Reid A Cameronian Apostle VII.

CHAPTER VII.

1703.

STRESS.

---

The “Grievances” discussed—The “Answers” given in, and discussed—Protestation by the Three Ministers—An Agreement made—Dispute over Oath of Allegiance—The Synod’s “Act”—Reid dealt with—Macmillan dealt with—His subsequent remarks—Action by the Presbytery in consequence—A Committee to “pose” him.

---

MACMILLAN to the last held, that the moving cause which led to his being accused and deposed was the “Grievances.” In this chapter, therefore, we shall first consider the “Grievances,” and then record the events which culminated in the trial and sentence.

On a careful examination, it is seen at once that, although no less than twelve separate abuses are named, they all in some form or other flow from the first. This complaint is, that the divine right of Presbytery has never been explicitly set forth in an Act of the General Assembly, and recognised by the State. The “intrinsic power” is a direct inference from the “divine right,” and the grievances, which refer to invasions of this power, are all based on the initial maxim, that the Church, being divinely appointed, is subject to no earthly restraints. Macmillan declares that the “intrinsic power” is “now become a case of confession.” In other words, it was in his view a doctrine ignored or denied by the State, and not strenuously maintained, at any cost, by the Church. Hence, the true Christian must confess it before men, by taking such individual action as seemed possible. The arbitrary dissolution of one Assembly, and the

Stress. 109

equally arbitrary convoking of another, the “tergiversing” of the Moderator and Clerk, the failure to assert, at Queen Anne’s accession, that Presbytery was founded on the Word of God, all these were infringements of the “intrinsic power,” or divine right of the Church. Macmillan complained of certain other abuses, connected partly with the past, and partly with the present. Curates had been taken into the Church, indulged ministers had never been required to do penance: the burning of the Covenants at Linlithgow had not been expiated: the Act Rescissory had not been rescinded in its turn: malignants, or persons guilty of persecuting the Covenanters, were left unmolested: discipline was relaxed, and fines too often taken in place of true repentance: the Oath of Allegiance and Bond of Assurance had been generally accepted by ministers, as a condition of continuing to hold their sacred office.

Such, roughly stated, is Macmillan’s indictment, and it bears out the statement that the whole controversy flowed from the question of the jus divinum. Is the Church of Scotland merely an institution established by the State because (as the Claim of Right put it) it is “agreeable to the inclinations of the people?” Or is it a divine body, the very body of Christ, appointed in all its parts by him or his immediate disciples, and therefore the true Church, whether “agreeable” or not? Let it be remembered, that all Macmillan’s co-presbyters professed to hold the jus divinum. As we have seen, his Presbytery had twice overtured the General Assembly to declare it. Macmillan occupied the strongest logical ground, when he said, that the divine authority of the Church excluded interference by a secular hand with its courts, or with the members thereof, whether by calling or dissolving Assemblies, or by imposing oaths of allegiance, as a qualification for the holy ministry.

We shall see how the Presbytery’s best wits were tried to meet Macmillan’s logic. The Committee were allowed 20 days

110 A Cameronian Apostle.

to “have their thoughts.” Accordingly, they reported on 28th July, that the Answers were ready, and asked that “some might be appointed to transcribe them” into the Presbytery’s book, a copy to be also given to Macmillan, who, alone of the three, was then present. Cameron and Ewart were chosen as the scribes, and the work was to be done while the Presbytery continued to sit. Macmillan shewed impatience, saying he had come specially to get these Answers; and he intimated that he would not stay longer that day, but send over for them “the morrow morning.” The Presbytery, however, had now received directions from the Commission how to proceed. They admonished the impatient brother to “walk orderly,” and bade him “sitt down.” Accordingly, he “satt down,” but declared that he would give no reply to the Presbytery’s paper “until he had consulted the other two brethren.” There is much cause to think, that the “other two” by this time, were meditating submission.

It was not till the 17th of August, at a meeting held at Polsack in Balmaghie, that the “Answers” were finally adjusted. Macmillan absented himself, as did the other two. But he had probably already seen the rough draught. A copy was ordered to be made in mundo, and sent to him, to be communicated by him to Reid and Tod. All three were to be written to, and certified that, if they did not attend next meeting or send a “relevant excuse,” the Presbytery would proceed against them without further delay. Such, indeed, were the instructions received from headquarters, where no mercy was shewn to ministers of Macmillan’s stamp, who were regarded as a danger to the Church in such unsettled times.

These “Answers” fill 14 folio pages of the records, and certainly exhibit a masterly hand throughout, which I take to be Cameron’s. The whole ground is covered with such care and detail, as to make the document a valuable one, in the light of present-day discussions.

Stress. 111

Regarding the jus divinum and its consequence, the “intrinsic power,” both are admitted and maintained in theory. In practice it is owned that there is defect. But it is pointed out that no fewer than twenty-four Presbyteries had overtured the last Assembly (being Queen Anne’s first) to assert the divine right and power. Of these, the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright was one. And it is admitted that it would be well if the Assembly were conjunctly dissolved, as formerly, by the Moderator saying “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the alone King and Head of the Church.” This grievance was remedied in the following year, when the custom at present in use was restored. So far the Presbytery’s position seems to be that a gradual assertion and acquisition of the Church’s rights are being made. This is the gist of their remarks on all the points immediately connected with the intrinsic power and divine right. They say, in effect, “We hold these doctrines as strongly as you do, but we are more patient than you are in trying to secure their embodiment in a National Church.” The argument is, therefore, that the Presbytery are conscious of grievances, but labouring to redress them, and not without some success.

When, however, the other matters of detail are touched, the answer given is either a flat denial of matters of fact, or a refusal to debate matters belonging to the past. As practical men, the Presbytery urge that these bygone events, such as the Indulgences, the burning of the Covenants, and the persecutions, should be allowed to rest in the grave of the past. “Let the dead bury their dead.”

The conclusion of the “Answers” is not without a touch of pathos and eloquence. “These are our grievances as well as yours.” . . . “If a Church be orthodox in doctrine . . . pure in worship . . . there can be no ground of withdrawing from her, though there be defects of particular judicatories

112 A Cameronian Apostle.

in the exercise of discipline, besides other grievances. It’s easy for you to carp at defects in the Church, but let us see what help ye will give us to redress them.” An appeal is made to the complainers to return to brotherly ways, in the face of the abounding scandals in the Presbytery. “Our hands are few and weak.” Their separation from the Presbytery will further weaken the Church, and the enemies “are watching at the gate.”

Reading such sentences in modern light, one feels that they have a ring of sincerity. At the same time it is undeniable that they embody an attempt to obscure the issue. Macmillan, at least, was prepared to say Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. Let the Establishment perish, provided the absolute divine truth be held fast! But he had to deal with men of business, not of theories. To them, jus divinum and “intrinsic power” were principles of faith. Expediency and compromise were principles of policy. They were not prepared to go out again into the wilderness. Much had been conceded already by the State, and more would yet be gained in quieter times. As Monteith said, half remorsefully, they could not do more than they did*, without losing all for which they and their fathers had fought and bled. Was it wise, or patriotic, or even Christian, to pull down the whole house, because of a defective gable-end, or a little portion affected with dry rot? The Church was not all they had hoped, but it was more than they could afford to despise. And so, these wise fathers and brethren practically besought Macmillan to swallow his scruples, as they were doing. He must “grin and bear it,” hoping for a recompense. Or else he must go out alone into the darkness.

The Presbytery’s “Answers” concluded with a sharp command, and something like a threat “ . . . we require you

_____

* Testimony, p. 47.

Stress. 113

to consider thir things, to live orderly and peaceably in brotherly love with us, who are willing for the peace of the Church, to let fall bygone mistakes. But withal, we must tell you, if ye continue to provoke this Church by such uncharitable and unchristian calumnies, schism and contumacy added thereunto, ye will expose yourselves to her just censure. Your positive and express answer is required, with respect to thir things, namely, what use ye intend to make of them, whether to withdraw from us, or continue with us. . . .”

It is observable that the Presbytery, from this point, treated Macmillan differently from the other two “dissenting brethren,” as the minute of August 17 styles them. For while Boyd is appointed to write to Reid his neighbour, and Falconer in like manner is to write to Tod; in Macmillan’s case, the “Clerk of the Presbytery” is specified as the person who is to communicate with him. It is true that the Clerk at this time was Gordon of Crossmichael, Macmillan’s neighbour; but this was a pure coincidence, arising from his being the youngest ordained minister.

The Presbytery’s tactics were clear. They aimed at cutting up the small band, and dealing with each offender separately. In this design they ultimately succeeded, but not until the three brethren had, as required, tendered a joint answer to the Presbytery’s remonstrances. This answer took the familiar form of a “protestation,” and is here given verbatim:—

“Protestation against all the corruptions, defections, errors, and mismanagements, in the Church Government of Scotland as now established; in particular, against the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright for not disowning them and endeavouring their redress:

“Whereas, it is sufficiently plain to all unbiassed, impartial and discerning ministers and Christians within the National Church, that there are many things amiss in the present constitution, especially as it is ecclesiastick or relates to the Church, of

114 A Cameronian Apostle.

which a catalogue, so far as we know, hath been produced to the Judicatory for remeed and redress, as far as is proper to them and within their power: and yet the said Judicatory having given no satisfying answers thereto, as is wished, which is evident in their ‘Answers’ to the said Grievances represented to them:

“Therefore, we, undersubscribing ministers, elders, and Christians who will adhere to us, protests and declares against all the corruptions as enumerated in the said catalogue and representation, and all others not named in the said catalogue. And hereby we avouch ourselves bound in conscience to disown the said corruptions, and humbly requires you, the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright, to renounce the same; and thereupon takes instruments and craves an extract.

“Written and subscribed by the Clerk at the said Presbytery’s appointment, requiring that this our Protest may be inserted in your Presbytery Book. In testimony whereof we have subscribed the presents at Polsack, the 30th of August, 1703. Sic subscribitur:—

J. REID.

WILLIAM TOD.

J. M‘MILLAN.”

A clause was added as follows:—

“This Protestation, being for the exoneration of our consciences, is not to be interpreted a separation from the Church of Scotland, but to have these our Grievances redressed in an orderly way. And we hereby engage to concur in our capacity for redress of the same, and in other duties according to the Word of God, and our Covenanted Work of Reformation.”

It must be owned that the terms of the foregoing “Protestation” were sufficiently irritating, coming as it did from three of the youngest and least noted members. The “Judicatory” would not have been human, if it had not shewn some annoyance at such expressions as “no satisfying answer;” “requires you the said Presbytery to renounce the same.” Cameron had lavished all his learning and wit on the “Answers,” and his only reward is to be curtly told that he has failed to satisfy these

Stress. 115

men, who had no claim to scholarship at all. The Presbytery is solemnly and particularly accused of breach of duty in not disowning and redressing the “corruptions.” In short, the document, whether intentionally or not, was fitted to provoke severe reprisals. It was little else than an informal “Libel” against the Presbytery. And it might well be answered by a formal “Libel” against its authors.

The Presbytery, however, did not wish to have three criminals to deal with at one time. “For peace sake,” they consented to receive and record the whole paper as above. The additional clause was an afterthought, and furnished at a later stage a battle-ground between Macmillan and his critics, who held it to be a renewed pledge of obedience to the Church Courts. His contention, however, was then and always, that he was no separatist, but a steadfast upholder of a pure national religion.

The Presbytery inflicted upon itself and its disturbers the penance of hearing the entire “Grievances” and “Answers” read over at this meeting. This work must have consumed at least an hour and a half. At the close of it, the Presbytery recorded a brief criticism of the “Protestation,” reaffirming their position, namely, that the real “Grievances” were theirs as well as Macmillan’s, and were being redressed as far as the Presbytery could procure. They pronounced the Protestation to be excessive and groundless, unless as a protest against the Oath of Allegiance.

As soon as this stage was reached, Reid rose and “declared that he was not free to join with ministers who have taken the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen at the administration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; to which Mr. Macmillan adhered.” This fresh outbreak produced a commotion in the Court. Monteith, Ewart, Spalding, Falconer, Johnston, and Gordon, announced that “they could not in conscience act with the said two brethren in Presbytery until they had retracted.”

116 A Cameronian Apostle.

As we have seen, these ministers, along with Cameron and Clark, had all signed the Declaration and Bond of Assurance at the beginning of this year. They now argued that this new statement was in direct violation of the engagement just given by the three protesters, to “concur” with their fellow-ministers.

The argument was specious, but it falls to pieces when we note that the Presbytery added new matter by singling out the Oath of Allegiance as the true and only substantial grievance of the three brethren. Let it be remembered that there was much doubt felt all over the Church regarding this Oath. Was it to be silently endured, that now the protesters should be singled out as having specially refused the pledge of loyalty to the Queen? Macmillan was willing to “concur” with the Presbytery as a Court of Christ, but not as a Court of Queen Anne. Hence the new protest of Reid, to which he adhered, and which at once practically separated both of them from the majority of their brethren.

Here, the matter rested for the next two months. But in that interval, the Synod’s advice was asked, and on the prompting of the leading opponents of Macmillan, an Act of the Synod was read at the Presbytery’s meeting on November 2, which was a meeting “for prayer and privy censures.” We have described the modus operandi at these sittings. The brethren were removed “two by two,” and returning, “were exhorted and admonished as cause was found, except Messrs. Reid and Macmillan, of whom annone.” It may be noted, that Tod was absent from this and subsequent meetings until the final deposition scene took place. The Synod’s Act was as follows:—

“The Synod, upon some reports they heard of Messrs. Reid, Tod, and Macmillan, in the Presbytery’s censures, having called the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright to give an account how matters stood betwixt the Presbytery and them, and the said Presbytery having given an account of the true state of affairs betwixt them, did by their vote appoint the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright to lay

Stress. 117

before the brethren all their miscarriages they know, whether doctrinal or practical, contrair to their engagements at their ordination, and the order of this Church. And if they answer not the Presbytery satisfyingly for what is past, and give security of their orderly behaviour in time coming, that they may either call for correspondents from neighbouring presbyteries to be assisting to them, or else advise the Moderator of the Synod to call the Synod pro re nata; or further, that they may either refer the matter to the Commission of the General Assembly, or crave a committee of their number for assistance to the Synod, as they shall see cause. And in the meantime, appoints the Presbytery of Wigtown to correspond with the Presbytery of Kirkcudbright, ay and until these differences be brought to a final conclusion.” The Presbytery “did read the samen together with some particulars given by a private hand against Messrs. Reid and Macmillan, at the Synod.”*

One can only endorse Macmillan’s own criticism† on the extraordinary procedure of a Court, which acted so energetically upon an ex parte statement, and on such flimsy evidence as “some particulars given by a private hand” against persons not present or formally accused. These “particulars” could never be obtained, although Macmillan demanded a copy. The Presbytery, however, at once proceeded to deal with Reid and Macmillan, Tod being meanwhile absent.

Reid was taken first, and was “posed” with certain of the “particulars” from the “private hand.” It seems, that he had been tracked by a hostile hearer from one place to another, and some of his utterances had been taken down. For instance, “about a year or two ago,” he was accused of teaching at a Sacramental occasion, that the Lord’s Supper was a “converting ordinance,” and “debarring” all who would not accept and approve all the testimonies of the late sufferers in “houses, fields, scaffolds, or elsewhere.” Reid explained, that what he really said was, that preaching about the Lord’s Supper was

_____

* Presb. Rec., Nov. 2, 1703.

† See Appendix.

118 A Cameronian Apostle.

“means of conversion;” and that his “debarring” was rash, and “should have been qualified by these words, ‘according to the Word of God.’” Then, there was a “flagrant report” regarding an utterance at Straiton in the Presbytery of Ayr, to the effect that “Jephthah’s vow, Judges xi. 32, was neither rash nor indeliberate, otherways (said he), ‘a cat or a dog might have met him from his house at his return, as well as his daughter.’” Here, Reid answered that he remembered no such thing. He was further accused of a Socinian error in his presbyterial exercise, when a member of Wigtown Presbytery, and finally of making, on September 28, 1703, “his repentance in the pulpit of Carsphairn” for taking the Oath of Allegiance to the late King William. The Socinianism he denied; and as to the Oath, he explained, that he gave the statement challenged as only one of his scruples regarding the new Oath to Queen Anne, that his former subscription to King William “grumbled his conscience.” But the public recantation, he also denied. The Presbytery praised his “candor and readiness to take with mistakes.” And on a further pledge of concurrence and non-separation, provided the Presbytery sought redress of the “grievances,” they “for peace sake, did pass all bygone as to Mr. Reid, if he carry as he has engaged.” But otherwise, if he should prove “turbulent and divisive,” he was threatened with censure.

With Macmillan, no doctrinal questions arose. The whole examination, to which he was now subjected, referred to the question of separation from the Presbytery. Macmillan, on the renewed understanding that the Presbytery would take action for reform, agreed to “recede or resile” from his position taken up on May 11th, namely, that he would absent himself “for three or four Presbytery days.” Further, he declared his adherence to his ordination vows. Thereupon, though without any such expression of satisfaction as in Reid’s case, they, “being

Stress. 119

desirous to be as condescending as they could, for peace sake do pass all bygone differences and misbehaviours of said Mr. John Macmillan, declaring that, if he behave not orderly for the future, but shall be turbulent or divisive, that then all former things, now passed from, shall be revived, and he censured for them, with those new offences, as shall be found just.”

Macmillan was evidently already unpopular among his brethren, and the submission wrung from him was, on the face of it, a hollow one, and founded on a hollow pledge of forthcoming reforms. And it soon appeared, how little it had altered his feelings as to the situation. The agreement was made on a Tuesday, November 2, and on the following Friday, November 5, according to the Libel, it was alleged that he remarked to “George Mackguffog in Drumleane, an elder,” that “the Presbytery and he were agreed.” On the Sunday following, November 7, however, he is stated to have said from the pulpit, that “no such agreement is like to be,” and “spake of ‘Clubbing’ with the Presbytery.” Macmillan’s explanation was, that “when he went to his studies the said Friday at even, they did not go with him, and that he had not freedom in prayer.” His remarks, on this memorable first Sunday of November seem, according to the Libel, to have been full of references to the crisis. He said, “there were once three that stood for the Truth, but now he knew not, but there was but one; and that, though they should all leave him, he resolved to stand where he was.” Further, he declared, that “he laid his account to be persecuted by the ministry for these things.” Then, on the third Sunday, November 21, he “desired the people of Balmaghie to stick by him; and if they would not, he would stand to his hazard.”

All these excited utterances, perhaps a little garbled, were duly reported to the Presbytery by “several of the brethren,” who had gathered them from “some of the elders and people of

120 A Cameronian Apostle.

Balmaghie.” Immediately it was agreed (“nemine contradicente”) to appoint Cameron, Falconer, Monteith, Johnston, Gordon, and Campbell of Minnigaff, a “corresponding member” from Wigtown, with “George Meik, late bailie of Kirkcudbright, ruling elder,” to deal at once with the recalcitrant brother. No time was to be lost. They were to go next day to the manse, or “any other parts of the parish where Mr. Macmillan may be found.” They were to “pose” him as to these alleged expressions, to demand his renewed adherence to the recent agreement, and to insist on a pledge to be subject to the Presbytery. Failing satisfaction, they were empowered to draw up a libel, beginning from his first “off-breaking,” and proceeding “step by step.” This libel they were directed to deliver to the accused, and, at the same time, to cite him to appear at a Visitation to be held at Balmaghie Church on the 28th December, or three weeks thence. Macmillan was to be ordered to intimate the Visitation, but Monteith was appointed to preach at it.