child, not a dog, not a rabbit, all over Scotland, but belonged to the Kirk, or had to pretend that relationship. The kirk was the nation, and the nation was the kirk."1

...

Scottish History remembers to this day that split of the Scottish clergy around Charles II in 1650 into the Resolutioners who acquiesced in the resolutions of the Parliament and Commission of the Kirk for suspending or disusing the Act of Classes and the Remonstrants or Protesters who raised their voices against the backsliding. The difference descended through a whole generation, bringing fame or infamy, and even death, to those concerned. The leaders of the Resolutioners were Robert Douglas, David Dickson, and Robert Baillie. The leaders of the Protesters were Patrick Gillespie, James Guthrie and Samuel Rutherford. The Resolutioners were the inheritors of the better traditions of the Reformed Scottish Church, and saw nothing undivine in Episcopacy: the Protesters represented the ultra-Presbyterian party. Robert Leighton could only belong to the Resolutioners, in so far as he took any side.

At Worcester 14,000 Scots were either slain or taken prisoner Stirling, Alyth and Dundee had also sent many of the Scots into English captivity; those of rank were imprisoned at Windsor Castle, the Tower, and Chelsea College, the subalterns at Tothill Fields, London, Chester, and other places.

Robert Leighton was unanimously chosen by the Synod of Lothian "to repaire to London for negotiating the freedome and enlargement of their said brethren." This took place on November 4, 1651, and nothing can show better than this the esteem in which he was held not only by the brethren of his own Presbytery, but also of the whole Synod of Lothian. Whatever may have been his private opinions, he was evidently too retiring to express them, and too anxious to avoid controversy by expressing them. One must recall 2 See pp. 235-237.

1

1 Life of Milton, vol. i. p. 63.

here Burnet's statement: "he was the freest of censuring others or of imposing his own methods on them possible: so that he did not so much as recommend them on others. He said there was a diversity of tempers, and every man was to watch over his own, and to turn it in the best manner he could." Evidently when his brethren differed from him, they still loved him, and the transparent goodness and gentleness of his nature aroused and won their admiration.

Leighton was evidently in England from May till about the end of November 1652, and the next meeting of Presbytery after his return to Scotland (December 16)3 had a letter presented from him wherein "he demits his charge of his ministrie at Newbotle." The Presbytery desire him to "returne to his charge," but at the next meeting (December 30) he "divests his charge de novo," which the Presbytery again refuses to accept. On January 27, 1653, Leighton appeared, and "desyred to be loused from his charge," but with him on this occasion was Andrew Brysone, the City 5 Treasurer, who stated that the Town Council of Edinburgh had given Mr. Leighton a call to be Principal of the College. Leighton was probably appointed as the result of an order

1 History, vol. i. p. 239.

The Mercurius Scoticus (November 17, 1651) states that "The said ministers (i.e. of Linlithgow Presbytery, who refused to come to the Synod of Lothian's meeting) have refused to give obedience to the said Synod's Acts, especially in that of giving a willing contribution to bear the charges of Master Robert Lighton, Minister of Newbottle, whom they have appointed to go to London, to mediat for the relief of their Ministers who were taken at Ellit (Alyth), and now are prisoners at London, whose wives went thither the last week in Coach (forsooth): and the reason of their refusal to contribute is, that they say, if they had been following their calling then they should not have been prisoners there now, so that (it seemes) that the Lord hath called them to be where He would have them, because they were not where they should be." They were evidently "Protesters": some also in Edinburgh objected to the "Reek-Penny" for their relief, i.e. so much upon the pound of the "House-Rents and Dues of every House that Kindles fire."

sent down by the Government, and he probably had interviews with Cromwell or his Government when in London.

Leighton had not been chosen in the first instance by the Council of Edinburgh. Their choice had been Mr. William Colville, then a Scotch minister at Utrecht, and Colville had accepted the office (which he afterwards filled on Leighton's promotion to a bishopric in 1662). But difficulties had arisen in connexion with his appointment-raised, it was thought, by the Commonwealth Government-and the result was the election of Leighton. In terms of the Charter, the ministers of Edinburgh were present at the election, but declined taking any part in the transaction.1 When they were asked to vote the Town Council Record adds, "it halted there a tyme wishing they had not been calld to the electioun and showing that albeit they were weill content with the man, yet they could not give their voices to the electioun becaus they wer not cleir in the maner of the Call, and desyred to be markit onlie present, and non-loquets in the voiceing.” 2

The Presbytery proceeded deliberately, and after the usual manner by citing the congregation, before liberating Leighton from his charge. The Commission was produced on February 3, and Leighton was freed from his parish on account of the "greatness of the congregation far exceeding his strength" and the "extreme weakness of his voice" not being able to reach the half of his congregation when convened-reasons which he had "often expressed to us." 3

Leighton's relations with his Presbytery were thus orderly to the last, and he was too gentle and tender, too much engrossed in the primary, eternal elements of religion, to emphasize any differences on secondary matters that may have arisen in his mind. He was a regular attender at the meetings of Presbytery, and verily no one can read the Acts of Assembly and of Commission without seeing that notwithstanding the intolerance on ecclesiastical questions that 3 See p. 240.

1

1 pp. 294-295.

2 Vol. 17: fol. 369.

exhibits itself, there was alongside of it a deep, passionate concern for the religious and spiritual welfare of Scotland, which reveals an aspect of the period that may be overlooked. With this Leighton was allowed to busy himself for ten years, and Burnet's statement as to Leighton " withdrawing from his cure" must be modified by the evidence that the Records afford. In going to the University, he did not separate from the Church of Scotland-Presbyterian as it was-for the next ten years. He parted from his parish with the good will of his brethren, and he was too courteous not to reciprocate it.

The following letter from Lord Lothian to his Countess expresses his estimate of Leighton's ministry at Newbattle and also his fancy that Leighton "would, from any place he were putt in, withdrawe into Ingland."

The Earl of Lothian to the Countess of Lothian.

"SWEET HEARTE

"Your neighbours did yow mutch honor: I wish onely yow had knowne of their comming before hand, that yow might have received them better. Yow have amased me with what yow write concerning Mr. Lighton. I was in the hope he would not have left us, unles the call he had to the Colledge heare had beene made good, wherin there would have beene some dificulty: but that he would have left us without going to some other imployment or charge, I did not thinke he would have donne it, although yow may remember I sayd he would shortly, from any place he were putt in, withdrawe into Ingland. It would have been some contentment and satisfaction to me if he had but stayed in this land. I have not nowe leisure to write to him, but I will once this night in the mean tyme, I pray, doe yow again

1 See appendix to this chapter (pp. 220-241).

2 Referring to a previous election of Mr. William Colvill, which was afterwards set aside in favour of Mr. Leighton.

speake to him, and intreate that, whatsoever his resolutions be, that he would not this winter quite us, or att least not so sodainly and abruptly: and if he will not stay in his ministry, and preach more to us (which wilbe a greate grieffe to me, for never did I gett soe much good by any that stoode in a pulpitt), but is as yow write to retyre to a corner untill the spring that he goe to England, desire him, that that corner may be your house, which may be as quiett to him as a monastery or a wildernesse he shall not be desired neither to pray, nor soe mutch as to say grace to us. A greene wound is not felt, but wee will fynde the want of him very bitter and sharpe ere long therefore I pray yow deale with him to stay with us this winter, in the congregation, att least in our company. can now adde noe more, but that I am your most loving Husband,

"EDINBURGH, the 9 December, 1652.”

"LOTHIAN.

I

Correspondence of the Earls of Ancram and Lothian, vol. ii. p. 373.]

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII.

Extracts from the Presbytery Books of Dalkeith.

1639.

The National Covenant signed in August 1639 by Mr. Andrew Cant, Newbottle, and other ministers in the Presbytery of Dalkeith, by the Earls of Lothian and Dalhousie, Thomas Megot of Maisterton and other ruling Elders and several Expectants, in all about 100 persons, is preserved in the volume of Records, 1639-1652.

1639. October 10.-Mr. Andrew Cant (and others absent) are excused, being appointed by the Synode to attend with the rest of the brether in Edinburgh during the Parliament.

1640.

December 3.-Quhilk day the Presbyterie of Aberdein sent to Mr. William More ane letter desyring the bretheren to demit freelie Mr. Andrew Cant to the vacant Kirk of Aberdein, conform to the act of transport given by the late Generall Assemblie holden theire: to