ostensible indication of a movement on the part of the Churchmen with
respect to the state of the form of Government, subsequently to the
time which we have adopted as the commencement of these collections,
yet several years sooner, there were various intimations of King
Charles’s views, and of the opposition they were likely to encounter.
Spottiswood had in 1624 sent a memorial to King James, recommending
the introduction of the English Church forms, canons, &c. This motion,
however, the King had not the courage to adopt. In April 1625, King
Charles wrote to Spottiswood that he was resolved to enforce all the
laws of the former reign, in reference to Church matters. In August
following, he issued a proclamation for the enforcement of the Perth
Articles. (Wodrow’s Life of Spottiswood, p. 12.) On 12th July 1626, he
gave instructions (Balfour, vol. ii., p. 142,) not to enforce these
articles against ministers who had been admitted prior to the Assembly
1618, and that such as had been ousted for nonconformity should be
reponed on conditions; but conformity was to be enforced on all who
had entered after the Perth Assembly. The bishops disliked this, and
clamoured for conformity. On 8th February and 3d May 1627, (Balfour,
vol. ii., p. 125, 126,) the King agreed to enforce it against Papists,
but rebuked the Prelates for want of charity to their brethren; and,
indeed, from a paper of Spottiswood on the state of the Church as
to conformity, it appears that the Perth Articles were in very rare
observance, and some of them not at all. In 1630 the King sent a letter
to Spottiswood, intimating that the whole order of the English Church
should be adopted in Scotland. In May 1631, the King sent orders for
a meeting of bishops and subservient ministers, to advise as to the
introduction of organs, surplices, a service book, and King James’s own
translation of Psalms. An organ, &c. were introduced into the Chapel
Royal; (Baillie’s M.S., p. 3, Row 272,) and considerable uneasiness
created by these innovations. And when the petition from the clergy
was presented to the King in 1633 at Dalkeith, the day before he
entered Edinburgh, the King answered Rothes sternly—“No more of this,
I command you!” From this it is evident that the King was inflexibly
bent on enforcing the Episcopalian formularies and rites. This is more
fully illustrated in the following documents, which are arranged in
chronological order from 1636 down to the end of the year 1638. _Vide_,
also, Aiton’s Life of Henderson, p. 125, _et sequen_, and authorities.
[26] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 224.
[27] Privy Council Record, from 1636 to 1639.
[28] Privy Council Record.
[29] Privy Council Record.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Privy Council Record.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Privy Council Record.
[34] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 227.
[35] Privy Council Record.
[36] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 229.
[37] Burnet, p. 31.
[38] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 232.
[39] Ibid, p. 233.
[40] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 236.
[41] Large Declaration, p. 33.
[42] Large Declaration, p. 38.
[43] Large Declaration, p. 41.
[44] Ibid, p. 42.
[45] Balfour, vol. ii, p. 237.
[46] Large Declaration, p. 46.
[47] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 240.
[48] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 249.
[49] There is on record a Declaration by the King as to the Service
Bookes, (f. 242,) 7 Dec. 1637; a proclamation against Convocations, (f.
246,) on 19 Feb. 1638; a Declaration anent the Service Booke, (f. 258,)
on 9 July; another, (f. 263,) 22 Sept. and act thereanent (f. 264,)
and for the King’s Confession, (f. 265,) with the general bond for
maintenance of the true religion, (f. 266.) An Act ordaining the lieges
to sign it, (f. 269,) 24 Sept. A Missive from the King to the Council,
for assisting the Commissioner at the Assemblie, (f. 271,) ult. Oct.
Warrant for sealing Commissioner’s Commission, (f. 273,) 13 Nov. Charge
against suche as goes to the Assemblie without Commission, (f. 274)
14 Nov. Missive for assisting the Commissioner at the Assemblie, (f.
275,) dated 8 Nov. Letter from the Councel to the King, (f. 275,) dated
from Glasgow, 28 Nov. Proclamation for dissolving the Assembly of same
date, (f. 276,) and a Proclamation anent the Assembly annulling the
acts done therein, dated at Halyrud-house, the 18 of Dec. (f. 278.) Of
these several Acts and Documents, the most material are inserted in the
present collection—and such as are omitted will be found on the record
of the dates, and in the folios of the original now indicated.
[50] Large Declaration, p. 48.
[51] Large Declaration, p. 50.
[52] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 258.
[53] Burnet, p. 36.
[54] Burnet, p. 37.
[55] Balfour, vol. ii, p. 252.
[56] Large Declaration, p. 88.
[57] Burnet, p. 39.
[58] Burnet, p. 41.
[59] Burnet, p. 43.
[60] Burnet, p. 45.
[61] Burnet, p. 46.
[62] _i.e._, The Covenant.
[63] Burnet, p. 50.
[64] Large Declaration, p. 77.
[65] Burnet, p. 55.
[66] Burnet, p. 56.
[67] Ibid, p. 58.
[68] Burnet, p. 59.
[69] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 266.
[70] Burnet, p. 60.
[71] Large Declaration, p. 96.
[72] Large Declaration, p. 98.
[73] Burnet, p. 61.
[74] Burnet, p. 62.
[75] Large Declaration, p. 91.
[76] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 275.
[77] Rothes’ Relation, p. 150.
[78] Rothes’ Relation, (App. Bannatyne Club Print,) Napier’s Montrose,
&c. p. 172.
[79] Burnet, p. 65.
[80] Large Declaration, p. 116.
[81] Large Declaration, p. 117.
[82] Large Declaration, p. 123.
[83] Burnet, p. 67.
[84] Burnet, p. 67.
[85] Ibid, p. 69.
[86] Burnet, p. 70.
[87] Burnet, p. 72.
[88] Burnet, p. 74.
[89] Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets.
[90] Large Declaration, p. 129.
[91] Burnet, p. 79.
[92] Large Declaration, p. 146.
[93] Large Declaration, p. 134.
[94] Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets.
[95] Large Declaration, p. 157.
[96] Large Declaration, p. 147.
[97] Burnet, p. 81.
[98] Large Declaration, p. 233.
[99] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 295.
[100] Large Declaration, p. 198.
[101] Large Declaration, p. 200.
[102] Ibid, p. 201.
[103] _Sic_ in copy.—_Ed._
[104] Burnet, p. 86.
[105] Burnet, p. 84.
[106] Burnet, p. 82.
[107] Ibid, p. 90.
[108] Large Declaration, p. 209.
[109] Large Declaration, p. 230.
[110] Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets.
[111] Burnet, p. 91.
[112] Burnet, p. 99.
[113] Ibid, p. 92.
[114] Burnet, p. 93.
[115] Ibid, p. 100.
[116] Burnet, p. 94.
[117] Appendix to an answer to the Protestation for Prelates, in Dr
M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets, certified by Archibald Jhonston, the
Clerk, compared with List in Stevenson’s History, and corrected by the
original Commissions. It appears from the original Commissions still
extant, and indorsed in the handwriting of Mr ARCHIBALD JHONSTON, the
Clerk, as “produced and approven 24 November 1638,” that three Elders
from Dumfriesshire, are omitted in this Roll—viz., John Kennedie of
Halleaths, bailie of Lochmaben, Walter Millar, clerk of Annan, and
William Grierson, bailie of Sanquhar. The number of Members whose
commissions were sustained, amounted at least to 140 Ministers and 100
Ruling Elders.
[118] Burnet, p. 96.
[119] Hardwicke’s State Papers, vol. ii., p. 113.
[120] Maxwell.
[121] Traquair.
[122] Roxburgh.
[123] Sir J. Hamilton.
[124] Sir Thomas Hope.
[125] Large Declaration, p. 265.
[126] Burnet, p. 101. See also annexed Report.
[127] See the Moderator’s Speech in annexed Report.
[128] Large Declaration, p. 290.
[129] Large Declaration, p. 294; and also in the Records of the Kirk,
certified by the Clerk.
[130] Hardwicke’s State Papers, vol. ii., p. 121.
[131] Burnet, p. 108.
[132] Burnet, p. 107.
[133] Burnet, p. 109.
[134] Dr M‘Crie’s Collection of Pamphlets, verified by certified copy
among the Records of the Church.
[135] Folio MS., f. 46. There is no date to this Letter in the copy
from which we transcribe; but it was probably written about the
time the Assembly 1638 dissolved itself on 20th December, when the
Supplication to the King from the Assembly was adopted, (_vide_ p.
41 of these Records.) Baillie, in his 11th Letter, dated September
28, 1639, gives the following account of the reception of that
Supplication; and it is interesting as an index to the state of
feeling on the part both of the King and Covenanters. It is stated in
the Folio MS., that the Supplication to the King was “sent up wᵗ Mr
George Winrahame,” who was probably, therefore, the bearer both of it
and of this Letter to Hamilton. Baillie says (vol. i. p. 150), “The
Supplication which we decreed in the Assembly of Glasgow to be sent
to the King, could hardly be got presented. However, many would have
ventured to have gone with it though their heads should have gone
therefor; yet understanding of the King’s wrath and the danger there
was, even in peaceable times, for any subject to play the ambassador,
or capitulate with the Prince when he did not call for or his council
did not send up, which by law and his declared will is appointed to
be his only informer in high points of state; also hearing oft words
from court of great spite against the very lives of most of our nobles,
gentry, and ministry, who were able to agent our business, it was
resolved that none of note or parts should go up, without greater
assurance of their return than could for that time be expected; and
withal, a gentleman of the Marquis of Hamilton’s acquaintance, Mr
George Winram, undertook, on all hazards, to deliver to the Marquis the
Supplication, and, upon his refusal, to give it to the King himself. He
was no worse than his word, as, indeed, some of our fair undertaking
statesmen thereafter did prove. He went to Court, shewed the Marquis
his errand. His Grace acquainted the King, who was pleased that it
should be received. His Grace took it, and on his knee read it to his
Majesty in the Council. The best answer it got was, ‘When they have
broken my head, they would put on my cowl.’”
[136] It will be observed that there is a discrepancy as to Sessions
and Dates during the earlier sederunts of the Assembly—the _third_
being entirely omitted in this Report or blended with the second, while
Baillie and the Clerk’s abstract give a different arrangement; but we
deem it our duty to adhere inflexibly to the text as it stands.—ED.
[137] This gentleman was son-in-law of the Bishop of Orkney.—ED.
[138] The Deposition of the Bishop of Brechin is omitted in the Glasgow
Folio MS., and is therefore supplied from Mr Laing’s Copy.
[139] “The Bishops’ Doom. A Sermon preached before the General Assembly
which sat at Glasgow anno 1638, on occasion of pronouncing the
Sentence of the greater Excommunication against eight of the Bishops,
and deposing or suspending the other six. By Mr Alexander Henderson,
moderator of that and several subsequent Assemblies. With a Postscript
on the present decay of church-discipline. Edinburgh: Printed by
John Gray and Gavin Alston. Sold by them at their printing-house in
Jackson’s close, and by W. Gray bookseller in the east corner of the
Exchange. MDCCLXII.
“_Advertisement._—It must be observed in justice to the venerable
author of the following sermon, that by the journal of the general
assembly 1638, he had only allowed him from the evening of the
preceding day to study that sermon. His thoughts, amidst such a
multiplicity of work as was then on his hand, behoved also to be much
perplexed; and his sermon, though subjoined at the end of that journal,
seems only to have been taken down in the time of delivery by an
amanuensis. Yet, mank as such a fragment is, it seems worthy of being
preserved; and the same will, it is hoped, prove useful not only for
vindicating the practice of that assembly, but also for stirring up
others to attempt a faithful discharge of the like duty, upon grounds
equally relevant, as necessary not only for reclaiming the impenitent,
but also as an indispensable testimony to the truth of our Lord’s
dominion over the Church.”
[140] Mr Stevenson, in his “History of the Church and State of
Scotland,” (1753, _et ann. sequen_,) after giving the closing speeches
of Henderson and Argyle, concludes his account of the Assembly,
1638, in these terms:—“The Assembly being thus happily concluded, Mr
Henderson said—_We have now cast down the walls of Jericho: let him
that rebuildeth them beware of the curse of Hiel the Bethelite._” As
Mr Stevenson does not state on what authority this is given, and as
it is not mentioned in any other work that we have chanced to see, we
merely add it in a note, (the expression being frequently referred to,)
without having before us any contemporary voucher for its accuracy.
[141] Although Lowdoun and Johnston, as we have seen (_vide_ their
Speeches, Report, p. 167), attempted to explain away the effect of
the several Acts of Parliament to which we refer, yet it is due to
the truth of history to say, that there is no mistaking the tenor
and effect of those Acts. By the 1st Act of King James VI., 18th
Parliament (9th July, 1606), the power and prerogative of the King are
declared “over all estates, persons, and causes whatsoever, within the
said Kingdom.” And by the very next Act (2d), he is declared to be
“Soveraigne Monarch, absolute Prince, Judge, and Governour over all
persons, estates, and causes, both _spiritual_ and _temporall_;” and,
further, the previous Acts by which Bishops had been ousted or denuded
of their titles, privileges, and benefices, are rescinded, and the
order “restored and redintegrated,” to all intents and purposes. Again,
in 1612 (23d Oct.), there is another Act, ratifying the ecclesiastical
arrangements made by the packed and bribed Assembly at Glasgow in
1610, which were out-and-out Episcopalian. Furthermore, there was an
Act, 26th June 1617, anent the election of Archbishops and Bishops;
and, finally, on the 4th of August 1621, there was another Act of
Parliament ratifying the 5 Articles of Perth, adopted by another packed
Assembly in August 1618. All these statutes, and the surreptitious and
corrupt Acts of Assemblies which they ratified, were doubtless infamous
encroachments on the liberties of the subject and the legitimate laws
of the Church; but still they were the law of the land, emanating
from the supreme authority of Parliament, and which Parliament
alone could rescind. Johnston (the Clerk of Assembly) said—“I know
certainlie that this office of Bishop was never established by any Act
of Parliament in Scotland;” and Lowdoun averred that “the Act 1612
does not ratifie that which is concludit in Glasgow Assembly which
now is condemned; that ground being taken away, the ratification also
falls.” Johnston’s statement is contradicted by the statute-book;
Lowdoun’s statement and his inference are equally contradicted, and
inconsistent with themselves; for, if the Act 1612 had not ratified
the Acts of the Assembly 1610, how could the condemnation of these by
the Assembly 1638, infer that the _ratification_ thereby fell? There
is reason to apprehend, that the Assembly of 1638 was mystified by
such statements—the Acts of Parliament and Assembly not being then, as
now, accessible to the community generally—and hence we may ascribe
some of the stretches of ecclesiastical authority at that Assembly, to
malinformation as well as to passion.
[142] Erskine’s Institutes, B. 4, tit. 1, § 17.
[143] Baillie, vol. i., p. 150.
[144] Acts, 19 and 20, 1639.
[145] Row, p. 340.
[146] Burnet, p. 111.
[147] Mem. Ch. of Scot., p. 188. Stevenson, p. 679.
[148] Burnet, p. 113; and Letter.
[149] Baillie, vol. i., p. 151. Rushworth’s Coll., vol. ii. p. 830.
[150] Baillie, vol. i., p. 152.
[151] Burnet, p. 115.
[152] Vide “Documents.”
[153] Balfour, vol. ii., p. 221-3. Baillie, vol. i., p. 158-9.
[154] Baillie, vol. ii, p. 160.
[155] See p. 81 and 83.
[156] Vane’s Letter, 4th June. Burnet, p. 139.
[157] Baillie, vol. i., p. 173.
[158] Vide Documents.
[159] Bishop Burnet, in allusion to this treaty, remarks on it, (p.
143,) that “some made another observation, though of less moment,
yet not _unpleasant_, upon Mr Henderson—that it was strange to see
a Churchman, who had acted so vigorously against Bishops for their
meddling in civil affairs, made a Commissioner for this treaty, and
sign a paper so _purely civil_.” In making this paltry observation,
the courtly prelate seems to have overlooked what he had recorded not
two pages before, that this was not a treaty “purely civil.” Its first
and leading condition related to religion, and pledged the King to
call a free General Assembly, in which all ecclesiastical matters were
to be settled, and afterwards to be ratified in Parliament. This was,
in fact, the foundation and essence of the treaty; and it was fitting
that the chosen representatives of the Church should be parties to so
important a treaty. This was very different, indeed, from being a “Lord
of Privy Council,” or a “member of the High Commission.”
[160] This petition and deliverance are given from the Register of
Privy Council, as the most authentic source. It varies in a few
particulars, as well as in the orthography, from the copy authenticated
and printed by the Clerk of Assembly—ED.
[161] Although several of these Acts are thus said to be “not printed”
in the official edition, several of them appear in that edition, and in
the foregoing reprint from it.—_Ed._
[162] Privy Council Record.
[163] Rushworth, vol. ii., p. 791.
[164] Ibid, p. 818.
[165] Heylyn’s Life of Laud, p. 359. We have not been able to find the
entire proclamation itself; but Heylyn’s account may be trusted as to
its character.
[166] Privy Council Record.
[167] Privy Council Record.
[168] Folio MS., f. 62.
[169] Folio MS., f. 68.
[170] Burnet, p. 118.
[171] Ibid, p. 119.
[172] Ibid, p. 119.
[173] Burnet, p. 120.
[174] Ibid, p. 121.
[175] Ibid, p. 121.
[176] Burnet, p. 123.
[177] Privy Council Record.
[178] Burnet, p. 122.
[179] Folio MS., f. 65.
[180] Burnet, p. 123.
[181] Burnet, p. 124.
[182] Edinburgh Town Council Record.
[183] Edinburgh Town Council Record.
[184] Burnet, p. 127.
[185] Folio MS., f. 66.
[186] Burnet, p. 125.
[187] Burnet, p. 126.
[188] Privy Council Record.
[189] Privy Council Record. There are other Acts of Council relative
to these matters—one on the 13th May, anent the fencing of Parliament
(which was called for the 15th), and adjournment thereof to the 23d of
July—and another on the 15th, in which it is recorded that the Lords
of the Covenant had refused passports to Sir Tho. Hope and Sir Ja.
Carmichael to go to the King; but these it is unnecessary to give. The
meeting of Parliament was afterwards prorogued from time to time till
November following.
[190] Folio MS., f. 67.
[191] Burnet, p. 136.
[192] Ibid, p. 129.
[193] Folio MS., f. 68.
[194] Burnet, p. 131.
[195] Folio MS., f. 67.
[196] Burnet, p. 131.
[197] Burnet, p. 130.
[198] Burnet, p. 135.—This letter refers to Aboyne and others.
[199] Folio MS., f. 69.
[200] Burnet, p. 133.
[201] Folio MS., f. 74.
[202] Ibid, f. 70.
[203] The name of the vessel whence this letter bears date, seems to
have suggested the following effusion in verse, which, if it do not
equal Thomas Campbell’s lines on the same theme, in poetical beauty,
has, at least, a priority in point of time to recommend it.
VERSES UPON THE RAINBOW.
_By Mr Patrick Hamilton, Minister of Cambuslang._
The Rainbow was to man a signe of peace: This doth portend much
blood—no sign of grace. God’s Rainbow stayed the floods—O, greatest
wonder! This threats to burn us all with fyrie thunder. What
greife!—that He was hop’t to grace our land, Should, to destroy it, in
his Rainbow stand! Lord, either make his Rainbow like to the, Or, under
Thyne, let us sure shaddowed be. Thyne reaches so long owre heaven,
air, earth, sea— This but a blast, and bounded is by The: Tyme rotts
the ane: Thyne doeth remain for ay, Proclaiming peace unto thy saints
alway. Man’s Rainbowe’s collor’s red, and full of fyre; Thine whyte,
blew, red—signes of thy quenched ire.
[204] Folio MS., f. 71.
[205] Folio MS., f. 69. This is an answer to a short and general but
very kindly letter from the Earl of Holland, dated 22d May.
[206] Folio MS., f. 68.
[207] Burnet, p. 137.
[208] Burnet, p. 133. Reported by Sir Henry Devick.
[209] Burnet, p. 138. Hamilton’s Letter, to which this is the answer,
suppressed by Burnet.
[210] Burnet, p. 139.—This letter affords sufficient evidence of the
King’s apprehensions as to the increasing power of the Covenanters,
which made him resolve “to keep himself on a defensive;” and it is
confirmed by the King’s postscript. And Burnet (p. 140) tell us that
Hamilton had warned his Majesty in the Gallery of Whitehall, “that few
of the English would engage in an offensive war with Scotland.” This
_apologist_ of Hamilton states farther that, on reaching the English
camp early in June, “the Marquis did shew the King that, while the
fire-edge was upon the Scotish spirits, it would not prove an easie
task to tame them, but would be a work of some years, and cost much
money and many men: he therefore desired the King would consider if it
were not fit to consent to the abolishing of Episcopacy and giving way
to their Covenant _till better times;_ and that, as the chief leaders
had entered upon that course, being provoked by some irritations and
neglects they had met with, so it might be fit to regain them by
_cajolery_ and _other favours_. And to persuade the King to this course
was easier, that both his reason and his affection to his subjects
did co-operate with it—a great strengthening coming to it by my Lord
Canterbury’s opinion, who saw a pacification absolutely necessary for
the King’s service, and did advise it.” And Hamilton got a warrant
under the King’s hand, to “deal with” the Scotch leaders in the way
thus suggested. It was at this time that Montrose was induced, by what
motives still remains unexplained, to forsake the Covenant and join the
King’s party; and previously to the treaty, Home, Buccleugh, and some
others also forsook the national banner.
It is curious to contrast these disclosures of the real state of facts
at the time referred to, with a piece of gasconade in Heylyn’s Life
of Laud, (p. 365,) which, in its leading points, is contradicted by
letters under the King’s hand to Hamilton. “These preparations (for
negotiation, says this Doctor of divinity) being made, they fand an
easier business of it than they had any reason to expect, to bring
his Majesty to meet them in the middle way. _It was not his intent to
fight them_, as I have heard from a person of great trust and honour;
but only by the terrour of so great an army to draw the Scots to do
him reason. And this I am the more apt to credit, because when a Noble
and well experienced commander offered him (then being in camp near
Berwick) that with _two thousand horse_, (which the King might very
well have spared,) he would so waste and spoil the country, that the
Scots should creep upon their bellies to implore his mercy,—he would by
no means hearken to the proposition.”
[211] Folio MS., f. 73.
[212] Folio MS., f. 74-75.—The looseness of Burnet and others who
treat of this pacification, and the lack of dates to several of the
documents, referable to the period of the negotiations, is apt to
create uncertainty and indistinctness as to the several steps and
stages in its progress; and it is somewhat difficult to fix the precise
days on which some of the notes, &c. were written and communicated.
Minute exactness in this respect is perhaps now but of small
importance, (though historical truth depends much on chronological
accuracy;) but attention to the following particulars enables us, with
considerable certainty, to assign to the several documents their proper
place.
The repulse of the King’s troops at Kelso took place on the 3d of
June; and in the interval betwixt that day and the 7th, the Earl of
Dunfermline was despatched from the Scotch to the King’s camp, with
renewed supplications for opening negotiations. On the 7th, Sir E.
Verney brought a message from the King, requiring his proclamation to
be published; and it was read at General Leslie’s table on the 7th,
when, accompanied by Dunfermline, Verney returned to the King’s camp
with a favourable report. On the 8th, the King agreed to negotiate, and
wrote a letter to that effect. On the 10th, (Burnet says the 11th,) the
first meeting took place, and three more afterwards—viz., on the 12th,
15th and 18th—at the last of which the King’s Declaration was adjusted,
and the articles of pacification agreed to.—Vide Baillie, vol. i. p.
179-183.
[213] Folio MS., f. 75.
[214] Folio MS., f. 75.
[215] Folio MS., f. 75.
[216] Folio MS., f. 75.
[217] Burnet, p. 141.
[218] Folio MS., f. 78, and Burnet, p. 143.
[219] Folio MS., f. 79.
[220] Folio MS., f. 78. The correctness of this narrative of what
passed at the negociations was afterwards impugned by Charles, and it
was burnt in London by the hands of the hangman.
[221] Privy Council Record.
[222] Folio, MS., f. 79.
[223] Burnet, p. 144.