Records of the Kirk of Scotland / containing the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies from 1638 downwards, as authenticated by the clerks of assembly.

by Church of Scotland. General Assembly

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of her Acts and Proceedings, at and subsequent to the era of her second Reformation; and, combined therewith, such historical documents and sketches as are calculated to preserve the memory of an important, and, ultimately, beneficial revolution in Scotland.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.

“We, therefore, willing to take away all suspition of hypocrisie, and of such double dealing with God and his Kirk, Protest, and call The Searcher of all Hearts for witnesse, that our minds and hearts do fully agree with this our Confession, Promise, Oath, and Subscription, so that we are not moved for any worldly respect, but are perswaded onely in our Consciences, through the knowledge and love of God’s true Religion, printed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, as we shall answer to Him in the day when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed; and because we perceive, that the quietnesse and stability of our Religion and Kirk doth depend upon the safety and good behaviour of the King’s Majestie, as upon a comfortable instrument of God’s mercy granted to this Country, for the maintaining of his Kirk, and ministration of Justice amongst us; we protest and promise with our hearts, under the same Oath, Hand-writ, and paines, that we shall defend his Person and Authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ his Evangel, Liberties of our Countrey, ministration of Justice, and punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within this Realme or without, as we desire our God to be a strong and mercifull Defender to us in the day of our death, and comming of our LORD JESUS CHRIST; to whom, with the Father, and the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glorie eternally.

“Like as many Acts of Parlament, not onely in generall doe abrogate, annull, and rescind all Lawes, Statutes, Acts, Constitutions, Canons, civill or Municipall, with all other Ordinances, and practicke penalties whatsoever, made in prejudice of the true Religion, and Professours thereof; or of the true Kirk discipline, jurisdiction, and freedome thereof; or in favours of Idolatrie and Superstition, or of the Papisticall Kirk: As Act 3, Act 31, Parl. 1, Act 23, Parl. 11, Act 114, Parl. 12. of King James the Sixt. That Papistrie and Superstition may be utterly suppressed, according to the intention of the Acts of Parlament, reported in Act 5, Parl. 20, K. James 6. And, to that end, they ordaine all Papists and Priests to be punished by manifold Civill and Ecclesiasticall paines, as adversaries to God’s true Religion, preached and by law established within this Realme, Act 24, Parl. 11, K. James 6, as common enemies to all Christian government, Act 18, Parl. 16, K. James 6, as rebellers and gainstanders of our Soveraigne Lord’s authoritie, Act 47, Parl. 3, K. James 6, and as Idolaters, Act 104, Parl. 7, K. James 6; but also in particular, (by and attour the Confession of Faith,) do abolish and condemne the Pope’s authoritie and jurisdiction out of this land, and ordaines the maintainers thereof to be punished, Act 2, Parl. 1, Act 51, Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 114, Parl. 12, K. James 6, doe condemne the Pope’s erroneous doctrine, or any other erroneous doctrine repugnant to any of the Articles of the true and Christian Religion, publikely preached, and by Law established in this Realme; and ordaines the spreaders and makers of Books or Libels, or Letters, or writs of that nature, to be punished, Act 46, Parl. 3, Act 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, K. James 6, doe condemne all Baptisme conform to the Pope’s kirk, and the idolatry of the Masse; and ordaines all sayers, wilfull hearers, and concealers of the Masse, the maintainers and resetters of the Priests, Jesuits, traffiquing Papists, to be punished without any exception or restriction, Act 5, Parl. 1, Act 120, Parl. 12, Act 164, Parl. 13, Act 193, Parl. 14, Act 1, Parl. 19, Act 5, Parl. 20, K. James 6, doe condemne all erroneous books and writs containing erroneous doctrine against the Religion presently professed, or containing superstitious Rites and Ceremonies Papisticall, whereby the people are greatly abused, and ordaines the home-bringers of them to be punished, Act 25, Parl. 11, K. James 6, doe condemne the monuments and dregs of bygane Idolatrie, as going to Crosses, observing the Festivall dayes of Saincts, and such other superstitious and Papisticall Rites, to the dishonour of God, contempt of true Religion, and fostering of great errour among the people, and ordaines the users of them to be punished for the second fault, as Idolaters, Act 104, Parl. 7, K. James 6.

“Like as many Acts of Parlament are conceived for maintenance of God’s true and Christian Religion, and the puritie thereof in Doctrine and Sacraments of the true Church of God, the libertie and freedome thereof, in her Nationall Synodall Assemblies, Presbyteries, Sessions, Policie, Discipline, and Jurisdiction thereof, as that puritie of Religion, and libertie of the Church was used, professed, exercised, preached, and confessed, according to the reformation of Religion in this realme: As, for instance, Act 99, Parl. 7, Act 23, Parl. 11, Act 114, Parl. 12, Act 160, Parl. 13, K. James 6, ratified by Act 4, K. Charles. So that Act 6, Parl. 1, and Act 68, Parl 6 of K. James 6, in the yeare of God 1579, declares the Ministers of the blessed Evangel, whom God, of his mercie, had raised up, or hereafter should raise, agreeing with them that then lived in Doctrine and administration of the Sacraments, and the people that professed Christ, as he was then offered in the Evangel, and doth communicate with the holy Sacraments, (as in the Reformed kirkes of this Realme they were presently administrate,) according to the Confession of Faith, to be the true and holy kirk of Christ Jesus within this Realme, and discernes and declares all and sundrie, who either gainsayes the Word of the Evangel, received and approved as the heads of the Confession of Faith, professed in Parlament in the yeare of God 1560; specified also in the first Parlament of K. James 6, and ratified in this present Parlament, more particularly do specifie; or that refuses the administration of the holy Sacraments, as they were then ministrated, to be no members of the said kirk within this Realme, and true Religion presently professed, so long as they keepe themselves so divided from the societie of Christ’s bodie: And the subsequent Act 69, Parl. 6, K. James 6, declares, That there is no other face of Kirke, nor other face of Religion, then was presently at that time, by the favour of God, established within this Realme, which, therefore, is ever stiled God’s true Religion, Christ’s true Religion, the true and Christian Religion, and a perfect Religion. Which, by manifold Acts of Parlament, all within this Realme, are bound to professe to subscribe the articles thereof, the Confession of Faith, to recant all doctrine and errours repugnant to any of the said Articles, Act 4 and 9, Parl. 1, Act 45, 46, 47, Parl. 3, Act 71, Parl. 6, Act. 106, Parl. 7, Act 24, Parl. 11, Act 123, Parl. 12, Act 194 and 197, Parl. 14, of K. James 6. And all Magistrates, Sheriffes, &c., on the one part, are ordained to search, apprehend, and punish all contraveeners; for instance, Act 5, Parl. 1, Act 104, Parl. 7, Act 25, Parl. 11, K. James 6. And that, notwithstanding of the King’s Majestie’s licences on the contrary, which are discharged and declared to be of no force, in so farre as they tend in any wayes to the prejudice and hinder of the execution of the Acts of Parlament against Papists and adversaries of true Religion, Act 106, parl. 7, K. James 6; on the other part, in the 47 Act, Parl. 3, K. James 6, it is declared and ordained, seeing the cause of God’s true Religion and his Highnesse Authority are so joyned, as the hurt of the one is common to both; and that none shall be reputed as loyall and faithfull subjects to our Sovereigns Lord, or his Authority; but be punishable as rebellers and gainstanders of the same, who shall not give their Confession, and make their profession of the said true Religion; and that they who, after defection, shall give the Confession of their faith of new, they shall promise to continue therein in time comming, to maintaine our Soveraigne Lord’s Authoritie, and at the uttermost of their power to fortifie, assist, and maintaine the true Preachers and Professours of Christ’s Religion, against whatsoever enemies and gainstanders of the same: and, namely, against all such of whatsoever nation, estate, or degree they be of, that have joyned and bound themselves, or have assisted, or assists, to set forward and execute the cruell decrees of Trent, contrary to the Preachers and true Professours of the Word of God, which is repeated word by word in the Articles of Pacification at Pearth, the 23d of February 1572, approved by Parlament the last of Aprill 1573, ratified in Parlament 1578, and related, Act 123, Parl. 12 of K. James 6, with this addition, That they are bound to resist all treasonable uproares and hostilities raised against the true Religion, the King’s Majestie, and the true Professours.

“Like as all lieges are bound to maintain the K. Majestie’s Royal Person and authority, the authority of Parlaments, without the which neither any laws or lawful judicatories can be established, Act 130, Act 131, Par. 8, K. Ja. 6, and the subjects’ liberties, who ought only to live and be governed by the King’s lawes, the common lawes of this Realme allanerly, Act 48, Parl. 3, K. James 1, Act 79, Parl. 6, K. James 4, repeated in Act 131, Parl. 8, K. James 6; which, if they be innovated or prejudged, the Commission anent the union of the two Kingdomes of Scotland and England, which is the sole Act of the 17 Parl. of K. James 6, declares such confusion would ensue, as this Realme could be no more a free Monarchie, because by the fundamentall lawes, ancient priviledges, offices, and liberties of this kingdome, not onely the Princely authoritie of his Majestie’s royal discent hath bin these manie ages maintained, but also the people’s securitie of their lands, livings, rights, offices, liberties and dignities preserved; and, therefore, for the preservation of the said true Religion, Lawes, and Liberties of this kingdome, it is statute by Act 6, Parl. 1, repeated in Act 99, Parl. 7, ratified in Act 23, Parl. 11, and 114 Act of K. James 6, and 4 Act of K. Charles, That all Kings and Princes at their Coronation and reception of their princely authoritie, shall make their faithfull promise by their solemn oath in the presence of the eternall God, that enduring the whole time of their lives, they shall serve the same eternall God, to the uttermost of their power, according as he hath required in his most holy Word, contained in the Old and New Testaments. And according to the same Word, shall maintain the true Religion of Christ Jesus, the preaching of his holy Word, the due and right ministration of the Sacraments, now received and preached within this Realme, (according to the Confession of Faith immediately preceding,) and shall abolish and gainstand all false Religion, contrarie to the same, and shall rule the people committed to their charge, according to the will and command of God, revealed in his foresaid Word, and according to the lowable lawes and constitutions received in this Realme, no waies repugnant to the said will of the eternall God, and shall procure, to the uttermost of their power, to the kirk of God, and whole Christian people, true and perfit peace in all time comming; and that they shall be carefull to root out of their Empire all Hereticks, and enemies to the true worship of God, who shall be convicted by the true kirk of God of the foresaid crimes; which was also observed by his Majesty at his Coronation in Edinburgh 1633, as may be seene in the order of the Coronation.

“In obedience to the commandement of God, conform to the practice of the godly in former times, and according to the laudable example of our worthy and religious Progenitors, and of many yet living amongst us, which was warranted also by Act of Councell, commanding a generall Band to bee made and subscribed by his Majestie’s subjects of all ranks, for two causes: One was, for defending the true Religion, as it was then reformed, and is expressed in the Confession of Faith above written, and a former large Confession established by sundrie Acts of lawfull Generall Assemblies and of Parlament, unto which it hath relation set downe in publicke Cathechismes, and which had beene for many yeeres, with a blessing from heaven, preached and professed in this Kirk and Kingdome, as God’s undoubted truth, grounded onely upon his written Word: The other cause was, for maintaining the King’s Majestie his Person and Estate; the true worship of God, and the King’s authoritie being so straightly joyned, as that they had the same friends and common enemies, and did stand and fall together. And, finally, being convinced in our minds, and confessing with our mouthes, that the present and succeeding generations in this Land, are bound to keep the foresaid nationall Oath and subscription inviolable, Wee Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen Burgesses, Ministers, and Commons under subscribing, considering divers times before, and especially at this time, the danger of the true reformed Religion, of the King’s honour, and of the publicke peace of the Kingdome, by the manifold innovations and evils generally contained and particularly mentioned in our late supplications, complaints, and protestations, doe hereby professe, and, before God, his Angels, and the World, solemnely declare, That, with our whole hearts wee agree and resolve all the daies of our life constantly to adhere unto, and to defend the foresaid true Religion, and forbearing the practice of all novations already introduced in the matters of the worship of God, or approbation of the corruptions of the publick Government of the Kirk, or civill places and power of Kirkmen, till they bee tryed and allowed in free Assemblies, and in Parlaments, to labour by all means lawfull to recover the purity and libertie of the Gospel, as it was established and professed before the foresaid novations: And because, after due examination, we plainly perceive, and undoubtedly beleeve, that the Innovations and evils contained in our Supplications, Complaints, and Protestations have no warrant of the Word of God, are contrary to the Articles of the foresaid Confessions, to the intention and meaning of the blessed Reformers of Religion in this Land, to the above written Acts of Parlament, and doe sensibly tend to the re-establishing of the Popish Religion and tyranny, and to the subversion and ruine of the true Reformed Religion, and of our Liberties, Lawes, and Estates. We also declare, that the foresaid Confessions are to bee interpreted, and ought to be understood of the foresaid novations and evils, no lesse then if everie one of them had beene expressed in the foresaid Confessions; and that wee are obliged to detest and abhorre them, amongst other particular heads of Papistrie abjured therein. And, therefore, from the knowledge and conscience of our dutie to God, to our King and countrey, without any worldly respect or inducement, so farre as humane infirmitie will suffer, wishing a further measure of the grace of God for this effect, We promise and sweare, by the Great Name of the LORD our GOD, to continue in the Profession and Obedience of the foresaid Religion: That we shall defend the same, and resist all these contrarie errours and corruptions, according to our vocation, and to the uttermost of that power that God hath put in our hands, all the dayes of our life: And, in like manner, with the same heart, we declare before God and Men, That wee have no intention nor desire to attempt anything that may turne to the dishonour of God, or to the diminution of the King’s Greatnesse and authoritie: But, on the contrarie, wee promise and sweare, that wee shall, to the uttermost of our power, with our meanes and lives, stand to the defence of our dread Sovereign, the King’s Majestie, his person and authoritie, in the defence and preservation of the foresaid true Religion, Liberties, and Lawes of the Kingdome: As, also, to the mutuall defence and assistance, everie one of us of another in the same cause of maintaining the true Religion, and his Majestie’s authoritie, with our best counsell, our bodies, meanes, and whole power, against all sorts of persons whatsoever. So that, whatsoever shall be done to the least of us for that cause, shall be taken as done to us all in generall, and to everie one of us in particular. And that wee shall neither directly nor indirectly suffer ourselves to be divided or withdrawn by whatsoever suggesttion, combination, allurement, or terrour, from this blessed and loyall conjunction, nor shall cast in any let or impediment that that may stay or hinder any such resolution, as by common consent shall be found to conduce for so good ends. But, on the contrarie, shall, by all lawfull meanes, labour to further and promove the same; and if any such, dangerous and divisive motion be made to us by word or writ, wee, and everie one of us, shall either suppresse it, or, if need be, shall incontinent make the same known, that it may bee timeously obviated; neither do we feare the foule aspersions of rebellion, combination, or what else our adversaries, from their craft and malice would put upon us, seeing what we do is so well warranted, and ariseth from an unfained desire to maintaine the true worship of God, the majestie of our King, and the peace of the Kingdome, for the common happinesse of ourselves and posteritie. And because we cannot look for a blessing from God upon our proceedings, except with our profession and subscription we joyne such a life and conversation, as beseemeth Christians, who have renewed their Covenant with God; Wee therefore faithfully promise, for ourselves, our followers, and all others under us, both in publicke, in our particular families and personall carriage, to endevour to keep ourselves within the bounds of Christian libertie, and to be good examples to others of all Godlinesse, Sobernesse, and Righteousness, and of everie dutie we owe to God and Man. And that this our Union and Conjunction may bee observed without violation, we call the living God, the Searcher of our Hearts, to witnesse, who knoweth this to be our sincere Desire, and unfained Resolution, as wee shall answer to JESUS CHRIST in the great day, and under the paine of God’s everlasting wrath, and of infamie, and of losse of all honour and respect in this World. Most humblie beseeching the LORD, to strengthen us by his Holy Spirit for this end, and to blesse our desires and proceedings with a happie success, that Religion and Righteousnesse may flourish in the land, to the glorie of God, the honour of our King, and peace and comfort of us all. In witnesse whereof we have subscribed with our hands alt the premisses,” &c.

---

After much deliberation, and the reconcilement of many scruples of conscience and difficulties among the various classes of Presbyterians, this elaborate and solemn compact and vow was publicly promulgated, and, for the first time, sworn in Edinburgh, on the 28th of February 1633.[20] An immense concourse of spectators assembled in the Greyfriars’ church and churchyard, at an early hour, on the morning of that day; and at two o’clock, Rothes and Loudon of the nobility, Henderson and Dickson of the clergy, and Johnston, their legal adviser, arrived with the Covenant ready for signature. Henderson began the solemnities of the day with prayer, and Loudon followed in an oration of great courage and power; after which, about four o’clock, the Earl of Sutherland was the first to step forward and inscribe his name on the Covenant; and he was immediately followed by Sir Andrew Murray, a minister at Abdy in Fife, and all who were within the church; after which it was laid out on a flat gravestone in the churchyard, and signed, till the parchment was full, by persons of all ranks, sexes, and ages, with uplifted hands, and consecrated by solemn invocations to heaven, and with such demonstrations of enthusiasm as it is difficult, in these latter times, to imagine. It was a day, as piously and eloquently described by Henderson, in which the people in multitudes offered themselves to the service of Heaven “like the dew drops in the morning”—“wherein the arm of the Lord was revealed”—and “the Princes of the people assembled to swear allegiance to the King of kings.”

These impressive proceedings did not terminate till nine o’clock in the evening; but the next day copies of the Covenant were laid open through the city and signed, with very few exceptions, by all the people. They were transmitted through all the provincial towns and parishes; and, unless, by a few at St Andrew’s, Aberdeen, and Glasgow, the Covenant was hailed with mingled emotions of devotion and patriotism, such as, perhaps, never either before or since pervaded any nation with such simultaneous unanimity. Its spirit spread far and wide over the land like fire over its heath-clad hills, penetrating the shadows which brooded in the firmament; and, as the fiery cross was wont to be the signal for array in feudal strife, it summoned the sons of the hill and the dale to prepare their swords, should these be needed, for combat in a holier cause—subduing, with unexampled power, the hereditary feuds of hostile clans, and combining the whole nation into one mighty phalanx of incalculable energy.

It is unnecessary, in this place, to trace all the turnings and windings of the tortuous policy by which, after this decisive demonstration of physical, as well as of moral strength, King Charles and his abettors endeavoured, for some months, to break down this great combination. Every variety of intrigue, and every artifice for procrastination, was employed to divide the Covenanters, and quell the spirit which had thus been evoked by his arbitrary proceedings; and the duplicity of Charles, in holding forth terms of accommodation, while he was preparing to crush Scotland by force of arms, is a fact fully demonstrated by many documents of unquestionable authenticity, which leaves one of the deepest stains that still rest on the memory of that misguided and unfortunate monarch. On one occasion when the Marquis of Hamilton came from Court, on a pretended amicable mission as the King’s Commissioner, he was received at his entrance by 60,000 of his Majesty’s Scottish subjects, including nearly all the nobility, gentry, and 600 clergymen, in a body, whose line extended from Musselburgh to the outskirts of the Metropolis; presenting a spectacle which moved the Commissioner even to tears, and drew from him a wish, that his monarch had but witnessed such a host of his subjects, seeking only the enjoyment of their civil and religious liberties.

After many ineffectual attempts, by intimidation and artifice, to dissolve this league, and to break asunder the ties by which the Covenanters were bound together—after issuing new proclamations for the enforcement of the Liturgy, and the rotten Episcopacy of Scotland, and again in trepidation recalling these—after attempting, by a revival of the Covenant and Confession of the former reign, with hollow and equivocal terms intermixed with it, to counteract the National Covenant—and, after essaying to beguile the Covenanters by conceding to them a General Assembly of the Church and a Parliament, fettered, however, with such conditions as would have rendered these but a repetition of the corrupt and packed assemblages which, from 1606 to 1618, inclusive, had, under the management of his father, subverted the law of the land and the liberties of the Church—Charles was at length constrained to bow before a spirit which he could neither quell nor conquer. Hamilton, after various journeys betwixt the Court and Scotland, at last arrived at Dalkeith on the 16th of August; and, after anxious consultations with the Privy Council during several days, that body, with the royal sanction, at length abandoned the policy which he had endeavoured to enforce, and two acts were proclaimed—the one indicting a General Assembly at Glasgow on the 21st of November following, and another summoning a Parliament to be held at Edinburgh on the 15th of May 1639; and, at the same time, a declaration by the King was proclaimed, discharging the use of the Service Book, Books of Canons, High Commission, and Articles of the Perth Assembly—ordaining free entry to ministers, and subjecting the bishops to the jurisdiction of the General Assembly. A sort of amnesty also was passed, and a fast appointed to be held, on the fourteenth day before the Assembly, for a peaceable end to the distractions of the country.[21]

And thus the people of Scotland achieved a vindication of their laws and liberties, without one human life being sacrificed, or one drop of blood being shed; after years of deep dissimulation, was Charles constrained, by a great national confederacy, to yield in the end, all that his subjects had required at his hands as their sovereign. The conflict, however, was not yet terminated, and it continued, with many varieties of fortune, through future years. But the purpose for which the preceding narrative has been given being attained, it would be premature to prosecute these historical details further at present. Such a preliminary statement, however, appeared to be necessary, in order to clear the way for the Proceedings of the first General Assembly of the Church which had taken place during the long space of thirty-six years; for, although there had been six nominal assemblies during that interval,[22] these were so overborne by royal interference, and illegal and unwarrantable intrusions, that they were all essentially illegal, and were afterwards held to be null and void for ever.

In bringing the Proceedings of the Assembly 1638, under the reader’s notice, it is deemed expedient to do so by embodying in these pages a very interesting account of the meeting of the Assembly, from the Journals of Principal Baillie, who was a member of it, and whose volumes, referable to those times, are considered of the highest authority by all succeeding historians. His account of the Assembly, up to the time that the Court was constituted by the election of a Moderator and Clerk, is all that is meant to be given in this place.

“Notwithstanding the indiction,” says Baillie, “our hopes were but slender ever to see the downsitting of our passionately-desired Assembly with the Commissioner’s consent, for daily he found himself more and more disappointed in his expectation to obtain these things which it seems he put the King in hopes might be gotten. Episcopacy to be put in place of safety, above the reach of the Assembly’s hand, was now seen to be impossible, if his engines for this purpose, by the skill of his party, was turned back upon him. The Council had subscribed the King’s Covenant, as it was exponed at the first in the 1581 year. His declaration, that Episcopacy was then in our Church, and will, that the Assembly should be discharged to meddle in the trial of this matter, could not be gotten concluded in a Council act. Sundry of the Lords of the Session being required to subscribe the Covenant in that his sense, refused; with a protestation, that the exposition of these parts which might make for or against Episcopacy, should be referred to the determination of the ensuing Assembly. Noblemen and ministers did not dissemble their mind in their discourse of the unlawfulness, at least the inexpediency, of this office in our Church, and so their design by any means to have it presently put down. This put his Grace in great perplexity; for he conceived, as some said, by the words and writs of sundry of our nobles of chief respect, that the Assembly might have been gotten persuaded to establish, at least to permit, or pass by untouched, that office: when the contrary appeared, he was at a nonplus; for his instructions had made the place of bishops a noli me tangere; but their persons were permitted to the doom of the severest mouth among us, where their miscarrying had required censure. His next disappointment was in the matter of the Covenant. He thought to have gotten the King’s Covenant universally subscribed, and ratified hereafter in the Assembly; so that the other, which had been subscribed by us before, might be quietly, without any infamous condemning of it, suppressed and buried. But far above and against all his thoughts, that Covenant was universally refused; and, among these few that put their hands to it, divers avowed their mind, in all things, to be the same with those who had sworn the first. The missing of this intention increased his Grace’s malcontentment. In two other designs also he found himself much deceived. He thought, an act for the freedom of the practice of Perth Articles, might have contented us; and without condemning the matters themselves, before the Parliament by supplication had been brought to the casing of the standing law; but an universal inclination appeared in all to have the things themselves tried without delay, and acts presently found anent them, as their nature required. Sicklike his instructions carried him to the removal of the high commission, books of canons, ordination, service, but to reason or condemn anything contained in any of them, which might have reflected against any public order, or anything practised or allowed by my Lord of Canterbury and his followers, in England or elsewhere. We in no case could be content, except we were permitted to examine all that were in these books, their matter now being the avowed doctrine of many in our Church; and since we found the articles of Arminius, with many points of the grossest Popery, in the books, sermons, and discourses of our bishops and ministers, we were resolved to have these doctrines censured as they deserved, without any sparing with respect to any person who maintained them.

“The Commissioner, finding himself mistaken in all these, and many more of his designs, was afraid to labour to discharge the Assembly before it began, or at least to mar it so, if it sat down, that it should do no good. We referred to this intention his diligence to find subscribers to protestations against the assembly. We heard by our opposites of huge numbers of thir; yet when it came to the proof, there were but few who could be moved to put their hands to such an act; yea, not one who durst avow it, and reason the lawfulness of their deed. Some twenty hands at most were at the bishops’ declinature opposite to our covenant. A few others, especially eight of the Presbytery of Glasgow, (who, to the Commissioner’s great discontent, refused to adhere,) made forms of protestations by themselves; but to no purpose. From this same intention, we alleged, flowed the putting to the horn, some days before our sitting, all these commissioners of the nobles, gentry, ministers, who, for any civil cause or pretence, could be gotten denounced, that so the synod should be deprived of many members. This practice was so new, and so strong reasons given in, why this kind of horning should hinder none from voicing in a synod, that no use was or durst be made of any such exception; only the Treasurer’s good-will, by the invention, was collected to be but small toward our cause. A proclamation also was made, that none should come to the place of the Assembly but such as were members; and that in a peaceable manner. We protested, all might come who had interest, of party, witnesses, voters, assessors, complainers, or whatever way; and that every man might come with such retinue and equipage as the Lords of Council should give example.

“These, and many more occurrences, put us in a continual fear of the Assembly’s discharge; yet the King’s word was engaged so deeply, proclamations, publick fastings at his command, had already past; and mainly the King’s thought, that the inserting what he had granted, anent the service-book, canons, and Perth articles, in the Assembly’s books, would give some contentment to the people, and disengage his promise of an assembly, though nothing more should be granted: these, and such considerations, made the Assembly sit down, contrary to all our fears, and a fair face to be made for a while by the Commissioner, as if he intended nothing else, and confidently expected his sitting till all questions should be peaceably decided for the content of all.

“On Friday, the 16th of November, we in the west, as were desired, came to Glasgow; our noblemen, especially Eglinton, backed with great numbers of friends and vassals. We were informed, that the Commissioner and counsellors were to take up the town with a great number of their followers. So the nearest noblemen and gentlemen were desired to come in that night well attended. The town expected and provided for huge multitudes of people, and put on their houses and beds excessive prices; but the diligence of the magistrates, and the vacancy of many rooms, quickly moderated that excess. We were glad to see such order, and large provision, above all men’s expectation; for which the town got much thanks and credit. It can lodge easily, at once, Council, Session, Parliament, and General Assembly, if need should require.

“On Saturday most of our eastland noblemen, barons, and ministers, came in. In the afternoon, the Lord Commissioner with most of the council came. The Earls of Rothes, Montrose, and many of our folks, went out to meet his Grace. Much good speech was among them; we protesting, that we would crave nothing but what clear scripture, reason, and law, would evince. His Grace assured nothing reasonable should be denied. On Sunday afternoon, some of the wisest of the ministry consulted upon the ordering of affairs. For myself, I resolved not to be a meddler in anything. I was well lodged. I had brought in a trunk full of my best books and papers. I resolved to read and write, and study as hard as I could all incident questions. On Monday the ministry met in three divers places; for no one private place could contain us. Out of every meeting three were chosen, nine in all, to be privy to hear references from the nobility, barons, burrows, to ripen and prepare what was to be proponed in public. We laid it on Mr Alexander Somervail, an old half-blind man, sore against his heart, to preach on Tuesday. He did pretty well. He insisted at length on the extirpation of all bishops, little to the contentment of some, but greatly to the mind of the most. Our privy consultation was about the clerk and the moderator. We were somewhat in suspense about Mr Alexander Henderson. He was incomparably the ablest man of us all for all things. We doubted if the moderator might be a disputer; we expected then much dispute with the bishops and Aberdeen doctors. We thought our loss great, and hazardous to lose our chief champion, by making him to be a judge of the party; yet at last, finding no other man who had parts requisite to the present moderation, (for in Messrs Ramsay, Dick, Adamson, Pollock, Cant, Livingston, Bonner, Cunningham, there were some things evidently wanting,) we resolved that Mr Henderson of necessity behoved to be the man. Mr Johnston to us all was a nonsuch for a clerk.

“In the afternoon, Rothes, with some commissioners, went to the Commissioner, shewing, that the custom of our Church was, to begin her Assemblies with solemn fasting; also, that in absence of the former moderator, the oldest minister of the bounds or moderator of the place, used to preach, and moderate the action till another be chosen; that old Mr John Bell, for the reverence of his person, let be the other considerations, was meet to begin so great an affair. His Grace agreed presently to the fast. To the other motion he shewed, that it was his place to nominate the preacher to begin the action; that he knew none more worthy of that honour than the man they named; that he should think upon it. After an hour, he sent Dr Balcanqual to Mr John, desiring him to preach on the Wednesday, and moderate till another was chosen. On Tuesday after sermon the fast was intimated, and preaching in all the churches to-morrow. In the afternoon, we, in our meeting, appointed preachers for all the churches, as we did so long as we remained in town, for we took it to be our place. However, Mr John Maxwell refused to lend his pulpit to any so long as the Commissioner staid; and craved of his Grace, that none might come there but himself. So for the two first Sundays, before and after noon, Mr John took the High Church, and preached after his fashion, nothing to the matter in hand, so ambiguously that himself knew best to what side he inclined. I moved in our meeting, that in our advertisements, at least, we might follow the course of Dort, the commissioners from one presbytery should have their ordinary meetings to advise together of any matter of importance; for there were five from every presbytery, three ministers, one from the shire and one from the burgh, which might help one another in consideration. This was applauded. But when we came to the action, this and sundry other good overtures could not be got followed. Every man behoved to do for himself. Private association could not be gotten kept. We intended to have had sermon in the afternoon, where we were, in the great church, and so to have delayed the opening of the synod till the morrow; but danger being found in law to delay the synod to another day than the king had appointed, we resolved to let the people continue in their humiliation in the other churches; but presently after sermon in the morning, we, the members of the synod, thought meet to begin our business.

“1. On Wednesday, the 21st of November, with much ado could we throng into our places, an evil which troubled us much the first fourteen days of our sitting. The magistrates, with their town-guard, the noblemen, with the assistance of the gentry, whilst the Commissioner in person, could not get us entry to our rooms, use what force, what policy they could, without such delay of time and thrusting through, as grieved and offended us. Whether this evil be common to all nations at all public confluences, or if it be proper to the rudeness of our nation alone, or whether in thir late times, and admiration of this new reformation, have at all publick meetings stirred up a greater than ordinary zeal in the multitude to be present for hearing and seeing, or what is the special cause of this irremediable evil, I do not know; only I know my special offence for it, and wish it remeided above any evil that ever I knew in the service of God among us. As yet no appearance of redress. It is here alone, I think, we might learn from Canterbury, yea, from the Pope, yea, from the Turks or Pagans, modesty and manners; at least their deep reverence in the house they call God’s, ceases not till it have led them to the adoration of the timber and stones of the place. We are here so far the other way, that our rascals, without shame, in great numbers, makes such din and clamour in the house of the true God, that if they minted to use the like behaviour in my chamber, I would not be content till they were down the stairs.

“When, with great difficulty, we were set down, the Commissioner in his chair of state; at his feet, before, and on both sides, the chief of the Council—the Treasurer, Privy Seal, Argyle, Marr, Murray, Angus, Lauderdale, Wigton, Glencairn, Perth, Tullibardine, Galloway, Haddington, Kinghorn, Register, Treasurer-Depute, Justice-General, Amont, Justice-Clerk, Southesk, Linlithgow, Dalziel, Dumfries, Queensberry, Belhaven, and more; at a long table in the floor, our noblemen and barons, elders of parishes, Commissioners from Presbyteries, Rothes, Montrose, Eglinton, Cassils, Lothian, Wemyss, Loudon, Sinclair, Balmerino Burleigh, Lindsay, Yester, Hume, Johnston, Keir, Auldbar, Sir William Douglas of Cavers, Durie, younger, Lamington, Sir John Mackenzie, George Gordon, Philorth, Tairie, Newton. Few Barons in Scotland of note but were either voters or assessors, from every burgh, the chief burghs; from Edinburgh, James Cochran and Thomas Paterson; from all the sixty-three Presbyteries, three Commissioners, except a very few; from all the four Universities, also, sitting on good commodious forms, rising up five or six degrees, going round about the low long table. A little table was set in the middle, fornent the Commissioner, for the Moderator and Clerk. At the end, an high room, prepared chiefly for young noblemen, Montgomery, Fleming, Boyd, Areskine, Linton, Creichton, Livingston, Ross, Maitland, Drumlanrig, Drummond, Keir, Elcho, and sundry more, with huge numbers of people, ladies, and some gentlewomen, in the vaults above. Mr John Bell had a very good and pertinent sermon, sharp enough against our late novations and Episcopacy. The pity was, the good old man was not heard by a sixth part of the beholders. That service ended, Mr John came down to the little table, began the Synod with hearty prayer; which I seconded with affectionate tears, and many more, I trust, with me. My Lord gave in his commission to Mr Thomas Sandilands, as deputed by his father, Mr J. Sandilands, commissar of Aberdeen, clerk to the last General Assembly. His Grace harangued none at all, as we expected he would. We found him oft, thereafter, as able to have spoken well what he pleased, as any in the house. I take the man to be of a sharp, ready, solid, clear wit; of a brave and masterly expression; loud, distinct, slow, full, yet concise, modest, courtly, yet simple and natural language. If the King have many such men, he is a well-served Prince. My thoughts of the man before that time, were hard and base; but a day or two’s audience wrought my mind to a great change towards him, which yet remains, and ever will, till his deeds be notoriously evil. His commission was in Latin, after a common, legal, and demi-barbarous style; ample enough for settling all our disorders, had not a clause containing instructions made it to restrict and serve ill. I have not yet got the copy. After this, our commissions were given in to the Moderator and Clerk, for the time, almost every one in the same tenor and words, containing a power from the Presbytery to the three ministers and one elder, to reason, vote, and conclude, in their name, in all things to be proponed, according to the word of God, and the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, as we shall be answerable to God and the Church. The Presbyteries, Burghs, Universities, were called after the order of some roll of the old Assemblies, not of the latter. This was the labour of the first day.

“2. On Thursday, the second diet, we had no scant of protestations; more than a round dozen were enacted. After long delay, and much thronging, being set in our places, the Moderator, for the time, offered to my Lord Commissioner a leet, whereupon voices might pass for the election of a new Moderator. Here arose the toughest dispute we had in all the Assembly. His Grace, the Treasurer, Sir Lewis Stewart, (for, after the rencounter I wrote of at the Council table, the Advocate’s service was no more required, but Sir Lewis used in his room,) reasoning and pressing with great eagerness, that, in the first place, before any Synodical action, the commissions might be discussed, lest any should voice as Commissioners whose commission was null, at least not tried to be valid. This was a ready way to turn the Assembly upside down, and to put us in a labyrinth inextricable: for, before the constitution of the Synod, the Commissioner would have so drawn in the deepest questions—such as the power of elders, the state of ministers censured by Bishops, and many moe, which himself alone behoved to determine, no Assembly being constitute for the discussion of any question. Against this motion, as rooting up all possibility ever to settle any Assembly, but at the Commissioner’s simple discretion, Rothes, Loudon, (Balmerino, through all the Assembly resolved to be well near mute,) Dickson, Livingston, Henderson, reasoned, that custom, equity, and necessity, did enforce the chusing a moderator and clerk before the commissions be discussed, or anything else done. After much subtle, accurate, and passionate pleading—for both sides had prepared themselves, it seems, for this plea—the Commissioner craved leave to retire with the council for advisement. After a long stay in the chapterhouse, returning, he was content to permit voicing for the moderator; with protestation, That this voicing should not import his approbation of the commissions of any voicer against whom he was to propone any just exception in due time, or his acknowledgement of any voicer for a lawful member of the Assembly. His Grace required instruments also of another protestation, That the nomination of a moderator should be no ways prejudicial to the lords of the clergy, their office, dignity, or any privilege which law or custom had given them. Against both thir, Rothes took two instruments, in name of the commissioners from presbyteries and burghs, protesting, That his Grace’s protestations should in nothing prejudge the lawfulness of any commission against which no just nullity should be objected in the time of the trial of the commissions; also, that his Grace’s second protestation should not hinder the discussing the nature of the office, and the alledged privileges of the pretended bishops, in this present assembly. Lord Montgomery, in name of the pursuers of the complaint against the bishops, protested, That his Grace’s protestation should not be prejudicial to the discussing in this present assembly, of their complaints against the persons, titles, dignities, and privileges of the pretended bishops. Mr Jo. Bell urged the voicing for the moderator; but his Grace shewed, that there was presented to him a paper, in name of the bishops, which he required then to be read. Here also was some sharp reasoning. Divers alledged, that no bill, supplication, protestation, or whatsoever, should be read to the Assembly, before it was an Assembly; but immediately after the Assembly’s constitution, it should be in his Grace’s option to cause read that paper of the Bishops, or any other, to which the Assembly’s answer should be returned. After reasoning and requesting, his Grace used his authority to require the reading of the paper. At once there arose a tumultuous clamour of a multitude crying, No reading! No reading! This barbarous crying offended the Commissioner, and the most of all. Silence being gotten, his Grace protested, That the refusal of hearing that paper was unjust. Rothes also required acts of his protestation, in name of the commissioners, That the refusal was just and necessary. All being wearied with the multiplication of protestations, except the Clerk, who with every one received a piece of gold, his Grace, whether in earnest or in scorn, protested of our injury in calling the Lords Bishops pretended, whom yet the acts of Parliament authorized. Rothes, in our name, protested, That they behoved to be taken for pretended, till this Assembly had tried the challenges which were given in against all their alledged prerogatives. How needless soever many of his Grace’s protestations seemed to be, yet I was glad for his way of proceeding. It gave me some hopes of his continuance among us. I thought that this way of protesting had been resolved wisely in council, whereby the Commissioner might sit still till the end, and yet, by his presence, import no farther approbation to any of our conclusions than he found expedient. By appearance this course had been much better than that abrupt departure, which his posterior instructions, to all our griefs, and the great marring of the King’s designs, forced him to. Mr John Bell again presented his leet for moderation. His Grace shewed, that his Majesty had written letters to six of the counsellors, Treasurer, Privy Seal, Argyle, Lauderdale, Carnegie, and Sir Lewis Stewart, as I think, to be his assessors, not only for council, but voicing in the synod. Argyle’s letter was publickly read, that this his Majesty’s desire should be condescended to before any farther proceeding. It was replied, with all respect to the worthy nobles named, That my Lord Marquis, in the produced commission, was appointed sole Commissioner; that assessors were only for council, and not for multiplication of voices; that the King in person could require but one voice; that the giving of more voices to the assessors might give way, not only to very many, as in some unallowable assemblies it had been, but to so many as by plurality might oversway all. Against this refusal his Grace protested, with some grief; and we also, desiring that our reasons might be inserted without protestation. At last we were permitted to chuse the Moderator. Mr John Ker, Mr John Row, Mr J. Bonner, Mr William Livingston, and Mr Alexander Henderson, were put in the leet by Mr John Bell; for the leeting of the new is in the hands of the old. Messrs Ramsay, Pollock, and Dickson, for withdrawing of votes, were holden off. All, without exception, went upon the last, as in the most of our matters there was no diversity at all, or, where any, it was but of a few. I remember not how his Grace voiced; but it was his custom to voice rather by way of permission than to say anything that might import his direct assent; for it seemed he resolved to keep himself, in all his words and deeds, so free, that he might, when he would, disavow all that was done, or to be done, in that Assembly. Mr Henderson being chosen with so full accord, made a pretty harangue, whether off-hand or premeditated, I know not. There was a conclusion taken that night, after some reasoning to the contrary, to have but one session in the day, to sit from ten or eleven, to four or five. So we were all relieved of the expenses of a dinner. An only breakfast put us all off till supper; for commonly we sat an hour with candle-light. We ended this day with the Moderator’s prayers. Among that man’s other good parts, that was one—a faculty of grave, good, and zealous prayer, according to the matter in hand; which he exercised, without fagging, to the last day of our meeting.

“3. In our third session, on Friday November 23, the Moderator presented a leet to be voiced for chusing the Clerk. Here a longer dispute than needed fell out betwixt the Commissioner and the Moderator, whom Rothes, but especially Loudon, did second. The Commissioner, whether of true intent to have a base clerk, of whose submissiveness to their injunctions they might be hopeful, or to shew his piety and equity to see every one kept in their right, where he had place, though he professed small obligation to the young man, who, for no entreaty, would be pleased to shew him any blink of the Assembly’s books; yet pressed much that the young man, Mr Thomas Sandilands, might serve here, as his father, Mr James Sandilands, Commissar of Aberdeen, his depute, since his father’s decease could not spoil him of an advantageous office, whereto he was provided ad vitam. Yet it was carried, that since his father was not provided to that office but by Mr Thomas Nicolson’s demission, and a corrupt Assembly’s consent, without any mention of deputation; also, since he was so infirm as he was unable to attend the service, and unwilling to reside at Edinburgh, where the registers of the Church behoved to lie; for thir, and many other reasons, the clerk’s place was found to be vacant. Consideration was promised to be had of Mr Thomas Sandiland’s interest, which he submitted to the Assembly’s discretion. In the leet, Mr Thomas was first, after John Nicol, and Alexander Blair, and Mr Archibald Johnston. The Commissioner would not voice to any of them, because he saw no lawful demission of the former clerk. The Moderator then took his Grace for a non liquet. Yesternight’s plea was here renewed. His Grace required that his assessor’s voice might be craved in the clerk’s election: the Moderator thought it unfit to trouble their Lordships to voice about a clerk, since they did not voice to the choosing of the Moderator, a superior office. Many words were here spent, till at last reasons in writ were produced, why the Commissioner and his assessors should have but one voice. I thought, in the time, these reasons were of an high strain, and some of them struck deeper on authority than I could have wished. Traquair craved a double of them, and promised an answer; but the subsequent affairs, or somewhat else, hindered that answer yet to appear. This high, yea highest question, (for in all the Assembly we had nothing else that concerned authority,) was closed by the renewing of yesternight’s protestation, on both sides.

“The leet put to voicing, Mr Archibald Johnston, by all save one, was elected. Being deeply sworn, he was admitted to all the rights, profits, privileges, which any in former time had enjoyed by that place: To him, Mr James Sandilands, in face of the Assembly, delivered two registers, which contained the acts of the kirk since the year 1590, testifying that his father had never any more in his custody. The Moderator required all earnestly to procure the production of any of the church-registers that could be had; for the loss of such a treasure as the Church’s evidence, was pitiful. His Grace protested his willingness to do his endeavour for so good a work. Rothes intreated that the Bishops might be caused deliver what they had: for it was known that King James had sent a warrant to Mr Thomas Nicolson, late Clerk, to deliver to the Bishop of St Andrew’s, the Registers of the Church. After much regretting the irreparable loss of these writs, the new Clerk declared, that by the good providence of God, these books they spake of were come to his hands, which he there produced to all our great joy. Five books in folio, four written and subscribed, and margined with the known hands of one Gray and Ritchie, clerks to the General Assembly, containing the full register from the Reformation in 1560, to the year 1590, where Mr Thomas Sandilands’s books began, except some leaves which Bishop Adamson had torn out. Thir one Winram, depute to Mr Thomas Nicolson, had left to one Alexander Blair, his successor in office, from whom Mr Johnston had got them. The first was an extract, by way of compend, from the 1560 to the 1590, whereby, in a good part, the twenty-three leaves of Adamson’s rapine might be restored. The moderator craved that these books might be sighted by Argyle, Lauderdale, and Southesk: but the Commissioner would not permit his assessors to undertake such employment, since they were refused to voice in the Assembly; but he was content that a committee of the members of the synod should be named, to try if these books were authentick and full registers. So Mr Andrew Ramsay, Mr John Adamson, Mr James Bonner, Mr John Row, Mr William Livingston, Mr Robert Murray, with young Durie, the clerk of Dundee, and Mr Alexander Pierson, advocate, were appointed to their report and reasons, as soon as they could. The moderator then required, that for the Assembly’s full constitution, the commissions might be put to trial. But the commissioner caused D. Hamilton first to be called, and present his paper to be read. His Grace urged much, that, since the former objections were removed, of the want of a moderator and clerk, the paper might now be read. It was replied, over and over, that it could not be, till by the discussion of the commissions the Assembly were constitute. Traquair pressed—That the paper possibly had exceptions against the lawfulness of the election of the commissioners, which were impertinent to alledge, if once they were approven. The Commissioner assured, he knew not what was in these papers; but, presupposing they were formed for the opening of the eyes of those who were to voice anent the members of the Assembly, it was the only time to read them before the voicing. Rothes replied—That exception against particular commissioners might not be proponed, until the trial of their commissions; and exceptions against the whole Assembly could not be heard till it were an Assembly. The moderator added, that if in that paper there were any light to open their eyes, they should shortly profess their repentence of their error in not reading it, when it was required. His Grace protested—That this not reading before the trial of the commissions, should import no prejudice to the lords of the clergy, and their adherents; and of this protestation he required an act from the new clerk’s hand. The clerk said, he could write no act without the Assembly’s warrant, and it could give no warrant till once it was in being. The Commissioner then required instruments, in my Lord Register’s hands, of his protestation, since the clerk refused. The clerk shewed his willingness, at the moderator’s directions, to write his Grace’s protestation; but might give no extracts till the Assembly were constitute. In the forming of this protestation, the clerk, I thought, was to seek in that; his wit he kythed ever thereafter; the act behoved to be formed and reformed; the commissioner and the clerk shaped it over and over again, ere they could fall on a fashion which his Grace could like. This made me pity Johnston, and think him the better advocate than clerk; but the youth’s tried sufficiency in both the acts proves my mistaking, or at least that this intake in the first entry to his office was but occasional, and merely accidental.

“In the progress of this dispute his Grace shewed the necessity that was laid on him, in this passage, to be punctually circumspect, for howbeit he was a great Commissioner; yet he was but a poor subject and servant, liable to account for all his service. Much reasoning was that the bishops’ exceptions against the judges should be heard, before they were acknowledged and constitute for judges. When Traquair and Loudon had harped on this string a while, Argyle lends in his word, that a party gives in their exceptions against the assize before it be sworn; so why might not the bishops give in their exceptions against the Assembly, which now was like an assize, called and conveened, but not yet sworn? The moderator cuttedly, (as the man naturally hath a little choler, not yet quite extinguished,) answered—That the Commissioner, his Grace, was of great sufficiency himself; that he only should speak there; that they could not answer to all the exceptions that a number of witty noblemen could propone; that these who were not commissioners would do well to inform his Grace of what they thought meet, in convenient time. This check, I believe, was intended more for others than for Argyle, who would have taken it worse if it had fallen on their fingers. Always Loudon took it off in a quick jest, that my Lord Argyle’s instance was good, if the bishops had compeared as pannelled men before an assize. This wearisome plea ended that day’s action, for his Grace acquiesced in his protestation.”

---

Having thus, by the foregoing notes and extracts, in some measure prepared the general reader for entering on an examination of the Acts and Proceedings of the General Assembly of 1638, it only remains that we should explain the arrangement which we have adopted in digesting the subject-matter of these pages; and, in stating the following outline of that arrangement, with respect to one Assembly, it is right to state, that we mean to follow out the same plan with regard to all the years that follow. In reference, then, to this first Assembly, we shall present our materials in the following order, viz.:—

I. The Acts of the Assembly, which were extracted by the Clerk, and printed in the year 1639.

II. An Abstract of the Proceedings, and a List or Index of all the Acts of the Assembly, authenticated by Archibald Johnston the Clerk, copied from an extract thereof under his hand, which is deposited in the Advocates’ Library.

III. Historical Documents relative to the events which occurred in Scotland betwixt 1633, and the sitting of the Assembly in Nov. 1638.

IV. A Report of the Discussions in that Assembly, from an unpublished contemporary M.S.

V. Notes and Illustrations of these proceedings, derived from contemporary and collateral sources.

In closing these introductory remarks, we must guard ourselves against the possible imputation of being blind and indiscriminate admirers of the Covenanters. We are fully alive to all the exceptionable points in their character and career; and we should have studied our country’s history and human nature very superficially indeed, if we had not, long ere now, discovered the infirmities and obliquities which were mingled with their higher attributes. It cannot be doubted by any man who has studied the history of the period of which we have given a rapid sketch, that they often swerved from what was the straight path of rectitude; and it is impossible to peruse even the most partial narrative of their consultations, without also discerning, in the policy and proceedings of the Covenanters, the alloy of selfish interests and grovelling passions—the fumes of fanaticism, the unrectified workings of a semi-barbarous spirit, and much democratic insolence. There was withal a tone of preternatural sanctity assumed, which savours strongly of hypocrisy in many of the individuals who figured in their counsels. But, after giving full effect to all these deductions from their merits, we can never forget that these deformities were, in a great measure, created and brought prominently into view by circumstances which rendered it almost impossible that such characteristics should not have been called into existence. We can never forget that they were goaded into the courses which they pursued by an unjustifiable series of aggressions on the dearest interests of human beings—by an open and outrageous assumption of arbitrary power over the lives, property, and liberties, civil and religious, of the country; and that their numerous loyal and dutiful supplications for redress and security, were treated with duplicity and contempt. And above all, we can never forget that it is to the noble stand which was made by the Covenanters of Scotland against arbitrary power and Popish tyranny in disguise, two hundred years ago, that we are, in a great measure, indebted for the enjoyment of the invaluable Protestant Institutions in Church and State which we now possess, and which, in the course of time, and from new combinations of causes, seem, in the present day, to be once more exposed to similar perils. May the present generation, in the maintenance of these precious institutions, avoid those errors—the simulation and the intolerance of former times—and may their patriotism be elevated to purity by imitating only the virtues of the Scottish Covenanters!

---

THE
PRINCIPALL ACTS
OF THE
SOLEMNE GENERALL ASSEMBLY
OF THE
KIRK OF SCOTLAND,

Indicted by the Kings Majestie, and conveened at Glasgow the XXI. of Nov. 1638; Visied, Collected, and Extracted forth of the Register of the Acts of the Assembly, by the Clerk thereof. Edinburgh, printed by the Heirs of Andrew Hart. Anno Dom. 1639.

---

The King’s Commission to James Marquesse of Hamiltoun.[23]

CAROLUS Dei gratia, Magnæ Britanniæ, Franciæ, & Hiberniæ Rex, fidcique Defensor, Omnibus probis hominibus suis ad quos præsentes literæ pervenerint, Salutem. Sciatis nos considerantes magnos in hoc regno nostro Scotiæ non ita pridem exortos tumultus, ad quos quidem componendos multiplices regiæ nostræ voluntatis declaretiones promulgavimus, quæ tamen minorem spe nostrâ effectum hactenus sortitæ sunt: Et nunc statuentes ex pio erga dictum antiquum regnum nostrum affectu, ut omnia gratiosè stabiliantur & instaurentur, quod (per absentiam nostram) non aliâ ratione melius effici potest quam fideli aliquo Delegato constituto, cui potestatem credere possimus tumultus hujusmodi consopiendi, aliaque officia præstandi, quæ in bonum & commodum dicti antiqui regni nostri eidem Delegato nostro imperare nobis videbitur. Cumque satis compertum habeamus obsequium, diligentiam, & fidem prædilecti nostri consanguinei & consiliarii, Jacobi Marchionis Hamiltonii, Comitis Arraniœ & Cantabrigiæ, Domini Aven & Innerdail, &c. eundemque ad imperata nostra exequenda sufficienter inatructum esse, Idcirco fecisse & constituisse, tenoreque præsentium facere & constituere præfatum prædilectum nostrum consanguineum & consiliarium Jacobum Marchionem de Hamiltoun nostrum Commissionarium ad effectum subscriptum. Cum potestate dicto Jacobo Marchioni de Hamiltoun, &c. dictum regnum nostrum adeundi, ibidemque præfatos tumultus in dicto regno nostro componendi, aliaque officia à nobis eidem committenda in dicti regni nostri bonum & commodum ibi præstandi, eoque Concilium nostrum quibus locis & temporibus ei visum fuerit convocandi, acrationem & ordinem in præmissis exequendis servandum declarandi & præscribendi; & quæcunque alia ad Commissionis hujus capita pro commissâ sibi fide exequenda, eandemque ad absolutum finem perducendam et prosequendam conferre possunt tam in Concilio quam extra Concilium, nostro nomine efficiendi & præstandi; idque similitèr & adeo liberè ac si nos in sacrosancta nostra persona ibidem adessemus. Præterea cum plena potestate dicto Jacobo Marchioni de Hamiltoun, prout sibi videbitur nostro servitio & bono dicti regni nostri conducere, conventum omnium ordinum ejusdem regni nostri indicendi, ac publica comitia & conventus eorundem ordinum eorumve alterius vel utriusque quibus temporibus & locis sibi visum fuerit statuendi, & ibidem nostram sacratissimam personam cum omnibus honoribus & privilegiis supremo Commissionario nostri Parliamenti & publici conventus incumben similiter adeoqae amplè sicut quivis supremus Commissionarius quocunque tempore retroacto gavisus est gerendi: Necnon cum potestate præfato Jacobo Marchioni de Hamiltoun Synodos nationales ecclesiæ dicti regni nostri tenendas temporibus & locis quibus sibi visum fuerit indicendi, & ibidem seipsum tanquam nostrum Commissionarium gerendi, omniaque eisdem tenendis inservientia secundum leges & praxin prædictæ ecclesiæ & regni nostri præstandi: Et hac præsenti nostrâ Commissione durante nostro beneplacito duratura, & semper donec eadem per nos expressè inhibeatur. In cujus rei testimonium, præsentibus magnum sigillum nostrum unà cum privato nostro sigillo (quia præfatus Marchio de Hamiltoun impræsentiarum eat magni sigilli custos) apponi præcepimus, Apud Oatlands vigesimo nono die mensis Julii, Anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo octavo, Et anno regni nostri decimo quarto.

Per signaturam manu S.D.N. Regis suprascriptam.

---

The King’s Letter to the Generall Assembly.

ALTHOUGH We be not ignorant that the best of Our actions have beene mistaken by many of Our subjects in that Our antient Kingdome, as if We had intended innovation in Religion or Lawes; yet considering nothing to be more incumbent to the duty of a Christain King, then the advancement of God’s glory, and the true religion; forgetting what is past, We have seriously taken to Our Princely consideration such particulars as may settle and establish the truth of Religion in that Our ancient Kingdome, and also to satisfie all Our good people of the reality of Our intentions herein, having indicted a free Generall Assembly to be kept at Glasgow the 21. of this instant; We have likewise appointed Our Commissioner to attend the same, from whom you are to expect Our pleasure in every thing, and to whom We require you to give that true and due respect and obedience, as if We were personally present Ourselves. And in full assurance of Our consent to what he shall in Our name promise, We have signed these, and wills the same for a testimonie to posterity to be registered in the Bookes of the Assembly. At White-Hall the 29. of October 1638.

---