Transcriber’s Notes:—
Italic text has been marked _thus_.
Bold and Blackletter text has been marked =thus=.
The original accentuation, spelling, punctuation and hyphenation has
been retained, except for apparent printer’s errors.
RECORDS
OF
THE KIRK OF SCOTLAND,
CONTAINING THE
ACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
=General Assemblies,=
FROM THE YEAR 1638 DOWNWARDS,
AS AUTHENTICATED BY THE CLERKS OF ASSEMBLY;
WITH
NOTES AND HISTORICAL ILLUSTRATIONS,
BY
ALEXANDER PETERKIN,
EDITOR OF “THE COMPENDIUM OF CHURCH LAWS,” &c.
VOL. I.
[Illustration: NEC TAMEN CONSUMEBATUR]
EDINBURGH:
JOHN SUTHERLAND, 12, CALTON STREET.
MDCCCXXXVIII.
From the STEAM-PRESS of PETER BROWN, Printer, 19, St James’ Square.
CONTENTS
Introduction.
The National Covenant or, Confession of Faith of the Kirk of
Scotland.
The Principall Acts of the Solemne Generall Assembly of the Kirk of
Scotland.
A Breife Collection of the Passages of the Assembly Holden at
Glasgow in Scotland, November Last, 1638; With the Deposicon of
Divers B.p.p. Their Offences For Which They Were Sentenced; and an
Index of All the Acts Made at the Said Assembly.
An Index of all the Principall Acts of the Assembly holden at
Glasgow 1638.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland, 1633-1638.
Report of Proceedings of the General Assembly at Glasgow, 1638.
The General Assembly, at Edinburgh, 1639.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly Holden at Edinburgh,
in the Year 1639.
Index of the Principall Acts Of the Assembly at Edinburgh, 1639.
Not Printed.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents, Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1639.
Report of the Proceedings Of the Late Generall Assembly, Indicted
by the Kings Majestie, and Holden at Edinburgh, the 12 of August,
1639.
The Proceedings of The Late Solemne Assembly, Holden at Edinburgh
12 of August 1639.
The General Assembly, at Aberdeen, 1640.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly Conveened at Aberdene,
July 28, 1640.
Index of the Principall Acts of the Assembly at Aberdene, 1640. Not
printed.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents. Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1639-40.
The General Assembly, at St Andrews and Edinburgh, 1641.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly Holden at St Andrews
and Edinburgh, 1641.
Index of the Principall Acts of the Assembly Holden at S. Andrews
and Edinburgh, 1641.not Printed.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents, Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1640-41.
The General Assembly, at St Andrew’s, 1642.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly, Conveened at St
Andrews, July 27, 1642.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents, Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1642.
The General Assembly, at Edinburgh, 1643.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly, Conveened at St
Andrews, July 27, 1642.
Index of the Acts of the Assembly holden at Edinburgh, 1643. Not
printed.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents. Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1643.
The General Assembly, at Edinburgh, 1644.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly, Conveened at
Edinburgh, May 29, 1644.
Index of the Acts of the Assembly holden at Edinburgh, 1644. Not
Printed.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents, Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1644.
The General Assembly, at Edinburgh, 1645.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly, Met Occasionally at
Edinburgh, January 22, 1645.
Index of the Acts of this Assembly. Not Printed.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents, Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1645.
The General Assembly, at Edinburgh, 1646.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly, Met at Edinburgh,
Junii 3, 1646
Index of the Acts of the Generall Assembly not Printed, 1646.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1646.
The General Assembly, at Edinburgh, 1647.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly Met at Edinburgh,
August 4, 1647.
Index of the Acts of This Generall Assemblie Not Printed.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents, Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1647.
The General Assembly, at Edinburgh, 1648.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly Conveened at
Edinburgh, July 12, 1648.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents, Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1648.
The General Assembly, at Edinburgh, 1649.
The Principall Acts of the Generall Assembly Holden at Edinburgh,
July 7, 1649.
Index of the Unprinted Acts of the Assembly, 1649.
Miscellaneous Historical Documents, Relative to the Ecclesiastical
and Political Events in Scotland—1649.
Appendix. State of the Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland From 1649 to
1654.
Footnotes:
Index to the Acts of the General Assembly. 1638-1649.
Index to Miscellaneous Documents. 1638-1654.
INTRODUCTION.
The object of the present work is to present to the public, in a form
that may be generally accessible, the history of one of the most
interesting periods in the annals of our National Church, by the
republication of her Acts and Proceedings, at and subsequent to the era
of her second Reformation; and, combined therewith, such historical
documents and sketches as are calculated to preserve the memory of an
important, and, ultimately, beneficial revolution in Scotland.
The Reformation from Popery—of which the seeds had been sown during the
lapse of the half century which preceded the abolition of that system
of national religion in 1560—forms the subject-matter of a distinct
epoch, which has been amply illustrated in the works of Principal
Robertson, Dr Cook, and Dr M‘Crie, and which has been further developed
more authentically in the pages of the “Booke of the Universall
Kirke;” and it is not within the range of the present compilation to
take any retrospect of the events which occurred in reference to the
Reformed Church of Scotland, prior to the year 1633, when King Charles
I. was crowned King of Scotland. It may be deemed sufficient to note
merely, that Popery was abolished, by act of Parliament, on the 24th
of August 1560, and the reformed doctrines recognised and tolerated
by contemporary statute; that, in 1567, the Protestant Church was
established and endowed; that the mixed Episcopal and Presbyterian
form of Church government which subsisted during the first thirty-two
years of its existence, yielded to the Presbyterian polity, which was
established by act of Parliament on the 5th of June 1592; and that
Episcopacy having been insinuated through the instrumentality of the
General Assembly of the Church,[1] in consequence of the intrigues of
King James VI., became, though in a modified shape, the established
form of the Protestant Church in Scotland, by virtue of various acts of
Parliament.[2]
Such was the nature of the Established Protestant Church of Scotland
when Charles I. ascended the thrones of both the British kingdoms,
at the demise of his father, on the 22d of March 1625; and such
it continued to be up to the time that we have selected as the
commencement of the period, to the illustration of which the following
pages are devoted.
Along with his crown, Charles I. inherited from his father, a legacy
of political and ecclesiastical bigotry, and a cluster of debateable
questions betwixt him and his subjects, which, ere long, involved
him in numberless embarrassments and conflicts, that terminated only
with his life on the scaffold. In reference to Scotland, that which
first brought him into collision with his northern subjects, was a
project of resuming grants which had been lavishly bestowed by his
father on his nobility and other minions (or which were usurped by
them,) of the tithes and benefices that had belonged to the Popish
Church prior to the Reformation. James himself had contemplated such a
revocation before his death, and also the establishment of a Liturgy
in the Scottish Episcopacy, recently introduced, and but imperfectly
consolidated; but he wanted the courage to adopt the requisite
measures for that purpose, which were calculated to rouse into active
hostility the combined opposition of a fierce aristocracy, and of the
Presbyterian clergy and people, who had been cheated out of their
favoured scheme of church polity by the insidious manœuvres of James.
The revocation was the first step taken by Charles in pursuance of his
father’s policy; and it was justified by precedents in the commencement
of every new reign, during the previous history of Scotland. But the
first attempt to accomplish this end proved abortive, and had nearly
produced the most tragical consequences. It may be proper to advert
briefly to these occurrences.
In October 1625, a Convention of Estates was held for the consideration
of this interesting topic; but the proposition was rejected by nearly
all the nobility and gentry, many of whom had profited from the
plunder of the ecclesiastical patrimony; and Bishop Burnet[3] gives a
very characteristic anecdote of the proceedings on the occasion. The
Earl of Nithsdale, as Commissioner, had been instructed to exact an
unconditional surrender; but the parties interested had previously
conspired, and resolved that, if they could not otherwise deter him
from prosecuting the measure, “they would fall upon him and all his
party, in the old Scottish manner, and knock them on the head;” and
so deadly was their purpose, that one of their number, who was blind,
(Belhaven,) and was seated beside the Earl of Dumfries, had clutched
hold of him with one hand, and was prepared, had any stir arisen, to
plunge a dagger in his heart. Nithsdale, however, seeing the stormy
aspect of the conclave, disguised his instructions, and returned to
London disappointed in his mission.
A convocation of the clergy, however, whose views were directed to
a complete restoration of its ancient patrimony to the Church, and
a large body of the landed proprietors, who had suffered from the
rapacity of the Lords of Erection, and titulars, who had obtained the
Church property and tithes, were favourable to a revocation—animated
by the hope that, in any new distribution of the revenues, a larger
portion of these would fall to their lot from the royal favour than
they could ever expect from the individual overlords and improprietors.
These two classes, therefore, co-operated in supporting the views of
the King, for a resumption of church property and tithes; and these
movements resulted in the well known arbitration, by which his Majesty
obtained a general surrender of the impropriated tithes and benefices,
under which the law upon this subject was ultimately settled by the
enactments in the Statute-book,[4] leaving unavoidably an extended
spirit of discontent among the disappointed parties in the most
influential classes of the community.
One of the main objects of Charles’ policy being thus partially
accomplished, he proceeded to Scotland in the summer of 1633, for
the purpose of being crowned in his native kingdom. His Majesty’s
progress and inauguration were distinguished by unwonted splendour,
and he received a cordial welcome from his northern subjects; but some
parts of the ceremonial gave deep offence to the Scottish people, as
savouring strongly of Popish mummeries; and the morning of his reign
was speedily overcast in Scotland, by a most unwise and obstinate
assertion of the royal prerogative in some matters of the most
ludicrous insignificancy. In 1606, an act had passed in the Scottish
Parliament, asserting the royal prerogative to an extravagant pitch;
and another in 1609, by which King James VI. was empowered to prescribe
apparel to the churchmen with the consent of the Church—a concession
which had been made to gratify that monarch’s predilections for all
priest-like intermeddling with ecclesiastical affairs, and all sorts
of trifling details. But these concessions had lain dormant during the
remainder of his reign, and had never been acted upon; nay, when, in
1617, an act had been prepared by the Lords of Articles, authorizing
all things that should thereafter be determined in ecclesiastical
affairs by his Majesty, with consent of a competent number of the
clergy selected by himself, to be law, he ordered that act to be
suppressed in the House, although it had passed the Lords of Articles.
Charles, however, not sufficiently acquainted with the latent spirit
of his Scottish subjects, ordered an act to be framed, soon after
his coronation, embodying the enactments of both the statutes above
alluded to, asserting the unlimited prerogative of the King in all
matters, civil and ecclesiastical, and giving him power to regulate
the robes and raiment of ecclesiastics. This was strenuously opposed
by Rothes, Balmerino, and a majority of the Estates, notwithstanding
the personal presence of the King, and his domineering orders to them
to vote and not to speak. By a juggle, however, the clerk-register
(Primrose) reported the majority the other way—a falsity which could
not be impugned without incurring the pains of treason; and so intent
was Charles on coercing the Estates into this measure, that he marked
on a list the names of all who had voted against his crotchet, and
threatened them with his resentment.[5]
These extraordinary and indecorous stretches of authority, excited the
greatest alarm. The freedom of speech in Parliament, its independence,
and the integrity of its record, were violated in a manner the
most outrageous and inconsistent with all liberty or safety. The
nobility held various consultations as to what was to be done in this
juncture, and a petition to the King was drawn up and shewn to some
of them—amongst others to Batmerino; but the King having declared
that he would receive no explanation or remonstrance from them, the
purpose was dropped. A copy of it however, with some corrections
on it in Balmerino’s handwriting, having been confided by him to a
notary for transcription, it was treacherously conveyed to Charles, by
Spottiswood, Archbishop of St Andrew’s, some months afterwards. For
this innocent and, according to modern notions, this constitutional
exercise of the right of petition, or rather this intent to exercise
it, Balmerino was put on his trial,[6] before a packed court and a
packed jury, for _leasingmaking_ or an attempt to sow dissension
betwixt the King and his subjects—an offence of the most arbitrary
construction, and certainly not overtly committed by Balmerino in this
case. Seven of the jury were for acquittal—but eight, being a majority,
found him guilty—and he was sentenced to a capital punishment.
This trial excited the deepest interest throughout the country, and
its result produced consternation, and prompted to the most desperate
counsels. It was proposed to force the prison and rescue Balmerino; or,
if that failed, to kill the obnoxious judges and jurors, and burn their
houses. But these perilous resolutions were obviated by Lord Traquair,
one of the jury and a tool of the Court, representing to the King the
consequences which were to be apprehended; and it was found expedient
to grant Balmerino a pardon.[7]
These were the first false steps of Charles in Scotland. They shook
irretrievably the confidence of his subjects in his personal integrity,
and in his reverence for the law and the purity of its administration;
and the whole of these proceedings are eminently instructive, as
evincing to what trivial circumstances, in some respects, convulsions
and revolutions, of an extended and sweeping character, may often be
ascribed as the source. It is exceedingly difficult now to estimate
fully the motives of either party in these transactions. The Scottish
Estates were not averse to yield the point of royal supremacy
exacted by James and Charles; but when the latter claimed as his
prerogative the power to regulate the draperies of the priesthood, it
was vehemently resisted by parliament and people as an encroachment
on their religious liberties. And to this paltry subject, which was
more appropriate to a college of tailors than to the cabinet of a
monarch or the arena of a senate, we may trace the first beginnings of
that succession of revolutions which, for upwards of half a century
afterwards, overflowed the land with torrents of blood and of tears.[8]
The arbitrary principles in which Charles had been trained by his
father, were so deeply impressed on his character, that, though in
other respects an able and amiable man, they were never eradicated
from his mind by all his experience of their consequences. Prompted
by the bigoted intolerance of Laud, surrounded by court sycophants,
who sought favour by subserviency to his prejudices, and betrayed
in Scotland by a set of the most unprincipled knaves, both lay and
clerical, that ever were destined to mislead a sovereign into disgrace
and destruction, Charles took not warning in his government from the
lessons that had been taught him in the transaction to which we have
thus briefly alluded; and he must needs enforce by coercion in Scotland
that uniformity in religious ceremonials with the Episcopal Church
of England, on which his father had bestowed so much of his royal
wisdom.[9] His enterprises in this respect led to consequences which
he little anticipated, and which terminated most fatally for his own
authority and honour. We allude to his attempt to introduce the Liturgy
and canons, which were concocted for the Church in Scotland, under
the auspices of Archbishop Laud—an attempt which, within a very brief
space after Balmerino’s trial and sentence had excited universal alarm,
rallied the whole population of Scotland under the banner of “THE
COVENANT,” in open resistance to their throned monarch; presenting
to our contemplation one of the most remarkable and sublime moral
spectacles that is to be found in the history of ancient or modern
times—an entire nation simultaneously banding themselves together, and
leagued by solemn religious vows, for the vindication and maintenance
of their liberties, civil and religious, yet cherishing and avowing
their allegiance to their sovereign, except in so far as he exceeded
his legitimate authority.
Before entering on the Proceedings and Acts of the General Assemblies
of the Church from 1638 to 1649, which it is one of the objects of this
work to preserve, it is necessary, for the elucidation of these, to
detail the circumstances, political and ecclesiastical, (these being,
in truth, identical,) which preceded that great demonstration of the
national will and power, during the years 1636 and 1637; and, in doing
so, the facts shall be as concisely stated as is practicable, amidst
the great mass of materials which are supplied to the student of our
history in the numerous works that treat of the period now referred
to.[10]
Early in the progress of the Scottish Reformation, the Lords of the
Congregation had directed the “Book of Common Order,” as it was called,
which was used in the Protestant Church of Geneva, to be read in the
religious service of the Scottish Reformers; and it was sanctioned by
the Church in the “First Book of Discipline,” among the first of its
acts after the abolition of Popery.[11] Under this sanction, the “Book
of Common Prayer” was appointed to be used by the Readers as a part of
the public worship in the churches; and, so far as we can discover,
it continued to be used, either as an essential part or, at least,
as the model for prayer in public worship, during the fluctuations
in the frame of the Church in the time of James VI. The Assembly at
Aberdeen,[12] indeed, had ordered the Geneva form to be revised; but
the vehement opposition made in the subsequent Assembly at Perth to
King James’ Articles, induced him to suspend his innovation.
Charles, however, a man of higher moral and personal courage than his
father, and stimulated by the fanatical and semipopish zeal of Laud,
had given instructions, during his recent visit to Scotland, for
superseding the early Book of Order, and directed the introduction of
Canons and a Liturgy similar to those of England. In order to deceive
the Scotch into a belief that it was different, and to soothe the
national pride, by eschewing the aspect of servile imitation as a mark
of its dependence on the English hierarchy, the Scotch Prelates devised
a new Liturgy, which was, in many points, and indeed in its leading
features, much more Popish than that of England.
The Canons were first compiled and confirmed by the Royal Supremacy.
They comprehended whatever the Kings of Israel or the Emperors of the
Primitive Church had arrogated; secured from challenge the consecration
of the bishops; and added terror to excommunication, by annexing
confiscation and outlawry as the penalties of incurring it. The Liturgy
was sanctioned before it was actually framed. By it the clergy were
forbidden to deviate from its forms, or to pray extemporaneously; the
demeanour of the people in public worship was rigorously prescribed;
kirk-sessions and presbyteries, as these were established by the act
1592, were abolished, under the new designation of “conventicles;”
the powers of these were transferred to the bishops, and lay elders
entirely superseded; and the whole texture and spirit of it was
manifestly Popish, embodying, in almost undisguised terms, the form of
the missals, and introducing every particular, both of doctrine and
ceremonial, that was most obnoxious to the whole population, except the
prelates, nine of whom, out of fourteen, had been introduced into the
Privy Council, while Archbishop Spottiswood was created Chancellor, and
Maxwell, Bishop of Ross, aspired to the office of Lord Treasurer—thus
combining the highest spiritual with the highest political functions,
and forming a conclave of despotism entirely subservient to the King.
The new order of things, therefore, was not a mere institution of
Episcopacy, in which only spiritual jurisdiction was conferred, and
different orders of clergy were established, as in England; but it
was palpably a political engine, incompatible with the existence of
civil liberty or freedom of conscience in matters of religion; and
this innovation became universally obnoxious to the whole nation, by
reason of its manifest revival of the practices and ritual of the
Catholics. A font was appointed to be placed in the entrance of the
church, the cross was enjoined in baptism, and the water was changed
and consecrated in the font twice a month; an altar was appointed for
the chancel; the communion table, decorated, was placed in the east,
and the consecration of the elements was a prayer expressive of the
Real Presence, and their elevation deemed an actual oblation. The
confessions of the penitent were to be concealed by the clergy; and
the whole contexture of this novel Liturgy was such, in conjunction
with the Canons, as to effect a total subversion of all the principles
cherished by the bulk of the nation from the date of the Reformation,
and to overthrow the entire system of Presbyterian doctrine and
discipline that had previously prevailed in the usages of the Church,
and the law of the land.
It is noways surprising, therefore, that these innovations produced
tremendous revulsion throughout the country; and they were rendered
still more offensive by the mode of their introduction—without the
consent of a General Assembly of the Church or of Parliament, but
solely by virtue of the royal prerogative, and the authority of the
prelates—the advice even of the Privy Council, and some of the elder
prelates being entirely contemned. The alarm was sounded from the
pulpits by a great majority of the parochial clergy, and pervaded,
not merely the common people, but the gentry also, and, with few
exceptions, all the ancient nobility of the realm: every man, whether
valuing his religious principles, or his political liberty and safety,
was appalled by the immediate prospect of an intolerant spiritual
domination and civil tyranny being established in the land of his
forefathers. “In short,” as Dr Cook emphatically states, “the complete
command of the Church was given to the bishops, and the kingdom was
thus laid at the foot of the throne.”[13]
In this state matters continued from the time that these changes became
known, in 1636, till the summer of 1637. At the same time, besides the
Court of High Commission, each of the prelates obtained subordinate
Commission-courts, which were, in all respects, so many local
inquisitions; so that “Black Prelacy” was armed in Scotland with all
the powers and terrors of the Popish Church anterior to its abolition.
The prelates, however, were at first deterred, by well-grounded
apprehensions, from the exercise of their late-sprung power. A
general adoption of the Liturgy at Easter had been required by royal
proclamation, but the day had elapsed before the publication of it
took place; and it was not till May 1637 that a charge was ordered to
be given to the clergy, that each of them should “buy and provide” two
copies for his parish, under the penalty of escheat of his effects. The
Council, however, had omitted in their edict to require the _adoption_
and practice of these formularies, although, doubtless, the conjoint
effect of these innovations was held to imply an imperative rule for
the clergy. This looseness of phraseology, however, opened a door for
the recusant clergy to evade the use of the new ritual, and paved the
way for an eventual defeat of the prelates’ schemes.[14]
On the 16th of July 1637, an order was intimated from the pulpit
in Edinburgh, that, on the following Sunday, the Liturgy would be
introduced; and this without the concurrence of the Privy Council or
any previous arrangement for smoothing its reception. This notice
excited great popular agitation, and brought the collision betwixt
the court and prelates on the one side, and the country on the other,
to a crisis. On Sunday following, (23d July,) the Dean of Edinburgh
officiated in St Giles’, and the Bishop elect of Argyle in the
Greyfriars’ church, each of them being attended by some of the Judges,
Prelates, Members of Council, and other dignitaries, so as to give
an imposing effect to the introduction of the obnoxious services. St
Giles’ church was crowded, and all went on with the wonted solemnity of
public worship until the reading of the service commenced, when Janet
Geddes, an humble female, rose up and exclaimed, “Villain! daurst
thou say the mass at my lug?” and, suiting the action to the word, she
tossed the stool on which she had been sitting at the Dean’s head.
Forthwith, the assembled multitude broke out into such a tumult as
(Baillie says) “was never heard of since the Reformation,” exclaiming,
“A Pape! a Pape! Antichrist!” and accompanying these expressions
with a violent assault on the doors and windows, so as effectually
to interrupt the service. In the other church, of Greyfriars, the
performance of the service was attended with similar, though less
violent demonstrations of popular hostility; and it was with difficulty
that the officiating priests were rescued from the violence of
the outraged multitude. The greatest excitement pervaded the city
throughout the day; and in every quarter of the country where the
Liturgy was attempted to be introduced, except at St Andrew’s, Brechin,
Dunblane, and Ross, it was resisted with similar manifestations of
anger and disgust; and this popular effervescence was speedily extended
from the lower to the higher ranks, betwixt which the most entire
sympathy existed, although the latter adopted a more rational and
effective mode of resistance.
It is beyond the range of these introductory remarks, to enter on all
the details of procedure which took place from the first outbreak of
this opposition till the meeting of the General Assembly of Glasgow, in
November 1838. Of these, all the particulars are fully detailed in Lord
Rothes’ MS. Relation, in the Advocates’ Library, Baillie’s Letters, and
other contemporary chronicles, and more recently in Mr Laing’s and Dr
Cook’s Histories, and Dr Alton’s Life of Henderson—a man who, at that
juncture, arose to great eminence, to guide his countrymen In their
struggles, and to dignify their cause by the distinguished talents
which in him were called forth and displayed on this occasion. It is
sufficient for the present purpose to note a few of the more prominent
facts and occurrences which hastened the movement and, ere long,
prostrated the royal authority in Scotland.
Henderson, then minister of Leuchars, in Fife, and three other
clergymen from the Presbyteries of Irvine, Ayr, and Glasgow, having
been pressed by the prelatical authorities on the score of the Liturgy
presented, on the 20th of August, bills of suspension to the Privy
Council, upon the grounds that the recent innovations were illegal,
not being sanctioned by Parliament or the General Assembly, and as
being in contravention to the Acts of Parliament and of the Church.
The Council eluded these broad grounds, by finding that the edicts of
which suspension was sought, did not require the _observance_, but only
the _purchase_, of the new formalities; and the Council communicated
with the King as to the dilemma in which both he and they were now
placed. His Majesty, however, unmoved by these events, ordered the
immediate observance of the ritual, (September 20,) and rebuked the
tardiness of the Council. But whenever this untoward resolution of
the King was known, the four ministers, who were thus the foremost
men in the contest, were joined and supported by twenty-four peers,
a great many of the gentry, sixty-six commissioners from towns and
parishes, and nearly one hundred ministers, who immediately poured
in numerous petitions, remonstrating against the imposition of the
Liturgy and Canons.[15] These gave open demonstrations of their making
common cause with Henderson and his associates, going in a body to the
door of the Council House, in the High Street of the metropolis, with
their remonstrances or petitions; and thus they sustained the four
individuals who had been selected by the prelates for persecution.
During the interval which elapsed before an answer was returned, the
remonstrants busied themselves in agitating their grievances over the
whole kingdom, and speedily organized one of the most formidable and
best constructed oppositions to which any government ever was exposed.
It having been intimated that answers from Court to their remonstrances
and petitions would reach Edinburgh on the 18th of October, great
multitudes, from all parts of the country, flocked to the capital. The
Privy Council were panic-struck, and issued proclamations, intimating
that, at the first Council-day, nothing should be done relating to the
Church; ordering all strangers to leave Edinburgh within twenty-four
hours; removing the Council and Session from Edinburgh to Linlithgow,
and afterwards to Dundee; and denouncing a book which had been
published against the measures of the Court and Prelates. This brought
matters to a crisis.
Having delivered the several applications with which they had been
intrusted from the provinces to the Clerk of the Council, the noblemen,
gentlemen, and clergy met in three different bodies; but they concurred
in a general declaration against the obnoxious books, and ordered it
to be presented to the Council. It were tedious enumerating all the
proclamations by the King and Council, and the protestations against
these by the nobles and clergy, and all the negotiations and intrigues
which supervened—of these original documents, however, copies will be
given in the notes subjoined to the Acts of Assembly in 1638; but it
would savour of undue partiality to the proceedings of the malcontents,
if we omitted to state that, during the whole of the period alluded
to, many disgraceful outrages were perpetrated by the rabble, who, in
the language of Baillie, seemed to be “possessed with a bloody devil,”
the authorities being utterly unprepared and unable to repress these
disorders, at the very time that they were exciting the people of all
classes by their lawless and inconsiderate edicts and tyrannical acts.
These mutual exasperations had reached the highest pitch, when, in
February 1638, the Presbyterians assumed a bold and perilous attitude,
amounting almost to a practical dereliction of their allegiance to
the King, and an assumption of supreme authority. In order to avoid
the large and tumultuary assemblages which had taken place during
the preceding year, the Council had required that the supplications
and communications should be managed by delegates and commissioners
from the greater masses; and, accordingly, those persons acting in
this capacity, under the sanction of the King’s Council, had, in the
preceding November, formed large and influential subdivisions of
themselves into distinct bodies called “Tables,” representing the
different classes who were combined for the vindication of their
religious liberties—one for the nobility, another for the gentry, a
third for the clergy, and a fourth for the burghs. Committees of the
most influential and zealous of each class, sat at four different
tables in the Parliament House, having sub-committees, and a central
one of the whole, devising and concocting such measures as they deemed
necessary for promoting the common cause; thus centralizing the public
feeling of the country, and again giving forth mandates from their
united Councils, with all the force and authority of law, to the
people, and superseding virtually the functions both of the Executive
and Legislature of the country.
The most noted act of this anomalous Convention was the formation of a
muniment, which was composed by Henderson and Johnston of Warriston,
and revised by Balmerino, Rothes, and Loudon, and which was destined
to be a powerful instrument in the hands of these national leaders.
THE COVENANT was framed and promulgated at the time we refer to, and
henceforward became the rallying standard of the nation, or, at least,
of a great majority of its inhabitants, during the space of half a
century, till a more benignant symbol of freedom was unfurled at the
Revolution, under which the people of these realms have hitherto,
since that time, enjoyed all the blessings of a limited monarchy, and
institutions for the maintenance of the Protestant faith, and perfect
freedom of conscience to all classes of the people.
The adoption and character of that remarkable League enter so deeply
into the subject of the present undertaking, that, in order to render
numerous subsequent proceedings intelligible to many persons, it is
necessary to devote particular attention to it, and the circumstances
under which it was promulgated.
The Earl of Traquair returned to Scotland, on the 15th of February,
with instructions from the King in reference to the affairs of
Scotland. He dissembled at first the full tenor of these, in his
communications with the leaders of the Tables, and, on the 19th,
proceeded, early in the morning, to Stirling, to publish the
proclamation of which he was the bearer, before the Presbyterians
should be apprized of his intentions, or prepared to offer any show
of opposition. Lord Lindsay and Lord Hume, however, being apprised
of Traquair’s movements, had outstripped him, and were on the spot
to protest against its effects. The proclamation expressed the
King’s approval of the Liturgy; declared all the petitions against
it derogatory to his supreme authority, and deserving the severest
censure, and prohibited the supplicants to assemble again under the
penalties of treason.[16]
When this proclamation, which was calculated to excite their most
gloomy apprehensions, and to extinguish all their hopes of the King
ever listening to their remonstrances, was proclaimed by the heralds
at Stirling, Lords Hume and Lindsay made formal protestation against
it, claiming a right of access to the King by petition; declining the
prelates as judges in any court, civil or ecclesiastical; protesting
that no act of Council, past or future, (the prelates being members,)
should be prejudicial to the supplicants, in their persons or estates;
that the Presbyterians should not incur any danger in life or lands,
or any political or ecclesiastical pains, for not observing the Book
of Liturgy, Canons, Rules, Judicatories, and Proclamations; but that
it should be lawful for them to worship God according to His Word and
Constitutions of the Church and Kingdom, &c.; and it concluded with
professions of loyalty, and a declaration that they only desired the
preservation of the true reformed religion, and laws and liberties
of the kingdom. A copy of this protestation was affixed to the Cross
of Stirling. It was afterwards repeated at Linlithgow and Edinburgh,
to the presence of seventeen Peers, and everywhere else where the
proclamation was published.
In these critical circumstances, and to order at once to guard
themselves from the perils which were sure to overtake them
individually if severed, and exposed at once to the obstinate
displeasure of the King and the revenge of the prelates, the nobles
resolved to consolidate their union by a solemn engagement, such at
those which had been entered into by the Lords of the Congregation
and first Protestants, to the dawn and during the progress of the
Reformation to its earlier stages.[17] The positions in which they
stood were similar; and the example of the fathers and founders of
the Protestant Church in Scotland, naturally prompted the Tables
to imitation, independently of the ancient usage which existed to
Scotland, of entering into “Bands” for mutual protection and support
in troubled times. The model, however, which they had chiefly in view
was a “Confession” framed under the auspices and instructions of King
James VI., in which the errors of Popery were abjured, and to which
there was subsequently added a bond, or obligation, to maintain the
true religion, and protect the King’s person, as well as for the
general defence.[18] Taking that document as the basis and model of
the Covenant, the leaders of the Presbyterian’s superadded to it an
obligation to defend each other against all persons whatsoever, and a
pointed denunciation of the innovations recently attempted to be forced
upon the country.
For the course thus adopted, they had precedents in the conduct of
the first Reformers—in that of King James himself, who had signed the
“Confession,” and sought the signature of all his subjects—and in the
terms of the early “bands” for mutual defence and maintenance of the
reformed doctrines. Nor is it necessary to resort to any casuistry to
justify the adoption of such an engagement. Dr Cook justly remarks,
that the vindication of the Covenant is to be rested “upon this great
principle, that when the ends for which all government should be
instituted are defeated, the oppressed have a clear right to disregard
customary forms, and to assert the privileges without which they would
be condemned to the degradation and wretchedness of despotism.”[19]
That such was the predicament in which the Church and people of
Scotland were placed, by the reiterated proclamations and edicts issued
by the King and the Scots Privy Council for several years prior to
February 1838, and that these amounted to an unqualified assumption of
arbitrary and absolute power, paramount to the authority of Parliament,
and the sanctions of the ecclesiastical authorities established by
law, are points which do not admit of the slightest doubt; and no
alternative remained but that the nobles, clergy, and people of
Scotland, should combine, in the most constitutional manner that was
practicable, for maintaining the law, and for mutual defence, or tamely
submit their necks to the yoke which most assuredly would have been
permanently imposed on them by the base minions of a court, and an
unprincipled hierarchy. Whatever errors they subsequently committed,
and however much we may deplore the infatuation by which Charles was
misled in urging his Scottish subjects into such decisive measures,
no one who is versed in the elements of the British Constitution, or
imbued with the spirit of genuine freedom, can hesitate to admit that,
in adopting the Covenant, the people of Scotland were, at the time, not
only fully justified, but were imperatively constrained to do so by
every motive which can influence Christians, patriots, and brave men.
The most eminent lawyers of these times, too, declared their opinions
that there was nothing in the Covenant inconsistent with loyalty to a
constitutional sovereign; nor has anything ever yet appeared, whether
in the contemporary defences of the Court, or in the pages of more
recent historians and critics, to shake the soundness of that opinion.
Deviating from the practice of historians, who merely give an abstract
and brief statement of the contents of the Covenant, we deem it more
suitable and convenient, in a compilation like the present, to embody
in this Introductory Sketch the entire document, as it appears in the
authenticated records, and, therefore, have subjoined it, as deserving
of the reader’s attention, before proceeding to consider the events
which followed its adoption.
THE
=National Covenant;=
OR,
CONFESSION OF FAITH
OF THE
KIRK OF SCOTLAND.
“_The Confession of Faith, subscribed at first by the King’s Majesty
and his Houshold, in the yeere of God 1580; thereafter by Persons
of all rankes, in the yeere 1581, by ordinance of the Lords of the
Secret Councell, and Acts of the Generall Assembly; subscribed againe
by all sorts of persons in the yeere 1590, by a new Ordinance of
Councell, at the desire of the Generall Assembly, with a generall
Band for maintenance of the true Religion and the King’s person; and
now subscribed in the yeere 1638 by us, Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen,
Burgesses, Ministers, and Commons under subscribing, together with our
resolution and promises, for the causes after specified, to maintaine
the said true Religion, and the King’s Majestie, according to the
Confession foresaid, and Acts of Parliament. The tenor whereof here
followeth._
“Wee All and every one of us underwritten, Protest, That, after long
and due examination of our owne Consciences in matters of true and
false Religion, are now throughly resolved of the Truth, by the Word
and Spirit of God, and, therefore, we beleeve with our hearts, confesse
with our mouths, subscribe with our hands, and constantly affirm,
before God and the whole World, that this only is the true Christian
Faith and Religion, pleasing God, and bringing Salvation to man, which
now is, by the mercy of God, revealed to the world by the preaching of
the blessed Evangel.
“And received, beleeved, and defended by many and sundry notable Kirks
and Realmes, but chiefly by the _Kirk of Scotland, the King’s Majestie,
and the Three Estates of this Realme_, as God’s eternall Truth, and
onely ground of our salvation; as more particularly is expressed in the
Confession of our Faith, stablished and publikely confirmed by sundry
Acts of Parlaments, and now, of a long time, hath been openly professed
by the King’s Majestie, and whole body of this Realme, both in Burgh
and Land. To the which Confession and forme of Religion wee willingly
agree in our consciences in all points, as unto God’s undoubted Truth
and Verity, grounded onely upon his written Word. And, therefore, We
abhorre and detest all contrarie Religion and Doctrine; but chiefly all
kinde of Papistrie, in generall and particular heads, even as they
are now damned and confuted by the _Word of God and Kirk of Scotland_;
but, in speciall, we detest and refuse the usurped authoritie of that
Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civill
Magistrate, and Consciences of men; all his tyrannous lawes made upon
indifferent things against our Christian libertie; his erroneous
Doctrine against the sufficiencie of the written Word, the perfection
of the Law, the office of Christ and his blessed Evangel; his corrupted
Doctrine concerning originall sinne, our naturall inabilitie and
rebellion to God’s law, our justification by faith onely, our imperfect
sanctification and obedience to the law, the nature, number, and use
of the holy Sacraments; his five bastard Sacraments, with all his
Rites, Ceremonies, and false Doctrine, added to the ministration of the
true Sacraments without the word of God; his cruell judgement against
Infants departing without the sacrament; his absolute necessitie of
Baptisme; his blasphemous opinion of Transubstantiation, or real
presence of Christ’s body in the Elements, and receiving of the same
by the wicked, or bodies of men; his dispensations with solemn oaths,
perjuries, and degrees of Marriage forbidden in the Word; his crueltie
against the innocent divorced; his divellish Masse; his blasphemous
Priesthood; his profane Sacrifice for the sins of the dead and the
quick; his Canonization of men, calling upon Angels or Saints departed,
worshipping of Imagerie, Relicks, and Crosses, dedicating of Kirks,
Altars, Daies, Vowes to creatures; his Purgatorie, praiers for the
dead; praying or speaking in a strange language, with his Processions,
and blasphemous Letanie, and multitude of Advocates or Mediators; his
manifold Orders, Auricular Confession; his desperate and uncertain
repentance; his generall and doubtsome faith; his satisfactions of men
for their sins; his justification by works, _opus operatum_, works
of supererogation, Merits, Pardons, Peregrinations, and Stations;
his holy Water, baptizing of Bels, conjuring of spirits, crossing,
saning, anointing, conjuring, hallowing of God’s good creatures, with
the superstitious opinion joined therewith; his worldly Monarchy, and
wicked Hierarchie; his three solemne vowes, with all his shavelings of
sundry sorts; his erroneous and bloudie decrees made at Trent, with
all the subscribers and approvers of that cruell and bloudie Band
conjured against the Kirk of God; and, finally, we detest all his
vain Allegories, Rites, Signs, and Traditions brought in the Kirk,
without or against the Word of God, and Doctrine of this true reformed
Kirk; to the which we joyne our selves willingly, in Doctrine, Faith,
Religion, Discipline, and use of the Holy Sacraments, as lively members
of the same in Christ our Head: promising and swearing, by the GREAT
NAME OF THE LORD OUR GOD, that we shall continue in the obedience of
the Doctrine and Discipline of this Kirk, and shall defend the same,
according to our vocation and power, all the dayes of our lives, under
the paines contained in the Law, and danger both of body and soule in
the day of God’s fearfull Judgement; and seeing that many are stirred
up by Satan and that Romane Antichrist, to promise, sweare, subscribe,
and, for a time, use the Holy Sacraments in the Kirk deceitfully,
against their owne consciences, minding thereby, first, under the
externall cloake of Religion, to corrupt and subvert secretly God’s
true Religion within the Kirk, and afterward, when time may serve,
to become open enemies and persecutors of the same, under vaine hope
of the Pope’s dispensation, devised against the Word of God, to his
greater confusion, and their double condemnation in the day of the LORD
JESUS.