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

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

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

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

BOOK VII.

JULY, A.D. 1669-1670.

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

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

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