Reid A Cameronian Apostle IV.
James Dodson
63
CHAPTER IV.
1700.
THE PRESBYTERY.
Number of members—Reid—Boyd—Warner—Ewart—Cameron—Telfair—The Ringcroft Ghost—Monteith and his “Testimony”—Hay—Tod—Murdoch and Gordon—Johnston, Spalding, Bryden, Clark, Falconer—Order of parishes geographical—List of the members.
AT the date of Macmillan’s ordination, September 18th, 1701, the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright consisted of fourteen clerical members. At the time of his license in the month of November, 1700, there had been only thirteen. But since that time, Andrew Ewart of Kells had returned to the Presbytery, his parish having been re-annexed by the General Assembly. The four parishes of the “Glenkens” seem to have oscillated between the Presbyteries of Wigtown and Kirkcudbright. It was not till April, 1703, that Carsphairn and Dalry were restored, making the total membership up to sixteen, where it stood until the three quoad sacra parishes of the present list were added. At a later time in our story, an agitation arose for a separate “Glenkens Presbytery,” but it came to nought. The brethren of the Glenkens, however, continued to be a sort of “third party” or “cross-bench,” and at this period, they were, all four, men of marked individuality and considerable influence in the Church. Their names were John Reid of Carsphairn, William Boyd of Dalry, Thomas Warner of Balmaclellan, and Andrew Ewart of Kells.
JOHN REID, A.M., became minister of Carsphairn in 1694, and died in 1737, when he was succeeded by his son Andrew.
64 A Cameronian Apostle.
Carsphairn was a new parish, having been formed in 1639 out of Kells and Dalry, at the instance of some local gentlemen. These persons had built a church at their own expense, “out of love to the salvation of souls of barbarous and ignorant people, who has heretofore lived without the knowledge of God, their children unbaptized, their dead unburied, and no way for getting maintenance to a minister.” This is the language of a “supplication” presented to the General Assembly on 6th June, 1638, which also describes Carsphairn as “a very desolate wilderness, containing five hundred communicants.” The Assembly recommended a collection for behoof of the parish to be made in all parishes south of the Tay. The ministry of John Semple soon rendered its name familiar. He appears in Patrick Walker’s narrative* as a singular combination of simplicity and shrewdness, superstition and powerful common sense. Imprisoned in the Castle of Edinburgh at the Restoration in 1660, he was indulged, at the instance of Viscount Kenmure, in 1672; fined in 1673 for not observing the anniversary of the Restoration; and finally cited in August 1677 before the Privy Council. He came forward undaunted, and when threatened with death or banishment, replied in his own characteristic style: “He is above that guides the gully! My God will not let you kill or banish me, but I will go home and die in peace.” And home he did go, and died at the age of 75. He left his savings to the poor of the town of Kirkcudbright. His successor was a “curate,” Peter Peirson by name, who had formerly been in Crossmichael. He was a Master of Arts, a man of great courage and determination, and unsparing in his denunciation to the authorities of non-conformists and conventiclers. Owing to his remaining celibate, and living quite alone, without even a servant, as well as for other reasons, he was suspected of popery. This, as well as his untiring efforts to force his rude flock to attend his minis-
_____
* Biographia Presbyteriana, 1727.
The Presbytery. 65
trations, brought about the deplorable tragedy of November 1684. A deputation of two had waited on him at the manse, to exact a promise that he would cease to lodge informations against Covenanters and non-hearers. He promptly seized his sword and pistol, and with his back at the door of the study, refused to permit them to leave. In the struggle which ensued, one of the men (supposed to be James Macmichael) shot him dead. He was 39 years old at the time.* Such was the parish in which John Reid had laboured since 1694. The people were keen partisans of the Covenants, and it is little to be wondered at, that Reid should have made one of the three protesters against Erastian compliances, who exercised the minds of the Presbytery in 1703.
WILLIAM BOYD, after studying at the Glasgow University, joined the United Societies, at whose expense he was trained in Holland, along with Shields and Lining, for the ministry. He obtained license to preach, but no cure of souls. His abilities drew on him the favourable notice of William of Orange, who made him a friend and the confidant of his designs. At the Revolution, he accompanied William to Britain, and was the first to proclaim him king at Glasgow Cross. The Assembly of 1690 received him into full communion, and he was at once ordained to Dalry. Along with his friends, Lining and Michael Shields, he attempted to gain a hearing at the first Revolution Assembly on the contentious points; but “moderation” was the watchword of the day, and they were gently silenced. Rightly or wrongly, he and Lining were regarded by the Society people as apostates and deserters. And Howie asserts that Boyd employed a strange expedient to clear Dalry of the “hill folk,” by trying to get the recruiting officer to press them into the army.†
_____
* See Fasti, in loco.
† Scot’s Fasti, II.; Howie’s “Appendix to the Faithful Contendings,” p. 474; J. H. Thomson, Ref. Presb. Mag., 1869.
66 A Cameronian Apostle.
The story is probably untrue, but it shows the bitter feeling which arose between Boyd and his former friends and benefactors. Such a feeling boded no good to any one who should espouse their cause within the Presbytery.
THOMAS WARNER, A.M., had suffered during the brief supremacy of prelatic principles. He became minister of Balmaclellan in 1672, having accepted the Indulgence. In 1679, he was charged with a breach of the terms of the Indulgence, inasmuch as he had gone outside his parish to preach at conventicles, and had “convened with Mr. John Welsh, late of Irongray, and other declared traitors and intercommuned persons.” As a punishment, he was deprived of his pension out of the stipend until further orders. He persisted in his disobedience, and was declared fugitive in 1684. He escaped death, however, and in 1690 he was included in the Act of Parliament rescinding all fines and forfeitures. The parish had a “curate” in 1685, viz., Patrick Geddie, A.M. (St. Andrews), son of “Mitchell Geddie, skipper in St. Andrews.” Geddie was “rabbled” in 1689, and died the same year. Warner, reinstated, became a member of the 1690 Assembly. He was the last survivor of the pre-Restoration ministers, having come through all vicissitudes unharmed. He died, Father of the Church, in 1716, at the age of 85, and in the 59th year of his ministry.
ANDREW EWART, A.M., (Edin.), was the eldest son of Provost of Kirkcudbright. As a young man, he had suffered in the prelatic times. Becoming minister of Kells in 1691, he died in 1739, aged 78, in the 48th year of his ministry. Ewart was, for a time, a member of the Presbytery of Wigtown, but returned to Kirkcudbright shortly after Macmillan was licensed. He was proprietor of the lands of Mullock and Drummore, a man of substance, and married to Agnes Grierson, heiress of Capenoch, as his second wife.
Such are the meagre particulars to be gleaned regarding the
The Presbytery. 67
four “Glenkens men,” which are, however, sufficient to show their interesting character and position. The real leader of the Presbytery was not among them, although Boyd and Ewart came a fair second. He was ANDREW CAMERON, once minister in Carsphairn, but translated to Kirkcudbright, where he died in 1721, in the 32nd year of his ministry. He was of the purest Covenanting lineage, being a brother of Richard Cameron himself. Like Boyd, he owed his education as a preacher to the United Societies, who sent him to Holland. He was an enthusiastic plotter and wirepuller, and tried to persuade Renwick to join Argyll’s expedition, but without success.* He himself took part in the disastrous campaign, and on its failure, he returned to Holland. He is described as a man of “great piety and profound learning,”† but his sole literary memorials are the “Letter to the parishioners of Balmaghie,” and the Examination of Macmillan’s “True Narrative.” It is hardly possible to judge of his learning from such slender evidence; but his pamphlet is unquestionably superior to Macmillan’s from a literary point of view, and shews a great command of dialectical language. The Presbytery put him forward as their protagonist on all occasions, and it is impossible to doubt, that he moulded the policy which ended in Macmillan’s abrupt deposition. As minister of Kirkcudbright, he held the richest benefice in the Presbytery, and his parish, sometimes even his “chamber,” was the scene of most of the Presbytery meetings. He died without seeing the end of the Balmaghie troubles, and the Anwoth minister, George Gartshore, succeeded him.
Quite the most curious figure, to modern eyes, was ALEXANDER TELFAIR, A.M., (Edin.), whose studies in spiritualism have attracted attention from the versatile Andrew Lang. Tel-
_____
* Renwick’s Letters, May 15, 1685; July 9, 1685; Reformed Presbyterian Magazine, 1869.
† Fasti, II., in loco.
68 A Cameronian Apostle.
fair belonged to a good family, and in 1687 entered the household of Sir Thomas Kirkpatrick of Closeburn, as domestic chaplain or tutor, exactly as Macmillan went to Murray of Broughton. His salary was 100 merks, or about £5, a year. Nicholson* gives, as an old tradition, the following account of the odd way in which Telfair became minister of Rerrick: “. . . Mr. Alexander Telfair had come, somewhere from the high country, to the foot of the water of Urr, to get a passage to the English side. Being detained by contrary winds, or otherwise disappointed of a passage, he took up his residence at Auchencairn, where he began to collect the inhabitants together, exhorting, preaching, and praying in a kiln; and his ministrations pleased them very much. At this time, the curate of Rerrick being very obnoxious to the parishioners, they gathered in a mass, went to the manse, and ordered the curate to leave it and make room for Mr. Telfair, in twenty-four hours’ warning. This, he was obliged to do, and Mr. Telfair accordingly took possession; and it is believed that he had no other ordination to the ministry.” This is a strange tale, yet quite in keeping with the unsettled times in which it is placed.
Telfair’s remarkable pamphlet is entitled, “A True Relation of an Apparition, Expressions, and Actings, of a Spirit, which infested the house of Andrew Mackie, in Ringcroft of Stocking, in the Parish of Rerwick, in the Stewart[y] of Kirkcudbright, in Scotland, 1695, by Mr. Alexander Telfair, Minister of that Parish; and attested by many other persons, who were also eye and ear-witnesses.”†
This astonishing example of credulity and superstition must not be allowed to pass without notice, even at the cost of a digression. The “Spirit” which infested Andrew Mackie’s
_____
* Historical and Traditional Tales, p. 4.
† See this tract reprinted in Nicholson’s Hist. and Traditional Tales.
The Presbytery. 69
house completely puzzled the minister, whose prayers and exhortations proved unavailing. It was a humorous being, and delighted in throwing stones, loosing the cattle from their stalls, filling the house with peat-smoke, hiding pots and pans, and banging people about the body. It did not respect even the minister’s sacred person, for he pathetically says,—“Stones and several other things were thrown at me. I was struck several times on the sides and shoulders very sharply with a great staff, so that those who were present heard the noise of the strokes.” If the shrewd reader will recall our account of the darkness of these Galloway houses and then remember that the manifestations took place at night, and in winter, he will have no difficulty in seeing a mischievous or crazy person at the bottom of the mystery. The ghost was, in point of fact, seen—“as it were a young boy about the age of fourteen years, with grey clothes and a bonnet on his head.” We should rather think so! The young boy deserved a sound thrashing for his tricks! But in that solemn and highstrung time, these puerile pranks were taken au serieux, and Mr. Telfair carried his griefs and perplexities to the Presbytery.
That reverend body heard the gruesome tale without a smile, and straightway appointed a committee to exorcise the Ringcroft ghost by fasting and prayer. The committee consisted of Murdoch of Crossmichael, Macmillan of Balmaghie (the first of that name), Spalding of Parton, Falconer of Kelton, and Monteith of Borgue. They were chosen, no doubt, because of age or piety, for it is observable that Cameron of Kirkcudbright was not among them. His shrewd mind would have been uncongenial to the business of ghost-laying. Monteith of Borgue was himself a specialist in these affairs, having had in 1690 a vision of great “light, power, and presence.” He had also various wrestlings with Satan, and heard voices whispering to him. We shall see this more fully when we come to speak of him. Per-
70 A Cameronian Apostle.
haps, there were others on the committee equally at home in occult phenomena.
The Committee assembled at the haunted house, and straightway the wicked sprite assailed them, without remorse or reverence. Poor Monteith, in particular, received a “great stone, more than a quarter weight,” on his back. Yet, “he was not hurt.” While he was praying, another stone hit him “on the breast.” The members were all witnesses of these “sinful games,” except Macmillan of Balmaghie, whose chronic ill-health would furnish an excuse for absence. The evil spirit does not seem to have minded the Presbytery much, for it went on from bad to worse, in spite of “a day of humiliation” being held on its account in the parish. At last, it took to setting the house on fire, and the poor inmates were driven to leave it and live in the stable. Its final demonstration was its burning a “little sheep house,” perhaps, after Charles Lamb’s recipe, for roast mutton. The sheep, however, were saved, and this ended the ghostly amusements. It may be noted, that it was now the month of May, and the mischievous bipeds, who were in my opinion aping the powers of evil, could no longer carry on their operations during the night without fear of detection. But Telfair had no such “rationalistic” views. He at once published his account, attested by the Presbytery’s Committee and several parishioners. The name of Andrew Ewart of Kells appears as a witness; perhaps, he had taken Macmillan’s place. The whole episode throws a curious light on the superstitious feelings and beliefs of the time. Like modern spirit-rappers, Telfair regards these diabolical manifestation as yielding indisputable proof of a future life, confuting “Modern Sadducism,” and establishing the existence of spirits, good and evil, and “consequently, a Heaven and a Hell.”* He also deduces the duty of family worship, as a safeguard against
_____
* See his preface to the tract: Nich. Hist. and Trad. Tales, p. 5.
The Presbytery. 71
Satan, and warns ministers and congregations to be on the alert against the adversary, the devil, who, “as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour.” The whole tract is most singular, in its simplicity and childlike superstition, and well repays a careful reading. Its success was immediate and rapid as a literary venture; and Telfair had henceforth the honours of a literary man among his brethren.
Hardly less interesting, as a study of sancta simplicitas and old-world faith, is JAMES MONTEITH of Borgue, another co-presbyter of John Macmillan. Educated at Glasgow University, he went to Ireland in 1687, and returning, became schoolmaster at Kilmarnock in 1689, while awaiting preferment. He received license to preach from the Presbytery of Irvine in 1692, and immediately accepted a unanimous call to Borgue. There, he was ordained in January 1693, and there he laboured untiringly, in his own painful way, till his death in 1744. He had attained his jubilee, and died, according to his editor and successor, Samuel Smith, “feared, honoured, and loved by his flock.”* In the Fasti, he is depicted as a man of “remarkable piety and zeal, but tinctured with superstition,” a description fully borne out by the Ringcroft proceedings, and by his own writings. He was also, however, a strong upholder of the people’s rights, as he deemed them to be; for during the dyke-levelling riots in the Stewartry in 1724, he was reported to be an instigator of the mob. He is said to have declared that “the government of the country was now in the hands of the tenantry,” a thesis which must have made him highly obnoxious to the dyke-building landowners. We may conjecture, that Monteith was therefore a keen politician, and like most parish clergy who are faithful pastors, almost too much alive to the hardships suffered by the labouring poor. The agrarian question of his time was the
_____
* See reprint by Rev. Samuel Smith, 1841: Introduction, p. 48.
72 A Cameronian Apostle.
result of the old communal system of agriculture. The land was held in runrig—i.e., there were no fences except such as natural obstacles, a loch, a burn, a river, or a hill, provided; and the cattle and sheep had common pasture. The crops were divided pro rata, amid a good deal of quarrelling and bad feeling. With the awaking of agriculture at the beginning of the eighteenth century, such a state of things became impossible. Landowners began to enclose pasture and field; and no doubt, in the process, some old rights were infringed. At all events, a violent popular feeling arose: mobs marched in good order, and overthrew the new dykes. A collision had well-nigh taken place between the mob and the yeomanry, but peace was preserved by tact and patience. The wave of excitement spent itself, and its last effects were felt on the Duchrae estate in Balmaghie.*
Monteith published nothing in his own lifetime, but he left a MS., which the Rev. Samuel Smith edited and published in 1841, in a small volume. He prefixed an unnecessarily long introduction, entitled, “Am I a Christian?” The actual MS. of Monteith runs to 52 pages, and Mr. Smith’s introductory remarks occupy 52 more. Monteith’s papers are entitled, the one, A Testimony to the Free Grace of God, being an account of his religious experiences; the other, Advices to my Children and Parishioners, counsels on the religious life. The Testimony discloses a singularly simple-minded and even superstitious character. Written in the thirty sixth year of his ministry, it recounts in general terms some of his pastoral trials and triumphs. The style is wonderfully clear and unassuming, and the whole little tract breathes a most fervent humility and piety. He discloses much regarding his own personal religious habits. He was, from an early age, given to
_____
* See, for an account of the Dyke Levellers, Nich. Hist., II.
The Presbytery. 73
self-examination and secret prayer: attended church regularly, and read the “best books I could get;” and had a strong desire to save souls. Like many earnest men of his strenuous time, he suffered “horrible temptations and suggestions most blasphemous” from Satan. Even as a school-boy, he was often “unreasonable, by stoppings in the way, and praying for help from the Lord.”* The day of his greatest blessing was March 30th, 1690—“that Sabbath evening, what light, life, and comfort, he was pleased to let out on my soul! It was better to me than all things in the world, though it did not last long; and perhaps all in consequence of my miscarriage and mismanagement of such a condescending love-visit from so great and so holy a majesty as the Lord is.”† He complains of “Satan’s injections of blasphemous thoughts,” which, however, were succeeded by a marvellous vision about break of day, when “it pleased the Lord on a sudden to fill the room where I was alone, with such light, power, and presence, as I never felt the like before.”‡ But alas! “on November 2nd, 1695, I was assailed by Satan with twelve different temptations.” He resolved to go to bed. “I was scarcely entered the room, when I heard one whispering—‘pray once more to the Lord before you go to bed, and speak no more’ . . . no sooner was I on my knees, than an inexpressible power came on my soul, with light, life, and sweetness . . . also, my very body was strangely at ease.”ǁ The next scene has a strong touch of tragedy. “July 8th, 1706, being the Monday after the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in Borgue, Ebenezer, then my only son, took ill. When I rose, I saw he was dying. I went into a chamber, leaving his mother and others with him. I cannot express, how it pleased a gracious Lord to show himself to my soul, there, with light, life, strength, and consolation; clearing
_____
* P. 13.
† P. 24.
‡ P. 33.
ǁ P. 35, 36.
74 A Cameronian Apostle.
up to my soul, that he was my God in Christ, and the God of my seed for ever . . . and heaven came down as it were to my soul, with such light, power, and sense, that I had not room to receive more . . . I thought, if I had a son every day in my life afterwards to die, I could most easily part with them, and say most cheerfully, ‘Lord, take them to thee, and a thousand blessings to thee for doing it!’ I stayed a considerable time alone. I cannot tell how long it was, but when I came unto him, and saw he was near his end, I desired him to look to Jesus Christ, the only Saviour. He observed me, though weak, and smiled; and in a moment after, he departed this life. In the meantime, my soul was so serene, and filled with joy and peace, that I had ado to keep myself from leaping in the room, and never had one moment of sorrow for his death, though he was gone in the sixth year of his age, and showed extraordinary capacity and fondness toward all that was good, and an abhorrence of all evil, and an only son, five dead before. This frame lasted some days.”*
One does not quite know whether to weep or to smile at a passage like this, of such mingled devotion and extravagance. Verily, Mr. Monteith’s wits were, at times, perilously balanced. A “naturalistic” reader will be disposed to suggest, that such hysterical joy over the death of a beloved only son, “five dead before,” was simply a violent reaction against terrible despair and grief. The father’s heart and eye were still alert, however; he looked in the little childish face, he noted how the dying boy “observed” him, and “smiled,” and “in a moment after, departed.” And his heart was broken, though he “had ado” to keep himself “from leaping in the room.” “This frame lasted some days!” Yes; and then came hours and days of dreadful sorrow, as violent as the unnatural joy.
_____
* P. 40, 41.
The Presbytery. 75
Monteith, after the fashion of the day among high and low, made a solemn “covenant” with God on June 22, 1606. The chief point in it, worthy of note, is his beseeching God to “break the power of sin in my soul, particularly the predominant sin, which, thou knowest, has given me many a sore heart; and keep me from being, in my day, a stain to religion in any way.”* This covenant he expressly renewed or “renovated” periodically before he celebrated the communion in Borgue, as well as at the sacramental “occasions” of other parishes. He specifies among such, a communion at Balmaghie House, probably during the time of the “parish schism,” when the regular ministers could not obtain access to the parish church. The sole reference made by him to contemporary events, however, is contained in a single short paragraph, as follows:—
“In the year of God 1703, when things were like to go wrong as to religion in this land, I had many thoughtful hours about it, which did continue for some time. And especially in the year 1707, about the Union of these lands of Scotland and England. I could never think it consistent with the engagements Scotland was under, to consent that Prelacy should subsist in England, though I was fully convinced, that Church judicatories as such could do no more than they did in this matter. I must own, when the news of the Pretender’s coming to sea was made known, that after several hours and several days were spent, I was assured in prayer he would not succeed in his undertaking . . . and accordingly preached, and wrote to some friends who doubted about it.”†
The reference here to the year 1703 must be to the troubles with Macmillan; and Monteith’s attitude towards the Union is that which the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright, and Church courts generally, were obliged to adopt. The Union was felt to be a
_____
* Testimony, p. 42-44.
† P. 47, 48.
76 A Cameronian Apostle.
serious blow to the Scottish Covenant; but, as he says: “they could do no more than they did,” i.e., record empty protests and resolutions.
So much for the more noteworthy members. A few sentences may be given to those who remain. THOMAS HAY of Anwoth, educated at Glasgow University, became minister in 1696. In 1711, he fell into great unpopularity and some degree of scandal, not unconnected with conviviality. A resignation was arranged and accepted in 1711, and he was succeeded by GEORGE GARTSHORE, son of James Gartshore of that Ilk. He in his turn, was called to succeed Cameron at Kirkcudbright, and his place was filled in 1724 by JOHN ENSLIE, who after a few months was translated to the Scotch Church at Rotterdam. Enslie served that church 34 years, and was then declared emeritus.
WILLIAM TOD of Buittle was a licentiate of the Presbytery of Hamilton, and was ordained to the parish in 1699. Although his name, along with that of John Reid of Carsphairn, will occur frequently in these pages, there is little known further regarding him, except that he died in 1735, after being for 37 years minister.
JOHN MURDOCH of Crossmichael was a Master of Arts of Edinburgh University, and died in August 1700, shortly before Macmillan received license. His successor was ROBERT GORDON, who died in 1722, aged 41. He was connected with the Kenmure family, and married a daughter of the then Viscount.
PATRICK JOHNSTON, of Girthon, was a Master of Arts of Edinburgh University. As we have seen, Macmillan was one of his elders for a short time, while chaplain to Murray of Broughton. He died in 1736, aged 63. SAMUEL SPALDING, of Parton, was also an Edinburgh graduate. By birth an Irishman, he was yet of Scottish parentage. He married the heiress of Shirmers, and his lineal descendants
The Presbytery. 77
are in possession of the Holm estate. As we saw, he preached and presided at Macmillan’s ordination.
The minister of Tongland was ROBERT BREDDAN or Bryden, ordained 1693; that of Twynholm was WILLIAM CLARK, ordained 1693, who in 1711 was succeeded by Andrew Boyd, a son of the Dalry minister.
The minister of Kelton was WILLIAM FALCONER.
The court which was to deal with Macmillan consisted of the above fifteen members. I subjoin the list at one view, for the sake of clearness, and placing the parishes in the order of sederunt observed in the Presbytery at that time. This, as it will be seen, was not alphabetical, or according to ordination, but apparently regulated by geographical position.
THE PRESBYTERY OF KIRKCUDBRIGHT, ANNO 1703.
Carsphairn, - John Reid, A.M., - - ordained 1694.
Dalry, - - William Boyd, - - - ,, 1690.
Balmaclellan, - Thomas Warner, - - - ,, 1657.
Parton, - - Samuel Spalding, A.M. (Edin.), ,, 1692?
Crossmichael - Robert Gordon, - - - ordained 1702.
Kelton, - - William Falconer, - - - ,, 1695.
Buittle, - - William Tod, - - - ,, 1699.
Rerrick, - - Alexander Telfair, A.M. (Edin.), - - - - - - ,, 1689.
Kirkcudbright, Andrew Cameron, - - - ,, 1689.
Tongland, - Robert Bryden, - - - ,, 1693.
Twynholm, - William Clark, - - - ,, 1693.
Borgue, - - James Monteith, - - - ,, 1692.
Girthon, - - Patrick Johnston, A.M. (Edin.), - - - - - - ,, 1699.
Anwoth, - - Thomas Hay, - - - ,, 1696.
Balmaghie, - John Macmillan, A.M. (Edin.), - - - - - - ,, 1701.
Kells, - - Andrew Ewart, A.M. (Edin.), ,, 1691.
78 A Cameronian Apostle.
From the above, it appears that the “Father” of the Presbytery was Warner of Balmaclellan, and the youngest members were Macmillan and Gordon of Crossmichael. It is noteworthy that there are no fewer than five graduates of Edinburgh University.