Synod of Dumfries dissolved.

Erastianism of Aberdeen Synod.

Reformed and Presbyterian, and to draw up a pastoral admonition suitable in the crisis. They had passed from the first business to the second when Rothes rose, and, in the King's name, ordered them to desist and disperse. Taken by surprise, the Synod broke up without a protest.

In a similar manner the Earls of Queensberry and Hartfell, in sweet revenge for their unforgotten imprisonment, dissolved the Synod of Dumfries, which agreed to an Act deposing compliers. The Earl of Galloway dispersed the Synod of Galloway, which had prepared a prolix, wild, Whig manifesto in favour of Covenants and uniformity, the moderator duly protesting against this intrusion of Galloway. The Earl of Callendar and Sir Archibald Stirling of Carden broke up the Synod of Lothian and Tweeddale. This Synod purged itself of several members of the party of Protesters,' but Callendar's request that the Synod should re-introduce the old customs of Scripture reading, reciting the Lord's Prayer, singing 'Glore to the Father,' and saying the Creed in baptism, was refused.2

In the Synod of Ross, Thomas Hog, minister at Kiltearn, and James Fraser of Ling, elder, were challenged to disown the Protestation, and, on their refusal, Hog was deposed and Fraser was suspended from the eldership.

The Synod of Aberdeen exhibited the powerful influence exercised on the ministry of the north by the Aberdeen doctors. This Synod acquiesced in the recent statutes, and asked the legislature to petition the King to settle the affairs of the Church according to his own conception of the warrant of Scripture, the example of the early Church, and his own sense of the fitness of things. Never had monarchy such champions of its divine prerogative as these ecclesiastics by the Bridge of Dee, who now showed that they had recovered from that 'rigidity' resulting from the coercive and well

1 Livingstone of Biggar, Greig of Skirling, Porteous of Covington, Donaldson of Dolphinton, also Hall of Kirkliston. At the same time Weir of Linlithgow and Creighton of Bathgate were deprived, ? Grub, iii. 180.

paid efforts of Andrew Cant and his associates.1 Burnet, who was
present at this meeting, records that he heard one of its members
say 'that no man could decently oppose those words, since by that he
would insinuate that he thought presbytery was not conform to these'
-the Word of God and the practice of the primitive Church. Thus
even Presbyterians were craftily drawn into supporting a motion for
this address to the Commissioner.?

One result of the meeting of the Scots councillors in London was New Church
the instruction given to Lauderdale and Sharp to draft and dispatch legislation.
to Middleton a proclamation on Church affairs, which was duly issued
on 10th June. According to Sharp, it was Hyde's 'present expedient'
until the time was ripe for that final rescript of which Middleton was
expectant. It was a cunningly devised document calling attention
to the recent statute of 28th March, in which it was resolved to
maintain the Church as it was established by James, and Charles 1.,
and continuing the same 'in the meantime' until the King had secured
it in 'a frame as shall be agreeable to the Word of God most suit-
able to monarchical government, and most complying with the public
peace and quiet of the kingdom.'

tion.

This letter to Middleton is worth quoting to show the progress Sharp's proSharp had made in his defection since he wrote to his friend gress in defecDrummond denying the truth of the whispers concerning his treachery. On 19th March he wrote: 'No person heer or with you can say without injuring of me that Ever I spoke or cooperated for introducing a change. Two days later he declares: 'But if a change come, I make no question it will be grievous and bring on suffering upon many honest men, in which I would be very loath to have any hand.' Rather than witness the confusion he would change his country and breathe a freer air, he declared." In the interval between the opening of Parliament and his journey to London, early in May, Sharp had been chagrined to see the Church ignored in the making of Acts bearing

I Cant was awarded £2000 for his labours in the north.

2 Burnet, i. 218; Grub, iii. 182.

4

3 Aldis, List, 1713; Wodrow, i. 151.
5 Ibid., i. 89.

Sharp to Middleton, 21st May: Laud. Pap., ii. App. lxxviii.

Letter of
Sharp to
Middleton,
May 1661.

Middleton's report to the King.

on her welfare, but it can hardly be doubted that this solicitude for the enslaved Scots Church does not wholly account for the terms of the letter which follows:

'He [Clarendon] spoke to me of the method to be usit for bringing about our church settlement, and bid me give my opinion of a present expedient, which, when I had offered, he was plesit to approve, so did the bishops of London and Worcester; and after consultation with our Lords, it was agreed that Lauderdale and I should draw a proclamation from the king to be sent to your grace, with which I trust you will be satisfied. . . that the perfecting of the work may be upon your hand from whom it had its beginning, and under whose countenance and protection it must thrive and take rooting. . . . The proclamation will suffice to the disposing of minds to acquiescence to the king's pleasure . . . but now I trust all opposing designs are dashed, and a foundation laid for a superstructure, which will render your name precious to the succeeding generations."

The opinion that Sharp hoped to get an Assembly called to settle on a modus vivendi is not borne out by this letter or by the proclamation, which made no mention or promise of such a convocation. Nor is Sharp's statement to Drummond (21st March)—' I declare to you I have not acted directly or indirectly for a change among us, nor have I touched upon Church Government in sermons and conferences at our Court or elsewhere'-credible in face of the narrative relating the contempt of Middleton for the trick played on the Presbytery of Edinburgh, and of his own statement in May, that he had often been conversing with Middleton on the subject.

The first session of the Parliament of 1661 came to an end on 12th July. On Middleton's return to Court to report progress, the government of the land was left to the Privy Council. According to Burnet, 'it was a mad, roaring time, full of extravagance; and no wonder it was so, when the men of affairs were almost perpetually drunk.' The Scottish delegates were still in London. Middleton 1 London, 21st May 1661: Laud. Pap., ii. App. C. lxxviii.

2 1st January to 12th July: Act. Parl. Scot., vii. 3-367.
Row, Blair, 390.

3 Hist., i. 220.

gave to the King an account of his commission at a meeting of the
Scots Council in London, at which Clarendon was present.1 Middleton
said, that since the Church of Scotland was now without a government
it behoved the King to settle one. Glencairn and Rothes declared
that 'six for one in Scotland longed for Episcopacy'-an assertion
which drew a direct denial from the testy Earl of Crawford, who
retorted that Presbytery had the ascendency. Lauderdale, who as yet
had not openly discarded his early choice, feeling his way, suggested
the middle and prudent course of taking counsel with the ecclesiastical
courts before settling the matter. Hamilton and Sir Robert Moray
supported this proposal, the former asserting that the King's promise
to the Presbyters of Edinburgh to continue the faith established had
prevented the rise of opposition to the Rescissory Acts. Middleton
demurred to this proposal on the ground that the verdict would not be
impartial, since the less influential clergy and elders 'durst not quarrel
the resolution of their Rabbis, who would not adhere to the oath.'
Clarendon finished the debate with the taunt-'God preserve me from
living in a country where the church is independent from the state and
may subsist by their own Acts: for there all churchmen may be kings.''
Thereupon the King of his own motion resolved to establish Charles re-
Episcopacy and to impose his uniformity upon the kingdoms this
time. Accordingly Lauderdale was instructed to write to the Privy Episcopacy.
Council (14th August) intimating the King's desire for a better
harmony between the churches and 'our firm resolution to interpose
our royal authority for restoring of that church to its right government
by bishops,' and commanding them to inhibit synodical meetings, and
to mark those persons evilly disposed to the Crown and Government.
Yet not a year had passed since Lauderdale had written to Douglas
regarding 'our Mother Kirk,' that 'it is no small comfort to me, in
serving my master, to find that his Majesty is so fixt in his intention
not to alter anything in the government of that church,' and that he had
drawn a proclamation convening an Assembly (23rd October 1660).
To Edinburgh Glencairn, Rothes, and Sharp brought the fatal letter

1 Mackenzie, Memoirs, 52.

2 Ibid., 55, 56.

solves to

restore

proclaimed,

1661.

whose terms referred to the former communication of 10th August 1660, to the recent Act investing the Crown with power to settle ecclesiastical affairs, and to the King's resolution to restore the Church to the position it held before the troubles began, and as it now stood settled by law. The Privy Council met on 5th September, and after refusing to accept the suggestion of Tweeddale and Kincardine that the King should be asked to refer the matter first to the Synods, resolved to Royal decree comply with the royal commands. Accordingly the regal fiat was, by 6th September command of the Privy Council, proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh with the usual heraldic ceremony, in presence of the city magistrates, on 6th September, and it was ordered to be read at every burgh cross. The proclamation announced the abolition of Presbytery, because of 'the unsuitableness thereof to his Majesty's monarchical estate,' restored right government by bishops, enjoined compliance, forbade clerical courts, banned all objectors, and ordained all magistrates to commit all nonconformists to prison. This edict, announcing that the Acts since 1638 had been rescinded, became the interpreter of the deceptive letter of August which promised the maintenance of a church 'as it now stands settled by law.' Now the law on the Statute Book in existence prior to 1638 legalised Episcopacy, and it was thus revived.1 Strong efforts were made to seduce the leading Resolutioners from their allegiance to Presbytery, and promises of preferment were held out to and refused by Douglas, Baillie, Wood, Dickson, Ferguson, and others.?

Degradation

of Church.

In a moment the Church had been degraded to the low estate into which it had been thrust in the days of King James, when the obsequious Spottiswood hailed new-born Prelacy as the happy creation of his Majesty. The royal whim was now 'The Church's one foundation.'

13

1 Nicoll, 342; Mackenzie, Memoirs, 56-60; Wodrow, i. 230 et seq.; Grub, iii. 184; Row, Blair, 392. 2 Wodrow, i. 215.

3 The councillors who surrendered the national liberties were Glencairn, Rothes, Montrose, Morton, Hume, Eglinton, Moray, Linlithgow, Roxburgh, Haddington, Southesk, Wemyss, Callendar, Sinclair, Duffus, President Gilmour, Primrose, Ley, Blackhall, Niddrie, Alexander Bruce, Sir George Kinnaird, and Sir Robert Moray.