BY THE REV. D. BEATON, WICK.
(Concluded from page 259.)
MRS. JOHN LIVINGSTONE.
JANET FLEMING was the eldest daughter of Bartholomew Fleming, merchant in Edinburgh. She was married to the famous Rev. John Livingstone, afterwards minister of Antrim. As the wife of a faithful Presbyterian minister, it fell to her lot to endure the hardships and trials, the ordinary lot of all such in the stormy times of persecution. Her husband being banished, she accompanied him to Holland, and on his death in 1672 she returned to Scotland. Two years later new trials awaited her. With some other ladies she resolved to petition the Privy Council, praying for liberty to enjoy the preaching of the Gospel by the outed ministers. In the early part of 1674 persecution ceased, and during “The Blink,” as it was called, the proscribed ministers took full advantage of their privilege in preaching both in the fields and in private houses. This brief period of respite was due to the animosities existing between the different parties of statesmen. Lauderdale had awakened against himself powerful and determined opposition. The faction against him was headed by the Duke of Hamilton, and so great was its influence that Lauderdale, acting as the King’s Commissioner, finding that it would be impossible to maintain his place in the Parliament of 1674, adjourned it to October. When these statesmen were thus at daggers drawn, they bethought themselves only of schemes to ruin each other, and, strange to say, both parties adopted the same scheme. Lauderdale did all he could to encourage conventicles, that he might report to the King that all this was due to the Hamilton faction. His opponents adopted the same plan with a like intention, the result being that for a short time the Covenanter ministers were allowed to hold their conventicles without molestation; but it was only for a season—a blink, as it has been happily termed—the shining of the sun through a thick cloud for a moment. On his return to London, Lauderdale laid the state of matters before the King, and charged his enemies with being the cause of the increased activity of the outed ministers. The Privy Council was remodelled, Lauderdale’s opponents being excluded, and the Council immediately set about their fell purpose of stamping out what they regarded as obstinate rebellion. The King had sent a letter to them requiring the Council to do their very utmost in putting a stop to conventicles, and in case of necessity to call out the military to their aid. It was while this dark cloud was gathering on the hitherto serene heavens that a number of ladies bethought themselves of petitioning the Council,
if by any means to avert the coming storm, of which these actings were but the premonitory signs, and told all too plainly how fierce it would be when it burst on the helpless victims of the Government’s hate and fury. Actuated by the noblest and most disinterested motives, these godly ladies asked guidance and direction at a throne of grace, and knowing that it was well nigh impossible for the outed ministers to petition the Government, as by so doing they would put themselves into the persecutors’ hands, they drew up a petition to be presented to the Council. This was not the first time that such a course had been adopted. When Robert Blair, who had been deposed by the Irish bishops, came over to Scotland, and was in danger of receiving even harsher treatment from the Scottish bishops, a petition was presented to the Council by a number of ladies, praying that Robert Blair and other ministers in like circumstances might have liberty to preach the Gospel. It is of interest to note that this petition was presented by Barbara Hamilton, Mrs. Livingstone’s maternal aunt. Row’s account of the matter, as given in his Life of Robert Blair, is very interesting, and may be quoted here:—”That worthy wife, Barbara Hamilton, brings to Mr. Blair paper, pen, and ink, saying, ‘Write a Supplication to the Secret Council, and humbly petition them in your own name, and in the name and behalf of others in your condition, for liberty to preach the Gospel publicly wherever ye get a call from honest ministers or people, and we that are wives shall put it in the treasurer’s hands as he goes into the Council.’ Whereunto Mr. Blair condescended, and delivers his supplication, written with his own hand, to her. The first Council day immediately following, there convenes a great number of the religious matrons in Edinburgh, drawn up as a guard from the Council house door to the street. They agreed to put the supplication in the hand of the oldest matron, Alison Cockburn, relict of Mr. Archibald Row. When the treasurer, Traquair, perceived the old woman presenting to him a paper, suspecting that it was something that would not relish with the Council, he did put her by, and goes quickly from her towards the Council house door, which being perceived by Barbara Hamilton, she appears and pulls the paper out of the old weak woman’s hand, and coming up to Traquair, did with her strong arm and big hand fast grip his arm, saying, ‘Stand, my Lord, in Christ’s name I charge you, till I speak to you.’ He, looking up, replies, ‘Good woman, what would you say to me?’ ‘There is,’ said she, ‘a humble supplication of Mr. Blair’s. All that he petitions for is that he may have liberty to preach the Gospel, etc. I charge you to befriend the matter as you would expect God to befriend you in your distress and at your death.’ He replied, ‘I shall do my endeavour, and what I can in it.'”
Mrs. Livingstone and those associated with her resolved to act something similar to the foregoing method. On the 4th of June—the day appointed for the first meeting of the new Council—all
the ladies friendly to the petition were to assemble in Parliament Close. Mrs. Livingstone was chosen for the task of presenting the petition to the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Rothes. According to Row, one hundred and nine ladies assembled. Kirkton says “they filled the whole Parliament Close,” which would make the number greater than that given by Row. When Rothes arrived, accompanied by Sharp, Mrs. Livingstone presented the petition, which was to the following effect:—”Unto the Right Honourable, the Lords of His Majesty’s Privy Council.—The Humble Supplication of several Women of the City of Edinburgh, in their own name and in the name of many who adhere thereto, Humbly sheweth, That whereas your petitioners, being long deprived of the blessing of a faithful public ministry, and of the purity of worship and ordinances that God hath commanded, and after much sad suffering for attendance thereupon in private, yet for some short while bygone, and in the time when His Majesty’s Commissioner was amongst us, your lordships’ petitioners have, without molestation, enjoyed some small liberty by His Majesty’s gracious connivance; yet now we are sadly alarmed that, through the malicious and false information given in by some of those who side with and serve the bishops, your lordships may be induced, to the grief of the hearts of many thousands in this land, to trouble the quiet meetings of the Lord’s people at His worship. May it therefore please your lordships to grant such liberty to our honest ministers that are through the land and in this city, that they may lawfully, and without molestation, exercise their holy function, as the people shall in an orderly way call them; that we may, to the comfort of our souls, enjoy the rich blessing of faithful pastors, and that our pastors may be delivered from any sinful compliance with what is contrary to the known judgment of honest Presbyterians. In doing whereof your lordships will do good service to God and the King’s Majesty, and deeply oblige all honest people in the land.”
According to Kirkton, the Chancellor received the petition graciously from Mrs. Livingstone’s hands; Row, however, says that the Chancellor refused to accept the petition from Mrs. Livingstone, but “was forced to take it from some others who thrust themselves in betwixt him and the trembling prelate.” On the petition being read to the Council, the Lord Provost and two Bailies were sent out to ask the ladies to disperse, with the promise that their interests would be attended to. But the Council was determined to make an example of some of them, and those known by name to the Councillors were summoned to attend their next meeting in June. At this meeting the ladies summoned, to the number of about a dozen, appeared before the Council. Prior to their examination they were desired to take the oath, but this they refused to do. A number of questions were then put to them, when they were dismissed, and required to appear before the Council in the afternoon. Agreeable to the Council’s request,
they appeared before them in the afternoon. A great crowd by this time had assembled outside the Parliament House, and on learning that it was the intention of the Council to keep the ladies in ward, it adopted a menacing attitude. The Council, learning this, deemed it wise to dismiss the ladies, requesting them to repair peaceably to their homes. The Council, however, had other intentions than to allow them to go free, it being their intention to apprehend them during the night in their homes—a purpose unrealised through one of the Councillors making known the project. After various proceedings, the Lords of His Majesty’s Privy Council ordained, “in His Majesty’s name and authority, duly, lawfully, and orderly, to denounce the said Mrs. Elizabeth Rutherford, etc., His Majesty’s rebels, and put them to the horn, and escheit and inbring all their movable goods and gear to his highness’s use, for their contempt and disobedience.” Mrs. Livingstone is not named among those who were at this time put to the horn and declared rebels, but, on further inquiries, the Council banished her from the city of Edinburgh, and ordained that she, with others, could return only at their peril. It is evident, from the proceedings instituted against these women, how keen and bitter the spirit of persecution was when they had to endure so much suffering for so simple an act, quite within the rights of peaceable citizens.
After this date Mrs. Livingstone crossed over to Holland, where she was held in the highest esteem by the godly company of godly men and women who had to flee their native land. The last reference to Mrs. Livingstone is found in a letter dated October, 1679; the date and place of her death are unknown. Probably she died in Holland and was buried with her saintly husband in the land that gave the exiles a kindly hospitality.
MRS. JAMES DURHAM.
MARGARET MURE was the fourth daughter of William Mure or Glanderston. She was born in 1618. In her youth she had a godly upbringing, and in early life underwent a saving change. She was first married to Mr. Zachary Boyd, minister of the Barony Church of Glasgow, and after his death to Mr. James Durham. Mr. Durham died in 1658 while she was only in her 36th year. As one having a common faith with her saintly husband, she carefully preserved the MSS. of his sermons and lectures, which were afterwards published, such as the “Exposition of the Song of Solomon” and “Treatise on the Ten Commandments.” After the latter was printed Mrs. Durham petitioned the Council for liberty to have the book imported into Scotland. But the Council had a different estimate of the book from Mrs. Durham, as their act, which is as follows, shows:—”Edinburgh, 4th November, 1675.—The Lords of His Majesty’s Privy Council having considered a petition presented by Margaret Mure, relict of Mr.
James Durham, late minister at Glasgow, do recommend to the Bishop of Edinburgh to revise a book written by the petitioner’s husband, entitled, ‘A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments,’ which is already printed at London, and to report his opinion thereanent to the Council, that thereafter they may give such order in favour of the petitioner concerning the said book as they shall think fit, and in the meantime discharge and prohibit all printers, stationers, and others to reprint or import any copies of the said book, under the pain of confiscation of the same, and such other pains as the Council shall think fit to inflict, and appoint intimation to be made hereof to the stationers, printers, and others, to the effect foresaid.”
As one might naturally expect, Mrs. Durham cast in her lot with the persecuted cause and was a frequent attender at conventicles. It was not, however, until after Archbishop Sharp’s death, that owing to the increased vigilance of the government, Mrs. Durham’s connection with conventicles was discovered. The day following the Archbishop’s death a religious meeting was held at Mrs. Durham’s house. There were about thirty persons present, composed chiefly of relatives, their children, and servants. The preacher was Mr. William Hamilton, brother of James Hamilton of Hallcraig. While the service was proceeding, it was broken up by the entrance of the Town Major with a party of soldiers. All the worshippers were made prisoners. Mrs. Durham and her sister, Mrs. John Carstares, who was also present, were imprisoned in the Tolbooth. Both petitioned the Privy Council to be released. The Lords of Council, “having considered a petition of Margaret Mure, relict of Mr. James Durham, and Janet Mure, spouse to Mr. John Carstares, for themselves and their children and servants, and divers other persons, prisoners in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, for being present at a conventicle kept in the house of the said Margaret Mure, upon the 4th instant, supplicating, that in regard of their miserable and poor condition, the Council would give order for their liberty, the said lords do declare the petitioners free of any restraint or imprisonment by their warrant, and remit to the Magistrates of Edinburgh to take such course with them as they shall think fit.”
The preacher, Mr. Hamilton, did not get so easily off. His cruel treatment affected his health, and soon afterwards he became seriously ill of cholera. A petition was presented to the Council praying for his release, but the Council refused to listen to the petitioners, and expressed their determination to prosecute him at their next meeting for preaching at conventicles. But before that day came he had received a summons from a higher court.
Even in those days of sifting, when the Lord had His fan in His hand and was thoroughly purging the floor of the professing Church in Scotland, the spirit of delusion was not absent. The great Enemy was doing his utmost to wreck the cause of Christ by inspiring the persecutors with rage and hatred against His
cause in Scotland, and in filling the minds of some with strange delusions. Amongst those who were so deluded may be mentioned the Gibbites or Sweet Singers. They railed against covenants and were contrary to all men. At last they found themselves in prison. Mrs. Durham visited them in the hope that she might win them from their false notions. The result of her efforts is thus described by Law in his Memorials:—”These people were so deluded of Satan as that they did not work, contrary to that, 1 Thess. iv. 11; nor would they eat any meat given them by the Council, nor drink anything that paid excise; and when honest women—ministers’ wives—came to see them, they began to rail upon them, and upbraid them with the name of ‘Jezebel,’ and called them reprobates. Mr. Durham’s wife and Mr. William Guthrie’s wife were so upbraided.”
She also visited Mr. Robert Baillie of Jerviswood, and according to Wodrow—”When Mrs. Durham came to him that morning before he got his sentence, he said he was never better, and within a very little time he would be well beyond conception. He said, ‘They are going to send me, in pieces and quarters, through all the country; but let them hag and hew all my body in as many pieces as they please, I am not much concerned about that; for I know assuredly there shall be nothing of me lost, but all these members shall be wonderfully gathered, and shall all be made like His glorious body—the body of His glory.'”