"Andrew Fairfowl.... had first been chaplain to the Earl of Rothes, and next minister at North Leith, afterwards at Dunce. 'Tis reported on good grounds that King Charles II., having heard him preach several times when he was in Scotland in the year 1650, was pleased upon his restoration to enquire after Mr. Fairfowl, and of his own mere motion preferred him to this see, on the 14th of November, 1661. He was consecrated in June next year. But he did not long enjoy his new office, for he sickened the very day of riding the parliament in November, 1663, and dying in a few days he was interred on the 11th of the same month in the abbey church of Holyrood House." "Alexander Burnet, upon the death of Archbishop Fairfowl, was translated from Aberdeen to Glasgow. After the defeat of the rebels at Pentland, anno 1666, Archbishop Burnet shewed a great inclination to have those people used with lenity; and when their affair came before the privy council, he laboured to get their lives spared, and went so far as to transmit an account of the proceedings of the council against the captive rebels to the English secretary, Sir Henry Bennet, afterwards Earl of Arlington, to be communicated to the king. This the Earl, afterwards Duke, of Lauderdale, took to be such a piece of indignity done to his character, who was then secretary for Scotland, that he threatened the archbishop with a pursuit of high treason for revealing the king's secrets, unless he would make a cession of his office; to which this prelate yielded out of fear, and surrendered the office in the month of December, the year 1669. Hereupon Bishop Leighton was made first commendator, and then Archbishop of Glasgow; but Mr. Leighton resigning again, in the year 1674, Dr. Burnet was restored to his see, by the king's letters of the 7th of September, 1674, and an act or record of privy council, following thereupon, the date 29th September, same year; which he peaceably possessed until he was translated thence to the primacy of St. Andrew's. "Robert Leighton was the son of Alexander Leighton, D.D. . . . The fame of his piety and learning made him very quickly chosen professor of divinity at Edinburgh in the year 1653." "He continued ten years in that post; and was a great blessing in it. . . . Thus he had lived above twenty years in Scotland, in the highest reputation that any man in my time ever had in that kingdom. "He had a brother well known at court, Sir Elisha, who was like him in face and in the vivacity of his parts, but the most unlike him in all other things that can be imagined. . . . He was a papist of a form of his own; but he had changed his religion to raise himself at court; for he was at that time secretary to the Duke of York, and was very intimate with the Lord Aubigny, a brother of the Duke of Richmond's, who had changed his religion, and was a priest, and had probably been a cardinal, if he had lived a little longer. He maintained an outward decency, and had more learning and better notions, than men of quality who enter into orders in that church generally have. Yet he was a very vicious man; and that perhaps made him the more considered by the king, who loved and trusted him to a high degree. No man had more credit with the king; for he was on the secret as to his religion, and was more trusted with the whole design that was then managed in order to establish it, than any man whatsoever. Sir Elisha brought his brother and him acquainted; for Leightoun loved to know men in all the varieties of religion. "In the vacation time he made excursions, and came oft to London; where he observed all the eminent men in Cromwell's court, and in the several parties then about the city of London. But he told me, he could never see anything among them that pleased him. . . . . Sometimes he went over to Flanders to see what he could find in the several orders of the church of Rome. There he found some of Jansenius's followers, who seemed to be men of extraor Keith's Catalogue of Scottish Bishops, p. 158. dinary tempers, and studied to bring things, if possible, to the purity and simplicity of the primitive ages; on which all his thoughts were much set. He thought controversies had been too much insisted on, and had been carried too far. His brother, who thought of nothing but the raising himself at court, fancied that his being made a bishop might render himself more considerable. So he possessed the Lord Aubigny with such an opinion of him, that he made the king apprehend that a man of his piety and his notions (and his not being married was not forgot) might contribute to carry on their design. He fancied that such a monastic man, who had a great stretch of thought, and so many other eminent qualities, would be a mean at least to prepare the nation for popery, if he did not directly come over to them; for his brother did not stick to say, he was sure that lay at root with him. So the king named him of his own proper motion, which gave all those that began to suspect the king himself great jealousies of him. Leightoun was averse to this promotion as much as was possible. His brother had great power over him ; for he took care to hide his vices from him, and to make before him a show of piety. He seemed to be a papist rather in name and show than in reality.... When Leightoun was prevailed on to accept a bishopric, he chose Dunblane, a small diocese, as well as a little revenue. But the deanery of the chapel royal was annexed to that see. So he was willing to engage in that, that he might set up the common prayer in the king's chapel; for the rebuilding of which orders were given. The English clergy were well pleased with him, finding him both more learned, and more thoroughly theirs in the other points of uniformity, than the rest of the Scotch clergy, whom they could not much value. And though Sheldon did not much like his great strictness, in which he had no mind to imitate him, yet he thought such a man as he was might give credit to episcopacy, in its first introduction to a nation much prejudiced against it. Sharp did not know what to make of all this. He neither liked his strictness of life nor his notions. He believed they would not take the same methods, and fancied he might be much obscured by him; for he saw he would be well supported. He saw the Earl of Lauderdale began to magnify him. And so Sharp did all he could to discourage him, but without any effect, for he had no regard to him. I bear still the greatest veneration for the memory of that man that I do for any person. And yet, though I know this account of his promotion may seem a blemish upon him, I would not conceal it, being resolved to write of all persons and things with all possible candour. I had the relation of it from himself, and more particularly from his brother. But what hopes soever the papists had of him at this time, when he knew nothing of the design of bringing in popery, and had therefore talked of some points of popery with the freedom of an abstracted and speculative man; yet he expressed another sense of the matter, when he came to see it was really intended to be brought in among us. He then spoke of popery in the complex at another rate; and he seemed to have more zeal against it than I thought was in his nature with relation to any points in controversy; for his abstraction made him seem cold in all those matters. But he gave all who conversed with him a very different view of popery, when he saw we were really in danger of coming under the power of a religion that had, as he used to say, much of the wisdom that was earthly, sensual, and devilish; but had nothing in it of the wisdom that was from above, and was pure and peaceable. . . . Ï have dwelt long upon this man's character. But it was so singular that it seemed to deserve it."+ .. "Mr. Leighton did behave himself with so much piety, on due inspection into the state of his diocese of Dunblane first, and next of Glasgow, that many of the nonconformists in these dioceses have acknowledged, that in him all the The historian's prejudices will be borne in mind. + Burnet's Own Time, vol. i. pp. 132–136. good qualities of a primitive bishop seemed to be revived. After eight years' faithful discharge of his episcopal function in the see of Dunblane, Bishop Leighton was, by the king's pure choice, made commendator of Glasgow, upon the cession of Dr. Alexander Burnet, archbishop of that see, in the year 1669. I have been told that Dr. Leighton, finding his authority in the diocesan synod of Glasgow to be but weak, under the title and designation of commendator only, that he might the better establish his authority, did procure a congé d'élire to the chapter of Glasgow, for electing him their archbishop, which was done accordingly on the 27th October, 1671. But the Duke of Lauderdale, then prime minister of state, for some political considerations, did not ratify the election by the king's letters patent, as is usual, though his commendatory letters gave him a right to the revenue of the see. [Bishop Alexander Ross, of Edinburgh, told me, that the election flowed from the archbishop himself, not from a congé d'élire, and that that was one of the reasons why it was not ratified by the king.] Whether this did give a disgust to Dr. Leighton, as some bave apprehended, or that it proceeded from his profound humility and self-denial, it is however certain that he went up to London and resigned the archbishopric, as a burden too great for him to sustain. The Duke of Lauderdale did all he could to divert him from this step, but to no purpose; for the resignation he would needs leave with the duke, who still declared he would not make use of it; and did so far prevail with Dr. Leighton as to return to the management of the diocese, as if such a resignation had not been made. And this he continued to do until the year 1674, when the Duke of Lauderdale, being impeached by the House of English Commons, thought fit, in order to gain to his interest the bishops of that nation, and by that means to ward off the impeachment, to make use of Bishop Leighton's resignation, and to restore Archbishop Burnet to the see of Glasgow, from which he had been expelled by the great power of the duke ever since the year 1669; a proceeding which could not fail to be looked upon by all bishops as too heavy an encroachment upon the church. Dr. L. being thus eased of his episcopal function, retired himself from the world, and followed a life of contemplation and piety... "Arthur Ross was translated from the see of Argyle to this of Glasgow,* in the year 1679, when Archbishop Burnet was translated to St. Andrew's; and he continued in Glasgow until the year 1684, that [when] he also was translated to St. Andrews. "Alexander Cairncrosse . was first parson of Dumfries, until the year 1684, at which time, by recommendation of the Duke of Queensbury, he was promoted to the see of Brechin, and soon thereafter to that of Glasgow, which was ratified by the king's letters patent, 3rd December, 1684. Here he continued till the year 1686; that [when] having incurred the displeasure of the lord chancellor, the Earl of Perth, (and deservedly, too, if all be true which Dr. James Canaries, minister at Selkirk, relates,) the king sent a letter to the privy council, removing him from the archbishopric of Glasgow, of the date January 13, 1687. A very irregular step, surely; the king should have taken a more canonical course. He lived privately until the Revolution in 1688. . "John Paterson was formerly dean of Edinburgh, and soon after preferred to the see of Galloway. From thence he was translated to the see of Edinburgh, anno 1679; and, upon Archbishop Cairncrosse's deprivation, to the see of Glasgow, to which he was recommended by the king's letter of January 21, 1687, [Secretary's books,] where he continued until the Revolution in 1688."‡ "Arthur Ross, Bishop of Argyle, was on the 5th of September, 1679, translated to Galloway. But on the 15th of October, the same year, when he had been only a month bishop of this see, he was retranslated to the see of Glasgow."-p. 168. ↑ "By the interest of the Duke of Lauderdale."—p. 167. Keith's Catalogue of Scottish Bishops, pp. 158-160. "Alexander Young. archdeacon of St. Andrew's, was, in the beginning of winter 1671, promoted to the see of Edinburgh, where he sat till the year 1679, that, by the powerful interest of the Duchess of Lauderdale, he was translated thence to the see of Ross, in order to make room for him that succeeded." "James Drummond was, on the 25th December, 1684, in the church of Holyrood House, consecrated bishop of Brechin.. It is to be said of this prelate, that though he had been promoted by the favour of his chief, the Earl of Perth, then chancellor of the kingdom, yet he always shewed himself as averse to popery as any person in the church. And 'tis certain there were but very few of the bishops (if any at all) who favoured an alteration in religion."+ "Andrew Bruce, archdeacon of St. Andrew's, was preferred to this see 1679, but was deprived, anno 1686, for non-compliance with the measures of the court. Three bishops, it appears, had given some disgust to the court on this score; for, in the secretary's book, there is an order signed by the king, requiring the Earl of Moray, his majesty's high commissioner, to make use but of one of the three letters of the same date, signed by his majesty, for turning out of three bishops, dated Whitehall, 22d May, 1686, countersigned 'Melfort.' And of the same date, there is a letter by the king to the privy council, ordering them to remove the Bishop of Dunkeld from that diocese; so the storm has fallen on bishop Bruce. However, on the 15th of August, 1687, there is in the same books to be found his majesty's dispensation to Dr. Bruce, late Bishop of Dunkeld, for exercising the function of the ministry. A right strange paper truly! And on the 4th of May, 1688, there is a congé d'élire to the chapter of Orkney, and a nomination of Andrew, late Bishop of Dunkeld, to be by them elected bishop of that see. In the year 1688, he was restored to the bishopric of Orkney."‡ WHAT though the evil days be on the wind, Of feelings which else load the o'ercharged mind: With all the past and future, whose pure seat * Ibid. p. 40. + Ibid. p. 99. Ibid. pp. 180, 183. DEATH OF THE INFANT. It is so; thou again more truly born TO A LOST CHILD. CAN we still love thee on this poor, bad earth, Of all celestial gentleness was driv'n BEREAVEMENT. AND blest are they-although the heart, new-riv'n The dearest pledge which they from Heaven received, And die, this is the best we know on earth: And go away; but here on earth beneath To wander on from sin to sin, in dearth VOL. XIV.-July, 1838. D |