Chapter XXV: The Covenanting Struggle (1)

THE moment had come for the King and his advisers in England to manifest their wisdom. Two lines of action were open to them, either unconditionally to withdraw the Liturgy, or at once to overwhelm all opposition. Charles was not inclined to adopt the first; and though quite unprepared to enforce the second, yet he clung to it, and only slowly and with difficulty became aware that his power was not commensurate with his will. The prevailing condition of the national mind was but imperfectly understood at headquarters in London; the King himself had merely looked at a few unimportant circumstances on the surface of society, and from these concluded that the Scots would offer little opposition to the introduction of the Liturgy. In the _Large Declaration_ the King stated the reasons which he had for believing that his commands would be obeyed, and that the Liturgy would be received. These in effect were, that the nobles, and his Scottish subjects generally, who resorted to England, attended the churches in that country without finding any fault or quarrelling with the service; that the English Liturgy had been regularly read in the Chapel Royal at Holyrood since the year 1617, and had been attended by all classes without dislike; that it had been used by the bishops while conferring orders, and for several years back it had been read in some of the cathedral churches, and in the new College of St. Andrews; that for years many families had used it in private, and that when he was in Scotland, it had been read in all the churches which he attended. That inasmuch as the Scottish Liturgy was in substance the same as the English one, he never expected that a charge of popery or superstition would be brought against a Liturgy which had been compiled by the bishops and other divines, who, in Queen Mary’s reign, had preferred banishment and death to submission to Rome, and which since had been cherished by the English clergy, who had done much to oppose popery.¹ But expectations founded on these reasons ought not to have misled the King and his counsellors. Apart from political adversaries, resistance of another character might easily have been anticipated, from the manner in which the Liturgy itself was introduced, and from the nature of the book. It had been long known that the Presbyterians did not recognise any ecclesiastical supremacy in the King, or even any special right in the sovereign to interfere with religion, without the concurrence of the Church, and therefore it should have been foreseen, that they would certainly oppose the important alterations introduced by the authority of the King. The tone of the King’s despatches distinctly manifest his view of the matter, which in effect was this――everyone in Scotland had done something wrong, or neglected to do what they should have done; his Majesty alone, under God, was thoroughly in the right, and therefore his will must be obeyed. But this misguided King was rudely brought to feel that there were stronger and more resolute minds and wills in Britain than his own.

¹ Pages 19‒21.

Meanwhile the agitation and excitement had greatly increased throughout the kingdom. Differences had also arisen among the members of the Privy Council; the bishops blamed the lords, and the lords blamed the bishops for what had happened, instead of presenting a united front to the opposition. While the Government were thus frittering away their energies, petitions against the Liturgy began to be drawn up and presented. The first one came from Fife, headed by Alexander Henderson, which was followed by another from Glasgow. Henderson, minister of Leuchars, in name of himself and his brethren, presented a petition to the Privy Council on the 23rd of August, 1637. This document stated that the moderator of their presbytery had ordered them to receive two copies of the new Liturgy, and they had expressed their readiness to receive one copy, that they might ascertain what it contained, before they consented to use it. But this proposal was not accepted, and therefore they entreated the Lords of the Council to suspend the charge against them, for the following reasons:――1. Because the Liturgy is neither warranted by the authority of the General Assembly nor by any act of Parliament; 2. Because the liberties of the true Church, and the form of religion and worship received at the Reformation, and universally practised since, were warranted by the acts of the General Assembly, and by several Acts of Parliament; 3. Because the Church of Scotland was a free and independent Church, and her own ministers were best able to discern what was in harmony with the Reformation, and calculated to promote the good of the people; 4. Because it was notorious that disputes, divisions, and trouble had arisen in the Church about a few of the many ceremonies contained in this Liturgy, which, when examined, had been found to depart far from the worship of this Church, and in some most essential points to draw near to the Church of Rome; 5. Because, since the Reformation, the people have always been taught a different doctrine, and they would not likely be willing to agree to such changes, even though their pastors were willing to submit. The Lords of the Council then passed an act declaring that there had been a misunderstanding touching the intention of the former acts: as they had only meant that ministers should buy copies of the Liturgy, and nothing more; but this was inconsistent with the tenor of their former acts, and with the proclamation prefixed to the Liturgy itself. At the same time the Council addressed a letter to the King, informing him of the discontent and of the clamour against the Liturgy in all parts of the country; and that they had agreed to let the matter rest till further instructed by his Majesty, after he should have summoned to his presence some of their own number.¹

¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 19,
449‒450; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 227‒229.

The King replied on the 10th of September. He declined to call any of the councillors to London, but expressed his displeasure that they had not caused the Liturgy to be read, and that they had been remiss in not bringing those who raised the tumult in July to condign punishment. He insisted that every bishop should cause the Liturgy to be read in his own diocese.

By this time a large number of petitions against the Liturgy had been circulated throughout the country; and on the 20th of September many of them were presented to the Council. The movement was rapidly gaining strength; as about twenty of the nobles, many of the gentry, and the chief men of the towns had joined it. A great number of people had assembled at Edinburgh, and the Earl of Sutherland presented a general petition to the Council, in name of the nobility, the barons, the ministers, and the burgesses. It urged that the introduction of the Liturgy would disturb the peace of the kingdom, and earnestly requested the Council to report to the King the real state of affairs, and to endeavour to persuade him to desist from interfering with their religion. The Council were sorely perplexed, hesitated, and wist not what to do; at last, they declined answering the petitions till they received instructions from the King. In a letter to the King, the Council stated that more than sixty-eight petitions had been presented against the Liturgy; they also requested the Duke of Lennox, who was then leaving for London, to inform the King of the true state of matters, and the difficulties which had unhappily arisen.¹

¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 21‒22, 33,
453; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 233‒235.

On the 9th of October, 1637, the King informed the Council that he had postponed an answer to the petitions. About the middle of this month a greater number of people than before met at Edinburgh to await the King’s answer, and with the view of inducing the magistrates to join them; while six fresh petitions from two hundred parishes were presented. A favourable and wise answer from the King might still have dissipated all alarm. On the 17th of the month, the reply was announced in the form of three proclamations at the Cross of Edinburgh. The first stated that nothing would be done that day touching Church affairs, and the multitude of petitioners and strangers were commanded to leave the capital within twenty-four hours; the second ordered the seat of government and the courts of law to be removed to Linlithgow (a move which had been tried before); and the third denounced a book, which had been popular, viz., “A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland,” all copies of which were ordered to be brought in to the Council, and publicly burned.¹

¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 32‒34; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume
II., page 236.

The citizens of Edinburgh and the people then assembled there were deeply offended, and directly resolved to disobey the proclamations, and not to separate till they had established a rallying-point. The next morning, while the Bishop of Galloway was on his way to the Council-house, a mob attacked him and pursued him to the door; while the crowd surrounded the Council-house, and loudly demanded that the obnoxious lords should surrender. The Council dispatched a messenger to the magistrates, asking their help, but he found that they were in the same plight as the Council. A part of the mob had stationed themselves around the town house, and some of them forced their way into the lobbies, and threatened that unless the magistrates joined the burgesses in opposing the Liturgy, they would burn the building. When this became known to the Privy Council, the High Treasurer and the Earl of Wigton forced their way through the multitude to the town-house. After a brief consultation, it was agreed that the magistrates should do all in their power to disperse the crowds; they accordingly announced to the seething multitude that they had acceded to the demands of the people, and were ready to join in their petitions against the Liturgy. The Treasurer and his followers now thought that they might venture to return to the Council-house; but as soon as they appeared on the street, they were assailed with hootings and jeers. The lords assured the excited people that they would urge their requests upon the King, but this was received with scornful hissing. Then a rush was made, and the Treasurer was thrown to the ground, and his hat, cloak, and staff of office were torn from him, while he was in danger of being trodden to death; but some of his companions got him to his feet, and the pressure of the crowd half carried him and his friends to the Council-house door, where they immediately disappeared. In a short time the magistrates joined the Council, and then the authorities were beset, many of them trembling for their lives. At last it was resolved to send for the nobles who had already declared themselves against the Liturgy, and by their exertions the crowd was dispersed, and the councillors got in safety to their homes.¹

¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 34‒38; _Baillie’s Letters and
Journals_, Volume I., pages 37‒38.

Meantime, the nobles, the gentry, the ministers, and others opposed to the Liturgy, had been engaged deliberating on the form of a complaint against the bishops, which was to be presented to the Council. Two forms were prepared, one by Henderson and Lord Balmerino, the other by Dickson and Lord Loudon. The latter was adopted, and immediately signed by about twenty-four earls and lords, by upwards of a hundred of the gentry, and by many of the ministers. The subscribers of this document stated, that by the tenor of the late proclamations they had been forced to remonstrate against the archbishops and bishops of the kingdom, who having been entrusted by the King with the government of the Church, had framed and enjoined two books――the Canons and the Liturgy; and that, in the Liturgy, not only were the seeds of divers superstitions sown――idolatries, and false doctrines, but also the English service-book was abused, especially in the communion, in a manner quite contrary to the intentions of the blessed Reformers of religion in England; while in the Book of Canons the observance of the Liturgy was enforced under the penalty of excommunication, and many regulations were enacted tending directly to foster superstition and error. And therefore, from their duty to God, to their King, and to their country, they craved that the matter should be tried, according to the laws of the kingdom; and that meanwhile the bishops should not be suffered to sit as judges. The Council promised to forward this petition to the King.¹

¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 35‒37.

The opposition party before separating, resolved to meet again on the 15th of November. In the interval they were to exert themselves to the utmost to ensure as large a meeting of the people as possible to receive an answer to their former petitions.

On the appointed day many earnest men arrived in Edinburgh, the influx of people being greater than ever, while the Earls of Rothes, ♦Cassillis, Eglinton, Home, and others, mingled with the crowd. The Privy Council, fearing a repetition of the former tumults, held a conference with some of the leaders of the petitioners at Linlithgow on the 14th of November. The councillors complained that the multitude of people congregated at Edinburgh threatened to break the peace of the kingdom, and that these meetings were illegal. The nobles, on the side of the petitioners, insisted on their right to meet and to present their grievances; but to remove any cause of complaint, they suggested that their party were ready to act by representatives, and thus render crowded meetings unnecessary. The Council agreed to this proposal, and perhaps unwittingly lent its aid to the embodiment of a power in the nation which was quickly to supersede its own. The opposition party’s scheme soon assumed a definite form. Four permanent committees were appointed: the first comprising all the nobles who had joined the movement; the second consisting of two representatives from each of the counties; the third embracing one minister from each presbytery; and the fourth including one or two deputies from each burgh. These committees sat at different tables in the Parliament House――hence in history they were called the “Tables;” and together they represented the community. For business and effective action each of the committees elected four representatives, and these united formed a select deliberative body of sixteen members, appointed to sit constantly in Edinburgh, with instructions to assemble the larger body of representatives when any critical emergency appeared. At first they merely took charge of the petitions, and urged them upon the attention of the government;¹ but they soon began to feel themselves strong enough to formulate proposals and plans for the party, and proceeded to issue mandates which were more respected and better obeyed than the proclamations of the King and his Council. They virtually assumed the functions of rulers, and the real control of affairs soon fell into their hands.

♦ “Casillis” replaced with “Cassillis”

¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., page 243; Baillie’s _Letters
and Journals_, Volume I., pages 40, 42.

Though the troubles which the King’s policy had raised in Scotland were thus forced upon his attention, even yet he but dimly understood the character of the movement. Accordingly he deemed it sufficient to dispatch the Earl of Roxburgh to negotiate; and then issued a proclamation intimating to his faithful subjects that he had delayed answering their petitions owing to the tumultuous and violent acts done in Edinburgh in contempt of his royal authority. He was graciously pleased to protest that he abhorred all popery, and that he had no intention of doing anything contrary to the laws of Scotland. This was not likely to pacify a people almost ripe for rebellion; accordingly the movement continued to develop and gather vigour.

On the 21st of December, 1637, the representatives of the Tables appeared before the Privy Council, and demanded that their petitions should be heard. Lord Loudon boldly restated their grievances touching the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, the Court of High Commission, and the bishops, who, it was asserted, were the authors of all these innovations. As the bishops were the chief delinquents, and directly interested parties, it was claimed that they should not be allowed to sit as judges upon the matters in dispute between the government and the petitioners. The Council’s hands being tied by orders from the court, they remitted the whole matter for the determination of the King. The following is a part of Loudon’s speech before the Council:――“A more weighty and stately cause than this, for which we now appear before your lordships, was never pleaded before any judge on earth: being for the defence of the true religion and established laws, on which depends the welfare both of Church and Commonwealth, our condition of life, of liberty, and temporal estate in this transitory world, and our eternal happiness in the world to come; our duty to God Almighty, the supreme King of kings, and our allegiance and duty to our sovereign lord and master the King.... And in respect that, by the whole strain of our supplications and complaints, given in to your lordships, the archbishops and bishops are our direct parties, as contrivers, devisers, introducers, maintainers, and urgers of the Books ... and other unlawful innovations and just grievances complained of by us, we crave that the matter may be put to trial, and the bishops taken order with, according to the laws of the realm, and not suffered to sit as judges, until our cause be tried and decided according to justice; so these prelates being the only parties, of whom we have at this time justly complained, must be declined as our judges, seeing that they cannot be both judge and party, according to the loveable laws of this kingdom. And our declaration ought to be sustained as relevant against them, notwithstanding that they have purposely absented themselves at this time, because if the matter and action depending shall not be decided at present, but shall happen, by answer or letter from his Majesty, to be remitted back to the Council, the chancellor and bishops who are councillors will be judges in the complaint given in against themselves; and the chancellor, with six or seven of the bishops, making up a quorum of the Council, may determine and dispose of our cause and petitions, now depending, as well as they passed an act of Council for approving the Liturgy before it was either printed or seen.”¹

¹ _Large Declaration_, page 46. Baillie’s _Letters and
Journals_, Volume I., pages 455‒458.

The government and the King were now sadly perplexed; and about the beginning of 1638, Traquair, the Lord Treasurer of Scotland, was called to London. He found that the King was extremely ignorant of the real state of affairs in Scotland. Those whom he trusted were partly responsible for this; but the King himself was unwilling to be informed as to difficulties which he had himself helped to create. Some consultation was held concerning what was next to be done; but the idea of yielding to the opinions and sentiments of the people was never entertained by the King. In the end it was resolved to adhere to the Liturgy and the Court of High Commission, and to condemn and ignore all that had been objected against them, in order that the royal prerogative might be maintained. Popular meetings and demonstrations were to be prohibited and suppressed, while his Majesty took the responsibility of the Liturgy upon himself. The Treasurer returned with his instructions in the middle of February.¹

¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, page 33, 1677;
Stafford’s _Letters_, Volume II.

The Privy Council and the Court of Session were then at Stirling, and a proclamation in accord with the royal conclusions was issued on the 19th of February. But the representatives of the Tables had been informed of this, and Lindsay and Home were there before the Treasurer himself. Accordingly, when the heralds had performed their part by proclaiming his Majesty’s will, Lindsay and Home immediately took instruments in the hands of a notary, and protested that they should still have a right to petition the King; that they would not recognise the bishops as judges in any court; that they should not incur any loss for not observing such canons, rites, and proclamations as were contrary to Acts of Parliament and to Acts of the General Assembly; that if any disturbance should arise, it should not be imputed to them; that their requests proceeded from conscience, with no object save the preservation of the Reformed Religion, and the laws and liberties of his Majesty’s ancient kingdom. This protest was in name of the nobles, the barons, the ministers, and the burgesses, appointed to attend the King’s answer to their humble petitions. Similar protests on the part of the petitioners were entered at Linlithgow and Edinburgh, and wherever the royal proclamation was issued.¹

¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 48‒52.

The crisis was at hand. The opposition party felt that they could not recede, and therefore it was necessary for them to look to the future. Their only hope of successfully resisting the King was to unite on some common principle and end, easily understood, and capable of touching the sympathies, emotions, and the religious feelings of the people, and thus combine them together for action. At this stage an old custom suggested itself to them, as appropriate to the circumstances and the emergency. It was proposed, as in bye-gone days, that every adherent of the cause should be bound as one man by a solemn covenant. This kind of engagement, as we have seen, reached far back in the history of Scotland, under the name of “bonds of manrent,” by which the aristocracy leagued themselves together for mutual defence, or for performing some exploit, as the defeat of an enemy, the imprisonment or the murder of their King. On this occasion, the party opposed to the King’s measures met at Edinburgh about the end of February, 1638, and agreed to revive the Confession and Covenant of 1581, which at that time was signed by James VI., his government and the people, throughout the kingdom.¹ To prepare the minds of the people, several of the ministers of Edinburgh preached in favour of renewing the Covenant. The framing of the famous document itself was entrusted to Alexander Henderson and Johnston of Warriston; and the Earls of Rothes, Loudon, and Balmerino were selected to revise it. This national Covenant consisted of three parts: the first was a copy of the Confession of 1581; the second contained a summary of the various Acts of Parliament which condemned Roman Catholicism, and ratified the Reformed Church; the third was the new Covenant or bond, by which the subscribers swore, in the name of the “Lord their God,” that they would remain in the profession of their religion; that they would defend it to the utmost of their power from all errors and corruptions; that they would stand by the King’s person in support of the true religion, the liberties, and the laws of the kingdom; and that they would stand by each other in defence of the same against all persons whatsoever. When the first draft of the Covenant was submitted to the committees, there were differences of opinion about it. Some thought that they could not bind themselves together for mutual defence without incurring treason; but after a long discussion, and some alterations having been made, a general agreement was obtained.²

¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
I., pages 372‒73; Volume II., pages 89, 177, 228.

² Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_; Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 52‒54. At first
Baillie had scruples, and he caused some of the articles of
the Covenant to be modified, but after his concurrence in
the general agreement, he says:――“What will be next, the
Lord only knows, we are to humble ourselves in fasting and
prayer.” _Ibid._, page 54. This Confession and Covenant
is usually printed in the same volume with the Westminster
Confession.

The Covenanters had now assumed a new position in the kingdom. They had cast aside the character of humble petitioners to the authorities, and began openly to exercise the functions of government themselves. They had become a compact and well organised body, ready to act upon the people in the most effective manner, by appealing to their religious convictions and feelings, to their national pride and passion, and to their hopes and fears.

When everything had been prepared for securing the adhesion of the people, it was resolved to inaugurate the new scheme at Edinburgh, on the 28th February, 1638. A multitude of the people had then congregated in the Greyfriars’ Church and Churchyard; and there they were addressed in glowing terms on the preservation of their religion, the true Presbyterian polity, their duty to God and their country, till their feelings and emotions were raised to such a high pitch of enthusiasm, that they firmly believed their everlasting happiness depended on maintaining the purity of the reformed faith. Such was the feeling of the people, when, at two in the afternoon, the Earls of Rothes and Loudon, Henderson and Dickson, ministers, and Johnston of Warriston, appeared with the Covenant. Henderson having opened this part of the proceedings with prayer, Loudon addressed the assemblage; and then all were asked to come forward and sign the Covenant. The Earl of Sutherland was the first to sign, being followed by Sir Andrew Murray; thereafter crowds surrounded the table, and when those in the church had signed the Covenant, it was taken out to the graveyard and placed on a flat gravestone. There the enthusiasm reached its greatest height, men and women being equally eager to subscribe their names. The brave work went on for several hours, till every inch of the long roll of parchment was covered. Night at last closed the scene. “It was a day wherein the arm of the Lord was revealed――a day wherein the princes of the people were assembled to swear fealty and allegiance to that great King whose name is the Lord of Hosts.” Henderson described it as――“The day of the Lord’s power, wherein they had seen His people most willingly offer themselves in multitudes, like the dew of the morning.”¹

¹ Wilson’s _Defence of the Reformation Principles of the Church
of Scotland_; Rothes’ _Relation_.

The following day copies of the Covenant were circulated in Edinburgh, the citizens almost universally signing it, while other copies were immediately sent throughout the kingdom. Efforts were made to arouse the enthusiasm of the people, and many with uplifted hands subscribed and swore to maintain the Covenant. Commissioners were sent to Glasgow and to Aberdeen, the only places where serious opposition was expected. The Professors of the University of Glasgow, and some of the ministers who held the doctrine of non-resistance, were opposed to the Covenant, and refused to subscribe. The doctors of the University of Aberdeen also spoke and wrote boldly against the Covenant, and in spite of the efforts of a deputation from the South, very few of the citizens of Aberdeen could be induced to sign it; they asserted that it was an unlawful combination against established authority. Pamphlets were published on both sides of the question, and the controversy was hotly maintained for a time. But this war of words was shortly hushed amid the general unanimity of the other parts of the kingdom. Such was the energy and tact of the leaders of the movement, that within two months nearly all the inhabitants of Scotland had given in their adherence to the Covenant, except those above mentioned, the courtiers, the bishops and their fraction of adherents.¹

¹ _The Answers of some Brethren of the Ministry to the Replies
of the Ministers and Professors of Aberdeen_, 1638; Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 62‒64, 66, _et seq._
It may be noted that, immediately after the Covenant was
sworn at Edinburgh, the leaders of the party communicated
with their friends in London, and sent them copies of the
Covenant.

The Privy Council, already alarmed, were sitting at Stirling while the Covenant was being carried about the streets of Edinburgh for signatures, and great was their embarrassment at the determined opposition of the Presbyterians. After four days’ deliberation they agreed to send Sir John Hamilton, the Justice Clerk, to London, to inform the King that the whole nation was in a state of excitement; that the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, and the High Commission, and the modes in which they had been introduced, were the causes of all the turmoil; and that His Majesty should, “as an act of singular justice,” inquire into these grievances of his subjects. The Earls of Traquair and Roxburgh also wrote to the King, distinctly informing him that the dread of religious innovation had raised a conflagration amongst all classes of the people which was daily becoming more vehement, and that no force in the kingdom could suppress it. As religion was the pretext, they suggested that it would be well for the King to free his subjects from their fears by withdrawing the Book of Canons and the Liturgy, and then he would be in a better position to punish the insolence of those who persisted in kicking against his authority. In the month of April, several members of the Privy Council and nobles were called to the Court, while some of the bishops were already there; the King, therefore, had a good opportunity of knowing the real state of Scotland. If anything more was needed to inform him, it was supplied in a paper forwarded to the Scottish Lords at court, containing a clear statement of the grievances of the Covenanters. This document expressly stated that the recalling of the Book of Canons and the Liturgy would not be sufficient to restore peace; it demanded that the High Commission should be utterly abolished, and complained of the Perth Articles, of the civil offices, and of the seats in parliament held by the bishops, and the oaths exacted from ministers. The Covenanters requested that a lawful and free General Assembly and a Parliament should be summoned as in former times, to redress the grievances of the people, to settle commotions, and to pacify the minds of the nation.

The Justice Clerk and other Scottish Councillors suggested soothing remedies, and the position of matters was earnestly discussed. At last the King called to his closet the Archbishops of Canterbury and St. Andrews, the Bishops of Galloway, Brechin, and Ross, and the Marquis of Hamilton, and measures of repression were resolved upon. At this meeting the King announced his intention to send the Marquis of Hamilton to Scotland as High Commissioner with power to settle the troubles of the nation.¹

¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 34‒43;
Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 252‒261. There is
evidence that Hamilton had a better grasp of the difficulties
than the King; yet even the Marquis had not a very complete
appreciation of the hardness of the task which he undertook
when he entered on the mission of defeating the aims of the
Covenanters.

A proclamation was prepared to be sent with Hamilton to Scotland. In it the King promised not to press the Canons and the Liturgy, except in a fair and legal way; that he would limit the High Commission, and that he would overlook all that was past, if his subjects would renounce and disclaim their factious bonds, and return to their loyal duty; but those who declined to do this would be treated as rebels and traitors. The King’s instructions to Hamilton were signed on the 16th of May, 1638, and were in accord with the contents of the proclamation just indicated. They extended to twenty-eight articles, the last of which was in these terms:――“If you cannot, by the means prescribed by us, bring back the refractory and seditious to due obedience, we do not only give you authority, but command all hostile acts whatsoever to be used against them, they having deserved to be used in no other way by us, but as a rebellious people; for the doing whereof we will not only save you harmless, but account it as acceptable service done us.”

Meanwhile the Covenanters were proceeding with their work. They had little confidence in the word of the King, as he had already shown that his opinions and feelings were entirely against them. Several of the presbyteries had relieved the constant moderators of their duties, while some of the uncovenanted ministers were removed from their churches. In some cases, the clergy who clung to Episcopacy and refused to take the Covenant, were mobbed and maltreated, but the majority of the Covenanters disapproved of such proceedings, though they were not always able to prevent outrages.¹

¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 70‒71;
Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 43‒51.

Early in June, 1638, three months after the first signing of the Covenant, the Marquis of Hamilton arrived in Scotland. It was evident from the King’s instructions to him, that there was no intention of granting the demands of the Covenanters, and the Marquis soon discovered that his instructions were entirely futile. All the southern counties were under the control of the Covenanters. They had already ordered supplies of arms, and threatened to seize the Castle of Edinburgh. The Crown could place little reliance on the Privy Council, as some of its members were associated with the discontented nobles. Lord Lindsay told Hamilton that the people would never relinquish the Covenant; that Episcopacy must be modified, if not abolished; and that if a Parliament and General Assembly were not summoned by the King’s authority, the Covenanters would take matters into their own hands. So Hamilton did not venture to publish the royal proclamation, as he had no means of enforcing it. He wrote to the King, stating that his Majesty should be prepared either to concede all the demands of his subjects, or to suppress the movement by force. Charles replied that his preparations were progressing, that the Castles of Edinburgh and Stirling should be secured, and meantime he instructed Hamilton to flatter the Covenanters with any hopes he pleased, to gain time, until he should be in a position to suppress them: for said Charles――“I will rather die than yield to their impertinent and damnable demands; for it is all one to yield to be no king in a very short time.” On the 20th of June, the King informed Hamilton that his warlike preparations were well advanced. Arms for 14, 000 foot, and 2000 horse, had been ordered, and his ships were ready. Other communications passed between the King and Hamilton, the result being thus stated by Charles himself:――“I will only say, that so long as this Covenant is in force, whether it be with or without explanations, I have no more power in Scotland than as a Duke of Venice, which I will rather die than suffer; yet I command the giving ear to their explanations or anything to win time. Lastly, my resolution is to come myself in person, accompanied like myself, sea forces, nor Ireland, shall not be forgotten.”¹

¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 52‒61.

Hamilton saw that he could do nothing to restore the confidence of the nation, and resolved to return to London for fresh instructions. Before leaving, he issued, in an amended form, the King’s proclamation, which had now assumed something of an apologetic strain in defence of the King’s action. It was published at the Cross of Edinburgh, on the 4th of July, and when the royal herald concluded, the representatives of the Covenanters immediately began to read their protest. The proclamation had no effect in appeasing the Covenanters. Touching this royal proclamation, Baillie says: “It was heard by a world of people with great indignation: we all do marvel that ever the Commissioner could think to give satisfaction to any living soul by such a declaration, which yet he often professed with confidence of that paper before it was heard; there must be some mystery here which is not yet open. This declaration cannot be the one which his grace brought with him, that was thought certainly to contain a command of surrendering our Covenant; but of our Confession is no syllable; yet this has apparently been drawn up here very lately by the bishops and statesmen who are trusted, with the consent as it seems of the Commissioner, for the date of it is but six or seven days, at Greenwich, before it was proclaimed at Edinburgh.”¹

¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 95‒106. _Letters and Journals_,
Volume I., page 91.

Before the Marquis departed, the leaders of the Covenanters intimated to him, that if he did not return by the 5th of August with a favourable answer to their demands, they would consider themselves entitled to take whatever steps they thought fit. He left on the 6th of July, and did not return till the 8th of August. During his absence the Covenanting party were actively engaged in strengthening and completing their organisation; and excepting Aberdeen, they had almost the entire nation on their side. In the Northern and Western districts some of the ministers were unwilling to subscribe the Covenant, but the influence of the local nobles tended to overcome their scruples.¹

¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., page 277; Rothes’ _Relation_.

When Hamilton arrived at Court, after some deliberation the King, with the advice of Laud, issued new instructions to his commissioner. On his return to Scotland, he was empowered under limits to summon a General Assembly and a Parliament; he was to endeavour to arrange that the bishops should have votes in the Assembly, and if possible that one of them should be moderator of the Assembly; he was to protest against the abolition of bishops, but might permit them to be tried if accused of definite crimes. He was further to insist that no laymen should have votes in electing the ministers from the presbyteries to the General Assembly. With the aim of counteracting the effects of the Covenant, it was proposed that the King should sign the Confession of 1560, and publish it with a bond to be subscribed by all his subjects, by which they were to swear to maintain the Confession, and to defend the King’s person, and the laws and liberties of the kingdom. But this movement to withdraw the people from the national Covenant completely failed.¹

¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 111, 113‒117; Burnet’s _Memoirs of
the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 65‒68.

On Hamilton’s return to Scotland, he found that the demands of the Covenanters had rather increased, and that they could not agree to the limits which his instructions required. If they were to have a General Assembly, the scope of its proceedings must be left, they said, to the judgment of its members; while they had resolved that both elders and ministers should have votes in the election of the members of the Assembly. Further they declared that they would not consent to be fettered beforehand――their Assembly must be free; and hinted to the Royal Commissioner that it might be called by themselves without waiting for the King’s authority. The Marquis thus finding that no concessions could be obtained from the Covenanters, again proposed to visit the court and consult with the King; and having promised to return an answer by the 20th of September, he left for London.¹

¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 99‒101;
_Large Declaration_, pages 117‒122.

The King and Hamilton met at Oatlands, and on the 9th of September, new instructions for the Royal Commissioner were signed. The weakness of the King’s policy, and the utter folly of many of his proposals touching the difficulties in Scotland, had become painfully manifest. But to crown his folly, he now consented to sign the negative Confession of 1581, which formed the first part of the Covenant, as if this royal act, after what had already happened, would raise the confidence of the people in their King. The Privy Council were ordered to sign it themselves, and to command all his Majesty’s subjects to follow the example of their King and at once subscribe it; for if they must have a Covenant, it was his pleasure that they should accept this one alone.¹

¹ Burnet’s _Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 72‒75;
_Large Declaration_, pages 134‒135.

Hamilton arrived in Edinburgh on the 17th of September, and a meeting of the Council was immediately held. The King’s proposals were placed before the meeting, and the councillors agreed to subscribe the negative Confession as required, and passed an act expressing their satisfaction. They also resolved that the King’s concessions should be proclaimed. Accordingly, it was announced at the Cross of Edinburgh that a General Assembly was appointed to meet at Glasgow on the 21st of November, 1638, and a Parliament at Edinburgh on the 15th of May, the following year. All the people were commanded to follow the good example of the King and his Council, by subscribing the negative Confession and bond for the defence of religion and law. But this move completely failed to entrap the Covenanters; and they protested as usual against the proclamation. Thus, for a short time, there were two Covenants in the field competing for popular support, the King’s one and the Tables’ one; both were canvassed vigorously throughout the kingdom, both sides reproaching each other with employing coercion and discreditable means to procure signatures. While these covenanting operations were proceeding, every town and every parish became excessively excited, and people readily believed anything that seemed to favour their own party. The King’s Covenant was signed by a majority of the judges, by many in Angus, in Aberdeen, and by some in Glasgow. It was reported that twenty-eight thousand in all had signed it, of which twelve thousand were obtained through the influence of the Marquis of Huntly; but it failed to secure anything approaching to the amount of support accorded by the people to the National Covenant.¹

¹ _Large Declaration_, pages 137‒153, _et seq._; Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 103‒108; Burnet’s
_Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, pages 79‒83.

The nation was now wistfully looking forward to the approaching General Assembly, on which so great an issue depended. The leaders and the committee of the Covenanters were actively and earnestly engaged in preparing for the proper constitution of the Assembly. In the end of August directions had been sent to the Presbyteries how to proceed; and minute instructions were subsequently despatched to them touching the mode of electing their representatives, along with a copy of the Act of Assembly of 1597, concerning the number of members which each Presbytery was entitled to send to the Assembly. They got a form of commission, and in short, the committees of the Tables managed the elections in such a way that the most ardent of the Presbyterian ministers were returned as members, and the leading lay Covenanters as ruling elders. Their organisation was so complete, and their energy so effective, that the supporters of Episcopacy gave up the contest in despair.¹

¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 469‒472;
_Large Declaration_.

But one serious difficulty yet remained, the trial of the bishops. As the Covenanters had no legal power to cite the bishops to appear before the Assembly, they requested Hamilton to grant a warrant for summoning them, but he refused this on the ground that it was enough if he refrained from placing any obstacle in the way of their being brought to a fair trial. Indeed, the bishops’ declinature had already been revised by the King, and was intended to be used, not merely as a bar to their trial, but also as a pretext for dissolving the Assembly itself. The Covenanters then asked the judges of the Court of Session to grant a summons against the bishops, but they replied that such causes were beyond their jurisdiction. The leaders of the Covenanters, however, had determined not to be baffled for lack of legal forms and precedents. A libel was framed and signed by a long list of nobles, burgesses, and ministers, and brought before the Presbytery of Edinburgh; and this body, after considering the matter, remitted it to the coming Assembly.¹

¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 297‒300; Burnet’s
_Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton_, page 88; _Large
Declaration_, pages 209‒220.

This libel against the bishops consisted of two chief parts, the one containing charges against them as a body, and the other special charges against each of the bishops personally; the latter, however, being only founded on common report, were never intended to be proved. It is the first, or the historical part of the libel, which has any real value, as the charges in it contained matters which could be proved or disproved on historic grounds. Thus they were accused of breaking the cautions agreed to in the General Assembly of 1600, concerning ministers’ votes in Parliament and other points; of violating several points of the Book of Discipline, and of the Book of Fasting; of teaching doctrines contrary to the Reformation Confession of Faith; of exacting unlawful oaths from entrants to the ministry; of assuming the position of diocesan bishops, taking consecration and claiming the power of ordination and jurisdiction in virtue of an unwarrantable office; of introducing the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, and the High Commission, and so causing great dissension between the King and his subjects. This part of the indictment against the bishops could easily be supported by a mass of unimpeachable evidence, but it is needless to enter into its details. When the Covenanters made grave charges against the personal character of the bishops, their action cannot be so clearly justified.

The Covenanters had prepared for mustering in force, and as the day of the meeting of the Assembly approached, men began to flock into Glasgow from all quarters of the country. On the 16th of November, the western nobles arrived with their vassals and friends; and the following day the eastern nobles, gentry, and ministers entered the city. Hamilton, as Royal Commissioner, accompanied by the Lords of the Privy Council, arrived on the 17th; and the city of the west presented a scene of unusual bustle. For the next three days, both parties were intently engaged in strengthening themselves for the contest.¹

¹ Baillie says――“On Friday, the 16th of November, we in the
west, as we were desired, came into Glasgow.... We were
informed that the commissioner and his councillors were to
take up the town with a great number of their followers; so
that the nearest noblemen and gentlemen were desired to come
in that night well attended. The town did expect and provide
for huge multitudes of people, and put on their houses
and beds excessive prices.... On Saturday the most of the
Eastland noblemen, barons, and ministers came in. In the
afternoon, my Lord Commissioner, with most of the Council,
came in; my Lord Rothes, Montrose, and many of our folks
went 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 answering,
nothing reasonable should be denied.”――_Letters and Journals_,
Volume I., page 121.

After much preliminary arrangement, the Assembly met on the 21st of November, 1638, in the Cathedral Church. The members of the Assembly consisted of one hundred and forty ministers, ninety-eight ruling elders from presbyteries and burghs, and two professors not ministers. Among the elders, there were seventeen nobles, nine knights, twenty-five landed proprietors, and forty-seven burgesses, all men of some local standing,――thus the total number of members was two hundred and forty.¹ Burnet says――“There were about two hundred and sixty commissioners; besides that, from every presbytery there were also assessors, from some two, three, four, or more, who had no vote, but only to give advice; so that in all they made a great number.”

¹ Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_; _Memoirs of
the Dukes of Hamilton_, page 98.

The first day was occupied with religious services and matters of form. The second day, the Covenanters insisted that the election of moderator was the first thing to be done in order to constitute the Assembly, but the Royal Commissioner and his party argued that a moderator should not be chosen till the commissions of the members were examined, that it might be known who were properly entitled to vote. When it appeared that Hamilton would be defeated on this point, he proposed to read a paper presented to him in the name of the bishops against the Assembly, but the proposal was met with shouts of dissent. A stormy debate ensued, followed by protests and counter-protests, which continued till every one was wearied. After this, Henderson, minister of Leuchars, was chosen moderator, and Johnston of Warriston appointed clerk. Johnston was well versed in the law, a man of keen judgment, and an ardent Covenanter. Several days were passed in examining the commissions of the members, and other disputed points, while some sharp debating took place, in which the Royal Commissioner had to encounter the leading disputants of the Assembly.

On the 27th of November, the bishops’ declinature of the Assembly’s authority was again urged by Hamilton, and this time it was read by the Clerk of the Assembly, amidst jeers and laughter. Hamilton spoke and argued on the weight and importance of the document, and some parts of it were debated. The next day, the moderator put the question――Whether the Assembly found itself a competent judge of the bishops? The Royal Commissioner then rose and said: If the Assembly proceed to censure the office of the bishops, he must immediately withdraw, as the King’s sanction could not be given to this. He spoke earnestly touching the admission of lay elders as members of the Assembly, to which he strongly objected; referred to the irregular form in which the bishops had been cited, and asserted that the Assembly had no right to act as their judges. Speeches were delivered from the other side on the freedom of the Assembly; to which the Commissioner replied, by arguing that the election of the members had been controlled by the Tables, that for months before the Assembly, the orders of the Committees of the Tables had been obeyed by all; and, at last, in the King’s name he declared the Assembly dissolved, and departed. But immediately a protest was read that his absence should not prevent the Assembly from proceeding with the work which it had undertaken. It was then put to the vote, whether they should adhere to their protest, and continue the Assembly, and it was agreed almost unanimously to continue it to the end. The next important question was, whether the Assembly was competent to judge the bishops, and this too was answered unanimously in the affirmative, as also that it was proper to proceed with their trial.

Thereafter the Assembly went on rapidly with its business. All the acts of the Assemblies since 1605, including the five Articles of Perth, were annulled. Acts were passed condemning the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, the Book of Ordination, the High Commission, and Episcopacy. The bishops themselves were tried and condemned, though none of them were present in the Assembly. Probation of the libels against them was referred to a committee; with the result that they were all deposed, and eight of them excommunicated. The nation did not want bishops, and that was deemed an all-sufficient reason for casting them out. They had always allied themselves with the despotic tendencies and arbitrary proceedings of the Crown; they were in reality the tools of the King: they belonged to him, and not to the people; they were intended to be, and had been, to the utmost of their power, the pliant ministers of the royal will, not the servants of the nation, and hence the suddenness and completeness of their fall.

As the Assembly had abolished Episcopacy, it naturally followed that the Presbyterian polity should be restored, with its appropriate organisation. Acts were passed concerning the visitation of colleges and schools, and for planting schools in the country; acts forbidding ministers to accept civil offices, for repressing popery and superstition, and for the better observance of Sunday; acts for dealing with those who spoke or wrote against the Covenant, prohibiting the printing of books touching Church affairs without the warrant of Archibald Johnston, Clerk to the Assembly and legal adviser of the Church; and many other acts. Finally, on the 20th of December, the Assembly agreed to address a letter to the King justifying their proceedings and requesting his approval. The meeting then closed its work by appointing the next General Assembly to meet at Edinburgh in July 1639.¹

¹ Peterkin’s _Records of the Church of Scotland_; _Large
Declaration_, pages 234‒324; Baillie’s _Letters and
Journals_, Volume I., pages 123‒176; Balfour’s _Annals_,
Volume II., pages 301‒316.