aware of. They comprehended doctrinal points—the form of church
  government, the ceremonies, the festivals, and the forcible intrusion
  of the whole system upon the nation, in virtue of the king’s spiritual
  supremacy. The very essence of Christianity was at stake. The grand
  fundamental doctrine which Luther asserted at the Reformation, was,
  justification by faith, in opposition to justification by works; and a
  more clear statement of this essential article of Christian belief
  will nowhere be found than in his exposition of the Epistle to the
  Galatians—to this all was subsidiary. He found that attacking the
  rites, ceremonies, and fooleries of Rome was wasting shot against
  pitiful outworks, the fall of which was of no importance, while the
  main rampart and the citadel frowned defiance. It was the same with
  all the reformers; and it was now a revival of the old question. The
  Episcopalians were in general Arminians, and the Presbyterians
  contended for “the faith” once delivered to the fathers; and this
  faith was the doctrinal creed embodied in the covenants. This should
  always be kept in view. The other points were not of little moment;
  but this was the foundation.

The re-introduction of Episcopacy into Scotland was accompanied by a
restoration of all the most severe restrictions upon the liberty of the
press and a revival of the absurd and flagitious proceedings against
poor, old, and friendless creatures, ignorantly or maliciously accused
of witchcraft. The council, upon an information that George Swinton and
James Glen, booksellers in Edinburgh, had printed and sold the speeches
of the Marquis of Argyle and Mr James Guthrie, with other seditious and
scandalous publications, such as the “Covenanter’s Plea,” ordered the
Lord Advocate and Lord Provost of Edinburgh, to seize upon such books
and papers, and prohibit them and the rest of the printers from printing
any other books or pamphlets without a warrant from the king,
parliament, or council; and, “for preventing false intelligence,” they
granted liberty to a creature of their own, Robert Mein, keeper of the
letter-office, Edinburgh, to print the Diurnal, then the only newspaper
in the kingdom. Commissions for the trial of witches were at the same
time issued to gentlemen in almost every shire, and great numbers of
unfortunate creatures, chiefly poor decrepit old women, were tortured
and murdered upon the most contradictory, ridiculous, and incredible
absurdities, which were alleged against them; or upon the incoherent
ravings which, after being kept for nights without sleep, and tormented
without intermission in the height of a delirium, they uttered as their
confessions. And yet such convictions stand upon record as being in
consequence of “clear probation” or voluntary confessions! But it is
deserving of especial notice, that these trials took place chiefly in
the north and the east—the districts least infected with
“fanaticism.”[24]

Footnote 24:

  The Dunbar witches were famous in East, as the Borrowstounness witches
  were in West, Lothian. It is, however, among the melancholy and
  unaccountable problems in the history of the human mind, that persons
  of excellent understanding were implicated in these and similar horrid
  transactions. In England, even Judge Hale condemned two. Had the
  witches, or wizards, been tried for operating upon the fears and the
  superstitions of their country folk, as the Africans in the West
  Indies and on their own coasts operate on the fears and superstitions
  of each other by the _obi_, _bitter water_, and other really noxious
  practices, their persecution might have been proper, and their
  punishment just; but, dancing reels with Satan, and flying through the
  air upon broomsticks, were accusations so truly ridiculous, that, how
  they came to be ever gravely listened to, is passing strange. Dr
  Hutchinson says, “the word _witch_, in old English, according to Dr
  More, signifies _a wise woman_; in the vulgar Latin, it is _venefica_,
  _a poisoner_.” _Hist. Essay on Witchcraft_, p. 183.

This eventful year was closed by a letter from the king, December 28,
ordering the council to discharge by proclamation all ecclesiastical
meetings in synods, presbyteries, and sessions, until authorized by the
archbishops or bishops upon their entering upon the government of their
respective sees; and requiring that all due deference and respect should
be given by the lieges to these dignitaries, or, to use the words of the
king, “that they have all countenance, assistance, and encouragement
from the nobility, gentry, and burghs, in the discharge of their office
and service to Us in the church; and that severe and exemplary notice be
taken of all and every one who shall presume to reflect or express any
disrespect to their persons or the authority with which they are
intrusted”—an ominous and unholy introduction to a Christian ministry,
which sufficiently marked the nature of the proposed establishment; bore
witness to the known dislike of the people towards such a priesthood,
and the strong probability that pastors created by royal patent, and
sanctified by prelatic palmistry, would be received with any thing but
respect or affection by the flock over whom they were to have the
oversight.

The new year, 1662, was ushered in by a proclamation, January 9, from
the privy council, announcing, in terms of the king’s letter, the final
extinction of Presbytery. Formerly, such a decree would have encountered
at any rate a formidable show of opposition from the denounced
ecclesiastical judicatories; nor would they have separated without at
least bearing testimony against this unwarrantable invasion of their
legal right. But the blind confidence that the Presbyterians had so
unaccountably reposed in the king, produced a species of fatuity; nor
would they believe till they experienced the truth of the
prognostications of the more discerning, who saw from the first the
ill-dissembled hatred Charles bore to Presbyterianism as well as to
piety. They were like men amazed at the greatness of the calamity; and
although some few of them attempted to draw up petitions to the council,
no united effort was made to vindicate the oppressed church.

An obsequious crowd of nobility, clergy, and gentry, awaited the arrival
of the new bishops, and obeyed to the letter the orders of the king.
From Cockburnspath to the capital, their numbers increased; and, as the
procession rolled on, it assumed more the splendour of some earthly
potentate marching to take possession of a newly-acquired conquest, than
that of spiritual guides entering upon the humble duties of a gospel
ministry. They were greeted on their approach to Edinburgh with martial
music, and received at the gates by the magistrates in their robes,[25]
and spent several successive days in sumptuous entertainments. The
primate, vieing with the chief nobility in the elegance of his equipage
as well as the magnificence of his banquets, displayed upon the occasion
a handsome London-built chariot, and was attended by lackeys in purple
liveries. Shortly afterwards, in great pomp, he took possession of his
see;[26] then, returning to Edinburgh on the 7th of May, consecrated
other six bishops in the Abbey of Holyrood-house.

Footnote 25:

  Lamont gives the following account of Sharpe’s visit on this
  occasion:—“As for Mr Sharpe, he came to Fiffe, Apryl 15th, and dyned
  that day at Abetsaa, Sr. Andrew Ramsays, formerly provest of
  Edenboroughe, his house, and that night came to Lesly, being attended
  by divers both of the nobilitie and gentrie. The nixt day being
  Weddensday, the 16th Apr., he went to St Androws from Lesly, attended
  from the Earle of Rothes his house, with about 60 horse; bot by the
  way divers persons and corporations (being wretten for in particular
  by the said Earle of Rothes a day or two before) mett him, some at ane
  place and some at ane other, viz. some from Fawkland, Achtermowghtie,
  Cuper, Craill, and about 120 horsemen from St Androws and elsewhere;
  so that once they were estimat to be about 7 or 8 hundred horse. The
  nobilitie ther were, Earle of Rothes, Earle of Kelley, Earle of Leven,
  and the Lord Newarke; of gentrie, Ardrosse, Lundy, Rires, Dury,
  Skaddowory, Doctor Martin of Strandry, and divers others. All the way
  the said Archbishope rode thus, viz. betwixt two nobelmen, namely,
  Rothes on his right, and Kelley on his left hand. No ministers were
  present ther safe Mr William Barclay, formerly deposed out of
  Fawkland, and Mr William Comry, minister of St Leonards Colledge, that
  came foorth with the Bishope his sone out of St Androws to meit his
  father. (He dwells in the Abbey in Mr George Weyms house, that
  formerly belonged to B. Spotswoode, Archb. of St Androws.) That night
  ther supped with the said Bishope, the Earles of Rothes, Kelley,
  Newarke; Ardrosse, Lundy, Strandry, and divers others; and divers of
  this dined with him the nixt day. As for Rothes and Ardrosse, they
  lodged with him all night. On the Sabbath after, he preached in the
  towne church in the forenoone, and a velvet cushion in the pulpitt
  before him. His text, 1 Cor. ii. 2. ‘For I determined to knowe nothing
  amonge you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.’ His sermon did not
  run mutch on the words, bot in a discourse of vindicating himselfe and
  of pressing of episcopacie and the utilitie of it; shewing, since it
  was wanting, that ther hath beine nothing bot trowbels and
  disturbancies both in church and state. Apryl 30, 1662, he tooke
  journey for Edenboroughe, being accompanied with about 50 horse, most
  of them of the citie of St Androws; and, in his way, he gave the Ladys
  at Lundy a visit at Lundy: he cam with only 5 or 6 horse, and himselfe
  staid a short whille, toke a drink (bot did not dine), and was gone
  againe.” _Diary_, p. 183-4.

Footnote 26:

  Leighton alone declined all public show. When he understood the manner
  in which it was proposed to receive them, he left the cavalcade at
  Morpeth, and came privately to Edinburgh. Afterwards, he told Dr
  Burnet, “he believed they were weary of him, for he was very weary of
  them.”

This ceremony, which had been deferred till the arrival of the
Commissioner, was conducted in the grandest and most imposing style. His
Grace, with all the nobles and gentlemen who had come to town to attend
parliament, together with the magistrates of the city, were present; and
none were admitted but by tickets. The two archbishops who officiated
were in their full canonicals—black satin gowns, white surplices, lawn
sleeves, copes, and all the long desecrated garments, known to the
Presbyterians of that day by the contemptuous epithet of their
forefathers—“Rags of Rome.” The others wore black satin gowns. The
passage leading from the pews, where the bishops elect sat, to the
altar, and the space before the altar, were covered with rich carpets.
Mr James Gordon, one of the northern ministers, preached the
consecration sermon from 1 Cor. iv. 1. “Let a man so account of us as of
the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God;” in
which, pointing out the errors of the former, he exhorted the new
prelates to beware of encroaching on the nobles, nor exceed the bounds
of their sacred function. They were then led from their places by the
archbishop of Glasgow, and by him presented to the primate who presided,
and set them apart according to the ritual of the church of England, and
to whom they vowed clerical obedience during all the days of their
lives. The bishops this day consecrated were—_Dunkeld_, George
Halyburton, late minister of Perth; _Ross_, George Patterson, minister
of Aberdeen; _Moray_, Murdoch Mackenzie, minister of Elgin; _Brechin_,
David Strachan, minister of Fettercairn; _Argyle_, David Fletcher,
minister of Melrose; _The Isles_, Robert Wallace, minister of Barnwell,
Ayrshire;[27] none of whom were men either of distinguished talents or
exemplary piety, and all had appeared zealots in the cause of the
covenant. Common report attributed to them a private dissoluteness of
character which might be exaggerated; but for their apostacy from a
cause which they had urged with more than ordinary heat, no apology was
ever attempted. Conviction could not be alleged, and as self-interest
appeared the only ostensible reason, they sunk in the estimation of the
people in proportion to the respect in which they had been previously
held; while they returned the contempt with which they were deservedly
treated by hatred and persecution—a consequent usual with renegades, who
ever remorselessly pursue to degradation and death the steadfast members
of the religion they have betrayed, whose unshaken integrity is a
standing reproof of their temporizing baseness.

Footnote 27:

  George Wiseheart, chaplain to Montrose, and author of the elegant
  Latin romance which goes under the name of his memoirs, was
  consecrated bishop of Edinburgh at St Andrews, on the 3d of June, and
  Mr David Mitchell, minister of Edinburgh, bishop of Aberdeen. Sydeserf
  had Orkney.

Next day, May 9, the parliament met; and their first act was to restore
the bishops to the exercise of their episcopal function, precedence in
the church, power of ordination, inflicting of censures, and all other
acts of church discipline; and this their office they were to exercise
only with “the advice and assistance of such of the clergy as they
should find to be of known loyalty and prudence.” Without entering into
any of the puzzling questions respecting the divine right of any form of
church government, they at once founded their Prelacy upon a principle
most repugnant to Presbytery—the spiritual supremacy of the
king—“Forasmuch as the ordering and disposal of the external government
and policy of the church doth properly belong unto his majesty as an
inherent right of the crown, by virtue of his royal prerogative and
supremacy in causes ecclesiastical.” In the preamble were narrated as
the causes of its re-establishment, the disorders and exorbitancies that
had been in the church, the encroachments upon the prerogative and
rights of the crown, the usurpations upon the authority of parliaments,
and the prejudice inflicted on the liberty of the subject ever since the
invasion made upon the bishops and episcopal order—a form of church
government pronounced most agreeable to the word of God, most convenient
and effectual for the preservation of truth, regularity, and unity, most
suitable to monarchy, and the peace and quiet of the state: “THEREFORE
his majesty and his estates did redintegrate the state of bishops to
their ancient places and undoubted privileges in parliament and all
their other accustomed dignities.” Nor was it among the least strange
enactments of this extraordinary act, that whatever his majesty, with
the archbishops and bishops, should determine respecting the external
order of the church, were “previously” declared valid and effectual.

Immediately upon this act being passed, a deputation of six members, two
noblemen, two barons, and two burgesses, was sent to the prelates, who
were waiting in the primate’s lodgings to invite them to take their
seats. They were accordingly conducted in state to the House—the two
archbishops first, walking between two noblemen, the Earls of Kellie and
Wemyss, and the bishops following, attended by the barons, gentlemen,
and the magistrates in their robes. When they entered, a congratulatory
speech was made them from the throne, the act restoring them was read,
and the parliament adjourned on purpose that the spiritual lords might
have the pleasure of dining with his Grace, the Commissioner, who, to do
them the greater honour, walked on foot with them in procession to the
Palace. They were preceded by six macers with their maces, next three
gentlemen-ushers, then the purse-bearer uncovered. The Commissioner and
Chancellor followed, with two noblemen on their right and the two
archbishops on their left. A select party of noblemen and members of
parliament, with the bishops, made up the goodly company, who, “at four
of the clock, sat down to ane sumptuous entertainment, and remained at
table till eight.”

The bishops, as now thrust upon the Scottish church, differed widely
from those intruded by James VI. They pled no scriptural authority, but
an act of parliament, as the source of their power, and acknowledged, in
its fullest sense, a temporal prince as the supreme head of the church.
The old bishops were only a set of constant moderators in the synods and
presbyteries, possessing merely a sort of negative voice, and were
nominally at least responsible to the General Assembly; but the whole
form of Presbytery was now swept away, and the prelates were amenable to
no church courts; nor could any assembly of ministers meet, but under
their sanction, or by their permission.

Having subverted the religion of the country, the next and most natural
step was to eradicate, if possible, the principles of civil liberty. The
sycophantish estates, therefore, proceeded to declare rebellious and
treasonable those positions for which their fathers had contended unto
blood, and which their children asserted at the point of the sword:—That
it is lawful in subjects, upon pretence of reformation, or any other
pretence whatsoever, to enter into leagues or covenants, or to take up
arms against the king: or that it is lawful for subjects, pretending his
majesty’s authority, to take up arms against his person or those
commissionated by him, or to suspend him from the exercise of his royal
government, or to put limitations on their due obedience and allegiance.
As, notwithstanding the acts of the former session, the Presbyterians
did not conceive themselves loosened from what they considered the oaths
of God—ratified by the highest ecclesiastical and civil authorities of
the land—the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant,
these were now declared unlawful oaths; the subjects were relieved from
their obligations; the acts of Assembly respecting them, which had
received the sanction both of the parliament and of the king, but had
hitherto escaped notice, were annulled; and all ratifications, by
whatsoever authority, cassed and made void. At the same time, it was
enacted, that if any person should, by writing, printing, praying,
preaching, or remonstrating, express any thing calculated to create or
cherish dislike in the people towards the king’s supremacy in causes
ecclesiastic, or of the government of the church by archbishops and
bishops, as now settled, they were to be declared incapable of enjoying
any place or employment, civil, ecclesiastical, or military, and liable
to such farther pains as the law directs; that is, liable to the pains
of that detestable statute against leasing-making, of whose extent a
notable specimen was speedily given in the case of Argyle. This was
followed by an act obliging all persons in public trust to subscribe a
declaration in which the whole of the transactions, since the
commencement of the troubles, were affirmed to have been illegal and
seditious, and the covenants unlawful oaths, unwarrantably imposed
against the fundamental laws and liberties of the kingdom, and not
obligatory either on themselves or others.

By another retrospective act, repeating the restoration of patronage, it
was ordained that all the ministers who had entered to parishes since
the year 1649, had no right to their stipends; and their charges were
pronounced vacant, until they should procure presentations anew from the
lawful patrons and collocation from the bishop of the diocese which he
was enjoined to give to the present incumbents, upon application, before
the 20th of September following, failing which, the presentation was to
fall to the bishop _jure devoluto_; and, to conclude the series of
enactments intended to establish Episcopacy upon a firm and immovable
foundation, amid the ruins of Presbytery, all professors and teachers in
universities and colleges were required to take the oath of allegiance
on pain of deprivation—all ministers were ordered to attend the diocesan
synods and pay all clerical obedience to their superiors under the like
penalty—and all meetings in private houses, for religious exercises,
which might tend to alienate this people from their lawful pastors, were
strictly forbidden. Nor were any persons to be permitted to preach in
public or private, to teach any school, or act as tutor in the family of
any person of quality, without the license of the ordinary of the
diocese.

Ecclesiastical matters being thus arranged, and the session apparently
drawing to a termination, Lauderdale so strongly pressed a bill of
indemnity, that Middleton could no longer get it avoided; but he
introduced, as an accompaniment, the act of fines, which in numerous
instances rendered it nugatory.

Last year a complaint had been made to parliament of the losses
sustained by the Earl of Queensberry from the forces under Colonels
Strachan and Kerr in 1650, estimated at two thousand pounds sterling,
when a committee, consisting of the Earl of Eglinton, Lord Cochrane, the
Sheriff-depute of Nithsdale, and some others, was appointed to meet at
Cumnock, to inquire who had served in that army, and to proportion the
same upon such of the guilty as were able to pay, which was accordingly
done; and a number of gentlemen who were opposed to the measures of the
present government, were assessed to make good the damage alleged to
have been suffered by his lordship. This easy but arbitrary method of
rewarding his supporters, and punishing or silencing his opponents,
having excited no murmurs among the pusillanimous legislators, the plan
was now followed out by the Commissioner, and a secret committee
appointed to inquire who had been the most eminent compliers under the
usurpers, in order that their estates might be taxed to raise a sum
sufficient to compensate the king’s friends for what they had suffered
as malignants during the time of the late troubles. Their report
included nearly nine hundred noblemen, gentlemen, and tenants; and the
money to be produced from their fines amounted to about eighty-five
thousand pounds sterling—an enormous sum at that time, to be arbitrarily
and vexatiously levied by political adversaries without any check, there
being neither accusation nor trial, nor any crime alleged, of which
those who now assumed the name of the king’s friends, had not, in
general, been far more guilty than they.

The act of fines, iniquitous and unjust in principle, was rendered still
more so by the manner in which the list was made up. It included the
names of many who were dead, absent from the country, or infants at the
breast at the time! They were represented as favouring the usurpers.
Others were inserted from private revenge; and several were named who
were living upon the parish. But the chief weight of the imposition was
intended to fall upon such as had been distinguished for eminent piety
and a consistent Christian walk in their different stations, who were
deemed singular in a time of general profession, when religion was the
fashion, but who were destined to show the power of the gospel in a day
of general apostacy, when religion was persecuted and a profession
ridiculed.

Lauderdale, who saw that the produce of these fines was intended to
strengthen the Commissioner’s party, strenuously, though ineffectually,
endeavoured to thwart the measure; and Middleton, justly supposing that
such conduct would cool the king’s affection for his secretary,
dispatched Tarbet to London to complete his ruin. The ostensible purpose
of his mission was to submit the act of indemnity to the king, and to
obtain his sanction to a clause for excepting twelve persons, to be
named by the parliament, from the benefit of the act, as incapable of
holding any place of public trust. Lauderdale knew that he was aimed at,
and exerted his every art and influence to prevent the exception as
unjust, but the Duke of York and the English Chancellor, who were
jealous of his influence, supported the clause; and the king gave his
consent to the proposed exception.

An incident which he could not have foreseen—so capricious is the fate
of royal favourites—prevented his fall, and gave him the ascendancy his
enemies were seeking to destroy. Middleton, who wished to procure for
himself Argyle’s estates, when disappointed by their gift to his son,
harassed the young Earl by every means in his power, and procured that
they should be burdened with an immense debt, which so irritated his
lordship, that he expressed himself very freely in a confidential letter
to Lord Duffus, saying, “he hoped that he would procure the friendship
of Clarendon,” and, in reference to the proceedings in parliament, used
these words—“then the king will see their tricks.” This letter being
intercepted at the post-office, a capital charge of lying between the
king and parliament was founded upon it, and a letter written to the
king, requesting that Argyle might be sent down prisoner to stand trial.
At Lauderdale’s earnest entreaty, he was sent down not a prisoner, and
with express instructions that no sentence should be executed till his
majesty saw and approved it. Lorn, when brought to trial, convinced that
any defence before such a tribunal would be vain, made none, but threw
himself on the royal mercy, declaring the innocence of his intentions,
and noticing gently the provocation he had received. He was pronounced
guilty of death by parliament, but the king shortly after remitted his
punishment.

During these discussions, Tarbet had been gradually undermining
Lauderdale’s influence, and, by his insinuating manners, had so far
gained on Charles, that the fall of the favourite seemed on very distant
or doubtful event, when the indiscretion of Middleton or his friends
blighted all their flattering prospects. Afraid openly to attack the
present ministers, an act was brought into parliament for incapacitating
twelve persons by ballot, and lists were so formed that Lauderdale and
Crawford were included in the number; and so anxious was Middleton to
insure their dismissal, that, as soon as the act passed, he ratified it
without ever communicating it to the king. Lauderdale, who had been
apprised of the whole proceedings by the vigilant gratitude of Argyle
before the official intelligence reached court, seized the opportunity
of representing the affront offered to his majesty in such glaring
colours, that, when the act arrived, he refused it his sanction, with a
sarcastic remark, that the proceedings of his Scottish ministers were
like those of madmen, or of men that were perpetually drunk.

Knowing the aversion of the Presbyterian ministers to the proposed
changes, the privy council, before the bishops returned from court,
endeavoured to overawe them and prevent opposition. They began with Mr
Robert Blair, an eminent and aged minister, that it was necessary to
remove from his charge at St Andrews to make room for Sharpe, to whom he
was particularly obnoxious on account of his having the preceding year,
by order of the presbytery, faithfully reproved him for his deceitful
dealings at court and his proudly grasping after the archbishoprick.
Although at an advanced age and in delicate health, the venerable saint
was summoned before the council at Edinburgh, and examined as to his
steadfastness in the principles he had professed through a long and
honourable life: when it was found that he held fast his integrity, he
was first sequestered from his parish, and confined successively to
Musselburgh, Kirkaldy, and Couston; and then, in his last sickness,
forced to send in his presentation to the council, to prevent his being
dragged to Edinburgh while labouring under a mortal disease.

Upon the bishops’ arrival, it was deemed necessary to make an example of
some of the most steadfast and distinguished Presbyterians in the west,
as that part of the country had ever been remarkable for attachment to
their profession. The Chancellor was, in consequence, directed to
require the attendance of such ministers as he thought fit; and, by the
suggestion of the prelates, wrote to Messrs John Carstair, Glasgow;
James Nasmyth, Hamilton; Matthew Mowat and James Rowat, Kilmarnock;
Alexander Blair, Galston; James Veitch, Mauchline; William Adair and
William Fullarton, at St Quivox, as if he had merely wished the
assistance of their advice. Upon their arrival, however, in Edinburgh,
they were charged with holding disloyal principles, and particularly
with some expressions they had used in their sermons. From the charge of
disloyalty, they easily vindicated themselves, and desired that the
particular passages in the offensive sermons might be pointed out; but
these the Chancellor was unable to produce, and they were dismissed from
their first interview, with a hint that the easiest way to get rid of
further trouble, would be to comply with the king’s pleasure and
acknowledge his bishops. When they would not consent to this, they were
detained in town till the parliament met. No valid charges, however,
being found against them, they were carried before the Lords of the
Articles, and commanded, as a test of their loyalty, to subscribe the
oath of allegiance.

As they were the first Presbyterian ministers to whom this oath had been
tendered, they required a few days to consider—for they deemed it an
object of high importance that they should be fully satisfied in their
own minds as to their line of duty—lest, on the one hand, they should
wound their consciences by the sin of denying the supreme kingship of
Christ in his church, or incur the charge of disloyalty by refusing
obedience to him whom they considered their rightful sovereign. They
therefore set apart some time for solemn prayer to ask of the Lord light
and direction. Then, after serious deliberation, they gave in their
explication of the oath—which contained a brief but distinct statement
of the principles upon which they and all the succeeding consistent
Presbyterians refused to subscribe—what continued afterwards always to
be pressed upon them under the false and insidious name of the oath of
allegiance, while in fact and verity it was an explicit oath of
supremacy. “They heartily and cheerfully acknowledged his majesty as the
only lawful supreme governor under God within the kingdom, and that his
sovereignty reached all persons and all causes, as well ecclesiastic as
civil, having them both for its object; albeit it be in its own nature
only civil, and extrinsic as to causes ecclesiastical; and, therefore,
they utterly renounced all foreign jurisdictions, powers, and
authorities, and promised with their utmost power to defend, assist, and
maintain his majesty’s jurisdiction aforesaid.” For this explanation six
of the ministers—Messrs Adair and Fullarton having through favour been
passed over—were committed close prisoners to the public jail, where
they were confined for several weeks; and the paper being laid before
parliament, it was put to the vote—“whether process them criminally or
banish them?”—when it was carried to banish them. Upon a representation
to the commissioner by Mr Robert Dougal, that the sentiments of the
explication were sound and orthodox, and such as would be approved by
the whole reformed churches abroad, the sentence of banishment was
changed into deprivation. But their churches were declared vacant, and
they were ordained to remove their families and leave the possession of
their manses and glebes at Martinmas next, their stipends for the
current year were seized, and themselves forbid to reside within the
presbyteries where their churches lie, or within the cities of Glasgow
or Edinburgh.

Conscientious ministers were not only entrapped by these tyrannical yet
pitiful devices, but likewise harassed by the rigorous enforcement of
the act for celebrating the king’s birth-day as an “holyday.” A
proclamation was issued ordering its observance by the ministers, under
pain of deprivation; and numbers were deprived of their year’s stipend
for non-observance.[28] But such had been the retrograde progress from
the sobriety of their former profession, that within little more than
one short year, the return of this holyday had become throughout the
land the signal of universal riot and drunken uproar, particularly in
these towns that had the misfortune to be burghs. On this occasion,
Linlithgow signalized itself, not only by its outrageous loyalty, but by
its shameless and profane contempt for the bonds their fathers had held
so sacred, and they themselves had solemnly sworn to observe. After the
farce of church-going which occupied the forenoon, bonfires were kindled
in every corner of the streets in the afternoon. The magistrates,
accompanied by the Earl of Linlithgow, assembled in the open area before
the council-house, around a table covered with comfits, the beautiful
gothic fountain all the while spouting from its many mouths French and
Spanish wines, when the curate opened the evening service by singing a
psalm and repeating what was either a long blessing or a short prayer.
The company then tasted the confections and scattered the rest among the
crowd. An irreverent pageant closed this part of the performance.

Footnote 28:

  The same day had already been set apart as a day of thanksgiving for
  his restoration!

At the cross, an arch was erected upon four pillars, on the one side of
which stood the statue of an old hag, having the covenant in her hand,
with this superscription—“A glorious Reformation;” on the other, the
figure of a Whig, with “the remonstrance in his hand, inscribed “no
association with malignants;” while the devil, in the form of an angel
of light, surmounted the keystone, having a label issuing from his
mouth—“Stand to the cause.” On the pillar, beneath the covenant, were
painted rocks, (distaffs,) reels, and repenting-stools. The other, under
the remonstrance, was adorned with brechams, (horse collars,) cogs,
(wooden dishes,) and spoons. Within the arch, on the right, was drawn “a
committee of estates,” with this legend—“Act for delivering up the
King.” Opposite was placed “a commission of the kirk,” and, in prominent
characters, “Act of the West Kirk.” In the middle of the arch hung a
tablet with this litany—

             From covenanters, with uplifted hands;
             From remonstrators, with associate bands;
             From such committees as governed this nation;
             From kirk commissions and their protestation;
                                       Good Lord deliver us.

Upon the back of the arch, Rebellion was depicted under the guise of
Religion, in a devout attitude, with eyes turned up to heaven, holding
Rutherford’s “Lex Rex” in her right hand, and in her left, “The Causes
of God’s Wrath.” Around her were scattered acts of parliament, of
committees of estates, General Assemblies, and commissions of the kirk,
with all their protestations and declarations for the last twenty years;
and above was written “Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.” At
drinking the king’s health, a lighted torch set the fabric in a blaze;
and a number of concealed fireworks exploding, the whole was instantly
reduced to ashes, whence arose two angels, bearing a tablet with the
following lines:—

             Great Britain’s monarch on this day was born,
             And to his kingdom happily restored—
             The queen’s arrived—the mitre now is worn—
             Let us rejoice this day is from the Lord.
             Fly hence all traitors, who did mar our peace—
             Fly hence schismatics, who our church did rent—
             Fly covenanting, remonstrating race—
             Let us rejoice that God this day hath sent.

The magistrates, with the Earl, then withdrew to the Palace, where a
large bonfire was lighted in its noble court; and the king, queen, with
other loyal toasts, were drunk; after which the festivities of the
semi-sacred carnival were concluded by the magistrates and a number of
the inhabitants walking in procession through the town and “saluting
every person of account.”

Parliament rose on the 9th of September, and the privy council entered
upon the full exercise of their tyrannical powers, which had been
acknowledged and vowed to by the obsequious legislature, who thus paved
the way for their own lower degradation. By an act of the 10th, the
diocesan meetings which had been deferred on account of the lords,
archbishops, and bishops being engaged in attending their parliamentary
duty, were appointed to be held within all dioceses of the south upon
the second Tuesday of October, excepting that of Galloway, which,
together with Aberdeen and some in the Highlands, Islands, and the
north, were to keep the third Tuesday of the same month, at which all
parsons, vicars, (uncouth titles in Presbyterian ears,) and ministers
were required to be present, under pain of being considered contemners
of his majesty’s authority. Every step taken to thrust Episcopacy
forcibly upon an unwilling people, was accompanied by some new act of
injustice and oppression to their respected ministers. It was requisite
that those of the capital should set an example of obedience; and
therefore, unless they also would apostatize and violate their oaths and
their consciences by acknowledging the present Episcopacy, and
concurring in their discipline, before the 1st of October, they were to
be deprived of their office and banished the city—an arbitrary
punishment, for which the oppressors had not even the authority of their
own iniquitous parliament.

The western brethren being the most refractory, Middleton determined to
proceed thither with a quorum of the council to enforce in person the
obnoxious decrees. Accordingly, about the latter end of September,
accompanied by Earls Morton, Linlithgow, Callender, and Lord Newburgh,
with the king’s lifeguard,[29] the clerk of the council, and a great
retinue of attendants, he set out upon his progress, preceded by macers
and military music. Burghs and nobles regaled the party as they passed,
evincing their affection for the hierarchy by prodigal hospitality,
while their guests, conformably to the manners of the English court,
displayed their loyalty by pushing it to the most disgusting and
loathsome excess. In districts remarkable for the strict soberness of
their manners, scenes of revelry and profane riot were exhibited by the
Commissioner and his Episcopalian propaganda that astonished the decent,
while it afflicted the pious, portion of the inhabitants. Their streets
were disturbed by midnight inebriety; and men who had conscientious
scruples about drinking healths at all, heard with sensations
approaching to horror, that in some of these debauches the devil himself
had had his health drunk! Ecclesiastical matters do not seem to have
much disturbed the thoughtless “joyeosity” of this outrageous crew till
they came to Glasgow, when Fairfoul entered a grievous complaint to
Middleton, that, notwithstanding the acts of parliament and the time
that had elapsed, not one of the younger ministers who had entered the
church since 1649, had acknowledged him as archbishop—that he had
incurred all the hatred attached to his office without obtaining any of
the power; and, unless his Grace could devise some method for securing
obedience, a bishop would be merely a cipher in the state. Middleton, a
rough mercenary, requested the bishop’s directions. The archbishop, like
a true son of a temporal priesthood, knew of no better remedy than
force. He proposed that all the ministers who had entered since the year
1649, and who would not submit to receive collation and admission from
the bishop before the 1st of November, should be peremptorily banished
from their houses, parishes, and the bounds of their presbyteries; and
he assured the Commissioner that, if this were rigorously enforced, he
did not believe there were ten in the whole of his diocese who would
choose to lose their stipends.

Footnote 29:

  The king’s guard was chiefly composed of those who had, during the
  civil wars, been attached to the royal party, and who had expected
  mountains of gold at the Restoration; but, as the whole revenues of
  the kingdom could not have satisfied their claims and their cupidity,
  and “the merry monarch” and his higher satellites could spare nothing
  from their own licentious expenses, they, who had been unaccustomed to
  honest industry, had no other resource left but to enter the army.

A council was summoned, upon his Grace’s representation, to meet in the
front hall of Glasgow College; but when the worthies assembled, the
whole, except one or perhaps two, were in a high state of excitation,
or, as Wodrow phrases it, flustered with drink.[30] Sir James Lockhart
of Lee, the only sober member present, attempted to reason the matter.
He affirmed that, so far from accomplishing its object, such an act
would have a diametrically opposite effect—that the young ministers
would suffer more than the loss of their stipends before they would
acknowledge the bishops, and the inevitable consequences would be
desolation in the country and discontent among the people. But reasoning
was altogether out of the question. An act according to the archbishop’s
wish was agreed to without dispute, although it was not quite so easily
drawn up—“whether,” adds the honest historian, “for want of a fresh man
to dictate or write, I know not.” It was, however, sufficiently severe;
not only did the non-conforming ministers forfeit their current year’s
stipend and incur the penalty of banishment, but their parishioners who
should repair to their sermons were subjected to the same punishment as
the frequenters of private conventicles. Besides this desolating act,
the council passed two of a more private nature, incapacitating
individuals—Mr Donald Cargill, minister of the barony parish, Glasgow,
(with whom we shall frequently meet in the course of the Annals,) and Mr
Thomas Wylie, minister at Kirkcudbright. This latter was a distinguished
member of a distinguished presbytery, which had not one conformist in
their bounds, and was among the very few that presented petitions
against their illegal discontinuance, nor desisted from fulfilling their
ministerial functions till compelled by force.

Footnote 30:

  “There was never a man among them,” says Kirkton, “but he was drunk at
  the time, except only Lee.” _Hist. Church of Scot._ p. 149.

He early foresaw the approaching blackness that was about to overspread
the land, and, anticipating for himself and his people a share in the
general calamity, he was earnestly desirous to dispense the sacrament of
the Lord’s Supper before the cloud came on. A general seriousness seems
also to have pervaded the country side; for, on the Sabbath appointed
for its administration, June 8, the number of communicants who offered
was so great, that they could not all join in one day, and he intimated
that on the Sabbath following, he would again dispense the ordinance,
when those who had not participated might come forward. On Monday after
sermon, he received a letter informing him that the presbytery had been
summoned to Edinburgh for holding their meetings after the council had
prohibited them. But he determined to proceed in his work, leaving the
consequences to Providence, and he was favoured to conclude the
solemnity without farther interruption. On the Monday, however, certain
news arriving that a party was to be in the town that night to apprehend
him, he withdrew, and next day they searched his house narrowly for him;
but the bird for this time had escaped the snare of the fowler. He
continued under hiding, till, through the exertions of his wife and the
friendship of Lord Kenmure, he was allowed to return to his parish on
the 10th of September. Now, without any new accusation, he was included
in the same sentence with Donald Cargill, and ordered to be banished
beyond the Tay.

England, on the 24th of August preceding, had exhibited the sublime and
heart-stirring spectacle of upwards of two thousand of the ablest, most
upright, and most devout ministers in the land, surrendering without
hesitation their livings rather than violate their consciences by
conforming to the restored national church. Yet, with this instance
before his eyes, of obedience to God in preference to subjection to men,
the Commissioner could not understand how persons with large families
would voluntarily throw themselves upon the world, and leave their homes
without any certain dwelling-place, rather than submit to a change which
the prelates and he had found so easy; but they feared to sin; and now
that a century has rolled by, and they and their oppressors rest in the
grave together, who would not say that they did not act the wisest part,
who preferred a good conscience, and trusted to the faithfulness of him
who has promised never to leave, never, never, to forsake his servants,
rather than to place their confidence in princes, and their trust in the
sons of men? Of what value are the mitres now, for which the prelates in
Scotland destroyed their usefulness, and which sat so uneasily for a few
troubled years upon their heads? At the time, the case was dreadfully
trying. When a man’s temporal interest comes in competition with his
profession, then will appear the strength of his religious principle.
Nearly four hundred ministers of the church of Scotland stood this
severest of all tests. Turned from their houses in the midst of winter,
and deprived of their stipends, they went out not knowing whither they
went. Never did Scotland witness such a Sabbath as that on which they
took leave of their parishioners; and the mourning and lamentation that
filled the south and the west, was only equalled by the hatred and
detestation excited against those who were the authors of so much
sorrow, who, for their own ambitious and worldly schemes, ruptured ties
so sacred and so dear as those that had subsisted between the
Presbyterian ministers and their affectionate congregations.

It was questioned at the time, and even since, whether the Presbyterian
ministers did not act improperly in all at once throwing up their
charges? That they acted scripturally, is plain. They continued to
exercise their calling as long as they could. When illegally forbid,
they continued to preach, acting upon the apostolic precept of obeying
God rather than man; but when a tyrannical power, under the form of
parliamentary or council enactments, was ready to use force in ejecting
them, then, as ministers of the gospel, they had no other resource left
than to shake off the dust off their feet and go to another city—they
bore testimony against their persecutors and retired. Following the
advice of James v. 10., they took the prophets, who had spoken in the
name of the Lord, for an example of suffering and of patience.

That they acted, even in a political view, in the very best manner that
their circumstances admitted, is, I think, demonstrable. They showed to
the people that it was not the fleece but the flock that had been the
object of their care, and imprinted upon their minds a sense of the
worth of the truth for which they were contending, beyond what they
could have done in any other manner; and that truth was one written as
with a sunbeam throughout the whole New Testament—that Christ is the
king and head of his church, and that whatever form of church government
does not acknowledge this, is essentially antichristian. It is not less
evident, that the prelatists, as well as the papists, gave that dignity
and power to another; and the solemn and universal testimony which so
many godly men lifted up at once against acknowledging such unholy
usurpation, has not lost its effect even unto this day—an effect it
never could have had, had the ministers resisted and allowed themselves
to have been thrust out one by one.

From Glasgow, Middleton and his Episcopalian reformadoes pursued their
route, confirming their churches in the south, through Galloway as far
as Wigton; and, upon the last day of October, returned to
Holyrood-house.

On his arrival, the Commissioner was assailed by what was to him
unexpected intelligence, that the whole south and west were thrown into
confusion; and, enraged to find that both the archbishop and himself had
so entirely miscalculated, he expressed his astonishment at the
unaccountable conduct of the “madmen” with a volley of oaths and
execrations—the now fashionable dialect of the court—and, on the first
meeting of council, caused letters be sent off express to his lordship
and the primate, requesting their presence and advice. Meanwhile, they
proceeded in the usual course of endeavouring to intimidate the humbler
refractory by their rigour to the more eminent. Mr Hugh M’Kail, chaplain
to Sir James Stewart of Kirkfield, a youth of high promise, was forced
into voluntary exile because he had defended in a sermon what he
considered the scriptural mode of church government. Mr John Brown of
Wamphrey, well known by his historical, controversial, and practical
writings, not less respected for his piety than for his learning, having
reproved some ministers for attending the Archbishop of Glasgow’s
diocesan synod, styling them perjured, was banished to Holland—at that
time the asylum of the persecuted; there he remained for many years,
and, by his seasonable publications, strengthened the hands of the
sufferers in his native land, and proved a thorn in the side of their
tyrannical government.

Mr John Livingston, more honoured of God as the means of converting
sinners to Christ than almost any minister of the church of Scotland
since the Reformation, then minister at Ancrum, because he would not
promise to observe the 29th of May as an holyday, nor take the oath of
allegiance without any explanation, was subjected to a like punishment,
as were Messrs Robert Traill of Edinburgh, Neave of Newmills, and
Gardner of Saddle. Mr Livingston, in the true spirit of a Christian
patriot, after sentence was pronounced, thus replied—“Well! although it
be not permitted me to breathe my native air, yet into whatsoever part
of the world I may go, I shall not cease to pray for a blessing to these
lands, to his majesty, the government, and the inferior magistrates
thereof; but especially for the land of my nativity!” In the same
excellent spirit, having been denied the privilege of paying a farewell
visit to his wife, children, and people, he addressed a pastoral letter
to the flock of Jesus Christ in Ancrum. Their sins and his own, he told
them, had drawn down this severe stroke; and, while it was their part to
search out and mourn for them, “it is not needful,” he adds, “to look
much to instruments, I have from my heart forgiven them all, and would
wish you to do the like, and pray for them that it be not laid to their
charge. For my part, I bless his name I have great peace in the matter
of my sufferings. I need not repeat, you know my testimony of the things
in controversy:—Jesus Christ is a king, and only hath power to appoint
the officers and government of his house. It is a fearful thing to
violate the oath of God, and fall into the hands of the living God. It
could not well be expected,” he proceeds to remark, and the remark is
applicable in all similar cases when religion has been in repute among a
people—“there having been so fair and so general a profession throughout
the land, but that the Lord would put men to it; and it is like it shall
come to every man’s door, that, when every one according to their
inclination, may have acted their part—and he seems to stand by—He may
come at last and act his part, and vindicate his glory and truth. I have
often showed you that it is the greatest difficulty under heaven to
believe that there is a God and a life after this; and have often told
you that, for my part, I could never make it a chief part of my work to
insist upon the particular debates of the time, as being assured that if
a man drink in the knowledge and the main foundations of the Christian
religion, and have the work of God’s spirit in his heart to make him
walk with God, and make conscience of his ways, such an one shall not
readily mistake Christ’s quarrel, to join either with a profane atheist
party or a fanatic party. There may be diversity of judgment, and
sometimes sharp debates among them that are going to heaven; but,
certainly, a spirit guides the seed of the woman, and another spirit the
seed of the serpent.”

Several of lesser note were treated with not much less harshness, being
ordered to confinement in distant places of the country, without the
means of subsistence, and debarred from preaching in the rugged and
barren districts to which they were banished.

Such, however, was the outcry the wide desolation of the church had
occasioned, that the council were convinced they had acted with unwise
precipitation, and endeavoured in some measure to retrace their steps.
The author of the mischief, Fairfoul, though repeatedly called upon,
does not appear to have assisted their deliberations, which were
protracted, till the month of December, when a proclamation was issued,
extending the time allowed ministers for procuring presentations and
collocation to the 1st of February, but ordering those who neglected to
do so to remove from their parishes and presbyteries; and such of them
as belonged to the dioceses of St Andrews and Edinburgh, to go into
banishment beyond the Tay. The older ministers, who had not been touched
by the Glasgow act, and had hitherto remained exercising their parochial
duties among their people, because they had not attended the diocesan
meetings, were confined to their parishes. The people who left the
hirelings intruded upon them, travelling sometimes twenty miles to hear
the gospel, were now ordered to attend their parish churches, under a
penalty of twenty shillings for every day’s absence; and because in
those places where the ministers, in view of separation from their
flocks, had celebrated the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to multitudes
assembled from the surrounding districts—and much of the divine presence
had appeared among them—these were stigmatized as unlicentiate
confluences of the people; and the discourses delivered under such
circumstances, with more than ordinary fervour, and accompanied with
more than ordinary power, abused as the extravagant sermons of some
ministers of unquiet and factious spirits—special engines to debauch
people from their duty, and lead them to disobedience, schism, and
rebellion: therefore every incumbent was prohibited from employing more
than one or two of his neighbours at a communion without a license from
the bishop, or admitting the people of any other parish to participate
of the sacrament without a certificate from his curate.

This was the last of Middleton’s acts in Scotland. His rival,
Lauderdale, had so well employed the access he had to the king to
undermine his influence, that he was called to court to answer charges
of having encroached upon the royal prerogative by the balloting act,
and defrauded the royal treasury by appropriating the fines. While the
affair was under discussion, Lauderdale procured an order to delay
levying the fines due the first term and dismiss the collector.
Middleton, who saw that this was a deadly blow at his interest in
Scotland, countermanded the royal letter upon alleged verbal authority,
which Charles either never gave, or found it convenient to disown; and
this completed his ruin. His rashness and inconsideration were too
palpable to be denied; but, by the interest of his friends, Clarendon
and the Bishop of London, his fall was softened, and he was sent into a
kind of honourable banishment as governor of Tangiers. There he
continued to indulge his habits of intemperance, and, falling down a
stair in a fit of intoxication, broke his right arm so severely, that
the bone protruded through the flesh, and, penetrating his side, a
mortification ensued, which terminated his life.

Middleton, who never appears to have had any serious religion, was the
friend of Lord Clarendon—a statesman bigoted to Episcopacy, rather on
account of its political than its spiritual advantages—and employed by
him for rearing in Scotland, upon the ruins of Presbytery, which he
detested, an establishment more in accordance with those high notions of
the prerogative which, notwithstanding the melancholy example of the
first Charles, were adopted and cherished by the court of his son. Well
calculated for carrying through the most despotic measures by force, he
must be acquitted of the mean duplicity of Charles’s letter to the
ministers of Edinburgh, the obloquy of which rests upon the crafty
politics of Sharpe. When first shown it, he considered it as opposed to
Episcopacy, and expressed his regret; but when told that, upon
rescinding all the laws in favour of Presbytery, then Episcopacy
remained the church government settled by law, he observed, “that might
be done; but for his part he was not fond of making his majesty’s first
appearance in Scotland to be in the character of a cheat.” Once,
however, fairly embarked, he never hesitated, and concurred with the
bishops in their every project, however treacherous or oppressive. He
first overturned the Presbyterian church government, which had been
settled under as solemn sanctions, and as strong legal guarantees, as
can ever possibly be devised to secure any religious establishment, and
then sent to the scaffold, from motives of avarice and revenge, the
noblest ornaments of that religion, whose only crime was, adhering to a
profession he himself had, with uplifted hand, sworn to support.

In council, he unwarrantably extended the tyrannical acts of his servile
parliament, and wantonly laid waste hundreds of peaceable and
flourishing congregations. With a cunning worthy the priesthood of Rome,
he invited numbers of unsuspecting ministers from distant parts of the
country to Edinburgh, as if to consult them on the affairs of the
church, then ensnared them by insidious questions, and punished their
unsuspecting simplicity with deprivation, imprisonment, and exile.
Without any shadow of law, and without the form of a trial, he turned
ministers from their congregations—prohibited them from preaching,
praying, or expounding the Scriptures, and sent them to the most distant
corners of the land, or forced them to seek an asylum in foreign
countries—then intruded on the desolated parishes worthless and
incapable hirelings—and concluded his career by commanding the people to
attend upon their ministrations under a severe and oppressive penalty.
His own expatriation to the barren coast of Africa was looked upon by
the sufferers as a righteous retribution, and his melancholy end as an
evident mark of divine displeasure; nor could the coincidence between
his own rash imprecation and the manner of his death fail to strike the
most careless. Like many other political hypocrites, with a zeal as
furious as false, he had sworn and subscribed the covenants when it was
the fashion of the time to do so; and, on retiring from the place where
he had taken these vows upon him, he said to some of those who were with
him, “that that was the pleasantest day he had ever seen; and if ever he
should do any thing against that blessed work, he had been engaging in,”
holding up his right arm, “he wished that it might be his death!” The
enormous fines he imposed, he never was empowered to exact; and, in
return for impoverishing his country, he died an exile and a beggar.

Lauderdale having succeeded in removing his formidable antagonist, from
thenceforth for a number of years almost solely directed Scottish
affairs. The Presbyterians, who believed that he was secretly attached
to their cause, anticipated better days under his protection; but
ambition was his master-passion, and to it he was prepared to sacrifice
all his early attachments and principles. While religion appeared the
only road to power in the state, he had been foremost in the ranks of
the covenanters; and, by the warmth of his professions, and the
consistency of his conduct, had gained the confidence of those who were
sincerely devoted to the cause; but when the path of preferment on
Charles’s restoration struck off in an opposite direction, he deserted
to the prelates, and evinced the sincerity of his change by at once
forsaking his sobriety of manners, and apostatizing from his form of
religion; and, as he understood well the principles he betrayed, and at
one time certainly had strong convictions of their truth, his opposition
was proportionably inveterate, and he became outrageously furious at
whatever tended to remind him of his former “fanaticism.”


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                BOOK IV.


                       DECEMBER, A.D. 1662-1664.


State of the West and South—Bishops—Curates—Their reception—Tumult
   at Irongray—Commission sent to Kirkcudbright and
   Dumfries—Field-preaching—Rothes and Lauderdale arrive in
   Scotland—Parliament—Warriston’s arrest and execution—Principal
   Wood of St Andrews and other ministers silenced and
   scattered—Troops ordered to enforce the Acts of Parliament—Their
   outrages—Sir James Turner—High Commission Court—Its
   atrocities—Privy Council—Its exactions—Prohibits private
   prayer-meetings or contributing money for the relief of the
   sufferers—William Guthrie of Fenwick laid aside—Donaldson of
   Dalgetty’s case—Death of Glencairn—Political changes.


While these struggles were going forward at court, the affairs of
Scotland were in a state of the most woful confusion. Almost the whole
parishes in the west and south had been deprived of their ministers; and
as their own churches remained vacant, the people in crowds flocked to
those where the few old Presbyterian ministers were yet allowed to
officiate. These assemblies having been denounced by the council’s
proclamation, attracted the attention of the soldiers; and numerous
parties patrolled the country to disturb the meetings and levy the fines
to which offenders were liable.

When the vacant charges came to be filled, (1663,) new sources of
disturbance arose. No preparation had been made for such an exigence as
bad now arisen. The regular candidates for the ministry were too few;
and of these but a small proportion were willing to pursue their studies
under the direction of the bishops, or accept of Episcopal ordination.
The north was therefore ransacked, and a great number of ignorant,
uneducated young men, not more deficient in talents and acquirements
than in decent common moral conduct,[31] were hastily brought forward to
supply the places of the ejected ministers, who in general were both
pious, learned, and of respectable abilities; many of them eminently so,
and all laborious in the discharge of their duties, exemplary in their
lives, and dear to their people. These presentees, who were
contemptuously styled by the people “bishops’ curates,” when intruded
upon them without any regard to their wishes or choice, were received in
many places with the most determined opposition; in some, they were
compelled to retire; and, in others, obliged to enter by the windows,
the doors being built up; and thus literally to display the scriptural
characteristic of spiritual thieves and robbers. The Presbyterian
ministers had uniformly classed prelacy and popery together; and, at the
settlement of the new clergy, the prelates justified the charge by
employing the military to enforce their ecclesiastical appointments, and
ordaining their parsons at the point of the sword. The patrons, in most
cases, had allowed their rights to devolve upon the bishops; and thus
the whole undivided obloquy rested on their consecrated heads, which was
not lessened when some of the careless or profane heritors, to
ingratiate themselves with the rulers, feasted the clergy at their
settlements, and, aping the loyalty of their superiors, conducted their
entertainments with an equally jovial disregard of decency and
temperance.

Footnote 31:

  Bishop Burnet, himself an Episcopalian, thus characterizes them:—“They
  were the worst preachers I ever heard. They were ignorant to a
  reproach; and many of them were openly vicious. They were a disgrace
  to their order and the sacred function, and were indeed the dregs and
  refuse of the northern parts. Those of them who were above contempt or
  scandal, were men of such violent tempers, that they were as much
  hated as the others were despised.”

But there was also an opposition of a more solemn and impressive nature
offered by the serious part of the people in different parishes, who
received the intruders when they came among them with tears, and
entreated them earnestly to be gone, nor ruin the poor congregations and
their own souls. Neither of these methods, however, had any effect; the
thoughtless wretches entered upon that awful charge—the care of souls—as
if they had been taking forcible possession of an heritable estate to
which they had a legal right.[32]

Footnote 32:

  The following appears to have been the clerical mode of infeftment:—At
  the admission of Mr John Ramsay to the parish of Sconie, in Fife, “Mr
  Jossia Meldrum, minister of Kingorne, after sermon ended, he tooke his
  promise to be faithfull in his charge of that flock: and ther was
  delivered to him the bibell, the keys of the church doore, and the
  bell-tou.” _Lamont’s Diary_, p. 192.

As the south had been favoured with remarkably faithful pastors, the
strongest resistance appeared there. Irongray was the first settlement
where open “tumultuating” took place. The curate not being able to
obtain peaceable admission, returned with a party of soldiers to force
an entrance, when a band of women, led on by a Margaret Smith, attacked
the guard with stones, and triumphantly beat them off the field.
Margaret, the fair heroine, was brought to Edinburgh, and sentenced to
slavery in Barbadoes; but she “told her tale so innocently,” that the
managers, not yet steeled to compassion, permitted her to return home.
The parish was not, however, allowed to escape with impunity. Upon
hearing of this disturbance, and a similar one at Kirkcudbright, the
privy council, as if the country had been in an actual state of
rebellion, appointed the Earls of Linlithgow, Galloway, and Annandale,
with Lord Drumlanrig and Sir John Wauchope of Niddry, to proceed on a
commission of inquiry to that district, attended by an hundred horse and
two hundred foot of the king’s guard, with power to suppress all
meetings or insurrections of the people, if any should happen.

At Kirkcudbright, the commission held several diets, and examined a
number of witnesses. Of about thirty-two women whom they apprehended,
five were sent to Edinburgh; and Bessie Laurie, with thirteen others,
were bound over to keep the peace. Lord Kirkcudbright—who had declared
if the minister came there he should come over his body, and that he
would lose his fortune before he should be preacher there; but at the
same time admitted, that, if the minister had come in by his
presentation, he could have raised as many men as would have prevented a
tumult—was transmitted under a guard to Edinburgh. James Carson of
Fenwick, the late provost, although not in power, and John Ewart, who
had refused to accept the office, because they had declined interfering
upon the occasion, were also sent prisoners to the capital, where they
were kept in confinement several months;[33] besides, in addition, being
severely fined. The five women were sentenced to stand at the cross of
Kirkcudbright two hours on two market days, with labels on their
foreheads denoting their crimes, and thereafter to find bail to keep the
peace. New magistrates were appointed for the burgh, who, on accepting
the nomination, signed a bond in their own name and that of the haill
inhabitants of the place, binding and obliging them, and ilk one of
them, during their public trust, and all the inhabitants, to behave
themselves loyally, and in all things conform to his majesty’s laws,
made and to be made, both in civil and ecclesiastical affairs! and
besides, to protect the Lord Bishop of Galloway, the minister of the
burgh, and any other ministers that were or should be established by
authority.

Footnote 33:

  The following singular order was issued by the council on this
  occasion; and it deserves to be noted, that it was issued the very
  first meeting after the archbishops had taken their seats as
  members:—“June 23d. The lords of council being informed that ministers
  and other persons visit the prisoners for the riot at Kirkcudbright,
  now in the tolbooth of Edinburgh, and not only exhort but pray for the
  said persons to persist in their wicked practices, affirming that they
  are suffering for righteousness’ sake, and assure them that God will
  give them an outgate—recommend it to the keeper to notice who visits
  them, and what their discourse and carnage is when with them.”
  _Wodrow_, vol. i. p. 188.

At Dumfries, the commission also examined witnesses, but the mighty
insurrection dwindled into a “great convocation and tumult of women;”
yet the whole party, horse and foot, were quartered upon the parish, and
a bonus levied for remunerating the clerks. The whole heritors were
likewise compelled to sign a bond of passive obedience to laws known and
unknown, in terms similar to that of the magistrates of
Kirkcudbright.[34]

Footnote 34:

  The council ordered to be advanced for this expedition, the sum of
  £500 to the soldiers as part of their pay, £120 to the Earl of
  Linlithgow, and £50 to the Laird of Niddry for their expenses; so that
  probably these petty squabbles would cost the two parishes not much
  under one thousand pounds sterling, equivalent to nearly five in later
  times.

Instead of reconciling the people, or terrifying them back to the
churches, these severities exasperated them; nor was it to be expected
that they would willingly attend the ministrations of men, whose
preaching they despised, and who were thus ushered in. Outrageous
expressions of dislike were not, however, approved of by the godly and
judicious Presbyterians, they mourned in private over the desolation of
the church, and sought, by attending the family exercises of the younger
ministers who were “outted,”[35] but sojourned among them, to receive
that instruction, and enjoy that social worship, of which they were so
tyrannically deprived! Sometimes the numbers who assembled to enjoy this
privilege were so great, that a house could not contain them, and the
minister was constrained to officiate without doors; till at length they
increased so much that they were under the necessity of betaking
themselves to the open fields; and, like him whose servants they were,
beneath the wide canopy of heaven, preached the gospel of the kingdom to
multitudes upon the mountain’s side. Mr John Welsh and Mr Gabriel Semple
began the practice of field-preaching, which quickly increased, and, to
the great alarm of the bishops, had pervaded almost every quarter of the
country, when the political arrangements being completed, Rothes arrived
as commissioner to open the parliament.

Footnote 35:

  “Outted,” turned out of their churches.

Lauderdale accompanied the Earl to Scotland, professedly to inquire into
the origin of that conspiracy against his majesty’s royal
prerogative—the balloting act;—in reality to secure his own ascendancy
in Scotland, and, by pushing to the utmost the advantage he had gained
over the Middleton faction, to prevent any attempt being made against
him from that quarter for the future. The Chancellor made some feeble
show of opposition, but the universal spirit of submission to the will
of the crown which pervaded the higher classes, and their selfish
eagerness to obtain a share in the spoils of their unhappy country, not
only blighted every appearance of patriotism, but precluded every plan
of association among the aristocracy themselves for maintaining their
own rank and station independent of the minions of the court. The
Presbyterians who rejoiced in Middleton’s fall, soon found that they had
gained very little by the change. At the first diet of council, (June
15, 1663,) the two archbishops were admitted, with Mr Charles Maitland,
Lord Hatton, Lauderdale’s brother; but Crawford having refused the
declaration, was deprived of the treasurership, and Rothes, the
commissioner, that same day was appointed to succeed him in the office.

On the 18th, parliament met, and, by an alteration in the method of
appointing the Lords of the Articles—allowing the spiritual lords first
to name eight temporal lords, then the temporal lords to choose eight
spiritual; and these sixteen, or such of them as were present, to elect
the representatives of the barons and burghs—they virtually gave up the
privilege of nominating this important committee, to the servants of the
crown, and surrendered the last check they had upon the prerogative. The
tyranny of the council was next legalized, and a practice introduced
which continued till the Revolution:—the most oppressive acts of the
former sessions, together with the acts of council, enlarging and
explaining their vindictive clauses, were approved of by a retrospective
declaratory enactment; and every mode of persecution which had been
adopted upon trial since last session, was incorporated into the statute
law of the kingdom. Thus an act against separation and disobedience of
ecclesiastical authority—introduced early in the session—besides
recapitulating all the penalties to which the non-conforming ministers
had been previously subjected, ordained those who still dared to preach
in contempt of law, or did not attend the diocesan meetings, to be
punished as seditious persons, and despisers of the royal authority.
Absence from church on Sundays—a finable offence—was now denounced as
sedition; and whoever wilfully should withdraw from the ministrations of
the parish priest, however incapable he might be, were, if noblemen,
gentlemen, or heritors, to lose the fourth part of their yearly
income—if yeomen, tenants, or farmers, such proportion of their
moveables, after payment of their rents, as the council should think
fit, not exceeding a fourth part—but if a burgess, his freedom, along
with the fourth of his moveables, and, in addition, the council was
authorized to inflict such corporeal punishment as they should see
proper. The declaration was ordered by another act to be taken by all
who exercised any public trust; and persons chosen to be councillors or
magistrates of burghs, if they declined to subscribe, were declared for
ever incapable of holding any office, or exercising any occupation,
trade, or merchandise. To complete the organization of the hierarchy, an
act was passed for the establishment and constitution of a National
Synod, bearing the same resemblance to the estates of Scotland that the
Houses of Convocation did to the English parliament: both emanated from
his majesty’s supremacy, and consisted of the bishops and their
satellites, only the Scottish assembly was to meet in one place, and was
even more servilely abject than their elder Episcopalian sister, and
could not be constituted without the presence of the king or his
commissioner. The balloting act was, after long investigation, rescinded
with every mark of detestation, the parliament declaring they had never
consented to any such thing! and, that it might not appear in judgment
against them, was ordered to be erased from their minutes. Sensible that
the measures now pursued in Scotland must necessarily lead to
insurrection, and that a military force would be requisite to carry them
into effect, Lauderdale procured from this servile crew the offer of an
army of twenty thousand foot and two thousand horse, to be raised for
his majesty’s service when required, under the ridiculous pretence of
preserving Christendom against the Turks!! This number never was
demanded; and it was alleged that the secretary had carried the measure
to ingratiate himself with the king, and to show him what assistance he
might derive from Scotland in any attempt to destroy the liberties of
England. From the beginning, the Scots had been harassed by the king’s
guard, but from this date the troopers were more unsparingly employed to
enforce clerical obedience, while the act hung _in terrorem_ over the
hands of the dissatisfied Presbyterians, and afterwards became the
foundation of the militia.

[Illustration:

  _Arrest of Lord Warriston anno 1662._

  _Vide page 103_

  Edin^r. Hugh Paton, Carver & Gilder to the Queen, 1842
]

Middleton’s first session set in blood; Rothes closed under as deep a
stain. Sir Archibald Johnston, Lord Warriston, had been forfeited and
condemned by parliament when Argyle and Guthrie were arraigned, but
escaping to the Continent, had remained concealed in Holland and
Germany, chiefly at Hamburgh, till most unadvisedly, in the latter end
of 1662, he ventured to France. Notice of this having been carried to
London, the king, who bore him a personal hatred for his free
admonitions when in Scotland,[36] sent over secretly a confidential spy,
known by the name of “Crooked Murray,” to trace him out and bring him to
Britain. By watching Lady Warriston, Murray soon discovered her lord’s
retreat at Rouen in Normandy, and had him seized while engaged in the
act of secret prayer. He then applied to the magistrates, and, showing
them the king’s commission, desired that they would allow him to carry
his victim a prisoner to England. The magistrates, uncertain how to act,
committed Warriston to close custody, and sent to the French king for
instructions. When the question was debated in council, the greater part
were for respecting the rights of hospitality, and not giving up his
lordship till some better reasons were shown than had yet been given;
but Louis, who was extremely desirous to oblige Charles, and sympathized
cordially in his antipathies against the Protestant religion and
liberty, ordered him to be delivered to the messenger, who carried him
to London and lodged him in the tower in the month of January 1663.
While the parliament was sitting in June, he was sent to Scotland with a
letter from the king, ordering him “to be proceeded against according to
law and justice,” and landed at Leith on the 8th, whence, next day, he
was brought bareheaded to the tolbooth of Edinburgh. Neither his wife,
children, nor any other friend, were permitted to see him, except in
presence of the keeper or guard, and that only for an hour, or at
farthest two at a time, betwixt eight o’clock in the morning and eight
at night. Here he was detained till July 8th, when, no more trial being
deemed necessary, he was brought before parliament to receive judgment.
His appearance on this occasion was humiliating to the pride of human
genius, debilitated through excessive blood-letting and the deleterious
drugs that had been administered to him by his physicians,[37] the
faculties of his soul partook of the imbecility of his body, and, on the
spot where his eloquence had in former days commanded breathless
attention, he could scarcely now utter one coherent sentence. The
prelates basely derided his mental aberrations, but many of the other
members compassionated the intellectual ruin of one who had shone among
the foremost in the brightest days of Scotland’s parliamentary annals.
When the question was put, whether the time of his execution should be
then fixed or delayed? a majority seemed inclined to spare his life,
which Lauderdale observing, rose, and, contrary to all usage or
propriety, in a furious speech, insisted upon the sentence being carried
into immediate effect; the submissive legislators acquiesced, and he was
doomed to be hanged at the cross of Edinburgh on the 22d of the same
month, and his head fixed upon the Nether Bow Port, beside Mr Guthrie’s.

Footnote 36:

  “The real cause of his (Warriston’s) death, was not his activity in
  public business, but our king’s personal hatred, because when the king
  was in Scotland he thought it his duty to admonish him because of his
  very wicked, debauched life, not only in whoredom and adultery, but he
  violently forced a young gentle-woman of quality. This the king could
  never forgive, and told the Earle of Bristol so much when he was
  speaking for Warriston.” _Kirkton’s Hist. of the Church of Scot._ p.
  173.

Footnote 37:

  “Through excessive blood-letting and other detestable means used by
  his wicked physician, Doctor Bates, who they say was hired either to
  poison or distract him, and partly through melancholy, he had in a
  manner wholly lost his memory.” _Kirkton’s Hist._ p. 170. Mr C. K.
  Sharpe, the editor, thinks his mental imbecility was occasioned in
  some measure by fear, and quotes a passage from one of Lord
  Middleton’s letters to Primrose. “He pretends to have lost his
  memory,” &c. “He is the most timorous person ever I did see in my
  life,” &c. _Note._ But it was not to be expected that Middleton would
  allude in the most distant manner to any thing that could be supposed
  to countenance in the least the then general belief.

Mr James Kirkton, author of the “History of the Church of Scotland,” who
visited him, says—“I spake with him in prison, and though he was
sometimes under great heaviness, yet he told me he could never doubt his
own salvation, he had so often seen God’s face in the house of prayer.”
As he approached his end, he grew more composed; and, on the night
previous to his execution, having been favoured with a few hours’
profound and refreshing sleep, he awoke in the full possession of his
vigorous powers, his memory returned, and he experienced in an
extraordinary degree the strong consolations of the gospel, expressing
his assurance of being clothed with a white robe, and having a new song
of praise put into his lips, even salvation to our God, which sitteth
upon the throne, and to the Lamb!

Before noon, he dined with great cheerfulness, hoping to sup in heaven,
and drink of the blood of the vine fresh and new in his father’s
kingdom. After spending some time in secret prayer, he left the prison
about two o’clock, attended by his friends in mourning, full of holy
confidence and courage, but perfectly composed and serene. As he
proceeded to the cross, where a high gibbet was erected, he repeatedly
requested the prayers of the people; and there being some disturbance on
the street when he ascended the scaffold, he said with great
composure—“I entreat you, quiet yourselves a little, till this dying man
deliver his last words among you,” and requested them not to be offended
that he used a paper to refresh his memory, being so much wasted by long
sickness and the malice of physicians. He then read audibly, first from
the one side and then from the other, a short speech that he had
hurriedly written—what he had composed at length and intended for his
testimony having been taken from him. It commenced with a general
confession of his sins and shortcomings in prosecuting the best pieces
of work and service to the Lord and to his generation, and that through
temptation he had been carried to so great a length, in compliance with
the late usurpers, after having so seriously and frequently made
professions of aversion to their way; “for all which,” he added, “as I
seek God’s mercy in Christ Jesus, so I desire that the Lord’s people
may, from my example, be the more stirred up to watch and pray that they
enter not into temptation.”

He then bare record to the glory of God’s free grace and of his
reconciled mercy through Christ Jesus—left “an honest testimony to the
whole covenanted work of reformation”—and expressed his lively
expectation of God’s gracious and wonderful renewing and reviving all
his former great interests in these nations, particularly Scotland—yea,
dear Scotland! He recommended his poor afflicted wife and children to
the choicest blessings of God and the prayers and favours of his
servants—prayed for repentance and forgiveness to his enemies—for the
king, and blessings upon him and his posterity, that they might be
surrounded with good and faithful councillors, and follow holy and wise
councils to the glory of God and the welfare of the people. He concluded
by committing himself, soul and body, his relations, friends, the
sympathizing and suffering witnesses of the Lord, to his choice mercies
and service in earth and heaven, in time and through eternity:—“All
which suits, with all others which he hath at any time by his spirit
moved and assisted me to make, and put up according to his will, I leave
before the throne, and upon the Father’s merciful bowels, the Son’s
mediating merits, and the Holy Spirit’s compassionating groans, for now
and for ever!”

After he had finished reading, he prayed with the greatest fervour and
humility, thus beginning his supplication—“Abba! Abba! Father, Father,
accept this thy poor sinful servant, coming unto thee through the merits
of Jesus Christ.” Then he took leave of his friends, and again, at the
foot of the ladder, prayed in a perfect rapture, being now near the end
of that sweet work he had been so much employed about, and felt so much
sweetness in through life. No ministers were allowed to be with him, but
his God abundantly supplied his every want. On account of his weakness,
he required help to ascend the ladder. Having reached the top, he cried
with a loud voice—“I beseech you all who are the people of God not to
scorn at suffering for the interest of Christ, or stumble at any thing
of this kind falling out in these days. Be encouraged to suffer for him,
for I assure you, in the name of the Lord, he will bear your charges!”
This he repeated again while the rope was putting about his neck,
forcibly adding—“The Lord hath graciously comforted me.” Then asking the
executioner if he was ready to do his office, and being answered that he
was, he gave the signal, and was turned off, crying—“Pray! pray! praise!
praise!” His death was almost without a struggle.

Sir Archibald Johnston, Lord Warriston, was an early, zealous, and
distinguished covenanter, and bore a conspicuous part in all the
remarkable transactions of the times, from 1638 till the Restoration.
The only blemish which his enemies could affix to his character was,
what he himself lamented, his accepting office under the usurpers, after
having previously so violently opposed this in others, when yet every
prospect of restoring the Stuart family seemed hopeless, and when
numbers of his countrymen and of his judges themselves had submitted to
a tolerant commonwealth, that did not burden the conscience with
unnecessary oaths, or require any compliances which might not, in the
circumstances of the case, have been considered venial, if not
justifiable. His talents for business were of the first order. His
eloquence was ready, and his judgment clear. He was prompt and intrepid
in action, and adhered steadily to his Presbyterian principles,
notwithstanding his officiating under a liberal government of a
different persuasion—conduct we now allow to be not incompatible with
integrity. His piety was ardent, and, amid a life of incessant activity,
he managed to spare a larger portion of time for private devotion than
many of more sequestered habits. He habitually lived near to God, and
died in the full assurance of hope.

Parliament having sat upwards of three months, rose on the 9th of
October. Even during its sitting, the council never intermitted their
oppressive acts; and, so far was this branch of the legislature from
interfering to check their immoderate abuse of power, that they had
shown themselves upon every occasion the willing instruments of their
oppression, ready when called upon to legitimate without a murmur their
foulest usurpations. On the other hand, the executive acted as the
humble tools of the prelates, ready to support their most arrogant
assumptions or gratify their cowardly and cruel revenge. St Andrews, the
primate’s seat, first required to be thoroughly cleansed; and all who
would not countenance the archbishop in his treachery, were of necessity
removed as unwelcome remembrancers of his former profession. Mr James
Wood, principal of the Old College, pious, learned, and assiduous in his
duty, who had been an intimate friend and companion of Sharpe’s, and one
of the many excellent men who had been his dupes, was, on the 23d of
July, summoned before the council and required to show by what authority
he came to be principal. Without being suffered to offer any remarks,
when he acknowledged “that he was called by the Faculty of the College
at the recommendation of the usurpers,” the place was declared vacant,
and he was commanded to confine himself within the city of Edinburgh
till further orders.

Yet such was the estimation in which he was held, that his enemy, though
by falsehood, endeavoured to shelter his apostacy under the shadow of
his name. Not long after this, when Mr Wood was on his deathbed, March
1664, and greatly weakened by disease, Sharpe called once or twice upon
him; and he having said, as a dying man in the immediate view of
eternity, that he was taken up about greater business than forms of
church government, and that he was far more concerned about his personal
interest in Christ than about any external ordinance, Sharpe took
occasion to spread a report that he had said Presbyterian government was
a matter of no consequence, and no man should trouble himself about it,
which coming to the sufferer’s ears, he emitted a declaration before
witnesses of his unshaken attachment to Presbytery as an ordinance of
God, and so precious that a true Christian is obliged to lay down his
life for the profession thereof, if the Lord should see meet to put him
to his trial.

Along with Mr Wood, a great number of ministers from every quarter of
the country, were removed from their charges, some confined to
Edinburgh, others banished beyond the river Ness—all forbid to preach
the gospel under the threatening of severer penalties. Heavy were the
complaints of the clergy; the ministers refused to attend their synods,
and the people persisted in neglecting their sermons. The council,
therefore, appointed “the Lords Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow,
the Marquis of Montrose, the Lord Secretary and Register, to wait on the
Lord Commissioner, his Grace, to think on a general course what shall be
done, as well anent those ministers that were admitted before 1649, and
carry themselves disobediently to the laws of the kingdom, as those who
were admitted since.” While the committee were deliberating, the evil
increased; and, on the 30th of the same month, six of the west country
ministers were before the council to answer the heavy charge of
“convocating great multitudes of his majesty’s subjects for hearing
their factious and seditious sermons, to the great scandal of religion
and prejudice of the government of the church.” To shorten their
labours, however, and probably upon a report of the archbishops and
their assistants, a most harassing and contradictory act was passed,
commanding all “outted” ministers, under pain of sedition, _i.e._ being
processed criminally, to remove themselves and their families twenty
miles from the bounds of their own parishes, six miles from every
cathedral, and three miles from every royal burgh, thus depriving them
of any means of support they might have derived from their own industry
or that of their families, in the only places of trade or traffic, and
scattering them among strangers, far from the bounty or assistance of
their friends. But as one “outted” minister only could reside in one
parish, the act, besides, involved an alternative of death or apostacy;
for the whole of Scotland could not have accommodated the sufferers, and
no relaxation could be obtained but from the privy council or the bishop
of the diocese. The older ministers, who still continued to preach, but
withdrew from the synods, were now to be treated as contemners of his
majesty’s authority.

To enforce their acts, the privy council ordered the Earl of Linlithgow
to send as many troops to Kirkcudbright as, with those already there,
would make up the number of eightscore footmen with their officers in
that district. Sir Robert Fleming was directed to march two squads of
his majesty’s life-guards to the west, and to station one in Paisley and
the other in Kilmarnock. The object of these military missionaries was
to episcopalize the refractory south and west, by collecting the fines
and compelling subjection to the bishops and their curates. Sir James
Turner, who had signalized himself by his zeal in fighting for the
covenant, was singled out to superintend the pious service in the south,
which he performed so much to the satisfaction of his employers, that,
on the 24th of November, a letter of thanks was recommended to be
written him “for his care and pains taken in seeing the laws anent
church government receive due obedience.” The excesses which were
committed under sanction of these orders and commendations, were never
attempted to be justified, though the parties afterwards mutually
endeavoured to shift the blame from themselves. When it was deemed
necessary to make the General the scape-goat, it was asserted that he
had exceeded his instructions; but he averred, and with greater
probability of truth, that he had not even acted up to their tenor.[38]
The exactions were enormous; and, as the fines for non-attendance were
generally appropriated by the soldiers, they were summarily levied, and
not unfrequently to far more than the legal amount. The process against
non-conformists, in places where there were Episcopalian incumbents, was
short. The curates were the accusers—the officers of the army, or
sometimes even private sentinels, the judges—no proof was required—and
no excuse was received, except money. If a tenant or householder were
unwilling or unable to pay, a party was quartered upon him, till ten
times the value of the fine was taken, and he was ruined, or, as they
termed it, “eaten up;”[39] then, after every thing else was gone, the
household furniture and clothes of the poor defaulters were distrained
and sold for a trifle.

Footnote 38:

  “Sometimes not exceeding a sixth part, seldom a halfe.” _Turner’s
  Memoirs_, p. 114.

Footnote 39:

  To understand the meaning of this phrase, it is necessary to recollect
  the situation of the rural tenantry in Scotland about this time. They
  lived almost entirely upon the produce of the lands they rented, and
  kept usually a small stock of oatmeal, cheese, and salted provisions,
  as public markets were almost wholly unknown.

The soldiery employed in this execrable work, were the lowest and most
abandoned characters, who readily copied the example of their
officers—measured their loyalty by their licentiousness, and considered
that they served the king in proportion as they annoyed the Whigs.
Religion was the object of their ridicule. In the pious hamlets where
they quartered, family worship was interrupted by mockery or violence;
and “The Cottar’s Saturday Night,” not only treated with derision, but
punished as a violation of the laws of the land! Upon the Sabbath, the
day peculiarly devoted by the covenanters to holy rest, and the quiet
performance of their sacred duties—for the covenanters made conscience
of the moral obligation of the Sabbath—a scene of dismay and distress
hitherto unknown was commonly exhibited; and the day to which they had
in other times looked forward as the glory of the week, was now dreaded
as the signal of their renewed torments. Multitudes were brutally driven
to church, or dragged as felons to prison; and hesitation or
remonstrance provoked only additional insult or blows. Lists of the
parishioners were no longer kept for assisting the minister in his
labours of love, but were handed over to the troopers, with directions
for them to visit the families, and to catechise them upon their
principles of loyalty and their practice of obedience to their parsons.
After sermon, the roll was called by the curate, when all absent without
leave were delivered up as deserters to the mercy of the military. At
churches where the old Presbyterian ministers were yet allowed to
remain—for a few still continued to preach at their peril, or through
the interest of some influential person—the outrage and confusion were
indescribable. As they were generally crowded, the forsaken bishops and
their underlings were enraged, and the soldiers were instigated to
additional violence. Their custom was to allow a congregation peaceably
to assemble, while they sat carousing in some alehouse nigh at hand,
till public worship was nearly over; then they sallied forth inflamed
with liquor, and, taking possession of the church-doors or
churchyard-gates, obliged the people, whom they only suffered to pass
out one at a time, to answer upon oath whether they belonged to the
parish; if they did not, although their own parish had no minister of
any kind, they were instantly fined at the pleasure of the soldiers; and
if they had no money, or not so much as would satisfy them, their Bibles
were seized, and they were stripped of their coats if men, or their
plaids if women; so that a party returning from such an expedition,
appeared like a parcel of villanous camp-followers, after an engagement,
returning from a battle-field, laden with the spoils of the wounded and
slain.

To such an extent had these plunderings been carried, that even the
privy council found it necessary to interfere. Towards the end of the
year, they issued an explanation of their former acts, and restricted
the exactions of the soldiery, “allenarly to the penalty of twenty
shillings Scots, from every person who staid from their parish churches
on the Sabbath days.”[40]

Footnote 40:

  Three of the prelates died in course of the past year. Bishop Mitchell
  of Aberdeen, who was succeeded by Burnet; Sydeserf, who was succeeded
  in the bishopric of Orkney by Mr Andrew Honeyman, formerly minister of
  St Andrews; and Archbishop Fairfoul of Glasgow, who was succeeded in
  the arch-episcopate by Bishop Burnet of Aberdeen, Dr Scougall being
  appointed to that see.

[1664.] Even this symptom, small as it was, of moderation, was not at
all agreeable to the prelates. Like all upstarts, suddenly raised beyond
their expectations, their arrogance became insupportable, and could
brook no opposition. Glencairn, in particular, who had been so
instrumental in their rise, began to feel the truth of what he had been
repeatedly told—“that the bishops would never rest content with being
second in the state, and that moderate Episcopacy was all a jest.” He
had said to Rothes that “it was the noblemen’s interest to repress the
growing power of bishops, otherwise they would be treated by them now as
they had been before 1638.” This remark being carried to Sharpe, he
treated the Chancellor with great _hauteur_, and publicly threatened to
destroy his interest at court—an affront that Glencairn could never
forget, and which is said to have preyed upon his spirits to his dying
day.

Fearing a relaxation of “the wholesome severities,” the primate hastened
to London with heavy complaints against many of the noblemen, for their
backwardness in executing the laws made in favour of the church; and,
through the influence of the English bishops and high churchmen,
prevailed upon the king to re-establish in Scotland the most detested of
all the arbitrary courts that had been abolished—the High Commission
Court.

His majesty, by virtue of his royal prerogative in all causes and over
all persons, as well ecclesiastic as civil, granted the most exorbitant
powers to that antitype of the Inquisition. It consisted of thirty-five
lay members,[41] and of all the prelates, except Leighton, who had the
honour to be excluded from the nomination; and any five constituted a
quorum, provided always an archbishop or bishop was of the number. Under
pretext of seeing all the acts of parliament and council in favour of
Episcopacy put in vigorous execution, they were authorized to suspend or
depose, fine, and imprison all ministers who dared to exercise any of
their sacred functions without the license of a bishop—who should preach
in private houses or elsewhere—who should keep meetings for fasts or for
the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper not approven by
authority: to summon, call before them, and punish all who should speak,
preach, write, or print to the scandal, reproach, or detriment of the
government of the church or kingdom as now established—and all who
should express any dissatisfaction at his majesty’s authority. The
commanders of the forces and militia, the magistrates of every
description, were required to apprehend and incarcerate delinquents upon
their warrants, and the privy council to direct letters of horning for
payment of the fines—one half of which was appropriated to defray the
expenses of the court, and the other to be employed for such pious uses
as his majesty should appoint. And by a final comprehensive clause, the
High Commission, or their quorum, were authorized to do and execute
whatever they should find necessary and convenient for his majesty’s
service—for preventing and suppressing of schism and separation—for
planting of vacant churches—and for procuring of reverence, submission,
and obedience to the ecclesiastical government established by law.

Footnote 41:

  The following were the lay members:—The Chancellor, Treasurer, Duke of
  Hamilton, Marquis of Montrose, Earls of Argyle, Atholl, Eglinton,
  Linlithgow, Home, Galloway, Annandale, Tweeddale, Leven, Moray; Lords
  Drumlanrig, Pitsligo, Fraser, Cochrane, Halkerton, Bellenden, the
  President of the Session, the Register, the Advocate, Justice-Clerk;
  Charles Maitland, the Laird of Philorth, Sir Andrew Ramsay, Sir
  William Thomson; the Provosts of St Andrews, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Ayr,
  and Dumfries, Sir James Turner, and the Dean of Guild of Edinburgh.
  From among these, the primate, who managed the whole, could easily
  pick out a quorum to suit his purposes; and thus he got rid of all the
  members of the privy council who had either the spirit or the policy
  to resist his unbounded presumption—a presumption heightened by his
  being now ordered to take precedence of the Chancellor, the nobility,
  and all the officers of state.

By this instrument the whole kingdom was laid at the feet of the
prelates; for no quorum of the Commission could be complete without a
bishop, while five bishops could form a quorum without a layman. The
practice was agreeable to the constitution of the court, and such as may
always be expected where churchmen are intrusted with civil authority.
True ministers of Christ would never in their ministerial capacity
accept it, and worldlings who have assumed that sacred office to serve
purposes of ambition, have ever been the greatest curse of Christendom.
The records have been mislaid or lost, but the cases that remain, amply
justify the epithets bestowed upon this nefarious tribunal by all who
have mentioned it.

James Hamilton of Aikenhead, near Glasgow, was among the first brought
before them, accused of not hearing Mr David Hay, curate of the
parish—Cathcart—-in which his estate was situate. His defence was, the
unclerical and ungentleman-like conduct of the clergyman. In collecting
his stipend, which he did rigorously, Mr Hay had borne particularly hard
upon some of Mr Hamilton’s tenants, and, in consequence, a quarrel had
ensued, in which the curate had descended to very intemperate and
abusive language, and in return had been not less roughly answered. Mr
Blair, the “outted” minister, happening accidentally to be upon the
spot, interfered, and rescued Hay from the hands of his furious
parishioners. When the affray was over, Mr Blair spoke seriously to the
curate, and represented how opposite it was to his own interest for him
to turn informer against his people. Hay, in return, thanked him for his
kindness and advice, and gave him his solemn promise that he would
follow it; yet within a very short time, he went to Glasgow and
“delated” (_i. e._ denounced) them to the archbishop, who immediately
dispatched Sir James Turner, then in the west, with a party of soldiers,
to seize the delinquents. When Mr Hamilton came to be informed of the
circumstances of the affair, he considered the low prevaricating conduct
of Hay as so base, that he would never again enter the church door, and
he kept his promise; for this he was fined a fourth part of his yearly
rent. When he had paid the fine, the court was so fully sensible of the
misconduct of Hay, that the Archbishop of Glasgow came forward and
promised that he would be removed, but insisted that Mr Hamilton should
come under an obligation to hear and acknowledge the minister he meant
to place in his room; and, upon refusing to do any such thing till he
knew who that person should be, he was mulcted another fourth of his
income, and remitted to the archbishop to give him satisfaction as to
his loyal and peaceable behaviour. The prelate, however, not being
satisfied, he was again summoned before the court, upon some vexatious
charges of keeping up the church utensils and session-books from the
curate. Offering to swear he knew nothing at all about them, he was
accused of not assisting the curate in the session when called upon, and
suffering some of his family to absent themselves from church! Whether
he might have been able to acquit himself of these heinous crimes is
uncertain, for Rothes cut the business short, by telling him he had seen
him in some courts before, but never for any thing loyal, and therefore
tendered him the oath of allegiance. He had no objections, he replied,
to take the oath of allegiance, were it not mixed up with the oath of
supremacy. Sharpe, interrupting him, said “that was the common cant, but
it would not do.” Then he requested to be allowed to explain, but was
politely answered by the president—“he deserved to be hanged!” and, upon
refusing to become bound for all his tenants’ good behaviour, he was
fined three hundred pounds sterling, and sent to confinement in
Inverness, to remain during pleasure!

John Porterfield of Douchal, an excellent person, singled out for more
than common oppression, was summoned also for not hearing. He alleged
the unfounded calumnies the curate had spread against him as the reason
why he could not wait upon his ministry. The reason was allowed to be
cogent, and, at his own desire, he was permitted to prove it. His first
witness bore him out in all that he advanced, and his vindication would
have been complete; but he was too much respected and esteemed in the
neighbourhood, and his acquittal might have encouraged others. His proof
was therefore stopped, and he was required to take the oath of
allegiance. As had been expected, he stuck at the supremacy, and offered
an explanation. The natural consequence followed—the curate was sent
home to enjoy his incumbency, and Porterfield, for daring to offer a
defence, was sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred pounds sterling,
his estate sequestrated till it should be paid, and himself confined to
the town of Elgin, where he continued for four years.

Mr Alexander Smith, who had been turned out of his parish of Cowend,
Dumfries-shire, by the Glasgow act, had since then resided at Leith; but
having been guilty of preaching or expounding the Scriptures privately
in his own house, was called before the court to be examined. In
answering some of the queries Sharpe had put to him, he omitted the
primate’s titles, and only styled him, Sir, which Rothes observing,
meanly truckling to the priest, asked him, “if he knew to whom he was
speaking?” “Yes, my lords, I do,” answered the prisoner firmly; “I speak
to Mr James Sharpe, once a fellow-minister with myself.” For this high
misdemeanour, the worthy man was immediately laid in irons and cast into
the filthiest corner of the prison—the thieves’ hole. He was afterwards
banished to one of the desolate Shetland Isles.

At the settlement of Ancrum parish, where a James Scott, who had been
presbyterially excommunicated, was appointed to fill the place of Mr
Livingston, a country woman of the name of Turnbull, with more zeal than
prudence, attempted, as he was going to be inducted, to dissuade him
from undertaking the pastoral charge of so unwilling a people; and when
he would not stop to listen to her reasoning, seized him by the cloak.
Impatient at this detention, he turned in wrath upon the female
remonstrant, and beat her unmercifully; which unmanly conduct provoking
some youths present, they threw a few stones, but none of them touched
Scott or any other person. This pitiful affair was instantly magnified
into a seditious tumult, and the ringleaders were apprehended by the
Sheriff and thrown into jail—a punishment certainly more than adequate
to the offence, but it was no sufficient atonement for the indignity
done to the clergy, and the business was brought before the High
Commission; there these ministers of mercy sentenced the woman to be
whipped through Jedburgh—her two brothers, married men with families,
they banished to Virginia—and four boys, who confessed that they had
each thrown a stone, were first scourged through the city of Edinburgh,
then burnt in the face with a hot iron, and, finally, sold as slaves,
and sent to the island of Barbadoes, which severe punishment they
endured with a patient constancy that excited much admiration.

Bad as were the other courts in Scotland at this time, there was at
least a probability that even a Presbyterian might by accident escape if
accused, but before the High Commission no such thing was known. If
proof was wanting, the declaration and the oath of allegiance were
always at hand; and as the conscientious adherents of that persuasion
were well known when brought before them, their trial was as short as
their fate was certain. The exorbitant assumptions of the prelates were
for some time supported by Rothes, but at length so disgusted the
nobility, and brought such odium upon the court, that few of them would
countenance its proceedings. While the uniform and flagrant injustice of
their sentences rendered men desperate, who, rather than answer their
summons, suffered themselves to be outlawed, or withdrew into voluntary
exile in Ireland; till, in little more than a year and a half, the
detested Crail court, as it was commonly called,[42] sank first into
contempt and then into disuse.

Footnote 42:

  It was so called, because Sharpe, who was the author of the court, and
  took precedence of all its members, had been minister of Crail.

Presbyterians in the north of Ireland being at this time also subject to
persecution from the bishops, the ministers pursued in one country
sought occasionally refuge in the other. John Cruickshanks and Michael
Bruce who had fled to Scotland this year, and were preaching with much
success to the conventicles in the west, were in consequence denounced
as rebels, (June 23,) and power given to the officers and the commanders
of the forces to seize them.

While the High Commission was in its vigour, the privy council was
thrown into the background; yet in its temporary shade it was not
unmarked by streaks of persecution, equally vivid with any of the
lineaments of its co-tyrannous judicatories. The declaration was forced
by them upon all who held places of public trust; and their exertions
were stimulated by a letter from the king, commanding that “upon no
terms was any explication or declaration to be admitted upon the
subscription of any;” yet some few of the royal burghs refused, and
several of the shires hesitated; but a peremptory proclamation produced
a very general compliance—for the conscientious demitted their offices,
and the privy council supplied their places with successors who were
less scrupulous. Nor did any of the burghs evince the smallest
inclination to assert their rights or privileges, or persist in any
election that was disagreeable to the managers.

His majesty likewise called their attention early this year to the fines
imposed by Middleton’s act, which the Presbyterians were beginning to
think had been forgotten, and for which leniency Lauderdale had received
much unmerited credit. After several communications and delays, it was
finally intimated, in the month of November, by proclamation, that the
iniquitous imposition would be exigible—the first moiety at Candlemas,
and the other at Whitsunday 1665.

Prohibited from preaching, several of the “outted” ministers who resided
in Edinburgh, with others of those who feared the Lord, and that thought
upon his name, were in the habit of meeting together in those days of
sad calamity for social prayer in private houses. This, also, was a
nuisance that required to be removed; and information having been given
by the prelates or their underlings, the council issued a warrant to the
magistrates of the city, “to cause search to be made anent the keeping
of any such meetings, and that they acquaint the Lord Chancellor with
what they discover, and the persons names, that order may be taken about
the same.” This was followed by a mandate for all such ministers as had
hitherto been allowed to remain by suffrance in Edinburgh, or any burgh,
instantly to remove to the distances required by their former act, under
the severest penalties of law. But the most nefarious of their acts, and
one opposed to every good or amiable feeling of the human heart, was
that of April 29, forbidding any contribution to be made, or money
collected, for the relief of those who had been ejected from their
livings, banished from their friends, and prohibited from settling in
places where themselves or their families might have earned an honest
subsistence. The proclamation bears strong marks that its authors were
ashamed of so gross a violation of the dictates of common humanity. It
is worded in such an ambiguous manner as to be capable of the most
severe application, yet so as to be explained away when requisite. For
jesuitical falsehood, and heartless tyranny, the production is
matchless:—“The lords of his majesty’s privy council being informed
that, without any public warrant or authority, some disaffected persons
to the present establishment, presume and take upon them to require
contributions from such persons as they please, and do collect sums of
money, which are, or may be, employed for carrying on of their private
designs, prejudicial to the peace of the kingdom and his majesty’s
authority; and considering that such courses and underhand dealing may
strengthen seditious persons in their practices and designs, to disturb
the peace, if they be not timeously prevented: Therefore, in his
majesty’s name, they do prohibit and discharge all persons whatsomever,
to seek or demand any contributions or supply, or to receive any sums of
money. As likewise discharge all persons to grant or deliver any
contributions to any persons whosoever shall require the same, unless it
be upon occasions as have been publicly allowed and known, and
heretofore practised; and that they have a special warrant and allowance
of the lords of the privy council, or lords of the clergy within whose
dioceses these collections are to be made. With certification, that if
they contravene, they shall be proceeded against as persons disaffected
to the present government, and movers of sedition.”[43]

Footnote 43:

  Too much liberality in Christians towards their brethren, or even
  pastors, suffering in the cause of Christ, is a fault of very rare
  occurrence. There they often withhold more than is meet, and find in
  their experience that it tendeth to penury; for the Lord has many ways
  of taking from his people the money they think they can employ better
  than by lending to him; and perhaps many of the excellent persons who
  in this reign suffered the spoiling of their goods, might have to
  regret that they had not more freely contributed to supply the wants
  of their more needy fellow-christians. But no man knoweth either love
  or hatred from outward dispensations; and it is impossible for others
  to say, whether as a rebuke or a trial, the persecutors were permitted
  to plunder the devoted south and west.

Shortly before the Restoration, and within the few years that had
elapsed since it had pleased God to remove a great number of his most
eminent servants, who had sustained the heat and burden of the day,
during the troublous times of civil dissension, others had been honoured
to suffer death, imprisonment, or exile for the word of God, and for the
testimony of Jesus Christ; and of those who remained, the prelates were
extremely anxious to get rid. Among them, William Guthrie of Fenwick was
too conspicuous to escape. He had, through the interposition of the Earl
of Eglinton and the Chancellor, been allowed to continue so long, but
the crowds who were attracted to his church from the neighbouring and
even distant parishes, and the blessing of God which in a remarkable
manner followed his preaching, provoked the jealousy of the prelates,
particularly Archbishop Burnet, who, when requested by Glencairn to
overlook him, displayed his inveteracy by replying—“That shall not be
done; it cannot be; he is a ringleader and keeper up of schism in my
diocese;” and Glencairn was not long dead before he was suspended by his
Grace. Such, however, was the respect in which Mr Guthrie was held, that
it was with difficulty he could find a curate to pronounce his sentence,
and not till he had procured him a guard of soldiers and bribed him with
the sum of five pounds. But Mr Guthrie strictly forbade any opposition,
and rather called them to fasting and prayer. Early on the Sabbath on
which his church was declared vacant, he preached, as usual, two sermons
from the latter part of that text, Hosea xiii. 9, “O Israel, thou hast
destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help”—only had the whole service
over before nine o’clock.

Shortly after, the curate with a party of soldiers arrived, and, leaving
the privates outside, entered the manse with the officers. Rudely
accosting Mr Guthrie, he told him that the bishop and committee, after
much lenity shown to him for a long time, were constrained to pass the
sentence of suspension against him for not keeping presbyteries and
synods with his brethren, and for his unpeaceableness in the church, of
which sentence he was appointed to make public intimation unto him, and
for which he had a commission under the Archbishop of Glasgow’s hand. Mr
Guthrie answered—“I judge it not convenient to say much in answer to
what you have spoken; only whereas you allege there hath been much
lenity shown toward me—be it known unto you, that I take the Lord for a
party in that, and thank him for it; yea, I look upon it as a door which
God opened to me for preaching this gospel, which neither you nor any
man else was able to shut, till it was given you of God. And as to that
sentence passed against me, I declare before these gentlemen—the
officers of the party—that I lay no weight upon it, as it comes from you
or those who sent you: though I do respect the civil authority who, by
their law, laid the ground for this sentence; and were it not for the
reverence I owe to the civil magistrate, I would not surcease my
preaching for all that sentence. And as to the crimes I am charged with,
I did keep presbyteries and synods with my brethren; but I do not judge
those who now sit in these to be my brethren, but men who have made
defection from the truth and cause of God: nor do I judge those to be
free or lawful courts of Christ that are now sitting.

“And as to my unpeaceableness, I know I am bidden follow peace with all
men, but I know also I am bidden follow it with holiness; and since I
could not obtain peace without prejudice to holiness, I thought myself
obliged to let it go. And as for your commission, to intimate this
sentence, Sir, I here declare I think myself called by the Lord to the
work of the ministry, and did forsake my nearest relations in the world,
and give up myself to the service of the gospel in this place, having
received an unanimous call from the parish, and been tried and ordained
by the presbytery; and I bless the Lord he hath given me some success,
and a seal of my ministry upon the souls and consciences of not a few
that are gone to heaven, and of some that are yet on their way to it.
And now, Sir, if you will take it upon you to interrupt my work among
this people, as I shall wish the Lord may forgive you the guilt of it,
so I cannot but leave all the bad consequences that follow upon it,
betwixt God and your own conscience. And here I do further declare
before these gentlemen, that I am suspended from my ministry for
adhering to the covenant and work of God, from which you and others have
apostatized.”

At this the curate interrupting him said, that the Lord had a work
before that covenant had a being, and that he judged them apostates who
adhered to that covenant; and that he wished that not only the Lord
would forgive him (Mr Guthrie,) but if it were lawful to pray for the
dead—at which expression the officers and soldiers burst into
laughter—that the Lord would forgive the sin of this church these
hundred years bygone. “It is true,” answered Mr Guthrie, “the Lord had a
work before the covenant had a beginning, but it is as true that it hath
been more glorious since that covenant; and it is a small thing for us
to be judged of you in adhering to that covenant, who have so deeply
corrupted your ways, and seem to reflect on the whole work of
reformation from popery these hundred years bygone, by intimating that
the church had need of pardon for the same.” Then directing himself to
the soldiers—“As for you, gentlemen, I wish the Lord may pardon you for
countenancing of this man in this business.” “I wish we may never do a
greater fault,” answered one of them scoffing. “A little sin may damn a
man’s soul,” Mr Guthrie gravely replied. He then called for a glass of
ale, and, after craving a blessing, drank to the officers, who, having
been civilly entertained, quietly left the house and went to the church,
where the curate executed his office without disturbance, except from a
few boys, whom the soldiers easily chased away.[44]

Footnote 44:

  This account of Mr Guthrie’s deposition is translated from a paper
  drawn up at the time by himself, and preserved by Wodrow; and it
  exemplifies a conduct in all respects becoming a Christian minister.
  Mr Blackadder’s is of a similar description; and, had we equally
  authentic and particular relations of the proceedings in other cases,
  I have no doubt a majority would be found not less worthy of our
  cordial approbation. Obedience to lawful authority, where it did not
  interfere with duty to God, was both inculcated and exemplified by the
  covenanters. Frequently the violent and outrageous conduct of the
  soldiers caused tumults, and sometimes the natural and honest feelings
  of the people got the better of their prudence, but all was charged
  upon the covenanters; and when provoked past human endurance, if they
  expressed only a just resentment, they were seditious despisers of
  lawful authority! as if it had been impossible for lawful authority
  ever to become tyrannical, and so tyrannical, as to release men from
  their obligations to obey.

Another instance was, Andrew Donaldson of Dalgetty, described “as
singular for a heavenly and spiritual temper,” and one who had also been
much blessed in his ministry. Through the interest of the Earl of
Dunfermline, Lord Privy Seal, he had been allowed to continue in his
parish till this year, when the Earl being called to London, Archbishop
Sharpe urged the Bishop of Dunkeld to depose him. He accordingly
summoned Mr Donaldson to attend his clerical duty under pain of
suspension; but, for reasons similar to those of Mr Guthrie, he declined
attending the presbyteries or owning the bishop’s authority, and was in
consequence (October 4th) formally deposed, “in the name, and by the
authority of Jesus Christ, and with the consent of all his (_i. e._ the
bishop’s) brethren, not only from his charge at Dalgetty, but from all
the parts of the ministerial function within any diocese of the kirk of
Scotland.” By his prudence, Mr Donaldson prevented any disturbance—for
his affectionate people were sufficiently disposed to have made
resistance—and even prevailed upon the military deputation, who came
with the curate to displace him, to suffer him to preach and take
farewell of his weeping congregation who had assembled. Dunfermline,
upon being apprised of the whole before he left London, applied
personally to the king, and procured his warrant to present Mr Donaldson
to Dalgetty during life, which he brought to Scotland with him; and,
showing it to the primate, complained that he had taken advantage of his
absence to deprive him of a minister for whom he had so high a value.
Sharpe, dissembling his anger, apologized, and, with many professions of
regard for the Earl, promised obedience to his majesty’s commands, only
requesting, as a favour, that the Earl would do nothing in it for three
weeks, till he got the young man now settled at Dalgetty provided for.
To this his lordship consented, supposing, as a matter of course, that
Mr Donaldson would then be restored. But the archbishop in the interim,
by his interest at court, got an order under the royal sign manual,
forbidding all “outted” ministers to return to their charges, sent down
express, long before the three weeks expired. Dunfermline felt
sufficiently fretted at the cheat, but there was no remedy.

Field-preaching continuing on the increase in the west, in the south,
and in Fife, several of the ministers, at the instigation of Archbishop
Burnet, whose province they chiefly invaded, had been summoned before
the council and endured vexatious and expensive prosecutions; others,
who were more active and conspicuous, who knew that no defence they
could offer would prove availing, chose rather to allow sentence to pass
in absence than willingly to desist from proclaiming the gospel; and
being determined in this to obey God rather than man, they persisted at
their peril, in spite of acts of parliament and council, to exercise
their ministry wherever they could find opportunity. Deprived of their
livings and driven from their homes, they could furnish little spoil to
the persecutor, but they were most affectionately received into the
houses of their friends, who carefully provided for their safety; and
their sermons, of which intelligence was easily communicated, were
attended by numerous and attentive congregations. That they should thus
elude the grasp of their persecutors, and be followed by the most
respectable of the country population, was irritating to the managers
and galling to the prelates. But many of those who protected them were
possessed of property; and as they were now made liable by law for
hearing the gospel, the council began to turn their attention to this
lucrative branch of oppression.

William Gordon of Earlston soon attracted their attention. Descended
from an ancient family, distinguished in the annals of the Reformation,
he, from his childhood, had attached himself to the people of God, and
in early life enjoyed the friendship of Rutherford, but does not appear
to have courted notice till persecution dragged him into view. When the
commission was sent to Galloway to inquire into the disturbances at
Irongray, they wrote to him requiring him to take an active part in the
settlement of a curate, presented by the Bishop of Galloway, to the
church of Dalry. This he respectfully declined, because he could not do
it with a good conscience, as what did not tend to God’s glory and the
edification of his scattered people; and, also, because he, as patron of
the parish, had legally, and with the consent of the people, appointed
already a truly worthy and qualified person and an actual minister to
that charge. For this “seditious carriage” he was called before the
council, but they do not appear to have found that his conduct amounted
to a punishable crime, and therefore, on the 24th November 1663, he was
summoned upon the more comprehensive accusation of keeping conventicles
and private meetings in his house; and, on the 1st of March this year,
he was found guilty, upon his own confession, of having been one at
three several conventicles, when Mr Gabriel Semple, a deposed minister,
preached—one in Corsack wood, and two in the wood of Airds; of hearing
Mr Robert Paton, likewise a deposed minister, expound a text of
Scripture, and perform divers acts of worship in his mother’s house; and
of allowing Mr Thomas Thomson, another of the same kind, to lecture in
his own house to his family on a Sabbath day—for these offences, and
because he would not engage never to repeat them, he was banished forth
of the kingdom, not to return under pain of death! Besides all these
various methods of harassing the Presbyterians, Sir James Turner, during
this year, continued his missionary exertions with uniform persevering
diligence, only increasing in severity, as an unlicensed, unresisted
soldiery ever do.

Several political changes took place in the course of the year that
require to be noticed, although they had no influence in stopping or
altering the tide of persecution, which, being directed by the prelates,
particularly the two archbishops, continued to roll on with accumulating
violence. The Earl of Glencairn died on the anniversary of the king’s
restoration. He was carried off rapidly by a fever, believed to have
been produced or exasperated by the treatment he received from Sharpe,
and which he could find no opportunity to resent. In his last moments,
he earnestly desired the assistance of some Presbyterian ministers; but
before one could be procured, he was incapable of deriving any benefit
or comfort from their spiritual instructions or devotional exercises—a
circumstance neither uncommon among the noblemen of that time nor
strange; for, when men who had been religiously educated, and had, for
the sake of worldly ambition or licentious pleasure, apostatized from
their early profession, came to encounter the solemnities of a deathbed,
if the conscience has not been altogether seared—a still more awful
state—the partial knowledge they had acquired would often awaken remorse
for having forsaken the guides of their youth, and lead them, when
perhaps too late, to seek those consolations they had despised, amid the
hurry of business or in high-day of pleasure and of health. Rothes,
about the end of the year, was made keeper of the great seal, which
Sharpe, according to Burnet, had solicited. Sir John Fletcher was
removed from the office of lord advocate, and Sir John Nisbet appointed
in his room. In the month of August, Sharpe and Rothes went to court,
whence they returned in October—Rothes loaded with civil appointments,
and in addition named commissioner for holding the national synod—a
council which the primate, who could bear no rival near the throne,
continued effectually to prevent being ever assembled.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                BOOK V.


                        JANUARY, A.D. 1665-1666.


Partial moderation of the King—Sir James Turner’s campaign through
   Kirkcudbright and Galloway—Unpaid fines levied—Students’ oaths—All
   meetings for religious purposes forbid—Quietude of the
   country—Proclamation of the Council—Apologetical relation—Sir James
   Turner’s third campaign extended to Nithsdale—Visits Mr Blackadder at
   Troqueer—More troops raised—Rigorous acts more rigorously
   enforced—Rising of the persecuted—They gather strength—Their
   operations—Defeated at Pentland—Prelatic revenge—Testimony of the
   sufferers—Torture introduced—Nielson of Corsack—Hugh
   M’Kail—Executions in Edinburgh and the west country—William
   Sutherland—Executions at Ayr.


Prelacy, now fenced round with all the forms of law, and supported by
all the civil and military authorities, wanted only the concurrence of
the people to have become the permanent, as it was the predominant,
religion of Scotland; and so fickle is the multitude—so little does real
principle take hold on the minds of the mob of mankind—that a little
moderation in the use of their power, by the prelates, seemed only
wanting to have induced the bulk of the congregations to return to their
parish churches, and to have sat down quietly under the ministrations of
the curates and the form of Episcopacy. A contemporary Presbyterian
writer says—“Truly, at this time the curates’ auditories were reasonably
throng: the body of the people, in most places of Scotland, waited upon
their preachings; and if they would have been content with what they
had, in the opinion of many, they might have stood longer than they did;
but their pride vowed they would be more glorious and better followed
than the Presbyterians, and because respect would not do it, force
should.”[45]

Footnote 45:

  Kirkton, p. 221.

Much and justly as the king and courtiers have been blamed for the
perfidious manner in which Episcopacy was re-introduced into Scotland,
and for the establishment of despotism upon the ruins of a free
constitution, solemnly approved and sanctioned both by his present
majesty and his “martyred” father; yet in this year, at least at the
commencement, softened perhaps by the state of the nations, they showed
no disposition to proceed to extremities had they not been pushed on by
the prelates.

Charles, by his mean subservience to France, had plunged the country
into a ruinous war with Holland—an awful pestilence had almost desolated
the city of London—while an unusually severe winter had interrupted all
rural labour, till March threatened to add famine to the list of
plagues. These judgments, calculated to solemnize the mind, and give
weight to public instruction, were improved by the non-conforming
ministers to rouse the attention of their hearers to their own sins and
the sins of the people among whom they dwelt; and the general open
apostacy from God which had accompanied the general defection from the
national religion, was too palpable to avoid being noticed in the
catalogue of crimes that had drawn down divine vengeance. These national
visitations were, in some degree, subservient to the preservation of the
Presbyterian cause, by impressing the guilt of apostacy more deeply on
the minds of the serious, and even recalling the attention of the
careless, while the public calamities and disgrace occupied the
attention of the king and English government, and perhaps softening
their rancour for the time, rendered them less anxious about pursuing
their labours of religious persecution.

Although, however, government did not actively interfere to urge on the
prosecution of ministers or frequenters of conventicles, the curates and
their assistants, the troopers, continued their exertions; and Sir James
Turner opened another campaign in the south and west, scouring the
country and besieging the churches with a success and renown not
unworthy his former fame. But his commission this year was extended;
for, dreading the desperation to which the insulted peasantry might be
driven, orders were issued for disarming the south and west, under
pretence that the fanatics had an intention of joining the Dutch! As
these districts had been always the most zealous in the cause of the
covenants, so they were likewise the best supplied with arms,[46] and
were, in an especial manner, the objects of the prelates’ aversion and
dread. When they had got them deprived of arms, therefore, the next step
was to deprive them of leaders; and this was effected by an arbitrary
order from the Commissioner, to arrest the principal gentlemen in the
country who were known to be unfriendly to Episcopacy, and, without
accusation or trial, to confine them prisoners in the Castles of
Edinburgh, Stirling, and Dumbarton. Among the gentlemen thus summarily
proceeded with, were Major-General Robert Montgomerie, brother to the
Earl of Eglinton; Sir William Cunningham of Cunninghamhead; Sir George
Maxwell of Nether Pollock; Sir Hugh Campbell of Cesnock; Sir William
Muir of Rowallan; Major-General Holborne; Sir George Munro; Colonel
Robert Halket; Sir James Stuart, late provost of Edinburgh; Sir John
Chiesly of Carswell; and Dunlop of Dunlop, &c. Yet arbitrary though
these proceedings were, perhaps, upon the whole, they may be deemed
providential, as, had any insurrection taken place while their leaders
were at liberty and the people armed, the struggle might have been
protracted—much bloodshed ensued—and the final result been far less
propitious to the country and cause of religious liberty.

Footnote 46:

  The Scottish peasantry had always been accustomed to keep arms, and
  when summoned to serve in the militia, each provided his own; so that,
  besides the indignity of being deprived of their weapons, the taking
  them away without compensation was an act of robbery.

A proclamation for levying the fines imposed by Middleton was
immediately planned, with such modifications as evidently showed that
not any disloyalty in the parties, but their sincere, tried attachment
to the free constitution of their country in church and state, and their
conscientious adherence to the religion in which they had been educated,
were the delinquencies it was intended to punish. The term of payment
for the first half was enlarged to such as had not already paid it, till
the first of December; and the second moiety was to be remitted to all
who, upon paying the first, should take the oath of allegiance and
subscribe the declaration in the express words of the act of
parliament—conditions which no true Presbyterian could comply with, and
which therefore drew a distinctive line between those who disregarded,
and those who feared, an oath; exposing the latter to all the penalties
of the various enactments with the expenses of collecting them—a new and
no trifling addition to the principal, and which was also intrusted to
the military to exact.

Unnecessarily multiplying oaths is a deep species of criminality, of
which the rulers of lands called Christian take little account, although
nothing tends more to demoralize a people. The prelatic rulers of
Scotland seemed to delight in it, and this year introduced a most
pernicious practice, afterwards improved upon, of forcing students to
take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy before they could obtain an
university degree; and thus initiated them into the habit of taking
oaths, about the propriety of which some of the wisest and best men in
the land were divided, and concerning which they could not be supposed
to be very accurately informed.

Towards the end of this year, the privy council resumed its cruel
activity; and the primate being president, the High Commission was
allowed quietly to demit, while its spirit was effectually transfused
into the other. December 7th, an act was issued extending the severities
of all former acts against Presbyterian ministers, to those who had been
settled before 1649, who had relinquished their ministry or had been
deposed; and all heritors were forbid to give them any countenance in
their preaching or any part of their ministerial office. But, as the
general opinion of the more moderate among the politicians was, that the
change in the form of religion had been too sudden, that it ought to
have been more gradual, to meet the prejudices of the older ministers,
whose only crimes consisted in absenting themselves from the church
courts—this act was accompanied by another, establishing a new kind of
presbyteries, under the name of “meetings for exercise,” which was
intended to leave without excuse the adherents of the abrogated system,
as men who chose to differ from the present establishment from motives
of sedition, and who refusing the substance because it was enacted by
the king, would fight for a shadow from mere humour. This species of
mock-presbyteries was specially declared to emanate from the royal
supremacy, and was to consist of such of the curates as the bishops
should judge qualified, who were to convene for exercise and assist in
discipline as they should direct them; but the whole power of
ecclesiastical censure, except parochial rebukes, was reserved to the
bishop, who alone could suspend, deprive, or excommunicate. A kind of
caricature session was at the same time brought forward, which was
afterwards turned into an instrument of persecution—the established
ministers were empowered to make choice of proper persons to assist them
in the exercise of discipline, who, if they refused to obey his summons,
were to be reported to the bishop; and if they continued obstinate,
given up to the secular arm to be prosecuted as the heinousness of the
case might require.

The usual strain of the curates’ pulpit services consisted of a quarter
or half-hour’s harangue upon those moral duties their lives set at
defiance, or in abusing or distorting doctrines they did not understand.
Such of the people, therefore, as had the least relish for gospel truth,
and who preferred the faithful sermons and earnest manner of their late
pastors, to the insipid discourses listlessly read by the present
incumbents, continued to follow after the private meetings and public
ministrations of the former. The council, in consequence, determined
that all such seditious practices should be put down, and, in a virulent
proclamation of the same date, strictly charged and commanded all public
officers to disperse every meeting assembled under the pretence of the
exercise of religion, of whatever number they might consist, except such
as were allowed by authority, stigmatizing them as the ordinary
seminaries of separation and rendezvouses of rebellion, and subjecting
every person who should be present at or give the smallest countenance
to them, to the highest pains inflicted by law upon seditious persons.

Enormous as the oppression and injustice which desolated the south and
west of Scotland had been, the people had remained quiet. They had seen
their civil and religious liberties swept away, the ministers they loved
scattered, and hirelings they detested settled in their stead. They had
groaned beneath the yoke of tyrannous enactments, the insolence of
lordly prelacy, and the licentiousness of military exaction, and yet had
abstained from any acts of rebellion. But their patient endurance only
encouraged the perpetration of new mischief, and their unexampled
loyalty was abused as the occasion of fresh aggression. For,
notwithstanding all that has been said about the disloyalty, faction,
and refractory spirit of the Scottish covenanters, they were men of
thorough monarchical principles, and possessed a more than ordinary
reverence and attachment for their royal family, under circumstances
that would have justified resistance long before they had recourse to
the last remedy. Affairs, however, had now reached that crisis in which
their duty to their God and their duty to their king were placed in
opposition, and as Christians no choice was left. To have deserted the
assembling of themselves together for religious worship and edification,
because their rulers forbade it, would have been to acknowledge a regal
power over the conscience which neither Scripture nor nature allows; and
as yet no disturbances had occurred at any of those meetings, which were
peaceably conducted at a distance from places that could reasonably give
offence—in the open air, on hills, and in woods, and sometimes under the
covert of night, where the ordinances of the Lord were administered in
the way of his appointment, and the word of his gospel preached in
simplicity and truth. They therefore continued; and, in spite of the
tyrannical edicts of their rulers, like the Israelites of old, did not
only meet but multiply. John Welsh, minister of Irongray, from the first
betook himself to the fields, and, with his co-presbyter Mr Gabriel
Semple, laboured constantly within the bounds of his presbytery,
officiating alternately in Corsack-wood and the surrounding country,
frequently acting as decoys to their persecutors, one of them being
actively engaged in preaching, while the curates with their beagles were
in full scent after the other in an opposite direction. For upwards of a
year, Mr Welsh is asserted to have “preached at least once every week in
the parish of Irongray.” Afterwards he extended his labours to the
sheriffdom of Ayr; and on Galston moor and various other places, held
large conventicles, where he baptized many children. Gabriel Semple was
not less zealous. He held large “unlawful assemblages” at Achmannock,
Labrochhill, besides many others, not only in the sheriffdom of Ayr, but
in Nithsdale, and within the stewartry of Kirkcudbright. Mr John
Blackadder ofttimes convened great numbers of the parish of Glencairn
and the neighbouring parishes, sometimes to the number of a thousand. Mr
Alexander Peden—who had been expelled from New Glenluce, and was
especially obnoxious for his exertions and popularity in the west—held
meetings under cloud of night and in the winter season; these being now
rendered imperative, as the increased diligence of the archbishop and
his military satellites forbade more open assemblages. Encouraged by
their example, many others ventured to the high places of the field; and
their united active endeavours promised to supply, in the districts of
Galloway, shire of Ayr, and stewartry of Kirkcudbright, in some degree,
the want of a regular Presbyterian ministry.

[Illustration:

  _M^r. Welsh baptizing children anno 1665_

  _Vide page 133_

  Edin^r. Hugh Paton, Carver & Gilder to the Queen, 1842.
]

The council, now entirely under the direction of the primate, on the
25th of January 1666, promulgated another thundering proclamation, in
which, reiterating their falsehoods, and re-asserting “that
conventicles, and unwarrantable meetings, and conventions, under
pretence and colour of religion and exercise thereof, being the ordinary
seminaries of separation and rebellion, are altogether unlawful,” they
denounced the eminent servants of God mentioned before, who were said to
convene, armed with swords and pistols, and some of them to ride in
disguise up and down the country in gray clothes, together with Mr John
Crookshanks, who avowedly kept by him “that book called Buchanan De Jure
Regni, which he had translated out of Latin into English;” and John
Osburn in Keir, who acted as officer for giving notice to the people of
these unlawful meetings; and in regard they were latent and kept
themselves out of the way that they might not be apprehended, and had no
certain dwelling-place. They were charged at the market-crosses of
Kirkcudbright, Dumfries, and Edinburgh, and at the shore and pier of
Leith, “to compear personally before the council to answer to the
premises,” which was, in other words, to surrender themselves and be
silenced, or sent to join their brethren in exile.

A little before this the cause of the sufferers had been advocated in
“An Apologetical Relation of the Particular Sufferings of the Faithful
Ministers and Professors of the Church of Scotland, since August 1660,”
attributed to John Brown, late minister of Wamphrey, and one of the
banished—a performance written in a style of elegance superior to many
of the publications of that day, and with a force of argument that
defied reply, and which was peculiarly galling to the managers, as it
convicted them of the most flagrant apostacy. The facts were too recent
to admit of denial, while the cause which the persecuted suffered for
defending, continued the same, as when it had been pronounced by their
persecutors themselves the cause of their king, their country, and their
God! An exposure more complete was never perhaps exhibited to the world;
and the sting was the more tormenting, because it was true. The council
felt it, and answered it in a becoming manner by another proclamation,
in the beginning of February, ordering it to be burned by the hands of
the common hangman, “to vindicate,” as they said, “the honour of this
kingdom, and to witness and declare, that such principles and tenets as
are contained in the said pamphlet, are detested and abhorred by them.
With certification, that whosoever should retain any copies in their
possession, should be liable in the sum of two thousand pounds, Scots
money, to be exacted without any favour or defalcation; and whoever
should contribute to disperse it, were declared liable to the punishment
due the venders of seditious libels!” And still more strongly to mark
their sense of its merit, on the very day this proclamation was issued,
before the book had been declared seditious, or keeping it in possession
a crime, the venerable relict of James Guthrie and her daughter were
brought before the council, and because they refused to give any
information respecting the author, they were sentenced to banishment to
Zetland, and to be confined there during pleasure. But the sentence
which, it is likely, clerical vengeance had dictated, was, upon a
petition from the gentlewomen, referred to the Commissioner, and by him
remitted.

Winter gave some short respite to the Presbyterians, who as yet were
suffered, without much interruption, to attend their conventicles amid
the inclemencies of the weather; but, with the return of spring, Sir
James Turner was dispatched to commence his third campaign. Formerly,
Kirkcudbright and Galloway had been the principal seat of his
operations, now they stretched over Nithsdale; nor was his circuit more
extended than were his severities increased. The exactions in his former
expeditions had been chiefly confined to the common people, now they
were imposed upon the gentlemen of the country; and the curates,
attended by files of soldiers, fined at their discretion all whom they
considered inimical, and of such sums as they judged proper. The
landlord was compelled to pay if his wife, children, servants, or
tenantry, were not regular church-goers. The tenant was mulcted when his
landlord withdrew from public worship—if the curate’s services deserved
the name—nor did it avail him, although both himself and his family were
as punctual as the parson. The aged and the sick, the poor, the widow,
and the fatherless—all were compelled to liquidate the church-fines; and
even the beggar was forced to lay down his pittance to satisfy the
unhallowed demand. From mere wantonness, the ruffian soldiery would
eject from their dwellings the non-compliants—driving husband from wife,
and wife from husband—snatch the meat from their children to give it to
their dogs—then quarter in their houses till they had wasted their
substance, and finish by committing to the flames what they could not
otherwise destroy. Thus many respectable families, reduced to utter
indigence, were scattered over the country, not only robbed of their
property, but deprived of the means of procuring subsistence. Complaints
were useless or worse—they were either disregarded, or answered by
additional outrage.

The following instances will give some faint idea of the nature of these
visitations. John Nielson of Corsack was a proprietor to a considerable
extent in the parish of Partan in Galloway—a gentleman of undoubted
loyalty, whose only crime was non-conformity. When Sir James Turner came
into that county last year, he was instantly delated by the curate for
non-attendance—aggravated, however, by his having shown hospitality to
Mr Welsh—fined an hundred pounds Scots, and sent prisoner to
Kirkcudbright, besides having four, six, or ten troopers quartered on
him constantly, from the beginning of March to the end of May, to each
of whom he paid half-a-crown per day, in addition to their board and
what they might abuse. This year, for the same offence, he had six
soldiers quartered upon him from March to the middle of June, when he
was forced to leave his house and wander without any certain
dwelling-place, while the villanous banditti demolished his household
stuff, and rioted upon his provisions. When these were exhausted, they
turned his lady and children out of doors, and forced his tenants to
bring them sheep, lambs, oatmeal, and malt, till they also were nearly
ruined, and then they drove the whole of the black cattle upon the
estate to Glasgow and sold them!

Mr Blackadder being under hiding, the Bishop of Galloway ordered Turner
to apprehend him. His second son, then a boy of ten years old, has left
the following artless and affecting account of Sir James’ visit to the
manse:—

“About this time, winter 1666, Turner and his party of soldiers from
Galloway came to search for my father, who had gone to Edinburgh to seek
about where he might live in safety. These rascally ruffians besett our
house round about two o’clock in the morning, then gave the cry—‘Damned
Whigs open the door,’ upon which we all got up, young and old, excepting
my sister, with the nurse and the child at her breast. When they came
in, the fire was gone out: they roared out again, ‘Light a candle
immediately, and on with a fire quickly, or els we’l roast nurse, and
bairn, and all, in the fire, and mak a braw bleeze.’ When the candle was
lighted, they drew out their swords, and went to the stools, and chairs,
and clove them down to mak the fire withall; and they made me hold the
candle to them, trembling all along, and fearing every moment to be
thrown quick into the fire. Then they went to search the house for my
father, running their swords down through the beds and bedclothes; and
among the rest, they came where my sister was, then a child, and as yet
fast asleep, and with their swords, stabbed down through the bed where
she was lying, crying, ‘Come out rebell dogs.’ They made narrow search
for him in all corners of the house, ransacking presses, chests, and
flesh-stands. Then they went and threw down all his books from the press
upon the floor, and caused poor me hold the candle all this while, till
they had examined his books; and all they thought Whiggish, as they
termed it—and brave judges they were!—they put into a great horse-creel
and took away, among which were a number of written sermons and printed
pamphlets. Then they ordered one of their fellow-ruffians to climb up
into the hen-baulks where the cocks and hens were, and as they came to
one, threw about its neck, and then down on the floor we’t, and so on,
till they had destroyed them all. Then they went to the meat-ambry and
took out what was there; then to the meal and beef barrels, and left
little or nothing there. All this I was an eyewitness to, trembling and
shivering all the while, having nothing but my short shirt on me. So
soon as I was relieved of my office, I begins to think, if possible, of
my making my escape, rather than to be burned quick as I thought and
they threatened. I goes to the door, where there was a sentry on every
side standing with their swords drawn—for watches were set round to
prevent escape. I approached nearer and nearer by small degrees, making
as if I were playing myself. At last I gets out there, making still as
if I were playing, till I came to the gate of the house; then, with all
the little speed I had—looking behind me now and then to see if they
were pursuing after me—I run the length of half-a-mile in the dark
night, naked to the shirt. I got to a neighbouring toune, called the
Brigend of Monnihyvie, when, thinking to creep into some house to save
my life, I found all the doors shut and the people sleeping; upon which
I went to the cross of the toune, and got up to the uppermost step of
it, and there I sat me down and fell fast asleep till the morning.
Between five and six a door opens and an old woman comes out, and seeing
a white thing upon the cross comes near it; and when she found it was a
little boy, cries out, ‘Jesus save us, what art thou?’ ‘With that I
awaked and answered, I am Mr Blackadder’s son.’ ‘O, my puir bairn, what
brought thee here.’ I answeres, ‘there’s a hantle of fearful men wi’ red
coats has burnt all our house, my brother, and sister, and all the
family.’ ‘O, puir thing,’ says she, ‘come in and lye down in my warm
bed’—which I did, and it was the sweetest bed I ever met with.”

After this the whole family was dispersed. “We all behoved,” continues
the narrator, “to scatter; one neighbour laird in the parish taking one
child, and another. I was sent to a place about a mile off, called the
Peel-toune, who afterwards, likewise, were quite ruined and all taken
from them—the poor mither begging but one lamb for meat to the bairns,
but could not get it. The meat they were not able to eat they destroyed,
threw down the butter-kirns, and hashed down the cheese with their
swords among the horses’ feet.”

Besides all other exactions, the parliamentary fines which had hung so
long suspended over the heads of the gentry, were ordered to be levied
with the utmost rigour from all who would not take the oath of supremacy
and subscribe the declaration; but to those who would, the one-half was
remitted, as had been proposed the preceding year. This fine, like the
rest, was collected by troopers, whose charges, like those of modern
lawyers, were always as much and frequently more than the original debt.
The only consolation the sufferers had, was, that their plunder did not
go to enrich those who were the authors of the robbery. Neither
Middleton’s party, who imposed, nor Lauderdale’s, who uplifted, the
mulct, were allowed to pocket a farthing of the proceeds, which were
ultimately applied to support that worst and most dangerous instrument
of tyranny—a standing body of household troops.

Sharpe, who assuredly was the cause of much of his country’s calamity,
and who was often execrated as almost the origin of the whole, has
usually got the credit of this arrangement. It is well known that,
although an imperious, he was by no means a fearless, character, and it
is therefore not unlikely he may have been the author of these
precautionary measures which the country viewed with so much
detestation. At any rate, about the time that he was in London, the
affair was matured, and two regiments of foot and six troops of horse
were ordered to be raised, of which Thomas Dalziel of Binns—a rude
soldier who had once owned the covenant, and afterwards improved his
manners in the Russian service—was appointed Lieutenant-General, with
William Drummond, Lord Madderty’s brother, who had gone through the same
course of education as Major-General. The troops of horse were disposed
of among the nobility. This army was to be maintained from the fines, of
whose application the General was to give an account; but from the
manner in which they were collected, and the character of the gatherers,
the public was little benefited by this revenue, and the maintenance of
the troops fell eventually upon the common exchequer.

Reinforced by these mercenaries, the council more strictly enjoined, by
a fresh proclamation, (October 11,) submission to the acts of parliament
against separation and resistance to ecclesiastical authority, requiring
masters to oblige their servants, landlords their tenants, and
magistrates the inhabitants of the several burghs, to attend diligently
at the parish churches and partake regularly of the ordinances; and no
one was to be retained as a servant, kept as a tenant, or suffered to
dwell as a citizen, after the parish priest intimated his disobedience.
Mandates so wantonly oppressive, which, without any rational object,
were calculated to create crime by leading either to a violation of the
consciences of the lieges or the laws of the land, seem to carry on
their face an incitement to insurrection; and when the manner in which
they were put in execution, among a sturdy peasantry, is remembered, it
is truly astonishing that they did not excite a spirit of
insubordination, general and deadly, and in truth produce those very
outrages of which the calumniated Presbyterians were falsely accused.
Many were driven from their homes and utterly ruined, who, merely from
political motives, or from a desire to see something like decency in
their clergymen, or from an aversion to have ministers forced upon them
whom they did not like, had opposed the curates and subjected themselves
to the fines; others, men of respectable rank in life who themselves had
conformed, saw their estates ruined and their families dispersed,
because some one, over whom they could have no possible control, would
not attend the wretched sermonizing of a worthless parson, or take the
sacrament from his polluted hands; besides those who, from a love to the
truth and a sincere reverence for their tenets, deemed it a point of
duty to withdraw from the ministration of men who neither understood nor
preached the first principles of the gospel. Yet, notwithstanding all
these terrible encroachments upon their liberty and property,
notwithstanding these authorized violations of all that was dear or
sacred to them as men or as Christians, they had suffered, they had
complained, but they had not rebelled, when an incidental circumstance
led to an insurrection, in perfect conformity with the spirit, and even
authorized by the letter, of the ancient Scottish constitution before it
was destroyed at the Restoration, which hardly deserves the name of
rebellion.

Mr Allan of Barscob, and three other of these unfortunate fugitives who
had been forced by want from their places of retreat among the mountains
or mosses of Galloway, had ventured, November 13th, to the Clachan of
Dalry to procure some provisions. Upon the high road, a little from that
place, they accidentally met some soldiers driving a few neighbours
before them, to compel them to thresh out a poor man’s corn for the
payment of his church fines. They naturally sympathized with the
sufferers, but passed on. While seated, however, at breakfast in the
village, they were informed that the soldiers had seized the old man in
his house—stripped him naked—and were threatening to place him on a
redhot gridiron because he could not produce the money. Leaving their
meal unfinished, immediately they repaired to the spot; and finding the
poor man bound, desired the soldiers to let him alone. The soldiers in
return demanded how they dared to challenge them, and drew their swords.
A scuffle ensued, in which one of the others discharged a pistol and
wounded a corporal with some pieces of a tobacco pipe—the only ball they
had among them when the military surrendered themselves prisoners, and
the man was liberated.[47]

Footnote 47:

  Sir James Turner says, that the corporal affirmed he was shot,
  “because he refus’d to sign the covenant.” The corporal himself, in a
  petition to the privy council, says, “ten pieces of tobacco pipes
  were, by the surgeon’s care, taken out of his bodie.” _Turner’s
  Memoirs_, p. 148. _Kirkton’s Hist._ note, p. 230.—Sir James in his
  account of the transactions which took place after his seizure, and
  till the battle of Pentland Hills, is frequently inaccurate, as might
  be expected, both from his situation, which prevented distinct
  information except about what he saw, and his prejudices and interest
  which led him to pervert even that. Some instances will be given
  afterwards in which he is palpably, if not designedly, at fault.

Thus fairly engaged, to retreat was as dangerous as to proceed. They
knew they would be denounced as rebels and subjected to dreadful
reprisals. A party of their friends at Balmaclellan, when they heard of
the affair, knowing they too would be involved, seized and disarmed
sixteen soldiers who were quartered there, one, who made resistance,
being killed; and the whole country taking the alarm, their numbers soon
swelled to about fifty horse tolerably mounted, and, perhaps, double
that number of foot, miserably armed with pitchforks, scythes, cudgels,
and a few pikes, and swords. Turner’s forces were scattered over the
country, they therefore, without allowing them time to collect, marched
direct to Dumfries, where, on the morning of the 15th, they surprised
him, who having only heard some indistinct account of the scuffle, was
preparing to go and chastise the culprits. The horse went straight up to
head-quarters—the foot remaining without the town; and when Sir James
appeared at the window, Nielson of Corsack told him, if he would quietly
surrender he should receive no harm, with which he complied; and that
gentleman preserved him from personal injury, which some of the party
seemed anxious to inflict.[48]

Footnote 48:

  “While they were speaking, the Commander comes up, and seizing Turner
  presented a pistol or carabine to have shot him, but Corsack
  interfered, saying,” “you shall as soon kill me for I have given him
  quarters.” _Crichton’s Life of Blackadder_, p. 139.

The person who assumed the command was one Andrew Gray, said to be an
Edinburgh merchant whom no body knew, but whose authority all obeyed
without inquiry, so totally were they unprepared for any regular rising,
and as little was he qualified for the situation into which he had
thrust himself. They seized the General’s papers and trunks, but found
little money; himself they brought away in his night-gown and slippers,
and placing him upon a little pony carried him to the cross, where, with
much formality, they drank the king’s health to evince their loyalty—a
ceremony which some of their friends thought they might as well have
omitted, and for which they received neither credit nor thanks. They
then carried him back to his lodgings, and ordered him to make ready and
go with them. That night they rested at Glencairn. Here they were
alarmed by a report of the approach of the Earl of Annandale and Lord
Drumlanrig, and set off hurriedly, carrying their prisoner with them
under a strong guard. Next night they reached Carsphairn where they
remained; and here their redoubtable Captain Gray left them, not without
violent suspicions of having carried a considerable sum of money along
with him: yet more probably he retired from fear or a sense of his own
utter incapacity,[49] but the numbers increased, and a kind of committee
consisting of Maclellan of Barscob, Nielson of Corsack, and Mr Alexander
Robertson, a preacher, succeeded to the command.

Footnote 49:

  This was on the Friday. On the Monday following he was found by
  Colonel Wallace near Machline in a situation very unlike that of a
  person possessed of much money. “About that house I saw two men, one
  whereof I perceived was Andrew Gray. He was in so uncouth a posture,
  with such a beggar-like habit, and looking with such an abashed
  countenance, I was astonished and could not speak for a long time.
  Always he forbids me to be afraid. He tells me the Lord had favoured
  them with good success in that attempt upon Dumfries; and that,
  howbeit, after the business was done, many came and owned it that
  never appeared before, when it was but to be hazarded upon: yet all or
  most of these gentlemen and countrymen had left it and gone to their
  houses, as if there had been no more ado: whereupon he had left them
  to look to his own safety, being in a very insecure condition then,
  having been the chief actor in the business.” _Wallace’s Narrative of
  the Rising at Pentland_, p. 391.

Some days before the scuffle at Dalry, Rothes had taken his departure
for London, and the chief cares of the government devolved upon the
primate, as president of the council—thus called upon to discharge an
important political duty at a very delicate conjuncture. One of the
bailies of Dumfries who had witnessed the seizure of Turner, immediately
proceeded to Edinburgh with information of the rising; and the members
of council, who never calculated upon resistance, were surprised and
alarmed beyond measure. Next day, they sent off an express to the king
with the unpleasant intelligence, who, passing the Commissioner upon the
road, furnished his majesty with very unexpected news to salute him with
on his arrival. They ordered General Dalziel to march on the following
day with as many men as he could muster to the west country, to
establish his head-quarters at Glasgow, and thence to proceed to
wherever his presence might be most urgently required—the various
noblemen of those most interested in these districts, were, at the same
time, required to use their every exertion to preserve the peace, and to
receive and assist his majesty’s forces—the guards of the town of
Edinburgh were doubled, and the names of all strangers ordered to be
registered. These measures, the most obvious and requisite, met of
course the king’s approval, but a proposal to enforce the subscription
of the declaration respecting the covenant upon the heritors of the
southern and western shires, was postponed by his desire as
unnecessarily exasperating an evil of which they did not yet know the
extent. More effectually to protect the capital, the companies of the
train-bands were ordered to be filled up by citizens who would willingly
take the oath of allegiance, and further promise to maintain his
majesty’s authority with their lives and fortunes; such as would not, to
be disarmed and their persons secured.

The noblemen of Fife, with their followers, were summoned, and an act of
council was passed to put the country in a posture of defence, and all
the lieges were ordered to assist the General with all their power. The
ferries across the Forth were at the same time stopped, and even those
who passed at Stirling Bridge were to be subjected to a rigid
examination. A proclamation also was issued commanding the rebels to lay
down their arms, but it was remarked that it contained no offer of
pardon; and to desire them to surrender without security, was something
like an invitation to confess and be hanged. Some of the nobility felt
the degradation of being under an ecclesiastic, and murmured—“Have we
none at such a juncture to give orders but a priest?” But they were too
wofully spiritless than do more, and they only clanked, sulkily, the
fetters themselves had forged.

Intelligence also had been sent by the insurgents to Edinburgh with
equal expedition, and a few who were well-wishers to the cause met to
consider what was their duty in the present juncture, when, at an
adjourned meeting held in Mr Alexander Robertson, a preacher’s
lodgings,[50] they resolved after deliberation and prayer, that it was
their duty to assist their poor brethren so cruelly oppressed. One only
dissented, Mr Ferguson of Kaitloch, who was not convinced of the
propriety of rising at that time. The rest were eager to engage
immediately, and as soon as the meeting broke up, Colonel Wallace and Mr
Robertson set out for the west to see what could be effected there. Mr
Welsh went direct to the countrymen whom he found at Dalmellington;
thence he proceeded to gather his friends in the south, while they,
buoyed up with the expectation of being quickly and numerously joined,
marched forward to Ayrshire, and on the 21st had their general
rendezvous at the Bridge of Doon. Wallace’s first disappointment was at
Libberton, where, instead of forty stout horsemen, he only met eight;
and on his journey by Linton, Dunsire, Mauchline, and Evondale, he found
the country, in general, had been taken so completely unawares, that he
arrived at the main body with a very slender accession of strength—the
ministers remaining quietly in their houses, while the leading Whig
gentlemen went to wait upon the General. He had by the way received
notice from Cunninghame, that a reinforcement from thence might be
procured if they had only a party to encourage and protect them till
they got formed; and Captain John Arnott, accordingly, had been sent
with forty horse to bring them up, and directed to join next day at
Ochiltree.

Footnote 50:

  _Kirkton_, p. 234. This was a different person from the Alexander
  Robertson formerly mentioned, though they have been sometimes
  confounded, owing to the sirnames being spelled indifferently Robison
  or Robertson, both their first names being Alexander, and both being
  preachers.

Having received information of General Dalziel’s arrival at Glasgow,
they hastened to Ochiltree, where all their parties were ordered to
meet, and where Mr Semple preached while they were collecting.[51]
Afterwards they marshalled their army, named their officers,[52] and
placed their guards. Sir John Cochrane was with Dalziel, and his lady
received the leaders who were quartered at the mansion-house very
coolly, although she expressed herself not unfriendly to the cause. Here
they were joined by Mr John Guthrie, minister of Tarbolton, with some of
his parishioners, and Robert Chalmers, a brother of the Laird of
Gadgirth’s, who brought a report that the Duke of Hamilton was
approaching with his troops, and that they had dispatched John Ross with
a small party to ascertain the fact. A council of war was then called,
at which it was resolved that they should march eastward, as it was
impossible to stay where they were, and there was no probability of
farther help from the south or south-west districts, and Captain Arnott
would bring with him whoever were well-inclined in Cunninghame and
Renfrew. Besides, they had an earnest invitation from Blackwood to come
to Clydesdale, where he promised to meet them with one hundred men.

Footnote 51:

  _Wallace’s Narrative_, p. 395. “Sir James Turner has a merrie fact,
  which he says occurred here. I was lodged that night at the principall
  alehouse of the toune, where I was indifferentlie well used, and
  visited by some of their officers and ministers. Most of their foot
  were lodged about the church and churchyard, and order given to ring
  bells next morning for a sermon to be preached by Mr Welsh. Maxwell of
  Monreth and Major Mackulloch invited me to heare that phanatic sermon,
  for soe they merrilie call’d it. They said that preaching might prove
  ane effectuall meane to turn me, which they heartilie wished. I
  answered them that I was under guards, and that if they intended to
  heare that sermon, it was probable I might heare it likewise; for it
  was not like my guards would goe to church and leave me alone at my
  lodgings. Bot to what they spoke of my conversion, I said it wold be
  hard to turne a Turner. Bot because I found them in a merry humour, I
  said if I did not come to heare Mr Welsh preach, then they might fine
  me in fourtie shillings Scots, which was duoble the soume of what I
  had exacted from the phanatickes. Bot there was no sermon that day,
  which, undoubtedly, I would have heard, if there had been anie.” Pp.
  163-4. Afterwards, he has this passage—“This I shall say they were not
  to learn to plunder, and that I have not seene lesse of divine worship
  any where, than I saw in that armie of theirs; for thogh at their
  rendezvouses and halts they had opportunitie enough everie day for it,
  yet did I never heare any of ther ministers (and as themselves told me
  there was not so few as two-and-threttie of them, whereof onlie five
  or sixe convers’d with me) either pray, preach, or sing psalms;
  neither could I learn that it was ever practised publicklie, except
  once by Mr Robbison at Corsfairne, ane other time by Mr Welsh at
  Damellington, and now the third time by Mr Semple at Lanrick, where
  the lawful pastor was forced to resigne his pulpit to him.” P. 169.

Footnote 52:

  The officers whose names have been preserved, were—Colonel Wallace,
  who left a written narrative of the rising at Pentland, and of whom
  some farther notice will be given; Major Joseph Learmont; Captains
  Andrew Arnott, John Paton, John Maclellan of Barscob, John Maxwell,
  younger of Monreith, and Robert Maclellan of Balmagachan; Cornet of
  Horse, Robert Gordon of Knockbreck; uncertain, Major John M’Culloch of
  Barholme; Mr George Crookshanks had a command.

Next day they broke up for Cumnock, but were met on the road with the
disagreeable intelligence that Ross and his party had been taken
prisoners by the Duke, and that the enemy’s whole force was at
Kilmarnock; in consequence, they continued their route during a violent
storm of rain and wind to Muirkirk. The night fell dark, and the road
was detestable; yet the men marched forward with spirit, and even their
enemy, Sir James Turner, gave them this credit—“I doe confesse, I never
saw lustier fellows than these foot were, or better marchers; for though
I was appointed to stay in the rear, and notwithstanding these
inconveniences, I saw few or none of them straggle.” When they arrived
late at their quarters, wet as if they had been drenched in water, the
poor foot were forced to lie all night in the cold church, without
victuals and with but little fire. Here Mr Andrew M’Cormack, a pious
Irish minister, known by the name of the “Good-man,” came to the Colonel
and informed him it was the opinion of Mr Robertson and Mr
Lockhart—that, as there was no appearance of any help either from
Clydesdale or any other quarter, the business should be followed no
farther, but the people dismissed as quietly as possible to their homes,
to shift each for himself the best way he could, until the Lord gave
some better opportunity. With this advice, which was not at all to the
Colonel’s liking, he could not of himself comply, but proposed to
consult the other leaders who might join before or when they reached
Douglas. Thither they arrived on Saturday night, November 24, without
any of their expected reinforcements, excepting forty recruits brought
by Captain Arnott.

Having quartered the troops, and, on account of an alarm, doubled their
guards, a council of war was held, when, after earnest prayer to God,
the question was proposed, whether they should disperse or continue in
arms? On the one side was stated the strength of the enemy and the small
number of their company, the total want of spirit discovered by the
country and the tempestuous season of the year, which rendered it unfit
for action. On the other, it was replied—that the coming forth to own
the people of Galloway was clearly of the Lord, and in that they had
done nothing but followed his call—that numbers had not only urged them,
but had solemnly promised also to come forth, and if these should now
desert the cause, between them and their master let it be. As for
themselves, they believed the Lord could work by few or by many. If he
designed the present appearance should prosper, he would send men if
necessary; or who could tell but he might honour them to accomplish his
end? At all events, the cause they were assured was his; nor would they
forsake it, but follow on whatever might be the consequence. Death was
all they could endure; and, though they were only to bear their
testimony to the truth, that was well worth dying for. It was next
proposed, whether they should renew the covenants? On this there was no
dispute. They regretted they could not go about that work with the
deliberate preparation they deemed necessary for entering into such
solemn engagements; but, as the urgency of the case admitted of no
delay, and they all understood the nature of the transaction, they
determined to prepare for the worst by again dedicating themselves to
the Lord in the national bonds, whose obligation they believed to be
perpetual, and the renunciation of which they considered as one of the
deepest sins of the land. The disposal of their prisoner, as they had no
safe place in which to confine him, was then considered. About this they
were not so unanimous. Some were for putting him to death as a notorious
murderer and bitter instrument of persecution, but others urged that he
was a soldier of fortune, acting under a commission, also that he had
been promised protection by one of themselves; and it appearing from his
papers, though his conduct had been severe, yet that he had not even
acted up to his instructions, it was carried to spare him.[53]

Footnote 53:

  “My guards, whereof David Scott, a weaver, was captain, carried me to
  Bathket, and took up for my quarters the best alehouse.” _Turner’s
  Mem._

Hearing that Dalziel was at Strathaven, they decamped early next
morning—Sabbath—and marched by Lesmahago to Lanark, where they arrived
in the evening, having been joined by Robert and John Gordon, the sons
of Alexander Gordon of Knockbreck, with a few others from Galloway. Mr
Robertson refused to accompany them farther. On their march, they
completed the arranging of their troops, but found themselves wretchedly
deficient in officers, there not being above four or five who had ever
been in an army before, neither were they fully supplied with ammunition
or arms; at Lanark, they caused a general search, but the country had
been too well scoured before, and they found few or none. Notice,
however, was given that the covenants would be renewed on the morrow.

When they assembled at the rendezvous for this purpose, they were told
the enemy was within two miles, and it was proposed to delay; but as the
public avowal of their cause and principles, besides being a solemn
religious act of imperative obligation, was the best and only testimony
they could exhibit in their circumstances, they determined that nothing
but absolute necessity should prevent it. They therefore sent forward an
advance of twelve horse, placed guards at the ford, and then
deliberately went about the work of the day. The horse were drawn up at
the head of the town, where Mr Gabriel Semple and Mr John Crookshanks
presided. The foot were ranged in the street, near the tolbooth stairs,
upon which Mr John Guthrie stood and preached. Very few except the
insurgents attended, so great was the universal terror and depression of
the times; but the whole proceedings are said to have been deeply
impressive, particularly the address of Mr Semple, from Prov. xxiv. 11,
12. “If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and
those that are ready to be slain; if thou sayest, Behold, we knew it
not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that
keepeth thy soul, doth he not know it? and shall not he render unto
every man according to his works?” After sermon, the covenants were
read, article by article, and the hearers, with uplifted hands, and
apparently with much serious emotion, engaged and vowed to perform. Now
in a situation of such peril, and pledged to their country and to their
God, could they be other than deeply affected? It was no common ground
these witnesses occupied.

About the same time, they emitted the following hurried but well-framed
“declaration of those in arms for the covenant 1666,” the effect of
which was wonderfully, though sadly, impressed upon the religious part
of the community, by the remembrance that these men had been allowed to
stand alone, and to fall together in the righteous cause; and by the
evils which overtook the adherents to the covenants and afflicted the
nation for twenty-two succeeding years of persecution.

“The nature of religion doth sufficiently teach, and all men almost
acknowledge, the lawfulness of sinless self-defence; yet we thought it
duty at this time to give an account unto the world of the occasion and
design of our being together in arms, since the rise and scope of
actions, if faulty, may render a thing right upon the matter, sinful. It
is known to all that the king’s majesty, at his coronation, did engage
to rule the nation according to the revealed word of God in Scripture—to
prosecute the ends of the National and Solemn League and Covenants, and
fully to establish Presbyterian government, with the Directory for
Worship—and to approve all acts of parliament establishing the same; and
thereupon the nobility and others of his subjects did swear allegiance:
and so religion was committed unto him as a matter of trust, secured by
most solemn indenture betwixt him and his people.

“Notwithstanding all this, it is soon ordered that the covenant be
burned—the tie of it is declared void and null, and men forced to
subscribe a declaration contrary to it—Episcopal government, in its
height of tyranny, is established—and men obliged by law not to plead,
witness, or petition against these things. Grievous fines, sudden
imprisonments, vast quarterings of soldiers, and a cruel inquisition by
the High Commission Court, were the reward of all such who could not
comply with the government by lordly hierarchy, and abjure the
covenants, and prove more monstrous to the wasting their conscience,
than nature would have suffered heathens to be. These things, in part,
have been all Scotland over, but chiefly in the poor country of Galloway
at this day; and had not God prevented, it should have, in the same
measures, undoubtedly befallen the rest of the nation ere long. The just
sense whereof made us choose rather to betake ourselves to the fields
for self-defence than to stay at home burdened daily with the calamities
of others, and tortured with the fears of our own approaching misery.
And considering our engagement to assist and defend all those who
entered into this league and covenant with us; and to the end we may be
more vigorous in the prosecution of this matter, and all men may know
the true state of our cause, we have entered into the Solemn League and
Covenant; and though it be hardly thought of, renewed the same, to the
end we may be free of the apostacy of the times, and saved from the
cruel usages persons resolved to adhere to this have met with. Hoping
that this will wipe off the reproach that is upon our nation, because of
the avowed perjury it lies under. And being fully persuaded that this
league, however misrepresented, contains nothing in it sinful before
God, derogatory to the king’s just authority, the privileges of the
parliament, or the liberty of the people; but, on the contrary, is the
surest bond whereby all these are secured, since a threefold cord is not
easily broken, as we shall make appear in our next and larger
declaration, which shall contain more fully the proofs of the lawfulness
of entering into covenant, and necessity of our taking arms at this time
for the defence of it, with a full and true account of our grief and
sorrow for our swerving from it, and suffering ourselves to be divided
to the reproach of our common cause, and saddening the hearts of the
godly—a thing we sorrowfully remember and firmly resolve against in all
time coming.”

At this period the number of the insurgents had reached its maximum—more
having joined on that day than for three before—supposed to amount to
nearly three thousand; and the opinion of many among them was, if they
did intend to fight, it would be better to do it in that quarter, where,
if defeated, they were among friends, and could more easily find the
means of escape, than in the east, where every thing would be against
them; but their want of discipline, and want of arms, did not warrant a
trial of strength with the king’s forces, who were equal if not superior
in numbers and in a complete state of equipment. They were likewise the
more encouraged to try the Lothians, as, at this critical moment, they
received from Edinburgh pressing letters of invitation to come thither.
They chose what eventually proved the most unfortunate for themselves,
and that same evening took the road for Bathgate. Before they left
Lanark, Lawrie of Blackwood paid them a visit. He said he had come by
desire of the Duke of Hamilton to learn what were their intentions and
to endeavour to prevail upon them to lay down their arms and save the
effusion of blood; but he produced no written commission, and only spoke
in general terms to some of the ministers, which induced in the mind of
the Colonel a suspicion that he came merely to spy out their nakedness;
and he afterwards blamed his own simplicity in allowing a person of such
dubious character to pass between them and the enemy without restraint.
Hardly were they in motion when Dalziel made his appearance; but he
contented himself with sending a body of horse after them, who, when
they found the countrymen prepared for an assault, returned to the
General, with whom they remained for the night in the quarters the
others had left. The night was deplorable; it rained incessantly and
blew a hurricane, and the road across the moors was deep, “plashy,” and
broken. When they arrived at their destination, two hours after
night-fall, they could get no accommodation, not even a covert from the
tempest; and their leaders retired to a wretched hovel to consult about
their further operations. After prayer, they discussed the subject. To
return was now impracticable, for the enemy was at their heels; but they
still expected some assistance from Edinburgh, and thitherwards they
resolved to continue their route, convinced that they would at least
hear from their friends before they were entirely within the jaws of
Leviathan.

But never were poor men more completely deceived, disappointed, and
entangled. On every side was danger. The whole spasmodic energy of
government had been forced into action by the fearful throes of the
primate; almost all Scotland south of the Tay, had been set in motion,
while the capital was fortified more in proportion to his ecclesiastical
terrors than to the band that was approaching. Sir Andrew Ramsay, the
provost, had barricaded the gates and planted them with cannon—Lord
Kingston was stationed on Burntsfield Links with an advanced guard of
horse and foot—the advocates were accoutred and the citizens in arms—and
all the array of the Lothians, Merse, and Teviotdale, were ordered to
hold themselves in readiness. Yet such was their want of intelligence,
that the covenanters, upon an alarm being given, broke up about twelve
o’clock in this dark and foul night—“One of the darkest,” says Wallace
in his Narrative, “I am persuaded that ever any in that company saw.
Except we had been tied together, it was impossible to keep together;
and every little burn was a river.” During this disastrous march, which
many were unable to accomplish—as “they stuck in the clay and fainted by
the road”—the army diminished wofully; and the remainder who arrived in
the morning at the New Bridge, within eight miles of Edinburgh, “looked
rather like dying men than fighting soldiers—weary, worn out,
half-drowned, half-starved creatures.” Yet, beyond expectation, in an
hour or two, they mustered nearly a thousand men, only officers were
sorely lacking; and now when the enemy was within five miles in their
rear, they first learned that all Edinburgh and Leith were in arms
against them.

Dreadfully perplexed—without directors, without intelligence, without
food—they knew not what to do, but they resolved to march to Colinton.
On their way thither, Blackwood again came to them with a verbal
requisition from the Duke for them to lay down their arms, and he would
endeavour to procure an indemnity; but desperate as their situation was,
had they had no other aim than their own personal safety, they could not
have listened to so vague an arrangement with such men as they had to
deal with; and when Blackwood urged their compliance, they dismissed him
with a caution to beware how he behaved himself, and see well that he
walked straightly and uprightly between the parties. Having had so
little rest, and scarcely tasted any thing since they left Lanark, a few
horsemen were sent out to try and procure some provisions and forage in
the neighbouring farms, as they intended, if possible, to take some
repose and refreshment in their quarters that night, which, continuing
tempestuous, seemed to promise them, for some hours at least, security
from any hostile incursion. Accordingly, having provided in the best
manner they could for the foot in the village, and sent the horse to the
neighbouring farms, they set their guards, and the officers were
retiring to rest, when Blackwood came to them again, accompanied by
Richards, the laird of Barskimming, and repeated the proposal he had
formerly made; telling them at the same time, he had the General’s
parole for a cessation of arms till to-morrow morning, having given in
return the same for them. Wallace, who was little pleased with the
officious presumption of “the tutor,” told him, “he did not understand
this paroling of his, but he believed neither would break the truce in
such a night.” Upon this they parted, and Barskimming, without taking
leave, set off early next morning, but Blackwood waited till daybreak,
and requested to know what answer was to be returned. The leaders upon
calmly considering their situation—their men now hardly nine hundred,
the greater part without arms—their spirits broken by the apparent want
of heart in the country—their bodies worn out by fatigue, hunger, want
of sleep, and exposure to the weather—the utter hopelessness of any
reinforcements—and their great inferiority in numbers to Dalziel’s
troops—were strongly induced to attempt coming to some terms not
incompatible with the object for which they had ventured to the field,
they therefore proposed sending one of their number along with Blackwood
to represent to the General their grievances, and the grounds of their
appearance in arms; but the only person they had to whom they could
intrust such a message being objected to as an outlaw, Wallace sent a
letter by Blackwood to Dalziel, stating—“That, on account of the
intolerable insolences of the prelates and their insupportable
oppressions, and being deprived of every usual method of remonstrating
or petitioning, they were necessitated to assemble together, in order
that, jointly, they might the more securely petition his majesty and
council for redress, they therefore requested of his excellency a pass
for a person whom they might send with their petition, and begged an
answer might be returned by Blackwood who had promised to fetch it.”

Trusting, however, very little to this negotiation, they commenced a
retreat, and turning the west end of the Pentland Hills, took the Biggar
road. As their men were straggling, they drew up near the House of Muir,
on a spot now well known—Rullion Green. The ground rises from the south
towards the north, where the Hill terminates abruptly. Here the poor
fatigued remnant were posted in three bodies. Upon the south, a small
body of horse, under Barscob and the Galloway gentlemen—in the centre,
the foot commanded by Wallace himself—and upon the north, the greater
part of the horse along with Major Learmont. Hardly had this small
company got arranged, when an alarm was given that the enemy was
approaching; and upon moving towards the ridge of the hill, they
observed their horse under Major-General Drummond upon an opposite hill,
within a quarter of a mile—for their foot had not arrived. The little
band of covenanters being so posted that the enemy could not attack them
from the north, about fifty picked troopers marched along the ridge to
the westward, evidently with a design to approach from that quarter.
Observing this, a party of about the same strength, under Captain
Arnott, was dispatched by Wallace to meet them, which they did in the
glen, at no great distance. Having fired their pistols, they instantly
closed, and a sharp contest ensued in sight of both armies, which lasted
for a considerable time, when the troopers gave way and fled in
confusion to their own body. In this rencounter, Mr John Crookshanks and
Andrew M’Cormack fell;[54] and several were killed and wounded on both
sides.

Footnote 54:

  “Two main instruments of the attempt, two Ireland ministers.”
  _Wallace’s Narrative_, p. 416. It appears doubtful if ministers in any
  case may lawfully take arms—Peter was reproved for drawing his sword
  in defence of his master. Matt. xxvi. 52.

The nature of the ground preventing pursuit by cavalry, a party of the
covenanters’ foot was ordered to support their horse, but the enemy
moved to another and safer eminence farther to the east, where they
waited till their own foot came forward; and then descending from the
hill, drew up upon Rullion Green in front of their opponents, in order
to provoke them to leave their ground and engage. But seeing that they
were not inclined to leave their vantage ground, they pushed forward a
squadron of their horse, flanked by foot, upon the south, which the
others observing, consulted whether they should give them a second
meeting, when considering that, although they might be able to defer an
engagement for that night, they must inevitably be forced to fight on
the morrow, and under much greater disadvantage—as the enemy would be
certainly increased in numbers—they, after prayer, resolved that they
would not decline the combat—“they would quit themselves of their duty
though it should serve for no more than to give a testimony by leaving
their corpses on the field.” A party of Learmont’s horse, also supported
by foot, was then sent forth, whose onset the regulars were unable to
sustain, and staggered and fled. Each now endeavoured to support their
own men by successive detachments.

While the combatants were at all equal, the covenanters successfully
maintained the honour of the day, till Dalziel, about night-fall,
brought up the whole of his force, and, with one simultaneous and
vigorous charge, broke their array. Overwhelmed by numbers, they found
it impossible to rally, and every one shifted for himself as he best
could. The slaughter was not great, for the countrymen made to the
hills, and their flight was covered by the darkness; nor were the
horsemen very eager in the pursuit, for, being chiefly gentlemen, they
sympathized in the sufferings, and many approved of the cause of the
vanquished. About a hundred were killed and taken prisoners at the time,
and about fifty were brought in afterwards. Of Dalziel’s troops, the
casualties never appear to have been fairly reported. They acknowledged
some half-dozen, but the allowed valour of the covenanters, and the
obstinacy and nature of the skirmishing, forbid our accepting this as
any thing like an accurate return. Some of the neighbouring rustics,
more cruel even than the military, probably expecting money, are said to
have murdered several of the fugitives, but the crime was held in
deserved execration; and the popular tradition, that these “accursed
spots” were the scenes of foul nocturnal visions, sufficiently mark the
general opinion of the country. Sir James Turner, who had accompanied
the insurgents in all their movements, when the battle was about to
commence, bargained with his guards that, if they would save his life
from the vengeance of their friends, if defeated, he would secure their
safety from the conquerors, which was agreed to, and was one of the few
agreements which appears to have been faithfully kept. Those who were
slain on the field were stripped where they fell, and lay naked and
unburied till next day, when some godly women from Edinburgh brought
winding-sheets and interred them; but such is the brutality of avarice,
that the bodies were afterwards taken out of their graves by some
miscreants for the sake of the linen!

The victors entered the capital shouting with their prisoners.[55] “A
sight,” says a contemporary, “the saddest that ever Edinburgh had seen,
which drew tears in abundance from the eyes of all that feared God,
considering what vast difference there was between the persons and the
cause on the one side and the other: and surely a most astonishing
dispensation it was to see a company of holy men—for such were the
greatest part, yea, but few otherwise—and that in a good cause, given up
into the hands of a most desperate crew of scoffing, profane atheists.
But God had called them together, it seems, to have a testimony at their
hands, and that he missed not, for he helped them to glorify him in
their sufferings, which made their cause more lovely throughout all
parts of the land, even in the eyes of enemies, than victory would have
done!” They were imprisoned, the common men in the kirk, called
Haddo’s-Hole[56]—those of superior rank were sent to the common jail. In
the height of their exultation, the privy council sent off their
dispatches announcing the victory, and breathing a spirit of the most
implacable hatred against the Presbyterians. “Although,” said they,
“this rabble be totally dissipated for the time, yet we conceive
ourselves obliged, in the discharge of our duty, to represent unto your
majesty that those principles which are pretended as the ground of this
rebellion, are so rooted in many several places through the kingdom, and
there be such just ground of apprehension of dangers from persons
disaffected to your majesty’s government, as it is now established by
law, as will require more vigorous application for such an extirpation
of it, as may secure the peace of the kingdom and due obedience to the
laws.” Orders were immediately given by the council to sequestrate the
property of all who had been at Pentland, and to apprehend all who were
suspected of having been with them, or of having aided or abetted them
before or since.

Footnote 55:

  “Mr Arthur Murray, an honest “outted” minister (from Orkney,) dwelling
  in a suburb of Edinburgh, by which Dalziel’s men entered the city
  after the victory. He, hearing they were passing by, opened his window
  to view them, where he saw them display their banners tainted in the
  blood of these innocent people, and heard them shout victory, upon
  which he took his bed and died within a few days.” _Kirkton_, p. 247.

Footnote 56:

  It received this name from Gordon of Haddo having been confined there
  previous to his execution in the civil war in the reign of Charles I.
  Burnet tells us that Wiseheart, Bishop of Edinburgh, and indeed the
  whole town, were so liberal to the prisoners, that they were in danger
  from repletion. Wallace, with an appearance of more accuracy, says,
  “the charity of the godly people of the town appeared in furnishing
  them with all necessaries, both for maintenance and the healing of
  their wounds.” P. 428.

Priestly resentment is proverbially implacable; but if those priests
happen to be infidels, or apostates, such as the generality of the
Episcopalian-restoration-church of Scotland were, their revenge assumes
a degree of rancour bordering on the diabolical, of which the
punishments that followed the suppression of this feeble and
ill-supported insurrection, afford afflicting examples. There cannot be
a stronger proof that the rising was unpremeditated and accidental, than
that, notwithstanding the enormous oppression the country had endured,
and the universal discontent both in the south and west, so few
attempted to join the insurgents. In Renfrew, only one small company
assembled; but before they were ready, Dalziel had interposed between
them and the covenanters, and they retired without doing more than
showing goodwill and incurring punishment. William Muir of Caldwell was
their leader; and among them were, Ker of Kersland, Caldwell of
Caldwell, Cunningham of Bedland, Porterfield of Quarrelton, with Mr
Gabriel Maxwell, minister of Dundonald, George Ramsay, minister of
Kilmaurs—and John Carstairs, minister of Glasgow, unwillingly forced out
by the entreaties of his friends, with several others, who all
afterwards suffered confiscation, fining, or banishment. What was,
perhaps, not the least galling part of the trial, they were denounced by
John Maxwell of Blackston, one of themselves, who either through
treachery or terror was induced to become an informer and witness
against them.

It was natural, and followed as a matter of course, that, of men taken
with arms in their hands, some examples should be made by the government
against whom they were alleged to have rebelled. But what gave to the
executions in this case their peculiar features of atrocity, was, their
victims had surrendered upon a promise of quarter, and the more
appalling fact of a letter from the king to the council, forbidding any
more to be put to death, having been kept up by one or both of the
archbishops,[57] till they were satiated with the blood of some
obnoxious victims. When the question, whether the prisoners should be
sent to trial, was first agitated at the privy council-board, Sharpe
violently urged the prosecution. Sir John Gilmour, esteemed one of the
best lawyers of his day, pusillanimously shrunk from giving any decided
opinion, and the rest seemed inclined to be silent, when, unhappily,
Lord Lee started the vile jesuitical distinction, not, however,
unmatched in later times, that men may be granted quarter on the field
as soldiers, yet only be spared to die on a scaffold as citizens—a
distinction which General Dalziel, notwithstanding his little respect
for the lives of covenanters, could not by any means be brought to
comprehend.

Footnote 57:

  Kirkton asserts it of Sharpe, p. 255. Burnet says that his namesake,
  Burnet of Glasgow, kept up the letter, pretending that there was no
  council-day between and the day of execution, vol. i. p. 348.

Eleven of the prisoners were accordingly picked out for trial, and, on
the 4th of December, Captain Andrew Arnott; Major John M’Culloch; John
Gordon of Knockbreck, and his brother Robert; Gavin Hamilton, Mauldslie,
Carluke; Christ. Strang; John Parker, Kilbride; John Ross, Mauchline;
James Hamilton, Killiemuir; and John Shiels, Titwood, appeared before
the Court of Justiciary. Thomas Patterson, merchant in Glasgow, died in
prison of his wounds. The objections to the relevancy of the indictment
were argued with great ability, and, in particular, that one arising
from the quarter granted by the General, which, if we may judge from the
pleadings, he appears to have himself considered a point of honour. It
was alleged, that being in the form of an army, and as such assaulted by
his majesty’s forces, and as such having accepted quarter, and in
consequence delivered up their arms, and that that quarter being
_publica fides_, and offered and granted, should be inviolably observed.
To this it was answered, that their presumption in appearing in arms
against their sovereign lord was an aggravation of their rebellion; that
unless his majesty had given a special commission for the purpose, the
General had no right to grant a pardon to rebels, whatever he might have
done in fair and honourable war. In return, it was replied, that without
debating the justness of the war, the pannels being then in arms, might
have defended their own lives and reached the lives of the greatest that
opposed them. In laying aside these arms, they in effect ransomed their
lives; and soldiers who may defend their own lives, are not obliged, nor
is it in use, nor would the urgency of the case permit it to them, to
seek the granter’s commission, common soldiers being accustomed to grant
quarter, which their superiors never annulled; and this had been the
practice, not only between the contending parties in France, but
likewise practised by his majesty’s own forces in the hills, and with
the rebellious English, which, unless it were adhered to, a method of
martial massacre would be introduced, and rebels of necessity would
become desperate and indomitable traitors. The court repelled the
objections; and as none of the pannels denied the facts of which they
were accused, they were unanimously found guilty, and sentenced to
suffer the doom of traitors on the 7th of December.

Previous to their execution, they drew up a united testimony, which
stands upon record an evidence of the purity of their motives and the
justice of their cause—a cause which, however defamed by the advocates
of passive obedience, or oppugned by more modern objections, was in
their hands the sacred cause of civil and religious liberty, only these
patriots were driven by enormous oppression prematurely to assert it.
“We are condemned,” say they, “by men, and esteemed as rebels against
the king, whose authority we acknowledge; but this is the testimony of
our conscience, that we suffer not as evil-doers, but for righteousness,
for the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ—particularly for
renewing the covenant,[58] and, in conformity with its obligations, for
defending ourselves by arms against the usurpation and insupportable
tyranny of the prelates, and against the most unchristian and inhuman
oppression and persecution that ever was enjoined and practised by
rulers upon free, innocent, and peaceable subjects! The laws
establishing prelacy, and the acts, orders, and proclamations made for
compliance therewith, being executed against us by military force and
violence—and we with others, for our simple forbearance, being fined,
confined, imprisoned, exiled, scourged, stigmatized, beaten, bound as
beasts, and driven unto the mountains for our lives, and thereby
hundreds of families being beggared, several parishes, and some whole
country sides, exceedingly impoverished; and all this either
arbitrarily, and without any law or respect had to guilt or innocency,
or unjustly contrary to all conscience, justice, and reason, though
under the pretence of iniquitous law, and without any regard to the
penalty specified in the law; while all remonstrating against
grievances, were they ever so just and many, and petitions for redress
being restrained by laws—there was no other remedy left us but that last
of necessary, self-preservation and defence. And this being one of the
greatest principles of nature, warranted by the law of God, scriptural
instances, and the consent and practice of all reformed churches and
Christian states abroad, and of our own famous predecessors at home—it
cannot, in reason or justice, be reputed a crime, or condemned as
rebellion, by any human authority.” Then, after lamenting the perjury,
backsliding, and breach of covenant throughout the land, the overturning
of the work of reformation, the obtrusion of mercenary hirelings into
the ministry, the universal flood of profanity and apostacy from
participating in the guilt of which they ardently prayed to be cleansed,
they exhort their countrymen and fellow-christians to remember the
example of their noble and renowned ancestors, and warn them not to be
offended with the cross of Christ on account of their sufferings, and
conclude in a strain of exhilarating, animated, and believing
anticipation, almost prophetical—“Though this be the day of Jacob’s
trouble, yet are we assured that when the Lord hath accomplished the
trial of his own, and filled up the cup of his adversaries, He will
awake for judgment, plead his own cause, avenge the quarrel of his
covenant, make inquiry for blood, vindicate his people, break the arm of
the wicked, and establish the just, for to him belongeth judgment and
vengeance; and though our eyes shall not see it, yet we believe that the
Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing under his wings—that he
will revive his work, repair his breaches, build the old wastes, and
raise up the desolations.”

Footnote 58:

  _On the binding obligation of the Covenants._—How far the vows of a
  parent are obligatory on a child, is a question both delicate and
  difficult to determine. That, in certain circumstances, they are
  imperative, is perfectly clear; and national compacts, vows, or
  covenants—by whatever name they may be called—entered into by the
  heads of the people, are, in Scripture, considered as binding upon the
  succeeding generations, even when the parties have rashly entered into
  them, under circumstances of ignorance, delusion, or deceit, provided
  they contain nothing in opposition to the moral law of God, which is
  unchangeable in its enactments, though they should contravene
  extraordinary enunciations of the divine will, as in the case of the
  covenant between Joshua and the Gibeonites.

Ten were executed together; and, on the scaffold, their dying speeches,
containing similar sentiments, were delivered with a high and elevated
courage, that excited no common emotion among the spectators, while
their kindlier feelings were melted into tenderness when the two
brothers—the Gordons—were thrown off locked in each other’s arms, and
whose last agonies were expressed by the convulsive clasp of a fraternal
embrace. The heads of the sufferers were sent to various parts of the
country, but the right hands which they had uplifted at the oath of the
covenant, were sent in derision to be affixed to the top of Lanark jail.

Enraged to find that no appearance of any premeditated scheme of
rebellion could be traced in the confessions of the late sufferers, who
all agreed in assigning as the cause of the rising, the intolerable
oppression they endured in soul, body, and estate, they determined to
elicit by torture, if possible, some plausible confession that might
afford a colouring of justification for the cruelties they were
perpetrating and determined to perpetrate. Accordingly, Nielson of
Corsack, whose enormous oppression we have already seen, and Hugh
M’Kail, a preacher, were brought before the council on the 4th of
December; and the boots, an instrument which had not been used in
Scotland for a century, was again put in requisition. This “infernal
machine” was a kind of box, strongly hooped with iron, into which the
leg of the prisoner was put, where it was compressed by wedges, driven
frequently till the bone was crushed, and even the marrow sometimes
extruded. Nielson was fearfully tormented; but his cries, which were
most piercing, had no effect upon Rothes, before whom he was examined,
who frequently called for “the other touch.” Hugh M’Kail, whose fate
produced a stronger and more indelible impression than any that occurred
during this period, was a young man of great promise. He had been tutor
in the family of Sir James Stewart of Coltness some time before the
Restoration, when Sir James was provost of Edinburgh. He was licensed to
preach at the early age of twenty-one, and soon became so deservedly
popular, that he eminently attracted the hatred of the prelates,
particularly Sharpe, and was forced to keep under hiding. During this
time, he went to Holland, and for four years attended one of the Dutch
Universities, then distinguished for theological literature. In 1664—5,
he returned secretly to his father’s house, where he remained, till,
hearing of the appearance made by the people of God for the cause of the
covenants, he joined them in the west; but his tender constitution was
unable to bear the fatigue of their severe toil and privations, and he
was, finally, obliged to leave them near Cramond Water. On his return
home to Libberton, he was seized at Braid’s Hills and brought to
Edinburgh. His limb, also, was shattered by repeated strokes of the
mallet; but from neither of the two could torture extort any other fact
than their confessions contained.

Nielson, notwithstanding the treatment he had undergone, was indicted to
stand trial on the 10th of December. When he was placed at the bar along
with other four—Mr Alexander Robertson, preacher, who had been basely
betrayed by the Laird of Morton, his friend, to whose protection he had
committed himself; George Crawford, in Cumnock; John Gordon, Irongray;
and John Lindsay, Edinburgh—they were found guilty upon their own
confessions, and were executed on the 14th, except Lindsay, who was
pardoned. They all left testimonies in similar terms to those who went
before, lamenting the defection of the times, but rejoicing in the hope
that God would return and bless his church and people. They all
pointedly refused the appellation of rebels, avouched their loyalty to
the king and the constitution of their country before it was illegally
overturned, and warned their friends not to be discouraged because the
few who had taken their lives in their hands had fallen before their
adversaries, but to abound more in holiness, prayer, and steadfastness,
nothing doubting, but that the Lord would arise in due time and plead
the cause which is his own.

M’Kail having fevered from the torture, had not been tried along with
Nielson, and it was thought his youth and the torments he had already
endured would have been deemed sufficient punishment; but they knew
little the mortal strife of ecclesiastics, when power is the object, who
thus calculated, although the highest interest was made for him. He had
insinuated a likeness between the primate and Judas—a crime never to be
forgiven, for it was true; and being recovered so far as to allow his
being moved, he was carried to court, December the 18th, and, together
with seven others, indicted for rebellion, found guilty, and condemned.
When allowed to answer for himself, he pled the obligations that were
laid upon the land, and the oath of God under which they were bound. The
last words of the National Covenant, he said, had always had great
weight on his spirit; upon which the Lord Advocate interrupted him, and
desired him to answer to his own particular charge. His answer was,
“that he acted under a solemn impression of the saying of our Lord
Jesus—‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of Man
also confess before the angels of God.’” When the sentence was
pronounced, he cheerfully said, with meek resignation—“The Lord giveth,
and the Lord taketh away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”

His prison hours were enviable, not composed merely, but full of joy.
“Oh, how good news!” said he to a friend, “to be within four days’
journey of enjoying the sight of Jesus Christ.” When some women were
weeping over him—“Mourn not for me,” was his cheering exhortation;
“though but young, and cut down in the budding of my hopes and labour of
the ministry, yet my death may do more good than many years sermons
might have done.” On the last night of his life, after having supped
with his father, some friends, and his fellow-prisoners, he burst forth
in a strain of animated queries; among others, “How they who were
hastening to heaven should conceive of the glories of the place, seeing
it was written, ‘Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered
into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that
love him?’ It is termed a glorious city and a bride; but, oh, how
insufficient, how vastly disproportionate, must all similitudes be!
therefore the Scripture furnishes yet a more excellent way, by
conceiving of the love of Christ to us; that love which passeth
knowledge, the highest and sweetest motive of praise—‘Unto him that
loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us
kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory, and
dominion, for ever and ever, amen!’—by holding forth the love of the
saints to Christ, and teaching us to love him in sincerity. This, this,
forms the very joy and exultation of heaven!—‘Worthy is the Lamb that
was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and
honour, and glory, and blessing!’ Nothing less than the soul breathing
love to Jesus can rightly apprehend the joys of heaven.” Then, after a
while, he added, “Oh! but notions of knowledge, without love, are of
small worth, evanishing into nothing and very dangerous.”

His great delight was in the Bible. Having read the 16th Psalm before
going to bed, he observed, “If there were any thing in the world sadly
and unwillingly to be left, it were the reading of the Scriptures—‘I
said, I shall not see the Lord in the land of the living;’ but this
needs not make us sad, for wherever we go, the Lamb is the book of
Scripture and the light of that city, and there is life, even the river
of the water of life, and living springs to delight its inhabitants.” He
laid him down in peace, and slept sweetly from ten o’clock till five
next morning. When he arose, he called his companion, John Wodrow, in a
tone of pleasantry—“Up John, you are too long in bed—you and I look not
like men going to be hanged this day, seeing we lie so long.” Some time
after, he made a striking and peculiarly happy allusion to his own
situation, and that of his fellow-sufferers—“Earthly kings’ thrones have
advocates against poor rebels; thy throne, O God, hath Jesus an advocate
for us.” He early requested his father to take leave, lest their parting
afterwards might discompose him, and to retire and pray earnestly that
the Lord might be with him to strengthen him, that he might endure to
the end. On the scaffold, a heavenly serenity beamed in his countenance.
He ascended the ladder with alacrity, saying, “Every step of this ladder
is a degree, nearer heaven.” Then looking down to his friends, he said,
“Ye need neither be ashamed nor lament for me in this condition, for I
can say, in the words of Christ, I go to your Father and my Father, to
your God and my God.” Just before he was turned off, he burst out into
this rapturous exclamation—“This is my comfort, that my soul is to come
to Christ’s hand, and he will present it blameless and faultless to the
Father, and then shall I be ever with the Lord! And now I leave off to
speak any more to creatures, and begin my intercourse with God which
shall never be broken off. Farewell, father and mother, friends and
relatives—farewell, the world and all delights—farewell, sun, moon, and
stars. Welcome—welcome, God and Father—welcome, sweet Jesus Christ, the
mediator of the new covenant—welcome, blessed Spirit of grace and God of
all consolation—welcome, glory—welcome, eternal life—welcome, death!”
Then, after praying a little within himself, he said aloud, “O Lord into
thy hands I commit my spirit, for thou hast redeemed my soul, Lord God
of truth!” And thus leaving time, was joyfully launched into the
boundless ocean of eternity.

The crowd of spectators was immense; and “when he died,” Kirkton tells
us, “there was such a lamentation as was never known in Scotland before,
not one dry cheek upon all the street, or in all the numberless windows
in the mercate place. He was a proper youth, learned, travelled, and
extraordinarily pious. He fasted every week one day, and signified,
frequently, his apprehension of such a death as he died; and heavy were
the groans of the spectators when he spoke his joys in death. Then all
cursed the bishops who used to curse; then all prayed who used to pray,
entreating God to judge righteous judgment. Never was there such a
mournful day seen in Edinburgh—never such a mournful season seen in
Scotland, in any man’s memory.”

The others were equally supported in the last trying hour, and
cheerfully laid down their lives for a cause which they believed to be
the cause of God and of their country, and which they never doubted
would ultimately and gloriously triumph. Their names were, John Wodrow,
a merchant in Glasgow—Ralph Shields, a merchant in Ayr, but an
Englishman by birth—a Humphry Colquhoun, of whom Kirkton testifies,
“that he spoke not like ane ordinary citizen, but, like an heavenly
minister relating his comfortable Christian experiences, called for his
Bible, and laid it on his wounded arm, and read John iii. 8., and spoke
upon it most sweetly to the admiration of all”—John Wilson, of the
parish of Kilmaurs, in Ayrshire—and Mungo Kaipo, from Evandale. Three of
little note, and who agreed to some partial compliances, were pardoned.

While these bloody transactions were going forward in the capital, a
commission was issued for the Earls of Linlithgow and Winton, Lord
Montgomerie, and Mungo Murray, to hold a Justiciary Court in Glasgow,
and Sir William Purves, solicitor-general, dispatched to prosecute. Four
of the covenanters were accordingly brought before them, Monday,
December 17th, all men in humble life—Robert Buntine, in Fenwick; John
Hart, in Glassford; Robert Scott, in Dalserf; and Matthew Paton, in
Newmills—found guilty that same day, and ordered to be hanged on
Wednesday. They went to the gibbet with the same Christian fortitude,
and evinced, by their deportment, that the same peace of God which had
comforted the martyrs in the capital, dwelt also in them. But the
impression which the dying declarations of the martyrs had made,
especially of those last murdered in Edinburgh, forbade that they should
be allowed the privilege of addressing the spectators in a quarter where
their solemn testimonies might have deeper effect; and when the
sufferers attempted to address the crowd, the drums were ordered to beat
and drown their voices—a detestable practice, which proclaimed their
dread of the truth they were vainly attempting to stifle. Rothes himself
took a tour to the south-west, accompanied by the Earl of Kellie,
Lieutenant General Drummond, Charles Maitland of Hatton, and James
Crichton, brother to the Earl of Dumfries, as a Justiciary commission.
At Ayr, twelve were tried and ordered for execution; eight in that town,
two at Irvine, and two at Dumfries. When those at Ayr were to be
executed, the executioner fleeing, and none being willing to perform the
hated office, in this dilemma, the Provost had recourse to the shocking
expedient of offering any of the prisoners pardon, upon condition of his
hanging the rest of his brethren; and one Anderson was found, who
purchased a few days’ miserable existence at this expense; yet even he
had to be filled half drunk with brandy to enable him to perform the
dreadful ceremony, while the sufferers, more to be envied than him,
courageously met that death which he basely inflicted.

The conduct of William Sutherland, the executioner of Irvine, stands out
in fine contrast with that of Anderson. This man, who had been born of
poor parents in the wildest part of the Highlands, had been seized with
an uncommon desire to learn the English language, which, with much
difficulty, he acquired so well, as to be able to read the Scriptures in
that tongue. He had acted as common hangman in the town of Irvine for
some time; when, having been converted to God through the reading of the
Bible, and the instructions of the persecuted, he scrupled about
executing any person whom he was not convinced deserved to die. When the
Ayr hangman fled, he was sent for, but would not move till carried by
force to that town, and peremptorily refused to execute the prisoners,
because he had heard they were godly men, who had been oppressed by the
bishops; upon which he was committed to prison, and flattered, and
threatened—first promised money, then told he would be hanged himself,
if he persisted; yet nothing could either terrify or induce him to
comply. When they called for the boots, “You may bring the spurs too,”
said William, “ye shall not prevail.” The provost offered him fifty
dollars, and told him he might go to the Highlands and live. “Aye, but
where can I flee from my conscience?” was the pointed query of the
honest mountaineer. He was then placed in the stocks, and four
musketeers stood ready with lighted matches, but the dauntless man bared
his bosom, and told them he was willing to die; and they, finding him
immoveable, dismissed him.[59] Anderson was also obliged to execute
those condemned to be hung at Irvine. Universally detested, he left the
country soon after and settled in Ireland, near Dublin, where his
cottage was burned, and he perished in the flames. The others were,
pursuant to their sentence, hung at Dumfries, whither the Commissioner
went to endeavour to trace the conspiracy; but no other discovery was
made than that the rising had been accidental, and that oppression had
been the cause. Upwards of thirty-four had now been put to death by the
hands of the executioner; yet these executions did more harm to the
cause of prelacy than almost any other circumstance could have done, for
the universal detestation of the people was heightened in proportion to
the fortitude and composure of the sufferers, whose dying testimonies
possessed a power and energy beyond that of a thousand sermons.

Footnote 59:

  Some curious interviews took place with Sutherland and one White, a
  curate, of which he afterwards published an account. The following is
  a specimen:—“Then came one Mr White, a curate, to persuade me, who
  said to me, ‘What are you doing? Do you not know that these men are
  guilty of the sin of rebellion, and rebellion in Scripture is as the
  sin of witchcraft?’ ‘I answered, I know the Scripture, it is in 1 Sam.
  xv. 28. That was Saul’s rebellion against the immediate revealed will
  of God, in sparing Agog and the best of the flocks; and that it was
  like that rebellion spoken of in the Israelites, when they rebelled
  and refused to go to the land of Canaan, according to God’s command,
  but would have chosen a captain and gone back again to Egypt. He then
  instanced Shemei, who cursed David and flang earth and stones at him;
  yet David forgave him, and much more should the king forgive the
  Galaway men who respect and pray for him, and would not let a hair of
  his head fall to the ground if he were among them.’ ‘But,’ says Mr
  White, ‘David was a prophet and a merciful man!’ ‘Ho!’ says I, ‘ye
  will not take a good man for your example, but an ill man; what
  divinity is that?’ At which, the soldiers laughing, he said in his
  anger, the devil was in me, and that I had to do with a familiar
  spirit. I said, than he was an unnatural devil, for he was not like
  the rest of the devils who desire the destruction of many, that he may
  get many souls, but the spirit that is in me, will not suffer me to
  take good men’s lives; so at that time Mr White went away as ashamed.”
  _Life and Declaration of William Sutherland_, pp. 4, 5. Wodrow says of
  this declaration, I am well assured it is genuine, and formed by
  himself, vol. i. p. 260.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                BOOK VI.


                        JANUARY, A.D. 1667-1669.


Dalziel sent to the South and West—His cruelty, and that of the inferior
   officers—Sir Mungo Murray—Sir William Bannantyne—Arrival of the Dutch
   fleet—Crusade abates—Forfeitures increase—Standing army
   proposed—Convention of estates—Cess—King’s letter—West country
   disarmed—Sir Robert Murray sent to Scotland—Army partially
   disbanded—Political changes—Bond of peace—Trials of Sir James Turner
   and Sir William Bannantyne—Field-preaching proscribed—Michael
   Bruce—John Blackadder—Attempt upon Sharpe’s life—Search for the
   assassin—Remarkable escape of Maxwell of Monreith—Case of Mr Robert
   Gray, merchant—Mrs Kelso and Mrs Duncan—Death of Mr Gillon, minister
   of Cavers—Field-preaching and family worship punished—Mr Fullarton of
   Quivox before the Council—Mr Blackadder patrols his “diocese”
   untouched safely—Mr Hamilton, minister of Blantyre.


The army followed fast upon the heels of the justiciary, and the devoted
west and south were again subjected to military oppression. Dalziel
established his head-quarters at Kilmarnock, and, in a few months,
extorted from that impoverished district, the sum of fifty thousand
merks, besides what was destroyed by the soldiers in their quarterings
through mere wantonness and a love of mischief. Whoever was suspected of
favouring Presbyterianism was apprehended and brought before the
General. If he possessed money, the process was short. A private
examination was generally terminated by a heavy fine or loathsome
imprisonment in a vile dungeon, where men and women were so crowded
together, that they could neither sit nor lie, and where decency and
humanity were at once violated. An instance of the summary mode in which
Dalziel exercised his authority will show, better than any general
description, the miseries of military rule. David Findlay at Newmilns, a
plain country man, who had accidentally been at Lanark when the
covenanters were there, but had not joined, was brought before him; and,
because he either would not, or could not, name any of the rich Whigs
who were with the army, he was instantly ordered, without further
ceremony, to be shot. When the poor man was carried out to die, neither
he nor the lieutenant who was to superintend the execution, could
believe that the General was in earnest, but the soldiers told him their
orders were positive. He then earnestly entreated only for one night’s
delay, that he might prepare for eternity; and the officer went to
Dalziel to request this short respite, when the ruffian threatened him
for his contumacy, and told him that “he would teach him to obey without
scruple.” In consequence, there was no further delay; Findlay was shot,
stripped, and his naked body left upon the spot.

Nor were the inferior officers unworthy of their commander. Sir Mungo
Murray having heard that two cottar tenants had lodged for a night two
of the men who had escaped from Pentland, bound them together with
cords, and then suspending them by their arms from a tree, went to bed,
and left them to hang for the night in this torture, which, in all
probability, would have finished them before morning, had not some of
the soldiers, more merciful than he, relieved them from their painful
situation at their own peril. Sir William Bannantyne, in Galloway,
caused even the removal of Turner to be regretted. He took possession of
Earlston House, which he garrisoned, and thence sent out his parties who
plundered indiscriminately the suspected and those who had given no
cause for suspicion, whose only crime was their property. Some, who
could not purchase forbearance, they stripped almost naked—then thrust
them into the most abominable holes in the garrison, where they were
kept till nearly dead, before they were suffered to depart; and one
woman, whom they alleged to have been accessary to her husband’s escape,
they tortured, by burning matches between her fingers with such
protracted cruelty, that she fevered, and shortly after died; and so
great was the universal consternation produced in these quarters among
the conscientious Presbyterians, that such as could get out of the
country, fled to foreign parts; and those who remained, lurked during a
severe winter, in caves, pits, or remote unfrequented places of the
land.

The arrival of a Dutch fleet in the Frith of Forth (April) relieved the
afflicted west a little. This squadron, which had threatened Leith, and
fired a few shots at Burntisland, occasioned the collecting of the whole
troops in Scotland to defend the east, while the success that attended
an attack upon the shipping in the Thames, obliged the government to
suspend their crusades against the Presbyterian heretics, in order to
guard their coasts from foreign insult. At the same time, the
exasperation of the English, on account of their national disgrace,
enabled the king to get rid of Lord Clarendon, a troublesome minister,
whose habits of business, and ideas of economy, ill suited the beloved
indolence and unmeaning, and worse than useless, profusion of his
master, and whose regard for the decencies of life were opposed to the
utter shamelessness of his profligate court.

But though relieved, in some measure, from military execution, the
property of the Presbyterians was reached by a more base and cowardly
mode of rapine. Heretofore, in cases of treason, the estates of rebels
could not be confiscated, as the rebels themselves could not be tried in
absence; and so express was the law on this subject that, in a former
reign, it was deemed necessary to bring the mouldering bones of a
traitor from his grave, and produce them in court, before he could be
legally forfeited. The Lord Advocate, however, judged it proper to
procure the authority of the court, previously to proceeding in
opposition both to the statutes and common practice; and, therefore,
proposed to the judges the following query—“Whether or not a person
guilty of high treason might be pursued before the justices, albeit they
be absent and contumacious, so that the justices, upon citation and
sufficient probation and evidence, might pronounce sentence and doom of
forfeiture, if the dittay be proven?” The lords answered in the
affirmative, and established a precedent, which was afterwards improved,
for forwarding the severe measures of a party already sufficiently
disposed to disregard all the ordinary forms of justice. All the
gentlemen of property who had gone into exile, were in consequence
forfeited, and their estates divided between the rulers and their
friends.

Continual dissensions among the Scottish politicians had been the bane
of Scotland almost ever since the nation existed. At this period they
proved of some small service, by diverting, for a short space, the
attention of the persecutors to their own personal affairs. Sharpe, by
his duplicity, had incurred the displeasure of the king; and a strong
party in the Scottish council, consisting of the military officers and a
majority of the prelates, were opposed to Lauderdale, whom they still
suspected of being too much attached to his old friends, and envied for
enjoying so much of the favour of the king. This party, to secure their
ascendancy, proposed to continue and increase the standing army, and to
enforce the declaration, under pains of forfeiture, upon all the
Presbyterians, fanatics, or Whigs, whom it was necessary to extirpate as
incorrigible rebels, whose principles were hostile to all good
government, and Lieutenant-General Drummond, with Burnet, archbishop of
Glasgow, had been sent to London to procure the king’s concurrence.

A convention of estates, held at Edinburgh in the month of January in
order to further these objects, voted a cess of sixty-four thousand
pounds a month, and, besides, offered to maintain all the forces the
king should think proper to raise.[60] Lauderdale instantly perceived
that this would give his enemies an overwhelming power in Scotland, by
throwing into their hands the disposal of the forfeitures and the army
commissions, and he obtained from the king a letter which, although it
authorized very arbitrary proceedings, yet effectually counteracted the
scheme of his opponents. It empowered them to tender the oath of
allegiance and declaration, and to incarcerate in case of refusal: it
authorized disarming the gentlemen in the disaffected shires—seizing all
serviceable horses in possession of suspected persons—ordered the
militia to be modelled—arms and ammunition to be provided—the legal
parish ministers to be protected from violence—and all engaged in the
late rebellion, to be criminally pursued without further delay.
Proclamations were in consequence issued for again disarming the west
and seizing the horses; and no person in future, who did not regularly
attend his parish church, was to be allowed to keep a horse above one
hundred merks value; but as nothing had been said by his majesty about
forfeitures, the declaration was little heard of, and the leading men
being changed shortly after, the afflicted country obtained a brief
glimpse of repose.

Footnote 60:

  A convention of estates differed from a parliament, in being convened
  for one specific purpose, commonly like those for raising money.

Lest, however, it might be supposed that any relaxation was meant to be
shown in supporting prelacy, a letter was transmitted from court, early
in May, expressing the royal determination not only to encourage and
protect the bishops in the exercise of their callings, and all the
orthodox clergy under them, but also to discountenance all, of what
quality soever, who should show any disrespect or disaffection to that
order or government; and earnestly recommending to those in power, to
give the utmost countenance to the orthodox clergy, and to punish
severely any affronts put upon them, “to the end,” it is added, “that
they may be the more endeared to their people, when they see how careful
we, and all in authority under us, are of their protection in the due
exercise of their calling.” The council in consequence issued a
proclamation, rendering heritors and parishioners liable for all the
damages that might be done to their ministers, which, in the sequel, was
most rigorously enforced, although it had certainly little tendency or
effect in producing any sentiments of endearment in the breasts of the
people towards pastors who required such eminent exertions of royal and
magisterial care.

Not long after, Sir Robert Murray, distinguished for his love of science
and his moderation of temper, was sent down to Scotland to procure, if
possible, an accurate account of the state of the country. He was at
this time high in the confidence of Lauderdale, whose interest he
assiduously promoted, and whose party he essentially strengthened by the
mighty accession of character he brought them. The bishops and their
party were extremely anxious to have, above all things, the army
continued, and used every method to induce Sir Robert Murray to coincide
with them in opinion. Burnet, archbishop of Glasgow, protested that, if
the army were disbanded, the gospel would depart out of his diocese; and
the Duke of Hamilton said he did not think his life would be secure even
in following his sport in the west; when Tweeddale, with many
professions of care for his Grace’s life, proposed a squadron of the
life-guard might be sent to quarter on his premises—a mode of protection
with which the Duke did not appear very highly enraptured. But their
guardian, Hyde, was in disgrace—an unfavourable peace had terminated an
unsuccessful Dutch war—and a show of temporary moderation, at least, was
required by the circumstances of the nation. Peremptory orders were
therefore sent to Scotland to disband the whole army, except two troops
of horse and one (Linlithgow’s) regiment of foot guards, which was
accordingly done to the great joy of the country, but much to the
distress of many idlers who had lately bought their commissions for the
purposes of plunder, and considered a captaincy equal to an estate,
although numbers, especially of the higher ranks, had their losses more
than compensated by their shares of the forfeited estates.

Lauderdale was too good a politician to allow the present humiliation of
his opponents to pass unimproved. The indolence and dissipation of
Rothes had laid him open to the charges of inattention and neglect of
duty during the Dutch visit. He was therefore, as an honourable
dismissal, made Lord Chancellor preparatory to losing the
Commissionership. The Earl of Tweeddale’s eldest son, Lord Yester,
having been married to Lauderdale’s only daughter and presumptive
heiress, his father was named one of the commissioners of the treasury
along with Kincardine and Sir Robert Murray, who had also been appointed
Lord Justice-Clerk; and his party in the privy council had been still
further augmented by the admission of the Earl of Airly, Lord Cochrane,
and others. The first trial of strength between the factions, was upon
the important question, how the peace of the country was to be secured
when the army was disbanded? As the same vile and mischievous system of
forcing a hated hierarchy upon the people was determined to be persisted
in, the prelates and military were for pressing the declaration
according to the king’s letter; for although they had now no immediate
prospect of touching the money, yet they always had a kind of natural
propensity to urge the harshest measures, and those which would promote,
rather than appease, the troubles of the land. The Lauderdale party
proposed a general pardon and a bond of peace, so moderate in its terms,
as that it would be either cheerfully taken, or render those who refused
it inexcusable. The contest was long and hotly maintained; and when the
council divided, their clerk, Sir Peter Wedderburn, affirmed that the
declaration was carried; this, Sir Robert Murray denied, and the vote
was again put, and again the clerk affirmed a majority was for the
declaration; Sir Robert still contended that this was not the case, and
the Chancellor warmly asking, if he doubted the clerk’s fidelity? Sir
Robert replied he would trust the evidences of his own senses before any
clerk in the world, and insisted that the names should be distinctly
called, and the votes accurately marked; when it plainly appeared that a
majority was for the bond, which, but for his firmness, by an impudent
shameless falsehood would have inevitably been lost.

Pursuant to these resolutions, a pardon was proclaimed; but the
exceptions were so numerous that it was of no avail to any person who
possessed either influence or property, and it was remarked that already
more than half the number of those who had been at Pentland, were either
executed or forfeited; and those who were pardoned, were only the
persons whom from their obscurity it would have been impossible to
discover, or from their poverty, fruitless to forfeit. The bond was
short, and ran thus:—“I, _A. B._, do bind and oblige me to keep the
public peace, and not to rise in arms without the king’s authority, and
that if I fail I shall pay a year’s rent: likewise, that my tenants and
men-servants shall keep the public peace; and in case they fail, I
oblige myself to pay for every tenant his year’s rent, and for every
servant his year’s fee. And for more security, I am content thir
presents be registrate in the books of council.” Excepting, perhaps, the
hardship of obliging a landlord to bind himself for his tenant and
servant, there does not appear, at first sight, any thing objectionable
in this obligation. But the government had entirely lost the confidence
of the upright Presbyterians by their uniform endeavours to ensnare
their consciences with oaths and obligations, conceived in general
terms, to which a double meaning was attached; and which, when any
dispute arose, they insisted should always be understood according to
the sense the administrators of the oath imposed upon it. Now this bond
was constructed in the usual manner, and the expressions—“keep the
public peace, and not rising in arms”—were the ambiguous phrases; and
numbers refused to sign, unless allowed to explain that by these
expressions they were not to be understood as binding themselves to
support the prelatical religion, to attend their churches, and desert
the preaching of the gospel by their own ministers, or acknowledge the
doctrine of passive obedience. Many pamphlets were printed, and much
discussion took place upon the subject; but the bond being soon laid
aside, the controversy became unimportant, except in so far as
succeeding events plainly showed that the objections to the bond were
not unmeaning scruples, and that those who refused to sign, acted from a
complete knowledge of the persons with whom they were dealing, who would
allow of no interpretation inconsistent with entire, implicit,
unconditional submission. The proclamation for disarming the west was
also in part recalled, and orders issued for restraining the
irregularities of such soldiers as were kept in pay—a number of
gentlemen who had been imprisoned in 1665 were liberated—and the year
closed with the illusive prospect of a deceitful calm.[61]

Footnote 61:

  In December, “Naphtali, or the Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland,”
  written by Sir James Stuart of Goodtrees, and Mr James Stirling,
  minister of Paisley, was ordered to be burned by the hands of the
  hangman, and all who had copies of it after that date to be severely
  fined—a very foolish but not uncommon mode of publicly confessing that
  a book is unanswerable. Honeyman, bishop of Orkney, attempted to
  answer it, which produced an able reply by Sir James—“Jus populi
  vindicatum.”

[1668.] Great expectations were entertained that some legal protection
might be again enjoyed by the harassed Presbyterians, as during last
year a commission had arrived from the king to bring Sir James Turner to
trial for his tyranny and oppression in the south. But it soon appeared
that whatever might have caused the act of justice, it was no sympathy
for the sufferings of the “Fanatics.” The extortions, harassings,
imprisonments, and other charges against Sir James, were easily
established; but it did not appear that he had either acted without or
beyond his instructions, or appropriated much of the spoil for himself,
and he was only dismissed the service, while those he had robbed
received no compensation. Sir William Bannantyne’s trial followed. The
accusations against him were more atrocious, torturing and rape being
offered to be proved in addition to plunder and rapine. But, perhaps,
what was his most indefensible crime, he could not account for the
monies he had received. He was therefore banished and fined in two
hundred pounds sterling—a gentle sentence for such conduct.[62] Little
real relief was however afforded to Presbyterians, whose principles
would not bend to the times, or to those who, at the risk of reputation,
property, liberty, or life itself, refused to abstain from preaching the
gospel to their fellow-sinners, or those who would not consent to
forsake the worship of God, or leave his ordinances dispensed by his
ministers—to attend on a profanation of all sacred service by hirelings
who were—(scarcely even the disguised)—enemies of the cross of Christ.
In proportion as lenity was exercised to others, so much the more was
hatred evinced towards ministers and those who frequented conventicles.

Footnote 62:

  He went afterwards to the low country, and was killed by a cannon-ball
  at the siege of Grave, which drove his heart out of his body—a mode of
  death he had been accustomed to imprecate upon himself.

Hitherto there had been but few field-meetings, yet preaching and
exhortation in private houses, barns, and other convenient places, had
been very common and well attended; and, from the concurring testimony
of all who were accustomed to frequent them, who have left any record,
the Spirit of God seems in an eminent manner to have blessed these
calumniated, despised, and persecuted assemblies.[63] In a letter from
the king, January 16, which settles the meaning of “the public peace,”
these meetings, which were peculiarly obnoxious to the bishops and
curates, are thus pointed out to the notice of the council:—“We most
especially recommend to you to use all possible means and endeavours for
preserving the public peace under our authority, and with special care
to countenance and maintain Episcopal government, which in all the
kingdom we will most inviolably protect and defend. You must by all
means restrain the gatherings of the people to conventicles, which are
indeed _rendezvouses of rebellion_, and execute the laws severely
against the ringleaders of such faction and schism.” The council, with
prompt obedience, appointed any of their number to grant warrants for
seizing and haling to prison all “outted” ministers or others who should
keep unlawful convocations; and the Earl of Linlithgow, commander of the
few forces, was directed to distribute them over the country in such
manner as might be calculated most easily to dissipate these illicit
concerns. A company of foot was, in consequence, ordered to lie at
Dumfries; another, with fifteen horse, at Strathaven, in Clydesdale;
forty troopers at Kilsyth; two companies and fifteen horse at Glasgow;
one company at Dalmellington; and a last at Cumnock, in Ayrshire.

Footnote 63:

  Memoir of Fraser of Brae, p. 126-7.

To stimulate their exertions, and still farther “to endear” his beloved
prelates to the lieges, the king, on the 25th July, requires them to rid
the kingdom of all seditious preachers or pretended ministers who had
kept conventicles or gathered people to the fields since January last;
“for we look on such,” he adds, “as the great disturbers of the peace
and perverters of the people.” And the council urged their officers to
be upon the alert; even Tweeddale, who was generally supposed friendly
to the Presbyterians, or at least moderate, was not less anxious than
his associates to prevent or extinguish the light of the gospel which
from these conventicles was spreading over the country. In writing to
the Earl of Linlithgow, he says—“Your lordship knows the counsel’s
desing reachith furder then to make them peaceable when the rod is over
their head, which I beleive your lordship will follow as far as
possible; for, iff ther be not som of thes turbulent peopel catched, all
is in vayn: when they are chassed out of one place, they will flie to
another: for God’s sake, therefor, endeavour by all means possible to
learn wher they haunt and whither they are gon;” and then he advises the
commander colonel-commandant to send parties “to catch them wher they
can be had, wer it 100 mils off, especially Mr Michael Bruce.”

Michael Bruce, thus denounced, was of the family of Airth, so highly and
deservedly esteemed in the annals of the Reformation, himself “a worthy,
useful, and affectionate preacher.” He had been driven from Ireland,
where he had been settled, and was now zealously and boldly preaching in
Stirlingshire to large auditories, generally in houses, but occasionally
in the fields, and had “presumed also to baptize and administrate the
sacraments without any lawful warrant,” he was therefore pursued by the
soldiers as a wild beast, and at last surprised, wounded, and taken
prisoner. After his wounds would allow of his being moved, he was
brought to Edinburgh and sentenced to banishment, but, on his being sent
to London, his sentence was altered, and he was ordered to be carried to
Tangiers in Africa. He, however, obtained the favour of being permitted
to retire secretly to Ireland. Several of the other “outted” ministers
were likewise ordered to prison, and some fined for similar
misdemeanours; numbers, however, in Fife, in the north, and even in
Edinburgh,[64] laboured with much success, while “Mr Blackadder and his
accomplices” were not less assiduous in their visits to the west and in
the south. Professions of greater indulgence to the Presbyterian
ministers were, notwithstanding these proceedings, held out to them by
Tweeddale, who had had interviews and made proposals to several of the
most eminent then under hiding, when an unfortunate circumstance put an
end to all hope of favour for the present.

Footnote 64:

  Kirkton, Welsh, Blackadder, Donald Cargil, and many others, at this
  time resided in the capital for months together, and secretly
  exercised their ministry.

James Mitchell, a preacher, who had been at Pentland, and was by name
exempted from the indemnity, considering Sharpe the prime instigator of
all the calamities his country had endured, and was enduring, as well as
the author of his own exclusion from pardon, and having heard of his
keeping up the king’s letter till the last six were executed at
Edinburgh, determined to free the land from such a monster, whom he
viewed in the light of an enemy whose life he had a right to take in
self-defence, as well as in the service of his country.[65] In pursuance
of this resolution, he waited for the primate, July 11th, at the head of
Blackfriar’s Wynd, where his house was, on purpose to effect it; and
having allowed him to be seated in his coach, deliberately walked up and
fired at him, but Honeyman, bishop of Orkney, who was in the act of
getting up, received the shot, by which his arm was shattered, and
Sharpe, for the present, escaped. Mitchell, after firing, walked away
coolly, and turning down Niddry’s Wynd, went thence to Stevenlaw’s
Close, shifted his clothes, and returning to the High Street, without
being discovered, mixed with the multitude who had collected, but who
were giving themselves very little concern about the matter, when they
heard that it was only a bishop that had been shot.

Footnote 65:

  Vide Testimony, Naphtali.

Immediately the hue and cry was raised—the city gates were shut—the
magistrates were ordered to make strict search after Whigs in the city
or suburbs—the constables were called out, and a hundred soldiers sent
to assist them. The town being considered a place where those who were
proscribed could best conceal themselves, several of this description
were then secretly residing there, and had narrow escapes, none of the
least remarkable of which was that of Maxwell of Monreith.

Being unacquainted with the town when the search began, he came running
to Nicol Moffat, a stabler in the Horse Wynd, and begged him to conceal
him, for he knew of no shelter. “Alas!” answered Nicol, “there is not a
safe corner in my house.” But there was an empty meal-barrel that stood
at the head of a table in his public room, and he added, if he chose to
go in there, he would put something over and cover him. There was no
alternative, and in Mr Maxwell went. Scarcely was he out of sight when a
constable arrived, with a band of soldiers, and demanded if there were
any Whigs there? “Ye may look an’ see,” replied Nicol carelessly, and
the constable, deceived by his manner, proceeded no further; but, being
thirsty, called for some ale for his party, and they sat down at the
table. While drinking, they began talking about their fruitless search,
when one said he knew there were many Whigs in town, and he did not
doubt but there were some not far distant, to which another answered
with an oath, knocking at the same time on the head of the barrel,
“there may be one below this;” but they were restrained from lifting the
lid; and when they had finished their potations, they went quietly away.

Others were not, however, so fortunate. The servant girl of a Mr Robert
Gray, a merchant in Edinburgh and a godly man, having quarrelled with
her mistress, out of revenge went to Sharpe, and told him that there
they would find a receptacle of Whigs, and might discover the assassin,
on which Mr Gray was brought before the council. Conjecturing what his
servant might have told, he at once informed them that Major Learmont,
Mr Welsh, and a Mrs Duncan, a minister’s widow, had dined with him not
long before; but with regard to the assassin he knew nothing. The
advocate then going up familiarly, after a short conversation, took the
ring off his finger, telling him he had use for it, and dispatched a
messenger of his own with it to Mrs Gray to tell her that her husband
had discovered all, and sent this as a token that she might do the same.
Deceived by this trick, worthy of the Inquisition, she acquainted them
that Mr Welsh sometimes lodged with Mrs Kelso, a rich widow, and
preached in her house, and also where Mrs Duncan was to be found. Mrs
Gray and her two female friends were immediately sent to prison, and
soon after brought before the council, when Mrs Kelso was fined five
thousand merks and banished to the plantations. Mrs Duncan also was
sentenced to banishment, and only escaped torture by Rothes observing,
“it was not customary for gentlewomen to wear boots.” After a long
confinement, the sentence of banishment was relaxed; but Mr Gray felt so
keenly, from having been the innocent cause of so much suffering, that
he sickened, and died within a few days. Mr Gillon, the “outted”
minister of Cavers, likewise met his death upon this occasion in a very
inhuman manner. He had retired to Currie, a few miles from Edinburgh,
for the benefit of his health, where, being apprehended about midnight
by two or three rascally soldiers, who pretended to be searching for the
bishop’s assassin, he was forced, in sport, to run before them a
distance of nearly four miles to the West Port, where, after he arrived,
he was kept standing for some hours in the open air before he could
obtain admission, and then was sent to lodge in a cold jail. Next day,
on being brought before the council, he was recognized and dismissed,
but he did not survive the treatment he had received above forty-eight
hours. During this year, to compensate for the loss of the regulars, the
militia were modelled, properly officered, and prepared for service—a
circumstance which, as it was a time of profound peace, might have
created some misgivings respecting any alteration in the plans of
government.

[1669.] Flattering themselves still with the returning favour of
government, the ministers pursued their prohibited labours, and
conventicles continued to increase, while the council, impelled on by
the repeated injunctions of the king and solicitations of the prelates,
not unfrequently forgot their professions of moderation, and proceeded
to acts which might have dispelled the delusion. Conventicles found no
mercy. The magistrates of burghs were now made responsible for any that
might be held within their bounds; and early this year, the civic rulers
of the capital were fined fifty pounds sterling, because “Mr David Hume,
late minister of Coldingham, took upon him to preach in the house of
widow Paton on the last Sunday of February”—a circumstance, it is highly
probable, the worthy provost and bailies had never heard of till they
were summoned to pay for the exercise. An act of council immediately
followed, prohibiting every person from having their children baptized
by any other than the Episcopal clergy, under the penalty, to an
heritor, of the fourth part of his valued rent—a tenant £100 Scots and
six weeks’ imprisonment—and a cottar twenty, and the same. To enforce
this decree, the militia were to be employed in seizing the disobedient,
and ordered to be supported by them, while on this service, at the rate
of one shilling and sixpence sterling each man, and three shillings each
officer per day; at the same time, collectors of fines were appointed to
take care that the whole penalty was exacted; and among these, it is
somewhat ludicrous to observe the Earl of Nithsdale, a papist, required
to see a measure faithfully executed, the professed intention of which
was, to prevent the growth of popery! then it seems lamentably on the
increase—an increase the council had the effrontery to aver, was owing
to the frequency of field-preaching.

The archbishop of Glasgow, whose jurisdiction was grievously annoyed by
these pests, was peculiarly virulent in his opposition, prevailed upon
Lord Cochrane (created Earl of Dundonald next year) to bring before a
committee at Ayr, eleven ministers of that district who had been guilty
of preaching and baptizing irregularly. Upon examination, the committee
were inclined to dismiss them, but his lordship insisted upon their
being sent to Edinburgh. There they were examined before a committee of
the privy council, and acknowledged that they had allowed others,
besides those of their own households, to attend when they worshipped
God in their families and expounded the Scriptures, but none of them had
been guilty of the enormity of field-preaching, and all promised to
demean themselves peaceably, as they had hitherto done, and to give no
just ground of offence. Their brethren, who were aware that temporizing
would serve little purpose, were dissatisfied that they had not asserted
their indefeasible right as ministers of Christ to preach his gospel;
and they appear to have been convinced that they had acted too faintly
in his cause, for when they were called to receive sentence, Mr
Fullarton, the “outted” minister of St Quivox, in name of the rest,
addressed the Chancellor. After reminding him of the unshaken loyalty
which the Presbyterian ministers had displayed towards his majesty in
his lowest estate, and the unlooked for return they had met with, he
added—“But now seeing we have received our ministry from Jesus Christ,
and must one day give an account to our Master how we have performed the
same, we dare have no hand in the least to unminister ourselves; yea,
the word is like a fire in our bosoms seeking for vent; and seeing,
under the force of a command from authority, we have hitherto ceased
from the public exercise of our ministry, and are wearied with
forbearing, we therefore humbly supplicate your lordship, that you would
deal with the king’s majesty on our behalf, that at least the indulgence
granted to others in our way within his dominions, may be granted to
us.” Then, after requesting to be delivered from the oppressive tyranny
of their collector of the fines, a Mr Nathaniel Fyfe, whom Kirkton
styles “a poor advocate, and alleyed to one of the bishops,” he
concluded by telling him it would be no matter of regret when he entered
eternity and stood before Christ’s tribunal, that he had acted as a
repairer of breaches in his church. The council was crowded and very
attentive, but the ministers were only excused for the time, and
straitly charged in future to abstain from similar practices, on pain of
being visited not only for any new, but likewise for their old
transgressions; and the same day a proclamation was issued, strictly
forbidding all conventicles, and rendering all the heritors in the
western shires liable to a fine of fifty pounds sterling for every such
meeting, on pretence of religious worship, as should be kept in any
houses or lands pertaining to them.

How Mr Blackadder escaped, is astonishing, for during this year he seems
to have been the most active of all the ministers, as well as the
boldest. In the month of January, he preached publicly at Fenwick, and
continued labouring in the west, till his over-exertions, more suited to
the earnest desires of the people than his bodily strength, produced an
illness which confined him for several weeks.[66] When recovered (June)
he went again to his “diocese,” round by Borrowstownness, where he
established a congregation and secured to them the freedom of
undisturbed worship, through the interest of his relation Major
Hamilton, who was the Duke’s bailie of regality, and lived at Kinniel
House. At the request of the Ladies Blantyre, Pollock, and Dundonald, he
preached to large auditories, sometimes not fewer than two thousand. In
Livingstone, he administered the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the
example was followed in fifteen or sixteen adjacent parishes. The
preaching of the gospel and dispensation of the ordinances were attended
with such blessed effects that it was no wonder the enemy raged. Upon a
humiliation day, in the muir of Livingstone, the four ministers who were
to preach called aside several of the gravest and most sagacious men of
the bounds, and inquired at them what were the most reproveable sins
they observed as necessary to be confessed unto God in these bounds, and
whereof the people were to be admonished that they might the better know
how to carry on the following work of the day; the men, after a
deliberate pause, answered, as to public scandals and every kind of
profanity, they could not say much, for they had not heard of any
outbreakings of fornication, adultery, or drunkenness, scarce these
seven years past, in that parish or in several parishes about, since the
public preaching of the gospel had broke up among them.

Footnote 66:

  “Money frequently was offered him for bearing accidental expenses.
  Several gentlemen contributed sums, and collections were made in
  purpose, but he uniformly declined receiving any donation, ‘lest his
  ministry might bear the imputation of a covetous and mercenary spirit,
  or the enemy have occasion to reproach their cause as if money made
  them eager to preach.’”—_Crichton’s Mem. of Blackadder_, p. 148.

About the same time, Mr Hamilton the “outted” minister of Blantyre was
apprehended and sent to Edinburgh to answer to the council for holding a
conventicle in his own house in Glasgow. Being asked how many hearers
were in use to attend his meeting? he archly answered, that for these
several years past the poor ministers of Christ who were forced from
their flocks, could with difficulty support themselves and families, and
could neither hire palaces nor castles. They might then easily judge
what kind of houses they were able to rent, and whether they could hold
large companies. His reply to whether others than his family were
present? was equally pointed—“My lords, I have neither halberts nor
guards to keep any out.” One of the members who thought his sarcasms
bore hard on the archbishop, reminded him of the favour he had got from
his lordship, in being permitted to remain so long in Glasgow. “Not so
much,” retorted the prisoner, “as Paul got from a heathen persecuting
Emperor, for he dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and
received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and
teaching those things that concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all
confidence, no man forbidding him; but both the honest people of Glasgow
and myself have been often threatened with violence if we did not
forbear.” Finding themselves no match at this species of interrogation,
the council demanded if he was willing to give bond to preach no more in
that way. He replied, he had got his commission from Christ, and would
not voluntarily restrict himself whatever he might be forced to do. “An’
where got you that commission?” asked the Chancellor. “In Matthew 28th
chapter and 19th verse, Go teach and baptize.” “That is the apostles’
commission,” rejoined Rothes; “an’ do you set up for an apostle?” “No,
my lord,” said Mr Hamilton, “nor for any extraordinary person either,
but that place contains the commission of ordinary ministers as well as
of extraordinary ambassadors.” When again asked, if he would give
assurance that he would neither preach nor exercise worship anywhere but
in his own house, he repeated his refusal, and was sent to prison, where
he lay till his health became so much impaired that his brother, Sir
Robert Hamilton of Silvertoun Hill, made interest and got him released,
he giving bond of a thousand merks to compear when called.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               BOOK VII.


                         JULY, A.D. 1669-1670.


An indulgence proposed—Partially accepted by the ministers—Mr
   Hutchison’s address—Proclamation against those who refused
   it—Archbishop of Glasgow’s remonstrance—Parliament assert the king’s
   supremacy—Vote the militia, and a security for orthodox
   ministers—Field-meeting in Fife—Difference between Presbyterians and
   prelatists in doctrine and teaching—Curates disturbed—Lecturing
   forbid—Compromising ministers—Success of the gospel—Remarkable
   meetings at the Hill of Bath, &c.—Rage of the Primate—Strange escape
   of four prisoners.


A state of things so incongruous could not long exist. An immense
majority of the population, including almost all who had any pretensions
to religion, were decidedly inimical to the Episcopalian mode of
worship. The churches of the curates were deserted, and themselves
despised, while the exercises of the Presbyterian ministers were
attended by crowds. Harsh methods had been used, and had but exasperated
the evil. It was, therefore, now proposed to try what more lenient
measures would produce, and an insidious indulgence was resorted to, by
which it was hoped that the “fanatics” might be divided among
themselves, or cheated into compliance with a modified Episcopacy.
Accordingly, Tweeddale having privately consulted with Messrs Robert
Douglas and John Stirling, late ministers of Edinburgh, prevailed with
them to draw up a letter or petition, which he carried with him to
London,[67] where a similar system of cozenage was carrying on by
Charles himself with the non-conformists, and easily obtained from the
king a letter of indulgence. By it the council were authorized to
appoint so many of the ministers ejected by the Glasgow act, 1662, as
had lived peaceably, to return to their former charges, if unfilled up,
and to allow patrons to present to other vacant parishes such as they
should approve. Those of them who should take collocation from the
bishop, and keep presbyteries and synods, to be entitled to their full
stipends; those who would not take collocation to have only the glebe,
manse, and a moderate allowance; and such as refused to attend the
presbyteries and synods, to be confined within the bounds of their
parishes. But none were to admit as hearers in their congregations, nor
as participators of the ordinances, any persons from the neighbouring
parishes, without the consent of their own parson. The ministers not
thus provided for, were to be allowed, out of the stipends of the vacant
churches, an annual pension of four hundred merks, so long as they
continued to behave themselves peaceably. This indulgence, limited as it
was, was by no means acceptable to the prelate’s party. The councillors
long contested it at the board, and the bishops, with some of “the
orthodox clergy,” had private meetings to oppose it; but Sharpe, who
understood the subject better, is said to have advised to make no
objections to its publication, but to throw every obstacle in the way of
its success, by clogging it in every possible manner with requirements,
to which he knew the Presbyterians could not consistently submit—a line
of conduct which his party followed, and which ultimately gained its
object. Meanwhile, it was referred to a committee, composed of the two
archbishops, the Duke of Hamilton, the Earls of Argyle, Tweeddale,
Kincardine, and Dundonald, with the officers of the Crown, and the Lord
of Lee, to carry his majesty’s pleasure into effect, and on the 27th
July, ten ministers were nominated to various places.

Footnote 67:

  Burnet claims this service for a letter of his own. “I being there
  (summer 1669) at Hamilton, and having got the best information of the
  state of the country that I could, with a long account of all I had
  heard, to the Lord Tweeddale, and concluded it with an advice to put
  some of the more moderate of the Presbyterians into the vacant
  churches, Sir Robert Murray told me the letter was so well liked that
  it was read to the king. Such a letter would have signified nothing if
  Lord Tweeddale had not been fixed in the same notion. So my principles
  and zeal for the church, and I know not what besides, were raised to
  make my advice signify somewhat.”—_Hist._ vol. i. p. 413.

At first the treacherous boon was not perceived by many excellent
“outted” ministers in its naked deformity. They thought that it opened
for them a door to preach the gospel, of which they were anxious to
avail themselves, and imagined that by explicitly avowing their
sentiments when they accepted their appointments, they would exonerate
their consciences and satisfy their brethren. Accordingly, when these
ten were brought before the council, and received their allotments,
accompanied with injunctions, Mr George Hutchison, late one of the
ministers of Edinburgh, transported to Irvine, thus spoke:—“My lords, I
am desired in the name of my brethren present to acknowledge in all
humility and thankfulness, his majesty’s royal favour, in granting us
liberty and the public exercise of our ministry, after so long a
restraint, and to return thanks to your lordships for having been
pleased to make us, the unworthiest of many of our brethren, so early
partakers of the same. We having received our ministry from Jesus
Christ, with full prescriptions from him for regulating us therein,
must, in the discharge thereof, be accountable to him; and as there can
be nothing more desirable or refreshing to us upon earth, than to have
free liberty of the exercise of our ministry, under the protection of
lawful authority—the excellent ordinance of God, and to us most dear and
precious—so we purpose and resolve to behave ourselves, in the discharge
of the ministry, with that wisdom and prudence which becomes faithful
ministers of Jesus Christ, and to demean ourselves towards lawful
authority—notwithstanding of our own judgment in church affairs—as well
becomes loyal subjects, and that from a principle of conscience. And
now, my lords, our prayer to God is, that the Lord may bless his majesty
in his person and government, and your lordships in your public
administrations; and especially, in pursuance of his majesty’s mind,
testified in his letter, wherein his singular moderation eminently
appears, that others of our brethren may in due time be made sharers of
the liberty, that, through his majesty’s favour, we now enjoy.”

Mr Hutchison’s address neither pleased the council nor satisfied his
brethren. The latter thought it did not assert with sufficient plainness
the sole kingship of Christ in his church, nor bear an honest enough
testimony against the usurpation of Charles and his council. The rest,
who were selected for a similar favour, had therefore resolved to be
more downright, but they were never allowed an opportunity. The council,
who wished to hear no more upon the subject, sent their appointments to
them. The whole number under the first indulgence amounted to
forty-three. They were willingly received by the people, and as they
abstained from controversial subjects and confined themselves to the
pure doctrines of the gospel, it was remarked that they were eminently
countenanced of the Lord in their labours.

As had, however, always been anticipated by the more unbending part of
the ministry, this partial relaxation to a few was accompanied by
harsher measures against the rest, especially those who, choosing to
obey God rather than man, could not in conscience comply with the
mandates of those rulers, and desist from declaring the glad tidings of
salvation as He, in his providence, gave them opportunity. A fresh
proclamation was issued, (August 3,) commanding all heritors to delate
to the next magistrates, any who, within their bounds, should take upon
them to preach and carry on worship in any unwarrantable meetings, that
they might be thrown into prison—the magistrates of burghs were required
to detain them till further orders—and the lieges were likewise
informed, that the laws would be rigidly put in execution against all
withdrawers from public worship in their respective congregations.
These, however, were only preparatory to severer parliamentary
enactments, which confirmed the worst suspicions of those who uniformly
distrusted the equivocal toleration of their rulers, and justified their
refusal to come to any compromise as a matter of sound policy, even had
it not been a point of conscience. In the interim, the prelates pursued
their own measures, to render abortive the provision intended for the
unindulged, but quiet, part of the brethren. They procured that the act
of parliament which allotted all vacant stipends, since 1664, to the
support of the universities, should be examined into; nor does it appear
that any one of the sufferers ever received a farthing from that fund.
Mr John Park, one of the ten, late minister of Stranraer, was reponed to
his own parish, but the bishop of Galloway, three days after the
council’s nomination, admitted one Nasmith to the charge; and
notwithstanding, or perhaps rather because the people were unanimous in
favour of their late pastor, the council rather chose to submit to the
insult done their authority, than disoblige the prelate, and confirmed
the intruder in his office.

A project of an union between the two kingdoms was the ostensible reason
for assembling the Scottish parliament after six years’ interval. The
project came to nothing; but, in the meanwhile, it subserved the
ambition of Lauderdale, who was appointed Commissioner. The elections
went entirely in favour of his party, and he was received in Scotland
with little less pomp than if he had been the sovereign, for his
opponents were eager to deprecate his anger; and the Presbyterians, the
dupes of their own wishes, fondly believed that he was still in heart
with them, though he had been forced by circumstances to act otherwise,
in which they were the more confirmed by an incident that occurred two
days before the parliament sat down, which yet was only a political
fracas. Burnet, archbishop of Glasgow, who was one of the stoutest
assertors of the king’s absolute supremacy, when it overturned
Presbyterianism and settled Episcopacy, was by no means so clear about
his majesty’s right to set aside the laws when he trenched upon the
functions of the bishops, and granted relief to the persecuted
ministers. He, therefore, in the Episcopal synod of Glasgow, caused, or
allowed, a remonstrance to be drawn up against the indulgence,
representing it as an illegal stretch of power, and likely to be
destructive to the church. Unfortunately for the right reverend father,
he stood opposed both to Lauderdale and Sharpe, and the affair being
brought before the council, his lordship was ordered to produce the
paper, which was forwarded to the king; and James Ramsay, dean of
Glasgow, and Arthur Ross, parson, who had drawn it up, were severely
reprimanded—the paper suppressed—and “all his majesty’s lieges, of what
function or quality soever, discharged from countenancing or owning the
same.” Lauderdale did not, however, long allow the Presbyterians to
remain in doubt as to his real sentiments. In his speech to parliament,
which met on the 19th, he assured them of the king’s unalterable
determination to support Episcopacy—avowed his own attachment to it—and
inveighed against conventicles, whose entire suppression he urged, as
his majesty having granted an indulgence, would never now consent to
tolerate them.

The parliament, like their predecessors, showed every inclination to
comply with whatever was required; and in their first act asserted and
declared, that his majesty had the supreme authority and supremacy over
all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical within the kingdom, and
that the ordering and disposal of the external government and policy of
the church did properly belong to the king and his successors, as an
inherent right of the crown, who might emit such orders concerning the
external government of the church—the persons employed in it—their
meetings, and the subjects to be discussed there, as in their royal
wisdom they should think fit, which, when entered in the books of
council and duly published, were to be obeyed by all his majesty’s
subjects, any law, act, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding. Even
the bishops themselves were not greatly delighted with this act, and
such of the nobility as retained any lingering respect for the religious
liberties of their country, were only induced to support it by the
representations of Lauderdale, that it was necessary to have some check
upon the bishops, whose insolence was intolerable; but the consistent
Presbyterians saw in it nothing but the assumption of an antichristian
power, which no magistrate on earth had any right to possess, and it
afforded to them another and a stronger objection than they previously
had, to accepting any indulgence from the king. The conduct of the
council in embodying the militia, and thus, under another name,
establishing a standing army in Scotland, was next approved of by an _ex
post facto_ act, empowering his majesty to do what had been already
done, and declaring this also an inherent right of the crown. Then
followed an act for the security of the persons of the orthodox
ministers.

It seems three women, or men in womens’ clothes, most probably the
former, had, during the summer, on one night about nine or ten o’clock,
come into the house of John Row, curate of Balmaclellan, in Galloway—who
afterwards turned a papist—and taking him out of his “naked bed,” had
inflicted upon his carcass a very irreverent flagellation, after which,
it is said, they opened his trunk and took away what they had a mind;
for this, the heritors of the parish were fined £1200 Scots. Mr Lyon,
curate at Orr, was searched for, but missed; and, it was reported, his
house was spoiled; for which his parishioners were assessed in the sum
of six hundred merks. These sums having been levied by order of the
privy council, this act was procured to legitimate all similar exactions
in future, and, like almost every other enactment of this period, added
a new link to the chain of despotism. The forfeitures inflicted by the
Court of Justiciary were, in like manner, legalized by an act of this
congregation of sycophants, whose session ended on the 23d of December.

Towards the close of the year, the first field-meeting was held in Fife.
Mr John Blackadder having gone to visit his two friends, Sir James
Stewart and Sir John Chiesly, who were then imprisoned in Dundee, Lady
Balcanquhal invited him to preach in her house—the only species of
conventicle yet known in that district; but he fearlessly caused public
advertisement to be made, that all that were athirst might come without
money and without price. “Let all the world,” said he, “see that you do
not huddle up so profitable and honest a work, or keep it to yourselves;
for my part, I am not ashamed to avow, in the face of danger or death, I
came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” A multitude
in consequence assembled, too numerous for the house to contain, and
they betook themselves to the fields. Many were much affected; and some,
who were present, when asked, what they thought of the work? answered
with tears, that they had never seen such a day, and were eager to know
when such an opportunity might occur again.

[1670.] Under whatever figure of speech it might be disguised, it was
now no longer a matter of doubt what was the dispute between the
Presbyterians and the Episcopalians. It was not a mere form of church
government—it was not a question about obedience to lawful rulers. It
was a contest between light and darkness—it was, whether the gospel of
the grace of God was to be freely preached to the poor inhabitants of
Scotland, or was it not? Historians, or men styling themselves
historians, in overlooking this circumstance, either do not understand
or wilfully avert their eyes from the fundamental cause of the
persecution, from this date till Bothwell Bridge, when it again became
mingled with political matters. Had there been any doubt upon the
subject, the proceedings of the privy council and of parliament this
year, would have sufficiently cleared it. Mr Andrew Boyd, minister of
Carmunnock, was, in the month of January, committed to close confinement
in Stirling Castle, for having preached to, and met, for the purpose of
worshipping God, with his former parishioners. Nor would his defence be
listened to, although he pled the necessity of preaching the gospel when
ignorance and profanity so much abounded, and so many souls were
perishing for lack of knowledge. The ministers of Newbattle, Strathaven,
and Symington, were similarly treated, although they appear only to have
followed the apostolic practice, and “ceased not in every house to teach
and preach Jesus Christ.” Some fines were at the same time levied upon
those who attended. One lady (Helderston) was fined four hundred merks
for having had a conventicle in her house in Edinburgh—a merchant, for
having had his child baptized, was mulcted in two hundred—and four
citizens, for being present, paid each one hundred pounds—although, as a
venerable minister observed before the council, there was as yet no law
of Scotland forbidding the worship of God, which was the only crime laid
to their charge.

While the “outted” ministers were forbid to exercise their ministry in
any shape, those who were indulged soon began to experience that their
liberty was by no means perfect freedom. The first link that was added
to their chain, was a prohibition from explaining the Scriptures to
their people in the manner they thought best fitted to convey
instruction. It is evident that, in stated congregations, an exposition
of connected passages of Scripture, or what is generally known in
Scotland as “lecturing,”[68] is eminently calculated to improve and
edify the church; and this had been an old method employed by the most
distinguished and successful of the Presbyterian ministers. The indulged
continued the practice; but for this the uneducated and worthless crew
who had been thrust into their charges were totally unfit, and their
pulpit exhibitions only encountered the scorn of their hearers—sometimes
perhaps too rudely expressed.

Complaints were therefore made to the privy council, and their superior
ability and mode of teaching were imputed as crimes to the indulged,
whose favour with the people, by the same reasoning, was considered the
cause of their hatred to the curates. They were in consequence forbid to
lecture, and a commission was granted to the Duke of Hamilton, the Earls
of Linlithgow, Dumfries, Kincardine, and Dundonald, the Lord Clerk
Register, and Lieutenant-General Drummond, or any four of them, to “put
to due and rigorous execution the acts of parliament and councils”
respecting “pretended” religious meetings, the security of the orthodox
clergy, and to examine into the conduct of the indulged ministers. The
charges of outrage brought forward by the legal incumbents against their
parishioners, were in some cases villanously false, and in others
ridiculously exaggerated. One Jeffray, curate of Maybole, accused the
Whigs of having attempted to shoot him, and produced a volume contused
by a ball, which he said had saved his life, having been in his bosom
when he was fired at; but, upon examination, it was found that the
clothes he wore at the time were untouched, the blockhead having forgot
to perforate his garments when he wounded his book. This precious
evangelist was, in consequence, dismissed; but when there happened to be
any ground for complaint, the case was remitted to Edinburgh, and the
punishment was extravagant. Some idle boys had thrown a bit of rotten
wood at the curate of Kilmacomb while he was holding forth; and when he
left the pulpit in terror, they followed the fugitive, huzzaing and
shouting, till he reached the manse. For this boyish insolence, which
probably merited a whipping, four of the offenders were sentenced to be
transported to the plantations! and the heritors of the parish were
fined one hundred pounds sterling, which Mr John Irvine, the said
curate, received as a solatium. The parson of Glasford’s house was
robbed by common thieves, one of whom being afterwards executed for
another crime, confessed the fact. The Whigs, however, were accused, and
the parish paid one thousand pounds Scots for having maltreated a man
they had only despised.

Footnote 68:

  There is not a more delightful example of this mode of teaching than
  Leighton’s exposition of the First Epistle of Peter.

These instances may serve to show the spirit of the times which all our
historians agree in representing as mild and moderate, and certainly the
managers were so, in comparison of those who succeeded them. The
indulged ministers were examined by the commissioners as to whether they
had desisted from lecturing; but the equivocal shifts to which they had
recourse, exposed them to the animadversions of their stricter brethren,
and did not exalt their characters with the prelatical party. Some read
a whole chapter, naming one verse only as a text. Others read two
chapters, and offered a few observations; and in this part of the
service they, in general, never exceeded the length of half an hour,
which seems to have been a redeeming qualification, for the visiting
committee neither silenced nor removed any of them. They contrived also
to celebrate the 29th of May in a manner equally illusive, by contriving
to have a baptism, a diet of catechising, or their week-day sermon, upon
that anniversary day; but the jealousy of the people was kept alive by
the exiled ministers. Mr John Brown, late minister of Wamphray, and Mr
John Livingston, both wrote, condemning such duplicity in practice, and
exposing its danger, though at the same time they expressed themselves
affectionately with respect to their brethren, the men whose conduct
they condemned. Nor did the visiting committee fulfil the expectation of
their employers. Gilbert Burnet, afterwards bishop of Sarum, was at this
period professor of divinity in the University of Glasgow; and as he was
respectable both for his talents and conduct—moderate in his principles
regarding church government, and a friend to toleration, the commission
were considerably influenced by his advice, which, from his first outset
in life, was uniformly opposed to all persecution; and also by that of
the amiable Leighton, who with much reluctance had been prevailed upon
to hold the archbishopric of Glasgow, _in commendam_, upon the
resignation of Alexander Burnet, whose conduct in the remonstrance being
offensive to his majesty, had rendered it requisite for him to demit.
They therefore, though they imprisoned and harassed a number of the
Presbyterians for not attending the church, and for attending
conventicles, yet, because they did not execute in their full rigour the
instructions and proclamations of the privy council, were reckoned
unfriendly to the cause of Episcopacy.

A great desire to hear continued to increase and to prevail during this
period; and these servants of Christ—who could not consent that the word
of God should be bound, followed by vast multitudes, when they could not
find accommodation within any common house—imitating the example of
their Lord, chose the field for their cathedral, and, with the heavens
for their canopy, and the mountain side for their benches, preached
boldly the gospel of salvation. The most remarkable assemblage of this
kind which had yet occurred, was that held, 18th June, on the Hill of
Beath, near Dunfermline, of which one of the presiding ministers has
left an account, and which I insert in his own language. They could not
now, however, be held with the same security as formerly, for the
council had offered a reward to the soldiery for dispersing these
meetings and apprehending the minister, or such as could give
information concerning him, with the most considerable heritors and
tenants, who were all rendered liable to imprisonment and fine. It was
therefore necessary to appoint watches and take precautions for their
personal security; and as people of that rank generally went armed, they
did not lay them aside when their attendance on gospel ordinances was
threatened to be interrupted by violence. Upon this occasion, Burnet
says, as a matter of course, “many of these came in their ordinary arms,
that gave a handle to call them rendezvouses of rebellion,” vol. i. p.
430. Though the spot was not distinctly marked out, it was, during the
preceding week, pretty generally understood, and a vast congregation
gathered from almost every quarter of the country.

“On Saturday afternoon,” says the narrator, “people had begun to
assemble. Many lay on the hill all night; some stayed about a
constable’s house, near the middle of the hill; several others were
lodged near about, among whom was Barscob and nine or ten Galloway men.
The minister, Mr Blackadder, came privately from Edinburgh on the
Saturday night, with a single gentleman in his company. At
Inverkeithing, he slept all night in his clothes, and got up very early
expecting word where the place of meeting was to be, which the other
minister (Mr John Dickson) was to advertise him of. However, he got no
information, and so set forward in uncertainty. Near the hill, he met
one sent by the minister to conduct him to a house hard by, where he
resolved, with the advice of the people, to go up the hill for the more
security and the better seeing about them. When they came, they found
the people gathered and gathering, and lighting at the constable’s
house, who seemed to make them welcome. While they were in the house, a
gentleman was espied coming to the constable’s door and talking friendly
with him, who went away down the hill. This gave occasion of new
suspicion and to be more on their guard. However, they resolved to
proceed to the work, and commit the event to the Lord.

“When a fit place for the meeting and setting up of the tent was
provided—which the constable concurred in—Mr Dickson lectured and
preached the forenoon of the day. Mr Blackadder lay at the outside
within hearing, having care to order matters and see how the watch was
kept. In time of lecture he perceived fellows driving the people’s
horses down the brae, which he supposed was a design to carry them away.
He rising quietly from his place, asked them what they meant? They
answered, it was to drive them to better grass. However, he caused them
bring them all back again within sight. After Mr Dickson had lectured
for a considerable space, he took to his discourse, and preached on 1
Cor. xv. 25. ‘For he must reign till he hath put all his enemies under
his feet.’ In time of service, some ill-affected country people dropped
in among them, which being observed by Mr Blackadder and those appointed
to watch, he resolved to suffer all to come and hear, but intended to
hinder the going away of any with as little noise as might be. Among
others came two youths, the curate’s sons, and about fourteen or fifteen
fellows at their back, who looked sturdily; but after they heard, they
looked more soberly. The two young men were heard to say they would go
near the tent and walk about to the backside of it, which some who were
appointed to watch seeing, followed quickly, so they halted on their
way. The man that came to the constable’s house in the morning was seen
at the meeting, and kept a special eye upon; essaying to go away to his
horse at the constable’s, two able men of the watch went after, and
asked why he went away? He answered, he was but going to take a drink.
They told him they would go with him, and desired him to haste and not
hinder them from the rest of the preaching; so he came back; but he was
intending to go and inform the lieutenant of the militia who was at the
foot of the hill and gathering his men. However, the sermon closed
without disturbance about eleven hours in the foreday, the work having
begun about eight.

“Mr Blackadder was to preach in the afternoon. He retired to be private
for a little meditation. Hearing a noise, he observed some bringing back
the curate’s two sons with some violence, which he seeing, rebuked them
who were leading them, and bade let them come back freely without hurt;
and he engaged for them they would not go away; so they staid quietly,
and within a quarter of an hour he returned and entered into the tent.
After some preface, which was countenanced with much influence, not only
on professed friends, but on those also who came with ill intentions, so
that they stood as men astonished with great seeming gravity and
attention, particularly the two young men. It was indeed a composing and
gaining discourse, holding forth the great design of the gospel to
invite and make welcome all sorts of sinners without exception. After
prayer, he read for text, 1 Cor. ix. 16. ‘For though I preach the
gospel, I have nothing to glory of, for necessity is laid upon me; yea,
wo is unto me if I preach not the gospel.’

“After he had begun, a gentleman on horseback came to the meeting and
some few with him. He was the lieutenant of the militia on that part of
the country, who lighting, gave his horse to hold, and came in among the
people on the ministers left hand, stood there a space, and heard
peaceably. Then essaying to get to his horse, some of the watch did
greatly desire he would stay till the preaching was ended, telling him
his abrupt departure would offend and alarm the people. But he refusing
to stay, began to threaten drawing his staff. They fearing he was going
to bring a party to trouble them, did grip and hold him by force as he
was putting his foot in the stirrup. Upon this Barscob and another young
man, who were on the opposite side, seeing him drawing his staff, which
they thought to be a sword, presently ran each with a bent pistol,
crying out—‘Rogue, are you drawing?’ Though they raised a little
commotion on that side, yet the bulk of the people were very composed.
The minister seeing Barscob and the other so hastening to be at him,
fearing they should have killed him, did immediately break off to step
aside for composing the business, and desired the people to sit still
till he returned, for he was going to prevent mischief. Some not willing
he should venture himself, laboured to hinder him. He thrust himself
from them, and pressing forward, cried—‘I charge and obtest you not to
meddle with him or do him any hurt,’ which had such influence on them,
that they professed afterwards they had no more power to meddle with
him. The lieutenant seeing it was like to draw to good earnest, was
exceeding afraid and all the men he had; but hearing the minister
discharging the people to hurt him, he thrust near to be at the minister
who had cried—‘What is the matter, gentlemen?’ Whereon the lieutenant
said, ‘I cannot get leave, sir, to stand on my own ground for thir men.’
The minister said, ‘Let me see, sir, who will offer to wrong you; they
shall as soon wrong myself; for we came here to offer violence to no
man, but to preach the gospel of peace; and, sir, if you be pleased to
stay in peace, you shall be as welcome as any here; but if you will not,
you may go, we shall compel no man.’ ‘But,’ said he, ‘they have taken my
horse from me.’ Then the minister called to restore his horse, seeing he
would not stay willingly. Then he was dismissed without harm at the
minister’s entreaty, who judged it most convenient that the gentlemen
and others to whom he should report it, might have more occasion of
conviction that both ministers and people who used to meet at such
meetings, were peaceable, not set on revenge, but only endeavouring to
keep up the free preaching of the gospel in purity and power, in as
harmless and inoffensive a way as was possible. Some of the company,
indeed, would have compelled and bound him to stay if he had not been
peaceable; but they were convinced afterwards that it was better to let
him go in peace. The whole time of this alarm on that quarter, all the
rest of the people sat still composedly—which was observed more than
ordinary in any meeting either before or after—seeing such a stir. As in
many other things the mighty power and hand of the Lord was to be seen
in that day’s work, and the fruit that followed thereon.

“When the lieutenant was gone, the rest that dropped in through the day,
with the curate’s two sons, staying still, not offering to follow. After
the composing that stir, which lasted about half an hour, the minister
returned to the tent, and followed out the rest of his work, preaching
about three quarters of an hour with singular countenance, especially
after composing the tumult. All the time there were several horse riding
hither and thither on the foot of the hill, in view of the people, but
none offered to come near; for a terror had seized on them, as was heard
afterwards and confessed by some of themselves. The minister,
apprehending the people might be alarmed with fear, that they could not
hear with composure—though none did appear—did for their cause close
sooner than he intended, though the people professed afterwards, and
said they would rather he had continued longer, for they found none
either wearied or afraid.

“The minister that preached in the afternoon, with about sixteen or
twenty of the ablest men, went to the constable’s house, where they had
prepared dinner, and would have him and his company come in to dine; but
he calling for a little drink and bread on horseback, the rest also
taking something without doors, and missing the other minister, feared
lest some of the enemy in dismissing had apprehended him. So, leaving
the rest at the house, he rode up the hill again, with some others who
were on horseback, to seek him; for he said he would not go without the
other minister, but resolved to cause rescue him if he had been taken;
and coming to the place where the meeting had been, some of the people
told him the minister had taken horse with another gentleman a little
before the close; upon which he returned again to the company at the
house, who desired him to ride away, they being on foot. He told them he
would stay, and also desired them to stay, till they should see all the
people get safe from the hill; and when all were peaceably dismissed, he
with another on horseback, rode to the Queensferry. The rest being able
men and on foot, were to follow. When he came thither, none of the boats
would go over at that time, the country being ill set and in such a
stir. It was not thought fit he should stay on that side of the water,
therefore he rode up three or four miles, expecting to get boat at
Limekilns; but that being gone over with others at the meeting before,
he rode forward towards Kingcairn, where they again essayed at
Hoggin’s-neuk; but the boat being on the other side, they were forced to
ride on towards Stirling. He came thither about nine at night; and after
they had crossed the bridge, and rode through some back lanes of the
town, they came at the port they should go out at, but it was shut, only
a wicket open, through which they led their horses, and so escaped the
alarm which arose in the town a little after they were gone. They rode
that night about four miles to Torwoodside, where they lighted at an
honest man’s house, took a little refreshment for man and horse, till
break of day, and then rode for Edinburgh. They went hard by the gate of
the place of Callander, where the Chancellor and other noblemen were at
the time, they not knowing till afterwards. They rode also by the back
of the town of Linlithgow, where many ill set people were. About seven
o’clock on Monday morning, he came to Edinburgh, where the noise was
come before; therefore he retired to another chamber, and, after taking
breakfast, he lay down and slept six hours’ space, being much wearied,
having not cast off his clothes and ridden forty-eight miles from
Sabbath about twelve o’clock. The gentlemen and the rest whom he left on
the hill, came over at the Ferry, and returned to Edinburgh in safety
that night.”

Reports of this meeting quickly spread to the remotest corner of the
land; and the evident tokens of the divine presence which had
accompanied the exercises of the day, stirred up a holy emulation in the
other ministers, who thanked God and took courage, and excited and kept
alive among the people an attention to the concerns of their souls,
which too often languishes in the days of ease and amid the undisturbed
enjoyment of gospel privileges, while to many the word came in the
demonstration of the spirit and with power; so that even some who were
unfriendly to these irregular proceedings, were constrained to
acknowledge that in their sermons, in houses and fields, the “outted”
ministers were remarkably countenanced of the Lord and blessed with many
seals of their ministry, in the conversion of many, and edifying those
who were brought in. It was followed in about a fortnight by another not
less numerous at Livingseat, in West Calder, where Mr John Welsh
presided; and, in the beginning of July, a large conventicle was held at
Torwood-head, for which a Mr Charles Campbell, in Airth, was imprisoned
and fined; but who was the minister on this occasion, I have not
learned. Grievous was the rage of the prelates; but the invasion of the
primate’s more immediate territories behoved to be visited with signal
vengeance, as a horrid insult had been offered so near the place where
he had his seat. The two ministers were denounced and put to the
horn—“multitudes” were imprisoned, fined in large sums, and otherwise
harassed—James Dundas, the brother of the Laird of Dundas, was sentenced
to transportation, under pain of death if he returned—and others,
equally respectable, were brought to no little trouble, although but few
were actually sent to the plantations.

The case of “four Borrowstownness-men,” is too remarkable to be passed
over. Their names were, John Sloss, a residenter in the town; David
Mather, elder in Bridgeness; John Ranken, in Bonhard; and James Duncan,
in Grange. These having been apprehended, were brought before the
council, and refusing to give any information, or turn informers against
their brethren, were fined each five hundred merks, and sent back to
prison to remain during the council’s pleasure. They were afterwards
brought before the council, and, along with other six, condemned upon an
_ex post facto_ statute to be sent as slaves to the plantations; and
when one of them only entreated to be allowed to take farewell of his
wife and small family, Lauderdale furiously replied—“You shall never see
your home more,” adding, with a malignant sneer, “this will be a
testimony for the cause.”

In this, however, he proved a false prophet. Mr Blackadder tells us, the
four got their liberty, which fell out by a singular cast of providence.
The guard that conducted them from the Canongate jail brought them to
the outer council-house, and leaving them there with the guards who
waited on their neighbours from the high town tolbooth; and thinking
themselves exonered, they went their way, expecting that the guard that
waited on the prisoners from the town tolbooth would notice them. After
they had gotten their sentence, command was given to carry the whole to
their respective prisons; upon which those who guarded the prisoners of
the town carried them to the tolbooth, the rest were left without a
guard. Notwithstanding, at the dismissing of the council, and the throng
of people, they went on, supposing their guard to be following. One of
them never knowing, went the whole length, and entered the prison again.
Other two went the length of the Cross, till a friend came and asked,
whither they were going? They said, “to their prison.” He said, “Will
you prison yourselves, seeing there is none waiting to take you to it?”
which they perceiving, made their escape. Other two went the length of
the Netherbow, then looking behind, and seeing none guarding them, made
their escape also. The other five, together with him who went back
inadvertently, were afterwards, through the interest of the Chancellor’s
secretary, and perhaps owing to the ludicrous appearance the council cut
by the escape of the four, also granted their liberty.[69] A pious
youth, who was at the Beath Hill and Livingseat, was committed close
prisoner, ordered to be put in irons, and fed on bread and water during
pleasure; and although great interest was made for him, he obtained no
release, till the iron had gangrened his legs, which eventually,
according to Kirkton, cost him his life.

Footnote 69:

  Blackadder’s Mem. MSS. quoted in his life.

Previous to the meeting of parliament, Lauderdale, wishing to ingratiate
himself with the prelatic party, urged on the persecution of the
non-conformist Presbyterians. They had in the beginning of the year been
banished the capital. Immediately upon his arrival, he issued a
proclamation forbidding any of them to come to Edinburgh without a
license, upon pain of death; but summonses were issued to the most
zealous who had been guilty of preaching, requiring them to appear
before the council. The latter came privately to town, to ascertain the
temper of their rulers and their own probable fate, when finding that
imprisonment or exile would be the consequence of their attending,
resolved to decline. Before separating, they drew up an affecting letter
to their brethren, bemoaning the desolations of Zion and the rod of
wickedness lying upon the lot of the righteous, but chiefly lamenting
the little kindliness and melting of heart among professors—their little
sympathy with the Lord’s dear servants and people, now bearing the heat
and burden of the day, made wanderers and chased from mountain to hill,
not having where to lay their head—and the readiness of some rather to
censure than partake of affliction with those who were suffering for the
sake of the gospel. Beseeching them to stir up that great mean and
duty—all that seemed left to them—of serious prayer, supplication, and
wrestling with the Lord, both alone and together—an exercise which
Christ himself had so much recommended, “that we ought always to pray,
and not to faint;” so much practised by the saints, especially in
particular exigencies, as Acts xii. 5. “Prayer was made of the church
without ceasing;” and ever followed with a blessed success when
seriously gone about—“They called upon the Lord and he answered them.”
Psal. xcix. 6. Jas. v. 16-18; while it carried with it a sweet reward in
its own bosom, even “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding,
keeping and guiding both heart and mind through Christ Jesus.” Phil. iv.
7.

This letter was attended with the best effects. Many of the godly
ministers throughout the land—men of prayer—were stirred up by it, and
set apart stated seasons for solemn fasting and supplication for the
church and country, which God answered to themselves by terrible things
in righteousness. He caused men to ride over their heads; they went
through fire and through water, but he brought them out into a wealthy
place. Their worldly circumstances were straitened, but the gospel had
free course and was glorified. Some lived to see his gracious
interposition in the glorious Revolution, 1688; numbers never did, but
were favoured to go by a shorter road from a scaffold to a throne; yet
their posterity have reaped and are reaping the benefit of their
prayers.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               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 circumstances of the persons present, and things
done therein, to any having authority from his majesty, or who should
conceal or reset any who were or might be declared rebels—should be
punished by fining, imprisonment, or transportation as slaves to the
plantations. To ensure the safety of the orthodox clergy, any attempt
upon their houses or persons was declared punishable by death and
confiscation of goods; and a reward of five hundred merks was offered to
any person who should discover and seize such “robbers or attempters;”
or, if one should inform, and another seize, the first was to have two,
and the other three hundred merks of the same.

The most atrocious measure, however, of this assembly, was their “act
against conventicles,” by which it was statute and commanded that the
“outted” ministers, who were not licensed by the council, and no other
persons not authorized nor tolerated by the bishop of the diocese,
should presume to preach, expound Scripture, or pray in any meeting,
except in their own houses, and to those of their own family, “under
pain of imprisonment till they should find security to the amount of
five thousand merks never again to trespass in a similar manner, or to
remove out of the kingdom and never to return without his majesty’s
license; every person present was to be fined—an heritor, a fourth part
of his yearly rent—a tenant, twenty-five pounds Scots—a cottar, twelve
pounds—and each servant, a fourth part of his yearly fee; and if
accompanied by wives or children, half the sum for each. The master or
mistress of the house to pay double. Besides which, the magistrates of
any burgh where a conventicle was kept, were rendered liable to a fine
at the pleasure of the privy council, they having recourse upon the
persons present, who were thus subjected to be twice mulcted for the
same crime; and in addition, punished with imprisonment as long as the
council should see fit.”

Field-conventicles, denominated “rendezvouses of rebellion,” but
explained to be meetings for hearing the Scriptures expounded, or for
prayer, were punishable—the minister by death and confiscation—the
attenders by double penalties to those of house conventicles; and every
meeting was declared to be a field conventicle, although held in a
house, if there were any persons standing without at the door or at the
windows. The execution of this act was intrusted to the sheriffs,
stewards, lords of regalities, and their deputies, who were to account
to the privy council for the fines of the heritors; but all others, to
stimulate their activity, they were allowed to retain. Persons having
their children baptized by any minister except their own parish priest,
were rendered liable to additional fines, to be levied in the same
manner, and, to complete the tyranny with the most cruel insult, by
enforcing a principle which Lauderdale well knew the Presbyterians
acknowledged—the king’s right to regulate the externals of religion.[70]

Footnote 70:

  In religion, as in every thing else, what may be right in the
  abstract, may be essentially wrong in its practical application. The
  power of the magistrate to enforce attendance upon divine worship may
  he very plausibly defended as a principle, but, supposing that the
  whole Episcopalians in Scotland had been as godly men, and as
  excellent preachers as Archbishop Leighton, to have obliged these
  conscientious sufferers to have attended their ministrations, would
  have been no less persecution than forcing them to attend the
  worthless curates who neither understood nor preached the gospel.

His majesty conceiving himself bound in conscience and duty to interpose
his authority, that the public exercises of God’s worship be
countenanced by all his good subjects, and that such as upon any pretext
do disorderly withdraw, be by the censures of the law made sensible of
their miscarriage, and by the authority of the law drawn to a dutiful
obedience of it—with advice and consent of his estates in parliament,
ordained and commanded all his good subjects of the reformed religion,
to attend and frequent the ordinary meetings for divine worship in their
own parish churches; and whoever should absent themselves three Lord’s
days, without a reasonable excuse for every time, were to be fined—an
heritor an eighth of his yearly rent—a tenant six pounds Scots—a cottar
or servant forty shillings. So sensible, however, did the framers of the
act appear to be, that such care for the religious improvement of the
people, instead of being likely to produce reformation, was more likely
to produce rebellion, that they ordained if any person, after being
fined, should persist in still absenting himself from the means of
instruction which the government had so kindly provided, he should be
required to sign a bond to the following purport:—“I, ——, oblige myself
that I shall not upon any pretext or colour whatsoever, rise in arms
against the king’s majesty, or any having his authority or commission;
nor shall assist nor countenance any who shall rise in arms.” And if any
person refused, he was to be imprisoned or banished, and his single
escheat or life-rent escheat was to fall to his majesty.

Acts so immeasurably rigorous, which passed without one dissenting voice
except that of the young Earl of Cassils, so vile was that crouching
assembly, grieved the soul of the amiable Leighton—whose first coldness
towards the Presbyterian profession had arisen from what he conceived to
be a persecuting spirit in the manner they forced the covenants to be
sworn—and he declared he would never consent to propagate Christianity
itself by such means, far less a form of church government.[71]
Tweeddale told him they were never intended to be put in execution, but
were merely hung out, _in terrorem_, to induce the Presbyterians to
comply with the advances of government, and meet them on a plan of
equitable moderation. Duped by these false and hollow professions, he
strenuously set himself to endeavour accomplishing so desirable an end;
and, as a first step, immediately on his entry into the archiepiscopal
office, he made an effort to rid his district of the incapable and
scandalous underlings who degraded their function and rendered it
contemptible in the eyes of the people. He appointed a committee to
inquire into the complaints made against the curates, of whose
proceedings we have no authentic record. From the testimony, however, of
the Presbyterian writers, it appears that several had been removed; that
others who feared a similar sentence, compounded with their parishes for
a little money, and voluntarily went back to the north and east, whence
they had come; and that the archbishop, at least in one instance, had
personally interposed, where his committee were inclined to be partial,
and dismissed the noted curate of Maybole, against whom the crimes of
swearing, fighting, and drunkenness, were proved. But I apprehend his
exertions in this had been cramped by the interference of the civil
power; for “the council, upon being informed that the synod of Glasgow
had appointed a committee of their number to hear and take trial of such
complaints as should be given in to them against scandalous ministers;
and considering it expedient that they should have all encouragement,
appointed Sir John Cochran of Ochiltree, Sir Thomas Wallace, Sir John
Cunninghame, Sir John Harper, and the provosts of Glasgow and Ayr, to
meet with them and assist them.” The nature of all such assistance is
sufficiently plain; and if less was accomplished than expected, the
cause of the failure may be easily accounted for without any fault on
the part of the bishop.

Footnote 71:

  The conduct of Leighton has always appeared to me inexplicable; and,
  although I willingly give him credit for the best of motives, yet I
  have never met with any very satisfactory apology for his accepting a
  then bishopric. It must not, however, be forgotten, that he repeatedly
  tendered his resignation to the king, who personally urged him to
  retain it; and that he did so upon the faith of the royal promise that
  milder measures would be pursued, and that when he found himself
  deceived, he left the archiepiscopate.

Another scheme which he tried at the same time to elevate the
Episcopalian character, proved even still more abortive. He employed
several of the most learned and decorous of their preachers, who were
also reckoned pious, Dr Gilbert Burnet, Mr James Nairn, Mr Laurence
Charteris, men of superior abilities and unblameable lives, with some
others of more obscure name, as missionaries to preach in the west. They
were received by the people with scorn, and contemptuously styled the
bishop’s evangelists; few could be persuaded to hear them, and of those
who did, they do not appear to have made many converts. Burnet himself
gives this candid account—“The people of the country came generally to
hear us, though not in great crowds. We were indeed amazed to see a poor
commonalty so capable to argue upon points of government, and on the
bounds to be set to the power of princes in matters of religion. Upon
all these topics they had texts of Scripture at hand, and were ready
with their answers to any thing that was said to them. This measure of
knowledge was spread even among the meanest of them, their cottagers and
their servants.”

Neither did the grand object to which these were preliminary, succeed
any better. After several conferences, the accommodation was given up.
The first was held at Holyrood-house before Lauderdale, Rothes,
Tweeddale, and Kincardine, in the month of August, between Messrs G.
Hutchison, A. Wedderburn, John Baird, and John Gemble—indulged ministers
who had been invited to Edinburgh by Lauderdale—and Bishop Leighton and
Professor Gilbert Burnet. Sharpe would not be present. Lauderdale opened
the business by an eulogium on the king’s condescension and clemency—his
wishes for a complete unity and harmony—and recommended an agreement
upon joint measures which might tend to the peace of the church.
Leighton followed. He deplored the mischief their divisions had
occasioned, the many souls that had been lost, and the many more that
were in danger, while they were wasting their strength in contention,
and exhorted every one to do what he could to heal a breach that had let
in so many evils. For his own part, he said, he was persuaded that
Episcopacy, as an order distinct from Presbytery, had existed in the
church ever since the days of the apostles; that the world had every
where received the Christian religion from bishops; and that a parity
among clergymen was never thought of in the church before the middle of
the last century, and was then set up rather by accident than design;
still, how much soever he was persuaded of this, as they were of a
different judgment, he had a proposal to make by which they might both
preserve their opinions, and yet unite in carrying on the preaching of
the gospel and the end of their ministry; and that was, merely to
recognize the bishops as the presidents of their synods and
presbyteries, with liberty to dissent from any measure they did not
approve of.

The ministers made no reply; but next day, in the bishop’s chamber, Mr
Hutchison, in name of the rest, answered his observations respecting
Episcopacy:—Parity among the ministers of the gospel, he affirmed to be
the original apostolic institution, that a perpetual presidency had made
way for a lordly dominion in the church; and that however inconsiderable
the thing might seem to be in itself, it both had been and would be of
great and mischievous consequence. Those present however, he said, could
come to no agreement without consulting their brethren, and therefore
desired that the project might be submitted to them, which was
accordingly done in the following form:—“Presbyteries being set up by
law, as they were established before the year 1638, and the bishop
passing from his negative voice, and we having liberty to protest and
declare against any remainder of prelatic power, retained or that may
happen at any time to be exercised by him, for a salvo for our
consciences from homologation thereof—your opinion is required, as to
whether we can with safety to our principles join in these presbyteries?
or what else is it that we will desire to do for peace in the church and
an accommodation—Episcopacy being always preserved?”

Upon these queries, the ministers in the south and west had a very
numerous meeting, when, after long reasoning, it was unanimously agreed,
that to sit in ecclesiastical courts called by bishops, whose only right
emanated from the supremacy of the crown, was virtually acknowledging
that supremacy—a thing very different from meeting in the presbyteries
which were indicted, a.d. 1638, by the intrinsic power of the church,
and therefore could not be complied with; and as to the salvo of a
protest, it would be a protestation contrary to the fact, and so no
salvo to an honest man’s conscience. For the sake of peace, they had no
objection to join in public worship with a bishop, or such as were
ordained by him; but as to acknowledging their office, by sitting in
courts with them, they could not see how that could at all be reconciled
with their principles.

Several conferences took place between Leighton and Mr Hutchison’s small
party; but the utmost the latter could be brought to concede, was, to
consent to the appointment of the bishops as perpetual presidents or
constant moderators in their synods and presbyteries, which being no
divine institution, it was thought the king might be allowed to appoint,
but they required the resumption of assemblies and the legal recognition
of all the essential parts of Presbyterian church government—a proposal
which met the approbation of no party. The prelates saw in the loss of
their negative voice in the courts, a relinquishing of a main pillar of
Episcopacy; while the more consistent Presbyterians affirmed that, to
allow the royal nomination of a perpetual president, was laying a
foundation for again rearing, when times should prove more propitious,
the prelatic power.

Thus the conferences broke up; and, as usual in all such cases, the
ineffectual endeavours to procure peace, tended greatly to imbitter the
war. Some, however, refused to conform to the present establishment upon
higher and more scriptural grounds. They had observed that popery and
profanity always increased where conformity prevailed, and that the Lord
had stamped this mark of his displeasure upon prelacy, that under it
truth and godliness had ever sensibly decayed. They therefore rejected
all fellowship with it, as a plant which man, and not God, had planted;
and they refused to hold communion in church government with those who,
by their carelessness and negligence, were the destroyers of his holy
mountain, and laid his vineyard waste—who had been thrust into the
oversight of charges whence many had been cast out, whom the Lord had
made polished shafts in his own right hand for gaining souls to
Christ.[72]

Footnote 72:

  Mr Menzies, minister of Carlaverock, who had conformed, withdrew this
  year from the bishop’s presbytery of Dumfries, and gave in a testimony
  to this effect.

[1671.] Where the fundamental principles of parties in religion are
opposite, it is vain to expect that public disputation will reconcile
them. The Presbyterians have ever held that Jesus Christ is the supreme
Head, King, and Lawgiver of his church, with whose statutes, ordinances,
and appointments no earthly power has a right to interfere; and however
this principle may have been obscured by circumstances, or how much
soever it may have been misrepresented by enemies, or misunderstood by
ill-informed friends, it was the principle for which these excellent
men, who were now accounted too rigid, earnestly contended, and which,
when they came to die, they were anxious should be fully cleared as the
ground of their sufferings. The Scottish Episcopalians owned the
supremacy of the king, their whole system was based upon his
prerogative, and they acknowledged his power to model the government of
the house of God according to his pleasure.

Leighton had attempted a compromise between these two abhorrent
opinions, and, had not their self-interest opposed, it is evident the
latter could offer no argument for non-compliance with a royal mandate
for conciliation; while the former, without violating their conscience,
could not advance a step upon such ground. When they separated, however,
upon this distinct, palpable, and, so long as each retained their
principles, irremediable cause of difference, the Presbyterians were
represented as obstinate, unreasonable men, full of an entangled
scrupulosity; and the privy council, immediately ordered their act
requiring all the indulged ministers to attend the bishops’ presbyterial
meetings, under the penalty of being straitly confined within the limits
of the parishes where they preached, to be strictly enforced; nor dared
they visit a dying parent, although not a mile distant, without special
leave asked and granted from that arbitrary court. To add to the
hardship of this imprisonment, their salaries were very irregularly
paid, and their applications so violently opposed by the primate, that
it was with difficulty, and after in some cases a twelvemonth’s delay,
an order could be obtained upon the collector of the vacant stipends.

The observation of the anniversary of the king’s birth-day was anew
rigidly enjoined, and the sheriffs required to see that the council’s
act forbidding lecturing was obeyed, and that the names of such as
contravened should be sent to them. A committee, at the head of which
stood the Archbishop of St Andrews, was next appointed, to consider what
further could be done to suppress conventicles, and to see that the
militia did not neglect their duty in preventing or dispersing these
hated assemblies, or in apprehending and bringing to condign punishment
all who should countenance such atrocities! In order to render offenders
still more inexcusable, the patrons in the west were recommended to use
all diligence to get their churches planted with able and godly
ministers, but they were either unable or unwilling to comply; and, in
the month of July, the affair was turned over to the bishops, who
provided incumbents, which inflamed the evil; for, instead of
decreasing, the obnoxious meetings multiplied.

Linlithgowshire, Fife, and the Lothians were especially infected; and,
during the present year, the most remarkable conventicles appear to have
been held immediately in the vicinity of the primate’s dwelling, not far
distant from Linlithgow Palace, and in the muirs of Livingstone,
Bathgate, Calder, and Torphichen. The Duke of Hamilton’s factor at
Kinniel, who acted likewise as baron-bailie, was favourable, and by his
connivance Mr Blackadder frequently visited the seaport town of
Borrowstownness or its vicinity, where, many years after, the effects of
his and his brethrens’ preaching were felt.

Implacably bent against the “outted” ministers, the prelates would
neither allow them to obey their consciences actively nor passively. If
they preached, prayed, or exhorted, beyond the bounds of their own
families, they were persecuted as the most obnoxious pests of society.
If they remained at home and refrained from these duties, if they did
not attend the parish church regularly with their families, they were
complained of as disobedient, and the sheriffs were ordered by the
council to commit them to prison. Yet, notwithstanding, “at that time,”
Mr Fraser of Brae remarks, “the church of Christ had great rest and
liberty from persecution, through variance among the statesmen;” so
highly was a short respite from actual suffering then esteemed, though
loaded with heavy, and what would now be reckoned intolerable, burdens.

The variance referred to was a quarrel between Lauderdale and those who
had assisted him in overturning his former opponents, whom he now
rewarded with the usual gratitude of politicians, by procuring their
dismissal from office as soon as he found them stand in the way of his
own advancement. When he sacrificed his religion upon the altar of
ambition, he threw his morality into the same fire; and, according to
the fashion of the court, lived in open adultery. Lady Dysart, the
prostitute with whom he cohabited, and, upon the death of his lady, soon
after [1672] married, was remarkable in her day for personal beauty and
fascinating manners, joined to unfeeling rapacity and cruel
extravagance; and her influence completed a dreadful revolution in his
character, already depraved by his prosperous career as a courtier. She
caused him to separate from the only portion of his confidential friends
who had the courage to oppose his violence, or the virtue to attempt it;
and when Sir Robert Murray and Tweeddale were now removed from the
direction of public affairs, all decency and moderation soon followed.
Together with a few of his devoted creatures, he engrossed every place
of importance in the country. In his own person, he held the offices of
Commissioner, President of the Council, a Lord of the Treasury and of
the Session, Agent at Court for the royal burghs, Captain of the Castle,
and Captain of the Bass[73]—a high insulated rock at the mouth of the
Firth of Forth, now converted into a state prison. His brother, Hatton,
was Treasurer, Depute-General of the Mint, and Lord of Session; Atholl,
Justice-General and Privy Seal; Kincardine, Admiral of Scotland; Sir
James Dalrymple of Stair, President of the Court of Session; and
Lockhart of Lee, Lord Justice-Clerk.

Footnote 73:

  “åThe Bass is a very high rock in the sea, two miles distant from the
  nearest point of the land which is south of it; covered it is with
  grass on the uppermost parts thereof, where is a garden where herbs
  grow, with some cherrytrees, of the fruit of which I several times
  tasted, below which garden there is a chapel for divine service; but,
  in regard no minister was allowed for it, the ammunition of the
  garrison was kept therein. Landing here is very difficult and
  dangerous; for, if any storm blow, ye cannot enter because of the
  violence of the swelling waves, which beat with a wonderful noise upon
  the rock, and sometimes in such a violent manner, that the broken
  waves reverberating on the rock with a mighty force, have come up over
  the walls of the garrison on the court before the prisoners’ chambers,
  which is above twenty cubits height. And with a full sea must you
  land; or, if it be ebb, you must be either craned up, or climb with
  hands and feet up some steps artificially made on the rock, and must
  have helps besides of these who are on the top of the rock, who pull
  you up by the hand. Nor is there any place of landing but one about
  the whole rock, which is of circumference some three quarters of a
  mile; here you may land in a fair day and full sea without great
  hazard, the rest of it on every side being so high and steep. Only on
  the south side thereof, the rock falls a little level, where you
  ascend several steps till you come to the Governor’s house, and from
  that some steps higher you ascend to a level court, where a house for
  prisoners and soldiers is; whence likewise, by windings cut out of the
  rock, there is a path which leads you to the top of the rock, whose
  height doth bear off all north, east, and west storms, lying open only
  to the south; and on the uppermost parts of the rock there is grass
  sufficient to feed twenty or twenty-four sheep, who are there very fat
  and good. In these uppermost parts of the rock were sundry walks of
  some threescore feet length, and some very solitary, where we
  sometimes entertained ourselves. The accessible places were defended
  with several walls and cannon placed on them, which compassed only the
  south parts. The rest of the rock is defended by nature, by the huge
  height and steepness of the rock, being some forty cubits high in the
  lowest place. It was a part of a country gentleman’s inheritance,
  which falling from hand to hand, and changing many masters, it was at
  last bought by the king, who repaired the old houses and walls, and
  built some new houses for prisoners; and a garrison of twenty or
  twenty-four soldiers therein are sufficient, if couragious, to defend
  it from millions of men, and only expugnable by hunger. ’tis commanded
  by a Lieutenant, who does reap thereby some considerable profit,
  which, besides his pay, may be one hundred pounds a year and better.
  There is no fountain-water therein, and they are only served with rain
  that falls out of the clouds, and is preserved in some hollow caverns
  digged out of the rock. Their drink and provisions are carried from
  the other side by a boat, which only waits on the garrison, and hath a
  salary of six pounds yearly for keeping up the same, besides what they
  get of these persons that come either to see the prisoners, or are
  curious to see the garrison. Here fowls of every sort are to be found,
  who build in the clifts of the rock, the most considerable of which is
  the solan goose, whose young, well fledged, ready to fly, are taken,
  and yield near one hundred pounds yearly, and might be much more, were
  they carefully improved.” _Mem. of Fraser of Brea_, pp. 298-300.

Influenced by French councils, Charles, in the beginning of the year,
suddenly commenced against the Dutch the most unprovoked hostilities, by
a piratical but unsuccessful attack upon their Smyrna fleet, which was
followed by a declaration of war, founded upon pretexts either false or
ridiculous.[74] The whole line of his policy went to destroy liberty and
religion at home and abroad—to fetter his people, though at the expense
of being himself as much the despicable pensioner of France, as he was
the degraded slave of his own licentious passions. Lauderdale aptly
ministered to all his iniquity; and his management of Scotland was in
unison with the traitorous band of conspirators, of whom he was one,
against English freedom, known by the name of the “Cabal,” and in entire
subservience to the king’s designs against his subjects. Being created a
Duke, he came down to his vice-royalty with his Duchess, in great pomp,
and made a tour with her Grace throughout the country, the nobles vieing
with each other in the magnificence of their entertainments to the noble
pair.

Footnote 74:

  One of the reasons for involving the nation in blood, was, that the
  Dutch had insulted the king by allowing a caricature to be sold, in
  which he was exhibited as receiving a quantity of money in a
  “discrowned” hat, which fell as fast into the lap of his mistress!

Parliament met in June, and was opened in great state by the
Commissioner, whose lady, seated within the bar, heard her lord deliver
his speech—a mark of honour none even of the kings of Scotland had ever
bestowed upon their queens, and which the very doubtful character of the
Duchess did not in public opinion seem to merit. All the severe acts
against conventicles were confirmed and extended. To shut every avenue
to power or place against Presbyterians, none but those well affected to
the religion and government of the church as established, were to be
appointed officers of the militia; and both officers and men were
ordered to take the oath of allegiance and the declaration, under pain
of banishment; and to prevent the continuance of that detested religion,
the whole of those who professed it were forbid to license or ordain any
person to the ministerial office; all ordinations since 1661 were
declared null and void, the ordainers and ordained subjected to
banishment, and their goods to confiscation; persons married by
non-conformists forfeited their legal matrimonial rights; and those who
did not bring their children to the parish minister to be baptized
within thirty days after their birth, were to be punished by
fining—heritors in a fourth part of their rent, and merchants by a
pecuniary mulct.

Good laws are too often dead letters in the statute-book; but it is
seldom that cruel, persecuting enactments are allowed to slumber; and if
these enactments are rendered sources of gain to the wretches who are to
enforce them, wo to the subjects their fangs can reach. Believe their
pretences and preambles, never was a kingdom blessed as was Scotland at
this time with excellent legislative measures, passed for the
preservation of religion, for ensuring attendance on the ordinances, the
protection of an orthodox ministry, the prevention of schism, and the
promotion of Christianity in a regular orderly manner. There were, also,
admirable laws for suppressing profanity and all manner of immorality.
These stand enrolled among our records; and were we to judge from the
preambles of the printed acts of parliament, no nation was ever so happy
in an establishment for the furtherance of the gospel—that so
strenuously watched over its interest by seeing all the churches filled
by able pastors, and these pastors properly supported by legal
contributions. In fine, judge from the profession of her rulers,
representatives, and clergy, the people were too happy in a pious,
beneficent, and fatherly government, but did not know their own mercies.
Now look at the fact. The churches were deserted because the clergy were
incapable, and the gospel was banished to the wilds of the country, and
even there persecuted. I subjoin an instance.

“At or near Bathgate a great multitude had assembled to hear the word of
God preached by Mr Riddell. This being known, a party of dragoons,
commanded by one Lieutenant Inglis, who kept garrison in Mid Calder,
made search for them on the muirs. The meeting had notice of this; but
hearing they were at a distance, and, as some reported, returning to
their quarters again, they were the more secure and continued their
worship; but within a little, they appeared in sight and that near, ere
they knew. Upon which the most part got over a bog and that hard by,
where horse and foot could not follow, but many stood on the other side,
thinking themselves safe. Mean time, the dragoons came up and
apprehended several on the spot; among others, Sandilands, Lady
Helderston’s brother. Then they approached to the side of the bog, and
shot on among the people, as they usually basely did on such occasions
to shoot bullets among such a promiscuous multitude of men, women, and
children, though they found them without arms. One of their shot lighted
on ane honest man, an heritor in Bathgate parish, and killed him dead on
the spot. They carried their prisoners to the garrison at Calder, with a
great booty of cloaks, plaids, bibles, and what else they could lay
their hands on, spoiling the poor people, as they had got the victory
over a foreign enemy.”

Fining was too fertile a source of emolument to be relinquished by an
administration so extravagant as the Duke of Lauderdale’s. Exorbitant
sums were thus extorted from the most respectable gentlemen and
substantial tenants, which were lavished upon the retainers of
government or the private friends of the Commissioner. It would be idle
to attempt even guessing the amount of money raised this year by small
exactions, but some of the larger may be mentioned. Hay of Balhousie, or
Boussi, as Kirkton styles him, afterwards Earl of Kinnoull, then a very
young man, but newly left school, was fined one thousand pounds sterling
for having heard his own chaplain officiate in situations that brought
him under the penalties of the conventicle act. Drummond of Meggins,
because his wife had been guilty of attending some field-preaching, was
tabled for five hundred; and their convictions were aggravated by the
insulting raillery of Lauderdale, who told them when their bonds were
signed—“Gentlemen, now ye know the rate of a conventicle, and shame fall
them first fails.” A house conventicle cost Ann Countess Dowager of
Wigton, four thousand merks. A Mr James Duncan at Duplin got off for
half the sum. The general rate for those of lower rank seems to have
been five hundred each.

Yet, while thus actively urging this lucrative persecution, his Grace
had brought with him powers for granting a new and more comprehensive
indulgence. It was not, however, till the month of August that any thing
was done in the matter, when about twenty of the “outted” ministers met
at Edinburgh, and deputed two of their number, Mr James Kirkton and
Gabriel Cunningham, to wait upon Sir James Dalrymple of Stair, to learn
the certainty of the report and entreat his good offices. These he
readily promised, but, from whatever reason, they proved ineffectual;
and on the 3d September, Lord’s day, an act of council was agreed to,
that was in fact rather an act of confinement than one of indulgence. By
it the Presbyterian ministers, “outted” since 1662, were ordered to
repair to certain parishes, there to remain—some two together, some
three—and to exercise their functions, nor pass their limits, without a
license from the bishop of the diocese. They were not to preach any
where but in the parish church—to administer the Lord’s Supper on the
same day in all the parishes—and to admit no person from a neighbouring
parish to any church privilege without a line from their minister,
unless the parish kirk were vacant. And all ministers not mentioned by
name in this act, if they presumed to exercise any part of the
ministerial duty, were to be punished according to the pleasure of the
council.

An indulgence so miserably clogged did not, and perhaps was not,
intended to meet the views of any of the Presbyterians; but whilst they
almost unanimously disapproved of the act, they divided as to the
propriety of accepting the offer of government under protest; or, in
other language, of entering upon the office of the ministry under any
restriction, after presenting to the council an enumeration of their
grievances, and praying for a relaxation. This mode of procedure some
thought would exonerate their consciences, and be a testimony against
the Erastian proceedings of government. The more consistent agreed that
the testimony would be right providing they acted up to it by refusing
to accept the indulgence, else it would only be affording an excuse for
ministers who wished one, to accept what they otherwise were not in
their minds clear about accepting.

The dispute ran high; and, at this distance of time, and living as we do
untried by the perilous assailments to which these good men were
exposed, it would ill become us to pronounce harshly upon the conduct of
either party; yet it is impossible not to approve, and that highly, of
the noble, intrepid, and disinterested proceedings of the latter, who
chose rather to suffer for a good conscience, than accept of deliverance
under such circumstances. The proposal for emitting a testimony was
accordingly dropped, and a number of the ministers accepted of parishes
without further dispute. A few, on entering upon their charges,
disavowed from their pulpits giving countenance to Erastianism, making a
wretched compromise with their professions and consciences, which
neither gained them credit with the people nor secured them from
molestation by their rulers. Those who could not comply were in
consequence exposed to the increased fury of the persecutor; but that
was a small matter compared to the heart-burnings and melancholy
divisions these debates caused among the brethren. The exiles in
Holland, who were suffering for their consistency, published against it;
and the common people, who entered keenly into every question, began to
doubt of the propriety of hearing ministers who departed from the purity
of Presbyterian principle and practice, and became cold even to the
ministers who, though they had not accepted of the indulgence
themselves, did not in their public discourses bear testimony against
it; and a spirit of distrust arose which afterwards led to most unhappy
consequences.

[1673.] Early next year, upon the Duke of Hamilton’s coming to
Edinburgh, a council was held to learn the success of the indulgence in
the west, when he gave it as his opinion, that, had the whole of the
Presbyterian ministers accepted, the country might have been quiet; but,
as so many refused themselves and dissuaded their brethren, he believed
the schism, as he termed it, would still continue to distract the church
and disturb the land. He complained chiefly of five who were exceedingly
active in their meetings, James Kirkton, author of the History of the
Church of Scotland; Alexander Moncrief; Robert Lockhart; George
Campbell; and Robert Fleeming.

Some of these residing in Edinburgh, the council determined that they
should either be silent or proceed to the parishes allotted as their
places of confinement. By an order of the 7th March, all “outted”
ministers were enjoined to remove to a distance of five miles from the
city, unless they gave bond to keep no conventicles; and on the 12th,
those of the indulged who had not entered upon their parishes, were
called before them, and peremptorily commanded to show their obedience
before the 1st of June. Kirkton thanked them for allowing him so much
time to consider, and said “he should desire to advise with the Lord and
his conscience;” and was dismissed till then, together with Mr Matthew
M’Kail, Robert Lockhart, James Donaldson, and some others.

These injunctions were shortly after followed by another fierce
proclamation against conventicles, requiring all heritors and others to
give prompt information respecting such meetings to the council under
pain of being fined at least in a fourth part of their rents. Still the
activity of the respectable part of the population not meeting the
wishes of the council, the higher ranks, Hamilton, Eglinton, and
Cassilis, were ordered to undertake the hated office of hunting out
conventicles and report to Edinburgh. The reason alleged was, that the
king being at war with the Dutch, the latter designed to raise troubles
in Scotland, and the conventicles behoved to be dispersed as holding
communication with the enemy. The council now also commenced sending
ministers to that horrible prison, the Bass; and Mr Robert Gillespie,
for conducting the worship of God in a house at Falkland, was the first
who had that honour, because he would not consent to inform upon those
who were present, and whose fines might have been more profitable than
his imprisonment. He was followed in the month of June by Alexander
Peden, an eminent servant of the Lord Jesus Christ, whose character has
suffered little less from the credulity of his admirers, than from the
ridicule of his enemies. He appears to have sprung from persons in
humble life, and, previously to being licensed, had been schoolmaster,
precentor, and session-clerk to Mr John Guthrie, at Tarbolton.[75] He
was three years minister at New Glenluce, in Galloway, whence he was
ejected soon after the Restoration, and was among the first of the
field-preachers. In the beginning of 1666, he was denounced by
proclamation, and next year declared a rebel and forfeited both in life
and fortune. He continued from that time wandering and exercising his
ministry to great numbers, and with much success, alternately in
Scotland and Ireland, till June this year, when he was seized by Major
Cockburn in the house of Hugh Ferguson of Knockdow, in Carrick, and sent
together with his landlord to Edinburgh. On the 26th he was examined
before the council and committed to the Bass. Mr Ferguson was fined a
thousand merks for affording him a night’s lodgings. And so highly did
the managers estimate the capture, that they ordered fifty pounds
sterling to be paid to the Major—twenty-five to be distributed among the
soldiers, to stimulate to new service.

Footnote 75:

  Wodrow says Fenwick, evidently a mistake, for William Guthrie, author
  of the well known excellent treatise, the “Trial of a Saving Interest
  in Christ,” was minister at Fenwick.

All proving ineffectual, Lauderdale sent down a letter, May 31, in his
arrogant style of rude bantering jocularity, telling the council that if
any of the indulged were still unwilling to accept of that favour upon
the terms upon which it was granted, that they should not at all press
them to it; but instead of that, require sufficient assurance of their
forbearing conventicles, going regularly to church, and behaving orderly
in the places where they resided, adding, “because some of them are
displeased, forsooth! with the late indulgence, you shall secure them
from the fear of any more of that kind! and let them know that if after
all the lenity used toward them, they still continue refractory and
untractable, the whole of the royal power shall be employed for securing
the peace of the church and kingdom from their seditious practices.”

Money and blood are the fundamental principles of all false religions;
and love of the world is not a more absolute criterion by which to judge
of an individual’s Christianity, than a sure and certain rule by which
to judge whether a church be a church of Christ or no. Attachment to the
temporalities of an ecclesiastical establishment is as clear and
distinct a feature of antichrist, wherever it is found, as any given in
the word of God, by whatever name that establishment be called, whether
a Protestant Episcopacy or the Hierarchy of Rome. These were prominent
features of the prelacy of Scotland. I subjoin an example of their
extortion. The whole succeeding years will bear evidence to their lust
of blood. In Renfrew alone the following sums were awarded against
eleven gentlemen, and only not levied to their full extent because a
compromise could be readily procured by the ecclesiastical robbers,
while it might have been doubtful whether, if the whole had been sued
for, they might not have been forced to share the produce with the legal
ruffians:—Sir George Maxwell of Newark, for three years’ absence from
church, 31,200 pounds Scots; for weekly conventicles, 62,400; and for
disorderly baptisms, 1200, making a total of 94,800 pounds Scots, or
£7800. 1s. 6d. sterling—the Laird of Douchal, afterwards Porterfield,
84,400, Scots, or £7032 sterling—Sir George Maxwell, Netherpollock, in
93,600, Scots, or £7500 sterling—Cunningham of Carncurran, 15,833. 6s.
8d., Scots—John Maxwell of Dargarvel, 18,900, Scots—Walkinshaw of
Walkinshaw, 12,600, Scots—and five others in different sums, making a
total of 368,031. 3s. 4d., Scots.

Partial compliances did not secure the indulged from trouble, nor were
they less the objects of the bishops’ hatred than their more resolute
brethren. When the anniversary of the king’s birth-day returned, they
were summoned to appear before the council to give an account of the
manner in which they celebrated it; and the “reverend fathers in God”
appeared as their most violent accusers. As upon former occasions, their
answers were respecting their past practice. When required to promise
obedience for the future, the majority answered they could not keep any
day holy but the Sabbath, and were fined in the one half of their
stipends, which does not appear, however, to have been rigorously
exacted. Unfortunately, however, some excused themselves by not having
seen the council’s instructions; immediately the instructions were
tendered them, but Mr Alexander Blair, minister in Galston, told them
that though in politeness he would not refuse receiving the paper, yet
he could accept of no instructions from them for regulating his
ministry, otherwise he should be their ambassador, not Christ’s. For his
insolence, as they termed it, he was cast into prison, where he remained
till December, when he was allowed, on account of sickness, to be
carried to a private house, till death unloosed his fetters. In the
month of January, he departed in much joy and in full assurance of
faith.

This incident tended to increase the coolness between the people and the
indulged; for they did not think the other ministers had been
sufficiently explicit in their testimony; and when they returned to
their parishes, “they were to their great grief,” says Kirkton, “treated
with no less reproach than the nickname of Council Curates.” “Outted”
ministers who had no particular parishes allowed them, were required to
repair to such as the council should name; but as they could not see it
consistent with any moral or Christian duty to present themselves for
the purpose of being punished without a crime, Robert Fleeming, Thomas
Hogg, John Lidderdale, and Alexander Hutchison, were ordered to be
apprehended and brought before the council, wherever they could be
found. Instead of reconciling the Presbyterians to the domination of
bishops, such proceedings added to the number of recusants, and these
always from the most conscientious. Mr Forrester, minister at Alva, and
Mr John Burnet, indulged at Kilbride, both abandoned prelacy towards the
end of this year, and both bore explicit testimony against the civil
power of the magistrate in the church of God. Mr Forrester, in a letter
to the prelatical presbytery of Stirling, disclaimed their jurisdiction,
“because it was fountained in, derived from, or referrible to, the
magistrates,” which says he, “I judge to be contrary to the word of God,
the confession of reformed churches, and our own church’s government;
for the two powers, civil and ecclesiastic, are distinct _toto genere_
both as to the original, the subject matter, the manner of working, and
the end designed, distinct limits being put betwixt them, both in the
Old and New Testament. Under the law, a standing priesthood were to
meddle with matters of the Lord distinct from matters of the king. The
judgments on Saul and Uzziah, shows the Lord’s displeasure at
magistrates intermeddling with spiritual matters. Under the New
Testament, the Lord Jesus, the King, Head, and Lawgiver of his church,
hath a visible kingdom which he exerciseth in and over the church
visible by its spiritual office-bearers, given to it as a church, and
therefore distinct from, and independent upon, the civil power—the keys
of the kingdom of heaven being by him committed, not to the magistrates,
but to the apostles’ successors in the work of the ministry.” He
therefore quitted the Established Church, betook himself to the fields,
and shared in the labours and obloquy of the persecuted. Mr Burnet was
prevented by sickness from personally bearing witness to the same high
prerogatives of Christ; but he left his reasons for refusing to submit
to any temporal supremacy in writing, and died rejoicing in the hope of
the glory of God. His last words were—“Glory! glory! glory!”

It deserves to be remarked, that he and several other distinguished
ministers, although they had no liberty to accept of the indulgence
themselves, yet they did not deem it a reason why they should withdraw
their affection from those who had, or throw any obstacles in the way of
those they considered messengers of the gospel; for these worthies
thought preaching salvation to sinners so paramount a duty, that they
would have ventured upon every thing but sin to have achieved it
themselves or promoted it by others.

Charles and his advisers in attempting to introduce despotism, had as
little consulted their own peace as that of his kingdom. He was harassed
by his English parliament; and Lauderdale having been voted a public
grievance, was glad to seek refuge in Scotland, where, in the month of
December, he came down to hold a fourth session of the parliament.
Suspecting no opposition, if he secured the support of the clergy, he
told the estates that the most effectual course would be taken for
curbing and suppressing the insolent field conventicles, and other
seditious practices, which had so much abounded—that if fairness would
not, force must compel the refractory to be peaceable and to obey the
laws. But instead of his declarations being met with the submissive
adulation they were wont, the Duke of Hamilton, supported by a strong
party, presented their grievances; and when the Commissioner with his
usual haughty roughness interposed to silence complaint, Sir Patrick
Home of Polwart demanded to know, whether it was not a free parliament?
And after a short tumultuous session, in which, amid the dissensions of
the statesmen, the Presbyterians escaped for the time any severer
enactment, the meeting was adjourned, and the parties sought each to
justify the strife to the king. Hamilton repaired to London and laid a
statement of the enormous abuses before his majesty, but only received
fair promises that were never performed, and incurred a resentment that
never was appeased. Lauderdale retained his situation, and rather
increased in favour with the king.

[1674.] It is a melancholy and an appalling consideration for those who
stand forward as reformers and patriots, that, in struggles for
religion, for liberty, or for any good principle, those who sincerely
strive to gain such objects are usually found in a minority at last; and
when they have been the means of conferring the most essential benefits
upon the country, they are generally left losers themselves. Amid the
conflicts of the statesmen, and their loud complaints about the
oppression and ruin of the country, no mention had been made of the
primary and most palpable of all its distresses, the religious
grievances of the Presbyterians:—those which in fact had been the origin
of all the calamities of Scotland, and the triumph of which was to
secure the cause of freedom, were utterly lost sight of in their
miserable squabbling about the monopoly of salt and the smuggling of
brandy.

Both Hamilton and Lauderdale were supposed friendly to the persecuted;
and while the nation was convulsed with their political contentions, and
their attention was sufficiently employed elsewhere, the pious,
resolute, and consistent part of the persecuted ministers improved the
respite for proclaiming peace upon the mountains, bringing good tidings
of good, publishing salvation, and saying to Zion, “Thy God reigneth!”
Conventicles increased both in number and frequency. They began early in
the year, and the indefatigable Mr Blackadder beat up the primate’s
quarters upon the 2d day of January.[76] On that day he collected at
Kinkel, within a mile of St Andrews, a large auditory, which filled the
long gallery and two chambers, besides a great number standing without
doors. He lectured on the second Psalm, a portion of Scripture
remarkably applicable, and preached from Jer. xiii. 18. The primate’s
wife hearing of the assembly, sent for the militia, who were fully
prepared in warlike array, under a Lieutenant Doig, accompanied by a
great number of the rascality, with many of the worst set of scholars
from the college and some noblemen’s sons. They drew up at a distance
from the gate, before which stood the laird, his brother, and the
minister’s eldest son; but they caused no interruption till the lecture
was finished and the psalm sung, when some people called out that there
was an alarm; on which the service stopped and the men ranged outside
the gate with the laird. Meanwhile, some of the rabble had got into the
stable and were carrying off the laird’s horse, which he observing,
aimed a blow at the fellow who had him; but some of the “ill-set
schollars” laying hold on his cane, a struggle ensued, and the laird
fell. Mr Welsh, who was also there, and Kinkel’s brother, instantly
drew; and the Lieutenant and his men seeing them so resolute, and
supposing that they were well supported, fell back, nor dared approach
sufficiently near the gate to discover their error. Mrs Murray then went
up to the Lieutenant and asked him why he came in that hostile manner to
trouble their house on the Lord’s day? He said he had an order, which
she requesting to see, he told her he would show it to the laird; and,
attended by a sergeant, was drawing near the gate, when Mr Murray
called, as he approached—“How is it, Lieutenant, that you come to
disturb us on the Sabbath day?” In great trepidation he delivered the
laird an order which had been subscribed by the Chancellor about a year
before for apprehending him and his brother. When Kinkel had read it, “I
see,” said he, “you have an old order from the Chancellor to that
effect, which was extorted from him by the prelate. If you mind to
execute it now, you may, but you shall see the faces of men.” The
Lieutenant, grievously alarmed, cursed himself if he had a mind to
execute it. After which, the lady caused bring forth some ale for the
Lieutenant and his men; but one of them, whose companion had been a
little hurt, said he would drink none of her drink; he would rather
drink her heart’s blood. The rest partook of the refreshments and went
away. Composure being restored, the minister proceeded with his sermon,
and the whole closed in peace.

Footnote 76:

  About the same time, the precise date is uncertain, Crail, where
  Sharpe had been a Presbyterian minister, was visited by Mr John
  Dickson; and the unhappy apostate was tormented by the sound of the
  gospel on his right hand and on his left, while he vainly strove by
  military force to destroy the faith which once he preached.

Some time after this, Mr Blackadder had another meeting at Kinkel, where
vast numbers from St Andrews attended as hearers, and even some of the
militia. Sharpe, who was that Sabbath day at home, hearing of it, sent
for the provost and commanded him to order out the military, disperse
the conventicle, and apprehend the minister. “My lord,” replied the
provost, to the prelate’s dismay, “the militia are gone there already to
hear the preaching, and we have none to send.” And among them was the
soldier that had refused drink from Lady Kinkel, who was especially
marked to be moved and wept beyond the rest; so wonderfully did the Lord
countenance the persecuted gospel, even bloody enemies being overcome
with conviction.

Exasperated at the multiplication of these meetings, the Episcopalian
clergy added the foulest and the falsest calumnies to their other modes
of opposition, and the synod of Glasgow, October 22, had the unblushing
effrontery to charge these assemblies with crimes of which they
themselves could never have believed them guilty—“incest, bestiality,
murder of children, besides frequent adulteries, and other acts of
wickedness after which, it is little that they should have been accused
of fanaticism, disloyalty, and cursing the king. Towards the end of
March, before Lauderdale left Scotland, he published an indemnity,
although like many others with which the nation was insulted during this
reign, almost only so in name, was received by the people as a license
for frequenting conventicles, which continued to multiply in
consequence, and especially as a report was assiduously circulated of
his having secretly promised that an ample liberty would be granted to
Presbyterian ministers soon after his arrival at court. Few were held in
the west where the indulged ministers were settled, but on the borders,
in the Merse, Lothians, Stirlingshire, and Fife, they greatly abounded,
in houses, fields, and vacant churches. The more private worshippers in
houses were overlooked, the vast assemblages in the mountains, and
mosses, and muirs chiefly attracting the attention of government; and
“at these great meetings,” says Kirkton, “many a soul was converted to
Jesus Christ, but far more turned from the bishops to profess themselves
Presbyterians.”

Mr Welsh was among the most diligent and successful of the labourers,
particularly in Fife, where many thousands were wont to assemble. His
preaching was attended with a visible blessing in the conversion of many
to the Lord; and among them were some in the higher ranks, especially
ladies; for it is somewhat remarkable that in these days of peril and
danger, the weaker sex were distinguished for their intrepid zeal; and
there is reason to believe that not a few, conspicuous for their piety,
were brought to the obedience of faith at these assemblies. The Countess
of Crawford, daughter of the Earl of Annandale, was one of the number,
and dated her first impressions from a sermon preached by him at
Duraquhair, near Cupar, where about eight thousand persons were present,
and the power of God was manifested to the checking of the conscience
and the awakening of the hearts of many. On the same Sabbath three other
conventicles were held, and it was computed not less than sixteen
thousand persons heard the gospel plainly and earnestly preached by Mr
Robert Lockhart at Path-head, near Kirkcaldy; Mr Blackadder, near
Dunfermline; and Mr Welwood on the Lomond Hills. This last meeting was
fired upon by the soldiers, but although their bullets lighted among a
crowd of men, women, and children, and brake the ground beside them, not
one was wounded. They, however, took about eighteen prisoners, and then
marched for Duraquhair to attack Mr Welsh; but the people got notice and
hurried him away, a great body escorting him as far as Largo, where they
procured a boat, and he and his wife, with some others, crossed the
frith under night safely, and landed at Aberlady Bay, whence he got
undiscovered to Edinburgh. Even the capital itself and the neighbourhood
were sorely infested with these noxious meetings. Kirkton had long had
regular house-preaching in the city, but this year, emboldened like
others by the expectation of favour, he, along with Mr Johnston, again
ventured upon sacred ground, and Cramond Kirk being vacant, they bad
both been repeatedly guilty of declaring the truth from that pulpit to
large and attentive auditories.

Against these there were many grievous complaints by the prelates, of
which Lauderdale took advantage to lower the credit of the Duke of
Hamilton and his party with the king, and in this he was so successful,
that, about the end of May, the privy council was re-modelled, and those
only who were entirely devoted to his interest permitted to remain. On
the 4th of June, when they first assembled, they were assailed in rather
an unusual manner.

Reports of increased severities being about to be resorted to against
conventicles having reached Edinburgh, as men durst not appear with any
petition under pain of being fined or imprisoned, fifteen women, chiefly
ministers widows, resolved to present as many copies of “a humble
supplication for liberty to the honest ministers throughout the land to
exercise their holy function without molestation,” to fifteen of the
principal lords of council. Attended by a crowd of females, who filled
the Parliament Close, they awaited the arrival of the councillors.
Sharpe came along with the Chancellor, and when he saw the ladies, in
great bodily fear he kept close by his lordship, who seemed to enjoy the
primate’s terrors, and complacently allowed Mr John Livingstone’s widow
to accompany him to the Council-Chamber door, conversing as they went
along, while others very unceremoniously saluted Sharpe with the
epithets of Judas and traitor; and one of them more forward than the
rest, laid her hand upon his neck, and told him “that neck behoved to
pay for it before all was done.” The whole of the lords to whom the
papers were presented, received them civilly, except Stair, who threw
his scornfully upon the ground, which drew upon him a sarcastic
remark—“that he had not so treated the remonstrance against the king
which he helped to pen.” When the council met, the petition was voted a
libel, and about a dozen of the subscribers were called and examined.
They declared severally that no man had had any hand in the matter, and
that their sole motive was a sense of their perishing condition for want
of the gospel, having no preachers except ignorant and profane persons
whom they could not hear; upon which they were ordered into confinement,
and the Lord Provost and the guard sent to disperse the ladies at the
door; but they refused to depart without their representatives, who were
in consequence politely liberated, and the tumult ended. Next day,
however, they were again summoned, when three were sent to
prison—Margaret, a daughter of Lord Warriston’s; a Mrs Cleland; and a
Lilias Campbell. The former, with Lady Mersington and some others, were
banished the town and liberties of Edinburgh; and so ended this affair.

The fears of the ladies were not unfounded. A letter from the king to
the council was read at the same meeting, requiring them “to use their
utmost endeavours for apprehending preachers at field conventicles,
invaders of pulpits, and ringleading heritors, and to make use of the
militia and standing force for that end, leaving the punishment of the
other transgressors to the ordinary magistrates according to law.” In
obedience to which, a committee was appointed with full powers to meet
when and where they should think convenient, to make the necessary
inquiries, apprehend whom they should think proper, and the standing
force and militia were placed under their immediate direction. At the
head was the Archbishop of St Andrews, the Lord Chancellor, and other
servants of the crown, assisted by the Earls of Argyle, Linlithgow,
Kinghorn, Wigton, and Dundonald. The Duke of Hamilton was named; but in
present circumstances possessed little power, and seldom attended.
Orders were at the same time issued for apprehending the following
ministers:—John Welsh, Gabriel Semple, Robert Ross, Samuel Arnot,
Gabriel Cunningham, Archibald Riddel, John Mosman, John Blackadder,
William Wiseheart, David Hume, John Dickson, John Rae, Henry Forsyth,
Thomas Hogg, Robert Law, George Johnstone, Thomas Forrester, Fraser of
Brea, John Law, Robert Gillespie. And to encourage the parties sent out
on this duty, for the two first, as the most notorious offenders, a
reward of four hundred pounds sterling each was offered; for the others,
one thousand merks; and the soldiers and others who might assist in
their seizure, were previously pardoned for any bloodshed that might
occur—such was the inveteracy the rulers of Scotland betrayed against
men whose only crime was preaching the gospel. They then proceeded to
show nearly equal abhorrence for those who heard it, by punishing with
fines or imprisonment the most obstinate of the heritors. The town of
Edinburgh was amerced in one hundred pounds sterling for conventicles in
the Magdalene Chapel, to be exacted from the chief citizens present; Mr
John Inglis of Cramond, for hearing sermon six times in his parish
church, a thousand and thirty-six pounds Scots; a gentleman in Fife, for
allowing Mr Welsh to lodge in his house one night, was fined two
thousand merks; and eleven heritors, upwards of five thousand five
hundred for attending field-preachings—all which monies were ordered to
be summarily levied, and the offenders kept in prison till the same
should be paid. Nor were persons, even of high rank, and against whom no
charges of very intrusive piety are known to have existed, exempt from
being harassed by any vile, petty, clerical informer. Lord Balmerino and
Sir John Young of Leny, neither of whom had been present at any such
preaching, were brought before the council; and when they denied the
fact, were insultingly tendered the oath of allegiance, which both must
have already repeatedly sworn, before they were dismissed.

Two rigorous proclamations followed. By the first, all masters were
required to prevent their servants from being present at any house or
field conventicle, and to retain none in their employment for whose
conduct they would not be answerable; heritors were ordered to require
their tenants to subscribe a bond, obliging themselves, wives, cottars,
or servants, to abstain from all such meetings, which, if they refused,
they were to be put to the horn, and their escheat given to their
landlords; but masters and landlords were responsible for the conduct of
their inferiors to the extent of the fines their disobedience might
incur; and all magistrates were empowered to oblige such as they chose
to suspect, to give bond for their good behaviour. The second was
directed against ministers, in terms of the orders already issued for
their apprehension. Still further to stimulate the magistrates, another
letter was procured from the king, informing them that his majesty had
heard of the alarming increase of conventicles, for repressing which,
together with the other seditious movements in Scotland, he had ordered
his troops in Ireland and at Berwick to hold themselves in readiness, to
march on the first alarm; and, in the mean time, required them to bring
to punishment the authors of these insolent and seditious practices. But
the difficulty of obtaining proof forming some small impediment in the
way of conviction, the council therefore proposed that, when a suspected
person was apprehended, against whom they had not sufficient evidence,
he should be interrogated to answer upon oath, and if he refused to
answer, he should be held as confessed, and proceeded against
accordingly, only the punishment should be restricted to fining,
imprisonment, exile, or the loss of a limb—most merciful judges!—to
which his majesty was graciously pleased to consent, and the council
proceeded to act.

They summoned a number of the “outted” ministers to appear, not in the
usual mode by leaving written copies at their dwelling-places, but at
the market-crosses of Edinburgh, Lanark, Stirling, and Perth, and that
within such a time, that, had they been willing, they could not have
complied. As the latter knew, however, that if they appeared, they were
certain of being sent either to the Bass or into banishment, they
declined, and were in consequence denounced as rebels.[77] When the
council rose, on the last day of July, they reported to the secretary,
that forty “outted” ministers had been cited before them, none of whom
having appeared, they were all ordered to be denounced; and that eighty
persons, for hearing sermon in the fields of Fife, had also been
delated, of whom all that answered had been found guilty and imprisoned,
the remainder declared fugitives, and their escheats appointed to be
taken for his majesty’s use.[78] The magistrates of Glasgow, also, had
been fined one hundred pounds sterling; and the magistrates of burghs,
south of the Tay, had been ordered to press upon the citizens the bond
against keeping conventicles.

Footnote 77:

  The names of these worthies who deserve, and who will, be had in
  everlasting remembrance, when those of their persecutors must rot, are
  thus given by one of themselves:—Alexander Lennox, David Williamsone,
  Alexander Moncrieff, John Rae, David Hume, Edward Jamieson, James
  Fraser, William Wisehcart, Thomas Hogg in Ross, Robert Lockhart, John
  Wilkie, George Johnstone, Patrick Gillespie, James Kirkton, John Weir,
  Nathaniel Martin, Andrew Morton, Andrew Donaldsone, John Crichton,
  William Row, Thomas Urquhart, Thomas Hogg in Larbert, William Arskine,
  James Donaldson, Robert Gillespie, John Gray, James Wedderburn, John
  Wardlaw, Thomas Douglas, George Campbell, Francis Irvine, John
  Wallace, Andrew Anderson, John Munniman, George Hamilton, Donald
  Cargill, Alexander Bertram, James Wilson, Robert Maxwell—in all 39.
  These were the stock of the preaching church that was driven into the
  wilderness—their ministry was a sort of outlawry—and, by the bishop’s
  activity, these, with the ministers formerly forfaulted, and those who
  afterwards joined that body of people, who first caused the separation
  from bishops and their curates, thereafter overthrew their party, and
  wrought the Reformation.

Footnote 78:

  “One day a paper was fixt upon the Parliament House door, containing
  upwards of one hundred persons, whose escheats were to be sold to any
  who would purchase them.” _Wodrow_, vol. i. p. 384.

While the primate was urging the persecution of these excellent men, he
was not without trouble from his own underlings. In the beginning of the
year, some of the bishops, as well as curates, began to complain of the
arbitrary measures of Sharpe, who managed all ecclesiastical affairs
without consulting them upon any occasion, and had even the audacity to
stamp upon him the opprobrious epithet of Pope. His friends repelled the
accusations as the unfounded aspersions of the Hamilton or country
party, who, having failed to overturn the Duke of Lauderdale by means of
the Presbyterians, now wished to do it by means of the Episcopalians.
The others declared they only wished what the act of Parliament allowed,
to assemble in a National Synod, and regulate what they considered wrong
in the church—the best method of securing its stability. But Sharpe,
who, of all things, dreaded the least interference with his power, wrote
to the Archbishop of Canterbury, entreating him—in a most impious
appropriation of Scripture language—to interfere and assist him against
those who wished “to break his bands, and cast his cords from them;” and
his application was so successful, that the most active of the
suffragans were silenced, and Ramsay, bishop of Dunblane, was removed to
the Isles—a kind of honourable banishment, which effectually put an end
to all attempts for the future at interfering with the supremacy of his
Grace of St Andrews. The only other bishop (Leighton) who had ever given
him real vexation, but against whom his wiles had been useless,
voluntarily withdrawing from the scene of contention, Burnet was
restored to Glasgow, and henceforth was content to play second to
Sharpe, only rivalling his oppression within the boundaries of his own
archiepiscopal territories.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                BOOK IX.


                            A.D. 1674-1676.


Divisions among the ministers respecting the church and
   self-defence—Armed meetings—Severities increase—Lord
   Cardross—Religious revivals in the North—Mr M’Gilligan—Civil
   oppression—Home of Polwart—Finings—Durham of Largo—Magistrates of
   Edinburgh—Sufferers sent to France as recruits—Proclamation to expel
   the families of gospel-hearers from the Burghs, and enforce the
   conventicle act—Instructions for the indulged—Progress of the
   gospel—Rage of the prelates—Mitchell tortured.


Unhappily the seeds of division which the indulgence had sown among the
Presbyterian ministers, were beginning to take root; and the different
opinions that afterwards reached so great and ruinous a height, showed
themselves in the discussions which took place during this year upon
that important question—How the Presbyterian church was to be continued
and supplied? The documents preserved are very scanty; only it appears
that the propriety of ordaining a minister, except to a settled
charge—of preaching within the nominal bounds of an unsettled
presbytery—and the authoritative right of synodical meetings, were among
the questions about which differences had sprung up among the brethren.
And from the care with which they endeavour to provide against one
minister noticing the conduct of another “in their preaching, and
warning the people of the evils of the times,” it seems pretty evident
that this baneful practice had already commenced.

At the close of the year, the state of feeling and anticipation among
the suffering Presbyterians was extremely dissimilar, as we find by the
writings both of public men and private Christians which have been
preserved. Numbers rejoiced in the bright and sunny side of the cloud,
in the increase of faithful preachers of the gospel—in the desire for
hearing that seemed to be abroad—and in the delightful and not rare
instances of the power of the Spirit that accompanied the publication of
the word; and they anticipated a speedy and a glorious renovating morn
for the church. Those that studied the signs of the times, saw in the
apostacy of some, and in the falling away of others who had been
esteemed pillars; in the mournful waxing cold of the love of many; in
the bitter dissensions of professors; and in the general abounding
iniquity—the dark and dismal tokens of a deserted church; and, although
they knew and believed that the cause of Christ could never fall, and
hoped and rejoiced in the hope that a glorious day would yet arise upon
Scotland, wept and made mournful supplication for the sins of the people
among whom they dwelled, and anticipated heavier judgments for
unimproved mercies, until a returning to Him against whom they had
offended should again draw down the blessing.

The increasing severities which now began to be used towards the
conventicles likewise occasioned a difference of opinion among the godly
ministers and people as to the right of self-defence in hearing the
gospel. The injunction of Christ as to individuals is clear, when
persecuted in one city, flee into another; but in Scotland, where the
throne of iniquity framed mischief by a law, and where the whole
Presbyterians, who formed a large majority, were at once deprived of
their civil rights, as well as their religious privileges—and where a
constitution as solemnly ratified, and as sacredly sworn to, as any
mutual agreement between rulers and people ever was, or ever can be, had
been wantonly destroyed by a wretched minority of riotous unprincipled
sycophants, and place-hunting apostates—the question involved, in the
opinion of many, not only their duty as Christians, but as citizens.
Paul had taught them that these were not incompatible, and their fathers
had vindicated both in the field. The young men were generally of this
opinion, and began to come armed to sermons about the commencement of
this year [1675], and talked of imitating the example of the days of the
congregation. The elder and most esteemed among the ministers were
divided; while, in general, they allowed the soundness of the principle,
they differed as to the propriety of the time. Among these appear to
have been Mr Welsh, Mr Blackadder, and Gabriel Semple; others, at the
head of whom stood Fraser of Brea and Kirkton, were entirely averse to
any resort to arms. The former thus states his views of the subject:—

“A violent persecution had broken out; and then there began to be
fining, imprisoning, taking, and summoning of persons, disturbing of
conventicles with soldiers. But yet the gospel prevailed more and more,
and we were like the Israelites in Egypt, the more we were afflicted,
the more we grew and multiplied. Some hot heads were for taking the
sword and redeeming of themselves from the hands of the oppressors; at
least I had ground to fear it. But I opposed rising in arms all I could,
and preached against it, and exhorted them to patience, and courageous
using of the sword of the Spirit; and I did not see they had any call to
the sword, and their strength was to sit still; and if they did stir and
take the sword, they would therewith perish; but if they patiently
suffered and endured, God would himself either incline to pity or some
other way support and deliver them. I had influence with the people,
being popular, and whilst I was at liberty I did what I could to keep
the people peaceable. The truth is, there were great provocations given,
so that we concluded it was the design of some rulers to stir us up that
we might fall. Ministers still preached and laboured among the people;
conventicles increased; many were brought in; the work of God, in the
midst of persecution, did always prosper, until we destroyed ourselves,
first by needless divisions and difference of opinion, happening by
reason of the indulgence; and thereafter by rash and unwarrantable
taking up of arms.”

Gentlemen in Scotland at this time, it requires to be remembered, always
wore arms as a part of dress; and the substantial heritors and yeomen
were in general accustomed to be accoutred when they went from home, so
that part of the meetings at field-preachings had always consisted of
armed men, who, before this, had offered upon several occasions to
defend their ministers at the risk of their lives, but had been refused,
and who now thought that in protecting their assemblies from robbery and
dispersion, and themselves from imprisonment, fining, or slavery—the
inevitable consequences of being seized upon these occasions—that they
were doing no more than was required by the law of God, and authorized
by the law of their country, of which the prelatic party, and not they,
were the invaders and violaters.

Many contests had already ensued. The Episcopalian myrmidons in
Linlithgowshire, and even in Fife, had repeatedly drawn blood, while the
patient hearers of the gospel had only fled before them. The rough
borderers were not equally submissive.[79] At Lilliesleaf, and
throughout some of these districts, they had stood upon the defensive
and beaten off their assailants; and affairs were in this situation
during the greater part of this year. Upon the complaints of the
prelates, troops were ordered to scour the country in different
directions. Edinburgh and Glasgow were again fined each in the sum of
one hundred pounds sterling; and in addition, a detachment both of horse
and foot were quartered in the latter city. Mr John Greg, for preaching
at Leith mills, was sent to the Bass; and a Mr John Sandilands, for
hearing a sermon near Bathgate, was fined three hundred merks. Nor were
the nobility themselves spared. One of the most cruelly oppressive cases
was that of Lord Cardross.

Footnote 79:

  Let it be always borne in mind, that the whole crowd who attended
  field-preaching, were not influenced by gospel principles, nor could
  be considered godly men, any more than that able disputers and fierce
  contenders for the pure faith, are always themselves believers. It is
  an awful consideration, that the most strenuous fighters for the
  purity of God’s word—the Jews—were infidels, and thus addressed by our
  Saviour—“Ye have one that condemns you, even Moses, in whom ye trust;”
  and the best written “Plea for the Divinity of Christ,” was written by
  a man who turned a Socinian. Beware of zealots!

His lordship being confined in Edinburgh in the month of May, his lady,
who was far advanced in pregnancy, remained at home, with only a few
attendants. Sir Mungo Murray, taking advantage of this circumstance,
under cloud of night, accompanied by a posse of retainers, went to his
residence, and outrageously demanded that the gates should be opened to
him, else he would force his way and set fire to the house. Situated
near the borders of the Highlands, the inmates naturally supposing them
banditti, refused admission and demanded who they were? To this no
answer could be obtained, but “Scottishmen,” which increased their
alarm; yet fearing the worst, as there were no means of defence, and no
defenders, the gates were opened, when the ruffians rushed in; and,
after searching the whole apartments in the most tumultuous and
indelicate manner—forcing Lady Cardross to rise from her bed that they
might search her chamber—and ransacking his lordship’s private closet,
they seized Mr John King, his chaplain, and Mr Robert Langlands,
governor to his brother, afterwards Colonel John Erskine, and carried
them off. Langlands was dismissed after being marched ten miles; Mr John
King was rescued by some countrymen who had profited by his ministry.
For this proceeding they had no warrant; and Lord Cardross, immediately
upon being informed of the outrage, presented a complaint and petition
to the privy council; but, instead of receiving any satisfaction for the
gross violation, not only of his privileges as a nobleman, but his
rights as a subject, he was charged with having been guilty, art and
part, in the rescue of Mr John King, although he was sixty miles
distant. For harbouring him in his house, and for his lady’s having been
present at many conventicles, and for these complicated crimes, he was
sentenced to be imprisoned during his majesty’s pleasure in Edinburgh
Castle, to pay a fine of one thousand pounds sterling, besides various
sums for the delinquencies of his tenants.

Fining, imprisonment, and exile being found inadequate to the
suppression of conventicles, other and more rigorous methods were
resorted to. The houses of some of the principal gentlemen in the most
infected counties were seized, and garrisoned by parties of horse and
foot, that the least appearance of any gathering for hearing sermon
might at once be put down, with as much care and celerity as the
gathering of a civil, or the landing of a foreign, enemy; and a number
of the most faithful, diligent, and able ministers this country was ever
favoured with, were “intercommuned,” their presence declared infectious
as the plague, and every loyal person prohibited from conversing with or
doing them any office, not of kindness, but of common humanity, under
the pain of being placed themselves without the pale of society.[80]

Footnote 80:

  The names of these were—“David Williamson, Alexander Moncrief, William
  Wiseheart, Thomas Hogg in Ross, George Johnstone, Robert Gillespie,
  John M’Gilligan, John Ross, Thomas Hogg, Stirlingshire, William
  Erskine, James Donaldson, Andrew Anderson, Andrew Morton, Donald
  Cargill, Robert Maxwell, elder and younger, James Fraser of Brea, John
  King; and with these a good many ladies and gentlemen were joined,
  besides many of lower rank, altogether upwards of one hundred
  persons.” _Wodrow_, vol. i. p. 394. This revival of a dormant and
  iniquitous law was peculiarly oppressive, as all who conversed with
  the intercommuned being liable to the same punishment, thousands might
  he unwittingly implicated, and laid at the mercy of their rapacious
  rulers.

But one of the persecuted themselves remarks—“Although this seemed to be
the first storm of persecution that yet had fallen upon us, and that now
the adversaries had boasted of an effectual mean for suppressing
conventicles, and establishing prelacy and uniformity, and the good
people feared it; yet the Lord did wonderfully disappoint them, and made
and turned their witty councils into folly—for this great noise harmed
not at all, it was powder without ball. For, as for myself, never one
that cared for me shunned my company; yea, a great many mere carnal
relations and acquaintances did entertain me as freely as ever they did;
yea, so far did the goodness of the Lord turn this to my good, that I
observed it was at that time I got most of my civil business expede. And
as the Lord preserved myself in this storm, so I did not hear of any
intercommuned, or conversers with intercommuned persons, that were in
the least prejudiced thereby; nay, this matter of the intercommuning of
so many good and peaceable men did but exasperate the people against the
bishops the more, and procured to them, as the authors of such rigid
courses, a greater and more universal hatred; so that the whole land
groaned to be delivered from them.”

Danger, indeed, seemed to endear the ministers to the people; and the
risks they ran, and the many providential occurrences which attended
their meetings, produced a high degree of excitement, that tended in no
small measure to secure large and attentive audiences, and prepared
their minds for a solemn reception of the doctrines they heard, at the
peril of their lives.

North of the Tay there were but few Presbyterian ministers, and they had
not hitherto been very closely pursued; but among them were some of the
most excellent, and these of course were included in the act of
intercommuning—for their labours had been equally abundant with the
rest. Mr John M’Gilligan of Alness, was one of not the least
conspicuous, either for success or for suffering. On September, the very
month following his being denounced, he dispensed the ordinance of the
Lord’s Supper at Obsdale, in the house of Lady Dowager Fowlis, assisted
by Mr Hugh Anderson, minister of Cromarty, and Mr Alexander Fraser,
minister of Teviot. According to the account preserved of it, it seems
to have been one of those heart-enlivening seasons which the Lord
sometimes vouchsafes to his church in the day of her visitation. “There
were,” says the narrator, “so sensible and glorious discoveries made of
the Son of Man, and such evident presence of the Master of assemblies,
that the people seemed to breathe the very atmosphere of heaven; and
some were so transportingly elevated, that they could almost use the
language of the apostle—‘whether in the body or out of the body, I
cannot tell.’ The eldest Christians there, declared they had not been
witnesses to the like. They also remarked that the Lord wonderfully
preserved them in peace.”

Some rumours of an intended communion having got abroad, the
sheriff-depute was ordered by the bishop to prevent or disperse the
meeting. He accordingly sent a party to apprehend the minister; but he
not knowing the spot, directed them to proceed to his house at Alness,
naturally supposing the meeting would be there. The soldiers, upon
finding the nest empty, attacked the orchard—a much more pleasant
amusement, that detained them till the forenoon’s service was over at
Obsdale, where, before they arrived, Mr M’Gilligan had got notice, and
was under hiding, which, when they found, they retired without
disturbing the congregation; and the sacred solemnities proceeded
without any further interruption. Mr M’Gilligan, however, was obliged to
abscond; and one of his neighbours, Mr Thomas Ross, being apprehended at
Tain for a similar offence, was sent to the Bass.

Civil tyranny is always so interwoven with ecclesiastical persecution,
that it is seldom we are able to separate the two. But the sufferings of
Sir Patrick Home of Polwart, although they undoubtedly originated from
his religion, were ultimately effected through the medium of his
patriotism: he legally, by a bill of suspension before the Court of
Session, resisted a wanton stretch of power in the privy council, and
endeavoured to rouse the opposition of the gentry of Berwickshire
towards an oppressive, unjust tax for planting garrisons among them in
time of peace; and for this undoubted exercise of his right, was
committed, by order of the king, prisoner to Stirling Castle, and
declared incapable of holding any place of trust; and the heritors
succumbed, although the other fines extorted from the shire this year
amounted to nearly twenty-seven thousand pounds Scots.

Nor were the indulged suffered to enjoy their limited and precarious
pardon quietly; their stipends were withheld or tardily paid, and that
only upon their producing certificates from the sheriffs that they had
kept no conventicles for the last twelve-month; but their most vexatious
trials were the natural consequences of their acknowledging the power of
the civil magistrate in ecclesiastical affairs, and owning his warrant,
rather than the authority of Christ, as the rule in their ministerial
labours. Complaints were brought against them, and they were summoned
before the council for not celebrating the communion on the same day in
all their parishes—for irregular baptisms—and for having preached in
churchyards and other places than the kirks; but, above all, for having
presumed to authorize young men to preach the gospel, and ordained
others to the work of the ministry; and, at a time when a long tract of
unseasonable weather seemed to threaten a famine, they had usurped a
power which belonged to majesty alone, or his delegates, and had
appointed a fast in their several congregations! Through the interest of
Lord Stair, however, these grievances were not pushed to extremities
this year.

[1676.] Whatever circumstances might induce any occasional relaxation in
the severity of the persecution, the spirit remained the same; and no
opportunity was suffered to escape by which the preaching of the gospel
might be put down by men calling themselves Christian bishops. The
soldiers in the garrisons were their willing instruments, and as they
shared in the plunder, were active in the pursuit; yet meetings for
hearing the word continued to increase, and the ordinances of religion
were administered with a solemnity and power, often at midnight, which
rendered them the general topics of interest and conversation among the
people, and still more the objects of aversion to the prelates. Finings
for “conventicles” were therefore inflicted by the council with
unmitigated rigour. Durham of Largo, for offences of this nature, and
harbouring that “notour traitor,” John Welsh, was early in the year
mulcted of nearly four thousand pounds Scots; Colonel Kerr, several
ladies, and some citizens of Edinburgh, were legally plundered in
various sums each, of five hundred merks, two hundred pounds, and one
hundred pounds Scots, for being at house conventicles within the city;
but the magistrates having also suffered for these “enormities,” being
soused for not preventing what they had never previously heard of, they
were allowed to reimburse themselves by fining the culprits, who were
thus punished twice for one crime.

A more revolting case of wanton cruelty was, about the same time,
exercised towards some poor men who had been guilty of attending sermon
in the fields near Stirling. Towards the end of 1674, they had been
seized in the act and carried to jail; eight, by some means or other,
had got out—and the remaining seven sent the following affecting
petition to the council in the month of February:—“The petitioners,
being prisoners in the tolbooth of Stirling, these fifteen months
by-past, some of us being poor decrepit bodies, and all of us poor
creatures with wives and families, we have been many times at the point
of starving, and had long ere now died for want, if we had not been
supplied with the charity of other people: The truth whereof is notour
to all who live near Stirling, and which the magistrates have testified
by a report under their hands: Wherefore, it is humbly desired that your
lordships would compassionate our pitiful and deplorable condition, and
that of our poor starving wives and children, and order us liberty, we
being willing to enact ourselves to compear and answer before your
lordships whenever we should be called.” Of those who signed, one,
Charles Campbell, was upwards of sixty, and one John Adam, near seventy
years of age; the others were labouring under severe bodily
indisposition. Yet, instead of being moved by the pitiful tale of these
harmless, aged, and sickly prisoners, the council, with an inhumanity
which it would not be easy to designate properly, ordered them to be
turned over as recruits! to one of Lauderdale’s minions, a Captain
Maitland, then an officer in the French service; and on Friday, February
18, at midnight, they were delivered to a party of soldiers, fettered
and tied together, and marched off without any previous warning. But
they went cheerfully away, although they knew not whither; for they knew
the master whom they served would never leave them naked to their
enemies in their old age.

These severities were followed up by a fresh proclamation against
conventicles, in which, with the most hypocritical falsehood, after
lauding the king’s princely care and zeal for the interests of the
Protestant reformed religion and the church, and lamenting the sad and
sensible decay religion had suffered, and the great and dangerous
increase of profaneness, through the most unreasonable and schismatical
separation of many from the public and established worship, and the
frequent and open conventicles, both in houses and fields—magistrates
were required rigorously to apprehend all who were intercommuned, and to
expel their families from the burghs, together with such preachers and
their families as did not regularly attend public worship—to enforce the
acts against conventicles and separation, under a penalty of five
hundred merks if they did not annually report their proceedings, and
five hundred or upwards additional, for every conventicle that shall
have been held within their jurisdictions, besides whatever other fine
the council might choose to inflict. All noblemen, gentlemen, and
burgesses were forbid to entertain any chaplin, tutor, or schoolmaster,
under penalties proportioned to their rank, from six hundred to three
thousand merks; and informers were, according to the system of the
times, by the same proclamation, encouraged and rewarded by a share of
the fines. Committees were also appointed to investigate and punish
transgressors, who fined and imprisoned many of the most respectable
heritors and gentlemen, particularly in the west, and outlawed others
who had declined answering their summons.

Enemies to the gospel of Christ, the prelatic rulers did not confine
their opposition to the preaching of the “outted” ministers, the
indulged were at the same time subjected to greater burdens. It was
evidently one of their main objects to produce division among the
Presbyterian ministers; and as we have seen the indulgence was admirably
calculated to effect this, yet the breach being neither so wide nor so
violent as they wished, “instructions” were issued to them by the
council. Assuming that they had accepted of liberty to preach under
conditions, the council accused them of violating their engagements by
baptizing without the necessary certificates, and preaching in other
places than their own kirk, without any license from the bishop; and
they added this injunction, that they should not employ or allow any of
their brethren to preach for them who had not also obtained similar
liberty. The indulged eluded the charges, by alleging that they accepted
of the indulgence as a boon from government, not upon conditions, but as
a favour granted; and the instructions they considered as orders upon
which they were to act at their peril. But this neither satisfied the
council nor their brethren, both of whom concurred in thinking it an
evasion rather than an honest justification of their conduct. With the
injunction they appear to have complied also—a very unsatisfactory
procedure—which induced some, particularly of the younger unindulged
preachers, to visit the boundaries of their parishes, and led to
heart-burnings and mutual accusations between those who thought they
might yield a little to the pressure of the times, and those who in
nothing would recede from their avouched principles. These differences,
which afterwards unhappily led to coldness and estrangement among the
friends of “the good cause,” did not produce their most mischievous
effects till the oldest, stanch, tried worthies were removed from the
field. Meanwhile, the dispersion of the ministers, who, when they were
scattered abroad, went every where preaching the word, was eminently
blessed to promote that gospel it was intended to destroy, and
conventicles multiplied on every side both in houses and fields.

Of the period from 1673 to 1679, Shiels gives this animating picture on
reviewing it many years after, when the holy excitement had subsided,
and temporal prosperity had began to diffuse its seductive influence
over the revolution-church:—“When by persecution many ministers had been
chased away by illegal law sentences, many had been banished away, and,
by their ensnaring indulgences, many had been drawn away from their
duty; and others were now sentenced with confinements and restraints if
they should not choose and fix their residence where they could not keep
their quiet and conscience both—they were forced to wander and disperse
through the country; and the people being tired of the cold and dead
_curates_, and wanting long the ministry of their old _pastors_, so
longed and hungered after the _word_, that they behoved to have it at
any rate, cost what it would; which made them entertain the dispersed
ministers more earnestly, and encouraged them more to their duty; by
whose endeavours—through the mighty power and presence of God, and the
light of his countenance now shining through the cloud, after so fatal
and fearful a darkness that had overclouded the land for a while, that
it made their enemies gnash their teeth for pain, and dazzled the eyes
of all onlookers—the word of God grew exceedingly, and went through at
least the southern borders like lightning; or, like the sun in its
meridian beauty, discovering so the wonders of God’s law, the mysteries
of his gospel, and the secrets of his covenant, and the sins and duties
of that day, that a numerous issue was begotten to Christ, and his
conquest was glorious, captivating poor slaves of Satan and bringing
them from his power unto God, and from darkness to light.

“O! who can remember the glory of that day, without a melting heart in
reflecting upon what we have lost, and let go, and sinned away by our
misimprovement—a day of such power that it made the people, even the
bulk and body of the people, willing to come out and venture upon the
greatest of hardships, and the greatest of hazards, in pursuing after
the gospel, through mosses, and muirs, and inaccessible mountains,
summer and winter, through excess of heat and extremity of cold, many
days’ and nights’ journeys, even when they could not have a probable
expectation of escaping the sword of the wilderness. But this was a day
of such power, that nothing could daunt them from their duty that had
tasted once the sweetness of the Lord’s presence at these persecuted
meetings.

“Then we had such _humiliation-days_ for personal and public defections,
such _communion-days_ even in the open fields, and such
_Sabbath-solemnities_, that the places where they were kept might have
been called _Bethel_, or _Peniel_, or _Bochim_, and all of them
_Jehovah-Shammah_, wherein many were truly converted, more convinced,
and generally all reformed from their former immoralities; that even
robbers, thieves, and profane men, were some of them brought to a saving
subjection to Christ, and generally under such restraint, that all the
severities of heading and hanging in a great many years could not make
such a civil reformation as a few days of the gospel in these formerly
the devil’s territories, now Christ’s quarters, where his kingly
standard was displayed. I have not language to lay out the inexpressible
glory of that day; but I doubt if ever there were greater days of the
Son of Man upon the earth, than we enjoyed for the space of seven years
at that time.”[81]

Footnote 81:

  _Hind let Loose_, p. 132.

The border districts, so notorious in our earlier history as the fields
of constant plundering and murder, exhibited now amid their wild scenery
a warfare of a very different description. “What wonderful success,”
says Veitch, “the preaching of the word has had by ministers retiring
thither, under persecution, in order to the repressing, yea almost
extinguishing, these feuds, thefts, and robberies, that were then so
natural to that place and people, is worth a singular and serious
observation. These news ought to be matter of joy and thanksgiving to
all the truly godly in Britain, that, though the ark, the glory, and
goings of our God be, alas! too much removed from Shiloh-Ephratah, the
ingrounds, the places of greater outward plenty and pleasure, yet that
he is to be found in the borders of those lands, in the mountains and
fields of the woods. Some of the gentry on both sides of the borders
have been forced both to see and say that the gospel has done that which
their execution of the laws could never accomplish. And is not such a
change worthy of remark? to see a people who used to ride unweariedly
through the long winter nights to steal and drive away the prize, now,
upon the report of a sermon, come from far, travelling all night, to
hear the gospel; yea, some bringing their children along with them to
the ordinance of baptism, although the landlord threaten to eject the
tenant, and the master the servant, for so doing.”[82] Mr Gabriel Semple
gives a similar statement. “These borderers were looked upon to be
ignorant, barbarous, and debauched with all sort of wickedness, that
none thought it worth their consideration to look after them, thinking
that they could not be brought to any reformation. Yet, in the Lord’s
infinite mercy, the preaching to these borderers had more fruit than in
many places that were more civilized.”[83]

Footnote 82:

  Memoirs of William Veitch, written by himself, published by Dr M’Crie,
  p. 118.

Footnote 83:

  Semple’s Life MSS., in Dr Lee’s possession, quoted by Dr M’Crie, as
  above.

What ought to have filled the breast of every right-hearted minister of
the gospel with joy, excited the fellest passions in the bosoms of the
prelates, who evinced their filiation by doing the deeds of their
father, (John viii. 44,) furiously seeking to destroy those who declared
the truth; because, wherever a Presbyterian preacher came, the
Episcopalian churches were forsaken, and the curates were left to
harangue to empty pews. Political squabbling for power between Hamilton
and Lauderdale, had diverted the attention of the two parties for a
while from Scottish ecclesiastical affairs, which the ministers eagerly
took advantage of to pursue their sacred vocation, judging wisely that
the respite which they enjoyed would be at best precarious. When
Lauderdale gained the ascendency, they anticipated a longer continuance
of the “blink;”[84] but the clouds soon gathered thicker and darker. He
knew he could only maintain his own elevation by exalting Episcopacy;
and he quickly showed that his repeated declarations were not empty
bravadoes. More correct in their calculations, the bishops improved the
opportunity; and the council, his and their ready tool, issued fresh
proclamations against conventicles, increasing in severity as they
increased in number.

Footnote 84:

  “Blink”—a glimpse of sunshine in foul weather.

Averting their eyes from the loveliness of these bright prospects that
shone around them, they mourned withal “the sad and sensible decays
religion had of late suffered, and the great and dangerous increase of
profaneness through the most unreasonable and schismatical separation of
many from the public and established worship, and the frequent and open
conventicles, both in houses and fields, by such as thereby discover
their disaffection to the established religion, and their aversion to
his majesty’s authority and government, endangering the peace of the
kingdom, and dividing the church under pretence of scruple:” therefore,
to manifest their zeal for the glory of Almighty God, the interests of
the Protestant reformed religion, and of the church—to secure the same
by unity in worship, and procuring all due reverence to archbishops,
bishops, and all subordinate clerical officers—the magistrates of the
several burghs were specially required to seize upon all persons who
were, or should be, intercommuned, and to remove the families of such
from all places under their jurisdiction, together with all preachers
and their families who did not attend the public worship! All noblemen,
gentlemen, and others, were strictly forbid to afford shelter or aid to
any intercommuned person, upon pain of being themselves intercommuned;
and whosoever should discover those that transgressed, were to receive
five hundred merks reward immediately. Magistrates were also rendered
liable to severe fining, if they did not rigorously fulfil the
imperative duty of searching out and punishing all such as worshipped
God after the manner they chose to call heresy.

What means they thought lawful for obtaining information from suspected
persons, is evinced in their treatment of James Mitchell, who made the
unsuccessful attempt upon Sharpe. He had left the country at the time,
and did not return till he supposed the affair was forgotten, when he
married a woman who kept a small shop not far from the primate’s town
residence. In passing this way, his Grace observed a person eye him
keenly, which rather alarmed him, as he thought he recognized his foiled
assassin; and he caused him to be arrested. A pistol, loaded with three
bullets, being found in his pocket, increased his terror, and he became
extremely anxious to know the extent of his danger. Accordingly, before
the prisoner was examined, he swore by the living God, if he would
confess the act, he would obtain his pardon; and a committee of the
privy council, consisting of Rothes, Lord Chancellor; Primrose, Lord
Register; Nisbet, Lord Advocate; and Hatton, Treasurer-depute,
authorized by the Commissioner, gave him a similar assurance.
Disappointed, however, by his confession, as they expected to discover a
conspiracy, on finding he had no accomplice, and unwilling that he
should thus escape, they remitted him to the Justiciary Court, evading
their solemn engagement by a jesuitical quibble, that the promise of
securing his life did not guarantee the safety of his limbs. Having
received a hint, as he was passing to trial, he disclaimed his
confession at the bar; and there being no other proof, the judicial
proceedings were abandoned, or, in Scottish law-phrase, the “diet” was
deserted, and he was remanded to prison, where he remained till January
this year, when the spirit of cruelty which appeared to actuate the then
rulers against all who were rigid Presbyterians, especially preachers,
urged them to subject their unhappy victim to the torture.

About six o’clock in the evening of January 18th, Mitchell was brought
before a meeting of Justiciary, where the Earl of Linlithgow sat
president, and questioned whether he would adhere to his former
confession. He replied, that the Lord Advocate having deserted the diet
against him, he ought to have been, agreeably both to the law of the
nation and the practice of the court, set at liberty, and therefore knew
no reason why he was that night brought before their lordships. Without
any attention being paid to this strictly legal objection, he was again
asked, if he would adhere to his former confession? He refused to own
any confession; and Hatton most outrageously exclaimed, “that pannel is
one of the most arrogant cheats, liars, and rogues I have ever known!”
Mr Mitchell retorted, My lord, if there were fewer of those persons you
have been speaking of in the nation, I would not have been standing at
this bar. The President said, “We will cause a sharper thing make you
confess.” “I hope, my lord, you are Christians and not Pagans,” was the
prisoner’s response, with which the business of that evening closed.

Upon the 22d, he was brought before them in the lower Council-Chamber,
and the question repeated, the President at the same time pointing to
the boots, said, “You see, sir, what is upon the table; I will see if
that will make you confess.” “My lord,” answered Mitchell intrepidly, “I
confess by torture you may make me blaspheme God, as Saul did compel the
saints; you may compel me to call myself a thief, a murderer, a warlock,
or any thing, and then pannel me upon it; but if you shall, my lord, put
me to it, I here protest before God and your lordships, that nothing
extorted from me by torture shall be made use of against me in judgment,
nor have any force in law against me or any person whatsomever. But to
be plain with you, my lords, I am so much of a Christian, that whatever
your lordships shall legally prove against me, if it be a truth, I shall
not deny it; but, on the contrary, I am so much of a man, and a
Scottishman, that I never hold myself obliged by the law of God, nature,
or the nation, to become my own accuser.” Hatton rudely answered—“He
hath the devil’s logic, and sophisticates like him; ask him whether that
be his subscription.” “I acknowledge no such thing,” said the pannel,
and was remanded to jail.

Two days after, the judges, in formal pomp, arrayed in their robes, and
attended by the executioner with the instruments of torture, like true
inquisitors, first attempted to terrify their prisoner, before they
literally put him to the question. It was in vain. They could not shake
him. Had they not been dead to every nobler feeling of our nature, they
must have quailed when he thus addressed them:—“My lords, I have now
been these two full years in prison, and more than one of them in bolts
and fetters—more intolerable than many deaths. Some in a shorter time
have been tempted to make away with themselves; but, in obedience to the
express command of God, I have endured all these hardships, and I hope
to endure this torture also with patience, on purpose to preserve my own
life, and that of others also, as far as lies in my power, and to keep
the guilt of innocent blood off your lordships and your families, which
you doubtless would incur by shedding mine. I repeat my protest. When
you please, call for the men you have appointed to their work.” The
executioner being in attendance, immediately tied Mr Mitchell in an
arm-chair, and asked which of the legs he should take? The lords said,
“Any of them.” The executioner laid in the left; but Mr Mitchell taking
it out, said, “Since the judges have not determined, take the best of
the two; I bestow it freely in the cause.” He was interrogated about his
being at the battle of Pentland, his meeting with Wallace or with
Captain Arnot—all of which he could veritably answer in the negative.
The tormentor then began to drive the wedges, asking at every stroke if
he had any more to say? To this he generally replied “No.” After a
while, when the pain began to be excruciating, he exclaimed, again
addressing his inquisitors—“My lords, not knowing but this torture may
end my life, I beseech you to remember, that ‘he who showeth no mercy,
shall have judgment without mercy;’ for my own part, my lords, I do
freely and from my heart forgive you who are judges, and the men who are
appointed to go about this horrid work, and those who are satiating
their eyes in beholding. I do entreat that God may never lay it to the
charge of any of you, as I beg that God, for his Son Christ’s sake, may
be pleased to blot out my sin and mine iniquity.” At the ninth, the
sufferer fainted through the extremity of pain. “Alas! my lords,” said
the executioner, “he is gone!” The unfeeling wretches told him “he might
stop,” and coolly walked off. When Mitchell recovered, he was carried in
the same chair back to his prison. Here he continued till January 1677,
when he was sent to the Bass.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                BOOK X.


                            A.D. 1676-1677.


Remarkable sacramental solemnities occasion harsher measures—Council new
   modelled—Committee for public affairs—Kerr of Kersland—Kirkton—The
   expatriated pursued to Holland—Colonel Wallace.


Political power, combined with ecclesiastical, essentially forms a broad
basis for the most excruciating tyranny, especially in spiritual
matters, which admits of no medium between implicit obedience or cruel
constraint. Accordingly, we always find, after some of those hallowed
seasons in which the persecuted had been able to elude the vigilance of
their oppressors, and had experienced them to be indeed times of
refreshing from on high, that immediately some new and more violent
proclamation followed, attempting, had it been possible, to have
interdicted their sacred intercourse with heaven. Thus, the sacrament of
the Lord’s Supper having been longed for by many of those in the west
who could not receive it at the hands of the incumbents of their
parishes, several ministers resolved to celebrate it at different
places, which was accordingly done with peculiar solemnity, under the
covert of night, to numerous assemblages in the parish of Kippen,
Stirlingshire; at the House of Haggs, near Glasgow; and in a barn at
Kennyshead, parish of Eastwood; and it was remarked that the Lord very
much owned these communions as sweet sealing ordinances; but no sooner
were these doings whispered abroad, than a former proclamation against
conventicles was repeated, of more extensive comprehension, and imposing
a heavier penalty on every heritor in the land on whose estate they
should be held. Several council-committees were appointed to perambulate
the country, in order to enforce a vigorous execution of the extra-legal
mandates. This they did by requiring a number of respectable gentlemen
and ministers, whom they called before them, to declare upon oath what
conventicles they had attended since the year 1674, what number of
children they had seen baptized, and whether they had reset or harboured
any intercommuned persons. Those who appeared were fined in various
sums, according to their circumstances, from fifty merks to a thousand
pounds Scots. In this iniquitous inquisition, silence was construed into
contempt; and to refuse, what no human law has a right to require,
becoming one’s own accuser, was punished even more severely than an
acknowledgment of default.

At the same time, the council was new modelled. The primate was
appointed president in absence of the Chancellor, and the two
archbishops with any third creature of their own, formed a quorum of
“the committee for public affairs,” who assumed the entire management of
ecclesiastical matters, then the chief if not the whole of public
business. Perhaps the most detestable feature in the proceedings of this
execrable committee was the system of espionage they carried into
private life. An example will best illustrate the remark. Robert Kerr of
Kersland having been forced to go abroad with his family, his lady
returned to Scotland to arrange some little private business. He
followed secretly, and to his great grief found her sick of a fever when
he arrived, yet durst not lodge in the same house, but was wont to visit
her stealthily in the evenings. Robert Cannon of Mardrogat, a base spy,
who hypocritically attended the secret meetings of the persecuted, at a
time when he knew Kersland would be waiting on his sick lady, made
application to Lauderdale for a warrant to apprehend Mr John Welsh,
represented as then keeping a conventicle in her chamber. A friend of
her’s who was with the Commissioner when he received the information,
assured him that it was false, as she knew that Lady Kersland was very
unwell. The warrant, however, was granted, but with express instructions
from Lauderdale that the sick lady should not be disturbed if no
conventicle appeared in the house.

A party came—there was no conventicle—and they were departing; but the
reptile informer had told one of them that when any strangers came into
the room, Kersland was wont to secrete himself behind the bed. He,
accordingly, stepped direct to the place, and drawing the gentleman from
his concealment, ordered him to surrender his arms. Kersland told him he
had no arms but the Bible—the sword of the Spirit—which he presented to
him. He was immediately made prisoner. When led away, his wife displayed
great composure, and besought him to do nothing that might wound his
conscience out of regard for her or her children, repeating earnestly as
he left her—“No man having put his hand to the plough, and looking back,
is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Before the council, he undauntedly defended the patriotic “rising” at
Pentland, as a lawful effort in defence of their liberties; on which he
was immediately ordered to prison. When being carried off, the
Chancellor sneeringly asked him what it was his lady said to him at
parting? He replied “he did not exactly remember.” “Then I will refresh
your memory—she exhorted you to cleave to the good old cause;—ye are a
sweet pack!” He was after this imprisoned in different jails for several
years, till at last, being ordered into close confinement in Glasgow
tolbooth, to be kept there during the archbishop’s pleasure, who had a
personal dislike at him, a dreadful fire most opportunely broke out in
the town, which threatening the prison, the populace with instinctive
humanity released all the inmates; and Kersland among the rest regained
his liberty.[85] He then went to Holland, the common asylum for
Protestant sufferers, and died at Utrecht, in November 1680.

Footnote 85:

  “Nov. 3, 1677. The fire brake up in Glasgow in the heid of the
  Salt-mercat, on the right, near the cross, which was kyndled by a
  malicious boy, a smith’s apprentice, who being threatened, or beatt
  and smittin by his master, in revenge whereof setts his work-house on
  fyre in the night-tyme, being in the backsides of that forestreet, and
  flyes for it. It was kyndled about one in the morning; and having
  brunt many in the backsyde, it breaks forth in the fore streets about
  three of the morning; and then it fyres the street over against it,
  and in a very short tyme burned down to more than the mids of the
  Salt-mercat; on both sydes fore and back houses were all consumed. It
  did burn also on that syd to the Tron Church, and two or three
  tenaments down on the heid of the Gallowgate. The heat was so great,
  that it fyred the horologe of the tolbooth (there being some prisoners
  it at that tyme, amongst whom the Laird of Carsland was one, the
  people brake open the tolbooth-doors and sett them free); the people
  made it all their work to gett out their goods out of the houses; and
  there was little done to save houses till ten of the cloke, for it
  burnt till two hours afternoon. It was a great conflagration and
  nothing inferior to that which was in the yeir 1652. The wind changed
  several tymes. Great was the cry of the poor people, and lamentable to
  see their confusion. It was remarkable that a little before that tyme,
  there was seen a great fyre pass through these streets in the
  night-tyme, and strange voices heard in some parts of the city.”
  _Law’s Memorials_, p. 135.

Perhaps a more flagrant and vexatious example of the harassment to which
honest individuals were then exposed can scarcely be given, than that of
the venerable Kirkton the historian. He was walking along the High
Street of Edinburgh at mid-day, in the month of June, when—but we shall
let him tell his own tale—“he was very civilly accosted by a young
gentleman, Captain Carstairs, attended by another gentleman and a
lackey. Carstairs desyred to speak a word with him, to which he answered
he would wait upon him; but because he knew not to whom he spake, he
quietly asked the other gentleman (James Scott of Tushiclaw) who this
young gentleman might be; but Scott answered with silence and staring.
Then Mr Kirkton perceived he was prisoner among his enemies, but was
very glade they carried him to a private house, and not to the prison,
which they were very near; but they carried him to Carstairs’ chamber,
ane ugly dark hole, in Robert Alexander, messenger, his house. As soon
as ever he was brought into the house, Carstairs abused him with his
tongue, and pusht him till he got him into his own chamber, which made
the people of the house weep. After he hade got him into his ugly
chamber, he sent away Scott and Douglass, his lackey, (as Mr Kirkton
supposed) to fetch his companions; but as soon as they were alone, Mr
Kirkton askt him what he meant? what he would doe with him? Carstairs
answered, sir, you owe me money. Mr Kirkton askt him whom he took him to
be, denying he owed him any thing. Carstaires answered, are not you John
Wardlaw? Mr Kirkton denied, telling him who he was indeed. Then
Carstaires answered, if he were Mr Kirkton he hade nothing to say to
him. Mr Kirkton askt him who he was. He answered he was Scott of
Erkletone, whom indeed he did much resemble, but spoke things so
inconsistent, Mr Kirkton knew not what to think; for if Carstaires had
designed to make him prisoner, he might easily have done it before. But
after they hade stayed together about half an hour, Mr Kirkton begane to
think Carstaires desired money, and was just beginning to make his offer
of money to Carstaires, when Jerviswood, Andrew Stevenson, and Patrick
Johnston came to the chamber-door, and called in to Carstaires, asking
what he did with a man in a dark dungeon, and all alone? Mr Kirkton
finding his friends come, tooke heart. ‘Now,’ sayes Mr Kirkton to
Carstaires, ‘there be some honest gentlemen at your door, who will
testifie what I am, and that I am not John Wardlaw; open the door to
them.’ ‘That will I not,’ sayes Carstaires, and with that layes his hand
on his pocket-pistoll; which Mr Kirkton perceiving, thought it high time
to appear for himself, and so clapt Carstaires closs in his armes; so
mastering both his hands and his pistoll, they struggled a while in the
floor; but Carstaires being a feeble body, was borne back into a corner.
The gentlemen without hearing the noise, and one crying out of murther,
burst quickly the door open (for it hade neither key nor bolt,) and so
entered, and quietly severed the stragglers, tho’ without any violence
or hurt done to Carstaires.

“As soon as Mr Kirkton and the gentlemen had left Carstaires alone,
Scott, his companion, came to him, and they resolved not to let it goe
so, but to turn their private violence into state service; and so to
Hatton they goe with their complaint; and he upon the story calls all
the lords of the councill together, (tho’ they were all at dinner,) as
if all Edinburgh hade been in armes to resist lawfull authority, for so
they represented it to the councill: and he told the councill when they
were conveened that their publick officers hade catcht a fanatick
minister, and that he was rescued by a numerous tumult of the people of
Edinburgh. The councill tryed what they could, and examined all they
could find, and after all could discover nothing upon which they could
fasten. Mr Kirkton hade informed his friends that it was only a reall
robbery designed, and that indeed money would have freed him, if
Carstaires and he hade finished what he begune to offer; and the
councill could find no more in it, and so some councillors were of
opinion. But Bishop Sharpe told them that except Carstaires were
encouraged, and Jerviswood made ane example, they needed never think a
man would follow the office of hunting fanaticks; and upon this all
those who resolved to follow the time and please bishops, resolved to
give Sharpe his will. So the next councill-day, after much high and hot
debate in the councill, Jerviswood was fyned 9000 merks—[£562. 10s.
sterling, a grievous sum in those days]—(3000 [£187. 10s.] of it to be
given to Carstaires for a present reward;) Andrew Stevenson was fyned
1500 merks [£92. 15s.]; and Patrick Johnston in 1000 [£62. 10s.]; and
all three condemned to ly in prison till Mr Kirkton was brought to
relieve them.”

It would be difficult to find language to designate this transaction.
Kirkton further informs us that it occasioned “great complaining,” and
“all the reason the councill gave of their severe sentence was, that
they found Jerviswood guilty of resisting authority by Captain
Carstaires’ production of his warrand before the councill. But this did
not satisfie men of reason; for, first, it was thought unaccountable
that a lybell should be proven by the single testimony of ane infamous
accuser against the declaration of three unquestionable men, and all the
witnesses examined. Next, Carstaires’ producing a warrand at the
councill table, did not prove that he produced any warrand to
Jerviswood, and, indeed, he produced none to him, because he had no
warrand himself at that time; as for the warrand he produced, it was
writ and subscribed by Bishop Sharpe after the deed was done, tho’ the
bishop gave it a false date long before the true day.” What infuriated
the council, was the deep interest the inhabitants of Edinburgh took in
this foul business; when it came before them, the passages to the
Council-chamber were crowded with anxious inquirers; and it was debated
at the council-board, whether all who were in the lobby should be
imprisoned or not?—it was decided not, only by one voice.

[1677.] Prelatic inveteracy was not, however, bounded by Scotland, it
pursued into other countries those who found among foreign Protestants
that freedom of conscience denied them at home. Messrs Robert Macwaird
and Mr John Brown, two eminent ministers, who had sought refuge in
Holland, having been requested by the other Scottish refugees to
exercise their sacred function among them at Rotterdam, the
states-general were instantly required by Charles to dismiss them from
their territories; and, in order to escape a war with England, were
forced to comply with the tyrant’s demand, yet not till they had
afforded their respected guests an opportunity of disposing of their
effects to the best advantage and looking out for another asylum.

The persevering rancour of Charles, and the reluctance of the states,
occasioned a protracted discussion of two days in their senate; and Sir
William Temple declared that it had been the hardest piece of
negotiation he had ever entered upon. Its issue was productive of a
nobler and more durable testimony to the worth of the persecuted exiles,
than could otherwise have been procured, and will hand down to posterity
the everlasting remembrance of these righteous men, while the memory of
the worthless monarch shall rot. The states entered on their record a
resolution, importing that “the foresaid three Scotsmen have not only
behaved and comported themselves otherwise than as became good and
faithful citizens of these states, but have also given many indubitable
proofs of their zeal and affection for the advancement of the truth,
which their High Mightinesses have seen with pleasure, and could have
wished that they could have continued to live here in peace and
security.” Besides which, each received a separate testimonial on their
departure. The following is a copy of the one put into the hands of
Colonel Wallace:—“The States-General of the United Netherlands, to all
and every one who shall see or read these presents, health: Be it known
and certified that James Wallace, gentleman, our subject, and for many
years inhabitant of this state, lived among us highly esteemed for his
probity, submission to the laws, and integrity of manners. And therefore
we have resolved affectionately to request, and hereby do most earnestly
request, the Emperor of the Romans, and all Kings, Republics, Princes,
Dukes, States, Magistrates, or whomsoever else our friends, and all that
shall see these presents, that they receive the said James Wallace in a
friendly manner whenever he may come to them, or resolve to remain with
them, and assist him with their council, help, and aid; testifying, that
for any obliging, humane, or kindly offices done to him, we shall be
ready and forward to return the favour to them and their subjects
whensoever an opportunity offers. For the greater confirmation whereof,
we have caused these presents to be sealed with our seal of office, and
signed by the President of our Assembly, the sixth day of the month of
February, in the year one thousand six hundred and seventy-seven.”

Colonel Wallace was afterwards forced to lurk about the borders of
France or the Netherlands, whence he addressed to “the Lady Caldwell,
widow of William Mure of Caldwell,” the following letter, which I give
as a specimen of the seditious correspondence he was accused of holding
with the fanatics:—

    “ELECT LADY AND MY WORTHIE AND DEAR SISTER,—Your’s is come to my
    hand in most acceptable tyme. It seems that all that devils or
    men these many years have done (and that has not been lytle)
    against yow, to dant your courage, or to make yow, in the
    avoweing of your master and his persecuted interests, to loore
    your sailes hes prevailed so lytle, that your fayth and courage
    is upon the groweing hand, ane evidence indeed to your
    persecuters of perdition, bot to yow of salvation, and that of
    God. It seems when yow at first by choyce tooke Christ by the
    hand to be your Lord and portion, that yow wist what yow did;
    and that notwithstandeing all the hardnesses yow have met with
    in bydeing by him, your heart seems to cleave the faster to him.
    This sayes yow have been admitted into much of his company and
    fellowship. My sowle blesses God on your behalf who hath so
    caryed to yow, that I think yow may take those words, amongst
    others, spoken to you—‘Yow have continued with me in my
    aflictions; I appoint unto yow a kingdom.’ It seems suffering
    for Christ, loseing any thing for him, is to yow your glory—is
    to yow your gayn. More and more of this spirit maye yow enjoye,
    that yow may be among the few (as it was said of Caleb and
    Joshua) that followed him fullie—among the overcomers, those
    noble overcomers, mentioned Revel. ii. and iii.—among those to
    whom only (as pickt out and chosen for that end) he is sayeing,
    ‘Yow are my witnesses.’ Lady and my dear sister, I am of your
    judgement; and I blesse his name that ever he counted me worthie
    to appear in that roll. It is now a good many years since the
    master was pleased to even me to this, and to call me forth to
    appear for him; and it is trew these fortie years bygone (as to
    what I have mett with from the world) I have been as the people
    in the wilderness; yet I maye saye it to this howre, I never
    repented my ingadgements to him, or any of my owneings of him;
    yea, these rebutes to say so I gott from men, wer to me my joye
    and crowne, because I know it was for his sake I was so dealt
    with; and this, it being for his sake, I was ready in that case
    (as Christ sayes) when men had taken me upon the one cheek for
    his sake, to turn to them the other also. Never was I admitted
    to more neerness, never was my table better covered, then since
    I left Rotterdam. Let us take courage and goe on as good
    soldiers of Jesus Christ, endureing hardnes. O for more fayth! O
    for more fayth among his people! As to this people, there is
    nothing to be seen in their waye that is promiseing of any good;
    bot on the contrar. O! I feare the Lord hes given them up unto
    their owne heart’s lusts. They doe indeed walke in their owne
    counsels. That same spirit of persecution, and these same
    principles, that are among you, are heir; bot as God is
    faythfull, they shall be all brocken to pieces and turned backe
    with shame that hate Zion. Wayt but a lytle; they are diggeing
    the pit for themselves. The Lord hath founded Zion, and the
    poore of the people shall trust in it. Let us mynd one another.
    My love to all friends whom yow know I love in the Lord. God’s
    grace be with yow, and his blessing upon your lytle ones whom he
    hath been a father to. In him I rest. Your’s as formerly.

                                            “JA. WALLACE.”


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                BOOK XI.


                               A.D. 1677.


Meeting of the ministers in Edinburgh—Prosecutions for not attending the
   kirk—Lord Cardross—Conventicle at Culross—Bond—Lauderdale comes to
   Scotland—Pretended moderation—Alarm of the bishops—Carstairs attacks
   John Balfour’s house—Council’s design of raising a standing
   force—Resolutions of the West country gentlemen—Conventicles
   increase—Communion at East Nisbet—Common field-meeting—King
   authorizes calling in the Highland clans.


Early in the year, a pretty large meeting, both of the indulged and
unindulged ministers, had been held in Edinburgh, for the purpose of
considering the religious state of the country, and for endeavouring to
heal the differences which still subsisted among themselves respecting
what should have been long before dismissed as vexatious—the conduct of
those who had declared against the resolutions, and who still lay under
the sentence of some of the church courts. It commenced inauspiciously,
Mr Blackadder having proposed that before they proceeded to business,
some time should be set apart for fasting and humiliation on account of
their defections, especially the tokens of disunion which began to
appear respecting the indulgence. This gave rise to some unpleasant
altercation. Mr Richard Cameron, then a probationer, with two others,
being called to account for their preaching separation from the
indulged, declined the right of the meeting to interfere with their
conduct, it not being a lawfully constituted judicatory, and continued
to express their disapprobation of the indulgence and of such as
accepted it.

Eighteen years’ persecution had now thinned the ranks of the earliest
and most experienced of the “outted” ministers, who, although they never
approved of the conduct of the indulged, yet had striven by all means to
live in brotherly fellowship with them. But as age and infirmity, or
death, removed them from the field, their places were supplied by young
zealous preachers, who being educated among the sufferers, and
associating only with them, were not fully aware of the evils of
division, nor did they sufficiently guard against the causes of it. In
their sermons, the older ministers proclaimed the glad tidings of
salvation through a crucified Saviour, and the necessity of fleeing for
refuge to the hope set before them in the gospel; and dwelt not so much
upon the immediate causes of their persecution, although they did not
shun in declaring the whole truth, to vindicate their allegiance to
Christ as sole Head and King of the church, bearing ample testimony
against the usurped supremacy of their temporal monarch and the tyranny
of his ecclesiastical creatures, the bishops. On the other hand, as was
remarked by one of themselves, the younger and more inexperienced
ministers insisted more strenuously in their sermons upon the
controverted points; and in their private intercourse spoke too sharply
of the conduct of such as did not go their lengths, by putting harsh
constructions upon their actions, and perhaps flattered too much some
“frothy professors,” not properly considering the difference between a
proselyte to a party and a true Christian. Upon these topics they
delighted to expatiate, till their minds became highly excited; and,
unhappily, instead of moderating, encouraged a similar humour among
their hearers, in the hope of managing them, though sometimes they
themselves were forced by the people to go farther than they intended or
inclined.

The fervour of numbers of young converts newly brought in by the gospel
run high. The zeal and success of the first reformers, and of those more
lately in 1638, were with them animating and frequent subjects of
conversation; their conduct was much extolled, while that of the
ministers’ in leaving their charges in 1662, and the people’s in
suffering the curates to be thrust in and hearing them, was as greatly
condemned. The king’s perjury, too, was often held up to execration, and
his assumed supremacy represented as an object of equal abhorrence with
that of the man of sin.

The meeting, however, after these disagreeables were discussed, decided
that the sentences should be removed, and that both parties should hold
ministerial communion. They also advised that the indulged should invite
those who were not, to preach in their pulpits; and likewise that they
should themselves preach “wherever” a proper opportunity offered, and
the necessities of the people required. With this last recommendation
many of the ministers readily complied; and the people evincing a great
desire for hearing, conventicles continued to multiply, and so numerous
was the attendance, that it was found unadvisable to execute the severe
laws against them to their full extent, only a few conspicuous
individuals of the richer or more active, were singled out for
persecution, to satisfy the vengeance of the prelates and the avarice of
the needy gentry or soldiers. Robert Blae, late bailie in Culross, was
fined four thousand merks for one conventicle—Adam Stobbie of Luscar,
three thousand, for withdrawing from public ordinances, aggravated by
converse with intercommuned persons; and, after payment of the fine, was
ordered to be transported furth of the kingdom—John Anderson, younger of
Dowhill, accused of a tract of non-conformity, which the prosecutor
being unable to prove, the whole was referred to his oath, when he
refusing to swear, was held as confessed. But he voluntarily
acknowledged that he had for several years deserted his own church at
Glasgow, and heard the indulged, by one of whom he had had a child
baptized, and that he had been at five conventicles; for which grievous
offences, and because he would not promise to hear his parish minister,
he was amerced in four hundred pounds sterling, and ordered to lie in
Edinburgh tolbooth till it was paid. After remaining about four months
in prison, he compounded for nearly the half and got out. Nor were
ladies treated with more tenderness, Lady Kinkel being fined five
thousand merks, and Lady Pitlochie one thousand, because they dared to
hear the gospel preached by men who understood it, and declined
countenancing the ministrations of state-puppets.

One of the most popular of the persecuted preachers, and peculiarly
obnoxious to the primate, was Mr James Fraser of Brea, a gentleman by
birth, and possessed of considerable property. He happened about this
time to be in Edinburgh, and the town-major being solicited by Sharpe,
was induced by great promises of reward, meanly to entice a servant-maid
of one of his relations with whom he lodged, to betray him. When engaged
in family worship upon Sabbath evening, January 28, about ten o’clock
the major burst in, caught the culprit in the very act, seized him, and
haled him off to prison; then went rejoicing to the archbishop, who,
delighted with the intelligence, rewarded the exploit by a piece of
money and a promise of more; and, next morning at day-dawn, sent strict
orders to the jailer to keep Mr Fraser close, nor permit any person to
have access to him, till he was examined by a committee of the council.
When he appeared before them, he was questioned as to his being a
preacher at field-conventicles, which, as it was a capital offence by
law, he declined answering. He acknowledged that he was, although most
unworthy, a minister of the gospel, independently of the bishops, but
denied that the subject of his discourses was either disloyal or
traitorous as the archbishop asserted—what he preached was repentance
towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, and no other thing
than what was contained in the prophets and the New Testament. That, as
for rising up in arms against the king, upon the pretext of religion,
which the archbishop alleged, he maintained he had expressly told him,
that he never knew any of the most zealous asserters of the liberties of
the people who maintained the propriety of rising in arms upon pretence
of religion—pretences affording no ground or warrant for any man’s
conduct. Respecting matters of prerogative and privilege, these were
things of a ticklish and thorny nature, not within his sphere, nor did
he think himself called to meddle with them. As to preaching the gospel
either in houses or fields, when opportunity offered, so far from
thinking it unlawful, he believed it to be duty; and meetings for this
purpose, to be ordinances of Christ, instead of “rendezvouses of
rebellion,” as the archbishop termed them. Being insidiously asked,
seeing these were his opinions, whether he had ever preached in the
fields? he refused to acknowledge that he had, adding, that if they
thirsted after his blood, and wished to take his life on that account,
they could not expect he should himself reach them the weapon. Let them
bring proof; for he was resolved no man living should find him guilty of
such a weakness as turning evidence against himself.

After his examination, he was sent back to prison, to be kept in
solitary confinement; but that night, he remarks in his Memoirs, was the
sweetest he had enjoyed for many years—“The Lord was a light round about
me, and HIM they could not shut out; I was lifted up above death, sin,
hell, and wrath, and the fears of prelates and papists, by a full sense
of the divine favour!” Next morning he was awoke about six o’clock, and
ordered to make ready to march for the Bass, where he was carried
accordingly, and remained there till July 1679.

Subjected to the caprice of their jailer, the situation of the prisoners
here was extremely uncomfortable, especially such of them as had moved
in the middle and higher ranks of life. Their female servants were
frequently changed; whenever any appeared to be attentive or
sympathizing, they were turned away and new ones sent, or, what was
worse, they were attempted by the ruffian soldiers, who, if they
succeeded, would shamelessly charge the ministers with the crime.
Sometimes they were shut up in holes in the rock, and deprived even of
the society of their fellow-sufferers—their letters were intercepted,
opened, and read—their provisions, which they were obliged to purchase
from the governor, were extravagantly dear, and consisted chiefly of
hard fish and oatmeal—melted snow was their common drink in winter, or,
at other times, a little brackish water, unless they paid well for the
spring—they were harassed by the soldiers obtruding rudely among them
and vexing them by their obscenities and blasphemies, or endeavouring to
ensnare them upon political topics, especially upon the Lord’s day, or
when they observed others in serious conversation with them about their
souls; for their confinement there was blessed to the conversion of
several of their keepers, who would never otherwise have come under the
sound of the gospel.

But perhaps the most outrageous act of pillage which occurred this year,
was perpetrated upon Lord Cardross. On the 7th of August, he was served
with an indictment for having had two children baptized by persons who
were not his own parish ministers, nor authorized by the established
government of the church, nor licensed by the privy council. His
lordship’s defence was cogent and irrefragable. He had one child born to
him in the town of Edinburgh, while he was confined prisoner in the
Castle; and not being permitted to attend his wife in her confinement,
nor perform any duty relating to the infant, he did not conceive himself
concerned in the act of parliament respecting baptisms, being in no
liberty or capacity to satisfy its appointment; nor did he inquire
further than to learn that the child was truly and Christianly baptized,
without once asking by what minister the same was done;—seeing,
therefore, that the foresaid act was made expressly against wilful
withdrawers, and such as presumed to offer their children to be baptized
otherwise than is therein ordained, these things were nowise chargeable
upon him a prisoner, having neither ordinary parish, or settled family,
nor so much as access to have presented his child for baptism. In
conclusion, he appealed to the moderation of the council, reminding them
of his protracted sufferings; and informing them that the child was
since deceased, besought them not to add affliction to the afflicted;
but he appealed in vain. These men had no feeling. He was robbed of half
a year’s valued rent of his estate, because his lady in his absence had
performed an act of maternal piety towards her child.

While the council were thus urging the pecuniary processes, in order
more vigorously to incite their already too willing agents, they
warranted the sheriffs, bailies of regalities, and other inferior
officers, to appropriate to themselves the fines levied from all persons
below the degree of an heritor; and, for those of heritors, they were to
reckon with them. Of the extent of these exactions, no proper account
remains; but as several of the soldiers received large donations, the
sums must have been considerable; and the persecutions were chiefly
carried on against those who could pay. In cases where the
under-officials were remiss, “the committee for public affairs,” who
were always upon the alert, took the matter under their own cognizance.
A conventicle having been kept at Culross, on a Sabbath about this time,
was dispersed by the military, and eighteen persons sent to jail. The
committee finding that some of them had been set at liberty without
their permission, ordered the magistrates to call them all back to
prison, and “condescended” upon the most substantial of them, whom they
appointed the said magistrates to produce before the council within
eight days, to be dealt with as they should deserve, _i. e._ fined
according to their circumstances.

Besides its all-pervading inquisition abroad and at home, the prelatic
despotism of Charles had a malignity peculiarly its own, that delighted
to destroy the very profession of Presbyterianism. The wretched, or, as
he has been designated, “the merry monarch,” used to say,
Presbyterianism was not the religion of a gentleman. I cannot pretend to
define the religion of a gentleman; but if his majesty’s were a
specimen, the more dissimilar Presbyterianism was to it the better.[86]

Footnote 86:

  Evelyn, certainly no Whig, gives the following description of a Sunday
  at court:—“I can never forget the inexpressible luxury and
  profaneness, gaming, and all dissoluteness, and as it were total
  forgetfulness of God, it being Sunday, which this day se’enight I was
  witness of. The king sitting and toying with his concubines,
  Portsmouth, Cleveland, and Mazarine. A French boy singing love songs
  in that glorious gallery, while about seventy of the great courtiers,
  and other dissolute persons, were at basset round a large table; a
  bank of at least £2000 in gold before them, upon which the gentlemen
  who were with me made reflections with astonishment.” _Mem._ vol. i.
  p. 585.

To be grave and decorous in conduct, devout and consistent in religious
observances, were considered as unequivocal marks of Whiggery and
disloyalty. At this period a majority of the inhabitants of the Scottish
Lowlands were so distinguished, particularly in the west and south-west;
and these quarters coming more immediately in contact with the
prelatists were more severely visited, as they were stanch to their
principles, and zealous for their creed. There, therefore, the bitterest
efforts of the government were directed.

Upon the 2d of August, a proclamation was issued for enforcing a bond,
obliging the subscribers, with their wives, children, cottars, and
servants, regularly to attend public worship in their parish churches,
and not to be present at any conventicles, neither at any marriage or
baptism, except such as were duly celebrated or administered by a
regular incumbent, under the statutory penalties. A few days after, a
commission was appointed to carry this act into execution. Immediately a
very full meeting of the noblemen, gentlemen, and heritors of Ayrshire
assembled, at which a representation was drawn up, refusing the bond, as
requiring impossibilities; for they asserted the councillors themselves
were unable to enforce compliances in their own families, and how did
they expect plain country gentlemen to become bound for numbers over
whom they could, in these matters, have no control? but they proposed an
easier and surer expedient for preserving the peace of the country, and
that was by extending and protecting the liberty of the Presbyterians.
The council was highly displeased at this address; and the Earl of
Loudon, by whom it was signed, was in consequence exposed to so many
unpleasant attacks, that he went into voluntary exile, and died at
Leyden. Clydesdale followed Ayrshire. The Duke of Hamilton opposed it;
and the heritors of Lanarkshire, at a full meeting, unanimously agreed
to decline the bond; even those who were not partial to Presbyterianism
reprobated it, as fraught with ruin to their estates, seeing they could
not promise for all their own families and servants at all times, much
less for those of their tenants.

The vexations occasioned by the bond, added to the other severities, had
spread so widely, that it was computed, before the end of this year
(1677), about seventeen thousand persons, of every rank, sex, and
age—from the noble to the cottar-servant, man, woman, and child—from the
grey-headed veteran to the infant at the breast, who was forced to lodge
with its intercommuned mother on the heath—had suffered, or were
suffering every extremity for no crime but hearing the gospel, and
worshipping their Maker according to their conscience.

Lauderdale having come down to Scotland with his Duchess, to get one of
her daughters by her former husband married to Lord Lorn, afterwards
first Duke of Argyle, the Presbyterian ministers in Glasgow, Paisley,
Hamilton, and the neighbouring districts, thinking that when he came
upon so joyous an occasion, he would be more susceptible of kindlier
feelings, deputed Mr Matthew Crawford to proceed to Edinburgh and
consult with their brethren there, to try if possible to get the
sentence of intercommuning pronounced against so many of their faithful
fellow-labourers annulled, and the prisoners on the Bass released. Mr
Anthony Murray, a relation of the Duchess, who was employed to intercede
with the Duke, obtained an interview, and urged his Grace to grant this
their humble request; but all the answer he obtained was, “as for
himself, he (Lauderdale) was ready to do him any kindness in his power,
but he would grant no favour to that party, because they were unworthy
of any.” Next council day, however, when several of the lords
represented that pressing the bond would ruin their tenants and lay
their lands waste, he seemed inclined to relax, and not only spoke about
a third indulgence, but even intimated his desire for it to some of the
ministers by Lord Melville; and commissioners were in consequence sent
from several parts of the country to consult about a supplication to the
king. No sooner did the two archbishops learn what was in agitation,
than they vehemently assailed the Duke, complaining heavily of his
concessions to their enemies; in reply, he assured them he had no
intention of granting any liberty to non-conformists, only it was
necessary to amuse them till he got a force raised sufficient to
suppress them, as they were then too numerous to be rashly meddled with.
The representations, however, which he had received, subscribed by so
many respectable heritors, who could not be considered fanatics, were
not to be altogether despised; and, in the month of October, the council
enacted (Sir George Mackenzie, who had lately been admitted to be his
majesty’s advocate, says upon his suggestion)[87]—that if any person who
is cited be ready to depone or pay his fine, he be not troubled with
taking of bonds or other engagements, the law itself being the strongest
bond that can be exacted of any man; and all the expenses of process
were to be remitted.

Footnote 87:

  Mackenzie’s Hist. p. 322. Sir John Nisbet was turned off because he
  would not give the rapacious Duchess of Lauderdale a sum of money; and
  Sir George Mackenzie, whose memory was long execrated in Scotland as
  “the bloody Mackenzie,” was made king’s advocate, Sept. 7, this year.
  Primrose had been removed from the lucrative place of clerk-register
  by the same influence, and Sir Thomas Murray, a friend of her own, was
  nominally appointed; “but her Grace hade from him the profits of the
  place. To stop Sir Archibald’s mouth, they bestowed upon him the
  office of justice-general, and sore against his heart.” _Kirkton’s
  Hist._ p. 383.

Knowing well the unstable nature of their eminence, the prelates were
tremblingly alive to whatever they imagined might shake it; and they
instantly took the alarm at these equivocal symptoms of moderation,
which they supposed had that tendency. Like others in later times, they
commenced their attacks upon the liberty of the people, by endeavouring
to work upon their fears. Rumours were spread of extensive conspiracies
which had no existence, and terrible plots which no one had ever heard
of but themselves. On the present occasion, an incidental scuffle gave
some grounds for raising the cry of insurrection, and bringing in a host
of barbarians to live at free quarters upon a peaceable population.
Carstairs, elated by the nefarious premium which he had obtained for his
infamous conduct towards Kirkton, and desirous of showing his gratitude
to Sharpe, from whom he had his commission, redoubled his activity
against the Presbyterians, and was guilty of numerous revolting
atrocities in the eastern quarters of Fife. The heartless wretch had
turned Lady Colville out of doors in the month of October, and forced
her to wander houseless on the mountains and in the fields, at the risk
of her life and to the great detriment of her health. He had imprisoned
not a few respectable inhabitants; and, patrolling the district attended
by some dozen vagabond concurrences,[88] without any other authority
than the archbishop’s commission, under pretext of searching for the
intercommuned persons, he broke into gentlemen’s houses, seized their
horses, and was guilty of various plunderings, as also divers wanton
outrages.

Footnote 88:

  A concurrence—the lowest attendant upon messenger or sheriff-officers.

A few gentlemen, six or seven, some of whom were obnoxious to
government, having casually met in the house of John Balfour of Kinloch,
or Burleigh, the same miscreant who had scented them out, suddenly
advanced on the house, with twelve of the “bishop’s evangelists” on
horseback. The gentlemen were altogether taken by surprise, and one of
them happened to be standing outside when they came up. Philip Garret,
an Irish tinker—one of the said worthies—the first in advance, seeing a
person at the door, without asking any questions, fired but missed; and
the gentleman immediately went into the house. Garret dismounted and was
following; but the gentlemen within being by this time alarmed, one of
them fired, and Garret fell wounded in the shoulder. Carstairs’ party
returned the salute in at the windows of the chamber where the gentlemen
were, and wounded one of them. The others then sallied forth and briskly
attacked their assailants, who instantly fled. They pursued for a while,
but no more blood was shed. Garret afterwards recovered.

This act of justifiable self-defence against an illegal attack of
unauthorized ruffians was eagerly seized upon by the prelatists, who
were watching for some occurrence which might justify them in using “a
vigour beyond law” which they meditated against the Presbyterians. At
their instigation, the council declared it an high act of rebellion and
resisting of lawful authority; summoned the actors before them; and,
upon their non-appearance, denounced them as rebels, and delated the
whole body as accomplices or abettors of the deed.

Charles, whose designs upon the constitution of England and freedom of
the people—now beginning to be discovered—had involved him with his
English parliament, exceedingly anxious to get a pretext for keeping up
a standing army, communicated his wishes to Lauderdale, who, readily
entering into them, proposed first to try some such measure in Scotland,
where he knew he would be backed by the whole prelatic interest, and
gratify at once the bishops and the king. Instructions were accordingly
transmitted to the council, who, in “a frequent meeting,” held on the
17th of October, sent particular expresses by sure bearers to the Earls
of Glencairn and Dundonald and Lord Ross, to call together the
commissioners of the excise, and militia, and justices of the peace, at
Irvine, on the 2d of November, and to represent to them how highly his
majesty was displeased at the extraordinary insolences committed in
these shires, by abusing the orthodox clergy, invading their pulpits,
setting up conventicle-houses, and keeping scandalous and seditious
conventicles in the fields—these great seminaries of rebellion—and
requiring them to take such effectual course for reducing these shires
to a quiet obedience of his majesty’s laws—the true and only rule of
loyalty and faithfulness—as might prevent severer measures from being
taken for securing the peace; and informing them, in case of their
failure, that the council was fully resolved to repress by force all
rebellious and factious proceedings, without respect to the
disadvantages of the heritors, whom his majesty would then look upon as
involved in such a degree of guilt as would allow of the greatest
severity being used against that country.

The shires now denounced were the wealthiest and most civilized, as well
as the most religious districts in the ancient kingdom; they therefore
presented the additional lure of a rich harvest of plunder, especially
as they abounded in that class, the strength and sinews of a nation, the
small landed proprietors-yeomen—or, as they were styled, heritors, who
were generally well educated and particularly versed in the polemics of
the day. A meeting of these, therefore, was called, when the following
resolutions were adopted, after two days’ serious deliberation:—1st,
They found it not within the compass of their power to suppress
conventicles. 2d, A toleration of Presbyterians is the only proper
expedient for preserving the peace; and, 3d, It should be granted to an
extent equal to what his majesty had graciously vouchsafed to his
kingdoms of England and Ireland. These resolutions were communicated to
the three noblemen, who immediately wrote to the council, and told them
that the meeting had taken place and reported—“That, after the
consideration of the whole affair, it was not in their power to quiet
the disorder,” but took no notice of the reasonable and effectual remedy
they had recommended. Before their letter arrived, the council had
decided. A minute, dated the day before the heritors met, was drawn up
by them, stating, “That, upon information of the growing disorders and
insolences in the western shires, it was thought fit a proclamation be
drawn, in case of an insurrection, and the nearest Highlanders ordered
to meet at Stirling, and letters writ to noblemen and gentlemen, to have
their vassals and tenants ready at a call.” A magazine of arms and
ammunition was formed at Stirling, all the regular forces were ordered
to Falkirk to have their full complement made up by new levies, and all
the straggling parties were called in. Besides these warlike
preparations, his majesty, in consequence of the alarming reports sent
him, offered the co-operation of the English army, several troops of
whom were marched to the borders; and Viscount Granard, commander of the
forces in Ireland, received instructions to hold himself in readiness to
pass over to Scotland upon a moment’s notice.

Such were the mighty preparations during a period of the most profound
repose, interrupted only by the footsteps of those upon the mountains
who published salvation. Of these, the indefatigable and successful John
Welsh and John Blackadder were among the most prominent. The former,
descended from a race of confessors, whose memory was deservedly dear to
the persecuted, had a reward offered for his head by the council; and he
rode usually accompanied by ten or twelve faithful adherents, termed his
body guard. The following is an account by the latter, of a remarkable
communion held at East Nisbet,[89] where both were present, which seems
to have created a great sensation:—

Footnote 89:

  Dr M‘Crie has the following note in the Memoirs of George Brysson, p.
  281:—“The following extract,” from Memoirs of a Mrs Goodal, the wife
  of a mechanic, MS. in the Advocates’ Library, “supplies the date of
  the communion at East Nisbet—‘I must make mention of three
  communion-dayes the Lord trysted me with in Scotland. The first was at
  East Nisbet in the year 1678, in the spring of the year,’ &c., at the
  very time when the Highlanders were ravaging the west.”

“At the desire of several people in the Merse, Mr Blackadder, and some
other ministers, had resolved on a meeting in Tiviotdale, and day and
place were fixed for keeping a communion; but from apprehensions of
danger, this resolution was changed, as it was feared they might come to
imminent hazard. It was agreed to delay it a fortnight; and
advertisement was sent to the people not to assemble. The report of the
first appointment had spread throughout the country, and many were
prepared to resort thither from distant and divers quarters. This change
had occasioned great uncertainty: some had taken their journey to the
Merse, willing to venture on a disappointment, rather than miss so good
an occasion by sitting still. Mr Blackadder was determined to go, seeing
his stay would discourage others; and if kept back, they would blame
him. He told them it was not likely the meeting would hold; yet, lest
any should take offence, he was content to take his venture with them.
On Friday night he took horse, accompanied with a small body of
attendants, and was joined by Mr John Dickson at the port, who rode with
him eleven miles that night. Many people were on the road, setting
forward to be in time for sermon on Saturday morning. Not a few be-west
of Edinburgh, hearing the report of the delay, remained at home, and
others returned on the way. Nobody was certain, either from far or near,
till they reached the place; where they would all have been
disappointed, if providence had not ordered it better than human
arrangement; for the earnest entreaties of the people had prevailed with
Mr Welsh, in the same way as Mr Blackadder, to venture at a hazard. And
had it been delayed a day or two longer, it would have been utterly
prevented, as the noise was spread, and the troops would have been
dispersed to stop them.

“Meantime the communion elements had been prepared, and the people in
Tiviotdale advertised. Mr Welsh and Mr Riddel had reached the place on
Saturday. When Mr Blackadder arrived, he found a great assembly, and
still gathering from all airts, which was a comfortable surprisal in
this uncertainty; whereat they all marvelled, as a new proof of the
divine wisdom wherewith the true Head of the church did order and
arrange his solemn occasions. The people from the east brought reports
that caused great alarm. It was rumoured that the Earl of Hume, as ramp
a youth as any in the country, intended to assault the meeting with his
men and militia, and that parties of the regulars were coming to assist
him. He had profanely threatened to make their horses drink the
communion wine, and trample the sacred elements under foot. Most of the
gentry there, and even the commonality, were ill set.

“Upon this we drew hastily together about seven or eight score of horse
on the Saturday, and equipped with such furniture as they had. Picquets
of twelve or sixteen men were appointed to reconnoitre and ride towards
the suspected parts. Single horsemen were dispatched to greater
distances, to view the country, and give warning in case of attack. The
remainder of the horse were drawn round to be a defence at such distance
as they might hear sermon, and be ready to act if need be. Every means
was taken to compose the multitude from needless alarm, and prevent, in
a harmless defensive way, any affront that might be offered to so solemn
and sacred a work. Though many, of their own accord, had provided for
their safety; and this was more necessary, when they had to stay three
days together, sojourning by _the lions’ dens and the mountains of
leopards_; yet none had come armed with hostile intentions.

“We entered on the administration of the holy ordinance, committing it
and ourselves to the invisible protection of the Lord of hosts, in whose
name we were met together. Our trust was in the arm of Jehovah, which
was better than weapons of war, or the strength of hills. If the God of
Jacob was our refuge, we knew that our cause would prosper;—that in his
favour there was more security than in all the defences of art or of
nature. The place where we convened was every way commodious, and seemed
to have been formed on purpose. It was a green and pleasant haugh, fast
by the water side, (the Whitadder.) On either hand there was a spacious
brae, in form of a half round, covered with delightful pasture, and
rising with a gentle slope to a goodly height. Above us was the clear
blue sky, for it was a sweet and calm Sabbath morning, promising to be
indeed one of the days of the Son of Man. There was a solemnity in the
place befitting the occasion, and elevating the whole soul to a pure and
holy frame. The communion tables were spread on the green by the water,
and around them the people had arranged themselves in decent order. But
the far greater multitude sat on the brae-face, which was crowded from
top to bottom, full as pleasant a sight as was ever seen of that sort.
Each day, at the congregation’s dismissing, the ministers, with their
guards, and as many of the people as could, retired to their quarters in
three several country towns, where they might be provided with
necessaries for man and horse for payment.

“Several of the yeomen refused to take money for their provisions, but
cheerfully and abundantly invited both ministers and gentlemen each day
at dismissing. The horsemen drew up in a body till the people left the
place, and then marched in goodly array at a little distance, until all
were safely lodged in their quarters; dividing themselves into three
squadrons, one for each town where were their respective lodgments. Each
party had its own commander. Watches were regularly set in empty barns
and other out-houses, where guards were placed during the night. Scouts
were sent to look about, and get intelligence. In the morning, when the
people returned to the meeting, the horsemen accompanied them: all the
three parties met a mile from the spot, and marched in a full body to
the consecrated ground. The congregation being all fairly settled in
their places, the guardsmen took their several stations as formerly.

“These accidental volunteers seemed to have been the gift of providence,
and they secured the peace and quiet of the audience; for from Saturday
morning, when the work began, until Monday afternoon, we suffered not
the least affront or molestation from enemies, which appeared wonderful.
At first there was some apprehension, but the people sat undisturbed;
and the whole was closed in as orderly a way as it had been in the time
of Scotland’s brightest noon. And, truly, the spectacle of so many
grave, composed, and devout faces, must have struck the adversaries with
awe, and been more formidable than any outward ability of fierce looks
and warlike array. We desired not the countenance of earthly kings;
there was a spiritual and divine Majesty shining on the work, and
sensible evidence that the Great Master of assemblies was present in the
midst. It was, indeed, the doing of the Lord, who covered us a table in
the wilderness, in presence of our foes, and reared a pillar of glory
between us and the enemy, like the fiery cloud of old, that separated
between the camp of Israel and the Egyptians, encouraging to the one,
but dark and terrible to the other. Though our vows were not offered
within the courts of God’s house, they wanted not sincerity of heart,
which is better than the reverence of sanctuaries. Amidst the lonely
mountains, we remembered the words of our Lord, that true worship was
not peculiar to Jerusalem or Samaria; that the beauty of holiness
consisted not in consecrated buildings, or material temples. We
remembered the ark of the Israelites, which had sojourned for years in
the desert, with no dwelling-place but the tabernacles of the plain. We
thought of Abraham, and the ancient patriarchs, who laid their victims
on the rocks for an altar, and burnt sweet incense under the shade of
the green tree.

“The ordinance of the last supper, that memorial of his dying love till
his second coming, was signally countenanced and backed with power and
refreshing influence from above. Blessed be God, for he hath visited and
confirmed his heritage when it was weary. In that day, Zion put on the
beauty of Sharon and Carmel; the mountains broke forth into singing, and
the desert place was made to bud and blossom as the rose. Few such days
were seen in the desolate Church of Scotland, and few will ever witness
the like. There was a rich and plentiful effusion of the spirit shed
abroad on many hearts. Their souls, filled with heavenly transports,
seemed to breathe in a diviner element, and to burn upwards, as with the
fire of a pure and holy devotion. The ministers were visibly assisted to
speak home to the conscience of the hearers. It seemed as if God had
touched their lips with a live coal from his altar; for they who
witnessed, declared they carried more like ambassadors from the court of
heaven, than men cast in earthly mould.

“The tables were served by some gentlemen and persons of the gravest
deportment. None were admitted without tokens, as usual, which were
distributed on the Saturday, but only to such as were known to some of
the ministers, or persons of trust, to be free of public scandals. All
the regular forms were gone through: the communicants entered at one
end, and retired at the other,—a way being kept clear to take their
seats again on the hill-side. Mr Welsh preached the action sermon, and
served the first two tables, as he was ordinarily put to do on such
occasions: the other four ministers, Mr Blackadder, Mr Dickson, Mr
Riddel, and Mr Rae, exhorted the rest in their turn: the table service
was closed by Mr Welsh with solemn thanksgiving, and solemn it was, and
sweet and edifying, to see the gravity and composure of all present, as
well as all parts of the service. The communion was peaceably concluded;
all the people heartily offering up their gratitude, and singing with a
joyful noise to the Rock of their salvation. It was pleasant, as the
night fell, to hear their melody swelling in full unison along the hill,
the whole congregation joining with one accord, and praising God with
the voice of psalms.

“There were two long tables, and one short, across the head, with seats
on each side. About a hundred sat at every table: there were sixteen
tables in all, so that about three thousand two hundred communicated
that day.

“The afternoon sermon was preached by Mr Dickson, from Genesis xxii. 14;
and verily might the name of the place be called Bethel, or
Jehovah-jirah, where the Lord’s power and presence was so signally
manifested. After so thick and fearful a darkness had overshadowed the
land, the light of his countenance had again shone through the cloud
with dazzling brightness, and many there would remember the glory of
that day. Well might the faith of the good old patriarch be contrasted
with theirs on that occasion; they had come on a journey of three days
into the wilderness to offer their sacrifice: they had come in doubt and
perplexity as to the issue; but the God of Jacob had been their refuge
and their strength, hiding them in his pavilion in the evil day. The
whole of this solemn service was closed by Mr Blackadder on Monday
afternoon, from Isaiah liii. 10.”[90]

Footnote 90:

  Crichton’s Life of Blackadder, p. 198, _et seq._

[Illustration:

  _The Sheriff accosted by his Sister at the conventicle. Anno. 1677._

  _Vide page 283_

  Edin^r. Hugh Paton, Carver & Gilder to the Queen, 1842.
]

To complete the picture, I shall give a description of a common
conventicle, one of “the rendezvouses of rebellion,” also by Mr
Blackadder:—

“Some time before the communion at East Nisbet, Mr Blackadder kept a
very great conventicle at Lilsly (Lilliesleaf) moor, in Forrestshire.
They had knowledge that the sheriff, and some of the life-guards, were
ranging Lilsly moors on the fore-part of the day; upon which the meeting
shifted their ground within Selkirkshire, thinking themselves safe,
being out of his bounds. Watches were set; and the forenoon’s lecture
was got over without disturbance. About the middle of the
afternoon-preaching, alarm was given that the sheriff and his party were
hard at hand, riding fast; whereupon he closed, giving the people a word
of composure against fear. The people all stood firm in their places
without moving. Two horses were brought for the minister, to fly for his
life; but he refused to go, and would not withdraw, seeing the people
kept their ground, and so dismissed the horses. The militia came riding
furiously at full gallop, and drew up on the burn-brae, over against the
people; but seeing them stand firm, they seemed to be a little damped,
and would speak nothing for a while. At this moment, ane honest
countryman cast a gray cloak about Mr Blackadder, and put a broad bonnet
on his head; so he remained in that disguise among the people, unnoticed
all the time of the fray. The sheriff cried, ‘I charge you to dismiss in
the king’s name:’ the people answered resolutely from several quarters,
‘We are all met here in the name of the King of heaven, to hear the
gospel, and not for harm to any man.’ The sheriff was more damped,
seeing their confidence; he was the Laird of Heriot. His own sister was
present at the meeting; and stepping forth, in a fit of passion, took
his horse by the bridle, clapping her hands, and crying out, ‘Fye on ye,
man; fye on ye; the vengeance of God will overtake you, for marring so
good a work:’ whereat the sheriff stood like a man astonied.

“One of the soldiers comes riding in among the people, and, laughing,
said, ‘Gentlemen and friends, we hope you will do us no harm.’ This was
all a pretence: they had come to look for the minister, and were edging
nearer the tent; but they were ordered instantly to be gone, and join
their own associates, as more appropriate companions.

“The people still refusing to dismiss, the sheriff called out Bennet,
Laird of Chesters, and Turnbull of Standhill, who were present in the
congregation, and with them he negotiated that they would dismiss the
meeting, otherwise he must use force. Accordingly, at the entreaty of
Chesters, they withdrew. This had more influence with them than all the
sheriff’s threatenings. The minister, all this while keeping his
disguise, sat still till the dragoons were gone, and then took horse,
with a company of seven or eight gentlemen. About twelve at night, he
reached Lasswade, (being the hind harvest,) and got to Edinburgh early
in the dawning, about the time of the opening of the ports. This was a
remarkable escape, as they had sought the minister among the crowd
during the scuffle, and passed often by him without ever discovering
him. The reason of his riding all night, was to avoid danger; for all
the nobles and gentlemen from Edinburgh were to ride next day to the
race at Caverton-edge, when the roads to Tiviotdale would be full of
them.”

Plied incessantly by the council, whom Sharpe ruled, with exaggerated
rumours of the sedition and discontent that reigned in the west, Charles
at last sent as ample powers as the primate had desired; and followed
them up by commencing active operations for putting down such dreaded
and hated meetings as the above described.

First always in every act of oppression, the council had already written
to some Highland chieftains to raise their clans, and send to the
refractory west a sufficient number of kilted missionaries, to propagate
by forcible, if not convincing, arguments, the prelatical gospel. The
chieftains, in return, most willingly offered their services; and the
council immediately communicated to the king their loyal tenders,
requesting his royal sanction to the measure. His majesty told them, in
reply, that he had heard with much satisfaction of their requiring the
noblemen and others, who had numerous vassals and followers in the
Highlands, to come to their aid, and of the readiness of these noblemen
and gentlemen to comply with their request. He therefore authorized them
to command all these forces to march to the disturbed shires, or
wherever conventicles had been kept, and to take effectual measures for
reducing them to due obedience “to US and OUR laws,” by taking free
quarter from those that were disaffected, disarming such as they should
suspect, and seizing and securing all horses above such a value as they
should think fit; at the same time, causing heritors and liferenters to
give bond for their tenants and all who resided on their lands; and the
tenants and fathers of families to do the like for those who resided
with them, that they should keep no conventicles, but live orderly,
attend the parish churches regularly, and not harbour or converse with
any intercommuned person.

For the more completely carrying these orders into execution, they were
not only to punish the disobedient, but whomsoever “they might judge
disaffected,” by fining, confining, imprisonment, or banishment. They
were also to plant garrisons wherever they thought it necessary; and if
the forces now ordered were not sufficient, they were empowered to call
to their assistance the troops stationed in the north of England and
Ireland. A report was at this time very generally spread and believed,
that the Duke of York had said there would be no peace in the country
till the west were turned into a hunting-forest; and the conduct of
those in power appeared as if they had heard and approved of the
sentiment.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               BOOK XII.


                            A.D. 1678-1679.


Privy council forbids emigration—Mitchell’s trial and execution—Highland
   host—Committee of the council arrive at Glasgow—Deputation from Ayr
   sent to the Commissioner—Bond refused—Committee proceed to Ayr—Earl
   of Cassilis—Law-burrows—Case of Lord Cochrane—Ravages of “the
   Highland Host”—Their return home—Earl of Cassilis goes to court—Duke
   of Hamilton follows—Complaints dismissed—State of the country—Murder
   of Sharpe.


Capricious as cruel in their tyranny, the council would neither allow
the Presbyterians to live peaceably at home, nor permit them to seek
liberty abroad, especially if they were persons of rank, whom they
wished to make participators of their tyranny as they could not induce
them to be willing associates in their crimes. Having learned that
several noblemen and others of high station, disgusted with their
proceedings, were preparing to leave the country, they issued a
proclamation, January 3, forbidding any person, lord or commoner, to
remove forth thereof upon any pretext whatsoever, without a special
license from them, under the highest penalties; and to make assurance
doubly sure, they ordered the principal among them, whom they considered
as their political rivals, or who were more moderate in their
principles, to attend “a committee of the privy council,” appointed to
accompany the forces in the west country, to receive their orders and
obey their commands.[91]

Footnote 91:

  Numbers of the persecuted in England had left that country for
  America, and were founding the states of New England, New Jersey,
  Massachusetts, &c., which formed asylums for their brethren during
  these perilous times. Many of the Scots who to Holland, also sought
  refuge in the New World. But it would appear the Scottish prelatists
  being, as all turncoats are, more violent than the English
  persecutors, wished to retain their more conscientious countrymen at
  home, that they might have the pleasure of tormenting them, and
  enjoying the yet higher gratification of revelling on their fines. The
  prohibition in Scotland was intended, besides, to answer another
  purpose, to prevent any of the nobility proceeding to court without
  leave; for Lauderdale knew well the advantage of engrossing the royal
  ear.

Before proceeding to detail the transactions of this savage horde and
their directors, I shall advert to a transaction still more disgraceful
to the council, as setting at defiance all moral decency, and bursting
asunder every tie that gives security to society, which can only exist
well where the obligations both of the rulers and the ruled are held
sacred. I mean the trial and execution of James Mitchell.

Cowards are proverbially cruel, and the renegade primate was not
remarkable for courage. He seems to have been constantly haunted with
the terrors of assassination. Fearing his own treacherous “law-skreened
murders” might provoke some other resolute arm to retaliate, he could
not be at rest while Mitchell lived, and appears to have imagined that
the destruction of that poor man was necessary to secure his own safety.
He therefore resolved, by making an example of him, to show that the
sacred person of a priest was not to be threatened with impunity.
Accordingly, Mitchell was brought from the Bass to Edinburgh in the end
of last year, and received an indictment to stand trial for his attempt.
On January 7, 1678, he was brought to the bar of the Justiciary, where
Primrose, justice-general, sat as one of his judges, and Sir George
Mackenzie acted as accuser, both of whom were perfectly acquainted with
the promise of pardon which had been made. Primrose had been summoned as
a witness, but was dispensed with; and, had he possessed the smallest
particle of common feeling, or of common honesty, he would never have
consented to sit as a judge—much less would Mackenzie, who had acted as
his advocate on the former trial, have now come forward as his
prosecutor; yet so it was. Primrose, however, transmitted privately to
Mitchell’s advocates, a copy of the act of council in which the
assurance was contained. Lauderdale had been previously warned of its
existence by Kincardine. The pleadings, before entering upon the
evidence, were long and ingenious. His advocates, Sir George Lockhart
and Mr John Ellis, contended that the libel was not relevant,—as a mere
attempt, when unsuccessful, could never constitute the crime of murder;
that by the laws of this kingdom, by the civil law, and the common
opinion of civilians, it was not a capital offence, except in cases of
parricide or treason; and, besides, the act charged was assassination or
murder committed for hire—a term and a crime unknown in Scottish law;
nor is it charged against the prisoner that he was hired by any person
to commit the deed. As to the confession, if such a thing existed, which
the panel refused to acknowledge, it was extrajudicial, not being made
in presence of the assize, who are judges of the whole proof, and
therefore could not be admitted, unless taken together with the promise
of pardon by which it was elicited. But they especially insisted upon
the promise of pardon, as rendering any charge founded upon such
confession totally irrevelant.

The Lord Advocate replied, that, by act 16, parl. James VI. _nudus
conatus_, attempting and invading, though nothing followed, is found
relevant to infer the pain of death; and by the common law, an attempt
is capital, where the panel has been guilty of the proximate act, and
done all that it was in his power to do:—adding, most unfairly and
untruly, that Mitchell belonged to a sect that hated and execrated the
hierarchy, who deemed it lawful to kill persons of a prelatical
character; and he could prove that Mr James himself held such opinions,
which he endeavoured to defend by wrested places of Scripture, and
acknowledged that the reason why he shot at the archbishop was, because
he thought him a persecutor of the nefarious and execrable rebels who
appeared on the Pentland Hills. As to assassination not being known in
Scots law, the term might not be there, but the nation would be worse
than the Tartars, if lying in wait with a design to kill clandestinely,
where a person, after mature deliberation, ripens his villany and
watches his opportunity, if this should not be held in greater
detestation, and punished more severely than ordinary murder. As to
being hired, if taking money constitute the criminality of
assassination, how much greater is it when committed to earn a higher
reward. He that takes money to kill, will stab only in the dark, and
where he may escape; but the sun, and the cross, and the confluence of
all the world, cannot secure against the stroke of the murderer who
expects heaven as his reward, and thinks that the deed deserves it.
Respecting the promise of pardon, the promise of life from a judge, who
has not the power to grant it, is of no avail unless the panel can prove
that he expressly pactioned that his confession should not operate
against him; and a confession emitted without any such regular bargain,
is of no avail, even though the judge should promise life; for this
would be to make a judge a king.[92] As to the confession being
extrajudicial, so far from this being the case, it was taken by the
authority of the privy council, the highest judicatory of the nation,
uniting in itself the powers both of the Court of Session and the Court
of Justiciary; and if confessions emitted before the lords of session
are a sole, final, and plenary probation before the Court of Justiciary,
it were absurd to suppose that a confession emitted before the Privy
Council should not be deemed valid.

Footnote 92:

  The advocate, as a proof that civilians were on his side, quoted
  Ægidius Bossius, who, Titulo de Examine Reorum 15 and 16, says—“Judex
  qui induxit reum ad confitendum sub promissione veniæ non tenetur
  servare promissum in foro contensioso.” The judge who induces a panel
  to confess, by a promise of pardon, is not bound to keep his promise
  in a contested trial, which seems, says Lord Fountainhall in his
  notes, “to be ane disingenous opinion.”

The court decided that the crime, as libelled, was relevant, _i. e._
sufficient, to infer the pains of law; but, at the same time, found that
the defence if proven was relevant to secure the panel of his life and
limb. There were no witnesses to establish the fact; his confession was
the only evidence adduced; to substantiate which, Rothes was first
examined, who deponed that he saw the panel sign the confession. Being
asked, whether or not his lordship did offer to the panel, upon his
confession, to secure his life, in these words, upon his lordship’s
life, honour, and reputation? he swore that he did not at all give any
assurance to the panel for his life, and that the panel never sought any
such assurance from him, nor did he remember receiving any warrant from
the council for that purpose. Upon this, Mitchell entreated the
Chancellor to remember the honour of the family of Rothes, and mind that
he took him by the hand, and said—“Jacobe, man, confess; and, as I am
Chancellor of Scotland, ye shall be safe in liffe and limb;” to which
all the answer returned by the Chancellor was, “that he hoped his
reputation was not yet so low as that what the panel said, either there
or elsewhere, would be credited, since he had sworn.” The panel,
however, still averred the contrary.

Lord Hatton, Lauderdale, and Sharpe swore to the same effect. When
Sharpe had done, Nicol Somerville, agent, brother-in-law to the panel,
boldly contradicted him, and bid him remember certain times and
expressions. The archbishop, who did not much relish getting his memory
so refreshed, “fell in a mighty chaff and passion, exceedingly
unbecoming his station and the circumstances he was then stated in, and
fell a scolding before thousands of onlookers. Nicol yielded in nothing;
and after the bishop had sworne, he cryed out that upon his salvation
what he had affirmed was true.” “And the misfortune was, that few there
but they believed Nicol better than the archbishop.”[93] Sir John
Nisbet, who was Lord Advocate at the time, and one of the committee who
examined Mitchell, summoned as a witness for the crown—probably to
prevent him from being adduced for Mitchell—was not called, Sir George
Mackenzie, it is likely, being afraid to trust him.

Footnote 93:

  Fountainhall’s notes.

After the public prosecutor had declared his proof closed, the panel’s
advocates produced the copy of the act of council, and craved that the
books of council, which were lying in the next room, might be produced,
or the clerks ordered to give extracts, which they had formerly refused.
At this Lauderdale, who had no right to speak, “stormed mightily,” and
told the court “the books of council contained the king’s secrets, and
he would not permit them to be examined; he came there to depone as a
witness, not to be staged for perjury”—an unguarded remark, which must
have been understood by the judges as a plain confession that he knew he
had sworn falsely; yet, with a mean servility, they would not assert
their own dignity, nor do justice to the panel. They refused to grant
warrant for producing the registers, because not applied for before,
which Fountainhall observes “choaked both criminal law and equity, for
it is never too late to urge any thing in favour of a panel until the
assize be closed.” Sir George Lockhart defended him with admirable
strength of reasoning; and the trial, which is characterized as the most
solemn which had taken place in Scotland for a hundred years, lasted
four days. The jury returned a verdict, finding him guilty upon his own
confession; but the promise of pardon they found not proven. He was
condemned to be hanged on Friday the 18th of January.

On leaving court, the four “noble” witnesses proceeded to the
Council-chamber and inspected the books, where they saw the indelible
record of their own guilt and infamy, which still remains, and, like
convicted rogues, began each to vindicate himself. After a vain attempt
to fix it upon the late Lord Advocate, Nisbet, had failed, Lauderdale,
who seems to have had some compunctious visitations, proposed to grant a
reprieve, and refer the matter to the king. But the primate insisted
that if favour were shown to this assassin, it would be exposing his
person to the next murderer who should attempt it. “Then,” said
Lauderdale, “let Mitchell glorify God in the Grassmarket.”[94] He was
accordingly executed, pursuant to his sentence. Sharpe, whose vanity and
ambition were unbounded, aping an equality with royalty, had obtained an
order from court, that Mitchell’s head should be affixed on some public
place of the city, as if his crime had been high treason! But it was
told him what was pronounced for doom could not be altered; so he missed
this gratification. Nor did the fate of Mitchell tend to avert his own.
Mitchell’s misguided act was forgotten in the deeper and more deliberate
revenge of the archbishop, and in the atrocious breach of public faith
by the council. His dying declaration, widely circulated through the
country, exhibited such a view of the treachery and almost unexampled
perjury of the first ministers in the church and in the state, as
excited universal horror and execration.[95]

Footnote 94:

  The usual place of execution at that time.

Footnote 95:

  The question then much agitated—“The extraordinary execution of
  judgement by private men”—was supported by an apophthegm borrowed from
  Tertullian—“Every man is a soldier enrolled to bear arms against all
  traitors and public enemies;” and by the authority of Dr Ames, who, in
  his treatise on Conscience, published 1674, says—“Sometimes it is
  lawful to kill, no public precognition proceeding, when the cause
  evidently requires it should be done, and public authority cannot be
  got: For in that case a private man is publickly constitute the
  minister of justice, as well by the permission of God as the consent
  of all men.” Mitchell, when questioned by the Chancellor, thus
  defended his attack upon Sharpe—and it is easy to conceive that such
  reasoning would appear irrefragable to a mind excited as his was—“I
  looked upon him to be the main instigator of all the oppression and
  bloodshed thereupon, and the continual pursuing after my own; and, my
  lord, it was creditably reported to us (the truth of which your
  lordship knows better than we) that he kept up his majesty’s letter
  inhibiting any more blood upon that account, until the last six were
  executed; and I being a soldier, not having laid down my arms, but
  being upon my own defence; and in prosecution of the ends of the same
  covenant [which he also had sworn] which was the overthrow of prelates
  and prelacy; and I being a declared enemy to him on that account, and
  he to me in like manner: as he was always to take his advantage of me,
  as it appeareth, so I of him, to take any opportunity offered.
  Moreover, we being in no terms of capitulation, but on the contrary,
  I, by his instigation being excluded from all grace and favour,
  thought it my duty to pursue him at all events.”

Upon the 24th of January, the threatened army, better known by the name
of “the Highland Host,”[96] assembled at Stirling. The Earls were their
colonels, who received a handsome pay; but the active officers were a
set of thievish lairds; and their retainers, wild savages, unacquainted
with any other law than the will of their chiefs, whose mandates they
obeyed without inquiry upon every occasion—only in the division of the
spoil, they sometimes helped themselves without waiting the directions
of their superiors. They amounted in all, including about two thousand
regulars and two thousand militia, to about ten thousand men, with four
field-pieces, and with a great quantity of spades, shovels, and
mattocks, as if they were marching to besiege fortified cities; their
daggers were formed to fasten on the muzzles of the muskets, as a kind
of rude bayonets, to attack cavalry; yet were they accompanied with
other instruments that betokened any thing but going to meet a regular
force—iron shackles and thumb-screws!

Footnote 96:

  Because Highlanders formed the majority; the regulars or king’s guards
  were the worst; the militia, although not good, seem to have been the
  best, if any could be called best among them, unless it were that in
  the act of plundering, they were not quite so fierce as the others.
  “The debauched clargie thought it no shame to call thes dragoons the
  ruling elders of the church.” Wodrow, MS. Advocates’ Lib. xl. art. 47,
  quoted by Dr M’Crie. Mem. of Geo. Brysson, p. 275.

The approach of such an array amazed the peaceable inhabitants of the
west, nor were the military gentlemen themselves less astonished when
they passed through a country represented as in a state of rebellion,
but where they saw every thing perfectly loyal and tranquil.
Nevertheless, the mountaineers in their march, and during the time they
remained in the west, gratified the expectations of their employers to
the full. Behaving with the unbridled insolence of victorious
mercenaries in a conquered country, they made free with whatever they
wanted without ceremony, seizing every serviceable horse for the
transport of their baggage, even those at the ploughs in the midst of
the tillage, extorting money and beating and wounding whoever resisted,
without distinction. Nor were the few heritors who took the bond
exempted. They found, when too late, that they had violated their
consciences, or at least their consistency, in vain; and some of them
afterwards deeply lamented their compliance, regretting that they had
not rather, like the majority of their neighbours, taken quietly the
spoiling of their goods.

Their head-quarters were first at Glasgow, but the tumultuous bands soon
spread through Clydesdale, Renfrew, Cunninghame, Kyle, and Carrick.
Previously to their arrival, the ministers had held a day of fasting,
humiliation, and prayer. This the prelates represented as preparatory to
a communion, after which there was to be a general insurrection. The
report was soon discovered to be false, but it had quickened the advance
of the host, and was either believed, or pretended to be believed, by
Lauderdale; for, when a deputation from the nobility and gentry of
Ayrshire came to Edinburgh to represent to the council the tranquillity
and unimpeachable loyalty of the whole district, he would not so much as
give them audience; and when some of them offered to engage for the
peace of the shire, the proposal was peremptorily refused, and they were
informed that no compromise could be entered into, nothing less would be
accepted than that the whole of them present should instantly put their
signatures to the bond, and pledge themselves for all the other heritors
doing the same. The deputation could not promise for others, and they
returned to witness the authorized enormous disorders they had employed
every legal method in their power to prevent.

On the 28th of the month, the committee of council, armed with
Justiciary power, met at Glasgow to consider their instructions and
proceed to action.[97] They were directed to order the sheriffs of the
different counties to convene all the heritors, and require them to
subscribe a bond, obliging themselves, wives, bairns, and servants, as
also their haill tenants, and cottars, with their wives, bairns, and
servants, to abstain from conventicles, and not to receive, assist, or
speak to any forfeited persons, intercommuned ministers, or vagrant
preachers, but to use their utmost endeavours to apprehend all such,
promising, if any of their families or dependents should contravene, to
present them to the judge-ordinary that they might be fined or
imprisoned for their delinquencies. All who took the bond were to
receive a protection that their lands would not be quartered upon. They
were also to cause the leaders of the horsemen of the militia troops to
deliver to them the haill militia arms, and to disarm heritors and all
other persons, except privy councillors and military men; but noblemen
and gentlemen of quality were to be allowed to wear their swords. The
arms were to be lodged in the Castle of Dumbarton.

Footnote 97:

  The committee consisted of the Marquis of Atholl, the Earls of Marr,
  Murray, Glencairn, Wigton, Strathmore, Linlithgow, Airly, Caithness,
  Perth, and Lord Ross, all of whom were commanders in the army, except
  Glencairn and Wigton.

Framed as this bond was, it required no ghost to tell that it would not
generally be taken; and its refusal was looked forward to by the
government with joyful anticipation, as what would justify their
pressing it with a rigour that would produce the grand, much longed-for
consummation—a desperate resistance. But this was for the present
postponed—the disarming of the people, although not complete, prevented
any immediate outbreaking, while the example of the Duke of Hamilton,
Lords Loudon, Cochrane, and especially the constancy of Lord Cassilis,
encouraged the great body of the gentry to continue steadfast in
opposition to a bond which the council had exceeded their powers in
enacting, and could not legally oblige the lieges to subscribe without
the authority of parliament. Besides its illegality, these patriots
considered it cruel and degrading—cruel, in forbidding them to give
relief to Christian ministers, and others in distress, even though their
own relatives, and to shut up their bowels of compassion from them,
merely on account of difference of opinion about church
government—degrading, in desiring them to act as beadles or common
messengers at arms, without their own consent.

From Glasgow the committee proceeded to Ayr; and among their first
proceedings, they ordered the Earl of Cassilis to demolish all the
meeting-houses in Carrick. The Earl represented the probability of
opposition, and having been disarmed, requested that a party of
soldiers, or at least some of the neighbouring gentlemen, might be
ordered to protect him; even this reasonable request could not be
granted; and while he hesitated, a friendly councillor hinted that there
was but an hair’s-breadth between him and imprisonment. Such, however,
was the esteem in which this young nobleman was held, that the people
themselves demolished the offensive places of worship, rather than that
he should be troubled about them.[98] But the council, not willing that
he should get so quietly rid of the job, ordered him to bring back the
doors and all the timber of these meeting-houses, and burn it on the
spot where they had stood. his lordship complied with this useless but
tyrannically-teasing order.

Footnote 98:

  The meeting-houses were not in common very costly fabricks. Like the
  temple at Jerusalem, no mason’s iron was heard in their building,
  being generally framed of rough unhewn stones, covered with turf; and
  the people were thankful when the government did not interfere with
  their cheap church-extension scheme. Stately cathedrals they asked
  not, they cheerfully left them to the Romanists and the renegade
  prelatical conformists, their brethren. Consecrated walls were words
  unknown in their vocabulary, all they asked was shelter from the
  weather and very humble accomodation for their wearied limbs. Nor did
  they always ask even these; for their ministers, following the example
  of Him whose servants they professed to be, oftener had the mountain
  for their pulpit and the heavens for their sounding-board, than the
  crimson-covered desk with velvet cushion and gilded canopy; while they
  themselves were satisfied, if they could hear the gospel faithfully
  preached, although on the mountain side, or in “divot theikit beilds.”

Notwithstanding the stubborn opposition it met with, the council
appeared determined to urge the bond, and issued a fresh proclamation,
February 11, forbidding any person to be received as a tenant or servant
without a certificate from the landlord or master they last left, or
from the minister of the parish, that they had lived orderly and
attended the parish church, and had not heard any of the vagrant
preachers, who without license impiously assumed the holy orders of the
church. To this was annexed a new bond of similar import with the
former, and as an encouragement, all the members of council signed it,
and appointed the lords of session to do the same when they met. Every
inducement proved ineffectual; and the reports of the commissioners
appointed to see their orders carried into execution, were by no means
satisfactory to the council. The arms were only partially delivered up,
and the bond would not at all go down; and what was the most vexatious
part of the business, it was decidedly rejected by some eminent lawyers
in the capital, and several of the chief nobility in Fife,
Stirlingshire, and Teviotdale. The report from Lanark, too, was
provoking beyond measure; of two thousand nine hundred heritors, only
nineteen of the smallest complied.

Perceiving at length that the opposition was too extensive, and based
upon principles which could not be sneered at as fanatical, Lauderdale
is said at one of their meetings to have bared his arm in fury, and
sworn by Jehovah that he would force them to take the bond. But it was
to be tendered in another shape, under the guise of a legal
quibble—probably the new Lord Advocate might have had the merit of
suggesting it; for certainly the scheme was more like the device of a
pettifogging attorney than the counsel of a sound statesman. When a
deadly feud had arisen between two neighbours, as the ancient Scots were
an ardent irascible race, it generally terminated fatally, and not
infrequently involved the whole relations in a species of domestic
warfare, which lasted for generations till one party was worn out or
gave in. To prevent these consequences, it had been enacted in the reign
of James II. and confirmed in the 7th parliament of James VI., that an
individual who feared bodily harm from another, by an application upon
oath to a magistrate, might obtain a “writ of law-burrows” to oblige the
person of whose violence he was apprehensive, to give security that he
should keep the peace, nor “skaith or damage” the applicant. This legal
pledge, a wise and necessary precaution to insure personal safety in
turbulent times, such as the frequent minorities of the Jameses had
produced, the council contrived to convert into a more oppressive
obligation than even the bond itself. Assuming an absurd legal fiction,
that his majesty and his government were put in bodily fear by the
persons who refused to take the bond, they issued writs of law-burrows,
not only against individuals, but against a county.

By additional instructions, the committee were directed to pursue all
heritors who had not taken the bond for all conventicles kept on their
lands since the 24th of March 1674—the fine to be exacted for each
conventicle being fifty pounds. They were also to summon them and their
tenants, &c. to answer for building, or being present at the building,
of any preaching-house—the fine imposed to be arbitrary. No nobleman or
gentleman who refused the bond was to be allowed to wear his sword, and
whoever delayed beyond six days to appear at the council-bar, after they
were summoned, were to be amerced in two years’ valued rent, and were
likewise liable for the delinquencies of their tenants and servants.

Immediately after this, a number of gentlemen in Ayrshire were summoned
before the committee, upon a charge of law-burrows; but while they made
the strongest professions of loyalty, they steadily resisted putting
their hands to a deed which they deemed illegal, irreconcilable with
their profession as Presbyterians, and impracticable with respect to all
their retainers and dependents. One of them, unfortunately his name is
not preserved, who had indignantly refused, on being told by the
president that, if he continued obstinate, the Highlanders, who had been
quartered upon a neighbouring gentleman’s property till he had complied,
would be transferred to his till he became convinced of the propriety of
obedience, replied, “he had no answer to that argument; but before he
would comply with the law-burrows, he would rather go to prison.”

Lord Cochrane was next before them. He had been served with an
indictment, charging him with encouraging field and house conventicles,
and conversing with intercommuned ministers; in a word, he or his wife,
or some of his family or tenants, had rebelled against the king by
attending upon the preaching of the gospel, impiously proclaimed by men
who owned no bishop, and who wore no surplice; and was called to answer
to the charge within twenty-four hours. His lordship objected to the
shortness of the time allowed to answer, and contended that, as his
indictment contained a capital charge, it was necessary the “diet” or
meeting should be prolonged, that he might have time to consult with his
advocates; and, when called to answer upon oath, declined to do so, “no
man being bound by any law to give his oath, where the punishment may be
in any way—corporis afflictiva, quia nemo est dominus membrorum
suorum”—destructive to the body, because nobody is lord of his own body.
The committee told him their diets were peremptory, _i. e._ their
meetings were fixed for certain times, and therefore the accused were
bound to answer upon the instant; but, at the same time, passed an
interlocutor, restricting the libel to an arbitrary punishment, _i. e._
declaring that whatever his lordship might depone should never infer a
capital infliction.

His lordship next pleaded that, by an act of council so late as the 5th
of October last year, all libels against conventicles were restricted to
a month backwards, consequently he was free. He was asked if he had
brought an extract of the act? He replied he had not, but it was well
enough known, and referred to their lordships themselves and the public
prosecutor. They all declared they knew nothing about it. He then begged
that the clerk might be questioned; but they would not allow their clerk
to give evidence in that matter; and he was again called upon to swear,
otherwise he would be held as confessed. Seeing at last that nothing
else, no not even their own acts, would avail, he made oath “that he was
free of all conventicles, as were all his servants, to the best of his
knowledge.” Some new queries were now put to him by the Lord Advocate.
He refused to answer to any matters not alleged against him in his
indictment, and appealed to their lordships. They gave it in his favour!
finding “that he was not obliged to depone to any thing not contained in
his indictment;” and the court adjourned.

When they met in the afternoon of the same day—21st February 1678—Lord
Cathcart, Sir John Cochrane, with some others, among whom was the Laird
of Kilbirnie, refused the bond upon the same grounds—the act of council,
October the 5th. The lords again denied their knowledge of such an act;
but when Kilbirnie, prepared for this, offered to produce a copy, they
would not receive it, saying, if there was such an act it was superseded
by posterior acts. He then offered to protest against their proceeding
without allowing him to produce it. This the Earl of Caithness opposed,
by representing the danger he incurred in so doing; but when he
persisted, his lordship suddenly adjourned the sederunt, and thus
prevented him from getting it formally entered on the record.

While the committee were denying the provisions of their own acts which
had the least semblance of moderation, “the Highland Host” were ravaging
the devoted west without mercy.[99] Free quarters were every where
exacted by the militia and king’s forces, although they received regular
pay. But the Highlanders, not content with free quarters, would march in
large bands to gentlemens’ and heritors’ houses, as well as their
tenants, and take up their lodgings, and force the proprietors to
furnish them with whatever they chose to demand, or they would take
whatever struck their fancy; and, when some of their own officers
interposed, would present their daggers to their breasts, and dare them
to touch their plunder. They infested the high-roads in a most ferocious
manner, not only robbing the passengers of their money or baggage, but
even stripping them of their clothes, and sending them to travel naked
for miles ere they could reach home. From the country-folks’ and
cottars’ houses, they carried off pots, pans, wearing-apparel,
bedclothes, or whatever was portable; and, notwithstanding the
government had taken care to order provisions, both officers and men
carried off or wantonly killed the cattle, under pretence that they
wanted food, unless they were bribed by money; yet that did not always
avail, the plunderers often both pocketing the coin and driving the
cattle. In some places they proceeded the horrible length of scorching
the people before large fires, in order to extort a confession, if they
suspected they had any hidden valuables; and to these rapacious, needy
hordes, the lowest necessary utensils of civilized life were precious.

Footnote 99:

  Garrisons were ordered to be “planted, 100 foot and 20 horse, in the
  house of Blairquhan, Carrick; 50 foot and 10 horse in Barskimming, and
  the same in Cessnock. The commissioners of the shire to provide 126
  beds, 24 pots, as many pans, 240 spoons, 60 timber dishes, as many
  timber cups, and 40 timber stoups; to be distribute to the said
  garrisons conform to the number of men; also to provide coal and
  candle for the garrisons respective.” Act of the committee of council,
  Ayr, March 4th, 1678. By an act of the 9th, the commissioners were
  ordered to furnish the garrisons with necessary provisions, such as
  meat and drink, and to say at what prices they would agree to do so;
  but having failed, the committee took the business into their own
  hands, and ordered the prices to be as follow:—Hay, per stone, 2s.
  Scots; straw, per threave, 4s.; oats, per boll, 50s. in Carrick—55s.
  in Kyle; meal, per boll, 5 merks; malt, per boll, £5; cheese, per
  stone, £1, 10s.; pork, per stone, £1, 16s.; French grey salt, per
  peck, 10s.—Scots ditto, 5s.; butter, per stone, £2, 8s.; each dozen of
  eggs, 1s. 4d.; milk, per pint, 1s.; each hen, 4s.; each mutton bulk,
  £2. These prices, reduced to our currency, at 1s. Scots—1d. sterling;
  £1 Scots—1s. 8d. sterling,—will show the scarcity of cash in these
  days, and its relative value to the present prices.

In other villages, the meanest soldiers exacted sixpence sterling a-day,
and the guards a shilling or merk Scots; their captains and superior
officers, half-crowns and crowns at their discretion, or as they thought
the poor people could procure it, threatening to burn their houses about
their ears if they did not produce sufficient to answer their demands;
besides money, the industrious, sober, religious peasantry were
constrained to furnish brandy and tobacco; and, what was scarcely less
painful, were obliged to witness their filthy brutal excesses. Then,
again, some of the ruffians would levy contributions in order, as they
pretended, to secure the payers from plunder; yet, after they had
filched them of their money, at their departure rifled them of all they
could find the means of transporting. Their insolences to the females,
our historians have drawn a veil over, as too abominable to admit of
description.

An instance or two of their wanton waste are narrated, from which the
extent of the damage occasioned by their visitations, may, in some
measure, be guessed at, especially as the perpetrators were not the most
savage of the crew, but men from whom better things might have been
expected. The Angus-shire troop of gentlemen heritors, or yeomanry
cavalry, as they would now be called, commanded by the Laird of Dun, was
quartered upon the lands of Cunningham of Cunninghamhead, then a boy at
school, who, even by the strictest interpretation of the strictest acts
of this detestable period, could not be held liable to such an
infliction. Pretending that the country houses, upon which they were
billetted, were not sufficiently comfortable for persons of their
situation, these genteel troopers obliged the tenants to pay to each
five pounds sterling for “dry quarters;” but, after they had received
the money, they either remained themselves, or sent three or more
footmen of the wildest Highlanders to supply their place. A cornet in
this troop, Dunbar of Grange, nephew to the commander, perceiving that
the entrance to the old tower of Cunninghamhead was strongly secured by
an iron grating before a massy wainscoat door—most likely expecting to
find some treasure secreted within—called for the keys that he might
open and examine the interior. The keeper being absent, he was told that
there was nothing of any consequence in the place, for the second story
was used as a granary, and the rest of the building was unoccupied. At
this, in great wrath, after abusing the people, he set fire to the door,
and blew up the grating with gunpowder. Having forced his way in to the
foot of a staircase, after ascending, he found himself opposed by a
second stout door upon the girnel, also grated; but full of the hope of
plunder, he was not thus to be disappointed, and removed this
obstruction in the same summary manner. Sure of the prize, he rushed in
with his attendants, all equally eager with himself for a share of the
spoil, but they saw nothing except oatmeal, as they had been told,
which, in their rage at finding themselves “begunkit,” they either
“fyled” with their boots and shoes, all clay from the open field, or
scattered about and destroyed, under pretence of searching for arms. The
loss to the minor, as the greater part of the rents then were paid in
produce, has not been mentioned in money; but as the deed happened in
the month of February, the pecuniary value, although then high, might
not be equal to the detriment its destruction must have occasioned.

William Dickie, a merchant in Kilmarnock, had nine Highlanders quartered
upon him six weeks, during which he was obliged to furnish them with
meat and drink, and, not having sufficient accommodation for them in his
own house, was forced to pay for “dry quarters,” _i. e._ good beds, in
some other, as were numbers besides. When they went off, they carried
away with them several sacks full of household stuff, and goods, and a
hose full of silver money; and, before leaving, broke two of the honest
man’s ribs—stabbed his wife in the side, who was big with child at the
time, and otherwise so terrified her, that she died in consequence.

These were the apostles of Episcopacy! and their employers have even
found apologists in our own day; but if they who, by preaching, and
prayer, and suffering, attempted to diffuse the knowledge of the gospel
in their country, were or are called fanatics, by what epithet shall
honest indignation designate the miscreants who could endeavour by such
means to obtrude an illiterate, ignorant, dissolute, and shameless
priesthood, upon an unoffending, and comparatively uncorrupted, part of
the population? It is, however, pleasant to notice that, among the
Highland leaders, there were several exceptions. The Marquis of Atholl,
and the Earl of Perth, are particularly mentioned as having pled the
cause of justice and humanity at the council-board of the committee,
though, unhappily, their pleadings were overborne by numbers—and their
men comported themselves no better than their comrades.

The whole may be summed up in the words of a contemporary writer, an
eyewitness, quoted by Wodrow:—“It is evidently apparent that the
proceedings of these few months by-past, are a formed contrivance (if
God in mercy prevent not) to subvert all religion, and to ruine and
depopulate the country—they are open and evident oppression, public
violence, and robbery, and invasion of the person and goods of a free
and loyal people—a violation of the ancient rights and privileges of the
lieges—and a treacherous raising of hatred and discord ’twixt the king
and his subjects—and consequently, manifest treason against the
commonwealth and the king’s majesty. In a word, when considered in its
full extent, and in all its heinous circumstances, it is a complication
of the most atrocious crimes that almost ever could have been conceived
or perpetrated.” The losses sustained by the county of Ayr alone, were
estimated, in an account intended to be laid before the king if he would
have received it, at one hundred and thirty-seven thousand, four hundred
and ninety-nine pounds, six shillings, Scots—or eleven thousand, four
hundred and fifty pounds sterling; and this being only what could be
ascertained and proved, was not supposed to be one-half of the real
amount of damage inflicted.

While the Highlanders were plundering openly, the committee were equally
busy in their vocation—fining or imprisoning all who came before them,
whether upon charges of attending conventicles, or not signing the bond.
On the 22d February, the Earl of Cassilis appeared, and resolutely
refusing to subscribe what he considered as illegal in itself, and
impossible for him to perform, was ordered to answer next day to an
indictment accusing him of high crimes and misdemeanours, in frequenting
conventicles, or allowing them upon his grounds. His lordship did
accordingly appear, and denied upon oath, the truth of the averments in
the libel, only, if there had been any conventicles upon his ground, or
if his tenants had been at them, he knew nothing but by hearsay, he
himself having never seen any such meetings, nor any of his tenants
present at them. Immediately upon his refusal to subscribe, although he
had cleared himself by oath of all the crimes laid to his charge, the
lords appointed a messenger to charge him with letters of law-burrows,
to pledge himself in the books of the privy council, that his wife,
children, men, tenants, cottars, and servants, should not be present at
conventicles, or any other disorderly meetings, under a penalty of
double his valued yearly rent; and, in case of failure, he was to be
denounced a rebel within six days. Hereupon he wrote to their lordships
entreating a week’s delay, but they refused to grant him even this small
favour, on which he immediately repaired to Edinburgh to offer the
council every satisfaction that could be legally required. But upon his
coming thither, a proclamation was issued, commanding all noblemen,
heritors, and others of the west country, to depart from the capital,
and repair to their own houses within three days, before which time,
however, his lordship was actually denounced at the market-cross of Ayr,
and a caption issued for apprehending him. In these circumstances to
have remained in Scotland without some security, would have been the
height of folly, he therefore repaired to London, and having obtained
the interset of Monmouth, laid a statement of his case before the king.

Universal as the suffering was in the west, yet so impressed were the
people with a belief that the council wished some excuse for their
conduct, or some pretext for further severities, that, with a patience
unparalleled in history, they quietly endured their accumulated
grievances, without giving their oppressors the handle so eagerly
desired, and left them only the wretched plea of a rhetorical flourish,
by which they designated their quiet assemblies,[100] to palliate or
justify their atrocious aggressions on the constitution of the country,
and the common rights of mankind. Whether the privy council felt this,
or whether actuated by the dread of some more serious movement among the
nobility, as the Earl of Loudon, the Lords Montgomery, Cathcart, and
Bargeny, had also become refractory, it is unnecessary to inquire; but,
in the latter end of February, the Highland host were ordered home, and
the whole, except a few, returned to their native hills laden with the
spoils of their more excellent neighbours.

Footnote 100:

  Calling them rendezvouses of rebellion, or seminaries of rebellion.

Their march is pictured as the route of successful ravagers returning
from the sack of some devoted city. They were loaded with spoil. A great
many horses which they had stolen, were burdened with the merchandize
swept from the dealers’ shops—webs of linen and woollen cloth;
silver-plate, bearing the names and arms of gentlemen; bundles of
bedclothes, carpets, men and womens’ wearing-apparel, pots, pans,
gridirons, and a great variety of promiscuous articles. Their wary
leaders had transmitted home large sums of money previously by safe
hands, but some of the retreating parties were not so fortunate with
their bulky packages; the river Clyde being swollen when they came to
Glasgow, the students at College, assisted by a number of other youths,
took possession of the bridge, and allowing only forty to pass at a
time, obliged the marauders to deliver up their plunder, and then
conveyed them out at the West Port, without suffering them to enter the
town. In this manner, about two thousand were eased of their burdens,
and the custom-house nearly filled with furniture and clothing, which
were restored to their proper owners, as far as could be effected.

Great was the chagrin of the regular clergy at the breaking up of the
Highland host. The gospel itself, they said, would depart from the
district along with it; for they themselves might leave their parishes
whenever they were removed, unless garrisons were settled among them.
Garrisons were accordingly appointed; one hundred and twenty foot and
forty horse in Blairquhan; fifty foot and ten horse in Barskimming; and
as many in Cessnock. But these were deemed insufficient by the
presbytery of Ayr, who, seemingly taking fresh alarm at the Earl of
Cassilis’ visit to the capital, wrote to the Archbishop of Glasgow,
February 28, transmitting to his Grace “their humble opinions of several
occurrences. 1st, The great and leading men of this country,” say they,
“are all gone into Edinburgh, and expect to be sheltered there;
therefore it is fit they be severely dealt with, sought after, and
forced to obedience, otherwise the commonalty, who absolutely depend
upon them, will never be brought to conformity. 2dly, The indulged
ministers must be stinted of their liberty, and some new tie laid upon
them, or they absolutely removed; for let people say what they will,
most of these disorders flow from them. 3dly, That the leading men of
this country now at Edinburgh be not protected by the council, but taken
and sent hither; for the committee think their credit highly concerned
in it, if after they have been at the pains of prosecuting them this
length the council do protect them, it will be a great discouragement to
them in their procedure for the future. 4thly, The garrisons appointed
here are but three, and too weakly manned, and they are too far from the
heart of the shire, and it will be fit two hundred men be left in
garrison at Ayr. This is the opinion of your Grace’s most humble and
obedient sons in the Lord.”

Roused by this appeal, the archbishop immediately set out to court,
carrying with him an address from his subalterns to the same
effect—breathing out the same spirit of intolerant and unfounded
accusation of the brethren; and, by a species of unblushing
falsification, reproaching as persecutors the very men they themselves
were persecuting. It is a perfect specimen of jesuitism:—“May it please
your most Sacred Majesty: The danger this church is exposed unto in the
present circumstances, which are such as threaten the dissolution
thereof, hath necessitated us in the discharge of our duty, to desire
the Lord Archbishop of Glasgow humbly to address your royal presence,
and to offer unto your princely consideration, how inconsistent the
violent and irregular courses of those who rent the church, (and
prosecute us for no other reason but that of our absolute and entire
dependence on your majesty’s authority,) are, with the rights and
interests of your majesty’s crown and government, as well as with the
safety of your people, and the reverence due to religion, for no other
end but that your majesty’s authority may be vindicated and rescued from
the persecution of the open disturbers of the church and their abettors,
who, for their own ends, endeavour to constrain the people, and to
debauch them equally from their loyalty as their religion.” The council
had the full countenance of the king; yet still they do not seem to have
felt entirely at ease. They therefore sent him a summary account of all
their proceedings, with a request that he would grant them his explicit
approbation, which they enforced, as they generally did their
applications for his support in their extravagant measures, by recalling
to his remembrance the steps which had led to the late execrable
rebellion, and working upon his fears by marking a resemblance between
the present and those unhappy times; hinting, in conclusion, their
suspicions that their political rivals were chiefly to be dreaded. “We
are fully convinced that the meaner sort would not dare to appear in
such open insolences, if they were not encouraged by persons of greater
eminency, and who, by how much they are the more considerable, are so
much the more to be jaloused: tumultuary rabbles being then only
dangerous when they get a head, and when delusions in opinion mix
themselves with faction and humorous opposition to authority.” His
majesty immediately thanked them very heartily for their careful
prosecution of what he had recommended, in calling in his forces and
accepting the offers of the Highland noblemen, and expressed himself
well pleased that the bond should be offered to all persons and
magistrates within the ancient kingdom without exception, approved of
the law-burrows and the settled garrisons, and declared that his
approbation should have the force of an absolute indemnity and letter of
thanks to all in any way concerned in the late expedition to the west,
in council, committee, or execution, having very good reason to consider
the same as special and necessary service.

Notwithstanding his knowledge of this ample approval given by the king
to his council, and fully aware of the dangerous ground upon which he
stood, the Earl of Cassilis, with a noble boldness, delivered in
writing, under his hand, a true state of his case, March 28, an attested
copy of which was sent down by express to the council. A few days after
its receipt, they dispatched a long reply, in which they denied the
facts, and endeavoured to confute the arguments of his lordship; but
craved from his majesty’s justice that the Earl, who had contemned his
royal proclamation, and charged his privy council with crimes of so high
a nature, might be sent down prisoner to be tried and judged according
to law.

Affairs in England at this time did not admit of such prompt measures.
The Scottish patriot had engaged some of the English in his cause, who
sympathized with his sufferings and those of his country, and the king
also, influenced by his favourite Monmouth, either felt or pretended to
feel some commiseration. Cassilis was not sent down. The council were
still further mortified by the defection of two of the leading nobles,
the Marquis of Atholl and the Earl of Perth, when they returned from the
west. They not only did not concur in the severe methods going forward,
but from what they had observed of the peaceable conduct of the
Presbyterians, and the information they had received from some of the
noblemen, they could not continue to lend their countenance to the
severities so unreasonably exercised against them; nor could they avoid
showing their displeasure at the violence of the prelates, so that they
were openly accused of favouring conventicles, which now began to
multiply in the north and among the Highlands of Perthshire, where they
had not formerly been wont to be heard of; and the Bishop of Galloway,
who had been sorely annoyed with them, in a visit he had lately paid to
that quarter, thus complained to the Lord Register:—“I am surprised to
hear of the great and insolent field-conventicles in Perthshire, it
being as much influenced by the Marquis of Atholl’s example, as directed
by his authority. There is, besides many others, a constant
field-conventicle now settled in the confines of some parishes, Methven,
Gask, Tippermuir, and another, where it is marvelled that many observe
several shoals of Highlanders in their trews, and many bare-legged,
flocking thither to propagate the mischief of ‘the good old cause.’ It
is to good men no small discouragement that a shire, under the influence
and conduct of the Marquis of Atholl and the Earl of Perth, who say they
are true sons of the church, should (being formerly orderly and obedient
to the laws) become so turbulent and schismatical, especially since the
Marquis is sheriff-principal, and one altogether devoted to his lordship
is sheriff-depute, of that shire, in whose hands is placed the power to
punish and suppress these disorders.”

So far had the expedient of letting loose a band of mountaineers upon
the west failed in answering the end proposed by the prelates, that the
devastations they had committed, had raised the indignation of many of
the nobility and country gentlemen, who were indifferent to religious
modes of worship, and averse to all disputes about them; but having
heard of the success of the Earl of Cassilis, determined, as they were
denied any redress in Scotland, to lay their grievances before the king
in person. Accordingly, about the end of March, the Duke of Hamilton,
accompanied by the Earls of Roxburgh, Haddington, Loudon, and others—in
all about sixteen lords, together with Lieutenant-General Drummond, and
upwards of forty of the principal proprietors, breaking through the
prohibition, repaired to London; and what was most distressing to the
prelates, the Marquis of Atholl and the Earl of Perth, who had been
members of the committee of the privy council in the west, likewise went
thither.[101]

Footnote 101:

  When these two noblemen, with their servants and some gentlemen, were
  upon their road in Annandale, they lost their way; and it being late,
  the two noblemen were obliged to shelter in a cottage in that country.
  The people having heard somewhat of their errand in going up, were
  extremely kind to them, wishing them heartily success. When they could
  not get their horses under lock and key, or perhaps to any house, the
  noblemen appeared concerned for them, lest they should be stolen,
  having heard Annandale spoken of for stealing of horses; but the
  country people told them they were in no hazard, there was no thieving
  among them since the field-preaching came into that country, and
  talked of many other branches of reformation wrought among them by Mr
  Welsh and other preachers. Wodrow, vol. i. p. 507.—Kirkton, from whom
  Wodrow has borrowed this pleasant little anecdote, adds, “the poor
  country people talked to the noblemen’s great admiration for the time,
  but it brought forth but small fruit.” _Hist._ p. 239.

At first the king would only permit Atholl and Perth to approach his
person—the others he refused to see, because they had left Scotland in
contempt of a proclamation; but their representation of the mad projects
going forward there, made him conclude that certainly Lauderdale’s head
was turned; yet neither would he allow him to be blamed, or admit that
he had done any thing detrimental to his service. But as he professed
his intention of setting the Duke of Monmouth at the head of the
Scottish government, he allowed him to act as mediator upon this
occasion, and they were at last admitted into the royal presence; the
more readily perhaps, as their visit had begun to make a great noise and
awakened the jealousy of the English parliament now sitting;—who
imagined they saw, in the management of the sister kingdom, a specimen
of what they themselves might expect whenever circumtances would permit,
and anticipated their own subjection, should Charles establish a
despotism there, especially as the Duke of York, whose papistical
principles were now openly professed, strongly abetted the cause of the
Scottish Episcopal church—a church that gloried in being the daughter of
the church of Rome by true lineal descent in the uninterrupted
apostolical succession of her bishops,[102] and who equalled her in the
antichristian persecuting spirit of her priests.

Footnote 102:

  This was always strenuously contended for by the old non-jurants, who
  only lately died out here; but is apparently reviving in the
  Puseyites.

Alarmed at the departure of so many influential personages for London,
and at receiving no reply to their former letter, the privy council
dispatched the Earl of Murray and Lord Collington to counteract the
efforts of their opponents, and carry another epistle to his majesty,
complaining of the conduct of those persons, “who, instead of concurring
with them, which as sheriffs, and enjoying other responsible offices,
they should have done, had, with much noise and observation, gone to
England without seeking their license; but they, with humble confidence,
expected that his majesty, by his princely care and prudence, would
discourage all such endeavours as tended to enervate his royal authority
and affront his privy council; and they referred his majesty to their
messengers, two of their own number, men of known integrity and ability,
who could give him an exact account of what had passed, and resolve such
doubts as might occur to the royal mind, which could not be settled so
well by letters, and confute such unworthy mis-reports as were raised by
others who have choosed a time when his majesty was likely to be engaged
in a foreign war, and had assembled his parliament of England.”

After these deputies had reached London, and the various statements of
the different parties had been laid before the king, a message was
received by the council from him, announcing “that he had considered
some representations made by some of his subjects anent the late methods
with the west country, with the answers made thereunto and replies,
which so fortified the representations, that he resolved to hear and
consider things fully, and, in the meantime, commanded that the bond and
law-burrows be suspended till his further pleasure be sent, and that all
the forces, except his own guards, be immediately disbanded.” Astonished
at receiving such a command, when they expected to have got Cassilis
sent down prisoner as they had requested, they could not conceal their
disappointment and chagrin. In a reply which they transmitted by Sir
George Mackenzie, who was instantly sent off to aid in advocating their
cause, they say—“You know how much all were inclined to give the council
ready obedience till these noblemen interested themselves in the
phanatical quarrel; how ready all were to concur in assisting his
majesty both with their own tenants and militia; and, which is very
remarkable, how ready the gentry and heritors in every shire were to
rise, between sixty and sixteen, which, in shewing how all ways were
taken and owned for assisting the royal authority, did strike a just
terror in all those who were refractory; whereas now, the numbers and
humorousness of those who are gone up has done all they could to loose
all the foundations of authority here to such a height, as will soon
grow above correction, if it be not speedily, vigorously, and openly
adverted to by his majesty.”

Charles himself seems to have been not a little perplexed at the
unexpected step of the Scottish nobles. What had been done in Scotland
was unauthorized by any law, and unjustifiable upon any principle of
good government, but it was agreeable to the despotic propensities of
the heartless sovereign; and he was constantly wavering between the
harsh measures most congenial to his disposition, and the milder plans
he was occasionally obliged to adopt—sending orders one day to disband
the troops and dismantle the garrisons—the next, ordering new troops to
be raised and other garrisons to be planted, till Sir George Mackenzie
arrived. Shortly after his arrival, the king was prevailed upon to give
a hearing to the Duke of Hamilton and his friends, whose ranks were now
much thinned, both their patience and purses being nearly worn out by
their long detention. An account of the interview has been preserved,
written by one who was present, which, as it is the only authentic
document we have, and not being long, I the rather insert:—

“Upon the 25th of May, the king commanded the Duke of Hamilton, Lord
Cochrane, Sir John Cochrane, and Lieutenant-General Drummond, to attend
upon him at four of the clock, when they appeared. The king being
accompanied by the Duke of York, Duke of Monmouth, and the treasurer,
desired to know what they had to say—why they had come to him contrary
to his proclamation? The Duke of Hamilton spoke first and said, he
humbly begged to know the reason why he had got some marks of his
majesty’s displeasure, and that since he came here (to London) he had
not the common privilege of subjects, not being admitted to kiss his
majesty’s hand. The king replied, he would first know what were the
things they had to complain of? and he would take his own time to answer
his first request. The Duke said, the chief encouragement he had to come
and make known his oppression was that which his majesty said to him
when last here, which was, that when he was in any way wronged he should
come to himself and make it known; and that now he could not but come
since he and others were so much wronged.

“And then there was an account given of the whole affair of the bringing
down of the Highlanders, of quartering, plundering our lands, of having
a bond offered which was both illegal and impracticable, of being
charged with law-burrows, of being denounced thereupon, and of the
proclamation forbidding us to acquaint the king with our condition. All
these were particularly insisted upon at great length. To which the king
returned, that these were horrid things, and desired we might set them
down in paper. The treasurer said, that whatever was in these
free-quarterings and in the rest, they might have been prevented by
taking of the bond, which he conceived there was law for the imposing
of, and might be very well kept, for there were two alternatives in the
bond, viz. either to deliver them prisoners, or to put them from their
land. To which it was replied, there was no law obliging masters to
apprehend their tenants; and the furthest the act of parliament went
was, in the year 1670, to oblige masters for their families and
servants. 2dly, That masters could not be obliged to turn their tenants
out of their lands in regard that the punishment for going to a
conventicle was statute already to be a fine, much less in proportion
than the turning them out of their possessions; besides, most part of
the tenants have tacks by which, during their time, they had good right
to their possessions, and could not by their masters be turned out for a
crime that, by the law, was only finable, and had no such certification
as losing their possessions.

“The conference having been held two hours, there was a good deal said
to and fro, and the king fully and freely informed. The conclusion of
the debate was, the king told us he could not judge of what we had said,
unless we would give it under our hands, that he might consult
thereanent with his council, and know what they had to say for
themselves, and could advise him to. It was answered, that we came to
his majesty to give an information of what wrongs and oppressions were
done to the country, hoping his majesty would examine and redress them,
but not to give in any accusation against the council, which we knew, by
law, was very dangerous, unless his majesty would indemnify for it,
which the king refusing to do, they told him they could insist no
farther, but leave it to him to do as he thought fit. The king offered
to go out of the room, and the Duke of Hamilton kneeling, begged the
favour of his hand; but his majesty declined it, and said he would
consider upon and give an answer to what had been said, and went
away.[103]

Footnote 103:

  When the Duke of Hamilton got into his presence, the king kept his
  hands behind his back, lest perchance the Duke should snatch a kiss of
  them! And when the Duke came to make his complaint upon the bad
  government of Scotland, the king answered him with taunts, and bid him
  help what was amiss when he were king of Scotland; and this was all.
  _Kirkton_, p. 393.

“There were many particulars spoken to, wherewith the king seemed to be
moved, acknowledging there were overdoings and several things done upon
prejudice at particular persons; but still, when he came this length,
the Lord-Treasurer interrupted, and gave some other turn to matters,
otherwise ’tis thought there would a more favourable answer have been
given. The king signified that he was certainly informed that there was
a rebellion designed in Scotland, but he would take care the actors in
it should be the losers by it. He endeavoured much to assure us that,
albeit we had not come to London, there would not have been any caption
executed against us upon the law-burrows.”

Dismissed with flattering promises, the nobles were not deceived; and
although they brought away with them the “word of a prince,” they knew
its value too well to place much confidence in it. Nor did the conduct
of the king belie their forebodings. Three days after this conference,
he addressed to the managers in Scotland, a letter, the third of the
kind, containing his full approval of their proceedings; and “that the
rather, because, after trial taken by Us, we find that such as
complained refused to sign any complaint against these proceedings as
illegal,” and added, in order to prevent any future application, that he
was highly dissatisfied with such as had caused these clamours, and
“would on all occasions proceed according to our laws against such as
endeavour to lese our prerogative and oppose our laws and our privy
council.”

No sooner was there the least appearance of any relaxation in the
execution of the severe acts, than the ministers and people returned
with renewed alacrity to their meetings; and at this juncture, as there
was a very general impression that the men in power were sympathizing
with them, the consequence was, that conventicles again multiplied,
especially in Fife and East Lothian. At the same time, the regular
clergy were more upon the alert. The military, too, were always in
readiness, and sometimes skirmishes ensued, in which the soldiers
occasionally were beat off.

Early in May, a large conventicle having convened on the flat at
Whitekirk, opposite the Bass, the deputy-governor who had received
notice of it, came upon the meeting with about forty soldiers and some
twenty country people, whom they forced along with them. When they came
near, the people resolved to sit close and stay upon the place, and
offer no violence to the soldiers, unless they disturbed them; but in
that case they resolved to defend themselves. The soldiers came up and
commanded the people to dismiss in the king’s name. Some who were next
to them answered, they honoured the king, but were resolved to hear the
word of God when preached to them; at which one of the soldiers struck a
man that was nearest him, whereupon a strong countryman with a staff
knocked the soldier to the ground. When they were thus engaged, a kind
of general scuffle ensued. One of the soldiers was shot, and others
disarmed and dismissed unhurt, though they had seized and sent off to
Haddington two of the persons assembled at the conventicle. A few days
after, several other persons were apprehended for having been present,
from among whom five were selected to stand trial before the Justiciary
Court at Edinburgh for the murder. Of these, three were dismissed, but
two, James Learmont and Robert Temple, were brought to the bar; when it
was urged against the relevancy of the indictment, that “simple
presence” in a crowd, where upwards of a thousand persons were
assembled, could constitute no crime; and it was offered to be proved
that the prisoners came to the place unarmed, or did not use arms; and
not only this, but it was also offered to be proved that others who had
escaped, and were declared fugitives, were seen to strike the deceased
with swords and halberts. Yet the lords decided that presence at
unlawful meetings or field-conventicles with arms, at which slaughter
was committed, or giving counsel or command, were sufficient, and the
case was remitted to the jury to pronounce upon the proof. It was
distinctly sworn by two witnesses that they saw James Learmont at the
meeting unarmed, but heard him say—“Let no cowards be here to-day; but
let such as have arms go out to the foreside;” and, after having viewed
the advancing party, cry out—“They be but few, let there be no cowards.”
Another swore that he saw William Temple, with a sword under his arm,
but not drawn. The jury found the panels guilty as libelled; but the
lords of Justiciary not being quite clear about the business, requested
the opinion of the privy council, who, after considering the process,
deputed four of their number—Murray, Linlithgow, Ross, and Collington,
to express their satisfaction with the whole procedure, and recommended
that justice should be speedily executed upon the said panels. Such,
however, was the even-handed justice of these days, that a remission of
the punishment came to the one who had been proven to be at the
conventicle with a sword, while the unarmed hearer of the gospel was
sent to the gallows. But the good man died in great peace, declaring his
adherence to the truth as stated in the Confession of Faith, and to the
despised way of preaching the gospel and receiving the sacraments of
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper from lawfully ordained and called
ministers of the gospel, who were forced to the fields because of
persecution from those who were never friends to the church of
Christ—these lords prelates who lord it over the Lord’s inheritance. He
solemnly declared himself free of the blood of all men, especially the
blood of the man for which he was unjustly condemned, and looked forward
to that day wherein the righteous Judge will judge again, when he makes
inquisition for blood, and will call to account all the blood shed of
the saints that is dear in his sight; “before whom,” added he, “I am to
appear immediately, and hope to receive the sentence, well done faithful
servant, enter into your master’s joy, though not by my merit, but
through the merit and purchase of Christ.”

Learmont was a chapman, or pedlar, at that time a respectable employment
in Scotland, and appears, like many of his calling, to have been pretty
extensively known, which had provoked the peculiar enmity of Sharpe so
much, that, when the jury at first brought in a verdict of not guilty,
he was not satisfied, and the jury were sent back. A second time they
returned the same verdict, when he instigated the Lord Advocate to
threaten them with an assize of error, though Mackenzie seldom needed
any prompter on such occasions, which prevailed upon them at last to
bring in a verdict more agreeable to the blood-thirsty pair.[104]

Footnote 104:

  Fountainhall’s Decis. vol. i. p. 13. Wodrow says, “some papers before
  me say he was once assoilzied by the jury; but Bishop Sharpe being
  peremptory he must die, moved the Advocate to threaten them with the
  utmost severity; and at length they were prevailed with to bring him
  in guilty.” Hist. vol. i. p. 521.—Learmont himself, in a large paper
  left behind him, declares—“My blood lyeth at the Bishop of St Andrew’s
  door, to stand against him; for since I received this sentence of
  death, it hath been frequently brought to my ears, that he pressed the
  king’s advocate to take my life.” “And now in my last words, after the
  example of my Lord and master, I here most freely, before I go hence,
  say, ‘Father, forgive them.’” Naphtali, p. 450.—Nine years after, a
  person upon his deathbed owned to a minister who visited him, a few
  hours before his death, that he was the person who killed the soldier,
  which he did in self-defence, and to save the life a neighbour.
  Learmont was in no ways concerned or present at it. Wodrow, vol. i. p.
  523.

Increasing severities on the part of their rulers produced increasing
precautions on the part of the persecuted, who were firmly persuaded
that it was the will of God and their duty to hear his word and
endeavour to induce others to hear also—that no human power could
release them from the sacred obligations of their oath to God, ratified
by acts of the legislature, unanimously passed, and sworn to by king,
parliament, and people. They therefore, in obedience to these
obligations, and these acts, came now in greater numbers armed to their
meetings, to defend themselves and their preachers; and even those who
had at first opposed resistance to their oppressors began to relax.

Among a people trained to judge and reason for themselves, it was not
easy to settle the disputed questions, Who were the violators of the
law?—those who had overthrown and trampled under foot the constitution
of the country? or those who obeyed and were determinately upholding it?
Could the circumstance of minority or majority change the nature or
loosen the bonds of religious, moral, and legal obligation? Did these
depend upon numbers, riches, or power? Politicians may answer yes;
people may temporise where to resist would involve a community, or part
of a community, in an unequal or apparently hopeless contest—they may
pay for the support of an established hierarchy, which they do not
approve, because it may be dangerous to attack it—they may accept office
under a government, coupled with restrictions discordant to man’s
natural right to worship God according to conscience, because obedience
is gainful or expedient;—but these worthies judged differently, they
considered what they thought duty, national and personal, irrevocable
and imperative; and they left the consequences to the providence of God.

Mr Blackadder, invited again to Fife, lodged at Inchdarnie’s—then the
head-quarters of the higher ranks among the covenanters in that
district—together with his son Robert, Bailie Haddoway, and Mr,
afterwards Colonel, Cleland. On Sabbath morning he was escorted to
Divan, eight miles off. When he came, he observed a number of arms piled
in order on the ground, guns and fowling-pieces, about the number of
fifty, which, when he saw, he asked, “what meant all this preparation?
Trust rather in Jehovah, and the shield of omnipotence.” They told him
the reason, that Prelate Sharpe had ordered to draw a hundred and five
men out of the militia, to be a standing company, on purpose to search
for and apprehend ministers who should venture within his bounds. This
and the like violence was the thing that soon brought him to his end,
and constrained peaceable folk to come in arms, after long suffering and
provocation. About the middle of the communion, an alarm arose that the
militia were advancing their whole company. Burleigh stepped out
presently and drew up a party of the left horse, such as he could find,
and went forth to view the militia, who were within two miles of the
place. Suspecting that the meeting might be in a posture of defence,
they had halted on a brae-side until both sermons should be ended, that
they might make a prey of the people dismissing. When all the
congregation were removed, except the minister’s body-guard, a new alarm
came that the soldiers were at hand. Upon this Kinkel and Burleigh, with
a few horse, rode up the face of the hill, where the militia had
advanced with the hope of getting plunder, and making prisoners of the
hindermost. Also the foot, young men, who had their guns, and were on
their way homeward, did resolutely return and join the horse, which
altogether made a party between thirty and forty. The lads on foot were
drawn up beside the cavalry, such as they were. The military with their
officers were marching fast up, expecting their prey, but halted when
they perceived the party. Haddoway and Cleland rode down to have spoken
and asked their intentions; but ere they came near, the militia wheeled
about for marching off, if they might. The footmen came up sweating with
their muskets, and were drawn up on the flanks, making a tolerable
troop.

But the militia, terrified at all this apparatus, scarcely looking over
their shoulder, fled to Cupar in a dismal fear. The Presbyterian
horsemen would gladly have had orders to break after them, which if they
had done, it is said the prelatists had resolved to throw down their
arms and surrender at mercy. But the minister did calmly dissuade them
from it. “My friends, your part is to defend yourselves from hazard, and
not to pursue: your enemies have fled—let their flight sheath your
weapons and disarm your passions. I may add without offence, that men in
your case are more formidable to see at a distance than to engage hand
to hand. But since you are in a warlike and defensive posture, remain
so, at least till your brethren be all dismissed. Conduct them through
their enemies, and be their safeguard until they get beyond their reach;
but except in case of violence, offer injury to none.” When the militia
had entered Cupar, the party rode off quietly. About nine guarded Mr
Blackadder to his quarters, which was at an inn in the parish of
Portmoak. On Monday he returned with his friends to Edinburgh.

Next week, another remarkable communion was held at Irongray,
Dumfries-shire, when Mr Welsh presided at the earnest desire of his old
parishioners, who had resolved to make this public avowal of their
attachment to the cause of Christ, at the peril of all they held dear on
earth; thither also Mr Blackadder resorted. On Thursday, he took horse
from Edinburgh, accompanied by his wife and son Robert, who wished to
see their relations and join on the occasion, such a thing being so rare
to them. As they rode on their way by Leadhills towards Enterkin and
Nithsdale, they found the roads covered with people, some on horse,
others on foot. A company of eighty horse, whereof many were respectable
gentlemen from Clydesdale, and well appointed with regular officers, had
marched down Enterkin-path in good order a little before him. They were
all reasonably well accoutred. He entered into conversation with many
groups of people, and advised them all to behave with sobriety and
decorum. The party of Clydesdale horse, when they were down the brae of
Enterkin, which was a large mile, drew up and fell into rank at the foot
of the path, and marched in good order all along Nithsdale, till they
came to Cluden-water, which was much swollen by the rain. They rode
through directly to Irongray parish, where they took up their quarters,
and kept outwatches and sentinels all night. The men on foot came after,
and took up their lodgings where they could most conveniently, and as
near the horse as possible. They told that the Earl of Queensberry was
on his road to Edinburgh, and had met several companies of them.

Mr Blackadder and his company took the route to Caitloch, where he
stayed that night. Here their numbers were increased to a great
concourse. On Saturday morning, they marched from Caitloch to the cross
of Meiklewood, a high place in Nithsdale, about seven miles above
Dumfries. This he understood was to be the rendezvous of the
congregation. Here they had a commanding view of the whole country, and
could not be taken by surprise. On the one hand, the hills of Dalswinton
and all the higher ground of Kirkmahoe, lay within reach of the eye, as
far as the braes of Tinwald and Torthorwald. The range of the Galloway
hills lay on the west, all the passes of which could be distinctly seen.
No sudden change could surprise them from the south, as the flat holms
of the Nith were visible for many miles. When Mr Blackadder reached the
place, he found a large assembly had collected. He opened the service
from these words, 1 Cor. xi. 24. “Do this in remembrance of me.” His two
chief points were—That the ceremony was not left arbitrary to the
church, but was under a peremptory command from Christ himself. This
remembrance was to be renewed from time to time as seasons would permit;
and their divine Master’s command was still in force, though men had
inhibited and discharged them. Secondly, The end of the institution, why
it ought to be frequently celebrated or administered; and what was
especially to be commemorated.

Mr Welsh preached in the afternoon, and intimated the communion to take
place next day on a hill-side in Irongray, about four miles distant, as
it was judged convenient and more safe to shift their ground. He durst
not mention the name of the place particularly, lest enemies might get
notice and be before them; but none failed to discover it. Early on
Sabbath morning, the congregation sat down on the Whitehill in Irongray,
about three miles above Dumfries. The meeting was very numerous, greater
than at East Nisbet, being more gentlemen and strangers from far and
near. Mr Arnot, late minister of Tongland, lectured in the morning, and
Mr Welsh preached the action-sermon, which was his ordinary. The rest of
the ministers exhorted and took their turn at the table-service. The
whole was closed in the evening without disturbance. It was a cloudy and
gloomy day, the sky lowering and often threatening showers, but the
heavy clouds did not break, but retained their moisture, as it were to
accommodate the work; for ere the people got to their houses and
quarters, there fell a great rain which that night waxed the waters, and
most of them had to pass through both the Cairn and the Cluden.

The Earl of Nithsdale, a papist, and Sir Robert Dalzell of Glenae, a
great enemy to these meetings, had some of their ill-set domestics
there, who waited on and heard till the time of the afternoon sermon,
and then slipt away. At the time of dismissing there arose a cry and
alarm that the dragoons were approaching, whereupon the Clydesdale men
instantly took to horse and formed. The gentlemen of Galloway and
Nithsdale took no posture of defence at first, as they did not intend it
until they saw imminent hazard. But seeing the motions of the Clydesdale
men, they thought it necessary to do the like. Gordon, the Laird of
Earlstone, who had been a captain in the former wars, now drew up a
large troop of Galloway horse. Another gentleman of Nithsdale, who had
also been a captain of horse, mustered up a troop of cavalry from the
holms of Kirkmahoe and about the Nith. Four or five companies of foot,
with their officers, were ready equipped for action; and all this was
done in the twinkling of an eye, for the people were willing and
resolute. Videttes and single horsemen were despatched to various
quarters, to keep a good look out. The report brought in was, that they
had only heard a rumour of them being in the country, but could not
inform themselves if any were near at hand, or any stir in that
immediate neighbourhood. After remaining in that defensive posture for
three hours, the body of the people dispersed to their quarters, each
division accompanied with a guard of foot and horse. In houses, barns,
and empty places, most of them got accommodated in a sort of way, within
a mile or two’s distance. They had mostly provided themselves both for
board and lodging, and the ministers were hospitably received at the
houses.

The night was rainy, but watches were kept notwithstanding. As a point
of prudence, no intimation was given where the Monday’s meeting was to
be kept; this was not generally known, except to the ministers. The tent
was next day erected on another hill-side near the head of the parish,
three or four miles from the place of the Sabbath meeting. The people
seemed nothing diminished in numbers on account of the alarm, or the
unpropitious state of the weather. The horse and foot, as usual, drew
round about the congregation, the horse being outermost. Mr Blackadder
closed this day from Heb. xiii. 1. “Let brotherly love continue;” and,
notwithstanding the alarm, he continued three weeks preaching up and
down in that country.

About the end of harvest, the last and largest out-door communion that
ever had been in Scotland, was celebrated at Colmond, in Ayrshire. Many
came in their best furniture and posture of defence, expecting violence,
as the council had got notice of it—there was a great number of
ministers officiating—but all the people dismissed in peace. Other
conventicles did not escape so easily. One kept at the house of the
Williamwood, in the parish of Cathcart, Renfrewshire, where Mr John
Campbell and Mr Matthew Crawford had preached, was dispersed by a party
of dragoons, who took sixty men prisoners, and plundered a great number
of women of their plaids, bibles, and whatever else they had worth
carrying away.[105]

Footnote 105:

  The minutes of privy council inform us how the booty so honourably
  acquired on these occasions was disposed of. “The lords of his
  majesty’s privy council ordain Captain Buckham” to advertise on
  Sabbath next at the parish of Calder, “certain horses and plaids
  _found_ by him and his party on dissipating the late conventicle; with
  certification, if the persons to whom they doe belong will not owne
  and come and receive them back againe that day eight days, they will
  be disposed upon; and in case they be not owned, the saids lords
  ordains the said Captain Buckham to sell and dispose thereupon at the
  best availl for the use of the party.” Memoirs of Bryson, published by
  Dr M’Crie, p. 282, note. The Doctor quaintly adds, “Few owners, it is
  to be presumed, would make their appearance to claim these _lost_
  goods.”

Affairs were now drawing to a crisis. Outward troubles were
accumulating, while, unfortunately, the intestine divisions were also on
the increase. “Such,” reports one of the “outted” ministers themselves,
“as were in the fields found it difficult, amid the jarring tempest of
opinions, to give an advice. The majority were of opinion that the times
called more for meekness and patience, than any warlike enterprise; and
that it was better to continue under suffering until they had clearer
revelation than use carnal weapons of their own; for at this time there
were several sticklers in the west stirring up the people underhand,
amusing them with designs to rise in arms, though there was no such
joint resolution, for any thing I know, either among gentry or
ministers, nor the most pious, solid, and grave among the yeomen.”
Nevertheless, the country was generally ripening for some explosion; and
it says little for the gentlemen that they did not watch the movements
of the community, as they might have directed them into more peaceable
channels; but their posterity have reason to thank their coolness or
timidity, as any arrangement with the then government could only have
been based upon allowing a preponderance to the crown, which even a
revolution might not have been able to impair. Mr Robert Hamilton,
brother to Sir William Hamilton of Preston, esteemed a pious man and of
good intentions, but of narrow views and severe in his temper—obstinate
and opinionative withal—stepped forward while they stood back—held
meetings in the country, and also at Edinburgh, during this summer, for
establishing a general correspondence; but all this without acquainting
the ministers or gentlemen, who were in better capacity to manage the
business.[106]

Footnote 106:

  Notices of James Ure, p. 452. Memoirs of Rev. John Blackadder, p. 224.
  Wodrow, vol. i. p. 520, &c.

In the midst of these commotions, a convention was summoned, and
Lauderdale appointed to preside as Commissioner; for he did not choose
to face a parliament.[107] Exaggerated reports of the “armed
conventicles” had been carefully transmitted to the king; and his early
prejudices and fears, arising naturally enough from the fate of his
father, and his own papistical education, rendered him an easy tool in
the hands of the apostates and prostitutes by whom he was surrounded,
who, flattering his baser propensities and humouring his tyrannical
inclinations, held him in the veriest bondage, while he imagined himself
despotic and free! Lauderdale and his associates, the Scottish
prelatists, rendered this criminal carelessness of Charles subservient
to their own purposes. Their usual mode was to get letters drawn out in
his name by some of their accomplices at court, and presented to the
king for his signature, which being speciously written, they obtained in
common without difficulty. These they could produce as his own
authority, warranting the most outrageous of their own measures, and as
arguments for every fresh encroachment upon the constitutional freedom
of the people, which their suspicions supposed necessary to protect them
from the consequences of their crimes. They had long wished for a
standing army. Charles had seen its efficacy in France. The present was
reckoned a proper time for procuring this royal defence of order in
Scotland. His majesty therefore wrote to his right trusty and well
beloved councillors, informing them that, after the full and
satisfactory information he had received from the lords they had sent to
court, he “again” approved of their proceedings and care, and assured
them of his favour, assistance, and protection upon all occasions. “And
for the more effectual demonstration thereof,” the royal epistle went on
to say, “We find it necessary to signify to you, and by you to our
people, that we are firmly resolved to own and assert our authority, so
as it may equally encourage you and discourage all such as by seditious
practices endeavour to asperse you and lessen our authority and
prerogative. And finding by good information that the phanatics there
expecting encouragement from such as oppose you, and taking advantage of
the present juncture of affairs here,[108] have of late, with great
insolence, flocked together in open and field-conventicles, these
rendezvouses of rebellion, and have dared to oppose our forces. Though
we neither need nor do fear such insolent attempts, yet from a just care
of our authority and kindness to our subjects there, We have thought fit
to order some more forces to be levied; and for that effect we have
commanded the lords of our treasury for raising and maintaining these
troops at our charges.”

Footnote 107:

  A convention differed from a parliament in this—it was summoned for
  one specific purpose, and could not interfere with any thing else—in
  general, only to grant money. Nor does it appear that although they
  could authorize the levying a subsidy from the subject, that they had
  any right to look after its management by the crown; the delegates to
  a convention, also, were generally nominated by persons in power.

Footnote 108:

  Referring to the popish plot which about this time agitated the
  English nation and parliament.

Agreeably to this communication, a proclamation was issued, convoking a
convention, the bare-faced irony of which would be ludicrous, did not
its wickedness of purpose excite other and rather more unpleasant
sensations. In it he repeated his fulsome, because false, protestations
of the great kindness he bore to his ancient kingdom; “and considering
that all kings and states did carefully secure themselves and their
people by providing against all such foreign invasions and intestine
commotions as might make them a prey to their enemies; and that it was
not a fit time that Scotland alone should remain without defence,
especially when these execrable field-conventicles, so justly termed
rendezvouses of rebellion, did still grow in numbers and insolence,
against which all our present forces would not in reason be thought a
suitable security. Therefore he called a convention of the estates of
that kingdom, to meet at Edinburgh upon the 26th of June, to provide for
the safety of the kingdom, by enabling him to raise more forces.”

During the absence of almost all the nobles and influential men who had
gone with them to London, and from whom any formidable opposition could
have arisen, Lauderdale’s friends hurried on the elections, so that when
the convention met, he was possessed of an obedient and overwhelming
majority. Eager to evince their loyalty, the chosen band declaring
themselves the echoes of the public voice, “and considering the many
frequent and renewed professions to serve his majesty with their lives
and fortunes, in the maintenance of his honour and greatness; and that
now there was an opportunity offered to them, to make good their
professions of their zeal, duty, and affection;” “and to let the world
see the unanimous affection of his ancient kingdom for the maintenance
of his majesty’s royal greatness, authority, and government in church
and state, as established by the laws of the kingdom, they did humbly
beseech that his majesty would be graciously pleased to accept the
unanimous, ready, and cheerful offer, and humble tender, of a new supply
of eighteen hundred thousand pounds, Scots, to be raised and paid in
five years, according to the present valuations.”[109] The act was very
unpalatable to the country generally, as they viewed not only the army
as the ready instrument of tyranny, but as a reward to the servile party
who supported Lauderdale, and to the prelatists who alone would obtain
for their poor relations and friends commissions in the army, and share
among themselves the donations of the convention.

Footnote 109:

  The monthly assessments of six thousand pounds introduced by Cromwell,
  were retained, and are still observed as the rate at which the
  land-tax is imposed. Laing, vol. iv. p. 93. The sum, therefore, here
  voted, was in our money £30,000 per ann. for five years, and might be
  in real about five times the nominal value. The number of militia to
  be drawn at this time, was one-fourth part of the whole, 5000 foot and
  500 horse—the pay, six shillings, Scots, ilk day for the foot;
  eighteen shillings, Scots, for each horseman.

With the Presbyterians, its tendency was disastrous. Payment of cess
became a new and bitter source of contention among the already too much
divided sufferers. As the object for which the money was to be raised,
was expressly stated to be for the suppression of conventicles; or, as
the most strenuous opponents of the measure justly interpreted it, for
preventing the preaching of the gospel, they at once, and without
circumlocution, declared it unlawful to submit in any manner to the
exaction. The impositions of tyrants, enacted for promoting their wicked
designs against religion and liberty, said they, are iniquitous;
therefore it is improper to pay them, especially when these designs are
particularly specified and openly avouched in the acts which require
them. No act can be binding if imposed upon a people by persons calling
themselves their representatives, when they are not truly so, but placed
in their situations by those who have broken all their engagements,
betrayed their country, its religion, liberty, property, and all private
interests, have enslaved the nation, and, by means of these taxations,
will be enabled to perpetuate that slavery. Should it be replied, ‘that
Christ paid custom, lest he should offend, and taught us to render to
Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and to God the things that are
God’s;’ it is sufficient to observe, that he never taught to give any
thing to Cesar in prejudice to that which is God’s; nor would it be much
less than blasphemy to say, that Christ would have paid, or permitted
his followers to pay, a tax professedly imposed for levying a war
against himself, banishing his gospel out of the land, and supporting
the scribes and pharisees and their underlings in their wicked attempts
against his disciples.

Others were of opinion that, as the money would be forcibly taken from
them, it was more adviseable to submit at once, rather than by
resistance to give their oppressors a legal pretence for not only
seizing to the amount of the tax, but perhaps double, in the name of
expenses; and as the deed was neither spontaneous, nor willingly
performed, the constrained action would come under the head of suffering
rather than of crime.

A third party chose a middle course, and paid it with a declaratory
explanation or protest. Among these was Quintin Dick, portioner in
Dalmellington, described by Wodrow as an eminent Christian, and prudent,
wise, and knowing, far above most of his education and station, who thus
expresses himself:—“In this hour of darkness, being much perplexed how
to carry without scandal and offence, I betook myself to God for
protection and direction, that I might be kept from any measure of
denying Christ or staving off my trouble upon any grounds but such as
might be clearly warranted by the word of God. After much liberty in
pouring out my heart to God, I was brought to weigh, that, as my paying
of it might be by some interpreted a scandal and a sinful acquiescence
in the magistrate’s sinful command; so, on the other hand, my refusing
to pay it would be the greater scandal, being found to clash against a
known command of God, of giving to all their due, tribute to whom
tribute is due; custom to whom custom is due; and knowing that Jesus
Christ for that very same end, to evite offence, did both pay tribute
himself and commanded his followers to do it, I could see no way to
refuse payment of that cess, unless I had clashed with that command of
paying tribute unto Cesar. So, to evite the scandal of compliance on the
one hand, and disobedience to the magistrate in matters of custom on the
other, I came to the determination to give in my cess to the collector
of the shire of Ayr where I lived, with a protestation against the
magistrate’s sinful qualification of his commands, and a full adherence
unto these meetings of God’s people, called conventicles, which in the
act he declared his design to bear down. I had no sooner done this, but
I was trysted with many sharp censures from many hands, among which this
was one, that my protestation was only to evite sufferings, and could be
of no weight, being ‘protestatio contraria facto.’ But being truly
persuaded that it is the magistrate’s right to impose and exact cess and
custom, I could have no clearness to state my sufferings in opposition
unto so express a command of God. And as to the magistrate’s sinful
qualification—having so openly declared and protested against it—I
conceive the censure of this to evite suffering is altogether
groundless; seeing the enemy has (subscribed with my hand before
witnesses) a resolute adherence to that which they say this tends to
overthrow; and if he mind to persecute upon the ground of owning
conventicles, he has a fair and full occasion against me under my hand.”

A few defended the refusal of payment upon the ground that the
convention having been a packed assemblage, consisting of persons
entirely under the influence of the crown—the chief and most powerful
Peers being necessarily absent, and the commissioners of the shires and
burghs returned through the sinful means of corruption and bribery, by
promises held out and favours bestowed, by the managers and persons in
power, for the purpose of compassing their own base ends—they could not
be considered as the real representatives of the people, nor legally
entitled to impose burdens upon the lieges; and therefore the people
were not righteously obligated to pay.

Combined with the disputes relative to paying cess, were revived with
redoubled vigour the discussions anent hearing the indulged; and “it was
truly grievous to us,” laments one who was himself a silent observer of
what passed, “to see a young generation, endued with great zeal towards
God and his interests, so far led aside in the improvement of it, as
very little to know, or seldom to be taught, meekness and patience under
affliction for Christ’s sake, or charity and mutual forbearance in love!
And to such a length did these heats come, that some did not stick to
term the famous Mr John Welsh, because he would not run so high upon
public, yea personal, acknowledgments of those steps of defection, an
Achan in the camp.”

Publications and preaching against each other succeeded, and the minds
of the wanderers began to be imbittered against the indulged, who they
thought were sitting at ease in Zion, while they were combating upon the
high places of the field. Another meeting of ministers was therefore
held at Glasgow in the end of harvest, when fresh efforts were made by
the aged veterans of the kirk to heal the wounds under which their
common mother lay bleeding; the more distressing as inflicted by some of
the most devoted of her sons. A new and practical cause of dissension
arose from the circumstances of the times and the situation in which the
preachers and people were placed, which struck at the root of Presbytery
itself, and that was the conduct of the younger brethren. As the duties
of presbyteries and synods had been interrupted, the most popular
preachers and their followers acted entirely upon their own
responsibility, invaded the parishes of the indulged, preached as they
listed, without being subject to any inspection or control, and had thus
widened the unhappy rent, and given great advantage to the common enemy.
The meeting disapproved of the practice of promiscuous preaching, any
where or every where, as opportunities presented, because, when they
intruded on the parishes of the indulged, they destroyed both the
usefulness of their brethren, whose charges they disturbed, and their
own, by depriving both of the restricted liberty they enjoyed, and which
it was their duty to improve.

Instead, they recommended that the whole of the “outted” ministers, and
those who had been regularly licensed by them, should associate
themselves together in classes, and that every fixed preacher should
belong to some class to which he should be subject and responsible; and
those who were unsettled, and so could not ordinarily attend their own
class or pseudo-presbytery, should attend such other as providence did
direct. They at the same time disapproved of the last meeting at
Edinburgh, being considered as an authoritative meeting, and pronounced
it to have been only “a committee for consideration, and to report
overtures to the general meeting of correspondents, who they were to
call upon occasion.” Nevertheless, they were still of opinion, that the
first foundation of unity must be order, and that there is no other way
of producing a humble contrite temper, warming the already too much
estranged affections, and preventing the like or worse for the future,
than that the brethren who were moderate and like-minded, and who, they
blessed God, were yet the very far greater and better number, should
meet together and consult upon fit means for so desirable an end. The
west country ministers mentioned, likewise, that they were in
consultation with their brethren in the east, who had been treating with
them, and who were also breathing after unity and peace.

What broke up these friendly communings, does not distinctly appear; but
a very untoward circumstance took place in the parish of Monkland, near
Glasgow, which certainly did not tend to promote their object. On
Sabbath, September 1st, the Rev. Mr Selkirk, afterwards minister of the
gospel at Crichton, had been requested by the ministers of Glasgow to
supply that parish, then vacant; but when he attempted it, he was
violently opposed and kept out of the church by force, merely because he
was favourable to the indulged, on purpose that one of the young
preachers under the patronage of Mr Robert Hamilton, might have access
to the pulpit to inveigh against them.

Were it not upon record, and recorded too by authority of the oppressors
themselves, it would hardly be credited that many of the best and most
inoffensive men in the country were banished and sold as slaves to the
plantations, for no crime but simply because they would not regularly
attend their parish churches to hear men preach, whom they believed
incapable of instructing them in those duties which they saw themselves
daily outraging; and choosing rather to assemble in the fields to wait
upon the ministry of others whom they preferred, by whose discourses
they were enlightened and edified, taught to live soberly, righteously,
and godly in this present world, and directed in those paths which lead
to glory and immortality in the next. Yet nearly one hundred persons,
upon such accusations, writers! farmers, merchants, men and women, were
delivered over, in the month of June this year, to Edward Johnstoun,
master of the Saint Michael of Scarborough, now lying at Leith, for
behoof of Ralph Williamson of London, who had given security to the
council to transport them to the Indies, where they were to continue in
servitude for life, and there to dispose of them to the best advantage.
Among these was the noted Alexander Peden, who had laboured with great
success in the north of Ireland. Having lain a long time in Edinburgh
jail, he petitioned the council to be permitted to return to his old
station, especially as he had been served with no indictment, nor was he
charged with holding either house or field-conventicles in Scotland for
twelve years. The council evinced their character by their tender
mercies. They answered his petition by banishing him to the plantations
for life, and ordained him “to lie in prison till he be transported.” He
was said to have been an instrument of much good to his
fellow-passengers, and cheered their spirits with the hopes of
deliverance when they reached London.[110]

Footnote 110:

  “Mr Peden was a man of prayer, of natural sagacity, of spiritual
  discernment, and a great observer of the ways of Providence. He could
  foresee what would be the result of certain measures, and what
  calamities foolish and wicked men would bring upon themselves and
  others; and when such things came to pass as he had foretold, his too
  credulous friends ascribed it to the gift of prophecy. At the same
  time, I am not so wedded to my opinion on this subject, as not to
  admit that men who lived in such intimate daily communion with God as
  Mr Peden did, may have had presentiments of things with regard to
  themselves and the church, of which Christians of a lesser growth can
  form no conception.”—M’Gavin’s note to the Scots Worthies, p. 516.

They were detained at sea five days longer than had been calculated
upon; and when they arrived, Mr Williamson who should have received them
was absent. Johnstoun, who had the charge of their maintenance when
there, not knowing how he was to be reimbursed, and not being able to
find any body to take them off his hands, nor seeing any prospect of the
agent, set them ashore, and left them to shift for themselves. The
English, who sympathized much with them when they learned the cause of
their sufferings, afforded them every assistance; and the greater part
of them returned safely home after an absence of nine months—several of
them to suffer new hardships from their relentless persecutors.

Neither rank nor age were any protection against the cruelty of these
men, who, careless about the mischief they inflicted, imposed upon the
young oaths which they could not be supposed to understand, and ordered
them to subscribe bonds they could never fulfil. The son of Lord Semple,
at this time a student in Glasgow College, had a young man for his
private tutor, of uncommon abilities and excellent character, to whom he
was much attached. Him the council summoned to appear before them; but
he, aware of the consequences, did not comply, and his pupil withdrew
with him. They were both served with a charge of law-burrows. The young
lord’s mother, however, who was a papist, interfered on his behalf, and
represented that her son, through the neglect of those to whom he was
recommended, or the corruption of the place, had been seduced and
poisoned with bad principles; she therefore craved that they would
recommend such persons as would watch over his loyalty and estate during
his minority, and they appointed the Bishop of Argyle to provide a
governor to that lord. Mr Wylie went abroad and remained at some of the
foreign universities with several other pupils.

Alexander Anderson, a youth not sixteen years of age, was treated more
harshly, because he would make no compliances. He was sent to the
plantations. Yet he left a testimony behind him, which deserves to be
remembered, dated Canongate tolbooth, December 10th, this year. In it he
remarked—“That he is the youngest prisoner in Scotland; and that the
Lord had opened his eyes and revealed his Son in his heart since he came
under the cross; that though he had much difficulty to part with his
friends and relatives, yet he had now found, that fellowship with Christ
did much more than balance the want of the company of dearest relations;
that though he was so very young as that he could not be admitted a
witness among men, yet he hopes Christ hath taken him to be a witness to
his cause. He adheres to the work of reformation from popery and prelacy
to the National and Solemn League and Covenants; and witnesses against
the pulling down of the government of Christ’s house, and setting up
lordly prelacy, and joining with them; and adduces a good many places of
Scripture which he conceives strike against this practice. He makes an
apology that he who is but a child should leave any thing of this nature
behind him; but says he was constrained to it, to testify that God
perfects strength out of the mouth of babes. He regrets the indulgence
as what upon both sides had been matter of stumbling and offence among
good people; and declares his fears that a black, dreadful day is coming
upon Scotland: that it is good to seek the Lord and draw near to him. He
leaves his commendation to the cross of Christ, and blesses the Lord for
carrying him through temptations, and enabling him, one of the lambs of
his flock, to stand before great men and judges; and closes with good
wishes to all the friends of Christ.”

The Justiciary Court was this year engaged in equally cruel, though,
could we divest them of their horrors, we should say more ludicrous
transactions. “Eight or ten witches,” Lord Fountainhall tells us, “were
panelled, all of them, except one or two, poor miserable-like women.
Some of them were brought out of Sir Robert Hepburn of Keith’s lands;
others out of Ormiston, Crichton, and Pencaitland parishes. The first of
them were delated by those two who were burnt in Salt-Preston in May
1678, and they divulged and named the rest, as also put forth seven in
the Lonehead of Leswade; and, if they had been permitted, were ready to
fyle by their delation sundry gentlewomen and others of fashion; but the
justices discharged them, thinking it either the product of malice or
melancholy, or the devil’s deception, in representing such persons as
present at their field-meetings who were not there. Yet this was cried
out on as a prelimiting them from discovering those enemies of mankind.
However, they were permitted to name Mr Gideon Penman, who had been
minister at Crichton, but deprived for sundry acts of immoralitie. Two
or three of the witches constantly affirmed that he was present at their
meetings with the devil; and that when the devil called for him, he
asked, where is Mr Gideon, my chaplain? and that, ordinarily, Mr Gideon
was in the rear of all their dances, and beat up those that were slow.
He denied all, and was liberate upon caution”—certainly the only way of
disposing of this case in consistency with common sense.

Yet were these poor unfortunates allowed to proceed with their
confessions, which were regularly registered against them. “They
declared the first thing the devil caused them do, was to renounce their
baptism; and by laying their hand on the top of their head, and the
other on the sole of their foot, to renounce all betwixt the two to his
service. But one being with child at the time, in her resignation,
excepted the child, at which the devil was very angry. That he
frequently kissed them, but his body was cold, and his breath was like a
damp air. That he cruelly beat them when they had done the evil he had
enjoined them—for he was a most wicked and barbarous master. That
sometimes he adventured to give them the communion, or holy sacrament;
the bread like wafers—the drink, sometimes blood, and at other times
black moss-water; and preached most blasphemously. That sometimes he
transformed them into bees, ravens, and crows; and they flew to such and
such remote places. Their confessions,” his lordship gravely adds, “made
many intelligent, sober persons stumble much, what faith was to be
adhibite to them.” How any intelligent person could hesitate a moment
upon the subject, is strange; and it is humiliating and lamentable to
add, that by grave, intelligent judges “nine of these women, upon their
own confession (and so seemed very rational and penitent) were sentenced
to be strangled and then burnt,” instead of being sent to some safe
place of confinement to be dealt gently with; and five of them were
accordingly immolated between Leith and Edinburgh, and other four burnt
at Painston-moor, within their own parish where they had lived.

A case came before the privy council, not long after, which it is
difficult to reconcile with the above, the proceedings were so
diametrically opposite. Cathrine Liddel brought a complaint against
Rutherford, baron-bailie, to Morrison of Prestongrange and David Cowan
in Tranent, for having seized her, an innocent woman, defamed her as a
witch, and detained her under restraint as a prisoner, also that Cowan
had pricked her with long pins, in sundry places of her body, and bled
and tortured her most cruelly. The bailie pled that she had been
denounced by other witches, laboured under a mala fama, and therefore
had been apprehended; and that she and her son-in-law had consented to
her being “searched” for the vindication of her innocency. With regard
to the pricker, he had learned his trade from Kincaid, a famed pricker;
he never exercised his calling without the authority of a magistrate;
his trade was not condemned by any law, and all divines and lawyers, who
have written on witchcraft, acknowledge that there are such marks, and
therefore there may be an art for discerning them. But the Chancellor
remembered that he had formerly imprisoned the famous Kincaid in
Kinross, as a notorious cheat. The lords of the privy council therefore
first declared the woman innocent, and restored her to her good name and
fame, and ordered it to be publicly intimated the next Sunday in her
parish church; then reproved Rutherford for his rashness, and forbade
him in future to proceed in such a manner, declaring that the use of
torture by pricking or otherwise was illegal; and, as a mark of their
displeasure, ordered the pricker to prison.

Considerable changes had taken place among the higher authorities in
Scotland this year. Since the appointment of Sir George Mackenzie of
Rosehaugh to be king’s advocate, Sir George Mackenzie of Tarbet was
appointed justice-general; Sir Thomas Wallace of Craigie, lord
justice-clerk; the Bishop of Galloway was added to the committee for
public affairs; Richard Maitland of Gogar, Sir George Gordon of Haddo,
and Drummond of Lundin, admitted councillors; and the Marquis of
Montrose made captain of the horse guards.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               BOOK XIII.


                      JANUARY TO JUNE, A.D. 1679.


Public teachers and students required to take the oath of supremacy—A
   boy imprisoned for refusing—Husbands punished for their wives’
   contumacy—Landlords for their tenants—Overtures of the
   council—Country put under military law—Reprisals—Outrages of the
   commissioners of shires—Death of Sharpe—Escape of Veitch—Murder of
   Inchdarnie.


Early in the beginning of the next year, (January 2, 1679,) the council
instructed the Archbishop of St Andrews and the Bishops of Edinburgh and
Aberdeen, to call before them the principals, professors, and other
office-bearers of their respective Universities, and also all the
masters of the public schools within their boundaries, and require them
to subscribe the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and the declaration
owning the government of the church by archbishops and bishops, and its
establishment; which Mr Alexander Dickson, professor of the Hebrew
language in the College of Edinburgh, Mr Heriot, teacher in the High
School, Mr George Sinclair, Leith, Mr Allan, his assistant, Mr Alexander
Strang, schoolmaster, Canongate, and Mr John Govan, his assistant, with
Mr James Scot, junior,—refusing to do, were all removed from their
respective charges, as examples to others; and it appears to have had a
salutary effect, as we do not read of any “pedagogues” after this being
prosecuted for contumacy. But it was again repeated and urged by
proclamation, that the due execution of their acts, forbidding
pedagogues, chaplains, and schoolmasters, to officiate without license
from their respective ordinaries, should be observed, and that no youth
should be suffered to enter into the second classes in colleges, or
received as apprentices, until they obliged themselves to keep the
church. The reiterated repetition of these injunctions strongly implies
the repugnance which must have existed among the people to the form of
religion then endeavoured to be forced upon them, while it exhibits in
the most glaring light that combination of clerical and magisterial
despotism, which is a necessary consequence of a state establishment of
any peculiar denomination, against the light and wishes of a numerous
and instructed part of the community. So anxious, too, were these
Scottish political puritans to preserve the youth from any infection,
that they even carried their zeal the length of imprisoning a boy about
fourteen years of age for being at a conventicle, and subjected him to
several weeks’ confinement, till some of their own number, ashamed of
such proceedings, set the child at liberty.

Children may be restrained, but women being more difficult to manage, it
was thought proper to punish their husbands, instances of which occurred
in the cases of Sir William Fleming of Ferm, commissary of Glasgow, and
of William Anderson, the late lord provost, who were both before the
council the same day, and fined for the delinquencies of their wives,
although they themselves seem to have been regular church-goers. Dame
Margaret Stewart, the spouse of Sir William, and Mrs Macdougal, the
spouse of the provost, were charged with having been present at a
conventicle kept by Mr John Welsh, at Langside, in the parish of
Cathcart, seated upon high chairs on either side of the said Mr John,
and with having kept company with him at other times; in addition to
which the Lady Fleming had allowed other ministers to preach, pray, or
expound Scripture in the house of Ferm, aggravated by her entertaining
the preachers before or after these exercises. The lady did not deny
that she had heard Mr Welsh preach, and also confessed that she had been
guilty of showing hospitality to the same faithful minister of Christ;
for which the council fined Sir William, her husband, in the sum of four
thousand merks, ordaining him to pay the money or find security before
he left Edinburgh. In order, however, that a husband should not suffer
for his wife’s fault, whose conduct they yet allowed it was not in his
power sometimes to control, they declared that if she survived him, then
his heirs should retain as much as he payed of fine, together with
interest from the time of payment, out of the first end of her jointure;
and if she should die first, her executors were to be liable, which they
alleged would be a check on the zeal of the ladies, if they paid no
regard to the interest of their husbands. Lord Fountainhall, who records
this decision, asks, with all due legal gravity, “But what if they have
no executors? or if it be the husband or her own children?”

Not only were husbands thus prosecuted for their ladies’ misdemeanours,
but landlords were made accountable for the conduct of their tenants. A
most oppressive instance occurred in the case of one George Turnbull, a
baxter or baker in Edinburgh, himself a regular conformist. The council
being informed that conventicles were held in the chamber of Isobel
Crawford, which she rented in the flat of a house belonging to him, he
was summoned before them and interrogated upon oath, as to the rent of
the whole flat? He stated it at one hundred pounds per annum; and three
conventicles being either proved or not denied to have met there, he was
fined three hundred pounds, Scots, or twenty-five pounds sterling, for
what he was neither accessary to, nor had any knowledge of.

Tyranny is never stationary when introduced into a country, until it
either level all resistance, and degrade a nation into one quiescent
mass of torpid subjection, or rouse the people to a pitch of determined
enthusiastic irresistless exertion, which drives their oppressors from
the land. At this period, the evident design of the Scottish rulers was
to accomplish the former limb of the alternative, though it eventually
led to the last. “The overtures” sent by the “committee for public
affairs,” to be proposed to his sacred majesty by the Duke of
Lauderdale, to heal the schism and disorders of the church, plainly
evidence this. Their grand object was to root out all conventicles; and
now that the forces were raised, whereby these seditious disorders
might, as they imagined, be easily and effectually suppressed, they
represented to the king the necessity of his empowering the council to
nominate sheriff-deputes, bailie-deputes of regalities, and
stewart-deputes, to enforce their acts against withdrawers from public
ordinances, keepers of conventicles, and those guilty of conversing with
intercommuned persons or vagrant preachers, whenever the resident
deputes had been remiss in their duty; and that his majesty’s forces
might be ordered upon all occasions, when required, to concur with these
officers, or whoever might be appointed by them for the more speedy and
effectual execution of their sentences and decrees. His majesty gave his
hearty approval to the proposal, and the whole south and west of
Scotland was placed under military law, as far at least as assembling to
attend upon the ordinances of religion was concerned. All officers and
soldiers of the standing army or militia were commanded forcibly to
dissipate the persons found by them at conventicles, and previously
indemnified for any slaughter or mutilation they might commit in so
doing. They were to seize the preachers and as many of the hearers as
they could; the former to be carried to prison, the latter to be
detained till they found sufficient caution to answer for their crimes
according to law; and they were empowered to carry off the upper
garments of such as they could not secure, in order to be used in
evidence against them when afterwards apprehended. All arms, and the
horses of all who were armed, were ordered to be seized, and the meanest
sentinel was warranted to break open doors and other lockfast places in
searching after suspected or intercommuned persons.[111]

Footnote 111:

  The soldiers were thus distributed:—Three companies of foot in
  Canongate and Leith; one at Calder, and one at Stirling; one at
  Culross and Clackmannan; one at Cupar and Falkland; four at Glasgow;
  two in the shire of Ayr; and one in each of the shires of Renfrew,
  Lanark, and Galloway; and one in the town of Kelso. The eighteenth
  company to be at the major-general’s disposal. One squadron of his
  majesty’s horse-guards to be at Edinburgh, another in Stirling, the
  third in Fife, and the fourth in Borrowstounness. One troop at
  Glasgow, one in Merse and Teviotdale, and one in Galloway. The
  dragoons were to be distributed in companies of twenty-five each,
  Galloway, Ayr, Calder, Culross, and Lanark, or otherwise arranged as
  the general shall see necessary; but they were to be kept in constant
  exercise patrolling the various districts, that they might be ready
  and prepared at the shortest notice to execute the orders given for
  dispersing any rendezvouses of rebellion.

To stimulate their satellites in the work of proscription and blood, who
were already allowed to share in the plunder of those they seized,
murdered, or robbed, and to urge their activity against the more
eminent, and therefore more hated of those men, of whom the earth was
not worthy—they were now offered additional rewards for their
destruction. The price set upon the head of that “notour traitor, Mr
John Welsh,” dead or alive, was nine thousand merks; for his
accomplices, Mr Semple and Mr Arnot, three thousand; for any
field-preacher declared fugitive, two thousand; and for any other
“vagrant” or itinerant preacher, five hundred merks. The reasons
assigned for such high rewards, were worthy the hypocrites by whom they
were expressed—although we cannot help being astonished at the
unblushing impudence which could publish falsehoods, so widely known to
be such, without even the shadow of verisimilitude, to shield them from
contempt—these were, to prevent the people from being seduced from
public ordinances, or debauched to atheism and popery, by being exposed
to hear Jesuits or any other irregular persons who dared take upon them
the sacred office of the ministry.

About the beginning of March, the military apostles entered upon their
labours; and among their first exploits was the seizure of twenty-three
countrymen in Evandale, chiefly shepherds, whom they straitly examined
upon oath, whether they had seen any men in arms going through the
country during the last month. In the latter end of the same month,
having been informed of a large meeting assembled to hear sermon at
Cambeshead, in the parish of Lesmahago, near Lanark, a party went on
purpose to disperse them; but on learning their numbers, and that many
of them were well armed, they did not think it adviseable to attack
them; but retiring to a little distance, they rifled some women who were
going to the meeting of their plaids and Bibles, and took several men
prisoners. When intelligence of this was brought to the meeting, a
number of the men in arms were sent to demand the release of the
prisoners and the restoration of the plunder. The officer in command
refused to do either, and a scuffle ensued, in which the captain was
wounded and a few of the soldiers taken prisoners, who were shortly
after set at liberty without harm. As soon as an account of this
trifling affair reached Glasgow, Lord Ross marched with a considerable
party towards Lanark, and harassed the surrounding country for some
weeks; and the council upon being apprised of it, ordered the
commissioners for assessment in the shire to meet and provide hay,
straw, and corn for the forces, who were immediately to be despatched
thither to crush the rebels.

In Galloway, Gordon of Earlston and thirteen other gentlemen, who had
been summoned for worshipping God or hearing his word preached in
private houses or in the fields, or of speaking or lodging some others
who had been guilty of the like enormities, were denounced and outlawed
as if they had been malefactors of the deepest die. In Fife, three were
fined; one in a thousand pounds Scots; another in one hundred; and the
third in five hundred merks.

Pursuing their favourite measures, the prelatic myrmidons had
successfully fanned, by their domineering insolence, the discontent they
had widely kindled in the west, from which there appeared no means of
escape, but by some desperate effort to which every day’s report of
fresh aggression was rapidly driving the people. A few of the many
irritating incidents which occurred have been preserved, but the amount
of the suffering can only be guessed. The slightest attempts at what has
been improperly denominated retaliation have been carefully registered.
Of these I shall give two specimens, which were then paraded as
instances of their “hellish principles,” and which, though they were not
the actions of religious men, have been treated as the effects of
fanaticism. The first was a trick played upon Major Johnston, one of the
captains of the train-band of Edinburgh, a violent persecutor, but by
whom was never discovered. “One night,” says Kirkton, “a boy came and
told Johnston there was a conventicle in a certain close; for he was
famously known for an active agent of satan to suppress preachings in
the city and apprehend ministers, though sometimes he took money to
overlook them. He (ever ready for such mischief) presently took a party
of the town-guard, came and entered the house, where he found some men
met about business, who seeing them enter so rudely with their weapons,
did challenge him why he came so briskly. Finding no conventicle there,
he and they began to jostle, (who were the aggressors I cannot tell,)
but he with his men were the first provokers. Some of the gentlemen
shot, as is said, a tobacco-stapple, or piece of broken money, at one of
his followers, a soldier from the Castle, who fell, and died within ten
days after. Another gripped the major himself, and cast him down on the
floor; and they were so incensed that they offered to kill him. But he
crying out wofully to spare his life, said—‘For Christ’s sake, send me
not to hell,’ and swore he would never trouble any of these meetings
again. Whether he was required to say this, or said it in his fear, I
cannot tell; whereupon they spared his life, and let him and his party
go not without some blae strokes they had got. The gentlemen then
withdrew to their own quarters.

“The landlady of the house expecting trouble, left it also, which was
shortly broken up, rifled, and made a prey of by order. The wretched
man, the major, being enraged, forgetting the terror he was in, and all
the vows he had sworn to grow better, did first stir up the council to
seize the house, break open the door, and plunder all. On the morrow or
third day, a narrow and formidable search was made throughout the town
for strangers, and to find out the persons who had offered such an
affront to their major, so useful a servant, not only to the town of
Edinburgh, but to the prelates and their interest. Linlithgow’s men,
with the town constables, were appointed to search. However, none of the
persons present were found.”

I add as one instance of the manner in which these affairs were
represented by the leaders of the persecution, the edition they gave of
the affair to Lauderdale, in the despatches they sent to court.
“Eighteen or twenty men, prompted by the bloody principles of their
traitorous books, did send for the major to the house of one Mrs
Crawford, a known and irregular fanatic, and, at his entry discharged
several shots at him; after which, with drawn swords, they beat,
bruised, and threatened to kill him, if he would not swear never to
dissipate conventicles, which he having refused, according to his duty,
they mortally wounded him and some that were with him.”

Immediately the hue and cry was raised, offering a reward of one
thousand merks to any person who should discover and apprehend any of
the assassinates. Several persons were mentioned, chiefly men already
intercommuned themselves, or the sons or relatives of such as were, but
none were ever taken or tried for the affray. The same day, the council
ordered the magistrates to cause their constables take up a list of the
names of all the inhabitants between sixteen and sixty, and deliver it
to the council; and likewise a list of all the strangers who lodged in
town, to be delivered each night at ten o’clock to the major-general or
commanding officer in his absence, under a penalty of one hundred merks
for each name omitted. And, besides, the magistrates were required to
turn out of the burgh and suburbs the wives and families of all “outted”
ministers and vagrant preachers, under a penalty of one hundred pounds,
sterling, for each family who should be found residing there after the
20th day of the month. This capriciously cruel order, at once useless
and tormenting, does not appear to have been very rigorously enforced by
the magistrates, for “few ministers,” one of themselves informs us,
“went off the town, but retired to more private houses, and hid
themselves for a season, only it caused them disperse among different
friends’ houses, and keep themselves under hiding for a season.”

The other incident was the murder of two soldiers at Loudonhill, under
very suspicious circumstances, also by persons who were never
discovered. Three privates of Captain Maitland’s company had been
quartered upon a petty farmer who had not paid the cess, and continued
there nearly ten days, behaving rather more civilly than many of their
fellows. The man himself being sick, his wife or the maid-servant
desired them to leave, otherwise they might repent it. They replied,
they could not do so without orders. On a Saturday, one of them went to
Newmills, where he remained over night. But about two o’clock on the
Sabbath morning, five horsemen and as many foot came and knocked loudly
at the door of the barn, where the remaining two soldiers were lying.
Supposing it to be their comrade, one of them rose in his shirt and
opened the door, when he was saluted with—“Come out you damned rogues,”
and instantly shot through the body, he fell dead upon the spot; the
other alarmed got up, and was attempting to shut the door, when he also
received a shot which wounded him on the thigh. The assassin who was on
horseback dismounting, seized the soldier by the throat, and they
struggled together till another of the rogues came up and knocked him
down. While he lay stupified by the blow, the murderers went off, taking
with them all the arms and clothes they could find. The wounded man
lingered a few days, and expired. The people of the house declared their
ignorance of the whole matter, only the deceased had told them that the
ruffian who shot him appeared to him to be one John Scarlet, a tinker;
the rest he could not distinctly see, owing to the darkness and his own
confusion. Scarlet was a notorious rogue who roved through the country
with several women he called his wives, and who some years before this
had been apprehended as a vagabond, and gifted to a French recruiting
officer, but had contrived to raise a mutiny in the vessel which was
carrying him across the channel, and made his escape; since when he had
returned to his old avocation, and was one of the gang attending Captain
Carstairs when Garret was wounded.[112]

Footnote 112:

  Mr Laing (Hist. vol. iii. p. 97,) considers this as an act of
  retaliation on the part of the covenanters. Of this I cannot see any
  credible evidence. The language used by the assassins was not such as
  the covenanters would have employed, nor were the persons attacked of
  that station the persecuted would have deliberately formed any design
  of destroying. It is not unlikely that the soldiers were the objects
  of private revenge, and were wounded by some rough companions of their
  own, whom their insults had irritated.

Perhaps nothing places the conduct of the Scottish government in a more
disgraceful light than the current belief which pervaded the country,
that they were implicated in this foul murder, at least that they were
capable of abetting it, although it be extremely difficult to perceive
what advantage they could reap from it. All their proclamations and
abuse of the fanatics availed nothing, but only to confirm the general
report that they had authorized the assassination merely to throw
additional odium on the already grievously calumniated wanderers. The
heritors of Ayrshire, who had seen their country devastated when there
was much less cause, took the alarm, and despatched the Earl of Loudon,
Lord Cochran, and Sir John, to explain the state of the country, and to
express their detestation of the deed. The armed field-meetings,
attended by numbers of the commonalty, had increased on the confines of
their own and the neighbouring shires, occasioned they alleged by a few
unsound, turbulent, hotheaded preachers, most part whereof were never
ministers of the church of Scotland, making it their work to draw people
to separation and schism from pure ordinances, and instil into them the
seeds of rebellion by their exhortations and doctrine.

Unhappily, the contentions among the persecuted continued, and a root of
bitterness sprung up among them, which produced the most lamentable
fruit. Instead of dropping minor differences, they seemed to set a
higher value on them as the dangers attendant on holding them increased.
Paying cess and hearing the indulged became bars to fellowship; and
Robert Hamilton, who now took the lead, publicly forbade any of the
compilers to join with them or bring arms; nor was it without difficulty
that Richard Cameron got them to forbear proceeding with such an high
hand at such a time; but although he smothered these heats for a season,
there was a secret heart-burning left which he could not extinguish. Yet
it is impossible not to sympathize with the side who felt most keenly,
even when a knowledge of the consequences may have led us to disapprove
of their too rigid particularity, for which they themselves suffered so
severely. At all events, when men have evinced the purity of their
motives by their disinterestedness and the sincerity of their
principles, by suffering for them unto the death, it becomes those who
are sitting at ease, and not exposed to their trials, to speak and write
very tenderly about them.

Oppressions under form of law kept pace with those without it;—if the
mere acts of men in place can be called in any sense legal while they
are trampling under foot the constitutional rights of their countrymen,
simply because these men happen to hold offices, the names of which are
in the statute-book, or pervert possession of power, a proper exercise
of which would be legal. The council, the willing slaves of the clergy,
eagerly laid hold of the story of the popish plot in England to increase
their severities against field-preaching, the antipathy at which raged
with every symptom of monomania among the prelatic hypocrites. They
issued a fierce proclamation against the papists, and did nothing to
disturb their increasing numbers; but they nominated an especial
committee of thirteen of their own number, to meet during the spring
vacation, to whom they delegated the judicial authority of the bench and
the active duties of the executive. It comprised the two Archbishops of
St Andrews and Glasgow, and the Bishop of Galloway, with the law
officers of the crown, any three to be a quorum; and as the Bishop of
Galloway had obtained a dispensation allowing him to reside constantly
in Edinburgh, they were always certain of an ecclesiastical president or
director. They were instructed to issue orders for executing the laws as
to the public peace, particularly those against conventicles; to call
before them noted delinquents, secure their persons and examine them
upon oath, pronounce sentences and decreets against the guilty, and
issue such orders as they should find necessary to magistrates and
officers of the forces; and with power to nominate a committee of
themselves by turns, to perform what was committed to them, or call the
council upon any emergency; and the whole concluded with the ominous
charge to use diligence in discovering any powder or lead lately brought
into the kingdom. On the report of this committee (May 1st), the council
ordered the Earl of Linlithgow, commander-in-chief, to despatch a body
of horse, foot, and dragoons, to scour the country, especially where
Welsh, Cameron, Kid, or Douglas kept their conventicles; to apprehend
them where they might be found; and, in case of resistance, to pursue
them to the death, and declared that neither officers nor soldiers
should be called in question, civilly or criminally, for the same.

Armed with such powers and secured by such indemnity, it may be readily
supposed what ravages would be committed by a banditti, composed, as the
standing army of that day in Scotland was, of all the idle, dissolute
reprobates that could be collected. These roamed through the country,
objects of hatred and dread to the humbler ranks.

The commissioners of shires and sheriff-deputes were more obnoxious to
the middling and higher classes, whom they summoned to their courts, and
plundered and imprisoned if they appeared, or intercommuned if they did
not. The cruelties they exercised upon the domestics of the petty
heritors who were forced under hiding, to make them discover the haunts
of their relatives or masters, are almost incredible, and rivalled the
tortures of the inquisition; beating and wounding with their muskets or
bayonets were common, and burning matches were often applied between the
fingers to extort a confession from these faithful confidents of the
suspected. When the honest, industrious tenantry and small farmers were
ruined by fines, their houses were poinded, and themselves turned out to
bear the pelting of the pitiless storm, nor dared their neighbours
either shelter or sooth them, under pain of being also sent to wander
houseless on the heath—reduced to desperation for “disobeying the
discipline of the church,” or “wilfully withdrawing from the ordinary
meetings for divine worship,”—it would not have been at all wonderful if
the wanderers had perpetrated the horrible deeds of which they were
falsely accused; nor can it appear strange, when every avenue to relief
was shut up, that they should take whatever methods of redressing their
wrongs they could command; neither was it conduct unprecedented in
history, their seeking to rid themselves of their most violent, lawless
persecutors, of whom they could not by any legal or moderate measures
get free, by methods which were not strictly legal. It would require
powerful logic to convince persons suffering under the lash of distorted
laws, that they were in duty bound to allow their persecutors the safety
and privilege of men who had never violated law.

But the death of Sharpe, however it might be justified or extenuated,
was altogether accidental at the time, and cannot be traced to any other
source than his own atrocious tyranny. His agents were extremely active
in Fife; for the numerous conventicles held in his own diocese
particularly annoyed him. One of his especial “familiars” was William
Carmichael, a bankrupt merchant, formerly a bailie in Edinburgh, now one
of the commissioners for suppressing conventicles, of licentious and
profligate habits, consequently greedy of money, and fit for any vile
job to procure it. His enormities had rendered him an object of general
detestation, but his excessive exactions had ruined many respectable
heritors and tenants, to whom he was become particularly obnoxious.
Several of these individuals, some of whom were gentlemen of good
families, interdicted the common intercourse of society, and hunted like
wild beasts on the mountains, determined to take personal vengeance on
this vile instrument of their unjust suffering;[113] and for this
purpose, nine of them, pretty early on Saturday morning, the 3d of May,
had traversed the fields about Cupar for a considerable time, in search
of the commissioner, who they understood was hunting on the moor; but a
shepherd had informed him that some gentlemen on horseback were
inquiring after him; and he not being very anxious to encounter them,
left his sport abruptly, and returned home.

Footnote 113:

  At a meeting held April 11, “at John Nicholson’s house, colier, beside
  Lathons, the persons who had been poinded and otherways maltreated,
  judged it their duty to take some course with Carmichael _to scarr him
  from his cruel courses_; and advising how to get him, resolved to wait
  on him either in his coming or going from St Andrews, or other place
  in the shire, [he] being to sit in all the judicatures in the shire,
  for taking course with the honest party; and they resolved to fall
  upon him at St Andrews. Some objected, what if he should be in the
  prelate’s house, what should be done in such a case? Whereupon all
  present judged duty to hang both over the post, especially the bishop,
  it being by many of the Lord’s people and ministers judged a duty long
  since, not to suffer such a person to live, who had shed and was
  shedding so much of the blood of the saints, and knowing that other
  worthy Christians had used means to get him upon the road
  before.”—Russell’s Account, p. 110.

They also, tired of their fruitless search, were talking about their
further proceedings, when a boy came from Baldinny—Robert Black’s
farm—and said the goodwife had sent him to see how they had sped. They
told him they had missed him, and asked in return if he knew any thing
of three of their number who had not joined them. He told them they were
gone. They desired him to go back and see where they were gone to, which
he did, but quickly returning, said—“Gentlemen, there is the bishop’s
coach; our gudewife desired me to tell you,” which they seeing betwixt
Ceres and Blebo-hole, said—“Truly this is of God, and it seemeth that
God hath delivered him into our hands; let us not draw back but pursue.”

Whereupon all agreed to follow; but the question was started, what
should be done with him? “I will not move one foot farther,” said George
Fleming, “for if we spare his life our hazard shall be no less, and
likewise his cruelty shall be greater; surely we have a clear call to
execute God’s justice upon him, now when in such a capacity.” So said
several others. Hackston of Rathillet opposed the shedding of blood; and
besides, he thought it was an act of the last consequence to the nation
and the church, and what required much greater deliberation. James
Russell, who writes the account, said “it had been born in upon his
spirit some days before in prayer, that the Lord would employ him in
some piece of service or it was long, and that there would be some great
man who was an enemy to the kirk of God cut off.” “He was forced to
devote himself to God, and enter in a covenant with the Lord, and
renewed all his former vows and engagements against papists, prelates,
indulgences, and all that was enemies to the work of God and opposed the
flourishing of Christ’s kingdom; and that he should not refuse nor draw
back whenever the Lord should call him to act for him, as far as the
Lord should enable him and give him strength, though there should be
never so much seeming hazard.”

After alluding to the case of Mitchell, he was asked what they should do
with the bishop. He replied, he durst not but execute the justice of God
upon him “for the innocent blood he had shed.” William Danziel spoke to
the same purpose. Then they all with one consent urged Rathillet to
command them that they might not delay.[114] Rathillet declined. “The
Lord,” he said, “was his witness, he was willing to venture all he had
for the interest of Christ, yet he durst not lead them on to that
action, there being a known prejudice betwixt the bishop and him, which
would mar the glory of the action; for it would be imputed to his
particular revenge, and that God was his witness he did nothing on that
account; but he would not hinder them from what God had called them to,
and that he would not leave them.” On hearing this, John Balfour cried
out—“Gentlemen! follow me!” Immediately they all set off at the gallop
across the hills for Magus moor. James Russell outrode the others; and
seeing the bishop, who had taken the alarm, and was looking out at the
door, cast away his cloak, and cried “Judas be taken.” The bishop
screamed violently to the coachman—“Drive! drive! drive!” The coachman
drove furiously, endeavouring to keep off the pursuer by striking his
horse with his whip, on which Russell fired, and called to his
companions to come up. They throwing away their cloaks, put their horses
to the speed, and kept firing at the coach, several shots passing
through it. One of the servants having cocked his carabine, was about to
fire when Alexander Henderson gripped him by the neck, threw him down,
and pulled it out of his hand. Andrew Henderson outran the coach and
struck the horse in the face with his sword. Russell at the same time
ordered the postilion to stand, which he refusing, he struck him on the
face, dismounted him, and cut the traces of the coach, which stopped it
till the rest came up.

Footnote 114:

  The names of the persons present were—David Hackston of Rathillet,
  John Balfour of Kinloch, James Russell in Kettle, George Fleming in
  Balbathie, Andrew Henderson, Alexander Henderson in Kilbrachmont,
  William Danziel in Caddam, James, Alexander, and George Balfour in
  Gilston, Thomas Ness in P——, and Andrew Guillan, weaver in
  Balmerinock, who had been put out of Dundee for not hearing of the
  curate.—Russell’s Account of Archbishop Sharpe’s Death, p. 111, 112.

They found the bishop in the coach with his daughter, both unhurt,
though several shots had passed through the carriage. Opening the door,
Russell, who took the lead, again desired him to come out, that no
prejudice might befall his daughter, whom they would not willingly hurt.
He still hesitated, protesting that he never wronged any of them.
Russell declared before the Lord that it was no particular interest, nor
yet for any wrong that he had done to him, but because he had betrayed
the church, like Judas, and for eighteen years had wrung his hands in
the blood of the saints. John Balfour, on horseback, said—“God is our
witness, it is not for any wrong thou hast done to me, nor yet for any
fear of what thou couldest do to me, but because thou hast been a
murderer of many a poor soul in the kirk of Scotland, and a betrayer of
the church, and an open enemy and persecutor of Jesus Christ and his
members, whose blood thou hast shed like water on the earth, and
therefore thou shalt die;” and fired a pistol. James Russell desired him
the third time to come forth, and prepare for death, judgment, and
eternity. The bishop said, “Save my life, and I will save yours.” The
other replied, “I know it is neither in your power to save us or to kill
us; and I again declare, it is not for any particular feud of quarrel I
have at you which moves me to this attempt, but for the blood shed, not
only after Pentland, but several times since, and for your perjury and
shedding the blood of Mr James Mitchell, and having a hand in the death
of James Learmont, which crimes cry with a loud voice to Heaven for
vengeance; and we are this day to execute it,” and thrust his shabel at
him. He then offered money. “Thy money perish with thee,” was the reply;
and one of the company remarked, “seeing there have been so many lives
taken for him, for which their is no sign of repentance, we will not be
innocent if any more be taken that way.” Another wounded him with a
sword, and he cried, “Fy, fy, I am gone.”

Being called to come out of the coach, “I am gone already,” he said,
“what need more.” He was desired to pray; but, turning towards the
captain, he said, “Save my life; for God’s sake, save my life! save my
life!” offering him money, and promising to lay down his Episcopal
function. He told him he had shown no mercy, and needed expect none.
Seeing Rathillet at a distance, he crept on his hands and his knees
towards him, saying, “I know you are a gentleman, you will protect me.”
Mr Hackston said, “I shall never lay a hand on you,” and retired a
little. He then turned to the others, and piteously entreated that they
would save the life of an old man, and he would obtain them a remission.
Balfour told him they could not spare him; and if he would not call on
God, they knew what to do.

His daughter attempted to interpose, as she had done before, between her
father and his antagonists, when Andrew Guillan kept her back, to secure
her from hurt or danger. She fell on her knees, and, weeping bitterly,
joined her entreaties with those of her father. Guillan also pleaded for
his life; but it was now impossible for them to listen to any
supplication. The bishop was a man whose most sacred oaths could not be
trusted; and, to save their own lives, they were under the cruel
necessity of taking his. Another volley of shot was their answer to his
supplications, and he fell back and lay as dead. They then went off a
little; and his daughter attempting to raise him, exclaimed—“Oh! there
is life in him yet;” which they hearing returned, and James Russell
“haked his head in pieces.” His daughter, the miserable spectatress of
this sad event, cursed him, and called him a bloody murderer. He
answered, they were not murderers, for they were sent to execute God’s
vengeance on him.

As soon as they had finished the unfortunate primate, they went to the
coach, and took a pair of pistols and a trunk, which upon opening, they
found contained only his daughter’s clothes, and left untouched, but
took from another a little box and all the papers they could find.[115]
They likewise disarmed his attendants, five in number, and carried away
their arms. It was not a little remarkable, that though this tragedy was
acted at noon, in broad day, and parties of soldiers were constantly
patrolling the country, along with numbers of sheriff-officers’
underlings and the archbishop’s own numerous myrmidons; yet the actors
were not interrupted in their performance, nor did any of them ever
suffer for the part they played. Two only, who were present as
spectators, were executed, and one of them, the poor weaver Guillan, had
been called, most unexpectedly on his part, to hold the horses.

Footnote 115:

  “They took nothing from him but his tobacco-box and Bible and a few
  papers. With these they went to a barn near by. Upon the opening of
  his tobacco-box, a living humming-bee flew out. This either Rathillet
  or Balfour called his familiar; and some in the company, not
  understanding the term, they explained it to be a devil. In the box
  were a pair of pistol ball, parings of nails, some worsted or silk,
  and some say a paper with some characters, but that is
  uncertain.”—Russell’s Account, &c. p. 421, note.

Among the papers were found—a gift of non-entries of several gentlemen’s
estates in Fife and elsewhere, with instructions and informations how to
prosecute in order to turn the present possessors out of the lands; the
patent of the bishopric of Dunkeld in favour of Mr Andrew Bruce,
archdeacon of St Andrews; several presentations to churches of which the
king was patron; instructions to conjunct-deputies; and new gifts of the
heritors fines.

Sharpe, when he met his fate, was returning home from Edinburgh, where
he had been arranging matters for heating the fiery furnace yet seven
times hotter, previously to his going to court, and had there drawn out
a proclamation afterwards issued, which, had it been known, would have
justified the extremest measures on the part of the proscribed,
persecuted wanderers, even had he not previously placed himself out of
the protection of the law. By it, whoever should go with any arms to
field-meetings, were to be proceeded against as traitors; and lest any
should suppose, from the rigour used against such as went to
conventicles in arms, that there was any intention to slacken the
prosecutions against other field-conventicles, all judges and officers
were required to put all former laws and commands in rigorous execution,
even against those who frequented field-meetings without arms, repeating
as the reason of such severity, the foul and absurd calumny “that those
meetings do certainly tend to the ruin and reproach of the Christian
religion, and to the introduction of popery and heresy, the subversion
of monarchy, and the contempt of all laws and government.”

Thus fell James Sharpe, Archbishop of St Andrews, Primate of Scotland, a
man universally detested by those whom he had deserted and betrayed, and
not much regarded by those to whose ranks he had gone over. He has left
a memory and a fate as woful beacons to religious turncoats, who assume
and relinquish the garb of a profession for secular purposes, without
feeling the influence or experiencing the consolations of real religion,
who find the road disappointment and the end death.

Not less remarkable was the escape of Mr William Veitch, who had been
marked out to die by the primate. Having been denounced for being
present at Pentland, although he had not been there, he retired to
Northumberland, where he had resided with his family for several years,
exercising his ministry with great success among a numerous congregation
at Harnam-hall, whence he removed to Stauntin-hall in 1677, where he
remained till January this year, when he was taken from his bed about
eight o’clock in the morning, and carried prisoner to Edinburgh. On the
22d of February, he was brought before a committee of the council,
whereof Sharpe was preses. As he was coming along the pavement, the Earl
of Mar’s gentleman came to him from his master, desiring him to give the
archbishop his titles, as that would likely prevail much with the bishop
for his liberty. Veitch sending his service to the Earl, answered that
he was resolved to act according to his light. The orders from the king
to the council were, that they should proceed against him with all
diligence, according to the utmost severity of law, his majesty being
fully resolved to put it strictly in execution, in order “to dash the
groundless hopes of knaves and fools, who expected a toleration!” The
archbishop put many questions to him to see if he could ensnare him,
which were urged by Paterson, the Bishop of Edinburgh, one of which
was—“Have you taken the covenant?” He answered, “All that see me at this
honourable board may easily perceive that I was not capable to take the
covenant when you and the other ministers of Scotland tendered it.” At
this the whole company fell a laughing, which nettled the bishop. “But,”
says he, “did you never take the covenant since?” To which he replied,
“I judge myself obliged to covenant away myself to God, and frequently
to renew it.” At which Paterson stood up and said—“My lord, you will get
no good of this man; he is all for evasions. But,” said he, “was you not
at Pentland fight?” To which he replied, “If you will give me power and
liberty to seek witnesses to prove it, I was alibi, having been all that
night and morning at Edinburgh.”

Being put out a considerable time, he was called in again; and the
bishop said—“Hear your confession read.” They had interlined many
sentences to make him a criminal, which, when he heard read, he denied
that he had spoken, and refused to subscribe. “What!” said the bishop,
“will you not subscribe your own confession?” “Not I,” said the
prisoner, “unless you write it _in mundo_, without your additions.” At
which they appeared rather irritated, till the Earl of Linlithgow, after
some conversation with the others across the table, said, “My lord St
Andrews, cause write it _in mundo_ to the young man.” It was then fairly
written out, and he subscribed it; but it was found not to contain any
thing on which they could found a criminal charge, and he was remanded
to prison.

This was not, however, the only villanous attempt against his life. A
letter was brought from the king to turn him over to the Justiciary,
which was equivalent to a warrant for his execution. He himself had
written to Lauderdale, who was his own relation and a professed friend,
to give force to which some ladies obtained a letter from Archbishop
Paterson to the Duke in his favour; and his brother Sir William brought
it open and read it to Mr Veitch. It was directed to Dr Hicks, the
Duke’s chaplain, to present, which was done accordingly; but when an
answer was called for, Hicks showed a letter he had received per post,
forbidding him to present it! Fortunately for the prisoner a
representation of his case was laid before the Earl of Shaftesbury by Mr
(afterwards Sir) Gilbert Elliot, which he had brought from Scotland,
containing the sentiments both of English and Scottish lawyers, all of
them declaring the illegality of the procedure against him in both
kingdoms. The Earl having shown it to Prince Rupert, the Duke of
Monmouth, and several other persons of rank, they concurred with him in
petitioning the king to send him back to England that he might be tried
there, because he was a naturalized English subject from his long
residence, and the law had been violated by his seizure; it would
destroy men’s confidence in their protection. But all the answer made by
the tyrant was a profane scoff, uttered in the language of his proper
prototype—“I have written with my own hand to execute him; and what I
have written, I have written.” Upon this the Earl of Shaftesbury told
his majesty, that, seeing the petition of so many of the greatest peers
in England now standing before him, for a thing so just and equitable,
could not be granted, the new parliament for inquiring into the popish
plot was now sitting down, and no person that they found guilty,
presbyterian or other, should escape death, if the parliament would take
his advice and the lords now before the king; and then his majesty
should have pears for plums.

On leaving his majesty, the Earl sent his servant to Mr Elliot, who was
in waiting for the result, and who immediately on learning it went to
the door of the parliament-house and distributed copies of the petition
to each of the lords as they went in. Shaftesbury himself followed; and
finding their lordships busy reading it, asked what they read; and being
told, replied—“O, my lords, is that the text? Come, I’ll give you the
sermon upon it;” and explained the minister’s case, which induced many
of them to say, if that be truly so, we’ll pass an order immediately
when we sit down for his remanding. A Tory lord seeing the impression
thus made, taking the petition in his hand, went instantly to the king,
and begged his majesty to consider that this was not his sixteen years’
old parliament, and he knew not what they would do; and it was dangerous
for him on so mean an account to set two kingdoms by the ears: therefore
he begged that he would presently send for Lauderdale to despatch an
express to Scotland, and he would report it to the lords to take them
off their proposed measure; which was done. And this order to stop
proceedings was received by the Justice-General Tarbet, as he was
entering the Parliament Close to open the court, where Veitch would have
inevitably been condemned; instead of which, the court was dissolved and
the prisoner remanded to prison.

His deliverance from jail shows the low arts to which court-intrigue
sometimes subjects great men. The Duke of Monmouth took an interest in
Veitch. The Duke of York was instigated by his priests against him, on
account of his weight as an eminent opponent of popery in the borders,
where the emissaries of Rome were numerous and active. Lauderdale
disliked Monmouth as a rival, and attached himself to York;[116] and so
wonderfully are events in providence arranged, that causes sometimes
produce effects the very opposite to those we would most naturally
expect. Lauderdale’s dislike to Monmouth effected the release of
Veitch—a measure which Monmouth had desired and solicited in vain, and
which York had so willingly and so successfully resisted. Lord Stair, as
he afterwards told Mr Veitch, having the draught of his sentence of
banishment[117] in his pocket, happened to visit Lauderdale that week
Monmouth took post from Scotland, and that his spy had sent him an
account of what Monmouth had said when he rose from the council-table
respecting the relief of Mr Veitch as soon as he saw the king.
Lauderdale giving this letter to Stair to read, he says, “Now, my lord,
Monmouth is upon his way, and is like to relieve this prisoner, I think
it were best for your lordship to send for the king’s advocate and the
rest of the lords who are here, and we will get the sentence of
banishment out of the kingdom passed upon him before Monmouth come up;
and if the king have any scruple about it, his advocate and the other
lords will clear him thereanent. This will be for our credit, and stop
the mouths of all in Scotland who reflect on our severity; and if he
come and do it, the dirt will lie upon us.” To which Lauderdale
replied—“On my conscience, we will do it, and Monmouth shall not have
the honour and credit of it. We’ll send for the lords instantly, and
tell the king a new story that will make him do it;” which they did; the
king superscribing and Lauderdale subscribing the new sentence, and also
an order from the king to his council to put the same in execution upon
sight. Stair then sent for Mr Elliot the prisoner’s agent, and delivered
it to him.[118]

Footnote 116:

  The unfortunate Monmouth, who possessed a kind and feeling
  disposition, was constantly watched by the Duke of York, who feared
  and hated him in proportion as he was loved by the English nation.
  Certainly at one time that nation looked forward with fond expectation
  to his succession. Lauderdale also had spies around the luckless
  prince during the time he was in Scotland.

Footnote 117:

  From Scotland to England!—a strange banishment a southron would think!

Footnote 118:

  Memoirs of Veitch, pp. 112, 114.

On the same day on which Sharpe paid the penalty of his accumulated
guilt, Andrew Aytoun, younger of Inchdairney—characterized by the
venerable Wodrow as an excellent young gentleman, who had the blessing
of early piety, and who when at the University of St Andrews had spent
much of his time in prayer—was wantonly murdered by a soldier belonging
to one of those parties ordered to scour Fife in consequence of the
primate’s death. He had been very active in procuring Presbyterian
ministers to preach the gospel, instead of the worthless incumbents who
prostituted the sacred office in Fife; and for this, when little more
than seventeen years of age, he was intercommuned, forced to quit his
father’s house, and seek refuge with some of his relations in
Morayshire. While there, Mr Walter Denvon was sent south a prisoner.
Inchdairney followed; and gathering some of his young acquaintances in
Fife, resolutely rescued the good man.

After this exploit, he continued lurking in his father’s house till the
3d of May, where he dined with the minister who gave Wodrow the
information. They parted about two o’clock, neither of them having heard
any thing of the bishop’s catastrophe. Thence young Inchdairney went to
Lady Murdocairnie, his aunt’s house. When not far from Auchtermuchty, he
saw a party of horse riding furiously on the Cupar road, and quickened
his pace to escape them. The officer of the troop ordered one of his men
to pursue, which he did; and firing struck Inchdarnie’s horse; then
firing again, mortally wounded himself, two musket balls—for it was
double shotted—passing through his body. The bleeding youth could with
difficulty keep his seat till he reached a house not far off, where he
was put to bed, and notice sent to Sir John Aytoun of Aytoun, a relation
of his own, whose seat was quite near, who immediately came, having
first despatched a servant to Cupar to fetch a surgeon. The commander of
the party, however, probably anticipating such a message, had, with a
refinement of cruelty, given orders that no surgeon should leave the
place without his permission; and when applied to, he sent some of his
soldiers to bring the wounded gentleman prisoner to Cupar. When they
came, Sir John Aytoun represented the inhumanity of carrying any person
in his situation three miles, and offered bail or to entertain them till
surgical aid was procured; but nothing could prevail. He was placed upon
one of their horses, and hurried immediately away. Through loss of
blood, he fainted four times upon the road. When he arrived, the
magistrates of Cupar allowed him to be carried to an inn, where he
languished till next day about twelve o’clock, when he died in much
serenity and peace. His parents were with him, and saw him die. The
person who murdered him is said to have been a relation of his own, who
came to him when he was dying and entreated his forgiveness, which he
frankly gave, accompanying it with serious exhortations; but the unhappy
man, some years after, died in great agony of mind, reproaching himself
with the deed.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               BOOK XIV.



                      MAY TO DECEMBER, A.D. 1679.


Outrages of the soldiery—Dissensions among the persecuted—Commotions in
   the West—Rutherglen declaration—Rising of the Presbyterians—Skirmish
   at Drumclog—Royal troops retire to Edinburgh—Divisions among the
   Presbyterians—Arrival of Monmouth—Battle of Bothwell Bridge.


Matters were now fast hastening to a crisis, especially in the west
country. The licentiousness of the soldiery increased by indulgence; and
after they had, through the accurate intelligence of the incumbents,
pillaged every intercommuned or recusant inhabitant worth plundering,
especially in the rural districts, their insatiable greed did not spare
the conformist part of the community. Money was their great object; and
when they could not obtain that, they vented their rage upon the
property they could not carry off. In some places, they thrashed out the
corn and threw it into the stream, and took the meal and trode it in the
dunghill; in others, they set fire to the stacks, and if there were any
grain in the garner, cast it into the flames, while they rioted on all
the stock or whatever edibles they could lay their hands on. In this
indiscriminate pillage, many suffered who made no great pretensions to
religion, and who, without that grand counteracting principle, were by
no means disposed to take patiently the spoiling of their goods by
military ruffians. These, from motives of self-interest, were led to
make common cause with the Presbyterians, in defence of their national
rights and to avenge their civil oppressions.

The small armed conventicles finding it hazardous to meet in the
neighbourhood of the garrisons, withdrew to more retired situations, and
assembled in greater numbers, while their discussions involved the
general principles of civil liberty, as well as the more isolated
question of their right to hear the preaching of the gospel. The
constant harassings they met with from the soldiers in going to or
coming from the meetings, who being pre-pardoned for whatever outrage
they might commit, were restrained by no motive but fear, obliged them
to keep as much and as long together as they could. Their little parties
gradually approximated each other; and all converging towards one focus,
they at length mustered a formidable body; but not all of one mind.

Ministers who wished to pursue moderate measures, laboured under
peculiar disadvantages. Some idea may be formed of the mental struggles
and outward difficulties of these worthies from the account which Mr
Blackadder gives of himself at this time. He ventured to preach at
Fala-moor, in Livingston, on the last Sabbath of May this year, which
happened to be the day before Drumclog, though neither he nor the people
knew of it. His subject led him to speak of defensive arms; but in
handling it, it appeared he had by no means given satisfaction.
Contrasting their spiritual with their military preparations for their
meetings, he proceeded:—“When you come forth with swords in your hands
to defend the worship of God, it is well; but whatever you endeavour
with your hostile weapons, I would have you trust little to them.” And
he exhorted them to put their confidence in God rather than in their own
instruments of war.

After sermon, some honest men came to him as they used to do. They
were on their way westward, having heard the rumour of their
friends combining in arms. He perceived them looking angry and
discontented-like. “We fear, sir, you have discouraged the people
by not putting them more forward to appear in arms. They needed a
word of exhortation and upstirring, and not to cool their zeal as
you have done.” “I do not,” said he, “condemn honest endeavours to
redress your wrongs; I should be the first in cases where there is
clearness to stand up and defend the gospel; but I fear
forwardness without deliberation.” His conscientious hearers and
he, upon some further conference, came to a better understanding;
but he adds—“About this time there were several people more
froward than godly, prudent, or charitable, who upbraided
ministers that they did not press the people more, or preach so
and so, according to their mind; but little did they consider, how
much ministers were difficulted to give advice therein, perceiving
the case so intricate for want of clearness; yet the few who
stickled underhand still continued to meddle, so that poor people
were put to great uncertainty, and knew not how to behave; their
consciences were tortured; their hearts grieved; and their spirits
fretted. But the council still furious to suppress their meetings
by sending forces from time to time to dissipate them and take
prisoners, was the main cause why they went forth in arms;
otherwise they would not, if their rulers had not by their violent
persecution provoked them to that necessity.

“Though unable from indisposition himself, he hindered none from
appearing in arms who were clear and in capacity to assist, although he
was much jumbled in his own mind anent that particular; and used to say,
both before and after, he did not see a call for rising so clear as he
could like. Though he always reverenced the providence of the rising,
and approved honest designs, yet his opinion was, that the Lord called
for a testimony by suffering rather than outward deliverance.”[119]

Footnote 119:

  Mem. of Rev. John Blackadder, p. 229 et seq.

Other equally excellent men considered the question to be, Whether shall
we consent to the preaching of the gospel being suppressed altogether,
or shall we assert it at the point of the Sword? With regard to civil
liberty, there could be no dispute. Where it is concerned, the question
comes shortly to this, when tyranny reigns triumphant, “Is there, or is
there not, a rational prospect of success in resistance?” But here the
question was, Is it our duty with or without a prospect of success, to
lift up our testimony against the iniquity of the times? nay, should
there be only a prospect of sealing it with our blood? And they
hesitated not to reply in the affirmative; and the first rencounter
seemed to set the stamp of wisdom to this resolve, but whether more
propitious to the cause of religious liberty has been thought
problematical; and of this opinion were the most influential of the
persons who directed the operations of the great western meeting.

This meeting, obliged for mutual protection to assume the appearance of
an army, were guilty of no acts of hostility, but their formidable front
alarmed the soldiers, who reported to the council, with many
exaggerations, the frequency and the force of those rendezvouses of
rebellion. These produced more severe instructions for the soldiers to
act with greater promptness; and thus both sides stood as it were ready
prepared for conflict in the mutual apprehensions entertained of each
other. At this juncture, the ultra-covenanters were headed by Robert
Hamilton, brother to the Laird of Preston, who, whatever might be his
abilities for theological controversy, possessed none of the commanding
powers necessary for directing the movements of men maddened by
oppression, and driven by the denial of every legitimate mode of
redress, to the ultimate resort of a brave people—the assertion of their
natural rights on the field. Besides being wholly destitute of military
talents, his mind was contracted by his associating solely with those
who were of his own sentiments, and seemed more anxious to secure the
triumph of a party than the great cause for which all were contending.

Uncertain as to the issue of the present commotion, a number of those
who composed the general meeting were anxious to publish to the world
their “Testimony to the truth and cause which they owned, and against
the sins and defections of the times.” This Hamilton urged as what would
bind them together, and by explaining their principles, be an inducement
for others to join. A majority agreeing, he, along with Mr Thomas
Douglas, one of their ministers, was appointed to go to some public
place, escorted by a strong party of about eighty armed men, and publish
their declaration. The 29th of May, the anniversary of the king’s birth
and restoration, was chosen as the most appropriate one for this their
solemn act; and the royal burgh of Rutherglen was pitched upon as the
place.

Accordingly, when the burghers of this little county-capital were
displaying their loyalty, the small party entered in the afternoon,
burned the various acts enumerated in their Testimony, then extinguished
the bonfires, and affixed upon the cross a copy of “the Declaration and
Testimony of some of the true Presbyterian party in Scotland.” It ran
thus—“As the Lord hath been pleased to keep and preserve his interest in
this land by the testimony of faithful witnesses from the beginning, so
some in our days have not been wanting, who, upon the greatest of
hazards, have added their testimony to the testimonies of those who have
gone before them, and who have suffered imprisonments, finings,
forfeitures, banishment, torture, and death, from an evil and perfidious
adversary to the church and kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ in the
land. Now, we being pursued by the same adversary for our lives, while
owning the interest of Christ, according to his word and the National
and Solemn League and Covenants, judge it our duty (though unworthy, yet
hoping we are true members of the church of Scotland) to add our
testimony to those of the worthies who have gone before us in witnessing
against all things that have been done publicly on prejudice of his
interest from the beginning of the work of reformation, especially from
the year 1648 downward to the year 1660; but more particularly those
since, as—the act rescissory; the act establishing abjured prelacy; the
declaration renouncing the covenants; the Glasgow act, whereby upwards
of _three hundred_ faithful ministers were ejected from their churches,
because they could not comply with prelacy; the act for imposing an holy
anniversary day, to be kept yearly upon the 29th of May, as a day of
rejoicing and thanksgiving for the setting up of an usurping power to
the destroying the interest of Christ in the land; the act establishing
the sacrilegious supremacy; and all the acts of council, warrants, and
instructions for indulgence; and all their other sinful and unlawful
acts.” In confirmation of this testimony, and to evidence their dislike
of the acts testified against, they burned them publicly at the cross of
Rutherglen, as their rulers unjustly, perfidiously, and presumptuously
burned the sacred covenants. The paper was unsubscribed, but a notandum
attached to it announced the readiness of its authors to do so if
necessary, and to enlarge and avow it with all their suffering brethren
in the land.

Immediately after affixing their declaration, Hamilton and his party
retired towards Evandale and Newmills, in the neighbourhood of which Mr
Douglas proposed to preach next Lord’s day. The news of this daring
defiance spread like wildfire; and being proclaimed so near Glasgow,
where the king’s troops lay, was considered by their commanders as a
personal insult. James Grahame, Laird of Claverhouse, already notorious
as one of the vile tools of the prelates, and active oppressors of his
country, having been intrusted with extensive powers by the privy
council for suppressing these abhorred conventicles, received new
instructions to search out and seize, kill and destroy, all who had any
share in the appearance at Rutherglen. Nor did he allow them to remain
long an idle letter. Mr John King was to preach at Hamilton on Sabbath.
Claverhouse set out with his band on the Saturday, and surprised and
took him prisoner, with about fourteen countrymen, chiefly strangers,
who had come to hear. Some few escaped and carried tidings to their
friends, who formed the design of rescuing their minister. Next day, the
meeting was to be held, and they expected to receive a reinforcement
from them. Claverhouse, who had also been apprised of the conventicle,
resolved to disperse it before returning to Glasgow with his captives.

Accordingly, upon the Sabbath morning (June 1st), he marched thither,
driving the prisoners before him like sheep, bound two and two together.
Public worship was begun when the accounts came of his approach. Mr
Douglas stopped, prayed a little, then laid the case before the people.
All that had arms, willingly offered themselves to defend the assembled
company, and prevent their dispersion or capture. They mustered about
forty horse and one hundred and fifty or two hundred foot, not one-third
of whom had muskets; the rest carried forks and halberts. They were led
by Mr (afterwards Colonel) Cleland, who fell nobly at the head of the
Cameronian regiment in the battle of Dunkeld, Balfour, Rathillet, John
Nisbet of Hardhill, and Mr Hamilton; and although untrained, were
resolute and eager for action. They came up with the enemy on a moor
“half a mile bewest Drumclog.” They received their first fire
resolutely, returned it with effect, and instantly closed hand to hand.
The encounter was short. The soldiers, who probably did not expect such
a reception, gave way and fled, leaving about forty killed and wounded,
besides a number of prisoners who were disarmed and dismissed. The
accounts of this battle which we have, are not very distinct, but from
what Russell says, who was present, the chief merit appears to have
belonged to Cleland. He drew up a party of foot armed with pikes, who
received and broke the attack upon the right of their small party, led
on by Clavers himself, who had his horse shot and very narrowly escaped.
Of the countrymen, only five or six were killed; and it was the general
belief, if they had pursued their advantage without giving the soldiers
time to rally, they would have completely annihilated the whole party.
But they only pursued them a short way, and returned to the meeting in
triumph with their minister.

They could not now separate with safety; they therefore resolved to
continue together, and having refreshed themselves, they marched to
Hamilton, where they remained all night. Flushed by their success, they
determined to proceed to Glasgow to attack the enemy’s head-quarters.
Accordingly, on Monday they marched thither—their numbers swelling as
they went. Grahame, however, had carried the intelligence of his own
disgrace there before them, to lessen which he naturally exaggerated
their force; and the troops under Lord Ross were prepared to receive
them. The main body was stationed at the cross, all approaches to which
were barricaded by carts, wood, and such articles as came readiest. A
few men were distributed in the houses adjoining, from the windows of
which they could annoy the countrymen as they advanced. The latter
entered the town in two divisions—the one under the direction of John
Balfour, by the High Street; the other under Hamilton, along the
Gallowgate. The men attacked the entrenchments bravely; but after a
contest, in which they lost about six or eight killed, and a few
wounded, they were obliged to desist; but they retired in good order,
and halting at a little distance to the eastward, drew up their small
force and offered the soldiers battle upon even ground and equal terms—a
challenge the latter did not choose to accept; and they marched back to
Hamilton, less disheartened by their failure, than encouraged by the
numerous accessions their ranks had received by the way.[120]

Footnote 120:

  Wodrow says, Hamilton skulked upon this occasion. “Some question if he
  looked the soldiers in the face, and say that he stepped into a house
  at the Gallowgate bridge till the soldiers retired.” Vol. ii. p. 47. I
  should rather think this inconsistent with the fact of his being
  chosen so soon after to the chief command—only there is no accounting
  for the variations of mere animal courage.

The royal troops, after they were withdrawn, sallied forth and vented
their dastardly spleen on the dead bodies left in the streets. They
would not allow them decent burial; and when some of the townsfolk,
under covert of night, took the corpses into their houses and prepared
them for interment, the ruffians broke in and sacrilegiously stripped
off the dead-clothes, and carried away the linen for sale. Even when at
length women were tacitly permitted to perform the last sad rites, they
attacked them as they were proceeding to the burial-ground, robbed them
of their plaids, cut the mortcloths, and obliged them to leave the
coffins in the almshouse, near the High Church, where they remained for
several days, till the military were called to other service.

Immediately on receiving intelligence of these transactions, the council
met and issued a vehement proclamation, denouncing the insurgents as
traitors, whose rebellion was aggravated by “their having formerly
tasted of the royal bounty!! and clemency,” whereunto they owed their
lives and fortunes, which had been forfeited by their former rebellious
practices, under the cloak of religion—the ordinary colour and pretext
of rebellion. Their transactions at Rutherglen, &c. were declared to be
open, manifest, and horrid rebellion and high treason, for which the
actors and their adherents ought to be pursued as professed traitors;
and they were called upon to lay down their weapons and surrender their
persons within twenty-four hours, to the Earl of Linlithgow,
commander-in-chief, or other officer or magistrates, on pain of being
holden and proceeded against as incorrigible and desperate traitors,
incapable of mercy or pardon; while they were not assured of pardon if
they should surrender themselves upon these terms.

Two days after, another proclamation was sent forth, ordering the
militia to hold themselves to act with the regulars, as they should be
required by the council, which was quickly followed by a third ordering
all the heritors and freeholders to attend the king’s host—those of the
western shires excepted. Meanwhile Lord Ross withdrew from Glasgow, and
marching eastward was joined by the Earl of Linlithgow at Larbert-moor,
whence they sent despatches to the council, entreating them to apply to
his majesty for assistance from England. The council wrote to Lauderdale
for the required help, and at the same time ordered the forces to cover
Edinburgh. On the 7th of June they were cantoned in the vicinity.

During their encampment about Hamilton, the insurgents received
considerable accessions. Captain John Paton of Meadowhead, arrived with
a body of horse from Fenwick, Newmills, and Galston; Mr John Welsh
brought a considerable number from Carrick;[121] and a considerable
number of others assembled from various quarters without any leaders, or
at least without any whose names are recorded. The whole party when at
their highest, never exceeded four thousand permanent, though they
varied considerably at different times owing to the numbers who came and
went away again, when they perceived the confusion that reigned, from a
total want of training, and of officers to train the men, scarcely one
among them having ever been in the army, which was wofully increased by
the melancholy dissensions and bitter disputations by which they were
agitated; for no person of influence, either gentlemen or men of
property, came among them.

Footnote 121:

  When they entered Glasgow, they removed the heads of their friends
  which were stuck up in and about that city.

The first palpable difference was about a declaration emitted at
Rutherglen, which several considered as not sufficiently explicit, yet
were willing to adhere to it; as considering the shortness of the time
and the hurry in which those who drew it up necessarily were, required
that some allowance should be made; and it contained, in sufficiently
plain terms, the grand objects for which they contended—redress of their
grievances, and correction of the abuses in the affairs of church and
state. The others insisted that an enumeration of the sins and
defections of the times should be inserted at length, and the indulgence
especially witnessed against.

These ranged in two parties; the former, _i. e._ the moderate, were
guided by the Laird of Kaitloch, Mr John Welsh, Mr David Hume, and some
other ministers; the latter, _i. e._ the ultras, by Mr Robert Hamilton,
with Mr Thomas Douglas, Donald Cargill, and the great majority of the
younger brethren in the ministry. At the first meeting, after some warm
discussion, the following sketch was agreed to:—

“We who are here providentially convened in our own defence, for
preventing and removing the mistakes and misapprehensions of all,
especially of those whom we wish to be and hope are friends, do declare
our present purposes and endeavours to be only in vindication and
defence of the true reformed religion in its professions and doctrine,
as we stand obliged thereunto by our ‘National and Solemn League and
Covenants,’ and that solemn ‘Acknowledgment of sins,’ and ‘Engagement to
duties,’ made and taken in the year 1648, declaring against popery,
prelacy, erastianism, and all things depending thereupon.” This did not
give general satisfaction; and the few days they were allowed to be
together, while the enemy were gathering around them, which they ought
to have employed in assiduously improving their discipline, and in
military exercises, they wasted in theological tilting and polemical
skirmishes among themselves, about matters which, even after a victory,
it would have been as well to have made the subject of forbearance, but
which in their then situation could answer no other purpose than that of
paralysing an effort, whose only chance of success depended on the
united, vigorous, and unremitted direction of all their energies and
resources, mental and physical, to one grand end.

That those who had been nurtured in the wilds, and borne for eighteen
years the brunt of the persecution, and whose intercourse had been
chiefly confined to their fellow-sufferers, should have been keen,
contracted, and irritable, was what was naturally to have been expected;
and yet, from the accounts we have of these disputes, those who assumed
the name of moderates appear to have been mainly to blame by their
unyielding contendings for milder principles and softer proceedings. As
they then stood, to talk of moderation was to invite disaster. They had
been declared rebels, and when they drew the sword, no hope remained but
what its point could purchase. To attempt soothing their opponents by
honeyed words was like hushing the hungry tiger with a song. The
moderate party objected to the clause “All things depending thereupon,”
and desired it to be erased as too closely pointing out the indulgence
at a time when every bone of contention should be taken away from the
Presbyterians that might tempt them to bite and devour one another. The
ultras urged that the expressions were general; and, in their opinion,
erastianism was as directly abjured by their church as prelacy, and that
the indulgence was a fruit of erastianism.[122] Contentions grew hot and
love waxed cold.

Footnote 122:

  The doctrine of Erastus, a German divine, who asserted that the
  pastoral office was only persuasive, like that of the professorship of
  any other science; that the communion was free to all, and that a
  minister could only dissuade, but not prohibit, a vicious character
  from participating in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper; and that the
  punishment of all ecclesiastical offences, as well as the support of
  all ecclesiastical institutions, belonged to the civil magistrate,
  upon the principle that they who paid servants had a right to demand
  their service in the manner they thought most proper, and to dismiss
  them if they disobeyed their orders.

At another meeting—for their meetings and debates were endless—it was
proposed that a day should be set aside for fasting and humiliation.
Alas! it turned out to be a day of strife and confusion. In their
confession of sins, the moderates were now for generals, the ultras for
particulars, and enumerated—1st, The universal rioting throughout the
land on the king’s return in 1660, the many public abuses then
committed, and the frequent profaning of the Lord’s name. 2d, The
establishing and complying with prelacy. 3d, Neglecting a public
testimony against the tyrannical hierarchy, and against defacing the
Lord’s glorious work and overturning the right government of his house.
4th, The sin of taking unlawful bonds. 5th, The paying cess; and, 6th,
Complying with abjured erastianism:—ministers appearing at the court of
usurping rulers, and there accepting from them warrants and
instructions, founded upon that sacrilegious supremacy to admit them to,
and regulate them in, the exercise of their ministry; their leading
blindfold along with them many of the godly in that abjured course;
their indulgence becoming a public sin and snare both to themselves and
others.

The moderates would not consent to the enumeration, though it is not
easy to imagine upon what grounds men who contended for the supreme
headship of Christ in his church could consistently oppose it. No fast
was kept; and, if we may be allowed to judge from a communication
between the heads of the parties, perhaps it was as well that it was
not. Mr Hamilton sent a message to the ministers of the moderate side to
preach against the indulgence, otherwise he and a number of the officers
would not come to hear them. Mr Rae, one of the ministers, returned for
answer—“That he had been wrestling against erastianism in the magistrate
for many years, and he would never truckle to the worst kind of
erastianism in the common people; that he would receive no instruction
from him nor any of them as to the subject and matter of his sermons;
and wished he might mind what belonged to him, and not go beyond his
sphere and station.”

Differing so widely respecting the testimony they were to bear to the
cause, as little could they agree with regard to their manifesto to the
nation. In a meeting of their officers,[123] the ultras proposed that
the Rutherglen declaration should be adopted as the basis; the
moderates, that the king’s authority should be expressly acknowledged,
in terms of the 3d article of the Solemn League and Covenant, in which
they swore “to defend the king’s majesty’s person and authority in the
preservation and defence of the true religion and liberties of the
kingdom, that the world may bear witness with our consciences of our
loyalty, and that we have no thoughts or intentions to diminish his
majesty’s just power and greatness.” To this the others answered—that,
as they had not urged any positive declaration against him, although he
had in fact declared war against his people; and all the oppression,
cruelty, and persecution in Scotland of which they complained, and for
the redress of which they were now in arms, were carried on in his
name—they could not consistently with their previous declarations, nor
with the covenants which bound the whole land, first to God and then to
one another; and then to the king only in defence of the true religion,
which he had actually overturned by setting up prelacy, ruined the
covenanted work of reformation and the liberties of the nation,
persecuted to death the supporters of both, and broken the conditions of
government sworn to at his coronation, on which his right and their
allegiance were founded.

Footnote 123:

  This is styled indiscriminately, a meeting of officers or a council of
  war.

The ultras were right in the abstract; and had they known how to mould
it to practical purposes, they might have anticipated, as they certainly
prepared the way for, the Revolution of 1688; that sound, practical
exposition of the principles which the others missed, by contending for
what is utterly impossible under the present constitution of human
nature:—uniformity in a religious creed and civil liberty to be held
together in a nation, composed of reasoning beings, susceptible of
different views of the same truths, and allowed to exercise their
reasoning powers. I am strongly inclined to believe, however, that much
personal feeling mixed up in the controversy, and that the moderates
allowed themselves to be led astray by an especial opposition to Robert
Hamilton; and by showing this too openly, united to that
politico-religious demagogue the honest and upright party, who were
induced to suspect some lurking trimming policy in the measures of the
moderates, because they appeared to them to encourage an accommodation
with the enemy upon a compromise of principle. The others carried their
doctrine of submission to the civil government to a length unwarrantable
in free countries; and Scotland ought to have been a free country. There
are reciprocal duties between the people and their rulers; and it is
against one of the first principles of our nature, to assert that either
of the parties have a right to violate their obligations, merely because
they happen to have the means of so doing.

While these disputes were distracting the Presbyterians in Scotland,
intrigue and emulation were dividing the councils of their enemies in
London. The wretched Charles found that licentiousness was not the road
to happiness, and that concubinage did not tend to promote domestic
felicity. With the struggles of panders for domination over the poor
heartless thing, that revelled amid the gaudy trappings of royalty, I do
not intend to pollute my pages; it is sufficient to say, that his
favourite bastard, whom he had decorated with the title of Duke of
Buccleuch and Monmouth, gained the perilous and to him fatal eminence of
commander-in-chief of his forces in Scotland. The temper of this young
man was amiable; and, unlike the Stuarts, he both wished and endeavoured
to promote the welfare of the people and adhere to moderate and salutary
councils; but these dispositions rendered him obnoxious to those who
ruled the councils of his father. The Duke of York, by his imperious,
severe, and obstinate temper, had long held Charles in bondage, and
prevented the exercise of any humane feeling towards the Scottish
insurgents, which, however transient, he on some occasions appeared to
possess; and Lauderdale, instigated and supported by the clergy of
Scotland, preferred pursuing a line of conduct which recommended him to
them rather than what accorded either with the circumstances of the
times or the real stability of the throne.

Monmouth’s instructions were in accordance with the wishes of the
prelatic rulers—forbidding him to negotiate with the rebels, whom he was
to extirpate, not to reconcile. On the 18th of June, he arrived at
Edinburgh, and was admitted a privy councillor. Next day, he proceeded
to assume the command of the army, which lay within two miles of the
Kirk of Shotts, and, having been reinforced by some troops from England,
amounted to ten thousand men. A letter from the king immediately
followed his Grace, thanking the council for their diligence in
endeavouring to meet the emergency, and informing them that it was his
royal will and pleasure “that they should prosecute the rebels with fire
and sword, and all other extremities of war, and particularly requiring
them to use their utmost endeavours in getting the best intelligence of
all such as were engaged in this unnatural rebellion, being fully
resolved to bring the ringleaders among them to condign punishment
suitable to their notorious and insolent conduct; likewise putting them
in mind that all care and diligence be used for discovering the
murderers of the late Archbishop of St Andrews, by all the severity that
law would allow, and punishing with all rigour the actors or accessaries
to that horrid murder, their resettors or abettors;” thus anticipating,
or rather authorising, the subsequent watchword, which became the
warrant for unrelenting and indiscriminate massacre.

The council, in reply, expressed the universal joy which this gracious
communication had created among them, and extolled that royal wisdom
which had given such just measures and directions for suppressing the
insurrection and securing his own government, together with their
religion, lives, and properties, which would all undoubtedly have been
endangered by the frequency of similar attempts that would have ensued,
if the present insolent rebels, who now disturbed the kingdom, had been
ordered to be spared or gently dealt with; thus, in like manner,
anticipating the cruelties in which they afterwards rioted. A copy of
the king’s letter was immediately forwarded to Monmouth for his
guidance.

The moderate friends of the Whigs in Edinburgh also sent instructions to
them, respecting the course they thought they should pursue, especially
warning them against being led astray by the hotheaded party among them;
advising them to send propositions to the Duke, narrating the
oppressions they had endured, and cheerfully professing their fidelity
to the king, for whom they were ready to sacrifice every thing they held
most dear, excepting only their religion and liberty; and, above all, to
avoid fighting, except with seen advantage by surprisal or ambuscade—to
keep close together, sending scouts out in all directions, and
particularly not to be too secure upon the Sabbath day; while they kept
up close intercourse with their friends throughout the country, and
endeavoured to induce them to join the army in defence of the grand
principles held not only by themselves, but by a great sympathizing body
throughout England.

A wholesome advice, unfortunately tendered in vain! Multitudes who came
to the camp, when they perceived the distractions that prevailed, left
it despairing of any happy issue, and not only weakened the troops by
their desertion, but prevented many who were coming, or preparing to
come, from joining so discordant an assemblage. This again caused
accusations and recriminations, each side upbraiding the other for being
the occasion of such mischief and visible hindrance to the good cause,
destroyed all cordial co-operation, and prevented the discipline of the
troops; so that, when the king’s forces approached, they presented the
melancholy appearance of a disjointed rabble of countrymen, whose
numbers did not exceed six thousand men. The necessity of naming
officers who had had some experience in warlike affairs was pressing,
and the leaders met for this purpose on the 21st; but, after a stormy
discussion, not on the military merits of the men, but on the question,
whether any should be intrusted with command who had owned the
indulgence? Mr Hamilton and a number of his supporters withdrew in anger
from the meeting, without having come to any determination. A few of the
temperate who remained, drew up a respectful supplication to Monmouth,
stating their grievances, and requesting liberty, under safe conduct,
for a few of their number to state their grievances, that they might
obtain through his favour some speedy and effectual redress.

[Illustration:

  _Battle of Bothwell Bridge._

  _Vide page 374._

  Edin^r. Hugh Paton, Carver & Gilder, to the Queen, 1842.
]

Next day, the armies were within sight of each other. The king’s troops
spread upon Bothwell-moor, with their advanced guard in the town; the
Whigs stationed along Hamilton-moor, on the south side of the river
Clyde, with their advanced guard at the bridge—an old narrow structure,
the only pass by which they were assailable. Early that morning, Mr
David Hume, Mr Fergusson of Caitloch, and Mr John Welsh went in disguise
to Monmouth’s head-quarters. On passing, they were politely saluted by
Claverhouse and had ready access to his Grace. When introduced, they
stated their demands, which were—that they might be allowed the free
exercise of their religion, and suffered to attend the ordinances
dispensed by Presbyterian ministers without molestation; that a free
Parliament and General Assembly might be called to settle the affairs of
church and state; and an indemnity offered to all who were or had been
in arms. The Duke, who heard them with great attention, replied that the
king had given him no instructions respecting these matters; he
therefore could not say any thing about them, only he assured the
delegates he would lay their requests before his majesty, and as he
thought them reasonable, had no doubt they would be granted; but in the
meanwhile, he could enter into no terms till they laid down their arms
and threw themselves entirely upon the royal mercy. He then dismissed
them, and gave them half an hour to return him an answer from their
friends whether they would consent to his proposal. At the same time, he
issued orders to put the troops in motion.

When the commissioners reported the Duke’s demand, that they should lay
down their arms previous to terms being offered, Mr Hamilton, who had
now assumed the command, laughed at it, and said, “Aye! and hang next.”
No answer was therefore returned. As soon as the half hour’s truce
expired, Lord Livingston advanced at the head of the foot-guards with
the cannon to force the bridge. He was firmly received by a small
determined band under Ure of Shargarton and Major Learmont, who drove
them back twice, and would even have taken the cannon had they been
properly supported, but their ammunition failed; and when they sent to
the commander for a fresh supply, or a reinforcement of men better
provided, they received orders to retire upon the main body, which,
having no other alternative, they did, and with heavy hearts left their
vantage ground, and with it every chance of success.[124] The royal army
then passed the bridge, and drew up upon the bank with their artillery
in front, to which the patriots had nothing to oppose but one
field-piece and two large uncouth unmounted muskets; yet did they force
Lord Livingston to halt, till the cannon having been opened upon the
left, threw the undisciplined horse of the countrymen into disorder, and
the route immediately became universal.[125]

Footnote 124:

  The honour of this defence is claimed by Russell for Hackston of
  Rathillet, who also had a command; but it is universally allowed that
  the nominal General, Hamilton, was among the first to flee.

Footnote 125:

  Although we may lament the dreadful and bloody years which followed
  this victory, and hold up to merited execration the persecuting
  prelates, yet, perhaps, the descendants of the persecuted have reason
  to bless God that the ultra-covenanters did not gain that day. It
  would have given the chief power into the hands of Robert Hamilton,
  who commanded upon that occasion; and what use he would have made of
  it may be fairly conjectured from the following vindication of his
  conduct in murdering in cold blood a prisoner after the battle of
  Drumclog. It is contained in a letter from him addressed to “the
  anti-popish, anti-prelatic, anti-sectarian, true Presbyterian remnant
  of the church of Scotland,” dated December 7, 1685:—“As for that
  accusation they bring against me of killing the poor man (as they call
  him) at Drumclog, I may easily guess that my accusers can be no other
  but some of the house of Saul or Shemei, or some such risen again to
  espouse that poor gentleman’s (_Saul_) his quarrel against honest
  Samuel, for his offering to kill that poor man, _Agag_, after the
  king’s giving him quarters. But I being called to command that day,
  gave out the word that no quarter should be given; and returning from
  pursuing Claverhouse, one or two of these fellows were standing in the
  midst of our friends, and some were debating for quarters, some
  against it. None could blame me to decide the controversy; and I bless
  the Lord for it to this day!! There were five more that, without my
  knowledge, got quarters, who were brought to me after we were a mile
  from the place as having got quarters—which I reckoned among the first
  steppings aside; and seeing that spirit amongst us at that time, I
  then told it to some that were with me (to my best remembrance it was
  honest old John Nisbet) that I feared the Lord would not honour us to
  do much for him. I shall only say this—I desire to bless his holy name
  that, since ever he helped me to set my face to his work, I never had
  nor would take a favour from enemies, either on right or left hand,
  and desired to give as few.”—Faithful Contendings, p. 201 et seq.

Few fell in the fight, but the pursuit was cruel and bloody; upwards of
four hundred were cut down, and twelve hundred who were on the moor,
were forced to surrender at discretion. The slaughter would have been
greater had not Monmouth, in spite of the advice of some of the other
Generals, ordered the vanquished to be spared, when the yeomanry cavalry
especially were executing cruel vengeance on the unresisting fugitives.
Among the prisoners were Messrs King and Kid, ministers, who were,
however, only preserved by his humanity from military violence, that
they might afterwards satiate the cruelty of their clerical enemies by a
more disgraceful execution, if dying in any manner for the cause of
truth can be called disgraceful. The treatment of the captives by the
inferior officers, to whose charge they were committed, was
unnecessarily vindictive and severe. They were stripped nearly naked,
and made to lie flat on the ground, nor suffered to change their
position; and when some of them ventured to raise themselves to implore
a draught of water, they were instantly shot. They were afterwards tied
two and two and driven to Edinburgh, to be placed at the council’s
disposal.

Nor was the cruelty confined to those taken in battle, numbers of
unarmed men, who were merely coming to hear sermon at the camp, were
murdered on the road by the soldiery; and one atrocious case stands
painfully conspicuous. Arthur Inglis of Cambusnethan, while quietly
reading his bible in a furrow, was observed by a party who were
patrolling the country in search of delinquents, and being actually
discovered in this treasonable fact, one of the soldiers fired at the
traitor; but missing, the good man startled a little, looked round for a
moment, and then, without appearing to be alarmed, resumed his reading,
when another of the miscreants, by order of his viler commander, clave
his skull, and left him dead on the spot! The numbers who were thus
wantonly massacred, are variously stated; but if we take the lowest, two
hundred—considering the then state of the population—it shows, in
sufficiently strong colours, a barbarous waste of life, and the danger
of committing such extravagant powers into the hands of an unbridled
soldiery.

Yet terrible as these military executions were, they were mild and
merciful compared with the legal atrocities which followed. As after
Pentland no faith was kept with the prisoners, who were treated—as men
who fail in struggling for their rights always are—more like wild,
noxious animals than fellow-creatures of the human form; a lesson to
patriots and to the oppressed when they rise against their
tyrants:—better perish on the high places of the field than submit to
languish out a few mournful years beneath the tender mercies of the
victors. While being driven to the capital, the captive patriots were
exposed to every indignity the ingenious malignity of their persecutors
could invent, especially being made, as they passed along, a
gazing-stock to the crowd, who taunted them with such questions,
as—where is your prophet Welsh who told you ye should win the day? where
are your covenants that were never to fail? or such sarcasms, as—aye!
this is your testimony—this is standing up for the gude auld cause! see
if it will stand up for you! When they arrived in the capital, the
council ordered the magistrates to place them in the Greyfriar’s
churchyard, with a sufficient number of sentinels over them, to guard
them night and day; especially during the night, they were to be
rigorously watched to prevent escape; and such was their determination
to enforce vigilance, that the officers were ordered to keep exact rolls
of the sentinels, and if any of the prisoners were amissing, they were
to throw dice and answer body for body. For nearly five months were the
greater part of the sufferers kept in this open space, without any
covering from the rain or shelter from the tempest. During the day, they
generally stood, but had not even the miserable privilege of a short
walk. During night, the cold damp ground was their bed, without a
covering; and if any attempted to rise, for whatever purpose, the
sentinels had orders to fire upon them. With great difficulty did any of
their friends obtain permission to visit them, or bring them provisions,
and these were chiefly females, who were exposed to the grossest insults
from the guards; and not infrequently were the provisions they carried
destroyed, and the water spilt, before either could reach the starving
prisoners; for the government allowance which the Duke of Monmouth
procured for them, was, besides being of the worst quality, very scanty.
Nor did the inhumanity of the ruffian soldiery allow them to retain
money or any article they could pilfer from them, even their shoes,
stockings, and upper garments were carried off; and when blankets or any
bedclothes were brought, they were immediately seized as lawful plunder.

Before Monmouth left Scotland, he procured the liberation of some
hundreds, upon their subscribing a bond, enacting themselves in the
books of the privy council not to take up arms without or against his
majesty’s authority; and had also obtained for a few of them the stinted
favour of wretched huts, to be erected as the winter approached. The
bond became another cause of unhappy difference and alienation among the
sufferers themselves. Those who refused amounted to about four hundred,
and much interest was made to procure their deliverance, especially by
some who thought they might sign the bond without sin, endeavouring to
persuade them to submit, as it did not involve the sacrifice of any of
those principles for which they had taken arms. The others, however,
more consistently, viewed their subscribing the bond as an admission
that their previous rising had been criminal, and therefore persisted in
their refusal. The hardships they had so long endured, and their mutual
exhortations, heightened and strengthened their scruples, till they
became absolutely impenetrable to whatever could be urged upon the
subject, nor would listen either to entreaty or argument. Yet upwards of
an hundred contrived to effect an escape; some by the purchased
connivance of the guards, some by climbing the walls at the hazard of
their lives, others by changing their clothes, and some in women’s
apparel.

The remnant who remained firm, were doomed to slavery in the
plantations; and their fate, had earth terminated their hopes, was
melancholy; but viewed as that of those who through much tribulation
must enter the kingdom, was enviable—inexpressibly enviable! when
compared with that of their oppressors, who unwittingly sent them by the
shortest road to heaven.[126] Their numbers, estimated at about two
hundred and fifty-seven, were to be transported to Barbadoes and sold
for slaves. Mr Blackadder thus narrates the tragical story:—“The
prisoners were all shipped in Leith roads (15th November) in an English
captain’s vessel, to be carried to America. He was a profane, cruel
wretch, and used them barbarously, stewing them up between decks, where
they could not get up their heads, except to sit or lean, and robbing
them of many things their friends had sent them for their relief. They
never were in such strait and pinch, particularly through scorching
drowth, as they were allowed little or no drink and pent up together,
till many of them fainted and were almost suffocated. This was in Leith
roads, besides what straits they would readily endure in the custody of
such a cruel wretch. In this grievous plight, these captives were
carried away in much anguish of spirit, pinched bodies, and disquieted
consciences, (at least those who had taken the bond.[127]) They were
tossed at sea with great tempest of weather for three weeks, till at
last their ship cast anchor, to ride awhile among the Orkney Isles, till
the storm might calm. But after casting anchor, the ship did drive with
great violence upon a rugged shore about the isles, and struck about ten
at night on a rock. The cruel captain saw the hazard all were in, and
that they might have escaped as some did; yet, as I heard, he would not
open the hatches to let the poor prisoners fend for themselves. He with
his seamen made their escape by a mast laid over between the ship and
the rock ashore. Some leapt on the rock.

Footnote 126:

  James Corsan, in a letter to his wife, dated from Leith roads,
  says—“All the trouble they met with since Bothwell was not to be
  compared to one day in their present circumstances; that their
  uneasiness was beyond words: yet he owns in very pathetical terms,
  that the consolations of God overbalanced all, and expresses his hopes
  that they are near their port, and heaven is opening for
  them.”—Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 83.

Footnote 127:

  It appears that some who had taken the bond, had, notwithstanding,
  been still detained.

“The ship being strong, endured several strokes ere she bilged. The
captain and all the rest of the seamen, with about fifty prisoners, some
of whom had been above deck before, others had broke out some other way
down to the den, and so up again; so that they were to land with their
life in: one or two died ashore. While these were thus escaping, the
rest who had all been closed up between decks, crying most pitifully,
and working as they could to break forth of their prison, but to little
purpose; and all these, near two hundred, with lamentable shrieks of
dying men—as was related to the writer by one who escaped—did perish.
The most part were cast out on the shore dead, and after buried by the
country people.”[128]

Footnote 128:

  It is pleasant to notice instances of kindness and benevolence, in
  times such as these, among the influential men of the prelatical
  party. I quote from the Memoirs of Brysson, edited by Dr M’Crie, who
  remarks—“One of these kind lairds is evidently Sir William Drummond of
  Hawthornden, son of the celebrated poet,” p. 285, _Note_—“After our
  defeat, I wist not what to do. However, after some time lurking, I
  ventured home, where my sister and family were together, who had
  suffered many wrongs from the enemy, my mother being dead a year
  before this fell out; and that which is very remarkable, I dwelt
  betwixt two lairds who were both out in arms against us; and one of
  them never conformed to the Presbyterian government to his dying day,
  though he lived thirty-five years after this. And the other was of the
  same judgment, though he complied with the government afterwards.
  However, the Lord moved them to favour me in the day of my distress.
  For they sent for my sister before I came home, and advised her to put
  all the goods from off the ground, and every thing but what was of
  present use for the family. One of the gentlemen was so kind, that he
  desired my sister to send over the milk kine and let them feed with
  his, and to send over her servants morning and evening to milk them
  for the use of the family. And ordered her to pack up all things that
  she thought the enemy might make a prey of, and send them over to his
  house; which accordingly she did, where they were secure. The other
  gentleman was no less kind, for he desired her to send the milk ewes
  over to his ground that she might not lose their milk, and to send her
  servants to milk them. After that she sent away the horses, oxen, and
  other yeld beasts, to a friend who lived on the Earl of Wigton’s
  ground, who received them willingly. Thus the Lord trysted me with
  favour both from my friends and foes, for which I desire to adore his
  wonderful providence.”—Memoirs of George Brysson, pp. 284-5.

Nothing in the whole annals of these persecuting times presents a
stronger argument against committing civil power to the clergy, than the
uniform strenuous opposition made by the bishops and their satellites to
every moderate or clement proposal of the Duke of Monmouth. The council,
where they possessed a strong majority before his Grace arrived from the
army, had written to the king for instructions how to dispose of the
prisoners, promising “at the same time, on their part, to execute the
laws against rebellion, faction, and schism, as the king should direct
them, without gratifying the humours of such as are apt to grow more
insolent by his majesty’s grace and goodness, who have been encouraged
and hardened in an obstinate opposition to the church by his majesty’s
condescensions and indulgences, and proposing that, after the
ringleaders were punished capitally, the rabble should be transported to
the plantations never to return.”

This model of princes, for whose restoration the cannon of the Castle of
Edinburgh still continue annually to be fired, and the public offices
still keep holyday, returned a gracious answer, approving of their
proposal to send three or four hundred to the plantations, and bring the
ringleaders before the justiciary, after which the rest might be
dismissed upon signing the bond.

The treatment of the majority has been narrated. We shall now notice the
proceedings against those considered ringleaders. The most conspicuous
were their ministers Messrs King and Kid. Wodrow mentions an incident
which occurred while the former was being carried to Edinburgh, too
remarkable to be passed over, especially as that historian is neither a
credulous nor an enthusiastic writer:—

“Upon the Lord’s day, orders were given to a party of soldiers
immediately to march east and carry Mr John King with them to Edinburgh;
and we will find it was their ordinary [practice] to march, and
especially to transport prisoners from place to place, on the Sabbath.
My accounts of them are, that they were English dragoons. One of them, a
profane and profligate wretch, after they were in the street and on
horseback, ready to ride off with their prisoner, called for some ale,
and drunk a health to the ‘Confusion of the Covenants,’ and another to
the ‘Destruction of the People of God,’ and some more very horrid, and
rode off. He met with one of his comrades at the Stable-green Port, who,
knowing nothing of the matter, asked him where he was going? He
answered, ‘to convoy King to hell,’ and galloped up to the rest,
whistling and singing. The judgment of God did not linger as to this
wretch; he was not many paces forward, in the hollow path a little from
the Port, till his horse stumbled; and somewhat or other touching his
piece—which was primed and cocked it seems—the carabine went off and
shot him dead on the spot. The party went on and carried Mr King to
Edinburgh.” Mr Kid was brought thither and imprisoned along with his
friend in the tolbooth.

The tyranny of Charles, which was exercised in England as well as in
Scotland, had excited much discontent there; and Charles’s advisers were
extremely anxious to trace out some grand conspiracy which might enable
them to resort to extreme measures there as well as in Scotland, that a
similar despotism might be established in both kingdoms. The king
therefore directed that these two should be especially examined by
torture, in order if possible to discover the conspirators, with which
the Scottish managers were very ready to comply, many of them
anticipating a rich harvest of new forfeitures. Being disappointed in
this, the prisoners were ordered to stand trial before the justiciary.
Previously to being brought to the bar, they presented a petition,
praying that they might be allowed to prove in exculpation—that they
were only present with the army casually, and not intentionally, and
were in a manner detained prisoners by them; and such naked presence,
without assistance, was not criminal; and that they were so far from
being incendiaries to incite the people, they, on the contrary,
entreated them to lay down their arms. 2d, That the Duke of Monmouth, by
his commission, had power to pardon; and they offered to prove by
witnesses that he had proffered them a pardon if they would lay down
their arms, and that they had accepted it. 3d, They were willing to
engage to live peaceably, and never to keep field-meetings hereafter.

The lords refused this equitable request, or, as Fountainhall expressed
it, “repelled their exculpation in respect of the libel,” and, on the
28th of July, their trial proceeded. They were accused of having been in
the rebellion and in company with rebels, who, in May last, burned the
king’s laws; that they had preached at several field-conventicles where
persons were in arms; that they did preach, pray, and exercise to
rebels, and continued with them till their defeat, and had been taken
prisoners.

Their own confessions, that of Kid emitted under torture, were the only
evidence produced against them, and coincided with what they had offered
to prove. It was deemed sufficient that they had been with the rebels,
and, notwithstanding any extenuating circumstances, must therefore be
deemed rebels themselves. The jury brought them in guilty, in terms of
their own confession; and the lords sentenced them to be taken to the
market cross of Edinburgh upon Thursday, August 14, betwixt two and four
of the clock in the afternoon, and to be hanged on a gibbet; and when
dead, that their heads and right arms be cut off and disposed of as the
council think fit; and that all their land be forfeited, as being guilty
of the treasonable crimes foresaid. The judges themselves were so
convinced of the peculiar hardship of the case, that they allowed this
unusual space between sentence and execution, on purpose that they might
have time to apply for a remission, and Mr Stevenson, a friend of
theirs, rode post to London to apply for it; but all the avenues to
mercy were shut. An evil influence pervaded the whole court; and it is
worthy of remark, and ought never to be forgotten, that the most gay,
most boisterously mirthful, most joyous, and most irreligious court,
headed by the most facetious and witty monarch that ever sat upon the
British throne, was the most unfeeling, cold-hearted, cruel, revengeful,
and vile that has ever disgraced the annals of our country.

An act of indemnity had been passed; and it might naturally have been
supposed that these good men would have received the advantage of it,
but the very day on which it was to be proclaimed, was the day chosen on
which they were ordered to be executed; so dead to every sense of common
decency, as well as of common feeling, were the then rulers of Scotland.
In the forenoon of the 14th of August, the magistrates of Edinburgh
proceeded to the cross in their robes, and proclaimed the indemnity from
a scaffold erected for the purpose. In the afternoon, these two
worthies, on another scaffold, were put to death, as if to declare the
entire worthlessness of all government clemency, whenever persons of
unflinching principle were concerned. They both died with much calmness
and serenity; and their dying speeches, which were afterwards published,
may well rank with any of the compositions of the times, for elegant
simplicity, honest integrity, and a plain energetic avowal of their
principles, untainted either by party prejudice or political enthusiasm.
Mr Kid, who was labouring under sore bodily indisposition, said—“It may
be that there are a great many here that judge my lot very sad and
deplorable, I must confess, death in itself is very terrible to flesh
and blood; but as it is an outlet to sin, and an inlet to righteousness,
it is the Christian’s great and inexpressible privilege.

“And give me leave to say this, 1st, That there is something in a
Christian’s condition that can never put him without the reach of
unsufferableness, even shame, death, and the cross being included in the
promise. And if there be reconciliation between God and the soul,
nothing can damp peace through our Lord Jesus Christ; it is a supporting
ingredient in the bitterest cup and under the sharpest and fiercest
trial he can be exposed unto. This is my mercy, I have somewhat of this
to lay claim unto, _viz._ the intimations of pardon betwixt God and my
soul; and as concerning that for which I am condemned, I magnify his
grace that I never had the least challenge for it, but, on the contrary,
I judge it my honour that ever I was counted worthy to be staged upon
such a consideration. I declare before you all, in the sight of God,
angels, and men, and in the sight of the sun and all that he has
created, that I am a most miserable sinner, in regard of my original and
actual transgressions. I must confess they are more than the hairs upon
my head, and altogether past reckoning; I cannot but say, as Jacob said,
I am less than the least of all God’s mercies; yet, I must declare, to
the commendation of the freedom of his grace, that I dare not but say,
He has loved me and washed me in his own blood; and well’s me this day
that ever I read or heard that faithful saying, ‘Jesus Christ came into
the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief.’”

He then warned the servants of God against fomenting divisions to the
detriment of the gospel, especially as there appeared at that time a
great likelihood of its spreading, and dissension would prove a poison
in the pot! “As for rebellion against his majesty’s person or lawful
authority, the Lord knows my soul abhorreth it, name and thing. Loyal I
have been and wills every Christian to be so; and I was ever of this
judgment to give to Cesar the things that are Cesar’s, and to God the
things that are God’s.” This excellent man and his most worthy
coadjutor, not only had to suffer from the oppression of the oppressors,
but from what to them was probably more trying, the cruel scourge of
tongues from those they wished to esteem brethren. He therefore felt
himself called upon to vindicate his character from these aspersions,
and to leave a record of the doctrine he had preached. “According to the
measure God has given me,” he continues, “it was my endeavour to commend
Christ to the hearts and souls of the people, even repentance towards
God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ; and if this be devisive
preaching, I cannot deny it.”

Mr King expressed himself to the same effect. “I bless the Lord,” said
the dying martyr, “since infinite wisdom and holy providence hath so
carved out my lot to die after this manner, that I die not unwillingly,
neither by force; and though possibly I might have shunned such an hard
sentence, if I had done things that, though I could, I durst not do; no,
not for my soul, I durst not, God knoweth, redeem my life by the loss of
my integrity. I bless the Lord that, since I have been a prisoner, he
hath wonderfully upholden me, and made out that comfortable word, ‘fear
not, be not afraid; I am with thee, I will uphold thee by the right hand
of my righteousness.’ I bless his name that I die not as a fool dieth,
though I acknowledge I have nothing to boast of myself. I acknowledge I
am a sinner, and one of the chiefest that have gone under the name of a
professor of religion; yea, amongst the unworthiest of those that have
preached the gospel. My sins and corruptions have been many. I have no
righteousness of my own; all is vile, like filthy rags. But blessed be
God there is a Saviour of sinners, Jesus Christ the righteous, and that
through faith in his righteousness I have obtained mercy; through him
only I desire to hope for, and to have a happy and glorious victory over
sin and satan, hell and death; that I shall attain to the righteousness
of the just, and be made partaker of eternal life. I know in whom I have
believed, and that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him
against that day. I have in my poor capacity preached salvation in his
name; and as I have preached, so do I believe. With all my soul I have
commended, and yet I do commend, to all of you the riches of his grace
and faith in his name, as the alone and only way whereby ye can be
saved. As for those things for which sentence of death is passed against
me, I bless the Lord, rebellious I have not been. He who is the searcher
of hearts, knoweth that neither my design nor practice was against his
majesty’s person and just government. I have been loyal, and do
recommend it to all to be obedient to higher powers in the Lord.

“That I preached at field-meetings. I am so far from acknowledging that
the gospel preached that way was a rendezvousing in rebellion, as it is
termed, that I bless the Lord ever he counted me worthy to be a witness
to such meetings, which have been so wonderfully countenanced and owned,
not only to the conviction, but even to the conversion of many
thousands: if I could have preached Christ and salvation in his name,
that was my work, and herein have I walked according to the light and
rule of the word of God, and as it did become—though one of the
meanest—a minister of the gospel.”

Both bore witness to the doctrine and worship, discipline and
government, of the church of Scotland by kirk-sessions and presbyteries,
synods and general assemblies, to the solemn covenants, also to the
public confessions of sins and engagements to duties, and that either as
to what concerned personal reformation, or the reformation of the whole
land. They also bore witness and testimony against popery, which had so
greatly increased, was so much countenanced, and so openly professed.
The causes of God’s wrath with the land were particularly noticed and
specified by Mr King:—1st, The dreadful slights our Lord Jesus has
received in the offers of his gospel. 2d, The horrid profanity that had
overspread the whole land. 3d, The horrid perjury in the matter of vows
and engagements. 4th, The dreadful formality and supineness in the
duties of religion. 5th, Awful ingratitude, what do we render to HIM for
his goodness? 6th, Want of humility under afflictions. 7th, Dreadful
covetousness and minding of our own things more than the things of God;
and this among all ranks.

But they both departed, praying for Scotland, and rejoicing in the faith
that there would be a resurrection of the name, word, and cause of
Christ in their beloved country; and their last aspirations were, “O!
that he would return to this land again! repair our breaches, and heal
our backslidings! O! that he were pacified towards us! O! that he would
pass by Scotland again, and make our time a time of love!” Their heads
and right hands were, agreeably to their sentence, cut off, and had the
honour of being placed beside those of the venerated Guthrie on the
Netherbow Port, to bear witness to heaven, along with them, against the
iniquity of the times.

Five others were next selected for immolation as a propitiatory offering
to the shade of the grand apostate. Thomas Brown, shoemaker, Edinburgh;
Andrew Sword, weaver, Kirkcudbright; John Clide, Kilbride; John Waddel,
New Monkland; and James Wood, Newmills—charged with being accomplices in
the murder of Archbishop Sharpe, although none of them were in that part
of the country at the time when it happened—were accordingly brought
before the justiciary on November 10th. Their indictment, as now became
the custom, enumerated as charges against them all the occurrences which
had taken place during the rising, aggravated by fictitious
circumstances of the most revolting nature, _i. e._ throwing out of
their graves the dead bodies of such children as belonged to the
orthodox clergy in Glasgow; commanding, by a most insolent act of their
supremacy and mock judicatory, all the said orthodox clergy to remove
themselves, their wives and families, from the western shires, under
pain of death; and threatening with fire and sword all such of his
majesty’s good subjects as would not join them; plundering and ravaging
their houses, and carrying off their horses and arms; declining the
bond; and finally, and above all, refusing to call the late rebellion a
rebellion.

Previously to proceeding with the trial, the bond was offered to them
judicially, both the crown lawyers and judges upon this as upon several
other occasions appearing to have entertained some sympathy for the
sufferers; but they peremptorily refused to take it, as they considered
that they would thereby have been condemning the rising at Bothwell, and
their own conduct in what they considered a justifiable assertion of the
principles to which they had solemnly sworn obedience in the covenants.
Four of them resolutely avowed their having appeared in arms at
Bothwell, and were of course found guilty by the jury upon their own
confession of that fact alone; yet, by a strange vindictive perversity,
the court sentenced them “to be carried to the moor of Magus in the
sheriffdom of Fife, the place where his Grace the Archbishop of St
Andrews was murdered, upon the 18th of November instant, and there to be
hanged till they be dead, and their bodies to be hung in chains until
they rot, and all their lands, goods, and gear to fall to his majesty’s
use.”

James Wood was only proven by the evidence of some soldiers to have been
taken at or after Bothwell without arms; and as numbers in that part of
the country were known to have gone to the spot as mere spectators, a
humane tribunal would have given them the advantage of the supposition
that they had been present from a similar motive. But he was included in
the same verdict, and doomed to the same punishment, which was
accordingly inflicted at the place appointed, though some difference
appears in the date of the execution and the date of their dying
testimonies, the latter being dated 25th November, a week beyond the
term allowed by the former, which might have been given to allow of an
application to the king for mercy. If it was, they found none from their
earthly sovereign; but they all died in the humble confidence of being
reconciled to God by Jesus Christ.

Brown, who went up the ladder first, declared, before being turned off,
“if every hair of his head were a man, and every drop of his blood were
a life, he would cordially and heartily lay them down for Christ and
this cause for which he was now sentenced.”

Sword sang the 34th Psalm, and said to the spectators, “I cannot but
commend Christ and his cross to you. I would not exchange my lot for a
thousand worlds!” He had lived four or five score of miles distant from
that place, and never in his life saw a bishop that he knew to be a
bishop.

James Wood also affirmed that he had never been in that part of the
country before, nor seen a bishop in his life! and as to appearing at
Bothwell Bridge, he added, “for my own part, I am so far from thinking
it rebellion, that I bless God I was a man to be there, though a man
most unable for war, and unskilful, because of my infirm arm: and I
bless God that gave me a life to lay down for his cause; and though in
remarkable providence he took not my life in that day, yet for holy and
good ends he spared it to lay it down this day; and I am so far from
rueing any thing that I had done that day in my appearing for Christ and
his cause, that I would heartily wish if I were to live to see as many
men every year gathered together for the defence of the gospel. I would
count it my honour to be with them.” “And now, my friends, I am not a
whit afraid to go up this ladder, and to lay down my life this day, for
it is the best day ever yet mine eyes saw.” And being up almost to the
top of the ladder, plucking up the napkin, he said, “Now I am going to
lay down this life and to step out of time into eternity, and if I had
as many lives as there are hairs on my head, or drops of blood in my
body, I would willingly lay them down for Christ, and for you all that
are here on Christ’s account.”

John Waddel, respecting the bishop’s death, said, “I declare I was never
over the water of Forth in this country before this time.” “I am
sentenced to die here because I would not call it rebellion being with
my friends at Bothwell Bridge, and because I would not take that bond,
binding me hereafter never to lift arms against the king nor his
authority, which thing in conscience I could not do; for, whatever
others think of it, to me it says, that it is a denying of all
appearances for Christ and his cause that hath formerly been; and
likewise it says to me, that we shall never any more lift arms for the
defence of Christ’s gospel against any party whatsoever that seems to
oppose it, which is far from the word of God:—‘If any man draw back, my
soul shall have no pleasure in him,’ and the covenants, National and
Solemn League, which were publicly burnt in our nation—for which God in
his own time will yet arise—which we are bound to maintain.” “And now,
sirs, I am not a whit discouraged to see my three brethren hanging
before mine eyes, nor before all this multitude to pray.” He then
prayed; and being thrown over,

John Clide was brought to the ladder. When he had reached it, he turned
round and said, “I think our being fetched here is like that which we
have in Scripture about what Herodias said to Herod anent John the
Baptist his head, to gratify the unsatiableness of that lewd woman;
nothing would satisfy the lust of our persecutors, but our blood, and in
this manner and place, to gratify the bishop’s friends. But the ground
of my being sentenced is because I was found in arms with that poor
handful at Bothwell Bridge and would not call it rebellion; and because
I would not take that bond, which thing I had in my offer, and my life
upon the taking of it; and was threatened by some to take it, and
allured and persuaded by others, which I could not in conscience do,
because it binds me hereafter that I should not appear for Christ and
his cause. I durst not do it, for I was not sure of my life, no not one
moment; and I durst not procure the wrath of God at such a rate; for I
judge the loss of my soul to be more dreadful than the loss of the life
of my body, and likewise that it is more hazardful the offending of God
than gaining the greatest advantage in the world.

“I could not stay at home, but judged it my duty to come forth; for I
could not see how I could evite that curse—‘Curse ye, Meroz; curse ye
bitterly those that would not come out to the help of the Lord against
the mighty.’ And I bless the Lord for keeping me straight. I desire to
speak it to the commendation of free grace; and this I am speaking from
my own experience, that there are none who will lippen to God and depend
upon him for direction, but they shall be keeped straight and right; but
to be kept from tribulation, that is not the bargain; for he hath said
that through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom, for he deals
not with us as satan does—for satan lets us see the bonniest side of the
tentation, but our Lord Jesus lets us see the roughest side and the
blackest. After that, the sweetest thing comes! And he tells us the
worst that will happen to us; for he hath not promised to keep us from
trouble, but he hath promised to be with us in it, and what needs more?

“I bless the Lord for keeping me to this very hour: little would I have
thought a twelvemonth since that the Lord would have taken me a poor
ploughman-lad, and have honoured me so highly, as to have made me first
appear for him and then keep me straight; and now hath keeped me to this
very hour to lay down my life for him.” At the ladder foot, he addressed
his brother and other relatives who were standing and weeping around
him—“Weep not for me, brother; but weep for the poor land, and seek God,
and make him sure for yourself, and he shall be better to you than ten
brethren. Now, farewell, all friends and relations; farewell, brother,
sister, mother. Welcome, Lord Jesus; into thy hands I commit my spirit!”
And then lifting the napkin off his face, he said, “Dear friends, be not
discouraged because of the cross, nor at this ye have seen this day, for
I hope you have seen no discouragement in me, and you shall see no
more!”

While these sanguinary proceedings were going forward, the Scottish
rulers were not less assiduous in the more lucrative departments of
persecution, rendering even their acts of indemnity or indulgence the
means of pecuniary oppression; for the conditions upon which these were
granted were so hard, and the penalties for their infraction so severe,
that few would accept of them, and those who did, found them both
burthensome to their conscience and heavy on their purse, as a common
requisition was, that the parties should bind themselves, their
families, and dependants, under a specified sum, to regular attendance
on the ordinances and implicit compliance with all the injunctions of
the established clergy, nor harbour or hold any communication with those
who acted otherwise. Absence from the parish church, if accompanied with
any suspicious symptoms, constituted rebellion; and associating with
rebels, was construed into the same offence, punishable by death, but
commutable by fining or confiscation of rents, money, and moveables; so
that pretexts were never wanting for plundering the Presbyterians,
wherever “the honest party” were possessed of property.

More effectually to scour the country, the justiciary was required to
divide into two sections or circuit courts; the one to traverse the west
and south, the other the north and east. By a proclamation sent before
them, the proprietors or occupiers of the lands on which any of the
rebels lived, were required to apprehend and imprison them till the
courts arrived, when they were to present them for prosecution; and if
they should be either under hiding or fugitive themselves, their wives,
children, and servants were to be ordered off the ground. Clerks were
sent before to take up lists of all who were named in the proclamation,
or should be informed against as having been at field-conventicles, or
having threatened, robbed, or abused the orthodox clergy, who were all
to be summoned and examined upon oath respecting their possessions in
lands, money, and bonds, in order that the proceeds might be forthcoming
in case they should be found guilty. Witnesses were to be prepared and
held in readiness—sixteen in every rural parish, and twenty-four in
every royal burgh or burgh of barony, who were to give information,
under a penalty of forty pounds Scots, of all who had been at Bothwell,
or who had harboured any that were there. They were also to name all
whom they heard or suspected of being there. The sheriffs and justices
of peace were exceedingly active in searching out the proper victims for
spoliation, and so rigid in their duty, that they included several in
their rolls who had been dead or left the place some time before. The
curates were very zealous; and their diligence in this business,
contrasted with their carelessness in their spiritual functions, did not
tend much to exalt their characters or endear their office. Extensive as
the range of sedition had been made, yet were the insatiable managers
unsatisfied. They therefore had recourse to an old statute, long in
dissuetude, by which all who did not attend the king’s host were liable
to be punished with death; and changing the award into a pecuniary
mulct, they with rigorous impartiality fleeced the lieges in all the
devoted counties where there had been the smallest symptoms of
discontent.

In October, the circuit-courts commenced their operations; but, as they
either kept no record of their proceedings, or these records have been
destroyed, the particulars of their extortions are but imperfectly
known, only the general devastation they spread was long remembered; the
absent heritors were denounced, and numbers of them forfeited, whose
estates were bestowed upon noblemen, gentlemen, and soldiers, as rewards
for their ready and unflinching obedience to the most cruel and
barbarous decreets of the council, which the greater part of them kept
hold of till the Revolution restored them to their rightful owners.

Besides this, the council gifted the moveables of such as were reported
to have been at Bothwell, which laid the whole of those who were known
to favour Presbyterian principles open to the most vexatious
visitations; for the _donators_, to whom was committed “the uplifting of
the spulzie,” literally “rode upon the top of their commissions,”
exacting to the utmost, and, by returning oftener than once, frequently
subjected the same persons to repeated pillage for the same accusation.
Another source of wealth to the banditti who now ravaged Scotland, was
the compositions of the fines paid to the clerks, or largesses to the
officers, to escape the rifling searches of the soldiers, who, whenever
they chose, could enter the houses of the most peaceable and destroy
their furniture by casting it about, and rip up and render useless their
beds and bedclothes, by thrusting them through with their swords, to
find if any “cursed Whiggs” were concealed among them. The shires of
Lanark and Ayr were peculiarly harassed—shires which, by every principle
of sound policy, ought to have been peculiarly favoured, as they were
the most industrious and wealthy, but unfortunately they were also
reputed the most pious. Wretched as the country was, yet years more
grievous followed. Monmouth while there had acted with as much
moderation as circumstances would permit, and discouraged as far as
possible the virulent spirit of clerical domination which the bishops
and curates were so eager to display. When he went to London, he had
carried with him very favourable impressions of the Scottish character,
and was desirous to infuse somewhat of his own kindness into the
councils of his father. Before he left Edinburgh, upon receiving a
petition to present to the king, he said, “I think if any place get
favour, it should be Scotland; for a gallanter gentry and more loving
people, I never saw;” and previous to setting out, he procured what was
termed the third indulgence, which was published at Edinburgh by
proclamation, June 29. By it, ministers were prohibited under pain of
death from holding field-conventicles, and all who attended were to be
deemed traitors; but all laws against house conventicles south of the
Tay, were suspended, “excepting the town of Edinburgh and two miles
round about the same, with the lordships of Musselburgh and Dalkeith;
the cities of St Andrews, Glasgow, and Stirling, and a mile about each
of them; being fully resolved not to suffer the seat of OUR government
nor OUR universities to be pestered with any irregularities whatsoever.”
One preacher was to be allowed to each parish upon giving in their names
to the privy council and finding security for their peaceable behaviour,
provided they had not engaged in the late rebellion, nor been admitted,
_i. e._ licensed, by the unconform ministers; assuring, at the same
time, all who should offend, that we will maintain our authority and
laws by such effectual courses, as, in ruining the authors, could not be
thought rigid, especially after such unmerited favour. “This our
forbearance being to continue only during our royal favour.”

These tokens of kindliness, stinted as they were, proved very
unpalatable to the harpies who were fattening upon the spoils of their
patriotic countrymen; and they immediately unbosomed their difficulties
to their friend Lauderdale, in the form of an inquiring epistle from the
council, dated July 12:—“There being doubts,” say they, “as to the sense
of that clause in the proclamation, June 29, suspending all letters of
intercommuning, and all other executions, if these words ‘all other
executions’ do import that all persons, whether preachers at
field-conventicles, or other persons, who being ringleaders of these
rebellious rendezvouses, and have been seized according to former
proclamations, promising sums of money to the apprehenders, the
imprisoned should be set at liberty or not; and if such as have been
imprisoned till they pay the fines imposed upon them by sentence of
council or other judges, shall also be enlarged and set at liberty; and
if these field-preachers and other persons, qualified as aforesaid, are
to be liberate—they crave his majesty may declare his pleasure upon what
terms and conditions they are to be liberate.” The answer appears to
have been favourable to the persecuted.

Several ministers who were in prison for holding conventicles, but had
not been at Bothwell, were now set at liberty upon enacting themselves
in the books of privy council for their peaceable behaviour, and that
they would not preach at field-conventicles. Others, who could not
conscientiously enter into such engagements, were dismissed for the
time, upon giving security to appear when called for. Among these were
fourteen prisoners on the Bass, among whom was Fraser of Brea, who tells
us in his memoirs that in twenty-four hour’s space, they found security
for eight hundred pounds; “for we would not,” he adds, “give obligement
not to rise in arms, nor to forbear field-meetings, because we saw no
law for it, and because it was considered by us dishonourable, and to
reflect upon our ministry.”

Anxious to improve this breathing time, a numerous meeting of ministers
assembled at Edinburgh, August 8, to consider what steps should be
taken, and proceeded to re-organize, as far as in them lay, the
presbyterial form of their broken down and afflicted church; but before
they could realize their intentions, indeed almost ere they enunciated
them, the wind passed over them and they were gone! Towards the latter
end of the same month, Charles was attacked with fever, and his life
supposed in danger. The Duke of York, who had been obliged by the
ascendency of the patriotic party to retire from court and reside
abroad, was immediately sent for and quickly arrived at Windsor. His
sudden appearance took his opponents by surprise, and, by the influence
which he had over his brother, he effected the fall of Monmouth, who was
sent into that exile from which he himself had so unexpectedly returned.
With his elevation, all hopes of favour towards the Presbyterians
vanished, and the persecution recommenced with renewed fury. A letter
from the king, September 18, announced that he had recalled his
commission to the Duke of Buccleuch and Monmouth as General. On the very
next day, a warrant was granted by the council to Lieutenant-General
Dalziel to apprehend whoever had not taken the bond or who harboured
recusants, and secure them in prison till they be brought to justice—to
dissipate field-conventicles and seize whoever were present at them; and
they indemnify all slaughter or mutilation in case of resistance. They
also granted him power, along with several others, to sequestrate the
rents of lands, sums of money, and moveables belonging to heritors or
others, who came under their denomination of rebels, in order to prevent
their being embezzled!!

The Duke of York paid a short visit about this time to Scotland. With
the characteristic cunning of a papist, who first cajoles before he
ensnares a community, he carried himself towards all with as great
suavity as his severe unyielding temper and ungracious manner would
permit; but he especially cultivated the goodwill of the Highland
chieftains, who had a leaning towards popery, and whose assistance he
counted on to aid him in the contemplated destruction of a heretical
religion, and forcible establishment of his own. Though admitted to act
as a privy councillor, without taking any of the oaths at the king’s
particular desire, he did not publicly interfere with political matters,
but he paved the way for his subsequent rule, and received from the
authorities, particularly the magistrates of Edinburgh, the homage and
honour so readily paid to an heir-apparent, being feasted sumptuously,
and lauded excessively for excellences which, if he did not, he ought to
have possessed, and which they were willing to suppose his innate
modesty alone prevented him from exhibiting.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                BOOK XV.


                               A.D. 1680.


Perplexity of the moderate ministers—Murder of Mr Hall—Queensferry
   paper—Cargill joins Cameron—Sanquhar declaration—Council’s
   proclamation in reply—Reflections—Bond—Fresh plunderings
   by Dalziel—Skirmish at Airs-moss—Death of Cameron—of
   Rathillet—Cargill—Torwood excommunication—York arrives in
   Edinburgh—Spreul tortured—Skene, Stewart, and Potter executed—Effigy
   of the Pope burnt.


Never, perhaps, were men placed in more perplexing and trying
circumstances than the conscientious ministers who durst not abstain
from preaching the gospel as they had opportunity, but who could neither
accept of the fettered indulgences offered them by their rulers, nor yet
“had clearness” to disown a government which they thought it their duty
to disobey. They got no credit from their persecutors for their
professions of loyalty, and were shunned by their brethren who more
consistently followed out the constitutional principles they had
covenanted to preserve. The breach now became wider by a transaction
which also added fresh fuel to the fire of persecution.

Mr Henry Hall of Haughead, in the parish of Eckford, in Teviotdale—one
of the proscribed who had fled to Holland—having returned in order to
strengthen the hands of Donald Cargill, at that time assiduously
preaching the gospel on the banks the Forth, in Fife, and Mid-Lothian,
attracted the notice of the curates of Borrowstounness and Carriden, who
informed Middleton, a papist, governor of Blackness Castle, of the
movements of these two distinguished “rebels.” He immediately went in
pursuit, followed by his men in twos and threes to avoid suspicion.
Tracking them to a house in Queensferry, he introduced himself as a
friend, and requested they might take a glass of wine together, to which
they agreed, when he, throwing off his mask, told them they were his
prisoners, and commanded the people of the house, in the king’s name, to
assist. None, however, paid any attention, except one Thomas George, a
waiter, who came in while Mr Hall was struggling with the
governor—Cargill having made his escape, although wounded—and striking
him on the head with the butt end of his carabine, mortally wounded him;
yet, though in this state, did Dalziel, whose house of Binns lies in the
neighbourhood, on coming to the spot, order him to be carried to
Edinburgh. As might have been expected, he died upon the road. For three
days his body lay exposed in the Canongate jail, till at last its
putrescence forced the wretches to allow his friends to carry it away
and bury it under cloud of night.

In this gentleman’s pocket was found an unsubscribed paper, which, from
the place where he was murdered, has usually been called “The
Queensferry Paper.” It was merely notes, or rather a rude draught of a
declaration, in which, after stating their adherence to the doctrine of
the reformed churches, as contained in the covenants, and their
determination to persevere in it to the end, they bound themselves to
endeavour to their utmost the overthrow of the kingdom of darkness, and
whatsoever is contrary to the kingdom of Christ, especially idolatry and
popery, will-worship, prelacy, and erastianism; and, in order to attain
this end, they renounced their allegiance; rejecting those who had
rejected God, altered and destroyed the established religion, overturned
the fundamental laws of the kingdom, and changed the civil government
into a tyranny. Then they proposed to set up governors and a government
according to the word of God, ‘able men, such as fear God; men of truth,
hating covetousness;’ and no more to commit the government to one single
person, or a lineal succession, that kind being liable to most
inconveniences and aptest to degenerate into tyranny; at the same time,
obliging themselves to defend each other in their worshipping of God,
and in their natural, civil, and divine rights and liberties.

Cargill, upon his escape, fled south, and joined Mr Richard Cameron and
the wanderers who followed him, and were outlawed, and declared rebels.
After much deliberation, they finally agreed upon a declaration and
testimony, suitable to the melancholy appearance of the times and the
distressed state of the church, which Michael Cameron, accompanied by
about twenty persons armed, carried to the small burgh of Sanquhar,
read, and afterwards affixed to the cross, on the 22d of June 1680. This
declaration, which was in substance the same as “The Queensferry Paper,”
after stating that they considered “it as not among the smallest of the
Lord’s mercies to this poor land, that there had always been some who
had given their testimony against every course of defection, which they
reckoned a token for good that he did not intend to cast them off
altogether, but to leave a remnant in whom he would be glorious, if they
through his grace kept themselves clean and walked in his ways, carrying
on the noble work of reformation in the several steps thereof, both from
popery and prelacy, and also from erastian supremacy, so much usurped by
him, who,” they add, “it is true, so far as we know, is descended from
the race of our kings; yet he hath so far deborded from what he ought to
have been by his perjury and usurping in church matters, and tyranny in
matters civil, that although we be for government and governors such as
the word of God and our covenants allow, yet we for ourselves, and all
that will adhere to us, the representatives of the true Presbyterian
church and covenanted nation of Scotland, considering the great hazard
of lying under sin any longer, do by these presents disown Charles
Stuart, who hath been reigning, or rather we may say tyrannizing, on the
throne of Britain, forfeited several years since by his perjury and his
breach of covenant with God and his church. As also, under the banner of
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Captain of our salvation, we do declare war
with such a tyrant and usurper.” “As also, we disown and resent the
reception of the Duke of York, a professed papist, as repugnant to our
principles and vows to the most High God, and as that which is the
great, though, alas! the just reproach of our church. We also protest
against his succeeding to the crown, as against whatever hath been done,
or any are assaying to do, in this land given to the Lord, in prejudice
to our work of reformation.”

A proclamation was issued on the last day of June, in reply, stating in
exaggerated terms what the council chose to call the sentiments of Mr
Richard Cameron and his brother, and Mr Cargill and others, their
accomplices,—sacrilegiously engaging themselves by a solemn oath “to
murder such as are in any trust or employment under us, declaring us an
usurper, and that none should obey them who are in authority under us,
but such as would obey the devil and his vicegerents.”

Although Cameron and Cargill did think, and I believe justly, that
Charles and the vile turn-coat crew who composed his government were—if
perjury, cruelty, tyranny, profligacy, and every species of open
undisguised licentiousness embodied, constitute such beings—the
representatives of the devil in human shape, yet it does not appear that
they used the expressions which they in justice did apply to their
persecutors, till they themselves were unconstitutionally and unjustly
placed without the pale of the law, denied the rights which had been
parliamentarily insured to them, and denounced as the vilest of
malefactors for—preaching the gospel. Several of the excellent followers
of these noble men have been at no little labour to extenuate or excuse
their conduct. It ought never to have been mentioned, but in accents of
praise—it needed no justification. The government had broken all
faith:—and society is based in its public as well as its private
associations on the bonds of mutual reciprocal obligation and the
righteous performance of these relative duties. When either party
violate them, they deserve punishment for their crime. That popular
insurrection should be put down, is allowed; that aristocratical
domination was to be equally checked, these denounced Cameronians
asserted; and this was in fact the grand crime for which they were
hunted like wild beasts upon the mountains.

But they were not the people to be scared from their principles by any
prospect of danger. While the fields were traversed by the blood-hounds
of their persecutors, the same indomitable bands united more closely
together, and entered into a new bond, obliging themselves to be
faithful to God and true to one another in the prosecution of their
grand design, as assertors of their civil and religious rights, which
they believed could only be secured by driving from the throne that
“perfidious covenant-breaking race, untrue both to the most High God and
the people over whom for their sins they were set.”

These mutual defiances were followed by petty exasperating individual
encounters between the soldiers and the exasperated people, for the
former did not confine their pillaging to the covenanters, though they
were the chief objects of their vengeance; but now, when it was a
finable offence to resett or harbour any of the fugitives, the soldiers
roamed up and down the country in quest of the wanderers, or in quest of
whatever might afford them a pretext for plunder.

Dalziel, the favourite of the council, whose education in the Muscovite
service peculiarly fitted him for such employment, was anew invested
with enlarged powers to disperse all conventicles, and punish, without
the ceremony of sending them to Edinburgh for trial, all who were caught
in the “horrible act” of preaching the word of God or hearing it
preached; and the council, in a letter to Lauderdale, expressed “the
hope we justly have that such just severity against some of these rebels
will preserve peace to his majesty’s good subjects,” and disappoint “the
vanity of bearing a testimony at Edinburgh, which cherished the foolish
humours of numbers, and made the processes and punishments inflicted
there less effectual than elsewhere.” All such persons who were
understood to be the king’s enemies were to be attacked by the king’s
forces wherever they could be found, and imprisoned till brought to
justice, or killed in case of resistance.

The General followed out his commission to the letter. He quartered his
soldiers upon suspected families, where they lodged during pleasure,
and, when leaving, carried off what sheep and cattle they pleased
without paying any thing; the pasture and growing corn they eat up or
trode down, without allowing the smallest compensation; and, as the
whole district was liable to these ravages, the mischief they did was
incalculable. While thus ravaging the country, a party, consisting of
upwards of one hundred and twenty dragoons, well mounted, under the
command of Bruce of Earlshall, were sent to disperse the company of
wanderers who usually attended the ministrations of Richard Cameron.
They surprised an assemblage at a place called Airs-moss, in the
district of Kyle, amounting to about twenty-six horse and forty foot,
headed by Hackston of Rathillet, indifferently armed; who, knowing that
they had no mercy to expect, determined to face the enemy, and drew up
at the entry to the moss. The horse charged with intrepidity, but could
not stand against the superior number of their enemies, and were quickly
broken; and the foot unable to support them, they were surrounded, and
the whole killed or taken. The foot retiring into the morass, could not
be pursued. Cameron, who previously to the skirmish had engaged in
prayer with the wanderers, used these remarkable expressions—“Lord, take
the ripe, but spare the green!” He fell with his brother, back to back,
gallantly defending themselves against their assailants. Hackston was
severely wounded and taken prisoner.[129]

Footnote 129:

  It is mentioned in the Scots Worthies, p. 372, that Sir John Cochrane
  of Ochiltree gave the information to Earlshall, and got 10,000 merks
  as a reward, but that some time after, about two o’clock afternoon,
  his castle took fire, and was with the charters, plate, and all,
  burned down to the ground. The son said to his father while it was
  burning—“This is the vengeance of Cameron’s blood.” The house was
  never rebuilt by any of that family.

Cameron’s head and hands were cut off and carried to Edinburgh to be
exposed, but with wanton barbarity they were first taken to his father,
who was in prison; and he was unfeelingly asked by some heartless wretch
if he knew them? The old man took them, and kissing them, replied—“I
know them! I know them! they are my son’s—my own dear son’s! It is the
Lord; good is the will of the Lord, who cannot wrong me nor mine, but
has made goodness and mercy to follow us all our days.”

Rathillet next morning was brought to Lanark, where the head-quarters
were, and examined before Dalziel, Lord Ross, and some others; but his
answers not being deemed satisfactory, Dalziel, with his accustomed
brutality, threatened to roast him, then sent him to the tolbooth and
caused bind him most barbarously and cast him down on the floor, where
he lay till the morning after, without any person being admitted to see
him, or administer in any manner to his comfort. On the following
morning (Sabbath) he was marched, with three others, two miles on foot,
without shoes, and wounded as he was, to be delivered up to the escort
under Earlshall, who was to take them to Edinburgh. He used them civilly
by the way, and carried them round about the north side of the town to
the foot of the Canongate, where they were received by the magistrates
of the city,[130] who set Mr Hackston on a horse with his head bare and
his face to the tail, the hangman, covered, carrying Mr Cameron’s head
on an halbert before him; also another head in a sack, was carried on a
lad’s back. His companions came after on foot, with their hands tied to
an iron goad; and thus they were marched to the Parliament Close.

Footnote 130:

  Mr Laing says Captain Creighton, whose memoirs were compiled and
  published by Swift, commanded the military at Airs-moss, Hist. vol.
  iv. p. 113, note. Rathillet says in his account, “The party that had
  broken us at first, were commanded by Earlshall, Wodrow, vol. ii. app.
  p. 60.

All this studied ignominy, which was to recoil with tenfold bitterness
upon their own base characters, was minutely prescribed by the council
before the prisoner arrived in the capital. As the manner of his
execution was determined before he was tried, it still stands in the
record thus:—“That his body be drawn backward on a hurdle to the cross
of Edinburgh; that there be an high scaffold erected a little above the
cross, where, in the first place, his right hand is to be struck off,
and after some time his left hand: then he is to be hanged up, and cut
down alive; his bowels to be taken out and his heart shown to the people
by the hangman: then his heart and his bowels to be burnt in a fire
prepared for that purpose on the scaffold; that afterwards his head be
cut off, and his body divided into four quarters—his head to be fixed on
the Netherbow, one of his quarters with both his hands to be affixed at
St Andrews, another quarter at Glasgow, a third at Leith, a fourth at
Burntisland; that none presume to be in mourning for him, or any coffin
brought; that no persons be suffered to be on the scaffold with him,
save the two bailies, the executioner, and his servants; that he be
allowed to pray to God Almighty, but not to speak to the people; that
Hackston and Cameron’s heads be fixed on higher poles than the rest.”

On July 30, he was brought before the justiciary, but declined their
authority, because they had usurped supremacy over the church belonging
alone to Jesus Christ, and had established idolatry, perjury, and other
iniquity in the land; and in prosecuting their design, and in confirming
themselves in their usurped right, had shed much innocent blood. The
proof of his being at Airs-moss was clear; and one of the late
archbishop’s servants swore “that he saw the panel on a light-coloured
horse at some distance from the coach, and that he took the same horse
in Mortounhouse—where Rathillet had been—and hoped to have taken
himself, but he escaped.” The jury brought him in guilty, and the court
sentenced him to be executed that same day with all the revolting
particularity of barbaric savagism they had previously appointed. It was
even increased by the unskilfulness of the hangman, who was a long while
mangling the wrist of the right arm before he succeeded in separating
the hand; which being done, the patient sufferer calmly requested him to
strike in the joint of the left; then he was drawn up a considerable way
with a pulley and suffered to fall a considerable way with a jerk. This
was repeated thrice, yet was not life extinguished; for, when the heart
was torn from his bosom, it fell from the hands of the executioner, and
moved after it fell!

Hackston was a gentleman allied to the first families in the land, of
good talents, well educated, and who in early life had associated with
the commissioner in the wild gaieties of the day; and perhaps the
severest test his integrity was subjected to was, the commissioner
personally came to him in prison, and, with many protestations of
kindness, alluding to their former intimacy, urged him to
compliance.[131] The mean tool of power, the advocate, who with his
usual insolence endeavoured to insult him at his first examination,
received a spirited retort. He asked where he was on the third day of
May was a year? To whom he answered, “I am not bound to keep a memorial
where I am or what I do every day.” The advocate said, “Sir, you must be
a great liar to say you remember not where you was that day, it being so
remarkable a day;” to which he answered, “Sir, you must be a far greater
liar to say I answered such a thing;” and the Chancellor supported him.

Footnote 131:

  Having in vain tried flattery, the Chancellor, in the council, said—“I
  was a vicious man.” I answered, “that while I was so, I had been
  acceptable to him; but now when otherwise it was not so.” In reply to
  another question, he said, “Ye know that youth is a folly, and in my
  younger days I was too much carried down with the speat of it: but
  that inexhaustible fountain of the goodness and grace of God, which is
  free and great, hath reclaimed me, and, as a firebrand, plucked me out
  of the claws of satan.”—Rathillet’s confession, Cloud of Witnesses.

A few days after, August 4th, several others were tried and condemned
for having been with Cameron; and a general search was ordered to
discover the outlawed attenders on field-preaching. It was conducted
under the direction of Robert Cannon of Mardrogat, one of those
miscreants who, having made a flaming profession, had become acquainted
with their places of meeting, but afterwards apostatizing, now
discovered the secret recesses of his former friends, and was usually
consulted respecting the character of such persons as the soldiers
seized, who were dismissed or detained as he directed.

Intensity of persecution had now almost extinguished field-preaching.
Donald Cargill alone fearlessly preserved his station, and, in defiance
of the sanguinary storm which swept over the moors and glens of his
country, continued to proclaim with unfettered freedom the principles of
the church of his fathers, and to assert the spiritual independence of
her ministers, while almost all others had yielded to the tempest or
deserted the land of their nativity. While hunted himself as a hart or a
roe upon the mountains, he resolved upon the extraordinary measure of
excommunicating those rulers of a covenanted land who had themselves
sworn that sacred obligation, and professed themselves members of the
church of Christ in Scotland.

Accordingly, in the month of September, at the Torwood, Stirlingshire,
he lectured upon Ezekiel xxi. 25-27. “And thou, profane wicked prince of
Israel, whose day is come,” &c., and preached from 1 Cor. v. 13.
“Therefore, put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” He first
explained the nature and ends of excommunication, affirming that he was
not influenced by any private motive in this action, but constrained by
conscience of duty and zeal to God, to stigmatize these his enemies that
had so apostatized, rebelled against, mocked, despised, and defied the
Lord, and to declare them, as they are none of his, to be none of ours.
He then with great solemnity proceeded—“I being a minister of Jesus
Christ, and having authority and power from him, do, in his name, and by
his spirit, excommunicate, cast out of the true church, and deliver up
to satan, Charles the Second, king, &c. upon these grounds:—1st, For his
high mocking of God, in that after he had acknowledged his own sins, his
father’s sins, his mother’s idolatry, yet had gone on more avowedly in
the same than all before him. 2d, For his great perjury in breaking and
burning the covenant. 3d, For his rescinding of laws for establishing
the Reformation, and enacting laws contrary thereunto. 4th, For
commanding of armies to destroy the Lord’s people. 5th, For his being an
enemy to true protestants and helper of the papists, and hindering the
execution of just laws against them. 6th, For his granting remission and
pardon for murderers, which is in the power of no king to do, being
expressly contrary to the law of God. 7th, For his adulteries, and
dissembling with God and man.”

Next, by the same authority, and in the same name, he excommunicated
James Duke of York, for his idolatry, and setting it up in Scotland, to
defile the land, and encouraging others to do so; not mentioning any
other sins but what he scandalously persisted in in Scotland. He
pronounced a similar sentence against Lauderdale for his dreadful
blasphemy, in saying to the late prelate of St Andrews, “Sit thou at my
right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool;” his apostacy from
the covenant and reformation, and his persecuting thereof after he had
been a professor, pleader for, and presser thereof; for his adulteries,
his gaming on the Lord’s day, his ordinary cursing; and for his
counselling and assisting the king in all his tyrannies, overturning and
plotting against the true religion: and also included in the same
censure, Rothes, Dalziel, and the Lord Advocate.

These proceedings have been condemned as plainly disagreeable to the
rules of the church of Scotland. In ordinary times they might be so, but
extraordinary times require extraordinary measures; and Mr Cargill was
placed in a situation altogether unparalleled in the history of the
church of Scotland. That he was persuaded in his own mind that he had
acted with propriety, we know; for next Lord’s day, when preaching at
Fallow-hill, in the parish of Livingstone, in the preface to his sermon,
he thus defended his conduct:—“I know I am and will be condemned by many
for excommunicating these wicked men; but condemn me who will, I know I
am approved by God, and am persuaded that what I have done on earth is
ratified in heaven; for if ever I knew the mind of God, and was clear in
my call to any piece of my work, it was that. And I shall give you two
signs that you may know I am in no delusion:—1st, If some of these men
do not find that sentence binding upon them ere they go off the stage,
and be obliged to confess it; and, 2dly, If they die the ordinary death
of men;—then the Lord hath not spoken by me.”[132]

Footnote 132:

  Whatever opinion may be entertained with regard to the prophetical
  spirit of the denunciation, yet it deserves to be remarked, that
  Rothes when dying, under great terror of mind, sent for two
  Presbyterian clergymen, Mr John Carstairs and Mr George Johnstone, to
  administer consolation to him in his last hours. Charles II. died
  under very suspicious circumstances in the arms of an harlot.
  Lauderdale, after being despoiled of his property, and abused in his
  dotage by his Duchess, departed almost in a state of idiocy, in
  consequence, it was alleged, of her ill treatment during his
  imbecility. York died a discrowned exile in a strange country. Dalziel
  dropped down with a glass of wine at his lips, and entered the eternal
  state without a moment’s warning. “Sir George Mackenzie died at
  London—all the passages of his body running blood.”—Walker’s Remarks,
  p. 10.

However much the persecutors affected to despise this procedure, they
showed by their conduct that they did not deem it so ridiculous an
affair. That it had touched their souls, scared as they were by
unrestrained indulgence in the lowest hardening and profligate
licentiousness, was evident from the rage they exhibited and the
increased fierceness of their persecution.

Ancient episcopacy, as established by Constantine, has always been
considered the genuine parent of the papacy. Modern episcopacy, as
established by law, was always considered by the reformers of Scotland,
and their descendants in the Presbyterian church, as the legitimate
daughter of the man of sin. Nor did the deeds of this period disgrace
the relationship. The Duke of York, who had professed himself a papist,
and for this reason was obliged to leave England, was hailed by the
Episcopalians of Scotland, where he arrived to resume the government
this year. On the 29th, he came to the Abbey of Holyrood-house, and was
welcomed by the Bishop of Edinburgh, with the orthodox clergy, as their
great protector.

On the 2d of November, a council was held, at which the Earl of Moray
produced his commission as sole secretary of state, Lauderdale, on
account of his increased corpulence and mental decay, being forced
unwillingly to resign a trust he had so awfully abused. The same day
they returned a letter of thanks to his majesty—an admirable specimen of
courtly congratulation, which might teach despots what reliance is to be
placed on the profession of interested sycophants, especially when we
recollect that many of those who signed it, in less than eight years
conspired to hurl the object of their adulation from the throne. “The
only thing,” say they, “which is forced upon the worst of your
subjects—_viz._ the covenanters—is, that they must unavoidably confess
that nothing can lessen their happiness, except their being insensible
of it and unthankful for it.” Next comes their gratitude for a standing
army and their own salaries:—“Your majesty by dispensing for our
protection all the revenue which is raised in this your majesty’s
ancient kingdom, lets us see that all you crave of us is, that we would
be true to our own interest; and all that you get by us is, the care of
governing us to our own satisfaction.” Then the loyal professions so
easily lavished and so easily forgotten—“That profound respect and
sincere kindness, sir, which we observe in your majesty’s subjects here
to your royal brother, the Duke of Albany and York, assure us that we
want nothing but occasion to hazard for the royal family those lives and
fortunes which you have made so sweet and secure to us!”

One of the first tastes they had of the sweetness of the new
administration, was in the care the Duke showed to prevent the public
mind from being contaminated by seditious publications. The committee
for public affairs were desired to consider what books imported from
Holland should be condemned by authority; and the clerks of council were
ordered to search the shop of John Calderwood, stationer, and secure
such prohibited books as should be found therein. Accordingly, he having
confessed that he had “Naphtali; Jus Regni apud Scotos,” in English;
“Jus Populi Vindicatum;” “The Reformed Bishop;” and “Calderwood’s Church
History,” he was committed to prison and his shop shut; and all
stationers were ordered in future to show their invoices to one of the
officers of state or the Bishop of Edinburgh, for their approbation,
under pain of forfeiting the books, and being fined if they should fail.
A ship belonging to Borrowstounness, which had been seized on suspicion
of having some of the dangerous works on board, though none were got,
was not released till the owners found surety to the council for their
good behaviour in time to come.

Whenever any unprincipled set of men, who have obtained and abused
power, become conscious that they are hated, and deserve to be hurled
from their eminence, they commonly pretend to discover some plot for
overturning their government. Accordingly, a plot against the Duke’s
life was fabricated; and John Spreul, apothecary in Glasgow, and Robert
Hamilton, were accused of being accessary to it. The council ordered
them to be examined by torture, and appointed a committee to conduct the
examination, among whom it is painful to observe the name of the Earl of
Argyle. Of Hamilton’s examination I have seen no account, but Spreul was
put to the question; and the Duke of York chose to be a spectator,
viewing it “with the calmness of a person looking upon a curious
experiment,” or perhaps more truly, as has been observed, “with all the
infernal gratification of a popish inquisitor.”

This excellent man, early initiated in suffering, was the son of a
merchant in Paisley, who had been ruined and forced to abscond (1667)
merely for hearing the gospel preached in the open air. When he was
seized, he was examined by Dalziel, who according to custom, threatened
to roast him alive if he would not discover his father’s retreat; but
finding he could make nothing of the boy, he was let go upon a short
confinement. Ten years after, just when he had settled in life, he was
intercommuned merely for non-conformity, and forced to travel as a
merchant through Holland, France, and Ireland, occasionally and by
stealth visiting his wife who had retained the shop; but after Bothwell,
although he was not there, he was again denounced, his shop seized, and
wife and children turned to the door. He then came back to Scotland to
carry them with him to Holland, but was apprehended in bed by the
notorious Major Johnstoun at Edinburgh, his goods seized, and himself
sent to prison.

His examination shows the spirit of the times; and a short quotation
will exhibit better than any remarks, the nature of popish
unconstitutional interference in the management of a protestant country.
“Were you at the killing of the archbishop? I was in Ireland at that
time. Was it a murder? I know not but by hearsay that he is dead, and
cannot judge other men’s actions upon hearsay. I am no judge; but in my
discretive judgment I would not have done it, and cannot approve it.” He
was again urged:—“But do you not think it was a murder?” His answer
exhibits the principles of the majority of the sufferers. “Excuse me
from going any farther, I scruple to condemn what I cannot approve;
there may be a righteous judgment of God when there is a sinful hand of
man; and I may admire and adore the one, when I tremble at the other.”
As he was personally engaged in none of the risings, he was asked
whether resisting Claverhouse at Drumclog was rebellion? He answered, “I
think not; for I own the freedom of preaching the gospel, and I hear
what they did was only in self-defence.” “Was the rising at Bothwell
rebellion?” “I will not call it rebellion; I think it was a providential
necessity put on them for their own safety after Drumclog.” Twice was he
put to the torture; and at the second time, the old ruffian Dalziel said
the hangman did not strike strongly enough. The fellow replied, that he
had struck with all his strength, and offered the General the maul to
try it himself.

Our common nature recoils from such scenes. The votaries of a false
religion delight in the torment of those they deem heretics; and had we
no other proof of relationship, this would be sufficient to establish
the identity of the then Scottish Episcopalian church and the church of
Rome, the same cruelty being used by both towards those who differed
from the state religion. The intrepid victim was carried back to prison,
but denied either the assistance of a surgeon, or the attendance of his
wife!

The Duke of York showed the reality of his religion by being voluntarily
present during the double infliction. No information was obtained by the
tyrant. The sufferer knew nothing about any plot to blow up his Grace,
nor did he know where Mr Cargill was to be found.

Mr James Skene, brother to the Laird of Skene was the next. This
gentleman’s case deserves peculiar notice. He was guilty of no treason.
His only accusation was his having heard Mr Cargill preach. He had been
a youth of irregular habits, and had associated, as from his birth and
rank he had a right to do, with the first people of the country; but
while wandering among the mountains, he unwittingly came where this
minister of the gospel was tending his small flock in the wilderness,
and was himself caught in the gospel net. Henceforth, instead of
indulging in every youthful folly, he became sober and exemplary in his
conduct—sins of no common magnitude in the estimation of the rulers of
the day; and immediately he came under the cognizance of the government;
and being apprehended, was brought to trial for treason.

Being a young convert, and animated with all the warmth of a new zeal,
he unfortunately, by his unguarded answers, gave currency to the reports
so assiduously circulated against the wanderers, of their pleading for
or extenuating the practice of private assassination, and a contempt for
all constituted authority, or indeed any authority but their own. He
thus detailed it in a letter to his brother:—“Rothes asked, did I own
the king’s authority? I said, in so far as it was against the covenant
and interest of Christ, I disowned it. He asked me if I thought it was
not a sinful murder the killing of the arch-prelate? I said I thought it
was their duty to kill him when God gave them opportunity, for he had
been the author of much bloodshed. They asked me why I carried arms? I
told them it was for self-defence, and the defence of the gospel. They
asked me why I poisoned my ball? I told them I wished none of them to
recover whom I shot. They asked, would I kill the soldiers, being the
king’s? I said it was my duty if I could, when they persecuted God’s
people. They asked if I would kill any of _them_? I said they were all
stated enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the declaration at
Sanquhar, I counted them _my_ enemies. They asked if I would think it my
duty to kill the king? I said he had stated himself an enemy to God’s
interest, and there was war declared against him. I said the covenant
made with God was the glory of Scotland, though they had unthankfully
counted it their shame; and in direct terms, I said to the Chancellor, I
have a parchment at home wherein your father’s name is, and you are
bound by that as well as I. A little after, the Chancellor said, why did
I not call him lord? I told him, were he for Christ’s interest I would
honour him. Then he said he cared not for my honour; but he would have
me to know he was Chancellor. I said I knew that. He said I was not a
Scots man, but a Scots beast.” The above is a specimen of the treatment
that even prisoners of rank experienced at the hands of the privy
council. The process before the justiciary was more brief. His
declaration was the only evidence brought against him; and he having
acknowledged it, he was sent to the scaffold to atone for his
sentiments.

[Illustration:

  _The Students of Edin.^r burning the Pope in effigy, Anno. 1680_

  _Vide page 473_

  Edin^r. Hugh Paton. Carver & Gilder to the Queen 1842.
]

Along with Skene were executed Archibald Stewart, who belonged to
Borrowstounness, and John Potter, a farmer in the parish of Uphall. The
former had been a follower of Cameron, and present at the skirmish at
Airs-moss, though not apprehended till some time after, when, being
examined by torture, he acknowledged the fact, as a necessary piece of
self-defence when following the gospel preached in the fields—the only
crime of which he could be accused; but he denied that either he or any
of those with whom he associated had ever declared that they would have
killed the king or any of the council, which he affirmed was “an untruth
and forged calumny, to reproach the way of God, more like themselves and
their own principles, who have killed so many of the people of God both
on the fields and upon scaffolds.” The latter also had been equally
guilty of attending the reproached preachings of Cameron and Cargill;
and he exhorted his fellow-christians not to be troubled because of
their death, but to “keep the word of his patience, and he would keep
them in the hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world, to
try them that dwell upon the face of the earth.” “O dear friends and
followers of Christ, hold on your way; weary not; faint not; and you
shall receive the crown of life. It is they that overcome by the blood
of the Lamb, and the word of their testimony, that shall stand, being
clothed in white robes before the throne; for these are they that have
come out of great tribulation. Remember there is a book of remembrance
written; and the names are written in it that speak often one to
another. O! my friends, let it be your study to keep up private
fellowship meetings, wherein so much of the power and life of religion
is to be found.” They do not appear to have been attended by any
minister. They sung the second Psalm and read the third chapter of
Malachi; but when Stewart began to pray, and alluded to the bloody
Charles Stuart, immediately the drums were beat.

These acts of severity, however, by no means produced the effects
intended; and, as the youth of a country often announce prematurely the
feelings of the maturer part of a community, the students at Edinburgh
College, on Christmas-day, celebrated the highest festival of the Romish
church by burning the Pope in effigy, arrayed in his pontifical
paraphernalia—his triple crown, keys, and scarlet robes—after having
paraded him through the streets in procession, and formally
excommunicated him. Those at the College of Glasgow in a less
tumultuous, but more lasting and impressive manner, testified their
sentiments by reviving the blue riband—the badge of the covenant. When
called before the archbishop for their offence, the young Marquis of
Annandale showed his contempt for his authority by only styling him Sir,
and, when reproved by his tutor for not respecting his superior,
replied, “I know the king has been pleased to make him a spiritual lord;
but I know likewise the piper’s son of Arbroath and my father’s son are
not to be compared.”


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               BOOK XVI.


                               A.D. 1681.


Edinburgh College shut—Isobel Alison and Marion Harvey executed—Other
   executions—Search for covenanters—Thomas Kennoway’s
   exploits—Mock-courts held by Cornet Graham and Grierson of Lag—Mr
   Spreul tried—acquitted—sent to the Bass—John Blackadder, Gabriel
   Semple, and Donald Cargill seized—Walter Smith, William Cuthil, and
   others apprehended, tried, and executed.


This year was ushered in by the council ordering the College of
Edinburgh to be shut up, January 4, and the students, several of whom
were sent to prison, dispersed in consequence of the insult they had
offered to the religion of his Grace the Duke of York, who had now
openly avowed his being a papist. The youths expressed loudly their
indignation at such treatment, and had threatened, it was said, to burn
the provost’s house about his ears for his servility, when the house by
some means or other actually took fire, and was burnt to the ground. How
it happened was never discovered, and a report that it was done by some
of the Duke of York’s emissaries, gained general credit, although
various efforts had been made to affix the blame to the students; but
they voluntarily came forward and offered to stand trial that their
characters might be vindicated. The offer was refused.

A more grateful tribute, however, was paid to his Royal Highness’ faith,
by the immolation of two virgin martyrs in the end of the same
month—Isobel Alison, who was apprehended at Perth, where she quietly
resided, and Marion Harvey, a maid-servant, a native of Borrowstounness,
who was seized upon the road as she was walking from Edinburgh to hear
sermon in the country. Atrocious as these times were, their annals do
not afford many instances of more heartless, cold-blooded, entrapping
levity, than the examination of these simple girls, both before the
privy council and the court of justiciary, do, in the conduct of their
examinators, on the one hand, nor more interesting exhibitions than
their artless yet pointed replies, on the other.

When Isobel Alison was before the privy council, “they asked me,” says
she, in an account of it which she left, “if I could read the Bible? I
answered, Yes. They asked me if I knew the duty we owe to the civil
magistrate? I answered, when the magistrate carrieth the sword for God,
according to what the Scripture calls for, we owe him all due reverence;
but when they overturn the work of God, and set themselves in opposition
to him, it is the duty of his servants to execute his laws and
ordinances on them. They asked, if I ever conversed with rebels? I
answered, I never conversed with rebels. They asked if I conversed with
David Hackston? I answered, I did converse with him, and I bless the
Lord that ever I saw him; for I never saw ought in him but a godly pious
youth. They asked, when saw ye John Balfour, that godly pious youth? I
answered, I have seen him. They asked, when? I answered, these are
frivolous questions; I am not bound to answer them. They said I thought
not that a testimony.”

“They asked, what think ye of that in the Confession of Faith, that
magistrates should be owned though they were heathens? I answered, it
was another matter than when those who seemed to own the truth have now
overturned it, and made themselves avowed enemies to it. They asked, who
should be judge of these things? I answered, the Scriptures of truth and
the Spirit of God, and not men who have overturned the work themselves.”
She refused to call Sharpe’s death murder; and being asked if she would
own all that she had said, as she would be put to own it in the
Grassmarket, they expressed their regret that she should hazard her life
in such a quarrel. “I think my life little enough in the quarrel of
owning my Lord and Master’s sweet truths;—for he has freed me from
everlasting wrath; and as for my body, it is at his disposal. They said
I did not follow the Lord’s practice in that anent Pilate. I answered,
Christ owned his kingly office when he was questioned on it, and told
them he was a king, and for that end he was born; and it is for that we
are called in question this day—the owning of his kingly government. The
bishop said, we own it. I answered, we have found the sad consequences
of the contrary. The bishop said he pitied me for the loss of my life. I
told him that he had done me much more hurt than the loss of my life, or
all the lives they had taken, for it had much more affected me that many
souls were killed by their doctrine. The bishop said, wherein is our
doctrine erroneous? I said, that was better debated already than a poor
lass could debate it.”

Marion Harvey was not twenty years of age. When brought before the
council, there was no criminal act which they could lay against her; nor
does it appear that there was any witness they could have brought to
substantiate any charge. But she was easily ensnared; she acknowledged
having been at field-conventicles, and respecting the king’s authority,
she said, “so long as the king held the truths of God which he swore, we
are obliged to own him; but when he brake his oath and robbed Christ of
his kingly rights, which do not belong to him, we are bound to disown
him. They asked, were ye ever mad? She answered, I have all the wit that
ever God gave me. Do ye see any mad act about me? When told that she had
been guilty of the sin of rebellion, she smiled and said, if she were as
free of all sin as of the sin of rebellion, she should be an innocent
creature.”

Both were sent to the justiciary and indicted for treason, because it
was alleged the one had spoken freely against the severities then
practised against the Presbyterians, and the other had attended
field-conventicles. Their own declarations were the only evidence
adduced against them. When the jury were sworn in, Marion, looking
towards them, solemnly said, “Now, beware what ye are doing, for they
have nothing against me, but only for owning Jesus Christ and his
persecuted truths; for ye will get my blood upon your heads!” One of
them who had been seized with a fit of trembling, desired the
confessions to be read, which being done, the advocate addressed them,
and concluded with “ye know these women are guilty of treason!” One of
the jury remarked, “they are not guilty of matters of fact.” “Treason is
fact,” replied the accuser, and added, “’tis true it is but treason in
their judgment; but go on according to our law, and if you will not do
it, I know how to proceed.” He then addressed the prisoners, “’Tis not
for religion we are pursuing you, but for treason.” “It is for
religion,” replied Harvey; “for I am of the same religion that ye all
are sworn to be of! I am a true Presbyterian; and,” turning to the jury,
“I charge you before the tribunal of God, as ye shall answer there! ye
have nothing to say to me but for my owning the persecuted gospel.” They
were both brought in guilty upon their own confession, and condemned to
be hanged at the Grassmarket on the 26th. They were executed according
to their sentence, and died, not with composure only, but with rapture.

When being brought from the tolbooth to the council-chamber to be
carried to the place of execution, the youngest, who had several friends
attending her, exclaimed, with an air of unearthly ecstacy, “Behold, I
hear my beloved saying unto me, ‘Arise, my dove, my fair one, and come
away!’” When in the room waiting the last preparations, Bishop Paterson,
with a kind of fiendish exultation, said, “Marion, you said you would
never hear a curate pray, now you shall be forced to hear one,” and
ordered a suffragan of his who was in attendance to proceed; on which
she turned to her companion, and saying, “Come, Isobel, let us sing the
23d Psalm;” they commenced immediately, and drowned the voice of the
poor curate, who, with his employers, stood amazed at the clear unbroken
tones of the youthful confessors.

On the scaffold, the most of her discourse was of God’s love to her and
the commendation of free grace. Ascending the ladder a few steps, she
sat down and said, “I am not come here for murder; for they have no
matter of fact to charge me with, but only my judgment. I am about
twenty years of age. At fourteen or fifteen, I was a hearer of the
curates and indulged; and while I was a hearer of these, I was a
blasphemer and Sabbath breaker, and a chapter of the Bible was a burden
to me; but since I heard this persecuted gospel, I durst not blaspheme
nor break the Sabbath, and the Bible became my delight;” on which the
town major called to the hangman—“Cast her over,” which he immediately
did.

Isobel, looking to the crowd from the scaffold, cried out—“Rejoice in
the Lord, ye righteous; and again I say rejoice.” When she went up the
ladder, “O! be zealous, sirs; be zealous! Love the Lord all ye his
servants; for in his favour there is life. O! ye his enemies, what will
ye do—whither will ye fly? for now there is a dreadful day coming on all
the enemies of Jesus Christ. Come out from among them all ye that are
the Lord’s own people;” then added, “Farewell, all created comforts!
farewell, sweet Bible! in which I delighted most, and which has been
sweet to me since I came into prison. Now, into thy hands I commit my
spirit, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!” And while these words yet trembled
on her lips, she was launched into eternity. In order to imbitter their
punishment, they were hanged along with five other women for child
murder. The latter were attended by a curate, who gave them every
consolation, but upbraided their virtuous companions in suffering in the
most opprobrious terms as traitors.

Within a few days, John Murray, in Borrowstounness, Christopher Miller,
weaver, Gargunnock, and, on March 8th, William Gowgar, Borrowstounness,
with Robert Sangster, a Stirlingshire man, were found guilty by a like
speedy process, and hanged together in the Grassmarket on the 11th,
except Murray, who was reprieved.[133] Their testimonies embraced the
same topics, and were in every respect similar to those of their worthy
predecessors who had vindicated the religious and civil liberties of
their afflicted country at the expense of their lives. Gowgar was rather
more harshly used than the rest. Some heads of an intended speech,
written on a small slip of paper, having fallen out of his Bible in the
council chamber, whither he had been taken just before being led to the
gallows. After some of the councillors had read it, they ordered the
executioner to tie his arms harder than usual, so that he could scarcely
climb the ladder; and when he began to speak, the drums were immediately
commanded to roll; nor would they even allow him to pray.

Footnote 133:

  Murray had presented a petition to the Duke of York disowning
  king-killing principles, which concluded rather strangely, considering
  the person to whom it was addressed:—“For I declare I am no _papist_,
  and hate and abhor all these jesuitical, bloody, and murdering
  principles.” When this was read in council, Murray was asked who drew
  it, and with much difficulty was induced to name Mr Spreul. Spreul was
  thereupon immediately called, and being interrogated, asked to see the
  paper. This reasonable request was not complied with; but York rose
  and imperiously demanded—“Sir, would you kill the king?” Spreul,
  turning to the Chancellor, said—“My lord, I bless God I am no papist.
  I lothe and abhor all these jesuitical, bloody, and murdering
  principles; neither my parents nor the ministers I heard ever taught
  me such principles.” York frowned; and Spreul afterwards suffered for
  his freedom of speech, but Murray appears to have benefited by the
  business, for he was afterwards pardoned as being “misled rather than
  malicious.”

Adam Urquhart, laird of Meldrum, having been accused, and offered to be
proved guilty of the most exorbitant oppression, the council, to mark
their sense of such conduct, renewed his former commission with
additional powers, for searching out and apprehending all who had not
taken the bond, or who had been at Bothwell or harboured any who had
been there. As a specimen of the manner in which such searches were
carried on, I give the following:—Thomas Kennoway, one of the king’s
guards, came to the parish of Livingstone with a party late on Saturday,
19th March, pretending that he had orders—for he produced none—to
apprehend such as had been concerned in the Bothwell rising. Having
tampered with the neighbours to procure a list of such as had been
engaged, he at last obtained the name of one young man who lived with
his father and brother in a small house near a moss, which the party
entered; and after smashing and destroying the furniture, under pretence
of searching for arms, Kennoway cursed the father for an old devil, and
swore “he would hang him at the tae end of a tow an’ his son at the
t’ither;” and carried them all off along with him. When they had marched
some little way, Kennoway suffered the old man and one of his sons to
return, and proceeded with the other to a hamlet at a considerable
distance to search another suspected house. When he alighted here, he
obliged his prisoner to take off his coat and cover his horse with it,
in a cold stormy night, till the poor fellow could scarcely stand with
shivering. The person they were in search of escaped out at a window in
his shirt, and in this state ran nearly a mile before he obtained
shelter. Meanwhile the party took away his father in his stead. They
made a third attempt the same night upon a fresh steading, still
dragging their captives along with them, but missed their prey.

Having spent the night in rioting, early on the Sabbath morning they
came to Swine-abbey, a public-house properly so called, and having
procured lights, “Kennoway,” says honest Wodrow, “swore bloodily he
feared they had brought the wrong man;” and the prisoner peremptorily
denying that he had been at Bothwell, two of the soldiers were
despatched to bring “the old dog” and the other son. But by this time
the young dog had got out of the way, and the old one, through terror
and maltreatment, was so ill that he could neither ride nor walk. The
troopers brought some women to bear witness to the fact, and also that
the prisoner was not the person mentioned in their list. Chagrined at
their disappointment, the valiant Kennoway and his party endeavoured to
drown their mortification in “eight pints of wine and brandy, for which
he swore the prisoners should pay.” Thus passed the Sabbath. On Monday
he held a court, fined the old man in eight dollars, forced an heritor
in West Calder to give him a bond for five hundred merks, and committed
many other extravagances, of which the sufferers durst not complain, and
for which there was no redress. The young man was allowed to depart; but
in consequence of his harsh treatment, fevered, and died within a few
days.

Such burlesque courts now became common with the military, who carried
them to the most extravagant length. Cornet Graham, who appears to have
infested several parishes, held one at Dalry in the beginning of the
year, to which all men and women above the age of sixteen, were
summoned. Those who appeared were ordered to declare upon oath whether
they had ever been at any field-meetings or countenanced any who
frequented them, and whether they were married or got any infants
baptized by field-preachers. The infamous Grierson of Lag was also
particularly active in holding others in Dumfries and Galloway, where
great numbers of the inhabitants were put to much expense, besides loss
of time and damage to their various occupations.

Some estimate may be formed of the extent of the wanton extortion
experienced by the most industrious part of the community at this
period, when it is recollected that not only all whom the curates and
clergy chose to denounce as guilty of “horrid contempt of the law,” but
all against whom they had the smallest grudge and chose to name as
witnesses of the contempt of others, were brought from their homes, week
after week, and kept dangling after their court diets. The case of Mr
James Aird of Milltoun will furnish an apt illustration. While residing
at Kilmarnock upon a very stormy Sabbath, the church being very thin,
one Carnegie, the curate, at the close of his afternoon’s sermon caused
the kirk doors to be locked, and the names of the heads of families,
parishioners, called over, and all the absentees marked on purpose to be
fined—an excellent method of procuring attendance on rainy Sundays in
country parishes. Mr Aird was not only fined on this occasion, but was
brought before the justiciary shortly after, when _fifty-five witnesses
were examined_ in order to prove his accession to Bothwell, not one of
whom could say a word about the matter; and much as they were inclined
to strain every point to get him forfeited, all failed, and he was
liberated. Yet was he forced to compound with the Laird of Broich, who,
on pretext of alleged converse, had got a gift of his moveables, besides
paying upwards of three hundred merks in expenses before the justiciary.
Nor did this terminate his sufferings; ere three short months elapsed,
parties were anew sent in pursuit of him; and he was, after sleeping in
the open fields upwards of forty nights forced to abscond for several
years, leaving his house and effects to the mercy of the plunderer.

There is something truly diabolical in first torturing a suspected
person to force a confession of crime, and then producing this
confession in a criminal court, and upon it, without any other evidence,
condemning a man to die; yet such a practice was now attempted to be
introduced by Sir George Mackenzie, in order to reach the lives of the
persecuted. Before Mr Spreul was recovered from the effects of his
torture, the Lord Advocate served him with an indictment; and an
extrajudicial examination of several witnesses took place before some of
the councillors, against which the prisoner protested; yet although both
threatened and cajoled, their evidence appeared so defective, that
proceedings were delayed, though the Duke of York pressed his immediate
trial, “alleging they were at much pains about poor country people, but
Mr Spreul was more dangerous than five hundred of them.” At length, June
10, he was brought before the court upon a new indictment, “charged with
treason and rebellion, corresponding and being present with the rebels
at Bothwell, also keeping company and corresponding with Mr John Welsh
and Mr Samuel Arnot, the bloody and sacrilegious murderers of the late
Archbishop of St Andrews”—it being now the custom to accumulate in the
indictment a number of charges which the public prosecutor himself knew
to be false, and did not even intend attempting to prove.

The panel was assisted by some of the first advocates at the bar—Sir
George Lockhart, Mr Walter Pringle, Mr James Deas, Mr Alexander Swinton,
and Mr David Theirs. It was contended by his counsel, that he could not
now be put upon his trial, or, in legal language, “pass to the knowledge
of an inquest,” because, being examined before the council for the same
crime, and having denied the same, and thereafter being tortured two
several times, persisted in his denial, he cannot by the law of this and
all other nations be impanelled nor condemned for that crime upon any
new probation.

The reply of the Lord Advocate was indeed worthy of himself:—“A denial
upon torture cannot infer absolute liberation, since no man’s obstinacy
should be of advantage to him—that were to make disingenuity a
remission, and tempt criminals to conceal truth; nor does torture, in
law, import any more than a presumption of innocence—and, in law,
presumptions may be taken off by clear probation. Were torture to
preclude future probation, it will follow, that either crimes must be
left undiscovered by not putting suspected persons to torture, or
criminals be absolved and suffered to go unpunished, by wanting after
opportunities of leading just probation against them. The most that can
be pleaded in law, is, that no man can be tried upon the principal and
chief points for which he was tortured; but the panel was never tortured
upon the grounds he is now to be tried upon; besides, he neither cleared
himself nor satisfied the judges, but continued in one insuperable
obstinacy. Nor was it necessary to examine him respecting his accession
to the rebellion since it can be proven that previously to his torture
he confessed the crime.”

Sir George Lockhart offered to prove that the panel was tortured twice
most violently upon the very crime; that it is the opinion of all
lawyers, when once torture is used, it excludes all other probation,
even although there should afterwards appear the fullest evidence
against the accused; for, were it not so, double punishment would be
undergone—and the practice of this nation has been exactly agreeable
thereto. In the year 1632-33, John Toshach being pursued as guilty of
statutory treason for wilful fire and burning the house of Frendraught,
the panel being interrogated, not upon the whole fact, but whether he
entered into the vault with a candle that night the house was burnt, and
upon this subjected to torture and denied it. The process was prolonged
from August to November, and then to February. His majesty’s advocate
urging a new probation, and the panel’s lawyers advancing his torture as
a defence, the lords of justiciary sustained it.

Sir George Mackenzie then consented that it would be sufficient for the
panel to prove that he was tortured upon this very point by command of
the council, and produced the commission. Sir George Lockhart said he
did not mean to accuse the committee appointed by the council of illegal
procedure by acting in opposition to their commission; but it is certain
the panel was interrogated upon the crimes libelled, and his answers
drawn up as his confession. The lords repelled the defence, founded upon
the torture, inasmuch as the commission of council did not warrant the
prisoner’s being questioned upon any of the crimes mentioned in the
indictment, and adjourned the trial till the 13th.

At this sederunt several witnesses were examined, but none of them
brought the facts home to the prisoner, and the Lord Advocate adduced
his alleged confession in presence of the council as a corroborative
evidence. Sir George Lockhart argued that the pretended confession
before council could not be received, for it was not acknowledged nor
signed by the panel, besides being extrajudicial and not taken before a
competent judicature. The king’s advocate offered to prove by witnesses
that the confession was read to the panel, and he could not disown it;
his contumacy, therefore, ought not to be of any use to him, unless one
crime was brought forward to defend another. Yet, following the merciful
example of the king, his master! and being unwilling to stretch any
debateable point, he only adduced this confession against the panel as
an adminicle and a presumption, joined with other pregnant grounds,—and
what can be stronger? Writs may be forged, witnesses may be false, but a
man will never confess untruly to his own hurt, and therefore a
confession, even before an incompetent tribunal, unless the confessor
can show what made him err. Then assuming, what does not appear plain
upon the record, his presence and converse with rebels, he proceeds—“all
that is wanting is, whether it was with a criminal intention, of which
his own confession must be owned the most solid evidence.”

Sir George Lockhart insisted that there could not be one instance
produced of a confession importing forfeiture of life and estate not
signed by the person, or judge, if he cannot write; that in pecuniary
matters the bare verbal confession would not be admitted to be proven by
deposition of witnesses for one hundred pounds Scots—and would it be
admitted in a matter of life and fortune? The lords “refused to sustain
the confession to be proven by witnesses as a mean of probation, either
plenary or adminiculate.”

The advocate, as a last forlorn hope, moved “that the panel be
interrogated if he thinks the being at Bothwell Bridge rebellion?” The
panel answered, that he conceives that he is not obliged to answer,
because it is not the crime libelled, and he may as well be interrogated
upon any other point of treason. The lords having, however, put the
question, the panel answered, “that was no part of the libel, and his
future life should witness him to be both a good subject and a good
Christian.” The prosecutor now declared his proof closed, and protested
for an assize of error in case the inquest assoilzie the panel. The jury
were then enclosed and ordered to return their verdict next day, which
they did in the following terms:—“The assize having considered the
depositions of the haill witnesses led against John Spreul, _una voce_,
find nothing proven of the crimes contained in the libel which may make
him guilty.”

What follows marks as much almost as any deed of the times the tyranny
of the government and the servile prostitution of justice at the
fountainhead. When Spreul and his procurators, upon his acquittal, took
instruments and craved that he might be liberated, his majesty’s
advocate produced an act of council previously prepared:—“Edinburgh,
June 14, 1681. The council give order and warrant to the justices,
notwithstanding of any verdict or sentence upon the criminal dittay
lately pursued against John Spreul, to detain him in prison until he be
examined upon several other points they have to lay to his charge.” Mr
Spreul was accordingly remanded to jail; and such was the persevering
greed of his rapacious persecutors, that, on the 14th of July, he,
together with a William Lin, writer in Edinburgh, was brought before the
privy council for being at field-conventicles. They were both accused of
having at least heard Presbyterian ministers preach when some of the
congregation were without doors, and likewise of resett and converse
with intercommuned persons; and the truth of the accusation being
referred to their oaths, because they would not swear, they were both
found guilty, and each of them fined five hundred pounds sterling and
sent to the Bass. Mr Spreul lay there six years, whence, “from his long
continuance in that place,” Wodrow adds, “he has yet the compellation of
Bass John Spreul, whereof he needs not be ashamed.”[134]

Footnote 134:

  This unusual severity was said to have been occasioned by Mr Spreul’s
  rather imprudent answer; but as York repeatedly and voluntarily was
  present, and appeared much interested in such spectacles, it would
  appear the natural unfeeling disposition of the tyrant was stimulated
  by the horrible maxims of his religion.

Mr Blackadder was seized in Edinburgh on Tuesday, April 5, and has left
the following account of his apprehension, so characteristic of the
manners of these satellites of prelatic domination, that I give it at
length:—“The party came to his house before he arose. His daughter and
servant were up expecting the Borrowstounness carrier, who had promised
to come that day. About five or six o’clock, one knocked softly at the
hanging gate. She looked through a hole in the door and spied a man with
a grey hat, and thought it had been the carrier, who was there the night
before with a grey hat of somebody’s on his head. She opened the door,
but it proved to be Johnstoun the town-major, with a party at his back,
who came into the hall, and asked, ‘If there were any strangers in the
house.’ She said, ‘No.’ Yet he came to the chamber where her father was
lying, putting the end of his staff to the side of the curtain, and then
went up stairs to the gallery where the minister used to stay, and found
only his son lying in the bed, and came down again to his chamber,
saying to the minister’s wife, ‘Mistress, desire your husband to rise.’
He looking forth out of the bed, said, ‘How, now, major, is that you? I
am not surprised, but where is your order?’ The other said, ‘You are
only to rise and come down to a friend in the Canongate.’ ‘Well,’ said
the minister, ‘if I were dressed, I am ready.’

“Meanwhile he spoke gently to his men to wait on the prisoner, but he
himself went quickly to Dalziel in the Canongate; upon which and other
presumptions, the minister conjectured he had no order at the time,
except privately from Prelate Paterson, till after he was taken; for he
did not take him out of his house till he returned. After he returned,
the minister calling for a drink, sought a blessing, and caused give
them all a drink, and went forth; his wife being very sickly, yet
behaved more quietly than he could have believed. It was observable that
such a wicked person as the major was, who used to swear and domineer in
all such cases, did at that time carry most calmly, as all the party
did, not one menacing word being heard. The major took him down the
Cowgate, himself on the one hand, and the minister’s son Thomas on the
other, the party following, and brought him to Dalziel’s lodgings, near
the foot of the Canongate. The major went first, the minister following.
Dalziel himself opening the door, the major told him he had brought the
prisoner. Dalziel bade him take him to the guard. The minister stepping
up stairs, said—‘May I speak a little?’ at which he rudely raged, ‘You,
sir, have spoken too much; I would hang you with my own hands over that
outshot.’ He knew not yet who he was, nor what was laid to his charge
till afterward, as the minister perceived by a strange alteration in his
calmness to him when he came to the court at twelve o’clock, at which
time he was called.

“His examinators were, the Duke of Rothes, chancellor; the king’s
advocate, Sir George Mackenzie; General Dalziel; and Bishop Paterson of
Edinburgh. In answer to questions from the Chancellor, he acknowleged he
was a minister at Troqueer, in Galloway, since 1653. ‘Did you
excommunicate the king? or was you at Torwood at the time?’ ‘I have not
been at Torwood these four years.’ ‘But what do you think of it? do you
approve of it?’

“Perceiving that many such extraneous questions concerning his thoughts
and judgments of things might be asked, and being resolved to make a
stand at first, he shunned declaring his inward sentiments, and
answered—‘Though I be as free to answer to that as to all the former,
yet I must tell you I came here to give account of my judgment to no
man; therefore, seeing this is an interrogating of me about my thoughts,
I humbly beg to be excused. Produce a libel, and I’ll endeavour to
answer it as I can.’ On this point he was repeatedly interrogated by the
Chancellor and the Advocate, but to no purpose.

“‘But do you approve of taking the king’s life?’ ‘No, I do not, and no
good man will.’ The Chancellor said, ‘Sir, you have done yourself a
favour in saying so. But we hear you keep conventicles since the last
indemnity?’ ‘I need not ask what is meant by conventicles, seeing that
term has been frequently applied to our preaching who are ministers of
the gospel, and under the strictest obligation to exercise our ministry,
as we shall be answerable at the great day. My lord, I have the honour
to be lawfully and duly called to the sacred function, and am bound to
exercise that office, which I ever did and still do account my duty,
abstracting from all indemnities whatever.’ ‘But you have preached in
the fields, that is, on moors and hill sides? I shall not ask you if you
have preached in houses or not, though there is not liberty even for
that.’ ‘I place no case of conscience, nor make any difference betwixt
preaching in houses or in the fields, but as may best serve the
convenience of the hearers; nor know I of any restriction lying on me
from the word of God, where I have my commission, which reaches to
houses and fields, within and without doors.’ ‘You know, and no doubt
have seen, the laws discharging such preaching?’ ‘My lord, no doubt I
have; and I am sorry that there ever should have been laws and acts made
against preaching the gospel.’ ‘Not against preaching the gospel, but
against sedition and rebellion.’ ‘I preach no sedition or rebellion.’

“Then the Lord Advocate rose out of his place and came to the prisoner,
and courteously asked him, why he answered not more clearly to the
Chancellor about the excommunication, and alleged he was straitened. To
this insidious query, Mr Blackadder replied, ‘I am noways straitened or
confused about that; but I do of purpose shun to answer such
interrogatories as require me to give account of my thoughts and
judgment about persons or practices, not knowing how many such questions
may be put, or what use may be made of them; and I am here only to
answer for matters of fact that concern myself.’ Then intending to speak
somewhat more, he craved liberty to be heard; to which the Chancellor
replied, ‘You have leave to speak, if you speak not treason;’ but
immediately rose and went out with the other two, it being near one
o’clock, their dinner hour.

“Before the next examination, he sent his son to tell Colonel
Blackadder, a cousin of his, who went and informed General Dalziel,
whose comrade he had been in the wars, of the prisoner’s relation to the
house of Tulliallan, with which Dalziel also was connected. The
examination consisted only of a few trifling questions, and passed
smoothly. At two o’clock on Wednesday, Captain Maitland, who was on the
guard, told the prisoner he was to carry him up to the council at three,
and desired him to be ready. When the Duke went to the council, he, Mr
Blackadder, was ranked among three rank of musketeers in Captain
Maitland’s company, who marched him up the rear of the life-guards who
attended the Duke up streets. When he came to the Parliament Close, the
captain sent four soldiers to wait on the prisoner in an outer room till
he should be called. There he sat from three till five o’clock, when the
council rose. He was not called, which he marvelled at; but sent his son
Thomas to inquire what word was concerning him, who answered he believed
he was sentenced to the Bass. On the morrow he was sent off. When they
reached the Fisherrow, they observed a gathering of people upon some
occasion or other at the end of the town, upon the green, which, when
the captain perceived, he took the alarm, apprehending it might be a
design to rescue the prisoner. Upon this he came to the minister, and
said, ‘If these people attempt to rescue you, you are a dead man; for
upon the first attack, I will shoot you through the head.’ The minister
said he knew nothing about it, and did not believe there was any such
design. They came to Castleton over against the Bass about three
afternoon. The prisoner dined the whole party there! and after dinner
two of them went over with him in a boat to the rock; and he was
delivered to the governor of the Scottish Bastile about five afternoon,
on Thursday, April 7, 1681, after he had laboured in the work from 1662,
when he was cast out in many and divers places in the land under
continual persecution, manifold hardships and hazards, till he
accomplished the service appointed by his master.”

Mr Gabriel Semple, son of Sir Bryce Semple of Cathcart, minister of
Kirkpatrick-Durham in Galloway, an able associate of Blackadder and
Welsh, particularly obnoxious as being one of the first who took to the
fields, was in July this year seized in the house of Sir Patrick Hepburn
of Blackcastle, at Oldhamstocks, and liberated upon giving bond to
appear when called for, under a penalty of ten thousand merks. When
seized, he was labouring under an ague and unable to ride, yet would not
the council dispense with his presence; but procuring the accommodation
of Lady Stevenstoun’s calash, he was able to perform the journey,
accompanied by his nephew. On his arrival, he was lodged in the
Canongate jail, where he lay for a short time. When called before a
committee of council, his petition was read to him, and he was called to
acknowledge it; but the clerk, in reading, had added some strong
expressions, disavowing the principles for which Mr Semple was
suffering, in hopes that he would disclaim it. This he afterwards found
had been done on purpose to extort money from him, (but Lord Maitland,
who was one of the number, was very friendly.) When asked if he owned
the supplication after it was read, he requested a sight of the paper;
and observing that the paper itself had not been altered, he returned
it, saying that that paper was the very same he had written and given
in; upon which he was dismissed without being required to renew the
bond, and shortly after he withdrew to England.

His host, however, did not escape so easily. He was brought before the
council and fined in the sum of two hundred pounds sterling, and
imprisoned till he found caution to pay it.

Cargill had nobly kept the field, after all his brethren had retired to
safer stations, and his ministry had been greatly blessed. In
consequence, he had become an object of more eager pursuit; but the
Torwood excommunication had raised the malignant passions of the
persecutors to a degree of virulent animosity beyond what can be
imagined or accounted for by those who consider the transaction an
object of contempt; and a reward of five thousand merks was offered for
his apprehension. He delivered his last sermon upon Dunsyre Common, from
Isaiah xxvi. 20. “Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and
shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment,
until the indignation be overpast.” That night, through the persuasion
of Messrs Smith and Boig, he went to Covington-mill, where he was
seized, together with his two companions, by James Irvine of Bonshaw,
who exclaimed with satanic glee—“O blessed Bonshaw! and blessed day that
ever I was born! that has found such a prize this morning.” At Lanark,
they procured horses, and placing the prisoners on their bare backs,
Bonshaw with his own hands tied Mr Cargill’s feet below the animal’s
belly, painfully hard. “Why do you tie me so hard?” said the venerable
saint; “your wickedness is great; you will not long escape the just
judgment of God.”[135] Fearing a rescue, they pushed on for Glasgow as
fast as they could. When near the city, they turned him on his horse,
and led him in backward. They halted at the tolbooth till the
magistrates came to receive them. Multitudes flocked to gaze; and while
many stood weeping to see their late revered minister in such a
situation, John Nisbet, a dissolute character, the bishop’s factor,
addressed him tauntingly—‘Mr Donald, will you give us one word more?’
alluding to an expression Mr Cargill sometimes used in preaching. The
prisoner, looking sorrowfully on him, replied—‘Mock not, lest your bands
be made strong; the day is coming, when you shall not have one word to
say though you would.’ This natural and serious reproof was received as
a prophecy; and Wodrow adds—“This came very shortly to pass. Not many
days after, the Lord was pleased to lay his hand on that ill man. At
Glasgow, where he lived, he fell suddenly ill, and for three days his
tongue swelled; and though he seemed very earnest to speak, yet he could
not command one word, and died in great torment and seeming terror. Some
yet alive know the truth of this passage.”[136]

Footnote 135:

  Crookshanks adds, “‘And if I be not mistaken, it will seize you in
  this place.’ And this was verified, for soon after he got the price of
  his blood; he was killed in a duel near Lanark. His last words
  were—‘God damn my soul eternally, for I am gone.’” Vol. ii. p. 85.

Footnote 136:

  Crookshanks says, “Robert Godwin and John Hodge, two Glasgow men who
  were witnesses to this, went to visit him. Godwin desired him to write
  what kept him from speaking. He wrote that it was a just judgment from
  the Lord, and the sayings of the minister verified upon him for his
  mocking at him; and if he had the whole world, he would give it for
  the use of his tongue again. But he died in great torment and seeming
  terror.” Vol. ii. p. 86.

Mr Cargill and his fellow-prisoners were brought to the capital, and on
the 15th July examined before the council. Being asked if he owned the
king’s authority and the king as his lawful prince, he answered, as the
magistrates’ authority is now established by the act of parliament anent
supremacy and the explanatory act, he denied the same. When pressed to
say explicitly if he owned the king as his lawful prince, yes or no; he
refused to give any other answer than he had already given, and declined
their interference respecting the excommunication, that being entirely
an ecclesiastical matter. He acknowledged having seen Balfour,
Henderson, and Russell, within the last two years, but knew nothing of
their intentions before the deed—_i. e._ the archbishop’s death—was
done. A copy of the sermon alleged to have been preached by him at the
Torwood, was produced—so vigilant were their spies in procuring
information—and he was asked if it was a true copy. He desired time to
consider before he answered. He owned the lawfulness of defensive arms
in case of necessity, and did not consider those who were at Bothwell
rebels, but oppressed men; and refused to say whether he was there or at
Airs-moss. He did not see the Sanquhar declaration till after it was
proclaimed, but refused to say whether he had any hand in advising it or
not; and with regard to the principles it contained, would give no
opinion rashly. He further declared he could not give his sense
respecting the archbishop’s death, but that the Scripture says that the
Lord giving a call to a private man to kill, he might do it lawfully,
and instanced Jael and Phineas—thinks he is not obliged to obey the
king’s government as it is now established by the act of supremacy. He
was repeatedly before the council, but varied nothing in his
declarations.

Mr Walter Smith, though young in years, was an eminent Christian and an
excellent scholar. He had studied abroad under Leusden, who highly
esteemed him; and when he heard of his martyrdom, burst into weeping,
and said in broken English—“O! Smit, great, brave, Smit; b’yond all as
ever I taut.”[137] He declared he did not think it lawful to rise in
arms against lawful authority, but could not acknowledge the present
authority the king is invested with, as being clothed with a supremacy
over the church. The Sanquhar declaration being read, he owned it, with
this explication, that he did not look on those who composed it as the
regular representatives of the Presbyterian church; he thought what the
king had done, justified the people in revolting against him, but as to
declaring war, he did not know if they were called or in a capacity to
declare war; and thinks that they thereby intended only to justify the
killing of any of the king’s forces in their own defence, when
assaulted, otherwise it might have been esteemed murder. As to these
words where the king is called an usurper and a tyrant, he knows
certainly the king is an usurper, and wishes he were not a tyrant.

Footnote 137:

  He wrote several tracts; one on Fellowship Meetings, and another on
  the Defections of the Times, which were highly esteemed; neither of
  which have I seen.

James Boig, also a student of divinity, a young man of talent and piety,
was examined upon the same points, and bore testimony to the same
truths.

William Thomson, a farm-servant in Fife, apprehended when coming from
hearing sermon at Alloa, in a testimony, most admirably written,
considering his situation in life, coincided with his minister—“I was
before the year 1679,” said he, in that paper, “running away with the
rest of this generation to God-provoking courses.” “Now I do with all my
heart bless the Lord for his wonderful workings with me, since he began
with me. I think when I look on his dealings since that time till now, I
must say that I am a brand pluckt out of the fire. O! that my heart and
soul could praise him for all that he has done for me; and now I am
content to die a debtor to free grace!” He then declared his adherence
to the Scriptures, to the Covenants, National and Solemn League, and to
the Directory for Worship; and, “in the last place, bore his testimony
to the cross of Christ, as the only desirable upmaking and rich lot of
the people of God this day in Scotland.” “There is no better way,” he
added, “to carry the cross right, than to cast all our care upon Christ,
and trust him for all things, and use our single endeavours in this
matter; speak what he bids us, and obey his voice in all things.”

William Cuthil—a seaman belonging to Borrowstounness, who suffered at
the same time—struck fairly at the root of the mischief—the recalling of
the Stuarts, which indeed was the first grand step of backsliding by the
honest people in Scotland, and not more inconsistent in a religious than
totally unaccountable in a rational or political point of view—“The
admitting Charles Stuart to the exercise of kingly power, and crowning
him while they knew he carried heart enmity against the work and people
of God, and while in the mean time there was so much of his treachery
made known to the parliament by his commissionating James Graham, Earl
of Montrose, to burn and slay the subjects of this kingdom, that would
not side with, or would withstand, him in the prosecution of his
wickedness.” Another point in his testimony was equally just; it was
“against that unparalleled practice of ministers in quitting their
charges; and that which doth more aggravate their guilt, at his command
who had no power to act, nor right to be obeyed, either in that or civil
things, seeing he hath unkinged himself.”

Had the whole ministers in Scotland and England individually refused to
move till the people themselves had desired them, it is more than
probable that they never would have been ejected. It was the great
anxiety evinced, during their primary negotiations with Charles, by each
party and separate section to engross the whole of the royal favour for
themselves, that laid the foundation of his tyranny, and cast into his
hands a power which enabled him to overthrow the constitution of this
country;[138] and their at once yielding to their own illegal ejectment
confirmed it. If there be primary principles of government, founded upon
the constitution of our nature, and, like the doctrines of revelation,
suited to the necessities and the existence of society, no power on
earth has a right to uproot or destroy them, more especially if planted
with the genera] consent of a nation; and such were the principles
acknowledged, avowed, legalized, and acted upon by the estates of
Scotland at Glasgow, which were said to be set aside by the act
rescissory, but which were afterwards at the Revolution acknowledged as
inalienable; for these the humblest of the martyrs shed their blood, and
their sufferings have only been decried by those who allege that
Christian privileges and civil privileges can be separated, or who
suppose that a man can enjoy rational freedom, while he is not allowed
to worship God, except in the manner prescribed by the state.

Footnote 138:

  I believe, however, he owed much to the perverted education of the
  nobility, and the contracted tutelage of the influential middle ranks.
  It appears to me that the excellent men who superintended their
  studies, were more anxious to instil into their young minds party
  principles than practical truths; and likewise that the Presbyterian
  teachers, in their anxiety to keep aloof from the lax morals of the
  cavalliers, acted with a severity which alienated the affections of
  their pupils from themselves and their opinions.

In one instance, the Duke of York showed something like a respect for
these principles. A wild sect had originated with John Gib, a sailor in
Borrowstounness, named “the sweet singers,” or “the Gibbites,” from
their leader. These retired to solitary places, burned the covenants,
denied the king’s authority, refused to pay taxes, disowned the division
into chapters and verses of the Old and New Testaments, the Psalms in
metre, also the names of the months and days of the week, fasted long in
the immediate expectation of the end of the world, and with curious
inconsistency were constantly singing the penitential Psalms. Such at
least were some of the charges against them; but when a number were
apprehended and lodged in the Canongate tolbooth, they were after a
short confinement dismissed, merely upon enacting themselves to keep the
peace.

Far different was the treatment of the five worthies above mentioned. On
the 26th of July, after a form of trial, they were all found guilty of
treason, and ordered to be hanged next day, the day before parliament
met. Mr Cargill came first. “As to the cause of my suffering,” he said,
“the main is my not acknowledging the present authority, as it is
established in the supremacy and explanatory act. This is the magistracy
that I have rejected that was invested with Christ’s power.” “It is
long,” said he, in the declaration which he left, “since I could have
ventured on eternity through God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, yet death
remained somewhat terrible; now that is taken away; now death is no more
to me than to cast myself down in my husband’s arms. I have been most in
the main things, not that I thought the things concerning our times
little, but that I thought none could do any thing to purpose in God’s
great and public matters till they were right in their conditions.” When
he attempted from the scaffold to address the numerous assemblage, he
was thrice interrupted by the drums, yet was he not discomposed. “Ye
see,” said he, with a smiling countenance, “we have not liberty to
speak, or to speak what we would; but God knoweth our hearts; be not
discouraged at the way of Christ and the cause for which I am to lay
down my life, and step into eternity, where my soul shall be as full of
him as it can desire to be. And, now, this is the sweetest and most
glorious day that ever my eyes did see.” “The Lord knows I go up this
ladder with less fear and perturbation of mind than ever I entered the
pulpit to preach. I forgive all men the wrongs they have done against
me. I pray that the sufferers may be kept from sin and helped to know
their duty.” He afterwards prayed a little, and the executioner turned
him over praying. The others met death with equal solemn confidence and
joy.

On that same day the Duke of Rothes died; and Wodrow tells us, “that, as
through life, except when pushed on by others, he was never for
severities against Presbyterian ministers; so at his death he had the
advantage of some of them with him. He appeared concerned upon views of
eternity, and the Reverend Mr John Carstairs waited upon him, and prayed
with him—the Duke of Hamilton and many others of his noble relations
being present; and few were present without being affected very
sensibly.” By his death the office of Chancellor becoming vacant, many
of the chief nobility, in expectation of succeeding him, became more
subservient to the royal Duke, which enabled him to carry his despotic
measures with greater facility than perhaps he could otherwise have
done.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               BOOK XVII.



                               A.D. 1681.


Parliament—Act for securing the Protestant religion—asserting the divine
   right and lineal succession of their kings—for securing the peace of
   the country—Lord Bargeny’s case—-THE TEST—debate upon
   it—Belhaven—Argyle—objections to its imposition—Argyle takes it with
   an explanation—his trial—escapes from the Castle—forfeited—Fraser of
   Brea—fined—banished.


At nine o’clock of the forenoon of July 28, the peers in their robes,
and the commissioners of shires in their foot-mantles, assembled at
Holyrood-house on horseback, whence they accompanied his Royal Highness
James Duke of Albany and York to the Parliament House. There being
neither Chancellor nor Treasurer, the Marquis of Atholl was appointed
president of the parliament. Paterson, bishop of Edinburgh, opened it by
a prayer.[139] The Duchess of York and several other ladies were
present, which was uncommon in those days, and considered indecorous.
The Duke of York, who, as a papist would, but for a party in the English
House of Lords, have been excluded from the succession, was sent to
Scotland as commissioner to secure that country, and lay the foundation
of another civil war, if things went adverse to his interest in England.
Nor was any opposition made by this mean-spirited assemblage to
receiving a papist as their king’s representative: previously to their
meeting, it had been privately agitated, but the Duke of Hamilton
refused to have any thing to do with the business, unless a majority
could be previously secured.

Footnote 139:

  The first thing which came before the parliament was of course the
  settling of controverted elections, on which occasion Bishop Paterson
  gave proof of his fitness for the office he filled. “The Bishop of
  Edinburgh was heard to say, in the debateable election of East
  Lothian, that, for serving the king, the committee might very lawfully
  prefer one who was inferior in votes, and they might pass over four or
  five votes to hold out a Shaftesbury, which,” adds Lord Fountainhall,
  “was spoke very like one who minded his oath, his parliament oath, de
  fideli, to judge according to law!”—Decis, vol. i. p. 140.

Both the king’s letter and his speech are pregnant examples of that
villanous hypocrisy which distinguished the royal brothers. The king
told them—“We have ever considered our own and the interests of our
subjects to be inseparable;” and then he explained how “experience
having sufficiently evinced, that all invasions upon, or diminutions of,
the rights and prerogatives of our crown, prove fatal and destructive to
the security and property of our people—which can only thereby be
protected!” and “it is one of our greatest satisfactions that we have
been always careful of that our ancient kingdom, with a tenderness
suitable to our great interest in it,” “for promoting which and securing
the protestant religion, we have called this parliament, and impressed
upon them the necessity of adopting effectual and adequate remedies for
curing these violent distempers, schisms, and separation in the church,
and rebellion in the state.” The Duke of York confirmed the declarations
of the gracious letter. He had it in command from his majesty to assure
them that he would inviolably maintain and protect the protestant
religion as now established by law, and seriously recommended them to
fall upon effectual courses for suppressing these seditious and
rebellious conventicles, from whence proceeded all disorder and
confusion, and those horrid and extravagant doctrines which are a
scandal to Christianity, and tend to the subversion of all public and
private interests; and he concluded by telling them, “as the inclination
I had to serve and promote the interest of this kingdom hath been the
chief inducement to his majesty to give me this opportunity to convince
you of it; so you may be sure I shall do what becomes me to satisfy you
of the truth of it: and I hope you will have that consideration and
kindness as to enable me to perform his service.”

The parliament made a reply, the baseness of which I do not wonder at,
but I do admire the impudence, when I recollect that it was first to be
presented to a papist commissioner, and by him transmitted to a
half-popish king—if he was any thing. “It is a great satisfaction to us
to find your majesty so concerned for the protestant religion, not only
in your gracious letter to us, but in the whole conduct of your royal
government; and we shall with all Christian care and duty endeavour to
confirm it, so as it may become a solid and pious support to your royal
family and monarchy, and a sure fence in this disturbed and divided
church against all usurpations and disorders of popery and fanaticism;”
and they added, what would not be less gratifying, “we shall not fail,
by positive laws, to declare our humble and hearty acknowledgments of
the just rights and prerogatives of your imperial crown, in its just,
native, and lineal course of descent; and to secure the just rights and
liberties of your subjects, so as may justly demonstrate our unalterable
resolutions never to depart from our duty to your royal family and your
lawful heirs and successors, to whom we are tied by so many sacred
obligations.”

Their first act was one ratifying and approving all former laws, acts,
and statutes, made by our sovereign lord’s royal grandfather and father,
of blessed memory, for settling and securing the liberty and freedom of
the kirk of God, and the protestant religion presently professed, and
all acts against popery! The very next was one asserting that the kings
of the realm deriving their royal power from God Almighty alone, their
lineal succession, according to the known proximity in blood, could
neither be suspended nor diverted by any act or statute whatsoever; and
that no difference in religious profession, nor law, nor act of
parliament, made or to be made, can alter or divert the right of
succession and lineal descent of the crown to the nearest and lawful
heirs![140]

Footnote 140:

  On this Laing well remarks—“When we peruse the act, and consider how
  soon the crown was afterwards forfeited; when we contemplate how
  frequently and happily the lineal succession has been since
  inverted—we must smile with contempt at the extreme fragility of
  political laws, and at the anxious precaution with which the most
  violent of them are framed, only to be disregarded and ultimately
  broken.”—Hist. vol. iv. p. 119.

Then followed an act for securing the peace of the country, by doubling
the fines and increasing the penalties against all who frequented
field-conventicles, or had any intercourse with those who did. This
presents us with a feature recognizable in the whole conduct of the
ruling party, from the Restoration to the Revolution, which has not been
sufficiently held up to contempt, and that is the low avarice, the base
money-getting tricks which formed the soul, and directed the agency, of
the gallant and chivalrous supporters of the merry monarch, and of his
successor, the gloomy monk of La Trappe. There stands not out among them
one redeeming character—all were the vilest of money-scrapers, who would
have raked the lowest kennels to gather a supply for their prostitutes,
and who, when that failed, only did not take to the highway, because
they found legal villany an easier and less hazardous way of plundering.
An incident which occurred at this time, shows the tenure by which the
wicked hold their power.

Lord Bargeny, a relation of the Duke of Hamilton’s, who had been
imprisoned on a charge of being at Bothwell, was liberated by especial
order of the king, as no proof was produced against him. He offered, in
open parliament, to produce evidence that Hatton, (Lauderdale’s
brother,) the Earl of Moray, and Sir John Dalrymple, had suborned
witnesses to swear away his life, in order to obtain his estates among
them; but the Duke of York, who wished to have the parties in his own
hands, interposed and prevented all inquiry into the foul
transaction:—such was his love of justice—and such was the baseness of
the parliament, that they quietly acquiesced in the Commissioner’s
arbitrary and unjustifiable interference.

But the act which above all others holds up the memory of this servile
set to everlasting shame, is the test—the plain history of which is
worth a thousand arguments to prove the folly as well as the iniquity of
all attempts to secure religion by civil penalties, or to enact
religious tests for political purposes. In order to induce members to
pass the act of succession, they had been promised that every requisite
measure should be adopted for securing the protestant religion.
Accordingly, an act anent religion and the test was brought in, August
31, by which the following oath was ordered to be taken by all persons
in offices and places of public trust, members of parliament, and all
electors of members of parliament, and all ministers or preachers of the
gospel, teachers in the universities, chaplains in families, pedagogues
to children, and all officers and soldiers, betwixt and the 1st of
January next:—“I, ——, solemnly swear, in presence of the eternal God,
whom I invocate as judge of my sincere intention in this my oath, That I
own and sincerely profess the true protestant religion contained in the
Confession of Faith, recorded in the first parliament of King James VI.,
and that I believe the same to be founded on and agreeable to the
written word of God; and I promise and swear that I shall adhere
thereunto during all the days of my life-time, and shall endeavour to
educate my children therein, and shall never consent to any change or
alteration contrary thereunto, and that I disown and renounce all such
principles, doctrines, or practices, whether popish or fanatical, which
is contrary unto, and inconsistent with, the said protestant religion
and Confession of Faith: and for testification of my obedience to my
most gracious sovereign Charles II., I do affirm and swear by this my
solemn oath, that the king’s majesty is the only supreme governor of
this realm, over all persons, and in all causes, as well ecclesiastical
as civil; and that no foreign prince, person, pope, prelate, state, or
potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority,
pre-eminency, or authority, ecclesiastical or civil, within this realm;
and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign
jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities; and do promise
that from henceforth I shall bear faith, and true faith, and true
allegiance to the king’s majesty, his heirs and lawful successors; and
to my power shall assist and defend all rights, jurisdictions,
prerogatives, privileges, pre-eminences, and authorities belonging to
the king’s majesty, his heirs and lawful successors: and I further
affirm and swear by this my solemn oath, that I judge it unlawful for
subjects upon pretence of reformation, or any pretence whatsomever to
enter into covenants or leagues, or to convocate, convene, or assemble,
in any councils, conventicles, or assemblies, to treat, consult, or
determine in any matter of state, civil or ecclesiastic, without his
majesty’s special command, or express license, had thereunto, or to take
up arms against the king or those commissionate by him; and that I shall
never so rise in arms or enter into such covenants or assemblies; and
that there lies no obligation upon me from the National Covenant or the
Solemn League and Covenants (so commonly called), or any other manner of
way whatsomever, to endeavour any change or alteration in the
government, either in church or state, as it is now established by the
laws of this kingdom: and I promise and swear that I shall with my
utmost power, defend, assist, and maintain his majesty’s jurisdiction
foresaid against all deadly; and I shall never decline his majesty’s
power and jurisdiction, as I shall answer to God. And, finally, I affirm
and swear that this my solemn oath is given in the plain, genuine sense
and meaning of the words, without any equivocation, mental reservation,
or any manner of evasion whatsomever, and that I shall not accept or use
any dispensation from any creature whatsomever. So help me God.”

This sacred TEST, which I have given at length, because of its
characteristic singularity, even in that age of oaths—carries on its
front such palpable self-contradiction, that it appears to have been
intentionally framed, as the justiciary categories of that day
confessedly were, to create crime. The Confession of Faith here sworn
to, was that drawn up by John Knox, and asserts Christ to be the _sole_
“head of the church, in which [whose] honours and offices, if men or
angels presume to intrude themselves, we utterly detest and abhor them.”
In the test, the king is acknowledged as “the only supreme in all
causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil.” In the Confession, there is
enumerated in the list of good works, “the duty of repressing tyranny
and defending the oppressed.” In the test, it is declared “unlawful,
upon any pretence, to take up arms against the king or any commissionate
by him.”

In opening the debate, Lord Belhaven remarked, that “he saw a very good
act for securing our religion from one another among ourselves, but he
did not see an act brought to secure our religion against a popish or
fanatical successor to the crown.” He was instantly sent to the Castle,
and the Lord Advocate declared there was matter for an accusation of
treason against him; nor was he released until some days after, upon
making an ample apology. Argyle thought it unnecessary, as there were
too many oaths already; and he strenuously opposed the concluding
clause, excepting the king’s lawful sons and brothers. “It is our
happiness,” he said, “that the king and people are of one religion by
law; and he hoped the parliament would do nothing to loosen what was
fast, or open a door for the royal family being of a different religion
from the nation, and therefore he wished, if any exception were made, it
might be made particularly for his Royal Highness.” The Commissioner
hastily rising, said, he would allow of no exemption for himself.
“Then,” replied Argyle, “if this exception pass, it will do more
prejudice to the protestant religion than all the rest of the acts will
do good.” It did pass, after a day’s debate, by a majority of
seven.[141] Having sat seven weeks, the parliament adjourned without
doing much credit to the Commissioner’s character, “on which some wise
men observed, ‘the Duke of York might have courage and obstinacy enough,
like his father; but had neither great conduct nor a deep reach in
affairs, and was but a silly man.’”[142]

Footnote 141:

  The majorities seem to have consisted chiefly of “the royal burrows,
  who,” says Fountainhall, “were by the court gulled with the hopes of
  getting their privileges restored against burghs of regalities and
  baronies (which were taken away by the act of parliament 1672); and in
  hopes of it, with Issachar, they couched under the burden, and yielded
  to every demand of the Duke of York; but when they brought in their
  bill to the Articles, they were so far from getting redress, or the
  regalities and baronies declared liable to bear a part of the burden
  with them, that the Articles were like to take away more from them; so
  the burrows were glad to put up their pipes, and hold them as they
  were, beside the skaith they had got, by limiting them to elect none
  but one of their own town.” Decis. vol. i. p. 155.

Footnote 142:

  Fountainhall’s Decis. vol. i. p. 156.

When the test came to be imposed, Scotland presented the appalling scene
of an almost universal compliance among her men in office; yet even
among them there were a few names who defiled not their garments. John
Hope of Hopeton, who had the honour of being deprived of the Sheriffdom
of Linlithgowshire—the excellent Duchess of Rothes, who though strongly
urged, decidedly refused—besides several others. Queensberry took it
with an explanation, “that he did not understand himself to be against
any alterations in case it should seem good to his majesty to make them
in church or state.” The Duke of Hamilton also had his scruples, but was
willing the council should name deputies in any jurisdictions belonging
to him, which they did. The Marquis of Huntly positively refused to take
it; but being a papist, he was passed over. The opposition, however,
made by the synod and Bishop of Aberdeen, the synod of Perth and Bishop
of Dunkeld, and a number of the Episcopalian clergymen, who for the
first time appeared in opposition to the court, induced Paterson, bishop
of Edinburgh, to prepare an explanation, which was approved of by the
council, purporting “that by the test we do not swear to any proposition
or clause in the said Confession of Faith, but only to the true
protestant religion, founded on the word of God, contained in that
Confession, as it is opposed to popery and fanaticism; that no
encroachment is intended upon the intrinsic spiritual power of the
church, as it was exercised by the apostles in the three first
centuries; nor any prejudice to the episcopal government of this
national church.” The precise and unalterable obligation at the close,
however, was so decisive, that many who would have scrupled little at
common obligations, were startled at this; and, to the honour of the
conformist clergy, not less than _eighty_ rather surrendered their
livings than their conscience; and “these were noted to be the best
preachers, and the most zealous enemies to popery, that belonged to that
church.”

The Presbyterians decidedly refused it. Nor could they act otherwise,
without deserting and betraying their religion. Argyle, who saw all
this, unfortunately did not act with that decision which is often, if
not always, the safest, though frequently not the most pleasant or easy
mode of procedure, and at once resign his employments. He endeavoured to
evade taking it, by offering an explanation, as had been done by the
synods and conforming clergy; and his proposal was accepted graciously
by the Duke of York, who at the same time told him the oath was such as
no honest man could swear. His explanation was:—“I have considered the
test, and am desirous to give obedience as far as I can. I am confident
the parliament never intended to impose contradictory oaths, therefore I
think no man can explain it but for himself. Accordingly, I take it in
as far as it is consistent with itself and the protestant religion; and
I do declare I mean not to bind up myself in my station, and in a lawful
way to wish and endeavour any alteration I think to the advantage of the
church or state.” No remark was made at the time, and the Earl took his
place as a privy councillor; but next day, when he waited upon the Duke,
he was told his explanation was not satisfactory. “I thought,” said his
Royal Highness, “it was to have been a short one like Queensberry’s.
Well! it passed with you, but it shall pass so with no other.”

The unsuspecting Earl understood this as an harmonious finale to the
matter; but he knew not with whom he had to deal. On the same day he was
called before the council as a commissioner of the treasury, and again
required to take the test. He offered to do so in the same manner as he
had done before, but was sternly refused. “You and some others,” said
the Duke of York, “have designed to bring trouble upon a handful of poor
catholics, who would live peaceably, however they are used! but it shall
light upon others,” and walked off, after desiring the Earl not to leave
town till he saw him again. Next day he was ordered by the council to
enter himself prisoner in Edinburgh Castle before twelve o’clock, and
the Lord Advocate was instructed to pursue him for treason. They also
sent an account of their proceedings to the king for his approbation,
which they received in course, only desiring that no sentence should be
pronounced until submitted to him. His trial, which lasted two days
(12th and 13th December), immediately commenced; and a more nefarious
one does not disgrace the justiciary records.

In common, there is some appearance of crime in the charges brought by a
public prosecutor, however distorted by legal subtlety; but not the
shadow of a fault could be made to appear against this nobleman, in so
far as his loyalty was concerned. Here, if in any thing, his failings
leaned to the royal side; and when it is considered what his family had
suffered for the royal cause, and by the royal personages, both “the
blessed martyr” and his profligate son, it is wonderful that any of the
house of Campbell could ever have been found in the ranks that supported
the Stuart race.

His indictment was founded, among other acts, upon that of James VI. 205
act, parliament 14, by which all leasing-makers and tellers of them[143]
are punishable with tinsel of life and goods; and 107, James I.
parliament 7, which ordains that no man interpret the king’s statutes
otherwise than the statute bears, and to the intent and effect that they
were made for, and as the makers of them understood; and whoso does in
the contrary, to be punished at the king’s will; and the 10th act,
parliament 10, James VI., by which it is statuted, that none of his
majesty’s subjects presume to take upon him publicly to declare, or
privately to speak or write, any purpose of slander against his
majesty’s person, laws, or acts of parliament, under pain of death. And
his explanation of what all allowed to be a contradictory act of
parliament, was, from the most unnatural distortion and forced
construction of the words by that base unprincipled slave of the court,
Sir George Mackenzie, tortured into treason:—

Footnote 143:

  _i. e._ Liars or tellers of lies. What would have become of the royal
  brothers had they been tried upon this statute?

“You the said Archibald Earl of Argyle declared that you had considered
the said TEST, and was desirous to give obedience as far as you could,
whereby you clearly insinuated that you was not able to give full
obedience. In the second article, you declare that you were confident
the parliament never intended to impose contradictory oaths, thereby to
abuse the people with a belief that the parliament had been so impious
as really and actually to have imposed contradictory oaths; and so
ridiculous as to have made an act of parliament (which should be the
most deliberate of all human actions) quite contrary to their own
intentions; and that every man must explain it for himself, and take it
in his own sense, which is a settling of the legislative power in
private subjects: that you take the test in so far only as it is
consistent with itself and the protestant religion, by which you
maliciously intimate to the people that the said oath is inconsistent
with itself and the protestant religion, which is not only a downright
depraving of the said act of parliament, but likewise a misconstruing of
his majesty’s and the parliament’s proceedings, misrepresenting them to
the people in the highest degree, and in the tenderest points implying
that the king and parliament have done things inconsistent with the
protestant religion, for securing of which that test was particularly
intended. In the fourth article, you expressly declare that you mean not
by taking the said test to bind up yourself from wishing and
endeavouring any alteration in a lawful way, that you shall think fit
‘for the advancing of church and state,’ by which you declare yourself,
and by your example invite others to think themselves, loosed from that
obligation, and think it is free for them to make any alteration in
either as they shall think fit; concluding your whole paper with these
words, ‘and this I understand as a part of my oath,’ which is a
treasonable invasion upon the royal legislative power, as if it were
lawful for you to make to yourself an act of parliament, since he who
can make any part of an act may make the whole.”

The Earl’s speech, after the indictment was read, was manly and noble.
It contained simply a general sketch of what he had done for the royal
ingrates, and the consequent improbability that he who had evinced such
unshaken loyalty in the worst of times, should now be guilty of
gratuitous treason.

Sir George Lockhart and Sir John Dalrymple followed in plain luminous
speeches, such as it is impossible to conceive how minds of common
construction could withstand the force of the reasoning, and the effect
of the downright statement of facts, which give to them, in perusal, a
power beyond what any artificial eloquence could bestow; yet such was
the deadening effect of a wretchedly supposed self-interest, that the
bench divided equally—two, Newton and Forret, voting for, and two,
Collington and Harcarse, against, the “relevancy of the libel;” and they
remained until midnight discussing the subject, nor were able to come to
a decision. Queensberry, who presided as Justice-General, having himself
received the test with an explanation, declined to vote, as, in
condemning Argyle, he must have condemned himself; yet to acquit him
would have been to forfeit the favour of the court, and he preferred
having his name registered with infamy, to acting the part of an honest
man. In this dilemma, Nairn, an old superannuated judge, who had fallen
asleep during the trial, and had been under the necessity of retiring
from the bench, because, through infirmity, he could not follow the
proceedings, was dragged from his bed and called upon to give his
casting vote. Next day, the interlocutor was pronounced—“sustaining the
charges as relevant, repelling the legal defences against treason and
leasing-making, and remitting the indictment, with the defence against
perjury, to the knowledge of an assize.”

This assize consisted of the Marquis of Montrose, a personal enemy of
Argyle, who presided; the Earls of Linlithgow, Roxburgh, Dumfries,
Early, Perth, Dalhousie, Middleton; Lords Sinclair, Lindores,
Burntisland; the Lairds of Gosford, Ballymain, Park, Gordon, and
Claverhouse. A majority of them were political adversaries, predisposed
to condemn. Argyle refused to reply. He saw that his case was prejudged;
and he did not give his enemies the triumph of overwhelming a fruitless
defence. With a vile affectation, the Lord Advocate charged the jury to
bring in a verdict of guilty, or stand the consequences of a process of
error. “And it being proven,” Fountainhall’s expressions, “that he (the
Earl) gave in that explanation which the lords found treasonable, the
assize (being so determined by the interlocutor) could not but find him
guilty of treason and leasing-making, but assoilzied him from the
article of perjury.”

“There was a great outcry,” his lordship adds, “against the criminal
judges for their timorous dishonesty,” and well there might; nor can I
help joining issue with Sir George Lockhart, who “admired how a man
could be condemned as a traitor for saying he would make all amendments
he could to the advantage of church and state!” Were not every
circumstance in this atrocious business as much opposed to common sense
as to law, we might wonder how any set of men above the scale of idiocy
could consent to a process of treason being raised upon such palpable
expressions of loyalty and patriotism; but that men, and these in the
highest rank of society in Scotland, could have been found to bring in a
verdict of guilty, shows what a dreadful want of moral principle then
existed in the country, especially among the elevated classes.

As soon as the verdict was made known, the council met and sent a
letter to the king, requesting leave to order the justiciary to
pronounce sentence of death, but to delay execution during the royal
pleasure. Argyle, who justly dreaded the event, had despatched a
messenger to court to ascertain what he might expect from that
quarter. By him he learned that the king would be prevailed upon to
comply with the council’s desire; and being at the same time
informed that he was to be transferred from the Castle to the common
jail, to which peers were wont to be removed a few days before
execution, he considered that no time was to be lost in providing
for his safety; and on Tuesday the 20th of December, about eight in
the evening, he succeeded in effecting his escape, disguised as the
page of Lady Sophia Lindsay, his step-daughter. Irritated at his
flight, which was doubly galling as they knew he could proclaim, not
to his oppressed country only, but to Europe, the vileness of the
religious tyranny that desolated his country, the council
immediately issued a proclamation, denouncing the fugitive as having
added “the breach of prison to his other crimes, and without waiting
for that clemency which he might have relied upon (!!) if he had not
been conscious to himself of guiltiness that required such an
escape; and commanding all loyal subjects to apprehend the said
Earl, indemnifying those who should kill, mutilate, or slay the said
Earl or his accomplices, if resisting;” besides placing him under
the ban of intercommuning. But the Earl, who could fully estimate
the value of that clemency which he was accused of mistrusting, had
fortunately got beyond their reach. Mr John Scott, minister of
Hawick, directed him to an obscure alehouse, where he met Pringle of
Torwoodlee, by whom he was sent to William Veitch, an exiled
minister, lurking on the borders, under whose direction he was
safely conducted to London, whence he got to Holland—then the place
of refuge for the persecuted Presbyterians.[144]

Footnote 144:

  In London, the Earl lodged at the house of a Mr Smith, a sugar baker,
  whose lady, a pious woman, with the generosity and fearlessness of her
  sex, concealed him at the risk of her own life and fortune, for it was
  known that he was in London; and if Burnet be correct, Charles II.
  showed on this occasion one of the few praiseworthy traits of his
  character. He was informed of Argyle’s retreat, but would not allow
  him to be sought after.—A long and interesting account of Argyle’s
  escape and journey to London, is given in the Life of Veitch,
  published by Dr M’Crie.

The privy council, to strike terror into any who complained of the
injustice of the interlocutor pronounced by the court, named a committee
to call his (Argyle’s) advocates before them for subscribing an opinion
that his explanation contained nothing treasonable, although they
themselves had given these gentlemen authority to plead freely in
defence of their client. When they appeared, some proposed to imprison
and deprive them; nor was it without difficulty that they were allowed
to continue their practice, York observing, if any bad use were made of
their written opinion by spreading it abroad in England to incense the
people, or reproach him or the judges, he should consider them as much
to blame. It was, however, afterwards printed in England along with
Argyle’s trial, where it produced a powerful effect.

It had not been usual, nor was it deemed legal, to pronounce sentence of
forfeiture in absence; but when all the essentials of justice had been
violated, the council did not deem it worth while to stickle at forms.
The Countess gave in a petition to the court of justiciary. It was as
might have been anticipated of no avail. “Archibald Earl of Argyle was
found guilty and culpable of the crimes of treason, leasing-making, and
leasing-telling, and adjudged to be executed to the death; demeaned as a
traitor; his name, memory, and honours to be extinct; and his arms to be
riven forth and deleted out of the book of arms: so that his posterity
may never have place, nor be able hereafter to bruik or enjoy any
honours, offices, titles, or dignities within this realm in time
coming;” and his tacks, stedings, goods, and gear whatsoever remaining
to him “be escheated” to our sovereign lord, to remain perpetually with
his Highness in property; which was pronounced for doom. Within seven
years, the representative of Argyle was the first man in Britain—the
representative of Stuart was a wanderer and a vagabond on the face of
the earth!

Next day, after Argyle’s escape, Fraser of Brea appeared before the
council. Returning home from the south, he had preached in a barn on a
Lord’s day, for which the council ordered him to be summoned as holding
field-conventicles; but on learning the true state of the case, the
summons was stopped, only some of them spoke to Sir Hugh Campbell of
Calder, his surety. Sir Hugh shortly after visiting his friend, found
him lying sick of an ague and proposed writing to the Bishop of
Edinburgh and the Lord Advocate to inform them of his situation, and get
him excused. Mr Fraser, who knew the men, earnestly entreated him not to
interfere, “for if the prelates hear that I am sick, they will instantly
cite me, in hopes that either I cannot appear being sick, and so fall in
the forfeiture of my bond of five hundred and sixty pounds, which they
would gladly be in hands with; or, if I should appear, might thereby
endanger my life.” His surety thought his fears groundless, and
acquainted Bishop Paterson that Mr Fraser was seriously ill, and never
preached in the fields. Immediately the citation was revived, and the
day of his appearance fixed for the 22d of December, when they thought
he certainly could not at that season come from the north, and the bond
must be forfeited; but he most unexpectedly and suddenly recovered, and
arrived in Edinburgh in good health, and his surety with him.

The council, astonished at his appearance, finally referred the case to
the bishops, by whom he was sentenced to pay a fine of five thousand
merks, be imprisoned in Blackness Castle till he paid it, and gave
security not to preach any more, or go off the kingdom. He was
accordingly sent to Blackness Castle, where he remained six weeks, till,
upon the Duke of York’s going to England, accompanied by Bishop Paterson
and his brother—his two great enemies—Mr Fraser’s friends applied to the
council, and procured a liberation and a remission of the fine, upon the
condition of his leaving the kingdom, which he did, and went to reside
at London.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                              BOOK XVIII.


                            A.D. 1681-1682.


Society-men—their first general meeting—State of the country—Ure of
   Shargarton—Wavering of the Episcopalians—Lanark declaration—burned at
   Edinburgh—Harvey hanged—Mr P. Warner—York recalled to court—New
   government—Robert Gray executed—Dalziel sent to the west—Meeting at
   Priest-hill—at Tala-linn—Major White and the Laird of Meldrum—their
   proceedings—Hume of Hume executed—Lauderdale’s death.


Deprived of their regular teachers by banishment or legal murder, the
consistent covenanters, now proscribed wanderers, formed themselves into
societies for mutual edification, by reading the scriptures, prayer, and
exhortation. As might have been expected in such circumstances, some
were apt to carry their principles to an extreme which, in more
peaceable times, they would never have thought of; but in general their
conduct evinced a soundness of judgment and sobriety of understanding
which could only result from the powerful influence of religious truth
upon their minds. When “the blasphemous and self-contradictory test” had
been enacted, several of the most pious among them in the west,
considered it their indispensable duty to give some public testimony, as
far as they were capable of doing it, corresponding to the notoriety of
the sin, lest they might interpretatively be looked upon as consenters
or at least connivers at such a wickedness, but wished it should be done
by the whole collectively as far as was possible, and therefore that
delegates from each of the societies should hold “general meetings” at
such times and places as might be agreed upon.

The first was kept upon the 15th of December 1681, at Logan-house, in
the parish of Lesmahago, Lanarkshire, “at which time,” as Michael
Shields deplores, “the condition of the country was lamentable; the
cruelty and malice of the enemy was come to a great height; they were
pressing conformity to their iniquitous courses; and alas! they were
much complied with. Defection was growing, sin was abounding, and the
love of many was waxing cold; snares and temptations were increasing,
and, which was sad, people wanted faithful warning of the sin and danger
of the time; for ministers were lying bye from the public preaching of
the gospel, and did not, as becomes watchmen, set the trumpet to their
mouth to give a certain sound! But especially the case of the scattered,
reproached, persecuted, and yet contending party, was sad; reduced to
very great straits of hiding, chasing, wandering, imprisonment, and
killing, and to have foul reproaches and odious calumnies cast upon
them, especially by some ministers and professors, they resolved that a
declaration should be published at Lanark on the 12th January
following.” Then, after settling the plan of a general correspondence,
and arranging the regular quarterly meetings, they dispersed.

A.D. 1682 commenced with vexatious proceedings. On the 7th of January,
the council wrote to the king, telling him that the day for taking the
test had passed over, and that they had sent him a list of the
jurisdictions become vacant by the refusal of their holders to subscribe
that oath, together with the names of those they recommended to fill
them, adding, with great glee—“After serious reflection upon the whole
matter of the test, we may sincerely say, that it has been a most happy
expedient for filling all offices with persons who are well-affected to
the protestant religion and your majesty’s government.”

In November last year, the privy council granted warrant to Sir George
Mackenzie, king’s advocate, to prosecute criminally forty-six persons in
the shires of Linlithgow, Stirling, and Ayr for being concerned in the
rebellion at Bothwell. On the 9th of January this year, twenty-two were
proceeded against, but only nine forfeited, the rest having either
contrived to make their escape or bargained for their freedom by making
a renunciation of their estates to the lords of the treasury; but James
Ure of Shargarton was singled out for particular severity, because,
having left the Episcopal communion, he had joined the persecuted
ministers, and had his children baptized by them. His goods were seized,
his rents arrested, and himself intercommuned; so that he never slept in
bed three nights for nine years, during which parties of soldiers were
sent to his house above thirty times, and dragoons quartered upon him
for whole weeks together—his mother, an aged gentlewoman of seventy
years, was carried to Glasgow and thrust into the common jail. Her
petition “for leave at least to win to the prison doors for air” could
not be granted; so she died there in the crowd.

Meanwhile, £100 sterling was offered to any who would bring in the said
James Ure, dead or alive; but he escaped to Ireland, whence he
occasionally ventured home, though he durst not remain in his own house,
but was forced, both himself and his lady, to lie several weeks in the
wood of Boquhan all night, when the cold was so great that the clothes
would have been frozen together about them when they awoke. At daybreak
he retired to a tenant’s house, and she returned home, where, about this
time, she was apprehended and carried to Stirling, with a child on her
breast, and detained there and in the Canongate tolbooth, Edinburgh,
till she found bail for two thousand merks to appear when called; and,
through the interposition of the Earl of Perth’s chamberlain, was
finally dismissed.

Encouraged perhaps by the scruples of the first nobles in the land,
twenty-one of the prelatical clergy refused the test, and the council,
on the 12th of this month, wrote to the patrons of the parishes to
present fit and qualified persons in their room; but, upon
re-considering the matter, the great part of them appear to have got
over their scruples, and upon application were reponed to their
benefices and stipends.

While the Episcopalians were wavering, the societies were acting. About
forty armed men on the set day marched to Lanark, and, after burning the
test, read and affixed to the cross their declaration, which it is
impossible to peruse without deep interest, when we consider that,
unlike a common declaration written by those who are themselves in
safety or at ease, it was penned by men in jeopardy every hour, and
proclaimed by them at the peril of their lives:[145]—

Footnote 145:

  Indeed this ought never to be lost sight of in reading any of the
  productions of the persecuted, and should lead us to make every
  allowance for any warm expressions which they suffered to escape them,
  when contending not only for their own rights, but the rights of their
  posterity—for those privileges which we now enjoy but too lightly
  prize, because we seldom think of the price at which they were
  purchased. For some expressions in this, such as calling themselves “a
  meeting of the estates,” &c. they afterwards apologized in the
  informatory vindication.

“They acknowledged government as an ordinance of God, and governors as
ordained by him, in so far as they rule and govern according to his word
and the constitutive laws of the nation; but when these laws are
annulled by other pretended laws—when an inexplicable prerogative in
matters ecclesiastic is usurped and arbitrary power in matters civil is
arrogated—when a banner of impiety is displayed—when parliaments are so
prelimited as that no true son of the state or church hath liberty to
sit or vote there—what shall the people do in such extremity? Shall they
give up their reason as men, their consciences as Christians, and resign
their liberties, fortunes, religion, and their all to the inexorable
obstinacy, and incurable wilfulness and malice of those who, in spite of
God or man, are resolved to make their own will the absolute and
sovereign rule of their actions? Shall the end of government be lost
through the weakness, wickedness, and tyranny of governors? Have not the
people, in such an extremity, good ground to make use of that natural
and radical power which they possess, to shake off that yoke? which,
accordingly, the Lord honoured us (in a general and unprelimited meeting
of the estates and shires in Scotland) to do; at which convention he was
most legally and by general consent cut off by the declaration at
Sanquhar. But that we may not seem to have done that, or yet to do the
like, upon no grounds, we shall hint at some of the many thousands of
the misdemeanours of the now cast off tyrant.” They then recapitulate
the destruction of the noble constitution of the church and state by the
first acts of his first parliament—the adjourning and dissolving
parliaments at his pleasure—his usurpation of supreme head over all
persons civil and ecclesiastic—his exorbitant taxations, and then
expending the revenues of the crown for keeping up a brothel rather than
a court—and his securing the succession to one as bad if not worse than
himself. In conclusion, they offered to prove that they had done nothing
contrary to the ancient laws of the kingdom, and only endeavoured to
restore the church and state to the constitutional base on which they
were established in 1648-9.

Exasperated at such an intrepid display of principle, the council paid
homage to the deed by a miserable retaliatory act, for burning, by the
hands of the common hangman, the Solemn League and Covenant, the libel
called Cargill’s covenant, and the Rutherglen and Sanquhar declarations,
together with the last most obnoxious one at Lanark, which was done
accordingly upon an high scaffold erected at the cross of Edinburgh, the
magistrates attending in their robes.[146] The town of Lanark was fined
six thousand merks for not preventing what they could not possibly have
anticipated; and William Harvey, a weaver, was hanged for publishing
what he was not even present at, but he had been present at the
declaration before Bothwell; and as the one was as bad as the other, he
suffered accordingly.

Footnote 146:

  It was remarked at the time, that the bailie who superintended the
  execution of this public affront to the Covenants, had his large house
  burned down not long after. “But,” as Wodrow well observes, “it
  becomes all to be very sparing in putting commentaries upon particular
  providences.” Vol. ii. p. 228.

Mr Patrick Warner, although not persecuted to the death, suffered a
vexatious harassment, sufficiently severe. In 1669 he had been ordained
at London as a missionary to India—and perhaps it may not be unworthy of
remark in passing, that the persecuted churches in Britain, like the
persecuted churches in Judea, were eminently honoured in being the most
successful labourers in the missionary field. After a number of
hindrances were removed, he was proceeding on his voyage, when he was
captured by the Dutch fleet, being in an English vessel, but at length
succeeded in arriving at his destination. He laboured about three years
at Madras, till forced by ill health to return to his native land about
1677, where he preached as opportunities offered, in houses and fields,
till Bothwell, when he fled to Holland, whence he returned, 1681, to be
married to a daughter of the Rev. William Guthrie. The very day after
his marriage he was apprehended—such was the malignant cruelty of the
ruling renegadoes; and although no tangible charge could be brought
against him, he was kept in confinement till June this year, and only
released upon banishing himself the country, under a penalty of five
thousand merks in case of his return—losing his books and paying jail
fees to the extent of one hundred pounds sterling. He went to Newcastle,
and was allowed to remain there quietly for some time, being only
required to take the oath of allegiance, which he did with his own
explanations, and afterwards went to Holland, where he remained till the
Revolution, when he returned to Scotland.[147]

Footnote 147:

  One day, when the council had finished their work, and were just
  rising, the clerk asked the chancellor, My lord, what will you do with
  Mr Warner? You have ordered him to oblige himself not to preach during
  the ten days allowed him for ordering his affairs; but if you knew him
  as well as I do, you would as well order him to go to the Grassmarket
  and be hanged, for he will do the one as soon as the other. What shall
  we do with him then, Hugh? My lord, if you would take my advice,
  instead of taking him obliged not to preach, I would take his
  engagement to preach thrice a-day while he stays in the kingdom, and
  so you will burst him and be quit of his din. The matter was laughed
  over, and the clerk allowed to draw his liberation without that clog.
  Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 254.

About this time the patriotic struggle in England had terminated
unfavourably, and Charles found himself at liberty to recall his brother
to court, on which occasion the Scottish bishops wrote a letter to his
Grace of Canterbury, to be by him communicated to the king and their
English brethren, expressing their sense of how much “their poor church
and order did owe to the princely care and goodness of his royal
highness, which, next to the watchful providence of God, had been their
chief protection against the most unreasonable schism which, by rending,
threatened the subversion of their church and religion”—“so that all
men,” say they, “take notice that he looks on the enemies of the church
as adversaries to the monarchy itself.” “The peace and tranquillity of
the kingdom is the effect of his prudent and steady conduct of affairs,
and the humours of our fanatics are much restrained from dangerous
eruptions, upon the apprehensions of his vigilance and justice.”

Early in May, he returned to these his warm admirers, finally to arrange
the government in the hands of their and his friends.[148] Queensberry,
created a Marquis, he appointed treasurer; Gordon of Haddow, afterwards
raised to the peerage as Earl of Aberdeen, chancellor; and Perth, who
shortly after went over to popery, justice-general—an office of fearful
importance during that bloody period. In about a week after, he took
leave of the council, recommending to them at parting to pay particular
attention to the support of the orthodox clergy and the suppression of
the rebellious by sending more military missionaries to be quartered
among them. In reply, they gave him as cordial assurances of
thankfulness and obedience as he could have desired, and proceeded to
carry his instructions into effect.

Footnote 148:

  On his passage the vessel was wrecked, and about one hundred and fifty
  perished, among whom were, the Earl of Roxburgh, the Laird of Hopeton,
  Sir Joseph Douglas, and Mr Hyde, his own brother-in-law. He escaped
  himself with a few favourites; but it was said at the time that more
  might have been rescued, had he been less careful about his priests
  and his dogs.

As a preliminary, one Robert Gray, an Englishman from Northumberland,
who had been apprehended about ten months before, and kept close
prisoner, was brought to trial, accused of having written a letter to
John Anderson, prisoner in Dumfries, “wherein he did declare our present
sovereign, the best and most merciful of kings, to be a tyrant;” “and
calling the test the _black_ test, and destructive of all the work of
reformation.” He acknowledged the letter, which seems to have been
intercepted, but had been guilty of no overt act whatever, nor indeed
was he accused; and for these expressions he was found guilty of
treason, and hanged on the next day following his trial. “As for me,”
said he, addressing the crowd from the ladder, “I am brought out of
another nation to own that covenant which ye have broken. Glory, glory,
glory, be to his name, that ever he gave me a life to lay down for him!”
“As for you who are the remnant of the Lord’s people, keep your ground,
and beware of turning aside to one hand or another, and I will assure
you the Lord will prepare a Zoar for you. Cleave to truth and to one
another, and as sure as God lives, ye shall yet see glorious days in
Scotland! for I die in the faith of it, that he is on his way returning
to the land! But wo! wo! will be to those who are enemies and strangers
to him!”

Following up the recommendation of the Duke of York, the council
directed Dalziel to march to the shire of Lanark to confer with the Duke
of Hamilton and other commissioners of the shire about securing the
peace in time coming—to inquire for a list of such rebels, either
heritors or tenants, as had not submitted, that the obstinate might be
brought to justice; and to consult upon some plan for seizing any of the
wanderers or their vagrant preachers who might be skulking upon the
confines of the shires next to Galloway and Ayr; also to take care that
ways be fallen upon for making persons, both innocent and guilty, keep
their parish churches; likewise to consider of a great abuse lately
committed by some who illegally obtained restitution of the goods of
such as have been fined for rebellion, or threaten those who buy them,
and to make strict inquiry by every means to know if any of the rebels’
estates, or rents, or moveables be possessed by their wives, children,
or friends, on their behoof. Afterwards he was to proceed to the town of
Ayr to meet the Earl of Dumfries and the commissioners of that shire,
and proceed in a similar manner assisted by the Laird of Claverhouse.
Urquhart of Meldrum was to visit Roxburgh, Berwick, Selkirk, and East
Lothian. Upon receiving the report of their delegates that some of the
rebels were willing to submit, the council out of “pity and compassion”
authorized them to grant “these miscreants” a safe conduct for one month
to come in with their petitions for pardon, but without any promise that
their prayer would be granted. It does not appear that more than six
accepted the proffered boon.

Meanwhile the society-men—who carefully marked the signs of the times in
a general meeting at Priest-hill, in the parish of Muirkirk, held on the
15th March—after being properly constituted, chose a committee of
sixteen, with a preses, to watch over the conduct of the members, in
order to regulate their intercourse together to prevent improper persons
obtaining admission among them, and also to see that none made any
sinful compliances with the rulers in church or state. They then
nominated Alexander Gordon of Earlston and John Nisbet of Hardhill to
proceed to the Continent, to represent their sufferings and explain
their principles to the reformed churches there,[149] “in order to their
sympathizing with them and holding up their case unto the Lord, as
members of the same body, under Jesus their head, and to seek the
rolling away of reproaches industriously heaped upon them;” but some
dissension arising about this appointment, Earlston proceeded to the
Netherlands alone. It was also ordered that the delegates there present
should desire every man of his respective society to provide himself fit
weapons, in case they should be required for self-defence. At their next
quarterly meeting, 15th June, held at Tala-linn, Tweedsmuir, their
dissensions increased. James Russell, designated “a man of a hot and
fiery spirit,” introducing a number of captious questions, such as,
whether any of the society were free of paying customs at ports or
bridges? which the greater part never had any scruples about, as being
necessary for keeping the roads and bridges in repair, but which he
endeavoured to confound with the cess levied for the express purpose of
putting down the gospel; nor would he or the party who joined with him
listen to any terms of forbearance, but insisted that both taxes were
equally sinful, and that the payers should be separated from their
meetings; nor although the enemy was at the gates, would they cease
bitterly to strive with their friends within the camp.

Footnote 149:

  The societies every quarter of a year gathered a collection of money,
  sometimes more, sometimes less, and sent with their commissioner to
  the general meeting, when it was conscientiously distributed—a part of
  it for public uses, wherein the whole was concerned, if any such thing
  called for the same; or to prisoners, of whom always there were not a
  few; or to indigent persons as their need required.—Faithful
  Contendings, p. 24.

Ever on the alert, the curates were more united in their exertions to
hinder or to punish all meetings of the wanderers; nor did they hesitate
about the means they employed. The curate of Tweedsmuir immediately
transmitted to the council an exaggerated account of this convention,
and they, July 8th, issued a proclamation, stating that “some traitors,
runagates, and fugitives, having convocate towards the number of eighty,
(although the real number was not above twenty,) and with forbidden
weapons, and in an unlawful manner, near Tala-linn; and that the people
in that county had been so defective in the duties of loyal subjects or
good countrymen, as to neglect giving timeous notice either to the
council or the sheriff of the shire;—they therefore commanded whoever
heard of such meetings to give information to the chancellor, the secret
council, or the nearest commander of the forces, repairing thither at
the rate of at least three Scottish, about six English, miles an hour,
under pain of being themselves held equally guilty with the offenders
and liable to the same punishment. All magistrates, upon receiving such
information, were required to raise the country and pursue the
miscreants from shire to shire until they be apprehended or expelled
forth of this realm; and in case any hurt or skaith fall out in the
pursuit or apprehending those so unlawfully convocate, the actors
thereof are to be free and unpunished in any manner of way; but
whosoever should fail, magistrates or others, in the forementioned
duties, were to be held as disaffected to the government, and to undergo
the punishment of the law due to the crimes of the foresaid traitors and
fugitives!”

As the meetings of the persecuted were necessarily secret assemblies,
whose times and places were known only to themselves and their friends,
the magistrates, who had other duties to attend to, could not possibly
detect and disperse every little band when met for devotional purposes,
and could not therefore vie with or satisfy the prelatical
sleugh-hounds, who were more keen in the scent and less frequently at
fault. They were accused of being remiss, and the council, August 9th,
gave roving commissions to their stanch military beagles, Major White
and the Laird of Meldrum, along with instructions to confer with the
magistrates, and to call before them and fine all suspected persons,
only, while in cases of blood they had a previous remission, in cases of
money they were to render a strict account to their masters. Both were
men of the most brutal manners, of which White gave a disgusting
specimen with regard to James Robertson, a respectable merchant, who,
according to the times, travelled the country with a pack. Having rather
imprudently gone to visit a friend confined in Kilmarnock jail, he was
himself stripped of his goods and detained a prisoner in the guard-house
about ten days; during that time, being brought before the major, and
refusing to give his oath _super inquirendis_, his judge pulled him by
the nose, and wrung it till the blood gushed out, and sent him to
prison. While there, he and a fellow-prisoner sang praises to God, and
their keeper, the captain of the guard, heard them; but, unlike the
jailer at Philippi, he rushed in, tore the Bible out of his hand, and
swore he would burn it if they again offered thus to be engaged. A few
weeks after, he was being carried to Edinburgh; and at Linlithgow,
because he refused to drink the king’s health, the soldiers tied him
literally neck and heel, and left him all night in that posture. On the
morrow he was taken to the capital, with his feet bound under the
horse’s belly, where, after the usual mock trial, he was sent to suffer
on the 15th December, and, as if to complete the baseness of their
cruelty, when he complained of not being suffered to speak to the people
on the scaffold, the town-major, Johnstoun, who superintended the
execution, beat him with his cane at the foot of the ladder.[150]

Footnote 150:

  Wodrow remarks—“This abominable rudeness to a dying man, and the
  patience and cheerfulness of this good man in suffering all this, I
  know was the occasion of a deep conviction to some who were present of
  the evil of persecution and prelacy; and there are severals yet alive
  who can date their first serious impressions of religion from their
  seeing some of the persecuted party suffer, as they themselves have
  informed me.”—Vol. ii. p. 266.

John Findlay, the prisoner visited by his dear comrade James Robertson
when he was taken, came from the same neighbourhood. On his examination
before the committee, he also refused to say—God save the king, although
he said he loved the king as well as any person, confessed he was at
Drumclog, but without arms; and being asked if he conversed with Mr
Cargill within these two years, refused to answer otherwise than that a
man is neither by the law of God nor man bound to have a hand in
shedding his own blood.

William Cochrane, belonging also to the parish of Evandale, who was
apprehended about the same time, when examined before the council as to
whether he thought it lawful for subjects to rise in arms against the
king? and whether he considered the king to be a lawful king?
answered—“These are kittle questions, and I will say nothing about them,
being a prisoner;” and when desired to say—God save the king—remained
silent. He was sent to the justiciary, and thence with the other two to
the Grassmarket. The soldiers, however, were produced against him and
Findlay, who swore that they took their arms from them, and left them
bound in the fields. In a testimony that he left, he assigns the
following reasons for his refusal:—“Now the main article of my
indictment upon which I have received my sentence of death from man,
was, that I would not say—God save the king, which, as they now stated
him an idol in the mediator’s room, I could not do without being guilty
of saying—Amen, to all that he hath done against the church and people
of God; and [against the] true subjects of this kingdom, and the ancient
and fundamental laws thereof, and doing contrary to that in the second
Epistle of John, ver. 10. ‘If there come any unto you, and bring not
this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor bid him God speed;
for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds.’ And
also ye know that taking the name of God in our mouth is a part of
worship, and so a worshipping of their idol; for before our faces they
said that he was supreme over all persons and over all causes, which is
putting him in God’s room.”

The year closed with scenes of plunder and blood. Fourteen gentlemen and
ministers were (December 11th) declared rebels, outlawed, and their
estates forfeited; and Lady Douglas of Cavers was fined £500 sterling,
because she would not swear that she had not been at a conventicle for
three years preceding. Alexander Hume of Hume, a small heritor in the
Merse, was sacrificed under circumstances of peculiar atrocity. He was
indicted and tried for rebellion in November, when the proof entirely
failed; but instead of being set free, he was kept in prison till
December, when he was on the 20th brought a second time to the bar,
charged with holding converse with those who besieged the house of Sir
Henry M’Dowall at Mackerston. The only evidence in support of the charge
was, that he, attended by his servant, had called at Sir Henry’s on his
return from hearing a sermon, and offered to buy a bay horse! Yet did
the jury bring him in guilty of “commanding a party of the rebels’ horse
in besieging the castle of Hawick,” and “he was hanged at Edinburgh,”
adds Fountainhall, “in the Christmas week, because the Viscount Stafford
was execute in London in the same week 1680.”—“He died more composedly
than others of his kidney did.”[151] Among his last words were—“It doth
minister no small peace and joy to me this day that the Lord hath set
his love upon me, one of Adam’s unworthy posterity, and has given me the
best experience of his grace working in my heart, whereby he hath
inclined me to look towards himself, and make choice of him for my
soul’s everlasting portion. It is the Lord Jesus, and he alone, who is
my rock and the strength and stay of my soul.” When the rope was about
his neck, and immediately before his being turned over, he concluded his
life by singing the last verse of the seventeenth Psalm.

Footnote 151:

  The most atrocious part of this villanous transaction was—a pardon had
  actually been procured by Mr Hume’s friends at London, and arrived at
  Edinburgh some days before the execution, but was kept up by the Earl
  of Perth. “And on the day of his execution, his spouse, Isobel Hume,
  came in the most moving manner to the Lady Perth, begging she would
  interpose for her husband’s life, urging she had five small children.
  The Lady’s answer was so inhumane, that I shall not put it in
  writing.”—Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 268.

In the midst of these troubles, the apostate Duke of Lauderdale went to
his place[152]—a man who sacrificed his conscience and character to
serve a sovereign who left him in his old age.

Footnote 152:

  “August 25, 1682. Died the great minister of state, the Duke of
  Lauderdale, at the wells in England, near London. Before this time he
  was paraletic, and was disenabled from council and advice giving. The
  king’s council in Scotland advised the king to call in all his
  pensions he had given to any person, hereby to reach him, and to
  dispose of them of new, which was done; thus Lauderdale’s pension of
  £4000 sterling was taken from him, which he complains of to the king,
  and entreats his majesty to consider him, that his old and faithful
  servant might not die in poverty, yet was not granted. He disheartens
  at this, and being advised by some of the chief physicians in England
  to go to the wells (some of them going with him), after some days’
  drinking, he swells; then being advised to take water with salt, it
  purges him, and so purged him as that he died of it.”—Law’s Memorials,
  p. 234.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               BOOK XIX.


                            A.D. 1682-1683.


Persecution instigated by the curates in the South and West—Noble
   conduct of a boy—Rapacity of the military—Instructions of the
   council—Exploits of Claverhouse, Meldrum, &c.—Retributive
   justice—Justiciary court—Lawrie of Blackwood—Circuit courts—Rye-house
   plot—Scottishmen implicated—Various instances of oppression.


While the justiciary and the commissioners were carrying on their
dreadful work, the lower menials of tyranny were not idle. Cornet Graham
followed closely the footsteps of his friend Claverhouse. In the parish
of Twynholm, Kirkcudbrightshire, several cottars’ wives, with children
at the breast, were sent to jail, because they would not oblige
themselves to keep their kirk and hear the curate. In a neighbouring
parish, the incumbent being informed of some persons who dared meet
together for prayer, procured soldiers to quarter upon them for this
dreadful irregularity; and one poor old woman, nearly blind, and lame in
both her arms, eminently pious, and therefore peculiarly obnoxious,
being cast out of her cottage, which was razed to the ground, sought
hiding in a neighbour’s house; but the implacable curate brought a party
of soldiers, whom he ordered to seize her and carry her out of the
parish, saying, “Jean, you shall crook no more in Moss-side,” and added,
“she was a scabbed hog, and would infect all the flock.” Her brother,
however, prevailed upon them by a little money to allow her to go with
him to his house, where she lingered a few days, till she reached a
better home. At Perth, Mrs Minniman, a minister’s widow, was torn from
her only son, a child, lying dangerously ill:—-the child died crying for
his mother, and the mother soon after died of grief for her child.
Parents were punished for their children, and children for their
parents, even when the parties themselves were regular. But this was the
case over the whole country, of which I shall give a few instances.

In the parish of St Mungo, Annandale, a father had a party quartered on
him, because his son, a youth about sixteen, was in fault; for the
curate said it was but fit the father should be punished for the child,
whom he ought to have made regular by a bridle. In Rutherglen, the
provost sent his officers to a widow’s house to apprehend her son for
non-attendance at church. The lad fled, but his sister was taken, fined,
and sent to prison, for aiding his escape. The poor girl could not pay
the fine, and her mother fell sick; yet, though bail was offered, she
could not be permitted to attend her. Shortly after, supposing perhaps
that the son might have supplied his sister’s place, the provost came in
the night-time, searched the house for him, and, failing to find him,
obliged the afflicted woman to pay twenty merks, probably her all. Mr
Blair, the incumbent, for not waiting on whose ministrations all this
suffering was inflicted, was at the very time living in whoredom with
his own servant wench.

At East Monkland, in Lanarkshire, an incident occurred, respecting which
it is difficult to say whether it exhibits the barbarity of the
mercenary soldiers, or the noble hardihood of a thoroughly trained
youth, in the most conspicuous point of view. Archibald Inglis, an
officer under John Skene of Hallyards, while hunting out a pious farmer
in Arnbuckles who had been denounced by the profligate curate of the
parish, missing him, laid hold on a boy, hardly fifteen years of age,
and ordered him to swear when he saw his master, and to tell them if he
knew where he was. The youth refusing, the soldiers beat him with their
swords till he was wholly covered with blood; then dragging him by the
hair of the head to the fire, they wrung his nose till it gushed—they
held his face to the flame “till his eyes were like to leap out of his
head.” The woman in the house, unable to help him, entreated him with
tears to tell all he knew before he was burned to death; but the
intrepid little fellow refused to say a word. The soldiers, holding
their drawn swords to his breast, swore they would send him to eternity,
if he did not tell. Still he kept mute. Then they struck him furiously
upon the head, but not a word would he utter. At last he fell senseless
among their hands, and they left him for dead! He afterwards recovered.
I regret I cannot record his name. This same Inglis, in the parish of
Kilbride, because three conscientious peasants refused to take the
inquisitorial oath, to answer every question that should be put to them,
ordered fiery matches to be placed between their fingers to extort
compliance; but in this case, as in the other, he appears only to have
had the diabolical satisfaction of inflicting exquisite torture without
attaining his object.

The thirst after money was insatiable among these wretches.
Covetousness, in its meanest, crudest, and most revolting shape, appears
to have been their master passion. Their gross, expensive sensuality
cried—“Give! give!” and what they squandered upon their harlots, they
unmercifully wrung from their more excellent neighbours. Such was the
high-spirited gallantry of these extolled cavaliers! Claverhouse
distinguished himself in this way. Nor was that still more despicable
character, Mackenzie, the king’s advocate, less assiduous in the same
low vocation; indeed, he appears upon every occasion to have stimulated
the spoilers.

The council’s instructions to the military brigands early this year,
which were undoubtedly his production, were framed upon the principle by
which the greatest sums of money could be extorted from the people. When
petty heritors, who were also tenants, were guilty of any disorder, they
were to be fined in that capacity, which would bear the greatest fines.
Upon information that noblemen or gentlemen entertained in their
families unlicensed chaplains or pedagogues, their names were to be sent
to the chancellor, the archbishop of St Andrews, or the bishop of
Edinburgh, that the pecuniary penalties, which were exorbitant, might be
exacted. They were to call for the public records of their districts,
and if any fines had been abated, they were to be exacted in full; and
the magistrates were to be reported, that they might be brought to
account for their negligence or collusion.

In the parish of New Glenluce, Graham seized four countrymen for not
hearing the incumbent, put them in jail, and sent soldiers to quarter on
their families, and, in the language of the day, “eat them up.” After
they had been kept in durance for twelve weeks, he ordered them to be
tied two and two and set on bare-backed horses, and to be carried to
Edinburgh; but after they had undergone the torture of a day’s ride, he
sent after them, and allowed them to purchase their liberty, by giving
him each a bond for a thousand merks.

Among his other extortions in Galloway, he had imprisoned and fined
exorbitantly some of Sir John Dalrymple’s and his father’s tenants, of
which Sir John complained to the privy council, alleging that he as
heritable bailie of the regality had anticipated Captain Graham, and of
course had a preferable right both to the casualties and emoluments of
the fines. Claverhouse replied, by alleging that Sir John’s decreets
were collusive, and the fines did not amount to one sixtieth part of
what ought to have been legally exacted, and that he had weakened the
government by interfering with and opposing the commission which the
king’s council had given him, containing a power both civil, criminal,
and military, of sheriffship and justiciary, for executing the church
laws; and under pretence of his preferable jurisdiction, studied to stir
up the people to a dislike of the king’s forces. Also, that he had
defamed Claverhouse as one who had cheated the king’s treasury, in
exacting the fines of heritors and not accounting for them, at least
falsely giving in an account to the exchequer far below his
intromissions, which he ought either to prove or else be punished as the
author of an infamous libel. Sir John then asked that he might be
allowed to produce what witnesses he had in town for proving his
allegations. But this most reasonable, and one would have thought
irrefusable, request was denied him upon a quibble, that it would compel
him to raise a counter-action, instead of establishing his defence.
Claverhouse’s witnesses were then allowed to be examined. The first
called was Sir George Lockhart, the defendant’s own advocate, and the
chancellor thought he might be ordained to depone. Sir George, however,
himself insisted that it would be a most pernicious precedent to force
advocates to disclose their client’s secrets; and after “much transport,
flame, and humour,” he was passed over, not on account of any allowed
impropriety, but because it was considered unnecessary. Sir John alleged
the people in Galloway were turned orderly and regular. Claverhouse
answered, there were as many elephants and crocodiles as there were
either regular or loyal persons in the shire.

After the final hearing, February 12th, the council determined that
Claverhouse had done nothing but what was legal and consonant to his
commission and instructions, and the chancellor complimented him so far
in their name:—that they wondered that he, not being a lawyer, had
walked so warily in so irregular a country, and therefore they gave him
their thanks for his encouragement; but they found that Sir John
Dalrymple, though a lawyer and a bailie of regality, had exceeded his
bounds, and had weakened the hands of his majesty’s authority by his
interference, they therefore condemned him to lose his heritable
bailery, to pay £500 sterling of fine, and to enter Edinburgh Castle and
lie there during the council’s pleasure, “as an example to all others
who should oppose their military commissions.” He was released on the
20th, upon paying his fine, acknowledging his rashness, and craving the
council’s pardon.

Douglas of Bonjedburgh was fined by the Laird of Meldrum, as the
council’s sheriff of Teviotdale, 27,500 merks for his own and his lady’s
irregularities, in being absent from the church and private baptisms;
and Sir William Scott of Harden, 46,000 pounds Scots for similar
enormities. “The sum fined in,” Fountainhall remarks, “jumped with a
gift the king’s advocate had new gotten, of £1500 sterling, from the
king, out of the first and readiest of the fines, for his pains,
expense, and journeys to London.” Nor though Scott had the matter fully
argued before the king in council, and was strongly supported by the
Marquis of Halifax, could he obtain any relief.

When men high in office and in rank were thus setting decency at
defiance for gain, it could not be expected that men in lower life would
remain inactive spectators. Nor did they. Fountainhall gives many
examples. I select one. Menzies was brought before the criminal court,
for collecting money for the rebels in the west and receiving letters
from Balfour of Burleigh, one of Sharpe’s murderers. He was condemned to
be hanged. But it appearing afterwards that the witnesses were infamous,
and that they had sworn largely, _i. e._ falsely, and that he was
delated by one who was owing him money, the privy council reprieved him.
Early in the year, Mr John Philip, minister of Queensferry, having,
“when in his cups,” called the Duke of York a bloody tyrant, was
informed against by his compotators, and being brought before the privy
council, March 15th, was fined £2000 sterling, and sent to the Bass,
besides being declared infamous and incapable of ever preaching
hereafter. At the same time, he was informed if the money was not paid
within fourteen days, the council would order him to be criminally
prosecuted; but to make assurance doubly sure, their cash-keeper was
commanded to take possession of all his books and papers.

In pursuing the march of these despicable mercenaries, high and low, it
is deserving of remark, that while they all joined in pursuit of the
proscribed Presbyterians, they were equally ready to turn upon each
other, whenever they thought they could gain any accession to their own
estates from the spoil of those they had crouched before in the hour of
their prosperity. Thus, even in this world, does God sometimes display
his retributive justice, by permitting the wicked, in their nefarious
dealings with one another, to avenge the cause of his own people.
Lauderdale furnishes a striking exemplar. After having done every thing
in his power to advance the interest of the Duke of York, by procuring
his recall from the Continent and his appointment to the government of
Scotland, the ungrateful York rewarded him by joining his enemies and
aiding the fall of the power of the Maitlands.

In their proceedings this year, the justiciary court commenced by
setting every principle of common justice at defiance, refusing to
prisoners a list of the witnesses intended to be brought against them,
thus depriving them of one grand means of defence, while they had them
examined privately upon oath before themselves; and the reason assigned
in the king’s letter, procured for this purpose, was worthy of the
practice, “so that our advocate may be secure how to manage such
processes.” The first person brought before them, a William Martin,
younger of Dallarg, was dismissed simpliciter, upon surrendering all his
lands and heritages to the Lord Treasurer in favour of the king’s most
excellent majesty. The next was William Lawrie, tutor of Blackwood.[153]
He was charged with conversing with rebels who had been at Bothwell; but
although the persons he conversed with had never been pursued at law,
much less convicted, and resided at the same time openly in the country;
yet did the Lord Advocate contend that if they were in fact rebels, or
were reputed or suspected such, that was enough to render it treason to
have any intercourse with them; to which the lords agreeing, and several
acts of converse being proved, he was condemned to lose his head, and
his estate to be forfeited to the king; but being an old man, and
professing great sorrow and submission, he was, after several respites,
through the interest of the Marquis of Douglas, whose chamberlain he
was, pardoned as to life, but his forfeiture was confirmed as a
precedent for establishing a most indefinite but lucrative species of
treason. This was announced by proclamation, April 13th, requiring
judges and magistrates to execute the laws with rigour against all who
should receive, harbour, or converse with notour forfeited traitors, or
such as they suspected to have done so; to require them to clear
themselves by oath, which, if they refused, to hold them as confessed,
and punish them by banishment, fining, or other arbitrary punishment. To
carry this object the better into execution, circuit-courts were
appointed to be holden in the western and southern shires, at Glasgow,
Ayr, and Dumfries. Adopting another practice of the inquisition, the
emissaries of these courts were to procure all the information they
could respecting noblemen, gentlemen, sheriff-principals, or provosts of
burghs, of which they were to keep a _private_ roll, and transmit it
_secretly_ to the council. The ministers were also ordered to give in
lists of all heritors, withdrawers from the church, and all women who
were delinquents—of all persons who had left their parishes and the
reasons for it—of fugitives, their wives, and widows, and their
resetters—and of chapmen and travellers.

Footnote 153:

  He held the lands of Blackwood, as tutor to the sons of his wife
  Marion Weir, heiress of the estate.

About this time John Nisbet, younger, was tried at Kilmarnock by Major
White, who had a justiciary power sent him for that purpose. As the
persecutors were exceedingly anxious to catch John Nisbet of Hardhill,
who was peculiarly obnoxious for his holy intrepidity, White pressed his
prisoner to inform him respecting the retreat of his namesake; and when
he positively refused to say any thing about him, the major told him,
after threatening him violently, he would make him sit three hours in
hell if he did not. The sufferer mildly replied—“that was not in his
power.” He was then asked if he owned the king to be head of the church?
He answered, I acknowledge none to be head of the church but Christ. No
witnesses were examined, his own confession being deemed sufficient for
his conviction. He was executed at Kilmarnock cross, April 14th.
Contrary to custom, he was allowed to speak, and addressed the
spectators at considerable length, exhorting them to personal godliness,
and recommending religion to them from his own feeling and experience.
“This,” said he, “is the first execution of this kind at this place, but
I am of opinion it will not be the last; but, sirs, death is before you
all, and if it were staring you in the face as nearly as it is me at
present, I doubt not there would be many awakened consciences among you.
As for myself, though death be naturally terrible, and a violent death
still more terrible, yet the sting of it being taken away, I reckon
every step of this ladder a step nearer heaven.” Here some confusion
arising among the soldiers, he stopped, and drawing the napkin over his
face, while in the act of commending his soul into his Father’s hands,
was launched into eternity.

In May following, John Wilson, writer in Lanark, a pious, learned, and
talented man, who had been condemned to die on the 7th, petitioned for a
reprieve, as his wife was near her time, and was respited till she was
delivered of the babe their cruelty was so soon to make fatherless. On
the 17th he was executed along with David Macmillan. He departed
rejoicing in God his Saviour, and in the firm belief that he would yet
return to his church and people in Scotland, though he feared there
would be sad judgments upon those who had forsaken his ways, and
declared it as his firm conviction that God would remove that race of
kings, root and branch, and make them like Zeba and Zalmunna for taking
God’s house in possession. In the testimony which he left, he vindicated
resistance to the government then existing, upon the grounds of the
violation by them of the duty they owed to the people, although he
thought that a rising could only be justified by its probability of
success. “As to the denial of the king’s authority, he scunnered to own
it, and such things had been done as in a well ordered commonwealth
would annul his right; yet he thought authority should not be cast off
without a probable power to support in this.” And he proved his
positions by the Confession of Faith embodied in the test itself, as
well as by the authority of their own leading bishop, Honyman, who in
his answer to Naphtali granted “that a king might be lawfully resisted
in case he should alienate the kingdom to strangers.” With regard to the
bishop’s death, he would pronounce no opinion; he durst not call it
murder, if the motives of the actors were pure; but if the actors were
touched with anything of particular prejudice or by-ends, that Scripture
of avenging the blood of Jezebel upon the house of Jehu would not suffer
him to justify it. Along with him suffered David Macmillan, a plain
countryman, who had gone with a party of horse to Bothwell. On their
being dispersed, he dismounted and joined a body of foot which still
maintained their ground, till they also were overpowered. When he asked
for quarter, a soldier replied—“I’ll give you quarters,” and knocked him
down. While lying bleeding, a Highlander fired at him and struck him,
but the ball being perhaps spent, did him no hurt. He got home and
remained undisturbed, although suspected, till now, when having retired
to the kirk for the purpose of reading the Scriptures, he was discovered
by Claverhouse in the very act; and being carried before the justiciary,
he was very summarily sent to the gibbet. In his last testimony he
“earnestly wished that love might continue among the godly,
notwithstanding of differences in judgment, and desired every one to
look on their own sins as the cause of the present undoing of religion,
and still remember the church was purchased by Christ’s blood.” He
blessed God who had honoured him with his cross, and that ever he had
heard the gospel preached in the fields; and adds—“I could not argument
for the truth as others, but I never had a look to go back, nor one hard
thought of God.”

Early in June, the justiciary courts set out on their bloody circuit. At
Stirling, one Boog, when brought before them, produced a testificate
under Sir William Paterson, the clerk of the council’s hand, that he had
taken the bond within the specified time; yet refusing to promise not to
rise in arms hereafter, “was coney-catched,” as Fountainhall terms it,
by that blood-thirsty crew; and the day they sat down at Glasgow was
marked by the execution of two persons, John Macwharry and James Smith—a
deed singular for its injustice and cruelty, even in these times. A
party of soldiers, in conveying one Alexander Smith to Edinburgh, were
attacked by some of his friends near Inchbelly Bridge, who released the
prisoner and killed one of the party. After they had retired, the
soldiers rallied, and in revenge—as cowards are always cruel—seized
these two unarmed countrymen, who were sitting quietly together in a
wood not far distant, and carried them to Glasgow, where, without any
other evidence of guilt, than their being taken near the place, they
were condemned to have their right hands cut off, then to be hanged, and
their bodies afterwards hung in chains. They are represented as having
been most pious and exemplary persons; and the letters they addressed to
their fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters, upon this occasion,
breathe a tender spirit of filial affection and ardent piety. “It is
worthy recording to the praise of his grace, for whose royal dignity
they witnessed, that they endured all these hardships with a great deal
of Christian magnanimity, even to the conviction of enemies.” They
rejoiced in their bonds and joyed in their tribulations. When
Macwharry’s hand was cut off, he held up the stump, and said—“This and
other blood shed through Scotland will yet raise the burnt covenants.”

Pre-eminent in infamy were the clerical informers; and among them, one
Fenwick, the curate of Cathcart; Abercrombie, in Carrick; and Joseph
Clelland, in Dalserf—to enumerate even a tithe of the non-conformist
heritors and commonalty who were persecuted by these incapables—for they
were grossly illiterate as well as immoral—would require a folio; but
some idea may be formed of the nature of the inflictions from one or two
cases, resulting from their informations. William Boswell of Auchinleck,
a very young gentleman, having accidently, when taking a ride, met a
company going to join the west country folks, merely stopt his horse to
see them draw up, was for this crime obliged to take the test and pay
one thousand merks fine, to preserve his estate from forfeiture. William
Muir, laird of Glanderston, when in a fever, having been blooded by Mr
Spreul the apothecary, was imprisoned for holding converse with rebels,
and was only released by an act of the justiciary.

The only person who suffered for being directly concerned in Sharpe’s
death, was one Andrew Guillan, a weaver, near Magusmuir, who was
executed at the cross of Edinburgh in July this year. His conviction
occurred in rather a curious manner. After the transaction, he had fled
south and settled in the neighbourhood of Cockpen, where he worked as a
day-labourer. While at work, the curate of the parish coming past, went
to him, and asked where he was on the Lord’s day? and if he kept the
church? Andrew replied, that he did not own him, and would give no
account of himself; on which the curate called for some people
thereabout and seized him, and took him to the village, where he was
pressed to drink the king’s health, which he refusing, as he said he
drank no healths, he was carried to Dalkeith, and there put in prison,
and from thence to Edinburgh, where, after examination, he was put into
the iron-house. While there, some rumour arose of his having been
present at the act, but there was no proof till the advocate charging
him, at one of his examinations, with the crime, and aggravating its
cruelty by every exaggeration, turned to Andrew, and exclaimed—“What a
horrid deed to murder the holy bishop when he was on his knees praying.”
This so touched the simple countryman, that, lifting up his hands, he
cried out—“O dreadful! he would not pray one word for all that could be
said to him!” This was sufficient; he was immediately found guilty on
his own confession, and sentenced to be taken to the cross of Edinburgh,
to have both his hands cut off at the foot of the gallows, and then
hanged; his head to be fixed at Cupar, and his body to be carried to
Magusmuir, and to be hung in chains. He endured the infliction with
great courage, and denied that he was a murderer, although he joined
with those who executed justice upon Judas, who sold the kirk of
Scotland for fifty thousand merks a-year. He received nine strokes
before his hands were amputated; and after the right hand was cut off,
he held out the bleeding stump, and exclaimed—“My blessed Lord sealed my
salvation with his blood, and I am honoured this day to seal his truths
with my blood.” Along with Guillan was executed Edward Aitken, who was
condemned on the narrowed points of converse with, and harbouring,
Gordon of Earlston.

About this time, what has been called the Rye-house plot was discovered,
which enabled Charles to crush the friends of liberty in England, who
had projected an insurrection in case of his death, in order to exclude
the Duke of York from succeeding to the throne, and had entered into a
correspondence with the Scottish exiles abroad, and a number of the
leaders among the sufferers at home. These were, the Earl of Loudon,
Lord Melville, Sir John Cochrane of Ochiltree and his son, Sir Hugh
Campbell of Cessnock and his son, Baillie of Jerviswood, Stuart of
Coltness, and Crauford of Craufordland. Several meetings had taken place
in London, but nothing had been definitely arranged, when one of the
inferior agents, or government spies, revealed the whole; or rather
invented a plot of his own, which he communicated to the government—ever
on the alert after conspiracies—for the sake of a reward. On this vile
denunciator’s testimony chiefly, Russell and Sidney suffered; and a
number of the Scottish partizans were secured, and sent to Edinburgh to
be tortured and executed.

Besides these, Gordon of Earlston, who had been seized at Newcastle, was
also sent to Scotland. Having been attainted in his absence, he was
brought to the bar of the justiciary; and his former sentence being
read, he was ordered for execution; but there was produced a letter from
the king, ordering him first to be put in the boots. The council wrote
back to his majesty, that it was not either regular or usual to torture
malefactors after they were condemned; but the royal commands were
peremptory, and he was accordingly brought into the Council-chamber to
be tortured, when “he, through fear or distraction, roared out like a
bull, and cried and struck about him, so that the hangman and his man
durst scarce lay hands on him.” At last he fell into a swoon, from which
when he recovered he spoke in the most incoherent manner. The council
differing in opinion, some calling it real, and some affected madness,
physicians were ordained upon soul and conscience to report upon his
condition, which they did, affirming that he was affected by that
distemper, called _alienatio menti_, and advised he should be sent to
the Castle, which was accordingly done; and afterwards he was conveyed
to the Bass, where he remained till the Revolution set him free.

Shortly after, undeterred by the gathering storm, Mr James Renwick again
raised the gospel standard on the mountains and muirs of his country.
Having been ordained at Groningen, he immediately embarked at the Brill
in a vessel bound for Ireland. During his voyage the ship was forced by
a storm to put into Rye, just at the time when the noise about the plot
was at its height, but he escaped without trouble, and arrived in his
native land safely, in time to attend the general meeting appointed to
be held at Darmede on the 3d of October, by whom he was called and
received as their minister. James Nisbet, son of Nisbet of Hardhill, in
his memoirs, gives the following account of his manner of
preaching:—“After this I went sixteen miles to hear a sermon preached by
the great Mr James Renwick, a faithful servant of Christ Jesus, who was
a young man, endued with great piety, prudence, and moderation. The
meeting was held in a very large desolate muir. The minister appeared to
be accompanied with much of his master’s presence. He prefaced on the
7th Psalm, and lectured on 2 Chron. chap. xix., from which he raised a
sad applicatory regret that the rulers of our day were as great enemies
to religion as those of that day were friends to it. He preached from
Mark xii. 34, in the forenoon. After explaining the words, he gave
thirteen marks of a hypocrite, backed with pertinent and suitable
applications. In the afternoon, he gave the marks of a sound believer,
backed with a large, full, and free offer of Christ to all sorts of
perishing sinners that would come and accept of him for their Lord and
Saviour, and for their Lord and Lawgiver. His method was both plain and
well-digested, suiting the substance and simplicity of the gospel. This
was a great day of the Son of Man to many serious souls, who got a
Pisgah view of the Prince of Life, and that pleasant land that lies
beyond the banks of death—Jordan.”

That such preaching, attended by such numbers as came to hear, and
accompanied by such power on those who heard, should attract the
attention and hatred of men like those, the then rulers in church and
state, was exactly what was to be expected. The council no sooner got
intelligence of the revival of field-preaching, which they thought they
had crushed for ever, than they sent Mr Cargill to his reward, and
recommended their efforts to suppress them; and because Renwick had
preached and baptized some children on the lands of Dundas, in the
parish of New Monkland—the superiority of which belonged to the Laird of
Dundas and the Trades of Glasgow—they fined both parties in £50 sterling
each. Nor did the opposition rest here. Mr Hog and Mr Wilkie, two
ministers, were fined, the one in five thousand, and the other in ten
thousand merks, for having been at this or similar conventicles. In the
same month, and for the same crime, several women as well as men were
sent to New Jersey and to Jamaica, to be sold as slaves. Searchers were
also appointed in the west, particularly in Glasgow, by whom every
house, from the cellar to the garret, was examined for suspicious
strangers, who were also empowered to interrogate whoever they chose,
and apprehend such as did not give what they deemed satisfactory
answers.

While the work of blood went forward at Edinburgh, three plain
countrymen were, in the latter end of November, brought before the
justiciary:—John Whitelaw in New Monkland, Arthur Bruce in Dalserf, and
John Cochrane, a shoemaker in Lesmahago. They were persons from whom
government had nothing to fear; “and their blood was shed,” says Wodrow,
“for what I can see, merely out of love to blood.” Their confessions
were the only proof of their guilt; and the depth of their criminality
may be judged of from that of the first, with which all the rest
essentially agreed. “John Whitelaw declares he thinks Bothwell Bridge
lawful, that rising being in defence of the gospel. He thinks himself
and these three nations bound by the Covenants. That it is above his
reach to tell whether the king be lawful king or not. Confesseth that he
was some time with the rebels at Bothwell, but not at the battle, and
that he had a sword. Refuses to say—“God save the king,” this not being
a proper place for prayer; and if it mean his owning his authority, he
has spoken to that already. Being interrogate if his judges were lawful
judges, and the bishop’s death murder? he declared these were questions
above his reach.” Bruce, when required to say—“God save the king,”
replied by saying—“God save all the election of grace.” They were all
three executed within three days, and died rejoicing in hope. Cochrane,
in his last speech, remarks, that suffering was no discouragement to
him, for “when the storm blew hardest, the smiles of my Lord were at the
sweetest. It is matter of rejoicing unto me to think how my Lord hath
passed by many a tall cedar, and hath laid his love upon a poor
bramble-bush like me; and now I am made to say, the Lord hath done all
things well, and holy is his name.” “Moreover, I leave my wife and six
small children to the care and protection of Almighty God, who hath
promised to be a father to the fatherless and an husband to the widow;
and my soul to God who gave it, and for whose cause I now willingly lay
down my life.”

Another general search was made at Glasgow at the close of the year,
but, with jesuitical policy, it was allowed to transpire some days
before that such a thing was to take place, in order that “suspected
persons” might take the alarm. In the mean time, however, soldiers were
stationed at some little distance around the town in all directions, to
seize such as should attempt to escape; but it does not appear that any
person was apprehended, except John Buchanan, a student, who, after
being imprisoned a while, was transported to Carolina. At the same time,
a singularly affecting case occurred in the parish of Dalmellington.
James Dun, a very peaceable and pious man, had four sons, one of whom,
with a brother-in-law, was murdered by the soldiers; another was
banished; a third was hunted on the mountains; the fourth, a lad not
fourteen years of age, was seized and imprisoned at Ayr. Nothing could
be laid to his charge, except non-conformity; yet was not his father
able to procure his liberation till he paid two hundred and forty
pounds, and even after this, he was taken, sent to the plantations, and
sold for a slave!


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                BOOK XX.


                            A.D. 1684-1685.


Persecutions increase—“Killing Time”—Proscription and
   plundering—Husbands fined for their wives’ non-attendance at
   church—Torture—Executions—Campbell of Cessnock—Paton of Meadowhead,
   &c.—Females sold for slaves—Spence—Carstairs—Baillie of
   Jarvieswood—Circuit courts—Porterfield of Douchal—Finings—Proceedings
   of the society-men—Review of the state of the country during this
   period—Death of Charles.


[1684] The preceding year went down in darkness—the present rose even
more gloomily. Religious persecution, like the plague spot, if once it
touches the system, grows deeper and deeper, till the whole be infected.
It had continued increasing in virulence during the entire reign of “the
merry monarch,” which had commenced in hypocritical perjury, and was now
about to set in unvarnished blood and massacre. There is one peculiarly
disgusting feature in the persecution waged by priests against those who
hold opposite opinions, and that is, it descends to the very lowest
grade of society—it enters the humblest cottage and tortures the poorest
of the poor; and while inflicting mental wretchedness, remorselessly
strips its unfortunate victims of every ingredient of earthly happiness.

We now enter upon that period of our history, emphatically designated
“Killing Time,” by the persecuted people in the west, from the inhuman
practice introduced this year of murdering the wanderers in the fields
without trial, if found guilty of having a Bible in their possession, or
caught in the act of praying to their God, or refusing to answer
ensnaring questions; and we may form some idea of the general severity
of the government, when the council, in one of their acts, granting
commissions for trying and judging the “rebels,” consider permitting
their officers to sentence such as appeared penitent to be banished to
the plantations in America, as allowing them to give the poor sufferers
“a taste and share of his majesty’s great clemency and mercy.” John
Gate, a wright in Glasgow, who also kept a small alehouse, being
employed in repairing the roof, some soldiers came in, and calling for
ale and brandy, the officers desired the landlord to come and take a
glass with them. He came unwillingly, but durst not refuse. When he
entered, he was ordered to drink the king’s health. This he modestly
declining, was instantly seized and sent to prison—his wife at the same
time being apprehended and confined to another room in the same jail.
Their family, consisting of eight young children, was scattered; and
although several of them were sick of a fever, yet were they barbarously
turned out of doors, and every article of furniture sold. The woman
being with child, pined in prison, and only got out upon a surgeon’s
certificate; but when liberated, the magistrates would not even permit
her to return to her own desolate home; and the inhabitants being
terrified—as prosecutions for “reset or intercourse with fanatics” were
now common, and subjected any who were disposed to show humanity to the
sufferers, to be treated themselves as disaffected—this sickly destitute
female and her helpless family had no lodging-place but the street, till
“the excellent” Lady Ardrey allowed her the use of a brew-house, where
three of her children died. Her husband was banished to Carolina, and
never returned.

Insatiable in their craving for money, while the avaricious wretches
were plundering the fanatics, they were not less assiduous in pilfering
the produce of their spoils from each other, and from government,
whenever they could find opportunity. Queensberry, therefore, and others
of the members of council, who found that the wages of their iniquity
were but ill paid, being chiefly stopped on the road by their own
minions, equally unprincipled with themselves, procured a letter from
his majesty, read in council, January 3d, authorizing them to call all
judges and magistrates to account for the fines they had received, and
for which they had not reckoned, as well as for the remainder, “left as
an awband over the heads of the heritors.” The only result of this call
which appears upon the record, is a sum of between eight and nine
thousand pounds, Scots, (£685. 16s. sterling,) levied by the magistrates
of Edinburgh upon the good town; off which they were allowed £200
sterling for their trouble in collecting—no bad remuneration. Grasping
at every farthing they could snatch, the council had perceived that
women, who were the great transgressors and chief fomenters of
conventicles, called by parliament “rendezvouses of rebellion,” could be
restrained by nothing except making their husbands liable for their
fines, referred the subject to his majesty. He—as has been often
remarked, like all profligates who profess great affection for the
persons of women, set no value on their worth and pay as little regard
to their feelings—determined against the ladies. But it having been
found that this fell heavily upon some of the fiercest loyalists, who
were unequally yoked, the privy council sent a letter to the king,
requesting to be allowed in particular cases to dispense with the fines
imposed upon the husbands for the irregularities of their wives, when
there was no proof of their connivance with the refractory dames. His
majesty was graciously pleased to authorize the council to dispense with
the fines on loyal husbands “who do not connive at their obstinate
wives’ ways, and are willing to deliver them prisoners!”

On this subject the Earls of Aberdeen and Queensberry differed—the
former being for the milder, the latter for the harsher, measures, and
those which would bring cash into the treasury, with which Perth
coincided; and the consequence was, that Aberdeen was dismissed from the
chancellorship, and Perth installed into the office, to which he had
long been aspiring. The elevation of Perth—a man ready to sacrifice
every principle of honour or religion to his ambition—augured ill for
the cause of the sufferers. Perth was a cold-blooded, heartless
politician, who would allow neither the feelings of the man nor the
precepts of the religionist to stand in the way of his promotion. Could
the Roman Catholic religion be divested of its intimate connection with
civil power, the absurdities and the idolatries of its profession would
disgust any rational mind; but when interwoven with politics, and
presented as a state religion for securing the obedience of the lower
ranks to their superiors, then it is viewed in a very different light by
these superiors, who willingly unite with the clergy to keep the
commonalty in darkness and degradation; and disguise it how we may, the
prelacy of Scotland at this period was Roman Catholicism both in spirit
and action. Perth knew this; and when he consented to compliment the
Duke of York with his religion, it was merely offering the sacrifice of
a form for the substantialities of a place. He showed the sincerity of
his conversion by flattering York in the most abhorrent part of his
religion—remaining to witness the agonies of the tortured. The royal
Duke looked calmly on the excruciating torments of the sufferers, as if
he had been witnessing some curious or agreeable experiment, when all
those who could escape shrunk from the spectacle. Perth superintended
and viewed similar inflictions with all the complacency of a
thorough-bred inquisitor.

The number of the individuals in lower life subjected to such treatment,
under his inspection—the sameness of their tortures—and the similarity
of their testimonies—it would be tedious to repeat; because, although
these worthies all died in the faith, their holy brotherhood of
suffering presents few distinguishing characteristics. But as an
example, we may take that of a youth of nineteen, Archibald Stewart:—“I
am more willing to die,” said he, “for my lovely Lord Jesus Christ and
his truths, than ever I was to live. He hath paved his cross all over
with love. Now all is sure and well with me. I am brought near unto God
through the blood of his Son Jesus Christ; and I have no more to do but
to lay down this life of mine that he hath given me, and take up house
and habitation with my lovely Lord.” He was executed at Glasgow, with
four others, whose last words were to the same purport. At their
execution, one Gavin Black of Monkland, who had discovered some tokens
of sympathy, was seized by the soldiers, imprisoned, and, because his
answers to the usual inquiries were not deemed satisfactory, was
banished to Carolina: and James Nisbet belonging to the parish of
Loudon, in Ayrshire, having come to attend their funeral, was recognized
as a covenanter by a cousin of his own, a Lieutenant Nisbet, and
apprehended. When examined, he refused to own the king’s supremacy, and
for this was condemned to suffer. During his confinement, he was treated
very harshly, and was executed at the Howgate-head of Glasgow, on the
5th of June this year. He died in much peace and assurance, and
expressed his joy that he had been counted worthy to suffer for the
cause of his Lord.

Military atrocities, however detestable, do not produce that feeling of
contempt which mingles with an abhorrence of legal murder. Neither
Dalziel nor Claverhouse, justly as their memories are execrated, awaken
the same loathing that the recollection of the bloody Mackenzie’s
judicial murders call up, because in the conduct of the latter we see
unmingled cowardice in its most revolting personification, safe from
danger, and rioting in the spoils of its unfortunate victims. Yet I know
not that men suffering for the cause of truth can be called unfortunate.

Sir Hugh Campbell of Cessnock’s memory stands upon an elevation, that
his most distant relations might well be proud of being connected with.
His persecutors are despised by the humblest of our virtuous peasantry,
who still on a solitary Sabbath, between sermons, moralize amid the
tombs of the Greyfriar’s churchyard. He was arraigned, March 24th. His
indictment stated, “that, having met some runaways from the westland
army, (_i. e._ the covenanters), he said that he had seen more going
than coming,” “and that he liked not runaways”—“that they should stick
to the cause, and they would get help if they wud bide bye it.” It does
not appear that even the words are authenticated. He offered to prove
that he was not at the place where the expressions were said to be used;
also, that the witnesses bore him ill will. One had said—“if he was out
of hell, he would be revenged upon him.” Another had received money to
be an evidence against him. All his preliminary defences were, however,
rejected, and the process was ordered to proceed. The cause, of course,
was deemed hopeless, and the crown counsel, Mackenzie, brought forward
his evidence. First, Thomas Ingram: he being sworn, the old and
venerable panel rose up, and addressing him, said—“Take heed, now, what
you are about to do, and damn not your own soul by perjury; for, as I
shall answer to God, and upon the peril of my own soul, I am here ready
to declare I never saw you in the face before this process, nor spoke to
you.” Struck with the solemnity of the address, the tutored suborned
witness declared when examined, that he could not swear distinctly to
what the prisoner had said. A loud shout and clapping of hands
immediately arose in court, which so irritated the advocate, that he
started up in a fury, and said—“He believed Cessnock had hired his
friends to make this uproar to confound the king’s witnesses: that he
had never heard of such a protestant roar, except upon the trial of
Shaftsbury: that he had always had a kindness for their persuasion, till
now that he was convinced in his conscience it hugged the most damnable
trinkets in nature.” Perth, the justice-general, whose brother, Lord
Melford, had received a previous gift of the anticipated forfeiture,
repeatedly questioned Ingram as to the truth of his assertion, when
Nisbet of Craigintenny, one of the jury, interposing, declared they
would only pay attention to the witness’s first deposition, though he
should be examined twenty times. Perth, with some warmth, replied—“Sir,
you are not judges in this case.”—“Yes, my lord,” said Somervell of
Drum, “we are the only competent judges as to the probation, though not
of its relevancy!” And the whole jury rising, adhered to what he said.
Another witness was brought forward—Crawford. He also could speak
nothing with regard to the criminality of Cessnock, not having seen him
for a considerable time either before or after Bothwell Bridge. A fresh
shout from the spectators announced their sympathy with the prisoner. In
vain the justice-general and the advocate stormed. The jury brought in a
verdict of—not guilty. Yet was he sent to the Bass, and detained a
prisoner for life, and his estate forfeited and given to Melford. The
witnesses were laid in irons and the jury charged before the privy
council with having created a riot in court. Nor were they dismissed
till they made an apology.

The heartless levity with which these scoffers at Presbyterian sanctity,
perpetrated the most revolting cruelties, would scarcely be credited,
did not their own records furnish the proof. One George Jackson, who had
lain in irons during all the winter, was brought before a committee of
council on the 13th of May. Being hastily summoned, he happened to enter
with his Bible in his hand. “Come away,” said the advocate, “let’s see
where the text lies.” George replied, “I was never a seeker out of
texts; that is the work of a minister.” Then said the advocate, “put up
your Bible, we are for no preaching now.”—“I am not come to preach,”
answered the prisoner; “but I charge you, and all of you, as ye shall
answer one day before our Lord Jesus Christ, when he shall
judge——.”—“You came here to be judged and not to judge,” retorted
Mackenzie; “send him to prison.” He was accordingly re-conducted to
jail, and executed in December.

Some idea may be formed of the wide range to which the proscription of
the best of Scotland’s population now extended, from the rolls printed
at this date, May 5th, in order to reach all who could be accused of
harbouring any who were proclaimed fugitives—not less than two thousand
were declared outlaws; and when it is recollected, that the parent durst
not speak to the child, nor the child to the parent; the husband to the
wife, nor the wife to the husband—we may form some faint idea of the
misery inflicted upon the suffering country. On the 9th of the same
month, Captain John Paton of Meadowhead suffered. He had distinguished
himself during the civil war; but after the battle of Worcester, settled
upon the farm where he had been born, and became a member of Mr William
Guthrie’s session, in the parish of Fenwick, till the Restoration. He
was at Pentland and Bothwell, and was so marked a character that a large
sum was offered for his head; and he experienced several remarkable
escapes, till at last, early this year, he was taken in the house of
Robert Howie of Floack, in the parish of Mearns. Dalziel, who had known
him as a brave soldier, is said to have taken some interest in him, and
to have obtained a reprieve from the king; but that falling into the
hands of Bishop Paterson, he kept it up till the Captain was executed,
which seems the more probable from the short notice in the council
record, April 30:—“John Paton, in Meadowhead, sentenced to die for
rebellion, and thereafter remaining in mosses and muirs to the high
contempt of authority, for which he hath given all satisfaction that law
requires, reprieved till Friday come se’enight, and to have a room by
himself that he may the more conveniently prepare for death”—a treatment
so uncommonly favourable, that it looks very likely that something more
had been intended. But he was honoured to suffer on the gibbet for the
principles he had so strenuously contended for on the field. He died
most cheerfully forgiving all his persecutors all the wrongs they had
done to himself, and desiring they might seek forgiveness of God for the
wrongs they had done to his cause.

But probably no case sets the iniquity of the then justiciary lords in a
stronger point of view, than that of James Howison, maltman in Lanark,
accused of being at Bothwell. The case as proved was, he resided in
Lanark; and when a party of the west country army came there, he was, as
all the inhabitants of the place were, obliged either to converse with
them or retire. He could not retire, and was seen in conversation with
some of the rebels, but without arms; for this the court sentenced him
to be hanged at the Grassmarket, and his lands and goods forfeited to
the king!

The partiality of the council was not less conspicuous. Having ordered
the Lord Advocate to prosecute all heritors upon whose lands rebels were
seen, among others, the Laird of Dundas was charged with this new crime;
and his defence was, that he did not know of any persons either going to
or coming from a conventicle, nor had he even heard of it till some time
after. The lords repelled the defence; yet the very same day, the Earl
of Tweeddale, accused of an exactly similar crime, was allowed to state
his ignorance as his excuse, and the excuse was sustained.

It may be imagined, but I hardly think even imagination could conjure
up a worse species of punishment than what was practised on well
educated females—and such were the daughters and wives of the
covenanters[154]—for no fault but their opinions:—to be sent off the
country as common felons, and sold in the colonies as common slaves;
and not only was this villany effected, but worse; their companions
who came to visit and take farewell of their young friends—some of
whom had been prematurely, illegally, and cruelly created widows—were
frequently subjected to a similar fate, being seized and sent
themselves to the plantations. One girl, Elizabeth Linning, when a
prelatical slave-ship was lying in the Clyde, in the month of June
this year, ready to sail for Carolina, went on board to condole with
an acquaintance, she was immediately detained by the captain’s order,
carried to Carolina, and offered to be sold for a slave, when she
fortunately made her escape; and having got her case laid before the
governor, he ordered her liberation. She returned, I believe, to her
native land, but it does not appear that the captain was punished.

Footnote 154:

  All the young women in Scotland at this time ought to have been taught
  to read. From every account, traditionary or otherwise, it appears the
  daughters of the covenanters generally were; and some of their
  published diaries, which have been held up to scorn, are even in point
  of elegance equal to many English writers who have been praised as the
  improvers of the English language; but this is a subject which
  deserves greater attention than I can afford in a note. I hope at no
  distant period to discuss it more fully.

The manner in which these victims of clerical oppression were used on
their passage, does not admit of transcription. The indelicacy they were
exposed to, bad as it was, was not equal to the filth that was
perpetrated upon them. That so many of them died was less wonder than
that any survived. The African middle passage might be a purgatory—the
passage of the covenanters across the Atlantic would have been a stage
below, had not the divine comforts that supported them in such a
situation assuaged all the miseries their persecutors could inflict; and
even amid the suffocation of the crowded mid-ships, enabled many
triumphantly to wing their way to heaven.

Nothing steels the heart against every feeling of humanity equally with
a false religion; and it is no less remarkable that its two principal
ingredients ever have been a love of money and a love of power. Argyle’s
proceedings touched both these main-springs in the bosom of the Scottish
rulers, and they were determined by every means they possessed to elicit
information respecting them. His correspondence had been obtained, but
the characters required three keys to decipher them. They had the Earl’s
secretary in their possession, Mr William Spence; and he was ordered to
undergo the boot. He did so without communicating any thing of
importance. They therefore had recourse to a diabolical expedient. On
the 26th July, they passed an act “ordaining General Dalziel to receive
Mr William Spence from the magistrates of Edinburgh, and to appoint a
sufficient number of officers and soldiers to watch him by turns, night
and day, and not to suffer him to sleep; and to take down in writing
every thing he should say.”[155] Yet nature sustaining even this, a new
instrument of torture, imported from Russia by General Dalziel, was
employed—the thumbkins—iron screws for compressing the thumbs,
productive of the most exquisite pain. These had been first tried upon
Arthur Tacket, a tailor in Hamilton, whose legs being too slender for
the boots, the attendant surgeons recommended the squeezing of his
thumbs, which was accordingly done previously to his execution, to
extort from him a declaration of who preached at a field-meeting he had
been apprehended on leaving. They were now applied to Spence. He had
only one key, and they of course obtained but very partial information,
and even that he had the resolution to stipulate should not be used
judicially against himself or any of the persons mentioned. He had said,
however, that Mr Carstairs possessed another key; and they, in violation
of all good faith, not long after subjected him to similar torture.
Previously, they had tried to obtain by insidious kindnesses the
information they wanted; but Carstairs resisting all their advances, the
chancellor, Perth, was so enraged, that he told him as he had refused so
many singular favours that had been offered him beyond any prisoner,
before God he should be tortured, and never a joint of him left whole.
Against this he protested, as torture was prohibited by the civil law,
and was unknown in the country where the crimes were said to be
committed; but the Lord Advocate replied, he was now in Scotland, and
though the crimes had been committed at Constantinople, he might be
tried for them. Carstairs answered, that the crimes of which he was
accused being said to be committed in England, his majesty’s laws were
there equally in force for the security of his government as they were
in Scotland, which they were not at Constantinople. The king’s smith was
called in to settle the point. “I do acknowledge,” says Carstairs, who
has himself left an account of the process, “I was much afraid I should
not have been able to go through with that scene of torture: and if I
had not, I was miserable; for I should have been brought to speak
against every man they mentioned, but God kindly ordered it otherwise.”
It is unnecessary to repeat an examination which was totally
unsatisfactory to the persecutors, but it is impossible to dismiss it
without awarding a meed of praise to the sufferer for a constancy, which
we of these days are not perhaps fully able to appreciate.

Footnote 155:

  He was, after the torture, put into General Dalziel’s hands; and it
  was reported that, by a hair-shirt and pricking (as the witches are
  used), he was five nights kept from sleep, till he was half
  distracted.—Fountainhall, vol. i. p. 299.

In the course of these various examinations, nothing decisive respecting
the English plot could be obtained against Baillie of Jarvieswood; he
was therefore ordered to be prosecuted before the privy council for
corresponding with the rebels; and refusing to criminate himself by
answering their ensnaring questions, he was fined six thousand pounds
sterling, and turned over to the justiciary. Within a few days, he was
brought to trial, though in the last stage of a decay, produced by the
cruel treatment he had met with. Upon the most defective proof, he was
condemned to die for a crime which he declared he abhorred, and of which
the public accuser had declared to himself in prison that he did not
believe him guilty. After receiving sentence, a friend asked him how he
felt. “Never better,” was the reply; “and in a few hours I’ll be well
beyond all conception.” Shortly after, he added, “they are going to send
my quarters through the country. They may hag and hew me as they will, I
know assuredly nothing shall be lost, but all these my members shall be
wonderfully gathered and fashioned like Christ’s glorious body.” He was
that same day sent to the scaffold, lest a natural death should have
disappointed the malice of his enemies, who unintentionally were eager
to encircle his brow with a brighter crown than that which monarchs
wear. He died with Christian magnanimity and resignation; and his last
moments were soothed by the heroic tenderness of his sister-in-law, a
daughter of Warriston, who had watched over him in prison and waited
upon him on the scaffold. His speech, declaring his attachment to the
constitution of his country, and his hatred of popish idolatry, which he
feared would be the plague of Scotland, he was prevented from delivering
on the scaffold, but it was printed after his death, and, widely
circulated through both kingdoms, tended greatly to promote the cause
for which he died.

About the end of July, a few of the wanderers having rescued, at
Enterkin-path, among the hills near Moffat, seven of their friends, whom
a party of soldiers were carrying prisoners from Dumfries to Edinburgh,
the privy council, on the 1st of August, passed a most barbarous act,
ordering the execution of rebels to follow their conviction, within six
hours in Edinburgh, and three hours in the west country. Meanwhile the
murders went on in the fields. William Shirinlaw, a youth of eighteen,
was met by a party at Woodhead, in the parish of Tarbolton, who, after
asking him a few of the ordinary questions, and finding or alleging that
his answers were unsatisfactory, immediately shot him. The subaltern,
one Lewis Lauder, who commanded this party, seized other three, and
would have proceeded in an equally summary manner with them, but his men
positively refused to obey, remarking, one in one day was sufficient.

About the same time, five of the wanderers were found by a party under
Claverhouse, sleeping in the fields. When awoke, on attempting to
escape, they were fired at, and some of them wounded and carried off.
When they were halted at a house for the purpose of plundering, a poor
woman, for offering to dress their wounds, was also made prisoner. They
were marched bleeding to the capital; and, on their arrival, tried and
executed the same day. In a joint testimony which they hurriedly wrote,
they expressed their willingness to die:—“We bless the Lord we are not a
whit discouraged, but content to lay down our lives with cheerfulness,
and boldness, and courage; and if we had an hundred lives, we would
willingly quit with them for the truth of Christ. Good news! Christ is
no worse than he promised. Him that overcometh will he make a pillar in
his temple. Our time is short, and we have little to spare, having got
our sentence at one o’clock, and to die at five in the afternoon this
day. So we will say no more; but farewell all friends and relations, and
welcome heaven, and Christ, and the cross for Christ’s sake.”

James Nichol, a merchant in Peebles, being accidentally present at the
execution, exclaimed, in the bitterness of his heart—“These kine of
Bashan have pushed these good men to death at one push, contrary to
their own base laws, in a most inhuman manner.” For this speech he was
instantly seized, and within a few days sent after them to the
gallows.[156] Along with him was executed William Young from Evandale, a
good man, but “distempered and crazed in his judgment,” which certainly
any rational person would have imagined ought to have exempted him from
suffering on account of his opinions; yet was he solemnly tried and
condemned by the horrible justiciary, after being most barbarously used.
Having attempted to escape from the Canongate tolbooth, he was re-taken
and bound so firmly with cords that his whole body was racked. “A pain
this,” said he, “which would be intolerable, if eternal; but now I am
near the crown, and rejoice in the full assurance of it.” It was
observed of him by his fellow prisoners, that when engaged in serious
conversation, reading, or prayer, he was always very composed, although
exceedingly restless at other times.

Footnote 156:

  On this most infamous judicial assassination, Sir Walter Scott
  remarks—“It is strange how the ferocity of persecution begets in those
  who are exposed to it a corresponding obstinacy and pertinacity. In
  the present case, one may say with the jailer in Cymbeline, that
  ‘unless a man would marry a gallows and beget young gibbets, I never
  saw one so prone.’” The fact was, he was on horseback riding home,
  when he was stopped by the crowd in the Grassmarket, and remained till
  the three were turned over, when, unable to repress his honest
  indignation, he expressed himself in the words for which he suffered.

It has been remarked, that during the period of the first ten Christian
persecutions, the Roman world formed then one wide prison-house, from
which there was no escape. The prelatical persecutors in Scotland
appeared anxious to imitate their heathen predecessors; and in order to
secure their victims, a proclamation was issued, 15th September,
requiring all masters of vessels to present to the magistrates lists
upon oath of all their passengers, whether leaving or returning to the
kingdom; and on the 16th, another was published, forbidding all persons
to travel from one shire to another without a government-pass, under the
penalty of being punished as disaffected!—restrictions, of which it is
difficult to say whether any could have been contrived more detrimental
to the trade of the country and the liberty of the subject, as it would
be difficult to conceive any act more tyrannical than one passed by them
the same day, ordering such as would not declare the rising at Bothwell
rebellion, the primate’s death murder, or owned the covenants, or who
only hesitated respecting them—to be prosecuted criminally, _i.e._, in
other words, to be put to death!

These were preparations for the circuit courts, which set out for the
south and west in the beginning of October. On the 2d, the division of
which Queensberry, his son Drumlanrick, and Claverhouse, were the
judges, sat down at Dumfries. As money was the everlasting cry of all
these political cormorants, Queensberry procured an offer of five
months’ cess for eight years from the county; but when he proposed a
similar vote at Ayr, Lord Dumfries opposed it, desiring to know when
there would be an end of taxes, and then he would offer as cheerfully as
any. To make up for this disappointment, the heritors were all required
to take the test, and the recusants were fined. They were besides
required to swear whether they had held any communication with the
rebels, for this most cogent reason, “that no man can complain when
judged by his own oath, by which he is in less danger than by any
probation of any witness whatsomever;” and they were finally to swear
that, upon hearing or seeing any who were or should be denounced, they
should raise the hue and cry, or give notice to the nearest garrison, in
order to their apprehension. There does not appear to have been any
murders committed at this time by the court of Dumfries; but one case of
extortion deserves to be mentioned. A young man, William Martin, a son
of Martin of Dullarg, having been lately married, when at Edinburgh
Queensberry sent for him and offered to purchase the property he held in
right of his wife, the heiress of Carse. Martin refused to part with it
for the sum Queensferry offered, when the latter told him he would make
him repent it, and threatened to pursue him for his life, to escape
which Martin let him have the estate upon his own terms. Yet,
notwithstanding, he was at this time fined in seven hundred pounds,
Scots, and his wife forced to give bond for another hundred pounds,
having had a child baptised by a Presbyterian minister.

The court of which Mar, Livingstone, and General Drummond, afterwards
Lord Strathallan, were the commissioners, sat down at Ayr in the
beginning of October; and the heritors, being assembled in various
sections, were told that they would display their loyalty to great
advantage were they to petition to have the test administered to them,
when those who agreed were dismissed, and those who refused were sent to
prison, and had indictments for crimes which many of them were incapable
of committing. Some young men who lived with their parents were charged
with irregular marriages, and others who had no children with irregular
baptisms; but none were set at liberty even after the absurdities of the
charges were evident, till they found exorbitant bail to appear at
Edinburgh when called. Almost all the indulged ministers were silenced
by this vile junto, and those who would not oblige themselves to
exercise no part of their ministry were sent to the Bass or other
prisons; while, to terrify some young gentlemen recusants into
compliance, a gibbet was erected at the cross, and pointed out as a most
convincing argument. Quintin Dick, when urged to take the oath of
allegiance, declared “he was ready to take it in things civil, but as to
supremacy in matters ecclesiastical, he was too much the king’s friend
to wish him such an usurpation upon Christ’s kingdom, being persuaded
that the church of Christ hath a government in ecclesiastical matters
independent upon any monarchy in the world, and that there are several
cases which in no way come under the king’s cognizance.” For this
saying, he was fined in one thousand pounds sterling, and ordered to be
banished to the plantations.

The western circuit court, of which the Duke of Hamilton, with Lords
Lundin (afterwards Earl of Melford) and Collington, were the judges, met
at Glasgow on the 14th, when they commenced their proceedings by issuing
a proclamation for disarming the counties of Clydesdale, Renfrew, and
Dumbarton. They then imprisoned Schaw of Greenock, Sir James Montgomery
of Skelmorly, Sir John Maxwell of Pollock, Cunningham of Craigends, and
Porterfield of Douchal, all of whom they served with indictments for
resetting rebels, which having no proof they referred to their oath,
declaring their confession of guilt should not infer life or limb, but
with a design to fine them in sums nearly equivalent to their estates.
Next, they declared the parishes of the indulged ministers vacant to the
number of thirty-six, whom they also imprisoned for some alleged breach
of the council’s instructions. They likewise prevailed with the gentry
and freeholders to become bound for the conformity of themselves, their
families, and tenantry, to the whole of the present ecclesiastical
constitution; and further, to offer voluntarily to the king three
months’ cess more than was voted by parliament for the maintenance of an
additional troop of horse for two years. They finished their proceedings
in this quarter by fining Mr Archibald Hamilton, advocate, in five
hundred merks, for not attending them, though he was burying his
servant, who was accidentally drowned in Irvine water.

The heritors of Stirlingshire voluntarily came forward with a bond
similar to the above, accompanied by a loyal address, expressing their
abhorrence of all rebellious principles and practices, declaring their
dutiful and absolute submission to his majesty’s authority and
government, and offering their lives and fortunes to support the same.

The Merse circuit, of which Lord Balcarras, Lord Yester, and Hay of
Drumellzier, were the commissioners, appear to have interested
themselves to afford some relief or redress to the sufferers. They fined
Pringle of Rigg, sheriff-depute, in five hundred merks, for oppressing
the people, besides “modifying and discerning the restitution of the
parties’ damage,” and fined one Alexander Martine, in Dunse, £1000
sterling, and deprived him of his place as clerk. The shire of Berwick
being urged either to vote four months’ cess or maintain a troop, agreed
to give two, which was opposed by Home of Wedderburn and some others,
when the Earl of Home struck in “and out-bad a month more.”

Unless some special providence prevent, continued persecution must at
last drive religion from a land. This was accomplished by the
inquisition in Spain, and partially by the horrible St Bartholomew
festival in France; and in Scotland, now it must have been driven to
skulk in holes and corners, where even some worthy men were glad to meet
a few disciples, but for the fearless Christian intrepidity of one pious
youth! James Renwick, who, during all these dark and stormy times, when
almost every other minister had left the service, continued to carry on
the warfare, and when many of the standard-bearers fainted, planted his
in the high places of the field; and his ministrations were wonderfully
owned of God. He attracted crowds and revived with more than primitive
vigour those field-meetings which the tyrants had prematurely imagined
were crushed for ever. This added fuel to their fury. Letters of
intercommuning were issued against him and his followers, and all loyal
subjects were not only forbidden to hold the least intercourse with the
wanderers, but ordered to hunt them out of their most retired deserts,
and to raise the hue and cry wherever they appeared; in consequence of
which, many of the poor persecuted pilgrims were reduced to incredible
distress through hunger and cold, while secret informers, and
hypocritical professors, were bribed to associate with them, to discover
their hiding-places, and give information to the satellites of the
prelates and the underlings of government. At the same time, the country
was traversed incessantly, night and day, by a bloody and merciless
soldiery, composed of the lowest offscourings of society, aided by the
sleugh-hound, in ever active pursuit of those under hiding—several of
whom they shot, after asking them merely a few questions—while the
sea-ports were shut, and flight, the last refuge of the denounced,
denied them.

Every rational ground upon which a government can ask, or has a right to
ask, obedience from a subject, being thus wantonly trampled under foot
by the apostate prelatists of Scotland, nothing was left to a brave and
a hardy race, placed beyond the pale of society, but to resign
themselves and their children to hopeless slavery, or to resist.
Fortunately for succeeding generations, they chose the latter; and,
having done so, they resolved at a general meeting, held October 15, in
order “to evite their ineluctable ruin, to warn intelligencers and
bloody Doegs of the wickedness of their ways, and to threaten them in
case of persisting in malicious shedding of their blood, or instigating
or assisting therein, that they would not be so slack-handed in time
coming to revenge it.” They therefore caused Mr James Renwick, on the
28th October, to draw up a declaration for this purpose, which he did in
“The apologetical declaration and admonitory vindication of the true
Presbyterians of the church of Scotland, especially anent intelligencers
and informers.” In it they testify their constant adherence to their
covenants, and also to their declarations, wherein they had disowned the
authority of Charles Stuart, and declared war against him and his
accomplices. But they utterly detested and abhorred the hellish
principle of killing all who differed in judgment from them, and
proposed not to injure or offend any, but to stand to the defence of the
glorious reformation and of their own lives; yet they declared unto all,
that whosoever stretched forth their hands against them by shedding
their blood, either by authoritative commanding, as the justiciary; or
actual doing, as the military; or searching out and delivering them up
to their enemies, as the gentry; or informing against them wickedly and
willingly, as the viperous and malicious bishops and curates; or raising
the hue and cry, as the common intelligencers—that they should repute
them enemies to God and the covenanted work of reformation, and punish
them according to their power and the degree of the offence.

This declaration was affixed to several market-crosses, and posted upon
a great many church-doors in Nithsdale, Galloway, Ayr, and Lanark
shires, and produced considerable effect upon the baser sort of
informers, who were deterred for some time from pursuing their infamous
vocation, and a few of the most virulent curates in Nithsdale and
Galloway, who withdrew for a time to other quarters.

The state of the country, which had been rapidly declining, was now
wretched beyond conception. What prosperity it had begun to enjoy under
the equitable and liberal dominion of Cromwell, was now blasted in the
bud. The little commerce which he encouraged, and the agricultural
improvements which the English army are said to have introduced, were
interrupted and destroyed by the cultivators being in vast numbers
called to attend the autumnal circuits, or forced to wander as
fugitives, while the soldiers rioted in the spoliation of their crops,
the breakage of their utensils, and the seizure of their horses. A
famine threatened, and the bishops had appointed a fast to mourn for the
sins of the land; but neither they nor the rulers appear to have had any
sympathy for the suffering people.

The persecution continued with unabated or rather increasing violence;
and the following are a few instances illustrative of the style in which
it was conducted:—William Hanna, in the parish of Turnergarth, in
Annandale, had been imprisoned in the year 1667, and fined one hundred
pounds for hearing a Presbyterian minister preach. After his liberation,
the curate of the parish was exceedingly troublesome, citing him before
his session, and threatening him with excommunication. When one of his
children died, the curate would not allow it to be buried in consecrated
ground, because it had not been “regularly” baptized! and when some
friends came to dig a grave in William’s own burying-ground, he came out
of the manse in great fury, and carried off the spades and shovels,
telling them “if they buried the child there by night or day he would
cause trail it out again.” In 1681, he had a horse worth four pounds
sterling carried away for not paying thirteen shillings Scots of cess;
and after a train of constant harassings he was at last denounced and
declared fugitive. He then hoping to find a little repose, went into
England; but no sooner had he crossed the border, than he was seized and
sent back prisoner to Scotland, which Queensberry no sooner heard of
than he ordered him to be laid in irons in Dumfries jail, till he was
sent to Edinburgh (October this year) to be immured in a dark hole under
the Canongate jail, where he had neither air nor light. Here, being
taken ill, he begged only for a little free air; but the soldier who
guarded him, told him to “seek mercy from Heaven, for they had none to
give.” In this dungeon he lay till sent to Dunotter.

His son William, a youth not sixteen years of age, was denounced for not
keeping the church—How many youths in Scotland would be denounced if
that were _now_ a crime?—and forced to flee to England a year after his
father, where he abode some time. Venturing to return home in September
1682, he fell sick of an ague, and, while labouring under this disorder,
was captured by some of the straggling soldiery, and forced to accompany
them on foot for several days, in their ranging through the
neighbourhood. At one time, coming to a martyr’s grave, who had been
shot in the fields, they placed him upon it, and covering his face,
threatened him if he would not promise regularity and ecclesiastical
obedience, they would shoot him. The intrepid youth told them, “God had
sent him to the world and appointed his time to go out of it; but he was
determined to swear nothing he thought sinful.” Instead of respecting
this courage in one so young, they sent the boy to Edinburgh, where he
was first tortured with the thumbkins, then laid him in irons so strait
that his flesh swelled out above them, after having been robbed of all
the money sent him by his friends. This year he was banished to
Barbadoes, and sold for a slave.

Age or sex was no protection. A respectable woman, seventy-three years
old, who dwelt in Carsphairn, had a son cited to appear before one of
these courts, 1680, for hearing Mr Cameron preach. Not, however, making
his appearance, he was intercommuned—his mother’s house was searched for
him, when not finding him, the soldiers spulzied the furniture. This
year the military ruffians came again, and again missing the son, and
finding nothing worth plundering, carried the mother to Dumfries. Here
she was offered the test, and was about to comply, when the monsters in
human shape, seeing her likely to yield, added a clause to the oath,
that she would never speak to or harbour her son. This her maternal
feelings refused; and for this was publicly scourged through Dumfries on
the next market day. Nor was she even after her punishment liberated
till she paid two hundred merks.

Enraged at the Apologetical Declaration, the council were still more
infuriated by what seemed a practical following up of its principles, in
the putting to death of two soldiers, Thomas Kennoway [vide p. 420] and
Duncan Stuart. Kennoway was returning from Edinburgh, whither he had
been for instructions with a list of one hundred and fifty persons he
was required, it was said, upon his own information, to apprehend.
Meeting Stuart at Livingstone, they both went into a public-house, when
Kennoway produced his commission, and boasted over his cups that he
hoped in a short time he would be as good a laird as many in that
country, only he regretted he was turning old, and would not have long
to enjoy his good fortune. They thence adjourned to Swine-Abbey, where
they were both murdered, but by whom was never discovered. The authors
of the declaration were, however, immediately suspected; and the council
resolving upon an indiscriminate revenge, consulted the session as to
whether avowing or refusing to disavow the declaration constituted
treason? That prostituted court replied in the affirmative. But the
forms of law were too dilatory for the sanguinary council. On the same
day they voted “that any person who owns or who will not disown the late
treasonable declaration upon oath, whether they have arms or not, shall
immediately be put to death;” and on the day following, gave a
commission with justiciary powers to Lords Livingstone, Ross,
Torphichen, and a number of other officers of the army, five to be a
quorum, with instructions to assemble the inhabitants of Livingstone and
the five adjacent parishes, and to murder upon the spot, after a mock
trial, all who would not disown the late traitorous declaration or
assassination of the soldiers; and if any be absent, their houses to be
burned and their goods seized; and as to the families of those who were
condemned or executed, every person above the age of twelve years, were
to be made prisoners in order to transportation. They also approved of
an oath (known by the name of the abjuration-oath) to be offered to all
persons whom they or their commissioners should think fit, renouncing
the pretended declaration of war and disowning the villanous authors
thereof.

The extortions were tremendous. In the month of December, six gentlemen
of Renfrew were fined in nearly twenty thousand pounds sterling, and
although some abatement was made, yet had Sir John Maxwell of Pollock to
pay five thousand; the Cunninghams of Craigends, elder and younger, four
thousand; Porterfield of Fulwood, upwards of sixteen hundred; and Mr
James Pollock of Balgray, five hundred pounds sterling; besides various
other gentlemen in the same districts, who were robbed of upwards of
twenty thousand pounds sterling, by the council and the sheriffs. The
pretexts under which such impositions were levied were, the dreadful
negative treason of not attending ordinances in their own parish
churches, and the more positive delinquencies of hearing Presbyterian
ministers preach the gospel, or holding converse with the proscribed—men
of whom the world was not worthy.

The real cause will be found in the grants which the debased and
thievish councillors received of the spoils.[157] To accomplish their
laudable designs, they despatched Lieut.-General Drummond to the south
and west, to pursue and bring the rebels and their abettors to trial,
and pass sentence upon them as he should see cause; and likewise ordered
him to plant garrisons where he should think it expedient, especially in
Lanarkshire; and besides gave commission to William Hamilton, laird of
Orbiston, to levy two hundred Highlandmen of the shire of Dumbarton, not
only “to apprehend the denounced rebels and fugitives in that quarter,
and in case of their refusing, to be taken, to kill, wound, and destroy
them,” but “to employ spies and intelligencers to go in company with the
said rebels and fugitives, as if they were of their party, the better to
discover where they haunt and are reset.”

Footnote 157:

  Sir George Mackenzie got £1500 of Sir William Scott of Harden’s fine;
  the Duke of Gordon and the Marquis of Atholl shared the fine of
  Harden, junior—three thousand five hundred pounds between them! Some
  degree of honour, as the times went, might perhaps then attach to the
  open driving of their neighbours’ cattle, not infrequent on the
  Highland borders, as it was accompanied with danger and required at
  least brute-courage; but these legal thefts, like the pilfering of the
  pick-pocket or the petty-fogging lawyer—his twin-brother in our
  day—excite unmingled disgust, because the thieves know they can do it
  safely.

But the chief instigators were the curates, and among them Peter
Pierson, at Carsphairn, particularly distinguished himself. When
Grierson of Lag held a court at Carsphairn church the preceding autumn,
he sat with him, described the characters of the parishioners who were
summoned, and appeared and gave information respecting the absentees.
Soldiers were in consequence sent after them, who spoiled their houses
and haled many old and infirm people, and women with child, and the
sick, before the commissioner, who handled them but roughly. The whole
parish was thus thrown into confusion, and Pierson being a surly
ill-natured man, and very “blustering” withal, boasting in public
companies that he feared no whigs—he only feared rats and mice—he came
to be very generally disliked throughout the district, and was
particularly obnoxious to the wanderers who were under hiding in that
quarter. A few of them, therefore, determined to force him to sign a
written declaration, that he would give up his trade of informer, and
proceeded to the manse early in December, when they understood he was
alone; for he did not even keep a servant. Two of their number being
sent before, got entrance and delivered their commission, which put
Pierson into the utmost rage, and drawing a broadsword and cocking a
pistol, he got between them and the door. Upon this they called out,
when other two, James Macmichael, gamekeeper to the Laird of Maxwellton,
and Rodger Padzen came and knocked at the door. Pierson opened it, and
was proceeding to attack them, when Macmichael shot him dead on the
spot. The rest at a distance, on hearing the noise, ran up and
cried—“Take no lives;” but it was too late. This deed was instantly and
strongly disavowed by the wanderers, who would never allow any of the
party to join with their societies; but one of the assassins was
afterwards discovered to be a government spy, and Padzen ere long
enlisted in Strachan’s troop of dragoons, which gave credibility to the
report, that the whole had been a government plot, to bring discredit on
the persecuted wanderers, and justify the savage, unconstitutional
measures the managers were pursuing.

Several instances of severity, which occurred during this month, evince
the natural tendency of persecution to harden the hearts and destroy
every good feeling in the breasts of the persecutors. A poor man, who
had been imprisoned in Dumfries jail, for not hearing the curate, having
broken the prison and fled to England, his wife with seven small
children begged their way after him; but finding no shelter there, she
was forced to return. When journeying back, she had stopped to rest at a
small alehouse. While sitting peaceably there, Johnston of Wester-raw,
with some other persecutors happening to come in, required her to take
the test, which she refusing, they haled her to Dumfries prison; and
though she earnestly begged they would allow her to take her
sucking-child—an infant of three months old—along with her, they would
not consent, but threatened unless she complied next day they would
drown her. Still she held fast her integrity, and lay for five weeks in
jail, till she was sent to Edinburgh, whither her poor children, who,
forbid to enter Dumfries, had been supported by charity, followed her,
and where she somehow or other got released.[158]

Footnote 158:

  The poor children who were able to walk came afterwards to Dumfries,
  and the eldest applied to the bailies that they might only have
  liberty to see and speak to their mother. This request was refused,
  and they were turned out of the town. When going past the prison, one
  of them saw her looking out at a window, but was not suffered to speak
  to her. When forced away from the spot, the child blessed the Lord
  that he had once more seen his mother.—Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 441.

John Linning, a dyer in Glasgow, a blind man, chargeable with nothing
but non-conformity, was confined fourteen weeks. When a young daughter
of his was taken sick, she cried out passionately for her father; yet
would not the magistrates either suffer him to visit her on her deathbed
or attend her funeral.

Claverhouse acted up to his instructions, and merited well of his
employers. When ranging through Galloway (December 18) he came
unexpectedly upon some of the wanderers, who were under hiding at
Auchincloy, near the Water of Dee, and surprised six of them together;
four he murdered upon the spot, and two he carried with him to
Kirkcudbright, where, calling an assize, he went through the farce of a
trial, and immediately ordered them to be executed! Nor would he permit
them to write a few lines to their relatives to inform them of their
fate. Other two escaped, and were pursued by some of the soldiers, who
being informed of a house at which they had called in passing, but never
sat down, entered the cottage, and missing their prey, took all its
inmates prisoners and burnt it to the ground.

James Graham, a tailor in Corsmichael, was not so fortunate. Returning
home from his work to his mother’s house, he too was overtaken, when
walking peaceably along the highway, by Claverhouse and his squad. They
knew him not, and had nothing to lay to his charge; but searching him,
and finding a Bible in his pocket, that was crime enough. They took it
and his tools from him, and carried him as a disloyal rebel to
Kirkcudbright; thence he was sent to Dumfries, where he lay some time in
irons, and was afterwards sent to Edinburgh, where, being questioned
upon the declaration of the societies, and refusing to answer, he was
found guilty of the treason he had not confessed—and of which there was
no proof—condemned and hung!

About the latter end of this month, Lady Cavers, who had been in prison,
first in Edinburgh tolbooth and then in Stirling Castle, upwards of two
years, for keeping conventicles and being present at them, was released
through the intervention of her son, Sir William Douglas, upon his
return from his travels, who became bound for her living regularly in
future or leaving the kingdom within three months. Yet was she not let
go till she paid an enormous fine of five hundred pounds sterling—a sum,
says Wodrow, exceeding three years’ rent of her estate—though the said
rents had been sequestered, and her tenants plundered, during the time
of her imprisonment.

About the same time, Dame Margaret Weems, Lady Colville, was imprisoned
in Edinburgh tolbooth, for her ecclesiastical irregularities, especially
for breeding up her son, Lord Colville, in fanaticism, and putting him
out of the way when the council was going to commit his education to
others.

In the parish of Nithsdale, James Crosbie, for refusing the test, had
his ears cropt and was banished as a slave to Jamaica. In the parish of
Auchinleck, William Johnstone being summoned to the court, and not
appearing, a party of soldiers were sent to his house, which they
plundered; and, as he and his wife had fled, they carried away with them
a maid-servant who had charge of the children, leaving two or three
destitute infants to shift for themselves; and because she refused to
take the abjuration, which she told them she did not understand, they
put burning matches between her fingers, and roasted the flesh to the
bone. Her patience and composure under such torment so astonished the
savages, that, after the infliction, they allowed her to return home.
John Hallome, a youth of eighteen, seized while travelling on the road
by Lieutenant Livingstone, and refusing the oath, was carried to
Kirkcudbright, where a jury of soldiers being called, and he of course
found guilty, he was instantly shot.

The year closed with the appointment of ten special commissioners, to
whom two were added in January next year, to hold justiciary courts in
twelve shires. Their instructions were, to hang immediately in the place
all males who owned or did not disown the “horrid principles” of the
declaration, and to drown such women as had been active in disseminating
them; and the same day a proclamation was issued, requiring all
heritors, and in their absence, their factors and chamberlains, to
convocate all the inhabitants on their lands, and to bring them before
any of the privy councillors or commissioners appointed by the council,
and cause them swear the abjuration-oath, and receive a testificate to
serve as a free pass, without which any person who should adventure to
travel should be holden and used as a communer with the said execrable
rebels; and all housekeepers, as well as hostler-houses, inn-keepers, or
other houses of common resort, were forbid to entertain any person who
could not produce such a testificate, under the same penalty; which
testificate the holders, if required, were obliged to swear was no
forged or false document—so suspicious ever are rogues of deceit!—and
finally, whoever should discover any of the said traitors and assassins,
who had been in any way accessary to the said traitorous and damnable
paper, or the publishing or spreading of the same, were to receive a
reward of five hundred merks, Scots, for each of them who should be
found guilty.

[1685.] This year was ushered in by increasing severities, and whoever
would not disclaim the society’s declaration, and take the
abjuration-oath, were subjected to be shot by any trooper who chose to
interrogate them, or to be sent by the justiciary miscreants to slavery,
exile, imprisonment, or death, after being robbed of all they possessed.
Nor did the decrepitude of age, the stenderness of sex, or even boyhood,
afford any plea for mitigation. Captain Douglas, the Marquis of
Queensberry’s brother, stationed in the parish of Twineholme, oppressed
it terribly in the beginning of January, having prevailed with a poor
tenant, after many severities, to swear the oath, they insisted upon his
discovering the retreats of the wanderers. While dragging him along with
them for this purpose, they met another poor man upon the road, who
would neither answer their questions nor swear. Him they immediately
murdered; and when their prisoner entreated the captain to give him a
little more time, and not be so hasty, they beat and bruised the
intercessor so cruelly, that in a few days he died the victim of his
humanity.[159]

Footnote 159:

  How low the clergy could descend in their malice, may be judged from
  the case of a cripple but pious beggar, John Watson, in the parish of
  Cathcart. Mr Robert Fennie, curate of the parish, enraged at the poor
  man, because he would not come to hear him, gave information against
  him as a disloyal and dangerous person, and procured a party of
  soldiers to be sent to seize him. John could neither get from them nor
  go with them; nor would he swear the abjuration-oath. The soldiers,
  ashamed of their errand, were at a loss what to do, when some of his
  neighbours offered to send him to Hawk-head, Lord Ross’s residence, in
  a sledge; and they were proceeding accordingly, when his lordship
  hearing of the cavalcade, and being informed of the circumstances,
  sent his servant with an alms, and ordered them to carry the cripple
  home again.—Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 457.

On the 18th, four of the persecuted were surprised at prayer, in a
sequestered spot in the parish of Monigaff, in Galloway, by Colonel
Douglas, with a party of horse; and as their serious occupation was
sufficient evidence of their “atrocious rebellion,” they were, without
any process, murdered on the spot. On the 26th, three remarkable
characters were forfeited—Sir Patrick Home of Polwart, George Pringle of
Torwoodlee, and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun. They all escaped to the
Continent, and were reserved by Providence for better days. On the 30th,
Dalziel of Kirkmichael and Lieutenant Straiton, with fifty soldiers,
surprised a few of those under hiding asleep in the fields at Mortoun,
in Nithsdale; but they all fled and escaped, except David Macmichael,
who from bodily indisposition, and being wounded, could not follow. Him
they took to Durisdeer, and told him if he would not own the supremacy
in church and state, and take the oath that would be tendered, the law
declared him guilty of death. “That,” said David, “is what of all things
I cannot do; but very cheerfully I submit to the Lord’s disposal as to
my life.” The commander said, “Do not you know your life is in my
hands.”—“No!” replied he, “I know my life is in the Lord’s hand; and if
he see good, he can make you the instrument to take it away.” Being
ordered to prepare for death next day, he answered, “If my life must go
for his cause, I am willing; my God will prepare me!” He next day
suffered at Dalveen with a composure and courage that melted even the
rude soldiers who shot him.

An instance of the ferocious thirst after blood which urged on the
persecutors, occurred February 1st. John Park and James Aldie, two young
men, in Eastwood, were brought before the commissioners for
Renfrewshire, Lord Ross and Hamilton of Orbiston; and when they were
persuaded to consent taking the abjuration, “that shall not save you,”
said Orbiston; “unless you take the test, you shall hang.”—“Then,”
replied the intrepid conscientious youths, “if the abjuration will not
save us, we will take no oath at all.” They were condemned, and
immediately led to execution. While they were yet hanging, Robert King,
miller at Pollockshaws, in the same parish, was brought into court, and
had the test offered to him, which he refused. He was then led to the
window, bid look upon the two suspended before it, and told if he did
not comply, he should immediately be tied up along with them. Still
resisting, he was shut up in a dark corner and assured that he had only
an hour to live. They would, however, out of charity, give him three
warnings by sound of trumpet, but if he sat the third, there was no
mercy. He heard the two blasts, when his courage failing, he took the
test. His wife was a “composed woman, of uncommon sound sense.” One day,
as some of the plunderers were driving away her cattle, having rifled
the house besides, she came to the door, and was looking after them,
when a soldier, rather more merciful than his comrades, turned and said,
“Poor woman, I pity thee.” Janet answered with great gravity, yet
cheerfulness, “Poor! I am not poor; you cannot make me poor! God is my
portion; you cannot make me poor!”

On the 3d of February, the privy council passed an act for classifying
prisoners; but the king dying, these measures underwent considerable
alteration. Charles, it is said, having become dissatisfied with the
rash violence of the Duke of York’s proceedings, meditated the recall of
his favourite bastard Monmouth, the exile of his brother, and the
adoption of more moderate measures. If he entertained any such designs,
they were never to be accomplished. An attack of apoplexy, or poison, as
was suspected at the time, finished all his earthly projects; and, after
a few days’ illness, he died in the fifty-fifth year of his age. But oh!
how different his deathbed from the scaffold scenes we have been
recording. He could only mutter he hoped he would climb to heaven after
all! and eagerly grasped at the delusive phantoms of Romish
superstition. When Huddleston, a papist priest, who had saved his life
at Worcester, was introduced to save his soul, he sighed out
expressively, “He is welcome!” received the last sacraments of that
church, and expired in her communion.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               BOOK XXI.


                               A.D. 1685.


Accession of James VII.—Proceedings of the privy council—Field
   murders—Northern commission—Indemnity—Outrages in the south—Two women
   drowned—John Brown, the Christian carrier—Parliament—Argyle’s
   expedition—Suspected persons sent to Dunotter—Argyle
   defeated—taken—executed—Colonel Rumbold—Nisbet of Hardhill and other
   sufferers.


An express which left London on the 2d of February, arrived in Edinburgh
on the 6th, bringing intelligence of the king having been struck with an
apoplectic fit. On the 10th, early in the morning, the privy council
received the news of his death, and at ten o’clock, the authorities
proceeded in their robes to the cross, where the Chancellor, “who,” says
Fountainhall, “carried his own purse, and weeping,” proclaimed James
Duke of Albany, the only undoubted and lawful king of this realm, under
the name of James VII. But he had not taken, and never did take, the
Scottish coronation oath:—so scrupulous was he with regard to his own
conscience in matters of religion. The proclamation, however, which was
sent down from London, paid less respect to the consciences of his
subjects, who were bound by every sacred and constitutional tie to
resist popery and popish rulers. After declaring that his majesty, their
only righteous sovereign over all persons and in all causes, held his
imperial crown from God alone, thus concluded—“And we—(the lords of his
majesty’s privy council, with the concurrence of several others, lords
spiritual and temporal, barons and burgesses of this realm)—hereby give
our oaths, with uplifted hands, that we shall bear true and faithful
allegiance unto our said sacred Sovereign, James VII., King of Great
Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith!! &c. and to his
lawful heirs and successors; and shall perform all duties, service, and
obedience to him, as becomes his faithful, loyal, and dutiful subjects.
So help us GOD.” Then followed another, announcing that his majesty
continued all the servants of the crown in their offices till he had
leisure to send down new commissioners.

Next day the Court of Session met, when the lords not only took the oath
of allegiance, and swore the test again themselves, but administered
them likewise to all the advocates, clerks, and writers. The king’s
speech to his cabinet—-in which he promised to follow the example of his
brother in his great clemency and tenderness to his people, to preserve
the government in church and state, as by law established; and as he
would never depart from the just rights and prerogatives of the crown,
so he would never invade any man’s property—was extensively circulated;
and the people were desired to believe that the royal papist would
promote the Protestant religion, or at least preserve it.

As a practical illustration of his majesty’s professions, the council
appointed a committee to inquire into the state of the prisoners in the
Canongate jail; and, upon their report, sent two to the justiciary, and
fourteen to the plantations, because they would not violate their
consciences; and for the same obstinacy, the Dumbarton commission court
fined John Napier of Kilmahew in £2000 sterling; John Zuil of Darleith,
£1000; John Campbell of Carrick, £1500, for himself and lady; and Isabel
Buchanan, £100; and ordered them to be imprisoned till they paid their
fines, or gave satisfaction to Queensberry, the lord-treasurer.

At the same time, the work of blood went on in the fields. Captain Bruce
surprised (February 19th) six of the wanderers on Lochenket-muir, in
Galloway, and ordered four of them to be shot without further inquiry.
The other two he carried to Sir Robert Grierson of Lag, at Irongray,
who, upon their refusing the abjuration, instantly hanged them upon an
oak-tree. One of them, a married man, before his execution, was asked if
he had any word to send to his wife, answered, “I leave her and my two
babes on the Lord and on his promise;—a father to the fatherless, and an
husband to the widow is the Lord, in his holy habitation.” Two days
after, five were murdered at Kirkconnel; and early next month, other
three, in the parish of Kirkpatrick, were despatched in the same summary
manner, by the same miserable slave of the prelates.

But the day did not suffice. Like the wild beasts, these monsters
prowled about at night, seeking for their prey. On the 28th, about
eleven o’clock, p.m., Lieutenant Douglas surrounded the house of Dalwin,
and apprehended David Martin. When going away, they perceived a youth,
Edward Kyan, concealing himself between the end of one house and the
sidewall of another. He was immediately dragged forth; and, without
being asked any other question than where he lived, the lieutenant shot
him through the head, first with one pistol and then with another; and
the soldiers pretending to observe some motion, shot him a third time.
Martin underwent a more aggravated death. When the soldiers stripped him
of his coat, they made him kneel beside the mangled body of his friend.
Six were ordered to present their pieces, when another of the party
stept between them and their intended victim, and begged the lieutenant
to spare him till next day, alleging they might get some discoveries, to
which Douglas consenting, his life was spared; but terror had deprived
the poor youth of his reason, who at the same time being struck with
palsy, was carried to bed, where he lingered four years, and died.
Several women compassionating the sufferer, were cruelly beat and
wounded, for displaying the natural sympathy of their sex. After this
exploit, Douglas caught one Edward Mackeen, and because he had a
flint-stone, perhaps for striking fire in his hiding-place, shot him
without other evidence of guilt.

Sir Robert Grierson of Lag, while ranging the country, having surprised
Mr Bell of Whiteside, step-son to Viscount Kenmuir, with whom he himself
was well acquainted, and other four in company, in the parish of
Tongland, Galloway, they surrendered without resistance, upon assurance
of having their lives spared; but the wretch murdered them instantly,
without even allowing them time to pray; and when Mr Bell earnestly
begged only for a quarter of an hour to prepare for death, he refused it
with an oath, asking contemptuously, “What the devil! have you not had
time enough to prepare since Bothwell?”

While the south suffered severely, the north was not exempted. On the 2d
of March, the Earls of Errol and Kintore, and Sir George Monro of
Culrain, who had been sent thither commissioners, gave in their report
to the council, and have thus themselves recorded the oppressions for
which they received the thanks of their worthy employers. On their
arrival in Morayshire, their first act was to cause a gallows be erected
at Elgin, where the court sat, in order to stimulate the loyalty of the
inhabitants. Then they issued orders to the sheriff for summoning all
disorderly persons within the shires of Banff, Ross, and Sutherland, to
appear before them on a certain day, and forbade any person to leave the
district without their license, and all who entered it from the south to
produce their papers for examination. At the same time, they graciously
“allowed” the heritors and the burghs to meet and make address of what
they would offer for the security and the peace of the government; and
they “unanimously and voluntarily!” made offer of three months’ supply,
signed a bond for securing the peace, and did also swear the test and
oath of allegiance, except a few heritors, to whom the lords thought fit
not to tender the same at that time, but who appeared willing to take
it, and some loyal persons absent on excuses—evidently papists, as these
alone among the recusants found any favour.[160]

Footnote 160:

  This appears pretty plain from the manner in which Presbyterians were
  treated and the way their fines were disposed of. The Laird of Grant
  was fined in £42,000, Scots; the Laird of Brody, £24,000; Laird of
  Lethin, £40,000; Francis Brody of Miltoun, £10,000; Francis Brody of
  Windyhills, £3333: 6: 8.; James Brody of Kinlee, £333: 6: 8. These
  were the sums as reported to the council. In a particular narrative
  sent Wodrow by “a worthy gentleman in Murray, upon whom the reader may
  depend for the truth of it,” the sums are rated higher; and it is
  mentioned besides, that the Laird of Brody—this Brody’s grandfather,
  which family seems, either from their wealth or worth, or both, to
  have been peculiarly mulcted—was fined forty-five thousand merks,
  merely for having a conventicle in his house. Of this plunder, £22,000
  were paid to one Colonel Maxwell, a papist; £40,000, Lethin’s fine,
  were gifted to the Scottish papistical college at Douay, which was
  compounded for; £30,000 paid to the Earl of Perth. The remainder
  appears to have been bestowed on the satellites of the party. Gray of
  Crichy, who adjudged the estate, got the proceeds.—Wodrow, vol. ii. p.
  468.

They did very strictly examine all the ministers and elders, with
several persons of honour and loyalty, anent the disorderly persons
therein, libelled all persons delated, banished some, fined others, and
remitted a few to the council. The aged Laird of Fowlis—“a disorderly
person not able to travel”!—they imprisoned at Tain, and the younger, at
Inverness, in case he refused the bond of peace. They cleansed the
country of all “outted” ministers and vagrant preachers; banished four
of them for keeping conventicles and refusing to keep the kirk!!—one
being an heritor, they fined in ten thousand merks besides!—and sent the
five prisoners to Edinburgh. A good many common and very mean people,
who were accused and indicted for church disorders, upon inquiry being
found to have been formerly punished and since regular, were set free
upon finding security for their future good behaviour.

The case of the Laird of Grant, however, deserves especial notice, for
the peculiarly unprincipled rapacity displayed by the ravening crew. The
decreet against him was founded on his wife’s having confessed two years
and a half’s withdrawing from ordinances, his keeping an unlicensed
chaplain, hearing “outted” ministers preach and pray several times,
which he himself had confessed. To this he answered in a petition to the
council, for relief, April 2:—that the parish church was vacant for a
year and a half of the time mentioned; and that during the remainder his
wife was so unwell, that she was given over by her physicians; and that
both before and after the time libelled, she had been a constant hearer.
Nor did he or his wife ever hear an “outted” minister either preach or
pray, except in the House of Lethin, when his mother-in-law, the Lady
Lethin, was on her deathbed, and there were not more than five or six
present, who were members of the family, performing the last sacred
duties to their dying relative; that Alexander Murray, called his
unlicensed chaplain, was never in his service, but was a minister,
instituted by Bishop Murdo Mackenzie into the kirk of Daviot, who had
given up his charge in consequence of bodily infirmity; and he (Grant)
was most desirous, and cheerfully offered, to give all the evidences and
demonstrations of his loyalty and affection to the government that could
be demanded. Yet did his majesty’s high commissioner and the lords of
the privy council, find “that the lords commissioners of the district of
Moray had proceeded conform to their instructions, in fining the Laird
of Grant, and ordained the same to be put to execution, ay and while the
said fine be fully satisfied and paid.”

About this time, rumours of Argyle’s intended invasion having reached
the council, they published what they called the king’s act of indemnity
to all below the rank of heritors and burgesses; but all who were
capable of paying a fine being excepted, it was considered as a just
“demonstration of Our innate clemency, which also has shined in the
whole line of our royal race;” and as it declared “Our resolution to
imitate our said dearest royal brother,” the Presbyterians anticipated
that they would reap little advantage from such a boon. Nor were they
mistaken; or if they had been so, the council would soon have undeceived
them; for on the 10th, they gifted to the Laird of Pitlochie, one
hundred of the prisoners “who were willing to go to the plantations,”
only excluding such as were able to be fined—“all heritors who had above
£100, Scots, rents.”

Nor did the wanton massacre in the fields intermit. Subalterns intrusted
with the power of life and death abused it, as might have been expected;
and the most valuable of the Scottish peasantry were destroyed by a
licentious soldiery, who delighted to indulge in riot with the worst;
but now their outrages deplorably increased, especially those in the
south and west, where a Cornet Douglas and a Lieutenant Murray eminently
distinguished themselves in this cowardly warfare. Claverhouse went
still farther, and endeavoured to ruin the peace of mind, as well as
plunder the estates and torture the bodies, of the sufferers. On the
10th of March, he parcelled out Annandale and Nithsdale into a number of
divisions, of about six or eight miles square. He then assembled the
whole inhabitants, men and women, old and young, belonging to each of
them in one place, and made them swear the oaths of allegiance and
abjuration, and afterwards promise that they would renounce their hopes
of heaven, if ever they repented of what they had done! If any one
refused, he was carried to a little distance from the rest, a napkin
tied over his face, and blank cartridge fired over his head. Having thus
suffered the terror of death, he was once more offered his life upon
taking the test and becoming bound to inform against all disloyal
persons. Few were able to withstand so trying a compulsitor. But perhaps
the most heartless trait in his conduct, was his treatment of the
children. Those above six and under ten years of age were collected
together, and a party of soldiers being drawn out before them, they were
bid pray, for they were going to be shot; and when the terrified
creatures answered—“Sir, we cannot pray,” they were told they would be
let free if they would tell where they saw men with guns in their
houses, and if they got any meat or drink there.

Among the villanous apostates who associated with the wanderers, on
purpose to betray them, was Andrew Watson, who got acquainted with many
of their hiding-places throughout Galloway and Nithsdale, and among
others of a cave near Ingliston, which had been a secret and secure
retreat to many for several years. He gave information of it. In
consequence, Colonel James Douglas and Lieutenant Livingstone surprised
five lurking within it; among whom was a brother of the proprietor of
the estate, John Gibson. He was first taken out; and being permitted to
pray, he went through his devotional exercises with a cheerfulness that
astonished his murderers, and greatly encouraged his sister, who through
the compassion of some of the soldiers, had got admission to him,
telling her that was the joyfulest day he had ever had in the world; and
his mother also being allowed to speak with him, he begged her not to
give way to grief, but to bless the Lord upon his account, who had made
him both willing and ready to suffer for his cause. The rest were then
despatched, without being allowed formally to pray. They lie buried in
Glencairn churchyard. Another wretch of the same description, an
Alexander Ferguson of Kilkerran, informed against John Semple, one of
the excellent of the earth, who led a quiet and peaceable life, nor had
ever carried arms or had been connected with any disturbance, only he
came not to church to hear the Episcopal minister, and did sometimes
relieve the poor. A party at midnight, guided by the informer, came to
his house, and after seeing them shoot the good man, while attempting to
escape at a window, the miscreant went with the murderers to the barns
of Bargeny, and caroused with them till next night.

Towards the end of this month, three women—Margaret Maclauchlin, a widow
about sixty-three years of age; Margaret Wilson, aged eighteen; and
Agnes Wilson, aged thirteen—were brought to trial before the commission
court, composed of the Laird of Lag, Colonel David Graham, sheriff,
Major Windham, Captain Strachan, and Provost Cultrain, indicted for
rebellion, Bothwell Bridge, Airs-moss, and being present at twenty
conventicles. The absurdity of the charges carried their own refutation.
But this was not sufficient, there was no proof produced; but they
refused to swear the abjuration-oath, and were therefore condemned to be
drowned. On the last day of April, the council, when the subject was
laid before them, suspended the execution of the sentence for an
indefinite time, and recommended to the secretaries to procure a
complete remission; but the voice of mercy, though uttered by the
council on behalf of helpless females, could not be listened to. The
only argument that had any effect was money; and the afflicted father
was allowed to purchase, with nearly the whole of his worldly substance,
the life of his youngest daughter. Windram guarded the others to the
place of execution, where an immense number of spectators assembled to
witness the unusual sight. The old woman’s stake was fixed much further
in the sands than her companion’s, and thus was first despatched. When
the water was overflowing her, one of the persecutors asked her what she
thought of that sight? She answered, “What do I see? Christ and his
members wrestling there. Think you we are the sufferers? No! it is
Christ in us; for he sends none a warfare on their own charges.” She
then sung the 25th Psalm from the 7th verse, and read the 8th chapter of
the Romans, and then prayed. While engaged in prayer, the water covered
her. She was then dragged out by Windram’s orders, and when sufficiently
recovered to speak, was asked if she would pray for the king. She
answered, she wished the salvation of all men, and the damnation of
none. “Dear Margaret,” urged a bystander, deeply affected, “Dear
Margaret, say—God save the king; say—God save the king!” She replied
with great composure—“God save him if he will; it is his salvation I
desire!” on which, it is said, Lag bellowed out—“Damned bitch! we do not
want such prayers:—tender the oaths to her;” which she refused, and was
immediately thrust under the water.

Sir James Johnstone of Wester-raw, another hypocritical turncoat who had
sworn the covenants and was now a zealous apostle of Episcopacy, evinced
his ardour in the cause, by ordering the corpse of one of the wanderers
who had died in the house of Widow Hislop, to be dug out of his grave
and exposed. The house they pillaged and pulled down, and turned the
widow and her children to the fields. Her son had been previously
murdered by Wester-raw, to whom Claverhouse had brought him; yet while
procuring his death, the latter seemed to have some compunctious
visitations, for he said to his associates, ere the deed was
perpetrated, “The blood of this poor man be upon you, Wester-raw—I am
free of it.”

[Illustration:

  _The christian Carrier shot by Claverhouse anno 1685._

  _Vide page 529_

  Edin^r. Hugh Paton, Carver & Gilder to the Queen 1842.
]

May-day morning was dewed this year with the blood of John Brown, in
Priestfield, a carrier to his employment, distinguished by the
honourable title, or, as they called it, nicknamed, “The Christian
Carrier.” Having performed Airs-moss between five and six
o’clock—fearless of danger, for he was blameless in life—he had gone out
to cast peats in the field. While thus engaged, he was suddenly
surrounded by Claverhouse with three troops of horse, and brought back
to his humble dwelling. After the usual questions, Claverhouse said to
him—“Go to your prayers, for you shall immediately die.” He did so; but
when praying, the impatient assassin thrice interrupted him, saying—“I
gave you time to pray, and ye’re begun to preach.” John turning calmly
round upon his knees, replied—“Sir, you know neither the nature of
preaching nor praying, that calls this preaching,” and then continued
without confusion. When he had ended, Claverhouse said, “Take good-night
of your wife and children.” She was standing weeping, with an infant in
her arms, and another child of his first wife beside her. He came near
and said, “Now, Marian, the day is come that I told you would come when
I first spoke to you of marrying me.”—“Indeed, John,” she replied, “I
can willingly part with you.”—“Then,” answered he, “that’s all that I
desire. I have no more to do but die. I have been in case to meet with
death for many years.” He kissed his wife and bairns, and wished
purchased and promised blessings to be multiplied upon them. When he had
finished, Claverhouse ordered six of his men to fire, which they did;
and the most part of the bullets striking, splintered his skull, and
scattered his brains upon the ground.[161] “What thinkest thou now of
thy husband, woman?” asked Claverhouse. “I ever thought much good of
him,” she replied; “and as much now as ever.”—“It were but justice to
lay thee beside him,” said the murderer.—“If ye were permitted,”
answered the new made widow, “I doubt not but your cruelty would go that
length:—but how will ye make answer for this morning’s work?”—“To man,”
said he, “I can be answerable; and as for God I will take him in my own
hand,” and mounting his horse, marched off with his troop. The poor
woman, left with the corpse of her husband lying before her, set the
bairns upon the ground, and gathered his brains, and tied up his head,
and straighted his body, and covered him with her plaid, and sat down
and wept; it being a very desert place, where never victual grew, and
far from neighbours. Claverhouse afterwards repeatedly confessed, that
he never could altogether forget Brown’s prayer.

Footnote 161:

  Wodrow says the men refused, and Claverhouse pistolled the good man
  with his own hand.

Amid these bloody scenes, a parliament was convoked, April 28, to
confirm the despotism by which they were enacted, for so subservient had
those assemblies now become, that, like the parliaments of Paris, they
met only to register the royal edicts. The Duke of Queensberry was the
commissioner. In his first message to his first high court, James
frankly told them that his main design was to give them an opportunity
not only “of showing their duty to Us in the same loyal manner as they
had done to Our late dearest brother, but likewise of being patterns to
others in their exemplary compliance with Our desires as they had most
eminently been in times past, to a degree never to be forgotten by Us;
but also of protecting religion against fanatical contrivances,
murderers, and assassins, and to take care that such conspirators might
meet their just deservings.”

The speeches of the Commissioner and Chancellor echoed the letter, and
inveighed against the persecuted Presbyterians, as wretches of such
monstrous principles and practices, as past ages never heard, nor those
to come will hardly believe, whose extirpation his majesty asked, as no
more rebels against their king, than enemies of mankind. The address
followed in a strain of adulation and abject baseness, clearly evincing
the absence of every right-hearted man from the meeting. “We can assure
your majesty,” said they, “that the subjects of this your majesty’s
ancient kingdom, are so desirous to exceed all their predecessors in
extraordinary marks of affection and obedience, that, God be praised!
the only way to be popular with us is to be eminently loyal;” “and
therefore your majesty may expect that we will think your commands
sacred as your person, and that your inclination will prevent our
debates.”

Their first act was “an act ratifying and confirming all the acts and
statutes formerly passed for the security, liberty, and freedom of the
true church of God and the Protestant religion.” Their next, an offer of
their lives and fortunes to the king, accompanied by a declaration of
their abhorrence and detestation, not only of the authors and actors of
all preceding rebellions against the sovereign, but likewise all
principles and positions which are contrary or derogatory to the king’s
sacred, supreme, sovereign, absolute power and authority, which none,
whether persons or collective bodies, can participate of any manner of
way, or upon any pretext, but in dependance on him, and by commission
from him. All persons summoned as witnesses against frequenters of
conventicles, who refused to answer, were to be reputed guilty of the
same crimes as the persons accused—to administer or receive the
covenants, or even to write in their defence, was declared treason.
Field preachers were already subjected to confiscation or death. Hearing
was now made liable to the same punishment, which was also extended to
preachers in house conventicles, expounding the Scriptures, or even
worshipping God in a private house. If there were more than five
persons, in addition to the family, present, it was to be considered as
an house-conventicle; but if any were listening outside, it was to be
reputed a field-conventicle, for which the whole congregation, with the
preacher, were to suffer death. At the same time, the test was extended,
with exemptions only favourable to the papists. Then, as a final winding
up of this scene of iniquity, followed the forfeiture of Sir John
Cochrane, Sir Patrick Home, Lord Melville, Pringle of Torwoodlee, Stuart
of Cultness, Fletcher of Saltoun, and several other gentlemen,
implicated in the late conspiracy with Cessnock and his son, whose
estates, together with those of Argyle, Douchal, and Jarvieswood, were
annexed for ever to the crown; while to preserve their own estates from
a similar fate, the act of entail was passed, professing to secure the
estates of the nobles, but in fact enabling them to evade the just
claims of their creditors.

Meanwhile the Scottish exiles, reduced to despair, resolved to attempt
the liberation of their native land, with which they had never ceased to
hold a secret correspondence; and after many meetings in Holland, an
expedition set sail on the 2d of May, of which Argyle was elected
General, and the expense supplied by Mrs Smith, a rich sugar baker’s
widow, at Amsterdam; but accounts of his preparations had been sent to
the government, and measures were taken to frustrate his object before
his arrival, which were increased on the council’s receiving notice from
the Bishop of Orkney, that the Earl had touched there on his passage.
The strengths in Argyleshire were ordered to be dismantled, and the sons
of the chiefs to be sent as hostages to Edinburgh; and all the
non-conformist prisoners, about two hundred and fifty, were, on May
18th, hurried off under night from the jails of Edinburgh and Canongate,
and sent across the Firth in open boats to Burntisland, and confined for
two days and nights in two small rooms, where they had no space almost
to lie down, and no place to retire to. Nor had they any provisions, and
only a few were allowed to purchase a little bread and water.

When it was imagined hunger and fatigue would have worn out their powers
of endurance, liberty was offered them on condition of swearing the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy; but many who could have taken the
first refused the last as blasphemous. To acknowledge a papist as the
head of Christ’s church, was what they durst not do. About forty
complied and were released, the rest were driven like cattle to Dunotter
Castle—an old, ruinous building, in the county of Kincardine, situated
on an almost insulated perpendicular rock, 150 feet above the level of
the sea, where they were received by George Keith of Whiteridge,
sheriff-depute of Mearns, and thrust into a dark vault, with only one
small window towards the sea, and full of mire ancle deep. They had no
provision but what they were forced to purchase, at a dear rate and of
the worst quality, from the governor’s brother. Even their water was
brought in small quantities, though their keepers would sometimes pour
whole barrels into the cavern to increase their discomfort. Means of
cleanliness they had none, and the smell of the place became so noxious,
for it was a warm summer, that several of them died; and it was
considered little less than miraculous that any survived.

Within a few days, the governor removed about forty of the men to
another low small cell, scarcely less disagreeable, as the only light or
air they had was through a small crevice in the wall, near which they
used to lie down by turns, that they might breathe a little fresh air.
Shortly after, the governor’s lady having visited these miserable
abodes, prevailed upon her husband to separate the prisoners; and the
females were removed from the large vault into two more comfortable
smaller apartments. The men, however, continued to suffer the utmost
misery in the large vault, and a contagious disorder having broken out
among them, many died. The survivors, reduced to desperation,
endeavoured to escape, and having got out one night by the window, were
creeping along the hazardous precipice, when an alarm was given by some
women—most probably the soldiers’ wives—who were washing near the rock.
Immediately the guards were called, the gates shut, and the hue and cry
raised, and fifteen were intercepted; yet twenty-five had got off before
the alarm was given. Those who were retaken, were most inhumanly
tortured. They were laid upon their backs upon a form, their hands bound
down to the foot of the form, and a burning match put between every
finger—“six soldiers attending by turns to blow the matches,” and keep
them in flame—and this was continued for three hours without
intermission by the governor’s orders! Several died under this torture,
and those who survived were disabled for life. About July, in
consequence of representations to the council, the prisoners were
brought south, and the Earls Marishal, Errol, Kintore, Panmure, and the
Lord President of the Court of Session, empowered to call them before
them, and banish such as would not take the oaths of allegiance and
abjuration, to his majesty’s plantations—the men having their ears cut
off, the women their cheeks branded—with certification that such as
should return to the kingdom should incur the pain of death.

Unfortunately for the success of Argyle’s expedition, while the Scottish
government were fully apprised of its approach, adverse winds and
untoward circumstances retarded its progress; so that when the Earl
arrived, he found he had been anticipated by the measures of the
council; and where he expected willing vassals, he met only heartless or
deceitful adherents; but the worst symptom was the insubordination of
his officers, especially Sir Patrick Home and Sir John Cochrane, who
disputed when they ought to have obeyed, and argued when they should
have acted. In such circumstances, after landing, he lost instead of
gathering strength as he advanced, while the ships and military stores
he left behind in the Castle of Ellengreg, fell, together with it, into
the hands of some English frigates, which arrived on the coast. He
published two proclamations, but they produced no effect, and unhappily
were even counteracted from quarters whence, if he had not received
decided support, it was not too much to have expected a friendly
neutrality.

The wanderers, although they were favourable to Argyle, unfortunately
could not embark with him, upon account of the too promiscuous
admittance of persons to trust in that party, and because they could not
espouse his declaration as the state of their quarrel. But they
published another declaration at Sanquhar, May 28, 1685, against the
usurpation of a bloody papist advancing himself to the throne, as the
height of confederacy with an idolater, forbidden by the law of God and
contrary to the law of the land.

Thwarted at every step, and prevented from following his own brave
resolution, and giving the enemy battle, Argyle was at last, either by
treachery or mistake, landed in a morass, where his baggage and horse
were swamped, and universal confusion ensuing, his little band, which
had with difficulty been collected and kept together, despersed during
the night. Argyle himself, forced to withdraw, was retiring in the
disguise of a peasant, when he was attacked in crossing the Cart at
Inchannon (June 17th) by two of the militia, with whom he grappled, and
would have overcome, had not five more arrived and wounded and secured
him. When falling, he had exclaimed—“Alas! unfortunate Argyle,” which
first discovered him to his captors, who appeared deeply concerned at
his seizure, but durst not let him go. He was immediately carried to
Edinburgh, where the marked ignominy with which he was treated, bore
strong testimony to the high estimation in which the illustrious
prisoner was held. By an especial order of the council, dated June 20th,
he was conducted through the Water-gate, and carried up the main streets
to the Castle, with his hands bound and his head bare, preceded by the
hangman, and surrounded by Captain Graham’s guards; and there he was
safely lodged in irons. In the privy council, it was debated whether he
should be tried for his present rebellion or executed upon his former
sentence. The most iniquitous proposition of the two prevailed, in which
the king of course concurred, only he suggested the propriety of the
Earl’s being tortured before he was executed, in order to try if any
information could be elicited respecting those who had assisted or who
were acquainted with the expedition. His openness upon his examination
prevented his persecutors incurring the infamy which the royal mandate
implied, and he was ordered to prepare for execution next day after the
receipt of the royal letter.

The interval he spent with a cheerful tranquillity, which soothed his
afflicted relatives and amazed his political antagonists. Being
accustomed to sleep a little after dinner, on his last solemn day he
retired to his closet, and laid himself down on bed, and for about a
quarter of an hour slept as sweetly as ever he did. At this moment an
officer of state came to inquire for him. Being informed that he was
asleep and desired not to be disturbed, the officer, who doubted the
story, insisted upon being admitted to his lordship. He was admitted
accordingly, but instantly rushed from the apartment to a friend’s house
on the Castle Hill, and threw himself on a bed in great agony of mind.
When asked by the lady of the house if he was unwell or would take a
glass of sack—“No! no!” replied he; “I have been at Argyle, and saw him
sleeping as pleasantly as ever a man did, within an hour of eternity;
but as for me——.”

The Earl left the Castle, accompanied by a few friends; and while
waiting in the laigh council-house, wrote a farewell letter to his
Countess. “Dear Heart,—As God is of himself unchangeable, so he hath
been always good and gracious to me, and no place alters it; only I
acknowledge I am sometimes less capable of a due sense of it. But now,
above all my life, I thank God I am sensible of his presence with me,
with great assurance of his favour through Jesus Christ, and I doubt not
will continue till I be in glory. Forgive me all my faults; and now
comfort thyself in Him in whom only true comfort is to be found. The
Lord be with thee, bless thee, and comfort thee. My dearest—adieu.” He
also wrote the following to his daughter-in-law, Lady Sophia
Lindsay:—“My dear Lady Sophia,—What shall I say in this great day of the
Lord, wherein, in the midst of a cloud, I find a fair sunshine? I can
wish no more for you, but that the Lord may comfort you and shine upon
you, as he doth upon me, and give you the same sense of his love in
staying in the world, as I have in going out of it. Adieu. ARGYLE.—P.S.
My blessing to dear Earl Balcarras. The Lord touch his heart and incline
him to his fear.”

He was accompanied to the scaffold by Mr Annand, dean of Edinburgh,
appointed by the council, and Mr Laurence Charteris, named by himself.
Before they left the council-house, the Earl pleasantly asked Mr Annand,
“If he thought the Pope was that antichrist the Scripture speaks of?” He
answered, “Yes, my lord, the Protestant churches hold so.”—“But what
think you?” asked the Earl.—“I think so too,” replied Mr Annand.—“Then,”
said the Earl, “be sure you instruct the people so.” When they had
mounted the scaffold, Mr Charteris exhorted him if there were any sin
unrepented of to lay it open before God, who is ready to forgive all
penitent sinners. The Earl regretted, as the chief, that he had set too
little time apart to wrestle with God in private, in behalf of his work
and interest, and for his own poor soul; also that he did not worship
God in his family so much as he ought to have done; likewise his public
failings. Here Mr Annand interrupted him; but without taking notice of
the interruption, he lamented that he did not improve the three years’
respite the Lord had given him, so much for his glory and the
advancement of his work, as he might have done in his station; and he
looked on his death as a just punishment from God, though undeserved at
the hands of men, and added, “I would have thought as little to have
appeared in this place some time of day after this manner, as many of
you who are now satiating your eyes in beholding me; but the Lord in his
divine wisdom hath ordered it otherwise, and I am so far from repining
and carping at his dispensations towards me, that I bless his name and
desire to give him endless praise and thanks for the same.” The
clergymen then prayed, after which the Earl fell down on his knees, and
having his face covered and his hands clasped together, prayed in
silence for a considerable time. Upon rising, he delivered a speech he
had previously composed, expressive of his cheerful submission to the
divine will, and his willingness to forgive all men, even his enemies.
“Afflictions,” he said, “are not only foretold, but promised to
Christians. We are neither to despise nor faint under them; nor are we
by fraudulent pusillanimous compliance in wicked courses to bring sin
upon ourselves. Faint hearts are ordinarily false hearts, choosing sin
rather than suffering—a short life with eternal death, before temporal
death and a crown of glory.” “I know many like Hazael go to excesses
they never thought they were capable of.” He then prayed God to send
peace and truth to these three kingdoms; to continue and increase the
glorious light of the gospel, and restrain a spirit of profaneness,
atheism, oppression, popery, and persecution; and was about to conclude,
when it was suggested to him that he had said nothing about the royal
family; he added, “this remembers me that before the justices, at my
trial about the test, I said that at my death I would pray that there
might never want one of the royal family to be a defender of the true,
ancient, apostolic, Catholic, and Protestant faith, which I now do; and
may God enlighten and forgive all of them that are either hid in error
or have shrunk from the profession of the truth; and in all events, I
pray God may provide for the security of his church, and that antichrist
nor the gates of hell may never prevail against it.”

When he had ended, he turned to the south side of the scaffold, and
said, “Gentlemen, I pray you do not misconstruct my behaviour this day.
I freely forgive all men their wrongs and injuries done against me, as I
desire to be forgiven of God.” Mr Annand repeated these words louder to
the people. The Earl then went to the north side of the scaffold, and
had the same or like expressions. Mr Annand again repeated them, adding,
“This nobleman dies a Protestant;” on which Argyle stepped forward
again, and said, “I die not only a Protestant, but with a heart hatred
of popery, prelacy, and all superstition whatsomever.” Returning to the
middle of the scaffold, he embraced and took leave of his friends,
delivering to Lord Maitland some tokens to be given to his lady and
children; then he stript himself of his upper garments, which he also
gave to his friends, and kneeling, embraced the instrument of death,
saying, “It was the sweetest maiden he ever kissed, it being a mean to
finish his sin and misery, and his inlet to glory, for which he longed.”
Having prayed a little in silence, he said aloud three times—“Lord Jesus
receive me into thy glory;” and lifting up his hand, the sign agreed
upon, the executioner let the knife of the maiden fall, and his head was
severed from his body.

The misfortunes and death of this excellent nobleman did not destroy the
cause for which he suffered. The universal sympathy they excited, from
the diffusion of his speech, which was widely circulated, aided by
concurring circumstances, accelerated rather than retarded the event of
his country’s liberation. His vassals, however, were cruelly treated by
Atholl and Breadalbane. Upwards of twenty of the name of Campbell were
put to death, and more than fifty sent to the plantations. Their houses
were pulled down, their mill-stones broken, the woods burned, and the
whole shire of Argyle cruelly ravaged for thirty miles round Inverary;
his estate was given to strangers, his children scattered, his creditors
defrauded, and his brother, Lord Neil Campbell, forced to go as an exile
to America.

Besides Argyle, very few of any note suffered upon this occasion. These
were—Colonel Rumbold, known by the name of the maltster, who underwent a
form of a trial; but being severely wounded, lest he should have
disappointed their revenge, the council had prescribed the mode of his
death the day before,[162] according to which he was taken from the bar
to the scaffold, supported by two officers, and preceded by the hangman
with his hat on. When he attempted to explain his principles, the drums
beat, at which he shook his head and said, “Will they not suffer a dying
man to speak his last words to the people?” And even when praying for
the extirpation of popery, prelacy, and other superstitions, the drums
again drowned his voice. He then silently breathed out his soul to God,
and giving the signal, the executioner turned him off. Ere yet dead, his
heart was torn from his bosom, and exhibited, while still palpitating on
the point of a bayonet, to the people by the hangman, who bawled
out—“Here is the heart of a bloody murderer and traitor,” and threw it
disdainfully into the fire. His quarters were distributed through the
country and his head fixed on an high pole at the West Port of
Edinburgh.

Footnote 162:

  When before the council, he expressed his joy in suffering for such a
  cause, on which one of the gang called him “a confounded villain.” He
  sedately replied, “I am at peace with God through Jesus Christ; to men
  I have done no wrong—what, then, can confound me?”

Some time after, Mr Thomas Archer, a popular preacher, now in the last
stage of a decay. Having been wounded severely, much interest was made
to obtain his liberation, as he was evidently dying; even the Duke of
Queensberry’s own son entreated his father for his life, without effect.
Nothing would satisfy the rulers but his blood. A plan had been laid for
his escape out of prison, but he would not consent, saying, that since
he could not serve his Master in any other manner, he thought it his
duty not to decline a testimony for him and for his truth by a public
death on the scaffold. He was several times interrupted when addressing
the spectators, but enough was heard to evince that he died steady to
his principles, rejoicing in hope, and anticipating deliverance for the
church, notwithstanding the then threatened visitation of popery. “I
will bring them to Babylon, and there will I deliver them,” would, he
believed, be accomplished in their case. He sung the latter part of the
73d Psalm, and prayed. Before being turned off, he said—“Fear of death
does not fright or trouble me; I bless the Lord for my lot,” and
submitted with cheerfulness to the hands of the executioner. He was
about thirty-two years of age, of uncommon abilities, and very learned.

Ayloffe was sent to London and examined by James in person. He was
related to the royal family, and the king pressed him to make
discoveries. “You know,” said the tyrant, “it is in my power to save
you.”—“Yes,” replied Ayloffe, “but it is not in your nature.” He was
hanged accordingly.

Sir W. Denholm of Westshiels, Mr James Stuart, and Mr Gilbert Elliot,
were condemned in absence, and ordered to be executed when apprehended;
the Earl of Loudon, Dalrymple of Stair, Fletcher of Saltoun, with a
number of other gentlemen of rank and fortune, were forfeited, whose
only crimes were their estates, and the charges their having honestly
fulfilled their duties as public men.

Of the prisoners at Leith, many of whom had been brought back from
Dunotter, about seventy-two were ordered for banishment; but in the
greatness of their humane condescension, the council came to Leith and
sat in the tolbooth to re-examine them, when such as made some moderate
compliances, a few who were sickly, and others who had friends, got
free; for government were now beginning to relax in their severities, in
contemplation of extending the same or greater freedom to the Roman
Catholics; but a number who still unyieldingly adhered to their tenets,
were given as a present to the Laird of Pitlochie, and shipped by him
for his plantations in New Jersey.[163] They, however, had scarcely left
land, when a malignant fever broke out, especially among those who had
been confined in Dunotter. Most of the crew also died, as did Pitlochie
and his lady; yet, notwithstanding, the captain and some other hardened
wretches would not suffer the persecuted exiles to worship God in peace,
but when they heard them engaged in their devotions, threw down great
planks of wood in order to annoy them. After their arrival, Pitlochie’s
son-in-law claimed the prisoners as his property, but the governor
remitted the case to a jury, who immediately freed them. The greater
part retired to New England, where they were kindly received; and many
of them settled in the colony. Others returned to their native country
at the Revolution.

Footnote 163:

  The following incident was much spoken of at the time. Mr W. Hanna,
  one of these prisoners, on being threatened with banishment, told the
  council he was now too old to work or go to war. General Dalziel
  bitterly replied, “But you are not too old to hang.” On that same day,
  the General, in the act of drinking a glass of wine, was suffocated,
  and went to his own place.

About the latter end of this year, John Nisbet of Hardhill, with three
of his fellow-sufferers, was surprised by a relation of his own,
Lieutenant Nisbet, in a house in the parish of Fenwick. They defended
themselves bravely, till the three were killed and he was wounded and
taken. When tauntingly questioned what he thought of himself now? “I
think,” he replied, “as much of Christ and his cause as ever; but I
judge myself at a loss, being in time, and my dear brethren, whom you
have murdered, being in eternity.” He was sent to Edinburgh, and, on his
examination before the council, behaved with much Christian fortitude.
Being asked if he would own the king’s authority? He said he would not.
“Why?” said they; “do you not own the Scriptures and Confession of
Faith?”—“I own both,” he replied, “with all my heart, but the king is a
Roman Catholic; and I have not only been educated a Presbyterian, but
solemnly sworn against owning popery.”

The council ordered him to be prosecuted before the justiciary. His
confession was adduced against him, and he was sent to follow those who
had not counted their lives dear unto them, that they might finish their
course with joy, and set to their seals to the truth. “Now,” said he, in
his last testimony, “we see open doors, that are made wide, to bring in
popery and set up idolatry in the Lord’s covenanted land. Wherefore, it
is the indispensable duty of all who have any love to God, or to his
Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to witness faithfully, constantly, and
conscientiously, against all that the enemies have done, or are doing,
to the overthrow of the glorious work of reformation. But it will not be
long to the fourth watch, and then will He come in garments died in
blood, to raise up saviours upon Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau;
and then the house of Jacob and Joseph shall be for fire, and the
malignants, papists, and prelates shall be for stubble, the flame
whereof shall be great. But my generation work being done with my time,
I go to him who loved me, and washed me from all my sins in his own
blood.” And thus, after much, long, and painful suffering (upwards of
twenty years), did this faithful servant enter into the joy of his Lord.
Edward Marshall of Kaemuir, formerly forfeited, was executed along with
him.

From this period we shall meet only with one other public judicial
murder, expressly on account of religion; yet many died in prison and
exile who may be numbered among the martyrs, as having suffered unto
death. Many others were scourged, had their ears cropt, and were sent to
the plantations. The indecent cruelty of their conduct towards pious
women was unworthy of manhood. Thus a number of old women were whipped
at Glasgow; at Dumfries two women were scourged, and the youngest
afterwards sent to New Jersey with Pitlochie, merely because they would
swear no oaths; another poor woman was tied to a man, and both scourged
together through the town, because they would not tell what wanderers
they had harboured, though to have acknowledged the fact would have been
exposing themselves to the gallows. But the banishments, plunderings,
and varied modes of harassing still continued, or were intermitted only
by arbitrary and insidious indulgences, intended to prepare the way for
the introduction of popery.

Without natural affection is one of the peculiar marks of a reprobate,
but the prelatical rulers of Scotland deemed its possession a peculiar
object of punishment. By order of the sheriff of Wigton, a party of his
underlings after destroying the furniture of a Sarah Stuart, the wife of
William Kennedy, in the parish of Cunningham, marched the poor woman,
with a child in her arms, not quite nine months old, to Wigton, a
distance of several miles, forcing her to leave other three behind
without any one to look after them, though the oldest was not nine years
of age. There she was kept eleven weeks prisoner, though a conformist
herself, because she would not engage never to converse with her
husband, nor consent to discover him! And another, Jean Dalziel, a
tenant of Queensberry’s, was banished for the same reason.

Thus closed the year sixteen hundred and eighty-five—a year long
remembered by the sufferers, and which was remarkable also for that
terrible revocation of the edict of Nantz by Louis XIV., which made
Europe resound with tales of horror, equalled only by the retributive
sufferings the descendants of the persecutors endured in the days of
Robespierre, from a revolution whose origin may perhaps be traced back
to the ambition, mis-government, and cruelty of Voltaire’s Louis le
Grand.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




                               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 the ostentatious 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.

Footnote 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 the country; 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]

Footnote 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’s side 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 Presbyterian preacher 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]

Footnote 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 affairs of 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 exercise of 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, WE cannot 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
best and 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 the same 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]

Footnote 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 determined to
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 doubt WE had 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 in OUR
designs to our parliament, but to give our loyal subjects a new
opportunity of showing their duty to US, 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
the remnant 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.

Footnote 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.—_vide_ Memoirs 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, and must 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
he expressed 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, “by OUR
sovereign 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.

Footnote 169:

  Perhaps it does not belong exactly to _religious_ persecution, 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 lords
  _renitente 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 should be 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 nothing can 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 year ONE 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 Queen Mary:—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.

Footnote 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 despised truths. 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 but _bona fide_
security 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 to pave 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 the crimes 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.

Footnote 171:

  Several of the young men who intended the ministry, went over to
  Holland and studied medicine, and took degrees, and thus got their
  education without taking tests; but they had contracted a liberality
  (or, as it was termed, a looseness) of sentiment with regard to the
  rigid principles held by the wanderers, which occasioned a separation
  between them when they returned. The wanderers were naturally more
  wedded to the principles for which they had suffered so much, and
  which they had seen so many seal with their blood. The others had met
  with a variety of sects in Holland living in harmony, and were not
  over zealous for the uniform profession even of their beloved
  Presbytery:—on this they split at the Revolution.

On the 17th, Sir George Mackenzie was restored to his lord-advocateship;
but no criminal informations were lodged during the short time that
intervened between his appointment “and the glorious Revolution,” though
several petty vexatious harassments showed that the tiger was only
asleep, not dead. The Rev. Thomas Cobham, a native of Dundee, was, on
the 23d May, imprisoned for having performed family-worship at his
cousin Mr Smith’s, in that town, and both were committed to jail for the
offence. About the same time, the council issued a proclamation,
forbidding booksellers to disseminate any treatises tending to alienate
the people from his majesty, or vend any translations of “Buchanan de
Jure Regni,” “Lex Rex,” “Jus Populi,” “Naphtali,” “The Apologetical
Relation,” “The Hind let Loose,” and the treasonable proclamations
published at Sanquhar, or those issued by the late Monmouth or Argyle.
At Edinburgh, one of the councillors went into the shop of Mr Glen, a
firm Presbyterian, to search for the proscribed books, but having found
none, when retiring, asked the bookseller if he had any books against
the king’s religion. Mr Glen said he had a great many. The councillor
asked to see them, and was immediately carried to where a goodly stock
of Bibles were lying. “O! these are Bibles!” quoth the councillor.
“True,” replied the other, “and they are all against popery from the
beginning to the end.” For this the bookseller was summoned before the
council, where he appeared the same afternoon, and was, we are told,
brought to some trouble.

In nothing, however, did the ruling powers relax with regard to the
wanderers. Having learned that a Mr David Houston had been proposed by
the societies to succeed Mr Renwick in his perilous labours in the
fields, he was apprehended in Ireland and brought prisoner to Scotland.
Being ordered to Edinburgh, a general meeting which had convened at
Lother’s, heard of his seizure, and fearing he would be murdered as
Renwick had been, determined “to relieve him from these bloody
murderers;” and immediately a few friends, armed, attacked the party
escorting him at Carbelpath, and, after a sharp skirmish, in which some
soldiers were killed, succeeded in rescuing him; but he having his feet
bound under the horse’s belly, was knocked over in the scuffle, and his
head trailed some time on the ground before he could be unloosed, by
which he lost his teeth, and was otherwise so much wounded about the
head, that his elocution was rendered very indistinct. So he returned to
Ireland, and there died. The last whose blood was shed, was George Wood,
a youth about sixteen years of age, who was wantonly shot, without any
questions being asked, by one John Reid, a trooper, whose only excuse
when challenged for it, was—“He knew him to be a Whig, and these ought
to be shot wherever they were found!”

Shortly after, the news of William Prince of Orange’s landing in England
reached Scotland; and to the honour of the persecuted, be it recorded,
the Revolution was accomplished without bloodshed, or any one act of
retaliation being inflicted by them, notwithstanding all they had
suffered.




                                THE END.




                      ----------------------------

             EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY HUGH PATON, ADAM SQUARE.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the
      public domain.
    ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
    ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
    ○ Unbalanced quote marks were fixed when the location of missing
      close quote was clear.
    ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
      when a predominant form was found in this book.
    ○ Text that:
      was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
    ○ The use of a caret (^) before a letter, or letters, shows that the
      following letter or letters was intended to be a superscript, as
      in S^t Bartholomew or 10^{th} Century.