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

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the new designation of “conventicles;” the powers of these were transferred to the bishops, and lay elders entirely superseded; and the whole texture and spirit of it was manifestly Popish, embodying, in almost undisguised terms, the form of the missals, and introducing every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.