a meeting at such a worke sein in Christendome. 2, So powerfull
assistance, both of the spirit of our God for which we glorified him,
and of these worthie nobles and uthers heir present, on whom we wish
all earthlie blessings—blessings heir, and eternall happinesse in the
lyfe to come. 3, For our harmonie; there was never such a harmonie;
that, all in ane voit, we have rejected and condemned that Service
Booke—a booke of slaverie and servitude indeed—that superstitious
Booke of Ordination, and that Booke of Canons, which was a bulwarke
and defence for all the rest. 4, For the happie conclusion, we have
great reason to thanke God that these bookes are now condemned. The
5 Articles that rent our Church are now condemned; Episcopacie now
abjured, and all uther matters introductorie to Popperie—the Lord hes
fried us from them; for which I say we have great reason to thank
God. Now let us not sing a requiem to ourselves, nor yet be insolent
in our carriage, but behave ourselves wiselie and prudentlie towards
our superiours; and, though the Bishops be cast out, let us not be
cairelesse of auctoritie, but let our carriage be modest and our speach
seasoned with grace. 3, Let us be vigilant and not secure; for, a great
and good worke such as this is, it was never brought to ane end without
opposition. 4, Let us be courageous in the strenth of our God; and,
lastlie, thankfull to his great name for that wonderfull unanimitie
that hes beine amongst us, and happie conclusion that God hes granted
unto us.
The Moderatour said—Truelie it becomes us not to be insolent; for
the Lord hes bein pleased so to dispose of us as we have not caus to
be wantoun, for if, as we had divine auctoritie to warrand us, so we
had humane, I feir it should be hard for us to keip ourselves within
bounds. But the Lord, knowing our weaknes, keipes us in this temper;
and if we cary ourselfes worthlie of that God hes bestowed upon us, who
knowes but he will graceouslie grant us all our desyres, and turn the
countenance of our King toward this Kirk? There rests ane circumstance
which I should have remembered. I am assured it will be acceptable to
this Assembly, that some of these Noblemen who hes bein ane ornament to
this Assembly should speake ane word before it dissolve, especiallie
my noble Lord Argyle, whom we could have wished, if it had pleased his
Lordship, to have come in sooner: but the Lord hes reserved him for the
fittest tyme, and I trust the Lord shall honour him with all blessings,
both heir and heirefter.
My Lord Argyle said—Since it pleases you, Moderatour, to name my
name, yow give me occasion to thanke yow for putting so favourable a
construction upon my cariage, whereas ye wishe me that I had come in
sooner. Truelie, I tell yow it was not want of affection to the good
of religion and my countrie, and I desyre that favourable construction
of yow still, that my intention was to have done more good wherein I
was not inlaiking before; and, when I saw I could be no more usefull,
except I had bein a knave, I thought good to doe as I have done.
Ane thing I would remember yow of who hath bein purging the Kirk of
evill instruments, that ye would labour to learn a lesson upon their
expenses: _felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum._ I remember,
upon ane occasion, I told some of them to their face, that there was
two faults which had brought meikle evill in this Church—to witt,
pride and avarice, which I cannot deny but to be grievous faults in
any man, but especially in Churchmen. But I hope everie man shall
walke by the square and rule which is now before him—keeping duetie
first to superiors; secondly, to equalls; and, thirdlie to inferiours.
For superiours, their needs nothing to be farder said nor hes bein
alreadie by the Moderatour. Only this; let us all labour, since we are
fried of many yockes of bondage, not to abuse our Christian libertie,
which may make our profession to be evil spoken of. Secondlie, for our
duetie to our equals—there is a caus much spoken of in this Church,
betwixt ruleing elders and ministers. Some ministers feares that it be
a corbing of them; but, if any of these elders stryve to make use of
that power for any end but for the good of the Kirk, they may be sure
of their oune judgment. Truelie, it may be, that some ruleing elders in
some places be not so wise as neid wer; but let not that, if it fall
out, breid a distemper in the peace of this Church; but let unitie be
all our rules; and, if anything of this kind fall out in Presbytries
or Parochines, let neighbour Presbytries and Parochines joyne togither
for settling thereof, that no dissension be of this kind, for it may
doe much evill. Thirdlie, for inferiors—I hope ministers will studie
to know their duetie towards their flocke and people; lykewayes, will
have due regaird to these whom God hes sett over them; for we must not
thinke that becaus we want Bishops, therefore we may live as we will.
And, if this we doe, though our gracious Master doe not everie thing at
first as we would wishe, yet tyme may worke many things, if we goe on
constantlie in the defence of our religion and of the auctoritie of our
gracious Soveraigne, whom, we pray, may long and prosperouslie reigne
over us.
After that the Moderatour had given thankes to my Lord Argyle for his
speach, and craved pardon of his Lordship for expressing his name, he
said—As for that which my Lord hes beine wiselie speaking, concerning
our duetie to the Kings Majestie, we have good reason to advert unto
it; for this reason, addit to many—becaus our adversaries gave it out
as a calumnie against us, that his government which we are about,
established by Christ in this Church, cannot stand with monarchicall
government, but Episcopall only; but let us resolve to give a proofe of
the contrare—that the government which Christ hes appoynted, may weill
stand with monarchicall government; and, we trust, that we are not to
be suspected of our loyaltie toward his Majestie; and this certainlie
will make his Majestie perceave that we have done nothing but what
we have done moved by God, and drawen be necessitie to doe. And for
this end let us—to conclude this great worke—beseech Him who hes the
hearts of Kings in his hands, to inclyne our Kings heart, and let us
magnifie, from our hearts, our graceous Lord for this peaceable meeting
and happie conclusion we have had; for the which we are oblissed all
the dayes of our life to be thankfull to our God and King, and to
rander unto the Father, Soune, and blissed Spirit of Grace, all praise,
endless honour, and glorie, for now and ever.—AMEN.[140]
FINIS.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AT EDINBURGH, 1639.
Before proceeding with a detail of the Acts and discussions of the
Assembly of 1639, it is fitting, in conformity with the general plan of
this work, to state briefly the occurrences which resulted from that
of the preceding year—events, the character of which must, in some
measure, have been anticipated in the perusal of the numerous documents
which we have already concentrated in the foregoing pages.
It is evident, from many indications in the correspondence and
public documents of the period, that, from the first movements of
the Covenanters against the Service Book and Prelacy, both the King
and the Scotch Leaders contemplated the contingency of an appeal to
arms, although both parties disguised, as much as possible, their
mutual anticipations and arrangements. The rupture which ensued
on the Commissioner’s dissolution of the Assembly on the 29th of
November 1638; the continuance of the Assembly in defiance of the
King’s authority, (apart altogether from the nature of its subsequent
proceedings;) and the proclamations by Hamilton, after his retirement
from the Assembly—in which all who continued in it were denounced as
liable to the penalties of treason—amounted, in substance and effect,
to a declaration of war, on the part of Charles, against the great body
of his Scottish subjects, as rebels. Nor, in the circumstances, could
aught else be expected; for, with the Sovereign’s notions of the royal
prerogative, and influenced by the spirit disclosed in all his letters
and instructions to the Commissioner, nothing, save consciousness of
utter want of power, was likely to deter him from enforcing full and
unlimited authority over all his subjects; while, on the other hand,
the bold, numerous, and influential representatives of national feeling
that composed the Glasgow Assembly of 1638, must have been prepared,
from the first hour of its meeting, to raise the standard of revolt in
the field, unless the objects at which they aimed with such intense
enthusiasm, were otherwise attained. In fact, even before the meeting
of that Assembly, both the King and the Covenanters had secretly
prepared for a conflict; and, after its dissolution, and the scornful
rejection of its supplication for a sanction to its Acts, the exertions
of both parties were commensurate to their means and their relative
positions.
The chief Acts of the Assembly of 1638—some of which have been made
subjects of controversy—were, 1st, The election of their Moderator
and Clerk, and their constituting the Court before receiving the
Declinature tendered by the Prelates; 2d, The Acts approving of the
Registers; 3d, The continuing to sit after the Commissioner ordered
it to dissolve; 4th, The Act condemning the spurious Assemblies
from 1606 to 1618, inclusive; 5th, The Act condemning the Service
Book, and other Books forced on the country and Church, by the royal
prerogative, without the sanction of Parliament or of the Church;
6th, The deposition and excommunication of the Prelates and others;
7th, The prohibition, by its own authority, of Episcopacy and the
practice of the Five Articles of Perth, under the pains of censure and
excommunication; 8th, The Act against the Press.
Of these, the first five, and some other relative Acts, reviving former
laws of the Church, appear to be quite unexceptionable, and fully
within the competency of a free General Assembly, according to the
laws of the land, and the consuetudes of the Reformed Church, from the
time of the Reformation; and these were all Acts, legitimately within
the range of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. We know not on
what ground it can be contended that it was bound to dissolve itself
on the mandate of the King or his Commissioner. It was confessedly
convened by the royal proclamation; but we know of no authority by
which the executive power was at that time warranted to dissolve a
General Assembly, by its mere _fiat_, after being so assembled, upon an
anticipation that it was about to act _ultra vires_ and illegally.
The 6th, 7th, and 8th classes of Acts to which we have alluded, were
of a different character, and imported an assumption of civil power
and jurisdiction. Had that Assembly, upon the points referred to,
confined itself to an expression of opinion in the first instance,
or taken cognizance only, and in an orderly manner, of the moral and
ministerial delinquencies of the prelates and ministers, there does not
appear to be any good ground for challenging its procedure; and, having
exhausted its proper spiritual jurisdiction, it could then have applied
to the supreme legislature for a ratification of its ecclesiastical
conclusions, and thus avoided the rock on which it split, and, for many
“evil days,” made shipwreck of the genuine and legitimate Presbyterian
Church of Scotland.
It would be disingenuous, as well as absurd, to disguise the fact,
that several of the Acts of the Assembly of 1638 were violations of,
and irreconcilable with, the existing law of the land, and imported
an assumption of authority identical with that of the State. In fact,
that Assembly was a Political Convention, as much, at least, as an
Ecclesiastical Synod—having fully a hundred Members of Parliament
in its composition; and, in many of its enactments and decrees, it
directly rescinded and superseded a great number of Acts of Parliament.
Without entering at all on controversial ground, we may remark, as a
matter of fact and of notoriety, established on the face of the Statute
Book, and by the tenor of the Assembly’s Acts, that that Assembly,
virtually and explicitly, abrogated a series of Acts of Parliament,
by which Prelacy was fully and distinctly settled as the Established
Church of Scotland, for a period of above thirty years preceding, under
which the greater number of the Clergy in that Assembly had received
ordination and benefices, and in which the lay members had acquiesced
without any visible opposition.[141] In addition to the assumption
of civil authority, in practically repealing Acts of Parliament, the
Assembly sustained Complaints against the Prelates and others, at the
instance of miscellaneous and self-constituted public prosecutors—a
practice never recognised as competent in the law of Scotland at
any period.[142] It deposed the Prelates, not solely for erroneous
doctrine or immoralities, which was quite competent to the spiritual
jurisdiction of the Assembly, but chiefly because they held offices
conferred on them under the existing law of the country. It superseded
the uniform and settled law, both of the Church and State, from the
time of the Reformation, on the point of ecclesiastical presentations
to benefices, and transported ministers from place to place,
regardless of the rights of patrons and the wishes of incumbents. It
imposed an absolute veto on the liberty of the press; and, above all,
it issued an edict for coercing the whole people into an adoption of
the Covenant or Confession, and, in obedience to its decrees, under
the terrors of excommunication, (a penalty which, at that time, was
tantamount to outlawry, confiscation of property, and proscription,)
in each and all of these particulars deviating from the spiritual into
the civil track of jurisprudence and legislation. Of this, indeed, that
sagacious and gifted man, Henderson, the Moderator, was fully aware;
for he says explicitly—“Neither can we thinke ourselves secure in peace
and quyetness, _till civill auctoritie ratifie what is heir done by
ecclesiasticall constitution._”
One of the most unaccountable characteristics of the Reformation in
this country, is the intolerance and coercive courses adopted by the
Protestants, from their Popish predecessors, for compelling uniformity
to the new doctrines and worship. This appears to be inconsistent,
and indeed irreconcilable with the great first principle of the
Reformation—the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and
in interpreting the Scriptures according to the conclusions of that
judgment. It was the assertion of this right which shook the Papal
domination; and nothing contributed more largely to the overthrow
of Popery in Scotland, than the civil persecutions which ushered
in the dawn of the Reformation, and which excited the sympathy and
indignation of the people; yet no sooner were our first Reformers
disenthralled from that bloody yoke, than they resorted to similar
methods of compelling assent to their principles, and obedience to the
authority of the Kirk. From 1449, in the reign of James II., “cursing”
or “excommunication” by the Church, both Catholic and Protestant,
for nonconformity or other kindred offences, inferred imprisonment
and forfeiture of property in the recusant; and the unhappy victim
of ecclesiastical censure was doomed to exclusion from society and
all its charities, to destitution, to imprisonment, to exile from his
native country, and even to death. Self-preservation may, perhaps, have
prompted this course at first, when the Reformers were struggling to
secure that religious liberty which was the great object of their zeal;
and “The Booke of the Universall Kirk” affords numberless examples
of the eagerness betrayed for constraining, by civil penalties, all
persons to _profess_ the reformed doctrine, and submit themselves
to ecclesiastical authority. During the space of 140 years after,
the spirit of intolerance continued to govern every party that was
dominant for the time; in the reigns of Mary, James VI., and his son
Charles, and his grandsons Charles II. and James VII. The triumph of
the Covenanters was not more distinguished than any other portion
of the period referred to, for greater relaxation in this respect,
than either the Popish or Episcopal Churches; and, during all the
vicissitudes of their fortune, as already in some measure disclosed,
and to be further illustrated, we cannot find even a trace of any
proposal to give freedom of conscience to others, even when they were
waging war against Popery and Prelacy in the name of religious liberty.
This strikes us as an anomaly in the moral history of our country, of
which we have never seen any satisfactory solution; but the rigorous
enforcement of the Covenant and submission to the Presbyterian Kirk,
and the excommunications, which were directed against the Prelates and
others at the time to which our attention is more immediately directed,
perhaps paved the way, in some degree, as a precedent, for the
interdicts, intercommunings, and diversified persecutions, which have
rendered the reigns of the two last monarchs of the Stuart dynasty,
a byword and a reproach to the land in which these horrors were
perpetrated. It was not till the year 1690 that the civil penalties on
religious nonconformity were blotted from our statute-book, after the
settlement of William and Mary on the throne of Britain.
Greatly as we admire the talents, the courage, and the piety of many
individuals in the Assembly of 1638, we do not deem it necessary to
canonize their errors, or to ascribe a sort of plenary inspiration to
all their proceedings. That in their great objects, they were right,
and that much good resulted from their stern and intrepid course,
we most willingly admit; but (if we may be permitted to express any
opinion of our own) we should say, that the true and only justification
of some Acts, which were _ultra vires_ of a church assembly, is, that
in fact they were partly a political as well as an ecclesiastical body,
_constrained, by the necessity of the case_, to resist and to resent
the assumption of arbitrary power, which by its stretches had virtually
broken up the fabric of society in Scotland, and reduced it nearly
to its primary elements. The Covenanters had but too much reason to
apprehend that their civil as well as their religious liberties were
in the utmost jeopardy; and, therefore, it is by no means surprising
if, in the tumult of emotions by which the nation was at that time
convulsed, they in some points passed beyond the strict line of
demarcation which separates the spiritual from the civil authorities in
peaceful and well-ordered states—_Inter arma silent leges._
Such was the position of the parties—the King and the Kingdom of
Scotland—in the beginning of the year 1639, after the Assembly of 1638
had terminated its labours.
Immediately after the dissolution of the Assembly, the several
Commissions which it had appointed proceeded to “purge out” all
persons who, either by adherence to Prelacy, or for other causes, were
obnoxious to the now ruling power: and Baillie informs us that “many
ministers who remained obstinate in scandals were deposed at Edinʳ,
St Andrews, Dundee, Irvine, and elsewhere.”[143] We learn, however,
from the Acts of 1639 that these depositions were to be relaxed,
(except in the case of gross faults,) upon submission to the new order
of things.[144] The members of the late Assembly, according to its
injunctions, had made known to their several parishes the nature of
its proceedings; but at Aberdeen, where there was a stiff opposition
to its authority, Dr Guild was deterred from doing so; and Lundie,
the Commissioner from King’s College, was summoned before the Senatus
Academicus, and threatened with deprivation for having continued in the
Assembly after it was dissolved by the Commissioner.[145]
But the attention of the Covenanters was called from such matters
to others of more serious importance. Hamilton had, on the 17th of
December preceding, put forth a full proclamation, containing his
reasons for dissolving the Assembly. His health had suffered much
from mental anxiety and the exertions which he had been called on to
make; and it was not until the 28th of that month that he proceeded
on his journey to London.[146] Previously to his final departure from
Scotland, however, the chiefs of the Covenanters waited on him, to
solicit his good offices at Court; but we are told that he replied to
them—“You must not think to use your Kings now as you did formerly,
when they were only Kings of rebels: the King has now _another_ royal
and warlike nation at his command, and you shall soon feel it to your
cost.”[147] Hamilton reached Whitehall on the 5th of January, when he
found the King highly exasperated, and resolved, by force of arms, to
subdue his obstreperous subjects, the Covenanters of Scotland.
The plan of operations designed for carrying this object into effect
was, that an English army of 30,000 horse and foot, under the
immediate command of Charles, should invade Scotland on the eastern
borders—that Carlisle and Berwick should be strongly garrisoned—that
5000 men should be landed in the north, to co-operate with Huntly and
his followers—that the Earl of Antrim should land in Argyleshire—that
Strafford, with such forces as he could withdraw from Ireland, should
enter the Clyde—that another fleet should enter the Forth, and scour
the eastern coast—and thus, by a simultaneous attack on all sides,
distract and overwhelm the Covenanters. And had this well-devised plan
of operations been fully and promptly carried into effect, there can
be but little doubt that it would have been attended with at least
temporary success.
The King, though hampered by increasing discontents among his English
subjects, and weakened by many errors in policy, both foreign and
domestic, roused “the might of England.” He had effected a saving of
£200,000 in his Exchequer; he obtained loans from the Episcopal Clergy
of England, and from the Papists by means of the Queen and the priests;
he had ample stores of arms, and a formidable train of artillery; and
he summoned the English nobility to assemble, with their followers, at
York, on the 1st of April.[148]
Of these designs on the part of the King, the Covenanters did not long
remain ignorant; and, indeed, they had anticipated them so far that
they had previously procured arms and munitions secretly from the
Continent, and had secured the services of Alexander Lesly, and other
veteran soldiers, trained to war in the army of the celebrated Gustavus
Adolphus, King of Sweden. The King’s summons to the English nobility
was promulgated on the 26th of January, and the ground on which it
proceeded was a statement that the Scotch intended to invade England.
Even before this public document appeared, the Covenanters were made
aware of the King’s hostile intentions, from the circumstance of all
Scotchmen at Court being required upon oath to renounce the Assembly,
and to promise assistance when required against the Covenanters. Being
anxious to propitiate the good opinion of the English people, and
thereby to weaken the King’s hands, they had circulated extensively “a
printed sheet or two” of information to the people of England, “for
vindicating their intentions and actions from the unjust calumnies of
their enemies.” It was dated 4th February, and, on the 27th of that
month, Charles issued “A proclamation and declaration to inform the
kingdom of England of the seditious practices of some in Scotland,
seeking to overthrow his regal power under the false pretence of
religion.”[149]