Chapter LXXXVII: Appendix (11)

The remonstrants chose Mr William Guthrie for their moderator, and
one James Porter, a devoted servant of their party, for clerk; named
a committee of their most forward men to go immediately to Lanerk, to
purge and plant as they found cause; sent two of their gentlemen, Sir
George Maxwell and Walkingshaw, with the help of their good friend
Bogs, and Commissary Lockhart. Mr Somerville, and Mr Jack, and, when
they prevailed not, two of their ministers, Mr William Somerville,
and Mr William Jack, went to the Governor of Glasgow, Col. Couper,
for a troop of horse to guard them at Lanerk and Douglas. Some of
them, to their power, fomented a very injurious scandal on Mr Robert
Hume, whom we had made minister at Crawfordjohn contrary to their
mind; their committee laboured to their power to try that their
own invention, but failed therein. There is an old man, Mr John
Veitch, minister of Roberton, they sent two or three ministers of
their number to hear him preach. On their report, they pronounced a
sentence of deposition on him as insufficient. But their chief work
was at Douglas. The noblemen, gentlemen, whole heritors, people, and
session, unanimously had called Mr Archibald Inglis, a very good
and able youth, to his father’s place. They stirred up some of the
elders, who subscribed a call to the young man, to desire his trials
might be before the united presbytery, and not before our part of
it, from which the remonstrants had separated. This motion they so
fomented, that these few elders, with a very few of the people, were
moved by them, contrary to all the congregation, to give a call to
a silly young man, a mere stranger, from Fife, one Mr Francis Kidd,
who had never been heard nor seen in the bounds. This man they bring
to the kirk on the Sunday. When the people refused to let him or
them enter, he preached on a brae side to some strangers and a few
of the people of Douglas, and even these run away from hearing of
him, except a very few of them. Sermon ended, they sent one to read
an edict at the church door, who refused to give a copy of what he
read. Without more ado, on Monday morning, they passed all his trials
in one hour, and came to the church of Douglas in the afternoon to
give him imposition of hands. The body of the people and heritors
hindered their coming into the church and churchyard; whereupon they
sent once and again for their English guard. By all their importunity
they could get none of the troop to countenance them, except twelve,
with the lieutenant. By the power of their sword, as was avowed on
all hands, on a brae side, without preaching, they admitted him
minister of Douglas: An abominable example, generally much abhorred,
which shews what we may expect from that party. Our Synod appointed
some to join with the true presbytery of Lanerk, which met the week
thereafter; tried, with all accuracy possible, what could be found
in the scandal of Mr Hume; found nothing but malice of some parties,
fomented by ministers; with the unanimous consent of the people of
Roberton, strengthened the minister, and appointed a helper to be
settled there in an orderly way; admitted to the church of Douglas Mr
Archibald Inglis, after all trials duly performed, with the blessings
and tears of the congregation. Possibly they will procure an order
from the English, that the stipend and church shall go to Mr Kidd and
his twelve or sixteen followers, and Mr Inglis shall be tolerated,
with much ado, to preach to the whole congregation, Marquis of
Douglas, Earl of Angus, whole heritors and people, in the fields, or
a barn, without a sixpence of stipend.

In this glass see our condition. It is so in sundry congregations
already, and like to be so in many more; not so much through the
violence of the English, as the unreasonable headiness of the
remonstrants, which for the time is remediless; and we, for fear
of worse from their very evil humour, give way to permit them to
plant divers churches as they like best. This formed schism is very
bitter to us, but remediless, except on intolerable conditions,
which no wise orthodox divine will advise us to accept: We must
embrace without contradiction, and let grow, the principles of the
remonstrants, which all Reformed divines, and all states in the
whole world abhor; we must permit a few heady men to waste our church
with our consent or connivance; we must let them frame our people to
the Sectarian model; a few more forward ones joined among themselves
by privy meetings to be the godly party, and the congregation, the
rest, to be the rascally malignant multitude: so that the body of
our people are to be cast out of all churches; and the few who are
countenanced, are fitted, as sundry of them already have done, to
embrace the errors of the time for their destruction. Against these
abominations we strive so much, and so wisely, as we can. Mr R.
Douglas, Mr Dickson, and others, have yet got Edinburgh right. The
faction which Mr Robert Traill and Mr John Stirling have there is
inconsiderable. Mr R. Blair and Mr J. Wood keep St Andrew’s and Fife
pretty right. Mr Rutherford, to the uttermost of his power, advances
the other party. Mr John Robertson and Mr William Rate get Angus
and Dundee right: but the naturally heady men of Aberdeen are come
to the full design too soon; yet the body of the people and country
are right. In this Mr J. Guthrie in Stirling comes but small speed:
albeit his confident, Sir William Bruce of Stenhouse, be made the
English sheriff in Linlithgowshire, they have used great violence,
imprisoned their chief opposite Mr John Waugh, forced a silly man
into the ministry of Linlithgow, and another on Bathgate, contrary
to all the synod of Lothian could do; yet the body of the people
there is flat against them. Their greatest prevalency is with us
in Glasgow, which comes much more by Mr James Durham’s professed
neutrality, but real joining with most of the other’s designs, and Mr
John Carstair’s zeal, than any thing that Mr Patrick Gillespie had
done, or could do, by himself. This is the pitiful condition of our
church, which is but going on from evil to worse till the Lord remeid
it.

As for our state, this is its case. Our nobility are well near all
wrecked. Dukes Hamilton, the one executed, the other slain; their
estate forfeited; one part of it gifted to English soldiers; the
rest will not pay the debt; little left to the heretrix; almost the
whole name undone with debt. Huntly executed; his sons all dead but
the youngest; there is more debt on the House than the land can pay.
Lennox is living as a man buried in his house of Cobham. Douglas and
his son Angus are quiet men, of no respect. Argyle, almost drowned
in debt, in friendship with the English, but in hatred with the
country. He courts the remonstrants, who were and are averse from
him. Chancellor Loudon lives like an outlaw about Athol; his lands
comprised for debt, under a general very great disgrace. Marischal,
Rothes, Eglinton and his three sons, Crawford, Lauderdale, and
others, prisoners in England; and their lands all either sequestrated
or forefaulted, and gifted to English soldiers. Balmerino suddenly
dead, and his son, for publick debt, comprisings, and captions, keeps
not the causey. Wariston, having refunded much of what he got for
places, lives privily in a hard enough condition, much hated by the
most, and neglected by all, except the remonstrants, to whom he is
guide. Our criminal judicatories are all in the hands of the English;
our civil courts also; only some of the remonstrants are adjoined
with them. In the session are Craighall, and his brother Hopeton, Mr
A. Pearson, Southall, Col. Lockhart, and Swinton. The only clerks to
the session are Mr John Spreul and William Downie. The commissariot
and sheriff courts are all in the hands of English soldiers, with the
adjunction in some places of some few remonstrants. Strong garrisons
in Leith, Edinburgh town and castle, Glasgow, Air, and Dumbarton,
Stirling, Linlithgow, Perth, Dundee, Burntisland, Dunnotter,
Aberdeen, Inverness, Inverary, Dunstaffnage, &c.

Of a long time no man in the whole isle did mute. All were lulled
up in a lethargic fear and despair; only the other year, Glencairn
and Balcarras, understanding of an order to apprehend them as
corresponding with the King, retired to the hills of Athol. Kenmure
having escaped from England, when his house was burnt and his rents
seized upon, got to the Lennox with a few horse. Lorn being but
coarsely used by his father, joined with Kenmure. To these sundry did
associate, Glengary, Athol, Seaforth, not so much to do any thing
against the English, as to make some noise of a party, to encourage
the King’s friends abroad to send him supplies of men, arms, and
money. At once a great animosity did rise in every shire of the land.
Very many young gentlemen made bold with all the serviceable horses
they could find about them, and notwithstanding of all the diligence
the English could use to prevent, great numbers came safe to the
hills. The war with Holland, and rumour of great help from over seas,
did increase daily both the number and courage of this party.

But behold inward division doth hazard all at the very beginning. The
irreconcileable discord betwixt Argyle and Hamilton had undone the
isle, and almost both the families. Glencairn, Hamilton’s cousin,
did much mistrust and slight Lorn. Ralston, and the remonstrant
gentlemen of Kintyre, seemed ready to arm for the English, against
the King’s party. Lorn and Kenmure, with the men they had raised,
went to Kintyre to suppress these. They, on hope of the English
assistance from Ayr, fortified the castle of Lochead. But when
neither Argyle nor the English appear in their defence, they render
the house to Lorn’s discretion. Kenmure thinking the besieged better
used by Lorn than they deserved, fell in a miscontent, and went from
Lorn to Glencairn with many complaints. Balcarras also unwilling
to have Glencairn above him, and conceiving it was best for the
advancing of the King’s affairs, that till the King himself, or one
of the authority from him, should come, the party should be ruled
by a committee without any supreme officer, and that all admitted
to councils and command in the army should declare for the Solemn
League and Covenant. For these ends he dealt with Lorn, Seaforth,
and Athol, till Glencairn produced a commission under the King’s
hand to be general, till himself or some from him should come to
take the command. This unexpected commission put all to a submissive
silence, but increased heartburnings. Lorn professing all firmness to
the King and cause, was not willing to take orders from Glencairn,
till he knew more particularly the King’s pleasure. For this end,
he Balcarras, and others, wrote to the King their discontent with
Glencairn’s command. These letters were intercepted, and brought to
Glencairn; whereupon he gave order to Glengary to apprehend Lorn
to answer for his sedition. Lorn hardly enough escaped Glengary’s
pursuit. Balcarras retired; and, a little after, with his lady, went
disguised through England to the King. Notwithstanding of all these
pitiful and shameful debates, Glencairn’s party still increased, and
his conduct became considerable. The whole highlands, isles, and much
of the north, and numbers from the lowlands, were come unto him; so
it was thought, at Middleton’s coming, he had here and there 8000
or 9000 foot, and 2000 or 3000 horse, of very stout and resolute
men as ever we had on the fields, the most of them old soldiers. But
at Middleton’s coming, when neither the King, nor his brother, nor
any foreign forces did appear, the hearts of many began to doubt;
and when, after his coming, some months, notwithstanding of all the
reiterated promises, no foreign assistance at all did come; but on
the contrary, the Holland peace was proclaimed; the treaty of the
Protector with Sweden went on; the French ambassador at London was
solemnly received, as the Spanish and Portugal had been; all human
hope began much to fail, especially after Monk’s coming down as
general, the proclamation of the Protector, the act of union, and the
ordinance of grace, which forfeited and deeply fined so many, and
subjected the whole privileges of the nation to the Protector and his
council’s pleasure, with the abolition of royalty, the whole branches
of the family-royal, and all Scots parliaments and conventions of
estates; the taking of Kinnoul, Lieutenant-Colonels Heriot, Wishart,
Forsyth, and sundry more of our Scotsmen, unhappily: all these were
so hard presages, that the most gave all the King’s affairs for gone,
and many thought that the King, whether through their weakness, or
the treachery of the few counsellors about him, or the cross aspect
of all Europe towards him, had so far disappointed the expectation of
his friends, that while he lived he was not like to get such a party
for his service in Scotland.

So for the time the case of our land is most sad. Monk, by sea and
land, is to beset Glencairn and his party, and with much severity
to crush them, and for their sakes to lie more heavily on the whole
subjected country, beginning with the best of the ministers; who,
after mutual advice, find themselves in conscience necessitated to
keep the King still in their publick prayers. They have been very
careful to give the English no other offence at all; for in all this
northland rising, to my best knowledge, there is no minister in
Scotland who has had the least hand or any meddling. However, for
this our great treason of naming the King in our publick prayers,
(as we conceive our duty, covenant, and directory of worship do
require, as you will see in the papers herewith sent you), we are
like to suffer heavy things. For all this our eyes are towards the
Lord. We expect protection from him; and if so he think meet, we are
willing to seal our testimony, in faith and humble modesty, with all
the sufferings which the injustice of men may be permitted of our
heavenly Father to impose upon us.

Being called the other week to confer with the brethren of Edinburgh,
I was comforted to find all that met, fully in my sense about prayer
for the King, and affairs of our divided synod, divided presbytery,
troubled college, and all else we spoke of. But it was a sad sight
to see the general affliction at the proclamation of the Protector,
of the act of union, the act of forfaultry and deep sinning of so
many, the preparations of Monk by sea and land presently to swallow
up the northern party, destitute of all hope of the oft-promised
foreign supplies, as common fame surmised. As our miseries, (without
a kingdom wholly, without any judicatories to count of of our own,
without a church well near), are great; so we expect they shall
increase, and the next heavy dint shall fall on the chief of the
ministry. At once it will not be safe to have any audible complaints
of these things either to God or man.

_Postscript, July 20, 1654._

While I waited long for a bearer, I add further, our triumviri,
Mess. Livingston, Gillespie, and Menzies, staid long at London
without much access to the Protector. He thought it good to write
for Mess. Douglas, Blair, and Guthrie. Mr Blair excused his health.
Mr Guthrie, by a fair letter, declared his peremptoriness not to go.
Mr Douglas, by Monk’s friendly letter, got himself also excused. On
their not coming, Mr Livingston got leave to return, and is at home.
Mr G. and Mr M. are expected. The business of the plot gave not
the Protector much leisure for auditing of them. Only we fear that
our church shall be cast under such a committee as now guides all
ecclesiastical affairs in England, absolutely as the Protector thinks
fit, the most whereof are Anabaptists, Independents, and gentlemen
of no ecclesiastical relation. We thank God that persecution on the
ministry is not yet begun, except what the remonstrants draw from
the English on some few. Mr John Waugh and Mr Robert Knox were long
prisoners for naming the King in their prayers; yet now they are at
their liberty, and at their charges, to our great joy.

As to our anti-synod, after the pranks in Lanerk they met synodically
very frequent at Glasgow, fell on a committee for purging all the
presbyteries. I alone went up to them, intreated them with many fair
words to delay any such work, and for that end gave them in a large
paper, which a very gracious and wise brother, somewhat a mid-man
betwixt us, had drawn for that end, which I send to you, that from
it you may more fully learn our present temper. All this labour
procured little; for notwithstanding they proceeded in their work,
and appointed their purging and planting committees; but with this
proviso, that they should have, at their next meeting, a conference
with any I pleased of my mind before they proceeded. Against their
day I had our part of the synod met, and full information of the
brethren of Edinburgh and others for our proceeding. We presently
set up a purging and planting committee as well as they, and of
these we appointed a number to confer with them. With much ado we
got them to stay till the first of August, upon a new conference:
against that day Mr James Ferguson drew up a paper of his overtures
for our reunion, and I drew up another. You have both here. What the
issue shall be you may hear afterward; only these things lie heavier
on my heart than any man’s else I know, for usually at the times of
these comfortless janglings, I am sick and distempered with grief and
discontent, though every one of them gives me more respect than to
any other; yet for the remediless breach I am heavily oft troubled in
my own mind, which I use to pour out before God, and get them courage
and strength to go on, and bear the burden.

General Monk went to the fields in the beginning of June, thinking
and professing that the discussing of the northern Tories would cost
him but a few weeks labour; and we indeed expected no other; for the
English in men, horse, money, and all things they could desire, had
the clear advantage: yet we cannot hear of any great progress he has
made. So soon as Glencairn had rendered his commission to Middleton;
on a jar between Monro and Glengary, Glencairn speaking for Glengary,
got a challenge from Monro; which he answered, and beat Monro, to his
great commendation. This affront, not so much resented by Middleton
as need had been, together with the King’s too much neglect, as some
say, in his late commissions, of Glencairn’s very great services,
upon the information, as it is thought, of Lorn and Balcarras, he
left Middleton, and came with a small party to the Lennox. The noise
of this malecontentment exceedingly discouraged many; but at once
Glencairn carried it so, that all this discouragement was quickly
changed; for with the small party he had, he defended the pass of
Aberfoyle so well against Monk’s frequent assaults, and sent out,
for good purpose, so many small parties to Clydesdale, Renfrew,
Cunningham, Kyle, Carrick, and Galloway, as retarded a while Monk’s
march to the north; and when he went north, notwithstanding of
all the garrisons, and beside them one full regiment of foot and
another of horse, left at Glasgow and Kilsyth, the party sent out
from Glencairn, ran up and down the whole country, and did what
they liked, without great impediment. Monk found his march to the
north very troublesome. The people carried all out of his way;
stragglers were snapped up; the hills made sundry both horse and
men sicken and die. It was oft printed, that Morgan had Middleton
so enclosed in Sutherland, that he could not escape to the south;
yet when Middleton thought it time, he divided his men in parties,
and passed by, with ease, both Morgan and Monk, coming to Perthshire
and Argyle, notwithstanding all they could do to impede him. Colonel
Brian’s regiment from Ireland, landing in Lochaber, was lighted on
by the country-people, and near 100 of them slain: for this Monk did
cause burn all the lands of Lochaber, Glengary, and Seaforth, as he
came through. Glenorchy had been too great an intelligencer to the
English, and sided with Argyle against Lorn his son: so Middleton
caused burn much of his land. This burning, now begun on both hands,
may ruin the whole country. It is thought the English have their full
of the highland hunting, and that the flux is fallen among them,
which make them speak already of quartering. It seems Middleton minds
no fighting in any body, but shifts till he see what time may bring
forth. The country every where suffers much; yet is patient, for they
see no remedy; also the victual all this year, is at 4 lb. the boll,
a greater appearance of the continuance of this greater plenty, than
has been seen in our days....

That you may know the way of planting our churches, have this late
practice. Mr John Galbraith of Bothkennar was deposed for tippling
and other faults, some three or four years ago. When Mr James Guthrie
continued to preach in Stirling, after his deposition by the general
assembly, Mr Galbraith followed his example, and returned to his
pulpit. His people loved him better than Stirling did the other.
Of the presbytery of Stirling, Mr James Simpson, of Airth, likewise
deposed and Mr Jo. Hogg, of Larber, adhered to Mr Guthrie, and these
three made one presbytery. Mr R. Wright and other two or three
adhering to the assembly, made themselves another presbytery. Mr
George Bennet and other two were neutrals, and abstained from both.
Mr Guthrie began a process of excommunication against Mr Galbraith;
but he boasted so fast to excommunicate Mr James if he proceeded
against him, that this was left off. Mr James professes to have no
meddling with the English at all, and to be much averse from all
compliance with them, yea to mislike Mr P. Gillespie’s way; yet Sir
William Bruce of Stonehouse, his special and intimate friend to this
day, has taken the sheriffship of Stirling from the English, and
continues ruling elder in Mr James’s presbytery. By his means an
order is procured from the English, that Mr John Galbraith shall give
over preaching. This he is forced to obey. The whole parish gives
an unanimous call to Mr William Galbraith, a good young man; but an
order comes from the English to hinder his plantation; and the whole
parish’s supplication oft presented to the English, could not get it
helped; for the judges are fully for the remonstrants, though General
Monk seems to dislike them. Thereafter one Mr John Blair, never heard
nor seen by the parish, is named by Mr Guthrie’s presbytery to be
minister of that kirk; for that people having adhered to a deposed
minister must be counted malignant, and so lose their right to call,
and the right of calling must fall in the hands of the presbytery; so
an order is procured by the presbytery’s ruling elder, Sir William
Bruce, from the English, to admit that Blair. Mr Ja. Guthrie causes
convene a great number of this faction from divers parishes about,
and gets Mr Robert Traill from Edinburgh, and Mr John Carstairs from
Glasgow, and others to spend a day in preaching and prayer at his
admission. The whole people of the parish meet, and keep the other
out of the kirk; the tumult begins; dry strokes are distributed; some
fell upon the sheriff’s neck. The gentlemen-parishioners, so soon as
the sheriff produced his English orders for the admission, ceded; but
the people continued all day casting stones and crying: yet they went
on with their work, and thrust in the man. For all this, Mr Guthrie
has no dealing with the English, and does no wrong. Our oppression is
great and crying.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] 1597.

[2] Dec. 19, 1597.—1606, c. 2. 1612, c. 1.

[3] “History of his Own Times,” p. 11 of imperial edition, 1837.

[4] Acts, 1637.

[5] Acts, 1633, c. 3.

[6] 1634.

[7] November 1635.

[8] Burnet, pp. 11-14. Burnet’s account of these several proceedings, confirmed as it is by authentic records, seems entitled to the fullest credit; for it is taken from documents in his hands, which enabled him to give a genuine and unvarnished statement of the most minute particulars.

[9] See Neale’s “History of the Puritans,” a work of great research and value.

[10] Clarendon, Baillie, Spottiswood, Burnet, Row, Guthrie, Calderwood, Kirkton, Melville; and, more recently, Hume, Laing, Cook, M‘Crie, Aiton, &c.

[11] First Book of Discipline, c. iv. § 14; c.v. § 5.

[12] 1616.

[13] Hist. of Ch. of Scotland, vol. ii., p. 360.

[14] Balfour’s Annals, vol. ii., p. 226, _et sequen_.

[15] Baillie, vol. i., p. 15.

[16] Burnet’s Mem. 33; Baillie, i. 30-4; Hardwick’s State Papers, ii. 101.

[17] 3d Dec. 1557. 31st May 1559. 27th April 1560. _Vide_ Knox.

[18] See Booke of the Universall Kirke, annis 1580-1590.

[19] Hist. of Ch. of Scot., vol. ii., p. 415.

[20] Both Mr Laing and Dr Cook say it was the 1st of March, (on the authority, perhaps, of Guthrie and Stevenson,) but Rothes’ Relation, and the minutes of the subsequent Assembly, shew that it was in February. It is much to be regretted that Burnet, Baillie, and other chroniclers, and even later historians, are not sufficiently attentive to dates; and this carelessness in chronology often occasions great perplexity, and leads to much confusion of events in their narratives.

[21] Vide these in Notes upon the Assembly 1638.

[22] 1606, 1608, 1610, 1616, 1617, 1618.

[23] The King’s Commission and Letter, here inserted, are not in the print of Acts which is followed in this edition, but are copied from the “Large Declaration” by the King, p. 234, _et sequen._—A.P.

[24] Censura propositionum quarundam ex Hibernia per sacram Facultatem Theologiæ Parisiensis facta.

[25] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 207.—Although this document be the first ostensible indication of a movement on the part of the Churchmen with respect to the state of the form of Government, subsequently to the time which we have adopted as the commencement of these collections, yet several years sooner, there were various intimations of King Charles’s views, and of the opposition they were likely to encounter. Spottiswood had in 1624 sent a memorial to King James, recommending the introduction of the English Church forms, canons, &c. This motion, however, the King had not the courage to adopt. In April 1625, King Charles wrote to Spottiswood that he was resolved to enforce all the laws of the former reign, in reference to Church matters. In August following, he issued a proclamation for the enforcement of the Perth Articles. (Wodrow’s Life of Spottiswood, p. 12.) On 12th July 1626, he gave instructions (Balfour, vol. ii., p. 142,) not to enforce these articles against ministers who had been admitted prior to the Assembly 1618, and that such as had been ousted for nonconformity should be reponed on conditions; but conformity was to be enforced on all who had entered after the Perth Assembly. The bishops disliked this, and clamoured for conformity. On 8th February and 3d May 1627, (Balfour, vol. ii., p. 125, 126,) the King agreed to enforce it against Papists, but rebuked the Prelates for want of charity to their brethren; and, indeed, from a paper of Spottiswood on the state of the Church as to conformity, it appears that the Perth Articles were in very rare observance, and some of them not at all. In 1630 the King sent a letter to Spottiswood, intimating that the whole order of the English Church should be adopted in Scotland. In May 1631, the King sent orders for a meeting of bishops and subservient ministers, to advise as to the introduction of organs, surplices, a service book, and King James’s own translation of Psalms. An organ, &c. were introduced into the Chapel Royal; (Baillie’s M.S., p. 3, Row 272,) and considerable uneasiness created by these innovations. And when the petition from the clergy was presented to the King in 1633 at Dalkeith, the day before he entered Edinburgh, the King answered Rothes sternly—“No more of this, I command you!” From this it is evident that the King was inflexibly bent on enforcing the Episcopalian formularies and rites. This is more fully illustrated in the following documents, which are arranged in chronological order from 1636 down to the end of the year 1638. _Vide_, also, Aiton’s Life of Henderson, p. 125, _et sequen_, and authorities.

[26] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 224.

[27] Privy Council Record, from 1636 to 1639.

[28] Privy Council Record.

[29] Privy Council Record.

[30] Ibid.

[31] Privy Council Record.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Privy Council Record.

[34] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 227.

[35] Privy Council Record.

[36] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 229.

[37] Burnet, p. 31.

[38] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 232.

[39] Ibid, p. 233.

[40] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 236.

[41] Large Declaration, p. 33.

[42] Large Declaration, p. 38.

[43] Large Declaration, p. 41.

[44] Ibid, p. 42.

[45] Balfour, vol. ii, p. 237.

[46] Large Declaration, p. 46.

[47] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 240.

[48] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 249.

[49] There is on record a Declaration by the King as to the Service Bookes, (f. 242,) 7 Dec. 1637; a proclamation against Convocations, (f. 246,) on 19 Feb. 1638; a Declaration anent the Service Booke, (f. 258,) on 9 July; another, (f. 263,) 22 Sept. and act thereanent (f. 264,) and for the King’s Confession, (f. 265,) with the general bond for maintenance of the true religion, (f. 266.) An Act ordaining the lieges to sign it, (f. 269,) 24 Sept. A Missive from the King to the Council, for assisting the Commissioner at the Assemblie, (f. 271,) ult. Oct. Warrant for sealing Commissioner’s Commission, (f. 273,) 13 Nov. Charge against suche as goes to the Assemblie without Commission, (f. 274) 14 Nov. Missive for assisting the Commissioner at the Assemblie, (f. 275,) dated 8 Nov. Letter from the Councel to the King, (f. 275,) dated from Glasgow, 28 Nov. Proclamation for dissolving the Assembly of same date, (f. 276,) and a Proclamation anent the Assembly annulling the acts done therein, dated at Halyrud-house, the 18 of Dec. (f. 278.) Of these several Acts and Documents, the most material are inserted in the present collection—and such as are omitted will be found on the record of the dates, and in the folios of the original now indicated.

[50] Large Declaration, p. 48.

[51] Large Declaration, p. 50.

[52] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 258.

[53] Burnet, p. 36.

[54] Burnet, p. 37.

[55] Balfour, vol. ii, p. 252.

[56] Large Declaration, p. 88.

[57] Burnet, p. 39.

[58] Burnet, p. 41.

[59] Burnet, p. 43.

[60] Burnet, p. 45.

[61] Burnet, p. 46.

[62] _i.e._, The Covenant.

[63] Burnet, p. 50.

[64] Large Declaration, p. 77.

[65] Burnet, p. 55.

[66] Burnet, p. 56.

[67] Ibid, p. 58.

[68] Burnet, p. 59.

[69] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 266.

[70] Burnet, p. 60.

[71] Large Declaration, p. 96.

[72] Large Declaration, p. 98.

[73] Burnet, p. 61.

[74] Burnet, p. 62.

[75] Large Declaration, p. 91.

[76] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 275.

[77] Rothes’ Relation, p. 150.

[78] Rothes’ Relation, (App. Bannatyne Club Print,) Napier’s Montrose, &c. p. 172.

[79] Burnet, p. 65.

[80] Large Declaration, p. 116.

[81] Large Declaration, p. 117.

[82] Large Declaration, p. 123.

[83] Burnet, p. 67.

[84] Burnet, p. 67.

[85] Ibid, p. 69.

[86] Burnet, p. 70.

[87] Burnet, p. 72.

[88] Burnet, p. 74.

[89] Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets.

[90] Large Declaration, p. 129.

[91] Burnet, p. 79.

[92] Large Declaration, p. 146.

[93] Large Declaration, p. 134.

[94] Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets.

[95] Large Declaration, p. 157.

[96] Large Declaration, p. 147.

[97] Burnet, p. 81.

[98] Large Declaration, p. 233.

[99] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 295.

[100] Large Declaration, p. 198.

[101] Large Declaration, p. 200.

[102] Ibid, p. 201.

[103] _Sic_ in copy.—_Ed._

[104] Burnet, p. 86.

[105] Burnet, p. 84.

[106] Burnet, p. 82.

[107] Ibid, p. 90.

[108] Large Declaration, p. 209.

[109] Large Declaration, p. 230.

[110] Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets.

[111] Burnet, p. 91.

[112] Burnet, p. 99.

[113] Ibid, p. 92.

[114] Burnet, p. 93.

[115] Ibid, p. 100.

[116] Burnet, p. 94.

[117] Appendix to an answer to the Protestation for Prelates, in Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets, certified by Archibald Jhonston, the Clerk, compared with List in Stevenson’s History, and corrected by the original Commissions. It appears from the original Commissions still extant, and indorsed in the handwriting of Mr ARCHIBALD JHONSTON, the Clerk, as “produced and approven 24 November 1638,” that three Elders from Dumfriesshire, are omitted in this Roll—viz., John Kennedie of Halleaths, bailie of Lochmaben, Walter Millar, clerk of Annan, and William Grierson, bailie of Sanquhar. The number of Members whose commissions were sustained, amounted at least to 140 Ministers and 100 Ruling Elders.

[118] Burnet, p. 96.

[119] Hardwicke’s State Papers, vol. ii., p. 113.

[120] Maxwell.

[121] Traquair.

[122] Roxburgh.

[123] Sir J. Hamilton.

[124] Sir Thomas Hope.

[125] Large Declaration, p. 265.

[126] Burnet, p. 101. See also annexed Report.

[127] See the Moderator’s Speech in annexed Report.

[128] Large Declaration, p. 290.

[129] Large Declaration, p. 294; and also in the Records of the Kirk, certified by the Clerk.

[130] Hardwicke’s State Papers, vol. ii., p. 121.

[131] Burnet, p. 108.

[132] Burnet, p. 107.

[133] Burnet, p. 109.

[134] Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets, verified by certified copy among the Records of the Church.

[135] Folio MS., f. 46. There is no date to this Letter in the copy from which we transcribe; but it was probably written about the time the Assembly 1638 dissolved itself on 20th December, when the Supplication to the King from the Assembly was adopted, (_vide_ p. 41 of these Records.) Baillie, in his 11th Letter, dated September 28, 1639, gives the following account of the reception of that Supplication; and it is interesting as an index to the state of feeling on the part both of the King and Covenanters. It is stated in the Folio MS., that the Supplication to the King was “sent up wᵗ Mr George Winrahame,” who was probably, therefore, the bearer both of it and of this Letter to Hamilton. Baillie says (vol. i. p. 150), “The Supplication which we decreed in the Assembly of Glasgow to be sent to the King, could hardly be got presented. However, many would have ventured to have gone with it though their heads should have gone therefor; yet understanding of the King’s wrath and the danger there was, even in peaceable times, for any subject to play the ambassador, or capitulate with the Prince when he did not call for or his council did not send up, which by law and his declared will is appointed to be his only informer in high points of state; also hearing oft words from court of great spite against the very lives of most of our nobles, gentry, and ministry, who were able to agent our business, it was resolved that none of note or parts should go up, without greater assurance of their return than could for that time be expected; and withal, a gentleman of the Marquis of Hamilton’s acquaintance, Mr George Winram, undertook, on all hazards, to deliver to the Marquis the Supplication, and, upon his refusal, to give it to the King himself. He was no worse than his word, as, indeed, some of our fair undertaking statesmen thereafter did prove. He went to Court, shewed the Marquis his errand. His Grace acquainted the King, who was pleased that it should be received. His Grace took it, and on his knee read it to his Majesty in the Council. The best answer it got was, ‘When they have broken my head, they would put on my cowl.’”

[136] It will be observed that there is a discrepancy as to Sessions and Dates during the earlier sederunts of the Assembly—the _third_ being entirely omitted in this Report or blended with the second, while Baillie and the Clerk’s abstract give a different arrangement; but we deem it our duty to adhere inflexibly to the text as it stands.—ED.

[137] This gentleman was son-in-law of the Bishop of Orkney.—ED.

[138] The Deposition of the Bishop of Brechin is omitted in the Glasgow Folio MS., and is therefore supplied from Mr Laing’s Copy.

[139] “The Bishops’ Doom. A Sermon preached before the General Assembly which sat at Glasgow anno 1638, on occasion of pronouncing the Sentence of the greater Excommunication against eight of the Bishops, and deposing or suspending the other six. By Mr Alexander Henderson, moderator of that and several subsequent Assemblies. With a Postscript on the present decay of church-discipline. Edinburgh: Printed by John Gray and Gavin Alston. Sold by them at their printing-house in Jackson’s close, and by W. Gray bookseller in the east corner of the Exchange. MDCCLXII.

“_Advertisement._—It must be observed in justice to the venerable author of the following sermon, that by the journal of the general assembly 1638, he had only allowed him from the evening of the preceding day to study that sermon. His thoughts, amidst such a multiplicity of work as was then on his hand, behoved also to be much perplexed; and his sermon, though subjoined at the end of that journal, seems only to have been taken down in the time of delivery by an amanuensis. Yet, mank as such a fragment is, it seems worthy of being preserved; and the same will, it is hoped, prove useful not only for vindicating the practice of that assembly, but also for stirring up others to attempt a faithful discharge of the like duty, upon grounds equally relevant, as necessary not only for reclaiming the impenitent, but also as an indispensable testimony to the truth of our Lord’s dominion over the Church.”

[140] Mr Stevenson, in his “History of the Church and State of Scotland,” (1753, _et ann. sequen_,) after giving the closing speeches of Henderson and Argyle, concludes his account of the Assembly, 1638, in these terms:—“The Assembly being thus happily concluded, Mr Henderson said—_We have now cast down the walls of Jericho: let him that rebuildeth them beware of the curse of Hiel the Bethelite._” As Mr Stevenson does not state on what authority this is given, and as it is not mentioned in any other work that we have chanced to see, we merely add it in a note, (the expression being frequently referred to,) without having before us any contemporary voucher for its accuracy.

[141] Although Lowdoun and Johnston, as we have seen (_vide_ their Speeches, Report, p. 167), attempted to explain away the effect of the several Acts of Parliament to which we refer, yet it is due to the truth of history to say, that there is no mistaking the tenor and effect of those Acts. By the 1st Act of King James VI., 18th Parliament (9th July, 1606), the power and prerogative of the King are declared “over all estates, persons, and causes whatsoever, within the said Kingdom.” And by the very next Act (2d), he is declared to be “Soveraigne Monarch, absolute Prince, Judge, and Governour over all persons, estates, and causes, both _spiritual_ and _temporall_;” and, further, the previous Acts by which Bishops had been ousted or denuded of their titles, privileges, and benefices, are rescinded, and the order “restored and redintegrated,” to all intents and purposes. Again, in 1612 (23d Oct.), there is another Act, ratifying the ecclesiastical arrangements made by the packed and bribed Assembly at Glasgow in 1610, which were out-and-out Episcopalian. Furthermore, there was an Act, 26th June 1617, anent the election of Archbishops and Bishops; and, finally, on the 4th of August 1621, there was another Act of Parliament ratifying the 5 Articles of Perth, adopted by another packed Assembly in August 1618. All these statutes, and the surreptitious and corrupt Acts of Assemblies which they ratified, were doubtless infamous encroachments on the liberties of the subject and the legitimate laws of the Church; but still they were the law of the land, emanating from the supreme authority of Parliament, and which Parliament alone could rescind. Johnston (the Clerk of Assembly) said—“I know certainlie that this office of Bishop was never established by any Act of Parliament in Scotland;” and Lowdoun averred that “the Act 1612 does not ratifie that which is concludit in Glasgow Assembly which now is condemned; that ground being taken away, the ratification also falls.” Johnston’s statement is contradicted by the statute-book; Lowdoun’s statement and his inference are equally contradicted, and inconsistent with themselves; for, if the Act 1612 had not ratified the Acts of the Assembly 1610, how could the condemnation of these by the Assembly 1638, infer that the _ratification_ thereby fell? There is reason to apprehend, that the Assembly of 1638 was mystified by such statements—the Acts of Parliament and Assembly not being then, as now, accessible to the community generally—and hence we may ascribe some of the stretches of ecclesiastical authority at that Assembly, to malinformation as well as to passion.

[142] Erskine’s Institutes, B. 4, tit. 1, § 17.

[143] Baillie, vol. i., p. 150.

[144] Acts, 19 and 20, 1639.

[145] Row, p. 340.

[146] Burnet, p. 111.

[147] Mem. Ch. of Scot., p. 188. Stevenson, p. 679.

[148] Burnet, p. 113; and Letter.

[149] Baillie, vol. i., p. 151. Rushworth’s Coll., vol. ii. p. 830.

[150] Baillie, vol. i., p. 152.

[151] Burnet, p. 115.

[152] Vide “Documents.”

[153] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 221-3. Baillie, vol. i., p. 158-9.

[154] Baillie, vol. ii, p. 160.

[155] See p. 81 and 83.

[156] Vane’s Letter, 4th June. Burnet, p. 139.

[157] Baillie, vol. i., p. 173.

[158] Vide Documents.

[159] Bishop Burnet, in allusion to this treaty, remarks on it, (p. 143,) that “some made another observation, though of less moment, yet not _unpleasant_, upon Mr Henderson—that it was strange to see a Churchman, who had acted so vigorously against Bishops for their meddling in civil affairs, made a Commissioner for this treaty, and sign a paper so _purely civil_.” In making this paltry observation, the courtly prelate seems to have overlooked what he had recorded not two pages before, that this was not a treaty “purely civil.” Its first and leading condition related to religion, and pledged the King to call a free General Assembly, in which all ecclesiastical matters were to be settled, and afterwards to be ratified in Parliament. This was, in fact, the foundation and essence of the treaty; and it was fitting that the chosen representatives of the Church should be parties to so important a treaty. This was very different, indeed, from being a “Lord of Privy Council,” or a “member of the High Commission.”

[160] This petition and deliverance are given from the Register of Privy Council, as the most authentic source. It varies in a few particulars, as well as in the orthography, from the copy authenticated and printed by the Clerk of Assembly—ED.

[161] Although several of these Acts are thus said to be “not printed” in the official edition, several of them appear in that edition, and in the foregoing reprint from it.—_Ed._

[162] Privy Council Record.

[163] Rushworth, vol. ii., p. 791.

[164] Ibid, p. 818.

[165] Heylyn’s Life of Laud, p. 359. We have not been able to find the entire proclamation itself; but Heylyn’s account may be trusted as to its character.

[166] Privy Council Record.

[167] Privy Council Record.

[168] Folio MS., f. 62.

[169] Folio MS., f. 68.

[170] Burnet, p. 118.

[171] Ibid, p. 119.

[172] Ibid, p. 119.

[173] Burnet, p. 120.

[174] Ibid, p. 121.

[175] Ibid, p. 121.

[176] Burnet, p. 123.

[177] Privy Council Record.

[178] Burnet, p. 122.

[179] Folio MS., f. 65.

[180] Burnet, p. 123.

[181] Burnet, p. 124.

[182] Edinburgh Town Council Record.

[183] Edinburgh Town Council Record.

[184] Burnet, p. 127.

[185] Folio MS., f. 66.

[186] Burnet, p. 125.

[187] Burnet, p. 126.

[188] Privy Council Record.

[189] Privy Council Record. There are other Acts of Council relative to these matters—one on the 13th May, anent the fencing of Parliament (which was called for the 15th), and adjournment thereof to the 23d of July—and another on the 15th, in which it is recorded that the Lords of the Covenant had refused passports to Sir Tho. Hope and Sir Ja. Carmichael to go to the King; but these it is unnecessary to give. The meeting of Parliament was afterwards prorogued from time to time till November following.

[190] Folio MS., f. 67.

[191] Burnet, p. 136.

[192] Ibid, p. 129.

[193] Folio MS., f. 68.

[194] Burnet, p. 131.

[195] Folio MS., f. 67.

[196] Burnet, p. 131.

[197] Burnet, p. 130.

[198] Burnet, p. 135.—This letter refers to Aboyne and others.

[199] Folio MS., f. 69.

[200] Burnet, p. 133.

[201] Folio MS., f. 74.

[202] Ibid, f. 70.

[203] The name of the vessel whence this letter bears date, seems to have suggested the following effusion in verse, which, if it do not equal Thomas Campbell’s lines on the same theme, in poetical beauty, has, at least, a priority in point of time to recommend it.

VERSES UPON THE RAINBOW.

_By Mr Patrick Hamilton, Minister of Cambuslang._

The Rainbow was to man a signe of peace: This doth portend much blood—no sign of grace. God’s Rainbow stayed the floods—O, greatest wonder! This threats to burn us all with fyrie thunder. What greife!—that He was hop’t to grace our land, Should, to destroy it, in his Rainbow stand! Lord, either make his Rainbow like to the, Or, under Thyne, let us sure shaddowed be. Thyne reaches so long owre heaven, air, earth, sea— This but a blast, and bounded is by The: Tyme rotts the ane: Thyne doeth remain for ay, Proclaiming peace unto thy saints alway. Man’s Rainbowe’s collor’s red, and full of fyre; Thine whyte, blew, red—signes of thy quenched ire.

[204] Folio MS., f. 71.

[205] Folio MS., f. 69. This is an answer to a short and general but very kindly letter from the Earl of Holland, dated 22d May.

[206] Folio MS., f. 68.

[207] Burnet, p. 137.

[208] Burnet, p. 133. Reported by Sir Henry Devick.

[209] Burnet, p. 138. Hamilton’s Letter, to which this is the answer, suppressed by Burnet.

[210] Burnet, p. 139.—This letter affords sufficient evidence of the King’s apprehensions as to the increasing power of the Covenanters, which made him resolve “to keep himself on a defensive;” and it is confirmed by the King’s postscript. And Burnet (p. 140) tell us that Hamilton had warned his Majesty in the Gallery of Whitehall, “that few of the English would engage in an offensive war with Scotland.” This _apologist_ of Hamilton states farther that, on reaching the English camp early in June, “the Marquis did shew the King that, while the fire-edge was upon the Scotish spirits, it would not prove an easie task to tame them, but would be a work of some years, and cost much money and many men: he therefore desired the King would consider if it were not fit to consent to the abolishing of Episcopacy and giving way to their Covenant _till better times;_ and that, as the chief leaders had entered upon that course, being provoked by some irritations and neglects they had met with, so it might be fit to regain them by _cajolery_ and _other favours_. And to persuade the King to this course was easier, that both his reason and his affection to his subjects did co-operate with it—a great strengthening coming to it by my Lord Canterbury’s opinion, who saw a pacification absolutely necessary for the King’s service, and did advise it.” And Hamilton got a warrant under the King’s hand, to “deal with” the Scotch leaders in the way thus suggested. It was at this time that Montrose was induced, by what motives still remains unexplained, to forsake the Covenant and join the King’s party; and previously to the treaty, Home, Buccleugh, and some others also forsook the national banner.

It is curious to contrast these disclosures of the real state of facts at the time referred to, with a piece of gasconade in Heylyn’s Life of Laud, (p. 365,) which, in its leading points, is contradicted by letters under the King’s hand to Hamilton. “These preparations (for negotiation, says this Doctor of divinity) being made, they fand an easier business of it than they had any reason to expect, to bring his Majesty to meet them in the middle way. _It was not his intent to fight them_, as I have heard from a person of great trust and honour; but only by the terrour of so great an army to draw the Scots to do him reason. And this I am the more apt to credit, because when a Noble and well experienced commander offered him (then being in camp near Berwick) that with _two thousand horse_, (which the King might very well have spared,) he would so waste and spoil the country, that the Scots should creep upon their bellies to implore his mercy,—he would by no means hearken to the proposition.”

[211] Folio MS., f. 73.

[212] Folio MS., f. 74-75.—The looseness of Burnet and others who treat of this pacification, and the lack of dates to several of the documents, referable to the period of the negotiations, is apt to create uncertainty and indistinctness as to the several steps and stages in its progress; and it is somewhat difficult to fix the precise days on which some of the notes, &c. were written and communicated. Minute exactness in this respect is perhaps now but of small importance, (though historical truth depends much on chronological accuracy;) but attention to the following particulars enables us, with considerable certainty, to assign to the several documents their proper place.

The repulse of the King’s troops at Kelso took place on the 3d of June; and in the interval betwixt that day and the 7th, the Earl of Dunfermline was despatched from the Scotch to the King’s camp, with renewed supplications for opening negotiations. On the 7th, Sir E. Verney brought a message from the King, requiring his proclamation to be published; and it was read at General Leslie’s table on the 7th, when, accompanied by Dunfermline, Verney returned to the King’s camp with a favourable report. On the 8th, the King agreed to negotiate, and wrote a letter to that effect. On the 10th, (Burnet says the 11th,) the first meeting took place, and three more afterwards—viz., on the 12th, 15th and 18th—at the last of which the King’s Declaration was adjusted, and the articles of pacification agreed to.—Vide Baillie, vol. i. p. 179-183.

[213] Folio MS., f. 75.

[214] Folio MS., f. 75.

[215] Folio MS., f. 75.

[216] Folio MS., f. 75.

[217] Burnet, p. 141.

[218] Folio MS., f. 78, and Burnet, p. 143.

[219] Folio MS., f. 79.

[220] Folio MS., f. 78. The correctness of this narrative of what passed at the negociations was afterwards impugned by Charles, and it was burnt in London by the hands of the hangman.

[221] Privy Council Record.

[222] Folio, MS., f. 79.

[223] Burnet, p. 144.

[224] Hardwicke, vol. 1., p. 141; who adds this note: “As Burnet, in his Memoirs of Hamilton, has already mentioned, though in an inaccurate way, this extraordinary warrant, it is thought not improper to publish it exactly from the original.”—Burnet’s statement thus referred to is to the following effect (p. 148:)—“But, before they came to Berwick, the King _ordered_ the Marquis, by a warrant in writing, yet extant under His Majesties hand, _to try what way he could gain upon them, and discover the bottom of their intentions, how the estate of Bishops should be supplied in Parliament, and how far they intended to lessen the King’s Authority._ The King also allowed him to use what means he pleased, and speak to them what he thought fit; not onely authorizing, but requiring him to it, and warranting him, if he were ever questioned or accused for it by any. Bearing date at Berwick the 17th of July 1639.”

[225] Burnet, p. 149.

[226] Burnet, p. 154. “Penned” by Hamilton, and “interlined” by Canterbury.—Burnet, p. 153.

[227] Burnet, p. 155.

[228] Burnet, p. 156.

[229] Privy Council Record.

[230] Burnet, p. 158.

[231] Folio MS., from f. 169 to f. 211.