Check all the Clans that have DNA Projects. If your Clan is not in the list there's a way for it to be listed. Electric Scotland's Classified Directory An amazing collection of unique holiday cottages, castles and apartments, all over Scotland in truly amazing locations.

Click here to get a Printer Friendly Page

Aberdour and Inchcolme
Appendix


I. LORD MORTON’S VAULT IN THE OLD CHURCH.

The author examined this vault on the 14th of October 1857, along with Mr. James Barr, Lord Morton’s land-steward. The flat covering of it rises a good many feet above the level of the church floor; and above it there had been a loft or gallery. The vault is divided into two compartments, north and south. In the north compartment there were at that time eight coffins, with the following inscriptions:—

1. Agathae Halyburton, Mulieris PRAESTANTISSIMAE, Jacobi Douglas, Comitis de Morton, uxoris dilectis-

SIMAE, MORTALES EXUVIAE, NAT. XII JUNII, A.D. MDCCX. Obiit XII Decemb. A.D. MDCCXLVIII. The translation is:

‘The mortal remains of Agatha Halyburton, a most excellent woman, and the beloved wife of James Douglas, Earl of Morton. Born 12th June 1710, and died 12th December 1748.’ Countess Agatha is laid in one of the compartments of a double leaden coffin—the Earl intending to be himself laid in the other. But his Lordship, who was the ninth Earl of the house of Lochleven, married again, which accounts for the other compartment of the coffin being vacant.

2. The Earl’s own coffin is, however, near, bearing the following inscription: The Right Honble James, Earl of Morton, died 13TH October 1768, aged 66. The motto, Lock sicker, is on the coffin plates, with the coat of arms. By Agatha, daughter of James Halyburton of Pitcur, he had five sons and two daughters, five of whom died young. The coffins of two of these are in the vault, with the inscriptions which follow :—

3. The Lady Frances Douglas, Eldest Daughter to James, Earl of Morton, by Dame Agatha Halyburton. Born i6th day of June 1733. Died the ninth day of May 1739.

4. George Douglas, fourth Son of James Douglas and Agatha Halyburton, Earl and Countess of Morton. Born 19TH day of Sept. 1738. Died 8th of June 1744.

5. The second son of the above-named Earl and Countess, the tenth Earl, is also buried here. The inscription on his coffin is, The Right Honble Sholto Charles Douglas, Earl of Morton. Died at Jaormina, in Sicily, 25TH Sept. 1774, in the 45TH year of his age.

6. The widow of this Earl is buried beside him; the inscription on her coffin being as follows :—The Right Hon. Katharine, Countess Dowager of Morton. Died 25TH April 1823, in her 87TH year. She was the daughter of Thomas, sixth Earl of Haddington.

The other coffins are those of two sisters of Dame Agatha Halyburton.

7. The Right Hon. Mary Halyburton, Dowager Countess of Aboyne. Died 25TH Dec. 1816. Aged 80.

8. Agnes Halyburton, Widow of James Smollett of

BONHILL, DAUGHTER OF JAMES HALYBURTON OF PLICUR,

by Mary Drummond, daughter of George Drummond of Blair. Born Jan. i, 1712. Died Aug. 5, 1742.

II. ERECTION OF ABERDOUR-WESTER INTO A BURGH OF BARONY.

The charter of James the Fourth erecting Aberdour-Wester into a Burgh of Barony is recorded in the Register House. It is of date 18th March 1500. The King desires it to be known that it is because of the special devotion he cherishes for the memory of the Blessed Confessor, St. Columba, and the favour he bears to the Venerable Father in Christ, Thomas, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Colme’s Inch, and the other members of the Convent, as well as for the advantage of his Majesty’s lieges travelling between different parts of his kingdom, and especially those resorting to Queensferry, that he grants the usual privileges accorded to a Burgh of Barony on the inhabitants of Aberdour-Wester. Among these privileges are enumerated the right of buying and selling wine, wax, and woollen and linen cloth ; the right to have bakers, brewers, butchers, vendors of fish and flesh, and workmen of other trades; the right, on the part of the Abbot and his successors in office, to appoint bailies and other officers for the government of the burgh; the right to possess a cross and market-place ; to hold a weekly market on Saturday, and a yearly public fair on St. Columba’s Day, and throughout the octaves of it; and all other rights and privileges belonging to a free burgh of barony within the kingdom.

Carta erectionis Ville de Aberdour Liberum Burgum in Baronia.

Jacobus Dei gracia Rex Scotorum omnibus probis hominibus tocius terre sue, clericis et laicis salutem : Sciatis quia pro speciali devocione quam habemus beato Con fessori Sancto Columbe, ac pro favore quem geriraus erga venerabilem in Christo patrem, Thomam Abbatem Monastery nostri insule Sancti Columbe, et oratores nostros conventum ejusdem, necnon pro hospitio, supportacione et utilitate, ligeorum nostrorum venientium et perambulantium, tam per terram quam mare, a diversis regni nostri partibus, et illorum presertim qui confluunt ad portum maris nuncu-patum lieQuenisferry et revertuntur ab eodem, infeodavimus, creavimus et fecimus et hac presenti carta nostra infeo-damus, creamus et facimus occidentalem villam de Aberdour cum pertinentiis dictis Abbati et Conventui spectantem liberum burgum inBaronia pro perpetuo: Concessimus etiam, et hac presenti carta nostra concedimus, inhabitantibus dictum burgum, et imposterum inhabitaturis, plenariam po-testatem et liberain facultatem emendi et vendendi in ipso burgo vina,ceram, pannum laneum et lineum latum et arctum, aliaque mercimonia quecunque, cum potestate et libertate habendi et tenendi pistores, brasiatores, carnifices, et tam carnium quam piscium macellarios, aliosque artium operarios ad libertatem burgi in baronia qualitercunque spectantium et pertinentium : Concessimus etiam, et hac presenti carta nostra concedimus, ut in dicto burgo sint burgenses, et quod dictus venerabilis in Christo pater, et successores sui dicti monasterij Abbates, potestatem habeat et habeant perpetuis futuris temporibus elegendi, faciendi, constituendi ballivos et alios officiarios pro gubernatione dicti burgi necessarios: necnon concedimus et hac presenti \lacima in recorded copy\ et inhabitantibus dictum burgum ut in ipso habeant, teneant et possideant pro perpetuo; crucem et forum die sabbati singulis ebdomadis, et nundinas publicas singulis annis die Sancti Columbe et per octavas ejusdem, cum omnibus libertatibus ad predictas nundinas spectan-tibus seu juste spectare valentibus quomodolibet in futurum: Tenendam et habendam predictam Occidentalem Viliam de Aberdour, cum bondis et pertinentiis ejusdem perpetuis futuris temporibus, in merum burgum in baronia, cum supra-scriptis privilegiis, libertatibus et concessionibus ac universis aliis libertatibus, proficuis et pertinentiis, tam non nominatis quam nominatis, ad burgum in baronia spectantibus seu juste spectare valentibus quomodolibet in futurum, et adeo libere, in omnibus et per omnia, sicut aliquis Burgus in Baronia infra Regnum nostrum alicui infeodatur, conceditur seu tenetur, sine aliqua revocacione aut contradictione quacunque. In cujus rei testimonium presenti carte nostre magnum sigillum nostrum apponi precepimus Testibus ut in carta immediate precedente : apud Edinburgh decimo octavo die mensis Marcii Anno Domini Millesimo quingen-tesimo et regni nostri decimo tertio.

III. THE MURDER OF THE BONNY EARL OF MORAY.

The leading facts connected with the murder of the Bonny Earl are well known, but there are some interesting incidents connected with his tragic end which are either omitted, or imperfectly told, in even our standard histories.

From Fragmetits of Scottish History—BirrePs Diary, we cull the following graphic account of the murder:—

‘1592 [1591-2] Feb. 7.—The 7 of Februarii the Earle of Huntlie came to the hous of Dunnibirsell in Fyffe, quher the Earle of Murray, with a few number, wes for the tyme, being his awen hous. The chieffe man yat ves vith him ves Dumbar, Shriffe of Murray. The Earll of Huntley sett ye said hous on fyre, The Earll of Murray being vithin, vist not quhither to come out and be slaine, or be burned quicke: yet, after advysment this Dumbar says to my lord of Murray, I vill goe out at ye gaitt before your lordshipe, and I am sure the peopell will chairge on me, thinking me to be zour Lordshipe, sua, it being mirke under nycht, ze sail come out after me, and look if yat ye can fend for zourself. In the meine tyme, this Dumbar, tutor to ye shriffe of Murray, came furth, and ran desperatly among the Earle of Huntleys folks, and they all rane upone him, and presently slew him. During this broyle with Dumbar, the Earle of Murray came running out at ye gait of Duni-birsell, quhilk stands besyde ye sea, and ther sat him doune among ye rockes, thinking to have beine safe; but unfor-tunattly the said Lord’s cnapscull tippet, quherone ves a silk stringe, had taken fyre, vich betrayed him to hes enimies in ye darknesse of ye night, himselue not knowing the same: they came doune one him on a suddaine, and ther most cruelly, without mercey, murthered him.’

Touching the accuracy of this account, it has been objected that Dunbar, whose noble self-sacrifice is recorded, is in one place styled the ‘Sheriff of Moray,’ and in another merely 'Tutor to the Sheriff of Moray.’ But an examination of Douglas’s Ba?-onage, p. 121, will show that Birrel with perfect accuracy styled Dunbar in both ways. The explanation is, that he was acting as tutor-in-law for his nephew, Sir Alexander Dunbar, who was heritable Sheriff, but under age; and it was quite a common thing for the Substitute to be called either ‘Sheriff’ or ‘Tutor to the Sheriff.’ Many incidents have been quoted from the annals of other nations to illustrate the disinterested character and the strength of genuine friendship; but few of them are so telling as this instance of self-sacrifice on the part of the Sheriff of Moray for the Bonny Earl.

Archbishop Spotswood tells us, in reference to the slaughter of the Earl: ‘The clamours of the people, on this murder being known, were so great that the King, not esteeming it safe to abide at Edinburgh, removed with the Council to Glasgow. . . . The corpses of the Earl and the Sheriff were brought to the Church of Leith in two coffins, and there lay divers months unburied, their friends refusing to commit their bodies to the earth till the slaughter was punished.’ David Moysie says the corpses were brought over the water to Leith by Lady Doune, the Earl’s mother, who intended to present them on the morrow to the King, who was believed by many to be implicated in the murder ; but, becoming aware of this, he ordered the Magistrates of Leith to arrest the bodies, and not suffer them to be removed till his mind was known.

It was the intention of Lady Doune to cause the coffin of her son to be carried through Edinburgh, accompanied by a banner, on which the naked body of the Earl was represented, with a cloth round the loins, and exhibiting the marks of the deadly wounds he had received. This banner is still preserved at Donibristle, and has been seen by the writer. A scroll issues from the mouth, with the words 4 God Avenge my Cause ’ inscribed on it, along with the date, ‘Feb. 7, 1591' and his age, ‘Aetat. 24.’

In volume i. p. 191 of the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, there is a paper by David Laing containing notices of the Earl’s funeral. From these it appears that in the month of May following the murder, a Royal command was issued, enjoining the Magistrates and Council of Edinburgh to bury the body where the Earl’s relatives might appoint, and this under the pain of rebellion ; yet for several years it remained unburied. At length, in February 1597-8, an order was issued, charging the relatives of the Earl, and those of John, Lord Maxwell, who had been slain by the Laird of Johnston in a Border feud, and whose body was lying in the same condition, to bury them under the pain of rebellion. Yet it is not known where the body of the Earl lies. In 1851 a search was made to ascertain whether he was buried in the Church of St. Giles, or at Dalgety, but with no definite result.

IV. REASONS OF DISSENT FROM THE SENTENCE OF THE SYNOD OF FIFE SUSTAINING THE CALL TO MR. JOHN LISTON.

‘Whereas the General Assembly 1644, in their Act concerning dissenting voices in Presbyteries and Synods, judge it necessary that if any members of Presbyteries or Synods find any thing carried by plurality of voices to any determination which they conceive to be contrary to the Word of God, the Acts of Assembly, or the received order of the Kirk, they urge their dissent to be marked in the Registers ; and if that be refused, that they protest, as they would desire to be free of common censure with the rest. And we, humbly conceiving the sentence, sustaining the call given by the Patron and several Heritors, with two of the Elders and seventeen heads of families in the parish of Aberdour, to Mr. John Liston, in opposition to the call to Mr. Thomas Kay, by nine Elders, one Heritor, and the body of the people of that congregation (of which it was represented in the Synod, many were feuars), to be of that nature ; and finding that our dutiful endeavours to prevent it by reasoning and proposals for accommodation, particularly by laying both aside, or referring the affair to the General Assembly (the first whereof the Reverend Synod had gone into in cases less urgent, namely, in the late competition of calls in the parishes of Abdy and Kilmeny), had proven ineffectual; and that there was no other way left for our due exoneration in a matter of such importance, and, as we fear, of dangerous consequence to the just rights and liberties of the Church, we were obliged, with all due deference to the very Reverend Synod, met pro re nata, to enter our dissent against the said sentence, immediately upon its being carried by plurality of voices, craving leave our reasons thereof, scripto, in due time to be recorded, which accordingly we now offer, and are these following:

‘Primo. Orthodox divines, both in former and later times, particularly in our own Church, such as the reverend and learned Mr. David Calderwood, in his Altare Damas-cenum (page 326 to 333); Mr. George Gillespie, in the second chapter of his Miscellany Questions; Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd, in his Due Right of Presbyteries (pp. 201-202, 464); Mr. James Durham in his Commentary on the Revelation (pp. 53, 58, folio edition), concerning calling to the ministry; Principal Rule, in his Rational Defence of Nonconformity (section 6, p. 197, etc.); Principal Forrester, in his Review (p. 311) and Appendix (262); Mr. Alexander Lauder, in his book intituled Ancient Bishops Considered (page 317, etc.); and others, have made it evident, from Acts i. 15 to the close, Acts vi. 3, 5, Actsxiv. 23, Acts xv. 22, and other Scriptures, and solid reasons founded on the Word of God, as also from testimonies of Fathers, decrees of Councils, and the judgment of Reformed Churches, that Christian Congregations have undoubted right to choose and call their own pastors, and that their call is necessary to found the pastoral relation betwixt ministers and such Congregations. Whereas, in the present case, it is plain Mr. Liston’s call to the parish of Aberdour is not the call of that Congregation; nine of eleven Elders which gave their voices having voted, and the generality of the heads of families having, by their subscription and otherwise, declared their concurrence for another at the moderation. And it’s well known that the body of that people have been, and still are, utterly averse and opposed to Mr. Liston his settlement amongst them; so that it will be dissentiente et renitente ecclesia, and so directly contrary to the Word of God and the judgment of orthodox divines. And it cannot be denied that the congregation of Aberdour is Christian, having right to choose their own Pastor.

Indeed the carriage of a few women, at the moderation and the day thereafter, was very unchristian and offensive, and therefore justly testified against by the Reverend Synod. But this cannot be laid to the charge of the elders, or body of that people, especially when they witnessed their detestation and abhorrence thereof, as was declared before the Reverend Synod. And it’s known that, in some of the best parishes of Scotland, when Curates were thrust in upon them, without their call, and against their inclination, some people violently opposed their settlement, and received them with showers of stones, as the Reverend Mr. Wodrow says (page 158 of his first volume), which practice he justly condemns, though against the Curates, adding this was not the practice of the religious or more judicious, but that such irregularities were committed by the more ignorant vulgar, while such as were really serious mourned in secret and were as doves in the valley. And such was the case, we doubt not, of the serious people in the parish of Aberdour. And we hope, yea, are very confident, the parish of Aberdour is no worse now, nor more unchristian, than when they gave a call to their late worthy pastor, the Rev. Alexander Scot, upon which call he was settled among them, though several Heritors, with the late Earl of Morton, opposed that settlement; yea, his Lordship protested against it, in time of the ordination. And when it’s considered that the said congregation did enjoy the blessing of the Rev. Mr. Scot his faithful and painful ministry, about the space of twenty years, and were privileged with many solemn Communions, with which, and the Christian, serious, tender carriage of the people on the said occasions, sundry Reverend Ministers within this province have expressed their great satisfaction, we may conclude the number of the serious seekers of God is much increased there, and that this people do more deserve the character and privileges of a Christian congregation than formerly.

This sentence appears to us to be contrary to the Book of Discipline and Acts of General Assembly, yea, of the Synod of Fife itself, as particularly: First Book of Discipline, 4th head, Concerning Ministers and their Election, it’s expressly declared “ that it appertains to the people, and to every several Congregation, to elect their ministers—for altogether this is to be avoided, that any man be violently intruded or thrust in upon any Congregation, but this liberty must, with all care, be reserved to every several Church to have their votes and suffrages in the election of their Ministers.” And in the Second Book of Discipline, cap. iii., it is said, “Election is the choosing out of a person or persons most able to the office which vaikes, by the judgment of the Eldership and consent of the Congregation, to which shall be the person or persons appointed. In the order of election it is to be eschewed that any person be intruded or placed in the offices of the Kirk contrair to the will of the Congregation to which they are appointed, or without the voice of the eldership.” And cap. 12, containing several Heads of Reformation craved, bears—'The liberty of election of persons called to ecclesiastical functions, and observed without interruption so long as the Kirk was not corrupted by Antichrist, we desire to be restored and retained within the Realm, so that none be intruded on any Congregation, either by the Prince or any inferior person, without lawful election, and the consent of the people over whom the person is placed, as the practice of the Apostolical and Primitive Kirk and good order craves.” And the General Assembly 1638, sess. 23, art. 20, enacts That no person be intruded in any office of this Kirk contrary to the will of the congregation to which they are appointed.” And the General Assembly 1649, in their Directory for the election of Ministers, do appoint the Kirk-Session to go about the election of a pastor for the vacant congregation ; and if the people shall acquiesce and consent to the person chosen by the Session, that the Presbytery proceed to his trial and admission, if found qualified, directing further what is to be done, in case the major or a lesser part dissent; and declaring that persons under the censure of the Church, or disaffected and malignant, shall have no hand in the election of a minister. Yea the Rev. Synod of Fife, met at Kirkcaldy, September 28, 1716, ‘Considering the difficulties arising in planting congregations in this province, by reason of the grievances from the Act restoring Patronage, recommends to all the Presbyteries within their bounds, that they endeavour, as much as possible, the planting of parishes according to the order prescribed by Act of the General Assembly ; and that they have a special care not to plant a minister in any congregation, until they have the desire and choice of at least the generality of the people made known to them, as being the proper ground for founding the pastoral relation.” And, in September 1718, the Synod expressly discharged the Presbytery of Kirkcaldy to plant the parish of Ballingry, without the consent of the greater and better part of that congregation; which sentence was after approven and ratified by the Commission of the General Assembly, when that affair came before them. But it must be owned that the present call to Mr. Liston wants the election of the Eldership, and consent of the body of that Congregation, or even of the greater or better part thereof, and so is directly contrary to the Books of Discipline, the Acts of the General Assembly, yea of the Synod itself. And whereas it is alleged that the right of calling ministers has, since the Revolution, been lodged in Heritors and Elders, it is to be remembered that, as this alteration was not made by the Church, but by the State, without her advice or consent, so it has never been confirmed or approven by any standing Act of the General Assembly. Yea, a late overture looking that way was found so disagreeable to many Presbyteries, that the General Assembly 1721 did, in their great wisdom and justice, lay it aside. And it is not to be thought that this Church hath ever acknowledged any other right in Heritors, as such, to call pastors, than merely civil; and that not privative but cumulative with respect to the right of Elders and Christian Congregations, which this Church has approved and expressly witnessed for since the Second Book of Discipline was formed. And, in congregations duly constituted and well-affected, ministers have been commonly ordained, ever since the Revolution, upon the call of the Eldership concurring with the Heritors, and consented unto by the greater and better part of the congregations, either expressly or tacitly. And if any instances be alleged in the contrary, instead of being pleadable as a precedent, they are to be disapproven,—Heritors having no right, as such, by the Word of God, Books of Discipline, and Acts of the General Assembly to call ministers, much less without the Eldership and Christian Congregation. Indeed, if Heritors were truly Christian in their principles and practice, they would not only be specially consulted, in calling ministers, as principal heads of Christian families, but also called and ordained to the office of Elders, and so have right, by the established Order of the Church, to elect and call pastors, whereas, alas ! too many of them in our day, by their unsoundness in principle and unchristian conversation, render themselves not only unworthy of a room among Elders, but of Christian privileges ; and so can have no just claim, by the Word of God and order of this Church, to a vote in this matter.

‘Even if the Acts of Parliament, made after the Revolution, lodging the right of calling ministers in Protestant Heritors qualified according to law, and Elders, with the approbation of the people, were now in force, upon which the Synod seem to found their present sentence, Mr. Liston’s call could not be sustained, in regard it not only wants the approbation of the Congregation, but also there were such relevant objections advanced against several of the Heritors subscribing that call, as, in our opinion, deprives them of any legal title to vote in this affair. Such as, that two of them, namely, Kilrie and Colin Simpson, did so far discover their disaffection to the civil government as they joined in the late wicked rebellion ; and further, that the first of these had neither signed Mr. Liston’s call, nor given commission to any to vote or sign for him. And the last was further objected against, as having sold his land to the Earl of Morton. And also it was objected that Sir James Holburn and his son vote for apart of the lands of Couston, being a small enclosure, without a family or so much as any house thereon, which piece of ground is purchased and possessed by Sir John Henderson; and the only foundation on which both he and they do claim a vote as Heritors in that parish. And we must own it was surprising to us that when these objections were urged, the Rev. Synod was so far from entering upon a due consideration of them, that it was affirmed and pleaded by some, and generally acquiesced in, that it did not belong to them to judge on what ground persons pretended to be Heritors, and claimed a vote as such, that matter being of a civil nature. Whereas we did then, and do still think, that if calls were to proceed on the footing of the Acts of Parliament anent calling ministers, which also lodged in Kirk judicatories, the right of determining the legality of calls, that, by necessary consequence, it must belong to them to judge and determine who have right, as Heritors, to vote and subscribe in calls. And anent the objections which may be offered by competing parties hincinde against the right of voters, without which they could not judge and sustain a call as legal, nor found a settlement thereupon. But though the Rev. Synod declined to determine in these objections, yet we still insist that they are of such weight as to render the votes of Kilrie and Colin Simpson, Sir James Holburn and his son, null and void, according to these laws. And considering that, by the principles and constitutions of this Church, particularly the Directory 1649, persons malignant or disaffected are to have no hand in the election of a minister, the objections offered against the Earl of Moray and Sir John Henderson, as not of the Communion of this Church, and the two Balrams, as seldom hearing Presbyterian ministers, are of sufficient weight to deprive them of a vote, though the Rev. Synod decline to determine thereanent. Upon which grounds, eight of the pretended voters in Mr. Liston’s call should, in justice, be laid aside; and then only six Heritors and Elders vote for him, against some of which there were also weighty objections offered—though we do not insist upon them—with seventeen heads of families consenting, and these none of the best, as we are credibly informed. Whereas, Mr. Kay’s call is subscribed by nine Elders, one Heritor, and a great number of heads of families, of which upwards of twenty are said to be Feuars, who subscribed in presence of the ministers appointed by the Synod to moderate in the call. And whereas it was alleged, while we were reasoning against Mr. Liston’s call, that we had concurred with the Synod in the settlement of a minister in the parish of Forgan, upon a call by the Heritors and Elders, while the major part of the Congregation were for another, we must represent that the affair of Forgan is vastly different; for the call sustained to the parish of Forgan had the eldership, which is wanting here; and there was no such disproportion between the heads of families consenting to that and the competing call, as in the present case. Though it wanted the greater, yet the Synod were credibly informed the better part of that parish were cordial for it; yea we were told there was scarcely a praying person in that Congregation who was not desirous of that settlement.

Although we have all due respect to the Right Honourable the Earl of Morton, and a grateful sense of what favours he has done this Church, and could heartily have wished, and some of us have endeavoured, as we had access, that the eldership and people should have cordially concurred with his Lordship, in calling Mr. Liston; yet, considering that as the Earl did, at first, insist to have him settled upon his presentation, before there was any appearance of a call from that parish, which the Rev. Presbytery of Dunfermline did justly refuse, as not agreeable to Presbyterian principles; so, ever since this affair seems to be put on a new footing by the Synod, his Lordship still insists upon his right of presentation, protesting that his subscribing the call should not invalidate his presentation, nor be construed as receding therefrom. And the Synod having now noted the approbation of that call, and ordered Mr. Liston’s settlement thereon, notwithstanding the weighty objections offered against it, and the opposition of the eldership and body of that Congregation, we fear the deed of the Synod, though not so intended by them, may be interpreted an homologation of the usurped powers of patrons, or may prove a dangerous precedent, for countenancing those Heritors and others who may incline to invade the rights and liberties of this Church, and obtrude ministers on Christian Congregations without their call, yea against their mind, in direct opposition to the Word of God, our Books of Discipline, and standing Acts of the General Assembly. And considering that ministers of the Gospel and Church judicatories are bound by many sacred ties to maintain and defend the rights and liberties of Christian Churches, and of Christian Congregations, and that we are under strong apprehension of the bad consequences of this sentence, not only in the parish of Aberdour, but elsewhere: Therefore we now beg leave hereby to protest that we are not chargeable with these, and that this sentence shall not be pleaded, nor improven as a precedent, in time coming.

Mr. William Moncrieff, at Largo.
Mr. G. Gillespie.
Mr. Ebenezer Erskine, etc.’


Return to Book Index Page

 


This comment system requires you to be logged in through either a Disqus account or an account you already have with Google, Twitter, Facebook or Yahoo. In the event you don't have an account with any of these companies then you can create an account with Disqus. All comments are moderated so they won't display until the moderator has approved your comment.

comments powered by Disqus

Quantcast