Chapter XXVII: The Curates
“Oct. 27, 1664.—The names of the elders the minister (of Kilbarchan) did nominate being cited and called by the officer at the church door, those non-compearing are ordained by the Presbytery to accept the said office, and in case they obstinately refuse, the minister is appointed to give up their names to the Archbishop, in order to their being summoned before the High Commission. Only one, Robert Semple, is represented as unfit for the office because of his being overtaken twice with drink of late: therefore the Presbytery exclude him from the office, and ordain him to make his public repentance for his drunkenness two Lord's days, and to pay forty shillings Scots for his penalties.”
“Nov. 23, 1664.—Ordains again the settling of sessions, and to all those who refuse to join with the minister in the exercise of discipline, and if they contemn their authority, to delate them to the Archbishop, to be summoned before the High Commission.”
“Feb. 19th, 1665.—Ane Robert Pollok of Lilburne, refusing to be an elder in Renfrew, being summoned, &c., gave his reason of refusal because he had made a vow long ago that he would never be an elder, which ground the Presbytery finding irrelevant (a rash and unlawful oath not being obligatory), and therefore ordains him to accept of that office, and appoints the minister to give up his name, in order to his being summoned before the High Commission in case of his further refusal.”
“Aug. 9, 1665.—John Shaw, parishioner in Kilbarchan, refusing to concur with his minister in the exercise of discipline, and being able to give no reason for refusing, his minister to get him summoned to the High Commission if he continue therein.”
“May 25, 1668.—As for certain persons whom he (the minister of Greenock), sayd refuse to join with him in the exercise of discipline, he is required to use his prudentials, and see if by fair means he can gain their concurrence, the magistrates at present [7] being very slow and also unwilling to exercise their compulsory power against such recusants who refuse to embrace the office of an elder."
Those who, in the various parishes, refused to attend the services conducted in the church, were termed “delinquents,” and were proceeded against with a severity that seemed to increase as time went on, and penal measures proved ineffectual. We give some instances in which the non-conformers were dealt with. Many more might be adduced of a similar kind. Very often when hard pressed they made their escape to Ireland.
“Nov. 29, 1664.—The Moderator, according to the acts of the Commission, required the brethren to have in to the Archbishop against the first of Jan., 1665, the names of the delinquents within their several parishes.”
“Sep. 6, 1666.—Janet Cochrane, for her obstinacy and disobedience to the discipline of the Session and the present Church government, to be excommunicated.”
“Nov. 8, 1666.—Renfrew delinquents for not communicating when that sacrament was last celebrated there, ordained to be summoned to next diet.”
When the Covenanters rose in insurrection in 1665, there was strict enquiry made by the Presbytery after any of their people who had taken part in the rising.
“Dec. 6, 1666.—The Archbishop his letter to the Presbytery requiring their diligence in searching out who, within their bounds, were engaged in the late rebellious insurrection, and to give up a list of the names of such, being read, strict obedience thereunto was enjoined to use all means for the finding out of such delinquents, and to report their names at the next meeting.”
“Dec. 20, 1666.—His Majesty's proclamations against the harbouring of rebels were given in by the moderator, and are appointed to be publickly read the next Lord's Day in their respective churches,”
“Anent those within the Presbytery who were in arms in the late rebellious insurrection, the brethren report that none within the Presbytery were, to their knowledge, actually joined with the body who were in arms, only the young goodman of Caldwell, in the parish of Neilston, who was in arms with the Laird of Caldwell, going to these rebels, as also William Porterfield of Quarrellton, in the parish of Paisley, as also Alex. Porterfield, the said William, his brother, in the parish of Killelan, and their names well known and published in the printed papers. Two also were given up as suspected persons, who had fled their houses when searched, forby the soldiers in the parish of Eastwood, who also are already made known to His Majestie's forces, who are endeavouring to apprehend them.”
Conventicles, as the congregations of the Covenanters were called, were very earnestly searched after, and a strict watch kept on all the movements of the “outed” and nonconformist ministers.
“Dec. 21, 1665.—The proclamation made against the nonconformist ministers was produced and delivered to the brethren, who are appointed with all diligence to get them intimated in their several churches.”
[7] During the indulgence when the severity against the Presbyterians was considerably relaxed.