CotomWa (Bnit>ers(ftp 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 
 
 or 
 
 SCOTLAND. 
 
ABERDEEN : PUINTED BY AKTHTIR KING AND CO., 
 FOR 
 
 EDMONSTON AND DOUGLAS, EDINBURGH. 
 
 LONDON . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE . MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 GLASGOW . JAMES MACLEIIOSE. 
 ABERDEEN . A. BROWN AND CO., AND 
 GEORGE DAVIDSON. 
 
AN 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL 
 HISTORY OF SCOTLAND 
 
 FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY TO 
 THE PRESENT TIME. 
 
 BY GEORGE GRUB, A.M. 
 
 IN FOUR VOLUMES. 
 
 VOL. III. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 EDMONSTON AND DOUGLAS. 
 
 1 8G1. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER LI. 
 
 From the Proclamation ofldth February, to the dispute between the Doctors 
 of Aberdeen arid the Covenanters in July and August, 1638. 
 
 The National Covenant — Subscription of the Covenant — Journey 
 of Livingstone to Loudon — Letter from David Mitchell to the 
 Bishop of Raphoe — Communication made to the King — The 
 Marquis of Hamilton appointed High Commissioner — The 
 Clergy of Aberdeen write against the Covenant — George, 
 Marquis of Huntly — His rejection of the proposals of the 
 Covenanters — Arrival of Hamilton in Scotland — His residence 
 at Holyrood — Proclamation of the fourth of July — The Cove- 
 nant imposed on the Northern Counties — The Town of Aber- 
 deen refuses to take the Covenant — Commissioners sent by 
 the Covenanters to Aberdeen — Demands of the Aberdeen 
 Doctors — Dispute between the Doctors and the Covenanters, 1 
 
 CHAPTER LIL 
 
 From the dispute between the Doctors of Aberdeen and the Covenanters in 
 July and August, to the commencement of the Glasgow Assembly on 
 the 2\st of November, 1638. 
 
 Dr. Balcanquhal, Dean of Rochester — Increased demands of the 
 Covenanters — The Service Book, Canons, and High Commis- 
 sion recalled — The Negative Confession authorized by the 
 King — The Bisliops abandon their dioceses — Archbishop 
 Spottiswood resigns the Chancellorship— Imposture of Mar- 
 garet Mitchelson — Subscription of the Negative Confession — 
 Explanations by the clergy of Aberdeen— Preparations for the 
 General Assembly at Glasgow — Instructions sent by the 
 
 297858 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Contents. 
 
 Tables for tlie election of Commissioners — Complaint against 
 the Bishops — Character and object of the charges, . . 17 
 
 CHAPTER LIU. 
 
 From the commencement of the Glasgow Assembly on the 21st of November, 
 to its conclusion on the 20th of December, 1638. 
 
 Meeting of the Glasgow Assembly — Members of the Assembly — 
 Alexander Henderson is chosen Moderator — The Bishops' 
 Declinature — Discussion as to lay elders — The Commissioner 
 dissolves the Assembly — The members continue to sit — The 
 Earl of Argyll joins the Covenanters — The six previous As- 
 semblies declared null — The Book of Common Prayer, Book 
 of Canons, and Court of High Commission condemned — The 
 Archbishops of St. Andrews and Glasgow, and the Bishops of 
 Edinburgh, Galloway, Ross, Brechin, Aberdeen, and Dunblane, 
 deposed and excommunicated — The Bishops of Murray, Ork- 
 ney, Argyll, and the Isles, deposed — The Bishops of Dunkeld 
 and Caithness deposed from their episcopal, and suspended 
 from their ministerial functions — Nature of the charges against 
 the Bishops — David Mitchell, Archdeacon Gladstones, Dr. Ro- 
 bert Hamilton, AVilliam Annand, and Archdeacon Mackenzie, 
 deposed — Conclusion of the Assembly, . . . . .32 
 
 CHAPTER LIV. 
 
 From the conclusion of the Glasgow Assembly in December, 1638, to the 
 death of Archbishop Spottiswood in November, 1639. 
 
 Hamilton's letter to the King — The decrees of the Glasgow As- 
 sembly rejected at Aberdeen — Correspondence between the 
 Swiss pastors and Archbishop Laud — Preparations for War — 
 The Covenanters take possession of Aberdeen — Dean Hanna, 
 Dr. Wishart, Dr. Panter, John Corbet, and others of the clergy, 
 deposed — The army of the Covenanters — Accommodation be- 
 tween the King and the Covenanters — The meeting of a 
 General Assembly and Parliament agreed to — Protestation 
 of the Bishops — Meeting of the Assembly at Edinburgh — 
 Its acts — Submission of the Bishops of Orkney and Dunkeld — 
 Meeting of Parliament — Death of Dr. Ross and Dr. Baron — 
 Death of Bishop Wedderburn — Illness of Archbishop Spottis- 
 wood — His interview with the Marquis oi Hamilton — His 
 death and character, ........ 50 
 
Contents.] OF SCOTLAND. VU 
 
 CHAPTER LV. 
 
 From the death of Archhishop Spottisivood in November , 1G39, to the 
 Deposition of the Aberdeen Doctors in August, 1640. 
 
 Renewed dissensions between the King and the Covenanters — 
 Meeting of the Convention of Estates— The General Assembly 
 meets at Aberdeen— Disputes in regard to Private Meetings 
 for religious worship — Arrangement on the subject — The 
 clergy of Aberdeen summoned before the Assembly — Dr. 
 Scroggie deposed — Charges against Dr. Sibbald— He is de- 
 posed — Dr. Leslie deposed — Charges against Dr. Forbes — 
 His case is remitted to the Presbytery of Edinburgh— Arch- 
 deacon Logie and John Gregory deposed — Conclusion of the 
 Assembly — Dr. Forbes deposed by the Presbytery of Edin- 
 burgh, ........••• 69 
 
 CHAPTER LVL 
 
 From the Deposition of the Aberdeen Doctors in Augztst, 1G40, to the 
 establishment of Presbyterianism in August, 1641. 
 
 Negotiations between the King and the Covenanters — Terms of 
 accommodation — Oppressive proceedings of the Covenanters — 
 Meeting of the General Assembly — Renewed discussion as to 
 Private Meetings for religious worship — Question as to Church 
 government — The King visits Scotland — He attends the Pres- 
 byterian worship — The accommodation ratified in Parliament 
 — The Presbyterian form of government established — Honours 
 bestowed on the Covenanting leaders— Account of the de- 
 prived Bishops— Character of Bishop Maxwell — He is ap- 
 pointed to the see of Killala, and afterwards to the arch- 
 bishopric of Tuam — His death, . . . . . .81 
 
 CHAPTER LVII. 
 
 From the establishment of Presbyterianism in August, 1641, to ike appro- 
 bation of the Directory for Public Worship^ and the Form of Church 
 Government, in February, 1645. 
 
 The Civil War in England — General Assembly of 1642— General 
 Assembly of 1643 — English Commissioners at the Assembly — 
 The Solemn League and Covenant — The Westminster As- 
 sembly of Divines — Scottish Commissioners at the Assembly 
 
\iii ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Ccwtents. 
 
 of Divines — General Assembly of 1G44 — The Directory for 
 Public Worship and the Form of Cliurch Goverament ai> 
 proved of — Account of these Formularies, . . . .92 
 
 CHAPTER LVIII. 
 
 From the approbation of the Directory for Public Worship, and the Form 
 of Church Government, in February, 1645, to the Surrender of the 
 Kinrj by the Scottish Covenanters in January, 1647. 
 
 Dr. John Forbes refuses to sign the Solemn League and Covenant 
 — He leaves Scotland — His return — His death — Robert Burnet 
 of Crimond refuses to sign the Solemn League and Covenant 
 — His exile — His correspondence with Archibald Johnstone 
 of Warriston — His account of Bishop Sydserf — Death of 
 Archbishop Laud — Rising of the Gordons — The Marquis of 
 Montrose — His victories —His defeat — Cruelty of the Cove- 
 nanters — Execution of Sir Robert Spottiswood and other 
 Royalists — Ruin of the King's cause in England — He seeks 
 refuge with the Scottish Army — Controversial papers be- 
 tween the King and Henderson — Death of Henderson — His 
 character — Surrender of the King by the Scottish Covenanters, 107 
 
 CHAPTER LIX. 
 
 From the Surrender of King Charles by the Scottish Covenanters in 
 January, 1647, to his death in January, 1649. 
 
 General Assembly of 1647 — The Westminster Confession of Faith 
 approved of — Account of that Formulary — Treaty between 
 the King and the Scottish Commissioners — Struggle between 
 the Parliament and the General Assembly — General Assembly 
 of 1648 — The Westminster Catechisms approved of — The 
 Duke of Hamilton enters England — He is defeated by Crom- 
 well — The extreme Covenanting party obtains the ascendency 
 — Cromwell invited to Edinburgh — Henr^' Guthrie deposed — 
 The Act of Classes— Death of King Charles the First, . . 124 
 
 CHAPTER LX. 
 
 From the death of King Charles I. in January, 1649, to the Coronation 
 of King Charles II. in January, 1651. 
 
 Execution of the Duke of Hamilton — Charles the Second pro- 
 claimed King in Scotland— Act abolishing Patronage — 
 
Contents.] OF SCOTLAND. IX 
 
 Execution of the Marquis of Huntly— Negotiations between 
 the Scottish Commissioners and the King— General Assembly 
 of 1649— Andrew Ramsay and William Colville deposed— 
 Eighteen ministers deposed in Angus and Mearns — Renewal 
 of the negotiations with the King — Expedition of Montrose — 
 His defeat and Execution— The King arrives in Scotland and 
 subscribes the Covenant — General Assembly of 1650 — Crom- 
 well invades Scotland — He defeats the Covenanters and takes 
 possession of Edinburgh — Remonstrance of the Western 
 Covenanters — Distracted condition of the Kingdom— Corona- 
 tion of King Charles at Scone, 138 
 
 CHAPTER LXI. 
 
 From the Coronation of King Charles II. in January, 1651, to his 
 Restoration in May, 1660. 
 
 The Act of Classes rescinded— General Assembly of 1651— Pro- 
 testation against its lawfulness by Rutherford and others — 
 The Church divided between the Resolutioners and the Pro- 
 testers — Defeat of the King at Worcester— Scotland subdued 
 by Cromwell— General Assembly of 1652— General Assembly 
 of 1653 — The members are dismissed by Colonel Cotterel — 
 Kirkton's account of the state of Scotland at this time — Its 
 utter inaccuracy — Cromwell's ordinance in regard to the 
 Church — Vain attempt to reconcile the Resolutioners and the 
 Protesters— Applications by both parties to Cromwell — Some 
 ministers adopt the opinions of the Independents — Protesta- 
 tion of Sir Alexander Irvine of Drum against a sentence of 
 the Presbytery of Aberdeen — Notices of Bishop Sydserf — 
 Restoration of King Charles the Second, .... 154 
 
 CHAPTER LXI I. 
 
 From the Restoration of King Charles II. in May, 1660, to the Re-esta- 
 hlishment of Episcopacy in September, 1661. 
 
 The leaders of the Resolutioners send Sharp to Loudon — Corres- 
 pondence between that minister and his constituents — Sharp 
 returns to Scotland — Guthrie and other Protesters imprisoned 
 — The King's letter to the Presbytery of Edinburgh — Meeting 
 of the Parliament — The Act Rescissory — Execution of the 
 Marquis of Argyll — Execution of James Guthrie — Meeting of 
 the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr — Its declaration in favour of 
 Presbyterianism — Meeting of the other provincial Synods — 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Contents, 
 
 Address of the Synod of Aberdeen in favour of the ancient 
 Ecclesiastical Polity — Ee-establishment of Episcopacy, . 168 
 
 C PI AFTER LXIII. 
 
 From the Re- establishment of Episcopacy in Scptcmher, 1661, to the 
 Meetings of the Diocesan Synods in October, 1662. 
 
 Bishop Sydserf — His ordinations in England — He is translated to 
 the see of Orkney — James Sharp is appointed to the see of 
 St. Andrews — Charge of treachery brought against him by 
 the Presbyterians — Examination of that charge — Andrew 
 Fairfoul, Archbishop of Glasgow — Account of Robert 
 Leighton — He is named to the see of Dunblane — His hesita- 
 tion and final acceptance of the Episcopal office — Consecration 
 of four Scottish Bishops at Westminster Abbey — Georaje ' 
 Wishart, Bishop of Edinburgh — David Mitchell, Bishop of 
 Aberdeen — Consecration of the other Scottish Bishops — 
 Meeting of Parliament — The diocesan Synod of St. Andrews 
 — The diocesan Synod of Edinburgh — The diocesan Synod of 
 Dunblane — The diocesan Synod of Aberdeen, . ' . 187 
 
 CHAPTER LXIV. 
 
 From the Meeti7^gs of the Diocesan Synods in October, 1662, to the 
 appointment of Bishop Scouyal to the see of Aberdeen in January, 
 1664. 
 
 Act of the Privy Council at Glasgow — Resignation of Protesting 
 ministers in the South — Act of the Privy Council at Edin- 
 burgh — Deprivation of Nonconformist ministers — Banish- 
 ment of John Livingstone— Deprivation of Robert Douglas, 
 and other ministers of Edinburgh — Death of Bishop Mitchell 
 — Execution of Johnstone of Warriston — Act regarding de- 
 prived ministers — Death of Bishop Sydserf— Alexander Burnet 
 appointed to the see of Glasgow— Patrick Scougal appointed 
 to the see of Aberdeen— Government, Doctrines, and Ritual 
 of the restored Church, 207 
 
Contents.] OF SCOTLAND. xi 
 
 CHAPTER LXV. 
 
 From the appointment of Bishop Scougal to the see of Aberdeen in January^ 
 1664, to the resignation of the see of Glasgow by Archbishop) Burnet 
 in January, 1670. 
 
 Erection of a Court of High Commission — Exaggerated accounts 
 of its proceedings — Its brief duration — Oppressive measures of 
 the Government — Bishop Leighton's moderation — Account of 
 Gilbert Burnet — He is appointed minister at Salton — His me- 
 morial to the Bishops — Diocesan Synod of Dunblane — Insur- 
 rection in the West — Increased severities of the Government — 
 Milder counsels adopted — Leighton's plan of a comprehension 
 — Indulgence granted to the Presbyterian ministers — Opposi- 
 tion of Archbishop Burnet — Meeting of Parliament — Statute 
 defining the royal supremacy — Archbishop Burnet resigns the 
 see of Glasgow, 220 
 
 CHAPTER LXVT. 
 
 From the resignation of the see of Glasgow by Archbishop Burnet in 
 January, 1670, to the resignation of that see by Archbishop Ldghton 
 in August, 1674. 
 
 Leighton acts as Comniendator of Glasgow — He holds a diocesan 
 synod there — His conference at Edinburgh with the Presby- 
 terian ministers — He sends six clergymen to preach in the 
 West — Character of James Nairn and Lawrence Charteris — 
 Leighton's conference at Paisley with the Presbyterian minis- 
 ters — His propositions for an accommodation — They are re- 
 jected by the ministers — Meeting of Parliament— Act against 
 Conventicles — Death of Bishop Wishart — Another indulgence 
 given to the Presbyterian ministers — Leighton accepts the 
 Archbishopric of Glasgow — James Ramsay appointed to the 
 see of Dunblane — Leighton resigns the see of Glasgow — He 
 retires to England — His death and character, . . . 235 
 
 CHAPTER LXVIL 
 
 From the resignation of the see of Glasgow by Archbishop Leighton, in 
 August, 1674, to the death of Archbishop Sliarp in May, 1679. 
 
 ArchbishoiJ Burnet restored to the see of Glasgow— Movement for 
 a National Synod — Opposition of the Archbishop of St. An- 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Contents. 
 
 drevvs — Bisliop Ramsay supports the movement. — Dispute be- 
 tween him and Archbishop Sharp — Increased boldness of the 
 Nonconformists — Field preachings become common — The 
 Highland Host— Trial of James Mitchell— Popular feeling 
 against Archbishop Sharp — Death of the Archbishop — His 
 character , . . 248 
 
 CHAPTER LXVIIL 
 
 From the death of Archbishop Sharp in May, 1679, to the death of Bishop 
 Scougal in February, 1682. 
 
 Archbishop Burnet appointed to the see of St. Andrews — Insur- 
 rection of the Covenanters — Differences among the Presby- 
 terians — The Cameronians — Cruelty of the Government — 
 Fanaticism of the Nonconformists — Movements in favour of a 
 Liturgy — The Test Act — Trial of the Earl of Argyll— Objec- 
 tions to the test by the clergy of Aberdeen — The Privy 
 Council sanction an explanation of the Test — Tranquillity of 
 the Northern dioceses — Progress of the Quaker opinions in the 
 North — Wise government of Bishop Scougal — Account of his 
 son, Henry Scougal, and of his nephew, John Cockburn — 
 Character of the Clergy of Aberdeen — James Gordon, Parson 
 of Banchory-Devenick— He publishes The Reformed Bishop 
 — He is deposed — Death of Bishop Scougal, . . - . 259 
 
 CHAPTER LXIX. 
 
 From the death of Bishop Scoiif/al in February, 1682, to the flight of King 
 James from England in December, 1688. 
 
 Death of Archbishop Burnet — Arthur Ross, Archbishop of Glasgow, 
 raised to the Primacy — Death of King Charles the Second — 
 Accession of King James the Seventh — Declaration put forth 
 by the Cameronians — Cruel persecution by the Government — 
 Exaggerated accounts of particular cases of persecution — Exe- 
 cution of the Earl of Argyll — The King fails in the attempt 
 to obtain a repeal of the penal laws against Roman Catholics 
 — He dispenses with these laws in virtue of his royal 
 authority — Bishop Bruce and Archbishop Cairncross deprived 
 by the Government — Alexander Rose appointed to the see of 
 Edinburgh — The King grants a toleration to the Presbyterians 
 — Address by the Presbyterians to the King — Account of 
 James Renwick — His trial and execution — Address by the 
 Bishops to the King — Flight of King James from England, 276 
 
Contents.] OF SCOTLAND. xiii 
 
 CHAPTER L X X. 
 
 From the jl'ujht of King James in December, I G8S, io the establishment of 
 Presbyterianism in June, 1 690 . 
 
 Riot at Edinburgh — The Western clergy driven out by the Cainer- 
 onians — Address by the Presbyterian ministers to the Prince 
 of Orange — Exertions of Bishop Rose at London — His conver- 
 sation with Bisliop Compton — His interview with tlie Prince 
 of Orange — Meeting of the estates in Scotland — The Claim of 
 Right — The crown conferred on William and Mary — Depri- 
 vation of many of the Clergy — The Bishops decline to 
 acknowledge the new Sovereigns — Address by the Clergy of 
 Aberdeen to the Estates — Prelacy abolished — Ratification of 
 the Westminster Confession of Faith, and establishment of the 
 Presbyterian form of Church Government — Abolition of 
 Patronage, 293 
 
 CHAPTER LXXL 
 
 From the establishment of Presbyterianism in June, to the conclusion of 
 the Parliamentary Visitation of th& Universities in October, 1690. 
 
 Position of ecclesiastical affairs after the Revolution — Proceedings 
 of the Bishops — Account of the deprived Prelates — Opinions 
 of the Parochial clergy — Many of them disposed to submit to 
 the Civil Government — Opinions of tlie j^eople in regard to 
 Episcopacy and Presbyterianism — Parliamentary visitation of 
 the Universities — Visitation of St. Andrews — Visitation of 
 Glasgow — Visitation of Edinburgh — Charge against Dr. Monro 
 of using the Book of Common Prayer — Visitation of Aber- 
 deen, 308 
 
 CHAPTER LXXIL 
 
 From the conclusion of the Parliamentary Visitation of the Universities in 
 October, 1690, to the death of King William in March, 1702. 
 
 Meeting of Presbyterian ministers and elders — General Assembly 
 of 1690 — Order for a general fast — Sermon of Lawrence Char- 
 teris — General Assembly of 1692 — Proposed comprehension of 
 the Episcopal Clergy — Meeting of Parliament — General As- 
 sembly of 1694 — Alleged interference of Carstairs — Proceed- 
 ings of the Commission of Assembly at Aberdeen — Protesta- 
 
Xiv ECCLESIASTICAL HTSTOEY [Contents. 
 
 tion of James Crordoii and others— General Assembly of 1G95 
 — Execution of Thomas Aikenhead — The Barrier Act — Depo- 
 sition of Dr. George Garden— Death of King William, . . 322 
 
 CHAPTER LXXIII. 
 
 From the death of King William in Marxh, 1702, to the Union of England 
 and Scotland in May, 1707. 
 
 Accession of Queen Anne —Progress of Presbyterianism— Condition 
 of the Episcopal Clergy — Their relations to the Bishops — 
 
 Condition of the Roman Catholics — Account of Thomas Innes 
 
 Condition of the Quakers — Condition of the Cameronians — 
 The members of the Episcopal Church attempt to obtain a 
 Toleration — Remonstrance by the Commission of the General 
 Assembly — Death of Archbishop Ross — Resolution of the sur- 
 viving Bishops to continue the Episcopal Succession — 
 Account of John Sage — Consecration of John Sage and John 
 Fullarton — Alleged metropolitan jurisdiction of the Bishop of 
 Edinburgh — Union of England and Scotland, . . 341 
 
 CHAPTER LXXIV. 
 
 From the Union of England and Scotland in May, 1707, to the Death of 
 Queen Anne in August, 1714. 
 
 Consecration of Bishops Falconer and Christie — Consecration of 
 Bishop Campbell — Consecration of Bishop Gadderar — Use of 
 the Book of Common Prayer — Act of the General Assembly 
 against innovations in Worship — Case of James Greenshields 
 — Toleration Act in favour of Episcopacy — Restoration of Pa- 
 tronage — Address by the Clergy of Aberdeen to Queen Anne 
 — Character of Carstairs — Increasing use of Liturgical forms — 
 Death of Queen Anne, . 355 
 
 CH A PTER LXX V. 
 
 From the death of Queen Anne in August, 1714, to the Abjuration Act 
 of April, 1719. 
 
 Accession of King George the First — Jacobite Insurrection— The 
 Episcopal Clergy sympathise with the Insurgents — Proceed- 
 ingsof the Government againstthe Episcopal Clergy — Ejection 
 of the Episcopal Clergy in the diocese of Aberdeen — Depriva- 
 tion of the Principal of King's College, and other members of 
 the University of Aberdeen — Efforts of the General Assembly to 
 obtain a repeal of tiie Patronage Act — The Abjuration Act of 
 1719, 372 
 
Contents.] OF SCOTLAND. XV 
 
 C PI AFTER LXXVI. 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 From the Abjuration Act of April, 1719, to the death of King George I. in 
 
 June, 1727. 
 
 Death of Bishop Rose — Meeting of the Clergy at Edinburgh — 
 Bishop Fulhirton chosen Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus — 
 Dr. Gadderar appointed Bishop of Aberdeen — Controversy 
 about the Usages — Address by the Episcopal College against 
 the Usages — Answer by Dr. Rattray — Death of Bishop Fal- 
 coner — Articles of Agreement regarding the Usages — Dis- 
 puted election by the clergy of Angus and Mearns — Death of 
 Bishop Fullarton — Election of Bishop Millar to the see of 
 Edinburgh — Dr. Rattray chosen Bishop of Brechin — Death of 
 George the First — Account of the attempt to restore com- 
 munion between the Nonjurors and the Eastern Church, . 380 
 
ECCLESIASTICAL 
 
 HISTORY OE SCOTLAND. 
 
 CHAPTER LI. 
 
 FROM THE PROCLAItlATION OF 19th FEBRUARY, TO THE DISPUTE BETWEEN 
 THE DOCTORS OF ABERDEEN AND THE COVENANTERS IN JULY AND 
 AUGUST, 1638. 
 
 The National Covenant — Suhscriptton of the Covenant — Journey 
 of Livingstone to London — Letter from David Mitchell to 
 the Bishop of Raphoe — Communications made to the King 
 
 — Tlie Marquis of Hamilton appointed High Commissioner 
 
 — The Clergy of Aberdeen write against the Covenant — 
 George^ Marquis of Huntly — His rejection of the proposals 
 of the Covenanters — Arrival of Hamilton in Scotland — • 
 His residence at Holyrood — Proclamation of the fourth of 
 July — The Covenant imposed on the Northern Counties — 
 The Town of Aberdeen refuses to tahe the Covenant — Com- 
 missioners sent hy the Covenanters to Aberdeen — Demands 
 of the Aberdeen Doctors — Dispute between the Doctors and 
 the Covenanters. 
 
 Immediately after the protestation at Stirling, the leaders of 
 the party opposed to the king's measures began openly to 
 assume a new position in the state. Hitherto they had 
 appeared in the humble attitude of supplicants to the estab- 
 lished authorities : still retaining the profession of devoted 
 attachment to their sovereign, they now openly assumed the 
 powers of the government. To enable them to do so with 
 
 VOL. III.] 2 
 
2 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LI. 
 
 efficiency and with safety, it was necessary to devise some 
 bond of union among their adherents, stronger than that which 
 had hitherto connected them. They met at Edinburgh, and 
 their deliberations resulted in the framing of the document 
 known as the National Covenant. It consisted of three parts 
 — first, of the Confession drawn up by Craig in 1581, and 
 sanctioned at that time and afterwards by royal proclamation 
 and the authority of the ecclesiastical courts ; secondly, of a 
 recital of various acts of parliament in favour of the Reformed 
 religion ; and, thirdly, of a bond or covenant by which the 
 subscribers became bound to defend the true Reformed religion, 
 and to forbear the practice of all novations and coiTuptions in 
 the worship or government of the Church, until the same 
 should be approved of in a free assembly and parliament ; 
 expressing their belief that the innovations complained of in 
 their petitions were contrary to the Confessions of 1560 
 and 1581, to the intentions of the reformers of religion, 
 and to acts of parliament, and tended to the re-establish- 
 ment of Popery and tyranny, and the subversion of the true 
 Reformed religion ; declaring that the Confession so renewed 
 was to be interpreted, as if every one of the novations com- 
 plained of were therein expressed, and that the subscribers 
 were obliged to detest and abhor these novations amongst other 
 particular points of Popery abjured — swearing also to main- 
 tain the foresaid true religion and the king's person and 
 authority, and to stand by each other in defence of the same 
 against all sorts of persons whatsoever ; and promising for 
 themselves and their families to be good examples of all god- 
 liness, soberness, and righteousness, and of every duty to God 
 and man. ^ 
 
 The National Covenant was drawn up by Henderson and 
 Archibald Johnstone of Warriston, and revised by Rothes, 
 Loudon, and Balmerino. There can be no doubt that, in 
 preparing this document, they chiefly looked to the example 
 which had been given by the Lords of the Congregation 
 during the regency of Mary of Lorraine. Some of the more 
 moderate of the ministers were alarmed by the tenor of the 
 Covenant — by its apparent condemnation of the form of church 
 government and the ceremonies to which they had vowed 
 
 ' Peterkin's Records of the Kirk, p. 9-13. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 3 
 
 obedience, and its sanction of armed resistance to the royal 
 authority ; but their scruples were removed by the persuasions 
 of Rothes, and by some alterations which were made in the 
 original draft. The Covenant was publicly subscribed at 
 Edinburgh on the twenty-eighth of February. The people 
 assembled in the Greyfriars' church and churchyard ; Hender- 
 son commenced the proceedings with a prayer, and Loudon 
 made an oration. The first person who signed was the Earl of 
 Sutherland, and he was followed by an immense multitude of 
 both sexes and of all ranks and ages. Copies were immediately 
 afterwards sent through the whole kingdom, and great numbers 
 subscribed and swore with every demonstration of enthusiasm. 
 On the other hand, the Covenant, soon after its promulgation, 
 was formally condemned by the Universities of St. Andrews 
 and Aberdeen.^ 
 
 Many persons in all parts of the country were averse to the 
 Covenant, but few had the courage to oppose it openly. The 
 committee which sat at Edinburgh decided everything accord- 
 ing to their own discretion, and the royal authority was unable 
 to protect those who remained faithful to the crown. The 
 jurisdiction of the bishops was practically at an end ; the Perth 
 articles could not safely be observed even by those who were 
 willing to conform to them ; and the party, which a few weeks 
 before had made it a chief accusation against the prelates that 
 they sought to enforce measures destitute of the proper civil 
 and ecclesiastical authority, now openly forbade obedience to 
 the laws which had received the sanction of the Church and 
 State. 
 
 On the same day that the Covenant was signed at Edin- 
 burgh, the primate wrote from that city to excuse his absence 
 
 1 Large Declaration, pp. 72, 73. Rothes's Eolation, p. 70-80. Baillie, vol. 
 i. pp. 52,53. Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. i. pp. 43, 44. Lyon's History of St. 
 Andrews, vol. ii. p. 372-376. Baillie, who himself at first had some difficulty 
 in subscribing, soon afterwards used all his persuasions to overcome the objections 
 of Dr. Strang, Principal of the College of Glasgow. " Our main fear," he 
 wrote, " to have our religion lost, our throats cut, our poor country made an 
 English province to be disposed upon for ever hereafter at the will of a Bishop 
 of Canterbury, these our fears are bnilded mainly upon the withdrawing of our 
 brethren's hands and countenances from us, in that cause which we conceive to 
 be most necessary at this time." (Letters, vol. i. pp. 66, 67.) If one learned man 
 could thus write to another, it may be conjectured what arguments were used 
 with the common people. 
 
4 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LI. 
 
 from a meeting of the council which was to be held at Stilling, 
 and advised that the Book of Common Prayer should be laid 
 aside, ratlier than that trouble should be brought on the Church 
 and kingdom. Even the most zealous and courageous of the 
 prelates were obliged to abandon the use of the Liturgy in 
 their own cathedrals. As early as November of the previous 
 year, it had been given up at Brechin. On Sunday, the 
 eleventh of March, the Service Books in the cathedral of Ross 
 were carried off and destroyed, and Bishop Maxwell was 
 obliged to leave his diocese. In the beginning of the same 
 mouth, the council, having met at Stirling, stated that nothing 
 further could be done to stop the tumults ; expressed an opinion 
 tliat the Service Book, Canons, and High Commission, were 
 the causes of the whole ; and agreed to send the Lord Justice 
 Clerk to the king, with their entreaty that he would take trial 
 of his subjects' grievances, and not urge the books in the 
 meantime. None of the spiritual lords attended the meeting 
 except the Bishop of Brechin, but the instructions to the Jus- 
 tice Clerk, in terms of these resolutions, were signed, not only 
 by the prelate just named, but also by the primate, and the 
 Bishops of Edinburgh, Dunblane, and Galloway.^ 
 
 Livingstone mentions that, when the tumults began in re- 
 gard to the Service Book, and still more when the greater 
 part of the nation subscribed the Covenant, the cause why his 
 voyage to America had been hindered became apparent. Blair 
 and he had continued to reside for some time in Ulster, but, 
 warrants for their apprehension having been issued by the 
 L*ish government, they went over to Scotland and remained 
 with their friends there, especially with Dickson at Irvine. 
 Immediately after the Covenant was sworn to at Edinburgh, 
 it was resolved by the leaders of the popular party to com- 
 municate with their English and Scottish confederates at London, 
 and to send them copies of the document. Livingstone was 
 selected as a fit messenger, and he himself tells us that, to 
 avoid discovery, he rode in a gray coat and a gray Montero 
 cap. In consequence of an accident on the way which dis- 
 figured his face, when he came to London he kept his cham- 
 ber, but his letters were delivered by Eleazar Borthwick, 
 
 • Baillie, vol. i. appendix, p. 459-463. Spaldiiif:;, vol. i. pp. 82, 86, 87. 
 Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Planiilton, p. 34-36. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 5 
 
 another Scottish preacher and envoy of the Covenanting party. 
 He was visited by several of the English nobility, but, within 
 a few days, Borthwick came and told him that he had been 
 sent by the Marquis of Hamilton to let him know that the 
 king had been overheard saying that he was come, and that he 
 would endeavour to put a pair of fetters about his feet. In conse- 
 quence of this intelligence he hastened to return to Scotland. ^ 
 
 During the month of March, the Covenant continued to re- 
 ceive signatures in all parts of the kingdom. When argu- 
 ments failed in persuading the clergy and people to subscribe, 
 intimidation and violence were used without scruple, particu- 
 larly at Edinburgh, St. Andrews, Glasgow, and Lanark. 
 The state of matters at tliis time is described in a letter, ad- 
 dressed to Bishop Leslie of Ixaphoe by David Mitchell, one of 
 the ministers of Edinburgh, a zealous supporter of the Liturgy. 
 He mentions the probability of his soon being obliged to 
 leave his charge, and accept the offers of assistance which the 
 bishop had made to him. The greater part of the kingdom, 
 he adds, had subscribed, and the rest were daily subscribing 
 the Covenant ; the clergy who refused were exposed to such 
 odium that they could hardly appear in the streets ; nothing- 
 was expected but civil war : though tlie Service Book, Canons, 
 and High Commission should be discharged, their opponents 
 would not rest there ; other designs were contemplated. ^ 
 
 The Justice Clerk proceeded to London in terms of 
 his instructions, and was soon followed by Traquair, Lorn, 
 and others of the nobility, and by the primate, and the 
 Bishops of Ross, Galloway, and Brechin. On the twenty- 
 eighth of April, a paper was sent to the Scottish lords at 
 court, containing a statement of the grievances of the Cove- 
 nanters. It was signed by the Earls of Rothes, Cassillis, 
 and Montrose, and it avowed the farther measures which were 
 now in contemplation. It expressly stated that the recalling 
 of the Service Book, Book of Canons, and the late act of 
 High Commission, would not be sufficient. It demanded that 
 the High Commission should be entirely abolished ; com- 
 
 ' Life of Jolin Livingstone — Select Biograpliies, edited for tlie Wodrow So- 
 ciety, vol. i. p. 156-160. Life of Robert Blair, p. 146-155. 
 
 ^ Large Declaration, p. 75. Baillie, vol. i. p. 66, and appendix, pp. 463, 464. 
 Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. i. p. 45. 
 
6 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LI. 
 
 plained of the Perth articles, of the civil offices and places in 
 parliament held by churchmen, and of the oaths exacted from 
 ministers; and required that a lawful and free national assembly 
 and a parliament should be summoned. 
 
 About the same time, a communication was sent to the 
 Scottish bishops at London and the English primate by the 
 Bishops of Edinburgh, Dunblane, and Argyll, and others of 
 the clergy in Scotland. It mentioned that the moderator of 
 the presbytery of Edinburgh had been changed, and that the 
 moderators of presbyteries throughout the kingdom were in 
 the course of being removed to make way for others ; that 
 several presbyteries had ordained ministers without consent of 
 their bishops ; that various ministers, banished from Ireland 
 on account of non-conformity, had been admitted to benefices; 
 that Samuel Rutherford had returned from the North and 
 resumed his former station ; that the town council of Edin- 
 burgh had chosen Henderson to be helper to Andrew Ramsay, 
 one of the ministers, and intended to admit him without their 
 bishop's permission ; that the ministers of Edinburgh, and 
 others who had not subscribed the Covenant, were reviled 
 and ill-treated, and were refused payment of their stipends. 
 In the event of an agreement with the nobles, they entreated 
 the king's favour for those who should be unlawfully deposed; 
 and, in the event of violent measures being taken for repres- 
 sing the disorders, they requested that some special means 
 should be devised for the safety of those who stood for God 
 and his majesty. These complaints and apprehensions were 
 fully justified by the proceedings of the Covenanters. It 
 appears from a letter, written by Traquair to the Marquis of 
 Hamilton in the middle of May, that the ministers from Ire- 
 land preached the most seditious doctrines ; that the clergy 
 who refused to read the Covenant to their congregations were 
 summoned before the presbyteries and deposed ; and that 
 gentlemen who declined to subscribe were excluded from the 
 communion. 
 
 The king, after anxious consideration of what was reported 
 
 ' Burnet's Memoirs of tbe Dukes of Hamilton, p. 38-42. Hardwicke 
 Papers, vol. ii. p. 107. See also tlie interesting series of letters, in Lord Hailes' 
 Memorials, addressed by a person using the feigned name of John de Maria to 
 some one of high rank, apparently the Duke of Lennox. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 7 
 
 by the Justice Olerk and the counsellors, and stated by the 
 prelates, called to his closet the Archbishops of Canterbury and 
 St. Andrews, and the Bishops of Galloway, Brechin, and 
 Eoss. They found the Marquis of Hamilton with the king ; 
 and his majesty announced his intention of sending that noble- 
 man to Scotland as High Commissioner, The Archbishop of 
 St. Andrews expressed his approbation of the choice, and, on 
 the marquis asking what the prelates expected him to do, they 
 answered, that all they desired was that he should endeavour 
 to procure the peace of the countiy and the good of the Church. 
 On his requesting their assistance in Scotland for that purpose, 
 they excused themselves on account of the hazard to which 
 they would be exposed. Hamilton promised to stand between 
 them and any danger, so far as was in his power, and, on 
 Laud adding his entreaties to the same effect, it was agreed 
 that they should go.^ 
 
 The nobleman thus selected for the difficult task of restoring 
 tranquillity to the Scottish Church and kingdom was James, 
 third Marquis of Hamilton, son of the marquis who presided 
 at the parliament which ratified the articles of Perth, and 
 great-grandson of the Duke of Chatel-herault, who was regent 
 during the minority of Queen Mary. Charles loved and trusted 
 him more as a brother, than as a kinsman and subject. He had 
 given a remarkable proof of his confidence, some years before, 
 when he requested the marquis, who was one of the gentlemen 
 of the bed-chamber, to pass the night in the royal apartments 
 at the very time he was accused of treason by Lord Ochiltree. 
 Since that time, Hamilton had commanded the Scottish auxi- 
 liaries in the service of Gustavus Adolphus, without acquiring 
 much distinction as a soldier. On his return, he was v/elcomed 
 by Charles with all his former affection, and was present at 
 the coronation of the king at Holyrood ; but he had hitherto 
 taken little part in the political affairs of his native country. 
 
 A proclamation was prepared, to be taken by Hamilton to 
 Scotland, by which the king promised that he would not 
 press the Canons or Service Book, except in a fair and legal 
 manner ; that he would rectify the High Commission ; and 
 that he would excuse all that was past, if his subjects would 
 
 ' Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, pp. 42, 43. Large Declaration, 
 p. 77. 
 
8 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LI. 
 
 renounce and disclaim their factious bonds ; but that those 
 who declined to do so would be reputed as traitors. The 
 Archbishop of St. Andrews, as chancellor of the kingdom, 
 had prcjmred another form of a proclamation, in which no ex- 
 press renunciation of the Covenant was demanded, but Charles 
 was peremptory, saying that, so long as the Covenant was not 
 passed from, he had no more power than a Duke of Venice. 
 The advice of Spottiswood was however followed in the in- 
 structions given to Hamilton. Specific answers were also 
 given to certain questions put by the commissioner to the 
 king, and he was requested to correspond regularly with his 
 majesty and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The instructions 
 were signed at Whitehall on the sixteenth of May. * 
 
 In the meantime, the leading nobles and ministers were 
 using every effort to unite the whole kingdom in support of 
 the Covenant. Many had declined to subscribe it, but there 
 was only one quarter in which the opposition was likely to be 
 formidable. The clergy of Aberdeen, particularly the doctors 
 of the university, remained firm in their attachment to their 
 sovereign and the Church, and were strenuously encouraged 
 and supported by the Marquis of Huntly, the most powerful 
 nobleman in the north of Scotland. Among the earliest as- 
 sailants of the new Covenant were Dr. Robert Baron and Dr. 
 John Forbes. The latter composed a short treatise, entitled 
 " A peaceable warning to the subjects in Scotland." It was 
 dedicated to the Marquis of Huntly, and was chiefly intended 
 to shew that the Negative Confession of Craig had ceased to 
 be binding on Church or State, and that its renewal was not 
 expedient. The work was first circulated in manuscript, 
 but, objections having been taken to some expressions as too 
 harsh, the author soon afterwards caused a revised edition to 
 be printed and published at Aberdeen. 
 
 George, second Marquis of Huntly, had succeeded to that 
 title on the death of his father in 1636. The first marquis, 
 
 ' Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 43-52. Burnet says, " With 
 my lord of Canterbury, be [the Marquis of Hamilton] kept a constant and free 
 intercourse ; and whatever that archbishop might have been formerly in Scottish 
 affairs, being abused by persons who did not truly represent them to him, he was 
 certainly a good instrument this year, which appears from his letters to the 
 marquis, with the copies of his returns, which are extant." It is to be regretted 
 that so few of these letters are printed in the Memoirs. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 9 
 
 notwithstanding his repeated abjurations of Popery, died in the 
 communion of tlie Church of Rome. His son, by the express 
 order of King James, had been brought up at court along with 
 Prince Henry, and Charles, then Duke of York, and carefully 
 instructed in the principles of the Church of England. He 
 afterwards commanded the company of Scottish Guards in 
 France. He was a member of the privy council, but 
 had not been admitted to any active share in the govern- 
 ment of the kingdom. Those indeed, by whom the royal 
 authority was administered, had treated his father with little 
 respect, if not with positive injustice, in connection with the 
 judicial inquiries regarding the mysterious burning of the 
 tower of Frendraught. The Covenanters were aware of the 
 importance of securing the co-operation of this great noble. 
 Colonel Robert Monro, an officer who had lately returned 
 from Germany, and whose family were on good terms 
 with the Gordons, was sent by the Earl of Eothes to Huntly, 
 to persuade him to join with the rest of his countrymeuj 
 and to threaten him with the vengeance of their whole 
 party in the event of a refusal. The marquis was well aware 
 that this was no idle menace, but he did not hesitate for an 
 instant. He answered that his house had risen through the 
 kings of Scotland, and had always been faithful to them ; that 
 he would not depart from the way of his predecessors, but 
 would stand or fall with the monarchy.^ 
 
 The Marquis of Hamilton commenced his journey in the 
 end of May, and on the sixth of June presented his commis- 
 sion to the council at Dalkeith. He soon ascertained how 
 difficult was the task which he had undertaken. All the 
 southern provinces of the kingdom were under the control of 
 the Covenanters. They had ordered supplies of arms from 
 the Continent, and threatened to take possession of Edinburgh 
 Castle, which was unprovided with sufficient means of de- 
 fence. The commissioner had requested the friends and vas- 
 sals of his house to meet him at Haddington, but they were 
 forbidden by the Covenanters to attend on their lord. No re- 
 liance could be placed on the privy council ; the fidelity of 
 Lorn, in particular, was suspected, and the king's advocate, 
 
 ' Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. i. p. 48-50. Patrick Gordon's Short Abridge- 
 ment of Britain's Distemper, pp. 13, 14. 
 
10 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Cilvp. LI. 
 
 Sir Thomas Hope, hardly concealed his close connection with 
 the discontented nobles. Matters bore so threatening an 
 aspect, that Hamilton did not venture to publish the royal 
 proclamation, knowing that it would immediately be protested 
 against, and that he had no means whatever of enforcing it. 
 
 The commissioner for some time declined to leave Dalkeith, 
 but was at last prevailed on to take up his residence at 
 Holyrood. He set out for Edinburgh on the ninth of June, 
 and was met without the walls by a large body of the nobility 
 and gentry on horseback, and by an immense concourse of 
 the people, including several hundred ministers. He en- 
 deavoured to ascertain from their leaders what they would 
 expect in satisfaction of then- comjjlaints, and whether they 
 would agree to renounce the Covenant. They objected to 
 entering on particulars, referring every thing to a general 
 assembly and parliament, and refused to give up one tittle 
 of the Covenant, asserting, according to the Large Declaration, 
 that they would sooner renounce their baptism. Understand- 
 ing that on Sunday the commissioner and council were to 
 attend divine service, after the English form, in the chapel 
 royal, the Covenanters sent intimation that whoever should 
 read that service once should never do so again ; and Hamil- 
 ton, afraid of a disturbance, gave up his intention. They 
 even wrote to all the members of the council, calling upon 
 them to subscribe the Covenant, and the only concession they 
 would make was an unsatisfactory explanation of that docu- 
 ment. 
 
 Hamilton informed the king of the steps which he had 
 taken, and stated that his majesty should either be prepared 
 to concede all the demands of his subjects, or to suppress the 
 movement by force. Charles ought already to have been 
 aware of this, but he was still doubtful and perplexed. The 
 tumults against the Liturgy had now ended in open insurrec- 
 tion against the crown, and he was unable to punish the 
 disaffected. Until he could equip a fleet, and raise an army 
 in England, for the maintenance of his rights, any movement 
 among his faithful subjects in Scotland would only lead to 
 their own destruction. Betrayed by his counsellors, deserted 
 by those on whom he had relied, his authority insulted, and 
 his deepest feelings outraged, Charles adopted a line of con- 
 
A.D. 1638. J OF SCOTLAND. 11 
 
 duct which has too often been practised in similar cases, but 
 which was never more signally and severely punished than 
 in his. He instructed his commissioner to temporise with 
 the Covenanters till he should be in a position to vindicate 
 his royal authority. The motives which induced him to act 
 in this manner would probably be better understood if Burnet 
 had given us Hamilton's letters as well as those of the king. 
 
 Instructions were sent to the marquis not to delay longer 
 to make known the .royal proclamation ; but, in order to con- 
 ciliate the people previously, especially the inhabitants of the 
 capital, the courts of justice were again allowed to meet at 
 Edinburgh. This concession was very favourably received, 
 and the Covenanters, in order to take away its effect, demanded 
 that Sir Robert Spottiswood, son of the primate, President of 
 the Court of Session, and Sir John Hay, Clerk Register, whom 
 they accused of bribery and corruption, should be removed 
 from their offices. The commissioner, as they probably ex- 
 pected, refused to comply unless they would proceed in the 
 regular way to prove their charges. Soon afterwards, the 
 royal declaration was proclaimed at Edinburgh, but the part, 
 in which the king announced that if his commands were 
 disobeyed he would be obliged to enforce obedience, was in 
 the meantime omitted, and a statement was substituted, that 
 he would most unwillingly use the power entrusted to him to 
 reclaim his disobedient people. The document thus published 
 was rather an apology for the king's own conduct than a 
 denunciation of the proceedings of his opponents, but the recep- 
 tion it met with shewed no corresponding abatement of preten- 
 sions on the part of the Covenanters. On the fourth of July, 
 the day appointed for the proclamation, as soon as the trumpets 
 sounded at the market cross, the people assembled in great 
 numbers ; a scaffold was quickly erected ; and the leaders of 
 the insurgents appeared with a protestation prepared and 
 written out. On the proclamation being published, the pro- 
 testation was read ; and the Earl of Cassillis, in name of the 
 nobility, Alexander Gibson, younger of Durie, in name of the 
 barons, the Provost of Dundee, in name of the burgesses, 
 John Ker, minister at Salt-Preston, in name of the ministers, 
 and Archibald Johnstone, the reader, in name of all who 
 adhered to the Covenant, took instruments in the hands of 
 
12 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chap. LI. 
 
 notaries, and tendered a copy of the paper to the royal herald. 
 The protestation itself was little else than a tedious repetition 
 of their former statements ; abounding in professions of the 
 greatest reverence for the king ; and announcing their firm 
 resolution to persist in their present course till the grievances 
 complained of were considered in a general assembly and 
 parliament. 
 
 A few days after the proclamation, Hamilton intimated his 
 intention of returning to court, in order to confer personally 
 with the king, and receive his final instructions. On this 
 being known, some of the more violent of the Covenanters 
 proposed that a general assembly should immediately be 
 summoned by their own authority. This, however, was 
 overruled, but the commissioner was informed that, if he did 
 not return by the fifth of August with a favourable answer 
 to their demands, they would hold themselves entitled to 
 take what course they thought best.^ 
 
 During the months of April and May, the counties of Caith- 
 ness, Sutherland, Ross, Inverness, and Murray, had generally 
 submitted to the Covenant. In those northern districts, 
 many of the ministers were unwilling to subscribe, but they 
 were over-awed by the great nobles and chiefs — the Earl of 
 Sutherland, Lord Berriedale, eldest son of the Earl of Caith- 
 ness, the Lord Lovat, the Lord Reay, and others. The 
 members of the town council of Elgin requested leave to sign 
 with a protestation that they might have liberty to kneel at 
 the Communion, but, on this being refused, they signed 
 unconditionally. ^ 
 
 Almost the only place in Scotland which continued after 
 midsummer to oppose the Covenant was the town of Aber- 
 deen. In order to gain this last stronghold of loyalty and 
 Episcopacy, the Tables sent thither several commissioners, 
 
 1 Large Declaration, p. 77-110. Baillie, vol. i. p. 74-93. Burnet's Memoirs 
 of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 52-65. Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. i. p. 63-80. 
 Burnet (Memoirs, pp. 58, 59) mentions that Spottiswood approved of an expla- 
 nation of the Covenant, and seems to attribute to him the authorship of a paper 
 substantially the same with that rejected by the king : see Large Declaration, 
 pp. 108, 109. This statement of Burnet is repeated by Eushworth (vol. ii. p. 
 753), but the only foundation for it seems to have been that the primate had 
 copied in his own hand what was probably a draft of the paper prepared by the 
 Covenanters. 
 ^ Eothes's Relation, p. 104-110. 
 
A.D. 1638.J OF SCOTLAND. 13 
 
 among whom were the Earl of Montrose, the Lord Cupar, the 
 Master of Forbes, Sir Thomas Burnet of Leys, and three 
 ministers, Henderson, Dickson, and Cant, the last of whom 
 was minister at Pitsligo in the diocese of Aberdeen. These 
 commissioners came to Aberdeen on Friday, the twentieth of 
 July. According to the hospitable custom of the burgh, the 
 magistrates sent some of their number to offer them what was 
 called " the courtesy of the town," or " the cup of Bon- 
 Accord," being a collation of wine and other refreshments. 
 The commissioners refused to partake of the municipal hospi- 
 tality, unless the Covenant were first subscribed ; and the 
 magistrates, displeased with the churlish answer, ordered the 
 refreshments which they had prepared, to be distributed among 
 the poor. 
 
 The doctors of the university had been informed of the pro- 
 posed visit of the commissioners, and had prepared a series of 
 questions regarding the lawfulness of the Covenant, and the 
 authority by which it was imposed. These demands, fourteen 
 in number, they sent to the three ministers on the evening of 
 the day on which they arrived, and requested answers to them. 
 The demands were signed by the six doctors, Forbes, Scroggie, 
 Leslie, Baron, Sibbald, and Koss, who had concurred in the 
 judgment regarding the points in dispute between the 
 Lutherans and the Reformed. They were also signed by Dr. 
 William Guild, one of the ministers of the church of St. 
 Nicholas, a weak, time-serving man, who soon yielded to the 
 arguments and threats of the Covenanters, and whose name 
 was not subscribed to the papers which followed. The three 
 ministers sent an answer to these demands on the evening of 
 Saturday, the twenty-first, and at the same time requested 
 leave to preach in the churches of the city on the following 
 Sunday. This application was refused by the Aberdeen 
 clergy, who said that they did not choose that their people 
 should listen to doctrines different from those they had received 
 from their own pastors. Failing in this attempt, the minis- 
 ters preached from a gallery in the court of the Earl Maris- 
 chal's house in the Castlegate, then occupied by that noble- 
 man's sister, Lady Pitsligo, " a rank Puritan," as she is styled 
 by Spalding. Their eloquence produced little effect, except 
 on those who were already disposed to join their party. 
 
14 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LI. 
 
 The doctors prepared replies to the answers of tlie Cove- 
 nanters, and had them ready for the press on Tuesday, but 
 delayed publishing them for a few days, that the ministers 
 might have an opportunity of revising their papers. As no 
 alteration was made, the replies were printed, and a copy was 
 sent to the ministers on the return of the commissioners to 
 Aberdeen, from which they had been absent for a week en- 
 deavouring to obtain subscriptions to the Covenant in other 
 parts of the diocese. In the beginning of tlie following week, 
 the commissioners left Aberdeen, and Henderson and Dickson, 
 on their way southwards, remained for some days with Sir 
 Thomas Burnet at his house of Muchalls in the Mearns. 
 There they composed an answer to the doctors' replies, which 
 was printed in the middle of August. The controversy was 
 closed by the publication of duplies, signed by the six doctors. 
 The demands, answers, and replies, were soon afterwards 
 re-printed at Edinburgh, with a declaration prefixed from the 
 Marquis of Hamilton, denying an allegation made by the 
 three ministers, in their answers to the demands, that he had 
 expressed himself satisfied with the explanation of the Cove- 
 nant which had been sent to him before he returned to London. 
 
 A brief abstract of the fourteen demands may be given. 
 The doctors asked. What warrant there was for requiring 
 subscription to the Covenant, and enforcing a particular inter- 
 pretation of the Negative Confession, since the commissioners 
 were not sent by the king, or his council, or a national synod, 
 or any other lawful judicatory ? Whether they ought to 
 subscribe the Covenant, when all covenants of mutual defence, 
 by force of arms, among the king's subjects, without his 
 consent, were expressly forbidden by the parliament of 1 585 ? 
 Whether, even if acts of parliament might be contravened in 
 extreme cases, such a case had now arisen ? By whom was 
 the Negative Confession to be interpreted? Whether they 
 could subscribe the Negative Confession with a good 
 conscience, seeing that, as interpreted by the framers of the 
 Covenant, it made a perpetual law concerning external rites of 
 the Church, which God had not made ? Whether it was fit 
 to subscribe an interpretation in matters of faith, which was 
 opposed to the judgment of many eminent Reformed divines, 
 and to that of the ancient Church ? Whether it was agreeable 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 15 
 
 to charity and piety, to require tliem to abjure those rites as 
 Popish, which, in the sincerity of their hearts, they had 
 hitherto practised as lawful and laudable ? Whether it was 
 fit to swear to defend the king's person and authority, only 
 under limitations ? Whether they could swear to maintain the 
 king's authority, and at the same time swear disobedience to 
 those articles which were authorized by his standing laws ? 
 Whether they ought to swear to a Covenant which took away 
 all hopes of a free assembly and parliament, by making 
 persons swear beforehand to adhere to one side of the question ? 
 Whether full satisfaction would be given by their subscribing 
 the National Confession, ratified by parliament in 1567, which 
 they were ready to do ? Whether the outrages, sustained 
 against all form of law by those of their brethren in the holy 
 ministry who continued in obedience to the laws of the 
 Church and kingdom, were allowed by the commissioners ; 
 and, if not, why the actors had not been censured ? Whether 
 they could subscribe the Covenant without the scandal of 
 dissenting from other Reformed Churches, and from antiquity, 
 and also the scandal of perjury in regard to those who at their 
 admission to the ministry had sworn obedience to the articles 
 of Perth, and to their ordinary ? And, lastly, seeing they 
 had all these scruples, and that they were assured of the law- 
 fulness of the articles of Perth, and of the lawfulness and 
 venerable antiquity of episcopal government, how could they, 
 with a safe conscience, allow those to preach in their pulpits, 
 who came professedly to withdraw their people from that 
 which in the inmost thought of their souls they embraced as 
 lawful, and from obedience to their gracious and pious sove- 
 reign, whose late proclamation had given them entire satis- 
 faction ? 
 
 In their answers, the Covenanting ministers adopted a tone 
 for the most part moderate and conciliatory. They drew a 
 distinction between innovations sought to be introduced, such 
 as the Service Book, Canons, and High Commission, which 
 were expressly abjured as points of Popery, and those already 
 introduced, like Episcopacy and the Perth articles, of which 
 the practice was only to be forborne till their lawfulness was 
 tried in a free general assembly. 
 
 In some points, the arguments of the doctors were weak- 
 
16 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chap. LI. 
 
 ened, or made inconsistent with each other, bj their fear of 
 condemning the practices of the Scottish reformers, and of the 
 Reformed Churches on the Continent. In regard to the sacra- 
 ments, however, they disregarded this scruple, admitting that 
 the Scottish Church proceeded on a different principle, and 
 entertained a different belief. Thus, while they disclaimed the 
 opinion imputed to them, that without baptism God cannot 
 or will not save any — maintaining that, where it is earnestly 
 sought for but cannot possibly be had, the prayers of the 
 parents and of the Church are accepted in its stead — they, at 
 the same time, distinctly professed that they themselves 
 taught, and their people learnt, that baptism was the ordinary 
 means of entrance into the Church, and of regeneration, to 
 the use of which they were tied by God's commandment. 
 
 In the middle of August, the Lord Gordon, eldest son of 
 the Marquis of Huntly, came from court, and brought with 
 him a letter addressed by the king to the magistrates and 
 council of Aberdeen, and another to the doctors, thanking 
 them for the manner in which they had acted at the visit of 
 the Covenanters. Similar letters were also sent by the Mar- 
 quis of Hamilton.* 
 
 1 On the subject of the procedings at Aberdeen, see, in addition to the papers 
 between the doctors and the ministers, Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. i. p. 82-96 ; 
 Spalding, vol. i. p. 91-100 ; and Garden's Life of Dr. John Forbes, p. 35-40. 
 
A.D, 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 17 
 
 CHAPTER LIL 
 
 FROM THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE DOCTORS OF ABERDEEN AND THE CO- 
 VENANTERS IN JULY AND AUGUST, TO THE COMMENCEMENT OP THE 
 GLASGOW ASSEMBLY ON THE 21ST OF NOVEMBER, 1638. 
 
 Dr. Balcanqulial^ Dean of Rochester — Increased demands of the 
 Covenanters — The Service Booh, Canons, and High Com- 
 mission recalled — The Negative Confession authorized hy 
 the King — The Bishops abandon their dioceses — Archbishop 
 Spottiswood resigns the Chancellorship — Imposture of Mar- 
 garet Mitchelson — Subscription oj the Negative Confession 
 — Explanations by the clergy of Aberdeen — Preparations 
 for the General Assembly at Glasgow — Instructions sent 
 by the Tables for the election of Commissioners — Complaint 
 against the Bishops — Character and object of the charges. 
 
 On his arrival at court, Hamilton gave the king an account of 
 all that had taken place in Scotland. He received new in- 
 structions, permitting him to summon both an assembly and 
 a parliament, under certain limitations intended to preserve as 
 much of the established ecclesiastical polity and ritual as pos- 
 sible. At his suggestion, and in order to counteract the effects 
 of the Covenant, the king agreed to sign the Confession of 1560, 
 and to publish it along with a bond to be subscribed by all his 
 subjects, by which the subscribers were to swear to maintain 
 the Confession, and to defend the king's person and authority, 
 and the laws and liberties of the kingdom against all persons 
 whatsoever. 
 
 The marquis returned to Holyrood on the tenth of August, 
 and brought with him, as his chief adviser in ecclesiastical 
 matters. Dr. Walter Balcanqual, Dean of Rochester. This 
 divine, as already mentioned, had attended the synod of Dort 
 as one of the envoys of King James, and for his services in 
 that capacity and otherwise was promoted to the deanery of 
 Rochester. His zeal for the Church was undoubted ; his 
 learning and ability were considerable ; and Burnet speaks in 
 high terms of his eloquence as a preaclier. He was well 
 known at Edinburgh, not only from his connection with the 
 
 VOL. III.] a 
 
18 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LII. 
 
 city by birth and parentage, but as one of the executors of the 
 will of George Heriot, in which capacity he had drawn up the 
 statutes for the government of the hospital founded by that 
 munificent burgess. He had accompanied Hamilton as chap- 
 lain when he came to Scotland in June, but he does not seem 
 on that occasion to have been entrusted with the sort of official 
 character which he now bore. 
 
 When the commissioner arrived at Edinburgh, he found that 
 the discontented party were making still higher demands than 
 before. They were determined to abolish Episcopacy and the 
 Perth articles, and to force the Covenant on all persons under 
 the pain of excommunication. They now avowed the very 
 principles which their envoys had disclaimed a few days be- 
 fore in their controversy with the doctors of Aberdeen. 
 Hamilton announced the king's intention to call an assembly 
 and parliament, in the manner recognised by the laws and 
 practice of the kingdom ; but this gave no satisfaction, and, as 
 the Covenanters threatened to summon these courts by their 
 own authority, he again asked a delay of twenty days to con- 
 sult with his master. Before leaving Scotland, the marquis 
 held a conference with the Earls of Traquair, Roxburgh, and 
 Southesk. They agreed to offer certain articles of advice to 
 the king. The substance of these was, that the Service Book, 
 Canons, and High Commission, as being the cause of all the 
 distractions, and generally held to be illegal, should be abso- 
 lutely withdrawn ; that the practice of the five articles of 
 Perth, as being generally disliked, should be forborne till 
 approved by an assembly and parliament ; and that, though 
 Episcopacy was the form of church government most agree- 
 able with monarchy, yet the unlimited power assumed by the 
 lords of the clergy should be remitted to the consideration of 
 the general assembly. They farther recommended, as the 
 best means of restraining the disorders in the kingdom, that 
 his majesty should authorize the Negative Confession and 
 bond, which had been signed by his father ; and, if this was 
 done, they were confident his subjects would receive so much 
 satisfaction, that, if any still stood out, they would easily be 
 repressed by his power within the kingdom, independently of 
 any assistance from other quarters. They concluded by ad- 
 vising that a free pardon should be granted for all that was past. 
 
A.L>. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 19 
 
 This counsel represented truly enough the opinions of the 
 three earls who joined in it. Indifferent to the whole church 
 system in its religious character, they disliked it on account of 
 the authority which it conferred on the bishops. Sincerely 
 attached to the monarchy, but loving still better their own 
 aristocratical privileges, they had yet to learn that the conces- 
 sions which they recommended were destructive of both. But 
 the very motives which actuated his timid and selfish nobles 
 should have led Charles instantly and decidedly to reject the 
 fatal advice they gave. In so far as the Liturgy, Canons, 
 and High Commission, were concerned, that advice was both 
 just and prudent ; but the other points really involved the 
 adoption by the king of that very Covenant which he had so 
 strongly denounced. It was besides unworthy of the sove- 
 reign to seek to support his kingly authority by copying the 
 proceedings of his own rebellious subjects. 
 
 When the proposal was first submitted to Charles, he saw 
 its true aspect. The remedy, he said, was worse than the 
 disease. Hamilton admitted the strength of the arguments 
 against it. He stated that he himself could hardly subscribe 
 the Confession without straining his conscience, and that for 
 several reasons, but chiefly because, in disclaiming Transub- 
 stantiation, the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ 
 in the Eucharist was rejected, which he could not sign, unless 
 with the addition that by real^ he understood corporal. But 
 the Covenant, he said, was the idol of Scotland, and he saw 
 no other course by which order could be restored. He also 
 admitted the many inconveniences likely to follow from calling 
 an assembly, and presented a written statement of these to the 
 king. This account, Burnet tells us, was so full that, when 
 Bishop Maxwell was sent by the prelates to remonstrate 
 against the summoning of an assembly, his majesty answered, 
 that he had used no argument which the marquis had not already 
 laid before him. Hamilton's conduct on this important occasion 
 is characteristic of the principles which governed his whole pro- 
 ceedings. Direct treachery has never been proved against 
 him ; but, had he been the traitor which so many accuse him 
 of having been, he could not have done more injury to the 
 king's cause, than by his inconsistent and irresolute advice, 
 alternately prompting the king to rash and hasty denials of 
 
20 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chai-. LII. 
 
 his subjects' petitions, and to still more dangerous concessions 
 of everything which they demanded. 
 
 The king, at last, allowed his judgment and conscience to 
 be overborne, and on the ninth of September signed instruc- 
 tions still more full and ample. By these he absolutely re- 
 voked the Service Book, Canons, and High Commission ; dis- 
 charged the practice of the Perth articles, notwithstanding the 
 act of parliament commanding them, promising, if the three 
 estates should think fit to repeal the act, that he would give 
 his royal assent to such repeal ; authorized and enjoined the 
 lords of the council to subscribe the Negative Confession and 
 bond annexed thereto, as formerly signed by King James, 
 commanding them to take order that all his subjects should 
 also subscribe ; declared that no person, ecclesiastical or civil, 
 should be exempt from trial and censure by the parliament and 
 assembly acting in due form of law ; stated his willingness 
 that episcopal government should be limited in a manner con- 
 formable to the laws of the Church and kingdom ; and pro- 
 mised pardon to all who should rest satisfied with these con- 
 cessions, and act in future as dutiful subjects. The commis- 
 sioner was directed to endeavour, as far as possible, that the 
 election of members of the assembly should proceed as in the 
 reign of the late king ; but, if that could not be obtained, he was 
 still to go on, and to call an assembly and parliament at such 
 time and place as he might think best, except that the assem- 
 bly was not to sit at Edinburgh. The following was the tenor 
 of the fifteenth and sixteenth instructions : — '^ You must, by 
 all means possible you can think of, be infusing into the 
 ministers what a wrong it will be unto them, and what an op- 
 pression upon the freedom of their judgments, if there must be 
 such a number of laics to overbear them, both in their elec- 
 tions for the general assembly and afterwards. Likewise you 
 must infuse into the lay lords and gentlemen, with art and 
 industry, how manifestly they will suffer, if they let the pres- 
 byters get head upon them." Unlawful as the means were by 
 which the Covenant was enforced, and unscrupulous as were 
 the leaders of the Puritanical party in stirring up the people 
 against their sovereign, these two articles admit of no justifi- 
 cation. 
 
 On the same day, instructions were also signed for the guid- 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 21 
 
 ance of the commissioner in regard to the bishops. He was 
 to communicate to them the king's pleasure about the Service 
 Book, Canons, and High Commission, the articles of Perth, 
 and Episcopacy, and they were to be directed to repair to 
 Newcastle, Morpeth, or Berwick, so that they would have it 
 in their power to proceed to Scotland without delay, in order 
 to defend their own cause in the assembly, or to consult with 
 the commissioner ; and the Archbishop of St. Andrews was 
 to be asked to resign the office of chancellor, for which, how- 
 ever, he was to obtain reasonable compensation.^ 
 
 The struggle was now in name as well as in reality between 
 the king and the Covenanters. It was indeed impossible for 
 the latter to make further use of their original pretext that the 
 bisliops were the cause of the quarrel. The prelates were still 
 the objects of popular hatred, but their power was entirely 
 gone. As a body, they did not venture on any public act, 
 and it is not easy to trace their individual proceedings. The 
 Bishops of Aberdeen and Murray had remained in their 
 dioceses, and the former prelate was still supported by the 
 greater number of his clergy. The Bishops of Edinburgh 
 and Dunblane continued for some time to reside in the capital, 
 where they were joined by the primate and the Bishop of 
 Galloway about the beginning of June ; but the Bishops of 
 Boss and Brechin did not venture to come further north than 
 Berwick. From that town Bishop Maxwell wrote to Hamilton 
 on the twenty-ninth of June. This letter shews how helpless 
 the condition of the prelates was in all respects, but the calm 
 courage, the piety and resignation which appear in its simple, 
 unaffected language, are honourable to the writer- After the 
 departure of the commissioner in July, Spottiswood was so 
 much alarmed that he returned to England, and Sydserf ap- 
 pears to have followed him thither. The terror of the primate 
 was not without foundation. Baillie mentions that the Cove- 
 nanters were proposing, if they could find sufficient cause, to 
 have him excommunicated, and afterwards put to death. It 
 is not indeed likely that the leading men of the party contem- 
 templated any such atrocious proceeding, but some of their 
 followers would have required little encouragement to begin 
 the new Reformation with the murder of an archbishop. 
 ' Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 65-75. 
 
22 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LII. 
 
 When Hamilton set out for Scotland after receiving his in- 
 structions of the ninth of September, he visited Spottiswood 
 and the other prelates, who appear to have been then residing 
 at Ferrybridge, in Yorkshire. They heard of the king's in- 
 tentions with great dissatisfaction, and remonstrated against 
 what they saw would be fatal to the cause of Episcopacy. 
 On the wishes of the king regarding the chancellorship being 
 communicated to Spottiswood, he expressed his willingness to 
 acquiesce, and it was agreed that he should receive two thou- 
 sand five hundred pounds sterling, as a compensation. On 
 the sixteenth of September, Charles himself wrote to the 
 archbishop intimating his pleasure, but the resignation was 
 not formally completed till the middle of November. ^ 
 
 The commissioner returned to Holyrood on the seveiiteeiith 
 of September, and on the twenty-second the king's proposals 
 were approved of in council, and a proclamation was made, 
 announcing the royal intentions regarding the Service Book, 
 Canons, High Commission, and Articles of Perth, enjoining 
 subscription of the Negative Confession and bond, and ap- 
 pointing a general assembly to meet at Glasgow on the twenty- 
 first of November, and a parliament at Edinburgh on the 
 fifteenth of May. The Covenanters endeavoured in vain to 
 prevail on Hamilton to delay the proclamation. They were 
 afraid that the royal concessions would satisfy the people, and 
 that the king's Covenant would neutralize the effect of their 
 own ; and their fears seemed for some time to justify the 
 worldly prudence of the advice given by Hamilton. Failing 
 in their attempt to persuade the commissioner, the Cove- 
 nanters, as on former occasions, assembled in large numbers at 
 the market cross of Edinburgh ; and, when the proclamation 
 was made, a protestation was read by Johnstone. It objected 
 to the royal declaration, because it did not expressly condemn 
 all the former proclamations, and because it limited the freedom 
 of the general assembly by its reference to Episcopacy and the 
 Perth articles as still to some extent in force ; and more par- 
 ticularly it objected to the order for signing the Negative 
 
 ' Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, pp. 62, 63, 78, 79, 89. 
 Baillie, vol. i. pp. 78, 88. Hardwicke Papers, vol. ii. p. 110-112, Crawfurd's 
 Officers of State, pp. 186, 187. Eussell's Life of Spottiswood, prefixed to the 
 Spottiswood Society edition of his History, p. xlv-xlvii. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 23 
 
 Confession, because such subscription now would be inconsis- 
 tent with the more solemn Covenant which they had already 
 sworn, and by which they were determined to abide. It is 
 only necessary to read this protestation, to see that any con- 
 cession on the king's part, short of an absolute surrender of 
 the whole ecclesiastical system established by law, and of his 
 own royal prerogatives, would now have failed to satisfy the 
 persons by whom the measures of the popular party were 
 directed. Under ordinary circumstances, this must have been 
 manifest to the people themselves, but their religious and 
 political feelings were so excited, and the country was so 
 entirely under the control of the Tables, that few wished or 
 dared to refuse their concurrence in any measure which the 
 leading nobles and ministers enjoined. 
 
 Hamilton appears to have done his best to procure sub- 
 scriptions to the Negative Confession. After it had been 
 signed by himself and the council, commissions were issued 
 for obtaining signatures in all parts of the kingdom. The 
 council also addressed a letter to the king, in which they 
 thanked him for his gracious concessions, and promised to 
 sacrifice their lives and fortunes in maintaining his authority, 
 and in repressing all who should attempt to disturb the peace 
 of the Church and kingdom. This letter was signed by 
 the Marquis of Hamilton, the Earls of Traquair, Roxburgh, 
 Marischal, Mar, Murray, Linlithgow, Perth, Wigton, King- 
 horn, Tnllibardine, Haddington, Annandale, Lauderdale, Kiu- 
 noul, Dumfries, and Southesk, Viscount Belhaven, the Earl of 
 Angus, the Lords Lorn, Elphinstone, Napier, Dalzell, and 
 Almond, Sir John Hay, Sir Thomas Hope, Sir William 
 Elphinstone, Sir James Carmichael, Sir John Hamilton, and 
 Sir Archibald Stewart. ^ 
 
 About this time the Covenanting leaders, not satisfied with 
 the means hitherto used for keeping up the popular agitation, 
 had recourse to a singular artifice for that purpose. A young 
 woman, of the name of Margaret ]\Iitchelson, an enthusiast 
 in their cause, and who was subject to hysterical attacks, was 
 prompted or taught to assume the character of a prophetess, 
 to speak in the most rapturous terms of the proceedings of her 
 
 ' Large Declaration, p. 134-173. Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamil- 
 ton, p. 79-8 L 
 
24 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. Lll. 
 
 party, and to denounce the acts of its opponents, especially 
 the king's Confession. This imposture or delusion was for 
 some time appealed to as a testimony of heaven in their 
 favour, but, on its true character becoming known, the Puri- 
 tans, ashamed of the fraud, would have been glad if the 
 matter had been entirely forgotten.^ 
 
 The commissioners continued to apply for signatures to 
 the king's covenant, and Burnet mentions that twenty-eight 
 thousand in all were obtained, of which twelve thousand 
 were procured by means of the Marquis of Huntly. The 
 only part of the kingdom from which none were obtained 
 was Argyllshire, though the power of Lorn, who had himself 
 subscribed, was supreme in that district. Huntly attended in 
 person when the royal declaration was published at Aberdeen. 
 There also, as at Edinburgh, a protestation was made, but the 
 popular feeling was very different. The declaration was read 
 at the market cross by the Kothsay herald on the fifth of 
 October. What followed may be related in the words of 
 the contemporary chronicler, Spalding : — " The proclamation 
 ended, the marquis gave a great shout, saying, God save 
 the king, then peaceably left the cross. But immediately the 
 Lord Eraser, with the Master of Forbes, came to the same 
 place where the marquis stood, and made protestation against 
 the same set down in writing, and took instruments, throwing 
 the paper wherein the protestation was written out of his hand 
 in the air, and gave also a great shout, saying, God save the 
 king. The people cried out with great joy at the marquis's 
 shout, but few or none cried out with the Lord Eraser." 
 
 The northern laity had little objection to sign a Confession 
 recommended by their sovereign ; but among the clergy, as 
 might have been expected from their ecclesiastical principles, 
 
 ' Large Declaration, p. 226-228. Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamil- 
 ton, p. 83. Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. i. pp. 131, 182. Mr. Brodie (vol. ii. p. 
 502) expresses a suspicion that the whole account of Mitchelson's proceedings 
 was a forgery of the author of the Large Declaration. But the statements of 
 that work are confirmed by Gordon, as well as by Burnet ; and it is very impro- 
 bable that Balcanqual, by whom the Declaration was drawn up, would have 
 invented and published such a narrative, the year after the incident was said to 
 have occurred, and when the Covenanters could so easily have contradicted it. 
 See also Mr. Napier's remarks on this subject — Montrose and the Covenanters, 
 vol. i. p. 529-531. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 25 
 
 and from the opinions which they had lately maintained in 
 the dispute with the Covenanters, the Negative Confession 
 was by no means acceptahle. They regarded it as the king 
 himself did when it was first suggested by Hamilton ; and 
 the Bishop and doctors of Aberdeen agreed to sign it only at 
 Huntly's special request, and with the following explana- 
 tions : — " First, we do heartily abhor and condemn all errors 
 truly Popish, or repugnant to the Holy Scripture, and con- 
 sequently to the uniform doctrine of the Reformed Churches, 
 and to our National Confession registered in parliament in the 
 year 1567. Secondly, we do noways hereby abjure or con- 
 demn episcopal government, as it was in the days, and after 
 the days of the Apostles, in the Christian Church, for many 
 hundreds of years, and is now conform thereto restored in the 
 Church of Scotland. Thirdly, we do not hereby condemn 
 or abjure the five Perth articles, or anything lawful of that 
 sort, which shall be found by the Church conducible at any 
 time for good policy and order, or which is practised by any 
 sound Reformed Church. Fourthly, we still hold to that 
 clause of our great National Confession (Chapter 20, Article 
 21), that the general councils, and consequently the national 
 Church of Scotland, have no power to make any perpetual 
 law, which God before hath not made. Fifthly, by the ad- 
 hering to the discipline of the Reformed Church of Scotland, 
 we mean not any immutability of that Presby terial government 
 which was in the year 1581, or of any other human institution ; 
 but we do hereby understand that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction 
 and discipline of the Church of Scotland doth not depend on 
 the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign power ; and hereby we 
 do confess our constant obedience to the Church of Scotland, 
 in all her lawful constitutions. Sixthly, we do not presume 
 by this our personal oath, either to prejudge the liberty of the 
 Church of Scotland to change and reform this foresaid short 
 confession in some ambiguities and obscure expressions thereof, 
 whereupon some men have builded inconvenient interpretations 
 and doctrines, or to exempt ourselves from obedience to the 
 Church in that case. Seventhly, by this our personal oath, 
 we do not take upon us to lay any farther bond upon our 
 posterity than the word of God doth, recommending only our 
 example to them, so far as they shall find it agreeable to God's 
 
26 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LII. 
 
 word. In this sense, as is said, and no otherwise, do we sub- 
 scribe the said Confession, and the general bond annexed 
 thereunto." ^ 
 
 The attention of all persons Avas now fixed on the approaching 
 assembly. Glasgow had been approved of by the king as the 
 place of meeting, at the suggestion, there can hardly be a 
 doubt, of Hamilton. The chief estates of that nobleman were 
 in the neighbourhood, and his influence was considerable in 
 the university, and among the better class of citizens ; but he 
 might have known, from what had already occurred, how little 
 his feudal autliority availed when opposed to the prevalent 
 excitement. Aberdeen was recommended by Spottiswood as 
 a more fitting place, and the Covenanters were alarmed by a 
 report that his advice had been followed. It is very doubtful 
 whether, so long as the power of the Tables continued, and 
 with such a commissioner as Hamilton, the result of the 
 assembly would have been different wherever held ; but Aber- 
 deen would certainly have given many advantages to the 
 king. The loyalty of the inhabitants and the influence of the 
 house of Gordon would have counterbalanced the presence of 
 the lay commissioners of the Covenanters and their followers ; 
 and the doctors of the university, with the prospect of a fair 
 hearing, would have maintained the cause of their Church and 
 sovereign. As it was, Hamilton earnestly requested the 
 Aberdeen clergy to come to Glasgow. Burnet mentions that 
 he was to have sent one of his own coaches for them, but that 
 they were so averse to the journey that he ceased to urge 
 them, especially as he saw " it was resolved that, though an 
 angel from heaven should come to plead for Episcopacy, all 
 would be rejected." ^ 
 
 Matters were now in such a state that it is hardly to be 
 wondered that the supporters of the hierarcliy gave up the 
 contest in despair. Even before the assembly was summoned, 
 the Covenanters had taken steps to secure the return of such 
 members as were devoted to their cause. On the twenty- 
 seventh of August, directions had been sent to the presbyteries 
 how to proceed. These directions contained a copy of an act 
 
 1 Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, pp. 86, 87. Spalding, vol. i. 
 p. 113. 
 
 - Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, pp. 75, 84. Baillie, vol. i. pp. 
 103, 104. Garden's Life of Dr. John Forbes, p. 44. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 27 
 
 of assembly made at Dundee, in 1597, whereby it was ordered 
 that three brethren, at the most, and one commissioner for the 
 barons, should be sent by each presbytery to the assembly, 
 and also one commissioner for each burgh, except Edinburgh, 
 which was to return two. A form of commission was sent, 
 containing an express censure of the innovations complained 
 of. Each kirk-session was directed to send one of its lay 
 elders to vote at the election of clerical and lay commissioners 
 for the presbytery. It was enjoined that all who were errone- 
 ous in doctrine, or scandalous in life, should have charges 
 brought against them, so that they might not be elected com- 
 missioners; and if, notwithstanding, they should still be chosen 
 by the majority, the well-affected minority were to protest, and 
 come to the assembly to testify the fact. It was also ordered 
 that the moderators of presbyteries should not, as such, be 
 commissioners. 
 
 Along with these public instructions, certain private direc- 
 tions were given, ordering informations to be made against all 
 the bishops ; requesting the ministers to be ready to dispute 
 on the contested points of church government and ceremonies ; 
 and suggesting that the full number of commissioners should 
 be chosen in well-affected presbyteries, but as few as pos- 
 sible in others, that the well-affected should not divide their 
 votes but agree to the same persons, and that in the elec- 
 tions all members of chapters and of the High Commission, 
 and all who had countenanced the Service Book, should be 
 avoided. ^ 
 
 The important nature of the points involved in these in- 
 structions is obvious. It was proposed, notwithstanding the 
 desuetude of many years, to restore the lay elders to the position 
 which they formerly held, and* that not only in the general 
 assembly, but also in the presbyteries. As each kirk-session 
 
 ' Large Declaration, p. 129-131. Baillie, vol. i. appendix, p. 469-472. Tbe 
 points on wliich the ministers were requested to be prepared to dispute were 
 well selected. They were the following: — " De Episcopatu ; de senioribus ; de 
 diaconatu ; de potestate magistratus in ecclesiasticis, prsesertim in convocandis 
 conciliis, et qui debent interesse in conciliis ; de civili jurisdictione ecclesias- 
 ticorum, eorumque officiis in civilibus ; de rebus adiaphoris, et potestate magis- 
 tratus in illis ; de Liturgia praescripta ; de ritibus Ecclesiae, seu Liturgia 
 Anglicana ; de Sacramento ; de corruptelis Liturgise, et Libro Canomun ; de 
 Quinque articulis Perthensibus, &c." 
 
28 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chai-. LIT. 
 
 was to send an elder to the presbytery, and all members of 
 the latter court were to vote for the whole commissioners, 
 whether clerical or lay, the new lay members would be able, 
 with the assistance of one or two of the clergy, to return what 
 representatives they pleased ; and, by excluding the moderators 
 as such, the representatives of presbyteries were made wholly 
 elective. The injunction to proceed against erroneous and 
 scandalous ministers was intended to prevent the choice of all 
 who were favourable to Episcopacy, or the Perth articles ; and 
 the proposed information against the bishops themselves was a 
 step preparatory to the complete subversion of the hierarchy. 
 
 When the elections came on, the instructions of the Tables 
 were carried out by their adherents, and, although in some pres- 
 byteries the members refused to admit their new lay colleagues, 
 their opposition was generally overborne or disregarded, and 
 such commissioners were chosen as were named by the popular 
 party. The Covenanters, at the same time, proceeded to censure 
 and suspend several of the clergy who had remained faithful to 
 the Church. The Presbytery of Edinburgh particularly dis- 
 tinguished themselves in this way. They summoned David 
 Mitchell before them for alleged erroneous doctrines, and, 
 notwithstanding his appeal to the approaching assembly, the 
 express prohibition of the royal commissioner, and the offer 
 of the Bishop of Edinburgh to bring him before a court com- 
 posed of himself and certain of his clergy in terms of law, they 
 suspended him from his function, and deprived him of his 
 office as one of the ministers of the city.^ 
 
 The Tables, encouraged by the uniform success which had 
 attended their efforts, now prepared a formal accusation against 
 the bishops. They requested Hamilton to issue a warrant for 
 citing them before the assembly, but he declined to do so, 
 mentioning that they must proceed in a legal way, and that it 
 was enough he did not seek to protect the accused from a fair 
 trial. They then applied to the Presbytery of Edinburgh 
 either to try the prelates, or to refer the matter to the general 
 assembly, presenting for that purpose a bill or complaint, 
 drawn up in name of certain noblemen, barons, burgesses, 
 ministers, and others, on behalf of themselves, and of all 
 subscribers to the Covenant, who were not commissioners to 
 
 ' Large Declaration, pp. 191, 205, 206. BailHe, vol. i. appendix, p. 475. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 29 
 
 the assembly. This complaint was directed against all the 
 fourteen prelates, whom it styled pretended bishops of their 
 several sees. It accused them of breaking the cautions 
 agreed to, respecting ministers' votes in parliament and 
 other points, in the assembly held at Montrose in tlie year 
 1600 ; of transgressing various provisions of the Book of 
 Discipline ; of teaching doctrines contrary to the Confession of 
 Faith, and encouraging those who taught certain specified 
 points of Arminianism and Popery ; of exacting unlawful 
 oaths and subscriptions from entrants to the ministry ; of 
 holding secular offices as members of the privy council, 
 senators of the College of Justice, and the like ; of assuming 
 the function of diocesan bishops, of taking consecration in that 
 capacity, and claiming the power of ordination and jurisdiction 
 as due to them in virtue of that unwarrantable office ; of 
 introducing the Service Book, Canons, and High Commission, 
 and moving dissension between the king and his subjects. 
 The bill then proceeded to state that the bishops " respective " 
 were commonly reported to be guilty of " excessive drinking, 
 whoring, playing at cards and dice, swearing, profane speaking, 
 excessive gaming, profaning of the Sabbath, contempt of 
 the public ordinances, and private family exercises, mocking of 
 the power of preaching, prayer, and spiritucil conference, and 
 sincere professors ; besides of bribery, simony, selling of com- 
 missariot places, lies, perjuries, dishonest dealing in civil bar- 
 gains, abusing of their vassals, and of adultery and incest, 
 with many other offences," the particulars of which were to be 
 given in specific accusations. 
 
 On the twenty-fourth of October, the presbytery, having 
 considered the complaint, referred the same to the ensuing 
 assembly at Glasgow, and ordered it to be • read from the 
 pulpit by all pastors within their jurisdiction, on the forenoon 
 of the following Sunday, with a citation to the accused pre- 
 lates to appear and answer to the charges made against them. 
 
 The Large Declaration remarks on the manifest irregularity 
 and injustice of the whole proceeding — of the Presbytery of 
 Edinburgh citing parties over whom, even according to their 
 own ecclesiastical forms, they had no jurisdiction ; of persons 
 being accused of breaking laws which had been repealed by 
 subsequent statutes, and called in question for yielding obedi- 
 
30 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LII. 
 
 ence to acts of parliament and assembly ; and of horrible 
 crimes being imputed, of which the accusers themselves did 
 not believe the accused to be guilty. The writer of the 
 Declaration, admitting that if the prelates were guilty of the 
 odious offences last alluded to they were deserving of death, 
 adds, that the accusers, if they failed to prove them, would 
 themselves be infamous throughout all generations ; and con- 
 cludes in the following manner : — " This now is that libel 
 with which the Covenanters did undoubtedly compass their 
 own end, which was to raise up in the people an utter abhor- 
 ring of the present bishops' persons, and an irreconcilable hatred 
 against both their persons and calling, but with what religion, 
 justice, and honesty, they have effected it, others besides 
 themselves, both in heaven and earth, must judge and give 
 sentence."^ 
 
 This proceeding was one of the most disgraceful acts 
 of which the Covenanting chiefs were guilty, and was deli'- 
 berately carried through, in accordance with an instruction 
 contained in the private directions of the twenty-seventh of 
 August. Aware that they had no proof of the shameful 
 immoralities attributed to the bishops, they put these forward, 
 not as specific charges, but as matters of common report, and 
 professed, in excuse, that it was only meant that the prelates 
 were respectively guilty of one or more of them. They well 
 knew, however, that the people generally would make no 
 minute distinction ; and it was not intended that they should. 
 
 The Tables did not attempt to conceal their determination 
 that freedom of debate and independent judgment in the 
 assembly should be prevented. They openly issued instruc- 
 tions, by which all noblemen, subscribers of the Covenant, 
 except those of the West who were to be ready on notice 
 given, were to meet on the twelfth of November at Edinburgh, 
 where they were to remain till they should assemble at Glas- 
 gow. The commissioners appointed in the several shires were 
 to attend to the common cause, with four gentlemen, at the 
 least, from each presbytery, as their assessors ; and two, four, 
 or six persons, from each burgh, were to repair to Glasgow on 
 the seventeenth, to give their advice to the commissioners of 
 
 ' Large Declaration, p. 207-226. Burnet's Memoire of the Dukes of Hamil- 
 ton, p. 88. 
 
A.D. 1G38.] OF SCOTLAND. 31 
 
 the burghs. A general fast was also ordered to be kept on 
 the fourth of November. In consequence of these instructions, 
 the privy council, by proclamation, forbade all commissioners 
 to repair to Glasgow with any other attendance than their 
 ordinary retinue, and also prohibited them from appearing 
 with any weapons except those allowed by law. This was 
 answered, as usual, by a protestation, and the Covenanters 
 resorted to Glasgow in large numbers, and in arms. Hamilton 
 could scarcely have expected obedience from avowed adver- 
 saries, when the king's advocate, Sir Thomas Hope, on being 
 requested to prepare himself to defend Episcopacy as conform- 
 able to the laws of Scotland, positively refused, answering 
 that it was against his conscience to do so, as he thought 
 Episcopacy to be contrary to the word of God, and the laws 
 of the Church and kingdom. ^ 
 
 On the seventeenth of November, the royal commissioner 
 came to Glasgow, to be ready for the meeting of the assembly 
 on the twenty-first. 
 
 1 Large Declaration, p. 230-232. Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamil- 
 ton, p. 92. 
 
32 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Cuap. LIIL 
 
 CHAPTER LIIL 
 
 FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE GLASGOW ASSEMBLY ON THE 21st OF 
 NOVEMBER, TO ITS CONCLUSION ON THE 20th OF DECEMBER, 1638. 
 
 Meeting of the Glasgow Assembly — Memhers of the Assembly — 
 Alexander Henderson is chosen Moderator — The Bishops'' 
 Declinature — Discussion as to lay elders — The Commis- 
 sioner dissolves the Assembly — T'he members continue to 
 sit — The Earl of Argyll joins the Covenanters — The six 
 previous Assemblies declared null — The Booh of Common 
 Prayer, Booh of Canons, and Court of High Commission 
 condemned — The Archbishops of St. Andrews and GlasgotOj 
 and the Bishop)s of Edinhurgh, Galloway, Boss, Brechirij 
 Aberdeen, and Dunblane, deposed and excommunicated — 
 The Bishojys of Murray, Orhney, Argyll, and the Isles, de- 
 posed — The Bishops of Dunheld and Caithness deposed 
 from their episcopal, and suspended from their ministerial 
 functions — Nature of the charges against the Bishops — 
 David Mitchell, Archdeacon Gladstones, Dr. Robert Hamil- 
 ton, William Annand, and Archdeacon Mackenzie, deposed 
 — Conclusion of the Assembly. 
 
 The prelates, having resolved not to recognise the authority 
 of the assembly in any way, had prepared a declinature of its 
 jurisdiction, and a protestation against whatever steps might 
 be taken to their prejudice. As it was desirable that some of 
 their number should be In the neighbourhood to arrange with 
 the royal commissioner in regard to their proceedings, the 
 Bishops of Ross and Brechin had come to Hamilton, where 
 they were hospitably entertained by order of the marquis. 
 From that place they wrote to him, on the twentieth of No- 
 vember, acknowledging his kindness ; professing that they 
 would willingly choose a more sober diet, and less ease, con- 
 sidering that their own sins and the difficulties of the times 
 admonished them rather to fast than to feast, to affiict their 
 souls rather than relish any worldly pleasure ; and concluding 
 by saying that, though the difficulties were great and the 
 
A.D. 1G38.] OF SCOTLAND. 33 
 
 hopes none, yet their cause was on that account more like to 
 be the cause of God. Tiiej were soon afterwards conducted 
 by the marquis's order to the castle of Glasgow. A rumour 
 had been spread that the primate was to come by sea from his 
 retreat at ^Newcastle, in order to meet his brethren at Glasgow, 
 but he had neither strength nor inclination for such a voyage. 
 It was well for him that lie did not venture, for the more un- 
 scrupulous of the Covenanters appear again to have contem- 
 plated violent measures against him.^ 
 
 On Friday, the sixteenth of November, the western Cove- 
 nanters came to Glasgow, the noblemen being attended by 
 great numbers of their friends and vassals. On the following 
 day, in terms of their previous arrangement, most of the other 
 members of the party arrived. On Sunday, the leading indi- 
 viduals among the ministers met to arrange their course of 
 proceeding, and their deliberations were continued during the 
 Monday and Tuesday. There was some difficulty in regard to 
 the person whom they were to propose as moderator. , It was 
 allowed by all that Henderson was best qualified for the office, 
 but, in the event of the bishops and the doctors of Aberdeen 
 appearing to defend the cause of Episcopacy, it was thought 
 hazardous to disqualify their ablest champion from taking 
 part in the debate. It was finally, however, agreed that he 
 should be named, as all others who wxre mentioned appeared 
 to be in some respects unfit for the office. The assembly met 
 on the twenty-first. For some time, all classes in Scotland, 
 and all in England and Ireland who took an interest in the 
 ecclesiastical and political questions which then occupied the 
 minds of so many, had looked forward to this meeting, and 
 now their attention was anxiously directed to the proceedings 
 which were about to commence. One of Laud's letters to 
 Lord Wentworth is dated, " Wednesday, November the 
 twenty-first, 1638, the day of the sitting down of the assem- 
 bly in Scotland." 
 
 Among the members of the assembly were most of the great 
 nobles who had urged on the movement, and of the preachers 
 
 ^ Bnmet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, pp. 92, 93. See also, in re gar d 
 to the violence threatened to Spottiswood, the singular letter, dated 26th Octo- 
 ber, 1638 (Hailes' Memorials, p. 46), written apparently from Fileshire, by a 
 correspondent of Johnstone of Warriston using only the signature G. 
 VOL. iir.j ■ 4 
 
34 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIII. 
 
 whose eloquence and zeal, or former sufferings in the cause, 
 had gained for them an influence over their countrymen. The 
 Earls of Plome, Lothian, Cassillis, Eglinton, and Wemyss, 
 the Lords Cranston, Yester, Johnston, Sinclair, Lindsay, 
 Burleigh, and Cupar, were present as commissioners for pres- 
 byteries. The Earl of Montrose, who had not come forward 
 at the earlier stages of the proceedings, and who, zealous as he 
 had shown himself, was not entrusted with the more secret 
 intentions of the party, was ruling elder for the Presbytery of 
 Auchterarder. The real leaders among the nobility, Rothes, 
 Balmerino, and Loudon, represented the Presbyteries of Kirk- 
 aldy, Edinburgh, and Irvine. The first of these noblemen had 
 in his youth been a Roman Catholic, and his opposition to the 
 court was influenced more by political than by religious motives. 
 Balmerino, after having been convicted of treasonable conduct 
 m connection with proceedings which followed the parliament 
 of 1633, was pardoned by the king ; but the harshness and 
 injustice of the prosecution not only confirmed his former 
 opinions, but caused him to entertain a deep feeling of personal 
 resentment. Loudon was conscientiously attached to Presby- 
 terianism, and the ecclesiastical principles which he n:iaintained 
 were with him no mere empty profession. The other com- 
 missioners of presbyteries were knights and gentlemen, for the 
 most part men of considerable wealth and influence ; the repre- 
 sentatives of the burghs were burgesses, many of them holding 
 the chief offices in the magistracy, or lawyers, the town clerks 
 of the municipalities. Burnet's statement, that there were 
 some of the lay elders who could neither read nor write, 
 appears to be an exaggeration. One or two of the represen- 
 tatives of the smaller burghs may have been comparatively 
 illiterate, but the greater number of the elders were well edu- 
 cated men. 
 
 Among the preachers were Dickson, Rutherford, and Baillie; 
 Livingstone, now minister at Stranraer; and Blair, who had 
 been appointed minister at Ayr in room of Ann and. Calder- 
 wood, who had returned from exile, was also present, but, 
 as he had no parochial charge, he was not a member, and only 
 assisted at their consultations. 
 
 The foremost person, however, among the ministers was 
 Henderson. He was born in Fifeshire in the year 1583, and was 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 
 
 35 
 
 educated at the University of St. Andre\YS. In his early years 
 he was a supporter of Episcopacy, and, by the favour of Arch- 
 bishop Gladstones, was presented to the church of Leuchars. 
 Soon after the death of that prelate he changed his sentiments, 
 and adopted the views of the party opposed to the hierarchy. 
 Nothing has been ascertained regarding the particular circum- 
 stances which led to this alteration of opinion. There is a 
 well-known story, which ascribes his conversion to the cause of 
 Puritanism to a sermon of Robert Bruce, whom he went to 
 hear out of curiosity. In this there is nothing improbable, 
 but the statement rests on no earlier authority than a tra- 
 dition first mentioned by Eobert Fleming more than fifty 
 years after the event. The new opinions thus adopted were 
 firmly maintained by Henderson, and for many years under 
 circumstances which are a sufficient warrant for his sincerity. 
 In the Perth assembly of 1618, he took a prominent part in 
 opposing the five articles, and, when they were established, 
 he refused obedience to them. In the year 1619, he was 
 called before the diocesan synod of St. Andrews for not 
 administering the communion according to the prescribed order. 
 He answered that lie had acted, not from contempt, but be- 
 cause he was not yet fully persuaded of the lawfulness of the 
 rule. He received an exhortation to obedience and conformity ; 
 but it is not stated whether he submitted. So far as appears, 
 no other ecclesiastical censure or punishment of any kind was 
 inflicted upon him. When the troubles began, though he was 
 known to be a firm champion of Puritanism, he was in the 
 undisturbed possession of a parochial cure in the immediate 
 neighbourhood of St. Andrews. ^ 
 
 The assembly met within the cathedral of St. Kentigern. 
 Notwithstanding the ample dimensions of the church, it was 
 with great difiiculty that the members could get their places ; 
 so numerous was the crowd that thronged within its walls. 
 Baillie complains in indignant language of their behaviour. 
 
 ' Baillie, vol. i. p. 121-123. Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 
 98. Peterkin's Records of the Kirt, p. 109-111. Life of John Livingstone — 
 Select Biographies, edited for the Wodrow Society, vol. i. p. 161. Life of Robert 
 Blair, p. 155. In regard to Henderson, see his Life by Alton, p. 86-104, and 
 Wodrow's Life of Bruce, p. 155. Henderson himself has recorded his attach- 
 ment to Episcopacy in his younger years ; see his first paper in the discussion 
 between him and King Charles at Newcastle. 
 
36 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIIT. 
 
 " It is here alone," he says, " where, I think, we might learn 
 from Canterbury, yea, from the Pope, from the Turks, or 
 Pagans, modesty and manners ; at least their deep reverence 
 in the house they call God's ceases not till it have led them 
 to the adoration of the timber and stones of the place. We 
 are here so far the other way, that our rascals, without shame, 
 in great numbers, make such din and clamour in the house of 
 the true God, that if they attempted to use the like behaviour 
 in my chamber, I could not be content till they were down 
 the stairs." The royal commissioner sat in his chair of state, 
 and beside him were the members of the privy council ; oppo- 
 site to his seat, was a little table for the moderator and clerk. 
 The noblemen and barons, commissioners of presbyteries, sat 
 at a long table on the floor, and round it, on rows of seats rising 
 one above the other, were the ministers and the commissioners 
 of burghs. At one end was a place set apart for the eldest 
 sons of peers ; and the galleries were filled with multitudes of 
 all classes, including a number of ladies. One or two minis- 
 ters wore gowns ; the rest appeared in their cloaks. The 
 nobles and gentlemen were in their ordinary secular habits, 
 and had their swords by their sides. ^ 
 
 After a prayer by John Bell, one of the ministers of Glas- 
 gow, who acted as interim moderator, Hamilton's commis- 
 sion from the king was read. The commissions of the mem- 
 bers were subsequently given in, and the marquis proposed 
 that these should be examined before a moderator was chosen, 
 but, on this being overruled by the assembly, he acquiesced. 
 On the twenty-third, Henderson was elected moderator by an 
 unanimous vote. On this occasion, the royal commissioner 
 claimed a right to vote on behalf of six noblemen and gentle- 
 men who had been named as his assessors, but this claim was 
 disallowed, the king being held to have right only to a single 
 vote. Archibald Johnstone of Warriston having been chosen 
 clerk, the commissions of the members were examined. In 
 the course of a discussion connected with a disputed return for 
 the Presbytery of Brechin, the clerk hastily read an approba- 
 tion indorsed by the Tables on the commission granted in 
 favour of the candidates selected by the Covenanters. Dick- 
 son ascribed this approbation to inadvertence, but Montrose 
 
 ' Baillie, vol. i. pp. 123, 124. GorJon's Scots Affairs, vol. i. p. 157. 
 
A.D. 163S.] OF SCOTLAND. 37 
 
 with characteristic openness and impetuosity, avowed that it 
 was done intentionally, and professed his determination to 
 abide by it. Some protestations against the votes of ruling 
 elders were entirely disregarded. ^ 
 
 The royal commissioner repeatedly urged that the bishops 
 declinature should be read. This was not allowed for some 
 time, on the ground that the assembly was not fully con- 
 stituted, but it was at last agreed to. The declinature was 
 presented on the twenty-seventh by Dr. Robert Hamilton, 
 minister at Glassford, and bore the signatures of the two 
 Archbishops, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Galloway, Eoss, 
 and Brechin. The subscribers, admitting that a general 
 assembly, lawfully called and orderly convened, was the best 
 means for removing the evils with which the Church was 
 afflicted, represented that they esteemed the present meeting 
 at Glasgow to be unlawful and disorderly, and its proceedings 
 null and void, for various reasons. Among these, the follow- 
 ing were the most important : — Because the commissioners to 
 the assembly were chosen in many cases before it was sum- 
 moned by his majesty ; Because the commissioners for the 
 clergy were elected by laymen ; Because the persons chosen 
 had been disobedient to the king and their ordinaries, and 
 some of them were under censures from the Church of Ireland ; 
 Because laymen, not delegated by the sovereign, claimed a 
 definitive and decisive voice. They protested especially 
 against the illegality and injustice of the complaint given in 
 against themselves, and the other bishops of the Church. 
 They stated that it was against reason and authority that 
 bishops should have no seat in the assembly, unless they were 
 elected by preaching and ruling elders ; and asserted that its 
 proceedings were null, because its moderator and president 
 was neither primate, archbishop, nor bishop, but a person 
 chosen by plurality of voices. They maintained their own 
 lawful calling in virtue of their election by the cathedral 
 chapters, and episcopal consecration with consent of the sove- 
 reign, according to the canons and former customs of the king- 
 dom, and of the Church in ancient times ; and denied that 
 bishops could lawfully be judged by presbyters or laics. 
 
 ' Baillie, vol. I'.p. 124-138. Peterkin's Records of the Kirk, p. 129-140. Large 
 Declaration, p. 234-247. 
 
38 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIII. 
 
 Therefore for themselves, and in name of the Church of Scot- 
 land, tliey protested that the assembly should be accounted 
 null in law human and divine, and that all its acts should be 
 esteemed unjust, illegal, and void.^ 
 
 It is not explained why the prelates that have been named 
 were the only bishops who signed the declinature. It is pro- 
 bable that the Bishops of Dunkeld, Orkney, Caithness, and 
 Argyll, were unwilling to do so. The Bishop of Dunblane 
 was perhaps hindered by sickness ; and there may have been 
 no time to obtain the signatures of the Bishops of Aberdeen, 
 Murray, and the Isles. 
 
 The reading of the declinature enabled the royal commis- 
 sioner to take the step which his instructions empowered him 
 to adopt, and which all that had occurred shewed the useless- 
 ness of longer delaying. On the morning of Wednesday the 
 twenty-eighth, he convened the members of the privy council 
 in the chapter-house of the cathedral, and announced his 
 intention of dissolving the assembly. When the assembly met 
 that day, the Covenanters, in answer to some of the reasons 
 in the bishops' declinature, appealed to what had taken place 
 at the condemnation of the Remonstrants by the Synod of 
 Dort. In reference to this, Dr. Balcanquhal, having first 
 asked permission to speak, argued that the authority referred 
 to did not apply ; and farther offered to prove, that neither in 
 name nor in reality was a lay elder known to any general or 
 provincial council, or to any particular Church in the whole 
 Christian world, before Calvin's days. Henderson told the 
 speaker that his father had been of a different opinion, and 
 added, that the question as it stood before them was not 
 whether lay elders had ever been received in other Churches, 
 but whether their office and place in the assembly was agree- 
 able to the constitution of the Church of Scotland. 
 
 When this discussion was finished, Henderson declared 
 that, since both the competency and constitution of the assem- 
 bly had been openly impugned, it was time to settle that 
 point, of which the members alone could be the judges, and 
 therefore he would put it to the vote, whether they could law- 
 fully decide in the complaint against the bishops, notwith- 
 standing the reasons contained in the declinature. Upon 
 
 ' Large Declaration, p. 247-264. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 39 
 
 this, Hamilton addressed the assembly. After causing the 
 king's last concessions regarding the Service Book and other 
 points to be read, he mentioned that, since they had brought 
 lay elders to give their voices along with the members, since 
 the ministers there sitting were chosen by lay elders, since the 
 commissioners were named before hand by the Tables, and the 
 bishops were cited to be tried by the very persons who had 
 already prejudged and condemned them, he was now obliged 
 to discliarge his duty, and to command them not to proceed 
 further. He then protested that whatever should afterwards 
 be done should not oblige any of the king's subjects, or be re- 
 puted as an act of the assembly. 
 
 The Covenanters were prepared for this step, and had 
 already resolved to disregard it. Henderson spoke in deferen- 
 tial terms of the king's ecclesiastical authority, calling his 
 majesty the universal Bishop of the Churches in his dominions, 
 but adding that, as the commissioner " had served his master 
 carefully and faithfully in preserving his privileges and prero- 
 gatives, so they must needs likewise be faithful and careful in 
 preserving the privileges and prerogatives of the kingdom of the 
 Son of God, which was his Church." Others of the members en- 
 treated Hamilton to remain, but he peremptorily refused, and, in 
 language more resolute than before, dissolved the assembly, and 
 departed along with the lords of the council, at the very time that 
 the clerk was reading a protestation against this proceeding. 
 
 It was put to the vote whether, notwithstanding the disso- 
 lution and the commissioner's departure, they should adhere to 
 their protestation and continue the assembly. All the mem- 
 bers voted in the affirmative, except the Lord Carnegie and 
 Sir John Carnegie of Ethie, lay elders for the Presbyteries of 
 Brechin and Arbroath ; Dr. John Baron, Provost of St. 
 Salvator's College and commissioner for the University of St. 
 Andrews ; Dr. Strang, Principal of the College of Glasgow 
 and commissioner for that university ; Andrew Logic, Arch- 
 deacon of Aberdeen ; Thomas Mackenzie, Archdeacon of Ross ; 
 and a few others who refused to sit longer. It was then car- 
 ried, without a dissentient voice, that the assembly was com- 
 petent to judge the bishops, and that it was proper to go on 
 with their trial. 
 
 On the following day, the royal proclamation dissolving the 
 
40 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIII. 
 
 assembly was published at the market cross of Glasgow, and 
 was immediately followed by a protestation which was read 
 by Johnstone.^ 
 
 The members of the assembly met on the twenty-ninth, 
 and proceeded with the business before them as if no inter- 
 ruption had taken place. Thirty years before, a few ministers 
 who met in synod at Aberdeen in defiance of a royal proclama- 
 tion, and declined the jurisdiction of the council, had been 
 convicted of treason ; but circumstances were now much 
 changed. The cause of Puritanism was triumphant, and its 
 adherents, secure in their numbers and influence, were deter- 
 mined to enforce absolute submission to their authority. An 
 event took place at the meeting of the twenty-ninth, for which 
 the leaders of the Covenanters jnust have been prepared, but 
 which greatly encouraged their party. The Earl of Argyll 
 had refused to concur with the other members of the council 
 in the proclamation for dissolving the assembly. He was one 
 of Hamilton's assessors, and did not otherwise hold a commis- 
 sion as a member, but he now returned to the assembly, and 
 expressed his satisfaction that he was to be a witness to their 
 proceedings. This great nobleman, the most powerful sub- 
 ject in the kingdom, as Baillie truly calls him, was the son of 
 that Earl of Argyll, who, in his youth, at the head of an army 
 of Highlanders, had fought unsuccessfully at Glenlivat with the 
 Lowland cavaliers of the Roman Catholic lords, Huntly and 
 Errol. That earl had himself in after life embraced the 
 Roman Catholic religion, and was in consequence obliged to 
 resign the greater part of his estates, with the feudal authority 
 and patriarchal rights of chieftainship belonging to the house 
 of Campbell, in favour of his eldest son, the Lord Lorn. Lorn 
 had enjoyed the favour of Charles ; had sat in the privy 
 council, and concurred in the acts which were most com- 
 plained of by the Covenanters ; and, when the Service Book, 
 Canons, and High Commission, were recalled, had promised 
 along with the other counsellors to assist the king to the ut- 
 most. His dislike to thejiierarchy and the ceremonies had never 
 been concealed. In this respect, and in his general lukewarm- 
 
 ' Large Declaration, p. 269-302. Baillie, vol. i. p. 138-145. Pcterkin's 
 Records of the Kirk, p. 140-147. Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, 
 p. 101-106. Gor Jon's Scots Afiairs, vol. ii. p. [>. 
 
AD. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 41 
 
 ness where the interests of the clergy were concerned, he only- 
 resembled others of the council, but there can be no doubt that 
 for some time back he had been secretly connected with the 
 discontented party, aud had been promoting- their measures. 
 Guthrie mentions that, when Lorn repaired to London in the 
 summer of 1638, the Earl of Argyll advised the king not to 
 allow him to go back to Scotland, and that Charles, while he 
 thanked the old nobleman for liis counsel, said that having 
 called him up he must be a king of his word and permit him 
 to return. This, however, like others of that writer's stories, 
 appears to rest on his own unsupported authority. On his 
 father's death in the autumn of 1638, Lorn had become Earl of 
 Argyll, and he was now the first openly to forsake his master.^ 
 Freed from the control which, to some extent, the presence 
 of the royal commissioner, and those who acted with him, had 
 hitherto exercised, the assembly proceeded to carry out the 
 objects for which it had met. It was declared that the last 
 six general assemblies, those of Linlithgow in 1606, and 
 1608, of Glasgow in 1610, of Aberdeen in 1616, of St. 
 Andrews in 1617, and of Perth in 1618, were unfree, unlaw- 
 ful, and null, and that all their acts were of no force or effect. 
 The chief grounds of nullity alleged were the presence of 
 bishops, noblemen, and others, who had no commission to vote 
 from the presbyteries, the absence of ruling elders, and the 
 undue influence used by the crown in the choice of members, 
 and in the votes of the assemblies. The oaths exacted by 
 bishops from entrants to the ministry were declared to be 
 unlawful, null, and no way obligatory. The Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer was condemned, as illegally introduced, and as 
 repugnant to the doctrine, discipline, and order of the Ee- 
 formed Church. For similar reasons, the Book of Canons, 
 the Book of Consecration and Ordination, and the court of 
 High Commission, were condemned. It was declared unani- 
 mously, one member hesitating but not opposing, that Episcopacy 
 had been abjured by the Confession of 1581, and ought to be 
 
 ' Baillie, vol. i. pp. 145, 146. Guthrie, p. 31. Clarendon, vol- i. pp. 225, 
 226. The date of Lorn's succesi-ion to the earldom is ascertained with sufficient 
 accuracy by a letter from the king to Wentworth (Strafibrd's Letters, vol. ii. p. 
 232), dated the .5th of November, 1638, in which he speaks of "Loin that is 
 now Argyll." 
 
42 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIII. 
 
 removed. It was agreed unanimously, that the five articles 
 of Perth ought to be removed, and, with one dissentient voice, 
 that they also had been abjured by the Confession ; and all 
 disputing for them, and observance of them, were prohibited in 
 time to come. The member who hesitated as to Episcopacy, 
 and voted against the abjuration of the Perth articles, was 
 Robert Baillie. He believed that the articles were not in 
 themselves unlawful, and that there were two sorts of Episco- 
 pacy, one, such as then existed, which was a Popish error 
 against Scripture and antiquity, and to be both removed and 
 abjured, the other, such as prevailed in the ancient Church, 
 and in Scotland in the time of Knox, which was to be re- 
 moved but not abjured. 1 
 
 The overthrow of Episcopacy was hardly more important 
 in the estimation of the Covenanters, than the punishment of 
 the individual bishops, and of their chief supporters among the 
 clergy. A special sentence was pronounced against the two 
 archbishops, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Galloway, Eoss, 
 and Brechin, the six prelates who had signed the declinature. 
 They were found guilty of breach of the cautions agreed to 
 in the assembly at Montrose ; of receiving episcopal consecra- 
 tion ; of urging novations in the Church ; and of refusing to 
 answer to the common report of sundry other transgressions 
 and crimes laid to their charge. They were therefore deposed 
 from their office of commissioners for the Church in parliament 
 and council, cind from all their functions, whether of pretended 
 episcopal, or ministerial calling. It was likewise ordered 
 that they should be excommunicated, and declared to be of 
 those who are to be holden as heathen men and publicans ; 
 and the sentence of excommunication was appointed to be 
 pronounced by the moderator in face of the assembly, in the 
 cathedral of Glasgow, and to be intimated in all the churches 
 of Scotland by the pastors of every particular congregation. 
 
 The Bishops of Aberdeen and Dunblane were found guilty 
 of the same offences, and a similar sentence was pronounced 
 against them. 
 
 The Bishops of Murray, Orkney, Argyll, and the Isles, 
 were found guilty of the sameoftences, and were deposed ; but 
 
 1 Peterkin's Records of tlie Kirk, pp. 24-26, 28-33, 161-168. Baillie, vol. i. 
 p. 157-160. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 43 
 
 it was ordered that they should be excommunicated only in 
 the event of their not professing repentance, and making their 
 submission to the assembly. 
 
 The Bishop of Dunkeld, who had sent a letter to excuse 
 his non-appearance, was found guilty of the same offences, and 
 was deposed from his office of commissioner in parliament and 
 council, and from his pretended episcopal functions, and 
 suspended from his ministerial functions ; but, in the event of 
 his professing repentance, and submitting to the assembly, it 
 was ordered that he should be continued as parish minister of 
 St. Madoes, if otherwise, that he should be excommunicated. 
 The Bishop of Caithness excused himself from appearing, 
 on account of sickness. He was found guilty as the others, 
 and deposed and suspended in the same terms as the Bishop 
 of Dunkeld : but, in the event of his repentance and submis- 
 sion, it was ordered that he should be admitted to the ministry 
 of a particular flock, if otherwise, that he should be excom- 
 municated. 
 
 Such were the formal sentences in the case of the bishops. 
 Those against the six prelates who signed the declinature, and 
 the Bishops of Aberdeen and Dunblane, made reference also 
 to '■'■ sundry other heinous offences and enormities, at length 
 expressed and clearly proven in their process." Unless this 
 vague expression be held to be an exception, it is not stated 
 in these sentences that the personal immoralities laid to the 
 charge of the accused were proved. Their condemnation 
 rested mainly on certain circumstances, the truth of which 
 the bishops would at once have admitted, while they would 
 have denied that there was anything wrong or illegal in them. 
 As no formal record of the judicial proceedings regarding the 
 bishops and their adherents was ever published, the particular 
 charges against them can only be learned from the historical 
 narrative of the transactions of the assembly. The following 
 details are chiefly derived from Baillie, and from another 
 contemporary writer of similar principles, whose account is 
 printed by Mr. Peterkin in his Records of the Kirk. 
 
 The first prelate whose case came before the assembly was 
 Bishop Sydserf. In addition to the general matters contained 
 in his sentence, he was found guilty of sundry points of Popery 
 and Arminianism, and also of many gross personal faults. 
 
44 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIII. 
 
 These personal faults are not specified, and, from Henderson's 
 speecli on the occasion, in which he dwelt on the heinousness 
 of spiritual sins of false doctrine as compared with trans- 
 gressions of the moral law, it may be conjectured that the 
 bishop's offences were of the former, not of the latter kind. 
 
 The accusation against Archbishop Spottiswood is thus 
 mentioned by Baillie : — " St. Andrews' libel was, he was 
 proven guilty, beside his common faults, of ordinary profaning 
 of the Sabbath, carding and dicing in time of divine service, 
 riding through the country the whole day, tippling and drink- 
 ing in taverns till midnight, falsifying with his hand the acts 
 of Aberdeen assembly, lying and slandering our old assemblies 
 and Covenant in his wicked book. It was undertaken to 
 prove before a committee, near to the place where the witness 
 has lived, his adultery, incest, sacrilege, and frequent simony." 
 The book here referred to is the " Eefutatio libelli de regi- 
 mine EcclesisB Scotican^e," written in answer to a treatise by 
 Calderwood. Some of the charges may be explained by the 
 journeys which the primate had frequently to make. The 
 more serious offences should not have been mentioned at all, 
 unless his accusers had been able immediately to bring for- 
 ward some evidence regarding them. 
 
 With reference to Bishop Whitford, the same writer men- 
 tions that he was proved guilty of sundry acts of drunkenness, 
 and that a woman and child, who were brought before the 
 assembly, made his adultery " very probable." In connec- 
 tion with the latter charge, Gordon states that the woman 
 referred to was afterwards asked to point out the bishop 
 among several clergymen who were present, and that she fixed 
 on another person. 
 
 No acts of personal immorality were alleged against Bishop 
 Lindsay of Edinburgh, and Bishop Bellenden. It was stated 
 that the former wore the rochet, bowed to the altar, consecrated 
 churches, and refused to admit any to the ministry, unless 
 they were first ordained preaching deacons. The latter was 
 accused of simony, of suspending ministers for keeping fasts 
 on Sunday, and of consecrating a private chapel. It was an 
 aggravation of the charges against the Bishop of Aberdeen, 
 that he had at one time been a vehement opponent of Epis- 
 copacy. 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 45 
 
 Against Bishop Maxwell it was alleged, that he bowed to 
 the altar, and wore the cope and rochet ; that he had used the 
 English Liturgy for the last two years in his own house and 
 in his cathedral ; that he had ordained deacons, given absol- 
 ution, kept fasts on Friday, and travelled and played cards on 
 Sunday ; that he had deposed godly ministers, kept company 
 with profane persons, and was a prime instrument in all the 
 troubles both of Church and State. One of the ministers de- 
 clared that he was the living example and " perfect pattern of 
 a proud prelate." 
 
 Bishop Wedderburn was accused of being a special main- 
 tainer of Popish and Arminian opinions ; and it was also 
 alleged that he lay under the scandal of drunkenness, swearing, 
 and profaning the Lord's day. 
 
 Some charges of grossly unbecoming behaviour were brought 
 against Bishop Guthrie by Andrew Cant, and by Thomas 
 Abernethy, a Jesuit who had lately abjured his religion and 
 subscribed the Covenant, but whose character was afterwards 
 found to be very worthless. Baillie expresses his suspicion, that 
 the accusations against the bishop were not sufficiently proved. 
 
 Against Archbishop Lindsay no charges of any importance 
 were made, beyond those common to all the prelates. A short 
 delay was allowed in the proceedings, in the hope that he 
 would submit to the assembly. He is said to have shewn 
 hesitation, but he finally remained firm. Baillie, writing to 
 Spang some months afterwards, attributes the archbishop's 
 constancy to worldly motives, and speaks of him as reduced 
 almost to as miserable a condition as that in which Adamson 
 had died, without pity from many, or great relief from any 
 one he knew. Party spirit and personal vanity had hardened 
 the heart of the minister of Kilwinning. Little more thiin a 
 year had passed since he had thanked his bishop for favours 
 received far above his deserving, and prayed God to bless him, 
 and continue him for many years as his overseer, expressing 
 the conviction of thousands in the part of the diocese where he 
 lived, that when his lordship should be taken from them, peace 
 and quietness would also leave them. 
 
 The complaints against the Bishops of Orkney, Argyll, the 
 Isles, Dunkeld, and Caithness, contained nothing of any mo- 
 ment beyond the usual charges. 
 
46 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY [Chap. LHI. 
 
 While the proceedings were going on in regard to the 
 prelates, the charges were also examined which were brought 
 against some of the most active and zealous of the clergy. 
 David Mitchell was deposed. He was a man of learning, and 
 unblemished life ; but his ecclesiastical principles were those 
 of the school of Laud, and he had declined the jurisdiction of 
 the assembly, and refused to give the Presbytery of Edin- 
 burgh any other name than that of brethren of the exercise. 
 He was accused of teaching Popish and Arminian doctrines ; 
 and Henderson referred to the charge in a manner which 
 shews that he was well aware of the very different nature of 
 the opinions to which the Puritan party gave the common 
 name of Arminianism. " There are two sorts of Arminian- 
 ism," he said ; " one is that which has troubled the Low 
 Countries, and hath spread itself so far, and that is nothing 
 but the way to Socinianism .... There is another 
 Arminianism, maintained by some in England, and others in 
 Scotland, and that runs in another way — it runs to Papistry, 
 and is inchoatus Papismus : and if ye consider this, how our 
 doctrine and the particulars of our Confession of Faith, taught 
 by the ministers of the Kirk of Scotland since the Eeformation, 
 how these points began to be depraved by Arminianism, and 
 points of Popery joined with their points of Arminianism, 
 and next consider how the external worship of God was in 
 changing by the Service Book, I see nothing deficient for the 
 whole body of Popery but the Pope himself — conversion of a 
 sinner — universality of the merits of Christ's death — justifica- 
 tion by works — falling away of the saints ; and then if we had 
 received the Service Book, what difference had been betwixt 
 the Eoman faith and ours, if we had subjected ourselves to the 
 Pope." 
 
 Similar charges were brought against Dr. Patrick Panter, 
 Principal of St. Mary's College, and professor of divinity in 
 the University of St. Andrews. He was a scholar of con- 
 siderable reputation, and Baillie, while condemning his theo- 
 logical opinions, speaks with unusual enthusiasm of his lite- 
 rary attainments. In regard to his manner of teaching, he 
 adds that he " had no sooner settled himself in his chair, 
 than he began to recommend the English method of study to 
 our youth, to begin with the Popish Schoolmen and Fathers, 
 
A.D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 47 
 
 and to close with Protestant neoterics ; a most unhappy and 
 dangerous order." Panter's case was referred to a committee 
 to sit at St. Andrews. 
 
 Alexander Gladstones, Archdeacon of St. Andrews, son of 
 the late primate, was deposed. He was charged with drunk- 
 enness and other offences, in addition to his theological errors. 
 
 Dr. George Wishart, minister at St. Andrews, was accused 
 of deserting his flock for eight months 5 but the members of 
 his congregation had no complaint to make against his life or 
 doctrine ; they wished only that he would return to them, and 
 acknowledge the authority of the assembly. His case also 
 was referred to the committee at St. Andrews. 
 
 Dr. Hamilton, who had appeared as procurator for the 
 bishops, was deposed. The following is Baillie's account of 
 what was proved against him, and it throws light on the real 
 meaning of some of the accusations made by the Covenan- 
 ters : — " He was found to be, according to the English fashion, 
 a profaner of the Sabbath, provoking and countenancing his 
 parishioners at dancing and playing at the foot-ball on that 
 day ; he was, as we call it, an ordinary swearer ; for the fac- 
 tion delighted, as I have heard sundry of them, to adorn their 
 speeches with the proverbs, Before God, I protest to God, By 
 my conscience, On my soul, and higher asseverations, by 
 these phrases to clear themselves of Puritanism : he was a 
 violent persecutor, even to excommunication and denying of 
 marriage and baptism to those who would not communicate 
 with him kneeling." 
 
 William Annand, minister at Ayr, was charged with various 
 immoralities, and with desertion of his flock. His real offences 
 seem to have been his preaching in defence of the Liturgy 
 before the diocesan synod of Glasgow, and his having re- 
 tracted his subscription to the Covenant. He was deposed. 
 
 Thomas Mackenzie, Archdeacon of Ross, and several other 
 ministers, were also deposed for offences of the same nature 
 as those which have been mentioned. 
 
 Some of the prelates and clergy may possibly, to a certain ex- 
 tent, have been guilty of the immoral acts laid to their charge, 
 but the only materials which we have for forming an opinion 
 are the manifestly unfair narratives of their opponents. None 
 of the accused appeared to defend themselves, and we do not 
 
48 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIII. 
 
 even know Iiow far the particular nature and details of 
 their offences were specified, nor on what evidence they were 
 condemned. The circumstance that the formal sentences of 
 deposition against the prelates contain no enumeration of per- 
 sonal crimes is a strong presumption in favour of their inno- 
 cence. Could such have been proved by reasonable evidence, 
 it is not likely that the assembly would have rested the depo- 
 sition and excommunication on ecclesiastical offences alone. 
 
 On Thursday, the thirteenth of "December, the sentence of 
 deposition and excommunication was formally pronounced 
 against the two archbishops, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, 
 Galloway, Aberdeen, Ross, Brechin, and Dunblane ; and the 
 sentence of deposition against their six colleagues. The sen- 
 tences were read by the moderator in the cathedral of Glasgow, 
 after a sermon preached by him, the text of v/hich was taken 
 from the first verse of the hundred and tenth Psalm. Be- 
 fore the sermon, a portion of the Scriptures was recited, as 
 usual, by the person who officiated as reader in the church. 
 That officer, probably a friend of the archbishop, made 
 choice of the sixteenth chapter of the Gospel of St, John. He 
 had read the opening verses, " These things have I spoken 
 unto you, that ye should not be offended. They shall put 
 you out of the synagogues : yea the time cometli, that whoso- 
 ever killeth you Avill think that he doeth God service," when 
 he was interrupted by one of the ministers, and obliged to 
 select another portion of the Scriptures. 
 
 The assembly, in its remaining sittings, made various pro- 
 visions for the better establishment of the Presbyterian form 
 of church government. An act was also passed, ratifying the 
 Covenant, in the sense now affixed to it, as contrary to Epis- 
 copacy, and the Perth articles, and the holding of civil places 
 by churchmen. By another act, the assembly forbade all 
 printers to print any of its proceedings, or any ecclesiastical 
 treatise whatever, without the warrant of Archibald Johnstone, 
 clerk to the assembly and advocate for the Kirk. It was 
 declared that the Church had power to hold general assemblies 
 yearly, or oftener if there should be occasion ; and the next 
 assembly was appointed to meet at Edinburgh on the third 
 "Wednesday of July, 1639. Thursday, the twentieth of 
 December, was the last session of the assembly. On that day 
 
A,D. 1638.] OF SCOTLAND. 4S 
 
 a supplication to the king' was agreed to, in which, with pro- 
 fessions of the most humble loyalty, thej requested his majesty 
 to confirm their acts in the parliament which had been sum- 
 moned to meet at Edinburgh in May.^ 
 
 By the proceedings of the Glasgow assembly, to use the 
 lianguage ascribed to Spottiswood at the signing of the Cove- 
 nant, all that the king and the bishops had been doing for 
 thirty years was at once thrown down. The work of those years 
 had too often been helped forward by deceit and intimidation, 
 and now its overthrow was accomplished by one great act of 
 fraud and violence. It is needless to speak of the theological 
 authority of the assembly. Even in a moral point of view, 
 its decisions, whether in matters of doctrine and ritual, or in 
 regard to individuals, were entitled to little weight. Most of 
 the objections urged by its members against the six assem- 
 blies which it condemned applied in a much stronger degree 
 to its own proceedings. There was neither freedom of elec- 
 tion, nor a lawful constitution of the synod itself, nor a calm 
 and deliberate examination of the subjects discussed. Its' 
 whole acts were dictated by a few individuals who had 
 arranged everything beforehand, and whose consummate 
 ability and management would be worthy of the highest 
 praise, if they could be considered apart from the manner in 
 which they were exercised, and the ends to which they were 
 directed. 
 
 1 Peterkin's Eecords of the Kirk, pp. 26-42, 163-193. Baillie, vol. i. pp. 13, 
 154-176. Balfour, vol. ii. p. 305-316. Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. ii. pp. 97- 
 101, 131-175. Mr Peterkin mentions (Records of the Kirk, p. 193) that the 
 •words ascribed to Henderson at the close of the assembly, " We have now cast 
 down the walls of Jericho : let him that rehnildeth them beware of the curse of 
 Hiel the Bethelite," are not to be found in any work earlier than Stevenson's 
 History of the Church and State of Scotland, which was written in the middle of 
 the eighteenth century. 
 
 VOL. in.] 
 
50 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIV. 
 
 CHAP TEE LIV. 
 
 PROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE GLASGOW ASSEMBLY IN DECEMBER, 1638, 
 TO THE DEATH OF ARCHBISHOP SPOTTISWOOD IN NOVEMBER, 1639. 
 
 Hamilton's letter to the King — TJie decrees of tlie Glasgow 
 Assembly rejected at Aberdeen — Correspondence between 
 the Swiss pastors and Archbishop Laud — Preparations for 
 war — The Covenanters take possession of Aberdeen — 
 Dean Hanna^ Dr. Wishart, Dr. Panter^ John Corbet^ and 
 others of the clergy^ deposed — TJie army of the Covenanters 
 — Accommodation between the King and the Covenanters — 
 The meeting of a General Assembly and Parliament agreed 
 to — Protestation of the Bishops — Meeting of the Assembly 
 at Edinburgh — Its acts — Submission of the Bishops of 
 Orhney and Dunheld — Meeting of Parliament — Death of 
 Dr. Boss and Dr. Baron — Death of Bishop Wedderburn 
 — Blness of Archbishop Spottiswood — His interview with 
 the Marquis of Hamilton — His death and character. 
 
 On the twenty-seventh of November, the day on which the 
 bishops' declinature was read in the assembly, Hamilton 
 wrote to the king, explaining his views regarding the condi- 
 tion of Scotland, and the character of the leading statesmen. 
 He mentioned his regret that, notwithstanding the exertions 
 he had used in his master's cause, and though he had strained 
 his conscience in some points by signing the Negative Con- 
 fession, all had been to little pui-pose, as he had missed his 
 end in raising a considerable party for the king. He expressed 
 his opinion that his majesty had been grossly abused by the 
 lords of the clergy, in attempting to introduce the Canons and 
 Liturgy in an illegal manner. The pride of the bishops was 
 great, and their folly greater, for, if they had gone rightly 
 about the work, nothing was easier than to have effected what 
 they aimed at. Li regard to themselves individually, it 
 would be found that some of them, as the primate, and the 
 Bishops of Brechin, Argyll, and Aberdeen, had not been of 
 the best lives, and that too many of them were inclined to 
 
A.D. 1638.1 OF SCOTLAND. 51 
 
 eimonj ; yet tlie Bisliop of Ross, tlie most hated of them all, 
 had few personal faults laid to his charge, except ambition, 
 which was not to be accounted a fault, so it was in lawful 
 things. 
 
 Speaking of the laylords,he remarked that Traquair wasa per- 
 son of excellent parts, but had injured his master by aim- 
 ing too much at popularity, and for that purpose opposing the 
 clergy, in which he was encouraged by others of the council ; 
 that these differences had marred all ; that now, however, he 
 laboured zealously for his majesty, and had often sworn to the 
 commissioner himself that he would spend his life and for- 
 tune in defence of episcopal government. The Marquis of 
 Huntly was unknown to the commissioner except in a 
 general way; he was traduced as inclined to Popery, and was 
 taxed also with personal faults, but he had shewn himself a 
 faithful servant to the king, and would be of greater use when 
 his majesty should have recom-se to arms. Argyll was now 
 the only counsellor who was held up as a true patriot, a loyal 
 subject, and zealous for the purity of religion. He would 
 require to be well looked to ; it was to be feared that he would 
 prove the most dangerous man in the state: so far from 
 favouring episcopal government, he wished it with all his soul 
 to be totally abolished. Several other members of the council 
 were described in brief but expressive language. Of the 
 Covenanters, those who had begun the movement and who 
 still maintained it were Rothes, Balmerino, Lindsay, Lothian, 
 Loudon, Tester, and Cranston. Others there were as forward 
 in show, among whom none more vainly foolish than Mon- 
 trose, but those named were the main contrivers. It was 
 more than probable that the Covenanters had somewhat else 
 in their thoughts than religion : but that must serve for a 
 cloak to rebellion, wherein for a time they might prevail ; 
 though to make them miserable, and bring them again to a 
 dutiful obedience, he was confident would not cost his majesty 
 a long time or g-reat difficulty. He then proceeded to explain 
 how tliis could best be effected. 
 
 Hamilton wrote as if his life was in danger from the Cove- 
 nanters, mentioning that it might be the last letter he should 
 have the happiness to send to the king, and concluding by 
 recommending his children to his majesty's favour, and ex- 
 
52 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIV. 
 
 pressing a Hope that lie would live to see liis majesty's 
 designs successful, notwithstanding the threats to which he 
 had been exposed.^ 
 
 This letter is distinguished by its remarkable power of lan- 
 guage, and generally by its acute appreciation of character. 
 The severe terms in which it alluded to some of the counsel- 
 lors were justified within a few days by the conduct of several 
 Jords, who, following the example of Argyll, openly joined 
 the Covenanters. In speaking of the personal conduct of the 
 bishops, Hamilton evidently relied, to a considerable extent, 
 on the charges about to be brought against them in the 
 assembly. His opinion, of the easiness of the task which the 
 prelates had undertaken if rightly gone about, is as absurd 
 as that expressed regarding the speedy suppression of their 
 opponents. It does not appear what grounds he had for sup- 
 posing that his life was in danger, and it may be doubted 
 whether he was sincere in the apprehensions which he pro- 
 fessed to entertain. 
 
 From Glasgow the commissioner went to Hamilton, tak- 
 ing with him the Bishops of Ross and Brechin, who could not 
 have been left behind with safety to themselves, and thence 
 proceeded to Edinburgh, from which city he again wrote to 
 the king. He also wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on 
 the twenty-seventh of November, and the second of December. 
 The contents of these letters are only known through the an- 
 swers sent to them. The king declared himself satisfied with 
 the dissolution of the assembly, and, alluding to a desire which 
 Hamilton had expressed to return to London, hoped that he 
 would first so arrange matters as not to dishearten the royal- 
 ists. Laud thanked the commissioner for his exertions on 
 behalf of the Church, the bishops, and the poor clergy of 
 Scotland. He spoke very doubtfully of the propriety of hi& 
 coming up to London, and made special reference to the 
 miserable prospects of those who had faithfully served God 
 
 1 Hardwicke Papers, vol. ii. p. 113-12L The editor of tliesc Papers mentions 
 that this letter was not inserted by Burnet in his Memoirs, on account of per- 
 sonalities which it was too near the time to publish. The reason is hardly a 
 sufficient one, and does not apply at all to some important parts of the letter. 
 There must have been other reasons, not yet explained, that led Burnet to sup- 
 press almost all the letters written by Hamilton, Vt-hile he inserted those written 
 to him. 
 
A.D. 1639.] OF SCOTLAND. 53 
 
 and the king. After remaining for some time at Edinburgh, 
 the marquis set out for England, and on tlie fifth of January 
 met the king at Whitehall, and gave him a full account of all 
 that had taken place. ^ 
 
 Laud's apprehensions regarding the loyal clergy of Scotland 
 were too well founded. They had only the alternative of sub- 
 mitting, and signing the Covenant against their conscience, or 
 of exposing themselves to the vengeance of their triumphant 
 enemies. In the West, where the Covenanting cause was 
 strongest, they were peculiarly defenceless. One of themy 
 writing to Balcanquhal on the twenty-sixth of December, 
 mentions that the following Sunday was appointed in his 
 neighbourhood to be kept as a day of thanksgivrng for the 
 assembly — " a terrible day of trial," he says, " for many mini- 
 sters, who are directed to profess joy when there is nothing 
 within but fear and sorrow." 
 
 • For a short time, a few of the deposed ministers kept pos- 
 session of their cures ; and the Bishop of Murray continued 
 to preach at Elgin till the beginning of March, when he re- 
 tired to his castle of Spynie, which he had provided with a 
 sufficient garrison. But Aberdeen was almost the only place 
 where the decrees of the assembly were absolutely rejected, 
 and its authority set at defiance. The magistrates and clergy 
 refused to allow its acts to be proclaimed in their churches, 
 and, on the Sunday after it rose. Bishop Bellendeu preached 
 as usual in his cathedral, and administered the Communion to 
 the Marquis of Huntly, who was then residing in Old Aber- 
 deen, to the regents of the King's College, and to the parishioners 
 of St. Machar. On Christmas day, the Communion was again 
 celebrated in the same church by Dr. Scroggie. The members 
 of the university were particularly called upon to shew that 
 they remained firm in their attachment to the laws of the 
 Church and kingdom, because John Lundie, the Humanist at 
 King's College, had appeared as their representative at Glas- 
 gow, and in that capacity had concurred in the whole acts of 
 the assembl}^. This person had received a limited commission 
 from the principal, and some of the regents, authorising him 
 to attend to the interests of the college in the assembly ; and 
 had been persuaded by the Covenanters to assume the chavac- 
 
 ' Bumtt's Memoirs of tLe Dukes of Hamilton, p. 107-112. 
 
54 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Cuap. LIV. 
 
 ter of commissioner for the university. His proceedings at 
 Glasgow, and especially his remaining there after the assem- 
 bly had been dissolved by Hamilton, were now formally con- 
 demned by the body which he professed to represent. ^ 
 
 The insurgent leaders had written to the Reformed Churches 
 in France and Switzerland, requesting their approbation of the 
 Covenant and of the proceedings against the bishops. They 
 were disappointed in their expectations of sympathy from 
 Charenton and Geneva. The Calvinists had no love for Epis- 
 copacy, but they knew how much Charles had done for his 
 nephew the Palatine, and they still looked to the sovereign 
 of England as one of the chief supporters of the Protestant 
 interests. The Swiss Churches were still less likely to make 
 common cause with the Covenanters. Their most learned 
 pastors believed as little in the exclusive right of the Presby- 
 terian discipline, as in that of the hierarchy ; their only wish 
 was to prevent dissension and civil war. The intimate corres- 
 pondence which at one time existed between the divines of 
 Zurich and the English prelates had ceased for many years. 
 But the successors of those who had received the exiles of 
 Mary's reign with generous hospitality, rightly thought that 
 they were entitled to express their opinions freely to the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury, and to request his good offices. On the 
 twenty-first of March, while Charles and his Scottish subjects 
 were intent on preparations for war, the pastors and professors 
 of the churches and universities of Zurich, Berne, Basil, and 
 Schaffhausen, wrote to Laud^ entreating him to use his influ- 
 ence for the restoration of peace and harmony. The arch- 
 bishop sent a reply on the thirtieth of April. His answer was 
 courteous and deferential in its language. He expressed his 
 satisfaction in receiving their communication, both because it 
 was theirs, and because it persuaded peace, as became those 
 who were members of the same body, and believed and pro- 
 
 1 Baillie, vol. i. appendix, p. 486. Spalding, vol. i. pp. 125-127, 142, 143. 
 Easti Aberdonenses, p. 412-414. Lundie was the agent of tliose members of his 
 college who wished the university to be brought back to the condition in which 
 it was before Bishop Forbes's restoration. When he requested the assembly to 
 order a visitation of the college. Lord Balmerino protested that Bishop Elphin- 
 stone's foundation should not be altered. That nobleman's feelings as a chief of 
 the house of Elphinstone were on this occasion stronger than his Puritanism. 
 See Baillie, vol. i. p. 170. 
 
A.D. 1G39.] OF SCOTLAND. 55 
 
 fessed the communion of saints. He entreated tlieni, as they 
 had Avritten to him, so also to write to the Covenanters, and 
 thereby to shew that they allowed to sovereign princes that 
 power in matters ecclesiastical, which was exercised by the 
 best of the Jewish kings, and that they condemned armed 
 resistance, under pretext of religion, to the powers ordained of 
 God, a thing unheard of in the primitive times of the Church. 
 He concluded by stating that he had already done all that he 
 could, and without success, for the sake of peace. ^ 
 
 Although the Covenanters continued as before to make the 
 strongest professions of loyalty, they were well aware that the 
 dispute could now be settled only by an appeal to arms, and 
 they were prepared for the conflict. The nobility who headed 
 the movement had the greatest part of the kingdom at their 
 devotion. Large supplies of warlike stores had been received 
 from the Continent, and many Scottish officers and soldiers, 
 trained in the wars of Germany, had returned home to offer 
 their services in the cause of their countrymen. The king, on 
 his part, was hastening forward the preparations of his army 
 and fleet, and endeavouring to arrange an invasion of the 
 western coast from Ireland ; and had summoned his English 
 nobility to meet him at York on the first of April. But the 
 war was unpopular in England, not merely among the Puritans, 
 but among many others who believed that its only object 
 was to maintain the cause of the hierarchy. 
 
 The success of the king's plans depended, to a considerable 
 degree, on the assistance which he expected to receive from 
 those who remained faithful in Scotland ; but, before he arrived 
 at York, the whole of his northern kingdom was in the hands 
 of the Covenanters. The Marquis of Douglas, and the Earls 
 of Traquair, Roxburgh, and Nithsdale, made some feeble 
 exertions, which were speedily suppressed, and the castles of 
 Edinbm'gh and Dunbarton were taken almost without resist- 
 ance. In Angus, the Earl of Southesk and Lord Ogilvie 
 acted with more resolution, but were unable to oppose the 
 force that came against them. The great support of the royal 
 cause was the Marquis of Huntly, who liad received a com- 
 mission of lieutenancy over the whole provinces from the 
 
 ^ Baillie, vol. ii. appendix, p. 431-435. Laud's Works, vol. vi. p. 563-566. 
 Large Declaration, p. 75. Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. i. pp. 52, 53. 
 
56 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIV. 
 
 North waler of Esk to the extremity of Caithness. But even 
 in the immediate neighbourhood of the loyal town in which he 
 was at this time residing, so many powerful barons were 
 attached to the Covenant, that the marquis and Bishop Bel- 
 lenden, for their greater security, removed from the cathedral 
 city to the burgh of Aberdeen, where the former was regularly 
 guarded by twenty-four gentlemen, who every week were re- 
 lieved by the same number of others, all followers of his princely 
 house. His efforts, how^ever, in the king's cause were to no 
 purpose. A well appointed army of the Covenanters, under 
 the command of Montrose, marched northwards, and the mar- 
 quis, unable to make effectual resistance, disbanded his soldiers 
 and retired to Strathbogie. Some time afterwards he was 
 seized by Montrose,' and carried prisoner to Edinburgh. The 
 retreat of Huntly was immediately followed by the surrender 
 of the town of Aberdeen, which the Covenanting army entered 
 in triumph on the thirtieth of March. 
 
 Before Aberdeen submitted, the leading royalists had time 
 to provide for their own safety. On the twenty-fifth of March, 
 Dr. Forbes retired to his paternal castle of Corse ; on the 
 twenty-seventh, the bishop fled ; and on the following day 
 a ship sailed for England, conveying Dr. Leslie, Dr. Baron, 
 and Dr. Sibbald, Irvine of Drum, Menzies of Pitfoddels, and 
 about sixty young cavaliers all well armed, and bent on 
 offering their services to the king. On Sunday, the seventh 
 of April, the Covenanting preachers took possession of the 
 cathedral and other churches of Aberdeen, and intimated the 
 sentence of excommunication pronounced by the assembly 
 against the bishops. On the following Wednesday, a solemn 
 fast was kept, and Robert Douglas, minister at Kirkaldy, 
 read the Covenant in one of the churches, and urged all, 
 both men and women, to sign it, and to swear with uplifted 
 hands that they did subscribe and swear willingly, freely, 
 and from their hearts, and not from any dread of what should 
 happen. " The Lord knows," says the loyal chronicler who 
 beheld these events, " that these town's people were brought 
 under perjury from plain fear, and not from a willing mind, 
 by tyranny and oppression of the Covenanters, who compelled 
 them to swear and subscribe, although they knew that it was 
 against their hearts." The twelfth of April was Good Friday, 
 
A.D. 1639.] OF SCOTLAND. 57 
 
 and the same writer mentions that it was not observed as 
 formerly, and that on Easter-day there was a sermon in the 
 cathedral by one of the Covenanting preachers, but no cele- 
 bration of the Communion.^ 
 
 While those who endeavoured to maintain the king's cause 
 were thus discomfited and dispersed, the committees named at 
 the assembly proceeded with the trial of the clergy opposed 
 to the Covenant. Baillie states that many ministers were 
 deposed at Edinburgh, St. Andrews, Dundee, Irvine, and 
 elsewhere. Among them were the Dean of Edinburgh, and 
 his colleagues in the churches of that city. Dr. Elliot, Alex- 
 ander Thomson, and David Fletcher ; Dr. Wishart and Dr. 
 Panter of St. Andrews ; and Dr. John Gordon, minister at 
 Elgin. In the middle of April, John Corbet, minister at 
 Bonhill in the Lennox, was deposed by the Presbytery of 
 Dunbarton. He soon afterwards fled to Ireland, where 
 he wrote two treatises which excited great indignation among 
 the Covenanters, the first called " The Ungirding of the 
 Scottish Armour," in answer to Henderson's " Information 
 for Defensive Arms," the other, " The Epistle Congratula- 
 tory of Lysimachus Nicanor, of the Society of Jesu, to the 
 Covenanters of Scotland." 2 
 
 . Charles was unable to protect the persecuted clergy, but 
 he endeavoured, as far as in his power, to provide for their 
 support. Several received benefices in England and Ire- 
 land ; and, in the former country, Archbishop Laud, in the 
 latter. Bishop Bramhall, made great exertions to mitigate 
 their misfortunes. In order also to shew that he was 
 determined to maintain the Church, the king resolved to 
 fill up the sees of Caithness and Orkney, both of which 
 were held to be ipso facto void, Graham, the bishop of the latter 
 diocese, having followed the example of Abernethy and Lind- 
 say in submitting to the Covenanters. Dr. Hamilton, who 
 had appeared at the assembly as procurator for the bishops, 
 was nominated to the see of Caithness, and Dr. Eobert Baron, 
 
 ^ Burnet's Memoirs of .no Dukes of Hamilton, p. 113-118. Spalding, vol. i. 
 pp. 134, 144-172. 
 
 2 Baillie, vol. i. pp. 188, 190. Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. ii. pp. 203, 204. 
 Spalding, vol i. pp. 124, 180. Peterkin's Records of the Ivirk, pp. 260, 261. 
 
58 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIV. 
 
 who had joined the king in the north of England, to tliat of 
 Orkney ; but neither prelate was ever consecrated. ^ 
 
 In the beginning of May, the Marquis of Hamilton, who 
 had been appointed to the command by sea, entered the frith 
 of Forth with the royal fleet. He remained there for some 
 time, but did little injury to the Covenanters ; and his con- 
 duct on this occasion affords a strong argument to those who 
 maintain that he secretly favoured the insurgents. His arrival, 
 however, led to another rising in the North on behalf of the 
 king. The Covenanters had again endeavoured to prevail on 
 the Marquis of Huntly to join their cause. His answer was, 
 that he would not purchase liberty at the expense of fidelity, 
 honour, and conscience. "I am in your power," he said, 
 ^' but am resolved not to leave that foul title of traitor as an 
 inheritance to my posterity ; you may take my head from 
 my shoulders, but not my heart from my sovereign." He 
 was in consequence committed to closer captivity in the castle 
 of Edinburgh. Indignant at the detention of their chief, and 
 hoping for support from Hamilton, the Gordons and their 
 allies hastily formed the resolution of assembling in arms, and 
 were soon afterwards encouraged by the arrival at Aberdeen of 
 Lord Aboyne, Huntly's second son, with a commission of 
 lieutenancy from the king. Alarmed by these proceedings, 
 the Covenanters again entrusted the command of their nor- 
 thern army to Montrose, and, on the nineteenth of June, that 
 nobleman forced the passage of the Bridge of Dee and entered 
 Aberdeen. Further hostilities were prevented by the intelli- 
 gence of the accommodation agreed to between the king and 
 the insurgents. 
 
 It was near the end of May before Charles advanced to 
 Berwick. He encamped in the neighbourhood of that town, 
 and at no great distance from the Scottish army, which lay at 
 Dunse-law, under the command of Alexander Leslie, an officer 
 who had risen to distinction in the German wars. Baillie, 
 who was present as preacher to the Ayrshire men, describes 
 the array of his countrymen in exulting terms. The colonels 
 of the various regiments were for the most part noblemen, 
 and the captains were barons, or gentlemen of good note ; the 
 
 1 BramliaH'a Works, vol. i. p. Ixxxvi. Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. iii. p. 89. 
 Baillie, vol. i p. 153. Russell's Life of Spottiswood, p. cxxii. 
 
A.D. 1639.] OF SCOTLAND. 59 
 
 lieutenants had almost all served as officers beyond seas ; 
 every company had flying at the captain's tent door a new 
 standard, bearing the Scottish arms, and the motto, " For 
 Christ's Crown and Covenant," in golden letters. The 
 soldiers were supplied more plentifully and with better pro- 
 visions than Avhen at home, and all emulation among the 
 leaders was checked by the authority of Leslie, to whom the 
 greatest deference was paid. In some quarters, Baillic says, 
 there was swearing, and cursing, and brawling, which the 
 chiefs endeavoured to check, but in others might be heard the 
 voices of men singing psalms, praying, and reading the Scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 While the two armies lay within sight of each other, a 
 desire for accommodation began to prevail on both sides. 
 Several of the leading persons met for that object, and the 
 king himself took part in the conferences. An accommodation 
 was agreed to on the eighteenth of June. Charles knew that 
 the army of the insurgents was superior to his own in disci- 
 pline and zeal, that there was little hope of success in the 
 field, and that he could not retreat with honour. The Cove- 
 nanters had considerable difficulty in maintaining their soldiers, 
 were apprehensive that the royalists might prevail in the 
 North, and were unwilling to provoke the English by invading 
 their country. The terms of the agreement were not precisely 
 adjusted, and afterwards afforded much room for dispute. 
 Among the chief points conceded by the Covenanters was the 
 surrender of the royal castles, and of the prisoners whom they 
 had taken. The king, on his part, promised to summon a 
 parliament, and also to call another general assembly for the 
 settlement of ecclesiastical differences. ^ 
 
 It was at first proposed by the king that he should hold the 
 parliament and assembly in person, but he soon changed his 
 intentions in that respect, and, as Hamilton declined to act in 
 his former capacity, the office of commissioner was bestowed 
 on Traquair. Instructions were prepared for the commis- 
 sioner's guidance. Some of the most important points which 
 the king had refused to allow at Glasgow were now to be 
 conceded, provided they were to be held as acts of the new 
 
 1 Baillie, vol. i. p. 200-223. Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. ii. p. 238-281 ; vol. 
 jii. p. 3-18. Burnet's Memoirs of tho Dukes of Hamilton, p. 124143. 
 
GO ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [CnAr. LIV. 
 
 assembly, not as ratifications of the decrees of the previous 
 one. Lay elders were to be admitted, except as to their hav- 
 ing a voice in fmidamental points of religion. Episcopacy 
 and the estate of the clergy were to be remitted to the free 
 decision of the assembly, in such a way however that Episco- 
 pacy should not appear to be condemned as simply unlawful, 
 but for political reasons, and as unsatisfactory to the people ; 
 and, if it should be abolished, the commissioner was to endea- 
 vour to have power given to the king to choose fourteen 
 ministers to sit in parliament in room of the prelates. These 
 instructions were signed at Berwick, on the twenty-seventh of 
 July, and a few days afterwards Charles returned to London. 
 
 In tlie meantime, the Scottish bishops, who were still in the 
 north of England, wrote by the Bishop-nominate of Caithness 
 to the Archbishop of Canterbury, requesting him to obtain a 
 ^prorogation of the assembly, and permission for them to meet 
 and deliberate in relation to the affairs of the Church. 
 Traquair was the bearer of an answer from the king, addressed 
 to xlrchbishop Spottiswood, and to be communicated to his 
 brethren. In this answer, which was dated the sixth of 
 August, Charles, referring to their letter which had been laid 
 before him by the English primate, expressed his regret that 
 reasons of state, and the promises which he had made at the 
 pacification, rendered it necessary for him to hold the assembly. 
 He declined to allow the bishops to meet, because such meet- 
 ing could not take place with safety in Scotland, and it was 
 not convenient that it should be held elsewhere in his domi- 
 nions. He said that their best course would be to give 
 in their exceptions to the assembly and parliament by way of 
 protestation and remonstrance ; and, though a document of 
 that kind could not be publicly read, he would take it into 
 consideration, in such a manner as became a prince sensible 
 of his own interest and honour, and of the equity of their 
 desires. He further expressly prohibited them from appear- 
 ing in pe^-son at the ensuing assembly, requesting them in the 
 meantime to remain in England. 
 
 On receiving this letter, the bishops prepared a declinature, 
 and put it into the hands of Traquair. In that paper, they 
 protested, in their own name, and in the name of the Church 
 of Scotland, and of as naany as should adhere to them, that 
 
A.D. 1639. J OF SCOTLAND. 6l 
 
 the assembly about to meet should be held null in law ; and 
 they requested his majesty, according to the practice of Chris- 
 tian emperors in ancient times, and in order to remedy the 
 existing schisms and divisions, to convene the clergy of his 
 whole dominions, to whose judgment and determination they 
 promised to submit themselves and all their proceedings. The 
 declinature was subscribed at ]\Iorpcth, Berwick, and Holy 
 Island, on the tenth, and eleventh days of August, 1639. The 
 prelates who signed it, and who were now assembled within 
 the bounds of that Northumbrian diocese which a thousand 
 years before had received the Christian faith from Scotland, 
 were the primate, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Ross, Gallo- 
 way, Brechin, Argyll, and Aberdeen.^ 
 
 The assembly met at Edinburgh on the twelfth of August, 
 and, a sermon having been preached by Henderson, David 
 Dickson was chosen moderator. An act was passed, whereby — 
 after setting forth that the main causes of the great evils by 
 which the Church had been afflicted were the Service Book, 
 Book of Canons, Ordinal, and High Commission, the Perth 
 articles, the government of bishops, the civil places and power 
 of churchmen, the keeping and authorizing of the six corrupt 
 assemblies from 1606 to 1618, and the want of lawful, free 
 assemblies — it was ordained that the foresaid Service Book, 
 Books of Canons and Ordination, and the High Commission, 
 should still be rejected ; that the articles of Perth should no 
 more be practised ; that episcopal government, and the civil 
 places and power of churchmen, should still be holden as un- 
 lawful in the Church of Scotland ; that the six assemblies 
 objected to should be accounted null ; that, for the preserva- 
 tion of religion and the preventing of such evils in time to 
 come, general assemblies should be held yearly, or oftener if 
 requisite, a remonstrance as to the necessity for such assembly 
 being tirst laid before the king ; and that kirk-sessions, 
 presbyteries, and synodal assemblies, should be observed as 
 formerly. 
 
 Reports were laid before the assembly from the committees 
 appointed at Glasgow ; and their proceedings in the deposi- 
 tion of ministers were approved of, without prejudice to any 
 lawful complaints against the same, and with a declaration 
 
 ' Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 145-155. 
 
G2 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIV. 
 
 that those who were deposed merely for subscribing the 
 bishops' declinature, and receiving the Service Book, might 
 be restored on their true repentance and submission. 
 
 On the seventeenth of August, a paper, dated the eleventh 
 of February, Avas given in, signed by George Graham, styling 
 himself " sometime pretended Bishop of Orkney," in which he 
 formally disclaimed and abjured all episcopal power and juris- 
 diction, with the whole corruptions thereof, as condemned by 
 the Negative Confession, promising that he would never, 
 directly or indirectly, exercise the same, or even approve 
 thereof in private or public discourse. On the nineteenth, a 
 similar abjuration was produced, dated the twenty-fourth of 
 January, and signed by Alexander Lindsay, Bishop of Dun- 
 keld, who there styled himself simply " minister at St. 
 Madoes." The apostacy of Graham was soon afterwards in- 
 dignantly commented on by Bishop Hall. " For a sheep to 
 stray," he observed, " it is no wonder ; but for a shepherd, yea 
 a guide and director of shepherds — such God and the Church 
 had made you — not to wander himself only, but to lead away 
 his flock from the green pastures and comfortable waters of 
 divine truth to the dry and barren deserts of human inventions, 
 it cannot be but as shameful as it is dangerous ; both in an 
 high degree. That some poor seduced souls of your ignorant 
 vulgar should condemn that calling, which they were never 
 suffered to look at but with prejudicate eyes ; or that some of 
 your higher-spirited clergy, out of an ambition of this dignity, 
 and anger of the repulse, should snarl at this denied honour ; 
 or that some of your great ones, who perhaps do no less love 
 the lands, than they envy and hate the pre-eminence of bishops, 
 should cry down that sacred function, could be no other than 
 might in times so conditioned be expected, and by fore-expec- 
 tations made the more tolerable : but for a man held once 
 worthy to be graced with the cliair of Episcopacy, to spurn 
 down that once honourable seat, and to make his very profes- 
 sion a sin, is so shameful an indignity, as the judicious of the 
 succeeding ages will shake their heads at, and not mention 
 without just indignation." 
 
 On the thirtieth of August, the last day of the assembly, 
 the members presented a supplication to the commissioner 
 against the Large Declaration, published in the king's 
 
A.D. 1639.]. OF SCOTLAND. QS- 
 
 name in the beginning of the year, in which thej requested 
 his majesty to call in tlie book itself, and to grant warrant for 
 citing and bringing to Scotland all persons, natives of that king- 
 dom, who were known or suspected to have a hand in it, par- 
 ticularly Walter Balcanqual, now Dean of Durham. Andrew 
 Cant proposed that the author of the book should be hanged, 
 but the moderator reminded him that such punishment was 
 not in the power of churchmen. The commissioner promised 
 to impart the supplication to his majesty, and to report what 
 was done regarding it. 
 
 A supplication was also presented to the commissioner and 
 lords of the council, in which it was requested that all the 
 king's subjects, of what rank and quality soever, should be 
 ordained to subscribe the Covenant. This supplication was 
 agreed to, and an act of council was made to that effect. 
 Traquair, as an individual, gave his unqualified assent to this 
 decree of the assembly, and to the act against the Service 
 Book, Perth Articles, and Episcopacy, but, as royal commis- 
 sioner, prefixed to his signature a declaration setting forth 
 that he subscribed the same for the peace of the Church and 
 kingdom, and for settling the distractions among his majesty's 
 subjects. He further declared, in regard to the points con- 
 demned, that the condemnation should not infer any censure 
 of such practices beyond the bounds of the Scottish king- 
 dom. The assembly refused to agree to this last declaration, 
 but allowed his statement to be entered on the records. 
 
 By an order of the assembly, carrying out an act passed 
 the year before at Glasgow, Blair was translated from Ayr to 
 St. Andrews, and, at the same time, Rutherford was appointed 
 Principal of St. Mary's College. The biographer of Blair, in 
 mentioning the mjunction of the Glasgow assembly, gives as 
 a reason for his translation, that he was thought to be " the 
 meetest man to fill the vacant place at St. Andrews, where 
 there were three colleges very corrupt, and the body of the 
 town people addicted to prelacy and the ceremonies, it being 
 the see of the arch-prelate." 
 
 The next assembly was appointed to be held at Aberdeen, 
 on the last Tuesday of July, 1640.^ 
 
 1 Peterkin's Records of the Kirk, pp. 204-209, 238-272. Gordon's Scots 
 Affairs, vol. iii. p. 37-63. See also Bishop Hall's Episcopacy by Divine Right, 
 
64 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIV. 
 
 The parliament met at Edinburgli, immediately after the 
 dissolution of the assembly, Traquair presiding as commis- 
 sioner. There was a numerous attendance of peers, and of 
 representatives of the counties and burghs, but the meeting 
 was marked by the entire absence of any representatives of 
 the spiritual estate. After the parliament had sat for some 
 time, the king, dissatisfied with its proceedings, prorogued it 
 to the second of June next to come. ^ 
 
 While these events were going on, some of the most dis- 
 tinguished of the Scottish prelates and clergy were called 
 away from their earthly labours. Dr. Alexander Ross had 
 been confined to his bed with severe illness, when others of 
 the Aberdeen clergy fled in the month of March. He died on 
 the eleventh of August, about the time that Dr. Leslie and 
 Dr. Sibbald returned from England. In the course of the 
 same month, Dr. Baron, Bishop-nominate of Orkney, died at 
 Berwick, and was buried there. This eminent scholar and 
 good man was lamented by all, except by those among his 
 countrymen who could see no virtue in one who rejected the 
 Covenant. Baillie, in language honourable to his feelings, 
 rebukes the bigotry which sought for proofs of the divine 
 wrath in the circumstances attending the death of " so meek 
 and learned a person ;" and Gordon says, " so innocently 
 
 ed. 1640, pp. 3, 4; and Life of Eobcrt Blair, p. 156-159. In the Eecords of the 
 Kirk (p. 253), the Bishop of Dunkekl, by some mistake of the transcriber or 
 printer, is spoken of as "Alexander Leslie, minister at St. Andrews," instead 
 of " Alexander Lindsay, minister at St. Madoes," During the debate on Episco- 
 pacy at the Edinburgh assembly, the moderator, Dickson, gave the well-known 
 definition of a Tulchan bishop, which has already been quoted in a note to 
 this History. Henderson had previously explained the different sorts of prelates 
 in Scotland, in language which shows how absurd it is to speak, as some writers 
 do, of the bishops of his day as Tulchan bishops. " First," he says, there 
 " were superintendents, who got commission for visitation, and it is known that 
 superintendents were no bishops, and what real difference was between them. 
 And it is also known that they did neglect their function, and not good with it. 
 Another sort of prelates that were, or rather supposed bishops, who enjoyed the 
 benefice but not the office, and these were called Xulchan bishops. A third sort 
 came in afterwards, by being commissioners to parliament and voters, and 
 then ascended to that height that ye yourselves are witnesses unto. They 
 entered as foxes, reign as lions, and I wish they may die as Christians." (Re- 
 cords of the Kirk, p. 248.) 
 
 1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. v. pp. 248, 249, 285. Burnet's 
 Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 158-160. 
 
A.D. 1639.] OF SCOTLAND. 65 
 
 lived and died ho, that such as then hated him do now rever- 
 ence his meraorj and admire his works." ^ 
 
 On the twenty-third of September, Dr. Wedderbnrn, Bishop 
 of Dunblane, died after a long illness, brought on apparently 
 by the calamities which he beheld and suffered, and was 
 buried within the cathedral church of Canterbury. He 
 was a man of a gentle and timid disposition, unfit for po- 
 litical controversy, and coveting only the reputation of a 
 scholar ; but his theological opinions, which were strongly 
 opposed to the prevailing Calvinism, his intimacy with Laud, 
 and the active part which he had taken in compiling the 
 Liturgy, had made him odious to the Puritans. 2 
 
 In the course of the autumn. Archbishop Spottiswood came 
 from Northumberland to London. For about a year he had 
 been in infirm health, and, on the fourteenth of January, 
 being then at Newcastle, had made his will. In it he pro- 
 fessed his belief in all the articles of the Creed, rejecting the 
 additions and corruptions of later ages, and, as to church 
 government, declared his persuasion that Episcopacy was the 
 only right and apostolic form. He left his books to his son 
 Sir Robert, President of the Court of Session, desiring that 
 they might be kept together. In regard to his burial he 
 expressed his wish that, if possible, it might be beside 
 his wife in the church of Dairsie, which he had him- 
 self erected. He appointed the Bishop of Ross, whom he 
 styled " his best-beloved brother," to be the chief executor ot 
 his will, commending to his fidelity the editing of his History 
 of the Church of Scotland, if not completed by himself, and 
 
 J Spalding, vol. 1. pp. 152, 225, 226, 231. Baillie, vol. i. p. 221. Gordon's 
 Scots Affairs, vol. iii. pp. 89, 90, Two epitapbs on Dr Baron, written by bis 
 friend aad fellow-exile. Dr. Panter, will be found in a note to Bisbop Forbes's 
 Funerals, pp. 349, 350. A list of bis works is given in Gordon, vol. iii. p. 236- 
 238, note. 
 
 2 Keitb's Catalogue, pp. 182, 563. Laud's Works, vol. iii, p. 374. Wedder- 
 bnrn left almost bis wbole estate to cbaritable purposes, and appointed Arcb- 
 bisbop Laud bis executor. As tbe property was situated in Scotland, tbe arch- 
 bishop declined to accept tbe office, and caused a communication to be made to 
 the deceased prelate's brother, Dr. .John Wedderbnrn, then residing at Olmutz, 
 and chief physician of the state of Moravia, in order that the property might be 
 administered, and the will carried out, in bis name. See Laud's Works, vol. vii. 
 pp. 591, 592. 
 
 VOL. III.] Q 
 
66 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIV. 
 
 requesting him to present it to the king, for whose service and 
 that of the Church, he had undertaken the work. He also ex- 
 pressed an opinion, so far as he had any right to make such a 
 recommendation to his majesty, that Bishop Maxwell would 
 loe the fittest person to succeed him in the primacy. 
 
 The dedication of the archbishop's History to the king was 
 dated " from the place of his peregrination," the fifteenth of 
 November, 1639. Immediately afterwards he was seized with 
 his last illness, during which he was visited by Archbishop 
 Laud and other prelates, along with whom he received the 
 Communion. His biographer relates that among those who 
 visited him was also the Marquis of Hamilton. The marquis, 
 approaching his bedside, said, " My lord, I am come to kiss 
 your lordship's hands, and humbly to ask your blessing." 
 The archbishop answered, " My lord, you shall have my 
 blessing ; but give me leave to speak these few words to you. 
 My lord, I visibly foresee that the Church and king are both 
 in danger to be lost, and I am verily persuaded that there is 
 none, under God, so able to prevent it as your lordship, and 
 therefore I speak to you as a dying prelate, in the words of 
 Mordecai to Esther, ' If you do it not, salvation in the end 
 shall come where else, but you and your house shall perish.' " 
 The marquis replied, that he wished from his heart he could 
 do what was expected from him, though at the sacrifice of his 
 life and fortunes ; after which, on his knees, he received the 
 primate's blessing, and departed. 
 
 Archbishop Spottiswood died on the twenty-sixth of 
 November, being then in the seventy-fourth year of his age. 
 The wish which he had expressed, that his remains should be 
 taken to Scotland, could not easily be complied with ; and it 
 may also have been the king's desire that his obsequies should 
 be celebrated as honourably as possible. He was buried in 
 Westminster Abbey, according to the ritual of the English 
 Church, all the nobles who were then at court attending his 
 funeral. 
 
 1 Life of Spottiswood, prefixed to the folio editions of his History. Russell's Life 
 of Spottiswood, p. cxxx.-cxxxiii. The only authority, so far as I am aware, for 
 the interview between the Marquis of Hamilton and the archbishop, is the bio- 
 graphy of the latter prefixed to the original edition of his History, and ascribed 
 to Dr. Duppa, afterwards Bishop of Winchester. There is, however, nothing im- 
 
A.D. 1639.] OF SCOTLAND. 67 
 
 The only works by the archbishop, publislied during 
 his lifetime, were his answer to Caklerwood's treatise on 
 the government of the Scottish Church, and a sermon 
 preached at the meeting of the Perth assembly, which was 
 printed in Bishop Lindsay's account of the proceedings of 
 that synod. 
 
 The learning, prudence, and ability of Spottiswood, have 
 generally been admitted, but his private character, and his 
 political administration, have often been severely condemned. 
 The charges of immorality brought against him by the Puri- 
 tans of his own day were never substantiated, and came from 
 persons who exaggerated harmless amusements or venial 
 errors into crimes, and gave a ready belief to every scandal 
 which was circulated regarding their opponents. It would 
 have been better for the archbishop himself, and for the 
 Church, had he taken a less prominent part in secular matters ; 
 but in his conduct, whether as a prelate or as a minister of 
 state, he was for the most part mild, temperate, and just. To 
 his clergy he was afftible and courteous, and even to non-con- 
 formists almost always gentle and conciliatory. The nobles, 
 whose jealousy he well knew, he treated with deference, and, at 
 the same time, with a due regard to his own dignity. His 
 moderation was not shewn in words only. Great as was the 
 outcry of persecution raised by the Puritans, no severity was 
 exercised against the most turbulent beyond deprivation, and, 
 in a few instances, imprisonment, and banishment to remote 
 parts of the kingdom or beyond seas. The cases of ecclesiastical 
 punishment of any kind were comparatively unfrequent. More 
 ministers were deprived and driven into exile by the 
 Covenanters, during the nine months from December, 1638, 
 to August, 1639, than during the whole period of Spot- 
 tiswood's primacy. The one great stain on his charac- 
 ter is the cruel persecution of the Jesuit, Ogilvie, for which 
 the bigotry of the time affords no sufficient excuse. The 
 spirit of true charity and moderation which he displays in 
 
 probable in the ncarrative ; and it was published within fifteen years after the 
 primate's death, subsequently to the ruin of the Hamiltons, but several years 
 before the Restoration. Burnet's silence, under the circumstances, rather con- 
 firms its truth. 
 
68 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY [Cuat. LIV. 
 
 his History of the Church of Scotland, deserves the highest 
 praise. 1 
 
 ^ For Spottiswood's superiority to one of the worst prejudices of his day — that 
 regarding witcheraft — see his History, vol. iii. pp. 66, 67. An example of his 
 forbearance to a non-conformist minister, under circumstances of great provoca- 
 tion, is to be found in Scot's Apologetical Narration, pp. 305, 306 — the uncon- 
 ecious testimony of an enemy censuring what was worthy of commendation. 
 
A.D. 1639.] OF SCOTLAND. 69 
 
 CHAPTER LV. 
 
 FROM THE DEATH OF ARCHBISHOP SPOTTISWOOD IN NOVEMBER, 1639, TO 
 THE DEPOSITION OF THE ABERDEEN DOCTORS IN AUGUST, 1640. 
 
 Renewed dissensions between the King and tlie Covenanters — 
 Meeting of the Convention of Estates — TJie Oenei-al Assem- 
 bly meets at Aberdeen — Disputes in regard to Private 
 Meetings for religious worship — Arrangement on the 
 subject — The clergy of Aberdeen summoned before the 
 Assembly — Dr. Scroggie deposed — Charges against Dr. 
 Sibbald — He is deposed — Dr. Leslie dej^osed — Charges 
 against Dr. Forbes — His case is remitted to the Presbytery 
 of Edinburgh — Archdeacon Logic and John Gregory 
 deposed — Conclusion of the Assembly — Dr. Forbes de- 
 posed by the Presbytery of Edinburgh. 
 
 The prorogation of the parliament of 1639 was soon followed 
 by new causes of dissension. The Earl of Dunfermline and 
 Lord Loudon having been sent to London by the Covenan- 
 ters, the latter was accused of treason in connection with the 
 well-known letter addressed by him and other noblemen to 
 the King of France, and was committed to the Tower. A 
 parliament was summoned in England, but, unfortunately 
 for himself, Charles dissolved it in anger. The Scottish 
 convention assembled on the second of June, 1640, the day to 
 which it had been prorogued by the king. It was again 
 ordered to be prorogued to the following month, but the 
 Covenanters, disregarding the royal authority, continued to 
 sit, under the presidency of Lord Burleigh. Various important 
 acts were passed. It was ordained that now and in time to 
 come the nobles, barons, and burgesses, should be accounted 
 to be the three estates of the realm, and all former statutes em- 
 powering the bishops or other churchmen to sit m parliament 
 were rescinded. The acts of the last general assembly held 
 at Edinburgh were ratified, and it was ordered that his 
 majesty's subjects of all ranks should subscribe the Covenant. 
 The Christmas vacation in the courts of justice was abolished ; 
 
70 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Cuap. LV. 
 
 the Large Declaration was condemned ; and a parliament was 
 appointed to meet once every three years at the least. ^ 
 
 The general assembly met at Aberdeen, on Tuesday, the 
 twenty-eighth of July. The place of meeting had no doubt 
 been chosen for the purpose of convincing the enemies of the 
 Covenant that even in their northern stronghold resistance 
 was hopeless. Before the assembly met, however, care was 
 taken to over-awe the royalists in the neighbourhood. A 
 body of soldiers under ]\Ionro was lying at Strathbogie, and 
 the Earl Marischal and the Master of Forbes, both of whom 
 had commissions as ruling elders, were quartered with their 
 regiments at Aberdeen. No commissioner appeared in name 
 of the king, nor had the assembly received the royal sanction 
 in any form. The members met within the church formerly 
 belonging to the monastery of the Grey Friars, which was 
 fitted up with seats at the expense of the city. Andrew 
 Ramsay having been chosen moderator, nothing further was 
 done at the first meeting, as it was agreed to wait one day for 
 the appearance of a commissioner from the king. 
 
 The acts which were passed by the Aberdeen assembly were 
 of little importance, and need not be particularly mentioned, 
 but its proceedings were interesting in other respects. For 
 some time back, there had been differences among the Cove- 
 nanters themselves, in connection with private meetings for 
 religious worship. Meetings of that description had been 
 encouraged by some persons from England, supposed to be 
 attached to the Brownist opinions ; but their chief promoters 
 were the Scottish colonists from Ireland, who had been 
 accustomed to hold conventicles by night as well as by day, 
 particularly after the suspension of their ministers by the 
 bishops. The private meetings were discountenanced by 
 Henderson, Ramsay, and other ministers, among whom was 
 Calderwood, who had seen what they led to in the Brownist 
 congregations in Holland. They were supported, however, 
 by Dickson, Rutherford, Livingstone, and Blair, and by 
 several ministers of the West. In the assembly at Edinburgh, 
 it had been proposed to pass an act against these meetings, 
 but, a conference having taken place between the leaders of 
 the two parties, an arrangement was made, which was sub- 
 ' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. v. p 288-303. 
 
A.D. 1(340.] OF SCOTLAND. 71 
 
 scribed by Henderson, on the one side, and Dickson, on the 
 other, by which it was agreed — " That whatsoever had been 
 the effects of private meetings of persons from different 
 families for religious exercise in time of trouble or corruption, 
 (in which case many things may be commendable which 
 otherwise are not tolerable,) yet now, when God had blessed 
 them with peace and with the purity of the Gospel, they 
 could not but disallow them, as tending to the hindrance of 
 the exercises of each family by itself, to the prejudice of the 
 public ministry, and to the rending of particular congregations, 
 and by progress of time of the whole Church, besides many 
 offences that may come thereby, to the hardening of the hearts 
 of natural men, and the grief of the godly." 
 
 Notwithstanding this agreement, the practices complained 
 of were still continued. One of the most active of their oppo- 
 nents was Henry Guthrie, minister at Stirling, who insisted 
 on bringing the matter before the assembly at Aberdeen, 
 although some of his brethren, who dreaded controversy on 
 such a subject, endeavoured to dissuade him. He stated 
 many things which, according to Baillie, were very odious if 
 true, and he was strenuously supported by the northern minis- 
 ters and elders, among whom the Earl of Seaforth took a 
 leading part. The lawfulness of the meetings was defended 
 by most of the ministers and elders from the West, par- 
 ticularly by Dickson, Rntherford, and an elder named William 
 Rigg, the same person who had formerly opposed Bishop 
 Forbes at Edinburgh. By the efforts of Baillie and others, 
 an agreement was again come to. An act was unanimously 
 passed for the ordering of family exercise, by which private 
 meetings, held at improper hours, or consisting of more than 
 single families, were forbidden, and all except ministers, or 
 expectants to the ministry, were prohibited from interpreting 
 the Scriptures in families. Baillie congratulated his corres- 
 pondent Spang that the strife was so appeased, mentioning 
 that their discord would have been sweet pastime to the town 
 of Aberdeen, and other enemies in tlie North, who were 
 eagerly watching the event. The victory of Gathrie was, 
 however, incomplete, and the causes of dispute were far from 
 being extinguished. In the West, the act of assembly was 
 disregarded, and the contest on the subject was the com- 
 
72 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LV. 
 
 nienccment of a dissension, which afterwards divided the 
 Covenanters into two parties as violently opposed to each other 
 as the Puritans now were to the supporters of Episcopacy. ^ 
 
 The proceedings against conventicles were led on and en- 
 couraged Ly those who had probably no good will to the 
 Covenant itself. But the business which mainly occupied the 
 attention of the assembly, and in which all concurred Avhat- 
 ever may have been their private feelings, was the depriva- 
 tion of the obnoxious clergy of the diocese of Aberdeen, par- 
 ticularly of the doctors of the university. The supporters of 
 the hierarchy were willing to obey the acts of the assemblies, 
 so far as abstaining from the observance of the Perth articles 
 was concerned. On Sunday, the first of December, Dr. 
 Scroggie had celebrated the Communion in the cathedral of 
 Aberdeen, and the communicants, among whom was Dr. 
 Forbes, had received it sitting ; and, on the twenty-second of 
 the same month. Dr. Sibbald, in New Aberdeen, had admo- 
 nished the people not to keep Christmas-day, as being contrary 
 to the ordinance of the Church. But nothing would satisfy 
 the Puritans short of absolute submission, and subscription of 
 the Covenant, involving a formal abjuration of all those prin- 
 ciples of ecclesiastical and civil government which the northern 
 clergy had hitherto believed and taught. A committee, 
 which met at Aberdeen on the seventh of July, pronounced 
 sentence of suspension till the meeting of assembly against 
 Dr. Scroggie, Dr. Sibbald, Andrew Logic, Archdeacon of 
 Aberdeen, and several other ministers ; and, at the instigation 
 of Thomas Mitchell, minister at Turriff, deposed John Forbes, 
 pnrson of Auchterless, son of Alexander Forbes, Bishop of 
 Aberdeen. James Gordon bestows a high character on the 
 deposed clergyman. He tells us, that neither his deprivation, 
 " nor twenty years suffering and lying out of his ministry 
 afterwards, under much hardship, did ever compel him to 
 comply in the least, or to recede from his principles — a man 
 to whom his most bitter enemies could object nothing but that 
 he was non-covenanter, otherwise learned, and remarkable for 
 austerity of life and piety." ^ 
 
 1 Peterkin's Records of the Kirk, pp. 278, 279. Baillie, vol. i. p. 248 255. 
 Gordon's Scots Aflairs, vol. iii. p. 214-223. Guthrie, p. G6-70. Spalding, vol. i. 
 p. 310. 
 2 Spalding, vol. i. pp. 241, 242, 300. Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. iii. pp. 203, 
 
A.D. 1640.] OP SCOTLAND. 73 
 
 The doctors and clergy liad been cited to appear before tlic 
 assembly, and a committee was appointed for their trial, the 
 members of which sat in the Earl Marischal's house — the place 
 where, two years before, Henderson, Dickson, and Cant, had 
 preaclied during tlieir residence at Aberdeen. All the accused 
 persons seem to have appeared before tlie committee. The 
 charges against Dr. Scroggie were, that he preached long 
 upon one text ; that he was cold in his doctrine ; that he did 
 not edify his parishioners ; and that he declined to subscribe 
 the Covenant. " He was an old man," Baillie says, " not 
 very corrupt, yet perverse in the Covenant and Service Book." 
 The sentence of deposition from his office in the ministry was 
 pronounced against him. Gordon vindicates Dr. Scroggie 
 from the aspersions of his enemies, mentioning that, to his own 
 knowledge, he was sober, grave, and painful in his calling ; 
 and that his other faults might have been excused, if he had 
 not been a party to the dispute between the doctors and the 
 Covenanters. 
 
 Dr. Sibbald was accused of Arminianism, and of refusing to 
 subscribe the Covenant. Among the instances of erroneous 
 doctrine alleged against him were the following: — that he 
 maintained the necessity of private Baptism ; that he gave the 
 name of viaticum to the Lord's Supper ; that he approved of 
 the fast of Lent; that he taught that alms in a certain sense 
 might be said to put away sin ; that he said of one who was 
 doing penance, tliat if he had improved the grace given to him 
 he would not have fallen into the sin which he had committed. 
 He Avas also charged with having in his possession, and lend- 
 ing to others, the writings of Dr. William Forbes. His chief 
 
 204. Gordon mentions tbat the person appointed to succeed Forbes " was so 
 much opposed by the parishioners of Auchterless, that Mr. Thomas Mitchell 
 was fain to call for aid from brachium seculare, and to that end bad a party of 
 mnsketeers lent him, by whose assistance the doors of the parish church of Auch- 
 terless were made patent, and the minister entered by violence, the parishioners 
 not daring to whisper at it. Mr. John Forbes's house and goods were made over 
 to the intrant, and himself, for many years afterwards, frustrate of all payment of 
 his debentures as incumbent there." "Yet," continues Gordon, "I cannot tell 
 by what ftitality, such as followed Mr John Forbes stayed there but short time, 
 that place having changed four ministers within less than nineteen years after 
 Mr. John Forbes was driven out, three of them removed by death ; yet perhaps 
 not for that cause." 
 
74 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LV. 
 
 accuser was Rutherford, who had been present at his sermons 
 when in banishment at Aberdeen. 
 
 Certain special questions were put to Dr. Sibbald. He was 
 asked whether the Pope was Antichrist ; what he thought of 
 Christ's local descent into hell ; and whether he believed that 
 all baptized infants were regenerate. He answered that he 
 thought the Pope was Antichrist, and that he knew not 
 whether a greater Antichrist would arise after him ; that the 
 Scottish Church had not defined the article of Christ's de- 
 scent in a national synod, but that he believed Christ had 
 descended into hell, and, in regard to the local descent of his 
 soul, that that was the belief of several of the Fathers, and he, 
 with Zanchius, was unwilling to disallow it ; that he adhered 
 to the article of the Scottish Church regarding baptism, and, 
 if he should say with Augustine that all baptized infants were 
 regenerate, he trusted he would say nothing amiss. Dr. 
 Sibbald was deposed. 
 
 To Dr. Leslie it was objected that he was lazy, and negli- 
 gent of his charge ; that he had been guilty of drunkenness ; 
 and that he refused to subscribe the Covenant. He also was 
 deposed. Gordon attributes the charge of laziness to his re- 
 tired, monastic way of life, describing him as a severe student, 
 who delighted in nothing else but to sit in his study and spend 
 days and nights at his book. The charge of drunkenness he 
 indignantly repels, averring that he was grave, austere, and 
 exemplary, and sober and abstemious above his accusers. 
 
 Every effort had been used to win Dr. John Forbes to 
 subscribe the Covenant. His quiet disposition, his anxiety 
 for peace, the very principles of ecclesiastical obedience 
 which formerly led him to maintain the cause of Episco- 
 pacy, were now inducements to submit to the assembly ; and 
 his friends and relatives among the Covenanters were ear- 
 nest in persuading him to that course. He was perplexed 
 and unhappy, but he overcame the temptations to which he 
 was exposed, and refused to act against his conscience. On 
 the twenty-ninth of July — the second session of the assembly 
 — he was present in the Grey friars' church, along with those 
 who were spectators of the proceedings ; and, when his name 
 was called with others of the accused, he was about to ap- 
 proach the moderator, but was stopped, and ordered to be in 
 
A.D. 1G40.] OF SCOTLAND. 75 
 
 attendance each clay outside the place of meeting. He meekly- 
 obeyed. On the first of August, he was called before the 
 committee, and afterwards appeared several times in presence 
 of the assembly itself. He was charged with not using his 
 authority to suppress Dr. William Forbes's writings, and the 
 Popish and Arminian opinions maintained by some in the 
 university ; with inveighing bitterly against his brethren, and 
 reviling the Covenant in his Irenicum and Peaceable Warn- 
 ing ; with favouring the introduction of a Liturgy, and recom- 
 mending to Bisliop Maxwell that it should differ in some 
 points from that of England ; with having been present at the 
 consecration of a chapel in the house of Muchalls ; and with 
 having refused to subscribe the Covenant. The assembly 
 found that he was free from Popery and Arminianism, and re- 
 mitted the further consideration of his case to the Presbytery 
 of Edinburgh. For that purpose, he was enjoined to appear 
 at Edinburgh within a month or thereby, and on his way to 
 confer with Rutherford at St. Andrews ; failing which, and 
 in the event of his not professing repentance and giving due 
 satisfaction, it was ordered that he should be deposed. He 
 thanked the members for their forbearance, and said that he 
 would obey the command, whatever the result of the conference 
 might be. 
 
 This sentence was pronounced on the sixth of August, and 
 his Diary contains the following record of his feelings on 
 the occasion : — "After this, that same day, I being alone in 
 the field, and meditating on all these things, I fell down upon 
 my face and praised God with tears of joy. He hath delivered 
 my soul in peace from the battle that was against me ; for 
 there were many with me. Lord, thou hast pleaded the 
 cause of my soul, for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with me. 
 What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits towards 
 me ? Lord, my goodness extendeth not to Thee. O Lord, 
 sanctify my whole spirit, and soul, and body, wholly unto 
 Thyself. Thy vows are upon me, O God. I will render 
 praises unto Thee, for Thou hast delivered my soul from death. 
 Wilt Tliou not deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk 
 before God in the light of the living ? Lord, lead me, pre- 
 serve and bless me, in this intended journey to Edinburgh, 
 and bring me heme again in peace with a good conscience. 
 
76 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LV. 
 
 This I asked fervently with tears, and the Lord graciously- 
 heard my prayer, assuring me that He will go with me, and 
 bring me again in peace, and that he will shew me his salva- 
 tion, so that I shall finish my course with joy, and depart in 
 peace in the sight of his salvation. I was hereby exceedingly 
 comforted in the Lord my God against the fear of this journey 
 to Edinburgh, and of my weakness, and of the assaults attend- 
 ing me there, and against the fear of death. Blessed be the 
 name of the Lord, for ever and ever. Amen." 
 
 The assembly next took up the charges against the other 
 clergy who had been cited before them. Archdeacon Logic 
 was deposed ; and the same sentence was pronounced against 
 John Gregory, minister at Drumoak — the ancestor of a family 
 distinguished, in many successive descents, for learning and 
 science. The proceedings were continued against the other mi- 
 nisters, among whom were several from the diocese of Murray. 
 
 Not content with their warfare against the living, the Cove- 
 nanters next attacked the memory of the dead. One of the 
 charges against the doctors was their encouraging or tolerat- 
 ing the writings of Bishop William Forbes ; and Baillie 
 mentions that in the hands both of teachers and students were 
 found the treatises of that prelate, full of Popish opinions, and 
 intended to promote a direct reconciliation with Bome. Three 
 copies, in particular, were discovered of a volume containing 
 Dr. Forbes's Considerationes, a treatise by Bishop Wedder- 
 burn, and the Komanus-Catholicus Pacificus of the English 
 Benedictine, Barnes. The search for these books was made at 
 the instigation of Bigg. 
 
 An examination was also made into the writings of Dr. 
 Baron. That this might be done more effectually, his widow 
 was brought from her residence in Strathisla, in Banffshire, 
 under the custody of a company of Monro's soldiers, and, along 
 with her, such of her husband's papers as she had beside her. 
 On her arrival, she was compelled to deliver up the key of his 
 library at Aberdeen, where some letters were found from 
 Archbishop Laud and Bishop Maxwell ; and Baillie remarks, 
 " poor Baron, otherwise an ornament of our nation, we found 
 had been much in multis the Canterburian way." The 
 Covenanters kept possession of the letters and papers, but 
 allowed the gentlewoman to return. 
 
A.D. 1640.] OF SCOTLAND. 77 
 
 " And now," to use the words of tlie contemporary liistorian, 
 Gordon, " the assembly's errand was thoroughly done : these 
 eminent divines of Aberdeen, either dead, deposed, or banished, 
 in whom fell more learning than was left behind in all Scot- 
 land beside at that time. Nor has that city, nor any city in 
 Scotland ever since, seen so many learned divines and scholars 
 at one time together, as were immediately before this in Aber- 
 deen. From that time forwards learning began to be dis- 
 countenanced ; and such as were knowing in antiquity, and in 
 the writings of the Fathers, were had in suspicion as men who 
 smelled of Popery, and he was most esteemed of who affected 
 novellism and singularity most ; and the very form of 
 preaching, as well as the materials, was changed for the most 
 part." The Covenanters had indeed overthrown the noblest 
 school of theology that Scotland had yet seen. But the 
 labours of Bishop Forbes and of the scholars whom he 
 gathered round him were not lost. The young men who had 
 studied under them remembered their masters' lessons, and 
 their example. 
 
 The assembly rose on the sixth of August. On the third, 
 an order had been pronounced, appointing Andrew Cant, who 
 had formerly been removed from Pitsligo to Newbottle, to be 
 translated to the church of St. Nicholas in Aberdeen. These 
 removals were now becoming common, as it was necessary 
 that the important offices held by the deprived clergy should 
 be filled by persons of reputation among the Covenanters. 
 Thus, as already mentioned, Henderson had been translated 
 to Edinburgh, and Blair and Rutherford to St. Andrews ; 
 while Dickson was appointed professor of divinity at Glas- 
 gow, where, soon afterwards, he had Baillie for his col- 
 league.* 
 
 The narrative of the proceedings at Aberdeen may be con- 
 cluded with some notices of the deprived doctors. Dr. Scrog- 
 gie received a pension from the king for his support, but he 
 appears to have soon had misgivings as to the course he had 
 adopted, or the consequences to which it might lead. At the 
 
 1 Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. iii. p. 226-247, aud appendix, pp. 283, 284, Gar- 
 den's Life of Dr. John Forbes, p. 48-58 ; and Forbes's Diary, pp. 224, 225. 
 Baillie's Letters, vol. i. p. 248, and Supplement to the Canterburians' Self-Con- 
 viction, p. 14-16. Spalding, vol. i. p. 310-313, and appendix, pp. 447, 448. 
 
78 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LV. 
 
 assembly of 1G41, he declared his readiness to submit: and, 
 in May, 1642, he signed a formal recantation, by which he 
 abandoned his objections to the Covenant ; acknowledged 
 the unlawfulness of altars, priestly vestments, and prayers 
 towards the East ; rejected the Service Book, Canons, Ordinal, 
 and High Commission ; declared that, though in the Lord's 
 Supper there was a commemoration of tlie sacrifice of Christ, 
 yet the same ought not properly to be called a sacrifice, either 
 propitiatory or commemorative ; renounced the absolute 
 necessity of private Baptism ; denied that the sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper should be given to dying persons as a 
 viaticum ; admitted that certain texts did not forbid defensive 
 measures against the king ; and allowed the lawfulness of 
 ruling elders in the government of the Church. This recan- 
 tation, Spalding tells us, was wondered at by many. Dr. 
 Scroggie died at Rathven, of which parish his son was the 
 incumbent, in 1659, being then in the ninety-fifth year of his 
 age.^ 
 
 Dr. Leslie retired to his own chambers within the college, 
 where he lived quietly, refusing to take the Covenant, and 
 declaring that he would not hurt his conscience for any 
 worldly object. He afterwards resided at Strathbogie with 
 the Marquis of Huntly, by whom he was much esteemed, and 
 finally took refuge with a kinsman in Murray, where he died 
 some years before the Restoration. ^ 
 
 Dr. Sibbald firmly refused to subscribe the Covenant. In the 
 month of October following the assembly, he sailed for England 
 in company with Lord Ogilvie, and other royalists. He after- 
 wards went to Ireland, and received abenefice in the city of Dub- 
 lin. He was one of the Irish clergy who, in August, 1646,signed 
 an address to the lord lieutenant, the Marquis of Ormonde, in 
 which they entreated his lordship to continue his care for the 
 preservation of religion, the Service Book, and public worship, 
 
 ^ Spalding, vol. ii. pp. 59, 145, 146. Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. iii. p. 227, 
 and note, p. 227-229. The expression " necessity of private Baptism," used in 
 connection with the proceedings regarding Dr. Sibbald and Dr. Scroggie, it is 
 almost needless to say, refers to the opinion that private Baptism was lawful 
 and necessary, when the sacrament could not be ministered in church. 
 
 2 Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. iii. p. 231. Spalding, vol. i. p. 232 ; vol. ii. p. 
 216. A fragment of a Latin treatise by Leslie, on the writings of Cassiodorus, is 
 preserved by Dr. Garden, in his Life of Dr. John Forbes, p. 25-27. 
 
A.D. 1640.] OF SCOTLAND. . 79 
 
 and the true apostolical government of the Church ; and, in 
 July of the following year, his name appears among those of 
 the clergy of Dublin who subscribed a declaration, in which 
 they avowed their resolution, notwithstanding an order of the 
 parliamentary commissioners, to adhere firmly to the Book of 
 Common Prayer, and to reject the Directory. After residing 
 for ten years in Dublin, he died of a pestilence then raging, 
 which he caught while zealously discharging his duty in visit- 
 ing the sick.^ 
 
 The chief events which marked the life of Dr. John Forbes 
 subsequently to the assembly at Aberdeen will be afterwards 
 related. In the meantime, it will be sufficient to notice 
 the immediate consequences of the sentence pronounced in his 
 case. Although at first satisfied with his own conduct at the 
 assembly, and assured of the divine protection in his proposed 
 journey to Edinburgh, he subsequently blamed himself for 
 certain concessions which he had made, particularly on the 
 subject of lay elders ; and, afraid of being led into further per- 
 plexities so as to sin against his conscience, instead of going 
 southwards, he wrote to the Presbytery of Edinburgh that he 
 could not subscribe the Covenant, and that it was for them to 
 declare whether he should continue professor of theology as 
 before, or another be substituted in his place. His anxiety 
 was great, but he found comfort, as in all his distresses, in 
 meditating on the Holy Scriptures, and on the infinite treasures 
 of God's love. He strengthened himself also for whatever 
 was to befall, by reading the history of the persecutions in the 
 second century, deriving courage from the endurance of the 
 martyrs of Lyons, and carefully noting the fact, that among 
 them was the bishop, Pothinus, and that he was succeeded in 
 his episcopal office by Irenseus. The Covenanters for some 
 time delayed proceeding against him, either reluctant to treat 
 with harshness so good and humble a man, or dreading the 
 
 1 Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. iii. p. 230, and note. Garden's Life of Dr. John 
 Forbes, p. 25. Spalding, vol. i. p. 351 ; vol. ii. pp. 6, 137. Wilkins's Concilia, 
 vol. iv. pp. 555, 556. Mant's History of the Churcb of Ireland, vol. i. p. 587- 
 591. I have taken it for granted that the James Sibbald of the address and the 
 declaration was the same person as Dr. James Sibbald of Aberdeen. The Dr. 
 Sibbald who attended the Duke of Hamilton at the scaffold was probably a dif- 
 ferent person, since Dr. Morley, who on the same occasion consoled the dying 
 hours of Lord Capel, mentions that the ministers in attendance on the duke, and 
 on the Earl of Holland, were Presbyterians. 
 
80 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LV. 
 
 odium which the perseoition of a divine of his high cliaracter 
 would excite. Finding however tliat he remained constant to 
 his principles, they at last pronounced sentence. He thus records 
 the event in his Diary : — " Upon the twentieth day of April, 
 1641, I understood that the sentence of deprivation from my 
 function had passed against me by the Presbytery of Edin- 
 burgh, because I have not subscribed, and yet do refuse to 
 subscribe the late Covenant. Then I came to my study and 
 worshipped God, with tears beseeching God to forgive all my 
 sins, to comfort me and strengthen me against this and all 
 assaults, and to make me thankful for honouring me to suffer 
 for his Name's sake, for the which I heartily praised God ; 
 whereas I deserved greater afflictions, in regard of my great 
 and many sins ; but the Lord, in love to my soul, hath cast 
 all my sins behind his back, and made me a confessor of his 
 Name. I prayed also for my brethren who had pronounced 
 this sentence against me, that the Lord would forgive them, 
 and not lay this sin to their charge : and for myself, I prayed 
 that God would keep me with Him, and save me from pride, 
 and from despising any of my brethren, and from all indecent 
 behaviour, and from all hypocrisy, and that he would direct 
 and bless me and my son ; and I prayed that God would bless 
 his people with peace, and cause me by his grace to prefer 
 Jerusalem before my chief joy, and that lie would hide me in 
 his tabernacle, in the secret of his presence, and cause me see 
 the good of Jerusalem all my days, and make me dwell in the 
 house of the Lord for ever."^ 
 
 ' Spalding, vol. ii, pp. 17, 18, and note. Garden's Life of Dr. Jolin Forbes, 
 p. 51 ; and Forbea's Diary, pp. 226-230, 239, 240, 251, 255, 256. 
 
A.D. 1640.] OF SCOTLAND. 81 
 
 CHAPTER LVL 
 
 FROM THE DEPOSITION OF THE AHEROEEN DOCTORS IN AUGUST, 1640, TO 
 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESBYTERIANI3M IN AUGUST, 1641. 
 
 Negotiations between the King and the Covenanters — Terms of 
 accommodation — Oppressive proceedings of the Covenanters 
 — Meeting of the General Assembly — Renewed discussion 
 as to Private Meetings for religious worship — Question as 
 to Church government — Tlie King visits Scotla7id — He 
 attends the Presbyterian worship — The accommodation 
 ratified in Parliament — The Presbyterian form of govern- 
 ment established — Honours bestowed on the Covenanting 
 leaders — Account of the deprived Bishops — Character of 
 Bishop Maxtoell — He is appointed to the see of Killala, 
 and afterwards to the archbishopric of Tuam — His death. 
 
 In August, 1640, war was renewed between the king and 
 the Covenanters. Tlie Scottish army crossed the Tweed, and, 
 advancing through Northumberland, defeated Lord Conway 
 on the banks of the Tyne, and obtained possession of New- 
 castle. Charles, finding that his English subjects were more 
 disposed to favour the invaders than to rally round their 
 sovereign, was again obliged to yield. Commissioners were 
 appointed to arrange the terms of accommodation. They met, 
 first at Eipon and afterwards at London, but, before the nego- 
 tiations were concluded, events of the highest importance liad 
 taken place in England. 
 
 The Long Parliament assembled in November, and within 
 a few weeks the Earl of Strafibrd and Archbishop Laud were 
 impeached of high treason. In the prosecution of Strafford, 
 and in the general policy of the English Puritans, Rothes and 
 the other Scottish commissioners at London, and the ministers 
 who accompanied them, took an active share. The Scots 
 were treated with the utmost respect, and a church was set 
 apart for their use, to which great numbers resorted in order 
 to join in a mode of worship long interdicted in England, 
 
 VOL. III.] 7 
 
82 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVI. 
 
 and to listen to discourses in which the hierarchy and the 
 Liturgy were openly denounced. 
 
 In the meantime the negotiations proceeded, and, as all the 
 demands of the Scots were supported by the ruling party in 
 the English House of Commons, the king, humiliated and 
 disheartened, was unable to make any effectual opposition. 
 He agreed to ratify the acts of the last convention ; acquiesced 
 in a grant of £300,000, as an indemnity for the expenses of 
 the war ; and only hesitated when he was required to yield 
 up his faithful adherents in Scotland to the censure of the 
 parliament of that country. On this last point a compromise 
 was effected, whereby an act of oblivion was to be passed, in 
 which all persons on both sides were to be included, except 
 the Earl of Traquair, the Bishop of Eoss, Sir Eobert Spot- 
 tiswood. Sir John Hay, and Dr. Balcanquhal. The Scottish 
 commissioners finally insisted that no agreement would be 
 sufficient, unless both nations were united under one form of 
 church government. The king and Archbishop Laud had 
 not been more desirous of assimilating the Scottish Church 
 to that of England by means of the royal prerogative, than 
 the Covenanters now were to force the Presbyterian go- 
 vernment and worship on the southern kingdom by the autho- 
 rity of parliament. " Great things here in hand," Baillie 
 wrote exultingly on the twelfth of December ; " we trust this 
 is the acceptable time when we shall reap the labours of many 
 saints which before us of old here, and lately also, have been 
 sown in many tears ; good hopes to get bishops, ceremonies, 
 and all away, and that conformity which the king has ever 
 been vexing himself and us to obtain betwixt his dominions, 
 to obtain it now, and by it a most hearty nation of the 
 kingdoms." The time, however, was not yet come for so 
 great a change. The king gave an answer in general terms, 
 and the commissioners were obliged to submit. The treaty 
 was finally agreed to on the seventh of August, 1641.^ 
 
 During the war, and while the negotiations were going on, 
 the whole Scottish nation was compelled to submit in all 
 things to the orders of the Covenanting committees. Assess- 
 ments were levied for the expenses of the army and govern- 
 
 ' Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, pp. 181, 182. Baillie, vol. i. 
 pp. 269, 278, 279, 280, 297. 
 
A.D. 1641.] OF SCOTLAND. 83 
 
 ment, but, as these were quite Insufficient, forced loans were 
 exacted, and noblemen and gentlemen were urged to give up 
 their plate for the good of the cause. While such were the 
 burdens to which those who were favourable to the Covenant 
 were subjected, its opponents could look for little indulgence. 
 The houses of the royalists were plundered, and in some 
 instances destroyed, and their rents were collected for the use 
 of the estates. 
 
 In the Church, the victory of the Covenanters was still 
 more complete than in the State. Passive obedience, and 
 acquiescence in tlie acts of the assemblies, were not held to 
 be sufficient. Subscription of the Covenant was enforced, 
 and was now required to be absolute, without any 
 of those reservations which were allowed at first. It was 
 remarked that, in these tyrannical proceedings, the most active 
 and unscrupulous agents were those ministers who, during the 
 rule of the bishops, had pleaded most strongly for non-confor- 
 mity and the rights of conscience. Now also, the old liturgical 
 forms, derived from Geneva, and used since the time of 
 Knox, began to be openly thrown aside by the more popular 
 preachers. The Gloria Patri at the end of the metrical 
 psalms was censured as superstitious ; the Creed was no 
 longer used as the symbol at Baptism ; even the Lord's 
 Prayer was given up in public worship, and was spoken of by 
 some in language of the grossest irreverence. ^ 
 
 The king, aware that he had lost the obedience of his 
 Scottish subjects chiefly through the influence of the nobles, 
 sought to recover his authority by winning some of the chief 
 among them to his side. Loudon, in order to gain his liberty, 
 had promised to support the measures of his sovereign. 
 Montrose had been won, partly it would seem by the gracious 
 demeanour of Charles himself, partly by discovering the real 
 objects of the Covenanting leaders ; and Rothes, the first 
 instigator of the movement, was brought over by the prospect 
 of rewards suited to his covetous and ambitious character. 
 But all was in vain. Loudon was unwilling or unable to effect 
 anything, and carefully concealed his engagement. Montrose, 
 as soon as he began to be suspected, lost much of his influence; 
 and whatever hopes might have been entertained of Rothes 
 ' Gordon's Scots Affairs, vol. iii. p. 248-250. 
 
84 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVI, 
 
 were disappointed bj his death in August, 1641. The move- 
 ment, however, could not now have been stopped hy the 
 desertion of its chiefs. The ministers, originally the instru- 
 ments of the nobles, were beginning to act on their own 
 account, and among the nobility themselves a leader had 
 arisen in the Earl of Argyll, as crafty and unscrupulous as 
 Rothes, and less capable of being swayed -from the objects 
 to which he was devoted. 
 
 In order if possible to conciliate the Covenanters, or per- 
 haps with other objects Avhich have never been satisfactorily 
 explained, Charles resolved to pay a second visit to his nor- 
 thern kingdom. Before, however, giving an account of the 
 visit, it will be proper to notice briefly the proceedings of the 
 general assembly which met at St. Andrews, on the twentieth 
 of July, and which, a few days afterwards, was transferred to 
 Edinburgh for the convenience of the commissioners who Avere 
 attending parliament. The Earl of Wemyss was the royal 
 commissioner, and Henderson was again chosen moderator. 
 A considerable portion of the assembly's time was occupied in 
 discussions regarding the translation and appointment of minis- 
 ters. Several applications, made by the people of Aberdeen 
 to have the ecclesiastical vacancies in their city filled up, were 
 refused ; and this, as Baillie mentions, provoked them so 
 much, that they asked leave to get back their deprived 
 doctors. 
 
 The discussion about private meetings was renewed. The act 
 of the Aberdeen assembly had been ill received by the extreme 
 Puritanical party, especially in Edinburgh, where the city 
 ministers, and even Henderson himself, were found fault with. 
 Henry Guthrie again urged his objections to the meetings, 
 while their defenders insisted on greater liberty of worship. 
 Henderson once more interfered, and, with the assistance of 
 the Earl of Argyll, a compromise was effected. 
 
 On the ninth of August, a letter was read, addressed to the 
 assembly by several ministers in England, in which the 
 writers congratulated them on their successful efforts to 
 recover their liberties and privileges in the Church and com- 
 monwealth ; mentioned their own prospects of being soon 
 freed from the yoke of Episcopacy ; and craved their judgment 
 regarding an opinion entertained by some brethren, that every 
 
A.D. 1G41.J OF SCOTLAND. 85 
 
 particular congregation was in itself a complete Church, a 
 majority of whom, with or without office-bearers, was entitled 
 to discharge the whole powers of government, and of election, 
 ordination, and deposition of officers, and of admission, excom- 
 munication, and absolution of members. The assembly 
 thanked the ministers for their good wishes, and mentioned 
 its earnest desire that both kingdoms might have one Confes- 
 sion of Faith, one Directory for Public Worship, one Cate- 
 chism, and one form of Church Government. In reference to 
 the last point, tlie members expressed their grief that any 
 godly ministers and bretiiren should not agree with other Re- 
 formed Churches as to government, as they did in regard to 
 doctrine and worship : and they stated their opinion that the 
 exercise of ecclesiastical power belonged properly to tlie 
 officers of the Church, yet so that in matters of moment the 
 tacit consent of the congregation sliould first be obtained ; and 
 that the officers of a particular congregiition should not exer- 
 cise that power, except in subordination to the greater presby- 
 teries and synods, provincial and national ; and this they de- 
 clared to be warranted by the light of nature, to be founded 
 on the Word of God, and conformable to the pattern of the 
 primitive and apostolical Churches. ^ 
 
 The king arrived at Holyrood on Saturday, the fourteenth of 
 August. The parliament had been sitting for some time, and 
 had virtually assumed the powers of government. Charles 
 found himself a king only in name ; his old adherents and the 
 new converts to his cause were unable to assist him, or to protect 
 themselves from imprisonment and ruin ; and lie passively sub- 
 mitted to whatever was demanded by the triumphant Covenant- 
 ers. Among the few who accompanied him were his nephew 
 the Palatine, the Duke of Lennox, and the Marquis of Hamilton. 
 It does not appear that he was attended by any of his English 
 chaplains ; they could not indeed have safely appeared in public. 
 On the forenoon of the Sunday after his arrival, he went to the 
 abbey church, and heard Henderson preach ; and, when that 
 minister remonstrated with him about his absence in the after- 
 noon, he promised to be more punctual in future. The admo- 
 nition was probably delivered in language very different from 
 that which Knox and Melville were accustomed to use to 
 
 • Peterkin's Kecords of the Kirk, p. 292-297. Baillie, vol. i. p. 359-377. 
 
86 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVI. 
 
 their sovereign, but the circumstance marks the pretensions of 
 the Covenanters, and the helpless condition of the king. 
 Every day also, both morning and evening, as Baillie men- 
 tions, Henderson said prayers, read a chapter, sung a psalm, 
 and said prayers again, and the king heard all, making no 
 complaint of the want of a liturgy or ceremonies. 
 
 On the twenty-sixth of August, the treaty was ratified in 
 parliament by the king in person, and, according to the Scot- 
 tish form, was touched with the sceptre. By this act, Charles 
 condemned all his own former proceedings, and approved of 
 the conduct of his opponents ; sanctioned all that had been 
 done by the assemblies at Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen; 
 and established the Presbyterian form of government and 
 worship. He farther agreed that the officers of state, privy 
 counsellors, and judges, should be nominated with the advice 
 of parliament. When this concession was announced to the 
 estates from the king's own mouth, " they all arose," a 
 contemporary writer remarks, " and bowed themselves to the 
 ground." Lord Loudon was appointed Chancellor ; and the 
 office of Treasurer, which had been taken from Traquair, was 
 entrusted to five commissioners. The Marquis of Huntly and 
 several other members of the council. Sir Eobert Spottiswood, 
 President of the Session, Sir John Hay, Clerk-Eegister, and 
 some of the judges, were removed, and Covenanting noblemen 
 and lawyers were put in their places, Johnstone of Warriston 
 being one of the new judges. The Marquis of Hamilton 
 retained his seat in the council, and was now in high favour 
 with the popular party. 
 
 The return of the king was hastened by the intelligence 
 which he received of the breaking out of the Irish rebellion. 
 The E,oman Catholics in Ireland were encouraged by the suc- 
 cess of the Covenanters, and attempted to justify their pro- 
 ceedings by similar arguments ; but the commencement of their 
 revolt was marked by atrocities from which the Scottish in- 
 surrection had happily been preserved. Before Charles left 
 Scotland, he conferred honours and gifts on those who had 
 been most active in opposition to his authority. Argyll was 
 created a marquis ; Lindsay and Loudon were made earls ; 
 Alexander Leslie was raised to the peerage by the title of 
 Earl of Leven ; and Johnstone was knighted, and received a 
 
A. D. 1641.] OF SCOTLAND. 87 
 
 pension. Henderson obtained the deanery of the chapel royal 
 and the revenues of various bishoprics were bestowed partly 
 on the universities and other public bodies, and partly on 
 some of the leading nobles. On the evening of the seven- 
 teenth of November, Charles gave a banquet to the nobility 
 in the great hall of his palace of Holyrood, and on the follow- 
 ing morning set out for London, departing, as he is said to 
 have been assured by the chancellor, " a contented prince from 
 a contented people." ^ 
 
 The Covenanters had indeed reason to be satisfied, for they 
 had got all that they demanded. But there could have been 
 little real content in the mind of the unhappy king. He had 
 surrendered to a faction the authority which God had given 
 him for the benefit of all his people ; he had abandoned his 
 friends, rewarded his enemies, compromised his own personal 
 dignity, and done wrong to his religious convictions. He 
 hoped that what he had granted would secure the fidelity of one 
 of his kingdoms at least in the struggle which he saw was ap- 
 proaching, but even at the time he must have dreaded that all 
 his sacrifices might prove in vain. Helpless as he was, the 
 concessions which he had made and the proceedings in which 
 he had taken part admit of no excuse. They were as wrong 
 as they were impolitic, and he must have regarded them then 
 as he did in after years, if his usually clear judgment had not 
 been bewildered by the perplexities of his position, and by the 
 advice of timid or dishonest counsellors. 
 
 The restored Episcopacy of Scotland having thus been 
 overthrown, a few words may be added regarding the fortunes 
 of the deprived prelates. 
 
 Alexander Lindsay, Bishop of Dunkeld, George Graham, 
 Bishop of Orkney, and John Aberncthy, Bishop of Caithness, 
 passed the rest of their days in obscurity, neglected by those 
 whom they had joined, and pitied or despised by those 
 whom they had forsaken. They had all been Presbyterian 
 ministers for many years before they received consecration, 
 and had probably never entertained any higher opinion of 
 Episcopacy, than merely that it was a lawful form of church 
 
 1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. v. p. 370-379. BailHe, vol. i. p. 
 385-398. Balfour, vol. iii. p. 39-165. Guthrie, p. 84-93. Burnet's Memoirs 
 of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 184-187. 
 
88 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVI. 
 
 government. Mucli less excusable was the conduct of James 
 Fairley, Bishop of Argyll. A supporter of the hierarchy 
 before he was a bishop, and consecrated at a time when he 
 ought not to have accepted the episcopal office unless he be- 
 lieved in its apostolical authority, for a brief period he shared 
 the calamities of the falling Church, but soon lost faith and 
 courage, and submitted to the Covenanters. After having 
 been presented to the church of Largo in Fifeshire, and re- 
 jected by the people and the presbytery, he is said to have 
 been appointed minister of Lass wade in Mid-Lothian.^ 
 
 1 have been unable to ascertain anything beyond what has 
 already been mentioned of Neil Campbell, Bishop of the Isles, 
 and of Robert Hamilton, nominated to Orkney. 
 
 David Lindsay, Bishop of Edinburgh, did not long survive 
 his deprivation. He died in England, it is said, in December, 
 1641.2 
 
 Baillie, writing from London on the twenty-eighth of De- 
 cember, 1640, mentions that the Archbishop of Glasgow, and 
 the Bishops of Aberdeen and Brechin, were then residing there, 
 with their families, in great poverty and misery. Patrick 
 Lindsay, the aged Archbishop of Glasgow, died at York, in 
 the end of June, 1644. The governor of the city was just 
 about to assist at his funeral, wlien he was called away by the 
 tidings of the battle of Marston Moor, and the body was com- 
 mitted to the earth by a few poor men employed for the 
 purpose. Adam Bellenden, Bishop of Aberdeen, and Walter 
 Whitford, Bishop of Brechin, also died in England, the former 
 probably before the Archbishop of Glasgow, the latter in June, 
 1647.3 
 
 John Guthrie, Bishop of Murray, was the only prelate who 
 remained in Scotland without submitting to the Covenanters. 
 He was compelled by Monro to surrender his episcopal castle 
 of Spynie, and was carried prisoner to Edinburgh. Baillie 
 mentions that from the tolbooth of that city he sent a suppli- 
 cation to the assembly of 1641, but, as he was found obdurate, 
 
 > Keith'ft Catalogue, pp. 98, 227. Preface to Original Letters of the reign of 
 James the Sixth, pp. xxxvii. xxxix. xli. Baillie, vol. i. p. 372 ; vol.ii. pp. 53, 93. 
 
 2 Keith's Catalogue, p. 61. Preface to Original Letters of the reign of James 
 the Sixth, p. xxxvii. 
 
 3 Baillie, vol. i. p 288 ; vol. ii. p. 213. Keith's Catalogue, pp. 133, 167. 
 Wood's Athenise Oxonienses, Bliss's ed. vol. iii. p. 1016. 
 
A.D. 1641.] OF SCOTLAND. 89 
 
 that no attention was paid to it. The parliament of the same 
 year was more merciful, and allowed him to be released after 
 a harsh imprisonment of fourteen months, on condition that he 
 should not return to his diocese. He retired to his own house 
 of Guthrie in Angus. The exact date of his decease is not 
 ascertained. ^ 
 
 John Maxwell, Bishop of Ross, seems to have been the 
 greatest Scottish prelate of the reign of Charles. His eminent 
 ability, his devotion to the cause of his sovereign and the 
 Church, the rectitude of his conduct, the dignity and consist- 
 ency of his character, may be discovered from the records of the 
 time, but have never been sufficiently acknowledged, even by 
 the writers most favourable to monarchy and Episcopacy. 
 Reference has already been made to the part which he took in 
 the proceedings of the bishops subsequently to their depriva- 
 tion. On the day after the decease of Archbishop Spottis- 
 wood, in terms of the injunction in the primate's will, Dr. 
 Maxwell delivered the manuscript of his History into the 
 king's own hand, at the paliice of Whitehall. Some months 
 previous to this, Charles had proposed to appoint him to the 
 see of Elphin, in the province of Tuam, but gave up his in- 
 tention at the urgent entreaty of the lord deputy Went- 
 worth, who had promised the bishopric to another. Soon 
 afterwards a vacancy occurred in the diocese of Killala, in the 
 same province, under the following circumstances. John 
 Corbet, the deprived minister of Bouhill, had been hos})itably 
 received by Bishop Bramhall and others, and, on the publica- 
 tion of his treatises against the Covenanters, had been recom- 
 mended to his countryman, Archibald Adair, Bishop of Killala, 
 for a benefice then vacant in that prelate's gift. The bishop 
 treated Corbet in the most rude and oflfensive manner, and 
 censured him severely for the way in which he had spoken of 
 the Scottish Puritans ; and the indignant clergyman com- 
 plained of his proceedings to the court of High Commission. 
 It is probable that Adair, though injudicious and intemperate 
 
 1 Keith's Catalogue, p. 152. Baillie, vol. i. pp. 365, 366. Spalding, vol. ii. 
 pp. 86, 142. Gutlirie, p. 30. Balfour, vol. ii, p. 382 ; vol. iii. p. 155, Acts 
 of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. v. p. 482. Balfour states that the bishop 
 on his release was also ordained to give satisfaction to the Church ; but the 
 minutes of parliament say nothing of this. 
 
90 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVL 
 
 in his language, was not actually hostile to the hierarchy to 
 which he himself belonged. But it was thought necessary by 
 Wentworth to prevent at all hazards the progress of rebellion 
 and schism in Ireland; and, in May, 1640, Adair was de- 
 prived by the court of High Commission, notwithstanding the 
 opposition of Bedell, who, justly thinking that the deprivation 
 of a bishop was too serious a matter to be carried through 
 merely on political considerations, resisted a sentence founded 
 only upon a charge of unbecoming language, nothing being 
 objected in regard to life or doctrine. 
 
 To the see thus rendered vacant Bishop Maxwell was ap- 
 pointed, but he had not been long in Ireland when the rebel- 
 lion broke out. His episcopal palace was attacked and plun- 
 dered by the insurgents, and he was himself severely wounded, 
 though he escaped by the assistance of the Earl of Thomond, 
 and took refuge, first in Galway, and afterwards in Dublin. 
 While residing in the latter city, he was a zealous and con- 
 stant preacher, encouraging his hearers to bear with patience 
 the troubles of that evil time. He subsequently went over to 
 England, and joined the king at Oxford, where he appears to 
 have acted as one of the royal chaplains. On the thirtieth of 
 August, 1645, he was appointed to the metropolitan see of 
 Tuam, vacant by the death of Archbishop Boyle. His new 
 dignity must have been almost a nominal one, but he returned 
 to Ireland, and again took up his abode in Dublin. At that 
 city, in August, 1646, he signed the address of the Irish 
 bishops and clergy to the lord lieutenant, which has been 
 already referred to. In the beginning of the following year, 
 he received some intelligence of the king's misfortunes, which 
 so strongly affected him, that a few hom'S afterwards he was 
 found dead in his closet, in the attitude of prayer. His 
 decease took place at Dublin, on the fourteenth of February, 
 1647. By the care of the Marquis of Ormonde, he was in- 
 terred in the cathedral of Christ Church.^ 
 
 Within nine years after the sitting of the Glasgow assembly 
 
 * Bishop Eussell's preface to Archbishop Spottiswood's History, p. xii. Straf- 
 ford's Letters, vol. ii. pp. 369, 373, 378, 383. Burnet's Life of Bedell, p. 109' 
 112. Mant's History of the Church of Ireland, vol. i. pp, 542, 543, 563, 
 Wilkins's Concilia, vol. iv. p. 556. Baillie, vol. ii. pp. 116, 125, 207, 208, 221 
 373. Keith's Catalogue, p. 203. Bishop Maxwell was the author of two tracts 
 the one entitled " Sacro-sancta regum Majestas," the other "The Burden of 
 
A.D. 1641.] OF SCOTLAND. 91 
 
 all tlie bishops who derived their succession from the prelates 
 consecrated in 1610 were probably dead, with the exception 
 of John Leslie, Bishop of Kaphoe, formerly of the Isles, and 
 Thomas Sydserf, Bishop of Galloway. 
 
 Issacliar, or the tyrannical Power and Practices of tlie Presbyterian Government 
 in Scotland, in their Parochial Session, Presbytery, Provincial Synod, and 
 General Assembly." The former treatise called forth the "Lex Rex," of Ruther- 
 ford ; the latter Baillie's " Historical Vindication of the Government of the 
 Church of Scotland." The editor of Blair's Life (note p. 90) sums up a brief 
 notice of Maxwell's labours and sufferings with the remark, " a poor life indeed." 
 Poor, certainly, and miserable, if the bishop bad not looked forward to a better. 
 
92 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chat. LVIL 
 
 CHAPTER LVII. 
 
 FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESBYTERIANISM IN AUGUST, 1641, TO THE 
 APrROBATION OF THE DIRECTORY FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP, AND THE 
 FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT, IN FEBRUARY, 1C45. 
 
 The Civil War in England — General Assemlly of 1642 — 
 General Assembly o/"1643 — English Coimnissioners at the 
 Assembly — The Solemn League and Covenant — The West- 
 minster Assembly of Divines — Scottish Commissioners at 
 the Assembly of Divines — General Assembly of 1644 — 27^6 
 Directory for Public Worship and the Form of Church 
 Government ajj^roved of- — Account of these Formidaries. 
 
 The king's concessions to the Scottish Covenanters encouraged 
 the Puritans in England to persist in their attack on the pre- 
 rogatives of the crown, and on the doctrines, ritual, and 
 government of the Church. For a brief ])eriod the struggle 
 continued to be carried on within the walls of parliament, 
 but at length Charles was obliged to leave his capital and 
 retire, first to Hampton Court, and afterwards to York. When 
 it became obvious, during the summer of 1642, that an appeal 
 to arms could no longer be avoided, the royal cause seemed to 
 be as hopeless in England, as it was in Scotland the previous 
 year. The parliament had deprived the king of liis soldiers, 
 his fleet, his garrisons, and his revenues ; but he was no longer 
 wanting to himself, and to the high duties of his station. He 
 called on his people to assist him in the preservation of law 
 and religion, and the summons was answered in a manner 
 which shewed that a large portion of the English nation were 
 firmly attached to their sovereign and the Church. 
 
 The successes of the royalists in the beginning of the war 
 were such, that the rebellion might perhaps have been ex- 
 tinguished if the Scots had not taken a part in the contest. 
 Charles thought that he had secured the neutrality, at least, of 
 the Scottish nation, if not their active support. He had given 
 them all, and he now looked for such a return as it became 
 faithful subjects to render to their prince. His efforts to pre- 
 
A.D. 1641.] OF SCOTLAND. 93 
 
 serve their good will were zealously seconded hy some of the 
 chief nobility of the northern kingdom, but the real authority 
 was now in the hands ot the pojnilar party, headed by Argyll 
 and the ministers, by whom every art had been used to keep 
 up the national enthusiasm. The people had been taught to 
 believe that they were bound, by the solemn obligations of 
 their Covenant, to complete the subversion of an antichristian 
 system by the overthrow of the hierarchy and Liturgy where- 
 ever they were still maintained. To this all powerful feeling 
 the parliament of England now appealed, and the Covenanters 
 at once threw aside every tie of duty and gratitude to their 
 sovereign. It was resolved to raise an army for the assistance 
 of their English brethren, and to ratify the alliance with them 
 by a civil and religious bond. 
 
 Such was the general course of events up to the autumn of 
 1643. A few remarks will be sufficient to explain the chief 
 ecclesiastical transactions in Scotland. 
 
 The general assembly met at St. Andrews on the twenty- 
 seventh of July, 1642. The Earl of Dunfermline was the royal 
 commissioner, and Robert Douglas, who had recently been ap- 
 pointed one of the ministers of Edinburgh, was elected modera- 
 tor. Argyll and other leading noblemen were present. A letter 
 from the king, and a declaration from the English lords and 
 commons sitting at Westminster, were laid before the assembly. 
 The former expressed his majesty's desire for the welfare 
 of the Church ; the latter set forth the earnest wishes of the 
 parliament for a reformation in Church and State, and for pre- 
 venting the eifusion of Christian blood, in which they were 
 hindered by the plots of a malignant party of Papists and 
 ill-affected persons, especially the corrupt and dissolute 
 bishops and clergy. The assembly agreed on an answer 
 both to the letter, and to the declaration. To the king they 
 made the higliest professions of loyalty, urging, however, unity 
 in religion, and uniformity in church government : to the par- 
 liament they expressed their entire concurrence in the objects 
 set forth in the declaration • mentioning their hope that both 
 kingdoms might be united in faith, worship, and ecclesiastical 
 government ; making particular reference to various efforts of 
 the Scottish assemblies in the reign of James to promote a 
 true reformation of the Church of England; and suggesting 
 
94 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVII. 
 
 thattbe good work would now most conveniently be commenced 
 by plucking up the prelatical hierarchy, the main cause of 
 their misery and troubles. 
 
 The answers to the royal letter and to the declaration of 
 the lords and commons were drawn up by Henderson, and 
 were entrusted to the care of Lord Maitland, eldest son of 
 the Earl of Lauderdale, to be delivered to the king and the 
 parliament. In order, as was alleged, that these and other 
 matters of importance might be attended to during the time 
 when no assembly should be sitting, a committee was named, 
 consisting of a large number of ministers and elders, with full 
 power to take all requisite steps for promoting the great work 
 of union in religion and church government. This commission 
 was renewed in subsequent assemblies.^ 
 
 Lord Maitland delivered the documents entrusted to him. 
 The king, in reply, sent a declaration of his opinions to the 
 Scottish privy council, written on the twenty-sixth of August, 
 the day after he had set up his standard at Nottingham. He 
 mentioned his wish to promote unity in religion, and unifor- 
 mity in church government, provided these blessings could be 
 obtained in a proper manner ; and warned the Scots not to 
 trust the professions of their pretended friends in England, 
 who were really as much opposed to Presbyteriauism, as they 
 themselves were to Episcopacy. The lords and commons 
 returned a direct answer by Maitland. They again expressed 
 their desire for unity ; announced their intention of calling an 
 assembly of learned and godly divines to deliberate on the 
 subject; and requested the Scottish assembly to send some 
 of their own number to London, for the purpose of settling 
 uniformity in church government, whereby a more easy way 
 might be made for establishing one Confession of Faith, one 
 Liturgy or Directory of Public Worship, and one Catechism, 
 in all the three kingdoms. They farther declared that the 
 government by archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical 
 officers depending on the hierarchy, was an evil in itself, and 
 prejudicial to the Church and kingdom, and therefore that it 
 ought to be taken away. When the answer from the parlia- 
 ment was laid before the commission of the assembly, Baillie 
 mentions that they were very glad, and that they blessed God. 
 
 1 Peterkin's Records of the Kirk, p 320-333. Baillie, vol. ii. p. 44-54. 
 
A.D. 1643.] OF SCOTLAND. 95 
 
 They did not see, or did not choose to observe, that no pro- 
 mise was made to set up the Presbyterian system in room of 
 Episcopacy.^ 
 
 The general assembly again met at Edinbm'gh on the se- 
 cond of August, 1643. Sir Thomas Hope was the royal 
 commissioner, and Henderson, for the third time, was chosen 
 moderator. For some days nothing of importance was tran- 
 sacted, the members anxiously expecting the arrival of com- 
 missioners, appointed by the parliament of England to attend 
 the meeting of the assembly, and of the convention of estates 
 which sat at the same time. One circumstance is mentioned 
 in the records, which shews that superstition had not abated 
 during the ascendency of the Covenanters. An act of as- 
 sembly at this time refers to the extraordinary increase of 
 the sin of witchcraft ; and Baillie states that thirty persons 
 accused of that crime had been burned in Fife alone, within 
 a few months. The English commissioners, Sir William 
 Armine, Sir Henry Vane, and two other members of the 
 lower house, with two ministers, Marshall and Nye, at last 
 an-ived, and were introduced to the assembly. They presented 
 a declaration from the parliament, expressing a desire for the 
 reformation of religion, and a letter from the Assembly of 
 Divines, which had now met at Westminster, subscribed by 
 their prolocutor, Dr. Twisse, and others. A letter was also 
 read, signed by more than seventy English ministers, ear- 
 nestly entreating the Scots to assist their brethren, now 
 exposed to great peril by the king's successes. 
 
 There was a difference of opinion in the assembly as to the 
 proper course to be adopted, some insisting that they ought to 
 mediate between the king and the parliament, without openly 
 siding with the latter ; but the contrary arguments of Sir 
 Archibald Johnstone of Warriston finally prevailed, and 
 it was resolved to make common cause with the Eng- 
 lish Puritans. Discussions, however, took place regard- 
 ing the nature of the agreement. The commissioners 
 proposed that its ternis should be settled in the shape of a 
 civil league between the two nations ; the Scots insisted 
 on a religious covenant : the former shewed a desire not to 
 exclude the Independents, so far as England was concerned ; 
 ' Baillie, vol. ii. p. 55. Kushworth, vol. v. p. 390-392. 
 
96 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVII. 
 
 the latter were determined to tolerate nothing but Presby- 
 terianism in both kingdoms. At last the draft of a paper was 
 approved of, and on the same day, the seventeenth of August, 
 received the unanimous assent both of the assembly and of 
 the convention. Answers were prepared to the papers sent by 
 the parliament and the Assembly of Divines, and were ordered 
 to be delivered by a committee of eight members — Henderson, 
 Douglas, Rutherford, Baillie, and Gillespie, and the Earl of 
 Cassillis, Lord Maitland, and Sir Archibald Johnstone. Any 
 three of them, two being ministers, were authorized to treat 
 and conclude with the parliament and assembly of England 
 on all matters regarding a union of the Churches. ^ 
 
 The document which received the sanction of the assembly 
 and estates in August, 1643, bore the title of " A Solemn 
 League and Covenant, for reformation and defence of religion, 
 the honour and happiness of the king, and the peace and 
 safety of the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and 
 Ireland." It set forth, that the subscribers, noblemen, 
 barons, knights, gentlemen, citizens, burgesses, ministers of 
 the Gospel, and commons of all sorts, in the kingdoms of 
 Scotland, England, and Ireland, living under one king, and 
 being of one Reformed religion, for the preservation of them- 
 selves and their religion, and according to the commendable 
 practice of those kingdoms in former times and the example 
 of other nations, had resolved to enter into a mutual and 
 solemn league and covenant ; and to swear that they would 
 endeavour the preservation of the Reformed religion in the 
 Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and 
 government, and the reformation of religion in the kingdoms 
 of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and 
 government, according to the word of God, and the example 
 of the best Reformed Churches ; and to labour to bring the 
 Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunc- 
 tion and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of 
 church government, and directory for worship and catechizing. 
 They were in like manner, without respect of persons, to 
 endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, superstition, 
 heresy, schism, profaneness, and everything else contrary to 
 
 ^ Petcrkin's Records of the Kirk, p. 345-360. Acts of the Parliaments of 
 Scotland, vol. vi. p. 41-43. Baillie, vol. ii. p. 83-97. 
 
A.D. 1643] OF SCOTLAND. 97 
 
 sound doctrine, and the power of godliness. They were to 
 endeavour to preserve the rights and privileges of parliaments, 
 and the liberties of the kingdoms ; and to preserve and defend 
 the king's person and authority, in the preservation and 
 defence of the true religion, and liberties of the kingdoms. 
 They were also to endeavour the discovery and punishment of 
 all incendiaries and Malignants, and to assist all who should 
 enter into the League and Covenant. 
 
 That part of the document which refers to the proposed 
 reformation of religion in England and Ireland, like the ex- 
 pressions formerly used on the same subject by the English 
 parliament, is doubtful in its meaning. Some writers have 
 maintained tliat on this point the Scots were deceived by 
 Vane ; others, that they deluded themselves, from their belief 
 that the religion recognized in the word of God and conform- 
 able to the example of the best Reformed Churches could only 
 mean Presbyterianism. It was more likely that the able men 
 who drew up the Covenant, aware of the difficulty attending 
 the question, purposely used ambiguous language. 
 
 In the month of September, the new Covenant received the 
 sanction of the Assembly of Divines, of the House of Com- 
 mons, and of the few temporal lords who called themselves 
 the Upper House. It was then sent back to Scotland, and 
 was finally adopted, signed, and sworn to, by the committee 
 of the estates, and by the commission of the Church, on the 
 thirteenth of October. Copies of the Covenant were sent to the 
 moderators of all the presbyteries, with orders to read and 
 explain it on the first Sunday after receiving it, and, on the 
 Sunday following, to cause it to be sworn to by every man 
 and woman, and subscribed by those who were able to write, 
 with their own hands, and by the clerk of the parochial 
 session, in name of those who could not write, under the penalty 
 of ecclesiastical censures, and confiscation of goods. The Scots 
 immediately resolved to send an army into England ; and 
 Leven, who on receiving his earldom had solemnly engaged 
 never to fight against his sovereign, at once accepted the com- 
 mand, declaring that his promise was made with the condition 
 that .-eligion and his country's rights were not in hazard.^ 
 
 '' So the play is begun," Baillie remarks ; " the good Lord 
 
 1 Baillie, vol. ii. p. 99-102. 
 VOL. II L] ft 
 
98 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVII. 
 
 give it a liappy end." The end was beyond human foresight, 
 but all who retained any sense of their duty as Christians and 
 as subjects might understand that no good could eventually 
 come of such a beginning. Seldom has a rebellion com- 
 menced on worse grounds than that in which the Scots now 
 engaged. The only excuse which can be made for it is that 
 the king's success in England might have been fatal to the 
 civil liberties and ecclesiastical institutions of Scotland. But 
 Charles had hitherto faithfully observed the compact which 
 he had made with his northern subjects ; and, if a solemn 
 engagement may be broken by one party, because apprehen- 
 sions are entertained that its conditions may possibly be 
 infringed by the other, all confidence and truth must be at an 
 end. What might have happened had the Scots kept faith 
 with their sovereign, it is impossible to conjecture ; but it is 
 certain that, by violating their duty and breaking the most 
 sacred obligations in their anxiety to overthrow the English 
 Church, they lost all right to call on the king or his successors 
 to abide by the concessions of 1641. In this no one was more 
 to blame than Henderson. He alone possessed ability and 
 influence to check the selfish ambition of Argyll and Warris- 
 ton. He was not, like Baillie, a mere instrument in the 
 hands of others ; he was not, like Eutherford, blinded by 
 fanaticism to the real nature of the acts in which he bore a 
 part. He knew that, to gain what undoubtedly he believed 
 to be a great and noble object, he was using the most unworthy 
 means ; but he wanted honesty and courage to prefer his duty 
 to his inclinations and his interest. 
 
 The proceedings of the general assembly, which met at 
 Edinburgh in May, 1644, do not call for particular notice. 
 The next meeting, which was at the same place on the twenty- 
 second of January in the following year, was of more import- 
 ance. Robert Douglas was moderator, but, as the Presby- 
 terians were in arms against the royal authority, no commis- 
 sioner was present from the king. Baillie and Gillespie, two 
 of the Scottish commissioners at Westminster, who had 
 returned home for the purpose, laid before the members a 
 letter from the Assembly of Divines, and explained tlieir pro- 
 ceedings at the English synod. 
 
 The Assembly of Divines had now continued for a year and 
 
A.U. 1G45.] OF SCOTLAND. 99 
 
 a half. They were originally called together by an ordinance 
 of the Lords and Commons, dated the twelfth day of June, 
 1643, by which they were directed to meet on the first of July 
 following, within King Henry the Seventh's Chapel in West- 
 minster Abbey. A royal proclamation had expressly for- 
 bidden their meeting, but no attention was paid to its 
 injunction. The divines, with whom were associated several 
 members of the House of Commons, were nominated by the 
 parliament, and were to sit, and be adjourned, and dissolved, 
 at such time, and in such manner, as their constituents might 
 direct, and were not to publish their proceedings without the con- 
 sent of the Lords and Commons. By the same authority, Dr. 
 Twisse was appointed prolocutor, and, in the case of his decease 
 or absence, his successor was also to be named by parliament. It 
 was expressly declared that the assembly should not exercise 
 any jurisdiction, power, or ecclesiastical authority whatsoever, or 
 any other powers, beyond what were mentioned in the ordinance. 
 
 The whole tenor of the ordinance sufficiently pointed out 
 the absolute supremacy which the civil power claimed over 
 the assembly ; and the same distinctive character continued 
 to mark its proceedings. To the Scottish commissioners, 
 whose sentiments were so very different, this must have been 
 particularly obnoxious. They saw that the opinions which 
 might be expressed by the assembly, and the formularies 
 which it might draw up, would, within England, derive their 
 entire sanction, not from the decrees of a synod, but solely and 
 absolutely from the authority of parliament in matters ecclesi- 
 astical. The objects, however, which they liad in view, could 
 only be obtained by a close alliance with the parliament ; and 
 they did not hesitate to join witli the two houses in an attempt 
 to establish a new system of faith, worship, and church go- 
 vernment, in defiance of the wishes of the great majority of the 
 clergy, and a large proportion of the people of England. 
 
 When Henderson and the other Scottish commissioners 
 arrived at London in November, 1643, they had to apply to 
 the two houses for a warrant to take their place in the assem- 
 bly, since, without such warrant, no one was allowed to be 
 present, even as a spectator. The assembly sat first, as origi- 
 nally appointed, in King Henry the Seventh's Chapel, but, 
 during the winter, in the Jerusalem Chamber. Baillic gives a 
 
100 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVIL 
 
 very animated and interesting account of its mode of proceed- 
 ing, which resembled the practice of the House of Commons 
 rather than that of ecclesiastical courts in Scotland. The 
 Scottish commissioners declined to sit simply as members, 
 and claimed to be looked upon as the representatives of their 
 own Church, and to treat as such with a committee of the 
 assembly and parliament, in regard to the proposed uniformity 
 between the two kingdoms. This claim, after some opposi- 
 tion, was allowed. There was considerable discussion on 
 various points, especially on those in which the Independents 
 differed from the Presbyterians. The members of tlie former 
 sect were only a small minority in the assembly; but, from their 
 ability and learning, they were frequently able to embarrass 
 and perplex their adversaries. There was much opposition to 
 the authority claimed by the Scots for lay elders ; and it was 
 with great difficulty that the Presbyterians succeeded in carry- 
 ing the point that no single congregation had the power of 
 ordination. Baillie very candidly admits that the advance of 
 the northern army was one of the best arguments of his 
 friends, and that the success of the theological warfare de- 
 pended much on the progress of the Scottish soldiers in the field. 
 The commissioners for some time endeavoured to avoid dis- 
 putes with the Independents, labouring rather to establish the 
 Directory for Public Worship, as to which all were agreed, 
 and thereby to " abolish the great idol of England, the Service 
 Book." They strenuously opposed an adjournment of the 
 assembly at Christmas, 1643, and moved that it should sit as 
 usual even on the day of the Nativity. In this they did not 
 succeed ; but Baillie remarks with fanatical exultation, " we 
 prevailed with our friends of the Lower House to carry it so 
 in parliament, that both houses did profane that holy day, 
 by sitting on it, to our joy, and some of the assembly's shame." 
 A year elapsed, however, before the Directory, and certain 
 propositions concerning the form of church government, and 
 the ordination of ministers, were approved of by the assembly. 
 These documents, the first of which only was sanctioned by 
 parliament, were sent to Scotland in January, 1645, to be sub- 
 mitted to the assembly there, i 
 
 1 Baillie, vol. ii. pp. 107-112, 117, 120-124, 128-131, 144-149, 181, 182, 186, 
 187, 195, 198, 199, 204, 205, 242-250. Peterkin's Records of the Kirk, p. 400- 
 404, Collier, vol. viii. p. 247-252. 
 
A.D. 1645.] OF SCOTLAND. 101 
 
 The Directory and the Form of Church Government having 
 been laid before the general assembly by Baillie and Gillespie, 
 the former minister, in what appears to have been a speech 
 prepared for the occasion, contrasted the state of matters a 
 few years back, when his countrymen were threatened by the 
 English bishops with the yoke of Episcopacy, ceremonies, 
 and the Service Book, with what they now beheld — Episco- 
 pacy plucked up by the roots, and the Service Book abolished ; 
 Scottish Presbytery set up by an English assembly and par- 
 liament ; and the practice of the Scottish Church established 
 in room of the Liturgy in all the king's dominions. The 
 Directory was examined, unanimously approved of, and ordered 
 to be observed and practised throughout the kingdom, and it 
 was enjoined that a printed copy should be provided for each 
 church ; it being declared, however, in regard to the adminis- 
 tration of the Lord's Supper, that the rule as to communicants 
 sitting about the table or at it should not be interpreted, as if 
 it were indifferent, and free to any of them not to come and 
 receive at the table, or as if the practice was agreed to of the 
 minister's distributing the elements, instead of the communi- 
 cants distributing among themselves. The Directory was 
 afterwards ratified by the parliament of Scotland. 
 
 In like manner, the propositions concerning church govern- 
 ment, and the ordination of ministers, were examined and 
 approved of by the assembly ; and the commission of assem- 
 bly was authorised to agree to an uniformity between the two 
 kingdoms on the points therein mentioned, as soon as the same 
 should be ratified by the parliament of England ; it being de- 
 clared free to discuss further the article which set forth that 
 the doctor, as well as the pastor, had power to administer the 
 sacrament, and the question regarding the distinct right of the 
 presbyteries and the people in the calling of ministers.^ 
 
 The Directory for Public Worship began with a preface, 
 which set forth that the Book of Common Prayer, however 
 well-intended by its compilers and useful at first, had become 
 an offence, not only to many of the godly at home, but also to 
 the Reformed Churches abroad, in consequence of which there 
 
 ' Peterkin's Records of tlie Kirk, p. 416-434. Baillie, vol. ii. p. 255-260. 
 Balfour, vol. iii. p. 267. Acts of tlie Parliaments of Scotland, vol vi. p. 193, and 
 Act of 6tb February, 1645, prefixed to llie printed copies of the Directory. 
 
102 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY [Chap. LVII. 
 
 was a necessity to lay it aside, with the many rites and cere- 
 monies formerly used in the worship of God, and to substitute 
 the Directory in its place. The Directory then proceeded to 
 give instructions as to the. several portions of divine worship, 
 arranged under various heads. 
 
 The people were enjoined to enter the assembly for the pub- 
 lic worship of God in a grave and seemly manner, and to take 
 their seats without adoration, or bowing themselves towards 
 one place or other. On the congregation being assembled, the 
 minister was to begin with prayer, for which some brief di- 
 rections were given. The public reading of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures was to be performed by the pastors and teachers, but 
 those intended for the ministry might occasionally read and 
 preach, if allowed by the presbytery. All the canonical 
 books of the Old and New Testament were to be read, but 
 not the Apocrypha ; the exact portion being left to the wisdom 
 of the minister, though one chapter from each Testament was 
 recommended. After reading the word, and singing a psalm, 
 the minister was to say another prayer, of which the general 
 purport was given, and then to begin his sermon, for which also 
 certain directions were prescribed. The sermon was to be fol- 
 lowed by a prayer ; and the Lord's Prayer, as being not only 
 a pattern of devotion, but itself a most comprehensive prayer, 
 was likewise recommended to be used. A psalm was to come 
 next, and the minister was then to dismiss the congregation 
 with a solemn blessing. 
 
 In regard to the administration of the sacraments, it was 
 ordered that Baptism should not be unnecessarily delayed; 
 but it was to be administered only by a minister, and in the 
 place of public worship, in presence of the congregation. Be- 
 fore Baptism, the minister was to use some words of instruc- 
 tion and admonition concerning the sacrament. He was then 
 to demand the name of the child, and to baptize it, in the 
 name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by 
 pouring or sprinkling water on its face, without adding any 
 other ceremony. He was to conclude with prayer and thanks- 
 giving. The Communion or Supper of the Lord was frequently 
 to be celebrated, but the precise times were to be fixed by the 
 ministers and other governors of each congregation. The 
 administration was judged to be most convenient after the 
 
A.U. 1645.] OF SCOTLAND. 103 
 
 morning sermon. The minister was to make a short exhor- 
 tation, and the table being decently covered, and so conveni- 
 ently placed that the communicants might orderly sit about it, 
 or at it, he was to begin the action with sanctifying and 
 blessing the elements of bread and wine. The words of in- 
 stitution were to be read from the Evangelists, or from the 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians. A general direction was 
 given for the form of the blessing. 
 
 Brief injunctions were laid down in regard to the observance 
 of the Lord's day. Marriage was to be solemnised by a mini- 
 ster in tlie place appointed for public worship, at a convenient 
 hour, and before a competent number of witnesses. There was 
 a recommendation that it should not be solemnised on the 
 Lord's day. The minister was to pray for a blessing on the 
 man and woman, and to explain the institution and objects of 
 marriage, after which the parties were to make the prescribed 
 promise and vow, and the minister was to pronounce them 
 husband and wife. Ministers were enjoined to visit the sick, 
 to admonish and comfort them, and, if desired, to pray with 
 them. The bodies of the dead were to be decently attended to 
 the place of burial, and there immediately interred without 
 any ceremony. Praying, reading, and singing at the burial, 
 were expressly forbidden, but the minister, if present, might 
 remind the friends of the deceased person, as at other times, 
 of their duties. Solemn fasts were to be kept by a total 
 abstinence from food, so far as possible, and from all worldly 
 labours and amusements, and by attendance at public worship. 
 Thanksgivings were to be observed by attendance at public 
 worship, and by collections for the poor. The singing of 
 psalms was to be encouraged, both publicly m the congrega- 
 tion, and privately in the family. In regard to days for pub- 
 lic worship, it was declared that the only day required by the 
 Scriptures to be kept holy was the Lord's day, which is the 
 Christian Sabbath. The observance of festival days, vulgarly 
 called holy days, having no warrant in God's word, was to be 
 discontinued. In regard to places for public worship, it was 
 declared that, as no place was capable of any holiness by 
 dedication or consecration, so neither was it subject to pollu- 
 tion by any superstition formerly used ; and therefore places of 
 public worship were still to be employed for that purpose. 
 
104 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVII. 
 
 The Form of Preslbyterial Cliiirch Government and of 
 Ordination of Ministers, after a preface shewing that Christ 
 had appointed officers for the edification of his Church, and 
 perfecting of his saints, declared that one general Church 
 visible, and particular Churches, members of that general 
 Church, were set forth in the New Testament. The officers 
 appointed by Christ for the edification of his Church were 
 either extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets, who 
 had ceased; or ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and 
 other church governors, and deacons. To the pastor's office 
 it belonged to pray publicly and privately with his flock ; to 
 read the Scriptures publicly, to preach, to catechize, and to ad- 
 minister the sacraments ; to bless the people ; to take care of 
 the poor ; and to rule over the flock. The teacher or doctor, 
 as well as the pastor, had power to minister the word and 
 sacraments, and was particularly useful in schools and univer- 
 sities. When there were several ministers in the same con- 
 gregation, they might properly divide the occupations of 
 pastor and teacher ; where there was only one, lie was to per- 
 form, as far as he could, the whole work of the ministry. As 
 in the Jewish Church elders of the people were joined in 
 ecclesiastical government with the priests and Levites, so, in 
 the Christian Church, officers, commonly called elders by the 
 lleformed, had a share in the government. Deacons had no 
 authority to preach or administer the sacraments, their duty 
 being to attend to the poor. 
 
 The establishment of particular congregations was lawful 
 and expedient, and these were best distinguished by the 
 bounds of their dwellings. In each congregation there was to 
 be one officer at least, both to labour in the word and doctrine, 
 and to rule, to whom others were to be joined in the govern- 
 ment, and others for the relief of the poor. These officers 
 were to meet together^ and at the meetings it was most 
 expedient that they who laboured in word and doctrine, 
 should moderate. It was lawful and agreeable to the word of 
 God, that the Church should be governed by several sorts of 
 assemblies, viz., congregational, classical, and synodicaL The 
 classical assembly, or presbytery, consisted of the ministers of 
 the word, and other church governors. Synodical assemblies 
 were of several sorts, as provincial, national, and ecumenical.. 
 
A.D. 1645.] OF SCOTLAND. 105 
 
 They were composed of pastors and teachers, and otlier church 
 governors, and also, where expedient, of other fit persons. 
 
 No man was to take upon him the office of a minister of the 
 word without a lawful calling. Ordination was the solemn 
 setting apart of a person to some public church office, and was 
 always to be continued in the Church. Every minister of the 
 word was to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, 
 with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it did 
 belong. He was to be duly qualified for his office ; to be 
 examined and approved by those by whom he was to be 
 ordained ; and not to be ordained for a particular congrega- 
 tion, if the members could shew just cause of exception 
 against him. But, in extraordinary cases, something extra- 
 ordinary might be done, the rule, however, being still observed 
 as nearly as possible. Directions were given as to the exami- 
 nation and ordination of ministers. If a minister designed to a 
 particular congregation had been formerly ordained according 
 to the mode previously used in the Church of England, due 
 care was to be had of his examination; but his ordination waS' 
 to be held valid, and not to be disclaimed or repeated. A 
 like rule was to be observed regarding ministers ordained in 
 Scotland or other Heformed Churches. 
 
 The various points mentioned in the Form of Church Go- 
 vernment and Ordination were illustrated by an ample array 
 of texts from Scripture. No reference was made to the prac- 
 tice of the Church in any age, except in so far as mentioned 
 in the Scriptures. 
 
 Such were the rules laid down by the Westminster Assem- 
 bly, and approved of by the general assembly in Scotland, for 
 the public worship of God, the government of the Church, 
 and the ordination of ministers ; and which were designed to- 
 supersede the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal in 
 England, and the formularies previously in use in Scotland. 
 The change in regard to England implied the subversion of 
 the episcopal polity, and also of the ancient services and 
 ritual which had been preserved and purified at the Reforma- 
 tion. They who now sought to abolish those majestic offices, 
 the heritage of the Western Church, were as ignorant of their 
 history and real meaning, as they were incapable of appreciat- 
 ing their beauty. Even in Scotland, the alteration was con- 
 
106 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVIL 
 
 siderable. The semblance of daily prayer which had hitherto 
 been continued, the Creed in the ordinary service and at 
 Baptism, the Gloria Patri at the end of the Psalms, were 
 now abandoned by those who had contended for them against 
 the extreme Puritanical party. The public reading of the 
 Scriptures, and the use of the Lord's Prayer in the weekly 
 service, still preserved some faint appearance of liturgical 
 order ; but these, though possessing the warrant of the Direc- 
 tory, did not long keep their place in opposition to the feeling 
 which had become predominant. 
 
A.D. 1645.] OF SCOTLAND. 107 
 
 CHAPTER LVIII. 
 
 FROM THE APPROBATION OF TIIK DIRECTORY FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP, AND 
 THE FORM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT, IN FEBRUARY, 1645, TO THE 
 SURRENDER OF THE KING BY THE SCOTTISH COVENANTERS IN JAN- 
 UARY, 1647. 
 
 Dr. John Forbes refuses to sign tlxe Solemn League and Cove- 
 nant — He leaves Scotland — Ilis return — His death — Rolert 
 Burnet oj Crimond refuses to sign the Solemn League and 
 Covenant — His exile — His correspondence with Archibald 
 Johnstone of Warriston — His account of Bishop Sydserf — 
 Death of Archbishop Laud — Rising oj the Gordons — The 
 Marquis of Montrose — His victories — His defeat — Cruelty 
 of the Covenanters — Execution of Sir Robert Spottiswood 
 and other Royalists — pLuin of the King\ cause in England 
 — He seelcs refuge with the Scottish army — Controversial 
 papers between the King and Henderson — Death of Hen- 
 derson — His character — Surrender of the King by the 
 Scottish Covenanters. 
 
 The enthusiasm which had been displayed in Scotland when 
 the National Covenant was signed was renewed on the ratifi- 
 cation of the Solemn League and Covenant. The people were 
 tauglit to believe that submission to it was essential to their 
 welfare, both as Christians and as citizens ; and that it was 
 their duty to force its subscription on every individual 
 within the British kingdoms. Although many disliked the 
 obligation thus imposed upon them, few dared openly resist. 
 It does not appear that a single parochial minister refused to 
 subscribe ; but, of the deprived clergy who had rejected the 
 first Covenant, one, the most distinguished of his order, now 
 also declined to give obedience to the second. 
 
 It has been mentioned that in April, 1641, Dr. John 
 Forbes had been deposed from his office of professor of theo- 
 logy in the University of Aberdeen. His conduct after his 
 deprivation continued to be marked by the same meekness, 
 the same conscientious submission to the order now established 
 
108 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVIII. 
 
 in all things which he did not believe to be positively sinfuL 
 He attended the public services of the Church, and received 
 the communion from the Presbyterian ministers, and would 
 have gladly discharged his former functions as a teacher, had 
 the Covenanters allowed him. He firmly refused, however, 
 to sign the National Covenant, or to admit the unlawfulness 
 of Episcopacy. In answer to a deputation from the provincial 
 synod of Aberdeen, he declared that he still retained his former 
 opinions, but that he wished to hold them modestly and peace- 
 ably ; that Episcopacy was lawful and agreeable to God's 
 word, and not destructive of the Presbytery, or inconsistent 
 therewith ; and in those Churches, which are governed only 
 communi presbyterorum consilio, that the want of a bishop, 
 though an economical, was not an essential defect, neither tak- 
 ing away the true nature of a Church, nor making void its 
 ordination and jurisdiction. 
 
 When subscription of the Solemn League and Covenant 
 was enjoined on all, under the pain of civil and ecclesiastical 
 censures, Forbes resolved to leave his country, rather than 
 wound his conscience by sinful compliances ; and, on the fifth 
 of April, 1644, he embarked on board a vessel at Aberdeen. 
 " Surely," says Spalding, in mentioning his exile, "this was 
 an excellent, religious man, who feared God, charitable to the 
 poor, and a singular scholar ; yet was put from his calling, 
 his country, his friends, and all, for not subscribing our Cove- 
 nant, to the grudge and grief of the best." On the tenth of 
 April, he landed at Campvere, in Zealand, and on the follow- 
 ing Sunday preached in the English church at Middleburg, at 
 the request of the pastors there. He spent the first winter of 
 his banishment at Amsterdam, superintending the printing of 
 his learned work, the Instructiones Historico-Theologic^,. 
 which was published at that city in 1(345, with a dedication 
 to King Charles. His Diary shews that he continued to 
 preach frequently during the years 1644, 1645, and 1646, to 
 the English congregations at Middleburg, Amsterdam, Delft^ 
 and Utrecht, and to communicate in the English, Dutch, and 
 French churches in the United Provinces. In July, 1646,. 
 he returned to Scotland, and went to reside at his own castle 
 of Corse, continuing to frequent the public services at the 
 parish church of Leochol, without being urged to subscribe 
 
A.D 1645.] OF SCOTLAND. 109 
 
 the Covenant. The rest of his life was spent in this quiet 
 seclusion, but no details of it have been preserved. His Diary 
 ends on the twenty-second of July, 1647 ; and the last entry 
 mentions that, in that year, he frequently preached in his 
 castle hall to his servants and tenants, because there was no 
 sermon in the parish church on account of the illness of the 
 minister. He died at Corse, on the twenty-ninth of April, 
 1648, being then in the fifty-sixth year of his age, and was 
 interred in the family burying place in the churchyard of St. 
 Marnan at Leochel. No monument was ever erected over his 
 grave. 
 
 Dr. Garden has left a few memorials of the personal habits 
 and appearance of John Forbes. He was low in stature, and 
 of a dark complexion. He used no chair in his study, but 
 read and wrote leaning on his desk. He often walked about 
 in the fields, meditating on heavenly things. His chief recrea- 
 tion was playing at golf, but, when he heard the bells ringing 
 for prayers, he would immediately leave his game, and hasten 
 to church. It is unnecessary to enlarge on his character. In 
 learning he probably surpassed all other Scottish divines ; his 
 humility, his piety, his meekness, and his charity, appear in 
 the record of his spiritual life which he left behind him, and 
 in every authentic memorial of his actions.^ 
 
 Among those who, like Forbes, preferred exile to submission 
 to the new Covenant, was a learned and religious layman, 
 Robert Burnet of Crimond, brother of Sir Thomas Burnet of 
 Leys, and father of Bishop Burnet. He had been carefully 
 
 ^ Garden's Life of Dr. JoLn Forbes, pp. 58, 59, 70 ; and Forbes's Diary, p. 
 258-265. Spalding, vol. ii. p. 317, and appendix, p. 499-504. The chief writ- 
 tings of Dr. Forbes have been published several times. An edition, embracing 
 all his Latin works, was printed at Amsterdam, in 1702, and 1703, containing 
 a Life of the author by Dr. George Garden, one of the ministers of St. Nicholas' 
 Church, Aberdeen, and his Diary, translated into Latin, so far as not originally 
 written in that language. The original Diary, which is in the possession of 
 the representatives of his family at Fintray house, Aberdeenshire, has never been 
 printed. Orem, in his History of Old Aberdeen (ed. 1791, p. 85), mentions 
 that Dr. Forbes, a short time before his death, requested his friends to obtain 
 permission "from the minister of St. Machar, and the Presbytery of Old Aber- 
 deen," to have his body interred beside bis father and his wife, in Bishop Dun- 
 bar's aisle, within the cathedral of Aberdeen, but that this was refused. Dr. 
 Garden takes no notice of this circumstance, and the statement appears to be of 
 doubtful authority. 
 
110 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY Chap. LVIIL 
 
 educated, and had studied the civil law on the Continent. He 
 afterwards practised as an advocate at Edinburgh, and, before 
 the dissensions broke out, was thought by some to be a Puri- 
 tan, on account of the strictness of his life, and perhaps from 
 his family connexions, his wife being a sister of Archibald 
 Johnstone of Warriston. Alexander Jaffray, in his Diary, 
 speaks in high terms of Burnet, with whom he resided for some 
 time during the year 1632, acquiring, he says, a knowledge, 
 not only of the procedure of the courts, but of the practice of 
 holiness and cliarity. When Burnet saw that the reforming 
 party really aimed at the overthrow both of Episcopacy and 
 monarchy, although he did not believe in the divine right of 
 the one, or in the unlawfulness of resistance under any circum- 
 stances to tlie other, lie took a firm and active part in their 
 defence. To avoid signing the National Covenant, he retired 
 for some time to England. After his return to his own 
 country, he was called upon to subscribe the Solemn League 
 and Covenant, but stedfastly refused to do so, notwithstand- 
 ing the urgent solicitations of his wife and her brother. 
 He was allowed to leave Scotland, and continued abroad 
 for some years, residing in France and other parts of the Con- 
 tinent. 
 
 During his exile, Burnet kept up a correspondence by letter 
 with his brother-in-law, Warriston. One of these letters, 
 written, apparently from Paris, in 1644, or 1645, contains 
 an interesting notice of the deprived Bishop of Galloway. 
 Referring to a communication which he had received from 
 Johnstone, he expresses his sorrow for the desolate condition 
 of Scotland, and declares his belief that a heavy account will 
 have to be rendered by some who would rather see all the 
 three kingdoms destroyed, than not have their own v/ish. 
 '" God forgive," he says, " your bloody and cruel practices, 
 who have not known, and will not know the way of peace." 
 He then alludes to a report that Bishop Maxwell and Bishop 
 Sydserf were residing at the same place with himself, men- 
 tioning that til is was incorrect as to the former, but that 
 the latter was then living in the same house. " I could 
 have wished," he adds, " he had not come here, as long as I 
 had been here, rather to have satisfied other men's scruples, 
 whom I have no intention to offend, than my own ; for the 
 
A.D. 1645.] , OF SCOTLAND. Ill 
 
 Lord is my witness, to whom I must answer at the last day, 
 I think there was never a more unjust sentence of excommu- 
 nication than that which was pronounced against some of 
 these bishops, and particularly against this man, since the 
 creation of the workl ; and I am persuaded that those who 
 did excommunicate him did rather excommunicate themselves 
 from God, than him ; for I have known him these twenty- 
 nine years, and I have never known any wickedness or 
 unconscientious dealing in him ; and I know him to be a 
 learneder and more conscientious man (although I will not 
 purge him of infirmities more than others) than any of tliose 
 who were upon his excommunication." The Protestant mi- 
 nisters at Paris would willingly have admitted the bishop 
 to communion, notwithstanding his excommunication by the 
 Covenanters ; " but," says Burnet, " he communicates with 
 the English." " All Scots and English here," he continues, 
 " both of one party and other, respect him ; and I assure you, 
 he defends the Protestant religion stoutly against Papists, and 
 none of our Scots Papists dare meddle with him, after they 
 had once essayed him. Be not too violent, then, and do 
 as you would be done to ; for you know not how the world 
 will turn yet." ^ 
 
 Archbishop Laud had remained in the Tower since his 
 impeachment, without being brought to a formal trial, but, 
 in the beginning of the year 1644, the proceedings against 
 him were renewed. One of the articles of the impeachment 
 was, that he had maliciously and traitorously endeavoured 
 to stir up war between England and Scotland, and that he 
 had laboured to introduce into Scotland divers innovations, 
 both in religion and government ; but, on his pleading the 
 act of oblivion, which had been passed subsequently to the 
 measures complained of, it was agreed that he was entitled to 
 the benefit of it, and the accusation was thenceforth confined 
 
 ' Garden's Life of Dr. John Forbes, p. 63. Tytler's Life of Sir Thomas Craig, 
 pp. 327, 329. Diary of Alexander Jafifray, 3rd ed, p. 44. Hailes' Memorials 
 and Letters of the reign of Charles the First, p. 72-75. Burnet's letter to War- 
 riston has no date, and Hailes inserts it under the year 1639, apparently suppos- 
 ing that it was written soon after the National Covenant and the Glasgow 
 assembly; but the reference which it makes to the " last Covenant," and the 
 whole circumstances connected with it, evidently point to the date mentioned in 
 the text. 
 
112 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chai-. LVIII. 
 
 to his alleged offences against the laws and religion of Eng- 
 land. The Commons finally abandoned the impeachment, 
 and proceeded with a bill of attainder. The bill was speedily 
 carried through their own house, but it was with reluctance 
 that the few peers who sat in the Upper House gave their 
 consent. A pardon from the king, under the great seal, 
 which the archbishop produced, was disregarded, and he was 
 condemned to death by an ordinance of the two houses, for 
 crimes which the consulted judges had unanimously declared 
 not to amount to treason. It has frequently been asserted 
 that he was sacrificed to the hatred of the Scots, but there is 
 no evidence that they took an active part in the proceedings 
 against him at this time : it was the English, not the Scottish 
 Puritans, that were his persecutors. On the tenth day of 
 January, 1645, Laud received the crown of martyrdom. ^ 
 
 In the spring of 1644, the Scottish royalists made an at- 
 tempt to free their country from the tyranny of the Covenan- 
 ters. The Marquis of Huntly rose in the North ; but his sol- 
 diers were soon dispersed, several of his chief followers were 
 taken, and he himself was obliged to seek refuge in the wilds 
 of Strathnaver. Montrose, who about this time was created a 
 marquis, headed a similar enterprize in the south of Scotland, 
 and was equally unsuccessful. The commission of the general 
 assembly pronounced a summary excommunication against 
 Huntly, Montrose, and others, for refusing to sign the Cove- 
 nant, and for rising in arms against the estates ,' and an order 
 was made that this sentence should be read in every church in 
 the kingdom. Two of Huntly's adherents, Sir John Gordon 
 of Haddo, and John Logic, son of the Archdeacon of Aber- 
 deen, and a royalist gentleman of Nithsdale, Sir James Max- 
 
 ^ Spalding has inserted in his Memorials (vol. ii. p. 436-441) the archbishop's 
 address on the scaffold, copies of which, it appears, were circulated in Scotland, 
 and produced a good effect even in that country. "I have here," he says, " set 
 down the speeches of this ancient, reverend prelate, whereby he clearly going to 
 death vindicates himself from accusations against established laws and religion, 
 and purges our sovereign lord in regard to inbringing of Popery ; yet he is done 
 to death. He had some prayers which I have here omitted. Thus is he gone 
 the way that the mighty deputy of Ireland went, after three years' captivity, for 
 their faithful service to the king, as many men thought. Howsoever it was, the 
 printing and spreading of this paper was taken notice of by many that were per- 
 suaded to the contrary, and made them conceive a better opinion, both of the 
 king and this great prelate, who were otherwise traduced." 
 
A.D. 1645.] OF SCOTLAND. 113 
 
 well, were condemned to die, and were beheaded at Edin- 
 burgh. They were the first in Scotland that during the 
 troubles suffered death for a political offence ; and their perse- 
 cutors endeavoured, by every circumstance of ignominy, to im- 
 press on the spectators, as well as on the victims, that loyalty 
 now was treason. At the execution of Iladdo, a herald pro- 
 claimed with a loud voice that the parliament had found him 
 worthy of death, a villain, and a traitoi*, and thereupon tore 
 the baron's coat of arms, and threw it over the scaffold. Gor- 
 don looked on unmoved. Immediately before his death, he 
 uttered a short prayer, concluding with these words, " I 
 recommend my soul to God, and my six children to his ma- 
 jesty's care, for whose sake I die this day."^ 
 
 The Covenanters were still further elated by the success of 
 their army in England, and by the capture of Newcastle. 
 Among the prisoners taken in that town wei-e the Earl of 
 Crawford, and Dr. George Wishart, the deprived minister of 
 St. Andrews, now one of the clergy of Newcastle. Both were 
 carried to Edinburgh, and subjected to a rigorous im- 
 prisonment in the common jail. Crawford was attainted by 
 an ordinance of the estates, and his title was conferred on his 
 kinsman, the Earl of Lindsay. In January, 1645, Dr. Wish- 
 art petitioned the convention for assistance to preserve him- 
 self, his wife, and children, from starvation, and some relief 
 was ordered to be given to him during his imprisonment.^ 
 
 The next effort of the royalists was attended with better 
 success. In the autumn of 1644, the Marquis of Montrose 
 began that course of achievements which has made his name 
 so illustrious. Six battles were fought, in all of which his 
 opponents were defeated. His last and greatest victory was 
 at Kilsyth, in August, 1645. The estates had no longer an 
 army in the field. Edinburgh and Glasgow surrendered to 
 Montrose ; and the Ayrshire burghs, the stronghold of Puri- 
 tanism, made professions of loyalty, and implored his forgive- 
 ness. The Earl of Crawford and other noble captives were 
 released, and Dr. Wishart came with them to their deliverer's 
 camp, and became the marquis's chaplain. At this time, Sir 
 
 1 Spalding, vol. ii. pp. 361, 362, 387-391. Guthrie, p. [131]-[l33]. Pres- 
 bytery Book of Stratbbogie, p. 56. 
 
 2 Guthrie, p. 133. Balfour, vol. iii. pp. 235-237, 261, 262. 
 VOL. III.] 9 
 
114 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVIIL 
 
 Robert Spottiswood arrived from England, bringing with him 
 a royal commission, by which Montrose was appointed lieu- 
 tenant-governor and captain-general of the northern kingdom. 
 The marquis was now at the height of his renown. He sum- 
 moned a parliament to meet at GLasgow on the twentieth of 
 October, and cherished the liope of marching at the head of a 
 Scottish army into England, and recovering that kingdom 
 also for his master. 
 
 The expectations entertained by Montrose were disappointed 
 by the rout of rhiliphaugh. The Covenanters recovered their 
 superiority, but their victory was stained by a cruel persecu- 
 tion of the vanquished royalists. Sir William Rollock, Sir 
 Philip Nisbet, and Alexander Ogilvie, son of Sir John Ogilvie 
 of Inverquharity, a youth of eighteen, were beheaded at 
 Glasgow in the end of October. On the twenty-sixth of 
 November, the estates met at St. Andrews, Edinburgh being 
 unsafe in consequence of the pestilence which was then pre- 
 valent in Lothian. Warriston exhorted them to do justice 
 on Malignants, saying that their dallying formerly had pro- 
 voked God's two great sergeants, the sword and the pestilence, 
 who had ploughed the land with deep furrows. He added that 
 the massacre at Kilsyth was never to be forgotten, and that God, 
 who was the best judge of the world, would not but judge 
 righteously, and keep in remembrance that sea of innocent 
 blood which lay before his throne, crying for vengeance on 
 those blood-thirsty rebels the butchers of so many innocent 
 souls. The commission of the assembly also demanded that 
 justice should be done on the Malignants ; and special peti- 
 tions to the same effect were presented by the provincial as- 
 semblies of Fife, Dumfries, Merse and Teviotdale, and Gallo- 
 way. The convention returned a gracious answer to these 
 petitions. On the twenty-third of December, the Irish pri- 
 soners taken at Philiphaugh were ordered to be executed with- 
 out any assize or process whatever. Lord Ogilvie, eldest son 
 of the Earl of Airlie, Sir Eobert Spottiswood, William Mur- 
 ray, brother of the Earl of Tullibardine, Colonel Nathaniel 
 Gordon, and Andrew Guthrie, son of the Bishop of Murray, 
 were formally accused of treason, and the parliament itself 
 proceeded with their trial. They pleaded that they acted 
 under the royal commission, and also that they had received 
 
A.D. 1645.] OF SCOTLAND. 115 
 
 quarter when taken prisoners. Both pleas were disregarded, 
 and all the accused were condemned to death. Ogilvie 
 escaped from prison by the aid of his sister ; the others were 
 beheaded at St. Andrews. 
 
 The execution of Gordon, Guthrie, and Murray, was much 
 lamented ; but a deeper feeling was excited by the death of 
 Spottiswood. This gentleman, the second son of the late 
 Archbishop of St. Andrews, had filled the important office of 
 president of the highest civil court in the kingdom, and now 
 held his master's commission as secretary of state for Scotland. 
 His worth, his learning, the gentleness of his character, his 
 high office, had no effect in mitigating the enmity of his per- 
 secutors. His real crime in then' eyes was that he was the 
 son of an archbishop, and that he had adhered with stainless 
 loyalty to the cause of his sovereign and the hierarchy. On 
 the day before his execution, Sir Robert wrote a letter to Mon- 
 trose, requesting that he would continue, as before, his endea- 
 vours to regain the attachment of the people to the king, by 
 fair and gentle carriage, rather than by imitating the bar- 
 barous inhumanity of his adversaries, and recommending his 
 orphan children, and his brother's house, to his care. During 
 his confinement he had been visited by Robert Blair, who 
 laboured in vain to persuade him of his guilt. When he was 
 led out to execution on the morning of the twentieth of 
 January, 1646, the same preacher accompanied him to the 
 scaffold. Sir Robert professed his innocence of the crimes 
 laid to his charge; justified the king's proceedings in regard 
 to his subjects in England and Scotland ; and declared that 
 the excommunication of the bishops was lying as a grievous 
 sin upon the land. While he was engaged in his private devo- 
 tions, Blair rudely interrupted him, and asked whether he and 
 the people would pray for the salvation of his soul. Sir 
 Robert answered that he desired the prayers of the people, but 
 did not wish for his prayers, which he believed were impious, 
 and an abomination before God, adding, that of all the plagues 
 with which the offended majesty of God had scoui-ged the 
 nation, this was the greatest — greater than the sword, fire, or 
 pestilence — that, for the sins of the people, God had sent a 
 lying spirit into the mouths of the prophets. The preacher, 
 turning to the people, desired them to recollect that Spottis- 
 
116 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap LVIIL 
 
 wood was himself tlie son of a false propliet, tlie pretended 
 Archbishop of St. Andrews. Sir Robert, taking no farther 
 notice of him, knelt before the block. His last words were, 
 *' Merciful Jesus, gather my soul to thy saints and martyrs, 
 who have run this race before me." His body was buried 
 privately by an old servant of his father. ^ 
 
 In the beginning of the year 1645, commissioners appointed 
 by the king and the parliament met at Uxbridge, for the pur- 
 pose of attempting an accommodation. Henderson took a 
 leading part in the discussions on behalf of the Puritans. 
 Charles was willing to allow a limitation of the episcopal pre- 
 rogatives, but refused to abolish the hierarchy, and to esta- 
 blisli the Presbyterian government and worship. The con- 
 cessions proposed by the king having been rejected by his sub- 
 jects, the conferences came to an end. It was well for the 
 monarchy and the Church that the terms proposed by the 
 parliament were not agreed to, but the immediate results of the 
 renewal of the struggle were most disastrous. The battle of 
 Naseby, in June, 1645, was fatal to the royal cause in Eng- 
 land. The defeat at Philiphaugh put an end to all hope of 
 assistance from Scotland. After another vain attempt to 
 bring about an accommodation, the king left Oxford, in the 
 end of April, 1646, and sought refuge with the Scottish army, 
 which was then besieging Kewark. 
 
 Charles was received with every profession of respect, but 
 he soon discovered that he was to be treated as a prisoner, 
 rather than as a sovereign. The Scots retreated to New- 
 castle, and, at that place, another series of negotiations com- 
 menced. The king agreed to yield up all the fortresses which 
 still held out for him, and commanded Montrose to disband 
 
 1 Wishavt's Memoirs of Montrose, Englisli Translation, ed, 1819, pp. 222-224, 
 236-246, 433, 434. Balfour, vol. iii. p. 307-364. Guthrie, p. 160- 169. Howell's 
 State Trials, vol. iv. p. 767-818. Life of Robert Blair, p. 178-180. Spottis- 
 wood Miscellany, vol. i. p. 201-209. Life of John Welsh — Select Biographies, 
 edited for the Wodrow Society, vol. i. p. 28. There are four contemporary 
 accounts of the death of Spottiswood, one by Bishop Wishart, the other three by 
 enemies of bis name and cause, the author of the Life of Blair, and the writers of 
 two letters reprinted in the Spottiswood Miscellany. On the chief points they all 
 substantially agree. I have said nothing in the text of the alleged interview 
 between Sir Robert and young Lochiel, the day before the execution, because it 
 rests entirely on the somewhat doubtful authority of the writer of Lochiel's 
 Memoirs, 
 
A.D. 164G.] OF SCOTLAND. 117 
 
 his forces, and leave Scotland. When furtlier uri^ed to sub- 
 scribe the Covenant, and establish Presbyterianism, he de- 
 clared that he was willing to confer with any of his subjects 
 on the points in dispute, and to yield to their demands, if 
 satisfied in his conscience of their lawfulness ; but beyond this 
 he Avould not go. The Scots had been induced to suppose 
 that, having granted so much on former occasions, his resist- 
 ance to what was now demanded would soon be overcome. 
 Henderson had argued at Uxbridge, that his consent to sub- 
 vert the hierarchy in Scotland was inconsistent with the ab- 
 solute unlawfulness of abolishing it in England ; and Baillie, 
 in a letter written while the king was at Newcastle, declared 
 that no one would believe that it was from any conscientious 
 principle he stood fast by Episcopacy. The argument of the 
 one was as inconclusive, as the assertion of the other was un- 
 charitable and untrue. But the bigotry of the Covenanters 
 was such, that they were hardly able to understand how 
 others could sincerely hold opinions different from their own ; 
 and their obstinacy in demanding implicit submission from all 
 was not lessened by the circumstance, that he who now re- 
 quested liberty of conscience for himself was the sovereign 
 whom they still professed to obey. 
 
 The king's offer, however, to listen to any argument that 
 could be adduced in opposition to his ecclesiastical opinions, 
 was one which could not be disregarded, and Henderson was 
 selected as the champion of Presbyterianism. Charles pro- 
 posed that some learned divine of the English Church should 
 maintain the cause of Episcopacy ; but, on this being declined 
 by Henderson, it was agreed that the king should defend his 
 own opinions, and that the discussion should be carried on in 
 writing. The first paper came from Charles, and was dated 
 the twenty-ninth of May. After mentioning that no one thing 
 had made him more reverence the Reformation of the Church 
 of England, than that it was done, in the Apostle's words, 
 " neither with multitude, nor with tumult," but legally and 
 orderly, by those who, he conceived, had the reforming power, 
 and that for this and other reasons he had always been confi- 
 dent the work was very perfect as to essentials, including 
 ecclesiastical government — he added, that his opinion was 
 turned into more than confidence, when he perceived that in 
 
118 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Cuap. LVIII 
 
 government, as in other points, nothing was retained but what 
 was found to be the constant, universal custom of the primi- 
 tive Church, deduced from the Apostles' times. This point 
 of ecclesiastical government was of so much consequence, that 
 an alteration of it would deprive the members of the Church 
 of a lawful priesthood ; and how in that case the sacraments 
 could be duly administered, it was easy to judge. These, he 
 said, were sufficient reasons why he should think bishops 
 necessary for a Church, and why he should refuse to consent 
 to their expulsion from England. But he had also another 
 reason — his coronation oath — by which he was bound to main- 
 tain Episcopacy. He concluded by asking what warrant 
 there was in the word of God for subjects to endeavour to 
 force their king's conscience, or make him alter laws against 
 his will. 
 
 Henderson's paper in answer was dated the third of June. 
 He agreed with the king that it was desirable that religion 
 should be reformed legally and orderly, and by those who had 
 the reforming power — not, however, by the prelates, who liad 
 the greatest need to be reformed themselves, nor by the mul- 
 titude, whom God stirreth up when princes are negligent. 
 The English Reformation was an imperfect one, and he trusted 
 the glory of completing it was reserved to his majesty, so that 
 the praise of King Josiah might be his ; but, if the oppor- 
 tunity now given were neglected, he trembled to think of the 
 event ; he would neither use the words of Mordecai to Esther, 
 nor those of Savonarola to another Charles, because he hoped 
 for better things from his majesty. To the king's argument 
 from the constant practice of the Church, he answered, that 
 what was not in the Apostles' own times, could not be deduced 
 from them. But it was clear that in those times there was no 
 difference between a presbyter and a bishop, all power whether 
 of order or jurisdiction being common to both. Farther, the 
 argument from the practice of the primitive Church, and the 
 universal consent of the Fathers, was a fallacious one, and was 
 used by the Papists for such traditions as no orthodox divine 
 would admit. The law and the testimony must be the rule. 
 There was no certain knowledge of the practice of the Church 
 for many years. And he could never think his majesty would 
 deny the lawfulness of the ministry, and the due administra- 
 
A.D. 1C16.J OF SCOTLAND. 119 
 
 tion of tlie sacraments, in those Reformed Churches which hatl 
 no diocesan bishops, since it was manifest from the Scriptures, 
 and admitted by many of the strongest defenders of Episco- 
 pacy, that presbyters might ordain presbyters, and that Bap- 
 tism administered by a private person, or by a woman, was 
 not the same thing as when ministered by a presbyter not 
 ordained by a bishop. In regard to the coronation oath, while 
 in the taking and keeping of oaths, being so sacred a thing, 
 much tenderness was required, yet, when the parliaments of 
 both kingdoms had agreed to alter a law, the king was not 
 bound in conscience to observe it, otherwise no law could be 
 altered by the legislative power ; and on that ground episcopal 
 government had been removed from Scotland, and the bishops' 
 seats in the parliament of England had been taken away. 
 
 On the sixtli of June, a reply was sent by the king. lie 
 stated that, if Henderson could have shewn that Presbyterian 
 government existed in primitive times, he would have done 
 well for his argument. He averred that that form of govern- 
 ment was never used before Calvin's time, and he called on 
 his opponent to prove that it was. He denied the fallacious- 
 ness of his reasoning. If the practice of the primitive Church 
 and the universal consent of the Fathers was no argument 
 where the interpretation of Scripture was doubtful, then, of 
 necessity, the interpretation of private spirits must be admitted. 
 And to say that an argument was bad because the Papists 
 used it, or that a certain thing was good because some of the 
 Reformed Churches practised it, would have no weight with 
 him, till it could be proved that the latter were infallible, or 
 that the former maintained no truth. When he was made a 
 judge over the Reformed Churches, and not till then, would 
 he censure their actions ; but lie would not admit, without 
 proof, that presbyters, apart from bishops, could lawfully 
 ordain. In regard to the administration of Baptism, as no one 
 would say that a woman could lawfully administer it, though 
 when done it was admitted to be valid ; so no one ought to dp 
 it but a lawful presbyter, who, it could not be denied, was 
 absolutely necessary for the sacrament of the Eucharist. As 
 to the coronation oath, it was not the parliament, but the 
 Church of England, in whose favour he took the oath, which 
 could release him from its obligation ; and when that Church, 
 
120 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVIII. 
 
 lawfully assembled, should declare that lie was free, then, and 
 not before, he would esteem himself so. He ended by reminding 
 Henderson that he had not answered the concluding question 
 in his first paper, remarking, " It may be, you are, as Chau- 
 cer says, like the people of England, ' what they not like, they 
 never understand.' " 
 
 Henderson again wrote on the seventeenth of June. In re- 
 gard to the king's demand for proof of the existence of Pres- 
 byterian government before Calvin, he said that the answer was 
 the same as to the Papists' question. Where was your Church 
 before Luther. It was from the beginning, and was to be 
 found in Scripture ; and accordingly the Church of Jerusalem 
 was governed by a presbytery, as had been shown by the 
 divines at Westminster, and so also were the Churches of 
 Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, and others. To the king's 
 question twice put as to subjects forcing the conscience of their 
 sovereign, he avoided a direct answer, but alluded to the case 
 of persons being urged to that which was good and lawful, 
 though from error of conscience they judged it to be evil and 
 unlawful. 
 
 There were three other papers from the king, dated the 
 twenty-second of June, and the third -and sixteenth of July. 
 In his last paper, dated the second of July, Henderson still 
 more decidedly maintained that no great weight was due to 
 the authority of the Fathers, or the practice of the primitive 
 Church, denying the correctness of the common opinion that 
 the Church nearest the Apostles' time was the most pure and 
 perfect, and quoting the saying of a Scottish divine, who pro- 
 fessed that he had learned more from one page of Calvin, than 
 from a whole treatise of Augustine. 
 
 This discussion was remarkable, not only on account of the 
 circumstances in which it took its rise, and the station and 
 character of the parties, but as showing the great change which 
 had taken place in the nature of the controversy respecting 
 Episcopacy. The king did not merely maintain that it was a 
 lawful, or a preferable form of ecclesiastical government ; he 
 contended also that it was essential to the ordination of the 
 ministry, and therefore to the valid consecration of the Euchar- 
 ist. Henderson, on the other hand, while speaking in general 
 terms of Episcopacy as a corruption, practically contended for 
 
A.D. 1646.] OF SCOTLAND. 121 
 
 the simple lawfulness of Presbyterian ordination. In regard 
 to the language and temper of the controversialists, they de- 
 serve the highest commendation. Charles wrote with the 
 dignity and courtesy which became a king ; and Henderson 
 uniformly showed the deference which was due from a subject, 
 while he avoided all expressions of flattery or praise, as one 
 who knew them to be unworthy both of himself and of his 
 sovereign. 
 
 It was unfortunate for the Presbyterians, and probably also 
 for Charles, that Henderson did not long survive the conference. 
 For some time his health had been failing, and the anxieties 
 of his position contributed much to increase his Infirmities. 
 The utter failure of his attempt to convince the king weighed 
 on his spirits ; and It is not unlikely that the nearer Inter- 
 course, to which he had been admitted, may have enabled 
 him to appreciate Charles more truly, and may have made 
 him feel more acutely the responsibility of the proceedings In 
 which he was engaged. On the tenth of August he left New- 
 castle, and returned to Scotland by sea. On the nineteenth 
 of the same month he died at his own house In Edinburgh, 
 being then In the sixty-third year of his age. ^ 
 
 Henderson was the most eminent of the Scottish Presby- 
 terian ministers. Irreproachable In private life, of respectable 
 learning, and of the very highest political ability, he was 
 peculiarly fitted to be the leader of his party. While sharing 
 
 1 Alton's Life of Henderson, pp. 588-599, 633-660. Baillie, vol.ii. p. 382-387. 
 Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, pp. 277, 278, A report came 
 abroad, soon after tlie decease of Henderson, that on bis deatb-bedbe bad expressed 
 bis repentance for tbe part wbicb be bad taken against the king, and bad ex- 
 borted bis friends to atone for tbeir errors by labouring to restore tbeir soverei>;a 
 to his just rigbts ; and a declaration was published, which, it was alleged, 
 he had made to that effect. A similar account was repeated in the beginning of 
 the following century, on the authority of a statement made to Bishop Sage by 
 Robert Freebairn, Archdeacon of Dunblane, who was in his youth a Presbyterian 
 minister, and who alleged that be was one of four persons to whom Henderson 
 solemnly communicated bis change of opinion. Tbe character of Sage affords a 
 sufficient assurance that he related only what he heard from his informer ; but 
 neither the original rumour and alleged declaration, which were formally con- 
 tradicted by tbe general assembly of 1648, nor the statement of Freebairn, after 
 an interval of many years, is in any way sufficient to prove the fact of the recan- 
 tation. The anxieties of Henderson's latter days, and tbe favourable impression 
 which the king's piety and courtesy left on his mind, will easily account for 
 whatever portion of truth there may have been in the story. 
 
122 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LVIII. 
 
 in the violent proceedings by which the commencement of the 
 troubles was marked, and in the still less excusable measures 
 connected with the establishment of the Solemn League and 
 Covenant, he was not personally harsh or vindictive. In his 
 intercourse with the supporters of the hierarchy, he avoided 
 the unbecoming language so common among the Puritans, and 
 his demeanour to liis sovereign was uniformly respectful — con- 
 trasting favourably with the rudeness of Melville, and the 
 bitter uncharitableness of Knox. 
 
 In the meantime, the negotiations were still going on at 
 Newcastle. If Charles could have complied with the wishes 
 of the Scots in regard to religion, he would probably have 
 gained their support in the other points in dispute with the 
 English parliament ; but, had he done so, he would have 
 stained his conscience and his honour, alienated his most faith- 
 ful adherents in England, and soon have incurred the distrust 
 and contempt of many of those who now urged him to 
 submit. Foremost among these evil counsellors was Hamil- 
 ton. That nobleman had been created a duke in 1643, but 
 had been imprisoned soon afterwards on a charge of disloyalty, 
 and had only been released when the place of his confinement 
 was taken by the army of the parliament in April, 1G46. He 
 now repaired to Newcastle, and was welcomed by Charles 
 with the cordiality which marked the intercourse of earlier 
 years. The duke entreated his master to yield, using argu- 
 ments similar to those by which he had induced him to abolish 
 Episcopacy in Scotland ; but the king was now better able to 
 see their worthlessness, and, declaring that his conscience was 
 dearer to him than his crown, refused to accept the proposi- 
 tions of the English parliament, while he offered to come to 
 London in person, in order to arrange the points in dispute, 
 on receiving a satisfactory assurance of his safety and free- 
 dom. 
 
 The estates of Scotland met in November for the purpose 
 of adopting a final resolution regarding tlie king. The mem- 
 bers, generally, were desirous to come to reasonable terms 
 with their sovereign, but the assembly, not the parliament, 
 was now the ruling power, and the barons and burgesses were 
 afraid to act in opposition to the ministers. When the more 
 loyal members proposed a moderate resolution, " the better 
 
A.D. 1646.] OF SCOTLAND. V2S 
 
 sort," to use the words of Baillio, before giving an answer, 
 " desired a public fast in the parliament, and the advice also of 
 the commission of the Church." On the seventeenth of Decem- 
 ber, the commission accordingly met, and drew up a paper entit- 
 led " A solemn and seasonable warning to all estates and degrees 
 of persons throughout tlie land," in which they lamented the 
 indulgence shewn to many who had been active " in the late 
 execrable rebellion ;" denounced all who endeavoured to make 
 a breach between the kingdoms, or a party contrary to the 
 Covenant, under pretence of preserving the king and his 
 authority ; and solemnly declared that, if his majesty would 
 not satisfy the just desires of his people, both nations were 
 obliged, by their inviolable Covenant, to pursue the ends 
 therein expressed against all lets and impediments what- 
 soever. 
 
 The estates acquiesced in the views of the commission, 
 and, after some farther proceedings, intimated to the king, 
 that, if he came to Scotland without agreeing to the proposi- 
 tions, he would be kept under restraint, and the kingdom 
 would be governed without him, as in the years bypast. 
 On again receiving a negative answer, the estates, on the 
 sixteenth of January, 1647, agreed to surrender their sove- 
 reign to the parliament of England. In the end of the same 
 month, the Scottish army left Newcastle, receiving £100,000, 
 as an instalment of the money agreed ' to be paid for their 
 services, and the king was delivered to the English commis- 
 sioners, by whom he was conducted to Holmby.^ 
 
 The surrender of Charles by his Scottish subjects has found 
 apologists, some of whom have tried to justify it as not con- 
 trary to any duty, others to excuse it as the only course 
 consistent with the safety of the northern kingdom. The 
 justification and the excuse are alike unavailing ; it admits of 
 no defence, and of no palliation. 
 
 1 Rushworth, vol. vi. p. 390-398. Peterkin's Eecords of the Kirk, pp. 489, 
 490. Acts of tlie Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vi. pp. 239, 240. Baillic, vol . 
 iii.pp. 4, 5. Life of Robert Clair, p. 192-196. Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes 
 of Hamilton, p. 279-312. 
 
124 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chap. LIX. 
 
 CHAPTEK LIX. 
 
 FROM THE SURRENDER OF KING CHARLES BY THE SCOTTISH COVENANTERS 
 IN JANUARY, 1647, TO HIS DEATH IN JANUARY, 1649. 
 
 Oeneral Assembly of 1647 — Tlie Westminster Confession of 
 Faith approved of- — Account of that Formulary — Treaty 
 between the King and the Scottish Co7nmissio7iers — 
 Struggle between the Parliament and the General Assem- 
 bly — Oeneral Assembly of 1648 — The Westminster Cate- 
 chisms approved of — The Duke of Hamilton enters England 
 — He is defeated by Cromwell — 27ie extreme Covenanting 
 party obtains the ascendency — Cromwell invited to Edin- 
 burgh — Henry Guthrie deposed — The Act of Classes — 
 Death of King Charles the Firsts 
 
 The General Assembly met at Edinburgli on the fourth of 
 August, 1647. Some opposition to the prevailing party 
 was threatened by the more moderate among the minis- 
 ters. Those who took a lead in this movement were William 
 Colville, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and Andrew 
 Fairfoul, minister at Leith. They were strongly attached to 
 the monarchy, and probably had no great objection to Episco- 
 pacy ; and they were supported by some who, like Calderwood, 
 were zealous Presbyterians, but disliked the private meetings 
 for prayer now much encouraged by the popular preachers. 
 They attempted to procure the election of Colville as modera- 
 tor, but Robert Douglas was chosen, though only by a majority 
 of four. Baillie and Gillespie, who had returned from London, 
 gave an account of the chief proceedings which had taken 
 place in the English Assembly of Divines, since the approba- 
 tion of the Directory. Each of these commissioners made a 
 formal speech. Baillie referred particularly to the merits of 
 Henderson, declaring that he ought to be esteemed, after 
 Knox, the fairest ornament of the Church of Scotland. 
 Gillespie stated that the Confession of Faith, which was now 
 to be submitted to them, had been so framed as to meet all 
 the principal errors of the time, Socinian, Arrainian, Popish, 
 
A.D. 1647.] OF SCOTLAND. 125 
 
 Antinomian, Anabaptistian, and Independent. It liad been 
 much commended, lie said, by those who had seen it, even by 
 some of the prelatical party. The Divines were at that time 
 busy with a Catechism, which was to be divided into two 
 portions, a short one to suit the capacity of the common and 
 unlearned, a larger for those of understanding. The establish- 
 ment of Presbyterian government had been much hindered by 
 various parties — by the Erastians, by the Independents, by 
 the supporters of a moderate prelacy, and by those too who 
 had no objections to Presbyterianism, provided they had 
 liberty to come under it or not as they pleased; and this 
 liberty of conscience was become a common plea, not only with 
 the sectaries, but also among the prelatical party. Dr. 
 Taylor, the king's chaplain, having written a book in defence 
 of it. 
 
 The assembly proceeded to examine the Confession of 
 Faith, and, after mature deliberation, approved of it, and 
 agreed that it should be the common confession of the three 
 kingdoms ; declaring, however, that the not mentioning there- 
 in of the several sorts of ecclesiastical offices and assemblies 
 should be no prejudice to the Christian truth in these particu- 
 lars, and that some parts of the second article of the thirty- 
 first chapter, regarding the power of magistrates in calling 
 synods, were to be understood only of Churches not settled or 
 constituted in point of government. ^ 
 
 The Confession of Faith was divided into thirty-three 
 chapters. The first chapter was entitled, " Of the Holy 
 Scripture." Under that name were to be included the books 
 of the Old and New Testament, all of which, it was declared, 
 were given by the inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and 
 life. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of 
 divine inspiration, were no part of the canon, and therefore 
 of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be approved or 
 made use of more than other human writings. It was stated 
 that men might be moved by the testimony of the Church to 
 a high and reverent esteem of the Scripture ; and the heaven- 
 liness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of 
 the style, the scope of the whole, and other excellencies, were 
 
 1 Peterkin's Records of the Kirk, p. 468-483. Baillie, vol. iii. p. 10-20, and 
 appendix, p. 450-454. 
 
126 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIX. 
 
 abundant evidences of its being the word of God ; yet the full 
 assurance of its infallible truth and divine authority was 
 from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by 
 and with the word in the heart of men. The infallible rule of 
 the interpretation of Scripture was the Scripture itself ; and 
 therefore, when there was a question about the true and full 
 sense of any part, it was to be searched and known by other 
 places that spoke more clearly. The supreme judge, by which 
 all controversies in religion were to be determined, and all 
 decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of 
 men, and private spirits were to be examined, could be no other 
 than the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. 
 
 The second chapter, " Of God and the Holy Trinity," set 
 forth the unity of the Godhead in three Persons, of one sub- 
 stance, power, and eternity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost : 
 the Father of none, neither by others, nor proceeding ; the 
 Son eternally begotten of the Father ; and the Holy Ghost 
 eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. 
 
 The third chapter, " Of God's eternal Decree," declared 
 that God, from all eternity, had unchangeably ordained what- 
 soever was to come to pass ; yet so that thereby God was not 
 the author of sin, nor was violence offered to the will of the 
 creatures, nor was the liberty or contingency of second causes 
 taken away, but rather established. By the decree of God, 
 for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels Averc 
 predestinated to everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to 
 everlasting death. None were redeemed by Christ, effectually 
 called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect 
 only. The rest of mankind God was pleased to pass by, and 
 ordain to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of 
 his glorious justice. 
 
 The fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters, were entitled, 
 " Of Creation ;" " Of Providence ;" " Of the Fall of man, of 
 Sin, and of the punishment thereof;" and " Of God's Covenant 
 with man." 
 
 The eighth chapter, " Of Christ the Mediator," set forth 
 the divinity and humanity of our Lord, in conformity with the 
 ancient creeds, and almost in their language. The next ten 
 chapters, " Of Free Will," " Of Effectual Calling," " Of 
 Justification," "Of Adoption," "Of Sanctiflcation," "Of 
 
A.D. 1647.] OP SCOTLAND. 127 
 
 Saving Faith," "Of Ecpentance unto life," "Of Good 
 works," " Of the Perseverance of the Saints," " Of Assurance 
 of Grace and Salvation," contained a formal statement of the 
 Calvinistic doctrine on those various points. The nineteenth 
 and twentieth chapters were entitled, " Of the law of God," 
 and " Of Christian liberty, and liberty of conscience." The 
 twenty-first chapter, " Of religious worship and the Sabbath 
 day," laid down principles similar to those contained in the 
 Directory of Public Worship in reference to the same subject. 
 The twenty-second chapter treated " Of lawful oaths and 
 vows." 
 
 The twenty-third chapter, "Of the Civil Magistrate," 
 declared that the civil magistrate might not assume to 
 himself the administration of the Word and Sacraments or the 
 power of the keys. Yet he had authority to take order 
 for the preservation of peace and unity in the Church, that 
 the truth might be kept entire, blasphemies and heresies 
 suppressed, abuses in worship and discipline prevented or 
 reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled and 
 observed. And for the better effecting thereof, he had power 
 to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that 
 whatsoever was transacted in them should be according to the 
 mind of God. Infidelity, or difference in religion, did not 
 make void the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free 
 the people of their due obedience to him, from which ecclesias- 
 tical persons were not exempted. 
 
 The twenty-fourth chapter, " Of Marriage and Divorce," 
 laid down rules similar to those observed by the Church of 
 England regarding unlawful marriages. But divorce was to 
 be allowed, after due and formal proceedings, on the ground 
 either of adultery, or of such wilful desertion as could not be 
 remedied by the Church or civil magistrate ; and, in the case 
 of divorce for adultery, tlie innocent party was to be allowed 
 to marry, as in the case of the offending party being dead. 
 
 The twenty-fifth chapter, " Of the Church," after defining 
 the Catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, to consist 
 of the whole number of the elect, declared that the visible 
 Church, the house and family of God, out of which there was 
 no ordinary possibility of salvation, consisted of all tln-oughout 
 the world who professed the true religion, and of their children. 
 
128 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIX. 
 
 To this Catholic visible Church, Christ had given the ministry, 
 oracles, and ordinances of God. Particular Churches, mem- 
 bers of this universal Church, were more or less pure, accord- 
 ing as the doctrine of the Gospel was taught and embraced, 
 ordinances administered, and public worship performed, more 
 or less purely. The purest Churches were subject to mixture 
 and error; and some had so degenerated, as to become no 
 Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. But there 
 would always be a Church on earth, to worship God according 
 to his will. There is no other Head of the Church but the 
 Lord Jesus Christ. The Pope of Rome was in no sense the 
 head thereof, but was that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son 
 of perdition, who exalteth himself In the Church against 
 Christ, and all that is called God. 
 
 The twenty-sixth chapter was entitled, " Of Communion 
 of Saints." 
 
 The twenty-seventh chapter, " Of the Sacraments," de- 
 clared that there were only two sacraments ordained by 
 Christ, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, neither of 
 which might be dispensed by any but a minister of the 
 word, lawfully ordained. The sacraments of the Old Tes- 
 tament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified 
 and exhibited, were for substance the same with those of the 
 New. Of Baptism, the twenty-eighth chapter declared that it 
 was not only for the solemn admission of the person baptized 
 into the visible Church, but also to be a sign and seal of the 
 covenant of grace, of his engrafting into Christ, of regenera- 
 tion, and of remission of sins. Although It was a great sin 
 to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation 
 were not so inseparably annexed to It that no person could be 
 regenerated or saved without It, or that all who were baptized 
 were undoubtedly regenerated. Of the Lord's Supper, it was 
 declared by the twenty-ninth chapter, that it was appointed to 
 be observed In the Church till the end of the world, for the 
 perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ, the sealing 
 of all benefits thereof to true believers, their spiritual nourish- 
 ment and growth, and as a pledge of their communion with 
 Him, and with each other. In this sacrament Christ was not 
 offered to the Father, nor wa3 there any real sacrifice made 
 for the remission of sins, but only a commemoration of the one 
 
A.D. 1647.] OF SCOTLAND. 129 
 
 offering upon tha Cross. Wortliy receivers, outwardly par- 
 taking of the visible elements in this sacrament, did then also 
 inwardly, by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and 
 corporally, but spiritually, receive Christ crucified, and all the 
 benefits of his death. 
 
 The thirtieth chapter, " Of Church Censures," declared that 
 the Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his Church, had ap- 
 pointed a government therein in the hands of church officers, 
 distinct from the civil magistrate. To these officers were 
 given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, by virtue of which 
 they had power to retain and remit sins, to shut that kingdom 
 against the impenitent both by the word and censures, and to 
 open it to penitent sinners by the ministry of the Gospel, and 
 absolution from censures, as occasion should require. 
 
 The thirty-first chapter, " Of Synods and Councils," was 
 that which in part was thought by the Scottish assembly 
 to require interpretation. It declared that, as magistrates 
 might lawfully call synods of ministers, and other fit persons, 
 to advise with on matters of religion, so, if magistrates w^ere 
 open enemies of the Church, the ministers of Christ of them- 
 selves, by virtue of their office, or with other fit persons dele- 
 gated from their churches, might meet in such assemblies. It 
 belonged to synods and councils to determine controversies of 
 faith, to set down rules and give directions as to public wor- 
 ship and the government of the Church, and to decide com- 
 plaints in cases of maladministration. Synods and councils 
 were not to intermeddle with civil affairs, unless by way of 
 bumble petition in cases extraordinary, or by way of advice, 
 if asked by the civil magistrate. 
 
 The thirty-second chapter, " Of the state of men after Death, 
 and of the Resurrection of the Dead," declared that all sorts 
 of the righteous, immediately after their separation from the 
 body, being made perfect in holiness, were received into the 
 highest heaven, there to aw^ait the full redemption of their 
 bodies ; and so the souls of the wicked were cast into hell, 
 there to remain till the judgment of the great day. The 
 thirty-third chapter, '' Of the Last Judgment," set forth that, 
 at the last day, all men would appear before the tribunal of 
 Christ, to give account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, 
 and to receive according to what they had done in the body, 
 
 VOL. in.] ] Q 
 
130 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIX. 
 
 , whether good or evil. The end of God's appointing that day 
 was for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eter- 
 nal salvation of the elect, and of his justice in the damnation 
 of tiie reprobate who were wicked and disobedient. 
 
 Such were the chief doctrines of the new Confession, which 
 now superseded that which had been drawn up by Knox and 
 his associates. In their general principles, as well as in their 
 language and character, there was a substantial agreement be- 
 tween the two ; in some important respects, the difference was 
 obvious. The Westminster Confession was more distinct in 
 regard to the authority of the ministry, and of ecclesiastical 
 synods ; but, in its definitions of the sacraments, it departed 
 still farther from the faith of the ancient Church ; and, on the 
 subject of the divine decrees, and other points connected with 
 that question, it maintained the opinions of Calvin, with a 
 strictness and precision much beyond the expressions of the 
 older formulary. 
 
 In the meantime, the king had been carried off from Holmby 
 by the army. He was treated by the soldiers with more re- 
 spect than he had received from the parliament, being allowed 
 the attendance of his chaplains, and occasionally the company 
 of his children. Weary, however, of his captivity, he escaped 
 from his residence at Hampton Court, but, on repairing to the 
 Isle of Wight, found himself again a prisoner. While he was 
 still at Hampton Court, a negotiation had been opened with 
 him by Hamilton and the moderate party in Scotland, through 
 the Earl of Loudon, who was still chancellor of the kingdom, 
 the Earl of Lanark, Hamilton's brother, and Lord Maitland, 
 now, by his father's death. Earl of Lauderdale. These noble- 
 men followed Charles to the Isle of Wight, and there a treaty 
 was finally concluded. The king became bound to confirm 
 the League and Covenant by act of parliament, and to esta- 
 blish the Presbyterian form of church government, and the 
 Directory for public worship, for three years ; after which, it 
 was to be determined by his majesty and the two houses of 
 parliament what form of government, most agreeable to the 
 word of God, should be established, consultation being fii'st 
 had with the Assembly of Divines, and with certain clergy of the 
 king's nomination. It was on the other hand agreed by the 
 Scottish commissioners, that the Covenant should not be im- 
 
A.D. 1647.] OF SCOTLAND. 131 
 
 posed on those who had conscientious objections to it, and 
 that the king and his hoiisehokl shoukl not be hindered from 
 using their accustomed form of divine service. And, in re- 
 spect of the concessions thus made by their sovereign, the 
 commissioners engaged that the Scottish nation should use 
 their endeavours to iuive liberty given to his majesty to come 
 to London in freedom and honour, to carry on the negotia- 
 tions there, and, if this were refused by the English parlia- 
 ment, that the Scots would maintain the king's rights by force 
 of arms. This treaty was signed on tlie twenty-sixth of De- 
 cember, and, as the king at the same time rejected the pro- 
 positions of the parliament, his confinement at Carisbrook 
 Castle was made more rigorous than before. 
 
 The concessions made by Charles in this treaty, modified 
 as they were from what was formerly required of him, were 
 such as he ought not to have agreed to. But his situation 
 was beset with difficulties : he had to decide between ap- 
 parently conflicting duties ; and that judgment of his conduct 
 will be most just, which makes the most charitable allowance 
 for his struggles and perplexities, amid the snares, and deceit, 
 and treason^ by which he was surrounded. 
 
 The Scottish commissioners, having succeeded in their nego- 
 tiation, returned to their own country, and gave a report of the 
 substance of their proceedings to the committee of the estates, 
 and afterwards to the convention itself. Their conduct met with 
 the approbation of the majority ; but the faction of Argyll, sup- 
 ported by the commission of the assembly, openly expressed their 
 dissatisfaction. The commission declared that the king's 
 concessions were unsatisfactory ; and demanded that none of 
 the Malignants should be admitted to offices of trust, and that 
 the king should by oath bind himself and his successors to 
 consent to acts of parliament for confirming the Covenant, 
 and settling the Presbyterian form of church government, 
 the Directory, and the Confession of Faith. The three noble- 
 men urged the king to make still farther concessions, but, as he 
 peremptorily refused, the estates, after considerable wavering, 
 resolved to make good the engagement of the commissioners. 
 
 Two years before, Baillie stated that Warriston, with the 
 help of Argyll and the ministers, had up to that time kept the 
 parliament right against a powerful party. Warriston and 
 
132 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Cuap. LIX. 
 
 his friends, however, were no longer able to contend against 
 the reviving loyalty of the nation. All the peers, except 
 Argyll, Eglinton, Cassillis, Lothian, Arbuthnot, Torphichen, 
 Ross, Balmerino, Cupar, Burleigh, and, sometimes, Loudon 
 and Balcarres, gave their support to Hamilton ; more than 
 half of the barons, and nearly half of the burgesses, including 
 the representatives of the important towns of Edinburgh, 
 Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen, and St. Andrews, also voted with 
 the duke ; but, among the minority, were those who, from the 
 beginning, had been the chief promoters of the Covenant. 
 The real struggle was between the parliament and the assem- 
 bly. The estates having drawn up a declaration containing a 
 statement of the principles on which they were acting, an 
 answer was prepared by the commission of the Church, and 
 ordered to be read by every minister in the kingdom. The 
 commission also enjoined all ministers, under pain of deposi- 
 tion, to preach against the engagement to support the king. 
 In the month of June, the differences between the two 
 parties attained so great a height, that about two thousand of 
 the Covenanters of Clydesdale, Kyle, and Cunningham, who 
 assembled in arms at Mauchlin-moor under their ministers, 
 were dispersed with some bloodshed by General Middleton, 
 and the soldiers of the parliament.^ 
 
 Such was the distracted condition of Scotland, when the 
 general assembly met on the twelfth of July, 1648. Three 
 of the most influential of the lay elders were absent. Argyll 
 and the chancellor, the latter of whom had now entirely 
 abandoned the party of the Hamiltons, had retired to their 
 own houses to avoid signing the bond of maintenance of the 
 new levies ordered by parliament ; and Warriston was in 
 concealment, for the same reason, and also because he dreaded 
 that, in his capacity of Lord Advocate — an office to which he 
 had been appointed on the death of Sir Thomas Hope — he 
 might be called on to plead against the ministers accused of 
 heading the insurrection at Mauchlin. But Cassillis, Lothian, 
 Balmerino, and other peers and barons, were present. Appre- 
 hensions had been entertained that the moderate party might 
 
 1 Baillie, vol. ii. p. 345 ; vol. iii. p. 32-50. Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes 
 of Hamilton, p. 313-354. Gutbrie, p. 207-230. Clarendon, vol. v. p. 528 541. 
 Acts of the Parhaments of Scotland, vol. vi. pp. 289 294, 305-310, 321, 322. 
 
A.D. 1648.] OF SCOTLAND. 133 
 
 prove formidable In the assembly, as well as in the parliament, 
 and exertions were therefore made, and with entire success, 
 to have those only chosen as commissioners, who were 
 zealous against the engagement ; hostility to this obligation 
 being now almost as indispensable as attachment to the 
 Covenant formerly was. George Gillespie, one of the most 
 violent champions of the party opposed to the engagement, 
 was chosen moderator. Botli the Larger and the Shorter 
 Catechism of the Divines at Westminster, which were now 
 complete, were examined and approved. These formularies 
 were little else than tlie Confession of Faith in the shape of 
 question and answer, and differed from the Catechism in the 
 Book of Common Prayer, as much in structure as in doctrine. 
 The members of assembly were aware of the unfitness of one 
 of the catechisms for the purpose intended. Baillie mentions 
 that the Shorter Catechism was thought too long and too ob- 
 scure for common people and children, and Dickson was 
 requested to improve it, but his new draft was objected to for 
 the same reasons. Both catechisms contained the Ten Com- 
 mandments, and the Lord's Prayer. The Creed was not 
 inserted ; but it was appended to the printed copies, as " a 
 brief sum of the Christian faith agreeable to the word of God, 
 and anciently received in the Churches of Christ." An act 
 was passed by the assembly, by which all young students 
 were ordained to take the Covenant at their first entry to 
 college, and all persons whatsoever to do so at their first 
 receiving of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 It was with some difficulty that the members had been in- 
 duced to bestow a portion of their time on theology ; they 
 took much more interest in political discussions, which they 
 now looked on as their chief business. Having examined the 
 proceedings of the commission — its declarations, remonstrances, 
 representations, petitions, vindications, and other papers rela- 
 tive to the engagement — they unanimously found that it had 
 been fiiithful in the discharge of its trust, and ratified all its 
 acts, particularly these papers, and its judgment of the unlaw- 
 fulness of the obligation to which they referred. On the 
 twenty -fifth of July, in answer to a document sent to them by 
 the committee of the estates, the assembly again declared, 
 that they saw no possibility of securing religion, so long as 
 
134 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LIX. 
 
 the engagement was persisted in. They reiterated the demand 
 formerly made by the commission, that the Popish, Prelatical, 
 and Malignant party, as well as the sectaries, should be declared 
 enemies to the cause, and all association with them avoided ; 
 that his majesty's concessions on the subject of religion, sent 
 from the Isle of Wight, should be held unsatisfactory ; that, 
 before the restitution of his majesty to the exercise of his 
 royal power, assurance should be had by solemn oath, under 
 his hand and seal, for settling religion according to the Cove- 
 nant ; that no quaiTcl should be owned on behalf of his 
 majesty's negative voice ; that the management of public 
 affairs should be entrusted only to persons of undoubted in- 
 tegrity ; and that there should be no engagement without a 
 solemn oath that the Church ought to have the same interest 
 which it had in the League and Covenant, 
 
 On the third of August, the assembly passed an act, by which 
 all ministers were ordained, under pain of deposition, to preach 
 against the public sins and corruptions of the time, against pro- 
 faneness, defection from the League and Covenant, the unlawful 
 engagement, the plots and practices of Malignants, and the 
 principles of Erastianism ; and, if any of them should be railed 
 at, mocked, or threatened, or receive violence for so discharging 
 their duty, the offenders, unless they satisfied the Church by 
 public repentance, were to be excommunicated. The assembly 
 itself proceeded against some of the obnoxious ministers. 
 Andrew Ramsay, who had taken a leading part in favour of the 
 National Covenant at the beginning of the troubles, and had been 
 moderator in the Aberdeen assembly of 1640, and William Col- 
 ville, were suspended. The former had actively supported the 
 engagement ; the only accusation against the latter was that he 
 had not preached against it. Ramsay had also given great 
 offence by maintaining that " the supreme magistrate, when the 
 safety of the commonwealth does require, may dispense with the 
 execution of justice against shedders of blood." The moderator 
 wished the negative of this proposition to be expressly deter- 
 mined, but the members would not go that length. 
 
 The parliament and the general assembly, which by their 
 united influence had established the Presbyterian government 
 and worship, enforced the two Covenants, and exercised the 
 whole pov/er of the Church and State for the last ten years. 
 
A.D. 1648.] OF SCOTLAND. l'^5 
 
 were now at open strife. The anarchical principles contended 
 for in former times by Melville and his associates were once 
 more avowed and acted on. Now, however, the estates, unlike 
 the supreme civil authority in the reign of James, not only de- 
 clined to interfere with the spiritual prerogatives of the eccle- 
 siastical courts, but even shrunk from vindicating their own 
 undoubted jurisdiction. 
 
 On the twelfth of August, the assembly addressed to the 
 king what they called a humble supplication, but what in 
 reality was an insolent invective against their sovereign and 
 the parliament of Scotland, accusing Charles of having already 
 caused the blood of many thousands to be shed by his 
 obstinacy, and warning him no longer to despise the word of 
 exhortation, or incur the wrath of the Lord of Hosts, who 
 brings down the mighty from their throne, and scatters the 
 proud in the imagination of their hearts. After this, the 
 assembly rose, having continued its sittings for a full month. 
 The moderator, George Gillespie, did not long survive : he 
 died in the end of the same year.^ 
 
 At the very time that the general assembly was without 
 check denouncing the measures proposed by the civil power 
 for the king's relief, the army of the estates, under the 
 command of the Duke of Hamilton, had entered England. 
 This army was the most numerous which had yet been sent 
 from Scotland, but it was not really formidable in proportion 
 to its immbers. Among those in command were some expe- 
 rienced and gallant officers. Hamilton, however, possessed 
 no military talent ; the soldiers had been hastily levied ; and 
 many of them were discouraged by the determined hostility 
 of the ministers. It was also unfortunate that, before they 
 marched southwards, the risings of the English royalists had 
 generally been suppressed. In passing through Lancashire, 
 the duke imprudently allowed his army to advance in several 
 divisions, and, while it was thus separated, he was attacked 
 and defeated by Cromwell, in the neighbourhood of Preston. 
 He attempted to retreat to Scotland, but was obliged to sur- 
 render, along with the greater part of his forces. 
 
 This disastrous event, which occurred in the middle of 
 August, was fatal to the king's cause in Scotland. The 
 
 • Peterkin'a Records of the Kirk, p. 495-520. Baillie, vol. iii. p 52-65. 
 
136 ECCLESIASTrcAL HISTORY [Chap. LIX. 
 
 ministers looked on the defeat of Hamilton as a divine judge- 
 ment on the supporters of the engagement ; the western 
 Covenanters rose in arms ', and the party of Argyll again 
 acquired the ascendency. After some feeble attempts at 
 resistance, the committee of the estates abandoned the struggle, 
 and agreed that the aflftxirs of religion should be settled by the 
 assembly, and those of the kingdom by a parliament which 
 was to meet in January. Cromwell having advanced to the 
 neighbourhood of Berwick, Argyll and other commissioners 
 went to meet him, and invited him to Edinburgh. In the 
 capital, the English general was received with the highest 
 respect. He had a separate residence and a guard of honour 
 assigned to him, and before his departure was entertained at 
 a banquet in the castle, at which Argyll, Leven, and other 
 leading men of their party, were present. While he was at 
 Edinburgh, Dickson, Blair, and James Guthrie, waited upon 
 him as a deputation from the commission of the assembly. 
 It is related in the Life of Blair that Cromwell had a long 
 discourse with them, and that he professed his good intentions, 
 sometimes shedding tears, and calling God to witness his 
 sincerity. Blair, who had formerly some acquaintance with 
 him in England, asked his opinion of monarchical govern- 
 ment. Cromwell answered that he was for it, and in the 
 person of the king then reigning, and of his children. When 
 his opinion regarding toleration was requested, he declared 
 that he was altogether against it. When farther asked what 
 he thought of church government, Cromwell said that the 
 examination was too severe ; he must take time to deliberate. 
 After they had left him, Dickson remarked, " I am very glad 
 to hear this man speak as he does." " If you knew him as 
 well as I do," said Blair, " you would not believe one word 
 he says." 
 
 In the month of November, the commission of the assembly 
 established its authority in the refractory presbyteries of 
 Stirling and Dunblane, by deposing Henry Guthrie and 
 other ministers. 
 
 The convention of estates met at Edinburgh on the fourth 
 of January, 1649. It was entirely composed of enemies to the 
 engagement, or of those who had renounced it ; and only four- 
 teen peers were present. Several high officers of state and 
 
A.D, 1649.] OF SCOTLAND. 137 
 
 judges of the supreme court were deprived of tlieir office ; all 
 acts of the parliament or of its committee, in favour of the 
 engagement, were repealed ; the insurrection at Mauchlin was 
 formally approved of; and, by an act, called the Act of 
 Classes, all persons opposed to the successful faction were 
 debarred from offices of trust, or exposed to certain disabilities, 
 according to the particular measure of their offences.^ 
 
 The attention of the whole nation was now fixed on the 
 events which were taking place in England. From the period 
 of his arrival in the Isle of Wight, the king had remained in 
 captivity at Carisbrook Castle, except during the conferences 
 with the parliamentary commissioners at Newport. With the 
 failure of these, the last hope of a treaty was at an end. 
 He was removed from the island, and, after a brief resi- 
 dence at Hurst Castle and Windsor, was brought to London. 
 His trial before the pretended high court of justice began on 
 the twentieth of January. The details need not be entered into. 
 No act or word of Charles was unworthy of his kingly dignity. 
 He had never been so loved and reverenced by the great 
 body of his people as he now was ; but, unable to deliver 
 him from the soldiers, they looked on with awe and horror. 
 Sentence was pronounced on Saturday, the twenty-seventh of 
 January. On the twenty-ninth, he took leave of his children, 
 Henry and Elizabeth. On the morning of the thirtieth, he 
 received the Holy Communion from Bishop Juxon, and on 
 the afternoon of the same day was beheaded before his own 
 palace at Whitehall. 
 
 1 Guthrie, p. 235-253. Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 354- 
 375. Balfour, vol. iii. p. 873. Life of Robert Blair, p. 208-212. Acts of tho 
 Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vi. p. 841-356. 
 
138 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LX. 
 
 CHAP TEE LX. 
 
 FROM THE DEATH OF KING CHARLES I. IN JANUARY, 1649, TO THE 
 CORONATION OF KING CHARLES IL IN JANUARY, 1651. 
 
 Execution of the Duke of Hamilton — Charles the Second pro- 
 claimed King in Scotland — Act abolishing Patronage — 
 Execution of the Marquis of Huntly — Negotiations between 
 the Scottish commissioners and the King — General Assemhly 
 of 1649 — Andrew Ramsay and William Colville deposed 
 — Eighteen ministers deposed in Angus and Mearns — 
 Reneival of the negotiations with the King — Ex2)edition of 
 Montrose — His defeat and execution — The King arrives in 
 Scotland and subscribes the Covenant — General Assembly 
 of 1650 — Cromwell invades Scotland — He defeats the 
 Covenanters and takes possession of Edinburgh — Remon- 
 strance of the Western Covenanters — Distracted condition 
 of the kingdom — Coronation of King Charles at Scone. 
 
 The execution of Charles was soon followed by that of 
 Hamilton. The duke was confined for some time at 
 Windsor, and in the month of December was permitted to see 
 the king for a few minutes. He knelt down, kissed his hand, 
 and said, " My dear master." " I have been so indeed to 
 you," was the answer of Charles, while he kindly embraced 
 him. Hamilton, under his English title of Earl of Cambridge, 
 was brought to trial for having levied war against the parlia- 
 ment, and was condemned to die. He was beheaded on the 
 ninth of March. ^ 
 
 The Scottish estates, through their commissioners at Lon- 
 don, had feebly remonstrated against the king's murder ; 
 and, when intelligence of that event was brought to them, his 
 eldest son, Charles, was immediately acknowledged as sove- 
 reign, and was proclaimed at the market cross of Edinburgh, 
 on the fifth of February. Two days afterwards, however, an 
 act was passed, by which it was declared, that neither the 
 young king, nor any of his successors, should be admitted to 
 
 ' Burnot's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, pp. 379, 385-4;05. 
 
A.D. 1G49.] OF SCOTLAND. 139 
 
 the exercise of the royal power, until, in addition to the 
 coronation oath, they had sworn and subscribed the National 
 Covenant, and Solemn League and Covenant; had consented to 
 acts of parliament establishing the Presbyterian form of church 
 government, the Directory, Confession of Faith, and Cate- 
 chisms ; and had agreed to observe them in their own practice 
 and family, and never to oppose or endeavour to change them. 
 It was also declared that, before the present king should be 
 admitted to the exercise of his power, he should forsake all 
 counsel and counsellors prejudicial to religion and the Cove- 
 nants, and consent that all civil matters should be settled by 
 tlie parliament, and all ecclesiastical matters by the general 
 assembly. On the ninth of March, an act was passed, by 
 which — on the preamble that the estates were bound by the 
 Covenants to maintain the liberties of the Church, and advance 
 the work of reformation, and that the patronage of churches 
 was an evil and a bondage, without warrant in God's word, 
 and introduced in times of ignorance and superstition — all 
 patronages and presentations to churches were thenceforth to 
 be abolished, and a recommendation was given to the general 
 assembly to determine the interests of congregations and 
 presbyteries in providing churches with ministers. The 
 estates adjourned, after having appointed the Earl of Cassillis 
 and three others of their number as commissioners to wait 
 upon the king in Holland, and to offer him the crown on the 
 conditions proposed. ^ 
 
 Lord Balmerino died suddenly on the twenty-eighth of 
 February. 2 He was one of the ablest statesmen of the time, 
 and never allowed his judgment to be swayed either by 
 covetousness or fanaticism ; but his character is darkened by 
 the deep, implacable resentment, which he cherished against 
 the king. 
 
 A few days subsequently to the commissioners' departure, 
 the Scottish rulers shewed the true nature of their pi'ofessions 
 of loyalty to their sovereign, by putting to death one of the 
 most faithful and illustrious of his subjects. From the com- 
 mencement of the troubles, no one had pursued a more honour- 
 able and consistent course than the Marquis of Huntly. Soon 
 
 > Actsof tbo Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vi. pp. 363, 364, 411-413. 
 2 Balfour, vol. iii. p. 388. 
 
140 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LX. 
 
 after Montrose left Scotland in obedience to the command of 
 Charles the First, Huntly was seized, and carried prisoner to 
 Edinburgh. The ministers urged his immediate execution, 
 but at that time were unable to effect their object. The king 
 wrote to the Earl of Lanark from his own prison at Caris- 
 brook, entreating him to use every endeavour to save the life 
 of the marquis. When the Harailtons obtained the support 
 of a majority in the estates, they had it in their power to 
 shew their respect for their sovereign's commands by releasing 
 Huntly; but either they were still jealous of one whose stain- 
 less loyalty rebuked their own ambiguous policy, or they were 
 afraid to provoke the ministers. According to Burnet's narra- 
 tive, the latter was the real cause. He adds, that they informed 
 the marquis that, as they could not openly set him at liberty, 
 they were willing to connive at his escape from the castle, 
 for which they offered their assistance ; but he declined to 
 avail himself of their proposal, saying that he had been 
 brought thither by order, and he would not steal out like a 
 thief. 
 
 The change of government which took place on the defeat 
 at Preston was unfavourable to Pluntly ; yet it might have 
 been expected that the Scottish estates, after their sovereign's 
 death, which they professed to lament, and while carrying on 
 negotiations with his successor, would hesitate to commit an- 
 other judicial murder. The preachers, however, renewed their 
 demand for the marquis's execution, declaring that through 
 his constant standing out he had been the cause of misery and 
 bloodshed to the kingdom. Huntly made no effort to defend 
 himself, but told his friends that, since his master was gone, 
 he did not desire to live, and that the greatest felicity he had 
 was his hope to follow him to a better world. The nobles 
 were unwilling to condemn the marquis, who had simply dis- 
 charged his duty by acting under a royal commission ; but 
 the barons and burgesses, urged on by the ministers, had no 
 such hesitation, and, when sentence was to be pronounced, 
 most of the peers absented themselves from parliament. 
 Huntly had been married to a sister of Argyll, and Patrick 
 Gordon mentions that his three daughters entreated that 
 nobleman to endeavour to save their father's life, but that he 
 refuseil to interfere. 
 
AD. 1G49.] OF SCOTLAND. 141 
 
 The marquis, at his own request, was visited in prison by 
 Andrew Ramsay. On the twenty-second of March, the day 
 appointed for his execution, he came down from the castle, 
 dressed in the mourning garb which he had worn since the 
 king's death. Several of the ministers offered their services 
 at the scaffold, and asked whether he wished to be released 
 from the excommunication which had been formerly pro- 
 nounced against liim ; but he declined to speak to them, say- 
 ing that he had already made his peace with God, and that 
 he neither valued nor feared their censures. He declared that 
 he forgave all men, and that he was innocent of the crimes 
 laid to his charge, though conscious of his frailty in other re- 
 spects ; and entreated the people not to allow themselves to 
 be seduced from obedience to their sovereign by the doctrme 
 or example of any men whatever, nor to adhere to the unjust 
 proceedings of the Church and State as then existing, both of 
 which, he feared, were going too far in a wrong w^ay. He 
 prayed that peace and prosperity might be with the true 
 Catholic and orthodox Church • and, for his opinion as to that 
 Church, he referred them to Andrew E-amsay, who would in- 
 form them in private of what he did not wish to speak in the 
 presence of all those who were there assembled. He then 
 wrote a few lines addressed to his son and successor. Lord 
 Lewis, and, having recommended his soul to his Redeemer, 
 laid his head upon the block. " And thus," says the chro- 
 nicler of his actions, '' the cruel and merciless Covenant swept 
 away this faithful and constant royalist to follow his master." 
 
 Huntly's eldest son, the Lord Gordon, a brave and accom- 
 plished nobleman, but stained at one period of his life by un- 
 worthy compliances with the Covenanters, had fallen fighting 
 by Montrose's side, in the field of victory at Alford. His 
 second son. Lord Aboyne, whose loyalty never faltered, had 
 died in exile about the end of the year 1648. He himself was 
 one of the few men of high rank in Scotland who conscientiously 
 adhered to Episcopacy, as well as to monarchy. His life was 
 worthy of the cause which he maintained with such constancy, 
 and the house of Gordon can point to no higher name than 
 that of the second Marquis of Huntly.^ 
 
 ^ Patrick Gordon's Short Abridgement of Britain's Distemper, pp. 205. 223-226. 
 Eurnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, pp. 833, 353. Wishart's Memoirs 
 
142 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LX. 
 
 The Earl of Cassillis and other commissioners appointed by 
 the parliament and the Church were admitted to the presence 
 of Charles the Second, at the Hague, on the twenty-seventh of 
 March. On this occasion, and at various other meetings, they 
 endeavoured to prevail on the young king to subscribe the 
 two Covenants, assuring him in that event of the support of 
 his Scottish subjects, and of the whole Presbyterian party. 
 Their arguments were assisted by the influence of the king's 
 brother-in-law, the Prince of Orange, and of the Earl of 
 Lanark, now Duke of Hamilton, and the Earls of Crawford 
 and Lauderdale, though these noblemen had been obliged to 
 leave Scotland on account of their participation in the engage- 
 ment. But Hyde, and his other faithful English counsellors, 
 and the Scottish royalists, headed by the Marquis of Montrose, 
 earnestly dissuaded Charles from trusting himself with the 
 party which had betrayed his father. The commissioners, in 
 conformity with their instructions, insisted on a strict compli- 
 ance with the demands of the estates. They also required the 
 king to dismiss James Graham, as they styled Montrose, and 
 refused, though repeatedly pressed, to say whether the Scot- 
 tish parliament would insist on bringing the murderers of the 
 late king to justice, Charles was willing to ratify the Covenant, 
 and the Presbyterian government and doctrine, within Scot- 
 land ; but declined to come under any obligation in regard to 
 England and Ireland, without the consent of the parliaments 
 of those kingdoms. The commissioners returned home, and 
 reported what had taken place to the estates and the general 
 assembly, by whom their whole proceedings were approved of.* 
 
 The assembly, before which the church commissioners laid 
 their report, met at Edinburgh on the seventh of July. 
 Hobert Douglas, who had more than once held the office 
 already, was again chosen moderator. He was a person of 
 respectable attainments, and was generally looked up to as 
 the divine best qualified to fill the place of Henderson in the 
 ecclesiastical counsels. The proceedings were, for the most 
 part, of little importance. One act, however, deserves to be 
 
 of Montrose, p. 350. Balfour, vol. iii. p. 393. Gordon's History of the Earldom 
 of Sutherland, p. 545. 
 
 1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, p. 451-459. Baillie, vol. iii. p. 84-90, 
 and appendix, p. 510-521. Baillie mentions that "an unhappy book," the Icon 
 Basilike, and the death of Huntly, did the commissioners much prejudice. 
 
A.D. 1640.] OF SCOTLAND. 143 
 
 mentioned, both as marking the views of the party now domi- 
 nant, and from its connection with the history of after years. 
 In order to carry out the provisions of the late statute abolish- 
 ing patronage, it was declared that, in the case of a vacancy in 
 any parish, the kirk session were to elect a minister, and, if 
 the person so chosen was approved by the congregation, the 
 presbytery were to proceed to try his qualifications, and, if he 
 was duly qualified, to admit him to the office. If a majority 
 of the congregation dissented from the choice of the session, 
 the matter was to be brought before the presbytery, who were 
 to judge of the same ; and, if they found that the dissent was 
 not grounded on causeless prejudices, they were to appoint a 
 new election. When the dissent proceeded from a minority, it 
 was not to be sustained, except on sufficient cause shewn to 
 the presbytery. When the congregation were disaffected or 
 Malignant, the presbytery were to provide them with a mini- 
 ster. There were considerable discussions on the subject of 
 this act. Calderwood maintained that, according to the Second 
 Book of Discipline, the election should be with the presby- 
 tery, with power only to the people to dissent for causes to be 
 judged of by the presbytery ; while Rutherford contended that 
 the people had a right to elect. The middle course just men- 
 tioned was finally agreed to. 
 
 Before the sitting of the assembly, many ministers had been 
 deposed in all parts of the country, several of whom, accord- 
 ing to Baillie, would have been more fitly punished by a 
 simple rebuke. In the assembly itself, Andrew Ramsay and 
 William Colville, who had been suspended the year before, 
 were now deposed. 
 
 Committees, with the most ample powers, were appointed 
 to visit various districts. Baillie mentions that the most 
 zealous persons were put on these committees, even young 
 men lately admitted ministers, in order that they might depose 
 those who were spared by presbyteries and synods. During 
 the autumn, the committee of visitation of Angus and Mearns, 
 in which Cant presided, deposed eighteen ministers and sus- 
 pended five.^ 
 
 1 Peterkin's Records of the Kirk, pp. 542-559, 588, 589. Baillie, vol. Hi. p. 
 91-97. Lamout's Diary, pp. 8, 9, 12. Balfour, vol. iii. p. 430. Life of Robert 
 Blair, p. 221. 
 
144 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LX. 
 
 In the beginning of 1650, negotiations between the king 
 and the commissioners of the parliament and assembly were 
 renewed at Breda. Among the commissioners were the Earls 
 of Cassillis and Lothian, Alexander Jaffray, Provost of Aber- 
 deen, and John Livingstone. Two years before, Livingstone 
 had been translated from Stranraer to Ancrum. He went 
 thither, he says, the more readily, that the parishioners " were 
 generally landward simple people, who for some time before 
 had not had so much of the Gospel as to despise it." Baillie, 
 referring to his translation, mentions that " the benefice was 
 great, and the way to Edinburgh short." The terms pro- 
 posed by the commissioners were similar to those which 
 Charles had formerly rejected, but the expectations which he 
 then had of assistance from Leland were now disappointed by 
 the successes of Cromwell ; and, acting on the advice of his 
 mother, of the party of the Hamiltons, and of all who were 
 hostile or indifferent to the Church of England, he began, 
 though reluctantly, to think of agreeing to them. 
 
 One way remained by which there was a possibility of 
 escaping from a course which he knew to be wrong, and 
 which personally he disliked. The Marquis of Montrose 
 believed that the Scottish nation could still be roused to throw 
 off the tyranny of its civil and ecclesiastical oppressors ; and 
 he offered his services to the king for that purpose. Loyalty, 
 with him, was a passion as well as a duty. When the in- 
 telligence of the execution of Charles the First was com- 
 municated to him, he had vowed that he would dedicate the 
 remainder of his days to the avenging of the murder, and the 
 establishing of his master's son on the throne. He hardly 
 concealed his contempt of those whose devotion to the 
 monarchy was less ardent than his own ; and by them, in 
 return, he was hated and feared. During the conferences at the 
 Hague in 1649, Hamilton and other lords of the engagement 
 carried their enmity to Montrose so far that they refused to re- 
 main in the same room with him, even in the king's presence. 
 They also requested Charles not to allow the marquis's chap- 
 lain, Dr. Wishart, to preach before him, because he had been 
 excommunicated by the Covenanters ; but the king shewed a 
 proper sense of his own dignity by disregarding their request. 
 
 Montrose, having received a commission from Charles, 
 
A.D. 1650.] OF SCOTLAND. 145 
 
 empowering liira to raise an army for the re-establislmicnt of 
 his authority in Scotland, sailed for that country in the spring 
 of 1650, and, after remaining for some time in the Orkney 
 Islands, landed in Caithness Avitli a small body of soldiers. On 
 his march southwards, he was encountered on the borders of 
 Ross by the Covenanters, under Colonel Strachan, and was 
 defeated. He escaped from the battle-field ; but a person with 
 whom he sought refuge delivered him to his enemies, and he 
 was carried prisoner to Edinburgh. It is needless to relate 
 the insults and indignities by which the triumphant Covenan- 
 ters disgraced themselves in their treatment of the marquis. 
 The parliament condemned him to be hanged, and the sentence 
 was read by Johnstone, now promoted to the office of Clerk 
 Register. Baillie and other ministers waited upon him in 
 prison, and urged him to admit his guilt, so that he might be 
 relaxed from the excommunication under which he lay, but 
 his only answer was a request that they would let him die in 
 peace. On the twenty-first of May, he suffered death in terms 
 of his sentence. Several of his officers were also executed, 
 among whom was John Spottiswood, son of Sir John Spottis- 
 wood of Dairsie, and grandson of the Archbishop of St. 
 Andrews. ^ 
 
 It was for the monarchy that Montrose fought and died ; and, 
 from the time he attached himself to the royal cause, no king 
 had ever a more devoted subject. Tiie ecclesiastical disputes 
 had little interest for him, either when he maintained what he 
 then believed to be the cause of national liberty and indepen- 
 dence, or when he supported the rights of his sovereign. He is 
 said to have stated to the ministers who visited him in prison 
 that he cared not for the bishops. The authority for this is not 
 altogether to be relied on, but there can be little doubt that the 
 expression conveys his real sentiments. The results of Mon- 
 trose's enterprises have been absurdly misrepresented by Burnet 
 and some other writers. His victories gave a shock to the power 
 of the Covenanters from which it never recovered ; and, for 
 
 ^ Life of Robert Blair, p. 222-226. Life of John Livingstone —Select Bio 
 graphies, edited for tlie Wodrow Society, vol. i. pp. 168-169. Baillie, vol. iii. p. 
 61. Wishart's Memoirs of Montrose, p. 335-337. Balfour, vol. iv. p. 8-32. 
 Clarendon, vol. vi. p. 287-289. Napier's Montrose and the Covenanters, vol. ii. 
 p. 530-549. 
 
 VOL. HI.] II 
 
146 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY Chap. LX. 
 
 many years afterwards, the recollection of his heroic career 
 supported the energies of the party which adhered to the 
 house of Stewart. 
 
 When Charles learnt the ill success of the marquis, he 
 agreed to the terras proposed by the commissioners. The 
 consent thus given was wrong in itself, and, following so soon 
 after the sanction given to Montrose's expedition, was marked 
 by an utter want of sincerity. Yet blameworthy as his con- 
 duct was, that of his Scottish subjects, in forcing on their sove- 
 reign an obligation which they knew he detested, was far 
 worse. One of the parliamentary commissioners at Breda, 
 Alexander Jaffray, thus recorded in after years his sense of the 
 proceeding : — " We did sinfully both entangle and engage the 
 nation and ourselves, and that poor young prince to whom we 
 were sent ; making him sign and swear a Covenant, which we 
 knew from clear and demonstrable reasons that he hated in 
 his heart. Yet finding that upon these terms only he could 
 be admitted to rule over us (all other means having failed 
 him) , he sinfully complied with what we most sinfully pressed 
 upon him ; where, I must confess, to my apprehension, our sin 
 was worse than hisy 
 
 Charles sailed for Scotland, accompanied by Hamilton and 
 Lauderdale, who were permitted by the commissioners to 
 attend their sovereign, as a recompense for the exertions which 
 they had used in persuading him to yield to the condi- 
 tions of the parliament. He landed at Spej mouth, on the 
 twenty-third of June, having previously subscribed the Cove- 
 nant. Thetwo lords of the engagement, and others of his attend- 
 ants who were suspected by the estates, were dismissed, but he 
 himself was treated with every outward demonstration of 
 respect. He was as powerless, however, and nearly as much 
 under restraint, as his father had been with the army at New- 
 castle. 
 
 What the Covenanters had long been aiming at seemed 
 now to be accomplished. Both the royalists and the moderate 
 party were suppressed, and, by the king's last concessions, they 
 had obtained the support of the ueime and authority of their 
 sovereign. The general assembly met at Edinburgh, on the 
 tenth of July, and Andrew Cant was chosen moderator. A 
 considerable number of ministers in Orkney and Caithness 
 
A.D. 1650.] OF SCOTLAND. 147 
 
 were deposed for having submitted to Montrose. Nothing 
 else of importance took place. A declaration was drawn up 
 by the commission, and, after being ratified by the com- 
 mittee of the estates, was presented to Charles for signature. 
 By that document, the king was made to profess his sorrow for 
 his mother's idolatry, and for his father's guilt in being the 
 cause of so much blood of the Lord's people that was shed 
 during the civil wars, his sincerity in subscribing the Cove- 
 nant, his wish to satisfy the just desires of his English and 
 Irish subjects, and his resolution to prosecute the ends of the 
 Covenant, especially in the reformation of the Church of Eng- 
 land ; to admit his former sinfulness in opposing the work of 
 God ; and to express a hope that, as he now preferred God's in- 
 terest to his own, so God would now be gracious to him. The 
 king having declined to sign this paper, the commission of the 
 assembly met in St. Cuthbert's Church, or, as it was tlien 
 called, the West Kirk of Edinburgli, on the thirteenth of 
 August, and prepared another declaration, which was also 
 approved by the committee of the estates, wherein they set 
 forth, that they did not own any Malignant quarrel or interest, 
 that they contended merely on their former grounds, and, as 
 they disclaimed the sin and guilt of the king and his house, so 
 they would not own him except so far as he maintained the 
 cause of God, and disclaimed his own and his father's opposi- 
 tion thereto. Alarmed by the threatening attitude thus as- 
 sumed, Charles yielded ; and, disregarding what was due to 
 his own honour and royal dignity, to true religion, and to his 
 father's memory, he signed the original declaration at Dun- 
 fermline, on the sixteenth of August. ^ 
 
 The recognition of Charles as King of the Scots was viewed 
 as a declaration of war by the regicides who had established a 
 commonwealth in England. Cromwell advanced towards 
 Edinburgh, but was unable to make himself master of that 
 city, which was protected by the Scottish army. After some 
 
 1 Balfour, vol. iv. pp. 61-77, 89-97. Nicoll's Diary, p. 16. Life of John Liv- 
 ingstone — Select Biographies, edited for the Wodrow Society, vol i. pp. 182, 
 183. Life of Robert Blair, p. 227-236. Jaffray's Diary, p. 55. Burnet's Me- 
 moirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 422-424. Lament's Diary, p. 26. Peter- 
 kin's Records of the Kirk, p. 618. Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vi. 
 p. 530-538. The declaration of 16th August is printed at full length in Wod- 
 row's History, Burns' ed. vol. i. p. 66-68. 
 
148 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LX. 
 
 time, he retreated to Dunbar, where an engagement took place 
 on the third of September. The Covenanters were defeated, 
 and Cromwell now obtained possession of Edinburgh. Seve- 
 ral of the ministers having taken refuge in the castle, the 
 English general invited them to resume their ecclesiastical 
 duties, but they declined to do so. A correspondence took 
 place between Cromwell and the governor of the castle on 
 behalf of the ministers. On the latter charging Cromwell 
 with sanctioning lay preaching, and with breach of the Cove- 
 nant, he answered, " Are you troubled that Christ is preached ? 
 Is preaching so exclusively your function ? Doth it scandalize 
 the Reformed Kirks, and Scotland in particular? Is it against the 
 Covenant ? Away with the Covenant if this be so ! I thought 
 the Covenant and these could have been willing that any 
 should speak good of the name of Christ : if not, it is no 
 covenant of God's approving ; nor are these kirks you men- 
 tion in so much the spouse of Christ. Where do you find in the 
 Scriptures a ground to warrant such an assertion, that preach- 
 ing is exclusively your function? Though an approbation 
 from men hath order in it, and may do well, yet he that hath 
 no better warrant than that hath none at all. I hope He that 
 ascended up on high may give his gifts to whom he pleases ; 
 and, if these gifts be the seal of mission, be not envious 
 though Eldad and Medad prophesy." 
 
 In the beginning of October, Charles, disgusted by the 
 tyranny and insults to which he had been subjected, effected 
 his escape, with the intention of joining a body of royalists in 
 the North, but was soon overtaken, and induced to return to 
 his former residence at Perth. This event alarmed the Cove- 
 nanting leaders. Cromwell was master of the south-eastern 
 provinces; disaffection was spreading among their own most zeal- 
 ous adherents ; and, if the whole royal party under the king's 
 orders had united against them, their situation would have 
 been extremely dangerous. From this time they treated their 
 sovereign with more consideration, allowed him to be present 
 at the meetings of the committee of estates, and passed an act 
 of indemnity in favour of the northern I'oyalists. The very 
 measures, however, which conciliated the friends of the en- 
 gagement, excited the animosity of a section of the Covenant- 
 ing party, who were at heart opposed to monarchy, and were 
 
A.D. 1650.] OF SCOTLAND. 149 
 
 prepared to ally tliemselves with tlie Independents, rather than 
 make common cause with those whom they styled ]\Ialignants. 
 The leading men among them were Patrick Gillespie, minister 
 at Glasgow, brother of George Gillespie ; James Guthrie, 
 minister at Stirling, who before the troubles began had been a 
 regent in one of the colleges at St. Andrews, and zealous for 
 Episcopacy and tlie ceremonies ; and Colonel Strachan, who 
 had acquired great reputation by his defeat of Montrose. These 
 persons and their friends, with the sanction of the committee of 
 the estates, had raised in the West a considerable body of 
 soldiers who were entirely at their devotion. 
 
 On the seventeenth of October, the officers and ministers of 
 the western army drew up a remonstrance to the committee of 
 the estates, in which, acknowledging their duty to own the 
 king, so far as he owned the cause, they denounced him for 
 walking in the way of his fathers, for opposing the work of 
 reformation, and for granting commission to the apostate 
 rebel, James Graham ; censured the treaty which had been 
 made at Breda as precipitate and unsatisfactory ; and con- 
 demned his admission to the exercise of power before he had 
 given proof of any real change of disposition. They declared 
 that they had hitherto waited till the Lord should make some 
 discovery whether the king's attachment to the cause was 
 sincere ; but that they had now clear evidence to the contrary, 
 in his countenancing the Malignants within the kingdom, 
 corresponding with the Marquis of Ormonde, the Earl of New- 
 castle, and other notorious enemies of the Covenant abroad, 
 refusing to sign the declaration of the committee of estates and 
 commission of assembly till it was in a manner extorted from 
 him, and finally withdrawing himself in order to join the 
 Malignants. Therefore, in terms of the declaration of the 
 thirteenth of August, they disclaimed the sin and guilt of the 
 king and his house, and avowed that they could no longer 
 own him and his interest. They further protested against any 
 design of invading England, and forcing a king on the Eng- 
 lish nation, and against all employment of Malignants ; and 
 demanded that those who had encouraged such proceedings 
 should be removed from the committee of estates, the army, 
 the court, and other places of trust. They also denounced the 
 covetousncss and cxtoition of some of the committee, calling 
 
150 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LX. 
 
 on them to restore their dishonest gains, by which they had 
 taken advantage of the public and the poor of the land. 
 
 In this remonstrance, insolent and fanatical as it was, there 
 was much which all knew to be true. The committee of 
 estates were divided in their opinion regarding it, Argyll cen- 
 suring its language severely, and Warriston defending or 
 excusing it. It was finally condemned by the majority, 
 though in a guarded manner ; but the commission of assembly 
 merely pronounced a gentle rebuke, declining to examine it 
 more particularly, in the hope, as they stated, that the worthy 
 gentlemen and brethren who drew it up would give such an 
 explanation of their meaning as would satisfy both Church 
 and State. On the first of December, the western army was 
 defeated by the English at Hamilton, and Strachan soon after- 
 wards openly joined Cromwell, ^ 
 
 On the twenty-ninth of October, David Calderwood died at 
 Jedburgh in the seventy-fifth year of his age. His History of 
 the Kirk of Scotland — the occupation of many years — as far 
 excels Spottiswood's work in the extent and value of its 
 materials, as it falls short of it in the manner in which they 
 are put together. The numerous documents which it embraces 
 are, for the most part, those which favour the opinions of the 
 author, but their contents are fully and accurately given. ^ 
 
 The parliament, which met in the end of November, was 
 favourable to the readmission of those who had supported the 
 engagement, and took measures to restore them by degrees to 
 their former privileges. It was thought advisable, however, 
 to obtain the sanction of the commission of the assembly ; and 
 that body was summoned to meet on the fourteenth of Decem- 
 ber, to consider what persons could be allowed to join the 
 army. Rutherford and Guthrie wrote letters opposing any 
 concession. Blair, who was present at the meeting, hesitated ; 
 but Douglas, Dickson, and Baillie, supported the wishes of the 
 parliament ; and, at last, the commission unanimously agreed 
 as to the propriety of accepting the military services, in the 
 
 1 Balfour, ^^ol. iv. p. 97-170. Baillie, vol. iii. p. 106-125. Life of Robert 
 Blair, p. 246-249. Carlyle's Cromwell, 3rd. ed. vol. iii. p- 76-88. Select Bio- 
 graphies, edited for the Wodrow Society, vol. i. p. 334. 
 
 2 Irving's Lives of Scottish Writers, vol. i. pp. 316, 317. Life of Calder- 
 wood, appended to the Wodrow Society edition of his History, p. xxxii-xxxiv. 
 
A.D. 1650 ] OF SCOTLAND. 151 
 
 present emergency, of all wlio had not been excommunicated 
 or attainted, or who were not openly profane and flagitious, or 
 obstinate and professed enemies of the Covenant and the cause 
 of God. This decision of the commission was received with 
 dissatisfaction by many of the zealous ministers, and adherents 
 of the Covenant ; and even those who were favourable to it 
 began to doubt wliether they had not yielded too much, when 
 they saw not only the friends of the engagement, but also the 
 supporters of Montrose, admitted to commands in the army. 
 Tlie whole kingdom was in a most disturbed condition, and 
 the same persons who had often appealed to the success of 
 their party, as a visible proof of the favour of heaven, now ad- 
 mitted and lamented tlie change in their fortunes. " Surely,'" 
 Baillie wrote at this time, " we had never more cause of 
 mourning ; the causes Avhat God knows, visible or invisible, 
 confessed or denied, unseen or seen, by all but the most guilty. 
 It cannot be denied but our miseries and dangers of ruin are 
 greater than for many ages have been ; a potent victorious 
 enemy master of our seas, and for some good time of the best 
 part of our land ; our standing forces against this his imminent 
 invasion few, weak, inconsiderable ; our Church, State, army, 
 full of divisions and jealousies ; the body of our people be- 
 south Forth spoiled and near starving, they be-north Forth 
 extremely ill used by a handful of our own ; many inclined to 
 treat and agree with Cromwell, without care either of king or 
 Covenant ; none of our neighbours called upon by us, or will- 
 ing to give us any help though called. What the end of all 
 shall be, the Lord knows." ^ 
 
 This season of misery was chosen by the Covenanting 
 rulers for the coronation of their sovereign. It took place at 
 Scone, on the first day of January, 1651. The ceremonial 
 was very different from that of the magnificent inauguration of 
 the late king at Holyrood — different, indeed, from what had 
 occuiTed in the case of any previous sovereign ; for even the 
 maimed rites with which James the Sixth had been crowned 
 at Stirling resembled the ancient forms as nearly as circum- 
 stances would allow. The parish church of Scone was pre- 
 
 ' Balfour, vol. iv. p. 171-178. Baillie, vol. iii- p. 126-128. Life of Robert 
 Blair, p. 250-253. Wodrow, vol. i. p. 2. 
 
152 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LX. 
 
 pared for the occasion. The king having taken his seat, 
 Robert Douglas, moderator of the commission of the assem- 
 bly, preached a sermon, the text of which was from the 
 twelfth and seventeenth verses of the eleventh chapter of the 
 Second Book of Kings, — " And he brought forth the king's 
 son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony ; 
 and they made him king, and anointed him, and they clapt 
 their hands, and said, God save the king. And Jehoiada 
 made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the 
 people, that they should be the Lord's people ; between the 
 king also and the people." 
 
 The preacher compared the condition of Judah at the acces- 
 sion of Joasli with the circumstances in which the Scottish 
 kingdom then was. He enlarged on the ceremony of placing 
 the crown on the king's head, and argued against the neces- 
 sity of anointing. The unction was encouraged by popes, 
 and required to be performed b}^ bishops; " but now," he said, 
 "by the blessing of God, Popery and Prelacy are removed ; 
 the bishops, as limbs of Antichrist, are put to the door ; let 
 the anointing of kings with oil go to the door with them, and 
 let them never come in again. . . . Kings are the 
 anointed of the Lord, because, by the ordinance of the Lord, 
 their authority is sacred and inviolable. It is enough for us 
 to have the thing, though we want the ceremony." But the 
 king, he went on to say, was not only to be crowned at that 
 time ; he was also to renew a covenant with God and his 
 people, and to make a covenant with the people. The king 
 was bound to maintain the true Reformed religion in doctrine, 
 worship, discipline, and government, as then established in 
 Scotland, and to endeavour the reformation of religion in his 
 other two kingdoms, according to the word of God and the 
 example of the best reformed Cliurches. At the coronation of 
 a king, and his reception by his people, there was a covenant, 
 or mutual contract, between him and them, the conditions of 
 which were to be observed by both ; and, if kings abused their 
 power to the overthrow of religion, law, and liberty, they 
 might be controlled and opposed by the estates of the king- 
 dom, as the late king was, but not by private men, pastors, or 
 professors. After alluding to the errors of those who, like the 
 sectaries, had thrown off kingly government altogether, and 
 
A.D. 1651.] OF SCOTLAND. 153 
 
 of others, like tlie engagers, who had prefeiTcd the interest of 
 tlic king to that of Christ, the preacher alluded to a third 
 party who would have no duty done at all to a king, lest 
 Christ's interest should be prejudged. In conclusion, he 
 warned the king to beware of imitating tlie transgressions of 
 his grandfather and father, and not to requite the kindness of 
 faithful men with persecution, or be guilty of apostasy and 
 defection from a sworn covenant. 
 
 The sermon was followed by a prayer ; after which the 
 National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant were 
 read, and sworn to, and subscribed by the king, who also 
 took the coronation oath appointed by the first parliament of 
 James the Sixth. He was then vested with the royal robes, 
 and received the sword of state from the great Constable of 
 Scotland, and the spurs from the Earl Marischal. After this, 
 the crown was placed on his head by the Marquis of Argyll, 
 and the nobles did homage, and the people promised obedience 
 according to the Covenants. The Earl of Crawford next put 
 the sceptre in his right hand, and the Marquis of Argyll 
 placed him on the throne. While the king was seated, 
 Douglas pronounced an exhortation, in which he again en- 
 larged on the iniquity of his royal predecessors, warning him 
 that, if he followed their example, his house would become a 
 desolation. After some further ceremonies, the same minis- 
 ter, standing before the throne, blessed tlie king, and then, 
 ascending the pulpit, warned both king and people to keep the 
 Covenant which they had taken. The twentieth psalm hav- 
 ing been sung, the people were dismissed with a blessing. *■ 
 
 On the part of those chiefly concerned, this pageant was 
 little else than a repetition of what had already too often 
 taken place — illegal exactions on the one side, and insincere 
 compliances on the other ; solemn professions by which the 
 person making them never intended to abide, and which those 
 who demanded them of him must have known he would break 
 as soon as he could safely dispense with them. 
 
 ' See tlie Form and Order of the King's Coronation, with the Sermon preached 
 on the occasion, printed at Aberdeen at the time, and reprinted in the Phoenix, 
 and other collections. 
 
154 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chap. LXI. 
 
 CHAPTER LXI. 
 
 FROM THE CORONATION OF KING CHARLES II. IN JANUARY, 1651, TO HIS 
 RESTORATION IN MAY, 1660. 
 
 The Act of Classes rescinded — General Assembly of 1651 — 
 Protestation against its lawfulness hy Rutherford and 
 others — The Church divided hetiveen the Resolutioners and 
 the Protester's — Defeat of the King at Worcester — Scotland 
 subdued by Cromwell — General Assembly of 1652 — Gen- 
 eral Assembly of 1653 — The members are dismissed by 
 Colonel Cotterel — Kirhton's account of the state of Scot- 
 land at this time — Its utter inaccuracy — CromwelVs or- 
 dinance in regard to the Church — Vain attemjjt to reconcile 
 the Resolutioners and the Protesters — Applications by both 
 parties to Cromwell — Some ministers adopt the opinions of 
 the Independents — Protestation of Sir Alexander Irvine of 
 Drum against a sentence of the Presbytery of Aberdeen — 
 Notices of Bishop Sydserf — Restoratioti of King Charles 
 the Second. 
 
 The dissatisfaction excited by the answer of the commission 
 of assembly to the inquiry of the estates continued to increase. 
 Various presbyteries expressed their dissent, especially those 
 of Aberdeen and Stirling. The commission, however, stood 
 firm to its decision, and cited its leading opponents before the 
 next general assembly, to answer for their contumacy. It 
 was significant of the change of measures, that a sentence of 
 excommunication was pronounced against Colonel Strachan, 
 and that on the same day General Middleton, after public 
 penance, was loosed from the sentence which had formerly 
 passed against him. Another question having been put by 
 the king and parliament to the commission — whether it was 
 sinful and unlawful, for the defence of the kingdom, to admit 
 those to be members of the committee of estates who were 
 then debarred from public trust, they having first satisfied the 
 Church for their offences, and having been admitted into 
 covenant with their brethren — a favourable answer was re- 
 
A.D. 1651.] OF SCOTLAND. 155 
 
 turned, and the parliament immediately rescinded the Act of 
 Classes, and admitted into offices of trust many of those who 
 were formerly styled Malignants. 
 
 The general assembly met at St. Andrews on the sixteenth 
 of July, Lord Balcarres being the royal commissioner. Cant, 
 as moderator of last assembly, preached in the forenoon, and 
 condemned, though in general terms, the acts of the commis- 
 sion ; while Douglas, who preached in the afternoon, spoke in 
 their defence. In a debate which followed, John Menzies, 
 professor of divinity in the Marischal College at Aberdeen, 
 proposed that the members of commission should be excluded 
 from the assembly, because their proceedings had been scan- 
 dalous, and no scandalous person ought to have a seat in 
 ecclesiastical judicatories. Douglas denied the imputation, 
 but Menzies was supported by Guthrie and Gillespie, while 
 Blair attempted to mediate between them. It was finally 
 ruled that all discussion on the point was irregular, until a 
 moderator had been elected. The votes for that office were 
 divided between Douglas and Blair, but the former was chosen 
 by a majority. 
 
 At midnight, on Sunday the twentieth, a hurried meeting 
 took place, in consequence of the alarm caused by the successes 
 of the English, who had landed in Fife. A protestation 
 against the lawfulness of the assembly, signed by twenty-two 
 ministers, was given in by Rutherford, who desired that it might 
 be read, but the reading was delayed till next meeting, which 
 was appointed to be held on the twenty-second, at Dundee. 
 When the members assembled at that place, it was found that 
 all those who had signed the protestation, among whom were 
 Rutherford, Gillespie, Guthrie, Cant, and Menzies, and a con- 
 siderable number of others, had absented themselves. Ruther- 
 ford's paper was now read. It protested against the lawful- 
 ness of the assembly, because the freedom of election had been 
 interfered with by the commission, because the king's letter, 
 and the commissioner's speech, tended to influence its proceed- 
 ings after it had met ; and because the members of the com- 
 mission, whose conduct had led to a course of defection, sat in 
 the assembly. Those who had signed the paper were cited to 
 appear before the assembly. In the meantime, the members 
 proceeded to examine the conduct of the former commission ; 
 
156 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXL 
 
 and, as Douglas was one of those chiefly concerned, Baillie 
 was appointed to act as moderator of the assembly. On exa- 
 mination, the proceedings of the commission were approved of 
 by all present, except seven members. In one point only did 
 they shew any hesitation, and that exception proved still more 
 clearly that the ascendency of the extreme party was at an 
 end. The declaration at the West Kirk, of the thirteenth 
 of August, was explained to mean only that the king's 
 interest was to be owned in subordination to God, the 
 Church being willing, as its duty was, to maintain his 
 majesty's interest, in that subordination, according to the 
 Covenants. Douglas then resumed the moderator's chair, 
 and Gillespie, Guthrie, and another protesting minister, 
 were deposed ; but farther proceedings were stopped by 
 the threatened approach of the English, the alarm of which 
 caused the sudden dispersion of the members. 
 
 The result of this assembly was fatal to the unity of the 
 Presbyterian Church. It was thenceforth formally divided 
 into two parties, those that supported the resolutions agreed to 
 by the parliament and the commission, who were named Re- 
 solutioners, and those that were opposed to the measures so 
 sanctioned, who were named Protesters.* 
 
 Almost at the same time that the assembly rose, Charles, 
 after attempting without success to dislodge the invaders from 
 Fife, adopted the bold resolution of marching into England. 
 Cromwell, leaving part of his army under the command of 
 Monk, followed the king. A decisive engagement took place 
 at Worcester, on the third of September, and the royalists 
 were defeated. The Duke of Hamilton was mortally wounded, 
 and among the prisoners were the Earl of Lauderdale, and 
 Generals Leslie and Middleton. The king escaped, and, 
 after remaining in concealment for some time, was enabled by 
 the assistance of his faithful adherents to return to the 
 Continent. 
 
 Perth had surrendered to Cromwell just before he marched 
 southwards. Monk soon afterwards made himself master of 
 
 1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vi. pp. 611, 612, 616. Peterkin'a 
 Kecords of the Kirk, pp. 626-636, 655. Balfour, vol. iv. pp. 235, 240. Life of 
 Robert Blair, p. 256-278. Wodrow, vol. i. pp. 3, 4. Lamont's Diary, pp. 40, 
 41. 
 
A.D 1651.] OF SCOTLAND. 157 
 
 Stirling, and, on the first of September, took Dundee hy 
 storm. While the siege of Dundee was going on, a party of 
 the English surprised the committee of estates at Alyth, and 
 seized the Earls of Leven and Crawford, and other noblemen, 
 and several ministers, among whom were Douglas, and James 
 Sharp, minister at Crail, who were all sent prisoners to 
 London. The whole low country of Scotland submitted to 
 the invaders, but the royalists still continued to resist in the 
 Highlands. 
 
 For the first time since the reign of John Baliol, the 
 Scottish kingdom was now subdued by a foreign enemy. 
 Fortresses garrisoned by English soldiers kept the country, 
 in subjection, and the law was administered by English 
 judges. The sufferings they had undergone had already 
 opened the eyes of the nobles to the folly and wickedness of 
 the policy which at first they had so actively promoted, but 
 all experience was lost on the greater number of the ministers. 
 Originally urged on by others, afterwards acquiring for some 
 time the chief direction of affairs, civil as well as ecclesiastical, 
 and continuing to be the most influential class in the kingdom, 
 they still endeavoured to retain the power which they claimed 
 as their right, and in the exercise of which they had been 
 guilty of so many deeds of cruelty and oppression. But they 
 were no longer allowed to make the secular authority an 
 instrument of their tyranny ; and their ambitious and over- 
 bearing temper could now only find scope in bitter hatred of 
 each other, and in mutual recriminations. With the over- 
 throw of the monarchy the cause of the late difiference was at 
 an end ; but, though no practical point continued to be 
 involved in the contest, the animosity between the two 
 parties was unabated. The dispute was carried on in the 
 ecclesiastical courts, and by means of the press, and every 
 synod, almost every presbytery, was divided in opinion. 
 
 On the twenty-first of July, 1652, the general assembly 
 again met at Edinburgh, and Dickson, who two years before 
 had been appointed professor of divinity there, was chosen 
 moderator. The members that attended were those who had 
 composed the majority at last assembly ; and about sixty-five 
 ministers, among whom were Cant, Rutherford, Gillespie, and 
 Guthrie, and a large number of lay elders, the most con- 
 
158 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXI. 
 
 spicuoiis of whom was Warriston, protested against it, as 
 unlawful, unfree, and corrupt. Tlie assembly threatened its 
 opponents with ecclesiastical censures, unless they agreed to 
 depart from their protestation. The Protesters treated this 
 denunciation with contempt ; and, in order to protect them- 
 selves more effectually against the majority of their own 
 brethren, they sought the protection of the English govern- 
 ment, and claimed its favour on the ground of their common 
 enmity to Charles Stewart. 
 
 On tlie twentieth of July, 1653, the general assembly met 
 at Edinburgh. Among the members present was Douglas, 
 who, with the other ministers taken at Alyth, had been 
 released from captivity. Dickson, apparently as moderator of 
 last assembly, began to call the roll, but, while he was so 
 engaged, an English officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Cotterel, 
 entered the room, and commanded silence. He then asked by 
 what authority they met, whether by that of the parliament, 
 of the commander-in-chief, or of the English judges. Dickson 
 answered that they were an ecclesiastical synod, a spiritual 
 court, which meddled not with things civil, and that their 
 authority was from God, and the laws of the land yet unre- 
 pealed. He was again proceeding to call the roll, and examine 
 the commissions of the members, when Cotterel declared that 
 he had no time to wait till these tedious forms were over; 
 they must remove and be gone, otherwise he had instructions 
 how to act. Dickson protested in name of the assembly that 
 they were Christ's court, and that any violence done should 
 not hinder their meeting again at a convenient season. He 
 then attempted to say a prayer, but was interrupted by the 
 Englishman, who once more desired them to be gone. The 
 members obeyed. A company of foot-soldiers conducted them 
 to the West Port, from which they were escorted by a troop 
 of horse to Bruntsfield Links. After being ordered to stand 
 till their names were called over and written down, they were 
 forbidden to meet again, and so dismissed.^ 
 
 Only sixteen years had elapsed since the influence of a 
 single foreign prelate in the ecclesiastical affairs of Scotland 
 
 1 Peterkin's Eecords of the Kirk, pp. 646-651, 656, 657. Life of Robert 
 Blair, p. 285-308. Baillie, vol. iii. pp. 225, 226. Spottiswood Miscellany, vol. 
 ii. pp. 116, 117. Lament's Diary, pp. 55, 69-71. 
 
A.I). 1653.] OF SCOTLAND. 159 
 
 was resented as an infringement of national independence, and 
 lield to be a sufficient justification for civil war. Now, without 
 one blow being struck in its defence, almost without a word 
 of remonstrance, at the bidding of an English soldier, the 
 general assembly, once so popular, was ignominiously sup- 
 pressed. The great body of the Scottish nation beheld this 
 event with satisfaction, or with indifference. The royalists 
 saw in it the just reward of rebellion and schism ; the Pro- 
 testers exulted in the overthrow of the tyrannical majority 
 which had cast out those who were more righteous than them- 
 selves ; many of the persons that were favourable to the 
 existing ecclesiastical system disliked the ministers who ruled 
 in its courts, and who had set up a worse tyranny than they 
 had ever complained of in the hierarchy. 
 
 After 1653, no general assembly was allowed to meet, but, 
 in other respects, the government of the Church remained as 
 before, and ecclesiastical discipline was exercised in kirk- 
 sessions, presbyteries, and synods. The civil government 
 was vigorous and firm, and the law courts administered justice 
 impartially between man and man. Except in the Highland 
 districts, tranquillity was restored, and the English garrisons 
 prevented much of the feudal oppression and exactions which 
 formerly prevailed. But the nobility were ruined, and the 
 gentry and the common people were discontented and unhappy. 
 The greatest of temporal blessings — their independence as a 
 nation — had been lost, and they knew that their own turbu- 
 lence, and treachery, and divisions, had caused its forfeiture. 
 
 The admirable ecclesiastical discipline, the zeal for religion 
 and knowledge, the pin-e morality, which have sometimes 
 been ascribed to the time when the principles of the Covenant 
 were predominant, have scarcely any better foundation than 
 the assertions of Kirkton. Referring specially to tlie period 
 between the murder of King Charles the First and the landing 
 of King Charles the Second at Speymouth, that writer says : — 
 " 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 
 flourished, and how the pomegranate budded. And there was 
 
160 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXI. 
 
 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 book by the synod, and the 
 synod's book by the general assembly. Likewise, as the 
 bands of the Scottish Church were strong, so her beauty was 
 bright ; no error was 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 concerted in all Scotland, so strict a correspondence there 
 was betwixt ministers and congi-egations. The general 
 assembly seemed to be the priest with Urim and Thummim, 
 and there were not one hundred persons in all Scotland to 
 oppose their conclusions ; all submitted, all learned, all prayed, 
 most part were really godly, or at least counterfeited them- 
 selves Jews. Then was Scotland a heap of wheat set about 
 with lilies uniform, or a palace of silver beautifully proportioned, 
 and this seems to me to have been Scotland's high noon." 
 
 After mentioning the political changes that took place 
 during the ten years which preceded the Restoration, the 
 same author gives the following account of the religious con- 
 dition of Scotland at the time of the king's return from exile : 
 — " Every parish had a minister, every village had a school, 
 every family almost had a Bible, yea, in the most of the 
 country all the children of age could read the Scriptures, and 
 were provided of Bibles, either by the parents or their minis- 
 ters. 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 catechize 
 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 Presbytery 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, alas, the last mess in the banquet ; nor did a minis- 
 ter satisfy himself except his ministry had the seal of a divine 
 approbation, as might witness him to be really sent from God. 
 
A.D. 1663. OF SCOTLAND. / 161 
 
 Indeed, in many places the spirit seemed to be poured out witli 
 the word, both by the multitude 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 parish where I never 
 heard an oath, and you might have ridden many miles before 
 you had 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 broken, 
 people were become so sober." ^ 
 
 It is not difficult to ascertain the true value of these state- 
 ments. Kirkton, at no time probably a very accurate or trust- 
 worthy observer, wrote his History when the sufferings of 
 the Presbyterians, continued during many years, had led 
 them to invest the period of their triumph and ascendency with 
 a brightness which it never really bore. His description 
 cannot be relied on, and is opposed to contemporary 
 records of undoubted authority. No credit is given to it by 
 Dr. Lee, who was never inclined to underrate the influence of 
 Presbyterianism, and at one period of his life regarded the 
 Covenanters with the utmost veneration. " Unless," he says, 
 " I were to believe that the whole of the records of the church 
 courts that I have examined were fabrications, I must really 
 look upon Kirkton's description as being something very ex- 
 travagant — I would almost say a romance." ^ 
 
 In reference to both the periods which he mentions, the 
 statements of Kirkton are equally worthless. Another con- 
 temporary author, a careful observer of what was going on, 
 and whose opinions, so far as they have any definite character 
 at all, were favourable to the cause of the Covenant, thus 
 writes in the year 1651 : — " Under heaven there was not 
 greater falsehood, oppression, division, hatred, pride, malice, 
 and envy, than was at this time, and divers and sundry years 
 
 1 Kirkton's History, pp. 48, 49, 64, 65. 
 
 - Lee's Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. appendix, 
 p, 443. See also appendix to the same volume, pp. 447, 448. 
 VOL. III.] 22 
 
162 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXI. 
 
 before, ever since the subscribing of the Covenant, every man 
 seeking himself and his own ends, even under a cloak of piety 
 which did cover much knavery." ^ 
 
 The dissensions between the two parties, into which the 
 Church was now divided, continued during the commonwealth, 
 and till the restoration of the monarchy. In the summer of 
 1654, Cromwell summoned Livingstone, Gillespie (now Prin- 
 cipal of the College of Glasgow), and Menzies, to London, in 
 order that he might have their advice in regard to ecclesiastical 
 affairs ; and a short time afterwards he sent for Blair, Douglas, 
 and Guthrie, The first three went ; the others excused them- 
 selves. Livingstone returned about Lammas. Gillespie and 
 Menzies followed him within a few weeks, having during their 
 residence at London arranged the terms of an ordinance in 
 regard to the Church, which was soon afterwards issued by 
 the Council of State. By that ordinance, Scotland was divided 
 into a certain number of districts, in each of which several 
 ministers and others were entrusted with the power of admit- 
 ting ministers to vacant parishes — so far at least as regarded 
 the right to the stipend — and of ejecting those whom they 
 should declare to be scandalous. A tribunal was thus created, 
 as illegal and arbitrary as the court of High Commission. 
 This ordinance was disliked by all the Resolutioners ; and also 
 by a considerable number of the Protesters who valued the 
 freedom of the Church more than the ascendency of their 
 party. 2 
 
 Blair, who had not joined decidedly either with the Re- 
 solutioners or with the Protesters, endeavoured, in 1655, to bring 
 about a union between them. The leading persons on both 
 sides met for that purpose at Edinburgh in the month of No- 
 vember; and among those present were Douglas, Dickson, and 
 Baillie, Rutherford, Guthrie, Gillespie, and Warriston. The 
 attempt was unsuccessful, chiefly in consequence of the opposi- 
 tion of Warriston and Guthrie.^ 
 
 1 Nicoll's Diary, pp. 59, 60. 
 
 2 Life of Robert Blair, p. 313-319. Life of John Livingstone — Select Bio- 
 graphies, edited for the Wodrow Society, vol. i. p. 187. Baillie, vol. iii, pp. 253, 
 282. Lee'a Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. appendix, 
 p. 376. 
 
 3 Life of Robert Blair, pp. 325, 326. Baillie, vol. iii. pp. 296, 297. 
 
A.D. 1656.] OF SCOTLAND. 163 
 
 In the year 1656, the leading Resolutioners sent James 
 Sharp to London, to plead their cause with Cromwell, and to 
 complain of the proceedings of those who assumed to them- 
 selves the name of the godly party of the ministry. Soon 
 afterwards, Guthrie, Gillespie, Warriston, and others, also 
 repaired to London on behalf of the Protesters, with instruc- 
 tions to petition Cromwell for the appointment of a commission 
 to be named by him, with the same powers as those formerly 
 possessed by the commission for the plantation of churches, 
 and to make certain other requests. Cromwell, after hearing 
 both parties, was finally induced by the arguments of Sharp 
 to decline complying with the wishes of the Protesters. His 
 success in this negotiation acquired for Sharp a high reputa- 
 tion and influence among the Resolutioners, and he was again 
 sent to London on a similar errand, during the protectorate of 
 Richard Cromwell. The controversy subsequently became 
 even more bitter than before, in so much that a writer of the 
 time speaks of the two parties as looking on each other 
 " rather as of different religions, than of different persuasions 
 about things which were not fundamental." ^ 
 
 The schism between the Resolutioners and the Protesters 
 was not the only division among the Presbyterians. Opinions, 
 resembling those of the English Independents, had been 
 secretly propagated for some years, but, after the death of 
 Charles the First, they were openly maintained in various 
 parts of the kingdom. Their supporters, however, do not 
 seem at any time to have been numerous or influential. 
 Among the chief of them were three persons residing in Aber- 
 deen, John Menzies, John Row, grandson of the reformer of 
 that name, and Principal of King's College, and Alexander 
 Jaffray, the parliamentary commissioner at Breda. Row and his 
 friends, when they found that their belief had become different 
 in some important points from that held by the Church, ad- 
 dressed a letterexplanatory of their opinions to Dickson, Living- 
 stone, Guthrie, Rutherford, and Warriston. A conference 
 was held at Edinburgh, and afterwards at Aberdeen, in 
 September 1652, in which Rutherford, Gillespie, and Guthrie, 
 
 ' Baillie, vol. Hi. pp. 330, 352-355, and appendix, p. 568-573. Life of Robert 
 Blair, pp. 329-334, 336. 
 
164 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXI. 
 
 took part, but the opinions of the separatists remained un- 
 changed. ^ 
 
 Before the tenets of ]\Ienzies and Row had been fully developed 
 into Independency, the Presbytery of Aberdeen, under their in- 
 fluence and that of Cant, had distinguished itself by its zeal in 
 the cause of the Protesters. One of their proceedings attracted 
 attention, in consequence of an oppressed royalist having sought 
 protection against them from the English rulers. Among the most 
 distinguished of the northern cavaliers was Sir Alexander Irvine 
 of Drum, wlio, for several years, had held the office of sheriff 
 of the county of Aberdeen. He was suspected of Popery, and 
 the presbytery called upon him to subscribe the Covenant. 
 When he refused to do so, they threatened him with ecclesi- 
 astical censures ; whereupon he appealed to Colonel Overton, 
 the commander of the English troops in the district. He was 
 urged to withdraw his appeal ; and intimation was made to 
 him that, if he declined to do so, sentence of excommunication 
 would be pronounced against him. 
 
 On the twentieth of January 1652, the knight of Drum 
 wrote a letter to the moderator of the presbytery. He stated 
 that neither in conscience nor in honour could he agree to what 
 they proposed, and explained at length his reasons for the 
 course which he had taken. " I acknowledge," he said, " God 
 is honoured by oaths, yet that must receive some limitation ; 
 they must be taken in judgment, in truth, and upon necessity. 
 Now I appeal to your own consciences, whether you have ob- 
 served these conditions, in your urging so many dreadful oaths 
 upon this miserable nation, these years by -past, not only in 
 the Covenant, but in your Solemn League with your Presby- 
 terian brethren of England ; whereby ye enforced all men to 
 swear to establish by arms that tyranny there, as ye had 
 done here. How many have ye enforced by threatening and 
 execution of your kirk censure, and the severity of the civil 
 law falling upon them, depriving men of their estates, to swear 
 and subscribe to all ye enjoined, or could invent, albeit ye 
 knew them to be of far contrary judgment ? Wherein ye did 
 imitate that feigned and false mother, who, before Solomon, 
 was contented to have the child divided ; by which her hy- 
 
 ' Jaffray's Diary, pp, 65, 66. Life of Eobert Blair, p. 300. Selections from 
 the Ecclesiastical Records of Aberdeen, p. 219-222. 
 
A.D. 1656.] OF SCOTLAND. 165 
 
 pocrisy was found out by that most wise prince. By which 
 means ye have made this nation guilty of horrible perjury, 
 besides many other heinous sins. I wish to God ye had re- 
 membered, or would yet remember, how much ye cried out 
 against the tyranny of bishops, when they were urging some 
 of your number who were refractory to Episcopacy, that there 
 should be had some regard to tender consciences which were of 
 another judgment. But so soon as ye got the power into your 
 hands, neither minister nor laird, man, woman, nor child, was 
 spared, nor any regard had unto them, whatever quality or 
 condition they were of; all were forced not only to obey you, 
 but (which is the greatest point of tyranny over men's con- 
 sciences) they were made to swear that they thought as you 
 would have them, albeit to your own knowledge many thought 
 the contrary. But there was no regard ; you would have it 
 so, to satisfy your ambition and crooked ends. Ye abhorred 
 and detested the title of lords in the bishops, but ye have 
 usurped, without the name, the power of popes, which was so 
 much the more inconsequential in you, that professing and 
 showing yourselves so often fallible, yet ye exacted an infal- 
 lible obedience. Wherein, if ye have observed Christ's rule, 
 which commands that whatsoever we would that men should 
 do unto us we should do the same to them, ye have reason to 
 look to it ; and, if ye had reason to complain of the bishops, I, 
 and many others, have had much more reason to complain of 
 you ; for your little finger hath been heavier than all their 
 hands, as woeful experience hath shewed." 
 
 Sir Alexander also made a formal protestation against the 
 sentence of the presbytery, as null both in its spiritual and in its 
 temporal character; imitating, as he said, St, Paul, who appealed 
 from the cruelty of the Pharisees to Csesar, and reminding 
 them that their leaders had lately appealed against the general 
 assembly, whereby, as schismatics, they themselves ought to 
 be censured, and so have no power to censure him. He 
 farther intimated his separation from the discipline of Presby- 
 tery, as a human invention, destructive to the civil peace of 
 Christians, and summoned his opponents to appear before 
 Colonel Overton, or any other judge who should be appointed 
 by the English commissioners. 
 
 It appears that Sir Alexander Irvine's appeal and protesta- 
 
166 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXI. 
 
 tion had the desired effect, and that the presbytery was pre- 
 vented from following out its proceedings. ^ 
 
 The partial cessation of the ecclesiastical tyranny, which 
 followed the overthrow of the Covenanters by Cromwell, 
 enabled Eobert Burnet to return from exile. He fixed his 
 residence at Aberdeen, where we find him, in the year 1652, 
 engaged in literary correspondence with Eobert Gordon of 
 Straloch. On the restoration of the monarchy, he was appoint- 
 ed one of the judges of the Court of Session, under the title of 
 Lord Crimond, but he did not long survive his promotion. ^ 
 
 During this period, there were still many in Scotland who 
 regretted the overthrow of the espiscopal polity. Even among 
 the ministers, a considerable number were attached to the 
 hierarchy, as a form of government sanctioned by antiquity, 
 and preferable in many respects to Presbyterianism ; but an 
 avowal of such opinions would have been dangerous, and, as 
 they did not hold Episcopacy to be absolutely necessary, they 
 thought themselves entitled, in the meantime, to make common 
 cause with the Kesolutioners : and there can be no doubt that 
 their influence contributed to widen the breach with the 
 Protesters. 
 
 The most zealous of the ancient clergy remained in exile, 
 and of them we hear but little. A few notices, however, have 
 been preserved of Sydserf, the only surviving bishop. It is 
 probable that he continued to reside for the most part in 
 France. Evelyn relates that, on the twelfth of June, 1650, 
 being Trinity Sunday, he was present at the chapel of Sir 
 Richard Browne, King Charles's ambassador at Paris, on 
 which occasion, after a sermon by Dr Cosin (then Dean of 
 Peterborough), Durell and Brevint, afterwards Deans of 
 Windsor and Durham, were ordained by Sydserf. " The 
 Bishop of Galloway," he says, " officiated with great gravity, 
 after a pious and learned exhortation declaring the weight and 
 dignity of their function, especially now in a time of the poor 
 Church of England's affliction. He magnified the sublimity 
 of the calling from the object, viz., the salvation of men's 
 
 1 See Miscellany of the Spalding Club, vol. iii. p. 205-207, and preface to the 
 same volume, pp. xviii. xix. See also Whitelock's Memorials, ed. 1732, pp. 
 525, 526. 
 
 '^ Garden's Life of Dr John Forbes, p. 63-67. 
 
A.D. J6G0.] OF SCOTLAND. 167 
 
 souls, and the glory of God ; producing many human instances 
 of the transitoriness and vanity of all other dignities ; that of 
 all the triumphs the lioman conquerors made, none was com- 
 parable to that of our hlessed Saviour's, when He led captivity 
 captive, and gave gifts to men, namely, that of the Holy 
 Spirit, by which his faithful and painful ministers triumphed 
 over Satan, as oft as they reduced a sinner from the error of 
 his ways. He then proceeded to tlie ordination. They were 
 presented by the dean in their surplices, before the altar, the 
 bishop sitting in a chair at one side ; and so were made both 
 deacons and priests at the same time, in regard to the necessity 
 of the times, there being so few bishops left in England, and 
 consequently danger of a failure of both functions. Lastly, 
 they proceeded to the Communion." In 1658, Sydserf was 
 perhaps in England, since in that year he superintended the 
 printing at London of Bishop William Forbes's Considerationes. * 
 The feeble protectoi'ate of Richard Cromwell was of short 
 duration, and the attempts which were made to establish a 
 republican form of government were unsuccessful. On the 
 first of January, 1660, the army under Monk crossed the 
 Tweed, and, in May, King Charles was restored to the throne 
 of Britain. 
 
 ' Evelyn's Diary and Correspondence, ed. 1850, vol. i. p. 258. Gordon's 
 Scots Affairs, vol. iii. p. 241. Baillie, vol. iii. p. 390. The initials, " T. C," 
 subscribed to tlie preface to the Considerationes, shew that Sydserf bad never 
 abandoned, even in name, his right to the see of Galloway. 
 
168 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chap. LXli 
 
 CHAPTER LXIL 
 
 FROM THE RESTORATION OF KING CHARLES II. IN MAY, 1660, TO THE 
 RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF EPISCOPACY IN SEPTEMBER, 1661. 
 
 The leaders of the Resolutioners send Sharp to London — Cor- 
 respondence between that Minister and Ms Constituents — 
 Sharp returns to Scotland — Guthrie and other Protesters 
 imjprisoned — The King's letter to the Presbytery of Edin- 
 burgh — Meeting of the Parliament — The Act Rescissory — 
 Execution of the Marquis of Argyll — Execution of 
 James Guthrie — Meeting of the Synod of Glasgow and 
 Ayr — Its Declaratio^i in favour of Presbyterianism — Meet- 
 ings of the other provincial Synods — Address by the Synod 
 of Aberdeen in favour of the ancient Ecclesiastical Polity — 
 Re-establishment of Episcopacy. 
 
 The Restoration was, if possible, more joyfully welcomed in 
 Scotland than in England ; for it not only brought back the 
 sovereign and the ancient constitution of the kingdom, but 
 also freed the people from the supremacy of a foreign govern- 
 ment. The exultation which was sincerely felt by the great 
 majority of the nation was shared, in outward appearance, even 
 by those who had no affection for monarchy, or for the house 
 of Stewart. On one point alone, doubt and anxiety existed. 
 No one could foresee what ecclesiastical changes might attend 
 the unexpected revolution in the state. It soon became 
 obvious that in England the restoration of the Church would 
 accompany that of the monarchy. The national voice went 
 along with the duty and inclination of the king and his ad- 
 visers, and the hierarchy and the Book of Common Prayer 
 were re-established almost as they were before the commence- 
 ment of the rebellion. In Ireland, the example of the ruling 
 nation was followed as a matter of course ; and the circum- 
 stance that there the majority of the people still adhered to 
 the Church of Rome was only an additional reason for restor- 
 ing the polity and ritua) of England. There were circum- 
 
A.D. 1660.] OF SCOTLAND, 169 
 
 stances in the condition of Scotland which caused greater 
 difficulties. 
 
 When Monk, and the army under his command, marched 
 southwards in the beginning of January, it is probable that he 
 had assurances of support from the leaders of the Kesolutioners. 
 The ministers by whom that party was directed were aware of 
 the important influence likely to be exerted by the English 
 general, and were anxious to secure his favour. For this pur- 
 pose, it Avas of consequence to have one of their own number 
 in personal communication wnth him, and Sharp, whose former 
 negotiations had been so successful, naturally appeared to be 
 the individual best fitted for such an employment. Dickson, 
 Douglas, and others, met at Edinburgh on the sixth of 
 February, and drew up instructions for the guidance of their 
 envoy. He was directed to use his endeavours that the Church 
 of Scotland should enjoy the freedom and privileges of its 
 judicatories, as ratified by law ; to represent, by all prudent 
 and lawful means, the sinfulness and offensiveness of the 
 toleration then established ; and to attempt to secure the right 
 application and increase of the ministers' stipends. Sharp 
 arrived at London on the thirteenth of February, and was 
 courteously received by Monk, who promised to use his best 
 efforts for the preservation of the Church's rights. 
 
 A series of letters, which passed between the Scottish envoy 
 and his constituents, contains a full account of the ecclesiastical 
 proceedings of the time. In his opening communications, 
 Sharp alluded to the exertions which the English Presby- 
 terians were making for thf^ establishment of the Westminster 
 Confession, but mentioned, at the same time, the reviving 
 hopes of the supporters of the hierarchy, and the fear that, 
 along with the king, a moderate Episcopacy might be restored. 
 On the fifteenth of March, Douglas expressed a wish that the 
 Presbyterian form of government should be settled, since it 
 was ascertained by experience that moderate Episcopacy was 
 only a step to episcopal tyranny. " You know," he says, " the 
 old saying, perpetua dictatura via ad imperiura. Our constant 
 moderators was a step to bishops, and they once entered soon 
 broke all caveats." He denied that he and his friends were 
 for a commonwealth, as some had asserted ; but mentioned 
 that the judgment of honest men in Scotland was for admit- 
 
170 BOCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Cuai>. LXIL 
 
 ting the king only on Covenant terms, whereby religion, the 
 liberties of the nation, and his own just greatness, would be 
 best secured. On the thirty-first of March, the same mini- 
 ster stated that a generation had risen up in Scotland which 
 was unacquainted with the work of reformation, and therefore 
 disposed to condemn even the Covenant itself, to which they 
 bore a heart-hatred. "There are three parties here," he 
 writes, " who have all of them their own fears in this great 
 crisis : the Protesters fear that the king come in ; those above 
 mentioned that, if he come in upon Covenant terms, they be 
 disappointed ; and those who love religion and the liberty of 
 the nation that, if he come not in upon the terms of the League 
 and Covenant, his coming in will be disadvantageous to reli- 
 gion and the liberty of the three nations." And writing again, 
 on the twenty-sixth of April, on the prospects of Presby- 
 terianisra in England, he says, " whatever church govern- 
 ment be settled there, it will have an influence on this 
 kingdom ; for the generality of this new upstart 'generation 
 have no love to Presbyterial government, but are wearied of 
 that yoke, feeding themselves with the fancy of Episcopacy, or 
 moderate Episcopacy. Our desire is, that Presbyterial govern- 
 ment be settled ; if not, we shall be free of any accession to 
 the breach of a sworn Covenant." 
 
 Sharp having informed his constituents that Monk wished 
 him to repair to the king at Breda, Douglas wrote on the 
 eighth of May, that however desirable uniformity in doctrine, 
 worship, and government was, if the English Presbyterians 
 did not urge their own cause, their Scottish brethren must be 
 free from blame, and his chief business in that case would be 
 to attend to the interests of his own Church. There was no 
 necessity, he said, for the king's allowing liberty to tender 
 consciences in Scotland, inasmuch as most of the people, and 
 all the ministry, supported the religion established by law. 
 At the same time, further instructions were sent to Sharp, by 
 which his constituents requested him to assure the king of the 
 loyalty of the Scottish Presbyterians, and to inform his ma- 
 jesty that, whatever reasons there might be for establishing 
 Episcopacy or allowing a variety of opinions in England, there 
 was no cause whatever for altering the established government 
 in Scotland, in which the people for the most part acquiesced. 
 
A.!). 1G60. OF SCOTLAND. 171 
 
 The Scottish envoy arrived at Breda in the beginning of 
 May, and had several confidential interviews with the king, to 
 whom he communicated the letters with which he had been 
 entrusted. He subsequently wrote to Douglas, that he had 
 urged on his majesty the restoration of the civil independence 
 of the Scottish kingdom, and the preservation of its established 
 ecclesiastical government, and that he had received a most 
 gracious answer. He returned to London before the end of 
 the month. 
 
 On the second of June, Sharp wrote to Douglas, explaining 
 the hopeless state of Presbytevianisra in England 5 the most 
 influential persons of that persuasion being now content to 
 admit the moderate Episcopacy formerly suggested by Arch- 
 bishop Usher, and the Liturgy with some alterations, and to 
 substitute the Thirty-nine Articles, with certain amendments, 
 in room of the Westminster Confession. There were many 
 nominal, few real Presbyterians. Some of the Scots went to 
 the Common Prayer. Every thing depended on the king, 
 who could do what he pleased in Church and State. In an- 
 other letter of the same date, he urged Douglas to come up to 
 London. Douglas wrote in answer, expressing his sorrow 
 for the state of matters in England ; mentioning that, 
 whether many or few were for Presbyterianism in that coun- 
 try, they were bound by their oath to God to desire a settle- 
 ment of religion according to the Covenant ; and entreating 
 Sharp to persevere in his exertions, notwithstanding the dis- 
 couragements to which lie was exposed. He added that Dick- 
 son and himself had no intention of coming up ; but that 
 Bishop Sydscrf, and James Atkins, an excommunicated min- 
 ister of Orkney, had a few days before set out for London, in 
 the expectation that Prelacy would be restored. 
 
 On the ninth of June, Snarp expressed a wish that he 
 should be allowed to return, and, in a letter, supposed to be 
 written on the following day, mentioned that some of the 
 Scottisli nobles at London were talking of restoring Episco- 
 pacy, which, he trusted, they would never be able to effect. 
 He again expressed his desire to be recalled, and his opinion 
 that Douglas could now do no good by coming up. On the 
 fourteenth of June, Sharp wrote that he had just had an in- 
 terview with the king, who again professed his resolution to 
 
172 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXII. 
 
 preserve the established ecclesiastical order in Scotland, and 
 declared his intention of calling a general assembly as soon as 
 he could, but that a parliament would probably be first sum- 
 moned. On the tenth of July, Sharp wrote to Douglas that 
 he was not of the mind of those who thought that they should 
 not preach in favour of Presbyterianism, and against Prelacy, 
 in Scotland j but he was still of opinion that there was neither 
 necessity nor advantage in meddling with the affairs of Eng- 
 land, whether civil or ecclesiastical. Dear bought experiencey 
 he remarked, should have taught another lesson. He still ex- 
 pressed his conviction that the king meant them no wrong, 
 though he feared his advisers would endeavour to introduce 
 Erastianism. 
 
 After some farther correspondence, Sharp returned to Scot- 
 land in the end of August. ^ 
 
 The measures taken for the restoration of the hierarchy in 
 England, and the readiness of the English Presbyterians to 
 submit to a moderate Episcopacy and a remodelled Liturgy, 
 if such could be obtained, were sufficient proof that the ac- 
 count given by Sharp of the state of ecclesiastical matters in 
 the South was substantially correct. The Resolutioners were 
 now convinced that any attempt to maintain the ascendency 
 of Presbyterianism in other parts of the empire was hopeless, 
 and they would have been well pleased could they have been 
 certain of its security in Scotland. For this they had hitherto 
 only the general verbal assurances of the king ; and they 
 anxiously looked for the first steps to be taken by those who 
 were entrusted with the civil government. The position of 
 the Protesting party was much more alarming. They were 
 conscious of their own disloyalty, and of the indignities they 
 had put on their sovereign ; and they had good reason to 
 dread the consequences to themselves individually. Their 
 fears were soon realized. In the beginning of July, the Marquis 
 of Argyll was seized at London, and committed to the Tower ; 
 and orders were sent to Scotland to apprehend others of the 
 Protesting leaders. Warriston was one of those against whom 
 warrants were issued, but he succeeded in making his escape. 
 
 By a proclamation, dated the second of August, the king 
 enti'usted the administration of affairs in Scotland, till par- 
 1 Wodrow, vol. i. p. 4-54. 
 
A.D. 1660.] OF SCOTLAND. 173 
 
 liament should meet, to the committee of the estates ap- 
 pointed in 1651. In the meantime, the great officers of state 
 had been nominated. Middleton was created an earl, and 
 selected to act as royal commissioner for the parliament about 
 to be summoned. The Earl of Glencairn was named chan- 
 cellor, the Earl of Crawford treasurer, and the Earl of Lau- 
 derdale secretary. On the twenty-third of August, the com- 
 mittee sat down at Edinburgh. Guthrie and some other 
 members of the Protesting party met in a private house in 
 that city on the same day, and drew up a paper, under the 
 name of a supplication to the king, in which, after professing 
 their loyalty, they represented the great danger which threat- 
 ened the work of reformation in his majesty's dominions from 
 the remnant of the Popish, Prelatical, and Malignant party, 
 wliich was again contriving the introduction of Prelacy, the 
 Ceremonies, the Service-book, and all those corruptions which 
 had formerly been cast out ; and entreated his majesty that he 
 would employ his royal power for the preservation of the 
 Church of Scotland, the reformation of religion in England 
 and Ireland, and the carrying on of the work of uniformity in 
 the three kingdoms, in one Confession of Faith, form of church 
 government. Directory for worship, and catechising, and to 
 the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy, superstition, heresy, 
 schism, and profaneness ; reminding him of his solemn pro- 
 mise and oath before coming to Scotland, and at his corona- 
 tion there, to maintain the National Covenant, and Solemn 
 League and Covenant, and the Presbyterian doctrine, worship, 
 and government. The committee of estates, having learned 
 the object of the meeting, and fearing probably that it was the 
 commencement of proceedings similar to those which had 
 taken place at Edinburgh in the beginning of the troubles, 
 ordered those who were present to disperse, and, on this warn- 
 ing being disregarded, caused Guthrie and others to be seized, 
 and imprisoned in the castle. Soon afterwards, various minis- 
 ters and lay adherents of the Protesting party, among whom 
 was Gillespie, were also apprehended. 
 
 When Sharp returned from London, he brought with him a 
 letter from the king, addressed to Douglas, and intended to be 
 communicated to the Presbytery of Edinburgh. In this let- 
 ter, which was dated the tenth of August, the king expressed 
 
174 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXII. 
 
 his satisfaction with the conduct of the greater number of the 
 ministers. He declared his resolution to protect and preserve 
 the government of the Church of Scotland, as settled by law, 
 and that the acts of the general assembly of 1651 should re- 
 main in force till another was called ; and mentioned his ex- 
 pectation that the church judicatories would keep within their 
 own proper sphere, meddling only with matters ecclesiastical. 
 The presbytery was highly pleased with the royal message ; 
 thanked the king for his goodness ; and caused copies of the 
 letter to be sent to all the other presbyteries of the kingdom. 
 Relying on these assurances, the Resolutioners proceeded to 
 take measures against some of the more violent of their op- 
 ponents ; and a considerable number of Protesting ministers 
 were deposed in various districts.^ 
 
 The Scottish parliament commenced its sittings on the first 
 of January, 1661. The Earl of Middleton was commissioner, 
 and the number of members who attended was very great. 
 From the first, it was evident that the royal authority, so long 
 despised and trampled on, was to be acknowleged in terms 
 more distinct and comprehensive than at any former time. It 
 was ordered that all members of parliament, and persons hold- 
 ing offices of state, should take the oath of allegiance, by 
 which they acknowledged his majesty to be the only supreme 
 governor of the kingdom over all persons, and in all causes, and 
 promised never to decline his jurisdiction. The royal preroga- 
 tive in choosing the officers of state, the lords of council, and 
 the session, was admitted ; the more violent proceedings dur- 
 ing the rebellion were condemned ; and the Solemn League 
 and Covenant was declared to be no longer binding. On the 
 twenty-eighth of March, the parliaments held in the years 
 1640, 1641, 1644, 1645, 1646, 1647, and 1648, and their 
 whole acts and deeds, were rescinded and annulled. On the 
 same day, a statute was passed, by which the king declared 
 his firm resolution to maintain the true Reformed Protestant 
 religion, in its purity of doctrine and worship, as it was estab- 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. i. p. 62-83. Lament's Diary, p. 158. Baillie, vol. iii. p. 446. 
 Life of Robert Blair, p. 357. Kirkton, p. 75. The writer last quoted, referring 
 to the effects of the king's letter on the Resolutioners, says that, " had not the 
 course of synods been interrupted by the introduction of bishops, few had kept 
 their places who were afterwards ejected by that infamous proclamation at Glas- 
 gow iu the year 1662." 
 
A.D. 1661.] OF SCOTLAND. 175 
 
 lished under his royal father and grandfather; and, in regard 
 to church government, that he would take care to settle and 
 secure the same, iu such a manner as should be most agreeable 
 to the word of God, most suitable to monarchy, and most in 
 accordance with the public peace and quiet of the kingdom, and, 
 in the meantime, notwithstanding the act rescissory just passed, 
 that he would allow the present administration by sessions, 
 presbyteries, and synods. 
 
 Besides the public acts, various proceedings occurred regard- 
 ing individuals, equally indicative of the change that had 
 taken place. The attainders of the Marquises of Huntly and 
 Montrose, of Sir Robert Spottiswood, Sir John Gordon, and 
 others who had suffered for their loyalty, were rescinded. An 
 act was passed empowering the king to bestow the revenues 
 of such benefices as were vacant on the deprived clergy and 
 their relatives : and, among those who received grants from 
 this source, were Dr. Wishart, Dr. Panter, David Mitchell, 
 William Annand, and Henry Guthrie ; the widows and child- 
 ren of Dr. Baron, Dr. Sibbald, and Dr. Ross ; the children of 
 Dr. Hannah, Dean of Edinburgh ; and the sons of Bishop 
 Maxwell and Bishop Whitford. The parliament rose on the 
 twelfth of July.i 
 
 During the sittings of the estates, several important events 
 had taken place. In the month of February, the Marquis of 
 Argyll, who had been sent back to Scotland, was brought to 
 trial before the parliament on a charge of high treason. 
 Among the points specified in the indictment were various 
 acts done by him at different periods during the rebellion — 
 his taking of the king's castles, and burning the houses of the 
 loyal nobles ; his calling the convention of 1643 j his massacre 
 of royalist prisoners in Kintyre ; his bargaining to deliver up 
 the late king at Newcastle, and his encouragement or know- 
 ledge of the design to put him to death ; liis opposition to the 
 engagement ; his participation in the proceedings against 
 Montrose ; his intrigues and correspondence with Cromwell j 
 his consent to the Act of the West Kirk ; and his supporting 
 the armies of the usurpers against the king's forces in the 
 Highlands. The marquis, while he admitted his open main- 
 
 ' Acts of the Parliameats of ScotlanJ, vol. vii, p. 3-367, and appendix, pp. 
 59, 78, 79, 81. 
 
176 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXII. 
 
 tenance of the Covenant, and palliated the particular charges 
 connected with it, denied all knowledge of the proposal to 
 bring the late king to trial, and all correspondence with Crom- 
 well, except what was ordered by the estates. He offered, 
 however, to throw himself on the king's mercy ; but the terras 
 of his submission did not satisfy the parliament, and the trial 
 proceeded. He was found guilty, and condemned to die. 
 Argyll was naturally of a timorous disposition, and had in- 
 curred reproach, on more than one occasion, by carefully pro- 
 viding for his own safety in times of danger ; but, after his 
 sentence, he exhibited no sign of fear. Immediately before 
 his death, he solemnly denied all connection with the murder 
 of the late king. He was beheaded on the twenty-seventh of 
 May.^ 
 
 James Guthrie was also put on trial before the parliament 
 on a charge of high treason. The chief articles in his indict- 
 ment were his participation in the Western Remonstrance ; 
 his publishing a seditious pamphlet, called " The Causes of 
 God's Wrath;" his convocating the lieges at various times 
 without warrant ; his declining the king's jm-isdiction ; and 
 his writing and subscribing the petition to his m.ajesty in 
 August of the previous year. Guthrie attempted to extenuate 
 his direct concern in some of the matters charged against him, 
 but boldly maintained the lawfulness of the acts themselves ; 
 declaring that whatever he had said or done proceeded from 
 a principle of conscience and his sense of duty as a minister of 
 the Gospel, and was founded on the word of God, on the laws 
 of the Church and kingdom, and on the National Covenant, 
 and Solemn League and Covenant. He was found guilty, and 
 was hanged on the first of June. An obscure individual of the 
 name of Govan was executed at the same time. He had been 
 a lieutenant in the western army under Strachan, and was also 
 accused of having been on the scaffold when the late king was 
 beheaded ; but there was no proof of that charge. 
 
 Warriston and some other persons were likewise accused of 
 treason. The charges against Warriston related to his con- 
 nection with the Western Eemonstrance, his correspondence 
 with Cromwell, his holding office under the usurpers, and 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. 1. p. 130-158. State Trials, vol. v. p. 1370-1507. Macken- 
 zie's Memoirs of the Aflairs of Scotlaud, p. 34-47. 
 
A.D. 1661.] OF SCOTLAND. 177 
 
 various other points. He was found guilty by the parliament, 
 attainted, and condemned to death. Execution of the sen- 
 tence was prevented in the meantime by his flight from 
 Scotland. The Laird of Swinton was accused of like offences, and 
 of having been openly in arms at Worcester against the king. 
 He had lately turned Quaker ; and at his trial he confessed 
 his guilt. The parliament recommended him to tlie considera- 
 tion of the king, and the capital punishment was remitted. 
 Patrick Gillespie was charged with off'ences similar to those 
 set forth in Guthrie's indictment. He also confessed his 
 guilt, and submitted himself to the king's mercy. His life 
 was spared, but he was not allowed to hold any ecclesiastical 
 office in time to come. Rutherford also was summoned 
 before the parliament. He had already been deprived of 
 the office of Principal of St. Mary's College, and an order had 
 been given that his book, " Lex Rex," should be burned at St. 
 Andrews. His death in the month of March prevented any 
 further measures that might have been contemplated against 
 him.^ 
 
 No other capital punishments were inflicted. The royalists 
 had been cruelly persecuted by the Covenanters, and the re- 
 taliation, at this time, was probably less severe than was 
 expected. Considering, however^ the rank and number of 
 those who had shared in the guilt of the rebellion, and the 
 circumstance that the worst crimes had been committed under 
 the sanction of the actual government of the day, it would 
 have been more just and more prudent to have made no dis- 
 tinctions, and to have granted a general indemnity. 
 
 The various measures brought before the parliament had 
 been anxiously watched by the leaders of the Resolutioners 
 and the Protesters. Several of the earlier acts alarmed the mini- 
 sters of Edinburgh, and they endeavoured in vain to obtain a 
 ratification of the statutes establishing Presbyterianism. As 
 soon as the Act Rescissory was passed, a formal remonstrance 
 was presented to parliament by the Presbytery of Edinburgh, 
 but the commissioner refused to receive it. When the various 
 synods met as usual in April and May, the terms of the Act 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. i. pp. 159-196, 204-206, 216, 217. Acts of the Parliaments of 
 Scotland, vol. vii. appendix, pp. 34-60, 69, 70, 74, 75, 80-84. Baillie, vol. iii. 
 p. 447. Lamoiit's IMary, p. 1 59. Life of Kobert Blair, p. 366. 
 
 VOL. III.] 13 
 
178 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIl. 
 
 Rescissory, and of the act announcing the king's intentions re- 
 garding church government, were generally known, and clearly 
 indicated that important changes were contemplated. 
 
 The Synod of Glasgow and Ayr met at Glasgow on the 
 second of April. It was proposed to supplicate parliament for 
 protection to the Church ; and the draft of an address was read, 
 but was opposed by the Resolutioners, and by those favour- 
 able to Episcopacy, on the ground that such a proceeding at 
 that time was imprudent and premature. The following 
 declaration was then brought forward : — " Whereas there is a 
 scandal as if some ministers in this Church had made, or were 
 intending to make defection from the government of the Church 
 of Scotland to prelatical Episcopacy, therefore the whole 
 synod, and every member thereof, do willingly declare that 
 they are fixed in the doctrine, discipline, worship, and church 
 government by sessions, presbyteries, synods, and general 
 assemblies, as it is now professed and practised within this 
 Church ; and that they are resolved, by the grace of God, so 
 to remain. And because divers of the members are absent, 
 therefore the synod recommends it to the several presbyteries 
 to require the same of them." The omission of any allusion 
 to the Covenants, and the expression, " prelatical Episcopacy," 
 which seemed to imply that there was some sort of Episco- 
 pacy not so objectionable, displeased the Protesters ; but those 
 on the other side refused to make any alteration, and the reso- 
 ^lution was agreed to unanimously. The synod then adjourned 
 to the second Tuesday of May. When that day came, and the 
 members were about to assemble, their meeting was forbidden 
 by the royal commissioner, on the ground that such an ad- 
 journed synod was not warranted by law. The order was 
 obeyed, but several of the members sent a respectful supplica- 
 tion to the commissioner, in which they represented that, while 
 they submitted to the prohibition, they could not allow that 
 provincial assemblies had no power to meet oftener than twice 
 a year. 
 
 It does not appear whether Baillie was present at the meet- 
 ing of the synod, but, on the eighteenth of April, he wrote to 
 his old friend and fellow commissioner at Westminster, the 
 Earl of Lauderdale, as to the course now adopted by the go- 
 vernment. He had taken a leading part in opposition to the 
 
A.D. 1661.] OP SCOTLAND. 179 
 
 Protesters, and had lately, through the influence of Lauderdale, 
 been appointed Principal of the College of Glasgow, in room 
 of Gillespie, but the recent statutes and other public measures 
 had excited his alarm. In his letter he condemned the Act 
 Rescissory, describing it as a bringing back of the Ganterburian 
 times ; and in severe, but manly and affectionate language, 
 warned the secretary against abandoning the principles which 
 he had formerly professed. " If you," he concluded, " or Mr. 
 Sharp, whom we trusted as our own souls, have swerved to- 
 wards Chancellor Hyde's principles, as we now see many do, 
 you have much to answer for." 
 
 The Synod of Fife met at St. Andrews in the beginning of 
 April. They drew up a supplication to the commissioner and 
 parliament, in which, referring to the Ac.t Rescissory and the 
 king's letter to the Presbytery of Edinbm-gh, they petitioned 
 that a new parliamentary ratification should be granted in 
 favour of the Reformed religion then professed, in doctrine, 
 worship, government, and discipline. They also prepared a 
 warning and admonition to the people under their charge, in 
 which, while setting forth their loyalty to the king, they 
 declared their conviction that the prelacy of any one, with 
 majority of power and jurisdiction over presbyteries and 
 churches, had no warrant in the Scriptures, and therefore 
 ought to be rejected by those who were bound to follow the 
 rule, not of human, but of divine wisdom, in the government 
 of the Church. They added that, while they would not expect 
 trouble from their gracious sovereign on account of their con- 
 scientious opinions, yet, if such should happen, they would 
 with quietness commit themselves and their cause to Him that 
 judgeth righteously, resolving to endure, through God's 
 strength, whatever trial they might be exercised with. 
 
 It would have been well if the ministers of Fife, while 
 maintaining their own conscientious convictions, had never 
 used language different from that which they now adopted. 
 Sixteen years before, they had petitioned the parliament which 
 met at St. Andrews to do justice on Malignants ; and the blood 
 of Spottiswood and other loyal and innocent persons had been 
 shed at their demand. Now that they addressed the estates 
 in language such as befitted Christian ministers, their suppli- 
 cation was not even allowed to be presented. Before the 
 
180 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXII. 
 
 papers drav/n up were finally sanctioned, the Earl of Rothes, 
 President of tlie Council, son of the nobleman who had been 
 the chief instigator of the National Covenant, entered the place 
 of meeting, and, commanding silence in the king's name, 
 ordered them immediately to depart. The members at once 
 submitted, without so much as a protest. 
 
 The Synod of Dumfries met, and had agreed to an act for 
 the deposition of all ministers who should comply with 
 Prelacy, when they were dissolved in like manner by the Earls 
 of Queensberry and Hartfell. 
 
 The Synod of Galloway, most of whom belonged to the 
 Protesting party, drew up a long and pedantic supplication to 
 parliament, in which, after reviewing the course of ecclesiasti- 
 cal corruption in Scotland from the arrival of the first bishop, 
 Palladius, to their own time, and most violently denouncing 
 Episcopacy and its adherents, they requested that the laws 
 against Prelacy should be ratified, and that the National Cove- 
 nant and Solemn League and Covenant should be renewed, and 
 ordered to be sworn to and subscribed by all persons of what- 
 ever rank in the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and 
 Ireland, and the dominions thereto belonging. They were 
 dissolved in the king's name by the Earl of Galloway. The 
 members departed, but not till the moderator had formally 
 protested against the encroachment thus made on their pri- 
 vileges. 
 
 The Synod of Lothian was under the direct control of the 
 government, and many of its members were favourable to 
 Episcopacy. It was proposed to take steps against the Pro- 
 testers ; and several ministers of that party were suspended, 
 notwithstanding the opposition of Douglas and Dickson, the 
 leaders of the Resolutioners. The Earl of Callender, on tlie 
 part of the government, required an act to be made for restor- 
 ing the former practice of reading the Scriptures, and using 
 the Lord's Prayer and Gloria Patri in public worship, and the 
 Creed in Baptism. On this being refused or evaded, the earl 
 dissolved the synod. 
 
 In the Synod of Ross, the moderator, Murdoch Mackenzie, 
 and the majority of the members, were very zealous in censur- 
 ing the Protesters. This circumstance is mentioned by 
 Wodrow, to whom we are chiefly indebted for the account of 
 
A.D. 1G61.] OF SCOTLAND. 181 
 
 wliat took place at the soutlicrn synods. He has preserved 
 no farther details of the proceedings in the North, but mentions 
 generally that the synods there dealt harshly with the few 
 who adhered to the Protesting party. It may be inferred from 
 this statement, as well as from his silence otherwise, that be- 
 yond the Tay no remonstrances whatever were made against 
 the threatened ecclesiastical changes. In the northern districts 
 the Covenant had never been popular, and the greater number 
 both of the ministers and of the people were ready, at the bid- 
 ding of the civil power, to submit to Episcopacy. ^ 
 
 In one — the most influential of all the northern synods — a 
 still stronger feeling prevailed. The Synod of Aberdeen met in 
 St. Mary's Chapel, in the King's College. Alexander Ross, 
 minister at Monymusk, was moderator, and fifty-three other min- 
 isters were present. On the eighteenth of April, an address to the 
 commissioner and the high court of parliament was unanimously 
 agreed to by the members, in which they expressed their deep 
 sorrow and regret for the national guilt, and their own sin, in so 
 far as they were accessory, in the rebellious opposition to the late 
 king, and after his death to the reigning sovereign, and that 
 according to the several degrees of their accession to it, whether 
 driven thereto by the force and violence of a prevailing faction, 
 or through sinful silence, and want of courage to oppose such 
 courses. And inasmuch as it had pleased his majesty and the 
 parliament to rescind the laws by which the Presbyterian form 
 of government had been established, they humbly requested 
 the commissioner and estates to join with them in petitioning 
 his majesty to settle the ecclesiastical government, according 
 to the word of God and the practice of the ancient primitive 
 Church, in such a way as might be most consistent with the 
 royal authority, and most conducive to godliness, unity, peace, 
 and order. 
 
 This address would probably not have been agreed to, if 
 the Act Rescissory had not been passed ; it used indeed almost 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. i. p. 109-130. Baillie, vol. iii. p. 458-460. Lament's Diary, 
 pp. 16V, 168. Nicoll's Diary, p. 333. Preface to Selections from the Ecclesias- 
 tical Records of Aberdeen, pp. Iii. Hii. Wodrow is silent as to the liturgical 
 changes proposed at the Synod of Lothian, and merely states that it was dissolved 
 because the majority resisted some overture made by the government commis- 
 sioner in favour of Prelacy. 
 
182 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXII. 
 
 the very language of the statute hy which the king declared 
 his intentions regarding ecclesiastical government. But there 
 can be no doubt that it expressed the real sentiments of the 
 majority of the numerous body by which it was drawn up. 
 Most of the ministers of the diocese of Aberdeen had been 
 educated by the deprived doctors, and had submitted to a sys- 
 tem which they believed not to be positively unlawful, but 
 for which they entertained no affection. Preferring Episco- 
 pacy, and strongly disliking the rebellious courses which had 
 so long prevailed, they welcomed the restoration of the 
 monarchy, not only for its own sake, but as the means of re- 
 establishing the ancient ecclesiastical polity. In the Presby- 
 tery of Aberdeen these opinions had hitherto been kept down 
 chiefly through the influence of Cant, but that preacher had 
 never been able to obtain an ascendency in the synod. He 
 had lately been obliged to leave Aberdeen, an object of uni- 
 versal contempt and dislike ; and the general feeling among 
 the ministers in favour of the old system was now so strong, 
 as to carry along with it even those who were favourable to 
 Presby terianism. ^ 
 
 In consequence of the Act Eescissory, the Presbyterian form 
 of church government was abolished ; and the king was 
 empowered by the statute which followed it to settle the 
 ecclesiastical polity of Scotland, When the parliament rose, 
 the commissioner and other noblemen repaired to London, 
 and a discussion took place in the Scottish council there 
 on this important question. Middleton stated that, as 
 the acts establishing Presbyterianism were annulled, the 
 episcopal polity was restored in law, unless his majesty, by 
 virtue of his royal authority, should appoint otherwise. He 
 maintained the propriety of re-establishing Episcopacy, and 
 his arguments were enforced by Glencairn and Rothes. On 
 the other hand, Lauderdale and Crawford, and the Earl of 
 
 * Wodrow (vol. i. p. 215) makes an incidental allusion to the "flattering 
 address in favour of Episcopacy " from the Synod of Aberdeen ; and Burnet, 
 who was present at the meeting, gives a brief account of it (History of his Own 
 Time, vol. i. pp. 205, 206). The address, without the signatures, is printed in 
 Stephen's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 429-432 A complete 
 copy, with the names of the ministers by whom it was signed, is preserved 
 among the papers belonging to the Friendly Society of the Scottish Episcopal 
 Church. 
 
A.D. 1661,] OF SCOTLAND. 183 
 
 Selkirk, who, in his wife's right, now bore the title of Duke 
 of Hamilton, contended that Presbyterianism was preferred 
 by the Scottish nation ; that the Act Rescissory had passed 
 with little opposition, because the people relied on his 
 majesty's promise to maintain the established polity ; and that, 
 at all events, a general assembly should be summoned, or the 
 opinion of the provincial synods taken on the point. The 
 king adopted the opinion expressed by most of the counsellors, 
 and announced his intention of restoring Episcopacy. ^ 
 
 Although, previous to this meeting, no formal resolution 
 liad been come to, the statutes that were enacted, and the 
 proceedings of the government, indicated the change which 
 might be expected. It is probable that the king had already 
 resolved on the course to be adopted, but there are no means 
 of ascertaining at what precise time his resolution was taken. 
 The question was a very difficult one, and it is evident that 
 Charles was long in doubt, and that his counsellors were di- 
 vided in their opinions. Clarendon, Ormonde, and the sup- 
 porters of the hierarchy in England, urged the re-establishment 
 of Episcopacy, as the only apostolical form of ecclesiastical 
 government, and as necessary for the maintenance of 
 monarchy ; Lauderdale and Crawford opposed it strenuously, 
 both on political grounds, and on account of their own strong 
 feelings in favour of Presbyterianism. On the one hand, it 
 was important that all the three kingdoms should be united in 
 their ecclesiastical, as well as in their civil polity ; and, in 
 order to this, it was as essential to maintain episcopal govern- 
 ment in Scotland, as it was to uphold the Reformed religion 
 in Ireland. On the other hand, it was believed that the 
 majority of the Scottish people were opposed to any change ; 
 and the principles of government by which Ireland was ruled 
 did not apply to an independent kingdom, possessing its own 
 distinct laws and legislature. Had the ministers of the 
 existing establishment in Scotland been united in opinion, it 
 is probable that the king and his English counsellors must have 
 acquiesced in its preservation, but the differences between the 
 Resolutioners and the Protesters were fatal to Presbyterianism. 
 The leaders of both these parties had at first urged the king 
 to maintain uniformity by enforcing the Covenant in all his 
 ' Mackenzie, p. 52-56. Wodrow, vol. i. pp. 224, 229. Burnet, vol. i. p. 224. 
 
184 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXII. 
 
 dominions. When the restoration of Episcopacy in England 
 and Ireland was determined on, the chiefs of the Resolutioners 
 would have been content with the establishment of Presby- 
 terianism in their own country ; but the Protesters would not 
 abate a jot of their claims, and neither party would have con- 
 sented to a toleration within Scotland of any religious 
 opinions or ecclesiastical polity differing from their own. 
 There could be no liberty of conscience to the adherents of 
 Episcopacy except by the re-establishment of the liierarchy. 
 
 Glencairn and Rothes returned from London, bearing a 
 royal letter, dated the fourteenth of August, which was laid 
 before the privy council in Scotland on the fifth of September. 
 In this letter, the king referred to his communication of 
 the tenth of August, 1660, to the Presbytery of Edinburgh, 
 which mentioned his purpose to maintain the government 
 of the Church as settled by law, and to the subsequent act of 
 parliament by which the statutes establishing Presbyterian- 
 ism were rescinded, and the settling of church government 
 left to himself. He then declared that, on account of the 
 unsuitableness of the late form of ecclesiastical polity to the 
 monarchical estate, and of the violence done during the 
 troubles to the royal prerogative, and the government civil 
 and ecclesiastical established by authority, and for the glory 
 of God, the interest of the Protestant religion, the order, 
 peace, and unity of the Church, and its better harmony with 
 the ecclesiastical government in England and Ireland, it was 
 his resolution to restore the Church to its right government 
 by bishops, as it was by law before the late troubles began, 
 and as it now stood settled by law. 
 
 Two of the counsellors, the Earls of Tweeddale and 
 Kincardine, suggested that his majesty should be requested to 
 consult the provincial assemblies ; but this was objected to by 
 the others, and a letter was returned from the council, 
 expressing their readiness to comply, and their satisfaction with 
 the communication. The royal injunctions were proclaimed 
 li c • i at solemnity at the market cross of Edinburgh by the 
 Lion King-at-Arms. ^ 
 
 Charles has been severely censured for his conduct in 
 
 1 Mackenzie, . 56-60. Wodrow, vol. i. pp. 230, 23L Nicoll's Diary, p. 
 342. 
 
A.D. 16G1.] OF SCOTLAND. 185 
 
 connection with tlie abolition of Presbyteriunism in Scotland. 
 In some respects the censure is just ; in others it is undeserved. 
 When he subscribed the Covenant and confirmed it by oath, 
 he bound himself to establish in England and Ireland a system 
 of faith and worship which was contrary to the laws of those 
 kingdoms, and disliked by the great majority of the people. 
 The promise which he then made was also given under 
 circumstances of constraint, and to observe it would have 
 been a greater sin than to break it. The obligation, however, 
 simply to maintain the Presbyterian discipline in Scotland, so 
 far as it can be viewed apart from the Covenant, was of a 
 different character. The king, soon after his father's death, 
 had offered of his own accord to make a promise to that effect, 
 and, in doing so, he merely agreed to preserve a system 
 already recognized by existing laws, and which was in 
 conformity with the wishes of the people. No doubt, accord- 
 ing to Henderson's reasoning at Newcastle, Cliarles was 
 entitled to disregard his promise, because the parliament had 
 freed him from its observance ; but, if his father's interpretation 
 of such obligations was the correct one, it was only the 
 general assembly, as representing those in whose favour he 
 made the promise, that could so release him. 
 
 But, besides these former promises, the king had given 
 repeated verbal assurances of his favour to the Presbyterian 
 establishment, and, in his letter to the Presbytery of Edin- 
 burgh, had mentioned his intention to protect and preserve 
 the Church as it was settled by law. The Protesters indeed 
 gave no faith to this promise, but the Resolutioners viewed it 
 as a pledge of the royal favour ; and such undoubtedly was its 
 obvious meaning. When the king made the assurances, and 
 wrote the letter referred to, there is no evidence that it had 
 been determined to restore Episcopacy. Charles himself 
 probably contemplated the preservation of the existing system, 
 and the Earl of Lauderdale, who, as secretary of state, 
 subscribed the letter, was at that time a zealous advocate 
 for Presbyterianism. So far, there is little reason to find 
 fault with the king's conduct; but the manner in which 
 the re-establishment of episcopal government was announ- 
 ced admits of no defence. To justify the changes by an ex- 
 press reference to the letter of August, 1660, and to pretend 
 
186 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXII. 
 
 that the repeal of the various statutes in favour of Presby- 
 terianism, which was effected by the influence of the crown, 
 made Episcopacy the form of church government, settled by 
 law, which he was now bound in terms of that letter to main- 
 tain, was a fraud and a delusion. This proceeding shook all 
 confidence in the king's sincerity, and excited a strong dislike 
 to the episcopal polity, at the very time when it was most 
 important to conciliate the uatioual feeling in its favour. 
 
A.D. 1661.] OF SCOTLAND. 187 
 
 CHAPTER LXIII. 
 
 FROM THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF EPISCOPACY IN SEPTEMBER, 1661, TO 
 THE MEETINGS OF THE DIOCESAN SYNODS IN OCTOBER, 1662. 
 
 Bishop Sydserf^His Ordinations in Enrjland — He is translated 
 to the see of Orkney — James Sharp is appointed to the see of 
 St. Andrews — Charge of treachery hrouyht against him hy 
 the Preshyterians — Examination of that charge — Andrew 
 Fairfoul^ Archbishop of Glasgow — Account of Robert 
 Leighton — He is named to the see of Dunblane — His hesi- 
 tation^ and final acceptance of the episcopal office — Conse- 
 cration of four Scottish Bishops at Westminster Abbey — 
 George Wishart, Bishop of Edinburgh— David Mitchell^ 
 Bishop of Aberdeen — Consecration of the other Scottish 
 Bishops — Meeting of Parliament — The diocesan synod of 
 St. Andrews — The diocesan synod of Edinburgh — The 
 diocesan synod of Dunblane — The diocesan synod of Aber- 
 deen. 
 
 The re-establishment of Episcopacy having been declared, 
 the king and his council had next to select fit persons to occupy 
 the vacant sees ; and, as the cathedral chapters no longer ex- 
 isted, this required to be done by a direct act of the royal 
 prerogative. The only surviving prelate was Sydserf, Bishop 
 of Galloway ; and it might have been expected that he would 
 be raised to the primacy, and that the other sees would be 
 conferred, for the most part, on the clergy who had all along 
 remained faithful to Episcopacy. This course is said to have 
 been recommended by Sheldon and the English bishops, but 
 it was not adopted. It was feared that the old clergy, if re- 
 stored to power, would be too unbending in their ecclesiastical 
 principles, and it was therefore resolved to fill most of the 
 sees with ministers of the late establishment. It is probable 
 that the latter course was strongly recommended by the Scot- 
 tish counsellors. These statesmen, who had all conformed to 
 Presbyterianism, and some of whom had taken an active part 
 in persecuting the adherents of Episcopacy, naturally preferred 
 
188 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY [Chap. LXIIL 
 
 as ecclesiastical rulers those whose opinions were not unlike 
 their own. But, whatever the precise reasons may have been 
 for the course which was adopted, the result did not answer 
 the expectations of its authors. 
 
 Sydserf, instead of being raised to the primacy, was trans- 
 lated to the see of Orkney, one of the best endowed of the 
 bishoprics, and more easily governed than his turbulent diocese 
 of Galloway. It is said that he had incurred the dislike of 
 the bishops in England, soon after the Restoration, by con- 
 ferring orders within that kingdom in an irregular manner, 
 and without requiring oaths or subscriptions. ^ 
 
 The primatial dignity was reserved for a person of differ- 
 ent principles. James Sharp, minister at Crail, in the dis- 
 charge of the various important commissions entrusted to him, 
 had shewn ability of a very high description. He was the 
 son of William Shcirp, sheriff-clerk of the county of Banff, 
 and was born at Banff in the year 1618. He received his 
 education at King's College, Aberdeen, while that university 
 was flourishing under the teaching of the doctors, and after- 
 wards resided in England, lleturning to his own country 
 subsequently to the expulsion of the bishops, he conformed to 
 the Presbyterian establishment, and, before he became a paro- 
 chial minister, was for some time a regent in St. Leonard's 
 College, St. Andrews. On the rise of the two parties of Reso- 
 lutioners and Protesters, he attached himself to the former, and, 
 at the period of the Restoration, was looked up to as one of the 
 ablest and most trustworthy of their leaders. 
 
 Sharp's negotiations in England and on the Continent, and 
 his return as bearer of the royal letter to the Presbytery of 
 
 1 Burnet, vol. i. p. 225-227. Pepys' Diary, Sd ed. vol. i. p. 242. Among 
 those whom Sydserf ordained was John Tillotson, afterwards Archbishop of 
 Canterbury ; see Birch's Life of Tillotson, 2d ed. pp. 18, 387. Matthias Sym- 
 Ron, canon of Lincoln, in his " Present State of Scotland," gives a somewhat 
 different account of Sydserf's proceedings in England. He says (ed. 1738, p. 
 243), " Dr. Sydserf, the surviving Scots bishop, being desired and allowed by the 
 Englitih bishops, ordained according to the Scots form several hundreds of the 
 Eno-lish Nonconformists, who had some scruples and objections against the Eng- 
 lish Ordinal. One of these was the famous Dr. Manton, who had been made no 
 more than a deacon by Bishop Hall of Exeter, yet officiated as a parish minister 
 many years both at Newington and Covent-garden ; but, being sensible of his 
 error he applied to the Bishop of Galloway for the order of a presbyter, from 
 whose hand he received it." 
 
A.D. 1G61.J OF SCOTLAND. 189 
 
 Edinburgh, have ah'cadj been related. He was appointed to 
 preach before the parliament on several occasions, particularly 
 on the twentj-tliird of April, the anniversary of the king's 
 coronation. He had been named one of the royal chaplains, 
 and was created doctor of divinity by the University of St. 
 Andrews, which thus once more resumed its ancient privilege 
 of conferring degrees in theology. In the end of April, he 
 accompanied the Earls of Glencairn and Rothes to London, 
 and returned with these noblemen when they brought back 
 the king's mandate for the re-establishment of Episcopacy. 
 On the fourteenth of November, a writ passed the great seal, 
 by which Dr. Sharp was nominated to the primatial and 
 metropolitan see of St. Andrews, with its whole rights, pri- 
 vileges, and immunities, as possessed by his immediate prede- 
 cessor. Archbishop Spottiswood. Some time before this, he 
 had received the royal command to repair to London.^ 
 
 The promotion of Sharp to the see of St. Andrews exposed 
 his conduct to severe animadversion. As time went on, the 
 violence with which he was assailed by a portion of the Pres- 
 byterians increased rather than diminished ; and the accusa- 
 tions against him gradually assumed the definite shape of a 
 charge that he had betrayed the trust reposed in him by those 
 who sent liim to London in 1660, and that the primacy was 
 the reward for which he had sacrificed his own convictions, 
 and the interests of his constituents. In an enquiry regarding 
 the justice of such a charge, it is important to keep in mind 
 what were the ecclesiastical opinions of Sharp himself, and of 
 those for whom he acted. His own opinions are to be gathered 
 more from the part which he took in the controversies of the 
 time, than from any formal enunciation ot them. Brought 
 up from childhood in one of the northern cou^tities, and edu- 
 cated at the University of Aberdeen, it is not likely that in 
 his youth he was predisposed to Puritanism. When the Na- 
 tional Covenant was adopted he was absent from Scotland, 
 and, though on his return he conformed to the new establish- 
 ment, there is no reason to suppose that he ever distinguished 
 himself by his zeal against Episcopacy. When he first as- 
 
 ^ Keitli's Catalogue, pp. 41, 42. Lawson, pp. 677, 678. Lyon's History of 
 St. Andrews, vol. ii. p. 381-388. Life of Robert Blair, p. 373. Acts of the 
 Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vii, p. 193. 
 
190 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIII- 
 
 sumed a prominent position, it was as one of the E-esolution- 
 ers, and he soon became a leading person among them, and a 
 formidable opponent of the extreme Pm-itanical or Protesting 
 faction. 
 
 It was avowedly for the maintenance of the ecclesiastical 
 principles held by the Resolutioners that Sharp was sent as 
 envoy to Monk, as he previously had been to Cromwell. 
 Dickson, Douglas, and the other ministers by whom he was 
 immediately commissioned, were, like himself, opposed to the 
 Protesters, but they were also vehement enemies and perse- 
 cutors of Episcopacy. They had joined in the worst excesses 
 of the Covenanting party during the reign of Charles the First, 
 and had shewn no disapprobation even of the execution of 
 Huntly and Montrose. They had only drawn back when 
 there was no choice between agreeing with the parliament 
 and submitting to Cromwell and the Independents. Almost 
 from the commencement of the correspondence between Sharp 
 and Douglas, it is obvious that there was a difference of 
 opinion between them. Douglas was anxious that the Protes- 
 ters should be compelled to submit to the majority of the Pres- 
 byterian party, represented by tlie assemblies of 1650 and 
 1651. He was also desirous that Presbyterianism should 
 not only be maintained in Scotland, but that, in terms of the 
 Solemn League and Covenant, it should be forced on Eng- 
 land and Ireland ; and slowly and with reluctance he finally 
 admitted the necessity of confining their efforts to its pre- 
 servation in their own country. Sharp, more acute and un- 
 prejudiced, soon discovered the hopelessness of endeavouring 
 to re-establish the supremacy of the Covenant, and evidently 
 felt no reluctance in giving up the attempt. He was satisfied 
 with a moderate Presbyterianism in Scotland, and had no 
 wish to impose the ecclesiastical system of his country on other 
 parts of the king's dominions, unless they were prepared to re- 
 ceive it. His sentiments in this respect were shared by most 
 of the party to which he belonged, of whose opinions he was 
 a more faithful representative than were the Edinburgh 
 ministers who acted as its leaders. That party, as early as 
 the year 1647, had shewn its real principles and objects, wlien 
 it attempted, under the guidance of Fairfoul and Colville, to 
 obtain a majority in the general assembly, and nearly sue- 
 
A.D. 1661.] OF SCOTLAND. 191 
 
 ceeded in preventing the election of Douglas himself as mode- 
 rator. Such being the position of Sharp, it is needless to say 
 how unjust it would be to view him as the agent of the whole 
 Presbyterian body. 
 
 The letters which passed between Sharp and Douglas, and 
 the other correspondence of the time, would afford an easy means 
 of detecting the treachery of the Scottish envoy, had he really 
 been faithless to his constituents. There is no evidence, how- 
 ever, of treachery. In his views of passing events, and in his 
 mode of dealing with the difficulties of his employment, he 
 differed frequently from those by whom he was immediately 
 commissioned, but he did so openly, and with a full explana- 
 tion of the reasons. The documents referred to shew that he 
 endeavoui-ed, to the best of his ability, to obtain the royal 
 protection for the Presbyterian system. Had he in deference 
 to the wishes of Douglas stood obstinately by the principles 
 of the Covenant, he would not have had the slightest prospect 
 of success, and Episcopacy would probably have been intro- 
 duced a twelvemonth sooner than it was. To the efforts made 
 by Sharp, and the strenuous support he received from Lauder- 
 dale, may be ascribed the promises of support which were 
 given to the Presbyterians. If the attempt failed, it was not 
 owing to any faithlessness or negligence on the part of the 
 envoy. ^ 
 
 Had S'aarp not been raised to the episcopate, he would 
 never hnve been charged with betraying his constituents. 
 It wa.3 that promotion which excited the wrath of his old 
 enemies the Protesters, and of a portion of his own party, and 
 which at the same time supplied a reasonable ground for be- 
 lieving that the accusation against him was well founded. 
 The documents which have hitherto been published do not 
 enable us to ascertain at what time he so far changed his sen- 
 timents, as to concur in the subversion of the ecclesiastical 
 system which he had formerly defended, and even to accept 
 
 ' The only direct evidence of treachery on the part of Sharp is what is men- 
 tioned by Burnet ; but that writer gives no authority for his statements, except 
 a story told by Sir Archibald Primrose, Clerk Eegister, a person with whom, he 
 himself says, "words went for nothing." It was the same person who was his 
 authority for the proposal of the Scottish nobles to massacre the supporters of 
 the sovereign, at the time of the alleged revocation of church grants by King 
 Charles the First. Compare Burnet, vol. i. pp. 35, 156, 157, 179, 186, 187. 
 
192 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIII. 
 
 the highest office in the polity which was set up in its place. 
 It is probable that the change was a gradual one, and that, 
 when he saw the cause of Presbyterianism to be utterly hope- 
 less, he resolved to conform to the prevailing opinions. 
 
 It is not difficult to ascertain the general principles by 
 which Sharp was actuated, or to arrive at a fair estimate of 
 his motives and character. So long as he was entrusted with 
 a commission for a specific purpose, he discharged his task 
 with faithfulness and ability. When he found that Presby- 
 terianism could no longer be maintained, he was not unwilling 
 to separate himself from a falling cause ; and the offer of the 
 primacy was a temptation not easy to be resisted by one of 
 his energetic, aspiring disposition. He was not a hypocritical 
 and dishonest traitor, but neither can he be viewed as a con- 
 scientious convert to the truth of the system which he 
 adopted. Had he merely submitted in silence to a change 
 which he could not prevent, his conduct might readily be ex- 
 cused ; but a person of strict rectitude, or even of high worldly 
 honour, would never, under such circumstances, have accepted 
 the office to which he allowed himself to be appointed. 
 
 Andrew Fairfoul, now minister at Dimse, was selected for 
 the arcliiepiscopal see of Glasgow. He also was summoned 
 to London, and, along with him, James Hamilton, minister 
 at Cambusnethan, and brother of Lord Belhaven, who had 
 been nominated to the see of Galloway, vacant by the trans- 
 lation of Bishop Sydserf. ^ 
 
 Robert Leighton, who was appointed to the see of Dun- 
 blane, had been resident in England during the autumn. 
 He was the son of Alexander Leighton, well known as 
 the author of one of the most virulent Puritanical libels 
 against the English Church, and for the cruel punishment 
 which he received on account of it. Robert Leighton was 
 born in the year 1611. The place of his birth has not been 
 clearly ascertained, but it was either Edinburgh or London, 
 more probably the former city. He received his education at 
 the College of Edinburgh, and afterwards resided on the Con- 
 tinent for several years, mingling freely with the members of 
 the Roman Catholic Church, and com])aring their opinions 
 and forms of worship with those of his countrymen. When 
 
 ' Keith's Catalogue, pp. 2G5, 281. 
 
A.D. 1661.] OF SCOTLAND. 193 
 
 about thirty years of age he returned to Scotland, and, receiv- 
 ing Presbyterian ordmation in December, 1641, was appointed 
 minister of the parish of Newbottle in Mid Lothian. He de- 
 voted himself to the duties of his pastoral office, and avoided, 
 as far as possible, the political discussions and ecclesiastical 
 controversies whicli formed the chief occupation of so many 
 among his brethren. He had subscribed the Covenant, but 
 he disliked the manner in which it was imposed on all classes, 
 and soon discovered the evil fruits of the persecuting and un- 
 charitable temper of its supporters. His conduct displeased 
 many of the ministers, although, as Burnet mentions, " all 
 the opposition he made to them was that he preached up 
 a more exact rule of life than seemed to them consistent with 
 human nature." " And yet," adds that historian, " his own 
 practice dideven outshine his doctrine." It was at this time that 
 he is said to have been blamed for not preaching to the times. 
 " Who," he asked, " does preach to the times ?" He was 
 told that all the brethren did so. " Then," he answered, " if 
 all of you preach to the times, you may surely allow one poor 
 brother to preach Christ Jesus and eternity." His style of 
 preaching, no less than the subjects of his sermons, was different 
 from what was then usual in Scotland. Baillie, referring to 
 Andrew Gray, one of the ministers of Glasgow, says, " He 
 has the new guise of preaching, which Mr. Hugh Binning 
 and Mr. Kobert Leighton began, contemning the ordinary way 
 of exponing and dividing a text, of raising doctrines and uses ; 
 but runs out in a discourse on some common head, in a hifrh, 
 romancing, unscriptural style, tickling the ear for the present, 
 and moving the affections in some, but leaving little or no- 
 thing to the memory and understanding." 
 
 Though avoiding the discussions in the church courts, 
 Leighton did not shrink from his political duties when it be- 
 came necessary to take a decided part. The indignities to 
 which Charles the First was subjected, and the patience with 
 which he bore them, must have made an Impi-ession on all 
 whose consciences were not bewildered, and whose hearts were 
 not hardened, by the evil principles of the time. When the 
 Scottish nobles entered into the engagement for the defence 
 of their sovereign, Leighton was one of the ministers wlio ap- 
 proved of their conduct. On the overthrow of Hamilton's 
 
 VOL. in.] i^ 
 
194 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chap. LXIII. 
 
 party, lie ran great risk of ecclesiastical censures, but was pro- 
 tected by the powerful influence of the Earl of Lothian. He 
 entered into a correspondence with Robert Burnet and otliers 
 who were favourable to Episcopacy, and became so much dis- 
 satisfied with the violent proceedings of the Presbyterians, 
 that he determined to resign his parochial charge. This re- 
 solution he carried into effect in the beginning of the year 
 1653. Soon afterwards, however, he accepted the appoint- 
 ment of Principal of the College of Edinburgh, and discharged 
 the duties of that office with the greatest reputation for learn- 
 ing and piety. During the college vacations, he frequently 
 visited London, and sometimes went across to Flanders, where 
 he became acquainted with several of the Jansenist divines. 
 
 He had a younger brother named Elisha, who had become 
 a Roman Catholic, had been knighted, and held the office of 
 secretary to the Duke of York. Bmnet mentions that it was 
 through the influence of Sir Elisha, who hoped thus to in- 
 crease his own consideration, that a bishopric was offered to 
 Leighton. He w\as reluctant at first to consent to the promo- 
 tion, and agreed to do so only on the king's peremptory order 
 to accept it unless he believed, in his conscience, that the epis- 
 copal office was unlawful. He preferred the diocese of Dun- 
 blane, both because it was of small extent, and because it had 
 the deanery of the chapel royal annexed to it, whereby he 
 would have an opportunity of encouraging the use of the Book 
 of Common Prayer, the beauty and advantages of which he 
 fully appreciated. He anticipated the objections which some 
 w^ould make to the step he had taken, but he had weighed the 
 whole matter, and was prepared to abide by his deliberate con- 
 viction. He was cheered also by the hope that his acceptance 
 of the episcopal dignity would be a means of uniting well- 
 disposed persons who held different opinions as to church 
 government. To his friend, James Aird, who appears to have 
 doubted the expediency of his accepting the episcopate, he thus 
 wrote before giving his final consent : — " What will you say 
 if there be in this thing somewhat of that you mention and 
 would allow of reconciling the devout on different sides, and of 
 enlarging those good souls you meet with from their little 
 fetters, though possibly with little success ? Yet the design 
 is commendable, pardonable at least. However, one comfort 
 
A.D. 1661.] OP SCOTLAND. 195 
 
 I have, that in what is pressed on me there is the least of my 
 ovm choice, yea, on the contrary, the strongest aversion tliat 
 ever I had to any thing in all my life ; the difficulty, in short, 
 lies in a necessity of either owning a scruple which I liave 
 not, or the rudest disobedience to authority that may be. The 
 truth is, I am yet importuning and struggling for a liberation, 
 and look upward for it ; but, whatsoever be the issue, I look 
 beyond it, and this weary, weary, wi-etched life, through which 
 the Hand I have resigned to, I trust, will lead me in the path 
 of his own choosing ; and, so T may please Him, I am satis- 
 fied." i 
 
 The prelates nominate being now assembled at London, ar- 
 rangements were made for their consecration. This solemn rite 
 was conducted with more formality and attention to canonical 
 order than it had been in 1610, The place selected was 
 Westminster Abbey, and the day was the fifteenth of Decem- 
 ber, the third Sunday in Advent. As on the former occasion, 
 it was resolved that neither of the English archbishops should 
 take any part. A discussion arose, similar to what had occur- 
 red fifty years before, regarding the orders of two of the pre- 
 lates ; but the result was different. Fairfoul and Hamilton 
 had been ordained by the Scottish bishops of the old succes- 
 sion, and as to them there was no question. Sharp and Leigh- 
 ton, however, had received only Presbyterian ordination, and it 
 was proposed by the English bishops that, before being con- 
 secrated, they should be ordained deacons and priests. Leigh- 
 ton at once acquiesced. His opinions on the subject of 
 ordination were very lax. While preferring Episcopacy as a 
 form of government, and believing it to be sanctioned by the 
 practice of the apostolic age, he thought that a person ordained 
 in one Church might lawfully accept a second ordination in 
 another, merely in compliance with its rules, although the 
 first was perfectly valid. Sharp was unwilling to admit the 
 invalidity of his orders, and appealed in defence of his scruples 
 to what had taken place at the consecration of 1610. Sheldon, 
 
 1 Pearson's Life of Leigliton, prefixed to his Works, ed. 1830, pp. xi-xxvii, 
 xxxvii-xliii. Burnet, vol. i. p. 228-235. Baillie, vol. iii- pp. 258, 259. See 
 also Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the reiccn of Charles I., 1628- 
 29, pp. 102, 103, 486, 554. Andrew Gray and Hugh Binning, referred to in 
 the extract from Baillie, were young ministers of the Protesting party, of grca( 
 promise, who died before the Restoration. 
 
196 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY Chap. LXIIL 
 
 however, and the other English bishops, held higher views 
 regarding Episcopacy than most of their predecessors in the 
 time of Bancroft. They also maintained that, whatever might 
 have been allowable then, when Scotland received canonical 
 bishops for the first time since the Reformation, it was very 
 different now, when it had wilfully rejected Episcopacy, and 
 when no plea of necessity for irregular orders could be adduced. 
 Sharp reluctantly submitted, and he and Leighton were pri- 
 vately ordained deacons and priests. This preliminary point 
 having been settled, the four Scottish prelates were consecrated 
 by the Bishops of London, Worcester, Carlisle, and Landaif.^ 
 
 Burnet relates that, after the consecration, Leighton en- 
 deavoured to prevail on Sharp to go along with him in two 
 plans which he had much at heart — one for inducing the 
 Presbyterians to submit to Episcopacy, the other for persuad- 
 ing the Scottish people to embrace a liturgical form of worsliip. 
 The primate, he says, appeared unwilling to enter into these 
 proposals, suggesting that every bishop should first do what 
 he could in his own diocese to obtain submission to his autho- 
 rity, and afterwards that more general measures might be 
 adopted. The historian censures the conduct of Sharp, but 
 the caution which he shewed was, at this time, probably wise 
 and prudent. 2 
 
 After remaining in England for some months, the newly 
 onsecrated prelates returned to their own country. Leighton, 
 who disliked the ceremonial of a public reception, left his 
 brethren at Morpeth, and arrived in Scotland before them. 
 The others came to Berwick in the beginning of April. Many 
 noblemen, gentlemen, and burgesses, left the capital to meet 
 them — some going to Musselburgh, some to Haddington, and 
 others as far as Cockburnspath — and accompanied them to 
 Edinburgh, where they were received with every demonstra- 
 tion of welcome. 
 
 One of the first duties of the prelates was to confer con- 
 secration on the persons nominated to the other sees. The 
 most important of these bishoprics was Edinburgh, and it is 
 said that Sharp was authorised to offer it to Douglas, but tliat 
 he could not persuade him to accept. The primate may 
 
 1 Wilkins's Concilia, vol. iv. pp. 573, 574. Burnet, vol. i. pp. 237, 238. 
 
 2 Curntt, vol. i. p. 239. 
 
A.D. 1661.] OF SCOTLAND. 197 
 
 naturally have wished to have among his colleagues the most 
 influential of the Resolutioners, and one with whom he had 
 been on such terms of intimacy. The refusal of Douglas was 
 honourable to his cliaracter, and it was well for the Church 
 and for himself that he adopted that course. He was among 
 the most able and respectable of the Presbyterian ministers, 
 but he had taken a prominent part in all the proceedings 
 against Episcopacy. Had he accepted a bishopric, he would 
 at once have lost his influence, and would have exposed him- 
 self to censures far more severe than justly could be bestowed 
 on Sharp. 
 
 The see of Edinburgh found a worthier occupant in Dr. 
 Wishart. This clergyman was descended from a respectable 
 family in Angus, and, as already mentioned, had been de- 
 prived of his parochial charge at St. Andrews, for his adherence 
 to Episcopacy, and had been severely persecuted by the 
 Covenanters. When Montrose left Scotland, Wishart accom- 
 panied him, and occupied his leisure in the composition of the 
 Latin History which contributed so much to extend the fame 
 of the marquis. He was for some time chaplain to Elizabeth 
 of Bohemia ; and, when that princess visited England in 
 1660, he returned with her. He was restored to the office 
 which he had formerly occupied, that of lecturer of St. 
 Nicholas' church, in Newcastle-on-Tyne, an appointment which 
 he held at tlie time of his nomination to the see of Edinburgh. 
 
 A brief notice will be sufficient in regard to most of the 
 other appointments. George Haliburton, minister at Perth, 
 was named to Dunkeld ; Murdoch Mackenzie, minister at 
 Elgin, to Mun-ay; Patrick Forbes, son of John Forbes 
 minister at Alford, and nephew of Bishop Patrick Forbes, to 
 Caithness ; John Paterson, minister at Aberdeen, to Ross ■ 
 and David Strachan, minister at Fettercairn, to Brechin. They 
 all belonged to the party of the Resolutioners, and Mackenzie 
 had sat as a member of the Glasgow assembly of 1638. 
 David Fletcher was named to the see of Argyll. He had been 
 one of the clergy of Edinburgh during the establishment of 
 Episcopacy, and had been deprived of his office ; but he was 
 restored to ministerial functions in 1639, on his submitting 
 to the Covenanters. At the time of his nomination he was 
 minister at Melrose. Robert Wallace, who was appointed to 
 
198 * ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chap. LXIII. 
 
 the see of the Isles, was minister at Barnwell in Ayrshire, and 
 was an active person among the Resolutioners of the West. 
 All these were persons of respectable character, but not one 
 among them was remarkable for learning or ability. 
 
 One other appointment remains to be noticed. Aberdeen 
 was the only diocese in which the clergy and people, at the 
 commencement of the rebellion, had shewn a strong attach- 
 ment to Episcopacy ; and it had recently distinguished itself 
 by the unanimous declaration of its synod in favour of the 
 ancient polity. It was probably felt that these circumstances 
 called for the nomination as bishop of some one who had shewn 
 himself a consistent supporter of the hierarchy. The clergy- 
 man selected was David Mitchell, formerly minister at 
 Edinburgh, and recently created a doctor of divinity at 
 Oxford, and appointed a prebendary of Westminster. A 
 better choice could not have been made. Dr. IMitchell 
 was the son of a farmer at Garvock, in the Mearus. His 
 piety, learning, and spotless reputation, had been unable 
 to preserve him from the severest censures of the Cove- 
 nanters at the Glasgow assembly. He was a zealous 
 disciple of tlie theological school of Laud, and the personal 
 friend of Bishop William Forbes and Bishop Maxwel ; and 
 these were offences which could not be forgiven. He was ob- 
 liged to flee from his own country, and it is said that he held 
 for some time a benefice in England; but he was finally 
 obliged to take refuge on the Continent. Like others of the 
 banished clergy, he was reduced to great poverty, and in Hol- 
 land had to maintain himself by his skill as a watchmaker.^ 
 
 On Wednesday the seventh of May, the bishops nominate 
 of Dunkeld, Murray, Ross, Caithness, Brechin, and the Isles, 
 were consecrated in the abbey church of Holy rood. The con- 
 secrating prelates were the two archbishops, and the Bishop 
 of Galloway, and the form used was that in the English Ordi- 
 nal. The archbishops and the Bishop of Galloway wore their 
 episcopal habits ; the sermon was preached by James Gordon, 
 
 ^ Burnet, vol. i. pp. 242, 243. Baillie, vol. iii. p. 485. Nicoll's Diary, pjK 
 363, 364. Walker's Sufferings of the Clergy, part ii. pp. 403, 404. Keith's 
 Catalogue, pp. 62, 133. Wodrow, vol. i. pp. 286, 237, 255. Peterkin's Re- 
 cords of the Kirk, p. 261. Collections for a History of the Shires of Aberdeen 
 and Banff, p- 168. Wood's Fasti Oxonienses, part ii. pp. 251, 257. 
 
A.D. 16G1.] OF SCOTLAND. 199 
 
 minister at Drumblade in the diocese of Aberdeen ; and the 
 royal commissioner, many of the nobility and gentry, and the 
 magistrates of Edinburgh, were present. It is probable that 
 most, if not all, of the newly consecrated prelates had formerly 
 received episcopal ordination ; but, if any of them had merely 
 Presbyterian orders, there is no evidence that they were re- 
 ordained. 
 
 The Bishops nominate of Edinburgh and Aberdeen had 
 been detained for some time in England. They were conse- 
 crated at St. Andrews, on Sunday the first of June, by the 
 primate, and the Bishops of Dunkeld and ]\Iurray. The 
 Bishop of Argyll was soon afterwards consecrated at Glasgow, 
 by his metropolitan, Archbishop Fairfoul : it is not mentioned 
 who assisted at the consecration.^ 
 
 In the meantime, the civil government proceeded with the 
 steps necessary for the full establishment of Episcopacy. On 
 the twelfth of December, the privy council forbade presenta- 
 tions to benefices to be addressed to presbyteries, and enjoined 
 the presbyteries not to admit ministers on any presentation so 
 directed. On the second of January, a royal letter was laid 
 before the council, by which the king, referring to his former 
 temporary sanction of the existing ecclesiastical courts till 
 church government should be properly settled, now withdrew 
 the sanction so given, and declared that the jurisdiction in the 
 several synods, presbyteries, and sessions, should be by the 
 appointment and authority of the archbishops and bishops 
 according to law ; and forbade all meetings of those courts till 
 they should be authorised by the prelates on entering to the 
 government of their several sees. Most of the presbyteries 
 submitted to these injunctions ; and the supplications of a few, 
 particularly in Galloway, who petitioned against them, were 
 disregarded. 2 
 
 The parliament met at Edinburgh on the eighth of May, 
 the Earl of Middleton continuing to hold the office of royal 
 
 1 Baillie, vol. iii. p. 486. Nicoll's Diaiy, pp. 365, 366. Life of Robert Blair, 
 pp. 406, 407, 410, 415. Lamont's Diary, pp. 184, 185. Wodrow, vol. i. p, 
 256. There is some discrepancy as to tlie precise times when the various bishops 
 were consecrated, but Row, in his continuation of the Life of Blair, gives a 
 distinct and correct account. Burnet expressly states (vol. i. p. 242) that the 
 six bishops consecrated at Edinburgh were not ordained priests and deacons. 
 
 2 Wodrow, vol. i. pp. 234, 235, 248-253. 
 
200 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIII. 
 
 commissioner. The iirst act which was passed, ratified the 
 late appointment of bishops, and declared that it was fit that 
 the ancient constitution of the estates should be restored, and 
 the clergy have their place and vote as formerly. A deputa- 
 tion was then named, consisting of peers, barons, and burgesses, 
 to wait on the archbisliops and bishops, who were assembled 
 at the primate's lodgings, and invite them, in the king's name, 
 to take their former place in parliament. The two archbishops, 
 and the Bishops of Galloway, Dunkeld, Murray, Eoss, Brechin, 
 Caithness, and the Isles, were accordingly introduced, and 
 took the oaths as lords of parliament. In the course of the 
 session all the bishops took their seats. 
 
 On the twenty-seventh of May, an act was passed for the 
 restitution of the ancient government of the Church by arch- 
 bishops and bishops. The preamble set forth, that the 
 ordering of the external polity of the Church belonged to his 
 majesty, as an inherent right of the crown, and by virtue of his 
 royal supremacy in causes ecclesiastical ; that the ancient and 
 sacred order of bishops had been cast off during the late rebel- 
 lion ; and that, in consequence thereof, the rights of the crown, 
 the authority of parliament, and the liberties of the subjects, had 
 been greatly injured. The act then proceeded to declare that 
 all the former rights of the episcopate, civil and ecclesiastical, 
 with all former statutes in favour of the same, should be re- 
 stored and re-established ; and that whatever his majesty, 
 with the advice of the archbishops and bishops, and of such 
 of the clergy as he might nominate, should determine regard- 
 ing the external government of the Church, the same being 
 consistent with law, should be valid and effectual. 
 
 By another statute, passed on the eleventh of June, all 
 ministers admitted to benefices since the year 1649, when 
 the rights of patrons were unjustly taken away, were declared 
 to have no right to the same, and their churches were made 
 ipso jure vacant ; but it was enacted that every such minister, 
 who should, before the twentieth day of September following, 
 obtain a presentation from the lawful patron, and collation 
 from the bishop of the diocese, should possess his benefice 
 as fully and freely as if he had been lawfully presented 
 at his entry ; and patrons were enjoined to grant presenta- 
 tions to the existing incumbents who should apply for the same. 
 
A.D. 1662.] OF SCOTLAND. 201 
 
 By another act, all persons holding offices of public trust 
 were ordered to subscribe a declaration, by which the entering 
 into leagues and covenants, and taking up arms against the 
 king, were condemned, and the National Covenant, and the 
 Solemn League and Covenant, were denounced as unlawful. 
 
 A statute was passed during this session of parliament, 
 to provide a chapter for the diocese of Argyll, which, 
 since the Reformation, had been without any capitular con- 
 stitution. The minister of Kilmaluage in Lismore was 
 to be the Dean, and the minister of Loehgoilhead Arch- 
 deacon ; the other members being a Treasurer, Chancellor, 
 Precentor, and three prebendaries, all holding certain paro- 
 chial benefices within the diocese. By another act, the 
 dignity of Archdeacon, in the chapter of the Isles, which had 
 been omitted in the new constitution of 1617, was restored, 
 and certain benefices in Skye were attached to the office. 
 
 The estates were adjourned on the ninth of September.^ 
 
 On the tenth of September, 1662, the lords of council 
 gave notice that the diocesan synods of St. Andrews, Glasgow, 
 Edinburgh, Dunkeld, Brechin, and Dunblane, would be held 
 on the second Tuesday of October following, and those of 
 Galloway, Aberdeen, Murray, Ross, Caithness, the Isles, 
 Argyll, and Orkney, on the third Tuesday of the same month ; 
 and they commanded all parsons, vicars, and other ministers, 
 to repair to their several synods at the time appointed. The 
 diocesan synods met accordingly, and the notices of their pro- 
 ceedings which remain shew that the chief subjects of discus- 
 sion must have been arranged beforehand. In the North they 
 were well attended, but it was otherwise in the southern and 
 western dioceses. Out of about two hundred and forty minis- 
 ters in the diocese of Glasgow, it is said that only thirty-two 
 were present, and that in the dioceses of Galloway and 
 Argyll none attended, except the deans. 
 
 At the meeting of the diocesan synod of St. Andrews, most 
 of the ministers from Angus, Mearns, and Perthshire, were 
 present, but a large number of those from Fife declined to 
 attend. The primate enjoined his clergy to substitute read- 
 ing of the Scriptures for lecturing ; to repeat the Doxology and 
 
 ' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vii. pp. 367, 374, 376, 390, 403, 
 405, 406. VVodrow, vol. i. p. 255-279. 
 
202 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY [Chap. LXIII. 
 
 the Lord's Prayer in public worship ; and to use the Apostles' 
 Creed at Baptism. He also named constant moderators for 
 the several presbyteries in his diocese. 
 
 The synod of Edinburgh met on the fourteenth of October, 
 and was attended by fifty-eight ministers. Out of respect to 
 its first meeting, the king's advocate, one of the lords of coun- 
 cil, and the magistrates of Edinburgh, were present as specta- 
 tors. The bishop preached, taking his text from the fifth 
 verse of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians, 
 " Let your moderation be known unto all men ; the Lord is 
 at hand." Two from each presbytery were appointed as a 
 committee to arrange the business, under the name of " the 
 brethren of the conference." It was agreed that there should 
 be daily prayer, morning and evening, in the churches of all 
 burghs, and other places where a considerable number of 
 people could be collected ; that the Lord's Prayer should be 
 repeated once at least during divine service ; that the Doxology 
 should again be introduced ; and that the Creed should be said 
 at Baptism. The synod was appointed to meet again after 
 Easter in the following year. 
 
 Bishop Leighton, anticipating the time ordered by the 
 council, met his clergy at Dunblane on the fifteenth of Sep- 
 tember. After a sermon by the bishop, and prayers, the 
 names of the clergy were called over. Only a few were absent, 
 most of whom sent an excuse. The synod unanimously 
 agreed to certain proposals made by the bishop, which were 
 arranged under two heads, Discipline and Worship, and 
 were to the following effect: — 
 
 " For Discipline. 
 
 " First, That all diligence be used for repressing of profane- 
 ness, and the advancement of solid piety and holiness ; and 
 therefore, 
 
 " Secondly, That not only scandals of unchastity, but 
 drunkenness, swearing and cursing, filthy speaking, and mock- 
 ing of religion, and all other gross offences, be brought under 
 churcli censure. 
 
 " Thirdly, That scandalous offenders be not absolved till 
 there appear in them probable signs of true repentance. 
 
 " Fourthly, That enquiry be made by the minister, not 
 only into the knowledge, but the practice and tract of life of 
 
A.D. 1662.] OF SCOTLAND. 203 
 
 those that arc to be admitted to the Holy Communion, and 
 all profane and evidently impenitent persons be secluded, till 
 their better conversation and obedience to the Gospel be more 
 apparent. 
 
 " Fifthly, That family prayer be enquired after ; and that 
 they that can, be exhorted to join with it the reading of the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 " For Worship. 
 
 " First, That instead of lecturing and preaching both at one 
 meeting, larger portions of the Holy Scriptures, one whole 
 chapter at least of each Testament, and Psalms withal, be 
 constantly read ; and this, not as a byework while they are 
 convening, but after the people are well convened, and the 
 worship solemnly begun, with confession of sins and prayer, 
 either by the minister, or some fit person by him appointed. 
 
 " Secondly, That the Lord's Prayer be restored to more 
 frequent use, and likewise the Doxology and the Creed. 
 
 " Thirdly, That daily public prayer in churches, morning 
 and evening, with reading the Scriptures, be used where it 
 can be had conveniently, and the people exhorted to frequent 
 them, not so as to think that this should excuse them from 
 daily private prayer in their families, and in secret, but rather 
 as a help to enable them and dispose them the more for both 
 these. And let the constant use of secret prayer be recom- 
 mended to all persons, as the great instrument of sanctifying 
 tlic soul, and of entertaining and increasing the love of God. 
 
 " Fourthly, That the younger sorts and the ignorant be 
 diligently catechized at fit times all the year through, and 
 so this not wholly laid over on some days or weeks before the 
 celebration of the Communion, but that the trial at that time 
 be rather of their good conversation, and due disposition for 
 partaking that holy ordinance, as was said before, in an article 
 touching Discipline. 
 
 " Fifthly, That ministers use some short form of Catechiz- 
 ing, such as they may require account of, till some common 
 form be agreed on. 
 
 " Sixthly, That preaching be plain and useful for all capa- 
 cities, not entangled with useless questions and disputes, nor 
 continued to wearisome length ; the great and most necessary 
 principles of religion most frequently treated upon, and often- 
 
204 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIII. 
 
 times larger portions of Scripture explained, and suitable in- 
 structions and exhortations thence deduced ; and that the ser- 
 mon at that time be doubtless as truly preaching and useful, 
 if not more, than insisting for one whole sermon or more upon 
 one short verse or sentence." 
 
 In an address to the synod, the bishop said, that both he 
 and they ought to recollect what an eminent degree of piety 
 both of heart and life their holy calling required. He ex- 
 horted them to contempt of the world, and to have their 
 affections inflamed towards heaven, the whole springing from 
 a deep persuasion within them of those things which they 
 preached to others, from daily meditation upon them, and fer- 
 vent prayer. He exhorted them to be meek and gentle, lovers 
 of peace, public and private, and to endeavour rather to quench 
 than increase the useless debates and contentions which 
 abounded in the world ; and to be always more studious of 
 pacific than polemic divinity, the former of which was much 
 the more divine, the students in it being called the sons of 
 God. 
 
 Bishop Mitchell held his diocesan synod on the twenty- 
 first of October. In the morning, he preached in his 
 cathedral church, and the clergy afterwards met in the chapel 
 of King's College. Only nine ministers were absent, some of 
 whom were excused on account of sickness and old age. As 
 at Edinburgh, assessors were appointed for a privy conference 
 in regard to the subjects of discussion. 
 
 It was enacted by the bishop, with consent of the synod, 
 that there should be readers of the Scriptures in each congre- 
 gation, who, after a set form of prayer, especially the Lord's 
 Prayer, were to read portions of the Psalter and Old Testa- 
 ment ; after which to repeat the Creed ; then to read a portion 
 of the New Testament ; and to conclude by rehearsing the Ten 
 Commandments. It was also ordered that Morning and 
 Evening Prayers should be said, especially at Old and New 
 Aberdeen, Banff, Old Deer, Peterhead, Fraserburgh, Kintore, 
 Inverury, Kincardine O'Neil, Turriff, Cullen, Ellon, Tarves, 
 Fordyce, Monymusk, and Banchory Ternan ; and that the 
 Liturgy in the old Psalm Book should be used. 
 
 It was farther enjoined that Private Baptism and Private 
 Communion should not be denied by any minister, when they 
 
A.D 1662.] OF SCOTLAND. 205 
 
 sliould be earnestly desired. The Directory sanctioned by 
 the Late pretended general assemblies was forbidden to be 
 used in time coming. 
 
 Every minister was ordered to choose a certain number of 
 the best qualified persons in the parish to assist him in the 
 inspection and oversight of the people. The brethren of the 
 several exercises were not to pronounce any sentence of ex- 
 communication, or grant licences to preach, or suspend or 
 depose ministers, except with the warrant and authority of the 
 bishop. 
 
 Every minister was enjoined to subscribe a promise of ca- 
 nonical obedience in the following form : — " I, A. B. do pro- 
 fess and promise, that I will render to my Ordinary, David, 
 by the mercy of God, Lord Bishop of Aberdeen, and his suc- 
 cessors, due canonical obedience, and to them to wliom the 
 government and charge is committed over me, following with 
 a glad mind and will their godly admonitions." In their 
 public prayers ministers were to pray for the king, as supreme 
 governor, under Christ, over all persons, and in all causes, 
 civil and ecclesiastical, and also for the archbishops and bishops 
 of the Church, and their ordinary by name. It was recom- 
 mended that the people should pray either standing or kneel- 
 ing, these being the most reverent postures in prayer ; and 
 that they should stand while the Doxology was sung. 
 
 At the meeting of the twenty-fourth of October, it was 
 reported that the promise of canonical obedience had been sub- 
 scribed by all the members of synod, except a few in the 
 exercise of Aberdeen, who asked and were allowed some time 
 to consider ; and, with the exception also of John Menzies, pro- 
 fessor of divinity in the Marischal College, and George Meldrum, 
 one of the ministers of Aberdeen, who declined to request 
 such indulgence, and were suspended in consequence. 
 
 Both Menzies and Meldrum afterwards conformed to the 
 established order. ^ 
 
 The decease of several of the Covenanting leaders took 
 place in the year 1662. The Earl of Loudon, formerly Chan- 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. i. pp. 280, 281. NicoU's Diary, pp. 380, 381. Lament's 
 Diary, pp. 196, 197. Life of Robert Blair, p. 425-427. Scottish Ecclesiastical 
 Journal, vol. iii. p. 103. Leighton's Works, vol iv. p. 395-398. Selections 
 from the Ecclesiastical Records of Aberdeen, p. 262-269, and preface, p. Ixi. 
 
206 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIII. 
 
 cellor of Scotland, died on the fifteenth of March. With the 
 exception of llotlies and Henderson, no one had been more 
 active in promoting the National Covenant ; and, notwith- 
 standing his political changes, and the irregularity of his 
 private life, he retained to the last a high reputation among 
 the Puritans. Robert Baillie died at Glasgow in the end of 
 August. He had been treated as courteously by Archbishop 
 Fairfoul, as he had been twenty-five years before by Arch- 
 bishop Lindsay, and he enjoyed the favour of Glencairn and 
 Lauderdale. But he felt keenly the overthrow of a system, 
 for which he had renounced the opinions of his early days, 
 and which it had been the work of his manhood to build up ; 
 and the ecclesiastical changes which were taking place seem 
 to have hastened his end. David Dickson, who had been 
 ejected from his office of professor of divinity in the College of 
 Edinburgh, died in the month of December. Andrew Cant 
 and Robert Blair did not long survive. The former died on 
 the thirtieth of April, 1663 ; the latter, who had been com- 
 pelled to give up his charge at St. Andrews, on the twenty- 
 seventh of August, 1666.^ 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. i. p. 288. Burnet, vol. i. p. 75. Life of Baillie, prefixed to 
 Mr. Laing's edition of bis Letters, p. Ixxxiii. Wodrow's Life of Dickson — Select 
 Biographies, edited for the Wodrow Society, vol. ii. pp. 12, 13. Gordon's Scots 
 Affairs, vol. ii. p. 165, note. Life of Kobert Blair, p. 495. 
 
A.D. 16G2.] OF SCOTLAND. 207 
 
 CHAPTER LXIV. 
 
 FROM THE MEETINGS OF THE DIOCESAN S"VTS[ODS IN OCTOBER, 1662, TO THE 
 APrOINTJIENT OF BISHOP SCOUGAL TO THE SEE OF ABERDEEN IN 
 JANUARY, 1664. 
 
 Act of the Privy Council at Glasgow — Resignation of Protest- 
 ing ministers in the South — Act of the Privy Council at 
 Edinlurgh — Dejprivation of Nonconformist ministers — 
 Banishment of John Livingstone — Deprivation of Robert 
 Douglas, and other ministers of Edinburgh — Death of 
 Bishop Mitchell — Execution of Johnstone of Warriston — 
 Act regarding deprived ministers — Death of Bishop 
 Sydsevf — Alexander Burnet appointed to the see of Glas- 
 gow — Pati'ich Scougal appointed to the see of Aberdeen — 
 Government, Doctrines, and Ritual of the restored Church. 
 
 The act of parliament of the eleventh of June declared that 
 all ministers, admitted since the year 1649, should be deprived 
 of their benefices, unless before the twentieth of September 
 tliej obtained presentation from the patrons of their several 
 churches, and collation from then- bishops. Another statute, 
 passed on the same day, had renewed an act of the previous 
 session of parliament for the observance of the twenty-ninth of 
 May, the anniversary of the king's restoration, as a holy-day, 
 and ordained that all ministers who refused to keep it should 
 lose their benefices. 
 
 About the end of September, the Earl of Middleton, and 
 others of the council, repaired to the West, in order, by their 
 presence, to secm-e a more ready obedience to the laws. On 
 their arrival at Glasgow, the archbishop informed them that, 
 though the day appointed by the statute was past, few minis- 
 ters in his diocese had applied for collation ; and he is said to 
 have urged them to carry out the provisions for enforcing con- 
 formity. The council met at Glasgow on the first of October, 
 and passed an act, by which all ministers, who had not ap- 
 plied for presentation in terms of the statute, were forbidden 
 to exercise any part of their functions in their several churches 
 
208 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIV. 
 
 in time to come, and were ordered to remove themselves and 
 their families from their parishes before the first of November, 
 and not to reside within the boimds of their several presby- 
 teries. And it was also ordained that those ministers, who 
 had contravened the act regarding the anniversary of the 
 king's restoration, should be liable to the penalties therein 
 contained. A considerable number of the Protesters, antici- 
 pating some such enactment, had arranged their course of pro- 
 ceeding. They had agreed to continue in their benefices, not- 
 withstanding the lapse of the period mentioned in the statute, 
 but to give up officiating at once, on the appearance of any 
 proclamation for enforcing the law. They were determined 
 not to acknowledge the authority of the bishops by receiving 
 collation at their hands ; and they hoped that the resignation 
 of so large a body at one time would embarrass the govern- 
 ment, and render it impossible to fill tlie vacant cures. Ac- 
 cordingly, on the publication of the act of council, these 
 ministers at once ceased to officiate. 
 
 The privy council were alarmed by the consequences of their 
 own proceedings. They had hoped that the proclamation 
 would lead to off'ers of submission from the refractory minis- 
 ters, and did not believe that any considerable number would 
 give up their benefices. The primate also disapproved of 
 what had been done ; and, by another act of council, dated at 
 Edinburgh, on the twenty-third of December, the ministers were 
 allowed to apply for presentation and collation up to the first 
 of February ensuing. The indulgence thus given induced 
 several of those who had ceased officiating to take the benefit 
 of the act, and resume their duties ; but, when the first 
 of February came, many ministers in the dioceses of Glas- 
 gow, Galloway, Edinburgh, St. Andrews, and Argyll, and 
 a few in other parts of the kingdom, resigned their bene- 
 fices, rather than submit to the conditions imposed. In 
 the course of the year 1663, others were deposed for refus- 
 ing to attend the meetings of the diocesan synods. Among 
 the ministers, who thus resigned or were ejected, were a few 
 of the most distinguished Resolutioners, and nearly the whole 
 of the Protesting party. They gave up every eartlily posses- 
 sion, and exposed themselves to the risk of further punish- 
 ment, rather than sacrifice their conscientious convictions, and 
 
AD. 1002. J OF SCOTLAND. 209 
 
 yield obedience to a form of church government which they 
 believed to be unlawful in itself, and imposed by an unlawful 
 authority. 
 
 Many of the deprived ministers had won the attachment of 
 their congregations by the zeal with which they dischargeJ 
 their pastoral duties, and by the familiar manner in which they 
 associated with persons of all ranks. Their successors were 
 generally young men from the northern dioceses, whose eccle- 
 siastical principles were entirely opposed to those of the 
 Protesters. Even if they had been in every respect un- 
 exceptionable in point of character, they would have found 
 it a difficult task to conciliate the affections of the people. 
 But the numerous vacancies could hardly have been supplied 
 at once, without the promotion of some who Avere unworthy, 
 or ill qualified 5 and the faults of individuals were attributed 
 to the whole body. With an utter disregard for truth, the 
 curates, as the new incumbents were called by the western, 
 peasantry, have been represented as almost without exception 
 vicious in their conduct, and contemptible in their manners 
 and attainments. 1 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. i. pp. 281-286, 324-336. Burnet, vol. i. p. 259-269. Kirkton, 
 pp. 149152, 160-163. Life of Robert Blair, pp. 423, 424, 432. Mackenzie, 
 pp. 77, 78. There is much exaggeration in the accounts generally given of the 
 numbers of those who lost their benefices in consequence of the Act of Glasgow. 
 Kirkton says that out of the nine hundred ministers in Scotland, three hundred 
 were turned out ; Wodrow, evidently relying on Kirkton, that nearly a third part 
 of the ministers of the Church were cast out of their charges. Sir George 
 Mackenzie, who mentions that the Act was blamed by all wise and good men, 
 reduces the number to two hundred ; and Burnet agrees with this, adding that 
 one hundred and fifty more were to be ejected for not attending the diocesan 
 synods. In the want of precise and trustworthy information, there are some 
 means of testing the numbers given. The Act of Glasgow, though it referred also 
 to the observance of the twenty-ninth of May, was mainly directed against minis- 
 ters who had entered on their benefices subsequently to the abolition of patronage 
 in 1649. The resignations which took place in consequence would seem to 
 have been limited to the dioceses of Glasgow, Galloway, and, perhaps, Argyll. 
 There is no evidence that any i-esigned their benefices at this time in the dioceses 
 beyond the Forth. In the diocesan synod of Edinburgh it had been agreed to 
 give indulgence till the twenty-fifth of November ; and, before that day came, it 
 was known that a farther delay was to be granted by the council. The whole 
 number of ministers in Scotland was, as Kirkton states with sufficient ac- 
 curacy, about nine hundred ; and of these there were about three hundred in the 
 dioceses of Glasgow, Galloway, and Argyll. About fifty ministers in those 
 dioceses conformed to the new establishment ; and, although the Protesting 
 VOL. III.] 25 
 
210 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chai'. LXIV. 
 
 The indulgence given bj the privy council in December did 
 not stop the course of proceedings in the case of persons 
 against whom judicial steps had already been taken, nor did it 
 apply to those who were exposed to punishment on other 
 grounds. Few of the Protesting ministers were more popular 
 tlian Livingstone. He was not liable to ejection under the 
 statute regarding patronage, as he had received a presentation 
 to his benefice in 1G48 from the patron, the Earl of Lothian. 
 He had not indeed observed the twenty-ninth of May, but this 
 would probably have been overlooked, if he had not attracted 
 the attention of the government by collecting a large assem- 
 blage at the celebration of his communion at Ancrum on 
 the twelfth of October, and by attacking the new ecclesiastical 
 system in a sermon preached on the following day. He anti- 
 cipated what was to happen, and was prepared to abide the 
 consequences. On the eleventh of December, he appeared 
 before the privy council, at Edinburgh, to answer to a charge 
 of not having observed the festival of the Kestoration, and of 
 
 ministers were generally young men, there must have been considerably more 
 than fifty nonconformists admitted before the year 1649. As late as March, 
 1663, "the ministers of Galloway" had not obeyed the act of council; even in 
 the autumn of 1664 there were nonconformist ministers in the diocese of Glas- 
 gow who had not been deposed. (See Life of Eobert Blair, pp. 434, 473.) It 
 is thus almost certain that the number of those who resigned in the end of the 
 year 1 662 fell considerably short even of two hundred. In regard to the total 
 number of ministers ejected on the re-establishment of Episcopacy — whether in 
 consequence of resignations following on the Act of Glasgow in October, of the 
 Act of Edinburgh in December, for not attending the diocesan synods, or in any 
 other way — Burnet's statement of three hundred and fifty is perhaps correct. 
 Wodrow makes them upwards of four hundred, and gives a list of names in the 
 several dioceses ; but, in order to make up that number, he includes those who 
 were confined to the bounds of their own parishes without being deprived, and 
 several who, like Rutherford and Gillespie, died, or were deprived, before Epis- 
 copacy was restored. It is evident that the Resolutioners formed only a small 
 proportion of the ejected ministers. According to Burnet (vol. i. p. 222), Sharp 
 had assured the king that there would not be found twenty of that party who 
 would oppose the restoration of Episcopacy ; and this number was probably not 
 very far from the truth. The editor of the Life of Blair mentions (p. 362) that, 
 in 1651, the ministers adhering to the Public Resolutions amounted to about six 
 hundred, and that all of them, with the exception of about forty, conformed to 
 Prelacy after the Restoration. In reference to the character of the " curates," 
 Burnet's severe remarks in his History, vol. i. pp. 268, 269, should be compared 
 with the different language of his earlier work, "A Vindication of the Autho- 
 rity, Constitution, and Laws of the Church and State of Scotland," ed. 1724, pp. 
 148, 149. 
 
A.D. 1662.] OF SCOTLAND. 211 
 
 not having attended the diocesan synod. He admitted that he 
 had not kept the twenty-ninth of May as a lioly-day, and al- 
 leged, in defence, that such anniversaries could not lawfully 
 be enjoined by any human authority. When he was re- 
 minded that he had formerly kept a thanksgiving day for the 
 battle of Marston-moor, he attempted to draw a distinction be- 
 tween the two observances, on the ground that the one was 
 temporary, the other perpetual. On the oath of allegiance being 
 tendered to him, he refused to take it, because it recognised 
 the ecclesiastical supremacy of the crown ; but he was ready 
 to acknowledge the king as supreme civil governor over all 
 persons and in all causes. Having been asked whether he 
 would take some time to consider the matter, he declined to 
 avail himself of the offer, saying that he had no doubt as to 
 the unlawfulness of the oath. He was ordered to leave Edin- 
 burgh within forty-eight hours, and within two months to 
 depart from the king's dominions. He retired to Holland, 
 and fixed his residence at Rotterdam, where he died on the 
 ninth of August, 1672. ^ 
 
 During the last session of parliament, George Hutchieson 
 and two other ministers of Edinburgh had been deprived for 
 refusing to concur with their bishop in acts of ecclesiastical 
 discipline. After tlie election of the magistrates at Michael- 
 mas, Douglas and tlie remaining ministers of the city, with 
 the exception of Robert Laurie, were forbidden to officiate. 
 Laurie was nominated Dean of Edinburgh, and ministers were 
 appointed to the vacant churches. One of those so appointed 
 was John Paterson, minister at Ellon, son of the Bishop of 
 Ross. Another was William Annand, son of the minister of 
 the same name who had been deposed by the G lasgow assembly 
 of 1638, and had afterwards fled to England. The younger 
 Annand was educated at the University of Oxford, and was 
 ordained, in 1656, by Dr. Fulwar, Bishop of Ardfert. At the 
 Restoration, he was appointed to a benefice in the county 
 of Bedford, and, in the year 1662, came to Scotland as 
 chaplain to the Earl of Middleton. About the same time, 
 William Colville, who had been deposed by the general as- 
 
 * Life of John Livingstone — Select Biographies, edited for the Wodrow Society, 
 vol. i. p. 189-197. See also the same volume, p. 201-221. 
 
212 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chai>. LXIV. 
 
 serably in 1648, was appointed Principal of the College of 
 Edinbm-gliJ 
 
 In the beginning of the year 1663, the newly restored 
 Church lost one of the best of her prelates. Dr. Mitchell, 
 Bishop of Aberdeen, died in February, and was buried beside 
 Bishop Patrick Forbes in the southern transept of his cathe- 
 dral. In the reign of Charles the First, Bishop Mitchell had 
 been a zealous supporter of the Scottish Liturgy, not merely 
 because it was an improvement on the defective forms of wor- 
 ship then used, but as necessary also to restore and preserve 
 the ancient faith regarding the sacraments. During his brief 
 episcopate, he did what he could for the same end. The acts 
 of his diocesan synod have already been related. They indi- 
 cate ecclesiastical principles far in advance of those held by 
 most of his brethren ; while, at the same time, they were pro- 
 mulgated with the consent of his clergy, and carried out with 
 prudence and moderation.^ 
 
 Bishop Mitchell was succeeded by Dr. Alexander Burnet, a 
 clergyman who had been ordained in England during the 
 troubles, and had held a benefice in that country. Having 
 been deprived by the rebel government, he went beyond seas, 
 and, subsequently to the Restoration, officiated to an English 
 congregation at Dunkirk, where his kinsman, the Earl of 
 Teviot, was governor. On the eighteenth of September, he 
 v/as consecrated at St. Andrews by the primate, assisted by 
 others of the bishops.^ 
 
 1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vii. p. 391. WoJrow, vol. i. p. 
 299. NicoU's Diary, pp. 380, 883, 389, 390. Wood's Atliense Oxonienses, vol. 
 iv. p. 258, Life of Kobert Blair, p. 431. 
 
 2 NicoU's Diary, p. 390. Lamont's Diary, p. 200. Collections for a History 
 of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff, p. 168. The ecclesiastical principles of Dr. 
 Mitchell, at the time the National Covenant was imposed, may be discovered from 
 his letter to Bishop Leslie of Raphoe, dated in March, 1638, and to which re- 
 ference was formerly made ; see Baillie, vol. i. appendix, pp. 463, 464. The 
 author of a View of the Diocese of Aberdeen, printed in the Collections for a His- 
 tory of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff, mentions that Dr. Mitchell published 
 Archbishop Spottiswood's Church History, and according to some had a hand in 
 composing it. It is not unlikely that, during his exile in Holland, he was "the 
 reverend person of that [the Scottish] nation" who supplied materials for the Life 
 of Spottiswood, ascribed to Bishop Duppa ; and that the manuscript of the History 
 •was in his hands when the Dutch magistrates of Schiedam attempted to get posses- 
 sion of it. See Bishop Russell's edition of Spottiswood's History, pp. xiii. xiv. cxli. 
 
 3 Life of Eobert Blair, p. 452. Lamont's Diary, p. 210. Keith's Catalogue, 
 pp. 42, 43. 
 
A.D. 1663.] OF SCOTLAND. 213 
 
 The parliament assembled again on the eighteenth of June, 
 1663, but Middleton no longer held the office of royal commis- 
 sioner, which had been conferred on the Earl of Rothes. His 
 chief rival at court, the Earl of Lauderdale, had succeeded in 
 obtaining his dismission, notwithstanding the support given to 
 liim by Lord Clarendon and the English bishops. The dis- 
 grace of Middleton, and the ascendency of Lauderdale, were 
 welcomed by the Presbyterians, but were ill received by the 
 old cavalier party. The former nobleman, from the time that 
 he attached himself to the royal cause, had devoted his whole 
 energies to the re-establisliment of the monarchy. If he some- 
 times acted with violence and imprudence, he was neither de- 
 ceitful nor cruel. His personal conduct was stained by those 
 excesses which the recoil from Puritanism had made unhap- 
 pily so prevalent ; but the absurd legends of Kirkton, re- 
 peated, and even exaggerated, by Wodrow, have been too_ 
 readily believed by subsequent writers. The change, which 
 thus took place in the Scottish administration, was favourable 
 neither to the interests of the Church, nor to the good govern- 
 ment of the kingdom. 
 
 During the session of 1663, an act was passed, by which all 
 persons, who ordinarily and wilfully absented themselves from 
 divine service on Sunday at their own parish churches, were 
 subjected to heavy fines according to their rank. The only 
 other important statute regarding ecclesiastical matters was 
 one fixing the constitution of a National Synod, to which 
 particular reference will immediately be made.^ 
 
 While the parliament was sitting, Johnstone of Warriston, 
 who had been apprehended in France, was brought back to 
 Scotland. He was examined before the council, and after- 
 wards in presence of the estates. Either through fear, or 
 through bodily infirmity, he was reduced to a state of such ab- 
 ject despondency, that, though formerly one of the readiest 
 speakers of his time, he could hardly utter a word in his own 
 defence, and appeared to be almost deprived of reason. He 
 fell on his face, and with tears entreated them to pity a poor 
 creature who had forgotten all that was in the Bible, ascribing 
 his loss of memory to the act of an ignorant surgeon who had 
 taken too much blood from him. He was condemned in terms 
 ' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vii. pp. 455, 45G. 
 
214 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIV. 
 
 of his former attainder, and ordered to be hanged at the 
 market cross of Edinburgh, on the twenty-second of July. 
 Before his execution, he recovered his usual firmness of mind, 
 and died professing his absolute assurance of salvation. 
 
 No one had been more active than Warriston in stirring up 
 the Scottish people against their sovereign, and in aggravating 
 all the evils and miseries of civil war. For many years he 
 was the most influential leader of the extreme Covenanting 
 party, and he was as merciless as he was powerful. The 
 solemn warning which he received from his brother-in-law, 
 Robert Burnet, to do as he would be done by, and to remem- 
 ber the instability of earthly things, had been disregarded ; and 
 the pity which he had never bestowed on others was at last 
 refused to himself. His treason was clearly established ; but, 
 even in the case of this wretched man, it would have been 
 well had the government departed from the capital sentence 
 which was pronounced against him.^ 
 
 By an act of council, dated the thirteenth of August, all 
 ministers, admitted since the year 1649, who had not obtained 
 presentation and collation, and who notwithstanding continued 
 to officiate either at their own parish churches or elsewhere, 
 were ordered to remove from their several parishes, and not to 
 reside within twenty miles of the same, nor within six miles 
 of Edinburgh, or any cathedral church, or three miles of any 
 royal burgh. ^ 
 
 On Michaelmas-day, Bishop Sydserf died at Edinburgh, 
 and, on the following Sunday, being the day of his funeral, 
 Dr. Wishart and William Annand commemorated in their 
 sermons the life and learning, the labours and the sufferings, of 
 the deceased prelate. Sydserf deserved the commendation 
 
 1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vii. appendix, p. 25. Burnet, vol. 
 i. pp. 350, 351. Mackenzie, pp. 134, 135. Wodrow, vol. i. p. 355-362. A foolish 
 story, originating probably in what Warriston himself mentioned, was afterwards 
 circulated, to the effect that, on the Continent, he was attended by one of the 
 king's physicians, who had been hired to destroy his life by poison, or by taking 
 too much blood from him. His opponents asserted that his madness was a mere 
 pretence for the purpose of obtaining pardon. When examined at London, 
 before being brought down to Scotland, he promised, if his life were spared, to 
 do the king great service by arranging the registers, and settling the royal pre- 
 rogative from old records ; see letter from the Earl of Middleton, quoted by the 
 editor of Kirkton's History, p. 170. 
 
 - Wodrow, vol. i. p. 341. 
 
A.D. 1663.] OF SCOTLAND. 215 
 
 bestowed upon him. He had never shrunk from the open 
 profession of his principles during the worst of times, and, 
 when restored to power and station, he practised the lessons of 
 moderation which he learnt in adversity. His successor in the 
 see of Orkney was Andrew Honey man, Archdeacon of St. 
 Andrews, a man of learning and ability, but formerly a 
 zealous advocate of Presbyterianism.^ 
 
 On the second of November, Archbishop Faivfoul died at 
 Edinburgh. He had done nothing during his short episcopate 
 to justify the choice of those who appointed him to his 
 high office. In January, 1664, Dr. Burnet was translated to 
 the archiepiscopal see of Glasgow ; and Patrick Scougal, 
 minister at Salton, was appointed Bishop of Aberdeen. The 
 new prelate was the son of Sir John Scougal, the head of a 
 respectable family in East Lothian. He was ordained by one 
 of the bishops of the old succession, probably by Spottiswood, 
 as he was presented to the primate's church of Dairsie in 
 1636. Scougal's ecclesiastical opinions were similar to those 
 of his patron, but they were not sufficiently strong to prevent 
 him from retaining his benefice on the overthrow of Epis- 
 copacy. He was a person of great integrity and piety, 
 and, in 1658, Baillie spoke of him as " a good and noble 
 scholar." The Bishops-elect of Orkney and Aberdeen were 
 consecrated at St. Andrews, on the eleventh of April, 1664; and 
 the Archbishop of Glasgow was installed at the same time.^ 
 
 Before the beginning of the year 1664, the re-establishment 
 of the Church was completed, and a brief account may now be 
 given of its government, doctrine, and ritual, during the period 
 between the Restoration and the Revolution. 
 
 The system of church government was for the most part 
 similar to that which existed under the former establishment 
 
 ' Nicoll's Diary, p. 400. In reference to Sydserf, Burnet says (vol. i. p. 227), 
 "he lived little more than a year after his translation. He had died in more 
 esteem if he had died a year before it." Unless Burnet alludes to SydserPs 
 English ordinations, he does not mention a single circumstance to justify thia 
 severe remark on the intimate and revered friend of his father. 
 
 ' Nicoll's Diary, pp. 403, 404, 408. Baillie, vol. iii. p. 365. Life of Eobert 
 Blair, pp. 376, 463, 467. Lamont's Diary, pp. 195, 210. It is stated in the 
 inscription on Bishop Scougal's monument in the cathedral of Aberdeen that be 
 was consecrated on Easter-day. If this be correct, the true date of the consecra- 
 tion is the tenth of April. 
 
216 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Cuav. LXIV, 
 
 of Episcopacy. The authority of the archbishops and bishops, 
 and their peculiar position rather as the chief ecclesiastical 
 officers of the sovereign, than as the divinely constituted rulers 
 of the Church, were the same as before. The same ecclesias- 
 tical courts also existed — the parochial session, consisting of 
 the minister and his lay assistants or elders ; the exercise or 
 presbytery, composed of the ministers of the several parishes 
 within its bounds, one of whom, named by the bishop, acted 
 as moderator j and the diocesan synod, consisting of all the 
 parochial ministers of the diocese, at the meetings of which 
 the bishop himself presided. In theory, the national synod 
 or general assembly of the Church was the highest court of 
 all. The powers claimed and exercised by the assembly 
 during the rebellion had been such, that it was thought neces- 
 sary to remodel its constitution by a special act of parliament ; 
 and even in its amended form it was never allowed to meet. 
 The statute referred to, which was passed during the session 
 of 1663, was entitled an " Act for the establishment and 
 constitution of a National Synod." The members of the 
 synod were declared to consist of the two archbishops and 
 their suffragan bishops ; of the deans of the cathedral 
 churches, and the archdeacons of the various dioceses ; of the 
 moderators of the meetings for exercise allowed by the 
 bishops ; of one presbyter or minister fi'om each of these 
 meetings, chosen by the moderators and presbyters of the 
 same ; and of one or two from the University of St. Andrews, 
 one from the University of Glasgow, one from King's College 
 and one from Marischal College, Aberdeen, and one from the 
 College of Edinbm-gh. The synod was to meet at such times 
 and places as the king might appoint, and was to consider such 
 matters, relating to the doctrine, worship, discipline, and 
 government of the Church, as should be submitted to it by 
 the king's direction, through its president, the Archbishop of 
 St. Andrews. The synod could only meet in the presence of 
 the king, or his commissioner. No act was t® be valid 
 which was contrary to the royal prerogative, or the laws of 
 the kingdom, or which was not approved of by his majesty or 
 his commissioner.^ 
 
 1 Morer's Short Account of Scotland, p. 47-49. Symson's Present State of 
 Scotland, pp. 236, 242. Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vii. p. 465. 
 
A.D. 1664.] OF SCOTLAND. 217 
 
 In doctrine, the old Confession, ratified at the beginning of 
 the Reformation, possessed a certain degree of authority, but 
 rather as sanctioned by the state than as enjoined by any eccle- 
 siastical law. The ('onfession of Faith and the Catechisms 
 drawn up by the Westminster Assembly, like the other acts 
 of the Covenanting assemblies and parliaments, were no 
 longer of any authority, though some of the bishops seem to 
 have tolerated their use. There was practically, however, at 
 this period, little reference to any other standard than the 
 Scriptures and the Apostles' Creed. The Arminian contro- 
 versy, wliich had formerly excited so much attention, was 
 much less frequently alluded to ; and gradually and quietly 
 a change was going on, which was preparing the minds of 
 many for a partial or entire rejection of the doctrinal system 
 of Calvinism. ^ 
 
 The ritual and forms of worship were also almost the same 
 as before the commencement of the troubles. It is doubt- 
 ful wliether the Book of Common Prayer was used even in 
 the chapel royal, except during the short time that the Lady 
 Anne resided in Edinburgh along with her father, the Duke 
 of York. It was not restored in any of the cathedrals, or in 
 the college chapels, although portions of it may have been 
 adopted, as in the form of Morning and Evening Service 
 drawn up by Henry Scougal for the cathedral of Aberdeen. 
 In the parish church of Salton, the Englisli Service was 
 read by Gilbert Burnet, and many of the clergy used the 
 Prayer Book in private ; but the civil government gave no 
 encouragement to liturgical reform, and most of the bishops, 
 
 Burnet (vol. i. p. 353) and Wodrow (vol. i. p. 353) assert that, by the act of 
 parliament, the Archbishop of St. Andrews, as president of the synod, had a 
 negative voice ; and the former historian states, as usual on the authority of 
 Primrose, that this clause was inserted by Sharp with his own hand. These 
 writers have apparently mistaken the meaning of the statute. It says nothing 
 of a negative voice in the primate, though it carefully secures such a right to 
 the king and his commissioner. It speaks indeed of the consent of the president 
 and major part of the members of the synod, just as it does of the representative 
 of the presbytery being chosen by the moderator and major part of the minis- 
 ters ; but this does not imply a veto in either case. 
 
 ^ Symson's Present State of Scotland, p. 241. Kirkton mentions (pp. 191, 
 192) that the favourite authors with the younger clergy of the restored Church 
 were Hammond, Thorndike, Sherlock, Taylor, and the like ; and on this point 
 there is no reason to distrust his testimouy. 
 
218 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIV. 
 
 recollecting what had taken place in the reign of Charles the 
 First, were afraid to propose any change. In place of the 
 daily offices of the English Church, the forms in Knox's 
 Liturgy were sometimes employed ; and, on Sundays, select 
 portions of the Old and New Testament were read, and 
 the Lord's Prayer and the Doxology were invariably intro- 
 duced. 
 
 In the administration of the sacraments there was no autho- 
 rized form, except that in Baptism the recitation of the Creed 
 was now again required. There was no express statute re- 
 establishing the five Articles of Perth, but their authority was 
 necessarily restored by the terras of the Act Rescissory. In point 
 of fact, however, they were hardly enforced at all ; and the 
 practice regarding them was now more lax and irregular than 
 it had been during the former establishment of Episcopacy. 
 Private Baptism was not uncommon ; but this, if sometimes 
 sanctioned by authority, as in the diocese of Aberdeen, was, in 
 other cases, only a concession to the indolence of parents. 
 Private Communion of the Sick was less frequent, but it 
 began to be more appreciated, as the ancient doctrine regard- 
 ing the Eucharist became better known. Kneeling at the 
 Communion, which had formerly caused so much opposition, 
 was not enforced, and was seldom practised. The observance of 
 the holy-days ordered by the Perth assembly was kept up by 
 the bishops, and by the more zealous of the clergy, but was 
 not made compulsory. Confirmation appears to have been 
 entirely neglected. 
 
 The English Ordinal seems to have been invariably used 
 at the consecration of bishops, and generally, though not 
 always, at the ordination of priests and deacons. Ordination 
 was conferred by the bishops, with the assistance of their 
 presbyters ; but none of them, except Bishop Mitchell, insisted 
 on re-ordaining ministers who had received only Presbyterian 
 ordination, though they did not refuse to do so when asked. ^ 
 
 It will thus be seen that, in outward appearance, there 
 was little distinction between the established Church, and the 
 Presbyterians who declined to conform to it, except in the 
 
 ^ Morer's Short Account of Scotland, p. 59-64. Symson's Present State of 
 Scotland, p. 241. Gordon's Reformed Bishop, pp. 84, 161, 165. 
 
A.D. 1664.] OF SCOTLAND. 219 
 
 single point of Episcopacy. There was more diversity, how- 
 ever, in reality, than wa;^ obvious at first sight, and episcopal 
 ordination and government were preparing the way for very 
 different opinions on various points, especially on those con- 
 nected with Holy Orders and the Sacraments. 
 
220 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXV. 
 
 CHAPTER LXV. 
 
 FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF BISHOP SCOUGAL TO THE SEE OF ABERDEEN 
 IN JANUARY, 1664, TO THE RESIGNATION OF THE SEE OF GLASGOW BY 
 ARCHBISHOP BURNET IN JANUARY, 1670. 
 
 Erection of a Court of High Commission — Exaggerated accounts 
 of its proceedings — Its brief duration — Oppressive mea- 
 sures of the Government — Bishop Leighton's moderation — 
 Account of Gilbert Burnet — He is appointed minister at 
 Salton — His memorial to the Bishopts — Diocesan Synod of 
 Dunblane — Insurrection in the West — Increased severities 
 of the Government — Milder counsels adopted — Leightoiis 
 plan of a Comprehension — Indidgence granted to the Pres- 
 byterian 'ministers — Opj)osition of Archbishop Burnet — 
 Meeting of Parliament — Statute defining the royal supre- 
 macy — Archbishop Burtiet resigns the see of Glasgow. 
 
 On the twenty-sixth of January, 1664, a royal letter, dated 
 the sixteenth of the same month, was laid before the council, 
 by which the Archbishop of St. Andrews, as Primate and Me- 
 tropolitan of the kingdom, was appointed to take precedence 
 of the Chancellor, and of all other subjects in Scotland. This 
 was merely the renewal of a privilege formerly bestowed on 
 the see of St. Andrews by Charles the First, but which, from 
 the jealousy of the nobles, and the king's unwillingness to 
 give offence, had never been carried into effect. It was now 
 agreed to without opposition. According to Burnet and Row, 
 Archbishop Sharp, not content with this pre-eminence, on the 
 death of the Earl of Glencairn, which took place on the 
 ninth of May, endeavoured, though without success, to obtain 
 the office of Chancellor.^ 
 
 On the same day on which the letter of precedence to the 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. i. pp. 414, 415. Burnet, vol. i. pp. 355, 359-361. Life of 
 Robert Blair, p. 473. Burnet relates very circumstantially the attempt of Sharp 
 to obtain the chancellorship from the king, through the influence of Archbishop 
 Sheldon, and mentions the prevaricating statements which he made to Charles 
 and the English primate ; but he does not say hovr he became acquainted with 
 these private conversations. 
 
A.D. 1664.] OF SCOTLAND. 221 
 
 primate was granted, an order was signed by the king for re- 
 establishing an ecclesiastical commission. The commissioners 
 nominated were the two archbishops, seven of the bishops, the 
 chancellor, the treasm'cr, and several noblemen, judges, barons, 
 and burgesses, any five of their number, including an arch- 
 bishop or bishop, being a quorum. They were enjoined to 
 put in execution all acts of parliament or council for the peace 
 and order of the Church ; and they were empowered to summon 
 before them all who resisted ecclesiastical authority, to appoint 
 ofFendmg ministers to be suspended or deposed, and to punish 
 them and other transgressors with fine and imprisonment, such 
 punishments not exceeding those ordered by the parliament 
 or council. 
 
 The court of High Commission had been very unpopular in 
 the two preceding reigns, and its renewal at this time was in- 
 judicious and unnecessary. The causes which came before it, 
 so far as appears, were neither numerous nor important, and 
 might easily have been disposed of by the ordinary civil and 
 ecclesiastical tribunals. Before the end of two years, its 
 powers were allowed to expire. It is probable that the mem- 
 bers of the privy council had no wish to see any authority 
 transferred from themselves to another court. ^ 
 
 1 Kirkton, p. 205-211. Wodrow, vol. i. p. 384-395. Life of Robert Blair, pp. 
 463, 464, 470-472, 479, 480. Burnet, vol. i. p. 356. On the subject of the pro- 
 ceedings of the High Commission, many exaggerated statements have been 
 made. Hardly anything is really known about them. Wodrow had searched in 
 vain for the records of the court ; and what he relates is derived partly from the 
 testimony of accused persons and their friends, and, to a still greater extent, 
 from the stories of Kirkton. The narrative of Wodrow, in its turn, has been 
 copied by modern writers. One example may be given from an author who 
 never intentionally misleads his readers. Mr. Cunningham says (Church 
 History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 197), " This tyraonical court had its only foun- 
 dation in the royal prerogative ; but it was invested with most plenary powers. 
 None were exempted from its jurisdiction. The slightest whisper against the 
 Established Church might constitute a crime, according to its code of law. It 
 could depose ministers, fine, imprison, whip all ; and it did not allow its power 
 to sleep. The arbitrary and inquisitorial proceedings of such a court had once 
 before helped to rouse the indignation of the country ; and when again the coun- 
 try beheld faithful ministers banished, pious gentlemen ruined by exorbitant 
 fines, young men and even women cruelly scourged, wrath began to accumulate. 
 Charles himself, blind though he usually was to such things, at length began to 
 see that its proceedings were breeding antipathy and disgust, and, in little more 
 than a year after its institution, ordered it to be discontinued." Mr. Cunning- 
 ham quotes no authority except Wodrow. The king's letter gave no warrant for 
 
222 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXV. 
 
 During the year 1664 and the two following years, the 
 various acts of parliament and council for securing conformity 
 were carried out with strictness. Fines were imposed on such 
 as were found guilty of a breach of the laws, and soldiers 
 were quartered on the people in districts where resistance 
 was threatened or apprehended. Tlius the same tyrannical 
 measures, which had formerly been used to enforce submission 
 to the Covenant, were now employed for the maintenance of 
 Episcopacy. It is not easy to ascertain how far these pro- 
 ceedings were sanctioned or encouraged by the bishops. 
 According to Wodrow, hardly a step was taken except at the 
 instigation of the prelates ; but, numberless as are the pas- 
 sages in which this is averred or implied, he seldom gives 
 any evidence that such was the case. Except during the 
 brief period of the High Commission, the privy council was the 
 body to which the administration of the laws was entrusted, 
 and the only prelates who sat on it at this time were the two 
 archbishops. The other bishops had little political influence. 
 
 One prelate, at least, pursued a course very different from 
 that which has been imputed to his brethren. The Bishop of 
 Dunblane endeavoured to impress on the clergy and people of 
 his diocese the lessons of charity and humility by which his 
 own life was guided. But he grieved over the disappoint- 
 ment of those hopes which had induced him to accept the 
 episcopate, and, at his diocesan synod in October, 1665, he 
 
 scourging or banisliing beyond seas. Only one such case is mentioned by Kirkton 
 or Wodrow. It arose out of some riotous proceedings at Ancrum connected with 
 the induction of Livingstone's successor there, on which occasion " numbers of 
 the poor people convened to give him the welcome abhorred pastors used to get ;" 
 and it is asserted that some young men and boys were scourged, branded, and 
 sent to the plantations. Among the accused was a woman who was ordered to 
 be scourged through the streets of Jedburgh. The infliction of the punishment 
 is thus related by Kirkton : — " When the day of her suffering came, the execu- 
 tioner chose rather to be kind to his innocent neighbour than true to the 
 bishops; so he permitted her to keep on her clothes, scarce ever touched her, 
 and hurt her not at all. Her brother led her by the hand, and the execution 
 was attended with more laughter than tears, the people proclaiming the execu- 
 tioner had made the bishop a false prophet ; and the bishops were more bitterly 
 cursed than she was whipped." Wodrow mentions the sentence, but omits to 
 state the manner in which it was executed. So far, however, as the High Com- 
 mission was concerned, the whole story is probably untrue. Eow, in his Life 
 of Robert Blair (pp. 483, 484), expressly states that it was the Council which 
 punished the rioters at Aacrum. 
 
A.D. 1665.] OF SCOTLAND. 223 
 
 intimated his intention to resign the see, giving for a reason 
 his sense of his own unworthiness, and his weariness of the 
 strife and confusion which prevailed on all sides. He repaired 
 to London, and tendered to the king a resignation of his 
 bishopric, declaring that he could not concur in the violent 
 courses practised in Scotland, even for the planting of the 
 Christian religion itself, much less for a form of government. 
 Charles assured him that the measures which he objected to 
 would be discontinued, and prevailed on him to return to his 
 diocese. ^ 
 
 In January, 1665, Gilbert Burnet, son of Robert Burnet of 
 Crimond, was presented to the church of Salton, which had been 
 kept vacant for him by the patron from the time that Bishop 
 Scougal was named to the episcopate. He was now in his 
 twenty-second year, having been born at Edinburgh, in Septem- 
 ber, 1643. He was educated for some time under the immediate 
 superintendence of his father, and was afterwards sent to 
 Marischal College, Aberdeen. Having devoted himself to tlie 
 study of theology, he went through his preliminary examina- 
 tions, and, at the early age of eighteen, was admitted as a pro- 
 bationer, according to the forms then used in Scotland. A 
 benefice was offered to him by his kinsman. Sir Alexander 
 Burnet of Leys, but he refused it on account of his youth. 
 When the western Protesters ceased to ofiiciate after the Act 
 of Glasgow, Burnet was solicited by the Earl of Glencairn to 
 accept one of the vacant churches, but he again declined. On 
 the establishment of the ecclesiastical commission, he remon- 
 strated both with Lauderdale and with the primate, entreating 
 them to pursue more moderate courses. The former would not 
 interfere, and the latter, according to Burnet's own account, 
 disregarded his application, and from that time became very 
 jealous of him. 
 
 After a visit to England and the Continent, he returned to 
 his own country in the end of the year 1664, and was ordained 
 priest, by the Bishop of Edinburgh, on his accepting the 
 benefice of Salton. His conduct as a parochial minister was 
 most exemplary. By his constant preaching and catechising, 
 his visiting from house to house, and his liberality in alms- 
 giving, he gained the affections of the people, and succeeded 
 
 > Leighton's Works, vol. iv. pp. 397, 398. Burnet, vol. i. pp. 367, 368. 
 
224 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXV. 
 
 in establishing in his church the use of the English Prayer 
 Book. But he was fond of interfering in political matters, 
 and of tendering his advice to his superiors ; and he cherished 
 very uncharitable feelings towards those who rebuked his pre- 
 sumption. When he remonstrated against the ecclesiastical 
 commission, he could hardly have been twenty-one years of 
 age, and, soon after his appointment to Salton, he came for- 
 ward in a still more prominent manner. As he himself tells 
 us, his zeal was kindled against the bishops on account of their 
 lukewarmness and worldliness. He drew up a memorial of 
 the grievances occasioned by their improper conduct, setting 
 forth how much they had departed from the rules of the pri- 
 mitive Church, their neglect of their duties, meddling with 
 secular affairs, raising their families out of the ecclesiastical 
 revenues, and, above all, their persecution of those who 
 differed from them. According to his own statement, he sent 
 copies of this paper, with his signature attached, to all the 
 prelates with whom he was acquainted, but did not communi- 
 cate the contents to any other individual. The primate's in- 
 dignation was excited by this proceeding. Burnet was sum- 
 moned before the bishops, and charged with presumption in 
 thus offering to teach his superiors. The archbishop proposed 
 that he should at once be deprived and excommunicated, but 
 none of the others would agree to so severe a sentence. He 
 refused to ask pardon for what he had done, and finally no 
 punishment whatever was inflicted. This affair, he says, was 
 variously censured, but most persons approved of his conduct. 
 Lauderdale was delighted with it, and gave an account of the 
 whole matter to the king, who expressed no displeasure. 
 
 Dr. Cockburn, a Scottish clergyman, and nephew of Bishop 
 Scougal, from whom he had an account of the proceedings, 
 gives a more particular, and, in various respects, a different 
 narrative of the matter. He says that Burnet, in travelling 
 through the kingdom, had collected all the idle stories circu- 
 lating among the Presbyterians, as well as the grievances 
 complained of by those who were attached to Episcopacy, and 
 resolved to charge the whole against the bishops. His paper 
 began with the words of Elihu in the Book of Job, " I said, 
 days should speak, and multitude of years should teach 
 wisdom. But there is a spirit in man ; and the inspiration of 
 
A.D. 1665.] OF SCOTLAND. 225 
 
 the Almighty giveth them understanding. Great men are not 
 always wise, neither do the aged understand judgment." He 
 blamed the bishops for not calling a general assembly, or en- 
 acting canons, or compiling a Liturgy ; for not having public 
 daily prayer in their cathedrals ; for residing too often in the 
 capital, and out of their dioceses ; for their vain display in 
 their families and equipages ; and for keeping their clergy 
 at too great a distance. 
 
 Dr. Cockburn mentions that the accusation in regard to 
 display and equipage, and residing at Edinburgh, applied 
 chiefly to the primate, who alone of the bishops kept a 
 coach, and who required frequently to be at the capital. The 
 primate, he says, called together those of the bishops who 
 were at Edinburgh at the time he received the memorial. 
 They were much offended by the presumption of so young a 
 man ; but they were disposed to pass over the matter, till they 
 found that his averment that the paper had been communi- 
 cated to the prelates only was untrue, and that he had shewn 
 it to various persons, so that it had actually been sold through 
 the town before some of themselves received their copies. In 
 consequence of this, Burnet was summoned before the bishops, 
 and tlie primate gave it as his opinion that he should be de- 
 posed ; but Dr. Scougal spoke strongly in his favour, say- 
 ing that it was his first fault, and that it was to be hoped 
 the shame of a rebuke would have a good effect upon him in 
 his future life. The primate, seeing that the others were dis- 
 posed to concur in this suggestion, with some warmth re- 
 quested the Bishop of Aberdeen to pronounce what sentence 
 he pleased, and thereupon left the meeting. Dr. Scougal caused 
 Burnet to be called in ; pointed out his vanity and insolence, 
 his indiscreet zeal, his meddling with matters beyond his 
 sphere, his rashness and prevarication ; but declared that, in 
 respect of his youth, and their hope that he would take better 
 heed to his conduct in time to come, he would, on his humble 
 acknowledgment and submission, be punished only with the 
 rebuke thus given, i 
 
 ' Burnet, vol. i. pp. 263, 356, 373-375; and Life, appendix to his Historj', 
 vol. vi. p. 234-245. Dr. John Cockburn's Specimens of some free and impartial 
 Remarks on public affairs and particular persons, especially relating to Scotland, 
 occasioned by Dr. Burnet's History of his Own Time, p. 34-43. 
 
 VOL. III.] 16 
 
226 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXV. 
 
 Burnet states that, after this affair, in order to shew that he 
 had not acted from any factious motives, he entered on a course 
 of retirement, and gave himself wholly to study, and the 
 duties of his function. Unbecoming as his proceedings had 
 been, they were such as have not unfrequently been prompted 
 by zeal for the truth and by indignation against ecclesiastical 
 abuses. In one respect, however, they had a bad effect 
 on his character. There can be no doubt that the primate 
 was right in supposing that he himself was the person 
 chiefly aimed at in the memorial, and Burnet never for- 
 gave the manner in which he shewed his resentment on the 
 occasion. 
 
 David Fletcher, Bishop of Argyll, died in March, 1665. It 
 was intended to name John Young, professor of divinity at 
 Glasgow, as his successor ; but he died before the appointment 
 was completed, and the see was conferred on William Scroggie, 
 minister at Rathven, son of Dr. Scroggie of Aberdeen. The 
 new bishop was consecrated at Glasgow, in June, 1666.^ 
 
 George Haliburton, Bishop of Dunkeld, died on the fifth of 
 April, 1665, and was succeeded by Henry Guthrie, formerly 
 minister at Stirling, who had been deposed for his zealous 
 support of the engagement. On the twenty-fourth of August, 
 Guthrie was consecrated at St. Andrews by the primate, 
 assisted by some other bishops of the province. ^ 
 
 Bishop Leighton held his autumnal diocesan synod in Oc- 
 tober, 1666. The enactments of former synods as to the read- 
 ing of the Scriptures, and the recitation of the Creed and the 
 Ten Commandments, during public worship, were renewed. 
 The clergy were recommended to prefer long texts and short 
 sermons to the short texts and very long discourses then 
 common, which, it was stated, were apt to be more wearisome 
 than profitable to the hearers. In any event, they were re- 
 quested not to have their expositions on the same occasion 
 with their sermons, as these, besides their tediousness, were 
 apt to increase in the people's minds their foolish prejudice 
 against hearing the Scriptures read without a discourse in 
 addition ; in which respect, notwithstanding their zeal against 
 
 1 Life of Robert Blair, pp. 478,490. Note by Mr. David Laing in Baillie's 
 Letters, vol. i. p. cxxv. 
 
 2 Life of Robert Blair, p. 478. Lament's Diary, pp. 223, 228. 
 
A.D. 1666.] OF SCOTLAND. 227 
 
 Popery, they seemed to be too much of the Romish opinion, 
 that the Scriptures could not safely be allowed without a con- 
 tinual exposition to aid their obscurity. The ministers were 
 enjoined to reduce the people from their unbecoming deport- 
 ment during public worship, particularly their most indecent 
 practice of sitting in time of prayer ; and to persuade them 
 either to kneel or stand, so that botli with bodies and with souls 
 they might worship Him who made both soul and body for 
 that very end, in accordance with the invitatory now so much 
 forgotten, " come, let us worship, and bow down, and kneel 
 before the Lord our Maker." Injunctions were also given to 
 warn the people against neglect in attending at the celebration 
 of the Holy Communion, as it was one of the chief defects of 
 the Scottish Church, that that great ordinance, so conducive to 
 the increase of holiness, was seldom administered. ^ 
 
 The laws against Nonconformity had been strictly enforced 
 by the government, and riots and outrages had repeatedly 
 taken place at the settlement of clergymen appointed to 
 succeed the ejected ministers ; but hitherto no blood had been 
 shed. In the end of the year 1666, an event occurred which 
 embittered the feeling on both sides. Sir James Turner, a 
 Scottish soldier who had been trained in the wars of Germany, 
 and had afterwards served in tlie Covenanting armies, but 
 who had adhered faithfully to the royal cause from the time 
 of the engagement, was sent by the council at various times to 
 enforce conformity in Galloway and Nithsdale. In November, 
 1666, he was residing in Dumfries, his soldiers, then amount- 
 ing to about seventy men, being quartered on the Nonconfor- 
 mists in the neighbourhood. On the fifteenth of the mouthy a 
 party of armed insurgents entered the town, and seized Turner in 
 his lodgings. It does not clearly appear whether the rising Avas 
 accidental, or whether it was deliberately concerted with the 
 exiles in Holland, and on promises of assistance from the Dutch 
 government, then at war with Britain. A considerable num- 
 ber of the peasantry assembled from Galloway, Clydesdale, 
 and Ayrshire, headed by some preachers, and by a few gentle- 
 men and old officers of the Protesting party. At Lanark, they 
 renewed the Covenant, and issued a manifesto complaining of 
 the oppression to which they were subjected, and declaring 
 ' Leigbton's Works, vol, iv. p. 398-401. 
 
228 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXV. 
 
 the necessity for taking up arms in defence of their principles. 
 They advanced to Edinburgh, but, finding it impossible to 
 make themselves masters of the city, retired southwards to the 
 Pentland Hills. On the twenty-eighth of November, they 
 were overtaken and defeated by the royal army under General 
 Dalzell. 
 
 The insurrection was punished with great severity. Many 
 of the prisoners were executed, and, as they encountered death 
 with fortitude, and in some instances with exultation, they 
 were looked upon as martyrs by the supporters of the Cove- 
 nant. One of those who suffered was a young preacher named 
 M'Kail. He had left Edinburgh to join the insurgents, and 
 it was supposed that he knew who the parties were by whom 
 the enterprise was secretly encouraged. He was therefore, 
 according to the barbarous practice still common in Scotland, 
 subjected to the torture, but confessed nothing. He was sub- 
 sequently executed, and died in a rapture of joy, his last words 
 being — " Farewell sun, moon, and stars, farewell kindred and 
 friends, farewell world and time, farewell weak and frail body ; 
 welcome eternity, welcome angels and saints, welcome Saviour 
 of the world, and welcome God the Judge of all." 
 
 Burnet mentions that the best of the clergy entreated the 
 bishops to lay hold of this opportunity of regaining the affec- 
 tions of the people by interceding for the prisoners, and that 
 many of them willingly agreed to do so, particularly the Bishop 
 of Edinbui-gh. Dr. Wishart had endured much misery while 
 confined by the Covenanters in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, 
 but now, as became his function, he not only supported the 
 cause of mercy, but every day sent a supply of provisions from 
 his own table to those who were in prison. The two arch- 
 bishops, however, according to the same historian, remained 
 implacable. He asserts that Archbishop Burnet even advised 
 that all should be executed who would not renounce the Cove- 
 nant ; and that he caused the death of M'Kail, by keeping 
 up, till after the execution, a letter which he had brought from 
 the king, expressing an opinion that enough of blood had been 
 shed, and ordering such prisoners as would promise obedience 
 to be liberated, and the others to be sent to the plantations. 
 These charges, if true, would reflect the deepest disgrace on 
 the Archbishop of Glasgow. But they are unsupported by 
 
A.D. 16G6.] OF SCOTLAND. 229 
 
 anj evidence, and can hardly be reconciled with the known 
 disposition and character of that prelate. A report to a 
 similar effect, regarding the keeping up of the royal letter, is 
 mentioned by Kirk ton, Kow, and Wodrow ; but, according 
 to them, it was the Archbishop of St. Andrews, not the Arch- 
 bishop of Glasgow, who was guilty of this cruelty. ^ 
 
 Burnet also denounces in the severest terms the conduct of 
 the western clergy after the insurrection was suppressed. He 
 says that, instead of interceding for their people, they encour- 
 aged the soldiers in their exactions and cruelty. On this 
 point he professes to have relied chiefly on what was related 
 to him by Sir John Cunningham, an eminent lawyer, of whom 
 he gives the following high character : — " He was episcopal 
 beyond most men in Scotland, who for the far greatest part 
 thought that forms of government were in their own nature 
 indifferent, and might be either good or bad, according to the 
 hands in which they fell ; whereas he thought Episcopacy was 
 of a divine right settled by Christ. He was not only very 
 learned in the civil and canon law, and in the philosophical 
 learning, but was very universal in all other learning ; he was a 
 great divine, and well read in the Fathers, and in ecclesiastical 
 history. He was, above all, a man of eminent probity, and of 
 a sweet temper, and indeed one of the piousest men of the nation. 
 The state of the Church in those parts went to his heart, 
 for it was not easy to know how to keep an even hand between 
 the perverseness of the people on the one side, and the vices of 
 the clergy on the other. They looked on all those that were 
 sensible of their miscarriages, as enemies of the Church. It 
 was after all hard to believe all that was set about against 
 them." 2 
 
 In the year 1667, a change took place in the civil adminis- 
 tration. The appointment of Hothes as royal commissioner 
 was recalled, and, though he was named chancellor, the chief 
 authority was entrusted to the Earls of Tweeddale and Kincard- 
 ine, the Earl of Argyll, son of the late marquis, and Sir Robert 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 17-59. Burnet, vol. i. p. 404-412. Kirkton, p. 255. 
 Life of Eobert Blair, p. 506. Sir James Turner's Memoirs, p. 139-189. Memoirs 
 of William Veitcli, p. 24-43. Wallace's Narrative of the Rising at Pentland, 
 p. 388-432 
 
 3 Burnet, vol. i. pp. 413, 414. 
 
230 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXV. 
 
 Murray. These statesmen acted in union with Lauderdale, 
 who, as secretary of state, continued to reside at London. 
 They were averse to severe measures against the Protesters, 
 and were desirous to put an end to the political influence of 
 the two archbishops. The army was disbanded, and a quali- 
 fied indemnity was granted to those who had been concerned 
 in the late rebellion. It was proposed to establish a court, 
 composed partly of clergymen, partly of laymen, to examine 
 the charges brought against the incumbents in the West ; but 
 the measure failed through the opposition of Archbishop 
 Burnet, fceveral schemes were suggested for the restoration 
 of tranquillity. This object was to be effected either by 
 allowing some of the deprived ministers to officiate, or by a 
 general plan of comprehension, by which the Presbyterians 
 might be induced on certain terms to conform to the Church. 
 The Scottish statesmen were no doubt encouraged in their 
 views, by the proceedings of a similar kind which were con- 
 templated in England after the fall of the Earl of Clarendon. 
 
 The assistance of Bishop Leighton was willingly given for 
 the promotion of measures so agreeable to his own ecclesias- 
 tical principles and conciliatory disposition. At the request 
 of the Earl of Tweeddale he repaired to London, and, in two 
 conferences to which he was admitted by the king, strongly 
 recommended the adoption of moderate counsels. It was a 
 plan of comprehension, not a mere licence to officiate, which 
 Leighton contemplated. He was willing to sacrifice a con- 
 siderable part of the episcopal prerogatives in order to gain 
 the Presbyterians, and appealed for a precedent to the conces- 
 sions made by the African Church to the Donatists. According 
 to his proposal, the Church was to be governed by the bishops 
 and clergy in their ecclesiastical courts. The bishops were 
 merely to be presidents of their synods, and in matters both of 
 jurisdiction and of ordination were to be guided by the majority 
 of their presbyters. Ministers were to be allowed to declare 
 that they only submitted to the bishop for the sake of peace ; 
 and those about to be ordained were also to be permitted 
 to make a similar declaration. Provincial synods were to 
 sit every third year, or oftener if the king should summon 
 them, with power to hear complaints against the bishops, and 
 to censure them. 
 
A.D. 1668.] OF SCOTLAND. 231 
 
 The negotiations for a comprehension were interrupted for 
 some time by an atrocious attempt on the life of the primate. 
 James Mitchell, a preacher who had been concerned in the 
 insurrection, and had been excepted from the indemnity, 
 formed a resolution to murder Archbishop Sharp. In July, 
 1668, he discharged a pistol at the prima,te while seated in his 
 coach in the streets of Edinburgh, but the Bishop of Orkney, 
 who was beside him at the time, received the bullet in his 
 arm. The assassin effected his escape. ^ 
 
 During the summer of 1669, the pi'oposal of an indulgence 
 to the Presbyterian ministers was renewed. A royal letter 
 was laid before the council, by which it was declared that any 
 of the ejected ministers, who had acted in an orderly and 
 quiet manner, might be allowed to resume their duties in 
 their former churches, if vacant, or to be presented to other 
 churches by the patrons, and to enjoy the fruits of their 
 benefices, if willing to take collation, and attend presbyteries 
 and synods ; but, if they would not comply with this, they 
 were still to be permitted to officiate within the bounds of 
 the parishes to which they might be appointed, and to possess 
 the manse and glebe, and a certain pecuniary stipend. The 
 council having made the necessary arrangements for carrying 
 out the king's wishes, upwards of forty ministers, among 
 whom were Robert Douglas and George Hutchieson, took 
 the benefit of the indulgence. This proceeding was disliked 
 by most of the prelates and clergy on the one hand, and by 
 the rigid Presbyterians on the other. The former complained 
 of it as contrary to the laws in favour of the Church, and as 
 setting aside the canonical authority of the episcopate. The 
 latter, who at first crowded to hear the complying ministers, 
 when they found that they dwelt on the doctrines of Chris- 
 tianity instead of preaching to the times, denounced their act 
 as a sinful submission to Erastianism ; called them dumb 
 dogs that could not bark, and the king's curates, by way 
 
 > Wodrow, vol. ii. pp. 115, 116. Burnet, vol. i. pp. 426-430, 476-482. Kirk- 
 ton, p. 277-279. Burnet says, in regard to the primate, "1 lived then much 
 out of the world ; yet I thought it decent to go and congratulate on this occasion. 
 He was much touched with it, and put on a shew of devotion upon it. He said 
 with a very serious look, ' My times are wholly in thy hand, Thou God of my 
 life.' This was the single expression savouring of piety that ever fell from him 
 in all the conversation that passed between him and me." 
 
232 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY (Chap. LXV 
 
 of distinction from the bishops' curates ; and declared 
 that the divine assistance had visibly left them, so that in 
 the churches they no longer preached with the power and 
 authority they had in conventicles. The indulged ministers, 
 on the other hand, complained, as Burnet asserts, of the 
 ignorance and deadness of those who had been the hottest 
 at their meetings, and admitted that those who could argue 
 about the intrinsic power of the Church, and Episcopacy, and 
 Presbytery, knew very little of the essentials of religion. ^ 
 
 It was in the diocese of Glasgow that most of the indulged 
 ministers were allowed to officiate ; and the archbishop and 
 his clergy felt aggrieved by the royal letter, and the proceed- 
 ings of the council. They saw that the principle involved 
 was fatal to the authority of the bishops, and that it was 
 calculated to make the whole ecclesiastical system established 
 by law entirely dependent on the prerogative of tlie crown. 
 At their autumnal synod in September, they drew up a formal 
 address to the king, in which they remonstrated against the 
 indulgence, and the measures which had taken place in con- 
 sequence. The lords of the council were determined to 
 maintain the royal supremacy and their own power. They 
 ordered the archbishop to produce the address, and summoned 
 before them James Ramsay, Dean of Glasgow, and Arthur 
 Ross, Parson of Glasgow, by whom it had been drawn up, 
 and who had been appointed to present it. The council 
 declared the document to be of a dangerous and illegal 
 character. They therefore ordered it to be suppressed, com- 
 manded the archbishop to retire to Glasgow, and reported 
 the whole proceedings to the king.^ 
 
 While this matter was under consideration, the parliament, 
 after an interval of several years, again met at Edinburgh, 
 in the month of October. The Earl of Lauderdale held the 
 office of royal commissioner. In a sermon preached before 
 the estates, the primate stated that there were three pretenders 
 to ecclesiastical supremacy, the Pope, tlie King, and the 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterians, all whose claims he 
 held to be untenable. The lords of the council would wil- 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 129-135, Burnet, vol. i. p. 487-490. 
 
 2 Wodrow, vol.ii. p. 142-144. Burnet, vol. i. pp. 491, 492. Mackenzie, pp. 
 157, 158. Law's Memorials pp. 20, 21. 
 
A.D. 1669. J OF SCOTLAND. 233 
 
 lingly have taken strong steps against him ; but they did not 
 venture to do so immediately after what had taken place in 
 Archbishop Burnet's case. They resolved, however, by means 
 of a new statute, to define the king's supremacy in such a 
 way, that neither the adherents of Episcopacy on a principle 
 of divine riglit, nor the Presbyterians, should be allowed any 
 longer to gainsay it. This measure was eagerly supported 
 by the lay lords, and feebly opposed by the prelates. The 
 Archbishop of Glasgow, whose resistance would have been 
 most formidable, had been removed from the parliament ; 
 the primate made some objections, but was terrified by the 
 threats which his late sermon had called forth ; and the 
 Bishop of Dunblane was reluctantly persuaded to acquiesce. 
 Several of the bishops absented themselves from the debate, 
 but all who were present, including the primate, when it came 
 to a vote, gave it their support. The act declared that the 
 king had supreme authority over all persons, and in all causes 
 ecclesiastical, and that, in virtue thereof, the ordering and 
 disposal of the external government and policy of the Church 
 belonged to him and his successors, as an inherent riglit of 
 the crown ; and that his majesty and his successors might 
 enact such orders and constitutions regarding the administra- 
 tion of the external government of the Church, and the persons 
 employed in the same, and concerning all ecclesiastical meet- 
 ings, and matters to be determined thereat, as they in their 
 royal wisdom should think fit ; which acts, orders, and con- 
 stitutions, being recorded in the books of council, and duly 
 published, were to be observed and obeyed by all his majesty's 
 subjects, any law or custom to the contrary notwithstanding : 
 and all acts, customs, and constitutions, civil or ecclesiastical, 
 inconsistent with the royal supremacy thus defined, were 
 declared to be void and null.^ 
 
 The statute, which Lauderdale thus succeeded in carrying 
 through, practically subjected the Church, in doctrine as well 
 as in government, to the absolute will of the sovereign, and 
 subverted all lawful ecclesiastical authority, as completely as 
 the acts of the Covenanting assemblies and parliaments had 
 overthrown the prerogatives of the crown. 
 
 ' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. vii. p. 554, appendix, p. 108. 
 Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 136-139. Burnet, vol. i. p. 492-495. Mackenzie, pp. 
 159, 160. 
 
234 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXV. 
 
 Strengthened by their new powers, the lords of the council 
 no longer hesitated to take further proceedings against Arch- 
 bisliop Burnet, The king sent down a letter, by which the 
 see of Glasgow was declared vacant ; and the archbishop was 
 urged at tlie same time to resign it into his majesty's hands, 
 threats of still severer measures being held out in the event of 
 his refusal. Dr. Burnet had hitherto acted in a manner worthy 
 of his station, but he had not the courage to defy the king's 
 displeasure, and the vengeance of the government. In January^ 
 1670, he resigned his see.^ 
 
 It would have been well if Archbishop Burnet and his 
 synod, while remonstrating against the king's illegal pro- 
 ceedings, had expressed their willingness to agree to a modifi- 
 cation or repeal of those laws by which the Presbyterians 
 were oppressed ; but, as it was, their act was a memorable 
 one, being the first protest by the clergy of the restored Church 
 against the abuse of that supremacy, in which hitherto they 
 had acquiesced as a necessary safeguard against a return to the 
 tyranny of the Covenanting times. 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. il. p. 144. Burnet, vol. i. p. 497. Mackenzie, pp. 158, 159. 
 Mackenzie speaks of Archbishop Burnet's conduct in terms of great commenda- 
 tion; yet Dr. Burns, in his edition of Wodrow (vol. ii. p. 143), refers to him as 
 stating that the paper drawn up by the Glasgow synod was as seditious as the 
 Western Eemonstrance, and the archbishop not more innocent than James 
 Guthrie. These expressions are indeed in Mackenzie's work, but they are given 
 as representing the sentiments of the archbishop's opponents, not as setting forth 
 the opinions of the author. Bishop Keith (Historical Catalogue, p. 264) ascribes 
 the archbishop's forced resignation to a threatened prosecution against him on 
 account of a letter which he had written to the English secretary of state. Sir 
 Henry Bennet, complaining of the harsh measures of the council regarding the 
 rebels at Pentland. This statement is opposed to the account given by all the 
 writers of the time, and is not to be relied on. 
 
A.D. 1670.] OF SCOTLAND. 335 
 
 CHAPTER LXVI. 
 
 FROM THE RESIGNATION OF THE SEE OF GLASGOW BY ARCHBISHOP BURNET 
 IN JANUARY, 16T0, TO THE RESIGNATION OF THAT SEE BY ARCHBISHOP 
 LEIGHTON IN AUGUST, 1674. 
 
 Leighton acts as Commendator of Glasgow — He holds a diocesan 
 synod there — His conference at Edinburgh with the Presby- 
 terian ministers — He sends six clergymen to preach in the 
 West — Character of James Nairn and Lawrence Char- 
 teris — Leighton' s conference at Paisley with the Presby- 
 terian ininisters — His propositions for an accommodation 
 — They are rejected by the ministers — Meeting of Parlia- 
 ment — Act against Conventicles — Death of Bishop Wishart 
 — Another indidgence given to the Presbyterian ministers 
 — Leighton accepts the archbishopric of Glasgow — James 
 Ramsay appointed to the see of Dunblane — Leighton 
 resigns the see of Glasgow — He retires to England — His 
 death and character. 
 
 The Earls of Lauderdale and Tweeddale, having succeeded 
 in ejecting Archbishop Burnet, were desirous of filling his 
 place with one who would go along with them in tlieir politi- 
 cal measures, and whose personal character would reflect no 
 discredit on their choice. In the Bishop of Dunblane these 
 qualities were united. Not attaching much importance to 
 forms of ecclesiastical government, he was willing to submit to 
 the supremacy of the crown ; while his eminent virtues, his 
 learning, and his conciliatory manners, were calculated to win 
 the Presbyterians, and at the same time to reconcile the clergy of 
 Glasgow to the loss of a bishop whom they reverenced and 
 loved. Leighton, however, refused at first to accept of the 
 proftered dignity, and even shewed so much aversion to it 
 as to alarm those who had depended on his consent. They 
 endeavoured to obtain his acquiescence by agreeing to the 
 scheme of accommodation which he looked upon as the only 
 means of healing the divisions of the Church ; and, in order 
 the better to overcome his scruples, they caused him to be 
 
236 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVI. 
 
 again sent for to court. On hi» way southwards, he had a 
 conference with Gilbert Burnet, who had recently been ap- 
 pointed professor of divinity at Glasgow. There can be little 
 doubt that Burnet, who was favourable to the proposed accom- 
 modation, and disliked the late archbishop, used all his influ- 
 ence to prevail on Leighton to accept tlie see. 
 
 On his arrival in London, the Bishop of Dunblane had an 
 interview with the king, and submitted his scheme of accom- 
 modation. It received the royal sanction, and Lauderdale was- 
 authorized to pass the proposed concessions into laws. Leigh- 
 ton still refused the archiepiscopal office, but agreed, while 
 retaining his own diocese, to administer that of Glasgow as 
 commendator. 
 
 Eeturning to Scotland, he held a diocesan synod at Glasgow 
 in the month of August. The clergy complained of the ill 
 usage which they met with, and of the desertion of their 
 congregations. He advised them to look up to God, and to 
 bear with the injuries and insults to which they were ex- 
 posed, as the cross laid on them for the exercise of their faith 
 and patience. He exhorted them to lay aside all thought of 
 revenge, and in prayer and fasting to expect the blessing of 
 heaven on their labours. At the synod, a committee was 
 appointed to hear and determine all complaints against the 
 clergy ; and public intimation was made, that every one was 
 at full liberty to bring forward any charges before the bishop 
 and the committee. The members of this court met in the 
 month of September, and several ministers, who were found 
 guilty of acts of immorality, were deposed, or otherwise 
 censured. 
 
 The bishop visited the most eminent of the indulged minis- 
 ters, and endeavoured to give them favourable impressions of 
 the proposed accommodation. Burnet, who had accoinpanied 
 him in his visit, and had no doubt sat as a member of his 
 synod, mentions that his efforts were fruitless, both among 
 the clergy of his diocese, and among the Presbyterian minis- 
 ters. The former, he says, went home as little edified with 
 their new bishop, as he was with them ; the latter were 
 scarcely civil to him, and did not so much as thank him for 
 his kindness and care. 
 
 In pursuance of the same design, the Bishop of Dunblane 
 
A.D. 1670.] OF SCOTLAND. 237 
 
 attended a conference at Edinburgh, to which six of the chief 
 Presbyterian ministers had been summoned by the council. 
 The Earls of Lauderdale, Eothes, Twecddale, and Kincardine, 
 were present, but the primate declined to appear. Leighton 
 used every argument and inducement to obtain the consent of 
 the ministers. lie declared his belief that the episcopate, as 
 an order distinct from the presbyterate, had continued in the 
 Church since the days of the Apostles ; that the world had 
 everywhere received the Christian religion from bishops ; and 
 that parity among clergymen had never been heard of before 
 the middle of the preceding century, when it was set up rather 
 by accident than design. But, notwithstanding of this, he 
 was ready to yield much for the sake of unity and peace. If 
 they would submit to bishops, merely as constant moderators 
 of the synods, nominated by the king, it would be held suffi- 
 cient ; and, whatever others might think of the nature of 
 the episcopal office, they would not be called upon to acknow- 
 ledge it as of any higher authority. Hutchieson stated that a 
 presidency of that description had always made way for lordly 
 dominion, but asked time for further consultation with his 
 brethren ; and this was at once agreed to. ^ 
 
 With the hope of conciliating the most vehement opponents 
 of Episcopacy, Leighton made choice of six clergymen, whom 
 he sent to preach in favour of the accommodation in the vacant 
 churches throughout the western counties. The persons 
 selected were Gilbert Burnet, James Nairn, minister at Holy- 
 rood, Lawrence Charteris, afterwards professor of divinity at 
 Edinburgh, James Aird, minister at Torryburn, and two 
 other ministers, Patrick Cook, and Walter Paterson. Cook 
 and Paterson were no doubt persons of worth and ability, 
 otherwise they would not have been selected for such a task, 
 but hardly anything is known regarding them. Aird was the 
 bishop's intimate friend, with whom he had taken counsel when 
 raised to the episcopal office. Nairn and Charteris were dis- 
 tinguished for their learning and piety, and, like many others 
 of the clergy, were strongly averse to the harsh measures used 
 against the Presbyterians. Some years before, they had both 
 joined in protesting against the deposition of a minister by the 
 Bishop of Edinburgh, in virtue of his episcopal authority, 
 1 Burnet, vol. i. p. 497-505. Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 175-178. 
 
238 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVI, 
 
 without the consent of his synod, qualifying their opposition 
 with the explanation that, if he acted in this as the king's 
 commissioner, they had nothing to say. Nairn had the reputa- 
 tion of being the most eloquent preaclier of his time, and was 
 in every respect an example of the maxim which he frequently 
 inculcated, that the pastoral function was a dedication of the 
 whole man to God, and His service. Charteris was ascetic in 
 his own habits, but gentle in his intercourse with others. He 
 had studied the Fathers attentively, and expressed this opinion 
 of them, that, while in speculative points, for which their 
 works were chiefly examined by controversial writers, they 
 were but ordinary men, their excellence lay in that which was 
 least sought for, their sense of spiritual things, and of the 
 pastoral care. Being himself positive in few points, he was 
 much opposed to large confessions of faith, particularly when 
 enforced as tests. 
 
 The success of the bishop's evangelists, as the six preachers 
 were termed by the country people, was not great. Their 
 sermons were attended by considerable numbers, but few of 
 their hearers were convinced. They were astonished by the 
 knowledge which the people, even the cottagers and labourers, 
 possessed on certain subjects. The peasantry were ready to 
 discuss points of government, and the limits of the power of 
 princes in religious matters, supporting their opinions by texts 
 of Scripture ; but this made them vain and conceited, full of 
 scruples in matters of little importance, and apt to raise 
 difficulties in regard to everything which was laid before them. 
 Burnet and his colleagues remained among them for three 
 months, and, as soon as they were gone, some of the most 
 violent of the Covenanting preachers went to all the places 
 where they had been, and rendered their efforts of little avail, ^ 
 
 Leighton began to find that he was losing the confidence of 
 
 many of the supporters of Episcopacy, while he failed in 
 
 conciliating the Presbyterians, or prevailing upon them to 
 
 make a single concession. Still, however, not discouraged, he 
 
 requested another conference at Paisley, in the month of 
 
 December. He went thither himself, attended by James 
 
 » Burnet, vol. i. pp. 370, 373, 507, 508. Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 177. Life of 
 Eobert Blair, p. 468. The character of Nairn and Charteris, given in the text, 
 is almost in the words of Burnet, from one of those beautiful passages for the sake 
 i&f which most readers willingly excuse much that offends them in his History.- 
 
A.D. 1670.] OP SCOTLAND. 239 
 
 Ramsay, Dean of Glasgow, Gilbert Burnet, and two laymen of 
 his diocese. About thirty Nonconformist ministers met him. 
 He again urged upon them the duty and the blessing of 
 making some sacrifice for the sake of peace, and for the saving 
 of souls. He asked them whether they would have held com- 
 munion with the Church of God at the time of the Council of 
 Nice. If they were prepared to answer in the negative, he 
 would be less careful of the result of his present effort, since he 
 must say of the Church of that time, " Let my soul be with 
 theirs." But if otherwise, they would not reject the offers 
 now made, which brought Episcopacy much lower than it was 
 then. In reference to a statement which he made, that bishops 
 had never been opposed in the ancient Church except by 
 Aerius, several of the preachers attempted to draw a dis- 
 tinction between the primitive Episcopacy, and that which was 
 established in Scotland, and were answered by Burnet. 
 They again desired more time to consider the matter, and for 
 that purpose to have the bishop's propositions in writing ; and 
 this also was agreed to. 
 
 The following were the propositions, as written down at the 
 time : — 
 
 " First. That, if the dissenting brethren will come to 
 presbyteries and synods, they shall not only not be obliged 
 to renounce their own private opinions regarding church go- 
 vernment, and swear or subscribe anything thereto, but shall 
 have the liberty, at their entry to the said meeting, to declare 
 and enter it in what form they please. 
 
 " Second. That all church affairs shall be managed in 
 presbyteries or synods, by the free vote of presbyters, or the 
 major part of them. 
 
 " Third. If any difference fall out in the diocesan synods 
 betwixt any of the members thereof, it shall be lawful to 
 appeal to a provincial synod or their committee. 
 
 " Fourth. That entrants being lawfully presented by the 
 patron, and duly tried by the presbytery, there shall be a day 
 agreed on by the bishop and presbytery for their meeting 
 together for their solemn ordination and admission, at which 
 there sliall be one appointed to preach, and that it shall be at 
 the parish church where he is to be admitted, except in the 
 ease of impossibility, or extreme inconveniency ; and, if any 
 
240 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVI. 
 
 difference fall out touching that affair, it shall be referable to 
 the provincial synods, or their committee, as any other 
 matter. 
 
 " Fifth. It is not to be doubted but the lord commissioner 
 will make good what he offered regarding the establishment 
 of presbyteries and synods ; and we trust his grace will pro- 
 cure such security to those brethren for declaring their judg- 
 ment, that they may do it without any hazard in contravening 
 any law ; and that the bishop shall humbly and earnestly 
 recommend this to his grace. 
 
 " Sixth. That no entrant shall be engaged to any canonical 
 oath or subscription to the bishop, and that his opinion re- 
 garding that government shall not prejudge him in this, but 
 that it shall be free for him to declare." 
 
 In January, 1671, Bishop Leighton and the Presbyterian 
 ministers met, for the last time, at Edinburgh. Hutchieson, 
 speaking in name of his brethren, said that they had con- 
 sidered the propositions, but that they were not satisfied in 
 their consciences to accept of them. The bishop asked whether 
 they on their part had any thing to propose, and was told that 
 they had not. Leighton, in reply, explained what had been the 
 objects of his negotiation, and concluded with the following 
 words : — " My sole object has been to procure peace, and to 
 advance the interests of true religion. In following up this 
 object, I have made several proposals, which, I am fully sen- 
 sible, involved great diminutions of the just rights of Episco- 
 pacy. Yet, since all church power is intended for edification, 
 and not for destruction, I tliought that, in our present cir- 
 cumstances. Episcopacy might do more for the prosperity of 
 Christ's kingdom, by relaxing some of its just pretensions, 
 than it could by keeping hold of all its rightful authority. It 
 is not from any mistrust of the soundness of our cause that I 
 have offered these abatements ; for I am well convinced that 
 Episcopacy has subsisted from the apostolic age of the Church. 
 Perhaps I may have wronged my own order, in making such 
 large concessions : but the unerring Discerner of hearts will 
 justify my motives ; and I hope ere long to stand excused 
 with my own brethren. You have thought fit to reject our 
 overtures, without assigning any reason for the rejection, and 
 without suggesting any healing measures in the room of ours. 
 
A.L). 1671.] OF SCOTLAND. 241 
 
 The continuance of the divisions, through which religion lan- 
 guishes, must consequently lie at your door. Before God and 
 man, I wash my hands of whatever evils may result from the 
 rupture of this treaty. I have done my utmost to repair the 
 temple of the Lord, and my sorrow will not be embittered by 
 compunction, should a flood of miseries hereafter rush in 
 through the gap you have refused to assist me in closing."^ 
 
 Thus ended the attempt of Leighton to restore peace and 
 unity to the distracted Church. The endeavour, from the 
 beginning, was almost hopeless. The primate and the majo- 
 rity of the bishops and clergy were opposed to it, some from 
 unworthy motives, but many undoubtedly from a conscientious 
 belief that the proposed concessions were inconsistent with the 
 true doctrine of Episcopacy. On the other hand, even the 
 most moderate Presbyterians declined to yield anything what- 
 ever. Some of the offers made by Leighton may have gone 
 beyond what his office and duty warranted ; but the spirit by 
 which he was actuated, and the manner in which he sought to 
 promote the accommodation, were in all respects worthy of 
 his apostolic character. 
 
 The parliament again met in the summer of 1670, Lauder- 
 dale being commissioner. A severe act was passed against 
 conventicles, by which all persons whatever, except the esta- 
 blished clergy and the indulged ministers, were forbidden to 
 preach, expound the Scriptures, or pray, at any meeting, 
 unless in their own houses or families, under the pain of im- 
 prisonment ; and those attending such meetings were subjected 
 to heavy fines in proportion to their rank. It was further 
 enacted that, inasmuch as the holding of open meetings in the 
 fields tended to the encouragement of rebellion, and the dis- 
 turbance of the public peace, all who preached, expounded 
 the Scriptures, or prayed at such field meetings, or in any 
 house where more persons were assembled than the house 
 couU contain, so that some were out of doors, should be 
 
 ' Burnet, vol. i. p. 511-514. Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 180-182. Pearson'.? Life of 
 Leigliton, p. Ixxxvii.-xcii. It is singular that Burnet does not mention that 
 the Dean of Glasgow was present at the conference at Paisley, though he was 
 the only clergyman besides himself who accompanied the bishop. He is equally 
 silent as to the part which Ramsay took in the opposition made to the indul- 
 gence by the Synod of Glasgow. 
 
 VOL. III.] J7 
 
242 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY Chap. LXVI. 
 
 punished with death and the confiscation of their goods ; and 
 that their hearers should be fined in a sum double the amount 
 of that imposed on those who frequented house conventicles. 
 The act was to continue in force only for three years, unless 
 the king should think fit to continue it longer. 
 
 This oppressive and persecuting statute was carried through 
 parliament in such haste, that Leighton knew nothing of it 
 till too late to oppose it. When remonstrances were made 
 to the Earl of Tweeddale, he excused the government on 
 account of a field conventicle lately held in Fife, which had 
 been attended by great numbers, some of whom were armed ; 
 and he mentioned also that there was no intention of putting 
 the act in execution. * 
 
 Dr. George Wishart, Bishop of Edinburgh, and David 
 Strachan, Bishop of Brechin, died in the year 1671. The 
 death of Robert Wallace, Bishop of the Isles, had taken 
 place some time before. The faithfulness and zeal, the 
 learning and liberality of Dr. Wishart, have already been 
 mentioned : in regard to the other two prelates, nothing 
 worthy of particular notice seems to be recorded. Alexander 
 Young, Archdeacon of St. Andrews, was appointed to the 
 see of Edinburgh ; and Robert Laurie, Dean of Edinburgh, 
 to that of Brechin. 2 
 
 The parliament again met at Edinburgh in June, 1672. 
 Lauderdale, now created a duke, was still the royal commis- 
 sioner. An act was passed, forbidding all persons to confer 
 ordination, except those authorized by law; declaring the 
 orders given by such unauthorized persons since the year 
 
 ' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ■viii. pp, 9, 10. Bumet, vol. i. p. 
 
 505-507. 
 
 2 Keith's Catalogue, pp. 62, 64, 167, 168. Fountainhall's Historical Notices, 
 vol. i. p- 6. I have not observed when, or by whom, the new prelates were conse- 
 crated. The conge d' elire to the dean and chapter of Edinburgh in favour of 
 the Archdeacon of St. Andrews is dated the third of May 1672 (original, 
 among the Papers of the Episcopal Church in Scotland at Trinity College, 
 Glenalmond, No. A. 8, of the Catalogue) ; and, on the seventeenth of July fol- 
 lowing, Bishop Young and Bishop Laurie took the oaths as lords of pariia- 
 ment (Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. viii. appendix, p. 15). Burnet 
 mentions (vol. i. p. 521) that four bishops died in the year 1671, and that 
 he was himself desired to make choice of one of the vacant sees, including that 
 of Edinburgh ; but that both he, and Nairn and Charteris, refused to accept a 
 bishopric. 
 
A.D. 1671. J OF SCOTLAND. 243 
 
 1661 to be null and void, and the persons ordained by them 
 to be no ministers ; and commanding both the ordainers and 
 the ordained to be punished by confiscation of their goods and 
 banishment. An act was also passed, by whicli the former 
 statute against conventicles was prolonged for other three 
 years, and an explanation made that prayers were not to be 
 prohibited where the numbers assembled did not exceed four, 
 exclusive of the family. ^ 
 
 It is not easy to explain how these and other persecuting 
 statutes were passed at a time when the king's ministers, both 
 in England and in Scotland, were favourable to a suspension 
 of the laws against Dissenters. The old royalists, and the 
 opponents of the government, declared that Lauderdale and 
 his party increased the rigour of the enactments for the very 
 purpose of preventing their being put in execution. If such 
 was the case, the policy of these statesmen was as short-sighted 
 as it was insincere. 
 
 In September, 1672, the privy council granted another 
 indulgence. A considerable number of the ministers ejected 
 since the year 1661 were ordered to repair to certain parishes 
 in the dioceses of Glasgow, Galloway, Edinburgh, and Argyll, 
 two being generally appointed for each parish, with permission 
 to preach, and to exercise the other duties of their functions 
 within the limits assigned, a certain portion of the benefice 
 being allowed them for their support. This indulgence, like 
 the former, was disliked by many of the Nonconformist mi- 
 nisters. There was also much diversity of opinion among 
 their lay adherents ; most of the gentry and educated classes 
 attached to Presbyterianism being glad to have an opportunity 
 of attending the ministrations of those whose doctrines they 
 
 ' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. viij. pp. 71, 89. Burnet (vol. i. p. 
 586-591) denounces in the severest language the haughtiness and tyranny of 
 Lauderdale at this time. He allows that, in order to keep matters right, he 
 was himself led to much uneasy compliance ; but, even taking this admission 
 into account, the statements in his History cannot be reconciled with the language 
 of extreme flattery used in the epistle dedicatory to the duke, prefixed to his 
 Vindication of the Church and State of Scotland, in which praises of Lauderdale's 
 " noble character" and " princely mind," are accompanied by an acknowledgment 
 of the long tract of uninterrupted tranquillity which the kingdom had- enjoyed 
 through the " wise and happy conduct " of this " great prince, greater in his mind 
 than by his fortune." 
 
244 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY Chap. LXVI. 
 
 approved, while the peasantry hi general were averse to any 
 compromise.' 
 
 It was apparently not till the end of the year 1672, that 
 Leighton resigned the see of Dunblane. He was now ap- 
 pointed to the see of Glasgow as archbishop, not merely as 
 commendator, but was never formally translated. Although 
 one of the objects which he had chiefly in view, during the 
 whole course of his episcopate, was the restoration of litur- 
 gical services in the Church, he was obliged to let matters in 
 this respect remain as he found them in his new diocese. It 
 was indeed beyond his power to do much in regard to a point, 
 in which his predecessor, attached as he was to the English 
 ritual, and supported by his clergy, had not ventured to intro- 
 duce any important alteration. ^ 
 
 James Ramsay, Dean of Glasgow, was named to the see 
 of Dunblane. He was not unworthy to succeed Bishop 
 Leighton. He had been minister, first at Leinzie, and after- 
 wards at Linlithgow, and had been much respected by the 
 Resolutioners. Soon after the Restoration he was appointed 
 Parson of Hamilton and Dean of Glasgow. He proved his 
 attachment to ecclesiastical authority by taking a chief part 
 in the Glasgow remonstrance against the indulgence ; and he 
 had lately shewn, by the assistance which he gave to Bishop 
 Leighton, that he was favourable to any reasonable measures 
 of conciliation.^. 
 
 With his higher dignity, the troubles of Archbishop Leigh- 
 ton continued to increase. The indulgence did not lead to 
 the giving up of con ven tides ; the proceedings of the indulged 
 ministers were very different from what had been anticipated ; 
 and his own conduct was suspected by many on both sides. 
 He was unable to attend his diocesan synod in April, 1673, but 
 he wrote to the members with his usual fervour and devotion. 
 In the concluding part of his letter, he thus expresses him- 
 self: — " Concerning myself I have nothing to say, but humbly 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 203-210. Burnet, vol. i. pp. 591, 592. 
 
 2 Keith's Catalogue, pp. 182, 268. As to the forms of worship and state of 
 society at Glasgow during Leighton's episcopate, see the extracts from the Diary 
 of Josiah Chorley, given in the preface to the Munimenta Almas Universitatis 
 Glasguensis, pp. xxiv. xxv. 
 
 3 Keith's Catalogue, p. 183. Baillie, vol. iii. pp. 313, 487. 
 
A.D 1673.] OF SCOTLAND. 245 
 
 to entreat you to pass by the many failings and weaknesses 
 you may have perceived in me, during my abode amongst 
 you ; and, if in any thing I have injured or offended you, or 
 any of you, in the management of my public charge, or in 
 private converse, I do sincerely beg your pardon : though 
 I confess I cannot make any requital in that kind ; for I do 
 not know of anything towards me, from any of you, that needs 
 a pardon in the least ; having generally paid me more kind- 
 ness and respect than a much better or wiser man could either 
 have expected or deserved." The archbishop's humility was 
 very great ; but the testimony thus borne to the conduct of 
 his clergy would not have been given, had it not on their part 
 been really deserved. 
 
 Wearied with what he thought was a useless struggle, " long- 
 ing for the shadows of the evening and to be at rest," the 
 archbishop again resolved to give up his see, and withdraw 
 from public affairs. In August, 1673, he obtained the king's 
 written consent to his resignation, on condition of his holding 
 his office for another year. He returned from court much 
 pleased with this arrangement, and told Burnet that there 
 was now but one uneasy stage between him and rest. A 
 twelvemonth afterwards he claimed the fulfilment of the royal 
 promise, and resigned his archbishopric mto the king's hands. ^ 
 
 After residing for some time at the College of Edinburgh, 
 Leighton retired to Broadhurst, an estate in the parish of 
 Horsted Keynes, in the county of Sussex, belonging to a 
 widowed sister. Far from the scene of storm and turmoil 
 with which his spirit had been vexed, he there found the re- 
 pose he had long desired. At Horsted Keynes, and the 
 neighbouring churches, he assisted the clergy in their ordi- 
 nary parochial duties, preaching, and reading the offices in the 
 Book of Common Prayer which he loved so well. He also 
 visited the poor at their own houses, but, in distributing his 
 alms, preferred doing so by the hands of others. 
 
 Once only was his retirement disturbed. In the year 1679, 
 the king, at the desire of the Duke of Monmouth, requested 
 Leighton to make a journey to Scotland, and endeavour to 
 establish tranquillity there. He was willing to comply if any 
 
 ' Burnet, vol. i. p. 592-594 ; vol. ii. p. 54. Pearson's Life of Leighton, p. 
 cii.-xviii. Miscellany of the Maitland Club, vol. iv. part i. pp. 298, 299. 
 
246 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chap. LXVL 
 
 good was likely to come of it, but, for some reason not suffi- 
 ciently explained, probably the declining influence of the 
 duke, the design was abandoned. 
 
 Leighton had frequently said that, if he were to choose a 
 place to die in, it should be an inn ; for his departure would be 
 like the return home of a pilgrim, to whom the world was as 
 an inn : and he added that the attendance of strangers was 
 less likely to disturb the mind at such a time than the officious 
 tenderness of friends. This singular wish was granted. In 
 the summer of 1684, the Earl of Perth came up to London, 
 and expressed to Burnet an earnest wish to see Leighton. The 
 request was communicated to the archbishop, who complied 
 with it, and took up his residence at the Bell Inn, in Warwick 
 Lane. Though in his seventy-fourth year, he seemed to be 
 in good health ; his hair was still black, and all his former 
 liveliness unimpaired. Burnet, who had not seen him for a 
 considerable time, congratulated him on his looks ; he answered 
 that his work and journey were both almost done. The next 
 day he was seized with a sudden illness, and died about thirty- 
 six hours afterwards, on the twenty-fifth of June. His body 
 was taken to Horsted Keynes, and interred within the chancel 
 of the parish church.^ 
 
 It is needless to ejdarge on the character of Leighton. In 
 his own day he was misunderstood by many. There were 
 Presbyterians who accused him of Popery, because he lived 
 a retired life, recommended the study of Thomas a Kempis, 
 and lamented the destruction of the monasteries ; and there 
 were members of his own communion who doubted his attach- 
 ment to Episcopacy, because he disliked persecution, and 
 wished to conciliate the Nonconformists. The writers of suc- 
 ceeding times, almost without an exception, have done him 
 justice. His biographer has well said, that " it may be 
 doubted whether Christianity in the days of its youthful 
 
 ' Burnet, toI. ii, pp. 54, 423-426- Pearson's Life of Leighton, pp. cviii. 
 xliv.-cxlviii. The archbishop was never married. By his will, which was 
 dated at Broadhurst, the seventeenth of February, 1683 — being the year in 
 ■which he died, as he no doubt used the English style — he left his whole e fleets 
 for charitable uses, and bequeathed his library, a select and valuable one, to the 
 cathedral of Dunblane, for the benefit of the clergy of that diocese. His works 
 were first edited by Dr. Fall, Principal of the College of Glasgow, and, after the 
 Revolution, Precentor of York. (Pearson's Life of Leighton, p. clxxii-clxxv.) 
 
A.U. 1674.] OF SCOTLAND. 247 
 
 vigour gave birth to a more finished pattern than Leighton, of 
 the love of holiness ;" and a similar remark had previously- 
 been made by Alexander Knox, It was to Leighton chiefly, 
 or rather to him alone, that Burnet referred in the well-known 
 passage : — " I have observed among the few [of the Scottish 
 bishops] to whom I had the honour to be known particularly, 
 as great, and as exemplary things, as ever I met with in all 
 ecclesiastical history ; not only the practice of the strictest of 
 all the ancient canons, but a pitch of virtue and piety beyond 
 what can fall under common imitation, or be made the measure 
 of even the most angelical rank of men ; and saw things in 
 them that would look liker fair ideas, than what men clothed 
 with flesh and blood could grow up to."^ 
 
 * See preface to the Life of Bedell ; Pearson's Life of Leighton, p. cxviii ; 
 Knox's Eemains, vol. iv. p. 158. 
 
248 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chap. LXVII. 
 
 CHAPTER LXVII. 
 
 FROM THE RESIGNATION OF THE SEE OF GLASGOW BY ARCHBISHOP 
 LEIGHTON IN AUGUST, 1674, TO THE DEATH OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP 
 IN MAY, 1679. 
 
 Archhishop Burnet restored to the see of Glasgow — Movement 
 for a National Synod — Opposition of the Archhishop of St. 
 Andrews — Bishop Ramsay supports the movement — 
 Dispute between him and Archbishop Sharp — Increased 
 boldness of the Nonconformists — Field-preachings become 
 common — The Highland Host — Trial of James Mitchell — 
 Popular feeling roused against Archbishop Sharp — Death 
 of the Archbishop — His character. 
 
 In September, 1674, a royal letter was issued, by which 
 Archbishop Burnet was restored to the see of Glasgow ; andy 
 in December following, he was again admitted a member of 
 the privy council.^ 
 
 Soon after this event, Gilbert Burnet resigned his professor- 
 ship of divinity at Glasgow, and went to reside in London. 
 His political opinions, and his habit of interfering in matters 
 of every description, must have prevented any cordial co- 
 operation between him and the restored metropolitan ; but the 
 principal cause of the change was a quarrel with his former 
 patron, the Duke of Lauderdale. 
 
 In the course of the year 1674, the death occurred of two 
 of the most eminent of the Presbyterian ministers, the only 
 two indeed, that still survived, of those who had formerly taken 
 a prominent part in public affairs. Robert Douglas died in 
 January, and George Hutchieson in March ; the decease of 
 the latter having been hastened, as was supposed, by the 
 reproaches of the violent members of his own communion. ^ 
 
 James Hamilton, Bisliop of Galloway, died in 1674; and 
 William Scroggie, Bishop of Argyll, in the following year. 
 The former prelate was succeeded by John Paterson, Dean of 
 
 ' Wodrow, vol. ii. pp. '271, 272. 
 ' Law's MemoriaKs, pp. 58, 64, .65. 
 
A.D. 1674.] OF SCOTLAND. 249 
 
 Edinburgh, son of the Bishop of Ross, the latter by Arthur 
 Ross, Parson of Glasgow, who were both consecrated at Edin- 
 burgh, in May, 1675, by their metropolitan, the Archbishop 
 of Glasgow, assisted by the Bishop of Edinburgh, and another 
 prelate whose name is not mentioned.^ 
 
 The years 1674 and 1675 were marked by an effort on the 
 part of several of the bishops and clergy to obtain some degree 
 of freedom from the thraldom in which they were held by the 
 state. Those who took the lead in this movement were the 
 Bishops of Edinburgh, Dunblane, and Brechin, and the pres- 
 byters of Edinburgh. What they chiefly aimed at was the 
 calling of a national synod, which had often been spoken of, 
 but had never been allowed to meet. They doubtless expected 
 that, by means of an ecclesiastical assembly, they would be 
 able to devise better plans for the reformation of the Church, 
 and for healing the grievances complained of, than could be 
 expected from the secular lords of the council. It is impossible 
 to say whether, if their wishes had been acceded to, the good 
 they expected would have followed ; but the endeavour itself 
 was praiseworthy, and the means by which they sought to 
 accomplish it were consistent with the laws both of Church 
 and State. 
 
 Archbishop Burnet sympathized with the attempt, but, 
 unfortunately, Lauderdale and the primate were strongly 
 opposed to it. Lauderdale disliked all independent action 
 on the part of the clergy, and probably had no desire for the 
 restoration of harmony and tranquillity ; the Archbishop of 
 St. Andrews was jealous of any interference with the epis- 
 copal prerogatives, and his own primatial authority. Petitions 
 in favour of a national assembly having been proposed in some 
 of the diocesan synods, and in other ecclesiastical courts, the 
 government became alarmed ; and Lauderdale wrote to the 
 primate, regretting that some of those from whom he 
 would have expected other things had joined in the move- 
 ment, and expressing an opinion that the proceedings them- 
 selves resembled those which had taken place before the 
 breaking out of the great rebellion. No one knew better 
 than the duke how utterly unlike the two cases were, and 
 
 ' Keith's Catalogue, pp. 282, 291. Law's Memorials, p. 77. Life of Robert 
 Biair, p. 5.59. 
 
250 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOEY [Chap. LXVII. 
 
 how little was to be dreaded, so far as the peace of the king- 
 dom was concerned, from a lawful synod of the clergy ; but it 
 suited his policy to represent the matter in a light the most 
 odious to his sovereign, and to all who were afraid of a 
 renewal of the Covenanting tumults. 
 
 The primate did not stand in need of Lauderdale's advice 
 to check the proceedings complained of; and his zeal was 
 increased by some attacks which had been made upon himself, 
 particularly by one of the Edinburgh clergy, Andrew Cant, 
 son of the Presbyterian minister of the same name, who had 
 called him a great grievance to the Church. He wrote to 
 Archbishop Sheldon, entreating him to use his influence with 
 the king to stop the calling of an assembly, and made a 
 formal complaint to the privy council against several of the 
 clergy of the capital. 
 
 On the eighth of July, 1674, a meeting was held at St. 
 Andrews, to which all the bishops of the province, and some 
 of the presbyters, were summoned. The Bishop of Dunblane 
 boldly maintained the cause of ecclesiastical reform, though 
 unsupported by any of his brethren, the Bishops of Edin- 
 burgh and Brechin having yielded to the arguments or threats 
 of those in authority. The primate rebuked him with harsh- 
 ness, and he left the meeting in consequence. On the follow- 
 ing day, he wrote a letter to the archbishop, explaining and 
 vindicating his opinions. He claimed a right for himself and 
 his successors in the see of Dunblane to be present at all such 
 assemblies, along with some of their presbyters, although, on 
 the present occasion, he had been refused the privilege, al- 
 lowed to other prelates, of being attended by his clergy. He 
 stated that no one regretted the want of canons in the Church 
 more than himself, but that he could not approve of a proposal 
 which had been made on the previous day to supply the de- 
 ficiency, inasmuch as that meeting was neither a national, a 
 provincial, nor a diocesan synod. Such an attempt, he said, 
 would arouse the suspicions, both of the orderly clergy and 
 of others, that the bishops intended to rule the Church in 
 an arbitrary and irregular manner. More deliberation was 
 requisite in so important a matter, and the Archbishop of 
 Glasgow ought also to have been consulted, both as an inde- 
 pendent metropolitan, and as personally well fitted to give 
 
A.D. 1674.] OF SCOTLAND. 251 
 
 advice. It was also, he said, to be carefully thought of, 
 whether the faith and worship of the Church should not be 
 considered, as well as its discipline, and, after due prepara- 
 tion, the king humbly solicited to call a national synod. He 
 concluded by expressing an opinion that the existing schisms, 
 the cause of most of the evils by which they were afflicted, 
 would best be cured in a church way, and by inducing the 
 gravest and most sober of the Nonconforming ministers to 
 concur with the bishops and clergy. 
 
 The opposition of Bishop Rcimsay appears to have excited 
 the resentment of the primate. On the twenty-eighth of July, 
 a royal letter was laid before the council, in which his 
 majesty intimated that he had written to the Archbishop of 
 St. Andrews, ordering the Bishop of Dunblane to be trans- 
 lated to the see of the Isles, and Andrew Cant, Archibald 
 Turner, and John Robertson, ministers at Edinburgh, and 
 John Hamilton, minister at Leith, to be removed to other 
 parishes. This arbitrai7 sentence was carried into execution 
 against the four ministers ; and the Bishop of Dunblane was 
 suspended from the exercise of his episcopal functions. The 
 bishop laid his case before the king, and, in the following 
 year, both the primate and himself repaired to London, where 
 an angry correspondence took place between them. A court, 
 composed apparently of the Archbishop of Glasgow and 
 several bishops, was named for the purpose of investigating 
 the charges against Bishop Ramsay, and commenced its 
 sittings in the month of September. In a paper which was 
 laid before them, the bishop denied all factious motives, but 
 admitted his desire for a national synod, and for the compila- 
 tion of a Catechism, Liturgy, and Canons ; mentioning that, 
 after the passing of the act of parliament which defined the 
 constitution of a synod, a royal warrant had actually been 
 granted for drawing up such formularies, and that he himself, 
 at Bishop Wishart's request, had taken part in the work ; and 
 expressing a hope that the desire which he had manifested^ 
 under the fervour kindled by his consecration, which was then 
 recent, for what was so good an object, would not be imputed 
 as a fault, when he could not find so much as a catechism 
 appointed in the Church, nor a rule by which to try the faith 
 and correct the manners of his diocese. 
 
252 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVIL 
 
 Bishop Ramsay finally made some apology or submission, 
 the exact import of which is not stated, and, in April, 1676, 
 was restored to his diocese of Dunblane. The four presbyters 
 also submitted, and were allowed to return to their charges, 
 Cant being soon afterwards appointed Principal of the College 
 of Edinburgh.^ 
 
 The Nonconformists, more encouraged by the partial 
 toleration which they received, than frightened by the enact- 
 ments made against them, became bolder in their proceedings. 
 They assembled, sometimes in the churches, but more fre- 
 quently in the fields, and that even where the churches were 
 open to them. Attendance at field-preachings became a sort 
 of passion, and the danger seemed only to make it the more 
 attractive. When the government attempted to put down tliese 
 assemblages by force, the people no longer scrupled to offer 
 resistance. Kirkton says, in reference to the state of matters 
 at this time, " The discom-se up and down Scotland was the 
 quality and success of the last Sabbath's conventicle ; who 
 the preachers were ; what the number of the people was ; 
 what the affections of the people were ; what doctrine the 
 minister preached ; what change was among the people ; how 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. ii.pp. 300-311, 342. Law's Memorials, pp. 70, 71, 84. Life 
 of Eobert Blair, pp. 541, 542, 546-549. Stephen, vol. iii. pp. 2, 3. Burnet 
 supplies no information whatever on this interesting subject, beyond the follow- 
 ing : — " Some hot men, that were not preferred as they thought they de- 
 served, grew very mutinous, and complained that things were let fall into 
 much confusion. And they raised a grievous outcry for the want of a national 
 synod to regulate our worship and government ; and so moved in the diocesan 
 synods that a petition should be offered to the privy council, setting forth the 
 necessity of having a national synod. I liked no part of this. I knew the temper 
 of our clergy too well to depend much on them. Therefore I went out of the way 
 on purpose when our synod was to meet. Petitions were offered for a national 
 synod, which was thought an innocent thing. Yet, it being done on design to 
 heighten the fermentation the kingdom was in, great exceptions were taken to it. 
 One bishop and four of the clergy were turned out by an order from the king, 
 pursuant to the act asserting the supremacy. After a year, upon their submis- 
 sion, they were restored. Though I was not at all concerned in this, (for I was 
 ever of Nazianzen's opinion, who never wished to see any more synods of the 
 clergy,) yet the king was made to believe that I bad laid the whole matter, eveu 
 though I did not appear in any part of it.'' (History of bis Own Time, vol. ii. 
 pp. 46, 47.) Burnet appears to have forgotten that the calling of a national 
 synod had been earnestly urged by himself in bis memorial to the bishops in 
 1665 : but, when he wrote the passage in his History, he was probably thinking 
 of the state of the Church of England at a later period ; see Swift's brief com- 
 ment, and Dr. Routh's note, on the passage. 
 
A.D. 1676.] OF SCOTLAND. 253 
 
 sometimes the soldiers assaulted them, and sometimes killed some 
 of them, sometimes the soldiers were beaten, and some of them 
 killed." Women, as on former occasions, distinguished them 
 selves by their zeal. In June, 1674, a number of them, headed 
 by the widow of John Livingstone, assembled in the Parliament 
 Close at Edinburgh, in order to petition the council for a faith- 
 ful ministry. When the primate entered, they called him traitor 
 and Judas, and one of them, laying her hand on his neck, said, 
 it must pay for all. Several of these women, among whom 
 was a daughter of Warriston, were imprisoned for their concern 
 in this matter, and others were banished from the city.^ 
 
 The council, alarmed by the increase of conventicles, at- 
 tempted to check them by enforcing the laws lately made, 
 and by reviving former statutes. Many of the most notorious 
 attenders at the field preachings were denounced rebels by 
 name, and letters of intcrcommuning were issued, by which all 
 persons harbouring them, or assisting them in any way, were 
 declared liable in the same penalties to which the denounced 
 themselves were exposed. Bonds were also tendered for 
 signature, by which the subscribers became responsible for 
 the conduct of their families, servants, and tenants. 
 
 In order to compel obedience to the laws, a royal com- 
 mission was granted in December, 1677, by which the lords 
 of the council were empowered not only to call out the regu- 
 lar troops and the militia, but to assemble the feudal array 
 and Highland following of the northern barons. In virtue of 
 this commission, a considerable number of the clans were 
 quartered in the western counties for about six weeks or two 
 months. These mountaineers, who were styled by the Non- 
 conformists the Highland Host, lived at free quarters in the 
 disturbed districts, and harassed the inhabitants by their ex- 
 actions. But though rapacious, they were not cruel, and the 
 Covenanters were more frightened than seriously ill-treated. 
 The conduct of the mountaineers was marked by no such 
 acts as in the previous reign had disgraced the soldiers of the 
 Covenant in Kintyre and the Isles. Not a single person lost his 
 life during their stay, except one of the Highlanders themselves, 
 who was killed by a countryman in the parish of Campsie.^ 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. ii. pp. 268, 269. Kirkton, p. 343-346. Mackenzie, p. 273. 
 • Wodrow, vol. ii. pp. 286-288, 379, 380, 412-432. Burnet, vol. ii. pp. 101, 
 102,133-136. Kirkton, p. 385-391. 
 
254 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVII. 
 
 Andrew Honeyman, Bishop of Orkney, died in February, 
 1676. Murdoch Mackenzie was in consequence translated 
 from Murray to Orkney ; and James Atkins, formerly mini- 
 ster at Birsa in Orkney, who had been deposed by the Cove- 
 nanters for his loyalty, and since the Restoration had held a 
 benefice in England, was appointed to the see of Murray. 
 Robert Laurie, Bishop of Brechin, died in 1677 ; and, either 
 in that or in the preceding year, the decease took place of 
 Henry Guthrie, Bishop of Dunkeld. The former prelate was 
 succeeded by George Haliburton, minister at Cupar- Angus ; 
 the latter by William Lindsay, minister at Perth. The see 
 of the Isles, which had been vacant for some time, was filled 
 in 1677 by the election of Andrew Wood, minister at 
 Dunbar. John Paterson, Bishop of Boss, died in January, 
 1679 ; and, for some political or personal reason not suffi- 
 ciently explained, the Duke of Lauderdale obliged Alexander 
 Young, Bishop of Edinburgh, to resign his see, and accept 
 the diocese of Boss, m order to make room for the promotion 
 of John Paterson, Bishop of Galloway, to the see of Edin- 
 burgh.^ 
 
 In January, 1678, James Mitchell, the fanatic who ten 
 years before had attempted to murder Archbishop Sharp, 
 was tried for the second time. Having been apprehended 
 in 1674, he confessed his guilt in regard to the assassination 
 and his concern in the insurrection of 1666, on an assurance 
 from the members of the privy council that his life would be 
 spared ; but, when brought before the Court of Justiciary on 
 a charge of rebellion and murder, he refused to adhere to his 
 confession, though warned by the judges that he would thus 
 lose the benefit of the assurance which had been given to him. 
 The council accordingly, on the twelfth of March, 1674, made 
 
 1 Keitb's Catalogue, pp. 64, 99, 153, 154, 168, 203, 204, 228, 282, 310. 
 Bishop Honeyman was the author of the Survey of Naphtali, and other works. 
 Bishop Guthrie wrote the Memoirs of his own Time, down to the murder of King 
 Charles the First. I have found no particular details regarding the consecration 
 of the new prelates, except what Keith mentions, that Bishop Lindsay was con- 
 secrated on the seventh of May, 1677, and Bishop Haliburton in 1678. In 
 Lord Fountainhall's Historical Notices (vol. i. p. 203), the following occurs 
 under the date of twenty-seventh September, 1678: — "This day, Mr John 
 Paterson, Bishop of Galloway, was admitted and sworn one of his majesty's privy 
 council. He is the first bishop a counsellor since the king's restoration, though 
 there were archbishops in the said council." 
 
A.D. 1678.] OF SCOTLAND. 255 
 
 an act, by which they declared that, in consequence of his 
 refusal, the promise which they had given was altogether void. 
 As there was no evidence in regard to the assassination except 
 the confession which he had retracted, and as he made no 
 farther admissions though put to the torture, he was first de- 
 tained a prisoner in tlie Tolbooth of Edinburgh, and after- 
 wards sent to the Bass. When he was again brought to trial 
 in 1678, the charge against him was restricted to the attempt 
 to murder the primate. The chief evidence of his guilt was 
 a written confession, subscribed by him in 1674 in presence 
 of a committee of the council ; and, when the accused referred 
 to the promise which had been made to him, the Earl of 
 Rothes, Charles Maitland, Lauderdale's brother, Lauderdale 
 himself, and the Archbishop of St. Andrews, swore that no 
 assurance had been given. The prisoner's counsel thereupon 
 produced a copy of the act of council, and requested that the 
 register should be produced, but this was not allowed by the 
 court. The jury having found Mitchell guilty, sentence of 
 death was pronounced, and he was executed on the eighteenth 
 of January. 
 
 These proceedings are important, not so much on account of 
 the wretched assassin, of whose guilt no one had any doubt, 
 as for the terrible stain they have left on the conduct of the 
 presiding judge, and on that of the members of the council who 
 were examined as witnesses. That judge was Sir Archibald 
 Primrose, who had been lately deprived of the lucrative office of 
 Clerk Register, and appointed Justice General. He was one of 
 the committee in whose presence the confession was signed ; and 
 Burnet states that it was he who sent the copy of the act to the 
 prisoner's counsel, for the very purpose of inducing the members 
 of the government to perjure themselves by denying it, and 
 that he afterwards triumphed in the success of his device. 
 According to the same historian, when Lauderdale, after the 
 trial, discovered that a promise had really been made, he pro- 
 posed that a reprieve should be granted to Mitchell, but this 
 was resisted by Sharp. The archbishop's opposition is also 
 mentioned by Fountainhall. ^ 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. ii. pp. 248-252, 454-473. Burnet, vol. ii. pp. 125-132, 299. 
 State Trials, vol. vi. p. 1207-1270. Fountainhall's Historical Notices, vol. i. p. 
 182-1 86' Burnet mentions that he received an account of the whole matter, 
 
256 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVII. 
 
 The odium which this trial naturally and justly called forth 
 was mainly directed against the primate. If any palliation 
 could be found for his conduct, it would be in the terror by 
 which he appears to have been harassed, and which perhaps 
 explains the apparently contradictory accounts which have 
 been given of some of his proceedings. His naturally fearless 
 disposition liad given way under the constant dread of assas- 
 sination. He was denounced by the extreme Covenanting 
 party as a perjured and apostate prelate, the chief persecutor 
 of the saints, and the cause of all the evils by which the country 
 was afflicted. These zealots, at all times fierce and intolerant, 
 had been driven to madness by the severe measures of the 
 government, and openly avowed the lawfulness of putting 
 their persecutors to death. They appealed for authority to the 
 writings of Knox, and, setting the new law of the Gospel ut- 
 terly aside, referred to the acts of Phinehas and Ehud as examples 
 which they were literally bound to imitate. These opinions 
 were widely circulated, not only in sermons, but by means of 
 books and pamphlets. The weapon thus supplied was 
 wielded, as it generally has been by a persecuted party, with 
 the most reckless violence. Soon after the re-establishment 
 of Episcopacy, the Scottish exiles in Holland had published 
 vehement attacks on the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, 
 which the privy council vainly attempted to suppress ; and 
 every year, as the intolerance of the government became 
 greater, the virulence of the writings increased. 
 
 This fanaticism was encouraged by the race of preachers 
 which had grown up among the Nonconformists. The old 
 ministers were generally men of good education, and not 
 unfrequently related by consanguinity or marriage to the 
 families of the gentry. Though opposed to Episcopacy, 
 and often ill affected to the civil government, they did 
 not court persecution, and they had no wish, if they could 
 help it, to be reduced to absolute poverty — a species of trial 
 which they particularly dreaded, and which they had 
 been accustomed to view as one of the worst judgments on 
 
 and an authentic record of the trial, from Primrose. If the information of such 
 a man had not been supported by better evidence, it would be entitled to little 
 weight. Sir George Mackenzie's account (p. 326 329) is disingenuous, and, in 
 some important points, untrue. 
 
AD. 1679.] OF SCOTLAND. 257 
 
 the enemies of the Covenant. Many of them therefore 
 had gladlj availed themselves of the indulgences, and were 
 disposed to wait in patience for some political change which 
 might restore the ascendency of their party. The young 
 preachers were different in every respect. They were for the 
 most part of humble birth, and had little learning or education. 
 In the estimation of their hearers, however, all wants were 
 amply supplied by their fiery zeal and courage, and by their 
 denunciation of every compromise with Prelacy or Erastianism. 
 But the great majority of the peasantry, and a considerable 
 number of the gentry, in the western counties, did not require 
 any prompting from their ministers. It was rather by them 
 that the preachers themselves were urged on. Just as in the 
 former reign the nobility, who at first took a lead, had been 
 set aside by the ministers, so now the ministers were obliged 
 to follow the course which was pointed out by their hearers, 
 and could hope to retain their influence only by sharing the 
 enthusiasm of the most excited portion of their congregations. 
 Within little more than a year after the trial of Mitchell, 
 the apprehensions of the primate "vvere fearfully realised, A 
 body of fanatics, the chief among whom were Hackston of 
 Rathillet and Balfour of Kinloch, had assembled in arms in 
 Fifeshire, for the purpose, it is said, of waylaying a person of 
 the name of Carmichael, who, as sheriff-depute of the county, 
 had made himself obnoxious by his activity in suppressing 
 conventicles. Some of them had a personal quarrel with the 
 archbishop ; others had for some time been watching an op- 
 portunity to kill him ; and there is reason to believe that their 
 main object was to attack him rather than the sheriff. On 
 learning that the primate, on his return from Edinburgh, was 
 in their immediate neighbourhood, and but a short distance in 
 advance of them, they hastened forwards, and overtook his 
 coach at Magus Moor, near St. Andrews. After disarming 
 his servants, they ordered him to come out, lest his daughter, 
 who was with him, should be injured ; and, on his hesitating, 
 they fired into tlie coach. When he then came out, and implored 
 them to spare his life, they told him that it was for no private 
 hatred to his person, but because he was an enemy of the 
 Gospel, a murderer of the saints, and a betrayer of the Church, 
 that they now executed vengeance upon him. Disregarding 
 
 VOL. III.] ig 
 
258 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Cuap. LXVH. 
 
 alike his own prayers, and the entreaties of his daughter, who 
 was Avounded in the struggle, they slew him with repeated 
 thrusts of their swords. This atrocious murder was perpetrated 
 at noonday, on the third of May, 1679.^ 
 
 Thus died James Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrews, when 
 he had almost completed the sixty-first year of his age. Little 
 requires to be added to what has already been said regarding 
 his character. The charge of treachery, so often brought 
 against him in connection with his negotiations in 1660, has 
 been shewn to be groundless, being unsupported by evidence, 
 and refuted by the circumstance that the very party for which 
 he acted, with a few exceptions, adopted the same course as 
 himself. He was temperate and upright in private life, 
 liberal in, his charities, and exemplary in the performance 
 of his ordinary duties. The stories of his immoralities, told 
 by some writers, are utterly incredible, and are disgraceful 
 to those who relate them. His acceptance of the primacy 
 necessarily exposed him to suspicion. It has been said that 
 his change from Presbyterianism to Episcopacy is no more to 
 be censured than that of Henderson in the opposite direction. 
 But the circumstances were very different. Henderson for- 
 sook his prelatical opinions when Prelacy was in the ascend- 
 ency, and clung to his new creed during many years of difficulty 
 and danger. Sharp adopted his new principles, when the 
 change led to worldly honour and advancement. Neither was 
 the conduct of the archbishop, from the time of his elevation, 
 such as to make men forget the part which he had formerly 
 taken. He made no attempt to conciliate the enemies of the 
 hierarchy by kindness or moderation ; and, while he refused 
 to join with some of his brethren in the episcopate in the pro- 
 motion of the reforms which the Church stood so much in need 
 of, he, almost alone of their number, took a prominent part 
 in the enactment and execution of those cruel laws, by which 
 an arbitrary government attempted to suppress all resistance 
 to established authority. 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. iii. p. 41-51. Burnet, vol. ii. pp. 226, 227. Eussell's Account 
 of the Murder, annexed to Kirkton's History, p. 403-424. 
 
AD. lG7i).] OF SCOTLAND. 259 
 
 CHAPTER LXVIII. 
 
 FROM THE DEATH OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP IN MAY, 1679, TO THE DEATH 
 OP BISHOP SCOUGAL IN FEBRUARY, 1682. 
 
 Archbishop Burnet appointed to the see of St. Andrews — Insur- 
 rection of the Covenanters — Differences among the Presby- 
 terians — The Canieronians — Cruelty of the Government — 
 Fanaticism of the Nonconformists — Movements in favour 
 of a Liturgy — The Test Act — Trial of the Earl of Argyll 
 — Objections to the Test by the clergy of Aberdeen — The 
 Privy Council sanction an explanation of the Test — Tran- 
 quillity of the northern dioceses — Progress of the Quaker 
 opinions in the North — Wise government of Bishop Scougal 
 — Account of his son Henry Scougal, and of his nephew 
 John Cochburn — Character of the clergy of Aberdeen — James 
 Gordon, Parson of Banchory-Devenich — He publishes The 
 Reformed Bishoj) — He is deposed — Death of Bishop Scougal. 
 
 Soon after the death of Archbishop, Sharp, Dr. Burnet, Arch- 
 bishop of Glasgow, was appointed primate. Arthur Ross, 
 Bishop of Argyll, who had been translated to Galloway, 
 vacant by the appointment of Bishop Paterson to the see of 
 Edinburgh, was nominated to the archiepiscopal see of Glas- 
 gow ; and Bishop Atkins was translated to Galloway. Colin 
 Falconer, minister at Forres, was nominated to the see of 
 Argyll, and soon afterwards translated to Murray ; and 
 Hector Maclean, minister at Eastwood, was raised to the see of 
 Argyll. William Lindsay, Bishop of Dunkeld, died in the 
 course of the year 1679, and was succeeded by Andrew Bruce, 
 Archdeacon of St. Andrews. In the following year, on the 
 decease of Bishop Patrick Forbes, Andrew Wood was trans- 
 lated to Caithness, and Archibald Graham, Parson of Rothsay, 
 was appointed Bishop of the Isles. Bishop Falconer and 
 Bishop Bruce werg consecrated at St. Andrews, on the feast 
 of St. Simon and St. Jude, 1679, both the archbishops appar- 
 ently being present.^ 
 
 ' Keith's Catalogue, pp. 43,99, 154, 218, 269, 282, 292, 310. Lyon's His. 
 
260 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVIII. 
 
 Immediately after the murder of Archbishop Sharp, a re- 
 ward was offered for the discovery of the assassins, but the 
 efforts made to apprehend them were unsuccessful. The crime 
 was viewed with detestation, not only by the members of the 
 established Church, but by most of the Presbyterians. A few, 
 however, of the indulged Nonconformists spoke of it in doubt- 
 ful terms, neither condemning, nor venturing altogether to 
 defend it ; while the extreme Covenanting party gloried in the 
 act, as justified alike by political and religious duty. These 
 last, encouraged by the blow which had been struck, and be- 
 lieving that no middle course now remained, prepared for open 
 and general resistance. 
 
 On the twenty-ninth of May, the anniversary of the king's 
 restoration, a body of armed Covenanters entered the burgh of 
 Rutherglen, extinguished the bonfires which were lighted in 
 honour of the day, and burned copies of the Act Rescissory, 
 the Act establishing Episcopacy, the Declaration against the 
 Covenants, and some other obnoxious acts of parliament and 
 council ; and fixed on the market cross a declaration of what 
 they had done, and of the principles on which they proceeded. 
 A conventicle was to meet on the following Sunday at Loudon- 
 hill, in Clydesdale, and one of the ministers present at Ruther- 
 glen was to preach on the occasion. Graham of Claverhouse, 
 who commanded a small detachment of the royal army, hearing 
 of their design, attempted to disperse them, but was driven 
 back by the Covenanters. The insurgents were joined soon 
 afterwards by considerable numbers from Ayrshire, Galloway, 
 and Nithsdale, and became so formidable that the king's troops 
 were obliged to abandon Glasgow. Disputes, however, broke 
 out among them. They had been joined by some of the 
 moderate Presbyterians, but the two parties, instead of acting 
 together, were occupied in contending about the lawfulness of 
 the indulgence. In the meantime, the Duke of Monmouth had 
 been sent to take the command of the royal army, and ad- 
 vanced against the rebels, who were encamped at Bothwell. 
 
 tory of St. Andrews, vol. ii. p. 103. Stephen, vol. iii. pp. 190, 191. I bave 
 seen no notice of the consecration of Bisliop Graham and Bishop Maclean. 
 Eow states (Life of Robert Blair, p. 572) that in the beginning of July two 
 prelates were consecrated at St. Andrews ; but this probably refers, though the 
 date is erroneous, to Bishop Falconer and Bishop Bruce. 
 
A.D. 1679.J OF SCOTLAND. 261 
 
 After some vain attempts at negotiation, the duke forced the 
 passage of the Clyde, and routed and dispersed the insurgents 
 on the twenty-second of June. ^ 
 
 The punishments inflicted by the government on those who 
 were concerned in the rebellion were less severe than might 
 have been expected. Two ministers, and five other persons, 
 were executed ; but the common people were dismissed, on 
 their signing a bond by which they promised not again to 
 take arms against the king. A considerable number, how- 
 ever, were so far led away by their fanatical opinions, as to 
 refuse pardon on these terms, and were in consequence shipped 
 off to the English plantations in America; while, of those who 
 came under the engagement, it is stated that many did so 
 with the mental reservation that the rising was not against 
 his majesty's authority, and therefore that they were not bound 
 to pursue a different course if another opportunity should 
 occur. 
 
 The differences between the two parties among the Presby- 
 terians now led to an entire separation. The more violent 
 Covenanters became known by the title of Cameronians, from 
 the name of a seditious preacher, Richard Cameron, who, with 
 Donald Cargill and a few others, was esteemed to possess an 
 exclusive right to a lawful ministry ; the authority of the rest 
 being held to be invalidated by their compliances with the 
 government. The principles of this sect were supposed to be 
 promulgated in a document known as the Queensferry Paper, 
 and were acknowledged in a declaration, publicly read, and 
 fixed on the market cross of the burgh of Sanquhar, on the 
 twenty-second of June, 1680. In the Sanquhar Declaration, 
 the Cameronians expressly disclaimed the authority of 
 Charles Stewart, alleging that he had forfeited the crown by 
 his tyranny, peijury, and breach of the Covenant; and they de- 
 clared war against him as a tyrant and a usurper. They also 
 protested against the succession of the Duke of York, and 
 concluded with expressing a hope that none would be offended 
 by their rewarding their opponents, as the Lord should give 
 them opportunity, in the same manner as they had themselves 
 
 ' Wodrow, vol. Hi. p. 65-111. Burnet, vol. iii. p. 227-231. Law's Memorials, 
 p. 149-151. Ure's Narrative of the Eising at Bothwell Bridge, p. 455-483. 
 Russell's Account of the Murder of Archbishop Sharp, p. 434-469. 
 
262 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVIII. 
 
 beeu treated. About a month after the date of this declaration, 
 a party of those concerned in it were attacked by the king's 
 troops and defeated. Cameron was killed on the spot, and 
 the prisoners, among whom was Hackston of Rathillet, were 
 executed. 
 
 No government could have tolerated the frantic proceedings 
 of the Caraeronians, but the severities inflicted far exceeded 
 the measure of the offence. Additional provocation was given 
 by another act of Cargill. In the month of September, that 
 preacher, after a sermon to a large assemblage at the Torwood, 
 solemnly excommunicated the king, the Duke of York, the 
 Dukes of Monmouth, Lauderdale, and Rothes, General Dal- 
 zell, and Sir George Mackenzie, the Lord Advocate ; and 
 copies of the excommunication were subsequently fixed by his 
 adherents on the market cross and Parliament House at 
 Edinburgh. In the following June, Cargill was taken and 
 executed. In January, 1681, two women, Isobel Alison and 
 Marion Harvey, who maintained the most extravagant doc- 
 trines of their sect, disowning the king's authority, saying it 
 was lawful to kill him, and expressing their sympathy with 
 the murderers of the primate in word at least, if not also by 
 assisting them to escape, were convicted, and punished with 
 death. The government may have been provoked to put the 
 laws in force, even against the female sex, in consequence of 
 some atrocious murders committed by the insurgents, in one 
 of which a woman took part; but no mere expression of 
 opinion, however wicked or absurd, not even such acts as were 
 charged, could justify this execution.^ 
 
 The violence of the Protesters had led to the fanaticism of 
 the Cameronians, and that fanaticism, as time went on, be- 
 came even more extravagant. Some of the preachers laid 
 claim to the gifts of miracle and prophesy, or at least allowed 
 their adherents to believe that they possessed such powers. 
 The solitary life the Covenanters were obliged to lead, their 
 constant fear of apprehension and death, the wild doctrines 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. iii. pp. 123-140, 202-232, 274-287. Law's Memorials, pp. 152- 
 161, 167-169, 182-184, 197199. Law, a contemporary Presbyterian minister, 
 who had the best means of knowing the facts, censures the follies and crimes of 
 the Cameronians with a straight-forward severity which contrasts strongly with 
 the disingenuous apologies of Wodrow. 
 
A.D. 1681.] OF SCOTLAND. 263 
 
 they listened to, and the denunciations of divine judgments 
 on their enemies in which they indulged, gave rise to opinions 
 and practices not unlike the superstitions of earlier ages. The 
 Cameronian biographies are full of passages which bear a 
 striking resemblance to some of the medieval legends. In 
 delusions of this kind a sect originated, whose follies were 
 sometimes unjustly ascribed to the wliole Covenanting party. 
 Its founder was John Gib, a shipmaster in Borrowstouness, 
 who had tlie reputation of being what in the language of the 
 day was called a great professor. His followers, most of whom 
 were women, were known by the name of the sweet singers. 
 They deserted their families and callings, and spent much of 
 their time in the fields, listening to the exhortations of their 
 teachers, and testifying, as' they alleged, against the wicked- 
 ness of the times. Their leaders, who were apprehended and 
 committed to prison in April, 1681, sent a paper to the privy 
 council, in which they made open profession of their extrava- 
 gant opinions. They began by declaring that they had taken 
 the Psalms in metre out of their Bibles and bm-nt them, 
 because they were no part of the Scriptures ; and they had 
 also renounced the chapters and verses, and the contents 
 prefixed, for the same reason. They condemned the transla- 
 tions of both Testaments, the Larger and the Shorter Catechism, 
 the Confession of Faith, the Acts of the General Assembly, 
 and the Covenants. They renounced Charles Stewart and 
 all other tyrants, the names of the months and days, all 
 holy days except the Sabbath, and all the customs and 
 fashions of the world. After they had been confined for some 
 time, the council gave orders that they should be liberated, on 
 their disclaiming disloyal principles.^ 
 
 When Episcopacy was restored in Scotland, most of those 
 who adhered to it on higher principles than mere political 
 expediency were desirous of a reform in the worship, as well 
 as in the government of the Church. As already mentioned, a 
 few liturgical changes were introduced, but, though farther im- 
 provements had been contemplated, nothing of importance was 
 actually accomplished. The old supporters of the hierarchy, 
 Sydscrf and Mitchell, Wishart and Burnet, and the best of 
 those who came over from Presbyterianism, Leighton, 
 ^ Wodrow, vol. iii. p. 348-356. Law's Memorials, p. 186-193. 
 
264 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY Chap. LXVIII. 
 
 Ramsay, and Ross, were favourable to those measures ; but 
 they were unable to carry out their plans, while the leading 
 statesmen were hostile, and the primate lukewarm. Row, in 
 his narrative of events in the year 1675, mentions that many 
 conformists began to dispute for a Liturgy, and some to preach 
 for it, but that Sharp had no good-will to encounter the 
 danger which had been fatal to his predecessors. The ap- 
 pointment of Archbishop Burnet to the see of St. xVndrews, if 
 it had taken place at an earlier period, might have led to more 
 beneficial results. As it was, one of the few acts of the 
 government in favour of liturgical reform took place soon after 
 his nomination. In February, 1680, the privy council, on the 
 representation of some of their own number, gave their formal 
 sanction to the use of the Book 'of Common Prayer in the 
 worship of families. ^ 
 
 After an interval of several years, the parliament was again 
 summoned. It met at Edinburgh, on the twenty-eighth of 
 July, 1681, and the Duke of York, who had left England 
 during the discussions on the bill for excluding him from the 
 succession to that kingdom, presided as royal commissioner. 
 On the thirty -first of August, a statute was passed, known by 
 the name of the Test Act, by which all persons holding any 
 office, civil or ecclesiastical, were ordained to swear that they 
 sincerely professed the true Protestant religion, contained in 
 the Confession of Faith ratified by the first parliament of 
 King James the Sixth ; and that they would adhere tliereto, 
 educate their children therein, and never consent to any 
 alteration in the same. They were also to affirm and swear 
 that the king's majesty was the only supreme governor of the 
 realm, over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiastical and 
 civil ; that it was unlawful for subjects, on any pretence 
 whatever, to enter into covenants or leagues, or to assemble in 
 council or convention to treat of any matter affecting the 
 Church or State, without his permission ; that it was unlawful 
 to take up arms against him; that there lay no obligation 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. iii. p. 232. Life of Eobert Blair, p. 563. In June, 1681, 
 Dr. Turner, at that time residing in Scotland as chaplain to the Duke of York, 
 and afterwards Bishop of Ely, mentions in a letter to Archbishop Sancroft, that 
 many copies of the Prayer Book were sold at Edinburgh. (Collection of Letters 
 from Scottish Prelates and others to Archbishop Sancroft, p. 29.) 
 
A.D. 1681.] OF SCOTLAND. 265 
 
 upon them from the National Covenant, or Solemn League 
 and Covenant, or in any other way, to endeavour any change 
 in the government of Church and State as then established by 
 law ; and that they would never decline his majesty's power 
 and jurisdiction. By a separate clause, to meet the case of 
 the Duke of York, the king's brothers and sons were to be 
 exempted from the penalties imposed on those who held office 
 without taking the oath. 
 
 This act, which received the support of the primate, was 
 hurried through parliament, but was opposed by several mem- 
 bers, particularly by the Earl of Argyll, and by Sir James 
 Dairy mple. President of the Session, the latter of whom pro- 
 posed the insertion of the clause regarding the Confession of 
 Faith, as explanatory of the vague term, Protestant religion, 
 in the hope that those who disliked that formulary would 
 reject the whole measure. Some of the privy council, and 
 other noblemen and gentlemen, had scruples about taking the 
 Test, but ^^flnally complied. Sir James Dalrymple refused 
 altogether, and was obliged to resign his office and leave the 
 kingdom. The Earl of Argyll v/as more harshly dealt with. 
 From the time of his restoration to the earldom which had 
 been forfeited by his father's treason, he had taken a leading 
 part in political measures, had sat in the privy council, and 
 been one of the chief supporters of Lauderdale's administration. 
 Though personally disposed to favour the Nonconformists, he 
 had concurred in all the acts passed against them, and had 
 been rewarded by grants which increased the influence of his 
 house, already so powerful, in the Western Highlands. But 
 he was zealous against Popery, and, during tlie sitting of the 
 parliament of 1681, incurred the resentment of the Duke of 
 York, by proposals which he made for the better security of 
 the Protestant religion. When called upon to take the Test, 
 he hesitated at first, but at last agreed to do so, with the 
 explanation that he assented to it, in so far as it was consistent 
 with itself, and with the Protestant religion, and that he was 
 not thereby to be precluded from seeking any alterations in 
 Church or State in a lawful way. On account of this pro- 
 ceeding he was accused of high treason, and committed to 
 ward in the Castle of Edinburgh, He was defended at his 
 trial by the ablest lawyers of tlic day, but was found guilty. 
 
266 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVIII. 
 
 Sentence was postponed till the king's wishes should be 
 known. It is probable that there was no intention of carrying 
 matters to extremity ; but, naturally dreading the worst, he 
 effected his escape from confinement, and, after remaining for 
 some time in concealment, retired to Holland. When his 
 flight became known, the Court of Justiciary met, and pro- 
 nounced sentence of death against him. 
 
 The proceedings in Argyll's case were most tyrannical and 
 unjust, and their iniquity was the greater, that the council 
 itself had allowed the oath to be taken by other parties with 
 an explanation of its meaning. Many of the clergy had 
 scruples about the Test, and among them was Bishop Scougal, 
 who, from old age, had been unable to attend the parliament. 
 Following the example of their own doctors at the time of the 
 Covenant, some of the ministers in the diocese of Aberdeen 
 drew up a paper, in which they stated their difficulties in 
 regard to the new enactment. They objected to receiving the 
 Confession of Faith as the standard of their belief, because 
 some passages in it were obscure and doubtful, and some con- 
 trary to the doctrine of their own and other Reformed 
 Churches ,* referring particularly to its statement that the 
 image of God was entirely defaced in man, to its denial that 
 the ministers of the Popish Church were true ministers of 
 Christ, and to its enjoining obedience to rulers only so long as 
 they were vigilant in the execution of their office. They 
 asked how they could be called upon to swear that the king's 
 majesty was the only supreme governor over all persons, and 
 in all causes, when the Confession itself taught that Jesus 
 Christ was the only Head of the Church, and their own belief 
 was that ecclesiastical authority was derived, not from secular 
 princes, but from Christ. They also asked how, if they 
 believed that the established ecclesiastical government was 
 divine and apostolical, they could swear to the king's power 
 to alter it ; and, if they thought that it was in its nature 
 indifferent, how they could swear to that which the king could 
 alter at pleasure. Another paper was also put forth, contain- 
 ing reasons why the clergy could not take the Test. Its 
 authors are not known, but Wodrow conjectures, witli much 
 probability, that it proceeded from some of the ministers of 
 Edinburgh. It certainly came from a school of divines in- 
 
A.D. 1681.] OF SCOTLAND. 267 
 
 dining to Puritanism, and of principles different from those 
 entertained by the clergy of Aberdeen, 
 
 Discussions of a still more formal character took place at 
 some of the diocesan synods. The clergy of Aberdeen, Dun- 
 keld, and Argyll, agreed to comply with the act, only under 
 certain explanations regarding the Confession of Faith, and 
 the king's supremacy ; and, from the proceedings which took 
 place at these meetings, it appears that they had never 
 been called upon expressly to acknowledge the royal supre- 
 macy, as defined in the Assertory Act. The council were 
 alarmed by the increasing discontent, and published an ex- 
 planation of the Test, originally suggested by Bishop Pater- 
 son, by which the prelates were authorised to administer the 
 oath to their clergy, in the sense that they did not swear to 
 every proposition or clause in the Confession of Faith, but only 
 to the true Protestant religion, founded on the word of God, 
 contained in that confession, as it was opposed to Popery and 
 fanaticism ; that by the Test no invasion or encroachment was 
 made or intended on the intrinsic spiritual power of the Church, 
 or the power of the keys, as it was exercised by the Apostles, 
 and the most pure and primitive Church in the first three 
 centuries after Christ, and was still reserved entirely to 
 the Church ; and that the oath and Test were without any 
 prejudice to the episcopal government of the Church, which 
 was declared by the act of his majesty's first parliament to 
 be most agreeable to the word of God, and most suitable to 
 monarchy, and which, upon all occasions, his majesty had de- 
 clared that he would inviolably and unalterably observe. 
 
 This explanation, which received the royal sanction, was 
 satisfactory to the Bishops of Aberdeen and Dunkeld, and to 
 most of the clergy throughout the kingdom. A few, however, 
 in the North, who were inclined to Presbyterianism, among 
 whom was George Meldrum who had formerly been suspended 
 by Bishop Mitchell, refused to subscribe, and resigned their 
 charges. In the South, the same course was adopted by 
 Lawrence Charteris, and by a considerable number of the 
 younger clergy who revered him as their teacher and guide.* 
 
 1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. viii. pp. 243, 244. Wodrow, vol. 
 iii. pp. 295-344, 360-3(52. Law's Memorials, p. 203-213. Buruet. vol. ii. p. 
 301 -314, State Trials, vol. viii. p. 843 990. Collection of Letters to Archbishop 
 
268 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVIII. 
 
 Ill the controversy regarding the Test, it is worthy of notice 
 that the diocese where the opposition was for some time 
 the strongest, was that in which the clergy held the highest 
 views on the subject of Episcopacy. Throughout the northern 
 dioceses generally, the changes which took place at the Kestor- 
 ation were welcomed with satisfaction hy the great body of 
 the people as a relief from the tyranny of the Covenanters. 
 And since that time, while the south-western counties had 
 become the scene of discontent and rebellion, the North had 
 enjoyed uninterrupted tranquillity. Although Presbyterianism, 
 however, was rejected, the neighbourhood of Aberdeen was for 
 some years the stronghold of a sect wliich found little support 
 in most other parts of the kingdom. The opinions of the 
 Quakers were adopted by a considerable number of the citizens, 
 and by some respectable families of the gentrj , especially by 
 those who had been vehement supporters of the Covenant. 
 Foremost among the disciples of the new sect were Robert 
 Barclay of Ury, and Alexander Jaffray. In a volume contain- 
 ing a diary written by the latter, and memoirs compiled from 
 authentic contemporary documents by a descendant of the 
 former, an interesting account is given of the rise and progress 
 of the Quakers in Scotland. The narrative shews that the 
 persecuting spirit, which was directed against Presbyterians 
 in the South, appeared in the North, though in a mitigated form, 
 in opposition to the Quakers. And unfortunately also, the writ- 
 ings of these sectaries shew that, though they had abandoned 
 the tenets of the Covenanters, they retained some of their worst 
 qualities — their stubbornness and pride, their railing censorious 
 disposition, and their delight in tracing the divine judg- 
 ments in every calamity which befel their persecutors. 
 
 The persons most active in stirring up the civil authorities 
 against the Quakers at Aberdeen were the conforming Puritan 
 ministers, Meldrum and Menzies ; but Archbishop Sharp and 
 Bishop Scougal were not free from blame. Even the Presby- 
 terian Nonconformists, while suffering themselves from the 
 severity of the laws, accused the council and the prelates of 
 neglect of duty, in not putting into execution the statutes 
 
 Sancroft, p. 31-36. Burnet mentions that about eighty of the clergy resigned 
 on account of the Test, several of whom came to England, and obtained cures 
 ilirough his influence. 
 
A.D. 1681.] OF SCOTLAND. 269 
 
 against Papists and Quakers. At Aberdeen, the members of 
 the latter society were repeatedly attacked by the populace, 
 and were imprisoned, and otherwise harshly treated, by the 
 magistrates. But, as their doctrines happily forbade them to 
 offer resistance, there were no such cruel punishments on the 
 one side, nor such fierce retaliation on the other, as were of 
 so frequent occurrence in the South. 
 
 With the exception of the trouble caused by the Quakers, 
 little happened to disturb the quiet and happy course of 
 Scougal's episcopate. He was strict in the administration of 
 discipline ; but few refused submission to a ruler, whose con- 
 scientious principles were appreciated, and whose personal 
 demeanour was distinguished for its mildness and courtesy. 
 In his History, Bishop Burnet, while speaking very unfavour- 
 ably of the Scottish prelates of his own day, makes a special 
 exception in regard to Scougal ; and, in another work, he bears 
 still more distinct testimony to his virtues. " His endearing 
 gentleness," he says, " to all that differed from him, his great 
 strictness in giving Orders, his most unaffected humility and 
 contempt of the world, were things so singular in him, that 
 they deserved to be much more admired than his other talents, 
 which were also extraordinary, a wonderful strength of judg- 
 ment, a dexterity in the conduct of affairs, which he employed 
 chiefly in the making up of differences, and a discretion in his 
 whole deportment. For he had a way of familiarity, by which 
 he gave everybody all sort of freedom with him, and in which 
 at the same time he inspired them with a veneration for him ; 
 and by that he gained so much on their affections, that he was 
 considered as the common father of his whole diocese, and the 
 Dissenters themselves seemed to esteem him no less than the 
 Conformists did. He took great pleasure in discoursing often 
 with young divines, and set himself to frame in them right and 
 generous notions of the Christian religion, and of the pastoral 
 care ; so that a set of men grew up under his labours, that 
 carry still in them clear cliaracters of his spirit and temper."^ 
 
 Bishop Scougal, like Bishop Patrick Forbes, was happy in 
 having a son who imitated his virtues. Henry Scougal was 
 born in June, 1650. He was educated at King's College, 
 
 ' Burnet's History of bis Own Time, vol. i. p. 373, and Preface to the Life 
 of Bedell. 
 
270 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVIII. 
 
 Aberdeen ; and he afterwards taught philosophy in that 
 university for four years, at the end of which time, having 
 received holy orders, he became minister at Auchterless, in his 
 father's diocese. When only twenty-four years of age, he was 
 chosen to fill the same office which had been held by Dr. John 
 Forbes, that of professor of divinity in King's College ; and 
 his zeal, ability, and piety, justified the appointment. He 
 died on the thirteenth of June, 1678, and was buried within 
 the chapel of King's College, beside the grave of Bishop El- 
 phinstone. Dr. George Garden, one of the ministers of Aber- 
 deen, preached the funeral sermon, and commemorated the 
 virtues of the pastor and divine thus early taken away. 
 
 Henry Scougal deserved all the praise which has been be- 
 stowed upon him. Learning and piety never appeared in a 
 more attractive form than in his life and in his writings. In an 
 age of strife and controversy, when most persons, in maintain- 
 ing what they believed to be the truth, seem to have lost sight 
 of charity, he discharged his duties faithfully, and yet with 
 meekness and humility. Beloved by all while he lived, his 
 memory continues to be cherished by the Church which he 
 adorned. His writings have always been highly esteemed. 
 The work which is best known — " The Lite of God in the Soul 
 of Man" — in its purity and beauty the faithful picture of his 
 own mind, which so many great writers have deliglited to 
 praise, and which has been the source of so much good to de- 
 vout persons of very different opinions, was published during 
 the author's life-time by Gilbert Burnet. ^ 
 
 Among the clergy of the diocese of Aberdeen at this time 
 was John Cockburn, a nephew of the bishop, who has already 
 been referred to in connection with his account of the proceed- 
 ings against Gilbert Burnet in 1665. He was brought up in 
 the bishop's family at Salton and at Aberdeen along with his 
 cousin, Henry Scougal, both of them from their early years 
 having been designed for the ministry of the Church. Cock- 
 burn was ordained about the year 1675, and was minister, 
 first at Udny, and aftervrards at Old Deer. He was one of 
 
 ^ See Patrick Cockburn's preface to tie edition of Henry Scougal's Works, 
 published at London in 1726, and Dr. Garden's Funeral Sermon, appended to 
 the same volume. Burnet was personally acqtiainted with Henry Scougal, and 
 intended at one time to write a biographical notice both of him and of his father; 
 see Dr. John Cockburn's Remarks, pp. 60, 61. 
 
A.D. 1681.] OF SCOTLAND. 271 
 
 those who had scruples about the Test, and was among the 
 last of the clergj of Aberdeen who subscribed it. After 
 the Revolution of 1688 he went abroad, although it does 
 not appear that he refused to acknowledge the new civil 
 government. He officiated as chaplain to the British con- 
 gregations at Eotterdam and Amsterdam, using the Book 
 of Common Prayer, and praying* by name for King Wil- 
 liam, and afterwards for Queen Anne. In the reign of 
 the latter sovereign he returned to England, and received a 
 benefice from the queen, who esteemed him so much, that she 
 intended to name him as one of the new prelates for the Ame- 
 rican colonies, had the purpose of sending bishops thither been 
 carried out. ^ 
 
 Living under the strict yet paternal government of Bishop 
 Scougal, having before them the example, and assisted by the 
 teaching of his son, the clergy of the diocese of Aberdeen were 
 men of a very different character from that which careless or 
 prejudiced writers have described as common to almost all the 
 ministers of the established Church at this time. They gave 
 little heed to those questions, rather political than religious, 
 which the Nonconformists held to be of such importance ; 
 neither, wliile maintaining the lawfulness or necessity of 
 Episcopacy, did they make matters of church government the 
 general subject of their teaching ; but they insisted much on 
 the love of God, and charity to men, and on the great points 
 of Christian belief and practice. The examples of holiness 
 to which they appealed were chiefly derived from the ancient 
 Church, from the Reformed Church in England, or from those 
 among themselves who had shewn a kindred spirit. When 
 Henry Scougal addressed the clergy, assembled in diocesan 
 synod, on the importance and difficulty of the ministerial 
 function, he referred to Nazianzen and Ambrose, to Chrysos- 
 
 * Dr. John Cockburn's Remarks, p. 29. Defence of Dr. Cockburn's Eemarks 
 against the author of a Vindication of Bishop Burnet, pp. 16-18, 34. Selections 
 from the Ecclesiastical Eecords of Aberdeen, pp. 314-320, 327-329. Wodrow, 
 vol. iii. p. 361. I am not certain whether the John Cockburn, who was ministei 
 at Ormiston, in East Lothian, in 1685 (Wodrow, vol. iv. pp. 178, 179), and who 
 in 1688 commenced printing a work containing " the monthly transactions and 
 an account of books out of the Universal Bibliotheque and others," which was 
 immediately suppressed by the government because it contained some passages 
 reflecting on the Eoman Catholic Church (Chambers's Domestic Annals of Scot- 
 land, vol. ii. p. 490), was the nephew of Bishop Scougal. 
 
272 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVIII. 
 
 torn and Augustine, and to " the excellent Herbert, that 
 sweet singer of Israel;" and Dr. George Garden, in the 
 sermon already mentioned, spoke of Leighton, then living in 
 retirement, as one who was a great light of their nation. 
 
 But the very circumstance that the clergy of Aberdeen were 
 zealous and learned, and that they attended to the discharge of 
 their pastoral duties, made them more conscious of the great de- 
 ficiencies of the Scottish Church — of its want of a Liturgy and 
 ritual, of the abuses of ecclesiastical patronage, and of its 
 absolute subjection to the State. The younger and more 
 ardent of their number allowed themselves to dwell too much 
 on these evils, and to propose remedies hardly consistent with 
 the duties which they owed to their ecclesiastical superiors ; 
 while, on the other hand- Bishop Scougal was in this point 
 too little disposed to regard the wishes of his presbyters, and, 
 in one case, became in consequence a party to an act of harsh- 
 ness and injustice. This took place after the death of his son, 
 whose influence and youthful sympathies might have led to 
 the adoption of milder counsels. Among the clergy of the 
 diocese of Aberdeen was James Gordon, Parson of Banchory- 
 Devenick, son of a distinguished physician, Dr. William 
 Gordon, professor of medicine in King's College, and the friend 
 and associate of Forbes, Baron, and Sibbald. From conviction 
 and hereditary feeling strongly attached to the hierarchy, the 
 Parson of Bancliory submitted with reluctance to those defects 
 which the prudence or timidity of the bishops did not attempt 
 to remedy. Himself a man past middle life, he was probably 
 looked up to as a leader by the younger clergy who chiefly 
 composed the discontented party. The records of the diocese 
 shew that he was of a hasty temper ; and, according to the 
 statements of his opponents, his zeal was sharpened by disap- 
 pointed ambition. 
 
 In the year 1679, Gordon published a work, called " The 
 Reformed Bishop." This treatise, though written in an 
 uncouth, pedantic style, is remarkable for its learning, its 
 force of argument, and its indignant denunciations of the pre- 
 valent corruptions. Individual offenders were not spared : 
 though no names were mentioned, some of the allusions evi- 
 dently referred to Archbishop Sharp, and to Dr. John Paterson, 
 Bishop of Edinburgh, a prelate deeply involved in the worst 
 
A.D. 1681.] OF SCOTLAND. 273 
 
 political measures of the time, and of doubtful cliavacter in 
 private life. The author lamented the evils which the encour- 
 agement of Puritanical superstitions had occasioned, such as 
 tlie desecration of Passion Week, and the practice of fast 
 ing on Sundays, introduced, he says, by the " pilots of the 
 Leman Lake." He expressed an ardent wish for a return to 
 the free election of bishops, for the compilation of a Catechism 
 and Canons, the gradual introduction of a Liturgy, the re- 
 establishment of the rite of Confirmation, and even for the 
 restoration of monasteries under proper restrictions. He cen- 
 sured the attempts to convert schismatics by persecution and 
 corporal punishment, instead of the use of ecclesiastical reme- 
 dies ; and ascribed the dangers and calamities of the Church, 
 in part, to the circumstance that her rulers were selected, not 
 from among those who had always been faithful to the hierarchy 
 and monarchy, but chiefly from the members of that party 
 which had overthrown both, so that the only change from the 
 period of the Covenant was that, in place of a Presbyterian 
 moderator, they had now a Presbyterian bishop, invested with 
 a new title and with larger revenues. He concluded by stating 
 that all he wished was the establishment of such a moderate 
 Episcopacy as King Charles the First was ready and willing 
 to sanction, a system, he said, which, in that martyr's own 
 words, " would at once satisfy all just desires and interests of 
 good bishops, humble presbyters, and sober people ; so as 
 church affairs should be managed neither with tyranny, parity, 
 nor popularity, neither bishops ejected, nor presbyters despised, 
 nor people oppressed." 
 
 Gordon's treatise, though bearing the marks of honest zeal 
 and uncompromising sincerity, had in it passages written with 
 bitterness of feeling, and containing personal allusions of a 
 nature calculated to provoke and justify the censures of his 
 superiors. It was printed on the Continent, without the 
 author's name ; but it was soon known by whom it was com- 
 posed, and it is probable no great pains were taken to conceal the 
 fact. He was summoned before an episcopal synod, at which 
 Archbisliop Burnet presided, and, in January, 1680, was de- 
 posed from his office of the ministry, and deprived of the bene- 
 fice of Banchory-Devenick. The sentence itself was much more 
 severe than the offence warranted ; and the terms in which it 
 
 VOL.111.] IQ 
 
274 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXVIII. 
 
 was expressed shewed that it was dictated rather by personal 
 animosity, than by judicial calmness and impartiality. It was 
 intimated by the primate to Gordon, who at once submitted to 
 it, renouncing all right of appeal to any other tribunal. The 
 bishops, when time was afforded for reflection, apparently 
 became ashamed of their harshness. Gordon was soon after- 
 wards restored to his office and his benefice. 
 
 It was probably to the efforts of Gordon, and of those who 
 held similar opinions in the diocese of Aberdeen, that Gilbert 
 Burnet alludes in his preface to the Life of Bedell, where he 
 speaks of Bishop Scougal's attention being directed to the 
 " great heat in some young minds, that, as he believed, had 
 very good intentions, but were too forward, and complained 
 much of abuses, calling loudly and not very decently for a 
 reformation of them." Burnet evidently approved of the 
 bishop's conduct on this occasion. The documents which 
 remain do not afford sufficient means of forming an accurate 
 judgment regarding the conduct of the parties, but the attempts 
 of the reformers might have called forth more sympathy from 
 one who fourteen years before had acted, under similar circum- 
 stances, in a manner at least equally objectionable.^ 
 
 The last important act of Scougal's episcopate was his cour- 
 
 1 In reference to the proceedings connected with Gordon's book, I have consulted 
 a copy of the Sentence of Deposition among the Papers of the Episcopal Church in 
 Scotland, No. B. 32, of the Catalogue. The spirit in which the synod acted may be 
 judged of from one passage : — "For all which malicious, slanderous, and impious 
 defamations, notwithstanding that the said Mr. James Gordon hath rendered 
 himself justly obnoxious to the highest and heaviest censure of the Church, as 
 having incurred the curse of wicked Cham, in the most eminent degree ; yet we 
 have, in order to the vindication of the honour of the Church and its governors, 
 and for the reclaiming, if possible, of the said Mr James out of the snare of the 
 devil, into which through his malice and ambition he hath wilfully thrown him- 
 self, thought fit at this time to proceed only to the sentence of deposition." In 
 an act of the privy council in November, 1680, The Reformed Bishop is classed 
 with seditious and forbidden works, such as Buchanan De Jure Regni apud 
 Scotos, Calderwood's History, and Naphtali (Wodrow, vol. iii. p. 240). A 
 contemporary epigram probably indicates the popular opinion of the treatise, and 
 of its author : — 
 
 " On the Author of The Reformed Bishop. 
 
 " If your book had never been seen 
 You had been Bishop of Aberdeen ; 
 If you had been Bishop of Aberdeen, 
 Your book had never been seen." 
 
A.D. 1682.] ^ OF SCOTLAND. 275 
 
 ageous opposition to tlie Test ; and to him chiefly tlie Church 
 was indebted for the mitigated form of subscription allowed 
 by the privy council. He died on the sixteenth of February, 
 1G82, in the seventy-fifth year of his age, and the eighteenth 
 of his episcopate, and was buried within tlie nave of his 
 cathedral, where a monument erected to his memory is still 
 preserved. 
 
276 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIX. 
 
 CHAPTER LXIX. 
 
 FROM THE DEATH OF BISHOP SCOUGAL IN FEBRUARY, 1682, TO THE FLIGHT 
 OF KING JAMES FROM ENGLAND IN DECEMBER, 1688. 
 
 Death of Arclibisliop Burnet — Arthur Boss, Archhishoj) of Olas- 
 gow, raised to the Brimacy — Death of King Charles the 
 Second — Accession of King Ja7nes the Seventh — Declara- 
 tion put forth hy the Cameronians — Cruel persecution hy 
 the Oovernment — Exaggerated accounts of particular cases 
 of Persecution — Execution of the Earl of Argyll — The 
 King fails in an attempt to obtain a repeal of the penal laws 
 against Boman Catholics — He dispenses toith these laws in 
 virtue of his royal authority — Bishop Bruce and Arch- 
 hishop Cairncr OSS deprived hy the Government — Alexander 
 Bose apjjointed to the see of Edinburgh — The King grants 
 a Toleration to the Presbyterians — Address by the Presby- 
 terians to the King — Account of James Benwich — His 
 trial and execution — Address hy the Bishops to the King 
 — Flight of King James from England. 
 
 A FEW days before the death of Bishop Scougal, the primate 
 wrote to Archbishop Sancroft, entreating liim to advise the 
 king not to dispose of the Scottish bishoprics till the prelates 
 should have an opportunity of being heard ; and mentioning 
 that those intruded upon them by the intercession of great 
 men, though they might be useful to their patrons, neither 
 dared nor would be just and faithful to the Church, as had been 
 experienced to his grief in many instances. It does not appear 
 whether this urgent request led to any change in the mode of 
 recommending to bishoprics, but there can be no donbt that, 
 in the exercise of the royal supremacy, too much cause had 
 been given for the primate's complaint. 
 
 When the see of Aberdeen became vacant, it was filled by 
 the translation of Bishop Haliburton from Brechin, while 
 Robert Douglas, Dean of Glasgow, was appointed to the latter 
 bishopric. 
 
 Alexander Young, Bishop of Ross, and formerly Bishop of 
 
A.D. 1684.] OF SCOTLAND. 277 
 
 Edinburgh, died in the beginning of the year 1684, and was 
 succeeded by James Eamsay, Bishop of Dunblane, on whose 
 transLation the see of Dunblane was conferi-ed on Bishop 
 Douglas. The new Bishop of Brechin w^as Alexander Cairn- 
 cross. Keith mentions that this prelate, though the heir of an 
 ancient family, was at one period of his life in such humble 
 circumstances, that for many years he exercised the trade of a 
 dyer in the Canongate of Edinburgh, and was thereby enabled 
 to recover by purchase part of the estate of his ancestors. 
 Having been ordained, he was appointed Parson of Dumfries, 
 and held that benefice when, by the recommendation of the 
 Duke of Queensberry, he was nominated to the see of Brechin. 
 Bishop Cairncross was consecrated at St. Andrews, on the 
 tenth of August, 1684. The primate was present on this 
 occasion, and, as the Bishops of Ross and Dunblane were 
 installed the same day, they no doubt assisted at the consecra- 
 tion.^ 
 
 On the evening of the day on wdiich he took part in these 
 solemnities at St. Andrews, Archbishop Burnet became ill. 
 He died on the twenty-second of the same month, and was 
 buried within the College of St. Salvator, near the tomb of 
 Bishop Kennedy. Dr. Burnet was a prelate of considerable 
 ability, and of excellent private character. 'Wodrow admits 
 that his morals were pure : as he expresses it, " he was 
 certainly one of the best morals among the present clergy. " 
 He adds that the primate was " a mighty bigot for the English 
 ceremonies and forms, and as forward to have all the usages 
 of that Church introduced into Scotland, as if he had been 
 educated by Bishop Laud." He is accused also of obtain- 
 ing his restoration to the see of Glasgow by a simoniacal 
 compact ; but this story rests on no better authority than 
 the worthless narrative of Kirkton. The charge brought 
 against him of undue severity to the Nonconformists is better 
 substantiated. While there is no reason to believe the exag- 
 gerated accounts of his opponents, it is certain that, in the 
 latter years of his episcopate, the archbishop resisted all at- 
 tempts to mitigate the strictness of the penal laws. His 
 disposition, naturally mild and humane, appears to have been 
 
 1 Keith's Catalogue, pp. 134, 168, 183, 204, 269. Collection of Letters to 
 Archbishop Sancroft, p. 52. Fountainhall's Historical Notices, vol. ii. p. 549. 
 
278 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIX. 
 
 ^changed by the evil influences of the time, and by the trying 
 Position in which he was placed. ^ 
 
 Within a few weeks after the decease of Archbishop Burnet, 
 it was known that Arthur Ross, Archbishop of Glasgow, was 
 fixed upon as his successor. The new primate was a person 
 of blameless life, and of undoubted attachment to the principles 
 of the Church ; but his acquirements were of a very moderate 
 description, and he was in all respects much inferior to his 
 predecessor. His father, a descendant of the house of Kilra- 
 vock, was a minister in the diocese of Aberdeen ; and the 
 archbishop himself, at the period of the Restoration, was 
 incumbent of Kinerny, in the same diocese, and in that 
 capacity signed the declaration of the synod in favour of the 
 re-establishment of the ancient ecclesiastical government. He 
 owed his appointment as Parson of Glasgow to Archbishop 
 Burnet, whom he strenuously supported in his remonstrance 
 against the indulgence, and towards whom he always cherished 
 a reverential attachment.^ 
 
 On the appointment of Archbishop Ross to the primacy. 
 Bishop Cairncross was translated to the archiepiscopal see of 
 Glasgow ; and Dr. James Drummond, Parson of Muthil, was 
 nominated Bishop of Brechin, and was consecrated on Christ- 
 mas-day by the primate, in the abbey church of Holyrood.^ 
 
 ^ Keith's Catalogue, p. 43. FountainhaH's Historical Notices, vol. ii. p. 549. 
 Kirk ton, p. 304. Wodrow, vol. ii. p. 8. Collection of Letters to Archbishop 
 Sancroft, p. 65. On the last letter which he received from the Scottish primate, 
 Archbishop Sancroft endorsed the following lines : — 
 
 '• Obiit, Aug. 22, 1684, hora 2=* matutina. 
 
 Multis ille bonis flebilis occidit ; 
 
 Nulli flebilior quam tibi, Scotia." 
 ^ Keith's Catalogue, p. 43. Genealogical Deduction of the Family of Rose 
 of Kilravock, p. 525. See also Collection of Letters to Archbishop Sancroft, pp. 
 67, 75. Wodrow (vol. iii. p. 345) tells a silly and malicious story reflecting on 
 the alleged mean descent of Archbishop Ross. Had his birth been as there 
 represented, it would have been no discredit to the primate. But the statement 
 is untrue, and only illustrates its author's recklessness of assertion wherever the 
 prelates are concerned. Equally malevolent and reprehensible is Gilbert Burnet's 
 brief account of the archbishop's promotion (vol. ii. pp. 426, 427) : " Burnet died 
 in Scotland, and Eoss, a poor, ignorant, worthless man, but in whom obedience and 
 fury were so eminent, that these supplied all other defects, was raised to be the 
 Primate of that Church, which was indeed a sad omen, as well as a step to its 
 fall and ruin." 
 
 3 Keith's Catalogue, pp. 169, 269. Collections for a History of the Shires 
 of Aberdeen and Banff, p. 375. Fountainhall's Historical Notices, vol. ii. pp. 
 676, 596. 
 
A.D. 1684.] OF SCOTLAND. 279 
 
 The Duke of Rothes died in 1681, and the Duke of Lauder- 
 dale in the autumn of the following year. The latter noble- 
 man outlived his authority and reputation : one of his last 
 public acts was a vain attempt to preserve his friend the Earl 
 of Argyll. Rothes possessed considerable talents, but was 
 careless and dissolute, inheriting the vices of his father, as 
 well as his predilections in favour of the Covenanters, though, 
 from political motives, he did not hesitate to persecute them. 
 Lauderdale was a man of higher ability. In his youth, and 
 during his long captivity in England, he professed great strict- 
 ness in his religious principles ; and he never ceased to culti- 
 vate theological and ecclesiastical studies, although his various 
 guides were of very ditferent opinions — at first, Henderson 
 and Baillie, at a subsequent period, Baxter, and, finally, 
 Hickes. But his life and conduct ill agreed with these grave 
 pursuits. 
 
 The death of Rothes and Lauderdale made room for the 
 promotion of several noblemen, who acted generally in subor- 
 dination to 'the Duke of York, and were zealous supporters of 
 his riglit of succession to the crown. Sir George Gordon of 
 Haddo, son of Sir John Gordon the faithful adherent of King 
 Charles the First, was appointed Chancellor, and soon after- 
 wards created Earl of Aberdeen. He held his high office only 
 for two years, and was succeeded by the Earl of Perth. The 
 office of Lord High Treasurer, after having for some time 
 been put into commission, was conferred on the Duke of 
 Queensberry. Both this nobleman and the Earl of Perth 
 professed great attachment to the hierarchy, and the latter en- 
 joyed in consequence the entire confidence of the bishops.^ 
 
 On the sixth of February, 1685, Charles the Second died 
 at Whitehall. He had never visited his northern king- 
 dom from the time of his residence there in 1650 and 1651. 
 
 ' Archbishop Burnet, writing to the English primate on the sixth of March, 
 1682, calls the Earl of Perth "a great friend and patron of all our orderly clergy 
 here, and indeed a Nathanael, a true Israelite ;" and the earl himself, in a letter 
 to Bancroft, dated the sixth of July in the same year, says, " As I consider it 
 my greatest happiness to have been bred up to have a just consideration of the 
 Church of England, of which I hope to live and die a member though unworthy ; 
 so to see the Church under the care and government of so worthy and holy a 
 patriarch, must be my greatest joy." (Collection of Letters to Archbishop 
 Sancroft, pp. 37, 41.) 
 
280 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [CiiAi-, LXIX. 
 
 Careless and indifferent as he was in regard to his most solemn 
 duties, and good-natured as he generally shewed himself to 
 those wlio had injured him, he never forgot his own personal 
 degradation, and the persecution of his best friends, caused 
 by the tyranny of the Covenanters. Individual feeling, as 
 well as policy, prompted the execution of those measures by 
 which he sought to suppress the influence of Puritanism in 
 Scotland. 
 
 On the decease of Charles, his brother, the Duke of York, 
 succeeded to the throne without opposition, and was proclaimed 
 at the market cross of Edinburgh on the tenth of February, by 
 the style and title of James the Seventh, King of Scotland, 
 England, France, and Ireland. 
 
 During the last years of Charles, and in the beginning of 
 the reign of James, the Scottish government was can-ied on in 
 the same arbitrary manner as before. The terms of the Test 
 Act brought almost all classes in some shape or other within 
 the reach of its provisions. That statute became as convenient 
 an engine of tyranny to the rulers of the day, as the Covenant 
 had formerly been to the Puritans; and to be called a Fanatic 
 was now as dangerous as it had once been to bear the name of 
 a Malignant. Tlie history of those years has come down to us 
 almost exclusively in the narratives of the Covenanting party; 
 but, making all reasonable allowance on this ground, and for the 
 reckless provocation given to the government, enough remains 
 to shew that a large proportion of the people in the south- 
 westej'n counties were cruelly persecuted, or forced to profess 
 an outward conformity to a system which they detested. 
 
 Fresh severities, on the part of the government, were caused 
 by another declaration put forth by the Cameronians in 
 October, 1684. Copies of this paper, which was drawn up by 
 James Renwick, one of their preachers, were affixed to the 
 market crosses of several burghs, and to the doors of various 
 parish churches. By it they proclaimed their adherence to 
 their former renunciation of Charles Stewart, and declared that 
 they would punish, according to their power, as enemies of 
 God and the Covenanted work of Reformation, all who should 
 assist in putting the existing laws in execution, warning such 
 persons that they would be dealt with as they dealt with the 
 supporters of the declaration. Two gentlemen of the king's 
 
A.D. 1685.] OF SCOTLAND. 281 
 
 life-guards having soon afterwards "been murdered by tlie 
 Cameronians, the Lords of Session, in answer to a question put 
 to them by the privy eouncil, gave it as their opinion, that 
 such of the king's subjects as refused to answer on oath, when 
 asked by any one commissioned by his majesty whether they 
 owned the declaration in so far as it declared war against his 
 majesty, and as it asserted the lawfulness of killing those 
 employed by him, were, by so refusing, guilty of treason. 
 The councilj having received this answer, made an act that 
 all who owned the declaration, or wlio refused on oath to dis- 
 own it, should be put to death, whether in arms or not. 
 
 In ordinary times no person who had any regard for the 
 common maxims of law or religion could have hesitated to 
 abjure the principles denounced by the council ; but the long 
 course of insurrection on the one side, and of persecution on the 
 other, had so affected men's minds, that many who had taken 
 no part in the rebellious proceedings of the Covenanters yet 
 hesitated to condemn them, and the act of council became in 
 consequence the instrument of further oppression.^ 
 
 ^ Wodrow, vol. iv. p. 148-165. Among the cruel deeds of this time, two have 
 attracted particular attention. The one is the case of John Brown of Priestfield, 
 who was shot before his own door ; the other that of Margaret M 'Lauchlan or 
 Lauchlison, and Margaret Wilson, who are said to have been drowned at Wigton : 
 see Wodrow, vol. iv. p. 244-249, and the Biographia Presbyteriana, vol. i. pp. 
 72-74, 288. The case of Brown has been examined by Mr. Aytoun, in the appendix 
 to his Lays of the Scottish Cavaliers, and by Mr. Napier, in the firstvolume of his 
 Life of Dundee ; and these writers have shewn that the details, as given by 
 Wodrow, are greatly exaggerated, and that Brown had been in arms agr.inst the 
 govemment. It is doubtful whether the other story, so far as regards the death 
 of the women, is not an absolute fiction. They were undoubtedly condemned to 
 death ; and by special instructions of the privy council (Wodrow, vol. iv. p. 165) 
 drowning was the capital punishment in the case of women so convicted. Both 
 Wodrow and the writer in the Biographia Fresbyteriana admit that the fact of 
 the drowning had been denied by the royalists ; and the former quotes the act of 
 the privy council reprieving the two women, and recommending them to the 
 king for a pardon — a recommendation, he says, which in most cases was equiva- 
 lent to an actual remission. Wodrow professes to give the act of council verba- 
 tim, but his copy is imperfect and incorrect. It is given at length by Mb 
 Anderson in his Ladies of the Covenant, p. 165, along with a document of which 
 Wodrow says nothing — a supplication by Lauchlison to the council for mercy, 
 and a promise by her to take the oath required by law, and to submit to the govern- 
 ment. The act of council, however, as given by Mr. Andeisou, differs in one 
 most important word from the original record, "Wigton" being substituted for 
 "Edinburgh." (Compare MS. Registrum Secreti Concilii, Acta, 1685, p. 66.) 
 Unless " Edinburgh " be a mistake on the part of the writer of the record, this 
 
282 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chai-. LXIX. 
 
 A parliament was summoned soon after the accession of 
 James. It met at Edinbm-gh, on the twenty-third of April, 
 and the Duke of Queensberry was the royal commissioner. By 
 a statute enacted during this session, the giving or taking of 
 the National Covenant, or of the Solemn League and Cove- 
 nant, or the writing in defence thereof, or the owning of them 
 as lawful, was declared to be treason. By another act, all 
 preachers at house or field conventicles, and all persons what- 
 soever taking part in field conventicles, were to be punished 
 with death and confiscation of goods. The provisions regard- 
 ing the Test were also renewed, with certain additions and 
 modifications, although some opposition was made by the 
 Bishops of Boss and Dunblane. ^ 
 
 Before the parliament rose, the Earl of Argyll had landed in 
 
 shews that, on the thirtieth of April, 1685, ■when the recommendation for a re- 
 mission was made, the women were under the custody of the magistrates of 
 Edinburgh ; and it is incredible that before the eleventh of May — the date of the 
 alleged execution — an answer could have come from the secretaries of state at 
 London, and the women have been conveyed to Wigton. Utterly unjustifiable 
 as was the general character of the persecution, it is important, for the sake of 
 historical truth, that the mistakes and misrepresentations of Wodrow and others, 
 in regard to particular cases, should be pointed out. This is the more requisite, 
 from the errors which have become curretit on the subject. It is, for instance, a 
 common impression that the drowning of the two women at Wigton was not a 
 solitary occurrence of the kind, but a specimen of what not unfrequently took 
 place. As on a like point formerly referred to, Mr. Cunningham has been thus 
 misled. (Compare his Church History, vol. ii. pp. 237, 241-243.) On no other 
 occasion was punishment inflicted in that manner. Farther, except in this 
 alleged case of Lauchlison and Wilson, and in that of Alison and Harvey already 
 mentioned, no women suffered death in Scotland for political offences during 
 the reigns of Charles the Second and James the Seventh. Wodrow indeed refers 
 (vol. iii. pp. 409, 410) to the case of Christian Fyfe. She was condemned to 
 death for assaulting a clergyman in his own church, and for treasonable 
 speeches ; but it is not said that sTie was executed — an omission which certainly 
 would not have been made if the sentence had been carried into execution. Sir 
 George Mackenzie expi-essly asserts (Vindication of the Government, Works, vol. 
 ii. p. 348) that only two women were executed during the reigns of Charles and 
 James. His reference is to the case of Alison and Harvey, and, on a point 
 where he could have been so easily refuted, his assertion is entitled to credit. 
 Considering the tendency of persecution to lead on its abettors from one act of 
 cruelty to another, and the hardening effects on all concerned of the horrible 
 punishments inflicted on so many wretched women on charges of witchcraft, it 
 need hardly excite surprise that in some cases sentences of capital punishment 
 were pronounced or executed on females. 
 
 1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. viii. pp. 461, 471. Wodrow, vol. 
 iv. p. 259-282. 
 
A.D. 1685.] OF SCOTLAND. 283 
 
 Scotland. This nobleman, inflamed by resentment against 
 the king, entered into the cabals of the exiles in Holland, and, 
 in concert with the Duke of Monmouth, planned an invasion of 
 Britain. The attempt was unsuccessful, and the earl, having 
 been made prisoner, was executed in terms of his former sen- 
 tence. He died with Christian fortitude and resignation. 
 Had he been convicted and punished for rebellion, the justice 
 of the government could not have been called in question j 
 but, as it was, the iniquity of his attainder made his real guilt 
 be forgotten. 
 
 The parliament was again summoned to meet at Edinburgh, 
 on the twenty-ninth of April, 1686, the Earl of Murray being 
 the royal commissioner. That nobleman, and the chancellor, 
 Lord Perth, who had recently been so zealous in his profes- 
 sions of attachment to the Church of England, had now joined 
 the Roman Catholic communion. The king's intentions to 
 obtain a repeal of the penal laws against the members of the 
 Church of Rome, or to dispense with their execution, had 
 for some time been well known. The primate and the Bishop 
 of Edinburgh had repaired to London, in the month of March, 
 and had presented a paper, in which they declared their wil- 
 lingness that all sanguinary laws in regard to religion should 
 be abolished, so far as they inferred the pains of death and 
 forfeiture against Papists merely for their religion ; and 
 that the Papists should have immunity from the inflic- 
 tion of other penalties, and be allowed the exercise of their 
 worship in private houses. " This," they said, " seemeth to 
 us, who are not lawyers, equitable and reasonable to be done, 
 considering that the execution of these sanguinary laws is 
 fallen into an absolute desuetude for many years past ; and 
 that the other penalties enacted against Papists have not been 
 exacted or inflicted, during the time of the last reign." On 
 the other hand, the clergy of Aberdeen, at their diocesan 
 synod, had requested their ordinary to oppose the repeal of the 
 penal laws. When the parliament met, it shewed an unex- 
 pected zeal against the proposed concessions, the Bishops of 
 Galloway, Ross, and Dunkeld, taking a leading part in resist- 
 ing the measures of the government. The draft of an act was 
 read, by which Roman Catholics were to be allowed the exer- 
 cise of their religion in private, but the commissioner and the 
 
284 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIX. 
 
 chancellor, apprehensive that it might not be carried, and 
 doubtful whether their sovereign would be satisfied, withdrew 
 the proposal, and nothing farther was done. 
 
 The king now resolved to do by his own authority what he 
 had failed to accomplish in parliament. In a letter to the 
 council, dated the twenty-first of August, he announced his 
 pleasure that his Roman Catholic subjects should be allowed 
 the free private exercise of their religion ; and he intimated 
 that he had ordered a chapel for the celebration of the Roman 
 worship to be fitted up in the palace of Holyrood.^ 
 
 In order to intimidate the opponents of his measures. King 
 James, in the month of June, ordered the council to deprive 
 Bishop Bruce ; and the royal command was at once obeyed. 
 The see of Dunkeld was offered to Dr. Drummond, Bishop of 
 Brechin, but he refused to accept it, saying that he knew of 
 no vacancy there. John Hamilton, one of the ministers of 
 Edinburgh, had no such scruples. He was ready to accept the 
 bishopric, but another unexpected obstacle occurred. The 
 chapter of Dunkeld hesitated to act on the conge d'elire, and 
 only acquiesced, when threatened by one of their own num- 
 ber with a charge of treason, and informed that the chancellor 
 had ordered all who should resist to be committed to prison. 
 Hamilton was accordingly elected, and, on the fourth of No- 
 vember, was consecrated at St. Andrews. ^ 
 
 On the eleventh of November, Colin Falconer, Bishop of 
 Murray, died at his castle of Spynie. His successor was Alex- 
 ander Rose, nephew of the primate, a clergyman wliose charac- 
 ter and attainments rendered him worthy of the ofiice to which 
 he was now raised. Rose, after receiving his education at 
 Aberdeen, and studying divinity under Dr. Gilbert Burnet at 
 Glasgow, had been successively appointed minister at Perth, 
 professor of divinity at Glasgow, and Principal of St. Mary's 
 College, St. Andrews. 3 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. iv. p. 358-390. Burnet, vol. iii. p. 110. Fountainhall's His- 
 torical Notices, vol. ii. p. 750. The paper presented by the primate and Bishop 
 Paterson is to be found in the Collection of Letters to Archbishop Sancroft, p. 
 96-98, and appears to be the same document as that mentioned by Burnet (vol. 
 iii. p. 109), though its import is not correctly stated by the historian. 
 
 2 Keith's Catalogue, pp. 99, 100. Fountainhall's Historical Notices, vol. ii. 
 pp. 725, 728, 754. 
 
 ^ Keith's Catalogue, pp. 154, 155. GeHealogical Deduction of the Family of 
 Rose of Kilravock, p. 526. 
 
A.D. 1686.] OF SCOTLAND. 285 
 
 Another of the bishops was soon afterwards deprived by the 
 secular power. This arose out of the following circumstances. 
 Among the clergy of the diocese of Glasgow was Dr. James 
 Canaries, who, having abjured the errors of Popery in 1682, 
 and conformed to the established Church, had been appointed 
 minister at Selkirk. On the fourteenth of February, 1686, 
 he preached a serriion in the cathedral churcli of St. Giles at 
 Edinburgh, in presence of most of the members of the privy 
 council and several of the bishops, in which he condemned in 
 strong language the corruptions of Rome. The chancellor 
 reprimanded him for his conduct, but, not satisfied with this, 
 enjoined his ordinary to proceed with the infliction of eccle- 
 siastical censures. Archbishop Cairncross hesitated, unwill- 
 ing either to offend the government, or to incur popular odium 
 by obeying the injunction. He, therefore, advised Canaries to 
 leave Scotland for some time ; and that clergyman accordingly 
 went to London, where he shewed his sermon to the Bishop of 
 Ely and others, who highly approved of it, and caused it to be 
 printed under the title of " Rome's Additions to Christianity." 
 The Earl of Perth, more indignant than before, remonstrated 
 with the archbishop, who in consequence suspended Dr. 
 Canaries. 
 
 The timidity of Archbishop Cairncross led to the very con- 
 sequences which he wished to avoid. Both he and Canaries, 
 who had returned to Scotland, were examined by the chan- 
 cellor, in presence of the primate and two other bishops, and, 
 the circumstances having been reported to the king, the arch- 
 bishop was deprived, although he offered to submit to what- 
 ever might be required by his majesty. The deprivation took 
 place in January, 1687, and, immediately afterwards, Dr. 
 Paterson, Bishop of Edinburgh, was appointed to the archi- 
 episcopal see of Glasgow. The see of Edinburgh was filled 
 by the translation of the Bishop of Murray, but, when the 
 chapter met in December to receive the king's cong^ d'elire, 
 Andrew Cant, son of the clergyman who had suffered a tem- 
 porary deprivation for joining in the movement to obtain a 
 national synod, and minister of the collegiate church of the 
 Holy Trinity, declared that he elected Bishop Rose only in 
 obedience to the king's letter ; and the members who had not 
 previously assented gave their vote in the same manner. Dr. 
 
286 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIX. 
 
 William Hay, minister at Perth, was nominated Bishop of 
 Murray, and was consecrated in the beginning of the year 
 1688. 
 
 In February, 1687, a royal proclamation was issued, which 
 set forth that his majesty, in virtue of his sovereign authority 
 and absolute power which all his subjects were bound to obey 
 without reserve, gave permission to the moderate Presby- 
 terians, to meet at their private houses and hear all such 
 ministers as were willing to accept the indulgence thus offered; 
 to the Quakers, to meet in any place appointed for their 
 worship ; and to Roman Catholics, to celebrate their religious 
 services in houses or chapels. But field conventicles among 
 Presbyterians were prohibited as before ; and Roman Catho- 
 lics were forbidden to preach in the fields, or to seize Protestant 
 churches, or to make processions in the streets of royal burghs. 
 All the penal laws, and political disabilities, imposed on 
 Roman Catholics, were also suspended ; and all laws and tests, 
 by which any of the king's subjects were incapacitated from 
 holding place or office, were dispensed with, an oath being ap- 
 pointed in lieu thereof, by which they were to swear that his 
 majesty was the rightful king and supreme governor of his 
 realms, and over all persons therein, and that it was unlawful 
 for subjects, on any pretence whatever, to rise in arms against 
 him. The king also declared that he would employ indif- 
 ferently all his subjects, of whatever persuasion, so that none 
 should meet with discouragement on account of their religion. 
 
 As the Presbyterian ministers declined to take the benefit 
 of this indulgence, the king, in conformity with the policy 
 which he was now pursuing in England, issued another pro- 
 clamation, by which a fuller and more unfettered toleration 
 was granted. In virtue of it, all penal laws against noncon- 
 formity were suspended, and all the king's subjects were 
 allowed to meet and serve God in their own way and manner, 
 either in private houses, or in chapels, or places built or hired for 
 the purpose, on condition that nothing disloyal should be taught 
 on those occasions, that the places of meeting should be open to 
 
 1 Keitli's Catalogue, pp. 155, 269, 270. Fountainliall's Historical Notices, 
 vol. ii. pp. 709, 711, 746, 775, 776, 786, 834, 841, 842. Lyon's History of St. 
 Andrews, vol. ii. p. 103. Skinner's Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, vol. ii. 
 pp. 502, 503. 
 
A.D. 1G87.] OF SCOTLAND. 287 
 
 all, and that the names of the places and preachers should be made 
 known to the government. All field conventicles were still pro- 
 hibited. The Presbyterians had no longer any scruples about 
 complying, and their ministers at once availed themselves of 
 the king's indulgence. The banished preachers, and those 
 who had retired to tlie Continent, came back to Scotland and 
 resumed their functions ; and none stood out except Renwick 
 and his Cameronian followers. The Nonconformist ministers 
 met at Edinburgh about the end of July, and drew up an 
 address of thanks to his majesty ; and the Presbyterians re- 
 siding in the capital followed the example of their pastors. 
 In these addresses they thanked the king for his clemency, 
 and promised to maintain entire loyalty, both in their doctrine 
 and practice, according to the known principles of their reli- 
 gion as contained in the Confession of Faith, 
 
 If the abolition of the penal laws, and the establishment of 
 a full toleration, had been sanctioned by parliament, instead 
 of being the mere act of the royal prerogative, the liberty now 
 conferred would have been a great national blessing. Even 
 as it was, the result was attended with much good, and might 
 have taught all parties an important lesson, had they been 
 capable of profiting by it. The Presbyterians were blamed 
 by the Cameronians for accepting the indulgence, and their 
 own writers afterwards felt some difficulty in excusing their 
 conduct ; but the course which they adopted was what almost 
 any religious society under persecution would gladly have 
 availed itself of. 
 
 Before the assembled Presbyterian ministers left Edin- 
 burgli, they drew up various prudent and useful rules, for the 
 guidance of themselves and their congregations under the 
 favourable circumstances in which they were now placed. 
 Immediately afterwards, they took measures for encouraging 
 the education of divinity students, and erected meeting- 
 houses in many of the towns, and in several of the country 
 parishes south of the Tay. They had but few preachers 
 beyond that river ; for, in the northern provinces, the inclina- 
 tions of the people were decidedly in favour of Episcopacy, i 
 
 1 Wodrow, vol. iv. p. 416-437. Burnet, vol. iii. p. 171-173. Wodrow is 
 anxious to make it appear that the address to the king was not the act of the 
 Presbyterian ministers as a body. The document itself implies the reverse of 
 
288 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIX. 
 
 The Roman Catholic services had for some time been cele- 
 brated privately in a room in the palace of Holyrood, in terms 
 of the king's directions already referred to ; but, in December, 
 1687, a royal warrant was issued for repairing and putting in 
 order the abbey church, which was to be set apart for the 
 Roman Catholic worship, and for the use of the Knights of the 
 Thistle. Schools under the superintendence of Roman Catholic 
 priests were likewise opened at Holyrood. 
 
 The toleration, as has been mentioned, did not extend to 
 those who attended field conventicles. In February, 1688, 
 James Renwick, one of the very few remaining ministers 
 among the Cameronians, was apprehended. The events of 
 his life illustrate the political and ecclesiastical position of 
 the sect to which he belonged. He was born at Glencairn, 
 in Nithsdale, in February, 1662. His parents were poor, 
 but, by the assistance of friends, they were able to provide 
 for his education. He studied at Edinburgh, and obtained a 
 degree from the college there, but it was conferred privately, in 
 consequence of his scruples about the oath of allegiance. After 
 remaining for some time in communion with the indulged Pres- 
 byterian ministers, he withdrew from it, being persuaded that 
 their compliances were sinful, and that he could not rightly 
 join in religious ordinances with them. He attached him- 
 self to the secret societies, the members of which met to- 
 gether for prayer and conference. By them he was sent over 
 to Holland to complete his education, and with the purpose 
 also of obtaining ordination, which the Cameronians now 
 scrupled to receive at the hands of the indulged ministers. 
 After studying for several montlis at the University of 
 Groningen, he was ordained by the classis of that place, the 
 members dispensing with his subscription of the Dutch for- 
 mularies, to which he had some objections, and allowing him to 
 sign in their stead the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. 
 
 what he says. He would have made the matter much more clear had he fol- 
 lowed his usual course in giving the names of those present, or of those who 
 subscribed. He thinks that the parties to the address were justified in after- 
 wards breaking their promises, because, when the king " was violently running 
 into the utter extirpation of our Reformation, when palming upon them a pre- 
 tended child of his, and openly overturning civil liberty, and when he had taken 
 the guilt of all upon him by running away, the case altered mightily." 
 ' Miscellany of the Wodrow Society, p. 458. Wodrow, vol. iv. pp. 461, 4G2. 
 
A,D. 1683.] OP SCOTLAND. 289 
 
 He returned to Scotland a few months afterwards. How 
 liis labours there were appreciated by his own party, may 
 be judged from the words of his biographer, Alexander 
 Shields. " In September, 1683," that writer says, " he com- 
 menced his ministerial work in Scotland, taking up the 
 standard of the testimony of Christ, and for Christ, upon the 
 same ground where it was fixed and had fallen, at the removal 
 of the former renowned witnesses, Mr. Richard Cameron, and 
 Mr. Donald Cargill, wiiich, in the strength of his Master, he 
 undertook to prosecute against such opposition from all hands, 
 as seemed insuperable to sense and reason, and could not but 
 have deterred the most daring, that had no other principle or 
 end for their support or encouragement than humour or interest. 
 An undertaking it was to him as difficult and desperate, as 
 that of unus Athanasius contra totum orbem, or that of a 
 cJiild tlircshing down a mountain ; which yet, against all the 
 arrows of archers which shot at him and hated him, he was 
 helped to achieve and attempt effectually, and overcome with 
 no despicable success, while his bow abode in strength, and 
 the arras of his hands were made strong by the hands of the 
 mighty God of Jacob." 
 
 The government endeavoured to apprehend Renwick, but, 
 for some years, without success. He was at last seized at 
 Edinburgh, and was examined before several members of the 
 ])rivy council. His biographer gives the following account of 
 his examination: — "Tlie chancellor asked him, what persua- 
 sion he was of. He answered, of the Protestant Presbyterian 
 persuasion. He questioned again, how it came to pass that 
 he, being a Presbyterian, did so much differ from other Pres- 
 byterians who accepted of his majesty's toleration, owned his 
 authority, &c., and what he thought of thera. He answered 
 that he was a Presbyterian, and adhered to the old Presby- 
 terian principles (which all were obliged by the Covenant to 
 maintain), as were once generally professed by the Church 
 and nation from the year 1640 to 1660, from which some had 
 apostatized for a little liberty (they knew not how short), as 
 yourselves (said he) have done for a little honour. The 
 chancellor replied, and the rest applauded, that they believed 
 these were the Presbyterian principles, and that all the Pres- 
 byterians would own them as well as he, if they had but the 
 
 VOL. III.] 20 
 
290 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIX. 
 
 courage. Some of them afterwards were heard to say, that he 
 was of old Knox's principles, which in former times were 
 approven, and thought tolerable then, but now made treason 
 by the present law." 
 
 On his trial before the Court of Justiciary, he was asked 
 whether he adhered to his former confessions and admitted all 
 that was charged against him. He answered, referring to a 
 formal expression in the indictment, " All, but 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." He was condemned 
 to die, but received a reprieve of some days. Several of the 
 bishops and clergy, and Sir John Dalrymple, the King's 
 Advocate, endeavoured to prevail on him to make some sort 
 of submission and thus save his life, but he declined to aban- 
 don his principles. 
 
 On the scaffold he refused the assistance either of the clergy 
 or of the indulged ministers. According to Shields, the latter 
 were much more hostile to him than the former ; biit on this 
 point the assertion of the Cameronian writer must be received 
 with caution. To the last he professed his adherence to those 
 things for which he suffered — his disowning of the king's 
 government, or, as he styled it, the usurpation and tyranny of 
 the Duke of York ; his preaching that it was unlawful to pay 
 cess ; and his teaching that it was lawful for people to carry 
 arms in self-defence, while attending on Gospel ordinances : 
 declaring that a testimony for them was worth many lives, 
 and, if he had ten thousand, that he would think it little 
 enough to lay them down in such a cause. He said that that 
 day was the most joyful day he ever saw in the world, a day 
 he had much longed for. He thanked the Lord who had 
 honoured him with the crown of martyrdom — an honour that 
 angels were not privileged with, being incapable of laying 
 down their lives for his princely Master. 
 
 Renwick was executed on the seventeenth day of February. 
 He was the last who suffered death in the cause of the Cove- 
 nant. ^ 
 
 James Atkins, Bishop of Galloway, died on the twenty- 
 
 ^ Biograpbia Presbyteriana, vol. ii.— Life of James Renwick, pp. 1-37, 147- 
 176. Wodrow, vol. iv. p. 445-454. 
 
A.D. 1688.] OF SCOTLAND. 291 
 
 eighth of October, 1087, nnd was succeeded by Dr. John 
 Gordon, one of the chaplains of the English Church at New 
 York, wlio was consecrated at Glasgow by Archbishop Pater- 
 son in the following year. 
 
 Murdoch JMackenzie, Bishop of Orkney, died at Kirkwall, 
 in February, 1688, being then in the eighty-eighth year of 
 his age. Dr. Bruce, the deprived Bishop of Dunkeld, was 
 appointed to the see of Orkney. The king had probably dis- 
 covered how impolitic the deprivation had been, and was now 
 willing, as far as possible, to conciliate that prelate himself, 
 and the friends of the hierarchy. 
 
 Hector Maclean, Bishop of Argyll, died in the end of the 
 year 1687, or in the beginning of the following year. On the 
 twenty-fourth of October, 1688, a conge d'elire was directed 
 to the dean and chapter in favour of Dr. Alexander Monro, 
 Principal of the College of Edinburgh. Dr. Monro was a 
 clergyman of learning and piety, one of the most eminent of a 
 race of divines which had now arisen, attached from principle 
 and conviction to the doctrines and ritual of the Church of 
 England, and anxious for their full establishment in Scotland. 
 Before his consecration, probably before his election could take 
 place, the reign of James was at an end. ^ 
 
 When it became certain that the Prince of Orange medi- 
 tated a descent on England, King James called up his Scottish 
 army to assist in repelling the invasion. On the third of 
 November, the bishops met at Edinburgh, and drew up an 
 address to the king, in which they expressed their earnest 
 wishes for the success of his majesty's arms, and for the dis- 
 comfiture of his enemies. It soon, however, became known 
 that the royal cause was unsuccessful. In the beginning of 
 December, the two archbishops, and others of their brethren, 
 granted a commission to the Bishops of Edinburgh and 
 Orkney to repair to London, for the purpose of renewing their 
 tenders of duty to the king, and of consulting with the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury and the English prelates in regard to the 
 alarming state of public aifairs. These two bishops were 
 
 1 Keith's Catalogue, pp. 99, 100, 152, 228, 229, 282, 283, 292. Wood's 
 Athense Oxonienses, vol. iv. p. 871. Fountainball's Historical Notices, vol. ii. 
 pp. 842, 868. Collections for a History of the Shires of Aberdeen and Banff, 
 p. 305. 
 
292 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXIX. 
 
 selected as most agreeable to the English prelates, because 
 one of them had suffered for his opposition to the exercise of 
 the royal prerogative, and the other was not a lord of parlia- 
 ment at the time when the question of toleration was before 
 the estates. Some delay took place in consequence of the 
 illness of the Bishop of Orkney, and finally Bishop Rose had 
 to proceed without his colleague. When he reached London, 
 he found that James had abandoned his kingdom, and had 
 retired to France.^ 
 
 ^ Wodrriw, vol. iv. pp. 468, 469. Collection of Letters to Archbishop San- 
 croft, p. 89-9L Keith's Catalogue, pp. 65, 66. The address of the Scottish 
 bishops to King James has been severely censured by various writers. Its profes- 
 sions of loyalty were not stronger than those contained in the address of the 
 Presbyterian mini.<ters in July, 1687 ; and they were sincere. 
 
A.D. 1688.] OF SCOTLAND. 29^^ 
 
 CHAPTER LXX. 
 
 FROM THE FMGUT OF KING JAMES IN DECEMBER, 1688, TO THE ESTABLISH- 
 MENT OF FRESBYTERIANISM IN JUNE, 1690. 
 
 Riot at Edinhurgh — The western clergy driven out hij the Came- 
 ronians — Address, hy the Presbyterian ministers to the 
 Prince of Orange — Exertions of Bishop Rose at London — 
 His conversation with Bishop Compton — His interview 
 with the Prince of Orange — Meeting of the Estates in 
 Scotland — Tlie Claim of Right — The crown conferred on 
 William and Mary — Deprivation of many of the Clergy — 
 The Bishops decline to acknowledge the new Sovereigns — 
 Address hy the Clergy of Aberdeen to the Estates — Pre- 
 lacy abolished — Ratification of the Westminster Confession 
 of Eaithj and establishment of the Presbyterian form of 
 Church Govermnent — Abolition of Patronage. 
 
 When it became known at Edinburgh that the king's cause 
 was failing, the populace rose in tumult, and, assisted bj the 
 city trainbands, broke into the palace of Holyrood, and rifled 
 the abbey church and schools, destroying the ornaments and. 
 furniture. The council made some feeble attempts to check 
 these excesses, but, no longer supported by the regular troops, 
 and uncertain, from the interruption of the communications 
 with England, of the course of events in the South, they were 
 themselves disheartened, and divided in opinion. The chan- 
 cellor having fled, they published a proclamation on the 
 twenty-fourth of December, in which, professing to share the 
 general apprehension of a rising of the Papists, and of an in- 
 vasion from Ireland, they called on his majesty's Protestant 
 subjects to put themselves in a posture of defence.^ 
 
 Scenes of similar violence took place in the West, and 
 there, as was to be expected, it was against the clergy of the 
 established Church that the popular feeling was directed. 
 Hardly any class of persons occupied a more unfortunate 
 position than the parochial ministers of the south-western 
 ' Wodrow, vol. iv. p. 470-476. Burnet, vol. iii. p. 344. 
 
294 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXX. 
 
 counties in the reigns of Charles the Second and his brother. 
 There were many among them of the most unexceptionable 
 character, and several were distinguished both for their virtues 
 and for their attainments ; but these suffered for the faults of 
 a few of their brethren, and were involved in the common 
 accusations made against the "curates." They were all 
 denounced as the instigators of measures in which few took 
 any direct part, and of which many disapproved, while they 
 were year after year the objects of a persecution as intolerant 
 and uncharitable, though not as cruel, as that which the go- 
 vernment directed against the Nonconformists. Their houses 
 were frequently attacked, and themselves and their families 
 exposed to injuries and insults of all kinds ; or, if they escaped 
 from these, they were continually suffering from the railing 
 tongues and slanderous writings of the Covenanters. It is 
 not to be wondered that many of the clergy, losing heart 
 under such trials, abandoned their benefices and their country, 
 and sought refuge in England and Ireland. 
 
 It was on Christmas-day that the rising of the western 
 Cameronians began. Armed bodies of insurgents traversed 
 the country, took possession of the churches, and expelled the 
 incumbents from their manses, warning them not to appear in 
 their own parishes again. With men whose passions were 
 inflamed by the fanaticism of their sect, and the remembrance 
 of many cruel wrongs, such scenes could not take place with- 
 out outrages; and, at that season of the year, the ministers and 
 their wives and children, who were driven from their homes to 
 seek shelter where they best might find it in other districts, 
 must have been exposed to severe sufferings. But it is to the 
 credit of the peasantry that no life was intentionally taken ; 
 perhaps, also, that fact speaks well for the incumbents them- 
 selves. Some time afterwards, the insurgents threatened to 
 march on the capital, in order to expel the clergy there, but 
 the members of the College of Justice assembled in arms, and 
 prevented their design.^ 
 
 ' The proceedings of the Cameronians are related in two works published at 
 London in 1690, the one entitled " An Account of the present Persecution of 
 the Church in Scotland ;" the other "The Case of the present afflicted Clergy of 
 Scotland truly represented." See also Burnet, vol. iii. p. 344 ; and Shields' 
 Faithful Contendings Displayed, pp. 371, 375, 376, 379. In regard to the man- 
 ner in which the western clergy were treated during the establishment of Epis- 
 
A.D. 1089.] OF SCOTLAND. 295 
 
 In January, 1689, the Presbyterian ministers met at Edin- 
 burgh, and agreed on an address to the Prince of Orange, in 
 which they thanked his highness for his exertions in behalf 
 of tlie Eeformcd religion, complained of the evils to which 
 they had been subjected by the establishment of Prelacy, and 
 entreated him to use his endeavours to restore the Presbyterian 
 form of church government as the best remedy against Popery 
 and slavery. They alluded to their taking the benefit of the 
 king's indulgence, and to their address in consequence in the 
 summer of 1687, and expressed a hope that their conduct 
 would meet with a favourable construction, because they were 
 not to be hindered from making use of what in itself was law- 
 ful and good, on account of the bad intentions of others, and 
 because in that address they referred to their known principles 
 as contained in the Confession of Faith ; adding that accord- 
 ingly they had ever been opposed to the projects of dispensing 
 with or taking off the penal laws against the Papists.^ It 
 would have shown more sincerity if the ministers had admitted 
 that their former language to King James could hardly be 
 reconciled with what they now used to the prince, and if they 
 had avoided the extraordinary reference to the Confession of 
 Faith as explaining the real import of those professions 
 of loyalty which James understood in their plain, obvious 
 sense. 
 
 In the meantime. Bishop Rose was using his endeavours at 
 London to preserve the established form of church government 
 in Scotland. The day after his arrival, he waited on Arch- 
 bishop Sancroft, who said that matters were very dark, and 
 that the English prelates hardly knew what to do for them- 
 selves, still less how to advise others. He then called on Dr. 
 Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, with whom he was personally 
 acquainted ; but from him he experienced little sympathy. 
 The following week. Bishop Pose again repaired to Lambeth, 
 and informed the primate of what had passed between himself 
 and Bishop Lloyd. Sancroft smiled, and said that the Bishop 
 of St. Asaph was a good man but an angry man. He observed, 
 as before, that all was dark, and requested Bishop Rose to 
 
 copacy, see Burnet's Vindication of the Church and State of Scotland, pp. 148, 
 149, 153, 154. 
 
 ' Wodrow, vol. iv. pp. 481, 482. 
 
296 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXX. 
 
 come to liim from time to time, promising, if anything occurred, 
 that he would let him know. 
 
 The perplexities and distress of the Bisliop of Edinburgh 
 were increased by his receiving intelligence of the Cameronian 
 outrages in Scotland. He waited on Dr. Gilbert Burnet, wlio 
 had accompanied the prince from Holland, and entreated him 
 to use his influence with his highness to stop the persecution 
 of the clergy, but Burnet answered that he did not meddle 
 with Scottish affairs. He made a similar application, and 
 with as little success, to Dr. Compton, Bishop of London. 
 That prelate, however, and several of the Scottish peers, 
 advised him to present an address to the prince on the subject 
 of the persecution. He asked whether such an address was 
 likely to be acceptable if it did not congratulate the prince on 
 his expedition ; and, on their mentioning that this was abso- 
 lutely necessary, he answered that he had no such instructions 
 from his constituents, and that he was far from being clear, in 
 his own mind, as to the lawfulness of these terms. The only 
 other prelate he saw was Dr. Turner, Bishop of Ely, who 
 gave all the assistance in his power to the Scottish commis- 
 sioner. 
 
 On the day that the vote of abdication passed in the English 
 convention, Bishop Rose was again at Lambeth, but he has 
 left no account of what passed between him and the primate. 
 Finding that nothing further remained to be done, he was 
 preparing to return to Scotland, when he found that he could 
 not do so safely without a pass from the prince. With the 
 primate's concurrence he resolved to wait upon William, and 
 applied to the Bishop of London to introduce him. Dr. 
 Compton readily undertook to bring the bishop, along with Sir 
 George Mackenzie who proposed to accompany him, into the 
 prince's presence. Sir George suggested that the Scottish 
 nobility and gentry then in London should wait upon the 
 prince, and intercede for the clergy ; but the Bishop of London, 
 after communicating with William, mentioned that he could 
 not allow the friends of the hierarchy to resort to him in a body, 
 lest the Presbyterians should take offence, and that for a 
 simih^.r reason he would not permit that party to come to him 
 in large numbers. Dr. Compton, thereupon directing his 
 discourse to Bishop Rose, said, " My lord, you see that the 
 
A.D. 1689.] OF SCOTLAND. 297 
 
 king having thrown himself upon the water must keep himself 
 swimming with one hand. The Presbyterians have joined 
 him closely and offered to support him, and therefore he caimot 
 cast them off unless he could see how otherways he can be 
 served. And the king bids me tell you that he now knows 
 the state of Scotland much better than he did when he was in 
 Holland, for, while there, he was made believe that Scotland 
 generally all over was Presbyterian, but now he sees that the . 
 great body of the nobility and gentry are for Episcopacy, and 
 it is the trading and inferior sort that are for Presbytery ; 
 wherefore, he bids me tell you, that if you will undertake to 
 serve him to the purpose that he is served here in England, he 
 will take you by the hand, support the Church and order, and 
 throw off the Presbyterians." The bishop answered, " My 
 lord, I cannot but humbly thank the prince for this frankness 
 and offer ; but withal I must tell your lordship that, when I 
 came from Scotland, neither my brethren nor I apprehended 
 any such revolution as I have now seen in England ; and 
 therefore I neither was nor could be instructed by them what 
 answer to make to the prince's offer ; and therefore what I say 
 is not in their name, but only my private opinion, which is, 
 that I truly think they will not serve the prince so as he is 
 served in England, that is, (as I take it,) to make him their 
 king, or give their suffrage for his being king. And though 
 as to this matter I can say nothing in their name, and as from 
 them, yet for myself I must say that, rather than do so, I will 
 abandon all the interest that either I have or may expect to 
 have in Britain." Bishop Compton approved of his openness 
 and ingenuousness, remarking that all the time Bishop Rose 
 had been in London he had not waited on the king, nor had 
 any of the Scottish bishops sent an address to him. " So," 
 he added, " the king must be excused for standing by the 
 Presbyterians." 
 
 On that occasion Bishop Eose had no opportunity of speak- 
 ing to the prince, but, on the following day, he was introduced 
 by Dr. Compton at "Whitehall. William, leaving the persons 
 with whom he was conversing, advanced a few steps to meet 
 him, and began the conversation. " My lord," he said, " are 
 you going for Scotland ?" The bishop answered, " Yes Sir, 
 if you have any commands for me." The prince replied, " I 
 
298 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXX. 
 
 hope you will be kind to me, and follow the example of Eng- 
 land." The bishop was somewhat perplexed, but answered, 
 "Sir, I will serve you so far as law, reason, or conscience, shall 
 allow me." The prince immediately turned away without 
 speaking another word. Bishop E,ose was thus prevented 
 from alluding to the ejected clergy, and soon afterwards re- 
 turned to Scotland,^ 
 
 While Bishop Rose was in London, another attempt was 
 made to obtain the prince's interposition on behalf of the 
 Scottish clergy. Dr. Scott, Dean of Glasgow, himself ejected 
 from his benefice at Hamilton, was the bearer of a petition to 
 William from Archbishop Paterson and the incumbents of the 
 western parts of his diocese, in which they entreated for protec- 
 tion. William caused a proclamation to be«issued forbidding 
 all disturbances and violence ; but the Cameronians paid no 
 respect to it. The very Sunday on which it was published at 
 Glasgow, they attacked the congregation assembled for divine 
 worship in the cathedral, and, when Dr. Fall, Principal of the 
 College, made a representation on the subject to William, the 
 prince simply referred him to the convention which was soon 
 to meet.2 
 
 * The interesting particulars concerning the proceedings of Bishop Eose at 
 London are to he found in a letter written hy him to Bishop Camphell, in 
 October, 1713, and printed by Keith (Historical Catalogue, p. 65-71), from 
 the original, now among the Papers of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, 
 marked No. C. 7, in the Catalogue. The accuracy and veracity of Bishop Rose in 
 regard to what came under his observation may be entirely relied on. His own 
 words are, " Whether what the Bishop of London delivered as from the prince 
 was so or not, I cannot certainly say, but I think his lordship's word was good 
 enough for that ; or whether the prince would have stood by his promise of cast- 
 ing o£F the Presbyterians, and protecting us, in case we had come into his 
 interests, I will not determine, though this seems the most probable unto me 
 and that for these reasons : — he had the Presbyterians sure on his side, both from 
 inclination and interest, many of them having come over with him, and the rest 
 of them having appeared so warmly that with no good grace imaginable could 
 they return to King James's interest ; next, by gaining us, he might presume to 
 gain the Episcopal nobility and gentry, which he saw was a great party, and 
 consequently that King James would be deprived of his principal support ; then 
 he saw what a hardship it would be upon the Church of England, and of what 
 bad consequence, to see Episcopacy ruined in Scotland, who no doubt would 
 have vigorously interposed for us, if we, by our carriage, could have been brought 
 to justify their measures." 
 
 " Collection of Lettei-s.to Archbishop Sancroft, p. 105. Burnet, vol. iv, p. 
 40. Skinner, vol. ii. pp. 520, 521. 
 
A.D 1689.] OF SCOTLAND, 299 
 
 The estates assembled at Edinburgh on the fourteenth of 
 March, 1689. They were convened by circular letters issued 
 by the Prince of Orange, at the request of a considerable num- 
 ber of the nobility and gentry who had waited upon him at 
 London. The two archbishops, the Bishop of Edinburgh, 
 and six other prelates, were present. The Duke of Hamilton, 
 the same nobleman who had been consulted on Scottish eccle- 
 siastical measures by King Charles the Second immediately 
 after the Restoration, was chosen president by a small majority 
 over the Marquis of Atholl, who was supported by the friends 
 of James. The convention met under circumstances of danger 
 and excitement, as well as of the utmost national importance. 
 Tlie castle was held for the king by a garrison under the com- 
 mand of the Duke of Gordon, and the town was full of armed 
 Cameronians from the West. Had the royalists acted with 
 union and vigour, they might have secured a majority, but 
 there was no proper understanding among them. Many of 
 their number, doubtful of the legality of the meeting, had 
 taken no part in the elections ; several of the bishops were 
 never present ; and, of those who came at first, some, includ- 
 ing the primate, soon ceased to attend. The Duke of Hamilton 
 had in vain endeavoured to prevail on the primate and the 
 Bishop of Edinburgh to abandon the interests of James, assur- 
 ing them that he had it in special charge from William, that 
 nothing should be done to the prejudice of Episcopacy if the 
 bishops could be induced to support him, and entreating them 
 to follow the example of the Church of England. 
 
 The division on the election of a president shewed which 
 side could rely on a majority. Graham of Claverhouse, now 
 Viscount Dundee, proposed to the royalists to hold a rival 
 meeting at Stirling ; and, when he failed in persuading some 
 of the nobility to take this step, he left the convention. From 
 that time the cause of James was hopeless with the estates. On 
 the fourth of April, they declared that he had forfeited the 
 crown, and that the throne was vacant. On the eleventh, they 
 agreed to offer the crown of Scotland to the English sovereigns, 
 William and Mary, and drew up a paper, called the Claim of 
 Right, in which, among other points, they declared that 
 " Prelacy and superiority of any office in tlie Church above 
 presbyters is, and hath been, a great and unsupportable griev- 
 
300 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXX. 
 
 ance and trouble to this nation, and contrary to the inclinations 
 of the generality of the people ever since the Eeformation, they 
 having been reformed from Popery by presbyters, and there- 
 fore ought to be abolished." The other portions of the Claim 
 of Right were agreed to without a division, but this clause was 
 carried only by a majority. Two days afterwards, the con- 
 vention enjoined all ministers of the Gospel to pray for 
 William and Mary, as King and Queen of Scotland, and to 
 read a proclamation to that effect — those in Edinburgh on the 
 day following, being Sunday the fourteenth, all others south of 
 the Tay on the twenty-first, and those north of that river on 
 the twenty-eighth — under the pain of being deprived of their 
 benefices. 
 
 The English sovereigns accepted the Scottish crown, but 
 were not called upon in the meantime to bind themselves to 
 the conditions contained in the Claim of Right. They took 
 the coronation oath, in a form prescribed by the estates, by 
 which they swore to maintain the true religion then received 
 in Scotland. The last clause of the oath obliged the sovereign 
 to root out all heretics and enemies to the true worship of God, 
 who should be convicted by the true Church of God. William 
 objected to this as leading to persecution, until he was assured 
 that it was a mere matter of form.^ 
 
 The enactment of the thirteenth of April, in regard to the 
 reading of the proclamation and the praying for William and 
 Mary, was enforced with great severity. Even before the con- 
 vention rose, three clergymen in Edinburgh — Dr. Strachan, 
 Andrew Cant, and John M'Queen — were deposed by an act of 
 the estates. The Presbyterian ministers, having no objection 
 to the points enjoined, complied at once, though the order was 
 issued by a secular court, whose jurisdiction in such a matter 
 they might at another time have been disposed to reject. None 
 of the established clergy had scruples as to the general ques- 
 tion of the authority of the civil power to give directions in 
 questions of this nature, but most of them conscientiously 
 believed that James was still their rightful sovereign. Those 
 who refused compliance were deprived, wherever evidence 
 could be found against them, but, with a few exceptions, it 
 
 * Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol, ix. p. 3-49. Keith's Catalogue, p. 
 72. Burton's History of Scotland, vol, i. pp. 11-13, 186. 
 
A.D. 1G89.] OF SCOTLAND. 301 
 
 was only in the southern parts of the kingdom that the orders 
 of the government could at first be carried out. They were 
 executed for some time by a committee of the estates, and 
 afterwards by the privy council. The most active agent in 
 the matter was the Earl of Crawford, a nobleman of the 
 old Covenanting principles, whose zeal was not lessened by 
 the circumstance that his family had at one time been enriched 
 by the spoils of the Church. Among the deprived clergy was 
 James Aird, minister at Torryburn, the intimate friend of 
 Archbishop Leighton. He was now an old man, and his case, 
 from the circumstances attending it, and from his own high 
 character, excited particular attention.^ 
 
 The estates, after an adjournment of some weeks, again sat 
 down on the fifth of June. They were now formally recog- 
 nized as a parliament by the new sovereigns, and their former 
 president, the Duke of Hamilton, was the royal commissioner. 
 Notwithstanding the clause in the Claim of Right, the lords 
 of the clergy had still a legal right to take their seats, if they 
 had been prepared to acknowledge William and Mary; but 
 they had all resolved to maintain their allegiance to James, 
 and to abide the consequences. However it might have been 
 with othcTS, the prelates could not consistently have adopted a 
 difierent course. They had been foremost in professions of 
 loyalty to James ; they had supported him during the rebel- 
 lion of Argyll, had prayed for his success when first threatened 
 by the Prince of Orange, and had submitted to the arbitrary 
 exercise of the royal prerogative, even when directed against 
 their own order. Had they now abandoned him in his dis- 
 tress, and acquiesced in the new government, they might have 
 preserved the hierarchy, but they would have violated every 
 principle of honour and duty. The conscientious belief that 
 they were bound by the oaths which they had already taken, 
 and by their former proceedings, now ruled their course of 
 action. They may have supposed that another revolution was 
 
 ' Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ix. p. 68, and appendix, pp. 6, 7, 
 9,14, 17, 18,24,27,31. Burton, vol. i. pp. 187, 188. Leven and Melville 
 Papers, pp. 319, 327. Account of tlie Persecution of the Church in Scotland, 
 p. 37. The Earl of Crawford, in a letter written to Lord Melville, on the fourth 
 of Decemher, 1690, says, "The bishoprics which my father had right to were 
 many ; but those he was possessed of were only Caithness, Ross, Murray, Dun- 
 keld, and Dunblane." (Leven and Melville Papers, p. 580.) 
 
302 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXX. 
 
 likely to tcake place, and that King James would be restored to 
 his throne ; but this could not have been the sole or the chief 
 reason for their conduct. 
 
 While the prelates were thus prevented from maintaining 
 the cause of Episcopacy in parliament, it was not to be ex- 
 pected that the lay lords, or the barons, or the burgesses, who 
 had taken the oaths, would be very zealous in its support. Few 
 members, except among the burgesses, were on religious 
 grounds devoted to Presbyterianism. Many of them were 
 indifferent as to forms of ecclesiastical government, and a 
 considerable number would have preferred Episcopacy. But 
 the overthrow of the hierarchy was thought to be necessary 
 on political grounds, and they had little hesitation in proceed- 
 ing to effect it. 
 
 On the second of July, the draft of an act was brought in 
 by the Earl of Annandale for the abolition of Prelacy, and of 
 all superiority of any office in the Church above presbyters, 
 reserving to their majesties to settle the Presbyterian govern- 
 ment in the way most agreeable to the inclinations of the 
 people and the word of God. The royal commissioner asked 
 leave to see and consider the draft. Immediately after this, 
 the Earl of Kintore presented an address from James Gordon, 
 Parson of Banchory-Devenick, and John Barclay, minister at 
 Cruden, who were commissioned to that effect by the Synod of 
 Aberdeen. In this address, they stated their deep sense of 
 the divided state of the Church ; referred to the testimony 
 given by their synod in late years against Popery, and their 
 general concurrence in praying for King William as the great 
 instrument of their deliverance ; and expressed an earnest 
 desire for a union with all their Protestant brethren who 
 differed from them only in matters of church government. 
 They set forth that it had been the practice of all Christian 
 Churches to meet in national synods for rectifying disorders, 
 removing scandals, and healing breaches; and humbly suppli- 
 cated the commissioner, and the great court of parliament, that 
 a free general assembly, for which they had long been anxious, 
 should be called at such time and place as the king's majesty 
 and the parliament should think fit, and suggested that, before 
 its meeting, some judicious ministers of different opinions as 
 to questions of church government miglit be appointed to 
 
A.D. 1689.] OF SCOTLAND. 303 
 
 consider the matters in dispute, and prepare overtures for an 
 accommodation, and the peace of the Church. The Duke of 
 Hamilton was disposed to listen favourably to the Aberdeen 
 address ; and the Presbyterians were much alarmed, knowing 
 that in a national synod, such as that proposed, the clergy 
 would have a great majority over their own ministers. It is 
 very doubtful whether the proposal, if adopted, would have 
 led to any satisfactory arrangement ; but all chances of an 
 accommodation were taken away by the statute which soon 
 afterwards received the sanction of the estates. 
 
 On the following day, the draft of the act for the abolition 
 of Prelacy was again read, and it was agreed to leave out the 
 word " Presbyterian," in that part which related to the subse- 
 quent settlement of the church government. Two days after- 
 wards, it was also agreed thM the settlement was to be in the 
 way most agreeable to the inclinations of the people, nothing 
 being said of the word of God ; and in this shape the act was 
 passed on the twenty-second of July. The new statute was 
 founded on the clause in the Claim of Eight already quoted. 
 Prelacy, and all superiority of any office in the Church above 
 presbyters, were abolished, and the acts in favour of Episco- 
 pacy in the reign of Charles the Second, and all other acts 
 inconsistent with the statute now passed, were rescinded ; and 
 it was declared that the king and queen, with consent of 
 parliament, would settle in the Scottish kingdom that church 
 government which was most agreeable to the inclinations of 
 the people. 
 
 During this session of parliament, various proposals were 
 made for the re-establishment of Presbyterianism, and for the 
 restoration of the survivors of such ministers as had been 
 deprived for their opposition to Prelacy. A petition was also 
 presented from several ministers who had been deprived for 
 not taking the Test of 1681, in which they asked to be re- 
 stored to their benefices, and stated their readiness to pray for 
 the king and queen, to submit to the Presbyterian government, 
 and to join in purging the Church of all scandalous, insufficient, 
 and immoral ministers. Nothing was finally settled in regard 
 to these points, and, when the estates rose, no form of eccle- 
 siastical government was in existence as a legal establishment; 
 but, by a royal letter addressed to the privy council, the 
 
304 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXX. 
 
 ministers of the Gospel were allowed to continue and proceed 
 in their ordinary meetings — kirk-sessions, presbyteries, and 
 synods — till such time as the government of the Church might 
 be further established by act of parliament, and of the general 
 assembly. ^ 
 
 Dr. William Annand, Dean of Edinburgh, died on the 
 thirteenth of June. Before his departure, he received the 
 Eucharist, according to the form in the Book of Common 
 Prayer, from Dr. Monro, Bishop-nominate of Argyll, assisted 
 by Dr. Strachan ; several clergymen and laymen communicat- 
 ing at the same time. The dying presbyter referred with 
 tears to the state of ecclesiastical affairs, saying that he never 
 thought to have outlived the Church of Scotland, but that he 
 hoped others would see its restoration. ^ 
 
 While the parliament was engaged in overturning the esta- 
 blished form of church government, and in passing laws for 
 the better security of the new dynasty, its labours were well- 
 nigh rendered vain by the genius and daring courage of one 
 man. Dundee, faithful to the master whom so many ]iad for- 
 saken, had retired from the convention ; but it was for the pur- 
 pose of rallying the northern clans in support of King James. 
 The Highlanders gathered round a leader in whom they had 
 entire confidence ; and, in order to check the rising, a body of 
 regular troops was despatched by the government, under the 
 command of General Mackay, a veteran officer, who had ac- 
 companied the prince from Holland. The armies met at 
 Killiecrankie on the twenty-seventh of July. William's 
 soldiers were utterly routed ; but Dundee was slain, and, with 
 the fixll of their heroic chief, the cause of the Scottish royalists 
 became hopeless. 
 
 The parliament re-assembled on the fifteenth of April, 1690. 
 The Duke of Hamilton no longer held the office of commis- 
 sioner, that dignity having been conferred on Lord Melville, 
 secretary of state, a zealous Presbyterian, who had been in 
 exile during the late reign. On the twenty-fifth of April, the 
 
 ^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ix. pp. 98, 104, and appendix, pp. 
 129, 138. Leven and Melville Papers, pp. 136, 138,217. There is a copy of the 
 Aberdeen address among the Papers of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, No. 
 P. 15, of the Catalogue. 
 
 * Wood's Athenaj Oxonienses, vol. iv. p. 259. 
 
A.D. 1690.] OF SCOTLAND. 305 
 
 act of 1669, which declared the supremacy of the crown over 
 all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical, was repealed. Im- 
 mediately afterwards, a statute was passed for restoring to 
 their benefices the ministers who had been deprived since the 
 first of January, 1661, for not conforming to Prelacy ; and the 
 present incumbents were ordered to remove from their manses 
 and glebes before Whitsunday ensuing. Such was the brief 
 warning given to the clergy formerly established by law, and 
 no difference whatever was made between those who had, and 
 those who had not, taken the oaths to William and Mary. 
 
 The beginning of a new establishment having thus been 
 made by supplying a body of ministers about sixty in num- 
 ber, its religious belief was next settled by an act approving 
 of the Confession of Faith agreed to by the Assembly of 
 Divines at Westminster. This act was passed on the twenty- 
 sixth of May, and, on the seventh of June, the king and 
 queen, an^^the three estates of the peers, barons, and burges- 
 ses, ratified and established the Confession of Westminster, and 
 established the Presbyterian form of church government and 
 discipline, viz., the government of the Church by kirk- 
 sessions, presbyteries, provincial synods, and general assem- 
 blies, as formerly recognized by the statute of 1592, except in 
 regard to patronage, the consideration of which was reserved ; 
 it being declared that the church government was to be 
 exercised by those Presbyterian ministers who had been 
 deprived since the year 1661, and were now restored, and by 
 such ministers and elders as they had admitted, or might 
 admit. And for carrying out these objects, their majesties 
 appointed the first general assembly to be held at Edinburgh, 
 on the third Tuesday of October next to come. All churches 
 were declared vacant, which had been deserted by their 
 ministers, or from which the ministers had been removed, 
 before the thirteenth of April, 1689, or whose ministers since 
 that date had been deprived for not obeying the proclamation 
 as to praying for the king and queen ; and the Presbyterian 
 ministers exercising their functions within such parishes were 
 to continue there, until the (>hurch now established should 
 take order as to the same. The ministers and elders, in 
 whom the government of the Church was now vested, were 
 allowed to try and purge out all insufficient, negligent, scan. 
 
 VOL. III.] 21 
 
306 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXX. 
 
 dalous, and erroneous ministers, by due course of ecclesiastical 
 process ; and all ministers, summoned before them, wlio should 
 not appear, or who should be found guilty and be thereupon 
 suspended or deposed, were ipso facto to be suspended from or 
 deprived of their benefices. 
 
 Some other acts which were passed during this session may 
 also be mentioned. By one of these it was declared that the 
 principals, professors, regents, and masters, holding office in 
 any university, college, or school, should subscribe the Con- 
 fession of Faith, and the oath of allegiance to their majesties; 
 and a commission was named, with authority to visit these 
 institutions, and to purge out all erroneous and scandalous 
 persons holding office in the same, and all who should refuse 
 to submit to the government now established in Church and 
 State. The question of patronage, the consideration of which 
 had been reserved, was settled by another statute. The power 
 of patrons to nominate to ecclesiastical benefices was taken 
 away, on a certain compensation being made to them : and it 
 was provided that, in time coming, on a vacancy taking place, 
 the heritors of the parish, being Protestants, and the elders, 
 were to propose a person to the congregation for their approval, 
 and, if they disapproved, those who did so were to give in 
 their reasons to the presbytery, by whom the matter was to be 
 judged and settled. In regard to royal burghs, it was spe- 
 cially provided that the calling of ministers should be vested 
 in the magistrates, town council, and kirk-session. On the 
 same day on which the act regarding patronage was passed, the 
 Christmas recess of the courts of law was declared to be an 
 interruption of justice, and was therefore taken away. ^ 
 
 1 Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ix. pp. 106, 111, 117-134, 163, 164, 
 196-199, and appendix, p. 148. It is asserted by some writers that, during 
 this session of parliament, the draft of an act was brought in by the Earl of 
 Linlithgow for toleration to those of the Episcopal persuasion to worship God 
 after their own manner, and particularly, to those who were so inclined, to 
 use the English Liturgy. The minutes of parliament take no notice of this. 
 It had been the desire of King William that the adherents of Episcopacy, -who 
 would not conform to the new establishment, should receive the same indulgence 
 which was given to Presbyterians in England, on their taking the oath of alle- 
 giance ; bat, in this, as well as in other respects, Melville disregarded his 
 master's wishes, though he kept within the letter of his instructions : compare 
 the king's instructions to Melville, 25th February, 1690, with his remarks of the 
 22nd of May, in the Leven and Melville Papers, pp. 414, 415, 436-438. The 
 
A.D. 1690.] OF SCOTLAND. 307 
 
 The acts of this parliament, so far as the clergy were 
 concerned, were more arbitrary and severe than the similar 
 proceedings in regard to the Presbyterian ministers which 
 received the sanction of the estates on the Restoration of 
 Charles the Second. Some attempts were made to procure an 
 acknowledgment of the rights of the clergy who had been 
 ejected by the Cameronians, till they should be removed in 
 the course of law, and to obtain a share in the ecclesiastical 
 government for all ministers who were willing to acknowledge 
 the new sovereigns. The refusal of the former request was a 
 manifest injustice ; but compliance in the latter respect would 
 have been inconsistent with the ratification of Presbyterianism, 
 and of no advantage to the conscientious adherents of Episco- 
 pacy. The ecclesiastical system now established was entirely 
 the act of the secular power, just as the restoration of the 
 hierarchy thirty years before had been ; and it was carried 
 through on the principle of being that which was most in 
 accordance with the wishes of the people. There was one 
 marked difference between the Presbyterianism set up at this 
 time, and that which existed during the reign of Charles the 
 First. The National Covenant and the Solemn League and 
 Covenant formed no part of it. Not only the Cameronians, 
 who rejected the new settlement altogether, but the most 
 zealous of those who did not hesitate to concur in it, lamented 
 the utter disregard of what they viewed as the chief glory 
 and the great triumph of their party. But the statesmen who 
 shewed their readiness to gratify them in other points made 
 no concession as to this. William would never have 
 consented to give his sanction to what would have alienated 
 from him even the most moderate supporters of the hierarchy 
 in England ; and his political counsellors were not prepared to 
 re-impose on themselves and on the Scottish nation what for- 
 merly had been the cause of so much misery and disgrace. 
 
 course adopted by tlie commissioner was almost literally that which had been 
 recommended the year before by Lord Crawford, the head of the Presbyterian 
 party. (Ibid. p. 172.) 
 
308 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXI. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXI. 
 
 FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PRESBYTERIANISM IN JUNE, TO THE CON- 
 CLUSION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY VISITATION OF THE UNIVERSITIES 
 IN OCTOBER, 1690. 
 
 Position of ecclesiastical affairs after the Revolution — Proceed- 
 ings of the Bishops — Account of the deprived Prelates — 
 Opinions of the Parochial Clergy — Many of them disposed 
 to submit to the Civil Government — Opinion of the people 
 in regard to Episcopacy and Presbyterianism — Parlia- 
 mentary visitation of the Universities — Visitation of St. 
 Andrews — Visitation of Glasgow — Visitation of Edin- 
 burgh — Charge against Dr. Monro of using the Book of 
 Common Prayo — Visitation of Aberdeen. 
 
 Episcopacy had once more ceased to be the national establish- 
 ment, and Presbyterianism was set up in its place. In the 
 state of political parties which had arisen at the Revolution, 
 hardly any other result was to be expected. William himself 
 was inclined to preserve the former system, if he could have 
 prevailed on the members of the hierarchy to follow the 
 example of the English prelates ; but, when all the bishops 
 refused to take the oath of allegiance to the new government, 
 he consented to establish Presbyterianism. It was his wish, 
 however, that a full toleration should be granted to those vrho 
 were prepared to take the oaths, and even that the Episcopal 
 clergy should be allowed, on certain conditions, to remain 
 within the establishment. Various schemes of comprehension 
 were suggested, and found zealous advocates in Dr. Burnet, 
 now Bishop of Salisbury, and in other politicians both in 
 England and Scotland, who were indifferent regarding the 
 form of ecclesiastical government, or who feared that the 
 Presbyterian supremacy might again become formidable to 
 the state. Some of the clergy were willing to take the benefit 
 of such proposals, and to acknowledge the new form of church 
 government, on condition of being allowed to retain their 
 benefices. But all arrangements of that description were 
 
A.D. 1690.] OF SCOTLAND. 309 
 
 viewed by the great majority of the clergy as an unworthy 
 sacrifice of principle, and were opposed by the Presbyterians 
 as an improper interference with the privileges now enjoyed 
 by themselves. 
 
 The course of events had led to what, till this time, had 
 hardly been formally acknowledged — an entire ecclesiastical 
 separation between the supporters of Episcopacy and Presby- 
 terianism. During the contentions in the reign of James the 
 Sixth, no such separation had taken place. After the Glasgow 
 assembly of 1638, the greater number of the deposed Episcopal 
 clergy joined in the worship of the Presbyterian establishment, 
 and, at the Restoration, most of the Presbyterians, and the 
 leading persons among their ministers, continued to attend the 
 parish churches. The rise of the extreme party, afterwards 
 known as Cameronians, the indulgence in the reign of Charles, 
 and the toleration in that of James, tended to produce a 
 different state of matters; and, at the Revolution, the separation 
 was complete. No attempt was made by the dominant religious 
 body to prevent this result. Its policy was very different from 
 that pursued by the civil government at the Restoration. 
 Then, it was the object to promote uniformity by making few 
 changes, except in church government; by raising Presby- 
 terians to the chief dignities in the hierarchy; and by admitting 
 all who were willing to conform to the system established by 
 law. Now, the parties intrusted with the control of the new 
 establishment endeavoured to prevent any of the Episcopal 
 clergy from being associated with themselves, and reverted to 
 the forms of Presbyterianism, not as they were before the great 
 rebellion, but, so far as the civil government would allow, as 
 they existed in the times of the Covenant. 
 
 It was well for both ecclesiastical bodies that the attempts 
 which were made to unite those whose principles were now so 
 different were unsuccessful. To the disestablished Church in 
 particular the change that took place at the Revolution was 
 beneficial in many respects, though few of her members could 
 probably see at the time that such was the case. The loss of 
 temporal power, and the poverty and persecution following 
 upon it, led eventually to blessings Avhich never could have 
 been obtained while she was in bondage to the state, and was 
 made responsible, in popular estimation, for all the acts of an 
 
310 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXL 
 
 arbitrary government. That those blessings were still delayed 
 for years was owing partly to circumstances which were beyond 
 the control of the Church, partly to the difficulty which her 
 rulers had in learning to adapt themselves, and the people com- 
 mitted totheir charge, to the altered condition in which they 
 were placed. Had the bishops understood their real position, and 
 their true duties — while acting themselves, and allowing others 
 to act, in political matters, according to their conscientious 
 opinions, they would, in matters ecclesiastical, have recognised 
 no secular differences, and have thrown themselves for support 
 on the whole body of the clergy and people who acknowledged 
 the authority of Episcopacy. But it is hardly reasonable to 
 blame them for not at once adopting a mode of proceeding so 
 different from any which they had hitherto been accustomed to 
 contemplate. 
 
 Before continuing the narrative of the events which followed 
 the parliamentary sanction of Presbyterianism, a brief account 
 may be given of the general position of the clergy and the 
 laity of the disestablished Church, and of the fortunes of the 
 individual prelates. 
 
 From the time that the convention of 1689 was changed 
 into a parliament, we hear little of the proceedings of the 
 bishops. The statute abolishing Prelacy deprived them of 
 their rank and temporalities, leaving them, so far as the state 
 was concerned, utterly destitute. Their situation in this respect 
 differed from that of the parochial clergy, who, with the 
 exception of those driven out by the Cameronians, could only 
 be deprived one by one, and after legal formalities of some 
 sort. The prelates made no attempt to defend their order, 
 and seemed anxious to avoid all public notice. Their seclu- 
 sion was so complete during the summer of 1689, that Dundee, 
 in writing to Lord Melfort, mentioned that he did not know 
 where they were, or how to find out the primate, and spoke of 
 them as being " now the kirk invisible." When the jealousy 
 of the government abated after the death of Dundee, they were 
 no longer under the necessity of maintaining such privacy. In 
 December, Lord Crawford complained to Melville, that they con- 
 tinued to subscribe by their titles, that they ordained ministers 
 singly, and that they gave warrants for private marriages. It 
 thus appears that they never abandoned their duty of conferring 
 
A.D. 1690.] OF SCOTLAND. 311 
 
 ordination ; but it is certain that they made no attempt to keep 
 up a regular system of diocesan government, or even to reside 
 within their dioceses, and that the clergy began, in consequence, 
 to act as if they were independent of their proper spiritual 
 superiors, and as if the members of the episcopate were only a 
 higher order, to be reverenced as a body having the sole 
 power of ordination, not each to be obeyed as possessing 
 jurisdiction within an appointed district. ^ 
 
 Archbishop Ross might have filled the primatial office 
 respectably in quiet times ; but he was unequal to the difficul- 
 ties which he had to encounter, and, so far as appears, made 
 no adequate attempt to overcome them. He was respected, 
 however, as the head of the Church, and his primatial and 
 metropolitan dignity became even more important, from the 
 circumstance that the prelates had almost ceased to discharge 
 their diocesan functions. He died at Edinburgh on the 
 thirteenth of June, 1704.2 
 
 Archbishop Paterson was a man of ability and resolution, 
 and was sufficiently active, though more as a partizan of the 
 exiled sovereign, than as a ruler of the Church. He assisted 
 at one important ecclesiastical measure which will afterwards 
 be mentioned, but his conduct after the Revolution was hardly 
 sufficient to make men forget the doubtful proceedings of his 
 earlier years. He died on the ninth of December, 1708.^ 
 
 The date of the decease of John Hamilton, Bishop of Dun- 
 keld, is not recorded. It is asserted by Keith that at the 
 time of his death he was " one of the ministers of Edinburgh 
 and sub-dean of his majesty's chapel royal." If this statement 
 be correct, and to be received in its obvious meaning, he must 
 have taken the oath of allegiance to King William ; and there 
 is nothing in his character to make such compliance unlikely. 
 Though Burnet's severe remarks upon him should be disre- 
 garded, his readiness to accept a see vacated by the arbitrary 
 deprivation of his predecessor shews that his principles were 
 not of a very strict character. * 
 
 George Haliburton, Bishop of Aberdeen, died at his own 
 
 ' See Dundee's Letters, p. 48 ; and Leven and Melville Papers, p. 355. 
 
 2 Keith's Catalogue, p. 43. Lyon's History of S. Andrews, vol. ii. p. 113. 
 
 3 Keith's Catalogue, p. 270. 
 
 ■• Keith's Catalogue, p. 100. See Burnet, vol. iii. p. 110. 
 
312 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [CaAr. LXXI. 
 
 house near Cupar- Angus, on the twenty-ninth of Septemher, 
 
 1715. It is probable that he retired thither soon after the 
 Revolution, but he continued to maintain a certain degree of 
 connection with his diocese, and to ordain clergy for it.^ 
 
 William Hay, Bishop of Murray, left his cathedral city, but 
 fixed his residence at Inverness, within his own diocese. He 
 is described as a person of mild and gentle temper, who dis- 
 approved alike of the penal laws against the Papists, and of 
 the severe measures against the Presbyterians. He died on 
 the ninth of March, 1707.2 
 
 Dr. Bruce, Bishop of Orkney, the strenuous supporter of the 
 penal laws, died in March, 1700. James Ramsay, Bishop of 
 Ross, the bold and consistent advocate of ecclesiastical reform 
 and political moderation, the friend alike of Archbishop Burnet 
 and of Archbishop Leighton, died at Edinburgh, in great 
 poverty, on the twenty-second of October, 1696. Andrew 
 Wood, Bishop of Caithness, died at Dunbar, where he had 
 formerly been minister, in 1695.3 
 
 Dr. Drummond, Bishop of Brechin, after his deprivation 
 resided generally at Slains Castle, with the Earl of Errol. 
 He died in the year 1695. Robert Douglas, Bishop of Dun- 
 blane, died at Dundee, on the twenty-second day of September, 
 
 1716, being then in the ninety-second year of his age.^ 
 
 Dr. Gordon, Bishop of Galloway, accompanied King James 
 to Ireland, and afterwards to France, He resided for some 
 
 ' Keith's Catalogue, p. 134. Skinner, vol ii. p. 595. 
 
 2 Miscellany of the Spalding Club, vol. ii. p. 297. In the interesting account 
 of a journey made in the autumn of 1697 by Eobert Barclay, son of the Apolo- 
 gist, and three other Quakers, from Aberdeen to the Highlands, as far as the 
 residence of Cameron of Lochiel, with whose family the Barclays were connected 
 by marriage, it is related that one of the Friends visited at Inverness the "old 
 Bishop of Murray, called Hay, who was sore diseased in his body by a palsy." 
 (Jaffray's Diary, p. 367.) 
 
 =1 Keith's Catalogue, pp. 204, 218, 229. Skinner, vol. ii. p. 595. 
 
 * Keith's Catalogue, pp. 169, 183. Collections for a History of the Shires of 
 Aberdeen and Banff, p. 875. In a letter written by Bishop Douglas to the Earl of 
 Errol, on the twenty-sixth of August, 1701, in answer to a communication from 
 the earl, recommending a student of divinity for ordination, the bishop mentions 
 that he would be willing to do what was in his power for the sake of a nobleman 
 who had shewn kindness to the persecuted orthodox clergy, but that no one 
 could be preferred to sacred orders, until he had first been examined by some 
 godly orthodox ministers, as to his good conversation and literature. (Miscellany 
 of the Spalding Club, vol. ii. p. 301.) 
 
A.D. 1690] OF SCOTLAND, 313 
 
 time at St. Germains, where he read the service of the Eng- 
 lish Church in his own house to the Protestant adherents of 
 the exiled family. Afterwards, however, he joined the Church 
 of Rome, and received the minor orders in that communion. 
 He had a pension from the Pope, and began a work in answer 
 to Courayer's Defence of the English ordinations. He died 
 at Rome in 1726, having survived all the rest of the de- 
 prived bishops. ^ 
 
 The name of Archibald Graham, Bishop of the Isles, 
 scarcely appears in our ecclesiastical history, except in con- 
 nection with his appointment to the see. The time of his 
 decease is unknown, but it is certain that he survived the 
 accession of Queen Anne.^ 
 
 It will be unnecessary to refer here particularly to Dr. Rose, 
 Bishop of Edinburgh, and to Dr. Monro, Bishop-nominate of 
 Argyll, as the former will frequently be mentioned in the 
 course of the narrative, and the circumstances connected with 
 the ejection of the latter from his academical oflEice will im- 
 mediately be related ; but a few words may be added regard- 
 ing Dr. Cairncross, who had been deprived of the arch- 
 bishopric of Glasgow in the reign of James. That prelate 
 had no objections to the oath of allegiance to William and 
 Mary ; and he was, through the influence of Bishop Burnet, 
 appointed in the year 1693 to the vacant Irish diocese of 
 Raphoe, a see which on several occasions had been held by 
 Scottish ecclesiastics. Bishop Cairncross died in 1701. He 
 was a liberal benefactor to a fund raised for the relief of the 
 suffering clergy in Scotland, and by his will left the tenth 
 part of his whole effects for the same object.^ 
 
 ^ Keith's Catalogue, p. 283. Collections for a History of the Shires of Aber- 
 deen and Banff, pp. 305, 306. The writer of the contemporary notice in the 
 Collections speaks severely of Bishop Gordon's general character, and mentions 
 that his fragment against Courayer gives " but a low opinion of his humility, 
 charity, or politeness." Some allowance, however, must be made for the indig- 
 nation naturally excited by the ai)ostasy of a bishop. 
 
 " There is a document dated in April, 1702, bearing the signature of Archibald, 
 Bishop of the Isles, among the Papers of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, No. 
 E. 4, of the Catalogue. 
 
 ^ Mant's History of the Church of Ireland, vol. ii. p. 34-37. Mant states that 
 in the correspondence of Archbishop King there are various letters to Bishop 
 Cairncross, whom, with reference to his former dignity, Dr. King always addresses 
 as " your grace." 
 
314 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXI. 
 
 The Revolution had almost immediately caused the ejection 
 of a large number of the parochial ministers, and rendered 
 precarious the possession which the others still retained of 
 their benefices. A great change had taken place in the 
 opinions of the clergj on the subject of Episcopacy, as com- 
 pared with the general belief thirty years before. One class 
 among them regarded it as the only source of a valid ordi- 
 nation, another as the form of ecclesiastical government most 
 in accordance with the Scriptures and with the practice 
 of the primitive Church ; and these together formed a 
 considerable majority of the parochial incumbents. There 
 was a third class, however, which held all forms of church 
 government to be indifferent, or which had submitted to 
 the hierarchy, though their feelings or convictions were in 
 favour of Presbyterianism. The ministers of tliis last class 
 were ready to submit to the new establishment as soon as 
 an opportunity should be given to them ; but the others were 
 firmly resolved to maintain their principles, whatever the con- 
 sequences might be, though many of them, like the members 
 of the Aberdeen synod, would have been willing to consent to 
 an accommodation which would preserve the essential rights 
 of the episcopate. As all chance of such an accommodation 
 was now at an end, the great body of the clergy were pre- 
 pared to act together in matters ecclesiastical. It was other- 
 wise, however, in regard to their political opinions. Most of 
 them would undoubtedly have preferred some expedient by 
 which the rights of James or of his infant son might have been 
 preserved ; but, when William was acknowledged by the 
 estates, and in actual possession of the throne, a considerable 
 number were disposed to take the oaths to the new sovereign, 
 and submit to his authority, as the only means of maintaining 
 a regular government. The clergymen who held these views 
 were more numerous than has generally been supposed, and, 
 had William been successful in his wish to secure to them a 
 complete toleration, they would probably have become a ma- 
 jority of the whole body. But persecution had its usual effect 
 in promoting extreme opinions, and every year that passed 
 left the supporters of Episcopacy more and raore identified 
 with the adherents of the banished sovereign, though it was 
 
A D. 1690.] OF SCOTLAND, 315 
 
 not till after the death of Queen Anne that the change was 
 entirely accomplished. 
 
 There were also differences of another description, and en- 
 tirely of a secular character. The bishops, the whole clergy 
 of the western counties, most of those in the South, and many 
 in other parts of the kingdom, were deprived of their benefices 
 in the manner which has already been mentioned, or by the 
 proceedings of the Presbyterian ecclesiastical courts to be 
 afterwards noticed. But, in the northern and central provinces, 
 those who took the oaths generally remained in possession of 
 their cures, and were sometimes succeeded by incumbents 
 holding similar opinions regarding Episcopacy. The ejected 
 clergy had no certain means of support, and were exposed to 
 great hardships. Some of them officiated in meeting-houses, 
 or resided in the families of the nobility and gentry of their 
 communion ; but others, especially the aged and infirm who 
 had no private means, were entirely destitute. Sums of money 
 were collected among the wealthy members of the Church, 
 and among the friends of the hierarchy in England and Ire- 
 land, and a fund was established for the relief of the distressed 
 clergy and their families. Several of the deprived ministers, 
 who had no objection to the oath of allegiance, received eccle- 
 siastical appointments in the English and Irish Churches. 
 Others sought refuge in more distant lands. A large number 
 of the laborious missionaries who ministered to the congrega- 
 tions of the Church of England in the North American colonies 
 were Scotsmen. Previously to the Revolution, Dr. James 
 Blair, a Scottish clergyman, had gone out to Virginia ; and, 
 during the very year in which the hierarchy was overthrown in 
 Scotland, he was appointed commissary for the Bishop of 
 London in that colony — a circumstance which may have aided 
 in inducing his countrymen to resort to the plantations. 
 
 While most of the parochial ministers thus remained faith- 
 ful to Episcopacy, a numerous body of the people followed 
 the same course. Like their pastors, they were divided into 
 two classes, those who took the oath of allegiance to William 
 and Mary, and those who declined to do so. It was main- 
 tained at the time, and it has been frequently asserted since, 
 that in numbers and influence they exceeded the members of 
 the new establishment. Immediately after the Revolution, 
 
316 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXL 
 
 Sage attempted to shew that the clause in the Claim of Right, 
 in which it was said that Prelacy was contrary to the in- 
 clinations of the generality of the people, was not supported 
 by facts. He derived a plausible argument from the circum- 
 stance that, during the toleration in the reign of James, when 
 the profession of Presbyterianism was no longer subject to 
 penalties, there were hardly any meeting-houses north of the 
 Tay, and that in the rest of Scotland, except in the five 
 south-western counties, not a third part of the people took the 
 benefit of it. This is an effectual answer to the assertion so 
 often made that almost the whole nation was zealously at- 
 tached to Presbyterianism, and only prevented by the tyranny 
 of the government from openly deserting the establishment ; 
 but the toleration did not last long enough to shew that all 
 who forbore to take advantage of it had no aversion to Epis- 
 copacy. 
 
 The question indeed is one which cannot be satisfactorily 
 answered. There are some particulars, however, in regard 1o 
 which there is no reasonable doubt. It is evident that the 
 Cameronians, as distinguished from the moderate Presby- 
 terians, formed the great majority in the south-western coun- 
 ties ; that Episcopacy was generally unpopular in the South ; 
 that from the Forth to the Tay the adherents of Episcopacy 
 and Presbyterianism were more equally divided ; and that 
 beyond the Tay the supporters of Episcopacy were much supe- 
 rior in number. If the opinions of the various classes of the 
 people had been taken, it is certain that the nobility and gen- 
 try, the teachers in the universities, and the members of the 
 College of Justice, would generally have adhered to Episco- 
 pacy, while Presbyterianism would have been supported by 
 the majority of the burgesses and peasantry. It may therefore 
 be reasonably inferred that the adherents of Episcopacy were 
 the more powerful, wealthy, and educated party, and those of 
 Presbyterianism the more numerous, and also the more zealous. 
 Undoubtedly, however, the supporters of Episcopacy would 
 have been much less numerous than they were, had the civil 
 government in the reign of William, like that in the time of 
 Charles the Second, imposed penalties on those who attended 
 the ministrations of the deprived pastors. But, while the 
 clergy were treated with great harshness, no attempt was made 
 
A.D. 1690.] OF SCOTLAND. 317 
 
 to compel the laity to join in the worship, or submit to the 
 discipline, of the Presbyterian communion.^ 
 
 The narrative of events after the rising of parliament may 
 now be resumed. The farther prosecution of the measures 
 contemplated for the deprivation of the parochial clergy was 
 left to the newly established Presbyterian body ; but there was 
 one important national institution which could be adapted 
 
 ^ In regard to the relative numbers and influence of the adherents of Episco- 
 pacy and Presbyterianism, opinions, yet more favourable to the former than those 
 mentioned in the text, are expressed by two eminent contemporaries. One of 
 them had no ecclesiastical bias in either direction, though, as a politician, he 
 was favourably disposed to Episcopacy ; the other was a sincere and zealous 
 Presbyterian. Lord Tarbet, afterwards Earl of Cromartie, writing in the sum- 
 mer of 1689, says, " The matter of church government hath been made a pre- 
 tence for the troubles of Scotland now for a hundred years. Episcopacy appears 
 insufferable to a great party, and Presbytery is as odious to another. The 
 Presbyterians are the more zealous and hotter ; the other more numerous and 
 powerful. The present parliament is more numerous of Presbycerians by the 
 new method of election of burghs ; but the major part of the nobility and barons 
 are not for Presbytery." (Leven and Melville Papers, p. 125.) General 
 Mackay, in a letter to the Laird of Grant, dated the fourth of December, 1690, 
 referring to the recent establishment of Presbyterianism, thus expresses him- 
 self : — " I am sure that no man who will duly weigh all circumstances, but will 
 confess with me, that humanly the standing of that government doth consist in 
 making it supportable to the king and kingdom ; for let men flatter themselves 
 as they will, I tell you who know Scotland, and where the strength and weak- 
 ness of it doth lie, that if I were as much an enemy to that interest as I am a 
 friend, 1 would without difficulty engage to form in Scotland a more formidable 
 party against it, even for their majesties' government, than can be formed for it." 
 (Letter in the General Eegister House, Edinburgh, read to the Society of Anti- 
 quaries of Scotland by Mr. Joseph Eobertson, and printed in the Scottish 
 Ecclesiastical Journal, vol. vii. p. 23.) The following are the remarks of Mr. 
 Burton in connection with this subject : — " There is no doubt that the voice 
 of the people as it was beard in parliament — that of the middle classes and the 
 common people in the southern counties — was decidedly for the Presbyterian 
 system. Whether the supposition that the country would have given a general 
 majority on their side be right or not, yet they possessed what was essential for 
 collective strength, in being certainly a majority of those who had firm and ar- 
 dent opinions on church government, and were zealous in their behalf. The 
 southerns were much more resolutely anxious for their Presbyterian system, than 
 
 the northerns were for the Episcopalian Had the religious powers 
 
 in the country been permitted with some modification and restraint to adjust 
 themselves, Episcopacy would have prevailed north of the Tay ; in Fife and 
 along the east coast a moderate Presbyterianism might have developed itself, 
 though perhaps not quite so moderate as that which the Dutch king, backed by 
 the influence of England, established ; the western shires would have been such as 
 they have described themselves in the quotations made in these pages from their 
 testimonies." (History of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 189, 190, 203.) 
 
318 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXI. 
 
 to the altered state of matters only by the direct intervention ot 
 the estates. The universities, from the time that their ancient 
 system had been partially restored by King James the Sixth, 
 had generally been favom-able to Episcopacy : the chief sup- 
 porters of Prelacy had been found among their teachers, and 
 they had themselves flourished most under the patronage of 
 the bishops. As already mentioned, a special act of parliament 
 had been passed, enjoining all persons holding office in these 
 institutions to take the oath of allegiance, and subscribe the 
 Westminster Confession ; and a commission was named, con- 
 sisting of noblemen, barons, judges, and ministers, with 
 authority to visit all universities, colleges, and schools, to 
 remove scandalous, insufficient, and disaffected persons, and to 
 carry out the other provisions of the statute. 
 
 The commissioners, as authorised by the act, divided them- 
 selves into committees for the visitation of the different univer- 
 sities and colleges. In that appointed for St. Andrews the 
 Earl of Crawford presided, and the proceedings are said to have 
 been conducted by him with needless harshness. Dr. Skene, 
 Rector of the University, and Provost of St. Salvator's 
 College, Dr. Wemyss, Principal of St. Leonard's College, and 
 Dr. Lorimer, Principal of St. Mary's College, and all the 
 regents, except one who complied and two who were absent at 
 the time of the visitation, were ejected. The professorship of 
 divinity in St. Mary's College was vacant.^ 
 
 The committee appointed to visit the University of Glasgow 
 is not accused of proceeding with such severity ; and, either 
 from that cause, or from the more complying temper of the 
 masters, the deprivations there were much fewer in number. 
 Dr. Fall, Principal of the College, Dr. James Wemyss, 
 Professor of Divinity, and one of the regents, were, however, 
 ejected for refusing to comply with the conditions of the 
 act. Dr. Fall was a man of learning and worth, and, as 
 he had no scruples about the oath of allegiance, his unwilling- 
 ness to conform to Presbyterianism must have been his only 
 
 ^ Historical Eelation of the late Presbyterian Assembly held at Edinburgh 
 in 1690, pp. 17, 48- MS. List and Account of the Visitation, in possession of 
 the Rev. Patrick Cheyne, Aberdeen. The author of the Historical Relation, 
 and Skinner (vol. ii. p. 555), assert that all the masters were ejected ; but it 
 appears from the MS. above referred to that this is incorrect. 
 
A.D. 1690.] OF SCOTLAND. 319 
 
 reason for refusing to submit. He retired to England, and was 
 soon afterwards appointed Precentor of York. His labours in 
 editing the works of xirchbishop Leighton have already been 
 referred to.^ 
 
 The Edinburgh committee sat during the months of August 
 and September. The head of the college was Dr. Monro, 
 Bishop-nominate of Argyll, a scholar of considerable attain- 
 ments, and peculiarly obnoxious both as a zealous champion 
 of Episcopacy, and as an adherent of the exiled king. His 
 opposition to the civil government was hardly concealed, and, 
 as during the previous year he had resigned his office as one 
 of the ministers of the city, the Presbyterians infen-ed, on 
 reasonable grounds, that he had done so to avoid being deprived 
 for not takmg the oath of allegiance. Among other offences, 
 he was charged with using the Book of Common Prayer in 
 the college. His answer to this accusation is important, as 
 shewing the practice of the Church, and the opinions of 
 its more zealous members, in regard to liturgical forms. He 
 stated that the Prayer Book had been used in the chapel royal 
 at Holyrood in the reign of Charles the First, and in many 
 families ever since the Restoration of Charles the Second. 
 This seems to imply that there had been no public use of the 
 Liturgy either in cathedrals or parish churches before the 
 Revolution. In regard to his own proceedings he added : — 
 "When I left off preaching in the High Church, I advised 
 with some of my brethren, and the result was that we should 
 read the Book of Common Prayer, and preach within our 
 families, per vices, since most of them were acquainted some- 
 what with the Liturgy of the Church of England ; neither did 
 we think, when Quakers and all sects were tolerated, that we 
 should be blamed for reading those prayers within our private 
 families, which we prefer to all other forms now used in the 
 Christian Church. Neither had we any design to proselyte 
 the people to anything they had no mind to, else I might have 
 read the Liturgy in one of the public schools within the col- 
 lege ; and it must not be said we were afraid to venture upon 
 the public exercise of it because of the rabble, for, during the 
 session of the college, it is very well known in the city that 
 
 * Munimonta Almse Universitatis Glasguensis, vol. ii. pp. 501, 502, 507 — 509. 
 Irving's Lives of Scottish Writers, vol. ii. p. 149. 
 
320 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXI. 
 
 the mobile durst not presume to give us the least disturbance. 
 However, the matter succeeded beyond what we proposed or 
 looked for. We preached to the people upon the Sundays. 
 They came by hundreds more than we had room for, and very 
 many became acquainted with the Liturgy of the Church of 
 England, and perceived by their own experience there was 
 neither Popery nor superstition in it." 
 
 Such was the first step towards the introduction of the Book 
 of Common Prayer in Scotland. Dr. Monro easily refuted 
 most of the charges brought against him ; but, as he remained 
 firm in his religious and political opinions, he was ejected from 
 his functions in the college. He afterwards officiated as one 
 of the clergy of Edinburgh, and died in the year 1715. 
 
 Dr. Straclian, who had formerly been ejected from his ap- 
 pointment as one of the clergy of the city, refused to comply 
 with the test imposed by the statute, and was deprived of the 
 professorship of divinity. One of the particular charges 
 against him was that he maintained the doctrine of Consub- 
 stantiation. This he denied ; but he said that it had been 
 good for the peace of Christendom if the different parties had 
 never taken it upon them peremptorily to determine the man- 
 ner of our Lord's presence in the Holy Eucharist. And he 
 appealed in defence to the teaching of the Church of England, 
 which held the real, effectual, spiritual presence, and yet denied 
 both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. Sentence of 
 deprivation was also pronounced against three others of the 
 professors. The new test was refused by Dr. David Gregory, 
 Professor of Mathematics, grandson of John Gregory, minister 
 at Drumoak in the diocese of Aberdeen, who had been de- 
 prived for not taking the National Covenant ; but his high 
 character and attainments inclined the visiters to connive at 
 his holding office. Soon afterwards. Dr. Gregory received the 
 appointment of Savillian Professor of Astronomy in the Uni- 
 versity of Oxford. ^ 
 
 The committee named for the visitation of the University 
 
 ' See the contemporary pamplilet, " Presbyterian Inquisition, as it was lately 
 practised against the Professois of the College of Edinburgh." See also Bower's 
 History of the University of Edinburgh, vol. i. p. 313-316. Dr. Monro would 
 have agreed to sign the Westminster Confession as vinculum unitatis Bcclesiae, 
 but not so as to hold all its articles de fide. 
 
A.D. 1690.] OF SCOTLAND. 321 
 
 of Aberdeen sat in tlio month of October. Dr. George Mid- 
 dleton, Principal of King's College, when called upon to take 
 the oath of allegiance and comply with the act of parliament 
 in other respects, answered that, if left to his own choice, he 
 would not willingly come under such engagements ; but, as he 
 was required by authority, and was free in conscience to com- 
 ply, he would obey. He thereupon took the oath of allegi- 
 ance, subscribed the Westminster Confession, and declared 
 his readiness to submit to the church government now esta- 
 blished by law. His example appears to have been followed 
 by Eobert Paterson, Principal of Marischal College, and by 
 most of the professors and regents of both colleges. Dr. 
 James Garden, Professor of Divinity in King's College, wished 
 to be excused giving his opinion until he should know the 
 mind of the general meeting of the commission. This was 
 agreed to, and he was allowed to retain his office in the mean- 
 time. In August, 1696, Dr. Garden appeared before the com- 
 mittee of visitation, and acknowledged the clemency and mild- 
 ness of the government in allowing him to hold his office, but 
 refused to sign the Confession. In the beginning of the fol- 
 lowing year, sentence of deprivation was pronounced against 
 him.^ 
 
 1 Fasti Aberdonenses, pp. 361-363, 379, 380. The account of tlie Visitation 
 of the University of Aberdeen, given by Skinner (vol. ii. p. 556), and by Law- 
 son (History of the Scottish Episcopal Church from the Eevolntion, pp. 109, 110), 
 is very inaccurate. They were not aware that almost all the professors took the 
 oath of allegiance, and submitted to the new ecclesiastical government. The 
 circumstance that the Earl Marischal was chairman of the Aberdeen committee 
 must have contributed to induce the members of one of the colleges to submit. 
 
 VOL, HI.] 22 
 
322 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXII. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXII. 
 
 FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY VISITATION OF THE 
 UNIVERSITIES IN OCTOBER, 1690, TO THE DEATH OF KING WILLIAM IN 
 MARCH, 1702. 
 
 Meeting of Presbyterian ministers and elders — General Assem- 
 bly of 1690 — Order for a general fast — Sermon of 
 Lawrence Charteris — General Assembly of 1692-. — Pro- 
 posed comprehension of the Episcopal clergy — Meeting of 
 Parliament — General Asse^nbly of 1694 — Alleged inter- 
 ference of Carstairs — Proceedings of the Comonission of 
 Assembly at Aberdeen — Protestation of James Gordon and 
 others — General Assembly o/1695 — Execution of Thomas 
 Aihenliead — The Barrier Act — Deposition of Dr. George 
 Garden — Death of King miliam. 
 
 The act of parliament establishing the Presbyterian form of 
 church government appointed tlie general assembly to meet in 
 October. Thirty-seven years had elapsed since the last assem- 
 bly was dismissed by Cromwell's officers ; and^ during that 
 long period of desuetude, the forms and usages of the court 
 had gradually become less known, and were now in a great 
 measure forgotten. In order to make the necessary arrange- 
 ments, a preliminary meeting of ministers and lay elders was 
 held at Edinburgh. Its proceedings, at the very commence- 
 ment, threatened to bring about a disruption in the newly 
 established Presbyterian body. Most of those ministers to 
 whom the ecclesiastical government had been committed by 
 parliament, originally belonged to the Protesting party, and 
 some of them had been deposed by sentences of the ecclesias- 
 tical courts before the Restoration. Those who held the 
 opinions formerly maintained by the Resolutioners, objected to 
 the admission of the deposed ministers until the sentences pro- 
 nounced against them were rescinded ; and, when this was re- 
 fused, Alexander Pitcairn, afterwards Principal of St. Mary's 
 College, St. Andrews, entered a protest, and threatened to 
 take farther measures in opposition. The more prudent min- 
 
A.D. 1(590.] OF SCOTLAND. 323 
 
 istcrs, aware liow fatal to their cause a renewal of the old strife 
 would be, induced Pitcairn to acquiesce, and the proceedings 
 went on without further discord. A number of young and 
 zealous preachers were added to the governing body ; arrange- 
 ments were made for the ensuing assembly ; and presbyteries 
 were set up in various districts, with full power to try and 
 purge out all scandalous, erroneous, and negligent ministers, 
 in terms of the statute. 
 
 The presbyteries proceeded with great zeal to discharge the 
 duty committed to them. In consequence of the ejection of 
 the western clergy by the Cameronians, and the deprivations 
 by parliament and the privy council, nearly half the parish 
 churches in the kingdom were already destitute of ministers ; 
 but this did not prevent the Presbyterians from proceeding 
 with farther depositions. As they were themselves the only 
 judges of what was to be held scandal, negligence, or error, 
 they had no difficulty in finding pretexts for their sentences. 
 The only limit to the deprivations was their inability to en- 
 force them in those parts of the kingdom where the people 
 were strongly attached to Episcopacy.^ 
 
 The general assembly met at Edinburgh on the sixteenth 
 of October. The sovereigns were represented by Lord Car- 
 michael, a Presbyterian nobleman favourable to moderate 
 counsels ; and a minister named Hugh Kennedy was chosen 
 moderator. About a hundred and eighty ministers and elders 
 were present. Nearly the whole of the kingdom beyond the 
 Tay was unrepresented ; no one sat for the universities ex- 
 cept Gilbert Kule, the newly appointed Principal of the Col- 
 lege of Edinburgh ; and among the elders were few of the 
 
 ^ Historical Relation of the late Presbyterian General Assembly held at Edin- 
 burgh in the year 1G90, p. 4-14. Skinner, vol. ii. p. 556-562. In the Leven 
 and Melville Papers (pp. 257, 258), there is a letter from Alexander Pitcairn to 
 Lord Melville, written in August, 1689, in which he complains of the "unrea- 
 sonable humour of some implacable ones, who design to exercise a Prelacy under 
 the notion of Presbytery, and, under the pretence of purging, to destroy the 
 church government for which they pretend to be so zealous." He adds, "If a 
 c ommittee were appointed by the parliament, consitsing of Presbyterian minis- 
 ters, noblemen, and gentlemen, for purging the Church of scandalous, erroneous, 
 and insufficient ministers, and for constituting of presbyteries, the remanent con- 
 form ministers, promising to own the Presbyterian government, might prove 
 more trusty for the orderly exercise of it, than they who now pretend to bo so 
 zealous for it." 
 
324 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Cn.vp. LXXIL 
 
 nobility or higher gentry. A letter from the king was read, 
 in wliich he mentioned his willing coneurrence with parlia- 
 ment in enacting such a form of chm'ch government as was 
 judged to be most conformable to the inclinations of the 
 people ; exhorted them to proceed in a quiet and peaceable 
 manner, as what was no less pleasing to him, than becoming 
 in them ; and declared that his authority would never be a 
 tool to the irregular passions of any party, and that modera- 
 tion was what religion enjoined, what neighbouring Churches 
 expected, and wliat he himself recommended. The calm yet 
 somewhat imperious language of this letter could not have 
 been agreeable to many in the assembly ; but a dignified and 
 becoming answer was prepared, in which the members ex- 
 pressed their willingness to follow the king's advice, and 
 added, " if after the violence for conscience sake that we have 
 suffered and so much detested, and those grievous abuses of 
 authority in the late reigns, whereby through some men's 
 irregular passions we have so sadly smarted, we ourselves 
 should lapse into the same errors, we should certainly prove 
 the most unjust towards God, foolish towards ourselves, and 
 ungrateful towards your majesty, of all men on earth." 
 
 One of the first matters which came before the assembly 
 was an offer of submission from three Cameronian preachers, 
 who had previously, for the exoneration of their consciences, 
 exhibited their testimony against what they called the corrup- 
 tions and defections of the Church. It was agreed to receive 
 them into communion, the moderator exhorting them to walk 
 orderly in time coming, and to oppose all schisms and divi- 
 sions in the Church. An act was passed, by which all minis- 
 ters, probationers, and elders, were ordered to subscribe the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith. By another act, it was 
 recommended to presbyteries to take notice of all ministers 
 within their bounds, whether the late conforming incumbents 
 or others, who should not observe fasts and thanksgivings 
 appointed by the Church, or who should administer the 
 sacraments in private, or celebrate clandestine marriages. 
 An act was also passed by which the administration of the 
 Lord's Supper to sick persons in their houses, and the celebra- 
 tion of Baptism in private, were expressly forbidden. A solemn 
 fast for the sins of the nation was appointed to be kept on the 
 
A.D. 1690. J OF SCOTLAND. 325 
 
 second Tliursday of January ; and every minister, whether in 
 church or meeting-house, was ordered to read the act publicly 
 from the pulpit a Sabbath or two before. Among the national 
 sins referred to in the act, the introduction of Prelacy, and the 
 consequent decay of piety, were expressly mentioned. Finally, 
 two commissions of visitation were named, one for the pres- 
 byteries south of the Tay, the other for those north of that 
 river. The members shewed their prudence and moderation 
 in one important point. No attempt was made to renew the 
 obligation of the National Covenant or of the Solemn League 
 and Covenant. The assembly rose on the thirteenth of No- 
 vember. ^ 
 
 The fast appointed by the assembly was sanctioned and en- 
 joined by the privy council, and among those who gave obedi- 
 ence to the civil authority there must have been many who had 
 little sympathy with some of the causes assigned for the humi- 
 liation. One of the clergy who obeyed the order of the council 
 w^as Lawrence Charteris, the friend of Leighton, who had re- 
 signed his professorship of divinity in the College of Edin- 
 burgh rather than take the Test of 1681, and was now 
 minister at Dirleton. He read the act of assembly, as required 
 by the council, and then addressed his congregation. " Ye 
 have heard," he said, " the causes of the fast, as they are re- 
 presented by the general assembly. They have recommended 
 it to pastors and others to be serious and sincere in the con- 
 fession and acknowledgment of their own sins, and the nation's 
 transgressions, and to be earnest in their supplications of such 
 favour from God, as the present condition and circumstances, in 
 which we and other Reformed Churches are, do call for. I 
 hope, after the hearing of so long a paper, you will have a 
 little farther patience, while I sincerely represent to you some 
 things concerning the sins which we are to confess, and the 
 mercies for which we are to supplicate. 
 
 " All who are wise, and have a right sense of true religion 
 and Christianity, cannot but see there has been a great defec- 
 tion among us. The defection has not been from the truth or 
 from the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, but from 
 
 ' Acts of the General Assembly, ed. 1843, p. 221-235. Historical Relation 
 of the General Assembly of 1690, p. 16-64. Miscellany of the Spalding Club, 
 vol. ii. pruface, p. Ixiii, Skinner, vol, ii. p. 562-575. 
 
326 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXII. 
 
 the life of God and the power of religion, and from the temper 
 and conversation which the Gospel requires in us. So that I 
 doubt not but that we, and all good men, will join with the 
 assembly in acknowledging the sins and defection of the nation. 
 But whereas the assembly seems to represent Episcopacy as a 
 principal and capital point of the defection, I find myself 
 obliged to declare my sense in this affaii*, on this occasion. I 
 do not take myself to be bound to endeavour to justify the 
 manner of election and nomination of persons to that office, 
 which was in use among us, nor the legal establishment or 
 the laws by which it was established among us, nor the con- 
 duct of those who were in office. And I will not say but that 
 some who were in the office of Episcopacy, and that complied 
 with that government, might have been in some measure ac- 
 cessary to the corruption by their bad example or connivance, 
 and neglect of the true exercise of discipline. But yet I can- 
 not think that the settling of an imparity among the officers of 
 the Church is to be looked upon as a defection, or that it is a 
 thing in itself unlawful, or that it is of itself introductory of 
 the abounding of v/ickedness and scandals in the Church. 
 This I may with the greatest confidence affirm, that religion 
 never flourished more in the world than it did when and where 
 there was an imparity among the officers of the Church. And 
 this I know, that some famous Protestant Churches do allow 
 Episcopacy, and continue to this day under that form of govern- 
 ment. And I am sure that most of the wise, pious, and 
 learned men abroad, though they live where the government 
 is not episcopal, have not such bad thoughts of it as our 
 brethren here have. And whereas they charge many of the 
 then standing ministry with compliance with the alteration of 
 the government, I do not see that the continuance of pastors 
 to serve God and the Church, under the late settlement, is to 
 be looked upon as a defection for which they are to repent ; 
 divers of them having continued to serve in the ministry, 
 neither out of pride, or covetousness, or fear, or weakness and 
 want of courage, but out of conscience, and a fear to offend 
 God, by refusing their service in that station, when there was 
 no insuperable step or bar put in their way, as they thought 
 then there was not j and the like may be said of many others. 
 
A.D. 1691.] OF SCOTLAND. 327 
 
 who entered afterwards into tlie pastoral office under the 
 
 late government " They [the assembly] seem 
 
 to appropriate to those of their way that they endeavoured 
 to keep their integrity in the main things, and that they 
 did own truth and bear witness against tlie course of 
 defection ; but I know not a few among those who com- 
 plied that did endeavour to maintain their integrity in the 
 main things, and did own all the necessary and funda- 
 mental truths of the Gospel, and did bear faithful witness 
 against the course of the true and real defection from Truth 
 and Righteousness. They confess, as I understand it, that all 
 of whatsoever persuasion generally do not receive Christ, nor 
 imitate Him. They have passed over many sins of those oi 
 their way, which all of their people see, whereof some are al- 
 most proper to them. How many of them are proud, fierce, 
 covetous, turbulent, seditious, and ungovernable? Many ot 
 them presume to judge, censure, reproach, revile, and traduce 
 such as are not of their way, though magistrates and ministers. 
 Not a few seem to place all religion in a zeal for their proper 
 opinions, and in running separate courses from those who 
 are not of their persuasion. Many of them are of a factious, 
 schismatical, and uncharitable temper, and have by their 
 bitter and indiscreet zeal been prompted to such inhuman, 
 barbarous, and cruel actions, which have been so much the 
 more scandalous, as being acted under the colour and 
 pretence of religion. These, and such like, should be con- 
 fessed ingenuously, and mourned for. And that it might 
 please God to make us all sensible how far we have declined 
 from that spirit and temper, and the behaviour and conver- 
 sation which the Gospel requires of us, and to dispose us to 
 reform and amend." ^ 
 
 The commissioners appointed by the assembly proceeded to 
 discharge the duties imposed upon them, by purging out the 
 old incumbents, and planting others in their room. In many 
 cases, however, they found it impossible, even with the aid of 
 the civil government, and sometimes of the military, to force 
 a Presbyterian minister on a reluctant congregation. At Aber- 
 
 ^ See the extracts from Charteris' Discourse in the second part of the Case of 
 tlie Episcopal Clergy, p. 37-40. Charteris died in 1700, of a painful disease, 
 which he bore with the utmost patience. (Burnet, vol. i. p. 372.) 
 
328 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTOKY [Chap. LXXII. 
 
 deen, the commission was unable even to proceed with its ordi- 
 nary business. When the members came thither in the month 
 of Jjilarch, they were assaulted by a mob, set on, there can be 
 little doubt, by the upper classes of the town, and were obliged 
 to return southwards without effecting anything.' 
 
 The next general assembly had been appointed to be held 
 at Edinburgh, on the first of November, 1691 ; but it was ad- 
 journed by the king to the fifteenth of January, 1692. It met 
 accordingly on the latter day, and the Earl of Lothian was 
 the royal commissioner. About one hundred and eleven 
 ministers and fifty-four ruling elders attended, but there were 
 still few representatives from the northern districts. The 
 proceedings were important. It was the wish of the king 
 to unite in one ecclesiastical communion all his Protestant 
 subjects who were willing to acknowledge his own title 
 to the throne. As the Westminster Confession of Faith and 
 the Presbyterian form of church government had received the 
 sanction of parliament, it was necessary that the proposed 
 scheme of union should recognise the confession and govern- 
 ment thus ratified ; but it was supposed that many of the clergy 
 would gladly join the establishment, if no renunciation of 
 Episcopacy were demanded, and if the Westminster formulary 
 were allowed to be signed, only as a bond of peace, not as 
 the confession of the faith of each individual. This proposal 
 appears to have received the approbation of those English 
 prelates whose advice William was accustomed to seek in 
 matters ecclesiastical. 
 
 A few days before the meeting of the assembly, two letters 
 were written by the king, one to the assembly itself, the other 
 to the Episcopal clergy. The former, referring to the large 
 number of ministers still in possession of benefices who were 
 not represented in the assembly, mentioned that the king had 
 directed those clergymen to apply to the assembly for admis- 
 sion to communion, and to a share in church government, in 
 terms of a formula which had been delivered to the royal com- 
 missioner ; and it recomanended that they should be admitted 
 accordingly, unless any accusation were made against them, 
 in which event the charges, if too numerous to be disposed of 
 
 ^ Lawson, p. 137-147. Burton, vol. i. pp. 213, 214. Carstairs' State Papers, 
 p. 146. Leveu and Melville Papers, p. 606. 
 
A.D. 1692.] OF SCOTLAND, 329 
 
 by the assembly, were to be heard before two commissions, 
 one for the districts south of the Tay which was to sit at 
 Edinburgh, the other for those beyond that river which was 
 to sit at Aberdeen, both to be composed of Presbyterian and 
 Episcopal ministers in equal numbers. The letter to the 
 Episcopal clergy stated that William had favourably received 
 their assurances of loyalty, conveyed to him by Dr. Canaries 
 and another minister of the name of Leask. It expressed his 
 belief that they would willingly unite with the Presbyterian 
 ministers on the terms which his majesty had adjusted, and 
 referred them to the clergymen Avho had presented their address 
 for the tenor of the formula. That document was to the fol- 
 lowing efFc;ct : — " I A, B. do sincerely declare and promise 
 that I will submit to the Presbyterial government of the 
 Church, as it is now established in this kingdom, under their 
 majesties King William and Queen Mary, by presbyteries, 
 provincial synods, and general assemblies ; and that I will, as 
 becomes a minister of the Gospel, heartily concur with the 
 said government, for the suppressing of sin and wickedness, 
 the promoting of piety, and the purging of the Church of all 
 erroneous and scandalous ministers. And I do further promise 
 that I will subscribe the Confession of Faith, and the Shorter 
 and Larger Catechisms, now confirmed by act of parliament, 
 as containing the doctrine of the Protestant religion professed 
 in this kingdom." 
 
 On the king's wishes being made known, most of the Epis- 
 copal clergy who had taken the oath of allegiance were dis- 
 posed to accept the terms recommended, and, at a meeting of 
 the ministers of the diocese of Aberdeen held in the chapel of 
 King's College, it was formally agreed to apply to the assem- 
 bly as suggested. Two commissioners appointed by the 
 Aberdeen synod repaired to Edinburgh, where they met the 
 representatives of the southern clergy. Addresses had been 
 prepared in which they oflered to subscribe in terms of the 
 royal formula, but it v/as only after considerable difficulty and 
 delay that they were allowed to present them to the assembly. 
 The royal commissioner supported their request, and the 
 petitions were referred to a committee, but no farther notice 
 of tliem was taken by the assembly. The commissioner, find- 
 ing that the members, though they did not openly oppose, were 
 
330 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXII- 
 
 resolved not to consent to his master's wishes, dissolved tli& 
 assemhly in the king's name, without specifying another day 
 for its meeting. The moderator rose, and, after stating that 
 it was the Church's desire to obey the king's commands in all 
 things lawful, added, on behalf of his brethren, " I, in their 
 name, they adhering to me, humbly crave leave to declare that 
 the office-bearers in the House of God have a spiritual intrinsic 
 power from Jesus Christ, the only Head of the Church, to 
 meet in assemblies about the affairs thereof, the necessity of 
 the same being first represented to tlie magistrate ; and farther, 
 I humbly crave that the dissolution of this assembly, without 
 indicting a new one to a certain diiy, may not be to the prejudice 
 of our yearly general assemblies, granted us by the laws of the 
 kingdom." The members then agreed to meet on the third 
 Wednesday of August, 1693.^ 
 
 There is some reason to doubt whether the Episcopal clergy 
 were sincere in their professions of a wish for union on the 
 terms proposed ; in any event, it was hardly to be expected 
 that the Presbyterians would voluntarily consent to a plan 
 which, if carried out, would have given their opponents a 
 majority in the general assembly, and in most of the synods 
 and presbyteries. 
 
 The estates met on the eighteenth of April, 1693, and the 
 Duke of Hamilton once more held the office of royal commis- 
 sioner. On the nineteenth of May, an act was passed by which 
 all members of parliament, and persons voting at the election 
 of such members, all persons holding any civil or military 
 appointment, and all preachers and ministers of the Gospel, 
 were ordered, not only to take the oath of allegiance, but also 
 to subscribe a declaration of assurance, by which William and 
 Mary were acknowledged to be king and queen de jure as 
 well as de facto ; and by which a promise was made to main- 
 tain their title and government against the late King James 
 and his adherents, and all enemies whatever. 
 
 Another act was passed on the twelfth of June, entitled 
 " An act for settling the quiet and peace of the Church." 
 This statute ordained that no person should be admitted or 
 
 ' See a pamphlet published in 1704, entitled "Vindication of the Address 
 made by the Episcopal Clergy to the General Assembly of the Presbyterians, 
 Anno 1692." See also Burton, vol. i. p. 226-230; Lawson.p. 164-166; Burnet, vol. 
 iv. pp. 150, 151 ; Miscellany of the Spalding Club, vol. ii. preface, pp. Ixiii. Ixiv. 
 
A.D. 1693.] OF SCOTLAND. 331 
 
 continued as a minister or preacher, in the established Church, 
 unless he had first taken and subscribed the oath of allegiance, 
 and the assurance, and also subscribed the Westminster Con- 
 fession of Faith, declaring the same to be the confession of his 
 faith, and owning the doctrine therein contained to be the true 
 doctrine which he would constantly adhere to, and also own- 
 ing the established Presbyterian government to be the only 
 government of the Church, and declaring, that he would sub- 
 mit thereto, and never attem}3t, directly or indirectly, the sub- 
 version thereof. It was likewise ordained that uniformity of 
 worship, as then existing, should be observed by all ministers 
 and preachers. The estates of parliament farther requested 
 their majesties to call a general assembly for settling the affairs 
 of the Church, and to the end that all ministers, holding bene- 
 fices, not yet admitted to a share in the church government, 
 who should qualify themselves in manner foresaid and apply 
 to the ecclesiastical courts, should be received to a share 
 in the government; certifying that all who should not so 
 qualify, and apply within thirty days after the meeting of the 
 assembly, might be deposed by the ecclesiastical courts botli 
 from their office and benefice ; but declaring that those who 
 should so qualify and apply should have their majesties' full 
 protection, until received as before mentioned.^ 
 
 The former of these acts, so far as regarded the matter of 
 its provisions, contained nothing about which the Presbyterians 
 generally could have any scruple. They for the most part 
 admitted the right, as well as the possession, of the reigning 
 sovereigns. It was very different, however, with the Epis- 
 copal clergy. Many of those who had taken the oath of 
 allegiance in the simple terms formerly required, were not pre- 
 pared to acknowledge William and Mary as their riglitful 
 sovereigns. But, on the other hand, the Presbyterians denied 
 that the secular power was entitled to impose any obligations 
 on ministers of the Gospel, as a condition of holding their 
 office ; and they objected to the whole purport of the latter of 
 the two statutes as subversive of the legal right of the estab- 
 lishment, and as imposing a sort of test without the authority 
 of the ecclesiastical courts. 
 
 The government, aware of the objections of the Presby- 
 ' Acts of the Piirlitimeiits of Scotlaud, vol. ix. pp. 2G2-2G1, 303. 
 
332 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXII. 
 
 terians, forbore to urge subscrijition in terms of the statute ; but 
 there were apprehensions that it would been forced by the royal 
 commissioner at the next general assembly, and the meeting 
 of that body was looked for with much anxiety. On the day 
 named by the moderator of last assembly — the third Wednes- 
 day of August — no meeting took place. It was summoned, 
 in terms of the king's writ, for the sixth of December, but was 
 adjourned to the twenty-ninth of March, 1694 j and on that 
 day it met at Edinburgh. Lord Carmichael again held the 
 office of royal commissioner. No attempt was made to com- 
 pel the members to take the oath of allegiance or subscribe 
 the assurance, and, in return, the assembly shewed its 
 readiness to comply in other respects with the king's wishes. 
 A commission was named, with power to receive into minis- 
 terial communion such of the late conforming ministers, quali- 
 fied in terms of law, as should apply for that indulgence per- 
 sonally and one by one, and should subscribe a formula, 
 annexed to the Confession of Faith, in the following terms : — 
 
 " I do sincerely own and declare the above Confession of 
 
 Faith, appro ven by former general assemblies of this Church, 
 and ratified by law in the year 1690, to be the confession of 
 my faith ; and that I own the doctrine therein contained to be 
 the true doctrine which I will constantly adhere to ; as like- 
 wise tliat I own and acknowledge Presbyterian church go- 
 vernment of this Church, now settled by law, by kirk-sessions, 
 presbyteries, provincial synods, and general assemblies, to be 
 the only government of this Church, and that I will submit 
 thereto, concur therewith, and never endeavour, directly or in- 
 directly, the prejudice or subversion thereof; and that I shall 
 observe uniformity of worship, and of the administration of 
 all public ordinances, within this Church, as the same are at 
 present performed and allowed." ^ 
 
 In connection with the proceedings of this assembly, a story 
 is told by the author of the Life of Carstairs, which has fre- 
 quently been repeated by other writers. It is said that a short 
 time before the meeting of the assembly, while Carstairs, 
 William's Presbyterian chaplain and confidential adviser, was 
 absent from court, the king was induced by Tarbet and Dal- 
 rymple to instruct Lord Carmichael to require all the minis- 
 1 Acts of Assembly, p. 235-245. 
 
A.D. 1G94.] OF SCOTLAND. 333 
 
 ters wlio should be present at the meeting to sign the assur- 
 ance, and, in the event of their refusal, to dissolve the assem- 
 bly. Carmichael, according to the narrative, having ascer- 
 tained that tlie ministers were determined not to submit, wrote 
 to the king for his final instructions, and received a peremp- 
 tory order to enforce the royal injunction. Carstairs at this 
 very time returned to Kensington, and, learning what had 
 taken place, went to the messenger, and required hira, in tlic 
 king's name, to deliver up his despatches. It was now night, 
 but, repairing immediately to the palace, he obtained admission 
 to the royal bed-chamber, and, falling on his knees, awakened 
 the king, and told him tliat he had come to entreat that his 
 life should be spared. The king, in astonishment, asked what 
 crime he was guilty of, and Carstairs related what he had 
 done. William at first was indignant, but, when his faithful- 
 servant explained the fatal consequences that were sure to fol- 
 low if the royal mandate were obeyed, he saw the prudence of 
 his advice, and recalled the instructions which he had given. 
 The messenger bearing tliis recall arrived at Edinburgh on 
 tlie very morning the assembly was to meet, and just in time 
 to prevent the evil which would otherwise have taken place. 
 
 Carstairs' biographer does not tell us from whom he had 
 this singular story, nor does he produce a single authority for 
 any thing connected with it, except one unsigned letter, ad- 
 dressed to Carstairs, and written from Edinburgh two days 
 after the meeting of the assembly, which alludes to the coun- 
 termanding, by means of the royal chaplain, of an order ob- 
 tained from the king that the members of assembly should 
 take the oaths. It is probable that the despatch of such an 
 order was actually prevented by Carstairs ; but the narrative 
 otherwise seems to be no better than a legend.^ 
 
 ^ See Life of Carstairs by Dr. M'Cormick, prefixed to his State Papers, p. 
 57-64. Mr. Burton, in his History, vol.i. pp. 234, 235, gives the substance of Dr. 
 M'Cormick's narrative, and adds in a note, " The facts in general, as they are 
 thus given in outline, are proved by the documents contained in Carstairs' State 
 Papers. In the Memoir prcfi.xed to the Collection, the incident receives some 
 touches of romance, which may or may not be true." There is not a single 
 allusion to the matter in the State Papers, so far as T can discover, the letter 
 already referred to forming part of the Memoir. Immediately before the narra- 
 tive. Dr. M'Cormick quotes at length a letter on the assurance and comprehen- 
 Bion, which he supposes to have been written by the English Presbyterians, and 
 
334 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXII. 
 
 Few of the clergy sought admission to the privileges of the 
 establishment on the conditions prescribed by the parliament 
 and the assembly. Those who might have been willing, as 
 on a previous occasion, to attach their signatures to the West- 
 minster Confession, and submit to the Presbyterian form of 
 church government, were not disposed to bind themselves in the 
 stricter manner now required. The ministers of the new esta- 
 blishment did no more than they were entitled to do in exact- 
 ing complete conformity from all who wished to share its pri- 
 vileges ; but it is equally evident that no conscientious sup- 
 porter of Episcopacy could have complied with the terms 
 proposed.^ 
 
 Now more certain than before of the support of the state, 
 the commission of assembly again attempted to displace the old 
 •clergy in those districts where they had hitherto kept joosses- 
 
 to Lave had a great effect in cletermining the conduct of their Scottish brethren. 
 This document, towliich he attaches so much importance, has all the appearance 
 of being a Jacobite forgery, and could not have misled the Presbyterian leaders 
 in Scotland. 
 
 ^ Dr. Cook (vol. iii. pp. 454, 455) condemns the conduct of the clergy, in re- 
 fusing the conditions, as unreasonable on ecclesiastical grounds, because the 
 acknowledgment of the Presbyterian form of church government did not imply 
 the surrender of any principle ; and because the subscription of the Westminster 
 Confession could not be objected to, inasmuch as that confession had been con- 
 tinued after the restoration of Episcopacy. His censure is unjust. The ac- 
 knowledgment of Presbyterianism in the form required could hardly have been 
 made even by the most moderate adherents of the hierarchy ; and it cannot be 
 said with accuracy that the Westminster Confession had been continued under 
 Episcopacy. Burnet indeed says (vol. ii. p. 303) in connection with the Test 
 Act of 1681, " For these last thirty years, the only confession of faith that was 
 read in Scotland was that which the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, 
 anno 1648, had set out, which the Scottish Kirk had set up instead of the old 
 one ; and the bishops had left it in possession, though the authority that en- 
 acted it was annulled." Some of the prelates perhaps tolerated the use of the 
 Westminster Confession, and some may even have encouraged it ; but it had 
 no formal sanction of any kind, and those bishops who, like Mitchell and Alex- 
 ander Burnet, belonged to a different school of theology, must have disliked 
 its doctrines, as much as they disregarded its authority. The clergy, who could 
 hardly be induced by the sovereign and the parliament to sign the Confession of 
 1560, were not likely to receive the Westminster formulary. At the Revolution, 
 it was so well understood that the clergy were generally averse to the latter docu- 
 ment, that, in a paper drawn up by Lord Tarbet in 1689, containing a scheme 
 for establishing both communions, those who acknowledged the Presbyterian 
 model were spoken of as owning the Westminster Confession, those opposed to 
 it, as owning the Articles of the English Church. See Leven and Melville 
 Papers, p. 126. 
 
A.D. 1694.] OF SCOTLAND. 335 
 
 sion of the churches. In June, 1G94, the mcmhers proceeded 
 to xiberdeen. On the fifth of that month, the clergy of the 
 diocese of Aberdeen, and representatives from the dioceses of 
 Murray, Eoss, Caithness, and Orkney, and from the shires of 
 Angus and Mearns, had met in the cliapel of King's College, 
 to consult in regard to the state of the Church, and the ap- 
 proaching visit of tlie commissioners. This meeting repre- 
 sented the clergy of the whole Church north of tlie Tay, at 
 least those who had taken the oaths to the government. The 
 ministers present appointed a committee of their number to ap- 
 pear before the commission of assembly, and to demand an an- 
 swer to certain questions relative to the authority of that body. 
 
 On the twenty-ninth of June, James Gordon, Parson of Ban- 
 chory-Devenick, and others of the committee, appeared before 
 the commission at Aberdeen, and lodged a paper containing the 
 questions, and a formal protestation against the authority of 
 the late assemblies, which they refused to own as lawfully re- 
 presenting the National Church. The questions chiefly re- 
 ferred to the inconsistency of fifty or sixty ministers, who held 
 Presbyterian opinions, claiming to exercise the whole ecclesi- 
 astical power of the kingdom, and to the authority of lay- 
 elders. The commission having declined to give any for- 
 mal answer, the committee appealed to their majesties. King 
 William and Queen Mary, and to the next lawfully constituted 
 general assembly. When the commissioners went on to In- 
 verness, fourteen ministers presented a paper, in which they 
 declared their adherence to the Aberdeen protestation. It 
 was- found impossible at this time to proceed with the in- 
 tended deprivations, but the visit of the commissioners was 
 not entirely without effect. They prevailed on several minis- 
 ters of the diocese of Aberdeen to conform to the establish- 
 ment, and obtained possession, for the first time, of the cathe- 
 dral at Old Aberdeen. On their return, they requested the 
 aid of the privy council, and afterwards of the parliament, to 
 enforce their ecclesiastical authority ; and three of the minis- 
 ters that subscribed the protestation were deprived and im- 
 prisoned, while two others, who professed their regret for what 
 they had done and renounced their subscription, were dis- 
 missed without punishment.^ 
 
 ' See a contemporary pamphlet, "The Queries and Protestation of the Scots 
 
336 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXII. 
 
 During the parliament wliich sat in tlie summer of 1695, 
 an act was passed, by which all deprived ministers were for- 
 bidden to celebrate marriages or baptisms, under the pain of 
 imprisonment. By another act of the same session, farther 
 time was allowed for taking the oath of allegiance, and for 
 subscribing the declaration of assurance, to all ministers in 
 possession of their benefices at the time of the king's acces- 
 sion, and still in possession of the same without any sentence 
 of deposition or deprivation having been pronounced against 
 them. It was also declared that all who should qualify them- 
 selves within the time appointed, and should behave as became 
 ministers of the Gospel in doctrine, life, and conversation, 
 should enjoy the royal protection as to their churches and 
 benefices, they confining themselves within the limits of 
 their parochial charges, and taking no part in ordination or 
 church government, unless duly assumed by a competent 
 ecclesiastical judicatory. And it was provided that the 
 ministers so qualified should be free to apply or not to the 
 ecclesiastical judicatories for admission to a share in the 
 church government, and that those courts should also be free 
 to admit or not to admit them if they should so apply. ^ 
 
 It was in virtue of this last mentioned act, that many of the 
 parochial clergy continued to retain possession of their bene- 
 
 Episcopal Clergy against the authority of the Presbyterian General Assemblies 
 and Committees, given in to the Committee of the General Assembly at Aber- 
 deen, June 29th, 1694." See also Miscellany of the Spalding Club, vol. 
 ii. p. 163-171 ; the Preface to the same volume, p. Ixv.-lxxii. ; and Acts 
 of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ix. pp. 367, 389, 411, 412, 423. The 
 papers of the Aberdeen clergy are to be looked upon rather as legal than as 
 ecclesiastical documents ; but, even in that point of view, their silence on the 
 subject of Episcopacy, and their appeal to the temporal power which had already 
 established Presbyterianism, admit of no sufficient excuse. These circumstances 
 are pointed out by the zealous Presbyterian who wrote the pamphlet above 
 named. The progress of the new establishment in the diocese of Aberdeen is 
 thus summed up in the second volume of the Spalding Club Miscellany: — "In 
 October, 1690, there was but one Presbyterian minister in the Synod of Aberdeen 
 and Banff, containing eight presbyteries and about a hundred parishes ; in July, 
 1694, there were eight; and iii April, 1697, there were fifteen. ... A 
 Presbyterian kirk-session had been formed in Aberdeen on the ninth of July, 
 1694. And on the twenty-seventh of February, 1704, the sacrament of the 
 Lord's Supper was administered to the members of the Presbyterian Church 
 in that city, for the first time since its rc-establishment in the year 1690." 
 (Preface, pp. Ixxii. Ixxiii.) 
 ^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. ix. pp. 387, 449, 450. 
 
A.D. 1695.] OF SCOTLAND. 387 
 
 fices. Witliin tlirec montlis, more tlian a hundvccl took the 
 benefit of its provisions, which were not fettered, as former 
 indulgences had been, with any promise of conformity in 
 doctrine or government to the Church now established by 
 law-^ 
 
 The general assembly met at Edinburgh on the seventeenth 
 of December, 1695. One of its acts refers to the increase of 
 scepticism and infidelity. Ministers were exhorted to use 
 their utmost eiForts to counteract these pernicious opinions, 
 and to deal seriously with those who were seduced, or in 
 hazard of being perverted, and especially with the seducers, 
 that after instruction and admonition they might be proceeded 
 against as scandalous and heretical apostates used to be.^ 
 
 The ministers discharged their duty faithfully in endeavour- 
 ing to check the pernicious opinions referred to, but, in one 
 instance, some of their number allowed zeal for the truth to 
 degenerate into cruelty and persecution. A young man, not 
 twenty-one years of age, named Thomas Aikenhead, the son 
 of a chirurgeon in Edinburgh, was, by special direction of the 
 privy council, tried before the Court of Justiciary, on a charge 
 of blasphemy, and of scoffing at the Holy Scriptures. Before 
 his trial came on, he petitioned the court to stay further pro- 
 ceedings, maintaining his innocence of the worst part of the 
 charge, pleading his youth and inexperience as an excuse for 
 unbecoming language in some points, and solemnly professing 
 his belief in the Trinity, and in the Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testament. This appeal was disregarded, and the trial 
 took place at Edinburgh, on the twenty-third of December, 
 1696. The charges were proved by several young men, 
 chiefly students of the university, with whom Aikenhead 
 had associated ; no counsel appeared for him ; and, the jury 
 having returned a unanimous verdict of guilty, he was con- 
 demned to death, and the execution was appointed to take 
 place on the eighth of January. In a petition to the privy 
 council, he acknowledged the justice of the sentence, but ear- 
 nestly petitioned for some delay in the execution, in order the 
 better to prepare himself for death. The council was willing 
 to listen to his petition, if the ministers would intercede for 
 
 ' Carstairs' State Papers, p. 263. Burnet, vol. iv. p. 275. 
 2 Acts of Assembly, p. 245-256. 
 
 VOL. in.] 23 
 
338 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXII. 
 
 him ; but most of the ministers were opposed to any delay, and 
 the execution took place on the day fixed by the sentence.^ 
 
 The general assembly continued to sit regularly during the 
 rest of the reign of William, but few of its proceedings require to 
 be noticed. In January, 1697, an act was passed, commonly 
 known by the name of the Barrier Act, which provided against 
 sudden changes in doctrine, worship, or government, by de- 
 claring that, previously to the making of any acts which were 
 to be binding rules and constitutions of the Church, they should 
 first be proposed as overtures to the assembly, and, being passed 
 as such, should be remitted to the consideration of the several 
 
 1 See State Trials, voL xiii. p. 917-938. The language of Lord Macaulay, 
 (History of England, vol. iv. p. 781-784) in regard to the conduct of the minis- 
 ters, is exaggerated and unjust, and he seems to be mistaken in thinking that the 
 crime of blasphemy was not clearly proved ; but, in so far as the refusal of the 
 ministers to intercede is concerned, his narrative is substantially borne out by a 
 letter referred to in the correspondence of Francis Horner (2d ed. vol. i. p. 200- 
 202), and printed in the State Trials, written by Lord Anstruther, one of the 
 judges of the supreme court, and a member of the privy council. An attempt 
 has been made to shew that the ministers endeavoured to obtain a pardon for 
 Aikenhead, and, failing in that, a reprieve. The authority on which this is 
 asserted is the statement of a Nonconformist preacher of the name of Lorimer, 
 that some of the Scottish ministers, and particularly George Meklrum, did inter- 
 cede with the government, and that he himself joined with Meldrum in the inter- 
 cession. This statement, which was made by Lorimer sixteen years after the 
 event, and apparently to vindicate himself against some charge of having excited 
 the government to severity, cannot outweigh Lord Anstruther's report of what 
 he himself saw and heard, written down before the end of the month in which 
 the execution took place. The true explanation of the two accounts is probably 
 that which is given by Mr. Robert Chambers: — " Mr. Lorimer's and Lord An- 
 struther's statements are somewhat discrepant, and yet not perhaps irreconcilable. 
 It may be true that, at the last moment, one of the city clergy, accompanied by 
 an English stranger, tried to raise his voice for mercy. It is evident, however, 
 that no very decided effort of the kind was made. For the records of the privy 
 council contain no entry on the subject, although, only three days before Aiken- 
 head's execution, we find in them a reprieve formally granted to one Thomas 
 Weir, sentenced for house-breaking. The statement itself, implying a movement 
 entirely exceptive, only makes the more certain the remarkable fact, derived from 
 Lord Anstruther's statement, that the clergy, as a hody, did not intercede, but 
 ' spoke and preached for cutting him off,' for which reason the authorities were 
 unable to save him." See Lorimer's Preface to Two Discourses, published at 
 London in 1713, p. iv.-vii. ; "Macaulay on Scotland," a reprint of some articles 
 in the "The Witness" newspaper; and Chambers's Domestic Annals of Scot- 
 land, vol. iii. p. 160-166. The tenor of two acts of Assembly in 1697, the one 
 against profaneness, the other against the Deists, passed within a few days after the 
 execution of Aikenhead, is not favourable to the view of those who contend for 
 the ministers' lenity; see Acts of Assembly, pp. 261, 262, 267. 
 
A.D. 1701.] OF SCOTLAND. 389 
 
 presbyteries, and tlieir opinions and consent reported to the 
 next assembly, which might then give a final sanction to them, 
 if the Church had generally agreed to the same. 
 
 On the fifth of March, 1701, the assembly formally con- 
 demned a work, entitled " An Apology for Madame Antonia 
 Bourignon," attributed to Dr. George Garden. On the same 
 day, they proceeded to pass sentence against the supposed 
 author. Dr. Garden had been summoned before the com- 
 mission of last assembly, and having appeared, and been ques- 
 tioned in regard to his connection with the Apology, and the 
 opinions maintained in it, had not disavowed the authorship, 
 and had asserted the general excellence of the work, and de- 
 clared his high esteem for the writings of Madame Bourignon. 
 He had in consequence been suspended by the commission 
 from his office of the ministry, and been cited to appear in 
 presence of the assembly. As he did not appear to answer to 
 this citation, the assembly, on account both of his erroneous 
 opinions, and of his contumacy, deposed him from his office of 
 the ministry, and prohibited him from the farther exercise of 
 it.i 
 
 The proceedings in Dr. Garden's case illustrate the jurisdic- 
 tion to which the assembly laid claim. He had formerly been 
 one of the ministers of St. Nicholas' Church at Aberdeen, and 
 had been deprived for not complying with the existing laws ; 
 but, though he no longer held a benefice, the assembly, in 
 virtue of the power which it claimed to judge in all questions 
 of doctrine and morals, deposed him from his ecclesiastical 
 functions. He paid no regard to the sentence, and continued 
 to officiate as before to the members of his congregation at 
 Aberdeen who'adhered to Episcopacy. 
 
 There can be no doubt that Dr. George Garden, in other 
 respects a man of piety and learning, ha'd become a convert to 
 the opinions of Madame Bourignon, or, at least, had adopted 
 them in part. Like many good men of that time, he was 
 weary of the controversies by which his country was distracted, 
 and unhappily sought refuge in a system which promised 
 ■spiritual consolation and repose. His brother. Dr. James 
 Garden, the deprived Professor of Divinity in King's College, 
 
 1 Acts of Assemb'y, pp. 260, 261, 306-308. 
 
340 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXII. 
 
 appears to have shared his love of mystical theology, but with- 
 out falling into errors of doctrine. 
 
 King William died on the eighth of March, 1702. The 
 decease of King James had taken place in September of the 
 previous year. 
 
A.D. 1702.] OF SCX)TLAND. 341 
 
 CHAPTER LXXIII. 
 
 FROM THE DEATH OF KING WILLIAM IN MARCH, 1702, TO THE UNION OF 
 ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND IN ]MAY, 1707. 
 
 Accession of Queen Anne — Progress of Preshyterianism — Con- 
 dition of the E'piscopal Clergy — Their relations to the 
 Bishops — Condition of the Roman Catholics — Account of 
 Thomas Innes — Condition of the Quakers — Condition of 
 the Cameronians — The members of the Episcopal Church 
 attempt to obtain a Toleration — Remonstrance by the Com- 
 mission of the General Assembly — Death of Archbishop 
 Ross — Resolution of the surviving Bishops to continue the 
 Episcopal Succession — Account of John Sage — Consecration 
 of John Saqe and John Fxdlarton — Alleged metropolitan 
 jurisdiction of the Bishop of Edinburgh — Union of Eng- 
 land and Scotland. 
 
 King William was succeeded by Anne, daughter of the 
 late King James. The new sovereign was known to be 
 strongly attached to the polity and ritual of the English 
 Church, and was supposed to be favourable to the principle of 
 hereditary right, so far as it could be reconciled with her own 
 possession of the throne. This, while it excited some distrust 
 among the Presbyterians, raised the hopes of the adherents of 
 Episcopacy ; but, for some years, no change took place in con- 
 nection with ecclesiastical matters. 
 
 The Presbyterian establishment continued slowly to increase 
 in strength and numbers, and to make its way even in those 
 districts which were the stronghold of Episcopacy. The 
 statute of 1695 protected the rights of such parochial incum- 
 bents as had taken the oaths, though even they were fre- 
 quently harassed by the courts of the Established Church, on 
 charges, real or pretended, of unsoundness in doctrine, or of 
 corruption in morals. As the clergy of this privileged class 
 were removed by death, their places were generally filled by 
 Presbyterian ministers, though, in some instances, Eplsco])al 
 clergymen were inducted into the vacant benefices in defiance 
 
342 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIII. 
 
 of the laws, or because the "establishment was unable to find 
 successors among its own probationers. The general assembly 
 endeavoured to supply the want of regular pastors, in the 
 many destitute parishes of the North, by sending ministers to 
 itinerate among them from other parts of the kingdom ; but 
 this expedient was merely a temporary one, and, in remote 
 places, the people, where not under the superintendence of 
 the Episcopal clergy, were almost entirely deprived of the or- 
 dinances of religion. 
 
 During the latter years of William, and the beginning of 
 the reign of Anne, the Episcopal clergy were divided into 
 three classes. One was composed of the ministers who had 
 taken the oaths, and remained in possession of their former 
 benefices. They alone were tolerated by law ; all the rest 
 were forbidden, under severe penalties, to exercise any part of 
 their ministerial office. The second class included those 
 ministers who had taken the oath of allegiance to the reign- 
 ing sovereign, but were not in possession of parochial cures. 
 Most of them officiated in meeting-houses ; but they were at 
 any time liable to prosecution, and to have their places of wor- 
 ship shut up. As they disclaimed allegiance to the exiled 
 family, they were rather objects of jealousy to the Presbyterian 
 establishment, than of suspicion to the civil government. The 
 third class comprehended all the prelates, and a majority of 
 the whole body of the clergy. They were avowed Nonjurors, 
 and were carefully watched both by the secular and by the 
 ecclesiastical authorities. Even they, however, were not ab- 
 solutely prohibited from officiating in private houses, or in 
 rooms set apart for the purpose ; but it was always at the risk 
 of being apprehended, and subjected to the penalties to which 
 they were liable, both as Nonjurors and as Nonconformists.^ 
 
 The ecclesiastical position of the surviving prelates was of a 
 very peculiar nature. As formerly mentioned, no attempt was 
 
 ' It was probably to tbe Noiijuring meeting-houses at Edinburgh that the 
 Lord Justice Clerk, Cockburn of Ormiston, made the following reference in a 
 letter to Carstairs, in March, 1696 : — "The dissenting ministers that preach in 
 Edinburgh are most of them' taken up by the council's orders. The field-meet- 
 ings formerly were called ' the rendezvous of rebellion,' and, I assure you, the 
 conventicles now in Edinburgh are 'the nests of disaffection.' And therefore, 
 as far as law will go, I wish them all banished out of town." (Carstairs' State 
 Papers, p. 288.) 
 
A.D. 1702.] Ob" SCOTLAND. 343 
 
 made to keep up a regular system of diocesan government. 
 But, so far as circumstanees permitted, the bishops gave 
 obedience to the primate, and the clergy to the bishops ; and, 
 in this respect, there was no difference between the disesta- 
 blished clergy who took the oaths, and those who declined to 
 take them. It is not very clear how far the incumbents pro- 
 tected by law, and in possession of their benefices, acted on the 
 old ecclesiastical principle. Such of them as were jealous of epis- 
 copal authority, or were afraid of incurring the forfeiture of their 
 privileges, by joining in ordinations with the deprived bishops, 
 or by otherwise acknowledging their jurisdiction, would shun all 
 connection of this kind ; but it is probable that most of them 
 continued to obey their former superiors. By the great body 
 of the laity who adhered to the house of Stewart, the bishops 
 were reverenced, not only as the governors of the Church, but 
 as confessors in the cause of loyalty ; while those who took the 
 oaths respected them on account of their former station, and 
 were prepared to acknowledge their full authority whenever a 
 favourable change of circumstances should lead to the re-esta- 
 blishment or the toleration of Episcopacy. 
 
 Some remarks may be made at this place on the condition 
 of the other religious communities in Scotland. There has 
 hardly been occasion, during the history of many years, to 
 refer to the adherents of the Churcli of Kome, except in con- 
 nection with the attempts of King James to procure a tolera- 
 tion for them. A few of the ancient nobility and gentry still 
 belonged to the Roman communion, and, in the Highlands 
 and Isles, some clans, following the example of their chiefs^ 
 nominally professed its opinions ; but in the Lowlands its 
 influence was at an end. The penal laws had effectually done 
 their work, and had reduced the Roman Catholics from a 
 powerful body to an insignificant and scattered remnant. It 
 was not that the cruel provisions of those statutes were literally 
 enforced; but the civil disabilities, the proscription of their 
 worship, and the constant and harassing annoyances to which 
 they were exposed, were more fatal to them, as they afterwards 
 were to the adherents of Protestant Episcopacy, than direct 
 persecution would have been. It was, however, during the 
 reign of William that, for the first time since the Refunna- 
 tion, a Roman Catholic bishop was named for Scotland. 
 
344 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIII. 
 
 Thomas Nicholson, of the family of Kemnay in Aberdeen- 
 shire, titular Bishop of Peristochium, was appointed vicar 
 apostolic by the Pope in 1694, and was entrusted, in that ca- 
 pacity, with the superintendence of the clergy and laity of the 
 Homan communion. 
 
 Four years afterwards, the Scottish mission numbered 
 among its priests one to whom, more perhaps than to any 
 other person, his countrymen are indebted for pointing out to 
 them the true sources of their ecclesiastical history — Thomas 
 Innes, the author of the Critical Essay on the Ancient In- 
 habitants of Scotland. He was born at Drumgask, in the 
 parish of Aboyne and county of Aberdeen, in 1662. He be- 
 longed to a respectable family which liad adhered to the 
 Roman communion, and his elder brother Lewis was Principal 
 of the Scots College at Paris, and a confidential counsellor of 
 Kino; James durina; his residence in France. Thomas Innes 
 was educated at the University of Paris ; was ordained a priest 
 in 1691 ; and officiated for three years at Inveravon, in the 
 diocese of Murray. He returned to France in 1701, and from 
 that time resided chiefly in the Scots College. His Critical 
 Essay was published at London in 1729,* and he died at Paris 
 on the twenty-eighth of January, 1744, being then in the 
 eighty-second year of his age.* 
 
 The Quaker sect, which, during the reign of Charles the 
 Second, appeared likely to become numerous, had fallen off, 
 as the early fervour of its disciples abated, and its first 
 teachers were removed by death. There was still, however, 
 a number of respectable families in connection with the 
 society, especially in the neighbourhood of Aberdeen, where, 
 for several generations, the Barclays and Jaffrays continued to 
 be among its leading members. One of the most distinguished 
 of the Scottish Quakers was George Keith, a native of Aber- 
 deen, and educated at the university there. He wrote many 
 treatises in support of the doctrines of his sect ; but, having 
 emigrated to Pennsylvania, he forsook his errors, and joined 
 the English Church. He was afterwards ordained, and be- 
 came one of the most active and successful of the American 
 missionaries. 
 
 ' See a biogiapbical notice of Thomas Innes, in the Preface to his Civil and 
 Ecclesiasitical History of Scotland, p. ix-xv. 
 
A.D. 1702.] OF SCOTLAND. 345 
 
 The Cameronians of the western counties, deserted by tlieir 
 preacliers who had conformed to tlie establishment, remained 
 a separate sect, protesting against the national defection in 
 departing from the obligations of the Covenants. Having 
 been joined at a subsequent period by some discontented 
 Presbyterian ministers, they were enabled to assume the ap- 
 per.rance of an ecclesiastical community ; but, prior to that 
 event, they kept up their principles by meeting together oc- 
 casionally, and by promulgating documents, as extravagant, if 
 not as mischievous, as those which attracted so much attention 
 before the Revolution. 
 
 In terms of a special statute, the parliament elected in the 
 year 1689, and which had continued to sit during the whole 
 reign of William, again met after the accession of Queen 
 Anne. Nothing of importance in connection with ecclesias- 
 tical matters took place during this session, and a new parlia- 
 ment was sunnnoned soon afterwards — the last which was 
 elected for Scotland as an independent kingdom. The estates 
 met on the sixth of May, 1703, and the Duke of Queensberry 
 was the royal commissioner. Many members had been re- 
 turned who were favourable to Episcopacy, and an attempt 
 was made to obtain some sort of toleration for those wlio ad- 
 hered to the dis-established Church. Relying on the personal 
 good- will of the queen, the clergy had presented a petition to 
 her majesty entreating her favour and protection, and had 
 received a gracious answer. The queen had also written to 
 the privy council, that she had been informed there were 
 many dissenters in Scotland, who, though differing from 
 the establishment as to church government, were of the Pro- 
 testant Reformed religion, some in possession of benefices, and 
 otliers worshipping in meeting-houses ; and expressing her 
 wish that they should be directed to live submissively to the 
 laws, and decently in relation to the established Church, and, 
 in so doing, that they should be protected in the peaceable 
 exercise of their religion. 
 
 Encouraged probably by these general assurances, the Earl 
 of Strathmore proposed in parliament that a toleration should 
 be granted to all Protestants in the exercise of religious wor- 
 ship. Against this measure a representation was given in by 
 the commission of the general assembly. The moderator who 
 
346 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIII. 
 
 signed this paper was George Meldrum, who, after the Resto- 
 ration, liad refused for some time to conform to Episcopacy, 
 though he afterwards submitted to his ordinary, the Bishop of 
 Aberdeen, and who, at a subsequent period, resigned his 
 benefice rather than comply with the Test of 1681. The 
 opinions of the commission in regard to any concession to 
 Episcopacy may be judged of from the following passage: 
 — "We do, therefore, most humbly beseech, yea, we are 
 bold in the Lord, and in the name of the Church of God 
 in this land, earnestly to obtest your grace, and the most 
 honourable estates, that no such motion of any legal tole- 
 ration to those of the prelatical principles be entertained by 
 the parliament ; being persuaded that, in the present case and 
 circumstances of this Church and nation, to enact a toleration 
 for those of that way, (which God of his infinite mercy avert,) 
 would be to establish iniquity by a law, and would bring upon 
 the promoters thereof, and upon their families, the dreadful 
 guilt of all those sins, and pernicious effects both to Church 
 and State, that may ensue thereupon." 
 
 The parliament took no further steps in the matter. The 
 chief promoters of the measure do not seem to have insisted 
 upon it, and the attention of the members was almost wholly 
 taken up with plans for vindicating the national independence. 
 The discussion, however, was carried on by means of the 
 press, and numerous pamphlets were published, the chief 
 writers of which, on the one side, were Sage and Dr. George 
 Garden, on the other, George Meldrum. ^ 
 
 From this time till the treaty of union came to be discussed, 
 there is nothing in the proceedings of the estates which calls 
 for particular notice, and the acts of the general assembly are 
 equally void of interest; but, in the beginning of the year 
 1705, an event took place of the utmost importance in the 
 history of Scottish Episcopacy. 
 
 As formerly mentioned, Archbishop Ross died in June, 
 1704 ; and, with him, the primacy and the metropolitan juris- 
 diction of the see of St. Andrews were at an end, no attempt 
 being made at this time to continue them, although their pre- 
 
 ^ Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. xi. pp.46, 47, and appendix, p. 15. 
 Burton, tol. i. p. 354-356. Stephen, vol. iii. p. 640-643. Lockhart Papers, 
 vol. i. p. 66. Sage's Reasonableness of a Toleration, ed. 1705, preface. 
 
A.D. 1704.] OF SCOTLAND. 347 
 
 servation afforded the best means of maintaining ecclesi- 
 astical unity. The prelates and clergy may have declined 
 taking such a step from their dread of the civil govern- 
 ment ; but they were probably still more under the influence 
 of the opinion which they continued to entertain, that such a 
 proceeding would be an infringement of the prerogatives of 
 him whom most of them acknowledged as their sovereign, and 
 whose sanction they held to be necessary to the assumption of 
 ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 
 
 The episcopal, metropolitan, and primatial rights of the see 
 of St. Andrews were therefore allowed to remain in abeyance, 
 till a fit opportunity should be found for restoring them. But 
 the attention of the bishops was directed to another point 
 which admitted of no delay. Of tlie prelates in possession of 
 sees at the Revolution, five only, besides Bishop Gordon of 
 Galloway who; had joined the Koman communion, now sur- 
 vived — the Archbishop of Glasgow, and the Bishops of Edin- 
 burgh, Aberdeen, ]\Iurray, and Dunblane. One of these, the 
 Bishop of Murray, was almost entirely disabled by bodily in- 
 firmity ; and it became a matter of anxious consideration what 
 was to be done for the continuance of the episcopal succession. 
 The government of the Church might remain in its present 
 irregular condition till better times should return, but it was 
 indispensable, in the meantime, to provide for the preservation 
 of the episcopate itself, and for the ordination of the clergy, 
 which depended upon it. 
 
 Those who entertained the highest opinions regarding the 
 royal supremacy in matters ecclesiastical did not believe that 
 it extended to the essentials of the faith or discipline of the 
 Church. They therefore held that the consecration of bishops 
 might be provided for by the Church herself, when circum- 
 stances required, if no distinct territory were assigned to 
 the new prelates within which to exercise their jurisdiction. 
 The expedient which most naturally occurred to the Scottish 
 bishops was, to raise certain individuals to the episcopal office, 
 without committing any particular diocese to their rule. It 
 was thought that tlie succession of the highest order, and the 
 continuance of the inferior degi-ees of the ministry, would thus 
 be preserved, while the sovereign's privilege of nominating to 
 the vacant sees would not be interfered with. 
 
348 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIII. 
 
 Such appear to have been the principles on which the 
 bishops acted at this time. The expedient which they 
 adopted was resorted to only as a temporary one, and they 
 could hardly anticipate that it would be proposed to continue 
 it as a system. Undoubtedly, however, the course which they 
 adopted was irregular and unwise. Their error in this re- 
 spect, like other parts of their conduct before and after the 
 change of dynasty, arose from their exaggerated notion of the 
 royal prerogative — an opinion which neither the exile of their 
 prince, nor his open profession of a different religious belief, 
 had yet been able to diminish. 
 
 From the time that Episcopacy was overthrown at the Re- 
 volution, the bishops had hardly taken any open part in 
 ecclesiastical affairs. Indeed the great body of the Nonjuring 
 clergy shrunk from notice as far as possible ; the struggle for 
 toleration, or partial establishment, being chiefly maintained 
 by those who took the oaths. It was otherwise in regard to 
 the step now to be taken. In the choice of the persons se- 
 lected as the fittest to receive consecration, the bishops seem, 
 to a considerable extent, to have acted on their own responsi- 
 bility, and to have relied on their own judgment. A canoni- 
 cal election there could not be, because the forms applicable to 
 it bore reference to a particular diocese ; but, in regard to the 
 propriety of the step itself, though not perhaps in regard to 
 the persons fixed upon, the leading men among the clergy 
 and laity were consulted. It was resolved that only two 
 clergymen should be raised to the episcopal order at this time ; 
 and the two selected were John Sage, and John Fullarton, the 
 former of whom, before the Revolution, had been one of the 
 ministers of Glasgow, and the latter one of the ministers of 
 Paisley. Whatever may be thought of the regularity of the 
 proceeding itself, there can be no doubt as to the fitness of the 
 persons chosen. Both Sage and Fullarton were men of 
 piety and worth. The attainments of the latter were respect- 
 able ; but those of the former were far beyond what was gen- 
 erally found among the divines of that period, and his personal 
 history deserves special notice. 
 
 John Sage was born at Creich, in the county of Fife, in the 
 year 1652. His father was a royalist, and captain in one of 
 the regiments which formed the garrison of Dundee when it 
 
A.D. 1704.] OF SCOTLAND. 849 
 
 was stormed by Monk. The elder Sage escaped on tliat 
 occasion, and, notwithstanding the poverty to which like 
 most of tlie adherents of monarchy he was reduced, was able 
 to send his son to be educated at St. Salvator's College, St. 
 Andrews. As soon as Sage left the university, he was 
 obliged to labour for his own support. He was for some time 
 parish-schoolmaster at Ballingray, in his native county, and 
 afterwards at Tippermuir, in Perthshire. He exchanged that 
 situation for the more congenial one of tutor to the sons of 
 a gentleman of tlie house of Drummond ; and, while residing 
 in this family, he became acquainted with Bishop Rose, 
 tlien one of the ministers of Perth. It was through this 
 acquaintance that he was subsequently led to devote himself 
 to the ministry of the Church. At the mature age of thirty- 
 two, he was ordained by Archbishop Eoss of Glasgow, and 
 appointed to one of the incumbencies of that city. The zeal 
 and learning of Sage soon acquired for him a well-merited re- 
 putation ; and, on a vacancy taking place in the professorship 
 of divinity at St. Mary's College, St. Andrews, in the year 
 1688, he was recommended for that office by Archbishop Ross, 
 then primate, and a presentation was made out in his favour, 
 which was not completed in consequence of the overthrow of 
 the government. 
 
 When the western clergy were ejected from their cures by 
 the Cameronians, Sage retired to Edinburgh. He officiated 
 in one of the meeting-houses of the capital, and distinguished 
 himself by the composition of some of those pamphlets in 
 w^hich the suffisring clergy were defended, and afterwards by 
 works of a more permanent character — the " Principles of the 
 Cyprianic Age," and the Vindication of the Principles, in which 
 he maintained the divine right of Episcopacy. His talents and 
 activity rendered him an object of jealousy to the new esta- 
 blishment. He was summoned before the privy council, and, 
 having declined to take the oath of allegiance and subscribe 
 the assurance, was banished from Edinburgh. He retired to 
 the town of Kinross, where he enjoyed the society of Henry 
 Christie, the deprived incumbent, and of Sir William Bruce, a 
 faithful adherent of the hierarchy. In the year 1696, when 
 Sir William was committed to ward in Edinburgh Castle, a 
 warrant was likewise issued for the apprehension of Sage, and 
 
350 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIIL 
 
 he was obligerl to seek concealment for some time among the 
 hills of Angus. At the time that he was raised to the episco- 
 pate, he was residing as chaplain in the house of Sir John 
 Stewart of GrandtuUj. 
 
 Sage and FuUarton were consecrated on the feast of the 
 Conversion of St. Paul, in the year 1705, in an oratory within 
 Archbishop Paterson's house at Edinburgh. The consecrating 
 prelates were the Archbishop of Glasgow, and the Bishops of 
 Edinburgh and Dunblane. As the new bishops were not to 
 possess diocesan jurisdiction, it was stipulated that, during the 
 lifetime of the former prelates, they were to have no share in 
 the general government of the Church, but only to assist in 
 consecrations and ordinations, and to give their counsel and 
 aid when required. 
 
 1 Keith's Catalogue, p. 518-52L Skinner, vol. ii. pp. 602, 603. Life of 
 Sage, prefixed to the Spottiswood Society edition of his Works, vol. i. p. vi.-liii. 
 MS. Memoirs of the Episcopal Church in Scotland from the Revolution— in the 
 Scottish Episcopal Church Library at Edinburgh — p. 3. The following account 
 is given in a letter sent from Scotland to Matthias Symson, Canon of Lincoln : 
 • — •" When they [the adherents of Episcopacy in North Britain] found themselves 
 quite deserted and given up by the magistrate, their places and offices being sup- 
 pressed, or given to men whose religious principles were directly opposite, con- 
 tradictory to, and destructive of theirs, having no hope of being restored or 
 countenanced, nor receiving direction or leave from authority how to behave in 
 a religious or ecclesiastic capacity ; the ancient surviving bishops — with approba- 
 tion of the leading men both of the clergy and laity, upon mature deliberation, and 
 fervent prayer for God's blessing and direction, without any disturbance, resistance, 
 or breach of the peace, not setting up a new Church, nor separating from any with 
 whom they were in communion before — asserted the necessity and expediency of 
 exerting the power they had from God, not to destruction but to edification ; and 
 rather than hide their talent in a napkin, and put their lights under a bushel ; 
 rather than leave the flock of Christ without shepherds, or expose them to raven- 
 ous wolves after their departure ; not being afraid of what they might suffer for 
 well-doing, and trusting to His assistance, who promised to be with His ministers 
 to the end of the world; like true old Catholic bishops, they conveyed that de- 
 positum and sacred order they had received to worthy men of good report, whom 
 they consecrated bishops. Thereby these faithful humble confessors for the 
 apostolical government of Christ's Church continued a true succession in the 
 ministry ; but whether or no they appointed them to particular dioceses or dis- 
 tricts, is not so commonly known, nor is it necessary it should. The conveyance 
 of the character is sufficient to enable them validly to perform spiritual offices ; 
 and it is hoped their prudence and duty will noways encroach on the civil or 
 higher powers, nor interfere with one another among themselves." (Symson 's 
 Present State of Scotland, pp. 245, 246.) There is an attested copy of Bishop 
 Sage's deed of consecration among the Papers of the Episcopal Church in 
 Scotland, not numbered in the Catalogue. It is prluted in a note to Keith's 
 
A.D. 1705.] OF SCOTLAND. 351 
 
 It has frequently been .asserted that, after the death of Arch- 
 bishop Ross, the Bishop of Edinburgh exercised metropolitan 
 jurisdiction under the ancient title of Primus Scotife Episcopus, 
 or, as vi car-general, during the vacancy, of the see of St. Andrews. 
 The statement is inaccurate. Bisliop Rose never took the former 
 title ; and, though he assumed the style of vicar-general of St. 
 Andrews on the decease of Archbishop Ross, and afterwards, 
 either in that character, or on other grounds, exercised metro- 
 politan authority over the whole Church, no such claim was 
 put forth for some years. While the Archbishop of Glasgow 
 survived, that prelate was the metropolitan of his own pro- 
 vince, and in all episcopal acts took precedence of Bishop 
 Rose. The very name of vicar-general of St. Andrews, thus 
 claimed for the Bishop of Edinburgh, appears to have had no 
 direct sanction. By the charter of erection of the latter see, 
 its bishop was to be a suffragan to the Archbishop of St. 
 Andrews, and, because of the constant assistance which he was 
 to give to his metropolitan so as in some measure to discharge 
 the duties of his chancellor, he was to take precedence of all 
 prelates in the kingdom, except the two archbishops ; just as 
 it was also appointed that the Bishop of Galloway, as assist- 
 
 Catalogue (p. 518). The deed has an interest which documents of that character 
 seklom possess. It is as follows: — " Apud Edinburgum, die vicesimo qninto 
 mensis Januarii, anno ab incarnato Domino et Servatore nostro millesimo sep- 
 tin^entesimo quinto ; Nos, Joannes, providentia divina, Archiepiscopus Glas- 
 guensis, Alexander, miseratione divina, Episcopus Edinburgensis, et Kobertus, 
 miseratione divina, Episcopus Dunblanensis, in timore Domini ponderantes ple- 
 rosque fratnim nostrorum carissimorum et in collegio episcopali collegarum 
 (hoc nupere elapso et Ecclesiae nostrse Inctuoso curriculo) in Domino obdormiisse, 
 nosque perpaucos, qui divina misericordia superstites sumus, multiplicibus curis, 
 morbis, atque ingravescente senio, tantum non confectos esse ; Quapropter, ex eo 
 quod Deo supremo, Servatori nostro, sacro.sanctae Ejus Ecclesise, et posteris 
 debemus, in animum induximus, officium, caracterem, et facultatem episcopa- 
 iem, aliis probis, fidelibus, ad docendum et regendum idoneis hominibus com- 
 mittere ; inter quos, quum nobis ex propria scientia constet reverendum nostrum 
 fratrem, Joannem Sage, artium magistrum, et presbyterum Glasguensem, tanto 
 muiieri aptum et idoneum esse ; nos igitur, divini muneris pra3sidio freti, secun- 
 dum gratiam nobis concessam, die, mensi, anno, suprascriptis, in sacrario domus 
 Archiepiscopi Glasguensis, supradictum Joannem Sage, ordinavimus, consecra- 
 vimus, et in nostrum episcopale collegium cooptavimus. In cujus rei testimo- 
 nium, sigilla Joannis, Archiepiscopi Glasguensis, et Alexandri, Episcopi Edin- 
 burgensis, (sedis Sancti Andrere nunc vacantia vicarii,) huic instrumento 
 (chirographis nostris prius munito) appendi mandavimus. Jo. Glasguen. Alex. 
 Edinburjren. Ro. Dunblan." 
 
352 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIIL 
 
 ing the Archbishop of Glasgow in the same way, was to take 
 precedence inimediutelj after the Bishop of Edinburgh. But 
 this did not confer or imply a right of jurisdiction during the 
 vacancy of the primatial see ; and, according to ancient rules, 
 the vicarial powers would have been exercised, not by the 
 Bishop of Edinburgh, but by the dean and chapter of St. 
 Andrews, as coming in place of the prior and convent of the 
 Augustinian monastery. The origin of the name of vicar- 
 general, claimed by the Bishop of Edinburgh, is probably to 
 be found in the act of parliament of 1617, which provided a 
 chapter for the archdiocese of St. Andrews. In that act, the 
 Bishop of Dunkeld was declared to be vicar-general for con- 
 vening the electors ; an office which is explained by the like 
 powers conferred on the Bishop of Gralloway in the province 
 of Glasgow, though the latter prelate is more correctly styled 
 simply convener of the electors. When the see of Edinburgh 
 was erected by King Charles the First, its bishops may natu- 
 rally have laid claim to the titles and prerogatives formerly 
 possessed by the Bishops of Dunkeld in virtue of the act of 
 1617. 
 
 But whatever the origin of the claim may have been, we 
 find Bishop Rose assuming the title of vicar of the see of St, 
 Andrews in Sage's deed of consecration. When Archbishop 
 Paterson died a few years afterwards, the Bishop of Edin- 
 burgh had the right of precedence of all the other prelates ; 
 and, on the death of Bishop Douglas of Dunblane in 1716, 
 when he became the only survivor of the diocesan bishops, 
 his authority was still more fully established. He had 
 then, in virtue of the arrangement made at the consecra- 
 tion of Sage and Fullarton, tlie sole power of government. He 
 was not only the Primate and Metropolitan, but, so far as juris- 
 diction was concerned, the Bishop of the whole Church — Epis- 
 copus Scotorum. The influence which his station thus gave 
 him was increased by his ability and his virtues ; and, in his 
 later years, Bishop Rose possessed an ecclesiastical authority 
 in his own communion, unlike anything which had been known 
 in Scotland since the time of the first successors of St. Columba.^ 
 
 ^ See Charter of Erection of tlie See of Edinburgh — Keith's Catalogue, p. 49 ; 
 and Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. iv. p. 530. See also Stephen, vol. 
 iv. pp. 1, 2. 
 
A.D. 1705.] OF SCOTLAND. 353 
 
 The deliberations of the bishops, which ended in the resolu- 
 tion to preserve the succession of their order, were held in 
 secret, and were carried into effect with as much privacy as 
 possible ; nor was it generally known at the time that such an 
 event as the consecration of Sage and Fullarton had taken 
 place. It would not have been safe for those concerned to 
 proceed in a different manner. The government at this time 
 was particularly desirous to conciliate the Presbyterians, in 
 order to gain their support to the measure contemplated for 
 the union of England and Scotland into one kingdom. Since 
 the accession of James the Sixth to the English crown, various 
 attempts had been made to effect a union. The condition of 
 Scotland now rendered such a measure more necessary than 
 before, and the statesmen, by whom the counsels of Queen 
 Anne were directed, were using their utmost efforts to pro- 
 cure its accomplishment. 
 
 The union was unpopular with the great body of the Scot- 
 tish nation. The Jacobites were opposed to it, because it was 
 unfavourable to their design of restoring the male line of the 
 house of Stewart ; the Cameronians resisted a measure that 
 brought them into closer connection with a kingdom in which 
 Prelacy was established by law ; many even of the moderate 
 Presbyterians were afraid of the influence which the English 
 hierarchy might thereby acquire ; and the common people 
 looked upon it as fatal to the independence of their country. 
 Notwithstanding the efforts of those various parties, the go- 
 vernment was successful in first carrying through the treaty 
 of union, and afterwards in procuring its confirmation by the 
 parliaments of both kingdoms. 
 
 It is necessary here to mention only those provisions of the 
 union which referred to religion and church government. A 
 special statute was passed, entitled " An Act for securing the 
 Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government." It 
 provided that the true Protestant religion, and the worship, 
 discipline, and government of the Church, as then established 
 by law, should continue without any alteration in time to 
 come ; and it confirmed the act of William and Mary ratify- 
 ing the Confession of Faith, and settling the Presbyterian 
 church government. It also declared that the Universities 
 and Colleges of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edin- 
 
 VOL. HI.] 24 
 
354 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIIir 
 
 burgh, should continue for ever ; and that, in all time coming, 
 no principals, professors, masters, or other office-bearers in any 
 university, college, or school, should be capable of being ad- 
 mitted, unless they acknowledged the civil government in terms 
 of the statutes, and also subscribed the foresaid Confession, as 
 the confession of their faith, and promised to conform to the 
 worship, and submit to the government and discipline of the 
 Church established by law. It was declared that no one 
 within the Scottish kingdom should be liable to any oath, 
 test, or subscription, inconsistent with the foresaid true Pro- 
 testant religion, and Presbyterian government and worship ; 
 and that every future sovereign succeeding to the throne of 
 Great Britain should, at his accession, swear and subscribe 
 that he would inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid 
 settlement of religion, government, worship, and discipline. 
 And these enactments were declared to be a fundamental and 
 essential condition of the treaty.^ 
 
 The union was formally ratified by the Scottish parliament 
 on the sixteenth of January, 1707 ; on the sixth of March, 
 it received the assent of the sovereign as Queen of England ; 
 and it came into actual operation on the first of May. 
 
 » Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, vol. xi. pp. 402, 403, 413, 414. 
 
A.D. 1707.] OF SCOTLAND. 355 
 
 CHAPTER LXXIV. 
 
 FROM THE UNION OF ENGLAND AND SCOTL\ND IN MAY, 1707, TO THE 
 DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE IX AUGUST, 1714. 
 
 Consecration of Bishops Falconer arid Christie — Consecration 
 of Bishop Campbell — Consecration of Bishop Gadder ar — 
 TJse of the Book of Common Prayer — Act of the General 
 Assembly against innovations in Worship — Case of James 
 Greenshields — Toleration Act in favour of Episcopacy — 
 Restoration of Patronage — Address by the clergy of Aber- 
 deen to Queen Anne — Character of Carstairs — Increasing 
 Use of Liturgical forms — Death of Queen Anne. 
 
 By the death of Bishop Hay and Archbishop Paterson, the 
 number of the Scottish prelates was again reduced to five ; 
 and it was thought expedient to raise other two to the episco- 
 pate, on the same conditions that liad been laid down in the 
 case of the former consecration. The illness of Bishop 
 Douglas made this the more necessary. Dundee, the residence 
 of that prelate, was fixed upon as the place of ordination, and 
 tliei'e, on the twenty-eighth of April, 1709, John Falconer, the 
 deprived minister of Carnbee in Fife, and Henry Christie, the 
 friend of Sage, were consecrated by the Bishops of Edinburgh 
 and Dunblane, and Bishop Sage. The prelates were still 
 obliged to act with caution. Their meeting was arranged 
 with as much secrecy as possible, and nothing certain is 
 known of the particular circumstances of the consecration. 
 To use the language of a writer, who has elucidated the 
 history of Bishop Falconer from the original documents 
 among the Papers of the Episcopal Church, the prelates 
 celebrated " with a mournful privacy the most august 
 solemnity of the Catholic Church. Their rites were sliorn of 
 the old cathedral splendour ; their ' Veni Creator' must be 
 murmured like a ' voice out of the dust.' But tliey had with 
 them still the eternal Pontiff, and the unfailing powers of his 
 kingdom. They were speaking his words, and doing his 
 work — rather He was working by them. And it was doubt- 
 
366 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIV. 
 
 less in full assurance of having Him for their unseen Conse- 
 crator, that Falconer and Christie knelt before those worn 
 old men, to receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of 
 Bishops in the Church of God." 
 
 There will afterwards be occasion to refer particularly to 
 Bishop Falconer. Bishop Christie is uniformly spoken of as 
 a person of the most exemplary character. He died in the 
 year 1718. The episcopate of Sage was of a still more brief 
 duration. Study and hardship had brought on premature 
 infirmities, and he sought for relief in vain by a journey to 
 Bath. Returning to his own country, he died at Edinburgh, 
 on the seventeenth of June, 1711, and was buried in the 
 churchyard of the Greyfriars.^ 
 
 Another consecration took place soon after the death of 
 Sage. On St. Bartholomew's day, 1711, Archibald Campbell 
 was consecrated at Dundee, by the Bishops of Edinburgh and 
 Dunblane, and Bishop Falconer. The personal history of the 
 new prelate was a remarkable one. He was son of Lord Neil 
 Campbell, and grandson of the famous Covenanting leader, 
 Archibald, Marquis of Argyll. He joined his uncle, the Earl 
 of Argyll, in his insun-ection against King James the Seventh, 
 and was taken prisoner ; but his life was spared on condition 
 of his abjuring all rebellious principles, and going into exile. 
 He resided for some time in Surinam, and, when he returned 
 to Britain, his opinions were entirely changed. He was 
 now a zealous defender of the rights of the house of Stewart ; 
 declined to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary j 
 and joined the communion of the Nonjurors. Fixing his resi- 
 
 ^ Bishop Falconer's deed of consecration, among the Papers of the Episcopal 
 Church in Scotland, No. R. 10, of the Catalogue. Attested copy of Bishop 
 Christie's deed of consecration, in the same collection, not numbered in the Cata- 
 logue. MS. Memoirs of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, p. 3. Keith's Cata- 
 logue, pp. 521, 522. Life of Sage, prefixed to his Works, p. liii.-lv. In a note 
 to the Life of Sage, p. Ivii., will be found a list of his writings. See also 
 " Bishop John Falconer and his Friends" — a series of articles drawn chiefly from 
 the Papers of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, and understood to be written 
 by the Rev. William Bright — Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal, vol. ii. p. 242-244. 
 A letter there quoted, from Bishop Rose to Falconer, dated 15th April, 1709, 
 may be given at length, as marking the caution necessary in connection with 
 the consecration : — " Our friend at Dundee has been very ill, not fit for busi- 
 ness. I myself these six or seven weeks bygone have been much disordered by 
 a violent sickness in my stomach. Bat I hope to be in condition to wait upon 
 you at Dundee against the 26th or 27th of this month, in order to what yon 
 
A.D. 1711.] OF SCOTLAND. 357 
 
 dence at London, he devoted himself to the study of theology, 
 and was ordained a priest. After his consecration he con- 
 tinued to reside in England ; and it would appear that he owed 
 his elevation rather to his rank and learning, than to any 
 direct assistance which could be expected from him as a col- 
 league of the Scottish bishops. In that respect at least, if not 
 also on the ground of certain peculiar theological opinions en- 
 tertained by Bishop Campbell, his consecration was an ill- 
 advised proceeding.^ 
 
 Tiie next consecration shewed yet more strongly the close- 
 ness of the relations now existing between the Scottish and 
 English Nonjurors. James Gadderar, formerly minister at 
 Kilmalcolm, in the diocese of Glasgow, an intimate friend of 
 Bishop Campbell^ and, like him, residing in England, was 
 consecrated at London, on the feast of St. Matthias, 1712, by 
 Bishop Hickes, and the Scottish bishops, Falconer and Camp- 
 bell. Dr. Hickes, the deprived Dean of Worcester, was now 
 the most influential ecclesiastic among the English Nonjurors; 
 and, both from community of principle, and from his former 
 connection with Scotland while chaplain to the Duke of 
 Lauderdale, he was on terms of friendsliip with most of the nor- 
 thern prelates. He had himself been consecrated as suflfragan 
 of Thetford by the deprived English bishops, on their deter- 
 mining to keep up the episcopal succession in the Nonjuring 
 communion.^ 
 
 The consecration of Bishop Gadderar took place with the 
 full approbation of Bishop Rose and the other Scottish pre- 
 lates ; but the act was irregular, apparently identifying the 
 
 know of. If my health serve me not, I will signify so much to you next week, 
 but, if you hear nothing from me, be sure to keep tryst on the 26th, when I hope 
 to be at Dundee." 
 
 ' Attested copy of the deed of consecration, among the Papers of the Episco- 
 pal Church in Scotland, No. R. 13, of the Catalogue. MS. Memoirs of the 
 Episcopal Church in Scotland, p. 4. Keith's Catalogue, p. 530. Wodrow, vol. 
 iv. p. 320. Boswell's Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides, Carruthers' ed. p. 284. 
 
 2 Deed of consecration, among the Papers of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, 
 No. E. 14, of the Catalogue. Keith's Catalogue, p. 531. MS. Memoirs of 
 the Episcopal Church in Scotland, p. 7. All the Scottish ecclesiastical 
 historians speak of Gadderar as formerly minister of ffilmaurs. But this is a 
 mistake. In the appendix to the Life of Kettlewell, p. xxxv., he is called 
 Rector of Kilmalcolm ; and, in his deed of consecration, he is styled Rector of 
 Kilmalcolm, in the diocese of Glasgow. 
 
358 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIV. 
 
 cause of Episcopacy in Scotland with that of the English Non- 
 jurors, from which it differed in several important respects, and 
 was the commencement of a course of proceedings which in- 
 volved the northern Church in disputes with which it had no 
 direct concern. In the very year following the consecration 
 of Bishop Gadderar, Dr. Hickes was enabled to preserve the 
 Nonjuring succession in England, which otherwise could not 
 have been canonically continued, by the assistance of Camp- 
 bell and Gadderar, who took part in consecrating Collier, 
 Spinckes, and Hawes. The same Scottish prelates, and 
 several of their brethren, afterwards assisted at other English 
 consecrations ; but there is no instance, except that of Bishop 
 Hickes just mentioned, of an English Nonjuring bishop join- 
 ing in the consecration of a Scottish prelate. 
 
 One of the most important ecclesiastical changes which 
 marked the reign of Queen Anne was the gTadual restoration 
 of liturgical services in Scotland. It has been seen that little 
 was done to improve the w^orship of the established Church 
 during the reign of Charles the Second; and that the first mani- 
 festation of feeling in favour of the Book of Common Prayer 
 was its reception by many of the inhabitants of Edinburgh, 
 when it was used by Dr. Monro and others during the troubled 
 period immediately after the Kevolution. The clergy were 
 generally favourable to the introduction of the English Service ; 
 and, among the higher and educated classes, there was a strong 
 wish to get quit of the irregular extemporary worship, and to 
 substitute the solemn ritual, to which they were accustomed 
 while residing in England, and which they used in the private 
 devotions of their families. But the prejudices of the adherents 
 of Episcopacy among the common people were frequently 
 opposed to what they considered an unauthorised change ; and 
 the ecclesiastical courts of the establishment made ever}' effort 
 to prevent the use of a service, the introduction of which they 
 viewed with dislike and fear. 
 
 Notwithstanding the prejudices of some, and the open re- 
 sistance of others, the increasing success of tlie new ecclesias- 
 tical movement shews that a great change had taken place in 
 the opinions of many. In 1703, the Book of Common Prayer 
 was used at Glasgow by clergymen who took the oaths to 
 Queen Anne, and the place where the congregation met was in 
 
A.D. 1711.J OF SCOTLAND. 359 
 
 consequence attacked by a riotous mob. In the North, there 
 was no reason to dread the violent opposition of the people. In 
 the year 1709, the Liturgy had been introduced at Montrose, 
 Aberdeen, Elgin, Inverness, and many other places. The use 
 of the office for the Burial of the Dead had become common 
 among the nobility. In a letter written in November, 1709, 
 a correspondent of Wodrow refers to the funeral of one of the 
 family of Strathniore, at which that office was used, to the 
 great satisfaction of the neighbouring gentry, almost all the 
 clergy of Angus attending in their canonical gowns. A still 
 bolder, tliough a manifestly illegal step, was taken by Dr. 
 Middleton, the Principal of King's College, Aberdeen, and the 
 Earl of Errol, the Chancellor of the University. The English 
 Liturgy was introduced into the college chapel, and the services 
 there were frequented, not only by the masters and students, 
 but by the inhabitants of Old Aberdeen. The chapel, how- 
 ever, was shut up by order of the Lord Advocate, with the 
 approbation of the Secretary of State. ^ 
 
 The forms of worship thus introduced in Scotland were 
 those of the English Book of Common Prayer, not of the Ser- 
 vice Book compiled for the use of the Church of Scotland in 
 the reign of Charles the First. As formerly explained, the 
 two books differed little, except in the office for the celebration 
 of the Holy Communion. It does not precisely appear what 
 liturgical office — in the strict sense of the word — was used by 
 the congregations which thus adopted the Book of Common 
 Prayer in their ordinary worship. Some undoubtedly used 
 the English office, others preferred that in King Charles's 
 Book ; and, within a few years after the period referred to, 
 may be traced the commencement of that peculiar arrangement 
 and adaptation of liturgical forms, which afterwards became 
 known as the Scottish Communion Office. The chief cause 
 
 ^ See Somerville's History of the reign of Queen Anne, p. 468 ; Wodrow 
 Correspondence, vol. i. pp. 30, 79 ; Stephen, vol. iv. p. 64-66 ; MS. Memoirs 
 of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, p. 4. The shutting up of the chapel 
 of King's College is evidently the same circumstance which is related in a con- 
 temporary pamphlet, entitled " Short Account of the Grievances of the Episco- 
 pal Clergy in Scotland," printed in the second volume of the Spottiswood Mis- 
 cellany. The writer of this pamphlet carefully conceals the fact that the place 
 shut up was the college chapel, which could not legally be used for the celebration 
 of worship diflerent from that of the established Church, 
 
360 ECX3LESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIV. 
 
 "wliy the English Prayer Book as a whole was adopted, rather 
 than the Scotti9h one, was the advantage which the adherents 
 of Episcopacy thus had of appealing more eifectually to the 
 sympathy and support of the powerful hierarchy of England. 
 The principle which subsequently led to the adoption of a dif- 
 ferent Eucharistic use was of a higher kind, and was con- 
 nected with important questions of doctrine, which will after- 
 wards be more particularly explained. 
 
 The alarm which these so called innovations excited in the 
 ministers of the establishment led to the passing of a special 
 act by the general assembly of 1707. It was to the follow- 
 ing effect : — " The general assembly of this Church, taking 
 into their serious consideration that the purity of religion, and 
 particularly of divine worship, and uniformity therein, is a 
 signal blessing to the Church of God, and that it hath been 
 the great happiness of this Church, ever since her reformation 
 from Popery, to have enjoyed and maintained the same in a 
 great measure, and that any attempts made for the introduction 
 of innovations in the worship of God therein have been of fatal 
 and dangerous consequence ; like as by the fifth act of the 
 parliament, anno 1690, and twenty-third act of the parliament 
 1693 years, and the act lately passed for security of the present 
 church establishment, the foresaid purity and uniformity of 
 worship are expressly provided for, and being well informed by 
 representations sent from several presbyteries of this Church, 
 that innovations, particularly in the public worship of God, are 
 of late set up in some places in public assemblies within their 
 respective bounds, and that endeavours are used to promote 
 the same by persons of known disaffection to the present estab- 
 lishment both of Church and State, the introduction of which 
 was not so much as once attempted even during the late 
 Prelacy; and considering also that such innovations are dan- 
 gerous to this Church, and manifestly contrary to our known 
 principle, (which is, that nothing is to be admitted in the wor- 
 ship of God but what is prescribed in the Holy Scriptures,) 
 to the constant practice of this Church, and against the good 
 and laudable laws made since the late happy Revolution for 
 establishing and securing the same, in her doctrine, worship, 
 discipline, and government ; and that they tend to the fo- 
 menting of schism and division, to the disturbance of the 
 
A.D. nil.] OF SCOTLAND. 361 
 
 peace and quiet both of Church and State : Therefore the 
 general assembly, being moved with zeal for the glory of God, 
 and the purity and uniformity of liis worship, doth hereby 
 discharge the practice of all such innovations in divine wor- 
 ship within this Church, and does require and obtest all the 
 ministers of this Church, especially those in whose bounds any 
 such innovations are, or may happen to be, to represent to their 
 people the evil thereof, and seriously to exhort them to beware 
 of them, and to deal with all such as do practice the same, in 
 order to their recoveiy and reformation ; and do instruct and 
 enjoin the commission of this assembly to use all proper 
 means by applying to the government or otherwise, for sup- 
 pressing and removing all such innovations, and preventing the 
 evils and dangers that may ensue thereupon to this Church."^ 
 
 The established ecclesiastical courts were entitled by all 
 lawful means to prevent the adoption by their own members, 
 and in the places subject to their jurisdiction, of forms of wor- 
 ship so entirely opposed to those which were used by Presby- 
 terians. But they went beyond this, and endeavoured also to 
 hinder their use in the meeting-houses frequented by the 
 adherents of Episcopacy. The legality of such an attempt 
 was tried before the civil courts, in a case which excited 
 much discussion at the time, and which was attended with 
 important consequences. 
 
 A clergyman of the name of James Greenshields, a native 
 of Scotland, who had been ordained by Bishop Bamsay of 
 Boss after his deprivation, and who had held an Irish curacy, 
 first in the diocese of Down and afterwards in that of 
 Armagh, returned to his native country in 1709. He had 
 taken the oaths to government, and brought with him testi- 
 monials from the Archbishop of Armagh, and from the other 
 ecclesiastical authorities of that diocese. At the request of some 
 of the inhabitants of Edinburgh, chiefly it would appear of 
 persons who had come thither from England, and without any 
 licence from Bishop Bose, he opened a place of worship in 
 that city, in which the services of the English Church were 
 used. He was in consequence summoned before the Presby- 
 tery of Edinburgh. He appeared before that court, produced 
 his letters of orders and testimonials, and, pleading that he 
 ' Acts of Assembly, pp. 418, 419. 
 
362 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIV. 
 
 was noway subject to their jurisdiction, declined their 
 authority^ and protested against any judgment they might 
 pronoimce. 
 
 Greenshields' plea was disregarded by the presbytery. They 
 prohibited him from preaching, resting their sentence on 
 three grounds : — first, that he declined their jurisdiction ; 
 secondly, that he exercised his office of the ministry without 
 their authority; and, thirdly, that he used innovations in 
 public worship. They requested the sanction of the city 
 magistrates to enforce this prohibition, and the magistrates ac* 
 cordingly forbade Greenshields to preach, under the pain of 
 imprisonment. He disregarded the order, and, on tlie follow- 
 ing Sunday, officiated as usual. He was in consequence 
 apprehended, and committed to the common jail, there to 
 remain till he should find caution to desist from tlie exercise of 
 his ministry within the liberties of Edmburgh, or to remove 
 himself beyond them. After he had lain in jail for some time, 
 he brought the sentence of the magistrates under the review of 
 the supreme civil court — the Lords of Session — stating, among 
 other arguments, that the Scottish Presbyterian ministers in 
 Ireland, where they had no legal toleration as they had in 
 England, were nevertheless allowed full liberty of worship 
 according to their own forms, and that the same liberty ought 
 to be allowed to the qualified Episcopal clergy in Scotland. 
 The Court of Session refused his petition, resting their decision 
 chiefly on the circumstance that his orders were conferred by 
 a deprived bishop — one of the judges remarking that "an 
 exauctorated bishop had no more power to ordain a minister, 
 than a deposed colonel or captain of horse had to give com- 
 missions to subalterns." Greenshields appealed for redress to 
 the British House of Peers, and the magistrates, weaiy of 
 detaining him, or apprehensive of the consequences, released 
 him from prison, after a confinement of seven months. 
 
 In the meantime, an alteration took place in the administra- 
 tion of the state. The Tory ministry of Harley displaced the 
 Whigs, and a new parliament was elected, in which tlie High 
 Church party possessed a decided majority ; most of the 
 Scottish members being open supporters of Episcopacy, and 
 hardly concealing their aversion to the Act of Settlement by 
 which the succession of the crown was secured to the House of 
 
A.U. 1711.] OF SCOTLAND. 363 
 
 Hanover. Harlcy himself, Avho wished to conciliate both 
 parties in Scotland, endeavoured to prevail on Greenshields 
 and his friends to withdraw the appeal; but they refused to do 
 so, and, on the first of 3Iarch, 1711, the sentence of the Court 
 of Session was reversed.^ 
 
 The friends of Episcopacy, not content with accomplishing 
 their object in the particular case of Greenshields, endeavoured 
 to prevent tlie recurrence of similar oppressive proceedings 
 against the clergy in time to come, by procuring a toleration 
 act for Scotland. A bill for this purpose was introduced into 
 the House of Commons in the beginning of the year 1712, and 
 passed that house by a large majority. In the House of Lords, 
 it was opposed by several of the Whig party, particularly by 
 Bishop Burnet, as an infringement of the Treaty of Union ; 
 but it was agreed to with some amendments, and, on the third 
 of ]\Iarch, received the royal assent, no regard being paid to a 
 petition against it presented to the queen by the commission 
 of the general assembly. 
 
 The Act of Toleration was very important, not only on 
 account of its immediate object, but in connection with other 
 provisions which were embodied in it. It is entitled " An act 
 to prevent the disturbing those of the Episcopal Communion, 
 in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, in the exercise 
 of their religious worship, and in the use of the Liturgy of 
 the Church of England ; and for repealing the act passed 
 in the parliament of Scotland, intituled An act against 
 irregular Baptisms and ]\[arriages." It was declared to be 
 " free and lawful for all those of the Episcopal communion in 
 that part of Great Britain called Scotland, to meet and 
 assemble for the exercise of divine worship, to be performed 
 after their own manner by pastors ordained by a Protestant 
 bishop, and who are not established ministers of any church 
 or parish, and to use in their congregations the Liturgy of the 
 
 ^ As to Greenshields' prosecution, see the printed Cases for the Appellant and 
 Eespondent before the House of Peers ; and a contemporary pamphlet, entitled 
 "True State of the Case of the Eev. Mr. Greenshields." See also Reports of 
 Cases on Appeal from Scotland, vol. i. p. 12-15; Lockhart Papers, vol. i. p. 
 345-348 ; Wodrow Correspondence, vol. i. pp. 68, 69 ; and Stephen, vol. iv. pp. 
 34-50, 59-61. The fact that Greenshields' chapel was not licensed by Bishop 
 Kose is mentioned in a letter from that prelate to Bishop Campbell, among the 
 Papers of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, No. C. 5, of the Catalogue. 
 
364 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIV. 
 
 Church of England, if they think fit, without any let, 
 hindrance, or disturbance from any person whatsoever ; " and 
 the Scottish act of 1695 against irregular baptisms and 
 marriages was repealed. But it was expressly provided that 
 both the ministers of the established Church, and the Episco- 
 pal clergy, should be obliged to take and subscribe the oaths 
 of allegiance and abjuration, and that, during divine service, 
 they should pray for the queen's majesty, the Princess Sophia 
 of Hanover, and all the royal family. 
 
 It is obvious that the statute, in its direct purport, was bene- 
 ficial only to those of the clergy who were willing to take the 
 oaths to government. Indirectly, however, it tended to protect 
 the whole body from the arbitrary prosecutions to which they 
 had been subjected. The toleration which it bestowed was 
 disagreeable to almost all the ministers of the established 
 Church, but their indignation was increased by the manner 
 in which they were themselves affected by some of the provi- 
 sions of the statute. The clause which required them to pray 
 for the queen and royal family by name, was resented as an 
 infringement of the liberty of worship to which they laid 
 claim. They objected to the compulsory subscription and 
 swearing of the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, as they had 
 formerly done on a similar occasion in the preceding reign, 
 because it made the ministerial ofiice dependent on the state. 
 And they had now a further reason for opposition, since the 
 oath of abjuration contained a promise to maintain the suc- 
 cession of the crown, as defined by the Act of Settlement • 
 and one of the clauses of that act required the sovereign to be 
 of the communion of the Church of England. ^ 
 
 Within a few days after the passing of the Toleration Act, 
 
 a bill was brought into the Lower House for restoring to 
 
 patrons in Scotland their right of presentation to churches, 
 
 which had been taken away by one of the statutes enacted 
 
 soon after the Revolution. It passed through the Commons 
 
 without much opposition, and was sent up to the Lords. 
 
 There was at this time in London a deputation of Presbyterian 
 
 ministers, appointed to watch over the interests of the Scottish 
 
 establishment. The members of it were Carstairs, now 
 
 1 See Acts of Assembly, pp. 467-470,473-475; Lockhart Papers, vol. i.p. 
 378-384; and Burton, vol. ii. p. 42-49. 
 
AD. 1712.] OF 6C0TLAND. 365 
 
 Principal of the College of Edinburgh, and two^other mini- 
 sters, Thomas Blackwell and Kobert Baillie. They had 
 petitioned parliament against the toleration bill ; and they 
 now presented to the House of Peers a petition against the 
 bill for"restoring patronages, in which they maintained that, as 
 patronage had been abolished before the Act of Union, its 
 restoration was inconsistent with the conditions in favour of 
 the northern establishment, embodied in that national com- 
 pact. This petition, from tlie clearness of its statements and 
 the moderation of its language, was calculated to make a 
 favourable impression ; but even an experienced politician 
 like Carstairs was unwilUng himself, or was unable to prevail 
 on his colleagues, to use the common parliamentary forms, and 
 to recognise the civil rights of the English prelates. It was 
 addressed, not to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, but " to 
 the most honourable the Peers of Great Britain," and was in 
 consequence not received till the proper amendment was made. 
 Five of the bishops voted against the bill; a majority, however, 
 of the house was in its favour. The commission of the assembly 
 petitioned the queen against it, but it received the royal assent 
 on the twenty-second of May. 
 
 By another act, the statute of 1690, which abolished the 
 Christmas vacation of the courts of justice, was repealed, and 
 the ancient usage was restored.^ 
 
 • In opposing the Act of Toleration, the ministers of the 
 established Church shewed an equal want of wisdom and of 
 charity. They might have known that their resistance would 
 be ineffectual, and that it would tend to make their remon- 
 strances be listened to with less attention in other matters. 
 The act did not interfere with the legal privileges of the esta- 
 blishment ; and it was only simple justice that the adherents 
 of Episcopacy in Scotland, if willing to submit to the queen's 
 government, should enjoy the same toleration which Dissen- 
 ters received in England. The clauses relative to the oath of 
 abjuration, and the praying for the queen by name, were ob- 
 jectionable according to the strict principles of Presbyterianism; 
 and, had they confined their opposition to these clauses, there 
 
 ^ See Acts cf Assembly, pp. 470, 471 ; Parliamentary History of England, 
 vol. vi. p. 1126-1129; Blackwell's Letters — Miscellany of tlie Spalding Club, 
 vol. i. p. 197-222 ; and Burton, vol. ii. pp. 50, 51. 
 
366 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIV. 
 
 would have been more reason in their conduct. But those 
 very clauses appear to have been inserted in consequence of 
 the outcry which was raised against any sort of toleration. 
 
 The resistance to the Patronage Act was of a very different 
 character. The right of presentation to benefices had been a 
 grievance to Presbyterians from the commencement of their 
 system in the time of Melville. In their period of trimnpli 
 during the great rebellion, they had taken it away altogether ; 
 and, though restored witli Episcopacy, it had again been prac- 
 tically abolished at the Revolution. The form of appointment 
 to parochial cures then sanctioned was regarded as an im- 
 portant, if not an essential, portion of ecclesiastical discipline, 
 and was supposed to be irrevocably secured by the Act of 
 Union. The restoration of the rights of patrons was viewed 
 as an infringement of that solemn treaty ; and the alarm and 
 indignation were the greater, that most of those who were 
 chiefly instrumental in tlie change were known to be hostile to 
 the Presbyterian establishment. 
 
 The conditions of the Toleration Act were at once accepted 
 by those of the Episcopal clergy who had formerly taken the 
 oaths to government, and probably by a few others who were 
 willing to make some sacrifice of political principle in order to 
 enjoy the protection of the laws; but the great majority of the 
 Nonjurors remained steadfast in their former opinions. In the 
 diocese of Aberdeen, where many of the deprived clergy had 
 submitted to the reigning sovereign, the statute was received 
 with particular gratitude. On the conclusion of the great 
 European war by the peace of Utrecht, the clergy of Aberdeen 
 drew up an address of congratulation to Queen Anne. It was 
 presented by two of the most eminent of their number, Dr. 
 James Garden and Dr. George Garden, who were accom- 
 panied by Mr. Greenshields, and introduced by the Secretary 
 of State for Scotland, the Earl of Mar. After alluding to the 
 thanksgivings which they had offered up, both in their 
 churches and meeting-houses, for the return of peace, they re- 
 ferred to the freedom they now enjoyed, not only in the exer- 
 cise of their pastoral care over a willing people, but also in the 
 use of the Liturgy of the Church of England. They next re- 
 ferred to the abolition of the ancient and apostolic order in 
 their Church, to the persecution which they had lately 
 
AD. 1712.] OF SCOTLAND. 367 
 
 suffered, and to the evils which they still had to endure ; and 
 they concluded by entreating her majesty to grant such relief as 
 in her royal wisdom she might think lit. The address was 
 graciously received, and, had the queen's life been prolonged, 
 there can be little doubt that the adherents of the hierarchy in 
 Scotland would have received a still more ample measure of 
 protection.^ 
 
 Among the ministers of the established Church there was a 
 similar difference of opinion in regard to the lawfulness of thg 
 oaths, though proceeding, as already mentioned, from other 
 causes than those which influenced the adherents of the 
 hierarchy. The Presbyterian Nonjurors were generally to be 
 found in those districts of the South and West which formerly 
 had been the stronghold of the Covenant. Party feeling ran high 
 between the supporters and opponents of the oaths ; but, the 
 extreme measures on either side, which otherwise might have 
 taken place, were prevented by the judicious conduct of the 
 government in not demanding subscription from those already 
 admitted to parochial charges. 
 
 No one did more to promote moderate counsels among the 
 Presbyterians than Carstairs. He survived the accession of 
 the House of Hanover, and died on the twenty-eighth of 
 December, 1715, respected by men of all opinions for the 
 uprightness and sincerity of his character, his blameless 
 life, and his kindness and liberality to those who most differed 
 from him. A story is related by his biographer, the truth of 
 which there is no reason to question. When his body was 
 interred in the Greyfriars churchyard at Edinburgh, two 
 persons were seen to turn aside and burst into tears. They 
 were Nonjuring clergymen of the Episcopal Church who had 
 been supported by his charity. ^ 
 
 ' Skinner's Annals, p. 298-300. The loyalty of Dr. George Garden to Queen 
 Anne was not assumed for a temporary purpose, nor was it the mere result of 
 recent protection from the government. In February, 1703, he had dedicated to 
 the queen, ia language which shewed the sincerity of his homage, the complete 
 and valuable edition of the works of Dr. John Forbes, published at Amsterdam 
 in that year. 
 
 2 M'Cormick's Life of Carstairs, p. 83-91. Dr. M'Cormick states (p. 90) that, 
 " at the Revolution, Mr. Carstairs laid down a plan for the maintenance of such 
 ot the Episcopal clergy, as were removed from their churches, out of the bishops' 
 rents, but the ministry always found some pretext for applying this fund to other 
 less charitable purposes." 
 
368 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIV. 
 
 The passing of the Toleration Act, and the unwonted degree 
 of favour shewn by the government to the adherents of Epis- 
 copacy in the latter years of Queen Anne, encouraged the clergy 
 to continue their efforts for the introduction of liturgical ser- 
 vices. Many copies of the Book of Common Prayer were sent 
 from England or purchased with contributions received from 
 that country, and were distributed throughout Scotland ; and 
 its use continued to increase, both in the parochial churches 
 where the old incumbents remained, and in the tolerated and 
 Nonjuring meeting-houses. The clergy were almost all zealous 
 for liturgical restoration, but prudently forbore to urge it on 
 their flocks, till they had prepared them for it by careful in- 
 struction. The whole circumstances attending the gradual 
 and voluntary introduction of the Liturgy were in happy con- 
 trast to the attempt to establish it by authority in the reign of 
 King Charles the First. ^ 
 
 ' See two interesting documents, printed from the Papers of the Episcopal 
 Church in Scotland, in the Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal, vol. vii. p. 24-26, 
 containing some notices of an attempt made to introduce the Liturgy into the 
 Highlands, in which Bishop Camphell took an active part. It appears probable 
 from those papers that the first parish church in which an altar was erected was 
 Contin, in the diocese of Ross. The incumbent who set it up mentions that it 
 was made after the pattern of one which he had seen in the meeting-house at Aber- 
 deen, in which Patrick Dunbreck officiated. The author of " A Representation 
 of the State of the Church in North Britain," published in 1718, speaks (p. 19) 
 of " the generous charity of many pious and well-disposed persons of all ranks of 
 the Church of England, particularly of the famous University of Oxford, at whose 
 charges and charitable contributions, without any brief to further it, above nine- 
 teen thousand Common Prayer Books, and other devotional edifying books relat- 
 ing to it, were remitted from London in the space of two years." He adds, 
 " that this great and generous charity had its designed effect, by making many 
 sincere proselytes to the Liturgy, of all ranks and degrees of people.'' The sub- 
 ject may be illustrated by the following extracts from the parochial records of 
 Banchory Devenick, dated the 19th and 26th of October, 1712 :— " The said day, 
 intimation was made to the congregation, that the next Lord's day the excellent 
 Liturgy of the Church of England was to he used in the worship of God, in this 
 congregation, and, accordingly, the people were exhorted to perform this method 
 of worship in a spirit of devotion, and with that becoming gravity and decency 
 that was expected from those who had been so exemplary heretofore in the wor- 
 ship of God." .... "The said day, according to the foresaid intimation, the 
 Liturgy of the Church of England was first used in the public worship of God in 
 this parochial church, in order to the continuance thereof — for advancing of which 
 excellent worship, there were two hundred Bonks of Common Prayer given to the 
 minister, out of the charity Books sent from England to Scotland to be distributed 
 gratis, charges of freight excepted, which two hundred Books were distributed 
 some weeks before, among such of the parishioners as were capable of using 
 
A.D. 1712.] OF SCOTLAND. 369 
 
 The use of the Book of Common Prayer in tlie ordinary 
 offices naturally called attention to those observances which 
 King James had attempted to restore at the Perth assembly, 
 but which had been neglected, or altogether lost sight of, in 
 the period between the Restoration and the Eevolution. 
 Private Baptism indeed, from the circumstances in which the 
 Church was placed, had unfortunately become the rule rather 
 than the exception. The same reason perhaps contributed to 
 the frequent celebration of the Holy Communion in private, 
 but undoubtedly this was owing chiefly to a more reverential 
 and a truer perception of the Eucharistic mystery. The ob- 
 servance, not only of the great Christian festivals and fasts, 
 but of other holy-days, accompanied the introduction of the 
 daily services ; and, when the posture of kneeling was used in 
 prayer at ordinary times, it was still more carefully practised 
 at the administration of the Eucharist. Now also the rite of 
 Confirmation, which can hardly be said to have been used since 
 the overthrow of the hierarchy in the sixteenth century, was 
 restored. In this the prelates must have taken the chief part, 
 and foremost in promoting it was the good and learned Bishop 
 Falconer. But simultaneously with the restoration of apostolic 
 practice in this point, and connected with the admission of 
 candidates to its privileges, arose a difficulty in regard to the 
 validity of baptism administered by those who were not epis- 
 copally ordained. Bishop Falconer was unable to come to a 
 decision, and therefore asked the opinion of Bishop Rose. The 
 answer of the Bishop of Edinburgh, which was dated in July, 
 1713, shewed much wisdom and moderation. He declined to 
 give a positive opinion, and recommended a middle course, 
 which Bishop Falconer himself had suggested, and which 
 afterwards received the express sanction of the Scottish Epis- 
 copal Church — the giving of conditional baptism to those 
 who doubted the validity of that which they had formerly 
 received. 
 
 them, as also a folio Book for the minister, and a quarto for the clerk." .... 
 " Kneeling boards were also placed in the pews.'' (New Statistical Account of 
 Scotland, vol. xi. pp. 181, 182.) James Gordon, now far advanced in life, appears 
 to have been still Parson of Banchory-Devenick, and thus to have seen the par- 
 tial accomplishment, during the establishment of Presbyterianism, of what he 
 had laboured to bring about, and had suffered for, while Episcopacy was pro- 
 tected by the state. 
 
 VOL. ni.] 25 
 
'370 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXIV. 
 
 Three years before, a question, not so important in itself, 
 but attended with more practical difficulty, and very embar- 
 rassing in its nature, had been put to Bishop Rose by some 
 members of the University of Oxford. The enquiry was, 
 whether he and the other Scottish prelates were at that time 
 in communion with the established Church of England. The 
 following was his brief answer : — " I know there has been a 
 division among the members of the Church of England upon 
 that head. The controversy is great and material, and, our 
 circumstances among ourselves not affording such difficulties, 
 the most of us perchance have not so carefully examined that 
 matter, and want the needful helps to be fully instructed in it. 
 And for myself, it cannot be expected of me, that without a 
 previous conference with my brethren, and considering that 
 subject thoroughly and maturely with them, I should give my 
 sense of it." At an after period the reply would hardly have 
 been a sincere one ; and, even at this time, the sympathies 
 of the Scottish bishops were entirely with the Nonjuring com- 
 munion in England, as was shewn by their assisting Dr. 
 Hickes to preserve the episcopal succession. But, during the 
 reign of Queen Anne, they were still the ecclesiastical superiors 
 of a body of clergy and laity who obeyed them as their bishops, 
 though holding diffiirent opinions in regard to the civil govern- 
 ment. No schism had taken place among the adherents of the 
 hierarchy in Scotland, similar to that which the deprivation of 
 Bancroft and his colleagues had caused in England. ^ 
 
 The letters and historical documents of this reign shew that 
 a marked change had taken place in the degree of influence 
 exercised by the Episcopal clergy over the laity of the higher 
 ranks, especially those of the female sex, from what prevailed 
 during the period of the Covenant, and even for some time after 
 the Restoration. Then the Presbyterian ministers appear almost 
 exclusively as the guides and counsellors of the nobility and 
 gentry who practised or professed most attention to their reli- 
 gious duties. Now it was otherwise. The deprived clergy 
 exercised the moral sway which their opponents had formerly 
 enjoyed. At both periods there was evil as well as good in 
 this influence ; but the change points to what is evident from 
 other information, that, as a general rule, religious earnestness 
 
 ' See Skinner, vol. ii. p. 612-615, 
 
A.D. 1714.] OF SCOTLAND. 371 
 
 and strictness was now the badge of the hierarchy and its sup- 
 porters, rather than of the teachers of Presbyterianism. 
 
 Queen Anne died on the first of August, 1714. Her per- 
 sonal virtues, her zeal for Episcopacy, and the circumstance 
 that she was the last sovereign of the house of Stewart, caused 
 her name and memory to be cherished by those who loved the 
 Church and hereditary right, with a devotion which her 
 character as a ruler would hardly have called forth. 
 
372 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXV. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXV. 
 
 FROM THE DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE IN AUGUST, 1714, TO THE ABJURATION 
 ACT OF APRIL, 1719. 
 
 Accession of King George the First — Jacobite Insurrection — 
 The Episcopal clergy sympathise with the Insurgents — 
 Proceedings of the Government against the Episcopal 
 clergy — Ejection of the Episcopal clergy in the diocese of 
 Aberdeen — Deprivation of the Principal of King^s College 
 and other members of the University of Aberdeen — Efforts 
 of the General Assembly to obtain a repeal of the Patronage 
 Act — The Abjuration Act of 1719. 
 
 On the death of Queen Anne, the Elector of Hanover suc- 
 ceeded to the crown in terms of the Act of Settlement, and 
 was proclaimed King of Great Britain, under the name of 
 Georsre the First. The adherents of the Jacobite cause were 
 
 O 
 
 numerous, particularly in Scotland, where most of the nobility 
 and gentry, a large proportion of the common people, and the 
 most powerful of the Highland clans, were favourably dis- 
 posed to the son of the late King James. It is probable, how- 
 ever, that no open resistance would have been made, if the 
 discontented party had not been urged on to insurrection by a 
 few statesmen who were deprived of their places by the new 
 sovereign, some of whom, like the Earl of Mar, were actuated 
 by the most selfish motives. About a year after the accession 
 of King George, a formidable revolt broke out in Scotland. 
 The greater part of the kingdom beyond the Forth was in pos- 
 session of the insurgents, and, in the South, and on the Eng- 
 lish border, a simultaneous rising took place. Had the 
 Jacobite leader, Mar, possessed the genius and courage of Dun- 
 dee, he might, without difficulty, have made himself master of 
 the whole of Scotland ; but his indecision and want of military 
 skill were fatal to his cause. The Duke of Argyll, who com- 
 manded the royal army, succeeded in preventing a junction 
 between the northern and southern Jacobites ; and a battle 
 was fought at Sheriff-muir, in November 1715, in which 
 
A.D. 1715.] OF SCOTLAND. 373 
 
 neither side had the advantage. Almost at the same time, the 
 soutliern Jacobites and their English allies were obliged to 
 surrender at Preston. In the end of the following month, the 
 Prince of Wales, styled by his Scottish adherents King James 
 the Eighth, landed at Peterhead, and joined his army near 
 Perth. The private character of this unhappy prince was 
 recklessly slandered at the time, and the calumnies of his 
 enemies have been carelessly or wilfully repeated by later 
 writers ; but he was entirely deficient in those qualities which 
 are requisite to restore a falling cause. His presence added 
 no strength to the insurgent army ; and the Jacobites, a few 
 weeks afterwards, retired to the North, and dispersed among 
 the mountains, the nobles and chiefs seeking for safety in 
 flight or concealment. Many of the southern Jacobites were 
 at the mercy of the government ; and, had the advice of the 
 most faithful of the Scottish friends of the Hanoverian succes- 
 sion been teiken, no unnecessary severity would have been 
 displayed. But the king and his English advisers were of a 
 different opinion. The prisoners were tried in England ; and 
 many of them, including some of high rank, were executed, 
 while others were sent as slaves to the American plantations. 
 One of the results of the insurrection of 1715 was a renewal 
 of those harassing proceedings against the Episcopal clergy, 
 from which they had been free in the last years of Queen 
 Anne. But, in this respect, the severity of the government 
 was justified, to some extent, by the conduct of many of those 
 who were exposed to the penalties of the statutes. Pre- 
 viously to this time, it cannot be maintained that the adher- 
 ents of the disestablished Church, as a body, had openly 
 supported the house of Stewart. A considerable number both 
 of the clergy and the laity had taken the oaths, and had 
 remained firm in their allegiance to William and to Anne. 
 And, though the opinions of the Nonjurors necessarily implied 
 a belief in the unlawfulness of the Revolution settlement, it 
 did not follow that they held active opposition to it to 
 be allowable. Now, however, it was difierent. The dis- 
 appointment of their hopes, ecclesiastical and political, on the 
 accession of George the First, and the certainty that a peace- 
 ful restoration of the ancient line was no longer possible, 
 united almost all tlie friends of the hierarchy in attachment to 
 
374 ECCLESIASTICAL EISTORY [Chap. LXXV. 
 
 the cause of James. The most distinguished of the Jacobite 
 leaders were zealous supporters of Episcopacy ; the sons of the 
 Bishops of Edinburgh and Dunblane were among the ranks 
 of the insurgents ; and the public devotions of their armies 
 were conducted by the Episcopal clergy, according to the 
 ritual of the Book of Common Prayer. Treasonable acts of 
 the most overt character took place on the part of some of 
 the clergy ; and it is remarkable that, among those who now 
 came prominently forward in favour of James, were several 
 who in the last two reigns had been distinguished for the 
 moderation of their political opinions. While that prince was 
 residing at the Earl Marischal's house of Fetteresso, an address 
 was laid before him, bearing to proceed from the Episcopal 
 clergy of the diocese of Aberdeen, and probably signed by 
 most of their number. Among those who presented it were 
 Dr. James Garden and Dr. George Garden, who, at the 
 peace of Utrecht, had presented an address from the same 
 body to Queen Anne ; and now, as on the former occasion, 
 they were introduced by the Earl of Mar. ^ 
 
 The most ready means of proceeding against the clergy 
 were supplied by the Toleration Act itself, which required 
 them to register their letters of orders, and to pray for the 
 sovereign by name. In May, 1716, the king wrote to the 
 Lords of Justiciary, stating that he understood there were 
 meeting-houses in Edinburgh, and other parts of Scotland, in 
 which divine service was celebrated without prayer being 
 made for himself and the royal family, and enjoining them to 
 give directions for shutting up such meeting-houses, and pro- 
 ceeding against the persons offending in time to come. The 
 Lords professed their readiness to proceed against the parties 
 referred to. They mentioned, however, that they were not 
 entitled summarily to shut up the meeting-houses, but only 
 after trial and conviction in due course of law ; and even then, 
 that it was doubtful whether their powers extended farther 
 than the exaction of penalties in terms of the Toleration Act. 
 The crown lawyers were thereupon ordered to prepare indict- 
 ments against the offending clergy in Edinburgh and the 
 neighbourhood, for transgressing the provisions of the statute, 
 
 * Seo the Address from the Clergy of Aberdeen in Rae'e History of the Re* 
 bellion, 2d ed. p. 476-478. 
 
A.D. 1716.] OF SCOTLAND. 375 
 
 in not registering their letters of orders, and in not praying 
 during divine service for King George and the royal family. 
 The whole persons summoned, except one who produced his 
 letters of orders from a Scottish bishop, were prohibited from 
 officiating till they should comply with the provision of the 
 statute on that point, and twenty-one of them were fined for 
 not praying for the king. The clergymen subsequently re- 
 gistered their letters of orders, and continued to officiate as 
 before. The magistrates of Edinburgh having been blamed 
 by the government for allowing them to officiate, and having 
 consulted the Lords of Justiciary how they were to act, 
 received a doubtful answer. It appears that these mea- 
 sures were generally unpopular, and that both judges and 
 magistrates were unwilling to go beyond the letter of the 
 statute. ^ 
 
 Proceedings of a more arbitrary and severe description took 
 place in the North. The diocese of Aberdeen, which had 
 always been the stronghold of the hierarchy, was now also the 
 chief seat of Jacobitism in the Lowlands ; and the clergy by 
 their recent conduct had made themselves justly amenable to 
 the laws. A considerable number of the parochial cures were 
 still in possession of the old incumbents, and the Book 
 of Common Prayer was used in several churches, and in 
 most meeting-houses ; and the Presbyterians eagerly laid 
 hold of the opportunity to get possession of the benefices, and 
 to abolish the Liturgy. Before any proceedings commenced 
 for that purpose, Dr. James Garden, Patrick Dunbreck, and 
 some others of the clergy who had taken a conspicuous part in 
 favour of the house of Stewart, sought refuge with their 
 friends at a distance ; and Dr. George Garden, who had been 
 imprisoned, made his escape, and fled beyond seas. Most of 
 the meeting-houses having been shut up, the ecclesiastical 
 courts endeavoured to prevail on the incumbents and other 
 clergy to resign their cures, or to desist from officiating, 
 threatening them with prosecution if they declined to comply. 
 Those who refused were summoned before the presbyteries, 
 generally on charges of disloyalty during the late rebellion, 
 but sometimes also as being guilty of using the English 
 Liturgy and ceremonies. Several of the clergy disregarded 
 ' Arnot's Criminal Trials, p. 343-346. 
 
376 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXV. 
 
 these citations altogether, but others appeared, and lodged a 
 declinature of the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian church 
 courts, as having no authority over persons of another com- 
 munion, or in relation to charges which fell within the cog- 
 nizance of the civil magistrate. Their pleas were in most 
 cases disregarded, and sentences of suspension or deposition 
 were pronounced against them. The deprived clergymen 
 continued to officiate as before ; and, as the people ad- 
 hered firmly to their pastors, the established judicatories could 
 obtain possession of the parish churches, which they had de- 
 clared vacant, only by means of the secular authorities, or with 
 the assistance of the soldiers. The scenes which took place 
 on such occasions resembled those which were so common in 
 the West on the ejection of the Presbyterian ministers in the 
 reign of Charles the {Second. The number of the clergy de- 
 prived in the diocese of Aberdeen was about thirty-six, two- 
 thirds of whom were parochial ministers. ^ 
 
 In Angus and other districts where Episcopacy had been 
 strongest, proceedings of a like kind took place. The Uni- 
 versity of Aberdeen was now also, for the first time, brought 
 into complete conformity with the established Church. 
 The compliance of Dr. George Middleton, the Principal of 
 King's College, with the conditions required by law, has 
 already been related. He was notwithstanding an active 
 supporter of Episcopacy and of the Liturgical movement in 
 the reign of Queen Anne ; and several of the masters held the 
 same opinions. When the Earl Marischal, the patron of 
 Marischal College, became a zealous Jacobite and an adherent 
 of the hierarchy, several of the professors followed his 
 example. On the suppression of the insurrection, a royal 
 commission was issued for the visitation of the university, 
 and Dr. Middleton and other obnoxious members of both 
 colleges were deprived. In consequence of these various 
 
 ' In regard to the proceediugs in the diocese of Aberdeen, see the work 
 already referred to, "A Eepresentation of the state of the Church in North 
 Britain." The statements of the author may be relied on as to the deprivations, 
 but he underrates the share which the clergy had in the insurrection ; and 
 his account of the conduct of the Presbyterian ministers and magistrates must be 
 received with the same qualifications as the similar narratives by Wodrow and 
 others of his school of the ejections after the Restoration. See also Wodrow 
 Correspondence, vol. ii. pp. 210, 226. 
 
A.D. 1717.] OF SCOTLAND. 377 
 
 measures, almost the last traces of the old establishment were 
 swept away, nearly tliirtj years after the Revolution.^ 
 
 The Presbyterians were as much elated by the accession of 
 the House of Hanover as their opponents were discouraged. 
 They expected, through the favour of the new sovereign and 
 his advisers, to obtain a repeal or modification of the statutes 
 passed in the reign of Queen Anne against which they had 
 vainly remonstrated at the time. By a statute of King George's 
 first parliament, the act restoring the Christmas vacation 
 of the courts of justice was repealed, but neither English nor 
 Scottish statesmen were prepared to give up the Toleration 
 and Patronage Acts. In the beginning of the year 1717, 
 when tranquillity had been restored in the North, the com- 
 mission of the general assembly thought that a fit opportunity 
 had occurred for making another attempt to obtain a redress 
 of their grievances. Two ministers, William Mitchell and 
 William Hamilton, were sent to London for that purpose. 
 The leading Scottish peers and commoners on whom they 
 waited made general professions of good-will, but declined to 
 interfere in regard to patronage. The commissioners them- 
 selves were not very zealous for a change in the abjuration 
 oath, but they suggested that it should receive some explana- 
 tion, on account of the scruples of the Nonjurors in their 
 communion. They were introduced to the royal closet by the 
 Duke of Roxburgh, and presented an address to the king, in 
 which they set forth the grievances to which their Church was 
 subjected ; referring, among others, to the " act granting so 
 
 ^ Fasti Aberdonenses, p. 387. Wodrow Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 211. 
 Orem's History of Old Aberdeen, p. 156. A very few of the old incumbents 
 still kept possession of their churches, but within a few years hardly one 
 survived. Dr. Carlyle (Autobiography, p. 95), referring to a visit which he 
 made to the members of the Presbytery of Haddington in 1744, says : — " The 
 next I went to was old Lundie of Saltoun, a pious and primitive old man, very 
 respectful in his manners, and very kind. He had been bred an old Scotch 
 Episcopalian, and was averse to the Confession of Faith : the presbytery shewed 
 lenity towards him : so he did not sign it to his dying day, for which reason he 
 never could be a member of assembly.'' Lundie, however, was evidently not an 
 old parochial incumbent, but one of those adherents of Episcopacy who were 
 illegally presented to benefices, after the Eevolution, by patrons of their own 
 religious belief, and remained in possession, through the attachment of their 
 congregations, or the connivance of the local ecclesiastical courts. Both in East 
 Lothian and in the Merse, the supporters of the hierarchy were numerous and 
 powerful for many years after the establishment ufPresbyterianism. 
 
378 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXV. 
 
 large and almost boundless toleration to those of the Episcopal 
 persuasion in Scotland, and the act restoring patronage, 
 whereby the legal constitution of this Church was altered in a 
 very important point, and the right of the people in choosing 
 those to whom they intrust the care of their souls restrained." 
 The king gave a brief answer in French. When parliament 
 rose for the Easter recess, the commissioners returned home, 
 without having been able to do much for the objects of their 
 errand.^ 
 
 The representations of the general assembly finally produced 
 some effect. The late insurrection had already shewn that 
 the adherents of Episcopacy were, for the most part, as dis- 
 affected to the reigning family, as the Presbyterians were 
 attached to it; and, in April, 1719, being the fifth year of 
 the king's reign, an act was passed, by which the provisions 
 in regard to the oath of abjuration were made more agreeable 
 to the Presbyterians, and more distinct and severe penalties 
 were imposed on the Nonjuring Episcopal clergy. The sta- 
 tute was entitled " An act for making more effectual the laws 
 appointing the oaths for security of the government, to be 
 taken by ministers and preachers in churches and meeting- 
 ing-houses in Scotland," The abjuration oath, as thereby 
 modified, contained no reference to the act by which the 
 sovereign was obliged to be of the communion of the Church 
 of England. In regard to the Episcopal clergy, it was enacted 
 that no person should be permitted to officiate in any Episcopal 
 meeting-house or congregation where nine or more persons 
 
 ^ See MitoheH's Diary, in the Miscellany of the Spalding Club, vol. i. p. 
 227-253 ; and Burton, vol. ii. p. 283-286. Mr. Burton quotes [he following 
 passage from Mitchell's Diary : — " We were introduced to the king, in his 
 closet, by Roxburgh, and Mr. Hamilton read the following speech to him in 
 English — Roxburgh having told us that he understood English, and that it was not 
 fit the custom of speaking in French should be kept up ;" and he adds, " The reader 
 will remember how often the assertion of Archdeacon Coxe has been repeated, that 
 Walpole and George I. spoke to each other in bad Latin, because the king could 
 not speak English, and the minister was ignorant of French." Mr. Burton 
 evidently means it to be implied that the quotation from the Diary shews that the 
 king could speak English. The Duke of Roxburgh only said that his sove- 
 reign understood English ; and the historian omits to mention that the king 
 answered in French. The Diary expressly says, " During the reading, ^he 
 looked agreeably on us, and then spoke in French, as Roxburgh told us, 'I am 
 well satisfied of the good affection of the Church of Scotland, and I shall be glad 
 of an occasion to serve them.' " See Mitchell's Diary, pp. 230, 250. 
 
A.D. 1719.] OF SCOTLAND. 379 
 
 were present in addition to the members of the household, 
 without .praying in express words for King George and the 
 royal family, and without having taken and subscribed the 
 oath of abjuration contained in the statute, under the penalty 
 of six months' imprisonment, and of having his meeting-house 
 shut up for the same period. 
 
 This statute was put in execution against some of the 
 clergy, and they were always exposed to prosecutions under 
 it ; but, when the alarm of invasion and insurrection abated, 
 its provisions were seldom enforced. One of its consequences 
 was the appointment, by several congregations, of clergymen 
 willing to take tlie oaths, who were thus qualified to officiate 
 openly according to the English ritual. The congregations 
 which did so were chiefly composed of English families, or of 
 persons whose attachment to the Liturgy was stronger than 
 their zeal for any particular political opinions. At first, the 
 pastors of such congregations remained in communion with 
 the bishops, but gradually a different state of matters arose. 
 English clergymen, or Scotsmen of English ordination, offi- 
 ciated in chapels where the Liturgy was used in virtue of the 
 Toleration Act, but without acknowledging the authority of 
 the Scottish bishops, or regarding themselves as in any way 
 connected with the native hierarchy ; while, on the other 
 hand, the prelates, as a general rule, declined to sanction 
 the ministrations of those who took the oaths to the reigning 
 family, and thus afforded an argument for ecclesiastical irre- 
 gularities on the part of the qualified clergy, which otherwise 
 would have been without excuse. 
 
 The proceedings which followed the insurrection of 1715 
 had broken the last link which connected the Episcopal clergy 
 with the state, and the act of 1719 was the last statute of any 
 importance, in an ecclesiastical point of view, which made 
 provision regarding both the adherents of the hierarchy and 
 the members of the new establishment. From that time the 
 two communions stood almost entirely apart in their external 
 position, as well as in their principles and polity ; and hence- 
 forth the present work, instead of proceeding in one unbroken 
 narrative, will, in separate portions, relate the history of 
 Episcopacy and Presbyterianism. 
 
380 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVI. 
 
 CHAPTER LXXVI. 
 
 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 FROM THE ABJURATION ACT OF APRIL, 1719, TO THE DEATH OF KING 
 GEORGE I. IN JUNE, 1727. 
 
 Death of Bisliop Rose — Meeting of the Clergy of Edinhurgh — 
 Bishop Fidlarton chosen Bishop of Edinhurgh and Frimus 
 — Dr. Gadderar appointed Bishop of Aberdeen — Contro- 
 versy about the Usages — Address by the Episcopal College 
 against the Usages — Answer by Dr. llattray — Death of 
 Bishop Falconer — Articles of Agreement regarding the 
 Usages — Disputed election by the clergy of Angus and 
 Mearns — Death of Bishop Fullarton — Election of Bishop 
 Millar to the see of Edinburgh — Dr. Rattray chosen Bishop 
 of Brechin — Death of Oeorge the First — Account of the 
 attempt to restore communion between the Nonjurors and the 
 Eastern Church. 
 
 In the autumn before the passing of the Abjuration Act, other 
 two consecrations had taken place in Scotland. The death 
 of Bishop Christie in 1718 again made it necessary to attend 
 to the preservation of the episcopal succession, there being on 
 that event only three resident bishops. On the twenty-second 
 of October, Arthur Millar, formerly minister at Inveresk, and 
 William Irvine, formerly minister at Kirkmichael in Carrick, 
 were consecrated at Edinburgh by the Bishop of Edinburgh, 
 and Bishops Fullarton and Falconer. Bishop Millar had been 
 deprived of his parochial cure by the committee of estates in 
 1689. He was one of the most active presbyters of the Non- 
 juring communion; and, though he had conducted himself 
 with prudence and moderation, he had not escaped the notice 
 of the government, having been among the Edinburgh clergy 
 who were tried for not praying for King George. Bishop 
 Irvine had been driven out of his parish, at the Revolution, by 
 the Canieronian rabble, and had made himself conspicuous, on 
 more than one occasion, by the most open avowal of his Jaco- 
 
A.D. 1720.] OF SCOTLAND. 381 
 
 bite principles. A little before the battle of Killikrankie, he 
 publicly officiated in presence of Dundee's army ; and he again 
 preached the same sermon which he had delivered at that 
 time, in the church of Kelso, in October, 1715, to the 
 Jacobite army commanded by Lord Kenmure and General 
 Foster. For his share in the former insurrection, he was 
 committed to prison, but made his escape, and resided for some 
 time at St. Germains ; for his conduct during the latter, he 
 suffered a long incarceration at London. ^ 
 
 On the twentieth of March, 1720, Bishop Kose died at 
 Edinburgh, in the seventy-fourth year of his age. His body 
 was interred in the ancient church of Restalrig. From the 
 time of his elevation to the episcopate, he had been called to 
 take a leading part in the government of the Church, and, 
 since the death of Archbishop Paterson, he was almost its 
 sole ruler. During a period of unexampled difficulty and 
 danger, his whole conduct had been marked by a union of 
 high principle, ability, and discretion ; and to him, more than 
 to any other person, was it owing that the clergy and laity, 
 however persecuted from without, however differing among 
 themselves on important questions ecclesiastical as well as 
 secular, remained for many years undisturbed by schism, and 
 yielded a willing obedience to spiritual superiors whose only 
 claim on their submission was the authority of their apostolic 
 office. 2 
 
 The death of Bishop Rose necessarily led to a change in 
 the form of ecclesiastical government which had been main- 
 tained since the Revolution. That form, though varying ir. 
 some respects at different times, had in all essential points 
 been a continuation of the old episcopal jurisdiction. The 
 whole power, as already explained, was for several years 
 centred in the person of the Bishop of Edinburgh, the last of 
 
 * Bishop Millar's deed of consecration, among the papers of the Episcopal 
 Church in Scotland, No. R. 17, of the Catalogue. Attested copy of Bishop Irvine's 
 deed of consecration, in the same collection, not numbered in the Catalogue. MS. 
 Memoirs of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, p. 6. Keith's Catalogue, p. 526. 
 Skinner, vol. ii. p 621. Patten's History of the Rebellion, as quoted by Burton, 
 vol. ii. p. 158. Lockhart Papers, vol.ii.p. 119. Collections for a History of the 
 Shires of Aberdeen and Banff, p. 306. 
 
 2 MS. Memoirs of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, p. 6. Keith's Catalogue, 
 p. 64. Skinner, vol. ii. p. 622. 
 
382 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVl. 
 
 the established prelates. His death left Scotland without a 
 single diocesan bishop. Of the six surviving prelates who 
 had been raised to the episcopate by Bishop Rose and his 
 colleagues, two, Campbell and Gadderar, resided in Eng- 
 land ; the other four, FuUarton, Falconer, Millar, and 
 Irvine, were in Scotland ; but none of them either possessed 
 or laid claim to any jurisdiction in virtue of his episcopal 
 character. The natural and proper course in such circum- 
 stances would have been the election of bishops, to fill the 
 vacant sees, by the clergy and laity of the several dioceses ; 
 and the care of the old ecclesiastical rulers in preserving the 
 episcopal succession would have rendered it unnecessary again 
 to resort to England for the grace of consecration. Had 
 this course been followed, and had the Church relied on 
 her own divine gifts, and refrained from mixing herself up 
 with mere political disputes, a great part of the Scottish 
 people might even yet have been won back to the apostolic 
 discipline. But it was otherwise appointed. The same cir- 
 cumstance which had already produced so much evil — the 
 undue interference of the secular authority in matters eccle- 
 siastical — again prevented the Church's restoration. 
 
 It was not from King George's government that the danger 
 proceeded. The Hanoverian statesmen did not claim any 
 right to interfere with the internal aiTangements of a body 
 whose existence in a corporate capacity they hardly recog- 
 nised ; but the political advisers of the banished prince were 
 unwilling to relinquish a power which was thought to be 
 necessary for the support of their master's cause. Unhappily 
 for themselves, most of the prelates, and a considerable num- 
 ber of the clergy, were not prepared to act independently, and 
 to disregard an influence which would have been powerless 
 the instant it was resisted. And according to the opinions 
 which they maintained, they would have been wrong in doing 
 so ; for they believed that their sovereign, though in exile and 
 holding a different religious belief, was as much entitled to 
 their allegiance as subjects and as ecclesiastics, as if he sat on 
 the throne of his fathers, and professed the creed of King 
 Charles the Martyr. That obedience did not indeed imply 
 any participation in the erroneous belief of their prince, or en- 
 couragement of the communion to which he belonged ; but it 
 
A.D. 1720.] OF SCOTLAND. 383 
 
 required a ready submission to his prerogatives, as supreme 
 governor over all estates in his kingdom, and as possessing 
 the right of nomination to the episcopal sees. 
 
 Such was the prevalent opinion among many of the clergy, 
 though a large and increasing party held wiser principles ; 
 and, even among the former, the force of circumstances re- 
 laxed in practice the rigour of their theory. Similar differ- 
 ences of opinion existed among the laity. They were all 
 attached to Episcopacy as a form of government ; and, among 
 the higher and educated classes, the constitution and doctrines 
 of the Church were now better understood than at any former 
 period. The more studious and inquiring had begun to doubt 
 the correctness of the exaggerated view so long prevalent in 
 regard to the royal supremacy in matters ecclesiastical, and 
 were prepared to co-operate heartily with those of the bishops 
 and clergy who contended for the intrinsic authority of the 
 Church. The greater number, however, of the nobility and 
 gentry were still determined to maintain unimpaired all the 
 prerogatives of the crown. The secular power was represented 
 by several noblemen and gentlemen, to whom, under the name 
 of Trustees, James had committed the management of his 
 affairs in Scotland ; and foremost among them was Lockhart 
 of Carnwath, one of the most able and active of the Jacobite 
 leaders —a man whose devotion to the cause he had espoused 
 was sincere and enthusiastic, but who was sometimes un- 
 scrupulous in regard to the means by which he sought to pro- 
 mote it. 
 
 Immediately after Bishop Kose's funeral, a meeting was 
 held of the clergy residing in Edinburgh and the neighbour- 
 hood, at which the three bishops, Falconer, Millar, and Irvine, 
 also attended. At this meeting it was resolved to fill the 
 vacant see of Edinburgh, and, after some opposition on the 
 part of the presbyters who had held parochial cures before the 
 Revolution, it was agreed that all the clergy should have an 
 equal voice in the election. The three bishops declared their 
 episcopal character, which, though probably known to all pre- 
 sent, may never have been formally avowed; and it was agreed 
 to adjourn to another day, in consequence of the absence of 
 Bishop Fullarton, the senior prelate. The clergy assembled 
 again in the month of April, and, on this occasion, Bishop 
 
384 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY Chap. LXXVI. 
 
 Fullarton was present with liis colleagues. Dr. Falconer, on 
 behalf of himself and his brethren, produced their deeds of 
 consecration, stating at the same time that, though they were 
 bishops of the Scottish Church, ordained for the purpose of 
 preserving the episcopal succession, they did not pretend to 
 jurisdiction over any particular place or district. 
 
 A third meeting took place on the following day, at which 
 the presbyters alone attended. They were about fifty in 
 number, and seem to have begun their proceedings, as in 
 former times, by naming a moderator and a clerk. Bishop 
 Fullarton was elected to the vacant see, and the choice was 
 ratified by the other prelates, who now assumed the name of 
 the Episcopal College, and appointed the newly chosen bishop 
 to be president of their body, with the title of Primus, but 
 without any metropolitan authority. The election of Bishop 
 Fullarton to the see of Edinburgh and the office of Primus was 
 notified by Bishop Falconer to the two absent prelates, Camp- 
 bell and Gadderar, for their approbation. On the fifth of May, 
 the Episcopal College sent an humble address, with an ac- 
 count of the whole proceedings, to James ; who returned a 
 gracious answer, intimating his approbation of the late 
 promotions, and dispensing with any informalities whicli 
 might have taken place, but, in regard to future appoint- 
 ments, requesting that the names of the persons proposed 
 should first be intimated to him, and assuring them that every 
 consideration would be given to their opinion on the point. 
 Lockhart, whose influence had been exerted to secure the election 
 of Bishop Fullarton, also wrote to the Chevalier, suggesting 
 that he should recommend the clergy to pay the same de- 
 ference to the Primus, which they had formerly given to 
 Bishop Rose, and also that the newly chosen bishop should be 
 appointed one of the trustees for the management of his in- 
 terests in Scotland. James complied with this suggestion, 
 and gave the requisite powers to Bishop Fullarton. ^ 
 
 ' Lockhart Papers, vol. ii. p. 35-42. MS. Memoirs of the Episcopal Church 
 in Scotland, pp. 6, 7. Memoirs of the Affairs of the Episcopal Church — appen- 
 dix to Lawson, p. 520-522. Rattray's Essay on the Church, p. 236-239. 
 Skinner, vol. ii. pp. 628, 629. See also letter from Bishop Falconer to Bishops 
 Campbell and Gadderar, dated 3d May, 1720, among the Papers of the Episcopal 
 Church in Scotland, No. D. 2, of the Catalogue. It is asserted by James Dundas, 
 in his Supplement to the View of the Election of Bishops in the Primitive 
 
A.D. 1720.1 OF SCOTLAND. 385 
 
 So far as Lockliart and tlic leading Jacobites were con- 
 cerned, the election of a successor to Bishop Rose was mainly 
 for the purpose of keeping the clergy united under one ecclesi- 
 astical superior, and firm in their allegiance to the exiled 
 prince. They had no wish or intention that the example 
 should be followed in other dioceses. But these views were 
 unknown to the clergy and laity generally, and would have 
 been disapproved of by many, had tliey been acknowledged. 
 Encouraged by what had taken place at Edinburgh, a large 
 body of the clergy of Angus, and those also in the Presbytery 
 of St. Andrews, requested Bishop Falconer, who resided in 
 Fife, to assume the spiritual superintendence of them and the 
 people committed to their charge ; promising to acknowledge 
 him as their proper bishop, and to pay him all due and canoni- 
 cal obedience. Their request was acceded to by Dr. Falconer, 
 whose principles in regard to ecclesiastical government were 
 entirely favourable to a restoration of the diocesan, system, 
 so far as circumstances permitted. While this arrangement 
 was in the course of being carried tlirough, it appears that 
 proposals were made, probably by the two prelates in London, 
 to the College of Bishops, to divide the whole kingdom into 
 districts, and to appoint bishops for the superintendence of 
 each. In the month of September, the Bishop of Edinburgh 
 wrote to Bishops Campbell and Gadderar, mentioning that 
 such a plan was most desirable in itself, but referring to the 
 great practical difficulties from the want of funds for the sup- 
 port of diocesan bishops. He added that Bishop Falconer 
 would be very acceptable to most of the clergy and laity 
 beyond the Forth ; but that he saw no prospect of having 
 others settled elsewhere, unless the two bishops in London 
 would themselves come down and accept of districts. In these 
 proposals, the name of district was used instead of diocese ; 
 and, in the arrangement actually carried out in regard to 
 Bishop Falconer, even the old territorial limits of the eccle- 
 siastical divisions were disregarded. This was owing, partly 
 perhaps to motives of convenience, but chiefly to a wish to 
 
 Church, preface, pp. iv. v., that Bishop Fiillartou derived liis authority not only 
 as Primus, but as Bishop of EJinbnrgli, from the otlier bishops, and that hia 
 episcopal jurisdiction was restricted "to the temporary ecclesiastic inspection of 
 the city of Edinburgh." There appears to be no sufficient evidence of this. 
 
 VOL. III.] 26 
 
386 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVI. 
 
 avoid interfering with tlie supposed prerogatives of their 
 sovereign,^ 
 
 An attempt was made by the clergy and laity of the 
 diocese, or rather of the county, of Aberdeen, to obtain the 
 episcopal superintendence of Bishop Falconer ; but his proper 
 district required all his attention, and prevented his com- 
 plying with their wishes. They subsequently asked and 
 obtained the licence of the Episcopal College to proceed to 
 the election of a bishop. Dr. George Garden had been spoken 
 of as likely to be chosen ; but the support which he had given 
 to Madam Bourignon's opinions rendered him unsuitable for 
 the office. The College suggested that there was no need for 
 a new consecration ; and that, if the clergy would agree to 
 nominate a fit person from among the present bishops, the 
 individual so nominated would, if approved of, be ordered to 
 reside within the district assigned to him. The clergy of 
 Aberdeen met on the tenth of May, 1721, and elected Bishop 
 Campbell as their ordinary ; but the choice was not satisfac- 
 tory to the majority of the other prelates. 
 
 Bishop Campbell had excited suspicion by his strong advo- 
 cacy of those liturgical practices which had already led to a 
 schism among the English Nonjurors. The College, how- 
 ever, offered to ratify his election, if he would promise not to 
 maintain any doctrines or usages which were without sanc- 
 tion from the canons of the Church ; but he refused to comply 
 with this proposal, and the bishops therefore intimated to the 
 clergy of Aberdeen that their choice was not approved of. 
 Campbell, nevertheless, held himself to be canonically elected ; 
 and, as he continued to reside at London, he sent his friend 
 Bishop Gadderar to Aberdeen, with a commission to act as 
 his vicar. According to Skinner's narrative, Bishop Camp- 
 bell, to avoid giving unnecessary offence to his brethren, 
 yielded his right in favour of Dr. Gadderar, who had been 
 proposed as a candidate along with himself; and the latter, 
 coming to Scotland, was received by the clergy of Aberdeen 
 with entire satisfaction, and with a ready profession of canoni- 
 cal obedience. It is certain, however, that Dr. Gadderar acted 
 for some time only as vicar, suffragan, or commendator ; and 
 
 ^ Skinner, vol. ii. pp. 629, 630. " Bishop John Falconer and his Friends" — 
 Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal, vol. iii. p. 31. 
 
A.D. 1722.] OF SCOTLAND. 387 
 
 it was not till the year 1725 that Bishop Campbell resigned 
 the see in his favour by a formal deed. Even in that docu- 
 ment, Bishop Campbell reserved his right, in the event of his 
 being able to come to Aberdeen and claim it ; though it does 
 not appear that Dr. Gaddcrar or the clergy of the diocese 
 agreed to a stipulation so irregular. ^ 
 
 On the seventeenth of October, 1722, two presbyters, 
 Andrew Cant and David Freebairn, were consecrated to the 
 episcopate, at Edinburgh, by the Primus, and Bishops Millar 
 and Irvine. Bishop Cant was the son of the Principal of the 
 College of Edinburgh, and grandson of the Covenanting mini- 
 ster, both of the same name. Before the Bevolution, he was 
 one of the ministers of the capital ; and he was formerly referred 
 to in connection with the appointment of Bishop Pose to the 
 see of Edinburgh. Bishop Freebairn was originally minister 
 at Dunning. His character for learning and ability was not 
 very high, and the Episcopal College agreed to his consecra- 
 tion only in compliance with the urgent and repeated requests 
 of James. 2 
 
 The liturgical practices, to which reference has been made, 
 were now meeting with increased support both among the 
 clergy and the laity. No external influence had been exerted 
 in their favour ; and against them was arrayed the whole 
 weight of popular prejudice, the force of habit, the aversion to 
 ritual which since the Reformation had almost become a part 
 of the Scottish character, and the power of those who acted in 
 name of the exiled prince. The authority of the Episcopal 
 College leant in the same direction. Falconer alone was a 
 strenuous advocate for these practices ; Gadderar had not 
 yet arrived from London ; Fullarton and Millar, though some- 
 times wavering, were generally adverse to them ; the other 
 bishops, particularly Irvine, were decidedly opposed to them. 
 
 1 Lockhart Papers, vol. ii. pp. 101, 102. MS. Memoirs of the Episcopal 
 Church in Scotland, p. 7. Skinner, vol. ii. p. 630. Scottish Ecclesiastical 
 Journal, vol. iii. pp. 31, 58 ; vol. vi. pp. 92, 93. Scottish Magazine, new series, 
 vol. iii. p. 478. 
 
 - Bishop Cant's deed of consecration, among the Papers of the Episcopal Church 
 in Scotland, No. R. 18, of the Catalogue. Pishop Frecbairn's deed of consecration, 
 in the same collection, not numbered in the Catalogue. MS. Memoirs of the 
 Episcopal Church in Scotland, p. 7. Lockhart Papers, vol. ii. pp. 49, 76, 93, 
 94. Skinner, vol. ii. p. 642. 
 
388 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVI. 
 
 Their adoption was entirely owing to the zeal and learn- 
 ing of their principal supporters, and to the conviction on 
 the part of those who maintained them, that they were war- 
 ranted by the Scriptures, and sanctioned by the authority and 
 example of the primitive Church, They now became known 
 by the name of the Usages ; and, so far as the Eucharistic 
 office was concerned, were chiefly the following : — the Mixing 
 of water with the wine ; the Commemoration of the faithful 
 departed ; the use of an express prayer of Invocation ; and the 
 use of a formal prayer of Oblation. There were also others, 
 unconnected with the Eucharist, on which some insisted, but 
 to which less importance was attached ; such as Immersion in 
 Baptism, and the use of Chrism both in Baptism and in Con- 
 firmation. 
 
 The usages received a certain degree of support from the 
 Scottish Prayer Book of 1637 ; but there can be no doubt 
 that their advocates in Scotland acted, to a considerable 
 extent, in accordance with the opinions entertained by many 
 of their brethren in tlie South. From the accession of 
 Elizabeth, there had existed a school of English divines, who 
 regretted the changes made by the second Liturgy of King 
 Edward the Sixth, and who would have gladly restored the 
 first Liturgy of that reign. The compilers of the Service 
 Book of 1637 followed the principles of this school, in draw- 
 ing up the office for the Holy Communion ; and, at the revi- 
 sion of the English Prayer Book in the reign of Charles the 
 Second, changes were made in the same direction. A con- 
 siderable number of those who left the communion of the esta- 
 blished Church of England at the Bevolution had a strong 
 preference for the older forms ; and, after some time, attempts 
 were made to introduce them in their places of worship. This, 
 however, was opposed by others, and the Nonjuring body 
 became gradually divided into two parties — the supporters of 
 the usages headed by Collier and Brett, and their opponents, 
 of whom the most distinguished was Spinckes. 
 
 In the year 1718, when the dispute ran high among the 
 English Nonjurors, both parties applied to the Scottish pre- 
 lates for their advice and opinion. Bishops Rose and Falconer 
 declined to give any formal determination, but recommended 
 unity and mutual forbearance, and employed Thomas Rattray, 
 
A.D. 1722.] OF SCOTLAND. 389 
 
 one of the most learned members of tlieir communion, to draw 
 up proposals for reconciling their differences. Bishop Rose 
 expressed his individual opinion in a letter to Falconer, written 
 in May of the year above mentioned. " For my own part," 
 he said, " seeing so much stress laid upon these usages, I am 
 very desirous of farther information, being resolved, God will- 
 ing, if I find them strictly necessary, to embrace them, with 
 all the disadvantages that may attend them ; if only lawful, 
 someway useful, or desirable, prudence in such case, and in 
 such cases only, ought to be consulted." Bishop Falconer, 
 as already mentioned, entertained a much stronger 0])inion 
 in their favour ; and, for many years back, and before any dis- 
 putes arose in England, had used the mixed cup, and conse- 
 crated according to the form in the Scottish Liturgy. A few 
 days before the date of Bishop Eose's letter, just referred to, 
 he had thus Avritten to that prelate : — " I have reason to be- 
 lieve that those primitive usages, the restoring of which is 
 so much laboured by these pious and learned persons, were 
 indeed apostolical ; they being delivered to us by men who 
 contended for the faith once delivered to the saints, some of 
 whom sealed that faith with their blood, who lived near the 
 fountain-head, who, under God, were the conveyancers of the 
 Holy Scriptures to posterity, and who themselves also were 
 indued with charismata. Tliese qualifications state them most 
 veracious and unexceptionable witnesses ; and, to think other- 
 wise, is, in my opinion, to sap the foundations, even to shake 
 the credibility of the blissful Scriptures themselves, and of the 
 Church, the ground and pillar of truth. Hence it will follow 
 that the restoration of them Is most desirable ; the rather that 
 Catholic unity (which to procure when subsisting, and to 
 restore when broken, is the Indispensable duty of every 
 Christian, chiefly of the governors of the Church,) cannot be 
 established but on this primitive footing." ^ 
 
 Soon after the consecration of Bishops Cant and Freebairn, 
 
 1 Skinner, vol. ii. p. 622-628. This historian mentions that Irvine derived 
 his strong opinions against the usages from Spinckes, with whom he became 
 acquainted in the year 1715, when " his occasions had carried him up to London." 
 The occasion tlius vaguely alluded to was his imprisonment iu the Fleet, for his 
 share in Mar's insurrection. An account of Rattray's paper, and some extracts 
 from it, are given in " Bishop John Falconer and his Friends " — Scottish Ecclesi - 
 astical Journal, vol. iii. pp. 29, 30. 
 
390 ECCLESIASTICAL HTSTOEY [Chap. LXXVI. 
 
 an attempt was made by tlie opponents of the usages in Scot- 
 land to obtain their formal condemnation. A meeting of the 
 Episcopal College was held at Edinburgh, in the month of De- 
 cember, which was attended by the six resident bishops, and 
 by Gadderar, now on his way to Aberdeen : Lockhart also 
 was present on the part of tlic trustees. According to Lock- 
 hart's narrative, both parties endeavoured to justify themselves 
 by an appeal to the practice of the first ages of the Church ; 
 but he stopped them, mentioning that it was not his province 
 to judge of such points, that he was directed in the king's 
 name to recommend unity and harmony, that they ought to 
 avoid everything which could give their adversaries a handle 
 to calumniate them, and, for that purpose, that each individual 
 among them should submit to the general voice of the College, 
 the more especially as they could not oppose its authority 
 without resisting that of the king. Falconer and Gadderar 
 professed their loyalty to James, but declared that what they 
 were doing had no concern with affairs of state. Lockhart 
 answered that the consequences of their proceedings would 
 afiect both Church and State; and therefore he required them to 
 proceed no farther in the matter till the king's pleasure should 
 be known. 
 
 Falconer was disposed to acquiesce in the meantime ; but 
 Gadderar, a man of firmness and resolution, and no way in- 
 clined to give up his ecclesiastical rights, or to govern his 
 conduct according to the bidding of any external authority, 
 proceeded to his diocese, where he was well received, and soon 
 acquired the confidence and support both of the clergy and 
 the laity. 
 
 Alarmed by the state of matters in the North, the Episco- 
 pal College again met at Edinburgh, on the twelfth of Feb- 
 ruary, 1723, and set fortli an injunction, in name of a majority 
 of their body, addressed to the clergy and laity of the Epis- 
 copal Church, warning all to shun those practices which had 
 already been so dangerous to others, and requiring the clergy 
 to subscribe a formula containing a promise not to introduce 
 the objectionable usages — the Mixture in the Eucharistic cup 
 and Prayers for the dead being specially mentioned. No ex- 
 press reference was made to the Invocation and the Oblation ; 
 and these indeed could hardly have been prohibited, since the 
 
A.D. 1723.] OF SCOTLAND. 391 
 
 College declared^ that tliej had given permission to their 
 scrupulous brethren to use the Communion Office according to 
 the form in the Scottish Liturgy. 
 
 To this address an answer was drawn up by Eattray, 
 entitled " Some Remarks on the circular letter of the Edin- 
 burgh Bishops." He objected to the opening words of the 
 address — " Unto the Episcopal Church of Scotland, as well 
 clergy as laity, the plurality of the College of Bishops, who 
 have the inspection and superintendence of the said Church, 
 send greeting." '' This letter," he says, " is directed to the 
 Episcopal Church of Scotland, as if there were or could be 
 another Church in it, which is not episcopal ; whereas, accord- 
 ing to St. Ignatius, 'without these' (viz., the three orders of 
 Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons,) ' it is not called a Church.' 
 And St. Cyprian's definition of a Church is — the people 
 united to their priest, and the flock adhering to their pastor. 
 From whence he infers — Therefore you ought to know that a 
 bishop is necessarily in a Church, and that the Church exists 
 in its Bishop. But it seems they have more favourable 
 thoughts of our Presbyterian conventicles, so as to allow them 
 to be Churches, though they may think them less perfect 
 ones ; otherwise there would have been no need for this dis- 
 tinction, and it would have been sufficient to have directed to 
 the Church, or rather, in the plural number. Churches of 
 Scotland, or to tlie Catholic Church which is in Scotland, 
 according to the primitive manner * or rather to the presby- 
 ters and deacons and all the people of the Church of Scotland, 
 which is more proper when the bishops write to the inferior 
 clergy and people only ; since the word Churcli includes the 
 bishop himself. But this they did not perhaps like so well, 
 because it is primitive ; the very design of this letter being to 
 discharge some of the jjrimitive usages of the Catholic Church. 
 They call themselves the plurality of the College of Bishops, 
 who have the inspection and superintendence of the said 
 Church. But how bishops at large, who have no title to 
 any particular diocese or district in Scotland as not being 
 canonically elected thereto, can have any super intendency 
 over the national Church of Scotland, so as to challenge the 
 obedience of the clergy and people, (since a national Church 
 is made up of particular dioceses or districts, that is, of parti- 
 
392 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVI. 
 
 cnlar Churches, and of the particular bishops thereof as heads 
 and principles of unity to the particular Churches,) it concerns 
 them to shew from the nature of ecclesiastical government, or 
 from any practice or precedent of the primitive Catholic 
 Churches. A bishop at large may indeed perform episcopal 
 acts in a vacant diocese, but cannot challenge the obedience 
 of the clergy and people of that diocese antecedently to a 
 canonical election. They will, perhaps, pretend to govern 
 the Churcli of Scotland in common, as if it were only one 
 district, and all of them equally bishops of it ; but how will 
 they reconcile this with the primitive Catholic maxim, that 
 there can be but unus episcopus in una Ecclesia, which is a 
 fundamental position of ecclesiastical government ? " 
 
 In regard to the usages condemned by the College, Rattray 
 stated that, though they had not ventured expressly to men- 
 tion the Oblation and the Invocation, these also were objected 
 to, notwithstanding the well known opinion of himself and 
 others, that they were not merely of an indifferent nature, and 
 to be left to the determination of the Church, but " necessary 
 parts of the highest act of public Cliristian worship, and of 
 divine appointment, as being instituted by Christ Himself, or 
 by his Apostles, and by them delivered to the Catholic 
 Church." 
 
 Neither Falconer nor Gadderar was present at the meeting 
 in February. The latter was the person against whom its 
 warnings were chiefly directed. The former, though anxious 
 for peace, was opposed to the strong measures taken by the 
 College. In a letter written to Robert Keith, tlien one of the 
 presbyters of Edinburgh, he thus expressed himself: — "As 
 long as governors hold to that golden rule. Quod semper, quod 
 ubique, quod ab omnibus, and in case of exorient innova- 
 tions endeavour, with a spirit of meekness, to deliver their 
 flocks from those wrong thoughts which have impressed them, 
 and taken hold of their passions, they act their duty. But if 
 they do otherwise, their account is great ; and temporising in 
 favour of popular humour will not bear at the day when it will 
 be examined whether they have pleased men or God. I know 
 that some reckon nothing an imposition but affirmatives, but 
 negatives, for ought I know, are also impositions ; witness 
 prohibiting the cup to the laity, forbidding the public worship 
 
A.D. 1723.] OF SCOTLAND. 393 
 
 in tlic vernacular tongue, &c. I heartily wish my bretlircn 
 had not grounded their manifesto on the reason of these 
 usages being obsolete and antiquated, seeing this will stand in 
 bar to all reformation of principles and practices that are inve- 
 terate and have long obtained. Geneva, and the numerous 
 ecclesiastical foreign bodies, may full as reasonftbly plead this 
 against Episcopacy, Liturgy, &c. It may be pleaded also by 
 the majority of the Scottish nation now against many things 
 which are helped to the better since the devolution, and might 
 have been boggled at as obsolete and antiquated by our 
 people, wlio should be gently led into a due regard to their 
 superiors, and not prescribe rules to them, which seems to be 
 the cause of that great zeal which the bishops shew against 
 the ancient usages." 
 
 Bishop Falconer was soon afterwards taken to his rest. He 
 died on the sixth of July, leaving a name honoured and reve- 
 renced by all who had an opportunity of knowing his learning 
 and worth, his humility and charity,' and' those other qualities 
 in which he resembled the holy bishops of primitive times. ^ 
 
 ' Lockliart Papers, vol. ii. p. 94-99. Skinuer, voi. ii. p. 630-632. See also 
 Stephen, vol. iv. p. 183-201, where the address and formula of the College, and 
 the answer by Eattray, are given at length, the answer being copied from the 
 original among Bishop Jolly's MSS. In "Bishop John Falconer and his 
 Friends" (Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal, vol. iii. p. 78), there is the follow- 
 ing contemporary notice of Bishop Falconer: — "He was a gentleman well 
 born, being a descendant of the Lord Halkerton's family. He applied himself 
 from his youth to the study of divinity. He was made Rector of Carnbee in 
 Fife, and there married a daughter of the Lord Dunkeld, by whom he had two 
 sons. He was afterwards most deservedly promoted to a higher station ic the 
 Church, and there he was obliged to exert his capacity, which he did with much 
 wisdom and prudence ; and which from his innate modesty he had till then en- 
 deavoured to conceal, except when his duty or character made it necessary. He 
 was a gentleman endued with great meekness, moderation, and charity, with 
 exemplary piety and great humility . . . of good natural parts and great learn- 
 ing. He always applied himself more particularly and closely to the study of 
 the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the early Fathers, in both which he was 
 a great proficient. From these he formed his principles ; and his life and prac- 
 tice v?ere as primitively Catholic as was his doctrine ; and no outward difficulties 
 did ever move him out of this road. He was calm, serene, and unifoim, under 
 the many pressures of very narrow circumstances, having no fortune to sus- 
 tain him for many years before his demise, but what divine providence kindly 
 afforded him from day to day. And indeed he needed the less, because ho 
 only desired and was well content with a little. He much lamented the dis- 
 putes in religion, and the divisions of Christendom both at home and abroad, and 
 the great decay of primitive doctrine, worship, discipline, government, and 
 
394 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVI. 
 
 Some of the trustees were desirous that still stronger mea- 
 sures should be taken against Gadderar and the supporters of 
 the usages, and wrote to the Chevalier requesting his inter- 
 ference. Lockhart appears to have been frightened by the 
 rumours which were prevalent among Presbyterians that the 
 clergy were ntaking advances to the Church of Kome, but he 
 saw the absurdity of appealing to a zealous member of that 
 Church to warn his subjects against the supposed errors ; and 
 James himself, either holding the same view, or reasonably 
 apprehensive of increasing the disputes among his adherents 
 by intermeddling with them, answered only in general terms. 
 The bishops also, though at one time they came to the resolu- 
 tion of summoning Gadderar before them, finally adopted more 
 moderate counsels. On the fourth of July, 1724, after a per- 
 sonal conference at Edinburgh, certain articles were drawn up, 
 and signed by Bishop Gadderar on the one hand, and by the 
 Primus, and Bishops Millar, Irvine, Cant, and Freebairn, on 
 the other. 
 
 The following were the terms of the agreement : — " Bishop 
 James Gadderar, whatever may be his sentiments concerning 
 the Mixture, yet being most desirous to have the bond of 
 peace and cement of unity with his brethren firmly established, 
 makes the following concession and declaration : — First, That 
 he is willing, whenever any occasion offers of communicating 
 with his brethren, to receive the unmixed cup at their hands. 
 Secondly, That he will not in his ministrations in any con- 
 gregation mix publicly, and will use his best endeavours that 
 all under his inspection shall walk by the same rule. Thirdly, 
 And forasmuch as the Primus and the abovenamed bishops, 
 his colleagues, have also permitted the Scottish Liturgy to 
 such of the clergy as shall think fit to use it, therefore the said 
 Bishop Gadderar declares and promises that he will not insist 
 upon introducing any of the other ancient usages which have 
 not been authorised and generally received in this Church ; 
 and that, to prevent any divisions in the Church, he will dis- 
 charge the introducing them into the public worship within 
 his district, unless the Primus and the rest of his brethren, in 
 
 practice : and he laid tlie melancholy state of tlie Church of Scotland very much 
 to heart. In short, he was a man of a truly Catholic spirit, much beloved and 
 respected by all who knew and had a relish of his virtue and piety." 
 
A.D. 1724.] OF SCOTLAND. 395 
 
 a lawful convocation, shall see sufficient reason to order matters 
 otherwise. Fourthly, The Primus and the other bishops 
 abovenaraed do grant their authority and commission to the 
 said Bishop Gadderar to officiate as Bishop of the district of 
 Aberdeen for the future — with this express condition, that he 
 do not ascribe his officiating there to any delegation or substi- 
 tution for any other person whatsoever, but only to the elec- 
 tion of the presbyters, and authority of the bishops of this 
 Church. Fifthly, Forasmuch as the above articles are de- 
 signed merely to preserve and establish peace and unity in the 
 Church, it is thought expedient that, for removing all mis- 
 takes and misrepresentations, the said Primus, Bishop Millar, 
 Bishop Irvine, Bishop Cant, and Bishop Freebairn, now de- 
 clare, as hereby they expressly declare, that nothing contained 
 in the said articles shall extend, or be construed to extend, or 
 imply, that they have approved of the Mixture, either in public 
 or private administrations in the Holy Eucharist." ^ 
 
 The prudence and firmness of Bishop Gadderar had thus far 
 been successful in maintaining the high liturgical doctrines, 
 and the principle of ecclesiastical independence, for which the 
 most zealous of the clergy and laity were contending. His 
 many high qualities were appreciated, not only in the diocese 
 of x^berdeen, but in all the northern districts. Since his com- 
 ing from London he had ordained various presbyters and 
 deacons for Murray ; and, on the seventeenth of June, 1725, 
 he was formally elected bishop by the clergy of that diocese, 
 assembled in the college at Elgin. ^ 
 
 While the controversy in regard to the usages was going 
 on, the Episcopal College had recommended the consecration 
 of four additional bishops, and through Lockhart had obtained 
 the consent of James. The persons proposed were Alexander 
 Duncan, formerly minister at Kilbirnie,E.obert Norrie, formerly 
 one of the ministers of Dundee, James Eose, a brother of the 
 late Bishop of Edinburgh, formerly minister at Monimail, and 
 
 1 Lockhart Papers, vol. ii. p. 100-124. Skinner, vol. ii. p. 032-634. MS. 
 Memoirs of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, pp. 8, 33, 34. The fifth of the 
 articles given in the text from the Memoirs of the Episcopal Church is omitted 
 hy Skinner. 
 
 - See deed of election of Bishop Gadderar, hy the clergy of Murray, among 
 the Papers of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, not numbered in the Catalogue. 
 See also Scottish Magaziue, new series, vol. iii. p. 479-481- 
 
396 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVI. 
 
 John Ochterloniej who had succeeded an uncle of the same 
 name as minister at Aberlemno, and liad kept possession of 
 that church till the year 1716. None of them was distin- 
 guished by any particular fitness for the episcopal office ; and 
 the last-mentioned clergyman was so strong a political parti- 
 zan, that Bishop Gadderar opposed his elevation, and even the 
 Primus withdrew his consent to it. Bishops Duncan and 
 Norrie were consecrated at Edinburgh, on the feast of St. 
 James, 1724, by tlie Primus, and Bishops Millar, Irvine, and 
 Freebairn. In consequence of the objections referred to, the 
 consecration of Ochterlonie was postponed for some time ; but 
 on the twenty-ninth of November, 1726, he and James Rose 
 were consecrated at Edinburgh, by Bishops Freebairn, Cant, 
 and Duncan. 
 
 Immediately after the consecration of Bishops Duncan and 
 Norrie, it was proposed to appoint the former to the superin- 
 tendence of tlie diocese of Glasgow, and the latter to that of 
 the counties of Angus and Mearns, and part of Perthshire. 
 The Primus having insisted that tliis should only be done with 
 the consent of the clergy and laity of those districts, Bishop 
 Duncan was at once accepted, and settled accordingly ; but a 
 majority of the presbyters and a considerable number of tlie 
 gentry of Angus and Mearns opposed the appointment of 
 Bishop Norrie, wishing rather to have Dr. Rattray for their 
 bishop. At a meeting of the Episcopal (vollege, held in the 
 beginning of winter in the year 1724, Dr. Rattray appeared 
 in name of the remonstrant clergy, and the Earl of Panmure 
 for the laity. On behalf of Bishop Norrie, there were pro- 
 duced the written approbation of the minority of the presbyters, 
 and letters from the Earl of Strathmore and Lord Gray, as 
 representing the laity. 
 
 The discussion which took place on this occasion is impor- 
 tant, as marking the opinions held by the two parties into 
 
 * Bishop Duncau's deed of consecration, among the Papers of the Epis- 
 copal Church in Scotland, not numbered in the Catalogue. Lockhart Papers, 
 vol. ii. pp. 105, 111-117, 124, 329. MS. Memoirs of the Episcopal Church 
 in Scotland, p. 9. Skinner, vol. ii. pp. 642, 643. Wodrow, writing in May, 
 1711. mentions that, for two years before that date, the Presbyterian minis- 
 ter at Aberlemno had nobody to hear him, " because an intruder, Mr. Achter- 
 lony, who has an estate in the parish, hinders the people to hear him, and 
 preaches to them." (Correspondence, vol. i. p. 223.) 
 
A.D. 1724.] OF SCOTLAND. 397 
 
 which tlie Cliurch was now divided. Lockhart, who was 
 present, and who dreaded the effect which such a conflict would 
 have on his master's interests, requested to be informed, in the 
 first place, in whom the power of electing a Lishop was lodged. 
 Lord Panmure answered, with some warmth, that, by the 
 legal establishment of the Church of Scotland, the right be- 
 longed to the dean and chapter ; but, as such a right could not 
 then be exercised, that the best method to follow was that of 
 the primitive Church, where no bishop could be appointed to 
 any diocese without the concurrence of the majority of the 
 clergy, and the approbation of the people ; and in this he was 
 supported by the Primus, the Bishop of Aberdeen, and Dr. 
 Rattray. Lockhart stated in reply that he highly approved 
 of such a plan, in so far as due regard was to be given to the 
 inclinations of the clergy and people, but that the point was 
 not an essential one ; that he reverenced the ancient Fathers 
 of the Church, but did not think that future ages were 
 to be bound in all respects by their example ; and that under 
 the present circumstances, and considering what daily occurred 
 in the popular calls of Presbyterian ministers, he thought that 
 the entrusting of the power to the clergy and people would not 
 be expedient, especially as, by the legal constitution of the 
 Church, the choice, properly speaking, did not belong to the 
 dean and chapter, since they were obliged to elect tlie person 
 nominated by the sovereign. He, therefore, thought that it 
 would be necessary for the king to assume the power which 
 belonged to him ; but, in the present case, he was of opinion 
 that the objections to Bishop Norrie should be considered by 
 the College. 
 
 The meeting separated without coming to a decision. After 
 some time, however, a majority of the prelates disallowed the 
 votes of several of the remonstrant presbyters, and appointed 
 Bishop Non'ie to the superintendence of the district. This 
 resolution was contrary to the opinion of the Bishops of 
 Edinburgh and Aberdeen ; but their opposition, and a claim 
 which they made for a veto to the former as Primus and 
 Metropolitan, were disregarded. Dr. Rattray protested against 
 the appointment, and the clergy and people with whom he 
 acted refused to acknowledge it. 
 
 In order to guard against such disputes in time to come. 
 
398 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVI. 
 
 James, by the advice of his trustees, intimated his wish to the 
 Primus that, in future, both liimself and those who acted for 
 him in Scotland should be consulted before any particular dis- 
 trict was assigned to a bishop.^ 
 
 Bishop Fullarton was advanced in years and of infirm 
 health ; and it became an important object with Lockhart 
 and the other advisers of James to consider who was best 
 qualified to succeed him as Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus. 
 The appointment itself they proposed to settle by a direct 
 nomination from their master, when a vacancy should take 
 place. Bishop Irvine was at first fixed on as the fittest person ; 
 and, on his death, which occurred in November, 1725, 
 they suggested either Bishop Cant or Bishop Duncan, and a 
 letter to that effect was accordingly written by James. The 
 party, however, among the clergy and the laity, which was 
 not disposed to acquiesce in such injunctions, was increasing in 
 influence and numbers, and, generally speaking, was identified 
 with those who were favourable to the introduction of the 
 usages. The presbyters of Edinburgh, learning that another 
 consecration had been recommended by the Chevalier — that 
 of John Gillan, a person of irreproachable life, of considerable 
 ability, but, though not a young man, only recently promoted 
 to holy orders — resolved to remonstrate against it. In this 
 they were supported by Bishop Millar, who hitherto had on 
 most occasions acted with the College party, but is said to 
 have feared that the recommendation was preliminary to the 
 appointment of Gillan as successor to the primacy, an office to 
 which he himself aspired. In their remonstrance, the presby- 
 ters entreated the College of Bishops to lay hold of the pre- 
 sent opportunity of recovering those rights of the Church 
 which had been so much encroached upon since the Reforma- 
 tion ; and they accused James of breaking the promise which 
 he had made not to recommend any to the episcopate until after 
 advising with the bishops. One of the leading Edinburgh 
 clergy was Robert Keith. In a personal conference. Lock- 
 hart endeavoured to persuade Keith to abandon his opposi- 
 tion ; and, when he found that his arguments produced no 
 effect, he said that Keith and his friends were a set of factious 
 
 1 Lockhart Papers, vol. ii. pp. 124-130, 147, 152, 324. See Dr. Eattray's 
 Protestation in appendix, No. i. to liis Essay on the Church. 
 
^.D. 1727.] OF SCOTLAND. 399 
 
 priests who were serving the Covenanted cause, and who 
 ought to change tlieir bUick gowns for brown cloaks. Soon 
 after this conversation, warrants were issued by the govern- 
 ment for apprehending Lockhart, wliosc political intrigues 
 had become known ; and, to avoid imprisonment, he fled from 
 Scotland, and sought refuge on the Continent.^ 
 
 The death of Bishop Norrie took place in March, 1727; 
 and that of Bisliop FuUarton in the end of the following 
 month. The latter event, which had for some time been ex- 
 pected, led to open dissension between the two parties in the 
 Church. The clergy of Edinburgh met on the fifth of May, 
 on the summons of Andrew Lumsden, one of their number, 
 who had received a commission from the late bishop to act as 
 his archdeacon, and as constant moderator of the presbyters of 
 the diocese. They elected Bishop Millar as their diocesan ; and 
 he was thereupon acknowledged by the Bishop of Aberdeen, 
 and by Bishop Cant, not only as Primus, hut as Vicar-ge- 
 neral and Metropolitan. The other bishops, Freebairn, Duncan, 
 Rose, and Ochterlonie, refused to sanction the election. • 
 
 About the same time the clergy of the Mearns, and of parts 
 of Angus and Perthshire, chose Dr. Rattray as their ordinary, 
 who assumed the title of Bishop of Brechin, and was conse- 
 crated at Edinburgh, on the fourth of June, by the Bishops of 
 Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and Bishop Cant. Both parties 
 soon afterwards proceeded to new consecrations. William 
 Dunbar, who had been deprived in 1716 of tlie parochial cure 
 of Cruden, to which he had been appointed subsequently to 
 the Revolution, and Robert Keith, were consecrated at Edin- 
 burgh, on the eighteenth of June, by the Bishops of Edin- 
 burgh, Aberdeen, and Brecliin. Dunbar had lately been 
 elected bishop by the clergy of Murray and Ross, the previous 
 election of Dr. Gadderar to the former of those dioceses having 
 probably never been confirmed ; and Keith was designed to 
 be coadjutor in the see of Edinburgh. On the twenty-second 
 of June, John Gillan and David Ranken, presbyters in Edin- 
 burgh, were consecrated in that city by Bishops Freebairn, 
 Duncan, Rose, and Ochterlonie. ^ 
 
 1 Lockhart Papers, vol. ii. pp. 119, 144, 232, 237, 271, 289, 310, 322-332. 
 Skinner, vol. ii. p. G94. 
 - Bishop Dunbar's deed of consecration, anaong the Papers of the Episcopal 
 
400 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVI. 
 
 King George the First died on the eleventh of June, 
 1727. 
 
 Tliis seems to be the fittest place for a brief account of an 
 attempt which was made by some of the Nonjuring bishops, 
 during the reign of the first Hanoverian sovereign, to restore 
 the long interrupted communion with the distant Churches of 
 the East. 
 
 In the year 1716, an Eastern prelate, Arsenius, Metropoli- 
 tan of Thebais, was in England, for tlie purpose of soliciting 
 alms for the suffering Christians of Egypt, Bishop Camp- 
 bell had some conversation with him on the subject of a 
 union of the Eastern and Western Churches, and afterwards 
 made the matter known to his English brethren, most of 
 whom were disposed to enter into the scheme. 
 
 Certain articles were drawn up in August, 1716, to be com- 
 municated to the Eastern Churches by Arsenius. They were 
 entitled " A Proposal for a Concordate betwixt the Orthodox 
 and Catholic remnant of the British Churches, and the Catholic 
 and Apostolic Oriental Church." Twelve preliminary points 
 were laid down, the first two of which were, " That the 
 Church of Jerusalem be acknowledged as the true Mother 
 Church, and principle of ecclesiastical unity, whence all the 
 other Churches have been derived, and to which therefore they 
 owe a peculiar regard ;" and " That a principality of order be, 
 in consequence hereof, allowed to the Bishop of Jerusalem 
 above all other Christian bishops." The third and fourth points 
 related to the privileges of the Churches of Antioch, Alex- 
 andria, and Constantinople ; it being declared, in particular, 
 that the Bishop of Constantinople should be acknowledged as 
 possessing the same powers and privileges as the Bishop of 
 E-ome. The remaining points do not require special notice. 
 
 The British prelates next stated wherein they agreed, and 
 wherein they could not agree, with the Eastern Church. It 
 will be unnecessary to mention the points in which they agreed, 
 these being, for the most part, such as were held either by all 
 Christians, or by the English and Eastern Churches in oppo- 
 
 Cburch in Scotland, No. E.. 20, of tte Catalogne. Lockhart Papers, vol. ii. pp. 329, 
 333, 334. MS. Memoirs of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, p. 9-12. Rat- 
 tray's Essay on the Church, p. 241. Keith's Catalogue, p. 652. Skinner, vol. 
 ii. p. 643-645. 
 
A.D. 1727.] OF SCOTLAND. 401 
 
 sition to Rome. The points in wliich they declared tliat they 
 could not at present perfectly agree were the following : — 
 
 1. " They have a groat reverence for the canons of ancient 
 general councils, yet they allow them not the same authority 
 as is due to the Sacred Text, and think they may be dis- 
 pensed witli by the governors of the Church, where charity or 
 necessity requires. 
 
 2. " Though they call the mother of our Lord blessed, and 
 magnify the grace of God which so highly exalted her, yet 
 are they afraid of giving the glory of God to a creature, or to 
 run into any extreme by blessing and magnifying her ; and 
 do hence rather choose to bless and magnify God for the high 
 grace and honour conferred upon lier, and for the benefits 
 which we receive by that means. 
 
 3. " Though they believe that both saints and angels have 
 joy in the conversion of one sinner, and in the progress of 
 a Christian, and do unite with us in our prayers and thanks- 
 givings, when rightly offered to God in the communion of the 
 Church ; yet are they jealous of detracting from the mediation 
 of Jesus Christ, and therefore cannot use a direct invocation 
 to any of them, the ever-blessed Virgin herself not excepted, 
 while they desire nevertheless to join with them in spirit, and 
 to communicate with them in perfect charity. 
 
 4. " Though they believe a divine mystery in the Holy 
 Eucharist, through the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the 
 elements, whereby the faithful do verily and indeed receive 
 the Body and Blood of Christ, they believe it yet to be after a 
 manner which flesh and blood cannot conceive ; and seeing no 
 sufficient ground from Scripture or tradition to determine the 
 manner of it, are for leaving it indefinite and undetermined ; 
 so that every one may freely, according to Christ's own insti- 
 tution and meaning, receive the same in faith, and also wor- 
 ship Christ in spirit, as verily and indeed present, without 
 being obliged to worship the sacred symbols of his presence. 
 
 5. " Though they honour the memory of all the faithful 
 witnesses of Christ, and count it not unlawful in itself to assist 
 the imagination by pictures and representations of them, and 
 their glorious acts and sufferings, yet they are afraid of giving 
 thereby, on one hand, scandal to the Jews and Mahometans, 
 or, on the other, to many well-meaning Christians : and they 
 
 VOL. III.] 27 
 
402 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVL 
 
 are moreover apprehensive that, though the wise may he safe 
 from receiving any damage by a wrong application, yet the 
 vulgar may come thereby to be ensnai-ed, and be carried to 
 symbolize too much with the custom of idolaters without 
 designing it ; to' prevent which, they therefore propose that 
 the ninth article of the second Council of Nice, concerning 
 the worship of Images, be so explained by the wisdom of the 
 bishops and patriarchs of the Oriental Church, as to make it 
 inoffensive, and to remove the scandal which may be occasioned 
 by a direct application to them." 
 
 These proposals were first communicated by Arsenius to the 
 Czar Peter, who, since the extinction of the patriarchate of 
 Moscow, was the virtual head of the Eussian Church. By 
 him they were favourably received, and transmitted to the 
 four Eastern patriarchs. A synod was held at Constantinople 
 in April, 1718, which was attended by Jeremiah, Patriarch of 
 Constantinople, the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem , and 
 other prelates and clergy. By this synod, an answer was drawn 
 up, and sent to Arsenius for transmission to the British bishops, 
 by whom it was received in the end of the year 1721, or the 
 beginning of the following year, through the Archimandrite 
 Gennadius, and James, the Proto-syncellus of the Church of 
 Alexandria. In their answer, the Eastern prelates maintained 
 that the true faith, lost by Papists and Luthero-Calvinists, 
 was to be found among the Oriental Christians alone, and 
 refused to make any change in the order of the patriarchal 
 thrones ; and, in regard to the disputed points of doctrine and 
 ritual, they adhered to their own practice, and condemned the 
 opinions of the British bishops. 
 
 Before this answer was received, the disputes regarding the 
 usages had led to a separation among tlie English Nonjurors, 
 and Bishop Spinckes and his friends declined to take any far- 
 ther share in the negotiation. A meeting was held in May, 
 1722, at which the Scottish bishops, Campbell and Gadderar, 
 and the English bishops, Collier and Brett, were present. 
 These prelates sent a long reply to the Eastern patriarchs, ex- 
 plaining their own opinions, and defending themselves from 
 the charge of Luthero-Calvinism. Concerning the five points 
 in dispute, they supported their views by arguments drawn 
 from the Holy Scriptures and the primitive Fathers, and con- 
 
A.D. 17-27.] OF SCOTLAND. 403 
 
 eluded in tlie following manner : — " And thus having repre- 
 sented the difference between us, we are now to suggest a 
 temper, and offer a compromise. If our liberty is left us 
 therefore in the instances above mentioned ; if the oriental 
 patriarchs and bishops will authentically declare us not 
 obliged to the invocation of saints and angels, the worship of 
 images, and the adoration of the host ; if they please publicly 
 and authoritatively, by an instrument signed by them, to pro- 
 nounce us perfectly disengaged in these particulars, disengaged 
 we say, at home and abroad, in their churches and in our own ; 
 these relaxing concessions allowed, we hope, may answer the 
 overtures on both sides, and conciliate an union. And we far- 
 ther desire their patriarchal lordships would please to remem- 
 ber that Christianity is no gradual religion, but was entire and 
 perfect when the Evangelists and Apostles were deceased ; 
 and therefore the earliest traditions are undoubtedly preferable, 
 and the first guides the best. For the stream runs clearest 
 towards the fountain-head. Thus whatever variations there 
 are from the original state, whatever crosses in belief or prac- 
 tice upon the earliest ages, ought to come under suspicion. 
 Therefore, as they charitably put us in mind to shake off all 
 prejudices, so we entreat them not to take it amiss if we 
 humbly suggest the same advice. We hope therefore their 
 lordships' impartial consideration will not determine by pre- 
 possessions, or by the precedents of later times, but rather be 
 governed by the general usages and doctrines of the first four 
 centuries, not excluding the fifth, than think themselves un- 
 alterably bound by any solemn decision of the East in the 
 eighth century, which was even then opposed by an equal 
 authority in the West. And thus, presuming both parties 
 will hold the balance even, and not wish for truth but prove 
 it, we are not without expectation of advancing so far towards 
 uniformity as may make up the unhappy breach, and close 
 the distance between us. And to release their patriarchal 
 lordships, we take leave, with our most earnest prayers that 
 the allwise and merciful God, who makes men to be of one 
 mind in an house, who is the author of peace and lover of 
 concord, may graciously please to continue their benevolent 
 wishes, animate their zeal, and direct their measures, for 
 finishing so glorious a work ; that the orthodox Oriental 
 
404 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY [Chap. LXXVL 
 
 Church and ths Catholic remnant in Britain may at last join 
 in the solemnities of religion, and be made more intimately 
 one fold mider one Shepherd, Jesus Christ, our blessed Lord 
 and Saviour, to whom, -with the Father and the Holy Spirit, 
 be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen." 
 
 The bishops wrote at the same time to Arsenius, thanking 
 him for his zeal, and to the council for ecclesiastical affairs at 
 St. Petersburg, requesting their assistance, and the continued 
 co-operation of the Czar. Answers were sent to these letters by 
 Arsenius, and by the Kussian governing council, in which, by 
 desire of the Czar, they requested the bishops to send two 
 English clergymen to Russia, in order that a personal confer- 
 ence might be held as to the points in dispute. A synodical 
 answer to the last paper of the bishops was also sent by the 
 eastern prelates, in which they declined to depart in any re- 
 spect from the principles formerly laid down. This answer 
 was dated at Constantinople, in September, 1723, and was 
 signed by Jeremiah, Archbishop of Constantinople, and oecu- 
 menical Patriarch, Athanasius, Patriarch of Antioch, Chrysan- 
 thus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Metropolitan of Heraclea, 
 and the Bishops of Cyzicus, Nicomedia, Nice, Chalcedon, Thes- 
 salonica, Prusa, Polypolis, and Varna. The British prelates 
 were about to comply with the request to send two clergymen 
 to Russia, when the negotiation was interrupted by the death 
 of Peter the Great. His successor, the Czarina Catherine, 
 seems to have wished that the proceedings should be carried 
 on, but nothing farther was done.^ 
 
 1 In regard to the correspondence between the Nonjuring bishops and the 
 Eastern Church, I have consulted a manuscript copy of the correspondence in 
 the Scottish Episcopal Church Library at Edinburgh. Reference may be 
 made to Skinner, vol. ii. p. 634 639; Lathbury's History of the Nonjurors, p. 
 309-358 ; and Mouravieff's History of the Russian Church, English Translation, 
 pp. 286, 287. Mouravieff evidently did not understand who the " Anglican 
 bishops" were, who corresponded with the Eastern patriarchs and the governing 
 synod. A similar attempt on the part of the Archbishop of Utrecht to effect a 
 union with the Eastern Church was broken off by the death of Czar Peter ; see 
 Neale's History of the Janseuist Church of Holland, pp. 269, 270. 
 
i-' ■• 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 0035524901 
 
 t3 
 
 
 
ggJiffiSiiiiSi