.
Order of
Intro
Summary
Chronological
Articles 6
.
Intro
See the ‘Intro’ at ‘Cameronianism’ (RBO). Material on Robert Hamilton (1650-1701) is not easy to come by; hence this page collecting such information has been made.
.
Summary Quotes
Patrick Walker
Six Saints of the Covenant in 2 vols., ed. David H. Fleming (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901), vol. 1, Alexander Peden’s Life, Postscript, p. 69-70
“When these two unhappy principles were first invented and practised, whereof Mr. Hamilton was chief, viz. that ‘Every difference of judgment in our national controversies is a ground of separation;’ and that ‘There is no way of keeping up and managing a testimony, but by separation,’ which has a direct tendency to dissolve the unity of all churches, break all Christian societies, and ruin the whole frame of the good old cause of Presbyterianism, which was faithfully and with soul-abhorrence witnessed against at the very first out-breaking thereof by blest [Robert] M‘Ward, both privily and publickly in his writings against the same, of which I formerly gave some account.”
.
Thomas M’Crie Sr.
Memoirs of Mr. William Veitch, and George Brysson, Written by Themselves, ed. Thomas M’Crie (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1825), “Biographical Notices of James Ure of Shargarton”, pp. 452-54
“Mr. Robert Hamilton [1650–1701] was a gentleman of good family, being brother to Sir William Hamilton of Preston, to whose title and estates he would have succeeded, on his death, at the [Glorious] Revolution [1689], if he had not refused to own, or rather had not openly disowned, the authority of [King] William and Mary [of Orange].
He appears to have been a pious man and of good intentions, but of narrow views, severe in his temper, and altogether unqualified, by want of military talents and experience, for the command which he assumed, or which was conferred on him by the small body which proved successful in the skirmish at Drumclog [1679].
He is charged, and apparently not without reason, with having been active in pushing [Donald] Cargill, [Richard] Cameron, and some other ministers, to those extremes which produced a breach between them and their brethren, with whom they had until of late acted in concert. This dissension was a main cause of the failure of the present attempt to redress national grievances.
Hamilton and his party acted on the principle, that it was unlawful to associate, for vindicating their civil and religious rights, with any but those with whom they could join in church-communion; or, which amounts to the same thing, that it behoved them to introduce into the state of their quarrel, as appearing in arms, a condemnation of every thing in relation to the public interests of religion which was sinful or unscriptural;¹ a principle which, while it involved them in that very confounding of civil and ecclesiastical matters against which they inveighed so loudly under the name of Erastianism, tended to rivet the chains of servitude on themselves and the nation.
¹ [See ‘Not All Truths must be Preached in All Circumstances’ at ‘Pastors’ (RBO)]
Into this error they appear to have been betrayed partly by mistaken notions of the controversy which had formerly arisen respecting the Public Resolutions [in the late-1640’s and early-1650’s].² What the more honest party at that period opposed was, the admitting to places of power and trust of such as had shown by their previous conduct that they were enemies to the reformation introduced into church and state, and would use the power intrusted to them to overturn it.
² [See ‘The Scottish Resolutioner-Protester Controversy, 1650’s’ (RBO)]
This could not be said of those who had accepted of or acquiesced in the Indulgence,³ and still less of those whom Hamilton’s friends wrangled with so fiercely, who protested solemnly that they disapproved of the Indulgence, and whose former conduct vouched for the sincerity of their protestations.
³ [See the ‘Intro’ at ‘Defenses of Scottish Covenanting & the Indulgence & Occasional Hearing Controversies, 1661-1688’ (RBO)]
Another remark is suggested by the facts here referred to. If ministers of the gospel would preserve their usefulness and respectability, they must guard their independence on the side of the people as well as of civil rulers. Provided they become “the servants of men,” it matters not much whether their masters wear a crown or a bonnet; and if, instead of going before the people to point out to them the path of duty, and checking them when they are ready to run into extremes, they wait to receive directions from them, and suffer themselves to be borne along by the popular stream, the consequences cannot fail to be fatal to both. Firm and tenacious of his purpose, the servant of the Lord, while gentle to all, ought to hold on the even tenor of his way, unmoved equally by the frown of the tyrant, the cry of the multitude, and the dictates of forward individuals, good and well-meaning men it may be, but who ” cannot see afar off,” and just need the more to be led that they think themselves capable of being leaders.
An opposite conduct on the part of two or three ministers tended to foster those extravagant opinions and practices adopted by some presbyterians at this period, which discredited the cause for which they appeared, and which their best friends, though they may excuse, will not be able to defend, and should not seek to vindicate.”
.
Patrick Walker
Six Saints of the Covenant in 2 vols., ed. David H. Fleming (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901), vol. 1, Alexander Peden’s Life, Postscript
“I am reflected upon, and that several times to my face, by all divided parties, especially Dissenters, and particularly by these of them commonly called M’Millanites, but quite wrong designed, who should be called Hamiltonians after Robert Hamilton [was 39-40 years old], who was the only man (as I shall afterwards instruct) that led them in these untroden, dangerous paths of positive disowning of the State, and separation from the Church, and [from] all others that dare not nor will not go their lengths in principles and practices, proclaiming the same to the world; but it is straight before me, and I firmly resolve, if the Lord will, to give a more distinct account of the rise, steps, and unheard-of heights of all the right-hand extremes that have been in Scotland these 49 years, past and present; and set them up as beacons to the following ages, to beware of splitting upon such dangerous rocks.
…
But it is plain that these formed, divided parties of Dissenters are so puffed up with a frothy conceit of themselves and their actings, that they speak and write with, as if religion, zeal and faithfulness, wit and sense, would live and die with them; and none [other are held] to know anything of the times, nor what Israel ought to do, disdaining, disesteeming, disregarding, rash and harsh constructing of all who differ from, or oppose, them or their way of managing of a testimony; the very reverse of a gospel spirit. And I am sadly confirmed, by the many, long, melancholly debates these 48 years, of the truth of this spiritual pride rampant amongst them.”
.
“…and every party pretending to be the only Anti’s [anti-Erastian, anti-Popish, etc. persons] in the kingdom, against all evil things, and for all good; maintaining and transmitting the testimony, as it was handed down to the [Glorious] Revolution [1689]: yet they all agree in these two Anti-Presbyterian principles in such a period:
[1.] In a positive proclaiming their disowning of the State, and separation from the Church and [from] all ministers and members that dare not go up with them in every jot in their over-stretched consequences.
2. They all agree against paying of all Crown-dues, even under this peaceable [civil] government under which we enjoy religion, life, and liberty. Which never any of our ministers, martyrs, did preach or witness against… It is a piece of demented infatuation to make little or no difference betwixt that period and this, and to follow the same methods that the Lord’s people were obliged to take against tyranny and defections.”
.
“And when Robert Hamilton came from abroad [from the Netherlands] among them…
…all know that it was the fewest number of the United Societies, that was led off with Robert Hamilton to the disowning of King William as King of Britain and his Government; the greater part [of the Cameronians] reckoned it their duty to take a legal unite way of witnessing, by humble pleadings, representations, and protestations, pleading for and with their mother to put away her whoredoms.”
.
Chronological Quotes
Order of
Before Drumclog
Drumclog, 1679
Bothwell, 1679
After Bothwell
After the Glorious Revolution, 1689
.
Before the Battle of Drumclog, 1679
Maurice Grant
The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1997), pp. 76-77
“On the part of the people generally, of course, there was no intention of seeking an armed confrontation with the government. The only aim of the majority who attended the field-meetings was to worship God according to their consciences–and to resort to justified self-defence if pushed to extremity… By 1677–or at least by the end of that year–a movement had become established which sought to stiffen the pattern of resistance, and in various ways to carry the battle to the authorities.
The acknowledged leader of this movement was Robert Hamilton [who was 27 years old]… Hamilton, who had earlier had a reputation as a profligate, had apparently undergone a radical spiritual experience, and had set himself up as a champion of orthodoxy and of opposition to compromise…
…Hamilton and his associates… With their support, and primarily at their instigation, some of the younger preachers began to hold meetings on the boundaries of, and even within, the parishes of such [indulged] ministers, with the object of drawing away their people from attending their services. This unmistakably aggressive stance was fully in line with Hamilton’s view of how to proceed.”
.
No King but Christ: the Story of Donald Cargill (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1988), p. 88
“…even by 1679 there were some twenty or thirty ministers still preaching in the fields, and no significant decline in the number of their hearers. But the year 1679 was to bring a very radical change and to usher in an era of persecution on a scale hitherto unknown.
To some extent this situation resulted from the annoyance caused to the government by the activities of Robert Hamilton and his followers, who were by now acting as a kind of sel-appointed armed bodyguard to Cameron in his preaching tours about the country.
Hamilton had already been involved, as early as November 1677, in a violent incident at the home of his friend John Balfour of Kinloch, in Fife [a principal actor in the assassination of Archbishop James Sharp in 1679], when a party of soldiers who approached the house were fired upon and one of them was seriously wounded. How far Hamilton himself may have been responsible for incidents of this kind is not altogether clear…”
.
The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1997)
“…the decision of a Convention of Estates, or Parliament, in June to levy a ‘cess’, or tax, for the express purpose of raising additional troops to suppress the field-meetings. To Hamilton in particular, opposition to this tax became a test of orthodoxy, on a par with opposition to the indulgence. There is considerable evidence that in the summer and autumn of 1678 both he and Kersland sought to influence the younger field-preachers to adopt an increasingly militant tone in their preaching, and to condemn both those who payed the ‘cess’ and the ministers who had accepted the Indulgence.
It is also clear that during this period both Hamilton and Kersland became increasingly associated with Richard Cameron…
Throughout the 1670’s it had been customary for the leading field-preachers, such as John Welsh, to be accompanied by armed bodyguards as they moved around the country. This was seen as a necessary precaution for their own safety… Having attached himself to Cameron, Hamilton concluded that Cameron too should enjoy the same protection. He therefore gathered a body of men… whom he engaged to accompany Cameron around the country… Hamilton himself assumed the command of this group. A show of military order was observed, though neither Hamilton himself, nor, it apprears, any of those whom he led, had any military experience. However, it satisfied Hamilton’s fondness for demonstration and for display, and it was, of course, fully consistent with the militant approach which he advocated.”
.
“Cameron, for his part, clearly regretted the breach with [the leading non-conformist minister John] Welsh, though Hamilton, with his more argumentative nature, was more inclined to glory in it than otherwise.”
.
“The disaffected among the people, particularly the young, were increasingly drawn to his [Cameron’s] side. ‘Everywhere now’, noted Hamilton with satisfaction, ‘it is the young ones that are carrying on the work.’
To the older ministers, however, these events were a cause for dismay… Warnings were issued about his teaching, and counter-meetings were held in places where he was to preach.”
.
No King but Christ: the Story of Donald Cargill (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1988), pp. 80-81
“Hamilton seems to have felt that the tyranny of the times called for more positive action on the part of those who adhered to the [non-conforming, field-preaching] Presbyterian cause, and he is said to have tried, during the summer of 1678, to stir up some of the people in the west into an armed rising against the government [previously the battles had all been defensive]. Whether this allegation is well-founded cannot conclusively be proved…
Feelings on the subject [of the Indulgence] ran high, and Cameron and Hamilton were accused of spreading dissension and disunity among the people and of causing disaffection towards ministers who did not share their radical opinions.”
.
The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1997)
“To the older ministers, however, these events were a cause for dismay… Particular indignation was directed against Hamilton, who was widely regarded as an interloper and troublemaker. Typical was an outburst by Williamson, who inveighed against ‘laymen, ignorant, idle men’, who had ‘taken upon them to meddle in the matter of church government without a call’. The clerk to the Dunscore meeting happened to meet Hamilton in the street and told him that he ‘had been a black sight to that country’ and that he ‘had set all on a fire’. Hamilton, true to character, rejoined that he was ‘satisfied to hear of any such effect, for they stood much in need of fire to thaw their frozen spirits’.”
.
“Largely as a result of the influence of Robert Hamilton, [in early 1679] there was less of a spirit of passive resistance and a greater determination to carry the battle to the authorities. The result was a series of confrontations of increasing violence.
These started on 11 March, when Robert Johnstone, the Town Major of Edinburgh, who was noted for his persecution of those who attended unauthorized services, was lured to a house in the city under pretext of dispersing an illegal meeting, and was there set upon by a body of men, of whom Cameron’s brother Michael was one.
On 30 March, when a field-meeting at Cummerhead, near Lesmahagow, was challenged by a party of soldiers, the response form those present was so robust that some of the soldiers were wounded and made prisoner, and the lieutenant in charge barely escaped with his life. Three weeks later a government trooper was shot dead, and another seriously wounded, in an attack by a body of armed men on their sleeping-quarters at Newmilns, in Ayshire.
The blame for these and other incidents was, of course, attributed to Hamilton and his supporters, though there are good grounds to believe that some of them, particularly the last, were caused by rogue elements which had infiltrated his following and which he could not properly control.”
.
At the Battle of Rutherglen / Drumclog, 1679
Maurice Grant
No King but Christ: the Story of Donald Cargill (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1988), pp. 89
“These events brought about a marked deterioration in the atmosphere. Their immediate result was to impel the government to greater efforts against the field-meetings in general and to deploy more troops to suppress them. Cameron, for his part, appears to have become increasingly embarrassed by Hamilton’s activities on his behalf, and he is said to have publicly expressed his regret for the Loudon Hill [Rutherglen, 1679] incident in particular.”
.
Thomas M’Crie, Jr.
The Story of the Scottish Church: from the Reformation to the Disruption (London: Blackie & Son, 1875), pp. 327-28
“On the 29th of May, 1679, the day appointed for celebrating the restoration of [king] Charles [II, in 1660], a body of them amounting to eighty armed men, under the guidance of Sir Robert Hamilton, came to Rutherglen, where they extinguished the bonfires kindled in honour of the day, and affixed a declaration to the cross condemning all the proceedings of government since the Restoration; in confirmation of which testimony they publicly burnt at the cross all the acts which had been emitted against the work of the Reformation, “as our enemies,” said they, “perfidiously and blasphemously have burnt our holy covenants through several cities of these covenanted kingdoms.”…
The country, however, was not prepared for a general rising, and no due means had been taken to follow up the movement, or to meet the consequences. The government took the alarm, and Claverhouse was despatched to the west with a body of dragoons, having unlimited power to kill and destroy all whom he found in arms…
On Sabbath morning, the 1st of June, 1679, intelligence was brought to a large field-meeting held that day at Loudonhill, of the approach of Claverhouse and his dragoons; upon which all who were armed resolved to leave the meeting, face the soldiers, and, if possible, relieve the prisoners. Accordingly, about forty horse and one hundred and fifty or two hundred foot, came up with Claverhouse and his party near Drumclog, in the parish of Evandale, about a mile east from Loudonhill.
The particulars of the skirmish which followed are well -known… The following are the simple facts, in which all authentic accounts agree.
After a short and very warm engagement, Balfour of Burley with some horse, and Colonel Cleland with some of the infantry, boldly crossed the morass which lay between the combatants, and attacked the dragoons of Claverhouse with such impetuosity that they were soon put to flight, leaving about forty killed on the field. Claverhouse’s horse was shot under him, and he himself narrowly escaped.
Before commencing the engagement he had given the word, “No quarter,” and ordered those who guarded King and the other persons to shoot them, in the event of his troops being worsted; but the soldiers were soon compelled to flee for their own safety, and the prisoners escaped. The dragoons taken by the Covenanters received quarter, and were dismissed without harm, much to the displeasure of Hamilton, who insisted on their being dealt with as they intended to have dealt with the Covenanters.
Panic-struck and filled with rage at his defeat, Claverhouse fled from the field of Drumclog, and never slackened rein till he reached Glasgow. Thither he was pursued by Hamilton, who made an attempt to take the city; but the inhabitants not only refused to rise, but shamefully maltreated some of his soldiers, who fell wounded in their streets.
At this time Sir Robert’s troops amounted, according to his own account, to about six thousand horse and foot. They consisted, it is true, chiefly of raw undisciplined countrymen, ill supplied with arms or ammunition; but had they been properly managed, such was their courage and determination, that they might have kept the royal troops in check, and procured, if not victory, at least honourable terms. Unhappily, however, a spirit of disunion began to appear among their leaders, who, instead of combining against the common enemy, spent their time in hot disputes about points in which the most hearty and genuine friends of the Presbyterian cause differed from each other.”
.
At the Battle of Bothwell Bridge
Robert Wodrow
The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution, 4 vols. (d. 1734; Glasgow: Blackie & Son, 1832), vol. 3, pp. 51-52
“Indeed it was the divisions and heights run into by some who joined in that rising, contrary to the inclinations of the better and greater part, with the indiscretion rashness, and ill conduct, not to say cowardice of Robert Hamilton, who took the command upon him, which ruined that design, and effectually broke all their measures, much more than any opposition which was or could he made by the king’s troops.
And the terrible handle made of this rising by the bishops and violent party in the government, in severities, circuits, aud oppression of all presbyterians for many years after it was over…”
.
Thomas M’Crie Jr.
The Story of the Scottish Church: from the Reformation to the Disruption (London: Blackie & Son, 1875), pp. 328-331
“Sixteen of these [field] ministers while they condemned the Erastianism of the indulgence, and deplored the conduct of their brethren who had accepted it, were not prepared to exclude them from their ranks, or refuse aid from them in the common cause. Though they themselves could not conscientiously submit to the restrictions, or the acknowledgments implied in that insidious measure, they were disposed to make allowances for such of their brethren as had yielded under strong temptation or plausible arguments; and they argued, that whatever ecclesiastical censure their conduct might afterwards be found to deserve, to deny them in the meantime the opportunity of vindicating their rights and liberties, civil and religious, by excluding them from the army, would be no less presumptuous and unjust in principle, than it was preposterous in the present circumstances of the country.
This liberal view of the subject was opposed by only two of the ministers, namely, Mr. [Donald] Cargill and Mr. [Thomas] Douglas; but these were supported by a considerable number of the lay leaders of the army, at the head of whom was Sir Robert Hamilton.
Hamilton appears to have been a pious man, and of good intentions; but of narrow views, severe in his temper, and altogether unqualified by want of military talents and experience, for the command which he assumed. He is charged, and apparently not without reason, with having been active in pushing Cargill, Cameron, and some other ministers, to those extremes which produced a breach between them and their brethren, with whom they had until of late acted in concert.³
³ M’Crie’s Mem. of Veitch, &c., Notices of James Ure, p. 452. I am sorry I cannot retract the judgment here pronounced on the character of Hamilton, the correctness of which has been challenged by some, but which is borne out by the whole of his history, and refers entirely to his public management, without any reflection either on his piety, his integrity, or his courage.
This party now began to maintain that the king [Charles II], by assuming an Erastian power over the Church, had forfeited all right to the civil obedience of his subjects; a principle which had never been known in the Church of Scotland before, and which was afterwards carried to a great extent by Richard Cameron and his followers, who from him were termed Cameronians.”
.
Maurice Grant
No King but Christ: the Story of Donald Cargill (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1988), p. 96
“Hamilton and the other leaders had little military experience, and the lack of discipline was such that men came and went as they pleased. In the prospect of an imminent engagement…”
.
Robert Wodrow
The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution, 4 vols. (d. 1734; Glasgow: Blackie & Son, 1832), vol. 3
“Thus their divisions increased, and the necessary work which might and should have been gone into, was by their debates first delayed and then entirely marred. And enemies had it to observe and remark that ministers preached and prayed against one another. And Mr. Cargil, they say, publicly protested that they behoved to part one from another because a good many of them would not go into a day of humiliation.
When this project failed, I am told, Mr. Hamilton [a lay-leader in the covenanting army] took upon him to send orders to Mr. Welsh, Mr. Hume, Mr. Rae, and others of the more moderate party, to preach against the indulgence, otherwise he and a good many of the officers would not hear them. It is said, Mr. Rae sent a very home and close answer to him, and desired the messenger to tell Mr. Hamilton and the rest, that he had been wrestling against Erastianism in the magistrate for many years; and he would never truckle to the worst kind of Erastianism in the common people [led by Hamilton, with such orders]; that he would receive no instructions from him nor any of them as to the subject and matter of his sermons; and wished he might mind what belonged to him, and not go beyond his sphere and station.”
.
At this meeting their debates run higher than ever, even when the enemy was within their view…
…and Mr. Hamilton [a lay-leader in the army], who, as one of his own side acknowledges upon this occasion, “was often too forward, pretending to exercise a power which he had not, and that, his carriage at this time gave just occasion of offence to both sides,” opposed much the consulting with the ministers there, because, he said, none of the faithful ministers were present, but only such who owned the indulgence [which is false]; adding, that since the sword was drawn, he thought it duty to appear against all sin.
It was reported he laid his hand upon his sword when he spoke what follows; but Mr. Hackston of Rathillet, in his relation of the divisions at Bothwell, denies this, but owns he added, “I have drawn my sword, and am equally ready against the indulged men and curates.” So high did the flame rise at a time when harmony was absolutely necessary.
The moderate side continued to urge to have leaders chosen who were most capable of that trust, whether for or against the indulgence, whereupon Mr. Hamilton, and a good many with him, left the meeting, telling them as they went away, “That hitherto they had carried on this work, and now since they were setting up upon the foot of the indulgence, they had no freedom to venture their lives in that cause.”…
Now the fatal nature of their divisions began to appear. When the commissioners came back, the officers fell a debating, and would come to no resolution. Mr. Hamilton, who assumed the general command, was against all accommodation, and others did not relish the proposal of laying down their arms; in short, they were quite disjointed and broken, and nothing was agreed upon, nor any answer returned to the general. So the lord Livingstone, upon the head of the foot-guards, came up with the cannon to force the bridge…
Never was a good cause and gallant army, generally speaking, hearty and bold, worse managed…”
.
Maurice Grant
The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1997), p. 152
“…Hamilton [who was 29 years old] and his colleagues urged that only those who had not been guilty of compromise or compliance with the government should be appointed as officers.”
.
James Ure
Memoirs of Mr. William Veitch, and George Brysson, written by Themselves, ed. Thomas M’Crie (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1825) Ure was a covenanter, on the side of the moderate party, led by the minister John Welsh, and was a first-hand witness of the battle of Bothwell.
“Robert Hamilton spake nothing against me; but he and his faction kept an eye still upon me, and afterwards they told me that Cameron was in Holland; and I prayed God that all his faction were with him.”
.
“Robert Hamilton sent out for me to sup with him. When I came, there was none with him but Mr. Douglas, and Gredden came in afterward. He was extraordinary kind to me; he inquired many things at me, but the drift of all was to see if he could have gotten me brought over.
He told me how unanimous they were [in the army camp] before the ministers came to them, and that they would do no good until they were removed, and that they [Hamilton’s crew] were for not owning of the king, who had deprived us of the gospel and was seeking our destruction both of soul and body.
I gave him no answer at all, but heard all, and afterward returned to my men, who were lying in the close, where were Mr. [John] Welsh and the rest of the brethren for penning of the declaration. I went to him and told him all that had passed, and I desired him to put forth a declaration that would give satisfaction to the multitude; for if we meddled with the king or with the indulgence, it would hinder many [persons] to come [to the covenanter army] who would be as willing as we [to protest, supplicate and defensively fight] and were waiting till they saw it, and would make friends to become enemies; and no fear what Robert Hamilton and his party could do: that if he was clear therein as in the sight of God, I should stand by him as long as my life was in me, and so would most part of the army; and if he yielded to them, I would leave them all and go home.
He told me my advice was very refreshing to them at that nick of time. With that they were resolved to do so— they desired me to come to them tomorrow and I should see what they had done [in writing up such a declaration]; and so I came, and it gave me and the army all satisfaction, except Robert Hamilton and his faction…
Also we told them, they were more taken up with other men’s sins than they were with their own, and that it were our duty first to begin with ourselves. They spake likewise of putting off of officers [who were not on Hamilton’s side], and did put off him who was captain to the men who came from the east end of Stirlingshire.”
.
“Upon the Sabbath, [the 15th] when we were convened in the muir to hear sermon, they called a council of war and called the whole ministers, and told them, if they did not preach, name and sir-name, against the indulgence, they should preach none.
They [the ministers] thought it very hard to be kept within guard, and to be commanded what to preach. They told them, they were to receive their commission from Jesus Christ what to preach, and not from them.
When we heard of it, we came [to the council meeting] — for they never called us if we came not of ourselves. We told them that it was the height of supremacy to give instructions to ministers what to preach; we would hear no such doctrine. With this confusion this day was well spent, and when they saw us own them (the ministers) and that they could not prevail, they slipped their way; and so they went and preached, and every man went to hear him whom they liked best.
At this debate there was one minister left us, and never returned again [to the camp], but was a-coming upon the Monday when we were broken; for he declared to me, when he was let out without the guard, that he thought they were set to take their lives.”
.
“We entreated them to stand to the declaration, to let us go on against our enemy, and to let all debates alone till a free parliament and a general assembly [was had]. They told us we were for an indulgence, and they would sheathe their swords as soon in them who owned it as they would do in many of the malignants. We wished that we had known that sooner.
We said, we told them we were not for an indulgence more nor they, and we would subscribe it if they would not believe us. Robert Hamilton told us that they owned Cameron, and were of his judgment plainly. I arose and told Robert Hamilton, that I had a wife and five children, and that I had a little bit of an estate, and that I was come to hazard all and my life, to get the yoke of prelacy and supremacy removed; but for ought that I saw, they intended to tyrannize over our consciences, and lead us to a worse snare nor we were into; and for my part, I would fight till the last drop of my blood before I went one step-length with them.
And I told Mr. Cargill, he rendered himself odious by his naughty principles. He was very much offended with me. When they saw we were resolved to leave them, they drew by, and when they came to us they condescended to stand to the declaration, and to let all debates alone, and to give it under their hands: so we were all glad and merry.”
.
“The mean while the enemy came hard to the bridge-end and spoke to us and we to them. They desired us to come over and they would not harm us, and called for Mr. Hamilton to speak with him; so Mr. David Hume went over, and another gentleman with him, and spoke with the duke, and desired his Grace if he would prevent the effusion of blood.
He told them, their petition should have been more humbly worded, and said, lay down our arms and come in his mercy, and we should be favourably dealt with: so he returned and told us. When Robert Hamilton heard it, he laughed at it, and said, ‘and [we shall] hang next.'”
.
Maurice Grant
The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1997), p. 156
“…Monmouth gave the order [to the government troops] to advance. His prime objective was control of the bridge separating the two sides…
When their [the covenanters’] ammunition gave out, they sent for fresh supplies, but Hamilton, instead of sending them the help they requested, ordered them back to the main body of the army. Whether this was because no supplies were available, or for some other reason, has never been satisfactorily explained, and even the most sympathetic commentators have found it difficult to justify Hamilton’s action.”
.
William Aiton
A History of the Rencounter at Drumclog, and Battle at Bothwell Bridge (Hamilton: Borthwick, 1821), pp. 57-58
“…Russell, who was present, says:
‘After the skirmish, Robert Hamilton slaughtered one of the prisoners in cold blood, and seems to have regretted all his life that five more did not share the same fate. In his letter of self-vindication to the Anti-Popish, Anti-Prelatic, Anti-Erastian, Anti-Sectarian, True Presbyterian Remnant of the Church of Scotland (1684), he says:
‘as for that accusation they bring against me, of killing that poor man (as they call him) at Drumclog, I may easily guess that my accusers cannot but be some of the house of Saul, or Shimei, or some such, risen again to espouse that poor Gentleman (Saul) his quarrel against honest Samuel, by his offering to kill that poor man Agag, after the King’s given him quarter.
[The obligation to kill Agag stemmed from a direct and unique command of God, Dt. 25:17-19, on par with the special command to kill all the Canaanites, which was unique to Israel in entering Canaan and typological in its severity, not something of general or common equity.]
But I being called to the command that day, gave out the word, ‘that no quarter should be given,’ and returning from pursuing Claverhouse, one or two of these fellows were standing in the midst of a company of our friends, and some were debating for quarter and others against it. None could blame me to decide the controversy, and I bless God for it to this day.’
He next mentions that five more got quarter, without his knowledge, and adds, ‘which I reckoned among the first steppings aside that I feared the Lord would not honour us to do much for Him,’ and he thanks God that since ever he set his face to his work, he would neither give nor take favour from his enemies.
Mr. Wilson says:
‘Some without Mr. Hamilton’s knowledge, and directly contrary to his express command, gave five of these bloody enemies quarter, and then let them go. This greatly grieved Mr. Hamilton, when he saw some of Babel’s brats spared after the Lord had delivered them into their hands, that they might have dashed them against the stones — Psalms 137:9.’
In support of these principles, he quotes certain texts of scripture, as ‘Cursed be he who doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully.’ ‘Cursed be he who keepeth back his hand from blood.'”
.
Robert Wodrow
The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution, 4 vols. (d. 1734; Glasgow: Blackie & Son, 1832), vol. 3
“…no doubt it was this party headed by Mr. Hamilton, who, as they violently pushed forward the country people to a rising, so by their indiscretion and want of conduct, evidently ruined the west country army, and effectually hindered the fair prospect there once was, that they might have been a mean of delivering the church and nation from the burdens they were under;
and the upshot of all was, divisions came in, joint measures were not taken. A great many left them when they saw whither matters were going, and far more never joined them; and such as continued together could never do any thing of consequence: and when they came to be attacked, the high-flyers withdrew first, and left the poor country men to the mercy of the king’s army.”
.
“The papers on the other side blame Mr. Hamilton and his party as discouraging the men, and doing nothing but clamouring against those who were sent to the duke, and such as were for an accommodation; they allege, Mr. Hamilton, and these who were warmest, were soonest out of the field…
but [the covenanters] were never able to make their horses face the cannon; and, in the wheeling, or taking up their ground, they fell foul upon some of their own men formed near them, and put them in some disorder: and those nearest them, seeing this, took it to be a flight, and the whole army fell into confusion, and fled; and one who was present there writes to me, Mr Hamilton was among the foremost, “leaving the world to debate whether he acted most like a traitor, coward, or fool.”
I would not set down so severe a remark upon this gentleman, were it not that I find almost everybody blame[s] his conduct at this time. The bringing up the party from the bridge was certainly a mad step, and they ought to have been supported to the utmost, and not called off…
In short, the [soldiers on] horse and Mr. Hamilton rode off, and left the foot[men] entirely to the mercy of the king’s army.”
.
After Bothwell
Maurice Grant
The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1997), pp. 157-58
“In the weeks that followed [the loss at Bothwell in 1679], the government busied themselves with taking reprisals. Despite their most strenuous efforts, however, they failed to capture any of the army leaders. Most of these eventually fled to Holland. Some, including Robert Hamilton, were to remain there until the persecution was over [in 1689]…
The confrontational tactices of Robert Hamilton had ended in disaster.”
.
No King but Christ: the Story of Donald Cargill (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1988)
p. 101
“…[After Bothwell in 1679] [Donald] Cargill received an urgent invitation from [Robert] M’Ward and Brown [of Wamphray] in Holland to go over and join them… he determined at once to accept. Apparently, however, there were others included in the invitation and time was pressing, for on receiving the letter Cargill wrote at once to Robert Hamilton, who was now in hiding in Galloway, to come to Edinburgh in all haste to meet him.
Hamilton duly arrived, heavily disguised for fear of capture, and Cargill put the proposition to him. Hamilton, who was in daily danger of his life so long as he remained in the country, readily assented; and some time in mid-August he and Cargill appear to have left for Holland together.”
.
pp. 106-7
“An incident which took place at this time between Hamilton and [Donald] Cargill provides another example of Cargill’s spirit of Christian chairty and his desire to avoid division. The Rotterdam Church, though generally favorable to the exiles, decided to debar [David] Hackston from the communion, presumably because of his involvement in the death of the archbishop [James Sharp, on May 3, 1679].
Cargill was due to officiate at the communion service the following day, 22 October [1679], and Hamilton, on hearing of the church’s decision, immediately went to tell Cargill of it, apparently expecting that he would refuse to take part. ‘But’, says Hamilton, ‘he, with other friends, though resolving to resent it, yet could not determine on such a sudden to withdraw from the church, this being the first step of their ever appearing against us.’ The next day, Cargill gave the communion as planned…
an unfortunate disagreement which broke out in the Rotterdam congregation and which split the loyalties of the exiles into two camps. The dispute centered around Robert Fleming, an old fellow-student of Cargill’s at St. Andrews, who was now minister of the Rotterdam Church. Fleming, previously minister of Cambuslang, had been deprived of his charge because of his refusal to conform to the new ecclesiastical order in Scotland, and he was settled in Rotterdam in December, 1677. On revisiting Scotland in 1679 he was arrested and imprisoned in the Edinburgh Tolbooth. Some time after Bothwell [1679], however, he was set at liberty and in October of the same year, shortly after the other exiles arrived, he returned to his charge in Holland.
Fleming, a man of judgement and moderation, could not bring himself to condemn those ministers who complied with the Indulgence, though remaining firmly opposed to it himself, and he pleaded with his congregation that such ministers should not be debarred from fellowship.
Several of the newly arrived exiles, Robert Hamilton in particular, were highly critical of Fleming’s attitude and refused to countenance his ministry. [Robert] M’Ward, though equally resolute against Fleming’s position, continued to hear him and, instead of condemning him outright, tried by friendly argument to persuade him to change his views. As a result, M’Ward too was ostracized by Hamilton and by some others who sided with him. The disagreement caused M’Ward much distress and mauy well have hastened his end.¹
¹ In a letter to the church at home [in Scotland] in late 1679 or early 1680 M’Ward wrote, ‘I was so confounded with these cause-destroying excesses… if the principle whereby they defend their practice owned, it would not only infer the dissolution of the united visible church, but also of all Christian society.’… it is clear that the reference is to Hamilton, who himself admits, in a letter dated 15 August 1682, that his fellowship with M’Ward, which had previously been close, ended with the arrival of Fleming. Says Hamilton, ‘Mr M’Ward continued extraordinarily kind until Mr Fleming came over, and then we differing in judgment he became greatly against me, to the making of me so far as possible odious in the whole provinces’…”
.
Thomas M’Crie, Sr.
Memoirs of Mr. William Veitch, and George Brysson, Written by Themselves, ed. Thomas M’Crie (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1825), p. 9
“Mr. Robert Fleming ‘was settled minister in the Scots Congregation in Rotterdam [Netherlands]. He invited Mr. James Veitch, one of our Scots actually indulged, to preach with him, who was there occasionally.’ [Robert] M’Ward, Thomas Douglas, Walter Smith, and others, heard and conversed with him, on which account Robert Hamilton and Mr. Bogue withdrew from them.”
.
Robert Wodrow
The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution, 4 vols. (d. 1734; Glasgow: Blackie & Son, 1832), vol. 3, p. 51
“After the defeat at Bothwell, he avoided the consequences of his attainder and condemnation by an escape into Holland. There, in Geneva and the Palatinate, he endeavoured to excite the sympathy of foreign protestants with the sufferings of their Scottish brethren; and along with his brother-in-law, Gordon of Earlston, he acted as commissioner in behalf of the united societies, whom he greatly assisted by his influence in obtaining for them the countenance and support of the continental churches. He continued to reside principally in Holland, although the English government, apprised of his intention of returning with arms and money to the assistance of his persecuted countrymen, repeatedly urged upon the States an application for his delivery.”
.
Maurice Grant
Preacher to the Remnant: The Story of James Renwick (Blue Banner Productions, 2009)
“This dispute [with Hamilton] caused McWard a good deal of distress, and may well have hastened his death in May 1681. For these and other reasons Hamilton became decidedly unpopular among the Scottish exiles. Eventually realising that he was looked on generally as a ‘pest’–the term is his own–he decided, later in 1681, to leave Holland for good and move further into the Continent.
His original intention was to go to Hungary, where he planned to align himself with the then persecuted supporters of the Protestant interest. He was dissuaded however from this by Herman Witsius, the great theologian of the Covenants, whom he had gone to see at Utrecht and with whom he was on friendly terms…
…but rather go to the northern province of Friesland, where there was a particular work for him to do… and Witsius, when he consulted him again, nto only approved it but gave him a letter of introduction to a Friesland minister, William Brakel, of Leeuwarden… in Hamilton’s words, Brakel showed ‘unspeakable kindness’ to him, entertained him in his own house for several weeks, and gave him a most sympathetic hearing when he spoke of the plight of the persecuted church in Scotland.
Brakel, indeed, was so impressed by what Hamilton told him that he wrote directly to the Societies expressing his strong support and concern at their plight and pledging himself to do all in his power to help them… Hamilton felt emboldened to broach… the possibility of having young men from the Societies trained for the ministry in Holland… Brakel and his friends offered not only to arrange for the students’ training, but to help with the costs themselves.”
.
“[James] Renwick, he was told, would have to subscribe the Confession and Catechisms of the Dutch church, as was mandatory in all ordinations; otherwise there was no prospect of the Presbytery ordaining him. Hamilton asked to see a copy of the Confession, and found his worst fears confirmed… there were vestiges of pre-Reformation practices–ceremonial, liturgy, and the role of the civil power in the church–which were reflected all too plainly in the [Belgic] Confession.
Hamilton on seeing this, urgently consulted Renwick. Together they had to accept that Renwick could not subscribe the [Belgic] Confession, since to do so would be to compromise the basic principles of the Scottish Reformation and Covenants…
…he [Hamilton] went round the ministers of the Presbytery and pleaded with them that, if Renwick was to subscribe anything, ti should be the Confession and Catechisms of the Church of Scotland… they eventually assented.”
.
“Early the next morning [after Renwick’s ordination]… a letter was delivered to him… from William Brakel… Brakel conveyed the startling news that Scottish ministers at Rotterdam–specifically George Barclay, Robert Langlands and Thomas Hog the younger–were preparing to bring accusations against Hamilton, Renwick, and the other students, charging them with very serious offences.”
[See also p. 87 on Hamilton drawing up a Protestation, and getting it approved by the United Societies, publicly denouncing the Rotterdam ministers and church for their “abominable, sinful and apostatizing courses,” “errors, lies and falsehood,” etc. “All this no doubt gave satisfaction to Hamilton, but it caused the Societies no little embarrassment.”
See pp. 139-41 on A’Brakel’s falling out with Hamilton, as Hamilton separated even from him. A’Brakel said, “Mr. Hamilton gave me out in Scotland as being one that inclined to Erastianism and as one that had perfidiously relinquished my charge… but truly they are only fancies, and lies… I should make known to you his cheats and lying reports.”
See the similar opposition to Hamilton and the Societies by the Dutch divine Jacobus Koelman on p. 146.]
.
After the Glorious Revolution of 1689, during the Period of Toleration
Maurice Grant
No King but Christ: the Story of Donald Cargill (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1988), pp. 208-9
“…in his dying testimony [Donald] Cargill [d. 1681] did not once mention the Covenants… his allegiance was to what they represented, not to what they were in themselves. For him, the Covenants did not constitute, but rather expressed, those vital issues of divine truth for which a public testimony must be made.
It was here that Cargill parted company with those like Robert Hamilton who in later years saw the Covenants as an indispensable part of the constitution of church and state. For Cargill this could not be so, and one of his contemporaries, Thomas Lining [a fellow Cameronian minister]… writing in 1706, he strongly implied that, had Cargill lived, he would have cast in his lot with the [1690] Revolution Settlement.” (pp. 208-9)
.
Robert Wodrow
The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution, 4 vols. (d. 1734; Glasgow: Blackie & Son, 1832), vol. 3, p. 51
“At length the revolution of 1688 (in which, however, the fastidious nature of his principles would not sanction his concurrence) allowed him to return from exile. His attainder was reversed, and, on his brother’s death, he succeeded to the honours of the family; but from religious scruples as to acknowledging the prince of Orange, he never applied for the succession to his brother’s estates.
In 1692 he was imprisoned for 8 months on account of being the suspected author of the ‘Sanquhar Declaration, 10th Aug. 1692,’ and was at length liberated in May 1693, and allowed to spend the remainder of his days in undisturbed tranquillity. Sir Robert died unmarried on the 20th Oct. 1701, at Borrowstonness, where he had resided for some period before.”
.
Thomas M’Crie, Jr.
The Story of the Scottish Church: from the Reformation to the Disruption (London: Blackie & Son, 1875)
“No sooner was it known that the [Scottish, civil] convention of estates [at Dundee] was to meet in March, 1689 [during the Glorious Revolution], than the Covenanters of the west resolved on repairing in a body to Edinburgh, to aid in protecting the meeting from the apprehended attack of the Jacobites [those for the previous king, James II]. Their assistance was far from being unnecessary…
The sudden rising of Dundee having led to measures for the defence of the country, those of the Covenanters known by the name of Cameronians, chiefly in the neighbourhood of Douglas, raised a regiment of eight hundred men, without beat of drum or expense of levy, under the command of the Earl of Angus… Such was the origin of the Cameronian regiment…
Discussions ensued, of a kind similar to those which had divided the counsels of the Covenanters at Bothwell. It was keenly debated among them whether it was not a “sinful association” to enlist under the same banner with other regiments, composed of those who had been malignants and abettors of tyranny, or who had not cleared themselves from the scandal of unlawful engagements.
Owing to their pertinacity in these unreasonable scruples [longtime covenanter] Colonel Cleland, on whom the command of the regiment was devolved, very nearly lost temper, and he refused to accede to their demands, as subversive of all military discipline.
But the matter was finally compromised by their agreeing on a brief general declaration, drawn up by Sir Patrick Hume of Polwart, and explained by Mr. Alexander Shields… It was to the effect that they “appeared in his majesty’s service in defence of the nation, recovery and preservation of the Protestant religion, and, in particular, the work of reformation in Scotland, in opposition to Popery, Prelacy, and arbitrary power, in all its branches and steps, until the government of church and state be brought back to their lustre and integrity, established in the best and purest times.”
These terms, it might be supposed, were sufficiently guarded; but though the majority were induced to comply with them, there were still some, including Howie of Lochgoin and Sir Robert Hamilton, who continued long after to protest against “Angus’ regiment” as an association with malignants.”
.
“Though Cleland’s name appears among the officers who sided with Robert Hamilton at Bothwell [1679], there is reason to think that he afterwards left that party; and though still a zealous Presbyterian and Covenanter, his principles did not hinder him from joining with the government at the Revolution [1689].”
.
Michael Shields
Faithful Contendings Displayed, ed. John Howie (Glasgow: John Bryce, 1780), pp. 411-12
“[August, 1689:] The most material thing deliberate[d] upon by them, was, that albeit the representing of our grievances to the King, while he was Prince of Orange had hitherto been delayed, whereby debates had been occasioned among ourselves, yet it might be considered whether it were now necessary to send the same. They all agreed that it was necessary and expedient to give a true representation of our cause and case to the King, and seek redress of our grievances, though this had been long delayed, and had formerly been agreed upon by the General Meeting at Crawford-John, February 13th last part.
Whereby it was concluded that an address with a memorial of our grievances should be sent to the Prince of Orange, which memorial might now be written over again, and sent, with such alterations as the present circumstances called for. And they concluded that Earlstoun, Kerstand, and Sir. Robert Hamilton, and Mr. Alexander Shields should be desired to go to London with the same, or any two of them (Mr. Shields still being one of them) as they agree among themselves…
Sir Robert signified his mind to this purpose… he expected they and he would not agree… And moreover, as for him they were to go unto, he could not address, nor own him as King, but only as Prince of Orange, but he said he was willing to hazard himself in representing our grievances to him as such, with an offer of our allegiance upon right terms, acknowledging we had been too hasty in owning him before. Neither would he go with Kerstand and Mr. Shields, who were of a contrary mind in this matter, seeing they might, when there, contradict one another in their discourses.
Mr. Shields declared his willingness to go, if these desired would go with him, but for the reasons above given by each of them a stop was put to that affair.”
.
Patrick Walker
Six Saints of the Covenant in 2 vols., ed. David H. Fleming (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901), vol. 1, Alexander Peden’s Life, Postscript, pp. 146-47
“And when Robert Hamilton came from abroad [from the Netherlands] among them, they got a brow of brass, calling him [i.e. Alexander Shields, one of the last three Cameronian ministers] a liar, and upbraided him to his face, saying, although he used these arguments [to join the 1690 Church of Scotland] to draw them out of the way of the Lord, yet you dare not publish them.
I well remember he said, ‘Dare I not? dare I not? I promise before you all, I both dare and will, and avow it before the world.’ [which he did] But alas they still gave us a deaf ear, and now will not be spoken to nor plead with; however it stands for our mite of testimony…
But, if the Lord spare, I resolve to give the world a more surprising account of the rude treatment and unheard-of ingratitude Mr. Shields, [Thomas] Linning [another of the last three Cameronian ministers, which joined the 1690 Church of Scotland], and others received at that time, and since, at their hands…
…all know that it was the fewest number of the United Societies, that was led off with Robert Hamilton to the disowning of King William as King of Britain and his Government; the greater part [of the Cameronians] reckoned it their duty to take a legal unite way of witnessing, by humble pleadings, representations, and protestations, pleading for and with their mother to put away her whoredoms.”
.
Justin Stodghill
“Alexander Shields’ Response to Sir Robert Hamilton in 1690” Scottish Reformation Society Historical Journal 7 (2017), pp. 73-103
“Sir Robert Hamilton remained the central figure in the United
Societies until his death in 1701, even though there is no record that he was ever ordained to any office.
The Societies then remained without a designated leader, or any ministerial oversight, until 1706 when John Macmillan, a deposed minister from the Church of Scotland, was called
as their pastor.”
.
Articles
1700’s
Howie, John – ‘Sir Robert Hamilton of Preston’ in The Scots Worthies, rev. W.H. Carslaw (d. 1793; Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1870), pp. 597-607
.
1800’s
Steven, William – pp. 100-101 in The History of the Scottish Church, Rotterdam (Edinburgh: Waugh & Innes, 1832)
Anderson, William – ‘Hamilton of Preston’ in The Scottish Nation; or the Surnames, Families, Literature, Honours & Biographical History of the People of Scotland (Fullarton, 1878), vol. 2, pp. 423-24
Henderson, Thomas, F. – ‘Hamilton, Sir Robert’ in Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900
.
2000’s
Stodghill, Justin – “Alexander Shields’ Response to Sir Robert Hamilton in 1690” Scottish Reformation Society Historical Journal 7 (2017), pp. 73-103
Wikipedia – “Robert Hamilton of Preston”
.
.
.
Related Pages