Ministers who wished to pursue moderate measures, laboured under peculiar disadvantages. Some idea may be formed of the mental struggles and outward difficulties of these worthies from the account which Mr Blackadder gives of himself at this time. He ventured to preach at Fala-moor, in Livingston, on the last Sabbath of May this year, which happened to be the day before Drumclog, though neither he nor the people knew of it. His subject led him to speak of defensive arms; but in handling it, it appeared he had by no means given satisfaction. Contrasting their spiritual with their military preparations for their meetings, he proceeded:—“When you come forth with swords in your hands to defend the worship of God, it is well; but whatever you endeavour with your hostile weapons, I would have you trust little to them.” And he exhorted them to put their confidence in God rather than in their own instruments of war.
After sermon, some honest men came to him as they used to do. They were on their way westward, having heard the rumour of their friends combining in arms. He perceived them looking angry and discontented-like. “We fear, sir, you have discouraged the people by not putting them more forward to appear in arms. They needed a word of exhortation and upstirring, and not to cool their zeal as you have done.” “I do not,” said he, “condemn honest endeavours to redress your wrongs; I should be the first in cases where there is clearness to stand up and defend the gospel; but I fear forwardness without deliberation.” His conscientious hearers and he, upon some further conference, came to a better understanding; but he adds—“About this time there were several people more froward than godly, prudent, or charitable, who upbraided ministers that they did not press the people more, or preach so and so, according to their mind; but little did they consider, how much ministers were difficulted to give advice therein, perceiving the case so intricate for want of clearness; yet the few who stickled underhand still continued to meddle, so that poor people were put to great uncertainty, and knew not how to behave; their consciences were tortured; their hearts grieved; and their spirits fretted. But the council still furious to suppress their meetings by sending forces from time to time to dissipate them and take prisoners, was the main cause why they went forth in arms; otherwise they would not, if their rulers had not by their violent persecution provoked them to that necessity.
“Though unable from indisposition himself, he hindered none from appearing in arms who were clear and in capacity to assist, although he was much jumbled in his own mind anent that particular; and used to say, both before and after, he did not see a call for rising so clear as he could like. Though he always reverenced the providence of the rising, and approved honest designs, yet his opinion was, that the Lord called for a testimony by suffering rather than outward deliverance.”[[119]]
[119]. Mem. of Rev. John Blackadder, p. 229 et seq.
Other equally excellent men considered the question to be, Whether shall we consent to the preaching of the gospel being suppressed altogether, or shall we assert it at the point of the Sword? With regard to civil liberty, there could be no dispute. Where it is concerned, the question comes shortly to this, when tyranny reigns triumphant, “Is there, or is there not, a rational prospect of success in resistance?” But here the question was, Is it our duty with or without a prospect of success, to lift up our testimony against the iniquity of the times? nay, should there be only a prospect of sealing it with our blood? And they hesitated not to reply in the affirmative; and the first rencounter seemed to set the stamp of wisdom to this resolve, but whether more propitious to the cause of religious liberty has been thought problematical; and of this opinion were the most influential of the persons who directed the operations of the great western meeting.
This meeting, obliged for mutual protection to assume the appearance of an army, were guilty of no acts of hostility, but their formidable front alarmed the soldiers, who reported to the council, with many exaggerations, the frequency and the force of those rendezvouses of rebellion. These produced more severe instructions for the soldiers to act with greater promptness; and thus both sides stood as it were ready prepared for conflict in the mutual apprehensions entertained of each other. At this juncture, the ultra-covenanters were headed by Robert Hamilton, brother to the Laird of Preston, who, whatever might be his abilities for theological controversy, possessed none of the commanding powers necessary for directing the movements of men maddened by oppression, and driven by the denial of every legitimate mode of redress, to the ultimate resort of a brave people—the assertion of their natural rights on the field. Besides being wholly destitute of military talents, his mind was contracted by his associating solely with those who were of his own sentiments, and seemed more anxious to secure the triumph of a party than the great cause for which all were contending.
Uncertain as to the issue of the present commotion, a number of those who composed the general meeting were anxious to publish to the world their “Testimony to the truth and cause which they owned, and against the sins and defections of the times.” This Hamilton urged as what would bind them together, and by explaining their principles, be an inducement for others to join. A majority agreeing, he, along with Mr Thomas Douglas, one of their ministers, was appointed to go to some public place, escorted by a strong party of about eighty armed men, and publish their declaration. The 29th of May, the anniversary of the king’s birth and restoration, was chosen as the most appropriate one for this their solemn act; and the royal burgh of Rutherglen was pitched upon as the place.
Accordingly, when the burghers of this little county-capital were displaying their loyalty, the small party entered in the afternoon, burned the various acts enumerated in their Testimony, then extinguished the bonfires, and affixed upon the cross a copy of “the Declaration and Testimony of some of the true Presbyterian party in Scotland.” It ran thus—“As the Lord hath been pleased to keep and preserve his interest in this land by the testimony of faithful witnesses from the beginning, so some in our days have not been wanting, who, upon the greatest of hazards, have added their testimony to the testimonies of those who have gone before them, and who have suffered imprisonments, finings, forfeitures, banishment, torture, and death, from an evil and perfidious adversary to the church and kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ in the land. Now, we being pursued by the same adversary for our lives, while owning the interest of Christ, according to his word and the National and Solemn League and Covenants, judge it our duty (though unworthy, yet hoping we are true members of the church of Scotland) to add our testimony to those of the worthies who have gone before us in witnessing against all things that have been done publicly on prejudice of his interest from the beginning of the work of reformation, especially from the year 1648 downward to the year 1660; but more particularly those since, as—the act rescissory; the act establishing abjured prelacy; the declaration renouncing the covenants; the Glasgow act, whereby upwards of three hundred faithful ministers were ejected from their churches, because they could not comply with prelacy; the act for imposing an holy anniversary day, to be kept yearly upon the 29th of May, as a day of rejoicing and thanksgiving for the setting up of an usurping power to the destroying the interest of Christ in the land; the act establishing the sacrilegious supremacy; and all the acts of council, warrants, and instructions for indulgence; and all their other sinful and unlawful acts.” In confirmation of this testimony, and to evidence their dislike of the acts testified against, they burned them publicly at the cross of Rutherglen, as their rulers unjustly, perfidiously, and presumptuously burned the sacred covenants. The paper was unsubscribed, but a notandum attached to it announced the readiness of its authors to do so if necessary, and to enlarge and avow it with all their suffering brethren in the land.
Immediately after affixing their declaration, Hamilton and his party retired towards Evandale and Newmills, in the neighbourhood of which Mr Douglas proposed to preach next Lord’s day. The news of this daring defiance spread like wildfire; and being proclaimed so near Glasgow, where the king’s troops lay, was considered by their commanders as a personal insult. James Grahame, Laird of Claverhouse, already notorious as one of the vile tools of the prelates, and active oppressors of his country, having been intrusted with extensive powers by the privy council for suppressing these abhorred conventicles, received new instructions to search out and seize, kill and destroy, all who had any share in the appearance at Rutherglen. Nor did he allow them to remain long an idle letter. Mr John King was to preach at Hamilton on Sabbath. Claverhouse set out with his band on the Saturday, and surprised and took him prisoner, with about fourteen countrymen, chiefly strangers, who had come to hear. Some few escaped and carried tidings to their friends, who formed the design of rescuing their minister. Next day, the meeting was to be held, and they expected to receive a reinforcement from them. Claverhouse, who had also been apprised of the conventicle, resolved to disperse it before returning to Glasgow with his captives.
Accordingly, upon the Sabbath morning (June 1st), he marched thither, driving the prisoners before him like sheep, bound two and two together. Public worship was begun when the accounts came of his approach. Mr Douglas stopped, prayed a little, then laid the case before the people. All that had arms, willingly offered themselves to defend the assembled company, and prevent their dispersion or capture. They mustered about forty horse and one hundred and fifty or two hundred foot, not one-third of whom had muskets; the rest carried forks and halberts. They were led by Mr (afterwards Colonel) Cleland, who fell nobly at the head of the Cameronian regiment in the battle of Dunkeld, Balfour, Rathillet, John Nisbet of Hardhill, and Mr Hamilton; and although untrained, were resolute and eager for action. They came up with the enemy on a moor “half a mile bewest Drumclog.” They received their first fire resolutely, returned it with effect, and instantly closed hand to hand. The encounter was short. The soldiers, who probably did not expect such a reception, gave way and fled, leaving about forty killed and wounded, besides a number of prisoners who were disarmed and dismissed. The accounts of this battle which we have, are not very distinct, but from what Russell says, who was present, the chief merit appears to have belonged to Cleland. He drew up a party of foot armed with pikes, who received and broke the attack upon the right of their small party, led on by Clavers himself, who had his horse shot and very narrowly escaped. Of the countrymen, only five or six were killed; and it was the general belief, if they had pursued their advantage without giving the soldiers time to rally, they would have completely annihilated the whole party. But they only pursued them a short way, and returned to the meeting in triumph with their minister.