Annals of the persecution in Scotland

by James Aikman

A.D. 1677.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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