Naismith History of the RP Church II.
James Dodson
CHAPTER II.
THE SECOND REFORMATION—1638-9.
Basilicon Doron—Anglican doctrine of passive obedience—Hobbes—Lex Rex—Charles I. offends the Scottish nobles—Introduces the Liturgy—Jenny Geddes—The Tables—National Covenant renewed at Edinburgh—General Assembly of 1638—Alexander Henderson—Earl of Argyll—Petition sent by Covenanters to the King—Preparations for civil war—Covenanters take up arms—National committee in Edinburgh—General Alexander Leslie—Several castles taken by Covenanters—Marquises of Montrose, Huntly, and Hamilton—Covenanters march to the Borders under Generals Leslie and Monro—Leslie encamps on Dunse Law.
As hinted in last chapter, a main cause of the struggle connected with the Second Reformation, was the very high opinion held by Charles I. in regard to his prerogative. This he had inherited from his father. In his Basilicon Doron, James VI. says:—“Even when a king, as described by Samuel, takes their sons for his horsemen, and some to run before his chariot, to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make instruments of war; and the daughters, to make them apothecaries and cooks and bakers; nor though he should take their fields and their vineyards, and their best olive trees, and give them to his servants; and take the tenth of their seed, and of their vineyards and of their flocks, and give it to his servants, had they a right to murmur!” “The king was only accountable to God; and the chiefs of the people had the example of Elias pointed out for their imitation, who, under the industrious persecution and tyranny of Ahab, roused no rebellion, but did only fly to the wilderness.” Such politics, paternally inculcated on the susceptible mind of Charles, were in accordance with the doctrines of
The Reformed Presbyterian Church. 11
the Church which he preferred. Phillimore, in his History of the Law of Evidence, says:—“The doctrine of passive obedience, in its most slavish and repulsive form, had been from the time of Elizabeth the distinguishing and dishonourable tenet of the English Church. It had been laid down without any sort of reserve or qualification; cases the most extravagant had been studiously selected; instances of oppression the most grinding, and of cruelty the most frantic, had been ostentatiously put forward; and its prelates had answered that, as St Paul had submitted to Nero, no provocation could justify the resistance of a Christian man. In return for these doctrines the Crown had supported the Church on all occasions, and that support was at one time essential to its existence.” This king was also supported in his absurd claims by the disciples of Hobbes—a man who might be said to belong to no Church, but who, in a style not wanting in wit, and pleasant to the profane and the profligate, strongly advocated Erastianism. The perfect state of a community, according to him, is where “law prescribes the religion and morality of the people, and where the will of an absolute sovereign is the sole fountain of the law.”*
We find in clear contrast to these silly sentiments the decided opinions of the Covenanters, at the commencement of the Second Reformation. Take a specimen from the Lex Rex of Samuel Rutherford:—
“The power of creating a king is from the people. A community transplanted to India, or any place of the world not before inhabited, have a perfect liberty to choose either a monarchy or a democracy or an aristocracy.
“If the king have not the consent of the people, he is a usurper, for we know no external lawful calling that kings have now, or their family, to the Crown, but only the call of the people.
“The law is not the king’s own, but given to him in trust. It is true the king is the head of the kingdom, but the states of the kingdom are as the temples of the
_____
* Sir James Macintosh.
12 Historical Sketch of the
head, and so as essentially parts of the head as the king is the crown of the head.
“Power is not an immediate inheritance from heaven, but a birth-right of the people, borrowed from them. They may let it out for their good, and resume it when a man is drunk with it.
“If it be natural to one man to defend himself against the personal invasion of a prince, then it is natural and warrantable to ten thousand and to a whole kingdom; and what reason to defraud a kingdom of the benefit of self-defence more than one man?
“To denude the people of armour, because they may abuse the prince, is to expose them to violence and oppression unjustly, for one king may more easily abuse armour than all the people.
“A limited and mixed monarchy, such as is in Scotland and England, seems to me the best government, when parliaments with the king have the good of all the three. This government hath glory, order, unity, from a monarch; from the government of the most and wisest, it hath safety of counsel, stability, strength; from the influence of the Commons it hath liberty, privileges, promptitude of obedience.”
These were the political principles of the Covenanters, and so of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, more than two centuries ago. They were the fundamental principles of the Revolution of 1688—the principles of the British Constitution at the present time.
About the beginning of this Second Reformation, the King helped it greatly, by one of his foolish attempts to increase his own power, by taking the Church lands from the nobles, and annexing them to the Crown, and also proposing that lands, hitherto held from the nobles, should henceforth, and on easier terms, be held, from the King. In these tenures some of the nobles had the command of many followers, the Earl of Argyll being supposed to have about 20,000. The nobles thus provoked were intelligent, energetic men, and mostly in the prime of life. Their number included such
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 13
men as the Earls of Rothes, Sutherland, Argyll, Loudoun, Montrose, Melville, Lindsay, Lothian, and Leslie—in short, almost all the nobles except the Hamiltons and Gordons. They had an Argyll, fit for wise counselling in the Senate; Loudoun, almost unequalled for eloquence; and Leslie, who, having studied war under the famous Gustavus Adolphus, had few equals in military command. It was dangerous for the King to offend such men. He grievously offended them; and they, therefore, the more readily took the side of the Reformers.
In 1637 the King, by his own authority, introduced into Scotland a book of canons, subverting the Presbyterian polity, and also a liturgy, more Popish than Protestant in kind, which had been prepared by Laud. The first attempt to use this service-book in St Giles’ Church, Edinburgh, so enraged the audience that an elderly hearer, called “Jenny Geddes,” seized the stool on which she had been sitting, and hurled it at the head of the officiating priest, accompanied with words very uncomplimentary. As the throwing of a stone at a Popish image, in a church at Perth, had an impulsive effect on the First Reformation, so had this act of Jenny Geddes on the Second. The people in general sympathised with her, and soon manifested their feelings by acts, as well as by words. The strong spirit of the Scottish people was now roused. The service-book which Charles sought to impose in this arbitrary and grossly Erastian manner was a transcript of the Liturgy of the Church of England. The only alterations made on it assimilated it more closely to the Breviary of the Church of Rome. Consistent with such a commencement, the Episcopal Church in Scotland has ever since continued to be the foe of liberty, and the friend of the Church of Rome. The framework of Episcopacy was soon constructed, but the affections of the people were never gained to it. Their faithful ministers, forbidden to preach, had recourse to fasting and prayer; the only religious exercises allowed to them by their tyrannical King. The people also united in prayer. They had
14 Historical Sketch of the
borne for a time with a modified Episcopacy, but this attempt of the King roused them to a sense of their common danger. Their duty to God, to themselves, and to their posterity, their piety and their patriotism, alike impelled them to united action in opposing the impending evil. They, though much tempted to acts of retaliation, acted in a calm and deliberate manner. They sent up complaints, remonstrances, and petitions; these were treated with contempt. Even their meeting together for petitioning was prohibited. The rude snatching from them of this last vestige of liberty convinced them of the necessity of renewing their National Covenant, in a form suited to the occasion. A great number of persons from different parts of Scotland assembled at Edinburgh. One not favourable to them—Bishop Guthrie—says, “Besides the increase of noblemen who had been formerly there, there were few or no shires on the south side of the Grampian hills from which came not gentlemen, burgesses, ministers, and commons.” For the proper management of this common movement, a central body or committee was formed, composed of all the nobles who took part with the Reformers, of two gentlemen for every county, one minister from every presbytery, and one or two commissioners from every burgh. Each of these classes—nobles, gentry, ministers, and burgesses, met and conferred separately, and also unitedly, as occasion required. The body was termed “The Tables,” constituting meanwhile the real Government of Scotland. The National Covenant, which had already served a good purpose, was at this time enlarged and put into the form in which we now find it, as usually bound up with the Westminster Confession of Faith. It consists of three parts—the original Covenant, made in 1580; the specification of Acts of Parliament made in favour of the Reformation; and the additional part, commencing with the words:—“We, noblemen, barons, gentlemen,” &c., adapted to the new circumstances that had evolved, and especially directed against the late innovations made by the King. The Cove-
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 15
nanters declared that these innovations “were unwarranted in the Sacred Scriptures, contrary to the Confession of the Church, and contrary to the Acts of Parliament enumerated in the deed, favourable to the Popish religion and tyranny, and, so, unfavourable to the true religion.” They swear by the great name of Jehovah “to continue in the profession and obedience of the foresaid religion, to defend the same, and resist all contrary errors and corruptions to the utmost of their power.” Though represented as rebels, they renewed their vows of allegiance to the King, “in defence of the true religion, liberties, and laws of the kingdom;” and promised that “in public, in their families, and in their personal carriage, they would endeavour to keep themselves within the bounds of Christian liberty, and to be good examples to others of all godliness, soberness, and righteousness, and of every duty which they owed to God and man.”
The National Covenant, thus extended, was first publicly read and subscribed in the Greyfriars’ Church of Edinburgh, on the 28th of February 1638. The signers of this Covenant combined enthusiasm with solemnity. A holy awe pervaded the vast assembly. In fulfilment of inspired prediction and promise, they had, divinely given to them, “one heart and one way,” for the good of “them and of their children after them.” Alexander Henderson, the Knox of the Second Reformation, led the assembly in prayer, in a manner befitting the solemn occasion. The Earl of Loudoun, said to be the most eloquent orator of his time, addressed the vast audience, earnestly exhorting them, “that they should carefully keep themselves together in a cause that was common, and in which every one was so deeply interested.” Johnston—afterwards Lord Warriston—a great lawyer, read the Covenant, which he had so carefully prepared.
After the reading of the document, a solemn silence pervaded the assembly. This was broken by the Earl of Sutherland advancing and writing his name first in the noble list. The Earls of Rothes, Cassillis, Eglintoun,
16 Historical Sketch of the
Loudoun, and others, afterwards signed their names. Other signatures followed in rapid succession. Hands that had signed the deed shook each other in hearty congratulation. The pent-up feelings of friendship, patriotism, and piety, were no longer restrained. Some even wept aloud for joy. Others raised a shout of exultation, as if in the moment of victory on a battlefield. And certainly this was a time of triumph, on a nation’s battlefield for liberty. Some signed their name with their blood, and added the words, “till death.” Past efforts seemed to be gloriously crowned, and future efforts hopefully inaugurated, in this one hour. The Church and the nation, the peers and the common people, solemnly entered into covenant with Him who is “Lord of all.”
This renovation of the National Covenant proved a great help to the Reformation. The ministers of the Gospel became more vigorous and faithful in their work. Religion revived throughout the land. The Covenanters, assured of the righteousness of their cause, were firm and united. Attempts were vainly made to intimidate or divide them. They perseveringly demanded two things—equally distasteful to the tyrant—a Free Parliament, and a Free Assembly. The King, as long as he could, shuffled, negotiated, and delayed, but at last was obliged to yield, these reasonable demands.
On the 21st of November 1638, the General Assembly met in Glasgow. This Assembly was one of the most important in the history of the Church of Scotland. The eyes of the kingdom were upon it. The defections and abuses of the previous forty years required to be removed. Alexander Henderson, minister of Leuchars, the Knox of the Second Reformation, was chosen Moderator. The Marquis of Hamilton, the Royal Commissioner, continued with the Assembly for several days, vainly endeavouring, in his master’s interests, to hinder its proceedings. Finding his efforts unsuccessful, he, in the King’s name, dissolved the Court, just as it was about to enter upon the trial of the bishops. A protest against this tyran-
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 17
nical attempt at dissolution was entered on the record. The Court asserted its intrinsic authority, as received from its only Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, to appoint, continue, or dissolve its meetings. In doing so, it was greatly encouraged by an eloquent address from its Moderator. It was left by one who was only a royal spy. It was joined by a real friend—the Earl of Argyll—a nobleman, wise in counsel, and more powerful in influence, than the Marquis of Hamilton. According to Baillie, Argyll was, at this time, the greatest feudal nobleman, and most powerful subject in the kingdom. His sympathies had, long ere this, been with the Covenanters; but he said he had hitherto continued at Court that he might there serve their interests. The Assembly, now free from royal constraint, proceeded with its work. The bishops were tried, deliberately and solemnly; accused of usurping an office that was without warrant in the Word of God—of cruelty in the High Commission Court—and, many of them, also, of error in doctrine or immorality in conduct. They were then deposed, and some of them excommunicated. The Five Articles of Perth, the Book of Canons, the Service Book, Book of Ordination—the civil power, and places of Churchmen—Episcopacy itself—and the corrupt Assemblies in which these innovations had been sanctioned, were all condemned and abolished. The Presbyterian form of Church government was re-established; the intrinsic power of the Church to appoint her meetings of Assembly, once a year, or oftener, as she might see fit, asserted; and other good Acts passed. Such Acts were intended to preserve order and discipline, to promote education, to prevent the intrusion of ministers into congregations against the will of the people, and otherwise to promote the work of reformation. What was done at this Assembly, was ratified by subsequent Assemblies, at which the Royal Commissioner was present, and by Acts of Parliament in 1640–1.* After sitting thirty days, and appointing their next meeting to be held
_____
* Life of Alexander Henderson, and Stevenson’s Church History.
18 Historical Sketch of the
at Edinburgh, on the third Wednesday of July 1639, this Assembly closed. The Moderator, in his closing address, uttered these memorable words—“We have now cast down the walls of Jericho; let him that rebuildeth them beware of the curse of ‘Hiel the Bethelite.’”*
The Covenanters, not intending rebellion, and still wishing to enjoy the King’s approbation, sent him a petition by the hands of Mr George Winram, of Liberton. The Council for Scottish Affairs having examined the petition, and declared it to be in proper form and tone, the Marquis of Hamilton, on his knees, was permitted to read it to the King. His answer to the petition was in repeating the Scottish proverb, “When they have broken my head, they will put on my cowl.” Winram for two months waited in vain for any farther reply. The King was intent on revenge, and was already partly prepared for it. His fleet had been ready for more than six months, and so had his train of artillery. He had been levying troops from all the counties in England, and had now an army of 36,000 men. Many of the nobility, bishops, and Papists supplied him with money. He counted on the help of forces in the North of Scotland under the Marquis of Huntly, and on the Earl of Antrim invading the west of Argyllshire with Popish forces from Ireland. The Earl of Strafford, with another army from the same source, was to sail up the Firth of Clyde, while a powerful fleet was to be sent to the Firth of Forth, to stop the trade, and terrify the inhabitants of Fife. The Covenanters were not ignorant of these designs and preparations, and, so, prepared to meet them. They knew they had the sympathy of the Puritans of England. For the information of the English, and to vindicate their own position, they published a tract entitled, Information to all good Christians within the Kingdom of England. In this manifesto they solemnly take God to witness, that their only object was to maintain the religion they professed, which had been established by Acts of Assembly and of
_____
* Stevenson’s Church History.
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 19
Parliament, and which in covenant they had solemnly sworn to defend. They denied that they intended to rebel against the King or to invade England. This tract, widely circulated throughout England, tended to dispel the prejudice raised by the prelatic party, and to increase the popular sympathy with the Covenanters. As a counter manifesto, the King directed Dr Balcanqual, who had been chief adviser to Hamilton during his last mission, to write and publish another tract, which proved more remarkable for abuse than argument. In this tract, revised by Charles himself, and published under the title of the Large Declaration, the Covenanters are denounced as traitors and rebels. By royal appointment it was read in all the parish churches of England, but afterwards ably answered by Alexander Henderson. At first, the Covenanters were divided as to the lawfulness of taking up arms, even in self-defence, against the King. Theological writers for and against such a thing were referred to in the debates. In general, however, the disputants had such confidence in Alexander Henderson, that he was requested to write a paper on the subject. This he did in a very able manner, showing that, in the circumstances, armed opposition to the King’s tyrannical measures was both justifiable and commendable. This paper was read from all the Presbyterian pulpits, and had a great effect in stirring up a martial ardour among the Reformers. Warlike preparations were immediately made. Monro, an experienced commander, was entrusted with a regiment of two thousand foot soldiers, who, after being thoroughly trained by him, engaged in training others. A force of nine hundred men was raised among his clansmen by the Earl of Argyll, to keep in check the Macdonalds of the Isles, who, being Romanists, took the side of the King. These preparations were, in a general way, under the charge of a national committee of twenty-six, meeting in Edinburgh. This committee consisted of noblemen, barons, and burgesses, with two senators of the College of Justice. The chief manager in military matters, however,
20 Historical Sketch of the
was General Alexander Leslie, who, to unequalled military genius and bravery, added great political sagacity and tact, in winning adherents and managing parties. Under his management the armed Covenanters were soon not only numerous, but also thoroughly drilled, and under excellent moral discipline. Leslie greatly served his party, not only by drilling and directing the army, but also in securing war materials by correspondence with foreign countries in which he had influence. The King’s forces were now also rapidly mustering. The Marquis of Huntly, in the royal interest, occupied and fortified the city of Aberdeen. Other Popish and prelatic nobles in Scotland collected their adherents. The royal army in England collected chiefly at York, and thence, marching northwards, threatened the Covenanters on the Borders. Seeing the danger so rapidly increasing, the General Committee, at Edinburgh, issued orders for a levy of every fourth man fit for war. A sub-committee was appointed in every county for providing war materials. Fire beacons were erected on hills visible from each other, whence, by the lighting of one, two, or three fires, certain instructions might be rapidly transmitted over the whole land. In pursuance of a preconcerted plan, the principal strongholds in Scotland were assailed and taken by the Covenanters. General Leslie attacked the chief of these—Edinburgh Castle. When summoned to surrender, the Governor refused. The outer gate was immediately blown in with a petard. The inner gates were battered with hammers and hatchets, the walls scaled with ladders, and in less than half an hour Leslie had possession of this ancient stronghold. Dumbarton Castle was taken on the same day, and afterwards garrisoned by Argyll. The house of the Earl of Traquair, and the Castles of Tantallon, Strathaven, and Brodick, were soon afterwards taken. The Marquis of Montrose, as yet a Covenanter, and General Leslie, were sent northwards to attack Huntly’s forces in Aberdeen. Huntly fled northward on the approach of Montrose, who not only took possession of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 21
town, but forcibly compelled the inhabitants to subscribe the Covenant. In such conduct, Montrose was singular among the covenanting leaders, and he thus greatly injured the cause he professed to serve. As we shall afterwards see, he soon became the greatest enemy of the party for which he professed such zeal. To protect Edinburgh from assault by sea, Leith was fortified. The infatuated King, while unsuccessfully attempting to crush Presbyterianism in the North of Ireland, mustered his English forces at York. These amounted to nearly twenty thousand men. In addition to these, there were about five thousand on board the fleet, under charge of the Marquis of Hamilton. The Marquis was commanded to sail with these to the coast of Aberdeenshire, to aid the Marquis of Huntly. Ere this succour could reach Huntly, however, he was defeated, and taken prisoner by Montrose. When Hamilton reached the Firth of Forth, he found he was too late. The blazing beacon fires had already collected twenty thousand brave men, who were ready to receive him wherever he might land. His own mother, on horseback, and with pistols at her saddle-bows, threatened to shoot him, if he thus attempted to invade his native country. He had orders from the king “to waste the country with fire and sword,” but he durst not set foot on shore. On the 15th of May the Scottish Parliament met at Edinburgh. It appointed Lord Balmerino governor of Edinburgh Castle, and General Leslie commander-in-chief of the forces. Montrose, meanwhile, had a second and a third time taken possession of Aberdeen, defeating the King’s forces led by Aboyne. Leslie marched towards Berwick, as he learnt that the king was advancing to the same place with an army of twenty-three thousand, and a numerous retinue of nobility. The Covenanters having repeatedly petitioned the King, had their reasonable and humble petitions treated with contempt. He demanded that they should renounce their covenant, and the Acts passed during the previous year in the Assembly at Glasgow, and submit themselves unreservedly to his royal
22 Historical Sketch of the
pleasure. Such absurd terms they promptly refused. They solemnly appealed “from tyranny to God,” and proclaimed a fast. Their army marched in two divisions. The smaller, under Monro, reached Kelso. The larger, under Leslie, halted at Dunglass. The royal army encamped on the south side of the Tweed, about three miles above Berwick. From this place the King, having learned something of the strength of the opposing armies, issued a comparatively mild proclamation. While the Covenanters were calmly considering its terms, he, foolishly thinking they were afraid, issued a bolder proclamation, commanding them to submit within ten days, and setting a high price upon the heads of their leaders. This proclamation was published at Dunse by the Earl of Arundel, accompanied by Lord Ruthven and a strong detachment of troops. Shortly afterwards Lord Holland, accompanied by four thousand soldiers, was sent to Kelso for a similar purpose. He commanded Monro to retire. Monro coolly advised him to return to his royal master, which advice he complied with, returning much more rapidly than he came. On the 31st of May Leslie raised his camp at Dunglass, and marched to Dunse Law, a few miles nearer the Border. Here he took up a strong position. This hill stands immediately to the westward of the ancient town of Dunse, famous as the birthplace of the greatest scholar of his time—Duns Scotus, and of other men quite as great. Sufficiently high to command an extensive prospect, eastward to the German Ocean, westward to the Eildon Hills, and southwards to the Cheviots, the hill top was flat and broad enough to accommodate a large army. The place chosen was also good for observing the movements of the enemy. The English army was within view, and whether it attempted to march to Edinburgh by Berwick or by Coldstream, the line of march would be within view of Dunse Law. The march could be easily intercepted, ere the range of the Lammermoors could be crossed. The king beheld with dismay the well-selected and strong encampment of Leslie, and raged at his generals for not furnishing him
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 23
with earlier intelligence as to the approach of the enemy. The number of the soldiers encamped under Leslie at this time has been variously stated. Probably, there were not more than twelve thousand at first, but these soon increased to more than double that number. It says much for the good character of this army, and for the disciplinary talent of its commander, that during the whole period of the encampment not an oath was heard nor a drunken soldier seen in the whole camp. The soldiers, consisting chiefly of peasantry, were poor but well-principled, intelligent and well trained to military order. Their colonels were generally noblemen, their captains barons or principal gentlemen, their lieutenants veteran soldiers, who, like their commander-in-chief, had served under Gustavus Adolphus. The military genius and genial manner of Leslie were so evident that he was promptly and cheerfully obeyed by the nobles in command, as well as by the common soldiers in the ranks. The army manifested piety as well as patriotism. At the tent door of each captain there floated a blue banner, with the legend inscribed, in golden letters. “For Christ’s crown and covenant.” Some distinguished minister was attached to each regiment as chaplain. Every morning and evening the soldiers were summoned to devotions, by sound of trumpet or beat of drum, and from the vast camp were heard songs of praise in the inspired and inspiring words of the Hebrew king. Charles, perceiving the strong position and numbers of the covenanting army, saw that it would be vain to attempt to fight them. He, as usual, shuffled in his negotiations, but was at last compelled to grant them their reasonable demands. A writer of the period remarked that the King was defeated “neither by civil law nor by canon law, but by Dunse law.”