[77]. The names of these worthies who deserve, and who will, be had in everlasting remembrance, when those of their persecutors must rot, are thus given by one of themselves:—Alexander Lennox, David Williamsone, Alexander Moncrieff, John Rae, David Hume, Edward Jamieson, James Fraser, William Wisehcart, Thomas Hogg in Ross, Robert Lockhart, John Wilkie, George Johnstone, Patrick Gillespie, James Kirkton, John Weir, Nathaniel Martin, Andrew Morton, Andrew Donaldsone, John Crichton, William Row, Thomas Urquhart, Thomas Hogg in Larbert, William Arskine, James Donaldson, Robert Gillespie, John Gray, James Wedderburn, John Wardlaw, Thomas Douglas, George Campbell, Francis Irvine, John Wallace, Andrew Anderson, John Munniman, George Hamilton, Donald Cargill, Alexander Bertram, James Wilson, Robert Maxwell—in all 39. These were the stock of the preaching church that was driven into the wilderness—their ministry was a sort of outlawry—and, by the bishop’s activity, these, with the ministers formerly forfaulted, and those who afterwards joined that body of people, who first caused the separation from bishops and their curates, thereafter overthrew their party, and wrought the Reformation.
[78]. “One day a paper was fixt upon the Parliament House door, containing upwards of one hundred persons, whose escheats were to be sold to any who would purchase them.” Wodrow, vol. i. p. 384.
While the primate was urging the persecution of these excellent men, he was not without trouble from his own underlings. In the beginning of the year, some of the bishops, as well as curates, began to complain of the arbitrary measures of Sharpe, who managed all ecclesiastical affairs without consulting them upon any occasion, and had even the audacity to stamp upon him the opprobrious epithet of Pope. His friends repelled the accusations as the unfounded aspersions of the Hamilton or country party, who, having failed to overturn the Duke of Lauderdale by means of the Presbyterians, now wished to do it by means of the Episcopalians. The others declared they only wished what the act of Parliament allowed, to assemble in a National Synod, and regulate what they considered wrong in the church—the best method of securing its stability. But Sharpe, who, of all things, dreaded the least interference with his power, wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, entreating him—in a most impious appropriation of Scripture language—to interfere and assist him against those who wished “to break his bands, and cast his cords from them;” and his application was so successful, that the most active of the suffragans were silenced, and Ramsay, bishop of Dunblane, was removed to the Isles—a kind of honourable banishment, which effectually put an end to all attempts for the future at interfering with the supremacy of his Grace of St Andrews. The only other bishop (Leighton) who had ever given him real vexation, but against whom his wiles had been useless, voluntarily withdrawing from the scene of contention, Burnet was restored to Glasgow, and henceforth was content to play second to Sharpe, only rivalling his oppression within the boundaries of his own archiepiscopal territories.
BOOK IX.
A.D. 1674-1676.
Divisions among the ministers respecting the church and self-defence—Armed meetings—Severities increase—Lord Cardross—Religious revivals in the North—Mr M’Gilligan—Civil oppression—Home of Polwart—Finings—Durham of Largo—Magistrates of Edinburgh—Sufferers sent to France as recruits—Proclamation to expel the families of gospel-hearers from the Burghs, and enforce the conventicle act—Instructions for the indulged—Progress of the gospel—Rage of the prelates—Mitchell tortured.
Unhappily the seeds of division which the indulgence had sown among the Presbyterian ministers, were beginning to take root; and the different opinions that afterwards reached so great and ruinous a height, showed themselves in the discussions which took place during this year upon that important question—How the Presbyterian church was to be continued and supplied? The documents preserved are very scanty; only it appears that the propriety of ordaining a minister, except to a settled charge—of preaching within the nominal bounds of an unsettled presbytery—and the authoritative right of synodical meetings, were among the questions about which differences had sprung up among the brethren. And from the care with which they endeavour to provide against one minister noticing the conduct of another “in their preaching, and warning the people of the evils of the times,” it seems pretty evident that this baneful practice had already commenced.
At the close of the year, the state of feeling and anticipation among the suffering Presbyterians was extremely dissimilar, as we find by the writings both of public men and private Christians which have been preserved. Numbers rejoiced in the bright and sunny side of the cloud, in the increase of faithful preachers of the gospel—in the desire for hearing that seemed to be abroad—and in the delightful and not rare instances of the power of the Spirit that accompanied the publication of the word; and they anticipated a speedy and a glorious renovating morn for the church. Those that studied the signs of the times, saw in the apostacy of some, and in the falling away of others who had been esteemed pillars; in the mournful waxing cold of the love of many; in the bitter dissensions of professors; and in the general abounding iniquity—the dark and dismal tokens of a deserted church; and, although they knew and believed that the cause of Christ could never fall, and hoped and rejoiced in the hope that a glorious day would yet arise upon Scotland, wept and made mournful supplication for the sins of the people among whom they dwelled, and anticipated heavier judgments for unimproved mercies, until a returning to Him against whom they had offended should again draw down the blessing.
The increasing severities which now began to be used towards the conventicles likewise occasioned a difference of opinion among the godly ministers and people as to the right of self-defence in hearing the gospel. The injunction of Christ as to individuals is clear, when persecuted in one city, flee into another; but in Scotland, where the throne of iniquity framed mischief by a law, and where the whole Presbyterians, who formed a large majority, were at once deprived of their civil rights, as well as their religious privileges—and where a constitution as solemnly ratified, and as sacredly sworn to, as any mutual agreement between rulers and people ever was, or ever can be, had been wantonly destroyed by a wretched minority of riotous unprincipled sycophants, and place-hunting apostates—the question involved, in the opinion of many, not only their duty as Christians, but as citizens. Paul had taught them that these were not incompatible, and their fathers had vindicated both in the field. The young men were generally of this opinion, and began to come armed to sermons about the commencement of this year [1675], and talked of imitating the example of the days of the congregation. The elder and most esteemed among the ministers were divided; while, in general, they allowed the soundness of the principle, they differed as to the propriety of the time. Among these appear to have been Mr Welsh, Mr Blackadder, and Gabriel Semple; others, at the head of whom stood Fraser of Brea and Kirkton, were entirely averse to any resort to arms. The former thus states his views of the subject:—