1 10 The Ruthwell Cross and the Story it has to Tell. 



Acts the Ruthwell Cross, which at that thne stood within the walls 

 of the Parish Kirk, as it does to-day, was thrown down during 

 the ecclesiastical troubles of Charles the First's reign, in 1642, 

 or soon afterwards. 



The Rev. Gavin Young. 



The parish minister of that day was Mr Gavin 

 Young. The patron of the living was the Earl of Annandale, a 

 remote ancestor of the present lord of the manor, the Earl of 

 Mansfield. Neither minister nor patron shewed any burning 

 zeal to carry out the express and urgent command of the Supreme 

 Court of the Kirk. Yet neither Earl nor parish minister dared 

 to set such an order openly at defiance. There is good ground 

 for believing that Mr Gavin Young did his utmost to protect this 

 venerable monument of early Christian art from the rude and 

 unwelcome attentions of his ecclesiastical superiors ; and that he 

 purposely forgot to obtemper the injunction of the Assembly. 

 But the Assembly did not forget. The obnoxious order was 

 repeated, and the minister was peremptorily instructed to carry 

 it out on pain of deposition from his office. It is clear, however, 

 that, even then, in causing the Cross to be thrown down he " kept 

 the word of promise to the ear, and broke it to the hope." 

 Otherwise it is impossible to understand how this priceless relic 

 could have escaped the fate of other .so-called " Idolatrous 

 Monuments " and been irretrievably destroyed. This Mr Gavin 

 Young, it is interesting to recall, was minister of the parish for 

 the long period of 54 years (1617 to 1671). He continued in his 

 first charge — Ryval or Rivel, as it was then called — notwith- 

 standing the frequent changes of Government, both in Church 

 and State. Whether he suited himself to the changing circum- 

 stances of the time and remained in the pari.sh in order to protect 

 its ancient Cross we canot tell. It is at least certain that he had 

 little difificulty in persuading himself that it was his duty to con- 

 tinue, during the whole of his long life, in the charge to which 

 his Church had, in less troublous times, appointed him. Hew 

 Scott in his " Fasti ' ' tells us that " being asked how he reconciled 

 himself to live under the different forms of Church Government 

 he quaintly observed, ' Wha wad quarrel wi' their brose for a 

 mote in them ?' ' ' 



There is another reason for which, from the point of view 



