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

It will be seen, from the foregoing report, that the Commissioner, although he hinted at some objections to Members of Assembly, stated none when called on; and thus and otherwise, he fully recognised, in the King’s name, the perfect lawfulness of the Assembly, and soon pledged himself to sanction, for his Sovereign, the Acts which it might pass, on all the vital points for which the Covenanters had so strenuously struggled—assented to the abolition of Episcopacy and all its obnoxious accompaniments in Scotland—and undertook to get these Acts ratified in Parliament. The suspicions of the Assembly were lulled by the speciousness of Traquair, (whom, however, we are not prepared to condemn so vehemently as has sometimes been done both by his coadjutors and antagonists;) and we have rarely perused the account of any scene, whether of real life or of skilful romance, with keener feelings than those excited by the detailed report of proceedings in the General Assembly on 17th August 1639. When the seemingly gracious intentions of the King were intimated by Traquair, there was a simultaneous burst of gratitude and confidence, and, in the highest sense of the words, of chivalrous loyalty. The stern men of the Covenant were melted into tears of high-minded and generous gladness. The venerable Patriarchs of the old Presbyterian Church, who had served at its unpolluted altars for half a century, and who had mourned its degradation in silent sorrow, or suffered captivity and oppressions from its temporary Lords, poured out their hearts in thanksgivings to God and the King, for these unlooked-for manifestations of royal grace and favour.

“Mr John Weymes, called on, could scarse get a word spocken for teares trickling doune along his gray haires, like droppes of rain or dew upon the toppe of the tender grasse; and yet withal, smyling for joy, said—I doe remember when the Kirk of Scotland had a beautifull face. I remember since there was a great power and life accompanying the ordinances of God, and a wonderfull worke of operation upon the hearts of people. This my eyes did see—a fearfull defection [followed] after, procured by our sinnes; and no more did I wishe, before my eyes were closed, but to have seene such a beautifull day, and that under the conduct and favour of our Kings Majestie. Blessed for ever more be our Lord and King, Jesus; and the blessing of God be upon his Majestie, and the Lord make us thankfull!”[237]

Such were the pathetic and touching strains in which the worthies of the olden Church received the announcement by Traquair, of the hollow and hypocritical message of which he was the herald. We do but justice to the memory of Traquair, when we give him credit for being moved by such testimonies of affectionate loyalty, and convinced that the system of dissimulation of which he was but the “echo,” was utterly impolitic and impracticable; and he acted his part with a talent and temper which we cannot but admire. He was indeed placed in “a false position,” in which no man could have done at once what patriotism and honour prompted, and yet obeyed the master whom he served, or gratified the minions of his court. Had Charles but followed out the course which the sagacity of Traquair, and the circumstances in which he was placed, chalked out in the Assembly of 1639, we verily believe that the King might long have reigned in the hearts of a loyal people, and Traquair have been remembered as one of her patriots and best benefactors. But the infatuation which overruled these arrangements, led to other and very different consequences.

In viewing these transactions, however, justice must be done to the King as well as to the Covenanters; and there is no doubt that the latter, in some particulars, deviated from the spirit and avowed purposes of the treaty. That treaty was based on a spontaneous declaration by the Covenanters, that they would yield “all civil and temporal obedience” to the King, and that all they claimed was security for their “religion and liberties, according to the ecclesiastical and civil laws” of Scotland;[238] and the ambiguous terms of the treaty, when finally completed, just left the vexed question as open as it was before—What were the Ecclesiastical and what the Civil Laws of Scotland at the time? Charles held that Episcopacy was the form of Church Government settled both by the ecclesiastical and civil laws in force at the time; while the Covenanters looked back to the constitutions and enactments prior to the changes introduced by King James VI., and understood that these were to be assumed as the securities which they demanded; and hence, the treaty in fact amounted merely to a truce, which was soon destined to be broken.

The course adopted in these circumstances by Traquair and the leaders of the Covenant at the Assembly, had it been judiciously followed out, might have obviated all difficulties—viz., that the Assembly should, by a declaratory Act, indicate what the Church held to be its genuine ecclesiastical constitutions, to be afterwards submitted to and ratified by Parliament. And had nothing been done beyond their declaration as to the causes of the recent troubles, matters might have been satisfactorily adjusted. But this was not the case. Although it was clearly agreed on, that no reference should be made to the Acts of the Assembly 1638, and that nothing was to be founded on these, the Covenanters broke through this arrangement in one most essential particular—namely, with regard to the depositions and excommunications of Ministers which had taken place under its authority. Notwithstanding repeated warnings and remonstrances by Traquair, the Assembly entered upon a review of all the proceedings of the Commissions that had acted by authority of the preceding Assembly, which was virtually assuming and sanctioning the Acts of 1638; although, as stated by themselves, the King had declared he never would recognise or sanction the proceedings of that Assembly. By taking cognizance of these cases of deposition, &c., they in effect anticipated the decision of Parliament, with respect to their findings as to the constitutions of the Church, and thus inverted the proper order of procedure. They thus furnished, not merely a plausible, but a valid ground for the King to object to their whole proceedings; and although we acquit the single-hearted and zealous Presbyterian Clergy who concurred in this anomalous course, we cannot so readily forgive the Nobles and other laymen who were parties to the negociations, and who have left on record their own statements, that the Acts of the Assembly of 1638, were to be held as in a state of abeyance in that of the following year.

In this particular, therefore, it appears the Covenanters were clearly to blame, independently altogether of the unsound nature of the proceedings of the Commissions, and the venial accusations against many of the deposed Ministers, many of whom were constrained, by operating on their fears and other grovelling feelings, to acquiesce in decisions which they could not resist, and to profess submission, when in their hearts and consciences they could not be supposed, honestly, to yield it. It is impossible to read the details about some scores of these poor men, without pain and reprobation; and the vindictive spirit in which they were treated ought to be a warning, in all future times, against a rash submission to high pretensions in popular ecclesiastical courts. Many were deposed on very questionable grounds, and others were left for the administration of what was called “mercy,” on condition of renouncing all their previous convictions and professions, and their sense of allegiance to the monarch and statute law of the land. That some were unworthy may be admitted; but trial in their absence, upon nice points of metaphysical theology, and by means of evidence of very questionable credibility, is, to say the least of it, a characteristic of the Assembly of 1639, which reflects but little credit on its charity or its justice.

We must be permitted further to remark, that the soreness and ferocity which were indicated by that Assembly in reference to the “Large Declaration,” or Manifesto, afford but slender proofs of magnanimity or conscious rectitude. That work was known to be the production of Balcanquel; and, after a minute examination of it, an elaborate report on its mis-statements was read, when the following colloquy took place.[239]

“The Moderatour desired some of the brethren to give their judgment of the said Booke.

“Mr Andro Cant said—It is [so] full of grosse absurdities, that I thinke hanging of the author should prevent all other censures.