us meetings, or conventicles, as they were called in those
days of relentless tyranny and oppression. On one of the occasions,
she was taken to Edinburgh, and imprisoned there, along with her
sister, the mother of Principal Carstairs. Wodrow's Hist. of the
Suff. of the Church of Scot., vol. iii, pp. 10, 54.--_Ed_.]

111 [See page 368.--_Ed._]

112 [See page 406.--_Ed._]

113 [The following account of the origin of the differences between the
Resolutioners and Protesters, is that given by Kirkton. "After the
defeat of Dumbar, the king required a new army to be levyed, wishing
earnestly it might be of another mettale than that which hade been
lossed. So he desired that sort of people who were called
Malignants, his darlings, might be brought into places of trust,
both in council and army, though they hade been secluded from both
by their own consent. And this request was granted both by committee
of estates and commission of the church sitting at Perth. But there
was a party in both these councils which alledged confidently, that
though the malignants were content to profess repentance for their
former practices, yet they should be found to be men neither sincere
in their profusions, nor successful in their undertakings. This was
the beginning of the fatal schism in the Scottish church. For though
the king, to secure Scotland, was content once more to take the
covenant at his coronation in Scoon (which instrument he caused burn
at London) yet the dissatisfied party continued still in their
jealousies, and even of the king himself whom they doubted most of
all. This party was called Protesters and Remonstrators as the other
was called Resolutioners, which names occasioned lamentable
distraction" (History of the Church of Scotland p. 53). A more
particular account of this unhappy controversy, so fatal in its
results to both parties, may be seen in the introduction to Wodrow's
history.

Though Baillie was a Resolutioner, he seems to have had some
misgivings as to the course he adopted. "We carried unanimously at
last," says he in a letter to Mr. Spang, dated Perth, January 2,
1651, "the answer herewith sent to you. My joy for this was soon
tempered when I saw the consequence, the loathing of sundry good
people to see numb