.
Subsections
Declarations & Defenses of
Histories of
Robert Hamilton
.
.
Order of Contents
Intro
Origin & Erroneous Principles of
Separatism of
Quotes
Term “Cameronians”
Histories
. Bios
Joined Church of Scotland, 1690
Contra Separatism from Church of Scotland, 1690
. Divine Right Presbyterianism in
. Church bound by her Confession from 1647
. Subscription
. Cameronian Differences with Reformed Presbyterians
.
Intro
Travis Fentiman
July, 2025
.
‘Cameronians’, the nickname for the minority of the resisting Scottish covenanters who remained outside the Church establishment, stems from one of their early (but short lived) leaders, Richard Cameron (c. 1655 – 1680).
Shortly after King Charles II’s restoration to the English and Scottish throne in 1660, Erastianism (an undue governance of the Church by the State) and Episcopacy (Church government by bishops, albeit with presbyteries in this case) was instituted. Some presbyterian ministers who did not conform began to keep up field preaching, which the civil government increasingly sought to put down. Those attending the field meetings began to defend themselves with arms.
The Cameronians became a distinct, separate party in the permanent division that arose amidst those supporting the non-conforming field-preaching covenanters in 1679, during the three weeks after the Battle of Drumclog (June 1, 1679), before the Battle of Bothwell Bridge (June 22, 1679).
The Cameronians’ most prominent distinctive was, in 1680, declaring King Charles II’s civil authority to be invalid in the Sanquhar Declaration. This was a departure from the dominant reformed and covenanter view, as summed up and delineated by Samuel Rutherford in Lex Rex (1644), that, as the magistrate received his authority from the whole nation, so it takes the removal of the consent of the whole nation to make a magistrate’s authority in lawful matters invalid (See Fentiman’s article below).
Later in 1680 the Cameronian minister Donald Cargill excommunicated the king in the Torwood excommunication (though Cargill did not share Cameron’s view of the invalidity of the then civil magistrate).
The distinctive though, which led to the sect’s formation in 1679 was their notion and practice of double and triple separation from other Christians they considered to be in error. In 1669, 1672 and 1679, the king issued indulgences, appointing outed presbyterian ministers to resume their parish ministries with certain material restrictions. The ministers who accepted this (most of those appointed) became known as the indulged.
Previously the strict, non-conforming, presbyterian, resisting field ministers had owned the king’s civil authority, and the majority of them, while being willing to protest the perceived wrongs in the indulgence, yet did not necessarily think accepting the indulgence was sinful;¹ and if they did,² they were not willing to publicly condemn the indulged. The majority ministers and people were willing to hear the preaching of the parish ministers, both conformed and indulged, and did not find such to be a necessary ground of separation.
¹ That accepting the indulgence was the right thing to do, see Travis Fentiman, 3. “Principled Partial Conformity in Government: The Church of Scotland under Erastianism & Episcopacy (1660–1688)” in Editor’s Extended Introduction in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025), pp. 94-159.
² As the work of the ministry, albeit curtailed, is plainly a lawful and good matter, the issue hinged on what was termed “interpretive scandal” or “interpretive approbation”, that accepting the Indulgence could cause scandal to others who interpret the action as an approving of the Erastian claims of the State.
However: (1) accepting the Indulgence did not necessarily entail any approval of its limitations or the broader claims of the State, (2) a morally necessary work (such as preaching the Gospel) may justify occasioning unjustified, passive scandal in others, and (3) “interpretive scandal”, in such a case, is simply passive scandal, where the scandal is not given, but unjustifiably taken due to the fault and sin of the one taking the scandal, in unecessarily interpreting the offensive action as sinful. See Fentiman, Editor’s Extended Introduction, pp. 90-91 with fn. 261 & 263, p. 156 and pp. 110-114 in Refutation of the Errors of Separatists. See also ‘That Interpretive Scandal under Necessity is Warranted’, ‘Occasioning Passive Scandal may be Warranted & Justified by a Necessary or Higher Good’ and ‘On Passive Scandal & that Taking Offense where None is Given is Sinful’.
The proto-Cameronians (including Cameron and Robert Hamilton) not only separated from and publicly condemned the conformed and indulged through the mid-1670’s, but in 1679 after Bothwell Bridge, maintained necessary separation from those who would not separate from the conformed and indulged, or publicly condemn such.³
³ Adding the necessity of a public condemnation as a term of communion is another error; see ‘Not All Truths must be Preached in All Circumstances’ and ‘On How Positive Commands Are Not to be Done at All Times & Circumstances’.
Previously the covenanters holding and attending field meetings had occasionally publicly confessed together the Scottish covenants (the National Covenant, 1638, and the Solemn League and Covenant, 1643), but did not make this to be a requirement for fellowship. The Cameronians were the first Scots to not only make affirming the covenants a requirement for fellowship, or particular church membership, but also for so affirming the Westminster standards. Previously, even by covenanters, a simple profession of faith in Christ, uncontradicted by scandal, was sufficient (just as in the New Testament); and for ministers, during the Westminster era, the Westminster Confession was required to be explicitly subscribed to, but not Westminster’s Catechisms or other documents.
Another error of the Cameronians was, in the words of Thomas M’Crie, Sr.:
“that it was unlawful to associate, for vindicating their civil and religious rights, with any but those with whom they could join in church-communion… a principle which… involved them in that very confounding of civil and ecclesiastical matters against which they inveighed so loudly under the name of Erastianism…” (Memoirs of Mr. William Veitch (1825), pp. 452-53)
The Cameronians claimed they were following the precedent of the earlier Scottish Protesters during the Protester-Resolutioner controversy in the late-1640’s and early-1650’s. However the Cameronians’ interpretation of those events is factually wrong, as M’Crie Sr. elucidates below.
Cameron was in the Netherlands during Bothwell Bridge (1679), but was the main leader of the minority. separating off-shoot before the Sanquhar Declaration in 1680. Cameron was killed by government forces in 1680 a month after Sanquhar. In 1681 the Cameronians formed the “United Societies,” holding successive General Meetings, and became known by some as the Society People. The Cameronians would continue through the 1680’s being hunted by the government.
With the toleration that came with the Glorious Revolution of 1689, most of the Cameronians joined with the reestablished Church of Scotland (including their last three ministers, Alexander Shields, Thomas Lining and William Boyd), out of Biblical principle. For their reasons, see:
Alexander Shields, An Enquiry into Church-Communion, or, A Treatise Against Separation from the Revolution Settlement of this National Church, as it was settled in 1689 2nd ed. (1706; Edinburgh: William Gray, 1747)
That these reasons were not conjured up after the fact, but were previously held by many of the Cameronians, even as evidenced in their Informatory Vindication of 1687, see:
Maurice Grant, Preacher to the Remnant: The Story of James Renwick (Blue Banner Productions, 2009), ch. 14, p. 158 (top) & 164 (top)
Shields, Lining & Boyd – An Account of the Methods & Motives of the Late Union & Submission to the [General] Assembly [of the Church of Scotland, 1690] ([London] 1691) 40 pp.
The minority of the Society People that would not enter the reestablished Church of Scotland were led by the lay, army leader, Robert Hamilton (who had been a leader for the minority faction at Bothwell and was of a severe character, this being amply documented). It may be doubted whether the group, initially known as Hamiltonians and later as M’Millanites (from their first minister), could have held together without him. They gave rise to the Reformed Presbytery in 1743, the fountain of the Reformed Presbyterian family of denominations.
For a shorter piece showing the theological and ethical errors of the separatists after 1690, see the excellent admonition to them by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1698:
A Seasonable Admonition & Exhortation to Some who Separate Themselves from the Communion of the Church of Scotland, wherein is also discovered that the things they complain of are either false on the matter, or not sufficient to Warrant Separation (Edinburgh; Mosmam, 1698/1699) 27 pp.
For more detail refuting the particulars of their historical interpretations, besides Shields’s work above, see:
Travis Fentiman, ‘A Defense of the Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting’ (RBO, 2014), especially ‘The Constitutionality of the 1690 Church of Scotland’.
For a more comprehensive ethical paradigm, demonstrated from Scripture, for principled partial conformity in necessity and for the Church’s unity, read the unparalleled book of English puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; 1644; RBO, 2025).
Do note the Gospel-preaching of the Cameronians was often very good and rich. Some of their preserved sermons are linked in Fentiman, “Why Read the Scottish Covenanters?”.
.
On the Origin & Erroneous Principles of the Cameronians
Order of
Article 1
Quotes 7
.
Article
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis – “Civil Authority, Dethronement & Cameronianism” in “Editor’s Extended Introduction”, 3. “Principled Partial Conformity in Government: The Church of Scotland under Erastianism & Episcopacy (1660–1688)” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025), pp. 95-103
“Not till 1679 (with increasing sanctions on the non-conformists) did a minority of these covenanters split away from the rest, coming to believe Charles II had lost his valid civil authority due to his despotism… The Cameronians, contrary to the principles and ethos of the Scottish Reformation and the Westminster era covenanters,¹ and nearly all reformed theology before them, in a public declaration in 1680 at Sanquhar with around twenty men,² “disowned” Charles II as king…
¹ J.D. Douglas: “This was none the less the first time the Covenanters had officially renounced the king because of his claimed supremacy over the Kirk.” in ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1993), “Sanquhar Declaration,” p. 745. M’Crie: “This party now began to maintain that the king, by assuming an Erastian power over the Church, had forfeited all right to the civil obedience of his subjects; a principle which had never been known in the Church of Scotland before…” Story of the Scottish Church, p. 330.
…
Rutherford:
“A wicked prince is as essentially supreme judge as a godly king.” Lex, Rex, or the Law & the Prince… (Edinburgh: Ogle & Boyd, 1843), p. 217 (rt col, mid);
“If unbelieving kings cease to be kings, then when they commit any fault that makes them in God’s court no members of the Church, they are to be dethroned, which is most seditious doctrine, and so Formalists herein join with Papists.” A Peaceable & Temperate Plea for Paul’s Presbytery in Scotland (London: Bartlet, 1642), ch. 19, pp. 297–98.
“But David had reason to hold him [Saul] for his prince and the Lord’s anointed, so long as the people recalled not their grant of royal dignity, as David, or any man, is obliged to honor him as king whom the people makes king, though he were a bloodier and more tyrannous man than Saul.” Lex Rex, pp. 58–59.
…
“The covenant [between the people and king, whether implicit or explicit] may be materially broken, while the king remains a king, and the subjects remain subjects; but when it is both materially and formally declared by the states to be broken, the people must be free from their allegiance…” Lex Rex, p. 61 (rt col, top).
“God looses the bond of kings; that is, when God is to cast off kings, he causes them to loose all authority, and makes them come into contempt with the people… God does not take the authority of the king from him immediately, but mediately, by the people’s hating and despising him, when they see his wickedness…” Lex Rex, p. 26 (lt col, bot);
“…we know no external lawful calling that kings have now, or their family, to the crown, but only the call of the people. All other calls to us are now invisible and unknown; and God would not command us to obey kings and leave us in the dark that we shall not know who is the king.” Lex Rex, p. 33 (rt col, bot).
² Cameron, Dictionary, p. 745. Rutherford: “Any tyrant stands in titulo [in the title], so long as the people and the estates who make him king have not recalled their grant; so as neither David, nor any single man, though six hundred with him [1 Sam. 23:13; 30:9], may un-king him or detract obedience from him as king…” Lex Rex, p. 59 (lt col, top)…
As Rutherford argued during the Westminster era in Lex Rex (1644), that magnum opus of puritan political thought, the power of governing is retained in root in the commonality of the people³ and conferred on governors by the community’s consent. Hence by natural law the community’s consent is more fundamental than changeable positive laws and constitutions.
³ Lex Rex, pp. 1–2, 6, 29, 34, 123–24.
…
As the puritan political tradition was summed up and delineated by Rutherford, while a material tyrant with grounds for deposition may continue for a long time, he formally remains the valid, civil, God-recognized ruler, continuing to bear God’s authority in all lawful things, until the consent of the community (which had been given to him, legitimizing him as their ruler) is removed from him, normally by the publicly recognized and accepted civil procedure (that is, by the official bodies and in due order).” – pp. 96-100
.
Quotes
Order of
Mid-1670’s
Grant
Battle of Bothwell Bridge 1679
M’Crie Jr.
M’Crie Sr.
Wodrow
Cameron’s Ordination, Sanquhar, Casting off the King 1679-1680 ff.
Grant
M’Crie Jr.
Somerset
Rule
.
In the Mid-1670’s
Maurice Grant
The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1997)
“It is uncertain who was the person instrumental in [Richard] Cameron’s conversion, but the evidence points strongly to John Welwood, a young preacher who had recently come to prominence…
John Welwood had been licensed, and probably ordained, by a group of nonconforming ministers in the early 1670’s, and had then embarked on an itinerant ministry…
In the summer of 1674… until the spring of 1675…
Welwood formed the conviction that any action carried out in obedience to the state in its claims and pretensions over the church was an act of disloyalty to Christ as the church’s head. While others may have been prepared to accept this as a principle, Welwood pressed it to its logical, practical conclusion. This found expression in the view, which he was the first to propagate publicly, that those ministers who had accepted the government’s Indulgences had, in doing so, recognized the king’s supremacy and, by virtue of that fact, they were disobedient to Christ and had forfeited the right to a hearing [of their preaching].¹
¹ Alexander Shields accounts Welwood to have been one of the first to testify publicly against the Indulgence (A Hind Let Loose, 1687, p. 122). A similar testimony is borne by Patrick Walker (Six Saints of the Covenant, vol. 1, p. 333).
.
“But there were others [besides the indulged] who took a different view. The Indulgence, they pointed out, had been a direct exercise of the king’s authority. It had been a reflection of the right which he claimed to regulate the affairs of the church. As such, it was inconsistent with Presbyterian principles, and with the authority of Christ as the church’s head. This was the positionh eld by the leading field-preachers, such as Welsh, Dickson, Semple and Blackader.
There was, of course, common ground between this position and that taken up by Welwood and, later, by Cameron. But there was one essential difference. For the leading field-preachers, attitudes to the Indulgence were basically a matter of conscience. While they could not accept it for themselves, they were not prepared to condemn those whose consciences allowed them to do so. Objectively, they argued, acceptance of the Indulgence could not be regarded as sinful until it had been condemned as such by a free General Assembly. In furtherance of this policy they made it their practice not to touch on the Indulgence in their preaching, nor to reflect in any way on those who had accepted it. Their duty, as they saw it, was to preach the gospel, and they did not want to introduce any note which would cause controversy or mar the success of the gospel…
These remarkable events took place against a background of at least external unity among the nonconforming ministers… in the main, the Indulgence was not at this time [in 1674] a focus of controversy. And, for their part, the generality of those who attended the preaching made little distinction between going to hear the ministers who had accepted the Indulgence in their churches and those who had rejected it in the fields.
.
“…Cameron’s adopting a view of the Indulgence which owed much to Welwood’s influence.”
.
“A meeting was held at which it was agreed that the ministers who had accepted the Indulgence should be invited to preach alongside their non-complying brethren, while the latter would be given access to their pulpits…
Up till now [the latter part of 1677], Welwood had been virtually a lone [public] voice [against the Indulgence], but there were already signs that others were ready to follow in his footsteps. To forestall this, it was agreed that those presenting themselves for license should in future be required to give a promise not to preach on any matters which might create division–by which, of course, the Indulgence was primarily intended. All the non-complying ministers were strictly enjoined to enforce these requirements when licensing young men to preach. These instructions were in force by the beginning of 1678…”
.
“The disaffected among the people, particularly the young, were increasingly drawn to his [Cameron’s] side. ‘Everywhere now’, noted Hamilton with satisfaction, ‘it is the young ones that are carrying on the work.’
To the older ministers, however, these events were a cause for dismay… Warnings were issued about his teaching, and counter-meetings were held in places where he was to preach.”
.
“…he [Cameron] had been involved in bitter controversy, he had alienated himself irreversibly from the leading field-preachers and he was already seen as a dangerous fanatic by the more moderate Presbyterians…
The most serious cause of concern for Cameron at the start of 1679 was clearly the threat of further disciplinary action against him by the older ministers… So far as can be known, this threat never materialized, but it is impossible to be certain.”
.
“The outcome [of ‘a series of confrontations of increasing violence’] was that, probably in early May 1679, Cameron left the shores of Scotland and sailed to join Robert M’Ward and John Brown [of Wamphray] in Rotterdam… At at timewhen he faced almost unanimous opposition from the leaders of the church in Scotland…”
.
No King but Christ: the Story of Donald Cargill (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1988), p. 88
“…even by 1679 there were some twenty or thirty ministers still preaching in the fields, and no significant decline in the number of their hearers. But the year 1679 was to bring a very radical change and to usher in an era of persecution on a scale hitherto unknown.”
.
Robert Wodrow
The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland (Glasgow: Blackie & Don, 1836), vol 3, p. 38
“but, as far as I can learn, there was yet [in the spring of 1679] no disowning the king’s authority, though it was some of these the gentlemen point[ed] at, who afterwards did come this length…”
.
Before the Battle of Bothwell Bridge, 1679
Thomas M’Crie Jr.
The Story of the Scottish Church: from the Reformation to the Disruption (London: Blackie & Son, 1875)
“Unhappily, however, a spirit of disunion began to appear among their leaders, who, instead of combining against the common enemy, spent their time in hot disputes about points in which the most hearty and genuine friends of the Presbyterian cause [outside the establishment] differed from each other.
These disputes referred to the indulgence; and it may appear strange that there should have been any controversy about a subject with regard to the sinfulness of which all of them were agreed. The question agitated was not whether the indulgence was lawful, but whether the acceptance of it should be expressly condemned in the proclamation to be made by those who were in arms, and numbered among their causes of fasting.
This was opposed by some as inexpedient, because it would hinder many from joining them who were cordial friends to Presbytery; and it was proposed that this point should be reserved for the determination of a free General Assembly.¹ At the head of this party was Mr. John Welsh, whose expulsion from Irongray was formerly noticed, and who was not only in his own judgment opposed to the indulgence, but had been intercommuned for preaching in the fields for many years. Among all the eighteen ministers present, there was not one who had accepted the indulgence, or who approved of it.
¹ M’Crie’s Miscellaneous Writings, Review of Tales, &c, p. 437.
Sixteen of these ministers while they condemned the Erastianism of the indulgence, and deplored the conduct of their brethren who had accepted it, were not prepared to exclude them from their ranks, or refuse aid from them in the common cause. Though they themselves could not conscientiously submit to the restrictions, or the acknowledgments implied in that insidious measure, they were disposed to make allowances for such of their brethren as had yielded under strong temptation or plausible arguments; and they argued, that whatever ecclesiastical censure their conduct might afterwards be found to deserve, to deny them in the meantime the opportunity of vindicating their rights and liberties, civil and religious, by excluding them from the army, would be no less presumptuous and unjust in principle, than it was preposterous in the present circumstances of the country.
This liberal view of the subject was opposed by only two of the ministers, namely, Mr. [Donald] Cargill and Mr. [Thomas] Douglas; but these were supported by a considerable number of the lay leaders of the army, at the head of whom was Sir Robert Hamilton.
Hamilton appears to have been a pious man, and of good intentions; but of narrow views, severe in his temper, and altogether unqualified by want of military talents and experience, for the command which he assumed. He is charged, and apparently not without reason, with having been active in pushing Cargill, Cameron,² and some other ministers, to those extremes which produced a breach between them and their brethren, with whom they had until of late acted in concert.³
² Richard Cameron was not present at Bothwell, being at that time in Holland, but he returned to Scotland shortly after. He declared to the ministers who licensed him, “that he would be a bone of contention among them; for if ever he preached against a national sin in Scotland, it should be against the indulgence, and for separation from the indulged.” [P. Walker’s Biograph. Presbyter, i. 292)
³ M’Crie’s Mem. of Veitch, &c., Notices of James Ure, p. 452. I am sorry I cannot retract the judgment here pronounced on the character of Hamilton, the correctness of which has been challenged by some, but which is borne out by the whole of his history, and refers entirely to his public management, without any reflection either on his piety, his integrity, or his courage.
This party now began to maintain that the king [Charles II], by assuming an Erastian power over the Church, had forfeited all right to the civil obedience of his subjects; a principle which had never been known in the Church of Scotland before, and which was afterwards carried to a great extent by Richard Cameron and his followers, who from him were termed Cameronians.
On the present occasion they insisted that there should be inserted in the statement of their quarrel a decided condemnation of those who had taken the benefit of the indulgence; and proceeding on a mistaken view of the principles advocated by the Church of Scotland in the time of the Engagement, and by the Protesters in their contendings against the public resolutions [in the late-1640’s and early-1650’s], they refused to admit any into their ranks but those who would condemn and testify against the indulgence.†
† M’Crie’s Memoirs of Veitch, &c., p. 453…
The violence, pertinacity, and extravagance of this party, prevailed over the more sober counsels of their brethren; and the consequence was, that several of the latter left the army in disgust. Still, however, the great body of the people remained, and though placed in the most unfavourable circumstances for meeting the enemy, they drew up with determined front at Bothwell Bridge, where they awaited their approach.
The Covenanters behaved with the utmost gallantry, but, overpowered by superior numbers, they soon gave way, and the royal army obtained an easy victory over troops divided and disheartened by the conduct of their leaders.”
.
“Some of these excellent men [at Bothwell] now went the length of disowning the authority of the king and government altogether. They contended that, by overturning the true religion, by setting up Prelacy and Erastianism, by ruining the covenanted work of reformation, and by persecuting to the death its faithful adherents, Charles had perfidiously violated the conditions of his coronation oath, and forfeited all right to their allegiance.
Another party, however, much more numerous though less conspicuous, because less violent and extreme, defended their appearance in arms on other grounds. While they condemned the proceedings of the government as arbitrary and tyrannical, they were not prepared to renounce their allegiance to it in civil matters; they held with the compilers of our [Westminster] Confession [ch. 23], that
‘infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the magistrate’s just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to him;’
and though they lamented as much as their brethren the general defection of all classes from the engagements of the [Solemn League and] covenant [1643], they could not see how this denuded the sovereign of his authority, which they were ready to acknowledge so long as he was, by the common consent of the nation, recognized as its ruler.
At the same time, they considered themselves warranted to assume the attitude of self-defence against the intolerable oppressions and illegal encroachments which had, ‘contrary to all law and humanity,’ been practiced on them; and the reasons on which they justified their appearing in arms were chiefly these — that all other modes of redress had been closed against them; and that they found it necessary for the defence of the Protestant religion and Presbyterian government, and for the preservation of his majesty’s person and throne from the projects of Popish adversaries.
A declaration embodying these views was prepared and presented at the council of war, before the battle of Bothwell Bridge; but through the opposition of the more violent leaders it was unhappily rejected.‡ There is reason to believe that this paper contained the sentiments of the most judicious, as well as of the great majority of the suffering Presbyterians; and that, had it been adopted, it might have recommended their cause more to the country at large, procured greater accessions to their numbers, and perhaps have insured success at an earlier period of the contest.
‡ This declaration is given in Wodrow’s History, iii. 96.
In venturing these remarks we are far, very far, from allowing that those of the Covenanters who openly cast off allegiance to Charles suffered justly.”
.
Thomas M’Crie Sr.
Memoirs of Mr. William Veitch, and George Brysson, Written by Themselves, ed. Thomas M’Crie (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1825), “Biographical Notices of James Ure of Shargarton”, pp. 452-54
“Mr. Robert Hamilton [1650–1701] was a gentleman of good family, being brother to Sir William Hamilton of Preston, to whose title and estates he would have succeeded, on his death, at the [Glorious] Revolution [1689], if he had not refused to own, or rather had not openly disowned, the authority of [King] William and Mary [of Orange].
He appears to have been a pious man and of good intentions, but of narrow views, severe in his temper, and altogether unqualified, by want of military talents and experience, for the command which he assumed, or which was conferred on him by the small body which proved successful in the skirmish at Drumclog [1679].
He is charged, and apparently not without reason, with having been active in pushing [Donald] Cargill, [Richard] Cameron, and some other ministers, to those extremes which produced a breach between them and their brethren, with whom they had until of late acted in concert. This dissension was a main cause of the failure of the present attempt to redress national grievances.
Hamilton and his party acted on the principle, that it was unlawful to associate, for vindicating their civil and religious rights, with any but those with whom they could join in church-communion; or, which amounts to the same thing, that it behoved them to introduce into the state of their quarrel, as appearing in arms, a condemnation of every thing in relation to the public interests of religion which was sinful or unscriptural;¹ a principle which, while it involved them in that very confounding of civil and ecclesiastical matters against which they inveighed so loudly under the name of Erastianism, tended to rivet the chains of servitude on themselves and the nation.
¹ [See ‘Not All Truths must be Preached in All Circumstances’ at ‘Pastors’ (RBO)]
Into this error they appear to have been betrayed partly by mistaken notions of the controversy which had formerly arisen respecting the Public Resolutions [in the late-1640’s and early-1650’s].² What the more honest party at that period opposed was, the admitting to places of power and trust of such as had shown by their previous conduct that they were enemies to the reformation introduced into church and state, and would use the power intrusted to them to overturn it.
² [See ‘The Scottish Resolutioner-Protester Controversy, 1650’s’ (RBO)]
This could not be said of those who had accepted of or acquiesced in the Indulgence,³ and still less of those whom Hamilton’s friends wrangled with so fiercely, who protested solemnly that they disapproved of the Indulgence, and whose former conduct vouched for the sincerity of their protestations.
³ [See the ‘Intro’ at ‘Defenses of Scottish Covenanting & the Indulgence & Occasional Hearing Controversies, 1661-1688’ (RBO)]
Another remark is suggested by the facts here referred to. If ministers of the gospel would preserve their usefulness and respectability, they must guard their independence on the side of the people as well as of civil rulers. Provided they become “the servants of men,” it matters not much whether their masters wear a crown or a bonnet; and if, instead of going before the people to point out to them the path of duty, and checking them when they are ready to run into extremes, they wait to receive directions from them, and suffer themselves to be borne along by the popular stream, the consequences cannot fail to be fatal to both. Firm and tenacious of his purpose, the servant of the Lord, while gentle to all, ought to hold on the even tenor of his way, unmoved equally by the frown of the tyrant, the cry of the multitude, and the dictates of forward individuals, good and well-meaning men it may be, but who ” cannot see afar off,” and just need the more to be led that they think themselves capable of being leaders.
An opposite conduct on the part of two or three ministers tended to foster those extravagant opinions and practices adopted by some presbyterians at this period, which discredited the cause for which they appeared, and which their best friends, though they may excuse, will not be able to defend, and should not seek to vindicate.”
.
Robert Wodrow
The History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Restoration to the Revolution, 4 vols. (d. 1734; Glasgow: Blackie & Son, 1832), vol. 3
“[In 1679 before the Battle of Bothwell Bridge:] In order to increase their numbers, and to state the grounds upon which they took up arms and continued in them, the most considerable persons among them, gentlemen, and others, as well as some ministers who preached to them, had many meetings; the principal thing they had before them, was the drawing up a declaration to be published to the world. It was upon this head they first began to divide and break among themselves…
Mr. [Robert] Hamilton, Mr. Thomas Douglas, Mr. Donald Cargil, and some others, upon the one side, would have the indulgence witnessed against, and some other things done: upon the other hand, the laird of Kaitloch, Mr. John Welsh, Mr. David Hume, and some others, were not for going those lengths; but inclined to set up upon as large a bottom as they could with a safe conscience, and were of opinion nothing should be taken into their declaration which might exclude any presbyterians from joining in the common cause. I find Mr. Hamilton and those of that side blamed in some papers writ at this time, as maintaining some principles in their nature anti-monarchical, as to the state, and tending to separation in the church, with what truth I cannot positively say. It is my province to set down matters of fact as I find them; and therefore I shall essay to give as short a deduction of the debates and differences betwixt those two parties, as I can, from the papers come to my hands, and I leave the reader to judge on the whole.
At the beginning of the gathering, that week in which the attempt was made upon Glasgow, when they came to deliberate upon a declaration to be emitted, most part by far, in the meeting for consultation, were of Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Douglas’s sentiments, Mr. Welsh and a few others excepted; so that it was carried almost without a struggle that the indulgence should be testified against in the declaration agreed to. All that Mr Welsh and those of his sentiments could do, was to get the passage relative thereunto kept in general terms. The paper at this time before them is but short, and follows.
“We who are here providentially convened in our own defence, for preventing and removing the mistakes and misapprehensions of all, especially of those whom we wish to be, and hope are friends, do declare our present purposes and endeavours to be only in vindication and defence of the true reformed religion in its profession and doctrine, as we stand obliged thereunto by our national and solemn league and covenants, and that solemn acknowledgment of sins, and engagement to duties, made and taken in the year 1648, declaring against popery, prelacy, Erastianism, and all things depending thereupon.”
This declaration was concerted and agreed to, and, as some papers say, published in the [covenanter] army. Perhaps it might have been agreeable to the interest of both sides now together in arms, to have for a while satisfied themselves with this general draught, until some way had been fallen on to bring them nearer other in their sentiments upon the controverted heads; but this would not do.
…
After some few days, when some more gentlemen and intercommuned ministers joined themselves to the gathering, they being of moderate principles, and for the softest methods of procedure, began to inquire a little into the declaration, and found fault with the last clause of it, as unseasonable and inexpedient. The persons, whom I shall afterwards term the moderate party, did every day increase, and had no small debates in the meetings now kept with Mr. Hamilton and his party, whom I shall call the first party. Some who came in afterwards joined them; but they were mostly made up of such who had been in the first rising.
This first party had chosen the strictest and seemingly most zealous side, and continued a good many of them for a while in these sentiments because they conversed only upon the one side. When they had a more extensive conversation, several came to have other views of matters; and upon the other hand, others who came up joined them for some time, and they continued pretty numerous. Heavy and long oppression had imbittered their spirits, and the positive and unguarded expressions of some ministers upon this side contributed not a little unto this.
The moderate party desired the clause, “all things depending thereupon,” might be taken out, as plainly enough pointing at the indulgence, at a season wrhen it was most unfit that presbyterians should bite and devour one another. They urged, the indulgence was a point in its nature disputable, and not yet declared sinful by any general assembly, or other competent judge; adding, that a declaration in this matter would certainly break them who were gathered among themselves, and hinder a considerable body of people who had clearness about the indulgence, or at least could not make it a ground of separation, from joining them.
The other side urged that the point controverted was only declared against in a general clause, and that it was their opinion it was a defection; that Erastianism was as directly abjured by this church as prelacy, and the indulgence was a fruit of Erastianism.
Thus their debates landed upon the merits of the clause, and turned both long, warm and endless, and a sensible coldness fell in among them, and the alteration of the first declaration was dropped for some days, until it came in another shape in a little time.
At another meeting the first party moved, that, considering they might have the enemy shortly to grapple with, a day for fasting, prayer and supplication might be kept, for mourning over public sins and defections, deprecating God’s wrath upon that account, and wrestling for the divine protection and blessing upon their present endeavours; and pressed a particular condescension might be drawn up in writ of public defections.
I shall not say this was a fasting for strife, and not a loosing of the bands of wickedness; but in fact it did turn in the event to foster and heighten their dissention and differences. The moderate party expressed their fears of the tendency of such a proposal in their present circumstances, and reasoned for some time against the condescending upon any sins in public causes, but what they could all agree in. They were over-ruled and four ministers and four gentlemen were appointed to bring in a draught, which will best discover the view of the proposers…
However well this enumeration is drawn to answer the views of the one side, it is evident that such as were upon the other side could never go into it. I am told, Mr. Welsh was not with them when the draught was appointed; but he and Mr. Hume very much opposed it, and posed the urgers of it, how they would take it if he and those of his sentiments should urge a fast, because some ministers and preachers separated from presbyterians, and divided them, and preached against the indulgence before its unlawfulness was determined by any judicatory.
In short, he pressed the forenamed arguments against this, and gave his opinion that it would make great numbers desert them, and hinder many gentlemen and others from joining with them. All the reply given, was positive assertions that these things were sinful, and ought to be publicly mourned for. Those who were against this enumeration and the fast, because they perceived it would not be kept as such a solemn work ought to be, could not yield in this matter, and so there was no fast kept.
Thus their divisions increased, and the necessary work which might and should have been gone into, was by their debates first delayed and then entirely marred. And enemies had it to observe and remark that ministers preached and prayed against one another. And Mr. Cargil, they say, publicly protested that they behoved to part one from another because a good many of them would not go into a day of humiliation.
When this project failed, I am told, Mr. Hamilton [a lay-leader in the covenanting army] took upon him to send orders to Mr. Welsh, Mr. Hume, Mr. Rae, and others of the more moderate party, to preach against the indulgence, otherwise he and a good many of the officers would not hear them. It is said, Mr. Rae sent a very home and close answer to him, and desired the messenger to tell Mr. Hamilton and the rest, that he had been wrestling against Erastianism in the magistrate for many years; and he would never truckle to the worst kind of Erastianism in the common people [led by Hamilton, with such orders]; that he would receive no instructions from him nor any of them as to the subject and matter of his sermons; and wished he might mind what belonged to him, and not go beyond his sphere and station.
Another, and I may say, the principal point upon which they divided, was concerning the stating [of] the cause whereupon they took up and continued in arms. The clearing of this will take up a little room; but I give it the more largely, as what will be upon the matter, a vindication of the body of presbyterians in Scotland, from many aspersions cast upon them with relation to this rising I am giving the history of. It will likewise further let us into the difference betwixt the two parties at this time, in the west country army.
When a declaration, or the state of the cause upon which they now appeared in arms, came to be considered in their meeting of officers, now called the council of war, the first party would hear of no other state of their quarrel, but upon the foot of the declaration at Rutherglen [May, 1679], and the other a little after that before mentioned. They were not unwilling to have them amplified and enlarged, but remained peremptory to have the same materials continued.
The moderate party proposed another draught, which contained an acknowledgment of the king’s authority, in the terms of the third article of the Solemn League and Covenant, as we shall find just now in the draught itself, and desired their rising in arms might be stated upon that foot.
This was most vehemently opposed by the first party, who urged that as they had not mentioned the king and his interest, and had waved any positive declaration against him, so they might be excused, and not urged to declare positively for him. They pressed, that all mention of the king might be left out of any paper that should be agreed upon, since they could not in conscience positively own him, because he was now in a stated opposition to the interests of Christ, and had, upon the matter, declared war against his people; and all the present oppression, cruelty, and persecution in Scotland, for the redress whereof they were now appearing, was carried on in his name. And in short, such a state was inconsistent with the declarations they had already published; and that the covenants bound them and the whole land, first to God, then to one another; and then to the king in the defence of the true religion: but now they alleged the king had actually overturned the true religion, set up prelacy and Erastianism, ruined the covenanted work of reformation, and the liberties of the nation, persecuted to the death the owners of both, and plainly broke the conditions of government sworn at his coronation, whereupon his right and their allegiance were bottomed: that upon the whole it followed that subjects’ ties to him were loosed, and that the words of that article of the covenant ought not now to be used.
This was matter of long debate: it was almost fruitless for the moderate party to urge that in the year 1638 [the first year in what is known as the Second Scottish Reformation] the general assembly and the covenanters owned the king’s [Charles I’s] authority in the plainest and most forcible manner, though he had declared war against them: that though the breach of many of the articles the king [Charles II] had engaged to, was too evident, yet no habile and competent judges had declared so much; and they questioned much how far this could be found competent for them: that this method of throwing off the king’s authority would directly preclude all redress of grievances, and getting things that are wrong, righted, and evil counsellors removed, who had been the authors and springs of all these evils and [had] advised the king to them: that their not owning plainly the king’s authority, would undoubtedly break the design of their gathering together and effectually hinder multitudes who were willing to join them, from coming to them. In short, though in reasoning they endeavoured to answer every particular advanced by the other side, yet it was to little purpose. They were very fixed to their sentiments…
After many debates in several meetings, the draught of a declaration, which I shall presently point to, was agreed to in one of their meetings. I find indeed complaints in the papers of such who favoured the first party, that by reason of the absence of many of the officers from the council of war, and a sudden alarm given to the army, the meeting, where this paper was voted, was thin, the thing concluded in a hurry…
I shall make few reflections on this declaration. This was a time when things could not he got done as many wished to have had them. We have seen with what a struggle this paper was got through ; and when it was voted and published, Mr Hamilton and some others complained of it, and Mould scarce own it as the deed of the meeting; and we shall find some who died afterwards, put upon bearing testimony against this as a defection. However, as yet it was not directly disowned, hut highly complained of, by such who were for other methods. Upon the whole, it appears to me to have been fully satisfying to neither side and their sentiments, far less the opinion of the body of prcsbylerians through the land. It was what the moderate party with difficulty got through. Some things were put into it, if possible, to cement both parties: but that would not do, the breach rather run higher.”
.
“Their former discord anent the state of their appearance, and their declaration, did a vast deal of hurt to the common cause, and to both sides. When the reports of it came abroad, multitudes who were coming to the army were discouraged, and great numbers, when they came to the camp, and saw how matters went, very soon left them. And I find both sides, in their papers, complaining of this; Mr. Hamilton’s party especially, towards the close of this rising, and when the moderate party overbalanced them, complained that many came to the camp, and finding that the cause was not clearly stated, and the indulgence not plainly opposed, they left the army: the other side complain, I imagine, with as much reason, that many quit the camp, and more who wished them well, came not up, by reason of the heights and extremities run into by many.
As the time of the engagement approached, these differences run higher. The publishing the above-named declaration, June 13th, did very much ruffle those who opposed it; and they were not only broken in their affections, but the common soldiers were under no kind of discipline: their confusions increased, and numbers lessened much, before the king’s army came up; and, as has been hinted, they wanted skilled officers; their arms were out of case; they had very little ammunition, their rising being without any prior concert; and were in very melancholy circumstances…
The officers met upon Saturday, June 21st, where the moderate party were supernumerary, by the accession of a good many gentlemen of some note, who joined them, and could not well be excluded [from] the meeting, which they named the council of war. At this meeting their debates run higher than ever, even when the enemy was within their view…
…and Mr. Hamilton [a lay-leader in the army], who, as one of his own side acknowledges upon this occasion, “was often too forward, pretending to exercise a power which he had not, and that, his carriage at this time gave just occasion of offence to both sides,” opposed much the consulting with the ministers there, because, he said, none of the faithful ministers were present, but only such who owned the indulgence [which is false]; adding, that since the sword was drawn, he thought it duty to appear against all sin.
It was reported he laid his hand upon his sword when he spoke what follows; but Mr. Hackston of Rathillet, in his relation of the divisions at Bothwell, denies this, but owns he added, “I have drawn my sword, and am equally ready against the indulged men and curates.” So high did the flame rise at a time when harmony was absolutely necessary.
The moderate side continued to urge to have leaders chosen who were most capable of that trust, whether for or against the indulgence, whereupon Mr. Hamilton, and a good many with him, left the meeting, telling them as they went away, “That hitherto they had carried on this work, and now since they were setting up upon the foot of the indulgence, they had no freedom to venture their lives in that cause.”…
Now the fatal nature of their divisions began to appear. When the commissioners came back, the officers fell a debating, and would come to no resolution. Mr. Hamilton, who assumed the general command, was against all accommodation, and others did not relish the proposal of laying down their arms; in short, they were quite disjointed and broken, and nothing was agreed upon, nor any answer returned to the general. So the lord Livingstone, upon the head of the foot-guards, came up with the cannon to force the bridge…
Never was a good cause and gallant army, generally speaking, hearty and bold, worse managed…”
.
“Much of the persecution and harassings of thousands, for nine years following, may be reckoned consequents, and some way the fruits of this defeat I have been describing…”
.
Richard Cameron’s Ordination
Maurice Grant
The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1997)
“News of the ordination of Cameron [by Robert M’Ward and John Brown of Wamphray in the Netherlands in late-July or early-August 1679] and [Thomas] Hog was swiftly carried back to Scotland, where it caused a predictable outburst of indignation amon the older nonconforming ministers. John Carstairs, one of the most senior among them, wrote bitterly to M’Ward on 20 August:
‘I somewhat wonder you have there ordained those two young men–not so very acceptable, to say no more, to the Church of Scotland. I fear it offends many; nor do I see, especially at this time, how it can be so well justified. Do you think that there is no ministerial church amongst the nonconforming ministers in Scotland to ordain whom they think fit to be ordained? And is it suitable to that Christian correspondence and deference that the churches of Christ ought to have with and to one another that a few ministers of the church in Holland should ordain ministers for the Church of Scotland without their desire, consent , allowance or knowledge?’
Carstairs’ view was certainly typical of many of the older and more influential of the ministers, and his letter clearly reflected their resentment at what they saw as a usurpation of their ministerial functions by M’Ward and Brown. It also gave an indication of the sort of reception Cameron could expect on his return to Scotland [in late-1679]. A further hint of the welcome that awaited him was given in a letter from John Dickson to M’Ward on 16 July:
‘As for Mr Cameron, the prejudice against him is screwed up so high that no vindication will allay the feverish spirits of some persons who are maddened against him.'”
.
“He [Cameron] had not, of course, embarked on the work alone; and for Cargill and Douglas–particular Cargill–there was a devoted and attached following among the people. But it was Cameron supremely who commanded their allegiance.”
.
Queensferry & Sanquhar, Casting Off & Excomunicating the King 1680
Thomas M’Crie Jr.
The Story of the Scottish Church: from the Reformation to the Disruption (London: Blackie & Son, 1875), p. 347
“The truth of history, however, requires that we should state here some of the steps taken by that party of the Presbyterians usually called Society People or Cameronians.
[In 1680] One Henry Hall of Haughhead, in Teviotdale, a gentleman who was intimate with Mr. [Donald] Cargill, and had suffered great persecution, was apprehended at Queensferry with a paper in his possession disowning the government, and containing some very strong and exceptionable sentiments. This paper, it appears, was merely a scroll drawn up by Hall and Cargill, and more like a manifesto for a general rising of the people, than fitted for a suffering and subdued handful. It was never sanctioned by any meeting [of the Cameronians]; but having fallen into the hands of the governors, it was held as indicating the sentiments and designs of all the Presbyterians. The Queensferry Paper, as it was called, was thenceforth quoted and used against all suspected of Presbyterianism.
Shortly after this Cameron and Cargill, with some others, having broken off from the rest of the Presbyterian ministers, published [in 1680] a declaration at Sanquhar, differing a little from, but in the same strain with, the Queensferry Paper. The Sanquhar Declaration openly declared war against Charles as a tyrant and usurper.
This was followed up by one of the most singular scenes, perhaps, recorded in the history of the times — the Torwood excommunication. In a meeting held at Torwood, in Stirlingshire, in September, 1680, Mr. Cargill, after divine service, pronounced, with all solemnity and formality, the highest sentence of excommunication against King Charles, the Duke of York, the Dukes of Monmouth, Lauderdale, and Rothes, General Dalziel, and the advocate, Sir George Mackenzie; in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ casting them out of the church, and delivering them up unto Satan.
These proceedings, we may well believe, irritated the ruling powers more than ever; and though unshared in and unapproved of by the rest of the Presbyterian ministers, they were eagerly laid hold of as pretexts for still greater severities against the whole of them. The furnace was “heated one seven times more than it was wont to be heated.” Into the history of the persecutions which followed we cannot minutely enter.”
.
During the 1680’s
Douglas W.B. Somerset
‘Notes on Some Scottish Covenanters & Ultra-Covenanters of the Eighteenth Century, Part 1’ Scottish Reformation Society Historical Journal (2016), p. 92
“The Covenanters gathered in local ‘Societies’, and after the death of Donald Cargill in 1681, those societies of a Cameronian persuasion came together in a General Meeting to form what was thenceforth known as the United Societies.”
.
Gilbert Rule
A Vindication of the Church of Scotland, being an Answer to Five Pamphlets… (Edinburgh: Parkhurst, 1691) Rule (c. 1629 – 1701) was a divine right, resisting presbyterian who was a leader in the post-1690 Church of Scotland.
pt. 1, pp. 7-8
“‘That the prevailing strength of the Cameronian party was the occasion of all’ that here he [the episcopal opponent] complains of, even the abolishing of episcopacy [at 1690].
[On the contrary.] All the presbyterians in Scotland did contribute their endeavors to this, as also did many who formerly had gone along with the courses that the episcopalians promoted: Now to call all the presbyterians, or most of them Cameronians, is as remote from truth as anything can be…
The men of most note and zeal for presbytery did what in them lay to allay that forwardness of the people [around 1689], that the Church might be reformed in a more legal way.”
.
Answer to 2nd Letter, pp. 14-16
“…while he [the opponent] says:
‘That all Scots-men were generally of one Communion, and that the presbyterians (except the Cameronians) had returned to the Episcopal Church, and were become hearers, and many communicaters with her: That there was no separate meetings kept, at least publicly, but very rarely.’
This, I say, is most false: For though never any of the presbyterians would, directly nor undirectly, own episcopal government, yet many of the more sober and intelligent among them did not think it unlawful to hear them occasionally, who had complied with episcopacy; yet they chose rather to hear their own lawful pastors, though driven into corners, than these unfaithful men: And not only so, but there were many thousands, beside Cameronians, who would never hear them: And that many (who when they had occasion to hear others, made use of that opportunity) did go to hear these men, when their liberty of hearing others was taken away, it is no wonder.
Yet this practice was far less general than he says, and meetings of nonconformists were not so rare (for all the horrid persecution that they were under) as he would make us be∣lieve: Many, who were no Cameronians, kept up their meetings, though I confess it was no wonder that their meetings were not public [after about 1680], when they were by such barbarous persecutions driven into corners…
§2. Another falshood is, that the party which was then treated severely, was only the Cameronians: Whereas, though they had their share of the persecution, yet other presbyterians were most cruelly dealt with; and it was observed, that, indeed, the spite of his [episcopal / royalist] party appeared most against the most sober of the presbyterians, as being the persons most capable to do them hurt.
…It is also most false and calumnibus, ‘that all presbyterians in Scotland were of one principle, only the Cameronians were more ingenuous’:
For the sober presbyterians did always condemn many, both principles and practices, of that party. Such as that magistrates and ministers fall, ipso facto, from their authority, respective, and stations, when they are guilty of mis-managements, and that private persons may treat them as such, without a ••••enee [decree?] of State or Church.
That the rest of the presbyterians condemned the Cameronians for keeping up their meetings, is also an untruth, for they also kept up meet∣ings; but they condemned them for the manner of their meeting, with such contempt of, and bidding defiance to the authority of the magistrate.”
.
A Just & Modest Reproof of a Pamphlet called The Scotch Presbyterian Eloquence (Edinburgh: Mosman, 1693), p. 27
“If Cameronians be sometimes called godly and sometimes wild and ungovernable:
A contradiction is easily shunned, unless both propositions were universal, which neither is nor can be alledged: There are of both sort among them: And we deny not but some degree of wildness may consist with a degree of godliness, though it is to be lamented that they should meet in one person:
It is not easy to determine what degree of sinfulness (especially that which consists in, or flows from error in the understanding) may consist with the least degree of grace: Hence we have charity to some episcopal men who we think have made very foul steps.
Another contradiction he either finds or makes is: ‘Treating the Adversaries as brethren,’ and at the same time calling them ‘the seed of the Serpent, devils, drunkards, etc.’
What is more obvious to them who will understand, than that it is the episcopal party whom we own as brethren, and would gladly engage to an union with us, on good terms: And yet there is a party among them (especially of their late writers) who deserve all these epithits that are alleged to be given them (only they were never called devils in that book) save that his work of false accusing is ascribed to them; and if he pleases to draw this consequence, they are false accusers, e [from] devils, we shall not reclaim. Yea, it is no inconsistency to treat these adversaries civilly, and yet tell them what they say or do amiss, and that in plain and proper terms.”
.
On the Separatism of the Cameronians
Order of
Article 1
Quotes 8+
.
Article
1600’s
Renwick, James – “[12] Rules for Admission” & “[15] Articles of the Society” in Maurice Grant, Preacher to the Remnant: The Story of James Renwick (Blue Banner Productions, 2009), pp. 252-60
“It appears that local societies for a time operated their own rules for admission, but Renwick was concerned that they should all work to a standard pattern and he prepared a model set of rules (below) which he intended to be of uniform application… It is not clear how widely these rules were adopted…. all members were required to assent [to them], and [to] which they were to promise ‘religiously to practice and observe’.” – p. 252
“3rd… no person who maintains error in their judgment… [is to] be admitted…
…
12th, that he be required to bind himself to secrecy to divulge nothing of the matters reasoned or concluded in the Society but in so far as the Society does allow to be done with general consent… and if satisfaction be given in all these, then may be presented unto him the articles of the Society and he be required to assent thereunto…” – pp. 253-54
“2…. to endeavor the performance of the obligations and duties sworn to in our sacred Covenants with God… adhering to the [Westminster] Confession of Faith, Catechisms Larger and Shorter… these worthy martyrs who lately suffered in Scotland… whose wrestlings, faithful testifyings and declarations public and private we fully assent unto and approve of; we mean these that we have seen and are come to our hands…
…
6. …we judge it expedient to reject all and every one who suffers themselves to be seduced to any sinful course or infected with error or shall be convicted of any public scandal…” – pp. 255-57
.
Quotes
Edwin Nisbet Moore – Our Covenant Heritage (2000) Moore is very sympathetic with the Cameronians.
p. 95
“Much of the division, however, resulted from disowning the [civil] government [in 1680]… by the societies. The General Society rejected and rebuked many godly Presbyterian ministers because they would not disown the king although they shared the same views concerning church doctrine, worship and government. To make matters worse, the societies broke fellowship with those who listened to such ministers, causing further divisions.”
.
p. 103
“…[James] Renwick possessed great character, knowledge and spirit. Unfortunately, a faction persistently refused to hear Renwick for a variety of hair-splitting reasons, including Renwick’s ordination [in 1683 in Holland by the reformed Dutch Church] by those who used musical instruments in worship services. Even Reverend [Alexander] Peden initially warned people against Renwick.
To compound their worries at home, public sentiment abroad turned against the Society People. Many abroad were concerned with the remnant’s controversial views on several subjects: namely, their refusal to acknowledge the king’s authority, their overly restrictive requirements for fellowship, and their lack of ecclesiastical capability to call and oversee ministers. These concerns made it almost impossible to ordain additional ministers abroad (Shields, Faithful Contendings, pp. 100-101).
The following questions posed to attendees to the General Society meetings are illustrative of the extent to which they went to remain free of the defections of the day:
(1) Do ye know the principles and practices of these societies from whom ye have your commission?
(2) Do ye and they own our covenants and engagements, our faithful Declarations and Testimonies?
(3) Are ye and they free of giving any manner of bond to the enemies?
(4) Are ye and they free of paying cess [a tax], locality, and any militia money?
(5) Are ye and they free of paying stipends to the curates or to the Indulged?
(6) Are ye and they free of taking the enemies’ pass or protection?
(7) Are ye and they free of answering unto enemies their courts?
(8) Are ye and they free of capitulation any manner or way with the enemies, or furnishing them with commodities?
(9) Are ye and they free of counseling and consenting to any in their compliance, any of their foresaid ways, for you, in your name?
(10) Are ye and they free of joining with the curates or indulged, by hearing them preach, accepting the administration of the sacraments at their hands, subjecting unto their discipline, or being married by them?
(11) Are ye and they free of joining any of the foresaid ways of complying, unfaithful, and silent ministers of the time?
The severity of life on the run combined with the endless criticism from home and abroad bore hard on the Society People.”
.
p. 117
“After the defeat [of Argyle’s expedition, 1685], two of the ministers who came over with Argyle’s party sought to join with the Society. The Society rejected them because they had left the country during a time of need, joined with Indulged ministers in worship, spoken out against the Society, associated with Argyle’s expedition, and had not supported [Donald] Cargill and [Richard] Cameron.
In their defense, the two ministers compared their associations abroad with Renwick’s foreign ordination and expressed concerns regarding the Society’s testimonies and declarations. The two ministers would not abstain from fellowship with the Indulged, but ‘declared their willingness to lay things in present controversy aside, until they should be determined by a competent judicatory [which the Society People were not].’ (Shields, Faithful Contendings, pp. 168-182)
The Society members, finding these terms unacceptable, decided not to join with these two ministers. Some left with the two ministers resulting in yet another painful division. (Ibid., 169)… [Patrick] Walker also listed James Nisbet as one who could attest to the conflicts that took place among the Society members during this time.
James memoir describes how he saw first hand the divisions that resulted from the Argyle affair:
‘But, alas! I got my comforts a little lowered this day upon the reason following: There came to that meeting some of the worthy gentlemen who came home this year with the Earl of Argyle on his expedition; they and some other of our Christian friends looked shy and cold upon one another upon the account of some difference in judgment and opinion that was among them.
[This] was matter of sorrow of heart to me now, but much more so afterwards, when I saw the woeful consequences thereof; for I quickly observed that these differences of opinion occasioned much alienation of affection, even among those who were otherwise truly religious.
Likewise, it served much to eat out the vitals of religion in the waste of much precious time, which was spent in debating and contending, which might otherwise have been very usefully spent in seeking after and in pursuit of the one thing needful, the better part, which could not have been taken from them.’ (Nisbet, Private Life, pp. 114-15)”
.
p. 159
“James Nisbet agonized over this difficult choice… should he join the clearly imperfect Church of Scotland? Based on the following account form his memoir, it is likely that he parted from the Society shortly after the Revolution Settlement because of the dangerous errors and behaviors of its members:
‘Their criticizing upon and censuring of all others who are not exactly of their judgment in every punctilio, grievously aggravating their faults and often fixing some where there is none; yea, seldom sparing one another even where they are one in judgment, [they made] the terms of their communion straighter than what God allows in his Word.
They will allow no masters of families to be of their communion who pay any taxes to the present government, making no difference betwixt this legal and the former illegal and tyrannical government. They will allow no children or servants to be in their communion who obey their parents and masters in doing any service to those in public trust in the government. They will allow none to hear any of the present ministry, even though transiently, to be in their communion. They spend the most part of their precious time in arguing and praying against the sins and defections of the public, neglecting to watch the heart; and here, to my shame, I was greatly guilty of this, among others.
We spent much of our precious time in framing arguments to debate with others, greatly neglecting to be distinctly acquainted with the principles of the Christian religion and to be savingly acquainted with the inward and serious part of real godliness. They would publish a declaration disowning the authority of the great King William [of the Glorious Revolution, 1689 ff.] and against the validity of the present church communion.
When I earnestly besought, with much entreaty, that every article of that declaration might be reasoned, they would not allow it… Thus my protesting, and refusing to join with them, enraged them exceedingly against me. As their scourge of tongues was grievously bent against others, so now was it against myself in a most grievous, unjust, and unreasonable manner… Thus, I left that party of the dissenters who now commonly go under the name of Mr. McMillan’s people…’ (Nisbet, Private Life, pp. 235-238)”
.
Maurice Grant
The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1997), pp. 235-36
“[The Queensferry Paper, 1680:] ‘We neither can, nor will hear preaching, nor receive sacraments from these ministers that have accepted of, and voted for that liberty; and declare all who have encouraged and strengthened their hands, by hearing and pleading for them, all those who have trafficked for a union with them, without their renouncing and repenting of these things, all those that do not testify faithfully against them, and after do not deport themselves suitably to their testimonies, and all who join not in public with their brethren, who are testifying against them; we declare that we shall not hear them preach, nor receive sacraments from them.’
This was a radical view of separation, extending not only to the ministers who had accepted the Indulgence and their supporters, but also to all those who could not bring themselves to condemn publicly what these ministers had done. As such, it went beyond the practice of all but a very few. [Donald] Cargill, for example, was known to have associated with Alexander Peden, who, though firmly against the Indulgence himself, could not find it in him to condemn the ministers who had accepted it. One is left to assume that here again the paper shows the influence of Cameron…”
.
Preacher to the Remnant: The Story of James Renwick (Blue Banner Productions, 2009)
“There was also a paper, entitled An information against Mr Renwick’s party, given in to ministers… the papers had been left by Alexander Gordon… There was nothing on the face of the ‘information’ paper to suggest that it had not been compiled by the Carrick men themselves, but the style and substance of it pointed directly to Robert Langlands…
The Societies, it charged… had imposed restrictions on ministers and cast off the whole suffering ministry… they had made ‘canons’ laying down the qualifications of those fitted to be members of their meetings, forbidding association with those they regarded as unfaithful, even to the extent of servants joining in family worship with their masters, or children with their parents;¹ and, not least, they had ‘cast off most part of the societies in the shires of Ayr and Galloway, chiefly upon these two heads, that they would not disown and condemn the [civil] declaration published by Argyle, and because they were clear to call and hear faithful suffering ministers’.”
¹ [See this charge verified on pp. 148-49.]
.
“[Wilhelmus A’]Brakel had accepted to a church in Rotterdam, instigated largely at the behest of the civil authorities. [Robert] Hamilton judged that, in accepting the call, Brakel had compromised the principle of spiritual independence [of the Church], and, true to character, he had not hesitated to tell Brakel so in forthright terms. Brakel was highly offended, and made his displeasure very plain…
‘…Mr. Hamilton gave me out in Scotland as being one that inclined to Erastianism and as one that had perfidiously relinquished my charge… but truly they are only fancies, and lies… I should make known to you his cheats and lying reports… He stirs up a shism amongst you for his own advantage… By his improvidence he has done much damage to the Church of Scotland… now he nourishes divisions amongst you under pretext of piety; do not you follow him…’
But the most part of the account was given over to Brakel’s view of Renwick and the Societies.
‘If I were with Mr Renwick, I would put him to call to mind the saying which at his parting I said to him, while he was requiring of me some memorable token, Be not righteous over much, neither make thyself over wise; why shouldest thou destroy thyself? Now you understand not this; but remember that this I said to you, that sometime it shall be useful. Now it is time to live according to that word. Oh what need has he now of that admonition!
If I were present with them that do adhere to Mr Renwick, these that refuse to hear ministers, I would show them how great a sin schism is; and that the wrath of God is not far off from them who make and cherish separation. I with tears in the name of Jesus would beg that, leaving schism, they might live with their brethren in peace, love and unanimity. To decline union in every truth is nothing but pride and lordliness… if there by any that in his conscience thinks other ministers ought not to be heard, he errs in simplicity, and it is necessary that most quickly he leave that error.’
…reports, diligently spread by Gordon and the rest, that the Societies had been giving their various declarations the virtual status of terms of communion.
‘As for the Sanquhar declaration [1680], in so far as it denies the king’s authority and declares a war against him, it is a mere madness… it is no Christian duty to debate about these and the like things, and for such causes to raise a schism. Oh how sad is it that so many do place godliness in maintaining the Sanquhar declaration, and in separating from them who in their judgment are not so zealous in these or other circumstances. I admonish them to cease from these and such like courses, if they be lovers of Christ and his cause and love not their own bodily and spiritual ruin. I pray therefore, do not make such feckless things grounds of schism; do not I pray stain piety with such a blot. Why do you sport with God, religion and the church? Leave things of the state to statesmen. Leave off such debates; God’s anger is kindled against Scotland; do not kindle it more.’
Brakel had particularly harsh words for the Protestation [approved by the Societies] against the Scottish Church in Rotterdam, which he insisted had been compiled by Hamilton:
‘I warn you to forbear any such like toys. Place not piety in such things. It is enough that you have raised a schism by such cavils and brought a stain upon piety and that you have given occasion to the ungodly to reproach the name of God. Return unto the way, you that love godliness, be of one mind with all that fear the Lord, and if there be any that are obstinate, let them be gone.'”²
² [See also Jacob Koelman, another well-known Dutch divine, to a similar effect on p. 146.]
.
William Mathieson, Politics & Religion, a Study in Scottish History from the Reformation to the Revolution, vol. 2 (1639-1690), p. 293 circa 1679-80 Mr. Riddle was an orthodox and godly resisting presbyterian, who owned the authority of the Scottish king (upon conviction).
“…a minister named Riddell, who was confined with them [Cameronians] in the Tolbooth [in Edinburgh], because he had refused to promise not to preach in the fields… Riddell, however, could make nothing of the prisoners, who refused to pray with him or even to hear him pray.”
.
Patrick Walker, Six Saints of the Covenant, vol. 1, pp. 143
“The Gibbites in 1681, and Russelites in 1682, and for some years, did maintain the same unhappy principles and practices [as the M’Millanites]; and stated their testimonies against paying of excise and customs, and other fool things, not only for themselves, but separation from all that durst not go their lengths, even when imprisoned together going as far from us as the walls of the prison would allow them, and stopping their ears when we went about public worship three times a day, which was our ordinary [practice] in each room…”
.
Quote
1600’s
Wilhelmus A’Brakel
Maurice Grant, Preacher to the Remnant: The Story of James Renwick (Blue Banner Productions, 2009), pp. 140-41
“As for the Sanquhar declaration [1680], in so far as it denies the king’s authority and declares a war against him, it is a mere madness… it is no Christian duty to debate about these and the like things, and for such causes to raise a schism. Oh how sad is it that so many do place godliness in maintaining the Sanquhar declaration, and in separating from them who in their judgment are not so zealous in these or other circumstances.
I admonish them to cease from these and such like courses, if they be lovers of Christ and his cause and love not their own bodily and spiritual ruin. I pray therefore, do not make such feckless things grounds of schism; do not I pray stain piety with such a blot. Why do you sport with God, religion and the church? Leave things of the state to statesmen. Leave off such debates; God’s anger is kindled against Scotland; do not kindle it more.”
.
On the Origin & Application of the Term “Cameronians”
Quote
Maurice Grant
No King but Christ: the Story of Donald Cargill (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1988), p. 253, ch. 9, endnote 7
“It may be noted here that the term ‘Cameronian’, often loosely applied to the adherents of Cameron and Cargill, was originally coined about 1678 or 1679 to describe, disparagingly, those who shared [Richard] Cameron’s views on the supremacy [of the English and Scottish king] and Indulgence (cf. The Nonconformist’s Vindication, 1700, p. 16; A True and Impartial Relation of Bothwell Bridge, 1797, p. 16 [1751, p. 20]). It did not, however, gain much currency until after the Revolution of 1688, when it was used to denote those elements of the United Societies which did not join the Revolution Settlement (cf. [Patrick Walker] Six Saints of the Covenant, vol. I. p. 251)¹
¹ [Walker says previously in the volume: “I am reflected upon, and that several times to my face, by all divided parties, especially Dissenters, and particularly by these of them commonly called M’Millanites, but quite wrong designed, who should be called Hamiltonians after Robert Hamilton, who was the only man (as I shall afterwards instruct) that led them in these untroden, dangerous paths of positive disowning of the State, and separation from the Church, and [from] all others that dare not nor will not go their lengths in principles and practices, proclaiming the same to the world;” Ibid., pp. 138-39]
The term was never owned by those to whom it was applied, and it is uniformly described in their literature as a ‘by-name’ or ‘nick-name’ (cf. A Short Memorial of Sufferings and Grievances, 1690, title page). To the same effect are some remarks by John M’Main (Earnest Contendings, 1723, p. 376) when in taking Wodrow severely to task for using the term in his History he asserts,
‘He calumniates and fixes upon these faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ that stigma, or name of reproach, wherewith their enemies had branded them, calling them after a man, and falsely alleging that they termed themselves so, and labours to make his readers, in this and future generations, believe the calumny thus confirmed, that they were not Presbyterians. But he cannot produce one instance among all the cloud of witnesses, whom he so reproaches, evincing that ever any of them did so term themselves.'”
[This webpage yet uses the term ‘Cameronians’ as it is apt in designating their peculiar set of errors that Richard Cameron was formative in leading them in early on, and as, not only are they generally known by this term today, but even Reformed Presbyterians commonly use the label, both historically and for themselves currently, approvingly.]
.
Histories of
See also, ‘The Restoration & the Era of Persecution, 1660-1688’, ‘Scots in the Netherlands’, ‘Graves’ and ‘The Revolution Era & the Union of 1707, c. 1688-1715’ at ‘Scottish Church History’ (RBO).
.
Order of
Articles 2
Books 4
Historical Fiction 1
.
Articles
1900’s
Thompson, Willie – ‘The Kirk & the Cameronians’ in Rebels & their Causes, Essays in Honour of A. L. Morton Ref (London, 1978), pp. 93-106
.
2000’s
Raffe, Alasdair
Religious Controversy & Scottish Society, c. 1679-1714 (2007), pp. 130-80
ch. 6, ‘Controversy over the Covenants’
ch. 7, ‘Presbyterian Separatism’
Gives many quotes from primary sources illuminating the various views from the period.
.
Books
1800’s
Simpson, Robert
Traditions of the Covenanters, or Gleanings among the Mountains (Edinburgh: Gall & Inglis, 1867) 485 pp. ToC
Simpson (1792-1867) was the minister of North United Presbyterian Church of Sanquhar, Scotland for 48 years. An honorary degree was conferred by Princeton College in 1853.
“The sources from which these traditions are drawn are chiefly the descendants of the persons themselves to whom the incidents refer. They have been retained as heirlooms in the families of the worthy men..” – Preface
History of Sanquhar 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1853) 178 pp. ToC A general history from the Middle Ages to his own day.
The author signed the preface as from Sanquhar. Sanquhar was where the Cameronians in 1680 declared that Charles II had no legitimate civil authority, and pronounced war upon the tyrant.
The Banner of the Covenant, or Historical Notices of Some of the Scottish Martyrs whose Lives & Sufferings have not hitherto been sketched in a separate form (Edinbirgh: Johnstone, 1847) 377 pp. ToC
Todd, A.B. – The Homes, Haunts & Battlefields of the Covenanters (Edinburgh: Gemmell, 1886) 305 pp. ToC
.
2000’s
Christie, David – Bible & Sword: the Cameronian Contribution to Freedom of Religion DTh diss. (Univ. of Stellenbosch, 2008) 345 pp.
Be it noted, while the covenanters of the 1600’s believed in the civil freedom of the True Religion, contrary to the implication of much modern scholarship, they did not believe in the public, civil toleration of false religions and erroneous Christian sects. For a prime example of the covenanters teaching on this, see Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty.
Jardine, Mark – The United Societies: Militancy, Martyrdom & the Presbyterian Movement in Late-Restoration Scotland, 1679 to 1688 PhD diss. (Univ. of Edinburgh, 2009) 270 pp.
.
Historical Fiction
1800’s
Simpson, Robert
Martyrland: A Tale of Persecution form the Days of the Scottish Covenanters (1863; Solid Ground Christian Books, 2006) 264 pp.
Simpson (1792-1867) was the minister of North United Presbyterian Church of Sanquhar, Scotland for 48 years. An honorary degree was conferred by Princeton College in 1853.
This work is a tale: based on historical events but told as historical fiction; a very engaging adventure story.
.
.
Biographies
.
Order of
Cargill
Cameron
Renwick
Shields
Claverhouse
.
.
Donald Cargill
Article
1900’s
Fleming, David Hay – ‘The Inventory of Margaret Brown, Wife of Donald Cargill, the Martyr’ Scottish Chuch History Society (1935), pp. 81-83
.
Book
1900’s
Grant, Maurice – No King but Christ: the Story of Donald Cargill Ref (1988; Evangelical Press, 1993) 274 pp.
Cargill (1619–1681) was a leader amongst the Cameronians and came to be persuaded of separation from indulged ministers, but he never explicitly approved (says Grant, p. 114) of casting off the authority of the civil government.
Thus the title of the book is a misnomer. The phrase ‘No King but Christ’ was not an expression of Cargill’s, but of Cameron (p. 113), who thought (after 1680) there literally was no valid civil king in Scotland, and that there was only Christ, the King of the Church.
Cargill on the Covenants:
“…in his dying testimony Cargill did not once mention the Covenants… his allegiance was to what they represented, not to what they were in themselves. For him, the Covenants did not constitute, but rather expressed, those vital issues of divine truth for which a public testimony must be made. It was here that Cargill parted company with those like Robert Hamilton who in later years saw the Covenants as an indispensable part of the constitution of church and state. For Cargill this could not be so, and one of his contemporaries, Thomas Lining [a fellow Cameronian minister]… writing in 1706, he strongly implied that, had Cargill lived, he would have cast in his lot with the [1690] Revolution Settlement.” (pp. 208-9)
.
.
Richard Cameron
Books
1800’s
Bell, G.M. – The Scottish Martyr, or the Life of the Rev. Richard Cameron, comprising an Illustration of the Principles for which He Contended & Died, & the political character of the days in which he lived (Edinbirgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1843) 157 pp. ToC
Herkless, John – Richard Cameron in Famous Scots Series (Edinburgh: Anderson & Ferrier, 1896) 140 pp. ToC
.
1900’s
Grant, Maurice – The Lion of the Covenant: the Story of Richard Cameron Ref (Evangelical Press, 1997) 335 pp.
Grant was an elder in the Free Church of Scotland and was very sympathetic to the Cameronians.
.
.
James Renwick
Books
1700’s
Shields, Alexander – The Life & Death of… Mr. James Renwick… (Edinburgh: M’Main, 1724) 250 pp. no ToC
.
1800’s
Simpson, Robert – The Life of the Rev. James Renwick: the Last of the Scottish Martyrs (Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter Square, 1843) 240 pp. ToC
Simpson (1792-1867) was the minister of North United Presbyterian Church of Sanquhar, Scotland for 48 years. An honorary degree was conferred by Princeton College in 1853.
.
1900’s
Carslaw, William H. – Life & Times of James Renwick in Heroes of the Covenant (Paisley: Gardner, 1900) 110 pp. ToC
.
2000’s
Grant, Maurice – Preacher to the Remnant: the Story of James Renwick Ref (Blue Banner Productions, 2009) 280 pp.
Grant was an elder in the Free Church of Scotland and was very sympathetic to the Cameronians.
.
.
Alexander Shields
Articles
1900’s
MacPherson, Hector – ‘Alexander Shields, 1669-1700’ Scottish Church History Society (1929), pp. 55-68
Vogan, Matthew – ‘Alexander Shields, the Revolution Settlement, and the Unity of the Visible Church’, pt. 1, 2 Scottish Reformation Historical Society Historical Journal, 2 (2012), pp. 109-46 & 3 (2013), pp. 109-157
The last three Cameronian ministers, Alexander Shields, Thomas Lining and William Boyd, all joined the reorganized Church of Scotland post-1690. Shields said that he still affirmed all of the principles of the Informatory Vindication (1687), which he co-wrote, but applied more Scriptural principles to the changed historical circumstances.
This article gives background to, and a summary of the arguments of Shield’s book defending his reasons (and seeking to persuade the rest of the Cameronians), An Enquiry into Church-Communion, or a Treatise against Separation from the Revolution Settlement of this National Church, 1690.
.
2000’s
Stodghill, Justin B. – “Alexander Shields’ Response to Sir Robert Hamilton in 1690” Scottish Reformation Historical Journal, vol. 7 (2017), pp. 73-103
.
Books
1700’s
Shield, Alexander – A True & Faithful Relation of the Sufferings of Alexander Shields… (1715) 145 pp. no ToC
.
1900’s
MacPherson, Hector – The Cameronian Philosopher: Alexander Shields Ref (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1932) 244 pp.
.
.
John Graham of Claverhouse a chief military persecutor
Book
1800’s
Simpson, Robert – The Times of Claverhouse: or Sketches of the Persecution (Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter Square, 1844) 219 pp. ToC
Simpson (1792-1867) was the minister of North United Presbyterian Church of Sanquhar, Scotland for 48 years. An honorary degree was conferred by Princeton College in 1853.
.
That the Last Three Cameronian Ministers & Most of their People Joined the Revolution Church of Scotland (1690) & Accepted the Validity of the then Civil Magistrate
Order of
Quotes
Individuals
.
Quotes
Order of
Moore
Walker
Shields
Howie
McMillan
Jardine
.
Edwin Nibet Moore
Our Covenant Heritage: The Covenanters’ Struggle for Unity in Truth as Revealed in the Memoir of James Nisbet and Sermons of John Nevay (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2000), p. 158
“…the overwhelming majority of the [1680’s] Society People [or Cameronians] followed their ministers and joined with the Church of Scotland…
The last official record (in Faithful Contendings [pp. 461-62]) of the General Society was a blank letter of protest for individual Society members to use when they resumed membership in the Church of Scotland.”
.
Patrick Walker
Six Saints of the Covenant: Peden, Semple, Welwood, Cameron, Cargill, Smith, ed. D. Hay Fleming (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1901; rep. Edinburgh: Blue Banner Productions, 1999), 1.147
“…all know that it was the fewest number of the United Societies, that was led off with Robert Hamilton to the disowning of King William [III] as King of Britain and his Government; the greater part reckoned it their duty to take a legal unite[d] way of witnessing, by humble pleadings, representations, and protestations, pleading for and with their mother to put away her whoredoms.”
.
Michael Shields
Faithful Contendings Displayed, ed. John Howie (Glasgow: John Bryce, 1780) This is the main primary source account.
“[August, 1689:] The most material thing deliberate[d] upon by them, was, that albeit the representing of our grievances to the King, while he was Prince of Orange had hitherto been delayed, whereby debates had been occasioned among ourselves, yet it might be considered whether it were now necessary to send the same. They all agreed that it was necessary and expedient to give a true representation of our cause and case to the King, and seek redress of our grievances, though this had been long delayed, and had formerly been agreed upon by the General Meeting at Crawford-John, February 13th last part.
Whereby it was concluded that an address with a memorial of our grievances should be sent to the Prince of Orange, which memorial might now be written over again, and sent, with such alterations as the present circumstances called for. And they concluded that Earlstoun, Kerstand, and Sir. Robert Hamilton, and Mr. Alexander Shields should be desired to go to London with the same, or any two of them (Mr. Shields still being one of them) as they agree among themselves…
Sir Robert signified his mind to this purpose… he expected they and he would not agree… And moreover, as for him they were to go unto, he could not address, nor own him as King, but only as Prince of Orange, but he said he was willing to hazard himself in representing our grievances to him as such, with an offer of our allegiance upon right terms, acknowledging we had been too hasty in owning him before. Neither would he go with Kerstand and Mr. Shields, who were of a contrary mind in this matter, seeing they might, when there, contradict one another in their discourses.
Mr. Shields declared his willingness to go, if these desired would go with him, but for the reasons above given by each of them a stop was put to that affair.”
.
“In this discouraging time, a General Meeting met at Douglas upon the 6th of November, 1689.
After the meeting was modeled, it was enquired, What the meeting ought first to consider of? Some answered, That the business concerning union with the [other Church of Scotland] ministers was of greatest consequence, and therefore should be first deliberated upon…”
.
“After some debates (wherein were too much heat and passion on both sides) at length this conclusion was put to this matter at the time. Our [Cameronian] ministers undertook to write their mind concerning Union with the [other Church of Scotland] ministers: And to answer the objections which were given in against joining, without confessing and condemning defections, of which they would send copies to the Societies.”
.
“…a General Meeting met at Douglas, the 3rd of December, 1690…
After this, Messrs Lining and Shields, spoke to the Meeting, to this effect, That they would not impose upon any person, yet they advised them to hear those ministers who were most free and faithful, that they could have the opportunity of, and to have a care of running upon extremes on the right hand. After which some debates ensued.
Whereupon it was proposed to the meeting that a paper should be drawn up, containing a protestation against the defections of the [Church of Scotland] ministers they [Cameronian laypersons] were to hear (which they might give in either to the minister with whom they were to join, or to the presbytery of the bounds) and what induced them to join at that time; as also that their joining at present was neither a condemning of, nor receding from our former testimony and contending, nor approving of these defections they witnessed against before…
Upon the morrow they convened again. The said paper was presented and read; but there were debatings concerning the same between our ministers and some of the meeting. As also, the Meeting were of different sentiments about it, some against it upon one account, and some upon another account, and some were for it, thinking it better to join with such a testimony than without any at all. Not coming to any agreement, it was left to people’s liberty and freedom to give it or not, as they thought fit. It was proposed to the meeting, that in regard debates did not much good, but rather hurt, it was fittest to leave them off, and part; which… they did. Some stayed and took copies of the paper, which they gave in to ministers before they joined; a transcript of which follows.
To the right reverend Minister and Eldership of the Parish of ________ or Presbtyery of ________
Although among other calamities that we have been exercised with in these days of tribulation that have gone over us, these have been very grievous unto us, that not only we have labored under a sad famine of gospel-ordinances, but under the reproach that we despised and rejected the offer of them: Yet we have a witness in heaven and in our own consciences, that nothing has been more lamented in our lot than the want [lack] of such a privilege, nor anything so much desired as the recovery and enjoyment of these ordinances, administered in freedom and faithfulness, purity and power, which for a long time, in our judgment, have been so restrained and restricted, burdened and borne down under the bushel of Erastian and Antichristian usurpations, that not only they watned that liberty, light and luster which the Lord Jesus had set them in by his institutions, but seemed to be encompassed with and subjected to these wicked encroachments that we could not have access to them without some way acknowledging and bowing unto these idols of jealousy, which being set up in the very entry of the house of the Lord, did scar and fright us from coming thereunto, so long as these usurpations were standing.
But now these things being removed, and the church’s freedom and power restored, the doctrine, worship, discipline and government, and all the ordinances of Christ re-established in purity, peace and freedom, we cannot any longer stand at a distance from them.
Nevertheless, the indignities done to our Lord Jesus, and injuries done to his church by these Erastian and Antichristian usurpations of Prelacy, Supremacy and absolute power; and the defections of ministers in comliance therewisth not being as yet confessed nor condemned, and our complaints and petitions offered to the late General Assembly, not being received nor regarded as we expected, which was a great grievance, and an addition to all our former complaints; and yet being resolved to remain no longer in withdrawing as formerly, we think it altogether needful for our own exoneration, and for making our communion the more comfortable, and free of all accession to, or partaking with the guilt of these offenses, which made us withdraw in former times; To offer and give in our testimony against all the wrongs done to Christ and this reformed covenanted Church of Scotland, by the Popish, Prelatical and malignant faction, in their wicked overturning its blessed ancient reformation, rescinding the righteous laws, and breaking, burning and burying the holy covenants that fenced it, and establishing upon the ruins thereof abjured Prelacy, supremacy and tyranny, and by all the defections of ministers in compliance with, or submission to the same; such as, heaing of curates, taking any of the oaths and bonds repugnant to the covenants, embracing the indulgences and indemnities of tyrants, addressing for, and accepting of the late Popish toleration, their lying bye from, or unfaithfulness in the exercise of their ministry in times of abounding snares and their present offensive omissions in not renewing the covenants, nor purging out all the Episcopal curates, etc. And particularly, we cannot forbear to testify (with all reverence and respect to your ministry, which now we offer and promise subjection to in the Lord) against your sin of ___________________________________________
Thus having given in our testimony against these sins and all other defections and corruptions in this church; We protest that our present joining may not be interpreted an approving of any of these sins, nor a condemning of, or receding from our former or present testimony against the same; and humbly plead, that this our testimony and protestation may be registered in the books of Session or Presbytery.
Subscribed by us ________ the ___ day of ______.”
.
John Howie
Michael Shields, Faithful Contendings Displayed, ed. John Howie (Glasgow: John Bryce, 1780), An Appendix, p. 463
“As [the Cameronian leader] Michael Shields has in the foregoing relation frequently made mention of division and debates in their meetings [of the Society People at the end of the 1680’s], and has related how matters were carried on by the ministers and the majority of the people (of which number he was one) but has been sparing in giving account of the grounds upon which the minor party went in opposition to the several parts of their managements in the two last years (viz. 1689 & 1690)…”
.
William McMillan
‘The Covenanters after the Revolution of 1688’ (Scottish Church History Society, 1950), pp. 144-45
“The first step towards what might be called the re-organisation of the [United] Societies appears to have been taken by Robert Hamilton, who had been on the Continent from 1679 to 1688, and who had constituted himself the leader in opposition to the movements proposed by the ‘ministers and majority of the people’ during the two years after the [Glorious] Revolution [of 1689]. All who did not approve his views were guilty of ‘gross defections.’
…when the first General Meeting was held after the issue of this paper [in 1691], it was found that there were tares among the wheat. “When gathered and searching into one another’s judgement as to the state of the testimony,” says the writer of the Informatory Vindication [of 1691(?)], ‘We found ourselves to be but a mix’d company,” and consequently, before anything was done, they had to ‘purge their meetings from all such as had sinfully joined with the courses of the times and were defending the same.’… How many were removed at the ‘purging’ is also unknown, but they must have formed a considerable proportion of the body…
The Societies seem to have done very little without causing controversy in their own ranks.”
.
Mark Jardine
The United Societies: Militancy, Martyrdom & the Presbyterian Movement in Late-Restoration Scotland, 1679 to 1688 PhD diss. (Univ. of Edinburgh, 2009), Conclusion
p. 233
“At the forty-first convention on 24 October 1688, the Societies decided against indifference to a Dutch landing and that they would rise, but only in a ‘defensive posture’ in order to avoid ‘snares’, by which they meant committing themselves in advance to Orange’s settlement, and to prevent their own ‘destruction’. If the Dutch landed in England, as was expected, the Societies would not suddenly appear in arms. Only when the Dutch expedition was ‘advanced’ in Scotland, the kingdom ‘in combustion’ and the Societies were pressed to declare which side they were on, would they rise in the ‘part of the country commanded by the Dutch’…
Unlike in previous attempted risings, the Societies also agreed their position towards their potential partners in advance. The same convention unanimously concluded not to associate with the Dutch in one body or come under their command, but after ‘some debate’ it agreed to cooperate with them against their common enemy, accept arms and to take Dutchmen to teach them ‘the art of war’.”
.
pp. 235-36
“Right from the beginning of the Revolution [of 1688-1689], there was an awareness by elements of the Societies’ leadership that the age of protests and remonstrances had come to an end and had been replaced by one of deft diplomatic manoeuvres and influencing outcomes.
Instead of directly petitioning Orange for a Covenanted settlement, the Societies would renew the Covenants themselves in early March I689 and press other presbyterians to accept a Covenanted settlement through negotiation. Ultimately, that strategy failed. The pursuit of a Covenanted settlement within the fractured denominational landscape of post-Revolutionary Scotland was unrealistic, and in I69o, Shields, Boyd and Linning would lead the majority of the Societies to accept a uncovenanted presbyterian settlement of the Church under protest.”
.
p. 240
“A minority within the Societies, such as Hamilton and Earlstoun, would continue to reject William’s kingship, but the majority, including their ministerial leadership, either tacitly or openly accepted it. That split proved to be fundamental and led to the great schism in the Societies in 1690, when Hamilton and a minority of the Societies refused to accept the Revolution settlement of Church and State, and, ultimately, publicly rejected William’s authority in the Sanquhar Declaration of 1692. (Walker, BP, I, 126; Shields, FCD, 411-2, 418-9.)…
The Societies also took steps to secure the Revolution by offering military support…”
.
p. 243
“For hardliners like Hamilton, the ‘under-hand-dealings’ of Shields, Linning and Boyd and the Societies’ connivance in the Revolution settlement broke their Covenanted obligations and diluted the Societies’ testimony which they had so faithfully maintained.
In 1691, Hamilton and some societies revived the Societies’ general correspondence or convention to maintain their former testimony in every ‘pendicule’ and to stand ‘alone’ until their cause was vindicated. Later known as the MAcmillanites, the continuing Societies would go on to form the Cameronian or Reformed Presbyterian Presbyterian Church.
The continuing Societies’ formed part of a patchwork with other existing fragments of the wider militant movement which rejected the Revolution settlement. They included the rump of the Cameronian Russellites, who maintained their split from the Societies after the reunion of 1688, and the non-Cameronian Hebronites, the followers of John Hepburn… All those sects originated in the schisms of the United Societies and, like the post-Revolution Church, laid claim to the Societies’ heritage….
…Their response to the Revolution, in particular, reveals that persecution was a major factor in shaping their militancy. When persecution was removed at the Revolution, the majority of the Societies were able to moderate their demands and co-ordinate their actions with other presbyterians…
The Societies were… one of the midwives of the Revolution. Even though the Revolution sidelined their Covenanted platform, the leadership and majority of the Societies accepted and supported it in the hope that it would place Scotland on a better path than it had been under the Catholic King James and the Restoration regime.”
.
Individuals Resisting Covenanters who Joined the 1690 Chuch of Scotland
Order of
Thomas Hog
James Nisbet
.
On Thomas Hog of Kiltearn
John Currie, A Vindication of the Real Reformation-Principles of the Church of Scotland concerning Separation, etc.... (Edinburgh: A. Alison, 1740), To the Reader, p. ix
“The great Mr. Thomas Hog of Kiltearn [1628-1692], against whom the bulk of the separating people [especially after 1690], for opposing separation in his day, expressed the keenest hatred, as is told more fully in Preface to the Essay [of John Currie];”
.
James Nisbet
Private Life of the Persecuted: or Memoirs of the First Years of James Nisbet, one of the Scottish Covenanters (Edinburgh: Oliphant, 1827)
“I was a hearty Revolutioner, and a great adorer of God’s goodness to these lands in sending that great man, King William, to overthrow our enemies and redeem us from slavery. Yet the aforesaid nine grievances [on pp. 232-33] stuck close with me, and stumbled me greatly; whereupon I had thoughts to go off the country.
But alas, alas! before that project was ripe, I met with some, who otherwise were good men, but they had stated a separation from church and state, after the Revolution, because of the aforesaid nine grievances, to which they added many more. I at least was overcome with their arguments, joined with them, in the inadvertent simplicity of my heart, and being influenced with a zeal not altogether according to knowlege, I continued embarked in communion with them for some time, which laid a foundation for a train of many after trials to me; for I quickly found that I was out of the frying-pan into the heart of the fire: for, though Isaw great reason for these grievances on the government side, yet, amongst the dissenters, I found many grievances, some of which were intolerable unto me…”
.
“I alleging, what was wrong in the administration of our laws, either in church or state, is more through the default of some of the administrators, than either to the laws now in being, or yet to the supreme magistrate: from which I see I cannot state my sufferings upon anything amiss, although they are still grievous; neither can I have peace to refuse obedience to the civil magistrate in all things accoding to the Word of God.
This my protesting, and refusing to join with them, enraged them exceedingly against me; and as their scourge of tongues was grievously bent against others, so now was it against myself, in a most grievous, unjust and unreasonable manner, and very hypocritically gave it out far and near…
Thus I left that party of the dissenters who now commonly go under the name of Mr. M’Millan’s people; for the Quakers, Gibb’s faction, the Harlaw’s faction, and episcopacy by bishops, I had never any thing to do with them in matters of religion, neither directly nor indirectly; yea, my soul abhors all their evil ways: but I lieved retired by myself; all which time the Lord pitied me, and restored me to some measure of communion with Himself. Praise, praise. Amen…”
.
“Now, as formerly, I durst not but yield all true allegiance to the civil magistrate: so after this I durst not refuse any longer to hear the ministers of the presbyterian establishment who preach precious Christ, our dear Redeemer, to be the way, the truth, and the life… Under the ministry of some of which worthy minsiters I lived many years…
…till… the much to be lamented death of the eminently religious, brave, and valiant William, Prince of Orange, King of Great Britain, our never to be forgotten kind and compassionate deliverer, who died, March 1702…
Thus, from the time I left the dissenters, I wrestled through all the reign of great King William and Queen Anne, enjoying the gospel, clearly and faithfully preached by several worthy ministers, to the great edification and comfort of my soul, meditating frequently on the Scriptures, and repeating the Shorter Catechism to myself, all which I found much sweetness and satisfaction in…”
.
Contra Separatism from the Re-established Church of Scotland, 1690
For more general histories on the separated United Societies and others after 1690, and of the era generally, see, ‘The United Societies after the Revolution, post-1690’, ‘1700’s’ and ‘1700’s-1800’s’ at ‘Scottish Chuch History’ (RBO).
.
Order of
Articles 10+
Books 2
Biblio 1
.
Articles
1600’s
ed. Shields, Michael – ‘Blank Letter of Protest to Enter Revolution Church’ (1690) in Faithful Contendings, (Glasgow: Bryce, 1780), pp. 460-62
“…the overwhelming majority of the Society People followed their ministers and joined with the [Revolution] Church of Scotland… The last official record (in Faithful Contendings) of the General Society was a blank letter of protest for individual Society members to use when they resumed membership in the Church of Scotland… James Nisbet’s friend Patrick Walker left the following account of how most dealt with this dilemma:
‘All know that it was the fewest number of the United Societies, that was led off with Robert Hamilton to the disowning of King William as king of Britain and his Government; the greater part reckoned it their duty to take a legal united way of witnessing by humble pleadings, representations, and protestations, pleading for and with their mother to put away her whoredoms.’ (Walker, Six Saints, vol. 1, p. 147)” – Moore, Covenant Heritage, pp. 158-9
Shields, Alexander, Thomas Lining & William Boyd – An Account of the Methods & Motives of the Late Union & Submission to the Assembly (London: 1691) 40 pp.
The three last Cameronian ministers give an account of their viewpoint and principles during the persecution of the 1680’s and the reasons why they joined the 1690 reorganized Church of Scotland, without going back on any of their principles. For further background and reasons as to the printing of this work, see Shields, An Enquiry into Church-Communion, p. ix.
“…because we had reason to fear they should be our sins as well as theirs, if, as they [the other Church of Scotland ministers] had given the submission to these foresaid usurpations required of them by Law [between 1662-1688], so we should give the submission to them required of us by Law, by joining.
This was the case and cause of our divisions until the Lord was pleased in our greatest extremity, by sending over King William [in 1688-1689], as a renowned instrument in His Hand, to rescue us from Popery and slavery, to remember this broken and bruised Church, and to give us a reviving in our bondage with a high hand and in a surprising manner and to remove our yokes under which we groaned, in a measure surpassing our expectations. By which emergencies of Providence, in such a manner, removing causes of our divisions, we could not but encourage ourselves in the hope that the effects should also be in time removed.” – p. 7
“Thereafter, in the remembrance of these [previously recited] resolutions and engagements, which we looked upon as at last inferring an obligation lying upon us to make some endeavors in pursuit of this union, which is a duty, materially, morally and antecedently obliging in itself: Being invited also by some reverend ministers in Edinburgh, we had once and again conferences with them: Wherein at length after we had still insisted on the necessity of confessing and condemning these [former] defections and corruptions, which caused us to stand so long at a distance from them, and proposed the difficulties we had in our conscience, to return to communion with them before these were removed, as is said. They condescended upon some expedients for our satisfaction, that it should be allowed to us, to exhibit to the next Assembly, our testimony against all these courses and practices in ministers, that did offend us, and to plead for recording of it, in the books of Assembly, which might exoner[ate] our consciences, and absolve us from all participation with, or communion in the guilt, that we conceived to be in any of these things.” – p. 14
“Before this time, though we had in several places and at several times given a specimen of our inclinableness to union and intense and impatient desire of communion with our brethren, in joining with some, both in the North and South, to show that we did not scruple now to incorporate with them when the grounds of separation were taken away:”
“Yet because the things in controversy, testified against in the [longer] paper, were not in the present constitution of the Church, and therefore our submission at present, could not be looked upon, to be an homologation of the things therein witnessed against;” – pp. 17-18
“This is the true, short, and yet full narrative of the whole transaction which we thought needful to publish, in all the particulars of it, to discover the falsehood of the various misreports industriously spread of it…”
“we might find much matter, both of rejoicing and mourning, in the wonderful commencement and advancement of this work of reformation [in 1689-1690]. As at the Jews’ return from Babylon to Jerusalem, the priests and Levites, and all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the Lord because the foundation of the House of the Lord was laid; Yet some of them that had seen the first House, wept with a loud voice, so that the people could not discern the noise of the shout of joy from the noise of weeping. So at this time we are called to rejoice with thanksgiving for, and we should indeed be very ungrate and unworthy if we did not acknowledge with praise and admiration, the mercy of God which endures forever, manifested and magnified in the progress of this work hitherto;” – p. 21
“And now also the causes of our disunion and division in times of defection, being in a great measure removed, when Erastian usurpations are abrogated, the Church’s intrinsic power redintegrated, and the corruptions introduced by compliances, so far abdicated and antiquated that they are not in the constitution of the Church, and do not continue to be the scandal and snare of the times: We hope and expect a remedy may be found for the breaches and divisions that we thought incurable, and union and communion in the Lord may be attained.” – p. 22
“But though for these things we be called to rejoice, yet we are no less obliged to mourn when we observe this House of the Lord, so unlike the former, wanting many things the former had and pestered with many things the former wanted. As at the building of the second House, after the captivity of Babylon, they that had seen the first House wept with a loud voice when they observed its constitution and structure, so far short of the former, for order and beauty, and wanting some glorious prerogatives the other had; as the Urim and Thummim, the fire from Heaven, the ark of the testimony, etc. So, they that have seen our former reformation in its integrity [in 1638-1650], before the late deformation, can hardly refrain from weeping at the sight of the sad, disproportion, between this and the former. In the former, as the constitution was calculate in the nearest conformity to the divine pattern;” – p. 22
“Whereas Mr. Thomas Lining, Mr. Alexander Sheilds and Mr. William Boyd have presented to this Assembly two papers: One containing the expressions of their purpose and promise of being subject to the authority of this Church, as formerly constituted and now restored in its several judicatories: The other [longer one] offered for the exoneration of their consciences. Which [shorter] paper, containing their submission and subjection, did after the exhibition of the other to the Assembly, become binding upon them according to the promise therein made. Like as after that other and longer paper, had been read before the committee of overtures, it was exhibit to, and received by the Assembly, together with the reasons from the said committee, why it should not be publicly read in full Assembly. Which reasons being duly considered; And the said other paper of submission and subjection publicly read, and judicially owned by the forenamed persons in presence of the Assembly. The Assembly did conclude by one single vote that the foresaid longer paper should not be read; And that the above named persons should be received into the fellowship of this Church on the terms of submission and subjection contained in the said paper: And after passing of the said vote, and that they were gravely admonished by the moderator to walk orderly in time coming, in opposition to all schism and division, it was declared to them by the moderator in the name of the Assembly that the Assembly did receive them into the fellowship of this Church, to enjoy the privileges thereof, and perform the duties therein, whereof they are, or shall be found capable…” – pp. 38-39
“3. It was ever our judgment that division was a great misery, and when unnecessary and unseasonable, a great sin: And even when we could not avoid it, we were weary of it and longed and prayed for a time of healing and an opportunity of bringing it to a close. But if ever there was a time when division was a misery and a sin, because unnecessary and unseasonable, now it is; And if ever there was an opportunity of healing, now there is: When the causes and occasions of our divisions are removed and antiquated; When the object of them is so far altered that the providences of this day call and encourage all divided parties among presbyterians to contend together for the common reformation against the common adversary.” – p. 43
“On the other hand we think to continue division and separation at the time, would tend rather to the scandal and reproach of all our former witnessings, than to the strengthening of the same, for it might verify what used to be alleged against us, that we maintained such principles as would dissolve all union and order in the world. The best confutation of which reproach is now to make the contraire appear, by union…” – pp. 45-46
Church of Scotland General Assembly – A Seasonable Admonition and Exhortation to Some who Separate Themselves from the Communion of the Church of Scotland, wherein is also discovered that the things they complain of are either false on the matter, or not sufficient to Warrant Separation (Edinburgh: Mosmam, 1698/1699) 27 pp.
One of the best, pastoral expositions of the principles of the Second Reformation of Scotland (quoting Durham, Rutherford, etc.) on unity to an impure Church contra separatism.
.
1700’s
Wodrow, Robert – Letter 39, ‘Vindication of the Church of Scotland in Answer to a Cameronian Pamphlet’ (1710) in The Correspondence of the Rev. Robert Wodrow, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1842), vol. 1, pp. 122-27
“2. The greatest charge… appears [to be] that the Church of Scotland does not press the renewing of the Covenants, National [1638] and Solemn League [1643]. But there are several things as to this that they take no notice of, which, if noticed, might, in a great measure, allay their clamour:
(1) That the National Covenant is, indeed, a confession of our faith, very praiseworthy in its time, but I conceive, for variety and perspicuity, not to be compared with the Westminster Confession, which we own and press.
(2) That the Westminster Confession is ratified in King William’s Parliament, and the other [the National Covenant] was approven [implicitly, not explicitly] by the last Parliament of King Charles the Second [in 1681], where I think [James] the Duke of York presided, and included [it] in the bosom of the Test [for civil office] as a point thereof; which honour I believe that Parliament would not have given to the Westminster Confession.
(3) As to the Solemn League, they would do well to consider, more seriously, what that answer does overly take notice of, p. 13, near the beginning, viz. that the [General] Assembly [of the Church of Scotland] appoints its being subscribed by all the true professors of the Reformed religion, only after its reception and approbation in the kingdom of England. But they should have considered further, that the Assembly, for aught I can find, by their act, do not appoint even that it be subscribed, only they recommend to the honorable Convention of Estates, that, being examined and approved by them, it may be sent to England, to be received and approven there, that after that it may be, with all religious solemnity, sworn, etc.
(4) They would consider whether it be practicable to get England to consent to renew that Covenant, and if it be, whether they themselves will undertake to gain their consent.
(5.) Whether we can renew it without their consent, and whether, in that case, it would be a league and covenant.
(6) Whether that league and covenant obliges us by open force to constrain them to extirpate prelacy, when they are not willing and do not consent to it.
(7) Whether it be in our power to do it. And,
(8) Whether it were lawful for us to do it if it were in our power; and whether ever our blessed Lord gave any such commandment to his followers by the power of the sword to reform nations, as it is said Mahomet gave to his followers, and Romish antichrist has too much practiced.
Another heavy charge against the Church of Scotland, on which these people ground their schism and separation, is, that the breaches of these covenants, and other such sins of public defection, are not, or have not been, publicly acknowledged.
But this is very uncharitable, for, 1690, there was a very full acknowledgment and enumeration of those sins, and of defection in the causes of the fast emitted by that Assembly…
For breach of covenant is really among the causes of that fast [in 1706], seeing the act expressly requires ministers both to warn of and confess the national sins enumerated in causes of fast 1690, 1700, and 1701, in all which breach of covenant is very particularly acknowledged…
And now, if that be a sufficient ground of separation from the Church of Scotland, I could appeal to all the Protestant Churches in Europe…
Another charge against mhiisters, wherefore they are to be separated from, is because our civil rulers have only asserted as the ground of their re-establishing Presbytery, that it was more agreeable to the people’s inclinations, etc.; ergo [therefore], ministers must be disowned.
But have any ministers ever asserted that this is the only ground; have they not, do they not plead its divine right? Yea, if I mistake not, even the Parliament, in one of the acts, have asserted its being agreeable to and founded upon the Word of God.
But I am weary of these things, and therefore will not go furder, nor meddle with that which seems to be also a great prejudice against ministers, their subjecting to the Government and our present Queen, who is of the communion of the Church of England.
But, would ever our worthy Reformers, of whom they so much boast, have refused subjection to King James the Sixth and his son King Charles [I], because of that communion? Would they not have been well satisfied, if they had but suffered the Church of Scotland to enjoy her privileges?
But I must now forbear, and remember I am not writing an answer to that paper, nor do I design it…
I had forgot to signify, that though the author of the Modest Reply greatly quarrels [with] our Church constitution, yet, from what appears through his discourse, there is too much ground to apprehend that the great eye-sore is the civil constitution, and hinc illae lacrymae [hence those tears]!”
Walker, Patrick – ‘Postscript’ to Alexander Peden’s Life in Six Saints of the Covenant… ed. David H. Fleming (d. c. 1745; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1901), vol. 1, pp. 138-49
[Hamilton, Gavin] – Just Reflections upon a Pamphlet entitled, A Modest Reply to a Letter from a Friend to Mr John M’millan ([Edinburgh?], 1712) 48 pp.
[Hog, James] – Three Missives written to a Minister of the Gospel, in answer to one from him, wherein the author’s ground for remaining in communion with the Church of Scotland, as to its judicatories and the odinances therein dispensed, are ingenuously and fairly stated; and the chief reasons of our Separatists for setting up ordinances and judicatories distinct from this national Church, and in opposition to it, are impartially considered, and refelled, as these reasons were printed in the late book entitled, Protesters Vindicated, etc. (Edinburgh: John Martin, 1717) 64 pp. no ToC
Currie, John
An Essay on Separation: or a Vindication of the Church of Scotland, in which the Chief Things in the Testimonies of these Reverend Brethren who lately made a Secession from her are considered, and shown to be no Ground of Separation or Secession (Edinburgh: T. Lumisden & J. Robertson, 1738)
The Plain Perjury & Great Iniquity of the Seceding Brethren’s New Covenant Discovered, in a Familiar Dialogue between a Seceder & an Adherer to the Church of Scotland (Edinburgh: T. Lumisden & J. Robertson, 1744)
.
1900’s
Fleming, David Hay – ‘Dr. Hewison’s Covenanters’ in Critical Reviews relating Chiefly to Scotland (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1912), pp. 309-15
Fleming demonstrates in detail from the manuscripts that the Westminster Confession adopted by the Scottish civil parliament in 1690 was the exact same copy published by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1647 with the“ Scripture references, contra the claims of Hewison and some other reformed presbyterians.
.
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis – ‘The Constitutionality of the 1690 Church of Scotland’ being points 15-25 of ‘A Defense of the Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting’ (RBO, 2014)
Vogan, Matthew – ‘Alexander Shields, the Revolution Settlement & the Unity of the Visible Church’, pt. 1, 2 Scottish Reformation Historical Society Historical Journal, 2 (2012), pp. 109-46 & 3 (2013), pp. 109-157
Stodghill, Justin B. – “Alexander Shields’ Response to Sir Robert Hamilton in 1690” Scottish Reformation Historical Journal, vol. 7 (2017), pp. 73-103
Raffe, Alasdair
Religious Controversy & Scottish Society, c. 1679-1714 (2007), pp. 130-80
ch. 6, ‘Controversy over the Covenants’
ch. 7, ‘Presbyterian Separatism’
Gives many quotes from primary sources illuminating the various views from the period.
‘Presbyterianism, Secularization & Scottish Politics after the Revolution of 1688-1690’ (2010) 20 pp.
Abstract: “The article focuses on what contemporaries called the ‘intrinsic right’ of the church: its claim to independent authority in spiritual matters and ecclesiastical administration. The religious settlement of 1690 gave control of the kirk to clergy who endorsed divine right Presbyterianism, believed in the binding force of the National Covenant (1638) and the Solemn League and Covenant (1643), and sought to uphold the intrinsic right… and that historians have exaggerated the pace of liberalization in Scottish Presbyterian thought.”
.
Books
1700’s
Shields, Alexander – An Enquiry into Church-Communion, or, A Treatise Against Separation from the Revolution Settlement of this National Church, as it was settled in 1689 2nd ed. (1706; Edinburgh: William Gray, 1747) 154 pp. no ToC
This is the most extensive treatise regarding the Biblical and historical reasons for joining the Revolution Church of Scotland post-1689. All three of the covenanter ministers to live through the Killing Times joined the Revolution Church; Shields (who co-wrote the Informatory Vindication of 1687 with James Renwick) was one of them. Another one, Thomas Lining, endorsed his book. Here are Shields’ arguments that apply scripture to the changed historical situation.
Thomas Lining, ‘To the Reader’: “…some, on the other hand, who profess themselves presbyterians, are continuing in a stated schism from this Church which yet is the purest in the world for doctrine, worship, discipline and government, even those people themselves being judges.” – p. ii
“For some went a great length in compliance with the defections of these times [1662-1688]; others durst not comply… ministers and people were obliged to withdraw from these courses which they were convinced in their conscience to be sinful… But this was without any design ever to own these things to be sufficient grounds of separation in a constitute Church, or when with personal safety application could be made to settled Church judicatories who were not under the tyrannical influence of enemies to the work of God…
Also there are many alive to this day who know when the Informatory Vindication [1687] was to be printed, that it was sent to Holland to be showed to some of us who were then abroad; and that we declared we could never own the grounds of separation laid down therein to justify a separation from a settled Church in a peaceable state [such as after 1690]… and for this cause it is often added as a qualification to the grounds of withdrawing that they were to be understood ‘in the case of such differences and so circumstantiate[d].’ Informatory Vindication, page 67, ‘In this broken and declining sate of the Church,’ ibid., page 73, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 87, 88. To which also the worthy martyr Mr. James Renwick, minister of the Gospel, assented.” – pp. v-vi
.
2000’s
Stephen, Jeffrey – Defending the Revolution: The Church of Scotland, 1689-1716 Download (2013) 108 pp. Only about the first third of the book with the bibliography is available at this link
.
Bibliography
Couper, W.J. – ‘The Literature of the Scottish Reformed Presbyterian Church, part 1′ (1705-1749), part 2 (1753-1800), part 3 (1801-1831), part 4 (1831-1841) (1935)
Couper was of the Free Church of Scotland. The un-annotated bibliography includes works written against the RP’s, such as by the Seceders.
.
.
Divine-Right Presbyterianism in the Church of Scotland, 1690 (though the state only recognized it by an Erastian concession to democracy)
Primary Sources
Rule, Gilbert –
Church of Scotland General Assembly – A Seasonable Admonition and Exhortation to Some who Separate Themselves from the Communion of the Church of Scotland, wherein is also discovered that the things they complain of are either false on the matter, or not sufficient to Warrant Separation (Edinburgh: Mosmam, 1698-1699) 27 pp.
“We do believe and own that Jesus Christ is the only Head and King of His Church; and that He hath instituted in his Church, officers and ordinances, order and government, and not left it to the will of man, magistrate or Church, to alter at their pleasure. And we believe that this government is neither prelatical nor congregational, but Presbyterian, which now, through the mercy of God, is established among us; and we believe we have a better foundation for this our Church government than the inclination of the people or the laws of men.” – p. 6
Shields, Alexander – An Enquiry into Church Communion, p. 3
.
Secondary Sources
Cunningham, William – p. 451 & surrounding of Discussions on Church Principles… (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1863)
Johnston, John C. – II – Bibliography, ‘Literature of the Later Covenanters’, p. 367 ff. in Treasury of the Covenant (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1887)
Johnston provides an annotated bibliography for covenanters of that era, including that of the many divine-right presbyterians in the Reorganized Church of Scotland.
Raffe, Alasdair – ‘Presbyterianism, Secularization & Scottish Politics after the Revolution of 1688-1690’ (2010) 20 pp.
Abstract: “The article focuses on what contemporaries called the ‘intrinsic right’ of the church: its claim to independent authority in spiritual matters and ecclesiastical administration. The religious settlement of 1690 gave control of the kirk to clergy who endorsed divine right Presbyterianism, believed in the binding force of the National Covenant (1638) and the Solemn League and Covenant (1643), and sought to uphold the intrinsic right… and that historians have exaggerated the pace of liberalization in Scottish Presbyterian thought.”
.
The Church of Scotland after 1690 Remained bound by the Westminster Confession from 1647, by her Intrinsic Power, Not from the New Civil Constitution in 1690
And thus any civil changes in 1690 did not reflect a change in the Church’s constitution.
.
Church of Scotland, General Assemly
1690, Session 12, Oct. 29, Act approving several Overtures; 1. Anent subscribing the Confession of Faith in Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1638-1842 (Edinburgh: 1843), pp. 225-26
“For retaining soundness and unity of doctrine, it is judged necessary that all probationers licensed to preach, all intrants into the ministry, and all other ministers and elders received into communion with us, in church government, be obliged to subscribe their approbation of the Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church, and ratified in the second session of the current Parliament [in 1690]…
4. Against Profanation of the Sabbath.
That it be recommended to Kirk-sessions and presbyteries carefully to put in execution the acts of former General Assemblies against profanation of the Lord’s day, and particularly by unnecessary sailing and travelling.
…
Same Session — Act anent the Administration of the Sacraments.
The General Assembly, considering that the two sacraments that Christ has appointed under the New Testament… and that by the authority of this Church, in her former Assemblies, the private use of them has been condemned:”
.
1694, session 13, April 13, Act approving Overtures anent a Commission of the General Assembly and Instructions thereto in Acts of the General Assembly, p. 239
“…
That this Commission may receive into ministerial communion such of the late conform ministers, as having qualified themselves according to law, shall apply personally to them, one by one, duly and orderly, and shall acknowledge, engage, and subscribe upon the end of the Confession of Faith, as follows, viz.:
I… do sincerely own and declare, the above Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of this Church, and ratified by law in the year 1690, to be the confession of my faith; and that I own the doctrine therein contained to be the true doctrine which I will constantly adhere to;”
.
Subscription in the Revolution Church of Scotland, post-1690
Quote
1800’s
William Cunningham
Intro
The questions and formula of subscription for officers implemented at the Revolution Settlement (1694, 1711) involved affirming that “the Presbyterian government and discipline of this church are founded upon the Word of God, and agreeable thereto.” This has been criticized because the proposition affirmed does not say that presbyterianism is THE government instituted by the Word of God. However, this criticism is mistaken in its understanding, as Cunningham demonstrates.
.
Historical Theology, vol. 1, p. 76
“The language here employed is cautious and temperate, and is thus well suited to the circumstances of a solemn profession to be made by a numerous body of men, who might not all see their way to concur in stronger and more specific phraseology.
Besides, it is to be observed that the profession respects not merely the fundamentals or essentials of Presbyterianism in the abstract, which alone can be reasonably maintained to have the clear and positive sanction of apostolic practice; but ‘the Presbyterian government and discipline of this church,’ including the detailed development of the essential principles of Presbyterianism as exhibited in the actual constitution and arrangements of our church, and of all this in the concrete, or taken complexly, nothing higher or stronger could with propriety be affirmed, than that it is founded upon the word of God, and agreeable thereto.”
.
Differences between the 1680’s Cameronians & the later Reformed Presbyterians (1743 ff.)
For histories of the Reformed Presbyterians, see ‘Reformed Presbyterians’ at ‘Scottish Church History’ (RBO).
.
Quotes
Order of
3 Last Cameronian Ministers
Lining, Cargill, Renwick
Shields
.
The Three Last Cameronian Ministers
Alexander Shields, Thomas Lining & William Boyd, An Account of the Methods and Motives of the Late Union & Submission to the [General] Assembly [of the Church of Scotland] Offered & Subscribed by [the Last Cameronian Ministers] Mr. Thomas Lining, Mr. Allexander Shields, Mr. William Boyd (London: 1691)
p. 6
“These usurpations with the defections flowing therefrom [through 1662-1688], in compliance therewith (while they stood as stumbling blocks and snares, and as we conceived as idols of jealousy in the entry of the House of the Lord, so that we thought we could not have access unto the Sanctuary without being interpreted to give some respect or acknowledgement or subjection, directly or indirectly, to those idols and encroachments so dishonorable to the Lord and offensive to our consciences) did scar and deter us from communion with many godly, reverend and honored ministers of this Church, so indulged and tolerated, in these circumstances, and obliged us to continue our testimony against them, in an abstracted way, when the Church was in that broken state, deprived of the remedy of Church judicatories, whereunto we might apply (in which case we always held there should be no separation without previous application to them and before their judicial sentence).
And when the case was so circumstantiate[d], that we judged their ministry, in the then exercise thereof, at that time, in the place where they preached, under the authority of the indulgence and toleration, could not be countenanced or concurred with by us without participating of the guilt of submitting to and symbolizing with men’s sinful encroachments.
Yet we never owned a positive or active, total or stated separation from the Church of Scotland or the ministry thereof: Nor did we form separate Churches under another government or ministry distinct from or independent upon the presbyterial Church of Scotland, though with this we were branded. Only for the time we avouched a negative, passive and conditional abstraction from these ministers in the circumstances above specified…”
.
p. 41-43
“2. It was always our judgement and intention, that when ever presbyterial government, in its courts, power, order, and freedom were established, we should submit to it: Nay it was not only our resolution, but our engagement at the renewing of the covenants that we should not separate From any part of the communion of the true reformed, covenanted Church of Scotland, holding purely and entirely, the doctrine, worship, discipline and government of the same, in principle and exercise, according to the rules of Christ and standing acts and constitutions of this Church. And that then we should study to maintain union and communion, in truth and duty, with all the ministers and members of this Church, that do, and insofar as they do follow the institutions of Christ. And that when they return unto, and fix their ground on the old established foundations, according to the Word of God and constitutions of this Church settled before the covenanted reformation stopped, we should then embrace and maintain union and communion with them, and submission to them in the Lord.
But so it is, that all the ordinances of Christ are established in purity and freedom. The doctrine, is asserted, in the [Westminster] Confession of Faith, now ratified in parliament, and several controverted truths formerly obscured by calumnies, are now victoriously vindicated. The worship now, not tolerated, but established and authorized, and administred in purity, plenty, and peace; and the lights of the Church are no more hide under beds or bushells, but set and shinning on the candlestick, to give light to all that are in the House: And the discipline and government-presbyterial is now restored to what it was anno 1592.
Wherefore we must needs return to our ancient union, communion and order, when the Church is now returned to the enjoyment and establishment of her ancient constitutions, when the prelatic, Erastian, antichristian and tyrannical usurpations on the Church’s rights and the defections and corruptions flowing therefrom and introduced thereby are removed, and the Church’s intrinsic power and capacity to remove legally all remaining offences is restored and redintegrated, we could not but submit ourselves, and pay that deference to ecclesiastic judicatories, fenced in the name of our only Head and King Jesus Christ, as to subject ourselves to them.
We never owned a division from the Church, but only from a party carrying on defection, in a broken and declining state of the Church, and therefore when the Church is not now in that State, but recovering her freedom from these breaches and backslidings, we could not now maintain such a division. As long as they were involved in, and promoting courses of deformation, we stood aloof, but now when they are promoting reformation, in asserting the doctrine, worship, discipline and government, and opposing Popery, prelacy, Erastianism, sectarianism, and what is contrare to sound doctrine, and the power of godliness, we could not but join with them. It’s true several corruptions yet remain unreformed, as some of the former are not condemned:
But as all those corruptions on which we founded our separation, because of the hazard of our partaking of the guilt of them, are removed, so we could not suspend our union and communion, until those that remain should be reformed, and the former condemned, but rather thought it expedient to unite, that they may be the soonner reformed; as it is more probable we may sooner obtain a reformation of the present, and a condemnation of past corruptions in an united way than in a divided way.
It’s foolish to expect the Church can be settled without corruptions, all at once, in one day or one year, but must crave time, as the building of Solomon’s Temple, and the second Temple after the Babylonish captivity, which was not accomplished in several years: Nor can it be planted over again all at once, no more than in Joshua’s days, or the Judges, or in the time of the reforming kings of Judah, until the Canaanites and other enemies be subdued; Nor can it be purged totally altogether, but gradually, lest it be in hazard of a superpurgation.
3. It was ever our judgement that division was a great misery, and when unnecessary and unseasonable, a great sin: And even when we could not avoid it, we were weary of it, and longed and prayed for a time of healing, and an opportunity of bringing it to a close. But if ever there was a time, when division was a misery and a sin, because unnecessary and unseasonable, now it is; and if ever there was an opportunity of healing, now there is: When the causes and occasions of our divisions are removed and antiquated, when the object of them is so far altered that the providences of this day, call and encourage, all divided parties among presbyterians to contend together for the common reformation against the common adversary.”
.
Thomas Lining, on Donald Cargill & James Renwick
An Enquiry into Church-Communion, or a Treatise against Separation from the Revolution Settlement of this National Church, as it was settled anno 1689 and 1690… (1706; Edinburgh: Gray, 1747), pp. v-vi
“…there being no settled church judicatory according to Christ’s institution [under episcopacy], ministers and people were obliged to withdraw from these courses which they were convinced in their consciences to be sinful, seeing they had no clear and sufficient method to testify their abhorrence of the courses of defection of those times, but by not saying a confederacy to all these to whom the people then did say a confederacy. [Isa. 8:12]
But this was without any design ever to own these things to be sufficient grounds of separation in a constitute[d] church, or when with personal safety application could be made to settled church judicatories, who were not under the tyrannical influence of enemies of the work of God.
It was upon this ground that the reverend and worthy Mr Donald Cargill [d. 1681], late minister of the Barony of Glasgow, and martyr for the truth, often declared that his soul hated separation, and obtested his hearers to pray for faithful ministers, adding particularly this reason (in a preaching on a week-day at Loudoun-hill) that people could not be long kept free of schism or heresy, if they wanted [lacked] spiritual guides, to which I was an ear-witness: And the worthy martyr Mr. Richard Cameron minister of the Gospel, is said to have had the like expressions.
Also there are many alive to this day, who know, when the Informatory Vindication [1687] was to be printed, that it was sent to Holland to be showed to some of us, who were then abroad; and that we declared we could never own the grounds of separation laid down therein to justify a separation from a settled Church in a peaceable state.
And when our animadversions on the same came to Scotland, some of these, who now separate, were so convinced of the truth of this, that they condescended to own [insert and approve] so much in the said Informatory Vindication; and for this cause it [this] is often added as a qualification to the grounds of withdrawing, that they were to be understood in ‘in the case of such differences, and so circumstantiated.’ Informatory Vindication, page 67, ‘In this broken and declining state of the Church,’ Ibid. page 73, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 87-88. To which also the worthy martyr Mr. James Renwick minister of the Gospel [d. 1688] assented.”
.
Alexander Shields
An Enquiry into Church-Communion, or a Treatise against Separation from the Revolution Settlement of this National Church, as it was settled anno 1689 and 1690… (1706; Edinburgh: Gray, 1747)
“But that is expressly restricted to that broken and declining state of the Church, Informatory Vindication, page 73, and tantum pro tempore [so far as the time], while they continued in that course, Testimony, page 30.
Now the ministry of these with whom we are pleading to unite [the established Church of Scotland in 1690], is not so circumstantiated; it is not subject to strange lords, nor have they any holding, new or old upon any usurped power; nor are they by any confederacy servants of men: nor is our hearing of them a submitting unto any encroachment made upon the privileges of this Church, or liberties of this kingdom…
But as that is restricted to the then broken and declining state in three several repetitions, Informatory Vindication, page 74 and 76. So now it cannot be applied to the generality of the present ministers, who now neither condemn the then testimony in their preaching, nor if they did in some things differ from it, would it be a sufficient ground of withdrawing, when that now is not the testimony, and they are faithful in the present testimony againft Popery, Prejacy, Erastianism and tyranny, etc…
But whatever might be said for justifying that then in that broken and declining state of the Church, page 78, when these compliances were snares and stumbling-blocks persisted in and defended, that cannot be an argument now for withdrawing from all these compliers, when now the Church is not so declining but recovering her freedom from fetters, when now these cease to be snares and stumbling-blocks, when they are not persisted in, seeing also all these compliances are not alike, nor do they all deserve deposition.”
.
“(2.) [Informatory Vindiction:] ‘We distinguish between a Church in a growing case, coming forward out of darkness, and advancing in reformation, and a Church declining and going back again. In the former many things may be born with, which, in the latter, are noways to be yielded unto, as in the time of the former prelacy many did hear prelatical men,’ etc.
In times of defection and division, the Church was declining and going back, and in that case it was needful to be very peremptory in tenaciousness: But now she is growing and coming forward out of darkness, and advancing, though weakly, in reformation; and therefore now, sure it must be born with to hear presbyterian ministers, though formerly guilty of defections, as much as in former times to hear prelatical men.
(3.) ‘We diftinguished between a Church and a reformed and settled state, and a Church in a broken and disturbed state.’
In times of defection and division, it was thought the:
‘most lawful expedient and conducive mean for maintaining the attained unto reformation, to abstract and withdraw from such disorders in ministers, which we could not otherwise get rectified.’
But now that is neither the lawful expedient, nor conducible mean to maintain reformation, but rather the way to obstruct it, to withdraw from ministers, whose former disorders we would have rectified in a case where the Church is settled, so far as to have liberty to keep General Assemblies to rectify them, and the government thereof is confirmed with the civil sanction of acts of parliament.
…
(6.) ‘We distinguished between a faithful and a sinless ministry.’ In times of defection and division, we might, for the want of the former qualification withdraw, that is, when they were not faithful.’
But now when they are more faithful, we cannot withdraw, except we would withdraw from them because they are not sinless, which in no case can be a ground.”
.
.
.
Related Pages
Defenses of Scottish Covenanting & the Indulgence & Occasional Hearing Controversies, 1661-1688
On Christ’s Mediatorial Kingdom & its Extent
Difference of Religion does not Make Void the Magistrate’s Authority
Against Separation from Impure Civil Governments
Against Double Separation in Many Church Duties
Impure may be better than a Pure Church
When it’s Right to Abstain from Public Worship
Principles of Union & Separation about Impurities of Worship
Occasional & Partial Conformity
On the Ethics of Paying the Scottish Cess Near & During the Killing Times
All the Writings of the Scottish Covenanters
The Scottish Resolutioner-Protester Controversy, 1650’s
Histories of the United Societies at & After the Revolution, post-1690