50. Hardy Bertram McCall, The history and antiquities of the parish of Mid-Calder. (Edinburgh: 1894), 223; Patronage report, 1834, 402.
51. Ibid., 457–48
52. Baillie, Letters, 458.
53. Donaldson, Scottish Reformation, 154.
54. A 1640 parliamentary Act For planting of kirks unprovided with ministers through the patron’s default complains of the large number of continuing vacancies. APS., v, 299.
55. Pitcairn, Acts, 22–24.
56. APS., v, 299.
57. APS, v, 299–300. By this Act, the Kirk claimed the right to settle charges that had been put into the hands of bishops, by virtue of the Act of 1606 restoring their estate.
58. Alexander Henderson (1583–1646) was originally a supporter of episcopacy, and had been given the charge of Leuchars (St Andrews) against the wishes of the parish; he subsequently changed his opinions and spoke against episcopacy, the Five Articles and Laud’s liturgy; he was the chief draughtsman of both Covenants, and after his election as moderator of the Glasgow Assembly, was a towering figure in church affairs; called to Edinburgh in 1638.
59. Alexander Henderson, The government and order of the church of Scotland, (Edinburgh: 1641), section ii, quoted in Patronage Report, 475. For a summary of the section on calling of ministers, see Appendix I.
60. Act Sess. 7, 3 August 1642, Pitcairn, 54–55.
61. A candidate could already be in a parish, but if an expectant, he was not eligible for the leet unless he had been tried and admitted to the “exercise” for at least six months.
62. Letters, ii, 47.
63. Archibald Campbell, 1607–61, was eighth earl of Argyll and became a marquis in 1641. At this time he was probably the Covenanters’ leading figure, and a dominant force, nationally.
64. Ibid., From 1617, the Commisssioners of Teinds had the power to “modify” or decide a level of stipend.
65. Peterkin, 306–7; Baillie, Letters, i, 369–73; ii, 93.
66. Baillie, Letters, ii, 94.
67. Sess. ult., 19 August 1643, The Assembly’s humble desires to his majestie anent the lists for presentations, with a recommendation to presbyteries, Pitcairn, 86–87.
Chapter Three
The Westminster Assembly (1643–1649)
By August 1642, Charles and the English Parliament were embroiled in civil war. Both sides appealed to the Scots for support. This, in turn, started to polarize opinion within Scotland, between moderate royalists who felt the revolution had progressed as far as it decently should, and those who believed security lay, not in trusting Charles, but in closer union with England—a union in which Scotland would be an equal partner, and whose constitution would limit royal power.1 Whereas it is probable that most of the nobility favored the former stance, the great majority of the lesser ranks sided with the General Assembly’s conviction that the Covenanting movement would best be served by opening negotiations with the English Parliament. Accordingly, since Charles refused to call a Scottish Parliament, the Privy Council voted, on the 12 May 1643, to summon a convention of estates for the 22 June.2 Meanwhile, Charles, looking for reinforcements, had opened negotiations in Ireland with a view to recalling English soldiers from there. By the time the information reached Scotland, it was believed that the troops were in fact Irish Catholics bent on destroying the protestant cause. Thus, when the convention assembled, the credibility of the king’s supporters was undermined and they were unable to stop negotiations commencing with the English representatives on the 7 August.3
The ultimate result was the Solemn League and Covenant, a treaty whose principal points were that each country would endeavor, (i), to preserve the reformed religion in Scotland, and continue the reformation of religion in England and Ireland according to “the example of the best reformed churches” (in other words, presbyterianism), (ii), to extirpate popery and prelacy, (iii), to preserve the rights and privileges of both parliaments and the authority of the king, (iv), to deal with any “incendiaries, malignants, or evil instruments” who oppose the Covenant, (v), to promote peace and union between the two countries, and (vi), to assist the other partner in maintaining adherence to the Covenant.4
Although the document bears the hallmarks of a proposed religious settlement, the English parliamentarians’ overriding concern was the winning of Scottish military assistance. They were prepared to accept the Covenant as a price to be paid, but the fact remained, “the more they saw of Presbyterianism, the less the parliamentarians liked it, and the more they labored to keep it out of sight.”5 Nevertheless, The English Long Parliament showed interest in the Scottish alternative to episcopacy, and had, in June, already commissioned an assembly of divines to meet at Westminster and consider what form of government might “be most agreeable to God’s Holy Word, and . . . nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland.”6 The divines met on the 1 July, and invited the Kirk to send representatives. On the 19 August, the General Assembly appointed a pool of eight commissioners, from whom a minimum of three would be constantly present at the assembly. This initial pool of Scots representatives was composed of some of the Kirk’s leading figures. From the ministry, there was Samuel Rutherford (St. Andrews), Robert Baillie (Glasgow), Alexander Henderson, Robert Douglas and George Gillespie (Edinburgh), and from the elders, John, Earl of Cassillis, John, Lord Maitland and Johnston of Wariston.7 The first three Scots commissioners were formally welcomed at the Westminster Assembly on the 15 September 1643.
Business moved slowly in the early months, however the pace began to quicken when, on the 2 January 1644, the agenda turned to the theory and practice of election and ordination. Although the gathering approved the proposition that the apostles had power to ordain officers in all churches and to appoint evangelists to ordain, the Scots, through Gillepsie, challenged the translation of one of the proof texts, which read: “And when they had ordained them elders in every church” (Acts, xiv, 23).