Covenanters, the name given to the subscribers (practically the whole Scottish nation) of the two Covenants, the National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. Though the Covenants as national bonds ceased with the conquest of Scotland by Cromwell, a number continued to up-hold them right through the period following the Restoration, and these too are known as Covenanters. The object of the Covenants was to band the whole nation together in defense of its religion against the attempts of the king to impose upon it an episcopal system of church government and a new and less anti-Roman liturgy. The struggle that ensued was a struggle for supremacy, viz.: as to who should have the last word, the King or the Kirk, in deciding the religion of the country. How this struggle arose must first be briefly explained.
The causes of this Protestant conflict between Church and State must be sought in the circumstances of the Scottish Reformation. (For a summary of the history of the Scottish Reformation down to 1601 see ch. ii of Gardiner’s “History of England“.) Owing to the fact that Scotland, unlike England, had accepted Protestantism, not at the dictates of her rulers, but in opposition to them, the Reformation was not merely an ecclesiastical revolution, but a rebellion. It was, therefore, perhaps no mere chance that made the Scottish nation, under the guidance of John Knox and later of Andrew Melville, adopt that form of Protestantism which was, in its doctrine, farthest removed from Rome, to which their French regents adhered, and which in its theory of church government was the most democratic. Presbyterianism meant the sub-ordination of the State to the Kirk, as Melville plainly told James VI at Cupar in 1596, on the famous occasion when he seized his sovereign by the sleeve and called him “God‘s silly vassal”. In the Church, king and beggar were on an equal footing and of equal importance; king or beggar might equally and without distinction be excommunicated, and be submitted to a degrading ceremonial if he wished to be released from the censure; in this system the preacher was supreme. The civil power was to be the secular arm, the instrument, of the Kirk, and was required to inflict the penalties which the preachers imposed upon such as contemned the censure and discipline of the Church. The Kirk, therefore, believing that the Presbyterian system, with its preachers, lay elders, and deacons, kirk sessions, synods, and general assemblies, was the one, Divinely appointed means to salvation, claimed to be absolute and supreme. Such a theory of the Divine right of Presbytery was not likely to meet with the approval of the kings of the Stuart line with their exaggerated ideas of their own right Divine and prerogative. Nor could a Church where the ministers and elders in their kirk sessions and assemblies judged, censured, and punished all offenders high or low, craftsman or nobleman, be pleasing to an aristocracy that looked with feudal contempt on all forms of labor. Both noble and king were therefore anxious to humble the ministers and deprive them of some of their influence. James VI was soon taught the spirit of the Presbyterian clergy; in 1592 he was compelled formally to sanction the establishment of Presbytery; he was threatened with rebellion if he failed to rule according to the Gospel as interpreted by the ministers. If his kingly authority was to endure, James saw that he must seek for some means by which he could check their excessive claims. He first tried to draw together the two separate representative institutions in Scotland—the Parliament, representing the king and the nobility, and the General Assembly, representing the Kirk and the majority of the nation—by granting to the clergy a vote in Parliament. Owing, however, to the hostility of clergy and nobility, the scheme fell through. James now adopted that policy which was to be so fruitful of disaster; he determined to reintroduce episcopacy in Scotland as the only possible means of bringing the clergy to submit to his own authority. He had already gone some way towards accomplishing his object when his accession to the English throne still further strengthened his resolve. For he considered the assimilation of the two Churches both in their form of government and in doctrine essential to the furtherance of his great design, the union of the two kingdoms.
By 1612 James had succeeded in carrying out the first part of his policy, the reestablishment of diocesan episcopacy. Before his death he had also gone a long way towards effecting changes in the ritual and doctrine of Presbyterianism. On Black Saturday, August 4, 1621, the Five Articles of Perth were ratified by the Estates. Imposed as these were upon an unwilling nation by means of a packed Assembly and Parliament, they were to be the source of much trouble and bloodshed in Scotland. Distrust of their rulers, hatred of bishops, and hatred of all ecclesiastical changes was the legacy bequeathed by James to his son. James had sowed the wind and Charles I was soon to reap the whirlwind. Charles’ very first action, his “matching himself with the daughter of Heth”, i.e. France (see Leighton, “Sion‘s Plea against Prelacy”, quoted by Gardiner, “Hist. of England, ed. 1884, VII, 146), aroused suspicion as to his orthodoxy, and in the light of that suspicion every act of his religious policy was interpreted, wrongly we know, as some subtle means of favoring popery. His wisest course would have been to annul the hated Five Articles of Perth, which to Scotchmen were but so many injunctions to commit idolatry. In spite of concessions, however, he let it be known that the Articles were to remain (Row, Historie of the Kirk of Scotland, p. 340; Balfour, Annals, II, 142; Privy Council Register, N. S., I, 91-93). Further, he took the unwise step of increasing the powers of the bishops; five were given a place in the Privy Council; and Archbishop Spottiswoode was made President of the Exchequer and ordered as primate to take precedence of every other subject. This proceeding not merely roused the indignation of Protestants, who in the words of Row considered bishops “bellie-gods”, but it further offended the aristocracy, who felt themselves thus slighted. But a persecution of the Kirk and the preachers would not have brought about a rebellion. Charles could always count on his subservient bishops, and on the nobles ever willing to humble the ministers. But he now took a step which alienated his only allies. James had always been careful to keep the nobles on his side by lavish grants of the old church lands. By the Act of Revocation, which passed the Privy Seal, October 12, 1625 (Privy Council Register, I, 193), Charles I touched the pockets of the nobility, raised at once a serious opposition, and led the barons to form an alliance with the Kirk against the common enemy, the king. It was a fatal step and proved “the ground-stone of all the mischief that followed after, both to this king’s government and family” (Balfour, Annals, II, 128). Thus, before he had set foot in Scotland, Charles had offended every class of his people. His visit to Scotland made matters worse; Scotchmen were horrified to see at the coronation service such “popish rags” as “white rochets and white sleeves and copes of gold having blue silk to their foot” worn by the officiating bishops, which “bred great fear of in bringing of popery” (Spalding, Hist. of the Troubles in England and Scotland, 1624-45, I, 36). Acts, too, were passed through Parliament which plainly showed the king’s determination to change the ecclesiastical system of Scotland. Scotland was therefore ready for an explosion.
The spark was the New Service Book. Both Charles and Laud had been shocked at the bare walls and pillars of the churches, all clad with dust, sweepings, and cobwebs; at the trafficking that went on in the Scottish churches; at the lengthy “conceived prayers” often spoken by ignorant men and not infrequently as seditious as the sermons (Baillie, O.S.B., writing in 1627, cited by Wm. Kintoch, “Studies in Scottish Ecclesiastical History“, pp. 23, 24; also, “Large Declaration”, p. 16). The king desired to have decency, orderliness, uniformity. Hence he ordered a new service book, prepared by himself and Laud, to be adopted by Scotland. The imposition of the New Service Book was a piece of sheer despotism on the part of the king; it had no ecclesiastical sanction whatever, for the General Assembly, and even the bishops as a body, had not been consulted; neither had it any lay authority, for it had not the approval of Parliament; it went counter to all the religious feeling of the majority of the Scottish people; it offended their national sentiment, for it was English. Row summed up the objections to it by calling it a “Popish-English-Scottish-Mass-Service-Book” (op. cit., p. 398). There could, therefore, be very little doubt as to how Scotland would receive the new liturgy. The famous riot in St. Giles’, Edinburgh, July 23, 1637 (account of it in the King’s “Large Declaration” and Gordon’s “Hist. of Scots Affairs”, I, 7), when at the solemn inauguration of the new service somebody, probably some woman, threw the stool at the dean’s head, was but an indication of the general feeling of the country. From all classes and ranks and from every part of the country except the northeast, the petitions came pouring into the Council for the withdrawal of the liturgy. Every attempt to enforce the prayer book led to a riot. In a word, the resistance was general. The Council was powerless. It was suggested therefore, that each of the four orders—nobles, lairds, burghers, and ministers—should choose four commissioners to represent them and transact business with the Council, and that then the crowd of petitioners should return to their homes. Accordingly four committees or “Tables” (Row, pp. 485, 6) were chosen, the petitioners dispersed, and the riots in Edinburgh ceased. But this arrangement also gave the opposition the one thing necessary for a successful action, a government. The sixteen could, if only united, direct the mobs effectively. The effect of having a guiding hand was at once seen. The demands of the supplicants became more definite and peremptory and on December 21 the Tables presented the Council a collective “Supplication” which not only demanded the recall of the liturgy, but, further, the removal of the bishops from the Council on the ground that, as they were parties in the case, they should not be judges (Balfour, Annals, II, 244-5; Rothes, Relation, etc., pp. 26 sqq., gives an account of the formation of the “Tables”). The supplicants, in other words, looked upon the quarrel between king and subjects as a lawsuit.
Charles’ answer to the “Supplication” was read at Sterling on February 19, 1638. He defended the prayer book and declared all protesting meetings illegal and treasonable. A counter proclamation had been deliberately prepared by the supplicants and no sooner had the king’s answer been read than Lords Home and Lindsay, in the name of the four orders, lodged a formal protestation. The same form was gone through in Linlithgow and Edinburgh. By these formal protestations the petitioners were virtually setting up a government against a government, and as there was no middle party to appeal to, it became necessary to prove to the king that the supplicants, and not he, had the nation behind them. The means was ready to hand. The nobility and gentry of Scotland had been in the habit of entering into “bands” for mutual protection. Archibald Johnston of Warristoun is said to have suggested that such a band or covenant should now be adopted, but not as heretofore by nobles and lairds only, but by the whole Scottish people; it was to be a national covenant, taking as its basis the Negative Confession of Faith which had been drawn up by order of James VI in 1581. The great document was composed. After reciting the reason of the band, that the innovations and evils contained in the supplications have no warrant in the word of God, they promise and swear “to continue in the profession and obedience of the aforesaid religion, that we shall defend the same and resist all those contrary errors and corruptions, according to our vocation, and to the uttermost of that power that God hath put in our hands all the days of our life”. Yet, whilst uttering oaths that seem scarcely compatible with loyalty to the king, they likewise promised and swore “that we shall, to the uttermost of our power with our means and lives, stand to the defense of our dread sovereign, his person and authority, in the defense of the foresaid true religion, liberties and laws of the kingdom” (Large Declaration, p. 57), and they further swore to mutual defense and assistance. In these professions of loyalty the Covenanters, for so we must now call the supplicants, were probably sincere; during the whole course of the struggle the great majority never wished to touch the throne, they only wished to carry out their own idea of the strictly limited nature of the king’s authority. Charles was to be king and they would obey, if he did as they commanded.
The success of the Covenant was great and immediate. It was completed on February 28 and carried for signature to Greyfriars church. Tradition tells how the parchment was unrolled on a tombstone in the churchyard and how the people came in crowds weeping with emotion to sign the band. This strange scene was soon witnessed in almost every parish of Scotland, if we except the Highlands and the North-East. Several copies of the Covenant were distributed for signature. “Gentlemen and noblemen carried copies of it in portmantles and pockets requiring subscriptions thereunto, and using their utmost endeavors with their friends in private for to subscribe.” “And such was the zeal of many subscribers, that for a while many subscribed with tears on their cheeks”; and it is even said “that some did draw their blood, and used it in place of ink to underwrite their name” (Gordon, Scots Affairs, I, 46). Not all, however, were willing subscribers to the Covenant. For many per-suasion was sufficient to make them join the cause; others required rougher treatment. All those who refused to sign were not merely looked upon as ungodly, but as traitors to their country, as ready to help the foreign invader. And “as the greater that the number of subscribents grew, the more imperious they were in exacting subscriptions from others who refused to subscribe, so that by degrees they proceeded to contumelies and reproaches, and some were threatened and beaten who durst refuse, especially in the greatest cities” (ibid., p. 45). No blood, however, was shed till the outbreak of the war. Ministers who had refused to sign were silenced, ill-treated, and driven from their homes. Toleration and freedom of conscience was hated by both parties and by none more fanatically than by the Scottish Presbyterians. Scotland was in truth a covenanted nation. A few great land-owners, a few of the clergy, especially the Doctors of Aberdeen who feared that their quiet studies and intellectual freedom would be overwhelmed, stood aloof from the movement. Many, no doubt, signed in ignorance of what they were doing, some because they were frightened, but more still because they were swayed by an overpowering excitement and frenzy. Neither side could now retreat, but Charles was not ready for war. So to gain time he made a show of concession and promised a General Assembly. The Assembly met at Glasgow November 21, and at once brought matters to a head. It attacked the bishops accusing them of all manner of crimes; in consequence Hamilton, as commissioner, dissolved it. Nothing daunted, the Assembly then resolved that it was entitled to remain in session and competent to judge the bishops, and it proceeded to pull down the whole ecclesiastical edifice built up by James and Charles. The Service Book, Book of Canons, the Articles of Perth were swept away; episcopacy was declared forever abolished and all assemblies held under episcopal jurisdiction were null and void; the bishops were all ejected and some excommunicated; Presbyterian government was again established.
War was now inevitable. In spite of their protestations of loyalty the Covenanters had practically set up a theory in opposition to the monarchy. The question at issue, as Charles pointed out in his proclamation, was whether he was to be king or not. Was he supreme head of the Church or was he not? Toleration was the only basis of compromise possible; but toleration was deemed a heresy by both parties, and hence there was no other course but to fight it out. In two short wars, known as the Bishops’ Wars, the Covenanters in arms brought the king to his knees, and for the next ten years Charles was only nominally sovereign of Scotland. A united nation could not be made to change its religion at the command of a king. The triumph of the Covenants, however, was destined to be short-lived. The outbreak of the Civil War in England was soon to split the Covenanting party in twain. Men were to be divided between their allegiance to monarchy and their allegiance to the Covenant. Scotchmen in spite of their past actions still firmly adhered to the monarchical form of government, and there cannot be much doubt that they would much rather have acted as mediators between the king and his Parliament than have interfered actively. But the royalist successes of 1643 alarmed them. Presbyterianism would not endure long in Scotland if Charles won. For this reason the majority of the nation sided with the Parliament, but it was with reluctance that the Covenanters agreed to give the English brotherly assistance. This assistance they were determined to give only on one condition, namely, that England should reform its religion according to the Scottish pattern. To this end England and Scotland entered into the Solemn League and Covenant (August 17, 1643). It would have been well for Scotland if she had never entered the League to enforce her own church system upon England. If she had been satisfied with a simple alliance and assistance, all would have been well. But by materially helping the English Parliament to win at Marston Moor she had helped to place the decision of affairs of state in the hands of the army, which was predominantly Independent and hated presbyters as much as bishops. If the Scotch had recrossed the Tweed in 1646 and left the Parliament and the army to fight out for themselves the question of ecclesiastical government, England would not have interfered with their religion; but the Covenanters thought it their duty to extirpate idolatry and Baal-worship and establish the true religion in England, and so came in conflict with those who wielded the sword. The result was that England not only did not become Presbyterian, but Scotland herself became a conquered country. In military matters the Covenanters were successful in England, but in their own country they were sorely tried for a year (1644) by the brilliant career of Montrose (an account of the year of Montrose is given in A. Lang, Hist. of Scot., III, v). On account of the nature of the troops engaged, the encounters were fought with a vindictive ferocity unknown in the English part of the Civil War. Not merely was the number of slain very great, but both sides slaked their thirst for vengeance in plunder, murder, and wholesale massacres. In this respect the Covenanters must bear the greater share of blame. The Catholic Celts whom Montrose led undoubtedly committed outrages, especially against their personal enemies the Campbells, during the winter campaign of Inverlochy (Patrick Gordon, Britane’s Distemper, pp. 95 sqq.), but restrained by Montrose they never perpetrated such perfidy as the Covenanters after Philiphaugh, and the slaughter of three hundred women, “married wives of the Irish”. Montrose’s success and the fact that he was a leader of Scoto-Irish lashed the hatred of the preachers into fury. They raved for the blood of the Malignants. The preachers, with a fanaticism revoltingly blasphemous and as ferocious as that of Islam, believed that more blood must be shed to propitiate the Deity (Balfour, Annals, III, 311).
The victory of Philiphaugh (September 13, 1645) removed the immediate danger to the Covenanters and likewise extinguished the last glimmer of hope for the Royalist cause, which had suffered irreparable defeat a few weeks earlier at Naseby. But the very triumph of the Parliamentary forces in England was fatal to the cause of the Solemn League and Covenant. The victory had been gained by the army which was not Presbyterian but Independent, and capable now of resisting the infliction of an intolerant and tyrannical church government upon itself and upon England. When, therefore, the Scottish army recrossed the Tweed, February, 1647, it was with its main purpose unfulfilled. England had not been thoroughly reformed; heresy, especially in the army, was still rampant. The Solemn League and Covenant had been a failure, and the Scots had fought in vain. Worse than this, the Covenanters themselves were divided. The success of the Covenant had been due to the alliance between the Kirk and the nobility.
The latter had joined the cause from jealousy of the authority of the bishops and from fear of the loss of their estates by the Act of Revocation. But now, bishops there were none, and the nobility were still in possession of their estates. Since the causes for further cooperation were thus wanting, the feudal instincts of the nobility, love of monarchical government, contempt for the lower orders to which the majority of the Kirk belonged, naturally reasserted themselves. To this must be added their intense jealousy of Argyll, who owed his influence to the support he gave the Kirk. A Royalist party began thus to be formed among the Covenanters. The cleavage in their ranks was shown in the dispute over the question of the surrender of Charles I to the Parliament (1646). Hamilton had pressed the Estates to give the king honor and shelter in Scotland, but Argyll, backed by the preachers, opposed him. There must be no uncovenanted king in Scotland. The breach was widened when Charles fell into the hands of the heretical army. To many it now seemed best to support the king, for if the army should prove successful Presbyterianism would be lost. Accordingly Scottish commissioners, Loudoun, Lanark, and Lauderdale visited Charles at Carisbrooke and signed the hopeless and foolish “Engagement” (December 27, 1647). In Scotland the Engagers had a large following, and a majority in the Estates. In the Parliament the Hamiltonian party could carry all before it and was ready to take immediate action for the king. But the Kirk, with Argyll and some ten nobles, remained immovably on the other side. They would not defile themselves by making common cause with the uncovenanted. The preachers cursed and thundered against the Engagers and the levies that were being raised for an invasion of England. Scotland thus divided against itself had not much chance against the veterans of Cromwell and Lambert. After Preston, Wigan, and Warrington (17—August 19, 1648) the Scottish Royalist forces were no more. The destruction of Hamilton’s force was a triumph for the Kirk and the anti-Engagers. But an event now occurred that once more divided the nation. On January 30, 1649, Charles I was executed. Scotchmen of whatever party looked upon the deed as a crime and as a national insult. The day after the news reached Scotland, they proclaimed Charles II King, not only of Scotland, but of England and Ireland. The acceptance of Charles II, however, had been saddled with the condition that he should pledge himself to the two Covenants. After some hesitation and after the failure of all his hopes to use Ireland as a basis of an invasion of England Charles II swore to the Covenants, June 11, 1650.
To the more extreme portion of the Covenanters this agreement with the king seemed hypocrisy, an insult to Heaven. They knew that he was no true convert to the Covenants, that he had no intention of keeping them, that he had perjured himself, and they refused to have dealings with the king. Argyll with the more moderate wing, still anxious to avoid a definite rupture with the extremists, had perforce to make concessions to these feelings; he made the unfortunate prince walk through the very depths of humiliation (Peterkin, Records, p. 599). This split was to prove fatal. Only a united Scotland could have defeated Cromwell. Instead, to propitiate the Deity, Charles was kept apart from the army, and while every available man was wanted to meet the soldiers of Cromwell, the fanatics were “purging” the army of all Royalists and Malignants (op. cit., p. 623). To allow them to fight would be to court disaster. How could Jehovah give victory to the children of Israel, if they fought side by side with the idolatrous Amalekites? The purgings of the army went merrily on daily, and the preachers promised in God‘s name a victory over the erroneous and blasphemous sectaries. Like the Scots Cromwell also looked upon war as an appeal to the god of battles, and the judgment was delivered at Dunbar, September 3, 1650. “Surely it’s probable the Kirk has done their do. I believe their king will set up upon his own score now.” This was Cromwell’s comment upon his victory and he was right. The rout of Dunbar destroyed the ascendancy of the Covenanters. The preachers had promised victory, but Jehovah had sent them defeat. The extremists, under such leaders as Johnston of Warristoun, James Guthrie, and Patrick Gillespie, attributing their defeat to the unholy alliance with the Malignants grew in vehemence and presented to the Committee of Estates (October 30, 1650) a “Remonstrance” arraigning the whole policy of Argyll’s government and refusing to accept Charles as their king “till he should give satisfactory evidence of his real change” (ibid.). Seeing his power gone with the “Remonstrants” or “Protesters”, Argyll determined definitely to go over to the king; Malignant and Covenanter had joined hands. In answer to the Remonstrance the Committee of Estates passed, November 25, a resolution condemning it and resolved to crown Charles at Scone. On January 1, 1651 the coronation took place. Cromwell’s answer was the battle of Worcester, September 3, 1651. For nine years Scotland was a conquered country kept under by the military saints. It was a sad time for the Presbyterians. The English soldiers allowed all Protestants, as long as they did not disturb the peace, to worship in their own way. In October, 1651, Monk forbade the preachers to impose oaths and covenants on the lieges, and prohibited the civil magistrates from molesting excommunicated persons, or seizing their goods, or boycotting them. Lest the Remonstrants and Revolutioners, who all the while with ever increasing bitterness quarreled as to which was the true inheritor of the Covenants, should cause trouble to the common-wealth, the General Assembly was broken up (July, 1653), and all such assemblies forbidden for the future (Kirkton, Secret and True History of the Church of Scotland, p. 54).
Dunbar, Worcester, and the Cromwellian domination destroyed the ascendancy of the Covenanters. But not on that account did the extreme wing, the Remonstrants, abate a jot of their pretensions; they still believed in the eternally binding force of the two Covenants. On the other hand neither had the king fully learnt the lesson from his father’s fate. Like him he considered it his right to force his ecclesiastical views upon his people. Episcopacy was restored, but without the prayer book, and the meetings of synods were forbidden. Partly because he had the support of the nobility and gentry, partly because even many Presbyterians had wearied of the strife, and partly because of his dishonesty Charles succeeded in gaining his ends, but at the cost of straining to the utmost his relations with his subjects. It only required the attempt of James II to introduce hated Catholicism into the country to sweep the Stuarts forever from the throne of Scotland. The history of the Covenanters from the Restoration to the Revolution is the history of a fierce persecution varied with occasional milder treatment to win the weaker members to the moderate side. As the Covenanters would no longer meet in the churches they now began to meet in their own homes and have private conventicles. Against these proceedings an Act was passed (1663) declaring preaching by “ousted” ministers seditious, and it was rigorously enforced by quartering soldiers under Sir James Turner in the houses of recusants. (For Turner’s methods see Lauderdale Papers, II, 82.) Driven from their homes the Covenanters took to holding their gatherings in the open air, in distant glens, known as field-meetings or conventicles. The Pentland Rising (1666) was the result of these measures and proved to the Government that its severities had been unsuccessful. On the advice of Lauderdale Charles issued Letters of Indulgence, June, 1669, and again in August, 1672, allowing such “ousted” ministers as had lived peaceably and orderly to return to their livings (Wodrow, Hist. of the Sufferings, etc., II, 130). These indulgences were disastrous to the Conventiclers, for many of the ministers yielded and conformed. Stung by the secessions the remnant became more irreconcilable; their sermons were simply political party orations denunciatory of king and bishops. They were especially wroth against the indulged ministers; they broke into their houses, bullied and tortured them to force them to swear that they would cease from their ministrations. These Lauderdale determined to crush by a persecution of the utmost severity. Soldiers were quartered in the disaffected districts (the West and South-West), ministers were imprisoned, and finally, as conventicles still increased, a band of half-savage Highlanders, “The Highland Host” (Lauderdale Papers, III, 93 sqq.), was let loose on the wretched inhabitants of the Western Lowlands, where they marauded and plundered at will.
The Covenanters now became reckless and wild, for again torn asunder by the “cess” controversy (a dispute arose as to whether it was lawful to pay the tax or “cess” raised for an unlawful object, the carrying on of a Government persecuting the true Kirk) they were but a remnant of the once powerful Kirk, and every year became less capable of effectual resistance. They patrolled the country in arms protecting conventicles; and their leaders, Welsh, Cameron, and others, went about as “soldiers of Christ”, organizing rebellion, even murdering the soldiers of Claverhouse, who was engaged in dispersing the conventicles. The murder of Archbishop Sharpe (May 2, 1679), regarded by them as a glorious action and inspired by the spirit of God, was the signal for a general rising in the Western Lowlands. At Rutherglen they publicly burnt the Acts of the Government which had overthrown the Covenants, and at Loudoun Hill, or Drumclog, defeated the troops under Claverhouse. It was therefore deemed necessary to send a strong force under Monmouth to suppress the rebellion. At Bothwell Bridge (June 22, 1679) the insurgents were utterly defeated. There followed a third Act of Indulgence which again cut deep into the ranks of the Covenanters. But in spite of persecution and secessions a minority continued faithful to the Covenant and the fundamental principles of Presbyterianism. Under the leadership of Richard Cameron and Donald Cargill, and styling themselves the “Society People”, they continued to defy the royal authority. At Sanquhar they published a declaration, June 22, 1680 (Wodrow, III, 213) disowning the king on the ground of “his perjury and breach of covenant to God and his Kirk”. At a conventicle held at Torwood (1680) Cargill solemnly excommunicated the king, the Duke of York, Mon-mouth, and others (ibid., III, 219). These proceedings served no further purpose than to embitter par-ties and make the Government all the more determined to extirpate the sect. But what roused the Government more than anything else was the “Apologetical Declaration” (ibid., IV, 148) of October, 1684, inspired by Renwick who had taken up the standard of Cameron. The document threatened that anyone connected with the Government, if caught, would be judged and punished according to his offenses. These threats were carried out by the Cameronians or Renwickites; they attacked and slew dragoons, and punished such of the conformist ministers as they could get hold of. It was at this period that the “killing time” properly began. Courts of justice were dispensed with and officers having commissions from the Council were empowered to execute anyone who refused to take the oath of abjuration of the Declaration. With the accession of James II to the English throne the persecution waxed fiercer. An Act was passed which made attendance at field-conventicles a capital offense. Claverhouse carried out his instructions faithfully, many were summarily executed, while many more were shipped off to the American plantations. The last victim for the Covenant was James Renwick (January, 1688). His followers kept to their principles and even at the Revolution they refused to accept an uncovenanted king; one last brief day of triumph and of vengeance they had, when they “rabbled” the conformist curates. The day of the Covenants had long since passed. How much the ancient spirit of Presbyterianism was broken was clearly seen by the subservient letter in which James was thanked for the Indulgence of 1687, for allowing all “to serve God after their own way and manner” (Wodrow, IV, 428, note). The majority had learned to submit to compromise, and thus at the Revolution the Scottish nation forgot the Covenants and was allowed to retain Presbyterianism. The strife of a century between Kirk and State had come to an end. Both sides in the struggle had in fact lost and won. The king had been defeated in his attempt to dictate the religion of his subjects; Presbyterianism became the established religion. But it had been equally proved that the subjection of the State to the Church, the supremacy, political as well as ecclesiastical, of the Kirk, was an impossibility. In this the Covenants had failed.
NOEL J. CAMPBELL