|
PATERSON, JOHN.—This last
Protestant archbishop of Glasgow, was the son of John Paterson, bishop of
Ross, and born, some time in the year 1632. He was trained in
episcopalianism, with a view to the ministry; and his first charge was that
of the parish of Ellon, Aberdeenshire, but from which he was transferred (in
October, 1662) to the Tron church, Edinburgh.
Soon afterwards, he was
appointed dean of Edinburgh. As the delegate of archbishop Sharp, in the
year 1670 he attended a conference between the peace-loving archbishop of
Glasgow (Robert Leighton) and the leaders of the presbyterian church, with a
view, on the part of the latter amiable divine, to a reconciliation, but
which the prelate of St. Andrews intended should miscarry. Unfortunately the
presbyterians, mistrusting the intentions of the over-hopeful Leighton,
thought the advances he made them were intended to ensnare their chief men;
and, consequently, nothing came of the well-meant attempt, but increased
mutual estrangement. Leighton, finding he could do nothing with the
presbyterian clergy, appealed, as it were, to their flocks, and obtained the
appointment of six episcopal divines, supposed to be the most moderate in
their opinions, and least obnoxious to the presbyterians, to go round the
Lowlands, preaching in vacant churches, and arguing the grounds of an
accommodation with all comers. Among these were dean Paterson and the famous
Gilbert Burnet. This attempt, too, proved a failure: "The people of the
country, indeed," avers the latter, "came generally to hear us, though not
in great crowds. We were amazed to see a poor commonalty so capable to argue
upon points of government, and on the bounds to be set to the power of
princes in matters of religion. Upon all these topics they had texts of
Scripture at hand, and were ready with their answers to anything that was
said to them. This measure of knowledge was spread even among the meanest of
them, their cottagers and their servants."
Notwithstanding the defeat
Paterson and his colleagues thus received in colloquies with these sturdy
rustic theologians, his promotion, at least, was secure, through the potency
of the duke of Lauderdale, to whom he paid assiduous court. It was through
his favour, or by means of a solatium to his rapacious duchess, that
Paterson was named bishop of Galloway, October 23, 1674. From this see he
was translated (March 29, 1679) to that of Edinburgh.
To make this piece of
preferment the more sweet, the duke of York, doubtless at Lauderdale’s
instigation, ordered, in the king’s name, the town council of Edinburgh to
take 18,000 merks (nearly £1000) out of a sum of money bequeathed, in trust,
for founding an additional church in the city, and employ it to build a
house for the new bishop. Subservient even to baseness as the city
authorities then were, they yet scrupled to commit this sacrilege, and
appealed to the conscience of Paterson in the matter, when he had the grace
to waive the indecent claim made in his name. "This generous deportment of
the bishop’s," says Maitland, "was so kindly taken, that the town council
returned him a letter of thanks, with an offer of 600 merks yearly, in name
of house-rent." Their offer, however, he could not decently accept, for by
this time due provision was made for his accommodation by royal grant; but,
not to lose all chance of profiting by the opportune occasion, Paterson, in
a letter full of pretentious self-denial, and expressive of his hatred of
"all brybers and bryberie," demanded and got 2000 merks of the town’s money,
for having preached alone one year, on single salary, in a collegiate
church, some sixteen years before!
A few days after the
accession of James II. to the throne, he, by a royal mandate, appointed John
Paterson and his successors, lord bishops of Edinburgh, to be the
chancellors ex-officio of the university of that city for ever! This
compliment, and Paterson’s next exaltation, were probably the reward of his
courtly compliances; for he had, shortly before, in council with the duke
(now king), expressed an opinion, that "the two religions—popish and
protestant— were so equally stated (poised) in his mind, that a few grains
of loyalty, in which the protestants had the better, turned the balance with
him."
In conformity with this
indifferentism, he and Ross (whom Burnet calls "the two governing bishops"
of the time) "procured an address, to be signed by several of their bench,
offering to concur with the king in all that he desired with regard to
religion, providing the laws might still continue in force against the
presbyterians." With this document he went to London, but was dissuaded from
presenting it, as something really "too bad." In 1686, the parliament being
moved to sanction the king’s arbitrary policy, secular and ecclesiastical,
and a timid resistance made by Alexander Cairncross, archbishop of Glasgow;
James expelled him, without ceremony, from his charge, and gave it to
Paterson, who was but too happy to accept the equivocal distinction.
But the time of retribution
was nigh. The expedition of the prince of Orange, in the autumn of 1688, so
opportune in time, and so happy in its results, saved the nation from that
slavery which none were so forward to plunge it into as the greater number
of the Scottish prelates. To the besotted king, however, they evinced one
virtue—that of a canine fidelity; for they adhered to his cause when almost
all others had given or were about to, give it up. Thus, on the 3d of
November, 1688 (two days before William’s arrival), Paterson and eleven more
signed one of the most fulsome addresses that was ever penned, thanking
Providence "for miraculously preserving his sacred majesty’s person from
past perils; magnifying the Divine mercy in blessing so pious, so wise, and
so gracious a king with a son - - not doubting but God would give him the
hearts of his subjects, and the necks of his enemies."
Paterson’s possession of his
new dignity and temporalities was short and uneasy; for the hatred of the
Glasgow presbyterians towards the Episcopal clergy, long subdued by the
compression of tyrannical force, was ever ready to burst forth in
retaliation upon those whom they regarded as sinful oppressors of "the
Lord’s chosen people in Scotland;" but no lives were put in real hazard in
any tumult, or bones broken, till the 14th of February, 1689, when provost
Gibson, a stanch episcopalian, having, probably at the archbishop’s
instigation, imprudently forced access to the High church pulpit for a
minister, while yet the question of the re-settlement of religion was
pending, a riot ensued, at first mostly through the obstruction of zealous
anti-prelatic females, about thirty of whom being wounded, a body of men,
armed with sticks, stones, &c., came to their aid, and a desperate combat
ensued, in which several were sorely hurt. The archbishop, meanwhile,
prudently kept out of the way. When the new royalty succeeded, he counselled
the malcontent nobles and gentry to take the prescribed oaths, but on design
to break them, in the vain hope of bringing about a counter-revolution. From
this time he sank into complete obscurity; dying in Edinburgh, December 9,
1708, in his 76th year. |
