[40]. Three of the prelates died in course of the past year. Bishop Mitchell of Aberdeen, who was succeeded by Burnet; Sydeserf, who was succeeded in the bishopric of Orkney by Mr Andrew Honeyman, formerly minister of St Andrews; and Archbishop Fairfoul of Glasgow, who was succeeded in the arch-episcopate by Bishop Burnet of Aberdeen, Dr Scougall being appointed to that see.
[1664.] Even this symptom, small as it was, of moderation, was not at all agreeable to the prelates. Like all upstarts, suddenly raised beyond their expectations, their arrogance became insupportable, and could brook no opposition. Glencairn, in particular, who had been so instrumental in their rise, began to feel the truth of what he had been repeatedly told—“that the bishops would never rest content with being second in the state, and that moderate Episcopacy was all a jest.” He had said to Rothes that “it was the noblemen’s interest to repress the growing power of bishops, otherwise they would be treated by them now as they had been before 1638.” This remark being carried to Sharpe, he treated the Chancellor with great hauteur, and publicly threatened to destroy his interest at court—an affront that Glencairn could never forget, and which is said to have preyed upon his spirits to his dying day.
Fearing a relaxation of “the wholesome severities,” the primate hastened to London with heavy complaints against many of the noblemen, for their backwardness in executing the laws made in favour of the church; and, through the influence of the English bishops and high churchmen, prevailed upon the king to re-establish in Scotland the most detested of all the arbitrary courts that had been abolished—the High Commission Court.
His majesty, by virtue of his royal prerogative in all causes and over all persons, as well ecclesiastic as civil, granted the most exorbitant powers to that antitype of the Inquisition. It consisted of thirty-five lay members,[[41]] and of all the prelates, except Leighton, who had the honour to be excluded from the nomination; and any five constituted a quorum, provided always an archbishop or bishop was of the number. Under pretext of seeing all the acts of parliament and council in favour of Episcopacy put in vigorous execution, they were authorized to suspend or depose, fine, and imprison all ministers who dared to exercise any of their sacred functions without the license of a bishop—who should preach in private houses or elsewhere—who should keep meetings for fasts or for the administration of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper not approven by authority: to summon, call before them, and punish all who should speak, preach, write, or print to the scandal, reproach, or detriment of the government of the church or kingdom as now established—and all who should express any dissatisfaction at his majesty’s authority. The commanders of the forces and militia, the magistrates of every description, were required to apprehend and incarcerate delinquents upon their warrants, and the privy council to direct letters of horning for payment of the fines—one half of which was appropriated to defray the expenses of the court, and the other to be employed for such pious uses as his majesty should appoint. And by a final comprehensive clause, the High Commission, or their quorum, were authorized to do and execute whatever they should find necessary and convenient for his majesty’s service—for preventing and suppressing of schism and separation—for planting of vacant churches—and for procuring of reverence, submission, and obedience to the ecclesiastical government established by law.
[41]. The following were the lay members:—The Chancellor, Treasurer, Duke of Hamilton, Marquis of Montrose, Earls of Argyle, Atholl, Eglinton, Linlithgow, Home, Galloway, Annandale, Tweeddale, Leven, Moray; Lords Drumlanrig, Pitsligo, Fraser, Cochrane, Halkerton, Bellenden, the President of the Session, the Register, the Advocate, Justice-Clerk; Charles Maitland, the Laird of Philorth, Sir Andrew Ramsay, Sir William Thomson; the Provosts of St Andrews, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Ayr, and Dumfries, Sir James Turner, and the Dean of Guild of Edinburgh. From among these, the primate, who managed the whole, could easily pick out a quorum to suit his purposes; and thus he got rid of all the members of the privy council who had either the spirit or the policy to resist his unbounded presumption—a presumption heightened by his being now ordered to take precedence of the Chancellor, the nobility, and all the officers of state.
By this instrument the whole kingdom was laid at the feet of the prelates; for no quorum of the Commission could be complete without a bishop, while five bishops could form a quorum without a layman. The practice was agreeable to the constitution of the court, and such as may always be expected where churchmen are intrusted with civil authority. True ministers of Christ would never in their ministerial capacity accept it, and worldlings who have assumed that sacred office to serve purposes of ambition, have ever been the greatest curse of Christendom. The records have been mislaid or lost, but the cases that remain, amply justify the epithets bestowed upon this nefarious tribunal by all who have mentioned it.
James Hamilton of Aikenhead, near Glasgow, was among the first brought before them, accused of not hearing Mr David Hay, curate of the parish—Cathcart—-in which his estate was situate. His defence was, the unclerical and ungentleman-like conduct of the clergyman. In collecting his stipend, which he did rigorously, Mr Hay had borne particularly hard upon some of Mr Hamilton’s tenants, and, in consequence, a quarrel had ensued, in which the curate had descended to very intemperate and abusive language, and in return had been not less roughly answered. Mr Blair, the “outted” minister, happening accidentally to be upon the spot, interfered, and rescued Hay from the hands of his furious parishioners. When the affray was over, Mr Blair spoke seriously to the curate, and represented how opposite it was to his own interest for him to turn informer against his people. Hay, in return, thanked him for his kindness and advice, and gave him his solemn promise that he would follow it; yet within a very short time, he went to Glasgow and “delated” (i. e. denounced) them to the archbishop, who immediately dispatched Sir James Turner, then in the west, with a party of soldiers, to seize the delinquents. When Mr Hamilton came to be informed of the circumstances of the affair, he considered the low prevaricating conduct of Hay as so base, that he would never again enter the church door, and he kept his promise; for this he was fined a fourth part of his yearly rent. When he had paid the fine, the court was so fully sensible of the misconduct of Hay, that the Archbishop of Glasgow came forward and promised that he would be removed, but insisted that Mr Hamilton should come under an obligation to hear and acknowledge the minister he meant to place in his room; and, upon refusing to do any such thing till he knew who that person should be, he was mulcted another fourth of his income, and remitted to the archbishop to give him satisfaction as to his loyal and peaceable behaviour. The prelate, however, not being satisfied, he was again summoned before the court, upon some vexatious charges of keeping up the church utensils and session-books from the curate. Offering to swear he knew nothing at all about them, he was accused of not assisting the curate in the session when called upon, and suffering some of his family to absent themselves from church! Whether he might have been able to acquit himself of these heinous crimes is uncertain, for Rothes cut the business short, by telling him he had seen him in some courts before, but never for any thing loyal, and therefore tendered him the oath of allegiance. He had no objections, he replied, to take the oath of allegiance, were it not mixed up with the oath of supremacy. Sharpe, interrupting him, said “that was the common cant, but it would not do.” Then he requested to be allowed to explain, but was politely answered by the president—“he deserved to be hanged!” and, upon refusing to become bound for all his tenants’ good behaviour, he was fined three hundred pounds sterling, and sent to confinement in Inverness, to remain during pleasure!
John Porterfield of Douchal, an excellent person, singled out for more than common oppression, was summoned also for not hearing. He alleged the unfounded calumnies the curate had spread against him as the reason why he could not wait upon his ministry. The reason was allowed to be cogent, and, at his own desire, he was permitted to prove it. His first witness bore him out in all that he advanced, and his vindication would have been complete; but he was too much respected and esteemed in the neighbourhood, and his acquittal might have encouraged others. His proof was therefore stopped, and he was required to take the oath of allegiance. As had been expected, he stuck at the supremacy, and offered an explanation. The natural consequence followed—the curate was sent home to enjoy his incumbency, and Porterfield, for daring to offer a defence, was sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred pounds sterling, his estate sequestrated till it should be paid, and himself confined to the town of Elgin, where he continued for four years.
Mr Alexander Smith, who had been turned out of his parish of Cowend, Dumfries-shire, by the Glasgow act, had since then resided at Leith; but having been guilty of preaching or expounding the Scriptures privately in his own house, was called before the court to be examined. In answering some of the queries Sharpe had put to him, he omitted the primate’s titles, and only styled him, Sir, which Rothes observing, meanly truckling to the priest, asked him, “if he knew to whom he was speaking?” “Yes, my lords, I do,” answered the prisoner firmly; “I speak to Mr James Sharpe, once a fellow-minister with myself.” For this high misdemeanour, the worthy man was immediately laid in irons and cast into the filthiest corner of the prison—the thieves’ hole. He was afterwards banished to one of the desolate Shetland Isles.
At the settlement of Ancrum parish, where a James Scott, who had been presbyterially excommunicated, was appointed to fill the place of Mr Livingston, a country woman of the name of Turnbull, with more zeal than prudence, attempted, as he was going to be inducted, to dissuade him from undertaking the pastoral charge of so unwilling a people; and when he would not stop to listen to her reasoning, seized him by the cloak. Impatient at this detention, he turned in wrath upon the female remonstrant, and beat her unmercifully; which unmanly conduct provoking some youths present, they threw a few stones, but none of them touched Scott or any other person. This pitiful affair was instantly magnified into a seditious tumult, and the ringleaders were apprehended by the Sheriff and thrown into jail—a punishment certainly more than adequate to the offence, but it was no sufficient atonement for the indignity done to the clergy, and the business was brought before the High Commission; there these ministers of mercy sentenced the woman to be whipped through Jedburgh—her two brothers, married men with families, they banished to Virginia—and four boys, who confessed that they had each thrown a stone, were first scourged through the city of Edinburgh, then burnt in the face with a hot iron, and, finally, sold as slaves, and sent to the island of Barbadoes, which severe punishment they endured with a patient constancy that excited much admiration.