COVENANTERS
459
COVENANTERS
)usiness with the Council, and that tlicn the crowd of
)etitioners should return to their homes. Accord-
ii^ly four committees or "Tallies'" (Row, pp. 48.5, 6)
ven; chosen, the petitioners ilisjierscd, and the riots in
idinburgh ccase<l. But this arrangement also gave
he opposition the one thing necessary for a successful
iction, a government. The sixteen could, if only
mited, direct the mobs effectively. The effect of hav-
ng a guiding hand was at once seen. The demands of
he supjilicants became more definite and peremptory
md on 21 December the Tables presented the Council
I collective "Supplication" which not only demanded
he recall of the liturgj', but, further, the removal of
he bishops from the Council on the ground that, as
hey were parties m the case, they should not be
udges (Balfour, Annals, II, 244-.5; Rothes, Relation,
itc, pp. 26 sqrj., gives an account of the formation of
he "Tables"). The supplicants, in other words,
ooked upon the quarrel between king and subjects as
I lawsuit.
Charles' answer to the ".Supplication" was read at iterling on 19 February, 1038. He defended the )rayer book and declared all protesting meetings il- egal and treasonable. A counter proclamation had )een deliberately prepared by the sujiplicants and no looner had the king's answer been read than Lords iome and Lindsay, in the name of the four orders, odged a formal protestation. The same form was
- one through in Linlithgow and Edinburgh. By these
ormal protestations the petitioners were virtually set- ing up a government against a government, and as here was no middle party to ajipeal to, it became nec- issary to prove to the king that the supplicants, and lot he, had the nation behind them. The means was ■eady to hand. The nobility and gentry of Scotland lad been in the habit of entering into "bands" for nutual protection, .\rchibald Johnston of Warris- oun is said to have suggested that sueh a band or covenant should now be adopted, but not as heretofore )y nobles and lairds only, but by the whole Scottish )eople ; it was to be a national covenant, taking as its )asis the Negative Confession of Faith which had been irawn up by order of James VI in 1581. The great locimient was composed. After reciting the reason )f the band, that the innovations and evils contained n the supplications have no warrant in the word of jod, they promi.se and swear " to continue in the pro- ession and obedience of the aforesaid religion, that ve shall defend the .same and resist all those contrary srrors and corruptions, according to our vocation, and o the uttermost of that power that God hath put in )ur hands all the days of our life". Yet, whilst utter- ng oaths that seem scarcely compatible with loyalty o the king, they likewi.se promisetl and swore "that ve shall, to the uttermo.st of our power with our neans and lives, stand to the tlefence of o\ir dread lovereign, his person and authority, in the defence of
- he foresaid true religion, liberties and laws of the
cingdom" (Large Declaration, p. .57), and they further wore to mutual tlefc^nce and assistance. In the.se pro- e-ssions of loyalty the Covenanters, for so we must low call the supplicants, were probably sincere; dur- ng the whole course of the struggle the great majority jever wished to touch the throne, they only wished to
- arry out their own idea of the strictly limited nature
jf 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 imme- iiate. It was completed on 28 February and carrieil For signature to Greyfriars church. Tradition tells (low the parchment w-as unrolled on a tombstone in the churt-liyard and how the people came in crowds weeping with emotion to sign the band. This strange Jceno was soon witnessed in almost every j)arish of Scotland, if we except the Highlands and the Xorth- East. Several copies of the Covenant were distributed ^or signature. "Gentlemen and noblemen carried
copies of it in port mantles and pockets requiring sub-
scriptions thereunto, and usmg their utmost endeav-
ours 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 .\ffairs, 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 re-
fused to sign were not merely looked upon as ungodly,
but as traitors to their coimtrj', as ready to help the
foreign invader. And "as the greater that the num-
ber of subscribents grew, the more imperious they were
in exacting subscriptions from others who refused to
subscribe, so that by degrees they proceeded to con-
tumelies 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 re-
fused 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 fanati-
cally than by the Scottish Presbj-terians. Scotland
was in truth a covenanted nation. A few great land-
owners, a few of the clergj', especially the Doctors of
Aberdeen who feared that their cpnet studies and mtel-
lectual freedom would be overwhelmed, stood aloof
from the movement. Many, no doubt, signed in igno-
rance 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 tune he made a show of
concession and promised a General Assembly. The
Assembly met at Glasgow 2 1 No v. , and at once brought
matters to a head. It attacked the bishops accusing
them of all manner of crimes; in consequence Hamil-
ton, as commissioner, dissolved it. Nothing daunted,
the Assembly then resolved that it was entitled to re-
main in session and comi^etent 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 abol-
i.shed and all assemblies held under episcopal jurisdic-
tion were null and void ; the bishops were all ejected
and some exconununicated ; Presbyterian government
was again established.
War was now inevitable. In spite of their protesta- tions of loyalty the Covenanters had practically set up a theory in opposition to the monarchy. The (pics- tion at issue, !is (,'harles pouited out in his proclama- tion, was whether he was to be king or not. Was he supreme head of the Church or Wiis he not? Tolera- tion was the only basis of compromise po.ssible; but toleration was deemed a hensy by both parties, and hence there wa.s no other course but to fight it out. In two short wars, known as the Bishops' Wars, the Covenanters in anns brought the king to his knees, and for the next ten years Ch;irles was only nominally sovereign of Scotland. A united nation could not be made to change its religion at the conunand of a king. The triumph of the Covenants, however, was destined to be short-lived. The oiitbreak of the Civil War in England was soon to split tin- Covenanting party m twain. Men were to be divided between their alle- giance to monarchy and their allegiance to the Cove- nant. Scotchmen in spite of their past actions still finnly adhered to th(^ monarchical fonn of government, and then? cannot be nnich doubt that they would much rather have acted as mediators between the king and his Parliament than have interfered actively. But the royalist succe.s.ses of 164.'5 alarme<l them. Presbyterianism would not endure long in Scotland if Charles won. For this reason the majority of the
