Naismith History of the RP Church V.

CHAPTER V.

1679–88.

---

Different opinions about lawfulness of resisting the King—Highland host—Death of Archbishop Sharp—Battles of Drumclog and Bothwell Bridge—Greyfriars’ Churchyard—Covenanters banished and shipwrecked—Increased cruelties—Richard Cameron—His preaching, &c.—Sanquhar Declaration—Airdsmoss—United Societies—Death of Donald Cargill—James Renwick’s Informatory Vindication—Martyrdom of Marion Harvie and Isabel Allison—Margaret M‘Lauchlan and Margaret Wilson—Murder of John Brown of Priesthill—‘Killing-Times’—Baillie of Jerviswoode—Earl of Argyll—Alexander Peden—Martyrdom of Renwick.

---

A QUESTION that divided the Covenanters, during the last ten years of this persecution, was the lawfulness of an armed resistance to such a tyrant as Charles. He was deemed a wicked tyrant even by the ministers who had accepted of the indulgence. In general, however, they did not avow that it was lawful to resist him forcibly. Cameron, Douglas, and Cargill, and, at a later period, James Renwick, boldly avowed the belief that it was not only lawful, but dutiful, to resist such a tyrant; one who had broken the covenant which he had sworn, violated the constitution which he, as much as his subjects, was bound to respect, and a lawless madman, who ought, if possible, to be forcibly restrained by those whom he was attempting to murder. Long before this time, Knox, in his conversation with Queen Mary, had plainly declared the lawfulness of such resistance. A time soon came when these stricter Covenanters were forced to put their theory into practice. A host of ten thousand ruthless Highland soldiers were employed by the Government to

54 Historical Sketch of the

ravage the south-western counties. About 17,000 persons suffered by fine or imprisonment for attending conventicles, harbouring those who did, or refusing to attend the services of the curates. These were not all belonging to the lower classes. Amongst those who were imprisoned were Major-General Montgomery, brother of the Earl of Eglinton, Sir Hugh Campbell of Cessnock, Sir William Cunningham of Cunninghamhead, Sir George Maxwell of Pollock, Sir William Muir of Rowallan, Sir James Stewart of Coltness, Major-General Holborn of Menstrie, Colonel Robert Halket, and Sir George Monro.

In May 1679, an event occurred which had an intensifying effect on the spirit of this persecution. James Sharp, Archbishop of St Andrews—the most wicked of the apostates, and most cruel of the persecutors—was returning in his carriage to St Andrews. Passing Magus Moor, he was overtaken by a party of horsemen, who had assembled for a different object. Finding in their power one whom they believed to be a great murderer, and whom they could not reach through the law, some of them, and particularly one named Russell, thought it a duty to put an immediate stop to his crimes. Others, including Hackstoun of Rathillet, who was present, did not wish to kill him. He was killed, however, by Russell and others—as they told him at the time—in punishment of the many murders he had instigated. There can be no doubt that his death was abundantly merited, although the majority of the Covenanters disapproved of the summary manner in which it was inflicted. The question—Was Archbishop Sharp’s death murder? was henceforward a testing question in the examination of many Covenanters. It is said that an ignorant Highlandman, who on one occasion was tested with this question, cautiously answered, that he did not know if it was murder, but it was at least ‘a kill.’

Shortly before the Archbishop’s death, he had proposed and secured the enactment of a law empowering officers of the army—even sergeants—to punish immediately with

Reformed Presbyterian Church. 55

death any who wore, or had worn, arms at a conventicle. The proclamation of this law increased what it was intended to diminish—the wearing of arms at conventicles. Having no longer protection from the law, those who sought to worship God according to their conscience had to protect themselves. Their conscience did not reprove them for thus resuming their natural right, when the rulers, to whom they had delegated it, had proved unfaithful. In this they were justified, not only by ‘Lex Rex,’ but also by the law of nature, and the law of God.

On the 1st of June 1679, the Covenanters of Clydesdale and Ayrshire held a meeting for worship at Harlaw, near Loudon Hill. Among those who assembled were Robert Hamilton, afterwards Sir Robert Hamilton of Preston, Balfour of Burleigh, and Hackstoun of Rathillet, besides a considerable number on horse and foot, whose safety now required that they should carry arms. Graham of Claverhouse, well known and correctly characterised as the ‘Bloody Claverse,’ was in command of the garrison stationed at Glasgow. His name is associated with countless military murders and other crimes, more especially with the cold-blooded murder of that peaceful, saintly man, John Brown of Priesthill. Claverhouse having received information of the intended meeting near Loudon Hill, hastened to the spot with his own troop of horse, and accompanied by other two troops of dragoons.

On his way, Claverhouse passed through the town of Hamilton, and there seized Mr John King, chaplain to Lord Cardross, and about fourteen other persons, whom he bound two and two and drove before him like cattle. The Covenanters, assembled for worship near Loudon Hill had, as usual, scouts stationed on neighbouring heights. One of these perceiving the approach of Claverhouse, fired his gun, and ran to the meeting to give the alarm. Immediately the armed men arranged themselves in firm order; the rest, consisting of the aged, the women, and the children, retired to a more secluded and secure place. The armed men, now arranged in battle array,

56 Historical Sketch of the

consisted of about three hundred; fifty horsemen, fifty footmen with guns, and about one hundred and fifty who had only such rude weapons as halberts and pitchforks. Hamilton assumed the command. He was not deemed a very skilful leader, but he was assisted by such brave officers as Henry Hall, Hackstoun, Burley, and Cleland, who afterwards commanded at Dunkeld. Thus marshalled, the brave band marched down the hill, singing, to the tune of ‘Martyrs,’ the very suitable Psalm (the 76th) commencing with the words—

‘In Judah’s land God is well known,

His name’s in Israel great;

In Salem is His tabernacle,

In Sion is His seat.

‘There arrows of the bow He brake,

The shield, the sword, the war;

More glorious Thou than hills of prey,

More excellent art far.

‘Those that are stout of heart are spoiled,

They slept their sleep outright;

And none of those their hands did find,

That were the men of might.

‘When Thy rebuke, O Jacob’s God!

Had forth against them passed,

Their horses and their chariots both,

Were in a dead sleep cast.’

Singing these appropriate and soul-stirring words, they marched to meet the enemy, ranged on the opposite side of a burn on the field of Drumclog. The Royal troops fired first. Acting on a hint given them by Cleland, the Covenanters fell forward flat, whenever the enemy commenced to fire. The shots went over them, no one being struck. Instantly they arose, and steadily fired on the foe. Immediately many saddles were emptied, and much confusion produced in the opposite ranks. Claverhouse now ordered his troops to cross the morass. The Covenanters met them half way, the horsemen led by Burley, the footmen by Cleland. A desperate hand-to-hand fight

Reformed Presbyterian Church. 57

then took place. Claverhouse had two officers shot in the first volley, and his own horse severely wounded in the subsequent onset. The conflict was short, sharp, and decisive. On the side of the Royalists, who numbered about the same as the Covenanters, there were forty killed and a greater number wounded; on the side of the Covenanters, only one killed and five wounded. Even the women showed their courage, by rushing into the fight and carrying away their wounded friends. Ere the fight began, Claverhouse, with his wonted cruelty, gave orders that no quarter should be given, but that those taken should be immediately killed. The prisoners taken by the Covenanters were allowed to go free. Claverhouse, with the shattered remnant of his troops, fled, without stopping, to Glasgow. Thither he was pursued by Hamilton, with a victorious and increasing army. Hamilton made an attempt to take that city, but failed. He then retired to the neighbourhood of the town of Hamilton, where his followers increased to about 5000. Disunion—the curse of camps as well as of Churches—soon weakened his army. All the ministers—eighteen in number—who were present, condemned the indulgence as sinful. More than three-fourths of them, however, thought it inexpedient to divide the camp by referring to that question, in the proclamation they were about to issue. Two of the ministers, Cargill and Douglas, strongly argued the opposite view. Though a small minority of the ministers, they had the support of Hamilton and the majority of the military leaders. Hamilton, who, though not the fittest, had assumed the command of the army, took a similar position in the debate. He and his party wanted to exclude from the ranks all who had accepted of the indulgence. The opposite view was stoutly held by John Welsh, who had been ejected from Irongray. The camp became a debating assembly: debate took the place of drill. Securing ammunition, and fortifying the position, were equally neglected. Had they only been provident and united, they might have been

58 Historical Sketch of the

as victorious at Bothwell Bridge as at Drumclog. There being, for a short period, a more than usual liberal government, Danby having given place to Essex, the Duke of Monmouth was appointed commander of the army, and sent against the Covenanters. He was comparatively liberal and humane. Under him, however, were such fiends as Claverhouse, burning for revenge. The Royal army, thus commanded, and now approaching Bothwell, amounted to about 15,000. It encamped on Bothwell Moor, on the north side of the Clyde. The Covenanters were encamped on Hamilton Moor, on the south side of the river. Bothwell Bridge, a narrow structure, crossed the river at this place. The Covenanting army amounted now to between 4000 and 5000, less than a third of the enemy. While nine-tenths of them were foolishly engaged in useless debate, 300 men, led by Hackstoun, Hall, and Turnbull, bravely defended the bridge. They had only one cannon, and very little ammunition. On the morning of Sabbath, 22d June, exactly three weeks after the battle of Drumclog, the battle of Bothwell Bridge commenced. The Royal troops, with their artillery, approached the Bothwell end of the bridge. Their attack was vigorously resisted by the brave three hundred, who not only stood their ground, but returned fire for fire.

The Royal army requested a parley. Mr David Hume (once minister of Coldingham), along with another gentleman, went over and spoke with the Duke of Monmouth. The Duke told them that, if they laid down their arms and submitted to his mercy, they would be favourably dealt with. When these terms were reported to Hamilton, he said, ‘Yes, and be hanged next.’ The fight at the bridge was renewed, and continued three hours. The gallant three hundred drove the enemy from their guns, but did not pursue them. Reinforcements came up from the Royal army, and renewed the attack. Still, the defence was bravely sustained, until, wearied out and wanting ammunition, the three hundred sent to the com-

Reformed Presbyterian Church. 59

pany of idle debaters for assistance and ammunition. They were told that no ammunition could be got, and that they must abandon the bridge, and join the main body on the moor. With sad and foreboding hearts these brave men did so. As might have been expected, the Royal army now rapidly crossed the bridge; and, forming on the south side, they, three to one and well armed, attacked the disorderly debating camp on the moor. Most of the leaders fled; the rabble followed. Hackstoun with his brave troop for a while stood their ground, and fought bravely, but they also were at last compelled to flee. About 400 were slain in the flight. The Royal troops, cowardly, so long as the bridge was defended, were cruel in cutting down the fugitives. Many more would have been slain, but the Duke of Monmouth, influenced, it is said, by the entreaties of the Duchess of Hamilton, commanded the slaughter to cease. About 1200 were taken prisoners. These were cruelly used; being stripped naked, they were forced to lie down flat on the moor, and instantly shot if they attempted to raise their heads. They, tied two and two, were afterwards driven to Edinburgh, much wearied, starved, and insulted on the way. They were shut up in a part of Greyfriars’ Churchyard, the place where the National Covenant had been signed forty years before. There, without covering and with scanty food, they were confined for five months. Some of them escaped, and many of them died. In the month of November, those who remained were sentenced to be banished as slaves. They were taken on board a ship at Leith, and most cruelly used on board. They were shut under hatches, starved, and almost suffocated. During a severe storm among the Orkney Islands the vessel was wrecked. The sailors escaped, but left the prisoners under hatches. When the vessel broke up a few escaped, but about 200 were drowned.

After this sad defeat of the Covenanters at Bothwell Bridge their persecution became hotter. Many of the most eminent of them were executed in the Grassmarket,

60 Historical Sketch of the

Edinburgh. Their most faithful ministers were thinned away by a martyr’s death. Soon there were hardly any beside Richard Cameron, Donald Cargill, and Alexander Peden. The first of these was, in youth, an Episcopalian, but became a Covenanter from conviction. For some time he acted as tutor in the family of Sir William Scott of Harden. After receiving license, he became a fearless and most eloquent preacher. According to tradition, sometimes an audience, consisting of several thousands, listened to his eloquence, on some wild moor or in some secluded glen. His preaching was not mere denunciation of the wickedness which abounded in high places, though in this he had an ample subject. Like Paul, his chief subject was Christ crucified, and his chief earnestness manifested in urging Christ upon the acceptance of sinners. In this, those who have long borne his name—the ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church—have resembled him. Preaching on one occasion to a vast audience near Muirkirk, on the words, ‘Ye will not come unto Me, that ye might have life,’ we find him saying, ‘My Master hath been crying unto you in the parishes of Muirkirk and Crawfordjohn and Douglas, “Ye will not come unto Me, that ye might have life.” What say ye? Shall I go away and tell my Master that ye will not come unto Him?’

‘Ye that have been plagued with deadness, hardness of heart, and unbelief, He now requires you to give in your answer, Yes or no.

‘I take instruments before these hills and mountains around us that I have offered Him unto you this day. Angels are wondering at the offer; they stand beholding with admiration that our Lord is giving you such an offer this day.

‘What shall I say to Him that sent me? Shall I say, Lord, there are some yonder, saying, “I am content to give Christ my heart, and hand, house, and land, and all that I have for His cause.”

‘Look over to the Shaw head, and all those hills, look

Reformed Presbyterian Church. 61

at them; they are all witnesses now, and when you are dying they shall come before your face.’ As the immediate effect of this sermon, it is said that ‘thousands were subdued into calm weeping.’

Exactly a year after the battle of Bothwell Bridge—that is, on 22d June 1680—twenty armed men rode up the principal street of the ancient burgh of Sanquhar. On reaching the market-place, two of these, Richard Cameron and his brother Michael, dismounted, the rest forming a circle around them. After a Psalm had been sung, and prayer offered, Michael Cameron read aloud what has since been called the Sanquhar Declaration. It was in these words:—‘We do, by these presents, disown Charles Stuart, that has been reigning, or rather tyrannising, on the throne of Britain, these years bygone, as having any right, title to, or interest in, the crown of Scotland for government, as forfeited several years since, by his perjury and breach of Covenant both to God and His Kirk, and by his tyranny, and breach of the very leges regnandi (the very essential conditions of government) in matters civil. . . . We do declare a war with such a tyrant and usurper, and all the men of his practices. . . . And we hope after this none will blame us for, or offend at our rewarding those that are against us, as they have done unto us, as the Lord gives opportunity.’ After a concluding prayer, these twenty armed men silently rode away as they came. There may be different opinions as to the matter and manner of this declaration; but it cannot justly be denied that the principles, here boldly asserted, and for which these few brave men hazarded their lives, form the very germ of the principles which eight years later triumphed throughout the nation, and in the success of which even peers and prelates gloried. In the last sermon which Cameron preached, not far from the battlefield of Drumclog, he stated these principles of civil liberty, more fully and clearly.

For some time before his death, Cameron was usually accompanied by about sixty armed men. This number

62 Historical Sketch of the

included his brother Michael, Hackstoun of Rathillet, and James Gray of Chryston, a young man of remarkable piety and bravery. On the 22d of July 1680, they had assembled at Airdsmoss, a wild moor between Cumnock and Muirkirk. In the afternoon a troop of horse, one hundred and twenty in number, commanded by Bruce of Earlshall, was seen galloping towards them. The Covenanters drew up. Cameron offered up a short earnest prayer, in which he uttered those memorable words, ‘Lord, spare the green, and take the ripe.’ The sixteen horsemen, and forty footmen, were arranged so as to have eight horsemen in the right wing, commanded by Cameron, and the rest on the left, commanded by Hackstoun, the forty footmen being in the centre. At the first onset the horsemen of the Covenanters broke the line of the enemy, but were unsupported by the footmen, who had little experience. They were soon surrounded, in detached parties; and though they fought bravely, were soon overcome. Cameron was killed. Hackstoun would have cut his way through the enemy, but his horse bogged, and while he was in conflict with a powerful dragoon, three others came behind him and struck him on the head. Cameron’s head and hands were struck off, and carried to Edinburgh; Hackstoun and others were conveyed thither as prisoners, and were very cruelly treated by the way.

The followers of Cameron now existed in what were called United Societies. These were distinguished from the more moderate Presbyterians, who had accepted the indulgence. The first meeting of the societies was held in December 1681. In each society meeting, the members usually engaged in prayer, reading the Word, considering some particular religious question or doctrine, given out at the last meeting, and conference. For maintaining communion and discipline, aggregate quarterly meetings were held. These were attended by delegates, from the several societies in the general district, and were somewhat like presbytery meetings. Gordon of Earlston, when under examination by the Council, testi-

Reformed Presbyterian Church. 63

fied that there were about eighty such district societies, and about seven thousand members. This was about the commencement of these meetings. They increased in numbers and membership towards the Revolution. These societies carried on correspondence with the Protestant Church in Holland, chiefly through Sir Robert Hamilton, who was residing there. These United Societies, as they were generally called, had now assumed a definite political as well as religious position. To this they were driven by persecution, cruel and wholly unconstitutional. The King had not only broken his covenant with them, but also grossly violated the constitutional bargain, between him and his subjects. The Covenanters did not hold the irrational and unscriptural theory, that kings have a divine right to do as they please, while the only right possessed by their subjects is the right and duty to obey their kings in all things, civil and religious. They believed that the law, or constitution, to which both King and people have consented, and which forms the bargain between them, is equally binding on both parties—and superior to both. That loyalty really, as well as literally, means fidelity to the law or constitution, and consequently kings are disloyal if they violate the constitution, and are, as much as their subjects, amenable to constitutional law, which alone, under Christ, is supreme. This theory is now generally and practically admitted, but it was little understood, and still less liked, by the kings of the Stuart dynasty. A portion, at least, of the stricter Covenanters, held, as a corollary to this doctrine, that, the constitutional bargain being broken on the royal side, they were no longer bound to pay for the support of such royalty; and they decidedly objected to pay what was called the cess, imposed for the special purpose of paying the soldiers employed in their persecution. A well-known novelist, who was evidently a Jacobite in his sympathies, ridicules these men as impracticable fanatics. Some of them may have been maddened by persecution—and little wonder. But, judged from the minutes of

64 Historical Sketch of the

their societies, they were not only men of intelligence, and sound sense, politically as well as religiously, but also far in advance of their age, in holding what is now generally admitted. They, in solitude, and in the face of fiery persecution, held political principles in 1680 which the majority of the nation, and the Government itself, avowed in 1688.

The martyr-death of Cameron, and the execution of Hackstoun and others in 1680, were followed by the execution of Donald Cargill, in the Grassmarket, Edinburgh, on 27th July 1681. On the scaffold he uttered these words, ‘Now I am near the getting of the crown, for which I bless the Lord, and desire all of you to bless Him, that he hath brought me here, and made me triumph over devils, men, and sin. They shall wound me no more. I forgive all men the wrongs they have done me, and I pray the sufferers may be kept from sin, and helped to know their duty.’ Standing near the scaffold, and listening to these words, was a young man named James Renwick, nineteen years of age. Born in the village of Minniehive, Nithsdale, in 1662, he, even at six years of age, was remarkable for thought and piety. Soon becoming a good scholar for his age, he partly supported himself by acting as a tutor. He passed his curriculum in Edinburgh University successfully, and would have taken his degree with honours, but refused to do, what was then necessary to taking a degree—to take the oath of supremacy. Renwick held, religiously and politically, the principles of the United Societies. They sent him over to Holland, to pursue his theological studies, at the University of Groningen. His course of study there was short, but laborious. While engaged in it, he wrote repeatedly to his suffering friends in Scotland. In one of these letters he says, ‘Courage yet! for all that is come and gone. The loss of men is not the loss of the cause. What is the matter, though we all fall?—the cause shall not fall.’ In the end of 1683 Renwick returned to Scotland, and laboured among the societies. In this he was

Reformed Presbyterian Church. 65

greatly successful, and they soon recognised in him a minister of no ordinary mental gifts and religious fervour. He was called the ‘boy Renwick,’ but he was a strong man intellectually.

Renwick was very useful to the Societies, in assisting them to draw up their public papers. They had been grossly maligned by their enemies. They calmly sought to justify their principles and proceedings. In defending themselves against such misrepresentations, they published what is called the Informatory Vindication. This was drawn up by Renwick, and afterwards carefully revised by the Societies. In this paper they manifest a liberality and catholicity, a missionary and union spirit, far in advance of their time, and for which they have seldom got credit. In it they say, ‘Our Societies are not a Church, but only the temporary means by which alone we can enjoy religious instruction and ordinances. . . . But, turning away from this, our special, our broken, and melancholy condition, are there not close and hallowed relations between all who are truly disciples of the same Lord? On this catholic communion let us impose no narrow restrictions. Although they differ from us in the word of their special testimony, if they agree in the essentials, let us embrace them and love them, and acknowledge fellowship with them as Christian brethren.’ They sought fellowship with the Protestant Churches of Holland and Switzerland, of the Alps, and of Hungary, and declared that Christianity was grander than Protestantism. Renwick, in one of his letters, lamented the divisions prevailing among Christians, and exclaimed, ‘Oh, when shall those be agreed on earth that shall be agreed in heaven! Methinks, if my blood were a means to procure that end, I could willingly offer it.’

The sufferers of these sad times were not all stern men like Burley and Hackstoun, or educated ministers like Cameron or Renwick. Little children sometimes suffered severe torture for refusing to reveal where their parents were concealed. Tender women were also made to suffer

66 Historical Sketch of the

in countless forms, and sometimes even to death. Marion Harvie and Isobel Allison, two pious young women, about twenty years of age, were executed at Edinburgh on 26th January 1681. Their only crime was hearing the ejected ministers. Margaret M‘Lauchlan, a widow of sixty-three, and Margaret Wilson, a young woman of eighteen, were, in 1685, condemned for a similar offence, and drowned in the Solway Firth, at Blednoch, near Wigton.*

On the 30th of April 1685, Claverhouse committed a cruel murder on a truly good man, John Brown of Priesthill, usually called the ‘Christian carrier.’ Brown was well known for his intelligence and sincere piety. His house was a resort for the persecuted wanderers. Early on the morning of the above day, he had gone out to dig peat. It being a dark misty morning, Claverhouse came upon him suddenly. He took him to his own door, and there, in presence of his wife and young children, said to him, ‘Go to your prayers immediately, for you must die.’ Brown prayed, and then kissed his wife and children. Claverhouse stopped him abruptly while blessing them, and, addressing his soldiers, said, ‘You six there, shoot him instantly.’ The hardened soldiers were so impressed by Brown’s prayer that they were slow to obey. Claverhouse then presented his own pistol, and shot him dead, in presence of his weeping wife and children. Addressing the widow, the cruel, cowardly ruffian said, ‘What thinkest thou of thy husband now, woman?’ ‘I ever thought much of him, and now more than ever,’ she meekly replied. ‘Wretch,’ rejoined the ruffian, ‘it were but just to lay thee beside him.’ ‘If you were permitted,’ she answered, ‘I doubt not but your cruelty would go that far, but how will you answer for this morning’s work?’ ‘To man I can be answerable,’ he said; ‘and as for God I will take Him into my own hand.’ The persecution of the Covenanters became even hotter. Several instances are on record of persons shot in the fields merely for being found reading their Bible.

_____

* Wodrow, vol. ii. chap. 9.

Reformed Presbyterian Church. 67

While, on the other hand, it was sometimes deemed sufficient evidence that a person was not a Covenanter if he were heard swearing profanely. Drunkards and other vile sinners were safe; Bible-readers and pious persons everywhere in danger. The rulers reversed the Bible rule—‘They were a praise to evil-doers, a terror to those who did well.’ Matters were not mended by the accession of James in February 1685. He was less vicious than Charles, but an avowed Papist, very bigoted in his religion, and equally impracticable in his politics. Soon after his accession, the Bible became practically a proscribed book in Scotland, and the reading of it high treason, for that book clearly condemned the faith of the King. These were called the ‘killing times.’

We are not to suppose that only those in the lower ranks of life suffered persecution; it extended to the gentry, baronets, and even peers. Among the sufferers were such men as Mr Baillie of Jerviswoode, Sir Hugh Campbell of Cessnock, Sir Patrick Hume of Polwarth, Sir William Scott of Harden, Sir James Stewart of Coltness, and others of similar rank. Robert Baillie of Jerviswoode was a very remarkable man. Historians agree in representing him as a thoroughly-educated and highly accomplished gentleman,—a man distinguished for piety, patriotism, and political sagacity. His good character was his only real crime, but that was quite sufficient to make him hateful to the King. His alleged crime was his ‘inter-communing with rebels,’—that is, having occasional intercourse with the Covenanters. Apart from this, he was sufficiently related to distinguished Reformers, being the great-grandson of John Knox, and a nephew of that Lord Warriston who drew up the Covenant, and afterwards was executed as a Covenanter. He was tried, condemned, and cast into prison. He appeared to be dying; and, lest he should die ere the time of his execution should arrive, a fine equal to about £20,000 of our present currency was laid upon his estates. Even while he was weak and apparently dying, Bishop Burnet says of him, ‘He was so composed

68 Historical Sketch of the

and even so cheerful, that his behaviour looked like the reviving of the spirit of the noblest of the old Greeks or Romans, or rather of the primitive Christians and first martyrs in the best days of the Church.’ The Lord Advocate, Sir George Mackenzie, told him in private that he believed he was innocent; yet, in court, this false tool of the State accused him bitterly of all that was laid to his charge. When challenged by Baillie with this inconsistency, Mackenzie said, ‘Jerviswoode, I own what you say; my thoughts there were as a private man. What I say here is by special direction of the Privy Council.’ ‘Well, my Lord,’ replied Baillie, ‘if you keep one conscience for yourself and another for the Council, I pray God to forgive you; I do.’ Sentence was pronounced upon this truly noble man, to the effect that he was to be executed on that very same day; his body to be quartered, and exposed in the chief towns of the kingdom; his estates confiscated; his name and honours to be extinct, and his blood tainted for ever. In his dying testimony he said, ‘I leave my wife and children upon the compassionate and merciful hand of my God, having many reiterated assurances that God will be my God, and the portion of mine.’ In the subsequent history of this good man’s descendants we have a strange commentary on the fulfilment of a bad King’s curse. The Baillies of Jerviswoode are now represented in five or six peerages, including those of Haddington, Breadalbane, Aberdeen, and Polwarth, besides holding high place on the bench, and in the army.

In this brief sketch, I cannot particularly refer to more of the distinguished men who suffered death. The Earl of Argyll, having refused to take the test, was condemned, but escaped to Holland. Patriotically attempting to deliver his native country from the cruel despotism under which it groaned, he failed in the attempt, was taken, and executed. Alexander Peden—a pious and shrewd minister in Ayrshire, whose forebodings in regard to the future have sometimes been misrepresented as inspired predictions—worn out with protracted persecution, died in his brother’s

Reformed Presbyterian Church. 69

home near Cumnock. His persecutors took a silly revenge upon him for escaping them while alive. They dug his body out of the grave, and hanged it near the place where he died. James Renwick, already referred to as a leader among the Societies, now alone survived of the more eminent ministers. Faithfully testifying for the truth, this last of the martyrs was, at the early age of twenty-six, executed in the Grassmarket, Edinburgh, on the 17th of February 1688. The infatuated King had now become too tyrannical for the English bishops, as well as for the Scottish Covenanters, whom they had supported him in persecuting. Deceitfully, he had tried to gain the favour of the Presbyterians of Scotland by including them, with the Romanists, in a toleration granted to both. They knew him too well, however, to be thus deceived. The stricter Covenanters, at least, spurned a toleration that the King had no right to give. The nation was now ripe for revolution, and the hot fire of persecution had hastened this ripening.

[Illustration.]