|
THE Presbytery of Lanark was
originally composed of twenty-one parishes. About the year 1640 an agitation
was set on foot to constitute a new Presbytery, the seat of which should be
at Biggar, and which should consist of eight parishes in the Upper Ward
connected with the Presbytery of Lanark, and four in Tweeddale connected
with the Presbytery of Peebles. At the General Assembly in 1641, John Lord
Fleming, who was the representative elder for Biggar parish, presented a
petition in favour of this scheme, which was referred to the visitation of
the bounds. The agitation was still kept up; and at the General Assembly
which met at Edinburgh in August 1643 the subject was amply discussed; and
after due trial, and the hearing of all parties, it was resolved to erect
the new Presbytery, and to grant to it full power of jurisdiction, the
exercise of discipline, and all the liberties and privileges belonging to
any other Presbytery. At the same time, it was agreed that the formal
establishment, or, as it was called, the entry and possession, of the new
Presbytery, should be suspended during the pleasure of the General Assembly.
Principal Baillie says that this was done 1 because of my Lord Fleming’s
small affection to the common cause.’ The meaning of this most likely is,
that by this time his Lordship had deserted the cause of Presbytery, and
gone over to the side of the King and Episcopacy. The ministers and elders
of the parishes embraced in the new Presbytery presented a petition to the
General Assembly which met at Edinburgh in June 1644, craving that the
reverend court should without further delay constitute the Presbytery. This
supplicatioun being read in audience of the General Assembly, and thereafter
the Commissioners from the Presbyteries of Lanark and Peebles personally
present being at length heard, in what they could say or allege therein ;
And the said supplicatioun and desire thereof with the alledgiances and
objections made against the samine being taken into consideration by the
Assembly, and they therewith being fully and ripely advised, the Assembly,
after removing of the parties, and after consideration of the premisses and
voycing of the foresaid desire, Ordaines the entrie and possessione of the
foresaid Presbyterie of Biggar, consisting of the particular kirks above
mentioned, to begin now presently; And appoints and ordaines all the
ministers and ruling elders of the forsaid kirks above specified, whereof
the said Presbytery consists, to meet and convene with all conveniencie at
the said Kirk of Biggar, which is the place and seat of the samine
Presbyterie ; And the Assembly refers to the Commissioners, to be appointed
by them for the public affairs of the Kirk, to determine to what Synod this
the said new erected Presbyterie shall be subordinate, as also to prescribe
the order and solemnities that shall be necessar for entering and possessing
the ministers and elders in the. said Presbyterie.’
The following are the names
of the clergymen who, along with a ruling elder from each parish, formed the
Presbytery of Biggar at its institution in 1644:—Thomas Campbell, Biggar;
Robert Brown, Broughton; Alexander Somervail, Dolphinton; Kenneth Logie,
Skirling; George Bennet, Quothquan; Andro Gudlatt, Symington; John Currie,
Coulter; Robert Elliot, Kilbucho; William Dickson, Glen-holm; Thomas
Lindsay, Walston; and George Ogstoun, Covington. The Kirk of Wandel and
Lamington was at the time vacant, and one of the earliest cases that came
before the new Presbytery was a dispute regarding the settlement of this
parish. The previous incumbent, Mr James Baillie, died in 1642 ; and a
violent controversy arose between Douglas, Earl of Angus, proprietor of
Wandel, and Sir William Baillie, proprietor of Lamington, as to which of
them had the right to appoint a successor. As they could come to no
agreement, both of them exercised the right of patronage. Baillie presented
John Currie, and Douglas, Andrew M‘Ghie. The case came before the Presbytery
of Lanark, and afterwards before the higher ecclesiastical courts. A
decision was given in favour of Douglas, and consequently ofM'Ghie. The
Presbytery of Lanark having, accordingly, appointed M‘Ghie to preach before
the people of Lamington in March 1644, the Lady of Lamington, aided by
several other women, took possession of the pulpit in a tumultuous manner,
and prevented the presentee from obtaining an entrance, and, of course, a
hearing,—her Ladyship stoutly declaring, ‘that no dog of the house of
Douglas should ever bark there.’
This was too heinous an
offence to be lightly passed over by the divines of the Lanark Presbytery.
They lodged a complaint against the lady and her abettors with the Privy
Council; and the consequence was, that a decree was issued, commanding the
accused to enter their persons in ward in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh. This
was accordingly done; and they remained in confinement till a fine imposed
on them of 1000 merks was paid to the Lanark Presbytery. The members of this
court were not yet satisfied. They wished her Ladyship to appear before
them, and make a public expression of her deep contrition for an offence ‘
so scandalous for the present, and so dangerous for the time to come.’
Before this part of the case could be finally disposed of, the Presbytery of
Biggar was formed, and the Lady of Lamington was now within its
jurisdiction. The Presbytery of Lanark desired that her Ladyship and the
other delinquents should be sent by the Presbytery of Biggar to Lanark to
make atonement before the court, the authority of which she had violated.
After much altercation, the answer of the Biggar Presbytery was, 'That they
would do nothing of that kind till they should receive a pairt of the soume
lately determined by the Council to the Presbytery of Lanark.’ The ground on
which this claim was made, was that several members of the Biggar Presbytery
had, while members of the Lanark Presbytery, expended money in prosecuting
the case.
The Presbytery of Biggar
itself resolved to deal with the Lamington ladies; and, accordingly, they
were cited to appear before it on the 25th December 1644. The minute of that
date states, ‘ This day compeired the Ladie Lammingtoune; and being accused
of ane scan-dell committed be her in ye Kirk of LammingtouD by her resisting
and stopping of Andro M‘Ghie (expectant sent yr be ye Presbyterie of
Lanark), who came yr upon ye Lord’s day to preach, schoe did confesse the
samyn resistance, bot withal did solemnlie protest that she had no ill
intention, neither any thocht either to profane God’s Sabbath or house, or
to hinder preaching, bot onlie schoe satt. and stayed Mr Andro to enter ye
pulpitt, and went into the samyn, onlie for fear of losing her husband’s
richt (he being absent for the tyme in England in the publick service), or
for fear of some ill or greater inconvenience which might have fallen furth.
And notwithstanding whairof, yett was content to refer herself to ye
Presbyterie to mak satisfactione as they pleased. Whairupon the Presbyterie,
after dewe advyse, did ordaine her, the next Lord’s day, in her awin kirk,
and in her ordinary saitt, to confess her fault, and in most humble manner *
to crave pardon, when schoe suld be called upon be the preacher efter his
sermon. And being also desyred to delaite these who were her helpers and
attendants in the said resistance, schoe did declare ingenuously upon her
conscience that none of all her folkes did stirre, or move out of yr places,
except two, who went to the pulpitt doore with her, to witt, Catherine and
Jennet Bailyie. Whairenent the Presbytery having called in ye wholl summoned
persones, -did absolve them except these two, whom they enjoined to mak yr
public repentance, the same day and place, and in manner foresaid. And to
that effect did ordaine Mr Thomas Lyndsay to preach yr ye said day, and
receive the confessiones and testification es of the repentance of ye said
offenders, and to report ye next day.’ The report given in at next meeting
of Presbytery was, that the Lamington ladies had in every respect complied
with the sentence of the Presbytery.
Andro M‘Ghie, after all, was
not settled at Lamington. He seems to have withdrawn; and John Crawford,
another nominee of the Earl of Angus, was settled in that parish on the 11th
of August 1645. On that day, it is recorded that possession and collation
were given to this gentleman, by the Presbytery handing him the key of the
kirk-door, going to the manse and putting out the fire of the former
occupants, and 4bigging on a fjfre for the said Mr John,' and by delivering
‘eard and stane ’ in the manse, yard, and glebe land, lying within the
barony of Wandel.
One of the most notable
proceedings of the Presbytery was the visitation of the churches within its
bounds. This was conducted in a most searching and inquisitorial manner.
After the minister of the parish to which the visit was paid had preached a
sermon, he was removed, and the elders were called in one by one, and
strictly interrogated if their pastor preached sound doctrine; if he was
painful in preaching twice on Sabbath and once on a week-day; if he
regularly visited his parishioners, and particularly the sick; if he kept up
family worship in his own household, and enjoined it on others, etc. The
elders were then removed, and the pastor himself was called in, and
questioned if he had any complaint to make regarding his elders, or the
state of the kirk and parish. The answers elicited on these occasions
involved not merely the Presbytery, but the inhabitants of a parish, in a
great amount of vexation and trouble. When the members of Presbytery once
entered on a case, they were most indefatigable in searching out every
particular regarding it, and most inexorable in exacting due homage to their
authority and laws. During these visitations, we find that John Currie of
Coulter had complaints to make regarding the ruinous condition of his kirk
and kirkyard dykes. George Bennet of Quothquan was annoyed at the enmity
that prevailed between his parishioners in Libberton and Quothquan, the
Libbertonians refusing point blank to attend religious ordinances in the
Kirk of Quothquan. Robert Brown of Broughton had accusations brought against
him for having advised Sir David Murray of Stan hope to join Montrose.
William Dickson of Glenholm 1 regraitted ’ that his kirk was in bad
condition, and that the kirkyard was likely to be carried away with the
water. George Ogstoun of Covington was offended because Sir Francis Douglas
had buried a child in his kirk. Andro Gudlatt of Symington was blamed that
he preached doctrine noways edifying; that he delivered only one discourse
on Sabbath; that he did not introduce the ‘Directorie’ in proper time; that
he had baptized a child at Biggar without knowing whether it was dead or
alive; that he had failed to repair his manse, which is described as being
‘as base as a cottar’s house;’ and that he was puffed up with self-pride.
And Kenneth Logie of Skirling complained that he did not receive the amount
of stipend to which he was entitled.
Another point on which the
members of Presbytery were most exacting, was the visitation and catechizing
of families. They drew up a set of regulations and questions, which were
first to be expounded from the pulpit, and then used when the pastor went
from house to house. The principal points into which he was to make inquiry
were, if the family made prayers morning and evening; if the Lord’s day was
properly observed, by prayer, reading the Scriptures, attending religious
ordinances, and abstaining from frequenting common inns, from lascivious,
worldly, and idle conversation, from feeing - servants, or making any kind
of merchandise; if every household had a Bible and a psalm-book, and every
member of it could read; if any scandalous persons were in the family, and,
if there were, to report them to the kirk session; and, lastly, if all the
social duties of husband and wife, parent and child, master and servant,
were duly observed.
Another subject which engaged
the attention of the Presbytery, in 1645, was the introduction of the
‘Directory for Public Worship.’ This was readily adopted by the Presbytery,
and all the members began to introduce it in the month of August of that
year, having first read and expounded it to the people of %tlie several
parishes from the pulpit. The only exception was Andro Gudlatt of Symington,
who thus justified himself when called on by his brethren to explain his
conduct: ‘lie thocht it best,’ he said, ‘to delay and not to be over sudden,
until he did see a farther settling, for he feared changes; and if the King
should prevail and bring in Bishops, they wold call us false knaves, and say
we wold turn to any thing, and not spair to embrace ye masse.’ This reply
gave the brethren great offence, and led, with other delinquencies, to the
suspension of the ‘holy brother.’
The whole of Britain, at the
time at which the Presbytery of Biggar was formed, was in a very disturbed
state, in consequence of the war between Charles I. and a portion of his
subjects, and in Scotland particularly by the campaigns of Montrose. The
members of Presbytery were alternately swayed by hopes and fears. They held
solemn days of thanksgiving for the victory of Fairfax in Northamptonshire,
the capture of the town of Newcastle by the Scots army, and the defeat of
Montrose at Philiphaugh by General Leslie. On the other hand, they had to
fast and mourn for the triumphs of Montrose, and the invasion and victories
of Cromwell. After the battle of Kilsyth, five of them fled from their
manses and their flocks altogether, and the meetings of Presbytery were
suspended for two months, which is termed a ‘long vacancie occasioned be the
insolencie of ye barbarious enemie approaching to this parte of ye countrie.’
No sooner was Montrose defeated at Philiphaugh, and all apprehensions of
immediate danger were removed, than the fugitives came out of their
hiding-places, and returned to their charges. They now assumed a vast amount
of courage; and in order to cover the disgrace of their retreat, they had
the audacity to take to task those who kept their posts and boldly faced the
danger. The minute on this subject is so interesting and amusing, that it
must be quoted entire. The day on which this trial took place was the 15th
October 1645. ‘This day ye Presbyterie took tryell of the breether’s
carriage, who had stayed at home, and not fled ye tyme of the enemie’s abode
in thir quarteris, after this manner,—first, ye said breether (being saxe in
number, to witt, Robert Brown, William Dickson, Andro Gudlatt, George
Ogstoun, George Bennet, and Thomas Lindsay) being desyred to answer certain
queries, did give satisfactorie answers yrunto, as I. if they did sie James
Graham in his Leaguer—the answer negative, II. if they had socht or received
protection from the enemie—the answer negative ; HI. if they did preach and
pray against the enemies of God’s Kirk and these wicked men—the answer was
affirmative, every one of them remembering his text of Scripture and sundry
of the doctrines, whilk the Presbyterie did consider was to the purpose and
a clear evidence of yr honestie and good affectione; IIII. if they had bocht
any plundered gear—yr answer was negative; V. if they did blame thair
breether for fiieing—yr answer negative; VI. if both in privat and publick
they had dissuaded yr people from compliance with ye enemy—yr answer wes
that they did so; VIL if they had read or caused read James Grahame’s
orders—the answer was negative: Next, because they willingly did offer
themselves to any tryell: And lastly, in respect the voyce of the countrie
was, that they carried themselves both honestly and courageously, therefore
the Presbyterie were satisfied with them, and every one giving praise to
God, did rejoice one with another.
From repeated expressions in
the records of the Presbytery, we might infer that the army of Montrose
visited the Biggar district. The members talk of 4 ye approach of ye
barbarous enemie to this part of ye countrie,’ and inquire what the carriage
of each other was during 1 ye tyme of ye enemies’ abode in ye countrie,*—if
‘ they bocht any plundered geir’ from the soldiers, and if they saw
Montrose, or James Graham, as they invariably call him, in his leaguer.
These statements, 4 though not entirely explicit, would yet seem to indicate
that Montrose’s army had come nearer the Upper Ward than the camp or leaguer
established at Bothwell, which was about thirty miles distant. We can,
however, find no account in any history that Montrose’s army, or even a
detachment of it, visited the Biggar district, either during the time the
chief leaguer was maintained at Bothwell, or during the march to the south
of Scotland previous to the battle of Philiphaugh.
It was one of the lamentable
results of the unhappy contentions which at that time prevailed, that the
Presbyterian clergy resolved to regard certain political opinions and
actions as ecclesiastical offences. Malignancy, or an adherence to the cause
of Royalty, was held by them to be one of the most grievous delinquencies,
and they set themselves with uncommon zeal to ferret out every person in
their respective parishes that, by word or deed, could in the least degree
be regarded as leaning to the side of their Sovereign. The Presbytery was
divided into sections, each consisting of two or three parishes, and in
these a most thorough search was made for malignants. This brought the
members of Presbytery into collision with the local gentry, most of whom
were attached to Montrose and the cause of Royalty. The most notable
offenders on whom they pounced were—
Sir David Murray, Gideon
Murray, John Weir, and John Lauder, of Broughton; Sir Francis Douglas of
Covington; Christopher Baillie of Walston; John Baillie of St John’s Kirk;
Thomas Sommerville and Alexander Rodger of Quothquan; John Brown of
Coultermains; and William Lindsay of Birthwood, and his son Andrew. All of
these persons were in the end forced to appear before the Presbytery, to
acknowledge their offence, and to crave pardon.
It is interesting to note
that the members of Presbytery, on the morning of the 5th of September 1650,
hastened to Biggar, without any previous concert, but every one of his own
accord. They found the town in a sad state of uproar. This was occasioned by
the arrival of news of the defeat of the Scots army at Dunbar. After calling
on the name of the Lord, the Presbytery appointed next day to be observed as
a day of solemn fasting and humiliation for the sins of the land, and the
manifestations of divine displeasure which had afflicted the people. Nearly
a hundred years afterwards, the Presbytery appointed Tuesday, the 10th of
September 1745, as a day of fasting, prayer, and humiliation for the abuse
of the long-continued peace, and the gross immorality and wickedness of all
ranks; ‘ recommending it withall to the several ministers to warn their
people of their present danger from a Jacobite party at home and a popish
power abroad, to maintain their loyalty to our present Sovereign King George
and his royal family, and to adhere to our present happy constitution, both
in Church and State.’ The whole members of Presbytery, as elsewhere stated,
left their livings in 1662, rather than comply with ‘a tyrant’s and a
bigot’s bloody laws.’
For some time after the
Revolution, the Presbyteries of Biggar« and Peebles held their meetings
conjointly. The members were few, and they had no fixed place of meeting. We
find that they assembled at Biggar, Peebles, Kilbucho, Kirkurd, Linton, but
most frequently at the Hills of Dunsyre, a place previously occupied by the
famous preacher, Mr William Veitch, who, after the Revolution, was settled
for some time at Peebles. James Donaldson of Dolphinton, and Anthony Murray
of Coulter, are the only members of the Biggar Presbytery that appear to
have survived the storms of twenty-eight years’ persecution, and to have
been restored to their pulpits after they had been vacated by the hated
curates. In a few years these aged divines were also removed, so that
shortly after the close of the seventeenth century we find the Presbytery
composed of entirely new incumbents.
The records of the Presbytery
are contained in fourteen volumes. In the early part they are very
imperfect, whole years’ transactions being altogether awanting. The period
from 1650 to 1660 is a blank, and so is also the period between 1662 and
1688. For a number of years after the Revolution, they are of a very
abbreviated character; but from the commencement of last century they are of
ample extent, and complete. |
