Naismith History of the RP Church III.
James Dodson
CHAPTER III.
1643–60.
King’s Popish allies in Ireland—Nonconformists in England—Laudean persecution—King versus Parliament—English Parliament reforms abuses—Westminster Assembly—Solemn League and Covenant—Objections to such Covenants—Westminster Confession of Faith, &c.—Mistaken loyalty of the Covenanters.
THE effects of the Second Reformation in Scotland were felt in other lands. The Presbyterians in the North of Ireland sympathised deeply with its principles and progress. They also had to contend with the tyranny of the same King. Though professing to be a Protestant, he was married to a Popish Queen of the royal family of Spain, one of the worst in the annals of persecuting bigotry. Thus connected, and instigated by Laud, who was more Popish than Protestant, it is little wonder that Charles courted the alliance of the savage Romanists of the South, against the more civilised Presbyterians of the North, of Ireland. Led on by Strafford, the Romanists cruelly oppressed the Presbyterians. When this had culminated in the dreadful massacre of the Protestants in 1641, Charles made a show of punishing the murderers, but it was evident that his sympathies were with them. The Scottish Parliament offered to send an effective force to the North of Ireland, to protect the Protestants, but this offer was coldly received by the King. His conduct in this matter increased the alienation from him of many both in Scotland and England.
The Nonconformists of England soon recognised in the Covenanters of Scotland their true friends and allies. In
The Reformed Presbyterian Church. 25
England the tyranny of the king was rapidly becoming more intolerable. Both in Church and State, the most despotic in principle got the highest promotion. Practical piety was discouraged, profanity favoured. Public sports on the Sabbath day were enjoined by royal proclamation. Taverns were encouraged, prayer-meetings persecuted. For meekly testifying against such sins, some of the best men in the land were condemned, by the High Commission Courts, or Star Chamber, to be fined, imprisoned, or maimed. The King was as bitterly opposed to civil, as to religious liberty. He hated parliaments. When his empty treasury compelled him to summon a meeting of Parliament, he did so with an evident grudge. So soon as this Parliament commenced to inquire into the grievances of the nation, it was repeatedly and instantly dissolved. At last the Parliament, having met, voted itself permanent until these grievances should be redressed. Henceforth there was war between the King and the Parliament. The Covenanters attempted, by commissioners, to reconcile the opposite parties, but they found this impossible. Their principles were not Republican, but in favour of a limited monarchy, and they were patriotically in favour of a race of kings, that sprung from their own part of the kingdom. But their intelligence and experience of the misrule of this race inclined them more to the civil and religious liberty, claimed by the English Parliament. That Parliament reciprocated their respect, and preferred the Covenanters to the King.
The English Parliament, from the first, sought reform in the Church. Finding the King would not concur in this, it alone prosecuted this reformation, and did so energetically. It abolished the High Commission Courts and Star Chamber, and expelled the bishops from the House of Lords. The most immoral and scandalous ministers were ejected from their charges, and the public sports on Sabbath prohibited. It was the intention of the Parliament also to remove the “hierarchy of the Church of England, as an impediment to sound reforma-
26 Historical Sketch of the
tion, and to conform that Church more to the Scriptural model of the reformed Church of Scotland, and other reformed Churches abroad.” To aid in carrying out this object, it was resolved to convene an assembly “of learned, godly, and judicious divines, to consult and advise of such matters and things touching the premisses, as should be proposed to them by both or either of the Houses of Parliament, and to give their advice and counsel therein when required.” It was provided by Parliament that this Assembly should consist of one hundred and twenty-one divines, and thirty lay assessors, who had an equal power of debating and voting with the divines. The help of commissioners from the Church of Scotland was invited. This Assembly met at Westminster on the 1st of July 1643. It was not a properly constituted synod, nor was it possessed of ecclesiastical authority, it having been convened by Parliament to assist in reforming the Church.
In the month of August of the same year the assistance of the Reformed Church in Scotland was invited. This invitation was conveyed by a Commission—composed of members of both Houses of Parliament, and of the assembly of divines—to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the Convention of Estates, both sitting at Edinburgh at the same time. Both these bodies, in response to the invitation, appointed commissioners to meet and consult with those from England. The result of this conference was a resolution to enter into a civil and religious league between the three kingdoms for mutual help and defence. The draft of “the Solemn League and Covenant, for reformation and defence of religion, the honour and happiness of the King, and the peace and safety of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland was approved.” This draft was prepared by Alexander Henderson, and passed the General Assembly and the Convention of Estates on the same day. It was immediately sent to London, and after having been examined, debated, and slightly altered, it was adopted by the Westminster Assembly. Both Houses of Parlia-
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 27
ment being convened, along with the Westminster Assembly, and the commissioners from Scotland, this Covenant was deliberately read over, article by article, all present standing up, and with their right hands uplifted, solemnly, as before God, swore to the performance of it. The Covenant was afterwards subscribed by the members of both Houses of Parliament, by the assembly of divines, and, generally, by persons of all ranks throughout the kingdom, except the Romanists and other supporters of the King.
This Covenant was received in Scotland with great manifestations of joy. The higher classes and the common people subscribed it, not only willingly, but eagerly. Even in Ireland, though that country was in a sadly distracted condition, this Covenant was welcomed by many Protestants in the South, and by almost all the Protestants of the North—these being chiefly Presbyterians. It was afterwards ratified by Act of the Scottish Parliament in 1644, renewed with an acknowledgment of sins in 1648, and by Parliament in 1649. In Scotland, at least, this Covenant was then, and long afterwards, deemed a national deed, binding on the nation, as such, as well as on the Church.
A main object of this Covenant was union between the three kingdoms, in matters religious as well as political. In the very first article we find these words:—“That we shall sincerely, really and constantly, through the grace of God, endeavour in our several places and callings the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies; the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of God and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavour to bring the Churches of God, in the three kingdoms, to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for worship, and catechising; that we and our
28 Historical Sketch of the
posterity after us, may as brethren live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.” Union is also contemplated in the fifth article. This may have been more of a political or social kind, though also depending greatly on union in religion. In this article it is said:—“And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace, between these kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is by the good providence of God granted to us, and hath been lately concluded and settled by both Parliaments, we shall, each one of us, according to our place and interest, endeavour that we may remain conjoined, in a firm peace and union to all posterity.” Again, in the sixth article:—“We shall also, according to our places and callings, in this common cause of religion, liberty, and peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend all those that enter into this League and Covenant in the maintaining and pursuing thereof; and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether to make defection to the contrary part, or to give ourselves to a detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause, which so much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the kingdom, and honour of the King; but shall, all the days of our lives, zealously and constantly continue therein, against all opposition, and promote the same according to our power, against all lets and impediments whatsoever; . . . All which we shall do as in the sight of God.”
In the conclusion of this Covenant, the Covenanters solemnly declare:—“And this Covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the same, as we shall answer at that great day, when the secrets of all hearts shall be disclosed; most humbly beseeching the Lord to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless our desires and proceedings with such success as may be deliverance and safety to His people, and encouragement to other Christian Churches, groaning under, or in danger
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 29
of, the yoke of anti-Christian tyranny, to join in the same or like association and Covenant, to the glory of God, the enlargement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquillity of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths.”
There have been some objections to this as well as to the National Covenant. Some have said that these Covenants were of a seditious character. In reply to such an objection, the National Covenant speaks for itself. The Covenanters there distinctly “protest and promise with their hearts to defend the King’s person and authority with their goods, bodies, and lives against all enemies within this realm and without.” This Covenant was sworn by the King himself and his household, and was confirmed by repeated Acts of Parliament. In regard to the renovation of this Covenant in 1638, the King consulted what he deemed “the most eminent and least suspected of the Scottish lawyers,” and they gave it as their opinion that “the proceedings of the Covenanters were warranted by law.”* This objection resembles that of the Samaritans, who charged the Covenanters under Nehemiah with rebellion against the King of Persia. In the Solemn League and Covenant the Covenanters bind themselves “to preserve and defend the King’s Majesty’s person and authority, in the preservation and defence of the true religion and liberties of the kingdom,” and “that they have no thought nor intention to diminish his Majesty’s just power and authority.” This deed was repeatedly ratified by Parliament, especially in 1644 and 1649. It was solemnly—though hypocritically—sworn and subscribed by Charles II. at Spey in 1650, and at Scoon in 1651.
These documents have also been objected to as asserting “persecuting principles.” This charge, perhaps the most common one, is founded on the words, occurring in the Second Article of the Solemn League and Covenant:—“We shall endeavour the extirpation of popery, prelacy,
_____
* Stevenson’s Church History.
30 Historical Sketch of the
superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness.” It cannot be denied that all things here particularised were evils in the estimation of the Covenanters, and the most of them recognised as evils by persons of every creed. The objection evidently turns on the meaning attached to the word extirpation. The word extirpate literally means to root out. The Covenanters wanted to root out these evils with the sword of the Spirit and the legitimate exercise of Church discipline, not the evil-doers with the sword of man and the terror of the civil law. They are not responsible for the wrong means used by Montrose at Aberdeen, nor for the false swearing of Charles II. at Scoon. These were both bad men, though pretended friends to the Church.
Another objection is, that these Covenants were enforced by civil pains. This charge is chiefly founded on the Act of Parliament in 1640, which enjoined the subscription of the National Covenant. This may be a proper objection to the Act of Parliament, but not to the Covenant itself. But in general, at least, the subscription was voluntary. Writers of the time testify that “no threatenings were used except of the deserved judgments of God, and no force except the force of reason.” Some were even prevented from signing until their sincerity was tested.* The phrase, “under all civil pains,” practically meant no seat in Parliament. We ought also, in this connection, to remember that these Covenants were meant to secure civil as well as religious liberty, and were meant to guard against traitors as well as heretics. The history of the time shows that there was abundant need for such caution.
Another objection is, that these documents improperly blend civil and religious matters. In answer to this, we may merely repeat, that the Covenanters had of necessity, in their circumstances, both kinds of matters to deal with. They were distinguished for patriotism as well as piety. They believed that Christ is King of nations as well as of
_____
* Answer to the Doctors of Aberdeen, by Henderson and others.
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 31
His Church, and that His loyal subjects are good citizens as well as good Christians.
The estimation in which the signing of these Covenants was held by the Covenanters themselves we find expressed in the words of one of the most distinguished of their number, Alexander Henderson. “This,” he says, “was the day of the Lord’s power, wherein He saw His people most willingly offer themselves in multitudes, like the dew-drops of the morning; the great day of Israel, wherein the arm of the Lord was revealed; the day of the Redeemer’s strength, on which the princes of the people assembled to swear allegiance to the King of kings. Great, great, was the day of Jezreel.”* Even their enemies testified to the importance of these Covenants. When the Archbishop of St Andrews heard of the renovation of the National Covenant, he exclaimed, “Now, all that we have been doing these thirty years past is thrown down at once.” As testified by another writer, the immediate effect was an evident religious revival throughout the land. “The Lord did let forth much of the Spirit on His people when this nation did solemnly enter into Covenant in the year 1638. Many yet alive do know how their hearts were wrought on by the Lord. The ordinances were lively and longed after. Then did the nation own the Lord, and was visibly owned by Him. Much zeal and an enlarged heart did appear for the public cause, personal application was seriously set about, and then also was there a remarkable call of Providence that did attend the actings of His people which did astonish their adversaries, and forced many of them to feign subjection.”†
In the ages succeeding that in which these deeds were sworn and subscribed, men, who agreed in opinion as to their suitability for the time at which they were sworn, have differed as to their continued obligation in succeeding generations. It is abundantly evident, however, that the Covenanters themselves, and those who succeeded
_____
* Stevenson’s Church History.
† Fleming on the Fulfilling of Scripture.
32 Historical Sketch of the
them in holding the same testimony, believed that these Covenants continued binding on the parties covenanting until the specified objects should be accomplished; that the divine party cannot die, and the human party—the nation—still exists; that the evils to be rooted out still abound in the land; and, consequently, that both the obligation and the necessity continue. The supporters of this opinion have reasoned from analogy. Physiologists tell us that the human body completely changes every seven years. In all its component particles it is completely different from what it was seven years ago. The nation also wholly changes in its personal parts. The individual, nevertheless, is morally bound to perform promises made more than seven years before. So the nation, consisting of rulers and subjects of a totally new generation, is morally bound to fulfil a treaty or a covenant entered into by the same nation, though then consisting of those now dead. In support of the same opinion, reference was also made to the example of the Hebrew nation. In the reign of David, severe judgment was inflicted on that nation for breach of a covenant entered into between it and the Gibeonites more than four centuries before. It must be owned by all, that such reasoning is plausible, if not conclusive.
Though Charles I. did not formally approve of the Solemn League and Covenant after it was made, he virtually approved of its object by anticipation. In a treaty between the two kingdoms of England and Scotland, begun at Ripon in 1640 and concluded at London in 1641, the Ninth Article stated that the earnest desire of Scotland was “for unity in religion and uniformity of Church government, as a special means for preserving of peace betwixt the two kingdoms.” To this desire the answer was, “That his Majesty, with the advice of both Houses of Parliament, doth approve of the affection of his subjects of Scotland in their desire of having conformity of Church government between the two nations; and, as the Parliament hath already taken into consideration the
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 33
reformation of Church government, so they will proceed therein, in due time, as will best conduce to the glory of God, the peace of the Church, and of the two kingdoms.” This treaty was ratified by the King and by the Parliament in August 1641. The Solemn League was not only in accordance with this treaty, but may also be regarded as a logical result of it. We have referred in this sketch more fully to these Covenants, and especially to the latter, because they formed a most important part in the principles of the Reformation, were the bonds uniting and animating the Covenanters, and have for more than two centuries been adhered to by the Reformed Presbyterian Church.
Another important part of the principles of that Church consisted of the Confession of Faith and Catechisms, with the form of worship and Church government, agreed to by the Assembly of Divines, at Westminster.
The invited commissioners from the Church of Scotland took their seats in that Assembly in November 1643. These were Alexander Henderson, Robert Douglas, Samuel Rutherford, Robert Baillie, and George Gillespie—ministers; with the Earl of Cassillis, Lord John Maitland, and Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston—ruling elders; along with three scribes or clerks. In all the deliberations and conclusions of the Assembly, these commissioners took a prominent part. They exercised a special influence in securing the acknowledgment of the spiritual independence of the Church, and of the mediatorial government of Christ over the nations—principles that the Reformed Presbyterian Church has always continued to hold. The Confession of Faith, and other compilations of this famous Assembly, were afterwards received and approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. To declare more fully and clearly the Church’s intrinsic and independent authority to appoint and hold her own courts, and therein deal with matters spiritual, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland passed an Act, dated 27th August 1647, treating more definitely of these
34 Historical Sketch of the
matters. After an interval of 229 years, this Act was specially referred to in the Act of Union between the Free and Reformed Presbyterian Churches.
The period 1638–49 has generally been thought to include the highest attainments of the Second Reformation, and so to constitute the nearest approach to what has always been aimed at by the Reformed Presbyterian Church. In this period we see exemplified such principles as these:—The acknowledgment of the valuable attainments of the First Reformation; the constant acknowledgment of the Bible as the only infallible guide and rule of faith and practice; the exclusive headship of Christ over His Church; the Presbyterian as the Scriptural form of Church government, as inaugurated by the apostles; the recognition of the importance of a pious and efficient ministry, well educated and properly ordained to office; the diligent diffusion of Scriptural education among the people; the recognition of the importance of practical piety in individual families and the nation generally; and the acknowledgment of Christ as King of nations, as well as of the Church, and His consequent just claim on the loyalty of the rulers as well as of the ruled. During this period and the decade immediately following, much good was done in the land in the practical carrying out of these principles. The actors and their actings were not perfect, but their principles and intentions were good. Defections arose; dissensions crept in among the Covenanters. They contended with Charles I. on the one hand, and Cromwell on the other. Their loyalty outweighed their discretion. Deceived by the cunning and hypocrisy of Charles II., they allowed him to pollute their Covenant by his vile signature, and then, at Scoon, crowned him as their covenanted king. That grossly immoral and perjured prince soon showed his true character. Cromwell was their real friend, Charles their bitter enemy. They fought against the first and supported the cause of the second. The League with England might have taught them otherwise. They fought
Reformed Presbyterian Church. 35
against their covenanted friends, the adherents of the English Parliament; they supported their sworn enemies, the Royalists, many of whom were Romanists. They have been often charged with disloyalty, but their blind loyalty to their royal deceivers was their chief fault. Montrose, once their ally, became their enemy. In the interests of the vile King whom they had crowned, he again and again defeated them in battle, and cruelly slaughtered them in flight. He was afterwards signally defeated by their brave commander, Leslie, at Philiphaugh, and suffered the death of a traitor. Even Argyll, their distinguished counsellor, was deceived by the King, with the promise of a royal alliance. He and other victims of a too-trusting loyalty suffered as martyrs in the Grassmarket. The most faithful Covenanters saw the restoration of the royal deceiver, followed by twenty-eight years’ cruel persecution of the deceived.
[Illustration.]